________________
157 Vārtā is Upacāravacana and Varnana is Prašamsāvacana.
Vide Dr. D. K. Gupta, Ibid, pp. 158–159. 158 Bhoja's S. P., p. 289. 159 Vāmana talks of Rasa in connection with his Kanti. If
Bhāmaha and Dandin held Rasa as Alankāra, Vāmana termed it a Guņa, i.e., the Arthaguņa Kanti.
Chapter Six 160 Cf. Dhv. Al. II. 18. 161 Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, The Dhvanyaloka and its Critics,
p. 151. 162 Bhämaha again refers to the twofoldness of poetic figures (V. 66).
Dr. V. Raghavan notes thess two sets of Bhāmaha (Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 378). 163 While Mammata bases this classification on Anvayāvya
tireka, Ruyyaka adopts Āśraya-āśrayibhāva as the basis.
Vide, Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 380 etc. 164 Vide, KASS (N.S. Ed.), pp. 5-7. 165 lbid, p. 7. 166 Mr. Banahatti regards Anuprāsa and the Vșttis as a new
feature of Udbhata's work. The Vșttis do not exist in Bhāmaha's work. Mammata's treatment of Anuprāsa is very similar to Udbhata's. Vide KASS B.S.S. ed., BORI,
2nd ed. 1982, Notes, p. 12. 167 Dandin treats Anuprāsa under Mädhuryaguņa as its verbal
aspect corresponds to Vịttyanuprāsa. See D. K. Gupta,
ibid, p. 236. 168 The word Tātparya in the definition of Laļānuprāsa is
explained by Pradipakarā as 39724h. The difference between
504
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
