Kavyanushasana Critical Study

SR No.: 001713
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 558
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Kavya
File Size: 10 MB

Page 129

and unreal, and, as such, no meaning of a word is possible with reference to them. Hence words like Go and others negatively convey the sense of exclusion from everything else (Agovyāvștti). Also, since anything characterised by such a negative sense is devoid of any contact with real objects, being merely a reflection of a mental notion, it can be expressed by the exclusion of all other things, which they are not." Thus, in the Buddhist view, nothing positive can be learnt about things. Again, Sanketa for Vyakti is prevented by Anantyadoşa and Vyabhicaradosa. And, since everything is kşaņika, a positive Upadhi, which will have to last for longer than a Kșana, cannot be admitted. So all that a word fike Go denotes is that it is not A-Go, i.e., not an elephant or a horse etc.
This marks the end of the somewhat detailed discussion of the four views on the convention of words, viz., Jatyādivāda ( to which Hemachandra subscribes), Jatirevavāda, Jātiviśistavyaktivāda and Apohavada. The modern Naiyāyikas postulate a fifth view, viz., Vyaktivāda or Kevalavyaktivāda. The protagonists of this view rely on Vyavahāra for fixing the Sanketa and since Vyavahāra has to do with Vyaktis, it is the Vyakti alone which is Pravșttinivșttiyogya, as Mammaţa clearly states. No wonder, then, that these neo-logicians assign Sanketa to Vyakti only. Hemachandra's Conclusion
From Hemachandra's words in the gloss on this Sūtra (1. 16), it is clear that (a) he favours the first view of Sanketa viz., the Jātyādivāda of the grammarians, and (b) he believes that so far as theories of poetry are concerned, it is the first view that matters, since stalwarts like Anandavardhana and Mammața clearly show their allegiance to the views of the grammarians on several major and minor matters connected with poetics. Hemachandra, unlike Mammața, is so businesslike here that he does not even elaborate on the Jātyādivāda or Jātivada at all in the body of the text. But it is only in the
104