________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
747 Mammața, while winding up his discussion on vyañjanā observes, like Anandavardhana, that, "others (= the grammatico-philosophers) have held that it is the sentence-meaning alone which, grasped through a single indivisible cognition, is the expressed sense (vācya), and it is the sentence alone that is expressive (vācaka). But these (theorists) also, when descending down to the realm of practical reality (avidyā), must make the assumption of the word and the wordmeaning; so that even according to their view, the idea of affirmation and the like, in the instances such as cited above (i.e. the slopes of your breasts have its sandal completely washed off, etc.), should necessarily be considered as the suggested.” (Trans. Dwivedi, pp. 181, ibid). Thus even the grammarians have to accept vyañjanā.
Mammata, at the end of his discussion on vyañjanā tackles the anumitivādins. He first presents the arguments of the logicians and then refutes the same. He observes : (Trans. Dwivedi, pp. 181, 183, ibid) :
"It may be urged (by the logicians that what is not connected with the expressed is not suggested, because in that case there would be contingency of cognition of any meaning from any word. Thus, the relation being essential, the state of being the suggester and the suggested is, undoubtedly, not possible in the absence of a definite relation, therefore, on account of invariable concomittance (between the expressed i.e. suggester, and the suggested) and due to the existence in the definite subject, characterised by mark, the suggestiveness turns out to be of the character of inference, which is the cognition of the subject, characterised by the threefold mark.” To explain the same, in the illustration viz. bhrama dharmika. etc., Mammata observes that in this particular illustration, the roaming about in the house, which is enjoined upon due to removal of the dog, leads to inference of not roaming about because of the presence of the lion on the banks of Godāvarī. Every case of the coward's roaming about is a case preceeding from the knowledge of disappearance of the cause of fear. But on the banks of the Godāvarī there is the presence of the lion; so what is found is contrary to what is invariably concomitant.
This is what an anumitivādin would present in support of his theory of anumāna. But Mammata and a host of his followers find fault with this process of reasoning as follows. He observes that even a coward, by the order of his preceptor or the master, or due to love for his beloved, or by some such cause, roams about even when the cause of fear is present; hence the probans (= hetu) is nonconclusive (= anaikāntiko), i.e. literally it is not unfailing in its association with the 'sādhya' or probandum. Even though afraid of the dog, he may not, being brave,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
