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 513

40
41
and irresistible figure of rhetoric." The Encyclopaedia American, Vol. 15, p. 390.
38 Vide 'Indian Theories of Meaning', p. 258 (re: Lakṣaṇā and Arthapatti).
42
For fuller discussion of Kaku or Intonation, read Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's paper on "The Treatment of Intonation (Kāku) in SK. Poetics" in his 'Studies in Sanskrit Sahitya'sastra', Chapter III, pp. 28-36.
39 Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, Introduction (p. 28) to 'Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka.' Prof. Hiriyanna considers the theory of Dhvani wide enough to cover all forms of Art. Vide Art Experience, (1954), p. 71.
Dr. Krishnamoorthy, Ibid, pp. 25-26.
43
Hemachandra rejects it as a figure and takes it as a case of subordinate suggestion but provides all useful information about Kāku. Vide Ibid pp. 33 & 35.
Abhinava explains that here there is neither prohibition of going nor another Vidhi to redress another prohibition. cf. Malatimadhava III. 3.
K.P. III. 23 etc. Here Mammata underlines that in the suggestiveness of the meaning, there is cooperation of the word. He stressess in the gloss that a sense which is known from any other means of proof is never suggestive. This is an important characteristic of Dhvani.
Hemachandra notes that Prakarana is Asabda whereas Artha is Sabdavān. Hence the former is non-verbal but the latter is verbal or mentioned in so many words.
44
Auciti is a restrictive factor of the sense of a homonym. It is a contextual factor with several others and a key to Ambiguity and Equivocation cf. V.P. II. 316.
Also see The Indian Theories of Meaning. pp. 48-56.
488