________________
"Tātparya"
391 śaktayah kalpanīyāḥ tava iti kalpanā-gauravam. pada-vādinas tu saprānām saptaiva sakyate iti kalpanālāghavam. śuklām iti pada-praksepanena padavādinostānām padānām astau saktaya iti. tava tu sodasáparā iti mahad gauravam āpannam. (pp. 84, 85, ibid)
Another fault that is seen in this view is that of viņayábhāva. The varņa-mālā in a vākya can cause vākyárthadhīḥ only when there is first padártha-dhīḥ. Padártha-jñāna is a must before vākyártha-jñāna. It is only when the padárthas are correlated, that the vākyārtha flashes upon our mind. Thus, padārtha-jñāna is necessary before their correlation i.e. 'anvaya'. In this case, how can we take varņamālā as the cause of vākyártha-dhi ? Again, when we listen to a sentence, we cannot remember the syllables of even five or six words in a sentence, then what to talk of a long sentence, full of many words ? - "api ca tri-catura-pañca-pada vākya-vartini-padártha-pratyaya-vyavahitā'pi kleśena varņamālā smaryeta api, tadabhyadhika - padavati tu vākye să ati-duskarā.” pp. 89, ibid - Thus, this (i.e. the third view) cannot be accepted.
The fourth view is the one held by Prabhākara and his followers, who are known as 'anvitábhidhānavādins”. For them, the words used in a sentence, on account of expectancy, compatibility and juxta-position, are first correlated and then they yield the vākyartha, through the power called abhidhā. : "padāni ākānkṣitā”sanna-yogyatántara-samgatān, svārthān abhidadhanti iha vākyam vākyártha-gocaram.” (pp. 90, ibid) The Bhāsta Mimāmsakas or the abhihitánvayavādins object against this view. Their objections are as below - when the anvitábhidhānavādin says that the abhidhā power of a word is able to convey its meaning as well as correlation i.e. anvaya, is it so that the vākyártha is gathered through all the padárthas together or not? If they (i.e. the anvitábhidhānins) hold that all the words together do not convey the vākyártha, then for them only the first word-pada-will convey the vākyártha. So, the use of other padas becomes redundant as the vivaksā i.e. intention of the speaker will be conveyed by just one word alone - "tatra anabhihita-svārthántara-anvita-svārthábhidhāne padād ekasmād eva uccaritād vivaksā-pratīte” vaiyarthyam itareșām.” (pp. 93, ibid)
Or, if it be said that other words also convey vākyártha, then in the sentence, "hariḥ gām badhnāti”, wherein we get these words, the meaning of the action 'badhnāti' will not become clear until it is connected with ‘harih', the agent, and 'gām, the object. The same is the case with the other words. Thus, there arises the contingency of itaretara-āśraya. The illustration cited by Vācaspati Miśra is ‘ukhāyām paced'.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
