________________
Chapter II Prakrit Verses In Dhvanyaloka
with Locana
1. Anandavardhana (Ananda) cites this găthā to point out how the Vastu-dhvani (the
suggestion of a fact, idea) is totallly different from the vācya (the expressed or denoted sense). Here the vācya is of the nature of injunction or affirmation (vidhi-rūpa) whereas the suggested sense is of the nature of prohibition or negation (nişedha-rūpa). The context is: An unchaste woman who has fixed an appointment with her paramour at the grove on the bank of the river Godāvarī does not want the pious man, who usually goes there to collect flowers, to disturb their secret meeting. But openly she cannot ask him not to visit that grove. Therefore she cleverly suggests to him: “O, pious man, you may now wander freely as the dog of whom you were afraid is killed today by the lion dwelling in the woods on the bank of the river Godā."
Mahimabhatta, the author of Vyaktiviveka, who does not admit suggestion (व्यञ्जना) as a separate शब्द-व्यापार attempts to prove that the so-called व्यञ्जना is nothing but Inference (anumāna).
2. Abhinavagupta (Abhinava) gives the context:
कांचित् प्रोषितपतिका तरुणीमवलोक्य प्रवृद्धमदनाङ्कुरः संपन्न: पान्थोऽनेन निषेधद्वारेण तयाभ्युपगत इति निषेधाभावोत्र विधि :
Here the vācya (expressed sense) is of the nature of prohibition but the suggested sense is of the nature of injunction or affirmation.
Further Abbinava adds: TAHUmts gayahiraha: ARIAH CUSHIYNISICE I 376 एव रात्र्यन्धेति समुचितसमयसंभाव्यमानविकाराकुलितत्वं ध्वनितम् । भाव-तदभावयोश्च साक्ष व्यङ्ग्यस्य स्फुटमेवान्यत्वम् । (पृ. ७१-७२)
वाच्याद्
3. The suggested sense in this gāthā does not stand in the relation of virodha
(contradiction) with the expressed sense (vācya). Here the vidhi 'Tut does not suggest its nisedha (व्रज्याभाव / विध्यभाव); nor is there any suggestion of a different
