________________
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented)
1003
kṛta-śarīraḥ, svataḥ sambhavi ca. te ca pratyekam vyangya-vyañjakayor uktabheda-nayena caturdhā iti dvādaśa-vidhaḥ artha-śakti-mūlaḥ, ādyās' catvāro bhedā iti ṣoḍaśa mukhya-bhedāḥ. te ca pada-vākya-prakāśakatvena pratyekam dvividhā vakṣyante. alakṣya-kramasya tu varṇa-pada-vākya-samghaṭanā-prabandhaprakāśyatvena pañca-trimśad bhedāḥ."
Read also Locana on Dhv. III. 43: "evam śloka-dvayena samgrahártham abhidhāya bahuprakāratva-pradarśikām pathati "sa guņi". iti. saha gunībhūtavyangyena sahálamkārair ye vartante sve dhvaneḥ prabhedās taiḥ samkīrṇatayā samśṛṣṭyā vā ananta-prakāro dhvanir iti tātparyam. bahuprakāratām darśayati - "tathā hi" iti. svabhedair guṇībhūta-vyangyena alamkāraiḥ prakāśyate iti trayo bhedāḥ. tatra'pi pratyekam samkarena samsṛstyā ca iti ṣat. samkarasyā'pi trayaḥ prakārāḥ anugrahyánugrāhaka-bhāvena, samdehā"spadatvena, ekapadánupraveśena iti dvādaśa bhedāḥ. pūrvam ca ye pañca-trimśad bhedāḥ uktāḥ te guṇībhūta-vyangyasya'pi mantavyaḥ. svaprabhedās tāvanto'lamkāra iti eka-saptatiḥ. tatra samkara-trayena samsṛṣṭya ca gunane dve sate caturaśīty adhike. tāvatā pañca-trimśato mukhya-bhedānām gunane sapta-sahasrāṇī catvāri śatāni vimśaty adhikāni (= 7420) bhavanti. alamkārāṇām ānantyāt tu asamkhyatvam."
In due course, we will go to see further how Mammața and Viśvanatha count the varieties.
We will now go to examine how A. distinguishes rasā”di-dhvani from rasvad ādi alamkāra, and also upamā”di alamkāra. Ā. has carefully distinguished between the nature and scope of rasa"di-dhvani on one hand and the same of rasavad ādi alamkāra, and also upamā"di (vācya) alamkāra on the other hand.
Under Dhv. II. 2 A. enumerates the two varieties of vivakṣitánya-para-vacyadhvani. They are a-samlakṣya-krama-dhvani and samlakṣya-krama-dhvani. Under Dhv. II. 3 A. suggests different varieties that are subsumed under asamlakṣyakrama-rasă"di-dhvani. They are rasa, bhāva, rasă"bhāsa, bhāvā"bhāsa, bhāvaśānti, bhāvódaya, bhāva-śabalatā, etc. They are all placed under rasa"di dhvani.
Now the question that arises is that what exactly is the difference (in scope and nature) between this rasa"di-dhvani, and the 'rasavad ādi' alamkāras as imagined by the ancients. If the concept of rasavad ādi alamkāras as designed by the purvaācāryas is not acceptable to A., then what new concept concerning these has Ā. evolved, and also how both these, i.e. rasă"di-dhvani and rasavad ādi alamkāras are to be distinguished from the figures such as upamā and the like? We will look into
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
