283. 314 CHAPTER V

314 CHAPTER V

(I) CRITICISM OF THE ADJUNCT OF 'ARTHA' The adjunct of meaning (Artha), namely, 'which subordinates itself to another' is useless. The usefulness of an adjunct in a definition lies in its making the defini- tion so precise that it applies to the acknowledged instances only and excludes others from the sphere of its application. But the adjunct of meaning, mentioned above, has no delimiting value. For, whenever a meaning suggests another, it occupies a subordinate position; because it is a means of bringing the suggested to consciousness. And the means is always subordinate to the end. It cannot be asserted by the author of the definition that the conventional meaning also occupies a predominant position in Samāsokti and Guņībhūtavyangya; the use of the adjunct, therefore, is that the definition does not apply to them. For, the predominance is of two kinds: (I) Due to the context; (II) Due to the predominant nature of the thing itself. And the predominance of thc conventional meaning in Samāsokti (e.g. Uyodharāgeņa) is due to the context and not to its own predominant nature; because independently of the context the conventional occupies only a subordinate position in relation to the suggested1; because the former is only a reason for the inference of the latter. Hence the predominance of the conventional, due to the con- text, even if it be admitted, is not sufficient justification for the use of the adjunct. Now if it were asserted that in the case of Guņībhūtavyangya the conventional meaning, because of its being charming, reduces the suggested meaning to a subordi- nate position, that also would not justify the use of adjunct. For, even in Gunī-bhutavyangya, the conventional meaning does not necessarily always predominate on account of 1. V. V, 10-12