________________
Vyañjanā
675 'gangā’ is suggestive. But what about its 'laksyártha?? Is it also not suggestive ? If so, why again is vyañjanā divided into śābdī and ārthi ?
Such objections are met with by Mammața in the kārikā II. 20, as quoted above. Mammața observes that a word (sah = śabdah) is said to be suggestive (tathā = vyañjakah), when it is "arthántara-yuk” i.e., "connected with another sense". Now this expression viz. “arthántarayuk”, has two senses, according as it refers to the vyañjaka word in abhidhă-mūla-vyañjanā and in lakṣaṇā-mūla-vyañjanā. In abhidhā-mūla-vyañjană a word becomes suggestive, when it is ‘arthántarayuk’ in the sense of vācyártha-yuk (= anyaḥ, vyangyárthad anyaḥ arthaḥ, arthántaram, vācyárthah ity arthah, tena yuk, yuktah). For example, in the verse, 'bhadrā"tmano.', 'kara' is suggestive of the trunk. But it is so suggestive, wher joined with the vācyártha, i.e. hand. What is meant is that 'kara' suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the hand. Thus, here the vācyártha-hand-is also suggestive. Similarly, in the other variety, viz. laksaņā-mula-vyañjanā, a word is suggestive, when it is ‘arthántara-yuk', in the sense - 'laksyártha-yuk’. E.g. in 'gangāyām ghoṣaḥ, 'gangā' is suggestive of pāvanatvā”di. But this suggestion is made only after the lakṣyártha i.e. 'taţa' is indicated. So, the laksyārtha taţa is also suggestive. Thus, in abhidhāmūla-vyañjanā, arthántara means vācyártha and in laksaņāmūla-vyañjanā, it signifies laksyártha. The sāhitya-cūļāmaņi observes : "arthántarayuk abhidheyena laksyena vā yathócitena kenacid arthena yukto bhūtvā, tathā vyañjako bhavati.” The Sampradāya-prakāśini has - atha yena nayena śabdo vyañjakas tenaiva nayenā’rthópi ity āha - ‘yat sórthántarayug iti'. yathā hi arthấntara-yogitvācchabdo vyañjakas tathā’rthópi tad-yogitvād vyañjaka ity arthaḥ. nanu ubhayasya api vyañjakatve sabda-śakti-mūlóyam artha-sakti-mūlóyam iti katham vyavasthā ity ata äha-"tatra sahakāritayā mata” iti. yataḥ śabdād arthād vā prāmukhyena vyañjana-vyāpāra-pratītih, dhvanis tanmūla iti vyapadiśyate. pradhānena hi vyapadeśā bhavanti. tad itarat tu tatra sahakārīti upapannā eva vyavasthā iti bhāvah.”
We had observed earlier that Mammata explains abhidhā-mula-vyañjanā in such cases where the vācyártha being restricted to a particular sense with the help of such factors as samyogā”di, in case of a word having multiple sense, the other sense is arrived at with the help of vyañjanā alone. This view is accepted by majority of alamkārikas of the dhvani school. But there are differences also as we had suggested above. We will go into further discussion as below.
We know that a poet very often uses such words as may have a multiple sense. He tries to achieve beauty in poetry by the application of this device. In case of the
Jain Education Interational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
