________________
752
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA vyāpāra-vicāra, and used the term 'vyangya' for 'pratīyamāna' meaning. But he also used the term 'dhvanana' for vyañjanā also.
Mukula's abhidhā is a power which reaches upto the last intended meaning. Perhaps it is identical with the tātparya of the Mimāmsakas and also supported by
ka in his Avaloka on the Daśa-rūpaka. Of course the tātparya of the Mimāmsakas went only upto the actual word-upātta-sabda-mentioned in an injunction, while Dhanika's tātparya covered even the sense of such words that were not at all mentioned in a given statement. Thus, when Mammata denounced the dirgha-dīrhatara-vyāpāra, it was aimed against Dhanika who arrived at the qualities of coolness and holiness through tātparya only. Mammata had to contend with all this.
Kuntaka, we know talks of vicitrā abhidhā'. Now this vicitra abhidhā' is nothing but poetic expression. Actually Kuntaka has not bothered to evolve any clear scheme of semantics and so for him anything charming and poetic, be it at the level of abhidhā, laksaņā or vyañjanā, is covered up by 'vicitrā-abhidhā'. - Bhoja presents abhidhā in different forms and in different contexts. But he does not take laksanā as different from abhidhā, or what he terms mukhyā. For Bhoja, abhidhā is a power that stays in a word and renders meaning. For Bhoja, this abhidhā has three functions viz. mukhya, gauna and laksanā”tmaka. His 'mukhya is the normal 'abhidhā' of the Kashmir school. But it may be noted that he should not be taken as an anti-vyañjanā-vādin, for in Ch. VII of his Śr. Pra, while treating 'vivaksā', he almost covers vyañjanā and certainly while treating tātparya and dhvani he just shakes hands with Anandavardhana. At least we should not dub him as an anti-dhvani-or anti-vyañjanā theorist.
We have carefully looked into Mahimā on an earlier occasion and that he was an avowed anti-dhvani, anti-vyañjanā theorist is borne out by the very title of his work viz. 'vyakti-viveka' wherein he clearly denounces vyañjanā. Mammata took special care to show logical falacies in Mahimā and prove that the latter's projection of 'anumiti' in place of vyañjana was a myth. Actually the very fact that Mahima calls it a special brand of inference, called “kāvyánumiti' and tries therely to take shelter under what may be termed as loose inference and therefo exposes the hollowness of his postulation. An ‘anumiti' is either an anumiti hundred percent. or no anumiti at all. It is safer to call it vyañjanā than oppose the concept of vyañjanā for the sake of it. It is nothing else but malice as was the case with Bhatta Näyaka, who postulated what he called 'bhāvakatva' and 'bhojakarva' or
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
