________________
754
SAHRDAYĀLOKA - na tävad vācya-vācaka-bhāvah, sva-sabdair anā"veditarvāt.
- The rasádi are not mentioned through sva-sabda i.e. they are not conveyed by simple mentioning of their names. We do not hear such terms as śộngāra, or raty adi and the like in poetry charged with these particular emotions and feelings. So, we cannot accept direct expression of these śộngārā"di or ratyādi or of their full nourishment. - (tesām tat-pariposasya vā). Wherever such directly expressive terms such as raty ādi or śộngārā"di are used, there also the nouishment of an emotion is caused not by these terms only, but by the respective 'vibhāvā”dis' - i.e. determinants etc.
Here we may note that Dhanika seems to argue on the line of Dhvanikāra Anandavardhana. He presents it in form of a primā-facia view. On the same line of argument as advanced by the dhvanivadin Dhanika also rejects the case of laksya-lakşakabhāva between rasā"di and kāvya i.e. word and sense used in poetry.
Dhanika observes : nä'pi laksya-laksakabhāvah, i.e. the relation of indicator and indicated is also ruled out in case of rasā”di and kāvya. Poetry is neither laksaka, nor are rasā"di laksya. Perhaps here the reference is to Mukula who in his Abhidhāvịtta-mātřkā suggests that - "tātparyā-locana-samarthyāc ca vipralambhaśộngārasya āksepa iti upādānā”tmikā laksanā.” Thus suggesting that the collection of rasā"di is through laksanā.
Dhanika rejects laksaņā in the apprehension of rasā"di, because in laksaņā a term indicating a class is used to convey a particular sense, but in case of rasā"di this relation is not observed. So, there is no case for laksita-laksanā also. He observes : tat sämänyábhidhāyinas tu - laksakasya padasya a-prayogāt. The Avaloka observes that in rasa-realization there is no skhalad-gatitva of words expressing vibhāvā"dis such as nāyika and the like. As in 'gangāyām ghosah', so also in this case the words used are not powerless to convey what they want to. There is neither 'nimitta' i.e. relation, nor prayojana or objective in case of rasa"di as seen in cases of laksanā. Hence, there is no chance of even 'guna-vrtti' as seen in "simho mānavakah”. We may note that 'guna-vrtti' is used here in Avaloka, in keeping with the Mālava tradition seen in Bhoja, as meaning laksanā based on similarity and this was later fixed as gauņi-laksaņā in the Kāvya-prakāśa, though Anandavardhana has a wider connotation of gauņi meaning an 'a-mukhyavyāpāra'. We have noted above while dealing with laksanā-gaunī, that the Prābhākaras hold 'gauņi' as a separate vrtti or an independent word-power, while the Bhātra-Mimāņsakas and also later vyañjanāvādins such as Mammața, take gaunī as a sub-variety of laksaņā which is either upacāramiśrita or upacāra-a
dud.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
