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 27

582
SAHRDAYĀLOKA prop up simultaneously and it is due to the limitation of an individual asthete that he does not grasp a particular suggested sense which others have grasped. Thus an objective evaluation of emotive meaning may not logically fail us, given all conditions being satisfied simultaneously. In the famous illustration, viz. "gatóstam arkaḥ” Mammața explains how various suggested senses are grasped by various agents. But this is because of individual limitations. Thus, in a way, we can attempt a uniform objective analysis in case of vyañjanā also. This is another way of approaching this problem. Or, this non-unanimity may be taken as a bhūṣaṇa and not a dūṣaṇa of poetic language.
It may also be noted that if Dr. Bhate wants to suggest that a scientific approach to language is the only thing which should happen to men who are a thinking animal, and if she feels that it was this approach only that was acceptable to Pāṇini, Patañjali and the rest of thinkers, then we feel she is off the mark. But hopefully she does not mean it. She only attempts to point out to the limitations of poetic use of language, when put to test by scientific principles. Actually this scientific approach in our estimation, is considered only so far as the various disciplines - śāstras-are concerned. Even the grammarians, Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas perhaps know it. Otherwise the famous saying viz.
"tarkeșu karkasadhiyaḥ
vayam eva nā’nye, kāvyeșu kolamadhiyah
vayam eva nā'nye.” would not have been floated and no Bhāmaha or Vāmana would have ever thought of contemplating how vyākarana and nyāya (= kāvyanyāna) operate in a special way in the realm of poetry. We may quote in our support from Dr. Rajā (pp. 280. Indian theories of Meaning, Ed. '69 Adyar Madras), who quotes J. Borough (pp. 176, Some Indian Theories of Meaning) : “Most philosophic discussions of meaning confine themselves to a relatively small protion of language behaviour, namely, statements which describe or report a state of affairs- the propositions of the natural sciences, or, more generally, such statements as are traditionally handled by logic.” We may add that this observation pertains only to the use of language in śāstras i.e. scientific use of language, or, language in popular usage, but that does not negate the possibility of the thinkers concerned, of accepting the emotive use of language in the field of poetry i.e. literature proper. We also do not