Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 266

Pratīyamāna artha' - as seen in the earlier ālamkārikas...
241
Thus, ananvaya occurs when a thing is compared with one's own self, in order to suggest that it is beyond comparison; that is to say it is unrivalled, ananvaya occurs. The idea of asādęśya-vivaksā is implied only :
Thus utpreksāvayava (at Bhāmaha III. 47) having in itself the use of doublemeaning words, and an element of both utpreksā and rüpaka, has the idea of similarity between upameya and upamāna necessarily implied.
III. 53, 54 define 'bhāvikatva' (vivid presentation) which is a guna i.e. excellence with reference to a whole composition in which past and future events look as if they are present, and which rests on a meaning that is charming, elevated, and uncommon and a narrative that is capable of being effectively staged, wherein the expression is not involved. The definition runs as :
"Dāvikatvam iti prāhuḥ prabandha-visayam guņam, pratyaksā iva drśyante
yatrárthāḥ bhūta-bhāvinaḥ." and,
"citródāttádbhutárthatvam kathāyāḥ sv abhinītatā, śabdánākulatā ceti
tasya hetum pracaksate.” Tatacharya observes : (pp. 78, ibid) : “mahākavinām tu kāvya-višeșeșu prasphuţábhi-vyaktārtha-varnanāviśesā atra udāharaṇatvena drastavyāḥ.” Thus, bhāvika alamkāra is by itself of the nature of implied only, as it rests on a whole composition.
We have thus examined how Bhāmaha has incorporated the pratiyamāna or implied sense in various alamkāras. But he has not declared it to be derived through the agency of vyañjanā, and he has not called it 'gunībhūta-vyangya' by name also.
But what he is aware of can not be brushed aside and hence Jagannātha has said that the ancients know dhvani, of course without naming it as such - 'dhvanināma-samkirtanena vinā', and much earlier Abhinavagupta had also vouchsafed that there was a living oral tradition of dhvani, without of course, putting it in a book form - vinápi viśista-pustakeșu viniveśanāt. Thus Bhāmaha knew it and so also Dandin and the rest of pre-Anandavardhana writers on literary aesthetics.