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 547

1102
SAHRDAYĀLOKA kāvyeșu dhvanir iti prasiddhiḥ.” – tad uktam
tātparyam eva vacasi dhvanir eva kāvye saubhāgyam eva gunasampadi vallabhasya, lāvanyam eva vapuși svadate' nganāyāḥ śrngāra eva hrdi
mānavato janasya. Let us try to analyse these two verses. Bhoja suggests
(i) “tātparyam eva vacasi
dhvanir eva kāvye.' This could be understood as,” yad vacasi (= loke ca śāstre ca vacasi) ‘tātparyam' (kathyate) tad eva kāvye (= kāvya vākye) dhvanih (iti arthah) If we understand this passage as above then here we take 'tātparya' as co-rrelated vākyártha in the sense of the Mimāmsā doctrine. This means that 'vākyartha' which is collceted from the vākya through tātparya-śakti is termed 'tātparya’ at ordinary worldly level, or at the level of an expression in scientific literature i.e. śāstra. Thus the meaning of a given sentence-expression as a whole is tātparya at work-a-day level. But when it is the case of a poetic expression i.e. kavya-vākya, for which Bhoja uses the term ‘kāvye' i.e. 'in poetry', the same vākyártha or sentence sense is termed dhvani' in the language of literary criticism. Now in this case, we have to consider what shaping influences were active in Bhoja's assertion also.
We will refer to Dr. Raghevans explanation later but for the present let us try to understand how Bhojaś text reveals itself before us.
We knew that Bhoja had some great predecessors who intervened between Anandavardhana and himself. They were Kuntaka on one hand, then MahimaBhatta and of course Dhananjaya and Dhanika who were in the court of Munja, not to mention the greatest Abhinavagupta. Dr. Raghavan is clear that Bhoja did not know Abhinavagupta, i.e. he had no access to the latter's works on the Nātyaśāstra and the Dhvanyāloka. Now this is unthinkable for if for the sake of argument we accept what Dr. K. Krishna-moorthy says, though we have no faith in it that Kuntaka preceded Abhinavagupta, then also the latter being prior to Bhoja and Mahimā was closer to Bhoja and we cannot imagine that Bhoja being so wel-read and an expert in understanding Anandavardhana,