________________
76
SAHRDAYĀLOKA absolutely identical with tarkā'numiti or strictly logical inference. In the same way the 'abhivyakti' of the dhvanivādins is not absolutely identical with 'dārśaniki abhivyakti' i.e. manifestation as explained in philosophical context. If kävyā'numiti is not tarkā'numiti then vyangva-abhivvakti in poetry is not abhivvakti of the philosophical systems. Thus both kavyánumiti and abhivvakti are loose terms to be understood only in the sense intented by their promoters only. In a way thus, because of the inherent looseness, they can be said to be identical, for both cannot stand the logical objections raised against them.
The next blemish, Mahimā says is with reference to the term 'dhvani' itself. According to Anandavardhana, the term 'dhvani' as applied to poetry and poetic criticism, was coined after the grammarians, the first among the most learned. For them, 'sabda' i.e. 'sound', is 'dhvani', and it manifests 'sphota' the 'eternal word' which is ever associated with meaning. Thus for them word manitests sphoța. Taking a clue from the great grammarians the critics applied the term 'dhvani' to any suggester that suggested the 'vyangyártha'. Abhinavagupta explains in his 'Locana' how the term 'dhvani' is made applicable to 'word', 'sense', 'the power of suggestion', 'the suggested sense', and finally to the variety of poetry itself which carries principal suggested sense.
Mahimā pooh poohs at this, challanging first, like the Mīmāmsakas the very concept of sphota, which is only a myth. He maintains that neither sphoța nor dhvani of Ānandavardhana can be taken as manifested. The relation between word
ound and sphota is that of cause and effect only since there is a perceptible sequence between the apprehension of the order of letters, which the word is made of, and the cognition of meaning. So, no relationship of the suggestor and suggested' or vyangya-vyañjaka-bhāva can be accepted between the two cognitions. Their actual relationship can be the 'gamya-gamaka-bhāva' only, or the relation of the conveyor and the conveyed. Thus the appellation 'Dhvani' seems to be absolutely defective as it is based on false analogy : - "...ata eva śrüyamāṇānām śabdānām dhvani-vyapadeśyānām antaḥsanniveśinaś ca sphotā'bhimatasya arthasya vyangyavyañjaka-bhāvo na sambhavati iti vyañjakarva-sāmyad yaḥ śabdárthā'tmani kāvye dhvani-vyapadeśaḥ sópy anupapannaḥ, tatrā'pi kārya-kāraņa-mülasya gamyagamaka-bhāvasya upagamāt.”
We may note a point here that during the viva voce of our doctoral thesis on, "The origin and Development of the theory of Rasa and Dhvani in Sanskrit Poetics", Prof. K. V. Abhyankar had also observed that 'manifestation' (i.e. abhivyakti of sphoța) is not 'suggestion' (i.e. vyañjanā of the Alamkārikas.). And we know it. To bring home this point in a separate paper on, “Bhatta Näyaka's Blunder", we had
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
