Sahrdayaloka Part 02

Author(s): Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006909/1

Page #1
SAHRDAYALOKA [ Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism] [Vol. I, Part 2] L. D. Series : 142 General Editor Jitendra B. Shah TAPASVI NANDI svatIya Foruta L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD - 380 009 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #2
SAHRDAYALOKA [ Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism ] [Vol. I, Part-2] L. D. Series : 142 General Editor Jitendra B. Shah TAPASVI NANDI Halo L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY AHMEDABAD - 380 009 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #3
L. D. Series : 142 SAHRDAYALOKA [ Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism ] [Vol. I, Part-2] TAPASVI NANDI Published by Jitendra B. Shah Director L.D.Institute of Indology Ahmedabad First Edition : 2005 ISBN 81 - 85857-24-5 Price : 650/ Typesetting Swaminarayan Mudranalaya Press Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. Printer Navprabhat Printing Press Gheekanta Road, Ahmedabad Tel. 25508631 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #4
Publisher's Note We feel pleasure to place before the learned "SAHRDAYALOKA" OR "Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism" - (Vol. I) by Prof. Tapasvi Nandi. The author hardly requires any introduction to the learned working in the area of Sanskrit Alamkararsastra or Literary Aesthetics. The work attempts to cover the basic thought - currents prevalent in Sanskrit Literary criticism, trying to unearth the origin and development of each topic beginning with the "Definition and scope of poetry, Sanskrit semantics, the theories of Dhvani, Rasa etc." The author has taken care to record and accept the views of his predecessors in his area of research and has very gratefully acknowledged the honourable acceptance of their views and has also tried to discuss modestly differences of opinion if any, at various places. The whole work presents the material in an historical, critical and comparative perspective. We feel sure that the learned will appreciate his efforts in an unbiased way. Prof. Nandi's observations on Dhvani and Rasa deserve special mention as he has made a special effort to explain how these thought currents which form a special contribution of Indian Literary Aesthetics are relevant even to-day and how they can be applied to the most modern patterns of literature world over, including absurd poetry and absurd theatre as well. The author also proposes to bring out Vol. II covering the area of literary criticism that is not discussed in the present volume, of course, god willing. We are thankful to Prof. Nandi for agreeing with us to publish the present work. We are also thankful to the Swaminarayan press, and all our colleagues seeing this work through. Hope this work will star and will fulfil a gap left out by earlier experts. It may be noted that for the sake of convenience, this work is presented in three parts such as, Part I - chs. I-VII (pp. 1-575); Part II - chs. VIII-XIII (pp. 576-1195) and Part III - chs. XIV - XVIII (pp. 1196-1843), with select Bibliography (pp. 1844-1850) appearing at the end of Part III. The Publisher's note, the author's preface - Namaskaromi, contents, detailed contents and abbriviations appear in all the three parts. Jitendra Shah L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #5

Page #6
"Namaskaromi...." Salutations to the Divine ! Salutations to my three Maha-gurus; Salutations to my parents, Salutations to all the sources consulted by me And, Salutations to all of you, who are all all sparks of the Divine ! "Aum purnam adah, purnam idam parnat purnam udacyate purnasya purnam adaya purnam eva'va sisyate." "That (Source, which has been drawn upon by me is respectable and) is perfect, This (Work, which is presented before you in this respectable shape) is perfect. Perfect (material-; ideas, inspiration) has been drawn from perfect (respectable, reliable source). After drawing upon perfect (material) from perfect (and respectable source), only the perfect is left behind (before you)." This, in short, is the story of my spiritual endeavour that started on 7th Aug. 2000 A.D. and reached its completion on 20th July, 2003 A.D. The great yogin said, "In the stillness of the night, the eternal speaks." And yes; I do not know when, in the stillness of the night, my eyes kept wide open staring in the darkness around me, and when these thought-currents sneaked into my inner consciousness from various sources-first like light ripples of the quiet and dignified flow of the sacred Ganga, and then like the mighty billows of the stormy Atlantic, dashing against the shores, washing them clean. They settled into my mind and then sank deep into it. I do not know when my eyes were closed and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #7
I was overpowered by sleep, as if embraced by the Divine Grace ! I feel floating in the wide stream, rich in currents and cross-currents, whirls and pulls; deep, full fathom five; quiet and dignified. I feel dragged and dragged, up and down, and then I slip towards the bottom, like in the womb of the mother earth, with a hundred thousand daffodils, red and pink, green, blue, white, violet and golden - on top of the surface ! So, as suggested in the beginning, I have accepted, with gratitude, of course after verifying with the original, the material, - line by line, paragraph by paragraph, at times, - from the works of my predecessors, who I thought are most reliable, and for whom I have tremendous respect and love in my heart, - from their works, dealing with the topics of word and meaning as discussed by the ancients - the Mimamsakas, the Naiyayikas and above all the great Vaiyakaranas, - the "prathame hi vidvamsah" as Anandavardhana would call them. I take these works as starting points, and as absolutely relaible sources and they are authored by great scholars such as Dr. P. C. Chakrawarty, Prof. Devasthali and Prof. Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, Dr. Sri P. Ramchandrudu and some others. At every step, wherever I have sought inspiration and help from these master works, I have clearly indicated my indebtedness. My work has grown both in size and dignity due to this, like the sacred flow of the Ganga growing vaster and vaster with the waters from the innumerable springs, rivulets and rivers mixing with the main stream; and shooting out from the bosom of the great Nagadhiraja Himalaya. Those who have undertaken the "caturdhama yatra" are a witness to this. By accepting everything from various springs the Ganga has carved out its own identity, sanctity and dignity. Same is the case with this work. I owe a lot to the great modern rsi-trayi-i.e. Dr. P. V. Kane, Dr. S. K. De and Dr. V. Raghavan, in particular, who has shaped my views on Bhoja. But it may also be noted that, without showing disrespect, I have ventured to dispute their results, and this happens quite often with Dr. Raghavan, when I feel, on verifying with the original words of Bhoja, that I am on firmer ground. This, the discreet will find out for himself, and there is no doubt about it. But this does not minimize their greatness and my adoration for their lotus-feet. They are the great thinkers spreading light and bearing the torch of Indian Literary Aestetics for the modern scholars, both in east and west alike. Over and above this, I owe everything, - i.e. beginning from my initiation into this ancient lore of Sahitya-sastra to whatever I have done till day, in serving its For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #8
cause, to my great gurus - the three of them, the 'guru-sikhi-trays of professors R. C. Parikh, R. B. Athavale, and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni and especially Dr. Kulkarni; for it is he who even to-day, at the age of 85+ yrs., inspires me, guides me and blesses me and in my moments of personal despondency fills me with warmth. love, guidance and inspiration. I am also indebted to the works of some of my senior contemporaries and to most of them personally also when I have met them, such as Dr. Rama Ranjan Mukherjee, Dr. Mukund Madhava Sharma, Dr. Pratap Bandopadhyaya, Prof. Dr. Satyavrata Shastri, Prof. Rasik Vihari Joshi and my most respected and learned friends such as Prof. Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi, Prof. Dr. Kamalesh Dutta Tripathi, the late Prof. Ramcandra Dwivedi (Jaipur), the late Prof. Biswanath Bhattacharya (Shantiniketan), the late Prof. K. Krishnamoorty, Prof. N. P. Unni, Prof. Dr. K. K. Chaturvedi, and prof. Dr. S. D. Joshi, and some very brilliant young friends such as Prof. Dr. Sarojaben Bhate, Dr. C. Ramchandran, Prof. Dr. V. N. Jha, Dr. G. C. Tripathi, Dr. Radhavallabh Tripathi, Prof. M. M. Agrawal Dr. Goparaju, Rama, Dr. Jagannatha Pathak, and the rest. I have met all these dignitaries personally and I stand benifitted. I also will show my respect for Prof. Sri. Ramchandrudu for his great work on Jagannatha. True, my Guru Prof. Athavale taught me some portion of the great R. G., and his work on Pundit Jagannatha is monumental. So, I am made of all these stalwarts. But kindly note that with all this I remain myself, i.e. I have carefully carved out and preserved my identity. If at all I have accepted their ideas and views as sacred mantra, it is because I feel convinced about the same. I feel convinced first about their reliability and integrity, and then their output; their great reputation apart. Believe me, and I am honest, that I have practically verified every source in the original, before putting the stamp of my humble acceptance of their thoughts and writing. It is never a blind acceptance. In the words of Rajasekhara - "tad etad svikaranam, na tu haranam." I have accepted them, for I have found them acceptable, like the great Vagdevatavatara Mammata or the great Kalikala-Sarvajna acarya Hemacandra accepting the dictates of Abhinavaguptapadacarya, or like the latter himself accepting the ruling of his seniors when he says : "urdhvo'rdhvam aruhya yad artha-tattvam dhih pasyati, srantim avedayanti, phalam tad adyaih parikalpitana viveka-sopana-paramparanam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #9
However, the discreet will find out that my acceptance ends with the field covering the ancient literature laying down the thoughts of the Mimamsakas, the Naiyayikas and the Vaiyakaranas. With our entry into the wide and open field of Alamkarasastra proper, i.e. with the works of Bharata, Bhamaha and down to Jagannatha, of course including Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata, I have tried to project some original line of thinking that may prove to be of great he adhikarins. This is a modest claim but a sure one. I have accepted ideas and also drafting from Gnoli, Masson, Patwardhan, K. Krishnamoothy, and the rest, but with a touch of my own original contribution. I feel I am on absolutely sure and safe ground when I travel through this area of alamkara-Sastra proper, convering nearly two thousand years of creative thinking. My work will surely guide the adhikari aspirant who wants to have a glimpse of the greatness of the Indian acaryas, who have left behind their foot-prints on the sands of literary aesthetics. It may be noted that I have presented the rasa theory in a new perspective, and believe me, this is what I claim for sure, - a perspective which acknowledges the catholicity of rasa theory as it seems to serve the cause even of what they term 'absurd theatre' or 'absurd poetry'. I am sure the discerning will take note of all this and try to evaluate this work in an unbiased way. At the same time may I remind the learned of the words of Jayanta who said, "kutosti nutanam vastu ?". or of the words quoted as above of Abhinavagupta suggesting that all fresh results follow the achievements of the earlier masters, i.e. after climbing the 'viveka-sopana-parampara' one gets into something fresh. So, I invite the sensitive and thoughtful adhikarins to have a soft corner for me and extend their helping hand. The great Mahima observes : (Vyakti-viveka) - "yuktoyam atmasadnsan prati me prayatno na'sty eva taj jagati, sarva-manoharam yat, kecij jvalanti, vikasanty, apare nimilanty anye yad abhyudayabhaji jagat-pradipe." The discerning are requested to read every line, before pronouncing a judgement.... I wish that only those, through whose arteries and veins alamkarasastra flows, should venture to review this work. No lesser soul should attempt it. So, we humbly say - "adya pratanyate'smabhih vidusam pritaye muda astadasa'dhikarini mimamsa kavya-vartmani." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #10
This forms only the first volume of my "Sahrdaya"loka" or "Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism." The proposed second volume will try to study the concepts of guna, dosa, alamkara, laksana, aucitya, riti, vrtti, kavisiksa and some modern writers on Sanskrit poetics, such as Dr. Rewaprasadjee etc. I sincerely thank the publishers and Shri. Dr. Jitendra Shah the Director, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, for seeing this work through. I also thank his collegues, and also Principal Kanjibhai Patel for kindly co-operating with us. The press Shri Swaminarayana Mudrana Mandir, of course deserves full praise and thanks for doing its job so carefully. - I also thank, Smt. Harsha Nandi, my wife, Smt. Chinmayee M. Rali, my beloved daughter, M. Pharm., Dr. Mayur S. Rali, M.D., D.G.O., my son-in-law, and our two grandsons Parth who studies medicine, and Mit, doing physiotherapy bearing with me through all the inconveniences caused due to my sadhana, and providing love and inspiration through out the course of these three years when this work was carried out. I also thank the Divine, and our Sadguru Raja-yogi Shri Narendrajee for his blessings and who has also suggested that even after this polite achievement, I have to travel further, through the woods, dark, deep and lovely, before I rest and lay down my pen. Aum ma Aum. iti Sivam... 19 Aug. 2004 Asopalava, 4, Professors' Colony, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat State) India. - For Personal & Private Use Only TAPASVI NANDI

Page #11
Contents Ch. No. Title Page No. 1-125 126-203 204-229 "Definition and scope of poetry." (Introduction p. 1-12) Sabda-vyapara-vicara; Sabdavittis; recognised in the works of earlier alamkarika-s such as Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana Udbhata and Rudrata [i.e. Anandavardhana's purva"carya-s] 'Pratiyamana artha' IV or 230-248 VII 249-368 369-453 454-575 576-709 710-778 Implicit sense, as seen in the earlier alamkarika-s such as Bhamaha, Dandin, etc. Sabda-vittis, the nature of; "Abhidha" Tatparya Laksana Vyanjana Vyanjana-virodha or Opposition to suggestive power Classification of Poetry (form - oriented) Classification of Poetry (contd.) (criticism oriented;) dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya, citra; or uttama, madhyama, avara, etc. 779-967 968-1041 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #12
Ch. No. XII XIII XIV XV XVI. XVII XVIII Title Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others and Gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya and citra-kavya Dhvani and other thought currents such as guna, alamkara, samghatana, riti, vrtti, etc. and also Dhvani-Virodha. The Concept of 'Rasa', as seen in veda and ancient literature and then in Bharata and earlier alamkarikas from Bhamaha to Rudrata Concept of 'Rasa' as seen in Anandavardhana and others posterior to him. Rasa-nispatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta Rasa-nispatti-vicara in Mammata, some others and Jagannatha. Dasa-rupaka-vicara Detailed Contents For Personal & Private Use Only Page No. 1042-1152 1153-1195 1196-1277 1278-1490 1491-1593 1594-1629 1630-1843

Page #13
Detailed Contents Ch. I Introduction, p. 1-12; Definition and scope of poetry, p. 12-14; Bhamaha, p. 14; Dandin, p. 24; Vamana, p. 30; Udbhata, p. 36; Rudrata, p. 37; Anandavardhana and his followers, p. 39; Rajasekhara, p. 42; Kuntaka, p. 42; Ksemendra, p. 60; Bhoja, p. 60; Agnipurana, p. 63; Mahimabhatta, p. 64; From Mammata to Visvanatha, p. 81; Mammata, p. 81; Hemacandra, p. 86; Vagbhata I, p. 86; Vagbhata II, p. 87; Jayadeva, p. 87; Visvanatha, p. 91; Vidyadhara, p. 88; Vidyanatha, p. 89; Kesava Misra, p. 97; Jagannatha, p. 101; J.'s criticism of Mammata's definition of poetry, p. 109; J.on Visvanatha's definition of poetry, p. 114, later challanges to J.'s definition of poet ry, p. 115; Kavya-hetu and Kavya-prayojana, p. 119; Ch. II Sabda-vyapara-vicara or Powers of a word; general introduction, p. 126; ancient background, p. 129; word meaning relationship, p. 132; the vakya padiya, p. 134; Mimamsakas, p. 137; artha-jnana or determination of sabdartha, p. 142; pravstti-nimitta of sabda, p. 146; Naiyayikas, p. 148; how is sanketa apprehended, p. 148; Bhartphari, p. 150; word and its import, p. 153; the vaiyakaranas * patanjali *; mimamsakas; p. 157 different views as mentioned in the V.P., p. 164 Naiyayikas; p. 164 BhartThari's V.P.; p. 165 Alamkarikas; p. 171 Etimologists; p. 175; Short Summary of total heritage; p. 175 Sabda-vrttis as seen in different schools of thought such as the vaiyakaranas, mimamsakas etc. p. 181; mimamsakas; p. 192 naiyayikas; p. 198 Navya-Naiyayikas, p. 200 Ch. III. Bhamaha; p. 205 Dandin p. 217 Vamana; p. 220 Udbhata; p. 225 Rudrata p. 226 Ch. IV p. 230; Bhamaha; p. 232 Dandin; p. 242 Vamana, p. 247; Udbhata, p. 247; Rudrata; p. 247 Ch. V General Introduction; p. 250 Abhidha; p. 252 classification p. 252; Jagannatha, Maha-siddhantin; p. 253; Bhoja p. 276; Mukula and others p. 285; Kuntaka; p. 300; Mahima; p. 306, rethinking p. 332 Mammata p. 333 Mammata's definition of abhidha p. 345; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #14
Hemacandra; p. 347; Jayadeva p. 349; Vidyadhara, p. 358, Vidyanatha, p. 358; Visvanatha p. 359; Kesava, p. 359; Appayya Dixit p. 360. Ch. Vi General Introduction, p. 369; Vakya, its import; p. 370; Vakya; definition p. 371; Patanjali, p. 371; naiyayikas p. 371; The grammarians p. 372; what is vakyartha ? p. 374; Mimamsakas p. 377; constitution of a sentence, different views; p. 378; Naiyayikas p. 381; nimitta of vakyartha p. 385; Prabhakara p. 391; alamkarikas; p. 396 the nature and scope of tatparya-vrtti; p. 398 tatparyajnana p. 409; anvita'bhidhanavada and abhihita'nvayavada p. 414; anvitabhidhanavada p. 415; abhihitanvayavada p. 421; tatparya p. 426; dhananjaya/dhanika p. 427; tatparya in Bhoja p. 433; Mammata and his followers p. 444; Ch. VII. three conditions p. 454; grammarians p. 455; Patanjali, Gautama p. 458; mukhya, gauna, mimamsakas, p. 459; alamkarikas 482; Mukula 482; Kuntaka 484; Kumarila 485; types of laksana 489; Mukula 492; Mammata 492; gauni, compound words, sentencelaksana, Bharthari p. 503; Hemacandra p. 521; Bhoja p. 521; Jayadeva p. 526; Vidyadhara p. 531; Vidyanatha p. 534; Visvanatha p. 534; Kesava 539; Appayya p. 540; Jagannatha p. 550; Ch. VIII vedic sages p. 576; grammarians, minamsakas, naiyayikas, yaska D. 577; dr. Saroja Bhate p. 578; Panini, patanjali p. 589, Bhartrhari, p. 591; Sphotavada and vyanjana p. 599; vyanjana as accepted by Anandavardhana and his followers p. 601; sources; veda p. 602; The Nirukta p. 618; Rk Pratisakhya p. 620; Astadhyayi p. 620; Mahabhasya p. 621; germs of vyanjana in Bhasa, Asvaghosa, Kalidasa etc. p. 622; Anandavardhana; (with Locana); p. 630; Mahima p. 654; Anandavardhana p. 656; Mammata p. 658; abhidhamula-vyanjana, 659; Abhinavagupta; p. 680; Mammata p. 685; Hemacandra p. 687; Jayadeva p. 688; Vidyadhara p. 689; Kesava, p. 690; Vidyanatha p. 690; Visvanatha p. 691; Appayya p. 693; Jagannatha p. 694; Ch. IX. Abhinavagupta p. 711; Mammata p. 726; Mukula p. 748, Kuntaka p. 752, Bhoja p. 752; Mahima p. 752; Dhanika p. 753; Hemacandra p. 772; Vidyadhara p. 773; Vidyanatha p. 773; Visvanatha p. 773; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #15
Detailed Contents Ch. X. Bhamaha p. 780; Dandin p. 785; Vamana p. 795; Rudrata p. 799; Anandavardhana p. 811; Abhinavagupta p. 814; Bhoja p. 816; Bhoja nataka etc., p. 818; nidarsanam p. 820; manthulli p. 821; manikulya p. 822, katha, khanda-katha, upakatha, p. 822; behatkatha, campu, p. 824; parva-bandha, kandabandha, p. 825; sargabandha, asvasaka-bandha, p. 826; sandhibandha, avaskandhakabandha, kavya-sastra, p. 827; kosa, p. 829; samhita, sahitya-prakasa, p. 830; Abhinavabharati p. 836; uparupakas natika p. 834; Hemacandra p. 851, Natyadarpana 852; Saradatanaya, NLRK. 852, Vagbhata II, Singabhupala, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha Visvanatha p. 852; individually considered from Bhoja onwards 853. . Ch. XI p. 968; dhvani, dvanyaloka; locanakara p. 975; dhvani-prabheda p. 984; table showing varieties of dhvani p. 988; vyanjaka-mukhena bhedah, p. 999; alamkaras, rasavat etc. p. 1006; vyanjaka-mukhena bhedah, 1009; prabandha as rasavyanjaka p. 1012; suggestivity of vitti, riti, p. 1014; varnas as suggestive of rasa p. 1015; padas - rasavyanjaka, p. 1015; rasa-virodhi, its parihara p. 1016; virodhisamavesa p. 1020; supremacy of rasa in poetry p. 1029; Mammata p. 1030; Hemacandra and Jayadeva p. 1031; Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha Visvanatha, p. 1031; Jagannatha p. 1032; uttamottama, etc. 1032; further classification of dhvani by J. p. 1032; Ch. XII. Dhvani in earlier alamkarikas, Bhamaha and others p. 1043; Kuntaka p. 1045; Bhoja p. 1091; Bhoja-Tatparya, p. 1111; gunibhutavyangya and citra kavya p. 1125; citra kavya p. 1127; gunibhuta - vyangya, Anandavardhana 1127; Abhinavagupta's attitude 1133; Mammata madhyama kavya, etc. p. 1133; Hemacandra, p. 1137; Visvanatha p. 1138; Jagannatha, four-fold scheme p. 1139; Jayadeva p. 1141; Vidyadhara; Vidyanatha; Kesava; citra-kavya p. 1143; Anandavardhana and others p. 1144; Mammata p. 1149; Vidyanatha, p. 1149; Visvanatha p. 1150; Kesava p. 1151; Appayya Diksita p. 1151; Jagannatha p. 1152 Ch. XIII. dhvani and alamkara p. 1154; samghatana p. 1156; riti, vrtti, p. 1163; Locana, p. 1165; Mammata p. 1166; Hemacandra p. 1172; Jayadeva p. 1173; Vidyadhara, p. 1174; Vidyanatha p. 1174; Visvanatha p. 1175; Jagannatha p. 1176; Opposition to dhvnikara's For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #16
[xxii) supremacy, p. 1178; Vimarsini, opponents of dhvani p. 1178; Locana p. 1180; refutation, dhvani-twofold- p. 1192; Ch. XIV Rasa in RV. p. 1196; Rasa in Yv. p. 1199; Rasa in Samaveda p. 1199; Rasa in AV p. 1200; Amara, Hemacandra on word 'rasa'; p. 1202; Rasa,various meanings in vedic literature, conclusion p. 1203; NS. I. 7; rasan atharvanad p. 1207; Hymns of AV.; love lyrics p. p. 1217; Rasa in the Upanisads p. 1219; Rasa in the Nirukta; 'Rasa' in Bihaddevata p. 1221; Rasa in Panini and Patanjali p. 1221; Rasa in Asvaghosa, Bhasa, Kalidasa, p. 1224; Rasa in Bharata Muni, NS. p. 1240; Bharata on Bhavas p. 1248; Bhamaha p. 1256; Dandin p. 1262; Vamana p. 1267; Udbhata p. 1268; Rudrata p. 1271; Ch. XIV *; Rasa in Anandavardhana p. 1278; asam'aksyakrama-vyangya (= rasa"di dhvani) with reference to varna etc. p. 1285; and samghatana; types p. 1285; prabandha-suggestive of rasa; p. 1286; rasa"di-dhvani suggested by case-terminations, etc., p. 1287; obstacles in rasa-vyanjana; p. 1288; rasa as aesthetic relish for all art-critics p. 1290; virodhi-rasa-vyavastha; opposite sentiments p. 1291; overcoming opposition between two rasas p. 1293; other concepts, vitti, etc. and rasa p. 1294; alamkara, guna, dosa and rasa 1298; Mukula and rasa p. 1300; Kuntaka p. 1302; Dhananjaya and Dhanika p. 1310; Mahimabhatta p. 1310; Bhoja p. 1317; Agnipurana p. 1330; Mammata p. 1334; Hemacandra p. 1339; Vagbhata I p. 1340; Vagbhasa II, p. 1341; Jayadeva p. 1341; Vidyadhara p. 1342; Vidyanatha p. 1343; Visvanatha II p. 1348; Bhanudatta p. 1363; Kesava Misra p. 1364; Jagannatha p. 1367; Rasa in works on dramaturgy; Dasrupaka; p. 1373; Natya darpana; Ramacandra and Gunacandra; 1388; Bhava-prakasana, p. 1401; Saradatanaya; bhava p. 1402; saradatanaya on rasa; p. 1426; Nataka-laksana ratna kosa; Sagaranandin p. 1459; Rasarnava sudhakara of Singabhupala p. 1465; Bhava and rasa in Rs. 1465. Ch. XV. rasa-sutra p. 1492; Lollata 1493; Lollata's view; Locana; refutation of Lollata by sri. Sankuka; as read in Locana; in Abh. p. 1500; Sri. Sankukas views on rasa-nispatti, Abh. p. 1502; Tota Abh. on Sankuka's view p. 1507; samkhya view in Abh. p. 1516; sankuka's view in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #17
Locana p. 1516; Bhattanayaka's view in Abh. and then in Locana; p. 1518; Abhinavagupta's view on rasa-nispatti; p. 1527; seven obstacles; rasa-vighnas; Abh.; p. 1542; Explanation of rasa-sutra by Abhinavagupta p. 1554; Locana; rasa-nispatti p. 1563; All rasas, blissgiving p. 1578; santa rasa p. 1578; catholicity of rasa-theory p. p. 1583; Ch.XVII rasa-nispatti-vicara; Mammata to Jagannatha *; Mammata p. 1594; Jagannatha p. 1601; Ch. XVIII Nataka 1632; Dasarupaka p. 1646; Itivstta p. 1652; artha-praksti s p. 1654; five avasths p. 1658; Sandhis and Sandhyangs p. 1661; artho'paksepakas p. 1666; sandhis and sandhangas, further discussion p. 1670; Natya-darpana p. 1676; Bhavaprakasana *; NLRK. p. 1682; Sahityadarpana *; Rasarnava Sudhakara p. 1696; Sandhyantaras p. 1702; Comparative and critical study of sandhi-s and sandhyanga-s p. 1705; Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's view; sixty four sandhyangas p. 1714; conclusions concerning sandhyangas p. 1736; Bhoja p. 1749; A comparative and critical table of sandhyangas p. 1749; Types of drama; nataka p. 1795; five special types of drama in Bava prakasana 1800; Prakarana p. 1807; Samavakara p. 1811; ihamtga p. 1821; Dima 1825; Vyayoga p. 1828; Utsrstika'nka; p. 1830; prahasana p. 1831; Bhana p. 1834; Vithi p. 1836; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #18
Abbreviations AVM. A-bh AG. A-se. A. Bha B. P. B. Bho. DR. * Da. Dha Dhv. Dhv. L. H. (or. H. C.) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Abhidhavrtta-Matrka of Mukula. Abhinavabharati Abhinavagupta Alamkara-sekhara-kesava; Anandavardhana Bhamaha Bhava Prakasana Bharata Bhoja Dasa-rupakaDandin Dhananjaya - Dhanika Dhvanyaloka. Dhvanyaloka-Locana-Abhinavagupta's. Hemacandra. Jagannatha K. Krishnamoorthy, Prof. Kavya'lamkara, Bhamaha. Kavya'lamkara-Sutra-vitti-Vamana's Kavya'nusasana, Hemacandra. Kavya"darsa-Dandin Kavya Prakasa. KumarilaKuntaka, Mimamsa-Sutra. K. Kris. Ka. Ka.Su.Vs. Ka-sa KD. K. P. Ku. R. Mi-Su. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #19
Mbh. M. M. NLRK. N. S. PR. RS. R. G. Sa Sr.Pra. S.B. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Mahabhasya Mahimabhatta; Mammata. Nataka-Laksana-Ratna-Kosa Natyasastra, Bharata; Panini Punditaraja-Jagannath. Rasa'rnavasudhakara. Rasa-Gangadhara Saradatanaya Srngara-Prakasa; Bhoja Singabhupala Sagaranandin Sa-Sayana (in vedic context) Sahityadarpana-Visvaanatha Sanskrit Poetics, S. K. De. Sarasvati-Kantha"- bharana. Vagbhata II Vatsyayana Vakrokti Jivita; Kuntaka Visvanatha Vyakti-Viveka Sa Sa S-D. SP. S.K.A. Vag. Vatsya V.J. V. Vya.V. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #20
SAHRDAYALOKA [Thought-currents in Indian Literary Criticism] Part-II In part 1 of this work, topics such as definition and scope of poetry and sabda-vyapara-vicara, have been discussed in a thread-bare analysis. It may be noted that the topic of definition has been considered in its under connotation and thus while dealing with the ancients such as Bhamaha, Dandin and the rest, an attempt is made to include not only direct references to the definitions attempted by these masters as such, but a closer look at all characteristics covered up in defining individual types such as the sarga-bandha etc. are also taken into consideration, thus leading us to a wider, richer and comparatively more critical concept of poetry as imagined by the masters. Similarly all functions of the poetic word such as abhidha or the direct power of expression and laksana or Indication etc. are approached in a broader and more critical view-point touching also in between the topic of 'pratiyamana' or implicit sense as seen by pre-Anandavardhana literary critics. With vyanjana or the power of suggestion part II continues its investigation onwards in the realm of thought-currents in the field of literary criticism in ancient India. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #21
Chapter VIII Vyanjana' "Vyanjana' or suggestion as a word-power, over and above the powers of expression (abhidha) and indication (laksana) was promulgated and established, first, so for as available written documents are concerned, by Ananda the context of kavya or literature. We have seen how Bhamaha, and other earlier alamkarikas have taken care of the implicit sense - 'pratiyamana artha' in their own way without going into the details concerning the topic of sabda-vittis in a formal way. Anandavardhana as a literary critic could not abstain from a theoretical treatment of vyanjana, though of course he also did not make an attempt to define various sabda-vsttis as done by later alamkarikas such as Mammata and the rest. Anandavardhana is clear that his theory of vyanjana-dhvani-rasa is modelled on the thinking of the great grammarians, the first among the learned. Abhinavagupta strongly supports him and so also Mammata and the rest. But before looking into Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata and others, we will to try to trace the origin of the concept of vyanjana in earlier literature beginning with the the vedas. Clear references to 'rasa' in the aesthetic sense are also availabl ture, but for the concept of vyanjana we have to strive harder to locate clear references. The Vedic sages, being poets - 'rsi-kavi' - had grasped the fact that the face meaning of a given utterance is only a part of its total meaning. People attempting to analyse the literal meaning only are likely to miss the real significance of A beautiful hymn from the Rgveda reads as - (8/2/23/4) - "uta cvah pasyan na dadarsa vacamuta tvah snvan na srnoty enam, uto tvasmai tanvam visasre jayeva patya usati suvasah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #22
Vyanjana 577 Durga comments : "artha-parijnanakala hi vag ity abhiprayah. Another hymn also lauds the collection of meaning - (R.G. 8/2/24/4) "uta tvam sakhye sthirapitam ahur nainam hinvanty api vajinesu, adhenva carati mayayaisa vacam susruvam aphalam apuspam." Durga has - artham vacah puspaphalam aha. etc. These hymns are read in Nirukta also, and therefore Durga is referred to. There is yet another hymn (R.G. X. 71.2), wherein it is observed - "saktum iva titauna punanto yatra dhira manasa vacam akrata. atra sakhaya sakhyani janate bhadrainam laksmir nihitadhi vaci." "Winnowing away the chaff from the grain" the poets select their words. Only men of equal scholarship and literary taste can fully appreciate their poems. Thus the vedic poet is aware of the inner significance of language. Coming to the grammarians, Mimamsakas and Naivavikas it may be observed that they were concerned only with the scientific use of language and certainly not the emotive use of it. Hence, it is natural that we do not come across any clear reference to or appreciation of the vangya or suggested sense. We will quote from Dr. Saroja Bhate who observes in her paper on, "vyanjana as reflected in the formal structure of language" (Ref. "Glimpses of Ancient Indian Poetics", pp. 91-96, Edited by Sudhakar Pandey and V. N. Jha, - Shri. Garib Dass Oriental Series, No. 166, Sri Sadguru Publications, A division of Indian Book Centre - Delhi-India) - certain facts. But prior to this, let us see what Yaska has to say about vyanjana or dyotana. Talking about upasargas Yaska observes : (Nirukta I. i) "na nirbaddhah upasarga arthan nirahur iti sakatayano, nama"khyatayos tu karmopasamyogadyotaka bhavanty, uccavacah padartha bhavantiti gargyas tad ya esu padarthah prahur ime, tan namarthayor artha-vikaranam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #23
578 SAHRDAYALOKA Yaska's position as to the nature of upasargas may be debated but what is of supreme importance here is that he quotes sakatayana who is his predecessor, and who maintains that upasargas (are meaningless), being unable to convey meaning separately or independently taken as word-units. Sakatayana therefore observes that they are only 'dyotakas' - i.e. revealers or say manifestors or manifesting agency only, of the relation of nama and akhyata with a special meaning. They are like torches that reveal a relation, without having any meaning of their own. Now this dyotakatva' or power to manifest something is with the nipatas, according to Sakatayana. It is to be debated - whether this 'dyotakatva' can be equated with the 'vyanjana' or manifestation of sphota of the grammarians or, with the dyotana/ vyanjana i.e. suggestion of the alamkarikas. We know that Anandavardhana was clear that vyanjana as a word-power is seen in kavya, but vyanjana goes even beyond kavya and is more than a word-power and is seen even in gestures, musical notes having no dictionary meaning, in colours with reference to the art of painting, in mudras of dance, and in fact in all art-forms other than literature. Vyanjana as a word-power is seen, as is accepted by Anandavardhana in our normal use of language in the work-a-day world also. Thus, 'dyotakarva' of Sakatayana could be equivalent to the vyanjakatva of sphota, as well as to the more liberal meaning of suggestion, given to it by Anandavardhana. Thus, we may not be very far, off the target, if we observe, that roots of vyanjana are as old as Sakatayana, who was earlier than Yaska, and perhaps as old as the, not so clear acceptance of the same, by the vedic poets, who knew that Vak is gifted with an inner meaning revealed only to the 'adhikarin'. Now, again we will proceed with Dr. Saroja Bhate's observation (pp. 93-95, ibid) - "The point to be noted in this connection is that it is implied by all the rhetoricians that the dhvani is purely subjective or intuitive. It flashes in the heart of the reader as soon as he reads a particular sentence, word or a word-element. The question, that arises therefore is, do all readers comprehend the same 'dhvani' from a certain linguistic expression ? Or does it change from reader to reader ? Even if it is admitted that it is only the sahrdayas, the connoisseurs that have the ability to grasp the suggested meaning, do all the asthetes agree in their understanding of the same 'dhvani' from an expression ? Generally they do not. The suggested meaning is thus a purely subjective matter. Two readers may not read the same meaning between the lines of poetry. And more subjective is the appreciation of a literary piece, the less theoretical it For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #24
Vyanjana 579 turns out to be. This leads to the lack of uniformity, precision and accaracy that is essential to make a system a formal science. It is precisely for this inconsistant and obscure character of the 'dhvani' that the naiyayikas 'logicians', like Jayantabhasta vehemently attacked the dhvani theory and rejected vyanjana as a separate function. [foot-note : No. 8. pp. 96 - reads - The Nyayamanjari ed. K. S. Varadacharya, Mysore, 1969, p. 129. "etena sabda-samarthya-mahimna so'pi varitah, yam anyah panditam manyah prapede kancana-dhvanim."] This aspect of the doctrine of dhvani and vyanjana seems to lead poetics away from a formal science. It tends to be more intuitive than theoretical. One therefore wonders if some kind of uniformity can be brought about in the literary evaluation, based on dhvani, of a piece of poetry. Apparently diverse emotive and attitudinal meanings cannot be tied down to any linguistic factors, although some of them have been found to be associated with accent and intonation. . More than two thousand years ago, Panini, the foremost grammarian of sanskrit, analysed the Sanskrit language and successfully handled the suggested meaning at the level of the structure of language. In his astadhyayi he showed at least in 200 rules that many emotive and attitudinal meanings were relevant to the form of language. The attitudinal meaning is associated not only with intonation and accent, but also with different linguistic elements such as suffixes, prefixes and even augments. A few illustrations will make the point clear. The preposition 'api' in the expression 'api stuyad vssalam' - 'he may praise even an outcaste', conveys disgust in the mind of the speaker, according to p. I. 4.96.* *[Foot-note : 9, p. 96 ibid read - P. I. 4.96 : 'apih padartha-sambhavananvaya-sarga-garha-samuccayesu.' - 'Api' is called when it conveys the meaning of a word, - possibility, permission, censure or collection.') - When, however, disgust is not intended the speaker says, 'apistuyad vrsalam', 'one may praise an outcaste.'* * . For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #25
580 SAHRDAYALOKA *[Foot-note 10, p. 96 - reads - Here 'S' in the beginning of the form 'stuyad' changes into s because it is preceded by 'api' which is an 'upasarga' and not a 'karma-pravacaniya'.] - Thus the status of 'api' and the consequent phonological change (s - $) are directly connected with the emotive meaning suggested by its use. Impatience or urgency is conveyed by the krt suffix Namul according to p. 3.4.52.* *[Foot-note no. 11, pp. 96, reads p. 3.4.52, 'apadane paripsayam' - 'the suffix Nam UL is added after a root preceded by an 'apadana' (a word in the ablative) when impatience is to be conveyed.] - The illustration given in the commentaries is, 'sayyotthayam dhavati' - '(he) runs straight away from the bed.' The undertone is that he is so impatient that he does not care even to dress up after getting out of the bed and runs towards something. If no hurry or impatience is to be conveyed, the expression would be, 'sayyaya utthaya dhavati', '(he) runs after having got up from the bed.' The feeling of appreciation is transmitted through secondary suffixes. The suffix 'rupa' added after the word Vaiyakarana' in the form, Vaiyakaranarupah', 'a praiseworthy grammarian', conveys the speaker's appreciation of the grammarian.* (* Foot-note 12, pp. 96, reads - p. 5.3.66 - 'prasamsayam rupam'. 'The suffix rupap is added after a stem to convey appreciation.') - If there is no appreciation, the speaker uses the form, 'vaiyakaranah', 'grammarian'. These are just a few of the many examples available in Panini's grammar. These illustrations show how minutely Panini has observed the nuances and their correspondence with the formal structure of Sanskrit language. He has linked many other feelings such as anger, jealousy, love, hatred, insult, etc. with diverse linguistic elements such as primary and secondary suffixes. His treatment of quite a large number of word formations which are linked with the 'dvani' indicates that the emotive and attitudinal meanings can be formalised at least to a certain extent. Thus vyanjana which often expresses speaker's intention or presupposition towards an object or a situation, plays a crucial role in the derivational system of Panini. It is incorporated in the formal analysis of the sanskrit language. In this structural approach the suggested meaning of linguistic expression is fixed and does not vary from listener to listener. The For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #26
'Vyanjana' vyanjana theory developed by the poeticians fails to explain this correlation between the linguistic forms and the emotive meanings, which is clearly pointed out by Panini's grammar. 581 The question that emerges from the foregoing observations is, can the dhvani language of the poets, which is deliberately rendered ambiguous to create a charming effect, be put to a uniform objective analysis, at least to a certain extent, as Panini did? Is it possible to bring about uniformity in the comprehension of dhvani by all readers by establishing correlation between emotive meanings and the formal structure of the language? Can such formalization render poetics more theoretical than intuitive? Is it really expected to be so ? One has to admit that the structural approach to vyanjana has its limitations. The meaning of poetry is not a fixed thing and is open to interpretations. The true sahrdayas, people of taste, always consider that poetry the best which, like a veiled beauty, conceals its grace and charm and allows the asthetes to discover it in their own way. The intuitive communication cannot be fastened to the rules of grammar. Nevertheless, a preliminary claim can be made on the basis of the observations made above that linguistic analysis carried in the Paninian way may provide some insights for the exploration of dhvani and bring about uniformity at least on the initial level in the applied criticism related to Sanskrit Poetry." This rather long quotation from Dr. Bhate proves many points. (i) That Panini is not totally averse to vyanjana (ii) Dr. Bhate has observed that Panini goes to accept vyanjana at the ground level, i.e. in common parlance. We may name it as "rudha vyanjana" as is the case with 'rudha laksana' seen in the language of daily usage. From this we have to take a leap further. As is the case of local usage, so also in case of poetic usage we can imagine Panini's approval, of course silent, as he had no business to include this aspect for he was dealing only with the limited goal of providing a structure for a scientific use of language. As was the case with the Naiyayikas and Mimamsakas, and we should not care for voices of a Jayant Bhatta here, even grammarians, and here Panini in particular, were dealing with only the scientific use of language and not with total use of language and therefore this context did not allow Panini to go all out for vyanjana. As to Dr. Bhate's observation of non-unanimity among asthetes concerning the emotive meaning of dhvani of a given line of poetry, we may say that actually all vyanjanas, like the anekarthas of a word with multiple sense, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #27
582 SAHRDAYALOKA prop up simultaneously and it is due to the limitation of an individual asthete that he does not grasp a particular suggested sense which others have grasped. Thus an objective evaluation of emotive meaning may not logically fail us, given all conditions being satisfied simultaneously. In the famous illustration, viz. "gatostam arkah" Mammata explains how various suggested senses are grasped by various agents. But this is because of individual limitations. Thus, in a way, we can attempt a uniform objective analysis in case of vyanjana also. This is another way of approaching this problem. Or, this non-unanimity may be taken as a bhusana and not a dusana of poetic language. It may also be noted that if Dr. Bhate wants to suggest that a scientific approach to language is the only thing which should happen to men who are a thinking animal, and if she feels that it was this approach only that was acceptable to Panini, Patanjali and the rest of thinkers, then we feel she is off the mark. But hopefully she does not mean it. She only attempts to point out to the limitations of poetic use of language, when put to test by scientific principles. Actually this scientific approach in our estimation, is considered only so far as the various disciplines - sastras-are concerned. Even the grammarians, Mimamsakas and Naiyayikas perhaps know it. Otherwise the famous saying viz. "tarkesu karkasadhiyah vayam eva na'nye, kavyesu kolamadhiyah vayam eva na'nye." would not have been floated and no Bhamaha or Vamana would have ever thought of contemplating how vyakarana and nyaya (= kavyanyana) operate in a special way in the realm of poetry. We may quote in our support from Dr. Raja (pp. 280. Indian theories of Meaning, Ed. '69 Adyar Madras), who quotes J. Borough (pp. 176, Some Indian Theories of Meaning) : "Most philosophic discussions of meaning confine themselves to a relatively small protion of language behaviour, namely, statements which describe or report a state of affairs- the propositions of the natural sciences, or, more generally, such statements as are traditionally handled by logic." We may add that this observation pertains only to the use of language in sastras i.e. scientific use of language, or, language in popular usage, but that does not negate the possibility of the thinkers concerned, of accepting the emotive use of language in the field of poetry i.e. literature proper. We also do not For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #28
Viri Vyanjana' 583 agree with a remark from Bertrand Russel quoted by Dr. Raja, who observes : (pp. 282, ibid) ... (even) 'music may be considered as a form of language in which emotion is divorced from information." (Human knowledge, its scope and limits, p. 73). No asthete of ancient India will accept Russell's observation when he takes music as a form of language. When we talk of language, we accept that the word used in a language, has a primary meaning, a dictionary meaning, an expressed sense. Then it may have an indicated and/or suggested meaning. But, music has 'word' meaning 'sound', - 'dhvani' of the grammarians - conveying only an emotive or suggested meaning and it certainly does not have a primary expressed sense. If we talk of 'language of music, we can talk of 'language of dance, painting, schulpture, architectural edifice, etc. also. But here the word 'language' is used only in a metaphorical sense. So, returning to Panini, Patanjali and Bhartrhari, we strongly advocate our position that they were not only not unaware of the fact of vyanjana, even in the scientific use of language, they also were inclined to respect the same in local usage and poetic use of language as well. The following discussion will support our observation. In the Mbh. (= Mahabhasya) we have noted elsewhere clear references to abhidh, and gunavrtti. Clear references to vyanjana, without naming the same, are also seen as will be discussed below. This will strengthen our observation as above that because such great minds as Yaska, Panini; Patanjali, Jaimini, Sabara, Gotama, Kanada and the ancient thinkers belonging to the Jaina and Bauddha darsanas, had no direct business to deal with poetic or emotive use of language in their works on various disciplines, they abstain from making any direct allusion to either vyanjana or vyangyartha. But this should not be interpreted as either their complete ignorance of, or absolute non-acceptance of vyanjana with reference to the usages in ordinary parlance or in poetry of their times. Panini, we know, on the authority of Anandavardhana, was a great poet also who had composed even mahakavyas. Now, such a great mind, who revels both in kavya and sastra alike, cannot be absolutely ignorant of, or at logger heads with the poetic use of language, involving vyanjana. They do not allude to or discuss vyanjana, it is safer to conject, because they had no business to do it in their sastra works. There are clear references in the Mbh., which almost go to prove that Patanjali, and therefore Panini also, knew and accepted vyanjana, so far as emotive use of language was concerned with reference to poetry. We may hold that all such reference where For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #29
584 SAHRDAYALOKA terms such as 'gamayati', 'gamayarah', 'adhi-gamayati', 'adhi-gamyate', 'gamaka', 'gamakatva', etc. are used in the Mbh. do not take us anywhere near vyanjana, because all these usages are in the sense of, "is understood" - only. Nowhere, we have the sense of 'is suggested'. But clear references to the concept of what we know as vyanjana could be read at, - (i) "abhivyakta" - at Pa. 8.2.46; M.bh. pp. 407, (Ref. to Keilhom edn.) line 21 * as in - "nirdesad eva idam abhivyaktam dirgnasya grahanam"; the term abhivyaktam', has a clear bearing on the sense, viz. 'is suggested' (ii) vyanjanam : Similarly, at Pa. 8.2.48, M.bh. on Varttika 3, pp. 408, 409 we read - anjer anjanam, anjanam ca prakasanam. ankteksini ity ucyate yat tat sitam ca'sitam caitat prakasayati. tatha'njer vyanjanam, vyanjanam ca prakasanam. yat tat snehena, madurena ca jadikstanam indriyanam svasmin atmani vyavasthapanam, sa ragas, tad vyanjanam. anvartham khalvapi nirvacanam. vya yate anena iti vyanjanam. This is a clear reference to vyanjana or vyanjana meaning 'suggestion'. . (iii) 'vyakti' or 'vyakta' in the sense of manifestation is seen as below : 'vyakti' at Pa. I. i. 57, line 26; pp. 145 M.bh. and at Pa. I. 2.52 line 23, pp. 228, M.bh.; etc. There are also numerous references such as 'vyakta' at pa. I. i. 27 13/14 line p. 86; I. i. 57 line, Page 145; i. 65 11/171; I. iii. 1; 8/256; I. iii. 48; 10/10 283; I. iv. 110; 2/358; II. i. 1; 24/26; 362; II. ii. 19; 15/417; II. iv. 77; 13/415; III. i. 26; 24/32; IV. iv. 67; 2/356; VIII i. 51; 10/377; VIII 2.48; 13/13/408; etc. All these references carry the sense of manifestation which could be suggestion. or which could not be suggestion. (iv) But clearest references to vyanjana can be read ih usages of dyut, in verbal forms such as "dyotyate", "dyotita", and "dyotya". They are as under : "dyotyate" - at Pa. II. iii. 20; 11/13/14 page 453 The sutra is : "yenangavikarah" - M.bh. has - angat vikstat trtiya vaktavya tenaiva ced vikarena angi dyotata iti vaktavyam... yena'vayavena samudayo'ngi dyotate tasmin bhavitavyam na caitenavayavena samudayo dyotyate." The sense of "is suggested" is very clear in this passage and this is a pure allusion to vyanjana. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #30
585 'Vyanjana' "dyotya" - we have 'dyotya' at Pa. II. i. 10; 19/379; III. i. 7; 2/13 & III. i. 125; 13/88. The references read as - 'dyotya' - Pa. III. i 10; 19/379 - "ayathajatiyake dyotye". Pa. III. i. 7; 2/13 "ina yo visesa upadhir vopadiyate, dyotye tasmin tena bhavitavyam." Pa. III. i. 125; 13/88 is "ahosvid avasyate dyotya iti. Then we have varttika, such as - * "avasyaka upapada iti ced dyotya upasamkhyanam." (i) The M.bh. reads "avasyaka upapada iti; ced dyotya upasamkhyanam kartavyam, latavyam, pavyam astu tarhi dyotye. Then we have varttika - 2 - "dyotya iti cet svara-samasa'nupapattih" - M.bh. reads 'dyotya' iti cet samasa'nupapattih." Here the sense is of suggestion. Again, we have the usage of the word 'rasa' in a very very clear aesthetic sense of the term as in 'rasika' at Pa. V. ii. 95: 21/394. The sutra reads as - - "rasadibhyas ca". Rasa in the sense of physical taste such as the salty (i.e. lavana) etc. is of course seen here. But on Varttika - "rasadibhyah punar vacanam anya-nivrttyartham" (1), the M.bh. has "rasadibhyah punar vacanam kriyate'nyesam matvarthiyanam pratisedhartham. matub eva yatha syadyenye matvarthiyah, prapnuvanti te ma bhuvan iti. naitad asti prayojanam. drsyante hy anye rasadibhyo matvarthiyah, rasiko natah, urvasi vai rupini apsarasam, sparsiko vayur iti." - 'rasa' in 'rasiko natah' has a clear reference to the aesthetic fact, which is collected by vyanjana in poetry. Thus Panini as explained by Patanjali, and therefore both of them, were aware of vyanjana as a sabda-vrtti, though they had no business to discuss it with reference to the sastra of grammar. We know on the authority of Anandavardhana and his followers, Abhinayagupta and Mammata and the rest, that they have derived ispiration for the Dhvanivada from the sphotavada of the grammarians. We will therefore involve ourselves here to examine the concepts of sphota and dhvani as held by the grammarians first, and then as applied to the theory of vyanjana-dhvani-rasa by the alamkarikas. We will also consider as to how far the writers on poetics are exactly indebted to the Vaiyakaranas in upholding their theory of vyanjana and dhvani. The discussion that follows will take further care of Patanjali and then Bhartrhari to evolve any further positive observation in this respect. The For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #31
586 SAHRDAYALOKA grammarians are held in very high esteem by the alamkarikas. Anandavardhana, under Dhv. I. 13 observed : "suribhih kathitah' iti vidvad upajneyam uktih; na tu yatha-katancit pravstteti pratipadyate. prathame hi vidvamsah vaiyakaranah, vyakaranamulatvat sarva-vidyanam. te ca sruyamanesu varnesu dhvanir iti vyavaharanti. tathaiva'nyais tanmatanusaribhih suribhih, kavyatatrvartha-darsibhih vacya-vacaka-sammisrah, sabdatma kavyam iti vyapadesyo vyanjakatva-samyaddhvanir ity uktah." "The expression, 'is designated by the learned', brings out the fact that this designation was first devised by the learned and that it has not gained currency in a haphazard fashion. The formost among the learned are grammarians because grammar lies at the root of all studies. They indeed refer to articulate letters by the term 'DHVANI' or 'suggester'. In the same way, since the element of suggestion is common (to both), not only the word and its meaning, but its essential verbal power and also that which is usually referred to by the term poetry, has been given the same designation, viz. DHVANI by other learned men whose insight into the fundamental truth about poetry is profound and who are followers of principles laid down by grammarians." (Trans. K. Kri. pp. 27, 29, ibid) On this, Abhinavagupta in his Locana, elaborates with apt quotations from Bhartphari. He observes : (pp. 75, 76, Edn. Nandi) sruyamanesv iti. srotrasaskulim santanena agata antyah sabdah sruyante iti prakriyayam sabdajah sabdah sruyamana iti uktam. tesam ghantanuranana-rupatvam tavad asti, te ca dhvanisabdena uktah. yatha aha, bhagavan bhartTharih - "yah samyoga-vibhagabhyam karanair upajanyate, sa sphotah, sabdajah sabdah dhvanayonyair udahstah." - iti. evam ghanta-nirhada-sthaniyo'nukarana"tmopalaksito vyangyopyartho dhvanir iti vyavahstah. tatha sruyamana ye varnah nada-sabda-vacya antya-buddhinirgrahya-sphotabhivyanjakas te dhvanisabdena uktah. yatha'ha bhagavan sa eva - "pratyayair anupakhyatair (anupakhyeyaih) grahananugunais tatha, dhvani-prakasite sabde svarupam avadharyate." - iti. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #32
'Vyanjana' 587 tena vyanjakau sabdarthav apiha dhvanisabdena uktau. kanca varnesu tavanmatra-parimanesvapi satsu. yathoktam - "alpiyasa'pi yatnena sabdam ucsaritam matih, yadi va naiva grhnati varnam va sakalam sphuram." - iti. tesu tavatsv eva sruyamanesu vaktur yo'nyo deta-vilambita"di-vrtti-bheda"tma prasiddhad uccaranavyaparad abhyadhikah sa dhvanir uktah. yad aha, sa eva - "sabdasyordhvam abhivyakteh vittibhede tu vaikrtah, dhvanayah sam-upohante sphota"tma tair na bhidyate." - iti. asmabhir api - prasiddhebhyah sabda-vyaparebhyah abhidha-tatparya-laksanarupebhyotirikto vyaparo dhvanir ity uktah. evam catuskam api dhvanih, tad yogac ca samastam api kavyam dhvanih. tena vyatireka'-vyatiraka-vyapadeso'pi na na yuktah. vacya-vacaka-sammisrah iti. vacya-vacaka-sahitah, sammisra iti madhyamapadalopi samasah. "gam asvam purusam pasum" iti-vat samuccayo'tra ca-karena vina'pi. tena vacyo'pi dhvanih, vacakopi sabdo dhvanih, dvayor api vyanjakatvam dhvanati' iti krtva. sammisryate vibhavanubhava-samvalanaya iti vyangyo'pi dhvanih, dhvanyata iti krtva. sabdanam sabdah, sabda-vyaparah, na ca'sav abhidha"dirupah, api tv atmabhutah, so'pi dhvananam dhvanih, kavyam iti vyapadesyas ca yorthah sopi dhvanih. ukta-prakara-dhvani-catustaya-mayatvat. ata eva sadharana-hetum aha-"vyanjakatva-samyad" iti. vyangya-vyanjakabhavah sarvesu paksesu samanya-rupah sadharana ity arthah." (Trans.) 'sruyamanesu' means those which are heard. We hear, in our ears, last sounds that reach us through a stream of chained sounds. In that process "words or sounds born of sounds (i.e. last sounds) are heard. The hearning (of these words) is like this resonance of a bell. This is clear. They are designated by the word dhvani'. As is said by Bhagavan Bhartshari - "That which is caused by conjunction and disjunction (= samyoga/vibhaga), is sphota; words (or sounds) born of words (or sounds) are termed 'dhvani' by others." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #33
588 SAHRDAYALOKA Thus vyangyartha or suggested sense characterised by resonance in the fashion of the ringing of a bell is also termed 'dhvani'. In the same way the letters that are being heard, and are termed as nada - i.e. sound, are termed dhvani as they are suggesters of the sphota which is collected by the hearing of the last letter (antyabuddhi-nirgrahya). The same Bhagavan Bhartrhari has stated - "In a word, by the terminations, that can not be described and that are conducive to the apprehension of (sphota), which are revealed by sound, the form of (sphota) is determined." Thus the vyanjaka i.e. suggester word and meaning are lso termed 'dhvani'; eventhough the letters are of that much duration (or measure) only. As is said, "Buddhi - i.e. intelligence either does not catch the word, articulated by very little effort, or apprehends the whole of a letter in its manifested form. In the same letters that are being heard, the speaker's special effort - different from the effort known to all, and which is qualified by difference (in pronunciation) such as fast and slow,- (this special effort of the speaker) is termed 'dhvani'. As is stated by him "After the manifestation of a word, no difference is brought about in the soul (i.e. original nature) called sphota, even when vaikrta-dhvanis bring about difference in vrtti." By us also, the function (vyapara) (called vyanjana) other than the all accepted abhidha, tatparya and laksana, is termed 'dhvani'. Thus all these four are termed dhvani'. By association with these, the whole of a poem is also termed 'dhvani'. Thus, the mention of difference and also non-difference (as in "kavyasya atma dhvanih itya"dau bheda-vyapadesah, kavya-visesah sa dhvanir itya"dau abhedavyapadesah ca ity arthah - balapriya p. 35) is not irrelevant. 'vacyavacakasammisrah' is a madhyama-pada-lopi-samasa. Without any mention of 'ca-kara', the assemblage (samuccaya) takes place as in case of the expression - "gam asvam purusam, pasum". So, vacya (= expressed sense) is 'dhvani' and vacaka sabda - i.e. expressive word is also termed 'dhvani'; on the etymology of "dhvanati iti dhvanih" - that which makes sound is dhvani.' To produce noise (sabdanam) is termed 'sabda'. This means the 'function' of a word. This is not of the form of abhidha and the rest. But it is of the form of itself. This is also termed 'dhvani' on account of dhvanana' - i.e. suggestion. As all these four (word, meaning, the function and t suggested sense) reside in a poem, it is also termed 'dhvani'. So, the common factor (to all these) is 'suggestivity'; the function of suggestion is common to all these. This is the crux of our saying. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #34
'Vyanjana 589 Mammata also echoes this in his K.P. One thing that emerges clearly from this discussion is that the term 'dhvani' was first used by the grammarians in a peculiar sense (i.e. of 'sound' only), and the Klamkarikas applied it to their principle of poetry by extending its connotation. We now turn once again to Patanjali to decypher the concept of dhvanivyanjana-as held by the grammarians. In the Paspasahnika we come across the following observation : "When one says 'gauh' what is sabda ? Is it the object which has dewlap, tail, hump, hoof, horns, etc. ? 'No', he says, "it is called 'dravya' (i.e. substance). Is it then its gesture, movement, or winking ?" 'No', he says, 'it is called 'kriya' or action." Is it then the whiteness, blueness, browneness, or greyness ?". 'No', he says, "it is called 'guna' or colour." Is it then the sum total of the qualities like 'satta', (i.e. being which always exists even when the individuals are broken or destroyed) ?" "No", he says, "It is called, "aksti' i.e. figure. Then, what is sabda ? sabda is that on the manifestation of which, the correct knowledge of the object which has dewlap, tail, hump, hoof, horns, etc. is produced; or the sound which has a decisive meaning is said to be 'sabda' in the world... Hence 'dhvani' is 'sabda': ("athava pratita-paryayako loke dhvanih sabda ucyate... tasmad dhvanih sabdah"). - When a word like 'gauh' is pronounced, the following concepts appear in the mind of the hearer; - the individuality cow, her action, her qualities, genus cow, the shape of the cow, and also the word made up of g`'au' and 'h'- the visarga. The hearer wants to make out the exact connotation. Individuality cow, her qualities, etc. are seen by the eyes and the word 'gauh' is heard by the ears. So, it is absurd to take this for the exact connotation. But since the relation of sabda and artha, guna and gunin, kriya and kriyavan - is that of identity according to the grammarians, as there is a rule viz. - 'tad-abhinna'bhinnasya tad-abhinnatvam' - it is quite natural to think so. The Mahabhasyakara says that the akrti, guna, etc. are not the true connotations of the sabda, but the true connotation is sphota - (the eternal word), which when manifested, enables the hearer to have a clear knowledge of the object cow. The alamkarikas equate this manifestation with suggestion of vyanjana vyapara. Whether they are right in doing so is open to debate. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #35
590 SAHRDAYALOKA The Sanskrit grammarians hold that the sabda is not the sound-units that we hear, but it is manifested in the mind after the whole word is pronounced. It may be noted that according to sanskrit grammarians, sabda is of four phases viz. para, pasyanti, madhyama and vaikhari. Sabda Brahman, when manifested at the mula"dhara or the sacral plexus, it is called para vak; when manifested at the naval, it is pasyanti, at the heart, madhyama and Vaikhari is that phase which is manifested out of the vocal organs as the articulated sound. (M.bh. I. i. 1 & V.P. 144; etc.) In the IXth ahnika, Patanjali discusses the tapara-sutra (pa. I. i. 70) There are be examined : (i) Is 'tat-kalasya' a correct expression or not? and (ii) Is this sutra an apurva-vidhi or a niyama-vidhi ? While discussing the latter point the auother talks about sphota and dhvani. At the end of some technical discussion, it is stated : "evam tarhi sphotah sabdah, dhvanih sabda-gunah." If so, sphota is the word and dhvani i.e. sound is its quality. katham ? how ? bhery aghatavat. Like the beater of a drum. - tad yatha bhery aghato bherim ahatya kascid vimsati padani gacchati, kascid trimsat, kascit caturvinsat. This may be illustrated as follows - One beater of drum goes twenty steps at the time when the sound by beating the drum lasts, another thirty steps, and still other forty steps. Beating is the same. The increase is due to the sound production by beating - It is observed - "dhvanih sphotas ca sabdanam dhvanis tu khalu laksayet, alpo mahiyams ca, kesancit ubhayam tat-svabhavatah." With reference to sabdas there are dhvani and sphota. Of them dhvani alone is cognisable to the sense of hearing. It is short, it is long, and it is by nature both (long and short), at the hands of some. Thus in Patanjali dhvani' is sound only, the word that is pronounced. Sphota is revealed through this dhvani or sound, and it is sabda in the real sense of the term, which is united with meaning. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #36
Vyanjana 591 Bhartshari - We come across a fuller treatment of dhvani and sphota in the Vakyapadiya I. It may be noted that we discuss 'dhvani' in the grammarians here only because it is relevant to the origin of vyanjana also and as Abhinavagupta has explained, for the alamkarikas the term 'dhvani' covers the concept of vyanjana also as the etymology - "dhvanyate anena" is broad enough to cover the 'vyapara' called vyanjana. Abhinavagupta has observed in his Locana on Dhv. I. 13 that : tena vacyopi dhvanih vacakopi sabdo dhvanih, dvayor api vyanjakatvam 'dhvanati' iti krtva. sammisryate vibhavanu-bhava-samvalanaya iti vyangyopi dvanih, dhvanyate iti krtva. sabdanam sabdah, sabda-vyaparah, na casav abhidha"dirupah, api tva"tmabhutah, sopi dhvananam dhvanih, kavyam iti vyapdesyas ca yorthah sopi dhvanih. ukta-prakara-dhvani-catustamayatvat." Earlier (on Dhv. I. 13) Abhinavagupta had noted that : "asmabhir api prasiddhebhyah sabda-vyaparebhyah abhidha-tatparya-laksana-rupebhyah atirikto vyaparo dhvanir ity uktah. evam catuskam api dhvaniah...." etc. Thus understanding of what grammarians meant by dhvani is quite relevant here. . So, according to the grammarians, sabda and artha are both identical. Bhartshari, in an interesting discussion, anticipates an objection to the following effect : Whatever is sabda is artha and whatever is artha is sabda. Then naturally the question arises, as to why do we not come across the same achievement by sabda as that by artha ? If, e.g., the word 'madhu' and the artha-object-madhu be identical, we should have been able to have the taste of honey by just pronouncing the word. But that is not the case. We should get a burn while speaking, 'agnih, i.e. 'fire'. But it does not happen like that. To this, the Vaiyakaranas would say that, there is no external meaning as such of any word, but all things external reside in a particular way in our heart i.e. 'antahkarana'. It is this 'aksti' which is known as 'jati-"akrtir jati-pada-vacya'; this 'aksti' is the real meaning of a word. This is known as 'bauddhartha'. Both sabda and artha reside in the mind and thus we achieve their identity. In this respect, the grammarians come very close to the Vedantins. The non-dualistic vedantins regard the external world as a mere appearance. By knowing Brahma, the delusion is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #37
rejecting the ka 592 SAHRDAYALOKA removed in such a way, that the world seen without melts away in the fashion of a dream. All the objects in the world are seen as different from one another. But they all become one in Brahman. If we go on accepting the 'karana-satta' by ing the karya, we will realise this identity. Thus we come to the element called earth, by removing the forms such as stone, iron, etc. Thus by rejecting the karyatattva, we will come to the fundamental karana-tattva called Brahman. In the same way, in the heart this same Brahmatattva (i.e. the sabda Brahman) is known as para-vani. Just as all the objects such as ghata, pata, etc. are one and identical, in the same way, the sabda-tattvas in form of 'ka', 'kha', 'ga', etc. do not have separate forms. Thus the sanskrit grammarians state that sabda has four phases, as observed already in Patanjali, viz. para, pasyanti, madhyama, and vaikhari. Sabda-brahma when manifested at the naval is pasyanti, at heart madhyama, and vaikhari is that which is manifested at the level of vocal organs, as the articulated sound. The M.bh. reads the following to this effect - "catvari vak parimita padani turiyam vaco manusyah vadnati..." Thus, when the sound-unit with the help of sthana and prayatna, is manifested as separate 'ka', 'kha', etc., it is known as vaikhari. The word manifested with th help of sthana, prayatna and vayu-samyoga is called 'dhvani' by the grammarians. So, the sabda is analysed into two parts, - (i) The sphota or the artha bhaga and (ii) dhvani which is vayu-samyoga"tmaka or characterised by contact with air. Sphota is void of difference. It is supposed to be non-different, one, etc., and is free from any upadhi. Dhvani is having difference. is many, and is of the nature of effect, etc. It is because of this that dhvani produced by different people seems to be different. Hence, we get difference in dhvani when produced by a newly married girl, or by a hero, or others. But there is no difference to be seen in the sabda led sphota. At the same time, this sphota is manifested through dhvani Dhvani thus, though not intrinsically connected with artha, alone causes artha to get manifested. Thus when there is a gathering of a large number of people, e.g. at a fair, we hear some noise, but no meaning flows from that, people say, "what a big noise is made ?" The idea is, as the world, jagat, by anirvacana khyati, is the vivarta of Brahma, in the same way, all varmaya and its vacyartha are the vivarta of sabda-brahma. Hence, dhvani is that word which suggests the sabda-Brahma, called sphota. There is difference to be seen in dhvani but not in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #38
593 "Vyanjana' sphota. Just as the soul remains unaffected by the qualities of the body such as fatness and the like, or just as the face is seen as though different when reflected in different objects such as oil, sword, etc., in the same way, though there is aupadhika-dhvani-bheda or difference in dhvani due to upadhis or external factors, sphota is just one and identical. The point is that the grammarians take dhvani or word as the vyanjaka of sphota. Thus according to them, dhvani may be difined as "dhvanatiti dhvanih", i.e. it sounds, gives expression to sphota, i.e. it rings, reverberates, suggests sphota. The writers on poetics extended the connotation of the word dhvani. They took the quality of dhvanitva, and included all that was related to this in dhvani. Thus, riti, vrtci, guna, alamkara, sabda, pada, padamia, varna, vakya-racana, kavya, vyapara, etc. all this is placed in the fold of dhvani. When one meaning suggests another, it is also called a vyanjaka or a suggester. This suggester may be both the conventional meaning (i.e. vacya) and/or the indicated sense (laksyartha). Or, it may even be a vyangyartha, i.e. suggested sense, giving rise to a further suggested sense. Having regard to a karma-sadhana-vyutpatti of dhvani, even the mea that is suggested - vyajyamana-artha' - is also called dhvani. And this becomes three-fold, such as vastu-dhvani, alamkara-dhvani and rasa"di-dhvani. By bhavasadhana-vyutpatti, the term dhvani would refer to the process of vyanjana i.e. suggestion itself. Finally, the whole collection, called kavya is also included in the comprehensive fold of dhvani. (See Locana on Dhv. I. 13, quoted above). When it is said that the grammarians mean by dhvani those sound-units which become the object of hearing, the idea is that the word reaches the ear through krama-parampara i.e. sequence, and the last sound-unit i.e. antima sabda-is caught by the ear. Thus, it is only the sabdaja-sabda that is heard by us. This is explained on the analogy of ghanta-nada or the ringing of a bell. Bharthari puts it as follows - "yah samyoga-vibhagabhyam" ... etc. (as quoted in Locana on Dhv. I. 13). In view of the popular belief regarding both plurality and order (i.e. krama) of sabda, he makes his position absolutely clear by suggesting that no question of order such as priority and posteriority and that of plurality can be logically raised in relation to sphota which is essentially one and eternal. It is sound, he observes, that passes through successive stages in case of articulation and appears to be either long or short, in proportion to the exertion required for the utterance of a word. So, it is particularly due to varying modulations of voice, as caused by local apparatus, that 'ka' sound seams to be difference from 'kha' sound, and the like. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #39
594 SAHRDAYALOKA But sphota remains unaffected. Thus the Sun, a fixed body, seems to be quivering when reflected in an agitated pool of water : "pratibimbam yathanyatra sthitam toya-kriyavasat, tat-pravrttim iva'nveti, sa dharmah sphota-nadayoh." (V.P.I. 49) Order and difference, pertaining to sound, are falsely attributed to sphota. The dual aspects of sabda as observed already imply that sabda has the potency of expressing itself as well as its meaning that is associated with it by inseparable connection - "grahyatvam grahakatvam ca dve saktau tejaso yatha, tathaiva sarva-sabdanam ete prthag avasthite." - V.P.I. 55. The grammarians maintain that there are two different aspects of words, viz. 'karya' or the popular form and 'nitya' or the permanent form. The former is usually produced by the exercise of the vocal apparatus and serves to give a reflection of internal consciousness, and the latter is what represents the ultimate germ of speech. Sphota is to be identified with the latter aspect of speech. The three views regarding the cognition of sound and sphota are (i) sound when produced is heard by the auditory organs and becomes the positive instrument whereby sphota is comprehended. (ii) After having assumed the material form through the medium of sound, sphota is capable of being heard, and (iii) sound acts upon the organ concerned and serves to manifest sphota. Bhartrhari supports the third view. Sound serves as an outer garment of sphota. Though incomprehensible and inconceivable in itself, sphota reveals its existence through the medium of sound. Sound and sphota are intimately related. As to how sound and sphota, that are related to each other as the indicative and the indicated, are to be comprehended, Bhartrhari refers to four different views. Some hold that sphota is recognised as identical with sound, just as crystal looks red when in contact with japa-kusuma : Observes Punyaraja, on V.P. I. 82 - "yatha japa-kasuma-rupanusaktam eva sphatika"dinam grahanam, tatha dhvanirupanusakta eva sphotas tad avibhagena upalabhyate, iti kesam cin-matam..." . Others say that sound (though not cognisable by itself) is indicative of sphota. Still others maintain that the exact nature of sphota is too subtle to be determined and it is sound only that comes under comprehension; and finally, according to some, sphota is really manifested For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #40
'Vyanjana' 595 but is indistinct and unintelligible on account of distance from where it is evolved. While referring to the identellectual process involved in the comprehension of sabda, Bhartshari holds that the cognition of sabda practically follows from the last sound, together with the impression made by the preceding ones. We may try to understand this, 'varnoccara-prakriya' or the process of pronouncing the sound units. There are three options as to the nature of a word - (i) The word is not eternal, i.e. it is 'a-nitya'. The words are created and destroyed. They have a jati or a class, in keeping with other objects. This view is held by the Nyaya-vaisesika systems. (ii) Varnas or sound units are nitya or permanent and are the cause of sabda. These letters have a relation with meaning and this relation is called sakti. This view is held by the Mimamsa, Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga schools. (iii) Third is the opinion of Sphotavada or the akhandatavada of the grammarians. The grammarians believe in the identity and indivisibility of letters. On account of the contact of air and the like, the varnas or sound-units are manifested as different. These manifested letters are known as 'nada'. They suggest the sphota which is collected by antimabuddhi i.e. final cognition. As suggested above, Patanjali has already made this thing clear, when he talks of the four forms of vak, such as para, pasyanti, etc. These are four stages through which sphota (= nada-bindu) receives manifestation. Both para and pasyanti are too subtle and delicate to be comprehended by the sense-organ. Para resides in the mula"dhara or the sacral plexus in the form of a motionless bindu : "para-van mulacakrastha pasyanti nabhi-samsthita, htdistha madhyama jneya vaikhari kantha-desa-ga." Pasyanti comes up to the naval region pushed up by the internal wind. Of the four forms, it is madhyama that indicates sphota. All these are more or less mysterious in nature. Vaikhari is the popular form and it is what is uttered by the vocal organ, and is capable of being heard by others. It is again held that nada is simultaneously produced by madhyama and vaikhari, but there is a lot of difference between the two : "yugapadena madhyama-vaikharibhyam nada utpadyate." (manjusa). - The nada produced by the madhyama is slightly cognised by us either at the time of counting japa, or when the ears are shut up. - "madhyama nadasya karnapidhane japa"dau ca, suksmatara-vayu-vyangya - (manjusa). This nada, manifested by madhyama is what we precisely know by the name of Sphota. It For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #41
596 SAHRDAYALOKA stands for Brahman and is eternal, one, without division, etc. According to this view, it is one and the same indivisible sphota, that is represented by varna, pada, and vakya, in the same way as one and the same face appears to be long and round when seen through stone, sword, and looking glass, or as a piece of stone, taking reflection from red, or blue flowers, seems to be either red or blue : "yatha ca mukhe, mani-krpana-darpana-vyanjakopadhivasat dairghyavartulatva"dibhanam, tadvat." The difference between 'ka' and 'ga' is not on account of the diversity of sphota, but points to the peculiarities of sound that serves to manitest sphota. : "vyanjaka-dhvani-gatam 'ka'tva-'ga'-tva"dikam sphote bhasate." - The unity and indivisibility of sphota are brought about by its comparision with the sky and consciousness, which though one and not admitting of fractions, are said to have such attributive difference as ghatakasa, mathakasa, and jiva, isvara, etc. respectively. Thus, those who take pada and vakya to be similarly indivisible units, say as follows : "just as letters are devoid of parts, so too, no letters are comprehended in padas. : "pade na varna vidyante varnesvavayava iva. vakyat padanam anantyam praviveko na kascana." - V.P. I. 77. Strictly speaking, it is not admissible to take words separately by splitting up a sentence. To those who advocate the divisibility of both pada and vakya, it is the last letter that indicates sphota, and each precedding letter serves to make for a cognition of the inteded sense - "pada-vakyayos tu sakhandatva-pakse antimavarnavyangya-sphota eka eva. purva-purva-varnas tu tatparyagrahakah" (Manjusa). Taking into consideration the difference between madhyama and Vaikhari, sound can be divided into two, viz. original or eternal (i.e. inexhaustible) and artificial (i.e. derived) or momentary. - "dhvanis tu dvividhah - praksto vaikstas ca. "sphotasya grahane hetuh praksto dhvanir isyate, vittibhede nimittatvam vaikstah pratipadyate." (V.P. I. 77) The natural sound only, which is generated by madhyama, suggests sphota. The unnatural - ("a-praksta-dhvani") sound is so termed because it rises from prakrta dhvani and undergoes an amount of modification in the form of long and short sound. Sphota which is essentially one and beyond any modification is not in the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #42
'Vyanjana 597 least effected by the quick utterance of sound which practically refers to Vaikrta dhvani. Another point that should be noted down is that it is sphota alone, as is evident from its derivative meaning, that is really associated with the expressiveness of sound (sphutati arthah asmad iti sphotah). For the sake of convenience alone, we regard word as having meaning. A closer examination of both the internal and external facts will show that sphota alone is finally the significant element of speech. Moreover, Bhartrhari holds that sphota is practically one and the same but it is only the indicator of sphota viz. sound that differs : sphote vyanjaka-dhvani-gatakatva"dibhanat 'ka'karo buddhah, ityaupadhiko bhedavyavaharah." - Manjusa. How is spota manifested ? The answer is that it is practically from the last letter that the cognition of the entire word is derived together with the impressions produced by preceding letters - "purva-purva-dhvany-utpadita'bhivyakti-janitasamskara-parampara-parinako'ntyabuddhi-nirgrahya ity arthah"-kaiyata. - And it is evidently an intellectual operation which enables us to retain recollection of the entire structure of a word, even when we hear the last letter alone. "Manifested by sound", implies that sphota, though permanent, is not always comprehensible, but comes under the cognition only when the vocal organs are engaged in operation for its manifestation. Thus sphota is regarded as 'antima-buddhi-nirgrahya'. There is a rule that sabda, buddhi and karma are "dvi-ksana-sthayi" (i.e. they last for two moments). They come into existence in the first moment, exist in the second, and die out in the third. For example, we may take the word 'ghata'. There are four letters in it, viz. 'gh', 'a', 'y' and 'a' First 'gh' is created. It continues to stay in the second moment. In this very moment, 'a' is created. In the third moment 'gh' is destroyed but 'a' continues to exist and comes into existence. Now, when y continues in the next moment the last 'a' comes into existence. In the sixth moment, the last a also disappears. Now for those who regard letters to be eternal, 'utpatti' means 'abhivyakti'. So the whole word 'ghata' - the varna-samghata or the collection of letters never comes into existence at a single given moment. Then how is the meaning collected ? The answer is that though varna i.e. sound-unit-is destroyed, it gives rise to some samskara or impression. This samskara or impression stays on and is united with the next letter. Thus the assemblage of samskaras unites with the last 'a' and we get the word 'ghata'. This happens in case of 'yajnadikarya' - i.e. sacrificial rite - which gives rise to the fruit in form of heaven i.e. svarga. Sphota also is 'antima-varna-grahya' - in this very sense. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #43
598 SAHRDAYALOKA The gist of the above discussion is that external and indivisible sphota is manifested in the form of letters through dhvani or sound. So, dhvani is two-fold, praksta or natural and vaiksta or unnatural as already observed. The praksta-dhvani is qualified by the qualities such as 'ka-tva', 'hrasvatva', 'ady udatratva', etc. Even though sphota is self-manifested, it is as though obstructed by the accumulated vayusamyoga or, contact with air. By removing this obstruction, the praksta-dhvani manifests sphota. This manifested sphota is different from the dhvani and so sphota is said to be one, eternal, all-pervading and manifested by different dhvanis and it gives meaning when it becomes 'antyabuddhi-nirgrahya' - i.e. when collected at the last moment. This praksta-dhvani is the same as varnas i.e. sound-units and sphota is never manifested unless through them. Vaikrta-dhvani has a different function. It creates vrtti-bheda e.g. drtavilambita-adi, in the letters gathered by prakrta-dhvani. Thus even if there is vaikrta-dhvani-bheda, we have no prakrta-dhvani-bheda. So, we get the uniformity in form i.e. ekarupata of akara and the like. Thus, the term 'dhvani' is used in three different ways : (i) 'Dhvani' is used for 'sabda-ja-sabda' of the Naiyayikas. On the basis of this, the alamkarikas call 'vyangyartha' to be dhvani, the sadharmya being 'pratiyamanatva' or 'utpadyatva'. (ii) According to Vaiyakaranas, sphota is 'vyangya' or suggested and prakstadhvani is vyanjaka or suggester. Dhvani is thus "vyanjaka". On the basis of this, the alamkarikas call the 'vyanjaka sabdarthau' to be dhvani. (iii) And the vaikta-dhvanis make for vitti-bheda. Hence the vyanjakatvavyapara is termed as dhvani. So, for the grammarians, the relation between sphota and dhvani is that of vyangya-vyanjaka. We have also noted that the grammarians use dhvani to mean (i) 'nada-matra i.e. 'sound' only, and (ii) sabda or word. Soghata' the dhvani which is just sound - 'nada-matra' by itself, has no relation with the object 'ghata' i.e. a pot, which is seen, touched etc. - i.e. which is 'sparsa-ksama'. The sound 'ghata' is something quite different from the object 'ghata' which can be seen, touched, etc. still, it should be noted very carefully that the sound 'ghata' indicates something, which it is not, i.e. which is other then itself, viz. the 'object' ghata. This idea of one thing indicating something else, which it is not, becomes, so to say, the distinguishing For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #44
'Vyanjana' 599 characteristic of dhvani. So, in all cases of expression, where one thing indicates something which it is not, it is, so to say, taken as a case of dhvani. It is this mode of expression, both to be found in ordinary conversation as well as in poetic use of language, that in sanskrit tradition, is studied as a particular linguistic mode of expression, here vyanjana. Therefore, dhvani is that which suggests something other than itself, and which is known to be separate from itself, and by this common point of suggestion, - vyanjakatva-samyat-the vyapara, i.e. 'function' is also called 'dhvani'. According to the Vaiyakaranas, the world is artha-rupa i.e. of the form of meaning, and is derived from sphota, the sabda-brahma. In the like fashion, we derive the ghatartha from the word ghata. This dhvani is identified with word in our day to day affairs. So kavya is also termed as dhvanikavya. Every sound is suggestive of the sabda-brahma, which is sphota-rupa. The artha of this sabda-brahma is world. The whole process is as follows - dhvani-sabda, sabda-brahma, - i.e. sphota, and vivartita artha. Here we may note that even in the process of gathering the conventional meaning from the word, an element of suggestion or vyanjana is involved. Vyanjana is that process by which something not manifested becomes manifested. Dhvani or sabda first suggests sphota and as sphota is eternally connected with the meaning, we derive meaning from dhvani. Morover, it may be noted that vyanjana is that process of manifestation through which something already existing is manifested. Vyanjana does not create new objects. Sphotavada and Vyanjana - we will be able to make a note of certain marked parallelisms between the sphotavada of the grammarians on the one hand and the vyanjanavada on the other. The points of comparision are as below : (i) As observed earlier, for the grammarians, dhvani is explained as, dhvanati iti dhvanih'. Dhvani is so termed because it sounds or rings or reverberates sphota, i.e. suggests it. The word ghara, for example, is used for the object-artha-ghata, which is seen, touched etc. This idea of one thing indicating something else, which it is not, becomes, so to say, the distinguishing charecteristic of dhvani. So, all cases of expression, where one thing expresses something which it is not, becomes, so to say, the distinguishing characteristic of dhvani. The writers on poetics extend this connotation of the word dhvani. Taking the quality of dhvanitva' into consideration, they include all that was related to this in dhvani. Thus, guna, alamkara, riti, vstti, pada, padamsa, varna, vakyartha, - all these become vyanjaka, i.e. suggestive of the vyangya. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #45
600 SAHSDAYALOKA (ii) In the philosophy of the grammarians the sound 'ghata' for example, does not give the meaning directly. It does so through sphota which in its turn is suggested by the sound ghata. Thus what we ordinarily call meaning is arrived at by an indirect process. For the alamkarikas, the process of vyangyartha-grahana is not direct but indirect. We arrive at the suggested sense either through abhidha or through laksana. (iii) The grammarians believe in vakya-sphota. They do not accept the separate existence of padas, i.e. individual words, and much less of letters or varnas. But common experience of ordinary people misleads many to believe that the meaning is derived from individual words or padas and thus through letters or varnas. The Mimamsakas accept this position. It seems, however, that here ordinary people, and so also the Mimamsakas, do not seem to pierce the veil of delusion and mistake the nature of condition for the nature of the contents. The nature of the condition is multiplicity of letters; the nature of the contents is the unity of word, the vakya-sphota. - Similar is the case with some alamkarikas; abhidha and laksana form the nature of condition and vyanjana or dhvani is the nature of the contents. Those who fail to distinguish between ends and means, seem to confuse abhidh, and laksana with vyanjana. (iv) To put it otherwise, for the grammarians the letters may be taken just as what we may call the object of knowledge, i.e. jnanasya visayah, while the wordwhole is jnanasya phalam, the result or the fruit of knowledge. For the alamkarikas also, abhidh, and laksana can be equated with jnanasya visayah, while vyanjana may be taken as jnanasya phalam. These two are never ever to be confused. (v) The grammarians believe in vakya-sphota. So, they would avoid the contingency faced by the padavadin, viz. that of recognising parts even of letters or varnas. Similarly, those alamkarikas who want to arrive at vyangyartha with the help of laksana, will have to go for a second laksana, and a third, and a fourth ad infinitum, involving further and further prayojanas. (vi) Sphota is a distinct entity by itself, not to be identified with dhvani i.e. the sound of a word. The vyangyartha is also a separate entity, not to be confused with abhidhartha or laksyartha. (vii) For the grammarians, there is a krama, a sequence, in the process of gathering meaning from a word. From word to sphota and from there to meaning - this is the sequence. In the same way, with the alamkarikas also, there is a sequence, perceptible or imperceptible, between vacyartha and vyangyartha. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #46
'Vyanjana 601 (viii) It is non-discrimination that makes for the acceptance of letters for the word-whole. In the same way, it is non-descrimination that results in our recognising vyanjana as either 'abhidha' or 'bhakti'. (ix) For the Vaiyakaranas, there is a gradual and clearer revelation of the sphota. Each sound-unit reveals the whole of sphota and not a portion of it. The revelation gets clearer and clearer by each succeeding sound-unit. The sphota revelation is a gradual process and the mind acquires progressively greater and greater aptitude for receiving further glimpses. With the utterance of the last sound-unit the process comes to a close. By itself, there is neither qualitative not quantitative difference in word-essence, but there may be difference in its grasping by the mind. Thus the degrees of difference are purely subjective and not objective. For the alamkarikas also, the gathering of vyangyartha is a gradual revelation in the sense that it comes only after the apprehension of either abhidhartha, and/ or laksyartha as the case may be. The writers on alamkara i.e. literary aesthetics, are also partly indebted to other darsanas such as the samkhya, vedanta, and saiva-darsanas, for their concept of vyanjana. Vyanjana for these literary critics manifests, i.e. it brings to light that which is not present before us. The Dhvanyaloka suggests the analogy of 'ghatapradipa-nyaya' to explain the fact of expressed and implicit senses. But we will have to point out to a very very basic difference also between the sphota-vada and vyanjanavada. It is clear that sphota for the grammarians is one and eternal and it pre-exists. Vyangyartha, or say, rasa, for the dhvanivadins does not pre-exist before the realisation of vibhava"dis. We will make this point clearer when we discuss the problem of rasa later. In short the abhivyakti of the darsanikas and the abhivyakti' of the dhvanivadins are not one and the same thing, for 'rasa' is said to be 'tatkalika' and not 'purva-siddha'. Now we will proceed to consider vyanjana as accepted by Anandavardhana and his followers. As for Bhamaha and others who preceded Anandavardhana, we have discussed earlier in a separate chapter their attitude towards vyanjana when we discussed the topic of 'sabda-vsttis in earlier alamkarikas'. Dhvanyaloka is first available written document that talks of vyanjana systematically, though of course, traces of vyanjana were seen, not only in Bhamaha and other ancients but even in the Natyasastra of Bharata, and even in the vedas prior to him. We have seen Yaska's attitude towards vyanjana and it will be interesting to try to read the origin of the concept of vyanjana in the ancient literature of the vedas and then through Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #47
602 SAHRDAYALOKA Bharata we will come to the Dhvanyaloka and his followers. Among the posterior writers vyanjana was challenged by many but this voice of dissent was crushed by the powerful juggernaut rolled by Abhinavagupta, Mammata, Hemacnadra and Visvanatha. We will discuss vyanjana-virodha in a separate chapter. For the present we begin with the vedas. It may be noted in the beginning that we picked up discussing Yaska, Panini, Patanjali and Bhartrhari prior to dealing with the still ancient literature, because we knew that with them we were on a more solid ground and that their acquaintance with vyanjana was closer and surer. As for the vedic literature, it is all, 'of the air airy. Certainly there is no mentioning of vyanjana there, but we have use of different forms of the roots Vanj, vi+ vanj, and root vdhvan and the word dhvani in the vedas. The shades of meaning as seen in these occurrences could have started inspiring theorists to think about the word-power that is vyanjana. Thus, we may hold the vedas to be a very very distant "gangotri" - from where the vyanjana-ganga could have descended as a thought-current to the planes of alamkara-sastra. We will try to cover as many occurrences as possible. First of all we will take up the Kgveda - "ankte" - Rv. I. 124.8. is - "svasa svasre jyayasyai yo'nimaraigapaityasyah praticaksyeva, vyucchanti rasmibhih su'yasyanjyankte samanaga' iva vrah." Sayana explains - anji vyanjakam tejah, yad va anji vyaktam jagat, ankte, anakti, prakasayati. i.e. anoints, brings into light, displays, causes to appear, reveals; Griffith explains it as, 'decks'. Rv. V. i. 3: "yadim ganasya rasanamajigah, sucir ankte sucibhirgobhir agnih, addaksina yujyate vajayantyut tanamurdhvo adhayajjuhu'bhih." Sayana - ankte = vyanakti, visvam jagat = anoints; Griffith - "is anointed." Rv. VIII. 29.1 "babhrureko vinunah sunaro yuvanjyankte hiranyayam,... Sayana-anji, abhivyajyate, prakasyate anena ity anji abharanam. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #48
Vyanjana' 603 abhivyaktisadhanam kundala-mukuta"dikam svasariram. ankte abhivyanjayati. = adorns, causes to appear, brings to light, reveals, displays, decks; Griffith - decks'. "anakti" Rv. I. 153.2 : "prastatirvam dhama na prayuktirayami mitra-varuna suvrktih, anakti yad vam vidathesu hota sumnam vam surir vrsanavi'yaksan." Sayana-anakti = vyanjayati, = manifests; displays, brings into light, reveals; Griffith - "decks". Rv. IV. 6.3. yata sujurni' rati'ni ghrtaci, pradaksni'ddevatatimuranah, udu svarurnavaja nakrah pasvo anakti suthitah sumekah." Sayana - anakti = gacchati; yad va, sudhitah svasureva udu utkrstah pasvah pasun anakti. svaruna pasum anakti iti sruteh, = anoints; Griffith - 'anoints'. Ry. X. 68.2 - "sam gobhirnangiraso naksamano bhagaivedaryamanam ninaya, jane mitro na dampati anakti bihaspate vajayasumrivajau." Sayana - anakti = samgamayati, = brings together, unites; This seems to be an unusual meaning; may be metaphorical; Griffith - 'decks'. "anjate" : Rv. I. 92.1. "eta u tya usasah ketumakrata purve ardhe rajaso bhanumanjate. niskrnvana ayudhaniva dhrsnavah prati gavorusiryante matarah." Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #49
604 SAHRDAYALOKA Sayana - bhanam prakasam anjate = vyaktikurvanti, = displays, causes to appear, brings into light, manifests, reveals; Griffith - spread (shining light) i.e. causes to appear, display, reveal. Rv. I. 151.8 : "yuvam yajnaih prathama gobhiranjata rutavana manaso na prayuktinu, bharanti vam manmana girodipyata manasa revadasathe." Sayana - anjate = vyanjayanti yajamanah, = display, cause to appear; Griffith - deck'. * Rv. VIII. 72.9. pari tridhaturadhvaram jurnireti naviyasi madhva hotaro anjate. Sayana-anjate = ajyante = samskriyanta ity arthah, = anoint, adorn; Griffith - 'deck'. Rv. IX. 102.7 - samicine abhi tmana yahvi stasya matara, tanvana yajnamanusagyadanjate. Sayana-anjate, somam misrayanti, tada svayam abhigacchanti. = mix; (i.e. anoint). Griffith - 'adorn'. Rv. IX. 86 43 - "anjate vyanjate samanjate kratum rihanti madhunabyanjate, sindhor ucshvase patayantam uksanam hiranyapavah pasumasu gobhoate", Sayana-anjate (gobhih); anoint; vyanjate - vividham anjanti; and madhuna gavyena, abhyanjate = well anoint; Griffith - 'balm'. (= anoint); Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #50
605 Vyanjana' anjanti - Rv. I. 95.6 : "ubhe bhadre josayete na mene gavo na vasra iva upa tasthur evaih, sa daksanam daksapatirbabhuvanjanti yam daksinato havi'rbhih." Sayana-anjanti = ardrikurvanti; tarpayanti, (i.e. anoint), Griffith - 'balm'. Ry. III. 8.1 - anjanti tvamadhvare devayanto vanaspate madhuna daivyena, yadurdhvastistha dravineha dhattadyadva ksayo maturasya upasthe." Sayana-anjanti = tvayi ghetam sincanti ity arthah; (i.e. they anoint) Griffith - 'anoint. Rv. III. 14.3 - "dravatam ta usasa vajayanti agne vatyasya pratyabhiraccha, oatsimanjanti purvyam havi'rbhira vandhureva tasthaturdurone." Sayana-anjanti = sincanti=anoint (and adorn), Griffith - 'adorn'. Rv. V. 3.2 tvamaryama bhavasi yatkaninam nama svadhavanguhyam bibharsi, anjanti mitvam sudhitam na gobhir yaddampati samanasa krnosi." Sayana - go-vikaraih ksiradibhih anjanti = anoint; Griffith, 'balm'; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #51
606 SAHRDAYALOKA Rv. V. 43.7. "ananti yam prathayanto na vipra vapa'vantam nagnina tapantah. piturna putra upasi prestha a dharmo agni'motayannasadi." - Sayana-anjanti = anoint, Griffith - 'deck'. Rv. IX. 109.20 - anjantyenam madhvo rasenendraya vrsna indum madaya, sayana-anjanti = samyojayanti, = (mix, i.e. anoint); Griffith. - 'balm' (= anoint). - andhve - Rv. X. 100.10 - "urjam gavo yavase pivo attana stasya ya'h. sadane kose andhve, tanu'reva tanvo bhesajama sarvatatimaditim vrnimahe." Sayana-andhve = vyanjayatha, = cause to appear; manifest, display; Griffith - "are balmed". ajmah - Rv. IX. 45.3 Griffith - 'balm.' angdhi - Ry. X. 156.3 "agne sthuram rayim bhara prthum gomantamasvi'nam, angdhi' kham vartaya pani'm." Sayana-angdhi = vrstyudakaih sinca = anoint; Griffith - oil, (i.e. anoint), anajyat - Rv. X. 31.4 . "ni'tyas'cakanyat svapatirdamuna yasma u devah savita' jajana, Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #52
"Vyanjana' 607 bhago va gobhiraryamemanajyatso asmai caruschadayad uta syat." Sayana-anajyat = vyaktikuryat = to cause to appear; reveal, manifest, Griffith - 'may appear to him'. anajan - Rv. III. 19.5 - yattva hotaramanajanmiyedhe nisadayanto yajathaya devah, sa tvam no agnevitesa bodhyadhi sravamsi dhehi matsanusu." Sayana - anajan; grta"hutibhir auksan = anointed; Griffith - anoint. anaje - Rv. I. 102.1. imam te dhiyam pra bhare maho mahimasya stotre dhisana yatta anaje, tamutsave ca prasave ca sasahi'mi'ndram deva'sah savasamadanna nuo. Sayana - anaje = akta samsistasit = anoint; and adds - anju vyakti-mraksanagatisuRv. VIII 63.1. sa purvyo mahanam venah stubhiranaje, yasya dvara manuspita devesu dhiya anaje. Sayana, anaje=agacchati; or prapa, anajih praptikarma; ajyate - Rv. VIII. 20.8 "gobhirvano ajyate sobharinam rathe kose hiranyaye, gobandhavah sujatasah ise bhuje mahanto nah spargse nu." Sayana-ajyate, vyajyate, pratikriyate=revealed; Griffith - 'balmed'. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #53
608 SAHSDAYALOKA Rv. VIII. 51.9 - yasya yam visvaryo dasah sevadhipa ari'", tirascidarye rusame paviravi tubhyetso ajyate rayih." Sayana - ajyate = praksipyate, (valakhilyabhasya); Griffith - 'is brought off. 'ajyate' at Rv. IX. 32.3. Sayana, ajyate = sicyate, or snigdhikriyate = anointed; Griffith - 'annointed'. Rv. IX. 76.2, Rv. X. 118.3 - Sayana, - ajyate - sicyate = anointed; Griffith - 'balms'. Sayana-ajyate gobhih = anointed Griffith - 'balmed'. ajyase - Rv. III. 40.6 - girvanah pahi nah sutam madhordharabhirajyase, indra tvadatamidyasah. Sayana-ajyase-siryase; "(you) are anointed." Griffith - "art bedewed" (i.e. anointed). Rv. IX. 66.9 - mrjanti tva samagruvovyo jira'vadhi svani, rebho yadajyase vane - Sayana-ajyase aktah sikto bhavati-anoint; Griffith - 'deck thee'. also at Rv. IX. 85.5; Sayana, - ajyase = sikto bhavasi; anointed; Griffith - 'balmed' with milk. also at Rv. IX. 78.2 sayana-ajyase = preryase Griffith - 'balmed'. aktah, akta, aktah, occur at Rv. IV. 3.10; sayana-sikto bhavati, 'sprinkled with oil, - Griffith. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #54
'Vyanjana' 609 VI. 4.6 - Sayana, sams'istah; Griffith - 'decked. VI. 5.6 - Sayana - samsiktah, 'decked with brightness' - Griffith; IX. 96.22 - sayana - siktah; Griffith - 'decked'. aktam - a", Rv. II. 3.4. Sayana, ajyena aktam, Griffith - 'bedewed with'; IV. 27.5. - Sayana, siktam; Griffith- 'filled with a shining liquid"; IX. 74.8. - Sayana, samprktam; 'shining, milk anointed', Griffith X. 177.1 - Sayana - vyaktam; abhivyaktam, 'adorned with', Griffith. ajyamanah - occurs at, Rv. IX. 97.35; Sayana-gobhih sicyamanah; 'is purified', Griffith; X. 31.9. - Sayana, vyajyamanah, vyaktibhavan; = caused to appear, revealed, displayed; Griffith - 'balmed'; ajyamana - occurs at, Rv. X. 31.10; Sayana, 'nisciyamanaretaska. anjat, anjan, at Rv. I. 92.5. anjan, anjanti, Sayana; = display, Griffith 'deck'. In the yajurveda - anaktu - occurs of VI. 2, XXVII. 12, XXXVII, 11; anjantu - at, XXIII. 8; anaje - XXXIII. 29; ananja - VIII. 30, ajyate - XXXIII. 82, aktam-II. 16; anjat - XXIX. 1; 2; and samanjan occurs at XX. 37 - anaktu - yv. VI. 2 - "agrenirasi svavesa unnetrnametasya vittadadhi tva, sthasyati devastva avita, madhvanaktu supippalabhyastvausadhibhyah" - dhyamagrenasprkna antariksam madhenaprah prthivimuparenadrmhih." Uvata-anaktu = mraksayantu, i.e. 'anoint Yv. XXVII. 12 - tanunapadasuro visvaveda devodevesu devah, patho anaktu madhva grtena. anaktu = anoint, uvata; Yv. XXXVII. 11, yamaya tva makhaya tva suryasya tva tapase, devastva savita madhvanaktu. prthivyah samspr'saspahi arcirasi soci'rasi taposi. Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #55
610 SAHRDAYALOKA madhva anantu=anoint, Uvata; limpatu-, Mahidhara; anjantu - Yv. XXIII. 8. vasavastvanjantu gayatrena cchandasa rudrastvanjantu traistubhena cchandasa ditya stvanjayantu jagatena cchandasa bhurbhuvah svartaji3ncchaci3nyavye gavye etadannamatta deva etadannamaddhi prajapate. anjantu = anoint; snigdham kurvantu-anoint - Mahidhara. anaje - occurs at, Yv. XXXII 29 and is Rv. I. 102.1; ananja -, at Yv. VIII. 30 "purudasmovisurupa indurantarmahima nanjdhirah, ekapadim dvipadim tripadim catuspadim astapadim bhavananu prathantam svaha." ananja - anjater vyaktikaranarthasyaitad rupam. = vyaktikaroti, (Uvata); = brings into light, displays, causes to appear, etc. ete. ajyate - Yv. XXXII. 82. It is the same as Rv. VIII. 51.9 Uvata observes : ajyate, dhatunam anekarthatvat anjir danarthah, vikaranavyatyayasca, anakti dadati rayim, dhanam. aktam - Yv. II. 16 vasubhyastva rudrebhyastva"dityebhyastva samjanatham dyavaprthivi mitra varunau tva vrstyavatam, vyantuvayoktam ri'hana marutam prsatir gaccha vasa prsnirbhutva divam gaccha tato no vestimavaha. caksuspa agnesi cakssurme pahi. aktam - drutam eva (uvata). samanjan - Yv. XX. 37 "narasamsah prati suro mimanastanunapat pratiyajnasya dhama, gobhirvapa'vanmadhuna samanjan hiranyai schandri yajati pracetah." samanjan = anointing; anjan - Yv. XXIX 1 & 2, anjana = vyaktikurvan (Uvata) = revealing, displaying; and anjana = samanjan = anointing, grtena (Uvata); Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #56
Vyanjana 611 In the Samaveda we have, ajyase - I. 195; anjate - I. 564; II. 1121, 964; 1755 vyajyate - I. 564; samanjate - I. 564, ajyate - Il-770, 1099, 1609; anjanah - II. 1080, 1209; Now - Sv. I. 195 is Rv. III. 40.6 I. 564 = Rv. IX. 86.43 II.1121 = Rv. IX. 10.3 II. 1755 = Rv. I. 92.1; II. 770 = Rv. IX. 32.3. Sv. II. 1099 is sam vatsa iva matnbhirindurhinvano ajyate. devavirmado matibhih pariskstah. ajyate = 'is sent' - Griffith. The root may be aj or anj. Sv. II. 1609 is Rv. VIII. 51.9 Sv. II. 1080 is, "punano vare pavamano avyaye vrso acakridadvane devanam soma pavamana niskstam gobhiranjano arsasi." anjanah = 'balmed with'; Griffith; i.e. anointed; . Now 'we may examine the occurrences in the AV. (= Atharva-veda). anakti - Av. V. 27.2 devo devesu devah patho anakti madhva ghrtena = anoints, - Whitney; anjate - Av. XVIII 3.18, is Rv. IX. 86.43; anajmi - Av. IV. 14.6 "ajamanajmi payasa ghetena divyam payasam suparnam bihantam, tena gemma sukrtasya lokam svararohanto abhi na'kamuttamam." anajmi = abhidharayami, Sayana; = anoint - Whitney; anaktu - Av. V. 28.3; "trayah posastrivrti srayantamanaktu pusa payasa ghrtena, annasya bhuma purusasya bhuma bhuma pasunam ta iha srayantam." anaktu = anoint; - Whitney; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #57
612 SAHRDAYALOKA anjantu - occurs at Av. XVIII. 3.10, & III. 22.2. Av. III. 22.2 - is "mitrasca varunascendro rudrasca cetatu, devaso visvadhayasaste manjantu varcasa." anjantu = aktam aslistam kurvantu; Sayana; = anoint; Whitney; Av. XVIII. 3.10-2, is varcasa mampitarah somyaso anjantu deva madhuna ghrtena, caksuse ma prataram tarayanto jarase ma jaradastim vardhantu. anjantu = anoint, Whitney; anktam - Av. VI. 69.2 & IX. 1.19 Av. VI. 69.2 is - "asvina saraghena ma madhunanktam subhaspati, yatha bhargasvatim vacamavadani janam dnu." anktam = abhisincatam, Sayana; = anoint, Whitney; Av. IX. 1.19 is the same as above. We read herein "varcasvatim" for "bhargasvatim.". Thus, the root Vanj seems to carry principally the meaning - (i) to anoint, and in consequence thereof, (ii) 'to shine'. Its use with the prefix 'vi' is in the sense of 'to shine forth', 'to glitter', etc. The idea seems to be to enhance the glitter of something by application of some ingredient. Grassman, Roth, and Bothlingk also have Vanj in the following senses; - (i) to anoint, to rub the ointment, to embalm; (salben) - (ii) to emit, (sputzen); (iii) to shine, to glitter; (glanzend); (iv) to shine forth (erscheinem); (v) to decorate (schmucken); (vi) to embelish; to attire, dress (zurustn). "Vi +Vanj" - we come across different forms of the root vi+vanj in the vedas. We will first take up the Rgveda. We may take note of the fact that vi+vanj occurs more frequently in what are known as later mandalas of the Rv. we will try Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #58
'Vyanjana' 613 to study all these references carefully and will try to find its sense or senses in their various occurrences. 'vyajyante' : occurs at Rv. I. 64.4 - "citrairanjibhirvapuse vyanjate vaksahsu rukam adhi yetire subhe, amsesvesam ni'mimoksur cstayah sakam jajnire svadhaya divo narah." vyanjate = vyaktam kurvanti, alamkurvantityarthah, Sayana; i.e. bring to light, cause to appear, display, reveal, decorate, and anjibhih is explained by Sayana as "rupabhi-vyanjana-samarthaihabharanaih" Griffith explains as, "they deck"; 'anjibhih' as 'glittering ornaments'. Rv. VII. 79.2 vyanjate divo antesvaktu'nvisona yukta usaso yatante, sam te ga vastama a vartayanti jyotiryacchanti saviteva bahu. Sayana explains as 'vyaktikurvanti'. i.e. cause to appear, reveal, etc. Griffith - 'paint' (= anoint) Rv. IX 86.43 is the same as seen above.(see anjate); Sayana-anjate = vividham anjanti, and samanjate = samyag anjanti; = anoint, well anoint; Griffith - 'balm' - (i.e. anoint). vyajyate - Rv. X. 85.28; "nilalohitam bhavati krtyasaktir vyajyate, edhante saya jnatayah patirbandhesa badhyate." vyajyate = tyajyate, Sayana; = driven off, Griffith; The root here is Vvi+aj and not Vvi+anj. It should be noted that this is the same as Av. XIV 1.26. Whitney observes that the root is Vvi+aj. Rv. IX. 71.7 : reads as, "para vyakto aruso divah kavivrsa triprstho anavista ga abhi, sahasranitiryatih parayati rebhona purvirusaso vi rajati." Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #59
614 Sayana observes vasativaribhirvisese-naktah siktah san." i.e. clearly manifested, displayed, or well anointed; Griffith'shines'. vyaktam at Rv. X. 14.9, X. 127.7; Rv. X. 14.9 apeta vita vica sarpatatosma etam pitaro lokamakran, ahobhiradbhiraktubhirvyaktam yamo dadatyavasanamasmai." Sayana- vyaktam samgatam; = accompanied with, (i.e.) adorned with, Griffith 'adorned with'. Rv. X. 127.7 - upa ma pepisattamah krsnam vyaktamasthita, usa rneva yataya. Sayana observes: vyaktam visesena svabhasa sarvasyanjakam spastarupam va; i.e. that which well anoints everything with its own light, or that which is clearly manifested. SAHRDAYALOKA "somah vyaktah vispastadharayuktah yad va = Griffith (that which) decks, (i.e. adorns); 'vyakta' occurs at Rv. VII. 77.3 -, VIII. 56.4, and X. 86.5 - Rv. VII. 77.3 - is, "devanam caksuh subhaga vahanti svetam nayanti sudrsikamasvam, - usa adarsi rasmibhirvyakta citramagha visvamanu-prabhuta." Sayana does not wait to explain 'vyakta', but it means here, 'clearly, manifested'. - Griffith (that which) 'shines apparent' i.e. 'clearly shines'. Rv. VIII. 56.6 - is, "tatro api praniyata putakratayai vyakta, asvana minna yuthyam." There is no Sayana-bhasya on this. We get Valakhilya-sukta-bhasya which explains it as, 'vividham ganta, nanapradesesu pracalan.' Rv. X. 86.5 - is priya tastani me kapirvyakta vyadudusat, siro nvasya ravisam na sugam duskrte bhuvam visvasmad indra uttarah." vyaktanyajyai. Sayana explains as vyakta visesenaktani, i.e. well adorned; = For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #60
Vyanjana' 615 Griffith - vyakta = beauteous things, (i.e. well adorned). vyaktah - occurs at Rv. VII. 56.1, which is - 'ka' im vyakta narah sanila rudrasya marya adha svasvah." Sayana - kantiyuktah, i.e. beautiful; 'lustrous', 'radiant'; Griffith - 'radiant. 'vyaktam' occurs at Rv. X. 85.21, which is - udirsvatah patvati hye3sa visvavasum namasa girbhirile, anyamiccha pitrsadam vyaktam sasate bhago janusa tasya viddhi." Sayana explains as - vyaktam anudheti parisgutam vigatanjanam va. i.e. 'clearly manifested'; or that whose anjana is removed. Griffith - 'fair' (i.e. beautiful). vynjata - occurs at Rv. VIII. 7.25, which is - "vidyudhasta abhi'dyavah siprah sirsanhiranyaih, s'ubhra vyanjata s'riye." Sayana - vyanjata vyanjayanti, vyaktikurvanti, dharayantity arthah, i.e. - 'display'; 'bear'; Griffith - 'deck. We have seen as many as thirteen occurrences in which we come across different forms of the root vi+vanj in the Rv. These thirteen occurrences from the Rv. bear the general sense of opening up something hidden and bringing it to light, embellishing, decorating, adorning and the like. Thus we can say that the root vi+Vanj in the Rv. has these two connected meanings (i) revealing, (ii) adorning. The Yajurveda has, 'vyaktah' at XIX. 87, and 'vyaktam' at XXXV. 1. Yv. XIX. 87 reads as - kumbho vanisthurjanita sacibhiryasminnagre yonyam garbho antah, plas'i'rvyaktah s'atadhara utso duhe na kumbhai svadham pitrbhyah." Uvata explains, vyaktah = spastah, i.e. - clearly manifested or displayed; Mahidhara has vyaktah = spastah. Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #61
616 SAHRDAYALOKA Yv. XXXV - 1, is - apeto yantu panayosumna devapiyavah, asya lokah sutavatah dyubhirahobhiraktubhir vyaktam yamo dadarvavasanamasmai." The second half is almost identical with Rv. X. 14.9. b, and Uvata has vyaktam = spastikstam, clearly displayed, = manifested. Mahidhara also has a similar explanation. Samaveda (= SV.) has, 'vyanjate' at SV. I. 564, which is Rv. IX. 86.43, and 'vyaktah', at Sv. I. 433, which is the same as Rv. VII. 56.1. Atharvaveda (= AV.) has, vyanjate' at Av. XVIII. 3.18 which is the same as Rv. IX 68.43; Whitney explains it as, 'they anoint out (vi); . 'vyajyate' - at Av. XIV. 1.26 = Rv. X 85.28 Whitney explains - it from the root vi+aj and not vi+anj. 'vyaktam- occurs at Av. XVIII. 1.55, which is Rv. X. 14.9, and vyakta at AV. XX - 126.5. Thus we see that the Av. has here practically everything borrowed from the Rv. The survey of the occurrences of the root vi+Vani in the vedas shows two connected meanings: viz. to bring out something hidden by applying or enhancing something, to bringten, to embellish, to decorate, to adorn. Thus putting together the result of our survey, we get - (i) to deck, to adorn, as in Rv. I. 64.4. (Sayana and Griffith), Rv. X. 14.9. (sayana and griffith) Av. XVIII. 1.55., Whitney. (i) to manitest clearly; display; cause to appear, as in Rv. I. 64.4 . (Sayana), Rv. VII. 79.2. (Sayana), Rv. VII. 77.5 (Sayana), Rv. IX. 77.7. (Sayana) & Griffith), Rv. X. 85.21 (Sayana), For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #62
Vyanjana 617 Yv. XIX. 87 (Uvata & Mahidhara), Yv. XXXV. 1, (Uvata & Mahidhara), Rv. X. 14.9. (Sayana) Av. XVIII. 1.55. (iii) to paint (i.e. to anoint), (Griffith) as in Rv. VII. 79.2; (iv) to balm (i.e. to anoint) (Griffith) Rv. IX. 86.43 SV. I. 564; (v) to anoint, as in Rv. IX. 86.43 (Sayana) Av. XVIII. 3.18 (Sayana) and also whitney Rv. X. 86.5 (Sayana). (vi) to shine forth; - Rv. VII. 77.3 (Griffith), (vii) 'beautiful, (vyakta), Griffith, as in Rv. X. 86.5, and also 'kantiyuktah' according to Sayana, at Ry. VII. 56.1.: 'radiant - Griffith; Rv. VII. 56.1. and also SV. I. 433 (Griffith) 'fair' - Rv. X. 55.21, (Griffith). We may also note the occurrences of the root Vahvan or the word 'dhvani' in the vedas as under: We come across, 'adhvanit' - at Rv. VIII 6.13, 'adhvanayat' at Rv. VI. 18.10, dhvanayit' at Rv. I. 162.15, and 'dhvani', 'dhvanayah', at Av. V. 20.7. Rv. VIII. 6.13. is, "yadasya manyuradhvanid vivitam parvaso rujan, apah samudram airayat." Sayana - stanayitnulaksanam sabdam akarot; Griffith - 'thundered'. Rv. VI. 18.10 is, agni'rna suskam vanamindra heti rakso ni dhaksayanasanirna bhima, gambhiraya ssvaya yo rurojadhvanayad durita dambhayaccha." Sayana - yuddhe garjanalaksanam sabdam karoti. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #63
618 SAHRDAYALOKA Rv. I. 162.15. ma tvagni'rdhvanayiddhuma gandhir Sayana - 'to make noise'. mokha, etc. Griffith - 'make thee cracle'. Av. V. 20.7 is antareme nabhasi ghoso astu prthak te dhvanayo santu sibham, = 'let there be noise; Whitney. Thus the root Vahvan and the word 'dhyani' carry the sense of 'to make noise' and 'noise respectively. The occurrences of the root vi+ Vanj in different forms might have proved to be a remote source of inspiration for the theory of 'vyanjana' in times to come: first in the vaiyakaranas and other darsanas and then in the alamkarasastra. Now, we will examine the occurrences of Vani, and vit Vani in the Nighantu and the Nirukta, (cir. 700 B.C. to. 300 B.C.), and then in Rk-pratisakhya, Astadhyavi of Panini (Cir. 300. B.C.), and the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (Cir. 150. B.C.) (The last two sources are looked into earlier in this chapter but here we will once again look into the same to establish the correlation with our earlier observations) - The Nighantu has no word like 'vyanjana', nor any other form of the roots Vanj and vi+ Vanj. The Nirukta - (Cir. 700 B.C. to 500 B.C.) :- In the Nirukta we come across certain occurrences of Vanj in different forms, wherein it seems to carry the sense of 'to anoint. We have thus, 'anjate' at Nirukta 12.7., and it is the same as Rv. I. 92.1. anjan - at 3.20, (i.e. Rv. I. 92.5), anjanti - at 8.18 (i.e. Rv. III. 8.1). and also, 'ankte', vyakte, vyaktatare (Ch. I); aksini 'kasmat, ankteh, ...etc. in the sense of 'clearly manifested'. and also, 'anakti' at 8.10. Yaska explains - 'usasanakta.' He observes : usa vyakhyata. nakteti ratrinama; anakti bhutanyavasyayena, api va nakta avyaktavarna, tayoresa bhavati. anakti = anoints, avyaktavarna = not of distinct colour; (i.e. having no clearly manifested colour). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #64
Vyanjana 619 vi+Vanj is seen in the sense of 'manifestation'. We have P.P. of vi+ Vanj, in vyaktavacah, at 11.29, in the sense of distinct speech. (vi+Vanj = to manifest clearly). We read - "devim vacam ajanayanta devah, tam sarvarupah pasavo vayanti. vyaktavacascavyaktavacah ca." At 7.13, we come across the word 'vyanjanainatram' in the sense of 'mere indication? We read - 'iti ima devata anukrantah-suktabhajah, havirbhajah, rgbhajasca, bhuyisthah, kascinnipatabhajah, - atha uta abhidhanaih samyujya haviscodayanti, indraya vstraghne, indraya amhomuce, iti. tany api eke samamananti, bhuyamsi tu samamnanat, yattu samvijnanabhutam syat pradhanyastuti tat samamane. - atha uta karmabhihrsih devatah stauti vstraha purandarah iti. tany apieke samamananti, bhuyamsi tu samamnanat. vyanjanamatram tu tat tasyabhidhanasya bhavati, yatha brahmanaya bubhuksitaya odanam dehi, snataya anulepanam, pipasate paniyam, iti. (Nirukta 7.13). Laxman Sarup (pp. 120) translates as - "Moreover, a seer praises deities with regard to their activities, as (Indra) the votra-slayer, or the city-destroyer, and so on. Some make a list of these also, but they are too numerous to be collected together in a list. These epithets are mere indications of (a particular aspect of the proper) appellations, just as 'give food to a Brahmana, who is hungry, or unguents to one who has taken a bath, or water to one who is thirsty." (Incidentally here we may also note efforts in the direction of abhidhana-kosa i.e. laxicons. And applying perfumes after a bath also may be noted from the point of view of a social scientist). that the above is a very interesting occurrence. "Vyanjana' here indicator'. This seems to be the earliest occurrence of 'vyanjana' in the sense of 'indication'. In a similar sense, we have noted earlier an occurrence, wherein we find another root viz. Vdyut. In Ch. I. Yaska cites the opinion of Gargya who holds that upasargas are not meaningful by themselves, but they serve to suggest or indicate the relation of nama and akhyata, with a special meaning. Gargya observes : "na nirbaddhah upasargah arthan nirahuh. nama"khyatayos tu karmopasamyoga-dyotakah bhavanti." Thus, it seems, as already observed by us earlier, Yaska comes very near to the power of 'dyotana', or 'suggestion of words, though, he does not mention it by name. We know that in the kavyasastra, the word 'dyotana' is used as an equivalent of vyanjana'. 'Vyanjana' in the sense of 'indication' in Yaska, as noted above, is also Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #65
620 SAHRDAYALOKA an important occurrence of vi+ Vanj. We do not come across any occurrence of dhvan, or Vdhvani' in either the Nighantu or the Nirukta of Yaska. We will now turn to the Rk-pratisakhya, Astadhyayi of Panini (Cir. 300 B.C.), and the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (Cir. 150 B.C.), again to supplement our observations done in the earlier part of this chapter where we had sought help from some observations of Dr. Saroja Bhate. This is to supplement the same further. In the Kk-pratisakhya, it may be noted at the outset, we do not come across words such as vyanjana, dhvani, etc. The word 'vyanjana', howover, in the technical sense of a 'consonant' occurs at several places. - The Rk-pratisakhya has. 'vyanjana' at - XVIII (patala) 32 (Sutra;) (and, at sutra 42, 43) vyanjanam - I. 5; 22; II. 8; VI. 14; vyanjanasya - XIV. 15; vyanjanat - XIV. 47; XVIII. 44; vyanjananam - XIV. 16; vyanjanani - I. 6.23; IV.1; XVIII. 33; vyanjane - VII. 1. vyanjanena - III. 17; vyanjanesu - VIII. 48; vyanjana-samgamam - XVIII. 40; vyanjana-sannipatah - I. 37; vyanjanodayam - VII. 33; vyanjanodayat - VI. 46. All these carry the sense of a 'consonant. In the Astadhyayi of Panini. (Cir. 300. B.C.) We get vyanjana, occurs at II. i. 34; IV. iv. 26, and II. iv. 12. In the last two occurrences it is seen in the sense of a 'consonant'. At II. i. 34, we have, 'vyanjanair upasikte which is explained as - "dadhna upasiktam dadhikam', - Anything that is used to enhance the relish of a principal object of eating is called a 'vyanjana', e.g. curd, in the case of rice. Thus 'vyanjana' is that which serves to enhance the relish. We come across the same use of the term 'vyanjana', in the Natya sastra of Bharata wherein the Muni For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #66
Vyanjana' 621 cites the analogy of salavadi-rasa (Ch. VI. Na. sa). This can have an important bearing on the vyanjanavada of the alamkarikas, wherein, vibhava, anubhava, etc., cause to enhance the sthayin to the capacity of rasa. It should also be mentioned that Panini does not mention 'dhvani', nor does he refer to sphotavada. He does mention one, "sphotayana', without referring to the theory of sphota (Ref. Pa. VI. i. 121). We, also come across the word 'vyakta', meaning 'distinct', 'clear', - in the sutra I. 3.48, e.g. - 'vyaktavacam samuccarane'. Also at I. ii. 51, we read, 'vyaktivacanah', and at VI. i. 123, we have 'avan sphotayanasya'. These occurrences have no direct or indirect bearing on the theory of vyanjana or dhvani. Some important references where Dr. Bhate has suggested that Panini has directly touched vyanjana, and we have called the same as "rudhavyanjana", have been noted earlier in this chapter. They form a bridge between grammar and sahitya sastra. In the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (Cir. 150. B.C.), - we come across many occurrences of different forms of the roots Vanj and vi+ Vanj, and also of the words vyanjana, sphota etc. We have recorded earlier some of these that seem to have a direct bearing on the theory of vyanjana of the alamkarikas. But we supplement our effort hear by citing some more references as under. We find 'vyajyante' at Pa. VIII. i. 70, line 15, pp. 381. The reference reads as - ihapi tarhi mandrasadhana kriyanga vyajyate. - The context is that in the illustration, "mandrair indra haribhir yahi mayiruromabhih" the word 'mandra' being not an indicative of 'gati' or 'action', does not get an anudarta svara. While discussing this particular illustration, the author says that here also, a particular action - kriya - which has 'mandra' for its karaka is suggested by the upasarga 'an'. Thus we get 'vyajyate' in the sense of 'suggestion'. We find 'vyajyante' at pa. I. 3.1 line 19-20, pp. 258; the author says that without 'kriya' or 'action', the kalas such as bhuta, vartamana, etc. are not suggesteda vi+Vanj occurs in the sense of 'suggestion' here. : "athava nantarena kriyam bhutabhavisyad-vartamanah kalah vyajyante" - and also, "astyadibhisca'pi bhuta-bhavisyad-vartamanah kalah vyajyante"; at pa. I. iii. 1; 19, 20/258 also carries the sense of suggestion. Again at Pa. III, i. 67 14/57 we read * "tinabhihitena bhavena kalapurusopagraha abhivyajyante krd-abhihitena punar na vyajyante." We have 'vyajyante in the sense of 'suggestion'. The author says that the meaning of 'bhava' or 'action' is suggested by both 'tin' and 'krdanta'. But there is some difference in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #67
622 SAHRDAYALOKA these two. Whatever is suggested by krd-anta is in the form of a 'dravya', while by 'tin', kala, purusa and upagraha (i.e. parasmai or atmane), are suggested. Moreover, at Pa. VIII. ii. 48; 23/23/408, we have, "anjer anjanam; anjanam ca prakasanam; tatha anjer vyanjanam, vyanjanam ca prakasanam. The context is that when Vanj is in the sense of 'prakasana', we do not change 'ta' into 'na', in case of a P.P.P. Thus, we get Vanj in the sense of 'prakasana'. Later on he says that Vano is also seen in the same sense - "ancitah gacchati" - means, "prakasayati atmanam iti gamyate." In our popular usage, 'ancitah gacchati' means, "being alert he goes", i.e. 'samahito bhutva gacchati'. The author here uses terms such as, 'iti gamyate', and this usage brings us very close to the vyanjana-vada. Thus we see that Vanj, Vanc, and vi+ Vanj are all used in the sense of 'prakasana' i.e. 'manifestation', or revealing, or bringing something into light, or displaying something etc. Vyanjana' occurs normally in its technical sense of a consonant, but at Pa. VIII. ii. 48; 24/24/408, however, we get it in the sense of 'prakasana', as noted above. Thus, Vanj and vi+Vanj, seem to occur in the same senses as in the earlier literature. Vi+Vanj in the sense of suggestion is also noted as at Mbh. VIII. i. 70; 15/381; or Mbh. I. iii. 1; 19/20/258, etc., as noted above. This ends our investigation in the fields of grammar and philosophic literature of the ancient times, to find the roots of the theory of waniana-dhvani-of the alamkarikas and the results are positive. The thought-current of vyanjana-dhvani was very much present even in the earliest vedic literature also, and even a theory of vyanjana is clearly traced in early grammatical and philosophical literature and we are happy to note that Anandavardhana is very right when he observes that dhvani' was 'samamnata-purvah'. We will now try to trace the germs of vyanjana-dhvani even in the works of earlier literary masters such as Bhasa (Cir. 300 A.D.), Asvaghosa (Cir. 100 A.D.) and Kalidasa (Cir. 400 A.D. - if not 1st cen B.C.) Our investigation in the works of these literary artists is motivated by the fact that it is always great literature which gives birth to great literary cannons and it is great criticism which in its turn influences the shaping of literature that follows. So, perhaps the works of these poets might have an indirect influence in the shaping of literary criticism. That Bhasa was a name to remember with respect even for Kalidasa is clear from the latter's reference to Bhasa in his Malavikagnimitram. It is one thing whether the so called Trivendrum plays are from this same Bhasa or not, and frankly speaking For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #68
Vyanjana' 623 after reading more and more from our learned friend Dr. N. P. Unni, our faith concerning Bhasa's authorship of all the thirteen Trivendrum plays has disappeared, but we have quoted here some passages from plays concerning which our faith has not completely evaporated As noted earlier, we have traced the earlier occurrences of the words connected with vyanjana-dhvani-theory in the vedic literature. We do not claim that the vedic poets had a conscious recognition of this theory in their minds. But we do find germs of this theory in their use of certain terms. This is enough to trace something. We also tried to link ancient grammatical and philosophical thinking with this theory and the findings were more positive and encouraging. Now we turn to ancient classical literature as represented in the works of earlier poets such as Bhasa, Asuaghosa and Kalidasa. Perhaps we will tred on more solid grounds in our efforts to trace the origin of the thought-current of vyanjana-dhvani. That Kalidasa clearly mentions in his Vikramorvasiya, a Bharata who staged a play with eight rasas and instructed the divine damsels in its performance, clearly suggests that even before Kalidasa there was literature concerning literary aesthetics. He observes : "munina bharatena yah prayogah, bhavatisv asta rasasrayo niyuktah..." etc. This not necessarily mean that Kalidasa refers to whatever is available as 'natyasastra' of Bharata, to-day. It may or it may not be. But one thing is certain that literature and literary or art-criticism influence each other in turn and make. for advancement in either. So, our effort to find traces of vyanjan.-dhvani theory in the works of the earlier poets is thus certainly justified. It may be noted that as for Bharata's Natya-sastra as now available, and its connection with vyanjanavada, we will have a separate detailed discussion at a suitable place later, when we wil discuss the origin and development of the concept of "rasa". For the present we will keep off from Bharata's Natya-sastra as is available to us in its present form. That criticism follows literature does not require proof. That practice precedes theory and is in turn guided by theory is well proved in the history of literature and art, world over. So, before we proceed with Bharata or Bhamaha, let us take note of the usage of vyanjana, rasa, etc. in earlier classical literature, be it, please note, either conscious or even unconscious. For the present we begin with Bhasa, who is mentioned by Kalidasa, and here too with some of his so called plays that are included in the thirteen Trivendrum plays. Bhasa - In the so called thirteen Trivendrum plays ascribed to Bhasa, we come across words like, 'vyaktam', 'vyaktih', 'su-vyaktam', 'vyaktikrtam', etc. in the sense of 'clearly manifested'. We also come across terms such as, 'sucayati', For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #69
624 SAHRDAYALOKA 'sucayitavyah, 'sucayanti', etc. in the sense of 'indicating' or 'suggesting'. As noted earlier we have no absolute faith in the authenticity of all these plays, and even when we choose to accept some from Bhasa's pen, following Dr. Unni's observations, we have reservations about their present form; i.e. we feel that even the so called authentic or near-authentic plays are stage-adaptations and are not in their original form as drafted by Bhasa. However, as a prima facie view, we go along with these plays as Bhasa's creations. To begin with, in the Svapnavasavadattam, we have the following: sarpavyakti-at Svapna. V & vyaktam - svapna V. 7; VI 14, In the Pratijnayaugandharayana, we have 'vyaktam' atmahite ksamam' - (Act. I, Introduction); and also - Yau. - "vyaktikstam a-samarthyam..." etc. and, "vyaktam balam..." etc. Then, kancukiyah - 'suvyaktam...' (Act. II) raja - vyaktam... (Act II). & yau. - "vyaktam bharatarohako..." etc. (Act. IV) The Avimaraka has - kaunjayanah - vyakta-hima-murtih... etc. (Act. I) Avimarakah - vyaktam svayam vinam vadayati - (Act. III). The Carudatta has - Nayakah - sarvatha suvyaktam gitam (Act. III) and also, - Sajjalakah - dipa-prabha-vyaktikstam drsyate (Act. III) - The Pratimanataka has - Ramah - "suvyaktam prabhavamiti..." etc. (Act. I. 11) and also, Bharatah - "bahumana-vyaksiptenamanasa suvyaktam navadharitam... (Act. III). The Abhisekanataka has - Angadah - "vyaktam utsrjya deham", etc. (II. 25); and also, Ravanah - "vyaktam indrajita..." (V. 10) and also, "Ramah - vyaktam daiva-gatim... etc. (VI. 34) Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #70
Vyanjana' 625 The Dutavakya has - Duryodhanah-suvyaktam prapta eva kesavah. and also, sudarsanah-avyaktadir acintyatma etc. The Duta-ghatotkaca has - Dhstarastrah - 'suvyaktam nihatam'. etc. I. 26 and, 'suvyaktam dhanusi...' I. 28. The Pancaratra has - Bhismah - "suvyaktam bahusalinah..." I. 50, and also, Bihannala - 'yena suvyakta-karina...' II. 65 The Madhyama has - Bhimah - suvyaktam raksasijo... I. 26, The Urubhanga has - trtiyah-vyaktikrta dinakarograkaraih... and also, Asvatthama. - vyaktam norjita eva. I. 21 (I. 58d) The Balacarita has - vasudevah - vyaktam ghosa-samipe... etc. However, the most noteworthy passages are as follows: In the second act of Avimaraka, the prince is sitting all alone, lost in the thoughts of Kurangi. Meanwhile, two maid servants of Kurangi arrive there with some message. The dialogue proceeds as follows - Dhatri - arya ! kim cintyate ? Avimarakah - Bhavati, sastram cintyate. Dha. - kim namaitad sastram vivikte chintyate ? Avi. - Bhavati ! yogasastram cintyate. Dha. - (sa-smitam) - pratigrhitam mangala-vacanam. yoga-sastram eva bhavatu. Avi. - (atmagatam) - ko nu khalu vakyarthah ? anyad apy abhilasavasad anyatha samkalpayami ! (prakasam) - kim abhipretam bhavatyah ? Dha. - yogam icchantyav agate svah. anumata aryena yogah, iti nanu nisthitam karyam asmakam rajakule vivikta avakase. tatrapi kopi jano'dhikataram yogam cintayann asti. tena saha tatraiva aryena sustha yogavidhanam cintyatam iti. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #71
626 SAHRDAYALOKA This passage leaves no doubt that the author is not only conversant with the abhipreta' artha, or implied sense, but also seems to be conversant with the verbal function of vyanjana. Of course, Prof. Dr. Rewaprasad Dwivedi will argue here in favour of kavyanumiti. - In the Carudatta, act II, we have the following dialogue : Ganika - samvahaka aryah. sukumara kala siksita aryena. Samvahakah - kaleti siksita. ajivika idanim samvitta. Ganika - nirveda-sucakam iva vacanam aryasya; tatas tatah ! Thus a sentence becomes sucaka - suggestor of a 'bhava' called 'nirveda'. Again, in the act III we have - Brahmani - ha dhik ! (niskranta). vidusakah - esa vaca duhkham raksitva asrubhih sucayitva gata. bhoh, idam! . Here also tears - asru - an anubhava, become suggestive of the feeling of unspoken grief. Again, in the act I, we have-Ganika - (pravarakam glhitva sa-harsam) - "an-udasinam yauvanam asya patavasa-gandhah sucayati." The fragrance is said to reveal that his youth is 'an-udasina' i.e. not indifferent to the joys of life. Though of course, we may be prompted to consider here a rasadosa where we have 'vyangyasya kathanam' i.e. where the suggested sense is almost given away by a plain statement. Or, we may read 'anumiti' here. In the Pratimanataka, act V, we have Ramah - ... 'aye imani khalu pratyagrabhisiktani vrksa-mulani, adurgatam maithilim sucayanti. tatha hi... etc. Here, one fact, viz. that Sita has not moved away much farther, is said to be suggested by yet another fact viz. that the roots of trees that are seen to be recently sprinkled. But here again, we may read the process of reasoning or inference on of the hero. The word 'dhvani' occurs in the usual sense of 'sound' only. We may now turn to Asvaghosa. Asvaghosa (Cir. 100 A.D.) : It may be observed that the Saundarananda has vi+ Vanj at II. 38; XIII 41; and XVIII. 11; and the Buddhacarita has vi+ Vanj at IV. 58; IV. 84; IX. 64; XII. 18; XII. 22; XII. 40; XVI. 73; and XVI. 130; and 'dhvani' at IV. 51; V. 80; VIII. 72. Buddha-carita IX. 64, XII. 18, XII. 22; and XII. 40 have 'vyakta' and 'a-vyakta' having a philosophical connotation of the manifest' and 'the unmanifest'. Saundarananda II. 38 and XIII. 41 have vi+ Vanj in the sense of 'to indicate', 'to manifest clearly. Buddha-Carita XVI 130 has vi+ Vanj in the sense of 'to the letter i.e. clearly as opposed to 'artha' or 'spirit'. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #72
Vyanjana' 627 Saundarananda XVIII. 11 reads as - "maitri-stanim vyanjana-caru-sasnam saddharma-dugdham pratibhana-songam, tavasmi gam sadhu nipiya tiptah trseva gam uttama-vatsa tiptah." Here, the word 'vyanjana', is in the sense of alamkara or a source of decor as perhaps in the Natya-sastra where Bharata describes a recipi rich by 'vyanjana' sprinkled on the same. At Buddha-carita XVI. 73, we have 'vyanjana' in the same sense. It reads as - "sarva-klesabhividdhanam klesa-salya-samuddharah, sarva-laksana-sampannah sarva-vyanjana-manditah." Vi+Vans in the sense of 'to manifest clearly' or 'to suggest occurs at Buddhacarita IV. 84. "upapannam idam vakyam sauharda-vyanjakam tvayi. atra ca tva'numesyami yatra ma dusthu manyase." Here again, a 'vakya' is said to be 'sauharda-vyanjakam', i.e. suggestive of friendship. The sentence i.e. a group of words, suggests the bhava of 'sauharda'. It may be noted that this passage is specially interesting and useful from the point of view of our investigation. The occurrence of the word 'vyanjana' meaning embellishment is also noteworthy in the passages quoted as above. We know that in Vamana the term 'alamkara' has two senses viz. (i) that of 'saundarya' i.e. beauty in general and (ii) that of a figure of speech. It is not unlikely that the word vyanjana had also a sense similar to alamkara or a beautifying agent and also the sense of suggestion. The first sense of alamkara seems to have gone out of usage but the second sense seems to have prevailed in later poetics. We also come across some occurrences of 'dhvani' in the sense of 'sound' only in the present sources. This can not have any bearing on the theory of vyanjana-dhvani. Kalidasa : (Cir. 400 A.D.) - In Kalidasa, we come across vi+Vanj in its different grammatical forms as seen below : Kumara. II. 11, V. 62; VI. 23; VI. 51; VII. 91; VIII. 37; VIII. 71; and IX. 6; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #73
628 SAHRDAYALOKA Meghaduta has - vi+Vanj at VS. 12; 29; & 55 (purva-megha.) and at 21 (uttaramedha). Raghu. - I 10; IV. 68; V. 16; VI. 12; VII. 58; XI. 41; XIII. 12; XIV. 26; XVI. 23; XVII. 40; XIX. 30; XIX. 41. Vi+Vanj seems to occur in the sense of 'to manifest. In the Abhi. sa. somewhere in act V and at VII. 8; VII. 17 we read vi+Vanj. Vahvan or 'dhvani' occurs at ktusamhara - V. 10 (pravrd-varnanam), V. 15 (pravrd-varnanam) & V. 21 (pravrd-varnanam) Kumara sambhava - I. 56; VIII. 24; VIII. 71; XI. 36; 38; XIV. 27, 39, 45. Meghaduta (purva) VS. 42, 56 & (Uttara) VS. 3, 36. Raghuvamsa - II. 72; IV. 73; VI. 56, VII. 41, and XVI. 13. We will discuss some noteworthy occurences : All the occurrences of vi+Vanj in the Kumara. except at II. 11, are in the sense of 'to manifest', 'to display', 'to bring to light', etc. At II. 11, we have 'vyakta' and 'vyaktetara' having the philosophical connotation of 'the manifest' and the 'unmanifest'. But, Kumara VII. 91 is more interesting. It reads as - "tau sandhisu vyanjita-vrtti-bhedam rasantaresu pratibaddha-ragam, apasyatam apsarasam muhurtam prayogam adyam lalitangaharam." Here, we have 'vyanjita' in the sense of 'manifested', 'revealed', 'suggested. There is also mentioning of (panca) samdhis, vittis and rasas. This suggests an advanced stage of literary and dramatic criticism. In the Megha. (purva) V. 12, we have 'sneha-vyakti' i.e. suggestion or manifestation of love : "snehavyaktis ciravirahajam". Megha. 29 (purva) is very interesting and it reads as - "venibhuta-pratanu-salila-savatitasya sindhohpanducchaya tataruhataru-bhramsibhirjirna-parnah, saubhagyamte subhaga virahavasthaya vyanjayanti karsyam yena tyajati vidhina sa tvayaivopapadyah." Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #74
Vyanjana 629 That the nayaka-navika-bhava is suggested here is clear. Mallinatha exp fully. vyanjayanti is explained as 'prakasayanti, i.e. 'suggesting'. The river Nirvindhya is said to suggest, by her condition in separation, the good fortune of the cloud, the lover. This is, an instance of vipralambhasrngara and could well have an important bearing on the theory of vyanjana in sahitya-sastra, wherein something else is suggested with the help of something else. In the Raghu. also, very often, vi+Vanj in various grammatical forms appears in the sense of manifestation. But Raghu. XIII. 12 and XIV. 26 are more interesting. They read as below : Raghu. XIII. 12 - "velanilaya prassta bhujanga vahormi-visphurjathu-nirvisesah, suryamsa-samparka-samtddha-ragair vyajyanta ete manibhih phanasthaih." Mallinatha explains 'vyajyante' as 'unmiyante'; i.e. 'are suggested'. Raghu. XIV. 26 reads as - athadhika-snigdha-vilocanena mukhena sita sarapandurena, anandayitri parimeturasid anaksara-vyanjita-dohadena." "anaksara-vyanjita" is explained by Mallinatha as "avag-vyaparam yatha bhavati tatha vyanjitam." This is a clear reference to vyanjana. In all the three plays, vi+Vanj seems to carry the sense of 'to manifest'. Thus we have observed that in Bhasa, Asvaghosa and Kalidasa, we come across certain occurrences of vi+ Vanj in the sense of 'to suggest', that might have paved the way to the formation of the theory of vyanjana in sanskrit poetics, or if it was already formed and not recorded in any known document, it is adhered to by these ancient literary masters. We will now pick up the known available documents beginning with the Dhyanyaloka and the Locana on the same. We will also take the opportunity to discuss the views of Agnipurana later in this chapter and we are of the firm opinion that this purana was later than Bhoja as the rasa-dhvani thinking in the alamkara portion of this purana is clearly under Bhoja's influence. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #75
630 SAHSDAYALOKA It may be noted that Anandavardhana, a great protegonist of the vyanjanadhvani-rasa theory, does not attempt to define either vyanjana or rasa in his Dhvanyaloka, but the whole of his work is permeated by discussion of vyanjana or the power of suggestion, and vyangyartha or the suggested sense, termed dhvani when adjudged to be the principal source of charm in poetry and such poetry is also termed dhvani-kavya. Prof. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy writes (pp. XXVIII - Introduction to his Dhv. Edn. *74, Dharwar): "Anandavardhana is the first writer in Indian poetics to attempt an enquiry into semantics. As a preliminary to his exposition of the essence of poetry, he distinguishes between the two well-known usages of language, viz. use of language outside poetry on the one hand and the unique usage exclusive to poetry on the other. The first referential usage is a gift of convention and is well within the reach of everyone who knows the language. The second is the indirect use of language wherein the meaning may be either metaphorical or implicit. Anandavardhana notes that meaning at this second level too is not very far from the first or conventional level. The first level of meaning is characterised as vacyartha and the second as bhakta. Poetry too starts from these two levels of meaning only. But it does not stop there as in common parlance or scientific discourse. It uses them as a jumping-off ground to convey an enirely new meaning which is different not only in degree but often in kind also. This third meaning which is unique and exclusive to poetry is alone characterised as the essence of poetry. And it has its parallels in fine arts like music. Combining in himself the triple rare attainments of poetic genius, impeccable scholarship, and immaculate literary taste, Anandavardhana succeeded not only in laying his finger on 'rasa' as the soul of poetry, but also in offering a scientific explanation of it as Dhvani. The theory was so formulated that it could assimilate the essence of all the traditional aesthetic categories while emphasising the claims of rasa." Anandavardhana begins his exposition with a solemn declaration that 'dhvani' - or suggestion is the soul of poetry though of course he admits the opposition to this theory. For this reason he wants to define and explain the same elaborately This he does in the course of the whole of his work. But he begins modestly. He observes : "tatra dhvaner eva laksayitum arabdhasya bhumikam racayitum idam ucyate - "yorthah sahrdayaslaghyah..." etc. Dhv. I. 2. He observes that, the following is meant to serve as a ground work for the theory of suggestion which has been taken up for detailed study. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #76
'Vyanjana' 631 That meaning which wins the admiration of refined critics is decided to be the soul of poetry. The 'explicit' and the 'implicit' are regarded as its two aspects." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 7, ibid). Anandavardhana is very clear that poetic meaning, which is charming and is admired by men of taste is both the expressed i.e. vacya and the implicit i.e. pratiyamana. It may be noted very carefully that Ananda does not rule out the charm at the expressed level. On the otherhand it seems to be his humble opinion that whatever is poetry's area has got to be charming, be it the level of the expressed only. He does not rule out the charm of expression in poetry, though of course his preference lies with the un-expressed or the implicit meaning. Poetry has to be charming, whatever the level be. But he has a bias towards the unexpressed - the implicit the pratiyamana. He observes - (Dhv. I. iv): "pratiyamanam punar anyad eva..." etc. "But the implicit aspect is quite different from this. In the words of firstrate poets it shines supreme and towers above the beauty of the striking external constituents even as charm in ladies." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 7, ibid). Anandavardhana then explains how the expressed and the implicit differ in nature with a number of poetic illustrations. The implicit which is three-fold appears as bare statement or idea, of course basically poetic, i.e. vastu, figures of speech or turns of expression i.e. alamkaras, and as rasa"di or emotive stuff, or, aesthetic delight in general-this third variety is available only at the suggested level. This actually is more basic than the the other two varieties of implicit sense. This is seen illustrated in the Ramayana of Valmiki. This implicit sense is not within the grasp of only those who have excelled in the science of grammar but is felt only by those who are conversant with the essence of poetry, the true significance of poetry. Anandavardhana then i.e. after establishing the existence of the implicit sense as distinct from the expressed, demonstrates the over-riding superiority of that implicit meaning over the expressed. He observes that the prime activity of a firstrate poet should be directed in scrutinising that meaning, i.e. the implicit sense, and that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it "yatnatah pratyabhijneyau tau sabdarthau mahakaveh." (Dhv. I. 8b). Without defining or even attempting to define vyanjana or the suggestive power that yields the implicit sense, he again glorifies the importance of the power of expression of a poetic word. Thus he refers to both vyanjana and abhidha in the same breath. He observes: "alokarthi yatha dipa-sikhayam yatnavanjanah, tadupayataya, tad vad arthe vacye tad-adrtah." (Dhv. I. 9) - "Just as a man interested in perceiving objects (in the dark) directs his efforts towards securing a lamp since For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #77
632 SAHRDAYALOKA it is a means to realise his end, so also does one who is ultimately interested in the suggested meaning proceed by first evincing interest in the conventional meaning." (Trans. K.Kris. PP. 17, ibid) He establishes that vacyartha i.e. the conventioned expressed sense collected at the level of abhidha, being instrumental in arriving at the implicit sense, resulting from the operation of the suggestive power i.e. vyanjana, is equally important for both the poet pratipadaka kavi, and also the reader i.e. pratipadya. True, vacyavacaka-bhava, i.e. abhidha is basic to poetry and even a poet having his ultimate interest in suggestion, has to pay respect to it, but the ultimate goal for a first-rate poet is suggested sense according to Anandavardhana. Or, we may say Anandavardhana's criticism has a bias for the suggested sense and suggestivity of poetic words. This perhaps was not wholly acceptable to Kuntaka, and there were others in Mahima and Dhanika who rose against the theory of vyanjana. This we will see later. But Anandavardhana with this introduction proceeds to define what he calls 'Dhvani' or principal suggested sense and also 'Dhvani kavya', or variety of poetry with the charm of suggested sense principally. He gives a definition at Dhv. I. 13. which covers both 'dhvani' and 'dhvani-kavya' alike, though with all his tilt towards this suggestion-oriented-criticism, he never shows enthusiasm to brand 'Dhvanikavya' as 'uttama' as done by Mammata and the rest. He proceeds to discuss this variety of poetry throughout the course of his second chapter and right upto Dhv. III. 33, wherein he successfully assimilates, or better say shows the culmination or merger of all other prevailing thought-currents into his all-pervasive theory of dhvani. The essence, for him, of great poetry, is rasa-dhvani and all other factors subserve this prime object of delineation of rasa i.e. aesthetic pleasure in poetry. Even the expressed sense and the expressive word (vacya-vacaka) has to be an instrument in the suggestion of rasa. Actually he declares that, the main task of a great poet is the proper marshalling of all the contents and the expressions in the direction of rasa-realisation which is necessarily experienced at the level of suggestivity and never at the level of expression or abhidha. He observes: - "vacyanam vacakanam ca yad aucityena yojanam, rasa"divisayenaitat karma mukhyam mahakaveh." (Dhv. I. 32) He observes: "The main business of a first-rate poet is none other than the proper marshalling of both contents, i.e. plots, and expressions used in setting them For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #78
Vyanjana' 633 forth, in the direction of sentiments etc. In other words the main function of the poet lies only in making one sentiment principal throughout the poem and in employing both words and senses only in such a way that the sentiment is suggested clearly." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 189, ibid) He proceeds to suggest that this course is observed even by Bharata when he talked of vrttis i.e. modes. Anandavardhana here meets with some objections. Before proceeding to consider this, he establishes that between 'rasadi' (vyangya/ dhvani) and plots - itivrtta"di - etc. in poetry, there is jiva-sarira-vyavahara i.e. lifebody relation and not guna-guni-vyavahara or the relation of quality-substance. He rejects the plea that rasa"dis may be taken as some speciality such as preciousness in diamonds discernible only to experts. He says that in this case, there will be another difficulty. For, if it were correct, just as the preciousness in diamonds of quality as not being different from the very nature of their being diamonds, so also rasadis would have to be discerned as not being different from the nature of the expressed situations, emotional responses, etc. But it is not so. No one gets the idea that the setting, the emotional responses and passing moods are themselves rasa"dis. The apprehension of the setting, etc. is only an invariable condition of all apprehension of rasa"dis etc. So, we may imagine a cause-effect relation to exist between these two apprehensions. So, there is bound to be some temporal sequentiality also between the two. But this sequentiality is not perceptible as it is very minute. Thus, observes Anandavardhana, that it is mentioned that rasadis are suggested only through undiscerned sequentiality : "ata eva ca vibhava"di-pratityavinabhavini rasa"dinam pratitir iti tat-pratityoh karya-karana-bhavena vyavasthanat kramovasyambhavi. sa tu laghavan na prakasata iti "alaksyakrama eva santo vyangya rasa"dayah" iti uktam. Dhv. Vrtti. III. 33. He establishes this point forcefully and suggests that even in musical notes, the sequence, though not noticed, still remains between the hearing of notes and experiencing of various feelings. He observes :"yesam api svarupa-pratiti-nimittam vyanjakatvam yatha tesam api svarupapratiter vyangya-pratites ca niyamabhavi kramah. tat tu sabdasya kriya-paurvaparyam ananya-sadhya-tat-phala-ghatanasv asubhavinisu vacyena avirodhini abhidheyantara-vilaksane, rasa"dau na pratiyate. kvacit tu laksayate eva, yatha anuranana-rupa-vyangya-pratitinu." (Vstti, Dhv. III. 33) - "But even there we do have, invariably, temporal sequentiality between the apprehension of the nature of sounds and the apprehension of suggested sentiments. But this temporal sequentiality in the two functions of sounds cannot be noticed when sentiments are suggested; because sentiments are neither opposed For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #79
634 SAHRDAYALOKA to the expressed sense nor appear as similar to the other senses; they are not capable of being conveyed by aught else and all their accessories work together with lightening quickness. But in some contexts, the sequentiality is noticeable also; instances where we find apprehension of resonance-like suggestion may be cited as examples.". (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 193-5, ibid) This sequence is noticeable even in the variety of dhvani called 'a-vivaksitavacya' or wherein the expressed sense is not intended. Thus, for Anandavardhana there is a sequence between the expressed and the suggested sense in all varieties of dhvani. Now Anandavardhana tackles the maha-purva-paksa i.e. the main objection against suggestivity. It is here that we can underline his concept of vyanjana, though of course, no definition is attempted even here. The objection reads as follows. - tad evam vyanjaka-mukhena dhvani-prakaresu nirupitesu kascid bruyat-kim idam vyanjakatvam nama ? vyangyartha-prakasanam hi vyanjakatvam. tad vyanjakatvam carthasya vyanjaka-siddhy adhinam; vyangyapeksaya ca vyanjakatvasiddhih iti samsrayad a-vyavasthanam. nanu vacya-vyatiriktasya vyanjakatvasya siddhih prag eva pratipadita, tat siddhy adhina ca vyanjakatva-siddhir iti kah paryanuyogavasarah ? satyam eva etat; prag ukta-yuktibhir vacya-vyatiriktasya vastunah siddhih krta; satv artho vyangyatayaiva kasmad vyapadisyate ? yatra ca pradhanyena avasthanam tatra vacyataya eva asau vyapadestum yuktah. tatparatvat vakyasya. atas ca tatprakasino vakyasya vacakatvam eva vyaparah. kim tasya vyaparantarakalpanaya ? tasmat tatparya-visayo yorthah sa tavan mukhyataya vacyah. ya tv antara tathavidhe visaye vacyantarapratitih sa tatpratiter upayamatram padartha-pratitir vakyartha-pratiteh." (Vrtti., Dhv. III. 33. pp. 196-198, Edn. K. Kris., ibid), (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 197, ibid) "Some might object as follows to our procedure of dividing suggestion into various kinds from the stand-point of suggestiveness - "what is this suggestiveness? The power of conveying the implied sense need not be designated by the name "suggestiveness" at all. The existence of the suggested sense is dependent upon the existence of the suggestive word, so also the existence of the suggestive word is dependent upon the existence of the suggested sense. As the definition thus moves in a vicious circle, nothing definite will have been established about either." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #80
"Vyanjana' 635 We would put them a counter-question : When we have already established the existence of suggested sense as distinct from the expressed (by other arguments), what scope for objection is there if suggestiveness were made to follow from the existence of the suggested ? The objector might argue as follows: 'It is true that the existence of the suggested sense as distinct from the expressed has been established by arguments already given. But why should that sense be called by the name "suggested" alone? It is right that we should designate it as 'expressed' itself, wherever it happens to be primarily important, since it is primarily intended to be conveyed by the sentence as a whole. Thus the sentence which conveys that sense has only one function and that is denotation. What is the use of attributing a new function to it ? Thus the sense which happens to be the main purport of a sentence can only be primarily "expressed". Apprehension of other senses from the sentence prior to the apprehension of word-meaning is only a means to the knowledge of sentence. purport." Now onwards Anandavardhana clearly and logically establishes the difference between abhidha and vyanjana, between laksana and vyanjana, the inevitableness of accepting vyanjana even for the Mimamsakas and also the Naiyayikas by exposition of the nature and scope of vyanjana. He begins with abhidha. Abhidha and vyanjana are not identical. The nature and scope of either are different. Anandavardhana continues as follows. He says, let us first take an nere a word conveys another meaning after having conveyed its primary meaning i.e. vacyartha, earlier. Anandavardhana asks if there is any difference or no difference between the two functions of the word, viz. the denotation of primary meaning and the implication of another sense. The view that there is no difference between the two is simply not acceptable; for says he - "yasmat tau vyaparau bhinnavisayau bhinna-rupau ca pratiyete eva" - i.e. the two functions clearly depict a difference between them from the point of view of both nature and scope. To illustrate - the scope of the function of denotation in a word is confined to its primary sense, while the scope of the function of implication includes a sense other than the primary sense : tatha hi vacakarva-laksano vyaparah sabdasya svartha-visayah, gamakatva-laksanastv arthantara-visayah", - It is not possible to deny that the expressed sense is 'its own' sense of a word, while the implied sense is, 'one belonging to another.' - na ca sva-para-vyav vyangyayor apahnotum sakyah, ekasya sambandhitvena pratipatteh, aparasya sambandhi-sambandhitvena." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33. pp. 198. Edn. K. Kris.), For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #81
636 SAHRDAYALOKA Anandavardhana further says that it is not possible to deny that the expressed is 'its own' sense of a word, while the implied is 'one belonging to another.' The apprehension of the implied will be remotely related to the word through the medium of the expressed sense. While the vacyartha or the expressed sense is directly related to the word, the implied sense is related to that which in its turn is related to the word since it is implied by the power of the expressed sense. If the implied sense too were directly related to the word, then there would be no need at all for referring to it as another sense. - "yadi ca sva-sambandhitvam saksad tasya syat tada arthantaratva-vyavahara eva na syat." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, ibid; p. 198). Thus the difference in scope between the two functions is clear Anandavardhana says that : "rupabhedopi prasiddha eva" - i.e. their difference in nature too is obvious. The function of denotation itself cannot be the same as the function of implication since we find suggestiveness of sentiments etc. even in words of music. It is well known too that gestures etc., which are not even sounds, possess the function of suggesting specific ideas. In the illustration viz. : vridayogan nata-vadanaya etc. i.e. 'with her face bent down', etc., the specific gesture (of sideglance) of the heroine has been described by the great poet in a way suggestive of que charm. Since the scope and natures of the two functions are thus quite different, it is clear that the denotative function of words and the implying function of words are quite different from each other - "tasmat bhinnavisayatvat bhinnaruparvac ca svarthabhidhayitvam arthantaravagamahetutvam ca sabdasya yat. tayoh spasta eva bhedah." (vrtti, pp. 198, ibid) - visesas cen na tarhi idanim avagamanasya abhidheya-samarthya"ksiptasya arthantarasya vacyatva-vyapadesyata. (vrtti, ibid, p. 198) - "When the separate individuality of the two functions is accepted, it will not be possible to give designation of "the expressed", to that other meaning which is only implied by the power of the expressed sense." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 200, 201, ibid) Anandavardhana however accepts, and this is very important assertion, that the sense too comes within the powers of words. - 'sabda-vyapara-gocaratvam tu tasya asmabhir isyata eva" (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33. pp. 200, ibid). "tat tu vyangyatvena na vacyatvena". This clear acceptance of vyanjana is a signal to the opponents of vyanjana, especially the logicians who subsume all sense other than the expressed under inference, yes, poetic inference. But Anandavardhana says in clear terms that - "prasiddhabhidhanantara-sambandhayogyatvena ca tasyarthantarasya pratiteh sabdantarena svarthabhidhayin, yad visayikaranam tatra prakasanoktir eva yukta." - "If a word which is capable of denoting only its primary meaning For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #82
637 Vyanjana' directly, is also seen actually conveying another meaning, directly denoted not by this word but by some other word only, then we would be right in regarding it as an instance of suggestiveness of word." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 201, ibid). Thus if the word 'ganga which has its power of expression limited to convey to the sense of the stream of the ganga only, conveys the sense of coolness and purity i.e. saitya and pavanatva, which concepts can be conveyed directly i.e. expressedly only by the particular words viz. 'saitya' and 'pavanatva' - then we have to accept that the word 'ganga' conveys these senses only through the power of suggestiveness i.e. vyanjana, which is other than vacakatva or abhidha. The Locana on this observes : (pp. 418, 419, edn. with Balapriya, Kashi, skt. series, Varanasi, 1940) : "nanu gita"dau ma bhud vacakatvam, iha tu arthantare sabdasya vacakatvam eva ucyate; kim hi tad vacakatvam samkocyata ity asankya aha - "prasiddheti" - sabdantarena tasya arthantarasya yad visayikaranam tatra prakasanoktir eva yukta, na vacakarvoktih sabdasya, napi vacyatvoktir arthasya tatra yukta; vacakatvam hi samaya-vasad a-vyavadhanena pratipadakatvam, yatha tasyaiva sabdasya svarthe; tad aha - 'svarthabhidhayina' iti. vacyatvam hi samaya-balena nirvyavadhanam pratipadyatvam yatha tasyaiva arthasya sabdantaram prati, tad aha - "prasiddha" iti. prasiddhena vacakataya abhidhanantarena yah sambandho vacyatvam tad eva tatra va yad yogyatvam tena upalaksitasya. na ca evam vidham vacakatvam artham prati sabdasya asti, napi tam sabdam prati tasyarthasya uktarupam vacyatvam. yadi nasti tarki katham tasya visayikaranam uktam ity asankya aha - pratiter iti. atha ca pratiyate sortho, na ca vacya-vacaka-vyaparena iti vilaksana eva asau vyapara iti yavat." At I.. 10. Dhv. Anandavardhana had advocated padartha-vakyartha-nyaya between the expressed sense and the suggested sense. That was only to emphasise the instrumentality of the expressed sense in bringing about the suggested sense. The analogy otherwise was not sound because when sentence-sense dawns upon our mind, the individual word-sense is effaced. This is not so in case of the expressed and the suggested sense. The expressed sense does not get terminated when the suggested sense flashes forth. So, Anandavardhana says that we should not accept the 'padartha-vakyartha-nyaya' between the two, but actually "ghatapradipa-nyaya" should be accepted here. Just as when a torch is held, a jar which was wrapped up in darkness is manifested and both the torch or lamp and the object jar continue to exist simultaneously, similarly when the suggested sense is manifested, the expressed sense, like a lamp, continues to manifest itself also side Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #83
638 SAHRDAYALOKA by side; the Dhvanikara observes : "na ca padartha-vakyartha-nyayo vacyavyangyayoh. yatah pudartha-pratitih asatya eva iti kaiscid vidvadbhih asthitam. yaih api asatyarvam asyah na abhyupeyate, tair vakyartha-padarthayor ghara-tadupadanakarana-nyayobhy upagantavyah. tatha hi ghate nispanne tad upadanakarananam na prthag upalambhah, tathaiva vakye tad arthe va prat arthanam; tesam tada vibhaktatayopalambhe vakyartha-buddhir eva duribhavet. na tu esa vacya-vangyayor nyayah. na hi vyangye pratiyamnne vacyabuddhir duribhavati, vacyavabhasavinabhavena tasya prakasanat. tasmad ghatapradipanyayas tayoh; yathaiva hi pradipa-dvarena ghaca-pratitav utpannayam na pradipaprakaso nivartate, tadvad vyangya-pratitau vacyavabhasah. yat tu prathamodyote yatha padartha-dvarena' ity ady uktam tad upayatva-matrat samya-vivaksaya." (Vitti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 200, ibid) "The analogy of word-import and sentence-purport too does not quite apply to the expressed and suggested senses, since in the opinion of some philosophers, the very apprehension of sense from individual words is unreal. Even those who do not hold that it is unreal will have to agree that the analogy of the relation between the pot and its material cause will explain better the relation between sentence-purport and word-import. Just as the material causes of a pot cannot be recognised separately after the pot has come into being, so also word and its sense are not recognised separately after the sentence and its purport have been apprehended as a whole. If they could be recognised separately, the very apprehension of the whole sentence-purport would have to be driven away to a distance. But this principle does not hold good with reference to the expressed and suggested senses. When the suggested sense is apprehended, the expressed sense is not driven away to a distance since the apprehension of the suggested is inseparably occasioned by the apprehension of the expressed. Hence the analogy of the pot and the lamp would fit them best. Just as the light of the lamp will not recede as soon as the perception of the pot is brought home to the observer, so also, the expressed sense will continue to shine out even after the apprehension of the suggested sense has been achieved. In the light of these considerations, it should be understood that the remark made in the first flash - "Just as the purport of a sentence..." etc. (No. I. 10) - aims only at pointing out the similarity between the two in respect of their being means to some other and (and that the analogy) is not intended to be pursued to the last detail." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 201, ibid) The Locana further elaborates the point as below : "nanu evam ma bhud vacaka-Saktis tathapi tatparya-saktir bhavisyati iti asankya aha - na ca iti. kaiscid Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #84
Vyanjana' 639 iti vaiyakaranaih, yair api iti bhatta-prabhrtibhih. tam eva nyayam vyacaste - yatha hiti. tad upadana-karananam iti. samavavi-karanani kapalani anayoktya nirupitani. saugata-kapalikamate tu yady apy upadatavya-ghara-kale upadananam na satta ekatra ksanasthayitvena, paratra tirobhutatvena, tatha'pi prthak-taya nasty upalambha ity amse drstantah. duribhaved iti. arthaikarvasya abhavad iti bhavah." Locanakara explains the argument as below. It was explained earlier that for the senses of coolness and purity to be derived from the word 'ganga', we will have to accept a function over and above the power of expression. But even if a power other than 'abhidha' is accepted, the question still remains that why should we designate this other power by the name of vyanjana ? As for the apprehension of the sentence-sence which is different from word-sense and which is not obiterated by the same, we accept tatparya-vrtti i.e. sentence-purport, in the same way this sentence-power, i.e. tatparya-vrtti will cause to apprehend this sense of coolness and purity. So, it is futile to imagine a separate power called suggestiveness or vyanjana. To this it can be said that here the 'padartha-vakyartha-nyaya' is not applicable. We know that only the abhihitanvayavadin-mimamsakas accept the tatparya-vstti. Even the anvitabhidhanavadin mimamsakas do not approve of it. The Vaiyakaranas take the apprehension of word-sense as totally false i.e. mithya, for they believe only in akhanda sphota, thus taking the concepts of varna, pada etc. as illusory only. So, for them, when the hypothesis of pada and padartha is unacceptable, how can, following the same, be vyanjana taken as useless by including it in tatparya ? Some others do not accept this mithyatva vada of the grammarians and hold that the hypothesis of pada-padartha is not false but true. But for them also this point will be explained differently. For them vakya-vakyartha stand as karya - i.e. effect and pada-padartha stand fo karana i.e. cause. Here 'karana' is to be taken as upadana-karana i.e. material cause, i.e. samavayi-karana. Now as for cause-effect relation there is a general rule that, of course the apprehension of a samavayi-karana precedes an effect, but it disappears when the effect follows or comes into existence. Both are not co-existant at a given moment. As the two halves of separate mud does not continue to exist when an actual pot takes shape, same is the case here. The pada-padartha-apprehension disappears when there is cognition of vakyavakyartha-(buddhi). If the pada-padartha-apprehension continues then how can vakya-vakyartha-bodha take shape at all ? For, in that case it will be futile to Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #85
640 SAHRDAYALOKA designate it as vakya-vakyartha. So, we will have to admit that as with causeeffect relation, vakya-vakyartha-bodha takes shape only when the former, i.e. pada-padartha-bodha melts away. This explanation follows the mimamsakaideology The Bauddhas believe in momentary existence of things, i.e. they are ksanikatavadins. For them every object goes on changing from moment to moment. So, this being the case, in the moment of effect being generated, the existence of samavayicause can never be accepted. Similarly for the samkhyas and the kapalikas also at the moment of 'karyotpatti' - i.e. effect taking shape, the karana-satta or the existence of cause-material disappears. Thus when effect is apprehended the apprehension of cause has ended beforehand. The idea is that, whether we accept padartha-kalpana as false, following the grammarians, or whether we accept cause-effect-relation and hold that the cause disappears when the effect takes place, or accept the buddhist view of momentariness and accept the unavailability of cause at the moment when effect comes into existence, or following the kapalikas believe the disappearance of cause into effect, one thing is certain that, even if we follow any principle mentioned above, padartha-bodha cannot continue when vakyartha-bodha arrives. As against this both vacya or expressed and the vyangya i.e. suggested continue to co-exist. We know that the apprehension of the expressed sense is not terminated when the suggested sense is also apprehended. On the contrary it is a speciality of the suggested that the earlier apprehension of the expressed continues even in the time of the apprehension of the suggested. So, the padartha-vakyartha analogy cannot be made applicable to vacya vyangya-apprehension. But pradipa-ghata analogy will work here. The lamp gets lighted first by itself and then illumines the substance such as jar etc., and while doing so it continues to shine by itself also. Similarly the expressed sense comes into existence first and while continuing to exist manifests the suggested sense also. The apprehension of the expressed sense is not terminated when that of the suggested sense dawns. Both are simultaneously apprehended. Thus if we accept after grammarians that the pada-padartha hypothesis is illusory, or accept karya-karana-bhava like the Mimamsakas, or accept the momentariness following the Bauddhas, or like kapalikas accept the non-continuence of karana after karyotpatti, we cannot arrive at the simultaneous apprehension of the expressed and the suggested senses. Thus, pada-padartha-analogy is inapplicable here. So, it is safe to accept vyangya-vyanjaka-bhava between the two apprehensions. So, the analogy of pada-padartha-nyaya cited at Dhv. I. 10, only Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #86
"Vyanjana' 641 means that the vacyartha is instumental only - upayamatra - in bringing about the vyangyartha. No further similarity is meant here. Now the Locana discusses a fresh point. The objector says that when you recommend ghata-pradipa-nyaya for the two apprehensions of the primary and the suggested senses, you accept simutaneity with regard to both of them. Now in this case the very 'vakyata' of the sentence will disappear. For, acaryas have laid down that a sentence is that group of words which is having a single sense at a given moment. The Jaimini-sutra lays down that, "arthaikatvad ekam vakyam, sakanksam ced, vibhage syat." It means that if a sentence is cut or divided into parts, each of its part i.e. pada, will be having expectancy of one another = sakanksam., but when taken together it has a single sense. If it is asked as to what will be the situation in case of words that have paronomasia - i.e. in case of 'slista pada', the reply is that even if more than one sense is derived from a statement in case of paronomasia, the sentence is said to have only a single sense, for one sense is established - i.e. ekarupata is accepted - by fusion of the two senses. This is explained in the following way. Suppose a word with a multiple-sense is pronounced. Now senses more them one follow from one and the same word and in case of each meaning being grasped the convention - sanketa-smarana is remembered each time. Now the point to be considered is how do we derive all the conventional meanings from one and the some word. Do we arrive at these senses one by one or do we get all the senses at a time, i.e. simultaneously? We cannot arrive at the senses one by one in order because the activity of the word cannot proceed by stops and gaps and this is an accepted rule - The abhidha vyapara is terminated after giving a single sense. Once it is over it cannot be revived. Nor can we accept a simultaneous apprehension of all senses at a time for remembering of convention is a condition which has to be there for arriving at a given expressed sense. Thus all senses remaining present in human intellect simultaneously is also ruled out. Thus from either way, the hypothesis of difference in meaning does not stand. The word is neither heard again and again, nor is remembered again and again. So, the question of its multiplicity of senses does not arise at all. So, the definition of a sentence, viz. that it can have a single sense remains protected. Now, in this case, the objector asks, if a set of words, i.e. a sentence, is said to have one expressed sense and another suggested sense, where will the accepted definition as said above stand ? Thus, the accepted definition will have to be sacrificed and that is not a welcome situation. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #87
642 SAHRDAYALOKA To this, the siddhantin's answer is that the expressed and the suggested senses are to be taken as principal and subordinate. Thus, the definition of a sentence having a single sense will not be vitiated. At times the suggested sense with be principal, at other times the expressed will be principal. When the suggested sense is principal, it is termed 'dhvani', and is termed 'guni-bhata-vyangya' when the expressed sense predominates. So, the net outcome of this discussion is that even if the word is suggested-sense-oriented i.e. is vyangya-paraka, and even if it be taken as 'vacya' only following the (false interpretation of the) dictum 'yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah', then also, vyangyartha is not rendered out of place by abhidha-vstti but we will have to postulate vyanjana-vytti for the same. Anandavardhana further argues that in instances where the suggested is not intended as principal, the objector will not be able to regard it even as expressed, since the word does not intend it at all. This also adds support to the conclusion that there is some definite scope for suggested sense of words. And where it happens to be intended as principal, why should its existence be gainsaid ? - "yatra'pi tasya pradhanyam tatra'pi kim iti tasya svarupam apahnuyate ?" (Vitti, ibid, pp. 202). Hence suggestiveness is positively different from denotation. Another reason which supports the same conclusion is this - Denotation is based upon words only, while suggestiveness is based not only upon words but also upon senses; since suggestiveness, as already shown, relates to words as well as senses : "evam tavad vacakatvad anyad eva vyanjakatvam; itas ca vacakatvad vyanjakatvasya anyatvam, yad vacakatvam sabdaika"srayam itarat tu sabda"srayam artha"srayam ca, sabdarthayor dvayor api vyanjakatvasya pratipaditatvat." (Vitti, pp. 202, ibid). Anandavardhana now proceeds to establish that vyanjana and gunavrtti i.e. amukhya-vrtti are also different from each other from the point of consideration of nature and scope i.e. svarupa and visaya. It may be noted that Anandavardhana reserves the word mukhya for abhidha, while what normally is termed two-fold laksana i.e. suddha and gauni by followers of Mammata, is termed 'gunavrtti' by him. 'Gunavrtti thus is a-mukhya i.e. notabhidha' for him and is said to be two-fold i.e. through upacara i.e. guna-samya and laksana i.e. one which is ordinarily taken as suddha by followers of Mammata. Locana puts it this way - "evam visayabhedat svarupabhedat karanabhedac ca vacakatvat mukhyat prakasakatvasya bhedam pratipadya ubhayatva'visesat tarhi Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #88
Vyanjana 643 vyanjakatva-gaunatvayoh ko bheda ity asankya amukhyad api pratipadayitum ahagunavsttir api. - etc...... The point is, those features that are marked in suggestiveness are also seen in gauni-vrtti also. In the former both sabda and artha stand as asraya and so is the case with gunavrtti also. Then what is the difference between the two ? This problem is discussed here. It may be noted that laksana is two-fold viz., suddha and gauni and Anandavardhana uses the terms laksana and upacara for the same respectively as noted above. For both these varieties taken together, the term is 'guna-vrtti' or apradhana-vrtti or a-mukhya-vrtti. Now this gunavrtti of either variety rests both on word and sense. But even in this case it can not be said to be identical with suggestiveness for there is difference from the point of view of both nature and scope. Svarupa-bheda is explained as follows. :-Gunavrtti is so termed because the function of the word operating there is subordinate. First there is rtha-bodha i.e. collection of the expressed sense. Then on account of lack of apprehension of speaker's intention, i.e. because of tatparya-anupapatti, the expressed sense is contradicted i.e. there is vacyartha-badha. Thus the word becomes skhald-gati i.e. the expressed sense becomes incompatible, and another sense through some relation is brought in place of the expressed sense. Hence it is called gunavstti or laksana, or a-mukhya-vyapara. On the other hand no one can say that the suggested sense is necessarily subordinate. On account of camatkara-paryavasana, rasa, vastu or alamkara when suggested are never subordinate. Laksana is always a-mukhya and vyangyartha is principal. Vyanjana is not necessarily badha-sapeksa, while gunavstti is necessarily badha-sapeksa. Anandavardhana points out another svarupabheda betweed gunavstti and vyanjakatva. He observes : "ayam ca anyah svarupabhedah - yad gunavsttir amukhyatvena vyavasthitam vacakatvam eva ucyate. vyanjakatvam tu vacakatvad atyantam vibhinnam eva." - The idea is there is another difference in nature between the two. Indication is practically denotation itself, with this difference that it is a subordinate verbal function. While, suggestion, on the other hand is proved to be quite different from denotation. A further difference between the two is this. When another sense is conveyed by a sense through indication, argues Anandavardhana, the first sense merges itself with the second and becomes one with it, as for example in the statement, "There is hamlet on the Ganga." But when one sense conveys another through suggestion, the first retains its individuality Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #89
644 SAHRDAYALOKA while conveying the other, just like a lamp. The instance here is, "lilakamalapatrani ganayamasa parvati." If the name indication were to be given to such instances also where one sense conveys another sense without losing its importance or identity, then it would be tantamount to saying that indication itself is the primary verbal function. For, it is generally observed that any given sentence possesses the power of conveying a purport over and above the expressed sense of individual words. Thus there is three-fold distinction underlined between gunavrtti and vyanjana. (i) In vyanjana the word is never skhalad-gati, while in gunavrtti there is skhaladgatitva of a word. (ii) In vyanjana samketa is never utilized while laksana i.e. gunavitti is necessarily sakyartha-bodha-sapeksini i.e. it necessarily stands in need of sakyartha-jnana. (iii) Vyanjana gives vyangyartha along with the sakyartha i.e. y sense, while in laksana the apprehension of laksyartha is not separately cognized but is seen with the sakyartha - upalaksaniyartha"tmana parinata eva - i.e. both are not independently cognised. Anandavardhana further observes : "nanu tvat-pakse'pi yada'rtho vyangyatrayam prakasayati tada sabdasya kideso vyaparah ? ucyate - prakaranady avacchinnasabda-vasena eva arthasya tathavidham vyanjakatvam iti sabdasya tatropayogah katham apahnuyate." (pp. 204, vitti, ibid). "The following question may be put to us - well, even granting the truth of what you say, what is the precise verbal function involved when a sense conveys the three-fold suggested content ?' Here is our reply - the sense therein acquires the said suggestiveness only because of the words aided by context etc. Hence how can anyone deny the use of words in such suggestion ? (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 285, ibid) After thus explaining the svarupa-bheda between gunavstti and vyanjana Anandavardhana now proceeds to explain visaya-bheda i.e. difference in scope, between these two. He observes : visayabhedo'pi gunavrtti-vyanjakarvayoh spasta eva." (vrtti, ibid, pp. 204). The difference in scope between indication and suggestiveness is also clear. The scope of vyanjakatva i.e. suggestiveness is threefold viz. (i) rasa"dayah i.e. sentiments etc., (ii) specific figures of speech or turns of expression, and (iii) suggested ideas or matter. Of these three, none will or can say that the apprehension of rasa"dis is identical with indication. The same is true of the suggested figures also. So, far as the third variety, i.e. suggested idea is concerned, that alone is suggested therein which is especially intended to be conveyed by the poet by a process other than the denotation, when he finds that the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #90
Vyanjana 645 beauty he wants to furnish to the idea or matter on hand cannot be achieved by means of denotation itself : "vastu carutva-pratitaye sva-sabda-anabhidheyatvena yat pratipadayitum isyate tad vyangyam." (Vrtti, PV. 204, ibid). - All this cannot be included in the scope of indication since we can see several examples of indication based merely on convention or usage - "prasiddhy anurodhabhyam api gaunanam sabdanam prayoga-darsanat" - (pp. 204, vrtti). This has been already explained. If at all there is any element of beauty seen in indication, it will be entirely due to association with suggestive element therein. Hence indication and suggestiveness are widely different from each other. The truth is that suggestiveness not only differs from denotation on one hand and indication on the other; on the contrary it is actually based upon each of them also : "vacakatva-gunavstti-vilaksanasya'pi ca tasya tad-ubhaya"srayatvena vyavasthanam." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33. pp. 206, ibid) - The Locana on this reads - "na kevalam purvokto hetukalapo yavat tad ubhayasrayatvena mukhyopacara"srayatvena yad vyavasthanam tad api vacakagunavstti-vilaksanasya eva iti vyapti-ghatanam." Anandavardhana further elaborates this subtle observation, as follows. - At times suggestiveness rests on denotation, e.g. in cases of vivaksitanya-paravacya-dhvani i.e. suggestion with intended but further extending expressed sense. In case of suggestion with unintended expressed sense, i.e. avivaksitavacya dhvani, it rests on indication. In order to support this resting on both these powers, i.e. expression and indication, basically two-fold suggested sense was explained in the beginning i.e. in the first chapter of the Dhv. itself. As suggestiveness is assisted by both vacakatva and gunavstti, it is impossible to identify it with either of them - "tad ubhaya"sritatvac ca tad ekarupatvam tasya na saktyate vaktum." (vstti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 206, ibid) - As it at times seeks assistance from indication, it cannot be identified with denotation alone, and as it is supported by denotation at times, it cannot be identical with indication alone. Thus it cannot be comprehended by either as it partakes of the characteristics of both - "na ca ubhaya-dharmatvenaiva tad ekaika-rupam na bhavati" (vrtti, pp. 206, ibid). Over and above this, it has the characteristic of sound only - sabda-dharma. Which is devoid of both verbal powers of denotation and indication - "yad vacakatva-laksana"di-rupa-rahita-sabda-dharmatvena'pi." (vrtti, pp. 206, ibid). Thus the sounds of music do possess suggestiveness with reference to rasa"di, but they are never associated with either the power of expression or indication. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #91
646 SAHRDAYALOKA Again, as we can see suggestiveness in instances which are not even sounds (as in case of gestures etc.), it is wrong to consider it as a form of verbal functions such as denotation, etc. Though suggestiveness is thus different from the well-known functions, i.e. expression and indication of words, yet if it should be regarded as another form of verbal function itself, why should it not be regarded as a form of word itself? Thus, concludes Anandavardhana, there are three-fold functions of words viz. (i) denotation, (ii) indication and (iii) suggestiveness. When in case of the third the suggested sense is principal, it is termed 'dhvani', which is basically laid down as two-fold such as (i) a-vivaksitanya-para-vacya-dhvani i.e. that with un-intended expressed sense, and (ii) vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani or that with intended expressed sense. These two have been elaborately treated also. It may be noted that Anandavardhana has used the term 'prakaratva' in the sense of 'dharma' only, in the remark viz. "yadi ca vacakatva-laksana"dinam sabda-prakaranam prasiddha-prakara-vilaksanatve'pi vyanjakatvam prakaratvena parikalpyate, tad cchabdasya eva prakaratvena kasman na parikalpyate ?" (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 206, ibid). Thus vyanjana also, like abhidha and laksana is a 'dharma' of sound i.e. word or-sabda. But the Locanakara has taken 'prakara' in 'sabda-prakaranam' as meaning 'dharma', and in 'prakaratvena' as meaning 'bheda' or variety. Thus the explanation advanced by Locana here is as follows : "On the strength of many pramanas, or proofs, the distinction of vyanjana from both abhidha and laksana is established. It has also been shown that vyanjana also is a function of word like abhidha and laksana. It has been also further pointed out that vyanjana seeks support at times of abhidha or at times of laksana. With all this if the objector believes in identity of vyanjana with abhidha and laksana, and if he insists on taking vyanjana as a synonym for abhidha then he should have no objection in holding sabda and vyanjana to be identical and taking sabda and vyanjana also as synonyms. One can cherish any desire without control. But the fact is that, vyanjakatva is proved to be absolutely different from all these. And if one's desire or personal belief is allowed to run riot, any system will topple. Normally we infer fire from smoke on a mountain. But if such a riot of personal belief is allowed to run amuck then one will argue that the smoke is not because of fire but is due to something else! Locana reads vyanjakatvanm vacakatvam iti yadi paryayau kalpyete, icchayah avyahatatvat. vyanjakatvasya tu viviktam svarupam darsitam, tad-visayantare katham For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #92
'Vyanjana' 647 viparyastam ? evam hi parvatagato dhumonagnijopi syad iti bhavah." (on vitti, Dhv. III. 33). There is still further objection projected. It is like this. - It is true that there is no element of indication in vivaksita-'nyapara-vacyadhvani. For, it is not possible to think of indication where a second meaning is apprehended over and above the apprehension of the expressed sense. But in the case of two-fold indication viz. when the primary meaning is entirely concealed as in case of 'agnir mi and (ii) when the primary meaning is partly retained as in case of 'gangayam ghosah', - the primary meaning is not intended in full. In case of both these varieties, with unintended primary sense, how will you distinguish between indication and suggestion, "a-vivaksita-vacyas tu dhvaner gunavrtti-dvaya-rupata laksyata eva yatah"(vrtti, pp. 208, ibid). The idea is that indication and suggestion cannot be separated in case of the arthantara-samkramita-vacya-dva atyanta-tiraskrta-vacya-dhvani. To this Anandavardhana's reply is that, "ayam api na dosah". The reason is that (both the varieties of) avivaksitavacya-dhvani, of course, operate through the passage of indication, but because of this, the two should not be taken as identical. Thus here, the suggestion might operate in the wake of indication, but it does not assume the form of indication. Gunavrtti or indication can be shown to proceed even completely devoid of suggested context - "gunavrttir hi vyanjakatva-sunya'pi drsyate" (vrtti, pp. 208, ibid). While suggestiveness can not function without suggested content which is a source of beauty. This has been already explained. The first type of indication, viz. metaphorical attribution of identity, takes its stand in the characteristics of the expressed sense, e.g. "agnir manavakah", wherein Manavaka is said to be fire because of his extremely short temper. Similarly the face of a heroine is said to be moon itself, because of its pleasing nature. The second form of indication, viz. secondary sense - laksana-rupa gunavsttih, - also is possible if there is just a connection with the secondarily indicated sense, though there is no apprehension of suggested content full of beauty; e.g. in 'mancah krosanti' - "the cots make noise". It is true, in some cases, indication becomes a source of the apprehension of the suggested content full of beauty, but this beauty is caused entirely due to its touch of suggestiveness, as in case of denotation. In case where we have a treatment of improbable events, e.g. in 'suvarna-puspam prthivim..." etc., the treatment justified only in view of the apprehension of suggested beauty; and so it is Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #93
648 SAHRDAYALOKA reasonable to hold that we should regard them as instances of suggestion only, though indication might just be present therein. Thus in both the varieties of suggestion with unintended expressed sense, i.e. avivaksitavacya - we will find indication tinged with a colouring of suggestiveness, which will not appear identical with indication, but will appear quite separate from it and bringing delight to the men of refined taste. Anandavardhana further says that the indisputable fact is that the suggestive power of words follows only in the wake of wellknown convention: "api ca vanjakatvalaksano yah sabdarthayor dharmah sa prasiddha-sambandhanurodhi iti na kasyacid vimativisayatam arhati." (vrtti, pp. 210, ibid) The suggestive power of words follows the track of the well-known conventional relation of word and meaning, which is given the designation of denoter-denoted relationship - (vacyavacaka-bhava). But it becomes tainted by its association with other adventitious circumstances "samagryantara-sambandhad aupadhikah pravartate." That is where suggestiveness differs from denotation. The denotation vacakatva-of every word is constant - 'niyata atma', because right from childhood when one picks up language, the meaning of each word remains quite the same, i.e. unchanged throughtout one's life. But the suggestiveness of words is not constant 'sa tu aniyatah', aupadhikatvat." Its apprehension takes place only when all circumstances such as context etc. combine to convey the same. It can be argued : What is the use of examining the nature of such adventitious concept ? - "nanu yadi aniyatah, tat kim tasya svarupapariksaya?' - The answer is that there is no defect in this naisa dosah. The adventitiousness is seen only from the point of view of the 'sabda"tma' (i.e. its being the soul of word), not in its own province. The Locana observes: "aniyatatvad yatharuci kalpyeta, parmarthikam rupam nasti iti; na ca a-vastunah pariksa upapadyate iti-bhavah. sabda"tmaniti sanketa"spade pada-svarupamatra ity arthah." The idea is that in saying that vacya-vacaka-bhava is 'niyata' or fixed and vyangya-vanjaka-bhava is a-niyata or 'not fixed', the idea is only this much that as in case of abhidha there is a fixed conventional meaning of a given word, in the same way in vyanjana, there is no fixed conventional vyangyartha of a given word. This uncertainty or a-niyatatva is with reference to the sabda-atma i.e. with reference to a given word taken in centre. But this uncertainty does not prevail so far as its own independent province is concerned. Vyangyartha or suggested sense is fixed in its own area. The idea is that vyangyartha is divided into three types such as vastu or idea, alamkara, or a figure of speech and rasa"di or emotive stuff. Now the area of all - - - - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #94
'Vyanjana' 649 these three varieties is individually absolutely fixed and it is a no-nonsense matter in which we should direct our thoughts. To understand that vyanjakarva is aniyata or un-fixed with reference to sabda"tma but fixed in its own area, an illustration is given by Anandavardhana who observes : "lingatva-nyayas ca asya vyanjaka-bhavasya laksyate, yatha lingatvam asrayesu a-niyatavabhasam, iccha"dhinatvat; sva-visaya-a-vyabhicari ca. tatha eva idam yatha darsitam vyanjakatvam. sabda"tmani a-niyatatvad eva ca tasya vacakatva-prakarata na sakya kalpayitum. yadi hi vacakatva-prakarata tasya bhavet tacchabda"tmani niyatata'pi syad vacakatva-vat." (vrtti on Dhv. III. 33, pp. 210, 212, ibid). "The analogy of probans in an inference is well applicable to suggestiveness. Since inference is dependent upon one's desire, when there is no such desire to info a person's part, the existence of the quality of probans in anything is far from constant from the man's point of view of the probandum. Suggestiveness is also exactly like this. Though from the standpoint of word, it might be inconstant, one should not rush to the conclusion that it is a variety of denotation. If it were really a variety of denotation, it too should have been as constant as denotation itself, in respect of a word." (Trans. K.Kra. pp. 210, 212, ibid. The net outcome of this discussion is that just as 'linga' i.e. probans is not 'notconstant in its own 'sadhya' - or that which is to be inferred or proved, the probandum; in the same way the sphere of vyanjana is also constant in itself. But as the inference of 'sadhya' through 'linga' is not a universal matter, i.e. as it is not 'sarva-kalika', in the same way, the apprehension of vyanjana is also "aupadhika" i.e. adventitious. When you apprehend the upadhis, the vyangyartha is also apprehended, but in the absence of these upadhis, the suggested sense also is not apprehended. Thus with 'sabd-atma' i.e. a particular word in centre, its expressive power is fixed, but its suggestivity is not fixed. It is for this reason that we cannot equate vyanjakatva with vacakatva, for in that case the former would be only a variety of the latter. Anandavardhana now trains his guns on the Mimamsakas and then on the Naiyayikas. He proves to the satisfaction of all that when you are dealing with poetry, even the Mimamsakas and Naiyayikas have got to accept the power of suggestiveness or vyanjakatva. Anandavardhana first turns to the Mimamsakas. He observes : "sa ca tathavidha aupadhika dharmah sabdanam autpattika-sabdartha-sambandhavadina vakya-tattva-vida paurusa'pauruseyayor vakyarthayor visesam abhidadhata Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #95
650 SAHRDAYALOKA niyamena abhyupagantavyah, tad anabhyupagame hi tasya sabdartha-sambandhanityatve sati, api, a-pauruseya-pauraseyayor vakyayor artha-pratipadane nirvisesatvam syat." (pp. 212, ibid) The idea is this. A Mimamsaka will have to accept perforce the conclusion that words have an adventitious power of the nature of suggestiveness. For a Mimamsaka believes in the theory that not only there is a natural and eternal relation between word and its sense, but also that there is a difference between sentences uttered by men and those revealed in the vedas. If the Mimamsaka is averse to accepting this adventitions power of words, the outcome will be that human uttarance and divine revealation would be treated as on par, since the relation of word and sense is accepted to be eternal in both the cases. But when he accepts this adventitious power, he can easily count for the possible falsity of human utterances. For, though one might hold that the relation between sentences and their purport is eternal, there will also be scope left to attribute falsity and such other adventitious drawbacks such as delusion due to the fleeting desires of the speaker. Effects opposite to the nature of objects are marked at times due to contact with adventitions circumstances though their original nature is not completely lost on that account. "drsyate hi bhavanam aparityakta-svabhavanam api samagry-antarasampata-sampaditaupadhika-vyaparantaranam viruddha-kriyatvam." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 212, ibid). Anandavardhana explains that even the cool-rayed moon and such other cool objects which reduce the heat of the entire universe by their refreshing coolness, are seen to cause intense pain to onlookers who are afflicted by the burning pangs of separation from their beloveds. One who likes, therefore, to uphold the doctrine that the relation of word to its meaning is natural or eternal, will have to accept obviously some adventitious element at least, which belongs to words and which is distinct from denotation, if he should properly explain the falsity of human utterances. And this cannot be anything other than suggestiveness, which is the same as the communication of what is suggested. All human utterances primarily communicate the intention of the speaker - "pauruseyani ca vakyani pradhanyena purusabhiprayam eva pyakasayanti." (vitti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 214, ibid) That intention is suggested but not denoted, since the relation of vacya-vacaka-or denoter-denoted does not apply at all to intention and the word - "sa ca vyangya eva, na tu abhidheyah, tena saha abhidhanasya vacya-vacaka-bhava-laksanasambandhabhavat." (pp. 214, ibid, vrtti, Dhv. III. 33). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #96
651 'Vyanjana The objector may argue that at this rate all sentence in the world have to be taken as suggestive as all sentences have suggestiveness with reference to the intention of a particular speaker. This objection is true in a way. The fact remains that suggestiveness has to be accepted with reference to the individual speaker's intention. But this sort of suggestion does not differ from denotation itself - "tat tu vacakatvat na bhidyate, vyangyam hi tatra nantariyakataya vyavasthitam, na tu vivaksitatvena" (vstti, Dhv. III. 33) The suggested and the expressed are almost chemically mixed up with each other in all sentences in ordinary parlour and suggestion here is not intended as exclusively important. If it were exclusively intended then only the suggested content is entitled to receive the stamp of dhvani' : "yasya tu vivaksitatvena vyangyasya sthitih tad vyanjakatvam dhvanivyavaharasya prayojakam." So, only that suggested element, which is intended to be conveyed principally, alone is termed dhvani' and whatever is suggested by way of the speaker's intention is not so termed as it is unlimited. Thus Anandavardhana concludes that : "tatha darsita-bheda-traya-rupam tatparyena dyotyamanam abhipraya-rupam anabhiprayarupam ca sarvam eva dhvani-vyavaharasya prayojakam iti yathokta-vyanjakatva -visese dhvani-laksane na ativyaptir na ca avyaptih. tasmad vakya-tattvavidam matena tavad vyanjakatvalaksano sabdo vyaparo na virodhi pratyuta'nuguna eva laksyate." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 214, ibid) - "Hence the conclusion is established that whether it be of the nature of speaker's intention or not, if the three-fold suggested content should be principally manifest, it will provide sufficient ground for the designation of suggestion. This definition of suggestion which takes into account suggestiveness as explained above cannot be tainted by the fallacies of 'too wide' or 'too narrow'. Thus the verbal power of suggestiveness will be found to be in agreement with the views of the experts on the theory of sentences (i.e. Mimamsakas) far from conflicting with their doctrine." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 215, ibid). Anandavardhana, turning towards the grammarians observes that so far as the system of grammar is concerned, the question whether the theory of suggestion is compatible with that system or not, does not arise at all, because this very expression dhvani/suggestion' is inspired by the system of grammar, i.e. the term dhvani' has been borrowed by the dhvani-vadins from the grammarians who maintain that sound in its eternal form of 'sphota' is identical with ultimate reality itself (and this is always suggested and never expressed). - "pariniscitanirapabhramsa-sabda-brahmanam vipascitam matam asrityaiva pravsttoyam Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #97
652 SAHRDAYALOKA dhvanivyavahara iti taih saha kim virodha'virodhau cintyete." (vitti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 214, ibid). On this see also Locana : "evam mimamsakanam na'tra vimatir yukta iti pradarsya vaiyakarananam naiva'tra sa'stiti darsayati. "pariniscita." iti. paritah niscitam pramanena sthapitam nirapabhramsam galita-bheda-prapancataya avidya-samskara-rahitam sabda"khyam prakasa-paramarsa-svabhavam brahma vyapakatvena bihad-visesa-sakti-nirbharatya ca bemhitam visva-nirmanasaktisvaratvac ca bomhanam 'yair iti', etad uktam bhavati - vaiyakaranas tavad brahmapade na'nyat kincid icchanti, tatra ka katha vacakatva-vyanjakatvayoh; avidyapade tu tair api vyaparantaram abhyupagatam eva. etac ca prathamodyote vitatya nirupitam." Now onwards, Anandavardhana turns his attention towards the Naiyayikas, or logicians, who seem to be the main opponents or 'pradhana-malla'. Ananadavardhana observes that so far as the logicians are concerned they cannot have any difference of opinion with reference to suggestiveness i.e. vyanjakatva, though of course, there may be difference of opinion so far as the relationship between word and meaning is concerned. They may hold it either as conventional or man-made. But for vyanjakatva they should not have any difference, for they also admit that suggestiveness is within our experience and that it is seen not only in meaning but also in words. So, their view needs no refutation : "vacakatve hi tarkikanam vipratipattayah pravartantam, kim idam svabhavikam sabdanam ahosvit samayikam ity adyah. vyanjakatve tu tat-prstha-bha sadharane loka-prasiddha eva'nugamyamane ko vimatinam avasarah ?" (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 214, 216, ibid). The logicians do hold divergent views as far as vacakatva or denotation is concerned as to whether this is a natural power or man-made. But as far as suggestiveness or vyanjakatva is concerned, which follows the power of expression or denotation, and which is found to be present even in other places where denotation is not found, and whose experience is almost universal, the logicians cannot have difference of opinion. Objects of common and doubtless perception such as, 'This is black', or 'This is sweet', do not inspire any conflicting views in the minds of the logicians. When one logician perceives an object as black and calls it to be so, and when there is apparently no association of contradictory circumstances, another logician does not come forward and challange him with the words that, "No, this is not black, but it is yellow." In the same way, suggestiveness is found by experience to exist in words, which are denotative, or in sounds of Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #98
"Vyanjana 653 music that are not denotative, or in gestures and so forth, which are not even words/sounds. No one can deny the same, i.e. no one can deny the existence of suggestiveness which is a matter of common experience : "alaukike hy arthe tarkikanam vimatayo nikhilah pravartante, na tu laukike. na hi nila-madhura"dis vasesa-lokendriya-gocare badharahite tattve parasparam vipratipanna disyante. na hi badharahitam nilam nilam iti bruvan aparena pratisidhyate naitannilam pitam etaditi. tathaiva vyanjakatvam vacakanam sabdanam a-vacakanam ca gitadhvaninam a-sabda-rupanam ca cesta"dinam yat-sarvesam anubhava-siddham eva tat kena apahnuyate ?" (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 216, ibid). Anandavardhana says that only somebody who would choose to be a butt of ridicule, would dare challange vyanjakatva. To this the logicians have the following to say. The objection runs as follows : It is true to say that in all the cases quoted above, one does experience the element of implicit sense. There is no doubt about it. But in fact this suggestiveness is none other than implication and this implication is the same as the state of inferential probans - The apprehension of the suggested idea is thus not different but identical with the inferential knowledge of the probandum. Thus if we put it in other words, the relation of suggester-suggested is none other than the relation of probansprobandum. There is also another reason to support this. The Siddhantin had himself explained just now that words possess suggestiveness directed to the speaker's intention, and it is our conviction that the speaker's intention is only inferable. - "atha bruyat, - asti atisandhanavasarah, vyanjakatvam sabdanam gamakatvam, tac ca lingatvam atas ca vyangya-pratitir lingi-pratitir eva iti lingalingi-bhava eva, tesam vyangyavyanjakabhavo naparah kascit. atas ca etad avasyam eva boddhavyam yasmad vaktrabhiprayapeksaya vyanjakatvam idanim eva tvaya pratipaditam vaktr abhiprayas ca anumeya-rupa eva." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 216, ibid). - Locana reads - "vyanjakatvam napahnuyate, tat tu atiriktam na bhavati, api tu linga-lingi-bhava evayam-idanim eva jaiminiyamatopaksepe." It is clear that in this maha-purva-paksa Mahima's view is foreshadowed. It is surprising that though Mahima had read the Dhvanyaloka so carefully he refused to accept the arguments as laid down by Anandavardhana in this portion, where he successfully silences the logicians. Anandavardhana observes that even if the alleged view is true there is nothing to lose for him, for his sole intention was to establish the fact that suggestiveness is a verbal power, over and above two other powers such as denotation and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #99
654 SAHRDAYALOKA indication. This position will not suffer even if the objection of the logicians be accepted. It might be named as suggestiveness or inferential probans or by any other name. Whatever the name be given, the fact remains that there is no dispute between the objector and the siddhantin. For this something else is admitted by both as a special power over and above the normally accepted powers of denotation and indication. But the fact is that suggestiveness is not identical with inferential probans and all the apprehension of suggested idea is not identical with inferential knowledge : "tad hi vyanjakarvam lingatvam astu, anyad va. sarvatha prasiddhasabda-prakara-vilaksanarvam, sabda-vyapara-visayarvam ca tasyasti iti nasti avayor-vivadah na punar ayam paramartho yad-vyanjakatvam lingatvam eva, sarvatra vyangya-pratitisca lingapratitir eva iti." (vitti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 218, ibid) Mahima's objection is that there is no power of word except abhidha or denotation and whatever meaning follows is only through a loose-inference which he calls kavyanumiti. He even takes the indicated sense or laksyartha as anumeya or inferred. But then he has to accept that this process of inference has to be based on words, and is not identical with the normal inference of fire from perceiving smoke through naked eyes. It is to distinguish between the two that he calls this as "kavyanumiti" and the other "tarkanumiti", at the same time freeing the former from the rigorous limitations or rules of the latter. It is to distinguish and defend this stand of Mahim, that Dr. Rewaprasad observes in a personal letter to us, dt. 24-11-01 after returning from Canada, that "jo dosa diye hain, un se anumanaka nahin, anumana-gata-pramanata-ka khandana sambhava hai, jiski kavyamen avasyakata hi nahin." i.e. "The faults (that are perceived by Mammata and others in Mahima's thinking) do not refute the process of inference, or the fact of inference, but only its acceptability or, validity, or reliability, which is not at all expected here." But our argument still holds good, even against Revaprasad jee that the very fact that Mahima calls it as "kavyanumiti" - proves that this 'anumiti' is related with poetic word, i.e. it is a word-power and is other than denotation or indication. Thus Anandavardhana, to us, looks irrefutable. He proceeds as follows : The objector has indeed made a clever use of the siddhantin's words in support of his position. The objector remarked that the speaker's intention is certainly implied and added that such implication is the same as the state of an inferential probans. To this Anandavardhana, the Siddhantin, has the following to say. - The scope of words is two-fold, (i) inferable and (ii) denotative. Of these the inferable is always of the nature of the speaker's intention, and again, is two-fold viz. (i) the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #100
'Vyanjana' 655 desire to utter words for their own sake, and (ii) the desire to convey meaning through words. Between these, the first type of speaker's intention does not play any part in verbal discourse. It only establishes that the speaker is a living animal different from a non-living-object. But the second type of speaker's intention plays part of a proximate cause in verbal discourse though it is rendered rather remote due to several other intervening factors between the utterance of the word and the apperance of the word and the apprehension of its meaning. Both these types of speaker's intention are inferable from words : "dvividho hivisayah sabdanam. anumeyah, pratipadyasca. tatra'numeyo vivaksa-laksanah, vivaksaca sabda-svarupa-prakasaneccha, sabdena arthaprakasaneccha ca iti dviprakara. tatra"dya na sabda-vyavaharangam. sa hi pranitva-matra-pratipatti-phala. divtiya tu sabda-visesavadharana-vasita-vyavahita'pi sabda-karana-vyavahara-nibandhanam. te tu dve api anumeyo visayah sabdanam. pratipadyastu prayoktur artha-pratipadana-samiha-visayikrtorthah" - sa ca dvividhah vacyo vyangyasca. "But the denotative scope of words relates to meaning itself which happens to be the aim of the speaker's intention to convey meaning. It is also two-fold (1) The expressed and (2) the suggested. The speaker may use words with a view to conveying his meaning directly by means of them (and then we have the expressed meaning), or he may use words which do not directly convey his meaning, with a view to achieving some purpose (and then we have suggested meaning). Both these aspects of the denotative scope of words are far from appearing as probandum of any inference based on words. On the other hand, the relationship between word and such denotative content is one other than inference, whether it be a conventional or an unconventional relationship. It is only the aspect of intention on the part of the speaker to employ words or meaningful words that is inferable, and not the meaning itself conveyed by his words. If it were true that the meaning itself could form the probandum of an inference having words for its probans, there should be no scope for doubts at all whether any meaning is right or wrong. For instance, when the probandum viz. fire, is inferred from the probans, viz. smoke, there is indeed no room for any doubt about the existence of fire. Since the suggested meaning is conveyed by the power of the expressed itself, it, too, is related to the word just as the expressed meaning is related to the word. Directness or remoteness is not the differentiating condition of a relationship. That suggestiveness is related to denotation has been already shown. The conclusion is thus indisputable that words will have the state of an inferential probans only while implying the intention of the speaker and that the meanings themselves which are For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #101
656 SAHRDAYALOKA signified by the words are due to the verbal power of denotation and not inference. Now we may take instances of meanings which are suggested by a word. These nature of intention and may not be as well. Can we say that all such meanings are conveyed by the power of denotation alone in words ? Or should we postulate some other function ? It has been already shown that the power of denotation alone cannot explain the suggested meaning. Hence we will have to admit another function and that function itself is called suggestiveness by us. The nature of suggestiveness is not co-extensive with the nature of an inferential probans, since the former exists in objects like light where the latter is absent. Just as the denoted content of words is not identical with the probandum of an inference, so also the suggested content is not identical with it. Contrariwise, that which becomes the object of an inferred probandum as shown above, does not constitute what is denoted, but constitutes only an adventitious attribute of what is denoted. If the denoted meaning too were to be inferable as probandum, there could be no occasion at all for any differences of opinion regarding it in the world. But such differences are within our common knowledge and this has also been explained already." (Trans. K.Kris., Dhv. pp. 219, 221, 223, ibid). To quote Anandavardhana's words, we read : "sa ca dvividhah, vacyo vyangyasca. prayokta hi kadacit sva-sabdena'rtham prakasayitum samihate kadacit-sva-sabda'nabhidheyatvena prayojanapeksaya kayacit. sa tu dvividho'pi pratipadyo visayah sabdanam na lingitaya svarupena prakasate, api tu kstrimena'kstrimena va sambandhantarena. vivaksa-visayarvam hi tasyarthasya sabdair lingitaya pratiyate, na tu svarupam. yadi hi lingataya vyaparah syat tacchabdarthe samyan-mithya"di-vivada eva na pravarteran dhuma"di-linganumitanumeyantaravat. vyangyascartho vacyasamarthya"ksiptataya vacyavacchabdasya sambandhi bhavaty eva. saksad-asaksad-bhavo hi sambandhasya'prayojakah. vacya-vacaka-bhava"srayatvam ca vyanjakatvasya prag eva darsitam. tasmad vaktrabhipraya-rupa eva vyangye lingataya sabdanam vyaparah. tad-visayikrte tu pratipadyataya. tasminnabhipraya-rupe-anabhiprayarupe ca vacakatvenaiva vyaparah sambandhantarena va. na tavad vacakarvena yathoktam prak. sambandhantarena vyanjakatvam eva. na ca vyanjakatvam lingatvarupam eva, alokadisu anyatha drstatvat. tasmat pratipadyo visayah sabdanam na lingitvena sambandhi vacyavat. yo hi lingitvena tesam sambandhi yatha darsito visayah sa na vacyatvena pratiyate, api tu upadhitvena. pratipadyasya ca visayasya lingitve tadvisayanam vipratipattinam laukikair eva kriyanam abhavah prasajyeta iti. etac ca uktam eva." (pp. 220, 222, vstti, Dhv. III-33, ibid) Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #102
Vyanjana' 657 Anandavardhana further observes that at times even the expressed meaning is tested by instruments of knowledge such as direct perception etc. But this does not come in the way of its being a meaning collected through verbal power of denotation. Same is the case with suggested sense also. As a matter of fact the question of logical truth or falsity with reference to the suggested sense is totally out of point and futile. So the question of applying instruments of knowledge (pramana-pariksa) is in itself ridiculous. So, concludes Anandavardhana - "tasmal lingi-pratitir eva sarvatra vyangya-pratitir iti na sakyate vaktum." - It is not possible to identify the apprehension of the suggested sense, with that of the inferred probandum in every case. Though of course, it is equally true that the aspect of implicit sense in words in form of the speaker's intention, is inferable, and that it can also pass under the name of suggestion, but it can never be given the designation of 'dhvani'/poetic suggestion of words. Thus Anandavardhana establishes vyanjana as a separate power over and above abhidh, and laksana, and also confirms that so far as poetry is concerned, the Mimamsakas, and the Naivavikas will stand to gain if they accept the same, and accept they must. The grammarians have supplied the original inspiration for vyanjana and dhvani and therefore Anandavardhana holds that there is no basic divide between the vyanjana/dhvanivadins and grammarians. After thus successfully establishing vyanjana/dhvani doctrine firmly, he declares : "vimativisayo ya asinmanisinam satatam avidita-satattvah, dhvani-sanjitah prakarah kavyasya vyanjitah soyam." "The variety of poetry designated as suggestion, which had become a source of controversy for long, because its real nature had eluded even persons of the best intellect, has now been explained." (Trans. K. Kris.) Thus Anandavardhana, without making any attempt to define vyanjana, is the first known alamkarika who takes pains to establish vyanjana as a separate and independent power over and above abhidha, tatparya and laksana. Thus vyanjana is a turiya vitti, the designation given to it by the great Abhinavaguptapada in his Locana on the Dhv. It may be noted that even Abhinavagupta has not attempted a clean definition and classification of vyanjana, but under Dhv. I. iv, he has tried to defend and establish vyanjana and has silenced vyanjana/dhvani-virodha, which For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #103
658 SAHRDAYALOKA also reverberates through the works of greatacaryas such as Mammata, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha, and Visvanatha, to mention some few. We will deal with vyanjana/dhvani-virodha in a separate chapter but for the present we will look into the efforts of acaryas beginning with Mammata who have tried to define and classify vyanjana and later dhvani also. For the present we will engage ourselves with discussion concerning vyanjana only. We once again take note of the fact that neither the great alamkarikas beginning with Bhamaha to Rudrata have tried to give a systematic exposition of sabdavrttis, nor the illustrious immediate followers of Anandavardhana such as Mukula, Kuntaka, Mahima, Bhoja and Dhanika have done anything with reference to vyanjana, except perhaps subsuming or opposing the same. It falls to the lot of Mammata, the follower of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta to attempt definition and classification of the concept of vyanjana. He has done it both in his sabda-vyapara-vicara a small independent treatise on sabda-vsttis and in his Kavyaprakasa also. We will now proceed to what Mammata has to say. Mammata - In the Sabda-vyaparavicara we read the same words verbatim that are read in the K.P. So we will stick to the K.P. for Mammata's concept of vyanjana. Again, the classification as seen in the K.P. III is also missing in the former. After dealing with laksana Mammata proceeds with vyanjana. He has suggested that laksana which is six-fold is again three-fold from the angle of the prayojana which is suggested. It is either without suggested sense, or with a concealed suggested sense, or with a non-concealed suggested sense : "a-vyangya gudha'gudha-vyangya ca." The abode of that laksana is said to be the indicative word : tad-bhur laksanikah sabdah. But there in the indicative word, the function is in the form of suggestion : tatra vyaparo vyanjana"tmakah. Now, Mammata seems to attempt a definition of vyanjana. He observes (K.P. I. 14bcd & 15 ab.) "tatra vyaparo vyanjana"tmakah, yasya pratitim adhatum laksana samupasyate - 14 phale sabdaika-gamyetra vyanjanannapara kriya." This of course is a semblance of a definition. Jhalkikar (pp. 58) has the following observation - vacaka-laksanikau sabdau laksayitva vyanjana-mukhena vyanjakam sabdam laksayitum vyanjana-svarupam aha. 'tatra' - ity adina. Then he observes that, or it may be said that, to define vyanjaka word, to silence the arguments of the objector concerning the 'upadhi'-adjunct of the suggestive Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #104
Vyanjana 659 word, i.e. vyanjana, Mammata starts with the word 'tatra'- etc. Jhalkikar proceeds to observe : tatra pavanatva"di-prayojane visaye vyaparah sabdasya vittih, vyanjana"tmakah, vyanjana-svarupah iti tikakarah. "atha vyanjaka-sabda-laksanaya vyanjana nirupaniya. sa ca dvedha. sabdanistha'rtha-nistha ca. tatra antya sabda-laksane anupayukte agre (= ttiyollase) vivecaniya. adya tu dvedha. abhidhamula laksana-mula ca. tatra yady api abhidhayah prathamyad upajivyatvac ca tanmula prathamam nirupayitum ucita, tatha'pi suprasiddhatvat laksanayah prakrtatvac ca tanmula eva prathamam nirupayati tatrety adina. tatra laksanike sabde vyaparo vyangya-prakasanukulah" - iti pradipakarah. Thus Mammata seems to begin with laksanamala vyanjana first. But as observed earlier this can not be taken as a general definition of vyanjana, though there is a semblance even of a general definition. It is said here that, there, i.e. in the laksanika or indicative word, the function is in the form of vyanjana or suggestion. The reason is, that in respect of the outcome, i.e. motive or fruit, observes Mammata, which is known from the indicative word alone, and for whose apprehension the indication is resorted to, there is no other power of function except suggestion. We have observed that Mammata does not attempt a general definition of vyanjana but starts his treatment of vyanjana with laksanamala vyanjana. We will see later that Visvanatha in his Sahitya-darpana attempts the definition of vyanjana and as in case of laksana, so in case of vyanjana also, h attemps a more scientific and minute classification of vyanjana. We will examine this later. We have seen in the quotation from Jhalkikar's commentary that Pradipa cites two reasons for Mammata's treatment of laksana mula first. The reasons are that (i) laksana is the matter in hand, because Mammata is actually dealing with the topic of laksana here, and prayojana is explained to be two fold. viz. gudha and a-ghudha. Again (ii) laksana-mula vyanjana is more well-known than the other viz. abhidhamula. Again the thread is picked up as a natural corollary to the topic of prayojanavati laksana and prayojana in an indicative word is conveyed through vyanjana, i.e. laksana-mula vyanjana in this case. As seen above in karika 14, he observes that the abode of that laksana is the laksanika or indicative word. tadbhus tadasrayah "The abode of that means the support of that. We have seen above that in II. 14.b, the author says that there, i.e. in indicative word, the function is in the form of suggestion. If it be asked 'why?', the answer is - (14 cd; 15 ab.). "In respect of the motive which is known from the indicative word alone, and for whose apprehension the indication (i.e. laksana) is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #105
660 SAHRDAYALOKA resorted to, there is no other function except suggestion." Mammata explains in the vstti, that when a word is used indicatively, with the intention to convey a certain motive there its apprehension is not from any other ground but from that word And in such a case there is no other function except suggestion. The words viz., "yasya pratitim adhatum..... vyanjanan na'para kriya" (14 cd, 15 ab.) thus give the definition of laksanamula vyanjana. As Prof. Gajendragadkar explains, the definition is given in a somewhat 'fighting mood', with the object of proving the necessity of vyanjana for understanding the purpose of laksana. When we resort to laksana, e.g. in 'gangayam ghosah', we do so with the specific purpose of conveying something special-prayojana-pipadayisaya-and that special purpose is to convey the sense of coolness and holiness etc. that prevail in the hamlet : yasya sitatvapavanatva"dirupasya phalasya pratitim jnanam adhatum, janayitum. In the words of Mammata - "prayojana-pipadayisaya yatra yatra laksana-sabda-prayogah, tatra, nanyatas tatpratitih, api tu tasmad eva sabdat. na ca'tra vyanjanad stenyo vyaparah - i.e. when a word is used indicatively with the intention to convey a certain purpose, there its apprehension is not from any other ground, but from that word alone. And in such a case, there is no other function than suggestion. Mammata here used the words "phale sabdaikagamye", with a specific purpose to suggest that the purpose in form of the qualities of coolness and holiness prevailing in the hamlet, is arrived at only through the laksanika word alone, i.e. here through the word "gangayam". The idea is that here the suggestiveness is based on laksana i.e. it is rooted in laksanika word and certainly the suggested idea is not arrived at with the help of anything else but the power of word alone which operates here through indicative word. The suggested purpose is not apprehended through any other means of knowledge such as anumana or inference which operates through the circumstances of vyapti-smoti, and the like : The Pradipa observes : "tat phalam tasmad eva sabdad gamyate, na tu pramanantarat. vyapti-smotyader anapeksanat. So, Mammata asserts that here there is no other pramana, nor any other function of the word accept, vyanjana - "atra vyanjanannapara kriya". By 'na apara kriya is meant, 'na anya vrtcih, abhidha-rupa laksana-rupa va'. Read Jhalakikar (pp. 58, ibid) in this context - "yasya' ity adina artha"-pattirupa-pramanam pradarsitam. atra laksana iti padam laksanaya laksanika sabda-param. 'laksanaya sabdaprayogah' iti vrtti-grantha-sva-rasat. tatha ca yasya saitya-pavanatva"di-rupaphalasya pratitim anubhavarupam adhatum janayitum laksana, laksanikah sabdah samupasyate asriyate, satyapi vacaka-sabde tam vihaya adriyate ity arthah. sabdaika-gamye laksanika-sabda-matra-gamye (na tu anumana"di-gamye) atra For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #106
Vyanjana 661 tasmin phale, (saitya-pavanatva"di-prayojana-visaye) vyanjanat vyanjanam vihaya, (vyanjanam vina) apara kriya anyo vyaparo na ityarthah. kimtu vyanjana"tmaka eva vyaparah iti bhavah. atra "sabdaika" ity ekapadena anumana"di-vyudasah. 'sabdasya sambhrta-samagrikatvad anumanasya vyaptyadi-pratisandhana"di vilambena vilambitatvat na anumanagamyam prayojanam. kinca tatha sati ganga"dyartham eva lingam sat saitya"dikam anumapayati iti svikaryam. na ca tate gangarvam siddham. tatpada-prayoga-visayatve ca na vyapti-grahakam prama asti. tat katham asya lingata. katham va gangadharmasya saitya"des tate badhavadharanat sadhyata. katham va saitya"dav ekasya avacchedakasya abhavat sadhyatavacchedakaikyam. tavatam visesananam ekada'nupasthiter na samuhalambananumitih. vyanjanayam ca badhader apratibandhakarvat 'atyanta'saty api hy arthe jnanam sabdah karoti hi' iti nyayat vyangyatavacchedakanupasthita'pi panaka-rasa-nyayena vyangya-bodhakatvac ca na kapy anupapattih. kim ca. vyaptyadi-prati-samdhanasya aniyatatvat saitya"dibodhasya ca niyatarvat na anumitya vyanjana'nyathasiddhih iti bhavah." - iti narasimha-manina-vistarastu pancamollase drastavyah. Visvanatha has a clearer definition of vyanjana and its varieties which we will pick up later. It has been observed that neither abhidha nor laksana conveys the prayojana for which laksana is resorted to. Mammata now establishes this with cogent arguments. He observes : tatha hi, "nabhidha samayabhavat" (II. 15 c.) gangayam ghosa itya"dau ye pavanatva"dayo dharmah tata"dau pratiyante na tatra ganga"disabdah samketitah." - i.e. "It is not denotation, on account of the absence of convention." The words Gang, and the like have no convention with reference to those properties, like holiness etc., which as are apprehended as belonging to the bank and the like in cases such as, "A hamlet on the Ganga". The Sampradaya-prakasini (pp. 39, edn. Dwivedi) explains - "nanu katham na'para kriya ity ata aha na"bhidhetyadi. Samayah samketah. tad abhavam vi darsayati-gangyam ity adi. dharmah mukhyartha-samavayinah. na hi pavanatva"disrotodharmanam tata-gatatvena pratipattau ganga"disabdah samketitah." The idea is that the purpose of laksana in 'gangayam ghosah' is the properties of holiness and others, which are understood as belonging to the bank. These properties cannot be expressed by abhidha, because no convention of the word 'ganga' has been made with reference to those qualities. What is meant is that the conventional meaning of the word 'ganga' is the stream of that river and not the properties such as Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #107
662 SAHRDAYALOKA holiness and others. Therefore abhidha cannot express these qualities. Mammata at K.P. II. 15d observes : "hervabhavan na laksana." - mukhyartha-badh hetuh." i.e. Nor is it indication for want of the three fold) cause. The cause means the triad beginning with incompatibility of the primary sense." Laksana cannot convey the prayojana. What is meant is this that, in 'gangayam ghosah, abhidha gives the meaning of stream. This meaning is unsuitable and so laksana is resorted to and it indicates the sense of bank. This laksana is 'prayojanavati and the prayojana or purpose is "pavanatva"dayo dharmah." How is this prayojana arrived at ? To this question one may say that after the indicated sense viz. 'ganga tate ghosah', a second laksana should be resorted to and it should be supposed to indicate the sense viz. the apprehension of the properties of holiness and coolness. But Mammata holds that this is not possible, as resorting to second laksana will invoke mukhyartha-badha etc. i.e. hetu. As there is no 'hetu' present here, there cannot be laksana. The word 'hervabhava' is a collective singular. It stands for the three conditions viz. mukhyartha-badha, tadyoga and rulhi-prayojananyatarat. Jhalkikar (p. 59, ibid) observes : "nanu prayojana-pratipadane abhidha'dir eva kalpito vyaparostu, kim vyanjanaya ity ata aha-nabhidheti; na satkir ityarthah. pavanatvadi-pratipadane iti sesah. samayabhavad iti. samketabhavad ityarthah ganga"dipadasya saitya-pavanatva"dau samketabhavad iti yavat. 'saktir atiriktah padarthah. tadgrahakah sanketa iti na sadhyaviseso hetor iti bodhyam.' iti udyote spastam. uktam idam 'sa mukhyorthah' iti 11 sutre. "hetu-sadhyayoh samanadhikaranyabhavad anumity anupapattir ato vyacaste 'gangayam'ity adi. tatha ca pavanatvadikam prayojanam na ganga-padabhidhapratipadyam gangapada-nistha-samketa-visayatvad ity evanumanam iti bhavah" it narasimhamanisayam spastam. In K.P. II. 16, Mammata further observes that the indicated sense is not the primary one; neither is there lack of compatibility i.e. badha, nor any connection with the fruit; there is no motive herein; and the word (ganga) does not fail in its expressive power. "laksyam na mukhyam, napy atra badho yogah phalena no; na prayojanam etasmin, na ca sabdah skhald-gatih." (K.P. II. 16) In the vstti Mammata further elaborates the argument thus. - Just as the word Ganga indicates bank because it is incompatible in its primary sense of) the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #108
Vyanjana' 663 stream, so also if it were incompatible with reference to the bank also, then it would further indicate the purpose. But the bank is not the primary meaning of the word 'ganga', nor is there any incompatibility, and there is no connection of the bank, which is the indicated sense of the word 'ganga', with the holiness, coolness, etc., which are to be further indicated. Nor is there any purpose with reference to the purpose which is supposed to be indicated. Besides, the word Ganga, unlike the word bank, is not unable to convey the purpose. The sampradaya-prakasini observes : "(pp. 40, Edn. R. C. Dwivedi, ibid)" - tam eva hervabhavam vitatya darsayati - 'laksyam na mukhyam'ity adi. mukhyartha-sambandhah prayojanam skhald-gatitvam ca iti iyati laksanayam ya samagri sa vakya-pancakena pariparya nirasta. tad etad vyacaste-yatha ganga-sabda ity adina. prayojane hi laksye tatasya mukhyarthavam badhas ca nyayyah na ca tad ubhayam api sambhavati. samayabhavat na mukhyarthata ghosadhikaranatya-sambhavan na bad ganga-sabdabhidheyatvena abhimatasya sroto-dharmaih pavanatva"dibhir laksyasammatais sambandhah. na'pi prayojanantaram prayojanatvena sambhavati. na'pi ganga-sabdasya tata iva pavanatv adau skhald-gatitvam, svartha-samavayitvat. ittham na laksanayah sankankurasya'py avakasah. Mammata further observes : (K.P. II. 17 ab.) - "evam apy anavastha syad ya mula-ksaya-karini." evam api, prayojanam cel laksyatetat prayojanantarena, tad api prayojanantarena, iti prakrtapratitikrd anavastha bhavet." The sampradayaprakasini on this 'has - (pp. 40, 41, ibid) : atha'pi ced abhyupagamyeta, tada prathamalaksanaya mulocchedi durantam dosantaram apated ity aha - 'evam api' iti. prakrtapratitikrd iti mulaksaye tyasya vivrtih. prakstalaksanaya jnaptipratibandha-kariny anavastha prasajet. utpatti-jnaptyor anyatarapratibandhakatvabhave hi na anavasthadosah, yatha-bijankura"dau." Mammata thus argues that even in this way there would be ad infinitum which will strike at the very root. "Even in this way", means if the purpose were to be indicated it would be indicated by another purpose, that too by yet another purpose, and thus would result a 'regressus ad infinitum', causing the non-apprehension of the matter in hand. Mammata further meets with an objection such as, the bank as possessed of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #109
664 SAHRDAYALOKA the qualities, such as holiness, is itself indicated by the word Ganga; and the purpose for such indication is the cognition of an additional meaning than what is obtained by saying - 'A hamlet on the bank of the Ganga', thus the indication is in the qualified object. Then what is the need of suggestion ?". "nanu pavanatva"di-dharma-yuktam eva tatam laksyate. gangayas tate ghosa ity atodhikasya arthasya pratipattis ca prayojanam iti visiste laksana. tat kim vyanjana, iti aha." To this the author replies - "prayojanena sahitam laksaniyam na yujyate." (17cd) kuta iti aha - "jnanasya visayo hyayah phalam anyad udahstam." (II. 18 ab) The idea is that the indicated sense, qualified by the purpose is not proper to be admitted because, the object of cognition is indeed different, and the result is declared to be different. Mammata observes that the object of perception etc. is a blue and the like. But the result is revelation or consciousness. Thus there is no indication with reference to the qualified object. The Sampradayaprakasini has this remark (pp. 42, ibid) : "prayojana-sahitasya tata'der laksyatva'bhyupagamo na yukta ity arthah, and also read - "gunena guni laksyate, bahyendriya-gocaratvarupa-visesa-prathanaya, ghata"dir iti. phalam jnana-prayojanam, prakatata samvittir va iti vikalpo vyavatisthate. bharta"dayo hi prakatibhava-laksanam jneyadharmam jnana-phalam ahuh. vaisesika"dayas tu samvitti-rupam jnatr-dharmam. samvittir anu-vyavasayah. ghata-jnanam janami ity adi jnana-visayam jnanam, iti yavat. prakatata eva astu jnanaphalam, samvittir va, na tu phalavisayayoh sarvatha tadatmyam upapadyata iti niskarsah." In the above discussion we have noticed Mammata's words in the vstti under II. 16 that: "na'pi ganga-sabdah tatam iva prayojanam pratipadayitum samarthah." meaning, "Besides the word Ganga, unlike the word bank, is not unable to convey the purpose." Here commentators notice the reading 'samarthah' for 'a-samarthah'. With 'samarthah', the vstti is explained as, "yatha ganga-sabdah mukhyartha-badhadikam apeksya eva tatam pratipadayitum samarthah, tatha prayojanam pratipadayitum samartho na iti punar api vyatirekena drstantah. ayam bhavah-ganga sabdah tatam prayojanam ca pratipadayati. param asti bhedah etayor dvayoh pratipadane. tata-pratipadane ganga-sabdasya mukhyarthabadha"di-hetu-trayasya asti apeksa. na tadrsi apeksa prayojana-pratipadane. yatkaranam ganga-sabdah prayojanam vyanjanaya pratipadayati." Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #110
'Vyanjana 665 As for the words "evam api anavastha syat ya mulaksaya-karini" - also note "anavastha avasthayah sthairyasya antavattvasya abhavah. upapadya-upapadakayor a-visrantih ity arthah. upapadyam prathamam prayojanam. upapadakam dvitiyam prayojanam. punar api upapadyam dvitiyam prayojanam, upapadakam totiyam prayojanam. ity anena kramena prayojana-parmparaya anantatvam." 'mulaksayakarini means mulasya prathama-prayojanasya ksayah nasah anavabodhah ity arthah, tasya karini, utpadayitri. The anavastha or endless series of purposes would produce non-apprehension of the first purpose. 'mulaksayakarini is paraphrased by 'praksta-a-pratiti-krt.', which means, 'prakstam yat prathama-prayojanam tasya a-pratitih anavabodhah, tam kartoti iti." There is another kind of 'anavastha', which is based on 'bijankura-nyaya'. That 'anavastha is not regarded as a fault. 'mulaksaya-karini' excludes that 'anavastha'. The udyota reads : 'etena bija"nkuradivad anavastha na dusanam iti apastam. 'mulaksayakarim cahur anavastham hi dusanam' ity ukteh. At K.P. II. 18 bcd. Mammata observes : visiste laksana naivam visesah syus tu laksite. "There is no indication with reference to the qualified object. But there would be (found) qualities in the indicated object." He observes in the vrtti - "tata"dau visesah pavanatva"dayah. te ca abhidha-laksana-tatparyebhyo vyaparantarena gamyah. tac ca vyanjana-dhvanana"di-sabda-vacyam-avasyam esitavyam. evam laksanamalam vyanjakatvam uktam." This means that the qualities of holiness etc. which are found in the bank etc., are apprehended by some other function than denotation, purport and indcation. And that (function) which is designated by the terms suggestion, reverberation, and illumination, and the like, must necessarily be admitted. Thus has been explained the suggestiveness based on indication Before we end this part of the discussion it will be interesting to read Prof. Gajendragadkar's observations (pp. 318-22). On 'prayojanena-sahitam laksaniyam na yujyate' etc., he observes : This contains Mammata's reply to the view of the visista-laksana-vadin. A laksyartha or an indicated sense (laksaniyam) such as 'tata', qualified (sahita = visista) by the purpose such as the properties, holines others, (prayojanena = pavanatvadina), is not proper, that is, it is not proper to hold that a laksana indicates a sense (= laksaniyam) qualified by purpose. This amounts to saying that it is not proper to regard "pavanatva"di-visista-tata" as the laksyartha. Hence it follows that 'visista-laksana' is not proper. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #111
666 SAHRDAYALOKA We must here note that the word 'prayojana' has been used in two senses. In the passage "nanu visiste laksana', which explains the view of the visista-laksanavadin, the purpose is declared to be 'adhikasya arthasya (= pavanatva"deh) pratipattih; i.e. pavanatva"di-pratipattih. On the other hand, in Mammata's reply to the visista-laksana-vadin contained in the karika-"prayojanena sahitam laksaniyam na yujyate", prayojana means "pavanatva"di'. These two senses of prayojana must further be explained in somewhat technical terms in order to enable a student to grasp accurately the two interpretations which the karika-viz. "jnanasya vinayo hy anyah phalam anyad udahstam" yields. The prayojana viz. pavanatva"di-pratipattih is laksyartha-jnana-janya (= laksyarthasya pavanatva"divisista-tatasya jnanena janya. laksyarthe pavanatva"divisista-tate jnate sati pavanatva"di pratipattih jayate.) i.e. produced by, or arising from, the knowledge or cognition of the indicated sense viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others. For, when we know the laksyartha viz. pavanatva"di-visista-tata, we obtain the cognition of 'pavanatva"di'. Thus the prayojana pavanatva"di-pratipattih is laksyartha-jnana-janya, which is abbreviated into jnana-janya, or 'janya'. On the other hand, the prayojana pavanatva"di is laksyartha-janya-jnanapratiti-visaya (= laksyarthasya pavanatva"di visista-tatasya jnanena janya ya pavanatva"di-pratitih, tasyah visayah, arthat pavanatva"dir eva.) i.e. the object of cognition (viz. pavanatva"di-pratitih), which is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense, (= laksyarthasya pavanatva"di-visistasya tatasya jnanena janya). When we know the laksyartha viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others, we get the cognition of those properties. The object of this cognition is naturally those properties themselves. So the prayojana, is 'laksyartha-janya-pratiti-visaya', which is shortened into 'jnana-janya-pratitivisaya', or 'janya-pratiti-visaya' or jnapya." Prof. Ganjendragadkar also takes great pains to explain the cryptic remark, viz. "jnanasya visayo hy anyah phalam anyad udahstam." He observes (pp. 318, ibid) - This karika has given quite an amount of trouble to interpreters, whose expectations have very often served to canfuse the student rather than to enlighten him. This is because the logical connection between the two interpretations, which this line is intended to convey according as 'phala' and 'prayojana' (Mammata uses se two words as synonyms) is understood in one or the other of the two senses given above, is not properly grasped. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #112
TL "Vyanjana' 667 This line contains Mammata's reason why visista-laksana can not be admitted. It enunciates a general rule or proposition and thereby it is suggested that if visistalaksana were accepted, this proposition would be violated. Therefore, visistalaksana should not be admitted. Before we proceed to see what this general proposition is, certain other matters must be explained. 'jnana' in the karika stands for 'pramana'. So, when 'jnanasya' is paraphrased by 'pratyaksa"deh, adi refers to anumana, upamana and sabda. Note - 'tani ca pramanani catvari. tatha ca nyayasutram. pratyaksanumanopamana-sabdah pramanani. iti' Tarkabhasa, section 14. We are here not concerned with pratyaksa, anumana and upamana, but only with sabda. For, when we understand from 'gangayam ghosah' the sense of the hamlet situated on the bank of the Ganges, which (bank) is characterized by the properties, holiness and others, it is really a case of 'apta-vakya'. For, there is no question here of our going to the Ganges and seeing with our own eyes the hamlet on its bank. Mammata, however, illustrates the general proposition, which is applicable to all the four pramanas, by adducing an example of pratyaksa. When we cognize a blue thing such as a 'nila-kamala', we obtain 'nila-vastujnana'. The fruit of this cognition can be viewed from two points of view, viz. objective and subjective. Objectively the fruit of the cognition is that the blue thing that we have cognized has obtained 'jnatata' or 'known-ness' or 'prakatata' or manifestness. It now differs from other blue things, because while it possesses 'jnatata' the others do not, i.e. while it is known, the others are not. Jnatata or prakatata, which is thus produced in a thing, when it is known, is a vastu-darma. This is the view of the Bhatta-Mimamakas or the followers of Kumarila Bhatta. Read - "ghata"di-visaye jnane jate 'maya jnatoyam ghatah' iti ghatasya jnatata nama kascid dharmo jatah iti anumiyate. sa ca jnanat purvam a-jatatvat jnane jate ca jnatatvat, anvaya-vyatirekabhyam jnanena janyate iti avadharyate." - Tarkabhasa, Section 42. Subjectively, the fruit of the above cognition is the consciousness in the form, "aham nila-vastu janami", that arises in us when we cognise the blue thing. It is this consciousness in us that distinguishes the known blue thing from others that are not known. Mammata distinguishes this consciousness by the term 'samvittih' or self-consciousness. It is termed 'anu-vyavasayah' or after-operation or after Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #113
668 SAHRDAYALOKA consciousness. 'Samvitti' or 'anuvyavasaya' is an 'atma-dharma'. This is the view of the Prabhakara Mimamsakas or the followers of Prabhakarabhatta and the Naiyayikas. In 'aham nilam janami' jnana-visaya or visaya is nila-vastu, and jnana-phala or phala is either 'prakatata' or 'samvittih'. Here it will be seen that jnana-visaya is different from 'jnana-phala'. "nilam aham jnnami iti atra 'jnana-phalam'. "nilam aham janami iti atra jnana-visaya-jnana-phalayor bhedah pratiyate. - Then again, it may also be said that here visaya and phala are both different from 'jnana' 'atra jnana-visayayor bhedah jnana-phalayos ca bhedah pratiyete." There are really two senses which the line under explanation yields. We can now proceed to see what general propositions "jnanasya... udahstam" lays down, i.e. what its two interpretations are and how they are logically connected. (1) According to the first interpretation the general proposition here laid down is "jnana-visayat jnana-phalam anyat" e.g. jnanavisayah = nila-vastu, jnanaphalam = prakatata (or jnatata) or samvittih (this) in the illustration janami". Applying the general proposition to the present case of vieista-laksana, where we first understand prayojana in the sense in which it occurs in the karika, "prayojanena sahitam...", i.e. in the sense of 'janya-pratiti-visaya' or 'jnapya viz. pavanatva"di, we get the following - jnanam = pavanatva"di-visista-tata-jnanam; jnana-visayah=pavanatva"divisista-tatah; jnana-phalam : pavanatva"di. Here we find that jnana-visaya and jnana-phala are not different. For jnanavisaya., viz. pavanatva"di-visista-tata includes 'pavanatva"di', in accordance with the general rule that the visista includes the visesana. Thus, as the general proposition 'jnana-visayat jnana-phalam anyat' is here violated, we cannot admit visista-laksana. An objection from the visista-laksana-vadin (may be raised as follows) : In the above application of the general proposition to the present case, jnana-phala is taken to be pavanatva"di i.e. jnana-phala is understood to be jnana-janyapratiti-visaya or jnapya. In his vitti on this line Mammata points out that the phala is prakatata or samvitti. This phala is prakatata or samvitti. This phala is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #114
Vyanjana 669 not jnana-janya-pratiti-visaya, but jnana-janya. For, both 'prakatata' and 'samvittih', are produced by nila-vastu-jnana. This means that 'phala' in 'jnanasya vinayo hy anyah phalam anyad udahstam' is intended by Mammata to be taken as jnana-janya and not as 'jnana-janya-pratitivisaya'. Pavanatva"di is not jnana-janya-pratitivisaya'. Pavanatva"di is not jnana-janya, because the properties are not produced by pavanatva"di-visaya', because it is the object of pratiti viz. pavanatva"di-pratiti, which is produced by jnana viz. pavanatva"divisista-tata-jnana. The jnana-janya-prayojana or phala in this case is 'pavanatva"di-pratipattih', or 'pavanatva"di-jnanam', because we obtain the knowledge pavanatva"di from the jnana i.e. from 'pavanatva"di-visista-tata jnana'. Prayojana in this sense occurs in 'adhikasya arthasya pratipattis ca prayojanam'. With this jnana-janya-phala we get the following: jnanam = pavanatva"di-visista-tata-jnanam; jnanavisayah = pavanatva"divisista-tatah; jnana-phalam = pavanatva"dijnanam. Here we find that jnana-visaya and jnana-phala are different. For, while jnanavisaya is a dravya, or substance, jnana-phala is jnana, which is a 'guna'. So, the general proposition 'jnana-visayat jnana-phalam anyat is not violated and hence there is no objection to admit vieista-laksana. The answer from Mammata (could be as follows) - If taking your clue from the vitti you want to understand 'phala' as 'jnana-janya', we also desire to interpret the line in a different way. (2) We now say that the general proposition which the line lays down is 'jnanat visayah, anyah, jnanat phalam ca anyat.' What is thus established here is the distinction of visaya from jnana (jnanavisayayor bhedah) and the distinction of phala from jnana jnana-phalayor bhedah). This is the second interpretaion of the line under discussion. This double distinction is found true in the case of 'nilam aham janami', thus - jnanam = nila-jnanam visayah = nilam phalam = prakatata or samvitti. Here as nilam (= visayah) and prakatata or samvittih (phalam) are different from nila-jnanam, the general proposition which lays down jnana-visayayor bhedah and jnana-phalayor bhedah is satisfied. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #115
670 SAHRDAYALOKA Now according to the second interpretation of phala' the present case yields the following: jnanam = pavanatva"di-visista-tata-jnanam visayah = pavanatva"di-visista-tatah, phalam = pavanatva"di-jnanam Here, we note that while visaya is different from jnana, phala is not. For phala (= pavanatva"di-jnanam) is really included in jnana (= pavanatva"di-visista-tatajnanam), according to the rule which says that 'visista-jnana (e.g. dandi-jnana) includes visesana-jnana (e.g. danda-jnana). Therefore, that part of the general proposition which says that there should be jnana-phalayor-bhedah is violated in vieista-laksana. Consequently, visista-laksana cannot be accepted. It will thus be seen that the line "jnanasya visayo hy anyah phalam anyad udahstam", yields two interpretations, which have reference to the two senses in which Mammata uses the word prayojana. Both the interpretations serve to show in their respective sphere that visista-laksana is not possible. This is exactly the purpose for which the line under discussion is intended. Therefore, there can be no question as to which is more natural, or more correct interpretation. Both are evidently intended, whether natural or unnatural, in as much as Mammata uses the word 'prayojana' in two different senses. That he should have thus used 'prayojana' with different senses and at places so near each other is an indication of his loose writing." [We beg to differ with Prof. Gajendragadkar. Actually this clever use of prayojana' silences all opposition and takes out air from any argument.] (Prof. Gajendragadkar to his satisfaction, however goes on pointing the loose use of 'prayojana' and 'phala' by Mammata at other places in the K.P. as under] - "Such loose use of prayojana or phala is found in other places also. Thus prayojana or phala in the sense of 'laksyartha-jnana-janya' or 'jnanajanya' or 'janya' occurs in the following passages : (i) 'tesam saitya-pavanatva"dinam dharmanam nam tatha pratipadana"tmanah prayojanacca" vrtti, on II. 9; (ii) "atra gauna-bhedayor bhede'pi tadrupya-pratitih sarvathaiva'bhedavagamasca prayojanam", - vstti, II. 12 abc., (iii) adhikasya arhasya pratipattisca prayojanam", vrtti, II. 17 ab; (iv) phalam tu prakatata samvittir va. vstti, II. 18 ab. (Ref.s to karikas follow Dr. R. C. Dwivedi's Edn.) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #116
'Vyanjana' Prayojana or Phala in the sense of 'jnana-janya-pratiti-visaya', or janya-pratitivisaya or jnapya is met with in (i) prati-pipadayisita-prayojana-sampratyayah; vrtti, II. 10; (ii) suddha-bhedayos tu anya-vailaksanyena a-vyabhicarena ca karyakaritva"di; vrtti., K.P. II. 12 abc.; (iii) "prayojanam hi vyanjana-vyapara-gamyameva.', vrtti. II. 13 ab; (iv) phale sabdaika-gamyetra, karika, II. 15.a; (v) prayojanaprati-pipadayisaya yatra laksanaya sabda-prayogah-vrtti, on II. 15a; (vi) yogah phalena no; karika, II. 16. b; (vii) tada prayojanam laksayet, vrtti on II. 16.b; R. C. Dwivedi has 'tat' for 'tada'. (viii) na'pi prayojane laksye kincit prayojanam napi ganga-sabdas-tatam-iva prayojanam pratipadayitum a-samarthah, vrtti, II. 16b; (ix) evam api iti prayojanam cet laksyate, vrtti, on II. 17 ab; Dwivedi does not read 'iti' after 'api'. (10) 'prayojanena sahitam laksaniyam na yujyate' - karika II. 17. cd." This long quotation from Prof. Gajendragadkar explains Mammata's position on vyanjana at the same time points out some looseness in the style of Mammata. We will proceed with the K.P. as follows - The K.P. concludes that thus, there is no indication with reference to the qualified object. 671 "visiste laksana naivam" (II. 18.C). Here 'visiste laksana' should mean that a laksana which indicates an object qualified by 'prayojana' viz. "pavanatva"divisista-tata", i.e. a 'visista-laksana' is not possible. 'evam' means in this manner, i.e. because, as has been explained, a visista-laksana involves violation of the general proposition as laid down in "jnanasya... phalam anyad udahrtam". Mammata adds in II. 18d, "visesah syus tu laksite" - i.e. "But properties or qualities would be found in the indicated object." The idea is that the qualities of holiness etc., which are found in the indicated sense, i.e. bank, are apprehended by some other function than denotation, purport, and indication. And that function which is designated by the terms Suggestion, Reverberation, and Illumination, and the like, must necessarily be admitted. Thus Mammata ends his treatment of suggestiveness based on indication. The words read in the K.P. are: (vrtti, on K.P. II. 18d) - "tata"dau visesah pavanatva"dayah. te ca abhidha-laksana-tatparyebhyah vyaparantarena gamyah. tacca vyanjana-dhvanana"di-sabda-vacyam avasyam esitavyam. evam laksana-mulam vyanjakatvam uktam." The sampradaya-prakasini (pp. 42, ibid) reads as "visesah syur iti. laksanayam hi dvidha prayojana-sampratyayah. yada dharmina dharmyantaram laksyate tada mukhyartha-dharmah laksya-gatatvena caturtha-kaksyayam pratitah prayojanam bhaveyuh, tada phala-visayayor bhedat visiste laksana iti sanka'pi nodita, iti. yada tu mukhyartha-dharmena a-mukhyartha-dharmo laksyate, For Personal & Private Use Only -

Page #117
672 SAHRDAYALOKA tada prayojanatvena dharmantaram na bhavatiti tasyaiva satisayatva-pratitih prayojanam. tadapi na visiste laksana, satisayatva pratiter api caturtha-kaksyaikagocaratvad iti." It may be noted that the function viz. vyanjana is known by three terms such as 'vyanjanam' (= suggestion), dhvananam' (= reverberation), and 'dyotanam' (= illumination). Other terms that are also used are noted as avagamana (= implication), pratyayana (= apprehension) and prakasana (= manifestation). It may be interesting to note that though this third or fourth (= turiya vitti) function is generally known as 'vyanjana', (and though symmetrically 'vyanjana', naturally better corresponds with 'abhidha' and 'laksana), Mammata does not seem to have used the term 'vyanjana' even once. He seems to prefer vyanjanam' as read in, vyaparo vyanjana"tmakah' (perhaps here we may read vyanjana for vyanjana); 'vyanjanannapara kriya', 'vyanjanad rte'nyo vyaparah', 'tat kim vyanjanena', 'anjanam vyanjanam eva vyaparah', and also 'tad-yukto vyanjana-yukto'. It may again be noted here that in 'laksana-mula-vyanjana' by 'laksana' is meant 'prayojanavati laksana'. For only such a variety of laksana has a purpose for understanding which vyanjana is resorted to. The udyota points out that 'laksanamulatvam' means 'laksananvaya-vyatirekanuvidhayitvam' i.e. laksana-mulavyanjana follows the presence and absence of (prayojanavati) laksana. Wherever prayojanavati laksana is present, 'laksana-mula-vyanjana' is also present. Wherever the former is absent, the latter is also absent. It may be noted that in the second variety that we will go to consider, viz. 'abhidha-mula-vyanjana', this particular sense is not seen. Thus, in 'abhidha-mula-vyanjana, the expression, 'abhidha-mula' does not mean "abhidha'nvaya-vyatireka'nuvidhayitvam". For, we know that abhidha-mula-vyanjana is not necessarily present where 'abhidha' is present Abhidha is present in every vacaka-word i.e. in all denotative words. But every 'vacaka' is not necessarily a 'vyanjaka'. Mammata now starts dealing with the second variety of vyanjana, viz. abhidhamula-vyanjana. After first giving Mammata's view in full on this, we will look into lso as found in Locana, The Rasagangadhara and also in Appayya's writing. First we will see what Mammata has to say. It may be noted that normally the followers, such as Hemacandra, Visvanatha and others choose to follow Mammata's lead, but Jagannatha, and also Appayya have different ideas, having the source of their thought-current read in one of the three views as read in the Locana. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #118
'Vyanjana 673 Mammata observes : "abhidhamalam aha - "anekarthasya sabdasya vacakatve niyantrite, samyoga"dyair a-vacyartha-dhi-krd-vyaprtir anjanam." i.e. "When expressive power of the homonymous word is restricted to (one meaning) by conjunction etc., then the function that causes the apprehension of a non-expressed meaning is suggestion." Mammata here quotes from the Vakyapadiya of Bhartshari, two karikas (V.P. II. 317-318) which read as - "samyogo viprayogas ca sahacaryam virodhita arthah prakaranam lingam sabdasya'nyasya sannidhih, samarthyam auciti desah kalo vyaktih svara"dayah' sabdarthasyanavacchede visesa-smoti-hetavah." "Conjunction, disjunction, association, antagonism, motive, context, characteristic, proximity of another word, efficacy, propriety, place, time, gender, accent and the like-are the causes of the recollection (i.e. apprehension of a particular meaning, when there is no determination of the meaning of a word." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 45, ibid) Mammata illustrates in his vrtti as follows. In 'Hari with conch-shell and discuss, and Hari without the conch-shell and discuss', (the word Hari is restricted) to Acyuta (by means of samyoga and viprayoga). In 'Rama and Laksmana' (the meaning is restricted) to the sons of Dasaratha (due to sahacarya). In, 'their behaviour is as between Rama and Arjuna' (the meaning is limited) to the sons of Bhrgu and Ketavirya (due to antagonism). In 'Be devoted to sthanu, for the destruction of worldly existence', (the meaning, by means of motive i.e. artha, is restricted) to siva. In 'Deva knows all, (the meaning of 'Deva', by context) (is restricted) to 'the sense of 'you'." In "Makaradhvaja - (one who has shark for his banner) is angry", (the meaning, by the sign of 'makara' is restricted) to the God of love. In, "Of God, the enemy of cities", (the word god, through proximity - sabdasya anyasya sannidhih' refers) to Siva. In 'the cuckoo intoxicated by 'madhu' (through samarthya, 'madhu' means) the 'spring'. In, "May the 'mukha' of the beloved protect you", (the meaning of 'mukha', through auciti, is restricted) to propitiousness (or favourableness). In, "Here shines Paramesvara", ('Paramesvara' has its meaning restricted, through, desa i.e. place in form of capital) to king. In For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #119
674 SAHRDAYALOKA 'Citrabhanu shines' (the word citrabhanu has its meaning restricted) to the Sun during the day and to the fire by night (through 'time', or kalah). (Due to gender, linga, the meaning of) 'mitra' is restricted to 'suhrd' i.e. friend (in neuter gender) and to sun (in masculine gender of the word). In 'Indra-satruh' and the like the accent does not produce as it does in the veda, the apprehension of a particular sense in poetry. By the use of adi (in the phrase 'svara"dayah'), gestures etc., as illustrated in the verse given below, are included. He observes : "ittham samyoga"dibhir arthantara"-bhidhayakatve nivaritepy anekarthasya sabdasya yat kvacid arthantara-pratipadanam tatra na abhidha, niyamanat tasyah, na ca laksana mukhyartha-badha"dyabhavat, api tu anjanam vyanjanam eva vyaparah. yatha, "bhadra"tmano." etc. - "When by conjunction etc. the power to signify another sense has been prevented and if still at places a word, having more than one meaning, conveys another sense, there is no denotation on account of its being restricted. There is no indication either owing to the absence of incompatibility of the primary meaning etc. But it is 'anjana' i.e. vyanjana' or suggestion which alone operates." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi - pp. 47, ibid). Mammata also observes that a word possessed of the power of suggestiveness is called the suggestive word - "tad yukto vyanjakah sabdah." - II. 20. a. At II. 20. bcd Mammata observes : "yat sorthantarayuk tatha, arthopi vyanjakas tatra sahakaritaya matah." . "Since that (word) is so (i.e. suggestive) when connected with another sense (i.e. either expressed or indicated sense) the (other) sense also is considered to be suggestive owing to its co-operation therein." (Trans. Dwivedi, pp. 47, ibid). We have seen that Mammata has, so far, dealt with vacaka, laksanika and vyanjaka words, vacya, laksya and vyangya senses, and abhidha, laksana and sabdi-vyanjana. Vyanjana is divided into sabdi and arthi. But it may be argued that this division is not reasonable. Sabda and artha are inseparably connected together. So, it is not proper to separate them and make them the basis of two types of vyanjana viz. sabdi and arthi. The verse, viz. bhadra"tmano. etc. which illustrates abhidha-mula vyanjana, is an example of dhvani-kavya. Now a kavya is made up of "sabdarthau". If the words in the particular verse, viz. bhadra"tmano. etc. are regarded as 'vyanjaka' or suggestive, what about the senses therein ? Are they not suggestive ? If so, there is no point in dividing vyanjana into sabdi and arthi. Again, in 'gangayam ghosah', which is an illustration of laksana-mula-vyanjana, the word Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #120
Vyanjana 675 'ganga' is suggestive. But what about its 'laksyartha?? Is it also not suggestive ? If so, why again is vyanjana divided into sabdi and arthi ? Such objections are met with by Mammata in the karika II. 20, as quoted above. Mammata observes that a word (sah = sabdah) is said to be suggestive (tatha = vyanjakah), when it is "arthantara-yuk" i.e., "connected with another sense". Now this expression viz. "arthantarayuk", has two senses, according as it refers to the vyanjaka word in abhidha-mula-vyanjana and in laksana-mula-vyanjana. In abhidha-mula-vyanjana a word becomes suggestive, when it is 'arthantarayuk' in the sense of vacyartha-yuk (= anyah, vyangyarthad anyah arthah, arthantaram, vacyarthah ity arthah, tena yuk, yuktah). For example, in the verse, 'bhadra"tmano.', 'kara' is suggestive of the trunk. But it is so suggestive, wher joined with the vacyartha, i.e. hand. What is meant is that 'kara' suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the hand. Thus, here the vacyartha-hand-is also suggestive. Similarly, in the other variety, viz. laksana-mula-vyanjana, a word is suggestive, when it is 'arthantara-yuk', in the sense - 'laksyartha-yuk'. E.g. in 'gangayam ghosah, 'ganga' is suggestive of pavanatva"di. But this suggestion is made only after the laksyartha i.e. 'tata' is indicated. So, the laksyartha tata is also suggestive. Thus, in abhidhamula-vyanjana, arthantara means vacyartha and in laksanamula-vyanjana, it signifies laksyartha. The sahitya-culamani observes : "arthantarayuk abhidheyena laksyena va yathocitena kenacid arthena yukto bhutva, tatha vyanjako bhavati." The Sampradaya-prakasini has - atha yena nayena sabdo vyanjakas tenaiva nayena'rthopi ity aha - 'yat sorthantarayug iti'. yatha hi arthantara-yogitvacchabdo vyanjakas tatha'rthopi tad-yogitvad vyanjaka ity arthah. nanu ubhayasya api vyanjakatve sabda-sakti-muloyam artha-sakti-muloyam iti katham vyavastha ity ata aha-"tatra sahakaritaya mata" iti. yatah sabdad arthad va pramukhyena vyanjana-vyapara-pratitih, dhvanis tanmula iti vyapadisyate. pradhanena hi vyapadesa bhavanti. tad itarat tu tatra sahakariti upapanna eva vyavastha iti bhavah." We had observed earlier that Mammata explains abhidha-mula-vyanjana in such cases where the vacyartha being restricted to a particular sense with the help of such factors as samyoga"di, in case of a word having multiple sense, the other sense is arrived at with the help of vyanjana alone. This view is accepted by majority of alamkarikas of the dhvani school. But there are differences also as we had suggested above. We will go into further discussion as below. We know that a poet very often uses such words as may have a multiple sense. He tries to achieve beauty in poetry by the application of this device. In case of the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #121
676 SAHRDAYALOKA use of such words having a multiple sense, one particular sense is fixed as 'prakaranika artha' or the contextual sense. When this primary meaning is once collected, the other sense, if any, springs up, or is negated. How this happens is a problem which touches both psychology and semantics. As an illustration, we may cite the words of Bana in the Harsacarita, wherein he describes the advent of summar or 'grisma' in the following words - "tatra kusuma-samaya-yugam upasamharan... mahakalah." Words such as 'mahakala' and the like are used here to convey a multiple sense. The poet tries to imagine some similarity between the summer season and Lord Siva on the strength of the common quality such as ferociousness (= bhisanata). He has not described this similarity in clear terms, but has only suggested it. Thus poetic beauty in this illustration is manifested through upama-dhvani or the suggestion of simile. This suggestion or dhvani here is based on such word as, 'mahakala', and the like; and hence is termed as, 'sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani', i.e. suggestion based on the power of word. The problem of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani or suggestion based on the power of the word is discussed by alamkarikas right from the time of such earlier ones as Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and the like. With this is correlated the problem as to how the sense, other than the primary one, in case of a word having a multiple sense, is derived. Thus, when in case of a word having its sense been fixed through abhidha, or the power of expression, yet another sense (the a-prakaranika i.e. non-contextual sense) flashes upon the mind; is this apprehension of the non contextual sense arrived at through the agency of vyanjana or the suggestive power of word, or not? We come across two distinct lines of thinking with reference to this problem. The first is the line of thinking as adopted by Mammata and his followers who explain the appearance of the non-contextual sense through the agency of vyanjana or the suggestive power of word. Jagannatha and also Appayya, hold that the non-contextual sense is also collected through abhidha or the power of expression itself. We have noted this view of Jagannatha in the chapter on abhidha. According to him, vyanjana or the suggestive power of word has a separate field to operate in. When the yaugikartha or the meaning derived through etymological explanation comes up on the surface once again, after first having been defeated by the primary sense, or abhidhartha, it becomes an object of vyanjana, or the suggestive power of word, according to Jagannatha. The roots of both these lines of thinking are to be found in the discussion on the nature and scope of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani, or suggestion based on the power Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #122
'Vyanjana' 677 of word, as seen in Anandavardhana (i.e. Dhvanyaloka) and in Abhinavagupta (i.e. in Locana on the Dhv.). Anandavardhana, in Dhv. II. 2 observes that the soul of suggestion, 'with meant expressed sense (i.e. vivaksitabhidheya) is two-fold, (i) of 'unnoticeable sequence' (i.e. asamlaksya-krama) and (ii) of 'noticeable sequence'. (i.e. samlaksya-krama). This samlaksya-krama-dhvani or suggestion with noticeable sequence is further sub-divided into (i) sabda-sakti-mula, or 'that which is based on the power of word, and (ii) artha-sakti-mula or, 'that which is based on the power of sense.' (Dhv. II. 20). In Dhv. II. 21, the author observes that with the acceptance of sabda-saktimula-dhvani, or suggestion based on the power of word, the scope of the figure, 'double entendre' or slesa would not be completely robbed off. For both operate in separate fields. The author says - "Only that instance wherein is present a figure that is not expressed directly by any word, but conveyed solely by the suggestive power of the word itself, should be regarded as suggestion based on the power of word." For, only a figure which is conveyed by the power of the word is intended by us to form an instance of suggestion based on the power of the word and not that all ideas so convyed are instances of this suggestion. If two ideas are manifested (simultaneously) as a result of the power of word, we have only an instance of double entendre. Thus Anandavardhana distinguishes clearly between the scope of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani or suggestion based on the power of word, and that of slesa, or double entendre. He then tries to suggest that in fact, Bhatta Udbhata has pointed out that the name double entendre can apply to such instances too wherein we get the idea of another figure through the particular figure present there. And, in view of this, one might again doubt whether suggestion based upon the power of word (i.e. sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani) can be left with any independent scope at all. To remove such a doubt, the word 'suggestive' has been used in the text. So, the idea is All instances wherein, through the power of sound, only an expressed figure is conveyed by another expressed figure, should be brought under the province of double entendre. But such instances where a new figure which appears thus to be quite different from an expressed one, will come under the scope of suggestion based upon the power of word... Even a suggested figure will not become an instance of resonance like suggestion based on the power of word, if it also gets expressed at the same time by other expressions. In such instances, we will find only expressed figure like evasive speech (vakrokti). He observes: (vrtti, Dhv. II. 21) (pp. 72, ibid): tad ayam arthah yatra sabda-saktya saksad - For Personal & Private Use Only -

Page #123
SAHRDAYALOKA alamkarantaram vacyam sat pratibhasate sa sarvah slesa-visayah; yatra tu sabdasaktya samarthya"ksiptam vacya-vyatiriktam vyangyam eva alamkarantaram prakasate sa dhvaner visayah.... sa ca aksipto'lamkaro yatra punah sabdantarena bhihita-svarupas tatra na sabdasakty udbhavanurananarupa-vyangyadhvani-vyavaharah. tatra vakrokty adi-vacyalamkara-vyavahara eva." 678 After thus explaining the nature and scope of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani or suggestion based on the power of word, and furnishing a clear-cut definition Anandavardhana supplies illustrations, such as, "atrantare kusuma-samaya-yugam upasamharan... mahakalah", and, "unnatah prollasad dharah... etc.". Anandavardhana adds: "In all these examples, an extrancous meaning is conveyed by the power of the word and in order that the two meanings might not appear as entirely disconnected, we will have to postulate the relation of the standard of comparison and the object compared as existing between the two since there is justification also for doing so. Thus the double entendre we see here is not grounded on words only, as is the case when it happens to be an expressed figure only. But it is a figure suggested by the special suggestive power of the word. Thus the examples of double entendre and resonance-like suggestion are entirely different from one another. He says: "esu udaharanesu sabda-saktya prakasamane sati a-prakaranike'rthantare vakyasya a-sambanddhartha-bhidhayitvam ma prasanksid ity aprakaranika-prakaranikarthayor upamano-pameyabhavah kalpayitavyah samarthyad ity artha"-ksiptoyam sleso, na sabdoparudha iti vibhinnam eva slesa'nusvanopama-vyangyasya dhvaner visayah." (Vrtti, Dhv. II. 21, pp. 78, ibid) Anandavardhana further observes that other figures such as virodha or paradox, vyatireka or poetic contrast etc. are also possible in the suggestion based on the power of word or sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani. The following points emerge from Anandavardhana's presentation : (i) He seems to accept only the suggested figure as the object of this variety of dhvani or suggestion. He does not accept the possibility of vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea in this variety of dhvani. This observation on his part can be disputed as we know that Mammata does accept the case of vastu-dhvani also, as part of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani. (ii) Anandavardhana here does not involve himself in the discussion of a topic which seems to be naturally correlated with the topic on hand, and is therefore unfailingly discussed by later writers. This is the topic concerning the collection of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #124
679 Vyanjana an additional sense in case of word having multiple sense, when its expressed sense i.e. vacyartha is restricted to one sense, i.e. the primary sense having been determined by abhidha or the power of expression, through operation of such factors as samyoga or conjunction, viprayoga, or disjunction, prakarana or context and the like. We have observed above that Mammata treats this collection of an extra sense as a case of abhidha-mula-vyanjana. (iii) A third point to be noted is also very interesting. Out of the illustrations supplied by Anandavardhana, the first one is most note-worthy. Thus, in the illustration viz. "antrantare kusuma-samaya-yugam..." etc. what actually happens is that the etymological sense seems to emerge out forcibly on the surface after defeating the conventional sense. The word 'mahakala' has the conventional sense i.e. rudhyartha, of Lord Siva. The meaning of "the terrible time" is arrived at through the agency of etymology (i.e. yogabala, yaugika). The other two illustrations are not sufficiently clear when examined from this point of view. Though of course in the illustration viz. unnatah prollasad dharah..." etc. also, if we take the word 'payodhara', then even here, the other meaning of 'a cloud, seems to follow on the strength of etymology. Before we pass over to Abhinavagupta, we will try to consider the second point as noted above. We have seen that Anandavardhana does not treat the question, viz. as to how we arrive at the apprehension of the non-contextual sense, in case of a word with multiple sense. But at Dhv. II. 31, the author observes : "Having thus explained the varieties of suggestion, the following is said in order to distinguish between suggestion and its semblance... It will be pointed out in the sequal that examples like the above illustrate subordinate suggested poetry, (i.e. guni-bhutavyangya). But, on the other hand, resonance like suggestion is present in instances where, even after determining all the implications of the expressed sense in view of the context and so forth, we find that the expressed appears only as subsidiary to the suggested : "yatra tu prakarana"di-pratipattya nirdharita-viseso vacyorthah punah pratiyamanangatvena eva avabhasate sosyaiva anurananarupa-vyangyasya dhvaner margah." (vrtti, Dhv. II. 31, pp. 102, ibid). On this Abhinavagupta observes : "prakaranam adir yasya sabdantara-sannidhana-samarthya-linga"des tad avagamad eva yatrarthah niscita-samasta-svabhavah." (pp. 187, Edn. Dr. Nandi), Herein, we may find a reference to the fact of the expressed sense or vacyartha Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #125
680 SAHRDAYALOKA being determined by factors such as 'prakarana' or context and the like; but the question as to how the non-contextual sense is conveyed, is not touched at all. Abhinavagupta discusses the illustration viz. "atrantare kusuma-samayayugam" etc., as given by Anandavardhana as an instance of suggestion based on the power of word. Here he gives his own views along with three other views on the question as to how the non-contextual sense is collected in case of a word having multiple sense, after its expressed sense is fixed by factors such as conjunction, or samyoga, disjunction, or viprayoga, etc. He discusses whether this non-contextual sense is gathered by vyanjana or the power of suggestion or not. We have noticed the view of Mammata in this case and he seems to favour vyanjana here giving rise to abhidha-mula-sabdi-vyanjana. . In order to explain the above quoted instance the Locanakara observes : "In this illustration, the words such as 'maha-kala' and the like, whose power of expression is limited through the context (= prastava) of the description of the season, and therefore who defy the dictum viz. 'avayavaprasiddheh samudaya-prasiddhih baliyasi, i.e. the conventional sense is stronger than the etymological sense, - have their goal achieved by conveying this very sense (i.e. with reference to the season.) After this, the other sense is derived through suggestion based on the power of word, i.e. sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani." Thus it is clear that according to Abhinavagupta, in the illustration cited above, the etymological sense - y kartha-defies the conventional sense, and is itself apprehended through suggestion based on the power of word. Locana reads as : "evam slesalamkarasya visayam avasthapya dhvaner aha, 'yatra tv iti'. kusumasamaya"tmakam yad yugam masa-dvayam tad-upasamharan. dhavalani hrdyani i apana yena tadrk phulla-mallikanam haso vikasah sitima yatra. phullamallika-eva dhavalattahasosya iti tu vyakyane 'jalada-bhujagajamity etat tulyam etat syat. mahan sca'sau dina-dairghya-durita-vaha-yogat kalah samayah, atra stuvarnana-prastava-niyantritabhidhasaktayah ata eva avayava-prasiddheh samudayaprasiddhir baliyasi iti nyayam apakurvanto mahakala-prabhrtayah sabdah etam eva'rtham abhidhaya krta-krtya eva. tad anantaram arthavagatir dhvananavyaparad eva, sabda-sakti-mulatvad. (pp. 154, Edn., Dr. Nandi). It may be noted that the above discussion follows the illustration viz. atrantare, and the like. So, it becomes clear that according to Abhinavagupta, only in such instances alone, i.e. instances wherein the etymological sense - yaugikartha - emerges once more on the surface by defeating the conventional sense For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #126
Vyanjana' 681 rudhyartha; vyanjana or the suggestive power of word operates. We will go to observe later in due course that Jagannatha also holds this view. Abhinavagupta does not say that in all cases of words having a multiple sense, the additional noncontextual sense is conveyed through vyanjana or the suggestive power, as held by Mammata and his illustrious followers. Probably Mammata goes astray in interpreting Abhinavagupta's words, or he consciously begs to differ from his master. We will try to corroborate our observation by examining the other views as put forth by Abhinavagupta. Abhinavagupta cites the view of somebody else who tries to explain how the additional non-contextual sense is collected in a poem, when a word having a multiple sense has its primary sense fixed through the agency of context and the like. He observes : (pp. 154, Locana, Dhv. II. 21, Edn. Dr. Nandi) : "atra kecin manyante - yata etesam sabdanam purvam arthantare abhidhantaram drstam tatas tathavidherthantare drsta-tad-abhidha-sakter eva pratipattu niyantritabhidhasaktikebhya etebhya pratipattir dhvanana-vyaparad-eva iti sabda-sakti-mulakatvam vyangyarvam ca iti a-viruddham iti." "Here, some are of the opinion that these words had their second power of expression observed with reference to the other meaning by somebody. So for him, who might have seen this abhidha or power of expression with reference to some other meaning, these words, now with their power of expression delimited to a certain sense alone, convey the meaning through the suggestive power alone. Thus the fact of being based on the power of word (sabda-sakti-mulakatva) is not opposed to suggestive power (i.e. vyanjana)." We may try to elaborate the idea as below. When we use a particular word in a particular sense, - the word whose power of expression (abhidha) with reference to another sense is already noted by us earlier, - the other sense is already in our mind in the form of a latent impression when we use the word in a particular sense at some time. In such cases, abhidha or the power of expression becomes limited to a particular sense through the agency of context, and the like. So, it becomes clear that the poet or writer wants to convey that particular sense there. After this, through the force of latent impressions, an additional non-contextual sense dawns upon our mind in case of words having a multiple sense. This additional sense obviously cannot be the primary sense or abhidheyartha which is already determined through factors such as context i.e. prakarana and the like. So, this additional sense can be explained only through suggestion. It is termed sabda-saktimula because of the word being one having a multiple sense, and it is also called Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #127
682 SAHRDAYALOKA dhvani', as it is gathered through suggestion. Here, there is no contradiction between its being 'sabda-sakti-mula' and its being 'dhvani' simultaneously. It seems that Mammata follows this view. But for Abhinavagupta it does not seem to be acceptable as he uses the words such as : "atra kecin manyante". It seems Mammata has failed to notice the illustration viz. "atrantare..." and the like, carefully, with reference to which Abhinavagupta has earlier cited his views. So, Mammata seems to have confused Abhinavagupta's view with this view which on the authority of the Locanakara himself is, owned by 'some others' i.e. 'kecin manyante'. Jagannatha in his discussion, cites a prima facie view which seems to be one held by Mammata. Or, perhaps Mammata knowingly begs to differ from Abhinavagupta. Thus, it becomes clear that for Abhinavagupta, who seems to follow the hint dropped by Anandavardhana as noticed by us earlier, vyanjana or suggestive power of word seems to operate only when the etymological sense (i.e. yaugikartha) comes up in the forefront after defeating the conventional sense, i.e. 'rulhyartha'. On the other hand, Mammata as we have noted above seems to accept abhidha-mula-sabdi-vyanjana in case of gathering of every non-contextual sense, in case of a word having a multiple sense, whose primary sense is already determined by operation of such factors as context and the like. Abhinavagupta further discusses other views as below : "anye tu - sa abhidhaiva dvitiya artha-samarthyam grismasya bhisana-devata-visesa-sadrsya"tmakam sahakaritvena yato'valambyate tato dhvanana-vyapara-rupo`cyate' iti. "Others hold that it is a second power of expression - abhidha. This (second power of expression) is called suggestion (dhvanana-vyapara-rupa), because it takes recourse to the meaning of similarity, between the summar season and the terrible God, as an accessory (sahakari)." (pp. 154, ibid) The purport of this view may be put as follows : In fact, all the functions such as expression or abhidha and the like, have 'conveying of sense' as their prime concern. These powers get different lebels on the strength of difference in accessories. Thus abhidha or expression is one which depen upon convention or samketa. Laksana or indication is one that resorts to mukhyartha-badha or the contradiction of primary sense, and the like, as its basis. Vyanjana or suggestive power is one that operates on the strength of context and the like to arrive at the desired sense (i.e. prayojana). In the illustration quoted above, what is in fact abhidha or expression only, is termed vyanjana or suggestion on the strength of the difference in accessories, in form of similarity with the terrible God such as Siva. We may also note in passing that Kuntaka also considers Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #128
Vyanjana' 683 laksyartha, dyotitartha and vyangyartha to be just abhidhartha, on the same analogy. cording to this view, the non-contextual sense is gathered through abhidha or expression itself, which is termed differently on account of difference in accessories. Abhinavagupta quotes the third view which is as follows : "According to some, both in sabda-slesa or double entendre based on word and artha-slesa, or that based on sense, another word is brought in; in the former, there is a clear distinction between the two words, and in the latter another word is imagined of the difference in meaning. This bringing in of another sense occurs, at times, through the power of expression or abhidha, as when an answer is given to two questions simultaneously, e.g. 'sveto dhavati' (i.e. the white one runs, or dog runs from this place to that - sva ito dhavati) or as when an answer is furnished by the question itself. In all these cases, we have an expressed figure. i.e. vacyalamkarata (i.e. such cases are instances of double entendre or slesa). But, where another word is brought about, through the medium of the power of suggestion only, there, though the second meaning is collected on the strength of the seco be taken as implied only (for the second word by itself is gathered by virtue of the suggestive power only) - eke tu, "sabda-slese tavad bhede sati sabdasya, arthaslesepi saktibhedat sabda-bheda iti darsane dvitiyah sabdas tatra aniyate. sa ca kadacid abhidha-vyaparat, yathobhayottaradanaya 'sveto dhavati * iti, prasnottara"dau va, tatra vacyalamkarata, yatra tu dhvanana-vyaparad eva sabda anitah, tatra sabdantara-balad api tad arthantaram pratipannam pratiyamanamulatvat pratiyamanam eva yuktam." iti. (Locana, pp. 154, ibid) - We may analyse this view as follows : sabdaslesa or double entendre based on word occurs when there is difference in words. In artha-slesa also we have to accept difference in words on the strength of the maxim viz. that we have difference in words on account of difference in function i.e. Sakti-bheda. Now, at times, in such cases, the other word is dragged in through the power of expression or abhidha as when two questions are asked viz. (i) who runs from here ? and (ii) the substance that runs possesses which colour? - and the answer is furnished : "sveto dhavati", which comes as a reply to both the questions. Abhidha or expression also operates, when a reply is furnished by the question itself, e.g. when a question is placed in the mouth of a cave (i.e. dari') asking, 'say, who am I?" - and the reply given is, "how is it that you do not recognise that which is already Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #129
684 SAHRDAYALOKA spoken, and how is it that you harass like this? The second sense being 'ka' and 'tha' that are spoken are to be cancelled, and the rest forms the reply : (ka-thamuktam na janasi kadarthayasi yat sakhe). In all these cases, only the expressed figure, called double entendre, operates. But, when vyanjana or the suggestive power is involved in bringing in the other word itself, then the other sense, though it follows directly from the other word and therefore should be termed as expressed only, is to be termed as suggested, because of the word itself being brought in through suggestion power. Abhinavagupta discusses one more view which is as follows : Others hold that the other function, operating on the strength of the accessory in the form of meaning, referred to in the second view, is nothing else but a second power of expression (i.e. abhidha) alone, which is brought back to life through (the in form of meaning). So, the second sense is only expressed, and not suggested. On gathering this second sense, the comparision between the two senses flashes forth; and this comparision (i.e. rupana) is not brought about by another word, but through suggestive power alone. As we cannot imagine abhidha or expression of any variety here, only suggestive power or vyanjana-vyapara is acceptable (in this case). So, it is quite justifiable to call it 'alamkara-dhvani' or suggestion of a figure : "itare tu, - dvitiya-paksa-vyakhyane yad artha-samarthyam tena dvitiyaabhidhaiva prati-prasuyate, tatas ca dvitiyo'rtho bhidhiyata eva, na dhvanyate; tad anantaram tu tasya dvitiyarthasya pratipannasya prathamarthena prakaranikena ya rupana, sa tavad bhavaty eva, na ca'nyatah sabdad iti, sa dhvanana-vyaparat. tatra abhidha-sakteh kasyascid apy anasankaniyatvat. tasyan ca dvitiya sabdasaktir mulam. taya vina rupanayah anutthanat. ata eva alamkara-dhvanir ayam iti yuktam." (pp. 156, ibid). The purport of the fourth view seems to be that while considering the second view, it was suggested that abhidha or expression itself, being based on the accessory in the form of meaning, is a suggestive operation (i.e. dhvananavyapara). Here, it is stated that in fact this second power is not at all the suggestive power. It should be directly lebelled as abhidha or the power of expression only. Thus, the gathering of the non-contextual sense, in case of a word having a multiple sense, with its primary sense already determined through factors such as context and the like, is done through abhidha or the power of expression itself. But the sense of comparision between the two is brought about through suggestion. Thus, alamkara-dhvani or the suggestion of a figure takes Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #130
Vyanjana' 685 place here. The second sense itself is gathered only through abhidha or expression. It is termed sabda-sakti-mulaka or one having word at its base, because in case of such a comparision or superimposition, the second sense is brought about through the agency of word alone. Now, if we put together this fourth view, and the view held by Abhinavagupta himself, we will reach the position taken by Jagannatha. He has discussed the question elaborately. But before we move on to Jagannatha, we will move on presently with Mammata, who is the author on hand, and his foll As observed earlier. Mammata considers vyanjana or the suggestive power of word as two-fold, i.e. one based on word, or sabdi, and the other rooted in sense, or arthi. We have noted above under what conditions sabdi vyanjana operates. As for, sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani, Mammata, unlike Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, accepts the possibility of a suggested idea i.e. vastu also, and not a suggested figure only, as done by the former. Thus, he seems to expand the scope of 'sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani'. As for arthi vyanjana, or suggestion based on meaning, Mammata observes the following in the beginning of ullasa III. K.P. He observes that the meanings of these words have already been mentioned, which are three viz. expressed, indicated and suggested. Now the suggestiveness-vyanjakata-of these three meanings is explained by Mammata, who observes : kidrsity aha - "vaktp-boddhavya-kakunam vakya-vacyanya-sannidheh. prastava-desa-kala"der vaisistyat pratibhajusam, yarthasyanyartha-dhi-hetur vyaparo vyaktir eva sa." III. 22. "Of what nature is it? To this the author replies - (21 cd. 22). The function of the (three-fold) meaning, which, on account of the speciality of (i) the speaker, (ii) the person addressed, (iii) the intonation, (iv) the sentence, (v) the expressed sense, (vi) the presence of another (vii) occasion (viii) place, (ix) time and the like, causes the awareness of another meaning to persons endowed with poetic faculty, is nothing but suggestion. The person addressed means one who is communicated with. Intonation means modulation of voice. Occasion means context. "Of the meaning - arthasya" means For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #131
686 SAHRDAYALOKA of the nature of the expressed, the indicated and the suggested." - (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 51, ibid) Mammata supplies illustrations for all these. Jhalkikar (pp. 72, 73) observes : "atra vaisistyad iti pancamyarthah sahakaritva-rupam hetutvam. tac ca tad abhave vyanjana'nudayad bodhyam. evam ca vaktradi-vailaksanya-hetuka ya pratibhanasalinam anyarthadhih taddhetu-vyaparatvam asyah svarupam iti bodhyam iti udyote spastam. pratibhajusam iti anena jada"dinam vyudasah. tatha ca uktam, "sa-vasananam natya"dau rasasya'nubhavo bhavet. nirvasanas tu rangantar vesma-kudya'sma-sannibhah." iti. arthasya ity anena sabda-vyanjananirasah eva-karena abhidha-laksana"dinam nirasah samketa"dy abhavena nabhidha ity uktam prak (II. 15.C) anumana"dikam tv agre nirasisyate. vaktradinam ca samkare yasya udbhatata (pradhanyam) tanmulako vyavaharah." It may be observed in passing that eventhough arthi vyanjana is three-fold as it is based either on abhidhartha or laksyartha or vyangyartha, the illustrations supplied by Mammata follow the factors that give rise to the suggested sense. They are, so to say, of the mixed type, as abhidha-mula-vyanjana, laksana-mulavyanjana and vyanjana-mula-vyanjana are not separately pointed out. Mammata, at the end of ullasa III observes : "sabda-pramana-vedyortho vyanakty arthantaram yatah, arthasya vyanjakatve tat sabdasya sahakarita." (III. 23) (pp. 56, ibid). "sabdeti, na hi pramanantara-vedyo. vyanjakah." "Since a meaning, cognised through the means of a word, suggests another meaning, there is co-operation of the word in the suggestiveness of the meaning." (The expression) sabda etc., means a meaning cognized through any other means is not suggestive. This remark is very important as it rules out inference of fire through smoke as being dubbed as identical with vyanjana, for smoke is no word. In vyanjana the instrumentality of word, so far as poetry is concerned, is a must. Hence, we call it a process of suggestion i.e. we name it as vyanjana as against inference or reasoning. Thus, Mahima's position does not seem to be sound. Inference arises from a 'linga' which is not a 'sabda' of poetry. Jhalkikar observes (pp. 81, ibid): tatha ca artho sabda-sahayyam apeksate, evam sabdopy artha-sahayyam apeksate For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #132
'Vyanjana' 687 iti sabdartha-yugala-rupa-kavyasya vyanjakatvam nirbadham iti bhava iti udyotasudhasagarayoh spastam." The Sampradayaprakasini also supports vyanjana and rules out other pramanas such as pratyaksa"di i.e. direct perception and the like from the sphere of vyanjana. By 'adi' obviously inference, etc. are meant "yo hy ayam artho dhvanati sa hi sabdaika-pramanakah, na punah pratyaksa"di-pramanakah. atah sabdasya sahakaritvam. pramanantara-vedyasya arthasya laukikatvad vyanjakatvam prasiddham." a Thus it is clear that aestheticians are normally of the opinion that whatever results from art - i.e. rasa is a-laukika, and 'art' being the medium, here poetic art, the outcome is branded as "suggested" i.e. 'vyanjita'. This function, exclusive to art is called 'vyanjana', only to distinguish it from other pramanas in loka, or worka-day world, as they give rise to 'laukika' or worldly apprehension. It is precisely for this that Anandavardhana and his followers have named it as vyanjana-vyapara which is a-laukika, i.e. not worldly, but exclusive to art of any form only. Hemacandra in his kavyanusasana follows Mammata, and under ka. sa. I. 20 speaks of the four sabda-vrttis. He observes : "mukhya"dyas tac chaktayah". I. 20. pp. 58 mukhya-gauni-laksanavyanjakatva-rupah saktayo vyapara, mukhya"dinam sabdanam." He tries to furnish the definition of vyanjana as - "tat sakty upajanita-arthavagama-pavitrita-pratipatr-pratibha-sahaya'rthadyotana-saktir vyanjakatvam." Vyanjakatva or suggestive power is that power which suggests a meaning, through the agency of the meaning born of that power (i.e. abhidha, gauni, and laksana) and due to the strength of pratibha i.e. poetic imagination or genius of the person to whom everything is communicated (i.e. pratipatta). Hemacandra observes that he has not mentioned the tatparya-sakti and the tatparyartha (i.e. purport) as they are considered only with reference to a 'vakya' i.e. sentence and therefore do not strictly go with 'a word' or 'sabda'. Hemacandra, though does not specifically indulge in classification of vyanjana, but implies twofold classification when he says: "vaktradi-vaisistyad arthasya api vyanjakatvam." i.e. 'artha' is also suggestive through the speciality of the speaker and the like. By 'api' be accepts sabdasya vyanjakatvam. Thus both sabdi and arthi vyanjanas are accepted by Hemacandra, following Mammata. He also presents illustrations For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #133
688 SAHRDAYALOKA of the speciality of the speaker etc. in like fashion. But he goes a step further and gives specific illustrations of abhidha-mula-vyanjana and laksana-mula-vyanjana. We know that Mammata had not done this though of course he knows about it. Mammata had simply stated that "In this way suggestiveness of the indicated and the suggested sense should also be illustrated." "anena kramena laksya-vyangyayos ca vyanjakatvam udaharyam." Hemacandra fills in the gap left out by Mammata and gives illustrations of a-mukhyasya (arthasya) (vyanjakatvam), and vyangyasya (vyanjakatvam) also. It may be observed that by 'a-mukhya' he seems to cover both gauni-mula and laksana-mula vyanjana. But his illustration viz. sahenti sahi. etc. covers only laksana. So, we may say that his acceptance and projection of gauni as a separate word power other then laksana is not justifiable otherwise at every step, even in classification of dhvani he should have given separate illustrations for both. We will now move to Jayadeva, who has compared the three powers of a word to the Ganga having three streams - "tripathaga ganga." The 'gambhira-pravaha' is vyanjana. The Rama commentary observes : "sakya-laksyantara-pratity uttara-pratiti-janakatvam gambhiratvam.". Thus by gambhiratva or depth (of meaning) is meant that apprehension which follows the sakya i.e. expressive and laksya i.e. indicative apprehensions. Obviously for Jayadeva thus vyanjana is based either on abhidha or laksana. He tries to furnish a definition of vyanjana as - "sammukhyam vidadhanayah sphutam arthantare girah, kataksa iva lolaksyah vyaparo vyanjana"tmakah." (Candraloka, VII. 2.) This perhaps is not a scientific definition of vyanjana but is only a metaphorical description of the same. It means - Just as a heroine, to draw the attention of the hero casts a side-glance clear in its meaning, in the same way the poet's muse presented before a sensitive person resorts to a power that presents a meaning other than the expressed, indicated or of the form of purport. This power is the suggestive power of a word. Trilokinatha Dwivedi explains in his sanskrit commentary (pp. 332, ibid) : "nayakasya sammukhyam sammukhatam vidadhanayah dharayantyah, nayaka-sammukham gatayah lolaksyah capala-nayanayah tasyah arthantare pranaya-rupa-vyapare Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #134
Vyanjana' 689 prerayantyah kataksah sankoca-calana"tmako netrayoh vyaparo bhavati, kataksenaiva nayika nayakam prati svabhipretam prastauti, tathaiva giro vanyah, samyoga"dibhih ekasmin prakaranike arthe abhidhayam niyantritayam arthantare pratiti-visayatam gatesu a-prakaranikesv api arthesu sahrdayanam sammukhyam vidadhanayah sahrdayan prerayantyah kavivaco vyanjana"tmako vyaparo bhavati." Clearly, Dr. Dwivedi tries to read Mammata in Jayadeva. The Paurnamasi also (pp. 234, 235) has a similar approach - "vyanjanasvarupam aha granthakarah-sphutam spastam arthantare vacya-laksyartha-bhinne sammukhyam pratitim. vacya-laksyartha-bhinnartha pratiti-visayatam iti yavat. visayatvam saptamyarthah vidadhanayah girah kurvatah sabdasya. pumsi sammukhyam abhilasam kurvantyah lolaksyah cancalaksyah kataksa iva netraviksepa iti. vyanjanaiva atma, svarupam yasya tadnso vyaparo bhavati. ... The Paurnamasi goes on quoting from Asadhara Bhatta, and Laghumanjusa, and gives a three-fold classification as vyanjana based on abhidha, laksana or vyanjana. Illustrations given are based on both K.P. and the S.D. of Visvanatha. Jayadeva then proceeds to classify dhvani and leaves vyanjana at VII. 2. only. In Rama tika Vaidyanathajee observes that 'rasa' is apprehended through vyanjana alone and hence Jayadeva has treated it in the beginning. He observes that vyanjana is a samskara-visesa born of the poetic inclination-pratibha-(of the poet and the reader), and also born of the knowledge of the speciality of the speaker etc. It has, a prasiddha - i.e. known or a-prasiddha i.e. unknown meaning as its object. This power of word does not stand in need of such mukhyartha-badha etc. and yields a meaning which is either connected (i.e. sambaddha) or not directly connected (i.e. a-sambaddha) with the primary sense. All this is not directly stated by Jayadeva but obviously the commentators try to read Mammata's ideas in Jayadeva and may be they are not off the target. Vidyadhara in his Ekavali does not give a separate treatment to vyanjana but while noting the nature of word-and meaning he passes some remarks. Here he has discussed the case of a word having multiple sense, but whose expressed sense is decided by factors such as samyoga"di i.e. conjunction and the like. He explains on Ekavali II. 13, how vyanjana vyapara differs from abhidha, laksana and tatparya. The whole discussion is based on the kavyaprakasa of Mammata Vidyadhara observes : "sabdam vyanjakam ahur vyaparo vyanjanam bhaved yasya." II. 13 ab. vyanjana-vyaparavan sabdo vyanjakah, atra ca arthasya api sahakaritvam. vacyo laksyo vyangyas tesam artho yatha kramam vedyah." (II. 13. cd). Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #135
690 SAHRDAYALOKA kavyaprakasakarena punar esam arthanam api vyanjakatvam uktam. yatha - "vaktr-boddhavya-kakunam ..." - Vidyadhara thus follows the K.P. Mallinatha in the Tarala tika has given everthything that is left out by Mammata in the text. Kesava Misra has also followed the Kashmere tradition, in the third Marici i.e. chapter of his Alamkara-sekhara (Edn. N.S. '26) (Bombay). He observes (III. i) padanam vrttayas tisrah vicitra-sahakarinam svabhava-vaicitrya-jusam vyanjana'rtha-traye'pi ca. He further observes : "tisro vittayah padanam bhavanti, saktir laksana vyanjana ca iti. ... ttiya vittir vyanjana, yatha--nihsesacyuta.' . atra adhamapadena rantum gata'siti vyajyate. - All this follows Mammata. Kesava also does not attempt any definition of vyanjana. He has a remark in between : "nanu 'ravir astam gatah' ity adau tany eva padani katham srotrnam vicitra-budhir utpadayanti ity ata aha - "vicitra-sahakarinam". Here he enumerates the factors such as context, - prakarana - and the like. He says : 'tad eva hi padam sva-rasa-samabhivyaharaprakarana-tatparya-jnana"dirupa-sahakari-bhedat tat tad dhiyam utpadayati, danda iva gavabhyajana-gatau." He also discusses vyanjana based on adi and anta of a single pada, suggesting that all this was possible because of the inherent beautiful nature of 'padas' - "svabhava-vaicitryajusam". He further observes, citing illustrations that 'sakya' i.e. expressed sense, 'laksya' i.e. indicated sense and even 'vyangya' i.e. suggested sense - all these three - can be suggestors i.e. vyanjakas. All this is done in keeping with Mammata. Prior to this, Vidyanatha and Visvanatha also follow the lead of Mammata. Vidyanatha in his Pratapa-rudra-yasobhusana, kavya-prakarana (pp. 38) accepts vyanjana as a power of word and observes : "anvitesu padarthesu vakyarthopaskarartham arthantara-visayah sabda-vyaparah vyanjana-vrttih." - i.e. vyanjana is that power of word which gives meaning - arthantara-which imparts beauty to the sentence-sense, meanings (in a sentence) are correlated." This he says is three-fold viz. (i) that based on sabda, (ii) that based on artha and (iii) that, based on both word and meaning - i.e. sabdarthobhaya-sakti-mula. He illustrates them. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #136
'Vyanjana' 691 Kumaraswami, the commentator of Vidyanatha furnishes details in his Ratnapana, following Mammata. He observes : (pp. 38, ibid, Edn. Madras, 1914 A.D.) vyanjanavitter laksanam aha : - anvitesv iti. padarthesu padair abhihitesu. anvitesu akanksa"divivasan mithah sambaddhesu satsu. samanvaya-saktya vakyarthe pratita ityarthah. yad va, artha-prakarana"dina prakaranikarthaparyavasitesvity arthah. etena abhidha-nvaya-saktyoh sati sambhave laksanayas ca anantarabhavi vyanjana-vyapara iti sucitam. laksana tu samanvaya-saktisamarpitanvaya-vidhurikarana-dhurinatvat anvaya-sakty-anantara-bhaviny eva ity avocauh abhinavaguptacarya-padah, vakyarthasya kavya-sarira-bhutasya upaskarartham sobhartham vyangyarahitasya kavyasya an-atmaka-sariravad acarutvad iti bhavah. vacya-laksyabhyam anyorthantaram vyangyam, tad-visayah sabda-vyaparah, atra sabda-grahanam arthasya api upa-laksanartham. ajnatarthasya sabdasya visistasya sabdaanabhidheyasya carthasya vyanjakarva-yogat ubhaya-vyaparatvabhyupagamat. kim tu, sabdartha-sakti-mulayor yathayogam ekasya pradhanyam itarasya sahakaritvam, ubhaya-sakti-mule'pi tat tad ambayor evam eva vibhago drastavyah. vyanjana-vittim vibhajate; sa trividheti. atra anekarthasya sabdasya arthaprakarana"dibhir a-prakrtartha-vacakatve nivarite'pi tat-pratitir yat prasada-labdha sa sabda-sakti-mula. vaktr-boddhavya"di-vasat sahrdayanam arthantara-pratitihetur vacyadyartha-vyaparortha-saktimala. ubaya-sambandhe tu ubhaya-saktimala iti vivekah. Visvanatha, in his Sahityadarpana (I. 12 cd, 13) tries to define vyanjana as - (12 cd) "viratasv abhidhadyasu yaya'rtho bodhyate parah." i.e. (vyanjana is that power of a word) by which, when the power of expression (i.e. abhidha) and the like are over, a (further) meaning is apprehended. (I. 13 ab) - That power of word is called vyanjana, and it is of both word and sense etc." In his vitti here, Visvanatha observes : 'sabda-buddhi-karmanam viramya vyaparabhavah' iti nayena, abhidha-laksana-tatparya"khyasu tisssu vittisu, svam svam artham bodhayitva upaksinasu, yaya aparo-nyortho bodhyate, sa, sabdasya, arthasya, praksti-pratyaya"desca, saktir vyanjana-dhvanana-gamana-pratyayana"di vyapadesa-visaya vyanjana nama.' Thus vyanjana rests on both word and sense and also on parts of a word. All this follows what Anandavardhana and Mammata have clarified and illustrated to the point. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #137
692 SAHRDAYALOKA Visvanatha proceeds to give classification in S.D.I. 13 cd as - "abhidha-laksana. mula sabdasya vyanjana dvidha." He follows Mammata when he observes that abhidha-mula vyanjana occurs, when a word having a multiple sense has its expressed sense fixed with reference to one meaning by factors such as samyoga or conjunction etc. and yet over and above this ascertained primary sense, another (= non-contextual) meaning props up. Visvanatha quotes the two famous karikas also as read in Mammata, and illustrates all factors such as 'samyoga' etc. accordingly. He has some interesting discussion concerning "svara"dayah". Visvanatha is also of the opinion, following Mammata that 'svara' etc. are considered only so far as veda is concerned and not with reference to kavya or poetry and therefore it is illustrated. Says he : (vrtti, S.D. II. 13) - "svaras tu veda eva visesa-pratiti-krn na kavya iti tasya visayo na udahstah." But then he considers an objection here. The objector holds that even in kavya 'svara' in form of 'kaku' i.e. intonation makes for a special apprehension. Following Bharata Muni's observation, concerning 'patha' i.e. recitation, these (i.e. svara"di) make for special apprehension of rasas such as the songara and the like. So, says the objector, it would have been better if illustration was supplied to this effect. To this Visvanatha says that the objection cannot be sustained because svaras, either in form of 'kaku' or 'udatta' and the like, make for the apprehension of a special form of the suggested sense only. They do not make for the apprehension of a special sense other than the expressed as in case of a word having a multiple sense, which is a matter under discussion. For, if in case of words having multiple sense (anekartha) due to absence of delimiting factors such as context and the like, if some restriction is found due to svara, then in such cases there will arise a contingency of non-acceptance of slesa or double entendra. It is precisely for this that someone (= Mammata) has observed, "kavyamarge svaro na ganyate." By 'adayah', he adds, the gestures by hand etc. are meant. Visvanatha's original words are : "idam ca kepy asahamanah ahuh - 'svaropi kakv adirupah kavye visesa-pratiti-krd eva. udatra"di-rupopi muneh pathokta-disa songara"di-rasa-visesa-pratiti-kld eva' iti tadvisaye udaharanam ucitam eva, iti, - tanna; tatha hi, svarah kakv adayah, udatta"dayo va vyangya-rupam eva visesam pratyayanti, na khalu prakrtoktam anekarthasya sabdasya ekartha-niyantranarupam visesam. kinca yadi yatra kvacid anekartha-sabdanam prakarana"diniyamabhavad-aniyantritayor apy arthayor anurupa-svara-vasenai-katra-niyamanam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #138
Vyanjana' 693 vacyam, tada tathavidha-sthale slesa-'nangikara-prasangah; na ca tatha, at eva ahuh, slesanirupana-prastave - "kavya-marge svaro na ganyate' iti ca nayah, iti alam upajivyanam manyanam vyakhyanesu kataksa-niksepena." He then illustrates abhidhamula vyanjana, as in, "durgalanghita." etc. For laksanamula vyanjana, Visvanatha observes (S.D. II. 15) "laksanopasyate yasya krte, tattu prayojanam, yaya pratyayyate sa syad vyanjana laksana"sraya." i.e. laksana-mula-vyanjana is that by which the prayojana or object, for which indication is resorted to, is collected. The stock illustration cited is "gangayam ghosah". After thus dealing with the sabdi-vyanjana Visvanatha takes care of the arthi variety in a like fashion as done by Mammata. At S.D. II. 16 he cites the same factors such as vakts, boddhavya, etc. which are instrumental in giving shape to this variety of vyanjana. He cites appropriate illustrations. Then he says that the vyanjana - arthi here - is again three-fold on account of the sense being threefold such as vacya, laksya and vyangya, (S.D. II. 17 ab). Following Mammata he also observes that both in sabdi and arthi the co-operation of both artha and sabda respectively is very much there. Here ends Visvanatha's treatment of vyanjana in which he has chosen to follow the lead of Mammata, who is his 'upajivya' and 'manya'. As for. Appayya Dixita, we may say that his vrtti-varttika is available only upto his treatment of laksana, so his full concept of vyanjana can not be traced but as he was a dhvanivadin, we can say for sure that he supported vyanjana as an independent and supreme sabda-vyapara. His ideas concerning Mammata's concept of sabdi-vyanjana are noted by us in his treatment of abhidha, wherein he rejects the view of those who hold that in case of a word having a multiple sense with its expressed meaning fixed by such factors as samyoga i.e. conjunction etc., the other meaning is apprehended through vyanjana. No, says he. He is not inclined to take vyanjana at all these places. This view was voiced by Abhinavagupta in his Locana as noticed by us earlier and is supported by Jagannatha as we will go to see now. In the Locana with reference to sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani Abhinavagupta had cited different views out of which one line of thought was accepted by Mammata, Hemacandra, Visvanatha etc., while a different line of thought was Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #139
694 SAHRDAYALOKA accepted perhaps by Anandavardhana himself, then Acarya Abhinavagupta also and later certainly by Appayya and Jagannatha. We will pick up Jagannatha now in due course, which we had left mid-way earlier. But we may take note of the fact before hand that, though Jagannatha has come down heavily on Appayya at a number of places, he has also followed the latter's line of thought, though not confessed expressedly. This, the case of sabdivyanjana, and sabda-sakti-muladhvani is an instance in point that may be revealed in the following discussion. Jagannatha - As observed earlier, Mammata holds that sabda-sakti-muladhvani or the suggestion based on the power of word is possible when a word having a multiple sense has its non-contextual sense gathered through vyanjana or suggestive power. Now, as to whether the additional non-contextual sense (i.e. a-prakaranikartha) of a word having a multiple sense is collected through vyanjana or suggestivity or not, Jagannatha first cites the prima facie view as below: Some people are of the opinion that the knowledge of convention (i.e. samketajnana) resides identically in all senses of a word having a multiple sense. So, people understand all the meanings of a word having a multiple sense, identically. They do not take any of the senses as either inevitable or not. Thus, when men hear words having a multiple sense, immediately on hearing them, they are reminded of all senses at a time. Then, the problem arises as to what is the exact intention or import of the speaker ? Or, what is the exact meaning meant to be conveyed by the speaker when he uses a particular word. Thus doubt arises as to the exact import of the speaker. This doubt is removed with the help of the context and the like. The hearer considers the context and the like - prakarana"di - and tries to arrive at the sense intended by the speaker. Say, for instance, someone says, "surabhi-mamsam bhaksayati". Now, the word 'surabhi' has a multiple sense. It gives the meanings of a cow, and also, 'fragrant, simultaneously. Resorting to context and the like, the hearer comes to the conclusion that the speaker intends to convey the second sense, viz., 'fragrant. Thus, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, the knowledge of import (i.e. tatparya-jnana) is arrived at on the consideration of the element of context and the like, and by that, expression i.e. abhidha becomes limited to one particular sense. After gathering the individual meaning of separate words, - padajnana - with the help of the knowledge of import, - tatparya-jnana-, the correlated sense - anvaya-jnana-follows. So, at the time of the first gathering of the word-sense i.e. pada-jnana, all the senses of a word having a multiple sense pop up simultaneously. Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #140
'Vyanjana' 695 But when the knowledge of the import (tatparya-jnana) dawns, with the help of the contexts and the like, only one meaning is rememebered. So, it should be accepted that the sense of a word having a multiple sense, is presented twice; once when all the senses pop up simultaneously, and once more when only one sense out of many, is remembered. Now, the question is why the second time also, all the senses do not come to mind, as happens when we hear the word for the first time? How is it that the second apprehension consists of just one sense alone ? In order to explain this fact, we will have to accept the determination of the import i.e. tatparya-nirnaya-arising out of the knowledge of the context and the like - prakarana"di ,, as a restrictive factor - i.e. pratibandhaka tattva; - or else, the verbal apprehension or sabda-bodha also will tend to be with reference to the multiple sense. Only on account of this the ancients such as Bhartrhari have stated that * "anavacchede visesasmrtihetavah". Jagannatha explains : "anavacchede tatparya-samdehe, visesasmrtih ekartha-matra-visaya-smrtih." i.e. by 'anavacchede' is meant the doubt regarding the exact import of a word. Visesasmrti' means the memory with reference to one single sense only. Thus, when there is doubt regarding the intention of the speaker, the context and the like (i.e. samyoga"di) bring about visesa-smrti i.e. ekarthamatra-visaya smrtih, i.e. memory with reference to a single sense only. Now, the problem that arises is as follows. In the case of 'surabhi-mamsam' the abhidha or expression has been restricted to the sense of 'fragrant. But the husband of the sister, i.e. brother in law, is in a position to cut a joke at his wife's brother. So, when he says that, you are eating surabhi-mamsam', the other meaning of the term viz. 'beef comes in through vyanjana or suggestive power alone, in the absence of a cow. - itthan ca, surabhi-mamsam bhaksayati ity ader vakyaj jayamana dvitiya pratitir gavady upasthiter abhavat katham syad iti tad upasthity artham vyanjana-vyaparo'bhyupeyah" (R.G. pp. 2, ibid). It cannot be urged here that a word having a multiple sense has many powers of expression (abhidha) and that once the contextual (i.e. prakaranika) sense is settled through one power of expression, (i.e. abhidha), the other senses are arrived at through other powers of expression (= other abhidhas). The reason is that the knowledge of context and the like, that is taken as a restrictive factor (= pratibandhaka) in the case of other senses, will continue even here, i.e. at the time of the second abhidha also. For, if we do not accept the knowledge of context (i.e. prakarana"di-jnana) as restrictive (i.e. pratibandhaka), then the non-contextual Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #141
696 SAHRDAYALOKA sense (= a-prakaranikartha) will also stand to follow along with the knowledge of the contextual sense (i.e. prakaranika-jnana). So, no need for a second abhidha or second power of expression will arise. It is needless to suggest that the restrictive factor loses its force, once it is utilized. In fact, till the restriction lasts, the act of limiting continues. And, in fact, to imagine a second power of expression is itself unwarranted. This restriction also, does not obstruct the gathering of the second sense, through vyanjana or suggestive power. For, vyanjana or suggestive power is resorted to in the case of expression such as "surabhi-mamsam" and the like, only to bring in the non-contextual sense alone. If the restrictive factor (i.e. pratibandhaka) can restrict even this gathering of the non-contextual sense through suggestive power or vyanjana, then wherein lies the importance of vyanjana or suggestive power ? The operation of the suggestive power will itself become meaningless. So, the restrictive factor (pratibandhaka) operates only with reference to the deriving of the second sense through abhidha or the power of expression alone, and not through vyanjana or suggestive power also. Or, it may be thus stated, that if the restrictive factor (pratibandhaka) has the capacity to restrict the gathering of a non-contextual sense in any case, then vyanjana or suggestive power should be deemed as potent to stimulate the existence of the noncontextual sense in all cases - (vyakti-jnanasya uttejakatva-kalpanad va). Then only such knowledge of context and the like will be taken as restrictive, which is qualified by the absence of a stimulant in the form of suggestive power of vyanjana. So, when the suggestive power or vyanjana dawns, i.e. when the absence of suggestive power is over, the restriction that rests solely on the absence of suggestive power will itself disappear, and then who will be able to re flashing forth of the non-contextual sense ? It is because of this that Mammata has said, "anekarthasya sabdasya..." etc. (K.P. II. 19). After this Jagannatha proceeds to discuss the next view. Others do not accept the view stated above. Though, even according to this second view, the second non-contextual sense is collected through vyanjana or suggestive power only, we find brevity i.e. laghava i.e. absence of cumbrousness, observed in this view, to a cetain extent. This view holds that in 'sabda-bodha' or verbal apprehension of a word having a multiple sense, the determination of import (i.e. tatparya-nirnaya) should inevitably be taken as the cause. So, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, eventhough many senses tend to follow, the gathering of import (tatparya-jnana) being done through context and the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #142
Vyanjana' 697 like, the correlation of only that sense will be apprehended with reference to which, the import has been determined (i.e. tatparya-niscaya); no other sense will be apprehended. Thus even though many senses are presented in the beginning, correlation takes place only with reference to a single sense, with reference to which import has been determined. If we proceed with this line of thinking, we will not have to accept the position that in case of a word having a multiple sense, memory with reference only to a single sense persists; or that the occurrence of the second sense is retarded : "apare tu ahuh-nanarthasabdaja-sabda-buddhau tatparya-nirnaya-hetutaya avasya-kalpyatvat prathamam nanartha-sabdad anekarthopasthanepi prakarana"dibhis tatparya-nirnaya-herubhir utpadite tasmin yatra tatparya-nirnayah tasyaiva arthasya anvaya-buddhir jayate, nanyasya iti saranau asritayam naika-matra-gocara-smrty apeksa, na'py arthopasthana-pratibandhakatva-kalpanam." (R.G. pp. 2, ibid) Even from the point of view of this second view-point, vyanjana or suggestive power is inevitable. When import-determination (i.e. tatparyanirnaya) is taken as the cause of verbal apprehension, (sabda-bodha), in instances such as, 'surabhi-mamsam bhaksayati', and the like, the hearer gathers through the knowledge of the context that the speaker intends 'fragrant meat, and that the term, 'surabhi-mamsam', is used for that only. After this sort of determination of the intention of the speaker, verbal apprehension with reference to the intended sense alone is done through abhidha or the power of expression, and not with reference to the non-contextual beef. But, however through practical experience, it is gathered that the sense of beef is also apprehended through that very word viz. 'surabhi-mamsam' alone. Now, in order to explain this apprehension, which other means is possible, except vyanjana or suggestive power ? Thus, even from the second method of verbal apprehension also, the non-contextual sense is collected, in case of a word having multiple sense, through suggestive power i.e. vyanjana alone : "evam ca prag upadarsita-nanartha-sthale, prakarana"dijnana"dhina-tatparya-nirnayat prakaranikartha-sabdabuddhau jatayam a-tatparyavisaya'pi sabda-buddhis tasmad eva sabdaj jayamana, kasya vyaparasya sadhyatam avalambatam ste vyanjanat ?" (R.G.) Abhidha or the power of expression fails in this case, because importdetermination is the cause with reference to the sense apprehended through abhidha or the power of expression but not with reference to the apprehension of the sense through vyanjana or suggestive power. So, the non-contextual sense, in Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #143
698 SAHRDAYALOKA the case of a word having a multiple sense, is arrived at only through suggestive power alone. The apprehension born of abhidha or the power of expression, stands in need of the knowledge of import. While, the apprehension based on the suggestive power-vyanjana - does not always stand in need of the same. So, this second view-point also welcomes suggestive power, or vyanjana. According to this view, the Hari-karika viz. "samyogo viprayogas' ca." etc., and Mammata's karika, viz. "anekarthasya sabdasya." etc. are adequately explained in the following way: According to the prima-facie view, the element, viz. 'visesa-smrti-hetavah', becomes meaningful only from the point of the first view-point: It is so, because in it a second memory is accepted with reference to the contextual sense alone. Even the element of 'vacakatva-niyantrana', or the restriction of the power of expression, as stated by Mammata, also will be adequately explained only when viewed from the first view-point, because in it the method of restricting the memory of the noncontextual sense, with the help of restriction in the form of the knowledge of the context and the like, has been accepted. Now, from this second view-point, the above quoted element of the Hari-karika as well as that of Mammata's karika, will become meaningless, because, not only that in it, is not accepted the fact of a second memory in form of a single sense alone, but also the importance of the pratibadhya-pratibandhaka-bhava or the relation of the restriction and the restricted, is not accepted. This prima-facie view is refuted as below: In the said Harikarika, the word 'smrti' should not be taken as meaning 'memory' i.e. smarana, but as 'ascertainment' i.e. 'niscaya'. Thus, visesa-smrti-hetavah would mean 'the hetus or causes that bring about ascertainment of the import i.e. tatparya-nirnaya, with reference to the particular i.e. 'visesa-visayaka'. This element does not become redundant in the second view-point, because even gathering of import through context and the like, is accepted. When Mammata speaks of the limitation of the expressed sense, what he means is that when through the knowledge of the context and the like, the import is determined regarding a single sense, the power of expression which is capable of conveying a multiple sense, becomes favourably inclined to the state of a verbal apprehension with reference to a single sense alone. This explanation also fits in with the second view-point, because the verbal apprehension born of the power of expression, is said to be in respect of a single sense alone. So, according to the second view, the element viz. 'a-vacyarthadhi', in Mammata's karika, would mean 'a-tatparyartha', i.e. 'that meaning which For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #144
Vyanjana' 699 is not intended.' And this is exactly so, because in the case of a word having a multiple sense, the non-contextual sense which is suggested only, never becomes an object of import. The objector advances a further objection : The 'pada-jnana' or apprehension of the word is held to be a cause even with reference to an apprehension through suggestive power as in case of an apprehension through expression. Now, when this apprehension of a word exists, or continues, how according to the second view, can there be an apprehension of the non-contextual sense through vyanjana or suggestive power ? The reply is given as follows : According to the second view, first of all the word is apprehended through hearing; then the meaning of the particular word follows; then there is ascertainment of the import; then follows the verbal apprehension of the contextual sense arrived at through the power of expression; and the last step is the apprehension of the non-contextual sense through the suggestive power. Now the point is that the knowledge of the word - pada-jnana-lasts for the first two moments and dies out in the third moment when the import is determined (i.e tatparya-nirnaya). Thus when pada-jnana or the apprehension of the word does not continue even in the moment after the collection of the contextual sense, what to talk of its being present in the moment when there is apprehension through suggestive power (vyanjana-janya-bodha) ? So, how can the apprehension of the non-contextual sense through suggestive power follow ? The reply is that, when there is apprehension through suggestive power in the third moment, importgathering is not done directly in the same moment. But, we find the function of import-gathering in the form of apprehension through primary sense, in the second moment, and this function continues even in the third moment. Through this relation, import-ascertainment (i.e. tatparya-nirnaya) will also continue in the third moment and the difficulty mentioned above will not occur. Others hold that in verbal apprehension, like the limiting agent of the primary sense, the word also manifests itself as a qualifier of that sense; hence the apprehension of the primary sense itself is the knowledge of the word It is for this reason that Bhartshari had stated : "na sosti pratyayo loke..." etc., i.e. there is no apprehension of meaning whatsoever in this world, which is not backed up by a word. Practically, all the apprehensions of meaning are intermixed with the element of word. So, apprehension of the sense caused by the primary function - abhidha For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #145
700 SAHRDAYALOKA janya-, which occurs prior to the apprehension due to suggestive power, - vyanjanajanya-bodha-, is itself of the form of pada-jnana or apprehension of the word. Still others feel that by the repetition of the word having a multiple sense, apprehension of word-pada-jnana will follow. So, the second view, which according to Jagannatha follows the Dhvanikara, holds that in the case of a word having a multiple sense, there is resonance-like suggestion based on the power of word (i.e. sabda-sakti-mulaka-anu-rananiya vyangya). It is termed as 'one based on the power of word' or sabda-sakti-mula, because the words used do not allow any alteration (i.e. a-parivstti-saha). This view is held by Mammata, the follower of a : "tad ittham nanartha-sthale anukaraniyam vyanjanam sabda-saktimulam, sabdasya parivrtty-a-sahatvat, iti dhvani-karanuyayino varnayanti." (R.G.) Jagannatha does not accept the two views as stated above. He refutes both of these and establishes his own view. The first view is refuted as follows : In the first view, it is stated that in the case of a word having a multiple sense, in order to get the apprehension of the contextual sense, what is required is only the existence of the contextual sense. So, eventhough for the first time all the senses pop up, we accept the presence of the contextual sense alone at the second time. But in reality, it does not seem to be like this. The objector wants to prove that there can be correlation only with reference to the contextual sense alone and not the non-contextual sense also. This very purpose of the objector, is served only by accepting as the cause, the import determination, based on the knowledge of the context and the like, with reference to verbal apprehension caused by a word having a multiple sense. Thus, import determination, tatparya-nirna knowledge of the context and the like, will cause only the apprehension of the contextual sense, and not of the non-contextual sense. So, for that, there is no necessity to recognise the second presentation with reference to the contextual sense alone. Further, even if the second presentation - upasthiti - be accepted, then also, how could one say that it would be in respect of a single sense alone - 'ekartha-matra-visayaka' ? Because, when the material in form of pada-jnana or knowledge of the word which causes the apprehension of the multiple sense is already present, how is it that such an apprehension of a multiple sense does not follow ? So, in view of this, even if we accept the second presentation, even then, the apprehension of the multiple sense can be avoided only when importdetermination is held to be the cause with reference to verbal apprehension (sabdabodha), caused by the word having a multiple sense. Thus, all talk about the second presentation, is baseless. Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #146
Vyanjana 701 Further, it cannot be stated that, in case of a word having a multiple sense, import-determination is not a cause in respect of the apprehension of the correlation of the non-contextual sense; i.e. the second recollection of sense is with reference to the contextual sense alone, and therefore, apprehension of the correlation anvaya-bodha-with reference to the non-contextual sense does not follow : and that when in the case of the recollection of the second sense, eventhough the material in form of the knowledge of the word-pada-jnana-is there, the non-contextual sense does not become its object, the secret is that the knowledge of the context and the like, or the import-determination based on it, acts as an obstructive factor (prati-bandhaka) in respect of the recollection of the noncontextual sense. This cannot be held, because when impression born of experience, and all the material that causes that impression exists, it is difficult to understand how the particular recollection does not take place. This means that when at the time of gathering the primary sense (sakti-jnana), both contextual and non-contextual senses are at once known, and when impressions caused by them persist in the mind, then, even in the presence of the stimulant in the form of padajnana or knowledge of the word, how is it that only one sense, and not all the senses, follows ? Thus, all that the objector talks about the obstructive factor - 'pratibandhaka' and the like, fails to impress us : "na ca prakarana"di-jnanam, tadadhina-tatparya-jnanam va pararthopasthane pratibandhakam iti sakyam vaktum. sanskara-tad-udbodhakayoh sattve, smoteh pratibandhasya kva'py a-dsstatvat." (R.G. II. pp. 334, edn. Athavale). Further, it is meaningless to say that this relation of the obstruction and the obstructed (pratibadhya-pratibandhaka-bhava) is imagined only in the case of the recollection in regard to the occurrence of a multiple sense alone, and that it is not applicable to any other case. Such a talk is baseless and it goes against our practical experience. It disagrees with practical experience in the sense that leaving apart persons who do not have the full knowledge of the multiple sense in the particular case, in the case of those who have the full knowledge of all the meanings in the case of a multiple sense, (e.g. in the case of 'payo ramaniyam), and whose impressions of that are firm, when the words viz. 'payo ramaniyam' are utterred, both the senses, viz. those with reference to water or milk, come to t is supported by practical experience. The hearer, who knows the context explains to the new comer that the speaker's intention is here in respect of milk and not water. So, if in reality, the knowledge of the context stops the gathering of the noncontextual sense in case of word having multiple sense, then how can the hearer, Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #147
702 SAHRDAYALOKA in the absence of the knowledge of the non-contextual sense, forbid the new-comer from taking the other sense with reference to water ? Thus, the apprehension of the non-contextual sense cannot be negated. Thus, the knowledge of the context and the like, cannot be taken as an obstructive factor (i.e. pratibandhaka), with regard to the non-contextual sense. Having thus refuted the first view, Jagannatha takes up the refutation of the second view. According to this view, with the help of the knowledge of context and the like, the import of the speaker is ascertained as being in respect of the contextual sense. Through this cause in the form of the import-ascertainment, the apprehension of correlation of the expressed sense, takes place with regard to the contextual sense alone, and the apprehension of the non-contextual sense which follows, is through suggestive power (i.e. vyanjana). Now, the point is whether vyanjana or suggestive power is accepted at all places where the non-contextual sense is to be gathered in case of a word having a multiple sense, or at some places only. The first alternative is not acceptable, for if at all places the apprehension of the non-contextual sense is ascertained through suggestive power, it will be futile to accept import-ascertainment to be responsible for the apprehension of the correlation of the expressed sense in the case of a word having a multiple sense. It cannot be taken as a cause only in the apprehension of the expressed sense, and not with reference to the apprehension through vyanjana or suggestive power. For, if once the apprehension of the non-contextual sense is accepted, then what harm is there if we accept it as caused through abhidha or the power of expression ? So, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, if the non-contextual sense is intended at all places, then, whether it is collected through the power of expression (abhidha) or through the power of suggestion (vyanjana), makes no difference : "atatparyartha-bodhasya sarvatrikatve tasya sakti-jatayam api badhakabhavat." (pp. 334, ibid, R.G. II). The objector's view may be put as follows : In the case of a word having a multiple sense, after the meaning is presented the verbal apprehension is done with reference to the contextual sense alone and not the non-contextual sense, the import-ascertainment being done with reference to the same i.e. the contextual sense. This is supported by normal experience. To abide by this observation, only import-ascertainment is to be taken as the cause in respect of the apprehension through expression (abhidha) in case of a word having multiple sense. Or else, verbal apprehension with reference to the non-contextual sense also will tend to follow along with that of the contextual sense, from the very beginning. Once the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #148
Vyanjana' 703 import-ascertainment takes place, even the verbal apprehension of the noncontextual sense is welcome, it being supported by practical experience. So, the cause, viz. import - ascertainment has apprehension of the expressed sense (abhidha) as its result, and not the apprehension through vyanjana or suggestive power. So, if the apprehension of all the senses, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, be held to follow through the cause in the form of importascertainment, then the apprehension of the non-contextual sense through the suggestive power, done later, will also possibly not follow. And even this is a matter of experience. So, it is better to hold import-ascertainment as the cause in respect of apprehension through the expressed sense alone. It is not advisable to accept import-ascertainment as the cause, even in respect of the unexpressed sense, because it is a matter of experience that through the power of expression, the noncontextual sense, which is not the import, is not gathered. Jagannatha refutes this objection as follows : It is not a happy situation that the objector is obsessed with the view that abhidha or the power of expression can give the contextual sense alone, and not the non-contextual sense also. For, as in the instance of poetry with double entendre-such as, "sovyad ista-bhujanga. ..." etc., wherein both the senses are derived through the power of expression (abhidha) alone, in the same way, there is nothing which restricts us from gathering both the contextual and the noncontextual senses with the help of abhidha or the power of expression, in the case of a word with multiple sense. : ma evam; sovyad ista-bhujanga-hara-valayas tvam sarvado madhavah ity adau slesa-kavya iva prakrtepi praksta-prakrtayor arthayor bodhasya svikare badhakabhavat." (pp. 335, ibid, R.G. II.) - To say that, in the said instance of double entedre, both the senses are contextual, while it is not so in this case (i.e. darstantika), and therefore, import-ascertainment is done in respect of only one sense, i.e. the contextual alone, and it is advisable to hold that only contextual sense is gathered through the power of expression (abhidha) - is not proper. For, the mentioning of an instance of double entendre is only meant to convey that when the simultaneous apprehension of senses throu expression is possible, it should be possible here also in case of a word having multiple sense, whose primary sense has been fixed by context such as conjunction and the like. In the case of double entendre, both the meanings are simultaneously the object of import-ascertainment, while here only one sense becomes an object; but the difference in these two cases would arise only if import-ascertainment itself is held to be the cause of apprehension through the power of expression. But in fact, Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #149
704 SAHRDAYALOKA this is not the case, i.e. import-ascertainment cannot be deemed as the cause of apprehension through expression. Thus, being contextual or non-contextual is not a factor of serious concern causing difference. Both can be simultaneously, directly expressed : "tatparya-jnana-karanataya eva a-siddhatvena yugapad artha-dvaya bodha-nupapattivacoyukter aramaniyatvat. tadnsa-jnana-hetuta-siddhau tu sakyeta api ittham vaktum." (R.G. II. pp. 335, ibid) If it is asked, viz. what then, is the use of the knowledge of import ? - then, the answer is - it is useful in determining the facts such as, "this particular word is proper with reference to this particular sense, and that this particular sense alone is the authentic sense of this particular word." This becomes helpful in (pravstti) activity or (nivrtti) i.e. cessation from the same, when in the case of a word having a multiple sense, the hearer is baffled as to the activity or cessation by the fact of so many senses coming up at a time, import-ascertainment comes to his rescue and the hearer is activated exactly as desired by the speaker : "tarhi tatparya-jnanasya kutropayogah iti cet, asminn arthe ayam sabdah pramanam ayam arthah pramanavedya ity adi-nirnaye pravrtty adyupayogini iti glhana." (pp. 335, ibid) In the case of a word having a multiple sense, at least, at times, there is scope for suggestive power or vyanjana, though not always. Jagannatha discusses this point as below: There is no reason why suggestive power should operate only at certain places and not at all places. It cannot be said that, a particular word is used by the speaker to convey the suggested sense, and that this type of apprehension of the speaker's intention itself proves the occasional occurrence (kvacitkata) of suggestive power; because, when we do not hold at all the apprehension of import as the cause of apprehension of the suggested sense, then how can the above be acceptable to us? Even if you wish, you cannot take the knowledge of the import to be the cause in respect of the apprehension through suggestive power. For, this sort of a causeeffect relationship is faulty on account of the fault of vyatireka or logical discontinuance, and therefore it is impossible or asambhava. The idea is that a meaning eventhough not intended by the speaker, follows through vyanjana or suggestive power e.g. in instances such as "prasasara sanair vayuh vinase tanvi te tada" - and the like, the sense of passing of the wind that goes down-wards in the body (i.e. apana-vayu), as well as the sense of the death of the heroine, is gathered through suggestive power, by all aesthetes. So, it is held that in such instances, there is a fault called obscenity (i.e. aslilata). Now, can we accept the import of the poet with reference to such a sense ? Of course not !: "na'pi dvitiyah, hetor abhavat. vyangyartha-visayaka-kavi-tatparya-jnanam, tatha iti cet, na. vyakti-ja-bodhe, Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #150
'Vyanjana' 705 tatparya-jnana-karanatayas tvaya'nabhyupagamat; yatra'slilam dosas tatra aprakaranikerthe sakalanubhava-siddhe, kavi-tatparyasya virahat taj-jnanasya tadrsa-buddhi-hetutaya vyabhicara-dusitatvat ca." (R.G. II. pp. 335, ibid). It cannot be held that the intelligence of the hearer is the cause in respect of the occasional occurrence of suggestive power or vyanjana. It is necessary to hold that, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, the intelligence of the hearer, apprehends even the non-contextual sense through the power of expression alone. In its absence, the restricted power of expression will ever remain so. : "atha srotuh sakti-viseso vyakter ullase hetuh, sa ca phala-balat camatkarinye-varthe vyaktim ullasayati na a-camatkarini, iti siddham vyanjanollasasya kvacitkvam iti cet: na. hanta evam sa niyantrita-sakter eva ullasakostv iti krtam nanartha-sthale vyaktikalpanaya." (pp. 335, R.G. II., ibid) Jagannatha thus accepts the apprehension of the non-contextual sense, in the case of a word having a multiple sense, through the power of expression (i.e. abhidha) alone. He says that, in the case of a hearer who has not forgotten the other (i.e. non-contextual) sense, both the senses will follow in instances, such as, "ullasya kala-karavala. ..." etc. For one, who has forgotten the expression with reference to the other sense, even suggestive power will fail to help 'kin ca, "ullasya kala-karawala-mahambuvaham", ity adi nanartha-vyanjakasthale agrhita-dvitiyartha-saktikasya grhita-vismrta-dvitiyartha-saktikasya va pumsah sarvathaiva vyanjanaya dvitiyartha-bodha-'nudayat tatra taya tadapattis tava durvara' (pp. 335, R.G. II, ibid) Further, it cannot be held that suggestive power (i.e. vyanjana) takes place with reference to only that word, the primary sense of which is gathered by the hearer. For, in that case, the instances such as: nihsesa-cyuta-candana. etc., and the like, the suggested sense of dalliance will not follow, because nobody has known the power of expression with reference to the sense of dalliance in the case of the word, 'adhama'. However, if the objector insists upon the fact that there is the knowledge of the meaning of dalliance through abhidha or expression in the case of the word viz. 'adhama', then the siddhantin says that in that case the meaning of dalliance will be collected through the power of expression itself and to imagine vyanjana or suggestive power in this respect, will be useless. Jagannatha holds that 'gaurava-dosa' or, the fault of cumbrousness would occur if the apprehension of the expressed sense is held to be the cause of the occurrence of suggestive power. It has been already proved that the apprehension of the non-contextual sense is done through the knowledge of the expressed sense, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #151
706 SAHKDAYALOKA which is held to be the cause of the occurrence of suggestive power by the pri facie view. The idea of restriction (to the contextual sense alone) has already been discarded earlier. Jagannatha explains this on the analogy of - 'tad hetor eva tad astu, kim tat-kalpanaya' - i.e. when an effect is explained by the cause, why imagine an additional cause in between ? Thus, Jagannatha repudiates the idea of the apprehension of the non-contextual sense through suggestive-power, based on the apprehension of the expressed sense. He accepts the apprehension of the noncontextual sense through the power of expression (sakti) itself : na ca nanarthavyanjana-sthale eva evamjatiyakah karya-karana-bhavah kalpyate, tatra ca sakter niyantritatvena, tad-grahasya'prayojakataya vyakti-kalpanaucityad iti vacyam; navina-karya-karanabhava-kalpane gaurava-prasangat. niyantranasya purvam eva dusitatvena tad hetor eva iti nyayavatarac ca." (pp. 335, 6, R.G. II, ibid). The objector puts forth one more argument to defend his position. He says that the view of the siddhantin viz. that even the gathering of the non-contextual sense is also through expression alone (i.e. abhidha) can be accepted only under certain circumstances. As for example, when the non-contextual sense is totally sublated or contradicted (badhita) as in the case of : 'jaiminiyam alam dhatte rasanayam. ..." etc., and the like; how can it be arrived at through abhidha or the power of expression ? The ascertainment of contradiction (badha-niscaya) in the form of its being characterized by its absence (tad-abhava-vatta), acts as a restriction (pratibandhaka) in the knowledge of its being characterised by the same (tadvattajnana). In this case, abhidha or the power of expression will not serve the purpose as in instances like - vahnina sincati - i.e. he sprinkles with fire. While, vyanjana or suggestive power can apprehend even the sense which is contradicted (badhitartha). So, at least in such instances, the siddhantin will have to take recourse to suggestive power : "atha astu aprakaranikopy arthah saktivedyah - eva anvaya-dhi-gocarah; paramtu yatra na badhitah syat. yatra tu badhitas tatra "jaiminiyam alam dhatte rasanayam ayam dvijah" ity adau, jugupsitortho, 'vahnina sincati' ity adau vahni-karana-seka iva a-bodhopahata eva syat. badha-niscayasya tad-vatta-jnanam prati pratibandhakatayah sarvajana-siddhatvat. vyaktes tu badhitartha-bodhakatvam dharmi-grahaka-mana-siddham iti vyakti-vadinam adosa iti." (pp. 336, R.G. II, ibid) Jagannatha refutes this by advancing proper arguments. He says that in the instances such as "gam avatirna satyam sarasvatiyam patanjali-vyajar", or "saudhanam nagarasya'sya milanty arkena maulayah", etc. the abhidhartha or the expressed sense, though contradicted, i.e. badhita, is yet apprehended. Here also, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #152
Vyanjana' 707 this same analogy is applicable. The case of a word having a multiple sense, should be treated on a par. If we do not accept this, then we will have to accept vyanjana or suggestive power in case of practically all the figures wherein the direct sense is mostly contradicted. On the other hand, general opinion is that the alamkaras or figures are expressed only, and not suggested. Jagannatha, at the end of the discussion declares that, "tasmat nanarthasya aprakaranike'rthe vyanjana iti pracam siddhantah sithila eva." (pp. 336, ibid) yet, he seems to accept one point made by the ancients, and it is that the comparision between the contextual and the non-contextual is always suggested : ma evam; 'gam avatirna satyam sarasvatiyam patanjali-vyajat', "saudhanam nagarasya'sya milanty arkena maulayah', ity adau vacyarthanvayopapadanaya'nusaraniyena yatnena nanartha-sthalepi badhitartha-bodhasyopapattih syat, anyatha prayasah sarvesy apyalamkaresu vacyartha-bodhopapattaye vyanjanangikaraniya syat. (pp. 336 - ibid, R.G. II). Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta have also accepted this. Jagannatha clarifies his position as to when exactly suggestive power operates, in the words viz.evam api yoga-rudhisthale rudhi-jnanena yoga'paharanasya sakala-tantra-siddhataya, rudhy anadhi-karanasya yogartha"lingitasya arthantarasya vyaktim vina patitir durupapada (pp. 347, R.G. II, ibid). - i.e. when through one and the same yoga-rudha' word, when once the rudhyartha or conventional sense is gathered, we have a later apprehension of the yogartha i.e. etymological sense, also. This is not done through abhidha or the power of direct expression, because in that apprehension, the yoga-sakti or the power of etymology which acts as an accessory has been already once contradicted by the force of convention - rudhi-sakti. So, in the absence of any other alternative, we will have to resort to suggestive power, in order to explain this later apprehension of the etymological sense. This is the field for the suggestion based on the power of word, i.e. sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani, e.g. - "abalanam sriyam hstva varivahaih saha'nisam, tisthanti capalah yatra sa kalah sam upa"gatah." So, observes Jagannatha"yogarudhasya sabdasya yoge rudhya niyantrite, Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #153
708 dhiyam yoga-sprsorthasya ya sute vyanjanaiva sa." (pp. 348, ibid) He accepts both the varieties viz. alamkara-dhvani or the suggestion of figure, and vastudhvani i.e. the suggestion of an idea in the case of sabda-sakti-muladhvani or suggestion based on word. He does not accept suggestive power or vyanjana in order to derive non-contextual sense in case of a word having a multiple sense but as noted above, he accepts vyanjana or suggestive power only when there is later apprhension, of the etymological sense which was once suppressed by the conventional sense. SAHRDAYALOKA To conclude, we may observe that Anandavardhana has not discussed the problem of how the non-contextual sense in case of a word having multiple sense with its primary sense fixed by factors such as conjunction and the like, is collected. But from one of his illustrations, as observed earlier, it becomes clear that probably Anandavardhana favours the line accepted by Jagannatha and accepts vyanjana or suggestive power, when etymological sense-yaugikartha - comes once more to the foreground, after defeating the conventional sense. He accepts that in case of suggestion based on the power of word or sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani, the comparision between the contextual and the non-contextual senses is derived through vyanjana or the suggestive power of word. Further, he accepts only the alamkara-dhvani or the suggestion of a figure as a variety of sabda-sakti-muladhvani or suggestion based on the power of word. He does not welcome the case of vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea as a variety in this case. Abhinavagupta also accepts all this, as he follows Anandavardhana. He has also cited different views as to how a non-contextual sense of a word having multiple sense, is collected. One of these views is accepted by Mammata, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara and Visvanatha. Another line of thought gains ground with Appayya and Jagannatha. Mammata also accepts vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea in case of sabdasakti-mula-dhvani and thus expands its scope which is supported even by Appayya and Jagannatha. Appayya and Jagannatha accept sabdi-abhidha-mula-vyanjana only in cases where yaugikartha, once defeated by the vacyartha, fixed by samyoga"di in case of a word having a multiple sense, once again is preferred. This is the scope of abhidha-mula-sabdi-vyanjana for Appayya and Jagannatha. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #154
Vyanjana' 709 Thus, vyanjana supported by Anandavardhana as an independent sabda-sakti in his Dhvanyaloka, the first available written document on this topic, passes through several phases and is finally established by Mammata, following the lead of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and also by his illustrious supporters beginning with acarya Hemacandra, down to Appayya Dixit and Jagannatha, the latter two of course differing from Mammata with reference to abhidhamula-arthivyanjana. We have seen how challanges came from Mukula, Kuntaka, Mahima and Dhananjaya and Dhanika in a way. We will discuss the challanges to vyanjana in the following chapter. These challanges in a way cover the challanges to the concept of dhvani in general also. Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #155
Chapter IX Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power We have observed in the earlier chapter that Anandavardhana establishes vyanjana as an independent word-power by distinguishing it first from abhidha and then laksana. He also sees to it how vyanjana is at the root of the thinking of the grammarians and that the Mimamsakas have to accept vyanjana in worldly context to safeguard their own theoretical position. The author of the Dhvanyaloka also goes to establish how the Naiyayikas can not afford to challange the concept of vyanjana. Thus, in a way Anandavardhana has started giving a thought to, and silencing the opposition to vyanjana. But it is more in the Locana of Abhinavagupta that we come across a more pronounced opposition to suggestive power and therefore also a greater effort to silence, the same. We have seen that the darsanikas, Mimamsakas, Vaiyakaranas and Naiyayikas had no business to deal with vyanjana in their sastric context and therefore no vyanjana-virodha raises its head in their works. But while dealing with the worldly use of language in the ordinary parlance, as well as in the poetic use of language, there was a scope of difference concerning the acceptance and operation of this fourth-turiya-power of word, i.e. vyanjana-vrtti. We have seen how certain alamkarikas as Mukula and Mahima later challange this concept of vyanjana and subsume it under abhidha/ laksana and anumiti. There could have been some forgotten alamkarikas also who might have taken recourse to the sastrit position held by various darsanikas and without caring to imagine the possible response to the poetic use of language, must have tried to oppose the fact of vyanjana in poetry, i.e. kavya. It is such imagined opposition which is being taken care of, scrutinized and ultimately rejected by the Locanakara, i.e. Abhinavagupta, especially under Dhv. I. iv. The whole thing is placed more methodically later by Mammata and his followers such as Hemacnadra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha and most effectively by Visvanatha. We will - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #156
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 711 look into this very carefully as follows : Abhinavagupta : Under Dhy. I. iv. commenting on the illustration of mana i.e. implicit sense, such as "bhrama, dharmika." - etc. the Locanakara establishes vyanjana as a separate and independent word power, after silencing all possible opposition. He deals with various possible objections, the first being the "abhihitanvaya-vadins" - or Mimamsakas who follow the lead of Kumarila Bhatta and accept a tatparya-vrtti and tatparyartha i.e. 'purport' and 'import' respectively. The objection raised by the abhihitanvayavadins, or tatparya-vadins reads as follows: (pp. 26, Edn. Dr. Nandi, ibid) : "nanu tatparya-saktir a-paryavasita vivaksaya dipta-dharmika-tad-adipadarthananvaya-rupa-mukhyartha-badha-balena virodha-nimittaya viparitalaksanaya ca vakyarthibhuta-nisedha-pratitim abhihitanvaya-disa karotiti sabdasakti-mula eva sorthah. evam anenoktam iti hi vyavaharah. tan na vacyatiriktonyorthah iti." i.e. "Here (= in this illustration, the tatparya sakti or purport is not terminated in form of import of the speaker. (i.e. the intention of the speaker is not fulfilled). There is 'mukhyartha-badha' i.e. contradiction of primary meaning in case of words such as 'drpta', 'dharmika' and 'tat', etc., on account of the speakers intention. Thus viparita-laksana on the strength of virodha occurs here and the sense of negation follows as sentence-sense, which is according to the abhihitanvaya-vada. Thus the meaning is sabda-sakti-mulaka. The normal course of behaviour takes the form of, "Thus, he said." So, there is no meaning (such as suggested) over and above the expressed sense." The idea can be elaborated as follows : It can be said here that the termination of tatparya-sakti is not in bhramana-vidhi - i.e. the positive sense of free movement. Words are used in such a form that free movement is not at all intended. (i) 'Dharmika' here means you are a pious person, a holy man and how can you ever face a lion physically ? (ii) In 'tena dipta-simhena', the pronoun 'tena' means that there is no doubt of the existence of lion. Its existence is well-known and even you, a holy man, must have heard about the same. (iii) drpta' means that the lion is no ordinary animal, but is very ferocious and dangerous. Thus due to the usage of these special words, there is opposition to free movement. Thus following the lead of abhihitanvaya-vada, through viparita-laksana or indication based on contradiction, the sense tends to yield a negative sense. Thus, the sense of negation is derived through sabda-sakti i.e. word-power itself. In normal usage it is always said, "He said this, or he spoke thus." Nobody says, "He suggested this." Thus, here also the ultimate sense is not different from the expressed sense. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #157
712 SAHRDAYALOKA Abhinavagupta does not accept this : We know that in the abhihitanvayavada, we have abhidha yielding the individual word-sense, in a given sentence. Then on account of expectancy-akanksa, compatibility i.e. yogyata and sannidhi or proximity the words form a sentence and word-senses give a sentence-sense. The abhidha-vytti or the word-power of expression by itself does not give the sentencesense, or vakyartha. This is so because if otherwise, we arrive at anantya-dosa. Abhidha has the power to yield word-meaning on the strength of sanketa or convention. There cannot be convention with referenc to a whole sentence, for if abhidha is accepted with reference to a sentence then we will have to accept innumerable powers. Thus the contingency-dosa-of 'anantya' or accepting innumerable powers follows. Again if we accept abhidha with reference to a given sentence, then, in case of common words found in another sentence having a different abhidha, we will have to accept convention to the same effect. Thus, there will be 'vyabhicara-dosa'. Thus, if we accept different convention with two different sentences as "gam anaya" and "gam naya", there will be anantya-dosa. If we accept 'sanketa' only with reference to the first sentence, then we will have to let go this principle viz. that, 'only that meaning is congnised with reference to which, a convention is fixed.' This is vyabhicara or niyama'tikramana. Thus, it has to be accepted that through abhidha-sakti only a word-meaning is apprehended. The sentence-meaning is never apprehended through the agency of abhidha-sakti. We will have to accept tatparya-sakti or purport to collect what we call a 'sentencesense'. In a statement such as "gam anaya". the word 'gam' means 'a cow', and by 'anaya' is meant, "bring", i.e. the process of bringing i.e. 'anayana'nukulavyaparah'. In the word 'gam' there is no meaning of "anayananukula-vyaparanirupita-karmatva". So, this sense is the meaning of a whole sentence and the power of a sentence is termed tatparya-vrtti, which yields the sentence-sense. It is stated, "samanyani anyatha-siddhe visesam gamayanti hi." i.e. when an individual meaning can not be apprehended by other means, the general meaning itself yields the individual meaning.' Thus, according to the abhihitanvayavadins two functions viz. abhidha and tatparya become instrumental in bringing about the sentencesense. When the tatparya-vitti is over, a third power called laksana or indication is also imagined. After the sentence-sense is collected, if the intention of the speaker is not conveyed, - i.e. in case of 'tatparya'nupapatti', the primary meaning is contradicted and another meaning connected with it (sambaddha) is apprehended. This third stage is called laksana or indication. Thus in abhihitanvayavada there are three stages viz. abhidha, tatparya and laksana. Abhidha gives the individual word Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #158
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 713 meaning, tatparya-vstti gives the correlated (anvita) sentence-sense, through akanka'di factors. If there is some difficulty in these factors, the senter not follow. Then, given fulfilment of the conditions of laksana, such as mukhyartha-badha etc., laksana follows, e.g. in statements such as "gangayam ghosah", "simhah ayam balah", etc. But, says Abhinavagupta, in the illustration on hand viz. "bhrama dharmika." etc., there is no contradiction in correlation; i.e. the 'anvaya' is not 'badhita', and hence there is no scope for what the objector calls, "viparita-laksana." or indication based on contradiction. There is neither mukhyartha-badha nor viparita-laksana. Abhinavagupta says that even if some how we accept contradiction of primary sense, then also it does not happen at the second stage : "bhavatu va asau. tatha'pi dvitiya-sthana-samkranta tavad asau na bhavati." The position is this. Laksana is imagined to be there (i.e. its 'kalpana' is done) when there is contradiction of primary sense. This happens when there is sense of opposition i.e. virodha, which could be two-fold. The virodha can occur with reference to the inherent quality of words used (i.e. svatmani) or with reference to the correlation (i.e. anvaya). The present statement is that, "the dog is killed by a lion. So, you can move freely." Here too there is no inherent contradiction of words used. So, we have to accept it with reference to the anvaya i.e. co-rrelation. But correlation is never contradicted before its being apprehended. Now the apprehension of correlation is never brought about by abhidha or primary function, which is consumed only in giving the primary individual word-sense. Thus it cannot proceed intermitantly. So, correlation has to be apprehended by what we called purport i.e. tatparya-vrtti alone. The idea is that even in case of a laksana, such as in statement as 'simhoyam batuh' - the anvaya or correlation between 'simha' and 'batu' is first established by akanksa, the form of which is the apprehension of the identity between 'simha' and 'batu'. After this correlation is once established, then only there is apprehension of contradiction : "na ca a-pratipanne anvaye virodha-pratitih. pratipattisca anvayasya na abhidha-saktya; tasyah padartha-pratiti-upaksitaya viramya vyaparabhavat, iti tatparya-saktya eva anvaya-pratipattih." (pp. 26, ibid). The objector says that if you accept correlation in places of contradiction then in statements like, "angulyagre kavivara-satam", you will have to accept correlation i.e. anvaya. The answer to this is that when 'sa"kanksatva' and 'padarthopasthiti' are present what stops us from 'anvaya' being apprehended even here ? In words having no expectancy - i.e. nirakanksa - there is no correlation-anvaya-as in case of 'dasa dadimani, sad apupah, dandam, ajajnam...' etc. The illustration is read in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #159
714 SAHRDAYALOKA the Mahabhasya. There is no anvaya of these padas merely by they being read together - i.e. by sankalana-matra. But in case of our illustration, 'anvaya' is bound to take place. But in such cases as 'simho batuh', inspite of anvaya, the sentence is rendered false - i.e. a-pramanika, by pratyaksa-pramana or direct perception. If it is asked that in that case, will a statement such as, "simho batuh" be fal answer is that such statements are of course contradicted by pratyaksa-pramana, i.e. direct perception, but laksana comes to the help and saves the situation, and the falsity of the statement is removed. The objector now says, "In case of prayojanavati laksana" i.e. indication with motive, you accept vyanjana in the apprehension of motive. This happens in case of "simho batuh" where the exceptional bravery of the child is apprehended through suggestivity. Now, if you accept 'dhvanana' suggestion, which is the soul of poetry - "Kavya-atma', then you have to accept such statements as "simho basuh" also as poetry because of the presence of suggestion. The answer is that soul is omni-present. That way it is present in a pot also. But how is it that we do not take a pot as a living being ? In the same way though suggestion is present, 'simho batuh' is not poetry. If the objector says that soul is said to be present in a body having hands, feet etc., i.e. where special parts of a body are seen, then we also say that "kavya' is said to be there which has a body of word and sense properly decorated by gunas or excellences and alamkaras i.e. figures of speech etc. and with such a body and suggestion as soul, we use the term poetry : gunalankara-aucitya-sundara-sabdartha-sarirasya sati dhvanana"khya'tman kavya-rupata-vyavaharah." (Locana, pp. 28, ibid). Thus, as in case of the soul being omni-present, on account of absence of consciousness, the soul does not become a useless entity in case of a pot, in the same way even in the presence of suggestivity, in the absence of poetry, the soul called dhvanna does not become useless. "na ca atmanosarata kacid iti samanam." (pp. 28, Locana, ibid). observes Abhinavagupta. So, now what remains to be discussed is whether dhvani' can be said to be covered in the third stage called laksana or not? The short answer to this is that 'bhakti' or 'laksana' rests with the third stage, while dhvanana-vapara rests in the fourth stage : "na ca evam bhaktir eva dhvanih; bhaktir hi laksana vyaparas totiyakaksya-nivesi. caturthyam tu kaksyayam dhvanana-vyaparah." (pp. 28, ibid). "surely, metaphorical expression or logical implication is not suggestion. The former is indication resting in the third stage. The suggestive function rests in the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #160
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 715 fourth stage." The supporters of indication accept that laksana or indication occurs when three conditions are fulfilled. Here mukhyartha-badha i.e. contradiction of primary sense depends on means of knowledge such as direct perception and the like. Even what is called 'nimitta' is also collected through other means of knowledge. But in case of "gangayam ghosah" the extreme sanctity of the hamlet, its extreme coolness, etc. which are qualities in form of motive - i.e. prayojana - can not be conveyed by other words and this prayojana is also not apprehended by other means of knowledge, but is apprehended through the efficacy of word itself. So, it cannot be said that there is no use of word element : yat tu idam ghosasya atipavitratva-sitalatva-sevyatva"dikam prayojanam, a-sabdantara-vacyam, pramanantara-apratipannam, bator va parakramatisaya-salitvam, tatra sabdasya na tavan na vyaparah." (Locana, pp. 28, ibid) : Abhinavagupta clearly implies that the motive is collected only through the instumentality of word alone, and not through any other means of knowledge i.e. smrti, anumiti, etc., as done later by Mahima and others. Abhinavagupta elaborates his argument as follows - In laksana, the first condition is contradiction of the primary sense i.e. mukhyartha-badha. Now this beocmes clear with the help of direct perception or pratyaksa, the other condition is 'sakyartha-sambandha'. i.e. relation with the primary sense. These relations are manifold such as samipya i.e. closeness, sadrsya i.e. similarity etc. This relation isalso supported by direct perception or such other means of knowledge. The third condition of prayojanavati laksana or indication based on motive, is apprehension of motive - 'prayojana-pratipatti'. In the sentence 'gangayam ghosah', the extreme holiness of the village and its coolness, and its being habitable make for the prayojana br motive. So also in the sentence viz. "simho batuh", the great valour of the child is the motive. Abhinavagupta argues that you cannot say that the apprehension of this motive is not through the agency of the power of word-tatra sabdasya na tavan na vyaparah. For, if you do not accept the power of word as a means to the realisation of motive in these cases, then you have to admit either inference i.e. anumana or smrti i.e. recollection or memory as a means of knowledge. In case of an anumana or inference, the procedure will be like this - The bank, i.e. the bank of the Ganga is having qualities of extreme holiness, purity etc., as it is close to the Ganga. The vyapti - i.e. invariable concomitance will be like this - "whatever is close to the Ganga is pure, holy, as are the ascetics near the Ganga." But this vyapti is not all-pervasive (i.e. it is a-vyapta), as we find skulls, bones etc. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #161
716 SAHRDAYALOKA also scattered near the Ganga and they are not accepted as holy. Thus there is "an anaikantikata hetu-dosa" i.e. logical fallacy of being unsteady, or variable. (i.e. the fallacy of undistributed middle) - The inference therefore will be a-pramanika i.e. invalid. In the same way in 'simho batuh' the inference will proceed as, "This child is gifted with the qualities of a lion, because he is named as such (i.e. he is called simha). Whatever is named by the term lion - (yo yo simha-sabda-vacyah), is gifted with the of qualities of a lion, as is a real lion. The boy is as such, therefore he is gifted with the qualities of a lion. But this inference carries the fallacy of being 'svarupa'siddha' - i.e. contradicted by its own external form or appearance. (i.e. a sort of non-proof). The batu or child is a 'paksa' and 'simha-sabda-vacyata' is a hetu Now for an inference to be valid, the 'hetu' must be residing in 'paksa' and it should not be contradicted by other means of knowledge such as direct perception and the like. But here the calling of a human child by the name of a lion is contradicted by direct perception. So, the inference is invalid. Now, in both these cases, we may form a different vyapti such as, "wherever there is usage of metaphorical or indicative words, there is necessarily the yoga or presence of the qualities represented by such words. Well, the 'sadhya-siddhi' or realisation of intended motive is possible, but for this vyapti, some other 'pramana' has to be pointed out. For vyapti is formed only on actual seeing of a number of Now, in the new vyapti imagined as above, there is no pointing out of a similar illustration in its support. Thus, in both these cases, observes Abhinavagupta, there can not be apprehension of purpose through inference. He observes : "tatha hi, tat-samipyat taddharmatvanumanam anaikantikam, simhasabda-vacyatvam ca bator asiddham. atha yatra yatra evam-sabda-prayogah, tatra tad-dharma-yoga iti anumanam, tasya'pi vyapti-grahakale maulikam pramanantaram vacyam; na ca asti." (pp. 28, Locana, Edn. Dr. Nandi). Abhinavagupta then proceeds to suggest that there is no chance for smrti i.e. recollection also, in these instances. For, recollection is possible in a case where we have experienced the same happening earlier. Again, here there is no rule as such that merely by the usage of certain words we have recollection of the qualities of the thing expressed by the same word. This means that we do not recollect the qualities of holiness etc. simply by the use of words such as "Ganga' and the like. Again there can be qualities and qualities. How is it that we will be reminded only of such qualities as are expected to be conveyed by the speaker ? Thus, we may be reminded, if at all, of the quality of fearfulness or farociousness when we use the term 'simha' and not just the quality of bravery. Thus the apprehention of motive : Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #162
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 717 in such instances can neither be arrived at through inference nor recollection - "na ca smrtir iyam, an-anubhute tad a-yogat, niyama'pratipatter vaktur etat vivaksitam ity adhyavasayabhava-prasangac ca, iti asti tavad atra sabdasya eva vyaparah." Abhinavagupta categorically says that in the apprehension of the motive there cannot be the agency of either inference or recollection but it can be the result only of the power of word alone, and it has to be vyanjana. It may be noted that Abhinavagupta while rejecting the case of inference, takes into account the 'sastriya' form of anumiti, i.e. he rejects the case of 'tarkanumiti'. But we have seen that Mahima says that here we have what we may say, a case of 'kavyanumiti' and not 'tarkanumiti'. He pooh-poohes the efforts of those who are seeking the shelter of tarkanumiti here. For him, even in ordinary parlance there is a sort of inference, working at popular level, which is not absolutely scientific. When a child arrives late after playing in the evening and when, for example he sees the shoes of his father, he realises through popular inference that his father has arrived.Or, when we hear a sort of noise in the water tap, we know through inferencial process of the popular brand, that water will soon flow through the tap; or through a special sound, we imagine that a compartment of a train is either joined or disjoined from the other one. These are popular instances of inference. So also in poetry, "tatraiva rantum eva gata'si" is apprehended through what Mahima calls "kavyanumiti" which is a loose form of anumiti accepted in our practical life at every stage. Dr. Rawaprasadjee is a staunch supporter of this kayyanumiti. The only point is that whether we accept this "loose anumana" or call it by some other name such as 'tatparva' of Dhananjaya or 'vyanjana' of Anandavardhana. The fact is that there is 'sabda' involved and hence it has to be a sabda-vapara as pointed out by Abhinavagupta in case of poetry or any use of language. Of course, when we hear a sound from the water-tap, or when we see the shoes of a father, or when we hear a noise of joining or disjoining of a compartment, we may or, even may not, accept the case of a loose anumana, but in case of poetry which is the province of a use of word, a meaningful word by a poet, we have to name it differently such as vyanjana to distinguish it from tarkanumiti, or pratyaksa, or smrti, etc. Even kavyanumiti is certainly not tarkanumiti or scientific inference of the logicians. So, it is just a quarrel over naming. The rose, is a rose, is a rose and will smell as sweet; call it by any other name ! So, for the present, and on our part, we will choose to travel with Abhinavagupta and call is vyanjana, a word-power. Abhinavagupta observes in favour of vyanjana as follows : "asti tavad atra sabdasyaiva vyaparah. vyaparas ca nabhidha"tma, samayabhavat, na tatparya"tma, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #163
718 SAHRDAYALOKA tasya anvaya-pratitav eva pariksayat, na laksana"tma, uktad eva hetoh, skhalitagatitva'bhavad; tatra'pi hi skhaladgatitve, punar mukhyartha-badho, nimittam prayojanam ity anavastha iti nama krtam, tad-vyasanamatram. tasmad abhidha tatparya-faksana-vyatiriktas' caturthosau vyaparo dhvanana-dyotana-vyanjanaprayayana-avagamana"di sodara-vyapadesa-nirupito-'bhyupagantavyah'. (Locana, pp. 28, ibid) In this famous passage, Abhinavagupta declares that the apprehension of prayojana is only through word-power. And that word-power is not abhidha or the power of expression, nor it is tatparya, for it is over only at the stage of correlation (i.e. at the stage of giving a correlated meaning of words in a single sentence), nor laksana, due to reasons suggested as above. Again the words do not fail here in their expressive power, (i.e. there is no skhalad-gatitva, while deriving the suggested sense of holiness etc. from the word 'gangayam', as is the case in deriving the indicated sense). For, if we accept failure of expressive sense in this case, then mukhyarthabadha, nimitta, and prayojana will have to be imagined again and again, and again, and thus there will be 'anavastha' i.e. total confusion. So, when one postulates laksita-laksana here, it is a wild goose chase only. So, this is the fourth power of word, totally different from abhidha, tatparya and laksana, and is termed by synonyms such as dhvanana, dyotana, vyanjana, pratyayana, avagamana, etc." Abhinavagupta thus precludes the case of alamkarikas such as Mukula and perhaps also Kuntaka, who project a wider concept of abhidha embracing in its fold, vyanjana, and also the case of the likes of Dhananjaya and Dhanika w a broader concept of tatparya, beyond just a sentence-power of presenting a correlated sense, and also of Mahima who argues for a loose inference taking shape in poetry. When you play a game, there are rules of a game and you have to abide by the same. Abhinava therefore insists that the normally all-acceptable concepts of abhidha, laksana, tatparya and anumiti are not wide enough to cover suggested sense arrived at by the word-power called vyanjana. He quotes in his support a karika from the Dhvanyaloka, (I. 17) such as : "mukhyam vsttim parityajya guna-vittyartha-darsanam, yad-uddisya phalam, tatra sabdo naiva skhalad-gatih." i.e. "If one gives up the primary denotative power of a word and understands a sense (secondary, conveyed by it), through its indicative power, it is because of Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #164
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 719 a purpose. In conveying this purpose, the word does not move falteringly at all, (as it moves falteringly when indicating a meaning secondary)." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 33, ibid). So, observes Abhinavagupta, - (pp. 28, 30, Locana, Edn. Dr. Nandi, ibid) : tena samayapeksa vacyavagamana-saktir abhidhasaktih. tad-anyatha-anupap sahaya'rthavabodhana-saktis tatparya-saktih. mukhyartha-badha"di-sahakary apeksartha-pratibhasana-saktir laksana-saktih. tac-chakti-trayopajanita'rthavagamamula-jata-tat-pratibhasa-pavitrita-pratipatr-pratibha-sahaya'rtha-dyotana-saktir dhvanana-vyaparah; sa ca prag-vsttam vyapara-trayam nyak-kurvan, pradhanabhutah, kavyatma'iti asayena nisedha-pramukhataya ca, prayojanavisayo'pi nisedha-visaya ity uktam. Abhidha is the power of expression which yields primary meaning on the basis of convention. Laksana is that power which yields meaning on the basis of adha. i.e. contradiction of primary sense etc. Tatparya sakti or purport is one which yields correlated meaning not derived through the power of expression. This is a sentence-power yielding the sentence-sense. The fourth power is called vyanjana. There is a meaning different from meanings arrived at through abhidha, tatparya and laksana. By repeated connection with this meaning, the pratibha or genius or imagination of those who resort to this becomes sanctified: Thus a vrtti which renders the imagination pure is termed vyanjana or suggestion. This word-power renders the other three as subservient and installs itself as principal. Then it is termed 'Dhvani', which is the soul of poetry. In the illustration viz. "bhrama dharmika." etc., negation is the indicated sense of positive instruction, such as "bhrama", i.e. move about. The motive is to protect the place, of secret meeting, which is arrived at through vyanjana or suggestive power. So, the objector raises a question that here, how is it that the aloka-kara i.e. Anandavardhana said that the pratisedha-rupa meaning i.e. the sense of negation is arrived at through suggestive power? The answer is that this sense of negation is principal and only through its agency the protection of the place of meeting is suggested. Therefore 'nised ha' is said to be the meaning. But, Abhinavagupta says that this solution is suggested only in case we accept laksana in the illustration concerned. In fact here in this specific illustration such as 'bhrama dharmika', etc. there is no scope for laksana at all as the conditions of indication or laksana are not fulfilled here. There is no contradiction of the primary sense. The primary sense is neither totally discarded (atyanta-tiraskrta) i.e. not completely lost, nor merged into another sense - i.e. arthantara For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #165
720 SAHRDAYALOKA samkramita, here. This verse is a case of artha-sakti-mula-dhvani, where there is no scope for laksana. Again there is something further. In all sorts of knowledge, some ancillary factors are expected to operate. E.g. in direct perception or pratyaksa, the contact of sense-organs with the object (indriyartha-sannikarsa) is expected. The direct perception is either sa-vikalpa or nir-vikalpa. The indriyartha sannikarsa is expected in both the cases and this is said to be six-fold in the Vaisesika darsana. In the same way, in anumiti or inference, vyapti-smrti and paksa-dharmata serve as causes. Those who consider sabda-sakti i.e. word-power as derived through anumiti-i.e. inference, for them when a word is used to convey a meaning, there has to be vyapti-smarana and the like, to call the process by the name of 'anumiti'. The process will proceed like this : A speaker wants to convey this meaning, because he has used this particular word. Wherever this word is used invariably this particular meaning is intended to be conveyed. It is so here. Therefore here also this particular meaning is intended to be conveyed. In the same way in 'upamana' means of knowledge, sadrsya-jnana or knowledge of similarity etc. serves as condition. So also, in sabda-pramana, in case of abhidha, the knowledge of convention - i.e. samketa-jnana, and tatparya-vrtti serve as condition, in case of laksana, sakyarthabadha etc. serve as condition and in case of vyanjana certain factors such as enumerated by Mammata, viz. vaktr-vaisistya, boddhr-vaisistya or speciality of the speaker etc. serve as conditions. Thus according to the Locanakara, for abhihitanvayavada there is no escape from vyanjana to convey the intention of the speaker. Now Abhinavagupta takes up anvitabhidhanavada and proves to his satisfaction that even for this way of thinking, vyanjana has to be recognised as an independent sabda-vstti.. Anvitabhidhanavada and Vyanjana. Before we proceed with the presentation in Locana, we may note that later alamkarikas beginning with Mammata have based their line of argument only on this portion of the Locana, which reads, to begin with, as follows : (pp. 30, Edn. Dr. Nandi, ibid) : "yopy anvitabhidhanavadi, "yatparah sabdah sa sabdartha", iti htdaye grhitva saravad abhidhavyaparam eva dirgha-dirgham icchati, tasya yadi dirgho vyaparas tad ekosav iti kutah ? bhinna-visayarvat. atha'py anekosau tad-visaya-sahakaribhedad a-sajatiya eva yuktah. sajatiye ca karye viramya vyaparah sabd-karmabuddhy adinam padarthavidbhih nisiddhah. a-sajatiye ca asman naya eva." Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #166
721 Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power "The Anvitabhidhanavadi takes the dictum, viz. "whatever is intended to be expressed by the word, that is the meaning of the word", (literally) to his heart and expects the function of a word to last longer and longer like an arrow. To him our question is, "if the function is long (and longer), how can it be a single function; for the scope (i.e. object) is non-identical. If you accept that it is (not a single function, but it is) many, then with the consideration of its object and accessories, it has to be non-identical (with one another). If the function is said to be identical, then the function will not continue after once it is over as the function of a word, idea and activity, does not continue further once its object is realized. This is the opinion of those who know about the word-meaning (i.e. Naiyayikas and the rest). If you accept this longer and still longer function to be (many and therefore) nonidentical, then our principle (of vyanjana as a separate, independent and fourth word power) stands." Before we discuss the refutation of anvitabhidhanavada by Abhinavagupta, we may take note of the fact that Mammata, and therefore practically all of his followers, - have treated anvitabhidhana-vada, and dirghadirghatara-vyapara-vada as independent views of opponents. Of course, the latter are also a section of the former but both are treated and refuted separately. Abhinavagupta has taken them to be identical because in fact the latter are only a section of the former. Mammata, of course, has tried to dig deeper. Abhinavagupta proceeds as follows : The anvitabhidhanavadins cite two principles such as, "yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah", and "soyam isor iva dirghadirghatara vyaparah", and include vyanjana in the scope of abhidha itself. Some experts explain this to be the view held by Lollata's followers. We do not know, but we have seen that later Mukula tries to cover up vyanjana under abhidha. For these theorists the word-power extends further and further. Like a shaft, dischared by a mighty person, cuts through the armour of the enemy, pierces his limbs and takes away his breath, similarly, a word used by a great poet, through its power called abhidha i.e. expression, gives the expressed meaning, then the anvita-artha i.e. the correlated meaning, and also gives the suggested sense. The idea is that after giving the primary sense, the word-power does not rest till it yields the final intended sense. So, that is considered to be the real meaning of a word, with which the speaker's intention is concerned. To this, the Locanakara asks that when the objector talks of this longer and still longer word-power yielding different senses in its course, is this power one or many? How can we take them as one and identical ? For, in fact their object Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #167
722 SAHRDAYALOKA changes from stage to stage. There is thus visaya-bheda and there is sahakari-bheda also noticed. [In abhidha samketa-grahana is the sahakarin, in laksana it is mukhyartha-badha'di-traya, and in vyanjana it is speciality of the speaker etc. i.e. vaktr-adi-vaisistya.] Now, in view of this, the powers concerned will have to be taken as non-indentical or different. For, those who know the secret of word and sense have formed a principle that, "sabda-buddhi-karmanam viramya vyapara'bhavah" - i.e. word, idea and activity do not continue after once having stopped on achieving their goal, so far as one and identical vyapara i.e. function is concerned. Once you (i.e. the objector) accept difference or non-identity in case of functions, our position, that different word-powers yield different meanings, is vindicated. The objector does not give up easily. He observes that by this dargha-dirghatara vyapara, what is meant is that what you call as vyangyartha residing in the fourth stage, is grasped very fast and immediately by the sentence. Then our answer is (i.e. the Siddhantin's position is) that when no convention is fixed with reference to the same (i.e. the suggested sense), how can it be immediately or directly apprehended ? To this, the objector would say - well, the sakyartha i.e. the expressed sense is a 'nimitta' i.e. 'cause', in the apprehension of the vyangyartha or the suggested sense. Thus vyangyarth is said to be, "naimittika" and vacyartha is "nimitta". When the naimittika i.e. resultant suggested sense is immediately cognized, later when critically scrutinized, the sakyartha i.e. expressed sense is also apprehended. Samketa-graha i.e. fixing of convention is done with reference to the sakyartha i.e. expressed sense, which is a nimitta - i.e. cause in the vyangyarthabodha. Thus naimittika-vyangyartha is also derived on the same basis. Abhinavagupta passes a sarcastic remark in reply to this. "pasyata srotriyasya ukti-kausalam" - "see, the expertise of the Mimamsaka, with reference to the (art of) speaking !" . The meaning that is cognized at the end is said to be apprehended first and the direct meaning (which aught to come first is placed later and it) follows (the last one) and again is said to be the cause. Thus for the Mimamsaka, his fatherhood is first with reference to his grand son and then with reference to his own son ! The Locanakara observes : "atha yosau caturthakaksa-nivistorthah, sa eva jhatiti-vakyena'bhidhiyata, ity evam vidham dirghadirghatvam vivaksitam, tarhi tatra samketa'karanat katham saksat prat nimittesu samketah, naimittikastu asau arthas samketa'napeksa eva, iti cet, pasyata srotriyasya ukti-kausalam yo hy asau paryanta-kaksa-bhagy arthah, prathamam pratiti-patham avatirnah, tasya pascattanah padarthavagamah Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #168
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 723 nimittabhavam gacchanti iti nunam mimamsakasya prapautram prati naimittikam abhimatam." (pp. 30, Edn. Dr. Nandi, ibid) Abhinavagupta further elaborates as follows. He observes that the objector can contend this much here, that samketa-grahana or convention was formed earlier. After that on listening to a sentence, we apprehend the sentence-sense. Thus nimitta-naimittika-bhava takes shape between word-sense (i.e. the expressed sense), and the suggested sense. But in this case, argues the Locanakara, which process will the objector resort to in apprehending the suggested sense ? There is no convention formed with reference to the suggested sense, so how can the objector say that the suggested sense is apprehended through abhidha or the power of expression ? Again, the next point is that in the opinion of the objector himself, the samketa-grahana with reference to an individual word-sense is itself not possible because you, the anvitabhidhanavadins, hold expressive power only with reference to the 'anvita' or correlated sense. If the objector says that yes, convention is of course formed with reference to the correlated sense alone, but by avapaudvapa i.e. removal and substitution, this fixing of convention - samketa-grahana is with reference to a word only, then Abhinavagupta's submission is that even in this case a meaning related to the particular - i.e. visesa-artha-will necessarily be cognized still later (because the mimamsakas believe in jati-visayaka Thus, the anvitabhidhanavadins also will have to resort to the tatparya-vrtti or purport, and thus your principle will be negated. To this, the objector may submit that, whether nimitta-naimittika bhava is established between padartha and vyangyartha, but one thing is certain that the moment a sentence is spoken, import i.e. 'tatparyartha' is apprehended, and how can anyone reject this ? To this, Abhinavagupta says that we do not negate this fact that vyangyartha in form of the intention of the speaker is immediately apprehended : atra ucyate - drstaiva jhatiti tatparyartha-pratipattih. kim atra kurmah, iti. tad idam vayam api na nangikurmah." (pp. 30, ibid). He quotes from Anandavardhana Karika (Dhv.) I. 12 - viz. "tadvat sacetasam." etc. "So also that suggested meaning flashes suddenly across the truth-perceiving minds of perceptive critics, when they turn away from literal meaning." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 19, ibid). But the Locanakara adds that this does not mean that in the truth-perceiving minds of the perceptive critics, the suggested sense flashes forth even without the apprehension of the primary sense. There is always this possibility of a sequence of first the dawning of the literal sense and then the flashing of the suggested sense. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #169
724 SAHRDAYALOKA But these cultured critics have read, tasted and enjoyed poetry so often, that due to practice formed by the repeated reading of poetic works, the sequence betwee primary meaning and the suggested meaning is as it were not cognized, even though it is very much there as an undeniable fact. For an expert logician, the moment he sees smoke, he infers fire immediately and eventhough the steps, such as vyaptismarana and the like, are very much there in his inference they are as it were not noticed. Thus, even if a sequence is not cognized, it has to be very much there and therefore the nimitta-naimittika-bhava between the primary and the suggested senses stands. It may be noted that the Kavyaprakasakara i.e. Mammata takes even these nimitta-vadins, who are part of anvitabhidhanavadins, also as a separate group of objectors. Mammata digs deeper and attempts a thread-bare analysis at every stage, of course, following the lead of Abhinavagupta. We will examine the same in due course. * Abhinavagupta sums up his treatment of vyanjana-virodha by as it were, patching up the differences if any, with the grammarians. He observes : "yepi avibhaktam sphotam, vakyam, tad-artham cahuh, tair apy a-vidya-pada-patitaih, sarva iyam anusaraniya prakriya. tad uttirnatve tu sarvam paramesvara"hvayam brahma ity asmac chastrakarena na na viditam tattvalokam grantham viracayata ity astam." (pp. 30, edn. Dr. Nandi, ibid) - "Even those who speak of un-divided sphota, (whole) sentence and its meaning (without parts), have to accept all this (our) line of thinking, while dealing at the ordinary parlour (i.e. at the popular level where avidya i.e. nescience prevails). Having crossed this level of ordinary parlour (in which vidya prevails), everything is brahma, one with the Highest Godhead, - and this fact was not unknown to our sastrakara (i.e. Anandavardhana) (= our theorist) who (also) drafted the work called "Tattvaloka". So, let this be left here only." Even for the grammarians the acceptance of pada-praksti-pratyaya etc. i.e. diversity of words and sentences and their meanings - has to be accepted at worldly context and once this scheme is accepted the variety of vacvartha, tatparvartha. laksyartha and vyangyartha, also has to be accepted even by the grammarians and so for them acceptance of vyanjana as a fourth independent word-power, becomes a necessity. So, even for these akhandatavadins, language at popular level is divided into letters, words, word-meanings, and sentences and sentence-meanings and even words are divided into roots and stems. This fact of language stays for ever at the level of worldly usage; concludes Abhinavagupta. Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #170
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 725 It has been thus successfully established by Abhinavagupta that vyanjana as a fourth and independent word-power has to be accepted. Vyanjana cannot be rejected by taking recourse to the other accepted sabda-vittis such as abhidha, or laksana or even tatparya which is a vakya-vrtti for some. Even anumana or inference, a means of knowledge along with pratyaksa or direct perception, can not serve the cause of vyanjana. Even akhandatavada of the vedantins and grammarians is not a substitute for vyanjana. Vyanjana cannot be discarded even with the help of other means of knowledge. In, say for example, pratyaksapramana or direct perception, the organs of senses become instruments and the knowledge arrived at by the sannikarsa or contact of sense organs with the objects of knowledge is termed pratyaksa-jnana. In the particular illustration viz. "bhrama dharmika", etc., the lion is not present on the spot and so the direct caksusa-pratyaksa i.e. directly seeing the lion with physical eyes - is not possible. The heroine also can not say to the holy man that, "O sir, please do not go for a stroll on the bank of the Godavari as there will be a disturbance in our lovesports." So, here, it is not a case of sravana-pratyaksa i.e. direct per hearing also. In the means of knowledge called 'upamana' i.e. similarity, the base of knowledge is similarity or comparision, which has no scope here. So, the object of the Nayika's utterance can not be served through upamana-pramana. The apprehension of rasa - aesthetic pleasure, or suggested idea i.e. vastu vyangya of suggested figure, i.e. alamkara-vyangya, can never take place through arthapatti, i.e. implication, or presumption, or inference based on circumstances. Arthapatti takes place only where the fartha' is not self-sufficient, as in devadattah diva na bhunkte, tasmadratribhojanam." Here the fatness of Devadatta is not justified by his taking no food at all by day. But in case of rasaexperience, the sentence-sense does not stand unjustified, or un-supported, i.e. it is not that it can not hold on its own without any apprehension of rasa or dhvani or other variety. Thus vyanjana cannot be wished away by arthapatti. Nor, is the apprehension of rasa"di a matter of imagination, i.e. rasa"di-pratiti is not kalpanika or illusory. For all men of taste, may not undergo rasa-experience if it. were not a real fact but only an imaginary thing. Thus, in the present illustration, viz. bhrama-dharmika, etc., resorting to vyanjana is a must to collect the special meaning called the vyangyartha. Abhinavagupta rejects Bhatta Nayaka's observation here. The latter observes that in the specific illustration viz. "bhrama dharmika." etc., actually what happens is like this. "Here in this verse, special adjective such as 'uddhata' i.e. drpta fierce Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #171
726 SAHRDAYALOKA is used with the lion. The person concerned is addressed as a 'dharmika' i.e. a holyman, a religious man. On the strength of these two words, there is apprehension of the 'bhayanaka-rasa'. Through this there is an apprehension of 'nisedha' i.e. negation. For, without knowing the person's tendency of either being a brave person or a timid one, the ascertainment of negation only is not at all possible. So, only the strength of a meaning - 'kevalam artha-samarthyam' - can not be the cause of the apprehension of negation." To this Abhinavagupta's reply is as follows : Even we also do not contend that without knowing the speciality of the speaker and the listener, and without realising the power of suggestion of a word, the apprehension of the suggested sense is possible. On the contrary; we hold that only the genius - pratibha-of the cultured person-sahrdaya-is taken as the decider in case of vyanjana - "pratipattr-pratibha-sahakaritvam hy asmabhir dyotanasya pranatvena uktam." (pp. 32, ibid). We do not object to the apprehension of bhayanaka rasa in the illustration concerned. But this horrible condition can inspire fear only in the heart of the dharmika person concerned. We can expect fear to rise to the status of bhayanaka-rasa, only if it is tasted by all men of taste. The relish of rasa is possible only when it is tasted. Even Bhatta-Nayaka does not accept that rasa can be tasted by simply naming it. Thus, it is only suggested and even for the person who enjoys it, the enjoyment is not personal or limited, but is of an unlimited nature and the enjoyer is not equal personally to the timid religious person. Here practically ends Abhinavagupta's defence of vyanjana. It is clear that such greats as Mammata and the rest accepted the lead of Abhinavagupta in dealing with vyanjana-virodha. We will now move on to what Mammata has to say, and we have already observed that Mammata has tried to dig deeper and has tried to lay the whole topic threadbare. Mammata - Actually, while dealing with what he calls 'guni-bhuta-vyangya' or poetry of subordinated suggestion, Mammata picks up the topic of refuting the vyanjana and trying to establish vyanjana and vyangyartha as independent entities by fresh arguments. In the beginning of Ch. V of his Kavya-prakasa Mammata cleanly enumerates, explains and illustrates eight-fold gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya and observes that the varieties of these (eight kinds of subordinated suggestion) should be understood, as far as applicable, in the manner of the former case i.e. of the suggestive-dhvanipoetry, which for him is "uttama" kavya, and the gunibhuta-vyangya being the Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #172
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 727 "madhyama" variety. He observes : (K.P. V. 46 cd) : esam bheda yathayogam veditavyas ca purvavat." - 46 cd. yathayogam iti, "vyajyante vastumatrena..." (Dhv. II. 2a). iti dhvanikarokta-disa vastumatrena yatra alamkaro vyajyate, na tatra gunibhuta-vyangyatvam." Thus for Dhvanikara, suggestion of an alamkara by vastu or idea never gives a gunibhuta-vyangya kavya. Mammata observes that innumerable varieties and sub-varieties can be thought out in case of this variety i.e. gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya also, by considering the possibilities of intermingled and collected varieties (yogah samsrsti-samkaraih). By natural permutation-anyonya-yogat-the number of its varieties would be very large. With this Mammata banks upon the following observation : "samkalanena punar asya dhvaneh trayo bhedah, vyangyasya tri-rupatvat." (vrtti, K.P. v. 47) "However, in brief, there are three kinds of this Dhvani (suggestive poetry) on account of the suggested sense being of three types (i.e. vastu, alamkara and rasa)." Mammata takes the opportunity to explain that 'rasa'-dhvani is necessarily suggested only-vyangya eva-while the other two varieties can be an object of direct expression also. Mammata proceeds to explain how vyangyartha/vyanjana are inevitable in different types of dhvani. In both the varieties of dhvani based on laksana, i.e. in arthantara-samkramitavacya, and atyanta-tirasksta-vacya varieties of dhvani, laksana or indication is itself not possible without consideration of 'vastu-vyangya' i.e. suggestion of an idea. Thus, vyanjana has to be there in these varieties. In case of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani i.e. suggestion based on the force of words, the denotation (i.e. abhidha) being restricted (as it can not proceed after it has yielded its contextual meaning), any other idea, which cannot be the denoted one, as well as the upama and other figures, are undoubtedly suggested. In case of artha-sakti-mula-dhvani also, owing to the inapplicability of the convention in a particular individual, it is the word-meanings of universal character, being mutually co-ordinated by the force of expectancy, compatibility and juxta-position (of words), that give rise to the meaning of a sentence which is particular and different from the meaning of individual words. How can the suggested sense, based on the power of meaning, can be spoken of as Jain Education Intemational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #173
728 SAHRDAYALOKA denoted according to this theory of Abhihitanvaya (held by Bhatta school of Mimamsa ? The words in the K.P. read as: "artha-sakti-mule visese samketah kartum na yujyate, iti samanyarupanam padarthanam akanksa-sannidhi-yogyata-vasat parasparam samsarge yatra a-padartho visesa-rupo vakyarthah, tatra abhihitanvaye ka varta vyangyasya abhidheyatayam ?" (vrtti on K.P. v. 47) So, here Mammata picks up the abhihitanvayavadins first : For these Mimamsakas who follow the lead of Kumarila Bhatta 'samketa' or convention is not done with reference to a particular individual to avoid the blemishes of 'anantya' and 'vyabhicara', but is accepted with reference to 'samanya' or universal. For them the 'vakyartha' in form of a visesa or 'special' or 'particular' is also not arrived at by abhidha, but by a separate power called tatparya. Now, when their abhidha does not reach at collection of particular sense, and also the sentence-sense, what to talk of vyangyartha or suggested sense which comes still later. So, for them vyanjana has to be accepted to arrive at the suggested sense, their abhidha being consumed in giving universal padartha, and tatparya being exhausted in giving vakyartha only! Jhalkikar puts it as: (pp. 219, ibid): "yanmate vacyarthabodha-visayikrtam api samsargam sakyopasthapana-pariksina-saktir abhidha navabhasayati iti tadartham tatparya-vrttir avalambyate, tanmate vacyartha-bodhottara-kalikayam vyangyopasthitau naiva abhidha-prabhava iti kimu vaktavyam iti. tatsarvam uktam pradipodyotesu - "artha-sakti-mule api evam angikartavyam. yatah padebhyah prathamam padartha-smrtih, atha padarthavisesanam anvaya-visesa-rupasya pratyayah, tato vyangyapratitir iti trtiyakaksayam kuto 'bhidhayah prasaranam ? dvitiya-kaksayam eva tad-anapeksanat. yatobhihitanvaya-vade asakya eva anvayah, akanksa"di-vasena pratiyate. sabdabuddhi-karmanam viramya vyaparabhava iti ca sarva-siddham", iti pradipah. The Sampradaya-prakasini observes (pp. 158, Edn. Dwivedi R.C., ibid): "visesa-rupatvat padarthatirikto vakyartho yatrabhyupagatas tatra abhihitanvaye vakyarthanantara-kaksyabhavino vyangyasya vacyatayam varta eva ka, yavata dvitiya-kaksyapati vakyarthopyanabhidheya, iti upalambha-niskarsah." The crux of the discussion is that when for the abhihitanvayavadins, their abhidha is powerless to travel even upto the sentence-sense, for which they have to invoke a separate power called tatparya, what to talk of covering vyangyartha or suggested sense which follows even the sentence-sense? So, for them acceptance of vyanjana to collect the suggested sense, is a must. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #174
729 Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power Now Mammata turns his guns towards the other section of the Mimamsakas. known as "anvitabhidhanavadins". Mammata holds that even for the anvitabhidhanavadins, acceptance of vyanjana for collecting the suggested sense, is unavoidable. He first begins with the fuller explanation of the anvitabhidhana view-point. He observes : And some others expound (the process of denotation) as follows : "The word, the elderly men, and the object denoted are directly perceived here, (i.e. in the process of learning) by a child." "The listners understanding of it is deduced (by the child) through inference and action. The two-fold power (of the word to denote and of the object to be thus denoted by that particular word) is cognised by presumption based on 'otherwise inexplicability. Thus the relationship (between word and its meaning) is known through three means of cognition (i.e. perception, inference and presumption)." According to what is stated above when a sentence, such as 'Devadatta, bring the cow', is uttered by an elderly man, the younger man is seen to bring from one place to another an object with the dew-lap etc., the child then infers from this action that such and such meaning has been understood by the younger man from such a sentence. Thereupon, the child makes out the denotative relationship between the above sentence and its meaning as one indivisible whole, and thus thechild himself comprehends its meaning. Later on when sentences such as, "Caitra, bring the cow : "Devadatta, bring the horse"; "Devadatta, take away the cow", are used, he makes out a particular meaning from a particular word on the basis of positive and negative considerations. From this it follows that a sentence alone, that makes a man act or refrain from it, is fit for being used. Hence, the denotative convention is apprehended from the connected words occurring in sentence only with the meanings of words (generally) connected with one another. To conclude, only the correlated meanings of words are the meaning of a sentence; it is not that there is correlation of (unconnected) word-meanings. Though the individual words, found to be used in other sentences, are regarded to be the same by recognitive apprehension (i.e. pratyabhijna-balena) and thus convention of the word-meaning is found as connected with the other words (i.e. the denotative convention is comprehended as connected with particular wordmeaning), yet, that particular form itself is comprehended as qualified by generic character because the inter-mixed word-meanings are of the said i.e. of particular and not generic character. (Since the particular and the generic cannot be divided Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #175
730 SAHRDAYALOKA the comprehension of the particular form is not without the apprehension of its generic character). This is the view of the theorists of correlated denotation (anvitabhidhana-vada)." (vitti, K.P. V. 47, pp. 158, 160, Edn. R. C. Dwivedi; Trans. by Prof. R. C. Dwivedi). Mammata after carefully explaining the view of the anvitabhidhanavadins, explains how for them also in poetry, what is termed as suggested sense can be comprehended only through the agency of vyanjana i.e. the power of suggestion alone. We will try to elaborate the argument as follows: In Prabhakara's anvitabhidhanavada, though through abhidha directly the co-rrelated - anvitameaning is conveyed and hence there is no need to project 'tatparya' sakti, but even for this view abhidha yields a correlated meaning only in a univesal-samanya-form. There is no trace of a meaning with reference to perticularity because one and the same word is used with a number of other words in different forms. If convention, argue these theorists, is accepted with reference to a particular meaning or object, it will not get correlated with other particular meanings. As in case of abhihitanvayavada, so also here, if convention is held with reference to, an individual object the contingencies of 'anantya' and 'vyabhicara' will walk in. Thus even anvitabhidhana-vada allows samketa only with reference to a general meaning. But the fact is that a sentence sense is of the form of correlation of particular meanings, so for that this vakyartha also cannot be arrived at through abhidha, technically. Now, when their abhidha cannot reach directly the particular vakyartha i.e. visesa-rupa-vakyartha, then how can we expect that their abhidha will go as far as vyangyartha which is 'ati-visesabhuta' or which is of an extremely particular nature ! So, even from the point of view of anvitabhidhanavada, in the illustration viz. "nihsesa-cyuta." etc., the apprehension of the positive -vidhirupa-suggested sense, derived from the expressed negation, has to be explained through vyanjana or suggestive function only. Thus for anvitabhidhanavada, to explain the apprehension of the suggested sense, acceptance of vyanjana is a must. But before explaining this inevitability of accepting vyanjana even for the anvitabhidhanavadins, Mammata starts the argument by first explaining the full implication of this view theoretically with the words, "ity anvitabhidhanavadinah". The presentation can be understood in two parts. The first part completes with the words - "iti visista eva padarthah vakyarthah, na tu padarthanam vaisistyam." The second part starts after that. In the first half it is explained that only a meaning concerning generality Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #176
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 731 samanya is arrived at by individual words. It ends with "visista eva padarthah vakyarthah", where 'visistah' means 'anvaya-visistah' i.e. 'correlated wordmeanings' form a vakyartha, through abhidha. This is broadly the position of this view. After that "na tu padarthanam vaisistyam" - is a note, which explains that, we have not to understand that 'first an-anvita i.e. not-correlated-individual wordmeanings are presented and then their 'anvaya' i.e. co-rrelation follows." This note is to denounce the abhihitanvaya-vada. Then follows the suble analysis of the anvitabhidhana-vada, which ends with the word, "ity anvitabhidhana-vadinah." ." The main point that even this view has to accept vyanjana to apprehend the so called suggested sense, begins with the words "tesam api mate...". Mammata starts to explain this view with two karikas, viz. sabdavrddhabhidheyamsca. etc., taking us to the conclusion that convention is made with reference to the correlated sentence-sense only. Now, as to, "this particular sense has to be collected from this particular word", normally the following means are suggested such as: saktigraham vyakaranopamanakosa"pta-vakyad vyavaharatas ca. vakyasya sesad vivrter vadanti sannidhyatah siddha-padasya vrddhah." i.e. According to the seniors, convention is maid with the help of the following sources such as - vyakarana, i.e. grammar, upamana or similar object, kosa i.e. a lexicon, apta-vakya i.e. the instruction by a reliable person, vyavahara i.e. worldly usage, vakyasesa or, the remainder of a sentence, vivrti i.e. vyakhya i.e. explanation, and by proximity with a word whose meaning is known - i.e. siddha-pada. Out of all these vyavahara i.e. popular usage is the principal source. While in all other means we stand in need of the actual usage and collection of meaning to understand 'sakti-graha', these are reserved for elderly people. But for children, 'vyavahara' or local usage is the ultimate source to understand the conventional sense. The child at an early age collects convention with reference to a particular word yielding a particular sense only through actual practice by his seniors, such as uttma-vrddhas and the madhyama-vrddhas. Here the former stand for those who issue instructions and the latter stand for those who carry our the instructions; as in case of the sentences, "gam anaya, gam badhana, asvam anaya", etc. etc. The child first cases the whole meaning of a whole sentence and later is enlightened as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #177
732 SAHKDAYALOKA to the specific meaning of individual words. We have seen about how different means of knowledge such as pratyaksa or direct-perception, anumana or inference, and arthapatti or presumption are involved in the simple act of collecting the expressed sense only. This is done is an effortless and natural way for a child. Mammata uses terms such as (i) samanya, (ii) samanya-visesa and (iii) ati-visesameaning "correlated in a general form", then, "karmatva"dirupena-anvitatva", and "vyakti-rupena anvitatva". The vyanjanavadins argue that if we accept anvitabhidhanavada, samketa takes us only to "anvita-artha" in form of a "samanya" only. But this is not enough. For example you want a pot. Now in place of "ghatam anaya" if it is said, "vastu anaya", - this will not serve the purpose. Only a word 'ghata' which has a visesa-rupa has to be used. Thus samketa with reference to "samanya-rupena anvita", will not do. If it is argued that on the strength of the maxim, "nirvisesam na samanyam", we will arrive at a "samanya-visesa" i.e. a visesa qualified by a samanya, then to this the answer is that here the convention is with reference to a 'samanya-visesa' qualified by 'karmatva' or objectivity. Thus in "gam anaya", the word 'gam' is an object - karmabhutasamanya-visesa. Thus the word 'anaya' gets correlated with this karma-bhuta-samanya-visesa, which is 'gam'. 'gam' is called 'samanya-visesa', because 'anaya' is correlated with it. But here too the 'anvaya' is with 'karmatva' staying in a 'samanya' form. As the 'sa-karmaka' word 'anaya' is in need of a karma/object, 'gam' gets correlated with it in form of a 'karma' i.e. object. Here, 'gam', 'asvam' etc. though having a particular form or visesa-rupa, are correlated only through 'karmatva' which is of the samanya type. Hence, Mammata here uses the term 'samanya-visesa' to distinguish it from 'samanya'. Thus the terms 'samanya' and "samanya-visesa" are explained. The third term used by Mammata is "ati-visesa". By this is meant the individual cow or horse. Gotva, asvatva are the 'samanya', karmatva is the samanya-visesa, and individual cow or horse - is the ati-visesa-meaning. This meaning is derived in practice from the statement. But theoretically this meaning cannot follow for the fear of anantya and vyabhicara. So, when the ati-visesa meaning re samketita, vacyartha will be impossible. This 'ati-visesa' meaning will have to be collected by a power beyond abhidha. This means that even the anvitabhidhana view will have to go for an additional power called either tatparya or any other name. Now, when, argues Mammata, even for the apprehension of a simple sentence-sense an additional word-power will be required, it is senseless to suggest that abhidha will be able to deliver the suggested meaning ! For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #178
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 733 So, Mammata observes that the whole argument boils down to this much that whether you go for abhihitanvayavada or opt for the anvitabhidhanavada, even the 'ati-visesa-rupa vakyartha' is not apprehended by abhidha, so what to talk of collecting what is termed the vyangyartha or suggested sense which comes still later ? He observes : "ananvitorthobhihitanvaye, padarthantara-matrenanvitastvanvitabhidhane, anvita-visesas tu a-vacya eva, ity ubhayanaye'pi apadartha eva vakyarthah." i.e. "The meaning is not correlated according to the theory of 'the connection of the expressed (i.e. abhihitanvaya-vada), and according, to the theory of 'connected meaning' (anvitabhidhana), it is correlated to the other meaning generically but the correlated particular (meaning) is never denoted, hence in both the above theories the sense of a sentence cannot be taken as the object of direct denotation by a word." The sampradaya-prakasini here takes 'vakyartha' as suggested meaning - "vakyarthah vyangyartha"tmakah." (pp. 162, ibid). Jhalkikar explains 'vakyarthah' as 'samsargah'. He observes (pp. 224, ibid): "ayam bhavah.- vastutvena vastupadavacyopi ghato yatha ghatatvena tad avacyah, tatha apara-padarthanvita" nayanatvena (abhihitanvayavade kevalena anayanatvena) anaya-pada-vacyam api gava"nayanam, gava"nayanatvena tad a-vacyam eva ity asamketite gamye prathamika-bodha-visayikrte api na'bhidhavyapara itinitaram eva anantara-bhavini vyangya-bodhe abhidha-virama, iti vivarane spastam." We had observed that Abhinavagupta had considered the view of the nimittavadins as part of the Mimamsaka view. Mammata, on the other hand, takes up this view of "nimitta-vadins" separately. We know that the Mimamsakas hold veda as the only authority and therefore veda is normally equated as 'prabhu' i.e. master, and in the vedic injunction only abhidha has scope. Even laksana in which there is deviation is a dosa for the Mimamsakas and so far as the sastra or discipline in concerned, vyanjana has not even a ghost of a chance for any consideration. So, Mukula, a great Mimamsaka probably, in his work establishes only abhidha as a sole power of word and laksana is treated by him only as an extension of abhidha, but never as an independent wordpower. So, here Mammata, after considering the abhihitanvayavada and anvitabhidhanavada and explaining their necessity to accept vyanjana, now picks up the views of yet another section of the anvitabhidhanavadin-mimamsakas, - who hold that, "naimittikanusarena nimittani kalpyante." Let us first see how he puts it : "yad apy ucyate - 'naimittikanusarena nimittani kalpyante" iti, tatra nimittatvam karakatvam jnapakatvam va. sabdasya prakasakatvan na karakatvam. jnapakatvam tu a-jnatasya katham ? jnatatvam ca sanketena eva. sa ca anvita For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #179
734 SAHRDAYALOKA matre. evan ca, nimittasya niyata-nimittatvam yavan na niscitam, tavan naimittikasya pratitir eva katham iti "naimittika'nusarena nimittani kalpyante" iti a-vicarita'bhidhanam." - "It is also said that "causes are ascertained on the bases of their effects." (To this we reply) that to be a cause is either to be a generative (karaka) or to be an indicator (jnapaka). The word on account of its being illuminator, cannot be of the generative. And how can it be an indicator of the unknown ? Knownness comes from the denotative convention only, which pertains to the correlated only. Therefore, so long as a cause is not determined to be precisely a cause, how can the cognition of the effect (i.e. meaning) arise from it (i.e. the word) ? Hence the view that, "the causes are ascertained on the basis of the effect, (i.e. meaning)", is a thoughtless statement." The Sampradaya-prakasins observes : (pp. 164, ibid) : "uktena prakarena vyangyartha-pratitau, nimittatvena abhyupagatasya sabdasya nimittatvam eva yavan niyatataya na niscitam, tavad, "naimittikanusarena nimittani kalpyante" ity etad a-vicaritabhidhanam. The idea is as follows : This view holds that what the supporters of vyanjana call vyangyartha is also derived through the instrumentality of words alone. Beyond 'sabda' there is no other 'nimitta' i.e. cause for the vyangyartha. Hence 'word' is the only 'cause'. To this, Mammata says that 'nimitta' or 'cause can be two-fold only, i.e. it can be either a 'karaka' nimitta i.e. a generative cause or a 'jnapaka' nimitta, i.e. indicative cause. Now a word cannot be a generative cause but it can only be an indicator i.e. 'jnapaka'. But its being an indicator i.e. 'napaka' i.e. its 'jnapakatva' depends on its being known. It should be known that such and such a word carries convention with reference to such and such a meaning. Thus the bodhya-bodhaka-bhava between a suggested meaning and a word would rest only if the particular word's convention with reference to a particular suggested sense is known to and accepted by all, through its power of expression or abhidha. But it is known that abhidha in case of a word gives only a particular conventional sense only which does not go to cover the suggested sense. So, even the jnapakatvarupa-nimittatva of a word with reference to a given suggested sense will not be possible here for according to the nimittavadin the abhidha gives only a samanyarupa artha, i.e. meaning pertaining to generality alone, and that too in a correlated form only. So, the point is that a word, which the objector holds as a 'nimitta' for vyangyartha has no fixed (niscayena) (i.e. conventional) relation with the same, i.e. the vyangyartha, thus the apprehension of the latter in form of 'naimittiki pratiti' will not follow at all! When for the objector the abhidha is powerless even to travel Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #180
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 735 to a meaning concerning particularity, then, without convention, how can it yield the suggested sense ? So, for this nimittavadin also, acceptance of vyanjana is unavoidable, says Mammata. And to say that "naimittikanusarena nimittani kalpyante" is foolhardy. Jhalkikar (pp. 225, ibid) observes : "ayam bhavah. itara-vyavaharadarsanenaiva vyutpannasya lostha"dy anvitanayana-vyavaharam kada'py adrstavatopi 'lostham anaya' iti vakyad bodha-sthale lostha"dy anvitanayana"der visesasyopasthapakantarabhavena sabdadevopasthitir vacya. tatha ca tatra sanketa-grahe sabdat tadupasthitih. sabdac ca tad upasthitau sanketagraha ity anyonya"srayah syat. na ca vyanjana'pi tadvad durgraha iti vacyam. abhidha laksana va jnataivopayogini iti satyam. dharmi-grahaka-mana-siddha vyanjana tu ajnata eva bodhika. na catiprasangah. vaktradi-vaisistyapeksanat. phalavatrvena tathaiva kalpanad iti dik. tasmat "naimittikanusarena nimittani kalpyante" ity avicaritabhidhanamiti" iti udyota-sudhasagarayoh spastam." Jhalkikar further adds - "ayam atra siddhanta-sarah. vyangyopasthitau sabdasya jnapakarva-rupam nimittatvam asmabhir api sammatam. tatra nasmakam vivadah paramtu vyanjanayah asvikare tanna sambhavati. sabdasyarthanimittatvam vyaparasapeksam eva niyatam. yatha vacyartha-laksyarthayor abhidhalaksane vyaparau tatha iha'pi kopi vyaparovasyam angikaryah. anyatha hi sabdasya nimittatva"niscayena naimittiko vyangyartha ity eva bhavad abhimatopi na siddhyati. yadi tu vyaparam vina'pi sabdasya nimittatvam syat tada abhidhalaksanepi datta-jalanjali syatam ity asmabhir ucyate ity abhiprayam a-buddhva abhidhanam avicara-vijpmbhitam eva iti vivarane'pi spastam." We had seen earlier that Abhinavagupta has taken this nimittavadin also along with anvitabhidhana-vada and he is not unjustified in it. But Mammata has taken it as a separate group of objectors eventhough broadly falling in the company of the anvitabhidhanavada as even this objector believes in abhidha giving a correlated meaning concerning generality only. Same is the case with the dirghatara-vyaparavadins, who are taken as a separate group by Mammata, though actually forming only a section of the mimamsakas as suggested by Abhinavagupta. It may be noted that Jhalkikara suggests that this view was postulated by Mimamsakas such as Lollata and the like, who chose to follow the abhihitanvayavada. We do not know whether we are justified in associating Lollata's name with this view and also with abhihitanvayavada. In the Abhinayabharati also the views of Lollata are quoted and discussed at a number of places but we have no conclusive evidence to suggest that Lollata, if at all a mimamsaka, belonged positively to the Jain Education Interational For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #181
736 SAHRDAYALOKA group of the abhihitanvayavadins. But for the sake of convenience we will get along with Jhalkikar. and Pandit Visvesvara following him, and consider Lollata to be an abhihitanvavavadin supporting the dirgha-dirghatara-vyapara. It may be noted, before we proceed to discuss what Mammata has to say, that among the known commentaries it is only kavya-pradipa which labels this view as, "bharta-matopajivinah" (pp. 1300, edn. Naga-publishers, '98, Delhi), and then the Sudhasagara clearly states, "bhasta-lollata"dy abhimatam paksam" (pp. 1301, ibid). Then we have Madhumati observing, "bhattalollata"dyabhimatam matam asankate..." (pp. 1298, ibid). The Balacittanuranjani has, "eka-desyantara-matam", (pp. 1294, ibid), the Darpana has, "tad ekadesantaranam", (pp. 1296), the Sahityacudamani has "atha'tra kecit tatparyam avalambya pratyavatisthante" (pp. 1296), the Sampradayaprakasini has (pp. 1297, ibid) : 'ekadesyantaramatam'; Vistarika offers no comment on this issue, while Sarabodhini (pp. 1299, ibid) has, "matantaram avatarayati". The Saradipika of Gunaratnagani (edn. K.P. with Saradipika, Dr. T. S. Nandi, pub. Guj. Uni., Ahd. '76); pp. 246 (Vol. I) also calls it, "eka-desi-matam". Only Sudhasagara and Madhumati candidly come out and associate this view with Bhatta Lollata and Jhalkikar seems to follow them. But for the time being we will choose to keep our fingures crossed. Mammata puts the whole thing as follows : (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 165, 167, ibid) : There are others who say : "The function (of the word or denotation), like that of an arrow, lasts for long" - and "whatever is intended to be expressed by the word, that is the meaning of the word;" accordingly the positive sense itself is the denoted meaning here - (i.e. in the verse, The slope of your breasts has its sandal completely washed off etc.). They (who have advanced the above view) also do not understand its real import, they are foolish in that they indulge in the argument of purport (i.e. the theory that whatever is intended to be expressed by the word is its meaning). To make it explicit : accomplished thing and what is to be accomplished are mentioned together, the accomplished is meant to subserve the one which is to be accomplished. Thus, the substantive meanings, on their being correlated to the verb-meaning, acquire the character of what is to be accomplished, on account of their being related to their own action which helps the principal action. Thus following the maxim of burning that alone is predicated which has not been already accomplished. For example, when the walking about of the preists is established through other injunction in a case like, "the priests with red-turbans are walking about", the wearing of red turbans alone becomes the object of injunction (i.e. Redness alone of the turban is enjoined upon by this sentence - foot note, pp. 167, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #182
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 737 In cases like "He offers libation of curd", the offering of the libation being (known as) accomplished elsewhere, the means alone is prescribed here. Sometimes the injunction applies to two things and still in other cases the injunction applies to three things. For example, in cases like, "weave the red garment", it may be the injunction for one or two or three. Thus whatever is prescribed there alone is the purport (of the word), therefore the purport relates to the given word only, and not to what is merely implied. If it were so, then in cases like "the former runs", the purport could be related to the sense of the latter also. - "tatasca yad eva vidheyam, tatraiva tatparyam, ity upattasyaiva sabdasya arthe tatparyam, na tu pratita-matre. evam hi 'purvo dhavati' ity adav apara"dy arthepi kvacit tatparyam syat.' (pp. 166, vitti, K.P. V, ibid). Mammata refutes the views of those who want to do away with vyanjana and invest abhidha, with a longer and longer efficacy of yielding the padartha, then vakyartha and then the vyangyartha or intended sense also. These opponents take recourse to the Mimamsa principle viz. "yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah." - i.e. 'a word-meaning is that for which it is used'. Mammata says that these foolish Mimamsakas do not understand the meaning of their own discipline. The real purport of this statement is that a word means only that for which it is used and when one thing is already prescribed it is not repeated, if any, comes with the use of a new word, the meaning of which is the newer intention of the speaker for this fresh injunction. At times one, or two or three things can be newly enjoined and for each newly enjoined item, a fresh word, meaning exactly the same thing, is used in a fresh injunction. This is the real purport of the words, "yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah". Mammata.explains the position by seeking illustrations from vedic ritual as well as commen practice. He also quotes the maxim, 'bhuta-bhavya-samuccarane bhutam bhavyaya upadisyate", to bring home his point. It is very clear that, compared to * Abhinavagupta, Mammata has dug deeper and presented the whole matter with absolute clarity. (The translation of the original passages is by Prof. R. C. Dwivedi). Mammata then, perhaps turns his guns towards his immediate predecessors, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, who come up with the advocacy of tatparya-vrtti and rejected vyanjana. It may be said here that Dhananjaya-Dhanikas' tatparya-seems to be something else than the normal tatparya of the Mimamsakas. For the Mimansakas 'tatparya' was only a vakya-vrtti, yielding a sentence-sense, as against the abhidha which was only a pada-vitti and yielded only the padartha or individual word-sense. The correlated sentence of all words in a sentence was apprehended by a vakyartha-vitti called 'tatparya', for the abhihitanvayavadins. But for Bhoja For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #183
738 SAHRDAYALOKA and then for Dhanjaya and Dhanika tatparya went further. Whatever was intended to be conveyed by a speaker by the use of words, or partial use of words, was covered up by tatparya. Actually this tatparya, as Visvanatha discloses, is only a new name for vyanjana. It is not the theoretically accepted tatparya of the Mimamsakas. So, when Mammata rejects tatparya, he rejects something not exactly intended by the opponents. As in case of 'anumiti' also, with reference to Mahima, this 'tatparya' is not the same traditionally accepted tatparya in Mimamsa discipline. It is broader and therefore, perhaps only a new name of vyanjana. Actually in rejecting the earlier view, Mammata had suggested that 'tatparya' or purport can be with reference to the word actually used a fresh, in a newer injunction. But the objector here says tatparya can be with reference to an-upatta word or unspoken word also as in case of "visam bhunksva". The Sudhasagara, Sarabodhini, Sampradayaprakasini, Sahitya-cudamani and other commentaries make this thing clear. The Sahitya-cudamani observes (pp. 1305, Edn. Nag publishes) - "nanu 'anupattasya'pi sabdasya arthe kvacit tatparyam pasyamah" ... etc. No commentary makes a clear reference to the Dasarupakavaloka of Dhanika which specifically discusses this in connection with the famous words where he declares : "tatparvam na tuladhrtam". (DR. Avaloka on IV. 36). Dhananjaya observes: "na ca apadarthasya vakyarthatvam nastiti vacyam - karyaparyavasayitvat tatparya-sakteh." - But one thing should be considered. We go along with Dr. De and others (i.e. Dr. Kane) when we take both Dhananjaya and Dhanika as predecessors of Mammata. In that case for sure, Mammata discusses the illustration viz. "visam bhaksaya" etc. after Dhanika's Avaloka. But as no commentator worth the salt mentions Dhanika here could it be that Mammata could have just continued his discussion connerning "vat-parah sabdah sa sabdarthah" and refuted some imagined objector's view who might have supported the case of "anupattasya'pi sabdasya arthe kvacit tatparyam" ? May be then. following Mammata once again Dhanika took up the same illustration of a tatparva-vrtti with a broader connotation ? We are not clear about this and leave it to the discerning experts. For the present we will proceed with Mammata : (Trans. R.C.D., pp. 167, 169; ibid) : "It is also stated that, 'eat the poison, but do not eat at his house', - here the purport is that "you should not eat in his house"; hence this alone is the meaning of the sentence. To this we reply - Here the conjunctive particle 'ca' (= and) is meant for the unity of the (two) sentences. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #184
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 739 Since there is no relation of the principal and subordinate between the two sentences having independent verbs ('eat' and 'do not eat' because the first verb gives the positive command and the other negative, these two verbs cannot be principal and subordinate) the sentence asking for taking the poison should be imagined to be subordinate by making it derivative (i.e. instead of 'eat', or 'bhunksva', the word should be taken here as a derivative, 'eating' or 'bhaksana'. The former sentence is thus made subordinate to the second sentence. The meaning of the two sentences taken together would be that): "Eating in the house of this man is worse than eating poison, therefore, you should never eat in the house of this man." It follows from this that the import is in the meaning of a given (word) only." Mammata further presents fresh argument in defence of vyanjana when he observes that if, on hearing a word, any meaning obtained were under only denotative function 'sabdasruter anantaram yavan arthah avagamyate, tavati sabdasya abhidha eva vyaparah...', then why not joy and despair and the like be taken as directly expressed meanings respectively in cases of such utterances as, "O Brahmana, a son is born to you", or "your unmarried daughter is pregnant?" etc... Why even to admit laksana or indication at all-kasmac ca laksana? For in cases of indicated meaning also the apprehension could be accomplished by the farreaching function of direct expression "dirgha-dirgha-abhidha-vyaparenaiva pratiti-siddheh." We know that for deciding the exact meaning of an injunction in case a conflict is noticeable between one and another injunction, the Mimama has given a six-fold scheme such as srti, or Direct declaration, linga i.e. indicative power, vakya or syntactical connection, prakarana or context, sthana or position and samakhya or the name, and these have each preceding factor stronger than the immediate next. The Sampradaya-prakasini explains it as : tad etat paradaurbalyam katham utpadyatam, paradurbalatve hetur yortha-viprakarsah, mahesuvad dirgha-dirghe tavasminnabhidhavyapare jivati, tasyaiva'sambhavat. The idea is that these factors which go to prove the higher and lower authority of various injunctions conflicting with one another would be of no use because even from the lowest placed type the meaning of the highest placed variety will be derived on the strength of digha-dirgha-tara-vyapara theory. Thus, Mammata triumphantly declares - iti anvitabhidhanavade'pi vidher api siddham vyangyatvam, i.e. even according to the theory of 'connected meaning', also the affirmation (i.e. tatraiva rantum eva gata'si iti) (in the verse, 'the slope of your breasts has its sandal completely washed off, etc.) must be regarded being of the nature of suggested. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #185
740 SAHRDAYALOKA Mammata, as observed earlier has not only drawn from both Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana, but has placed all arguments very systematically and has also added some fresh arguments of his own in view of the tough opposition to vyanjana advanced by the great opponents such as Mahima, even Bhoja to an extent, and the Malava-school also represented by Dhananjaya and Dhanika. Of course, Dhanika, as we tried to put above, could be posterior to Mammata. But this is an unsupported conjecture based on only internal evidences. We will look into this later after first convering the full discussion as presented by Mammata. It is interesting to note that the Sampradaya-prakasini tries to distinguish between the mimamsakas, and the literary critics who seem to follow the lead of the mimamsakas. Sri-Vidyacakravartin passes a remark (pp. 1341, ibid) - such as : "iyata sandarbhena sahitya-sarani-parisilana-paranmukhataya pasu-prayah suska-mimamsavah pratyavatisthamanah niskasitah. samprati tu ye anvitabhidhanadarsananusarinah sahitya-saranim anupravistah sacetanammanyah tan prati sannahyate. The mimamsakas were dry as dust and therefore pasu-prayaalmost beasts for total lack of sensitivity, while the literary critics who follow their lead at least have cultivated some sensitivity and those who consider themselves as 'those with conscience' - 'sacetanam-manyah' - the pseudo-sensitive lot. Of course, other commentaries such as the Viveka of Sridhara, the Kavyadarsa, and the Balacittanuranjani take the opponents here only as anvitabhidhanavadins Jhalkikar also takes them to be the same, but perhaps the remarks of Sri-Vidyacakravartin are directed towards Dhananjaya-Dhanika and the like. So, Mammata proceeds to demolish the opposition to vyanjana as follows : "And again, why should the inverted order or 'kuru rucim', appearing in a poem, be regarded as a piece of blemish ? Here the indecent meaning is not connected with meanings of other words so it should remain un-denoted (according to those who admit only one power of word, abhidha) and thus there will be no reason to avoid such expression." Srividya-Cakravartin observes : (pp. 169, Edn. Dwivedi) : "kuru rucim" iti pade yadi vyatyayena kavyantara-vartini syatam tada dustata ya iyam aslaatva-laksana sammata, sa anvitanabhyupagame katham va upapadyatam? na hi pada yor anayor antya"dy aksara-sannikarsa-matrad abhasamano laukiko gramyorthorthantarena anvitah sabdartha eva bhavati. tatah a-sabdarthasya dosatve ati-prasaktih syad ityevama"dy apari-tyajyam syat. ayam anvitabhidhanadarsana-asrayane doso bhavatam." Mammata further observes: "And if the reality of the suggester and the suggested, as distinct from the reality of the expressive and the expressed is not For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #186
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 741 accepted, then the classification of grammatical mistake (i.e. a-sadhurva-dosa) and the like into parmanent poetic blemish and that of harshness (= kastatva) etc. into impermanent poetic blemish would be rendered unjustifiable." (Trans. pp. 171, edn. Dwivedi, ibid). The idea is that literary critics have accepted certain poetic blemishes as all-time blemishes, and others as only occasional. This classification argues Mammata, stands justified only if it stands on the basis of the recognition of vyangya-vanjakabhava. Mammata observes that this classification of blemishes into permanent and impermanent is not unjustified as it shines distinctly to every body. If the reality of the suggester and the suggested is accepted as distinct from the reality of the expressive and the expressed, the suggested meaning being manifold, some meaning alone may be regarded as appropriate in a certain case, and thus the system of classification would be quite justified." (Trans. Dwivedi, pp. 171, ibid). The Sampradaya-prakasini observes that when a grammarian is a speaker, such usages as involving harsh letters or consonants e.g. "varvasti." will not make for the blemish of srtikaturva or kastatva even in a poem, but will be on the contrary taken as an excellence : "yo hi "varvastih" ity adya"tmakah kastarva"di-dosah sa vaiyakarana"dau vaktari tava'pi gunatvena sammatah, anyatha dosarvena. soyam vibhago vayavacaka-bhava-matra"srayane na upapadyate tasya sarvasya ekarupatvat; tad atireki-vyangya-vyanjaka-bhava-"sra-yane tu srutikatutvam api prakriya-matra-vyavasthitasya vaiyakaransya varakasya na kaka-kalpatam aviskaroti, pratyuta guna eva iti vibhago'yam upapadyata eva." (p. 170, ibid). Mammata further observes that in such poetic illustrations as, "dvayam gatam." etc. - i.e. "Both these have now become pitiable due to their desire for association with the Holder of the begging bowl." (i.e. kapalin, or Siva), why should the words as 'kapalin' - or 'the Holder of the begging bowl, and the like, be regarded as poetically appropriate ? And again, the denoted meaning is one and the same for all cognisers so why 'kapalin' is taken as more poetically charged in comparison to 'pinakin' or "wielder of the pinaka bow" ? The denoted meaning or vacyartha is one and uniform for all cognisers in illustrations such as, 'gato' stam arkah" - i.e. "The sun has set." But the suggested sense, argues Mammata, in such expressions, varies and becomes manifold by accessory conditions, such as, the particular context, the speaker, the person addressed and the like. Innumerable suggested senses arise in different situations from one and the same expression as, "gatostam arkah", such as : This is the time For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #187
742 SAHRDAYALOKA to invade the enemy; you should start to meet your lover; your lover is about to reach; we are going to stop our work; let us begin the twilight rite; do not go very far; bring the cows to their shed; there is now no heat; let us pack up the merchandise; the lover has not come even to-day." There is distinction between the vacya and the vyangya in point of character e.g. in nihsesa-cyuta. etc. the expressed is of negative nature and the suggested is of positive character. In verses such as, "matsaryam utsaya." etc., the expressed sense poses doubt, while the suggested is of the nature of definiteness in the choice between the santa and the songara-rasa. In poetic illustrations such as, "katham avanipa darpo..." etc., the expressed meaning is of the nature of reproach i.e. ninda, and the suggested is of the nature of praise i.e. stuti - The vacya and the vyangya are distinct in point of time also, because of antecedence and sequence of the cognition; in point of media : The word is the medium (for the expressed), while the word, its part, its meaning, letters, and their peculiar composition are the media for the suggested in form of instumentality i.e. nimitta; the expressed is known by the knowledge of grammar, while the suggested is known with its help, as also with the help of context, and other auxiliary conditions and with transparency of discriminative intellect; in point of effect : the expressed produces a mere comprehension in one who knows the meaning of words, while the suggested produces charm in men of taste alone; in point of number as it has been shown in the instance, "gatostam arkah". In instances such as, "kassa va na hoi...." etc. there is difference in point of person addressed because the expressed relates to the companion of the speak sakhi, the suggested relates to her husband, her lover, the onlooker etc. Mammata concludes that even when being distinct on so many points, if the expressed and the suggested are taken as one, there could never be any difference even between the blue, and the not-blue and the like. It is said, "The apprehension of the opposite attributes and the difference of cause, this, in fact, constitutes difference or the ground of difference." - uktam hi - ayam eva hi bhedo bheda-hetur va yad-viruddha-dharmadhyasah karana-bhedas ca." We know that Mammata has systematically arranged all arguments scattered in the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana, and has also added a few to silence the vyanjana-virodha as seen in the successors of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #188
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 743 Mammata further states that the expressive words require the object of denotation but the suggestive ones do not require that. The idea is that in laksanamula-dhvani of the atyanta-tirasketa-vacya, the primary sense is totally discarded and therefore not required at all. In illustrations of gunibhuta-vyangya such as vanira-kudan" etc. i.e. in illustrations of subordinate suggestion such as 'on hearing the twitter of birds on the vetasa-bower..." etc., where the expressed sense having delivered the suggested meaning rests within itself - 'vacyam svarupa eva yatra visramyati' - even unintended meaning, not denoted by words, appears in our range of cognition. Under what function of words would such a meaning be included ? The objector may argue, says Mammata, that, in instances such as, "ramosmi sarvam sahe", "ramena priya-jivitena." etc. even the indicated (i.e. laksya) artha also becomes manifold, and the cause of a particular nomenclature, its composition is also based on both words and their meanings, and requires the help of the context and the like (as in case of the suggested or vyangya artha), so, why should we admit this new kind of meaning, namely the suggested meaning ? The reply to this is - "laksaniyasya arthasya nanatve api anekartha-sabdabhidheyavat niyatatvam eva." - i.e. Even though indicated sense is manifold, yet just like the denoted meaning of homonymous words, its number is definite (and limited). - Moreover, a meaning (under indication, which has no definite relation with the primary sense, cannot be indicated. But the suggested one, due to the context and other individual conditions, (i) may have a definite relation, (ii) may not have a definite relation or (iii) may be only related to what is directly related (to the expressed sense). - "pratiyamanas tu prakaranadi-visesa-vasena niyata-sambandhah, a-niyata-sambandhah, sambaddha-sambandhasca dyotyate." There is no mukhyartha-badha i.e. the expressed sense is not contradicted in instances of vivaksitanyapara vacya-dhvani, such as "atta ettha simajjai." etc. So, how can there be indication or laksana at all ? And again, it has already been shown that in laksana also, the suggestion has to be resorted to, to arrive at the prayojana or intention of the speaker. Just as denotation-vacakatva-rests on convention, indication-laksana-rests on mukhyartha-badha etc. - i.e. the three conditions. It is therefore described as an extention - literally 'tail' - 'pucchabhuta of abhidha or expression. Mammata in an immaculate fashion sums up what Anandavardhana had stated while establishing vyanjana as an independent power of word, other than For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #189
744 SAHRDAYALOKA abhidha, laksana and even tatparya. He says - (pp. 178, edn. Dwivedi, ibid) : "na ca laksana"tmakam eva dhvananam, tad anugamena tasya darsanat. na ca tad anugatam eva, abhidhavalambanena api tasya bhavat. na ca ubhayanusar yeva, a-vacaka-varnanusarena api tasya drsteh - na ca sabdanusaryeva, a-sabda"tmakanetra-tribhagavalokana"di-tatparya-laksana"tmaka-vyapara-trayativarti vyanjanadhvanana"di paryayo vyaparo'pahnavaniya eva." - i.e. "And the suggestion is not verily of the nature of indication, because it i.e. suggestion) is seen to follow that (i.e. indication). Nor does it invariably follow that (i.e. indication), because it may arise on the basis of denotation also. Nor again does it invariably follow both (i.e. denotation and indication), because it is seen on the basis of inexpressive letters also. The suggestion is not based on words (as also on letters and syllables) either, because it is known to be related to the side-long glance and the like, which are non-verbal in their character. Thus the function, which has many synonyms such as suggestion, reverberation, and which is beyond the three functions of the nature of Denotation, Import, and Indication, cannot be denied." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, ibid) - It may be noted that the synonym 'dhvanana' as used by the dhvanivadins for vyanjana could mean more than it appears at the upper level. We had above discussed the point and we will also go to elaborate still further while dealing with Mahima, that such sounds as thundering of clouds carries a meaning of on coming rains. Now the anumiti-vadin may argue that this again is an instance of laukika-anumana or "loose inference". But this thing is perhaps rejected by Anandavardhana and his followers by taking 'dhvanana' as meaning suggestion. There is no 'anumana' here, be it loose as taken by the opponent, but surely there is suggestion. In the same way in various media, such as colour in the art of painting, gestures in dance, acting in drama, musical notes in music, carving in sculpture and the like, we have to read vyanjana and not loose 'anumiti'. The joining or disjoining of a railway compartment, the peculiar sound of arriving or disappearing of the flow of water in a water tap, the sound of a vehicle, or of the walking and foot-steps of a dear one or an animal-all these are therefore suggestors and certainly there is no scope for inference which is a dry exercise in intellect. Abhinavagupta squarely puts it as : "laukikanumane tu ka rasata ?". So, this may be taken as the final triumph of vyanjana over anumiti. - Yes, even loose inference ! We may again place the point squarely. The dragon of anumitivada had raised its head much earlier than even Anandavardhana. Even Bhamaha contended with it when he dealt with "kavya-nyaya". The author of the Dhvanyaloka was very For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #190
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 745 specific when he explained that the province of anumiti and that of word are distinct from each other. When the former ends, the latter starts. It can be understood as follows. Supposing you are in a place, the language of which land is not known to you. Suddenly you hear someone talking to you loudly or rudely or in a polite tone. You do not understand the meaning of a language foreign to you. But you can infer something. That someone has an intention to convey something is understood by you through inference. But what exactly he wants to convey can be understood only, if through an interpreter you come to know the meaning of spoken words. Thus, to get at the meaning you have to have an understanding of the convention of a particular word of that language with reference to a particular meaning. Thus Anandavardhana has made this absolutely clear that the anumeva visaya' of words and the 'pratipadva visaya' of words are different. When someone speaks, you may infer that he is a santient being and that through his language, known or unknown to you, he wants to convey something. Thus the intention to convey through use of words on his part, is a matter of inference. But actually whatever is conveyed through use of words is the denotative aspect. : "pratipadyas tu prayoktur artha-pratipadana-samiha-visayikrta'rthah" - i.e. "The denotative scope of words relates to meaning itself which happens to be the aim of the speaker's intention to convey meaning." Nothing can be clearer than this. So, after Bhamaha's effort to pacify the anumitivadins, Sankuka or the likes of him or his predecessors must have once again raised the bogie of inference and Anandavardhana directed his efforts to pacify these voices by partly accepting and wholly explaining as to where anumiti should end. But the voice was not silenced for ever and perhaps it had a tendency to take shape like the phoenix from ashes. Hence Abhinavagupta also had to tackle it very carefully. In presenting Sankuka's views and in its refutation by his teachers, the author of Abhinavabharati makes a plea that, "laukikanumane tu ka rasata" - what aesthetics can be derived from "popular" anumana or inference at worldly parlour ? It seems he refers to two categories here. One is the scientific i.e. sastriya or tarka-anumana which is rejected out right. Later even Mahima, the avowed supporter of inference, also concedes that 'tarkanumiti' or scientific inference is never sought after by the anumitivadins. But he evolves a third category called kavyanumiti', over and above the tarkanumiti and the laukikanumana as suggested earlier. Anandavardhana rejected the tarkanumana of the tarkikas or logicians, but tried to accomodate some element of it in what he called, "anumeyo visayah sabdanam". Abhinavagupta went a step further and accepted that "rasanubhava' or aesthetic For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #191
746 SAHRDAYALOKA experience is possible only in case of such sensitive aesthetes who are experts in worldly inference - "tatra loka-vyavahare karya-karana-sahacara"tmaka-lingadarsane sthayya"tmaka-cittavstty anumanabhyasa-patavad..." - i.e. the aesthete or the man of taste has to be fully armed with expertise in inference at local level. In short he has to be an expert in the art of infering the feelings of others at the worldly level. Mammata almost echoes these words when he says: (K.P. IV) : "loke pramada"dibhih karana"dibhih sthayyanumane abhyasa-patava-vatam..." i.e. "In common life, the men of taste are possessed of proficiency, by repeated observation in inferring the basic emotion through women and the like, i.e: through causes, etc." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 69, ibid). But beyond this the vyanjanavadins cannot concede. Mahima having seen this much comes up with a third type of anumiti over and above the 'tarkanumiti' and 'laukikanumana', and it is what he terms kavyanumiti. If laukikanumana is having no 'rasata', this poetic inference is all full of rasa.' Dr. Rewaprasad, the greatest modern exponent of kavyanumiti also says that when Mammata and his followers refute 'anumana' in illustrations such as "bhrama dharmika. ..." etc., they refute the process of inference, but not the fact of inference. Even Mahima shielded his kavyanumiti by saying that this, what he calls a poetic inference, is beyond the scrutiny of perfectionists - 'saryasatyavicarana' or examination concerning its validity or otherwise is an object of laughter ! This effort is misdirected and therefore looks like a crude joke! But our humble submission is that if you use the term 'anumiti' and remove all its basic qualities, then you may call it by any other name. Why insist on such ar inference which is beyond an examination of its validity or otherwise ? Actually inference is an intellectual process and art-experience or kalanubhuti or rasanubhuti transcends even intellect. It covers intellect, volition and also imagination and goes beyond all these - atytisthad dasangulam. Art experience is like the three and a half strides of Visnu in form of Vamana-virat. To label this rasa experience by names such as perception, or inference or presumption or any worldly or sastriya means of knowledge is to devalue it. It is precisely for this reason that Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and the thought-current represented by them choose to call it 'vyangya' or suggested and make it an object of the power of suggestion. Thus, vyanjana, dhvanana, prayayana, avagamana are synonyms acceptable to the supporters of vyanjana/dhvani/rasa. Thus perhaps the war is won by vyanjanavadins though at times the anumitivadins stole some advantage in small battles. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #192
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 747 Mammata, while winding up his discussion on vyanjana 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 (vacya), and it is the sentence alone that is expressive (vacaka). But these (theorists) also, when descending down to the realm of practical reality (avidya), 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 vyanjana. Mammata, at the end of his discussion on vyanjana tackles the anumitivadins. 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 Godavari. 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 Godavari there is the presence of the lion; so what is found is contrary to what is invariably concomitant. This is what an anumitivadin would present in support of his theory of anumana. 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 (= anaikantiko), i.e. literally it is not unfailing in its association with the 'sadhya' or probandum. Even though afraid of the dog, he may not, being brave, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #193
T . 748 SAHSDAYALOKA fear the lion, hence the probans is diverse (= viruddha) also. The presence of the lion on the banks of the Godavari is not ascertained either by perception or by inference but merely from the words of a woman. Again, there is no validity of her words as they might not be related to fact, hence the probans is unestablished also. Then how, such a defective probans can prove the existence of the probandum ? Mammata goes on to explain that in case of the illustration viz. nihsesa-cyutacandana." etc. also the marks that are mentioned as going with a bath in a stepwell" could be due to some other reasons also, such as love-sport etc. So, the marks - i.e. probans - are descrepant. For those who support vyanjana, on the other hand, such marks with the aid of the word 'wretch', are described as suggestive. Again, here when the wretchedness is not established by valid reason. (na pramana-pratipannam), how can there be inference ? Thus, to his satisfaction Mammata puts a final nail in the cofin wherein the body of anumiti rests. But we may say that all this exercise on the part of Mammata and his followers to nail anumiti is futile as Mahima or any of his predecessor that might be, has never suggested that what they call 'kavyanumiti' is 'tarkanumiti'. As Dr. Rewaprasad observes, here there is refutation of the relaiability of anumiti, or the validity of inference, but not of the fact of inference. True, but our argument is that with all looseness why stick to the name of "anumiti" ? To be vary candid, we do not find 'anumiti' in colours, or musical notes, or gestures or any other medium of a given fine art, yes; not even a 'loose' or 'artistic' anumiti. So, why not accept a wider term called 'vyanjana' in place of a 'laukika' or 'kavyamaya' anumana ? We may therefore hold that by this the final victory of vyanjana and defeat of anumiti is absolutely established. Vyanjana is so wide as to accept in its fold a meaning that may be related (= sambaddha), or un-related (= a-sambaddha) or related with the related (= sambaddha-sambaddha). Mammata had a numer of vyanjana virodhins before him. In the course of our discussion of Mammata's views, we had suggested that even after the able establishment of vyanjana by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, we had voices of descent. Thus as seen in the earlier chapter Mukula, prior to Abhinavagupta tried to put even laksana and also vyanjanadhvani under abhidha. In his Laghuvstti, a commentary on Udbara's kavyalamkara-sara-samgraha, Pratiharenduraja, who also is held as a predecessor of Abhinavagupta, pays a great For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #194
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 749 tribute to his guru, Mukula in the words : "mimamsa-sara-meghat, pada-jaladhi-vidhos tarka-manikya-kosat, sahitya-sri-murarer budha-kusuma-madhoh sauri-padabja-bhrugat, srutva saujanya-sindhor dvija-vara-mukulat kirti-vallyalavalat, kavyalamkara-sare laghu-vivstim adhat kaunkanah srindurajah." On his A.V.M. - 11 and 12a, Mukula writes : (pp. 66, Edn. Dr. Rewaprasad, Varanasi, '73) ... "etac ca sarvam bahu-vaktavyatvad iha na nirupyate laksanamargavagahitvam tu dhvaneh sahrdayair nutanatayo-pavarnitasya vidyata iti disam unmilayitum idam atra uktam. etac ca vidvadbhih kusagriyaya buddhya nirupaniyam, na tu jhagity eva'suyitavyam iti alam ati-prasangena." "All this requires great elaboration and hence is not discussed here fully. We have said only this much, only to point to the fact that what some men of taste have laid down afresh, as dhvani, is contained only in the province of laksana (which thus covers vyanjana also in its fold). The learned with their razor-sharp intellect have to expound this (secret). They should not discard (our point) (as trash) immediately, through prejudice." We may point out exactly where Mukula has rejected the views of Anandavardhana. For example, the latter has taken rasa as 'vyangya' or suggested and principal. Mukula has laid down the apprehension of rasa through "aksepa" which may mean either laksana, or arthapatti i.e. presumption, and anumana, or inference. Mammata and others take 'aksepa' in the sense of 'implicit sense' also and therefore 'vyanjana' also. Mukula takes 'aksepa' only as laksana i.e. indication, and arthapatti i.e. presumption. We know that for Anandavardhana, 'rasa' falls into that section of 'dhvani' which is abhidhamula or vivaksitanyapara-vacya. Now, there is no scope of laksana into this variety, which goes with what is termed, "a-vivaksita-vacya-dhvani". But for Mukula, even in vivaksitanya-para-vacya also there is scope of laksana and he illustrates it by, "mahati samare satrughnas tvam". For Anandavardhana, arthantara-samkramita-vacyatva was not admissible in what we term as 'laksana-laksana'. But Mukula holds that in the illustration viz. "gangayam ghosah", the vacyartha in form of gangatva, terminates (= samkranta) in the meaning of 'tata' (i.e. tatarupa-artha). Of course Anandavardhana also did not say that the vacyartha here is "atyanta-tiraskrta" or wholly abandoned, but at the same time he does not clearly name it as, "arthantara-samkramita" also. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #195
750 SAHRDAYALOKA Anandavardhana took 'gunas' or excellences as qualities of rasa; Mukula keeps quiet over this as he discusses only abhidha in his work. Anandavardhana, over and above abhidha accepts 'guna-vstti' and vyanjana as word-powers; Mukula on the other hand accepts only abhidha which is broad enough to cover laksana also in its fold, while vyanjana for him does not exist at all. Even laksana is an extension of abhidha and it has no independent existence. While for the Mimamsakas 'gunavrtti' and laksana were not identical, for Anandavardhana they are identical. Mukula also places both gunavrtti and laksana under a single title i.e. laksana, which again is not independent of abhidha, of which these two are subvarieties. Mammata had to face this music of Mukula also and also of Mukula's pupil, Pratiharenduraja. He also has no faith in vyanjana and passes a remark, following his teacher Mukula, (pp. 100, N.S. Edn. 1928) * "evam etad vyanjakatvam paryayokta"disv antar bhavitam. etac ceha bahuvaktavyattvan na vaitatyena prapancitam. kusagriya-buddhinam hi dinmatra eva upadisyate sati buddhi-valli am asadayati." On pp. 58, (under 'rasavat', in varga IV) he observes : "rasanam bhavanam ca kavya-sobhatisayahetutvat kim kavyalamkaratvam uta kavya-jivitatvam iti na tavad vicaryate grantha-gauravabhayat. rasa-bhava-svarupam catra na vivecitam a-prakstatvad bahu-vaktavyarvac ca. He does not name vyanjana and by avagamana-vyapara purhaps he wants to take anumiti or arthapatti. So, 'paryayokta' is defined by Udbhasa as : (pp. 60, ibid) - "paryayoktam yad anyena prakarena"bhidhiyate, vacya-vacaka-vrttibhyam sunyena'vagamanatmana." Pratiharenduraja here explains : vacakasya abhidhayakasya sva-sabdasya vittir vyaparo vacyartha-pratyayanam. vacyasya tu abhidheyasya vyaparo vacyantarena saha akanksa-sannidhi-yogyatamahatmyat samsarga-gamanam. evamvidhas ca yo vacya-vacakayor vyaparas tam antarena api prakarantarena artha-samartya"tmana avagama-svabhavena yad avagamyate tatparyayena sva-kantha'nabhihitam api santarena sabda-vyaparena avagamyamanatvat paryayoktam vastu. tena ca sva-samslesa-vasena kavyartholamkriyate." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #196
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 751 Let us make this clear. What Pratiharenduraja wants us to believe is that Udbhata accepts paryayokta as an alamkara wherein something is abhidhiyate - i.e. 'conveyed' differently, by resorting to a vyapara known as 'avagamana' which is vacya-vacaka-vrtti-sunya i.e. which is different 'antarena' from what we call vacaka-vrtti, explained by Pratiharenduraja as 'vacyartha-pratyayana' i.e. apprehension of primary meaning which is the function of a 'vacaka' i.e. expressive word. It is also different from vacya-vrtti i.e. the function of the direct-meaning. For him this function of the expressed meaning - 'vacyasya abhidheyasya vapara' is its correlation with other word-meanings in a sentence and this arriving at the correlated meaning is brought about by expectancy (= akanksa), proximity (= sannidhi) and appropriateness (= yogyata). Thus, 'samsarga-gamanam' or 'arriving at a correlated meaning or vakyartha' is termed as vacya-vrtti i.e. function of a meaning, against yielding vacyartha itself which is a vacaka-vrtti or sabdavrtti. Now, 'avagamana' is different from both these. It is yielding a sense by a different device in which the directly expressive word is not used - 'sva-kanthaanabhihita'. It is 'santara'-vyapara. Now we know that Mammata has called laksana a "santarartha-nistha-sabda-vyapara." So, perhaps like Mukula, Pratiharenduraja here tries to cover up 'avagamana' vyapara by laksana. Or, it could be even 'anumiti' as the illustration given by him, viz. "yena lambalakah." etc.may suggest. He observes: "atra lambalakatva"dayah karya-rupatvat karanabhutam gajasura-vadham vacya-vacaka-vyapara-a-sprstam api gamayanti." This means that this inferring of cause from effect is 'avagamana'. Whatever it is. It is either laksana, or anumiti but certainly not tatparya i.e. purport, which is termed vacya-vrtti here, nor abhidha, a 'vacaka-vrtti', and not 'vyanjana' which is not at all alluded to. Mammata had to face the music of all this, Mukula being the most important opponent as Mammata's sabda-vyapara-vicara was modelled on, and of course directed against the Abhidha-vrtta-matrka of the former. We know that 'dhvani' in the vyakarana discipline has relevance only upto the vaikhari vac. But Anandavardhana used it with reference to the pratiyamana or implicit sense as well. Mammata of course followed Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in accepting "vyanjana-dhvani-rasa". But in between we have vyanjana-dhvani-antarbhava/virodha as seen in Mukula, Pratiharenduraja, and to an extent in Kuntaka, Bhoja, Mahima, Dhananjaya and Dhanika. Abhinavagupta and Mammata use the word 'dhvanana' also as a synonym for 'vyanjana'. Mammata used the word 'dhvani' only for vaikhari-vak in his Sabda For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #197
752 SAHKDAYALOKA vyapara-vicara, and used the term 'vyangya' for 'pratiyamana' meaning. But he also used the term 'dhvanana' for vyanjana also. Mukula's abhidha is a power which reaches upto the last intended meaning. Perhaps it is identical with the tatparya of the Mimamsakas and also supported by ka in his Avaloka on the Dasa-rupaka. Of course the tatparya of the Mimamsakas went only upto the actual word-upatta-sabda-mentioned in an injunction, while Dhanika's tatparya covered even the sense of such words that were not at all mentioned in a given statement. Thus, when Mammata denounced the dirgha-dirhatara-vyapara, it was aimed against Dhanika who arrived at the qualities of coolness and holiness through tatparya only. Mammata had to contend with all this. Kuntaka, we know talks of vicitra abhidha'. Now this vicitra abhidha' is nothing but poetic expression. Actually Kuntaka has not bothered to evolve any clear scheme of semantics and so for him anything charming and poetic, be it at the level of abhidha, laksana or vyanjana, is covered up by 'vicitra-abhidha'. - Bhoja presents abhidha in different forms and in different contexts. But he does not take laksana as different from abhidha, or what he terms mukhya. For Bhoja, abhidha is a power that stays in a word and renders meaning. For Bhoja, this abhidha has three functions viz. mukhya, gauna and laksana"tmaka. His 'mukhya is the normal 'abhidha' of the Kashmir school. But it may be noted that he should not be taken as an anti-vyanjana-vadin, for in Ch. VII of his Sr. Pra, while treating 'vivaksa', he almost covers vyanjana and certainly while treating tatparya and dhvani he just shakes hands with Anandavardhana. At least we should not dub him as an anti-dhvani-or anti-vyanjana theorist. We have carefully looked into Mahima on an earlier occasion and that he was an avowed anti-dhvani, anti-vyanjana theorist is borne out by the very title of his work viz. 'vyakti-viveka' wherein he clearly denounces vyanjana. Mammata took special care to show logical falacies in Mahima and prove that the latter's projection of 'anumiti' in place of vyanjana was a myth. Actually the very fact that Mahima calls it a special brand of inference, called "kavyanumiti' and tries therely to take shelter under what may be termed as loose inference and therefo exposes the hollowness of his postulation. An 'anumiti' is either an anumiti hundred percent. or no anumiti at all. It is safer to call it vyanjana than oppose the concept of vyanjana for the sake of it. It is nothing else but malice as was the case with Bhatta Nayaka, who postulated what he called 'bhavakatva' and 'bhojakarva' or For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #198
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 753 bhogikarana, - the two functions in place of one, the vyanjana. Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabharati has refuted these two functions which are partly only abhidha and partly vyanjana in a new name. To postulate two powers in place of one in itself was tentamount to go for 'gaurava-dosa'. Actually Bhatta Nayaka's bhavakatva was equivalent to accepting gunas and alamkaras which operated at vacya-vacaka-bhava level, and his bhojakatva had no identity of its own to differ from the age-old concept of vyanjana. Thus, as in case of Bhatta Nayaka, so also with Mahima, it was malice and malice alone which prompted him to oppose vyanjana. Perhaps Mahima is conscious of his malicious intentions, and also of the over zealous activity on his part when he says : "iha sampratipattitonyatha va dhvanikarasya vaco-vivecanam nah, niyatam yasase prapatsyate yan mahatam samstava eva gauravaya." - I. 2 and also, "sahasa yasobhisartum samudyata'drsta-darpana mama dhih, svalamkara-vikalpa-prakalpane vetti katham iva a-vadyam." I. 3. Perhaps same is the case with Dhanika, the commentator of Dhananjaya. The Dasarupaka cancells 'nirveda' as a sthayin and therefore rejects santa-rasa at DR. IV. 36. Where it it is observed : "nirveda"dir a-tadrupyad a-sthayi, svadate katham vairasyaya eva tat-posas tenastau sthayino matah." When 'nirveda' can not stand the onslaught of favourable and unfavourable feelings and emotions, it can not be admitted as a sthayin and therefore, observes the Avaloka on it, the santa-rasa also does not deserve a recognition - "tato rasatvam api na tesam ucyate, ato a-sthayitvad eva etesam a-rasata." Then, the Avaloka embarks upon a basic discussion as to what then can be the relation of rasas etc. with kavya or poetry (and also natya/drama)? "kah punar etesam kavyena api sambandhah ?" - First of all he presents the view of the Dhvanivadins. Dhanika holds that the relation of bhavas and rasas with kavya cannot be of the type of vacya-vacaka i.e. expressed and expresser. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #199
754 SAHRDAYALOKA - na tavad vacya-vacaka-bhavah, sva-sabdair ana"veditarvat. - The rasadi are not mentioned through sva-sabda i.e. they are not conveyed by simple mentioning of their names. We do not hear such terms as songara, or raty adi and the like in poetry charged with these particular emotions and feelings. So, we cannot accept direct expression of these songara"di or ratyadi or of their full nourishment. - (tesam tat-pariposasya va). Wherever such directly expressive terms such as raty adi or songara"di are used, there also the nouishment of an emotion is caused not by these terms only, but by the respective 'vibhava"dis' - i.e. determinants etc. Here we may note that Dhanika seems to argue on the line of Dhvanikara Anandavardhana. He presents it in form of a prima-facia view. On the same line of argument as advanced by the dhvanivadin Dhanika also rejects the case of laksya-laksakabhava between rasa"di and kavya i.e. word and sense used in poetry. Dhanika observes : na'pi laksya-laksakabhavah, i.e. the relation of indicator and indicated is also ruled out in case of rasa"di and kavya. Poetry is neither laksaka, nor are rasa"di laksya. Perhaps here the reference is to Mukula who in his Abhidhavitta-matrka suggests that - "tatparya-locana-samarthyac ca vipralambhasongarasya aksepa iti upadana"tmika laksana." Thus suggesting that the collection of rasa"di is through laksana. Dhanika rejects laksana in the apprehension of rasa"di, because in laksana a term indicating a class is used to convey a particular sense, but in case of rasa"di this relation is not observed. So, there is no case for laksita-laksana also. He observes : tat samanyabhidhayinas tu - laksakasya padasya a-prayogat. The Avaloka observes that in rasa-realization there is no skhalad-gatitva of words expressing vibhava"dis such as nayika and the like. As in 'gangayam ghosah', so also in this case the words used are not powerless to convey what they want to. There is neither 'nimitta' i.e. relation, nor prayojana or objective in case of rasa"di as seen in cases of laksana. Hence, there is no chance of even 'guna-vrtti' as seen in "simho manavakah". We may note that 'guna-vrtti' is used here in Avaloka, in keeping with the Malava tradition seen in Bhoja, as meaning laksana based on similarity and this was later fixed as gauni-laksana in the Kavya-prakasa, though Anandavardhana has a wider connotation of gauni meaning an 'a-mukhyavyapara'. We have noted above while dealing with laksana-gauni, that the Prabhakaras hold 'gauni' as a separate vrtti or an independent word-power, while the Bhatra-Mimansakas and also later vyanjanavadins such as Mammata, take gauni as a sub-variety of laksana which is either upacaramisrita or upacara-a dud. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #200
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 755 misrita, i.e. based on identification (due to similarity) or not based on identification. We have noticed that Vidyanatha had observed that : "gauna-vittir api laksana-prabheda eva. sambandha'nupapatti mulakatvat. yatha agnir manavaka iti." (pp. 33, Edn. S. Chandrasekhara Satrigal, Madras, 1914) - On this Kumaraswami observes : "gauna-vrtcir laksanato bhinna iti prabhakarah. tadayuktam. tasya laksanayam eva antarbhavat." (pp. 33, ibid) Dhanika continues in the vein of the Dhvanikara, and suggests that if the apprehension of rasa"di were to take place through direct expression (i.e. yadi vacyatvena rasa-pratipattih syat), then this apprehension should have occurred in case of even those who are not cultured and who are initiated only with reference to the province of direct-expression only - kevala-vacya-vacaka-bhava-matravyutpanna- cetasam api a-rasikanam rasa"svado bhavet. But this is not the case. So, the dhvanivadins suggest that for apprehension of rasa, etc. vyanjana has to be accepted : "atah kecid abhidha-laksana-gaunibhyo vacyantara-parikalpitasaktibhyo vyatiriktam vyanjakatva-laksanam sabda-vyaparam rasalamkara-vastuvisayam icchanti." Dhanika gives a summary of the views of the Dhvanivadins who postulate a separate word-power called vyanjana and cites three illustrations from the Dhvanyaloka in support of vyanjana. "vivrnvati saila-suta'pi" is an illustration of rasa"di apprehension, while "bhama dhammia...", and "lavanya-kanti-- paripurita." etc. are illustrations of vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani respectively. Avaloka further observes that for the vyanjanavadin, this apprehension of threefold suggestion of rasa"di, vastu, and alamkara can not be the result of arthapatti i.e. presumption. - "na ca asau arthapatti-janya, anupapadyamanarthapeksabhavat. - i.e. This is not a case of presumption, for there is no apeksa or expectancy of a part of meaning and hence it is not a case of 'arthapatti'. Nor is rasapratiti congruent with sentence-sense : na'pi vakyarthatvam vyangyasya, for suggested sense is a matter of third stage of realization : "trtiyakaksa-visayatvat". First comes the vacyartha, the second stage is that of sentencesense and the suggested falls in the third stage. Here onwards, Dhanika's rejoinder to the vyanjanavada starts.. Before we start analysing Dhanika's view, it may be recalled that Mammata, while dealing with the dirgha-dirghatara-vyaparavadin's views, had contended that the purport of a sentence has to be found with reference to words actually used in a sentence and not with reference to words not read actually in a sentence. This was the exact meaning of the injunction 'yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah', e. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #201
756 * SAHRDAYALOKA according to Mammata. The author of the K.P. then explains that even in statements such as 'visam bhunksva', the purport is with reference to the words actually used in a sentence as, the 'ca' in the next statement viz. "ma ca asya grhe bhunkthah", suggests that both these statements make for a compound sentence connected with the particle 'ca'. So, even in 'visam bhunksva' the idea of not taking food at the other person's house, which is the purport of saying, is also seen as meaning of words actually used in a sentence. The general impression is that here Mammata has not only taken care of dirgha-dirghatara-vyaparavadin who believes that the purport of a sentence can be with reference to words not actually used in a statement, but also has refuted Dhanika's views, who has taken the same illustration as, "visam bhunksva", to support tatparya-vada. But our humble submission is that perhaps this Dhanika, who also was a son of a 'visnu' is later than Mammata and he wants to condemn Mammata's refutation of the theory that the purport of a sentence can not lie in words not actually used in a statement. Dhananjaya, the author of DR. was also a son of 'visnu' but this 'visnu' may not be the same as the father of Dhanika also. This means that Dhanika was a son of some Visnu who was other than Dhananjaya's father. Our hypothesis that this Dhanika is later than Mammata is borne out by the fact that in his argument he cites one more illustration as we will go to see, viz. "dvaram dvaram" which means ['please close, or open,] the door." Actually the purport of the speaker is with reference to either 'open' or 'close', the meanings, for which no actual words are used. So, he wants to bring home a point that the purport of the speaker can rest with the meaning of words not actually used in a sentence. And Mammata has not discussed this illustration which has no usage of such conjunctive particles as 'ca' etc. as seen in case of "visam bhunksva, ma ca'sya gruhe bhunkthah." So, the point is clear that may be this Dhanika, the author of Avaloka, was posterior to Mammata and once again he tried to establish tatparyavada while rejecting the vyanjanavada. We will now examine Dhanika's views in details : The upholder of the view that vyanjana is covered by tatparya places the following arguments before the dhvanivadin - The tatparyavadin says let us examine the sentence viz. 'visam bhunksva.' Now in this statement in the sense of word-meaning we have a positive instruction viz. "Eat or take poison". But the purport is in the sense of negation, viz. "Never take For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #202
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 757 food at the place of this enemy." So, this particular statement, viz. 'visam bhanksva' is to be taken as an illustration of such sentence-sense (= vakyartha) which is of the form of purport (i.e. tatparya) realized at the third stage : "nanu ca trtiyakaksa-visayatvam a-sruyamana-padartha-tatparyesu, 'vinam bhunksva' ityadi vakyesu nisedhartha-visayesu pratiyata eva vakyarthasya." If someone says that here the negative sense is not the direct sentence-sense, then this will be accepted even by the supporters of vyanjana -, as for him dhvani i.e. suggested sense is different from the purport of a sentence: "na catra vyanjakarvavadina'pi vakyartharvam nesyate, tatparyad anyatvad dhvaneh." So, even the vyanjanavadin will accept that there is a particular sentence-sense here. which is 'tatparya'. In this illustration, we apprehend separate word-sense of the words 'visam' and 'bhunksva', at the first stage. In the second stage the sentence, through correlation, gives the contextual (= prakarana-sammata) sense. This contextual correlated sense only is to be taken as sentence-sense. In this particular illustration, the second stage does not end at the apprehension of "Take poison". Till the sentence is not rested fully i.e. is not visranta in the second stage, the question of third stage does not arise at all. The point is that the context does not rest only at the sense of "Eat poison". As the positive sense-vidhirupa artha - is not the full sentence sense, the expectancy of further sense is very much there. So, the seco stage does not end here but is set to rest only when the negation in form of sentencesense, viz. "do not eat at the enemy's house", is realized. So, the sense of negation is apprehended at the second stage only. So, when the second stage is not over, it is useless to accept the third stage in form of negation. Actually there is total absence of this so called third stage. For, when we take into account the context, we come to know, that the sentence is directed by a father to his own son. In the second stage when we apprehend the sentence-sense, we perceive that no father will wish that his son should take poison, and that here with the action 'bhunksva', the agent (viz. 'tvam) and the object (karma, visam) do not get properly correlated. For we know for certain that a father would never instruct his own son to take poison, but the real instruction pertains to the fact of not taking food at the place of an enemy. Thus, the full sentence-sense is only the object of the second stage only : "...svarthasya dvitiya-kaksyayam a-visrantasya trtiya-kaksa-a-bhavat; saiva nisedha-kaksa. tatra dvitiya-kaksa-vidhau kriya-karaka-samsarga-anupapatteh, prakaranat pitari vaktari, putrasya visabhaksana-niyogabhavat." And the rule is that 'rasadi-vyangya"rtha' always rests in the third stage. This is for certain. The apprehension of rasa never occurs at the second stage when For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #203
758 SAHRDAYALOKA there is apprehension of vibhava"dis. In a sentence charged with rasa, we know that the sentence-sense rests at the apprehension of the vibhava i.e. determinants etc. only. Thus vibhavas etc being only the instrument to bring home rasaapprehension, they necessarily have to be the fore-runners of rasa-apprehension. In the second stage there can never be rasa-pratiti, along with the apprehension of the determinants etc. As such, it is said, "a-pratistam a-vierantam svarthe, yat-paratam idam, vakyam vigahate tatra nyayya tatparata'sya sa." yatra tu svartha-visrantam pratistham tavad agatam, tat-prasarpati tatra syat sarvatra dhvanina sthitih." Dhanika quotes these two karikas on behlaf of the vyanjanavadin objector who refuses to include vyanjana-dhvani in tatparya. The meaning is as follows - When a sentence is not stable (a-pratisthita) and when it does not rest (avisranta) in its own sense, it is said to be 'tat-paraka' i.e. 'that-sense-oriented', in which (yat-parata) it indulges. This is the nyayya or right position. But when a sentence is resting in its own sense (i.e. svartha-visranta), and has attained stability, i.e. when the sentence-sense is fully apprehended, the further sense is called 'dhvani'. So, with reference to these two karikas, it is clear that with the sentence-sense in form of the meaning of determinants etc. (= vibhava"di), having attained full rest (= visranta), the rasa-apprehension which follows has to be taken as a suggested sense and not as a sentence-sense. In case of idea (i.e. vastu), and a figure of speech (i.e. alamkara), the story is different as they can be, at places suggested, or at other places even directly expressed through abhidha. But rasa is necessarily only suggested. In the case of suggested idea and figure, dhvani will be there only if they are principally suggested; for in other case of there being either equal status, or the vacyartha being comparatively more prominant, it will be a case of the gunibhutavyangya-type of poetry. For, the Dhvanikara himself has said, "yatrarthah sabdo va..." etc. (Dhanika here quotes the Dhv. I. 13). Dhanika further explains that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #204
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 759 gunibhuta-vyangya is seen as in case of the illustration viz. "upodha-ragena", etc. He also further explains, after Anandavardhana the main divisions of dhvani such as vivaksita-vacya and a-vivaksita-vacya, etc. and their subvarieties also. After establishing the prima-facie view or purva-paksa in form of the vyanjanadhvani-vadin. Dhanika attempts its refutation under DR. IV. 37, which reads as - "vacya prakarana"dibhyo buddhistha va yatha kriya vakyarthah, karakair yukta, sthayi-bhavas tathetariah." (DR. IV. 37) "Just as the action, along with the karakas (= agent, etc.) concerned, whether stated directly or grasped mentally is the real sentence-sense, in the same way the permanent emotion (i.e. sthayi bhava), accompanied by others (i.e. vibhavadis) makes for a sentence-sense." Avaloka explains this karika as follows : "yatha laukika-vakyesu, sruyamana-kriyesu "gam abhyaja" ity adisu, asruyamana-kriyesu ca, "dvaram dvaram" ity adisu, sva-sabdopadanat prakarana"divasat buddhi-sannivesini kriyaiva karakopacita, kavyesv api kvacit sva-sabdopadanat "prityai navodha priya", ity evam adau, kvacit ca prakarana"divasat, bhihita-vibhavady avinabhavad va, saksat bhavaka-cetasi viparivartamano ratyadih stayi, sva-sva-vibhava-nubhava-vyabhicaribhis tat-tacchabdopanitaih, samskara-paramparaya param praudhim aniyamano raty adir vakyarthah." "As in the sentences used in daily usage with verb or action expressly stated such as "take away a cow", etc., or in sentences where activity is not heard (i.e. where words expressing action are not directly used), such as "the door,... the door", etc., either (respectively) by the acceptance of the expressive word, or through context, the activity which is mentally understood and which is accompanied by other karakas (such as agent-karta, object-karma) etc., (is the real sentence-sense); in the same way, even in poetry (i.e. poetic statements), at times by direct mentioning through expressive words as in case of "prityai navodha priya" (i.e. the newly married girl is liked due to love), where the word directly expressive of the feeling of love such as 'prityai' is used, or in cases when through context and through vibhava"dis which are necessarily directly stated, the stayin or prmanent emotion such as 'rati' and the like * which is always present in the mind of the cultured person, which is enhanced through mental impressions brought about in niyatabhibito For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #205
760 SAHRDAYALOKA succession through vibhava"dis stated directly through their respective words, - is the sentence-sense (itself). In Avaloka, Dhanika further observes that - "na ca a-padarthasya vakyartharvam na'stiti vacyam-karya-paryavasayitvat tatparya-sakteh. tatha hi-pauruseyam a-pauruseyam vakyam sarvam karya-param, a-tatparatve anupadeyatvad unmatta"di-vakya-vat. kavya-sabdanam ca anvayavyatirekabhyam niratisaya-sukha"svada-vyatirekena pratipadya-pratipadakayoh pravstti-visayayoh prayojanantara-anupalabdheh sva"nandodbhutir eva karyatvena avadharyate; tad udbhuti-nimittatvam ca, vibhava"di-samsrstasya sthayina eva avagamyate, ato vakyasya abhidhanasaktis tena tena rasena akrsyamana tat tat svartha'peksita-avantara-vibhava"di-pratipadana-dvara sva-paryavasayitam aniyate, tatra vibhava"dayah pada"rtha-sthaniyah, tat-samsesto ratyadir vakyarthah. tad etat kavya-vakyam yadiyam, tav imau padartha-vakyarthau." Dhanika argues that it can not be held that something which is not a word-meaning, i.e. which does not flow as a meaning from a word (directly stated), cannot he held as a sentencesense. Thus the objector can not say that we cannot take something as a sentencesense, when certains words are actually not heard in a given sentence (= asruyamana-padas). Thus, the objector cannot say that in the specific illustration viz. "bhrama dharmika." etc. the meaning pertaining to negation, i.e. "ma bhrama" cannot be taken as a sentence-sense, as the latter is only the sum-total or correlated sense of the word-senses of words actually found used and therefore heard clearly in a given sentence. This view of the objector cannot be sustained and therefore 'rasa' or aesthetic relish which is not of the form of a word-sense, does not cease to be the sentence-sense. For, the termination of tatparya sakti or purport extends upto the realisation of the 'prayojana' or purpose. As the abhidha or power of expression, argues Dhanika, has the word-sense as its sadhya or intended purpose, and just as laksana or indication has laksyartha or indicated sense as its 'sadhya' or object to be proved or established tatparyasakti or purport has the object or intention i.e. karya of the speaker as its goal. The taparya kes for the establishment of the speaker's intention. Thus tatparya will extend to that limit till the speaker's intention is realized. Now, before we proceed with Dhanika's argument along with the lines of Dhananjaya, it should be made absolutely clear that the very concept of tatparya as seen here in the DR., and the concept of tatparya available in the traditional Mimamsa school of the Bhattas and also therefore acceptable to the Kashmir school of thought of Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata and his followers For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #206
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 761 differ in their nature and scope. The traditionally accepted concept of tatparya-sakti is that it is a sentence-power that yields the sentence-meaning i.e. the purely correlated word-senses of a given sentence. But the tatparya of DhananjayaDhanika extends beyond this and ends only after realizing the full intention of the speaker. Thus, the latter takes into account also such factors as context, - such as the speciality of the speaker, or hearer, or time, place etc. etc. Now these are factors which are responsible for what the kashmere school of literary aesthetics takes as suggestors - vyanjakas - leading to the postulation of a turiya vrtti or a fourth power called vyanjana which emanates, not only from words of a given sentence, but also from parts of words, and takes into its orb in even a sentence, a par a composition i.e. prakarana, or even a whole composition giving rise to prabandha-vyanjana or prabandha-dhvani. Thus, we will go to observe with Visvanatha that Dhanika's tatparya is nothing else but vyanjana and Anandavardhana deserves greater credit for he has given a perfectly cut-out system of word-meaning and word-powers based on visayabheda and svarupa-bheda i.e. difference in scope and nature. Dhanika's tatparya is both the normal tatparya of the Bhatta-school, and also the extended tatparva branded as vyanjana by others. This confusion, perhaps deliberate. continues in Bhoia also who takes both as almost identical when he declares : 'tatparvam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kawe', with the only difference that on one hand he admits the extended tatparya of DhanjayaDhanika at the ordinarry worldly level of communication, but calls it dhvani' when seen in the poetic or beautiful i.e. a-laukika.context. With this clear perspective we will continue with Dhanika's further arguments as follows: So, we saw above that Dhanika has an extended tatparya which terminate when the speaker's goal, karya-or intention is fully grasped from the given context. So, tatparya's field covers that area for Dhanika, which falls under the full realization of the speaker's intention or object or karya. If the speaker's object is the sense of negation such as "ma bhrama" i.e. "do not move around", then the tatparya operates upto that limit when this negation is realized even from a positive assertion such as "bhrama" i.e. "move around". Dhanika argues that in the worldly context, a statement, be it either from the Vedas or used at an ordinary parlour, is used only to bring about a purpose or object i.e. karya : "pauraseyam apauraseyam sarvam karya-param", asserts Dhanika. Realization of t purpose is the objective - laksya of any sentence used any where. If a sentence is used without any purpose, it will be equivalent to the talk of an insane person. Thus it will be useless from the worldly point of view. It will fail the hearer in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #207
762 SAHRDAYALOKA making him apprehend any sense from it. The utterance with no purpose in mind, will be meaningless sound for the listener. It will not be a sentence that conveys this or that particular sense. Thus, argues Dhanika, it is clear that any statement be it from the veda or used at ordinary parlour, has to be purpose-oriented, i.e. it has to be "karya-paraka". Coming to the field of poetry, Dhanika observes that words in poetry make for the apprehension of vibhava"di i.e. determinants and the like, which in their turn lead to the apprehension of rasa. Thus, the words in poetry are related to the meaning in form of vibhava"di through anvaya-vyatireka-sambandha i.e. through the positive and negative relation. If in poetry words that are capable of mentioning the vibhava"dis are used, we will have the apprehension of vibhava"dis accordingly. If they are not used, we will have no apprehension to this effect. Thus only the words actually used in poetry make for the apprehension of the vibhavadis. But, it may be noted that a mere use of vibhava"dis does not make for the supreme bliss experienced through poetry. This supreme bliss - "nirtisaya"nanda" is resulted through 'rasa' i.e. relish only, which is the objective of these vibhava"dis. Thus 'sva"nandodbhuti' or realisation of supreme bliss is the 'karya' i.e. purpose or objective of words in poetry that lay down proper vibhava"dis. 'Rasa' is the ultimate 'pratipadya' or goal of a kavya-vakya. When we take stock of a given piece of poetry, the words actually used in it, the vibhava"dis narrated through these words, etc. and the consideration of the sthayin and rasa - all this leads to the supreme goal - karya of poetry viz. the experience of highest joy by the reader or listener in form of a man of cultivated taste: "sva"nandodbhutir eva karyatvena avadharyate." This supreme bliss is caused only by a sthayin accompanied by proper vibhava"dis or determinants etc. Thus, observes Dhanika, we see that the power of conveying sense i.e. denotation, (i.e. tatparya here), gets active or operates, being dragged by the pratipadya rasa i.e. by the object of apprehension of rasa. The karya-rupa rasa, i.e. aesthetic pleasure which is the ultimate goal or result i.e. karya of poetic activity, causes that power i.e. tatparya to operate. Thus the sentence-sense results from tatparya-sakti which stands in need of such agents as vibhava"dis for conveying 'rasa'. Through the delineation of these determinants etc. i.e. vibhava"dis rasarealisation results. In this process of rasa-realisation, vibhava""dis make for the wordsense of the words used in poetry, and the meaning in form of rati etc., correlated with these vibhava"dis is the vakyartha of kavya. Thus Dhanika asserts : "tatra vibhava"dayah pada"rtha-sthaniyah, tat-samsrsto ratyadir vakyarthah." Thus in a kavya-vakya, or sentence in form of poetry, the vibhava"dis make for padartha or - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #208
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 763 word-sense, and the sthayin in form of ratyadi makes for the sentence-sense. It is clear therefore, that the apprehension of rasa is not of the nature of suggestion but is only of the form of sentence-sense which falls under the scope of tatparya or purport and certainly not vyanjana or the so called power of suggestion. Dhanika further observes that the objector can not hold that on listening to music we do experience joy through vacya-vacaka-bhava. But these 'gita"di' i.e. musical notes are not the expressor; nor the joy, the expressed. Same can be projected in case of poetry and the resultant bliss, i.e. rasa which is of the form of bliss beyond comparision. Thus with reference to poetry and rasa there is no vacyavacaka-sambandha or relation of expressed and expressor. This position advanced by the objector is not acceptable to Dhanika. He holds that the illustration of musical notes and the resultant joy is not applicable in form of poetry. For, we see that through poetry one and all do not experience bliss. Bliss is experienced only by those cultured ones who have the full grasp of the vibhava"dis or determinants and the like. This bliss is experienced only by the cultured whose conscience is coloured - bhavita, i.e. who are accompanied by the 'bhavana' of the particular ratyadi. such blessed sa-hrdayas experience bliss or rasa, of a particular variety, on hearing the poetic words. It is clear therefore that this rasa-realisation or experience of bliss or aesthetic pleasure occurs only in case of men of cultivated taste and it does not occur in case of those who are bereft of the knowledge of vibhava"dis and who are bereft of the 'bhavana' or say, impressions, of particular ratyadi bhavas. Thus rasaexperience does not occur in case of 'a-rasikas', or the non-cultured. Before we proceed to understand Dhanika's line of throught, it may be stated that even he is conscious of Anandavardhana's wider concept of vyanjana which traverses not only the field of poetic art, but takes in its fold all art-forms. He therefore carefully keeps the illustration of musical notes out of the field of discussion, for his tatparya cannot travel to the musical art where sound-dhvaniwithout expressed sense or vacyartha makes for rasa-experience. In fact all other art-forms with their particular medium make for rasa-experience and everywhere else we do not find word accompanied by sense as is the case of poetry. On the contrary there are art-forms such as dance, painting and the like, where 'dhvani' or sound has no scope at all. Dhanika perhaps is aware of the limitations of his tatparya which can operate only inthe field of poetry which has language i.e. word and sense as its medium. Dhanika's tatparya cannot travel to the realms of akara, ingita i.e. to the area of forms and signs which are covered by what we know as vyanjana. With this limitation, Dhanika further argues as below. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #209
764 SAHRDAYALOKA Dhanika as seen above holds that the illustration of musical notes having no expressive power but having suggestive power does not suit poetry, for poetry causes bliss only with reference to the sa-hrdayas. But we may say that same is the case with reference to any art including music. But Dhanika almost fanatically asserts that rasa is 'vakyartha' and vibhava"divacaka-padas make for 'padartha'. These powers such as abhidha and the like, i.e. also laksana and tatparya make for the apprehension of all words directly heard (sruyamana) or not directly heard (= a-sruyamana) in a given sentence. So, for him postulating a separate function called vyanjana is of no use. This, Dhanika says, he has elaborately explained in his other work named "Kavya-nirnaya", which is for the present lost to us : "na ca evam sati gita'divat sukha-janakatve'pi vacya-vacaka-bhava'nupayogah visista-vibhava"di-samagrividusam eva tathavidha-ratya"di-bhavana-vatam eva svanandodbhuteh, tad anena atiprasango'pi nirastah, idnsi ca vakyartha-nirupane parikalpita'bhidha"di-sakti-vasena eva samasta-vakyarthavagateh, saktyantaraparikalpanam prayasah, yatha avocama kavyanirnaye - In his, now not available work called 'kavya-nirnava'. Dhanika observes that - "tatparya'natirekacca vyanjaniyasya na dhvanih, kim uktam syad a-srutarthatatparye'nyokti-rupini ? - 1 visam bhaksaya purvo yas caivam para-suta"disu, prasajyate pradhanatvad dhvanitvam kena varyate ? - 2 dhvanis cet svartha-visrantam vakyam arthantara"srayam, tat paratvam tv avisrantau, tan na visranty asambhavat. - 3 etavaty eva visrantis tatparyasy eti kim krtam, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #210
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 765 yavat-karya-prasaritvat tatparyam na tula-dhitam. - 4 bhrama dharmika visrabdham iti bhrami-krta"spadam, nirvyavstti katham vakyam nisedham upasarpati. - 5 pratipadyasya visrantir apeksa-puranad yadi, vaktur vivaksita'prapter a-visrantir na va katham ? - 6 pauruseyasya vakyasya vivaksa-paratantrata, vaktrabhipreta-tatparyam atah kavyasya yujyate. - 7 ato no rasa"dinam kavyena saha vyangya-vyanjaka, bhavah; kim tarhi? bhavya-bhavaka-sambandhah. kavyam hi bhavakam, bhavya rasa"dayah. te hi svato bhavanta eva, bhavakesu visista-vibhava"di-mata kavyena bhavyante." So, Dhanika explains citing seven karikas from his now not available work called "Kavya-nirnya", that there is no need to postulate a special word-power called vyanjana as 'tatparya' does everything expected of the former. We have quoted these karikas in full. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 present the vyanjanavadin's primafacie view, while karikas 4, 6 and 7 present the siddhanta view of Dhanika. This can be elaborated as under : In the first karika the vyanjanavadin suggests that his opponent (i.e. the tatparyavadin, who is 'siddhantin' here) holds that as the implicit sense i.e. pratiyamana sense or suggested sense i.e. vyanjaniya artha is covered up under tatparya or purport, there is no need to postulate the word-function called suggestion nor the entity called 'Dhvani' or principally suggested sense. But the vyanjanavadin (i.e. prima-facie here) asks the tatparyavadin (karika view 1, cd) that in such cases where the speaker's import is not directly heard, i.e. where in a piece of poetry the tatparya is not directly stated, but still due to 'anyokti' i.e. concealed statement the implicit sense is suggested through vyanjana, in such cases For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #211
766 SAHRDAYALOKA how can purport or tatparya be accepted with reference to the word-sense not directly heard ? For example in a verse like "kas tvam bhoh ? kathayami daivahatakam mam viddhi sakhotakam..." etc., the poet actually describes the dispair or detachment (i.e. nirveda) of a tree named sakhotaka. Now actually this dispair can be the poet's feeling and not that of a tree as it is not capable of possessing this sensitivity. This vyangyartha in form of the poet's dispair cannot be included in the purport or tatparya of the poetic utterance. As vyanjana or suggestive power is here expected, naturally dhvani or suggested sense also stands proved by the acceptance of the former. The vyanjanavadin further argues (= karika 2) that in such utterances as, "Eat poison", directed towards a son or a friend, the positive meaning of actually taking poison does not suit the context and therefore, "to take food at an enemy's house is worse than taking poision", is a meaning derived through vyanjana alone. [We know that Mammata has argued differently], How can you reject dhvanitva' in apprehension of the latter sense ? In the third karika the view of the vyanjanavadin covers first three parts i.e. a, b&c of the karika and the fourth i.e. 'd' part belongs to Dhanika. So, we have the vyanjanavadin's words first, such as : "dhvanis cet svartha-visrantam vakyam arthantara"srayam, tat-paratvam tv-avisrantau." i.e. 'dhvani' is said to be there when a sentence having complete sense in itself, conveys some (extra)other sense also. If it is a-visranta, i.e. if it does not rest in the sense it conveys, then tatparya will extend upto its limit where it will rest completely. But Dhanika replies, "tan na", it is not so. For no sentence can reach rest before it conveys fully what is ultimately intended by the speaker. 'Visranti' or 'rest' takes palce on realisation of 'kavya-prayojana' alone. In the next i.e. IVth karika also, Dhanika's siddhanta paksa continues. In the Vth karika again we have the primafacie view of the Dhvani-vyanjana-vadin which is silenced in karikas VI & VII giving Dhanika's Siddhanta. In the IVth Karika Dhanika goes 'ga ga' over tatparya and declares : "That tatparya or purport is rested only in this much and that it cannot travel beyond For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #212
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 767 this, is a myth ! who has decided this? In fact tatparya or purport travels till that end when the final intention is realized. Thus it extends till the intention travels further and further and rests only when the intention is served. Actually 'tatparya' or purport is a power which is not balanced in a weighing maschine. It is not held in a balance." Thus the vyangyartha of the purvapaksin is covered up by our tatparya. But once again in Karika no. V, the Dhvanivadin argues that in the particular illustration viz. bhrama dharmika. etc., the sentence-sense coveys the positive act of free movement by the holy man. The Nayika asks the person concerned to "moov at will, freely." Thus the purport is a positive injunction. There is no word used to negate this movement. So, the sense of negation is not identical with the purport or tatparya of this sentence. For us, this sense other than tatparya is suggested sense or vyangyartha, apprehended through the power of suggestion or vyanjana. To this Dhanika replies in karikas VI & VII. His argument proceeds as below. Dhanika says that if rest or visranti of intended sense is said to be only when the intention is fulfilled, then in that case, in the absense of the apprehension of the speaker's intention, why should we not say that this is the case of incompletion or a case where there is "absence of rest" -a-visranti ? Actually, karika VII suggests that a human utterance, pauruseya-vakya, is dependent upon the intention of the speaker: "pauruseyasya vakyasya vivaksaparatantrata." So, it is absolutely advisable that a poetic statement has its purport in the sense of the speaker's intention alone. As in ordinary parlance so also in poetry, a sentence for its comptetion or rest, is dependent upon the intention of the speaker and the sentence rests only when the speaker's intention is fully realized. Therefore, concludes Dhanika, rasa"di are not related with poetry through the relation of suggestor and suggested. What then can it be? Dhanika's answer is that between rasa"di and kavya there is "bhavya-bhavaka-sambandha". i.e. the relation of revelation and revealed - or the relation between emotive function (bhavakatva) and emotive stuff realised (bhavya). Poetry is revelator and rasas are revealed. Therefore rasa is born of its own in the heart or consciousness of a man of taste, and is revealed through the agency of poetry: "kavyam hi bhavakam, bhavyah rasa"dayah, te hi svato bhavanta eva For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #213
768 SAHRDAYALOKA bhavakesu visista-vibhava"di-mata kavyena bhavyante." The poetry that reveals rasas should have been adorned with proper determinants, consequents and ancillary feelings. Dhanika further argues that this bhavya-bhavaka-sambandha i.e. the relation of revealer and revealed between poetry and rasa should not be denied as it is not seen in other i.e. common worldly use of words. For even the Mimamsakas have accepted this bhavana-vyapara in case of vedic injunctions such as "svarga kamo yajeta" etc. We may take a note of the fact that Abhinavagupta while elaborating on the special apprehention - adhika pratipattih - to a man of taste or adhikarin i.e. the special person who deserves, had cited an illustration from vedic ritual and stated that on listening to such statements as "ratrim asata" or "tam agnau pradat", a special apprehension follows in case of an adhikarin and this special apprehension is not limited by such factors as time, space, person concerned etc. Perhaps Hemacandra also supporting this furnishes an illustration from popular or local context when he suggests that a devotee gets inspired to repeat a particular stotra on hearing the success in case of other person. He quotes in his viveka (pp. 98, Edn. Parikh & Kulkarni) the following verses : "arogyam aptavan sambah stutva devam aharpatim, syad arthavagatih purvam ity adi vacane yatha. tatascopatta-kala"dinyakkarenopajayate, pratipattur mansy evam pratipattir na samsayah. yah ko'pi bhaskaram statuti sa sarvo'py agado bhavet tasmad aham api staumi roga-nirmuktaye ravim." evam kavya"tmakad api sabdat sahrdayasya adhika asti pratipattih." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #214
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 769 Dhanika also seems to have been inspired by Abhinavagupta's remarks as explained above. He observes : "na ca'nyatra sabdantaresu bhavya-bhavakasambandha-abhavat kavya-sabdesvapi tatha bhavyam iti vacyam * bhavanakriyavadibhihs tatha angikstarvat. kin ca ma canyatra tatha'stu, anvayavyatirekabhyam iha tatha avagamat - In poetry where rasa-bhavaka-words are used we experience rasa, and when it is not so, we do not experience rasa. Thus, there is a positive (anvaya) and negative (vyatireka) relation between poetry and apprehension of rasa. Dhanika here quotes the famous words of Bharata N.S. VI. 34a), which read as - "bhavabhinaya-sambandhan bhavayanti rasan iman, yasmat tasmad ami bhava, vijneya natya-yokt;bhih." Dhanika, after thus rejecting vyanjana to his satisfaction further argues : The objector may raise the following objection, says Dhanika. (objection) : This (special) bhavya-bhavaka-sambandha or relation of the revealer and the revealed is not seen between word and meaning elsewhere. Words in poetry are also like words used in daily usage, so there should be absence of bhavya-bhavakasambandha between words and rasa"di in case of poetry also. To this Dhanika's reply is that this 'bhavana' relation is also recognised by the ancient Mimamsakas. The bhavya-bhavaka-relation is accepted thereby. We know that Bhatta Nayaka also supported this bhavya-bhavaka-relation between rasa"di and kavya. Abhinavagupta also seeks support for vyanjana-sadharani-karana-from Mimamsa. The Mimansakas resort to bhavana kriya with reference to sacrificial ritual and the result such as obtaining heaven i.e. svarga"di-phala. Yaga"dikriya is bhavaka and svarga"di-phala is bhavya. Thus the postulation of bhavya-bhavakasambandha between rasadi and kavya-sabda is supported by Mimamsa darsana. But this special relation here is exclusive to poetic use of word-sense only. This bhavya-bhavaka relation is not seen in daily usage. This observation is supported by positive and negative arguments i.e. anvaya-vyatireka, only in case of kavya and rasa"di. If in poetry there is absence of rasa"di-bhavaka-padas, then there will be For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #215
770 SAHRDAYALOKA no bhavana or carvana of rasa, and this is vyatireka argument. If there are rasa"dibhavaka-padas in poetry there will be rasa-bhavana or relish. This is anvaya or positve argument. Dhanika quotes from the NS. - of Bharata to support his thesis of bhavya-bhavaka relation between rasa"di and poetry. "The knowers of dramatic art, know these as bhavas (i.e. feelings, emotions etc. i.e. revealers) (i.e. determinants), as they (i.e. bhavas) reveal (= bhavayanti) the rasas i.e. aesthetic pleasure (or sentiments etc.), as connected with the bhavas (or emotions as depicted by words in poetry) (or) as connected with acting." Dhanika further establishes bhavya-bhavaka-relation in place of vyanjana as follows : "katham punar aglhita-sambandhebhyah padebhyah sthayya"di-pratipattir iti cet, - loke tathavidha-cesta-yukta-stripumsa"disu ratyady avinabhavadarsanad iha'pi tathopanibandhe sati raty adyavina-bhuta-cestadi-pratipadaka-sabdasravanad abhidheya'vinabhavena laksaniki ratyadi-pratitih yatha ca kavyasya sabhavakatvam tatha agre vaksyamah." Dhanika observes : The objector may raise an objection here. It proceeds like this : The words used in poetry have no direct relation with ratyadi bhavas, as between them there is no direct relation or vacya-vacaka-bhava based on samketa or convention. So, in the absence of samketa how can words in poetry i.e. kavyasabda make us apprehend rasa"di ? The reply from Siddhantin i.e. Dhanika follows like this - In our day to-day world, we perceive directly people making love etc. and we apprehend that these lovers are in love. This is done through direct perception of love-making, an activity which, through avinabhava relation i.e. through invariable concomittance makes us apprehend the rati-bhava or songara in case of the love-making couple. In the same way when love-making activity is directly mentioned through words in poetry we apprehend srngararasa i.e. ratyadi-bhava promoting the activity actually directly described by words in poetry. Thus on listening or reading such poetic words we apprehend the bhavas behind the activity actually described, i.e. through vacya-cestanirupana. The ratya"di-bhava-pratiti is thus laksaniki or secondary in case of kavya-sabda, describing rati-cesta. How the vacyartha of poetry reveals i.e. makes for the bhavana of rasa will be explained by Dhananjaya and Dhanika later in due course. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #216
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 771 It is observed by Dhananjaya (DR. IV. 38, 39, etc.) that rasa is so called because it is tasted - svadyatvat - like physical tastes available in food. But this taste of aesthetic pleasure or relish i.e. rasa is possible in case of the men of taste (rasika, sahrdaya) only and not in case of the anukarya or object of imitation such as Rama, Sita, etc. i.e. the characters described in poetry or presented in drama on the stage. If rasa is accepted with reference to 'anukarya' such as Dusyanta and the like, then the samajikas will not have a taste of rasa, but, on the contrary they will feel lajja or shame, irsya i.e. jealousy etc. as in ordinary life. Thus argues Dhananjaya, the rasa-experience should be accepted only in case of the samajikas or the cultured men of taste and not in case of nayaka i.e. hero etc., the anukaryas. Dhanika observes that of course, the nayaka"di such as Rama, or Dusyanta etc., being object of description by words, are believed to be as it were present, though actually they are not present. This sort of apprehension is welcome to both the poet and the samajika, in view of rasa-experience. But though this illusory apprehension of the hero being actually present is with reference to the poet and the samajika, the fact is that from the point of rasa-experience they i.e. Rama, Dusyanta, etc. - the anukaryas, are incapable of it. Poetry is not written by the poet for Rama's rasanubhuti, but only to delight the man of taste or sa-hidaya : Thus the description of Rama etc., as though they are present, is only in form of vibhava i.e. determinant which makes for rasa-apprehension of the samajika. If, in case it is accepted that, the anukarya such as Rama and the like also experience srngara, then as in real life the outlookers, looking at love-making in public, will either feel disgusted, or jealous, or angry etc. as the case may be. A man of low culture will even feel like running away with a beautiful heroine. All sort of carnal physical expressions could follow. So, rasa-experience in case of the anukarya is ruled out. Dhanika also flatly discards, - and here comes the vyanjana-virodha-the case of rasa being vyangya or suggested. Perhaps taking a plea from the Hsdayadarpana of Bhatta Nayaka, Dhanika also argues that rasa can not be held to be vyangya or suggested for in that case rasa has to be an entity like a ghata or pot that pre-exists in a dark room before it is revealed through light. The purva-satta of rasa is not acceptable for we do not taste it prior to the curtains being raised on a stage or poetry being read. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #217
772 SAHRDAYALOKA Dhanika reads : evam ca sati, rasanam vyanjakatvam apastam, anyato labdhasattakam vastu anyena'pi vyajyate, pradipena iva ghata"di; na tu tadanim eva abhivyanjakatvabhimatairapasya-svabhavam. bhavyante ca vibhava"dibhih preksakesu rasa iti aveditam eva." That rasas are only revealed (bhavyante) with the help of vibhava"di is acceptable to Dhananjaya and Dhanika who categorically reject the case of vyanjana. But we will go to observe when we will discuss the nature of rasa-experience in a separate chapter, that both Bhatta Nayaka and Dhananjaya-Dhanika who reject the case of vyanjana in both drama and literature, have taken a mistaken view of vyanjana. Their understanding of vyanjana or suggestivity is faulty. Actually this vyanjana or suggestivity is not absolutely identical with the darsanika abhivyakti or manifestation as explained in various disciplines such as grammar and darsanas or philosophy: vyanjana is not abhivvakti' of the sastras as kavyanumiti is not anumiti of the tarka-sastra, or as Dhanika's tatparya also is also not the same as tatparya of the Mimamsakas. Virtually these - vyanjana, kavyanumiti or Dhanika's tatparya-are names exclusive to art i.e. it is "sui generis". It has nothing to do with ordinary worldly existence or also with the various disciplines of philosophy. Thus all 'vyanjana-virodha' based on this argument as advanced by Dhanika, Mahima, or Bhatta Nayaka or any for that matter, fall flat as they refuse to accept this very special feature of vyanjana, which is above any laukika pramana as Abhinavagupta explains. We will go to see how, on the lines advocated by Abhinavagupta and Mammata, their followers such as Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha and Visvanatha discuss the views of the vyanjana virodhins and reject the same. Hemacandra in his Kavanusasana and Viveka on the same, discusses this topic at length after Abhinavagupta and Mammata. At K.sa. I. 20, Hemacandra talks of the powers of words such as mukhya or abhidha and the like. Here he mentions abhidha, gauni, laksana and vyanjana as four word-powers, while tatparya he reserves as a vakya-visaya sakti. At Ka. Sa. I. 21, he defines vyanjakarvam as - "vaktradi-vaisistyad arthasya'pi vyanjakatvam", and in Alamkaracudamani. i.e. gloss in the text on his sutras he illustrates the varieties such as vaktr-visesat, pratipadya-visesat, etc. There is no special discussion on the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #218
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 773 nature of vyanjana or opposition to it in either the text portion or even in Viveka commentary thereon. But actually in Viveka under Ka. Sa. I. 19 which attempts to define dhvani, we come across a full discussion of the views of the objection (purva-paksa) against vyanjana and its rejection. Hemacandra has reproduced not only the arguments but also actual words of Mammata and has silenced all vyanjana-virodha in like fashion. (pp. 47-53, viveka, Edn. Parikh, Kulkarni, ibid). Hemacandra rejects the views of Abhihitavvvayavadins, Anvitabhidhanavadins, Nimittavadins Dirghadirghatara-vyaparavadins, tatparya-vadins, and anumitivadins following Mammata. He even establishes vyanjana also in like manner after Mammata. Vidyadhara does not discuss vyanjana-virodha when he talks of vyanjana in the second unmesa of his Ekavali, but while discussing the nature of rasa in the third unmesa he observes that rasa is not abhidheya i.e. object of abhidha or direct statement : ayam ca svapne'pi pariharati' vacyatam (pp. 89, Edn. Trivedi). The arguments advanced follow Anandavardhana and Mammata. Then he rejects tatparya : "uta yadi tatparya-gocaratam avatarati rasa iti bhavan manasi nivisate, tadapi na vicara-caru. rasasya abhidheyatva'nadhikaranatvad abhihite ca tatparyasya pragalbhanat." He further argues following Mammata and citing the same illustration as "lohitosnina stvijah pracaranti", etc., that tatparya has no scope here. All this thinking is similar to that of the lead given by Abhinavagupta and Mammata. In a similar vein he rejects the case of laksana : atha yadi laksaniyo rasas tadapi na ksodaksamam" (pp. 90, ibid). He accepts vyanjana in case of rasa. He further discusses the nature of rasa after the kashmir school and this we will pick up in our chapter on rasa later. The Tarala-tika discusses vyanjana at length and accepts all the views as advanced by Mammata in favour of vyanjana. Vidyanatha also has nothing special to offer. We will therefore turn to Visvanatha for a fuller examination of demolishing anti-vyanjana views. In the third pariccheda of his Sahityadarpana, Visvanatha (S.D. III. 2.3), while discussing the nature of rasa observes : "sattvodrekad akhandasvaprakasananda-cinmayah, vedyantara-sparsa-sunyo brahma"svada-sahodarah" (III. 2 S.D.) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #219
774 SAHRDAYALOKA lokottara-camatkara-pranah kaiscit pramatnbhih sva"karavad-abhinnatvena ayam asvadyate rasah." (S.D. III. 3) In the vytti he further observes : "yady api 'svadah kavyartha-sambhedad atmananda-samudbhavahity uktadisa rasasya asvada-anatiriktatvam, tatha'pi 'rasah svadyate' iti kalpanikam bhedam urarikrtya, karma-kartari va prayogah. Thus Visvanatha holds rasa not as an object of aesthetic apprehension, but as identical with such aesthetic apprehension or relish, and suggests that all talks such as "I enjoyed rasa, or I tasted rasa", as only metaphorical. . Now he meets with an objection such as : "nanu etavata rasasya a-jneyatvam uktam bhavati. vyanjanayas ca jnana-visesatvad dvayor aikyam apatitam. tatas ca - "sva-jnanenanyadhihetuh siddhe'rthe vyanjako matah, yatha dipo'nyathabhave ko viseso'sya karakat ?" iti uktadisa ghata-pradipavat vyangya-vyanjakayoh parthakyam eva iti katham rasasya vyangyata iti cet - satyam uktam" - etc. The objection is as follows : Rasa is said to be relish (= asvada) itself, and not something asvadya i.e. object of relish. Whatever expression talks about its being tasted or its being an object of relish, is only metaphorical. Now, if the above is true, the objection is that in that case rasa will have to be accepted as something beyond apprehension. It will not be 'jneya' but will be 'jnana' itself. Jnana or apprehension is something different from its object such as ghata or pot. Thus rasa which is itself of the form of asvada and prakasa cannot be an object of the same. In that vein, apprehension caused by vyanjana or suggestion and rasa will tend to be identical because any apprehension caused by vyanjana is only of the form of knowledge itself and as observed already rasa is said to be a form of apprehension or knowledge itself and not its object. Thus rasa will tend to be indentical with vyanjana. It will not be an object of apprehension caused by vyanjana. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #220
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 775 Thus, observes the objector, rasa will not be an object of the apprehension caused by vyanjana. In that case how can the siddhantin call rasa to be 'vangy or 'suggested', i.e. an object of apprehension caused by the power of suggestivity ? The objector says : "nanu etavata rasasya ajneyatvam uktam bhavati. vyanjanayas ca jnana-vicesatvat dvayor aikyam apatitam. tatas ca. "sva-jnanena anya-dhihetuh siddherthe vyanjako matah, yatha dipo'nyathabhave; ko viseso'sya karakat." ity ukta-disa ghaca-pradipavat vyangya-vyanjakayoh parthakyam eva iti katham rasasya vyangyata, iti cet... satyam uktam The objector suggests that rasa cannot be vyangya i.e. vyanjana-grahya. For 'vyanjaka' or suggestor is that which causes something else to be cognized by first itself getting cognized, as is a lamp with reference to a pot. Vyangyavanjaka-bhava holds good when two entities are different from and not identical with each other. If it is not so, how shall we distinguish, a jnapakacause or revealer from a 'karaka' cause i.e. an actual cause which creates something else? To this Visvanatha's reply is that this is well said. But the process of relishsvadana"khyah vyaparah - is said to be different from krti and jnapti i.e. ordinary causation and manifestation. It is just to distinguish it from abhidha and the rest that we have said that 'rasas are suggested'. After all some name was to be given. So, this vyanjana is not equivalent to manifestation i.e. abhivyakti of the sastras. This is special to art - sui generis In the Vth pariccheda of his Sahityadarpana, Visvanatha has established vyanjana as an independent word-power refuting all objections against the same. At S.D. V. 1, he says - "atha keyam abhinava vyanjana nama vrttir ity ucyate - "vsttinam visranter abhidha-tatparya-laksanakhyanam, angikarya turya vittir bodhe rasa"dinam." (S.D. V. i) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #221
776 SAHRDAYALOKA "When the functioning of word-powers such as abhidha (or expression), tatparya (or purport), and laksana (or indication) are over, a fourth vrtti i.e. word power has to be accepted for the apprehension of rasa"di i.e. aesthetic relish." Visvanatha goes to observe further that as abhidha or the power of expression is exhausted on yielding only the conventional sense, it has no power to further apprehend the suggested idea (= vastu), figure of speech (= alamkara) and aesthetic relish (rasa"di). Rasa"di or aesthetic relish is not the conventional sense of a word. For the direct expression of determinants etc. (i.e. vibhava"di-vacakapada) can not be held as the direct expression of rasa"di, as both are not said to be identical. On the contrary when there is direct expression of rasa"di by such words as srngara etc. which name a particular rasa, it is considered to be a blemish. When for example it is stated that, "This is srngara-rasa", there is no apprehension of the rasa because rasa is said to be self-evident and of the nature of bliss (sva-prakasa"nanda-svarupat). Visvanatha then proceeds to explain that tatparya or purport as advocated by che abhihitanvayavadins gets exhausted only in giving a correlated sentence-sense. It cannot deliver the suggested sense. Some people have suggested the abhidha function to proceed on and on - "dirgha-dirghatara", but it cannot be accepted. Visvanatha also quotes Dhanika who advocates tatparya and sarcastically observes that tatparya is not something held in a balance i.e. na tuladhrtam. Both these opponents, i.e. the dirgha-dirghatara-vyaparavadin and also the tatparyavadin can be silenced by only one argument viz. "sabda-buddhi-karmanam viramya, vyaparabhavah." - i.e. word, sense or intelligence and action once exhausted cannot travel further." This is Visvanatha's reply to both the objectors. For, argues Visvanatha, if abhid can travel further and further, i.e. if it is held to be dirgha-dirghatara, why accept even laksana ? But to this it can be said that for alamkarikas such as Mukula, laksana is only a part of abhidha and that it is not cognised as a separate word-power. Visvanatha says that if we accept a dirgha-dirghatara-abhidha, then why should we not hold that in such expressions as, "O brahmana, a son is born to you", or "O brahmana, your unmarried daughter is pregnant" as expressive of joy or sorrow ? Visvanatha also takes care, in fashion of Mammata, of the view of those who quote the Mimamsa doctrine viz. "yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah" and under the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #222
Vyanjana-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power 777 shelter of this try to make out that poetic words, not being redundant like the talks of an insane person, have a 'karya', a goal viz. that of creating bliss and that the poetic activity ends only in the realization of this ecstatic joy - niratisaya sukha"svada-and therefore a word-power in poetry extends upto this good being served. To this Visvanatha has the following rebuff : "tatra prastavyam - kim idam tatparatvam nama, tad-artharvam va, tatparyavittya tad-bodhakatvam va ? adye na vivadah, vyangyatvepi tad-arthata-anapayat. dvitiye tu-keyam tatparya"khya vsttih ? abhitanvayavadibhirangiksta, tad anya va ? adye dattam eva uttaram. dvitiye tu nama-matre vivadah. tanmatepi turiya-vrttisiddeh." Visvanatha asks the objector as to what does he mean by 'tat-partva' ? - i.e. by "used to serve that objective ?" Is it "tad-arthatva" - i.e. should tatparatva be taken to mean 'having that objective or that meaning ?', or does it mean apprehending that sense through tatparya vstti or purport? If by 'tatparatva' is meant "having that sense" i.e. tad-arthatva then even by vyanjan, we can arrive at 'that sense'. So, the first alternative is beyond dispute. As for the second, Visvanatha asks the objector about his concept of purport or tatparyavrtti. If the tatparya of the opponent is the same as that of the abhihitanvayavadins then it is ruled out, for it has been observed that this tatparya is capable of rendering only the correlated sense of words in a sentence i.e. it yields only the bare sentence-sense which is the sum total of its individual componants. But if by tatparva is meant somethings beyond this. - and here Visvanatha has Dhanika's tatparya in mind - then it is only another name given to vyanjana and the quarrel patters out into only a quarrel of nomenclature, because even in this case a fourth power of words stands accepted. Now having discarded the tatparya of Dhanika, Visvanatha further argues for the recognition of vyanjana, as follows. The objector may say that let there be a simultaneous apprehension through tatparya or purport of both the vibhava"dis and rasa"di. The answer is "No." The simple reason is that a cause-effect-relation is accpted between these two apprehensions and therefore prima facie simultaneity between the two stands automatically rejected. Had these two apprehensions been simultaneous like two horns of a bull how can there be a cause-effect-relation which stands on paurva-parya-bhava i.e. of the state of cause being earlier and effect being later ? Visvanatha further says that in case of such instances of laksana as 'gangayam ghosah', the indication ends on apprehension of the meaning of a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #223
778 SAHkDAYALOKA bank, and thus how can indication deliver the suggested sense in form of coolness and purity ? Thus, acceptance of a fourth power - an independent vyanjana-vstti is beyond dispute. Visvanatha then proceeds to distinguish vyangya or suggested sense (S.D. V. 2) from the expressed sense on the basis of boddhr, svarupa, etc. - the factors which tend to give different meanings. Visvanatha observes that as the meaning in form of rasa"di is not pre-existent (prag-a-sattvat), its apprehension can not be arrived at either through abhidha or laksana, and as the apprehension of rasa"di does not stand in need of contradiction of the primary sense in all cases, laksana has no chance at all. Laksana has anupapatti - non-apprehension of primary sense-as a pre-condition. Visvanatha rejects the arguments of those who want to take the prayojana such as coolness and the like as indicated. For if we resort to laksana here, we will stand in need of another prayojana and thus ad infinitum. Even prayojanavati laksana is also ruled out for the simultaneous apprehension of visaya and prayojana is not possible. Mammata has ably explained this and Visvanatha follows Mammata here. Visvanatha rules out inference also in the apprehension of rasa (S.D. V. 4) and holds that smrti i.e. remembrance is also out of question. He comes down hard on Mahima's anumiti and rejects the same taking a number of illustrations. He candidly declares : "tad evam anubhava-siddhasya tat-tad-rasa"di-laksanasya'rthasya asakyapalapataya tat-tad-chabdadyanvaya-vyatireka-anuvidhayitaya ca, anumana"dipramana-a-vedyataya ca, abhidha"di-vrtti-traya-abodhyataya ca turiya vittir upasya eva iti siddham. iyam ca vyaptya"dy anusamdhanam vina'pi bhavati ity akhilam nirmalam." Thus Visvanatha meets with all vyanjana-virodha in a very systematic way and perhaps his is the last nail - and very emphatic too - in the coffin wherein lies - and for ever-any vyanjana-virodha whatsoever. We feel that Dr. Revaprasadjee should have no reservations in this case for as in case of Dhanika's tatparya, so in case in the kavyanumiti of Mahima supported by this learned modern alamkarika, we find only acceptance of vyanjana in a new garb. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #224
Chapter X Classification of Poetry (form-oriented) Literary aesthetes have attempted the classification of poetry i.e. Kavya i.e. literature in general, both from the point of view of form and content, and also from the point of view of its literary evaluation i.e. criticism. The first, we will term as 'formal or external, which of course takes care of content also, and the second will be placed under criticism-oriented classification such as from the point of view of the suggested meaning i.e. roughly speaking 'dhvani', or from the angle of vakrata, and the like. It may be noted at the outset that the types of poetic composition as illustrated by the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, - the so called 'itihasa' variety are out of question here. For the later Mahakavyas or katha and akhyayika could hardly be taken as portions of these two epics which are a class by themselves. Actually not only the content of these two epics but their divisions in kandas and parvans and sub-divisions also inspired various types of literature that was written by such greats as Kalidasa and the like. Actually various forms of performing art beginning with drama proper i.e. nataka and such other forms that were meant for both actual presentation on the stage and also for reading as 'prabandhas' or longer compositions, are also included by critics as forms of poetry such as drsya-kavya We will have to take care of all these types of composition which were drsya and sravya. It is perhaps Hemacandra, who was of course influenced by Bhoja, who attemps a most scientific classification of poetry by first bisecting it as preksya and sravya i.e. poetry to be viewed as represented on the stage and poetry to be heard (and read). But we will come to Hemacandra much later but as is the case with other thought-currents so also here, we will begin with Bhamaha, Dandin, etc. the earlier alamkarikas and will go down to Visvanatha. It may be observed in the beginning that the earliest documentary evidence available is the Natya-sastra of Bharata that treats of the varieties of drama i.e. rupaka and the sub-varieties or upa-rupakas also. But as Bharata's work concerns itself directly with dramaturgy we will consider the same only when we deal with drsya type of poetry i.e. that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #225
780 SAHRDAYALOKA variety which is to be presented and visualized on the stage. We will first concern ourselves with what Hemacandra calls sravya type of poetry i.e. literature meant for reading and hearing only. We are treating this topic of classification of poetry in sequence to the consideration of definition of poetry as word and sense and then after consideration of the nature of word and sense, powers of word etc. So, after broadly understanding the nature of literature as understood by Sanskrit critics, we go for the classification or consideration of types of compositions. We have observed earlier that this classification is attempted from the point of view of literary criticism also and has resulted into poetry as classified into dhvani, gunibhutavyangya and citra, or as one with vakrokti as its life-force etc. Thus thought-currents concerning dhvani, vakrata, etc. and the other allied topics such as guna, dosa, alamkara, vakrokti, riti, aucitya etc. will be taken up in due course. But prior to that, after classification of poetry, we will also have to discuss the topic concerning the types of heroes, heroines, their friends and enemies, their helpers, servants etc. also. In short we will also have to deal with the topic concerning the nature and varieties of various characters in literature both dramatic and poetic. Works on dramaturgy such as those of Bharata and others modelled on these such as the Dasa-rupaka, Narya-darpana and portions from Hemacandra's or Visvanathas works, deal with these topics. We will take into account all this as and when the context arises. We will begin with the classification of poetry first. Earlier alamkarikas such as Bhamaha to Rudrata have the following forms to offer. Bhamaha in his Kavyalamkara (I. 16) attempts the definition of poetry and goes on to suggest that poetry is basically two-fold, i.e. prose and verse - gadyam padyam ca. We may observe to begin with that Bhamaha has attempted classification from four angles such as - (i) external form viz. prose and verse. This angle is basically an attempt in the direction of supplying a basically formal classification. Thus we have two basic forms such as gadya i.e. prose and padya i.e. verse i.e. metrical composition. (ii) Now there is second angle which we may call the linguistic angle. So, from this linguistic angle, which also is basically a formal approach, we have kavya divided into sanskrta, prakrta and apabhramsa. This may be termed linguistic classification but, this can also be both prose and verse. Thus we arrive at six basic formal types of poetry. From the point of view of contents i.e. (iii) varnya-vastu, again poetry can be classified into four sub-varieties such as (a) vitta' i.e. poetry dealing with historical theme describing the story or history of past For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #226
Classification of Poetry 781 kings or gods of the puranas. (b) 'utpadya vastu' - i.e. poetry dealing with imaginative theme as against the historical or pauranika or mythical theme. This variety has imaginatively created stories as its descriptive stuff. (c) poetry dealing with various kalas or fine arts as its subject-matter and (d) poetry having topics of various disciplines as its subject matter i.e. sastra"sraya-kavya. Bhamaha does not provide illustrations but we can imagine that the sastra"sraya variety could have included such works as are later illustrated by Bhatti-kavya dealing with vyakaranasastra and Dvyasraya-kavyas of Acarya Hemacandra. These are types of poetry dealing with various disciplines and systems of philosophy. We do not know whether technical and scientific treatises were included under this variety for we have vast literature in form of law-book or smrtis, works on metres, pingala-sastra, and works on vastu-silpa etc. all composed in metre. Even works on alamkara, drama, and even grammar were composed in metres and sutra-style. Whether all this scientific literature was brought under the banner of sastra-kavya or not is not known but at least Bhoja in his very very wide concept of literature as word and sense of twelve types, brings everything under the banner of kavya. But we do not know the limits of Bhamaha. The variety of poetry dealing with various fine arts or kalas is also not illustrated by Bhamaha, But in general Bhamaha's observation viz. "kala-sastra"srayam ceti" could be taken as referring to poetic compositions such as Bhatcikavya, Dvyasrayakavya, or Vidagdha-mukha-mandana etc. The poetic. compositions such as Vidagdhamukha-mandana can be taken as such which are viewed as citra-kavyas which illustrate sabda-citras, prahelikas etc. This variety is termed citra-kavya from a different angle of classification which may be taken as criticism-oriented variety. It may be observed, that literary feats as prahelika, are mentioned among the 64 kalas enumerated by Vatsyayana in his kama-sutra 1. 111. 16. The (iv) fourth classification also is based on outward form, both prose and verse and includes such five types as sargabandha i.e. mahakavya, abhineyartha i.e. drama, akhyayika and katha, the prose-romances, and a-nibaddha i.e. muktaka or stray verses. (pp. 202, 609) Bhamaha explains the sargabandha as a mahakavya. The definition or description of this variety proceeds as - "sargabandho mahakavyam mahatam ca mahac ca yat, a-gramya-sabdam arthyam ca salamkaram sadasrayam - (I. 19) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #227
782 SAHRDAYALOKA mantra-duta-prayana"jinayakabhyudayaisca yat pancabhih sandhibhir yuktam nativyakhyeyam rddhimat. I. 20 caturvargabhidhane'pi bhuyasa'rthopadesa kst, yuktam lokasvabhavena rasais ca sakalaih pethak. I. 21 The composition, arranged into sargas or chapters, is called imahakavya which deals with the great-names (such as those of Valmiki and Kalidasa) (or, which is mahat or great among all great efforts of poets), and which is itself mahat i.e. vast in form. It is free from blemishes pertaining to word (and sense) and is rich with meaning (and is also free from blemishes concerning sense, such as a ng sense such as 'apartha' and the like). It is rendered beautiful with alamkaras (.e. turns of expression, or figures of speech concerning word and sense), and is having a theme connected with a lofty person (sad-asrayam) (This means that this composition is not vowen around the theme of a lowly person). It describes mantra i.e. political details, sending of emissary, march of an army, war, or fights, the victory of the hero, and is having the five junctures (such as mukha and the rest that are discussed by Bharata and others with reference to drama). It should avoid theoretical discussions of any sort to a larger proportion - na'tivyakhyeyam. Long discussions tend to make the composition less attractive i.e. nirasa. It is supposed to be 'rddhimat' i.e. rich in description of seasons, sunrise, sunset, night, moon-rise, marriages, love-sports, picking up of flowers, water-sports, birth of a son etc. etc. [rddhimat stu-sandhyaratri-candrodaya"dinam vivaha-sambhoga-puspavacaya-krida-rati-putrajanana"dinam ca varnanaih pracuram - Tatacarya, pp. 10). This composition aims at the four-fold pursuits i.e. caturvarga viz. dharma, artha, kama and moksa. But principally it deals itself with artha : "bhuyas, artha-krt". By 'artha' is not meant activity concerning collection of wealth but Tatacarya explains it as "artho hitam". i.e. it aims at solidarity both of individual and society. The most important characteristic of a big literary composition is that it is gifted with a subject or theme which concerns itself with normal life. : yuktam loka-svabhavena. Nothing abnormal is to be attempted. All description should look normal and natural. It should be rich in all rasas or sentiments or, we may put it otherwise as follows. It should abound in situations that take care of all human emotions and feelings and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #228
Classification of Poetry 783 should cater to different tastes. By 'prthak' is meant "a-sankirna-vrttibhih". as explained by Tatacarya (pp. 10, ibid). He puts it as : "a-samkirna-vrttibhih ity arthah. ekatra yasya-kasya-cid ekasya pradhanyam itaresam angatvam ity avirodhena mitha upakaryopakaraka-bhavena vinivesitaih na tu punar ekatra eva sama-pradhanyena dvabhyam bahubhir va vinivesitair iti." - i.e. it is to abound in different styles and dictions but these should be practiced in a way in which only one style dominates at a time and the rest should look subordinate. All styles should not be used having equal predominance at a time. The idea seems to be that the styles should vary with the moods and emotions depicted in a given situation. The total impression that emerges from this description/definition of the large composition is that it should treat such theme and in such a style that it caters to the taste of the cultured. The hero has to be kept in centre and his triumph over his enemies or opposing forces should be the central effect. It may be noted that the concepts of samdhis or junctures and rasa or relish are central to dramaturgy also. But we cannot say on oath whether dramaturgy preceded literary criticism for eventhough the earliest available document is the Natya-sastra of Bharata which deals with the art of acting, it cannot be said that concepts in dramaturgy necessarily preceded the same in literary criticism because Bharata, at a number of places recommends the use of different devices such as guna or excellence, laksana or marks, alamkara or figures of speech etc., in viewof "kavya-rasa" i.e, with reference to the 'rasa' or aesthetic value prevailing in kawa i.e. poetic composition. So, it is safe not to make bold statements, as is done by the great scholar such as G. T. Deshpande and others, suggesting that poetics or literary criticism was only an off-shoot of dramaturgy. Having discussed the nature of a big literary composition in verse, Bhamaha picks up prose compositions such as akhyayika and katha (I. 25, and I. 28). But prior to this he also mentions, what he calls as compositions for representation on stage through acting - i.e. abhineyartha, and the varieties enumerated are 'nataka', 'dvi-padi, 'samya', 'vasaka', 'skandhaka', etc. He leaves aside discussing the nature of these varieties that are meant for acting on the stage, with the words - "ukto'nyais tasya tarah"- the varieties and sub-varieties of these compositions made for acting, are discussed by others (elsewhere). Obviously Bhamaha seems to keep away from considering what may be called "drsya-kavya" i.e. poetry to be seen or represented on the stage, and suggests that others - may be Bharata and his likes - have discussed the same and he is in no mood to discuss the same. Perhaps he wants to keep away from dramaturgy though of course, drama also for him, is a variety of 'kavya'. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #229
784 SAHRDAYALOKA Bhamaha picks up the thread and defines "akhyayika' or a major prose composition, or a prose romance, at Ka. I. 25-27, in words: "samskrta'nakula-sravyasabdartha-pada-vittina, gadyena yuktodatrartha soc-chvasa akhyayika mata." - I. 25 "vittam akhyayate tasyam nayakena sva-cestitam, vaktram ca'para-vaktram ca kale bhavy artha-samsi ca." - I. 26 : "kaver abhiprayakrtair . ankanaih kaiscid ankita, kanya-harana-sangrama vipralambhodayanvita." - I. 27 Thus an akhyayika is a major prose composition cut into chapters called ucchvasas having verses in their beginning composed in vaktra and/or aparavaktra metres, which go to suggest future happenings. This composition is written in sanskrit in a style which is not affected and which abounds in words and meanings having felicity of expression. The theme is lofty and the hero himself narrates his own story. The composition also carries certain marks special to the poet and the narration is full of incidents such as eloping a girl, fight, love in separation etc. This form, viz. akhyayika differs from katha, also a major prose composition which has no parts or chapters in form of ucshvasas, with suggestive verses at the head written in vaktra or apara-vaktra metres. Katha is written either in Sanskrit or in other language (= a-samksta i.e. prakta) and is also in apabhramba. (Ka I. 28) In Katha the story of the hero is narrated by others and not by the hero himself. The idea is that how can a person who is nobly born would sing songs of his own valour and merits. Anibaddha i.e. single unconnected verses include such minor compositions as individual gatha, sloka and the like. Bhamaha does not elaborate over this variety. But what is of utmost importance to Bhamaha is that all types of compositions have to be necessarily accompanied by beautiful expression - "tat punah For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #230
Classification of Poetry yuktam vakra-svabhavoktya sarvam eva etad isyate." (Ka. I. 30) "Expression carrying beautiful features", Tatacarya explains as : "tad anibaddham punah vakroktya svabhavoktya ca yuktam eva bhavati." bhinnam dvidha svabhavoktir vakroktis ca iti vanmayam." tad vaksyate. yadi punar na vakroktih syat, na va svabhavoktih tan na kavyam. varta tu sa, yatha - "bhojanam dehi rajendra..." We do not agree with Tatacarya's explanation. By 'sarvam eva' we mean all poetry, both major and minor types including. Bhamaha wants all poetry, i.e. poetry worth its name, - be it a large composition or an individual verse to be adorned by an expression of the beautiful type - vakra-svabhavasya-uktih. The idea is that there is no charm in local expressions as seen in normal usage. A poetic expression has to be worth its name i.e. it should carry a stamp of its own charming nature, normally missing in worldly expressions of ordinary usage. Again, we believe that Bhamaha (Ka. II. 93) does not seem to favour svabhavokti as an artistic expression or alamkara as again Tatacarya would expect us to believe. "The expression 'ke-cit' in "svabhavoktir alamkarah iti kecit pracaksate" - suggest Bhamaha's disagreement with the views of others who take svabhavokti as an alamkara. Or at least, he does not show any enthusiasm for the same, even while giving a casual illustration at II. - 94, which describes the activity of a child trying to ward off cows from entering a field full of ready crops, all the time himself, shouting, waving a stick, crying and calling for help. So, "yuktam vakra-svabhavoktya" for Bhamaha is a condition necessary for any type of literature. Poetry in any variety, has to be charged with expression of beautiful qualities, i.e. it has to be beautiful. 785 Bhamaha's concept of true poetry is laid down in karikas that follow, but these may not deter us here as we are concerned here only with the types of poetry. Or, perhaps, Bhamaha suggests that poetry is divided into two such as vaidarbha and gauda. These are only styles and any form major or minor can be laid into either of these two. Bhamaha is open to both the styles, provided the basic characteristic of poetry being 'sa-vakrokti' i.e. poetry having inherent charm is seen. For Bhamaha, the alamkrtih or charm or beauty of language i.e. poetry or poetic language is the quality of "vakrabhidheya-sabdokti" - i.e. expression of beautiful sense and beautiful word. (Ka. I. 36) - Dandin begins with a three-fold classification of poetry such as 'padya' i.e. verse, 'gadya' or prose and misra i.e. mixed, as against Bhamaha's basic two-fold For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #231
SAHRDAYALOKA classification. Padya i.e. verse has four padas or lines and is again either in vrtta i.e. metres based on aksara-yojana such as malini, harini, sragdhara and the like, or in 'jati' i.e. such composition where matras of short and long letters are taken into consideration. K.D. I. 11 observes : 786 "padyam gadyam ca misram ca tat tridhaiva vyavasthitam, padyam catuspadi tac ca vrttam jatir iti dvidha." (I. 11) The prabha commentary (pp. 13, B.O.R.I. Edn. Poona, '70) explains that the emphasis - "eva-kara" is to rule out any other variety. "evam tri prakarakam eva tad vyavasthitam pracina-suribhir nirupitam. evakaro bhedantara-vyavacchedarthah." Prabha further observes caturnam padanam samaharas catuspadi. dvigor iti sutrena adantatvat nip. pada-catustaya"tmakam padyam ity arthah. dvi-tri-padaparimitanam cchandasam vedesv eva darsanac catuspaditi kathanam laukikavrttanurodhena iti kecit. anye tu catuspadity upalaksanam etat. tena panca-satpadanam vrttanam api samgrahah. tac ca padyam vrttam jatir iti dvi-prakarakam. aksara-samkhyatam vrttam, matra-samkhyata jatih. tad uktam tatra cchandomanjaryam padyam catuspadi tac ca vrttam jatir iti dvidha, vrttam aksara-samkhyatam jatir matrakrta bhavet." - iti. tatra sama'rdha-sama-visamani vrttani kramena sragdhara-puspitagravaitaliya"dini. arya-gitity adayo jatayas ca." Dandin observes that in cchandoviciti - i.e. such works viz. cchandah sastra as laid down by Pingala-muni, as explained in Prabha (pp. 14, ibid), the fuller discussion is available. Dandin is more logical and cancels the fifth class in the fourth set as given by Bhamaha viz. anibaddha or stray verse. Dandin observes that these, viz. the stray verse and its smaller or bigger collection are forms derived from sargabandha i.e. Mahakavya and therefore need not be separately mentioned. Thus K.D. I. 13 says: For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #232
Classification of Poetry 787 "muktakam kulakam kosah samghata iti tadnsah, sarga-bandhamsa-rupatvad anuktah padya-vistarah." But we may say that though as a unit or form muktaka and the like figure as portions of a bigger composition, they could have been separately mentioned. As independently also, such as the subhasita and the like, they have their own identity. We will go to observe later that the Agnipurana and the Sahitya-darpana of Visvanatha define or describe these minor compositions. The Agnipurana (337/36) suggests that a 'muktaka' is an individual verse capable of causing camatkara or poetic effect : "muktakam sloka ekaikas camatkara-ksamah satam." and the S.D. VI. 314-315 read as - "dvabhyam tu yugmakam sandanitakam tribhir isyate, kalapakam caturbhis ca pancabhih kulakam matam." We may say that these small groups of two, three, four of five individual verses have a common subject of narration and they may form part of a 'sarga' of a mahakavya, or, even a laghukavya, but they can be independent of them, i.e. even out of a mahakavya or, a larger composition as well. "Kosa' is said to be a 'kosa' i.e. collection of individual verses having no expectancy of one another, "kosah sloka-samuhah syad anyonya'napeksaka" iti. Samghata is defined as, "yatra kavir ekam artham vittena ekena varnayati kavye, samghatah sa nigadito vTndavana-meghaduta"dih." Prabha quotes Harinatha who in a separate commentary (on K.D. ?) gives the definitions of these varieties as (pp. 15, ibid): "tikantare harinathena pradarsitani laksanani yatha - anya'napeksa ekaslokanibandho muktakam. aneka-padyenaika-kriyanvitena eka-vakyartha-kathanam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #233
788 SAHSDAYALOKA kulakam. a-samhatarthanam eka-kaver anekakavinam va nibandhah kosah. yatha arya-sapta-satitya"dih. kalpita-vastukah eka-cchando-nirvyudhah samghato meghaduta"di." The Prabha observes that these verse-groups are but portions of a mahakavya. The first two viz. muktaka and kulaka (K.D. I. 13) are direct portions of a mahakavya while the latter two are to be found out if they are incorporated in a mahakavya. They are to be identified in view of their definitions - But we have observed that these verse-groups or minor forms can have independent existence out of a mahakavya also and can have their separate identity also. They could be parts of a major composition as well. Kavyadarsa (I.) karikas 14-22 define Mahakavya or a major composition in verse. The characteristics are almost common to those enumerated by Bhamaha with some more details. Before we go through the same it may be observed with Dr. S. K. De that these features which appear as part of the so-called definition of a mahakavya actually deal with accidents rather than with essentials. We further observe that before Bhamaha and Dandin laying down definitions, some brilliant illustrations such as the compositions of Kalidasa, Asvaghosa, and Bharavi and some others not known to us were present. These literary critics tried to find out the features that earned these compositions tremendous popularity as well as poetic excellence. They tried to underline some common features observed in actual practice by the e masters. The sum total of these features was laid down as definition of a mahakavya or any other type of poetic composition either verse or pros may be. It is in view of this that, we will go to observe that Dandin at the end says that even if some of these features enumerated by us are not found in a given composition they do not cease to be a mahakavya etc. Thus the accidental presence of these features was apparent to earlier critics also. Dandin observes (K.D. I. 14) that mahakavya is a major composition divided in 'sargas' or chapters : sargabandho mahakavyam. In its beginning is a blessing, i.e. asirvada, or a salutation (to a personal deity) i.e. namas-kriya, or it may just start straight away with direct narration of the story. Vastu-nirdesa is explained by prabha (pp. 16, ibid) as direct naming of the hero or metaphorically that of somebody connected with the hero. Or, 'vastu' is portion of narration which is referred to either directly or through suggestion. "vastu-nirdesah, vasati prastutavsttanto'smin iti vastu, kathanayakah laksanaya aparopi tar-sambandhi pradhanapurusah. tasya nirdesah namoccarana-purvaka upanyasah. athava vastu, varnyakathabhagah tasya nirdesah. saksad, vyanjanaya va sucanam. etat trayanam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #234
Classification of Poetry 789 madhye kena'py ekena sargabandhasya prarambho vidhiyate ity arthah. (Prabha, pp. 16, on K.D. I. 14). The theme of a mahakavya is dependent on either itihasa. (such as the Mahabharata; "itihaso bharatam, upalaksanam; prabha, pp. 16, ibid Prabha also says : tena ramayana"di kavyanam purananam ca samgrahah) - i.e. dependent on historical or semihistorical source or it could be an independent theme also. But it has to have a lofty theme - sadasrayam. This was observed by Bhamaha also. The theme is either dependent on historical sources or not. But it has to be a real story and not merely imagined. Prabha observes : itarad va, itihasa"disu a-vidyamanam kathanakam upajivya nibaddham. kimtu sadasrayam. sat satya-bhuto vrttanta asraya adharo yasya tat. anena kalpitasya vastuno mahakavye varnaniyataya svikare nisedhah sucitah. athava sat satpurusah asrayo yasya. tena buddhacarita"dinam asvaghosa"dibhih pranitanam samgraha iti kecit." (pp. 17, ibid on K.D. I. 15). But we feel that if by 'sad-asrayam' we include the possibility of a lofty and yet imaginary theme, the definition will tend to be wider in its scope and will include such poetic compositions as "The Paradise lost", and, "The Paradise Regained" by Milten and such other master poets also. The theme should rest on the four objectives of life such as dharma, artha etc., the hero should be an intelligent person from a lofty lineage and a noble one. It should abound in. descriptions of city, ocean, mountain, seasons, sun, moon, with their rise and setting, gardens, water-sports, drinking bouts, love-sports etc. etc. The incidents of narration should describe situations of love in separation, wedding, birth of a prince, political meetings, sending of an emissary, fights, the rise of the hero, etc. (K.D. I. 15-17). Dandin gives by far greater details as compared to Bhamaha. It may also suggest a more developed stage of literary criticism. But as both Bhamaha and Dandin had before them a great literature by way of illustration, written by such masters as Kalidasa, Bharavi and the rest, these definitions are modelled on them. If either in Bhamaha or in Dandin we come across any criticism of ideas found in the other, that may not prove priority or posteriority of either. but they should be taken to point to different traditions accepted by either. That these definitions as given by Bhamaha and Dandin could also have a shaping influence on later poets also cannot be disputed. Thus it is obvious that poets prior to Bhamaha and Dandin, while creating excellent poetry must be leaning more towards descriptions of external and accidental items. Dandin also observes, like Bhamaha, that this major type of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #235
790 composition i.e. a mahakavya should be: alamkrtam a-samksitaptam rasa-bhava-nirantaram, sargair anati-vistirnaih sravya-vrttaih susamdhibhih. (I. 18) sarvatra bhinna-vrttantair upetam loka-ranjanam, kavyam kalpantara-sthayi jayate sad-alamkrti." (I. 19) This means that the mahakavya should abound in various figures of speech (and such other devices), should be of a large proportion, or that it should be decorated, (alamkrtam) by descriptions of cities, seasons etc. as noted above, in abudance. It should be rich in narration of emotions and feelings that are object of relish. The sargas should be of reasonable length i.e. containing verses in a reasonable number. The metres should be pleasing to the ear. This means that they should be in keeping with the rules laid down in works on metrics such as suvrttatilaka and the rest. In short, the metrical composition should not be technically faulty and should be having excellences such as madhurya. The mahakavyas should also be graced by pleasing junctures (= susamdhibhih yuktam). Also, the idea is that end of the earlier sarga should be well-knit with the beginning of the next, as observed in the S.D. VI. 321 viz. "sargante bhavi-sargasya kathayah sucanam bhavet." The Prabha observes that by some 'samdhi' is explained as connection of vovels and consonants also. This also should be pleasing to ears and should not sound harsh. Read Prabha (pp. 22, ibid, on K.D. I. 18): SAHRDAYALOKA "kecit tu samdhi-padam aj-jhal - samdhi-param vyakhyayanti. tena - "urvy asav atra tarvali marvante carv avasthitih, natrarju yujyate gantum siro namaya tan-manak." - ityadi sruti-katu-samdhi-pariharah kriyate." End of a sarga has to be drafted in a metre other then the one attempted in the whole of the sarga. Normally one metre is followed in a sarga, but Prabha observes that at times in a single sarga a poet attempts different metres also, as in the fourth sarga of Sisupalavadha or the fifth sarga in Kiratarjuniya. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #236
Classification of Poetry 791 Such a composition lives for ages and it is necessarily decorated by poetic devices such as figures of speech both of word and sense. We may add that other devices such as excellences, styles and dictions, etc. are also covered by, "sadalamkrti". All these should promote the central effect i.e. rasa or relish, i.e. aesthetic delight. The composition may not have all these features, i.e. it may have only some of these, and yet it does not cease to be a mahakavya. After describing the major or minor compositions in verse, Dandin banks upon prose-compositions. But before that he observes that in verse-compositions there are two styles of narration. At times the poet refers to the high qualities of the hero and describes the humiliation of his enemies by such a hero. This is a naturally beautiful method adopted by poets. But at times, even such description pleases the men of taste, in which first the lineage, adventure, learning or culture of the enemy is described and the victory of the hero over such a qualified enemy is described. Dandin starts with the discussion of prose compositions with ka. I. 23 which reads as - "a padah pada-santano gadyam, akhyayika katha, iti tasya prabhedau dvau tayor akhyayika kila..." (K.D. I. 23) Prose is collection of padas or words nor arranged in a pada'. By 'pada' here is meant, according to Prabha (pp. 25, ibid) : pado gana-matra-nibaddho gadyaturiyamsas tacchunyah apadah." That writing which does not follow the dictates of 'gana' such as ya-gana, ma-gana etc., and 'matra' such as one-matra in short vovel, two in a long vovel etc. - is 'gadya' or prose. Pada-santanah means 'sup-tin-antapada-cayah - i.e. collection of words giving verbs, nouns etc. The prose writing is classified into two such as katha and akhyayika. Dandin seens to mention these two types simply because they were prevalent in literature but in fact he does not seem to have any faith in the distinction resorted to. For Dandin, whether the hero himself narrates his own story or somebody else does it, is of no telling effect. As in an akhyayika, so also in a katha, Dandin feels that we may come across poems written in vaktra and aparavaktra metres and also a division into ucchvasas. So, for Dandin both katha and akhyayika are two names of a single type. : tat katha'khyayikety eka jatih samjna-dvayankita." All other types of prose writing, for Dandin, are included in either of these two (K.D. I. 28a). It is possible that Dandin represents a tradition of literary criticism which was less honoured by Bhamaha and vice versa. Dandin observes that even in prose writing of either variety we have For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #237
792 SAHRDAYALOKA the same theme as is read in sargabandha, i.e. we also read elopement of a girl, fights, love in separation, etc. even here. (K.D. I. 29) - "kanyaharana-samgramavipralambhodaya"dayah sargabandha-sama eva naite vaisesika gunah." - These discriptions are not exclusive to verse-compositions only. They can be part of major compositions both in prose and verse. Even the special marks woven by a poet in a mahakavya such as the word 'sri in Sisupalavadha, or 'laksmi' in Kiratarjuniya, etc. could be found in major prose works also, according to Dandin, who suggests that for the masters any special mark can serve as a means to achieve their goal. K.D. I. 31 observes : "misrani nataka"dini tesam anyatra vistarah, gadya-padya-mayi kacic campur ity abhidhiyate." Thus like Bhamaha, Dandin also avoids discussion concerning nataka etc. which are 'misra' for Dasddin and 'abhineyartha' for Bhamaha. It may be noted that Dandin looks at nataka etc. perhaps from the angle of the style of writing which is both prose and verse, while Bhamaha has looked at them from the angle of their being enacted on the stage. Dandin refers to another form of mixted type such as 'campu', which of course is not to be enacted on the stage. Dandin then observes (K.D. I. 32): "tadetam vanmayam bhuyah samskrtam, prakrtam tatha, apabhramsas ca misram ca ity ahuraryas caturvidham." - Literature as a whole could be written in Sanskrita, Prakrta, Apabhramsa and a mixture of all three. When written in sanskrit a major verse writing is called sarga-bandha, skandhaka is in prakrta and osara in apabhramsa. Dandin says that sanskrta is God's language, while prakrta is three-fold such as tad-bhava, tat-sama and desi. For him (K.D. I. 34) maharastri is the best prakrta dialect. 'Setubandha' is written in this dialect. Sauraseni, gaudi, lati and such other dialects (such as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #238
Classification of Poetry 793 magadhi, avantija, pracya, according-to prabha, pp. 34, ibid) come under Apabhramsa. From the point of view of sastra, says Dandin, anything else Sanskrit is termed 'apabhramsa'. Sargabandha etc. (by 'etc. are meant khandakavya or minor compositions, : prabha, pp. 35, ibid), are in Sanskrit. Skandhaka is also the name of a metre. A composition in this metre has to be in Prakta language. The upa-rupaka called sattaka adds Prabha (pp. 36, ibid) is also woven in Praksta. Osara is also a special metre. Anything attempted in this metre has to be in Apabhramsa. The chapter or pariccheda in such a composition is called 'kadava'. The Prabha (pp. 37, ibid) observes : tad ukram tikantare "apabhramsa-nibandhesmin sargah kadavakabhidhah, tathapabhramsa-yogyani cchandamsi vividhani ca." - iti. etad udaharanam karna-parakrama"di iti prema-candra-sarmanah. Dandin (K.D. I. 38) holds that 'katha' is written in all praksta dialects and also in Sanskrta. By Katha he seems to include 'akhyayika' also. Kadambari is an instance of katha written in Sanskrta, observes Prabha. But Dandin himself notes Bihatkatha written in bhuta-bhasa i.e. paisaci dialect, a variety of Praksta. K.D. I. 39 observes that lasya, cchalita and sampa are to be enacted on the stage. We know that Bhamaha also refers to such varieties of literature that are to be enacted on the stage such as dvipadi, sampa, rasaka, skandhaka etc. Actually these are taken as upa-rupakas. The Prabha (pp. 37, ibid) explains that lasya is a form of dance performed by ladies and it abounds in srngara-rasa : "stri-jana krtam songara-rasa-pradhanam notyam lasyam." Prabha also quotes from Premacandra Tarkavagisa, and also from Hsdayamgama to this effect. 'Chalita' is said to be a variety of dance performed by the males. Sampa is an item presented by instruments as part of purva-ranga. Prabha explains : sampa purvarangantargato vadya-prayoga-visesah. (pp. 38, ibid). Prabha quotes Naryasastra (v. 62) here. 'Salya' is a variant which is also explained by Prabha. - "bhale hastam samavesya nrtyam salyeti kirtitam." Whatever that be, these are varieties of performing arts and are enacted on the stage but all these are taken as varieties of misra-kavya by Dandin, of course when viewed from the point of view of the written script. By fadi' Prabha holds that such varieties of performing art as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #239
794 SAHRDAYALOKA 'tandava', 'hallisaka', 'rasa' etc. are included. We do not know whether Dandin knew all these varieties or not but certainly by 'adi' he means some of them not mentioned by him. These varieties that go by the name of uparupakas were known to Bhoja, Hemacandra, Ramacandra and Gunacandra and the rest and some of them are counted in Bharata's N.S. and Abhinavabharati as well. Dandin says that all these viz. lasya, chalita etc. are 'preksartham' - i.e. to be viewed, while the rest as counted earlier such as prose and verse compositions both major and minor are only 'sravya', i.e. to be heard (and also 'read'), K.D. I.-39 observes : "lasya-cchalita-sampa"di preksartham, itarat punah, sravyam eva, iti saina'pi dvayi gatir udahsta." Bhoja in his Sarasvatikanthabharana (II. 152) makes a subtle distinction even between those art-forms which are to be viewed' only and also those that are represented on the stage through acting. The Prabha (pp. 39, ibid) quotes from Bhoja : "uktam bhojarajena sarasvati kanthabharane "sravyam tat kavyam ahur yan neksyate nabhiniyate, srotrayor eva, sukhadam bhavet tad api sad-vidham." (II. 152) So, 'sravya' is that which is 'neither viewed nor represented (through acting).' It is clear from the types enumerated by Dandin that a number of art-forms, - both only written' i.e. "only to be heard-pathya", and also 'drsya - i.e. to be viewed and also represented through acting on the stage', - had emerged by the time Dandin wrote. Actually these art-forms are seen even in Bharata, of course the names given to them may differ. All this suggests a rich history of documents both written and presented on the stage both through dance and acting. The richness and vastness of this literature prior to Bhamaha, Dandin and even Bharata are unfathomable. Unfortunately much of it is lost for us for the present at least. Artforms in literature and drama suggest a highty cultured and educated society that lived in India at least before nearly two thousand years, or even earlier. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #240
Classification of Poetry 795 Vamana deals with the topic of types of literature in brief. At Ka. Su. vi (= K.S.V.) I. iii. 21 he classifies literature into two i.e. gadya or prose and padya or verse. He observes in the vrtti that 'gadya' or prose is mentioned first as it is both difficult to grasp and also difficult to create : "gadyasya purva-nirdeso durlaksyavisesatvena durbandhatvat." He quotes a saying that verily, prose is the touch-stone .". "gadvam kavinam nikasam vadanti." Prose, Vamana suggests is threefold such as "gadyam vrtta-gandhi, curnam, utkalika prayam ca." (K.S.V. I. iii. 22). The Kamadhenu commentary on Vamana explains this as : "vrtta-gandhi kvacid bhage vstta-cchayanukari. curna-padena upacarad vyasta-pada-samaharo laksyate. tena vyasta-pada-bahulam curnam. utkalikaprayam iti - utkalika utkantha. "utkanthotkalike same" ity amarah, utkalikayah prayogabahulyam yasmin tad utkalikaprayam gadyam. yasmin sruyamane srotrnam utkantha bahula bhavati-ty arthah. kalikasabdotra laksanaya ruharuhikayam vartate. ullasanti kalikam ruharuhikam praiti prapnoti iti utkalikaprayam. yatra pada-samdarbha-paripati kandopakanda-samroha-salini kalikeva ullasati tad-utkalikaprayam." (pp. 38, Edn. Chowkhamba SKT. St. Varanasi, 1971, Bechan Jhal. This means that 'yrtta-gandhi' prose is that which, in portions, carries passages that could be identified as this or that metre used in verse-formation. This could be said to be lyrical prose with sonorous effect or musical effect. Next is 'curna' or one. which is plain writing not abounding in compounds. 'utkalikapraya' is explained by Kamadhenu in a quiver way. It suggests that 'utkalika' is the same as utkantha or longing. Such prose writing which abounds in delineation of human longing, such by which the listener's utkantha or longing is aroused or promoted is said to be 'utkalikapraga'. This amounts perhaps to sentimental writing or such writing as arouses feelings and emotions ending in rasa-experience. Kamadhenu suggests that by laksana or indication utkalika stands for 'ruharuhika' i.e. horripilation. We may say that this is also an 'anubhava' - consequent, caused due to rasa-camatkara. When a style of writing - "pada-sandarbha-paripali" - shines forth like a branch flowering in all its part, it is said to be utkalikapraya. But, we may say that this explanation of Kamadhenu is not convincing for we except something other than 'curna' in this third type. It should mean such writing which abounds in long and longer compounds, or one having rising billows and billows of long compounds as is seen in some parts of Kadambari and such other works. Actually the Prabha tika (pp. 25, ibid) refers to the Sahityadarpana VI. 330, 331 which gives a four-fold division of prose writing such as * muktaka, vsttagandhi, utkalikapraya and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #241
796 SAHRDAYALOKA curnaka. The first is without a compound. The second is having portions of metrical formation vowen into it. The illustration is : "vittagandhi yatha mama samara-kandula-nibida-bhuja-danda-kundaliksta-kodanda-sinjini-tankarojjagaritavairi-nagara." Visvanatha observes that in this illustration in the portion viz. "kundaliksta-kodanda", we have a portion of anustubh metre, again in samarakandula, etc. we have the same, if the first two letters are removed. 'Utkalikapraya' is one which abounds in long compounds as illustrated in 'anisa-vishmara-nisidasara-visara-vidalita-samara-parigada-pavara-para-bala." (Skt. = anisa-vissmaranisitasara-visara-vidalita-samara-parigata-pravara-para-balah."). The Chando Manjari also defines utkalika as - bhaved utkalikaprayam samasa"dhyam drahaksaram - Curnaka' is having small compounds as in 'gunaratna-sagara', 'jagadeka-nagara', etc. Thus, Visvanatha has classified prose-writing on the basis of presence or total absence of short or long compounds. This sounds logical. Kamadhenu's explanation of utkalika does not appeal to us, because any type of writing, be it with or without compound can generate emotions or utkantha or ruha-ruhika and thus there will be overlapping in types. Actually Vamana himself contradicts Kamadhenu's observations when he observes : "padya-bhaga-vad vrtta-gandhi" - (I. iii. 23) i.e. vitta-gandhi is that which contains portions of metrical formation, as in 'patala-talu-tala-vasisu danavesu", wherein we can read portion of vasanta-tilaka metre. In I. iii. 24, Vamana says, "anaviddha-lalita-padam curnam" - 'anaviddhani adirgha-samasani lalitani an-uddhatani padani yasmin - i.e. such formation as having un-involved formation i.e. smooth and without long compounds and not harsh letters makes for 'curna' variety. Then, at I. iii. 25, Vamana gives the 'utkalikapraya' as 'viparitam utkalikaprayam', and explains it as : "aviddhoddhata-padam' 'with involved and harsh construction.' 'yatha-kulisa-sikhara-khara-nakhara-pracanda-capeta-patitamatta-matanga-kumbha-sthala-galan-mada-cchata'-cchurita-caru-kesara-bharabhasura-mukhe kesarini. This involves a long and arduous compound. Thus Kamadhenu's explanation is contradicted by Vamana himself and we feel we are right in taking 'utkalikapraya' as such prose as abounds in long, and longer compounds. 'Padya' i.e. verse is divided by Vamana in many types. "padyam aneka-bhedam". (I. iii. 26). It is subdivided into sama, ardha-sama, visama etc. By 'adi', Kamadhenu explains that such metres as depend on matra, such as vaitaliya, arya, etc. are meant. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #242
Classification of Poetry 797 The Kamadhenu quotes verses from Bhamaha (?, we do not find these in Bhamaha) - such as - samam ardhasamam vsttam visamam ca tridha matam, anghrayo yasya catvaras tulya-laksana-laksitah. tacchandah sastra-tattvajnah sama-vsttam pracaksate prathamanghri samo yasya tltiyascarano bhavet dvitiyasturyavad vsttam tadardhasamam ucyate. yasya pada-catuske'pi laksma-bhinnam parasparam tadahur-visamam vittam chandah sastra visaradah." Vamana then further divides both gadya and padya into two such as a-nibaddha and nibaddha i.e. one with a smaller expanse or one seen in a small unit, the minor type, and the other, the major type or one seen in longer expanse. But once again in the Kamadhenu, we have a note : muktaka-laksanam uktam Bhamahena - "prathamam muktaka"dinam rju-laksanam ucyate, yad eva gambhiryaudaryasaurya-nitim atisprsa. bhaven muktakam ekena dvikam dvabhyam, trikam tribhih." Now once again, we do not find these words in the available Kavvalamkara editions of Bhamaha. We do not know if a larger version of the same was available to Gopendra Tripurhara (or Tippa) Bhupala or to anyone else earlier. Vamana observes (I. iii. 28) that these two varieties i.e. minor and major of both gadya/prose and padya/verse are to be mastered in sequence. This means that after having mastered the minor variety one has to work for the major one, like after preparing a garland first one prepares the crest-garland. But Vamana does not For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #243
798 SAHRDAYALOKA prefer composition of single verses or minor type only; for he observes : "na'nibaddham cakasti ekatejah paramanur iva" (I. iii. 29) - Like a single spark, a minor composition does not shine forth. He gives a verse in support, which reads as - "a-sankalita-rupanam kavyanam na'sti caruta, na pratyekam prakasante taijasah paramanavah." i.e. Poetry of minor forms is not charming. Individual sparks (from fire) do not shine forth (brilliantly). But Vamana has preference for certain types even when major compositions (= nibaddha kavya) are presented. He observes : (I. iii. 30). "sandarbhesu dasarupakam sreyah." i.e. - even in major compositions the ten types of rupakas i.e. drama etc. - are the best. He says: sandarbhesu prabandhesu dasarupakam nataka"di sreyah. Here 'sreyah' means "atisayena prasiddham". If it is asked why this preference for nataka and the like, then the answer is (I. iii. 31) "tadd hi citram citra-patavad-visesa-sakalyat." - i.e. as the dasa-rupaka is associated with special features, it is like a picture of many colours. The commentary explains that : "visesanam bhasabheda"di-rupanam katha"khyayika"dinam mahakavyabhedanam asmad eva vastu-vinyasa-kalpanam iti prakarantarena'pi sreyatvam asya pratipadayitum aha - tato'nyabheda-klrptih - I. iii. 32 This argument of Vamana is not convincing as we cannot imagine that other forms of descriptive literature originated from drama - "dasa-rupakasya eva hi idam sarvam vilasitam." Vamana holds that citing definitions of katha, akhyayika, and mahakavya will not prove to be iteresting and so he cancels the same. It has to be collected from other sources. But at the same time he does not exert even to define dasa-rupaka which according to him is the source of all other literary art-forms, both prose and verse, major and minor types including. ta For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #244
Classification of Poetry 799 With this note ends what is termed as 'sarira' adhikarana in the KSV. of Vamana. Thus, we see that Vamana was perhaps satisfied by the definitions of all types of literature that which was to be enacted on the stage or was meant for hearing or reading only - given by his predecessors such as Bharata, Bhamaha and the like. Rudrata, in the XVIth chapter of his Kavyalamkara discusses various forms of literature. He wants the poets to write compositions to persue the four-fold goal such as dharma, artha, etc. in a style juicy because of rasa. He observes : "jagati caturvarga iti khyatir dharmartha-kama-moksanam, samyak tan abhidadhyad rasa-sammisran prabandhesu." (Ka. XVI-1) (Edn. Cowkhamba Vidya Bhavan, Varanasi, '66, Sri R. Shukla) Rudrata further states (XVI-2) that compositions are two fold such as versecompositions and prose-compositions viz. katha and akhyayika, with original or (historical) or non-original theme, both major and minor in size. - Rudrata XVI-2 reads: "santi dvidha prabandhah kavya-katha-"khyayika"dayah kavye, utpadyanutpadya mahallaghutvena bhuyo'pi." Bhamaha also had a two-fold division such as one having a plot with an old i.e. historical story or with story created newly by the poet. As noted above again, from the point of view of scope and size poetic creations are major or minor i.e. - 'mahat' or 'laghu'. Rudrata also expects that even nayaka or hero could be a poet's imagination only (XVI-3b). Namisadhu notes that here Tilakamanjari and Bana's Kadambari could serve as illustrations where the hero is either imagined or from some other source. The 'anutpadya' - i.e. not created newly by the poet is one, wherein the whole of the composition has its theme borrowed from history or its part, but the poet narrates it in his own expression. Namisadhu explains as (on Rudrata, XVI. 4) panjaram iti. tesu katha"di-madhye te'nutpadyah, yesam panjaram kathasariram akhilam sarvam itihasa"di-prasiddham ramayana"di-katha-prasiddham kavih svavaca paripurayet. vaded ity arthah. yatha arjuna-carite. athava tad ekadesam va, For Personal & Private Use Only *

Page #245
800 SAHRDAYALOKA itihasa"dy ekadesam va svavaca yatra paripurayet tad api anutpadyam. yatha kiratarjuniyam kavyam. 'Arjunacarita' mentioned by Namisadhu is supposed to be Anandavardhana's creation. In XVI. 5, 6 Rudrata says that major compositions are those that have a larger scope-vitatesu-and therein all the four pursuits of life such as dharma, artha, kama and moksa are clearly treated (abhidhiyate), and the poet presents all the rasas as well as all the 'kavyasthanas'. By 'kavyasthana's are meant such activities as picking up of flowers, water-sports etc. accoding to Namisadhu ("kavyasthanani puspoccaya - jalakrida"dini bhanyate", pp. 415, ibid, on Rudrata, XVI. 5) The minor compositions are those with a narrower canvass and they have only one of the four pursuits of life delineated in them. Again all the rasas are not there but only some of them ('a-samagra'nekarasah'), or there may be minor compositions having only one fully developped single rasa - In major/minor compositions based on known historical theme, the poet starts narration only with a salutation, observes Namisadhu, as the theme requires no special introduction it being known to all. te meghaduta"dayo laghavah. mahantastu sisupala"dayah. atha anutpadyesu purana"di-kramena eva itivrttanibandhah, kevalam tatra kavih svavaca caturvarga-rasa-kavyasthana-varnanam namaskara-purvakam karotiti na tadvisaya-nibandhopadeso jayate. ye punar utpadyas tatra katham nibandha ity anupadistam, na jnayate iti tannibandha-kramo'padesam aha. (Namisadhu, pp. 416, ibid). Before we continue with this, it may be noted that Rudrata is careful at every juncture that a poetic creation has to be charged with rasa or rasas. This means that it has to be a successful creation causing aesthetic delight. Actually in Karikas XVI. 7-19 Rudrata discusses the type called Mahakavya with 'utpadya' i.e. original theme. He says that in this variety. The poet has to give a description of a beautiful city to begin with and this has to be followed by the eulogy of the lineage of the hero, in the same - "tatrotpadye purvam sannagarivaranam mahakavye, kurvita, tad anu tasyam nayaka-vamsa-prasamsam ca." (XVI. 7) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #246
Classification of Poetry 801 This is to be followed by the description of the hero gifted with three powers, uch as those of mantra or, power of good counsel, i.e. polity, prabhu i.e. the power of eminence, authority and strength and kosa i.e. treasure. Even 'utsahasakti' is counted here which makes for the power of energy. The hero has to have attachment for the three pursuits of life (i.e. trivarga-sakta). He is expected to be adorned by all excellences or gunas, has to be dear to the subject and is one desirous of conquering (vijigisu) the enemy - "tatra trivarga-saktam samiddha-sakti-trayam ca sarvagunam, rakta-samasta-prakrtim vijigisum nayakam nyaset." (XVI. 8). The poet has to indulge into description of seasons such as the autumn and the like. With reference to the hero it is stated that he is protecting his kingdom according to the set accepted procedure, and observes the accepted royal behaviour also. Rudrata observes (XVI. 10) that for the hero who observes dharma etc. for one's own sake or for his friends, an enemy of high lineage and one who is meritorious has also to be described. The poet (XVI. 11) also indulges in describing the speech and mind spurred by anger, of his hero who in his court listens to the doings of an enemy either through his own spy, or through the agency of the enemy's emissary. Then (XVI. 12) having discussed with his advisors of and deciding upon the vulnerability of enemy through infliction, the hero should stage a march (over the enemy) or send a messanger who can put things through effective talk - "sammantrya samam sacivaih niscitya ca danda-sadhyatam satroh, tam dapayet prayanam dutam va presayen mukharam." (XVI. 12) In case the nayaka decides to march, the poet should describe (XVI. 13) the absence of uneasiness of the subject (nagarika-aksobha), the countryside, mountains, rivers, forests and grooves, lakes, dry land, oceans, islands and different worlds, camping of the hero, sports of young people, sunset and evening twilight, darkness and evening twilight, darkness and moon-rise etc. (XVI. 14). He should also describe the night and the gathering of youngsters (yunam samajam), music, drinking bouts, love-sports and such other things on occasions and thus should expand the story or theme. (XVI. 15). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #247
802 SAHRDAYALOKA The poet should also describe the opponent of the hero in like fashion advancing without thinking towards the hero, the poet may describe the besieging of the (enemy's) city also. The poet should describe messages to soldiers suggesting that they have to fight in the morning and suggesting also their death (in the fight) and therefore invitations to drinking bouts with ladies by night. XVI. 18 says that in the end the poet should describe the rise of the hero after facing great difficulty and fighting of both (i.e. the hero and his enemy and their armies) causing wonder and forming a plan or a military array, after making all preparations : "sannahya krta-vyuham sa-vismayam yudhyamanayor ubhayo krcchrena sadhu kuryad abhyudayam nayakasya ante." (XVI. 18) Rudrata suggests (XVI. 19) that the construction of this major poem has to be one in chapters called 'sargas', with properly related junctures on account of their inter-relation. It seems Rudrata gives greater details concerning accidential events to be woven in the main theme of a mahakavya with original story. Perhaps he had a vaster literature and also a number of alamkara-granthas before him to seek guidance from Then Rudrata turns to katha, or maha-katha. The (XVI. 20) concepts seem to be modelled on available famous compositions of Bana and others. Rudrata observes that in a major prose composition, i.e. in a mahakatha, the poet pays homage to his personal deities and preceptors in the beginning in some verses and then describes, as an author, his own lineage and himself in brief : "slokair mahakathayam istan devan gurun namaskrtya, samksepena nijam kulam abhidadhyat svam ca kartataya." (XVI. 20) By 'ca' after 'svam', observes Namisadhu, (pp. 419, ibid) the untold details are covered. "svam ca iti 'ca'karo'nukta-samuccaye. tena sujana-khala-stuti-ninda"dikam ca abhidaddhyad iti sucyate." It is thereby suggested that such matter as praise of people of merit, and censure of the evil-minded etc. should be woven by the poet. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #248
Classification of Poetry 803 Rudrata (XVI. 21) wants the poet to start the katha with descriptions of cities and the like in prose with light consonants arranged in alliteration or (XVI-22), he may weave a sub-plot in the beginning and come down soon to the main theme. Both the themes should have a light and natural connection - "laghutavatsamdhanam." Namisadhu illustrates this by naming Kadambari. Or (XVI-23), the poet may go for a katha in Sanskrit in which the object is in form of winning a bride and the narration is charged with all the subtlties of songara - "samyagvinyasta - Sakala - srngaram". This can be done through the medium of language - i.e. praksta etc., which is other than sanskrit (= anyena) and which is rendered in verse (= a-gadyena). Namisadhu says that the poet could use prose also in other languages and Rudrata accepts this by adding 'ca' in the main karika-(agadyena ca anyena). "anyena praksta"di-bhasantarena tv agadyena gathabhih prabhutam kuryat." Thus there was no rigid rule regarding language, or metrical or prose forms, in katha. Rudrata (XVI. 24) then discusses the akhyayika form in which also he expects the poet to make the beginning with salutations to preceptors or deities and also with other characteristics observed as in katha but only after first introducing earlier poets also : "purva-vad eva namaskstadeva-gurur notsahet sthitesi esu, kavyam kartum iti kavin samsed akhyayikayam tu." Naturally Rudrata must have looked into the practice followed by Bana and others and he must have a number of works on literary criticism also before him. Then (XVI.-25) the poet should point out some immediate cause of his creation such as his devotion to his king or insistence for singing the merits of others or such other cause. This narration of his motivation should be done in a lucid way - 'aklistam abhidadhyat.' Rudraca has kept Bana for his inspiration and hence he expects kavi-prasamsa in verse, story completely and necessarily in prose, suggestive aparavaktra verse or verses in other metres also, and divisions into chapters called ucchvasas. Rudrata expects that the poet should draft akhyayika in prose only, as is the case with katha. He has to introduce his own lineage as well as himself also not in verse, that means in prose only. (XVI. 26). Like sargas in a mahakavya he has For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #249
804 SAHRDAYALOKA to arrage the material in chapters called ucchvasas having two aryas at the beginning of each chapter. The aryas should be well-knit and expressive of normal information. Rudrata (XVI.-28, 29) further observes that on the occasion of voicing any doubt concerning past or future time, the poet has to arrange for recitation (by some agency) in form of either one or two of devices such as anyokti,samasokti or slesokti, to remove any doubt i.e. to establish something finally. This recitation should suit the context. The poet has to frame poems in arya, apara-vaktra or puspitagra metre, or even malini metre that may suit the theme, also could be used (XVI. 30) : "tatra cchandah kuryad arya'para-vaktra-puspitagranam, anyan malina-prayam." (XVI. 30) * Rudrata observes that in those three forms (i.e. (maha)katha, akhyayika and mahakavya), subordinate themes and narrations of opposite nature but necessarily purposeful and well-knit with the main theme and story, also could be woven by a poet : "sabhiprayam kincid viruddham iva vastu sat-prasangena, antah kathasca kuryat trisv api esu prabandhesu." (XVI. 31) In all these major art-forms, both in verse and prose, Rudrata well-comes a complex nature of theme and story decorated even by sub-plots having an opposite colouring and nature. But the whole should create an impression of total unity of purpose. Thus loss of kingdom of the hero, till kingship is regained by him, or under the pretext of an ascetic such theme as deals with pursuit of liberation or moksa, could be delineated by the poet (Rudrata, XVI. 32). Rudrata then turns his attention towards minor compositions. He observes (XVI.-33) that in a minor (verse) composition or in a khanda-katha i.e. a minor prose composition, the hero is to be pictured as a happy go lucky man who comes to grief. Other characters such as a brahmin, or a (royal) servant or a businessperson, etc. should also be painted quite often. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #250
Classification of Poetry 805 "kuryad ksudre kavye, khanda-kathayam ca, nayakam sushinam, apad-gatam ca bhuyo dvija-sevaka-sarthavahadim." (XVI. 33) Rudrata wants that in such compositions the principal emotive context should be that of tragic or of love in separation-due to journey - "atra rasam karunam va kuryad athava pravasa-songaram." Or, the theme portrayed (XVI.-34 ab) could be that of the first or fresh love of the hero with the hero's rise delineated at the end. This means the end has to be happy. "prathamanuragam athava punar ante nayakabhyudayam." (XVI. 34-cd). Rudrata is very clear that all these various features which have been enumerated with reference to minor or major works in both verse and prose cover only those which have an invented theme and not those having historical theme, for in the latter the narration has to follow the original source and this instruction does not touch them. "naitad anutpadyesu tu, tatra hy abhidhiyate yathavTttam, alpesu mahatsu ca va tadvisayo na'yam upadesah." (XVI.-35) This means that Rudrata is not prepared to give liberty to such creative works as have historical or semi-historical theme. But we feel that here Rudrata adopts a rather narrow outlook for his near and immediate followers such as Anandavardhana and Kuntaka seem to be more liberal when they allow such changes even in a historical theme that promote rasa. For them rasa-ananugunasthiti, i.e. such situations which go to thwart the process of rasanubhuti, have to be either omitted or altered. In XVI. 2. Rudrata used such words as - "katha"khyayika"dayah." Namisadhu recounts this in the beginning of XVI. 36 and observes that now Rudrata proceeds to discuss that which was implied by "adi." . "atha kavya"khyayika"daya ity atra adi-grahana-samglhitam darsayitum aha - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #251
806 Rudrata (XVI.-36) observes: "anyad varnaka-matram prasasti-kulaka"di-nataka"dy anyat, kavyam tad bahubhasam vicitram anyatra ca'bhihitam." "Only for discriptive purpose such (sub) varieties of verse formation as prasasti, kulaka etc. (are enumerated). Nataka etc. (i.e. the rupakas) are different forms of kavya as they are (written) in many languages and a lot of other beautiful features are acknowledged with them. They are discussed in other sources (on dramaturgy). Rudrata also mentions prasasti, not taken note of by his predecessors. Prasasti is a eulogy on kings and also contains praises of deities. These are said to be varied or beautiful in nature and in various languages also. Natakas also have many sources of beauty and have many languages spoken by different characters. Namisadhu elaborates over Rudrata's observation in the following way : "anyad iti. sugamam na varam. tatra yasyam isvara-kula-varnanam yasortham kriyate sa prasastih. yatra ca panca"dinam caturdasantanam slokanam vakyarthah parisamapyate tat kulakam. 'adi'grahanad ekasmin chandasi vakya-samaptau muktakam, dvayoh sandanitakam. trisu visesakam, catursu kalapakam. tatha muktakanam eva praghattakopanibandhah paryaya-yogah kosah. tatha bahunam chandasam ekavakyatve, tad vakyanam ca samuhavasthane parikatha. bhuyo'pyahanatakanyad iti. atra bharatady abhihitam. nataka"dity atra adi-sabdat natakaprakarana-ihamrga-samavakara-bhana-vyayoga-dima-vithi,-prahasana"disamgrahah. tad bahubhasam ca, bahvibhih bhasabhir nibadhyate. vicitram ca. nana-samdhi-samdhyanga-abhinaya"di yuktatvat. SAHRDAYALOKA Namisadhu is pleaced by Dr. De in roughly 1059 A.D. Thus he was almost a contemporary of Mammata and therefore surely posterior to Anandavardhana and Bhoja. So, perhaps in explaining various minor art-forms in verse such as kulaka etc. Namisadhu was influenced by Bhoja and for sure by earlier writers such as Bhamaha, Dandin Anandavardhana, Abhinvagupta and the rest. We will now see what Namisadhu has to explain - Prasasti is explained as one in which 'isvara-kula-varnana' is presented. By 'isvara' Namisadhu perhaps means the king i.e., master, and 'kula' is his clan. Poets were given to glorify their masters who took care of their proteges. Or, perhaps 'isvara' may mean 'god' and then 'kula' does not become clear. 'Kulaka' is a cluster For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #252
Classification of Poetry 807 of verses from five to fourteen that carry a sentence-sense, i.e. they together deal with a single topic of description. By 'di', Namisadhu covers up such cases as of a single verse in a given metre called a muktaka, and two of them make for a sandanitaka, three a visesaka, and four verses make for a 'kalapaka'. From five to fourteen centred round a single subject as seen above, was a 'kulaka'. We know that Anandavardhana has also in some context as we will go to see after Rudrata, has mentioned some of these types. But Namisadhu wants us that Rudrata also knew them and there is no reson to deny this assertion. Actually a group of verses describing a single topic, say the body of a deity or a given charater as read in the greater epics or the earlier Mahakavyas, was nothing new for a discerning reader or critic. Namisadhu further states that these individual verses when collected together are said to be a 'kosa'. Parikatha is perhaps one which is so covers up from all sides (= pari) some topics. So, when many verses are placed together they make for a 'parikatha'. Namisadhu explains that when Rudrata says, "nataka"dy anyat" - he seems to refer to what Bharata has laid down. By 'adi' in 'nataka"di', such types of rupakas as 'prakarana', 'Thamrga', 'samavakara', 'bhana', vyayoga', dima', 'vithi, 'prahasana' and the rest are to be taken. These are written with the help of many languages or dilects. They are charming also as they are adorned by a variety of samdhis i.e. junctures, samdhangas or parts of junctures, (four-fold) acting etc. One thing is certain that literary critics from Bhamaha to Rudrata and even later, include the dramatic compositions under literature or kavya, perhaps because they all have to have a written script. Actually Bharata also is favourably inclined to this idea and he discusses such topics as guna, dosa, alamkaras and laksanas only from the angle of they being devices that make for the charm in poetic compositions, of course 'dosa' harms the same. But we should also note that for the discerning in India a drama was primarily composed for presentation on the stage and thus, though being a literary art as well, had its own identity with acting as its special mark or 'linga'. It is therefore that excepting some later alamkarikas as Hemacandra and Visvanatha, other literary critics avoided discussing this variety of what is termed as "drsya kavya". After dealing with defining a number of types of literature, Rudrata tries to impart some practical instructions to poets suggesting what they should not do. This is perhaps to make the writing look more sensible and acceptable. Perhaps we may say that one can read the beginning of a topic called kavi-samava or poetic convention or kavi-siksa or training of a poet here in a wider sense. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #253
808 SAHRDAYALOKA We know that this topic flowers in Rajasakhara and then in Hemacandra and we have a number of special manuals written on such topics that are connected with successful writing. Even when Bhamaha denounces the imitation in case of duta-kavyas or devices like artificial elephant in Vatsaraja episode, or use of only some grammatical usages in poetry or some verbs limited to certain senses only even if they carry other dictionary meanings, etc., this could be taken as topics directly or indirecly connected with poetic conventions or, kavi-siksa sense only. This is seen in Vamana also and Rudrata also gives some golden advice to poets. Thus, Rudrata suggests : "kula-saila'mbunidhinam na bruyal langhanam manusyena, . atmiyaya eva saktya sapta-dvipavani-kramanam. (XVI. 37) The poet should not describe crossing of kula-parvatas i.e. principal mountains, by a mortal being. The kula-parvatas are said to be seven such as - "mahendro malayah sahyah suktiman yaksa-parvatah, vindhyas ca pariyatras ca saptaite kula-parvatah." A normal human being crossing such huge mountains on his own sounds stupid and Rudrata is not prepared to tolerate anything stupid even in the realm of poetry which is full of fancy and imagination. It is again foolish for the poet to describe such feats by a human being as moving on his own on the whole of earth having seven dvipas or islands. We know that a dvipa is a division of the terrestrial world and the numbers of these dvipas vary according to different authorities. They are four, seven, nine or thirteen and are all situated round the mountain Meru, like petals of a lotus flower, and each being separated from the other by a distinct ocean. In Naisadhacarita I. 5 the dvipas are said to be eighteen but seven appears to be the usual number. Raghu I. 65, and Sakuntala VII. 33 have seven. The central one is Jambudvipa under which is included Bharatakhanda i.e. India. Rudrata XVI. 38 has something further. But to introduce this karika, Namisadhu has the following remark - "nanu bharata-hanumat-prabhrtinam sarvam etat cchruyate, tatas ca tesam tatha'nyasyapi bhavisyatiti ko dosa ity aha." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #254
Classification of Poetry 809 Namisadhu suggests that someone may argue that well, all this (= crossing of kula-parvatas or sapta-dvipa-avani etc.) is said to have taken place with reference to Bharata, Hanumat etc., and so, as in case of these, so also in case of any other also this can be narrated and what harm is there ? - To this, Rudrata XVI. 38 says : "ye'pi langhitavanto bharatapraya kulacala'mbunidhin, tesam sura"di-mukhyaih sangadasan vimanani." That Bharata and the rest (i.e. Hanuman etc.) crossed the kula-mountains and oceans by themselves was a feat carried out by them as they had vimanas or heavenly cars or air-crafts or divine vehicles due to their company of the principal deities going with them. Namisadhu explains that by 'adi' in 'sura"dimukhyaih', is meant : "siddha-vidyadhara-kinnara-gandharva"di-samgrahah."Rudrata thus seems to be a critic given to a rationalistic approach like Bhamaha, a rare intellectual not to toterate all non-sense painted by poets. Here we have an opportunity to probe in the mind of Rudrata who seems to be bold enough even to refuse the legend of a Hanuman crossing an ocean by a physical jump and seems to suggest a rational explanation of even a Hanuman accomplishing his superhuman feat with the help of some sort of an air-craft or a vehicle. That could travel through air made available to him through some scientist, here called a divine agency. Namisadhu further raises a possible objection such as : (pp. 436, ibid, Rudrata, XVI. 39) "nanu ca sattya-citta"di-hinarvan manusyanam katham sura"dibhih saha sango'pi ity aha - i.e. "The objector may argue that a normal human being is not gifted with a conscience full of sattva i.e. pure quality and in its absence how can he have contact with any divine agency ?" To this the answer is (Rudrata - XVI. 39) saktis ca na jatv esam a-sura"di-vadhe'dhika, sura"dibhyah, asit te hi sahaya niyante sma amaraih samiti." The answer is, true, these individuals (who have superhuman feats to their credit) did not have power great enough to kill the demons, but they were helped by divine agencies and were led in the battles virtually by the immortals." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #255
810 SAHRDAYALOKA The idea is that Rudrata, the rationalist refuses to accept any superhuman power in case of normal human beings. But some of those, who have a pure heart, and thus, perhaps like Arjuna, choose to be instruments in the hands of the will Divine, by total surrender, accomplish such feats through Divine grace. For, Rudrata wants us to believe that these humans do not fight nor conquer wars against the titanic evil forces, but they become the chosen instruments in the hands of the Divine and accomplish the impossible. So, such feats, Rudrata advises the poets, are not to be described with reference to normal human heroes, for this would look foolish. We know that Anandavardhana, without naming Rudrata talks about the same thing while dealing with theme of bigger compositions and Ramacandra and Gunacandra do mention such exceptional cases of Satavahana and the like. These remarkable feats are to be described not in case of all heroes in common. Rudrata also asks poets not to describe such conditions as poverty, disease, old age, miseries caused due to extreme cold or heat, and all that is causing disgust or -aversion leading to bibhatsa (rasa) or the disgusting sentiment outside Bharatavarsa, perhaps meaning the context of the planet called earth. Namisadhu says that Rudrata explains as to why in regions beyond earth such as ilavstta and the like, such things as poverty, disease etc. are not to be described. It is so because in other regions beyond earth there is land studded with gold and jewels, where whatever is intended is easily achievable, and the life-span of beings is of lakhs of years i.e. of hundred thousand years free from old age. Rudrata, an intellectual curbing supernatural feats being described with normal human heroes, falls to this sort of belief which accepts the existence of regions beyond earth where people live happily for a hundred thousand years enjoying youth for ever! But, this also forms part of the poetic convention acceptable to Rudrata, whose basic approach is that of a rationalist but who is also inclined to accept something beyond earth and something beyond the capacity and imagination of ordinary humans, when it comes to be covered by the realm of divine grace and divine agency! Thus, perhaps in Rudrata we find a combination of a rational mind and also a mystic who rises beyond the limits and scope of rationality. Thus we see that among the ancients, it is only Rudrata who mentions prasasti, i.e. eulogy on kings and praises of deities. These are said to be in various languages and beautiful and varied in nature as noted above. We will go to see that in later Alamkara works this panegyric appears with a number of sub-divisions. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #256
Classification of Poetry 811 We also took notice of such minor-types as muktaka, sandanitaka, kalapaka, kosa and parikatha mentioned by Namisadhu who believes that Rudrata means these by "adi.", though not actually counted by Rudrata, but read in Anandavardhana with reference to the discussion on samghatana. Anandavardhana, (Dhv. III. 7) observes : visayasrayam apy anyad aucityam tam niyacchati, kavya-prabhedasrayatah sthita bhedavati hi sa. (Dhv. III. 7) i.e. "Another consideration which governs the usage of texture is its decorum with regard to the literary medium adopted. Texture thus becomes different in different forms of literature." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 129, ibid) He further observes in the aloka that : vaktp-vacya-gataucitye saty api visaya"srayam anyad aucityam samghatanam niyacchati. yatah kavyasya prabhedah - muktakam samskrta prakrta pabhramsa-nibaddham, sandanitaka visesaka-kalapaka-kulakani, paryayabandhah, parikatha, khandakatha-sakalakathe, sarga-bandho'bhineyartham akhyayika-kathe ity evam adayah - tad asrayena'pi samghatana visesavati bhavati. tatra muktakesu rasa-bandhabhinivesinah kaves tad asrayam aucityam. tac ca dariitam eva. anyatra kamacarah. muktakesu prabandhesv iva rasa-bandha'bhinivesinah kavayo drsyante. tatha hy amaruka-kaver muktakah srngara-rasa-syandinah prabandhayamanah prasiddha eva. sandanitakesu tu vikata-nibandhana-aucityan madhyama-samasa-dirghasamase eva racane. prabandhasrayesu yathokta-prabandhaucityam eva'nusartavyam. paryayabandhe punar asamasa-madhama-samase eva samghatane. kadacid aucityasrayena dirgha-samasayam api samghatanayam parusa gramya ca vrttih parihartavya.parikathayam kamacarah, tatra itivstta-matropanyasena na'tyantam rasabandhabhinivesat. khanda-katha-sakala-kathayos tu prakrta-prasiddhayoh bandhana bhuyastvad vrttyaucityam tu yatharasam anusartavyam sargabandhe tu rasa-tatparye yatharasam aucityam anyatha tu kamacarah; dvayor api margayoh sargabandha-vidhayinam darsanat rasa-tatparyam sadhiyah. abhineyarthe tu sarvatha rasanibandhebhinivesah karyah akhyayika-kathayos tu gadya-nibandhana-bahulye chandobandha-bhinna-prasthanatvad iha niyame hetuh a-kstapurvo'pi manak kriyate. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #257
812 SAHRDAYALOKA etad yathoktam auityam eva tasya niyamakam, sarvatra gadya-bandhe'pi cchando-niyama varjite. (Dhv. III. 8) - "In addition to decorum of speaker and the spoken, decorum of literary medium also governs the choice of texture. Literature in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa has various forms such as 'pearls' (= muktakas, i.e. single stanzas forming a selfcontained unit) or run-on verses of two, three, four or more stanzas in the same g a single unit, stanzas in one or more metres describing a single topic, diadectic stories in verse, full-fledged fiction in verse, short stories in verse, epics, dramatic works, historical novels in prose and romantic novels in prose. Texture becomes varied due to differences in their literary forms also. Of these, a poet who is intent on delineation of sentiment in pearls will be guided by the considerations of decorum relating to sentiment. This decorum has already been explained. In pearls where the poet has no such intent he is free to employ any texture he likes. Poets are, however, mostly seen to be intent on delineating sentiment even in earls, as in full-fledged literary works. Thus the pearls of the poet Amaru are famous for their profusion in Erotic sentiment, and they are regarded as good as full-fledged works in point of charm. In run-on verses of two stanzas etc., affected and involved construction itself becomes proper, and therefore we will have textures of medium-sized and long compounds. But if these run-on verses occur as parts of another whole poem, then the decorum towards a whole poem, indicated already, will apply to it. In works dealing with a single theme, and containing verses in one or more metres, the textures to be employed should be only those without compounds and with medium-sized compounds. Sometimes though the texture of long compounds might occur in view of decorum of context, 'harsh' and 'pallid dictions will have to be avoided therein. But there is no such rule so far as diadectic stories in verse are concerned. The reason is that there will just be a narration of story and no intention of delineating sentiment. Full-fledged stories and short-stories in verse are common only in prakrit language and they abound in run-on verses upto more than five stanzas. Therefore, the use of texture with long compounds also will not be wrong in them. The decorum of diction should always be decided in view of the sentiments to be delineated. If an epic should be intent upon delineating sentiments, the decorum of sentiment will govern its use of texture. Otherwise, it is left to the free choice of the poet. We can see writers of epics who have composed works in both these ways; but of the two, the works that are intent upon sentiment For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #258
Classification of Poetry 813 should be regarded as superior. In dramatic works, anyway, there should be a sole intent of delineating sentiment. So far as historical novels (akhyayika) and romantic novels [katha] are concerned, they are found mostly in prose only and their method differs from that of metrical works. Since the ancients have not given any specific rules concerning these, we shall frame them here in brief - "The considerations of decorum detailed above will also govern all prose works which are not governed by the rules of metre." (Dhv. III. 8) Though prose works are not governed by rules of metre, the considerations of decorum mentioned above, viz. that of speaker, the spoken, and the literary medium, govern them." - (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 131-133, ibid) It may be noted that though Anandavardhana has not defined various types. Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy through his translation has suggested the same. Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy while giving english equivalents seems to explain the forms on the authority of perhaps Abhinavagupta, or, Namisadhu. He takes muktakas as 'pearls', i.e. single stanzas. He takes sandanitaka, visesaka, kalapaka and kulaka as run-on verses of two, three, four or more stanzas, paryayabandha as stanzas in one or more metres describing a single topic, diadectic stories in verse is 'parikatha', while sakala and khanda-kathas are full-fledged fiction in verse and short-stories in verse. Sargabandha is epic for Prof. Krishnamoorthy, and Katha and akhyayika are romantic novels and historical novels in prose. Samghatana is texture of writing. Now, Abhinavagupta in his Locana on Dhv. III 6 does explain. these types. So, Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy has either relied on him or Namisadhu or perhaps Bhoja. Perhaps even Namisadhu relies on Bhoja, or even Abhinavagupta, for no other known alamkara works preceding Namisadhu excepting the Locana attempt definitions of all types of poetry. One more important point to be noted with Anandavardhana is that not only does he mention types of poetry based on their external form, but he also attemps to furnish what we may call criticism-based classification of poetry in which he mentions three types such as dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya and citra, based on the absolute prominance or subservience or near absence of what he called "pratiyamana artha" or implicit sense. He of course is careful not to call these types as 'uttama', 'madhyama' and 'avara' as suggested by Abhinavagupta and picked up by Mammata. Varieties and subvarieties of dhvani and gunibhutavyangya and citra are also seen in the Dhvanyaloka Locana and Mammata, which we will pick up while dealing with dhvani separately. But one thing is certain that Anandavardhana For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #259
814 SAHRDAYALOKA launched upon a new perspective to classify poetry based on an internal measure and not just an external form. Now viewing from this criticism-based classification, even a muktaka or a single stanza as of Amaru Kavi, or a prabandha or major composition such as a mahakavya like say Raghuvamsa or a Katha or akhyayika, the major prose compositions such as Kadambari and Harsacarita or even a nataka such as Abhijnana-sakuntala could fall under the class of 'dhvani-kavya'. But for the present we will continue with the Kavya-prabheda as seen in Anandavardhana's successors, though of course Abhinavagupta is primarily interested only in the varieties and sub-varieties of dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya and citra. As noted earlier, though Abhinavagupta is primarily interested in criticismbased classification, he does attempt to explain under Dhv. III. 6. (Locana) some of the types beginning from Muktaka onwards, based on external form only. He observes : (pp. 225, Edn. Nandi, Ahd. '97-'98) - muktakam iti - muktakam anyena analingitam, tasya samjnayam kam. - Abhinavagupta unlike Dandin is careful in observing that 'muktaka' is that single stanza which is totally independent i.e. not embraced or touched (through context) by any other stanza. Thus, for him a single verse independent in itself, but taken from a given 'sarga' of a mahakavya and or such other type of poetry, is not to be designated as 'muktaka'. It is an independent unit, by itself, first and last : "tena svatantrataya pari-samapta-nirakanksartham api prabandha madhyavarti na muktakam ity ucyate." muktaksyaiva visesanam samskstety adi. This does not tally with Dandin. He explains 'sandanitaka' as a unit of two stanzas which give a complete sense : "dvabhyam kriyasamaptau sandanitakam." Three stanzas forming a unit are 'visesaka'. "tribhir visesakam", and four make for 'kalapaka' - 'caturbhih kalapakam'. 'panca-prabhrtibhih kulakam.' - 'Five roll-on stanzas forming a unit make for a kulaka.' 'Paryayabandha' is that group of stanzas which covers up a topic, such as one which describes for example the spring season (perhaps in Kumara-sambhava). Locana observes : "iti kriyasamaptikrta bheda dvandvena nirdistah. avantara-kriya samaptav api vasanta-varnana"dir eka-varnaniyoddesena pravsttah paryaya-bandhah." It may be observed that according to Locana, the four types viz. muktaka, sandanitaka, visesaka and kalapaka are based on 'completion of one activity.' They are therefore mentioned by a dvandva compound. All these four varieties are available in all languages also. We will go to observe that Hemacandra also suggests that these four varieties are seen in all languages i.e. Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa with all their sub-varieties. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #260
Classification of Poetry 815 With 'paryayabandha' are enumerated those types which are formed due to coming together of many sentences and therefore whose canvas is broader or larger. As noted above subordinate activities are led to completion and not just one activity as in the first four types. But all these activities have one goal such as, say the description of the spring season. 'Parikatha' is explained as : evam dharma"di-purusartham uddisya prakaravaicitryena ananta-vrttanta-varnana-prakara-parikatha. Thus, parikatha is one in which one of the four chief pursuits of life such as dharma, artha, kama and moksa, is picked up and through prakara vaicitrya i.e. variety in beautiful expression, a number of stories are glued together. Khandakatha is narration of one part of a katha, and it is termed khanda-kavya as well. We will go to see that the Sahityadarpanas defines khanda-kavya as that which imitates one part of the kavya. Sakalakatha contains the description of many themes all of which extend upto the 'phala' i.e. the final objective or motivation. In the vrtti both khanda-katha and sakala-katha are related through a dvandva compound. This is to suggest that these two sub-varieties were prevelant in Prakrit only, observes Abhinavagupta. Prior to these all the types that are enumerated beginning with muktaka, have no restriction to any particular language. . Sargabandha, observes Locana, is of the form of a maha-kavya; has one purusartha or pursuit of life as its phala or motivation, is only in Sanskrit and is - a big composition having for its description the whole theme i.e. the canvas covers the whole life as such The type that is to be represented on the stage includes ten types of drama - dasa-rupaka such as nataka, prakarana, etc. It is written in many languages and has sub-varieties such as natika,trotaka, rasaka, prakaranika, etc. They are termed upa-rupakas by later theorists. We will go to observe later that there are names as many as eighteen such as natika, trotaka, gosthi, sattaka, natya-rasaka, prasthana, ullapya, kavva-prenkhana, rasaka, samlapaka, sri-gadita, silpaka, vilasika, durmallika, prakarani. hallisa and bhanika. Visvanatha discusses these. But some of them seen as early as in Bharata, Bhamaha, Dandin etc. also, while Hemacandra and also Ramacandra and Gunacandra discuss them following of course Bhoja. We will look into these later. The ten types of major plays and all the sub-varieties such as natika and the rest are said to be "abhineyartha kavya" i.e. poetry to be enacted or represented on stage through acting. Many languages or dialects are used in these types. Some special characters are expected to speak in a special language or dilect and there are observations concerning these which are discussed in works on dramaturgy. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #261
816 SAHRDAYALOKA Locana talks of two major types of prose compositions such as the akhyayika and katha. The former is arranged in chapters called ucchvasas and contain verses in vaktra and apara-vaktra metres. The katha has none of these qualifications. The Agnipurana gives five types of prose composition which have khandakatha, parikatha and kathanika over and above the two enumerated above. The vrttikara Anandavardhana has used a dvandva compound for katha and akhyayika, to suggest that both these types are available in prose compositions. The use of 'adi' is to include a variety called 'campu'. The Locana quotes Dandin suggesting the form of Campu mixed with both prose and verse: "gadya-padyamayi kacic campur ity abhidhiyate." We may add that by 'adi' all newer and newer forms of literary writing i.e. kavya or sahitya that are being practiced even to-day in various languages all over the world could be included. Thus absured theatre and absurd poetry also could be included by 'adi'. Thus the Dhv. and the Locana name a number of types of major and minor compositions both in prose and verse. All these forms could be primarily subdivided into gadya, padya and abhineya. The types beginning from muktaka to sargabandha fall under padya i.e. verse formation. In these types the five beginning from muktaka to kulaka are not rich in story element (i.e. katha-tattva), or narration. So, types other than these are long narratives-while muktaka and the rest may be taken as suddha-bhedas. We may arrange these types in a tabular form as under - kavya suddha (padya) (minor compositions in verse) muktaka sandanitaka kalapaka kulaka prabandha (major) (compositions) padya (verse) abhineya (to be enected) paryayabandha parikatha khandakatha sakalakatha sargabandha rupakas uparupakas katha akhyayika Next to Anandavardhana. We have Bhoja who discusses literary forms in great details. For Personal & Private Use Only gadya (prose)

Page #262
Classification of Poetry 817 In the third chapter of his songara prakasa (= sp. pra), after discussing the topic of vakya and prakarana, Bhoja picks up 'prabandha', which he defines as "vidhinised havagatihetuh mahavakyam prabandhah." i.e. Prabandha or a major composition is a 'mahavakya' having injunction or negation as its objective. It is said to be three-fold viz. padya i.e. verse, gadya or prose and misra i.e. a mixture of both verse and prose. Padya or verse is also three-fold viz. aksara-cchahdas - i.e. vedic verses, matra-cchandas and gana-cchandas. All these three are again each three-fold such as sama, ardha-sama and visama. Bhoja illustrates all these varieties (pp. 121, Edn. Josyer). He says that all these three types of verse are seen in mahakavya, itihasa, sruti, etc. 'gadya' or prose is defined as collection of words not arranged in a metr cchandah pada-santano gadyam. This is three-fold viz. vrtta-gadhi, curnam and utkalikaprayam. The first one is such which is sprinkled by verse formation-padyagandha-vad vrtta-gandhi. This we had seen in Vamana also. This is again three-fold such as sama-ardhasama-visama-bhedat. In the same way matra-ksara-cchanda also can be traced in vstta-gandhi. Curna is explained as : (pp. 122, ibid) : anaviddha-lalita-padam curnam - It is that type of prose writing which has words that are not of involved construction and are charming. This again is three-fold viz. one having 'guru' letters to a greater extent i.e. gurubahulam, or laghu-bahulam and misra having both guru and laghu equally divided. Utkalikapraya is : "a-lalita"viddham" i.e. one having harsh letters and involved construction. This again is three-fold : "lalitaviddha-pada-vakya-bhedat" i.e. one intercepted by lalita letters or by a-viddha i.e. non-involved pada, or by noninvolved vakya. Bhoja observes that all these varieties of prose are seen in akhyayikas, kathas and madhu-mallik, etc. : tad etat trividham akhyayikasu, kathasu, madhumallika"disu drsyante (pp. 122, ibid). Misra is defined as-gadya-padya-vyayogo misram (pp. 122, ibid). 'Mixed' has both verse and prose in it. It is three-fold such as padya-pradhana or having a major portion in verse, gadya-pradhana or having a major portion in prose and tulyarupa or having both verse and prose in an equally balanced proportion. Padyapradhana is again three-fold as due to sajatiya (padya), vijatiya (padya) and ubhabhyam (i.e. by both sajatiya and vijatiya padya. The first is seen as in itihasa, subhasita and kosa etc. the vijatiya is seen as in prasthana, setubandhana, vivarana etc., and the third is as in Bharata's ten types or rupakas. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #263
818 SAHRDAYALOKA gadya-pradhana is also three-fold like-wise e.g. sajatiya (gadya) as in Pancatantra, vijatiya as in Katyayana's or Panini's prakrta-laksana etc., the third variety is seen as in the speech of mayura, suka, marjara etc. Tulya-rupa is again three-fold with sajatiya-vijatiya and both types of letters seen therein. - In the XIth prakasa or chapter in the Sr. pra. Bhoja discusses various types of prabandhas or compositions. He gives two basic types of a prabandha or a major composition viz. preksya or that which is to be viewed (on the stage) and sravya or that which is to be heard (and read). He observes (pp. 461, ibid): "prabandhas' ca iha dvidha: preksyah, sravyas ca. tayor abhineyah preksyah, i.e. that which is presented through acting is preksya. Each of it is of 24-types, the preksya is such as nataka, etc. sa ca nataka"dibhedac catur vimsati prakaro bhavati. He enumerates these types of plays such as natakam, prakaranam, vyayogah, ihamrgah, samavakarah, dimam, utsrstikankam, bhanam, prahasanam, vithi, and natika, srigaditam, durmallika, prasthanam, kavyam, bhanakam, bhanika, gosthi, hallisakam, nartanakam, preksanakam, natyam, and rasakam. That which is not to be represented on the stage is 'sravya'. This again is 24-fold such as - akhyayika, upakhyana, akhyana, nidarsana, pravahlika, mandhullika, manikulya, katha, parikatha, khanda-katha, upakatha, brhat-katha, campuh, parva-bandhah, kandabandhah, sarga-bandhah, asvasabandhah, sandhibandhah, avaskandha-bandhah, kavya-sastram, sastra-kavyam, kosah, samghatah, samhita, and sahitya-prakasa. * It may be noted that twelve kinds of preksya such as nataka, prakarana, ihamrga, vyayoga, samavakara, dima, utsrstikanka, bhana, prahasana, vithi, and natika and sattaka fall under vakyarthabhinaya. Padarthabhinaya is seen in the other 12 types such as srigadita, durmallika. prasthana, kavya, bhanaka, bhanika, gosthi, hallisaka, nartanaka, preksanaka, rasaka, and natya-rasaka. All these each are defined and illustrated with mention of many rare and lost works. But Bhoja had an access to the same. On the first ten types of major preksva rupakas, Bhoja cites the definitions as given by Bharata. He observes (pp. 465, Vol. II, ibid) "iti dasarupakam etad bharata"caryanusarato gaditam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #264
Classification of Poetry 819 It may be noted that out of the 24 types of sravya i.e. 'an-abhineya' - or that which is not to be presented on the stage 13 types viz. upakhyana, nidarsana, vahlika, manvullika, manikulva, upakatha, brhatkatha, parvabandha, kandabandha, asvasaka-bandha, sandhi-bandha, samhita and sahitya-prakasa - are newly enumerated. The others are known to us through earlier sources. So, we will try to get an idea of these new types of sravya-literature. 'Upakhyana' is small narrative episode sandwiched between two bigger episodes : This is promoted to illustrate an idea and thereby to instruct somebody. The upakhyanas, sixteen in number as read in the Mahabharata, narrating the account of Nala, Savitri, etc. are the illustrations in point. Bhoja observes (pp. 469, Sr. Pra. Vol. II. ibid) - nala-savitri-sodasarajopakhyanavat prabandhantah, anya-prabodhanartham yad upakhyati tad-upakhyanam. With reference to the upakhyana itself, Bhoja describes akhyana' and observes that when an artist presents a theme along with acting, recitation and singing, it is said to be akhyana or akhyanaka - (pp. 469, ibid) "akhyanaka-samjnam tallabhate yady abhinayan pathan gayan, granthikah ekah kathayati govinda-vad avahite sadasi." The artist is called 'granthika'. This is illustrated by "govinda"khyana". In Gujarat the akhyanas by Kavi Premananda are very famous. Such artists as Shri. Dharmikalala (the Mana-bharta) keep this tradition alive even to-day. We will go to observe that Hemacandra also draws upon Bhoja in this respect and feeds us information about these rare types. Bhoja mentions as examples of mixed compositions in prose and verse the akhyanas of Mara (= cupid), Samba (= Krsna's son), and Govinda. Dr. Raghavan observes : (pp. 620, ibid) : "Bhoja's description of this type makes this composition a variety of the Drsya class, involving as it does song and gesture. This is really a form of the Indian theatre. The granthika here is a narrator of the story and an actor and a musician. This is more or less a monologue and survives in the Kathaka dance of the North, in the katha-kalaksepa of the south and in the Prabandha-Kutta of the Cakyaras of Kerala. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #265
820 SAHRDAYALOKA There has been much controversy over the nature of the granthika mentioned along with saubhika, by Patanjali. Bhoja's Sr. Pra., elsewhere in the early chapters on grammatical chapters, mentions the Kathaka as the person involved in the expressions "kamsam ghatayati" and "balim bandhayati." "tatha hi kathakah 'kamsam ghatayati ity ukte kamsa-vadham acasta iti pratiyate." (p. 421, Vol. I. Sl. Pra). From the words "akhyanaka-samjnam tat labhate" in Bhoja's definition of the Akhyana, one may doubt whether there was such an akhyana literature and whether the Akhyana was not the Upakhyanas found in epics themselves, sung and interpreted through gesture. But that there existed texts for Akhyana by Granthikas, separate from and different in respect of form from the text of the upakhyanas in the epics is known from two evidences. Firstly, Bhoja refers to these three akhyanas of Mara, Samba and Govinda as examples of compositions in prose and verse of an equal measure and of a varied nature in an earlier context (p. 232, Vol. I. see under "Akhyanas in the chapter on works and Authors Quoted in the Sr. Pra.). Secondly, the growth of prabandha literature in Kerala would point to the existence of a tradition of a special class of composition for Akhana exposition." This rather long quotation from Dr. Raghavan exerts to prove 'Akhana' literature as a type independent of the Upakhyanas in the epics. We agree to this and in support we refer, once again to our reference cited above, of a poet called Premananda from Gujarat, famous for his 'Akhyanas', based on Nala-damayantikatha (or upakhyana) etc., which are even to-day very popular when presented with music, singing, and eloquence by such great artists as Mana-bhatta Dharmikalaljee, who provides excellent performance on stage with the help of an empty "mana" i.e. brass pot, with his figers with rings playing upon it. 'Nidarsana' - is defined by Bhoja (sr. Pra. XI, pp. 469, ibid) - as "nisciyate tirascam a-tirascam va yatra cestabhih, karyam a-karyam va tannidarsanam pancatantra"di." Pancatantra and such other compositions are illustrations of nidarsana, wherein through activities of birds or other (i.e. animals, etc.), right activity or wrong one is decided. Thus, nidarsana is also a story but with a didactic purpose. It is a fable, an allegory or a parable. It may be noted however, that all nidarsanas are not animal stories. Persons who can be cited as examples of greatness are also created and described in nidarsanas to serve as models for teaching what is good or bad. Bhoja observes : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #266
Classification of Poetry 821 "dhurta-vita-kuttanimatamayura-marjarika"di yalloke karyakarya-nirupana-rupam iha nidarsanam tad api." Thus, Dhurta-vita-samvada, Kuttanimata and also stories of a cat or a peacock etc. are also illustrations of nidarsana. Bhoja had mentioned examples of Pancatantra, Mayura, Marjara and Suka on an earlier occasion while illustrating mixed compositions in verse and prose. Dr. Raghavan suggests that here 'suka' may refer to 'suka-saptati'. (pp. 620, ibid). Pravahlika is explained by Bhoja (pp. 439, ibid) as, "yatra dvayor vivada(h), pradhanam adhikrtya, jayate sadasi, sardha-prakrta-racita pravahlika-cetaka-prabhsti." Bhoja is the first to point out this variety of sravya-kavya. The illustration cited is "cetaka", etc. It is supposed to be written partly in prakta : "sardha-prakrtaracita." It is perhaps a eulogy on a king or some other hero. This is done by a device of a discussion between two persons in an assembly - "sadasi; dvayor vivadah" and - is with reference to a principal character - 'pradhanam adhikrtya'. Hemacandra also refers to this variety: T a. Ch. III describes this type as a composition mixed with prose and verse and thus it seems to come closer to 'Camp Raghavan remarks, (pp. 621, ibid) - "The pravahlika has a history going upto Vedic times; certain verses in the Atharva Veda (XX. 133) are given the name Pravahlika in Aitareya (vi. 33), and Kausitaki, (* * * 7) Brahmanas; see also sankh. Sr. Sutra, XII. 22; Khila V. 16. The Brhaddevata (I. 35) gives it as the name of one class of mantras; and in these places, Pravahlika has been taken as a riddle. (ft. n. see vedic Index, II. p. 40)." Dr. Raghavan has given some more interesting information in this context (pp. 622, 623, ibid) which could be read in his work. Manthulli [ka] : Bhoja observes - (pp. 469, ibid) : ksudra-katha manthulli ya iha maharastrabhasaya bhavati, gorocanena karya sa anangavativa va kavibhih." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #267
822 SAHRDAYALOKA Then, he further observes : yasyam upahasah syat purohitamatya-tapasa"dinam, prarabdha-a-nirvahe sapi hi manthullika bhavati." We will go to see that Hemacandra reads 'Matallika'. In the quotations cited as above, Bhoja seems to record two different concepts of Manthulli, current in literary criticism. According to one view, it is a short story written in Maharastri Prakrta and illustrations cited are 'Gorocana' and 'Anangavati', now, only names to us. The second view regards Manthullika to be a type with 'hasya' or laughter as the dominant sentiment. In this the purohitas or (royal) dharma-gurus, amatyas or ministers, tapasas or ascetics are made a butt of laughter as they do not complete an act they have started i.e. for, "prarabdha a-nirvaha." Bhoja does not cite any illustration for this, but the Sr. Pra. Vol. I. pp. 122 also refers to this as : "tad etad (gadyam) trividham api akhyayikasu, kathasu, madhu-mallikadinu (=. mattamallikasu) disyate. We will go to see that Saradatanaya takes this type as identical with an upa-rupaka called 'durmallika'. He actually places the verses of Bhoja concerning Manthulli under durmallika. Manikulya is defined by Bhoja as : "manikulyayam jalam iva na laksyate yatra purvato vastu, pascat prakasate, sa manikulya, matsya-hasita'di." So, this is a type in which actually the story or theme is not clear in the beginning but comes to light at a later stage as in "Matsya-hasita". Actually no independent work under this title is known to the world of scholars, but in verses 16-28, in Lambhaka I, taranga V, of the Katha-sarit-sagara, there is a story at subordinate level which is termed "Matsya-hasita". The Sukasaptati has a longer story of the same motif of the laughter of the dead fish. Parikatha, as seen above, was mentioned by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. The Locana's concept is placed by us as above. But Bhoja defines it as : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #268
Classification of Poetry 823 "paryayena bahunam yatra pratiyoginam, kathakusalaih, . sruyante sudravaj jigisubhih parikatha sa tu." (pp. 469, ibid) For Bhoja also this type is a series of stories told by expert story-tellers to overcome one another (in the art of story-telling). The illustration is "Sudraka". For Bhoja "paryaya' means "one by one". Bhoja is of the opinion that expert story-tellers vie with one another in narration of a story, each. Abhinavagupta says that on a given theme, one of the purusarthas is narrated in parikatha, in diverse manner. 'katha' for Bhoja is : "ya niyamita-gati-bhasa divya-divyobhayeti-vsttavati, kadambariva lilavativa va, sa katha kathita." (pp. 469, ibid) The description of katha almost follows Dandin. For Bhoja 'katha' is having its 'gati' and 'bhasa' fixed. This means that it is either in prose or verse and the language could be any. The character of either a divine or a-divya i.e. mortal is portrayed. Kadambari is an illustration of katha in Sanskrit and Lilavati is one in Prakrta. As for Parikatha Bhoja does not suggest any particular language while Abhinavagupta also does not insist on any one language. Ratnesvara, on Sarasvatikantha"bharana (II. 6) notes that both khanda-katha and Parikatha are necessarily in Prakta, and this could be Bhoja's idea also as in the XXVIIIth chapter of the Sr. Pra., the illustration cited from Sudraka-katha is, in prakrta. 'Khandakatha' is a short episode from a bigger work, as illustrated by 'Indumati. Thus for Bhoja it is a portion of a story picked up from either the middle or the end portion of another larger work. Bhoja is not insistent on any particular language here. But for Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Ratnesvara khandakatha is in Prakrta only. Anandavardhana wants it to be in verse only, like sakalakatha. Bhoja does not allude to sakalakatha. 'Upakatha' for Bhoja is - "yatra"sritya kathantaram ati-prasiddham, nibadhyate kavibhih, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #269
824 SAHRDAYALOKA caritam vicitram anyat sopakatha, citralekha"di." (pp. 469, ibid) When a poet portrays a beautiful character based on a very famous another katha we get 'upakatha'. The illustration is "Citralekha". It is not clear whether Citralekha is a separate composition or a chapter or a section of another work, notes Dr. Raghavan. But the way Bhoja has drafted the definition of upakatha, we carry an impression that it is supposed to be an independent type concentrating just on a sigle character portrayed in a famous larger work. This type seems to come closer to 'upakhyana' as seen in the Mahabharata. Brhatkatha for Bhoja is an independent type of literature but both Bhamaha and Dandin take it as identical with 'katha' only. For Bhoja Brhatkatha is divided into 'lambhas', has for its theme something extraordinary and is written in Paisachi. The theme is on a very broad canvas. (maha-visaya) : "lambhankita'dbhutartha pisaca-bhasamayi maha-visaya, naravahanadatta"descaritam iva bihatkatha bhavati." (pp. 470, ibid) Bhoja seems to accept "adbhutartha", a feature from Dandin I. 38. Dandin names the chapters either as lambha or ucshvasa, but Bhoja has only "lambha". 'Campu.' is defined by Bhoja as, "akhyayikaiva sanka socchvasa divya-gadya-padya-mayi, sa, damayanti vasavadata"di iha ucyate campuh." Campu is in prose and verse and is the same as i.e. is like akhyayika. Thus campu also has divisions into ucchvasas and is having an 'anka' or 'mark'. Perhaps this is like the 'sri - mark in Magha. Hemacandra supports this explanation : (pp. 366, Edn. Dr. Nandi, Ahd. Pub. L. D. Inst. of Indology, Jun. 2000) - gadyapadyamayi sanka socchvasa campuh. (Ka. sa. VIII. 9) : samskrtabhyam gadyapadyabhyam racita, abhiprayena yany ankani sva-namna para-namna va kavih karoti, tair yukta, ucshvasa-nibaddha campuh. yatha vasavadatta, damayanti va. Hemacandra also offers the same illustrations as Bhoja. Obviously he is under Bhoja's influence. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #270
Classification of Poetry 825 Parva-bandha, for Bhoja is a very major work and is illustrated by the great Mahabharata having divisions designated as 'parvans'. In such a work the topics of history are vowen in verse and in Sanskrit : "yasmin itihasarthas' cchandobhis samskstena badhyante, bahavah, parvabandho bhavati, mahabharata-prabhstih." It may be noted that literary critics call the Mahabharata an 'itihasa', but the Mahabharata itself says that it is a kavya. It contains a great number of stories. "Kanda-bandha' - is for Bhoja, one which is divided into kandas, and is a major work in verse. The illustration is the Ramayana. Actually Bhoja has given three independent types for three major works such as Brhatkatha, Mahabharata and Ramayana. Bhoja observes : "yatretihasam akhilam yathasthitam caikam eva bhasante, rsayas sa kanda-bandho Ramayana-sannibho bhavati." Dr. Raghavan (pp. 627, ibid) observes : "Before taking leave of the katha-varieties, we may take note of the information on this topic found in Jain works. The Jain writers mention quite a large number of kathas : the Vasudevahindi broadly classifies katha into historical (carita) and the imaginative (kalpita) and each again as dealing in main either with a man or a woman (Lambha X, pp. 208-9, Bhavanagar, Edn.). The Kuvalayamala of Uddyotanasuri classifies kathas by the Purusarthas, Dharmakatha, Arthakatha, and sankirna, giving each some sub-varieties; besides these, Uddyotana speaks of a fivefold classification, in which besides the Sakalakatha and Khandakatha met with elsewhere, we find three new classes, Ullapakatha, Parihasa-katha and Varakatha, and calls his own work a Sankirna-katha combining features of all these. The Lilavati which is a praksta katha in verse, gives a two-fold classification, on the basis of the characters being divine, human or mixed (Divya, Manusa, Divya Manusa), and of the language, samsksta, Praksta and Sankirna (gatha, 35, 36). In his Samaraditya katha, Haribhadra mentions the classifications found in the Kuvalayamala and Litavati, and in the Niryukri on the Dasavaikalika (III. 194 ff), besides the Purusartha varieties noted above a type called Vikatha is mentioned. (ft. n. 1, see A. N. Upadhye, Lilavati, Singhi, Jain Series, Notes, p. 328) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #271
826 SAHRDAYALOKA We have to note here one point : While illustrating these three classes, the Brhatkatha, the Parvabandha and the Kandabandha, Bhoja says : 'Story like that of Naravahanadatta and others', 'Mahabharata and the like', and 'Compositions like the Ramayana'. - "naravahanadatta"deh caritam iva bihatkatha", "mahabharataprabhrti", and "ramayana-sannibho bhavati." From this we have to suppose that Bhoja had in mind other Brhatkathas, other Bharata-like-works and other Ramayanas or Ramayana-like works. He might have meant that such other works existed or that they are possible, or, as it is most likely, might have used the words 'iva', 'prabhsti', 'sannibha', conventionally and for the sake of uniformity." * No., Bhoja did mean works like the Ramayana etc., for we know about the Jain Version of the Ramayana for sure, through the efforts of Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, our guru. Being closer to Gujarat, Bhoja must have been conversant with such orks hardly depicted any originality in the field of poetry, they being mostly unimpressive imitations of the famous works of Vyasa or Valmiki, or any writer of eminence. "Sargabandha' is not defined here by Bhoja, as perhaps it is a famous type. But he says : "yasminn itihasarthan apesalan pesalan kavih kurute, sa hayagrivavadha"di-prabandha iva, sargabandhah syat." Wherein historical theme which is not beautiful, is rendered as if beautiful by poets, such is a sarga-bandha as is hayagriva-vadha and such other works. Elsewhere Bhoja has defined this type, the sargabandha or a mahakavya in a like fashion as Dandin (pp. 480, ibid, Sr. Pra. XI. (End. portion) Asvasaka-bandha is, according to Bhoja, a praksta composition in verse such as 'Setubandha' etc. Dandin calls this 'skandhaka-bandha', because the metre employed is the matra-cchanda such as "skandhaka". Bhoja says: "yah sargabandhatulyo nibadhyate prakstena suddhena, asvasaka-bandho'sau vijneyah setubandha"dih." Bhoja, for certain, had a vast literature in Sanskrit. Prakrita and Apa before him. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #272
Classification of Poetry 827 Sandhi-bandha, for Bhoja is also a praksta mahakavya. It is in apabhramsa language and matracchanda verses. Divisions in 'Sandhi-bandha' are termed Sandhis and Bhoja cites 'Abdhimathana' as its illustration : "yo'pabhramsa-nibandho matra-cchandobhir, abhimato'lpadhiyam, vacyas sa sandhibandhas' caturmukhoktabdhimathana"di." . Men of light intellegence relish this. The last line is not clear. Could it be "caturmukhokto ?" - i.e. it is said to be having four facets i.e. the four sarthas as its goal ? - As read in the present text - "caturmukhokta'bdhi. etc, perhaps is meant to be "abdhi-mathana, as spoken (or written) by (some) caturmukha (or Brahma himself ?) Avaskandhaka-bandha is, "ya iha dvicarikavag gramyagira giyate, gabhiroktah, sovaskandhaka-bandhah abhidhiyate bhimakavya"di." (pp. 470, ibid) This is a major verse composition in a low variety of apabhramsa, i.e. gramya variety. The divisions are termed avaskandhakas and 'Bhimakavya' is an illustration. The reading "bhima-kaya"di" seems to be faulty. Hemacandra has : "gramya'pabhramsa-bhasa-nibaddha- vaskandhabandham (bhima-kavya"di). This is read in the Ka. Sa., pp. 461, Edn. Parikh & Kulkarni, '64, Bombay. Kavyasastra is defined by Bhoja (pp. 470, ibid) - as "yatrarthah sastranam kavye vinivesyate mahakavibhih, tad bharti-kavya-mudraraksasavat kavyasastram syat." When the theme of various disciplines is presented in poetry by great poets as e.g. bhatrikavya, or mudraraksasa, it is termed kavya-sastram. Bhoja gives two illustrations, one each from padya and nasaka. Thus, this variety is wide enough to touch both sravya and preksya types. sastra kavya is defined by Bhoja as - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #273
828 SAHRDAYALOKA "sastram yatra kavinam rahasyam upakalpayanty analpa-dhiyah, tad rati-vilasa-kamandakiyavac chastrakavyam tu." (pp. 470, ibid) When discourses of sastra or discipline are presented through poetry, we get sastra-kavya, kamandakiya niti-sastra and Rativilasa which is lost to us for the present, are illustrations of this type. Technical subject presented through poetry makes for sastra-kavya. Dr. Raghavan observes : (pp. 626, ibid) "Under the sabdalamkara Adhyaya, Bhoja mentions Six Varieties one of which is Kavya-Sastra, 'sastre kavya-vinivesah kavya-sastram? Kavya-sastra in that place is the sastra-kavya mentioned here. See S.K.A. pp. 260. Other varieties mentioned there are sastra, which is the kavya sastra (e.g. Bhatrikavya) here mentioned, itihasa, kavyetihasa, and sastretihasa." We feel that Bhoja wants to underline that kavya-sastra and sastra-kavya are different from each other. In the former the theme of sastra is covered in Kavya, in the latter sastra itself is presented as kavya. If we find beautiful poetry in the upanisads, or the Bhagavad geeta, they illustrate sastra-kavya. We feel some of the karikas in the Dhv. such as Dhv. IV. 4. "drstapurva api hy arthah kavye rasa-parigrahat, sarve nava iva"bhanti madhumasa iva drumah." and, Dhv. IV. 10, "vacaspati-sahasranam sahasrair api yatnatah nibaddha sa ksayam naiti prakrtir jagatam iva." could be taken as illustrations of Kavya-sastra while the famous verse quoted also in the Dhv., from the Bhagavad Geeta viz. "ya nisa sarvabhutanam..." etc. could be taken as illustration of sastra-kavya. Actually the description of Asvattha tree, or say, most part of the B.G. is sastra in the garb of poetry. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #274
Classification of Poetry 829 Rajasekhara has also talked about a sastra-kavi who is 'of three types such as : tatra tridha sastra-kavih. yah sastram vidhatte, yasca sastre kavyam samvidhatte, yo'pi kavye sastratham vidhatte." We can illustrate these. The first is one down sastra and yet his style is such which may earn him the title of a poet. Thus, Sankara's sariraka-mimamsa-bhasya is a lyrical gem by itself. So is Sabara's prose. Anandavardhana, Kuntaka, Mahima and Hemacandra also write beautiful prose. They are all writing a sastra. Thus, they are sastra-kavis. The second variety is illustrated by poetic passages as read in the Bhagavad-geeta or the upanisads. The third type is illustrated as in Bhatrikavya, or Dvyasraya-kavyas of Hemacandra. Dr. Raghavan observes : (pp. 629, ibid) - "Bhoja has defined prabandha or kavya of all kinds as vidhi-nisedha-vyutpadaka, from the point of view of vyutpatti. And Mahimabhatta expressly says that, from this point of view, kavya also is sastra. Hence all Kavya is sastra; the conception is a very old one that the kavya coats with sugar the ideas of sastra. Cf. Bhamaha - V. 3: "svadu-kavya-rasonmisram sastramapy upabhunjate, prathama"lidha-madhavah pibanti katu bhesajam." Kosa for Bhoja is (pp. 470, ibid) - "kosa iva yas subhasitaratna-samuha"tmakah samuddhriyate, mahatah kavyambhodheh sa kosa iva sapta-satika"di." Dandin (I. 13) also refers to this type. For Bhoja it is a selection and collection of best verses from a whole literature. It is like collecting subhasita-ratnas and aking a samuha of it; e.g. 'sapta-satika' or 'gatha-sapta-sati', of Hala. Tarunavacaspati on Dandin (I. 13) explains it as selections made from different authors - "koso nanakartyka-subhasita-ratna-samudayah." But Vadijanghala, yet another commentator on Dandin takes it to be a string or collection of stories too, besides ideas : koso'pyaneka-bhinnartha-katha-grathitah katha-kosah; krsnasarah, taragana iti." - Dandin also talks of samghata (I. 13), which for Tarunavacaspati is a singleauthor-creation having theme of varied nature. Prabha (pp. 15, ibid) gives different opinions which may be read there. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #275
830 SAHRDAYALOKA 'Samghata' is defined by Bhoja as, eka-praghattake yastv eka-ksto bhavati sukti-samudayah, samghatas sa nigaditah vandavana-meghaduta"di. For Bhoja also, samghata is one-man-creation, having theme of varied nature. He cites 'vrndavana' or 'meghaduta' as illustrations. Dandin (I. 13) also mentions samghata. Taruna-vacaspati explains that its subject matter is one continuous theme (ekartha) and the author is one. Bhoja has the same characteristics with illustrations cited as above. Vadijanghala gives the Meghaduta and Surya-sataka as illustrations. Thus sataka-literature seems to be covered, under the title of samghata We agree with Dr. Raghavan when he observes that how a poem like Meghaduta can be called a samghata is not understandable. If it is a mere description of the cloud, Dr. Raghavan observes, we can understand it being called a samghata. Tarunavacaspati seems to be correct when he illustrates the samghata by two collections, the Sarat-samghata and the Dramida-samghata. The latter perhaps refers to the collections in which early Tamil literature is preserved. 'Samhita' (pp. 470, ibid) is defined by Bhoja as, "yasyam sandhiyante manisibhir viprakirna-vsttantah, sa samhiteti gadita yaduvamsa-dilipa-vamsadi." It is a type in which accounts scattered in different sources are placed together. The illustrations cited by Bhoja viz. Yaduvamsa and Dilipa-vamsa are lost to us for the present. This type seems to be closer to a mahakavya. 'Sahityaprakasa' is a type illustrated by srngara-prakasa, wherein all vidyasthanas i.e.-sources of learning are covered up in a single work : "yasminn asesa-vidyasthanarthavibhutayah prakasante samhrtya, sa sahityaprakasa etadeso bhavati." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #276
Classification of Poetry 831 All branches of knowledge are brought together in this type, under a single banner, the illustration being Bhoja's own Sr. Pra. Bhoja observes (pp. 470) :etasmin srngara-prakase suprakasam eva. asesa-sastrartha-sampad upanisadam akhila-kala-kavyaucitya-kalpana-rahasyanam ca sanniveso disyate." Dr. Raghavan observes : (pp. 630, ibid): "In a way it can be said that Bhoja's claims are not vain. He has spoken of the tenets of every system of thought in this 'magnam opus' of his. This can be realised fully by turning to the chapter in this thesis on Bhoja's sastraic Discussions and Bhoja and the Sastrakaras." Dr. Raghavan further observes (pp. 630, ibid) : "Bhoja could have easily multiplied the number of sastra-kavya varieties, had he not bound himself to the number 24, to be in symmetry with the twentyfour Drsya varieties. We do not find the osara Apabhramsa Kavya found in Dandin I. 37. Dandin I. 37 is quoted by Bhoja at the end of the chapter, but the third quarter of the verse - "Osaradir ah" is changed to by him into "avaskandhavya (dya) pabhrambah" (p. 449, Vol. II. Sr. Pra. = here. pp. 480, Josyer). We do not know whether Dandin's Osara and Bhoja's avaskandha-bandha are identical, Osara referring to the metre, (ft. n. - pp. 630 Raghavan : Osara is taken by Tarunavacaspati as the name of this type of composition in Apabhramsa.) and Avaskandha to the chapter-division. He omits the Anibaddha in this context; we do not meet here with the Muktaka, Sandanitaka, Visesaka and Kulaka. But he mentions them in chapter VIII under the . head 'ekarthibhava'. Here he mentions the Muktaka or the single verse with a unity, the Yugalaka which is a unit in two verses, the Sandanitaka in three verses and the Kulaka in five or more (p. 142, Vol. II. Sr. Pra.). (= p. 303, Edn. Josyer, Vol. I. Sr. Pra). Here Bhoja mentions also the Samghata which is a collection on a single theme and the Kosa which is a collection of verses on various themes. Wekapraghatakopanibandhanam subhasitanam samuhah samghatah. anekapraghattakopanibaddhanam tu kosah." - Bhoja also omits the Kalasraya-kavya mentioned by Bhamaha in I. 17. It is unnecessary for Bhoja to include here, his own theoretical treatise Sr. Pra., for he is dealing here with varieties of poetic composition. TI is not a kavya. He is considering here varieties of Laksya and not with Laksana. Sr. Pra. is a Laksana. Sastra-Kavya, though Laksana, partakes of the nature of laksya, and hence can be included here. But works like the Sr. Pra. have no place here. If it is to be included, Bhoja might well have included here other types of sastra-granthas like sutra, vrtti, Bhasya, Vartika, Pancika, Samiksa, Tika, etc. which Rajasekhara mentions and defines in his K.M. I. ii. p. 5. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #277
832 SAHRDAYALOKA At the end of the XIIth Chapter of sr. Pra., Bhoja gives some Anustubhs, in which he makes some general remarks on all these compositions, mentioning the number of Samdhis in each of them. (pp. 448-449, Vol. II; here pp. 480, Vol. II, Josyer)." Uparupakas : We will now consider Bhoja's treatment of 'preksya' or 'abhineya' types under which are placed rupakas - and Uparupakas. Ten types of rupakas, beginning with nasaka and ending with vithi, are defined after Bharata's Natya-sastra. Bhoja observes : (pp. 461, Vol. II, Josyer) : prabandhas ca iha dvidha : preksyah sravyas ca. tayor abhineyah preksyah, sa ca nataka"dibhedat caturvinsati-prakaro bhavati. natakam, prakaranam, vyayogah, ihamrgah, samavakarah, dimam, utsrstikankam bhanam, prahasanam, vithi; - natika, sattakah, srigaditam, durmillika, prasthanam, kavyam, bhanakam, bhanika, gosthi, hallisakam, nartanakam, preksanakam, natyam, rasakam iti." Out of these the first 12 types are kinds of vakyarthabhinaya and the other twelve from srigadita to rasaka are kinds of padarthabhinaya. Nataka is defined by Bhoja as (pp. 461, ibid) : "prakhyatavastu-visayam prakhyatodatta-nayakam caiva, rajarsi-carita-vamsanucaritadivya"srayopetam. sarvabhir-bhasabhih samanvitam gadya-padya-misrabhih, sarvaiscalamkarair laksana-sat-trimsata ca samyuktam. (pp. 462, ibid) nana-vibhuti-samyuktam rddhi-vilasa"dibhir-gunair yuktam, anka-pravesaka"dhyam rupakam iha natakam nama. ntupatinam yac caritam nana-rasa-bhava-sammisram bahudha sukha-duhkhotpattikstam vacyam tannatake bhavati... etc. etc. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #278
Classification of Poetry 833 It may be noted here that the preksya varieties are first given by Bharata, so far as available documents are concerned. Normally Bharata is followed by all, including Bhoja. We have Abhinavabharats on the Natya-sastra, and then Dhananjaya's Dasarupaka (974-995 A.D.), and the Kavyanusasana of Hemacandra (11th Cen. A.d.) which gives ten types of rupakas following Bharata exactly and then Hemacandra and following him Ramacandra and Gunacandra, the authors of the Natyadarpana give us some uparupakas also which are found in Bhoja also. After this we have Sardadatanaya (1175-1250 A.D.), Vidyanatha, Singabhupala, Visvanatha and Sagaranandin (13th Cen. A.D.). They all follow Bharata. So, the ten principal types of drama, the dasa-rupaka have their characteristics laid down by Bharata and followed by all dramaturgists later without any shift in the basic approach. We therefore will not pick up here any discussion regarding these ten principal types of drama but we will draw the attention of scholars to the fact that when Bharata in centuries prior to Christ or parallel to Christ, churns out theory followed so religiously by later theorists, one thing emerges for certain that there must have been a vast store-house of dramatic literature covering the entire span of life both in its success and failures, merits and demerits, victories and defeats, loys and sorrows, love and hatred and what not. The ten varieties taken together present theme that covers everything presentable and worthy of imitation for world solidarity and also that which is to be avoided for fear of fall. Actually as Bharata states in his earlier chapters, the natya i.e. the dramatic art is the medium to represent entire existence : trailokyasya'sya sarvasya natyam bhavanukirtanam." Abhinavagupta elaborates on what is exactly meant by 'anukirtana' which is not bare imitation, but artful re-creation. Beyond these types, and the technical discussion concerning the selection of the theme, the presentation through scenes, situations and acts, etc. Bharata has also mentioned 'natika' taken as an 'uparupaka'. There were other varieties of such 'uparupakas' also not taken care of by Bharata but handed over to later theorists by unknown sources of both dramaturgy and actual practice. Some of them are discussed by Bhoja, Hemacandra Saradatanaya. Sagarnandin and Visvanatha. It may be noted at the outset that Bhoja calls them 'preksya' which is abhineya': The idea is that these varieties are ms of "performing art" in general. They need not be just drama' where an artist plays the role of a given character. There are certain art-forms, we may call them folk-art-forms popular even to-day in say, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya-pradesh, Bengal, Orissa and different parts of India which owe their origin to these 'preksya' minor varieties of performance which go generally under the name of upa-rupakas. We will discuss the nature of these as seen in Bhoja, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #279
834 SAHRDAYALOKA Hemacandra and the rest, leaving aside the major ten types of rupakas with all their characteristics and technicalities, structure-analysis, etc. Bhoja enumerates in such a category, such art-forms as : natika, sattakah, srigaditam, durmallika, prasthanam, kavyam. bhanakam, bhanika, gosthi, hallisakam, nartanakam, preksanakam, natyam, and rasakam. We will take care of some other art-forms if seen in Hemacnadra and the rest. So, we begin with these fourteen first as imagined by Bhoja. Natika - For Bhoja Natika is a mixture of both prakarana and nataka. He is satisfied with one such mixed variety while the Natyadarpana has "prakarani" also, over and above natika. Bhoja observes. (pp. 465, ibid) - sarva-rasa-laksana"dhya samanvitangair iyam trayodasabhih, prathamottama-madhyamabhir yuktah, syat prakrtibhis tisebhih. iti dasarupakam etad bharata"caryanusarato gaditam, prakarana-natakabhedo rupakam iha natika bhavati." Bhoja goes on to define natika (pp. 466, Vol. II. Josyer, ibid) - as follows: "stripraya caturanka lalitabhinaya"tmikasu vihitangi, bahu-gita-nstya-vadya rati-sambhoga"tmika caiva, rajopacara-yukta, songarabhinaya-bhava-samyukta nayaka-devi-parijana-samanvita nataka-prakrtih, prakarana-samudbhava punar utpadyam vastu, nayakam nopatim. antahpura-sangitaka-kanyam adhikrtya kartavya." The N.S. XVIII. 110, D.R. III, M.M. (= Mandara-maranda pp. 73, B.P. (= Bhavaprakasana) p. 247, N.D. (= Natyadarpana) p. 120, S.D. (= Sahitya-darpana) 269272; R.S. (= Rasarnava Sudhakara) III; N.L.R.K. (= Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa) 2745, and of course Hemacandra (Ka. Sa. VIII. 49, pp. 354, Edn. Nandi) - define Natika. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #280
Classification of Poetry 835 It is one of the most popular forms of minor plays. It has a number of female characters. The hero is necessarily a king of the dhira-lalita type. The motif of the action is love and acquision of kingdom. The chief interest centres round the element of marvel, the means and ends connected with the same are peculiar and strange. The plot is not of historical nature but is invented, and is spread ove stages of action. The result is that natika has only four junctures with the omission of vimarsa sandhi. Kaisiki-vrtti is predominant. The hero has connection with more than one spouse. The queen is an impressive character having a sway over her lord. In all other respects the Natika closely resembles the nataka. Before we proceed with other forms of upa-rupakas, we will look into the history of these art-forms as given by Dr. Raghavan (pp. 535 etc. ibid). Dr. Raghavan observes that the derivative types of drama, including natika, were increasing and the next stage of codification was reached in Kohala's work, which is lost for us now, but to which Abhinavagupta often refers. Perhaps next to Bharata, Kohala was the greatest writer on dramaturgy. Actually in the Kasi. Edn., at XXXVI. 65, it is stated in the N.S. by Bharata, that the rest of the subjects would be dealt with by Kohala in his Uttaratantra: "sesam uttaratantrena kohalah kathayisyati." We do not find this verse in the critical edn. G.O.S. Vadodara, which in XXVII24 mentions Kohala. Dr. Unni's edn recently published also does not contain the above quoted reference but he has covered the 37th Ch. of the G.O.S. Edn. in the 36th extended Ch. only and we have the same reference to Kohala in Unni's Edn. Ch. XXXVI - verse 74. But Dr. Raghavan has accepted Kasi Edn. reading, and observes (pp. 536) that Bharata's work represents something like purva-tantra and that Kohala's work supplements it. But on the face of it this sounds improbable because how can we have a reference to 'Uttaratantra' in a purvatantra ? It is clear that Bharata's text has incorporated parts of earlier and later works. Dr. Raghavan himself suggests that till we unearth the valuable work of Kohala, we cannot decide the extent of accretion into Bharata's text from Kohala. Dr. Raghavan further observes that in Bharata we have the ten rupakas and the Natika. But by the time of Kohala's codification, we find that many minor varieties came into being. Kohala was the first to codify and describe these new types of dramas and dramatic presentations. This, Dr. Raghavan says, is proved by Abhinavagupta's statement - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #281
836 SAHKDAYALOKA "ukta-vyakhyane tu kohala"di-laksita-totaka-satpaka-rasaka"di-samgrahah." (p. 441, Vol. II. A.bh. Mad. Ms.). A.bh. Vol. I. G.O.S. pp. 173, line 3 quoted by Dr. Raghavan also says : "kohalas tu braviti..." etc. But p. 410, G.O.S. Edn. Vol. II. A.bh. also observes : tesam param kohaladibhir nama-matram pranitam." This means Kohala simply enumerated these varieties and did not discuss in full. We do not know also what is meant by 'adi' in A.bh.'s expression "kohaladi'. Dr. Raghavan suggests that the earliest work now known which mentions some of the uparupaka types is the Kamasutra of Vatsyayana which mentions Hallisaka, and Natya-rasaka. - II. 10. sl. 25, pp. 175, Chowk. Edn. : "hallisaka-kridanakaih gayanair natya-rasakai)." The Kamasutra of Vatsyayana (which is later than Bharata) also mentions Preksanaka. This may mean drama or dance in general or a special type of uparupaka, as described by Bhoja later. It is for the first time at A.bh. Vol. I. G.O.S. pp. 183. N.S. Ch.-IV. that we come across anustubh verses describing some uparupakas with the words "tad uktam cirantanaih", but of course we have no knowledge as to who these ancients were. (Actually the verses are on pp. 183, in the second revised edition.) The verses read as : cchannanuraga-garbhabhir uktibhir yatra bhupateh avarjyate manah sa tu, mastna dombika mata : ntsimha-sukara"dinam varnana jalpayed yatah, nartaki tena bhanah syad uddhatarga-pravartitah; gaja"dinam gatim tulyam krtva pravasanam tatha, alpa"viddham su-masrnam tat-prasthanam vittam ucyate, maslnam ca kvacid-dhurta-caritam sidgakas tu sah. balakridaniyuddha"di tatha sukara-simhaja dhvajadina ksta krila yatra sa bhanika mata. hasya-prayam preranam tu syat prahelikaya'nvitam, rtuvarnana-samyuktam ramakridam tu bhasyate. mandalena tu yannsttam hallisakam iti smrtam, ekas tatra tu neta syad-gopasrinam yatha hari)." aneka-nartakiyojyam citra-tala-layanvitam a-catussasti-yugalas rasakam maslnoddhatam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #282
Classification of Poetry 837 Dr. Raghavan observes that whether these verses are from Kohala or not we do not know. Sri Harsa's Varttika on N.S. must have dealt with upa-rupakas, as on pp. 174, G.O.S. Vol. I., the A.bh. quotes from the Varttika an arya on Raga-darsaniya, i.e. Raga-kavya, which is one of the upa-rupakas. Dr. Raghavan has not quoted the same but we quote it as read on pp. 171, Vol. I. G.O.S. (A.bh.) second Edn. '56. yad-varttikam - evam avantara-vakyair upadeso raga-darsaniyesu, simha"di-varnanair va kvacid apy arthantaranyasat." The quotation follows a discussion in the A.bh. that 'nrtta' is not 'natya'. - Dr. Raghavan further observes that some ancient writers had dealt with uparupaka varieties can be made out from Bhamaha I. 24 wherein besides nataka, there is mention of dvipadi, samya, rasaka and skandhaka (= a dance in which songs in skandhaka metre figure ft. n. pp. 537, ibid). All these are intended for abhinaya and Bhamaha says that they are taken care of at length by others : "uktonyais tasya vistarah." - an obvious reference to Bharata and others known to Bhamaha. It may be noted that we do not know the source of the explanation of skandhaka, as cited by Dr. Raghavan. Dandin also mentions (I. 39) 'lasya', 'chalita', 'samya' as 'preksartha' i.e. meant for viewing (on stage). Kumarila's Tantra-varttika also mentions Dvipadi and Rasaka (p. 205. Benares Edn.) It may be noted that the Dasarupaka divides natya into major type i.e. rasasraya comprising of the ten types of drama, and the minor type which takes care of bhava i.e. which is bhava"sraya. The former is called rupaka and the latter "nrtya" which is bhava"sraya and is of the form of padarthabhinaya, the former being rasasraya and of the form of vakyarthabhinaya. Dhanika in his Avaloka on DR. 1. 9 (pp. 8, 9, Edn.) (The Adyar Library Series, Vol. 97, T. Venkatacharya '69 Madras) observes: "rasa"srayan natyad bhava"srayam nrtyam anyad eva. tatra bhava"srayam iti visaya-bhedan nrtyam iti nrter gatra-vikseparthatvena'ngikabahulyat tat-karisu ca nartaka-vyapadesallokepi range preksaniyakam iti vyavaharan natakader anyan nrtyam. tadbhedatvac chrigadita"der na'vadharana'nupapattih. nataka"di ca rasa-visayam. rasasya ca padarthibhutavibhava"di-samsarga"tmaka-vakyartha-rupatvad vakyarthabhinaya"tmakatvam rasa"srayam ity anena darsitam. natyam iti ca 'nata avaspandane' iti nateh kincic calanarthatvat sattvika-bahulyam. ata eva tat-karisu nata-vyapadesah. [loke'pi ca For Personal & Private Use Only .

Page #283
838 SAHRDAYALOKA range natyam iti vyapadesah. etad uktam bhavati) yatha ca gatra-vikseparthatve samane'pyanukara"tmatvena notyad anyan nsttam, tatha vakyarthabhinaya"tmakan natyat padarthabhinaya"tmakam anyad eva nrtyam iti." The difference is here brought out by Dhanika who holds that notya is "angikabahula" and natya is sattvika-bahula; the former has concern more with physical movements and only some feelings, the latter has more psychological activity and is rasa-based. Rasa for Dhananjaya-Dhanika is collected through tatparya sakti and is therefore here termed as vakyarthabhinaya-rupa or perhaps by padarthabhinayarupa is meant a minor type and vakyarthabhinayarupa suggests the major type. Thus rupaka and uparupaka could be understood here. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 538, ibid) - "Therefore, the tatparyavadin, and mainly the Dasarupaka and the Avaloka on it, are responsible for introducing this new nomenclature and terminology to distinguish the major and the minor dramatic varieties. Vakyarthabhinaya and padarthabhinaya are not phrases born in the Kashmiria tradition represented by Abhinavagupta." Dr. Raghavan here gives a foot-note in which he concedes that even Abhinavagupta uses such terms as padartha and vakyartha, but observes that they are not in the sense used by the Avaloka. But we feel that even the Dhv. uses these terms with a shade of meaning closer to major and minor senses quite often when rasa is described as 'vakyartha' at many places and bhavas as padartha. Be it as it is, but the DR. and the Avaloka use these terms to distinguish between major and minor forms of stage performances. We have called them art forms in genral with the former having anukarana and therefore rupana as its soul with acting as its medium, and the latter having primarily the suggestive movements of limbs i.e. dance as its medium, with some impression of acting also. There is no imitation like as it is in drama proper. So the upa-rupakas are art-forms, varieties of performing art and not rupaka or drama proper. Bhoja also seems to follow the phraseology of the DR. and Avaloka to distinguish between major and minor art-forms, i.e. the rupakas and the uparupakas. But Bhoja does not suggest that he accepts the views of the DR. in this respect. This strengthens our earlier observation that these terms viz. padarthabhinaya and vakyarthabhinaya need not be taken as trade-marks of the DR. and Avaloka only as Dr. Raghavan suggests, but actually their roots and practice were still older, perhaps even older than Anandavardhana. Even Anandavardhana (pp. 170, Edn. K. Kris.) observes : na ca rasesu vidhy anuvadavyavaharo na'stiti sakyam vaktum, tesam vakyarthatvena abhyupagamat... For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #284
Classification of Poetry 839 evamvidha-viruddha-padartha-visayah katham abhinayah prayoktavya iti cet, anudyamanaivamvidha-vacya-visaye ya varta sa'tra'pi bhavisyati.... etc." Thus padarthavisaya-abhinaya, and therefore also vakyartha-visaya-abhinaya are not absolutely new terms. For Bhoja, the ten rupakas and also natika and sattaka are rasasraya varieties and thus they make for tweve major types. As for 'Natika', though Dhananjaya calls his work "dasa-rupaka" and says that rupakas are only ten in number, he yet defines natika in DR. III, after defining nataka and prakarana. Bharata also does exactly the same as for Bharata, and therefore also for Dhananjaya, Natika is a form derived from both nasaka and prakarana. Bharata observes : (pp. 435, 5 Vol. II. G.O.S. Edn. '34, O. I. Baroda) - anayosca bandha-yogad anyo bhedah prayokt;bhih karyah, (XVIII. 57 ab) prakarana-natakabhedad utpadyam vastu, nayakam nrpatim. (XVIII. 58 ab.) A discussion is read as to whether nrtta and natya are identical or not in the Abh. (pp. 170. 171. etc. Vol. I. G.O.S. Edn. '56). Here we read names such as dombika. prasthana, sidgaka. bhanaka, bhanika, raga-kava, etc. One thing is certain that these art-forms were perhaps forms accepted from folk-art and were even older than Bhamaha and Dandin and certainly predecessors of Bhoja knew them all. A.bh. has an expression viz. "Kohalas tu braviti" (pp. 171, ibid), and also "kohala"dyaih" - which proves that these art-forms were perhaps even older than Bharata, who mentions only natika, for reasons best known to him only. A.bh. even quotes a name - "culamani-dombikayam..." with reference to one dombika. We know that Dhananjaya also, after Bharata, takes natika as a samkirna or mixed form. The DR. III. 43 observes : "laksyate natika'py atra samkirnanya-nivrttaye, tatra vastu prakaranat natakan nayako nopah." by 'rejection of other mixed forms' or 'anya-nivsttaye' is meant that Dhananjaya was not inclined to accept many mixed forms like these, the prakarani being the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #285
840 SAHRDAYALOKA chief one. The Avaloka (pp. 156, Edn. Adyar, ibid) observes : "anayor natakaprakaranayoh bandhayogan natisamjnaya asrite dve kavye stah. tayor ekah prabandhabhedah prakhyatah. itarastv aprakhyata iti tam bharatiyam slokam vyacaksanah natika-vyatirekena kecit prakaranikam api manyante. ... etc. But A.bh. mentions it and Vagbhasa (II) in his Kavyanusasana (pp. 18) mentions it as : "evam prakaranabhedat prakaranika'pi vijneya." "sattako'pi kaiscid uktah." The N.D. (= Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra) and the S.D. (of Visvanatha) also mention this art-form. The Visnudharmottara-purana, III. 17. mentions 'prakarani' with 'natika', thus making the total number of rupakas as twelve. Vardhamana (A.D. 1140) in his Gunaratna-mahodadhi takes Bharata's arya as allowing two derivative types, a prakhyata type called nati and an aprakhyata type called 'prakarani. "nati-samjnaya dve kavye. eko bhedah prakhyato natika"khyah. itaras tvaprakhyatah prakaranika-samjnah. tatha ca - "anayos ca bandhayogad eko bhedah prayoktbhir jneyah, prakhyatas tv itaro va nali-samjna"srite kavye." (N.S. XX. 60-61, kasi Edn.) There is no Abh. on this verse. Perhaps Abhinavagupta did not read this verse in the ms. of the N.S. he had before him, observes Dr. Raghavan. The G.O.S. Edn. (O. I. Vadodara N.S. : II. '34) pp. 434 reads this verse as (XIX. 57) - "anayosca bandhayogad * anyo bhedah prayoktnbhih* karyah * prakhyatastv itaro va * natakayoge prakarane va." The footnote supplies following alternate readings respectively : * eko; * jneyah; * pratyakhyatastvitaro and * nati-samjna"srite kavye. The first, second and fourth readings are seen in Dr. Raghavan's quotation. But atyakhyatasty itaro" is not read. It means, "the other one which is rejected." Perhaps Bharata did not welcome 'prakarani as a sub-variety. Abhinavagupta, however in his Locana suggests his knowledge of 'prakaranika' when he observes : "abhineyartham dasarupakam natika-totaka-rasaka-prakaranika For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #286
Classification of Poetry 841 avantara-prapanca-sahitam anekabhasa-vyamisra-rupam." In the A.bh. also in the above quoted passage he refers in detail to the view of some who would argue for two sub-varieties called natika and prakaranika. (A.bh. G.O.S. Vol. II. pp. 434, ibid). Sattaka : The DR. does not mention this but Bhoja mentions it. Bhoja has treated natika as the eleventh rupaka-prakara, no doubt as derived from both nataka and prakarana. "prakarana-nataka-bheda rupakam iha natika bhavati." But Bhoja does not create prakaranika. On the other hand he holds that there is a variety similar to natika but it is not prakaranika. It is called Satpaka and it differs from natika in the fact that it has no viskambhaka and pravesaka and that it is throughout only in one language : "viskambhaka-pravesaka-rahito yastv eka-bhasaya bhavati, a-praksta-samskrtaya sa satrako natika-pratimah." (pp. 466, Sr. Pra., ibid) Dr. Raghavan tries to explain "a-praksta-samskrtaya as (a-prakrtaya) samskrtaya." But we do not feel that this rendering makes the meaning clearer.. Perhaps a-prakrta (bhasaya) and a-samskrta-bhasaya is meant here. This means it is either in prakrta or in sanskrta language. Hemacandra (pp. 444, Edn. Parikh & Kulkarni '60 reads : "viskambhaka-pravesaka-rahito yasty ekabhasaya bhavati a-praksta-samskrtaya sa sattako natika-pratimah." The Viveka does not elaborate on this. The Natyadarpana also reads : viskambhaka.... a-praksta-samskrtaya sa sattako natika (pratimah). (pratimah) is to be added. Totaka is found in Abhinavagupta as defined by Kohala along with sattaka, but is not found in Bhoja. Of course Saradatanaya reads totaka along with natika and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #287
842 SAHRDAYALOKA sataka as derived from nataka and prakarana. He of course takes them as covered by nataka and prakarana and hence natika, sattaka or totaka does not deserve independent recognition for him. Read, Bhava-prakasana (VII. 3, 4, etc.) (pp. 260, 261 Edn. Agrawal, Chowkhamba Surbharati Prakashan-Varanasi - second Edn. '83) "rasasraya yady api syur natika-totaka"dayah, nata ka"disvathaitesam antarbhavan na te prthak." natake ca prakarane natikayah puratanaih, antarbhavah krtas tasyam totakasya'pi darsitah." Here the mention of sattaka which is 'natika-pratima' is read following Bhoja. The A.bh. merely mentions Kohala as having defined the sattaka, and Bhoja's Sr. Pra. is the first available document which attempts the definition of sattaka. Abhinavagupta has cited the Karpura-manjari of Raja-sekhara as an instance of sattaka (in praksta only). This he does when he explains the lasyangya called saindhava, which has to be in prakrta. Prakrta, Abhinavagupta explains there, is best suited to srngara rasa and hence Rajasekhara wrote a whole sartaka-type drama, the Karpura-manjari in Prakta. : tatha hi songara-rase satisayopayogini (ni) prakrtabhasa iti sastakah karpura-manjaryakhyah rajasekharena tan-matra eva nibaddhah." Rajasekhara in his prologue to this play defines sattaka as similar to natika but devoide of pravesaka and viskambhaka. kim satakam ? kathitam eva vidagdhaih - "tat satakam iti bhanyate duram yo natika anuharati, kim punar api pravesaka viskambhakau na kevalam bhavatah." Rajasekhara however does not suggest that this type has to be in praksta. He suggests through sutradhara that prakrta is accepted here as it was softer than samskrta, as the author being a Kaviraja is master of both Samskrta and Prakrta alike. Dr. Raghavan suggests that on the strength of this sutradhara's remark we can attempt amendation of Bhoja's text defining sattaka as "prakstaya samskrtaya sa (here we suggest 'va") satdako natika-pratimah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #288
Classification of Poetry 843 We have noted above that Hemacandra reproduces Bhoja's words on Sattaka and so also we read the same in the Narya-darpana; and Vagbhata (II) also reads the same in his Kavyanusasana (II. pp. 18, N.S. Edn. 1915 A.D.) : sattako'pi kaiscid uktah. tad yatha - "viskambhakas tveka-rahito sa tv eka-bhasaya bhavati, a-praksta-samskstaya sa sattako natika-pratibhah." Vadijanghala on Dandin I. 37 calls it as 'sattika' and describes it as an apabhramsa composition. Thus, we have at least three names available such as, sattaka, sataka and sattika. As noted by Dr. Raghavan Prof. Chintaharan Chakravarti accepts the reading a-prakrta-samskrtaya and explains it as neither sanskrit nor prakrit. Perhaps Vadijanghala therefore has called it to be in apabhramsa. The Natyadarpana also calls it "sataka". In the Karpuramanjari the praksta name reads sattaya and sanskrit rendering reads as sataka. It may prove interesting to note that Saradatanaya, at B.P. VIII. 158 (pp. 359, Edn. Agrawal, ibid) - observes : "saiva (= natika eva) pravesakena'pi viskambhena vina krta, anka-sthaniya-vinyastacatur yavanikantara prakrsta-praksta-mayi sattakam namato bhavet." This means that for Saradatanaya the natika itself is known to be sattaka when there is absence of either 'pravesaka' or 'viskambhaka'. In place of 'anka' there is provision of four yavanikas and this type of art-form is laid in the best of prakrta only. Now this goes against the view of Vadijanghala and Prof. Chakravarti as seen above. In place of acts we have four yavanikantaras'. This is not clear to us, but perhaps they are minor divisions of a single scene conducted with the help of curtains to be held and shifted by actors as and when required. Bhoja does not mention this characteristic. He also does not insist that sattaka has to be in prakrta only, of course the best (prakrsta) of it. Elsewhere Saradatanaya observes about sattaka (pp. 393, Edn. Agrawal, ibid; B.P. IX. 57): For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #289
844 sattakam natikabhedo nrtya bheda"tmakam bhavet, kaisiki-bharati-yukta hina-raudra-rasa"dikam sarva-sandhi-vihinam ca natika-prati-rupakam, surasena-maharastra vacya-bhasa-vikalpitam. anka-sthaniya-viccheda catur-yavanika'ntaram, cchadana-skhalana-bhranti nihnava"der a-sambhavat na vadet prakrtim bhasam rajeti katicij jaguh, magaddhya saurasenya va vaded rajeti ke-cana natika-pratirupam yad viseso rupakasya tat, sattakam, tena tasya"huh bhasam tam prakrtim pare. rajasekharakrptam tad yatha karpura-manjari. So, for Saradatanaya, sattaka is a form of rupaka (viseso rupakasya) which is closer to natika (natika-pratirupa) OR, it is a sub-variety of natika (natika-bhedah), and also a type of nrtya (nrtya-bheda"tmaka). Sardatanaya is perhaps not clear or perhaps wants us to realise the complex nature of sattaka which is an art-form closer to the (major) rupaka, and also closer to both natika and nrtya i.e. dance. It is an art-form which to Sardatanaya seems to be a mixed form of the dramatic art, as well as a performing art such as dance. Again, it is said to be sarva-sandhivihina and once again natika-pratirupaka. Now whatever form of dramatic art which is presented on the stage, be it major or minor, has to have at least two sandhis or junctures viz. mukha and nirvahana as the theme, the plot that weaves out the theme, have to have a beginning and an end. So, this remark puzzles us. SAHRDAYALOKA For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #290
Classification of Poetry Again it is either in suraseni or maharastri, and is illustrated by Rajasekharas Karpuramanjari which is in prakrta. But this apart, its structure is not made up of acts but is cut into four by yavanika. This means it is a spectacle of continuous show wherein parts are concealed and revealed when required by curtainsyavanika-held by artists. Thus, perhaps, it has more of dance and spectacle then of drama. Saradatanaya is not clear about the use of language also as he records different views. According to him some hold that the king, who is the hero, should not speak prakrta as it may not be possible for him to cover (chadana) what he wants to cover from some other, or he may falter (skhalana) in Prakrta (perhaps he being accustomed to talk in Samskrta ?), or perhaps he may create bhranti-or deception in the minds of others (? again through inapt use of prakrta ?) or for fear of not concealing (nihnava) his intention. Some believe that the king should speak in magadhi or sauraseni, as Saradatanaya himself has said earlier. Still others hold that as this art-form is a sub-variety or is something closer to natika, the king has to speak prakrta and this seems to be acceptable to Saradatanaya also as Karpuramanjari is said to be an illustration of sattaka. Dr. Raghavan also seems to accept this when he observes: (pp. 542, ibid): "The final view recorded by him is that the sattaka is, again and again, mentioned as a replica of the natika, its differentia as a separate rupaka is to be fixed somewhere, and this difference is none else than the prakrta language that it adopts, as for instance in the Karpuramanjari of Rajasekhara." Dr. Raghavan observes that Sagaranandin adopts this last mentioned view. He quotes from N.L.R.K. (nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa) (p. 133, lines 320) - 4, where the text is currupt according to Dr. Raghavan. He also quotes NLRK p. 90 lines 21567. Dr. Raghavan quotes as follows: "sattake stri-pradhanatvat 845 rupakasya'nurodhatah, nrpah strivat pathed esa pathasya niyato vidhih." This means that sattaka is an art-form having many female characters (as in natika). The king also speaks like a female character i.e. he should use prakrta. This rule is formed regarding speech (in sattaka). Dr. Raghavan observes that the other quotation is currupt. But we place it as is read in chawkhamba skt. samsthan Edn. Varanasi, '72, Babulal Shastri, as follows: (pp. 304, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #291
846 SAHRDAYALOKA sattakam - atha sattakam. tacca natika-pratirupakam, kaisiki-bharatipradhanam, raudra-vira-bibhatsam, avamaria-samdhi-sunyam. yatha - karpuramanjari. antaryavanikantam. yathanke yavanikaya avaccheda bhavanti tatha'tra'pi. sauraseni-praca-maharastri-yuktam. strivad rajno'pi praksta-pathah karyat samskrtapathah. tatra rupakam eva idam karyam iti rajna'pi praksta-pathah kartavyah." This means that sattaka is an art-form which is imitative of natika. The Kaisiki (as female characters abound in it, like natika), and bharati are major vrttis. In it we have raudra, vira, bhayanaka and bibhatsa rasas. But here we feel the reading seems to be currupt. We suggest that we should emend the text as "raudra-virabhayanaka-bibhatsa-[varjam]." This being a graceful art-form having female characters in majority and having kaisiki in predominance, it has to be like natika srngara-praya and so, raudra"di have to be absent from this art-form, which again has graceful dancing in it. The Karpura-manjari as an illustration supports our emendation. This is supported by Saradatanaya's remark viz. hina-raudrarasa"dikam. But in Saradatanaya we have sarva-samdhi-vihinam, which we had objected to earlier. So, there we can emend the text as "avamaria-samdhi-vihinam" in view of Sagaranandin, who also says that in a sattaka we have parts or divisions of theme presented through the device of "yavanika". NLRK as quoted above in prose, says that as in an act there are divisions by the device of yavanika, so also here we have the same in sattaka. The NLRK is clear that the king-hero has to speak in prakrta but "karyat" i.e. due to special reason he may resort to samskrta al Dr. Raghavan further observes that having once dealt with the sattaka amidst the rasa"sraya rupaka varieties, close upon the natika, of which it is a prakrta counterpart, Saradatanaya contradicts himself later, when he defines it as a bhava"sraya variety, a nrtyabheda, among upa-rupakas. But perhaps we may assist Dr. Raghavan's effort here. As observed earlier by us this art-form viz. sattaka seems to be a special mixture of some drama and more dance and hence we should not find any contradiction in Saradatanaya's presentation. Actually the B.P. IX. 4 (pp. 375, Edn. Agrawal, ibid) reads as : "natikayas totakasya satdakasya ca laksanam, amsatvan natakasya'pi tatha prakaranasya ca. anusangikam etesam laksanam tatra darsitam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #292
Classification of Poetry 847 The B.P. observes that as the natika, totaka and sattaka share the characteristics of nataka as well as prakarana in parts, their definitions were cited there (tatra, i.e. along with nataka, prakarana etc. the rupakas, i.e. in Chs. VII and VIII also.) Ch. VII. B.P. (pp. 260, Edn. Agrawal ibid) reads : "rasasraya yady api syur natika-totaka"dayah nataka"disv athaitesam antarbhavan na te prthak." As natika, totaka (and sattaka) are 'rasasraya' varieties - This division follows the DR.) -, they are included in nataka etc. (the major forms of drama). It is further observed that (VII. 5, 6; pp. 261, ibid) "natikaya natakasya'bhedah prakaranasya va. satrakas totakasyaiva bheda ity abhidhiyate. totakasyocyate sadbhir antarbhavo'pi natake, nalaka"der ayam bhedo, natika rupakam bhavet natika-pratimatvac ca sattako'pi tathavidhah." natake totakasyantar bhavad-rupakam eva sah. divya-manusa-samyogas totakam natakanugam, navasta-sapta-pancankam, divya-manusa-sangamam. totakam nama-tat prahur bhedo nataka-sambhavah. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #293
848 SAHRDAYALOKA We have quoted these verses here again only to bring home a point that being rasa"sraya and therefore vakyarthabhinaya-rupa from one angle, natika, totaka (some call it trotaka and the illustration cited is Vikramorvasiyam) and sattaka are varieties of major types i.e. rupakas and therefore do not deserve separate recognition beyond the ten types of drama. Or, at the most the sattaka, being almost imitative form of natika, is included in the same. Sattaka has majority of female characters and kaisiki-pradhanya as in natika and hence it is so to say, natika-pratirupaka, and hence a sub-variety of natika and so included in it. But in the VIII Ch. (Verses 1-3) Saradatanaya observes that ten types of rupakas and other twenty types (of upa-rupakas) are also enumerated. Then he says : (VIII/3) (pp. 321 ibid) - rasa"tmaka dasaitesu, vimsad-bhava"tmaka matah. tesam rupaka-samjna'pi prayo disyataya kvacit. trimsad rupaka-bhedasca prakasyante'tra laksanaih. As all thirty are to be viewed on stage, they are rupakas also. Thus, for Saradatanaya, the twenty (minor) art-forms which mention totaka, natika, and sattaka also among them, are bhava"sraya forms as against rasa"sraya forms the dasa-rupakas. These twenty are padarthabhinayatmaka as they have more of dance than of drama in them. Hence they are mixed art-forms. Saradatanaya observes (Ch. IX./2, pp. 374, edn. Agrawal ibid) : dasarupena-bhinnanam rupakanam atikramat avantarabhidah kascit padarthabhinayatmikah te nstya-bhedah prayena samkhyaya vimsatirmatah, totakam... parijatakam ity api. eta namantaraih kaiscid acaryaih kathita api For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #294
Classification of Poetry 849 samvidhana-kramas tasam na kadacana bhidyate. Thus sattaka is a natikabheda and is also a nrtya-bheda. Thus sattaka is an artform which inherits the characteristics of both drama and dance. Perhaps it was a form of folk-art. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 548) that Bahurupa Misra, a late commentator on Dhananjaya, who draws upon Saradatanaya and is acquainted with Bhoja's Sr. Pra. also, says on this subject that Bhoja includes the Sattaka in the Natika, as if Bhoja considers it unnecessary to accept a separate type called Sattaka. He observes : "bhoja-rajena natikayah prakarananatakayor antarbhavah uktah." (p. 4, Mad. MS. R. 367). We may add that totaka is included in nataka in the same vein. Bhoja described sattaka as similar to natika and counted it as the twelfth variety of vakyarthabhinaya. Thus we have observed that there is no contradiction anywhere in the presentation of any theorists so far as the art-forms of nataka, natika, totaka and sattaka are concerned. Sattaka seems to be both a dance-form and a drama-form, closer to natika. Bhoja, Hemacandra, Saradatanaya and Sagarnandin discuss the same in their own way. Hemacandra (pp. 444, Edn. Parika, Kulkarni) at the end of the definitions of ten rupakas and natika, quotes Bhoja and defines sattaka after him. He adds : "adisabdat kohala"di-laksitas totaka"dayo grahyah." This is under Abhinavagupta's observation. But Hemacandra does not elaborate. But it is certain that many folk art-forms were included in the twenty odd uparupakas which are mixed art-forms having elements of drama and dance interwoven beautifully in them." Thus it is clear that Bhoja described satpaka as similar to natika and took it as the twelfth type of vakyarthabhinaya. Bhoja in Ch. XI of his Sr. Pra. follows Bharata in introducing the ten major rupakas and natika in arya verses. He hardly makes any verbal change. Bhoja also quotes Bharata's general observations on nataka, given at the end of Ch. XXI. N.S. (Kasi Edn.) according to Dr. Raghavan. But actually while comparing Josyer's Edn. and the G.O.S. Edn. of N.S., we read some verses in the beginning of Ch. XII of the Sr. Pra. quoted from N.S. Vol. II. Ch. XIX. We do not know which text of Bhoja is looked into here by Dr. Raghavan. Of course, some half verses from Bharata (Ch. XIX) are also read at the end of Ch. XI. Sr. Pra. Edn. Josyer. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #295
850 SAHRDAYALOKA Bhoja seems to be closer to Dhananjaya and Dhanika also. Preksya-prabandhas or dramatic performances are classified into those depicting a complete theme and a complete principal rasa with other rasas as subordinate, the major rupakas of the type of vakyarthabhinaya, and other minor rupakas of the padarthabhinaya type depicting only a bhava and not a fully developed rasa. The nataka and other major types represent vakyarthabhinaya and minor types make for, padarthabhinaya. He says : (pp. 466, Sr. Pra. Ch. XI. Vol. II. Josyer) "vakyarthabhinayo'yam prakirtito nataka"di-bhedena, dvadasa-vidha-padarthabhinayam atha yathasthitam vaksye." Bhoja does not mention totaka, (or trotaka) which is illustrated by some commentators by Kalidasa's Vikramorvasivam. We know that Abhinavagupta holds that totaka was defined by Kohala and others. Abhinavagupta also says that Kohala and the rest also discussed satdaka, illustrated by the Karpura-manjari of Rajasekhara. Bhoja mentions satpaka and is of the opinion that sattaka resembles natika in some respects as observed earlier. Bhoja's definition of Sattaka carries impressions of Rajasekhara's verse on sattaka (= sataka) in the Karpuramanjari as noted above. Bhoja differs from the DR. and Avaloka wherein only ten major rupakas are taken as of the form of val hinaya. Bhoja adds two more, viz. natika and Sattaka to the ten major types and takes these twelve to be of the form of vakyarthabhinaya and he reserves twelve minor types for padarthabhinaya separately. We also observed that Saradatanaya draws upon a lot from Bhoja for ten major types of drama and his treatment of twenty uparupakas goes beyond Bhoja though similarities can be traced to some extent in common varieties accepted by both. The N.D. also has twelve major types including natika and prakarani and thirteen uparupakas. The Uparupakas thus make an interesting study. We will first enumerate the varieties as recognised by Bhoja. Hemacandra. Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Saradatanaya, Sagaranandin. "ingabhupala and Visvanatha. Prior to Bhoja, as noted above, it is the Abhinavabharati which mentions some upa-rupakas along with their characteristics. We have quoted passages from A.bh. th U1 Vakydr For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #296
Classification of Poetry 851 in the foregoing pages which read as : "ukta-vyakhyane tu kohala"di-laksita-totakasattaka-rasaka"di-samgrahah." We have quoted all these passages above with clear references. So, one thing that emerges is that Abhinavagupta knows all the names quoted by Kohala and others and also by Sri Harsa in his Varttika. He is also supposed to know the types mentioned by Bhamaha and Dandin. So, we will not be away from truth if we conclude that Abhinavagupta knew the following uparupakas, viz. (1) totaka (3) satdaka (3) rasaka (4) kavya (5) raga-kavya (6) dvipadi (7) samya (8) skandhaka (9) lasya (10) chalita (ka). These are through Kohala and others and Bhamaha and Dandin. Perhaps through Vatsyayana's Kamasutra he also knew (11) Hallisaka, (12) Natyarasaka and (13) Preksanaka. Through Kumarila again Dvipadi and Rasaka are known which were read in earlier documents also. Again A.bh. mentions further upa-rupakas (Ch. IV. N.S.) such as - (14) Dombika (15) Prasthana (16) a or sid gaka (17) Bhanaka (18) Ragakavya (19) Bhanika (20) Prerana (21) Ramakridaka, with Rasaka and Hallisaka already enumerated. Avaloka also was perhaps available to Abhinavagupta and there we find seven varieties of notya such as dombi, (= dombika), (22) Srigadita, and bhana, bhani, prasthana, rasaka and kavya-all noted above. Bhoja was perhaps acquainted with all these names and also their features through different sources prior to him. But actually Bhoja enumerates the following. twelve types of uparupakas such as - (1) Srigadita (2) durmilika (or ta), (3) prasthana (4) Kavya (or citra-kavya), (5) bhana (suddha, citra and sammilita), (6) bhanika (7) gosthi (8) hallisaka (9) nartanaka (10) preksanaka (11) rasaka and (12) natya-rasaka or carcari. The Uparupakas as noted above are closer to dance than drama and could be representative of folk-art also. Many of these are performed by a single artist i 'ekaharya'. Hemacandra following Bharata, gives natika after treating the ten major types. He classifies kavya=literature into preksya and sravya. Preksya again is pathya and 'geya'. Pathya varieties are the ten rupakas and natika and among geya varieties, - which are also preksya and therefore enacted on stage and make for visual art-forms belonging to the class of performing art in general, - he enamerates (1) dombika (2) bhana (3) prasthana (4) singaka (5) bhanika (6) prerana (7) ramakrida (8) hallisaka (9) rasaka (10) gosthi (11) srigadita and (12) raga-kavya, etc. He says that details for these which he has only defined should be sought from - "brahmabharata-kohala"di-sastrebhyah avagantavyah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #297
852 SAHRDAYALOKA The Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra talks of other varieties of rupaka at the end of the fourth chapter when it is stated : tad evam nataka"dini vithyantani dvadasa rupani sa-prapancam laksitani. anyany api rupakani drsyante The N.D. does not call these as Upa-rupakas, or geya etc. but simply states that there are other forms of drama also. But when the N.D. describes them in brief and separates them from the first twelve it follows that they are taken as minor varieties. They are enumerated as : (1) sattaka (2) srigadita (3) durmilita (4) prasthana (5) gosthi (6) hallisaka (7) samya (8) preksanaka (9) rasaka (10) natyarasaka (11) kavya (12) bhana and (13) bhanika. The N.D. enumerates natika and prakarani as major types. For Saradatanaya (Ch. IX), the minor types are 'padarthabhinaya"tmaka' and are twenty such as (1) totaka (2) natika (3) gosthi (4) sallapa (5) silpaka (6) dombi (7) preksanam (8) natya-rasaka (9) rasaka (10) ullapyaka (11) hallisaka (12) durmallika (13) kalpavalli (14) mallika (15) parijataka (16) lasaka (17) srigadita (18) bhana-bhani (19) prasthana and (20) kavya. For NLRK of Sagaranandin, the uparupaka types are (1) gosthi (2) samllapa prasthana (5) kavya (6) hallisaka (7) srigadita (8) bhanika (9) bhani (10) durmalika (11) preksanaka (12) rasaka (13) natya-rasaka and (14) ullapyaka Natika and Trotaka are enumerated with the major types. Vagbhata II mentions natika and sattaka and the 'geya' varieties after Hemacandra, such as - (1) dombika (2) bhana (3) prasthana (4) bhanika (5) prerana (6) singaka (7) ramakrida (8) hallisaka (9) srigadita (10) rasaka (11) gosthi (and the rest). Singabhupala in his Rasarnava-sudhakara speaks only of natika and takes it only as a mixed variety of nataka and prakarana which does not deserve a separate recognition for him (Rs. III. 218-222). He does not talk of other upa-rupakas. Vidyanatha does not mention anything beyond the ten major types (Pra. Ru. Nataka-prakarana, pp. 73-74, Edn. Madras, '14, ibid). Visvanatha enumerates (SD. VI. 4-6) (1) natika (2) trotaka (3) gosthi (4) sattaka (5) natya-rasaka (6) prasthana (7) ullapyaka (8) kavya (9) prenkhanam (10) rasaka (11) samlapaka (12) srigadita (13) silpaka (14) vilasika (15) durmallika (16) prakarani (17) hallisa and (18) bhanika. They are eighteen in all. We will now start with Bhoja's minor types. We will go on adding newer types only as seen in the authors that follow Bhoja, but will also take note if the concept of a given upa-rupaka differs in later anthors. Though with a slight For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #298
Classification of Poetry 853 change in the name the features are almost identical. We have seen that Bhoja has enumerated 12 types. Actually before starting with Bhoja we will notice the total varieties of uparupakas amounting to 44 or 45, as recognised by all theorists. We feel that some uparupakas are named slightly differently by this or that theorist, but actually the types may be identical. The result of our analysis may be roughly placed as under - But we may say that we will treat our theorists in their chronological order beginning with Bhoja as he is the first author who deals with this topic systematically and perhaps more seriously. After Bhoja, we will discuss only those forms which appear as new forms in later theorists. The result of our analysis roughly gives the following picture, which shows different art-forms discussed by different authorities or at least known to them. (1) Natika : This form is discussed by practically all beginning with the N.S. of Bharata. So we have Bharata (B); Dhananjaya/Dhanika (Dha); Bhoja (Bho); Hemacandra (H. or H.C.), Ramacandra and Gunacandra, i.e. Natyadarpana (ND)., Vagbhasa II (Vag.), singabhupala in Rasarnava Sudhakara (RS.), Sagarnandi - Nataka-laksana, ratna-kosa-(NLRK), Visvanatha (Sahitya-darpana) (SD.Nis.) and Saradatanaya (= sa). (2) Dvipadi - Bhamaha (= Bha.); Abhinavagupta (A.bh.) Kumarila (Ku.), . (3) Rasaka - Bha., Abh.; Ku.; ND; NLRK; Vag.; (4) Skandhaka - Bha. Abh.; (5) Lasya - Dandin (Da.); Abh.; (6) Chalita - Da; Abh.; (7) samya - Da; Abh.; ND.; / Sampa-Bhoja. (8) Sattaka - Abh.; ND; Vag.; Bho; Vis. (9) Totaka OR Trosaka - Abh.; Sa., Vis.; (10) Kavya - Abh.: ND.; (11) Ragakavya - Abh., H. (12) Hallisaka - Vatsyayana; Abh.; Bho; H.; ND; Sa.; NLRK.; Vag.; OR Hallisa - Vis. (13) Natya-rasaka - Vatsya.; Bho.; ND.; Sa., OR Carcari NLRK; Vis.; (14) Preksanaka - Vatsya.; Bho; ND., NLRK.; OR Perkhanaka - Vis.; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #299
854 SAHRDAYALOKA (15) Rasaka - Abh.; Dha.; Bho.; H.; ND.; Sa.; Vis. (16) Ullopyaka - Sa, OR Ullapyaka - NLRK; Vis.; (17) Preksana - Sa.; (18) Dombika OR Dombi - Abh.; Dha; Bhoja H.; Sa.; Vag.; (19) Prasthana - Abh.; Dha.; Bho.; H.; ND.; Sa.; NLRK; Vag.; Vis. (20) Silpaka - Abh.; Sa; NLRK; Vis. OR sidgaka (21) Bhanaka - Abh.; (22) Bhanika - Abh.; Bho.; H.; ND.; NLRK.; Vag.; Vis. (Here Dha. = DR. = Dhanjaya's Dasarupaka. A. = Avaloka on DR.) (23) Prerana - Abh.; H. Vag.; (24) Ramakridaka - Abh.; H.; Vag. (25) Srigadita - Dha.; Bho.; H.; ND.; Sa.; NLRK.; Vag.; Vis. (26) Bhana - Abh. Dha.; Bho.; H.; ND.; Vag. (Bhana/Bhanaka: Bhani/Bhanika could be identical. But we have mentioned them separately as their names appear differently. Similarly, dombi/dombika, ullopvaka/ullapyaka, perhaps kavva/raga-kavya sallapa-samlapaka - could be one and the same.) (27) Bhani - Dha.; Sa.; NLRK.; (28) Kavya (citra-kavya) - Dha; Bho.; ND.; Sa.; NLRK.; Vis. (29) Durmallika OR Durmilika - Bho; Sa.; NLRK; Vis. (30) Gosthi - Bho.; H.; ND.; Sa.; NLRK.; Vag.; Vis. (31) Nartanaka - Bho.; (32) Singaka - (OR sidgaka? silpaka ?) H. Vag. (33) Durmilita - ND.; (same as 29 above ?) (34) Preksana - Sa.; (35) Parijataka - Sa.; (36) Kalpavalli - Sa.; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #300
Classification of Poetry (37) Mallika - Sa.; (38) Lasaka - Sa.; (39) Sallapa - Sa. (40) Samllapa(ka) - NLRK. Vis. (41) Vilasika - Vis. (42) Prakarani - ND. We will now proceed with examining the special features of these uparupakas, given by Bhoja, - to begin with - First, we will introduce this topic with a quotation from Dr. Raghavan (pp. 546, ibid) - 855 "The Uparupaka chapter of Sanskrit Natyasastra treatises is very important for students of the history and development of Indian dance and minor representations belonging to the vast indigenous Indian theatre. The uparupakas are, as distinguished by Bhoja and Dhananjaya emotional fragments, compared to rupakas which present a major theme with the unity of a single rasa running through and fed by other subsidiary rasas. Although ancient Indian drama or Sanskrit drama as envisaged by Bharata is of the nature of a dance-drama, with music and dancemovements, it is the uparupaka class of performances that is so par excellence; for in them music and dance predominate; most of them are merely dances accompanied by songs, interpreting through abhinaya or gesture the emotional contents of the song. Many are, like the Bhana among the dasarupakas, done by one person: eka-patra-harya; in fact, the verse cited in the Dasa-rupakavaloka (I. 8) makes all the seven varieties, Dombi etc., 'eka-harya'. Whatever definitions early works like that of Kohala might have given to each of the forms in this class, we do not have now; and except for stray references and discussions in the Abhinavabharati, as at the end of Ch. IV., the Sr. Pra. of Bhoja is the earliest treatise available to us which fully describes them. It is from the Sr. Pra. that Saradataneya borrows his descriptions of many of the Uparupakas in Ch. IX. of his work." With due respect to Dr. Raghavan, we will not use the term "borrows". Perhaps Saradatanaya also had a living tradition before him and he gives some more types also. It is better to use the term "accepts" in place of "borrows" for both Hemacandra and Saradatanaya and later Visvanatha. These authors "accept" what is found to be "acceptable". This is a better expression, which does justice to the efforts of later writers. We now begin with the uparupakas as seen in Bhoja and also as accepted by later theorists. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #301
856 SAHRDAYALOKA (1) Srigadita - (pp. 466, sp. Pra. ibid) - Bhoja defines it as, "tatra srir iva danava-satror yasmin kulangana patyuh; varnayati saurya-dhairya-prabhsti-gunan agratah sakhyah, patya ca vipralabdha gatavye tah kramad upalabhante. srigaditam iti manisibhir udahsto'sau, padabhinayah." This Uparupaka is concerned with moments of separation and hence there is vipralambha-srngara depicted in it. The person concerned is a kulangana, a lady from a respectable family, and she describes her feelings to a friend, a second character here. The description is centred round the husband's high qualities of valour, firmness or fortitude, etc. If she is deceived by her lover husband, she is a vipralabdh, and she in turn admonishes (him). The theme is presented in song. This is a variety of padarthabhinaya as against vakyarthabhinaya. Bhoja does not cite any illustration of this type. The name 'sri-gadita' is explained by Bhoja as due to the fact that the kulangana, a heroine belonging to a noble family, describes (gadita) her lities like goddess Laxmi or Sri, describing those of her lord, Narayana. The 'srigadita' of Bhoja can be placed with the sidgaka or silpaka of Abhinavagupta. In this a separated heroine relates to her friend the bad and unruly conduct of her husband. Sidgaka represents only a complaint and therefore a negative aspect of the narrator lady's husband, the Srigadita first describes the good qualities and then after being deceived, the lady finds fault with her husband. Dr. Raghavan tries to place this variety with the modern 'kuravanci' art-form prevalent in Tamil. We have noted above that this art-form is known to Dhanika, Hemacandra, the Natyadarpana, Saradatanaya, the NLRK., Vagbhata II., and Visvanatha. Dhanika simply mentions srigadita by name, under DR. I. 8., in a verse along with dombi, bhana prasthana, rasaka, and kavya - a total of seven art-forms in all, over and above the ten major types and also natika. Hemacandra (Ka. Sa. VIII. vs. 69, Edn. Parikh/Kulkarni, pp. 449) has - "yasmin kulangana patyuh sakhy agre varnayed gunan, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #302
Classification of Poetry 857 upalambham ca kurute, geye srigaditam bhavet." This is the same as Bhoja. This is 'geya/preksya. - It is an art-form where song (geya) and also dance predominate. H. accepts Bhoja. The Natyadarpana has (ND. IV. Sutra 299/1, 2) : srir iva danavasatror yasmin kulangana patyuh ... etc. This is accepted from Bhoja without any change. No illustration is cited. Saradatanaya has - (BP. IX. 13, pp. 378, Edn. Agrawal, ibid) - "atha srigaditam vidyat prasiddhodatta-nayakam, bharati-vitti-bahulam udatta-vacananvitam. garbhavamarsa-sandhibhyam sunyam, prakhyata nayakam, ekankam vipralambhakhya-rasa-prayam kvacit kvacit. yasmin kulangana patyuh saurya-dhairya"dikan gunan, sakhinam agrato vakti, tan upalabhate'tha va. vipralabdha ca tenaiva, yadi, tatsangama"saya asina, yatra lalitam priyabhoga-vibhusitam utkanthita pathed-gayet pathyam va gitam eva va, evamvidham srigaditam rama"nandam yatha krtam." Saradatanaya has something more to say, than the earlier writers. He cites an example viz., Rama"nandam. For Saradatanaya, this art-form is not just all dance and music but is a play, a type of drama, with one act and three samdhis such as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #303
858 SAHRDAYALOKA mukha, pratimukha and nirvahana, with garbha and avamasa absent from it. It has a famous and nobly born hero and is decorated with lofty expression - udattavacananvitam. There is prominance of bharati-vrtti and this suggests that the physical action may be on a low key with descriptive element thriving. Because of this we have a lot of talks, wherein a lady from a noble family describes before her friends (= sakhiham agrato vakti) (and this is against a single friend as described by Bhoja, Hemacandra and the ND.), the high qualities of her husband, or she rebukes him or runs down these qualities in case if she is deceived by him. She sits there with a hope of getting united with him and dresses herself in beautiful attire and ornaments. This is also the vasakasajja avastha. Perhaps after getting ready and waiting for him for long she feels frustrated and finds faults with him. She is utkanthita also, and getting very eager she either recites or sings. Thus, there is lot of love in separation here. But what is important for Saradatanaya is that he calls it an art-form to be staged in a single act. The nayika appears in three stages as Vasaka-sajja. Utkanthita and Vipralabdha. The nayaka is also a famous character 'prasiddhodatta' and 'prakhyata', which perhaps gives some historicity to the story or theme. The NLRK. has the following : atha srigaditam. yatra strir asina karunam pathati. ekankam. udatta-vacana-krtam, bharati-vrtti-pradhanam, prakhyatavastu-nayakam, yatha-krida-rasatalam. Obviously the NLRK. has the definition of Sri-gadita modelled on Saradatanaya. Dr. De (SP.) (pp. 310) observes that Sagaranandin's date is uncertain but Bahurupa Misra (later then 1250 A.D.) knows him. So, he could be somewhere between 1150 A.D. - 1200 A.D. Saradatanaya is placed by Dr. De (pp. 238, SP. ibid) between 1100-1300 A.D. So, either Saradatanaya was Sagaranandin's near predecessor or was his contemporary or perhaps even his junior contemporary. But looking at NLRK's style and treatment, it seems its author tries to give prose summary of authentic works. Hence, we are inclined to place Saradatanava earlier than Sagaranandin. But this is only a personal impression. It could be otherwise also. But for the sake of convenience we will place NLRK after BP. Or, both of them must be imbibing a common tradition. perhaps seen earlier in Bhoja - What we may call the Malava tradition. So, for NLRK. also, as seen in BP., this minor art-form has one act, is having bharati vrtti as predominant diction, is having a famous theme and a famous hero, and is full of lofty expressions and the female character here is engaged in woes - karunam pathati - perhaps because she is deceived by her husband whose great For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #304
Classification of Poetry 859 qualities have proved to be otherwise in her case personally, especially where lovematters are concerned. The illustration cited is Krida-rasatalam. The BP. has a more elaborate and more methodical presentation which thus could be, possibly an improvement on NLRK.'s presentation and therefore later. Whatever it may be, for our methodology we have preferred to place the BP. earlier than the NLRK. Both. however can claim the same status over each other. Vagbhata (II), naming his work and also modelling it after the Kavyanusasana of Hemacandra, calls srigadita as 'geya' art-form. Hemacandra divides 'preksya' i.e. abhineya as pathya and geya, but Vagbhata does not indicate that he takes geya also as abhineya. But we may conclude that as he chooses to follow Hemacandra, for him also the 'geya' art-forms are part of abhineya also. He observes : (pp. 18, ibid) "ekasutram tu neta syad gopastrinam yatha harih, yasmin kulangana patyuh sakhy agre varnayed gunan, upalambham ca kurute, geye srigaditam tu tat." As is Hari of gopis so there is one neta i.e. nayaka and in this 'geya' art-form, the heroine, a nobly born lady, describes before her friend the qualities of her husband, and also passes admonition. In the Sahityadarpana (S.D.) Visvanatha observes : (S.D. VI. 293/295): "prakhyatavrttam ekangam prakhyatodatta-nayakam, prasiddha-nayikam, garbha-vimarsabhyam vivarjitam. (VI/293) bharati-vstti-bahulam sri-ti-sabdena sankulam, matam origaditam nama vidvadbhir uparupakam. (VI/294) srir (strir) asina srigadite gayet kincit pathed api, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #305
860 SAHRDAYALOKA ekanko bharatipraya iti kecit pracaksate. (VI. 295) Obviously this is modelled after the BP. But there is something more. Visvanatha does not cite an illustration, which he does quite often in other art-forms. Here he says - uhyam udaharanam. Then, he says that this art-form is "sri"-iti sabdena sankulam." Perhaps he came across illustrations where 'sri-sabda was read invariably. In vs. 295, he says srir asina... meaning wherein sri or Laksmi, while sitting either sings or speaks. But our suggestion is that in place of "sri we can read 'stri, for it is so in other definitions also. The NLRK read-yatra strir asina karunam pathati, wherein we do not have a reference to 'geya'. Here we have "gayer" and "pather". So, perhaps in Visvanatha's time this art-form had both song and recitation also. Again, the S.D. expects the nayika also to be prasiddha i.e. famous. The S.D. clearly calls it an "upa-rupaka". But its having one act is an opinion held by 'some' - 'kecit pracaksate'. So, for Visvanatha also this is an art-form with dance, eloquence and acting also, as its special features. Like the B.P. this act has neither 'garbha' nor 'vimarsa' juncture. Durmilika (or, .ta) is the next art-form, Bhoja discusses at sr. Pra. XI. pp. 466, ibid. He observes : "caurya-rata-pratibhedam yunor anuraga-varnanam va'pi, yatra gramya-kathabhih kurute kila dutika rahasi, mantrayati ca tadvisaye nyag-jatitvena yacate ca vasu, labdhva'pi labdhum icchati durmilita nama sa bhavati. This art-form is also discussed later by ND., BP., NLRK. and also SD. ND. calls it Durmilita. BP. calls it Durmallika. SD. calls it "Durmalli". For Bhoja, its theme concerns itself with a secret love-intrigue or it is sometimes a description of love between two young persons. This secret love affair is described before the audiance by a female servant, a dutika, in vulgar language. The male or female lover whose love is being described makes an appearance and makes a plan in secret !) with the messanger who being a lowly-born asks for money (to For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #306
Classification of Poetry 861 do the work and also to keep the mouth shut). After getting money tries to get more (as if by blackmail). No illustration is cited by Bhoja. The ND. (IV./3) accepts Bhoja's definition verbetim. The name given to this artform is "durmilita". BP. of saradatanaya has both "durmallika" and also "mallika", which we will take up later. Bhoja's durmilika and ND.'s durmilita is "durmallika" in BP., which observes - (pp. 391, Ch. IX/51, 52, 53; Edn. Agrawal, ibid) : "atha durmallika nama praudhanagara-nayika caturanka catussamdhir, garba-samdhi-vina-ksta vito vilasati svairam, prathamanke (tri) nalikah. vidusako dvitiyenke vilasat panca-nadikah, pikhamardo viharati titiye sapta-nalikah, vita"di-tritaya-krida caturthe dasa-nalikah. - IX/51 caurya-rati pratibhedam yunor anuraga-varnanam kva'pi, yatra gramya-kathabhih kurute kila dutika rahasi. mantrayati ca tadvisayan - nyag-jatitvena yacate ca vasu, labdhva'pi labdhum icchati ya sa durmallika namna. enam durmallikam anye prahur matta-mallikam iti. IX./52 yasyam udbhavyah syat purohita'matya-tapasa"dinam, prarabdha'-nirvah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #307
862 SAHRDAYALOKA sa'pi ca matta-mallika bhavati. ksudrakatha matta-mallika yeha maharastra-bhasaya bhavati, gorocane ca karya anangavati bhava-rasa-vidya. Saradatanava is both lucid and exhaustive in his treatment. He says that some call durmallika by the name of 'matta-mallika' also. Eventhough he is acquainted with Bhoja and also perhaps with the ND., he does not notice the titles viz. durmilika or durmilita read in the above two sources respectively. . The BP. observes that this art-form has a hroine who is mature (both in'age and experience) and is a cultured lady of cultivated taste. i.e. 'nagara'. So, perhaps she resides in an urban place. Again, durmallika has four acts. All four samdhis, except the 'garbha'-samdhi are visible in this. The first act has the free activity of a 'vita' a it lasts upto three nadkas. Thus, the first act has a duration of 3 nadi = 6 ghadis (one ghadi = 24 minutes); so 6 ghadis = 24 x 6 = 144 minutes. This comes to two and a quarter hour and nine minutes more. The second act is longer with 5 nadikas i.e. ten ghadis equivalent to 240 minutes i.e. four hours. In this act we have the free activity of the Vidusaka. The pithamarda has his free role in the third act which has the duration of seven nadikas i.e. 14 ghadis = 14 x 24 = 336 minutes, i.e. Five hours and a half roughly. The fourth act comprises of ten nadikas i.e. 480 minutes equivalent to 8 hours ! So, the whole show takes up 2hr. 24, 4 hrs. minutes, 5 hrs., and 30 minutes and 8 hrs. i.e. a total of 19 hrs. and 45 minutes. Perhaps the show was staged by the end of the day in a make-shift theatre in a temple at the outskirts of a village and it went on upto nearly a week in a leisurely fashion ! Again these art-forms were also folk-art-forms and had a lot of dance, music and drama in them. The expression 'vita"di-tritaya' is explained by Dr. Agrawal (pp. 291, ibid) as "three-fold", thus taking it to mean the three-fold activity of vita. But we may choose to take "tritaya" as a 'group of three', meaning the fourth act here abounds in the activity of the three taken together, i.e. of vita, vidusaka and pithamarda. Saradatanaya further (IX./52) makes observations that are read in Bhoja also. Here a maid-servant, a lady messanger or dutika describes the love affair of two people in vulgar language. Then enters into a secret deal with the lovers). Here 'rahasi' of the second line is to be read with the third line as "rahasi mantrayati" - she makes a plan, enters into a deal concerning 'tadvisaya' i.e. the secret love affair. She being a woman lowly born, i.e. she being a woman of low For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #308
Classification of Poetry 863 culture and low taste, asks for money (in return). After grabing some amount she becomes avaricious and asks for more money. This durmallika is also named matta-mallika by others. That also is termed matta-mallika in which imaginary lack of activity in case of a project on hand of the office-bearers such as a minister or a purohita-a preceptor - or tapasa i.e. an ascetic etc. is delineated. A trivial story ksudrakatha related in Maharastra-bhasa is also termed matta-mallika. The line "gorocane ca karya anangavati bhava-rasa-vidya" is not clear. But 'gorocana' is explained by Monier-Williams, pp. 366 as, "a bright yellow orpiment prepared from the bile of cattle (employed in painting, dyeing, and in marking Tilaka on the forehead; in med. used as sedative" ... etc.) Thus perhaps 'anangavati is an illustration of a trivial story narrated on the occasion of preparing 'gorocana' (or. na.). Again 'bhava-rasa-vidya' also is not very clear. 'rasa-vidya' could have something to do with rasayana-vidya, i.e. medicine. Anangavati is said to be 'bhava-rasa-vidya', which is a clumsy expression. May be it is full of bhava, rasa and rasa-vidya ! or, "having predominance of bhava and rasa-vidya." We are not very clear about this. The NLRK. has the following on this art-form - (pp. 302, 3, Edn. Babulal Shastri, ibid) atha durmallika. caturanka, garbha-samdhi-sunya. yatha bindumati. asyam eka"nko vita-vilasamayah. dvitiyo vidusaka-vilasamayah. trtiyah pithamardavilasamayah, caturthah nagara-vilasamayah. prathamas tu tri-nalikah, dvitiyah panca-nalikah, sesau dasa-nadikau. Obviously this seems to be the summary of Saradatanaya's writing. But according to the NLRK., the fourth act is full of sporting activity of a nagaraka, or a cultured citizen. Thus it is going to be grace and culture. Again the further details as read in BP. are also omitted here. They were seen in Bhoja and ND. also. The illustration cited is "bindumati". - The Sahitya-darpana of Visvanatha has the following: S.D. calls it 'durmally S.D. VI. 303-305 read as, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #309
864 SAHRDAYALOKA "durmalli caturanka syat kaisi-bharati-yuta. a-garbha, nagara-nara, nyuna-nayaka-bhusita. - VI. 303. S.D. trinalih prathamonkosyam vita-kridamayo bhavet pancanalir dvitiyo'nkah vidusaka-vilasavan. - VI./304 snnalikas totiyah tu pithamarda-vilasavan caturtho dasanalih syad ankah krilita-nagarah." Here also, - a maid messanger talking about the secret love of someone and trying to exploit the situation and getting money for it etc. -, the vulgarity going with this narration etc. - all these features are missing. As for the duration of acts, there is some difference in all these accounts. But that it was a spectacle in four acts is almost common. The S.D. suggests that the hero is a lowly-born - "nyunanayaka", and other male characters are urbane. 'Bindumati' is cited as an illustration and this could be from the NLRK. Thus, the description of this art-form differs not only in name but also features. But that it is more of drama, and of course also of song and music, is proved by its having four acts and its having the predominance of bharati vrtti. Prasthana is the next art-form mentioned by Bhoja. But it may be noted that this type of upa-rupaka is also mentioned by Abhinavagupta, and Avaloka and then Bhoja, Hemacandra, the ND., Sa., NLRK., Vag. II and Visvanatha. Abhinavagupta, in the name of 'Cirantana's (pp. 181, N.S. Vol. I. Abh. on Ch. IV - '5b, G.O.S. Edn.) says - "gaja"dinam gatim tulyam krtva pravasanam tatha, alpaviddham su-massnam tat-prasthanam pracaksate." This uparupaka is alpaviddha and also su-masrna, i.e. both partly violent and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #310
Classification of Poetry 865 also very delicate in nature. This means that it treats of love and such graceful movements but it is also described as imitating the gait of elephants and other beasts and thus some rough or wild movements also get in as a result. We will see that Bhoja describes pravasa or travel of the lover as its theme. Here also the idea of 'pravasa' is seen in "krtva pravasanam tatha." Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 549 ibid) that, the nature of this type as defined here, and how, where and why imitation of the gait of elephants is introduced is not clear. Probably, as the lover going on pravasa would go by elephant or horse or by a bullock-cart, the representation of the gaits of these animals are included here." But our understanding is that in literature a fair lady with graceful movement is described as "gaja-gamini" i.e. one having her gait like that of an elephant. So, here also perhaps the same is intended. The word 'tulyam' supports our understanding. The prasthana is carried out in an elegant style of the gait of an elephant which by itself is awe-inspiring as well as graceful to look at. Dr. Raghavan further explains (pp. 549, ibid) that, "an observation of Abhinavagupta in a different context however, would ask us to take the animals depicted as the central theme, and understand them as "anyapadesa" or something like edificatory animal fables in dance. (Abh. I. p. 174) We have it perhaps on pp. 172 (Abh. ibid) Abhinavagupta observes : "simha-sukara-bhalluka-kasara"di-varnanena'pi bhana-prerana-bhanikadav aprastuta-prasamsarthantaranyasa-destanta"dina purusarthasya eva upadesa-darsanad iti prayojana-bhedadapi na bhedah." The idea is that perhaps through animals depicted on stage-perhaps through imitation only-some advice, through anyapadesa is given. The medium is of course dance. This also could be prasthana. Again, under NS. iv. 253, pp. 166 (Abh.) Abhinavagupta observes : tatha hi - gitam eva tadanyartham tadanyagatatvena nstta"di, yatha dombika"dau. tatra hi parikramanady api sukumarenaiva angena. tatra'pi varnananga-pradhanyam kvacit. yatha prasthana"dau. Thus he seems to give another feature of prasthana here. But Bhoja has a clearer definition of prasthana - He says (pp. 466, sr. Pra., ibid) : "prathamanuraga-mana-pravasasongara-samsrayam yat syat, pravrd-vasanta-varnana-param anyad va'pi sotkantham, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #311
866 SAHRDAYALOKA ante vira-rasa'dhyair nibaddham etat caturbir apasaraih. prasthanam iti bruvate pravasam upalaksayet, sudhiyah. Bhoja observes that this art-form is called prasthana because it narrates or indicates (upalaksayet) the going away of the lover on travel as its theme and thus pravasa-vipralambha is the dominant emotion. But in prasthana are also depicted other aspects of love such as first meeting of lovers, pining due to first love, mana or mis-understanding, separation through travel etc. All this brings in also the descriptions of rains, spring, etc. At the end 'ante', this art-form is decorated with feelings and emotions concerning the vira-rasa or heroic sentiment. Perhaps the lover while travelling and (also returning ?) performs heroic deeds and thus heroic as a chance here. Vira-rasa at the end is introduced through four 'apasaras' - "apasaraih caturbhih". As for an explanation of an 'apasara', we may turn to the A.bh. (N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S. pp. 188, ibid, on N.S. IV. 280) : "paribhasantaram aha - "pindim baddhva." iti. tasyapasaritasya nstta-prayogam krtva sarvas ta niskrameyur apasareyuh. ata eva etatsthanopasivibhir eva sri ranaka"di-kavibhir dombika"dau caturapasarakah prayogah." N.S. IV. 280 reads : "tavat paryastakah karyo yavat pindi na badhyate, pindim baddhva tatah sarva niskrameyuh striyas tu tah." This has concern with 'pindibandha' in a nstta-performance, after doing which the ladies move away, of course with a graceful movement. The prasthana also ends with these graceful exists by four (ladies, of course). The reference is to a 'dombika' piece of kavi Ranaka wherein this 'exit of four' was enacted. This has a clear reference to the element of dance and music in prasthana also. However, Dr. Raghavan does not seem to be very convinced about the explanation he gives, even after quoting from the ND. He observes : (pp. 548, ibid) : "The words 'ata eva refer to the last word in the previous sentence "niskrameyuh, apasareyuh." Apasara, therefore seems to mean exit. In a further paragraph Abhinavagupta uses apasara along with pravesa and means exit. "evam prthak pravesah... tad anantaram apasarah." But it is not possible to deduce fully For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #312
Classification of Poetry 867 the details of music and dance in these four Exists or how they depicted Vira-rasa Vira-rasa"dhya-catur apasara', as obviously the technique of it was handed down in practice and not recorded. However, Ramacandra who borrows the definition from Sr. Pra., adds something to our knowledge of this Apasara. He interprets Apasara as interludes of dance, "nrtya-cchinnani-khandani apasarah." (p. 214, N.D.). The Kuttanimata, refers to Apasaraka in dance in sl. 87." - Dr. Raghavan should feel convinced about the nature of 'Vira-rasa"dhyaapasara', which are graceful movements of dance with final exits from the stage, after depicting the heroic acts, during pravasa, of the hero. Abhinavagupta also calls it "alpa"viddham su-masrnam" meaning the same mixture of forceful and graceful movements of dance in this art-form. Hemacandra defines prasthana after A.bh. as - "gaja"dinam gatim tulyam krtva pravasanam tatha, alpa"viddham su-masrnam tat prasthanam pracaksate." We have discussed the implications of this definition above. The only point to be noted is that H. takes it as a "preksya"/"geya" variety of art-form. For him, preksya is abhineya and 'sravya' is an-abhineya. But the preksya is again two-fold such as pathya and geya (Ka. Sa. VIII/2) (pp. 432, ibid). It may be noted that in pathya he includes all major ten types of rupakas along with natika and sattaka. This we have seen above also. But he accepts DR.'s observation also along with his loyalty towards Bharata and Abhinavagupta, when he says - (pp. 432, ibid): tatha ca nataka"dini vithyantani vakyarthabhinaya-svabhavani bharata-muninopadarsitani sattakas ca kaiscit." He calls them 'pathya' meaning perhaps thereby that these major rupakas have dialogues in prose (= pathya) and are totally rasa-oriented. The 'geya', - which he enumerates as at least twelve and also remains open to other varieties by adding 'adi' at the end of ka. sa. VIII. 4, - are of the nature of padarthabhinaya. He observes : (Ka. sa. VIII. 4) pp. 445, ibid "geyam dombika-bhana-prasthana ragakavya"di." singaka-bhanika-prerana-ramakridda-hallisaka-rasaka-gosthi-srigadita For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #313
868 SAHRDAYALOKA "padarthabhinaya-svabhavani dombika"dini geyani rupakani cirantanair uktani." He accepts these art-forms as 'rupaka' as well as calls them 'geya' variety suggesting that these popular art-forms are a curious mixture of some drama and more music, dance and song and are padarthabhinaya rupa, i.e. as is meant by the DR., they are minor art-forms which have 'bhava' at the centre and not 'rasa'. Again, in his Viveka (pp. 445, ibid), H. makes it clear that the performance or presentation of geya-kavya is three-fold such as masrna or gentle, uddhata or highpitched and misra or mixed : "trividho hi geya-kavyasya prayogah, masrnah, uddhato, misras ca. Dr. Raghavan could have benefited had he looked into Viveka on it. H. further states (pp. 446, ibid) - "tatha hi dombikasu narapati-catukapradhanyena pravrttasu sukumaram eva suddham rupam. bhanakesu nrsimha"dicarita-varnane uddhatam eva. yat punar masrse'py uddhatam pravisati tad ucitam eva. tatrapy-alpatva-bahutva-krto bhedah. purvah prasthana-prabandhah uttarah singatakabhedah. uddhate tu masrnanupravesad bhanikabhedah anyad api prerana-ramakrida-rasaka-hallisakadim alpatva-bahutva-vaicitrya-krtam ihaiva pravistam veditavyam." We will discuss all this in greater details when we take up H. separately later but for the present we may note that H. has not only understood the essence of various art-forms but he has explained it so clearly that there does not remain any doubt about the nature or features of various art-forms. We repeat here that Dr. Raghavan would have definitely benefited had be looked into the Viveka of H. Actually H. suggests that the acting in these minor art-forms is three-fold and could be manifold by the fusion of these elements of acting in different proportions. So, for H., as for Abhinavagupta, 'prasthana' is an art-form in which the acting is less hot and more soft. H. here has accepted Abhinavagupta's lead and not that of Bhoja. Prior to this, under DR. I. 8 Dhanika mentions 'rupakantara' such as: (pp. 8, Adyar Edn. ibid). "dombi srigaditam bhano, bhani-prasthana-rasakah, kavyam ca, sapta nrtyasya bheda syus te'pi bhanavat." The Avaloka mentions seven art-forms but distinguishes them from the major art-forms, the rupakas, on the ground that the natya (= major rupakas) are rasa"sraya i.e. rasa-oriented while these seven minor art-forms, which are termed 'nrtya' are 'bhava"sraya'. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #314
Classification of Poetry 869 It is clear that H. has accepted this line of thinking. The Avaloka observes (pp. 8, ibid): "rasa"srayan natyad bhavasrayam notyam anyad eva. tatra bhava"srayam iti visayabhedannstyam iti noter gatra-vikseparthatvena'ngika-bahulyat tatkarisu ca nartaka-vyapadesal loke'pi ca range preksaniyakam iti vyavaharan nataka"deranyan netyam. tadbhedatvacchrigadita"der na'vadharananupapattih. nataka"di ca rasavisayam rasasya ca padarthibhuta-vibhava"di-samsargatmaka-vakyartharupatvad vakyarthabhinaya"tmakarvam rasa"srayam iti anena darsitam. natyam iti ca 'nata avaspandane' iti nateh kinciccalanarthatvat sattvikabahulyam. ata eva tatkarisu nata-vyapadesah. [loke'pi ca range natyam iti vyapadesah etad uktam bhavati] yatha ca gatra-vikseparthatve samane'pyanukaratmakatvena nrtyad anyan nittam, tatha vakyarthabhinayatmakan naryat padarthabhinaya"tmakam anyad eva nrtyam iti." On this read Laghutika by Bhatta Nssimha (pp. 9, ibid) - "visayabhedat, svarupabhedat, kartrbhedat, samjnabhedac ca bhedah." tatra bhava"srayam ityanena visayabhedo darsitah. angika-bahulyad ity anena svarupa-bhedo darsitah. tatkarisu nartaka-vyapedesad ity anena kartebhedo darsitah. preksaniyam ity anena samjnabhedo darsitah." nanu nataka"des tato bhedah kena darsitah. tatra"ha-rasa"srayam ity anena iti.. katham aneya darsitam ity apeksayam uktam - "nataka"di ca rasa-visayam ity adi. yady api vibhava"dayas tair atisayokty adibhih pratipadyamana vakyartha eva na padarthah. tatha'pi tesam samyogad rasotpatteh, te tam prati padarthibhavam bhajante. raso'pi tad utpadyo vakyarthibhavati. ato vakyarthi-bhuta-rasa-visayam nataka"di. tenatra'pi rasavisayam iti visayabhedah, sattvika-bahulyena svarupabhedah, tatkarisu ca nata-vyapadesad ity anena kartp-bhedah, loke'pi ca' range natyam iti vyapadesad iti samjnabhedo'pi drastavyah." The ND. defines prasthana exactly after Bhoja, (ND. N. 4 pp. 405, Edn. Visvesvara, ibid) - such as - "prathamanuraga-mana-pravasasongara-samsrayam yat syat, pravrd-vasanta-varnanaparam anyad va'pi sotkantham. ante vira-rasa"dyair For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #315
870 SAHRDAYALOKA nibaddham etac caturbhir-apasaraih prasthanam iti bruvate pravasam upalaksayat sudhiyah." We have discussed this definition under Bhoja. It may be noted that though Ramacandra and Gunacandra are H.'s disciples, they choose to follow Bhoja and not Abhinavagupta as done by their master here. Saradatanaya, at BP. (IX. 27, pp. 384, ibid) observes : "prasthanam kaisikivTtti-yutam hinopanayakam, a-pana-keli-lalitam laya-tala-kalanugam. dasa"dinayakam dvyankam, vita-ceta"di-nayakam, mukhanirvahanopetam, srngaratilakam yatha." "Prasthana has Kaisiki vitti - It is having a lowly born as upa-nayaka i.e. subordinate hero. It has the grace of drinking bout and sport (connected with the same). It is rich with harmony and rhythem and art (or art with harmony and rhythem prominent in it). The hero is in form of a servant and it has two acts. Or, the hero is vita, ceta etc. There are two junctures viz. mukha and nirvahana. It is illustrated by songaratilaka." Saradatanaya's prasthana does not share the features as described by either Abhinavagupta or Bhoja. Prasthana for him is primarily musical - 'laya-talakalanugam'. The theme is erotic with kaisiki diction and vita or ceta as its hero. Scenes of drinking and marry-making abound in it. It is having two acts and two junctures. But while discussing rasaka at IX. 37 BP., Saradatanaya first gives the first three lines from Bhoja's definition of 'prasthana' and the fourth-line has - "mukha-nirvahana-sametam prasthanam bhavati caikankam." (pp. 388, ibid) Perhaps these lines are misplaced here through the mistake of some copvist, or, as Dr. Raghavan thinks, Saradatanaya means to bring together other definitions of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #316
Classification of Poetry 871 some of the uparupakas here in the anustubhs read here, as read originally in the A.bh. also. The NLRK. has the following - (pp. 298, ibid) : "atha prasthanakam, ghata (?) cerya'dinayikam, kaisiki-vstti-bahulam, bahutala-laya"srayam, surapana-rajitam, vitopanayakam, dasa"dinayakanca. yathasrngara-tilakam." The presentation seems to go after Saradatanaya or the tradition represented by Sa. But here 'nayika', a woman of low status, (such as dasi, ceri, etc.) is mentioned and the element of two acts and two-samdhis is not read. The illustration is the same as read in the BP. Vagbhata II. (pp. 18, ibid, Ka. sa. II) mentions 'prasthana' as a geya variety along with dombika, bhana etc. This is read as - "dombika-bhana-prasthana-bhanika-prerana-singaka-ramakrida-hallisakasrigadita-rasaka-gosthi-prabhrtini geyani." This is modelled on the Ka. Sa. of Hemacandra. Vagbhasa II also defines prasthana after H., who follows Abhinavagupta : "gaja"dinam gatim tulyam krtva pravasanam tatha, alpa(a)viddham su-masrnam * tat-prasthanam pracaksate." The Sahityadarpana (VI. 280, 281, S.D.) observes : prasthane nayako daso hinah syad upanayakah, dasi ca nayika, vittih kaisiki bharati tatha. - VI. 280 S.D. surapana-samayogad uddistarthasya samhstih, ankau dvau, laya-tala"dir vilaso bahulas tatha." VI. 281. S.D. Thus Visvanatha holds that 'prasthana' has dasa' for its hero. The person subordinate to the hero is still less blessed - "hin-upanayaka". Maid-servant is the heroine here. This was noted in the NLRK. The diction is both kaisiki and bharati. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #317
872 SAHSDAYALOKA The latter is added by Visvanatha. The intended thing is accomplished by the practice of a drinking bout. 'Two acts', as noted by the BP., are also seen here. Marry-making is seen in excess in this variety which is chiefly musical in its nature, being qualified by tala and laya. Thus 'prasthana' seems to have two traditions. The first as seen in Abhinavagupta and also perhaps Bhoja where the theme is that of a travel by a lovelorn hero, with the descriptions of monsoon, spring etc. adding the element of poetry, and the other as seen in Sa. and others with two acts, hero and heroine of lower status, etc. But in both the traditions, this uparupaka is described as having a lot of dance and music. "Kavya' and Citra-kavya; ragakavya; We will take up Kavya, (Raga) kavya and (citra) kavya together. We read them in Abh., DR./A., H., ND., Sa., NLRK., and S.D. Abh. refers to this variety in the name of raga-kavya on four occasions with a specific illustration. Before we look into this, it may be noted that this art-form is studed both with music and dance on one hand and also abhinaya' on the other. The 'abhinaya' part of it is invariably taken note of by Abhinavagupta. The references are : (i) (pp. 172, A.bh.; under NS NV. 261, Vol. I. N.S. G.O.S. Edn.; '56; pp. 170 Third Edn., '92; G.O.S. 4th Edn.) - caturvargopadesasya raghava-vijaya"dikaraga-kavyesu destatvat - This suggests that the theme of ragakava, as illustrated in raghava-vijaya, concerned itself with the four-fold pursuits (i.e. dharma, artha, kama and moksa) of life. (pp. 172, ibid) (ii) yada yato'rthanam prayojana"dinam prapty artham tajnair anuva"dibhih (r-ntttanuragibhih) kavibhih abhinayahity abhiniyamano ragakavya"dih kstah. This shows that ragakavya had to be enacted through acting. (pp. 172, ibid) (iii) athocyate (raghava-vijaya"di) raga-kavya"di-prayogo natyam eva. This is clearly taken as 'natya' here. (pp. 181, ibid) (iv) ete prabandhah nrtta"tmakah na natya"tmaka-nataka"di-vilaksanah. raghava-vijayamaricavadha"dikam raga-kavyam. etacca grantha-vistara-bhitya bahutaram yathasambhavam na likhitam anupayogac ca yat tu upayogi tad yathavasaram varnayisyamah For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #318
Classification of Poetry 873 Raghava-vijaya and Marica-vadha are mentioned as illustrations. Eventhough the ragakavya and other varieties of art-forms as enumerated by the Cirantanas are necessarily of the form of 'nttta', they are said not to be different (essentially) from nataka etc., which are said to be 'natya"tmaka' i.e. acting-oriented art-forms. (pp. 182, ibid) (v) esa eva tu prakarah kalavidhina nibadhyamano raghava-vijayamarica-vadha"dikam raga-kavyabhedam udbhavayati-iti. That this art-form is rendered through artful expression is underlined here. Abhinavagupta here goes on to quote from Kohala, and elaborates further the nature of ragakavya, which though it involves acting, is primarily an art-form devoted to ragas (i.e. vocal music) and also dance. Abhinavagupta observes - (pp. 182, ibid) yathoktam Kohalena - "layantara-prayogena rugais ca'pi vivecitam, nanarasam, sunirvahya-katham kavyam iti smotam - . Thus for Kohala 'kavya' is presented through ragas, wherein layantara-prayoga is seen, i.e. the rhythem or time in music can change. It is full of different rasas and is having a story which is well presented su-nirvyahya-katham. Abhinavagupta further informs that - "layatas ca asya gity adharatvena apradhanye, giter eva . pradhanyam iti na kavyartha-viparyasa-vasena ragabhasa"di-viparyaso natya iva Because of the 'laya' element, this art-form depends on 'giti' i.e. song and music, which is the principal feature here. Again, as in natya or drama proper, here on account of change in kavyartha (i.e. 'rasa'? or, situation ?), there is no change in raga and bhasa i.e. music and language. The idea seems to be that as the range of this art-form is limited, it has no frequent changes following rasas or situations and therefore it is presented through the medium of one language and identical tunes. What follows in Abh. drives us to this. Read Abh. (pp. 182, ibid) : tatha hi raghavavijayasya hi thakka-ragena eva, vicitra-varnaniyatvepi nirvah. - i.e. though the matter to be communicated is of varied interest (or is beautiful), the specific raghavahavya is presented through 'thakka'-raga alone. Similarly, marica-vadhasya kakubha-grama-ragena eva. ata eva ragakavyani iti ucyante etani. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #319
874 SAHRDAYALOKA Raghavavijaya, or Marica-vadha or whatever else - is called 'raga-kavya' only because the presentation is carried out in this or that special raga alone and therefore all other features such as acting (natya) and description (katha), though present, are rendered subordinate to the principal feature which is 'song and music' alone. Abhinavagupta explains further that 'raga' is that which has singing as its soul and this kavya as it depends on raga, is therefore (raga) kavya. He observes : (pp. 182, ibid) - "rago gity atmakah. svarasya tad adharabhutam kavyam iti." He further adds : "evam idam ca nrttam sapta-krti-prakarair bhagavata eva prasstam. tatha hi-suddham eva nsttam recakangahara"tmakam. (= suddha form of nrtta is of the form of recaka and angahara) - tato gitakady abhinayonmukham. (= the next type is furnished with abhinaya that goes with gitaka-music dominating). - tato gana-kriyamatranusari vadya-talanusari ca - (i.e. the next variety of 'nrtta' is one which follows only vocal music accompanied by beats of intruments). This is seen as in * "bahu-prenkhanorah kampa-parsvanamanonnamana-carana-sarana-sphurita-kampita-bhrutara-parispanda-katicchedangavalana-matra-rupam." yac coktam - tanduna'pi tatah samyag. . gana-bhanda-samanvitah nstta-prayogah..." ityadi. (N.S. IV. 260) Then Abhinavagupta adds - gitir ganam iti hy atra vyutpattir ukta. tatopy uddhatasukumara-misra"tmaka-bheda-catustaya-bhinna-kavyarthanusaritaya caturvidham. - i.e. it becomes fourfold due to the type being either high-pitched (uddhata), or soft (sukamara) or misra (i.e. mixed, of two types in which either of the first two is in greater degree). etc. The raga-kavya is an art-form dominated by song and music and dance and also acting to some extent. That the element of abhinaya is of course there, is underlined by Abhinavagupta when he observes (pp. 198, ibid) : yat tu raghava-vijaya"dau sitamurccha'di-vyavarnanantam tandavam. na ca tatra tadrse tat-sukumarangaharaotmaka-netta-yojana. api tu gitakartha-bhavananyayena, "raudrasyaiva ca yat karma sa karuna" iti prasaktya tatra tathavidhabhinayayoga, ity alam bahuna. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 550) also explains the same as - "The Abhinavabharati gives a better and clearer idea of kavya which it For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #320
Classification of Poetry 875 sometimes calls more descriptively Raga-kavya. From the name we can see, that kavya or Raga-kavya is a musical composition covering a complete story, i.e. a whole kavya in the shape of songs. It might have been something like a south-India Harikatha-Kalaksepa where one definite theme is chosen for exposition, the songs of the theme are sung and an exposition in prose is given. Since the is said to be a notya-prabandha it must have comprised the singing of songs of a continuous theme in one Raga or in various ragas (if citra-kavya), and the interpretation of the contents of songs by a single dancer through abhinaya. The following facts about the raga-kavyas are found in the Abhinavabharati. On p. 174, there are two observations which prove that the whole musical theme of Ragakavya was rendered into gesture. - "ityabhiniyamano ragakavya"dih krtah." (pp. 174) "raghava-vijaya"di-raga-kavya"di-prayogo natyam eva, abhinaya-yogat." (p. 174) "raghava-vijaya-marica-vadha"dikam raga-kavyam" (p. 183). esa eva kalavidhina nibadhyamanah raghava-vijaya-maricavadha"dikam raga-kavya-bhedam udbhavayatiti (p. 183). yathoktam kohalena - "layantaraprayogena ragaisca'pi vivecitam, nanarasam su-nir-vahyakatham kavyam iti smytam." (P. 184) From these observations it is plain that Kavya means just what the word means while applied to sravya-kavya, but is written not exactly in mere metres, vittas, but in the form of songs which are sung and gesticulated by a single individual. Abhinavagupta mentions the names of two specimens both on the theme of Ramayana, the Raghavavijaya and the Maricavadha. Both of these belong to the class of Kavya sung throughout in one Raga, the first variety of Bhoja. For Abhinavagupta says that, though the rasas and situations differ, the tune and the time-measure do not change in a raga-kavya, as in drama proper. The Raghavavijaya is throughout sung only in thakka-raga and the Maricavadha in the gramaraga called kakubha. - - "na Kavyartha-viparyasa vasena raga-bhava"di-viparyaso natya iva. tatha hi raghava-vijayasya hi thakkaragenaiva vicitra-varnaniyatve'pi nirvahah, maricavadhasya kakubha-grama-ragenaiva. ata eva ragakavyanity ucyanta etani." (p. 184. Abh. G.O.S. Edn. pt. I). The Kavya described by Kohala in the verse given above as quoted by Abhinavagupta is Bhoja's citrakavya, for it has more than one raga and tala. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #321
876 SAHRDAYALOKA Though sung and represented through Abhinaya by only one, though the theme is descriptive as in a sravyakavya and not written in form of dramatic dialogue, the citra-kavya employs various ragas and Talas at different places to suit the varying Rasa and idea. The Gita-govinda is thus a citra-kavya uparupaka. It is well known that it was intended for Abhinaya and that Jayadeva's wife herself rendered it in Abhinaya. In south India it is even now being sung and till recently rendered in Abhinaya in the bhajana tradition of the Bhagavatas. In the Tanjore Sarasvati Mahal Library there are two copies, unfortunately incomplete, of a commentary on the Gita-govinda giving Abhinaya for the text, word for word." Dr. Raghavan here explains how Kohala's concept of Kavya (or Raga-kavya) was picked up by Bhoja, whose view we will now examine. Bhoja mentions 'Kavya' as having another variety called citra-kavya. He defines each in an arya, which read as - Sr. Pra. (Vol. II. Josyer, pp. 466): "aksiptika'tha varno matra. dhruvakotha bhagnatalas ca. vardhatikaccha-dhvanika yatra syus tad iha kavyam iti." "yuktam layantarair yac ca dhvanika-sthana-nirmitaih bhavati, kavyam iti vividha-ragam citram iti tad ucyate krtibhih." This description is full of "obscure musical terms relating to Raga", observes Dr. Raghavan (pp. 549, ibid). The musical composition and tala referred to are equally obscure. Dr. Raghavan here reads two varieties as mentioned by Bhoja. The first is pure 'kavya', which is in one raga, and the other is 'citra' kavya, full of many - (vividha) ragas. DR./Avaloka under DR. I. 8 mentions "Kavya' as one of the seven types of varieties of notya. But nothing further is discussed by Dhanika. Hemacandra has the following (Ka. Sa. VIII. (70), pp. 449, ibid-Edn. Parikh and Kulkarni) : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #322
Classification of Poetry 877 "layantara-prayogena ragaisca'pi vicitritam, nana-rasam sunirvahyakatham kavyam iti smotam." This is according to Kohala as quoted by Abhinavagupta. The only difference is that H. reads "vicitritam" for "vivecitam" in the Abh. (pp. 182, ibid). But perhaps as at many other places, so also here, Hemacandra seems to present a better, and even original reading. Vicitritam' here means "rendered beautiful". So, 'Kavya' is said to have different and many 'layas' and 'ragas' and is also 'nana-rasam' i.e. having different rasas (in various situations); and is having a story element which is presented easily or gracefully. Perhaps Bhoja also means this. We do not feel like Dr. Raghavan that Bhoja intends two separate varieties such as kavya and citrakavya. On the contrary, perhaps when more than one ragas or laya are introduced, it becomes more charming or "citra', according to Bhoja. Dr.Raghavan's own submission that Gita-govinda is an illustration of citra-kavya shows that 'kavya' which carries more ragas and layas becomes more charming and is therefore 'citra'. Actually, in sutra 4, Adhyaya VIII (pp. 445) when H. mentions varieties of 'geya', he calls it 'raga-kavya'. Read : geyam dombika-bhana-prasthana-singaka-bhanikaprerana-ramakrida-hallisaka-rasaka-gosthi-sri-gadita-ragakavya"di. These are twelve in all. When H. defines them one by one he, as seen above, calls it "Kavyam". This means raga-kavya and kavya are one and the same for H. and both are 'vicitrita', i.e., rendered beautiful by 'layantara-prayoga' and 'ragaih'. Thus citra-kavya need not be taken as a different variety as done by Dr. Raghavan. Even Abhinavagupta while quoting from Kohala does not seem to intend it to be a separate variety. The ND. has the following: "aksiptika'tha varno matra-dhruvako'py abhagnatalas ca paddhatika chardanika yatra syus tad iha kavyam iti." (N.D. IV. 11; pp. 408) This is the first verse from Bhoja's definition. Dr. Raghavan (ft. n. 1, pp. 54a) observes that, "The Natyadarpana, p. 215, which gives only the first of these two (= of the verses from Bhoja), reads 'a-bhagha-talasca' which is wrong, and 'paddhatika', 'chardanika' which seem to be correct. The text of the Bha. Pra. (p. 265) however, reads the words mostly as found in the MS. of the Sr. Pra." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #323
878 SAHKDAYALOKA Actually in Sa., (pp. 388) under false title 'rasaka', Bhoja's definition of Kavya ad. There we read, "aksiptika'pavarno" and not "aksiptika'tha varno", which is o retained in the ND. Then, we have "kavyam vicitraragam" in place of Bhoja's "vividha-ragam". We do not find any logic in Dr. Raghavan's rejecting 'abhagnatala' of the ND. and accepting 'paddhatika' and 'chardanika'. Actually the writers from Gujarat in those days had a better access to the original mss., thanks to the efforts of king Jaisimhadeva who conquered Malwa and thanks to Acarya Hemacandra for whom the king either collected mss. not only from Bhoja's library but also from different parts of India or got them copied. Dr. Kulkarni V.M., my guru has successfully reconstructed the lost portion of A.bh. on NS. VII, the Bhavadhyaya, and many readings from H.'s Viveka have been accepted in the critical editions of the Abh. on NS. VI. (The rasa-sutra portion) by eminent editors such as Gnoli, Masson & Patwardhan and the rest. So, readings from authors fr the land of Gujarat seem to be more reliable. In that case, accepting two readings as correct and rejecting the third for no reason is not logical on the part of Dr. Raghavan. On the contrary we would accept the ND. readings and correct the text as read both in Bhoja's Sr. Pra, and the B.P. of Sa. Even in the SD. we can emend the text as "khandamatra-dvipadika - 'bhagnatalaih alamkstam." saradatanaya defines kavya (BP. IX. 28, pp. 384, Edn. Agrawal, ibid) as : "kavyam sa-hasya-songaram sarva-vstti-samanvitam, sa-bhagnatala-dvipadi khanda-matra-pariskrtam. garbhavamarsa-sandhibhyam hinam, ekankam eva ca. kvacil lasyayutam va syat vita-ceti-samanvitam. kulanganavesa-yutam lalitodatta-nayakam evam prakalpayet kavyam tad gauda-vijayo yatha." Before we explain this, it is clear from the face of it that "kavya' is, no doubt, 'natya, as stated by Abhinavagupta, though with song and music as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #324
879 Classification of Poetry predominant. This does not agree with Dr. Raghavan's observation of taking Gita-govinda as 'kavya' or 'raga-kavya', for it is not having 'one act', and 'garbhavamarsa-sandhibyam hinam" i.e. not having garbha and avamarsa sandhis. Again it is having a number of characters and even this also goes against Dr. Raghavan's description of kavya being presented only by one person, such as the wife of Kavi Jayadeva. So, for Saradatanaya, Kavya is endowed with hasya and srngara rasas and is gifted with all the vrttis (such as kaisiki, arabhati, etc.) This art-form is rich in bhagna-tala, dvipadi and khandamatra. These terms are not clear to us but we know that Bhamaha (I 24) had mentioned 'abhineyartha' such as nataka, dvipadi and samya. Tatacarya in his commentary does not explain (pp. 11) this term 'dvipad?'. For Saradatanaya this 'kavya' is a one-act presentation and it has mukha, pratimukha and nirvahana sandhis. It has vita, ceti, kulangana nayika, and nayaka of the 'lalitodatta' variety. Saradatanaya further adds: (BP. IX. 29 - pp. 385, ibid). "vipra'matya-vanik-putranayika-nayakojjvalam mudita-pramada-bhasacestitair antara'ntara. grathitam, vita-ceta"divesa-bhasabhir eva va, evam va kalpayet kavyam yatha sugriva-kelanam." A second form of Kavya is described with "sugriva-kelana" as an illustration, the first form being illustrated by "gauda-vijaya". This variety of Kavya has in it characters such as a brahmin-vipra, a vanik putra, is beautified by nayika and nayaka (in form of a brahmin or a vanik-putra). This form is intervowen in the middle at places by women who are joyous, and their language (expressing joy), and the joyous activities of such ladies. It is again gifted with the costumes and language of vita, ceta and such other characters. The illustration is "sugrivakelana". This variety has traits of the prakarana type. Though Saradatanaya does not mention the number of acts or sandhis, we can imagine that they remain the same as in the first variety. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #325
880 SAHADAYALOKA One thing is clear that it is a form of dramatic spectacle with beauty of song, music and costumes added to it. True, saradatanaya also quotes from Bhoja (pp. 388, BP.). But perhaps Dr. Raghavan is again off the track when he says that Saradatanava quotes it under 'wrong leading of rasaka'. (pp. 550) Actually even in Agrawal's edition also this portion is printed under the title "rasaka". But we feel that these verses, which start with Bhoja's definition of prasthana and move on to describe other varieties of uparupakas, follow actually the completion of the definition of rasaka. ... "so'yam mato rasakah". - Perhaps in the ms. of BP. some copyist must have added the title "rasakam" after this, through mistake. Actually verses or portions; 37-46 as read on pp. 388, 389 of BP. are given as definitions of various art-forms and after these are over, other art-forms such as Ullopyaka etc. are described. So, perhaps they are wrongly read here through a scribe's mistake. There is no logic in reading Bhoja's definitions in between. Or, perhaps the scribe concerned must be copying Bhoja's Sr. Pra. also simultaneously and through genuine error he copied this portion from Bhoja or Abhinavagupta as the case may be. This portion is totally out of context and need not be taken as one intended by Saradatanaya and also from his pen. Actually these verses, excepting the two for kavya, are all from the Abhinavabharati (pp. 181, Vol. II. N.S. G.O.S.), describing the view of the 'cirantanas'. Surely these verses are mis-read here and misplaced here and the editors of the BP. should have seen to this. These could have been either dropped as scribal mistake or read at the end of BP.'s treatment of uparupakas. The NLRK. has the following (pp. 299, ibid) : atha kavyam. khanda-mana, matra, dvipadi, bhagnatala"di-vibhusitam, catur vTtti yuktam, srngara-hasya-pradhanam garbhavamarsa-sandhi-sunyam ekankam. yatha utkanthita-madhavam. Though the NLRK. has not talked about the various characters, it is clear from the illustration cited, viz. ulkanthita-madhavam, that the hero is of the lalitodatta type. The S.D. (VI. 284) defines "Kavya' as - "kavyam arabhatihinam ekankam hasya-samkulam, khanda-matra-dvipadikabhagnatalair alamkrtam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #326
Classification of Poetry 881 He carries impressions of his predecessors. We have here three vrttis, the arabhati being omitted. Like NLRK., only one act is expected by SD. SD.'s definition is in a way closer to the NLRK. The SD. (VI. 285) adds, "varna-matra-chaganikayutam, songara bhasitam, neta, stri ca'pyudatra'tra, sandhi adyau tatha'ntimah." Obviously 'chaganika' can be emended as 'Vardhanika' (N.D.), The hero and heroine both belong to the noble family as suggested in the BP. of Sa. Sandhis are three with garbha and vimarsa cancelled as suggested by BP. and NLRK. One act is retained as in NLRK. Bhana, Bhanaka, Bhani, Bhanika - All these four art-forms are discussed by various authorities as seen below, but quite often the difference is either thin, or in name only. Because of this closeness in both features and nomenclature, we take up all these four art-forms together for discussion. 'Bhana' is mentioned by Abh., DR/A., Bhoja, H., ND.; Vag. II. Bhanaka - is mentioned by A.bh. alone. Bhani is read in DR./A., Sa., NLRK.; Bhanika is seen in Abh. Bho., H., ND., NLRK., Vag II., and Vis. (= SD.). Bhana - The Abh. (pp. 181, N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S., N.S. IV/268) quotes the definition of Bhana from the Cirantanas -, with the words - "tad uktam cirantanaih." It reads as - "nssimha-sukara"dinam varnanam jalpayed yatah nartaki, tena bhanah syad uddhatanga-pradarsitah." on pp. 181 (ibid) the A.bh. reads - bhanakesu nosimha"di-carita-varnanam uddhatam eva. This suggests that for both 'bhana' and 'bhanaka', the Abh. has the same illustration and similar description. We may therefore conclude that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #327
882 SAHRDAYALOKA for Abhinavagupta these two art-forms, viz. bhanaka and bhana are one and the same. Perhaps bhanika also comes closer, as the theme seems identical, in the A.bh. The bhana, as quoted from 'cirantanas' - the ancients, and read in the Abh. (pp. 181, ibid) has the following features Nartaki, a female dancer narrates - 'jalpayet', in a style which is forceful 'uddhatanga-pravartita', the description of nrsimha, sukara etc. The idea is that the nartaki presents through dance with forceful karanas the narration of nrsimha, sukara, etc. Dr. Raghavan here thinks that there is description of wild animals and so the theme is in the nature of parables and fables, anyapadesa, arthantaranyasa, and drstanta, inculcating advice to man through description of the acts of wild animals; something like a bit of the Pancatantra cast in a semi-dramatic form. Actually Abh. says (pp. 172, ibid NS. Vol. II) - "simha-sukara-bhalluka-kasara"divarnanena'pi bhana-prerana-bhanika"dav-aprastuta-prasamsarthantaranyasadrstanta"dina purusarthasyaiva upadesa-darsanat." This means that through the descriptions of animals such as lion, boar, bear, buffalo, etc., in art-forms such as bhana, prerana, bhanika, etc. and through the device of figures of speech such as aprastuta-prasamsa, arthantaranyasa, drstanta etc., only the basic pursuits of life (= purusartha; dharma, artha, etc.) are promulgated. But the other explanation which Dr. Raghavan talks of (pp. 554, ibid) is more acceptable. It is possible that the A.bh. here refers to the avataras of Visnu such as Nrsimha, Sukara, etc. This way, the art-form becomes both diadectic and also devotional in keeping with what we will find in Bhoja and the rest. - Abhinavagupta also says (pp. 181, ibid) "bhanakesu nrsimha"di-caritavarnanam uddhatam eva." This precedes (pp. 187) the list, with definitions, of the art-forms as given by the ancients, one of which is "bhanah" - It seems, perhaps Abhinavagupta does not distinguish basically between bhana and bhanaka and even bhanika. These art-forms differ slightly only from the point of view of the technique of presentation of the theme which involves either the faster or rougher or forceful aspect of dance (= tandava) in a greater or smaller degree as compared to the graceful, slower and gentler aspect (= lasya) of dance used as the medium. The theme, perhaps is common to all these three, being of the nature of didectic or devotional story. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #328
Classification of Poetry 883 The Abh. further notes (pp. 181, NS. Vol. II G.O.S.) "yat-punar massnepy uddhatam pravisati, tat taducitam eva. tatopy alpatva - bahutva-krt bhedah. purvah prasthanabandhah. uttarah sidgakabhedah. uddhate tu masrnanupravesad bhanika-bhedah anyad api prerana-ramakridarasaka-hallisaka"dikam alpatva-bahutva-vaividhyakstam ihaiva pravistam veditavyam." We know that H. has quoted this in his Viveka. These were all dance-forms with forceful or graceful styles, with an element of drama and a lot of song and music (both vocal and instrumental). They were taken as upa-rupakas, or semi-dramatic forms. Abhinavagupta (pp. 181, ibid) talks about bhanika as an art-form which is - "balakrida-niyuddha"di tatha sukara-simhaja, dhvaja"dina krta krila yatra sa bhanika mata." Bhanika contains the sports of children and also the fights of youngsters and sports of lions, pigs etc. Here also 'sukara' and 'simha' are mentioned perhaps referring to the exploits of visnu in the avataras of nr-simha and sukara. "dhvaja"dina krta" is not clear to us. Perhaps a game with flags is meant. All this of course is in dance. The art-form is termed 'bhanika', as against 'bhana' and both are separately treated by the ancients (= cirantanas) and also perhaps by Abhinavagupta. It is not clear whether what Bhoja intends as difference between bhana and bhanika is also intended by both the ancients and Abhinavagupta alike. DR./A. on I. 8 simply mentions both bhana and bhani. It reads as (pp. 8, ibid) : "dombi srigaditam bhano bhani-prasthana-rasakah, kavyam ca sapta notyasya bhedah syus te pi bhanavat." Thus these art-forms are closer to the bhana-which is a major rupaka (bhanavat). Beyond this nothing is noted in the Avaloka. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #329
884 SAHRDAYALOKA Bhoja has the following on bhana and bhanika - (pp. 466, 467, sr. Pra. Vol. 1, ibid) - "hari-hara-bhanu-bhavaniskanda-pramathadhipa-stuti-nibandhah, uddhata-karana-prayas -stri-varjo varnanayuktah." Then Bhoja further elaborates - "dhavala-guna-kirtanaparair gatha"rambha"di-stuti-nibandhah, gayana-sahokti-yuktah dattena vibhusita-prayah tri-catuh-panca-vitalaih visramaih saptabhih paricchinnah, ardhod-graha-nivarana-samkhataih kutracin niyatah. sama-visramair dvipathair vibhusitah pancame viparivarte gathamatrad vipathaka pathyenalamkrto bhavati, varnotha matta-pali sabhagnatala tv anantaram gatha. anubhagna-tala-matre prathame syad-bhadra-talas ca matra nu ca marganika matra'tha tatonubhagnatalah ca. gatha-dvipada-vahanto visrame syad dvitiye tu matra visama-cchinna sa-bhagnatala'tha bhavati radhva ca. marganikety evam syat talavidhanam trtiye tu, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #330
Classification of Poetry matra-dvipatha-vahantoradhvavasthapanam caturthe syuh." radhvatha-bhagnatalo marganika dvipatha-visamasca, pancamake sasthe'py atha radhva nu ca bhagnatalah syat. dvipathaka-marganike ca syatam atha saptame srnutha, radhva'tha bhagnatalas sudbodhe bhane kramah pradistoyam. This is Suddha-bhana, for Bhoja. Then follow samkirna and citra varieties. sankirna-bhana-bhanitih karya syad ubhaya-samyogat, kincid anuddhata-bhavat tala-krama-varjanac ca, citroyam. iti suddhas sankirnah citras ca matas tridha bhanah, yadi vesa-suddha-vacah suddhah, sankirnaya'tha sankirnah. sarvabhir bhasabhis' citrais ca vicestitais citrah, ayam uddhatotha. lalito bhano, lalitoddhatas ca sambhavati. arthanamauddhatyal lalityad ubhayabhavac ca, yad duskaram abhineyam citram caty udbhatam ca yad bhavati. tad-bhanakebhidheyam yutam anutalair vitalais ca, sotraivantar bhavyo yo bhano nandimali-nama syat. 885 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #331
886 SAHRDAYALOKA bhinnah kaiscit kathito bharatamatam samyag a-viditva, akasa-purusam uddisya vastu yat pathyate 'thava kriyate. vislistodbhata-bhava-prayogam iha nandi-mali sah, prayo haricaritam idam sviksta-gatha"di-varna-matrasca. sukumaratah prayogad bhanopi hi bhanika bhavati, (This is important) divyabhiscaribhir vivarjita lalita-karana-samyukta. talantarala-nstta kvacid api radhvadi-samkalita, ardhod graha-nivarana-gayanasaha-vacana-matta-palibhih. visramais ca vihina stri-yojya varjitais talaih, vastuni bhanikaya nava dasa va niyamato vidhiyante. nava-madya-pancamesu sthanesu ca bhagnatalah syat, sthanantaresu ca'syam laya-tala-vidhir yadrcchaya kriyate. The description is very long and contains certain terms that are not clear to us. Sa, reproduces the whole passage at BP. IX. 14-23 (pp. 380, 381). We will compare the readings which are better at places in Sa. But after that (on pp. 381, BP. IX. 23 Cont.) i.e. after the line "vislistodbhata-bhava-prayogam iha nandimali sah" - we have some more verses read in Sa., who once again after 40 lines in which the three types of Bhana are discussed in greater details, once again picks up the thread from Bhoja and continues with 'bhanika' (on pp. BP. IX. 382). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #332
Classification of Poetry 887 This covers up Bhoja's description of Bhanika with some difference in readings at places that we will notice in due course, and Sa. proceeds to read beyond Bhoja's line viz : "vividhavaco-vinyasais sabhyajanotsaha-sampattih" - and adds six more lines. We will have to take a comparative approach and decide whether these added lines by Sa. actually seem to be originally from Bhoja or not and therefore whether these lines should be added in Bhoja's Sr. Pra., while attempting a critical edition. For the sake of convenience we will discuss Bhoja and sa. together. The first verse viz. "Hari hara.... varnanayuktah" reads identically in Bhoja and Sa. It means that the Bhana is made up of 'stuti' i.e. praise or laudation of Hari, Hara, Surya, Bhavani, Kartikeya and Pramathadhipa i.e. Lord of Pramathas i.e. Siva. We do not know what difference between 'Hara' and 'pramathadhipa' is intended. Mostly it is having "uddhatakaranas", i.e. forceful style of dancing and is without female characters (i.e. stri-varjyah) and is narrative in nature i.e. varnanayuktah'. It is full of praises in form of gathas, lauding the merits or good qualities of kings and is having 'uktis' i.e. speeches accompanied by songs - gayana-sahokti - and is connected with lofty qualities (yuktodatra). In Bhoja we have "dhavalaguna-kirtana parair gatha"rambha"dibhis stuti-nibandhah." Sa. reads : "gunakirtana-prakasana-gathabhir" which seems to be the paraphrase of Bhoja's expression. As gunas, in kavisamaya are said to be dhavala' or white, have omitted this expression and for Bhoja's 'kirtana-paraih', Sa. has 'guna-kirtanaprakasana' as an adjective of gathas'. One thing is clear that these praises were composed in gathas, perhaps because they, by nature, tend to be more musical. For Bhoja's expression viz. "gayana-sahokti-yuktodattena", Sa. offers a better reading as, "gayana-sahokti-yukto-dattena", suggesting that the context of these gathas at a lofty idea and expression. Sa. here seems to read better, and Bhoja's text in our opinion could be emended. Next two lines read identically in both Bhoja and sa. The meaning is that Bhana, at places (= kutracit) is vested with three, four, or five vitalas, seven visramas and "arthodgrahana-samkhya." Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 551, ibid) : "The description is full of details pertaining to Tala which seems to vary at every step. Seven sections are mentioned - visramaih saptabhih paricchinnah (Sa. has ih') - and Tala details are given for each of these seven parts. No ragadetail is however given though the gatha is often mentioned as the type of song employed. There is no doubt on the point that it is completely musical but the man who sings the song of the theme seems to add to the songs some speech also. For For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #333
888 SAHRDAYALOKA Bhoja says gayana-sahokti-yukta. That this type has dance also is plain from the words "uddhata-karana-praya". The dance is generally 'tandava' i.e. having karanas and angaharas which are forceful." The next verse viz. "sama-visramair dvipathair..." etc. is read in BP. with a little difference. For "visramair dvipathair", Sa. has "visramair vividhaih" - 'Vividhaih' seems to be better as in the third foot of the stanza in both Bhoja and Sa. We have, "gathamatra-dvipathaka-pathyena'lamkrto lalitah." Thus if dvipathaka' is read in the third foot of the stanza., it is better to read 'vividhair' in the second. The idea is that 'lalita' or graceful bhana is decorated by 'identical (sama), vieramas' of many types (= vividhaih), in the fifth 'parivartana'. It is also beautified by 'gatha'; 'matra' and 'dvipathaka-paehya'. We had noted that there are 'seven visramas' i.e. seven sections in a bhana. Details concerning these are now given by Bhoja and Sa. Bhoja has 'sabhagnatala tvanantaram gatha.' But Sa. has "sabhagnatalavanantaram" (lau+ana.); meaning with two bhagnatalas followed by gatha. The meaning in Bhoja seems to be that in the first visrama (i.e. section), we have varna, matta-pali, agnatala, (bhagnatala is an adjective of matta-palifollowed by gatha, then (anu)-bhagna-tala and matra, and also a bhagnatala. In the second section, (dvitiye visrame), it has gatha, dvipathaka (Bhoja has "dvipada), and vasantaka used. Sa. reads : "gatha-dvipatha-vasanta vierame syur dvitiye tu." But Bhoja reads, "gatha-dvipada-vahanto" (for, vasantah of Sa.). Sa. reads better. Again for Bhoja's "matra-visama-cchinna sa-bhagnatala'tha bhavati radhva ca" we may observe that the end of this line is not clear. But Sa has, "matra-visama-cchinna sa-bhagnatala bhaved vrddhya." The idea seems to be that in the second section (dvitiye visrame), there is use of gatha, dvipathaka, and vasantaka. Through 'vrddhi' i.e. extention or addition, from visama matra, 'vicchinna sa-bhagna-tala' is derived. We do not know much about this but 'vrddhya' seems to make sense in place of Bhoja's 'radhva'. Then Bhoja reads - "marganikety evam syat tala-vidhanam trtiye tu." Sa. reads - "magadhika sadhya syat tala-vidhane tltiye tu." Bhoja means - "In the third section there is this marganika, as formation of tala." BP. seems to suggest that in the third composition of tala, 'magadhika' is to be achieved. What this 'magadhika' (= a musical effect popular in Magadha ?) is, we do not know. The next half of the verse reads differently in both Bhoja and Sa. Bhoja has : "matra-dvipatha-vahanto radhvasthapanam caturthe syuh." BP. has "rathya dvipatha-vasantaka-rathya-talas caturthe syuh." The meaning here is clear and it is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #334
Classification of Poetry 889 that in the fourth section the bhana has rathya, dvipatha, vasantaka and rathyatala. The difference between rathya and rathya-tala is not clear to us. But Bhoja's line is absolutely un-intelligible. Where Bhoja reads 'radhva sa. in BP. reads 'rathya', a variety of tala, which seems to be more sensible. Thus for Bhoja's "radhvatha bhagnatalo' Sa. has rathyatha bhagnatalo. So, in the fifth section we have talas such as rathya, bhagnatala, marganika, dvipatha and visama according to Sa. Bhoja has the same with 'radhva' in place of rathya. For Bhoja's "marganika-dvipatha-visamas ca", sa. has, ".visamas ca". The plural is correct. The next line in Bhoja reads: "pancamake sasthepy atha radhva nu ca bhagnatalah syat." This is faulty. Sa. has - "pancamakepyatha sasthe, rathya-navabhagnatalah syuh." i.e. "rathya and nine bhagnatalas." This makes better sense. In the seventh section there are dvipathaka and marganika talas. In Bhoja we read "saptame srnutha" for Sa.'s, "saptame ca visrame" - The meaning does not differ, in the end. The next line says that "thus in suddha bhana the sequence of rathya and bhagnatala is indicated." For 'kramah pradistoyam' of Bhoja, which is correct; the BP. text is "krama-pradisto", which seems to be only a printing mistake. The next verse speaks of a mixed-sankara-type and also a 'citra' type of Bhana but the readings in Bhoja and Sa. are not identical though they drive at an identical result. Bhoja reads : "sankirna-bhana-bhaaitih karya syad, ubhaya-samyogat. kincid anuddhata-bhavat tala-krama-varjanac ca, citro'yam." Sa. (in BP. IX. 21, pp. 380) reads as - "sankirna-bhaniti-bharitah sankara-nama'yam ubhaya-samyogat, kincid anuddhata-bhavah tala-krama-varjitas citroyam." Sa. names the 'sankirna' as "samkara". Bhoja does not name it but means the same. Both have 'citra' as third variety. This means that in Bhana, involving complex expression (sankirna-bhaaiti), and due to a mixture of both, we arrive at 'sankara' or mixed type. Again, when bereft of forceful (uddhata) bhava and when tala-krama is absent, we have the 'citra' variety. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #335
890 SAHRDAYALOKA The next two verses observe, both in Bhoja and Saradatanaya that bhana thus is three-fold viz. suddha, sankirna and citra. When it is having a 'suddha' bhasa (meaning perhaps one language) it is suddha, when it is sankirna or mixed, there is mixture of two languages and it is 'citra' when it abounds in many languages and also multiple activities (vicestitaih citraih). Further, it is noted by both Bhoja and Sa. that Bhana is again three-fold such as uddhata (= forceful), lalita (= graceful) and lalitoddhata (= a mixture of both forceful and graceful) due to varieties of artha, i.e. theme; - "arthanam auddhatyallalityad ubhaya-bhavac ca." This expression is identical in both i.e. Sr. Pra. and BP. Thus we arrive at a threefold division of bhana both from the point of view of language i.e. linguistic expression, and also from the point of view of content or theme i.e. artha. Dr. Raghavan's remark does not fall in line with the above explanation which clearly follows the text and which is preferred by us. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 552, ibid) observes : "From the point of view of this dance, it has three varieties, uddhata, lalita and lalitoddhata." He quotes "ayam uddhato... artha(na)m auddhatyat...." But 'artha' sould mean here 'theme'. Of course, three-fold classification is possible from the angle of 'vicestita' which means "dance performance" which could be forceful (tandava or uddhata), graceful i.e. lasya or lalita and mixed. But this is a third angle. We again do not know, whether Bhoja, as is his practice elsewhere, also admits of further sub-varieties of the mutual permutation and combination of these three-fold each factors of language (bhasa), theme (artha) and vicestita (nrtyadance). This also is possible. Of course Dr Raghavan does take note of t factor also, and further observes (pp. 552, ibid) : "From the nature of the language employed, the bhana is distinguished into suddha, sankirna and citra, written respectively in one language, in two, and more then two." DR. Raghavan quotes a verse from Bhoja viz. "yadi vaisa suddha-vaca suddhah, sankirnaya sankirnah, sarvabhir bhasabhih citrais ca vicestitaih." He quotes this to support his above observation that bhana is three-fold due to three types of usage of languages. But he misses out "citrais ca vicestitaih", which means from the point of 'vicestita' or acting through dance also bhana For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #336
Classification of Poetry 891 becomes three-fold. This could mean that we can have a variety of suddha vicestita in either tandava alone or lasya alone, and a mixed vicestita of both tandava and lalita, i.e. lasya. DR. Raghavan further observes, and we agree with this, that the sankirna and citra varieties seem to be distinguished on other grounds also, such as actions involved - citrais ca vicestitaih. This we have noted above. But we have equated 'vicestita' with the style of performance i.e. the variety of dance through which the bhana is presented. Bhoja reads further : "yad duskaram abhineyam, citram, ca'tyudbhatam ca yad bhavati tad-bhanake bhidheyam yutam anutalair vitalais ca." Sa. also reads the same excepting that in the first line also, he (i.e. BP) has "abhidheyam", as in the third line. We feel "abhidheya" (= theme) should be preferred at both the places. The idea is that, when the abhidheya i.e. theme to be presented is difficult, it makes for 'citra' variety. When the abhidheya (= theme) is forceful (i.e. udbhata) in a 'bhanaka', it is accompanied by anurala and vitala. It may be noted that the term used here is "bhanaka" for "bhana". Earlier we had - noted that these words look like synonyms and our observation is borne out to be true. Here, Dr. Raghavan observes, (pp. 552, ibid) - "Bhoja says that in Bhana, things very difficult for Abhinaya and intricate rhythems also must be intorduced." Then an interesting verse is read slightly differently, but with identical effect in Bhoja and Sa. Bhoja reads - "sotraivantarbhavyah yo bhano mandi-mali-nama syat. bhinnah kaiscit kathito bharata-matam samyag a-viditva." and sa. reads, "tasyantarbhavo yo bhanesau nandimali-nama syat, bhinnah kaiscit kathito bharata-matam samyag a-viditva." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #337
SAHRDAYALOKA Dr. Raghavan (pp. 553, ibid) observes: "There is a variety of Bhana called Nandi-mali, which Bhoja says, some writers consider as a separate upa-rupaka. Bhoja says that it has to be included under this Bhana. The Nandimali is chiefly characterised by a feature borrowed from bhana of the Dasa-rupaka class viz. Akasa-bhasita. Does this Nandimali then suggest a stage of transition of the Dasarupaka-bhana into an upa-rupaka bhana ?" 892 Dr. Raghavan then quotes two verses from Bhoja, the first of which viz. "sotraivantarbhavyah..." etc. is quoted above. The second verse is read by Bhoja as, "akasa-purusam uddisya vastu yat pathyate'thava kriyate, vislistodbhata-bhava-prayogam iha nandimali sah." Sa. reads the second half as - "visistodbhavya-bhava-prayogavan nandimali sah." - Dr. Raghavan further observes (pp. 553, ibid) - "Bharata here referred to as misunderstood by other writers who gave a distinct type called Nandimali does not mean Sage Bharata but any later writer on the art of Bharata, for Bharata speaks neither of uparupakas nor of a Nandimali." It seems Dr. Raghavan is at times carried away and makes sweeping statements. Who the hell here says that by 'bharata' in the expression 'bharata-mata' is meant the 'sage bharata', the author of the available N.S.? Actually it means "Bharata's tradition". There is no doubt and there can not be any doubt about this either in any humble follower of Indian Aesthetics. Again, there were a number of natya-sastras, and perhaps different version of even our NS. of Bharata. So, such bold statements indicate misadventure. We have edited the N.S. (G.O.S.) afresh, with 'N' ms., not available so far. Dr. Krishnamoorthy edited the first Volume in the G.O.S. series and Dr. Kulkarni and Dr. Nandi worked on the Vol. II, III & IV (with Vol. II through the press to-day i.e. 27-4-02 and Vol. III also through the press (Aug. 04), and Vol. IV now in the press, (27-3-04). with ms. 'N', being in centre. Now this ms. N. has only 33 chapters as against 36 or 37 of printed editions available. A number of extra verses are also noted. So, it will not be a surprise if in future a fresh ms. of the N.S. is found out and it contains the upa-rupaka portion also. Actually without naming, the NS. does treat of natika and also hints at prakarani. In short no sweeping statements should be entertained. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #338
Classification of Poetry 893 The second verse is read in Bhoja as - (pp. 467, Edn. ibid) "akasa-purusam uddisya vastu yat pathyate'thava kriyate, vislistodbhata bhava-prayogam iha nandimali sah." Sa. reads (BP. pp. 380, ibid) : akasapurusam uddisya vastu yat pathyate'thava kriyate, visistodbhavya-bhava-prayogavan nandimali sah." Both have the form 'nandimali, meaning the original word is "nandimalin". The fourth line is read as "vislistodbhaca-bhava-prayogam" in Bhoja, and "visistodbhavya-bhava-prayogavan" in Sa. Sa. means that nandimalin is furnished with presentation of bhavas that are imagined specially (for this presentation). Bhoja means "having the prayoga or presentation of bhavas that are "specially correlated and forceful; vislista is taken by us as 'visesena slista' "mixed in a special way." The special feature of this variety is that here the theme or action is presented addressing it to akasa-purusa or a character which is not actually present on the stage but is imagined to be present. Dr. Raghavan again makes a bold surmise when he tries to suggest that this variety could be a link between bhana, the major type and an upa-rupaka bhana. We again call this a bold statement not founded on logic. For nowhere in the history of Indian art it is observed that there was a "stage of transition from rupakas to upa-rupakas. Actually the major and minor types could have co-existed of vore in India and the minor types could have represented regional popular folk art-forms. Both were actually accepted and equally respected. Now Bhoja speaks of Bhanika (pp. 467, ibid) : prayo hari-caritam idam sviksta-gatha"di-varna-matras ca, sukumaratah prayogad bhanopi hi bhanika bhavati divyabhis caribhir vivarjita For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #339
894 lalita-karana-samyukta talantarala-nrtta kvacid api radhya (thya ?) di samkalita ardhod graha-nivarana gayana-saha-vacana-mattapalibhih, visramais ca vihina stri-yojya varjitais talaih. vastuni bhanikaya nava dasa va niyamato vidhiyante navamadya-pancamesu sthanesu ca bhagnatalah syat. sthanantaresu casyam laya-tala-vidhir yadrcchaya kriyate. vividha-vaco-vinyasaih sabhya-janotsaha-sampattih. (pp. 468, ibid) Dr. Raghavan's reading (pp. 552, ibid) is not satisfactory. It reads as - "prayo haricaritayutanvikrta (yutah strikrta) gatha"di varna-matras ca, sukumaratah prayogad bhanopi bhanika bhavati." Thus, bhanika contains mostly Hari's behaviour (or narration), and it contains gathas and varnamatras recited by a female character. The performance is graceful. With this basic difference bhana itself is bhanika. Again in bhanika, the movements called divya-caris are not performed. These are movements involving jump and swaying of limbs above ground. Lalila-karanas, i.e. graceful movements are executed in bhanika. Female characters are seen in bhanika. The women sing the gatha, etc. i.e. the libretto. Nine or ten vastus or feet or parts are marked in bhanika. Those who sing also speak or narrate - (gayana-saha-vacana). Through a variety of expressions, the energy or determination, or firmness of cultured men is increased in this art-form. Thus both bhana and bhanika have a lot of speach element. They differ from bhana-the major type of rupaka, as they contain more of dance, song and music and less of drama and abhinaya. SAHRDAYALOKA Hemacandra has the following for bhana, and bhanika. He seems to accept Abhinavabharati's cirantanas with reference to the concepts of bhana and bhanika. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #340
Classification of Poetry H. observes (pp. 446, ibid) - "nrsimha-sukara"dinam varnanam jalpayed yatah, nartaki tena bhanah syad uddhatanga-pravartitah." Thus the contents are the narration of nrsimha and sukara, the avataras of Visnu, accomplished by a female dancer with forceful movements of the limbs. We know that H. calls all these "geyani rupakani cirantanair uktani." He carefully distinguishes between "pathyasya geyasya rupakasya" difference. We will discuss this in detail at the end of all uparupakas or geya-rupakas in view of what H. observes in the Viveka (pp. 446, 447, etc. ibid). Bhanika, read after A.bh. in H. is: bala-krida-niyuddha"di tatha sukara-simhaja dhavala"dikrta krida, yatra sa bhanika mata. In the Abh. we have "dhvaja"dina krta krida". We do not understand the reading in Abh., nor this one in H. As suggested earlier, perhaps the performance carried banners or flags. The rest is as observed earlier under Abh. The ND. has the following: Bhana is threefold - "hari-hara-bhanu-bhavani skanda-pramatha"dhipa-stuti-nibaddhah uddhata-karanaprayah stri-varjo varnana-yuktah. yadi caiva suddhavaca 895 suddhah, sankirnataya ca sankirnah, sarvabhir bhasabhis citrais ca vicestitais citrah. ayam uddhato lalito bhano lalitoddhatas ca sambhavati, arthanam auddhatyal For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #341
896 SAHRDAYALOKA lalityad ubhaya-sattvac ca." yad duskaram abhineyam citram catyudbhatam ca sambhavati, tad bhanakebhineyam yutam anutalair vitalais ca. It may be noted that the ND. has accepted some lines from Bhoja and has left out some portion. In both, the Sr. Pra. and the ND., we read terms such as bhana' and bhanaka' as synonyms. The ND. has followed Bhoja while the Ka. Sa of H. has chosen to follow the A.bh. In the N.D. we have stuti-nibaddhah for nibandhah' in Bhoja. The N.D. has a better or original reading as compared to the printed sr. Pra. edn. of Josyer. Again, 'caiva' in N.D. is better that Josyer's edn., which gives "yadi vesa-suddha-vacah suddhah." - We can emend to advantage, the text of Bhoia's Pra, with the text as preserved either in H. or the N.D. . N.D. also quotes from Bhoja and observes that Bhana becomes bhani, when - "prayo hari-carita-yutah strikrta-gatha"di-varna-matras ca. sukumaratah prayogad bhanopi hi bhanika bhavet." In bhani the performance is graceful, the narration is mostly of Hari's exploits, and a female character is the narrator using gathas and varna-matras. Bhoja is the inspiration behind ND. Vagbhata II describes bhanika after H. and the A.bh. It reads as - "bala-krid.-niyuddha"di tatha sukara-simhaja, dhavala"di-krta [krida] yatra sa bhanika mata." We have supplied (krida] from H. and Abh. Here also, following H., we read dhavala"di-krta' in place of 'dhvaja"dina krta'. For, us, Both are equally not very clear. For Bhana, Vagbhasa has, "ntsimha-sukara"dinam varnanam jalpayed yatah, nartaki tena bhanah syad uddhatanga-pravartitah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #342
Classification of Poetry 897 This follows H. and A.bh. - Thus Vagbhasa also has both bhana and bhanika. Saradatanaya once again quotes elaborately from Bhoja and he also has both bhana and bhanika. He uses the term bhanaka also for bhana as is seen elsewhere in Bhoja. Bhana is described (pp. 379, 380, 381, 382 and 383) very elaborately. He has something more than Bhoja. The source is unknown to us. Or, in his times, these art-forms must have collected additional features as read in BP. Bhana for Sa. is - "hari-hara-bhanu-bhavani skanda-pramathadhipa-stuti-nibaddhah ('nibaddhah' follows ND. This is a clearer reading and Bhoja's text should be emended to this effect). Sa. proceeds - guna-kirtana-prakasana gathabhir bhubhitam stutinibandhahBhoja had - dhavala-guna-kirtana-parair gatha"rambha"dibhis stutinibandhah. In place of 'gatha"rambha"dibhih, sa. has 'gathabhir bhubhstam'. Here 'gathabhih' is of course better than 'gatha"rambha"dibhih'. But 'bhubhitam' is a fresh feature. By the time of sa., this art-form must have cultivated this additional feature also. Along with the praises of hari, hara, etc. the eulogies of kings also must have crept in. Again, BP. observes - "gayana-sahokti-yukto dattena vibhusitaprayah. "yuktodattena" is better as compared to yukto dattena' in Bhoja. The sr. Pra. text could be emended to advantage. Then, BP. reads, "tri-catura-panca-vitalaih visramaih saptabhih paricchinnaih ardhod-graha-nivarana sankhyataih kutracin niyatah." Bhoja has 'paricchinnah', which seems better. This means that Bhana is covered up by three, four or five vitalas, seven visramas and ardhodgraha-nivaranasamkhya. We do not know what "ardho..." is. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #343
898 SAHRDAYALOKA Then, we have in BP., - sama-vibramair-vividhair vibhusitah pancame viparivarte, (Bhoja has - dvipathair', and 'viparivarte'; obviously wrong.) "gathamatra-dvipathaka pathyenalamkrto lalitah." i.e. In the fifth viparivarta', it is beautified by a variety of sama-visramas. Again, the lalita bhana is decorated by gatha, matra, and dvi-pathaka-pathya'. For Sa., this is the description of 'lalita' i.e. graceful variety of bhana. In Bhoja we read "bhavati" for 'lalitah'. Now, like Bhoja, sa. also describes the seven parts giving tala-details in each one of them. This portion reads as follows : 'varnotha matta-pali sabhagnatalav anantaram gatha (Bhoja has - 'sa-bhagnatala tvanantaram'. This is not a happy reading. Sa. has 'sa-bhagnatalau anantaram gatha', which reads better and should be accepted in Sr. Pra. also.) - abhugnatala-matre prathame syad bhagnatalas ca. (Bhoja reads "bhadratalas ca" which should be corrected as 'bhagnatalas ca.) This means in the first part, after varna, mattapali, and bhagnatala, we have the use of a-bhugnatala, matra and bhagnatala. In the second part, 'gatha-dvipatha-vasanta visrame syur dvitiye tu matra-visama-cchinna sa-bhagnatala bhaved vaddha." Bhoja has 'ovahanto', which should be emended as 'vasanta'. Then, for 'syad' it should read "syur dvitiye", as in BP. In the fourth line Bhoja has, 'sa-bhagnatala'tha bhavati radhva ca'. This should be read as in BP. viz. "sa-bhagnatala bhaved vrddhya." This means that in the second part, there is use of gatha, dvipathaka and vasantaka. Through vrddhi, there has to be sa-bhagna-tala, which is cut (cchinna) by visama-matra. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #344
Classification of Poetry 899 In the third part, according to Sa., we have - 'magadhika sadhya syat tala-vitane tetiye tu.' i.e. magadhika has to be achieved in the third part. In Bhoja we read, "marganikety evam syat talavidhanam trutiye tu. BP. reads "magadhika" for Bhoja's 'marganika.' Later in BP. in the fifth part, we read 'marganika.' So, perhaps 'magadhika' of BP. should be read as "marganika" of Bhoja. This observation means that in the third part magadhika (or marganika ?) has to be sought. In the fourth part, the BP. has - "rathya dvipatha-vasantaka rathyatalas' caturthe syuh." i.e. In the fourth part, there are rathya, dvipatha, vasantaka and rathya-tala. Bhoja reads as - "matra-dvipatha-vahanto radhva-sthapanam caturthe tu." In BP. we have 'rathya' at two places. The first 'rathya' should be corrected as , 'matra', as read in Bhoja. Then Bhoja's 'vahanto' has to be read as 'vasantaka' as in BP. So also 'radhva' in Bhoja should read as 'rathya' in Sa. Thus, the fourth part should have matra, dvipatha, vasantaka and rathya-tala. The next two verses (pp. 380, vs. 19, 20, ibid).read in BP. as - "rathya'tha bhagnatalo marganika dvipatha-visamas ca. pancamakepy atha sasthe rathya-navabhagna-talah syuh. (vs. 19) dvipatha-marganike ca syatam atha ca visrame, rathya'tha bhagnatalah suddhe bhane krama-pravistoyam." (vs. 20) This means that according to sa., in the fifth part, rathya, bhagnatala, marganika, dvipatha and visama tala are seen. In the sixth part, there are rathya and nava-bhagna-tala. Bhoja's text is currupt and it has to be emended in the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #345
900 SAHRDAYALOKA light of BP., which offers sensible reading. In the seventh part, there are dvipathaka and marganika talas. Thus, in suddha-bhana the krama of rathya and bhagnatala is indicated. It is very clear that Bhoja's text has to be emended in view of the BP. at all these places. After describing the suddha-variety of Bhana, the BP. proceeds to cover the samkirna variety of Bhana as is done by Bhoja. Here also we will see if Sa. reads better at places then Bhoja. BP. (pp. 380, vs. 21 ibid) reads - "sankirna-bhaaiti-bharitah sankaranama'yam ubhayasamyogat, kincid-anuddhatabhavah talakrama-varjitas ca citro'yam." With speech-expressions of mixed type, this variety is called 'samkara' by name. It is the result of a mixture of two (types of expressions). When associated with some gentle expressions (also) to an extent, and is bereft of sequence of tala, it is beautiful. (= citra) (or is called 'citra'- bhana.) Thus following Bhoja sa. also has three types of bhana. The BP. observes : 'iti suddhah sankirnas' citro'yam iti tridha bhaved bhanah. yadi vaisa suddha-bhasah, sankirno'tha sankirnah : sarvabhir bhasabhis' citrais ca vicestitai' citrah, syat. ayam uddhato'tha lalito bhano lalitoddhatas ca bhinnah syat. arthanam auddhatya-llalityad ubhaya-bhavac ca. Thus, bhana is three-fold viz. suddha, sankirna and citra. If it is gifted with suddha bhasa (= a single language), it is suddha. If it is having sankirna or mixed languages, it is sankirna and if it is having all the languages it is called 'citra'. The actions are also of all sorts in "citra'. This bhana is thus (also) three-fold, viz. uddhata, lalita and lalitoddhata. ud, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #346
Classification of Poetry 901 That in which the artha, i.e. meaning (or theme) is forceful is uddhata, if the artha is gentle or lalita, it is lalita type, and if it is both (i.e. if the artha/theme) is both forceful and gentle, it is of the lalitoddhata variety. Sa. further observes, (pp. 380, para 23, ibid) - yad duskarabhidheyam citram ca'ty udbhatam ca bhavati, tad-bhanake'bhidheyam yutam anutalair vitalais ca. That is 'citra' where the meaning [or 'abhineya' (Sr. Pra) = matter to be presented] is difficult, it is called 'citra' (type). In the udbhata (= forceful) type, the abhidheya (= meaning, or matter) is associated with anutala and vitala. This variety which is included in bhana is termed 'nandi-malin' by name. This is said to be a separate variety by some who do not know clearly the tradition of Bharata. That is called nandi-mali, wherein something is addressed to, or is performed with reference to akasapurusa (i.e. a character not actually present on the stage but is imagined to be present). This variety is having presentation of such feelings which are presented through special effort. All this follows Bhoja. In both Sa. and Bhoja, we see the use of the terms "bhana" and also "bhanaka". Sa. once again repeats in anustubh verses the details which Bhoja has given earlier for Bhana. He says - uddhata-praya-karanah kvacit-stri-varja-varnanah, This (i.e. bhana) has mostly forceful karanas i.e. movements. At times it is bereft of the description of a woman. Then it is glued with praises of kings through gathas. gatha"di-raja-stutibhih nibaddho guna-kirtanaih. and it is beautified by good songs, sahoktis and yuktodatta - "su-gayana-sahoktyaiva yuktodattena bhusitah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #347
902 SAHRDAYALOKA . This (i.e. bhana) is mostly associated by praises of Brahman, Rudra, Indra, Skanda etc. It is having five or three or four vitalas. It is having seven visramas or parts. In between the number (samkhya) of ardhodgraha is also ascertained. (ardhodgraha"di-samkhyanair niyatas ca kvacit kvacit). In the fifth part, it is decorated by sama-vibramas. At times it is adorned by gatha, matra and dvipathaka-pathya. In the first part, we find varna or mattapali, gatha in bhagnatala, and also abhugnatala or matra, and also there is bhagnatala. In the second part, there are gatha, dvipathaka, and vasantaka. (Bhoja reads 'vahanto', for 'vasanto'.) In the third part, there are matra which is visamacchinna, bhagnatala, rathya and magadhi. (Bhoja reads 'rad hva' as noted above). In the fourth part, there are rathya, dvipathaka, and vasantaka tala with rathya in due order. In the fifth, rathya, bhagnatala, margaaika and visama-dvipatha. In the sixth, rathyatala, and navatala, followed by bhagnatala, dvipathaka, followed by bhagnatala, dvipathaka, and marganika are presented. In the seventh part there are rathy, and bhagnatala. This is the sequence shown by experts of natya in suddha-bhana - "evam kramah suddha-bhane natya-vidbhir udahitah." In the 24th para, on pp. 382, BP. (Edn. G.O.S.) again discusses the varieties of Bhana in anustubh verses. The matter is already once discussed. We do not find any logic in this repetition as well as the same seen above concerning seven parts. Perhaps someone, for personal understanding must have written these verses in anustubh which seem to have crept in the original text through scribal mixtake. The details covered are as below : - "That which is imagined through suddha bhasa is called suddha-bhana, 'misra' is one with mixed languages (bhasa-samkara). Bhana is called 'citra' if it is adorned by all languages. Suddha-bhana is that which is - 'ukta-tala-krama"slista' i.e. associated with sequence of said talas. Sankirna is one born of the sankara-mixture of two or three talas. That which is bereft of the order of said talas is called 'citra'. That in which the theme is forceful, is said to be uddhata. Where artha or theme is graceful, we have lalita bhana. Where we have both force and gentleness of theme, it is 'lalitoddhata' type. Where the narration (abhidheya/abhineya) is difficult and forceful, it is called 'citra'. This abhidheya in bhana is associated with anurala and vitala. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #348
Classification of Poetry 903 In para 25, pp. 383, BP (ibid), Sa observes that the (extra =) atidesya' part, i.e. the sandhi, anka, etc. are not described here in case of the bhana, the rupaka-visesa which is described here : "yad-rupaka-visesasya bhanasyoktam sva-laksanam, atidesyam iha'nuktam anka-sandhyadi kalpanam." sa. also says that the one which is called nandi-mali is also included in this. Nandimali is said to be so by experts wherein in dialogue (or recitation), song and action, there is context of an imagined character (= akasa-purusa) and wherein special emotion is presented through special effort. "bhano yo nandi-maly akhyah sontarbhuto'tra laksyate. pathye-gite-kriyayam yad uddisy akasa-purusam, visistodbhavya-bhava"tma prayogo yatra drsyate, bhanah sa nandimaliti namna kavibhir ucyate." With this the treatment of Bhana, or Bhanaka is over in Sa. But sa also discusses, after Bhoja, the variety called Bhanika, along with this. sa. almost identically describes bhanika following Bhoja with minor changes in readings. Thus BP. has, frathyadi-sankalita' for 'radvadi.' of Bhoja. For Bhoja's, "... gayana-saha-vacana-matta-palibhih." Sa. reads, "gayana-vasanta..." for 'varjitottalaih' of Sa. Bhoja has "varjitais talaih". The last two verses in sa. read as : "navamadi-pancamesu sthanesu ca bhagnatalah syat. sthanantaresu tasya layaka(ta)lo yadrcchaya kriyate. vividha-vaco-vinyasaih sabhya-janotsaha-sampattih." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #349
904 SAHRDAYALOKA These lines do not differ much from Bhoja but the next six lines are not at all read in Bhoja. They are - lasyanga-sandhi-niyamo bhanavad evatra bhanikayam syat. i.e. In bhanika also, as in bhana, there are lasyangas and sandhis. Sa. observes further that in bhanika, the principal rasa is srngara, and heroine is covered up in beautiful dress. Without garbha and avamaria, the three sandhis viz. mukha, pratimukha and nirvahana are seen in bhanika. Its theme is short (svalpa-vrtta). The characters are vita, and pitha-marda along with vidusaka. There are ten lasyas in it. (i.e. lasyangas). It is graced by pancali-riti. The illustration is 'Vinayati. The verses read as - "atha bhany angi-sengara slaksna-naipathya-nayika garbhavamarsa-hina ca mukha"di-traya-bhusita. svalpa-vytta-prabandha ca pikha-marda-vitanvita vidusakena sahita dasa-lasya-samanvita bhaved vinavati yatha." (pp. 384, ibid) The NLRK. has both bhanika and bhani. Bhani is briefly described (pp. 302, ibid), which seems to be the shortest summary of sa.'s bhanika. The illustration is also identical. The NLRK reads as - atha bhani. ekanka, vita-vidusaka-pirhamarda-sobhita songara-rasa, svalpa-citrakavya, dasa-lasyanga-sobhita. yatha vinavati. Bhanika in NLRK. again shares some features of bhana-bhanika as seen in Bhoja and Sa. But we fail to understand why bhanika and bhani are mentioned as separate varieties. Normally, bhana and bhanika are mentioned separately but bhani and bhanika are not. NLRK. describes bhanika as (pp. 300, ibid) : atha bhanika. udatta-nayika, suksma-nepathya-bhusita (we have slaksna in Bhoja/sa.), ekanka. kaisiki-bharati-vrtti-pradhana, manda-purusa ca. yatha kamadatta. Then seven angas of bhanika are described such as - asyah saptanganivinyasah, upanyasah, virodhah, anuvsttih, sadhvasam, samarpanam, samharas ceti. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #350
Classification of Poetry 905 vinyasa is explained as 'nirvedavakyam', as in "gpha-vatika" upanyasa is, "prasangatah karyanivedanam" as in the same work viz. gruha-vatika. virodha is "bhranti-nivrttih". The illustration is from 'anutapanka' (This is from Act. VI Abhi. Sa. which it termed 'anutapa-anka' here). 'anuvstti' is "nidarsanopanyasah". - Again illustrated from Abhi. Sa. 'sadhvasam' is 'adbhutasya sadhvasena bhutodaharanam.' Illustration is drawn from Abhi. Sa. Here an awe-inspiring or impossible event is described as happened, through bhaya or fear. 'samarpana' is upalambha i.e. taunt or censure through distress, as in (Nagananda II) candanalata-gpha. 'samhara' is welknown. It means 'summing up' or 'covering up' or 'completion' (= samapana). Views of Vagbhata II have been recorded along with H.'s as he follows H. strictly. S.D. of Visvanatha has enumerated 18 uparupakas, the bhanika being the last one. It is explained as - "bhanika-slaksna-nepathya mukha-nirvahanantika kaisiki-bharati-vstti yukta ekanka-vinirmita. udatta-nayika manda-purusa-patra anga-saptakam, upanyasotha vinyaso ..vibodhah sadhvasam tatha, samarpanam nivsttis ca samhara iti saptamah. Visvanatha seems to have been inspired by Bhoja, sa. and also NLRK. Sadhvasa is explained by him as 'mithya'khyanam". Visvanatha at the end of this observes : "etesam sarvesam nataka-prakrtikatve'pi yathaucityam yathalabham natakoktavisesa-parigrahah. yatra ca natakoktasya api punar upadanam tatra tatsadbhavasya niyamah." - i.e. All these uparupakas are basically of the nature of nataka. But, as required, the angas or parts of nataka should be included in these. So, wherever in the definitions these features (angas) of nataka are repeated, they should be taken as un-avoidable features of the same." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #351
SAHRDAYALOKA Gosthi is the next art-form in Bhoja. It is described by H., ND., Sa., NLRK., Vagbhata II & S.D. It may be noted that any earlier mention of gosthi prior to Bhoja is not seen among available documents. So, we have to start with Bhoja, who observes : (Sr. Pra. pp. 468, ibid) - 906 gosthe yat tu viharatah cestitam iha kaitabha-dvisah kincit, ristasura-pramathana-prabhrti tad icchanti gosthiti. This is a single arya describing gosthi. As Dr. Raghavan observes, this definition seems to be inspired by the word 'gostha' meaning a hamlet of cowherds. It is described as representation of the sports of young Krsna in the Gokula of Nanda. It presents the killing of demons or asuras by Krsna. Saradatanaya has the following on 'gosthi. (B.P. pp. 375, ibid). "athotpadyakathaikankagosthi srngara-manthara, rupa-saundarya-lavanyopetasat-panca-nayika. prakrtair navabhih pumbhih, dasabhir va'py alamkrta, garbhavamarsa-sandhibhyam sunya, nodatta-vak-krta, atra syat kaisiki vrttih mrdvi nanyarasasraya. na kunjara-ghata"ghatapatram bhavati kandali; gopi-pater-viharato gosthabalasya cestitam, yattu, yamalarjuna"didanava-nidhana-krtam tat tu gosthi syat. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #352
Classification of Poetry 907 The last verse - "gopi-pater... syat" seems o reproduce Bhoja's idea of gosthi. In this, the exploits of child krishna are narrated. The killing of demons such as yamalarjuna etc. is described. But, Sa. has something else also. We do not know the source of this thoughtcurrent. Sa. holds that in gosthi there is imaginary story or theme. Songara is of low class. There are five to six heroines who are beautiful and graceful. They are adorned by rustic males who are nine or ten in number. This is bereft of garbha and vimarsa junctures. No lofty words are used. The soft kaisiki vrtti predominates here. It is not having other rasas (except low type of songara). The banana tree cannot bear the dashing by a group of elemphants. This description of gosthi as a one-act imaginative piece, with love theme, with five or six beautiful heroines and nine or ten male characters of low status, is a sort of gathering justifying its name, and it abounds in vulgar talks. As suggested above, we cannot trace the origin of this thought current from any available earlier source. Hemacandra accepts Bhoja's description of gosthi. We have seen that normally H. chooses to follow Abh., but when he deals with a variety not read in the A.bh., he accepts only Bhoja's authority. We discussed sa. prior to H. & ND., because his was a special case where Bhoja's tradition, as well as an unknown tradition were both accepted. The ND. also accepts Bhoja's tradition and describes gosthi identically. Same is the case with Vagbhata II. Thus, the jain acaryas from Gujarat accept the lead of Bhoja in this respect. The NLRK. as seen above quite often, follows Sa. in part. There is no following of Bhoja also as seen in the BP. The NLRK. (pp. 287, ibid) reads : atha gosthi. ekanka, kaisiki-vrtti-yukta, garbhavamarsa-samdhi-sunya ca. yatha-satyabhama. The NLRK. gives an illustration. Thus 'gosthi was a living tradition till the times of NLRK. The S.D. of Visvanatha has - (SD. VI. 274, 275). "prakstair navabhih pumbhir dasabhir va'pyalamkrta, nodattavacana gosthi kaisiki-vrtti-salini. hina garbha-vimarsabhyam panca-sad-yosid anvita For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #353
908 SAHDAYALOKA kama-songara-samyukta syad ekanka-vinirmita." This follows Sa. Visvanatha does not seem to accept Bhoja's tradition. Thus, in case of gosthi two traditions seem to run parallel, though perhaps the one represented by Bhoja could be earlier. Hallisaka - This art-form is read in Vatsyayana, A.bh., Bho.; H., N.D., sa., NLRK., Vagbhata II, and S.D. Visvanatha reads the name as 'Hallisa' for Hallisaka. The A.bh. (pp. 181, N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S., ibid) - has the following - "mandalena tu yanntttam hallisakam iti smotam, ekas tatra tu neta syad gopastrinam yatha harih." . Thus, hallisaka, acc. to A.bh., is a sort of dance - or rythanic bodily movements, - in circle, where there is one leader (of the group), like Hari of gopa-ladies. It seems that there is one man in the middle, like Krsna and a circle of girls come round him dancing. The verse quoted in A.bh. is quoted by Bhoja also while he defines 'hallisa', as one of the six varieties of the Sabdalamkara called Preksya in the sabdalamkara section. In the S.K.A. (pp. 309, N.S. Bombay '39) Hallisaka is defined as - "mandalena tu yat strinam notyam hallisakam tu tat, tatra neta bhaved eko gopa-strinam harir yatha." This is from the A.bh. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 555, Sl. Pra. ibid) observes : "The Hallisaka and Rasa of the Sanskrit Natya literature are almost identical with the 'garba' of Gujarat and the Kummi and Kudiccuppattu of Tamilnad and the Kaikottikkali of Malabar. The only difference in the South Indian varieties seems to be in the Tala or rhythem kept by the palms as the dancers go around." Bhoja (Sr. Pra. pp. 468, ibid. Ch. XI) observes : "yan mandalena nsttam strinam hallisakam tu yat-prahuh, tatraiko neta syad gopastrinam iva murari)." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #354
Classification of Poetry 909 This is like A.bh.'s description. It may be noted that the definitions in both the A.bh. and the Sr. Pra, make hallisaka, a mere dance, giving us no idea of the nature of literary composition involved in it. Probably some songs could be understood as meant here. sa., of course, has something special to observe. But H. and the ND. follow A.bh. verbetim. Sa. (BP. IX. para 49, pp. 390, ibid) observes : "atha hallisakam saptanavastadasa-nayikam, sanudatokti caikankam kaisiki-vrtti-bhusitam. ekarkam va bhaved dvyankam vimarsa-mukha-samdhimat. sa-geya-lasyam yatimat * khanda-tala-layanvitam eka-visrama-sahitam yatha syat keli-raivatam." First thing to be noted in Sa. is that he illustrates hallisaka by "keli-raivatam". This means there was a living tradition in his days. For Sa., hallisaka is not a mere dance form, but is something more. In hallisaka there are seven, eight or nine heroines or female characters. It is characterised by an expression (ukti), which is not noble or lofty (= anudatta). There is a single act in it and the diction is kaisiki. At times it may have even two acts and it has mukha and vimarsa sandhi. Now this is strange, for when you have vimarsa also, perhaps other samdhis also walk in naturally as nirvahana is a must for all and vimarsa has to be preceeded by pratimukha and garbha junctures. Along with a song (= sa-geya), we have, in hallisaka, lasya (i.e. graceful dance), vati, khanda-tala, laya and one visrama (i.e. division). 'Keli-raivata' is an illustration cited. Sa. has some further description also (para 50, Ch. IX. pp. 360, ibid) : lalita daksina khyata nayaka panca-sa api, vipra-ksatra-vanik-putras saciva"yatta-siddhayah. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #355
910 SAHRDAYALOKA dvyanke mukhavamarsau stah, ekanke, garbha-nirgamah." Thus, it has five to six nayakas, i.e. heroes or male characters who are lalita (= graceful), daksina (= courteous), and famous (= khyatah). They are brahmins, ksatriyas or Vaisya-putras, whose achievements depend on their advisers (i.e. sacivas). If (it has a second act, then) in that type there are mukha and avamaria junctures. And in the variety having a single act, (even) garbha-samdhi is absent. This means it has only mukha and nirvahana, and prati-mukha, if at all. Vagbhata II follows Bhoja, H. and the N.D., when he observes : (pp. 18, ibid) : "mandalena tu yan nsttam hallisakam iti smrtam, eka-sutram tu neta syad gopa-strinam yatha harih." The NLRK. has - (pp. 299, ibid) : atha hallisakam-saptasta-navayosid-bhusitam, kaisiki-vstti-prayam, bahu-talalaya"tmakam, ekankam, eka-purusa-pradhanam anudatta-vacana-krtam. yatha keli raivatakam. This is under the influence of sa. But the NLRK. does not give the two-act - variety also seen in Sa. Again, the NLRK. recommends one central hero as is the tradition in Bhoja and A.bh. Thus NLRK. has a mixed tradition. The illustratic the same as read in Sa. but here we have 'keli-raivatakam', for 'keli-raivatam'. The S.D. has 'hallisa' for 'hallisaka', read at S.D. VI. 307, and it has - "hallisa eka evankah saptastau dasa va striyah, vagudattaika-purusah, kaisiki vittir ujjvala. mukhantimau tatha sandhi, bahutala-laya-sthitih. yatha-keli-raivatakam. The S.D. is clear in that the hallisa has just one act, seven-eight or ten female characters. There is a single hero with noble expression in speech. The vrtti is kaisiki. There are only two samdhis viz. mukha and nirvahana, termed as "antima" i.e. 'the last one', here. There are many talas, and layas (in the song) in hallisaka. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #356
911 Classification of Poetry 'Nartanaka' is read in Bhoja only but it has a wider scope and in parts it is touched by various authorities. Bhoja (pp. 468, Sr. Pra. ibid) defines it as - "yasya padarthabhinayam lalitalayam sadasi nartaki kurute, tan nartanakam, samya lasya-cchalita-dvipadyadiDr. Raghavan (pp. 555, ibid) observes that this is dance like 'nautch'. A danseuse sings and renders through gesture the contents of the songs. This nartanaka has varieties in samya, lasya, chalika, and dvipadi. In the sabdalankara section Bhoja mentions tandava, lasya, chalika, sampa, hallisaka, and rasa, the six preksya types (S.K.A. pp. 309, ibid). Lasya will be examined by us separately later. Nartanaka is lasya itself. Bhoja seems to suggest that the lasya with the ten angas as described by Bharata can be presented by a single dansense i.e. nartaki, and will then be termed 'nartanaka'. Malavikagnimitra. Act. I. mentions chalika' which princess Malavika was learning from Ganadasa, the dance teacher. In act I. Pandita Kausiki observes : "deva ! sarmisthayah krtim catuspadodbhavam chalitam dusprayogam udaharanti." This has a reference to a composition by some lady called sarmistha. This dance composition consists of four parts (catuspadam). It is difficult to perform - dusprayogam'. One of the four parts is chalita which Malavika is to perform. It looks like a love-piece in prakrta. Katayavema, a commentator, quotes a definition of chalika' which seems to be inspired by Kalidasa's Malavikagnimitra. According to this definition, chalita is the dance of a damsel, who reveals hero through the pretext of doing 'acting or abhinaya, for an old composition. This definition seems to be based on the word 'chala' i.e. deceit. It may be noted that 'chalika' and 'chalita' are synonyms. The definition reads as - tatha coktam - "tad eva chalikam nama saksad yad abhiniyate, vyapadisya pura-vTttam svabhipraya-prakasanam." Another definition of unknown source is also quoted by Dr. Raghavan (pp. 556, cording to that, 'chalita' is a sort of dance, depicting love, anger, and heroism, which hardly adds anything fresh to what we know. It runs as - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #357
SAHRDAYALOKA chalita-laksanam yatha-"rati-krodhotsaha-bhava-pradhanam chalikam smrtam. iti." The Kathasaritsagara (III. iii. 20) mentions it as 'chalita', a dance-variety, performed by Rambha in heaven. 912 We have seen above that Dandin's Kavyadarsa I. 39, mentions some uparupakas which are preksya-prabandhas. His words are : "lasya-chalika-samya"di preksyartham, itarat punah..." Still earlier, Bhamaha also while dealing with the classification of kavya, speaks of rupaka class as represented by nataka and some upa-rupaka-compositions, such as dvipadi, samya, rasaka, and skandhaka. He observes (I. 24): natakam dvipadi-samya rasaka-skandhaka"di yat, uktam tad abhineyartham ukto'nyais tasya vistarah." Bhoja seems to be inspired by both Bhamaha and Dandin. Dandin's chalika is explained by Bhoja in the sabdalamkara section (S.K.A.) as - "idam tu srngara-vira-rasa-pradhanatvat chalikam." Dr. Raghavan (pp. 556, ibid) observes that chalika is tandava and lasya taken together. Thus it is a dance having vira and srngara rasas. Bhoja (S.K.A. pp. 308) illustrates chalika by a prakrta gatha. The Sanskrit rendering is : "nisamya pascat turagaravam sukari himsartham hasati, nija-kantam damstra-yugalena punah punar na ca dasati." This is a picture of a she-pig, though hounded by hunters, still laughing and sporting with her mate. Actually technically this is an illustration where emotions or feelings of animals other than humans are described and we may take it as rasa"bhasa rather than rasa! Tarunavacaspati and as suggested by Dr. Raghavan, his son Kesava explain 'chalika' as "chalikam chadmana vrttam." This explanation is similar to the one given by Katayavema. Tarunavacaspati also adds - "mardalachalika"di-vadya-visesanam ekasmin kale viramana - prakramanam chalikam ity ucyate." Which explain 'chalika' as simultaneous stopping and sounding of drums and other musical instruments. Chalika is thus like 'mardala', the name of some instrument and also an aspect of instrumentation in dance-music. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #358
Classification of Poetry 913 Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 557, ibid): "The variant chalita seems to be later; having been definitely inspired by the effort to understand it on the basis of the word chala. Chalika is the correct and old name in which it occurs in some valuable but tantalisingly obscure references to it in Harivamsa. In Book II. Visnuparvan, Ch.s 88, 89 and 93, (chitrasala press Edn.) Chalikya is mentioned more than once. In Ch. 88, the yadavas go to the waterside for sport and there, they indulge in music and dance, gita, vadya, nrtya, and abhinaya (vs. 37, 38, 42); Ch. 89 itself is called chalikya krida; at the behest of Krsna and Balarama, the Apsaras-damsels sing and dance to the music of the voice and instruments (vs. 5); they gesticulate and dance Rasa, singing songs in different local dialects, wearing manifold local costumes, and keeping the rhythms by beat of palms - "cakrur hasantyas ca tathaiva rasam tad desa-bhasa-krti-vesa-yuktah, sa-hastatalam lalitam salilam varangana mangala-sambhrtangyah." They then sing songs on the exploits of Krsna and Balarama at Gokula, and represent those acts in dance (vs. 8-15). Then Balarama, along with Revati, begins to dance with clap of hands (sa-hasta-talam), and Krsna, with Satyabhama and other couples follow suit. In vs. 22, which concludes the description of this section, the dance is referred to as Rasa; in the succeeding verses again, mentioning sage Narada joining the merriment, the dance is called Rasa (see especially vs. 24, 30).. The party then jumps into water, indulge in water-sports, singing and playing on water as on drum (jala-vadita and jala-dardura, vs. 45). Eating and drinking follow after which again music and dance begin (vs. 66). Krsna suggests that they may do chalikya. Chalikya is also referred to as a song - "chalikya-geyam bahusannidhanam yad eva gandharvam udaharanti." Narada takes up the Vina, and Krsna and Arjuna, the flute and Hallisaka, implying thereby that Hallisaka, found also with variants Jhallisaka and Ballisaka, is a musical instrument (v. 68); the Apsaras play Mrdanga and other instruments, now follows Asarita music (on the instruments) after which Rambha makes her appearance and dances with Abhinaya of the song (69, 70). Then, after a respite, chalikya-gandharva is again begun (73) and Rukmini's son is said to perform it. (74) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #359
914 SAHRDAYALOKA Now apart from the instrument accompaniment mentioned above, there are a few more details also comprised in this chalikya, the full meaning of which however, is not clear; at the end of the first course of chalikya is mentioned what is called Tambula-yoga; again Rukmini's son is said to have done Chalikya with Tambula. : tambula-yogas ca varapsaribhih. (72) prayojayamasa sa raukmineyah. (74) chalikya-gandharvam udarabuddhih tenaiva tambula-mayam prayuktam. (75) From Chalikya are then said to have been derived two varieties, called 'sukumara-jati and Gandharva-jati. (78, 79) - "tatah pravstta sukumarajatih .. gandharvajatis ca tatha'para'pi." * Chalikya is then said to be very difficult to understand and perform, without it, proper intonation of even the murcchanas and the six grama-ragas are not possible : the sukumara variety of it mentioned above is called lesa and is said to be most difficult. sakyam na chalikyam, ste tapobhih, sthane vidhanany atha murcchanasu. sad-grama-ragesu ca tatra karyam tasyaika-desa-vayavena rajan lesabhidhanam sukumarajatim nistham suduhkhena narah prayanti. (81, 82) Later in Ch. 93, in connection with the ruse employed for killing the demon Vajranabha, and Pradyumna marrying Prabhavati, the enactment of the story of the Ramayana is described; when the orchestra had been set and played, it is said the women-singers sang the sweet Devagandhara Chalikya, after which the Nandi and a verse on the theme in the Gangavatarana was sung; from this it would seem that Chalikya formed part of purva-ranga and it is the name of a song and a dance accompanying that song. Then they enacted the theme of Rambhabhisara : "ramayanam mahakavyam uddesyam natakikstam, tato ghanam sasusiram For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #360
Classification of Poetry murajanaka-bhusitam. tantrisvaraganair viddhan atodyan anvavadayan. tatas tu devagandharam chalikyam sravanamrtam. bhaumas striyah prajagire nandim ca vadayamasa... nandyante ca tada slokam gangavatarana"sritam rambhabhisaram kanyeram natakam nanrtus tada." So, this long quotation from Dr. Raghavan is just to explain 'chalika', a part of nartanaka. He has elaborately thought over 'chalikya' also which is closely related with 'chalika'. One point is clear that whether 'chalika' as mentioned by Bhoja is a part of Nartanaka or otherwise, its independent existence is read in earlier documents of Bhamaha and Dandin and thus it is an art-form of earlier tradition. 915 Samya - Bhoja mentions this in alamkara section as 'sampa'. Dandin and the ND. also have samya. Dandin (I. 39.a) has - "lasya-cchalita-sampadi (samya"di) preksartham." The Prabha tika (pp. 38) explains it as : Sampa purvarangantargato vadyaprayoga-visesam. tad uktam natya-sastre - "sampa tu dvikala karya talo dvikala eva ca, punas caika kala sampa sannipatah kala trayam." (V. 62) salyeti pathe salya - bhale hastam samavesya For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #361
916 SAHDAYALOKA notyam salyeti kirtitam. - iti tikantare krta-laksana. samyeti pathe - "samyeti savyayoh patah satalah-kara-padayoh ubhayoh karayoh patah sannipata iti smotah." tare. 'Samya' iti pathe gita-vadya-samaya-nrtyam anyai rasakanamna pathitam. adisabdena tandava-hallisaka-rasanam grahanam. uktam ca - , "tallasyam tandavam ceti cchalitam sampaya saha, . hallisakam ca rasam ca sat prakaram pracaksate." (S.K.A. II. 143) Sampa (pp. 308, SK. ibid) is illustrated as - vihesi harimuhi... etc. The Sanskrit rendering is - "vibhesi harimukhi api bhava mam ca gale glhana sada, krandati ristasura-maritah kantha-valito na patih." tad idam chalikam eva kinnara-visayam sampa. The Abh. (p. 227, Vol. I. ibid) on N.S. V. 62, (quoted above) has - samya tvityadi. - dvikala-cancat-putasya samya"deh svarupam anena darsitam. sa'pi sasabdapata-gata-hasta-nirvartya eva. The A.bh. (pp. 228, Vol. I, ibid, G.O.S.) goes on to quote - "samya daksina-patas tu talo vamena kirtitah, ubhayoh sannipatah sah sannipata iti smotah." (N.S. XXXI. 38) One thing emerges clearly that samya or sampa is a performance with musical instruments and it formed part of the purva-ranga as noted by one commentator. In the S.K.A. it is explained by Bhoja as : 'tad idam chalikam eva kinnaravisayam sampa.' For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #362
In t Classification of Poetry 917 ra. (Vol. II. p. 283, Dr. Raghavan) this reads as "lasyam eva devakinnara-visayam samya", adding Devas to Kinnaras. Vadi-janghala on K.D. I. 39 seems to borrow partly from Bhoja when he observes that lasya is love-dance of humans, samya of Kinnaras and Chalika of celestial damsels. Taruna Vacaspati quotes Bhoja, but the Hrdayam-gama explains it as a term related to the motion of hands for keeping time. "samya tu savyayoh patah sa-tala-kara-padayoh, ubhayoh karayoh patah sannipata iti smotah." The HIdayamgama further observes : aratnimatrapraya-nanavarna-racita-yastihastaih, bahubhih bahvibhir va tair eva talahastais ca talayastinam ekavasare sannipato va, talam vina yastinam ekavasare sannipato va, talam vina yastihastair eva yastinam sannipato va samya ucyate." Dr. Raghavan (pp. 559) observes : "This makes samya, the sanskrit name for the dance called in Tamil Kol-attam, in which a number of boys and girls or the latter only form themselves into two rows or into more complicated patterns, striking tala with two coloured sticks (kol) of a span's length in both their hands. They may strike the two sticks in their own hands, as also spin around, turn and execute many movements striking the sticks of those that cross them in movements. It is this that came to be called Danda-rasaka." We may say that in Saurashtra and Gujarat, this is known as "Dandiya rasa'. now popular in other parts of the contry also, especially in Mahasashtra and is performed on auspicious occasions such as marriage etc., now a days, but necessarily in the nava-ratra-mahotsava in honour of mother Ambika or Durga. But as observed earlier there is a term connected with Tala, called samy, which is mentioned in the Tala-Adhyaya of Bharata, i.e. Na. Sa. XXXI, (vs. 31) (pp. 167, G.O.S. Vol IV). The Abh. (pp. 166, ibid) also quotes from Ch. 28, asta vimsaty adhaye.' (N.S. XXVIII. 18) (pp. 9, ibid). The word 'sannipata' is also of similar connotation. 'Samya' occurs at N.S. XXXI. 171, (pp. 226), vs. 173, (pp. 227), vs. 175, 176, N.S. XXXI. 17 (pp. 158), again at pp. 177, 229, 479, 217, 158, 183, 255, 178, 170, 9, 255, 307, 248, 167, 258, 243, 157, 216, 253, 157, 159, 177 & 251 in various forms (Vol. IV). The HIdayamgama on samya quotes the word sannipata : "samya tu savyayoh patah satala-kara-padayoh, ubhayoh karayoh patah sannipata iti smotah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #363
918 SAHRDAYALOKA This can be compared with Bharata's observation in the Taladhyaya, which reads as, "savya-hasta nipatah syac chamya talasya vamatah hastayos tu samah patah sannipata iti smotah." (N.S. XXXI. 37, G.O.S.) Dr. Raghavan quotes from, perhaps Kasi edn. It reads as - "samya daksinahastasya talah patas tu vamatah." This is read in the ft-note no. 1. (pp. 171, G.O.S. Edn.). Thus samya is a movement of the right hand to keep time; the beating of both the palms to keep time is "sannipata". Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 559, ibid) : "From this, it can be inferred that samya, as the name of a dance, is derived from the original meaning of that word, viz. striking for keeping time; for keeping time in a dance with palms, as in Tamil Kummi and the Kerala Kaikottikkali (or, as in Gujarati 'garba', or dandia rasa'; we may add), it might have got extended to dance in which the time is kept by striking the small sticks, and to those time-keeping sticks themselves. In the Ramayana, the expression samya-graha occurs in the sense of time-keepers dance; when at the desire of sage Bharadvaja, the sylvan surroundings turned festive in a miraculous manner, the trees turned into dancing troupe, Bilvas became drummers, Vibhitakas, the time-keepers and Asvatthas dancers : bilva mardangika asan samyagraha vibhitakah, asvattha nartakas ca"san bharadvajas ca sasanat." (II. 91, 48) The word samya in Sanskrit also means a short stick of the length of a span, i.e. nine inches, or two sticks) used in the holes of yokes of bullock carts. The Amarakosa observes : "Samya stri, yuga-kilakah." (II. 14) Dvipadi - This is mentioned by Bhamaha, Abh., and Kamarila and ND. Bhamaha (I. 24) simply mentions dvipadi' and 'samya', 'rasaka' and 'skandhaka' along with nasaka, and observes that all these are meant for stagerepresentation, i.e. are objects of acting (= abhineyartham) the detailed discussion on which is done by others ("ukto'nyais tasya vistarah"). There is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #364
Classification of Poetry 919 nothing special in the quotation from A.bh. which mentions this art-form, as quoted above. The ND. has the following: "kinnara-visayam lasyam nrttam samya, srngara-rasa-pradhanam lasyam, srngara-vira-raudra"di-pradhanam chalitam. dvipady adayah chandobhedah. Obviously the metres sung in samya etc. are dvipadi etc. according to the ND. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 560, ibid) explains that 'dvipadi' as the name of a song, refers to the nature of the composition as well as a time measure, a 'laya'. This can be seen from Act. IV, Vikramorvasiyam. Dvipadi is taken as a song by Ranganatha Dixit and there is also a composition called dvipadika. It is a natural practice to name a dance after the song featuring in it. In the prabandhadhyaya of music works, there are many such instances. Yaksagana, an old kannada drama is named after the songs pertaining to it. Dvipadi is also a kind of 'laya' in 'gati' or gait, of the character on the stage. The actors have to move about on the stage in gaits and steps that are in harmony with their mental moods. Swift or slow movements or gaits suggest this or that rasa. This swiftness or slowness of gaits is the 'laya' meant here. This laya is manifold such as dvipadika, khandadhara, carcari, etc. In the Vikramorvasiya, act IV, the dvipadi-laya is given as the movement for parikramana, i.e. moving round to another part of the stage and for wheeling to see around i.e. 'diso'valokya'. 'Sitting down' or 'upavisya', is done in carcari laya - "carcarikaya upavisya anjalim baddhva." Kuttanimata's modern commentator, Shri. T. M. Tripathi, interprets 'dvipadika' on pp. 340, as "layavisesa", though Ranganatha Dixit takes it, and other similar names, as names of songs; i.e. 'giti-visesa'. Actually there is hardly any difference between these two views, for the songs must be in certain 'laya', - i.e. druta, madhya, and vilambita or fast, medium, and slow time-measures. On the song of the Nati, in the prastavana of Abhijnanasakuntala, Raghava Bhatta observes that the verse on summer season, sung by the nati is a dvipadi, and calls this dvipadi a 'laya'. It means that the song is in that 'laya'. Dvipadi is also the name of a song is borne out by Raghava Bhatta's quotation from the text called Adibharata. The observation reads as - "vilambitalaya yatra gurave dvipadi tu sa, srngare karune hasye yojya, hy uttama-madhyamaih. avasthantaram asadya gatavya sa'dhamair api." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #365
920 SAHRDAYALOKA Dvipadi is also the name purely of a manner of walking on the stage a gati-laya, in certain other contexts. This is clear from a remark of Jagaddhara in his comment on a verse in act I, Malatimadhava, viz. "gamanam alasam", etc. Jagaddhara explains that Madhava must enter in 'dvipadika' i.e. a slow and dragging gait, "gamanam alasam". Here Jagaddhara quotes an authority, "soka-vibhrama-yuktesu vyadhi-cinta-sama"srite, sruta-varta"di-vairupye, yojya dvipadika budhaih." Thus the term dvipadi had a semantic extention from laya or gait, to the song (sung with a particular gait), and from the song to the dance: The dance was also termed dvipadi, which is an art-form now. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 561, ibid) also observes that the Sangita-ratnakara mentions dvipadi as a musical composition. This is read in the Ch. IV, dealing with prabandhas. It is of four kinds and is sung in Karuna tala. As observed earlier, the N.D. calls dvipadi and such other terms to be 'chandovisesa' i.e. particular metres in which songs are composed. Dr. Raghavan notes that dvipadika metre is seen in Telugu even to-day, and there are also Tamil songs, called 'dvipadikai'. Preksanaka or Penkhanaka or preksanam is mentioned by Vatsyayana, Bhoja, N.D., Sa, NLRK., and the SD. of Visvanatha. Sa. calls it Preksanam. Bhoja defines Preksanaka as : (pp. 468, sr. Pra. ibid) - "rathya-samaja-catvarasukha(ra)laya"dau pravartyate bahubhih, patra-visesaih yat tat preksanakam kama-dahana"di." Bhoja illustrates it by 'Kamadahana'. We do not read this variety of art-form in the A.bh. It consists of a simple representation of such episodes as the burning of cupid by Lord Siva, and is presented on the streets (= rathya), in cultured gatherings (= Samaja), at road-crossing (= catvara) (= nukkada, - Hindi) (or, cauta, gujarati), or in temples. This art-form seems to be a popular type, perhaps similar to street-plays of to-day. The theme seems to be mythological or pauranika. It is presented by many artists or characters. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 561, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #366
Classification of Poetry 921 : "It seems that this is identical with the South Indian counterpart of the North Indian Holi Festival, named in Tamil as Kaman-ti i.e. Kama-dahana, in which Kama is burnt and two parties of songsters contend in songs that Kama is dead and that Kama continues to be alive. The songs are called Lavani, which is a Marathi mode. The Holi is a very old festival and is mentioned by Vatsyayana in his Ka Sutras I. iv. 42, as Holaka (Holika)." We beg to differ. The Holika festival is associated with Prahlada episode and not Kamadahana episode. The Prahlada: Hiranya-kasipu-episode is famous in the Puranas. The preksana as observed by us earlier, seems to be a popular form of street-play with religious theme. Dr. Raghavan also observes that in this instance also, Saradatanaya shows his confusion. He gives Bhoja's Nartanaka, calls it Preksanaka on pp. 263, and clubs together the verses on both under the single head of Preksanaka. We will see what Sa. does. But before that we should note that the ND. has Preksana (N.D. IV. para 8) defined after Bhoja. The ND. reads 'Sura"laya' for Bhoja's 'Sukha"laya' in Josyer Edn. This has to be emended as 'Sura"laya' in the light of ND., which Dr. Raghavan does without mentioning the ND. Or, 'Sukha"laya' could mean a public place of rest, such as an 'inn', where this performance was held. The ND. has - "rathya-samaja-catvarasura"laya"dau pravartyate bahubhih, patra-visesair yat tat preksanakam kama-dahana"di." Sa. at B.P. IX. para 30, (pp. 385) defines 'preksanaka' and quotes from Bhoja's Nartanaka. On IX. para 2 (pp. 374, ibid) where the art-forms are enumerated, we read "kavyan ca preksanam, natyarasakam rasakam tatha". We read 'preksanam' and not 'preksanakam' and in the definition Bhoja's 'nartanaka' is covered up. Dr. M. M. Agrawal (pp. 21, Introduction to his BP.) observes that Bhoja has discussed two varieties of preksanaka and has called them separately by names such as 'preksanaka' and 'nartanaka'. But sa. takes them as one. He has given the title "preksanaka" and used the term 'nartanaka' in the definition. Dr. Agrawal has then explained the definition of 'nartanaka' but is silent over the features of 'preksana'ka' which is read in the title only but no features of which are discussed by Sa. He has also noted that the S.D. has called it "prenkhana". We will come to the S.D. later. But one thing is certain that Sa. has discussed only 'nartanaka' under "preksanaka", which is only a name in the BP. Our guess work is that perhaps the copyist who copied from Sa.'s autograph might have missed the portion on preksanaka and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #367
922 SAHRDAYALOKA inadvertantly, must have started copying from the nartanaka portion. Later copyists might have followed these older copies blindly. So, perhaps for Sa., both nd nartanaka were different art-forms and he must have followed Bhoja here as is done elsewhere. The misunderstanding is caused perhaps by the mistake of the first scribe who prepared a copy from the autogarph. The NLRK. has - (pp. 303, ibid) - atha preksanakam - asesa-bhasopasobhitam, sauraseni-pradhanam, garbha-vimarsa-sunyam tallaksana-yuktanca, sarva-vsttinispannam. pratimukha-sandhi-pravesaka-viskambhaka atra na kartavyah. parivartaka-yuktam prayatnatah karyam, niyuddha-sphetayutam, vipad anucinta bahulam ca, atra sutradharo na vidheyah. nandi upaksepas ca vidheyah. yatha valivadhah - In preksanaka according to the NLRK., there is use of all languages, but Sauraseni is principal. It is bereft of garbha and vimarsa junctures but some features of the activities in these two junctures are seen here. There are all vrttis in this art-form. There is absence of prati-mukha juncture and also of intertudes called pravesaka and viskambhaka. Thus, we may say that only two, i.e. mukha and nirvahana remain here at the end. The item 'parivartaka' from the purva-ranga has to be placed here with skill and effort. There is bahu-yuddha i.e. ni-yuddha or individual combat, and there is also speech with anger (sampheta). There is a lot of thinking devoted to future possible calamities. There is absence of sutradhara here but 'nandi and 'upaksepa' are very much there. The illustration is Vali-vadha. The NLRK. has based its definition on the BP. of Sa., but it has something more and something less of it. The S.D. has the following: "garbhavamaria-rahitam prenkhanam hina-nayakam, a-sutradharam ekankam a-viskambha-pravesakam." (S.D. VI. 286) niyuddha-sampheta-yutam sarva-vrtti-samasritam nepathye giyate nandi tatha tatra prarocana." (S.D. VI. 287) yatha Valivadhah. The BP. illustrates it by "Tripura-mardana" and it has uttama or adhama hero according to Sa., but the S.D. recommends only a lowly born as a hero - hinanayakam. The rest follows Sa. and NLRK. But Bhoja's preksanaka is different. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #368
Classification of Poetry Rasa, Rasaka and Natyarasaka. Rasaka is read in Bhamaha, A.bha., Kumarila, Dhananjaya, Bhoja, Hemacandra, N.D., Sa; NLRK. Vag. II, and the S.D. We have seen the quotations from the A.bh. above and also looked into what Kohala had to say about various art-forms. The Abh. defines rasaka (pp. 181, ibid) as: "aneka-nartaki-yojyam citra-tala-layanvitam, a-catuh-sasti-yugalad rasakam masrnoddhatam." Thus according to the A.bh., the Cirantanas took rasaka as an art-form which is of the form of a dance in various talas, which is delicate (masrna) and also forceful (uddhata) and which is performed by many ladies. There are 64 pairs in it. Dhananjaya simply names it. Bhoja defines Rasaka as - (pp. 468, ibid) sodasa dvadasastau va yasmin nrtyanti nayikah, pindibandha"di vinyasaih rasakam tad udahrtam. Natya-rasaka is defined as, pindanat tu bhavet pindi, gumphanac chankhala bhavet, bhedena bhedyako jato lata-jalapanodanah. ete nrtta"tmna karya natyavantah kriyavidhau sukumaroddhatair angair 923 gayikabhir vilaksana. vakyastha vidhayo hy ete pinda"dya dasa-jatayah, na padair abhidhiyante anukaryanurupinah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #369
924 SAHRDAYALOKA kaminibhir bhavo bhartus' cestitam yat tu nrtyate, ragad vasantam asadya sa jneyo natya-rasakah. tatra'pi purvavan nittam kamatas tu layakramah, kathito rasaka-prante sobhartho vacana-kramah. citra"todya-padakramair layayuto bheda-dvayalamkrtah carikhanda-sumandalair anugatah, soyam mato rasaka)... (pp. 469, ibid) For Natya-rasaka, this is the longest and most-detailed description of an uparupaka (= 12 verses, pp. 468-469, Sr. Pra. ibid) in Bhoja. Accordingly we make out that Natyarasaka is a dance performed by lady-dancers, nartikas, in spring time, and as such it is also called - carcari "carcariti ca tam ahur varnatalena tatra tu..." (pp. 468, ibid) It is pure dance of the pindi, bhedyaka and other group-movements and patterns. Bhoja observes that these patterns shall be performed in Lasya (= softer variety) and in Natyarasaka. First of all, one pair enters, places flowers, dances and leaves. (puspanjali-prayogam tu, matratalena yojayet.) - Then two others enter, and thus groups are formed which display 'gulma' - 'srnkhala', etc. "ubhayoh parsvayoh pascat patrani pravisanti ca..." Then there is a recital of rhythmic syllables by musicians, instrumental accompaniments and songs. There is drum-beating, together with recital or rhythem - syllables, - "murajaksaravadyais ca hanyad dandam tu dandakaih." Bhoja also gives details concerning tala. The whole function is to end with a mangala-s'loka which says that this rasaka, full of pindi, sinkhala, etc., and danced to the accompaniment of various instruments, was originated by devas when they For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #370
Classification of Poetry 925 danced in joy on securing Amsta i.e. nectar in the churning of ksira-sagara or dugdha-mahodadhi - "labdhva dugdha-mahodadhau suraganaih pitva'motam yas rada, pindi-srikhalika-visesa-vihito yukto lata-bhedyakaih..." (pp. 469, ibid) The B.P. completes the verse, with these last two lines - "citra"todyapadakramaih layayuto bheda-dvaya'lametaih, carikhanda-sumandalaih anugatah soyam mato rasakah." Bhoja observes, "evam nitta-kramena'nyo hy apasaras samapyate." and adds, "apasaratrayam canyat kalpyate sampratam maya." We can imagine that Bhoja must have observed actual innovations introduced by artists but perhaps not mentioned in theory till his time. So, he seems to suggest that "three more varietics of 'apasara' are imagined by me." Dr. Raghavan observes that (pp. 563, ibid) the Sangita-ratnakara gives a musical composition called 'rasa' as one of the eight suda-prabandhas. (IV. 175-8). It is also so called because it is sung in Rasa-tala. Sarangadeva holds that this composition was not in vogue even in his times. We have observed earlier that Bhoja calls the natya-rasaka by the name of 'carcari also. The meaning of 'carcari can be understood with the help of Harsa's Ratnavali and also Rajasekhara's Karpura-manjari. In Ratnavali, a natika, which is more of an entertainment (i.e. ranjana-pradhana), we find more of dance and music. Here, we have a spring-dance called "carcari" by name, introduced in Act I. Yaugandharayana informs of the vasanta-festival being held outside. He hears the 'carcari of vasanta, sung and danced by the citizens. Then the dance is introduced on the stage. At this point, it is not the carcari song but another called dvipadikhanda. We see three gathas on spring which are sung and performed through acting-abhinaya-by two maid-servants or 'cetis' of Vasavadatta. Damodaragupta in his Kuttani-mata gives part of this abhinaya, in which acting of Ratnavali is described (sl. 897). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #371
926 SAHRDAYALOKA By T. M. Trivedi, in his commentary on the Kuttani-mata (pp. 345), observes Dr. Raghavan, carcari is explaind as a Tala, a kind of Vadya, a kind of song, a kind of metre, exhilarating sport, etc. etc. In the Ratnavali itself, 'carcari' is used both as a song and as a name of a type of playing on the Mtdanga, over and above its being used as the name of dance of the spring festival : pauranam sam uccarati carcari-dhvanih, - suvstta-mardaloddama-carcarisabda - tatah pravisatah madanalilam natayantyau dvipadi-khandam gayantyau cetyau. "mam apy etam carcarikam siksayatha", and see also, "na khalv esa carcari, dvipadikhandam khalv etat." A spring-time dance with reference to cupid's festival is seen here. This shows drinking and merrymaking by citizens in couples, and ladies dancing and striking their lovers with water. We have noticed elsewhere that the Sattaka, which is similar to Natika, has a lot of dance and music in it. The carcari is seen in the Karpura-manjari-sattaka of Rajasekhara. The act IV introduces a vata-savitri-vrata celebration in the summer season. Various kinds of dances are performed by women in this celebration. Lasya is mentioned along with another dance viz. danda-rasaka performed by thirty two nartakis. This can be placed with the 'tippani dance prevelent in Saurashtra, Gujarat. Another dance is one wherein girl-dancers divide themseleves into two rows facing each other. There is also a variety of comic dance and also a dance by women dressed as hunters over and above the graceful lasya dance-varieties. Also part of dance is the terrible dance of the anubhavas or consequents of the raudrarasa, with human flash - 'nara-mamsa' in hand. This is termed smasanabhinaya. There are also facial masks of demonesses as part of such a dance. Vocal and instrumental music also accompanies this dance and also 'hudukkas' and madangas, both talavadyas - are mentioned. Vina is placed and then an additional dance called yogini-valaya-nartana-keli is also seen here for the first time. Saradatanaya has taken note of danda-rasaka (Ch. X), a variety of lasya, perhaps seeking inspiration from Rajasekhara's drama. Besides this danda-rasaka, we have two more rasakas such as mandala-rasaka and natya-rasaka, mentioned by Saradatanaya, without clearly describing the same. Dance with a 'carcari is thus introduced by the Karpura-manjari : (tatah pravisati carcari) - "muktaphala"bharanoccayah lasyavasane calitamsukah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #372
Classification of Poetry 927 sincanty anyonyam imah pasya yantrajalaih manibhajanaih." Then, the danda-rasaka is described as - paribhramayantyah vicitra-bandhaih, ima dvi-sodasa-nartakyah helanti talanugatapadah tavangane drsyate danda-rasah. This dance is performed by 32 nartakis, wheeling round and forming wonderful patterns. Dr. Raghvan (pp. 565, ibid) notices that in the sanskrit-Tamil text called Suddhananda-prakasa, the danda-rasaka is described in a quotation given therein as the samya or kolatta which is given under samya by Dr. Raghavan. It reads as - krsnena nirmitam nrttam danda-rasaka-samjnitam, caruvenidharah candrabimbasyah ramya-bhusanah. dharayanti karagrena subhra-daru-vinirmitan, dandan vicitran slaksan dvyangula-sthaulya-nirmitan. sodasangula-dirgansca laghan laghava-samyutan parasparam tadayantyah danlan notyeyur anganah." (See also B.P.) This obviously is the dandiya-rasa popular and prevelant even to-day in Gujarat during nava-ratri festival and now also on occasions such as marriage etc. After this some patterns which the dancers execute are mentioned which include designs such as pindi-bandhas, and hexagonal and octagonal designs. "satkonair astakonais ca pindibandhair manoharai)." The dance includes Komala (delicate) Karanas and Caris. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 565) quotes from Sangita-samayasara which says of Danda For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #373
928 rasaka (VI. 237-245) as follows: "talas ca jaya-talas ca ghantika jaya-purvika patahas ca hadukka ca mrdangah karata tatah. ity adi vadya-sandoho vadyate danda-rasake... patradvayam samarabhya dve dve patre vivardhayet bhaveyur asta-dvandvani yavat, tavad yatha-ruci. anyonyabhimukham va'pi paravrtta-mukham tatha, mukho danda-nuviddham ca (?) vadya-tala-samanvitam. sthanakaih (karanair) hasta-tadanair vartanair yutam. nanabandhaih samayuktam, laya-traya-samanvitam, danda-raya(sa)m iti proktam nrttabheda-vicaksanaih" (T.S.S. Edn.) According to Parsvadeva, observes Dr. Raghavan, danda-rasaka is a dance in which all tala-vadyas are played. Dancers in pairs enter and make eight pairs and they either face each-other or stand back to back. They beat their palms or sticks in unision with rhythm and they execute various poses and dance. The modern Gujarati dandia-rasa comes very close to this except that the pairs at times are not limited to a certain number and this performance is accompanied by song and music. We do not know the date of the sources consulted by Dr. Raghavan. * SAHRDAYALOKA Rajasekhara also describes a dance called 'calli' which looks like a division of nartakis in two rows facing each other : "samamsa-sirsa sama-bahu-hasta rekha visuddha aparas ca dadati, panktibhyam dvabhyam laya-tala-bandham parasparam sabhimukhah callim." See also, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #374
Classification of Poetry 929 ka'pi vadita-karala-hudduka ramya mardala-ravena mtgaksi, bhrulatabhyam paripati-calabhyam calli-karma-karane pravstta. The Abh. mentions cilli' or 'calli' as occurring in dombika, along with the playing on the hudukka. Rajasekhara also associates hudukkavadana with 'calli'. So, 'calli' or 'cilli' is a dance, nstta, with a nartaki playing on a drum or hudukka. The Abh. (Vol. I. G.O.S. Edn. pp. 166-7) reads - "kvacin nitta-pradhanyam yatha dombika"di-prayoganantaram hudukkavadyavasare." ata eva tatra loka-bhasaya cillimarga (vi. 'callimarga' ft. n. 1, pp. 167) iti prasiddhih. Calli or Cilli is thus a dance i.e. nstta, with a drum, hudukka, being played by a nartaki. Rajasekhara also describes 'smasanabhinaya' and it is 'raudra-rasa-abhinaya' with masks of demoness-faces, terrible sounds of humkara, phetkara etc., and with mahamamsa. Another set of damsels does the hunter's dance and produces laughter - 'hasya-rasa-abhinaya'. Again, another kala-vesa or dark make-up and a hasya dance are described at the end. The 'yogini-valaya-nartana-keli' is then next described as being done with vocal music and accompaniment of tala, by nartakis with small bells or kinkinis at their feet. So, carcari is mentioned by Sangita-ratnakara as a name of a musical composition originally composed to a tala called 'carcari' which is defined as - "viramanta-druta-dvandvan yastau laghu ca carcari." (Taladhyaya, 235). Subsiquently, it came to be composed in other talas also. According to sarnga deva, this Carcari is composed in Hindola-raga (i.e. a Tala associated with a swing), and tala-carcari, a composition having many feet, is composed in sixteen matras, with alliteration, and in prakrta. It is sung in spring festival. According to others, it is a song in 'carcari metre and in krida-tala or in ghutra and other metres. Read Sangita-ratnakara, IV. 292-3 - "rago hindolakah talas' carcari bahavonghrayah, yasyam sodasa-matrah syuh dvau dvau ca prasa-samyutau. sa vasantotsave geya O For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #375
930 uktam ca - Rajanaka Ratnakara, in Hara-vijaya mentions this rasaka or natya-rasaka as rasakanka, through slesa, at XVIII. 108. Alaka, the commentator explains that rasakanka is a type of dance described by Kohala in which eight, sixteen or thirtytwo nartakis participate and perform pindi-bandhas. He observes : "rasakankas ca kohalokto natyaprakarah carcari prakrtaih padaih, carcari-chandasety ante kridatalena vety api. dhutta"di chandasa va'sya chandolaksmodita bhidah." (S.R. IV. 292-3) astau sodasa dvatrimsat yatra nrtyanti gayikah, pindibandhanusarena SAHRDAYALOKA tan nrtyam rasakam viduh." In the Natya-darpana, the anthors quote Bhejjala's 'radha-vipralambha' as a rasakanka. Read ND I. (Sutra 116, Karika 65) : "evam angatrayena'pi. yatha bhejjala-viracite radha-vipralambhe rasakanke parikara-parinyasayor-upaksepenaiva gatatvan na tan nibandhah. evam parasparantarbhave catur angopi kva'pi sandhir bhavati." Abhinavagupta and Bhoja quote this work. Bhoja mentions it simply as a rasakanka. It may be noted that this rasakanka is different from the rasaka dance, observes Dr. Raghavan (pp. 567, ibid) We will now look into what Hemacandra, the ND., Sa., NLRK., Vag. II and the S.D. have to say about this art-form. Hemacandra has the following: (pp. 446, ibid) "aneka-nartaki-yojyam citra-tala-layanvitam, a-catuh sasti-yugalat rasakam masrnoddhatam." This is from the Abh. (pp. 181, N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S. edn. ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #376
Classification of Poetry 931 There is a mention of 'many - aneka' nartakis. These may be eight, sixteen, thirty-two etc. The number is not mentioned as seen in later texts. But Sixty-four pairs are mentioned. It is both masrna - light and uddhata i.e. fast. The Natyadarpana has both rasaka and narya-rasaka. Rasaka is (N.D. IV. 9): "sodasa dvadasa'stau va yasmin notyanti nayikah, pindi-bandha"di vinyasaih rasakam tad udahstam." This means 'rasaka' is that art-form in which sixteen, twelve or eight nayikas i.e. women (i.e. nartakis), dance with pindibandha and such other gestures. It may be noted as explained by Pandita Visvesvara (pp. 407, ibid), that when lady-dancers form a group, it is termed pindi. When they get inter-mixed (gumpha) and dance, it is termed sonkhala, Bhedyaka is one when lata-jala (or sonkhala) is disturbed and nartakis get seperated. The ND. observes : "pindanat tu, bhavet pinM di, bhedanad bhedyako jato, lata jalapa-nodatah." - (N.D. IV, 63) Then, the N.D., treating the Natya-rasaka as a separate art-form from rasaka, observes (N.D. IV. 64) : kaminibhir bhuvo bhartuh cestitam yat tu notyate, ragad vasantam asadya sa jneyo natya-rasakah - i.e. at the advent of spring season, ladies due to fervour of love, exhibit through dance the king's activity. This is natya-rasaka. Natya-rasaka is introduced by saradatanaya at B.P. IX. 31-36 (pp. 386, 387, 388, ibid). Rasaka also is described along with this. It reads as : sodasa dvadasastau va yasmin notyanti nayikah, pindibandha"di vinyasaih rasakam tad udahstam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #377
932 SAHRDAYALOKA pindanattu bhavet pindi, gumphanac chankhala bhavet, bhedanad bhedyako jato latajalopanahatah (opanodatah N.D.) This follows the ND. as above, which again continues the tradition of Hemacandra and Abhinavagupta. The B.P. IX. 33 (pp. 386) adds : ete nitta"tmana karya natyavantah kriya vidhau, sukumaroddhatair angaih gayikabhir vilaksanah. vakyasya (natyasya) vadhayo hy ete pinda"dya disya-jatayah, nava-bheda vidhiyante hy anukaryanu-raginah - i.e. By the lady-dancers having gentle and forceful limb-movements, in a special performance, these, which are of the form of nstta are to be rendered in form of natya. These varieties that are seen drsya-jatayas, which are pinda etc., are believed to be the varieties or limits of narya. Nine varieties are rendered showing the love of the person imitated." Dr. Raghavan is also, not clear here. These remarks follow Bhoja. After this the B.P. adds : kaminibhir bhuvo bhartuh cestitam yatra nrtyate, ragad vasantam alokya sa jneyo natya-rasakah. This follows the N.D. which reads 'vasantam asadya'. Then a verse from A.bh. is read here; with slight change in the reading - "carcarim iti tam prahur varnatalena tatra tu, praviset kamini-yugmam samacaryadi siksitam." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #378
Classification of Poetry 933 This follows Bhoja. - Sa also calls it 'carcari'. The B.P. further reads, following Bhoja - vama-daksina-sancarair angais tat tat pariskrtam, (Bhoja has, 'angais tena pariskrtam) - colikabhidrutam talam vadakanam pradarsayet panca-ghataka-samjnarthajanas tasmat pravartate. Bhoja has - "chotikabhir", "samjnorthaschatas tasmat pravartate." Dr. Agrawal (pp. 387) explains - Trained in 'sama-carya' with the help of varna and tala, and adorned with limbs graced with vama and daksina-samcara, wherein ladies in twos are made to enter, it is called 'Carcari. And that is termed 'varnanta' which is mixed with two ragas called 'alidha', and in which there is exhibition of instrument players encouraged by colika. So, it is activated by panca-ghataka samjna." We do not know what Dr. Agrawal explains by this. For us, all this is not clear. Dr. Raghavan has also not attempted any explanation. After this Sa. (p. 387, para 35) reads: nrttena vibhajet khandaih caturbhis tribhir eva va, anyonyangika-sancaraih hastatalair mithah krtaih parikramya ca niskramet tatonya-dvitayam viset. ekakalas tu nissandhih praveso nirgamas tayoh puspanjali prayogam tu matratalena yojayet. ubhayoh patrayoh pascat patrani pravisanti hi, baddhapanavatalena For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #379
934 SAHRDAYALOKA rathyavarnadivarnakaih suska-gita-prayogena tato gayanti gayakah, latabhir bhedyakair gulmair nanavstta-pradarsakaih. patrais caikatra samyuktam pindibandhas tu karayet, tato mallabhidham talam suskavarna-prayogatah, murajaksara-vadyantu hanyad danda-dvidandakaih evam nitta-kramena"dyo hy apasarah samapyate. apasaratrayam canyat evam eva prakalpayet, tatrapi purvavan nittam kamatas tu laya-kramah. kathayed rasakasyante subhartham vacana-kramam. "labdhva dugdha-mahodadhau suraganaih pitvametam yas tada soyam mato rasakah." (This verse follows Bhoja verbetim pp. 469, ibid). Verses beginning with "ntttena vibhajet khandaih..." also follow Bhoja (pp. 468, ibid) with minor changes. For Bhoja's 'ekakalam', we have 'ekakalastu', for 'parsvayoh' in Bhoja, Sa. has, 'patrayoh', for 'yaddarpanakatalena', we have here, "baddhapanavatalena' in BP., then Bhoja's 'tu' is not read in BP.; for 'latakhyair, bhedakair' we have, 'latabhir bhedyakaih'; BP. has patrais caikatra', for Bhoja's 'patrair ekatra', for Bhoja's 'bali-nika talam', BP. has 'tato mallabhidham talam, for 'hanyad dandam tu dandakaih' in Bhoja, we have, 'hanyad danda-dvidandakaih'. For Bhoja's, 'apasaratrayam, canyat kalpyate sampratam maya', BP. has - 'apasaratrayam canyad evam eva prakalpayet.' Thus we see that the BP. has minor and at For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #380
Classification of Poetry 935 times more sensible variants worth accepting while critically editing Bhoja's Sr. Pra. Actually the BP. could prove to be more helpful in preparing a critical text of Bhoja's Sr. Pra. Prof. Agrawal explains passage no. 35 (pp. 387) beginning with "nittena vibhajet..." etc., as follows - With the help of dance, it (i.e. rasaka) (or natya-rasaka) should be divided into three or four parts. (The dancers) should move out with the help of physical movements in tune with one another and with mutual clashing of palms. After second unit has to make entry. Their (i.e. of both units) meeting, entry and exit should be simultaneous. With matra and tala they should present 'puspanjali' also. After the entry of the two characters, others enter. Then the singers sing with baddhapanava-tala, varnakas such as rathya-varna etc., and suska-gita. Then with dancers showing lata, bhedyaka, gulma, and various devices of dance, pindi bandha dance is performed at one place. After that, with the help of suska-varnaprayoga, the tala called 'malla' has to be presented. The drum (murajaksara-vadya) is to be beaten with a stick, and then two sticks. Thus, in order of the dance, first 'apasara' is completed. This 'apasara' is three-fold. Here also, as before, the dance and layakrama have to be observed. In the end of 'rasaka' performance benediction - subhartha-vacana-krama-has to be presented. All this explanation of rasaka is as clear to us as it is to Dr. Agrawal. The NLRK., Vagbhata II and the SD. have the following observations : NLRK. (pp. 304 & 305) has both 'rasaka' and 'natyarasaka' explained as below : atha rasakam - mukhya-nayikam, sakala-bhasa-vibhasa-sobhitam, udattanayakam, panca-patra-prayojyam, aneka-kalopadesa-vartamanditam, masrnodatta bhava-bhusitam, uttarottara-pradhanam, ekankam, sutradhara-parihinam, vithyanka-yuktam. yatha-madanika kamukam. The fact that NLRK. describes 'rasaka' having 'one act, proves that it is not just a dance performance but is an upa-rupaka, a minor type of drama. For the NLRK., the rasaka is having a famous heroine. All languages are used in dhirodarta'. There are five characters in this art-form. It is having discourses on various arts. Soft and lofty feelings and emotions are delineated. In the dialogues, there is arrangement of gradual rising (of emotions). There is one act, and sutradhara is absent from this art-form . All the limbs-angas-of vithi are woven in it. The illustration is 'Madanika-kamuka'. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #381
936 SAHRDAYALOKA Natya-rasaka according to NLRK is - "bahutala-laya"tmakam, hasa-sungaramanditam, ekankam, dasa-lasyanga-bhusitam, udatta-nayaka-pithamardopanayakam, vasakasajja-nayikam; yatha 'vilasavati'. Thus a natya-rasaka has abundance of music decked with rythm or pause and tala, i.e. beating time, or beats. It is adorned with the sentiments of hasya and songara. It is having a single act. It is bestowed with ten lasyangas. The hero is an udatta type, pithamarda is hero's assistant, an upanayaka, and the heroine is of the vasaka-sajja type. The illustration is Vilasavati. Vagbhata II has accepted H.C., and Abhinavagupta's concept when we read : "aneka-nartakiyojyam citra-tala-layanvitam, a-catuhsasti-yugalad rasakam masp oddhate." - The S.D. has some further details as we will go to see, but one suggestion made by Prof. Babulal Sukla Sastri, in a ft. note 1, on pp. 305, of his NLRK, edn. is acceptable to us. It is that it is through some scribe's mistake that we read 'murkhanayakam' in place of 'mukhya-nayakam'. This is a reasonable suggestion, not only taking into account the absence of an autograph, but also taking a scribe's innocence into consideration, and also other definitions that preceded Visvanatha, not mentioning a 'murkha' nayaka. The S.D. reads as - (S.D. VI. 288-290) - rasakam panca-patram syan-mukha-nirvahananvitam, bhasa-vibhasa-bhuyistham, bharati-kaisiki-yutam. 288 a-sutradharam ekankam sa-vithyangam kalanvitam, slista-nandiyutam khyatanayikam murkha (mukhya) nayakam. 289 udattabhava-vinyasa-samsritam, cotrarottaram, iha pratimukha-sandhim api kecit pracaksate." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #382
Classification of Poetry 937 The S.D. has slightly elaborated upon the NLRK. It observes that rasaka has mukha and nirvahana junctures and adds that some expect even pratimukhajuncture also. S.D. also observes in continuation to rasaka being bestowed with major and minor languages/dilects, it abounds in bharati and kaisiki vrttis. Again rasaka has a 'nandi' in slista words. Thus the S.D. elaborates or adds some minor features. Dombi Dombika or Dombalika. This art-form is mentioned by Abh. Dhanika, Bhoja, H.C. Sa., and Vag. II Abhinavagupta (pp. 181, N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S.) observes : "channanuraga-garbhabhir uktibhir yatra bhupateh avarjayati manah sa tu massna dombika mata." With verbal expressions carrying concealed love, where the mind of a king is influenced, that (art-form) is called dombika, which is of a graceful nature. We have seen above that in a verse from Dhanika's Avaloka on D.R. I. 8, dombi is mentioned. Dhanika reads - "dombi srigaditam bhano bhani-prasthana-rasakah, kavyam ca; sapta notyasya bhedah syus te'pi bhanavat." Dhanika called it dombi and takes is as a form of dance. But he also calls it a 'rupaka', when he immediately observes : ityadina rupakantaranam api bhavad avadharana'nupapattir ity asankya aha" - etc. He does not elaborate. Bhoja observes in his sr. Pra. (pp. 381, Vol. II) : "preksa-nimittam vacikady abhinaya-rahitam angikaika-nirvartyam prasthana dombalika"di-vakyam preksyam." This Bhoja does when he classifies his sabdalamkara called 'preksya' into six types. He further observes : "tat sodha - lasyam, tandavam, chalikam, samya, hallisakam, rasakam ca iti." Dr. Raghavan (pp. 567) observes that the S.K.A. does not have the above-quoted passage in the corresponding place, i.e. while treating the six-fold sabdalamkara. Dr. Raghavan further observes, "If these are varieties of preksya, how does Bhoja leave them and classify preksya into lasya, tandava, chalika, samya, hallisaka and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #383
938 SAHRDAYALOKA rasa ?" Obviously, we note that Bhoja once calls them - i.e. 'prasthana, dombalika, as 'preksya', which is one of the sabdalamkaras that are 24 in number, 'preksyatva' being one of those. On the other hand, when Bhoja considers 'preksya' (pp. 381, ibid), which is bereft of vacika, sattvika and aharya types of abhinayas and is graced by only the angika abhinaya (= angikaika-nirvartyam), he introduces the same as "prasthana-dombalika"di-vakyam", i.e. which is of the form of vakya (i.e. vakyarthabhinaya ?) such as 'prasthana" and "dombalika". Now, we have seen that Bhoja, (pp. 468, Sr. Pra. Vol. II) has called 'nartanaka' such as, samya, 'lasya', chalita, 'dvipadi' etc. as varieties of graceful (lalita-laya) rhythm, which are 'padarthabhinaya'. So, perhaps here, Bhoja mentions 'dombalika' and 'prasthana' which are 'vakya' (= vakyarthabhinaya) varieties of 'preksya', a sabdalamkara. But then he does not elaborate. Prasthana as noticed earlier is an uparupaka (Ch. XI. Sr. Pra) but 'dombalika' is left out. Perhaps, as suggested by Dr. Raghavan (pp. 567, ibid), Bhoja takes his dombalika as identical with the 'dombika' mentioned by Abhinavagupta as quoted above. Abhinavagupta has mentioned 'cudamani' dombika twice, with its author, some Ranaka. We will go to observe that H. also mentions dombika in the words of Abhinavagupta. But he is clear that these are "padarthabhinayasvabhavani dombika"dini geyani rupakani cirantanair (i.e. by Abhinavagupta and his seniors) uktani. Why Bhoja calls it as, "prasthana-dombalika"di-vakyam" is not clear to us. Could it be, as suggested by us earlier, that he takes it as a 'vakyarthabhinaya-svabhava' art-form ? A.bh. - NS. Vol. I G.O.S. Edn., mentions dombika on pp. 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179 and 183 also. Elaborating A.bh.'s discussion on 'dombika', Dr. Raghavan (pp. 568, ibid) further observes that on p. 173 (actually p. 171, G.O.S. Edn. '56 revised edn.) (or, p. 169, Edn. '92, K.Kris.) the cudamani dombika is quoted but the meaning looks obscure to him. We will try to discuss this in the light of Madusudani - (Edn. NS. first part. B.H.U. '71, Madhusudan Shastri) But first we will quote from the A.bh. which reads as (pp. 171, G.O.S. Edn. '56): "dombika-prasthana-sidgaka-bhanakabhanika-ragakavya"der dasa-rupaka-laksanena-asamgrahan natyad bheda iti cet, tad ai(anai.-Madhusudani) kantikam. totaka-prakaranika-rasaka-prabhrtes tad asamgrhitasya'pi natyarupatvat." - The context is clear that A.bh. wants to suggest that eventhough these uparupakas are not included in ten types of drama, they do not cease to be drama. Abhinavagupta goes to explain how the three types of acting or abhinaya, i.e. vacika, angika and sattvika - is seen in these art-forms and so - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #384
Classification of Poetry 939 though they may look like more of 'nrtta', they are very much 'natya' also. This is seen as in cudamani-dombika. A.bh. (pp. 171, ibid) observes "ata eva ca cudamani-dombikayam prati-jnatam" bindugunam vami sahi ihodivaco amidunadham mahasarakah gete um (?) - - at eva sahrdayah smaranti "vadha (sa) ma-cudamania" (iti). tasman nrttam natyad abhinnam, tallaksanopetavat. Pundit Madhusudanajee in his Sanskrit Commentary (pp. 413, ibid) refers to this view as - "dombi srigaditam bhano bhani prasthana-rasakah kavyam ca sapta nrtyasya bhedah syuste'pi bhanavat; natyad bhinnah. dombi dombika ekaiva. bhani bhanika na. ime nrtyasya bhedah. kvacid etani uparupakani iti samgrhitani kintu tesam dasa-rupaka-laksanasya abhavan mukhya-rupakesv a-samgrahe'pi uparupakatvam kathancid iti matam." But in the end Abhinavagupta holds that these are only upa-rupakas which are indirectly connected with natya or drama proper. Then he quotes the view of the ancients - tad uktam cirantanaih-and gives the definitions of various art-forms as envisaged by earlier thinkers (pp. 181, bh. N.S. Vol. I. G.O.S.) * So, we feel that we cannot agree with Dr. Raghavan's remark (pp. 568, ibid) that, "On pp. 173, the Cudamani dombika is quoted but the meaning of the context in the quotation is obscure." It is not obscure. Dr. Raghavan goes to observe that on p. 174 (pp. 172, edn. '56, revised Edn.), clandestine love is said to be the thing in the dombika. A.bh. observes: dombika"dau tu kamasyaiva pracchanna-ragaparama-rahasyopadesat." Dr. Raghavan thinks that this art-form is more like south Indian 'Nautch'. One dombika i.e. a class of female dancer is supported by dombagayanas - musicians and she dances and others sing. Dr. Raghavan feels that the extensive discussion on the exact nature and extent of dramatic representation in a dombika (pp. 177-179 A.bh.) is obscure. The obscurity, he thinks, is aggravated by the corruptions in the text. But the fact is that Krishnamoorthy's third revised edn. and Madhusudani clear almost all doubts. The topic concerns mainly with the fact whether dombika etc., the uparupakas can be taken as drama or mere dance forms. The A.bh. seems to finally favour the view that indirectly (i.e. parmparaya) these art-forms also have an element of abhinaya and therefore could be taken not as drama proper but as 'upa-rupakas' or art-forms having an element of drama for sure. Dr. Raghavan observes: (pp. 568, ibid) - "The Dombi's art consisted mainly of Nrtta or pure dance movements which by reason of their grace and appropriateness, gave an overall impression of the theme and as aid to such a general kind of action, the Dombi showed a few movements of hands, brows, eyes, etc., elements such as are concomitant when one speaks. Abhinavagupta mentions For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #385
940 SAHRDAYALOKA also two specimens of the Dombika, the Cudamani and the Gunamala." The A.bh. (pp. 175, ibid) observes : dombika-krtyam eva upa-samharati guna-malayam... tatra sa notyati dombika ca bahutaropa-ranjaka-gitadi-patu-cetaka-parivsta tvam praty evam aham upaslokitavatiti tan-madhyavarti-gayana-mukha-samkramitanija-vacana laukikenaiva rupena tad-giyamana-rupaka-gata-laya-tala-samyena tavannstyati. tadgiyamanapadarthasya ca satisayam avarjaniye raja"dau htdayanupravesitam darsayitum laukika-vyavahara-gata-hasta-bhrukarmaromancaksi-vikara-tulya-yoga-ksematayaivanga-vikara"di-sambhavam aksipati." Abhinavagupta goes to observe that because of the nature of the theme, the dombi is always masrna or sukumara i.e. delicate or graceful :-"tathahi-dombikasu narapati-catuka-pradhanyena pravsttasu sukumaram eva suddham rupam. bhanakesu nssimhadicarita-varnanam uddhatam eva." (pp. 181, A.bh. ibid). Then he quotes from the cirantanas - tad uktam cirantanaih (pp. 181) - "channanuragagarbhabhir..." etc. Dr. Raghavan observes : (pp. 568, ibid): A Domba music party called DombaMandala with one Domba Gayana named Ranga and his two daughters, Hamsi and Naga-lata, called Domba-Gayikas, is described at some length in the Rajatarangini V. 354-380. The Katha-sarit-sagara gives a Domba as a player of the drum. II. 96." Bhoja, we saw, defines twelve uparupakas i.e. padarthabhinaya types. They are srigadita, Durmilika, Prasthana, Kavya, Bhanaka, Bhanika, Gosthi, Hallisaka, Nartanaka, preksanaka, Rasaka, and Natya-rasaka. He only mentions Dombalika. He gives an illustration of Preksanaka such as Kamadahana. But he does not illustrate any other variety. Dr. Raghavan thinks that it is not certain that all these twelve varieties had set, written texts in form of musical compositions and involved word for word Abhinaya for the content of the song. We beg to differ. We have seen that these art-forms were even older than Abhinavagupta and perhaps had their roots in folk-art, almost parallel to the ten types of classical dramatic patterns. Perhaps they were as ancient as the latter. So, in the absence of specific illustrations down to artists, either orally or in written form, it was not possible to evolve theory out of the same. Thus, it is immaterial whether Bhoja illustrates them all individually or not; they did exist. Dr. Raghavan further suggests that such compositions must have been for Srigadita, Durmilika, Prasthana, Kavya, Bhanaka and Bhanika. From Gosthi onwords we have a different type. Now this again is an observation of Dr. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #386
Classification of Poetry 941 Raghavan who seems to contradict his own earlier observation as quoted above that it is not certain in case of all twelve types that they had a written text. Now, if some had, why not others ? And his further assertion that perhaps even gosthi also did not have a written text and was perhaps only a representation which was a dumb imitation of Krsna's sport, or had some composition singing the sports of Krsna which was rendered into action. But we humbly suggest that it is perhaps safer to imagine that there existed written texts of all art-forms, without which they could not evolve their individual identity and if Bhoja did not illustrate them, it was part of his style. For, we see illustrations in B.P., NLRK. and S.D. They could not have shot up all of a sudden. There did exist a living tradition of written scripts which unfortunately are lost for us. Dr. Raghavan accepts that the Nartanaka is definitely musical composition rendered through gesture. But hallisaka, rasaka, and natya-rasaka contained minimum abhinaya and maximum 'nrtta' or pure rhythmic dance. Even here, we may add, we do not rule out a living written tradition. As we saw above under dombilika in the A.bh., a discussion concerning the nature of these art-forms as to whether they are only pure dance and music or also drama already caught the attention of art-critics and the general impression is that they do contain some dramatic element in them, good enough to be named as upa-rupakas. So, even here Dr. Raghavan should accept this thing first and last and then only discuss their nature. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 569, ibid) suggests that in the rasaka and natya-rasaka, there were a few songs intended for gesture. He suggests, and it looks again not a sound suggestion, that the description of preksanaka is too megre for us to decide whether it was a mere gestureless imitation of some events like the burning of kama, or had compositions on theme like kamadahana which were rendered into abhinaya. Once again, when Bhoja mentions 'kamadahana' as an illustration, there is no ground to doubt the same. The dombi he says, had songs but no word for word abhinaya. This again, is not acceptable for abhinaya has to be imagined as interwoven when a bhava such as that of love has to be conveyed. Though of course, we agree with Dr. Raghavan's observation that the Sr. Pra. is the first oldest document treating the topic of upa-rupakas. We have seen that in the A.bh. (pp. 181, Vol. I G.O.S. '56; or p. 179, G.O.S. Edn. '92) there is mention in the name of Cirantanas, of some art-forms. Some of them are not mentioned by Bhoja. They are sidgaka, ramakrida and prerana. Dr. Raghavan suggests that perhaps sidgaka is srigadita. Ramakrida is not For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #387
942 SAHRDAYALOKA read elsewhere he thinks. Dr. Raghavan's this observation also has to be improved because Hemacandra in his ka. sa VIII. iv (pp. 445, Edn. Kulkarni & Parikh) mentions the same and quotes also from A.bh. and discusses further in his Viveka on it (pp. 446), as we will observe later in details. Prerana, as Dr. Raghavan notes, is defined in Sangita-ratnakara and also by Katayavema, in his commentary on the Malavikagnimitra. But the latter, according to Dr. Raghavan, wrong Pancangabhinaya which Malavika learns, with Prerana defined by Sarngadeva. The name exactly read in both the Sangitaratnakara and Sangita-samara-sara is Perana and not 'Prerana'. The former, like gondali is given as a dance of karnatic variety of Desi class. Abhinavagupta's 'prerana' seems to be a comic piece as his words read : "hasyaprayam preranam tu syat, prahelikaya anvitam." We will now turn to Hemacandra. H. in Ka. Sa. VIII. i. divides kavya into preksya and sravya. The former is 'abhineya' and the latter is 'an-abhineya'. Preksya is further subdivided (Ka. Sa. VIII. 2) into 'pathya' and 'geya'. Pathya (VIII. 3) consists of the ten types or rupakas to which are added natika and sattaka etc. The definitions are from Bharata. For 'Sattaka' H. relies on the Sr. Pra. (Ch. XI) of Bhoja. We will deal with forms of major rupakas later but for the present we discuss the upa-rupakas. At VIII. iv, H. further classifies 'geya' (which is basically 'preksya') into, (1) dombika (2) bhana (3) prasthana (4) singaka (5) bhanika (6) prerana (7) ramakrida (8) hallisaka (9) rasaka (10) gosthi (11) srigadita (12) ragakavya etc. Here gosthi, srigadita and kavya seem to have been defined after Bhoja's sr. Pra., though we do not read a word for word similarity. But these are not read in the A.bh. The rest follow the A.bh. We will examine these definitions in d below. But prior to this we may note that H., like Bhoja calls them 'padarthabhinaya-svabhavani", but quotes from Cirntanas as read in the A.bh. H. (VIII. iv. pp. 445 ibid) reads 'dombika' first. We saw above how Bhoja deals with 'dombalika' very briefly under sabdalamkara, "preksya" (pp. 381, Ch. X. Sr. Pra., as quoted above) H. quotes from A. bh., wherein (pp. 181, ibid, NS. Vol. I, G.O.S.) the views of the "Cirantanas' are quoted. In his Viveka H. further elaborates on the nature of these Uparupakas, which are primarily defined after, as noted above, the Cirantanas as quoted in the A.bh. and also Bhoja. It is in his Viveka that this further analysis is given. But here H. accepts the lead of the A.bh. He has accepted Abhinavagupta's observations which are read at different places but H. has woven them together, and created a clean statement. We feel that the editors of A.bh. (Vol. I. Ch. IV) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #388
Classification of Poetry 943 should look into H. carefully. Even Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy has not done it. Our gurus Prof. Parikh and Kulkarni have also not compared the two texts word for word. This has to be done sometime. But for the present we will proceed with H. on dombika and other art-forms. At least Dr. Raghavan has certainly not looked into H. and his Viveka carefully, when Dr. Raghavan observes that sidgaka of Abhinavagupta could be Srigadita of Bhoja he seems to be quite off the mark. Actually, sidgaka of the A.bh. is read as Singaka by H. who again reads 'Singataka' in Viveka (pp. 446, ibid). This sidgaka of Abh., is the same as singaka/singataka of H. and is certainly not the srigadita of Bhoja as Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 569, ibid). The picture emerges that Dr. Raghavan has not paid due attention to H., and this is very very sad. After completing the topic of 'geya' varieties, which H. has not named as 'upa-rupaka', H. observes : "adigrahanat sampa-cchalitadvipad yadi parigrahah. prapancastu brahmabharata - kohala"disastrebhyo'vagantavyah." (p. 449, ibid). As said above, so far as the definitions of these uparapakas are concerned, H. has accepted the lead of the A.bh. and Bhoja, but in his Viveka he has culled out the ideas as laid down in the A.bh. Here as observed above he has accepted quite often words, phrases and sentences from the A.bh. and has evolved a clear design, not seen in the Abh. clearly. We will quote and explain the portion from H.'s Viveka. First we will give the substance from the Viveka, and then the actual quotation. H. explains as follows: The province of 'geya-kavya' is three-fold such as maslna or graceful, uddhata or forceful and misra or mixed. In 'dombikas', which are promoted primarily to flatter a king, the form is graceful. In bhanakas, such as in the description of the behaviour of Nrsimha etc., the form is only forceful. That even in pure graceful there is some element of the forceful, is appropriate. Here the difference is based on the proportion of forceful or graceful. (there is higher or lower degree in the artistic mixture). The first (i.e. in which masrna is in higher degree as compared to the forceful) is seen in singataka. When forceful is predominant and the graceful is mixed therewith in a lower degree we get bhanika. The other varieties of geyakavya such as prerana, ramakrida, rasaka, hallisaka etc. are graced with the beauty of the mixture of these two in higher or lesser degree. A prima facie view is now considered. The objection is that in cases of dombika, singataka etc. the statements are found not to be exactly relevant with For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #389
944 SAHRDAYALOKA one another. Now, in this case how can these are-forms be pleasing to the taste ? The answer is "No". H. says that in prayers to the deities, which are conceived either as males or females, srngara is seen to be delineated everywhere. But we do not find any contradiction here. Same is the case with these art-forms which carry only apparently contradictory statements. We may observe that H.'s words here are from the A.bh. (pp. 171, NS. Ch. IV. G.O.S. ibid). H. quotes directly from the A.bh. and observes that the description in male or female form depends on the prayer to the deity concerned. It is therefore, that in Cudamani dombika we read : "he devi dombi etc. etc. In such art-forms as raga-kavyas e.g. raghava-vijaya there is a message of the four-fold aims of life. (caturvargopadesa). Actually H. defines 'kavya' but here the term 'raga-kavya' is read as in Abh. After A.bh. again H. suggests that in dombika and the rest, the prominent emotion is that of clandestine love. Once again H., quoting from A.bh. (pp. 172, ibid), observes that in case of such art-forms as Bhana, prerana, bhanika etc. the theme is in the nature of parables and tables, anyapadesa, arthantaranyasa and nidarsana (in A.bh. we read 'drstanta' for nidarsana), inculcating adivce to man through description of the acts of wild animals; and this is something like a bit of the panca-tantra, cast in a semidramatic form. We may observe that H. chooses to follow Abhinavagupta in suggesting the nature of bhana to be diadectic as against Bhoja's bhana which is devotional and it extols gods. After this observation, H. discusses the difference between pathya-rupaka and geya (upa-rupaka). He suggests that in 'pathya' variety (i.e. in major ten rupakas) both 'anga' movement of limbs and 'gita' are not certain. This means that in these drama-forms to dance with movement of limbs is not obigatory. 'Kata', 'karana', 'cari', 'mandala' etc. which are useful for 'anga', are uncertain in nature because of irregular rhythm, in case of rupakas. These are practiced with the dominance of 'rasa' in focus, and hence this uncertainty in rupakas. But, observes H., in geya (upa-rupakas) movement of limbs i.e. anga and gita (= song) are of fixed nature in themselves. This means that as in case of a 'mantra' or charm there is no change of letters, similarly here in case of these minor art-forms, the pattern of laya (rhythm), yati (stop), etc. is fixed as per the special type of art-form concerned. Of course, at times 'anga' (or movement of limbs) is predominant as in 'prasthana', or at times 'vada' speech is central as in bhanaka when there is practice of bhagnatala or parikramana. Or, as in case of singataka we have predominance of the narration which is presented through song (giyamana-rupakabhidheya-pradhanyam). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #390
Classification of Poetry 945 At times, the nrtta (i.e. dance form with limb-movement as principal and not an emotion) is chief as in case of dombilika presentation. Because of this variety, such performance is termed 'valli-marga' i.e. a street-performance with variety, in common-parlance. But with all this, one point emerges and it is that 'geya' is qualified chiefly by the playing of instruments along with songs. In case of ragakavyas the presentation is mainly through song alone. For example, Raghava-vijaya (a raga-kavya) is sung only in 'dhakka' raga alone, and Marica-vadha in the grama-raga called kakubha. Here, it may be noted that H. has overlooked one remark from the A.bh. wherein it is stated that, though the rasas and the situations differ, the tune and the time-measure (laya/tala) do not change in a raga-kavya as in drama proper. In pathya i.e. drama proper, observes H., for bringing about a feeling of direct experience, the fixation of the use of language or dilect with reference to a given character, the use of metre and figures of speech, etc. are fixed. Now that which is sung (giyamana) (as in an upa-rupaka) is not always presented through acting, for fear of non-congruousness. But here (i.e. in upa-rupakas) some sattvika form of acting, which is meant for conveying this or that meaning along with a certain tune or rhythm and time-measure, is interwoven, in view of the predominant rasa. The intended object is filled in with the help of 'dhruva-geeta' here. As the cooks add required ingredients in item under preperation, so in 'geya' form also, some such element (of acting) is added. But in such art-forms as dombika and the rest, there is no presentation as in case of an actor, of rupa (i.e. of the form of character such as Rama, Dusyanta, etc.), which is of an extra-ordinary nature. In dombika and the rest, the beauty of letters seen in use of special letters, is principal and there is no possibility at all of acting here, as it is primarily of the form of nrtta or limb-movements. In dombika, the lady dancer speaks some sentence of common-usage, and when this speech of hers is presented in form of a song, how can there been an experience of direct-feeling (kah saksatkarakalparthah ? pp. 448, ibid). On the other hand an experience such as direct is the main object in pathya variety. So, what happens in dombika or kavya (i.e. ragakavya) art-forms is like a local dance or song performance that carries away the heart of people through the device of giving an advice indirectly or by suggesting an idea through some means. In illustrations such as, "hetthe vi dombi", etc. there is an effort to please a king in a dombika-prayoga, throug a song or playing of instrument, or dance, an effort For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #391
946 SAHRDAYALOKA to convey such meaning that is cherished by the king. There is, in between, a type of presentation of the activity of a paramour, or an expert messanger, etc. which pleases the mind of a prince. In the end, the performance of dombika ends after the lady dancer making suggestive gestures to a king or prince as if he is somebody else, cleverly acts for extracting money from him. This is seen as in Gunamala (dombika). All this, H. seems to accept from the A.bh. (pp. 175, NS. Vol. I. G.O.S. '54 Edn.) In Gunamala, the dancing artist gets involved in pleasing songs suggesting, - "I say this to you" - etc. and tries to convey the secret love for the prince in her own heart and she dances in co-ordination of tune, rhythm and timefactor (tala/laya).The outward form is of course of popular dance. The dancer also exhibits such physical gestures as raising of eye-brows, horripilation, casting of glances etc. to show that the theme of her song enters into the king's heart. Thus by principally providing entertainment through song, and presenting physical gestures that go with the same, the dances, catching the heart of the king through dance, renders the song subservient and presents body-movements in keeping with the emotion concerned. This dombika art-form is not of the type of direct-experience as in case of a drama. For in this art-form, there is no concealment of the dancer's own self (as in case of the actor) through the medium of aharya-abhinaya i.e. costumes, set-up etc. Thus the presentation does not carry an effert of direct experience, but the dancer presents a dance-theme, with some acting, to a near similar effect. So, there is no manifestation, as in case of a rupaka (i.e. major type of drama) of an extra ordinary form here. In geya variety there is no attempt to impart adivce or information (vyutpatty-anusamdhanam), but in pathya variety, i.e. major rupaka, proficiency is a principal goal. This is so ordained by Bharata Muni with reference to the pathya. Here ends H.'s discussion. H. thus discusses elaborately the different impressions created from artistic point of view, between pathyarupakas and geya-upa-rupakas. On one hand such types as nataka and the rest are of the form of direct experience, while dombika and the rest do not have this strength, but through elements of dance and music there is a chance of suggesting the inner feelings of heart, of course, to some extent only. Acarya draws from the A.bh. but makes the presentation clearer and to the point, which is not seen in Bhoja and the rest. Of course in the Avaloka or the Dasarupaka, we get an idea of the difference in the arts of dance, (nrtya), nrtta (or rhythmic bodily movements) and narya or drama proper. Nitta is an art-form For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #392
Classification of Poetry 947 depending solely on tala and laya i.e. time-measure and rhythm, which is similar to modern dance patterns in the west with thrusts, both horizontal and vertical, in principal. This can be placed with 'break' or 'twist dance. Nrtya is a classical danceform with emotive content. Natya is rasa-oriented drama proper. It may be noted that when H. enumerates 'sattaka"di' as forms of rupakas, which were taken only as upa rupakas by ancients such as Kohala and the like, it is clear that these artforms must be involving a lot of the element of acting proper, and therefore these must be capable of the dramatic effect. A close examination of the A.bh, suggests that the limits of rupakas and upa-rupakas were not water-tight. but H. has specified the basic difference in these two art-forms more clearly and candidly. One thing emerges that these upa-rupakas were perhaps evolved as forms of folk-art and the difference in their types and their number expanded with the passage of time. That H. has accepted dombika, bhana, prasthana, singaka, bhanika, prerana, ramakrida, hallisaka and rasaka from A.bh. and the ancients, and three art-forms such as gosthi, srigadita, and kavya from Bhoja is clear. Bhoja also derived inspiration from both Abhinavagupta, and also ancients like Kohala. An interection between Malava and Gujarat also can be imagined in the field of folk-art. For Bhoja there are 12 upa-rupakas such as sri. gadita, durmilika, prasthana, kavya (i.e. citrakavya), bhana (three-fold; suddha, citra and sankirna), bhanika, gosthi, hallisaka, nartanaka, preksanaka, rasaka and natya-rasaka (also termed 'carcari). If we accept difference in an art-form going by difference in the name given to the same, though of course in a single name also we come across difference in definition by different authorities, we can count in H. such art-forms as additional ones e.g. dombika, singaka, prerana, ramakrida, and (raga) kavya as compared to Bhoja. Bhoja's durmialika, (citra) kavya, nartanaka, preksanaka, and natya-rasaka are missing in H. Durmilika seems to be a vulgar art-form, not read in Abhinavagupta, but also read later in the Natyadarpana and Saradatanaya's Bhava-prakasana. As 'prasthana' is noted in the A.bh., we read it in H. also and this art-form is true to its name because in it a lover undertakes a journey. Ramacandra, later, accepts the definition from Sr. Pra. For saradatanaya 'prasthana' is not identical conceptually with that of Abhinavagupta or Bhoja. We do not know the source of his concept. The concept of (citra) kavya in Bhoja is not clear and it has contexts of music. We read notations of raga, tala, and choreography but the meaning is not clear to us. In uparupaka called 'kavya' there is one raga, in citra-kavya, however there are many ragas. Bhoja has an elaborate discussion on Bhana, which is accepted by For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #393
948 SAHRDAYALOKA Saradatanaya who places it in anustubh verses. For him, as in Bhana, so also in Bhanika, lasyangas are presented. For Bhoja nartanaka is four-fold such as samya. lasya, chalika and dvipadi. Bhoja, while discussing sabdalamkaras mentions six-fold preksyalamkara such as tandava, lasya, chalika, sampa (i.e. samya), hallisaka and rasa. Bhoja has 'preksana' also, which is missing in the A.bh. and H. Sardatanaya presents it in a clumsy way. Natya-rasaka is not read in H., but is seen in Bhoja, Ramacandra and Saradatanaya. Thus, so far as uparupakas are concerned H. mainly accepts the lead of Abh. and then of Bhoja. H.'s pupils, Ramacandra and gunacandra, the joint authors of the Natyadarpana (ND.) however, though perfectly aquainted with the A.bh. and H., choose to follow the lead of Bhoja while treating the uparupakas, the definitions of which are from the sr. Pra. On rupakas the authors seem to side with Bharata, Abh. and therefore also with H. they accept twelve varieties of rupaka including the ten major rupakas added by natika, which is accepted by Bharata and also prakarani. About Sattaka they suggest that Kohala and others have treated the same. The definitions of samya, lasya and chalita are accepted in the ND. from Bhoja's definitions as cited in his S.K.A. and Sr. Pra, in the alamkara section. Saradatanaya in his B.P. deals with the topic of upa-rupakas in a very elaborate fashion. He accepts ideas, or even definitions or part of the same, from Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya, Bhoja and also from a source not identified by scholars as yet. As stated earlier, we take Sagarnandin (NLRK.) as the successor and not the predecessor of Saradatanaya. Visvanatha, of course, is the last to join this list of honourable writers on uparupakas. In the beginning of VIIIth chapter which deals with the ten major types of drama, he observes that these ten alone are rasa"tmaka. This view is in harmony with the observations of Bharata, Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya, Bhoja and Hemacandra. In fact nobody has a voice against this. The bhava-pradhana varieties are the twenty uparupakas that he mentions including in them totaka, natika and sattaka which other authorities put with major rupakas. Saradatanaya observes in his B.P. VIII 1-3 : kathasariram kavyasya laksanam copapaditam, bharata"dibhir acaryaih darsitenaiva vartmana. prathamyan natakasyasya tat samyag abhidhiyate. natakam sa-prakaranam bhanah prahasanam dimah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #394
Classification of Poetry vyayoga-samavakarau vithyankehamrga iti totakam natika gosthi sallapah silpakan tatha. dombi srigaditam bhani prasthanam kavyam eva ca, preksakam sattakam natya-rasakam lasakam tatha ullopyakanca hallisam atha durmallika'pi ca, mallika kalpavalli ca parijatakam ity api. rasatmaka dasaite tu, vimsad bhavatmaka matah, tesam rupaka-samjna'pi, prayo drsyataya kvacit. trimsad rupakabhedas ca prakasyante tra laksanaih. Thus, though 'bhava"tmaka', the twenty enumerated as above by Sa. are in his opinion, 'rupakas' also, i.e. they could be subsumed under 'rupakas' because they are also drsya i.e. to be seen on the stage, to be enacted, with an element of abhinaya. Actually, we know that they are classed as 'upa-rupakas' for this reason only. They are 'upa' or 'not principal' in the sense that they involve a lot of dance and music, both vocal i.e. song, and instrumental i.e. vadya along with thin abhinaya. Again, as seen in H., such art-forms as dombi and the rest are not fullfledged rupakas as in these there is no 'rupana' i.e. superimposition of the characters such as Rama etc. as in drama, and the self of the lady dancer or anyone is not concealed. If Sa. calls them 'rupaka' also, he means precisely this. In the beginning of the next chapter i.e. Ch. IX, Sa. again enumerates twenty uparupakas as : "dasarupena bhinnanam rupakanam atikramat, avantarabhidah kascit padarthabhinaya"tmikah. te nrtya-bhedah prayena sankhyaya vimsatir matah, totakam natika gosthi sallapah silpakas tatha. dombi srigaditam bhano bhani prasthanam eva ca, kavyan ca preksanam natya-rasakam rasakam tatha. ullopyakanca hallisam atha durmallika'pi ca, kalpavalli mallika ca, parijatakam ity api. eta namantaraih kaiscid acaryaih kathita api, samvidhana-kramas tasam na kadacana bhidyate. natikayastotakasya'pi sattakasya ca laksanam, 949 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #395
950 SAHRDAYALOKA amsatvan natakasya'pi tatha prakaranasya ca. anusangikam etesam laksanam tatra darsitam. dombi srigaditam bhano, bhani-prasthana-rasakah, kavyam ca sapta notyasya bhedah syus te'pi bhanavat ityahuh kecid anye tan sarvan notya"tmakah viduh." Saradatanya suggests that the definitions of natika, sattaka and totaka are discussed in Ch. VIII as they seem to be partially imbibing the characteristics of nataka and prakarana. Thus, for Sa., these three are singled out almost as rupakas with abhinaya-pradhanaya. He gives the list of uparupakas but adds that some acaryas give different names to this or that art-form, but virtually their structure ins the same. He also notes the opinion of some others - 'kecid anye', who feel that dombi, srigadita, bhana, bhani, prasthana, rasaka and kavya are but varieties of nrtya, but are virtually similar to 'bhana'. Still others hold that all these twenty types should be taken as 'nttya"tmaka', i.e. not narya"tmaka. They are more of dance-forms and not types of drama according to some. Sa. neither approves nor disapproves this opinion but seems to be closer to the view that takes these as uparupakas, having an element of abhinaya' also. But they are 'padarthabhinaya"tmikah', as suggested by Dhananjaya and Bhoja. This means they are not drama proper, though involving an element, may be prominent at times, of 'abhinaya' or acting also. Dr. Raghavan (pp. 570, ibid) observes : "At the beginning of the next (i.e. IXth) chapter whose first part deals with the upa-rupakas, Saradatanaya again mentions twenty uparupakas. Here the sattaka is left out and in its place, we have a bhana, a musculine companion to the faminine bhani, added. Immediately are mentioned the natika, totaka, and sattaka, as derivatives from natika, and he says that they are already described under nataka. Totaka is defined along with nataka, and sattaka along with natika, in Ch. VIII (pp. 238, 244) (pp. 359, edn. Agrawal). (The Vikramorvasiyam is given as an illustration of a nataka as well as totaka. See. pp. 237-8). Saradatanaya calls the natika, totaka and sattaka both as rupaka and upa-rupaka. He contradicts himself when he says that these three are rasa"sraya like nataka on pp. 180-1, Ch. VII, and then counts them as the first three among the list of twenty upa-rupakas which are ntya-varieties and are bhava"sraya. On p. 181, he restricts the name nrtya and bhava"sraya to those beginning with dombi and similarly on p. 256 says that while some writers consider dombi and the rest only as upa-rupakas and netya, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #396
Classification of Poetry 951 thereby omitting natika, totaka and sattaka, there are writers who consider even them as nrtya. He himself seems to have no view to offer. dombi srigaditam bhanah bhani-prasthana-rasakah, kavyam ca, sapta notyasya bhedah syus te'pi bhanavat ity ahuh kecid, anye tan sarvan notya"tmakan viduh. (p. 256) It is said in the above lines that some consider only the seven varieties as notyas. What about the rest? There are ten more. Saradatanaya further says that writers differ also on the names of these types eta namantaraih kaiscit acaryaih kathita api, samvidhana-kramah tasam na kadacana bhidyate. p. 255. While the statement in the first line is correct, that in the second line is not borne out by the text. In the very beginning of his work, Saradatanaya says that he himself saw actually all the thirty types, that is, ten rupakas and twenty uparupakas, played by the narya"carya named Diwakara in a Saraswati temple during a festival (p. 2). But the chapters on rupakas and uparupakas, 8th and 9th, do not justify this claim. These chapters show the author's indebtedness to certain earlier texts from which widely differing descriptions are simply pulled out and heaped together in a haphazard manner. In the uparupaka section, satdaka is again defined at the end of p. 269. Under the name of rasaka, on pp. 265-266, Bhoja's description of kavya and citrakavya and the Anustubh definitions of dombi etc., quoted in the Abhinavabharati, are clubbed together. In the description of all the uparupakas the first part is generally from some earlier work, which consistently describes all of them as regular dramatic compositions, with the mention of the number and number of sandhis, nayakas, vrttis etc. To these definitions are added the definitions borrowed from Bhoja. The first part and the second part differ very widely. Eg., according to the first part, even the Hallisaka is a play of one or two acts, with Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vanikputras, - all dependent on ministers for their success and so on !". For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #397
SAHRDAYALOKA This rather long quotation from Dr. Raghavan is not for nothing. We humbly and honestly feel that Dr. Raghavan has been harsh and also perhaps bold in his observations on Saradatanaya. We will explain our position as follows. 952 To begin with, Dr. Raghavan observes that Saradatanaya himself saw actually all the thirty types... played by the natya"carya named Divakara. The actual words from the B.P. read as: (pp. 2, 3 Edn. Angrawal) "adhita-veda-vedango vardhamanah piturgrhe, kadacic charadam devim upasitum upayayau, upasya savanam tasyas caitra-yatra-mahotsave, asinam nartana"gare tam devim preksakaih saha, pranamya, tair anujnatas tasyah parsvam upavisat. trimsat-prakara-bhinnani rupakani prthak prthak nataih prayujyamanani bhavabhinayakovidaih. drstva, sa devim varadam natyavedam ayacata, natyasalapatih kascid divakara iti dvijah. tayaiva natyavedasya niyukto'dhyapane tada. pritas so'pi sadasivasya sivayorgaurya matam vasuker vagdevya'api naradasya ca muneh kumbhodbhava-vyasayoh, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #398
Classification of Poetry sisyanam bharatasya yani ca matany adhyapya tany anjanasunor apy atha natyavedam akhilam samyag adhyapayat. saradatanayo devyas tanyadhitya ca sannidhau, adaya saram etebhyo hitartham natyavedinam. bhava-prakasanam nama prabandham akarot tada. This account clearly says that Sarasvati suggested the name of an expert teacher Divakara, who was appointed to teach Saradatanaya and he taught the whole of natyaveda with details concerning the views of various authorities. Nowhere it is mentioned that Divakara played these thirty types of rupakas. Dr. Raghavan, it seems has not cared to read Sa.'s words carefully. 953 Next point is that Dr. Raghavan feels that in dealing with the three types viz. natika, totaka, and sattaka, Sa. contradicts himself by calling them once 'rasa"sraya' and then taking them as bhava"sraya nrtya-types. Here also Dr. Raghavan's approach is less charitable. It may be noted that on an earlier occasion we had discussed following A.bh. whether these art-forms can be taken as rupakas or not. A.bh. is less conservative about this. It is suggested that as an element of 'abhinaya' is involved in all these types, they can be called 'natya'. But, since there is an added dose of dance and music in the so called uparupakas, they may be taken as a different variety of art-forms, perhaps 'nrtya' varieties, as the element of 'abhinaya' is very thin. We have seen how H. has suggested, and even Bhoja following Dhanika said the same thing by calling them padarthabhinaya types, that there is absence of rupana in these and hence they are lesser drama. The individual self of the dancer is not concealed by the character. So, they may not be rupakas. But with all these, in some varieties of these upa-rupakas acting and 'rupana' are predominant. It is because of this that even Bharata mentions and discusses natika along with the ten major types. Sattaka and totaka also come very close. So, if Saradatanaya even while calling them uparupakas, picks them out and treates them separately, heavens have not fallen! For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #399
954 SAHRDAYALOKA In yet another quotation, Dr. Raghavan takes objection to Sa.'s calling dombi and seven other types as "notyasya bhedah", and omitting the three viz. natika, totaka and sattaka. Once again we may refer to our argument as above and say that the three are more of drama as explained above and less of dance. Sa. is clear about these art-forms. Dr. Raghavan's objection that "samvidhanakramah tasam na kadacana bhidyate" is not a sound observation on the part of Sa. We feel exactly opposite. Yes, they differ in names quite often but by and large the type, technique and structure is the same as something having "less of abhinaya and more of dance and music." Thus, they may be 'rasasraya' in the end, but primarily their capacity ends in evoking a bhava only as they are padarthabhinaya-rupa as against the major types which are vakyarthabhinaya-rupa. We can explain these terms differently also. As 'padartha' is but a part of 'vakyartha' and therefore less important, so also these upa-rupakas are lesser art-forms as compared to the ten major art-forms of drama, so far as evoking of rasa is concerned. If out of the twenty, three are almost close to major types, and if out of the rest seven are nrtya forms, the other ten are to be imagined as mixed forms. If Sa. has called some as 'nrtya', they surely have the dance element as most prominent. Dr. Raghavan need not get scarred about such observations and finally these are not rules of physical sciences, like the law of gravitation. Opinion's concerning their nature can differ from the viewer's or expert's angle of vision ! Again, Saradatanaya is very clear in taking them as uparupakas with a bias towards dance and music. So, if he counts sandhis and acts in these varieties, there is nothing wrong for he had viewed the actual performance of all the thirty types and certainly not I or not even Dr. Raghavan could lay such a claim of viewing these art-forms being presented on the stage ! Our centention is that when we talk about these authorities such as H. or Sa. or Sagaranandin or any, we have to be very careful about not doing any injustice to them by rash observations. They are all respected and honourable art-critics and had living traditions of art before them. They, yes all of them, are greater than modern scholars or art-critics. We have discussed all art-forms from Sa. which are shared by him with either Abhinavagupta or Bhoja or any of his predecessor. But there are six types viz. Sallapaka, Silpaka, Ullopyaka, Mallika, Kalpavalli and Parijata not mentioned by Bhoja. We will discuss their special features as explained by Sa. B.P. IX. 8, 9 (pp. 376) defines silpaka as - silpakas caturankah syac caturvrtti-virajitah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #400
Classification of Poetry 955 hasyam vina rasaih purnah svato, brahmana-nayakah. hinopanayakah kva'pi smasana"di-samakulah, ulha punarbhuh kanya va tah syuh saciva-viprajah. malati madhavasyeva kamalasya kalavati. angani saptavimsat syur utkantha"dini ca kramat, utkantha cavahitthan ca prayatna"samsane api, tarkas ca samsayas tapah udvego maurkhya(dhya ?)meva ca. alasya-kampagati-vismayassadhanam tatha ucchvasas ca tatha"tankah sunyata ca pralobhanam. natyam sampheta asvasah santosa'tisayas tatha, pramadas ca pramadas ca yuktis capi pralocana. prasastis ceti kathitany angany atraiva silpake udaharanametesam parastad eva vaksyate." (pp. 376, 7 ibid) This means that silpaka has four acts and four vittis. It has all rasas but for the hasya. The hero is a bramin and the assistant of the hero is a lowly born person. At times we come across descriptions of the burning ghat etc. The heroine is a widow married for a second time, or a girl. They are daughters of a minister or a brahmin as is Malati of Madhava, and Kalavati of Kamala. There are 27 angas or features such as utkantha, avahittha, prayatna, etc. We cannot trace these angas at a single place. Some of them look like vyabhicarins For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #401
956 SAHRDAYALOKA such as alasya, avahittha etc., some are natyalamkaras such as asamsa etc. The NLRK. has counted these under Silpaka. (IX, 47-48) (pp. 390, ibid) Ullopyaka is defined as: ullopyakam syad ekankam avamarsa-vina-krtam, nispravrtti-vidhananca, silpakanga-vibhusitam. hasya-srngara-karunya yuktam ujjvala-vesavat, bahupustam ca caturojjvalanayaka-nayikam. yatha devimahadevam yatha codatta-kunjaram. 47 yasminn ullopyakam nama tryangyam gitam pravartate. tallaksanam ca gandharvanirnaye spastam iritam. 48 Ullopyaka has one act and is without avamarsa juncture. In it, cessation from activity is recommended. The parts or angas of silpaka are seen in this art-form also. It has hasya, srngara and karuna rasas. The characters have blazing attire and a number of 'pusta' i.e. masques (or working in clay, modelling anything made of clay or wood etc.) or masks, are used. The heroes and heroines are intelligent and brilliant. The illustrations are "devi-mahadeva", or "udatta-kunjara", etc. In it a song called 'ullopyaka' with three parts, is placed. This gita or song is explained clearly in "gandharvanirnaya". Sallapaka (IX. 7; pp. 376, ibid) is defined in B.P. as - sallapakasyetivrttam yat khyatam cotpadyam eva ca. misram va; tatra srngarahasyau naivarhatah kvacit. sabalo vira-raudrabhyam, angany anye rasah smrtah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #402
Classification of Poetry 957 prayah sapatna-santas ca krddha-pasanda-nayakah daivarijanya-kapata yuddha-sthanoparodhavan, sattvaty arabhati-vsttisahitas ca, sa-vidravah. ankas trayo, dvitiyenke tala-pracurya-yug bhavet, tetiyonkah sa-kapatah prathamonko sa-vidravah. catussandhih, pratimukha-sunyah sallapako bhavet." Thus, Sallapaka has its theme either historical, or imagined or a mixture of these two. There is total absence of srngara and hasya, and veera or raudra are principal rasas. The rest are subordinate rasas. The hero is an angry person or a hypocrite and the enemy is santa i.e. a quiet and composed person. Kapata i.e. fraud caused by either destiny or enemy, fight, taking position, and uparodha i.e. blocking (the city, castle) are seen in this art-form. It is graced by satrvati and arabhati vittis. It is sa-vidrava i.e. having panic or flight. There are three acts and in the second act, there is predominance of tala i.e. time-measure. The third act is with fraud and the first is marked by vidrava i.e. panic or running away. There are four samdhis with pratimukha juncture absent. This art-form can be compared with the major type called "samavakara". Mallika (B.P. IX, 54, p. 392) is defined as : mallika bhoga-srngarakaisiki-vstti-manthara, eka-dvyanka-krama"slistavidusaka-vita-kriya. gatha dvipathakopeta rathya-vasaka-talayuk, analaksyakatha purvam pascadalaksya-vastuka, garbha'vamaria-hina ca For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #403
958 SAHRDAYALOKA sandhi-traya-samanvita. manikulyayam jalam iva na laksyate yatra purvato vastu, pascat prakasate ya sa manikulya'pi mallika jneya. In mallika, love in union is the principal sentiment. It is graced by kaisiki vrtti. It has either one or two acts and we find activities of a vidusaka or a vita in them respectively. It is accompanied by gatha (= metre of that name), and dvipathaka (or dvipathika ?) (a prakrta metre), and it has tala i.e. tempo such as rathya and vasaka. The theme is not clear in the beginning and later it is clearly understood There are three samdhis with garbha and avamarsa absent from it. Sa. here quotes an arya verse from Sr. Pra. of Bhoja, describing manikulya which is given by Bhoja as a variety of sravya-kavya or non-dramatic Composition. Sa. observes that as water, the theme in a manikulya is not marked in the beginning, so also in Mallika the theme is not clear in the beginning but is seen or grasped at a later stage. So, this manikulya is also mallika. Dr. Raghavan observes that, "It is saradatanaya's description of the Mallika that takes one's breath away." We do not know why Dr. Raghavan is so scared. Actually we find common names in different lists. Bhana is read both in rupaka and uparupaka. So, if manikulya is another name for mallika, nothing is lost. Or, if that literary composition called manikulya has some remote capability of being staged, it is equivalent to Mallika as in both the theme is not transparent in the beginning and becomes clear in the end. Thus in Bhoja also, we can see an indirect reference to mallika. Similarly at the end of durmallika in B.P., Bhoja's manthulli, a type of literary composition is described. The ka. sa of H. reads matallika for manthulli. B.P. also reads matallika. The second characteristic of manthulli as described by Bhoja, discussed by us earlier, is capable of dramatic presentation also and therefor Sa. could have read it along with durmallika. Dr. Raghavan need not get alarmed over this. Kalpavalli (B.P. IX. 55, pp. 392 ibid) is yet another art-form not seen in Bhoja. It is defined as - kalpavalli bhaved-dhasyasrngara-rasa-bhava-yuk, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #404
Classification of Poetry udatta-nayakopeta pithamardopanayaka. asyam vasakasajja syan -nayika'tha'bhisarika, dvipadi-kanda-geya"dhya rathya-vasaka-tala-yuk. layatraya-yuta lasyadasakena samanvita. idrsi kalpavalli syadyatha 'manikya-vallika'. mukhasandhi-pratimukhasandhi-nirvahanair yuta. udatta-varnanotkarsa lalitodatta-nayaka. Kalpavalli is having the rasa and bhava concerning srngara and hasya. The hero is a dignified person (udatta). Pithamarda is the assistant or friend of the nayaka. The heroine is either a vasaka-sajja type or an abhisarika. This art-form is graced by dvipadi, khanda-gita, rathya and vasaka tempos, three types of laya (rhythm), and ten types of lasya. The illustration is "Manikya-Vallika". It has mukha, pratimukha and nirvahana junctures. It has lofty descriptions and the hero is udatta and lalita also.. Parijataka (B.P. IX. 56, pp. 393, ibid) is yet another art-form not read in Bhoja. It is defined as - parijata-lataikankamukha-nirvahananvita, varna-matra-khanda-tala-vati, 959 gatha-samanvita. vira-srngara-bhuyistha deva-ksatra"di-nayaka, kalahantaritavastha nayikodatta-nayaka. athava bhogini-sviya For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #405
960 ganika-nayika'nvita, tah syur astau catasrah syur danda-rasaka-nartanah. sapasaratraya citra katha-geya-samanvita, kvacid vidusaka-kridaparihasa-manohara. parijatalata seyam yatha ganga-tarangika, parijatakam ityeva kaiscid esa'bhidhiyate." 'Parijata-lata' is having a single act, and mukha and nirvahana junctures. It is having varna, matra, khanda-tala and gatha (metre). The rasas are vira and srngara. The heroes are gods or ksatriya. The heroine is a kalahantarita type, the hero is udatta person, or the nayika is either a bhogini, sviya (= one's own wife), or a ganika i.e. a harlot. There are four or eight dancers with danda. There are three types of apasara, a pleasant story and song in it. At times it is rendered charming by the activity or talks of vidusaka. This is called parijata-lata, the illustration being "ganga-tarangika". Some call it "parijataka" also. SAHRDAYALOKA Dr. Raghavan (pp. 571, ibid) observes: "Regarding the sallapa, we know it is mentioned as one of the ten types derived from nataka and prakarana, in the prologue to the Bhagavadajjukiya (7th Cen. A.D.). The ullopya is known to us as the name of a Marga music composition which is mentioned in ancient music treatises, in Yajnavalkya smrti, in the music sections in the vayu, Markandeya and Visnudharmottara puranas, and in Bharata, along with other compositions of a similar nature, Aporantaka, Madraka, Ovenaka, Rovindaka, etc. It is from Saradatanaya, and Sagaranandin, who also mentions the ullopyaka as an uparupaka, that Visvanatha gives it in his Sahitya - darpana under Uparupakas." We may add that the mention from Bhagavadajjukiya need not be taken seriously as it is a prahasana wherein characters are given to put things in a light, cross and humerous way. As for the other evidences concerning ullopyaka taking it as a marga music composition, etc. we may add that this strengthens ullopyaka's position as an uparupaka, as all upa-rupakas by nature have less of acting and an excess of dance and music. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #406
Classification of Poetry 961 Now we turn to Sagaranandin's NLRK., which we have taken as posterior to BP. and anterior to the SD. of Visvanatha. The NLRK. mentions all varieties of Uparupakas as read in the B.P. accepting dombi, kalpavalli, mallika and parijataka. Sagaranandin gives illustrations for all types. He seems to give a short summary of BP. We have taken comparative notes of all the varieties at end when we discussed Bhoja's types. The SD. of Visvanatha has over and above natika and trotaka, gosthi, sattakam, natya-rasakam, prasthanakam, rasakam, samlapakam, srigaditam, silpakam, vilasika, durmallika, prakaranika, hallisa and bhanika. It is clear that V. has sought major inspiration from Sr. Pra., B.P. and NLRK. He takes natika, totaka and sattaka as uparupakas (S.D. VI. 269-276). He also mentions prakaranika, perhaps under the influence of N.D. Following NLRK. and also B.P., he takes them as dramatic compositions also by describing their sandhis, vrttis, anka etc. The original inspiration for taking these uparupakas which are primarilly dance-forms, as drama also, seems to have been supplied by the long discussion on their true nature in the A.bh. itself. V. also takes rasaka, natyarasaka and hallisa also as drama, though they are primarily dance forms. The prenkhana, which will be looked into further later, seems to be just the prenkhanaka of earlier sources. Vilasika is a new type mentioned by the S.D. we . will take it up later. Dandin's commentator Vadijanghala mentions 'prastara', which Dr. Raghavan suggests, could be a mistake. Perhaps he means 'prasthana'. A new variety called 'pavatika' is also mentioned by him which again Dr. Raghavan feels (pp. 572) to be 'pajjhatika' a prakrta metre which could have given this name to the musical composition. Dr. Raghavan also suggests (pp. 572, ibid) that in Vanmaya-viveka of Cintamani Misra of Orissa (A.D. 1574), some strange names appear along with the rupakas and uparupakas. He feels that the view presented is queer. This writer first gives ten types of rupakas which he calls to be 'natya'. This is followed by ten margas such as natika, prakarani, bhanika, hasika, dima, vyayogini, kala, utsahavati', citra, vicitra and jugupsita. The first six, Prof. Raghavan suggests, are diminutives of nataka, prakarana, bhana, prahasana, dima, and vyayoga. Then Cintamani gives sixteen desya varieties such as sattaka, trotaka, gosthi, vrndaka, silpaka, hallisaka, ullasaka, rasa, srigadita, natya(?), lasaka (?), prastava, lasika, samlapaka, prenkhana, and sambhavya (?). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #407
962 SAHRDAYALOKA It may be noted that Dr. Raghavan finds things to be 'queer' and 'strange' when he finds names of art-forms not mentioned in Bhoja or his predecessors. Like forms of literature, even newer art-forms also were added to the list by later writers as they perhaps witnessed them being presented on the stage in various parts of India, as time rolled on. Dr. Raghavan is ill at ease with Saradatanava when he claims to have witnessed the performance of all the thirty types of art-forms. Why should we doubt Sa.'s integrity. Why should we call the approach of sa. NLRK. S.D., and Vanmaya-viveka as either strange or queer ? Why ? Newer and newer desi types could have envolved in course of time and some of them might have received new names though carrying some traits of an old known art-form. The point is we should remain open and go for a careful historical, critical and exhaustive study of all art-forms recorded or known to-day in various parts of modern India. The ai' from Gujarat also deserves a special notice. Why should we feel shy of recognising various newer forms ? On the other hand we should feel proud of the vast repertoire or reservoir of art in India, both classical and desi. No use getting either alarmed or nervous about the same. We will now discuss the new names as seen in the S.D. and also see what Dr. Raghavan has to note about the same. Prerkhana in the S.D., is - garbhavamaria-rahitam prenkhanam hina-nayakam, a-sutradharam ekankam a-viskambha-pravesakam. - VI. 286. niyuddha-sampheta-yutam sarva-vitti-samasritam, nepathye giyate nandi tatha tatra prarocana. VI. 287 yatha, valivadhah. This means that the 'prenkhana' is having a single act, with no garbha and vimarsa junctures, a hero of a lowly status, is without a sutra-dhara and there is absence of either viskambhaka or pravesaka. It is having individual fight and quarrel among people, and all vsttis. Nandi is sung behind the curtain and so also is prarocana presented from the back of the cartain. 'Valivadhah' is an illustration. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #408
Classification of Poetry 963 Dr. Raghavan feels that this is a misreading for preksana as seen in the BP. and NLRK. The BP. has preksanaka (pp. 385, BP. IX. 30) defined as - "padarthabhinayam yasya lalitanca layanvitam, kurute nartaki yatra so'pi nartanakah punah. lasyam dvidha syacshalikam sama-rathya-samanvitam, sutala-caturasrabhyam yatra kartam pravartate. garbhavamarsa-rahitam sarva-vitti-samanvitam, prabhuta-magadhi-saurasenikam rasa-bhava-yuk. dvisandhiti vadanty etat uttamadhama-nayakam bharatyarabhaci yuktam, kvacit syat tasya satrvati. yatha valivadhakyasca ntsimha-vijayo yatha purna-nepathya-pathair va nandi tasya vidhiyate. kvacid garbhavimarsau stah kvacid vitti-catustayam kvacin nepathya-vakya"dhyam na kadacana sutra-dhit evam preksanakam vidyad yatha tripura-mardanam. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #409
964 SAHRDAYALOKA We have discussed this type fully earlier when we looked into Bhoja's preksanaka (pp. 1532). Vilasika is a new type seen in the S.D. (VI. 301, 302). It is defined as - srngara-bahulaikanka dasa-lasyanga-samyuta vidusaka-vitabhyam ca pithamardena bhusita. - VI. 301, S.D. hina garbha-vimarsabhyam sandhibhyam hinanayaka, svalpa-vstta sunepathya vikhyata sa vilasika. - VI. 302, S.D. kecit tatra vilasika-sthane vinayiketi pathanti. tasyas tu 'durmallikayam antarbhava' ityanye. * This means that for Visvanatha vilasika is having srngara as a predominent rasa. It is having a single act. It has all the ten angas of the lasya. (Thus it is having graceful presentation). It is having vidusaka, vita and pithamarda in it. Garbha and vimarsa sandhis are missing in it and the hero is a lowly born. The theme is meragre, and the costumes are rich. S.D. informs that some name it as vinayika, and some put it under durmallika'. Actually we know that durmallika has four acts with one each devoted to vita, vidusaka, and pithamarda, the fourth according to S.D. is devoted to the activity of a nagaraka or a cultured person. May be vilasika looks like a shorter version, a oneact show, of this durmallika, which shares a number of features read in the former. Vilasavati can also be compared to some description of bhanika in the BP., which has Vinavati as an illustration. We have discussed this earlier. DR. Raghavan (pp. 572, ibid) observes that - "If Sagaranandin made two separate varieties named bhani and bhanika, corresponding evidently to the bhana and bhanika of Saradatanaya and others, Visvanatha gave an altogether new name Vilasika in the place of bhani." But we see that Vilasika is also closer to durmallika in the S.D. Now about siagaka-Singaka-Silpaka siagaka is mentioned by A.bh. in the list of art-forms recognised by the Cirantanas. H. has singaka, so also Vagbhata II has singaka, but Sa., and NLRK. have silpaka, with Visvanatha also going for silpaka. We discuss these art-forms together because may be they are different names of one and the same variety. 1Cu. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #410
Classification of Poetry 965 The Cirantanas as quoted in the A.bh. (pp. 181, Ch. IV. NS. G.O.S. ibid) describe sidgaka as - "sakhyah samaksam bhartur yad uddhatam vittam ucyate, massnam ca kvacid, dhurta-caritam, sidgakas tu sah." sidgaka is one in which before a friend there is description (by nayika) of the uddhata-vitta i.e. rough behaviour or infidelity of the husband. At times there is description of the graceful behaviour also of a dhurta nayaka. Nothing beyond this is given regarding sidgaka. H. has singaka or singataka. 'Singaka' is described as above from the A.bh. In his Viveka (pp. 445, ibid) H. has - "trividho hi geyakavyasya prayogah; masrnah, uddhato misras ca. H. says that in dombik, we have 'sukumaram eva suddham rupam.' This means that the presentation is of the graceful type in dombika. It is said to be forceful or uddhata as in bhanaka such as Nrsimhadicarita-varnana. It is possible H. says that even in graceful some element of forceful also enters. In such a mixed variety-misra form there is difference as to the more or less proportion of - either. Prasthana' has major portion of masrna, and singataka has major portion of uddhata i.e. forceful. H. notices such mixtures in other varieties also. He follows some hints from the Abh. Vagbhata II has singaka defined after H. and follows sidgaka of the Cirantanas in the A.bh. Saradatanaya has silpaka defined as seen earlier. The NLRK. also seems to follow BP. Silpaka in NLRK (pp. 287, ibid) runs as - atha silpakam - brahmana-nayakopetah. yatha kanakavati-madhavah smasanasankulah, anudattopa-nayaka-bhusitah, kaisiki-bharati-sattvaty arabhatiti caturvstti-virajitah, caturanka-bhusitah, sarva-rasa-pujitah. tasya ca saptavimsatir angani. yatha - utkantha, avahittham, prayatnah, grathanam, asamsa, tarkah, samsayah, tapah, udvegah, maugdhyam, alasyam, apratipattih, vilapah, vamyam, anugamanam, vismayah, sadhanam, ucshvasah, camatkarah, sunyatvam, pralobhah, vaisaradyam, samphetah, asvasanam, bodhanam, praharsah, prasastir iti. 'utkantha' is - tatra ramaniya-vastu-visaye abhilasah - i.e. aspiring for a beautiful thing. as in Sakuntala, "suddhanta-durlabham. idam vapur... (sa. I. 15). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #411
966 SAHRDAYALOKA avahittham - is, "prabuddhasya samvaranam avahittham. i.e. concealing that which is revealed. Yatha-vrksavatikavyam - rajanika... etc. ('vrksavatika' is the name of the second act in Puspadutika. prayatnah - anivrttaye yatnah prayatnah, yatha pravrdanke... etc. Prayatna is an extra effort to obtain something. grathanam - anyonya-nirnayotpanna-paricaya-pallavita-vibhramabhiramorthaviseso grathanam, yatha brhad-bakula-vithikayam, etc. (brhad. is the first act of MM.) On account of acquaintance caused by talking to each other or by some decisions (on the part of both) conveying a message by special meaningful gestures full of softness and beauty, is 'grathana' or 'getting locked or glued together.' asamsa - ipsitasya durlabhasya asamsanam asamsa. yatha smasananke, - idam eva tavat prarthaye... etc. Aspiring for something intended, which is very difficult to obtain, is asamsa. As in the smasananka, etc. (This is also from MM.) . tarkah - atma-vicara"dhinorthavagrahas tarkah-yatha nandayanti-samhare (i.e. in the last act of puspadutika) - Tarka means self-observation to examine some fact. Samsayah - kotidvayavalambano'rthah samsayah, yatha viddhasalabhanjikayam... etc. Samsaya or doubt is that fact that is balanced between two alternatives. tapah-anusaya-vicesas tapah, yatha kulapatyanke... Torture is a special type of torment. Udvegah - bandhujana-viyoga-janitaudvegah. Anguish is born of the separation from a near one. maugdhyam - sri-svabhava-viseso maugdhyam - over simplicity is a special quality of a lady's nature. alasya (languidness) - marga"di-kheda-janyah sramah - Fatigue, born of getting tired due to (travelling long) on road, etc apratipattih - pratipatti-mudhata apratipattih yatha kosalange. absence of knowledge or perception is apratipattih. vilapah - soka-samuttham apadi paridevanam vilapah - lamentation i.e. distress born of sorrow or grief is 'vilapa'. vamya - prasadane vyutthanam i.e. behaviour that goes against cheerfulness, is vamya. anugamnam-prasthitasya harsad anuyanam - i.e. going after a master, who has left, with joy. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #412
Classification of Poetry 967 vismayah - akrtartha-darsanodbhavo'rtha-viseso vismayah - when a thing is not accomplished, the resultant mental feeling is 'vismaya'. sadhanam - vyahara-visesah sadhanam - To mention a special process (to acquire something) is sadhana. (= Special instrument to secure something.) ucchvasah - The condition of regaining consciousness by a person who was fainted, is ucshvasa. camatkarah - loka-prasiddha eva. This i.e. absolute astonishment due to something exceptional and it is known in worldly parlance. sunyatvam - is 'vismarana sunyatvam'. It is that mental state caused due to forgetting something. pralobhah - prayojanartham artha'dibhih pralobhanam - i.e. bribing to acquire some intended object. vaisaradyam - atmanah paurusa-pratipadanam. i.e. stating once valour or feat. samphetah - krodhena atikramah i.e. Crossing the boundary due to anger. asvasanam - soka"panodanam - i.e. relieving (someone) from grief. bodhanam - karya-prativacanena pratibodhanam - i.e. to suggest the action to be taken in future. praharsah - ca lokaprasiddhah eva. over-joy is known to all. prasastih - deva-dvija"di-kalyanavadharanam prasastih - i.e. To wish well for gods or brahmins., (i.e. to prey) These angas or features of silpaka are enumerated by sa. also with some difference in name. . Ullapyaka in NLRK is - gitamayam tryankam. asya laksanam - udara-nayakam, ujjvala-vesa"tmakam, bahupusta-pradhanam, divya-caritam, silpakanga-vibhusitam, hasya-karunya-songara-puritam. Sagaranandin expects three acts in ullapyaka, while his mentor Sa. mentions only one act as seen above. NLRK. wants it to be gitamaya i.e. full of music and song. The rest follows Sa. Visvanatha has 'ullapyam' and he follows Sa. and expects only one act. He also quotes the opinion of some (i.e. NLRK) that 'ullapya' has three acts. With this we end our discussion on the classification of poetry from an external or formal point of view. Of course, the ten major types of drama, universally recognised as 'preksya' type of kavya will be discussed later in a separate chapter, suggesting all minute details concerning the plot or theme, structure, character etc. of the drama and the rest. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #413
Chapter XI Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) (Criticism Oriented; - i.e. dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya, citra, or uttama, madhyama, avara - etc.) It has to be clearly understood in the very beginning that, taking into account the available documents, it is Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka, which is the very first of its type in attempting the classification of poetry into what is termed dhvani', 'gunibhuta-vyangya', and 'citra' form purely criticism point of view. Thus any piece of poetry, be it a single independent verse, a muktaka, or a very large composition a prabandha, both in verse and prose such as the mahakavya or a katha or an akhyayira, or a campu etc. can be put under dhvani', or the other two as well. This is classification based purely on criticism and that too from a very very special angle. Looking at oldest available documents, it was Anandavardhana, who was the first to apply the measure of implicit sense, or 'pratiyamana artha', in evaluating and classifying poetry. This approach of evaluating and classifying poetry from the angle of the pratiyamana or implicit sense, was perhaps a movement in poetic criticism. Anandavardhana does not flout or discard classification of poetry from the angle of external form such as gadya or prose, padya or verse, or mixed, and also 'that which is to be presented on the stage, i.e. preksya', or otherwise, etc. He accepts all these formal types and mentions a number of them as seen in the earlier chapter. But his implicit-sense-biased thrust is having totally new dimensions and being lucky in having followers such as the great Abhinavagupta, and Vagdevatavatara Mammata, and a host of talented critics of literary aesthetics ending with the greatest viz. PunditarajaJagannatha, Ahandavardhana was successful in establishing, i.e. promoting, a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #414
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 969 new school of thought called the "dhvani school", better acknowledged as "vyanjana-dhvani-rasa" school of thought. It may be observed to his credit that he was not just lucky to have these great minds on his side. But the fact is he is very, very, very sound and convincing till day in his thinking and logic. Thus, he, so to say, added a new dimension in this direction, though of course he does not claim that this thought current was originated with him. On the contrary he claims that this thought-current was as old as hills and has been handed over to him through the ingenious thinking of the ancients. His humility apart, there is more than just a grain of truth also in this. He tries to promulgate this dhvani-oriented thought-current and classification of poetry based on this new angle, first with the establishment of the implicit or pratiyamana sense as something different both in nature and scope from the normally accepted expressed or vacya sense, of course, including the indicated sense, i.e. laksyartha. The whole presentation has made the Dhvanyaloka, an epochmaking work in Indian Literary Aesthetics. It may be noted at the outset, and we will go into the details later that Anandavardhana has not rejected any concept prevelant in literary criticism but has attempted to give a fool-proof all embracing scheme with (rasa"di) dhvani as the 'soul' of poetry i.e. keeping 'dhvani' in the centre, he has accomodated all thought-currents such as alamkara, guna, riti, vrtti, dosa and what not, in his scheme. We will examine this as we proceed later. We know that Anandavardhana took notice of the implicit sense, i.e. the sense not directly expressed in poetry, and also held that this implicit sense is grasped by a separate and independent word-power, sabda-sakti, called vyanjana or suggestion. But prior to him the ancients such as Bhamaha and the like had also noticed and recognised in their own way this element of the un-expressed or implicit sense in poetry but of course, they did not come out openly for vyanjana as a separate and independent word-power for their own reasons. Perhaps they had incorporated the implicit sense in different gunas or excellences, or alamkaras i.e. figures of speech or turns of expression, or in riti or style, vrtti or diction etc. They did not realise the importance of recognising a separate sabda-sakti called vyanjana. We have noticed in the earlier chapters how they not only subsumed the implicit or suggested sense or dhvani in various categories, but also never attempted any independent investigation in the nature of various word-powers. It is Anandavardhana, and following him the great Abhinavagupta and Mammata who try to discuss separately the topic of semantics proper as in their opinion, this implicit sense which they hold higher than the expressed sense from the point of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #415
970 SAHRDAYALOKA view of beauty in poetry, is arrived at through the agency of vyanjana or the wordpower of suggestivity which is separate and independent of abhidha or the wordpower yielding directly expressed sense, and also laksana, yielding the indicated sense. Perhaps the ancients did not do this as the heritage they received from darsanika or philosophical writings, or grammar, did not care to brood over vyanjana. We have seen in earlier chapters how the Mimamsa, Nyaya and Vyakarana disciplines concerned themselves only with abhidh, and laksana. But we have also tried in our own humble way that these philosophers or darsanikas did not take notice of vyanjana and implicit sense, because they had no business to deal with the same. They were out to interpret vedic tenets, sruti, and direct and unambiguous expression was the soul virtue in contention. But we have seen traces of recognition of or consciousness concerning the implicit sense an suggestive power in earliest documents such as the Vedas, and the various disciplines connected with the same. Whatever it may be, but for us, for the present, we begin the talk of 'pratiyamana' sense i.e. implicit sense in poetry or kavya and its apprehension through the agency of vyanjana or suggestive power of the word, only with Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka (Dhv.), so far as available documents are concerned. It is he who has recommended the use of the technical term 'dhvani' or suggested sense which is held to be principal as compared to other possible categories, from the point of view of poetic beauty. We will go to see how he tries to define the same and also classify it. For him this dhvani is of three kinds, i.e. of the form of 'vastu' or suggestion of an idea, theme or matter, 'alamkara' or suggestion of a figure of speech i.e. a turn of expression and 'rasa"di' or suggestion of emotive stuff such as a feeling or a sentiment etc. It may be observed, as we will go to see, that the term 'rasa' has a wider connotation meaning aesthetic delight, which goes beyond emotive stuff only. It has to be clearly understood that this three-fold implicit sense is technically termed 'dhvani' only when it is held as the principal or supreme source of causing poetic beauty. Then, extending the scope of this technical term 'dhvani' further, Anandavardhana holds that the poetry graced by this supreme beauty of dhvani is also termed 'dhvani kavya', irrespective of its external form such as either prose i.e. gadya, or verse i.e. padya or mixed, or that which is written in form of a dramatic piece to be presented on stage. It could be a single verse i.e. sloka or a huge composition-prabandha. Thus, that class of poetry or kavya is termed 'dhvani-kavya' which is having dhvani or suggested sense as the highest or principal source of poetic beauty, or aesthetic experience in general. So, calling a given piece of poetry by the name 'dhvani' is a criticism based approach, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #416
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 971 once and for all. All external forms of poetry, either nibaddha, or a-nibaddha, gadya, padya, misra, abhineya, anabhineya, geya or whatever, can be classed as dhvani' from the point of view of criticism, or to be more precise, vyanjana-biased criticism. Anandavardhana is not blind to other possibilities in poetry and is charitable enough to accept other types' or 'class' of poetry called the gunibhuta-vyangya or poetry of subordinated suggestion and also 'citra-kavya', a type where this suggested element is either negligible or of no value, or is totally absent. But he for himself does not brand these types respectively as 'uttama' or the best or highest type of poetry, 'madhyama' or second-rate poetry and 'adhama' of the lowest i.e. third-rate poetry. It is Mammata who makes bold to make these terms current and his posterity accepted this terminology without question. However, the basic fact remains that classification of poetry into 'dhvani', 'gunibhutavyangya', and 'citra', or 'uttama (even futtarnottama' with Jagannatha), 'madhyama' and 'avara' is absolutely criticism based, is vyanjana-biased and is irrespective of its external form or size. We humbly believe that the oldest available, and therefore to be taken as first written document on Dhvani, is the 'Dhvanyaloka' which is a composite unit in itself written by a single author, the great Anandavardhana, who wrote down the karikas, the vstti or gloss and also adorned his arguments by apt quotations from the vast poetic literature spread before him in the form of works of the great poets viz. Vyasa, Valmiki, Kalidasa, Bana, and scores and scores of others who have engrammed their names in golden letters in the history of Sanskrit poetry. Of course, some scholars are of the opinion that the karikas were authored by some unknown person, and had come down to Anandavardhana as an oral legacy and that the latter wrote only the vstti portion or gloss. But we have absolutely no faith in such useless talks. For us the whole work known as the Dhvanyaloka or Kavyaloka is a single composite unit written by only Anandavardhana. We follow in this regard the lead of Prof. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, D. R. Mankad, and the rest. We believe that this theory of single authoriship receives strength not only from various observations in the A.bh., as pointed out by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, but also from the tradition current among literary critics in Sanskrit who unequivocally declare Anandavardhana to be "The dhvanikara", and also from a quotation from the Locana of Abhinavagupta who observes that this tradition of dhvani was handed over to posterity only orally without being put in a book form. So, the Dhv. is the first composite unit of its type written by Anandavardhana himself, who is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #417
972 SAHRDAYALOKA also the 'joy' or 'ananda' of the connoesseurs. He observes: (Locana, Dhv. I. i.): "a-vicchinnena pravahena tair etad uktam vina'pi visista-pustakesu vinivesanad ity abhiprayah." Thus no book - even in form of written karikas or collection of the same was known to Abhinavagupta. Only thought-currents travelled from centuries to centuries. Thoughts and thoughts only, in whatever from, but that of anything concrete. There is yet another observation to this effect. The Locanakara observes: "ananda iti ca granthakrto nama. tena sa anandavardhana"carya etac chastrena sahrdaya-hrdayesu pratistham devatayatana"divad anasvarim sthitim gacchatu iti bhavah." (on Dhv. I. i.). This is in explanation of the author's i.e. Anandavardhana's veiled claim of having authored the whole of the Dhv. in the words : "tasya hi dhvaneh svarupam, sakala-kavi-kavyopanisadbhutam, ati-ramaniyam, aniyasibhir api cirantana-kavya-laksana- vidhayinam buddhibhir an-unmilitapurvam, atha ca, ramayana-mahabharata-prabhrtini laksye prasiddhavyavaharam laksayatam sahrdayanam anando manasi labhatam pratistham iti prakasyate." (vrtti, on Dhv. 1. 1.) But, it should be noted that before A. (= Anandavardhana) put his golden heritage of literary criticism on a sound and irrevokable footing, in a book-form, in form of a theory to be accepted and followed by a host of rare intellectuals spread over centuries, he also could make out some dissenting voice, some resistence or opposition to this new theory of dhvani and he voices the same in the very first karika of his famous work. A. observes : kavyasya"tma dhvanir iti budhair yah samamnata-purvas, tasya'bhavam jagadur apare, bhaktam ahus tam anye, kecid vacam sthitam avisaye tattvam ucus tadiyam tena brumah, sahrdaya-manah pritaye, tat svarupam." (Dhv. I. i.) "Though the learned men of yore have declared time and again that the soul of poetry is suggestion, some would aver its non-existence, some would regard it as something (logically) implied and some others would speak, of its essence as lying beyond the scope of words. We propose, therefore, to explain is nature and bring delight to the hearts of perceptive critics." (Trans. K. Krish.) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #418
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 973 The learned men, meaning those who know the truth about poetry, have taught, through an unbroken tradition, that the soul, i.e. essence of poetry has been named 'dhvani' i.e. suggestion. This they have confirmed by an all round examination and then declared as such. But although it is felt so by cultured critics in their minds, there are others who affirmed the non-existence of dhvani. These are the different views of the non-believers in Dhvani. We will examine this dhvanivirodha or views of anti-dhvani theorists later in a separate chapter, but for the present we attempt to explain the form and varieties of dhvani as laid out by A. After suggesting the opposition to the concept of dhvani, A. (= Anandavardhana) observes : "tena evamvidhasu vimatisu sthitasu, sahrdayamanah pritaye tat-svarupam brumah." "In view of the prevalence of so many conflicting opinions, we propose to elucidate the nature of suggestion for the delight of the perceptive critics." (Trans. K. Krish. pp. 7, ibid) A. observes : (Dhv. I. i.; vitti) - "tasya hi dhvaneh svarupam sakala-kavikavyopanisad-bhutam, ati-ramaniyam aniyasibhir api cirantana-kavya-laksanavidhayinam buddhibhir anunmilitapurvam, athaca ramayana-mahabharataprabhitini laksye sarvatra prasiddha-vyavaharam laksayatam sahtdayanam anando manasi labhatam pratistham iti prakasyate." - i.e. "Suggestion itself is both the quintessence of the works of all first-rate poets and the most beautiful principle of poetry though it remained unnoticed even by the subtlest of the rhetoritions of the past. However, refined critics are certainly alive to its primary presence in literary works like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata; and with a view to placing their delight on a secure footing, we shall explain its nature (in detail)." (Trans. K. Kris.; p. 7, ibid) For preparing the base or ground work for his theory, A. (Dhv. I. 2. 3. 4 & 5) observes that, "That meaning which wins the admiration of refined critics is decided to be the soul of poetry. The 'explicit' and the 'implicit' are regarded as its two aspects. (Dhv. I. 2) (Trans. K. Krish., p. 7, ibid) "Of these, the explicit is commonly known and it has been already set forth in many ways through figures of speech such as the simile by other writers, hence it is not to be discussed here at length." (Dhv. I. 3, pp. 7, ibid) "But the implicit aspect is quite different from this. In the words of the first-rate poets it shines supreme and towers above the beauty of the striking external constituents even as charm in ladies." (Dhv. I. 4. pp. 7, ibid) "That meaning alone is the soul of poetry; and so it was that, of yore, the sorrow For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #419
974 SAHRDAYALOKA of the first poet (i.e. Valmiki) at the separation of the curlew couple took the form of a distich." (Dhv. I. 5. pp. 13, ibid) (Trans. K. Kris.) Whild elaborating this in his vitti on the above karikas, A. observes that the meaning which wins the admiration of perceptive critics or men of taste, and which is of the very essence of poetry has two aspects, viz. the explicit or external and the implicit or internal. The implicit aspect, which is quite different from the explicit, is found in the words of great first-rate poets. It is closer to the minds of the cultured critics and it shines forth as being over and above the, 'striking external constituents', which includes not only the element adorned with or of the form of figures of speech, but also that which is 'perceptible to senses'. Charm in the ladies is the simile in point. Just as this charm exeeds the beauty of all the individual limbs observed separately, and delights like ambrosia, the eye of the admirer in a most unique fashion, so also does this meaning having various divisions such as bare idea (vastumatra), figures and sentiments. In all these varieties it will be shown as differing from the explicit --"sa hyartho vacya-samarthy a"ksiptam vastumatram alamkara rasa"dayas ca ity anekaprabhedaprabhinno darsayisyate. sarvesu ca tesu prakaresu tasya vacyad anyatvam." (vrtti. on Dhy. I. 4). Dr. K. Kris. translates "rasa" as "sentiment" only. But for us it is more than just that. It is "total aesthetic experience" also. The vastu-rupa-vyangya or suggestion in form of an idea is different from the expressed in the sense that at times when the expressed is of the positive nature, i.e. vidhi, the suggested takes the form of a negative nature or prohibition as in case of the verse such as, "bhrama dharmika", etc. At times when the expressed is prohibitary the suggested is positive e.g. in, "svasrur atra sete", etc. At times the expressed is of the form of vidhi i.e. a positive proposal, the implicit is neither positive now negative in nature, as in, "vraja, mama eva ekasyah." etc. or, at times when the expressed is a prohibitive proposal, the implicit is neither positive nor prohibitive (i.e. an-ubhaya), as in, "prarthaye tavat prasida." etc. At times, the implicit is related to something entirely different from that to which the explicit is related as in case of, "kasya va na bhavati." etc. A. observes that besides these there are various other forms in which the varieties of the implicit appear distinct from the explicit : "anye ca evamprakarah vacyad vibhedinah pratiyamanabhedah sambhavanti." (vrtti., Dhy. I. 4). Only some of them have been illustrated here. Bhoja and following him H.C., illustrate other possibilities also. Then A. observes that the next variety, viz. the suggested figure, also differs from the explicit sense. But this he says, will be discussed later. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #420
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 975 But the third variety of the implicit viz. the sentiments etc., shines forth due to the latent power in the expressed : "tltiyas tu rasa"di-laksanah prabhedo vacyavyapara-visaya iti vacyad vibhinna eva" (vrtti, Dhv. I. iv). Thus, this variety of the implicit viz. rasa"di, never becomes an object of direct verbal denotation and hence it is necessarily distinct from the explicit or expressed. Before we proceed to examine how A. explains this point, we will pay attention to what the Locanakara i.e. Abhinavagupta has to say. He observes (Locana, Dhv. I. iv) that the implicit sense is primarily two-fold such as "laukika" i.e. that which is also met with in ordinary parlance, and the other one, "which is exclusively the object of poetic effort." Out of these two, the first, viz. the 'laukika' is, at times, also conveyed by placing its own name, i.e. it be comes sva-sabda-vacya, i.e. it is capable of being denoted by its proper name. It is manifold, taking the form of 'vidhi' or positive proposal, or 'nisedha' i.e. prohibition etc., and is termed 'vastu' or 'idea'. This 'laukika pratiyamana' is two-fold such as (i) that which formerly in a given sentence sense has enjoyed the status of a figure of speech such as a 'simile' or upam, and the like, but for the present (being principally implied or suggested) not being subservient to anything else has lost its status of (an expressed) figure of speech, but as it was formerly designated as a figure, is now termed as 'alamkaradhvani' or (principally) suggested figure of speech, on the analogy of the "brahmana-sramana-nyaya". (ii) the second as noted above is a bare 'idea' or vastu. Thus 'laukika pratiyamana' is fully explained. The other suggested sense viz. 'alaukika', is such that it can not ever be conveyed by its own proper name, even in a dream, and is certainly not an object of worldly context. This type of suggested sense is an object only of the poetic function. Its nature is of the highest divine bliss. The fact is that all individuals have the emotions such as 'rati' and the like engramed in their conscience from times immemorial. When they see something being enacted on the stage, or listen (or read) certain words in poetry, they experience in their hearts such vibhava"dis i.e. ants, consequents and ancillary feelings, that being congenial to their taste and mental attitude, look beautiful and cause to arise their emotions such as 'rati' and the like which are there in the heart as permanent latent impressions. At this moment, the connoisseur has a feeling of divine bliss. This experience of divine bliss is termed 'rasa', i.e. frasa"di-dhvani'. Pratically, says Abhinavagupta, in reality only this variety viz. rasa"di-dhvani is "dhvani" proper, in the real sense, and only this is the "soul" of poetry (or any art in general), and the other two, viz. vastudhvani and alamkara-dhvani ultimately terminate into rasa-dhvani, which alone is therefore, the 'soul of poetry. Locana (on Dhv. I. iv) reads as : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #421
SAHRDAYALOKA "tatra pratiyamanasya tavad dvau bhedau; laukikah, kavya-vyaparaika-gocaras ca, iti. laukiko yah sva-sabda-vacyatam kadacid adhisete, sa ca vidhi-nisedha"dy aneka-prakaro vastu-sabdenocyate. so'pi dvividhah. yah purvam kva'pi vakyarthe alamkarabhavam upama"di-rupatam anvabhut, idanim tv analamkararupa eva, anyatra gunibhavabhavat. sa purva-pratyabijnana-balad alamkara-dhvanir iti vyapadisyate, brahmanasramana-nyayena. tad rupata'bhavena tupalaksitam vastumatram ucyate. matragrahanena hi rupantaram nirakrtam. yas tu svapne'pi na sva-sabda-vacyo na laukika-vyavahara-patitah kintu sabda-samrpamanahrdaya-samvada-sundara-vibhavanubhava-samucita-pragvinivista-ratya"divasananuraga-sukumara-sva-samvid-ananda-carvana-vyapara-rasaniya-rupo rasah, sa kavyavyaparaikagocaro rasa"dhvanir iti, sa ca dvanir eva iti, sa eva mukhyataya atma iti." 976 That this 'rasa"di' dhvani is absolutely different is explained by A. as follows "It never becomes an object of direct verbal denotation and hence it is decidedly distinct from the explicit. If at all, it could be an object of the explicit, it might be so alleged either as being directly denoted by its proper names or as being denoted through the delineation of characters in a setting, etc. If the first alternative were true, there would be no possibility of an experience of sentiments etc., in instances where their proper names are not employed. Never are they so denoted directly by their proper names. Even when proper names are present, the experience of sentiments etc., is not due to them but only due to delineation of characters in a proper setting etc. The experience of sentiments etc. is only given a designation by the proper name, is not at all conditioned by it. In fact we do not have the experience (of sentiments etc.) in all the instances where proper names are used. Indeed, there is not even the slightest experience of the presence of sentiments in a composition which contains only their proper names such as the Erotic and which is destitute of all delineation of the characters in a setting and so forth. Since we can have the experience of sentiments etc. only through the characters in a setting etc. irrespective of their proper names, and since we cannot have the experience only by the use of proper names, we may conclude on the basis of these considerations, both positive and negative, that sentiments etc. are only implied by the latent power of the explicit and in no way denoted explicitly. Thus it is established that even the third class of the implicit meaning is quite distinct from the explicit. It will be shown in sequel, however, that its experience will appear to be almost simultaneous with the explicit." (Vrtti, on Dha. I. IV; Trans. K. Krish. pp. 11, 13, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only :

Page #422
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 977 . places We may add that even by taking the proper names also, if we had the experience of rasa, then in that case we could have experienced all the eight sentiments, when we recited the famous karika of Bharata enumerating the eight sentiments, such as : "songara-vira-karuna." etc. But this is not so. It may be noted that in these three varieties of dhvani i.e. implicit sense, it is only the 'rasa"di' type which is the 'soul of poetry, though theoretically A. all the three on a par. A. suggests that only rasa"di-dhvani is the 'soul of poetry in the real sense when at Dhv. I.V. he suggests that in Ramayana of Adi kavi Valmiki, it is the 'soka' born of the separation of the curlew couple which is principle in form of karuna rasa. It is only the karuna-rasa which is principally suggested in Ramayana and thus only that is the object of the whole composition. It may be noted here that in this famous karika (i.e. Dhv. I.V) we do not have to construe "Valmikeh sokah", but we have to take it as "generalized soka has become the object of Valmiki's sloka, i.e. composition. - sokah valmikeh sokatvam agatah." - A. observes that though the implicit is having three forms, the illustration of Ramayana is cited only to bring home a point that in fact, virtually, it alone (i.e. asa"di alone) is the principal variety. By mentioning 'rasa-bhava"di', explains the Locanakara, A. here includes all varieties such as rasa"bhasa, bhava"bhasa, bhavodaya, bhava-samdhi, bhava-sabalata, bhava-prasama etc. Read A. : (vitti, Dhv. I. 5) : pratiyamanasya ca anyabheda-darsanepi rasabhava-mukhena eva upalaksanam; pradhanyat." On this read Locana : "tena rasa eva vastutah atma. vastvalamkara-dhvani tu sarvatha rasam prati paryavasyete iti vacyad utkrstau tav ity abhiprayena "dhvanih kavyasya atma iti samanyena uktih" ... etc. It may be noted that Abhinavagupta is exactly echoing A.'s views. He is not adding anything of his own when he observes as above that in reality rasa-dhvani alone should be considered as the 'soul of poetry. This is borne out by observations from the Dhv. at a number of places as we will be pointing out from time to time. But for the present we quote from vrtti, on Dhv. I. 6. A. observes : "pratiyamanasya ca anyabheda-darsanepi rasa-bhava-mukhena eva upalaksanam, pradhanyat." Though one can discern other sub-species of the implicit, they can all be understood by the synecdoche of sentiments and emotions since these happen to be the most important representatives of the rest." Abhinavagupta further observes (on Dhv. I. 6) : "evam itihasa-mukhena pratiyamanasya kavya"tmatam pradarsya, sva-samvit-siddham apy etad iti darsayati - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #423
SAHRDAYALOKA "Thus after establishing that the implicit is the soul of poetry by referring to a historic (factual) illustration (such as the Ramayana), now the author, (i.e. A.) shows that it is self-evident also." A. here observes at Dhv. I. 6: "sarasvati svadu tad artha-vastu nisyandamana mahatam kavinam, aloka-samanyam abhivyanakti cira-sphurantam pratibha-visesam." "The speech of the first-rate poets streaming forth that sweet content reveals clearly their extra ordinary genius, which is as unearthly as it is ever bright." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 15, ibid) 978 "The speech of first-rate poets which streams forth such subjects as are full of the said meaning will reveal most clearly the extraordinary genius of the poets; a genius which not only appears unearthly but also ever bright. Hence it is that though the world of traditionally accepted poets is wide and varied, only two or three, or at the most five or six amongst them such as Kalidasa, are counted as firstrate poets." (Trans. K. Kris. p. 15, ibid, vrtti on Dhv. I. 6) One more evidence to prove the existence of the implicit sense is given by A. at Dhv. I. 7 in which he observes that this fact of implicit sense is not understood merely by knowing grammar and dictionary alone. But it is understood only by those who have an insight into the true significance of poetry. By mere learning the rules of grammar and meanings shown in the lexicons, that implicit sense cannot be grasped. Only those who have a real insight into the true significance of poetry will be able to grasp the same. In case this implicit sense too were the same as the expressed or explicit sense, then merely by the knowledge of grammar and lexicon, and through it by the knowledge of the explicit, one and all could have been able to fix the implicit also. But the fact is that this implicit sense remains beyond the grasp of those who have mastery only on grammer and lexicon, i.e. on the science of meanings and words alone, but who are averse to aesthetic contemplation ("vacya-vacaka-laksana-matra-krta-sramanam, kavyatattvartha-bhavana-vimukhanam" - vrtti, Dhv. I. 7, pp. 14, ibid) - of intrinsic significance of poetry. This is like the fact that true appreciation of notes and tones of music remains beyond the reach of scholars in the science of music, if they are themselves not good musicians. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #424
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 979 Thus, after establishing the separate and independent existence of the implicit sense in poetry, A. comes to establish that only this implicit sense alone is, be, principle (source of charm) in poetry. He observes at Dhv. I. 8 : evam vacya-vyatirekino vyangyasya sadbhavam pratipadya pradhanyam tasya eva iti darsayati - sorthas tadvyakti-samarthya-yogi sabdas ca kascana, yatnatah pratyabhijnyau tau sabdarthau mahakaveh." sa vyangyorthah tad-vyakti-samarthya-yogi sabdas ca kascana, na sarvah, tav eva sabdarthau mahakaveh pratyabhijneyau. vyangya-vyanjakabhyam eva hi suprayuktabhyam mahakavitva-labho mahakavinam, na vacya-vacaka-rac matrena." "Thus after establishing the existence of the implicit meaning as distinct from the explicit, the over-riding superiority of that meaning is demonstrated in what follows : That meaning, and that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it, - only these two deserve the careful scrutiny of a first-rate poet. (I. 8) 'that meaning' refers to the implicit and 'that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it points out that it is not any and every word (recorded in the dictionary). Such a word and such a meaning, only these two, deserve the careful recognition of a first-rate poet. The status of first-rate poets is achieved only by the effective employment of suggested meanings and suggestive expressions and not by a mere use of conventional meanings and conventional words." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 15, 17, ibid) A. of course is careful to add that eventhough the relation of the suggestedsuggestor is of prime importance, the poet, to begin with, directs his efforts to the expressed and the expressor, i.e. conventional meaning and conventional word. This is explained by an analogy. Just as a man in quest of light for perception of objects, first takes care to secure a lamp, in the same way, a poet having regard for and ultimate interest in the suggested sense, first directs his efforts towards the conventional meaning. A. (Dhv. I. 10) suggests that just as the purport of a sentence is collected through the meaning of its individual components i.e. words in a sentence, similarly, the apprehension of that (= suggested) sense follows the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #425
980 SAHRDAYALOKA same of the conventional sense, i.e. the directly expressed sense. The vyangyarthapratiti' is necessarily, "vacyartha-pratiti-purvika". At the same time A. adds a warning that though the apprehension of the expressed sense necessarily preceeds the same of the suggested sense, the principal status lies with the latter, i.e. the apprehension of the suggested sense only. "A. observes (vrtti, prior to Dhv. I. 11) : "idanim vacyarthapratiti-purvakatvepi tat-pratiter vyangyasya arthasya pradhanyam yatha na vyalupyate tatha darsayati : sva-samarthya-vasenaiva vakyartham prathayann api, yatha vyapara-nispattau padartho na vibhavyate (Dhy. I. 11) yatha sva-samarthya-vasenaiva vakyartham prakasayannapi padartho vyapara-nispattau na vibhavyate vibhaktataya - "tadvat sacetasam sortho vacyartha-vimukhatmanam, buddhau tattvartha-darsinyam jhatity evavabhasate." (Dhy. I. 12) "Now, even though the knowledge of the suggested sense is thus invariably preceded by a knowledge of the conventional sense, it is shown below how its importance does not grow less on that account : Though by its own power the word-import is responsible for conveying the sentence-import, just as it escapes notice once its purpose is served (Dhv. I. 11). While it is true that word-import itself conveys sentence-import through its own power, just as it does not at the same time appear as distinct from the sentence. import once this latter has been conveyed : so also, that suggested meaning flashes suddenly across the truth-perceiving minds of perceptive critics, when they turn away from the literal meaning. (Dhv. I. 12) (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 17-19, ibid) Now this is a very interesting situation. We know that technically A. accepts the position of "gunibhuta-vyangya" i.e. 'subordinated suggestion', but his inner bias towards the supremacy of the suggested meaning, of course as a source of ultimate poetic charm, is very much clear in such utterances. Elsewhere this gunibhuta vyangya i.e. the suggested content being subordinated to the expressed i.e. vacya For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #426
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) content is compared to a king joining the vara-yatra or bridegroom's procession. Here of course the bridegroom is no doubt most important from the contextual point of view, because it is he who is going to marry the bride, but the king who has joined this procession of a bridegroom who happens to be the son of His Majesty's minister or any other senior officer, is virtually the centre of attraction and even the bridegroom's importance sky-rockets because the king, as a guest, has chosen to follow him. This shows that in the heart of his heart A.'s preference lies with the suggested sense, in any context. It is precisely this vyangya-biased attitude which has prompted his arch rival Mahima to reject the category of the so called gunibhuta-vyangya and accept the supremacy only of the 'other' sense, i.e. 'anumeya' for him, in place of A's 'vyangya'. This our observation deserves special notice of the learned. In the third Udyota, of course, A. improves upon this analogy of padarthavakyartha-nyaya between vacya-vyangya, and instead, projects the "ghatapradeepa-nyaya". This is guided by the consideration of saving vyanjana being branded only as laksana, wherein there is clear mukhyartha-badha. In vyanjana, especially rasadi-vyanjana, the vacya-pratiti is not totally efaced. Actually the two apprehensions co-exist. Thus, after establishing the existence of the suggested meaning which is superior to i.e. more charming than the expressed or conventional sense to his satisfaction, A. proceeds to define this principal suggested sense (i.e. the sense which is the principal source of poetic charm) in poetry at Dhv. I. 13: A. observes : 981 "yatrarthah sabdo va tam artham upa-sarjanikrta-svarthau vyanktah, kavyavisesah sa dhvanir iti suribhih kathitah." "That kind of poetry, wherein the (conventional) meaning renders itself secondary or the (conventional) word renders its meaning secondary and suggests the (intended or) implied meaning, is designated by the learned as 'Dhvani' or 'Suggestive poetry." (Trans. K. Kris. p. 19, ibid) This definition is applicable simultaneously to both the principally suggested sense in poetry, as well as that type of poetry which is having suggested sense as the principal (source of charm). He observes that by this definition it is shown how For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #427
982 SAHRDAYALOKA the province of suggestive poetry is absolutely different from that of the sources of charm to explicit or expressed sense, such as the figure simile i.e. upama, on the one hand, and from that of the sources of charm in distinctive sound such as the figure 'anuprasa' or alliteration on the other : "yatrartho vacya-visesah, vacakavisesah sabdo va tam artham vyanktah sa kavya-viseso dhvanir iti. anena vacyavacaka-carutva-hetubhyah upama"dibhyah anuprasa"dibhyas ca vibhakta eva dhvaner visaya iti darsitam." (vrtti, on Dhv. I. 13) Abhinavagupta observes in his Locana (on Dhv. I. 13) here that by the dual form "vyanktah", it is suggested that, be it that dhvani is either 'sabda-sakti-mulaka' or 'artha-sakti-mulaka', but in either case, virtually there is instrumentality of both word and sense together in bringing about the intended suggestion. (Thus the use of dual form is justified). So, as seen earlier in vyanjanavirodha, the objection raised by Mahima is utterly baseless. But Abhinavagupta's remark is certainly directed against Bhatta Nayaka (perhaps in his Hrdaya-darpana) who was followed in this regard by Mahima - "yad bhattanayakena dvi-vacanam dusitam tad gajanimilikaya eva." (Locana, on Dhv. I. 13) After this A. takes up the refutation of those who did not accept the existence of dhvani i.e. those who were dhvany-abhava-vadins. We will take this up separately later. But for the present we continue with his further observation. A. says that by "suribhih kathitah" is meant that dhvani has been established or discussed by the learned. It is not established in a haphazard way therefore it is intended that this principle is reliable. A. observes the grammarians are the first among the learned. They refer to articulate letters by the term 'dhvani' or 'suggester'. In the same way, the element of suggestion being common (to both), the same designation, viz. 'dhvani' is given to word, meaning, the essential verbal power, and also poetry which contains all these (vrtti, on Dhv. I. 13) - "prathame hi vidvamso vaiyakaranah, vyakarana-mulatvat sarva-vidyanam. te ca sruyamanesu varnesu dhvanir iti vyavaharanti. tathaivanyais tanmatanusaribhih suribhih kavyatattvartha-darsibhih vacya-vacaka-sammisrah sabdatma kavyam iti vyapadesyo vyanjakatva-samyad dhvanir ity uktah." Abhinavagupta (Locana, Dhv. I. 13) reads as follows: "asmabhir api prasiddhebhyah sabda-vyaparebhyah abhidha-tatparya-laksana-rupebhyah atiriktah vyaparah dhvanir ity uktah. evam catuskam api dhvanih. tad yogac ca samastam api kavyam dhvanih. tena vyatireka-vyatireka-vyapadesopi na na yuktah, vacyavacaka-sammisra iti. vacya-vacaka-sahitah sammisra iti madhyamapadalopi samasah. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #428
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 983 'gam asvam purusam pasum' iti vat samuccayotra, ca-karena vina'pi. tena vacyopi dhvanih, vacakopi sabdo dhvanih, dvayor api vyanjakatvam dhvanati' iti krtva. sabdanam sabdah, sabda-vyaparah, na casau abhidhadi-rupah api tu atma-bhutah, sopi dhvananam dhvanih, kavyam iti vyapadesyas ca yorthah, sopi dhvanih. ukta-prakara-catustayamayatvat; ata eva sadharanahetum aha - vyanjakarvasamyad iti. vyangya-vyanjakabhavah sarvesu paksesu samanyarupah sadharana ity arthah." A. further observes that a treatment, then, of such a wider or comprehensive concept as suggestion, with all its divisions and sub-divisions which are yet to be explained in the sequel, is certainly not at all on a par with the enumeration of the well known, specific figures of speech, and hence the enthusiasm of persons imbued in their minds with the value of suggestion is quite proper. Nobody should display jealousy to show that they are all men of deranged minds. Thus it is not proper to subsume dhvani under either an alamkara or a guna. The effort of those who seek to establish the same is absolutely in the right direction. Thus dhvani does exist and is basically two-fold, viz. avivaksita-vacya and vivaksitanyapara-vacya i.e. (i) with un-intended literal sense and (ii) with intended but further-extending literal import. Thus after first establishing dhvani as a principal and separate entity by advancing logical arguments, A. in the second and third udyotas, discusses all related topics also. We will look into the divisions and sub-divisions of dhvani later. But it may be noted beforehand that A. thought of a fool-proof scheme of "vyanjana-dhvani-rasa" which was catholic or broad enough to correlate the concepts such as gunas or excellences, alamkaras or figures i.e. turns of speech, riti or style, vrtti or diction, dosa or poetic blemishes, samghatana or texture etc. as advanced by earlier alamkarikas. He correlated all these concepts with the central concept of rasa-dhvani. Gunas were the 'dharma' or attributes of rasa-the soul, and alamkaras and the rest as the suggesters of rasa secure their birth. Here lies the real greatness of the Dhv. This all-encompassing scheme of 'vyanjana-dhvani-rasa' which, as A. records was promulgated since times immemorial but received a full support from him, was strongly established by A.'s great followers such as Abhinavagupta, Mammata and then the great writers such as Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha, Visvanatha, Appayya Dixit and Jagannatha. But prior to A's efforts and after A.'s efforts this thought current of vyanjan.-dhvani had to face stiff opposition, by a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #429
984 SAHKDAYALOKA number of unknown writers and though the concept of 'rasa' was acceptable to one and all, the concepts of dhvani and especially vyanjana were challanged by such great names as Kuntaka, Dhananjaya. Dhanika, and Mahima, who followed the lead of Mukula and Bhatta Nayaka. Of course Kuntaka could be labelled as a "pracchanna-dhvani-vadin", but Mahima was the greatest challanger whose iration perhaps came from both Sri Sankuka and also Bhatta Nayaka who drafted his "Hrdaya-darpana" with "dhvani-dhvamsa" - demolition of dhvani-t being his sole target. Then we also come across such opponents as recorded in the Locana and the K.P. of Mammata, viz. the dirgha-dirghatara-vyapara-vadin mimamsakas, the laksanavadins or bhaktivadins etc. We have taken care of these under vyanjana-virodha, for their thrust was greater against vyanjana, then against the implicit sense or 'pratiyamana artha' as such. We will take care of pure dhvani virodha as recorded in the Dhv. I. later, in a separate chapter but for the present, as noted above, we proceed with the divisions and sub-divisions or types or varieties and sub-varieties of dhvani' proper. Dhvani-prabheda : Actually this topic of the varieties of dhvani is absolutely congruent with the three-fold criticism-based classification of poetry into dhvani, gunibhutavangya and citra, or in the words of Mammata, uttama, madhyama and avara.' In the second udyota of the Dhv., the sub-divisions are enumerated from the point of view of 'vyangya' i.e. suggested sense, and in the third udyota there is enumeration of the types of dhvani from the point of view of 'vyanjaka' or suggester. We will calculate the basic divisions here with the help of first, the Locana and then we will compare Locana's scheme with that of Mammata and Visvanatha and then of course Jagannatha. We will also mention other authors of repute in between. We have already noted that basically A. has given a threefold scheme of dhvani, gunibhutavyangya and citra, with reference to the supreme importance of the suggested sense in dhvani, its lesser status as compared to the expressed sense as in gunibhutavyangya and its absence or lack of any importance from the point of poetic charm in 'citra'. This classification of poetry is "criticism oriented", as against the one based on consideration of external form as noted by us. First, we will take up 'dhyani' (kayya) for consideration. A. informs us that in poetry there is what is called the 'implicit' or 'pratiyamana' sense which is different from the explicit or conventional sense, i.e. 'vacya' artha. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #430
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 985 At Dhy. I. 4, he says - "pratiyamanam punar anyad eva vastv asti vaninu mahakavinam, yat-tad-vibhaktavayavatiriktam vibhati lavanyam ivanganasu." i.e. "But the implicit aspect is quite different from this. In the words of first-rate poets it shines supreme and towers above the beauty of the striking external constituents even as charm in ladies." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 7, ibid) This implicit sense is three-fold such as bare idea (or matter), figures and sentiments etc., all implied by the inner power of the explicit : (vitti, on Dhv. I. 4): "sa hyartho vacya-samarthya"ksiptam vastu-matram alamkara rasa"dayasca ity aneka-prabheda-prabhinno darsayisyate. sarvesu ca tesu prakaresu tasya vacyad anyatvam." Now, after showing the importance of the implicit sense in poetry, A. attempts the classification of poetry which is three-fold such as dhvani, guni-bhuta-vyangya and citra, as noted above. This classification has nothing to do with its external form, but is based on the consideration of the implicit sense being the principal source of charm or otherwise. In short, it is criticism based, so to say. All dhvanivadins beginning with Abhinavagupta and Mammata accept this three-fold classification, with Jagannatha bringing a slight variation by making it four-fold, beginning with 'uttamottama', as we will go to see later. To begin with, dhvani-kavya being vyangyartha-pradhana has vyanjana at its root. This vyanjana is either based on abhidha or laksana. Thus dhvani, to begin with is two-fold, (i) abhidhamulaka and laksanamulaka. The first is termed - vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani or suggestion with intended but further extending literal import, and (ii) a-vivaksita-vacya or dhvani with unintended literal import or unintended primary sense. This is laksana-mula-dhvani and is taken up first as it has a limited scope. Normally as abhidha comes first, we would expect that dhvani based on abhidha or primary sense should have been considered first. But all alamkarikas beginning with A., followed by Mammata, and down to Visvanatha, have treated laksanamula-dhvani first as it has a very limited field. The abhidhamala or vivaksitanyaparavacya-dhvani has a very wide field. So on the analogy of "suci For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #431
986 SAHRDAYALOKA kataha-nyaya", the avivaksita-vacya-dhvani-is taken up first for consideration. Thus, observes A. (vstti, Dhv. I. 13) : "asti dhvanih. sa ca asau avivaksitavacyo vivaksitanyapara-vacyas ca iti dvividhah samanyena." The term 'avivaksitavacya' is explained by the Locanakara (on Dhv. I. 13) as follows: sa ca iti - pancadha'pi dhvani-sabdarthe yena, yatra, yato, yasya, yasmai iti bahu-vrihyartha"srayena yathocitam samanadhikaranyam suyojyam. vacyerthe tu dhvanau vacyasabdena sva"tma tena a-vivaksitah apradhanikstah sva"tma yena ityavivaksitavacyo vyanjakorthah. evam vivaksitanyaparavacyepi. yadi va karmadharayena arthapakse avivaksitas ca asau vacyasca iti. vivaksitanyaparars ca'sau vacyas ca iti. tatra'rthah kadacid anupapadyamanatva"dina nimittena a-vivaksito bhavati. kadacid upapadyamana iti krtva vivaksita eva, vyangya-paryantam tu pratitim, sva-saubhagya-mahimna karoti. ata evar'tho'tra pradhanyena vyanjakah, purvatra sabdah. nanu ca vivaksa ca'nyaparatvam ca iti viruddham. anyaparatvena eva vivaksanat ko virodhah ? samanyena iti. vastvalamkara-rasa"tma hi tribhedo'pi dhvanir ubhabhyam eva abhyam samgrhita iti bhavah nanu tannama-prsthe etannamanivesanasya kim phalam ? ucyate-anena hi namadvayena dhvananatmani * vyapare purva-prasiddha'bhidha - tatparya-laksana"tmaka-vyapara tritaya'vagatarthapratiteh, pratipatsgatayah prayoktrabhipra-yarupayas ca vivaksayah sahakaritvam uktam iti dhvani-svarupam eva namabhyam eva projjivitam." Locanakara wants to explain that the term 'avivaksitavacya' can be understood by either resorting to the bahuvrihi compound, or the karmadharaya compound. From the point of view of five meanings of the term 'dhvani', we can accept the possibility of bahuvrihi in the sense of trtiya, saptami, pancami, sasthi and caturthi cases such as (i) that by which (= trtiya) one's own soul is rendered redundant i.e. a-vivaksita, i.e. vacya artha, (ii) that in (= saptami) which vacya is ignored, i.e. vyanjana-vyapara, (iii) that by which vacya becomes redundant, i.e. the hetus of vyanjana-vyapara such as vacya-samarthya, etc., (iv) that whose vacya is not intended i.e. vacya sabda (= sasthi) and (v) that for which (= caturthi) vacya is made un-intended, i.e. vyangyartha. Resorting to karmadharaya, the term 'avivaksita-vacya-dhvani', will mean, "that which is a-vivaksita i.e. not intended and also vacya i.e. expressed directly. Locana holds that the term 'vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani' also can be explained in a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #432
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 987 similar fashion. The meaning of this term, taking karma-dharaya, would mean, "that which is intended (vivaksita) eventhough being anya-paraka (or, subservient) to some other sense, and is also 'vacya'. While accepting vyanjana, two situations arise with reference to the directly expressed (vacya) sense. The vacyartha not looking compatible with the context, becomes un-intended. Or, the vacyartha suits with the context, and hence the speaker does intend to convey the same by the word used in such a special way so that something very special creeps in that word, and this results in suggesting a fresh meaning. Out of these two apprehensions of the suggested sense, in the first the directly expressed sense, i.e. vacyartha is not intended i.e. it becomes unintended or a-vivaksita, and hence it is termed a-vivaksita-vacya-dhvani. In the second apprehension of the suggested sense, the vacyartha or directly expressed sense is intended - vivaksita-along with the suggested sense. Hence, it is termed "vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani." The illustrations cited by A. are, "suvarnapuspam prthivim." etc. and, "sikharini kva nu nama." etc., respectively. One noteworthy point is that eventhough, A. has talked of three-fold dhvani such as vastudhvani, etc., here only two divisions are underlined. Thus it is suggested by A., that the three-fold dhvani is fully covered up and contained in these two varieties. Actually, the three-fold scheme gives an idea of 'what' matter is suggested, while the two-fold scheme deals with 'how whatever is suggested. Thus the two classifications are made from different angles. In the two-fold scheme the threefold scheme is covered up. The intention behind this is that 'dhvani', which in itself is a 'vyapara' or function, has 'sabda' and 'artha' as 'karana' or 'cause' at its root. In the 'vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani one 'artha' or meaning suggests another 'artha' or meaning. Thus the 'artha' becomes the suggester here. While on the otherhand in 'avivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani' the 'artha' is 'avivaksita' i.e. not intended and hence primarily the sabda or word is said to be the suggester here. When a word is heard, we collect meaning through the formerly known powers of a word, viz. abhidha or direct expression yielding the expressed or conventional sense, laksana or indication yielding the indicated sense, laksyartha, and tatparya or purport. With this simultaneously the intention of the speaker, i.e. abhipraya is also understood. For the realisation of this intention these two terms, viz. a-vivaksitavacya-dhvani, and vivaksitanya-para-vacya-dhvani are used. Thus the form of dhvani is rendered clear. We will now show in a tabular form the divisions and sub-divisions of dhvani, as explained by Abhinavagupta in Locana, and as envisaged by A. in the Dhv. The For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #433
988 SAHRDAYALOKA table can be presented as follows: dvani avivaksitavacya vivaksitanya-para-vacya (i.e. laksana-mula) (i.e. abhidhamula) arthantara-samkramita atyanta-tiraskrtavacya a-samlaksyakrama-vyangya-dhvani samlaksyakrama-dhvani sabda-saktimula-dhvani artha-saktimula-dhvani svatah sambhavi; kavi-prauahoktisiddha; kavi-nibaddha-vaktr-praudhokti-siddha; alamkara < vastu < alamkara < vastu < alamkara < vastu < vastu; alamkara; vastu; alamkara; vastu; alamkara padagata vakyagata + 3 varieties of asamlaksyakrama i.e. varna, samghatana and prabandha (gata) = 35 suddha-bhedah Thus following the explanation of the Locanakara, i.e. Abhinavagupta, A. has enumerated 35 basic varieties of dhvani. Taking into consideration samkara i.e. intermingling and samsrsti i.e. collocation etc. the total will tend to grow in a manifold way. We will go to see later how Mammata and Visvanatha enumerate these varieties. For the present we may again note the fact that (i) laksanamula and (ii) abhidhamula are two basic varieties of dhvani and A. has given two basic subdivisions of these two. Thus Dhv. II. 1 explains : "evam avivaksitavacya-vivaksitanya-paravacyatvena dhvanir dvi-prakarah prakasitah. tatra a-vivaksita-vacyasya prabheda-pratipadanaya idam ucyate - arthantare samkramitam atyantam va tiraskrtam, a-vivaksita-vacyasya dhvaner vacyam dvidha matam. (Dhv. II. 1) "So far, two varieties of suggestion, viz. "that with un-intended literal import", and "that with intended but further-extending literal import" have been mentioned. Now the sub-varieties of the first are set forth in what follows :" (Trans. K. Kris.) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #434
"Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 989 i.e. - "Merged in the other meaning" and "completely lost", these are the two kinds of the expressed in, "suggestion with un-intended literal import." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 39, ibid) (Dhv. II. 1) These two sub-varieties being laksana-mulaka, i.e. based on indication, the mukhyartha-badha or non-acceptance of the primary sense is established here as a precondition. So, where in the apprehension of the suggested sense, laksyartha is taken into account and vacyartha becomes un-intended, i.e. it is found to be absolutely incongrous with the context, or is not intended even if found congruous with the context and therefore merges into another sense, - at both these places avivaksita-vacya-dhvani is said to be there. Locana (on Dhv. II. 1) explains these two sub-varieties as follows: (In the term "arthantarasamkramita) - "samkramitam iti nica, vyanjana-vyapare yah sahakarivargas tasya'yam prabhava ity uktam, tiraskrta-sabdena ca. yena vacyena a-vivaksitena sata avivaksitavacyo dhvanir vyapadisyate tad vacyam dvidha iti sambandhah. yorthah upapadyamanopi tavata eva anupayogat dharmantara-samvalanaya'nyatam iva gato laksyamano nugatadharmi sutra-nyayena aste, sa rupantara-parinata uktah. yas tvanupapadyamana upayatamatrena arthantara-pratipattim krtva. palayata iva, sa tirskrta iti. nanu vyangya"tmano yada dhvaner bhedo nirupyate, tada vacyasya 'dvidha' iti bhedakathanam na sangatam ity asankya aha - "tathavidhabhyam ca" iti. cah yasmad arthe. vyanjaka-vaicitryad hi yuktam vyangya-vaicitryam iti bhavah vyanjake tvarthe yadi dhvani-sabdas tada na kascid dosa iti - bhavah. In the term, "arthantara-samkramita", 'nic' affix is seen in "samkramita". (This means it is not in the sense of "suddha-kriya-samkranta") It is here in the sense of "prerana". The idea is that meaning owing to its own speciality does not proceed or pass (samkranta) of its own, by being a companion or associate of vyanjana-function or suggestivity it passes into the suggested se -function or suggestivity it passes into the suggested sense with the help of suggestive power. The - kta-suffix in "tiraskrta" also carries the same meaning. Thus the factors that associate with the suggester (or vyanjaka) become the cause in completely discarding the primary or conventional sense. The original karika has to be understood as follows : That vacya or primary sense, when it becomes un-intended, dhvani is also said to be a-vivaksita-vacya, and this un-inteded vacya is two-fold - (i) one, where the meaning is not in For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #435
990 SAHRDAYALOKA conformity with the context; is not perfect in itself, and where it merges with other meanings for its complete sense and is apprehended as some other sense; and all these other qualities (which tend to give perfection) are suggested. All these attributes or qualities (i.e. dharmas), pass over in one substratum (i.e. dharmin) in a way such as different flowers are stringed in a single string or sutra. This first variety of a-vivaksita-vacya-dhvani is said to be arthantarasamkramita i.e. 'merged in other meaning'. The illustration is the verse, viz., "snigdha-syamala-kanti." etc. (ii) The second is the a-vivaksita-vacya-dhvani, in which the expressed primary sense looks absolutely un-intended or out of context. The primary sense is absolutely non-congruent and thus gives rise to this second variety of dhvani. Here the primary sense becomes only instrumental (i.e. upayabhuta) in the apprehension of the indicated sense i.e. 'laksyartha'. After this apprehension of the indicated sense, the primary sense is totally wiped out. Thus, as it is completely discarded, the dhvani (based on such a vacya) is said to be "atyanta-tiraskrta-vacya-dhvani". The illustration is, "ravi-samkranta-saubhagya." etc. With Dhv. II. 2. A. starts explaining the divisions and sub-divisions of the second variety of dhvani i.e. dhvani based on abhidha or power of primary denotation. A. suggests that abhidha-mula-dhvani is two-fold, to begin with, i.e. (i) a-samlaksyakrama-dhvani and (ii) samlaksyakrama-dhvani. A. observes : "a-samlaksya-kramodyotah kramena dyotitah parah, vivaksitabhidheyasya dhvaner atma dvidha matah." (Dhv. II. 2) "The nature of suggestion "with inteded literal import", is also two-fold : (i) "of discernible sequentiality', and (ii) "of undiscernible sequentiality." - (Trans. K.Kris. p. 41, ibid) These two types depend on the position where the sequence between the primary expressed sense and the suggested sense, is noticieable or not. A. observes : "mukhyataya prakasamano vyangyortho dhvaneratma. sa ca vacyarthapeksaya kascid alaksya-kramataya tulyam prakasate, kascit kramena iti dvidha matah." "The nature of suggestion is the implied sense which is communicated prominently. A variety of it is grasped simultaneously with the expressed, since the sequentiality existing between the two is not discernible. Another variety of the same comes For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #436
"Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 991 about when the sequentiality is discernible." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 41, ibid) The first variety is 'a-samlaksyakrama dhvani' and the second variety is termed, 'samlaksyakrama-dhvani'. At the root of both these varieties, lies abhidha, i.e. the power of direct expression. There is neither any 'badha' or contradiction of meaning, nor any disregard (tiraskara) of vacyartha, or its merging (samkramana). Thus the literal sense is neither 'completely lost nor 'merged in the other meaning. So, here, in both these varieties vyanjana or suggestion is based on abhidha i.e. the power of expression. The two varieties of abhidha-mula or 'vivaksitanyaparavacya' are explained in the Locana (on Dhv. II. 2) by resorting to the bahuvrihi compound in the term, "asamlaksya kramodyota" and it observes that, "one whose function is such-where the sequence is not clearly noticed is said to be 'a-samlaksyakrama' : "samyan na laksayitum sakyah kramah yasya, tadrsah udyotana-vyaparosya iti bahuvrihih." The other, viz. "kramena dyotitah samlaksyakramah" is clear in itself. Continuing the discussion on a-samlaksya-krama-dhvani, A. observes at Dhv. II. 3 -tatra, "rasa-bhava-tadabhasatat-prasanty adir akramah, dhvaner atma'ngibhavena bhasamano vyavasthitah." "Sentiment, emotion, the semblance of sentiment, or mood and their (rise and) cessation etc., are all of "undiscerned sequentiality". It is decided that when we have prominent presence of this variety, we are having the very soul of suggestion." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 41, ibid) Such categories as sentiment and the like are apprehended as it were simultaneously with the expressed literal sense. And when they are apprehended as principal (source of charm) we arrive at the very soul of suggestion. A. observes : rasa"dir artho hi saha iva vacyena avabhasate. sa cangitvena avabhasamano dhvaner atma. (vrtti. on Dhv. II. 3) This variety of rasa"di-dhvani is imagined to be bereft of any sequentiality. This does not mean that there is no sequence whatsoever between the apprehension of determinants, consequents and ancillary feelings, i.e. the vibhava"dis and the actual apprehension of 'rasa"di' i.e. sentiments, emotions etc. - i.e. in short the emotive stuff. But the point is that the sequence being absolutely minute is not noticed at For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #437
992 SAHRDAYALOKA all, i.e. it remains a-samlaksya. On the other hand the two viz. vastu-dhvani i.e. suggestion of idea or matter, and alamkara-dhvani i.e. suggestion of a figure have clearly marked sequence - samlaksya-krama between the first apprehension of the primary sense and the next apprehension of the suggested sense. Thus these two are termed 'samlaksya-krama-dhvani' varieties. But A. and Abhinavagupta do accept the possibility of sequence even in this rasa"di-dhvani which is normally said to be without sequence. When such 'samlaksya-kramatva' of rasa"di-dhvani is accepted it is included in the variety called the "artha-sakty-udbhavasamlaksyakrama dhvani." As a matter of principle, A. accepts three-fold dhvani, but in reality he attaches supreme importance only to the variety called 'rasa-dhvani' i.e. "rasa"didhvani". Only to underline the fact of rasa"di-dhvani as the "soul", A. seems to accept the ultimate merging of the other two varieties i.e. vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani in this supreme dhvani called rasa-dhvani. We have noticed earlier how Locana on Dhv. I. 4 explains that the implicit sense is basically twofold viz. laukika or one which is also met with in ordinary parlance, and 'alaukika' or that which is never met with in ordinary parlance but is met with only in poetry i.e. kavya-vyaparaika-gocarah, or in the field of art in general, we may add. This 'laukika' form is represented by vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani. We will go to see later that actually A. has taken care of the intellectual or rational and also volitional aspect of the total personality of the art-enjoyer or cultivated reader here, when he accepts this variety of vastu-dhvani. By alamkara-dhvani he accepts the poet's immense capacity to experiment in poetic expression and not using figures of speech only. Thus it consumes the whole of practiced and unpracticed modes of poetic expression, i.e. 'vyanjaka-vaividhya' in literature. Thus we feel that by vastu-dhvani and alamkaradhvani A. reaches out to cover the most modern literary art-forms ever practiced to-day or that will ever be practiced in near or distant future by good poets (i.e. mahakavi). The so called abstract poetry, or absurdism seems to have its place in this fool-proof catholic scheme of Anandavardhana and thus this Indian theory of art, i.e. the theory of rasa-experience covers the total personality of the enjover of cultivated taste. By total we mean the emotive, intellectual and volitional aspects of his personality taken together. We will discuss this catholicity of rasa-experience in a greater measure later. But for the present, the first two i.e. vastu-dhvani and alamkaredhvani, the samlaksya-krama types also, ultimately merge into rasa-dhvani in A.'s opinion and here rasa-dhvani is to be taken not as enjoyment of sentimental For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #438
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) stuff only but as the genuine aesthetic rapture which results from the enjoyment of any peace of art, here of course, literary art. In reality this 'rasa-experience' or aesthetic rapture is the real 'soul' of poetry according to both A. and Abhinavagupta. A.'s preference in taking only 'rasadhvani' as the real soul of poetry is self-evident from his general treatment throughout the Dhv. Abhinavagupta does not invent it, nor does he superimpose his ideas on A.'s finding. No; he, i.e. the Locanakara is true to his words when he says in the beginning of his Locana that he is simply "echoing" and making clear the original ideas of A. as read in the "kavyaloka" - "yad kincid apy anuranan sphutayami kavya"lokam..." - A. himself has noted that eventhough the other varieties of pratiyamana-artha or implicit sense are observed, the illustration cited is that of rasa"di-dhvani, for that alone is principal. He observes (vrtti, on Dhv. I. 5): "pratiyamanasya ca anyabheda-darsanepi rasa-bhava-mukhena eva upalaksanam; pradhanyat." Locana on this observes : "tena rasa eva vastutah atma. vastv-alamkara-dhvani tu sarvatha rasam prati paryavasyete iti vacyad utkrstau tau ity abhiprayena, "dhvanih kavyasya atma" iti samanyena uktam." 993 A. is of the opinion that in figures such as 'samasokti' or 'condensed metaphor' etc. we do have an element of implicit or suggested sense. But as this implicit element is not marked as principal, such figures illustrate only the second variety of poetry such as the 'gunibhuta-vyangya' or poetry with subordinated suggested sense. Of course Abhinavagupta accepts the position of 'rasa' even in such cases only at the ultimate level of consideration. Even the variety called vastu-dhvani also is categorised in form of 'vibhava"di's i.e. determinants etc. and ultimately merge in rasa"di-dhvani. This rasa-realisation through vibhava"di-samagri was discussed by Bharata and explained later by acaryas such as Lollata and the like in their own way. A. does not discuss here this process of rasa-nispatti i.e. the rasa-nispattiprakriya in his Dhv. This of course speaks volumes of A.'s great self-control. He simply takes note of the fact that only rasa"di-dhvani is the principal fact in a dhvani-kavya. In fact this 'rasa' is the principal category lebelled as the 'soul' of poetry, but at times its ingredients such as bhava, or different aesthetic categories of bhava or feelings, such as bhavodaya, bhava-samdhi etc. also, when principally suggested in their states of exhuberance, result into bhava-dhvani etc. These possibilities are covered up by "adi" in "rasa"di"-dhvani. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #439
994 SAHRDAYALOKA We may have to note one more point here. The vibhavas and anu-bhavas are necessarily sva-sabda-vacya i.e. expressed directly by their own names. Hence, there is no possibility of vibhava-dhvani and anubhava-dhvani. If at all they are suggested they are included in vastu-dhvani or the suggestion of ideas or matter. Again the carvana i.e. aesthetic chewing or relish of vibhavas and anubhavas results in a mental feeling or citta-vstti and its relish is also of the form of 'rasa' or 'bhava'. Locana (on Dhv. II. 3) further notes that bhava-dhvani etc. are also of the form of the dripping fluid (nisyanda) of rasa-dhvani. But they are named separately just to underline the special feature causing the same : "yady api ca rasena eva sarvam jivati kavyam, tatha'pi tasya rasasya eka-ghana-camatkara"tmanopi kutas cid amsat prayojakibhutad adhikosau camatkaro bhavati. tatra yada kascid udriktavastham pratipanno vyabhicari camatkaratisaya-prayojako bhavati, tada bhava-dhvanih, yatha, "tisthet kopavasat." etc. After explaining the three-fold implicit sense, A. explains that all these three are different from the directly expressed primary sense i.e. vacyartha. keeping aside the first two types of vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani, the third type viz. rasa"di-dhvani is seen to shine forth as a result of the latent power in the expressed sense, i.e. it is necessarily implicit. It never becomes an object of direct verbal denotation and hence it is decidedly distinct from the expressed. That this variety called the rasa"di-dhvani is necessarily distinct from "rasa"di alamkara" also, will be discussed later. After thus explaining the first variety of vivaksitanyapara-vacya-dhvani, viz a-samlaksyakrama, A. turns his attention to the second variety viz. samlaksyakrama, i.e. one in which the sequentiality between the expressed sense or vacyartha and the implicit-suggested sense or vyangyartha is clearly discernible. The Dhv. II. 20, reads as : "kramena pratibhaty atma yosya'nusvana-sannibhah, sabdartha-sakti-mulatvat sopi dvedha vyavasthitah." (Dhv. II. 20) "The other element of this suggestion manifests itself in the same way as resonance and the temporal sequentiality of the two meanings will be discernible. It is also two-fold - 'that which is based on the power of word', and 'that which is based on the power of sense.' (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 71, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #440
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 995 A. observes in his vrtti thereon : "asya vivaksitanyapara-vacyasya dhvaneh samlaksya-kramavyangyatva'nu-ranana-prakhyo ya atma sopi sabda-sakti-mulorthasakti-mulas ca iti dvi-prakarah." "This suggestion 'with intended but further extending literal import contains an element which is similar to resonance in so far as it is suggested in such a way that one can notice temporal sequentiality (between the expressed and the suggested senses). It is further subdivided into, that which is based on the power of the word', and, 'that which is based on the power of sense.' (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 71, ibid) A. has also attempted to explain how sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani has a different scope from that of slesa or paronomasia - or double entendre'. He observes that (Dhv. II. 21) "aksipta eva'lamkarah sabda-saktya prakasate yasmin, anuktah sabdena sabda-sakty udbhavo hi sah." "Only that instance, wherein is present a figure that is not expressed directly by any word but conveyed solely by the suggestive power of the word itself, should be regarded as suggestion based on the power of word." A. further clarifies in his vrtti on Dhv. II. 21, that, "yasmad alamkaro, na vastumatram, yasmin kavye sabda-sakrya prakas'ate sa sabda-sakty-udbhavo dhvanir asmakam vivaksitah. vastudvaye ca sabda-saktya prakasamane slesah." "For only a figure which is conveyed by the power of the word is intended by us to form an instance of suggestion based on the power of the word, and not all ideas so conveyed are instances of suggestion. If two ideas are manifest (simultaneously) as a result of the power of the word, we have only an instance of 'double entendre'. (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 73, ibid) It may be noted that here the term, 'sabda-saktya' does not stand for 'abhidhaya' or 'by the expressed power of the word'. Normally we take abhidha, laksana and vyanjana as sabda-saktis. But here it is to be understood as "sabda-eva-saktih" or 'sabda-rupa saktih", i.e. where 'word' itself is the power, and not "word's power", or "power of the word". After explaining that sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani occurs when some other alamkara is suggested, A. explains that though Bhatta Udbhata has stated that slesa occurs also when some other alamkara is understood, but here, i.e. in A.'s For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #441
996 SAHRDAYALOKA explanation only "aksipta" or implied figure of speech is taken as dhvani, while Udbhata's "alamkara'ntara" is vacya or expressed directly. So, the outcome of this discussion is that, in places where, through 'sabda-sakti', another 'vacya alamkara' is collected, it may be taken as 'slesa' following Udbhasa. But when this 'alamkarantara' which is collected with the help of sabda-sakti, is only at the implicit or suggested level, then it becomes the province of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani in the opinion of A. He also adds that if, by chance, this implicit figure, also becomes explicit, i.e. if it is directly expressed through any other device later, then it looses its status of dhvani and there we do not mention it as "sabda-sakti-muladhvani", but becomes only an object of such usage as 'vakrokti', etc. which is a variety of a directly expressed alamkara. A. observes (vstti, on Dhv. II. 21) : "tad ayam arthah, yatra sabda-saktya saksad alamkarantaram vacyam sat pratibhasate, sa sarvah slesa-visayah. yatra tu sabda-saktya samarthya"ksiptam vyangyam eva alamkarantaram prakasate sa dhvaner visayah." and A. further observes : sa ca aksipto'lamkarah yatra punah sabdantarena abhihita-svarupah tatra na sabdasakty-udbhavanuranana-rupa-vyangya-dhvani-vyavaharah. tatra vakroktyadivacyalamkara-vyavahara eva." A. further observes : "yatra tu samarthya"ksiptam sad alamkarantaram sabdasaktya prakasate sa sarva eva dhvanervisayah." yatha, "atrantare kusumasamayayugam." etc. "But passages where another figure is conveyed only by the suggestive power of the word deserve to be regarded only as instances of suggestion. As for instance : "In the meanwhile appeared...." etc. (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 79, ibid). In this instance drawn from Bana, describing the summer season (i.e. grisma-varnana), simile (i.e. upama alamkara) with 'mahakala' i.e. Lord Siva, is suggested. Another illustration runs as, "unnatah prollasad dharah." etc. Third one is, "datta"nandah prajanam..." etc. A. observes in the vrtti that - "esu udaharanesu sabda-saktya prakasamane sati, aprakaranike arthantare vakyasya a-sambaddharthabhidhayitvam ma prasanksid ity aprakaranika-prakarankayor arthayor, upamanopameyabhavah kalpayitavyah, samarthyad, ity artha"ksiptoyam sleso na sabdopa"rudha iti vibhinna eva slesad anusvanopama-vyangyasya dhvaner visayah." "In all these examples, an extra meaning is conveyed by the power of the word and in order that two meanings might not appear as entirely disconnected, we will have to postulate the relation of the standard of comparision and the object compared as existing between the two, since there is justification also for doing so. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #442
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 997 A Thus the double entendre we see here is not grounded on words only as it is the case when it happens to be an expressed figure. But it is a figure suggested by the special suggestive power of the word. Thus the examples of double entendre and resonance like suggestion are entirely different from one another." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 79, ibid) A. also suggests that figures other than upama/simile are also possible in this variety of dhvani. : "anye'pi ca alamkarah sabda-sakti-mulanusvana-rupavyangye dhvanau sambhavanti eva." He illustrates the cases of virodha (i.e. paradox), vyatireka etc. and the like. He leaves it to the men of taste to find out such illustrations, which for want of space he avoids : "evam anye'pi sabda-sakti-mulanusvana-rupa-vyangya-dhvani-prakarah santi, te sahrdayair svayam anusartavyah. iha tu grantha-vistara-bhayan na prapancah krtah." (vrtti, Dhv. II. 21) We may take note of some points here : (i) A. accepts only 'suggested another figure' i.e. vyangya-alamkarantara', as object of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani. He never thinks about covering the cases of 'vastu-dhvani' i.e. suggestion of ideas or matter under its scope. We know that Mammata accepts this possibility. But A. is firm on this point as he uses the words - "yasmad alamkaro, na vastu-matram, yasmin kavye sabda-saktya prakasate sasabda-sakty-udbhavo dhvanir ity asmakam vivaksitah." A. rarely uses such an expression. In case of 'rasa"di' alamkara also, he uses such terms as "iti me matih." This means he rejects the case of vastu-dhvani here. (ii) With reference to the above, A. does not bring in here, as is done by other alamkarikas, the discussion concerning how the non-contextual sense is collected in case of a word having multiple sense, i.e. whether it is through the agency of vyanjana or abhidha. This discussion is however found in Locana and the debate is carried on till Appayya and Jagannatha, who opt for abhidha here. We have covered this discussion in an earlier chapter and thus it need not detain us here. (iii) In the illustration cited by A., viz. "atrantare kusuma-samaya..." etc., it so happens that it is a case where suppressing the directly expressed sense, the 'yaugika' artha is principally suggested. The other two illustrations are however not so clear on this point. This point is not, of course, directly discussed by A., but at Dhv. II. 31, A. observes that now that the varieties of dhvani are explained, the following is said in order to distinguish between suggestion and its semblance : (vstti, preceding Dhv. II. 31) : "evam dhvaneh prabhedan pratipadya tad abhasa For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #443
998 SAHRDAYALOKA vivekam kartum ucyate". - Under Dhv. II. 31, A. observes that, "yatra tu prakarana"di-pratipattya nirdharitaviseso vacyorthah punah pratiyamanangatvena eva avabhasate, sosyaiva anuranana-rupa-vyangyasya dhvaner margah." - i.e. "But on the other hand, resonance-like suggestion is present in instances, where, even after determining all the implications of the expressed sense in view of context and so forth, we find that the expressed appears only as subsidiary to the suggested." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 103, ibid). Abhinavagupta also observes that with the help of 'prakarana' and the rest, i.e. context in general, the primary expressed sense is fixed. But in the given context in the Dhv., and the illustrations cited, the problem of the apprehension of a sense other than the primary, in case of a word having multiple sense, is not discussed here. Looking carefully at the discussion concerning the example viz. "mahakalah...", where the yaugika-artha throws aside the conventional sense and comes to the fore, the meaning is collected through suggestive power, i.e. sabdasakti-mula-vyanjana. We have seen earlier how Mammata, Appayya and Jagannatha have discussed this topic in a thorough way. Abhinavagupta also accepts the suggested another figure of speech (alamkarantara) as the field for sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani. This is in conformity with A.'s view. A. then picks up what is termed artha-sakti-mula-dhvani at Dhv. II. 22. He observes : "artha-sakty-udbhavas tv-anyah yatrarthah samprakasate yas tatparyena vastv anyad vyanakry uktim vina svatah." (Dhv. II. 22) "The other variety of suggestion is based upon the power of sense and it is instanced in places where the second meaning is conveyed only by way of implication by the first meaning and not by the expressed words at all." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 83, ibid). A. adds in the vrtti, "yatrarthah sva-samarthyad arthantaram abhivyanakti, sabda-vyaparam vinaiva, sortha-saktyudbhavo nama anusvanopama-vyangyo dhvanih." "That instance where one meaning gives rise to another through its own power of implication and not through the denotative power of words, becomes an For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #444
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 999 example of suggestion based upon the power of meaning and similar to resonance." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 83, ibid). The illustration cited is "evamvadini devarsau." etc. It is two-fold, viz. (i) svatah-sambhavi and (ii) praudhokti-siddha. Dhv. II. 24 observes: "praudhoktimatra-nispannasarirah, sambhavi svatah, arthopi dvividho jneyah vastuno'nyasya dipakah." artha-saktyudbhava'nuranana-rupa-vyangye dhvanau yo vyanjako'rtha uktas tasya'pi dvau prakarau - kaveh kavi-nibaddhasya va vaktuh praudhokti-matranispanna-sarira ekah svatas sambhavi ca dvitiyah." "The sense which suggests another sense is also two-fold: (1) Existing only in ornate expression and (2) Naturally existing." (Dhv. II. 24) "The sense which has been pointed out as the suggester of a second sense in suggestion (of the form of resonance based upon the power of sense) is also of two kinds. The first is that whose existence is real only in the ornate expression either of a poet himself or of a character created by the poet. The second exists naturally." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 87, 89, ibid) We will go to see that Hemacandra and some others do not take these two as separate varieties. All these three suggesters could be of the form of vastu or idea or alamkara i.e. a figurative expression. The vyangya which is suggested also could be likewise two-fold. Thus in all twelve varieties are possible in artha-saktyudbhava-dhvani. At Dhv. III. 1, A. observes that, "evam vyangya-mukhena eva dhvaneh pradarsite sa-prabhede svarupe, punar vyanjaka-mukhena etat prakasyate : "a-vivaksita-vacyasya pada-vakya-prakasata, - tad anyasya anuranana rupa-vyangyasya ca dvaneh." "So far the nature and varieties of suggestion have been pointed out in detail from the stand-point of the suggested. Now the same shall be set forth from the standpoint of the suggester. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #445
1000 SAHKDAYALOKA Both the varieties of suggestion with un-intended literal import and resonancelike suggestion are suggested by individual words and by whole sentences." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 107). Thus the 17 varieties of dhvani (= 2, laksanamulaka +1 rasa"didhvani +2 sabdasaktimulaka +12 arthasaktimulaka) are both pada-gata and vakya-gata. Thus in all 34 varieties are available. Though 'dhvani' has been defined as 'kavya-visesa', it can also be said to be 'pada-prakasya', because in the dhvani-kavya which is of the form of a beautiful sentence, we can further distinguish the beauty of an individual pada or word also. In his vrtti on Dhv. III. 1. A. further observes to this effect : "nanu kavya-viseso dhvanir ity uktam, tat katham tasya pada-prakasata ? kavya-viseso hi visistartha-pratipatti-hetuh sabda-sandarbhavisesah. tad bhavas pada-prakasatve na upapadyate. padanam smarakatvena a-vacakatvat. ucyate-syad esa dosah yadi vacakatvam prayojakam dhvani-vyavahare syat. na tv evam; tasya vyanjakarvena vyavasthanat. kin ca, kavyanam saririnam iva samsthana-visesa-vacchinna-samudaya-sadhya'pi carutva-pratitir anvaya-vyatirekabhyam bhagesu kalpyata iti padanam api vyanjaka-mukhena vyavasthito dhvanivyavaharo na virodhi. anistasya srutir yad vad apadayati dustatam, sruti-dusta"disu vyaktam tad-vad ista-srutir gunam. padanam smarakatvepi pada-matravabhasinah, tena dhvaneh prabhedesu sarvesy eva asti ramyata. vicchitti-sobhinaikena bhusanena iva kamini pada-dyotyena sukaver dhvanina bhati bharati. iti parikara-slokah." (vrtti, on Dhv. III. 1) "One might raise the following objection at this juncture : Suggestion has been defined earlier as a species of poetry.' How can such a species be suggested by a word ? A species of poetry can mean only that composition of words which enables For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #446
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1001 one to understand a specific meaning. This fact will be inapplicable to it when it is held that it is suggested by a word, for words are only reminders of such a suggested meaning and not at all denoters. Here is our answer to the objection : the alleged defect would have tainted our assertion if it were true that denotation was the criterion for deciding the existence of suggestion. But it is not true. It has already been established that suggestiveness alone is the criterion in question. In life also, we often speak of the presence or absence of beauty in the individual limbs of persons though in fact it is only the combined beauty of all the graceful and symmeterical limbs that can really be present or absent in a person's body as a whole. In the same way, there is no contradiction involved in one's regarding the individual words also as suggesters of beauty which is really occasioned by the combination of different words and in referring to them by the word suggestion. These ideas are summed up in the following aphorisms : 1. Just as reminiscence of something undesired clearly becomes a blemish in defects like "Indelicacy", so also the reminiscence of something desired should be regarded as an excellence. 2. Though words are only reminders, there is certainly charm thereform, in all the varieties of suggestion that manifests itself through the individual words. 3. Just like a damsel who appears charming by just a single ornament full of beauty, so also the work of a good poet will appear to advantage when adorned by suggestion even in one word." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 113, 115, ibid) In Dhv. III. 2 it is explained that suggestion with sequentiality not noticed, will flash forth in letter, word, etc., sentence, composition and finally the work as a whole. Dhv. III. 2 - reads as - "yas tv alaksya-krama-vyangyo dhvanir varna-pada"disu, vakye, samghatanayam ca sa prabandhe'pi dipyate." Thus in all thirty-five varieties of dhvani are enumerated. Locana on III. 43 observes that along with these thirty-five basic types of dhvani, and the same number of varieties of gunibhuta-vyangya, and also taking all alamkaras together in account, we arrive at 71 types. When we consider the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #447
1002 SAHRDAYALOKA 'samkara' and 'samsrsti', we arrive at 71 x 4 = 284, and these when multiplied by 35, we get 7420 types. Actually the figure comes to 9940. Again, it is not correct to count the same number of varieties for the gunibhuta-vyangya also, for following Dhv. II. 29, the nine varieties that we arrive at of alamkara-vyangya through vastu, cannot be taken as sub-varieties of guni-bhuta-vyangya, for, according to A., where alamkara is suggested through 'vastu', we necessarily have varieties of dhvani only and not that of guni-bhuta-vyangya - "dhruvam dhvanyangata" are A.'s words. Dhv. III. 43 reads as : "sa-guni-bhuta-vyangyaih salankaraih saha-prabhedaih svaih, samkara-samsrstibhyam punar apy udyotate bahudha." tasya ca dhvaneh sva-prabhedaih gunibhuta-vyangyena vacyalamkaraisca samkara-samsssti-vyavasthayam kriyamanayam bahuprabhedata laksye drsyate. tatha hi, sva-prabheda-samkirnah sva-prabheda-samsrstah, guni-bhuta-vyangyasamkirnah, gunibhuta-vyangya-samspstah, vacyalamkarantara-samkirnah, vacyalamkarantara-samspstah, samsrstalamkara-samkirauh, samsrstalamkarasamssstah, ca iti bahudha dhvanih prakasate." "It shines in diverse ways with its several varieties of subordinated suggestion, figures, its own-sub-varieties, their intermingling and collocation." (Dhv. III. 43) (vrtti.) - If one should take into account the permutations and combinations of the different types of dhvani itself, and the varieties of subordinated suggestion and figures of sense, their resulting number would be many. Thus to name some of the major manifestation of dhvani - (i) merged with its own varieties, (ii) co-existing with its own varieties, (iii) merged with subordinated suggestion (iv) co-existing with subordinated suggestion, (v) merged with other figures of sense, (vi)coexisting with other figures (vii) merged with other co-existing figures (viii) coexisting with other mutually co-existing figures." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 253, ibid) Read also Locana, on Dhv. II. 31 : "avivaksita-vacyo vivaksitanyaparavacyas ca iti dvau mula-bhedau. adyasya dvau bhedau, atyanta-tirasketa-vacyah arthantarasamkramitavacyas ca. dvitiyasya dvau bhedau, alaksyakramah anuranana-rupas ca. prathamonanta-bhedah, dvitiyo dvividhah, sabda-saktimulah artha-saktimulas ca. pascimas trividhah, kavipraudhokti-krta-sarirah, kavi-nibaddha-vaktr-praudhokti For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #448
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 1003 krta-sarirah, svatah sambhavi ca. te ca pratyekam vyangya-vyanjakayor uktabheda-nayena caturdha iti dvadasa-vidhah artha-sakti-mulah, adyas' catvaro bheda iti sodasa mukhya-bhedah. te ca pada-vakya-prakasakatvena pratyekam dvividha vaksyante. alaksya-kramasya tu varna-pada-vakya-samghatana-prabandhaprakasyatvena panca-trimsad bhedah." Read also Locana on Dhv. III. 43: "evam sloka-dvayena samgrahartham abhidhaya bahuprakaratva-pradarsikam pathati "sa guni". iti. saha gunibhutavyangyena sahalamkarair ye vartante sve dhvaneh prabhedas taih samkirnataya samsrstya va ananta-prakaro dhvanir iti tatparyam. bahuprakaratam darsayati - "tatha hi" iti. svabhedair gunibhuta-vyangyena alamkaraih prakasyate iti trayo bhedah. tatra'pi pratyekam samkarena samsrstya ca iti sat. samkarasya'pi trayah prakarah anugrahyanugrahaka-bhavena, samdeha"spadatvena, ekapadanupravesena iti dvadasa bhedah. purvam ca ye panca-trimsad bhedah uktah te gunibhuta-vyangyasya'pi mantavyah. svaprabhedas tavanto'lamkara iti eka-saptatih. tatra samkara-trayena samsrstya ca gunane dve sate caturasity adhike. tavata panca-trimsato mukhya-bhedanam gunane sapta-sahasrani catvari satani vimsaty adhikani (= 7420) bhavanti. alamkaranam anantyat tu asamkhyatvam." In due course, we will go to see further how Mammata and Visvanatha count the varieties. We will now go to examine how A. distinguishes rasa"di-dhvani from rasvad adi alamkara, and also upama"di alamkara. A. has carefully distinguished between the nature and scope of rasa"di-dhvani on one hand and the same of rasavad adi alamkara, and also upama"di (vacya) alamkara on the other hand. Under Dhv. II. 2 A. enumerates the two varieties of vivaksitanya-para-vacyadhvani. They are a-samlaksya-krama-dhvani and samlaksya-krama-dhvani. Under Dhv. II. 3 A. suggests different varieties that are subsumed under asamlaksyakrama-rasa"di-dhvani. They are rasa, bhava, rasa"bhasa, bhava"bhasa, bhavasanti, bhavodaya, bhava-sabalata, etc. They are all placed under rasa"di dhvani. Now the question that arises is that what exactly is the difference (in scope and nature) between this rasa"di-dhvani, and the 'rasavad adi' alamkaras as imagined by the ancients. If the concept of rasavad adi alamkaras as designed by the purvaacaryas is not acceptable to A., then what new concept concerning these has A. evolved, and also how both these, i.e. rasa"di-dhvani and rasavad adi alamkaras are to be distinguished from the figures such as upama and the like? We will look into For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #449
1004 SAHRDAYALOKA this in greater detail as below : Under Dhv. II. 3, A. observes : "rasa-bhava-tad abhasatat-prasantyadir akramah, dhvaner atma' ngi-bhavena bhasamano vyavasthitah." rasa"dir artho hi saha iva vacyena avabhasate. sa ca angitvena avabhasamano dhvaner atma. idanim rasavad-alamkarad a-laksya-krama-dyotana"tmano dhvaneh vibhakto visaya, iti pradarsyate.". - "Sentiment, emotion, the semblance of sentiment or mood, their (rise and) cessation etc., are all of, "undiscerned sequentiality". It is decided that when we have the prominent presence of this variety, we are having the very soul of ,,suggestion." Categories like sentiment shine forth along with the literal import. If they shine also with prominence we have the very soul of suggestion. It will be shown in what follows that the sphere of this suggestion of undiscerned sequentiality is quite distinct from that of the figure of speech called rasavad-alamkara or "figurative sentiment". (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 41, ibid) It is to be noted that when A. observes that "that rasa"di is the very soul of dhvani, which is suggested as principal - i.e. 'angitvena'," this also implies that these rasa"di categories, can be suggested at times, as 'anga' or subordinate also. A. suggests that when 'rasa"di' is not principally suggested, but is suggested in a subordinate way (i.e., a-pradhana), it is known as "rasavad adi alamkara". Distinguishing between rasa"di-dhvani and rasa"di alamkara, A. observes : "vacya-vacaka-carutva* hatunam vivdhatmanam, rasa"di-parata yatra sa dhvaner visayo matah." (Dhv. II. 4) rasa-bhava-tad abhasa-tat-prasama-laksanam mukhyam artham anuvartamana yatra sabdartha'-lamkara gunasca parasparam dhvany apeksaya vibhinna-rupah vyavasthitas tatra kavye dhvanir iti vyapadesah. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #450
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1005 "pradhanenyatra vakyarthe yatrangam tu rasa"dayah, kavye tasmin alamkaro rasa"dir iti me matih." (Dhv. II. 5). yady api rasavad alamkarasya anyair darsito visayas tatha'pi yasmin kavye pradhanataya anyortho vakyarthibhutas tasya ca angabhuta ye rasa"dayas te rasa"der alamkarasya visaya iti mamakinah paksah. tad yatha catusu preyolamkarasya vakyarthatvepi rasa"dayo ngabhuta drsyante." "Only that, wherein all the several beautifiers of the expressed sense and the expression exist with the single purpose of conveying sentiment and so on, is to be regarded as coming under the scope of suggestion." (Dhv. II. 4) The poem in which the chief category is of the nature of sentiment, emotion, their semblance, or cessation and wherein all figures, both of sound and sense, and qualities come in only as hand maids of the chief category and remain as much distinct from what is suggested as from one another, gets the designation of suggestive poetry. "But if in a poem the chief purport of the sentence should relate to something else, and if sentiment and so on should come in only as auxiliaries to it, it is. my opinion that sentiment and so on are figures of speech in such a poem." (Dhv. II. 5). Although others have explained the scope of Figurative sentiment (in quite a different way), still it is my view that only such sentiments etc. as become auxiliaries to some other purport of the sentence which happens as figures. For instance, one can easily see how in hymns of praise, sentiments etc., appear as auxiliaries though they are generally regarded as instances of the figure of Affectionate praise." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 43, ibid) Alamkaras such as rasavat, etc. are enumerated to be four such as rasavat, preyas, urjasvi, and samahita. For A. here the apprehension of sentiment, emotion, etc. is done in a subordinate way. So, we get 'dhvani' when 'rasa"di' are 'angi i.e. principal, and we have 'rasavat' etc., the alamkaras, when 'rasa"di' are subordinate. When rasa is subordinated we have rasavat alamkara, when bhava is subordinated, we have 'preyah', and when 'rasa"bhasa' and 'bhava"bhasa' are subordinated we arrive at 'urjasvi', and 'bhavasanti' gives rise to 'samahita', when itself gets subordinated. This is A.'s clear understanding and he insists on this being so."iti me matih". For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #451
1006 SAHRDAYALOKA But, prior to this, the ancients such as Bhamaha, Dandin etc. also gave a thought to these four alamkaras. The basic approach of these ancient masters towards poetry and its beauty was different. For them the 'sahitya', (of course 'sundara'), i.e. combination of sound and sense was poetry or kavya, and whatever was instrumental in causing beauty in this poetry, was taken as "kavya-saundarya" or "alamkara" by them. Thus the word 'alamkara' in its wider connotation was poetic beauty or kavya-saundarya for these earlier alamkarikas. Vamana went to the extent of even framing sutras such as, "kavyam grahyam alamkarat." "saundaryam alamkarah". In view of these ancient masters, the beauty caused by the categories such as rasa, bhava, etc. did not escape attention and in their broad scheme of "kavya-saundarya is alamkara", these categories of rasa, bhava, and their other states, also settled as "alamkaras", and as a result they embarked upon such alamkaras as, rasavat, preya, urjasvi, samahita, bhavika, udatta etc. - the emotionbased alamkaras. They never bothered to descriminate between two positions such as when rasa"di are either principal or subordinate. Thus, rasa"di even when they appeared as principal were subsumed by them as "rasavad alamkara", "alamkara" understood in a wider connotation. But this was not acceptable to .. . So, when 'rasa"di' was placed as principal, A. called it rasa-dhvani. When it was, by being subordinate itself, was serving the cause of some other sentence-sense which was held to be central or principal in poetry. A. called it frasadi'-alamkara. Thus A. exhibits subtlety of criticism and discernment. To make his view-point absolutely clear, A. has given two karikas as read above, viz. Dhv. II. 4 and Dhv. II. 5. In Dhv. II. 4, we have come across the use of the words : "vacya-vacaka-carutva-hetunam", i.e. "several (vividha) beautifiers of the expressed sense and the expression," which is to be understood as a dvandva compound such as "vacyam ca vacakam ca, tac carutva-hetavas ca." A. had suggested in the vrtti in udyota I, that vastu-dhvani can not be incorporated in such alamkaras as samasokti and the like. Here it is suggested that rasa"di-dhvani cannot be subsumed under rasavad-adi-alamkaras. What then is exactly the scope of rasa"di alamkara is laid clear in Dhv. II. 5 as seen above. We have to mark the words 'iti me matih'. 'iti mamakinah paksah.'A. seldom uses such a forceful expression, but when he does bring in his 'T' in any opinion. that has to be respected as a final word of authority ending all controversies. A. had to carefully discriminate between two possibilities causing poetic beauty and in both of which 'rasa"di' of course suggested, were involved. So after clarifying For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #452
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1007 the concept of dhvani-kavya or rasa-dhvani-kavya with rasa"di predominently suggested, he had to take care of such cases where suggested rasa"di were subordinate to some other central sentence sense and thus used their own beauty in rendering something else more charming. The earlier alamkarikas had not shown this discrimination and A. had to fill in the gap, which he did admirably, silencing all futile discussion. A. observes that in the particular illustration viz. "ksipto hastavalagnah." etc., ne main purport of the sentence is the extraordinary glory of Siva. The sentiment of love-in-separation due to jealousy is conveyed by slesa i.e. double entendre, and this is made subordinate to the praise of Lord Siva. Only such instances are proper examples of Figurative Sentiment i.e. rasa"di alamkara. And on account of this, says A., though the sentiments of love-in-separation due to jealousy and that of pathos or Karuna, though opposite to each other, i.e. mutually opposite, come together in the same place as they are both rendered auxiliary i.e. subordinate to the principal emotion of devotion to Lord Siva. A. further says that in cases where rasa itself happens to be the principal or main purport, how can it be a figure ? It has to be a case of 'rasa"di-dhvani'. A figure, it is well known, is only an enhancer of charm of some other central entity. It is impossible that a thing can become an enhancer of its own charm. - The vrtti (on Dhv. II. 5) here reads as : "sankirno rasa"dir angabhutah, yatha "ksipto hastavalagnah." (etc.) - ity atra, tripuraripuprabhavatisayasya-vakyarthatve irsya-vipralambhasya slesa-sahitasya anga-bhava iti, evamvidha eva rasavad alamkarasya nyayyo vinayah. ata eva ca irsyavipralambha-karuna-yor angatvena vyavasthanat samaveso na dosah. yatra hi rasasya vakyarthibhavah tatra katham alamkaratvam ? alamkaro hi carutvahetuh prasiddhah, na tv asav atmaiva"tmanah carutvahetuh." The substance of the argument is that when 'rasa' itself is the principal sentence-purport, how can it be called an alamkara, as suggested by the ancients ? In short how can it be rendered to the position of a beautifier i.e. alamkara ? It being central, is "alamkarya" or that which is beautified by other agents. 'Alamkara' is only a means to an end, a beautifier causing beauty of something else. So, when 'rasa' which is central and when it is 'alamkarya', can never be termed alamkara, for this is self-contradiction pure and simple. One cannot be one's own beautifier or 'beautifying agent. So, the purva"caryas seem to be mistaken here. But in defence of the earlier masters it can be argued that their concept of 'alamkara' was a fluid one i.e. nebulous enough to cover both the 'alamkarya' and also 'alamkara'. Their 'alamkara' was both "saundarya" itself, and 'an agent causing saundarya". For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #453
1008 SAHRDAYALOKA Explaining the whole discussion in a nut-shell A. observes : "rasa-bhava"di-tatparyam asritya vinivesanam, alamkstinam sarvesam alamkaratva sadhanam." i.e. "It is only the employment of figures, one and all, in view of the main purport of sentiment, emotion, etc., that really justifies their being regarded as sources of charm." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 45, ibid). A. observes : "tasmad yatra rasa"dayo vakyarthibhutah, sa sarva na rasa"der alamkarasya visayah, sa dhvaneh prabhedah, tasya upama"dayo'lamkarah. yatra tu pradhanyena arthantarasya vakyarthibhave rasa"dibhis carutva-nispattih kriyate, sa rasa'der alamkarataya vinayah-evam dhvaneh rasavad alamkarasya ca vibhaktavisayata bhavati." "Therefore, none of those cases where sentiments etc. happen to be the main purport, become instances of figurative sentiment. On the other hand they will only form a species of suggestion. Simile etc., are all enhancers of its charm alone. But in cases where the main purport happens to be some other meaning and when its beauty is enhanced by sentiment etc., we get proper instances of figurative sentiment. Thus understood, the distant spheres of suggestion, figures like simile and figurative sentiment becomes clearly demarcated." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 45, 47, ibid) A. discusses yet another opinion regarding the rasa"di alamkaras. Some critics are of the opinion that rasa"di-alamkara has for its scope the treatment of sentient objects alone. But, argues A., in that case very little or no scope at all will be left for figures such as upam, and the rest. For even when the theme happens to be the behaviour of an insentient object, there has to be superimposition of the behaviour of a sentient object in one way or the other. Now, if it is held that even if such a superimposition is present, it will not be the sphere of rasavad-adi alamkaras, for the object described is itself insentient. But this would be tantamount to assert that the vast bulk of literature which happens to be really the golden treasury of sentiments will have to be taken as 'nirasa', or one having no sentiment (for sentiment is the pre-requisite of the sentients - alone). Thus the best verses from Kalidasa, such as, "taranga-bhru-bhanga." etc. and "tanvi megha-jala"rdrapallavataya." etc. will have to be treated as being without sentiment, for the central thing described is non-sentient. But in these examples, though insentient objects happen to be themes of description, the attribution of sentient behaviour to them For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #454
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1009 is quite obvious. But here, if one argues that as there is attribution of sentient behaviour, let it be the province of figurative sentiment i.e. rasavad alamkara, then no scope will be left for upam, and other figures. For there is no such insentient theme at all in poetry, in which attribution of sentient behaviour is wholly absent; it will be found at least in form of vibhava (= alambana) i.e. the setting or situation for the delineation of rasa. Hence the fact stands that when sentiments etc. are treated as subordinate it is the case of rasa"di alamkara, and when rasa is predominent, angi, and is 'alamkarya', it is the soul of dhvani : (vrtti, on II. 5) - "tasmad angarvena ca rasa"dinam alamkarata. yah punar angi raso va bhavo va sarvakaram alamkaryah sa dhvaner atma iti." We will see later in the following chapter how A.'s 'vyanjana-dhvani-rasa" scheme assimilates in its catholic fold all other thought-currents such as alamkara, guna, dosa, riti, vrtti, etc. that were already prevelent in the field of poetics and how 'dhvani' is capable to render such concepts as tatparya, anumiti and aucitya also as having no value. But for the present we will continue with A.'s further treatment of classification of dhvani and his treatment of rasa and some problems connected with rasa-vyanjana as treated by him in udyota III. of the Dhv. A. starts the IIId udyota with the words : "evam vyangya-mukhena dhvaneh pradarsite sa-prabhede svarupe, punar vyanjaka-mukhena etat prakasyate - "avivaksita-vacyasya pada-vakya-prakasata, tad anyasya anuranana rupa-vyangyasya ca dhvaneh." (Dhv. III. 1) So far the nature and varieties of suggestion have been pointed out in detail from the standpoint of the suggested. Now the same shall be set forth from the standpoint of the suggester: "Both the varieties of suggestion with unintended literal import and the resonance-like suggestion are suggested by individual words and by whole sentences." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 107, ibid) A. also discusses which 'varnas' or letters are favourable in case of which particular rasa, the form and types of construction, the factors that fix this or that type of samghatana or construction for this or that type of rasa or sentiment, etc. He also discusses how a whole composition or prabandha suggests rasa. This involves topics such as consideration of factors that do not For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #455
1010 SAHSDAYALOKA promote the delineation of rasas - i.e. 'rasa-virodhi' factors, and also treatment of rasas of an opposite character such as songara and karuna, vira and bhayanaka etc., as a big composition is likely to serve a number of rasas in given situations. A. tends to suggest that the arrangement of words and meanings conducive to rasa - "rasanuguna-sabdarthayojana", is the prime task of a poet. This shows that for A. `rasa-dhvani' was the be-all and end-all of good poetry. So, when Abhinavagupta brings rasa-dhvani into greater prominance, he does not do it, as some modern scholars want us to believe, on his own. Abhinavagupta does not thrust his rasa-theory on A.'s dhvani theory. But, on the other hand the message, to take rasa-dhvani as the real 'atma' of poetry is writ large in A.'s treatment throughout the whole of the Dhy. We have also looked into A.'s sabda vyapara-vicara earlier wherein he treats vyanjana as the supreme power of word. After treating the nature and scope of rasa-dhvani in very great detail as we will go to observe here, A. turns to the other two types of poetry viz. the gunibhutavyangya-kavya and the citra-kavya. We will end this chapter with a full treatment of all these types by a number of writers on poetics, beginning with A. here and ending with Jagannatha later. The highest common factor of the treatment of rasa in the ancients is that they have not discussed, or even mentioned, the famous rasa-sutra of Bharata and have abstained from discussing the various views on rasa-realisation or "rasa-nispattiprakriya". Of course Dandin and others perhaps had a leaning towards the "utpattiupaciti-vada", as suggested by Abhinavagupta. But nothing beyond this can be read there. A. also does not engage himself in the "rasa-sutra-mimamsa". But he projects 'rasa' as one type of his three-fold dhvani and this, he observes, is arrived at in poetry or literature through the agency of vyanjana or suggestive power of a word. This 'rasa-dhvani' is projected as the 'real soul of poetry by A., and Abhinavagupta takes it further for a clearer exposition. It has to be noted again and again, that Abhinavagupta has never over-stepped while discussing rasa-dhvani and he absolutely toes A.'s line in doing whatever he does. We know that .. took 'dhvani' as the 'soul of poetry and classified it in a threefold scheme of vastu-dhvani, alamkara-dhvani and rasa"di-dhvani. However, the fact stands that out of the three types, only rasa-dhvani occupies the central place as "dhvaner atma". This is very much meant by A., for the Locanakara, given an opportunity, has always tried to make things very clear. For example, on vrtti, Dhv. I. i, "anandah manasi labhatam pratistham..." Abhinavagupta observes : "ananda iti. rasa-carvana"tmanah pradhanyam darsayan rasadhvaner eva sarvatra For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #456
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1011 mukhyabhutam atmatvam iti darsayati." On Dhv. II. 2, Vrtti, viz. "lalitocitasannivesa-carunah...", Locana has the following - "ucita-sabdena rasa-visayam eva aucityam bhavati iti darsayan rasa-dhvaner jivitatvam sucayati. tad-abhave hi kim apeksaya idam aucityam nama sarvatra udghosyata iti bhavah." Again, on Dhv. I. 4, the Locana has - "yas tu svapne'pi na laukika-vyavahara-patitah, kintu sabdasamarpyamana-hrdaya-samvada sundarah vibhavanubhava-samucita-prag-vinivistaratyadi-vasananuraga-sukumara-sva-samvid-ananda-carvana-vyapara-rasaniya-rupo rasah; sa kavya-vyaparaika-gocarah, rasa-dhvanir iti; sa ca dhvanir eva iti, sa eva mukhyataya atma, iti." Locana further notes - "vastv alamkara-dhvanyoh rasadhvani-paryantarvam eva iti vayam eva vaksyamas tatra tatra iti astam tavat." Thus the ultimate termination of vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani in rasa"didhvani is very much suggested by A. himself as noted by Abhinavagupta. And he is very right and within bounds in observing this. Under Dhy. I. 4, in his Vitti, A. has denounced the 'sva-sabda-vacyatva' of rasa"di dhvani and has underlined the situation that rasa"di-dhvani can be delineatd only through the presentation of vibhava"di i.e. determinants, etc., and thus rasa"di-dhvani as only implied through vyanjana. A. underlines that his talk of rasa"di dhvani as the soul of poetry is supported by the great illustration of Valmiki's 'Ramayana'. In this great epic, 'Soka' has become an object of Valmiki's 'sloka' i.e. description i.e. poetry. The examples of dhvani are scattered all over the Ramayana according to A. He explains this by. pointing out to karuna-rasa, which has 'soka' as its basic emotion. On this, Locana observes : "tena rasa eva vastutah atma. vastvalamkara dhvani tu sarvatha rasam prati paryavasyete iti vacyad utkrsau tau, ity abhipyayena "dhvanih kavyasya atma" iti samanyena uktah." A. himself has noted that though other varieties (i.e. 'vastu' and 'alamkara') of the implicit sense - pratiyamanasya - are observed, the lustration cited is that of 'rasa-bhava', and this is only to underline the fact that rasa-dhvani alone is principal. - "pratiyamanasya ca anya-bheda-darsanepi rasabhava-mukhena eva upalaksanam, pradhanyat." (vitti, Dhv. I. 5). Thus, after establishing the supremacy of rasa"di-dhvani, A. has placed rasatattva on the highest pedestal in literature. Actually A. has placed 'rasa' in the centre of his scheme by saying that 'gunas' or 'excellences' are the qualities or rasa, that alamkaras, if 'a-prthag-yatna-nirvartya' in poetry, are not external to poetry, and that the thought-currents of riti, vrtti, samghatana etc., are all 'suggesters' of rasa, and that the 'dosas' i.e. blemishes are blemishes only if they are found to be detrimental to rasa. All this shows that A. has placed 'rasa' in the centre of his scheme and Abhinavagupta only faithfully echoes - anuranan - A.'s ideas. A. has placed rasa as "angi" or 'principal in poetry. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #457
SAHRDAYALOKA When we scanned the varieties and sub-varieties of dhvani, we had observed that A. has established rasa"di-dhvani in form of "abhidhamula-a-samlaksyakrama-vyangya-dhvani." This variety is suggested through varna/letters, pada/ words, vakya/sentence, samghatana/construction and prabandha/i.e. the whole composition. At Dhv. III. 2 he says: "yas tv alaksya-krama-vyangyo dhvanir varna-pada"disu, vakye samghatanayam ca sa prabandhepi dipyate." This A. explains citing apt illustrations. That under the fact of rasa-vyanjana lies "aucitya" or "appropriateness" is also made clear by A. 1012 Explaing the rasa-vyanjakata of a prabandha or a whole composition, A. observes at Dhv. III. 10-14 that, "vibhava-bhava-anubhavasancary aucitya-carunah, vidhih katha-sarirasya vrttasya utpreksitasya va. (III. 10, Dhv.) itivrtta-vasayatam, tyaktva an-anugunam sthitim, utpreksya-apy-antarabhista rasocita-kathonnayah (Dhv. III. 11) "sandhi-sandhyanga-ghatanam rasabhivyakty apeksaya na tu kevalaya sastra sthiti-sampadanecchaya." (Dhv. III. 12) uddipana-samane yathavasaram antara, rasasy-arabdha-visranteh anusandhanam anginah, (Dhv. III. 13) alamkrtinam saktav apy anurupyena yojanam, prabandhasya rasa"dinam vyanjakatve nibandhanam. (Dhv. III. 14) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #458
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 1013 "Construction of only such a plot, either traditional or invented, as is charming with its decorum (of accessories of sentiment, viz.) stimuli of setting, abiding emotions, emotional responses, and passing moods." (III. 10) "If, in a theme, adapted from a traditional source, the poet is faced with situations conflicting with the intended sentiment, his readiness to leave out such incidents and inventing in their place even imaginary incidents with a view to delineating the intended sentiment." (III. 11) "The construction of divisions and subdivisions of the plot only with a view to delineating sentiments and not at all with a desire for mere conformity to rules of poetics." (III. 12) "Bringing about both the high tide of sentiment and its low ebb appropriately in the work; preserving the unity of the principal sentiment from beginning to end." (III. 13) "A discreet use of figures of speech even when the poet is capable of using them in any number; such are the conditions which underlie the suggestiveness of a whole work of literature in regard to sentiments, etc." (III. 14) (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 135, 137, ibid) Thus A. suggests that for a whole composition to be suggestive of rasa, the first requirement is delineation of a theme which is furnished with appropriate determinants, consequents etc. The theme can be either historical or imaginary. In case it is historical, such facts of history as are not condusive to rasa, have to be omitted and even newly imagined factors have to be introduced that go to promote rasa, which is principal. Junctures and parts of them are to be introduced with rasa in focus. They are not to be introduced because the sastra (such as the N.S. of Bharata) has so ordained. A. has here severely criticised Bhatta Narayana, the author of Venisamhara'. The rise and fall of the sentiments in keeping with situations is recommended but never, the principal rasa, is to face an ebbing. In case if the impression is that the principal rasa has started fading away, the nusamdhana - preserving the unity of principal rasa-has to be effected. Even if the poets are capable of introducing figures of speech of their sweet will, the figures have to appear only in keeping with the principal rasa in centre. Only such figures as are condusive to rasa, whose creation is done in a very spontaneous way have to be used in a composition. The poet has not to make any extra or special effort to form a figure, over and above his normal effort to delineate rasa. In short an alamkara has to be - "a-prthag-yatna-nirvartya." (Dhv. II. 16) It is thus that the whole composition becomes suggestive of rasa. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #459
1014 SAHRDAYALOKA A. is of the firm opinion that vrtti i.e. employment of word and sense - mode - vrtti. - and ritis or style or diction also follow the same discipline, i.e. they are being employed by a great good poet in view of 'rasa'. Dhv. III. 33 observes : "rasady anugunatvena vyavaharortha-sabdayoh, * aucityavan yas ta eta vittayo dvividhah sthitah", i.e. "vrttis (lit. modes) are said to be of two kinds only because they relate to appropriate employment of senses and sound in keeping with sentiments etc." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 189, ibid) Read also, Dhv. III. 46-47 "asphuta-sphuritam kavya-tattvam etad-yathoditam, a-saknuvadbhir vyakartum ritayah sampravartitah." (III. 46) "sabda-tattva"srayah kascid artha-tattva-yujo'parah, vTttayopi prakasante jnatesmin kavya-laksane." (III. 47) "Those who were unable to explain properly this essential principle of poetry as they had only a glimmer of it (and nothing more) have brought into vogue the theory or styles." (pp. 261, ibid) "once this theory of poetry is fully understood, even the so-called "Modes", relating to the nature of sounds as well as to the nature of meaning will become intelligible." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 26, ibid) Thus .. has established rasa on the highest pedestal. This vyanjana-dhvani-rasascheme of .. was accepted and further established by such great names as Abhinavagupta, Mammata, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha, Visvanatha, Appayya Dixit and Jagannatha. But, even after accepting the highest position of 'rasa', the process of arriving at it through 'vyanjana' in literature and also in other arts, was challenged by such greats as Sri. Sankuka, Bhatta Nayaka, Mukula Bhatta, Mahima, Dhananjaya/Dhanika etc. Kuntaka, though he did not openly challange vyanjana, remained reticent about the same and though the same whole-heartedly, accepted, its influence in his "vicitra-abhidha". So, for sure, he was a "pracchanna dhvani-vadin". Even he has accepted, not unlike Bhoja, the supremacy of 'rasa' in kavya. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #460
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1015 A. had observed that 'varnas' i.e. letters are also conducise to "rasa". In this respect he observes at Dhv. III. 3-4. "sa-sau sa-refa-samyogah dha-karas ca api bhuyasa, virodhinah syuh songare te na varna rasascyutah." (III. 3) and, "ta eva tu nivesyante bibhatsa"dau rase yada, tada tam dipayanty eva tena varnah rasascyutah." (III. 4) "The (sanskrit) letters "s" and "s", letters conjunct with 'Y', and 'ah', - all these become deterents of the erotic sentiment. Hence those letters are not conducive to a particular sentiment." (Dhv. III. 3) "When these very letters are employed in relation to the sentiment of disgust and so forth, they will only intensify them. Hence also letters suggest sentiments." (Trans. K,Kris. pp. 115, ibid) A. adds - "sloka-dvayena anvaya-vyatirekabhyam varnanam dyotakatvam darsitam bhavati."'"The above aphorisms show negatively and positively that letters do possess suggestiveness." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 115, ibid). We would add in this sentence "(two)" before 'aphorisms' and place "positively" prior to "negatively", of course, with due respect for Prof. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy. After. 'varnas' i.e. 'letters' A. comes to 'padas' i.e. individual words in poetry. 'Suggestivity in a 'pada', or by a 'pada' is illustrated as in. "ut-kampini." etc. The pada "te" in "te locane", in this illustration, is clearly suggestive of rasa, in the opinion of the aesthetes. Locana explains that this pada, "te", becomes suggestive of many qualities of the heroine's eyes. The beauty of those eyes as remembered for the moment becomes the 'vibhava' i.e. stimulus for the suggestion of karuna, i.e. "soka"vesa." Of course rasa-realisation is brought about by the whole vibhava"di complex, but when these vibhavas are apprehended in an extra-ordinary way, through a special 'pada', 'rasa' becomes 'pada-dyotya' here. A. also dwells on parts of a pada, i.e. "padavayava." as suggestive of rasa. Parts of a compound as in, "cakita-harini-hari-netra-tribhagah", or at times a termination, or use of singular, plural, or a gender etc. also become suggestive of rasa. A. gives illustrations for all these. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #461
1016 SAHRDAYALOKA At Dhv. III. 16, A observes : sup-tin-vacana-sambandhais tatha karaka-saktibhih, krt-taddhita-samasais ca dyotyolaksya-kramah kvacit. "Case-terminations, congugational terminations, number, relation, accidence, these become primary affixes, secondary affixes, and also compounds, - all conveyers of suggestion with undiscerned sequenciality." (Trans. K. Kris. pp 147, ibid) For A. a 'sentence' or "vakya" also is a suggestive unit for rasa. This vakya-rupaa-samlaksya-krama-dhvani, is also either 'suddha' i.e. pure in itself, or "sankirna" i.e. mixed with figures of speech. A. provides proper illustrations for the same. He also says that 'construction' - or 'samghatana' in poetry becomes conducive to rasa. (Dhv. III. 6). We will discuss this in a separate chapter later when we will show, how in A.'s opinion different thought-currents are incorporated in his scheme of vyanjana-dhvani-rasa. . Keeping the supreme variety of rasa-dhvani in focus, A. also discusses how rasa is impeded in poetry, i.e. which are rasa-virodhi-tattvas or deterrents to rasa in poery and how to avoid the same. "Rasa-virodhi-tattva and its parihara" is thus an important topic with reference to rasa-dhvani-kavya. We will discuss this, in view of A.'s opinion; as under. At Dhv. III. 17, A. observes : "prabandhe muktake va'pi rasadin bandhum icchata, yatnah karyah sumatina parihare virodhinam." "prabandhe muktake va'pi rasa-bhava-nibandhanam praty adstamanah kavih virodhi-parihare param yatnam adadhati-anyatha tu asya rasamayah slokah ekopi samyan na sampadyate." kani punas tani virodhini yani yatnatah parihartavyani-ity ucyate..." "Whether it is the whole work or a single stanza, a good poet, who is desirous of incorporating sentiments etc., in what he writes should take pains to avoid hindrances to them." (Dhv. III. 17). 'A poet who is intent upon incorporating sentiments and emotions in his works, whether they be big or small, should turn all his efforts towards avoiding For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #462
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1017 impediments. Otherwise he will not succeed in composing even a single verse full of sentiment. The following verses answer the question, "What, then are these impediments which deserve to be carefully avoided by the poet ?". Dhv. III. 18, 19 read as : "virodhi-rasa-sambandhivibhava"di-parigrahah, vistarena anvitasya'pi vastunonyasya varnanam." (III. 18) "akanda eva vicchittir, akande ca prakasanam, pariposam gatasya'pi paunah-punyena dipanam rasasya, syad virodhaya vitty anaucityam eva va." (III. 19) "Sketching the setting etc., of an opposite sentiment, describing something whose connection with the subject on hand is only very remote." (IV. 18) "Stopping the delineation of sentiment abruptly, as also elaborating it when not . required; over-elaborating it again and again, though it has already received sufficient elaboration, and indecorum in respect of behaviour-all these hinder the course of sentiment." (III. 19) (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 161, ibid) A. further elaborates in his vrtti as follows: He observes that the first impediment to sentiment is delineating the vibhava"dis i.e. determinants, consequents and transitory feelings of a rasa, which is opposite to the contextual rasa. For example, the taking of the determinants or vibhavas of the opposite rasa, is seen when first a poet describes a person who is the substrutum of santa-rasa or tranquillity and then immediately (anantaram eva) the same person is described as a substratum of love in union, i.e. he is described as a hero in the setting of erotic sentiments, i.e. as a lover. Thus the originally intended sentiment of tranquillity or santarasa is hindered. Describing the basic emotion (= bhava) of an opposite rasa is seen in hero tries to humour his beloved who is angry through love-quarrel, by telling stories of renunciation of worldly pleasures. In the same way opposite consequents or anubhavas are seen being portrayed, when a hero gets wild and shows real anger when his beloved is feigning love-anger, and does not yield to his approaches. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #463
1018 SAHRDAYALOKA The second impendiment to sentiment is the lengthy description of a subject whose connection with the sentiment on hand is only a very distant one : (vastunah anyasya, kathancid anvitasya api, vistarena kathanam). This is seen when a poet who starts with describing his hero tormented by love in separation, goes off astray, and gives very lengthy descriptions of mountains, etc. i.e. nature. The third impendiment to sentiment is an abrupt stopping of the delineation of a contextual sentiment, and also unwarranted elaboration of the same at the wrong place. The example of unwarranted stoppage is seen when, after portraying the rise of mutual love between the hero and the heroine, instead of describing their efforts to get united, the poem continues to dwell upon their other irrelevant activities. Elaboration at the wrong place is seen when a god-like hero, such as Rama is, for no reason whatsoever, shown as getting interested in activities of love, when actually a terrific battle is raging at its climax, meting out death to the great heroes (as at the time of universal destruction), though there has been absolutely no previous occasion leading up to even the sentiment of love-in-separation at that time. Such a procedure can not be justified even on the ground that the character is shown there only as a victim of delusion due to Destiny. For it is proper that the poet should write only with a view to delineating sentiment. The plot is just a means to an end as noticed in Dhv. I. 9 and so forth. Poets commit such blunders when they keep the description of plot only in the centre; i.e. when they are less focussed on rasa and delineate the same without descrimination between what is principal and what is subordinate. Hence it is made absolutely clear here, observes A., that the poets have to be only rasa-focussed in their works. This alone is the thrust of our effort says A., and not merely to establish the doctrine of dhvani alone : "ata eva ca, itivrtta-matra-varnana-pradhanye angangibhava-rahita-rasa-bhava-nibandhane ca, kavinam evam-vidhani skhalitani bhavanti iti rasa"dirupa-vyangya-tatparyam eva esam yuktam iti yatno'smabhir arabdhah, na dhvani-pritipadana-matrabhinivesena." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 19). The fourth or next impediment to rasa is its over-elaboration, time and again, though it has already received full elaboration in the shape of a description of its various costitutents. Such a description will itself look like a faded flower if it is pressed far too much, again and again. Lack of decorum in respect of behaviour (vrtty-anaucitya) is yet another impediment to sentiment. For example, if the heroine, putting aside all sense of decorum, conveys openly to the hero her desire to make love, we come across this defect. Or, the word 'vrtti' may mean the vsttis i.e. dictions such as kaisiki (or, the scussed by Bharata, or the upanagarika (i.e. the urban) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #464
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 1019 etc., laid down by other writers on poetics: "yadi va vrttinam bharataprasiddhanam kaisiky adi, kavyalankarantara-prasiddhanam upanagarika"dyanam va, yad anaucityam, a-visaye nibandhanam, tad api, rasa-bhanga-hetuh." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 19) The delineation of these vrttis at places where it is not appropriate also causes impediment to rasa. . Indecorum in respects counted above, or such others as imagined afresh by other critics, also have to be avoided by poets, keeping focussed on the central theme of rasa-delineation "evam esam rasa-virodhinam anyesam ca anaya disa svayam utpreksitanam parihare satkavibhir avahitair bhavitavyam." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 19) Good poets, suggests A., have to be centrally focussed in steering clear of these impediments to sentiment, and also of similar other hindrances imagined afresh by them. The following verses, sum up the points, observes A. : "mukhya vyapara-visayah sukavinam rasa"dayah, tesam nibandhane bhavyam taih, sadaiva a-pramadibhih. nirasas tu prabandho yah sopasabdo mahan kaveh, sa tena a-kavir eva syat anyena a-smrta-laksanah. purve visrnkhala-girah kavayah prapta-kirtayah, tan samasritya na tyajya nitir esa manisina. valmiki-vyasa-mukhyas ca ye prakhyata kavisvarah, tad-abhipraya-bahyoyam - na'smabhir darsito nayah." - iti. "Sentiments etc., are the most important ends for the activity of poets; hence poets should always be very attentive in delineating them. A work, devoid of sentiment, is the the most unpardonable solecism on the part of the poet. It will brand him as a poetaster, with nothing but oblivion in store for him. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #465
1020 SAHRDAYALOKA Time was, when poets could win fame by their words unfettered by any rule; but the wise should not take them as their models and depart from the principles laid down above. As a matter of fact, we have shown nothing here which is against the opinions of the most-celebrated first-rate poets like Valmiki and Vyasa." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 165, ibid) After this, A. dwells upon the possibility of how even 'virodhin' - i.e. hindrances can be accomodated in a composition. He observes : (Dhv. III. 20) "Vivaksite rase labdha-pratisthe tu, virodhinam, badhyanam angabhavam va praptanam uktir acchala." "After the intended sentiment has been established on a secure footing; there - will be no defect in including even hindrances, provided that these come either as foils, or as ancillaries." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 165, ibid) A. is of the opinion that once that intended sentiment is fully developed with the help of its required accessories, to portray even the hindrances, in case they serve only as foils or ancillaries of the intended sentiment, will not be a defect. Hindrances will serve as foils only if they are positively overshadowed by the intended leading sentiments, not in any other way. Thus portrayed, the presentation of virodhins only enhances the development of the intended leading sentiment. A. observes: "angabhavam praptanam ca tesam virodhitvam eva nivartate." (vstti, Dhv. III. 20) i.e. if hindrances are portrayed as ancillaries, they will have lost their very hindering power. A. further suggests how hindrances can come in as ancillaries. Either they come as ancillaries in a natural way, or in an imagined way. In a description of natural ancillaries, there is no chance of any hindrance. Say, for example, in describing 'vyadhi' i.e. desease and the like, it will not create hindrance while developing the sentiment of Love in separation, for desease is its natural ancillary. But such things as death, which are not natural ancillaries, if described, will create hindrances, for If it is argued that death is also a natural ancillary in case of the leading vipralambha, then also, A. observes, it should not be brought in, simply because when the substratum (here nayaka or nayika) dies, there is going to be an invariable rupture in the development of the leading vipralambha-srngara : "asraya-vicchede rasasya atyanta-viccheda" patteh." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20) If it is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #466
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1021 argued that in that case Karuna or, pathos will be developed, this is not acceptable to .., for, Karuna is not relevant to the context, and that which is contextual here, i.e. vipralambha will be broken up, or damaged. If pathos is the intended leading sentiment, then there is no objection to death being portrayed. Or, in a rare case death will not hinder vipralambha, in case, this separation by death comes to an immediate end by reunion in another form : (a-dirgha-kala-pratyapatti-sambhave). But if a long time-gap passes between death and such reunion, it will surely create hindrance. Thus, such episodes should be avoided by a poet intent upon delineating rasa predominntly. A. gives an illustration where hindrances do not appear as blemishes, i.e. when they are portrayed as foils. The example is : "kvakaryam sasa-laksmanano" etc. Or, when Pundarika is advised by a friendly ascetic. Again, when a hindrance is placed as an ancillary, it creates no blemish in the delineation of intended sentiment e.g. in, "bhramim aratim." etc. There is no blemish also, when the ancillary position is even superimposed or imagined - "samaropita api", as in "pandu-ksamam." etc. Ancillary position of a hindrance can be secured in yet another way also such as when two sentiments or emotions, opposed mutually, may both be made ancillary to another idea which happens to be the principal import in a sentence by force of its contextual importance : "iyam ca anga-bhava-praptir anya, yad adhikarikatvat pradhana ekasmin vakyarthe, rasayor bhavayor va, parasparavirodhinor, dvayor anga-bhava-gamanam, tasyam api na dosah." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20) E.g. in the verse, "ksipto hastavalagnah." etc. If it is asked why the opposition in such case melts away, the reply that A. gives is that, it is so because both of them are definitely subordinate to the main import. The natural opposition will appear as such and would lead to defect only if it is a positive statement and not a mere quotation as in the verse "ehi, gaccha, pata, uttistha." etc. There is no real opposition though both positive injunctions and prohibitions are found side by side, because they are only quotations : "vidhau viruddha-samavesasya dustatvam, na anuvade." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20). A. also suggests that : "na ca rasesu vidhy anuvadavyavaharo nasti iti sakyam vaktum, tesam vakyarthatvena abhyupagamat." It is not possible to say that the procedure of 'vidhi' i.e. direct assertion, and 'anuvada' or indirect assertion is not found in sentiments. When purport of sentence and expressed sense can both contain this procedure of direct assertion and indirect narration, how can you prevent the sentiments from containing these, because sentiments are also suggested by the same : "vakyarthasya ca vacyasya yau For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #467
1022 SAHKDAYALOKA vidhyanuvadau tau tad-aksiptanam rasanam kena varyete ?" (vstti, Dhv. III. 20). Even those who do not accept that rasa"di are the direct import of poetry (saksad rasadinam kavya"rthata"), will have to accept the instrumentality of the kavyartha in bringing about rasa, i.e. the position that rasa"di are conveyed by kavya main import will have to be admitted. A. observes : (vltti, Dhv. III. 20) - "yasmad anudyamananga-nimittobhayarasa-vastu-sahakarino vidhiyamanamsad bhavavisesa-pratitir utpadyate tatas ca na kascid virodhah. drsyate hi viruddhobhayasahakarinah karanat karya-visesotpattih. viruddha-phalotpadana-hetutvam hi yugapad ekasya karanasya viruddham na tu viruddhobhaya-sahakaritvam. (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20) - "That particular effects are produced by the agency of two causes opposed to each other, yet co-operating in the production of effect, is a matter of common observation. Opposition would be there only when it is held that the same cause gives rise to two opposite effects simultaneously and not when it is said that two causes opposed to each other are contributing simultaneously towards the production of a single effect." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 171, ibid) A. concludes : "tasmas vakyarthibhutasya rasasya bhavasya va virodhi rasavirodhi iti vaktum nyayyah, na tu angabhutasya kasya cit." "Therefore, only that sentiment deserves to be termed as a hindrance to sentiment, which hinders either a sentiment or an emotion that happens to be the main import of the sentence in question, and not at all the one which hinders only another ancillary sentiment or emotion." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 173, ibid) A. gives a special concession to songara which can serve as favourable to the delineation of even karuna, when it is presented in a charming device. For example, all occurrences of songara recollected in hours of pathos, give a greater fillip to karuna. Thus, says .. the more and more we think about such escapes the greater is the possibility of avoiding an opposition. Thus, A. says, we have explained the distinction where sentiments can be delineated side by side with the sentiments that are opposed to them, and where they cannot be thus delineated : "evam tavad rasa"dinam virodhi-rasa"dibhih samavesa-a-samavesayor visaya-vibhago darsitah." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20) Now A. suggests how the delineation of such various sentiments is to be done in one and the same work - Dhv. III. 21 reads : "prasiddhepi prabandhanam nana-rasa-nibandhane For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #468
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1023 eko rasongikartavyas tesam utkarsam icchata." "Though there is convention that more than one sentiment should find a place in entire works of literature, one of them alone should be made principal by the poet who aims at greatness of his works." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 175, ibid). A. observes in his vrtti, on Dhv. III. 21 : "prabandhesu mahakavya"disu nalaka"disu va viprakirnataya angangi-bhavena bahavo rasah upanibadhyanta ity atra prasiddhau satyam api, yah prabandhanam chayatisaya-yogam icchati, tena tesam rasanam anyatamah kascid vivaksito rasongitvena vinivesayitavya ity ayam yuktataro margah." "Though in fact the convention is that, in epics etc., as well as in dramas etc., several sentiments should be delineated with either equal importance to each other or differing importance, the better procedure is that a poet who is intent upon adorning his work with abundant beauty should make it a rule to give principal importance to only one intended sentiment amongst them." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 175, ibid), Abhinavagupta in his Locana here explains : tad eva avatarayati-"idanim ity adina". tesam rasanam krama iti yojana. "prasiddhe' piti" bharata-muniprabhrtibhir nirupitepity arthah. tesam iti prabandhanam. mahakavya"disu ity adi sabdah prakare. an-abhineyan bhedan aha-dvitiyas tv abhineyan. "viprakirnataya" iti. nayaka-pratinayaka-pataka-prakari-nayaka"di nisthataya ity arthah. angangibhavena ity ekanayaka-nisthatvena. 'yuktatara' iti. yady api samavakara"dau paryaya-bandha"dau ca naikasya angitvam tatha'pi nayuktata tasya'py evam-vidho yah prabandhah tad yatha natakam mahakavyam va tad utkrsta-tara sabdasya arthah." (Dhv. III. 21) (Locana). A. answers an objection here. The opponent raises a point to the following effect. He argues that when actually several sentiments have been developed to their climax, how can any single, rasa or sentiment can be said to be 'angin' or principal ? The answer to this is given in Dhv. III. 22, and vrtti thereon. A. argues that the importance of the intended sentiment, which is shining through out the work abidingly, i.e. which looks like the vary basis of a composition - "sthayitvena avabhasinah", cannot be marred by the inclusion of other sentiment. The 'vrtti' here goes to observe that when a rasa is intended to be principal or primary in a work, and is kept constantly in focus by being delineated again and again, its importance cannot be marred by the inclusion of other passing sentiments because it underlies all the rest. The reason for this is explained in Dhv. III. 23, where it is observed that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #469
1024 SAHRDAYALOKA just as one plot is made to stay as principal or major in a given composition as a whole, so also one sentiment can be made to stay as principal and this will never lead to any blemish or discrepancy : (Dhv. III. 23) "karyam ekam yatha vyapi prabandhasya vidhiyate, tatha rasasya api vidhau, virodho naiva vidyate." The vrtti on this observes that just as one plot consisting of several parts or junctures is made to progress uniformly and pervade the whole work, and just as it never gets mixed up with minor parts, and even if it gets mixed up its prominence is not shrouded i.e. it does not suffer, so also, when a single sentiment among several other minor ones is made as principal or major one in the whole work, there is no discrepancy at all involved here. On the other hand, such a procedure will bring abundant delight to the cultured critics or men of taste, whose power of discrimination is even sharp and whose appreciation is wide enough. A possible objection also is put to rest here by A. It may be argued for example, that the relation of major and minor or principal and subordinate may hold good at best, in case of such sentiments which are not opposed to each other, such as, the vira or heroic, and the srngara i.e. erotic, the erotic and the adbhuta i.e. marvellous, the vira/heroic and the furious/raudra, and the pathetic/karuna, etc. But, argues the opponent, how can this relationship of major/minor be ever possible in case of sentiments that are mutually absolutely opposed to each other, such as the erotic/songara and the disgustful/bibhatsa, the heroic/vira and the terrible or bhayanaka, or the quietude i.e. santa and the furious/raudra or santa and srngara ? To this, A.'s answer is read in Dhv. III. 24 : "a-virodhi virodhi va rasongini rasantare, pariposam na netavyas tatha syad a-virodhita." i.e. "When a sentiment is delineated in a work as the principal one, no other vhether unopposed or opposed to it, should be treated elaborately. This will ensure one that no opposition between them will remain any more." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 177, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #470
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1025 So, when any single rasa, say songara, happens to be principal in a work, no other sentiment, whether unopposed or opposed, should be treated fully or elaborately at the same time. A. holds that elaborate treatment of other rasas can be avoided in different ways. He observes (vltti, Dhv. III. 24) : "angini rasantare songara"dau prabandha-vyangye sati, a-virodhi, virodhi va rasah, pariposam na netavyah. tatra a-virodhino rasasya, angi-rasapeksaya atyantam adhikyam na kartavyam iti ayam prathamah pariposa-pariharah. utkarsa-samyepi tayor virodhaa-sambhavat. yatha-"ekato roditi priya." etc. yatha va, "kanthat cchitva." etc., ity atra. - etc. Here, A. observes that even an un-opposed sentiment should not be shown greater importance as compared to the principal sentiment. Even if both of them get equal prominence, there will be no chance of any opposition between them; as in "ekato roditi." etc., or "kanthat cchitva." etc. The next device suggested by A. is that ancillary feelings or passing moods, i.e. vyabhicarins, which are opposed to the major rasa, should not be delineated at length, and even if described at all, it should be immediately followed by the description of the passing moods of the principal rasa. A. further adds that even when a minor or subsidiary rasa is being treated fully, it should be at all events treated only as a subsidiary one by special attention. Its status of a subsidiary rasahas to be kept in focus by the poet. A. suggests that other devices on these lines can be invented by poets or readers. If the subsidiary rasa happens to be a virodhin i.e. opposite to the main rasa, it should be carefully delineated only as being lesser than the major rasa - "virodhinas tu rasasya, angirasapeksaya kasyacin nyunata sampadaniya." (Vrtti, Dhv. III. 24). For example, when santa is the major rasa, songara should be comparatively less developped, i.e. it should be attached lesser importance. So also, vice versa, when songara is a major rasa, santa should be given lesser prominence. If it is argued that in the absence of fuller treatment, there can be no rasa at all, the answer is, "uktam atra, angi-rasa'peksaya" i.e. we are talking of comparatively lesser prominence. The subordinate opposite sentiment thus will receive less fuller ompared to the angi' or principal rasa. The same degree of full ent will not go by the way of what is meant to be a minor rasa. But by this, the development of even a minor rasa, in its own course is not denied : "angino hi rasasya yavan pariposas tavan tasya na kartavyah, svatah-tu-sambhavi pariposah kena varyate ?" (vrtti, on Dhv. III. 24). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #471
1026 SAHRDAYALOKA A. further adds that "etac ca apeksikam prakarsa-yogitvam ekasya rasasya bahurasesu prabandhesu rasanam angangi-bhavam anabhyupagacchata'py asakyapratiksepam ity anena prakarena a-virodhinam virodhinam ca rasanam angangibhavena samavese praband hesu syad a-virodhah." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 24) "Thus no one - not even those who do not accept the principal and subsidiary relation of sentiments - can ever deny that a single sentiment will have principal importance, in spite of the fact that, the work may contain several sentiments also alongside of it. Thus too, the opposition of sentiments can be avoided in works by portraying such unopposed or opposed sentiments with due deference to the principal and subsidiary relationship." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 179, ibid) - : After explaining the general rules concerning opposition to sentiments, A. comes to discuss specific means of overcoming opposition between two opposite sentiments. He observes : (vrtti, before Dhv. III. 25) - "evam a-virodhinam virodhinam ca prabandhasthena angina rasen samavese sadharanam avirodhopayam pratipadya, idanim virodha-visayam eva tam pratipadayitum idam ucyate." Now follows Dhv. III. 25, which reads as : "viruddhaika"srayo yas tu virodhi sthayino bhavet sa vibhinnasrayah karyas tasya posepy adosata." "If a sentiment opposed to the principal one happens to occur in the same substratum as that of the latter itself, the opposed sentiment should be given a different substrtum; (once this is done) there will be no defect even if it should be treated in full." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 181, ibid) A. further adds that the 'virodhi' i.e. opposite sentiments could fall into two types - (i) ekadhikaranya-virodhi or opposite of another, when in the same asraya or substratum, and (ii) nairantarya-virodhi - i.e. opposition, when absolutely juxtaposed, i.e. opposition of another coming by its side. Now, as far as the major or principal rasa is concerned, if another sentiment also is found in the same substratum, i.e. if it acquires the same amount of importance with it, say, for example when vira or heroic is the principal rasa and is developed with reference to hero, and in the same breath, and in the same substratum i.e. in the hero, the 'bhayanaka' or the terrible is also deployed, we will have an illustration of the first For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #472
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1027 type of opposition. Now in such cases the opposition can be removed if the substratum of the opposition is varied or changed. The bhayanaka should be delineated, say, with reference to the enemy of the hero who is himself the substratum of the vira-rasa. When the poet arranges the design this way, no blamish will be seen even in the development of an opposite rasa. By describing that the enemy is terrified, actually the special glory of the hero will be all the more established. A. suggests that this is well illustrated in his own composition called "arjuna-vijaya", wherein Arjuna, the hero enters the nether-world. As for the second type of opposition, A. observes : "evam ekadhikaranya-virodhinah prabandhasthena sthayina rasena anga-bhava gamane nirvirodhitvam yatha tatha darsitam. dvitiyasya tu tat-pratipadayitum ucyate - "ekasrayatve nirdoso nairantarye virodhavan, rasantara-vyavadhina raso vyangyah sumedhasa." (Dhv. III. 26) The manner of avoiding the opposition caused by a conflicting sentiment in the same substratum and of making it subsidiary to the principal sentiment in the work has been pointed out in the above text. The same is pointed out below with reference to opposite of the second variety : "A sentiment which has no opposition due to the sameness of substratum, but which becomes an opposite of another (i.e. principal) sentiment coming closely beside it, should be so conveyed by the intelligent poet that a third sentiment will intervence between these conflicting ones." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 181, ibid) Though there may not be any opposition between two rasas residing in the same substratum, but if the opposition is seen only when they are juxtaposed in the same substratum, then such two sentiments should be so introduced in a composition, that a common friendly third rasa is placed in between the two. The illustration is seen in the delineation of both santa and songara in the same substratum, viz. the hero Jimutavahana, but not at one and the same time, but with an interval, so to say, of adbhuta rasa, placed between the two. A. here takes an opportunity to recommend an independent place for santa-rasa even in a drama, for he and his follower Abhinavagupta are great For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #473
1028 SAHRDAYALOKA supporters of santa-rasa. We will discuss this point later in this chapter when we consider the topic of the number of rasas accepted by various authorities and especially the position of santa-rasa as an independent rasa. For the present we will proceed with A. who illustrates the removal of second type of rasa-virodha by mentioning the case of Nagananda. To further support his position, A. observes : (Dhv. III. 27) - "rasantarantaritayor eka-vakyasthayor api, nivartate hi rasayoh samavese virodhita." "By the intervention of another sentiment even the opposition of two sentiments in the same sentence will disappear." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 183, ibid) . There is no doubt that the opposition between two sentiments in a work will disappear by the intervention of a third rasa. For, it is observed that even the opposition between two sentiments in the same sentence also is seen to be removed when this principle of putting a common third rasa between the two is observed. Thus, in the illustration viz. "bhurenu-digdhan nava-parijata." etc. from the Mahabharata both srngara and bibhatsa are delineated in the same sentence, of course, with an interval of vira-rasa in between. A. further suggests (Dhv. III. 28) that poets should solve the problem of opposition or otherwise in their composition. They have to be more watchful while treating srngara, for it is a very very delicate rasa. Even, the slightest error with reference to srngara is widely noticed immediately by experts. - "tatraiva ca rase, sarvebhyo'pi rasebhyah saukumaryatisaya-yogini kavir avadhanavan, prayatnavan syat. tatra hi pramadyatas tasya sahsdaya-madhye ksipram eva avajna-visayata bhavati. srngara-raso hi samsarino niyamena anubhava-visayarvat sarva-rasebhyah kamaniyataya pradhanabhutah." (vrtci, Dhv. III. 29) - "The poet should be very attentive in regard to that sentiment as it is more delicate than every other sentiment. If he should carelessly falter in this sentiment, he will at once become a butt of contempt in the circle of refined critics. Erotic sentiment is invariably within the experience of all persons, it is not only the most charming but also the most important sentiment." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 187, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #474
"Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1029 Thus, A. seems to establish the supremacy of 'rasa' in poetry and suggests that all other thought-currents promulgated in the field of literary criticism should have 'rasa' in the centre and that a poet has to be rasa-oriented in his efforts. A. observes "evam rasa"disu virodha-virodha-nirupanasya upayogitvam pratipadya vyanjakavacya-vacaka-nirupanasya'pi tad-visayasya tat-pratipadyate - "vacyanam vacakanam ca yad aucityena yojanam, rasa"di-visayenaitad karma mukhyam mahakaveh." (Dhv. III. 32) vacyanam iti-vstta-visesanam vacakanam ca tad-visayanam rasa"di-visayena aucityena yad yojanam etan mahakaver mukhyam karma. ayam eva hi mahakaver mukhyo vyaparo yad rasa"dinam eva mukhyataya kavyarthi-krtya tad vyakty anugunarvena sabdanam arthanam ca upanibandhanam." "The usefulness of the treatment of opposition and non-opposition of sentiments has been explained above. In the following, the usefulness of the treatment of the expressed and the expressions also as are suggestive of sentiment is indicated : "The main task of a first-rate poet lies in a proper marshalling of all the contents and the expressions in the direction of sentiments etc. (Dhv. III. 32)" The main business of a first-rate poet is none other than the proper marshalling of both contents, i.e. plots, and expressions used in setting them forth, in the direction of sentiments, etc. In other words, the main function of the poet lies only in making one sentiment principal throughout the poem and in employing both words and senses only in such a way that the sentiment is suggested clearly." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 189, ibid) We have suggested that we will deal with the problem of the number of rasas and the status of santa-rasa by the end of this chapter. We will also take care of how different concepts such as those of guna, alamkara, riti, vrtci, dosa, laksana, etc. are also correlated to the pivotal concept of rasa in the Kashmirian school of thought in particular and Indian literary criticism in general. This we will do in the chapter that follows. But for the present, after having dealt with the first variety of criticism based classification in A. viz. dhvani kavya, and there too rasa-dhvani in particular, now we will first proceed to deal with the other two types viz. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #475
1030 SAHRDAYALOKA gunibhuta-vyangya and citra kavya, in A., to begin with. We propose to pick up this thread of three-fold criticism-based classification in other writers of the Kashmir School of thought, beginning with Mammata and ending with Jagannatha, next. First, we will see as below, how Mammata and others treat the first variety viz. dhvani kayya. Mammata, as we have seen earlier defines kavya at K.P. I. 4 ab, and talks of dhvani (kavya) at K.P. I. 4 cd as under : "tad adosau sabdarthau sa-gunavanalamksti punah kva'pi, .. idam uttamam atisayini vyangye vacyad, dhvanir budhaih kathitah." (4 ab) - "It (i.e. poetry) consists of word and sense, which are without blemishes, possessed of excellences, and are, rarely, devoid of figures." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, K.P., pp. 9, ibid) (4 cd). "This is best when the suggested meaning far excels the expressed sense; it is called 'dhvani' by the learned." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 11, ibid) - The vrtti on K.P. I. 4 reads as : "idam iti kavyam, budhair vaiyakaranaih pradhanabhuta-sphota-rupa-vyangya-vyanjakasya sabdasya dhvanir iti vyavaharah krtah, tatas tanmatanusaribhir anyair api nyagbhavita-vacya-vyangya-vyanjana-ksamasya sabdartha-yugalasya." " 'This' means a poem. By the learned i.e. the grammarians, the designation dhvani' is given to a (non-eternal, physical) word, suggestive of the suggested sense in form of 'sphota' (i.e. the eternal ideal form of word), which is the principal. Hence by others also, who follow their theory, (the designation 'dhvani' is given) to the pair of word and sense such as are capable of suggesting a sense that has subordinated the expressed sense. (Trans. R.C.D. pp. 11, ibid) With reference to the predominance of the suggested sense, Mammata (= M.) goes for a three-fold classification on the lines suggested by A. and not only names them as dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya and (citra or) avara, but calls them as 'uttama' - the best, 'madhyama'-the mediocre or second rate, and 'avara'or the other, the last. In the ullasa IV, he deals with the classification of dhvani, and in ullasa V and VI, with that of gunibhuta-vyangya and citra respectively. It seems that as compared to his mentor, i.e. A., M. has given a comparatively more scientific classification of dhvani. In the K.P. also, 2 varieties of laksana-mula For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #476
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1031 dhvani and 16 varieties of abhidhamula-dhvani make a total of 18. Now out of these, ubhayasaktimula is available in a sentence only i.e. vakya-gata, and the rest are both pada-gata and vakya-gata, thus giving 34 more. Total reaches to 34 + 1 = 35 types. Now, the artha-sakty-uttha is available with reference to a whole composition, i.e. prabandha-gata also and this takes us to 35 + 12 = 47 types. The a-samlaksya-krama is also available in padamsa, racana, varna and prabandha, thus giving, 4 more and taking us to 51 types of suddha-dhvani. Now on account of three-fold samkara and one variety of samsrsti, they reach a figure of 10404 and when 51 suddha types are added, the total comes to 10455. In A., following locana, we have 35 suddha-bhedas which swell to 51 in M. Thus there are 16 more. These are possible in the sub-varieties of abhidha-mula-dhvani i.e. vivaksitanyaparavacyadhvani. On the one hand, the Locana explained 12 types of artha-saktyudbhava amounting to 24 when taken as both pada-gata and vakyagata. But M. adds 12 more of prabandha-gata to these 24. Again, when the Locana, take saktyuttha to be pada-gata and vakya-gata only, M. takes it to be udbhaya-gataalso. M. also takes sabda-saktyuttha-dhvani to be vastu-vyangya and alamkaravyangya, and these two again both pada-gata and vakya-gata. Thus we have 5 more, i.e. 12 + 2 + 1 = 15. These 15 more are with reference to the samlaksyakrama-vyangya. Locana takes rasa"di-dhvani to be pada-gata, vakya-gata, varnagata, samghattana-gata and prabandha-gata, but M. adds one more i.e. laika-desa-gata. Thus M. has 16 more types making the total of suddha-dhvanibheda to be thus 51, as against 35 of Locana. Hemacandra and Jayadeva follow the suit of M., though Jayadeva has a longer discussion on varieties and sub-varieties. Jayadeva has given certain new names also. Vidyadhara in the third unmesa (= chapter) of his Ekavali discusses dhvani-prapanca in details. Normally rasa"di-dhvani is held to be of a single type, but Vidyadhara takes it to be eight-fold. Vidyanatha just refers to the 51 varieties as given by M. While M. arrivers at 10455 varieties through multiplication method, Vidyanatha and Visvanata restrict the number to 5355, through samkalanamethod. It may be noted that Visvanatha totally rejects the citra-kavya, as it is bereft of rasa according him. He supports M. by saying that it is necessary to take kavi-praud hokri-siddha and kavi-nibaddha-vaktr-prandhokti-siddha as two separate varieties, but Jagannatha takes this as useless or 'a-kincit-kara.' Kesavamisra following the dhvani-tradition, taking the principal status of vyangya, or otherwise into consideration, gives a three-fold classification of poetry such as uttama, madhyama and adama. This is acceptance of M.'s thinking. Appayya Dixit has For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #477
1032 SAHRDAYALOKA given a very subtle discussion on only 'citra' varieties, i.e. of alamkaras only, in his Citra-mimamsa, but he was basically a dhvanivadin to the core. He, in available documents therefore does refer to the other two types of poetry such as 'dhvani' and 'gunabhuta-vyangya' also. For Jagannatha (= J.), in place of the threefold classification of A. and M., we come across a four-fold scheme such as uttamottama, uttama, madhyama and avara. Uttamottama is one (R.G. pp. 9) - in which both sabda/sound and artha/ meaning get subordinated and suggest a charming meaning : "sabdarthau yatra gunibhavita"tmanau kam apy artham abhi-vyanktah, tad adyam." This is almost similar to the definitions given by A. and M. It may be noted that J. takes the condition of "Camatkara" or "Surprise" i.e. the feeling of extraordinary, as the major decisive factor and mentions the same in the definition. By 'kam-api' he exactly means this. J. observes (R.G. pp. 31, Edn. RBA) : "kam api iti. camatketibhumim tena ati-ghudha-sphuta-vyangyayor nirasah. aparanga-vacyasiddhyanga-vyangyasya api camatkaritaya tad varanaya gunibhavita"tmanau iti svapeksaya, vyangya-pradhanyabhiprayakam. Thus 'kam-api' means "source of camatkara" and this excludes 'atighudha' or too much concealed suggestion, or indistinct, and also 'sphuta i.e. non-concealed or distinct suggestion. These two types of suggestion are devoide of charm. Now, argues J. further, if 'chmatkara' alone is taken as the characteristic of uttamakavya, then 'vacya-siddhyanga' i.e. suggestion that is subserivent establishment of the expressed meaning, and 'aparanga' or that which is subservient to another (sense), also would walk in the field of 'uttamottama.' as these two varieties have a suggested sense which are gifted with 'camatkara' or 'surprise'. All dhvanis of rasa, rasa"bhasa, bhava, bhava"bhasa etc. fall under this type of poetry. We can equate J.'s 'uttamottama' roughly with the 'uttama' of M. and the Kashmir School of thought in general. Actually his second and third types attract close observation. 'Uttama' is the second type of poetry which according to J. has the vyangya' i.e. suggested sense no doubt charming but is in itself subordinate to sabda or artha or both. J. observes, (pp. 53, ibid) : "yatra vyangyam apradhanam eva sac camatkarakaranam, tad dvitiyam. - vacyapeksaya pradhanibhutam, vyangyantaram adaya gunabhutam vyangyam adaya ati-vyapti-varanaya avadharanam. tena tasya dhvanitvam eva. lina-vyangya-vacya-citra'tiprasanga-varanaya 'camatkara' ity adi." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #478
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1033 Thus, for J. We have "uttama" type of kavya, when vyangya, though subordinate in itself, is the cause of 'Camatkara' or surprise. J. feels that in the special variety of gunibhuta-vyangya viz. aparanga-vyangya, the (first) vyangya is principal so far as it is compared with the expressed sense, but is subordinate when placed against the second suggested sense, and hence it should be taken as 'dhvani' kavya. Now to avoid 'ati-vyapti' of 'uttama' in such illustrations, J. has used "eva" or emphasis in the definition. If may be noted that in illustrations of alamkaras such as rasa-vat and the like, the 'vyangya' is principal as compared to the expressed sense but subordinate as compared to the other suggested rasa. The 'camatkara' caused by the first vyangya is not as great as the one caused by the second vyangya. J. has included the term 'camatkara-karanam' in the definition of uttamakavya. Now this condition is meant to exclude lina-vyangya i.e. very feeble suggested sense, i.e. one where vyangya is almost fainted. Such a condition prevails in 'vacya-citra' type i.e. the illustrations of "arthalamkaras". Now J. criticised M.'s definition of 'gunibhuta-vyangya' type, which runs as : "a-tadesi gunibhutavyangyam, vyangye to madhyamam" - i.e. "But when the suggested meaning is unlike that (i.e. is not principal), it (poetry) is called "mediocre" wherein the suggested becomes subordinate." By 'atadrsi' i.e. "unlike that" means "not far excelling the expressed sense." (Trans. R.C.D. pp. 13, ibid) Now it may be observed here that J. strikes to distinguish between the fact of a subordinated suggested sense which in itself is superior to the expressed on one hand, and a subordinated sense which is inferior from the point of charm to the expressed sense. In the first variety fall all emotion-based alamkaras such as rasavat, preya, urjasvi and samahita and in the second fall such alamkaras as samasokti, aprastuta-prasamsa, paryayokta etc. For M. both of these were gunibhuta-vyangya, for in them a suggested sense, viz. rasa-bhava"di in the first, and any suggested sense viz. rasa, vastu or alamkara - becomes subordinate to another sense, be it again vyangya or vacya. M. explains 'aparanga-vyangya' variety of gunibhuta-vyangya i.e. madhyama kavya as, "aparasya rasa"der vacyasya va vakyarthibhutasya angam rasa"di anuranana-rupam va." i.e. "To another i.e. to rasa and the like or the expressed meaning which has become the purport of the sentence, is subservient the rasa and the like, or the reverberation." (Trans. R.C.D. 141, ibid). Prof. Dr. R. C. Dwivedi adds in a foot-note here (pp. 141, ibid) - "In 'Aparanga' the term 'apara' refers to 'rasa"di' and the expressed meaning principally denoted by a sentence. The term 'anga' refers to the rasa"di and the expressed For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #479
1034 SAHRDAYALOKA meaning principally denoted by a sentence. The term 'anga' refers to the rasa"di and the reverberating suggestion. Thus 'aparanga' is that wherein 'rasa"di' or the reverberating suggestion becomes subservient to rasa"di and the expressed sense, principally denoted by a sentence." But J. seems to be clearer here. He observes that if one rasa, say srngara is subordinate to another rasa which is principle, say karuna (as in the illustration viz. "ayam sa rasanotkarsi" etc.), ultimately some rasa-or suggested sense is principal and hence this should be taken as "dhvani" of the ancients. In fact we have 'karuna-dhvani' in this example. But the charm of suggested srngara also can not be denied. So, such examples should be taken out as a separate class from others such as the arthalamkaras-paryayokta and the rest-where suggested sense is subordinated to an expressed sense, i.e. the charm of the expressed is rated higher as compared to whatever suggested sense is apprehended. In the first variety (i.e. in rasavad adi alamkaras, illustrated by the example viz. "ayam sa rasanotkarsi." etc.), the expressed sense is not at all more charming then both the subordinated and the principal suggested emotive sense or rasa"di. These should not be therefore clubbed together as done by Mammata and others. So, J. gives 'uttama' as second variety of kavya, and 'gunibhuta-vyangya' as the third. We can argue that here also from the ultimate point of view some rasa"di make for the principal suggested sense, then why not call it "uttamottama" ?. But J. feels that, of course, here the principal suggested sense in form of some rasa"di is charming enough to be designated as "dhvani-kavya" of the ancients, but in this variety, it is the subordinated suggested rasa"di, which is superior to the expressed steals the thunder as compared to the principal suggested rasa"di. It is like Sachin Tendulkar's double century, even when his side, i.e. the India XI, looses a test match. Now, this sort of an experience of the refined and cultured critics cannot be denied. It is therefore that J. splits the original gunibhuta-vyangya of the dhvanivadins into two, i.e. 'uttama' and 'madhyama'. J. tries to draw a line of distinction between uttamottama and uttama by observing that the camatkara caused by the former is greater than the one caused by the latter, for 'vyangya' is pradhana in one, and a-pradhana in another, both being 'camatkara-kari' in their own way. The point is that when M. says that one rasa is subordinated to another rasa as in 'aparanga' variety, he does not name which rasa is the ultimate source of charm. If in the example, "ayam sa rasamotkarsi', the karuna is believed to be the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #480
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 1035 - ultimate source or principal source of charm, the example should be placed under 'dhvani', and if 'srngara' is said to be also charming or equally or more charming then we feel there is contradiction. Ultimately a poetry is to be classed as this or that by the position of principal source of charm. If this lies with the expressed and not with the vyangya it has to be termed gunibhuta-vyangya. For J. the problem arises when both the subordinated and the principal senses are 'vyangya' in themselves. Then one variety gives uttamottama and another gives 'uttama'. But, be sure his uttamottama is not absolutely identical with 'dhvani' of the ancients in the sense that his 'uttama' also is 'dhvani'. In a way even J. is confusing things. But we have given an example from practical life where we see Sachin's best innings studed with a double century goes in vain when his side loses the match. On his part, M. also is not clear when he does not point out which one, i.e. the subordinated srngara or the finally suggested karuna is a greater source of charm; so, both J. and M. are in a way confusing. Actually J. observes about these two types i.e. uttamottama and uttama, that (pp. 54, R. G. Edn. Athavale, ibid): "anayor bhedayor anapahnavaniya-camatkaryor api pradhanyapradhanyabhyam asti kascit sahrdaya-vedyo visesah" - i.e. here the phrase "pradhanyapradhanyabhyam" should be taken to mean "camatkarasya pradhanyapradhanyabhyam" and not vyangyasya-pradhinyapradhanyabhyam." True, so far so good. But what if we say that whatever causes highest camatkara is to be taken as "pradhana." or principal. In this case J.'s uttama also will become uttamottama, for the 'vyangya' causing highest camatkara can never be taken as 'subordinated'. But, one point goes in favour of J., and it is that, like Sachin's century in a losing side, though subordinated from the point of view of victory of the other side, is a source of delight for the refined observes; so also here there is "kascit sahrdaya-vedyo visesah." It may be observed that our argument is somewhat akin to Badrinath Jha's Comm. 'Candrika'. Jha (p. 66, Candrika; R.G. (Edn. '55)) suggests that there is some kind of difference like what may be called pradhanibhuta-vyangya and 'gunibhutavyangya, between the uttamottama and the uttama types. Shri Jha feels that J.'s observation goes against the opinion of A. who wrote: "carutvotkarsa-nibandhana hi vacya-vyangyayoh pradhanya-vyavastha. We have also observed to the same effect as above. Jhas words are read as: "idam punar atra vicaraniyam 'carutvotkarsa-nibandhana hi vacya-vyangyayoh pradhanya-vivaksa' iti dhvanikaranusasane jagrati, vyangyasya yadi iha vacyapeksaya camatkarotkarsah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #481
1036 SAHRDAYALOKA tarhi na apradhanyam, atha ca apradhanyam, tarhi na camatkarotkarsah. yadi ca vyangyasya camatkarotkarsepi vacyopapadakataya angatvam isyate, tada tad angatvam api a-kincitkaram, camatkarotkarsa-nibandhanasya sista-paripatisammata-pradhanyasya tatha'pi a-vyahatatvat. kinca, yatra tulya-camatkara"dhayakatvena vacya-vyangyayoh samam sandigdham va pradhanyam, tayor gunibhuta-vyangya-prakarayor bhavanmate kutrantarbhavah ? na ca avyaptir esitum sakyate, "brahmanatikramatyagah bhatam eva bhutaye, jamadagnyas ca vo mitram anyatha durmanayate." "harstu kincit parilupta-dhairyas candrodaya"rambha ivamburasih, umamukhe bimba-phaladharosthe vyaparayamasa vilocanani." camatkara-apalapa-anarhatvena, madhyama-kavyatayah sarva ityanayos sammata-tvat." The Candrikakara has made an additional point in raising a question as to how J. will deal with those varieties of gunibhutavyangya of the Kashmir School of M., wherein both vacya and vyangya have equal-sama-prominance, or wherein the prominance of either is in a doubtful state ? The best course was laid perhaps by the, we may use the term, "logicianalamkarika" - Mahimabhatta who was very clear that between vacya and vyangya (or 'anumeya' as he calls it), the latter is necessarily more charming and therefore no question ever arises of a "gunibhuta-vyangya" Visvanatha goes half way when he rejects 'citra' as a type of poetry at all, for according to him poetry without any charm whatsoever of a suggested sense is no poetry at all. This is, in a way recognising halfheartedly the ever-supreme-status of vyangya as advocated by Mahima. So, the crux of the problem results into this viz. that either you classify poetry on the basis of the position of vyangya only, or on the basis of camatkarapradhanya only. But there is bound to be some confusion if your concept of 'pradhanya' is not clear. Prof. Dr. P. Sri. Ramachandrudu (pp. 72, ibid) observes - "But what all PR. (Pundita-Raja) wants to show here is a kind of sama-vyapti between 'vyangyapradhanya-pradhanya' and 'camatkara-pradhanya-pradhanya' (wherever there is camatkara-pradhanya, there is vyangya-pradhanya and vice-versa.). That he gives ultimate importance to camatkara is evident from his incidental remark (while explaining the verse, "sayita savidhe." etc.): "camatkaro na syat ity asyaiva For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #482
"Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1037 badhakarvat" (R.G. p. 11). Moreover, the scope of Camatkara is wider because it can be associated with vacya and sabda etc. also, and applying this only as a measuring rod, he excludes the sabda-citra from the scope of kavya." Actually, we feel that even this defence also cannot save J. from the confusion he has landed himself in. Again, by arguing that the scope of camatkara is wider, Ramachandrdu seems to accept it even at the sabda-citra level, as done by, of course implicitly, Kuntaka, whose vicitra abhidha theoretically covers even sabda-citra. Now, let us see what J. has to say about madhyamakavya. For J. madhyama is that type of poetry, where the expressed sense (vacyartha) alone is charming inspite of the presence of negligible vyangya. J. observes : "vyangya camatkara-asamanadhikarano vacya-camatkaras totiyam." - i.e. the third type of poetry (i.e. madhyama) is that wherein 'vacyartha-camatkara' i.e. surprise (on account of beauty) caused by the expressed sense does not stay on equal footing (i.e. in the same location). (i.e. in itself it is placed higher) as compared to vyangyacamatkara. All the instances of poetry with expressed figures of speech such as utpreksa and the like, fall under this variety. In this context J. observes that even in such figures, there is a touch of some vyangya, of course negligible, and only its presence makes the vacya charming. J. observes : "yatha yamuna-varnane - 'tanaya mainaka-gavesana-lambiksta-jaladhi-jathara-pravista-himagiri- bhujayamanaya bhagavatya bhagirathyah sakhi - iti. atra utpreksa vacya eva camatketi-hetuh. svaitya-patala-tala-cumbitva"dinam camatkaro lesataya san api utpreksa-camatksti-jathara-nilino nagariketara-nayikakalpita-kasmira-dravanga-raga-nigirno nijanga-gaurimeva pratiyate. na tadnsosti kopi vacyarthah yo manag anamssta-pratiyamana eva svato ramaniyatam adhatum prabhavati-anayor eva dvitiya-trtiya-bhedayor jagaruka-ajagaruka-gunibhuta-vyangyayoh pravistam nikhilam alamkara-pradhanam kavyam." (pp. 58, 59, R.G. Edn. Athavale, ibid). Thus, for J., madhyama kavya is that wherein the expressed sense-vacyarthaalone is charming eventhough there is almost negligible presence of some vyangyai.e. suggested sense also. All examples of poetry with figures of speech such as utpreksa and the like fall under this class. J. observes that even in all such alamkaras there has to be some touch of vyangya', though very faint. But it is the presence of even such negligible vyangya that makes the vacya charming. Thus, instead of placing all figures of sense i.e. arthalamkaras under one group of 'avara' For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #483
1038 SAHRDAYALOKA or 'adhama' class as done by Mammata, J. chooses to promote some of these, with a faint but clear touch of vyangya sense, to the class of 'madhyama' or gunibhuta vyangya. Thus for J., samsokti, paryayokta, and such other arthalamkaras with a distinct fragrance of vyangya, are part of madhyama kavya. J. makes a subtle distinction of absolutely clear presence (jagaruka-gunibhutavyangya) of a distinct subordinated suggested sense and also indistinct or hazy presence of a subordinated suggested sense (i.e. a-jagaruka.) The former is seen in 'uttama' class and the latter in the 'madhyama' class. But J. is very clear that these - both classes - are never placed in the 'adhama' class. J., it seems, is generous as compared to M. and Visvanatha (= V.) in recognising the merits of both emotionbased alamkaras, i.e. rasavad etc., and alamkaras gifted with the fragrance of subordinated suggested sense. M., V. and a host of others had placed them all under 'adhama' variety, not doing justice to their special charm and status. M. had called both arthalamkaras and sabdalamkaras as 'artha-citra' and 'sabda-citra', and branded them as 'adhama' or 'avara' due to the predominance of vacya i.e. expressed sense. J. defines the 'adhama kavya' as - "yatra artha-camatkstir upaskrta sabdacamatkrtih pradhanam, tad adhamam caturtham." - i.e. where the charm caused by sabda i.e. sound aided by the charm caused by sense (artha) is principal, we have the fourth type of poetry." We know that M. has placed both artha-citra and sabda-citra in the same class, viz. 'adhama-kavya'. J. observes that to place both these in the same class is not proper and hence for him adhana kavya is seen where the charm of words, graced by the charm of meaning or sense, is principal. For J. only sabda-camatkrti, totally divorced of artha-camatkrti does not make for kavya at all. J. makes further point when he observes : (pp. 59, R.G. Edn. Athavale, ibid) : "yady api yatra artha-camatksti-samanya-sunya sabda-camatkrtis tat pancamam adhamadhamam api kavya-vidhasu ganayitum ucitam. yatha ekaksara-padya ardhavrtti-yamaka-padmabandha"di. tatha'pi ramaniyartha-pratipadaka-sabdatarupa-kavya-samanya-laksana-anakrantataya vastutah kavyatva-abhavena mahakavibhih pracina-paramparam anurundhanais tatra tatra kavyesu nibanddham api na asmabhir ganitam, vastu-sthiter eva anurodhyatvat." (pp. 59, Athavale Edn. R.G. ibid) J. suggests that some feel that a class of poetry where there is charm of sound only, without the charm of sense which remains as a common factor, should be For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #484
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented) 1039 added as a fifth variety of poetry viz. adhamadhama : But J. does not accept this. Such type of poetry as illustrated in say, ekaksari sloka, or verse having only one letter all through the poem, or in ardhavrtti yamaka, or padma-bandha or such other varieties, is no poetry at all, for the general definition of poetry framed by J., such as * "ramaniya-artha-pratipadaka-sabdah kavyam" is violated here. Eventhough ancient great poets (such as Bharavi and Magha, and some others) who followed ancient traditions which they inherited, did write such poetry, but J. has not respected the tradition, following of course the basic fact of 'ramaniyaartha' being very much there as indispensable for real poetry. J. also criticises M. and some others when he observes that some people do not accept the four-fold classification as given by him and give only a three-fold classification. But for these critics, observes J., both sabda-citra and artha-citra are supposed to be without any suggested sense - "sabda-citram vacya-citram avyangyam tv avaram smrtam". But J. feels that both of these should not be clubbed together as 'we do observe in citra-kavyas the position of superior or inferior quality. J. puts a question as to which man of taste worth his salt, will place at the same level the two illustrations such as - "vinirgatam manadam atma-mandirat", and "svacchandocchalad." etc. ? And, asks J., when there is a marked difference observed between these two, if one were to place them in the same class, then why should we unnecessarily press for the separateness of dhvani and gunibhuta- - vyangya which have a slight difference between them ? J. concludes that in illustrations of poetry, where we find both the charm of word and sense together, there one has to decide about their major or minor position and take decision about their class, and name them accordingly. But where the two types of charm are absolutely equal, it has to be taken as 'madhyama' type of poetry. J. further classifies dhvani as follows : (pp. 64, R.G., Edn. Athavale, ibid) - "tatra dhvaner uttamottamasya a-samkhya-bhedasya api samanyatah ke'pi bhedah nirupyante : dvividho dhvanih, abhidhamulo laksanamulas' ca. tatra adyas trividhah rasa-vastv-alamkara-dhvanibhedat. rasa-dhvanir ity-alaksya-kramopa laksanat rasa-bhava-tadabhasa-bhavasanti-bhavodaya-bhavasamdhi-bhavasabalatvanam grahaham 1. dvitiyasca dvividhah, ar vacyo'tyanta-tirasketa-vacyas ca. evam panca"tmake dhvanau parama-ramaniyataya rasadhvanes tadatma rasas tavad abhidhiyate." Thus J. does not go further beyond the basic types of dhvani as enumerated by A. But he goes like M., a step further also in quoting various theories regarding the rasa-nispatti-prakriya, as done by M., following of course Abhinavagupta. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #485
1040 SAHRDAYALOKA J. has given eleven different views concerning the topic of rasa-realisation. In the beginning he has clarified his position concerning the nature of rasa, as experienced in poetry and drama. For this, he seems to have given like M., a summary of what Abhinavagupta has to say in his commentary on the NS. Abhinavagupta, before arriving at his own view has summarized the views of some of his predecessors. J. has given all this with greater depth. We will pick up J.'s views on rasa-realisation in a separate chapter on rasa when we will exclusively deal with the topic of rasa. For the present we will just quote some of his words and conclude this chapter on classification of poetry from the point of view of criticism i.e. by suggesting criticism-oriented three-fold classification. J. observes (pp. 64, ibid) "samucita-lalita-sannivesa-caruna kavyena samarpitaih, sahrdayahrdayam pravistaih, tadiya-sahrdayata-saha-krtena, bhavana-visesa-mahimna vigalita-dusyanta-ramanitva"dibhir alaukika-vibhavanubhava-alambana-karanaih, asrupata"di-karyaih, cinta"dibhih sahakaribhisca sambhuya pradurbhavitena alaukikena vyaparena tatkala-nivartita"nandamsa-varanajnanena ata eva pramustaparimita-pramatrtva"di-nijadharmena pramatra sva-prakasataya vastavena nijasvarupa"nandena saha gocarikriyamanah prag-vinivista-vasanarupo ratyadir eva rasah." "Poetry rendered charming by beautiful construction offers the vibhava"dis to the cultured critics. These vibhava"dis enter the heart of the critics, and by an aesthetic chewing-bhavana-aided by their refined taste, these vibhava"dis shun their local individuality. Thus, Sakuntala, for example ceases her status of being an individual wife of some king Dusyanta. Thus Sakuntala, the heroine and Dusyanta, the hero come out of their individual colouring and context and become a woman and a man, not qualified by limitations of the form of personal relationships. Thus their form turns into a de-individualised form. These factors, i.e. the hero and the heroine etc. who are normally termed as causes of love etc. are now termed as 'vibhava' or determinant, 'anubhava' or consequents and 'vyabhicarins' or ancillary feelings in kavya (or natya, i.e. in the field of art in general). Now, with the help of these alambana-vibhavas i.e. basic causes such as Dusyanta, Sakuntala and the like, uddipana-vibhavas i.e. promoting causes such as moon-light and the like, and ancillaries such as brooding over the other person-cinta-and the like, - i.e. with their judicious combined presentation in poetry or drama, through the power of suggestion which is an extra-worldly function i.e. alaukika-vyapara, the lid of avidya or ignorance that covers the foundation of supreme bliss (anandamsa) of the enjoyer (i.e. the cultered critic, or reader or spectator as the case may be), is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #486
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented) 1041 immediately removed and the enjoyer whose limitations of local worldly personality are removed, i.e. whose personalised factors are removed (maryadita-pramatstva thus being removed), he grows into a higher self and enjoys the self-evident and real aspect of his own self and along with this joy he chews the impersonalised emotions such as rati and the like; - this basic emotion, of unconditioned bliss is rasa - and this has been implanted in his own self since times immemorial i.e. from an unlimited number of previous births. This impression-vasana-which is the object of relish-is rasa. We will go into the theoretical discussion on rasa later, in separate chapters when we will deal with the concept of rasa in the works of Bharata, Bhamaha and other alamkarikas who preceeded .. and also in the works of those who followed A., such as Kuntaka, Dhananjaya and the rest and then M. and others. For the present we come to the end of criticism-based classification of poetry; here the first variety. Naturally, this sort of classification, which does not take into account the fact of external form such as prose or verse, etc., also has to evolve a convincing design wherein, with dhvani or rasa-dhvani in the centre, other concepts such as guna, dosa, alamkara, riti, vrtti and the rest are also accomodated in the field of literary criticism. We will go into this consideration later. But in the chapter that follows we will deal with the attitude of Kuntaka. Bhoja etc. towards dhvani and also pick up the other two varieties of criticism-based classification such as the gunibhuta-wangya and citra-kavya. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #487
Chapter XII Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. We have examined the concept of dhvani-rasa-dhvani in A. and his followers belonging to his Kashmir School of thought. These writers included the Locanakara Abhinavagupta to begin with, followed by Mammata, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha, Visvanatha, Jayadeva. Appayya and Jagannata to name some of them. The approach of these writers is identical and is in keeping with what A. laid down. But among the successors of A. there were some who were the predecessors of M., such as Kuntaka, Dhananjaya-Dhanika, Bhoja and Mahimabhatta, who were of course posterior to Abhinavagupta, yet declined to follow the dictates of A. and Abhinavagupta. They tried to treat dhvani in their own way. They had the inheritance, not only of A. and Abhinavagupta, but that of the earlier masters such as Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vamana and Rudrata also. They had before them the thought-currents of guna, alamkara, laksana, riti, vrtti etc. before them. Some of them overlooked vyanjana or even opposed the same, tooth and nail. It will be very interesting to study their approach to the fact of dhvani-rasa-vyanjana, and then to see how A. had tried to keep space for all the thought currents in his catholic and almost all pervasive approach, followed by great thinkers such as Mammata, Hemacandra, Visvanatha and Jagannatha. This we will discuss in the next Chapter i.e. in Ch. XIII. The voice of the four viz. Kuntaka, Dhanjaya/Dhanika, Bhoja and Mahima along with the humdrum advanced by Mukula and Pratiharenduraja drowned deep into the larger music of the followers of A. We have seen the views of the earlier alamkarikas such as Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vamana and Rudrata, in an earlier chapter (i.e. Ch. IV) in which we discussed the approach of these ancient writers towards dhvani, or better say, implicit sense - "pratiyamanartha" in general. So, we will not repeat the same over here. However, we will take a brief resume of their views here also as they serve as the background for the thoughts seen in Kuntaka and Bhoja. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #488
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunabhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1043 Dhvani in earlier alamkarikas such as Bhamaha and the rest : We have noticed (Ch. IV above) that the concept of dhvani, though not named as such in clear terms, is seen in the works of earlier alamkarikas and we have treated it as an element of implicit sense or pratiyamana artha, as lying hidden in some of the alamkaras or gunas as treated by the earlier masters. Thus, in Bhamaha II. 34, there is mentioning of 'guna-samya-pratiti' - i.e. apprehension of similarity in qualities, which is stated implicitly and is not directly expressed. Thus, there is 'gamyamana-aupamya' i.e. suggested similarity referred to here. At II. 79, Bhamaha discusses 'samasokti' as a figure in which through direct expression, some other sense, is implied. He observes, "yatrokte gamyate'nyorthah." Bhamaha says that an idea, totally different, though similar, (tatsamana-visesanah) is suggested by saying something. In paryayokta, at III. 8; 9, Bhamaha mentions instances of expressions that are obviously meant to give a different meaning. The direct expression or abhidhana contains a meaning not sought to be conveyed directly - "yad anyena prakarena abhidhiyate." In apahnuti also, at III. 21, the idea of similarity is only implied - "kimcid antargatopama." In the Kavyadarsa of Dandin also, the author reads a guna called udara, which in the first variety has the suggestion of a quality by description which is suggestive : Ka I. 76 and I. 78 are read as - utkarsavan gunah kascit yasmin ukte pratiyate - I. 76-a and, iti tyagasya vakyesmin utkarsah sadhu laksyate. I. 78. The element of implicit sense is clearly read here. We have gone into greater details in the Ch. IV as noticed about. However, at II. 303, Dandin observes : "purvatra"saya-mahatmyam atrabhyudaya-gauravam, su-vyanjitam iti vyaktam udatta-dvayam apy adah." Dandin here almost knocks on the doors of vyanjana-dhvani, though of course not theoretically giving a chiseled terminology as coined by A. We have seen in Ch. IV how in various alamkaras, earlier acaryas such as Bhamaha, Dandin etc. have incorporated perhaps not knowingly, the element of implicit sense. Most For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #489
1044 SAHKDAYALOKA noteworthy is the instance of paryayokta in Udbhata where an 'avagama' prakara, which is beyond the power of direct expression, is clearly mentioned, and most probably this takes us to the fringes of vyanjana-dhvani, though of course the followers of Mahima may try to read 'anumiti' here. Udbhata observes : "paryayoktam yad anyena prakarena bhidhiyate, vacya-vacaka-vsttibhyam sunyena avagama"tmana." We may say, perhaps this is an under-current of vyanjana pure and simple, and Mammata's concept of paryayokta is dangerously close to the one read in Udbhasa. Rudrata's bhavalamkara also seems to contain implicit sense and so also his samasokti, anyokti and the rest, in keeping with his predecessors' concepts of such alamkaras. Anandavardhana clearly states that Udbhata was conversant with implied rupaka and other alamkaras : "anyatra vacyatvena prasiddho yo rupakadir alamkarah, sonyatra pratiyamanataya pradarsitah tatrabhavadbhih bhattodbhata"dibhih." 'dibhih' here obviously covers Udbata's predecessors such as Bhamaha, Dandin and the like. The Locana also observes : tad ayam arthah - vacyalamkara-visesa-visayepi anyolamkara-visesah bhati ity udbhata"dibhih uktam, ity artha-saktya alamkaro vyajyata iti tair upagatam eva. kevalam te alamkara-laksana-karatvad vacyalamkaravisesa-visayatvena ahuh, iti bhavah." There were some who consciously or unconsciously tried to subsume dhvani, or rasa-dhvani under various heads such as some alamkaras as noticed above, and also under rasavad-adi alamkaras, i.e. the group of emotion-based alamkaras. Pratiharenduraja, as we will go to observe while treating dhvani-virodha, is consciously fighting against the acceptance of dhvani when he observes in his commentary on Udbhata that - sa (= pratiyamanah) kasmad iha na upadistah ? ucyate, esy eva alamkaresu antarbhavat." Vastudhvani is incorporated under paryayokta alamkara. He even goes for a pada-gata-paryayoktalamkara i.e. paryayokta read in a single word and subsumes such illustrations of dhvani as illustrated in "ramosmi sarvam sahe", under this type. We have noticed earlier that A. refers to some of his purva"carayas who perhaps subsumed dhvani under gunavrtti or secondary power of a word. He observes : "tatha'pi guna-vittya kavyesu vyavaharam darsayata dhvani-margo manak For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #490
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1045 sprstah...", but it was not 'laksitah', i.e. they did not supply a logical definition of dhvani though they, perhaps tumbled upon unknowingly the fringes of dhvani while treating the secondary usage of language. Here, the Locana observes: (Dhv. I. i) "bhattodbhata-vamana"dina. bhamahenoktam, 'sabdas' cchandobhidhanarthah..." ity abhidhanasya sabdad bhedam vyakhyatum bhattodbhato babhase - "sabdanam abhidhanam abhidha-vyaparah, mukhyo gunavrttis ca" - vamanopi "sadrsyallaksana vakroktih" - iti. manak sprsta iti, tais tavad dhvani-dig unmilita." We have examined the treatment of pratiyamana artha in the purva"caryas and also their acquaintance with various sabda-vrttis in greater details in earlier chapters, viz. Ch.s III and IV. So, we will not go further here. We will look into Kuntaka and Bhoja here, especially with reference to their attitude towards dhvani. Ksemendra, the protagonist of the so called aucitya-school was a disciple of Abhinavagupta and therefore he is a dhvanivadin to the core. Actually even Kuntaka is taken as a pracchanna-dhvanivadin and therefore acaryas of the dhvani school, beginning from Abhinavagupta and Mammata onwards, spare him the brunt of their attack on dhvani-virodhin. We may choose to call Kuntaka a "manasaputra" of A., and though perhaps he was a senior contemporary of Abhinavagupta, we do not read much in Abhinavagupta to suggest convincingly that he did know Kuntaka. This we say with the full. knowledge of what our respected senior friend Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy has suggested. One thing for sure is that Kuntaka is spared in their attack on opponents, by dhvanivadins later. So, Kuntaka's vakrokti-vicara has much in common with dhvani theory. We will try to critically examine the theories of vakrokti and dhvani and try to find out the areas of agreement and disagreement. Actually, it is an attempt, so to say, at Kuntaka's reappraisal. We start with a querry viz. "was Kuntaka a dhvanivadin or not? Was he an opponent of Dhvani? The answer to the first question is both 'yes' and 'no'. The answer to the second question is 'no', pure and simple! It may be noted that Kuntaka (= K.) refers to 'Dhvanikara' directly and also to his theory of dhvani indirectly at VJ. II. 9 while illustrating 'rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata as in "tala jaanti guna." etc., an illustration accepted from A. (It may be noted that all our references to the Vakrokti-jivita i.e. VJ. are to the edn. of Dr. K.Krishnamoorthy, pub. Karnatak Uni. Dharwad, Dec. '77). Here K. observes "yasmat dhvanikarena vyangya-vyanjaka-bhavo'tra sutaram samarthitas tat kim punaruktyena ?" The reference speaks for itself. This makes him almost a disciple For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #491
1046 SAHRDAYALOKA of A. The whole text of his VJ. is replete with references to ..'s views. At places where he explains a number of varieties of vakrata, he seems to give a new name to the varieties of dhvani, say it is old wine in new bottles, and he illustrates these, very often, with instances accepted from the Dhv. At all these places, he does not choose to refer to or mention 'vyanjana' by name, a term itself never used by him, though of course, he uses terms such as, "pratiyate", "lokottaratisaya'dhyaropam garbhikrtya" (Under I. 19, pp. 29) etc. Instead, he has, what he calls, "vicitra abhidha, and we had earlier an occasion to observe minutely what exactly is meant by K. by this terminology in our Ch. V on abhidha. This vicitra abhidha' for K., seems to include in its wider fold all sabda-vrttis viz. abhidha, laksana and vyanjana. He seems to concern himself with kavi-vyapara i.e. poetic effort taking shape through 'vicitra abhidha' or beautiful poetic expression in general. This causes a sort of ambiguity, if not also on his part, at least on the part of those scholars, for whom a very clearly defined scheme of sabda-vsttis based on their inherent difference in nature and scope i.e. visaya-bheda and svarupa-bheda, is inherited from the writings of A. and Abhinavagupta, followed by Mammata and a host of brilliant writers belonging to the dhvani school of thought. So, perhaps this concept of 'vicitra-abhidha' may place K. on par with the "dirgha-dirghataravyapara-vadin". But, to be fair to K., we may observe that his vicitra-abhidha is certainly not the dirgha-dirghatara-vyapara of the Mimamsaka opponent, but we may agree with Dr.K.Krishnamoorthy in his general observation that K.'s was an act of pragmatic criticism and from a wider point of view whatever gave birth to genuine poetry, that expression was "vicitra abhidha" or beautiful poetic expression for him. This has nothing to do with the accepted norm of abhidha-vrtti which yields the connotated meaning only through direct expression. Here, we may observe that if vyanjana, as envisaged by A. and Abhinavagupta, were the only differentia, 'the sine quonon' of a true dhvanivadin, then in that sense K. is not a dhvanivadin. But we know that even for the die-hard opponents of A. or dhvani-school in general, such as Mahima, the acceptance of implicit sense i.e. pratiyamana artha' is welcome. What these anti-dhvani theorists discard and take upon themselves to dinounce is the concept of vyanjana-vrtti, but not the fact of implicit sense. So, an alamkarika, in our consideration, should be deemed as dhvanivadin in the true sense of the term, only if he accepts the implicit sense or pratiyamana artha, arrived at through the agency of vyanjana and vyanjana alone and in no other way. The mere acceptance of the suggested sense, either as principal or as subordinate also, does not make one a true dhvanivadin, worth the name. Viewed thus, and also For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #492
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1047 along with the meticulous care K. takes in not mentioning vyanjana' or 'dhvani' in so many terms, should we call him a dhvanivadin'? To add to this, K. seems to use the terms such as dyotya/vyangya and dyotaka/ vyanjaka (vltti, VJ. I. 8, p. 14, ibid) without showing proper discrimination. We wonder how Prof. K.Krishnamoorthy translates dyotaka/vyanjaka as 'indicative/ suggestive respectively (see pp. 300, Edn. ibid). If by dyotaka K. really means 'laksaka' (as Prof. K.Kri.'s translation, 'indicative' would prompt us to believe), then ne creates further confusion with reference to the normally accepted pattern. A. had a neat scheme of three or four sabda-vrttis based on difference in nature and scope, i.e. svarupabheda and visayabheda, including of course the taparya-vitti which is a vakya-vstti, or power of a sentence giving tatparyartha or correlated sentence-sense as a whole. K. as it were, seems to flout this near perfect superb scheme of word/sentence/powers and seems to make a mess of it, when he makes his 'vicitra abhidha', at times refer to abhidha, pure and simple, and at other times to refer also to either laksana, or vyanjana, without any rhyme or rhythm. All this is unpardonable from the point of view of a true dhvanivadin. To his credit, we may say, goes the fact of many more varieties of vakrata or poetic expression, and a special mention may be made of the varieties grouped under 'prakarana-vakrata' i.e. artistic beauty relating to incident or episode (VJ. IV./5, 6). But on the otherhand, it is also equally true that A. nowhere puts a limit to the innumerable possible varieties of dhvani, and is open enough to further admit in his fold any number of newer and newer varieties that may prop up due to the nature of vyanjakas to be enumerated afresh by the critic with his resouceful and imaginative approach. In the recognition of some very charming newer varieties of vakrata, K. perhaps fills some gap left out by A., and further elaborates the theory, giving it a different name and thereby just serves new wine in old bottles. His approach to the problems of svabhavokti and rasavat also deserves further and fuller discussion. If K. were thoroughly a dhvanivadin, as Prof. K. Krishnamoorthy would like us to believe, he need not have written a treatise, the way in which he has done. He would have perhaps chosen to follow a track such as one followed by the great Vag-devata'vatara Mammata, or by the greater still, Pundita-raja Jagannatha. But with a full awareness on his part of his inability to do away with vyanjana totally, he chooses a different track of the so-called 'vicitraabhidha', and the so called 'vakrokti' which drags him into deeper waters never to be pulled out from. If later writers pay him any attention, it is so to the extent he falls in line with A. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #493
1048 SAHRDAYALOKA All this, and perhaps also a tendency to verbocity in his otherwise lucid and flowing style, makes him a lesser name to be ranked below the great names of A., Abhinavagupta, Mammata, Hemacandra, Appayya and Jagannatha, and perhaps even Ruyyaka, who though he treats of only alamkaras in his Alamkara-Sarvasva, is otherwise every inch a dhvanivadin. True, K. is loaded, perhaps even infatuated with A., whom he follows at so many places, now borrowing phrases after phrases, or now accepting illustrations after illustrations from the Dhv., to explain his varieties of Vakrokti, which are very often, but new labels given to some varieties of dhvani. Actually, in his special moments, he refers to vyanjana, but without making a direct mentioning of the term. But he errs only when he equates some charming illustrations of vyanjan, with those of abhidha, perhaps equally exquisite from his point of view, and dumps them all on equal footing under the banner of 'vakrokti'. For him, varna-vinyasa-vakrata and rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata stand on the same footing and this sounds rather fantastic to a devout follower of dhvani. But all the same, virtually he turns out to be, so to say, a super-dhyanivadin. like a newly convert, in the sense that he seems to be all "A. - drunk". At times he is only re-echoing what the great master has said earlier - "vad kincid apy anuranan sphutavati kawa"lokam...". as it were, in the same way as is done by the great Abhinavagupta. He perhaps makes an effort to liberalise poetry from the network of vyanjana. For him vyanjana is only a cog in the wheel, a part of his wider scheme of vakrata, or beautiful poetic expression, which embraces in its fold, abhidha, laksana, and vyanjana, at the poetic level, all alike. His vicitra abhidha is a precondition for poetry and for this, he is prepared to sacrifice the well-defined scheme of A., resulting in the recognition of dhvani, gunibhuta-vyangya and citra types of poetry. Perhaps he refuses to accept a casteist approach of the dhvanivadin, wherein abhidha, laksana and vyanjana remain in a way strictly separate. His vicitra abhidha is a field where all vsttis mingle and merge with one another. Thus, he fills up gaps left out by A., and perhaps goes ahead of him. But to class all vakrata on the same footing is something a true divanivadin can never either tolerate or forgive, and for this he may be placed outside the loyalist class of dhvanivadins. True, he has gone into subtler details and has labelled many charms exclusive to the fold of so-called abhidha alone, but to equate a charm belonging to the vacyavacaka level with the one operating at the vyangya-vyanjaka level is a crime in the eyes of a dhvanivadin and the crime can never escape punishment. The whole point is unthinkable, and hence unpardonable, from the point of view of a true dhvanivadin. There are aesthetes and aesthetes who may pick up a never-ending For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #494
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1049 quarrel over this, but by and large, K. may be taken as a "pra-sisya" of a "mahaguru", whom he forsakes for an untrodden track of his own ! And for exactly this, we may not blame K., but love him all the more, for he is a lone traveller, uncompromising in a way, trying to get out of the vyanjana-inhibition, and arriving at a more practicable, more pragmatic solution of literary beauty, Thus, A. suggested a three-tier system, a tri-varga-vyavastha, so to say, or perhaps a catur-varga-vyavastha as suggested by Jagannatha, which is smashed and put aside by K., to promote a 'class-less' or 'caste-less pattern, so to say, in the field of literary criticism. But alas, the 'caturvarnya' of the dvanivadin, as it was firmly saddled on the guna - (Karma/alamkara"di) vibhaga, held out firmly in the minds of many aesthetes and K.'s voice is lost into wilderness without finding followers, and he dies a martyr's death as a lone champion of his cause, both unheard and unsung. He does not seem to be a leader cast in the mould of A., the greatest, but a path-seeker guided by the torch of his inner conviction. All this is spelt out here in all details with necessary references from the VJ. as follows: We will now try to examine K.'s views on various aspects of poetry with an eye to his treatment of A.'s dhvani. We will follow in this discussion, the natural sequence of topics as read in the VJ. In the VJ. I. 2, (pp. 2, ibid) he promises to offer, "a fresh study of poetry, like an added ornament to it." Needless to say, that he uses the word alamkara in a wider context to designate the whole work itself, wherein topics, like simile and the like, form its subject matter. Actually, a critical appreciation of poetic beauty is his goal. For him, the word, 'alamkara' in this wider context signifies 'poetic beauty', and 'kavya' or 'poetry for him is 'alamkarya', i.e. that which is to be adorned. He observes - (vrtti, on I. 2. VJ.) (p. 2, ibid) : alamkaro vidhiyate, alamkaranam kriyate. kasya ? kavyasya. kaveh karma kavyam; tasya." For him, "kavya' i.e. poetry is 'kaveh karma', i.e. poetic activity. So, whatever carries the stamp of being a poet's activity is poery for K. K. thus places the concept of poetry on a very broad base, perhaps intending to include everything beginning with abhidha and ending with vyanjana under the same banner, provided it turns out to be a genuine 'kavi-karma'. So, for him, "Kavya' is a solid, compact whole in itself, an abstraction revealed through the medium of signs called letters. It is, so to say, "akanda-buddhi-samasvadya". It is incapable of any analysis, because it is of the nature of synthesis. So, when you discuss 'poetry and 'poetic beauty', it is a discussion of academic matter only. The supreme reality is that poetry is gifted with an innate poetic beauty which can not be thought of separately. He observes : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #495
1050 SAHRDAYALOKA (vrtti, VJ. I. 6, pp. 6, ibid) "tad ayam atra paramarthah, salamkarasya alamkarasahitasya sakalasya nirastavayavasya satah, samudayasya kavyata, kavi-karmatvam tena alamkrtasya kavyatvam iti sthitam na punah kavyasya alamkara-yogah, iti. - "The truth is this. Poetry is the work of a poet, wherein the undivided whole of 'adorned' and the 'ornament' is the reality. Therefore, it is clear that poetry is the name of what is adorned and the question of super-adding ornaments to preexisting poetry, does not arise." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 292, ibid). We can compare this with A.'s observation on alamkaras when he says that when properly delineated, alamkaras are never extraneous (to poetry) - vrtti on Dhv. II. 16 reads as - tasman na tesam bahirangatvam rasa'bhivyaktau." (pp. 60, edn. K.Kris., ibid) K. seems to follow A. in his broad concept of poetry when he observes that poetry is both word and sense taken together, enshrined in a style revealing the artistic creativity of the poet on one hand, and giving aesthetic delight to man of taste on the other (VJ. I. 7). He wants that both word and sense are to be of a peculiar nature. The expression or word and context or thought or meaning should both be charming and so to say, 'made for each other'. Thus, K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. I. 7 - pp. 13, ibid) tatha ca arthah samarthavacaka-asadbhave svatmana, sphurannapi mrtakalpa eva avatisthate. sabdopi vakyopayogivacya sambhave vacyantara-vacakah san vakyasya vyadhibhutah pratibhati ity alam atiprasangena." - "Thus, thought, though striking in itself, will be no better than a corpse, when it is not embodied in an adequately striking word. In the same way, a word which does not have an adequate thought-content, but which expresses something irrelevant, is to be deemed as a disease of the poem." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 299, ibid). This again smells of A.'s observation on Dhv. I. 8, wherein he holds that only the implicit sense and word having capacity to suggest the same deserve the careful recognition of a first-rate poet. A. observes: (vrtti, Dhv. I. 8) (pp. 14, 16, Edn. K.Kris. ibid) : "vyangyorthas tad-vyakti-samarthyayogi sabdas ca kascana, na sarvah; tav eva sabdarthau mahakaveh pratyabhijneyau." K. almost follows A., without conditioning his 'word and sense' by vyanjana alone. He seems to develop an indepedent approach which is not vyanjana-biased or better say, vyanjana-oriented. But he does not go further as we will go to observe, and all his tall talk about vakrata paters out into this or that variety of dhvani based on vyanjana alone. By mere throwing away an accepted terminology, or just by replacing an old one by a new one, we do not stand to gain much. Exactly this happens in case of K., who can not totally tear himself away from A.'s For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #496
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1051 terminology, and at times seems to confuse the original clear concepts of A. For example, he makes a mess of things when he observes that words are both 'dyotaka' and 'vyanjaka', without drawing a line of demaracation between the two : (vitti, VJ. I. 8; pp. 38, ibid) : "nanu ca dyotaka-vyanjakav api sabdau sambhavatah.... etc. evam dyotya-vyangyayor arthayoh pratyeyatva-samanyat." We have observed earlier that we are not satisfied with Dr. K.Krishnamoorthy's translation (on pp. 300, ibid) in this respect, when he writes - "one might object that the indicative and suggestive words too, which have their own signification, may yet be termed 'word', and the above statement would illustrate the fallacy of "too narrow". Our reply is that they are expressive words by implication, the metaphorical application being based on their similarity with denotative words. Similarly, the meanings alluded to..." It is clear that for all those who understand sanskrit poetics, the words 'dyotya' and 'vyangya', and the words "dyotaka" and "vyanjaka" are synonyms, and K. cannot mean 'laksya' and 'laksaka' by them. So, it is clear confusion on K.'s part. It is one thing, not to accept ... but it is quite another not to understand, or misquote, or misrepresent A. K. here seems to do the latter. K. can also be charged for an added crime when he extends the connotation of 'vacakarva', so as to include even the vyanjakarva of A. Normally, one can choose a different track. But in case of K., who almost looks a disciple of A., this looks quite unworthy. He does this when on I. 9, he observes that: (vrtti, I. 9, V.I. pp. 16, ibid) : "kavi-vivaksita-visesabhidhana ksamatvam eva vacakarva-laksanam. vivaksa. vidheyatvena abhidheyata-padavim avatarantas tatha-vidha-visesa-pratipadanasamarthena bhidhiyamanas cetascamatkaritam apadyante." i.e. "the proper definition of signification' is that capacity to convey the particular shade of thought intended by the poet'(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 302, ibid). This is criminal if one chooses to call oneself a follower of A. Actually the whole paragraph here is only a sort of paraphrase of A.'s "tau sabdarthau mahakaveh", but not in the way A. does. And all this, with the full knowledge of the terminology made current by A., looks unpardonable. K. knows what 'dyotayanti' means, when he observes on verse no. 28 (pp. 16, ibid), viz. "samrambhah karikitakaih." etc., that, (vstti, on I. 9, VS. 28, pp. 16) - "hevakasya lesa-sabdabhidhanena alpata-pratipattir ity ete vivaksitaikarthavacakatvam dyotayanti." i.e. "the adjective 'trivial' qualifying 'enterprise' reinforces the low stature of the common lions and thus adds to the force of the intended thought." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 303, ibid). Similar is the use of the word "vyakti', when on verse no. 29, under VJ. I. 9, K. observes that "tasya ca tad ahlada-samarthyam sambhavyate yena kacid eva svabhava-mahatta rasa-pariposangatvam va vyaktim For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #497
1052 SAHRDAYALOKA asadayati." Here also, K. does not mention vyanjana' by name. In a similar vein K. explains the suggestivity of the word 'munih' in illustration no. 31, under VJ. I. 9 (pp. 18): "atra kosau munir iti paryaya-padam atra vaktavye, parama-karunikasya nisada-nirbhinna-sakuni-sandarsana-matra-samutthitah slokatvam abhajata yasyaiti tasya tad avastha janaka-raja-putridasa-darsana-vivasa-vitter antah-karanaparispandah karuna-rasa-pariposangataya sahrdaya-hidaya"hladakari kaver abhipretah." Here also vyanjana is not alluded to. On verse 32, he offers some criticism wherein words such as "dyotyate" and "dyotayanti" are used only in the normally accepted sense of 'suggestion', but here too he overlooks the mentioning of vyanjana-vitti. He observes (pp. 18, ibid, on VS. 32, VJ. I. 9) : "hrdaya-nihitad iti suhrttva-vihitam savadhanarvam dyotyate... ambuvaham. ity atmanas tatkaritabhidhanam dyotayati." He uses even 'bhanyate' in the sense of 'dyotyate' or 'vyajyate' here : (vrtti, VJ. I. 9, VS. 32, pp. 19) - 'abala-sabdena'tra tat-preyasi-viraha-vaidhurya'-sahatvam bhanyate." K. is out to smash the perfectly evolved terminology of A. He explains the suggested sense of the whole expression with the words : "tad ayam atra vakyarthah." (pp. 19). This 'vakyartha' is 'wyangyartha', pure and simple, without being designated as such. K. raises a fresh problem at VJ. I. 10 (pp. 20, ibid), when he observes : (vrtti, pp. 20) - "ubhav etav alamkaryau, tayoh punar alamkrtih vakroktir eva, vaidagdhya-bhangi-bhanitir ucyate." ...tad idam atra tatparyam yat sabdarthau prthag avasthitau na kena'pi vyatiriktena'lamkaranena yojyete, kintu vakrata-vaicitrya-yogitaya abhidhanam eva anayor alamkarah, tasyaiva sobhatisaya-karitvat, etac ca vakratavyakhyanavasara eva udaharisyate." . i.e. "Both these are 'adorned'. Their adornment consists in the poetic process known as 'artistic turn of speech'... Let us sum it up once again : apparently, words and meanings both have their distinct existence in poetry and come to be adorned by something different from themselves. The fact of the matter is that the very process of poetic utterance is constituted by the artistic turns assumed by words and meanings. The poetic process itself, in this sense is the real ornamentation. For, it is extremely delighting in itself. This shall engage our attention more when we consider, the concept of artistic beauty further, on." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 306). True; even A. suggested that no ornamentation could be "bahiranga" or "external", if properly executed by the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #498
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1053 poet. Poetic beauty is inharent in poetry, and the 'whole' is born and enjoyed. But when you analyse the poetic beauty, you must have a scheme to support your observations, and the whole analogy of 'sarira' or 'body', and 'soul or 'atman' of poetry walks in. For A., it is easy to explain when he regards 'dhvani' - particularly 'rasa-dhvani'-as the soul of poetry, and 'word and sense' - i.e. 'sabdarthau', forming its body. At Dhv. III. 33, 7. discusses this "jiva-sarira-vyavahara". And, in a way, this scheme is very helpful in understanding poetic beauty, which in itself is only 'a-murta' i.e. abstract or conceptual. For K., the position becomes rather difficult when, at this stage, if a question is raised as to the exact position of 'rasa' in his scheme. True, he has, as we will go to observe, tried to incorporate the innumerable shades of rasa and bhava in his different types of vakrata, but then these vakratas seem to get mixed up with one another, rather then shine out independently as clear sub-varieties. And once again, if 'sabdarthau' are 'alamkaryau', should we call him a deha"tma-vadin'? We may not grudge it, and it is surely not a bad name either! One more question. If only 'vakrokti' is an alamkara, of course inherently connected with a poem, then what about 'svabhavokti'? Is not 'svabhavokti', if taken in the normal connotation of the term given to it by practically all the alamkarikas, in itself a variety of K.'s vakrokti ? K.'s own concept of svabhavokti seems to refer to the basic subject-matter as it is, i.e. to a local normal fact or expression. But the 'svabhavokti' as devined by others is not a bare statement, the 'varta of Bhamaha, but a poetic expression of an object or its very normal activities. Actually no bare statement of fact has ever earned any entry in the realm of genuine poetry. And, a poetic expression, say charged with K.'s vakrokti, concerning such objects as an activity of a child and the like, could as much be taken as an alamkara in the limited sense of the term; e.g. the limited sense in which an expression describing similarity or upama is designated an alamkara. So, it seems that the whole criticism of K. against 'svabhavokti' being taken as an alamkara is misdirected. If for the sake of an argument we accept either 'samkara or 'samsrsti' (VJ. I. 14, 15, pp. 22, ibid) as argued by K., even then the case for 'svabhavokti' is not ruled out. Any other alamkara can also find an entry in a 'samkara' or a 'samsrsti' without losing its independent status as an alamkara. This patters out only in an effort by K. to look smart in the eyes of others. Under VJ. I. 16, K. takes great pains to carve out the exact nature of 'sahitya', which is not just the mere coming together of word and sense, which is found to be even in the ordinary walk of life. Says he, : (vstti, VJ. I. 16, pp. 23, ibid) : satyam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #499
1054 SAHRDAYALOKA etat, kintu na vacya-vacaka-laksana-sasvata-sambandha-nibandhanam vastutah sahityam ity ucyate." - "The point, however, is that here in poetry, we are not alluding to the well-known intimate relationship invariably characterising word and meaning." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 310, ibid). Perhaps the same point is hinted at by .. in his Dhv. I. 8, and vrtti thereon, where it is observed that a first-rate poet has to strive for that particular meaning and that rare word only. A. observes : (vrtti, Dhv. I. 8, pp. 14 Edn. K.Kris., ibid) "sa vyangyorthas tad-vyakti-samarthya yogi sabdas ca kas cana, na sarvah, tav eva sabdarthau mahakaveh pratyabhijneyau." "that meaning", refers to the implicit and "that rare word, which possesses the power of conveying it, points out that it is not any and every word (recorded in dictionary). Such a word and such a meaning - only these two deserve the careful recognition of a first-rate poet." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 15, ibid). K. unlike A., has no special bias for the 'suggested' only, but the whole approach carries an influence of his great predecessor A. A.'s position is safer with his three-fold classification of poetry into 'dhvani', 'gunibhuta-vyangya' and 'citra', which becomes 'uttama', 'madhyama' and 'adhama' later in M., the terms which A. has carefully refrained from using, but his illustrious follower, vag-devata'-vatara' Mammata has managed to make current and popular. But for K., poetry is either genuine poetry or no poetry at all ! Perhaps Mahima also was partially influenced by this, though he carries the impressions of A. also. But for K., you cannot classify poetry or poetic effort into various categories. But the expreience of aesthetes world over, and for centuries, has something to say more in favour of A. than K. For, in the absence of any classification based on quality, the very fact of the recognition of the difference between a kavi and a 'maha-kavi/great poet, would have been defeated and we would have been forced to place Vyasa, Valmiki, Kalidasa, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Romain Rolland, Aurobindo and such greats and poets of, of course, some ranking, but not of the same stature, on the same footing. We know we do not do it, and more, cannot do it. Here, and perhaps at many other places, K.'s style becomes prolix or verbose and we need not quote instances to prove this point. We will quote only one passage : (vitti, VJ. I. 16, pp. 24) : "tad adya sarasvati-hgdayaravinda-makarandabindu-sandoha-sundaranam sat-kavi-vacasam antaramoda-manoharatvena parisphurad etat sa-hrdaya-sat-carana-gocaratam niyate." .. never does it; never. K. seems to have passionately fallen in love with the words 'spanda' and 'parispanda', which are very often left out in translation by Dr. K.Kris. (see for example, K.Kris. translation of verse no. 36, on pp. 312. The whole paragraph can For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #500
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1055 be read with interest.). Quoting illustrations need not detain us further, as they are in abudance and also self-evident. K. once again seems to refer to A.'s 'vyangyartha', when in verse no. 38, (pp. 26, ibid, under VJ. I. 17) K. observes : "vacyavabodha-nispattau pada-vakyartha-jivitam (.varjitam) yat kim apy arpayaty antah panaka"svadavat satam." - "that which is relished in its entirety without distinction of word and sentence import, after the initial grasp of primary-meanings, even like the unique savour of a sweet drink by men of taste." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 313, ibid) - The other reading. "pada-vakyartha-jivitam" would mean, "that (sense) which is the very life (or soul) of word-meaning and sentence-meaning." Obviously the reference could mean "dhvani", or principal suggested sense. K.'s classification of vakrata is broadly hinted at in I. 18, as six-fold, each having many sub-varieties. We will go to observe critically that these varieties of vakrata carry an undisputable stamp of A.'s classification of dhvani. K. enumerates the first three varieties of vakrata as varna-vinyasa-vakratva, pada-purvartha-vakrata and pratyaya-vakrata in VJ. I. 19 (pp. 26, ibid). (K.Kris. translates it as - "Art in the arrangement of syllables", "art in the base-form of substantives", and "art in their inflection forms" (pp. 313, ibid)). We will go to observe that whatever charm is pointed here is due to the suggested sense alone, and we may say, "namantara-karanena tu kiyad idam pandityam ?" Simply by giving a new name, the thing in itself does not change. A rose, is a rose, is a rose even if we call if by any other name! We may observe that these varieties of vakrata and many more are under the direct influence of A.'s observation at Dhv. III. 16, which reads as : sup-tin-vacana-sambandhais tatha karaka-saktibhih krt-taddhita-samasais ca dyotyo'laksya-kramah kvacit." (pp. 146, ibid) "case-terminations, conjugational terminations, number, relation, accidence, primary affixes, secondary affixes, and also compounds conveyers of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality." all these become (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 147, ibid) K. has relied so much on A., that very often, and this is seen in Mahima also, - he borrows words and phrases from his master, i.e. A. The word "prasiddha - For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #501
1056 SAHRDAYALOKA prasthana-vyatireki", in the vrtti on VJ. I. 18, is an instance in point. On VJ. I. 19, in his vrtti while explaining varna-vinyasa-vakrata, K. observes: (pp. 27, ibid) atra varna-vinyasa-vakrata-matra-vihitah sabda-sobhatisayah sutaram samun-militah. etad eva varna-vinyasa-vakratvam cirantanesu anuprasa iti prasiddham." - "Here, we see a perfect instance of abounding verbal beauty brought about, solely by the poet's skill in arrangement of syllables. This skill in verbal arrangement itself is well recognised even by the ancient theorists under the term 'Alliteration'. (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 314, ibid). It reflects but poorly on K.'s thinking, if he tries to equate this variety of vakrata, a mere sabda-citra, with another vakrata which may look charged with the suggested sense; and this variety also he recognises. It is unthinkable to put all varieties of vakrata on the same footing. But perhaps it is exactly at this point that K. like Casca of Julius Cacsar, has drawn his dagger to stab his master, A. K. proceeds to explain pada-purvardhavakrata (on pp. 27) under I. 19, VJ. He observes - (vrtti, on VJ. I. 19, pp. 27): pada-purvardha-vakrata padasya subantasya tingantasya va vakra-bhavo, vinyasa-vaicitryam. tatra ca bahavah prakarah sambhavanti. yatra rudhisabdasyaiva prastava-samucitatvena vacya-prasiddhadharmantara'dhyaropa-garbhatvena nibandhah, sa pada-purvardha-vakratayah prathamah prakarah, yatha, "ramosmi sarvam sahe". "Art in the base form of substantives". Words may be nouns or verbs. Their crude form will be either base or root. In their usage by the poet there is scope for artistic skill. In fact, this admits of various forms. When a word in common usage is employed so as to include an attribution of associate meanings other than the primary one, we have the first variety, e.g. "Rama I am, and bear every mishap." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 314, ibid). Then he illustrates the second variety where a proper noun is employed in such a way that it involves an attribution of the extraordinary speciality of the feature under description in the sentence primarily. Art i.e. beauty in the use of synonym is also illustrated. All these instances are accepted from A. without an open acceptance of vyanjana. And therefore all this sounds less convincing. Again, in the illustration, viz. "ramo'smi sarvam sahe", K. observes that here there is attribution of associate meanings other than the primary one: "vacyaprasiddha-dharmantara'dhyaropagarbhatvena nibandhah." This observation is also far from exact. Here what happens is not the attribution - i.e. adhyaropa-of another meaning which is not the primary one, for in that case it would be just laksana. Actually here the second sense arrives even when the primary sense continues. They For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #502
Dhvani in kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1057 co-exist like an object and a lamp that illuminates it. A. has ruled out the case of a mere secondary sense or laksyartha, which seems to be hinted at by K. M. (= Mammata) has utilized the same illustrations for the establishment of vyanjana, independent of laksana here. So, K., while citing the second illustration, viz. "ramo'sau." etc., (verse no. 43, pp. 27, ibid), when he observes that this involves an attribution of the extra-ordinary speciality of the feature under description, - "lokottara'tisaya'dhyaropam garbhikrtyopanibandhah," , he almost suggests that there is the suggested meaning or the vyangyartha' concealed in a given statement. And for this, A. has vyanjana-vitti, while K. gropes in darkness in flouting this clear-cut scheme as laid down by. A. K. again has no fixed and clear expression, for in one case he has, "lokottara'tisayadhyaropam garbhi-kstya", and in the next breath he has, "lokottara-saurya"di-dharmatisaya'-dhyaropa-paratvena." K. goes to illustrate further how out of a number of synyonyms possible, only that is chosen which is especially significant in the context, e.g. "vamam kajjalavat...." etc. (verse, 44, pp. 28, ibid). Now this illustration runs parallel to the one in which "kapalinah" is preferred and "pinakinah" is rejected by Kalidasa. Here also there is a charm caused by vyanjana, without mentioning the same. Again, it is unthinkable to put "varna-vinyasa-vakrata" and this "paryaya-vakrata" on the same footing. K. observes that, (vrtti, VJ. I. 19, pp. 28) : etac ca paryaya-vakratvam vacya-sambhavi-dharmantara-garbhikarena'pi paridrsyate." - "this artistic use of synonyms is also found to include hints of even features which are conceivably no parts of literal meanings." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 315, ibid). This again is vyanjana, pure and simple. Needless to say that the illustrations, such as "angaraja, senapate...".etc. (verse, 45; pp. 28, ibid), also contain 'vyangyartha', which is the only source of charm. The upacara-vakrata variety of prabandha-purvardha-vakrata, wherein the charm is caused by metaphor, is nothing else but laksana-vilasita : vitti, on VJ. I. 19; pp. 28 - "yatra'murtasya vastunah murta-dravyabhidhayina sabdenabhidhanam upacarat..." Thus here the charm is caused by laksana or indication. In 'nikarakanika', "hastavaceyam", etc. the charm lies in laksana or indication, and then in the ultimate suggestion of "stokatva", or "slightness" 'bahutva', etc. Similarly, expressions like, "billowy" which primarily apply to liquids, when they are serging with waves, are often found in poetic tradition to apply even to solids, only on the basis of general similarity. "Visesana-vakratva" or "beauty in epithets" is also a variety of "pada-purvardhavakrata', or "art in the base form of substantives", wherein art or beauty springs alm. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #503
1058 SAHKDAYALOKA from the significance of epithets only. This again, we may say, is a charm due to vyanjana. The illustration viz. "vridayogan nata-vadanataya..." etc. seems to have been accepted from A. (Dhv. Vrtti. on III. 4) 'Samvsti-vakrata' or "beauty of concealed expression' is also a variety of "padapurvardha-vakrata", wherein the nature of an object endowed with a unique loveliness in its peculiar setting, which cannot be conveyed clearly in a direct way, is conveyed by a concealed expression rich in suggestive force. : (vstti, on VJ. I. 19, pp. 30, ibid) : "ayam aparah pada-purvardha-vakratayah prakaro yad iyam samvstivakratvam nama, yatra padartha-svarupam prastavanugunyena kena'pi nikarsenotkarsena va, yuktam vyakta-taya saksad abhidhatum asakyam samvstisamarthyopayogitaya sabdena'bhidhiyate." This is pure vyanjana. K. calls it "vicitra abhidha" in both the cases such as those of "saksat abhidha" and "a-saksad abhidha." This perhaps may lead us to brand him as a "dirghadirghatara'bhidhavadin', or a 'tatparya-vadin' like Dhananjaya, who is posterior to him. But after studying .. it is unthinkable not to accept difference in sabda-vittis, even in the presence of 'visayabheda' and 'svarupabheda' i.e. difference in nature and scope. The illustration, viz., "nidra-nimilita-drsah." etc. (verse no. 51, pp. 30, ibid) has a word viz. "dhvananti", which means "vyanjayanti" pure and simple, but K. does not explicitely accept it. In the absence of a clear acceptance of vyanjana, how can we call K., a dhvanivadin ? We may call him a "vicitrabhidhavadin", or this, that and everything else, but a dhvanivadin, for he does not openly accept the scheme of A. We will go to observe that under VJ. II. 9, while discussing rudhi-vaicitrayavakrata (on pp. 83, ibid) K. clearly refers to the Dhvanikara and his vyangyavyanjaka-bhava, and adds that it is duly and ably established there and therefore need not be re-established here : (vstti, on VJ. II. 9, pp. 83) : "yasmad dhvanikarena vyangya-vyanjaka-bhavotra sutaram samarthitas tat kim punaruktyena ?" This shows he works under A.'s spell and is fully conscious of it, and yet tries to cut a new track and evolve new terminology. But he lands himself in a hopeless situation when he equates all types of vakratas, which are almost all but different names for titles given by 7., under one banner and on equal footing and thereby belieing the experience of aesthetes. That K. is absolutely conscious about A.'s theory is very clear when he uses terms such as 'pratiyate', 'pratipadyate', 'prakasyate', etc., in the sense of 'vyajyate' only. Then why does he grudge the use of vyajyate' or 'vyanjana' or 'dhvani' ? If he is a clean follower of A., he should have made a clear statement to this effect, as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #504
Dhvani in kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1059 is done by the great Mammata and Acarya Hemacandra who follow the track of Abhinavagupta who himself in his turn does not make a secret of his being a follower of A. And in that case, K. need not have attempted this sort of a treatise at all. It has been noticed earlier that K.'s use of "pratiyate' is equivalent to "vyajyate'. When he deals with "vrtti-vaicitrya vakrata", once again in a further variety of padapurvardha-vakrata (pp. 31, ibid), he finds beauty in the speciality of linguistic structure like compounds, their speciality, etc. : (vrtti, VJ. I. 19, pp. 31) : "yatra samasa"di-vsttinam kasamcid vicitranam eva kavibhih parigrahah kriyate." The illustration reveals a mixed beauty of expression, pure and simple, and also suggestion. Similer is the case with his yet another variety of "pada-purvardhavakrata", viz. "linga-vaicitra-vakratvam", wherein we have speciality in gender. (vrtti; VJ. I. 19, pp. 31) : - "aparam linga-vaicitryam nama pada-purvardha-vakratayah prakarantaram drsyate. yatra bhinna-linganam api sabdanam vaicitryaya samanadhikaranyopanibandhah." At times the poet pitches upon only the feminine form of a word, because of its tenderness, though it admits of other genders. (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 318, ibid). All this is beauty of pure expression coloured with beauty of suggestion. Similarly, his "kriya-vaicitrya-vakratva" is beauty in speciality of verbs, where poets offer usage, full of charm, brought about by artistic expression while describing the speciality in verbs. All this is beauty of pure expression tinged with that of suggestion as well. The illustration cited is, "rati-keli..." etc. (verse No. 58, pp. 32, ibid), wherein the verb "jayati" occurs. K. observes that here, the verb 'jayati' i.e. 'triumphs', has a striking beauty. Then he quotes an illustration which forms the famous mangala-sloka of the Dhv., viz. "sveccha-kesarinah..." etc., in which observes K., the poet has attributed a unique activity, viz. the cutting away of woes of devotees, which is so different from their cutting activity well-known to the people. Vrtti on VJ. 1. 19, pp. 32, ibid - "atra nakhanam sakala-loka-prasiddha-cchedana-vyaparavyatireki kim apy apurvam eva prapanna"rti-cchedana-laksanam kriya-vaicitryam upanibaddham" - could K. have-read Locana ? But here also, the charm is caused by the suggestion it contains. So also, in the illustration drawn from A., and also in the illustration, viz. "karnotpala-dala..." etc., (pp. 33 ibid), the charm caused is the result of suggestivity. At all these places, K. avoids any mention of vyanjana directly. After this, K. treates "pratyaya-vakrata". (pp. 33, ibid) with all its varieties. It is clear that in many of these, the special charm results from suggestivity. K. illustrates them and tries to bring out the source of beauty which for him is either For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #505
1060 SAHRDAYALOKA due to "sankhya-vaicitrya" or, "karaka-vaicitrya", or "purusa-vaicitrya". It is needless to say that all these charming expressions look all the more charming by virtue of the touch of suggestivity in them. Otherwise, if pure expression is equated with and placed on the same footing as an expression containing charms of suggestion, then this certainly is no doing of a true dhvanivadin, and it is in this sense that K.'s position can be questioned. After discussing these varieties, K. goes to observe that only a few important forms of artistic beauty have been presented here to serve as examples. But thousands of them are possible in the plentiful usage of master-poets and they may be discovered by men of taste on their own. A. also had passed a remark to the same effect. Vrtti, on VJ. I. 19 (pp. 35) reads as - "etac ca mukhyataya vakrataprakarah katicin nidarsanartham pradarsitah. sistas ca sahasrasah sambhavanti iti mahakavi-pravahe sahrdayaih svayam eva utpreksaniyah." Under I. 20 VJ. (pp. 35, ibid), K. treats vakya-vakrata and tries to subsume all alamkaras here-under. A. has placed them under gunibhuta-vyangya type, but in K. all vakrata is of an identical nature, and therefore has to be placed on the same footing. This is exactly where he violates the fundamantals of the dhvanivadins. The vakya-vakrata is illustrated (verse No. 70, pp. 36), in "upasthitam purvam upasya..." etc. Actually, this can very well serve as an illustration of vastu-dhvani which is not named as such by K. On the contrary, K. wants to put this under the same banner which also corners all the figures of sense, i.e. arthalamkaras. K. treats of prakarana - vakrata or 'beauty of section' and 'pralandha vakrata' or beauty of a whole work or composition, at VJ. I. 21. We know that A. has already discussed "prabandha-vyanjakatva' and has screened the case of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and it is clear that here too, K. derives his inspiration from A. K. promises to discuss in greater details the six-fold vakrata in due course. But here, we will repeat once again, that the 'prakarana-vakrata' and 'pabandha-vakrata' are but shades of A.'s vyanjana. The illustration from Kirata. is an instance in point: (vrtti, VJ. I. 21, pp. 37, ibid) - "yatha va kiratarjuniye kiratapurusoktism vacyatvena sva-margana-margana-matram eva upakrantam. vastutah punar arjunena saha, tatparyartha-paryalocanaya vigraho vakyarthatam upanitah...". "Similarly, in the Kiratarjuniya also, we find only the seeking of his own arrow by the hunter plainly stated in the hunter's words. But, as a matter of fact Arjuna who takes the purport into account (and) understands rightly that the hunter's meaning is a challange for fighting." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 323, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #506
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1061 Then K. proceeds to discuss the nature of 'bandha' or 'diction' under VJ. I. 22 (pp. 38, ibid). While dealing with "sukumara-marga", (VJ. I. 25-29), K. observes that this style is such which master poets follow like bees roving along the grove of full-blown blossoms (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 329). He further observes that by this simile the author intends to suggest elegance about the style which is comparable to the natural loveliness of flowers. (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 330, ibid). The word used here is "dyotyate" - (Vrtti, VJ. I. 29, pp. 44, ibid) - "vikasita-kusuma-kanana-samyena tasya kusuma-saukymarya-sadrsam abhijatyam dyotyate." Here 'dyotyate should mean 'vyajyate'. The illustration viz. "pravrddhatapah..." etc., (pp. 44, ibid), has an element of suggestivity. He observes : (vrtti, VJ. I. 29, pp. 44, ibid): tatha ca 'pravrddha-tapah' "tanvi", iti vacakau sundara-svabhavamatra-samarpana-paratvena vartamanau arthantara-pratity-anurodha-paratvena pravrttim na sammanyete, kavi-vyakta-kausala-samullasitasya punah prakarantarasya pratitavanugunyamatrena tad-vid-ahlada-karitam pratipadyete." "The words, "heated up", and "slender", are so used as to bring out essentially the charming nature of the two and cannot directly signify any other shade of meaning. But the poet's artistic skill has succeeded in making them fit for signifying the other meaning also by keeping them in tune with it; and this compels admiration from critics." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 330). All this comes very close to cases wherein multiple meaning is restricted to one particular meaning and later on with the help of vyanjana the suppressed meaning again comes to the surface. K.'s concept of "lavanya" (VJ. I. 32, pp. 49, ibid), and "abhijatya" (VJ. I. 33, pp. 50, ibid), could hardly be distinguished from pure varnadharmas and sabdadharmas; i.e. qualities of letters or syllables and of words. It is just that, pure and simple. Under VJ. I. 33, (pp. 51, ibid) we have a cross-reference to A., wherein K. suggests that when A. equates "pratiyamana" or implicit sense, with the beauty of limbs in a lady, i.e. 'lalana-lavanya', he only wants to convey that this beauty is something quite different from the normal limbs such as hands, feet, etc. Here, K. does not criticise A., who according to K. here wants to emphasise that the implicit sense is quite different, from the explicit one. - (vrtti, VJ. I. 33, pp. 52, ibid) : "na esa dosah. - yamad anena drstantena vacya-vacaka-laksana-prasiddhavayavavyatiriktatvena astitvamatram sadhyate pratiyamanasya; na punah sakala-lokalocana-samvedyasya lalana-lavanyasya." . "This is not at all wrong. All that the analogy establishes is the independent existence of the implied aspect of meaning as distinct from the purely conventional and secondary meanings of words." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 338, ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #507
1062 SAHRDAYALOKA K. defines "vicitra-marga" in VJ. I 34-43 (pp. 52, 53, ibid). This is one in which "artistic beauty appears to be radiating brilliantly from within, in respect of both word and meaning." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 338, ibid) (Vrtti, VJ. J. 34-43, pp. 53, ibid) : "kidrsah sa margah yatra yasmin sabdabhidheyayor abhidhana'bhidhiyamanayor antah svarupanupravesini vakrata bhaniti-vicchittih sphurativa praspandamana iva vibhavyate, laksyate." This comes to the beauty caused by word and meaning - sabda'bhidheyayoh" (VJ. I. 34) (pp. 52, ibid). This is also a style, "wherein the adorned is made to acquire brilliance by virtue of the tropes brilliant in themselves, and reflecting it through their own excessive beauty." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 339, ibid): - "yatra tad-vad alamkaraih bhrajamanair nija"tmana, sva-s'obhatisayantahstham alamkaryam prakasate." This is again a style (VJ. I. 40, pp. 53, ibid) "pratiyamanata yatra vakyarthasya nibadhyate, vacya-vacaka-vrttibhyam vyatiriktasya kasyacit." "Wherein further, the intended purport of the whole is communicated by a suggestive use of language which is distinct from the two well-known uses, viz. "the communicative use of meanings and the denotative use of words." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 339, ibid). We have quoted the whole karika above. What harm is there, we may ask, if direct mention is made of vyanjana, which alone for a dhvanivadin, is capable of conveying the implicit sense? Surely, K. cannot admit "anumiti" here. If he does not accept 'vyanjana' should he accept 'laksana' or 'dirgha-dirghataravyapara" or "tatparya" ? And, in all these cases we refuse to call him a dhvanivadin. But perhaps he also accepts vyanjana at heart, but whatever appeals to hissense of beauty in poetry, he calls it 'vakrata', a broader term to designate all poetic beauty. We will discuss this when we come to the end of his assessment. While dealing with the vicitra-marga, i.e. the brilliant style, K. refers to the striking aspect of beauty both in words and meaning which will appear as natural and not involving a special effort on the part of the poet, as in, "koyam bhati", etc., (verse no. 89, under VJ. I. 43, pp. 54). He goes to observe that (vrtti, VJ. I. 43; For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #508
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1063 pp. 54, ibid) - "atra aprastutaprasamsa-laksano'lamkarah pradhanyena vakyarthah, pratiyamana-padarthantaratvena prayuktatvat, tatra ca vicitra-kavi-saktisamullikhita - vakra-sabdartho'panibandha-mahatmyat. prakrama eva pratibhasamanatvan na ca'rthantara-pratiti-karitvena padanam slesa-vyapadesah sakyate kartum, vacyasya sama-pradhana-bhavena anavasthanat. arthantarapratiti-karitvam ca padanam pratiyamanartha-sphutatavabhasanartham upanibadhyamanam ativa-camatkaritam pratipadyate." "The main purpose of this verse is 'vicarious reference', a figure of speech. The whole passage is designed by the author to convey a suggested meaning, other than the referential one. Further more, as a result of the effective use of artistic words and meanings due to the inventive genius of an accomplished poet, even the suggested meaning is made to appear as if it were the directly denoted meaning. Since it is grasped at the first instance itself, no paronomasia can be said to be involved, merely because the words convey a double meaning; in fact both the meanings retain equal importance. Such a usage of words with double meaning with a view to illuminating a clear, suggested meaning will carry an extremely delightful effect." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 340, ibid). This is nothing else but 'vyanjana', not expressly admitted by K., who again equates 'pratiyamana', and 'vacya', in 'aprastuta-prasamsa', which then caeses to be an alamkara, and is included in the fold of dhvani. In the same vein, K., without an express mentioning or acceptance of vyanjanavrtti, continues to explain one more illustration, viz. "he helajita-bodhisattva." etc. (verse, No. 90, pp. 54, ibid). K. holds that, (vrtti, VJ. I. 43, pp. 55 ibid) - "atra atyanta-garhaniya-caritam padarthantaram pratiyamanataya cetasi nidhaya tathavidha-vilasitah salila-nidhir vacyatayopakrantah, tad etavad eva alamkrter aprastuta-prasamsayah svarupam-garhaniya-pratiyamana-padartha-ntaraparyavasanam api vakyam srutyupakrama-ramaniyataya upanibandhyamanam tadvida"hladakaritam ayati. tad etad vyajastuti-prati-rupaka-prayam alamkaranantaram aprastuta-prasamsaya bhusanatvena upattam. na ca'tra samkaralankara-vyavaharo bhavitum arhati, prthag ati-parisphutatvena avabhasanat. na ca'pi samsrsti-sambhavah sama-pradhanabhavena anavasthiteh. na ca dvayor api vacyalamkaratvam, vibhinna-visayatvat." "Here also, keeping in mind a different meaning altogether, i.e. of a person whose character is most censurable, as his implicit meaning, the poet has explicitly described the ocean whose conduct is similar. This, in essence, is of the nature of the figure of speech, viz. 'Vicarious reference'. (or Indirect narration). Further, the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #509
1064 SAHRDAYALOKA sentence which implicitly conveys even a censurable idea becomes capable of causing delight to the connoisseurs when it is couched in a language which is explicitly beautiful. Hence, 'vicarious reference', may be reckoned as a figure of speech which is, in its turn, adorned by another figure, viz. "veiled praise". Neither is there any scope here for the conjoint merger of both the figures since the two do not have an equally important status. The two are not to be classed as independent figures of expressed sense, because their scope is really different (and not identical)" (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 340, 341, ibid) K. refers to 'alamkara' and 'alamkarya' while explaining an illustration of vicitramarga. He observes : (vrtti, VJ. I. 43, pp. 56, ibid) : "tad idam atra tatparyamtad, alamkara-mahima eva tathavid hotra bhrajate, tasya'tyantodrikta-vitteh svasobhatisayantargatam alamkaryam prakasate." The upshot is this - The efficacy of the figure of speech itself, when it is at its best, is responsible for the impression of beauty surrounding the subject described." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 342, ibid). It is clear that here the 'alamkarya' is of the form of 'vastu-vyangya' only, but K. does not refer to vyanjana. Under verse no. 95, (pp. 57, ibid) K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. I. 43, pp. 57, ibid) : "etac ca vyajastuti-paryayokta-prabhstinam bhuyasa vibhavyate." "And this fact is instaced in many a figure of speech such as "veiled praise" and "euphamism". (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 343, ibid). We know that A. had observed implicit sense preserved in these figures. He had also observed that if the connoisseur feels that the implicit element is predominantly charming, as in the case of 'paryayokta', such instances should be classed under dhvani, and if it is felt the expressed sense is comparatively more charming, they should be styled as "guni-bhuta-vyangya". But K. seems to hold that the implicit is always more charming in all these figures. This leads us to Mahima. But here also, he does not make any reference to vyanjana, through which, for A., the implicit sense is arrived at. Of course K. does not oppose vyanjana as is done, rather vehemently by Mahima, K.'s successor At VJ. I. 38. K. observes that 'vicitramarga', or the brilliant style is (vstti, VJ. I. 38. pp. 57, ibid) - "yad api vastu vacyam a-nutanollekham anabhinavatvena ullikhitam, tad api yatra, yasmin alam kam api kastham niyate, lokottaratisayakotim adhi-ropyate, katham ? ukti-vaicitrya-matrena, bhaniti-vaidagdhyenaiv ety arthah." : Wherein all things existing in their own way are transformed into new shapes at the poet's will. The whole order of nature is made to appear in a new pespective altogether. K.'s observation is influenced by Dhv. I. 4. K. accepts everything at times from A., and yet fights shy of openly mentioning vyanjana and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #510
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1065 recognising it as a separate independent function of a word; yes, independent of abhidha and the rest. On illustration no. 97, (pp. 57-58, ibid), viz. "uddesoyam sarasa-kadali..." etc. K. observes: (pp. 58, ibid): "bhaniti-vaicitrya-matram eva'tra. kavyarthah, na tu nutanollekhasali vacya-vijrmbhitam. etac ca bhaniti-vaicitryam sahasra-prakaram sambhavati iti svayam eva utpreksaniyam." Needless to say that K.'s 'bhaniti-vaicitrya' of a thousand-fold nature is nothing else but A.'s dhvani. A. observes at Dhv. Iv. 2 (vrtti): "ato hy anyatamena'pi prakarena vibhusita, vani navatvam ayati purvarthanvaya-vaty api." (Dhv. IV. 2) ato dhvaner ukta-prabheda-madhyad anyatamena'pi prakarena vibhusita sati vani, puratanakavi-nibaddhartha-samsparsavaty api navatvam ayati." "By a mere touch of even a single variety of suggestion (among the many that have been enumerated), the poet's expression will acquire novelty though it might perhaps embody only a trite idea." (Dhv. Iv. 2) The expression of a poet will appear quite novel though it might embody an idea already found in an earlier poet, if it is adorned by at least a single variety of - suggestion from among the many varieties that have been mentioned." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 265, ibid). K. brings out the implicit sense in verse no. 99 (pp. 58, 59, ibid), without mentioning vyanjana by name. At VJ. I. 40, (pp. 53, ibid) K. almost accepts vyanjana. He observes : "pratiyamanata yatra vakyarthasya nibadhyate, vacya-vacaka-vrttibhyam vyatiriktasya kasyacit" "Wherein, further, the intended purport of the whole is communicated by a suggestive use of language, which is distinct from the two well-known uses, viz. The communicative use of meanings and the denotative use of words." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 339, ibid) K. goes on to observe (vrtti, VJ. I. 40, pp. 59): "vicitram eva prakarantarena unmilayati-pratiyamata ityadi-yatra, yasmin pratiyamanata, gamyamanata vakyarthasya, mukhyataya vivaksitasya vastunah kasya cid anakheyasya nibadyate. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #511
1066 SAHRDAYALOKA kaya yuktya-vacya-vacaka-vittibhyam sabdartha-saktibhyam vyatiriktasya tad atirikta-vstter anyasya vyangya bhutasya abhivyaktih kriyate." - "The mainly intended purport therein, is conveyed by force of implication (i.e. suggestion), only in as much as it defies direct denotation. What is the exact process involved ? The process involved is implication (or suggestion) which is distinct from the two wellknown uses of language, viz. the communicative use of meanings and the denotative use of words. The word process is used here in the sense of the latent power in words and meanings towards signification." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 345, ibid) This directly leads K. into the camp of A. and at his feet too ! Precisely because of this we may call him a dhvanivadin eventhough here also, he does not name 'vyanjana' clearly. Perhaps because of this also, K. who looks to be a "pracchannadhvani-vadin", is spared the onslaughts of A.'s great followers such as Mammata and the like, and he is hardly heard of and quoted in later works becuase he has nothing fresh to offer. He is almost neglected, for he wrongly tries to project his vicitra abhidha' - theory which proposes to subsume even vyanjana under it. K. says that this 'pratiyamana-vyavahara' will be elucidated while dealing with vakyavakrata lateron : "esa ca 'pratiyamana vyavaharo vakya-vakrata-vyakhyavasare sutaram samumilyate." (vitti, pp. 59, ibid, VJ. I. 40) Illustration no. 100, (pp. 59-60, ibid) viz. "vakrendor na haranti..." etc. is also explained in it, which is 'other then the expressed' - "...iti vacya-vyatirikta-vrtti dutyukti-tatparyam pratiyate." K. holds that 'vicitra-marga' also operates when an object's real nature is so described as to be brimming with the intended flow of sentiments - (vrtti, VJ. I. 41; pp. 66, ibid) : yatra yasmin bhavanam svabhavah, parispandah, sa-rasa"kutah, rasa-nirbharabhiprayena padarthanam nibadhyate, nivesyate; kidrsah ?..." etc. This is clearly under the influence of Dhv. IV. 4. K. then comes to what he calls the "madhyama-marga" (VJ. I. 49-51, pp. 68, ibid). He discusses the qualities of "aucitya" or propriety and "saubhagya" or "splendour" under VJ. I. 55, 56, and 57 (pp. 69/70, ibid). In I. 56, he holds that this 'saubhagya' is "the only life of poetry" - "kavyaika-jivita". This is rather surprising. K. is not so clear as is A., in exactly defining the relation between 'guna' and 'rasa'. K. speaks of second variety of "varna-vinyasa-vakrata" at VJ. II. 2 (pp. 75, ibid), which is three-fold. The letters used are - "prastutaucitya-sobhinah" - i.e. they shine by their harmony with the theme, which necessarily is not of the type of rasa"di. We know that .. had insisted on letters being condusive to 'rasa' only, (Dhv. III. 3, 4, - "tena varna rasacyutah"). As compared to that, K.'s approach is wider and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #512
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1067 therefore commendable. By this, K. tries to cover the concept of gunas, ritis, and vrttis, as advanced by others. However, A.'s over all stamp continues as in VJ. II. 4 (pp. 78, ibid). K. observes that this particular vakrata concerning letters should not be brought about by any extra effort on the part of the poet. By "effected without extra effort", what is implied is the unmerited and excessive craze of poets : (vrtti, on VJ. II. 4, pp. 78) : natinirbandha-vihita - "nirbandha" sabdotra vyasanitayam vartate. tena atinirbandhena punah punar avartanavyasanitaya na vihita, 'a-prayatna-viracita' ity arthah." A. hints at the same point at II. 16/17; etc., and wants an 'alamkara', including a sabdalamkara to be, "a-prthag-yatnanirvartya", and wants the poet to restrict himself - "nati-nirvahanaisita". At VJ. II. 5, K. correlates varna-vinyasa-vakrata with the concept of gunas and vrttis of the ancients. He observes : "varna-cchayanusarena guna-marganuvartini, vitti-vaicitrya-yukteti saiva prokta cirantanaih." (VJ. II. 5) ...cirantanaih punah saiva svatantryena vstti-vaicitrya-yukteti prokta. vittinam upanagarikadinam yad vaicitryam vicitra-bhavah sva-nisgha-samkhya-bhedabhinnatvam tena yukta samanvita iti cirantanaih purva-suribhih abhihita." "The ancients spoke of it in their own independent way as characterised by, "beauty of literary mode". (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 367, ibid). K. thus deals with anuprasa, the first variety, of his varna-vinyasa-vakrata. The second variety, viz. yamaka', is dealt with at VJ. II. 6, 7. Here also 'aucitya' or 'propriety' is broad-based as it touches the best manifestation of the subject, which goes beyond rasa"di. After having dealt with ten varieties of varna-vinyasavakrata, K. picks up what he calls "pada-purvardha-vakrata", i.e. beauty concerning the usage of the first part of words i.e. base form of substantives (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 369, ibid). He talks of it at VJ. II. 8, 9 and vitti thereon. The first variety is "rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata". The definition contains words such as "garbhata" and "garbhatva", showing direct relation with the implicit sense, but without any mention of vyanjana. K. observes that : (vrtti, VJ. II. 8, 9; pp. 82, 83 ibid) : "kena hetuna-lokottara-tiraskaraslaghyotkarsabhidhitsaya. lokottarah sarva'tisayi yas tiraskarah khalikaranam slaghyas ca sprhaniyo ya utkarsah, satisayatvam tayor abhidhitsa abhidhatum iccha vaktukamata, taya: kasya, vacyasya. rudhi-sabdasya vacyo yobhidheyorthas tasya socyate kathyate ka'pyalaukiki rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata. rudhi-sabdasya evam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #513
1068 SAHRDAYALOKA vidhena vaicitryena vicitrabhavena vakrata vakra-bhavah." "An intention to shower extra-ordinary belittlement or extra-ordinary glorification of the theme." The poet might desire to present his subject for too less or for too more than it actually is. The 'subject here meant is the one denoted by the conventionally used word. Such an art is designated as 'art in beautifying conventional sense', because a denotative word gets artful extension of sense in all this. (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 370, ibid). All this is full of A's implicit sense. The first illustration cited viz. "tala jaanti..." etc., is also from Dhv. (pp. 38, ibid). And it is here that K. clearly mentions the 'Dhvanikara' and "vyangya-vynjaka-bhava". K. observes : (vitti, VJ. II. 9, pp. 83, ibid) : "pratiyata iti. kriyapada-vaicitryasya ayam abhiprayo yad evamvidhe visaye sabdanam vacakarvena na vyaparah, api tu vastvantaravat-pratitikaritva-matrena iti yukti-yuktam api etad iha na atipratanyate. yasmad dhvanikarena vyangyavyanjaka-bhavotra sutaram samarthitas tat kim paunaruktyena" "The predicate, 'is seen to expand', in the Karika, has special significance. In all such instances the verbal function involved is not ordinary denotation but suggestion which can signify a world of extending connotative meanings. This conclusion is indeed reasonable, but we are not concerned with that question here. So refrain from devoting space to its consideration. The learned author of the Dhvanyaloke has established at length the relation of word and meaning in such instances to be that of 'suggestor' and 'suggested'; there is no point served in our repeating the same." (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 371, ibid). K. is so much under the spell of A., that very often he turns to him even for illustrations. He illustrates rudhivaicitrya-vakrata, which is here two-fold and seems to be modelled on A.'s "arthantara, samkramita-vacya-dhvani', with the help of an illustration accepted from A., viz." snigdha-syamala-kanti..." etc. (pp. 83-84, ibid). The same beauty of 'rama'-pada is brought out, but is branded here as a particular type of vakrata. But once again, what can we say to K. who equates 'varna-vinyasavakrata', having the charm of varnas, i.e. expression only, with "rudhi-vaicitryavakrata" having the charm of pure vyanjana, and places them on the same footing? We are reminded here of the famous verse : "kacam manim kancanam ekasutre, murkha nibadhnanti, kimatra citram ? vicaravan paninir eka-sutre svanam yuvanam maghavanam aha." Illustrations after illustrations prove the supreme dominance of vyanjana. In For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #514
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1069 "ajna sakra-sikhamani pranayini..." etc., (verse, 29, pp. 84, ibid), we have, "syac ced esa na ravanah," an expression charged with vyanjana. A. would call it "arthantara samkramita-vacya-dhvani." Same is the case with the next illustration, viz. "ramosau bhuvanesu vikrama-gunaih..." etc., an illustration also read in A., and the still next, and the still next. K. says that this "rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata" has many varieties on account of the implicit sense in it : (vitti, VJ. II. 9; pp. 85) - "esa ca rudhi-vaicitrya-vakrata pratiyamana-dharma-bahulyat bahuprakara bhidyate." Even here, K. keeps silent over whether this implicit sense is arrived at through vyanjana or not. K. then proceeds to deal with what he terms as paryaya vakrata" (at VI. II. 1012) i.e. "Superior art in the use of synonyms" (K.Kris.; pp. 373, ibid), which is sixfold. We can easily see through these and stamp them only as, "vyanjana-vilasita". He almost mentions 'vyanjana' when he observes : (vitti II 10-12, pp. 86, ibid) "yasmat paryaya-sabdatve saty apy antarangatvat sa yatha vivaksitam vastu vyanakti tatha nanyah kascid iti." "Though other synonyms exist, one alone among them can achieve closest approximation with the shade of meaning that is sought to be conveyed (= suggested ?) and not the rest." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 374, ibid). The illustrations no.s 32, 33, etc. (pp. 86-87, ibid) prove the point. Our point is that if all this is ultimately the charm caused by vyanjana, what purpose is served by just giving it a new name ? What's in a name ? Call it "vyanjana-dhvani" or call it by any other name. The next variety of paryayavakrata is illustrated by the verse no. 35, (pp. 88, ibid), viz. "ittham jade..." etc. K. clearly exhibits his knowledge of A.'s theory and his scheme of sabda-vsttis while discussing this illustration. We may also find here a tacit acceptance also of A.'s scheme. He observes : (vrtti, VJ. II. 10, pp. 88, 89, ibid) : "atra 'matanga' sabdah prastute varana-matre pravartate. slistaya vrttya candala-laksanasya a-prastutasya vastunah pratitim utpadayan rupaka'lamkaracchaya-sparsad gaur vahikah ity anena nyayena sadnsya-nibandhanasya upacarasya sambhavat prastutasya vastunas tattvam adhyaropayan paryayavakratam pusnati. yasmad evamvidhe visaye prastutasya a-prastutena sambandhopanibandho rupakalamkara-dvarena kadacid upama-mukhena va. yatha sa evayam sa iva'yam iti va. esa eva ca sabda-saktimula'nuranana-rupa-vyangyasya pada-dhvaner visayah, bahuyu caivanvidhegu satsu vakya-dhvaner va." "The word 'matanga' in this context directly refers only to the elephant. Paronomiastically it can also denote the non-contextual meaning, viz., 'butcher'; the two came to be metaphorically identified, after the analogy of the punjabi is a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #515
1070 SAHRDAYALOKA bull, because here also there is similarity justifying metaphorical identification. Thus, we have here a new aspect of beauty in the use of a synonym. In all such places the relation between the direct (lit. contextual) and the indirect, (lit. noncontextual) meaning may be either one of metaphor or of simile. One might say "that is this" or, "this is like this". This itself has been spoken of (by A.) as an instance of suggestion in word coming under the class - "sabda-sakti-mulaanuranana-rupa-vyangya", wherein there is a paranomastic power in the word giving rise to two as metaphor etc., and resembling resonant sound." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 376, ibid) K. clearly mentions 'vakya-dhvani' also and draws illustrations viz. "kusumasamaya-yugam." etc. and "vrtte'smin..." etc. from the Dhvanyaloka (pp. 78, and pp. 110, Edn. '74, K.Kris.) We fail to understand his effort in naming A.'s dhvani differently. Only point to his credit is that he has specifically mentioned and illustrated many varieties, or say, sub-varieties of dhvani left out by A. But thereby Ki's work becomes only supplementary to the Dhvanyaloka. It may be called a useful appendix, at the most, to A.'s great Dhvanyaloka. Ko's effort to name it differently is just quibbling. Yes, just so, and nothing more. For, he has to admit that, in the particular illustration viz. "vittesmin mahapralaye..." etc., (pp. 89, ibid) : (vrtti, VJ. II. 10; verse 37, pp. 89 - ibid) : "atra yuga"dayah sabdah prastutabhidhana-paratvena prayujyamanah santopya-aprastuta-vastu-pratiti-karitaya kam api kavya-cchayam samunmilayantah pratiyamanalamkara-vyapadesa-bhajanam bhavanti." "Though the word 'yuga' (= 'era'; 'twin months) etc., are used overtly to refer to the subject on hand, they are capable of suggesting another meaning indirectly and reveal a special kind of poetic charm which has been designated by the name, 'suggested figure of speech' by A." - (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 377, ibid). What pains us is not just his naming the things differently, but it is only when K. places different varieties of vakrata on the same footing, we feel that he violates the basic principles of aesthetics in general and dhvani in particular and renders confusion worse confounded. For example, his fourth variety of 'paryaya-vakrata' viz. "sva-cchayotkarsa pesala" (pp. 89, 90, ibid) i.e. (which by itself contributes to a new lease of excellence - Trans. K.Kris., pp. 377) - at the most comes closer to what we call 'parikara-alamkara'. Surely this can never be equated with other 'vakrata' as above, which is dhvani, pure and simple. K. then treats (pp. 90, ibid) yet another variety, wherein, "ayam aparah padapurvardha-vakrata bhidhayi-asambhavyartha-patratva-garbham yasca'bhidhiyate". i.e. 'which hints at a meaning having inconceivable elements.' (Trans. K.Kris. pp. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #516
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1071 378, ibid). After citing apt illustrations (viz. verses no.s 40, 41, pp. 91, ibid) K. makes the following observation : (vrtti, VJ. II. 12, pp. 91, ibid) : tad evam yady api suspasta-samanvayoyam vakyarthas tatha'pi tatparyantaram atra pratiyate." - "...apart from this surface meaning, there is also the hint of another intent." The variety called, "alamkaropasamskara-manohari-nibandhanah" - "that which contains embellishing figurative elements condusive to beauty" (pp. 379, ibid, Trans. K.Kris.) - has beauty caused by figures. The compound is to be treated as both 'trtiya-samasah' and 'sasthi-samasah' - i.e. both as an instrumental compound and as a genitive compound' (K.Kris., pp. 380, ibid). While dealing with the latter, K. cites an illustration of 'utpreksa' which is only suggested. Thus he jumbles up, once again, contrary to the expectations of a pure dhvani-vadin, the two different charms resulting from the use of normal figures of speech and others that are only suggested. The particular illustration, viz. "devi, tvan mukhapankajena..." etc. (verse, No. 42, pp. 42, ibid) may be classed as one of 'alamkara dhvani', wherein 'utpreksa' is only implicit. K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. II. 12, pp. 92) : "tvan-mukha-pankajena punah sasinah sobhatiraskarina nyayato nirjitani santi 'vicchayatam gacchanti iva' iti pratiyamanasya utpeksa-laksanasya alamkarasya sobhatisayah samullasyate." Now K. comes to treat "upacara-vakrata" - "beauty of metaphorical expression" - (K.Kris.), under VJ. II. 13, 14 (pp. 93, ibid). It is clear that he intends to cover up all usages having metaphor at its root. Alamkaras such as rupaka, and all such usages having 'laksana' as their basis, and also such other figures of speech which belong to the 'expressed class are also taken up here. K. also covers up what the dhvani-vadin would call "laksana-mula-dhvani." Thus without discrimination worthy of a true follower of .., he puts on par both the 'expressed and the "principally suggested." He herein includes also cases which a dhvanivadin would designate as, "atyanta-tiraskrta-vacya-dhvani". Anyoktis are also covered up under this vakrata. We come across an illustration of anyokti in verse no. 50(pp. 96, ibid), viz. "anarghah kopy antah..." etc. K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. II. 14, pp. 96, ibid): tatha ca kim api padarthantaram pratiyamanataya cetasi nidhaya, tathavidha-laksanasamya-samanvayam samasritya padarthantaram abhidhiyamanatam prapayantah, prayasah kavayo disyante." - "Furthermore, poets are often seen describing outwardly objects different from the ones that they have in mind, primarily because of some fancied similarity in the qualities of the two." (pp. 383, ibid, Trans. K.Kris). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #517
1072 SAHRDAYALOKA K. does not seem to bother whether the implied sense is principal or subordinate in relation to the expressed. He seems to hold that the implicit is principal in 'a-prastuta-prasamsa' as against rupaka in which the expressed is principal (vrtti, VJ. II. 14, verse 50; pp. 96, ibid) - "tatha ca etayor dvayos tulye'pi upacara-vakrata-jivitve, vacyatvam ekatra, pratiyamanatvam aparasmin svarupabhedasya nibandhanam." - "Thus in these two figures of speech i.e. 'metaphor' and 'irrelevant reference', though there is similarity in regard to the vital presence of "beauty in metaphorical expression", difference between the two can be brought out by explaining the one as suggested and the other as denoted." (Trans. K.Kris.; pp. 384, ibid). This idea regarding a-prastuta-prasamsa goes against the normally accepted notion as represented by M., Ruyyaka, Appayya and Jagannatha. At VJ. II. 15, (pp. 96, ibid) K. deals with "visesana-vakrata", which is three-fold, and is itself the fourth variety of pada-purvardha-vakrata. He observes: (VJ. II. 15, pp. 96, ibid) : "visesanasya mahatmyat kriyayah karakasya va, yatrollasati lavanyam sa visesana-vakrata." "If as a result of the excellence of epithet, beauty is added to the verb or noun, (in a sentence), it is to be classed as "beauty in epithet". (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 384, ibid). This comes close to normal 'parikara-alamkara', and seems to be more a charm connected with pure expression, i.e. "abhidha-vilasita" only. VJ. II. 16 (pp. 98, ibid) talks of "samvrti-vakrata" - "beauty of concealment," which is manifold and has an element of implied sense which is either principal or subordinate source of charm. In short, it could be placed either with 'dhvani' or "gunibhuta-vyangya", as the case may be. K. observes : "yatra samvriyate vastu vaicitryasya vivaksaya, sarva-nama"dibhih kaiscit sokta samvrti-vakrata." (VJ. II. 16, pp. 98, ibid) "In order to achieve excellence of expression, when the subject of description is screened as it were by the use of pronouns and so forth, we have, what is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #518
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1073 designated as, "beauty of concealment." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 385 ibid). We feel that A.'s vastu-dhvani can be accomodated in second, third, fourt, fifth and sixth varieties of 'samvrti-vakrata'. The illustration for example, viz. "tat pitary atha parigraha..." etc. (verse, no. 58, pp. 99, ibid) is explained by K. as, (vrtti, VJ. II. 16, pp. 99, ibid). "atra sadacara-pravanataya gurubhakti-bhavitantahkarano lokottaraudarya-guna-yogad-vividha-visayopabhoga-vitrsnamana nijendriyanigraham a-sambhavaniyam api santanavo vihitavan ity abhidhatum sakyam api samanyabhidhayina sarva-namna"cchadya uttarardhena karyantarabhidhayina vakyantarena pratiti-gocaratam aniyamanam kam api camatkaritam avahati." -"In this example, it was, certainly possible for the poet to state that Santanu's son (= Deva-vrata, alias Bhisma) displayed incredible self-restraint in foreswearing all sensual allurements because of his extra-ordinary magnanimity, his devout good behaviour and boundless regard for elders. But the poet has avoided this straight-forward statement; he has allowed it to be concealed by a pronoun (= he), with general significance. In the second half of the verse, he proceeds to give us a relative clause, which describes some other action and yet succeeds by this manoeuvre in suggesting it strikingly and forcefully." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 388, ibid). This is just vastu-dhvani. The next illustration, viz. "yate dvaravatim..." etc., (verse 59, pp. 99, ibid), also prove the point when K. observes: (vrtti, VJ. II. 16, pp. 99, ibid) "atra sarvanamna samvrtam vastu tat-karya'bhidhayina vakyantarena samunmilya sahrdaya-hrdaya-haritam prapitam." "Here what she sang is concealed by the pronoun 'that' (in the original) and at the same time the concealed idea is revealed by another clause which wins the hearts of critics with taste." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 387, ibid). The next variety of 'pada-purvardha-vakrata' is "pada-madhyantar-bhutapratyaya-vakrata" (i.e. the affix in the middle of a word adds to the beauty of decorum in subject described - K.Kris.; pp. 388, ibid) - which is taken up at VI. II. 17, (pp. 101, ibid) K. observes: (vrtti, VJ. II. 17, pp. 101 ibid) - "kascit pratyayah krd adih, pada-madhya-vrttir anyam apurvam vakratam ullasayati vakrabhavam uddipayati. kim kurvan? - prastutasya varnyamanasya vastuno yad aucityam ucitabhavas tasya vicchittim upasobham vikasayan, samullasayan; kena ? sva-mahimna, nijotkarsena." "The affix in the middle of a word often adds to the beauty of decorum in the subject described, by virtue of its own excellence. This may be regarded as another type of poetic beauty. Some affixes like 'krt' occurring in the middle of words are For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #519
1074 SAHRDAYALOKA seen enhancing the unique poetic beauty in the passage. They serve to increase the beauty of decorum in respect of the subject described. This increase is brought about by its own excellence." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 386, ibid). These are charms of both expression and suggestion. For example, in - "snihyat katakse drsau." (verse no. 68, pp. 101). K. observes here (vrtti, VS. II. 17, pp. 102, ibid) "atra vartamana-kalabhidhayi satr-pratyayah kam apy atita'nagatavibhrama-virahitam tatkalika-parispanda-sundarim prastutaucitya-vicchittim ullasayan sahrdaya-hrdaya-harinim pratyaya-vakratam avahati." "The affix forming the present participle brings out beautifully the speciality of the subject shining in its present splendour and devoid of graces attached to it in the past and attributable to it in the future. This charm of the affix is indeed very appealing to the mind of sensitive critics." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 389, ibid) - This has charm operating at the level of abhidha only. Once again, K. places all varieties of beauty-vakrata' - on the same footing without caring in the least for what A. would feel about it. The illustrations, viz. verses, Nos., 69, 70, 71, on pp. 102, ibid, prove this point. K. observes: (vrtti, VJ. II. 18, pp. 102, ibid) - "atra subhagam-manyabhava-prabhrtisu sabdesa, mumadi-parispanda-sundarah sannivesa-cchayavidhayinim vacaka-vakratam pratyayah pusnanti." - "The augments 'mum' in the words 'subhagam-manya', 'prasrtim-paca', and so forth, add extra-ordinary stylistic charm showing off the linguistic construction to best advantage." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 389, ibid). Then follows 'vrtti-vakrata', at VJ. II. 19 (pp. 103, ibid), which takes note of beauty revealed through various types of compounds, and also taddhita, and sub-vrttis. This includes charm caused due to the pure expression i.e. abhidha, and also 'upacara', or metaphorical expression, and then vyanjana also. The illustrations go to prove this. However, the main source of charm is only abidha. The illustration viz., "a svar-lokad uraga-nagaram" etc. (verse, '73, pp. 103, ibid), has the word "pandimanam" which contributes to a unique beauty of vrtti, a beauty which would be missed if its synonym like 'pandutva', 'panduta' and 'pandubhava' were used. Then comes 'bhava-vakrata', a further variety of 'pada-purvardha-vakrata'. K. takes it up at VJ. II. 20, (pp. 108, ibid). K. makes the point clear when he suggests that here pure expression at abidha level makes for the charm, regardless of any acquaintance with the implicit element. A. would refuse to equate it with vyanjana. VJ. II. 21 has 'linga-vaicitrya-vakrata', also a charm, at the abhidha level. VJ. II. 22 (pp. 106, ibid) observes that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #520
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1075 "sati lingantare yatra stri-lingam ca prayujyate, sobha-nispattaye yasman namnaiva striti pesalam." "Even when other genders could be used, if the feminine is preferred, it contributes to beauty; since even the name of a woman is pleasing." (Trans. K. Kris.; pp. 392, ibid) - It may be noted in passing that Dr. K. Kris. (pp. XV, Introduction to his edn. of VJ.) tries to suggest here that this observation shows K. as a predecessor of Abhinavagupta. We feel that this could be debated. VJ. II. 23 (pp. 106, ibid) also continues the same argument. VJ. II. 24, 25 (pp. 108, 109, ibid) give the eight variety of pada-purvardha-vakrata. This has "kriya-vaicitrya-vakrata" of five varieties, which has charm caused due to abhidha, as well as 'upacara', but all this is placed on the same footing. There is a touch of vyanjana also, as in the illustration viz. "prapanna"rti-cchido-nakhaho" (verse No. 88., pp. 110, ibid), from A. In the variety viz. 'sva-visesana-vaicitrya", (pp. 110, ibid) also, there is an element of vyanjana, when an attribute causes charm. K. does accept charm due to vyanjana, eventhough he does not name it so. But he includes it in his wider scheme of kavi-vyapara-vakrata, without distinguishing between beauty caused by abhidha. laksana (or upacara), and vyanjana. This would be a difficult pill to swallow for alks of 'upacara-manojnata" (on pp. 111, ibid) which proves the above observation. Then he talks of 'karma"di-samvrti' wherein 'karma' i.e. action remains 'vyangya' (pp. 112, ibid). After discussing 'pada-purvardha-vakrat in case of both 'subanta' and 'tinganta' padas in eleven varieties, K. now proceeds to discuss "pada-parardhavakrata", i.e. 'pratyaya-vakrata" with reference to the same. First is taken up "kalavaicitrya-vakrata' at VJ. II. 26 (pp. 113). The illustrations reveal the beauty of vyanjana only. K. gives only a different lebel. The 'karaka-vakrata' at VJ. II. 27, 28 (pp. 115 ibid) speaks of vakrata - i.e. beauty - caused due to reversal of status in 'instruments in action.' Some of the illustrations reveal the charm caused by direct expression, pure and simple, as in, "yacnam dainya." etc. (verse no. 97, pp. 116, ibid), while there is a tinge of vyanjana also somewhere. Similar is the case of 'samkhya-vakrata (VJ. II. 29, pp. 116, ibid), or "transposition of numbers." K. observes (vstti, VJ. II. 29, pp. 117 ibid) tad ayam atra'rthah - yad ekavacane, dvivacane prayoktavye vaicitryartham vacanantaram yatra prayujyate, bhinnavacanayor va yatra samanadhikaranyam vidhiyate. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #521
1076 SAHRDAYALOKA "The upshot is this - when either the singular or the dual number should have been used in a context, if we find that another number is used, or if we find that two different numbers are brought into relation with an identical case-termination, we have this type instanced." The illustration is, "kapole patrali." etc. The verse is from Amaru-sataka (no. 85), and is also quoted by A., under Dhv. II. 16c, (pp. 58 line 10, Edn. '74, ibid). He quotes it to illustrate proper use of alamkara as a 'rasanga'. K. deals with what he calls 'purusa-vakrata' i.e. "obique beauty of person", at VJ. II. 30 (pp. 118, ibid). He observes : (vrtti, VJ. II. 30, pp. 118, ibid) - "tad ayam atra'rthah. yad anyasmin uttame madhyame va puruse prayoktavye vaicitryaya anyah kadacit prathamah prayujyate. tasmac ca purusaika yogaksematvad asmadade" pratipadikamatrasya ca viparyasah paryavasyati." "The purport is as follows : In a literary context where the first or second person is required to be used, the poet may prefer to use the third person instead. For the same reason, since pronouns are as good as nouns, the transposition of a noun (i.e. the third person) in place of a pronoun also becomes proper example of this type - of oblique charm." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 404, ibid). A. has practically hinted at all these varieties of so called vakrata, under Dhv. III. 16 (pp. 146, lines 7, 8, ibid), when he observes : "sup-tin-vacana-sambandhis tatha karaka-Saktibhih, krt-taddhita-samasais ca dyotyolaksya-kramah kvacit." "Case-terminations, conjugational terminations, number, relation, acc primary affixes, secondary affixes and also compounds - all these become conveyers of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 147, ibid) The essence of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality, i.e. sentiment etc., is conveyed even by the speciality in case-terminations and conjugal terminations, in number, relation and accidence, in primary affixes, secondary affixes, and compounds. The conjugation 'also' in the text indicates that even propositions and tenses might become suggestive." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 147, ibid) The vstti, on Dhv. III. 16 (pp.146, ibid) reads as : "alaksyakramo dhvaner atma rasa"dih, sub-visesais, tin-visesair, vacana-visesaih, sambandha-visesaih, karaka-saktibhih, krd-visesais taddhita-visesaih, samasais' ca iti, 'ca' sabdan nipatopasarga-kala"dibhih prayuktair abhivyajyamano drsyate." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #522
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1077 K. seems to accept from A., of course without openly recognising the same. K. seems to cover some more sub-varieties such as "upagraha-vakrata" (VJ. II. 31, pp 118, ibid), and "pratyayantara-vakrata" (VJ. II. 32, pp. 119), i.e. beauty due to verbaffix, and also unique beauty of affix." This pertains to charm caused by pure expression at abhidha level. K. equates this without discrimination, with other varieties involving vyanjana. This can not be accepted by a dhvanivadin. K. then comes to yet another variety of pada-vakrata at VJ. II. 33 (pp. 120, ibid). This is very interesting, for he says, "rasa"di-dyotanam yasyam upasarga-nipatayoh, vakyaika-jivitatvena sa'para pada-vakrata." (VJ. II. 33, pp. 120, ibid) "In a poem where the prepositions and indeclinables are employed only to suggest rasas as the sole essense of a poem as a whole, we have what may be called another type of "word-beauty". (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 406, ibid). K. speaks of dyotana' in the sense of 'vyanjana' of rasa, and here he accepts it, but without being vyanjana-biased. Similarly, he accepts "pratiyamana" through 'vyanjana', but he would not hesitate to put the 'abhidhartha' and 'pratiyamanartha' in the same category as he himself is not 'pratiyamana-biased'. He cites illustrations which are read also in the Dhv. Like Dhv. III. 16, as quoted above, K. also suggests in VJ, II. 38 (pp. 122, ibid), that many sub-varieties can be found together at a single place, as in "tarantiva." iti, etc. (pp. 122, ibid, verse no. 113) Actually, K. does not seem to be an opponent of vyanjana, i.e., he is not a "vyanjana-virodhin", but perhaps, he can be said to be an "antar-bhava-vadin". Vyanjana forms but an aspect of 'kavi-vyapara' or "vicitra-abhidha". He also mentions "vyanjakatva" by name, while dealing with VJ. II. 35 (pp. 123, ibid), wherein he observes : (VJ. II. 35, pp. 123) : "vag-vallyah pada-pallava"spadataya ya vakratodbhasini vicchittih sarasattva-sampad-ucita kapy ujjvala jtmbhate, tamalocya vidagdha-sat-pada-ganair vakya-prasunasrayam spharamoda-manoharam madhu navotkntha"kulam piyatam." "Poetic speech is a veritable creeper, with words as leaves, forming the bases for (symmetrical) beauty striking with artistic turn adding to the wealth of feelings and sentiments in a most striking manner. May the bee-like connoisseurs appreciate it For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #523
1078 SAHRDAYALOKA and collect the profusely fragrant and sweet honey, from the sentence blossoms, and enjoy it with ever-increasing zest." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 409, ibid) K. goes to add, (vitti, VJ. II. 35, pp. 124, ibid) - "atraikatra sarasatvam sva-samaya-sambhavi rasa"rdratvam anyatra sungara"di-vyanjakatvam." - "Such is the purport. The juiciness alluded in the verse has two connotations : The first relates to the luscious exuberance manifest in creepers seasonally during spring. In the second place it suggests erotic feelings and so forth." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 410, ibid) K. dealt with vacaka-vakrata in the second chapter. He proceeds with vakya-vakrata, beginning with vacaka-vakrata in the next chapter. K. observes - (VJ. III. 1, pp. 125, ibid) "udara-sva-parispandasundaratvena varnanam, vastuno vakra-sabdaika gocaratvena vakrata." - "When the subject matter is described in a way condusive to beauty by virtue of its own infinite natural charm, and by means of exclusively artistic expressions, we may take it as an instance of creative beauty relating to content." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 411, ibid). He seems to touch both abhidha and vyanjana here by the term "vakra-sabdaika-gocaratvena", i.e. "by means of exclusively artistic expression." The artistic expression may not be either abhidha or vyanjana alone. It could be both. He goes to observe further : (vrtti, VJ. III. 1, pp. 125, ibid) : "varnanam pratipadanam. katham ? vakra-sabdaika-gocaratvena. vakro yo'sau nanavidha-vakrata-visistah sabdah kascid eva vacaka-viseso vivaksitartha-samarpanasamarthas tasyai-vaikasya kevalasya gocaratvena pratipadyataya vinayatvena. vacyatvena iti noktam, vangyatvena'pi pratipadana-sambhavat. tad 'idam aparam bhavati-yad evamvidhe bhava-svabhava-saukumarya-varnana-prastave bhuyasam na vacya'lamkaranam upamadinam upayoga-yogyata sambhavati, svabhavasaukumarya'tisaya-mlanata-prasangat." "The description intended is poetic treatment. Its manner is conveyed by the epithet - 'by means of exclusively artistic expressions.' That is to say out of a number of charming expressions, only that particular one will be selected, which is capable of yielding the intended content as designed by the creative poet as his main subject-matter. The word yielding is used instead of 'signifying', because communication of meaning is possible in a suggestive way also. The sum and substance is this : In all such cases involving the natural charm of the content For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #524
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1079 described, there will not be much-scope for the use of plain figures of speech, simile and so on, because their use would spoil their exquisitely delicate natural charm." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 411, ibid). This shows that K. is not apethetic to vyanjana and is at times prepared to accept the charm caused by the same. What he seems to do is that he gives a larger connotation to A.'s expression; viz. "tau sabdarthau mahakaveh." (Dhv. I. 8.) For A. these 'sabdarthau' were exclusively "vyangya-vyanjakau". For A. specifically observes at I. 8 (Dhv. pp. 14, ibid). "evam vacya-vyatirekino vyangya sadbhavam pratipadya pradhanyam tasyaiva darsayati - "sorthas tad-vyakti-samarthyayogi sabas ca kascana, yatnatah pratyabhijneyau tau sabdarthau mahakaveh." (Dhv. I. 8) sa vyangyorthas tad-vyakti-samarthya-yogi sabdas ca kascana, na sarvah tav eva sabdarthau mahakaveh pratyabhijneyau. vyangya-vyanjakabhyam eva hi suprayuktabhyam mahakavitva-labho mahakavinam, na vacya-vacaka-racana. matrena." (pp. 14, 16, ibid). "Thus after establishing the existence of the implicit meaning as distinct from the explicit, the over-riding superiority of that meaning is demonstrated in what follows : That meaning, and that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it, only these two deserve the careful scrutiny of a first-rate poet. (Dhv. I. 8) "that meaning" refers to the implicit and 'that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it points out that it is not any and every word (recorded in the dictionary). Such a word and such a meaning-only these two deserve the careful recognition of a first-rate poet. The status of first-rate poets is achieved only by the effective employment of suggested meanings and suggestive expressions, and not by a mere use of conventional meanings and conventional words." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 15, 17, ibid) Not that .. on his part does not recognise the charm of the expressed content, but he feels that this charm of the expressed content will shine out only in the association of sentiment which is necessarily suggested. Says .. : Dhv. IV. 7, (pp. 282, ibid) and vitti, thereon : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #525
1080 SAHKDAYALOKA "na ca'rtha'nantyam vyangyartha'peksaya eva, yavad vacyarthapeksaya api iti pratipadayitum ucyate - "avastha-desa-kala"divisesair api jayate, anantyam eva vacyasya suddhasya'pi svabhavatah." (Dhv. I. 7) ..... darsitam eva caitad visama-banalilayam - na ca tesam ghatate'vadhih, na ca te drsyante katham api punar uktah ye vibhramah priyanam artha va sukavi-vaninam." "This infinitude of poetic themes is brought about not only by way of suggested content but also by way of expressed content. This is set forth in the following: Infinitude is achieved by the expressed content also even when it remains in its pure and natural state by reason of the considerations of circumstance, place, time, etc. (Dhv. IV. 7) (pp. 283, ibid, Trans. K.Kris.) ... This has indeed been strikingly declared in my work, visama-bana-lila : There is no limit to them And they will never look like repetitions; The graces of sweet-hearts And the meanings of the words of good poets." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 285, ibid) But A. further adds : (Dhv. IV. 7, pp. 292, ibid) "avastha"di-vibhinnanam vacyanam vinibandhanam, yat pradarsitam prak, -- bhumnaiva drsyate laksye, na tacchakyam apohitumtat tu bhati rasa"srayam." (Dhv. IV. 8) (pp. 292, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #526
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1081 "We find in plenty examples of utilising the expressed content with variations of circumstances etc. But it will shine out only in the association of sentiment." (Dhv. IV. 8). The phrases 'as has been shown already and, 'it cannot be denied that should be understood in the text in the latter and former half respectively of the first sentence." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 293, ibid) It is very clear that what very large-hearted A. grants by way of concession, has been seized upon by K., making an issue out of it. He is out to destroy the vyanjanabias of A. We may call K., a part-dissident. For he does not totally negate vyanjana; and that he cannot do, but he is not prepared to accept its supremacy either. He does not leave the party of the dhvanivadins, but he creates a separate block in the party itself: a party within party, so to say. K. holds that such use of alamkaras as would mar the beauty of 'artha-vastuvakrata' - is unwelcome. This is done in the fashion of A. But A. recommends the use of alamkaras only as conducive to rasa-experience. The 'aucitya' is with reference to 'rasa' in case of A. Here K. does not expressly accept this position, though he also speaks of rasa-experience through proper delineation of vibhava"dis alone. K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. i., pp. 127, ibid) : visesatas tu - rasa-pariposapesalayah pratiter vibhavanubhava-vyabhicary-aucitya-vyatirekena prakarantarena pratipattih, prastuta-sobha-parihara-karitam avahati." "In particular we have to note this : An experience becomes aesthetic only by reason of beauty due to promotion of sentiments through the only means available, viz. a proper mingling of the constituents, ensuants and accessories. Any other xtraneous element therein would become detrimental to natural beauty." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 413, ibid) We may observe that K. partially submits to A.'s dictates. He also cites illustrations read in the Dhv. K. talks of 'vakya-vakrata' at VJ. III. 3, 4 (pp. 133, ibid). This artistic beauty of a sentence touches the field of alamkaras also. K. observes : (verse, 20, in vrtti on VJ. III. 3-4, pp. 136, ibid) - tad idam uktam - "vakyasya vakrabhavo'nyo bhidyate yah sahasradha, yatra'lamkaravargo'sau sarvo'py antar bhavisyati." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #527
1082 SAHRDAYALOKA "An art in a whole sentence admits of a thousand varieties. In it is included the whole lot of figures of speech." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 422, ibid). We know that A. would include the figures under what he calls the "gunibhuta-vyangya". Not so with K., who seems to include even instances of rasa also under "vakya-vakrata." This is defiance, pure and simple. K. proceeds to give 'svabhavodaharana' and 'rasodaharana' in verses, nos. 21, 22 (pp. 136, ibid), under vakya-vakrata. Verse No. 21, viz. "tasam gopa-vadhu..." etc. is read in the Dhv. (pp. 48) also. K. does all this without any direct mention of vyanjana. On rasodaharana (verse, no. 22), viz. "loko yadrsam aha..." etc. (pp. 136, ibid), K. observes (vitti, VJ. III. 4, verse 22, pp. 136-7, ibid) * . "atra utsahabhidhanah sthayi-bhavah samucita"lambana-vibhava-laksanasaudarya-'tisaya-slagha-sraddhalutaya vijigisor, vaidagdhya-bhangi-bhanitivaicitryena param pariposa-padavim adhiropitah san rasatam niyamanah, kimapi vakya-vakra-svabhavam kavi-kausalam eva avedayati. anyesam purvaprakaranodaharananam pratyekam tatha'bhihita-jivita-laksanam vakya-vakratvam svayam eva sahedayair vicaraniyam." "Here the abiding emotion is heroism. The poet is concerned with endowing beauty to the appropriate person who happens to be the abode of that emotion. He is portrayed therefore as a great conqueror. Now the artistic mode of the sentence used raises the emotion to its highest point, so that it comes to be felt as the sentiment of valour. This reveals the poet's art in respect of composing a forceful and artistic sentence. The several examples already given in the previous section wherin artistic beauty relates to construction of such sentences should also be reconsidered in this light by the connoisseurs as further instances. (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 423, ibid) K. discusses 'vakya-vakrata' with reference to "abhidhana-bhidheya", and "abhidha", and then proceeds to classify the thing described : (vrtti, prior to VJ. III. 5; pp. 137, ibid): "evam abhidhana'bhidheya'bhidha-laksanasya kavyopayoginas tritayasya svarupam ullikhya varnaniyasya vastuno visaya-vibhagam.vidadhati." "We have so far discussed the nature of the three entities associated with poetry, namely word, content and the process of communication. Now the author proceeds to classify the things described." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 423, ibid) K. does this under VJ. III. 5, 6, 7 (pp. 137-138, ibid). He classifies 'vastu' or things into 'cetana' i.e. sentient and 'jada' i.e. insentient, and again either into For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #528
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1083 'mukhya' or 'principal' and 'a-mukhya' i.e. subordinate. He says (vrtti, VJ. III. 7, pp. 138, ibid) that, "the description of principal sentient, gods, demons, etc., should be natural. It is made beautiful by a spontaneous presentation of emotions like love." The word spontaneous is used to indicate that the emotions like love should be free from banality and very striking by their fresh flavour. When so treated, the emotions are raised to the level of sentiments like the erotic, for the well-known rule states that the dominant emotion itself gets transformed into sentiment. Now this bcomes very appealing to heart." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 424, ibid). The vrtti, VJ. IV. 7, pp. 138, reads as - "mukhyam yat pradhanam cetana-sura'sura"di-sambandhi svarupam tad evamvidham sat kavinam varnanaspadam bhavati sva-vyapara-gocaratam pratipadyate. kidrsam ? aklista-ratyadi-pariposa-manoharam. aklistah kadarthanavirahitah pratyagrata-manoharo yo ratyadih sthayibhavas tasya pariposah srngaraprabhsti-rasatva"padanam, 'sthayyeva tu raso bhaved" iti nyayad. tena manoharam hrdayahari." The second is rendered lovely by a description of the animals etc., in a way natural to their species. This rasa is arrived at through vyanjana alone. This is a commitment of a confirmed dhvanivadin. But K. does not make such a categorical commitment. To that extent K. is far from being a pure dhvanivadin. He gives - instances of rasa such as 'vipra-lambha-srigara' (V. 25, pp. 138, ibid), and 'karuna rasa' (VS. 27, pp. 139, ibid). He holds that (vitti, VJ. III. 7, verse, 27, pp. 139, ibid) - "atra rasa-pariposa-nibandhana-vibhava"di-sampat-samudayah kavina sutaram samujjrmbhitah." Here the poet has fully displayed all the stimulants for the rise of the sentiment of pathos. But he never says that these stimulants evoke rasa through the process of vyanjana. K. is fully aware of the fact of rasa-realisation through vibhava"dis. But he keeps quiet about the method of operation of these vibhava"dis. He observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 7, verse no. 29, pp. 140, ibid) : "evamvidhoddipana-vibhavaikajivitatvena karunarasah kasthadhirudha-ramaniyatam aniyate. evam vipralambha-spingara-karunayon saukumaryad udaharana-pradarsanam vihitam. rasantaranam api svayam e utpreksaniyam." In short, he does not clearly mention the relation of vyangya-vyajaka between the vibhava"dis and rasa. Thus far, K. has described how 'pradhana-cetana' or the principal sentient object becomes the subject of poetic description. Now onwards K. discusses how the subordinate sentients such as birds, beasts, etc., are described by the poet (pp. 180, ibid). K. observes (vltti, VJ. III. 7, pp. 140, 141, ibid) : "evam For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #529
1084 SAHRDAYALOKA dvitiyam a-pradhana-cetana-simha"di-sambandhi yat-svarupam tad ittham kavinam varnana"spadam sampadyate. kidnsam ? - svajaty ucitahevaka-samullekhojjvalam. sva pratyekam atmiya samanya-laksana-vastu-svarupa ya jatis tasyah samucito yo hevakah svabhavanusari parispandas tasya samullekhah samyag ullekhanam vastavena rupena upanibandhas tenojjvalam bhrajisnu, tad-vid-ahladakari iti yavat." - "In the same way the second category also mentioned above, viz. relating to the behaviour of secondary sentiments such as lion and so on, comes in for a poetic treatment under certain conditions. One condition is that only such nature as is appropriate to each species should be imagined brilliantly by the poet. Each species has its own individual character though coming under the genus which is a class. The behaviour described should be actually part of the nature, of the specific animal in question. Description of such a natural quality in a realistic way itself conduces to brilliance, i.e. contributes to the delight of the connoisseurs." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 426-427, ibid). He cites two instances, one of which is, "grivabhangabhiramam." etc., from the Abhijnana-sakuntalam, giving 'harinasvabhavokti'. We use the term 'svabhavokti' here on purpose. K. elsewhere (VJ. I. 11, 12) had discarded 'svabhavokti' which in his opinion is 'alamkarya' and not, 'alamkara'. But we may ask, what else is "a-pradhana-cetanasimha"di-sambandhi-svarupa-varnana' discussed by K. under VJ. III. 7 ? For other alamkarikas it is just 'svabhavokti' alamkara pure and simple. Whatever K. puts by way of arguments disproving the case of 'svabhavokti', as an alamkara, is just quibbling. K. should know that the 'svabhava' is 'alamkarya' and its 'ukti' i.e. 'svabhavokti', as imagined by other alamkarikas, is very much an alamkara. K. very often starts from the wrong end and is himself misled and causes others also to be mislead. Similar is the case when he argues against the concept of rasa"di alamkaras, so clearly established by Anandavardhana. K., at VJ. III. 8 (pp. 141, ibid) observes : : "rasoddipana-samarthyavinibandhana-bandhuram, cetananam a-mukhyanam jadanam ca`pi bhuyasa" "The secondarily sentient ones and non-sentient ones become sources of delight when they are so described that they promote rise of sentiments.' (Trans. K.Kris., pp., 427, ibid) This exactly echoes the views of A., expressed in Dhv. IV. 8, wherein For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #530
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1085 he observes (Dhv. IV. 8, pp. 292, ibid) - "avastha"di-vibhinnanam vacyanam vinibandhanam, bhumnaiva drsyate laksye tat tu bhati rasa"srayat." "We find in plenty examples of utilizing the expressed content with variations of circumstances etc. But it will shine out only in association of sentiment. (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 293, ibid). It should be noted that such descriptions as referred to at VJ. III. 8, by K. are expected to promote rasa, but it is not made clear whether they promote rasa through vyanjana or otherwise K. simply observes : (vTtti, VJ. III. 8, pp. 141, ibid) - "rasah songara"days tesam uddipanam ullasanam pariposas tasmin samarthyam saktis taya vinibandhanam nivesas tena bandhuram hsdayahari." . "Sentiments are the erotic and so forth. Their rise is nothing but their elaboration. Their capacity in this regard is dependent on the creative art of the poet and it leads in its turn to the delight of the connoisseurs." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 427, ibid). He also observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 8, pp. 142, ibid) "jadanam a-chetananam salila-tarukusuma-samaya-prabhrtinam evam-vidham svarupam rasoddipana-samarthyavinibandha-bandhuram varnaniyatam avagahate." The treatment of non-sentients should also conform mostly to the kindling of sentiments." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 428, ibid) K. holds that this body of content or subject-matter of description should be deemed worthy of adoption by the poets. This is described through 'abhidha vyapara' (vrtti, VJ. III. 9, pp. 142, ibid) : kavinam etad, eva yasmad varnanaspadam abhidha-vyaparagocaram." He further reads: "evamvidhasya asya svarupasobhatisaya-bhrajisnor vibhusanani upa-sobhantaram arabhante." This abhidha is K.'s 'vicitra-abhidha', K. observes that, when the content is thus endowed with natural beauty, it becomes worthy of embellishments, which, when they are added, give rise to a fresh type of 'beauty' (upa-sobha) of their own. He further observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 10, pp. 143, ibid) : "tad evamvidham svabhava-pradhanyena, rasa-pradhanyena ca dviprakaram sahaja-saukumaryarasam svarupam varnana-visaya-vastunah sariram eva alamkaryatam eva arhati, na punar alamkaranatyam - "Thus what is beautified and can be regarded as the body of all descriptive art can be only two-fold, containing either the prominence of naturalness or regarded as an ornament." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 429, ibid) With this he picks up the discussion concerning the nature of what A. and others have designated as 'rasa"di alamkaras'. He rejects the case of alamkaras such For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #531
1086 SAHRDAYALOKA as rasavat and the like, at the outset. K. observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 10, pp. 143, ibid) : tatra svabhavikam padartha-svarupam alamkaranam yatha na bhavati tatha prathamam eva pratipaditam. idanim rasa"tmanah pradhana-cetana-parispandavarnyamanavstter alamkarakarantara bhimatam alamkaratam nirakaroti." - "Of the two, how the first i.e. naturalness of subject cannot be regarded as ornament has already been established earlier. Now how the second also, i.e. the subject involving sentiments of primarily sentient beings in their actions, cannot be ever regarded as an ornament is taken up for consideration. The position of the other writers who declare that it is also an ornament is refuted." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 429430, ibid) K. holds that 'rasavat' is not an ornament because there is nothing palpable apart from it which is dorned by it, and because the literal meaning of that word itself is contradicted.' (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 430, ibid) : (VJ. III. 11, pp. 144) : "alamkaro na rasavat parasya'pratibhasanat svarupas atiriktasya, sabdartha'sangater api." K. holds that 'rasa"di' can never be an ornament for it is never observed as a separate entity apart from all the subject matter described. He observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 11, pp. 144, ibid) : "tad idam atra tatparyam, yat sarvesam eva satkavivakyanam idam alamkaryam ity apoddhara vihito viviktabhavah sarvasya yasya kasyacit pramatus cetasi parisphurati. rasavad alamkaravad ity asmin vakye punar avahita-cetasopi na kincid etad eva budhyamahe." - "The upshot is this : Whatever the instance of poetry chosen, one and all the connoisseurs have a in their minds regarding the two divisions, the "adorned" and the "ornament". But in the expression, "a poem with rasavat alamkara", we cannot understand this fundamental distinction itself, despite our best attention and endeavour." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 430, ibid) K. continues : (vrtti, VJ. III. 11, pp. 144, ibid) : tatha ca-yadi srngara"dir eva pradhanyena varnyamanolamkaryah, tatas tad anyena kenacid alamkaranena bhavitavyam. yadi va tat-svarupam eva tad-vidahlada-nibandhanatvad alamkaranam iry ucyate, tatha'pi tad vyatiriktam anyad alamkaryataya prakasaniyam. tad evamvidho na kascid api vivekas cirantanalamkara-karabhimate rasavad alamkara-laksanodaharana-marge manag api vibhavyate." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #532
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1087 Further more, if the adorned is regarded as the primarily described sentiment itself, like the erotic, then reason demands that something else should be present there as adornment. If perchance its (= of the adorned) own nature is described as adornment because it causes delight to critics, in such a contingency too, the onus of indicating another adorned apart from it lies on the rhetoritian. Such a clear-cut descrimination is not to be had at all even slightly, either in the way the ancient rhetoritians have defined rasavat alamkara, or in the way they have illustrated them." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 430, ibid): K. discusses the whole topic to his satisfaction. Actually the whole discussion looks like unnecessary quibbling, especially when he takes up A.'s case, whom he refers as an "abhiyukta". (pp. 189, ibid). K. tries to refute A., but theoretically what he achieves, is just a semblance of refutation, to his satisfaction, only of an illustration cited by A. K. believes that in both the illustrations cited by A., viz. "ksipto hastavalagnah..." etc. (VS. no 43 on pp. 150, ibid), and "kim hasyena..." etc. (VS. no. 44, pp. 151, ibid), we have karuna as the principal rasa and there is no chance of its being subordinate and acting as an ornament as imagined by A. Be it as it is. One point clearly emerges and it is that here K. does not refute the theoretical position as advanced by A. Moreover, it is here that we become all the more aware of the fact that between the two, it is A. who seems to be more open. catholic and pragmatic. A. is clear-headed enough to accept that the whole analogy of rasa or dhyani being the soul, and gunas or excellences being "qualities" and simile and the like being alamkaras or ornaments, and 'sabdarthau' or "word and sense" or "form and content" being a 'sariru' i.e. body of poetry is just a working hypothesis, an instrument so to say, a way of understanding poetic charm, or poetry, which, by itself, is an "amurta" or an 'abstract phenomenon, to be grasped only as a whole' i.e. "akhanda-buddhi-samasvadva": rasa or dhvani or any other entity for that matter is a means to the end, viz. 'grasping of - experiencing - poetic beauty'. "Dhvani" is dubbed as "soul" only metaphorically. Actually the whole metaphorical use of terminologies is not an end in itself. And therefore. A. was catholic enough to accept a position when even rasa could play the role of an alamkara. He shows that theoretically this is possible. K. on the other hand, takes up an orthodox stand, we may say, a comparatively narrow approach, much closer to the one taken up by Mahima, that rasa, which is only 'wanga' or 'suggested'. could only be principal and never subordinated. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #533
1088 SAHRDAYALOKA Actually A. had very critically and carefully stream-lined the whole issue and K.'s gesture of opposing the case of rasavat etc., as imagined by A., falls flat and sounds unconvincing. However, one good point emerges and it is that K. too accepts that 'rasa' could be always and only, 'suggested', i.e. 'vyangya'. Thereby he accepts the ruling of A. and recognises the force of vyanjana. K.'s treatment of this topic requires a fuller discussion, which for want of space, we avoid in the present context. For the present, we will once again underline the orthodox and narrow approach of K., who observes with regard to the two illustrations, that, - (vrtti, VI. III. 11, pp. 152, 153 ibid) : "yadi va preyasah pradhanye tad angatvat karunaasasya alam-karanatvam ity abhidhiyate, tad api na niravadyam, yasmad dvayor apy etayor udaharanayor mukhya-bhuto vakyarthah karuna"tmanaiva vivartamanavittir upanibaddhah. paryayokta'nyapadesa-nyayena vacyata'vyatiriktayoh pratiyamanataya, na karunasya rasatvad vyangyasya sato vacyatvam upapannam. na'pi gunibhuta-vyangyasya visayah, vya(ngyasya pradhanyena ka)runa"tmana eva pratibhasamanat. na ca dvayor api vyangya-tvam, angangi-bhavasya anupapatteh. etac ca yathasambhavam asmabhir vikalpitam. na punas ta (nnyayam atra prayojakam ity alam vi) starena." "or else, it might be alleged that eulogy of the hero alone is primary; and since pathos is calculated to serve that end as a means, it is designated as an ornament. That statement again, is not without fault. For, in both the above examples, the import primarily intended is pathos alone in its variagated manifestations. As in the case of the figures of speech 'paryayokta' (euphemism), and 'anyapadesa' (indirect statement) those meanings which are other than referential, i.e. suggested, will be such that they too could be plainly stated if one wished to do so; and pathos, being a rasa, can in no wise be reduced to a referential meaning, once we accept that it exists. Nor can it be taken as an example of subordinated suggestion (gunibhuta-vyangya), because the rasa of pathos is felt as primarily suggested. The two rasas cannot both be regarded as suggested because then they cannot have relation of primary and secondary between themselves (since both would have to be equally primary). All these alternative explanations of 'rasavat-alamkara' in the given examples have been imagined by us and refuted; the analogy of the said figures (viz. paryayokta and aprastuta-prasamsa) does not hold good here. With these words we close the discussion." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 440, ibid) As already observed above, K. seems to take a position that whatever is vyangya' can never be subordinate, and rasa, which is always vyangya, is necessarily 'pradhana' or 'principal. This is as good or bad as the view taken by Mahima also. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #534
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1089 The entire approach, when compared with A.'s much too catholic approach, is basically narrow. Similarly K.'s concept of 'paryayokta' is also narrow in the sense that for him paryayokta' occurs only when a different statement is used to something which can be conveyed normally in a different way. So, for K., here it is a different statement at vacya' level conveyed by yet another statement at vacya' level only. It is not vyangya' that is conveyed differently as imagined by A. Mammata, Jagannatha and others. The hollowness of K's arguments is brought about in the last remark, regarding 'rasavat', when he observes : (vrtti, VJ. III. 11, pp. 153, ibid): "kim ca 'kavye tasmin alamkaro rasa"dir iti rasa eva alamkarah kevalah, na tu rasavat iti matup pratyayasya jivitam na kimcid abhihitam syat. evam sati sabdartha-sangater abhavad anavasthaiva tisthati ity etad api na kimcit." - "Furthermore, the declaration that rasa etc., itself constitutes an adornment in such poems virtually designates 'rasa' itself by the term 'alamkara' and not 'rasavat' or that which possesses rasa'. And once again, the incongruity between the term 'rasavat' and the meaning connoted by it stares us in the face as before and leaves us in endless confusion." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 441, ibid) - Yes, we may say, confusion for K. alone ! K. finally seems to explain and accept the concept of 'rasavat alamkara' in his own unique way which seems to be quite useless and elementary when compared with the consideration of various alamkaras by such masters as Ruyyaka, Sobhakaramitra, Appayya and Jagannatha. After citing such illustrations as, "lagna-dvirephanjana..." etc., (verse, No. 77, 16, verse 71, pp. 169, ibid) : "atra samaropita-nayika-vyttantasya slesa-cchaya-sahayasya rupa(kasya) (tadvada) caranat rasavad alamkaratvam." "Here also the metaphor (rupaka) involving the attribution of the behaviour of a lady in love to spring with the assistance of paronomasia should be regarded as 'rasavat alamkara' because it closely imitates the behaviour of sentiments with love." (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 459, ibid) All this causes instantaneous and hearty laughter. While dealing with rupaka, K. talks of 'pratiyamana-rupaka' at VJ. III. 24, pp. 179-180, ibid. This is a virtual acceptance of vyanjana (and, perhaps alamkaradhvani). Similarly, he talks of vyajastuti' at VJ. III. 28, pp. 185, ibid, having "stutih vyangyataya", and "pratiyamanah vatirekah" at VJ. III. 48, pp. 220, ibid. All this amounts to his virtual acceptance of vyanjana, without of course, clearly naming it as such. In verse No. 183, pp. 221, 222, ibid, viz. "praptasrir esa kasmat." etc. K. feels that here 'vyatireka' is suggested and not 'rupaka', as observed by A. All this is quibbling which virtually ends in direct acceptance of the all powerful vyanjana. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #535
1090 SAHRDAYALOKA K. quotes (pp. 222, ibid) the definition of "dhvani" viz. "yatrarthah sabdo va..." etc. (Dhv. I. 13) to no purpose. In the fourth unmesa of the VJ., K. deals with 'prakarana-vakrata' - i.e. 'beauty of incident or episode in a poem.' This is six-fold. At VJ. IV. 1, 2 (pp. 245, ibid), he deals with the first variety which is having the charm of abhidha. So also is the case with the second variety as explained at VJ. IV. 3 and 4 (pp. 248, ibid). Third variety as explained at VJ. IV. 5 and 6, on pp. 252, ibid, has its charm caused due to vyanjana also. VJ. IV. 7 and 8, pp. 255 ibid, have the fourth type consisting of newer and newer description, which has a mixed charm of abhidha and vyanjana, while the fifth variety at VJ. IV. 9, pp. 262, ibid, has mostly the charm of abhidha. VJ. IV. 10 (pp. 266, ibid) talks of a new variety which has the charm of pure vyanjana. VJ./ IV. 11-14, have further varieties (i.e. no. 7, 8, 9) of mixed charm. All told, the different varieties of 'prakarana-vakrata' exhibit the charm of vyanjana to a greater or lesser extent. This becomes clear as we rush through karikas nos. VJ. IV. 10-26. . With this, we come to the end of our prolonged consideration of the problem as to whether we should call K. a dhvanivadin or not. The answer, as suggested in the beginning, is both in the affermative and negative. Thus we are back to square one. He is a dhvanivadin without naming dhvani as dhvani. He accepts vyanjana without naming it as such. But it should be clearly stated that he never rejects vyanjana as is done by Mahima and the like. He is neither a tatparyavadin, nor an anumitivadin, nor a pure abhidhavadin. He tries to place poetic criticism on a wider and more pragmatic canvass, but ends, as shown earlier, in a miserable condition resulting in contradictions at times, as seen in case of rasavat alamkara. He does not have a heart to accept the whole scheme of sabda-vretis as suggested by A., though he seems to hold the latter in very high esteem. K.'s was a half-hearted approach which caves in, when pitched against the giants who followed, upheld and established the sovereigntly of Anandavardhana. He is a lone traveller, who gets lost in the desert of his own creation. He is neither much remembered, not much taken seriously and therefore not much respected by posterity, and is pitied and forgiven for his misadventure, simply because he is a dhvanivadin at heart, at least a 'sa-gotra'. He was, in a way, a dissident in the camp of the dhvanivadins, a martyr for no great cause. He is almost burried and forgotten and only remembered at times as a weak follower of the great A. In trying to look a more pragmatic and liberal critic with his 'vicitra-abhidha', which is neither pure abhidha, nor laksana, nor tatparya, nor vyanjana alone, he chooses to be less scientific. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #536
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1091 Bhoja, as Dr. Raghavan observes takes a position of compromise between tatparyavadins and Anandavardhana, i.e. dhvanivadins (pp. 152, sr. Pra. ibid). We will continue to voice our humble differences with Dr. Raghavan, but by and large, he is the greatest and the safest interpreter of Bhoja and contemplating on his efforts in that direction, we have to say, "Hats off to Dr. Raghavan." Before we go in for a detailed analysis concerning Bhoja, we will make some preliminary remarks. It is quite well-known among scholars that Bhoja enumerates (1) "guna'lamkara-yoga, i.e. presence of or union with gunas or excellences and alamkaras or figures of sound and sense, (2) 'dosa-hana' i.e. absence or removal of poetic blemishes and (3) rasa-aviyoga i.e. non-separation, i.e. permanent union, (= no-divorce) - with 'rasa' i.e. aesthetic pleasure at the root of poetic beauty. The important point to be noted is how he accepts 'dhvani' and where he places the same. To begin with we may observe that this great acarya of what we have termed Malava-parampara as against the Kashmir-parampara. chooses to take dhyani' as 'alamkara' in a wider sense. He seems to respect the tradition of the ancient acaryas prior to .. and advocates the cause of "kavya-saundarya" or "kavya'lamkara" in a wider sense. In keeping with the ancient masters such as Bhamaha, Dandin and the rest, he does not discuss 'vyanjana' as an independent word-power. At the same time his two great works viz. the Sarsvati-kantha"bharana and the Sengara Prakasa - are studded with a number of quotations from the great A. The S.K. A. (sarasvati-kantha"bharana), Ch. V. Bhoja talks of 'rasalamkarasamkara' (pp. 724, Edn. NS. Bombay, A.D. 193-4) and quotes A. as follows : "rasavanti hi vastuni ... salamkarani kanicit, ekenaiva prayatnena nirvartyante mahakaveh." This is a parikara-sloka read on pp. 60 (Edn. K.Kris., ibid) in udyota II. Then, we read a karika (Dhv. II. 16) in Bhoja : "raksiptataya yasya bandhah sakya-kriyo bhavet a-prthag-yatna-nirvartyah so'lamkarah prakrsyate." The last line is read as "so'lamkaro dhvanau matah" in editions of the Dhv., now available. . For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #537
1092 SAHRDAYALOKA Third Karika is also a parikara-sloka read under Dhv. III. 42. Bhoja reads it as : "rasa-bhava"di-visayavivaksa-virahe sati, alamkara-nibandho yah, sa kavibhyo na rocate." Again the fourth line read in Dhv. editions is : "sa citra-visayo bhavet." Dr. Raghavan explains Bhoja's position concerning gunas and rasas. In ce cases of gunas which are inherently fused with rasas there is no place of samkara or mixture of guna and rasa. Bhoja observes : (pp. 720, S.K.A. ibid) : yatra citravarnavan-narasimhavat-pamsudakavac ca avayava'vayavi-nyayena jati-vyaktinyayena ca a-prthak-prayatna-nirvartyanam guna-rasanam vakye samnivesah tatra samkara-vyavaharo na pravartate, - tad yatha, madhuram rasavad vaci vastuny api rasa-sthitih, yena madyanti dhimanto madhuneva madhavratah." (This is from Dandin; I. 51;) Now follows a quotation from the Dhv. wherein Bhoja quotes four Karikas such as Dhv. II. 7, 8, 9, & 10. It is here that we read four karikas from A. and not where Dr. Raghavan had suggested earlier. The Karikas are read in Bhoja (S.K.A. pp. 720, 721, ibid) as - "songara eva madhurah parah prahladano rasah, tanmayam kavyam asritya madhuryam prati-tisthati." (Dhv. II. 7) "stngare vipralambha"khye karune ca prakarsavat, madhuryam ardratam yati yatas tatra'dhikam manah." (Dhv. II. 8) "raudradayo rasa diptya laksyante kavyavartinah, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #538
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1093 tadvyaktihetu sabdarthav ojo'dhisthaya tisthate." (Dhv. II. 9) But the fourth line is read differently in available edn.'s of the Dhv. It reads as "asrityaujo vyavasthitam." Then we have Dhv. II. 10 read slightly differently in Bhoja as - "samarthakatvam vakyasya yat tu sarva-rasan prati, sa prasado guno jneyah sarva-sadharana-kriyah." (Dhv. II. 10) The first line read in Dhv. editions reads as : "samarpakatvam kavyasya." Perhaps Bhoja had some mss. not available to us. It is here that Dr. Raghavan observes that on the subject of rasa and alamkara Bhoja utilises three verses from udyota, II, two of them being parikara slokas and one karika. We have quoted the same earlier. Dr. Raghavan explains that these two sets of citations from A. occur also in the same places in the Sr. Pra. Ch. XI, Vol. II. He observes : (pp. 453, Edn. Josyer, ibid) : "...atra'pi brumah avayavavayavi-nyayena caprthak-prayatna-nirvartyanam gunarasanam vakye sannivesah, tatra samkara-vyavaharo na pravartate, tad yatha - "madhuram rasavad..." srngara eva madhurah.." etc. Here also we have the reading "ojo'dhisthaya tisthati." But in place of 'samarthakatvam', we read 'samarpakatvam', but for 'kavyasya', Bhoja has 'vakyasya'. Again on pp. 457 (Edn. Josyer, ibid), while treating rasalamkara-sankarah, we get the three quotations as read in the S.K. A., as quoted above. In t e Sr. Pra. We also get one more quotation from A. such as, "songari cet kavih kavye..." etc. In the S.K. A. (pp. 555, ibid) Bhoja places this quotation at the beginning of Ch. V. as karika no. 3, with a slight change in the reading of the second half which reads as : "sa eva ced a-songari, nirasam sarvam eva tat." But Bhoja cites further from A. when he treats 'dhvani'. Dr. Raghavan, after taking stock of what Dr. S.K. De writes in his Sanskrit Poetics, observes (pp. 153, ibid) : "These remarks (= Dr. De's observations as quoted by Dr. Raghavan) are of course based upon what one can know from Bhoja's S.K. A. One cannot write like this after seeing Sr. Pra. Even in the S.K. A. the concept of Dhvani is not entirely For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #539
1094 SAHRDAYALOKA absent. Bhoja accepts Dhvani in the S.K. A. as well as in the Sr. Pra. But he follows Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana in bringing everything under alamkara or guna; under alamkara ultimately, for guna also is Alamkara." In the light of Dr. Raghavan's remarks we will try to judge the exact position of Bhoja concerning dhvani. But let us make our impression very clear in the beginning itself that like Kuntaka, Bhoja has not clearly accepted Vyanjanadhvani-rasa' scheme and to that extent he can not be held as a "dhvanivadin". Bhoja, as observed by Dr. De, has, "The prominence of rasa" and shows, "the absence of the dhvani-theory". Absence of dhvani theory means absence of clear acceptance of the scheme of vyanjana-dhvani-rasa. Both Kuntaka and Bhoja can not be held as 'anti-vyanjana' theorists, but neither of them comes out openly and with warmth and admiration for the scheme of "vyanjana-dhvani-rasa", which for us is the trade inark of a genuine dhvanivadin. So, our position is that though Bhoja knows both vyanjana and dhvani, and though he never, refutes any concept openly, he is not a true dhvanivadin, he being the protegonist of what we term as the "Malava school of thought" as against the Kashmir school of thought of Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Mammata and their followers. Let us see how Bhoja deals with the problem of dhvani. The first thing that strikes us in this respect is that Bhoja tries to strike a balance between "tatparya" and "dhvani". The famous quotation from Bhoja reads as "tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavye". (Sr. Pra. Vol. I., pp. 1, ibid). Here, it may be pointed out that Bhoja, as observed by us earlier when we discussed the concept of Tatparya-vrtti (Ch. VI) above, seems to take "tatparya" in a special sense. When he deals with 'kevala-sabda-sambandha-sakti', he takes a broader meaning of the term 'tatparya' and covers up what he calls "abhidhiyamana-tatparya". He does not mention the traditional Mimamsaka's Tatparya-vrtti which works for, yielding the sentence-sense. But perhaps by "abhidhiyamana-tatparya" he aims at that exactly. Again it seems that he has imagined the presence of this "abhidhiyamana-tatparya" not only in ordinary worldly utterances used in normal walk of life, but also in the kavya-vakyas i.e. poetic utterances which operate at pure abhidha level also. This is like Kuntaka's 'Vicitra abhidha' covering pure normal abhidha-expressions but of course gifted with poetic beauty. But Bhoja uses the term "tatparya" for "dhvani" also, as seen in the quotation cited above. So, when he says "tatparyam eva vacasi", this "vacasi" For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #540
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya 1095 should stand for expressions at worldly and sastriya level. In that case it is, i.e. tatparya itself, is called "dhvani" in 'kavya' or poetic expression. The expression should mean, "yad vacasi arthat loke sastre ca, tatparyam, tad eva (ramaniyatve sati) kavye dhvanih, iti ucyate." But as observed by Kuntaka a poetic expression - vicitra abidha-may operate at pure denotative level, i.e. abhidha, or at the level of indication or laksana or even at the vyanjana level, Bhoja also seems to accept "abhidhiyamana tatparva" at the level of poetic expression. Thus a part of 'vicitra abhidha' gets admission in Bhoja's" kavye abhidhivamana tatparya. If tatparya is concerned with kavva-vakyartha, then it is termed dhvani. But vakya in a kavya can operate at pure abhidha level or laksana-level or even vyanjana level. Thus for Bhoja 'dhvani' as tatparya of a kavya-vakya seems to cover abhidhiyamana as well as pratiyamana tatparya, the first being inclusive also of laksyamana as well. Dr. Raghavan has not thought of this possibility and hence he seems to equate kavya-vakya-tatparya with Anandavardhana's 'dhvani'. But this is not the case. 'Dhvani' in Bhoja here seems to have a broader connotation covering the import of any poetic expression, operating at any level. Bhoja introduces knowingly a sort of looseness in the technical terms when he says that "tatparya" is the term with reference to worldly expressions and "dhvani" is said to be with reference to a poetic expression but the substance is the same. Just as 'Caitra' and 'Vaisakha' are termed as 'madhu' and 'madhava' in a different context, in the same way sentence-sense, i.e. the import of a sentence is termed tatparya at ordinary parlance and "dhvani" at the level of poetry. Thus ordinary tatparya at lokasastra-level is termed as tatparya and the same at poetic level is termed dhvani'. But this 'dhvani' covers abhidhiyamana tatparya at poetic level also. This is as noted above, like Kuntaka's vicitra abhidha. This dhvani' is wider and of course covers Anandavardhana's dhvani operating at vyanjana level. Here, it is pratiyamana tatparya in a kavya-vakya, according to Bhoja. Bhoja thus has a wider connotation for both 'tatparya' and 'dhvani'. In the wider context, the abhidhiyamana-tatparya at poetic level covers 'dhvani' in a special sense. This refers to the 'ramaniya' meaning of kavya-vakya at abhidha level, and also tatparya of the gunibhuta-vyangya type and then also dhvani' at the principally suggested level. Thus Bhoja is not averse to the fact of dhvani. We may not call him an antidhvani theorist but we may certainly brand him. like Kuntaka, as an "antar-bhavavadin" or one who tries to subsume dhvani under various heads. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #541
1096 SAHRDAYALOKA Bhoja has in his own way accepted dhvani but as is the case with the ancient acaryas such as Bhamaha, Dandin and the rest, so also with him, he has tried to put dhvani under guna and alamkara and ultimately under alamkara only as even guna is, in a way, alamkara for Bhoja. He has accepted rasa, which is part of rasadhvani for Ahandavardhana, as 'artha-guna' called "kanti", and also as 'rasavat' alamkara in Bhamaha's fashion. Or, he has accepted rasa as alamkara or what he terms "rasokti." He has trifercated kavva or literature as 'svabhavokti', 'vakrokti' and 'rasokti. To bigin with, for Bhoja, dhvani' is a sabda-guna called "gambhiryam." Says he : "dhvanimatta tu gambhiryam." i.e. gambhirya stands for a quality of 'having dhvani', or say, the presence of dhvani is termed 'gambhirya' (S. K. A. I. pp. 64, ibid). The illustration is, "maulau dharaya." etc. It is observed here : "atra nabhyam pundarika-dharanam parimita-vikramatvam cakrankita-karatvam, damstraya vasudhoddharanam, vaksahsthala-nivesita-laksmikatvam indravarajarvam ca dhvanayati iti gambhiryam". Rasa being a beautifying agent is, an alamkara called rasavat, and so also 'dhvani' is a guna embellishing an expression. That which is a vakyarthopaskaraka is either a guna or an alamkara. Rasa was 'rasavat alamkara for Bhamaha and Dandin and for Vamana it was a guna called 'kanti.' In the same way dhvani is also a guna for Bhoja. Beyond gambhirya', 'gati' is also a guna which contains 'dhvani.' Gati (pp. 84 ibid) is - "gatih sa syad avagamo yo 'rthad arthantarasya tu."- The collection of another meaning through a (contextual) meaning is gati."-The illustration is"subhage ko'yam veddho..." etc. -"atra prasnad artham avagamya uttarad arthantaravagamah." On this Ratnesvara Misra observes : "tena yatra sahrdaya hidayamgamad arthat kamsyatalanusvana -nyayena tadnsam arthantaram avagamyate sa gatir iti laksanarthah."- On the analogy of kamsya-tala-anunada i.e. reverberation caused due to striking a dish of kamsva metal. a further meaning following the original meaning which moves the heart of a connoisseur is collected. This is 'gati', the fartha-guna.' Now Dr. Raghavan sees dhvani' here. But we may say that this could be perhaps gunibhuta-vyangva or subordinated suggested sense, because Bhoja is not clear about the subordination or "upa-sarjani-krtatva" of the first meaning which is the life breath of 'dhvani.' Again, following Ratnesvara Dr. Raghavan seems to find 'anuranana-rupa-vyangya-dhvani' here. Even he i.e. Ratnesvara could have gone astray if we take into account our argument concerning 'absence of the clause viz. 'upasarjanikrta-svartha.' For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #542
Dhvani in kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1097 Ratnesvara also observes : "dhvanana-vyaparonmesac ca gunatva-labhah." Here "dhvanana-vyapara" of course stands for vyanjana-vyapara. At the same time whether it operates at principal level or subordinate level remains to be screened. Here, taking into account Bhojas closeness with the ancient acaryas, if we opt for the second option, we may not be off the mark. Or, it can be the first option also. Dr. Raghavan should have considered both the options before reading "dhvani" here. A number of other 'sabdagata' alamkaras in the S. K. A. also suggest affinity with implied element, thus leading us to the acceptance of dhvani-vicara by Bhoja. When you get at 'dhvani', not through abhidha, there is inevitably the possibility of some element of meaning remaining concealed. This concealment i.e. 'samvrti' gives birth to many an alamkara. In Bhojas 'mudra', 'ukti', 'bhaniti' (pp. 166, 170, 177 respectively, S. K. A., ibid) we have this element of concealment.' mudra occurs (S. K. A.. II. 40; pp. 166 ibid) when "sabhiprayasya vakye yad vacaso vinivesanam mudram tam mut-pradayitvat kavya-mudra-vido viduh." ukti is (S. K. A., II. 42, pp. 170, ibid) "vidhidvarena va yatra nisedhenatha va punah, pratiyate visisto'rthah soktir atra'bhidhiyate." bhasiti is (S. K. A. II. 52; pp. 177, ibid) "ukti-prakaro bhanitih sambhave-asambhave ca sa, visesa-samvsttya ascarya kalpanasu ca kalpyate." In these alamkaras, there is an element of the implicit sense. We will not name it as "dhvani", as done by Dr. Raghavan. Explaining 'kalpana-bhaniti' of Bhoja, Ratnesvara observes : "seyam bhanitir vidhi-nisedha-prasange nisedha-ghataka-dvara vidhirupa bhavati iti astam vistarah."-(pp. 180, S. K. A., ibid.). We can recount here the arguments advanced For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #543
1098 SAHRDAYALOKA by Anandavardhana (Dhy. I. 4, vstti) for establishing the existence of the implicit sense (or, vastu - vyangya). In the section on figures of sense, i.e. arthalamkaras also, we can see the presence of the implicit sense. Bhojas suksma alamkara is just the second name given to 'rasa-dhvani' arrived at through the description of consequents i.e. anubhavas alone. 'suksma' is read at S. K. A. III. 21, 22, pp. 334, ibid as "ingita"kara-laksyorthah suksmah suksma-gunat tu sah, suksmat pratyaksatah suksmah a-pratyksa iti bhidyate." (II. 21) "vacyah pratiyamanas ca suksmotra dvividho matah, ingita"kara-laksyatvam laksya-samanyam etayoh."-(II. 22, S. K. A.) Thus there are two varieties of suksma : (i) that in which rasa is suggested through ingita-gesture. When rasa is suggested through horripilation and such other sattvika bhavas, it is suggestion through 'akara' or appearance. The first variety is illustrated by the verse, viz. "tam pratyabhivyakta-manorathanam..." etc. Bhoja observes (pp. 334, ibid) : "atra svayamvara-militanam rajnam rajaputrim prati prapti-laksanasya manorathasya abhidhiyamanasya stngara-cesta"tmakena ingitena vyangyatvat ayam ingita-laksyah abhidhiyamahah suksma-bhedah." Bhoja has given a two-fold suksma, the abhidhiyamana and the pratiyamana. The latter is illustrated by the verse viz. "syamayah syamalataya..." etc. When rasa is collected through the agency of anubhava-varnana or sattvika-varnana, it is termed 'vacya' i.e. "abhidhiyamana-suksma." When rasa is arrived at through the description of wabhicarins, it is termed "prativamana-suksma." Now, the question that stares in our eyes is that weather by 'abhidhiyamana' Bhoja means abhibhana or direct naming of anubhavas or sattvika-bhavas or not. For, even through the description of anubhavas, we can not hold that 'rasa' is 'abhidhiyamana" i.e. directly stated. For such a possilility of rasa being directly stated is ruled out not only by Anandavardhana but even by his die-hard opponents such as Mahima-Bhatta also. Or, may be Bhoja accepts a possilility when rasa is not always and necessarily suggested only and never directly conveyed. Perhaps he accepts conveying of rasa through abhidha also. Or, perhaps he favours the sva-sabda-vacyarva or dircet For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #544
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1099 naming of the basic emotions and ancillary feelings, or even at times, of rasa also. All this deserves further scrutiny. Bhojas 'anyonyalamkara' (pp. 346, ibid, S. K. A. III. 27, 28) is three-fold such as 'vacya' or 'expressed', 'pratiyamana' i.e. 'implied, and 'ubhaya' i.e. both expressed and implied : "anyonyam upakaro yas tad anyonyam, tridha ca tat, vacyam, pratiyamanam ca, tetiyam ubhaya"makam." (S. K. A. III. 27) "anyonya-culika'nyonyabhrantir anyonyam ekata, anyonyalamkrter antas trayam etad iha isyate." (S. K. A. III. 28) The implicit i.e. pratiyamana variety is illustrated by the famous verse where in a prapa-palika offers water to a traveller. Bhoja observes : (pp. 347, ibid) : "atra pathika-prapa-palikayor mithonurage yad ekasya viralangulina karena paniyapanam anyasyah sutaram varidhara-tanukaranam tena parasparam upakaryopakaraka-bhavat pratiyamanam idam anyonyam." Vyatireka' with implicit similarity is just alamkara-dhvani. Actually Bhojas concept of vyatireka involves implicit element as it is defined as: "sabdopatte pratite va sadrsye, vastunor dvayoh, bheda'bhidhanam, bhedas ca. vyatirekas ca kathyate." (S. K. A. III. 32 pp. 355, ibid) 'Sambhava' (S. K. A. III. 25, pp. 342 ibid) in Bhoja rules out 'anumiti' or inference in this figure, between collection of the rasa on one hand and its vyabhicarins or anubhavas on the other. Bhojas upama is also both abhidhiyamana and pratiyamana. In the sr. Pra. Bhoja goes beyond this. Apart from the direct or indirect references to dhvani or pratiyamana, Bhoja talks of the supremacy of dhvanivyapara in poetry along with quotations from Ananandavardhana in his Sr. Pra. We will examine this as below. At the end of Ch. VI of the sr. Pra. we come acsoss Bhojas views concerning dhvani/pratiyamana. Due to 'avidyopadhi-nescience, 'artha' is explained either as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #545
1100 SAHRDAYALOKA 'adhyasa' or superimposition or 'vivarta' i.e. transfiguration of the sabda-brahma. Bhoja observes : (sr. Pra. Vol. I. pp. 220, ch. VI, ibid); "tatas ca na jnayate kim ayam arthopadhi-nibandhano' rthasya anyathavabhasah uta sabdopadhi-nibandhana iti. ciram jiva, yad avatirna iva pratipadyarthapadavim drsyase; prcchamy ayusmantam ka esah artho nama ? kim bravisi ? yah sabdena pratipadyate; atha gauh ity atra kah sabda"rthah ? kim attha ? sasnadiman pinda iti ? katham svarupam api prstah sabdena eva vyapadisasi. kim avocat? sabda"khya-visesana'nuraktasya kasya svarupam anyathakhyatum na saknomi ? sabda-a-pari-tyaga-labdha-prakasayaiva ca tad anubhutyanubhavami. tarhi, sabdat prthag artha-tattvasya vyapadestum anubhavitum ca a-sakyatvat sabdasya eva ayam adhyyaso vivarto viparinamo va artho nama. nanyah-kascid iti nisciyatam; yuktam caitat, na hi nirupayanto 'pi sabdad vibhinnam arthatattvam upalabhamahe....etc. etc. Thus on account of avidya, 'artha' is either 'adhy'sa' or 'vivarta' of sabda-brahma. - But this applies to meaning which is primarily related to sabda, i.e. to that which we designate as 'abhidhiyamana' or expressed sense. But Bhoja says that there is yet another meaning which is implicit or pratiyamana. How is this implicit sense related to sabda-brahma ? Can it be explained through 'adhyasa' or 'vivarta' also ? Bhoja here quotes Dhv. I. 4 viz. "pratiyamanam punar anyad eva..." etc. Bhoja also observes that this implicit sense i.e. pratiyamanartha appears after the collection of sentence-sense, i.e. vakyartha. So, how can it be accomodated either in 'adhyasa'-paksa or 'vivarta-paksa'? Bhoja observes : "tasya ca vakyarthabhavanottarakalam avagateh adhyasapakse, vivarta-pakse va katham iva upapattir bhavati ?" (pp. 221, ch. V. Sr. Pra., Vol. 1., ibid). Bhoja believes that the pratiyamana artha appears after the collection of vakyartha i.e. sentence-sense : "vakyartha-bhavanottara-kalam avag a different or another 'state', i.e. avasthantara' of sabda. It is termed as 'viparinama' of sabda-brahma. Bhoja thus rejects both 'adhyasa', and 'vivarta' and accepts 'viparinama' or 'transformation theory, as it explains both the abhidhiyamana as well as the pratiyamana. For Bhoja, the pratiyamana is also a 'vyapara' of sabda as much as is the 'abhidhiyamana.' Bhoja suggets that he will talk of this at length later. : (pp. 221, Sr. Pra., ch. VI, ibid):- "ucyate, viparinamad bhavisyati; vastunah avasthantara-gamanam viparinamah." tatra yatha mad adayo ghata"dirupena, ksiradayo dadhya"di-rupena, caitra"dayo yuva"dirupena For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #546
1101 Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. viparinamante tatha idam sabda-brahma api, avidyopadheh tena tena rupena tatha tatha viparinamate tad yatha-santi me panca putrah, mataram pitaram susrusitavan asmi, yoham yuva dramida-dese dramida-kanyabhih saha avsam, soham idanim pascime vayasi ganga-tire tapas carami, iti.-atra ca sabdarthayoh prthag avabhasad vakyarthasya abhidhiyamanatayam pratiyamanatayam va na anupapattih; na ca etavata sabda-vyaparo viramsyati. yatas tatparyam asya hi agrato visesena vaksyamanam aste. Bhoja seems to accept three categories of meaning: (i) Expressed i.e. abhidhiyamana, (ii) Implied i.e. pratiyamana (3) tatparya or dhvani which is even beyond this. This is illustrated by citing a verse viz. "prapta-srir esa...." etc., which is also read in the Dhvanyaloka. Bhoja suggests that from the expressed sense, the sense of the king being taken as an avatara of Visnu is implied'pratiyamana' and from this 'pratiyamana' sense, a further sense of this kingavatara taken as superior to other avataras is suggested which for Bhoja is the final 'tatparya' or 'dhvani'. Actually we may observe that the dhvani theorists have already suggested that dhvani rests either on vacyartha, or laksyartha or even 'vyangyartha' at times. So, if at all there is further suggestion in this verse it is just a vyangyartha based on vyangyartha and nothing beyond that. The fact remains that 'principal suggested sense' is termed 'dhvani' by the dhvani theorists and if this basic condition is overlooked than it is a case of not grasping the dhvani theory properly. By just coining new terms, as was the case with Kuntaka, we do not alter the basic facts. Vacya-vyangya-further vyangya' is a three tier scheme already accepted by the dhvanivadins. The basic point is whether the suggested sense, whatever it is at the final level, should be principal. Bhoja seems to feel that 'dhvani' is only that 'tatparya' in kavya which is of the form of suggestion based on suggestion. No, we can not accept it. The real heart of the technical terminology called "dhvani" lies in a meaning being suggested as principal through any agency, be it word or sense, and either vacya, or laksya or vyangya; and in case of the latter, being rendered subordinate to the finally suggested sense which is deemed as 'principal', it being the highest source of highest beauty. Dr. Raghavan should have clarified this point. So, when Bhoja observes what he does, we take it as a futile exercise. He says : (pp. 221, Sr. Pra. Vol. I, Ch. VI-ibid): "atra varnaniya-raja-visesasya digvijayinoh yathasruta-vakyartho' bhidhiya-manas 'tvayi' iti pade visnvadhyasavatarah samastiti pratiyamanas tad avatarantaranam nidra'lasatva"didosayogad asya ca tad vyudasat tato vaisista-pratipadanam tatparyam, yasya For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #547
1102 SAHRDAYALOKA kavyesu dhvanir iti prasiddhih." - tad uktam tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavye saubhagyam eva gunasampadi vallabhasya, lavanyam eva vapusi svadate' nganayah srngara eva hrdi manavato janasya. Let us try to analyse these two verses. Bhoja suggests (i) "tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavye.' This could be understood as," yad vacasi (= loke ca sastre ca vacasi) 'tatparyam' (kathyate) tad eva kavye (= kavya vakye) dhvanih (iti arthah) If we understand this passage as above then here we take 'tatparya' as co-rrelated vakyartha in the sense of the Mimamsa doctrine. This means that 'vakyartha' which is collceted from the vakya through tatparya-sakti is termed 'tatparya' at ordinary worldly level, or at the level of an expression in scientific literature i.e. sastra. Thus the meaning of a given sentence-expression as a whole is tatparya at work-a-day level. But when it is the case of a poetic expression i.e. kavya-vakya, for which Bhoja uses the term 'kavye' i.e. 'in poetry', the same vakyartha or sentence sense is termed dhvani' in the language of literary criticism. Now in this case, we have to consider what shaping influences were active in Bhoja's assertion also. We will refer to Dr. Raghevans explanation later but for the present let us try to understand how Bhojas text reveals itself before us. We knew that Bhoja had some great predecessors who intervened between Anandavardhana and himself. They were Kuntaka on one hand, then MahimaBhatta and of course Dhananjaya and Dhanika who were in the court of Munja, not to mention the greatest Abhinavagupta. Dr. Raghavan is clear that Bhoja did not know Abhinavagupta, i.e. he had no access to the latter's works on the Natyasastra and the Dhvanyaloka. Now this is unthinkable for if for the sake of argument we accept what Dr. K. Krishna-moorthy says, though we have no faith in it that Kuntaka preceded Abhinavagupta, then also the latter being prior to Bhoja and Mahima was closer to Bhoja and we cannot imagine that Bhoja being so wel-read and an expert in understanding Anandavardhana, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #548
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1103 could have missed Abhinavagupta totally. Actually the atmosphere in the literary world in India in those centuries was humming sweetly with the name of Abhinavagupta; he being only the second side of a coin which had its first side stamped in the name of Anandavardhana. Thus to know A., was to know Abhinavagupta who only faithfully echoed A.s ideas- "anuranan sphutayami Kavyalokam." as he vows in the beginning of the Locana. So to know A. was to know Abhinavagupta. We therefore do not accept that Bhoja did not know Abhinanvagupta through his works on literary criticism. Again, eventhough Bhoja quotes from A., he does not seem to accept everything that A. has to say in the same way as explained by A. himself. The concept of "dhvani" is a glaring instance in this conclusion. we will go in it further larer. Bhoja also had before him Kuntaka whose influence is very clear on him. When Bhoja suggests that "kavya-vakye tatparyam dhvanih kathyate," he seems to be under Kuntakas influence. Here 'tatparya' is taken in the sense of 'vakyartha' as done by the Mimamsakas. The total sentence-sense of a poetic expression, 'tatparya' is termed 'dhvani' by Bhoja. This could mean that even a ramaniya or beautiful expressed sense, 'vacyartha' of a poetic sentence, kavyavakya, can be termed 'dhvani.' Thus Bhojas dhvani covers the poetic vacyartha, the poetic laksyartha and of course the poetic vyangyartha of a given poetic utterance or kavya-vakya.' Dr. . Raghavan has not noticed this possibility of 'vacyartha' of a kavya-vakya, being 'tatparya' as also termed dhvani by Bhoja. This seems to be directly under the influence of Kuntaka for whom 'vicitra abhidha' or 'poetic utterance' covered everything in poetry beginning with a beautiful expression at abhidha level to an expression at the level of beautiful suggestion also. Actually Bhojas expression comparing "tatparya-dhvani' with "saubhagya" and "lavanya" suggests that he attempts a synthesis between Kuntaka and Anandavardhana/Abhinavagupta. Bhojas dhvani is not only Anandavardhanas dhvani, but it is 'vakrata' of Kuntaka at abhidha level also, and it is "tatparya" of Dhananjaya-Dhanika also. Thus Bhojas dhvani is "Dhvani ++" as compared to Anandavardhana. Now we know that Dhananjaya/Dhanika must surely have inflnenced Bhoja, who was their junior contemporary in the court of Malava king Munja. These two had declared that "tatparyam na tula-dhrtam", violating the Mimamsaka norm of tatparya, it being only a correlated sentence sense, on one hand, and thwarting Anandavardhanas vyanjana-dhvani on the other side. So, if we take "tatparyam dhvanih," an equation sponsorad by Bhoja, then this extended sense of 'tatparya' covering what Bhoja takes as suggested sense beyond the pratiyamana sense, has For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #549
1104 SAHRDAYALOKA an impression of Dhananjaya / Dhanika over it. In case of Kuntakas beautiful vacyartha (vicitra-abhidha at pure abhidha level) being branded as Dhvani, we have a different sense of dhvani, perhaps broader, because Anandavardhana had ruled out such cases from his dhvani; and in taking 'tatparya' as 'dhvani' the normal connotation of tatparya is also extended like the one seen in the Dasarupaka / Avaloka, when it covers the suggested sense also in its fold. Thus Bhojas 'dhvani' is not absolutely congruent with Anandavardhanas dhvani. As suggested earlier the condition of 'upasarjani-krta-sva" also is not observed by Bhoja as a basic fact of dhvani. Let us see how Bhoja further explains and elaborates his concept of 'Dhvani'. He observes (pp. 221, Sr. Pra.; Vol. I. ibid) - kah punah kavya-vacasoh dhvanitatparyayoh visesah ? ucyate -- "yad a-vakram vacah sastre loke ca, vaca eva tat, vakram yad arthavada"dau tasya kavyam iti smrtih." yad abhipraya-sarvasvam vaktur vakyat pratiyate tatparyam; arthadharmas tat; sabda-dharmah punar dhvanih. saubhagyam iva tatparyam antaro guna isyate vagdevataya lavanyam iva bahyas tayor dhvanih. adura-viprakarsat tu dvayena dvayam ucyate yatha surabhi-vaisakhau madhu-madhava samjnaya." iti. Bhoja observes that a statement in either sastra or loka which is only a bare statement, i.e. which is not beautiful, i.e. 'a-vakra' is simply given the name of 'vacah' i.e. 'a statement, a sentence.' But when in the act of beautiful praise or eulogy'arthavada'- i.e. beautiful poetic exaggeration of the merits of a given thing, this For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #550
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1105 statement is called 'Kavya'. This is supposed to be 'vakra' i.e. 'beantiful'; first and last. It is termed 'poetry.' Bhoja thus distinguishas between a statement in ordinary parlance and a poetic utterance. The former is 'a-vakra' while the latter is necessarily vakra.' These terms 'a-vakra' and vakra' are directly under Kuntakas influence, as are the terms 'saubhagya' and also 'lavanya' seen earlier, they being 'gunas or excellences recognised by Kuntaka as qualifying this or that 'marga', or poetic practice. We also remember here Bhamaha's expression, viz., "vakrabhidheya-sabdarthau". In the second verse Bhoja seems to explain what is 'tatparya' for him. He uses the term "abhipraya-sarvasva"-i.e. the essence of the intended sense. Now this cannot be just the tatparya of the mimamsa, which gives only the correlated sentence sense as tatparya, or the sumtotal of all padarthas as vakyartha, which is termed 'tatparyartha.' Bhojas tatparya is the essence-'sarvasva'-of the 'abhipraya' i.e. intention of the speaker. Thus Bhojas tatparya goes beyond the traditional mimamsa sense. It covers the suggested intention also as is done by Dhananjaya / Dhanika, for whom 'tatparya' is not limited to sentence-sense only. "tatparyam na tuladhitam." But when he says 'sabdadharmah punar dhvanih" he echoes only the grammatical connotation of the term, meaning 'sound' only, which is the quality purse Bhojas dhvani' in the context of poetry goes beyond this grammatical sense as is the case with Anandavardhana also, who goes beyond the grammatical connotation of the term 'dhvani.' 'Dhvani' in this narrow sense of sabdadharma i.e. 'sound' only is external to both 'saubhagya' and 'lavanya' which are said to be internal qualities of Vag-devata. The poetic tatparya, which is also termed 'dhvani' is different frem this grammatical concept of 'dhvani' which is 'sound' only, and therefore only an external quality of a word. Even Anandavardhana had also suggested the same and the whole idea was beautifully elaborated by Abhinavagupta in his Locana. All this literature is before Bhoja when he dwells upon tatparva-dhvani-synthesis. 'adura-viprakarsa' means 'not a long distance', i.e. closeness. Bhoja holds that on account of closeness between sabda i.e. dhvani and tatparya in the ordinary sentence, the same pair, is termed poetic tatparya and dhvani in the context of poetry, like the months caitra and vaisakha being called 'madhu' and 'madhava' in a different context. Dhvani-tatparya i.e. sabda and vakyartha in ordinary parlance are termed 'dhvani-tatparya' or poetic-import of a statement in poetry. Just as Anandavardhana says that he being the follewer of the grammarians extends the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #551
1106 SAHRDAYALOKA connotation of the term dhvani, so also Bhoja takes 'dhvani' of the grammarian and 'tatparya' of the mimamsaka in a further extended sense. . In the Ch. VII of his Sr. Pra. Bhoja deals further with the concept of Dhvani. Bhoja had divided sahitya' in twelve types. The first four are vrtti, vivaksa, tatparya and pravibhaga and the second set of sahitya consists of vyapeksa, samarthya, anvaya and ekarthibhava. In 'vrtti' we have Bhojas abhidha, laksana and gauni, and in 'tatparya' he accomodates both 'tatparya' and 'vyanjana'. The third set of four relations of sabda and artha consists of dosahana, guno-padana, alamkayoga and rasa-a-viyoga. This third set is exclusive to poetic use of language while the first two sets of components four each, go with both popular usage including scientific usage of language and also poetic use of language. Now Bhoja could have placed both 'vrtti' and 'tatparya' under a single head of 'vrtti' alone, but Bhoja seems to take abhidha, laksana and gauni as powers of word j.e. pada-saktis, while tatparya and dhvani or vyanjana as vakya-sakti. Bhojas close study of the Dhvanyaloka (and this implies in our opinion the study of Locana also) is clearly depicted in the Ch. VII of his Sr. Pra. In the sixth chapter Bhoja had stated that the acceptance of the implicit sense, i.e. pratiyamanartha and its apprehsion i.e. bodha take place after 'vakyartha' sentence-sense is collected. Elaborating on 'tatparya' and 'dhvani' in this Ch. VII. Bhoja accepts much from Anandavardhana. He has quoted Anandavardhanas definition of dhvani and also illustrations given by him. He accepts dhvani in his own way and equates it with tatparya. According to Bhoja, the intended meaning of a word is its import i.e. "tatparya'. It is wider in scope and is also manifold. It is basically threefold such as 'abhidhiyamana', 'pratiyamana' and 'dhvani-rupa'. Whatever is collected by way of inksa, yogyata and samnidhi, i.e. the sentence-sense is the abhidhiyamana tatparya. Once the individual word-sense is collected by word-powers, this abhidhiyamana tatparya follows by way of 'vakyartha' i.e. import of a statement. Bhoja feels that on account of factors such as 'prakarana' i.e. context and the like, when the abhidhiyamana artha is acceptable or otherwise, an extra sense comes up and it is 'pratiyamana tatparya'. In Ch. VII Bhoja seems to take a position in conformity with Anandavardhana, concerning 'dhvani'. He observes that after the collection of the expressed sense, i.e. 'abhidhiyamana artha, the word or sense, making oneself subordinate conveys another meaning which is principal and is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #552
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1107 termed dhvani. The suggestor is subordinate and the suggested is principal, and it arrives either in form of 'anunada' i.e. resonance as in case of the bronze metal struck by an instrument, or like an 'echo' i.e. pratisabda as in case of a cave 'kandara' resounding our call. Bhoja also talks of a number of varieties of dhvani which is primarily artha-dhvani and sabda-dhvani. Dr. Raghavan is at sea when he tries to find out what exactly Bhoja has in his mind to distinguish between 'pratiyamana' and 'dhvani'. Our suggestion is that perhaps the former is a suggested sense which is subordinate, gauna, to the expressed sense and the latter is the suggested sense which is principal. This is one explanation. However, Bhoja himself is silent over this point. Dr. Raghavan feels that perhaps the pratiyamana tatparya is vastu-dhvani, which comes as first suggestion, and then the expertness of the heroine, as suggested in the verse "bhrama dharmika' etc. is the suggestion at second stage which comes as a principal dhvani. So, pratiyamana' forms the first stage and 'dhvani' forms the secons stage. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 159-160, ibid): "It we examine Bhojas explanations of his own illustrations of the severel varieties of Dhvani, we shall see that, in each and every case, Dhvani passes through 'pratiti' or the 'pratiyamana artha' and the suggested, Dhvanyamana, always arises at the back of or through 'pratiyamana'. "etat pratyayayan idam dhvanati' is the phraseology in all cases. We can say that the two do not differ accept in the fact. that the 'pratiyamana' is the first-risen Dhvani and Dhvani itself is the subsequent Dhvani. Almost all the gathas given as illustrations for the varieties of the pratiyamana are taken up in the Dhvani section and the suggested idea or Dhvani is pointed out in all of them. As regards these, Bhoja says that the Dhvani is the suggestion of how clever the lover or the lady or her friend is, how much one loves the lady and so on. In the verse, 'sikharini kva nu nama..." etc. all non-expressed implied ideas are called pratiyamana and as for the suggestion of Dhvani, Bhoja says, it is the love of the man for the lady described in that verse. In the gathas 'bhama dhammia..." etc., Bhoja assigns all implied ideas, arthas or vastus, to the class of pratiyamana and gives the "Vaidagdhya' of the nayika or her ceti as the suggested, Dhvani : 'nayavatya vaidagdhyam dhvanati. prarthana-vaidagdhyam dhvanati. S-skhalita-gopanesu sakhi-vaidagdhyam dhvanati. varnaniyayah carutvotkarsa-pratitim dhvanati. varnaniyayah svanuragam prakasayati..." and so on. Thus, the first-risen suggestion is pratiyamana; it is of the nature of vastu-dhvani only, to adopt here Anandavardhanas phraseology and classification. The subsequent or the final suggested idea is described as Dhvani proper. It is mostly of the nature of Bhava, that is sthavin like Anuraga or Rati as in the case of, sikharini kva nu nama..." etc., which forms the Rasa"di-dhvani of Anandavardhana or For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #553
1108 SAHRDAYALOKA Anubhavas etc., like vaidagdhya, Rupotkarsa (uddipana-vibhava) and the like, which are gunas of the Nayaka and the Nayika, and similar things which however come more and more under the category of vastu-dhvani. If however, Bhoja had really pursued such distinction or made some such clear classification that Vastualamkara-dhvanis for the pratiiyamana and that Rasa-bhava-dhvani is the parama-tatparya and Dhvani, it would have been interesting. Or, if he had emphasised 'upasarjani-krta-svartha-tva' in the definition of Dhvani, he could have separated the pratiyamana as gunibhuta-vyangya or cases of Alamkaras where dhvani is not pronouneed. As different from this, he could have given Dhvani as cases where it dominates over the subordinated vacya. He must then have defined and illustrated both differently. As it is, we must say that Bhoja has not made out any point to distinguish the Pratiyamana and Dhvani. A distinction into vastu-Alamkara Dhvanis and Rasa"di-dhvani, Bhoja did not hit upon at all; he found the parama-tatparya of the form of vastu also and so he vaguely left the question, leaving it to us to define his position systematically. Hemaeandra who reprodues the text of the Sr./Pra. on the varieties of the Pratiyamana, considers the whole text as referring to what Anandavardhana distinguishes as vastudhvani. See Kavyanusasana, pp. 26-34. At best, we can say from Bhojas text only this much that the Pratiyamana is 'Avantara-gamyamana-artha', or 'Abhidhiyamana-avyavahita-dhvani' and 'Dhvani is 'parama-tatparya.' For all practical purposes, we must ignore his vague distinction into Pratiyamana and Dhvani. Tatparya must be described as having only two kinds, the expressed and the non-expressed or the extra-sense that is implied or suggested. It would have been enough if Bhoja had given Tatparya as being two-fold, Abhidhiyamana and Pratiyamana. While explaining the relation of the nonexpressed, An-abhidhiyamana or Abhidhiyamana-atirikta, with the Sabda-Brahman as one of Viparinama, Bhoja mentions only the Pratiyamana, though immediately, he cites a verse and points out in it a set of implied ideas, the former part of which he calls 'pratiyamana' and the latter part Tatparya or Dhvani." Now this shows that even Dr. Raghavan can not clear his way through the jungle of ideas presented by Bhoja. Yes, Dr. Raghavan is right when he says that Bhoja should have mentioned only a two-fold, and not a three-fold tatparya. Actually we have tried to give a better explanation of what Bhoja had in his mind about the distinction between pratiyamana and Dhvani. The former is the suggested sense and the latter is the suggested sense based on the suggested sense. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #554
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1109 The former is a case of abhidha/laksana-vyanjana, the latter is the field of abhidha / laksana -> vyanjana -> vyanjana; a three tier system. Actually Bhojas love for three and the multiple of three at all stages must have prompted him to this threefold tatparya. Again, when Dr. Raghavan suggests that perhaps the distinction between vastudhvani / Alamkara-dhvani on one side and rasa-bhava"di-dhvani on the other side can explain Pratiyamana / dhvanyamana-tatparya, he is only echoing Abhinavaguptas views in Locana where he declares that-"vastvalamkaradhvani rasa-dhvanim prati paryavastete," and this shows that Bhoja had seen Abhinavaguptas works and was also indebted to the same. But Dr. Raghavans suggestion of vaidagdhya' as anubhavadhvani is not convincing, for Anandavardhana or Abhinavagupta or Mammata or any dhvani-vadin worth his name never mentions "anubhava-dhvani", for virtually it is 'vastu-dhvani' itself, and even Dr. Raghavan admits this to be so. Hence, only two reasons, which we feel are convincing, as suggested by us project themselves before us and they are- (i) Bhojas penchant for the number three and its multiple and (ii) attraction for singling out 'vyangya based on vyangya' as of special charm, could have driven him to offer abhidhiyamana-pratiyamana-and dhvanirupathree-fold tatparya. For our close reference we will quote from Bhoja, who begins with an explanation of tatparya, perhaps in the fashion of Dhananjaya / Dhanika, or in the fashion of a dirgha-dirghatara-abhidhavadin as one purvapaksa projected by Mammata, seems to hold. Bhoja observes : (pp. 246, Ch. VII. Sr. Pra. ibid) : "yatparah-sabdah sa sabdarthah iti tatparyam. tac ca vakya eva upapadyate. padamatrena abhiprayasya prakasayitum asakyatvat. tac ca vakya-pratipadyam vastu tri-rupam bhavati. abhidhiyamanam, pratiyamanam, dhvanirupam ca." Before continuing with this quotation we have to take note of an interesting fact that Bhoja talks of tri-rupa abhipraya derived from sentence-sense only and rejects out right the possilility of an 'abhipraya'/ tatparya to be had from a single word i.e. pada. This assertion on Bhojas part rules out pada-dhvani and thereby dhvani derived from padamia. Theoretically thus the scope of dhvani is restricted to vakya only. We continue with Bhojas words : "yatra yad upatta-sabdesu mukhya-gauni-laksanabhih sabda-saktibhih svam artham abhidhaya uparata-vyaparesu akanksa-sannidhi-yogyata"dibhir vakyarthamatram eva abhidhiyate tad abhidhiyamanam. yatha gaur gacchati iti vakyarthavagateh uttarakalam vakyarthah upapadyamano nupapadyamano va For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #555
1110 artha-prakaranaucitya"di-saha-krtau yat pratyayayati tat pratiyamanam. yatha, visam bhunksva, ma ca asya grhe bhunkthah, ity ukte varam visam bhaksitam, na punar asya grhe bhuktam iti pratiyate. artha-sabdopayad, upasarjanikrta-svartho vakyarthavagater anantaram anunadarupam pratisabda-rupam va abhivyanjayati tad dhvani rupam. tac ca na sarvatrikam. tatha hi; yatha nivrtte abhighate kasyacid eva kamsya"der dravyasya anunado jayate, kasyacid eva kandaradeh pratisabdah. yatha kasyacid eva vakyasya pratiyamana-abhidhiyamana-vakyartha-pratiter anantaram dhvanir upalabhyate iti. - 'nimisati esa' ity ukte aksor nimeso' bhidhiyate, devi na bhavati iti pratiyate. rupatisayas ca dhvanati. atha esam prayogah, tatra abhidhiyamanam caturdha-vidhirupam, nisedha-rupam, vidhi-nisedha-rupam a-vidhi-nisedha-rupam ca. After giving illustrations. Bhoja once again says something further concerning 'dhvani' (pp. 248; Sr. Pra., pp. 248, 249 etc.) : "pratiyamana'bhidhiyamana-vakyarthanam anantyad dhvanirupam apy aneka prakaram eva. dhvanis' ca dvidha; artha-dhvanih sabda-dhvanis ca. tayor artha-dhvanir anunadadhvanirupah pratisabda-dhvanirupas' ca. ....kamsya-dhvanirupena anunado dhvanim pratipadayan anunada-dhvanivyapadesam asadayati iti. yah punar abhidhiyamana-vakyarthat prthag bhuta iva guha"di-pratisabda' nurupam arthantaram pratyayayan pratidhvanati sa pratisabdadhvanih SAHRDAYALOKA evam sabda-dhvanir api dvidha eva." (pp. 250, ibid). After illustrating all these varieties, Bhoja concludes (pp. 251, ibid): "evam anye'pi mahakavi-prayogesu dhvani-visesa gavesaniya iti; yad uktam-, "tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavya" ity adi. Here, Bhoja repeats the verses, quoted above, which he read at the end of Ch. VI. Sr. Pra. (Vol. I) -such as: "yad avakram vacah sastre loke ca, vaca eva tat.... yatha surabhi-vaisakhau madhu-madhava-samjnaya..." iti. ..... For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #556
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. Read in a tabular form, Bhojas dhvani would read as 1111 Tatparya abhidhiyamana pratiyamana Dhvani sabda-dhvani artha-dhvani anunadadhvani pratisabdadhvani anunadadhvani pratisabda dhvani. We know how Anandavardhanas scheme proceeds : dhvani laksanamula -avivaksita-vacya abhidhamula vivaksita-vacya arhantara-samkramita. atyanta-tiraskrta -vacya a-samkalsya-krama (rasa"di-dhvani) samkaksyakrama -anuranana-rupa sabdasakti-mula artha-sakti ubhayamula sakti-mula Now, Bhojas anunada-rupa- can be placed with Anandavardhanas anurananarupa-vyangya, on the face of it. Looking at the illustrations given by Bhoja, his scheme is not absolutely congruent with that of Anandavardhana, which is more methodical and more convincing. The very fact that he illustrates 'pratiyamana' tatparya from such sentenees as 'visam bhunksva," etc., proves that all sentences do not have this For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #557
1112 SAHRDAYALOKA variety. Thus, Bhojas 'pratiyamana' may convert itself into dhvani, but for arriving at dhvani 'pratiyamana' is not an inevitable and unavoidable stage. Therefore he observes that Dhvani has 'artha' and 'sabda' as instruments, i.e. upayas, which are necessarily subordinated to the 'vyangya' which is suggested as principal sense. Perhaps by 'anu-nada', he suggests that the original nada and the resultant nada are not opposite in nature, but the anu-nada is only a sort of reverberation of the original. Thus, it could be equated with Anandavardhanas abhidhamula, anuranana-rupa dhvani, or samlaksya-krama-dhvani. By, 'pratirupa' he perhaps suggests that the 'ghosa' and 'pratigosa' do have a sequence, but the same is not noticed. The moment a man shouts, there is resounding from the caves, almost as if covering the sound. Thus perhaps here Bhoja to cover "a-samlaksya-krama-dhvani' or rasa"di-dhvani of Ananda-vardhana. For prati-sabda-dhvani Bhoja says : (pp. 249, 250; Ch. VII. Sr. Pra; Vol. I, ibid) "yah punar abhidhiyamana-vakyarthat prthag-bhuta iva, guha"di-pratisabdanurupam arthantaram pratyayayan pratidhvanati, sa pratisabda-dhvanih." We have to carefully read in between the lines here. Bhoja observes that - "that which is other than (= prthag bhuta) the expressed sentence-sense, such as the echo from the original",-is pratisabda-dhvani. Perhaps he wants to suggest, following Ananda-vardhana that "rasa"di dhvani is through the agency of vibhavadis -i.e. vibha"vadibhih, but is not identical with 'vibhava"di'- "na tu vibha"vadi-rupa eva." Thus, pratisabda-rupa dhvani is almost simultaneous, but different from the original. This could be rasa"di-dhvani. The illustration of this pratisabda-dhvani, as read in Bhoja, is (pp. 250; ibid) : "lavanya-sindhur aparaiva..." etc. Now, Anandavardhana (Dhv. III 34, pp. 224-225, ibid) has cited this illustration as one of gunibhuta-vyangya. He observes. "prakaro'nyo gunibhutavyangyah kavyasya drsyate, yatra vyangyanvaye vacya carutvam syat prakarsavat." -vyangyo'rtho lalana-lavanya-prakhyo yah pratipaditas tasya pradhanye dhvanir ity uktam tasya tu gunibhavena vacya-carutva-prakarse gunibhuta-vyangyo nama kavya-prabhedah prakalpyate. tatra vastumatrasya vyangyasya tirasksta-vacyebhyah pratiyamanasya kadacid vacya-rupa-vakyarthapeksaya gunibhave sati gunibhutavyangyata; yatha, "lavyanya-sindhur aparaiva..." etc. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #558
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1113 Bhoja does not talk of gunibhuta-vyangya at all. So for him this is dhvani', pure and simple. But even he stops at explaining only the vastu-dhvani when he observes : (pp. 250, ibid)- "tatra iha ca yatha sruyamananam utpaladinam arthah abhidhiyamanas tasya locana"dyarthaih saha sadrsyam pratyayayad varnaniyayah carutvotkarsa-pratitir dhvanati. sa tatah prthag iva upalabhyamana pratisabda-dhvanih." But in fact Bhoja has taken this as an illutration of dhvani on two counts; (i) he has no place for gunibhuta-vyangya, and here he seems to side with Mahima for whom 'vyangya' is always more charming than 'vacya'; and (ii) perhaps under Abhinavaguptas influence, Bhoja also goes beyond "carutvotkarsa-pratiti." He says "sa, tatah prthag iva upalabhyamana, pratisabdadhvanih." i.e. the exceptional beauty makes the lady all the more exceptional and thus she being the uddipana-vibhava makes for nayakas rati or love for her. Thus the whole expression terminates into songara-dhvani, though Bhoja does not mention rasa by name here. Abhinavagupta in his Locana observed : "ata eva iyati yady api vacyasya pradhanyam, tatha'pi rasa-dhvanau tasya'pi gunata iti sarvasya gunibhuta-vyangyasya prakare mantavyam." The Locanakara says that of course the expressed sense is beautiful here, but it becomes a vibhava (= uddipana) for 'abhilasa' (on the part of the lover.). Thus, we feel that perhaps Bhoja had full knowledge of Abhinavagupta and his Locana, though Dr. Raghavan thinks otherwise. For Bhoja, 'anunada' is stretching in the same direction and 'pratighosa' is shoothing back. He does not show special concerns for vastu / alamkara / rasa"di dhvanis and perhaps shatters the well-knit scheme of Anandavardhana. Anandavardhana is order; Bhoja, disorder. Bhoja also explains that even in laukika statement there is possibility of abhidhiyamana and pratiyamana tatparya. He admits a mixture also of laukika vacas and kavya. He observes (pp. 253, ibid) : "evam laukike'pi vacasy abhidhiyamanam pratiyamanam tatparyam ca paryalocaniyam. etena kavyavacasor dhvani-tatparyayos ca kvacit samplavo'pi vyakhyatah; tad yatha, "acchinna-mekhalam alabdha-drdhopa gudham"ity adi. Dr. Raghavan has (pp. 166, 167,...ibid) explained how Saradatanaya summarises Bhojas treatment of dhvani in the light in which he understands the same. Before we look into Dr. Raghavans account, we will look into the original references from BP. of Sa. BP. Ch. VI, vs. 102-121 (pp. 209-214, ibid) : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #559
1114 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 vakyartham prati sesatvam yat syad uccaranasya tutat tatparyam tridha tat syat vakyartha trividhatvatah karaka"di-visisto yah so'bhidheyah kriya"dikah. yatha'bhidhiyamanarthad anyatha' nupapattitah pratiyamano vacyarthah sa pratyayya iritah. visam bhunksveti vakya"dau esa tadrk - pratiyate, dhvanir dvidha sa caikah syad arthatah sabdato 'parah. yatrarthah sabdo va tam artham upasarjanikrta-svarthau vyanktah kavya-visesah sa dhvanir iti suribhih kathitah. sabde dvividho dhvanir ayam anunada-rupah ekah syat, pratisabda-rupa ekas tayor viseso vivicyate' smabhih. tatra konahati-sphurjat kamsya-krenkara-nadavat, arthantaram pratitanusyutam eva vyanakti yat. sonunada-dhvanir iti kathyate dhvanikovidaih. pratitartham tyajan yatra guha"di-pratisabda-vat prthag eva upalabhate, sa eva syat prati-dhvanih. pratyyayas tat tad artham tatra tatra dhvanim dhvanih. For Personal & Private Use Only SAHRDAYALOKA

Page #560
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 112 santyai vostu kapaleti vakya"dav adimo dhvanih, kapala-dama-likhitam 113 114 115 sraksyaty adi-pada"tmikam lipim ganam pathanti iti. vakyartho yobhidhiyate, tena srstyadi-kartrnam devanam dama gamyate. pratitena pratita syac chambhor, deva"di-samsrtih, tayasya / nityata-ekatva-svatantrya"di pratiyate. tat tatranusyutam eva dhvanan yatra'vasiyate, sonunada-dhvanir nama, tasyodahrtir idrsi. bhama dhammia visattho ityadir va'nunadabhak, bhrameti vidhirupo yo vakyartho bhihitah purah. na gantavya ca godeti nisedhonena gamyate, tena sanketabhumis tad anusyutam pratiyate. lavanya-sindhur ity adi pratisabda-nidarsanam, yatah sindhutpala"dy arthan anusyutah svanann api. tat tat samana'vayavavan rupatisaya-bodhakan prthag eva upalabhate sa eva syat pratidhvanih. bhakti-prahvayadet yadav anunadah pratiyate, visesananam tulyatvat For Personal & Private Use Only 1115

Page #561
1116 SAHRDAYALOKA 116 samarthyat kuru sabdajat. kriyasur iti vakyartho hastanusyutam eva yat, anunadam prajanayanupaih (netre) purusa-rupatam, tejasvitanca dhvanayaty anunadotra drsyate, datta"nandeti vakya"dau pratinada-dhvanir yatha visesananam tulyatvat samarthyad api yo girah, pratisadbam prajanayan dhenusu sva-visesanaih. mahatmyam dhvanayaty asam pratinado bhavet tatah. sabda-dhvanir dvidha-bhutah sabdad eva avagamyate. dhvani-tatparyayoh kaiscit prthaktvam kathyate budhaih. apratistham a-visrantam svarthe yat paratam idam, vakyam vigahate tatra nyayya tatparatasya sa, yatra tu svartha-visrantam pratistham tavad agatam. tat prasarpati tat tasmat sarvatra dhvanina sthitih." dhvani-tatparyayor bhedam kecin necchanti, tanmate, samana-laksanatvac ca tayor na ca prthak-sthitih, uktan ca tikakarais ca tayor aikyam prati kvacit. 118 119 For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #562
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1117 120 "etavataiva visrantis tatparyasya iti kim krtam, 121 yavat-karya-prasaritvat tatparyam na tula-dhrtam." iti. dhvani-tatparyayor bhedo brahmana brahma - cari-vat, tad avantara - bhedo hi prayena prthag ucyate. tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavye saubhagyam eva gunasampadi vallabhasya, - lavanyam eva vapusi svadate' nganayah srngara eva hrdi manavato janasya. ato dhvanyakhya-tatparyagamyamanatvatah svatah, kavye rasa'lamkara"dir vakyartho bhavati dhruvam. evam trirupam tatparyam tat tat tatparya-vedibhih, vaktr-dvara vakyadharma eva iti parikirtyate." - (B. P. VI. 102-121, pp. 209-214 ibid) We may try to put this in English as follows : In view of the sentence-sense, whatever is the remaining portion left behind, i.e. extra sense, after the words are pronounced, is called 'tatparya' or 'import.' On account of the three-fold sentence-sense, the 'tatparya' or 'import' is also three-fold. (102). That which is qualified by the karakas i.e. agent etc., and is of the form of action or, etcc.,cc., is said to MP'abhidheya' or expressed' (tatparya). (103) After the expressed sense is made clear, because of there being no further explanation, i.e. due to 'arthapatti' i.e. presumption, that meaning which is implied, is said to be 'pratyyaya' or 'meaning through implication.' (104) This 'pratyayya' tatparya is illustrated in statements such as, "Eat poison..." etc. (105) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #563
1118 SAHRDAYALOKA 'Dhvani' is said to be two-fold such as (i) derived from meaning or sense and (ii) derived from the word.- (106) "That kind of poetry, wherein the conventional) meaning renders itself subordinate, or the conventional) word renders its meaning suggests the intended or) implied meaning (as principal), is designated as 'dhvani' by the learned. (The suggested sense is 'dhvani' or that kind of poetry where this occurs is dhvani-kavya). - (107) With reference to a word (i.e. sabda) this dhvani' is two-fold scuh as (i) of the form of 'anunada' i.e. resonance and (ii) of the form of prati-sabda' i.e. echo. These two are further discussed by us. (108) That dhvani (or sound,) which like striking on a drum, or like noise caused by striking a bronze plate, conveys the related meaning, is termed as 'anu-nada' by experts.- (109) But that which gives a different meaning than the one conveyed primarily, like an echo from a cave resounding the original sound, is termed 'prati-dhvani.?-(110) Meaning thus conveyed (in two different fashions) are termed that particular dhvani (i.e. (i) anunada-dhvani and (ii) pratisabda-dhvani) (Again both are either through the agency of meaning and therefore "artha" or through the agency of word, and therefore "sabda." (The illustration of artha-anunada-dhvani follows, as in) "santyai vostu kapaladama..." etc. In this sentence we have "artha-anunada-dhvani." The script written by 'kapaladama' which has words such as "straksyati" etc., is read by the group (of Sivas attendants, i.e. ganas.). This is the sentence-sense. Through this the samsara' or 'dama' of the deities which make for the creation, is known. Through this apprehension, Sivas 'samssti' i.e. continuation with reference to gods is implied. Through that eternity, oneness, independence, etc. are implied. The dhvani is termed anunada-dhvani where this chain of implications ends. This is its illustration- (112) 'Bhama dhammia. etc.' is an instance of artha-anunada-dhvani. The sentencesense, such as "Move around" which is positive in nature, implies or suggests that "do not move on the banks of Godavari." Through this is conveyed the secret meeting-place of somebody. Thus the expressed sense here is positive but the implied sense is negative.- (113). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #564
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunabhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1119 (artha-prati-sabda-dhvani is illustrated, as in) "lavanya-sindhu....." etc. In this verse pratisabda-dhvani' is illustrated. The meaning though connected with sindhuutpala, etc. gives a fresh sense of the extreme beauty of the limbs. This is pratidhvani (as the sense is different) (114). (sabda-anunada-dhvani) In the verse vig. "bhakti-prahvaya datum." etc. (surya-sataka, vs.3), pratisabda-dhvani is illustrated (-sabda-variety). On account of common adjectives (i.e. qualities) through implication from the word 'kuru', 'kriyasuh' is the sentence-sense concerning 'kara' or hand; and this is causing 'anu-nada' i.e. reverberation and suggests the brightness and good form of the 'purusa'. Thus it is a case of anunada-dhvani. (115) (sabda-pratidhvani) The illustration viz. "datta"nandah..." etc. is for 'sabda-pratinada-dhvani.' On account of common adjectives, and due to samarthya i.e. capacity to convey, the spoken words, cause echo in the cows and suggest the importance. (mahatmya). It is prati-nada-dhvani. (116) sabda-dhvani is two-fold, and is collected from sabda or word only. Some learned people hold that 'dhvani' and 'tatparya' are not identical, (as is suggested by the dhvanikara). - (117) Till the sentence is not having a complete sense, till it is not well substantiated or till it does not rest completely, the sentence-sense is supposed to continue. When it rests in its sense, when it achieves completion till that point the sentence-sense is supposed to extend. But when at a point a sentence is completed by reaching its sense, thus when a meaning is completely conveyed, and still it moves further to convey an additional sense, then this additional sense is the field of 'dhvani.?- (118) Some people do not accept any distinction between 'dhvani' or 'suggestion' and 'tatparya' or import. They feel that on account of common qualities these two do not exist independently of each other. Some commentators (i.e. Dhanika in his Avaloka on the Dasa-rupaka of Dhananjaya) have observed to this effect and said that- (119) "Who the hell has decided that purport i.e. tatparya extends only upto this point and not further? For virtually tatparya extends till the karya' i.e. speakers intention is clearly conveyed. Thus 'tatparya' is not held in a balance.?- (120) Actually the difference between dhvani and tatparya is like the one between a For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #565
1120 SAHRDAYALOKA 'brahmin' and a 'brahmacarin' (i:e. a student). The sub-division of the same i.e. tatparya is said to be different." (Bhoja says) "Tatparya or 'import' is said to be with reference to expressions in common parlance or sentences in works on various disciplines (=vacasi), but dhvani' is said to be there with reference to 'poetic expression (Kavya) only, like the qualities of 'saubhagya' with reference to a nayaka i.e. hero, and 'lavanya' which is tasted with reference to the figure of a 'nayika' or heroine, or like 'songara' i.e. "highest pitch of aesthetic experience" with reference to a cultured critic with self-identity." Thus, as tatparya' (in poetic expression) of the form of dhvani being conveyed on its own (i.e. it being self-evident) in poetry the sentence-sense takes the form of 'rasa', 'alamkara' etc. Thus this three-fold tatparya (i.e. one each as explained by Anandavardhana, Dhanika and Bhoja), as explained by respective knowers, is ultimately the quality of a sentence i.e. it pertains to the speech, as spoken by a speaker."- (121) Dr. Raghavan (pp. 166, 167, etc., ibid) has neatly given the substance of sas views. We will try to place them here with our comments, if any. It man be noted that his references are to an edition of BP. which is not used by us. So, we will not mention the page-numbers given by him but of course, the chapter number is the same. In the Ch. VI of his BP., Sa. tries to explain the concept of Dhvani in Bhoja, "in the light in which he (=Sa.) understood them." 'Tatparya' is defined by Sa. as-"Vakyartham prati sesatvam uccaranasya", and is divided, as is done by Bhoja, into three classes : "sa ca abhidheyah, pratyayyah, dhvanirupah iti tridha." It may be noted that Dr. Raghavan has not rendered in English, the Sanskrit expression of Sa. as, "vakyartham prati sesatvam uccaranasya." we have tried to put it as, "In view of the sentence-sense, whatever is left behind as extra-sense after words are pronounced, is called 'tatparya' or 'import." Thus Sa. wants to drive at a wider sense of tatparya, over and above the correlated sense as advocated by the Mimansakas. We will go to see that Sa.s 'tatparya' is three-fold, viz. the abhidhiyamana i.e. the correlated sentence-sense, the pratiyamana i.e. implied sense as seen in statements which are qualified by some special context, and the dhvani' or suggested sense. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #566
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1121 Dr. Raghavan continues to explain as follows. After quoting the three-fold import, at the stage of defining the 'pratyayya' or implied purport, he makes a change. Dr. Raghavan rightly observes that Sa. differs from Bhoja so far as the understanding of the concept of 'pratyayya' import is concerned. Dr. Raghavan observes that Sa. finds it, as we (i.e. Dr. Raghavan, and also Dr. Nandi now), also found, impossible to distinguish Bhojas 'pratiti' (i.e. implied sense) and dhvani'; and also 'pratiyamana' and 'dhvanyamana'. So, he made the distinction that such meaning as is called forth to explain a statement whose obvious expressed sense is clearly incompatible (i.e. what we have called to be a "qualified statement," Yes, 'qualified with reference to its special context of the speaker, the listener, etc. etc.), i.e. 'anupapanna', is called 'pratiyamana'. The example is, 'visam bhunksva'. This, Dr. Raghavan observes, is partly faithful but not wholly to Bhojas text. "yatha'bhidhiyamanarthad anyatha'nupapattitah, pratiyamano vakyarthah yas sa pratyayya ucyate." "visam bhunksva' iti vakyadav esa tadrk pratiyate." Bhoja, Dr. Raghavan observes, does not restrict 'pratiyamana-tatparya' to cases of anyatha-anupapatti' of the abhidhiyamana. For Bhoja clearly states: "vakyarthah, upapadyamanah, anupapadyamano va." (sr. Pra. Vol-II. Ch. VII), though he illustrates only the latter with the example, vinam bhunksva." In other respects, Dr. Raghavan observes that Sa. faithfully summarises the whole text of Bhoja on dhvani. At the end of the section, Dr. Raghavan observes, Bhoja takes up the question of the difference between Dhvani and Tatparya. We may add that, and Dr. Raghavan does not explain it in such a clear way, that Sa. here gives three views on tatparva-dhvani divide. The views are of Anandavardhana, Dhananjaya-Dhanika and Bhoja. We have clearly explained above the distinction between these three. Dr. Raghavan observes that sa. quotes the Karikas on dhvani, viz. "pratistham..." etc. quoted in the Avaloka on the Dasarupaka and says this view is wrong. Dhvani and tatparya are not separate but are identical. Dhvani or the suggested idea is got at only through the tatparya-sakti of a sentence. The suggested idea is also part of a speakers intention and everything coming within the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #567
1122 SAHRDAYALOKA speakers intention, is tatparya. There is no rule which lays down that the speakers intention, beyond a certain stage, ceases to be tatparya and needs a new name (such as 'dhvani.) Here, sa. quotes Dhanikas Karika from his lost 'Kavya-nirnaya' which his Avaloka quotes : "etavataiva visrantih tatparyasyeti kim krtam, yavat-karya-prasaritvat tatparyam na tula-dhitam." Sa. does not quote Bhojas verses on the difference between tatparya and dhvani which bring in the similes 'saubhagya' and 'lavanya'. Instead Sa gives a single analogy. He says that 'dhvani' is a class of 'tatparya', an avantara-bheda, even a brahmacarin is a kind of Brahmana, i.e. the first asrami brahmana. Here, Dr. Raghaven quotes from Bhojas sr. Pra. as under : "dhvani-tatparyayor bhedo brahmana-brahmacarivat, tad avantara-bhedo hi prayena prthag ucyate." tatparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kavye..." etc. from Bhojas sr. Pra. Dr. Raghavan then quotes from the BP. as - ato dhvanyakhya-tatparyagamyamanarvatah svatah, kavye rasalamkriya'dir vakyartho bhavati sphuram. evam trirupam tatparyam tat tat tatparya-vedibhih, vaktp-dvara vakyadharma eva iti, parikirtyate." Dr. Raghavan has not clarified, 'tri-rupam tatparvam. tat-tad-vedibhih'. We have explained this as three explanations of tatparva as given by Aanandavardhana. Dhananjaya-Dhanika, and Bhoja. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #568
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1123 Dr. Raghavan continues further and suggests (pp. 167, ibid) that BahurupaMisra in his commentary on the Dasarupaka, follows Sa. closely and puts in prose Sa.'s summary of Bhoja on Dhvani. He ends thus : "atah titiya-kaksa-rupena dhvani-namna tatparyena gamyamanatvat rasalamkara"di vakyarthah. + + + evam triprakaram api tatparyam vaktp-dvara vakyadharma eva iti, Bahurupa-misra follows also Sa.s own modification of Bhojas 'pratiyamana'. Sa. and following him, Bahurupa also, say that 'tatparya' pertains to speech through the speaker, "vaktr-dvara vakya-dharmah," but Kumarasvamin asserts that it pertains purely to the speaker and not to the speech. "uddeso nama vaktr-dharmah, na mimamsakanam iva vakya-dharmah." (pp. 33). Dr. Raghavan further observes that it is not clear what Bhojas ideas are on the description of rasa as 'vakyartha'; we do not find him discussing the subject in the section on tatparya and dhvani. But while describing the varieties of composition, disya and sravya prabandhas, he says that the nataka and the other nine rupakas as well as natika and satraka (on the whole twelve) form 'vakyarthabhinaya' and the rest, twelve uparupakas, srigadita etc., form padarthabhinaya. "vakyarthabhinayoyam prakirtito nataka"di-bhedena dvadasa-vidha-padarthabhinayam atha yatha-sthitam vaksye." (sr. Pra. Vol. II Ch. XI) Dr. Raghvan says that this by itself cannot lead us far, but we feel that by these terms Bhoja and also others (see. DR. Avaloka) who use such terms should only mean 'major' and 'minor' types. Dr. Raghavan proceeds to note that in this same ch. (XI) we find Bhoja saying regarding rasa : "na hi vibha"vadayolamkarah, api tu bhava-rasa-tadabhasanam alamkaranam abhinispatti-hetavah artha-vicesah. nanv evam api artha-gunatvat amisam apy alamkaratvam prapnoti, satyam etat; kintu anyaparataya na upadiyamana-pratitau padarthah prthak sphuranti iti. - (Vol.II). Bhoja states here clearly that vibhavas etc. are similar to padarthas in vakyartha, Rasa, bhava and their abhasa form vakyartha, while the padarthas are described as having no more purpose to serve than the manifestation of the vakyartha. The vibhavas etc. do not separately exist by themselves and are not ends For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #569
1124 SAHRDAYALOKA in themselves; their ultimate aim is the manifestation of 'rasa'. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 168 ibid) that padartha-vakyartha-nyaya between vibhava"divacyavacaka and dhvanyamana rasa"di could only be an analogy which emphasises the fact that vibhava, etc. are rasa-para and the former are upayamatra, the means for the latter. Anandavardhana also, we know, has a similar approach. Even he holds that though padarthas are real, they are not independently cognised when the sentence-sense is cognised. Similarly the apprehension of the vibhava"dis lead to that of rasa"di in such a quick fashion, that the sequence between the two is not apprehended, observes Anandavardhana. (Dhv. I. 10-12). Rasa therefore is the vakyartha, so to say, with the apprehension of vibhava"dis forming the padartha. Dr. Raghavan observes that here the vakyartha i.e. rasa"di must naturally be apprehended through 'tatparya', otherwise called 'dhvani' by Bhoja, and as such, Bhoja contradicts neither Anandavardhana nor Dhanika. Dr. Raghavan tries to defend his observation here that Bhoja contradicts neither Anandavardhana nor Dhanika by suggesting that in Dhanikas Avaloka we find a clear mention of rasa being vakyartha, those that manifest it i.e., vibhavas, etc., being padartha, and the vakya being the Kavya : "tatra vibhava"dayah padarthasthaniyah, tat-samsrsto rasa"dih vakyarthah, tad eva kavya-vakyam yadiyau tav imau padartha-vakyarthau." D. R. Avaloka. Here, once again, we beg to differ from Dr. Raghavan. For Anandavardhana padartha-vakyartha-nyaya is just an analogy to be abandoned later in favour of ghata-pradipa-nyaya between the first apprehension of vibhavadi and the apprehension of rasa"di that follows. This second 'nyaya' takes us to vyanjana. But this is not so for Dhananjaya / Dhanika for whom a dirghatara-tatparya, which is for them "a-tuladhitam" is more welcome then vyanjana-dhvani. So, if Bhoja calls his tatparya' by the name of 'dhvani' he has to side either with Anandavardhana or with Dhanika. Our impression is that Bhoja does not discard vyanjan, and thus leans towards Anandavardhana, though he equates dhvani with tatparya. For him 'tatparya' is thus the 'ultimate principal sense' and just not the sum total of padarthas. So, for all practical purposes, Bhoja should not be taken as an antivyanjana-dhvani theorist like either Bhatta Nayaka, or Dhananjaya / Dhanika or Mahima, but should be placed along with Kuntaka, or even above Kuntaka for Bhoja names dhvani and accepts it in his own way. By and large, Kuntaka and Bhoja are not anti-dhvani theorists but their acceptance of dhvani has a wider area than just vyanjana. Both may, be termed "antarbhava-vadins" so far as 'dhvani' is concerned. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #570
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1125 While dealing with their anti-vyanjana stand, we have talked (see chapters on vyanjana, tatparya, etc.) a lot on the approach of Bhatta nayaka, Mahima, Dhananjaya, Dhanika, Mukula, and Pratiharenduraja, hence we do not have to add anything fresh about them. They were all die-hard anti-dhvani theorists, and anti-vyanjana theorists though of course they advocated the supremacy of 'rasa' in poetry and 'rasa' for them was apprehended by means other than vyanjana, and 'rasa', though 'kavya"tma' for them, was never termed 'dhvani' by these theorists. But they were taken care of and denounced very ably by Mammata, Visvanatha and the rest. After this the dhvani-thought-current flows smoothly and Ruyyaka, Sobhakara Mitra, Vidyadhara, Appayya and Jagannatha have chosen to go with the same. We know that Anandavardhana had talked about three-fold dhvani. Hence our next topic for a fuller discussion naturally could be rasa-dhvani and certain questions pertaining to its realisation in literature and drama, or in fact all finearts. Some other topics such as those concerned with the nature of rasa, bhava, rasa"bhasa, etc. rasa-bhava-relationship, rasas deemed as praksti-rasas and vikrtirasas, the number of rasas, the problem of santarasa, treatment of rasa beginning with Bharata, earlier alamkarikas, Anandavardhana down to Jagannatha, and even at the hands of Rupa and Jiva Gosvami, i.e. the vaisnava alamkarikas, and of course rasa in the hands of Kuntaka, Bhoja and even anti-dhvani theorists,- all this will hold us later. With this rasa-mimamsa will be over but prior to that we will see how Anandavardhana, in his catholic vyanjana-dhvani-rasa theory has correlated such thought-currents as alamkara, guna, riti, vstti, samghatana, dosa, anumiti etc. with rasa-dhvani. This will be done in the very next chapter that follows and then of course, after dealing with dhvani-virodha, we will pick up consideration of the types of major dramatic forms, which we had avoided on the earlier occasion. With this part I. of this Sahrdavaloka will be completed, to be followed by part II with indivinual chapters on guna, dosa. alamkara, riti, vrtci, laksanas, vakrokti, aucitya, kavisiksa, kawaharana, etc, ending with consideration of modern writers on Alamkara and general concluding remarks. It may be noted before we end this chapter that these writers, i.e. Kuntaka, Dhananjaya, Dhanika. Mahima, and Bhoja had hardly anything to say about the other two varieties of criticism based classification, viz. the gunibhuta-vyangya and the citra variety of kavya. But at least Ahandavardhana and his followers down to Jagannatha did recognise these varieties and it will be very interesting to look into the same before we close this chapter. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #571
1126 SAHRDAYALOKA We knew that aesthetes of poetic art, when they enjoy poetry or literature, undergo an experience of supreme joy. A particular poem or piece of poetry makes an appeal to their heart and they are moved by it. Normally the piece, taken as a whole, as an indivisible organic unity, creates a particular response in the heart of the connoisseur. But when a second thought is given to a particular poem, in moments of tranquillity, the critic is in a position to discern different modes of appeal. These different modes can be held to be responsible for this or that type of classification of poetry in the hands of Sanskrit theorists. Alamkarikas headed by Anandavardhana have, as suggested earlier, classified poetry into dhvanikavya, gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya and citra-kavya from the point of view of literary criticism. Anandavardhana, and also Abhinavagupta, go to observe that even the so called gunibhuta-vyangya variety, i.e. poetry with subardinated suggested sense, also can be classed as dhvani kavya, when viewed from the particular angle of resa"di-vyanjana in it. Thus, in a way, they seem to reject the idea of a watertight classification of poetry and probably from this point of view also, Anandavardhana wisely avoids naming this or that type as 'uttama' i.e. excellent, 'madhyama' i.e. mediocre and 'adhama' or 'avara' i.e. third-rate or low type of poetry. Poetry, if at all it creates any response in the heart of a connoisseur, does it only when taken as a single effort by the poet, one and indivisible, a complex unity. However, in moments of tranquillity or rest, the faculty of subtle analysis starts operating and it divines out different modes of appeal in poetry. Probably this gives rise to a broad form of three-fold classification as above. Divisions an sub-divisions of this or that type of poetry can simply be dubbed as an instinct for either going into the root cause of pleasure or even hairsplitting, so close to the Indian mind in general. First, we will try to look into illustrations of all the three types of poetry. The 'dhvani-kavya' or suggestive poetry is one in which, as noted earlier, the suggested sense, particularly of the form of sentiment, emotion etc. i.e. rasa"di, becomes the principal source of charm. Of course Anandavardhana also accomodates here vastu-dhvani and alamkara-dhvani as well. "sunyam vasagrham vilokya...." etc. is an instance in point where srngara-rasa is predominantly suggested. Alamkarikas are of the opinion that here, the source of poetic appeal lies in the suggestion of the sentiment of love. But in yet another poem, vig. "anuragavati sandhya....." etc. the expressed sense, i.e. the bare description of sunset by itself is very touching to a responsive heart. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #572
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1127 However, the sensitive critics also feel an undereurrent of suggested sense in which there is a faint realisation of the fact of a loving lady, with her heart full of love, trying to pursue an unyielding hero. This undertone enhances the beauty of this expressed sense in form of a lovely description of sunset. Yet another type of poetry, The citra-kavya, is taken notice of by Anandavardhana and his followers. It is a type in which there is practical absence of any undercurrent of suggestion of the subordinated type, which could add to the charm of the expressed. Here only the expressed carries all grace and moves the cultured critics. The illustration is, "vinirgatam manadam atma-mandirat," etc. In this illustration, the bare description of Amaravati causes poetic charm. Thus, we observe that an effort in analysing poetic experience has given rise to a three-fold, criticism based classification, of poetry. We have seen that Kuntaka, Dhanika, or Mahim, and the rest were not interested in Anandavardhanas scheme and hence they do not discuss these two varieties. But for us it will be interesting how Anandavaredhana treats and elaborates this topic of gunibhuta-vyangya and citra kavya and how later alamkarikas who follow his dictate, build a grand edifice on what Anandavardhana has laid down as a base. It may also be noted that even the earlier alamkarikas such as Bhamaha, Dandin etc. the predecessors of Anandavardhana also did not indulge in this criticism based classification but were satisfied with one based on external form only. In the Dhvanyaloka, Anandavardhana discusses the nature and scope of what he calls dhvanikavya with all its divisions and sub-divisions upto Dhv-III. 33. He concludes with the words : (Dhv. III. 33) (vitti : (pp. 224, ibid) : "vimativisayo ya asin manisinam satatam a-vidita-sa-tattvah, dhvani-samjnitah prakarah kavyasya vyanjitah soyam." 'The variety of poetry designated as suggestion, which had become a source of controversy for long, because its real nature had eluded even persons of the best intellect, has now been explained." (Trans. K. Kris-, pp. 225, ibid). . Anandavardhana then comes to the second variety of poetry of subordinated suggestion, and observes : (Dhv. III. 34, pp. 224, ibid). "prakaronyo gunibhutavyangyah kavyasya disyate For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #573
1128 SAHRDAYALOKA yatra vyangyanvaye vacya carutvam syat prakarsavat." "We can see another variety of poetry viz. poetry of subordinated suggestion, wherein the artistic excellence of the expressed is greater than that of the suggested, though the latter also happens to be present alongside of the former." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 225, ibid). Anandavardhana adds that when the suggested sense which is compared to the charm of a damsel is predominant in poetry it is said to be 'dhvani'. And when it is rendered subservient and in itself lends charm to the expressed sense, it is said to be poetry with subordinated suggestion.. Anandavardhana then tries to give some further varieties of this type of poetry. We have seen elsewhere that fundamentally dhvanikavya is sub-divided into one in which the suggestive power, i.e. vyanjana is either based on abhidha or denotation or on laksana i.e. indication. In the same way, observes Anandavardhana that the first variety of gunibhuta-vyangya is obtained when a - bare idea, conceyed by such words as have lost their conventional denotation might be the suggested element and it might become secondary to the purport of the sentence as a whole got at by its component denotative words. Thus, this is the case of 'atyanta-tiraskrta-vacyarupa-vyangya', which is of the form of 'vastu' i.e. 'idea', being subordinated to the expressed sense. The illustration is :"lavanya-sindhur -aparaiva hi keyam atra..." etc. Here, by the word 'sindhu, or ocean, is suggested fullness; by 'utpala', the side-glances of the eyes; by 'sasin', the face; by 'dvirada-kumbha-tati, the two breasts; by 'kadalikanda', the two thighs etc. are suggested the primary meaning of these words is totally brushed aside (= atyanta-tiras-krta) and the secondary sense is resorted to, which helps the suggestion of the vyangya or the suggested sense, which ultimately becomes subservient and renders charm to the expressed sense. Second variety of this type is seen when words with their expressed sense not concealed (i.e. a-tiraskrta) give rise to a suggested sense which is subordinated to the whole expressed sense of the sentence : (vrtti Dhv. III 34, pp. 224, and 226 reads as) - tatra vastu matrasya vyangyasya-tiraskrta-vacyebhyah pratiyamanasya kadacid vacya-rupa-vakyartha'peksaya gunibhave sati, gunibhutavyangyata yatha lavanya-sindhur-aparaiva... etc., atiraskata-vacyebhyopi sabdebhyah pratiyamanasya vyangya-sya kadacid vacya-pradhanyena kavya-carutva'peksaya gunibhave sati gunibhuta-vyangyata yatha udahttam-anuragavati sandhya..." ity evam adi."- The illustration of this second variety is "anuragavati sandhya" etc. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #574
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1129 Third variety is illustrated, as in "sanketakala-manasam vitam." etc., wherein the vyangya is subordinated by its own expression through some other words : "tasyaiva svayam uktya prakasikstatvena gunibhavah, yatha udahstam, 'sanketakala-manasam," ityadi. (Vrtti, Dhv. III. 34, pp.226). It may be noted that this variety depends more on the mode of conveying the suggested sense, rather than the type of suggested sense itself. The fourth variety occurs when suggested sense in form of sentiment and the like is subordinated to another principal rasa or sentiment and the like. Actually this is the field of alamkaras such as rasavat and the like : (vrtti, Dhv. III 34, pp. 226, ibid) : "rasa"di-svarupa-vyangyasya gunibhavo rasavad alamkare darsitah; tatra ca tesam adhikarika-vakyapeksaya gunibhavo vivahana-pravstta-bhrtyanuyayirajavat." "The subordination of sentiment, etc., to the main purport of the sentence in such instances can be likened to the circumstantial subordination of a king who has to walk behind his own servant when the latter is a bridegroom taken in procession." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 227, ibid). It may be noted that in this particular variety; illustrated as above by the stalk illustration viz. "ayam sa rasanotkarsi...." etc., we find that the fields of 'rasavad adi alamkaras and "gunibhuta-vyangya" mix and merge into each other. Anandavardhana does not attempt to draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between the spheres of both. We will go to observe that even Mammata has also failed to do the same, while as noted earlier in the classification of poetry attempted by Jagannatha we find a clear line of demarcation laid down between the areas of dhvani, gunibhutavyangya of a special type. and gunibhuta-vyangya covering a number of figures based on sense. i.e. arthalamkaras. Fifth variety is said to be there, when a suggested figure is subordinated as in case of the figure "dipaka" and the like : (vrtti, Dhv. III 34; pp. 226, ibid) : vyangyalamkarasya gunibhave dipaka"dir visayah". On finding out the special charm of the above mentioned fifth variety, Anandavardhama becomes so jubilant, that he declares : (Dhv. III. 35, and vitti thereon, pp. 226, ibid) : "prasanna-gambhirapadah kavyabandhah sukhavahah, ye ca tesu prakaroyam eva yojyah sumedhasa." (Dhv. III. 35). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #575
1130 SAHRDAYALOKA ye ca ete a-parimita-svarupah api prakasamanah tathavidhartha-ramaniyah santo vivekinam sukhavahah kavya-bandhas tesu sarvesu ayam eva prakaro gunibhutavyangyo nama yojaniyah yatha, "laksmir duhita, jamata harih, etc." "In all poetic compositions that look delightful by reason of their lucid and elegant words, only this variety of poetry should be recognised by the intelligent critic." (Dhv. III. 35) Despite the fact that poetic compositions which look lovely and bring delight to discriminating critics appear unlimited, this very variety, viz. poetry of subardinated suggestion should be recognised in all of them. For e "Laksmi is his daughter" etc. (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 227, ibid). Anandavardhana further adds : (Dhv. III. 36, and vrtti thereon; pp. 228) "vacyalamkara-vargoyam vyangyamsanugame sati, prayenaiva param cchayam bibhral laksye niriksyate." (Dhv. III. 36) vacyalamkara-vargoyam vyangyamiasya alamkarasya vastumatrasya va yathayogam anugame sati cchyatisayam bibhral laksanakaraih ekadesena darsitah. sa tu tatharupah prayena sarva eva pariksyamano laksye niriksyate." - "The whole seen in many an instance to put on a new charm when it is brought into touch with the suggested element." (Dhv. III. 36) - The earlier writers on poetics have themselves shown how a few of the figures of sense acquire a new charm, when they get into touch with the suggested element consisting of either a figure or a bare idea. But a scrutiny of instances will reveal that this is true of all the figures." (Trans. K. Kris, pp. 229, ibid). Anandavardhana further observes that as in the case of dipaka (i.e. Ellipsis) implying a simile, and samasokti (i.e. condensed metaphor), all other figures also seem to be containing the touch of another figure or another idea. For example, the touch of the figure atisayokti (i.e. exaggeration) can be said to be there in case of practically all the other figures of speech. Bhamaha has also said as such. Other alamkaras also follow the suit, though they cannot be seen to be contained in all the rest, as is the case with 'atisayokti.' Anandavardhana points out that in some figures, the said scope is limited to suggestion of certain figures only, e.g., 'preyas' is invariably seen in 'vyajastuti', and the like. In other figures, the said scope is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #576
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1131 further limited to suggestion of figures only, as against ideas, e.g. there is upama in 'samdeha' and the like. Yet other figures are found to be mutually involved, e.g. 'dipaka' and 'upama.' Anandavardhana then declares that-(vrtti, Dhv. III. 36. pp. 228, ibid) : "tad evan vyangyamia-samsparse sati carutvatisaya-yogino rupaka"dayolamkarah sarva eva gunibhuta-vyangyasya margah." "All figures, then, which contain a touch of suggestion at the same time owe their expressive charm due to that touch, deserve to be bought within the compass of poetry of subordinated suggestion." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 231. ibid). He adds (vrtti, Dhv. III. 36, pp. 232, ibid) : "tad ayam dhvani-nisyanda-rupo dvitiyopi mahakavi-visayo laksaniyah sahrdayaih. sarvatha nasty eva sahrdaya-hrdaya-harinah kavyasya sa prakaro yatra na pratiyamanartha-samsparsena saubhagyam. tad idam kavyarahasyam param iti suribhir bhavaniyam." -"Therefore, this second manifestation of suggestion too should be recognised by refined critics as a beautiful avenue for first-rate poets. Certainly, there is not variety of poetry holding out an appeal to the hearts of refined critics which does not attain artistic excellence by the slightest touch of suggested sense. The learned should deem this as the greatest secret of poetry." (Trans. K. Kris., 00. 233, ibid). Anandavardhana suggests (Dhv. III. 37, pp. 232, ibid) : "mukhya mahakavi-giram alamkrti-bhstam api, pratiyamana cchayaina bhusa lajjeya yositam." "anaya. suprasiddhopy-arthah kim api kamaniyakam aniyate." -"Even for such expressions of poets as are already adorned by figures, this shade of suggestion will be a most important ornament even as bashfulness will be for women." (Dhv. III. 37) -"By this shade, even a common-place will be invested with unique charm." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 233, ibid) Sixth variety of the gunabhuta-vyangya-kavya arises when another sense is suggested with the help of kaku, or ironic tone, i.e. intonation, e.g. in, "svastha bhavantu mayi jivati dhartrarastrah," etc. Anandavardhana holds that instances which can reasonably be brought under this class of poetry should not be classed under dhvani by cultured critics (Dhv. III. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #577
1132 SAHRDAYALOKA 40). For instance, in "patyuh sirascandrakalam anena..." etc., the suggested sense seems to be subordinated by the expression, viz. "nirvacanam jaghana." So, this should fall under gunibhuta-vyangya and not dhvani kavya. Anandavardhana, winds up the discussion with the words (Dhv. III. 40) "prakaroyam gunibhutavyangyopi dhvani-rupatam, dhatte, rasa"di-tatparyaparyalocanaya punah." gusibhuta-vyangyopi kavya-prakaro rasa-bhava"di-paryalocane punar dhvanir eva sampadyate." -"This class of poetry, viz. that with subordinated suggestion also assumes the form of Dhvani or that with principal suggestion, if one views it from the standpoint of exclusive purport of sentiments, etc." (Dhv. III. 40) When viewed from the standpoint of purport, viz. sentiment, etc., even poetry with subordinated suggestion will become poetry with principal suggestion itself." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 237, ibid). Thus it seems that from Anandavardhanas point of view, one and the same illustration can serve for both dhvani and gunibhuta-vyangya types of poetry, when viewed from different angles. This position, however. seems to be a little bit confusing and we miss a clear line of demarcation between these two types of poetry, Or-perhaps Anandavardhana did not wish that such water-tight compartments be imagined in case of poetry which refuses to be enclosed in just this or that groove. Any way, we have to wait for Jagannatha for a comparatively clearer and well-defined idea of the two, or perhaps, as noticed above, even he is also not very rigid. Poetry itself being an absract art does not entertain any labels of a permanent nature and this drives Kuntaka or, even Mahima to do what he has done. So, we see that in the Dhvanyaloka, we come aeross only six clear sub-divisions of the gunibhuta-vyangya kavya, though Anandavardhana has suggested the possibility of innumerable sub-varieties on account of the infinite variety of suggested sense. Out of these six, one consists of the 'rasavad adi' alamkaras. First two varieties are based on the suggestion of an idea based on either abhidha or laksana, and one variety depends on the subordinated alamkara-suggestion. The rest depend, as noted earlier, more on the mode of conveying the subordinated suggested sense; one on a faulty way of conveying wherein the suggested idea is as it were punctured by a direct expression, and the other on being conveyed through intonation (i.e. kaku). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #578
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1133 Abhibavaguptas attitude in this respect is quite characteristic of his general approach to poetry. For him, as noted at many places in his Locana, both vastudhvani and alamkara-dhvani ultimately terminate into rasa-dhvani which alone, virtually is the soul of poetry. So, in all the varieties of gunibhuta-vyangya according to the great Abhinavagupta, what happens is that first of all some suggested sense is subordinated to an expressed sense, which in its turm ultimately terminates into some other rasa-vyanjana. Thus for him all gunibhuta-vyangya is ultimately nothing else but dhvani-kavya itself. : "ata eva iyati vacyasya pradhanyam, tatha'pi rasa-dhvanau tasya'pi gunata iti sarvasya gunibhutavyangyasya prakare mantavyam. ata eva dhvaner atmatvam ity uktataram bahusah."- Locana, Dhv. III. 34. In Mammata, however, we come across a more systematic classification and division. He defines gunibhuta-vyangya poetry as : "a-tadnsi gunibhuta-vyangyam vyangye tu madhyamam" (K. P. I. 5ab): - "But when the suggested meaning is unlike that, (i. e. is not principal), it (poetry) is called mediocre wherein the suggested becomes subordinate." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, The Poetic Light; Kavyaprakasa of Mammata; Pub. Motilal Banarasidass, Edn. 67, Delhi). (pp. 13, ibid). He starts the ullasa V, K. P. with an eight-fold division of gunibhuta-vyangya poetry, wherein the following varieties are mentioned : (K. P. V. 45, 46 ab-pp. 138, ibid) : evam dhvanau nirnite gunibhuta-vyangyasya prabhedan aha :- . "aguNham aparasya'ngam vacya-siddhyangam a-sphustam, sandigdha-tulya-pradhanye ... kakva"ksiptam a-sundaram- (V. 45) vyangyam evam gunibhuta- . vyangyasya'stau bhidah smotah.". "Thus having determined the dhvani (the best type of poetry), the author now states the varieties of the poetry of subordinated suggestion. . (V. 45) (i) Non-concealed, (ii) subservient to another, (iii) subservient to the establishment of the expressed meaning, (iv) indistinct, (v) of doubtful prominence (vi) of equal prominence, (vii) implied by intonation, and (viii) non-striking." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi. pp. 139, ibid). As noted above, he calls this type of poetry to be 'madhyama' i.e. 'mediocre. dhvani' being 'uttama' or 'excellent and 'citra' being 'adhama' or 'low-class poetry.' For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #579
1134 SAHRDAYALOKA This sort of labelling is not to be met with in Ananandavard Abhinavagupta, though, of course, in a way perhaps implied in the latter. Mammata introduces the first sub-variety viz. 'agudha' with the words : "kamini-kuca-kalasavad gudham camatkaroti. agudham tu sphutataya vacyayamanam iti gunabhutam eva. aghudham yatha- "yasyasuhrt-ksta."... etc. "The hidden (meaning) produces charm in the manner of the jar-like breasts of damsels. But the one not hidden, being obvious, becomes as if direct Hence it is subordinate only. To illustrate the non-concealed (i.e. explicit) : "yasyasuhrt... etc." (Trans. R. C. Dwi., pp. 139).- In this example the word jivan' has a suggested sense, based on indication or laksana, with the arthantarasamkramita-vavya. The word "jivan' or 'living loses its original sense and acquires the sense of 'hated existence'. Yet another illustration is supplied which is based on atyanta-tiraskrta-vacya-dhvani being subordinated. In this illustration, the word 'cumbi' means 'touching and not 'kissing', In both these examples, the suggestion which is subordinated is itself "a-gudha" : e. 'not cocealed' and therefore not a source of any charm. So, we may say that this variety depends not only on the formal classification of dhvani, but also on the mode of conveying that particular dhvani or suggestion. Third illustration, viz. "atra"sit phanipasa." etc. also gives "a gudha" variety, in which resonant-like suggestion based on the power of sense (artha-sakti-mula-anuranana-rupa) is subordinated to the expressed sense. * In Aparanga-bhuta variety, Mammata incorporates all the alamkaras that fall under the rasavad-adi-class. This may be taken as an advance so to say, on Anandavardhana, who seems to take them as both 'alamkara' and gunibhutavyangya also. Mammata also extends the scope of this variety, when he herein incorporates the subordinated sense of the type of suggested figure based on the power of the word, i.e. sabda-sakti-mula-alamkara-dhvani. The next illustration is for the samlaksyakrama-vastu-dhvani being subordinated -vacyanga-to the expressed sense. The former is illustrated by the verse, viz. "jana-sthane bhrantam..." etc., in w suggested figure upama based on the power of word becomes subservient to the expressed element mentioned through the words viz. "maya"ptam ramatvam... etc., in which the behaviour of the hero which is suggested, rests on the expressed sense viz. the behaviour of the Sun and the lotus plant. * Thus we have in all ten examples of this variety, eight of which are concerned with subordinated rasa"di dhvani or the suggestion of sentiment and the like, and For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #580
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1135 the last two are concerned with subordinated alamkaradhvani and vastudhvani respectively. The difference between the second and the third varieties of the gunibhutavyangya type of poetry should be carefully noted. The second variety. viz. 'vacyanga' and the third variety vig. 'vacya-siddhy-anga' differ in the fact that while in the former the suggested sense becomes subordinated to an expressed sense, which is complete in itself, and does not stand in need (i.e. is 'nir-apeksa) of the support of the suggested sense; in the latter, however, the expressed remains incomplete til it gets the support of the suggested sense. 'vacya-siddhy-anga' is illustrated by two verses. In the verse viz. "bhramim aratim alasa-hrdayatam..." the suggested sense in form of "halahala" or "poison", i.e. the suggestion of vastu' or bare idea or fact, is subservient to the expressed sense in form of a serpent. The fourth variety viz. 'asphuta' can be contrasted with the first one. While in the first one, i.e. the a-gudha-variety, the fault lies in the suggested sense being too exposed, i.e. being not properly concealed, in this variety, the fault lies in the fact of its being too much concealed. The illustration is, "a-drste darsanotkantha, drste...", in which the subordinated suggested sense is too much concealed : "atha adrsto yatha na bhavati, viyoga-bhayam ca yatha na utpadyate tatha kuryah iti klistm." (K. P. V.) (pp. 150, ibid). This variety also can be said to depend not as much on the nature of the suggested sense, as on the faulty mode of conveying the suggested sense, as in case of the first variety. This is also the case with the following three varieties also. In the "samdigdha-pradhanya" variety, there is, as the name suggests, a doubt as to the preponderance of either the suggested sense, or the expressed sense; e.g., in the verse, vig., "haras tu kincit parivstta-dhairyah..." etc., The suggested sense in form of the desire to kiss and the expressed sense in form of the directing of eyes, seem to be equally powerful. : "atra paricumbitum aicchad iti kim pratiyamanam, kim va vilocana-vyaparanam vacyam pradhanam iti samdehah." (K. P. V) (pp. 150, ibid). Tulya-pradhanya the sixth variety occurs when the suggested sense and the expressed sense carry equal weight. The illustration is, "brahmanati-krama tyago bhavatam eva bhataye...." In this verse, The suggested sense, viz. that Jamadajna will destroy all the demons in the same way as he destroyed the ksatriyas, is equally powerful. : "atra jamadajnah sarvesam ksatriyanam iva raksasam ksanat-ksayam karisyati iti vyangyasya vacyasya ca samam pradhanyam." (K. P. V, pp. 150, ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #581
1136 SAHRDAYALOKA The seventh variety is one besed on the subordinated suggested sense, depending on intonation, i.e. kaku. The illustration is : "mathnami kauravasatam..." etc. Herein, the suggested sense viz. that, "I will kill", stands with the negation of the expressed sense : "atra mathnamy eva ity adi vyangyam vacya-nisedha-sahabhavena sthitam. (K. P. V. pp. 152, ibid). The eighth variety, called 'a-sundara' depends, as is implied by its name, on the indecent suggested content. Thus we come across a fresh principle of morality and the like. The example is : "vanirakudanguddina..." etc. The idea is that some paramour with whom an appointment was fixed, has entered the bower, and through this suggested fact, the expressed fact, viz. that of the house-wife feeling nervous, is rendered more charming. : "atra datta-sanketah kascil latagahanam pravistah iti vyangyat, 'sidanty angani' iti vacyam sa-camatkaram." Actually we wonder why this variety is given the name "a-sundara." For, a number of other illustrations elsewhere, such as, "kassa va na hoi roso...", such illicit relations are suggested. So, it is futile to bring in a "moral consideration;" for in love and war everything is fair and this variety could have been named 'sundara' where the expressed is rendered more charming by the un-expressed. Mammata further goes into the sub-divisions of gunibhuta-vyangya-poetry. He observes that : "esam bheda yathayogam veditavyas ca purva-vat. (K. P. 46 cd, pp. 152, ibid) He further observes : "vyajyante vastumatrena yada'lamkstayas tada, dhruvam dhvanyangata tasam kavya-vsttes tadasrayad" (Dhv. II. 29) iti, dhvanikarokta-disa vastumatrena yatralankaro vyajyate, na tatra gunibhutavyangyatvam. (K. P. V. pp. 152. ibid) -"The varieties of these (=eight kinds of subordinated suggestion) should be understood, as far as applicable, in the manner of the former case, (of the suggestive poetry). 'As far as applicable' means-when figures are suggested only by the matter itself, then they are invariably the part of suggestion; for the very procedure of poetry rests upon those, i.e. the suggested poetic figures. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #582
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1137 In the manner thus shown by the author of Dhvani, wherever the poetic fignre is suggested only by the matter itself, there is no sub-ordination of suggestion." (Trans. R. C. Dwi., pp. 153, ibid). Thus, instead of the fifty-one principal sub-divisions of dhvani or suggestive poetry, we have only 42 principal sub-divisions of gunibhuta-vyangya or poetry with subordinated suggestion. The alamkara, suggested by the three-fold vastu i.e. idea or matter, viz. svatah-sambhavi, kavi-praudhokti-siddha, and kavi-nibaddhavaktr-praudhokti-siddham which again is threefold each, viz. pada-gata, vakya-gata and prabandha-gata-is never subordinated to the expressed sense and thus does not give rise to the gunibhuta variety of poetry. Mammata further adds that by samspsti and samkara (i.e. by inter-mixture and collocation) with the other sub-divisions of dhvani and alamkara, the total mounts to a very great extent : "salamkarair dhvanes tais ca, yogah samsrsti-samkaraih, -(K. P. V. 47) (pp. 1 54, ibid). tad uktam dhvaniksta"sa-gunibhuta-vyangyaih salamkaraih saha prabhedaih svaih, sankara-samsrsti-bhyam punar apy udyotate bahudha" iti. "anyonya-yogad evam syad bheda-samkhya'tibhuyasi." (K. P. V. 47 cd). evam anena prakarena avantara-bheda-ganane ati-prabhutatara ganana. tatha hi sungarasyaiva bheda-prabheda-gananayam anantyam, ka ganana tu sarvesam." (K. P. V. pp. 154, ibid). Thus, it seems that Mammata has tried to treat the problem in a more systematic way as compared to Anandavardhana. Hemacandra, in a style so characteristic to him, reduces the divisions and subdivisions and accepts fundamentally only three varieties of gunibhuta-vyangyakavya, which he styles as 'madhyama' after Mammata. He observes' : "When (the suggested sense) is not (principal), when the predominance is doubtful or equal, 'madhyama' is three-fold : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #583
1138 SAHRDAYALOKA "asat-sandigdha-tulya-pradhanye madhyamam tredha.". Ka. sa. II. 58- (pp. 152, Edn. Parikh Kulkarni, 64, Bombay) 'a-sat-pradhanya' i.e. absence of predominance of the suggested sense at times results from either its being not more charming than the expressed sense e.g. in "vanira-kulam..." etc., or at times when the suggested sense is part of the expressed sense, (parangatarvena) as in, 'ayam sa rasanotkarsi..." etc. He observes : (pp. 152, ibid) : "asati, sandigdhe, tulye ca pradhanye vyangyasya madhyamam kavyam. tatra a-sat-pradhanyam, kvacid vacyad an-utkarsena, yatha-"vanira-kudam..." atra 'datta-sanketah kascil latagahanam pravistah' iti vyangyat'sidanti angani' iti vacyam eva satisayam. kvacit parangatvena, yatha, "ayam sa rasano..." etc. -atra songarah karunasya angam. (Ka. Sa. vTtti. on II. 58, pp. 152, 153). yatha ca, "janasthane-bhrantam" etc. etc. (pp. 154, 155, ibid). Hemacandra further observes (pp. 155 ibid), "kvacid a-sphutatvena, yatha, "ahayam ujju-a-rua...". ...etc. and also, "kvacid ati-sphutatvena, yatha, "sri-paricayaj jala api...". and then, "sandigdha-pradhanye yatha, 'mahila-sahassa-bharie..." and, "tulya-pradhanye yatha .: "brahmanatikrama-tyagah..." etc. (pp. 156, ibid). Thus for Hemacandra, the suggested sense becomes subservient to the expressed through 'a-sphutatva' or 'ati-sphutatva' i.e. by being very much concealed or being over-exposed. Hemacandra includes kakvadi-ksipta variety under "tulyapradhanya." It may be noted that Hemacandras treatment is even more precise and systematic as compared to his masters i.e. both Mammata and Anandavardhana. We feel happy that he has avoided giving such names as "a-sundara." Visvanatha closely follows Mammata and Anandavardhana in defining the gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya, and in giving the principal eight sub-divisions. He also quotes Anandavardhana and says : that when the suggested vastu (i.e. idea, matter), alamkara (figure), or rasa (sentiment etc.) is subordinated to some other principal rasa, this should be recognised as dhvani-kavya and not gunibhuta For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #584
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. vyangya. kin ca, yatra vastv-alamkara-rasa"dirupa-vyangyanam rasa"bhyantare gunibhavas tatra pradhana-krta eva kavya-vyavaharah tad uktam tenaiva"prakaroyam gunibhuta..." etc. (pp. 289, 290, S.D. IV. 14, Edn. with 'Laksmi tika, chaukhambha Sansk. Sansthan, varanasi, 1985 A.D.). This in a way, may be taken as an advance on Anandavardhana, in the sense that while Anandavardhana is inclined to give two names to one and the same piece of poetry when viewed from different points of view, Visvanatha makes up his mind and calls such poetry to be 'dhvani' only and not gunibhuta-vyangya. He further quotes the opinion of Candidasa who seems to hold that when one enjoys poetry, the experience is total in itself and is grasped by 'akhanda-buddhi' i.e. cognition which admits no parts, or by undivided mind, i.e. by the whole of the psyche. Only at a later stage, when one thinks of the context and the like, one realises the difference in type such as 'dhvani', gunibhuta-vyangya, etc., and eventhough this difference dawns upon one's mind at a later stage, one's former experience is not retarded, for it rests solely on taste: (vrtti, S. D. IV. 14 ab; pp. 291, ibid) "tad uktam asmad-gotra-kavi-panditamukhya-sri-candidasa-padaihvakya (vl. kavya) rthasya akhanda-buddhi-vedyataya- tanmayibhavena asvadadasayam guna-pradhana-bhavavabhasas-tavan na anunbhuyate, kalantare tu prakarana"di-paryalocanaya bhavan api asau na kavya-vyapadesam vyahantum isah; tasya asvadamatra"yattatvat," iti. 1139 Jagannatha offers a four-fold scheme of division of poetry in which he mentions uttamottama, uttama, madhyama and adhama as we saw earlier. What the Kashmir School takes to be 'gunibhuta-vyangya' is perhaps taken by him as 'uttama', which he defined as: "yatra vyangyam a-pradhanam eva sac camatkarakaranam tat dvitiyam." But we have faced certain difficulties in agreeing with this as observed earlier, for we are not agreeable to the idea of something to be designated both 'apradhana' as well as 'camatkara-karana' in the same breath. The stock illustration of a king joining the 'Vara-Yatra' of his ministers son does underline the importance of the bride-groom and not of the king. Of course, Jagannatha observes that the "eva-kara" in the definition is there to exclude such instances of poetry in which the suggested sense is at last principal (pradhana) with reference to the expressed (vacya) sense, but is rendered subordinate to yet another suggested sense : "kavya'peksaya pradhanibhutam vyangyantaram adaya gunibhutam vyangyam adaya ativyapti-varanaya avadharanam. tena tasya dhvanitvam eva." (R.G.). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #585
1140 SAHRDAYALOKA Jagannatha also, like Visvanatha discourages the application of double standards to such cases as, "ayam sa rasanotkarsi" etc. But we feel that Anandavardhana and those who agree with him seem to have a more flexible mind and they are open to consider various angles. Jagannatha further adds that by the use of the word 'camatkara' or Charm in the definition, he excludes instances of what may be called 'lina' or "too much concealed" suggestion, and also "vacyacitra" or poetry with figures of word and sense, as the only source of charm as 'adhama kavya'. As observed earlier, we fail to agree with Jagannatha when he observes that while both in 'uttamottama' variety and the 'uttama' variety, vyangya or suggested sense becomes the source of charm, yet there is a difference between the two brought about by the fact of the 'vyangya' being principal or subordinate. He also goes to include certain figures of sense such as 'samasokti', 'paryayokta', etc. into 'uttama' variety, because the source of charm lies in the subordinated suggested sense and not the expressed sense. Thus for him, there is a distinction between a figure and a figure. For Jagannatha, perhaps eventhough all the figures have some implicit element in them, as noted by Ananandavardhana earlier, all cannot be included in this "uttama" variety. It has to be admitted that even if we e with Jagannatha or not, this sort of a clear perception of the difference in the source of charm, and therefore a clear line of demarcation between 'dhvani' or 'uttamottama' and gunibhuta-vyangya of his 'uttama' variety on one hand, and arthalamkares or 'madhyama' type and also 'citra' or 'adhama' type on the other, may be taken as an original contribution of Jagannatha, for even Anandavardhana and Mammata have not perecived this. Thus we may observe that in Anandavardhana, there is no clear line of demarcation between 'dhvani', 'gunibhutavyangya' and 'artha-citra', and the subdivisions of gunibhuta-vyangya also are less systematic and do not carry this or that special names. But this is one way of looking at things. The other way is that perhaps the author of the Dhvanyaloka was more charitable in his approach and by neither naming them as 'uttama' 'madhyama' or 'adhama', nor by giving any specific names to the different types of gunibhuta-vyangya Anandavardhana has evolved a more catholic approach to the enjoyment of poetic art as is perhaps noticed in the view of Candidasa, the forefather of Visvanatha. * Mammata as we saw, gave a name and location to a certain taste, but Hemacandra again shows a better balanced approach by showing less enthusiasm regarding tendency of hair-splitting so common to Indian literary criticism in general. Hemacandra sides with his masters in case of the evaluation of such verses For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #586
Dhvani in kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1141 as "ayam sa rasanotkarsi" etc-, but Visvanatha is inclined more towards taking the same as 'uttama' kavya. Jagannatha as seen above has his own approach. Before we consider the variety of poetry called the 'citra' kavya, we may observe that, putting aside the approach of Kuntaka and Mahima, different types of appeal to taste in poetry, give rise to the tendeney to classify poetry into this or that t and then to give divisions and sub-divisions which tend to become pedantic and mechanical. Anandavardhana also has counted such sub-divisions. But later critics become a sort of prey to mechanical system of naming divisions and sub-divisions from, what we have termed as "criticism" point of view. Anandavardhana was wiser when he did not name the three types as "uttama", "madhyama" and "adhama". But Mammata does this and he is followed by a host of other critics. Hemacandra shows some descretion in cutting down the number of these mechanical divisions and sub-divisions, which again later critics, even Jagannatha including, seem to revive with greater force. It may be noted that Anandavardhana is inclined to be more charitable when he shows his preparedness to accept one and the same illustration of poetry as both dhvani' and 'gunibhuta-vyangya' and thereby indicate the nebulous and complex nature of poetry which is basically an abstract art. If at all we find some discrepancy in this, it is tolerable, for he errs on the safer side by allowing a widerscope to poetry. Jagannatha, when he tries to be more systematic in order to avoid the above mentioned contingency of calling one and the same piece of poetry by two names such as "dhvani" and also "gunibhuta-vyangya," he seems to fall into yet another trap as discussed by us above. As already seen by us, for Jagannatha, both in the "uttamottama" variety and "uttama" variety, vyangya' i.e. the suggested sense becomes the source of charm and yet there is a difference between the two brought about by the fact of the suggested sense being either "principal" or "subosdinate." However, we know that in poetry, a particular sense is called either 'principal' or 'subordinate' only from the point of view of its capacity to become a soure of charm. So his definition seems to involve a sort of self contradiction. Before we move on to consider citra' kavya, it may be noted that Jayadeva in the eighth mayukha (VIII.1) observes : "yad vyajyamanam manasah . staimityaya, sa no dhvanih anyatha tu gunibhuta-vyangyam apatitam tridha" For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #587
1142 SAHRDAYALOKA "That suggested (sense) which causes delight to. the mind, is 'dhvani' for us. If it is not so (i.e. if the suggested is not more charming than the expressed), it is 'gunibhuta-vyangya' for us. It is three-fold." Jayadeva gives three types of gunibhuta-vyangya but virtually accepts all the eight types of Mammata. Jayadeva seems to talk of 'prakata-vyangya', 'a-caru-vyangya' and 'carutara-vacya-vyangya' He observes (VIII. 2): (Candra"loka VIII. 2) "vyakta eva kvacid vyangyah kvacid artha-svabhavatah, kvacic carutarasya'gre sa vimuncati carutam." The suggested sense is 'vyakta' clearly at places. At places it is not charming and at other places it looses its beauty before 'vacya' which is more beautiful. The 'Paurnamasi commentary (pp. 258, Edn. Chawkhawba skt. series, Varanasi, '64) pp. 258, observes: "gunibhuta-vyangyasya traividhyam laksayati-"vyakta" iti. kvacid vyaktah prakatah vacya eva vyangyah. kvacid arthasya svabhavat svabhavikad arthad iti bhavah. vyangyo na caruh. kvacit sa vyangyah, carutarasya vacyasya agre carutam ramaniyatam vimuncati, tyajati. prakata-vyangyam ekam, acaru-vyangyam dvitiyam, carutara-vacya-vyangyam trtiyam iti trayo bhedah. saradagama-krnmate tu iyam yojana-"vyaktir eva" iti pathah. kvacid vyaktir eva, vyanjana eva carutam muncati ity ekah prakarah. kvacid vyangyorthah svabhavata eva carutam muncati ity aparah, kvacic carur apy arthah carutara sannidhanad acarur ity aparah, iti. atra mate 'arthah svabhavatah" iti bhinnam padam." (pp. 258, ibid). Thus for Jayadeva the suggested sense is at times 'spasta' or exposed, at times it is not beautiful by nature, and at times compared to an extremely charming expressed sense, it leaves its own beauty. He mentions all the eight varieties as mentioned by Mammata and correlates each one with the corresponding variety of dhvani. He is very clear however, with reference to 'asundara' which he rightly explains as : "a-sundaram yadi vyangyam syad vacyad a-manoharam." (VIII.9ab pp. 262, ibid) Thus if the suggested sense is "less charming" than the expressed sense, it is the case of 'a-sundara" variety. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #588
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1143 'Vidyadhara' in the IV th unmesa discusses the gunibhuta-vyangya-kavya and mentions its varieties without attempting a formal definition. He has 'a-gudhavyangya', 'aparanga-vyangya', 'vacya-siddhyanga', 'a-sphuta-vyangya', 'sandigdhapradhanya', 'tulya-pradhanya', 'kakva"ksipta' and 'a-sundara' varieties, discussed after Mammata. 'Vidyanatha' also with a quotation from the K. P., does the same. We have seen earlier what Visvanatha does. For him even more varieties than eight are possible as dipaka, etc. which have 'upama' suggested are also part of this type. It may be noted that whatever was respected by earlier alamkarikas under the guise of an alamkara, is accepted by the dhvani-vadins as part of gunibhutavyangya. Anandavardhana has clearly stated at Dhv. III. 36 (pp. 228, ibid) that "vacyalamkara-vargoyam vyangyamsanugame sati, prayenaiva param chayam bihral laksye niriksyate." "The whole host of figures is seen in many an instance to put on a new charm when it is brought into touch with the suggested element." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 229, ibid) Kesavamisra also follows the same tradition and Appayya in his "Citramimamsa" (pp. 23,) also echoes the same view. We have seen above the views of Jagannatha, who has a four-fold scheme of criticism-oriented classification. Citra-kavya is the third type of poetry enumerated by Ananda-vardhana, After explaining the first two varieties of poetry on the basis of the suggested sense being either principal or subordinate with reference to the expressed sense, and naming them respectively as "dhvani" and "gunibhuta-vyangya", Anandvardhana proceeds to discuss 'citra' kavya, which is different from these two, and is two-fold such as 'sabda-citra' and 'artha-citra', He observes: (Dhv. III. 41; 42; pp. 244, ibid). "pradhana-guna-bhavabhyam vyangyasyaivam vyavasthite, kavye ubhe; tatonyat tat citram ity abhidhiyate." (Dhv. III. 41) "citram sabdartha-bhedena dvividham ca vyavasthitam, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #589
1144 SAHRDAYALOKA tatra kincic chabda-citram vacya-citram atah param." (Dhv. III. 42).' -"These two classes of poetry are decided thus on the principal of importance or unimportance of the suggested content. That which is other than both is given the name of Portrait (citra)."- (III. 41) "Portrait-like poetry is also seen to be two-fold in asmuch as it is based either on word or on meaning. The first variety is word-portrait and the second, meaningportrait."-Dhv. III. 42.) (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 245, ibid). Anandavardhana observes : (vrtti, Dhv. III. 42) (pp. 244, 246, ibid) :"vyangyasya arthasya pradhanye dhvani-samjnitah kavya-prakarah, gunabhave tu gunibhuta-vyangyata tatonyad rasa-bhava"di-tatparya-rahitam vyangyarthavisesa-prakasana-sakti-sunyam ca kavyam, kevala-vacya-vacaka-vaicitryamartasrayenopanibaddham alekhya-prakhyam yad abhasate tac citram. na tan mukhyam kavyam. kavyanukaro hy asau. tatra kincic chabdacitram yatha duskara-yamaka"di. vacya-citram sabda-citrad anyad vyangya"rtha-samsparsarahitam pradhanyena vakhyarthataya sthitam rasa"di-tatparya-rahitam utpreksadi." "If the suggested content is all important, we get the class of poetry called dhvani' or poetry with principal suggestion; if the same is subordinate, we get the second class of poetry called, 'gunibhuta-vyangya', or poetry with subordinate suggestion; that class of poetry which is seen to differ from either, and which is destitute of purport relating to sentiments and emotions etc., which is devoid of the power to reveal any suggested content and which owes its construction only to the strikingness of the expressed meanings and expressions denoting them gets the name of 'Citra' or portrait. It is not poetry at all, strictly speaking. It is only an imitation of poetry. One of the sub-divisions of this poetry of portraiture is wordportrait such as rhyming repetition, and so on, whose employment involves much labour. The second sub-division differs from word-portrait and may be called .meaning-portrait. It will also be devoid of the suggested content and will be wanting in the purport of sentiments etc. Poetic fancy and such other figure illustrations of this." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 245, 247, ibid). Before we peoceed further with Anandavardhanas views we may observe that it is Anandavardhanas observation that, "na tan mukhyam kavyam. kavyanukaro hy asau"- which prompted Visvanatha to reject 'citra' as a variety of kavya. But the very fact that Anandavardhana has mentioned and discussed this variety shows that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #590
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1145 this was something which could not have been totally rejected. We will go to see that he almost concedes that there is nothing on earth, no description whatsoever, which could not have even distant relation with rasa"di i.e. aesthetic relish, in the sense that even bare descriptions make for uddipana-vibhava in someway or the other. It is exactly this possibility which promotes Anandavardhana to accept, however tacitly, this variety of poetry as poetry, may be only for the beginners. Anandavardhana further continues the discussion. He raises a question as to what is this 'Citra' kavya, and answers for himself that it is that variety where there is no touch of suggested content. Actually the suggested content is said to be threefold. The objector says that of these three types the absence of two viz.' vastu vyangya and alamkara-vyangya could be taken as the area of citra kavya. But in fact, no class of poetry is possible in which there is no involvement of rasa or bhava, etc.-: "yatra tu rasa"dinam a-visayatvam sa kavya-prakaro na sambhavaty eva." For there can be no poetry without theme or content or vastu : "yasmad a-vastusamsparsita kavyasya na upa-padyate." All the subjects in the universe become connected with some sentiment or emotion, at best in form of stimuli: "vastu ca sarvam eva jagad-gatam avasyam kasyacid rasasya bhavasya va angarvam pratipadyate, antato vibhavatvena." Sentiments are indeed so many states of mind; and nothing in the world can be imagined which does not bring about a particular state of mind in man. We may say that this is a great observation concerning human psychology. If anything is possible, which has no mental effect as its consequence, such a thing, then, can not be a poets concern at all. Now, when something does become a subject of the poets activity, how can one speak of it as 'citra' or bare portrait ? :" cittavrtti-visesa hi rasa"dayah; na ca tad asti vastu kincid yan na citta-vrtti-visesam upajanayati; tad anutpadane va kavi-visayata eva tasya na syat, kavi-visayas ca citrataya kascin nirupyate" It is possible that some poetic content takes the form of 'citra'. We may observe that it is this inherent beauty of any content which becomes the subject of a poets activity, and also the beauty in itself of a poets efforts that have prompted Kuntaka to accept Vaktrata' as the 'Jivita' i.e. soul of poetry in place of the suggested content. Anandavardhana knows that he cannot totally reject this approach to poetry. So, he accepts the fact that there is nothing on earth which is totally divorced from the cause of rasa-bhava etc. But, he came across many trivial efforts on the parts of pseudo-poets '"kavim manyamanah", who placed there worthless pieces as poetry. Perhaps Anandavardhana was sick of such efforts and we may say, quite For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #591
1146 SAHRDAYALOKA justifiably. Even we feel the same way when we read a lot of "trash" served in our mother tongue, Gujarati or Hindi or any, and denounce it as 'no poetry.' Thus, Anandavardhana, being more cultured and tolerant as compared to us, suggests that even if no species of poetry exists which absolutely does not convey sentiment, but all the same, if the poet is seen to have no exclusive intention to convery sentiments, emotions, etc. and if he is more keen on employing laboured figures only, either of sound or sense, we may take it to be having some content which is devoid of sentiments whatsoever. Such a poet has keenness of deploying figures only. The content of words in poetry is based only upon the poets intention. Actually, Anandavardhana concedes,-though some sort of apprehension of sentiments etc. is possible by force of the expressed sense itself even in instances wherein no such keen intention towards them is present on the poets part, still it will be negligibly slender and from this point of view also, one might justify the existence of a scope for 'Citra' type, (with apparent absence of rasa-bhava"di in it). Anandavardhana sums up the discussion in two verses: "rasa-bhava"di-visaya vivaksa-virahe sati, alamkara-nibandho yah sa citra-visayo matah." rasa"disu vivaksa tu syat tatparyavati yada, tada nasty eva tat kavyam dhvaner yatra na gocarah." (pp. 248, ibid). "The employment of figures in the absence of intention towards the purport of sentiments, emotions etc., should be regarded as an illustration of Portrait-like poetry. If on the other hand, there exists a sole intention towards sentiments, etc., no poetry can remain outside the sphere of dhvani or poetry of principal suggestion." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 249, ibid). Anandavardhana observes that: "etac ca citram kavinam visrnkhala-giram rasa"di-tatparyam anapeksya eva kavya-pravrtti-darsanad asmabhih parikalpitam. idanintananam tu, nyayye kavya-naya-vyavasthapane kriyamane, nasty eva dhvanivyatiriktah kavya-prakarah. yatah paripaka-vatam kavinam rasa"di-tatparya-virahe vyapara eva na sobhate. rasadi-tatparye, na ca nasty eva tad vastu yad abhimata For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #592
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1147 rasangatam niyamanam pragunibhavati. acetana api hi bhava yathayatham ucitarasa-vibhavataya cetana-vrttanta-yojanaya va na santy eva te, ye yanti na rasangatam. tatha ca idam ucyate-"apare kavya-samsare... ...". tasman nasty eva tad vastu yat sarva"tmana rasa-tatparyavatah kaves tad icchaya tad abhimata-rasangatam na dhatte. tathopanibadhyamanam va na carutvatisayam pusnati. tad evam idanintana-kavi -kavyanayopadese kriyamane prathamikanam abhyasarthinam yadi param citrena vyavaharah, praptaparinatinam tu dhvanir eva kavyam iti sthitam etat." (vrtti, Dhv. III. 42, pp. 248, 250, ibid) "This class of poetry, i.e., portrait like poetry, has been noted at all by us, because of the practice of poets who recognise no laws in their usage of words and who go about composing poems without any intention of incorporating sentiments, etc. therein. But if we should strictly apply the new principle of poetry laid down here, there can be no class of poetry other than 'dhvani' or poetry with principal suggestion. For, in the absence of whole-hearted intention towards sentiments etc., the very activity of poets will not appear charming; and contrariwise, in the presence of whole-hearted intention towards sentiments etc., there will be no subject which will not attain exceeding charm by being made an accessory of the intended sentiment. Even amongst insentient objects, there are none which will not become accessories of sentiment either by acting as stimuli towards the intended sentiment or at least by a metaphorical application of the behaviour of sentient objects to themselves. Hence it is that we say - "In the boundless realm of poetry, the poet alone is the creator, and as it pleaseth him, so doth this world revolve..." etc. .... Thus it is clear that there is absolutely no such subject which does not become an accessory of the intended sentiment by the poets desire, so long as his concern is solely with sentiment. Nor does it ever fail to acquire exceeding charm when so handled. All this is seen in the works of first-rate poets. In our own poetic compositions too, we have tried to illustrate these principles as far as possible. Thus viewed, all classes of poetry will come only within the sphere of 'Dhvani' or poetry with principal suggestion. From this stand-point of sentiment etc., on the part of the poet, even the class designated by the name of 'poetry of subordinated suggestion' will come only under the sphere of dhvani, as we already said. It has also been said that in quatrains of affectionate praise and devotional hymns, if sentiments etc. are regarded as subordinate and that in Prakrit verses known as Hrdayavatis and in some gnomic verses of For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #593
1148 SAHRDAYALOKA worldlywise men, if the expressed sense itself with an under-current of suggested sense strikes us as important, the reason is to be sought in the fact that the poetry of subordinated suggestion too, is a derivative of 'dhvani' itself. Thus, when we strictly apply the new principle of poetry enunciated here, we can speak of Portrait-like poetry only in a loose way, only as an aid to the understanding of beginners in the study of poetry. So far as persons, with well developed intellects are concerned, 'Dhvani' or poetry with principal suggestion alone will deserve the title of poetry." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 249, 251, etc. ibid). Anandavardhana sums up the discussion with the words- (pp. 250, ibid): "tad ayam atra samgrahah-' yasmin raso va bhavo va tatparyena prakasate, samvrttya' bhihitam vastu yatralamkara eva va. kavyadhvani dhvanir vyangya-pradhanyaika-nibandhanah sarvatra tatra visayi jneyah sahrdayair janaih." "Refined critics should understand that 'dhvani' whose sole condition is the principal nature of the suggested content embraces all instances of poetry, wherein is found a purposively conveyed sentiment or at least an idea or figure conveyed in a covert fashion."- (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 251, ibid). That Anandavardhana in his own way accepts citra-kavya but, eventhough he has given a three-fold criticism-oriented clasification of poetry, his preference for 'dhvani' with priedominance of rasa, bhava etc., is absolutely clear. Among his posteriors, Mahima had shown a very strong and biased attitude supporting only that peotry as poetry wherein there is 'rasanumiti' or "inference of rasa" alone. So for him, let alone 'citra', even the so called 'gunibhuta-vyangya' was unacceptable as whatever was inferred (i.e. suggested in the view of the dhvanivadin) was necessarily superior, i.e. more charming and therefore principal, as compared to the expressed or vacya, for him. Thus for him only the 'dhvani' kavya of Anandavardhana was acceptable. We have suggested earlier in detail Kuntakas approach also which was too wide as against this too narrow attitude of Mahima. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #594
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1149 Mammata, we will go to observe, uses the term "adhama" or "low-class" i.e. worst type of poetry for this so called 'citra' kavya. This for him (K. P. I. iv) is "avara" and is two-fold such as "sabda-citra" and "artha-citra" as suggested by Anandavardhana. Mammata also observes that (K. P. VI). "yadyapi sarvatra kavye antato vibhava"dirupataya rasa-paryavasanam, tatha'pi sphuoasya rasasya anupalambhad a-vyangyam etat kavya-dvayam uktam. atra tu sabdarthalamkara-bhedad bahavo bhedah, te ca alamkara-nirnaye nirnesyante." (K. P. VI., pp. 192, End. R. C. Dwivedi, ibid). "Though everywhere in poetry, ultimately the character being that of the determinant and the rest, there is culmination in the rasa (i.e. all poetry delineating the vibhavas etc., is ultimately posited in rasa). Yet these two kinds of (portrait-) poetry, because of the absence of distinct sentiment, are devoid of suggestion. But of this (portrait-poetry) there are many varieties on account of the divisions of the poetic figure into that of the word and the sense. These will be taken up at the time of elucidation of the figures." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 193, ibid). Vidyanatha has something else to say about 'citra' kavya. While others take 'asphuta-vyangya' as variety of gunibhuta-vyangya, Vidyanatha takes it to be 'citrakavya? He observes (pp. 51, Prataparudriya, Edn. Madras, 1914 A. D., C.Chandrasekhara Sastrigal) : "vyangyasya pradhanyapradhanyabhyam a-sphutatvena ca, trividham kavyam, vyangyasya pradhanye uttamam kavyam dhvanir iti vyapadisyate. a-pradhanye madhyamam gunibhuta-vyangyam iti giyate. vyangyasya a-sphutatve adhamam kavyam citram iti giyate." ... (pp. 52, ibid). "citram trividham sabda-citram artha-citram ubhayacitram ca iti." Thus for him, even in gunibhuta-vyangya the "vyangya' or suggested sense has to be "sphuta" or clear. 'asphusa-vyangya', for him, gives rise to 'citra' which is 'adhama'. Thus he adopts the terminoogy of both Anandavardhana and Mar but with a difference that his 'citra' or 'adhama' is not "a-vyangya" i.e. it is not "without suggested sense totally." Thus the prima facie view,-advanced in the Dhv. and practically accepted by Anandavardhana that no poetic content worth its name could be totally bereft of suggestivity as, in one way or the other, even as a stimuli, it is connected with the mental states (cittavstti) and therefore with 'rasa', which in itself is "manasa-cittavrtti-rupa",-is acceptable to Vidyanatha. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #595
1150 SAHRDAYALOKA Visvanatha is clear when he accepts only 'dhvani' and 'gunibhuta-vyaugya' as varieties of kavya and rejects the third type-"citra" as it is without a touch of He has an interesting discussion : He observes : (S. D. with Laksmi, Edn. '85, Chowkhamba SK-Samsthan, Varanasi) (pp. 291, ibid): - "kecic citra"khyam trtiyam kavya-bhedam icchanti. tad ahuh :- "sabda-citram vacya-citram a-vyangyam tv avaram smrtam" iti. tan na; yadi hi a-vyangyatvena vyangyabhavas tada tasya kavyatvam api nasti, iti prag eva uktam. isad-vyangyam iti cet, kim nama isad-vyangyam ? asvadya-vyangyatvam, anasvadya-vyangyarvam va ? adye pracina-bhedayor eva antahpatah; dvitiye tv akavyarvam. yadi ca asvadyatvam tada a-ksudratvam eva, ksudratayam anasvadyatvat. tad uktam dhvanikrta "pradhana-gunabhavabhyam vyangyasyaivam vyavasthite ubhe kavye tatonyat tac citram ity abhidhiyate." iti. - "Some want a third variety of poetry called 'citra'. They have said, "Poetry without suggestion is said to be of low type-(=avaram), and it is two-fold such as that portrait-like which is based on sound (i.e. word) and the other which is based on sense (i.e. artha). This cannot be accepted. If by 'a-vyangyatva' i.e. absence of suggestion is meant (total) absence of suggestion, then it ceases to be poetry at all. This we have made clear even before. If (by a-vyangya) it is meant to be "having slight suggestion", then also we ask, "what is this having slight suggestion ?" Is the suggested sense (present here) is an object of relish or not? If the first alternative is accepted, (this type) falls within the area of the first two varieties (i.e. dhvani or gunibhuta-vyangya) as suggested by the ancients. If the second alternative is accepted (i.e. of vyangya' not being relished) it ceases to be poetry. If it is an object of relish then it (=suggested sense) ceases to be feeble, for if it is feeble it cannot be relished. It is said (by Dhvanikara) -"When suggested sense is determined to be either principal or subordinate, (we get) two types of poetry. Anything else than that is said to be citra." Thus Visvanatha does not favour recognition of citra and also seems to argue that Anandavardhana held the same view. One thing is certain that Anandavardhana has placed his arguments in such a way that we may or may not take him to support citra'; both these interpretations being seemingly right. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #596
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunibhuta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1151 Kesavamisra (pp. 11, Alamkara sekhara, Edn. N. S. Bombay, '26;)- Observes : "camatkstihetu-vyangya-rahitatvam adhamatvam." yatha, "vandamahe mahesana..." atra vyangyah kopyarthas tadrso nasti. atra sarvatra vaktur eva tatparyam niyamakam. taj jnanam eva bodhopayogi. tad abhavad adhamam ity ucyate." Kesava, accepting the terminology viz. "adhamam" does not use the word 'citra' He does not go into its two or three types either. He gives an illustration and observes that here whatever be the suggested sense, it is not tadrsa' i.e. 'camatkrtihetu' i.e. that which causes 'camatkrti' or instantaneous joy. He further observes,and perhaps he echoes Anandavardhanas word, "tatparya" i.e. primary intention of the speaker-that here everywhere (i.e. in all the three types) the import of the speaker is the deciding factor (i.e. if he intends that the suggested sense be taken as principal, it is termed dhvani, if subordinate then it is gunibhutavyangya, and if the suggestion is not causing any camatkara, it is 'adhama' kavya). Thus the knowledge of the import) is the cause of apprehension in the form of a particular poem being taken as either uttama or madhyama or adhama). . Thus in the absence of (such a) (suggested sense), it is said to be 'adhama.' Appayya Diksita has an independent work called "Citramimamsa". Even though he was a great supporter of dhvani, by writing an independent treatise on 'citra'-kavya, he has presented great scientific thinking which has impressed and inspired even the great Jagannatha to devote much space to the consideration of alamkaras. The Citra-mimamsa (pp. 27), observes : "yad a-vyangyam api caru tac citram", i.e. that which is without suggestion and yet charming is said to be 'citra'. Thus Appayya seems to accept the possibility of there being poetry even in the absence of suggestion'. Here 'a-vyangya' is to be understood as "that type of poetry having 'a-sphura' i.e. 'not clear' suggestion. This is the explanation of some commentators. So, the variety of poetry having charm caused by guna and alamkara, is said to be "citra'. One thing is clear that Appayya wants 'apprehension of beauty'-'carutva-pratiti' as a condition for 'citra' also. He gives three sub-varieties such as sabda-citra', 'artha-citra', and 'ubhaya-citra'. He observes that sabda-citra being practically 'nirasa' i.e. without 'rasa', is not honoured by poets. Or, perhaps there is nothing in it which stands serious thinking. Therefore Appayya does not go in any detailed discussion on sabda-citra and goes ahead with 'artha-citra'. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #597
1152 SAHRDAYALOKA It may be noted that the dhvanivadins have practically treated all figures of both, sound (=sabda) and sense (i.e. artha) as 'citra' or 'avara' kavya in general. It is only Jagannatha who picks up some alamkaras under what he terms 'uttama' and some others under 'madhyama'. For Jagannatha, who offers a four-fold scheme of classification, 'artha-citra', is not placed on a par with 'sabda-citra', which for him is lesser poetry. For him where the beauty (camatkara) of the expressed is not on equal footing-"a-samanadhikarana"- with the suggested or 'vyangya', is the third type of poetry. This means that when we have the beauty of the expressed placed higher than that of the suggested it makes for the third type of poetry, i.e. 'madhyama' kavya. But when we have the beauty of the sound-'sabdaas principal and that of sense is subordinated to it we have a fourth type of poetry, which is termed 'adhama' by Jagannatha. It may be noted that here Jagannatha expects that the beauty caused by word is necessarily enhanced by the subordinated beauty caused by sense. He suggests that in this variety also there is at least some presence of the suggested sense, but it certainly does not cause beauty in any way and is therefore not at all intended-avivaksita'-and so subordinate-'a-pradhana'also. For him, in 'adhama' variety of poetry, the artha-camatksti or beauty caused by sense is necessarily absorbed in sabda-camatkrti, i.e. beauty caused by word. But in a case, where there is total absence of any beauty caused by sense i.e. where only 'sabd-camatkrti' prevails, i.e. such illustrations of poems as "ekaksara-padya', "ardha"vrtti-yamaka", etc.- this type has to be taken as no poetry at all. This can not be taken as a fifth variety called "adhama-dhama" i.e. 'worse than the worst, because it can never fulfill the basic condition of poetry viz. "ramaniyarthapratipadakatva', i.e. "that which brings up beautiful meaning." When there is no "kavyatva" at all in such a composition as "ekaksara-padya", it is useless to call it a fifth variety, for it will be equivalent to follow a blind tradition. Jagannatha ends the topic by supporting his four-fold scheme by observing that the difference between sabda-citra' and 'artha-citra' being self-evident, it is useless and illogical to brand them equally as "adhama". Even in the absence of any equality if both are taken as identical, then we should put aside our opinion taking 'dhvani' and 'gunibhuta-vyangya' as separate. With this ends the classification of poetry, that we term as "criticim-based." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #598
Chapter XIII 'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna, alamkara, samghatana, riti, vrtti, etc. etc., and also Dhvani-virodha It has been already noted by us at a number of places that Anandavardhana had offerred a most catholic theory of poetic criticism viz. the theory of dhvani which tried to absorb and accomodate all other thought-currents prevelent in the field of literary criticism. In fact he was opposed to no concept whatsoever floated by any earlier school of alamkarikas, but actually welcomed them all, embraced them with love and made room for each concept in his all-absorbing vyanjanadhvani-rasa theory of literary criticism. May be, he tried to give a definite shape to certain concepts that were hazy or nebulous, or with an authority silenced all conflicting notions concerning this or that concept and brought about a chiseled. concept regarding the same. He tried to fix a sort of final terminology concerning various concepts and his opinion was by and large respected and accepted by majority of critics who followed him with exceptions of only a few. In the present chapter we will try to examine how his catholic theory brought about a sort of harmony in the field of literary aesthetics. Thus he ably harnessed all the concepts of guna, alamkara, etc. and put them under the supreme control of 'dhvani' or better say "rasa-dhvani" as the commander-in-chief. Let us see how tactfully he proceeds with this job. But it should be made clear that in this regard he had the able support of Aphinavagupta, Mammata, Hemacandra and the whole galaxy of writers ending with Appayya Dixit and Jagannatha. With all this there was some opposition to dhvani and we will take care of it by the end of this chapter. At Dhv. II. 6 he starts with the concepts of guna and alamkara and their exact place in his wider scheme. But prior to that he had successfully dealt with the concept of what was termed as "rasavad adi alamkaras." He had made a clear distinction between what he terms 'rasa-dhvani' and what should be taken as For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #599
1154 SAHRDAYALOKA "rasa"di-alamkara". The earlier writers such as Bhamaha, Dandin etc. could not distinguish between the two but Anandavardhana accepted either and distinguished clearly between their areas of operation. When rasa is central how can it be termed an alamkara ? This was his main argument. But when rasa performs the act of an alamkara, i.e. when it serves to decorate some other central idea, it is to be taken as an 'alamkara'. Thus 'alamkaras' are beautifying agents and add to the beauty of the central idea i.e. rasadhvani in poetry. This act of rendering beauty or enhancing the beauty of a central idea makes for the very life breath of an alamkara. Says he (vrtti, Dhv. II.. 5, pp. 44, ibid) :- tatha ca ayam atra samksepah "rasa-bhavadi-tatparyam asritya vinivesanam, alamkstinam sarvasam alamkaratva-sadhanam.". i.e. "It is only the employment of figures, one and all, in view of the main purport of sentiment. emotion, etc., that really justifies their being regar sources of charm." (Trans. K. Kris..., pp. 45, ibid). With 'Dhvani' or, say, rasa-dhvani as the soul of poetry, i.e. it being in the centre, all other concepts become suggestors or vyanjakas of rasa-dhvani, thus creating a harmonious design where everything falls in its place so rightly. True, it required the genius of Anandavardhana to evolve such an all-embracing scheme and of course, those who did not fall in line with him by rejecting vyanjana, i.e. the alamkarikas such as Mahima, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, or others such as Kuntaka, Bhoja, or even Mukula or Priteharenduraja, fell in line in accepting 'rasa' as the central idea in poetry, with everything rotating around that. So, for gunas or excellences and alamkaras or beautiful turns of expression or figures of speech. Anandavardhana observes : (DHV. II. 6., pp. 48, ibid) "tam artham avalambante ye'nginam te gunah smotah, anga"sritas tv alamkarah mantavyah katakadivat." ye tam artham rasa"dilaksanam anginam santam avalambante te gunah, saurya"divat. vacya-vacaka-laksanany angani ye punarasritas te'lamkarah mantavyah kataka"divat. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #600
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1155 "Those which inhere in this principal element are regarded as qualities (=excellences). And figures are to be known as those that are associated with its parts even like ornaments such as the braeclet." (II. 6) Those that ever inhere in the principal element of poetry) viz. sentiment etc., are qualities like the quality of valour and so forth (in the world). On the other hand, those that relate to its component parts only, viz., the expressed sense and the expression, are to be regarded as figures or ornaments like the bracelet and so on (in the world)." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 49, ibid)., Anandavardhana clearly observes that 'gunas' or excellences are primarily connected with 'rasa"di', the soul like bravery or other quality of a person, and figures are like ornaments placed on a human body. Now, we have to be very careful in understanding this metaphorical use of language. Actually poetry itself is an abstract art, it is abstraction, and so there is nothing physical about it in the sense in which we understand physicality. It is foolish,-and some of the so called selfanointed experts of sahitya-sastra who write in Hindi, or any other modern Indian language such as Gujarati, or even some of those who write in English today look absolutely foolish when they hold that alamkaras or figures of speech are "external" to poetry like external ornaments put on physical body. No; it is never like that. Actually beauty in poetry takes various shapes and forms some of which are grasped by even those who are not capable of digging deep into the matter, while others are grasped only by those who can interpret subtle experiments by a good poet, i.e. a real maha-kavi. Alamkaras or figures are those forms of poetic beauty which are easily understood and therefore enjoyed by readers of mediocre celibre also. It does not require deeper sensitivity to discern an alamkara. Thus, metaphorically speaking, poetic figures are like ornaments external to our body and such things which could be sighted by almost all. So, this form of poetic beauty is as easily discernible as an ornament placed on a human body. This does not make it as external as the physical ornament which can be taken off, changed, sold, replaced and even put into a bank-loker when not required. An upama of Kalidasa is not that way replaceable or something which can be removed from his poetry without harming the inherent poetic beauty. Thus an alamkara is as inherent as any other source of beauty in poetry, Anandavardhana will explain this later but for the present by resorting to this metaphor he only wants to suggest that poetic beauty has various forms, some of which are easily discernible, while others are comparatively more subtle to be grasped only by men of highly cultivated taste. Here, 'guna' is held to be subtler than 'alamkara'. This way only we have For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #601
1156 SAHRDAYALOKA to understand the various concepts of literary criticism as laid down by all alamkarikas, known or unknown, beginning with say, Bhamaha, down to Jagannatha or even someone posterior to him. With this clear understanding of the basics of alamkarasastra we will proceed to see how Anandavardhana accomodates various concepts in his wider scheme. Anandavardhana, while discussing. the concept of samghatana almost concedes the position that gunas or qualities or excellences belong to word and sense. But then it is metaphorically so. Primarily in his opinion gunas reside in rasas, i.e. they are qualities of soul, while alamkaras are primarily the attribates of sound and sense. Here, we discuss only the theroratical position that he' allots to various concepts. We do not go into the details of which gunas he accepts and also their individual definitions. This we propose to do later in a separate chapter in Vol. II. For the present, we underline only one point that for Anandavardhana rasadhvani is the central theme in poetry; the pivot round which all other concepts evolve with the relation of vyangya-vyanjaka, i.e. suggestor and suggested. It is therefore that while dealing with the central theme of rasa-dhvani with its innumerable. possible divisions and sub-divisions, he takes care to supply instructions to poets as to how they sould entertain alamkaras in kavya. The basic condition that he lays down is that alamkaras are welcome to poetry and are as much 'internal i.e. 'antaranga' to poetry as any other concept, given the condition that they, i.e. alamkaras should find place in poetry in an effortless or natural way, i.e. they should be 'a-prthag-yatna-nirvartya'. They should take shape naturally while the poet is concentrating on 'rasa' as the central theme. It is because of this, i.e. because such figures of sound as 'anuprasa' or 'yamaka', which require a special effort on the part of a poet, that Anandavardhana does not encourage their presence in poetry. Expecially when the erotic sentiment is in the centre, alliteration i.e. anuprasa, not being condusive to it, has to be avoided (Dhv. II. 14). He gives some cencession to 'anuprasa' when 'srngara'-rasa is not principal in a given literary piece. But 'yamaka' i.e. assonance has to be carefully avoided when there is any context of songara-(Dhv. II. 15), and more so in case of vipralambhasrngara' i.e. love-in-separation. This, i.e. discouragement of 'anuprasa and yamaka' is recommended only because these figures command a special attention of the poet for their formation and therefore the poet has to deviate from the path of 'rasa-nirupana'. With this Anandavardhana embarks upon providing general principles guiding delineation of figures in poetry, He must have observed that many a poet goes astray and falls in love with delineation of alamkaras, having the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #602
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1157 central objective of rasa-realisation in poetry. So, he gives certain instructions. He observes : (Dhv. II. 16, 17, 18, 19), atra yuktir abhidhiyate - "rasa"ksiptataya yasya bandhah sakyakriyo bhavet, a-ppthag-yatna-nirvartyah solamkaro dhvanau matah-(Dhv. II. 16) "dhvanyatma-bhute songare samiksya vinivesitah rupaka"dir alamkara-varga eti yatharthatam."- (Dhv. II. 17) "vivaksa tat-paratvena na'ngitvena kadacana, kale ca grahana-tyagau na'tinirvahanaisita " (Dhv. II. 18) "nirvyudhav api cargatve yatnena paryaveksanam, rupaka"der alamkara vargasya'ngarva-sadhanam." (Dhv. II. 19) "Only that is admitted as a figure of suggestive poetry, whose employment is rendered possible just by the emotional suffusion of the poet and which does not require any other extra effort on his part." - (Dhv. II. 16) * "The galaxy of figures like metaphor becomes truely significant (i.e. will be real ornaments) when they are employed with great discrimination in instances of the Erotic sentiment which is intrinsic to dhvani" (i.e. when the Erotic is in the centre of suggestive poetry). (Dhv. II, 17) "The sole consideration that it is only a means to the delineation of sentiment and never an end in itself, the necessity of employing it at the right time and of abandoning it at the right time; the absence of over-enthusiasm on the poets part in pressing it too far, and finally, his keen watchfulness in making sure that it remains a secondary element only-these are the various means by which figures like metaphor become accessories (of suggested sentiment." (Dhv. II. 18, 19) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #603
1158 SAHRDAYALOKA (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 59, 61, 63, ibid) In his vrtti on Dhv- II. 16 Anandavardhana clearly states that "tasman na tesam bahirangatyam rasa'bhivvaktau." (pp. 60. ibid. "Hence they are never extraneous to the delineation of sentiment." (Trans- K. Kris., pp. 61, ibid). After giving a number of illustrations to prove his point, Anandavardhana at the end of the discussion observes : (Vitti, Dhv. II. 19, pp. 70, ibid) : "sa evam upanibadhyamano-lamkaro rasabhiyyakti-hetuh kaver bhavati. uktaprakara'tikrame tu niyamena eva rasa-bhanga-hetuh sampadyate. laksyam ca tathavidham mahakavi-prabandhesv api drsyate bahusah, tat. tu, sukti-sahasradyotita"tmanam mahatmanam dosoddharanam atmana eva dusanam Bhavati iti. na vibhajya darsitam. kim tu rupaka"der alamkara-vargasya ya iyam vyanjakatve rasa"di-visaye laksana-dig-darsita tam anusmaran svayam ca anyal laksanam utpreksamano yady alaksya-krama-pratibham anantaroktam 'enam dhvaner atamanam upanibadhanati sukavih samahita-cetah, tasya atmalabho bhavati mahiyan iti." "A figure of speech thus utilized by a poet will succeed in revealing sentiments. In case the conditions laid down be transgressed, it invariably becomes a destroyer of sentiment. Even this is seen amply illustrated in the works of great poets. But it has not been shown in detail here, since a loud exposure of the defects of great men who have the bright light of a thousand good sayings about them, would amount to a censure of the critic himself. But it deserves to be reiterated that the poet will have best fulfilled his purpose only when he exercises concentration in infusing his work with the soul of suggestion 'with undiscerned sequentiality described above, follows faithfully the mentioned ways in which the galaxy of figures like metaphor can be harmonised with delineation of sentiment and imagines for himself the other details left unsaid herein." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 71, ibid), In Dhv. II. 2,3,4, Anandavardhana goes to suggest how rasadhvani is arrived at in poetry through the agency of letters, words, sentence, construction or composition and the work as a whole. He observes : (Dhv. III. 2,3,4) : yas tv alaksyakramavyangyo dhvanir vammapada"disu, vakye samghatanayam ca sa prabandhe'pi dipyate. (Dhv. III. 2) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #604
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1159 tatra varnanam anarthakatvad dyotyatvam asambhavi ityasankya idam ucyate "sasau sa-refa-samyogo dhakaras ca'pi bhuyasa, virodhinah syuh songare te na varna rasas cyutah." (Dhv. III. 3) "ta eva tu nivesyante bibhatsa"dau rase yada, tada tam dipayanty eva tena varna rasascyutah." (Dhv. III. 4) "suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality will flash forth in letter, word etc., sentence, composition and finally the work as a whole." (Dhv. III. 2.) The objection that letters cannot be suggestive because they are meaningless by themselves is answered below - "The (sanskrit) letters 's" and 's', letters conjunct with r', and 'dh', - all these become deterrents of the erotic sentiment. Hence those letters are not condusive to a particular sentiment." (Dhv. III. 3) "When these very letters are employed in relation to the sentiment of disgust and so forth, they will only intensify them. Hence also letters suggest sentiments.". (Dhv. III. 4) * The above aphorisms show negatively and positively that letters do possess suggestiveness. Next, Anandavardhana illustrates how a word becomes suggestive of rasa. He also shows through illustrations how a part of a word and also a sentence are capable to suggest rasa. He explains that the suggestivity of a sentence is twofold, i.e. pure and mingled as when it either carries a figure of speech in it or not. All this is duly illustrated. After this he comes to samghatana' or construction of a sentence (Dr. Krishnameorthy translates 'samghatana' by the term 'composition.' We feel that this word 'Composition should be reserved, for a whole work. Later, he gives the word texture. Which is acceptable to us.) Prior to explaining how a 'samghatan becomes 'suggestor of rasa, Anandavardhana dwells upon the full explanation of the concept of samghatana and its relationship with gunas. This we will look for in a separate chapter later (in vol. II) but for the present we are concerned only with the fact that for Anandavardhana, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #605
1160 SAHRDAYALOKA the concept of samghatana, which has its boundaries somewhat mixed up with those of riti or vrtti, is also suggestive of rasa in poetry and is therefore welcome as a suggestor or suggestive element i.e. vyanjaka, in poetry. Anandavardhana observes that the threefold samghatana, residing in gunas, becomes suggestive of rasa in poetry and the conditions that control this suggestivity are said to be propriety-i.e. aucitya-of the speaker and the thing described. He observes : Dhv. III. 5,6, pp. , 6 ibid) : "a-samasa samasena madhyamena ca bhusita tatha dirgha-samaseti tridha samghatanodita." (Dhv. III. 5) tam kevalam anudya, idam ucyate"gunan asritya tisthanti madharyadin; vyanakti sa rasan, tan niyame hetur aucityam vaktr-vacyayoh."- (Dhv. III. 6) "Texture" is said to be of three kinds : (1) Without compounds (2) With mediumsized compound and (3) With long compounds."- (Dhv. III. 5) "Composition or texture is grounded in qualities like sweetness and suggests sentiments. The propritety or decorum of the speaker and the spoken is the consideration which governs it." (Dhv. III. 6) (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 119, 127 ibid). He further observes at Dhv. III. 7 that, "visaya"srayam apy anyad aucityam tam niyacchati, kavya-prabheda"srayatah sthita bhedavati hi sa." (pp. 128, ibid) "Another consideration which governs the usage of a texture is its decorum with regard to the literary medium adopted. Texture thus becomes different in different forms of literature."- (Trans. K. Kris; pp. 129, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #606
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,....... 1161 Anandavardhana holds that in literature in general, be it prose or verse, texture or construction takes its own shape following the central theme of rasa-dhvani and thus serves as a vyanjaka i.e. suggester of rasa. It varies even with the subject - matter or theme. He observes : "rasa-bandhoktam aucityam bhati sarvatra samsrita racana visayapeksam tat tu kincid vibhedavat." (Dhv. III. 9) (pp. 132, ibid) "Texture with decorum in the delineation of sentiments will shine out wherever it might be found. It will, however, assume a shade of variation coupled with decorum of literary medium." (Trans. K. Kris; pp. 133, ibid) Thus, after considering pada i.e. a word, padamia (=part of word). vakya (=sentence) and samghatana (i.e. sentence-construction or texture) in a relation of vyangya-vyanjaka, Anandavardhana turns his guns towards 'prabandha' i.e. a major composition, both prose and verse in relation to rasa-dhvani, and suggests that a major composition has to be rasa-centred and for bringing about this result, Anandavardhana suggests a number of conditions, which when observed make such a composition rasa-centred and therefore successful. How a whole work of a greater magnitude becomes a suggester of rasa is explained by Anandavardhana at Dhv. III. 10-14, with apt illustrations and explanations with elaboration in the vrtti or gloss concerned. We will not go into all the minute discussion here but will concern ourselves with what basics he expects for a whole work to become suggestive of rasa. He observes : (Dhv. III. 10-14; pp. 134; 136 ibid) "idanim a-laksya-krama-vyangyo dhvanih prabandha"tma ramayana-mahabharata"dau prakasamanah prasiddha eva. tasya tu yatha prakasanam tat pratipadyate. "vibhavanubhavasancaryaucitya-carunah, vidhih katha-sarirasya vittasyotpreksitasya va." (Dhv. III. 10) "iti-vstta-vasayatam tyaktva' nanugunam sthitim. utpreksya'py antara'bhista-rasocita-kathonnayah." (Dhv. III. 11) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #607
1162 "sandhi-sandhyanga-ghatanam rasa'bhivyakty apeksaya na tu kevalaya sastra sthiti-sampadanecchaya." (Dhv. III. 12) "uddipana-prasamane yathavasaram antara rasasyarabdha-visranter anu-samdhanam anginah."- (Dhv. III. 13) "alamkrtinam saktavapy anurupyena-yojanam. prabandhasya rasa"dinam vyanjakatve nibandhanam." (Dhv. III. 14) "suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality relating to a whole work is quite well known in such works as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. How it is suggested therein is explained below : SAHRDAYALOKA Construction of only such a plot, either traditional or invented, as is charming with its decorum of (the accessories of sentiment, viz.) stimuli of setting, abiding emotions, emotional responses, and passing moods; (Dhv. III. 10) If, in a theme, adapted from a traditional source, the poet is faced with situations conflicting with the intended sentiment, his readiness to leave out such incidents and inventing in their place even imaginary incidents with a view to delineating the intended sentiment: (Dhv. III. 11) The construction of divisions and sub-divisions of the plot only with a view to delineating sentiments and not at all with a desire for mere conformity to rules of poetics; (Dhv. III. 12) (pp. 135, ibid) Bringing about both the high tide of sentiment and its low ebb appropriately in the work; preserving the unity of the principal sentiment from beginning to end; (Dhv. III. 13) A discreet use of figures of speech even when the poet is capable of using them in any number;- such are the conditions which underlie the suggestiveness of a whole work of literature in regard to sentiments. etc., - (Dhv. III. 14) (Trans. K. Kris.; pp. 137 ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #608
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1163 Thus Anandavardhana has harnessed all forms of literature in whatever style, with the central concept of rasa-dhvani After explaining fully dhvani in all its divisions and sub-divisions, Anandavardhana, at Dhv. III. 44 (pp. 258, ibid) observes : "evam dhvaneh prabhedah prabheda-bhedasca, kena sakyante samkhyatum din-matram tesam idam uktam asmabhih." ananta hi dhvaneh prakarah, sahrdayanam . vyutpattaye tesam dinmatram kathitam. ity ukta-laksano yo dhvanir vivecyah prayatnatah sadbhih. satkavyam kartum va jnatum va, samyag abhiyuktai)." (Dhv. III. 45) (pp. 260. ibid) ukta-svarupa-dhvani-nirupana-nipuna hi satkavayah, sahrdayas ca niyatam eva kavya-visaye param prakarsa-padavim asadayanti."- (vrtti, Dhv. III. 45, pp. 260, ibid) -"Such are some of the different ways of principal suggestion and some of the minor classes of the major ways. Who can ever count them exhaustively? We have just indicated therefore, their direction only." (Dhv.II. 44) The ways of principal suggestion are indeed limitless. We have only pointed out their direction with a view to educating refined critics. "Principal suggestion which we have defined hitherto should be attentively studied not only by all the poets who aspire after writing good poetry, but also by all critics who aspire after understanding it well." (Dhv. III. 45). It is only by their skill in recognising principal suggestion defined above that good poets and good critics attain abiding glory in matters relating to poetry." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 259, 261, ibid). Anandavardhana now proceeds to suggest that the concepts of 'riti' (=style) and "vstti" (=modes, diction) propagated by earlier alamkarikas are also welcome to him and that these could also be suggesters of rasa-dhvani. Thus they have a sure place in his catholic scheme of literary aesthetics, viz. in his scheme of vyanjana-dhvani-rasa.' He observes : (Dhv. III. 46; pp. 260, ibid) : For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #609
1164 SAHRDAYALOKA "a-sphuta-sphuritam kavya-tattvam etad yathoditam, a-saknuvadbhir vyakartum ritahah sampravartitah."etad-dhvani-pravartanena nirnitam kavya-tattvam a-sphuta-sphuritam sad asaknuvadbhih pratipadayitum vaidarbhi, gaudi, pancali ca iti ritayah pravartitah. riti-laksana-vidhayinam hi kavya-tattvam etad a-sphutataya manak sphuritam asid iti laksyate, tad atra sphutataya sampradarsitam ity anena riti-laksanena na kincit. "sabda-tattva"srayah kascid artha-tattva-yujoparah, vsttayopi prakasante jnatesmin kavya-laksane." (Dhv. III. 47) (pp. 260, ibid) asmin vyangya-vyanjaka-bhava-vivecana-maye kavya-laksane jnate sati, yah kascit prasiddha upanagarika"dyah sabda-tattva"sraya vittayo, yas ca arthatattvasambaddhah kaisikya"dayas tah, samyag riti-padavim avataranti.anyatha tu tasam a-drstarthanamiva vrttinam a-sraddheyatvam eva syan na'nubhava-siddhatvam. evam sphutatayaiva laksaniyam svarupam asya dhvaneh."- (vitti, pp. 260, ibid). "Those who were unable to explain properly this essential principle of poetry as they had only a glimmer of it (and nothing more), have brought into vogue the theory of styles."- (Dhv. III. 46) We have explained above the faundamental principle of poetry by using the term 'Dhvani.' Since only vague glimmerings of this principle were had by ancient writers, they could not explain it exhaustively and thus did they bring into vogue flashes of this very principle of poetry, we have very clearly demonstrated it in all its bearings and hence there is nothing for us to consider seriously about the theory of styles. "Once this theory of poetry is fully understood, even the so-called "Modes" (=dictions) relating to the nature of sounds as well as to the nature of meanings, will become intelligible." (Dhv. III. 47). When this theory of poetry involving a discrimination of the suggested-suggester relationship is grasped, other categories like literary modes, viz. those relating to sound such as "upanagarika", as well as those relating to sense such as 'Kaisiki will become quite intelligible (even in the same way as the styles). Otherwise, modes For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #610
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,..... 1165 will remain only incredible like unseen objects, and will not come within the range of personal experience (though there might be testimony of the ancients to that effect). Therefore, the nature of principal suggestion should be understood clearly." (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 261, ibid). On ritis and vittis, the Locana has the following to offer (pp. 370, 372, Edn. Nandi, Ahd. '97-'98). "ritir hi gunesv eva paryavasita. yad aha-viseso guna"tma. gunas ca rasa-paryavasayina eva, iti hy uktam prag guna-nirupane "sangara eva madhurah" ity atra iti." With reference to vsttis, the Locana observes (pp. 372, ibid) : "prakasanta iti." anubhava-siddhatam kavya-jivitatve prayanti ity arthah, 'ritipadavim iti. tad vad eva rasa-paryavasayitvat. 'pratiti-padavim' iti va pathah. nagarikaya hy upamita ity anu-prasavrttih, songara"dau vieramyati. parusa iti diptesu raudra"disu. komala iti hasa"dau. tatha "vittayah kavya-matrkah" iti yad uktam munina tatra rasocita eva cesta-viseso vsttih yad aha "kaisiki slaksna-nepathya songara-rasa-sambhava." ity adi. iyata 'tasyabhavam jagadur apare' ityadav abhava-vikalpesu, "vrttayo ritayas cao gatah sravana-gocaram. tad atiriktah koyam dhvanir" iti; tatra kathancid abhyupagamah krtah kathancic ca dusanam dattam 'aphusa-sphuritam' iti vacanena. (pp. 372, ibid, on Dhv. III. 47; Locana). Abhinavagupta on Dhv. I. i, had stated (pp. 8, ibid) : "nanu vittayo ritayas ca yatha gunalamkara-vyatiriktas carutva-hetavas ca tatha dhvanir api tad vyatiriktas ca carutva-hetus ca bhavisyati ity asiddho vyatireka ity anena abhiprayena aha-" tad anitirikta-vittayah" iti. naiva vrttiritinam tad-vyatiriktatvam siddham. tatha hy anuprasanam eva dipta-masrnamadhyama-varnaniyopayogitaya parusatva-lalitatva-madhumatva-svarupavivecanaya varga-traya-sampadanartham tisronuprasa-jatayo vsttaya ity uktah, vartantenuprasa-bhedah asv iti, yad ahuh "sarupa-vyanjana-nyasam tisTsvetasu vTttinu, prthak prthag anuprasam usanti kavayah sada." iti. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #611
1166 SAHRDAYALOKA prthak-prthag iti. parusanuprasa nagarika. masrnanuprasa upanagarika lalita. nagarikaya vidagdhaya upamita iti krtva. madhyama-komala-parusam ity arthah ata eva vaidagdhya-vihina-svabhava-asukumara-aparusa-gramya-vanita-sadrsyad iyam vsttir gramya iti. tatra trutiyah komalanuprasa iti vittayonuprasa-jataya eva. na ceha vaisesikavad vrttir vivaksita yena jatau jatimato vartamanarvam na syat, tad anugraha eva hi tatra vartamanarvam. yatha"ha kascit-"lokottare hi gambhirye vartante prthivibhujah." iti. tasmad vsttayonuprasa"dibhyo natirikta-vsttayo na'bhyadhika-vyaparah, ata eva vyapara-bhedabhavan na prthag anumeya-svarupa api iti vitti-sabdasya vyaparavacinobhiprayah. anatiriktatvad eva vstti-vyavaharo bhamaha"dibhir na krtah. udbhata"dibhih pratyukte pi tasminn arthah kascid adhiko htdayapatham avatirna ity abhiprayena aha-"gatah sravana-gocaram" iti. ritayas ca iti. tad anatirikta-vrttayopi gatah sravanagocaram iti sambandhah. tac chabdena atra madhurya"dayo gunah, tesan ca samucita-vrttyarpane yad anyonya-melana-ksamatvena panaka iva, guda marica"di-rasanam samghata-rupatagamanam dipta-lalita-madhyama-varnaniyavisayam gaudiya-vaidarbha-pancala-desa-hevaka-pracurya-drsa tad eva trividham ritir ity uktam. "jatisca jatimato na'nya samudayas ca samudayino nanya iti vsttiritayo na gunalamkara-vyatirikta iti sthita eva'sau vyatireki hetuh." (pp. 9, 10, ibid, Locana, Dhv. I. i). It may be noted that by accepting all the current concepts that prevailed in literary criticism and assigning them the role of a suggester in poetry, Anandavardhana had nearly nailed the coffin of opposition to dhvani, i.e, dhvanivirodha, but with the best of his efforts and also those of his great lieutenants, there was some opposition, however feeble, to the great victory march of dhvani. But before we look into this, we will see how those who sided with Anandavardhana sang in the same tunes and tried to establish a sort of harmony of concepts that had emerged from different quarters. Thus, Mammata (K. P. VIII. i) also suggests that gunas are rasa-dharmas, and alamkaras subserve rasa through the body of poetry i.e. word and sense to which they primarily belong. He observes : ye rasasya' ngino dharmah saurya"daya iva"tmnah, utkarsa-hetavas te syuh acala-sthitayo gunah." (K. P. VIII. i. pp. 324, Edn. R. C. Dwivedi) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #612
"Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1167 In the vrtti thereon he further observes : (pp. 324, ibid) : atmana eva hi saurya"dayo na akarasya yatha, tatha rasasyaiva madhurya"dayah, na varnanam. kvacit tu saurya"di-samucitasya akara-mahattva"der darsanadakara. eva asya surah, ity ader vyavaharad, anyatra a-surepi vitata"kstitva-matrena sura iti, kva'pi surepi murti-laghava-matrena a-sura iti, a-visranta-pratitayah yatha vyavaharanti, tad-vad madhuradi-rasa-vyanjaka-sukumara"di-varnanam madhurya"di-vyavaharapravrtteh, a-madhura"di-rasanganam varnanam saukamarya"di-matrena madhurya"di, madhura"di-rasopakarananam tesam a-saukumarya"der a-madhurya"di ca, rasaparyanta-pratiti-vandhya vyavaharanti. ata eve madhurya"dayo rasa-dharmah samucitair varnair vyajyante, na tu varna-matra"srayah, yathainam vyanjakatvam tatha udaharisyate." 66- "Those attributes of the rasa which is essence (principal), that are like the heroism of the soul, that cause its exaltation and have an unceasing existence, are (known to be) excellences.".. . Just as the heroism etc. belong to the soul only, not to the form, similarly sweetness etc. belong to 'rasa' only, not to the letters (=varnas). However, in some cases on perceiving the tall figure which is appropriate for heroism and the like, 'his forin alone is heroic,' such a usage prevails and in others even when some one is not brave, he is called brave only on the ground of his large form; and in certain other cases even a brave man is called not-brave only because his form is short. as such usages are done by those who don't know for definite, similarly the use of sweetness etc. being prevalent (figuratively) for soft letters suggestive of tender 'rasas' (the Erotic) and others, those who are devoid of the knowledge that excellences extend as far as rasas, use 'sweetness' etc. for the letters suggestive of rasas which are not tender (for example the Herioc) and the like.and speak of untenderness of these letters which in fact) help the tender rasa and the like. To conclude, the sweetness etc. are attributes of 'rasas' which are manifested through oice words (varnas); and (these) do not depend simply on the letters. The way these letters become suggestive (of the rasas) will (now) be illustated." (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 325, ibid). As for the position of alamkaras, Mammata observes (VIII. 67) (pp. 326, ibid) : "upakurvanti tam santam yenga-dvarena jatucit; hara"divad alamkaras tenuprasopama"dayah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #613
1168 SAHRDAYALOKA ye vacaka-vacya-laksana'ngatisaya mukhena mukhyam rasam sambhavinam upakurvanti, te kantha"dy anganam utkarsa"dhana-dvarena saririnopi upakaraka hara"daya ivalamkarah. yatra tu na'sti rasas tatrokti-vaicitrya-matra-paryavasitah...." 67- Those that help occasionally that existent (Rasa) through its parts, are the figures alliteration, simile and others like the necklace etc. (K. P. VIII. 67) Those that help the principal rasa when it exists, through exaltation of the parts in the form of expressive words and their meanings, are ornaments (figures) like the necklace and others which embellish the soul also by producing excellence in the parts of the body such as neck. Where, however, 'rasa' is not present there these (figures) are rendered into a mere fanciful expression. And in some cases the figures don't help the 'rasa' which exists."- (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 327, ibid). Mammata furnishes proper illustrations to justify his observations. It may be noted that while Anandavardhana though clear was slightly influencd by a viewpoint that took gunas to go with external word and sense also, and this he almost conceded while discussing the position of gunas with reference to samghatana, Mammata goes flat out in declaring categorically that gunas have everything to do only with the rasas and have practically nothing to do with expressed and external word and sense. This he does with an almost gross illustration of a brave man possessing a lerge body or not or a timid person possessing a large body and therefore going under the name of a brave man. The illustration, of course, is too gross, but brings home his point of view very clearly and so also he does with reference to figures of speech by apparently placing them parallel to ornaments put on our bodies. No doubt Mammata knows the grossness of his metaphor, but at the same time he draws a clear line of demarcation between the areas of influence of both gunas and alamkaras. He therefore further observes (K. P. VIII, 67, vitti, pp. 328, ibid) : "esa eva ca gunalamkara-pravibhagah evan ca, " samavaya-vrttya saurya". dayah, samyoga-vittya tu hara"daya ity astu gunalamkaranam bhedah ojahprabhrtinam anuprasa"dinam caubhayesam api samavay-vrttya sthitir iti gaddarika-pravahena.esam bheda (Bhamaha-vivarana) ity abhidhanam asat. yad apy uktam, "kavya-sobhaya kartaro dharma gunah, tad atisaya-hetavas tv alamkarah (KASV. III. 1.1.2.) iti, tad-api na yuktam. yatah kim samastair gunaih kavya-vyavaharah uta katipayah. yadi samastaih tat katham a-samasta-guna gaudi-pancali ca ritih kavyasya atma. atha katipayaih, tat adrav atra. ity adav ojahprabhstisu gunesu satsu kavya-vyavahara-praptih. . For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #614
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1169 "svargapraptir..." ity adau, visesokti-vyatirekau guna-nirapeksau kavyavyavahara-pravartakau." (pp. 328, 330, ibid) -"This is indeed the difference between excellences and figures. Therefore, the following statement is invalid. "The heroism etc. subsists by 'inherence' but the necklace etc. (the ornaments) exist by conjunction; this be (the empirical) distinction between excellences and ornaments. (But in poetry) Floridity (ojas) etc. (i.e. excellences) and alliteration and the like (i.e. the figures) both of these subsist by inherence; any distinction (between these two in poetry) would be blind following of others like a flock of sheep. (This is said to be Udbhatas view). And again the statement: "Excellences are attributes which produce the poetic beauty, but the figures heighten it," is equally untenable. Because the question would arise: "Is poetry regarded as such due to the presence of all the excellences or due to a few of them? If due to (presence of) all, then how the 'gaudi' and 'pancali dictions (=styles), which do not possess all the excellences, constitute the soul of poetry? If due to a few, then - "Here in the hill... (vs.no. 338)"- such examples may be designated poetry when the excellences Floridity etc. are present. "The woman of ...." (vs. 339)- In such examples visesokti (peculiar allegation) and vyatireka (contrast by dissimilitude) are responsible for the use of poetry even in the absence of excellences." (Trans. R.C. Dwivedi; pp. 329, 331, ibid). Prof. Dr. Dwivedi (pp., ft. note adds: "In this verse i.e. svarga-praptir anena. etc.), there are no letters which may suggest sweetness; floridity. (ojas) is out of context and perspicuity is absent. In the absence of all the excellences the poetic beauty will not be produced, to heighten which, the figures are admitted by Vamana. But the above is a case of good poetry." Now Mammata in our opinion has overplayed his cards in writing these lines in refutation of Udbhata and Vamana. Certainly Anandavardhana has never engaged himself in the refutation of views expressed by individnal alamkarikas. On the contrary, he has positively refrained from doing this and just so, very very wisely. For, it is better, he thinks, to express one's views in a positive way, rather than getting engaged in verbal squibbles and negatively denounce individual views, as done by such authors as Mahima for example or even by Mammata and his followers, especially Visvanatha to some extent and even by Jagannatha to a greater extent. Here what Mammata has argued is explained by a number of his commentators sush as Srividya Cakravartin who in his Sampradaya-prakasini For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #615
1170 "" explains the passage as : (pp. 328, 329, 330 ibid): - "ittham siddham gunalamkara-pravibhagam nigamayati-esa eva ca iti. na tu vaksyamano vamana"dy upadarsita iti yavat. ittham vibhaga-siddhau yoyam abhedavadinam upahasah,sa tan eva sprsatity aha-evan ca samavaya-vrttyety adi. astu gunalamkaranam iti. laukikanam vibhagam upagacchama ity arthah. kavyagunalamkaranam tv abheda eva ity aha- "ojah-prabhrtinam ity adi. itir hetau. yata ubhayesam api samavaya-vrttya sthitih, ato bhedabhidhanam gaddarika-pravahena bakara-prayana-nayena. ekasyam gaddarikayam artha-paryalocanam vinaiva purah prayatayam sarvaiva panktis tam eva panthanam pramanikrtya pravartate. prakrte' pyetad eva abhanakam ayatam iti yavat. iti svarupavacchedah. iti yad etat sopahasabhidhanam tad asat. tat pasutvam tesam eva syat. bhedasya samyag vivecitatvat, iti bhavah. ittham gunalamkarayor aikyam nirakrtya yad vamana"dibhir bhedonyatha darsitas tad uddalayitum aha-"yad apy uktam ity adina." yad idam kavyasobha-kartrtvena kavya-vyapadesa-hetavo gunah, labdha-tatha- vyapadesasya tv atisaya-hetavo lamkara iti vibhaga ucyate, na tad yuktam vibhaga-asahatvat. tatha hi"kim samastair gunaih kavyavyavaharah kriyate, uta katipayaih, na"dyah; a-samastagunayor gaudi-pancalyoh kavya"tmatva-abhyupagama-virodhat. na dvitiyah"adravatre" tyadav ojah-pramukha-katipaya-guna-sambhavat, kavya-vyapadesaprasakteh. ittham tavan nasti kavya-vyapadesa-hetuta gunanam iti avyaptir dosah. ativyaptir api.tatha hi-svarga-praptir ity adau purvapara-vakyarthibhuta-visesoktivyatirekalamkarabhyam eva guna-nairapeksyena kavya-vyapadesa -darsanat. nanv atra'pi srngaranugatamadhura-guna-sapeksayor eva anayoh kavya-vyapadesa-hetuta iti cet, mandam idam. abhivyanjaka-lalita-varnabhavan madhura-guna-vyaktir eva nasti. dure tad vyapeksa, nis sapatna-camatkaratisaya karinor visesokti-vyatirekayoh, atosmabhir upadarsita eva vibhagah sreyan." SAHRDAYALOKA All faithful commentators of great reputation have explained and vindicated zealously Mammatas observations. The above quotation from Sampradayaprakasini is just an instance in point. But we stick to our observation that not unlike Anandavardhana, even Mammata and the rest should have avoided entering into such controversies. Actually even Anandavardhana recommends that poetry and poetic beauty are all abstraction and there is nothing physical about the same. Poetic beauty, if revealed in the right fashion, takes shape even through figures of speech which under such cirumstances are not 'bahiranga' i.e. 'not external' to poetry. This is Ananda-vardhanas observation. In this sense both gunas and alamkaras when For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #616
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1171 they become instrumental in causing poetry beauty are intrinsically, or inherently connected (samavaya-vsttya) to poetry. Thus viewed Udbhalas view can be defended. In the same way when Vamana observes 'gunas' as 'visesa' or special mark of 'riti' or style, which is said to be the 'soul of poetry, in a metaphorical language not to be taken literally as already noticed by us, what Vamana expects here is the "gunatva" type of beauty. Individual gunas are only various external presentations of this quality of excellence. It is all abstraction and there is nothing physical about it. So when 'riti' graced by this excellence is said to be the soul by Vamana, what is meant is that only such subtler form of poetic beauty is more acceptable to Vamana as is dhvani' with Anandavardhana. Alamkara being less subtle form of beauty in his opinion is therefore metaphorically said to be "atisayahetu" as against "karaka-hetu" that goes with gunas or subtler form of poetic beauty. Two or three styles, that are bestowed with this 'guna'-tattva, are said to be the 'soul metaphorically. Individual forms of expression, such as three, four, five or ten or even more gunas are only an accident: the presence of 'gunatattva' is fundamental. Thus Mammatas approach is biased and more physical which goes to disrespect the essence of what either Udbhata or Vamana wants to underline. It is therefore that Anandavardhana, having a better understanding of things, avoids condemning these views. - our observations are applicable to all followers of Mammata who likewise fail to appreciate the spirit behind Udbhatas or Vamanas observations. Mammatas approach to the problem of ritis and vrttis also follows the tradition of dhvanivadins such as Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Though not specified by the former the latter in his Locana takes vittis only as types of anuprasa (: vsttayah anuprasa-jatayah), and ritis are not different from the concept of gunas. But Mammata slightly differs. He of course takes vittis as types of anuprasa, but he adds that some people call vrttis by the name of ritis. Thus he identified both vrtti and riti which was not done by either Anandavardhana or Abhinavagupta. It is clear that in course of centuries, literary criticism also takes slightly different expression at the hands of theorists even belonging to the same school of thought. This sure is an illustration where we find complete identification of the cocepts of riti and vrtti as enunciated differently by earlier alamkarikas such as Vamana and Udbhata and also accepted as such by early promoters of dhvani such as Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Of course Mammata seems to follow the basic guideline promoted by the Dhvanikira that vrttis and ritis are also suggesters or vyanjakas of rasa in poetry. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #617
SAHRDAYALOKA While talking of anuprasa, i.e.-alliteration, a sabda'lamkara, Mammata defines it as similarity of letters and this figure is said to be two-fold. He observes : (K. P. IX. 79, 80, pp. 346, 347, ibid) : "varna-samyam anuprasah cheka-vrtti-gato dvidha, sonekasya sakrt purvah, ekasya'py asakrt parah." (K. P. IX. 79) madhurya-vyanjakair varnair upanagarikesyate, ojah prakasakais tais tu parusa, komala paraih." (K. P. IX. 80) --(79a) Alliteration is the similarity of letters. (79b) It is of two kinds; as pertaining to 'cheka' and 'vrtti' (79c) That former one is the repetition of the several (consonants) only once. (79d) the latter is (the repetition) of even the one (consonant) more then once." (80abc)- By the letters suggestive of sweetness the diction (=mode) is held to be upanagarika; but by the letters suggestive of floridity it is called Parusa. (=harsh). 1172 (80d) By others is Komala (soft) (Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 347, 349, ibid)Mammata further observes "kesancid esa vaidarbhi-pramukha ritayo matah." (K. P. 81, ab, pp. 350, ibid) i.e. (81ab) - Accordiong to others, these dictions are called styles, vaidarbhi and the rest. (pp. 351, Trans. Dwivedi, ibid). Mammata observes: "etas tisro vrttayah vamana"dinam mate vaidarbhi-gaudipancalyakhya ritayah ucyante."-i.e. "These three dictions are called vaidarbhi, gaudiya and pancali respectively, in the opinion of Vamana and others." (Trans. Dwivedi, pp. 351, ibis); Upanagarika, parusa and komala of Udbhata are vrttis advanced by Udbhata and his fore-runners. Vaidarbhi, gaudiya and pancali are ritis advanced by Vamana and his fore-runners. Bharata refers to both. The Dhvanikara and his followers accept these as suggesters or vyanjaka of rasas. Hemacandra explains the common characteristic of both guna and alamkara at Ka.sa. I. 12. He observes: "guna-dosayoh samanya-laksanam aha For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #618
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,..... 1173 "rasasyotkarsapakarsahetu guna-dosau, bhaktya sabdarthayoh." Thus for him gunas are primarily connected with rasas, and only metaphorically to word and sense. This is the position suggested by Anandavardhana. Hemacandra covers dosa also here with reference to rasas only. He observes that gunas and dosas are said to rest primarily in rasas and only metaphorically in word and sense and again dosas and gunas are said to be 'anitya' with reference to individual rasas, though they reside permanently in 'rasa' taken in a general sense. This is a very clever observation. Hemacandra further observes that alamkaras primarily reside in word and sense and through them they become condusive to rasa, i.e. 'rasopakaraka'. In his Viveka (pp. 34 edn Parikh, Kulkarni, ibid) Hemacandra seems to follow the line of Mammata and seems to agree with him in denouncing Udbhata and Vamana. But the general approach of the Dhvanikara of corretating gunas and alamkaras with rasa-dhvani continues in Hemacandra also. Hemacandra observes (pp. 34, 35, Ka sa. Edn. Parikh, Kulkarni.) : guna-dosayoh samanya-laksanam aha- "rasasyotkarsa pakarsahetu gunadosau, bhaktya sabdarthayoh." (Ka. sa. I. 12) raso vaksyamana-svarupah tasyotkarsahetavo gunah, apakarsa-hetavas tu dosah. te ca rasasyaiva dharmah, upacarena tu tad-upakarino sabdarthayor ucyante. rasa"srayatvam ca guna-dosayor anvaya-vyatirekanuvidhanat. tatha hi, yatraiva dosas tatraiva gunah, rasa-visese ca dosa, na tu sabdarthayoh-yadi hi tayoh syus tad bibhatsa"dau kastava"dayo guna na bhaveyuh. hasya"dau caslilatva"dayah, anityas caite dosah. yato yasyanginas te dosas tad abhave na dosas tadbhave tu dosa ity anvaya-vyatirekabhyam guna-dosayo rasa eva asrayah. alamkaranam samanya-laksanam aha - "angasrita alamkarah" (Ka. sa. I. 13)rasasya'ngino yad angam sabdarthau tad asrita alamkarah. te ca rasasya satah kvacid upakarinah, kvacid anupakarinah rasabhave tu vacya-vacaka-vaicitryamatra-paryavasita bhavanti." Hemacandra under Ka. sa. IV. 8 (pp. 292, ibid) quotes from Mammatas K. P. (VIII. K. P. as above) and follows him with reference to vrttis and ritis. He also mentions these while quoting definitions from the N. S. of Bharata while discussing various forms of rupakas. In short. Hemacandras approach is in tune with the general approach of the Dhvanikara and with that of Mammata in particular. Jayadeva also being a dhvanivadin accepts riti and vstti as suggesters of rasadhvani. But he attaches greater importance to riti when he defines kavya For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #619
1174 SAHRDAYALOKA at Candraloka I. vii (pp. 11, Edn. Bharatiya vidya Prakasana. Varanasi, '92 Edn.) when he observes : "nirdosa laksanavati sa-ritir guna-bhusana, sa'lamkara-rasa'neka-vsttir vak, kavya-nama-bhak." - (Candraloka, I.vii) Thus for Jayadeva, poetry is that beautiful language which is free from blemishes, is gifted with 'laksanas' i.e. marks, is 'having ritis' and is also decorated by gunas i.e. excellences. It is accompanied by alamkaras, rasas and many vrttis. Jayadeva has both 'riti' and 'gunas' separately mentioned. So for him they are not identical. We will look into greater details when we go for topics of guna, dosa, alamkara, laksana, riti, vrtti, etc. individually in Vol. II of this work. For the present we just take notice of the fact that Jayadeva also is a dhvanivadin and accepts rasadhvani to be central to poetry and this rasadhvani is suggested by different suggesters-vyanjakas, riti and vitti being two of them. Vidyadhara is also a dhvanivadin and shares the same attitude. He also, like Jayadeva seems to take the concept of riti as one connected with presence and type of 'samasas' in poetry. We will go into individual attitude later but at the end of Ch. V, Vidyadhara has this remark- "darsanantare tv eta vaidarbhi-pancali-gaudiya ceti tisro ritayo madhura-madhyama-parusa-varna"rabdhatvan madhura madhyama parusa ceti vrttayo, rasa-visaya-vyaparatvena kathyante. yad uktam alamkarasarvasva-karena, "vsttis tu rasavisayo vyaparah" iti. Vidyanatha in his Prataparudriya (Edn. Madras, '14. with "Ratnapana' comm.) explains the concept of poetry (pp. 31, 32, ibid) and following the dhvani dictate, takes-ritis, vTttis, gunas, alamkaras, sayya etc.- all concepts to be condusive to rasadhvani. He observes : (pp. 31 ibid) "atha kavya-prakaranam" "atha kaya-svarupa-nirupanam." "guna'lamkara-sahitau sabdarthau dosa -varjitau, gadya-padyobhaya-mayam kavyam kavya-vido- viduh."- 1. (pp. 32, 33, 34, 35...) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #620
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1175 sabdarthau murtir akhyatau jivitam vyangya-vaibhavam, haradivad alamkaras tatra syur upama"dayah-2 slesa"dayo gunas tatra saurya"daya iva sthitah, atmotkarsa"vahas tatra svabhava iva ritayah. -3 sobham aharyikim prapta vitayo vsttayo yatha, padanugunya-visrantih sayya sayyeva sammata. - 4 rasa"svada-prabhedah syuh pakah paka iva sthita), prakhyata lokavad, iyam samagri kavya-sampadah." -5. ... (p. 34, 35) .... : kaisiky arabhati satvati bharati ceti racana"sritatvena rasavasthana-sucakas catasro vsttayah. tatha coktam dasa-rupake "kaisiky arabhati caiva sattvati bharati tatha catasro vsttayo jneya rasavasthana-sucakah." iti. racanaya api rasa-vyanjakatvam prasiddham- rasa'nanuguna-varna-racanaya dosatvam uktam. vaidarbhi-prabhitayo riti-visesa na vsttisv antarbhutah." It may be noted that Mammata had cancelled vittis in favour of ritis, but here Vidyadhara mentions a view which took 'riti' as not absorbed in vrttis. Whatever it may be, we will look into details later but for the present we note that the dhvanivadins stand to accept all concepts as rasa-vyanjakas, seems to carry weight. Visvanatha also accepts the wider scheme of Anandavardhana and accepts all concepts as suggesters of 'rasa-dhvani' which alone for him is the soul of poetry. The For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #621
1176 SAHRDAYALOKA Sahityadarpana (=S. D.) I. iii (pp. 20-25, Edn. ibid, with Lakshmi-tika) observes"vakyam rasa"tmakam kavyam dosas tasyapakarssakah utkarsa-hetavah proktah, guna'lamkara-ritayah." Visvanatha observes in the vrtti on S. D. I. iii. (pp. 25, ibid)- "gunah saurya"divat, alamkarah kataka-kundala"divat, ritayah avayava-samsthana visesavat, deha-dvarena sabda"rtha-dvarena, tasyaiva kavyasya atmabhutam rasam utkarsayantah kavyasyotkarsaka iti ucyante. Thus, the wider scheme introduced by Anandavardhana continues in the dhvani-school of literary aesthetics. Jagannatha of course is a dhvanivadin to the core, but he has his own ideas which at times do not conform absolutley with the traditional views of the dhvanivadins. Thus, for example he discusses the rasa-vyanjakatva of letters, words, racana (i.e. riti/vrtti etc.) sentence and a whole composition etc. in his own way. He has certain reservations. He begins with the traditional view and then gives his own observations. He observes (pp. 368-372, CH. I. Edn. Chowkhamba Vidyabhavam, Varansi, '55; and pp. 316-317, Edn. Prof, Athavale, ibid): tad ittham nirupitasya asya rasa"di-dhvani-prabandhaih padaika-desair avarna"tmakai raga"dibhisca abhivyaktim amananti.... varna-racana-visesanam madhuryadigunabhivyanjakatvam eva na rasabhivyanjakatvam, gauravan manabhavacca..." We will see how Jagannatha proceeds: Jagannatha observes that the rasa-bhava"di-dhvani discussed so far is said to be suggested by pada, varna, racana, vakya, prabandha, padaika-desa i.e. parts of a pada and also by raga etc. which are not part of a pada. (a-varna"tmakair dhvanirupair gita-vadya"di-sambandhinibhih ragaih, adi-pada-grahyabhiscesta"dibhisca - (pp. 366, Candrika tika). This is the view of some alamkarikas. He holds that when a vakya or sentence is said to be suggester, virtually only that pada or word which is not dissociated from suggestivity is in reality a suggester and not all words therein. But the whole activity of suggestion proceeds on the analogy of 'dandacakra-nyaya'. Just as danda, i.e. handle, cakra i.e. wheel etc. jointly make for ghata or pot, in the same way here also pada, vakya and racana-each of these can be taken as rasa-vyanjaka. Now he proceeds to give the view of the "navyas". According to this view, the 'racana' (or style/diction) which consists of employment of special letters, is For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #622
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,.... 1177 suggestive only of gunas or excellences and that it should not be taken as suggestive o rasa"di. For, if we accept 'racana' to be suggestive of rasa, it involves 'gauravadosa', for in that case we will have to go for two types of racana or construction, one each suggesting gunas and rasas. Again there is no 'pramana' for accepting this situation. Again, there is no rule that a racan, cannot suggest 'guna' without suggesting guni(-i.e. rasa) first. For if we accept this rule then, this rule will stand violated with reference to sense-organs such as those of smell, taste and hearing. For these three sense-organs are suggestive of gunas but not gunis in form of akasa, prthvi, etc. Thus, as the independent gunis such as prthvi etc. are suggested by their own sense-organs and as gunas such as smell etc. are suggested by their own independent set of organs, and after that getting united they become object of pratyaksa or direct perception, in the same way here, both rasa and madhurya"di gunas are suggested by their own agents and then either jointly or severally they are tasted : -"ittham ca sva-sva-vyanjakopanitanam guninam gunanam udasinanam ca yatha parasparopaslesena audasinyena va tat tat pramiti-gocarata, tatha rasa"dinam tad-gunanam ca abhivyakti-visayata iti tu navyah." Candrika (pp. 371, ibid) explains as follows :-"sva-sva-vyanjakair varna"dibhih, upanitanam bodhitanam, guninam prthivy adinam, gunanam gandha"dinam, udasinanam guna-guni-bhavena mithosambaddhanam padarthanam ca, pramitigocarata, pramatmaka-pratyaksa-visayata, kadacit upaslesena, gunanam guninam mithah sambaddhatvena, kadacit punar audasinyena mithosambaddhatvena ca yatha bhavati, tatha guninam rasanam gunanam madhurya"dinam ca'bhivyaktivisayata, asvada-gocarata, kadacin militatvena, kadacic ca parthakyena bhavati iti vyavasthaya, rasa"dy a-vyanjakatve'pi madhurya"di-vyanjakata varnadinam na asambhavini iti tu navya vandanti ity arthah." So, Jagannatha has his own interpretation and independent view-point. Anandavardhana presented his scheme only to silence all opposition to dhvani. We will look into this below. It may be noted that samghatana is a concept which in this name, appears only in the Dhvanyaloka and then disappears. Later perhaps it is identified with gunas or with vitti based on the presence or absence of the types of samasas or compounds, wedded perhaps also with the type of consonants - vyanjanas-such as harsh or soft mixed. Whatever it may be, the ground reality is that after Anandavardhanas effort in the field of literary aesthetics, rasa, say rasa-dhvani remained in centre and all concepts floated by various authorities were woven together in a well-knit carpet and not a single concept was dishonoured or denounced. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #623
1178 SAHKDAYALOKA Dhvani-virodha : However, there still continued some opposition to the Dhavikaras absolute supremacy. Voices were raised against dhvani in different quarters and Anandavardhana himself tried to answer some objections before presenting his scheme. But the fact is that the opposition was more to the concept of vyanjana rather than the fact of implicit sense, whether it was named 'Dhvani' or otherwise.Actually nobody had any objection to the fact of the implicit sensepratiyamana artha -in poetry and it was accepted by all either in the garb of a faint undertone or a powerful overtone. But the process of arriving or apprehending it in poetry created debate and Anandavardhanas projection, or favour of vyanjana as a separate and independent word-power caused many an eyebrow to rise with the result that in place of vyanjana a number of alternatives were pushed forward. We have taken care of all this inCh. IX on "vyanjana-virodha" and there is no point in going through all that again. Actually 'dhvani-virodha' is more 'vyanjana-virodha' and of course the terminology viz. dhvani' was also ridiculed to a great extent. We will look into the same here in a nut shel. Jayadeva in his Vimarsini commentary alludes to the so-called dhvanivirodha in a well-known verse. He observes : "tatparya-saktir abhidha laksana'numiti dvidha, arthapattih,kvacit tantram samasoktkyady alamkrtih, rasasya karyata, bhogah, vyaparantara-badhanam, dvadasettham dhvaner asya sthita vipratipattaya)." Opposition to dhvani is twelvefold, says Jayadeva. They are that dhvani is negated by or is covered up by devices such as (i) tatparya-sakti, i.e. the sentence power of purport, (ii) abhidha or the word-power of direct expression, i.e. denotation, (iii) (iv) two-fold laksana or the power of indication operating in two ways, (v) (vi) anumiti or inference, which is again two-fold-, (vii) arthapatti or presumption i.e. argument or inference based on circumstances; (viii) tantra,i.e. double entendre (ix) alamkaras such as 'samasokti' and the like, (x) the fact that For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #624
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1179 rasa follows as a result (karyata), (xi) bhogah i.e. rasa is tasted (by bhavakatva/ bhojakatva), (xii) Or that any other power is negated-vyaparantara-badhanam, i.e. it is a-nirvacya. These twelve are doubts raised against 'dhvani.' These objections display the graph of opposition to dhvani at different stages or in different periods of time. Kuntaka is examined by us very carefully and has been given the benefit of doubt but the arch enemies of dhvani-vyanjana were Mahima, the protagonist of inference-theory in poetry i.e. Kavyanumiti, and then Dhananjaya and Dhanika the supporters of tatparya. Bhoja, of course supported tatparya but he was not averse to vyanjana/dhvani and like Kuntaka he secures the benefit of doubt. We have examined all these authors earlier while dealing with vyanjana-virodha. For the present we will look into only the dhvani-virodha as listed and explained by Dhvanikara in Dhv. I. i, and vitti theron and also as explained by Abhinavagupta in his Locana. It may be noted that we have dealt with vyanjana and opposition to it separately so whatever Anandavardhava has to say on the difference between abhidha, laksana, anumiti, etc. on one side and vyanjana on the other, has been duly discussed by us and therefore will not be repeated here. Same will be the case of alamkarikas of the dhvani-school beginning with Mammata and down to Jagannatha, taking in the sweep of course, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha and Visvanatha, -whose views are already discussed by us. in Ch. IX. The views of dirgha-dirghatara abhidhavadin, nimittavadin etc. are carefully analysed by us and so also Makulas position, along with Pratiharendurajas view-point, has been critically discussed by us. So, for the present we will take care of only the relevant portion of the Dhv. and some comments on the same at places by Abhinavagupta in his Locana. Anandavardhana, in the very first Karika of his Dhvanyaloka refers to some opponents of dhvani. He observes : "kavyasya"tma dhvanir iti budhaih yah samamnata-purvah tasya bhavam jagadur apare bhaktam ahus tam anye, kecid vacam sthitam avisaye tattvam ucus tadiyam tena brumah sahrdayamanahpritaye tat-svarupam." (Dhv. I. i.) (pp. 1, ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #625
1180 SAHKDAYALOKA "Though the learned men of yore have declared (time and again) that the soul of poetry is suggestion, some would aver its non-existence, some would re it as something (logically) implied and some others would speak of its essence as lying beyond the scope of words. We propose, therefore, to explain its nature and bring delight to the hearts of perspective critics. (Dhv. I. i.) (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 2, ibid). We had quoted above what Jayaratha had to say about opposition to dhvani. It contained a reference to some who took two-fold laksana as equivalent to dhvani. Here a view holding dhvani as "bhakta" i.e. bhakti grahya' is mentioned in Dhv. I. i. This is identical with Jayarathas reference. Under Dhv. III. 33, Anandavardhana has distinguished vyanyana from abhidha, laksana, anumiti and also tatparya. All these opponents are mentioned by Jayadeva. It was Bhatta-nayaka who supported "rasasya-bhogah", perhaps in his, now not available work viz. "Hsdayadarpana specifically drafted by him for demolition of dhvani i.e. 'dhvani-dhvamsa.' He rejected vyanjana in favour of two powers such as "bhavakatva" and "bhojakatva". (i.e. the power of revelation and enjoyment). Anandavardhana has considered the views of the Mimamsakas and the same is referred to by Jayaratha as those who prefer tatparya over vyanjana. The view with two-fold anumiti is the same as the view of the Naiyayikas considered by the Dhvanikara under Dhv. III. 33, where also abhidha/vyanjana are carefully distinguished. 'Kvacit tantram' is taken care of under sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani and blesa in the Dhy. We will take the refutation of arthapatti under anumana (Dhv. III. 33). 'rasasya karyata' is the view of Lollata and the "vyaparantara-badhana' of Jayaratha is the same as "vacam avisayah"view, referred to in Dhv. I. i. We will now proceed with what Anandavardhana has to say under Dhv. I. i.He observes that the learned critics have, from times of yore, had recognised 'dhvani' as the 'soul of poetry. We know that, as Abhinavagupta explains, this ancient tradition was inherited by Anandavardhana. The tradition was orally floated and at least Abhinavagupta knows no written document discussing dhvani, prior to the Dhvanyaloka. So this thought-current which was critically examined and promulgated by unknown ancients must have had to face rough weather in form of opposition, the first view being of those who flatly rejected di abhavam jagadur apare." We will look into the same as blow : First of all we will take notice of what the Locana has to say in the beginning. The Locana observes (under Dhy. I. i., pp. 86, Edn. Nandi, ibid) : "yasya adhigamaya pratyuta pravartaniyam ka tatra abhava-sambhavana ? atah kim kurmah ? For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #626
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna....... 1181 aparam maurkhyam abhavavadinam iti bhavah-" That, to know which, on the contrary we should make an effort, is denied by the opponents), where can be the possibility of its non-existence. The foolishness of those who deny (dhvani) is beyond measure. So, what can we do about it?" Anandavardhana observes that the following are the types of arguments of the abhavavadins : (vrtti, Dhv. I. i; pp. 1, Edn. K. Kris. ibid) - "tad abhavavadinam ca ami vikalpah sambhavanti. tatra kecid acaksiran'sabdartha-sariram tavat kavyam .... tadvyatiriktah koyam dhvanir nama iti ?""According to some (of the objectors) : "Poetry is but that whose body is constituted by sound (or word) and meaning. Sources of charm through sound such as 'alliteration' are well-known; and so are the sources of charm through meaning such as 'simile'. Merits or qualities of composition (=excellences) like "sweetness" are also familiar to us. Also we have heard of dictions (=vrttis) such as the 'cultured' propounded by some, though in truth their features are not different from qualities of style. We have further heard of styles (ritayah) like 'vaidarbhi. But what could this concept of Dhvani (suggestion) be which is different from any of these ?" - (Trans- K. Kris., pp. 2, ibid). Abhinavagupta observes that the use of aorist in 'jagaduh' suggests that the types of the views of the objectors are imagined by the author and then are refuted. In reality such views of the objectors are not noticed in written works. He observes that (Locana, Dhv. I. i.; pp. 6, Edn. Nandi, ibid)- "tatra samaya'peksena sabdortha-pratipadakah iti krtva vacya-vyatiriktam na'sti vyangyam; sad api va tad abhidha-vrtty-aksiptam sabdava-gatartha-balad akrstam, tad anaksiptam api va na sakyam, kumarisv iva bhartp-sukham atadvitsu iti traya eva ete. pradhana vipratipatti-prakarah," "With reference to convention, the word is expressive of meaning. So, there is nothing called 'the suggested', beyond the expressed sense. Even if it exists, it is implied by abhidha-vstti i.e. denotation, and is arrived at through the force of the expressed sense and therefore it can be said to be 'bhakta' i.e. implied, at the most. And if it is not derived by the force of expressed sense, then it remains undefinable like the happiness of the company of a husband in case of the unmarried girls. Thus these three are the main types of objections." Introducing further the view of Anandavardhana, the Locana observes : (pp. 6, on Dhv. I. i, ibid) For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #627
1182 SAHRDAYALOKA "tatra abhava-vikalpasya trayah prakarah; sabdartha-gunalamkaranam eva sabdartha-sobhakaritvat loka-sastratirikta-sundara-sabdartha-rupasya kavyasya na sobhahetuh kascid anyosti yosmabhir na ganita ity ekah prakarah. yo va na ganitah sa sobhakary eva na bhavati iti dvitiyah. atha sobhakari bhavati tarhy asmad ukta eva gune va'lamkare va'ntarbhavati, namantarakarane tu kiyad idam pandityam ? athapy uktenu gunesv alamkaresu na antarbhavah, tatha'pi kinncid visesa-lesam asritya namantara-karanam, upama-vicchitti-prakaranam a-samkhyatvat. tatha'pi gunalamkara-a-vyatiriktatva'bhava eva, tavan matrena ca kim krtam ? anyasya'pi vaicitryasya sakyotpreksyarvat. cirantanair hi bharata-muni-prabhstibhir yamakopame eva sabdalamkaratvena iste. tat-prapanca-dik-pradarsanam tv anyair alankara-karaih krtam. tad yatha- "karmani anity atra kumbhakara"dy udaharanam srtva nagarakara"di sabda utpreksyante, tavata ka atmani bahumanah ? evam prakste'pi iti tetiyah prakarah. evam ekas tridha vikalpah annyau ca dvav iti panca vikalpa iti tatparyarthah" . "There are three types of abhava-vikalpa i.e. (total) denial of dhvani (such as), only gunas or excellences and alamkaras i.e. figures are the devices of beauty with reference to word and sense. So, for kavya which is of the form of beautiful word and sense apart from (word and sense in common parlance or in scientific usage, there is no other beautifying device beyond this (=gunas and alamkaras, with reference to word and sense), which is not considered by us;- this is the first variety of objection. Or, (the second type of objection is that), that which is not considered by us is not at all a beautifying agent. This is the second type of abhavavadins. Now, if it is said, that it is very much there and is also the cause of beauty, then in that case it has to be included in (either the list of) gunas or that of alamkaras. What is the big in giving a special name (i.e. coining a special term) for it ? Now, if it is said that this new device cannot be included in either gunas or al enlisted before, then with reference to its special feature let it receive a new name (i.e. let it be taken as an additional new guna or alamkara), for there are innumerable varieties of the beauty caused by similitude. So, even if a new name is given, basically it surely is not different from a guna or an alamkara, and just for this only, i.e. just for being floated as a new guna or a new alamkara, nothing big is achieved. We can also imagine some other new devices causing beauty (that are basically either a guna or an alamkara). Ancient authority such as Bharata muni had mentioned only two figures such as 'yamaka' and 'upama', as figure word and sense respectively. Other alamkarikas showed the way to expansion of these. Panini, for example, gave the sutra viz. "karmani an". With this the word For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #628
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1183 'kumbhakara' is generated. Keeping this in view other words such as "suvarnakara", "nagara-kara" etc. also can be generated, (by anybody with help of Paninis sutra). So, why brag around by such a small achievement (as calling a guna or alamkara) by the name 'dhvani') for this is similar to the instance given above (of wider application of Paninis sutra). This is the third type of objectors. Add to these three, the two (viz. bhaktavadins and asakya-vaktavya-vadins) and we arrive at a total of five types of objectors. This is the substance (of what Anandavardhana has laid down)." We have seen how Anandavardhana has presented the first type of objectors, (which is three fold in itself). Abhinavagupta here further observes that by the use of "tavat", it is suggested that nobody is basically opposed to the idea that poetry is both word and sense taken together. For there is no merit is just giving a name to a thing. 'Kavya' is the name given to the union of sabda and artha. Now, if the new name 'dhvani' is given to the same (i.e. union of word and sense, having the name of 'kavya), nothing new is to be served. So, perhaps 'dhvani' is not of the form of the union of word and sense, but is its (=union's) beauty. Thus dhvani is just the beauty of word and sense taken together. Now this beauty can be twofold. Either it rests on its form only (i.e._ it is sva-rupa-matra-nistha) or it rests on the construction (of word and sense, i.e. samghatana-nistha). The beauty resting on svarupa or form is arrived at by sabdalamkaras or figures of sound, and the beauty arrived at by construction (i.e. samghatana-nista-carutva) results from sabda-gunas (i.e. excellenas based on word). Similarly the two-fold beauty residing in artha or meaning results from upama"di alamkaras and excellences such as sweetness etc. (i.e. madhurya"di gunas) respectively. Thus there is nothing beyond this (i.e. nothing beyond sabartha-guna'lamkara). So, 'dhvani' is not at all a basically new concept. For, whatever is else than either guna or alamkara can never claim to be a cause of beauty, like the blemishes both permanent or impermanent such as 'a-sadhu' or 'duh-srava' etc. respectively. Now your dhvani (which is not poetry itself, and therefore) is a device of beauty and hence it can not be other than that (i.e. either guna or an alamkara). This is argument in negation (i.e. vyatirakihetu) Now, says the objector, even if some people argue that just as dictions (i.e. vrttis) and styles (i.e. ritis) are different from gunas and alamkaras and still are (independent) devices of beauty, in the same way dhvani also can be an independent device of beauty, the answer (from the original objector to dhvani) could be this. In fact vrttis and ritis are not basically different from alamkaras such as alliteration (or, For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #629
SAHRDAYALOKA anuprasa"di) or excellences such sweetness (i.e. madhurya"di) respectively. Vrttis have no independent power beyond anuprasa"di. Because they are non-different Bhamaha and other ancients have not taken their separate cognition. Eventhough the vrttis are made current by alamkarikas such as Udbhata and the like, there is no substance in vrttis which deserves to be taken as independent of anuprasa etc. Same is the case with styles, i.e. ritis with reference to gunas. Thus vrttis and ritis are not substantially different from anuprasa"di and madharya"di respectively. Thus, the argument that dhvani, like vrttis and ritis, should be cognised as a source of beauty independent of gunas and alamkaras, falls flat. Thus poetry, which is relished by a cognition which is one in itself and not comprising of parts (i.e. akhanda-buddhi-samasvadya), if at all is analysed from the point of artificial analysis, will fail to yield an independent entity called 'dhvani': "-tena akhandabuddhi-samasvadyam api kavyam apoddhara-buddhya yadi vibhajyate, tatha'pyatra dhvani-sabda-vacyo na kascid vyatiriktortho labhyate iti 'nama'-sabdena aha." (Locana, Dhv. I. i.,pp. 10, end. Nandi, ibid) 1184 The view of the second type of objectors is placed by Anandavardhana inthe following words (Dhv. I. i.,vrtti, pp. 1,3, Edn. K. Kris, ibid)- "anye bruyuh- 'nasty eva dhvanih, prasiddha-prasthana-vyatirekinah kavya-prakarasya kavyatva-haneh. sahrdaya-hrdaya"hladi-sabdartha-mayatvam eva kavya-laksanam. na ca uktaprakaratirekino margasya tat sambhavati. na ca tat samayantah patinah sahrdayan kancit parikalpya tat-prasiddhya dhvanau kavyatva-vyapadesah pravartitopi sakala-vidvan-manograhitam alambate." -"Others assert thus:" Suggestion does not exist indeed; for a species of poetry opposed to all well-known canons will necessarily cease to be poetry. Poetry can only be defined as that which is made up of such words and meanings as will delight the mind of the critic. This will not be achieved by a route which excludes all the wellknown canons mentioned. Even if the designation of poetry were to be accepted as applying to 'dhvani' on the unanimous support of a coterie of self-styled critics, it would fail to win the acceptance of all the learned." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 3,5, ibid). Abhinavagupta places the argument of the objector beautifully. It is like this (Locana, Dhv. I. i.; pp. 10, Edn. Nandi, ibid)- "tatha hi khadga-laksanam karomi ity uktva, atana-vitana"tma, pravriyamanah, sakala-deha"cchadakah, sukumaras' citra-tantu-viracitah, samvartana-vivartana-sahisnur acchedakah, succhedyah, utkrsta-khadgah iti bruvanam paraih patah khalv evamvidho bhavati, na khadga iti yuktya paryanuyujyamana evam bruyat idrsa eva khadgo mama abhimata iti tadrg va etat. prasiddham, hi laksanam bhavati, na kalpitam iti bhavah." For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #630
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,.... 1185 -"If someone says, 'I will define a sword,' and then starts saying, "that which can be stretched or shortened, which covers the body, which is delicate and made of beautiful fibres, that which can be folded or unfolded, that which can be easily torn is a sword). Now, if somebody else stops him intervening with a remark that, 'Such a definition fits with a piece of cloth and not a sword." then that person would say, "No, only such a definition of sword is acceptable to me," (then how can we prevent him ? Same is the case with those who defy dhvani). The idea is that only the well-known qualities can make for a definition. Anandavardhana further gives a third view of the dhvany-abhava-vadins. He observes : "punar apare tasya abhavam anyatha kathayeyuh.' na sambhavaty eva dhvanir nama apurvah kascit. kamaniyakam anativartamanasya tasya uktesy eva carutva-hetusv antarbhavat. tesam anyatamasyaiva va apurva-samakhya-matrakarane yat-kincana kathanam syat." (vrtti, Dhv. I. i.; pp. 4, ibid) :- "Yet another opinion about its non-existence is : "It is indeed impossible that 'suggestion' can be something unknown before. Since it is not distinct from a source of charm, it gets naturally included in the causes of charm already enunciated. By coining a novel designation to just one of them nothing profound will have been stated." (Trans. K. Kris.; pp. 5, ibid). The objector says that as the ways of speech are endless, an insignificant element could have been left out unexplained by the famous framers of the rules of poetry. This is possible. So, it is surprising that persons should close their eyes under the self-assumed illusion of being 'perceptive critics' and dance about with joy saying that they have discovered 'dhvani' in some hitherto unnamed element causing beauty. Thousands of other great men have expounded, and are still expounding, figurative elements of poetic speech. Such an over excitement is not noticed here. So, dhvani is but a fabrication; and it will not be possible for the supporters of dhvani to demostrate any element of truth about it which can bear scrutiny. -Anandavardhana observes : (vrtti on Dhv. I. i.; pp. 4, ibid) : tasmat pravada-matram dhvanih. na tv asya ksodaksamam tattvam kincid api prakasayitum sakyam." Anandavardhana quotes a caustic remark against dhvani, which could be from some Manoratha Kavi, his contemporary, as suggested by Abhinavagupta in the Locana. The Dhvanikara observes (pp. 4, vrtti, Dhv. I. i, ibid) - : "tatha ca anyena krta eva atra slokah yasminn asti na vastu kincana For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #631
1186 SAHRDAYALOKA manah-prahladi salamksti vyutpannair racitam na caiva vacanair vakrokti-sunyam ca yat, kavyam tad dhvanina samanvitam iti pritya prasamsan jadah, no vidmobhidadhati kim sumatina prstah svarupam dhvaneh.""In fact, a gentleman has already composed a verse to this effect -Poetry, wherein there is nothing to delight the mind and no embellishment, which is destitute of felicitous words and artful turns, is praised so warmly by the eing endowed with dhvani (suggestion). But we are at a loss to imagine what answer he would give when faced with a straight question by an intelligent critic about the nature of 'dhvani' itself !" (Trans- K. Kris., pp. 5, ibid). Abhinavagupta suggests (Locana, Dhv. I. i.; pp. Edn. Nandi, ibid) : "granthaket-samana-kala-bhavina manoratha-namna kavina." After taking note of the three dhvany-abhava-vadins Anandavardhana proceeds to refer to two more such views viz. the one, bhaktavadins, i.e. those who try to include dhvani under 'bhakti' or 'laksana' and the rest who feel that dhvani, inspite of its being an inependent catagory cannot be defined-'an-akhyeya-vadins.' To explain 'bhakti' the Locana has the following : (on Dhv. I.; pp. 14, Edn. Nandi, ibid)- "bhajyate sevyate padarthena, prasiddhataya utpreksyate iti bhaktir dharmobhidheyena samipyadih. tata agato bhakto laksanikorthah. yad ahuh "abhidheyena samipyat (sambandhat) sarupyat samavayatah, vaiparityat kriyayogat laksana pancadha mata." guna-samudaya vrtteh sabdasya arthabhagas taiksnya"dir bhaktih, tata agato gaunortho bhaktah. bhaktih pratipadye samipya-taiksnya"dau sraddhatisayah. tam prayojanatvena uddisya tata agato bhakta iti gauno, laksanikasca. mukhyasya carthasya bhango bhaktir ity evam mukhyartha-badha- nimitta-prayojanam iti upacarabijam ity uktam bhavati." "That which is resorted to by the word meaning, that which is imagined in form of a well-known meaning, is 'bhakti' i.e. the relation such as 'nearness' etc. with the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #632
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,..... 1187 denoted sense. The meaning derived from 'bhakti' is termed 'bhakta'. It is also 'gauna' i.e. subordinate, or derived from guna/quality, or it is called 'laksanika' or 'indicated sense' also. It is said "due to relation with the literal meaning, such as closeness etc.; or similarity, or association (samavaya), or contrariety (vaiparitya), or association with some action (kriyayoga), laksana or indication is said to be five-fold." "Bhakti' is that portion of meaning which is such as 'pointedness' etc. The meaning derived through that is 'bhakta' or 'indicated.' Absolute faith in 'closeness', pointedness or sharpness (as in agnir manavakah), which are supposed to be conveyed, is 'bhakti'. (i.e. the speaker should have conviction that by such and such a usage, he will convey his intended sense). This is taken as the prayojana i.e. purpose for resorting to indication, and the meaning arrived at through this process is called 'bhakta' or 'gauna' or 'laksanika' i.e. secondary or indicated. The breaking or dismissal of the primary sense is also termed 'bhakti'. Thus the seed of metaphorical expression (i.e. upacara) is said to be the presence of three factors such as 'contradiction of the literal sense', 'the cause' (i.e. relation etc.), and 'the motive' (prayojana, for resorting to such a usage). On Anandavardhanas observation that, "anye tam dhvani-samjnitam kavya"tmanam gunavrttir. ity ahuh", the Locana observes that the first three varieties) of 'abhavavada' was only an imagined objection. In reality whether these objectors existed or not is not known. It is precisely for this uncertainty the use of "jagaduh"- an aorist form, was preferred by the Dhvanikara. But 'laksanavada' i.e. supporters of laksana, disfavouring dhvani, are read in works in a continuous link. So, (ahuh) the use of present tense is seen here :- "abhava-vadasya sambhavanapranatvena bhutatvam uktam. bhaktavadas tv avicchinnah pustakesvity abhiprayena ahur iti nitya-pravartamanapeksaya abhidhanam." (Locana, Dhv. I. i., pp. 14, Edn. Nandi, ibid). This statement of the Locanakara is important. In fact a verse written by a contemporary, identified as "Manoratha Kavi" by the Locanakara, was quoted by Anandavardhana himself. So, the abhavavada' also, it seems, had known supporters. Or, perhaps Manoratha was a laksana-vadin. As for laksanavada, Anandavardhana has following observation.- (Dhv. I. i.; vrtti, pp. 4, ibid) : - "bhaktam ahus tam anye. anye tam dhvani-saminitam kavya"tmanam guna-vrttir iry ahuh. yadyapi ca dhvani-sabda-sankirtanena kavyalaksana-vidhayibhir gunavittir anyo va na kascit prakarah prakasitah, tatha'pi For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #633
1188 SAHRDAYALOKA amukhya-vstrya kavyesu vyavaharam darsayata dhvanimargo manak-sprstopi na laksita iti parikalpya evam uktam. 'bhaktam ahus tam anve iti' mention it as something (logically) implied. (To put it differently,) others declare that the soul of poetry, designated by the term suggestion, is the same as a secondary usage of words. Although it is true that no literary theorist has ever shown any element like a secondary usage of words as being specially identical with suggestion by mentioning the word 'suggestion' itself, we have noted here such a view because we can conclude that one who points out the secondary usage of words in poetry has slightly touched the fringe of the doctrine of suggestion, though one does not define it."- (Trans. K. Kris., pp. 5, ibid) On this, the Locana observes (pp. 16, Edn. Nandi, ibid) : "darsayata iti. bhatobhata-vamana"dina. bhamahena uktam, "sabdscchandobhidhanarthah" iti. abhidhanasya sabdad bhedam vyakhyatum bhatrodbhato babhase- 'sabdanam abhidhanam abhidhavyaparah, mukhyo gunavrttis ca, iti. vamanopi 'sadrsyallaksana vakroktir iti. manak sprsta iti. tais tavad dhvani-dig-unmilita, yathalikhitapathakais tu svarupa-vivekam kartum a-saknuvadbhih tat-svarupaviveko na krtah, pratyutaupalabhyate., a-bhagna-narikelavat, vatha-sruta-tad-granthodgrahana-matrena iti." -"By pointing out"- (is meant that) by Bhattodbhasa and Vamana etc. Bhamaha observed : "sound, metre, word (with meaning,) etc. "Bhatta Udbhata, while explaining (these words of Bhamaha, in his Bhamaha-vivarana) observes." By abhidhana' of sounds is meant 'abhidha-vyapara' or the power of expression, both principal and subordinate. Vamana also observed : "Indication on the strength of similarity is termed 'vakrokti'. By "just touched" is meant that they opened the path (=direction) to 'dhvani'. But those who revelled only in reading that much which was written on face (i.e. those who had no ability to read between the lines), i.e. those who were incapable to discriminate the exact nature of outward) form, did not go for (proper) discrimination of the form, and they are on the contrary finding fault (with dhvanivadins). This is like an unbroken cocoanut (fruit). They have understood the works (of the ancients) only as they have heard (outwardly) (i.e. without going into the inner meaning)." This shows that perhaps Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta are of the opinion that the ancients, i.e. Bhamaha, Vamana etc., though did not mention dhvani expressly but were not averse to it and had accepted dhvani under different heads. We have tried to discuss the position of the ancients in an earlier chapter, i.e. Ch. V. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #634
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,..... 1189 Finally, Anandavardhana records the view of those who do not deny dhvani but feel that it cannot be defined. They are the "asakya-vaktavya-vadins." They do not reject 'dhvani' as an independent concept, but hold that it eludes all attempts to define. Anandavardhana observes : (pp. 6, vitti, Dhv. I. i., ibid). "kecit punah laksana-karana-salina-bhddhayah dhvanes tattvam giram agocaram sahsdaya-hrdaya-samvedyam eva samakhyatavantah."- "Still others not astute enough to frame a definition, rest content with saying that the true nature of suggestion is beyond all words and that it is discernible only to t perceptive critics."- (Trans. K. Kris.; pp, ibid) The Locana observes : (on Dhy. I. i.; pp. 16, Edn. Nandi, ibid)- "ete ca traya uttarottaram bhavya-buddhayah. pracya hi viparyasta eva sarvatha. madhyamas tu tad-rupam janana api sandehena apahnuvate. antyas tv anapahnava api laksayitum na janata iti kramena viparyasa-sa-samdeha-ajnanapradhanyam etesam." These three (i.e. the three abhavavadins, the laksanavadins, and the avyakhyeyatavadins) are having brigher intellect in sequence. The ancients (who deny dhvani totally, the first three views) are absolutely inverted in their understanding) (i.e. they are totally deluded). The middle ones (i.e. the bhaktivadins) know its nature but due to doubt (in their mind, i.e. due to lack of clarity), are negating the same (or, are covering it up). The last ones do not reject (dhvani), but they do not know how to draft the definition. Thus in sequence these are dominated by, opposite (view), doubtful apprehension and ignorant understanding." Anandavardhana says that as there are so many different opinions concerning dhvani, he takes upon himself to lay down the true nature of dhvani. We have noted that he is of the opinion that :- "tasya hi dhvaneh svarupam sakala-satkavikavyopanisad bhutam atiramaniyam, aniyasibhir api cirantana-kavya-laksanavidhayinam buddhibhir anunmilita-purvam; atha ca ramayana-mahabharata laksye sarvatra prasiddha-vyavaharam, laksayatam sahrdayanam anando manasi labhatam pratistham iti prakasyate."-"(vrtti, Dhv. I. i; pp. 6, ibid) :-"suggestion itself is both the quintessence of the works of all first-rate poets and the most beautiful principle of poetry though it remained unnoticed even by the subtlest of the rhetoricians of the past. However, refined critics are certainly alive to its primary presence in literary works like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata; and with a view to placing their delight on a secure footing, we shall explain its nature (in detail)." (Trans. K. Kris.; pp. 7, ibid). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #635
1190 SAHRDAYALOKA It is in answer to the objections as explained above, Anandavardhana writes the whole of his Dhvanyaloka in which he presents a scheme which has a place for all thought-currents floated in the field of literary criticism, of course, with dhvani, i.e. rasa-dhvani remaining in the centre. To begin with, Anandavardhana establishes the implicit sense i.e. pratiyamana artha-as independent of the denotated sense i.e. vacyartha. We have seen how this implicit sense when principal, is termed 'dhvani' by him. He defines dhvani at Dhv. I. 13 and explains how its scope falls apart from that of the various devices of beauty at the expressed level such as figures of both sound and sense. Similarly, the excellences such as sweetness etc. and the styles and dictions (riti, vrtti) are also but suggesters of dhvani, the supreme rasa-dhvani in particular. The concepts of alamkara, guna, riti, vrtti etc. are all based on the relation of the expressed and the expressor (i.e. vacya-vacaka-bhava) while dhvani rests exclusively on what he terms as "vyangya-vyanjaka-bhava" i.e. the relation of the suggester and the suggested. Thus the scope of both these are different, i.e. 'vibhakta'. The view of the supporters of the known track only i.e. "prasiddha-prasthana-vadins" does not stand scrutiny. They said that no definition of dhvani should be attempted for the earlier masters have not done it, as it is absent in known works of literature (i.e. laksya-granthas). But the main asgument is that not to attempt a definition because the ancients have not attempted, is in itself self-defeating. It contains hervabhasa called 'viruddha', because actually it becomes logically more pertinent to attempt a definition if nobody else has tried it. Again to say that this dhvani-tattva is not noticed in great works of literature (=laksya-granthas) is rooted in hetvabhasa called "a-siddha", as in reality this dhvani-tattva is seen predominantly present in great works such as the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. Again some opponents had stated that even if dhvani exists, it has no relation with poetry. To this the answer is that it can be understood if it is said that dance and music have no intrinsic relation with the art of drama, but 'dhvani' is said to be the vary soul of poetry and so such an observation that it has no relation with poetry is absolutely thoughtless. The third type of dhvani-abhavavadins wanted to include dhvani in other sources of beauty such as guna, alamkara etc. as dhvani also is the cause of beauty (=ramaniyata). But this is not correct as the tradition which these people advocate is based on vacya-vacaka-bhava, while dhvani sails only on vyangya-vyanjakabhava and thus there is no chance of the latter being covered up by the former. The guna'lamkaras are but parts or limbs (anga) and 'dhvani' is said to be 'ang?' i.e. the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #636
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1191. full-limbed species of poetry. Anandavardhana, in a detailed exposition, explains how dhvani, which is principal, cannot be subsumed under alamkaras such as samasokti, aksepa etc. which are charged with subordinated implicit sense. He cencedes this much that if in paryayokta or in some veriety of aprastuta-prasamsa the critic feels that the implicit sense is more charming than the expressed, than it can be included in dhvani having a wider scope (maha-visaya) . Thus dhvani cannot be subsumed under any known literary concept. He observes : (vltti, Dhv. I. 13) : tasman na dhvaner anyatra antarbhavah, itas ca na'ntarbhavah, yatah kavya-visesongi dhvanir iti kathitah tasya punar angani-alamkara guna vsttayas ceti pratipadayisyate. na ca avayava eva prthag bhutah avayavi iti prasiddhah a prthagbhave tu tad angatvam tasya, na tu tattvam eva. yatra'pi va tattvam tatra'pi dhvaner mahavisayatvat na tan nisthatvam eva." It is thus established that suggestion cannot be subsumed under other heads. Another reason why it cannot be so subsumed is the statement that, 'it is only the full-limbed species of poetry which gets the designation of 'dhvani' or 'suggestive poetry.' It will be explained hereafter that the limbs (of poetry) are figures, qualities (=excellences), and varieties of diction. Looking upon each component part as the whole itself is quite unheard of. When considered collectively, it will be but a part of the whole and never identical with the whole. Even if identity were possible in some instances, suggestive poetry can not be looked upon as conditioned by its limbs mentioned, since its sphere is very extensive. (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 27, ibid). Anandavardhana further observes : "suribhih kathitah" iti vidvadupajna iyam uktih, na tu yathakathancit pravstta iti pratipadyate. prathame hi vidvamso vaiyakaranah, vyakarana-mulatvat sarva-vidyanam. te ca sruyamanesu varnesu dhvanir iti vyavaharanti. tathaiva anyais tanmatanusaribhih suribhih, kavyatattvartha-darsibhih vacya-vacaka-sammisrah sabdatma kavyam iti vyapadesyo vyanjakarva-samyad dhvanir ity uktah, na ca evamvidhasya dhvaner vaksyamanaprabheda-tadbheda-sankalanaya mahavisayasya yat prakasanam tad a-prasiddhaalamkara-visesamatra-pratipadanena tulyam iti tad-bhavita-cetasam yukta eva samrambhah. na ca tesu kathancid irsaya kalusita-semusikatvam aviskaraniyam." tad evam dhvanes tavad abhavavadinah pratyuktah. asti dhvanih." (vstti. Dhv. I. 13, pp. 26, 28, ibid). -"The expression," is designated by the learned" brings out the fact that this designation was first devised by the learned and that it has not gained currency in a haphazard fashion. The foremost among the learned are grammarians because grammar lies at the root of all studies. They indeed refer to articulate letters by the For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #637
1192 SAHRDAYALOKA term 'dhvani' or 'suggester'. In the same way, since the element of suggestion is common (to both), not only the word and its meaning, but its essential verba power and also that which is usually referred to by the term poetry, has been given the same designation, viz. 'Dhvani' by other learned men whose insight into the fundamental truth about poetry is profound and who are followers of the principles laid down by grammarians. A treatment, then, of such a comprehensive concept as suggestion, with all its divisions and subdivisions yet to be explained in the sequel, is not at all on a par with the enumeration of the well known, specific figures of speech and hence the enthusiasm of persons imbued in their minds with the value of suggestion is quite proper. None need display jealousy to show somehow that they are all men of deranged minds."- (Trans. K. Kris.; pp. 27, 29, ibid) The Locana has the following observation : (pp. 76, Locana, Dhv. I. 13, Edn Nandi, ibid) : "tena vacyopi dhvanih, vacakopi sabdo dhvanih, dvavo vyanjakatvam 'dhvanati' iti krtva. sammisryate vibhavanubhava-samvalanaya iti vyangyopi dhvanih, 'dhvanyate' iti krtva. sabdanam sabdah, sabda-vyaparah, na ca'sav abhidhadirupah, api tv atmabhutah, sopi dhvananam dhvanih, kavyam iti vyapadesyas ca yorthah sopi dhvanih. ukta-prakara dhvani-catustaya-mayatvat." Thus Anandavardhana refutes the abhavavadins to his satisfaction. We have seen how the Locana on Dhv. I.iv. and then Mammata and the rest support the case of vyanjana following Anandavardhanas lead under Dhv. III. 33. We have examined all this under "vyanjana-virodha" and hence no need to repeat the same over here. After refuting the opponents of Dhvani Anandavardhana proceeds to suggest that basically dhvani is two-fold vig. avivaksita-vacya and vivaksitanyapara-vacya i.e. laksanamula and abhidhamula respectively suggesting of course that vyanjanasakti, with reference to poetry or literature has to take its seat either on laksana or abhidha. 'Bhakti' or laksana may be at the root of the first type of.dhvani but it is not identical with the same. Between the two there is difference in nature. Anandavardhana observes, (Dhy. I. 14): (pp. 28, ibid) "bhaktya bibharti naikatvam rupabhedad ayam dhvanih, ativyapter atha'vyapter na ca'sau laksyate taya." (Dhv. I. 14) "Suggestion does not bear identity with indication because there is difference in nature between the two. Nor is this a differentia of that as both the fallacies of Too For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #638
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,..... 1193 wide and Too Narrow would result (if one were to hold such a view)." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 29, 31, ibid). Dhvani which is explained and defined at Dhv. I. 13, etc. does not bear identity with logical implication or indication because of difference in nature between the two. Suggestion i.e. dhvani is the "unidirectional communication" (K. Kris. pp. 29, ibid) of a sense else than the expressed, both by the expressed sense or the expression itself (=vacya-vacaka), while at the same time the implicit sense will be exclusively, important (i.e. tatparyena prakasanam). 'Bhakti' or indication is merely a metaphorical expression (upacaramatra). Again 'dhvani' or suggestion does not have 'bhakti' as its invariable mark (chihna) i.e. it is not determined by 'bhakti.' For, if it is so held the fallacies of "too wide" and also "too narrowo will follow as the case may be, argues Anandavardhana (vrtti, Dhv. I. 14). There is possibility of 'bhakti' or metaphorical expression in places where there is absence of dhvani. This is ati-vyapti. Again with the presence of dhvani at times we have no semblance of bhakti as in case of abhidha-mula-dhvani, which brings in the avyapti-dosa. Again, observes Anandavardhana : (Dhv. I. 17, 18, 19) (pp. 32, 34, ibid). "mukhyam vittim parityajya guna-vittya'rtha-darsanam, yad-uddisya phalam, tatra sabdo naiva s-khalad-gatih. (Dhy. I. 17) vacakatva"srayenaiva gunavittir vyavasthita, vyanjakatvaika-mulasya dhvaneh syal laksanam katham. (Dhv. I. 18) "kasyacid dhvanibhedasya sa tu syad upalaksanam, laksane'nyaih krte ca'sya paksa-samsiddhir eva nah." (Dhv. I. 19) "If one gives up the primary denotative power of a word and understands a sense (secondarily converyed by it) through the indica ive power, it is because of a purpose. In conveying this purpose, the word does not move falteringly at all (as it moves 'falteringly when indicating a meaning secondarily." (Dhv. I. 17). For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #639
1194 SAHRDAYALOKA "The fact is that indication is grounded on the primary denotative force of words. How can it ever be a definition of suggestion whose sole support is suggestivity ?" (Dhv. I. 18) At the most, it might serve as a pointer to one of the species of suggestion. If one were to say that the definition of suggestion has already been propounded by others, it would only substantiate our own position." Dhv. I. 9). (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 33, 35 ibid). In the end, Anandavardhana refutes the anakhyeya vadins also and observes that even those who hold that the nature of dhvani is within the experience of sensitive critics only and that it defies all attempt to form a definition. Then these people betray only their lack of discernment. For, observes Anandavardhana, dhvani has not only been defined, i.e. the general definition is not only propounded, but even definitions of some of its varieties are also to be satisfactorily given. Now, if with all this if dhvani is thought of as "in-expressible" then of course this would be true of all things in the world. And if these people through dhvanis so called "inexpressibily" want to emphasise the all-surpassing nature of dhvani by means of exaggeration, then even they can be regarded as stating the truth-(Vrtti, Dhv. I. 19, pp. 36 ibid): "yadi punar dhvaner atisayoktya anaya kavyantaratisayitaih svarupam akhyayate, tat tepi yukta'bhidhayina eva." Anandavardhana thus refutes the views of dhvani-virodhins. We have seen earlier how Mukula, a near contemporary of the Dhvanikara tried to incorporate dhvani under laksana, which in itself was but a variety of his wider abhidha. We have seen how his commentator Pratiharenduraja tried to support him. Bhatta Nayaka wrote an independent treatise to demolish dhvani; his work "HIdayadarpana" now not available. It was meant for "dhvani- dhamsa". But in the absence of its availability now, we can not talk much about it but we will go to see later how the Abhinavabharati on rasa-sutra (N. S. VI) goes to refute the two powers viz. bhavakatva and bhojakatva projected by Bhatta Nayaka in preference to vyanjana. Kuntaka, as seen earlier was a "pracchanna dhvanivadin" or say, a "manasa-patra" of Anandavardhana and this we have examined in the earlier chapter. Actually the quarrel is in name only and his 'victra abhidha' or 'vakrokti' does not defy the ruling of vyanjana. Mahima had a scathing attack on vyanjana as discussed by us earlier, but he had no supporters as his was perhaps a clash of ego only. His 'rasanumiti' is just "rasa-dhvani" For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #640
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,...... 1195 under a different label. Dhananjaya-Dhanika denounced vyanjana in favour of 'tatparya' which as Visvanatha ably explains is just another name of vyanjana and thus their opposition is also having elated ego at its root. Bhoja, as we have seen has in his own way accepted dhvani under different heads and has not rejected vyanjana either. Actually Anandavardhanas great followers beginnin with Abhinavagupta, Mammata, Hemacandra and ending with Jagannatha kept the flag of dhvani-vyanjana flying and the opposition to dhvani was condemned and silenced for all time As 'rasa-dhvani' is central to the theory of dhvani we will discuss the concept of 'rasa' in detail, beginning with the next chapter. For Personal & Private Use Only

Page #641

Page #642
290 650 185 360 135 120 220 180 L. D. Series : Latest Publications 126 Acarya Ramcandra and Gunacandra's Dravyalankar with auto commentary, Ed. Muni Shri Jambuvijayaji P.P. 29 +251 (2001) 127 Pracina Madhyakalina Sahitya Sangraha (Mohanlal Dalichanda Desai-Laghukruti) Ed. Prof. Jayanta Kothari P.P. 14 + 746 (2001) 128 Sastravarta Samuccaya of Acarya Haribhadra Suri with Hindi translation Notes & Introduction by Dr. K.K.Dixit P.P. 272 (2001) 129 Temple of Mahavira Osiyaji - Monograph by Dr. R.J.Vasavada P.P. 30 + Plates 61 (2001) 130 Bhagwaticurni - Ed. Pt. Rupendra kumar Pagariya P.P. 120 (2002) 131 Abhidha - Dr. Tapasvi Nandi P.P. 84 (2002) 132 A Lover of Light amoung Luminaries : Dilip Kumar Roy Dr. Amrita Paresh Patel P.P. 256 (2002) 133 Sudansana-cariyam - Dr. Saloni Joshi P.P. 8 + 110 (2002) 134 Sivaditya's Saptapadarthi with a commentary by Jinavardhana Suri Ed. Dr. J. S. Jetly P.P. 24 +96 (2003) 135 Paniniya Vyakarana - Tantra, Artha aura Sambhasana Sandarbha Dr. V. M. Bhatt P.P. 88 (2003) 136 Kurmasatakadvayam, - Translation with select Glossary - Dr. V. M. Kulkarni Introduction by Dr. Devangana Desai P.P. 85 (2003) 137 Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts Vol. V 138 Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts Vol. VI 139 Mahavira's Words - Translation from the German with much added material by W.Boll'ee and J. Soni 140 Vyakarna Mahabhasya Of Bagavad Patanjali Gujarati Translation with Critical Notes by Dr. P.R.Vora - P.P. 6 +58 +652 (2004) Our Forthcoming Publications - Haribhadra Suri's Yogasataka - Sambodhi Vol. XXIX 110 65 900 700 600 600 For Personal & Private Use Only