________________
566
SAHRDAYĀLOKA The result of the discussion as above is that, in the illustration of sāropā laksaņā, such as ‘mukham candrah', there is no harm in accepting ‘abhedánvaya' directly between the vācyárthas of the words ‘mukham' and 'candrah'. There is no need to accept abhedánvaya between the expressed sense of 'mukham', and the indicated sense of 'candrah'. It is safe to accept abhedánvaya' between two vācyárthas only. For, if this is not done, i.e. if we do not accept the 'anvaya' between to vācyárthas, then there will be difficulty in accepting on one hand the alamkāras
rupaka and upamā respectively in illustrations such as, “raja-nārāyanam laksmīh...", and "pādāmbujam bhavatu...” etc., and the abhedánvaya' accepted between the vācya and laksya artha on the other. To remove this difficulty we have to accept anvaya between two vācyárthas themselves.
We will try to understand this point in details. In the two illustrations we have upamā and rūpaka respectively, depending on the upamita-samāsa and the višesanasamāsa. Now if we accept these compounds, we will have to face some 'a-samgati’ such as the embrace by Lakmī to the king, when upamita-samāsa such as 'Nārāyanalike-king', is resorted to. The discrepancy arises when we say that Laxmi embraces the king and not Nārāyana. In the upamita-samāsa the prādhānya is given to 'rāja' the pūrva-pada. In the other illustration we have a rūpaka-samāsa in 'padámbuja' with ‘ambuja' the uttarapada being principal. Now the ‘manohāritā' or loveliness caused due to the sweet tinkling of the anklet cannot go with 'ambuja' and hence discrepancy will be there. So, if abhedánvaya is accepted with reference to vācya and laksya arthas, we will have difficulty in accepting ‘upama' and 'rūpaka' in the said illustrations. So, ultimately we have to accept rūpaka and upamā respectively, as done by Mammata, in the said illustrations. So only vacyartha'bhedanvaya has to be accepted in the so called sāropā laksanā illustrations.
Jagannātha observes that even when there is no compound this fact operates. In 'krpayā sudhayā siñca...' etc., if vācyā'bheda is not resorted to, importance cannot be given to 'sudha', to make it suitable for the act of sprinkling - i.e. sekakriya. In case laksanā is accepted, importance would go to 'krpā' in the śābdabodha which follows.
The crux of the matter is that in the illustration viz. 'rāja-nārayanam...' etc., for those who accept laksanā, the sābda-bodha in form of, "the king is like Nārāyana', is identical even if either upamita or visesana-samāsa is resorted to. Now if 'upamā’ is accepted the embrace by Laxmi cannot be explained but it can be explained if rūpaka is accepted. So the an-upapatti resulting from the upamā alamkāra is decisive in favour of accepting rūpaka. This is observed by Mammața. But this will
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
