Abhidha

Author(s): Tapasvi Nandi, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 54

[45]
arthānām." The expressed is not as charming as the same when presented through artful intonation or conveyed through inference. This is in the nature of a meaning. The meaning conveyed through simple assertion is also less charming than the same conveyed through double negation. He substantiates his observation by quoting Anandavardhana who observes :
"sararūpo'hyarthaḥ sva-sabda-anabhidheyatvena prakāśitaḥ sutarām śobhām avahati. prasiddhiśca iyam asti eva vidagdha-parişatsu yad abhimatataram vastu vyangyatvena prakāśyate na vācyatvena” iti.
The sequence i. e. krama, observes Mahimā, in the first two varieties such as vastu or matter of fact and alamkāra or artful expression, is self-evident and is clearly observed. So, if we resort to vyañjakarva to explain this sequence it is of no use at all. He rejects vyangya-vyañjaka relation between dhvani (i. e. word) and so called sphoța also. Similarly on this analogy the promulgation of dhvani vis-a-vis kāvya which is of the form of word and meaning placed together, is also not acceptable to Mahimā. He accepts 'gamya-gamaka-bhāva' instead.
Mahima Bhatta does not accept Anandavardhana's idea of three types of meaning such as the expressed or vacya, the indicated or lakskya and the suggested or vyangya. For Mahimā the indicated or laksanika i. e. metaphorical or secondary sense and the suggested or vyañgya fall in the category of the inferred or 'anumeya' only and thus for Mahimā there is a scheme of twofold meaning only; the vācya and the anumeya. Thus he seems to reject Anandavardhana's observation that the indicated — laksyamāna and the suggested i. e. the vyanjyamāna are also different from each other. For Anandavardhana the secondary function or a-mukhya vyavahāra is only an extention of the primary function and it is resorted to when the primary meaning is found to be non-congruent with the context. This secondary sense may not be charming also, and is arrived at only when the primary sense is rejected. This abandonment of the primary sense, in the opinion of Anandavardhana, could be either partial or total. This secondary function is seen only when we use language. The suggestive function, for Anandavardhana, is of wider scope and travels beyond language. When use of language is concerned, then also this suggestive function completely