________________
714
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the Mahābhāsya. There is no anvaya of these padas merely by they being read together - i.e. by sankalana-mātra. 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-pramāņika, by pratyakşa-pramāņa 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 pratyakşa-pramāna, i.e. direct perception, but laksaņā comes to the help and saves the situation, and the falsity of the statement is removed.
The objector now says, “In case of prayojanavati laksanā” i.e. indication with motive, you accept vyañjanā 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 - "Kāvya-ātma', 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 "kāvya' is said to be there which has a body of word and sense properly decorated by gunas or excellences and alamkāras i.e. figures of speech etc. and with such a body and suggestion as soul, we use the term poetry : gunālankāra-aucitya-sundara-sabdartha-sarirasya sati dhvanana"khya'tman kāvya-rūpatā-vyavahāraḥ.” (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 ātmanósāratā kācid iti samānam.” (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 laksanā or not? The short answer to this is that 'bhakti' or 'laksaņā' rests with the third stage, while dhvanana-vāpāra rests in the fourth stage : "na ca evam bhaktir eva dhvaniḥ; bhaktir hi lakṣaṇā vyāpāras tộtīyakaksyā-niveśī. caturthyām tu kaksyāyām dhvanana-vyāpāraḥ.” (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
www.jainelibrary.org