________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
749 tribute to his guru, Mukula in the words :
"mīmāmsā-sāra-meghāt, pada-jaladhi-vidhos tarka-māņikya-kośāt, sāhitya-śrī-murārer budha-kusuma-madhoh śauri-pādábja-bhrúgāt, śrutvā saujanya-sindhor dvija-vara-mukulāt kīrti-vallyālavālāt,
kāvyálamkāra-sāre laghu-vivstim adhāt kaunkaņaḥ śríndurājaḥ.” On his A.V.M. - 11 and 12a, Mukula writes : (pp. 66, Edn. Dr. Rewaprasad, Varanasi, '73) ... "etac ca sarvam bahu-vaktavyatvād iha na nirūpyate laksaņāmārgávagāhitvam tu dhvaneh sahrdayair nūtanatayo-pavarnitasya vidyata iti diśam unmīlayitum idam atra uktam. etac ca vidvadbhiḥ kuśágrīyayā buddhyā nirūpaṇīyam, na tu jħagity evā’sūyitavyam iti alam ati-prasangena."
“All this requires great elaboration and hence is not discussed here fully. We have said only this much, only to point to the fact that what some men of taste have laid down afresh, as dhvani, is contained only in the province of laksaņā (which thus covers vyañjanā also in its fold). The learned with their razor-sharp intellect have to expound this (secret). They should not discard (our point) (as trash) immediately, through prejudice.”
We may point out exactly where Mukula has rejected the views of Anandavardhana. For example, the latter has taken rasa as 'vyangya' or suggested and principal. Mukula has laid down the apprehension of rasa through "āksepa" which may mean either laksanā, or arthāpatti i.e. presumption, and anumana, or inference. Mammaţa and others take 'āksepa' in the sense of 'implicit sense' also and therefore 'vyañjanā' also. Mukula takes ‘āksepa' only as laksaņā i.e. indication, and arthāpatti i.e. presumption.
We know that for Anandavardhana, 'rasa' falls into that section of 'dhvani' which is abhidhāmūla or vivakşitányapara-vācya. Now, there is no scope of laksaņā into this variety, which goes with what is termed, "a-vivakṣita-vācya-dhvani”. But for Mukula, even in vivaksitánya-para-vācya also there is scope of laksaņā and he illustrates it by, “mahati samare satrughnas tvam”.
For Anandavardhana, arthántara-samkramita-vācyatva was not admissible in what we term as 'laksana-laksaņā'. But Mukula holds that in the illustration viz. "gangāyām ghosah”, the vācyártha in form of gangātva, terminates (= samkrānta) in the meaning of 'tata' (i.e. tatarūpa-artha). Of course Anandavardhana also did not say that the vācyártha here is "atyanta-tiraskrta” or wholly abandoned, but at the same time he does not clearly name it as, "arthántara-samkramita” also.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
