________________
Vyañjanā
645 beauty he wants to furnish to the idea or matter on hand cannot be achieved by means of denotation itself : "vastu cārutva-pratītaye sva-sabda-anabhidheyatvena yat pratipadayitum isyate tad vyangyam.” (Vrtti, PV. 204, ibid). - All this cannot be included in the scope of indication since we can see several examples of indication based merely on convention or usage - "prasiddhy anurodhābhyām api gaunānām śabdānām prayoga-darśanāt” - (pp. 204, vrtti). This has been already explained. If at all there is any element of beauty seen in indication, it will be entirely due to association with suggestive element therein. Hence indication and suggestiveness are widely different from each other. The truth is that suggestiveness not only differs from denotation on one hand and indication on the other; on the contrary it is actually based upon each of them also : “vācakatva-guņavstti-vilaksanasya’pi ca tasya tad-ubhayā”śrayatvena vyavasthānam.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 33. pp. 206, ibid) - The Locana on this reads - “na kevalam pūrvókto hetukalāpo yāvat tad ubhayāśrayatvena mukhyópacārā”śrayatvena yad vyavasthānam tad api vācakaguņavstti-vilakṣaṇasya eva iti vyāpti-ghatanam."
Anandavardhana further elaborates this subtle observation, as follows. - At times suggestiveness rests on denotation, e.g. in cases of vivakṣitánya-paravācya-dhvani i.e. suggestion with intended but further extending expressed sense. In case of suggestion with unintended expressed sense, i.e. avivaksitavācya dhvani, it rests on indication. In order to support this resting on both these powers, i.e. expression and indication, basically two-fold suggested sense was explained in the beginning i.e. in the first chapter of the Dhv. itself. As suggestiveness is assisted by both vācakatva and guņavstti, it is impossible to identify it with either of them - "tad ubhayā”śritatvāc ca tad ekarūpatvam tasya na śaktyate vaktum.” (vștti, Dhv. III. 33, pp. 206, ibid) - As it at times seeks assistance from indication, it cannot be identified with denotation alone, and as it is supported by denotation at times, it cannot be identical with indication alone. Thus it cannot be comprehended by either as it partakes of the characteristics of both - "na ca ubhaya-dharmatvenaiva tad ekaika-rūpam na bhavati” (vrtti, pp. 206, ibid). Over and above this, it has the characteristic of sound only - sabda-dharma. Which is devoid of both verbal powers of denotation and indication - "yad vācakatva-laksaņā”di-rūpa-rahita-śabda-dharmatvenā'pi.” (vrtti, pp. 206, ibid). Thus the sounds of music do possess suggestiveness with reference to rasā”di, but they are never associated with either the power of expression or indication.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org