________________
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented)
997
A
Thus the double entendre we see here is not grounded on words only as it is the case when it happens to be an expressed figure. But it is a figure suggested by the special suggestive power of the word. Thus the examples of double entendre and resonance like suggestion are entirely different from one another.” (Trans. K.Kris. pp. 79, ibid)
A. also suggests that figures other than upamā/simile are also possible in this variety of dhvani. : "anye'pi ca alamkārāh sabda-sakti-mūlánusvāna-rupavyangye dhvanau sambhavanti eva.” He illustrates the cases of virodha (i.e. paradox), vyatireka etc. and the like. He leaves it to the men of taste to find out such illustrations, which for want of space he avoids : "evam anye'pi śabda-śakti-mūlánusvāna-rūpa-vyangya-dhvani-prakārāḥ santi, te sahrdayair svayam anusartavyāḥ. iha tu grantha-vistara-bhayān na prapancaḥ krtah.” (vrtti, Dhv. II. 21)
We may take note of some points here :
(i) Ā. accepts only 'suggested another figure' i.e. vyangya-alamkārántara', as object of sabda-sakti-mula-dhvani. He never thinks about covering the cases of 'vastu-dhvani' i.e. suggestion of ideas or matter under its scope. We know that Mammata accepts this possibility. But A. is firm on this point as he uses the words - "yasmād alamkāro, na vastu-mātram, yasmin kāvye sabda-śaktyā prakāśate saśabda-śakty-udbhavo dhvanir ity asmākam vivaksitah." Ā. rarely uses such an expression. In case of 'rasā"di' alamkāra also, he uses such terms as "iti me matih." This means he rejects the case of vastu-dhvani here.
(ii) With reference to the above, Ā. does not bring in here, as is done by other ālamkārikas, the discussion concerning how the non-contextual sense is collected in case of a word having multiple sense, i.e. whether it is through the agency of vyañjanā or abhidhā. This discussion is however found in Locana and the debate is carried on till Appayya and Jagannātha, who opt for abhidhā here. We have covered this discussion in an earlier chapter and thus it need not detain us here.
(iii) In the illustration cited by Ā., viz. "atrántare kusuma-samaya...” etc., it so happens that it is a case where suppressing the directly expressed sense, the 'yaugika' artha is principally suggested. The other two illustrations are however not so clear on this point. This point is not, of course, directly discussed by Ā., but at Dhv. II. 31, Ā. observes that now that the varieties of dhvani are explained, the following is said in order to distinguish between suggestion and its semblance : (vștti, preceding Dhv. II. 31) : "evam dhvaneh prabhedān pratipādya tad ābhāsa
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
