________________
644
SAHRDAYĀLOKA while conveying the other, just like a lamp. The instance here is, "līlākamalapatrāni ganayāmāsa pārvatī." If the name indication were to be given to such instances also where one sense conveys another sense without losing its importance or identity, then it would be tantamount to saying that indication itself is the primary verbal function. For, it is generally observed that any given sentence possesses the power of conveying a purport over and above the expressed sense of individual words.
Thus there is three-fold distinction underlined between guņavrtti and vyañjanā. (i) In vyañjanā the word is never skhalad-gati, while in gunavrţti there is skhaladgatitva of a word. (ii) In vyañjanā samketa is never utilized while lakṣaṇā i.e. gunavịtti is necessarily sakyártha-bodha-sāpekşiņi i.e. it necessarily stands in need of sakyártha-jñāna. (iii) Vyañjanā gives vyangyártha along with the sakyártha i.e.
y sense, while in laksana the apprehension of laksyartha is not separately cognized but is seen with the sakyártha - upalaksaniyárthā”tmanā parinata eva - i.e. both are not independently cognised.
Anandavardhana further observes : “nanu tvat-pakşe’pi yadā’rtho vyangyatrayam prakāśayati tadā sabdasya kīděśo vyāpāraḥ ? ucyate - prakaraņādy avacchinnaśabda-vašena eva arthasya tathāvidham vyañjakatvam iti śabdasya tatrópayogah katham apahnūyate.” (pp. 204, vịtti, ibid).
"The following question may be put to us - well, even granting the truth of what you say, what is the precise verbal function involved when a sense conveys the three-fold suggested content ?' Here is our reply - the sense therein acquires the said suggestiveness only because of the words aided by context etc. Hence how can anyone deny the use of words in such suggestion ? (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 285, ibid)
After thus explaining the svarūpa-bheda between guņavstti and vyañjanā Anandavardhana now proceeds to explain vişaya-bheda i.e. difference in scope, between these two. He observes : visayabhedo'pi gunavrtti-vyañjakarvayoh spasta eva.” (vrtti, ibid, pp. 204). The difference in scope between indication and suggestiveness is also clear. The scope of vyañjakatva i.e. suggestiveness is threefold viz. (i) rasā”dayaḥ i.e. sentiments etc., (ii) specific figures of speech or turns of expression, and (iii) suggested ideas or matter. Of these three, none will or can say that the apprehension of rasā”dis is identical with indication. The same is true of the suggested figures also. So, far as the third variety, i.e. suggested idea is concerned, that alone is suggested therein which is especially intended to be conveyed by the poet by a process other than the denotation, when he finds that the
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org