________________
430
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA iti. katham punar agļhīta-sambandhebhyah padebhyaḥ sthāyyā”di-pratipattir iti cet, tathāvidha-cestā-yukta-strī-pumsādisu ratyādyavinā-bhāva-darśanāt ihā’pi tathopanibandhe sati ratyādyavinābhūta-cestā"di-pratipadaka-sabda-śravanad abhidheyávinābhāvena lākṣaniki ratyādi-pratītiḥ. yathā ca kāvyárthasya rasabhāvakatvam tathā agre vaksyāmah.”
We will now look into this view. We know that for Anandavardhana the two senses viz. vācya and vangya are related to each other as subordinate and principal respectively when it is a case of dhvanikāvya. The two senses being not of equal merit do not harm the principle of eka-vākyatva or 'vākyaikárthya'. But it is only when the suggested sense is principal, that the tātparyavādin would hold that it
es under the intention of the speaker and as such it should be lebelled as 'tātparya' or purport and not dhvani. Dhananjaya and Dhanika are advocates of the tātparya-sakti or purport and challange the dictates of Anandavardhana. Dhanika first gives a brief exposition of dhvanivada. He observes that the suggested sense cannot be the sentence-sense, as it falls in the third stage. Thus 'dhvani' cannot be 'tātparya' of a sentence. In such examples as, “bhrama dhārmika...” etc. the first stage is padártha i.e. word-sense, which is derived by abhidhāśakti or power of expression. The second stage is that of vākyártha i.e. sentence-sense, i.e. tātparya in form of an injunction i.e. vidhi such as 'bhrama' or 'move around'. The suggested sense appears in the third stage and is different in nature, it being negation or nisedha. This ‘nisedha' is arrived at with the help of a sakti or power called vyañjanā or suggestion. This forms the view of Anandavardhana as presented by Dhanika in his Avaloka, as a prima facie view. Dhanika further argues as follows. He observes that all cases of tātparya are not cases of the second stage. In expressions such as, "visam bhunksva” addressed by a father to his son, the meaning is exactly the opposite. The expressed sense is an injunction viz. "eat poison”. But the father's intention seems to be that his son should know that it is better to eat poison than to eat at the (enemy's) house. The sense is, “do not eat at his house; better eat poison than eat in his house.” In this expression, viz. "eat poison", there are three stages wherein vidhi-injunction and nisedha/prohibition appear as second and third stages. Even the third stage here is only vākyártha and tātparya. So the vyāpti or rule or invariable concomitance that vyangya is the third stage does not hold good. The reply to this is that a father's injunction to his own son to eat poison appears absolutely absurd. So, the sentence obviously would mean something else. The real meaning of this expression, viz. prohibition of eating at the enemy's place is also at the second stage only and not at the third stage. The rule that vyangya comes after
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
