________________
“Tātparya"
437 sambandha-sakrayah”. The Vākyamahimā' of the tārkikas is at least a recognition of the Mimāmsakatātparya, be it not an overt one. But Bhoja has his own tradition and his own terminology.
It should be very clear in our minds that Bhoja accepts three-fold tātparya viz. abhidhīyamāna, pratīyamāna and dhvani. The first one is purely the tātparya of the Mimāmsakas. The second is reserved for implicit sense in sentences used in ordinary parlance, such as 'visam bhunksva..." etc. Pratīyamāna thus should be equated with the unspoken intension of the speaker, not directly expressedi.e. abhidhīyamāna-in a statement. The word 'dhvani' is reserved by Bhoja for 'poetic intention' covered by poetic expression. 'Dhvani-tātparya' for Bhoja is met with only in the domain of what we call poetry or literature and never in 'loka' - worldly context or in discourses of various disciplines, i.e. śāstra. “tātparyam eva vacasi dhvanireva kāvye" would mean only this. By 'vacas', Bhoja means language as used in loka and śāstra alone, and 'kāvya' is absolutely different from this 'vacas'. So, poetic intention of a kāvya-vākya is 'dhvani-tātparya' for Bhoja. But we should again very carefully note that Bhoja never mentions 'wyañjana' in this context. So, his dhvani-tātparya i.e. poetic intention would equate with 'vicitrā abhidhā' of Kuntaka which embraces in its fold every poetic expressions at all levels such as abhidhā, laksana and also vyañjanā. Bhoja's 'pratīvamāna' is a special term clubbed with intention of a speaker at worldly parlance. It is all implicit sense in ordinary conversation. It is anything but poetic. Everything that is poetic is all 'dhvanitātparva' for Bhoja. This is clear thinking.
In view of the above, I would venture to observe with due respect for Dr. Raghavan that his observation, viz. "He even goes so far as to restrict the name tātparya to the suggested, that is, to Dhvani, within which we can include his
na also. Therefore, Bhoja's position is a compromise and at a later stage, it deserts Dhanika and others to follow Anandavardhana and makes Tātparya a name for dvani" - (pp. 162) - is off the mark. Bhoja's 'pratīyamāna' is implied sense i.e. sense not directly expressed in sentences used at ordinary parlance. This can never be identical with, or this can never be included in 'Dhvani' of Bhoja, which is for him “implicit sense in a poetic expression, i.e. kāvya alone.” Dr. Raghavan urther discusses Vidyānātha's view which we will pick up in due course later.
Dr. Raghavan himself partly comes to realize what we have observed above when he says, (pp. 163, ibid) -
“Both the sections on Dhvani in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Śr. Pra (pp. 221, and pp. 251-2 Edn. Josyer) close with the following verses - (Actually the Ch. 7 does
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
