________________
SAHṚDAYALOKA
alamkārántaram vācyam sat pratibhāsate sa sarvaḥ śleṣa-viṣayaḥ; yatra tu śabdaśaktyā sāmarthyā"kṣiptam vācya-vyatiriktam vyangyam eva alamkārántaram prakāśate sa dhvaner viṣayaḥ.... sa ca ākṣipto'lamkāro yatra punaḥ sabdántarena bhihita-svarūpas tatra na sabdaśakty udbhavanuraṇanarūpa-vyangyadhvani-vyavahāraḥ. tatra vakrokty ādi-vacyálamkara-vyavahāra eva."
678
After thus explaining the nature and scope of sabda-śakti-müla-dhvani or suggestion based on the power of word, and furnishing a clear-cut definition Anandavardhana supplies illustrations, such as, "atrántare kusuma-samaya-yugam upasamharan... mahākālah", and, "unnataḥ prollasad dhāraḥ... etc.".
Anandavardhana adds: "In all these examples, an extrancous meaning is conveyed by the power of the word and in order that the two meanings might not appear as entirely disconnected, we will have to postulate the relation of the standard of comparison and the object compared as existing between the two since there is justification also for doing so. Thus the double entendre we see here is not grounded on words only, as is the case when it happens to be an expressed figure only. But it is a figure suggested by the special suggestive power of the word. Thus the examples of double entendre and resonance-like suggestion are entirely different from one another. He says: "eṣu udaharaṇeṣu śabda-śaktyā prakāśamāne sati a-prākaraṇike'rthántare vakyasya a-sambanddharthá-bhidhayitvam mā prasānkṣid ity aprākaraṇika-prakaranikárthayor upamano-pameyabhāvaḥ kalpayitavyaḥ samarthyād ity artha"-kṣiptóyam śleṣo, na śabdópārūḍha iti vibhinnam eva śleṣā'nusvänopama-vyangyasya dhvaner viṣayaḥ." (Vṛtti, Dhv. II. 21, pp. 78, ibid)
Anandavardhana further observes that other figures such as virodha or paradox, vyatireka or poetic contrast etc. are also possible in the suggestion based on the power of word or sabda-śakti-mula-dhvani.
The following points emerge from Anandavardhana's presentation :
(i) He seems to accept only the suggested figure as the object of this variety of dhvani or suggestion. He does not accept the possibility of vastu-dhvani or suggestion of an idea in this variety of dhvani. This observation on his part can be disputed as we know that Mammata does accept the case of vastu-dhvani also, as part of sabda-śakti-mula-dhvani.
(ii) Anandavardhana here does not involve himself in the discussion of a topic which seems to be naturally correlated with the topic on hand, and is therefore unfailingly discussed by later writers. This is the topic concerning the collection of
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
