16 इदानीं पताकाद्यं प्रसङ्गाद् व्युत्क्रमोक्तं क्रमार्थमुपसंहरन्नाह—
अर्थप्रकृतयः = प्रयोजनसिद्धिहेतवः ।
ननु यद्यप्युपसंहारः क्रियते तथाप्युक्तस्य पुनर्वचनमनुचितमिव । अत्रत्यमेव 126सक्रमं वचनमिति चेत् तर्हि व्युत्क्रमत्वात् पूर्वं तन्न वक्तव्यम् । तत्राह इदानीमिति । अर्थप्रकृतयः प्रयोजनसिद्धिहेतव इति । ननु बीजबिन्दुपताकाख्यप्रकरीकार्यलक्षणाः खलु पञ्चार्थप्रकृतय उक्ताः । अर्थप्रकृतयश्च प्रयोजनसिद्धिहेतव इति व्याख्यातम् । तेन कार्यस्यैकस्यैव प्रयोजनसिद्धिहेतुत्वं प्रयोजनत्वं चोक्तमिति प्रतिभाति । तच्चानुपपन्नम् आत्माश्रयप्रसङ्गात् । उच्यते । पूर्वेषां प्रयोजनार्थमुपसंहारः127 कार्यमिति कार्यलक्षणसिद्धिः । तस्यैव यौगिकस्य प्रयोजनं प्रति हेतुत्वम् । शुद्धस्यैव रूढस्यैव हि कार्यस्य128 प्रयोजनत्वम् । ततः क्वात्माश्रयः । एकस्यैव हेतुहेतुमत्त्वानुक्तेरिति ।
-
MSS. read saṃkramam. Tri.MS. seems to skip over some lines here.
↩ -
Gr. MS. reads pūrveṣāṃ prayojanārthatvam upasaṃhāraḥ kāryalakṣaṇasiddhiḥ. M.G.T. reads sarveṣāṃ prayojanārtham upasaṃhāraḥ. kāryalakṣaṇasiddhiḥ. tasyaiva prayojanatvam. mūḍhasyaiva rūḍhasyaiva kāryasya prayojanatvam. T.MS. reads pūrveṣāṃ prayojanārtham upasaṃhārakāryalakṣaṇasiddhiḥ. The sentence given in the text is my own surmise.
↩ -
Gr.MS. reads śuddhasyaiva ca and T.MS. śuddhasyaiva hi- The kārya of the arthaprakṛtis is connected with the nirvahaṇasaṃdhi. Cf.:
(DR, I. 22–3) andarthaprakṛtayaḥ pañca pañcāvasthāsamanvitāḥ |yathāsaṃkhyena jāyante mukhādyāḥ pañca saṃdhayaḥ ||(DR, I. 48–9). Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha’s comments here amount to saying that the kārya of the arthaprakṛtis is not the same as the kārya of the kāryaṃ trivargaḥ. The latter is explained by Dhanika as phalam, and the former refers (on account of the derivation as kāryate = upasaṃhāraṃ prāpyate phalārtham iti kāryam) to the situation where the items of bīja, bindu, etc. are carried out properly and brought to a successful completion in order to accomplish the purpose intended. Thus there is the difference between the kārya intended (i.e. phalam = dharmārthakāmāḥ), and the successful completion of the bīja, bindu, etc. (pūrveṣāṃ prayojanārtham upasaṃhāraḥ) for achieving the purpose. For a different interpretation of kārya see Abhinavabhāratī, vol. III, pp. 15 and 16. Also see Nāṭyadarpaṇa (G.O.S., 1959), page 42. The artha of arthaprakṛti is taken by Dhanika as prayojana, and prakṛti as hetu or upāya. Bhojarāja takes artha as kathāśarīra and prakṛti as kāraṇa. arthaprakṛtayaḥ pañca kathādehasya hetavaḥ is the half verse by Bhoja which is quoted by Bahurūpamiśra who follows him in this and in many other points. Kumārasvāmin notes the two interpretations thus: arthaprakṛtayaḥ prayojanasiddhihetava iti kecit. kathāśarīrakāraṇānīti bhojarājādayaḥ. (Pratāparudrīya, Balamanorama Press ed., 1950, p. 75).bījavanto mukhādyarthāḥ viprakīrṇā yathāyatham |aikārthyam upanīyante yatra nirvahaṇaṃ hi tat ||In essence Abhinava’s interpretation of the arthaprakṛtis seems to be the same as that of Dhanika. See the Introduction for a discussion on this. See Abhinavabhāratī, vol. III, page 12—yatra (tatra?) arthaḥ = phalam, tasya prakṛtaya upāyāḥ; phalahetava ity arthaḥ. For a further explanation of the point see Locana with Bālapriyā (K.S.S., 1940), page 339.
↩