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 543

1098
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
by Anandavardhana (Dhy. I. 4, vstti) for establishing the existence of the implicit sense (or, vastu - vyangya).
In the section on figures of sense, i.e. arthálamkāras also, we can see the presence of the implicit sense. Bhojas sūkşma alamkāra is just the second name given to 'rasa-dhvani' arrived at through the description of consequents i.e. anubhāvas alone. ‘sūksma' is read at S. K. Ā. III. 21, 22, pp. 334, ibid as
"ingitā”kāra-laksyórthaḥ sūkşmaḥ sūksma-guņāt tu saḥ, sūkşmāt pratyaksataḥ sūkşmaḥ a-pratykṣa iti bhidyate.” (II. 21) “vācyaḥ pratīyamānaś ca sūksmótra dvividho matah, ingitā”kāra-laksyatvam
laksya-sāmānyam etayoh.”-(II. 22, S. K. Ā.) Thus there are two varieties of sūksma : (i) that in which rasa is suggested through ingita-gesture. When rasa is suggested through horripilation and such other sättvika bhāvas, it is suggestion through 'ākāra' or appearance. The first variety is illustrated by the verse, viz. "tām pratyabhivyakta-manorathānām...” etc. Bhoja observes (pp. 334, ibid) : "atra svayamvara-militānām rajñām rājaputrim prati prāpti-lakṣaṇasya manorathasya abhidhīyamānasya śțngāra-cestā”tmakena ingitena vyangyatvāt ayam ingita-laksyah abhidhīyamāhaḥ sūkşma-bhedah.” Bhoja has given a two-fold sūkṣma, the abhidhīyamāna and the pratiyamāna. The latter is illustrated by the verse viz. "śyāmāyāh śyāmalatayā...” etc. When rasa is collected through the agency of anubhāva-varnana or sāttvika-varnana, it is termed 'vācya' i.e. “abhidhīyamāna-sūksma.” When rasa is arrived at through the description of wabhicărins, it is termed “pratīvamāna-sūksma.” Now, the question that stares in our eyes is that weather by ‘abhidhīyamāna' Bhoja means abhibhāna or direct naming of anubhāvas or sättvika-bhāvas or not. For, even through the description of anubhāvas, we can not hold that 'rasa' is 'abhidhīyamāna” i.e. directly stated. For such a possilility of rasa being directly stated is ruled out not only by Anandavardhana but even by his die-hard opponents such as Mahima-Bhatta also. Or, may be Bhoja accepts a possilility when rasa is not always and necessarily suggested only and never directly conveyed. Perhaps he accepts conveying of rasa through abhidhā also. Or, perhaps he favours the sva-sabda-vācyarva or dircet