________________
622
SAHRDAYĀLOKA these two. Whatever is suggested by krd-anta is in the form of a 'dravya', while by 'tin', kāla, purusa and upagraha (i.e. parasmai or ātmane), are suggested.
Moreover, at Pā. VIII. ii. 48; 23/23/408, we have, "añjer añjanam; añjanam ca prakāśanam; tathā añjer vyañjanam, vyañjanam ca prakāśanam. The context is that when Vañj is in the sense of 'prakāśana', we do not change 'ta' into ‘na', in case of a P.P.P. Thus, we get Vañj in the sense of 'prakāśana’. Later on he says that Vaño is also seen in the same sense - "añcitah gacchati” - means, “prakaśayati ātmānam iti gamyate.” In our popular usage, ‘añcitaḥ gacchati' means, “being alert he goes”, i.e. 'samāhito bhūtvā gacchati'. The author here uses terms such as, 'iti gamyate', and this usage brings us very close to the vyañjanā-vāda.
Thus we see that Vañj, Vañc, and vi+ Vañj are all used in the sense of ‘prakāśana' i.e. 'manifestation', or revealing, or bringing something into light, or displaying something etc.
Vyañjana' occurs normally in its technical sense of a consonant, but at Pā. VIII. ii. 48; 24/24/408, however, we get it in the sense of 'prakāśana', as noted above. Thus, Vañj and vi+Vañj, seem to occur in the same senses as in the earlier literature. Vi+Vañj in the sense of suggestion is also noted as at Mbh. VIII. i. 70; 15/381; or Mbh. I. iii. 1; 19/20/258, etc., as noted above.
This ends our investigation in the fields of grammar and philosophic literature of the ancient times, to find the roots of the theory of wañiana-dhvani-of the alamkārikas and the results are positive. The thought-current of vyañjanā-dhvani was very much present even in the earliest vedic literature also, and even a theory of vyañjanā is clearly traced in early grammatical and philosophical literature and we are happy to note that Anandavardhana is very right when he observes that dhvani' was 'samāmnāta-purvah'.
We will now try to trace the germs of vyañjanā-dhvani even in the works of earlier literary masters such as Bhāsa (Cir. 300 A.D.), Aśvaghosa (Cir. 100 A.D.) and Kālidāsa (Cir. 400 A.D. - if not 1st cen B.C.) Our investigation in the works of these literary artists is motivated by the fact that it is always great literature which gives birth to great literary cannons and it is great criticism which in its turn influences the shaping of literature that follows. So, perhaps the works of these poets might have an indirect influence in the shaping of literary criticism. That Bhāsa was a name to remember with respect even for Kālidāsa is clear from the latter's reference to Bhāsa in his Malavikāgnimitram. It is one thing whether the so called Trivendrum plays are from this same Bhāsa or not, and frankly speaking
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org