________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
733 So, Mammata observes that the whole argument boils down to this much that whether you go for abhihitánvayavāda or opt for the anvitábhidhānavāda, even the ‘ati-viśesa-rūpa vākyártha' is not apprehended by abhidhā, so what to talk of collecting what is termed the vyangyártha or suggested sense which comes still later ? He observes :
"ananvitórthóbhihitánvaye, padárthántara-mātreņánvitastvanvitábhidhāne, anvita-viśesas tu a-vācya eva, ity ubhayanaye’pi apadártha eva vākyárthaḥ.” i.e. “The meaning is not correlated according to the theory of 'the connection of the expressed (i.e. abhihitánvaya-vāda), and according, to the theory of 'connected meaning' (anvitábhidhāna), it is correlated to the other meaning generically but the correlated particular (meaning) is never denoted, hence in both the above theories the sense of a sentence cannot be taken as the object of direct denotation by a word.” The sampradāya-prakāśini here takes 'vākyártha' as suggested meaning - “vākyárthaḥ vyangyárthā”tmakaḥ.” (pp. 162, ibid). Jhalkikar explains 'vākyárthah' as 'samsargaḥ'. He observes (pp. 224, ibid): "ayam bhāvaḥ.- vastutvena vastupadavācyópi ghato yathā ghațatvena tad avācyaḥ, tathā apara-padárthánvitā” nayanatvena (abhihitánvayavāde kevalena ānayanatvena) ānaya-pada-vācyam api gavā”nayanam, gavā”nayanatvena tad a-vācyam eva ity asamketite gamye prāthamika-bodha-visayīkrte api nā'bhidhāvyāpāra itinitarām eva anantara-bhāvini vyangya-bodhe abhidhā-virāma, iti vivarañe spastam."
We had observed that Abhinavagupta had considered the view of the nimittavădins as part of the Mimāmsaka view. Mammata, on the other hand, takes up this view of “nimitta-vādins” separately.
We know that the Mimāmsakas hold veda as the only authority and therefore veda is normally equated as 'prabhu' i.e. master, and in the vedic injunction only abhidhā has scope. Even laksanā in which there is deviation is a dosa for the Mimāmsakas and so far as the śāstra or discipline in concerned, vyañjanā has not even a ghost of a chance for any consideration. So, Mukula, a great Mimāmsaka probably, in his work establishes only abhidhā as a sole power of word and laksanā is treated by him only as an extension of abhidhā, but never as an independent wordpower. So, here Mammața, after considering the abhihitánvayavāda and anvitábhidhānavāda and explaining their necessity to accept vyañjanā, now picks up the views of yet another section of the anvitábhidhānavādin-mīmāmsakas, - who hold that, “naimittikánusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante.” Let us first see how he puts it :
"yad apy ucyate - ‘naimittikánusāreņa nimittāni kalpyante” iti, tatra nimittatvam kārakatvam jñāpakatvam vā. śabdasya prakāśakatvān na kārakatvam. jñapakatvam tu a-jñātasya katham ? jñātatvam ca sanketena eva. sa ca anvita
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org