Book Title: Kavyanushasana Critical Study
Author(s): A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 488
________________ And so far as the Vyanjanā process is concerned, "our author has faithfully followed Anandavardhana and Mammața, and advanced the stock arguments used by these two authors" to justify the postulation of this novel power of language. "Though in the body of the text Hemachandra does not discuss at length the significance and the necessity of the Dhyani Sense, in his Viveka, he brings together all the views for and against Dhvani and closely follows Mammața. In fact here the whole of Viveka is a faithful copy of the major portion of Kāvyaprakāśa, fifth Ullasa.”2 74 But the fact that Hemachandra "did not often abide by the principle of Parivșitti-sahatvāsahatva, an innovation, though a logical view, noted in the K. P., is evident from his following earlier writers (and Rucaka has done the same thing in his sanketa on the K.P.) in not including the Ubhayaśaktimüla there defined as a third variety of Vyangya Kavyas." 275 Hemachandra also discards Mammata's threefold division of the Arthasakti mūlavyangya (Svataḥ-sambhavi etc.) on the plea that even a natural sense does not appear charming without the magnificient utterance of a poet. Thus Hemachandra is quite clear about the aesthetic fact that Kavipraudhokti is essential for the creation of a charming poem (Kāvyānuśāsan I. 24 ff). He frankly says (Viveka p. 74) that dividing on such flimsy grounds, without a vital poetic principle, serves to mislead pupils only. In view of the acceptance of the divisions of the Arthasaktimüla by the stalwarts of the Dhvani school,276 Hemachandra's bold rejection on aesthetic grounds deserves special mention. Hemachandra subsumes Rasādi Dhvani under Arthasaktimūlavyangya (1. 25). His scheme of dividing Dhvani is less elaborate than that of Mammața. It appears, he accepts Anandavardhana's lead, who indicates the broadest distinction and avoids permutations and combinations (cf. Dhvanyaloka 111. 45-46).277 Hemachandra's reason for rejection of the drift sense is that it is connected with Abhidhā or the direct sense. This also shows his high priority for poetic suggestion. 463 Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558