________________
756
• SAHRDAYĀLOKA
according to Mammața. The author of the K.P. then explains that even in statements such as 'visam bhunksva', the purport is with reference to the words actually used in a sentence as, the 'ca' in the next statement viz. "mă ca asya grhe bhunkthāh", suggests that both these statements make for a compound sentence connected with the particle 'ca'. So, even in 'visam bhunksva' the idea of not taking food at the other person's house, which is the purport of saying, is also seen as meaning of words actually used in a sentence.
The general impression is that here Mammata has not only taken care of dirgha-dīrghatara-vyāpāravādin who believes that the purport of a sentence can be with reference to words not actually used in a statement, but also has refuted Dhanika's views, who has taken the same illustration as, “visam bhunksva", to support tātparya-vāda.
But our humble submission is that perhaps this Dhanika, who also was a son of a 'visnu' is later than Mammata and he wants to condemn Mammata's refutation of the theory that the purport of a sentence can not lie in words not actually used in a statement. Dhananjaya, the author of DR. was also a son of 'visnu' but this 'visnu' may not be the same as the father of Dhanika also. This means that Dhanika was a son of some Visnu who was other than Dhananjaya's father. Our hypothesis that this Dhanika is later than Mammata is borne out by the fact that in his argument he cites one more illustration as we will go to see, viz. "dvāram dvāram” which means ['please close, or open,] the door.” Actually the purport of the speaker is with reference to either 'open' or 'close', the meanings, for which no actual words are used. So, he wants to bring home a point that the purport of the speaker can rest with the meaning of words not actually used in a sentence. And Mammata has not discussed this illustration which has no usage of such conjunctive particles as 'ca' etc. as seen in case of "visam bhunksva, mā cā'sya gruhe bhunkthāh.” So, the point is clear that may be this Dhanika, the author of Avaloka, was posterior to Mammata and once again he tried to establish tātparyavāda while rejecting the vyañjanāvāda. We will now examine Dhanika's views in details :
The upholder of the view that vyañjanā is covered by tātparya places the following arguments before the dhvanivādin -
The tātparyavādin says let us examine the sentence viz. 'vişam bhunkṣva.' Now in this statement in the sense of word-meaning we have a positive instruction viz. "Eat or take poison". But the purport is in the sense of negation, viz. "Never take
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
