Abhidha

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

Page 72

[63]
The adhyāsātmikā is illustrated by "kamalam anambhasi, kamale ca kuvalaye"... etc. (pp. 225). We know that this is a famous illustration of the figure atiśayokti. Thus, Bhoja has quoted famous illustrations every where which we would put under this or that alamkāra. The Kashmir school, as we know, puts the whole of 'alamkāra' – under vācya-vācaka-bhāva, with some undercurrent of vyañjanā or vyangyārtha in many alamkāras such as samāsokti, āksepa, paryāyokta, aprastuta-praśamsā etc. So, they are a 'vācyavācaka-bhāva-vivarta' for those who follow the Kashmir school of thought. Dr. Raghavan should have gone for such critical and comparative study of Bhoja's concept of Sabda-vrttis. Actually he could have devoted a separate chapter to explain Bhoja's concept of sabda-vrttis.
'Mithyājñāna' seems to be, for example, not different from niscayānta sasamdeha, or bhrāntimān alamkāra (pp. 225, ibid). The 'pravāda variety is illustrated by the famous verse from the Meghadūta, viz. "ratna-cchāyāvyatikara iva...” (pp. 226, ibid), which is for us a beautiful utpreksā in “barhena iva sphurita-rucinā gopa-veśasya visnoh."
Bhoja then proceeds with the second variety of abhidhā, viz. 'gauņi as (pp. 226, ibid) : "gauņi dvividhā. guna-nimittā, upacāra-nimittā ca. tatra yasyām dvayor vacanayoḥ sāmānădhikaranyena vaiyadhikaranyena vā prayogaḥ, višesaņa-višesya-bhāvā'nyathā'nupapattyaikasya pratīyamānaabhidhīyamāna-guna-dvārakah sambandho bhavati, sā guna-vyavahitārthā guna-nimittā.” ... gunah svārtho višesanam pravrtti-nimittam iti ca eko'rthah. sa dharma-guna-kriyā-āksti-jāti-svarūpādi bhedād anantah. tat sambandhena yadyapi tannimittā vịttir ananta-prakārā eva kalpyate, tathā'pi tasyāḥ sad eva vikalpā bhavanti mukhya-visayah, amukhya-visayaḥ, bheda-visayaḥ, abhedavisayah, višesana-visayah, a-višesana-visayah, iti.”
Now this again confirms our observation that the divisions and subdivisions suggested by Bhoja go with the nature of the thing described. There is hardly any logical divide. Bhoja also knows that there can be innumerable varieties that go with difference in the nature of the thing described. But he insists on six only. So, virtually there is no rhyme or rhythm in Bhoja's