Tarkatarangini

Author(s): Gunratna, Vasant G Parikh
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 15

14
not on any other thing that he comes across during the process of the sacrifice. Same is the case with Mangala and Samāpti.
Though Gn. does not give his own view, it seems that he agrees with the last one. For, in the next section, while discussing the nature of the Mangala, he says, “377 464401 44f#:"
Notion behind Mangala-väda The discussion is technical rather than an epistemological. All of these four views are supplementary to each other rather than controversial. For, even Udayana says that Samāpti is the real fruit, but Vighnadhvaṁsa should be accepted at least as an Avāntaravyāpära. Miśra's approach is psychological, but as he expressed it in technical terms, he invited the opposition. (II) Samāsavāda
The priority of the discussion
After discussing Mangalvāda, Gn. tries to explain the nature of the compound (Samāsa) in the first Sūtra of Ns., as quoted by Ke, in Tbh. Gy. also has touched this point, though Ke has not.
Curiously enough the order of the discussion is found to be changed in Tt.. Gv. discusses Samāsavāda after the discussion of Mokshavāda, while Gn. prefers to discuss it first. 26
This change of place is not a scribal error, because all the Mss. of Tpk. referred to 27 agree regarding the place of the discussion of Samāsavāda as after Mokshavāda. Therefore, it seems that Gn. has changed this order deliberately. He, perhaps, thinks that this discussion should come first to understand the meaning of the N. S. I. I. I. The word "Apavarga" comes at the end. So naturally, the compound of the sixteen categories should be explained first. In the explanation of this compound, naturally the discussion of Samāsavāda follows. So, priority given by Gn. seems to be more logical.
The nature of the compound
Gv. states that the compound in this Sūtra is Itaretaradvandva. Gn. supporting Gv. elaborately explains the different types of Dvandva compound