________________
Thus. Hemachandra emphatically states that between Guņa and Alamkāra, the former is more important since there can be Kavyas without Alamkāras but not without Guņas, and that removal or addition of an alamkāra, whether of word or sense, cannot detract from or add to the charm of a true poetic expression. Concepts of Conjunction and Inherence
Hemachandra also puts forward the view that Alamkāras exist through Samyogasambandha, and Guņas through Samavāya-sambandha, with Rasa; and, consequently, our author vehemently criticizes Udbhata's contention, as found in this Bhāmahavivaraṇa, that both Guņas and Alamkāras exist in a Kāvya through Samavāya.
And, so far as Vamana's differentiation of Gunas and Alamkāras, as given in the first two Sūtras of the first Adhyāya of the third Adhikarana of his Kavyālamkārasūtras with Vrtti (Kavyaśobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmā guņāḥ, tadatiśayahetavastvalamkārāh), is concerned, Hemachandra refutes Vāmana's contention by showing how verses which have Vamana's several Guņas present in them (Viveka, p. 26, VV. 130 and 131) fail to attain Kavyatva and verses which do not have a single Guņa as defined by Vāmana may be a Kāvya, just by virtue of a single figure called Utprekşā (V.131).
It may be noted here that Mammața has already disposed of all these points. Hemachandra's Exposition of the Three Guņas and Rejection of the Ten Guņas
Having dealt with the general nature of the concept of Guna and its relation to Rasa (K.A.S. I. 12), Hemachandra takes up the treatment of the individual Guņas in Chapter four in greater detail.
Interestingly, Hemachandra's exposition of the number and nature of the individual Guņa involves a double aspect since, while in the body of the text of the Kāvyānuśāsana which
351
Jain Education International
.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
