रूपमण्डन एवं देवमूर्त्ति-प्रकरणम् (मण्डन सूत्रधार - प्राचीन मूर्तिकला एवं देव-प्रतिमा लक्षण सटीक)

( 39 ) very few. Yet these subjects are of so great importance, that some methods must be found out for the correct understanding of these texts. Speaking from personal experience, the present writer can confidently recommend two very certain methods. I. The first method is to compare Texts kindred, or, parallel and to compare, them again and again. By kinship, must be understood similarity as regards essence and spirit, and proximity in point of time and place. For there can be no real comparisons between subjects which have no points of similarity e. g., between a donkey and a mush-room. Sādṛśya, similarity, in the most rigorous technical sense, is defined as follows⁹³ :— तद्भिन्नत्वे सति तद्गतभूयोधर्मवत्त्वं सादृश्यम् । Two objects, though they be different, if they have a sufficient number of common characteristics, might be regarded as Similar. The essence of similarity, Sādṛśya is this common characteristic Sāmānya dharma. Some notable examples of objects with such common features are the Abhinaya-hastas, the Nāṭya-hastas or Karaṇas, the Śilpa-hastas and the Tāntrika Mudrās, which may be compared with one another. But it would be useless waste of time and energy to try to compare heterogeneous objects and such comparisons will be impossible when kinship etc., are lacking. II. The second important method of interpretation of obscure passages is to trace these back, if possible, to the Source Books. Especially, when we have to do with compilations, (as is the case, with the present work, the Devatāmūrti-Prakaraṇa) which are based entirely on earlier texts, this method is very effective; and it is at once corroborative and corrective; for all citations can be thus checked at once and with absolute certainty. 93. See Annambhaṭṭa's Tarkasaṃgraha : See Mm. Bhīmācārya Jhalaḳīkar : Nyāyakośa (Bombay Skt. Series) S. V. सादृश्यम्.