Sahrdayaloka Part 02

Author(s): Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 23

578
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Yaska's position as to the nature of upasargas may be debated but what is of supreme importance here is that he quotes sākatāyana who is his predecessor, and who maintains that upasargas (are meaningless), being unable to convey meaning separately or independently taken as word-units. Sākatayana therefore observes that they are only 'dyotakas' - i.e. revealers or say manifestors or manifesting agency only, of the relation of nāma and ākhyāta with a special meaning. They are like torches that reveal a relation, without having any meaning of their own. Now this dyotakatva' or power to manifest something is with the nipātas, according to Śākatāyana. It is to be debated - whether this 'dyotakatva' can be equated with the 'vyañjana' or manifestation of sphoța of the grammarians or, with the dyotana/ vyañjana i.e. suggestion of the ālamkārikas. We know that Anandavardhana was clear that vyañjanā as a word-power is seen in kāvya, but vyañjanā goes even beyond kāvya and is more than a word-power and is seen even in gestures, musical notes having no dictionary meaning, in colours with reference to the art of painting, in mudrās of dance, and in fact in all art-forms other than literature. Vyañjanā as a word-power is seen, as is accepted by Anandavardhana in our normal use of language in the work-a-day world also. Thus, 'dyotakarva' of Śākațāyana could be equivalent to the vyañjakatva of sphota, as well as to the more liberal meaning of suggestion, given to it by Anandavardhana. Thus, we may not be very far, off the target, if we observe, that roots of vyañjanā are as old as Śākațāyana, who was earlier than Yāska, and perhaps as old as the, not so clear acceptance of the same, by the vedic poets, who knew that Vāk is gifted with an inner meaning revealed only to the 'adhikärin'.
Now, again we will proceed with Dr. Saroja Bhāte's observation (pp. 93-95, ibid) - "The point to be noted in this connection is that it is implied by all the rhetoricians that the dhvani is purely subjective or intuitive. It flashes in the heart of the reader as soon as he reads a particular sentence, word or a word-element. The question, that arises therefore is, do all readers comprehend the same 'dhvani' from a certain linguistic expression ? Or does it change from reader to reader ? Even if it is admitted that it is only the sahrdayas, the connoisseurs that have the ability to grasp the suggested meaning, do all the asthetes agree in their understanding of the same 'dhvani' from an expression ?
Generally they do not. The suggested meaning is thus a purely subjective matter. Two readers may not read the same meaning between the lines of poetry. And more subjective is the appreciation of a literary piece, the less theoretical it