Abhidha

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

Page 59

[50]
tuladhṛtam", for "it extends upto any limit till the speaker's intention is collected 'yāvat-kārya-prasāritvāt." Dr. Raja observes (pp. 216, ibid) It can, "cover the whole range of the speaker's intention and cover all implications coming up in the train of the expressed sense."
But we have seen above how Mahima rejects the case of tātparya-vṛtti and how he subsumes it under 'anumiti'. Thus Mahima's concepts of 'abhidha' and 'anumiti' are powerful enough to digest all other concepts such as gauni, lakṣaṇā, tātparya, vyañjanā and even the broad concept of 'vakrokti' involving 'Vicitra abhidhā' of Kuntaka. This is how Mahima takes kuntaka to task. Kuntaka holds such 'sabda' and 'artha' to be Kavya, as are charged by charming function of a poet and delight those who know (poetry). So, for Kuntaka such artful expression is the life of poetry which is different from the practice of word and sense as seen in various disciplines. But all this is not correct according to Mahima. He argues as follows :
Is this special arrangement of word and sense merely the proper usage (aucitya-mātra) of word and sense, or is it only the suggestion of the implicit sense which is different from the expressed sense as experienced by all? Because, no third alternative is possible it has got to be either of the two.
The first alternative is not acceptable as the mention of such propriety is useless, because it stands refuted by the very assertion of the form of poetry. The point is that it is the poet's business to arrange vibhāvādi, i. e. determinants, etc. It is not different from this. The determinants make for 'rasa' only when presented in a special way, and not otherwise. Again, only that theme makes for poetry, which is charged with rasa. So, no question of impropriety ever arises. In other words Mahima accepts only that as poetry which is charged with rasa, and this rasa is caused only by proper arrangement of vibhavadis. Thus 'anaucitya' has no scope in genuine poetry, worth its name. He observes (pp. 142, ibid)
"te ca yathāśāstram upanibadhyamānā rasābhivyakter nibandhanabhāvam bhajante. na anyathā. rasātmakam ca kavyam iti kutas tatra anaucitya