________________
T
.
748
SAHŞDAYALOKA fear the lion, hence the probans is diverse (= viruddha) also. The presence of the lion on the banks of the Godāvari is not ascertained either by perception or by inference but merely from the words of a woman. Again, there is no validity of her words as they might not be related to fact, hence the probans is unestablished also. Then how, such a defective probans can prove the existence of the probandum ?
Mammața goes on to explain that in case of the illustration viz. nihśesa-cyutacandana.” etc. also the marks that are mentioned as going with a bath in a stepwell” could be due to some other reasons also, such as love-sport etc. So, the marks - i.e. probans - are descrepant.
For those who support vyañjanā, on the other hand, such marks with the aid of the word 'wretch', are described as suggestive. Again, here when the wretchedness is not established by valid reason. (na pramāņa-pratipannam), how can there be inference ?
Thus, to his satisfaction Mammata puts a final nail in the cofin wherein the body of anumiti rests.
But we may say that all this exercise on the part of Mammata and his followers to nail anumiti is futile as Mahimā or any of his predecessor that might be, has never suggested that what they call ‘kāvyánumiti' is 'tarkánumiti'. As Dr. Rewaprasad observes, here there is refutation of the relaiability of anumiti, or the validity of inference, but not of the fact of inference. True, but our argument is that with all looseness why stick to the name of "anumiti" ? To be vary candid, we do not find 'anumiti' in colours, or musical notes, or gestures or any other medium of a given fine art, yes; not even a 'loose' or 'artistic' anumiti. So, why not accept a wider term called 'vyañjana' in place of a 'laukika' or 'kävyamaya' anumāna ? We may therefore hold that by this the final victory of vyañjanā and defeat of anumiti is absolutely established. Vyañjanā is so wide as to accept in its fold a meaning that may be related (= sambaddha), or un-related (= a-sambaddha) or related with the related (= sambaddha-sambaddha).
Mammata had a numer of vyañjanā virodhins before him. In the course of our discussion of Mammața's views, we had suggested that even after the able establishment of vyañjanā by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, we had voices of descent. Thus as seen in the earlier chapter Mukula, prior to Abhinavagupta tried to put even laksaņā and also vyañjanadhvani under abhidhā. In his Laghuvștti, a commentary on Udbara's kāvyálamkāra-sāra-samgraha, Pratīhārendurāja, who also is held as a predecessor of Abhinavagupta, pays a great
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
