________________
Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
127
(1) This is dittha (Mr. So and So); (2) this is a cow or a buil; (3) this is white; (4) this is moving (calah), and (5) this is the possessor of a stick (dandi).
According to Patañjali "There is a four-fold currency of words as instanced in Cow or Bull, White, Moving, Dittha" :
गौः शुक्लश्चलो डित्थ इति "चतुष्टयी शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिः ।" इति महाभाष्यकारः । The KLV (p.47) comments on 'tato rthāt' as follows :
ततो व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद् इति । व्यपदेशनिमित्तं रजत-विज्ञानस्य रजतम् । तेन हि तद् रजत-विज्ञान व्यपदिश्यते रजतस्येदं विज्ञानमिति । ततश्च व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद् रजताद् यद् रजत-विज्ञानमुत्पन्न तत्प्रत्यक्षम् । यस्य तु रजतविज्ञानस्य न व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद रजतादुत्पादोऽपि तु शुक्तिकातस्तस्य न प्रत्यक्षता । V 7. FAR: SALIFT faraa a aa
जात्याद्यपोहे वृत्तिः क्व क्व विशेषः कुतश्च सः ॥
Here, Bhämaha takes up the definition of perception, given by Dinnāga, for criticism and refutation, “So much or of such measure is indeed the wrong attribution" (Imputing name, etc., to a real thing (or object) is verily wrong attribution). and the perception has as its subject ‘a real', 'reality'. If from the reality, jāti, class, etc., are excluded where could the perception operate ? (What remains of that reality on which the perception could operate ?) And where is the višeşa (-svalaksana) ? And how could you distinguish one svalaksana, say 'a ghata' from another, say'a pata'? (We cannot account for the distinction between the two when both are vijñānas pure and simple.)" Here we have the refutation of the Sautrāntikas, who accept 'višeşa' or 'svalak saņa' as an external existent (sat) from the point of view of the Yogācāra School (or the Vijñānavād ins). V 8. aga 791 faci al giai
अवस्तुकं चेद् वितथं प्रत्यक्ष तत्ववृत्ति हि ॥ Naganatha Sastry (p 92. v-8) reads 'na' in place of 'ca' in the first quarter. Tatacharya's text agrees with that of the Banaras edition.
Naganatha Sastry understands by 'Sā' the vyakti whereas Tatacharya understands it to mean "Jāti". These explanations are hardly convincing. Tatacharya might find support for his interpretation in the phrase "Jātyādyapohe" which occurs in the immediately preceding verse (No 7). As the discussion centres round the proof 'perception and its subject (viş aya) asādņāraņı (=višeşa=svalakşaņa) there does not seem to be any scope for establishing the existence or non-existence of jāti'. The text as it stands is indeed confounding. When we are faced with this obseure line the KLV comes to our help. It reads the line (p 49 L 20) as follows : ___ तदपोहे च तथाता शिष्टा सा बुद्ध [बुद्धि-गोचरः ।
Instead of emending 'buldha' to 'buddhi' as done by the Editors, if we emend it to 'buddhya', the line becomes intelligible ;
