________________
776
SAHRDAYĀLOKA "When the functioning of word-powers such as abhidhā (or expression), tātparya (or purport), and laksana (or indication) are over, a fourth vrtti i.e. word power has to be accepted for the apprehension of rasā”di i.e. aesthetic relish.”
Viśvanātha goes to observe further that as abhidhā or the power of expression is exhausted on yielding only the conventional sense, it has no power to further apprehend the suggested idea (= vastu), figure of speech (= alamkāra) and aesthetic relish (rasā"di). Rasa"di or aesthetic relish is not the conventional sense of a word. For the direct expression of determinants etc. (i.e. vibhāvā"di-vācakapada) can not be held as the direct expression of rasā"di, as both are not said to be identical. On the contrary when there is direct expression of rasā"di by such words as śrngara etc. which name a particular rasa, it is considered to be a blemish. When for example it is stated that, “This is śrngāra-rasa”, there is no apprehension of the rasa because rasa is said to be self-evident and of the nature of bliss (sva-prakāśā"nanda-svarūpāt).
Visvanātha then proceeds to explain that tātparya or purport as advocated by che abhihitánvayavādins gets exhausted only in giving a correlated sentence-sense. It cannot deliver the suggested sense. Some people have suggested the abhidhā function to proceed on and on - "dirgha-dirghatara", but it cannot be accepted.
Visvanātha also quotes Dhanika who advocates tātparya and sarcastically observes that tātparya is not something held in a balance i.e. na tulādhrtam.
Both these opponents, i.e. the dīrgha-dīrghatara-vyāpāravādin and also the tātparyavādin can be silenced by only one argument viz.
"sabda-buddhi-karmaņām
viramya, vyāpārábhávaḥ.” - i.e. word, sense or intelligence and action once exhausted cannot travel further."
This is Viśvanātha's reply to both the objectors. For, argues Viśvanātha, if abhid can travel further and further, i.e. if it is held to be dirgha-dīrghatara, why accept even laksana ? But to this it can be said that for alamkārikas such as Mukula, laksanā is only a part of abhidhā and that it is not cognised as a separate word-power. Viśvanātha says that if we accept a dīrgha-dīrghatara-abhidhā, then why should we not hold that in such expressions as, “O brāhmana, a son is born to you", or "O brāhmaṇa, your unmarried daughter is pregnant” as expressive of joy or sorrow ?
Visvanātha also takes care, in fashion of Mammata, of the view of those who quote the Mimāmsā doctrine viz. “yatparaḥ śabdaḥ sa śabdárthah" and under the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org