Abhinav Guptas Ideas in Locana on Nature of Beauty of Kavya

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_2_Pundit_Bechardas_Doshi_012016.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250002/1

Page #1

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S IDEAS IN LOCANA ON THE NATURE
OF BEAUTY OF KAVYA
V. M. Kulkarni
In India it was the ālamkārikas, literary critics, and not the philosophers who investigated the nature of beauty in kavya (literature) and for that matter fine arts in general. The attention of the alarkārikas of the earlier period is mainly confined to the body of literature, the outward expression of kavya, namely, śabda and artha, whereas the alamkārikas of the later period mainly concerned themselves with the suggested sense and more particularly with rasa, the soul or the very essence of kāvya. Anandavardhana's Dhvanyālokal (c. latter half of the 9th cent. A.D.) is the first work which allots the first place to the 'suggested sense' in judging the worth of any literary piece of work. In his brilliant exposition of this work in his famous commentary Locana, Abhinavagupta (10th cent. A.D.) expands Anandavardhana's ideas about literary beauty and at times also adds to it his own contribution. The object of the present paper is to collect together all such passages from Locana, classify them under suitable headings, and elucidate Abhinavagupta's ideas on the Theory of Beauty in kāvya-literature (or art in general).
Nature of Beauty
Anandavardhana aptly compares the suggested sense in the work of "great poets” with the incomparable beauty (lāvanya) of women that is distinct from the sum total of loveliness of various parts of their body. Abhinavagupta expands this idea in his characteristic style :
“Beauty which is revealed by the configuration or form of the various (comely) parts of the body is quite distinct and different from their own loveliness. Faultlessness of the limbs or their union with ornaments does not constitute beauty. For we find sensitive critics (sahsdayas) calling a woman, although possessed of various limbs that are free from such defects as "one-eyedness" when each is viewed separately, and although decorated with ornaments, as devoid of elegance, and, on the contrary, calling a woman, who is unlike the above mentioned one, as the “nector of moonlight" (lāvanyāmộta).Abhinavagupta thereby wants to convey that the suggested sense in the form of rasa, etcetera, is quite distinct from the sense denoted by abhidha as well as the sense indicated by laksaņā, gunavrtti and arthāpatti (or anumāna), and as such it does not lend itself to paraphrase.
According to Anandavardhana, a kavya is devoid of rasa etcetera, if the poet has no intention to portray rasa etcetera, and if he aims at merely composing figures of word and/or of sense. And even if in the absence of his intention there

Page #2

Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 71
is apprehension of rasa etcetera, on the strength of the denoted sense, that apprehension is very faint and therefore that kavya is as good as devoid of rasa etcetera.
Abhinavagupta elucidates this statement by citing the following examples: "In such a kavya,, there is no apprehension of rasa etcetera, just as there is no apprehension of taste, say, sweetness, in a particular non-vegetarian dish, prepared. by a cook who is not skilled in cooking." If one were to affirm by way of objection that there is necessarily apprehension of taste, say, sweetness, in Sikharini (a dish of curd and brown sugar with spices) on account of the innate or inherent excellence of the ingredients". Abhinavagupta replies: "In the case of such a dish prepared by an untrained cook no one experiences pleasure by the mere knowledge (exclaiming), 'ha! what a wonderful Sikhariņi (dish)!". On the contrary, people say with reference to it that curd, brown sugar and black pepper are not properly combined. What Abhinavagupta seems to have in mind is the fact that only when a good poet, who is intent on writing a kavya imbued with rasa, skillfully depicts vibhāvas, anubhavas and vyabhicari-bhāvas in his kävya that the appropriate rasa etcetera is evoked in the reader's or spectator's mind.
The vibhāvas etcetera, conveyed by convention etcetera, immediately give rise to aesthetic relish. The apprehension of the rasa is unlike the apprehension of religious injunctions which causes expectancy to do something next, or the knowledge of a sage (yogi). In rasa experience there is no suggestion of anything to be done. It is a condition of restful joy.
Abhinavagupta further declares that "from sentences in the kävya we do not expect the apprehension which proves useful for such activity as taking a cow out for grazing or bringing back a cow home in the evening; what we really expect is the apprehension of rasa etcetera, which leads to restful joy or aesthetic repose."'s
Anandavardhana says that elsewhere it has been shown that particular words are agreeable in certain context and disagreeable in certain other context and that this difference is based on their power of suggestion. On this Abhinavagupta comments: "Elsewhere, that is in (Udbhata's) Bhamaha-vivarana, it has been shown. that words like 'a garland', 'sandal (paste)', etcetera, are quite agreeable in the context of 'irágära rasa' but disagreeable or repulsive in the context of bibhatsa
rasa.
To put it differently; Words, when oriented towards the emotion being. depicted, become the source of aesthetic relish. The discrimination culminates in the later doctrine of aucitya (fitness of everything that has bearing on the rasa concerned).
The beauty of the suggested sense consists in its capacity to suggest the particular rasa; and rasa by itself is of the nature of aesthetic repose or rest and consists in delight or bliss."

Page #3

V. M. Kulkarni
There cannot be any kāvya worth the name in the absence of rasa etcetera; rasa doubtless is the life-breath of kāvya but sometimes even a vyabhicāri-bhāva which is subservient to rasa causes greater aesthetic relish. 8
Abhinavagupta is one with Anandavardhana in asserting that a thing, although marvellous in itself, does not cause any wonder if it is universally known.
Sources of Literary Beauty
The earlier writers on poetics recognised śabdālamkāras like anuprāsa) arthalamkāras (like upamā), gunas (like mādhurya), vșttis (like upanāgrikā) or ritis (like Vaidarbhi) and doşābhāva (absence of defects) as sources of literary beauty. To the later writers on poetics like Anandavardhana, however, dhvani (suggestion, the suggested sense) is the first and foremost source of literary beauty. This suggested sense may take the form of rasa or alamkāra or vastu. Of these three kinds the rasādi (rasa, bhāva, etcetera) dhvani takes the place of pride.
Anandavardhana asserts that all figures of speech like rüpaka attain beauty only when they embody suggested sense that is subordinate. Abhinavagupta illustrates the truth of this statement by citing illustrations of upamā, rūpaka, śl: $1, yathāsamkhya, dipaka, sasaṁdeha, apahnuti, paryāyokta, tulya-yogitā, aprastuta prasamsā, aksep1, and atiśayokti which are all prosaic, dry and devoid of any touch of suggested sense. They answer the external requirements of the definitions of the concerned alamkāras all right, but are devoid of their very lifebreath, the guni-bhūta-vyangya. For instance,
Upamā : “The ox is like a cow.' Rūpaka : "The rammer is a sacrificial post.'.... Dipaka : “Bring the cow and the horse.' Sasamdeha : “Is that a person or the tree-trunk?' Apahnutih : “This is not silver (but a pearl-oyster).' Paryāyokta : 'This fat (Devadatta) does not eat by day.'.... Atiśayokti : (i) The kundikā (spouted water-jug) is samudra (an
ocean).' (ii) “The Vindhya mountains grew (high) upto the sun's
path in the sky.'
All these examples are bald and devoid of any suggested sense and thus want in beauty and therefore they cannot be termed as alamkāras. 10
Abhinavagupta's contention that "a man free from passions (a saint) does not see things topsy-turvy : If he hears the sound of lute, he does not think he has

Page #4

Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kāvya
73
heard the harsh-sounding crowing of a crow," would suggest that he held beauty to be objective !*
Abhinavagupta elsewhere observes that when rati (love) is presented on the stage or in a poem, even a saint or an ascetic (who is free of passions) experiences rasa-hrdayas savāda.11
Ānandavardhana asserts that alamkāra (like upamā) is universally known as the source of beauty, All alamkāras truly become so if they are used as subservient to rasa etcetera, which is the very soul, or essence, of kāvya. Abhinavagupta comments on this as follows : “Upamā embellishes the literal sense. However, this literal sense, when endowed with excellence by upamā (or any other alamkāra), serves to suggest (rasādi--) dhvan. So, really speaking, the dhvani-ātinā is alamkārya. The ornaments like kataka (bracelet), keyūra (armlet) when put on one's person, embellish the sentient person by suggesting his particular mental condition appropriate or inappropriate. 1 2
For instance, a corpse when decorated with alamkāras like) kund:la (earings) does not shine, as the soul has departed. An ascetic, if he puts on ornaments such as a bracelet of gold etcetera, becomes a laughing-stock, as in his case the mental state of a lover is inappropriate. As far as body is concerned, the question of propriety or otherwise does not arise : It is, then, one's self alone that is alarmkārya as one proudly feels “I am splendidly decorated."13
Emotions : The Content of Kavya
Ānandavardhana thus says in the third Uddyota :
“In the province of kavya where we perceive suggested sense, the notions of satya (truth) and asatya (falsehood) are meaningless. To examine kāvya through the well-known pramāņas (means of valid knowledge) would simply lead to ridicule.”14
The purport of this observation is that the things in kāvya have no place in the everyday world of space and time, and, owing to this lack of ontological or physical status, the question of reality or unreality in this case does not apply. That, however, does not mean that they are unreal. In fact the distinction of existence or non-existence does not at all arise in their case.
* This reminds of Mańkhaka's lines in his Srikanthacarita : (i) वाणी किमणाङ्कलेव धत्ते टड विना पक्रिम विभ्रमण
-II. 11 (ii) **** ffi IF741=ogha atar
-II. 14 “Deviation in the activity of the poet is like the beautiful curve of the
crescent moon and quite unlike that of the dog's tail.” 10

Page #5

V.M. Kulkarni
Abhinavagupta elucidates this passage of Anandavardhana by citing a dissimilar example (vaidharmya-drsțānta):
“We are not to examine these statements in kāvya as to whether they are true and consider whether they command us to do something as the Vedic utterances enjoining Agnistoma sacrifice do. They simply contribute directly to giving aesthetic delight (and only indirectly to refining or influencing our character and culture of mind and heart). The aesthetic delight which is essentially of the nature of transcendental camatkāra is not different from vyutpatti.18
The aesthetic delight is evoked in a reader when a vastu or alamkara or rasādi is/are portrayed by the poet in his kāvya. The rasādi-dhvani is accorded the place of supremacy as it is the source of the highest delight next only to that of the realisation of Brahma. Naturally, emotions are the central theme and content of kāvya according to both Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the two greatest aestheticians India has produced. Dhvani : The Method of Kāvya
Anandavardhana regards "sabdārthau" (word and sense) as only the outer vesture of kāvya while emotion as its 'ātman'. Emotions, of course, are never conveyed by their mere denomination. They can be conveyed or communicated only indirectly through an appropriate portrayal of their causes and effects. This indirect method of conveying emotions and feelings is called 'dhvani' (suggestion, suggestiveness). This method is extended to two other spheres of theme and content of kāvya, namely vastu (a fact, a bare idea) and alamkāra (figure of speech). Both vastu-dhvani and alarkāra-dhvani can be paraphrased; but rasādi-dhvani can never lend itself to paraphrase. The beauty lent by suggested sense is the greatest alaṁkāra of poetic speech just like bashfulness of women. 18
Abhinavagupta, too, upholds this method of dhvani as propounded by Anandvardhana. In the course of his exposition he often draws our attention to 'gopanasāra-saundarya'17; and in one passage he aptly compares dhvani to a beautiful or noble lady's breasts, partly covered or concealed and partly revealed, the better to excite curiosity and passion, a simile which on account of its inherent beauty and aptness became famous in later alamkāra literature. At one place he makes a perceptive remark: "what charm is there if the sense to be conveyed is done so directly or openly by the power of denotation ?"18
Anandavardhana boldly declares that dhvani (suggestion) is ‘kāvyasya-ātmā' (the soul, the very essence, of poetry, and by extension literature). It may present itself in the form of vastu or alamkāra or rasādi. He is perfectly aware of the importance of rasa-dhvani. But it is Abhinavagupta who gives it the place of supremacy and asserts that the other two dhvanis are only its aspects, and that they are not really valuable in themselves but only insofar as they lead to rasādidhvani.19

Page #6

75
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya
Anandavardhana is perfectly aware of the fact that the hackneyed examples of secondary usage (lakṣaṇa, and gunavṛtti) like 'gangayam ghoşah', 'agnir māṇavakaḥ', 'simho batuh', although suggest particular purposes, their suggested sense is not so charming or elegant 20
Abhinavagupta expands and develops this idea in his Locana. He insists that the perception of beauty is the salient or characteristic feature of kavya.
He further adds that the perception of beauty must afford aesthetic repose to the reader. In its absence the linguistic function, called vyanjana, does not start. Recoiling in fact, it comes to rest in the literal sense. It is like a poor man before whom heavenly wealth presents itself for a moment and instantly disappears from his view.
While commenting on the word (dhvaneḥ svarupam) atiramaniyam from Anandavardhana's Vrtti", he rightly observes: "By this expression he points out the difference of divani from (and its superiority to) the bhakta (the secondary usage) There hardly is elegance in these examples of secondary usage: simho bajuḥ' (the boy is a lion), 'Gangāyām ghoṣaḥ' (there is a settlement of cowherds on the river Ganga)." Why these and such other examples want in beauty and why they do not deserve the title kavya he explains in another passage:
The Objector: Thus the sentence "The boy is a lion" might constitute kavya as the soul if the form of suggestion is present in it.
The siddanti: If so, you will have to call a jar 'living'; for atman, which is allpervasive, is also present in it.
The Objector: If the soul is possessed of a body endowed with various organs. etcetera, only then it is called 'living' and not simply any kind of body.
The siddhanti: If the soul of dhvani (suggestion) is invested with a body consisting of words and meanings that are beautiful on account of the presence of gunas (excellences) and alamkaras (figures of speech), appropriate to the particular (rasa-) dhvani, then we call those sabda and artha as kāvya (sabdarthau kāvyaṁ).
Aim/s of Kavya
Dhvanyaloka merely refers to priti or ananda, (aesthetic) pleasure, joy or delight as the unique goal of literature. The discussion of Kalidasa's Kumarasambhava (Canto VIII, "Devisambhogavarṇana") by Anandavardhana, however, is a pointer to his view that literature (or art as such) cannot be divorced from morality. So, one may not be wrong if he drew the inference that Anandavardhana believed. in priti and vyutpatti (aesthetic pleasure and culture or refinement of character or moral sensitivity or proficiency in the means of attaining the four goals of human life,) as the twin aims of literature.

Page #7

16
V.M. Kulkarni
In contradistinction to Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta discusses this important issue of aesthetics in his Locana on more occasions than one. While commenting on Bhāmaha's verse meaning, “Study of (genuine and) good kāvya (poetry) leads to fame and delight as well as proficiency in (the means of attaining) the four great ends of man as well as proficiency in fine arts," Abhinavagupta pronounces his view :
The readers of genuine kāvya attain vyutpatti and priti (aesthetic delight or pleasure) no doubt, but, between them, says Abhinavagupta, aesthetic delight is the chief aim. Otherwise one could posit the question: "Since the Vedas and Smộtis which are authoritative like masters (who issue command) and Purānas which advise or guide us like friends (they do not command, only tender advice), these two along with kāvya are equally sources of vyutpatti; what is, then, the distinctive feature of kāvya leading to the saine goal ? As similarity with a loving wife (who successfully persuades her husband to do what she likes keeping her persuasive character concealed from view and providing love's enjoyment) has been recognised as the characteristic feature of kāvya, the answer to the above question is that immediate aesthetic pleasure is the principal aim of kāyya and the aesthetic pleasure is also the ultimate fruition of vyutpatti and of kirtti (fame) too." Abhinavagupta next emphatically asserts : «Nor are priti and vyutpatti different from one another, for they both have the same source."28 From this discussion by Abhinavagupta it would seem that he does not differ with Anandavardhana as regards the ultimate aim of kāvya. He makes explicit what Anandavardhana implies in the course of his discussion of aucitya24 and of the predominant rasa of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.28
References 1. The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, with the Locana and Balapriya
Commentaries, KSS edn, Benares City 1940. 2. लावण्यं हि नामावयवसंस्थानाभिव्यङ्ग्यमवयवव्यतिरिक्तं धर्मान्तरमेव । न चावयवानामेव
निर्दोषता वा भूषणयोगो वा लावण्यम्, पृथनिर्वर्ण्यमानकाणादिदोषशून्यशरीरावयवयोगिन्यामप्यलङ्कृतायामपि लावण्यशून्येयमिति, अतथाभूतायामपि कस्याञ्चिल्लावण्यामृतचन्द्रिकेयमिति सहृदयानां व्यवहारात् ।
___Locana, pp. 49-50 नैव तत्र रसप्रतीतिरस्ति यथा पाकानभिज्ञसूदविरचिते मांसपाकविशेषे। नन वस्तूमौन्दर्यादवश्यं भवति कदाचित्तथास्वादोऽकुशलकृतायामपि शिखरिण्यामिवेत्याशङ्क्याह-....अज्ञकृतायां च शिखरिण्यामहो शिखरिणीति न तज्ज्ञानाच्चमत्कारः, अपि तु दधिगुडमरिचं चैतदसमञ्जसयोजितमिति वक्तारो भवन्ति ।
-Locana pp. 496-497 4. इह तु विभावाद्येव प्रतिपाद्यमानं चर्वणाविषयतोन्मुखमिति समयाद्युपयोगाभावः । न च
नियुक्तोऽहमत्र करवाणि कृतार्थोऽहमिति शास्त्रीयप्रतीतिसदशमदः । तत्रोत्तरकतव्योन्मुख्यन लौकिकत्वात । इह तु विभावादि चर्वणाद्भुतपुष्पवत्तत्कालसारैवोदिता न तु पूर्वापरकालानुबन्धिनीति लौकिकादास्वादाद्योगिविषयाच्चान्य एवायं रसास्वादः। -Locana, p. 160

Page #8

Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya
77
5. काव्यवाक्येभ्यो हि नयनानयनाथुपयोगिनी प्रतीतिरभ्यर्थ्यते, अपि तु प्रतीतिविश्रान्तिकारिणी, सा वाभिप्रायनिष्ठैव नाभिप्रेतवस्तुपर्यवसाना ।
- Locana, p. 442 शब्दविशेषाणां चेति । अन्यत्रेति । भामहविवरणे। विभागेनेति । स्रक्चन्दनादयः शब्दाः शृङ्गारे चारवो वीभत्से त्वचारण इति रसकृत एव विभागः। रसं प्रति च शब्दस्य व्यञ्जकत्वमेवेत्युक्त प्राक् ।
-Locana, p. 358 """किन्तु शब्दसमय॑माणहृदयसंवादसुन्दरविभावानुभावसमुचित प्राग्विनिविष्टरत्यादिवासनानुरागसुकुमारस्वसंविदानन्दचर्वणाव्यापाररसनीयरूपो रसः, स काव्यव्यापारैकगोचरो रसध्वनिरिति, स च ध्वनिरेवेति, स एव मुख्यतयात्मेति ।
-Locana, pp. 49-50 8. भाव-ग्रहणेन व्यभिचारिणोऽपि चळमाणस्य तावन्मात्र विश्रान्तावपि स्थायिचर्वणापर्यवसानोचितरसप्रतिष्ठामनवाप्यापि प्राणत्वं भवतीत्युक्तम् ।।
-Locana, p. 90 9. क्षुण्णं हि वस्तु लोकप्रसिद्धयाद्भुतमपि नाश्चर्यकारि भवति ।
-Dhvanyāloka, pp. 534-35. क्षुण्ण होति । पुनः पुनर्वर्णननिरूपणादिना यत्पिष्टपिष्टत्वादतिनिभिन्नस्वरूपमित्यर्थः ।
--Locana, p. 534 10. तथाजातीयानामिति । चारुत्वातिशयवतामित्यर्थः। सुलक्षिता इति यत्किलैषां तद्विनिर्भुक्तं
रूपं न तत्काव्येऽभ्यर्थनीयम् । उपमा हि 'यथा गौस्तथा गवयः' इति । रूपकं 'खलेवासी यूप' इति ।""दीपकं 'गामश्वम्' इति । ससन्देहः 'स्थाणुर्वा स्यात्' इति । अपह्नतिः 'नेदं रजतम्' इति । पर्यायोक्तं 'पीनो दिवा नात्ति' इति । 'अतिशयोक्तिः 'समुद्रः कुण्डिका', 'विन्ध्यो वर्धितवान'कंवागृह्णात्' इति । एवमन्यत् । -Locana, pp. 472-473 रतौ हि समस्त-देव-तिर्यङ्-नरा दि-जातिष्वविच्छिन्नैव वासनास्त इति न कश्चित्तत्र तादृग्यो न हृदयसंवादमयः, यत्तेरपि हि तच्चमत्कारोऽस्त्येव ।
-Locana, p. 205. एतदुक्त भवति-उपमया यद्यपि वाच्योऽर्थोऽलङ्क्रियते, तथापि तस्य तदेवालङ्करणं यद् व्यङ्ग्यार्थाभिव्यञ्जनसामर्थ्याधानमिति वस्तुतो ध्वन्यात्मैवालङ्कार्यः। कटक-केयूरादिभिरपि हि शरीरसमवायिभिश्चेतन आत्मैव तत्तच्चित्त वृत्तिविशेषौचित्यसूचनात्मतयालङ्क्रियते ।
-Locana, p. 197 13. तथाहि--अचेतनं शव-शरीरं कुण्डलाद्युपेतमपि न भाति, अलङ कार्यस्याभावात् । यति-शरीरं
कटकादि-युक्तं हास्यावहं भवति, अलङ्कार्यस्यानौचित्यात् । न हि देहस्य किञ्चिदनौचित्यमिति
वस्तुत आत्मैवालकार्यः, अहमलकृत इत्यभिमानात् । -Locana, pp. 197-198 14. काव्य-विषये च व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यनिरूपणस्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापार परीक्षोपहासायैव संपद्यते ।
-Dhvanyaloka, p. 455 अप्रयोजकत्वमिति । न हि तेषां वाक्यानामग्निष्टोमादिवाक्यवत् सत्यार्थप्रतिपादनद्वारेण प्रवर्तकत्वाय प्रामाण्यमन्विष्यते, प्रीतिमात्रपर्यवसायित्वात् । प्रीतेरेव चालौकिकचमत्काररूपाया व्युत्पत्त्यङ्गत्वात् । एतच्चोक्तं वितत्य प्राक् । उपहासाय वेति । नायं सहृदयः केवलं शष्कतर्कोपक्रमकर्कशहृदयः प्रतीति परामष्टुं नालमित्येष उपहासः। -Locana, p. 455
11.
12.
15. अगर

Page #9

V.M. Kulkarni
Masson and Patwardhan quote the last two lines and render them as follows: "(The person who attempts to discover whether a poem is "true" or "false">) will be ridiculed as follows: This is somebody who is insensitive to literature. He is not able to appreciate an aesthetic experience for his heart has become hard by his indulging in dry logic."
---Aesthetic Rapture, Vol. II : Notes Poona, 1970, p. 21, f. n. 143
16. (i) वस्त्वलङ्कारावपि शब्दाभिधेयत्वमध्यासते तावत् । रस-भाव-तदाभास-तत्प्रशमाः पुनर्न कदाचिदभिधीयन्ते, अथ चास्वाद्यमानताप्राणतया भान्ति ।
-Locana, p. 78 (ii) मुख्या महाकविगिरामलङ्कृतिभृतामपि । प्रतीयमानच्छायैषा, भूषा लज्जव योषिताम् ॥
-Dhvanyaloka, III. 37 मुख्या भूषेति । अलङ्कृतिभृतामपिशब्दादलङ्कारशून्यानामपीत्यर्थः । प्रतीयमानकृता छाया शोभा सा च लज्जा सदशी गोपनासारसौन्दर्य प्राणत्वात् । अलङ्कारधारिणीनामपि नायिकानां लज्जामख्यं भषणम । प्रतीयमानाच्छाया अन्तर्मदनोद्भदजहृदयसौन्दर्यरूपा यथा, लज्जा ह्यंन्तरुद्धिनमान्मथविकारजुगोपयिषारूपा मदनविजृम्भव । वीतरागाणां यतीनां कौपीनापसारणेऽपि त्रपाकलङ्कादर्शनात् ।
-Locana, p. 475 17. ...'शृङ्गाररसतरङ्गिणी हि लज्जावरुद्धा निर्भरतया तांस्तान् विलासान् नेत्रगात्रविकारपरम्परारूपान् प्रसूत इति गोपनासारसौन्दर्यलज्जाविजम्भितमेतदिति भावः ।
-Locana, p. 476 18. (i) तल्लक्षणाप्रयोजनं शूर-कृतविद्य-सेवकानां प्राशस्त्यमशब्दवाच्यत्वेन गोप्यमानं सन्नायिकाकुचकलशयुगलमिव महार्घतामुपयद् ध्वन्यत इति ।
-Locana, p. 138 (ii) शब्दस्पृष्टेऽर्थे का हृद्यता ।
-Locana, p. 528 .."तेन रस एव वस्तुत आत्मा, वस्त्वलङ्कारध्वनी तु सर्वथा रसं प्रति पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्या
दुत्कृष्टौ तावित्यभिप्रायेण 'ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मेति सामान्येनोक्तम् । -Locana, p. 85 20. वस्त चारुत्वप्रतीतये स्वशब्दादभिधेयत्वेन यत् प्रतिपादयितु मिष्यते तद् व्यङ्ग्यम् । तच्च न
सर्व गुणवृत्तविषयः प्रसिद्धयनुरोधाभ्यामपि गौणानां शब्दानां प्रयोगदर्शनात् । “गङ्गायां घोषः""गुणवृत्तिस्तु वाच्यधर्माश्रयेणैव व्यङ्ग्यमात्राश्रयेण चाभेदोपचाररूपा संभवति, यथा तीक्ष्णत्वादग्निर्माणवकः।
-Dhvanyāloka, pp. 426-433 (i) यच्चोक्तम्-'चारुत्वप्रतोतिस्तहि काव्यस्यात्मा स्यात्' इति तदमीकुर्म एव । नाम्नि खल्वयं विवाद इति ।
-Locana, p. 105 (ii) 'न हि सिंहो बटुः', 'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यत्र रम्यता काचित् । -Locana, p. 37 21. [तस्य हि ध्वनेः स्वरूपम् "अतिरमणीयम्] अतिरमणीयमिति भाक्ताद् व्यतिरेक माह । न हि 'सिंहो बटुः', 'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यत्र रम्यता काचित् ।
-Locana, p. 37 2. नन्वेवं 'सिंहो बटुः' इत्यत्रापि काव्यरूपता स्यात् ध्वननलक्षणस्यात्मनोऽत्रापि समनन्तरं
वक्ष्यमाणतया भावात् । ननु घटेऽपि जीवव्यवहारः स्यात, आत्मनो बिभुत्वेन तत्रापि भावात् ।

Page #10
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 79 शरीरस्य खलु विशिष्टाधिष्ठानयुक्तस्य सत्यात्मनि जीवव्यवहारः न यस्य कस्यचिदिति चेत्गुणालङ्कारौचित्यसुन्दरशब्दार्थशरीरस्य सति ध्वननाख्यात्मनि काव्यरूपताव्यवहारः / -Locana, p. 59 23. (i) ""तत्र कवेस्तावत् कीर्त्यापि प्रीतिरेव संपाद्या / श्रोतृणां च व्युत्पत्तिप्रीती यद्यपि स्तः... तथापि तत्र प्रीतिरेव प्रधानम् / "इति प्राधान्येननानन्द एवोक्तः। चतुर्वर्गव्युत्पत्तेरपि चानन्द एव पार्यन्तिकं मुख्यं फलम् / -Locana, pp.40-41 (ii) प्रीतिरेव व्युत्पत्तेः प्रयोजिका / प्रीत्यात्मा च रसः .... न चैते प्रीतिव्युत्पत्ती भिन्नरूपे एव द्वयोरप्येक विषयत्वात् / -Locana, p. 336 24. कथमचारुत्वं तादृशे विषये सहृदयानां नावभातीति चेत् "तथा हि-महाकवीनामप्युत्तमदेवता विषयप्रसिद्धसंभोगशृङ्गारनिबन्धनाद्यनौचित्यं शक्ति तिरस्कृतत्वात् ग्राम्यत्वेन न प्रतिभासते / यथा कुमारसंभवे देवीसंभोगवर्णनम् / तस्मादभिनेयार्थेऽनभिनेयार्थे वा काव्ये यदुत्तमप्रकृते राजादेरुत्तमप्रकृतिभिर्नायिकाभिः सह ग्राम्यसंभोगवर्णनं तत् पित्रोः संभोगवर्णनमिव सुतरामसभ्यम् / तथैवोत्तमदेवतादिविषयम् / " -Dhvanyaloka. pp. 316-334 25. Dhvanyaloka-vrtti on IV. 5 pp. 529-534,