________________
738
SAHRDAYĀLOKA and then for Dhañjaya and Dhanika tātparya went further. Whatever was intended to be conveyed by a speaker by the use of words, or partial use of words, was covered up by tātparya. Actually this tātparya, as Visvanātha discloses, is only a new name for vyañjanā. It is not the theoretically accepted tātparya of the Mimāmsakas. So, when Mammaţa rejects tātparya, he rejects something not exactly intended by the opponents. As in case of 'anumiti' also, with reference to Mahimā, this ‘tātparya' is not the same traditionally accepted tātparya in Mimāmsā discipline. It is broader and therefore, perhaps only a new name of vyañjanā.
Actually in rejecting the earlier view, Mammața had suggested that 'tātparya' or purport can be with reference to the word actually used a fresh, in a newer injunction. But the objector here says tātparya can be with reference to an-upātta word or unspoken word also as in case of "visam bhunksva". The Sudhāsagara, Sārabodhinī, Sampradāyaprakāśinī, Sāhitya-cūdāmaņi and other commentaries make this thing clear. The Sāhitya-cudāmaņi observes (pp. 1305, Edn. Nāg publishes) - "nanu 'anupāttasyā’pi śabdasya arthe kvacit tātparyam paśyāmah” ... etc. No commentary makes a clear reference to the Dasarūpakávaloka of Dhanika which specifically discusses this in connection with the famous words where he declares : "tātparvam na tuladhrtam". (DR. Avaloka on IV. 36). Dhananjaya observes: "na ca apadárthasya vākyārthatvam nástīti vācyam - kāryaparyavasāyitvāt tātparya-sakteh." - But one thing should be considered. We go along with Dr. De and others (i.e. Dr. Kane) when we take both Dhananjaya and Dhanika as predecessors of Mammata. In that case for sure, Mammața discusses the illustration viz. "visam bhaksaya" etc. after Dhanika's Avaloka. But as no commentator worth the salt mentions Dhanika here could it be that Mammata could have just continued his discussion connerning “vat-parah sabdah sa śabdārthah” and refuted some imagined objector's view who might have supported the case of "anupāttasyā'pi śabdasya arthe kvacit tātparyam” ? May be then. following Mammata once again Dhanika took up the same illustration of a tātparva-vrtti with a broader connotation ? We are not clear about this and leave it to the discerning experts. For the present we will proceed with Mammata : (Trans. R.C.D., pp. 167, 169; ibid) :
"It is also stated that, 'eat the poison, but do not eat at his house', - here the purport is that "you should not eat in his house"; hence this alone is the meaning of the sentence. To this we reply - Here the conjunctive particle 'ca' (= and) is meant for the unity of the (two) sentences.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org