________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
757 food at the place of this enemy.” So, this particular statement, viz. 'visam bhanksva' is to be taken as an illustration of such sentence-sense (= vākyārtha) which is of the form of purport (i.e. tātparya) realized at the third stage : “nanu ca trtīyakaksā-visayatvam a-śrūyamāņa-padārtha-tātparyeşu, 'viņam bhunksva' ityādi vākyeșu niședhártha-visayeșu pratiyata eva vākyárthasya."
If someone says that here the negative sense is not the direct sentence-sense, then this will be accepted even by the supporters of vyañjanā -, as for him dhvani i.e. suggested sense is different from the purport of a sentence: "na cātra vyañjakarvavādinā’pi vākyártharvam nesyate, tātparyād anyatvād dhvaneh.” So, even the vyañjanāvādin will accept that there is a particular sentence-sense here. which is 'tātparya'. In this illustration, we apprehend separate word-sense of the words 'visam' and 'bhunksva', at the first stage. In the second stage the sentence, through correlation, gives the contextual (= prakarana-sammata) sense. This contextual correlated sense only is to be taken as sentence-sense. In this particular illustration, the second stage does not end at the apprehension of "Take poison". Till the sentence is not rested fully i.e. is not viśrānta in the second stage, the question of third stage does not arise at all. The point is that the context does not rest only at the sense of "Eat poison”. As the positive sense-vidhirūpa artha - is not the full sentence sense, the expectancy of further sense is very much there. So, the seco stage does not end here but is set to rest only when the negation in form of sentencesense, viz. "do not eat at the enemy's house", is realized. So, the sense of negation is apprehended at the second stage only. So, when the second stage is not over, it is useless to accept the third stage in form of negation. Actually there is total absence of this so called third stage. For, when we take into account the context, we come to know, that the sentence is directed by a father to his own son. In the second stage when we apprehend the sentence-sense, we perceive that no father will wish that his son should take poison, and that here with the action 'bhunksva', the agent (viz. 'tvam) and the object (karma, visam) do not get properly correlated. For we know for certain that a father would never instruct his own son to take poison, but the real instruction pertains to the fact of not taking food at the place of an enemy. Thus, the full sentence-sense is only the object of the second stage only : "...svárthasya dvitiya-kaksyāyām a-viśrāntasya třtīya-kaksā-a-bhāvāt; saiva nişedha-kaksā. tatra dvitīya-kaksā-vidhau kriya-kāraka-samsarga-anupapatteḥ, prakaraṇāt pitari vaktari, putrasya visabhaksana-niyogábhāvāt.”
And the rule is that 'rasádi-vyangyā”rtha' always rests in the third stage. This is for certain. The apprehension of rasa never occurs at the second stage when
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
