________________
1006
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
But, prior to this, the ancients such as Bhāmaha, Dandin etc. also gave a thought to these four alamkāras. The basic approach of these ancient masters towards poetry and its beauty was different. For them the 'sāhitya', (of course 'sundara'), i.e. combination of sound and sense was poetry or kavya, and whatever was instrumental in causing beauty in this poetry, was taken as “kávya-saundarya" or "alamkāra” by them. Thus the word 'alamkāra' in its wider connotation was poetic beauty or kāvya-saundarya for these earlier ālamkārikas. Vāmana went to the extent of even framing sūtras such as, "kāvyam grāhyam alamkārāt." "saundaryam alamkārah”. In view of these ancient masters, the beauty caused by the categories such as rasa, bhāva, etc. did not escape attention and in their broad scheme of "kävya-saundarya is alamkāra", these categories of rasa, bhāva, and their other states, also settled as "alamkāras", and as a result they embarked upon such alamkāras as, rasavat, preya, ürjasvi, samāhita, bhāvika, udātta etc. - the emotionbased alamkāras. They never bothered to descriminate between two positions such as when rasā”di are either principal or subordinate. Thus, rasā"di even when they appeared as principal were subsumed by them as “rasavad alamkāra”, “alamkāra” understood in a wider connotation. But this was not acceptable to .. .
So, when 'rasā"di' was placed as principal, Ā. called it rasa-dhvani. When it was, by being subordinate itself, was serving the cause of some other sentence-sense which was held to be central or principal in poetry. Ā. called it frasādi'-alamkāra. Thus Ā. exhibits subtlety of criticism and discernment.
To make his view-point absolutely clear, Ā. has given two kārikās as read above, viz. Dhv. II. 4 and Dhv. II. 5. In Dhv. II. 4, we have come across the use of the words : "vācya-vācaka-cārutva-hetūnām", i.e. "several (vividha) beautifiers of the expressed sense and the expression," which is to be understood as a dvandva compound such as "vācyam ca vācakam ca, tac cãrutva-hetavaś ca." A. had suggested in the vrtti in udyota I, that vastu-dhvani can not be incorporated in such alamkāras as samāsókti and the like. Here it is suggested that rasā"di-dhvani cannot be subsumed under rasavad-ādi-alamkāras.
What then is exactly the scope of rasā"di alamkāra is laid clear in Dhv. II. 5 as seen above. We have to mark the words 'iti me matih'. 'iti māmakinah paksah.'Ā. seldom uses such a forceful expression, but when he does bring in his 'T' in any opinion. that has to be respected as a final word of authority ending all controversies.
Ā. had to carefully discriminate between two possibilities causing poetic beauty and in both of which 'rasā"di' of course suggested, were involved. So after clarifying
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
