________________
772
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Dhanika reads : evam ca sati, rasānām vyañjakatvam apāstam, anyato labdhasattākam vastu anyenā’pi vyajyate, pradīpena iva ghatā"di; na tu tadānīm eva abhivyañjakatvábhimatairāpāsya-svabhāvam. bhāvyante ca vibhāvā”dibhiḥ prekșakeșu rasā iti aveditam eva."
That rasas are only revealed (bhāvyante) with the help of vibhāvā"di is acceptable to Dhanañjaya and Dhanika who categorically reject the case of vyañjanā.
But we will go to observe when we will discuss the nature of rasa-experience in a separate chapter, that both Bhatta Nāyaka and Dhanañjaya-Dhanika who reject the case of vyañjanā in both drama and literature, have taken a mistaken view of vyañjanā. Their understanding of vyañjanā or suggestivity is faulty. Actually this vyañjanā or suggestivity is not absolutely identical with the darśanika abhivyakti or manifestation as explained in various disciplines such as grammar and darśanas or philosophy: vyañjanā is not abhivvakti' of the śāstras as kāvyánumiti is not anumiti of the tarka-śāstra, or as Dhanika's tātparya also is also not the same as tātparya of the Mimāmsakas. Virtually these - vyañjanā, kāvyánumiti or Dhanika's tātparya-are names exclusive to art i.e. it is “sui generis”. It has nothing to do with ordinary worldly existence or also with the various disciplines of philosophy. Thus all 'vyañjanā-virodha' based on this argument as advanced by Dhanika, Mahimā, or Bhatta Nāyaka or any for that matter, fall flat as they refuse to accept this very special feature of vyañjanā, which is above any laukika pramāņa as Abhinavagupta explains.
We will go to see how, on the lines advocated by Abhinavagupta and Mammata, their followers such as Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha discuss the views of the vyañjanā virodhins and reject the same.
Hemacandra in his Kāvānuśāsana and Viveka on the same, discusses this topic at length after Abhinavagupta and Mammata. At K.śā. I. 20, Hemacandra talks of the powers of words such as mukhyā or abhidhā and the like. Here he mentions abhidhā, gaunī, lakṣaņā and vyañjanā as four word-powers, while tātparya he reserves as a vākya-visayā sakti. At Kā. Sā. I. 21, he defines vyañjakarvam as - "vaktrādi-vaišistyād arthasya’pi vyañjakatvam", and in Alamkāracūdāmaņi. i.e. gloss in the text on his sūtras he illustrates the varieties such as vaktr-višeşāt, pratipādya-višeşāt, etc. There is no special discussion on the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
