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 206

base of all creation. In this connection on page 74 of the Viveka Vyākhyā he explains the words "Kiin prapañcena" usad
he gloss by saying that a mere compounding of types and sub-types and multiplication of varieties and examples does not serve the purpose of poetics or literature, but it actually results in delusion and dejection for the student. It may initially dazzle the young pupil but will not equip him to read and enjoy poetry. 5 5
in connection with Vastu suggesting Alamkāra, Hemachandra gives additional references and illustrations in the Viveka (Page 75). He explains that figures like Upamā etc., are suggested by Vastu or a mere fact. The suggestion of Upamādhvani is illustrated in verse 72 (Dhirāņām etc. - see above). He cites Hiayatthiya etc. in the Viveka (V. 143). This verse is quoted in the Dhy. Āl. (11) as an illustration of Arthäntaranyāsadhvani of the Arthasaktimula variety. Hemachandra has adopted the verse as well as Abhinavagupta's comments thereon. The verse means : "You are audacious enough to try to please me, who am not showing the anger hidden deep in the heart, so, O you very intelligent man, I cannot get angry with you, though you are the offender.' Here, the lady says, "I conceal my anger in my heart and show no sign of wrath on the face; yet, О clever one, as you cajole me, I cannot be angry with you, though you have really done harm to me (i.e., offended me)." Here, the general statement that it is impossible to be angry with clever men though they might have caused harm, is got at by the exclusive suggestiveness of the expressed. This verse illustrates the Arthāntaranyasadhvani. The next verse (144) in the Viveka also is from the Dhv. Al. with Locana, and illustrates Utprekşādhvani. Kuntaka cites Candanāsakta etc. as an instance of Pratiyamānotpreksā (V. J. III, V, 113). Since the particle Iva is not present in this verse, someone may say it is not Utpreksādhvani but merely Pratiyamānotpreksā. Ānandvardhana demurs and say that the non-mention of Iva is not a defect here. Because, in cases of Pratiyamānotprekşā also, Utprekşā is grasped without Iva. And
181