Sahrdayaloka Part 02

SR No.: 006909
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 642
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 218

Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
773 nature of vyañjanā or opposition to it in either the text portion or even in Viveka commentary thereon.
But actually in Viveka under Kā. Šā. I. 19 which attempts to define dhvani, we come across a full discussion of the views of the objection (pūrva-paksa) against vyañjanā and its rejection. Hemacandra has reproduced not only the arguments but also actual words of Mammaţa and has silenced all vyañjanā-virodha in like fashion. (pp. 47-53, viveka, Edn. Parikh, Kulkarni, ibid). Hemacandra rejects the views of Abhihitávvvayavādins, Anvitábhidhānavādins, Nimittavādins Dirghadīrghatara-vyāpāravādins, tātparya-vādins, and anumitivādins following Mammata. He even establishes vyañjanā also in like manner after Mammața.
Vidyadhara does not discuss vyañjanā-virodha when he talks of vyañjana in the second unmesa of his Ekavali, but while discussing the nature of rasa in the third unmesa he observes that rasa is not abhidheya i.e. object of abhidhā or direct statement : ayam ca svapne'pi pariharati' vācyatām (pp. 89, Edn. Trivedi). The arguments advanced follow Anandavardhana and Mammata. Then he rejects tātparya : "uta yadi tātparya-gocaratām avatarati rasa iti bhavan manasi niviśate, tadapi na vicāra-cāru. rasasya abhidheyatvā'nadhikaranatvād abhihite ca tātparyasya pragalbhanāt.” He further argues following Mammața and citing the same illustration as “lohitosniņā ștvijaḥ pracaranti”, etc., that tātparya has no scope here. All this thinking is similar to that of the lead given by Abhinavagupta and Mammața. In a similar vein he rejects the case of lakṣaņā : atha yadi lakṣaniyo rasas tadapi na ksodaksamam" (pp. 90, ibid). He accepts vyañjana in case of rasa. He further discusses the nature of rasa after the kashmir school and this we will pick up in our chapter on rasa later.
The Taralā-țīkā discusses vyañjanā at length and accepts all the views as advanced by Mammața in favour of vyañjanā.
Vidyānātha also has nothing special to offer. We will therefore turn to Viśvanātha for a fuller examination of demolishing anti-vyañjanā views. In the third pariccheda of his Sāhityadarpana, Viśvanātha (S.D. III. 2.3), while discussing the nature of rasa observes :
"sattvodrekad akhandasvaprakāśānanda-cinmayah, vedyantara-sparsa-sūnyo brahmā"svāda-sahodarah” (III. 2 S.D.)