________________
740
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
Mammaţa, as observed earlier has not only drawn from both Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana, but has placed all arguments very systematically and has also added some fresh arguments of his own in view of the tough opposition to vyañjanā advanced by the great opponents such as Mahimā, even Bhoja to an extent, and the Mālava-school also represented by Dhananjaya and Dhanika. Of course, Dhanika, as we tried to put above, could be posterior to Mammaţa. But this is an unsupported conjecture based on only internal evidences. We will look into this later after first convering the full discussion as presented by Mammaţa.
It is interesting to note that the Sampradāya-prakāśinī tries to distinguish between the mīmāmsakas, and the literary critics who seem to follow the lead of the mīmāmsakas. Śrī-Vidyācakravartin passes a remark (pp. 1341, ibid) - such as : "iyatā sandarbheņa sāhitya-sarani-pariśīlana-parāņmukhatayā paśu-prāyāḥ śuska-mīmāmsavaḥ pratyavatişthamānāḥ niskāsitāḥ. samprati tu ye anvitábhidhānadarśanánusāriņaḥ sāhitya-saranim anupravistāh sacetanammanyah tān prati sannahyate. The mīmāmsakas were dry as dust and therefore paśu-prāyāalmost beasts for total lack of sensitivity, while the literary critics who follow their lead at least have cultivated some sensitivity and those who consider themselves as 'those with conscience' - 'sacetanam-manyāh' - the pseudo-sensitive lot. Of course, other commentaries such as the Viveka of Sridhara, the Kavyādarśa, and the Bālacittānurañjani take the opponents here only as anvitábhidhānavādins Jhalkikar also takes them to be the same, but perhaps the remarks of Śrī-Vidyācakravartin are directed towards Dhananjaya-Dhanika and the like.
So, Mammata proceeds to demolish the opposition to vyañjanā as follows : "And again, why should the inverted order or 'kuru rucim', appearing in a poem, be regarded as a piece of blemish ? Here the indecent meaning is not connected with meanings of other words so it should remain un-denoted (according to those who admit only one power of word, abhidhā) and thus there will be no reason to avoid such expression." Srividyā-Cakravartin observes : (pp. 169, Edn. Dwivedi) : “kuru rucim” iti pade yadi vyatyayena kāvyántara-vartini syātām tadā dustatā yā iyam aślāatva-laksaņā sammatā, sā anvitánábhyupagame katham vā upapadyatām? na hi pada yor anayor antyā”dy aksara-sannikarsa-mātrād ābhāsamāno laukiko grāmyórthórthántarena anvitaḥ śabdártha eva bhavati. tataḥ a-śabdárthasya dosatve ati-prasaktiḥ syād ityevamā”dy apari-tyājyam syāt. ayam anvitábhidhānadarśana-āśrayane doso bhavatām."
Mammata further observes: "And if the reality of the suggester and the suggested, as distinct from the reality of the expressive and the expressed is not
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
