________________
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented)
1007 the concept of dhvani-kāvya or rasa-dhvani-kāvya with rasa"di predominently suggested, he had to take care of such cases where suggested rasā”di were subordinate to some other central sentence sense and thus used their own beauty in rendering something else more charming. The earlier alamkārikas had not shown this discrimination and Ā. had to fill in the gap, which he did admirably, silencing all futile discussion.
Ā. observes that in the particular illustration viz. “kṣipto hastávalagnah." etc., ne main purport of the sentence is the extraordinary glory of Siva. The sentiment of love-in-separation due to jealousy is conveyed by ślesa i.e. double entendre, and this is made subordinate to the praise of Lord Siva. Only such instances are proper examples of Figurative Sentiment i.e. rasā"di alamkāra. And on account of this, says Ā., though the sentiments of love-in-separation due to jealousy and that of pathos or Karuna, though opposite to each other, i.e. mutually opposite, come together in the same place as they are both rendered auxiliary i.e. subordinate to the principal emotion of devotion to Lord Siva. Ā. further says that in cases where rasa itself happens to be the principal or main purport, how can it be a figure ? It has to be a case of 'rasā”di-dhvani'. A figure, it is well known, is only an enhancer of charm of some other central entity. It is impossible that a thing can become an enhancer of its own charm. - The vrtti (on Dhv. II. 5) here reads as : "sankirņo rasā”dir angabhūtah, yathā “kşipto hastávalagnah.” (etc.) - ity atra, tripuraripuprabhāvātiśayasya-vākyarthatve irsyā-vipralambhasya ślesa-sahitasya anga-bhāva iti, evamvidha eva rasavad alamkārasya nyāyyo viņayaḥ. ata eva ca īrsyāvipralambha-karuņa-yor angatvena vyavasthānāt samāveśo na dosah. yatra hi rasasya vākyárthībhāvaḥ tatra katham alamkāratvam ? alamkāro hi cărutvahetuh prasiddhaḥ, na tv asāv ātmaivā”tmanaḥ cărutvahetuh.”
The substance of the argument is that when 'rasa' itself is the principal sentence-purport, how can it be called an alamkāra, as suggested by the ancients ? In short how can it be rendered to the position of a beautifier i.e. alamkāra ? It being central, is "alamkārya” or that which is beautified by other agents. ‘Alamkāra' is only a means to an end, a beautifier causing beauty of something else. So, when 'rasa' which is central and when it is 'alamkārya', can never be termed alamkāra, for this is self-contradiction pure and simple. One cannot be one's own beautifier or 'beautifying agent. So, the pūrvā"cāryas seem to be mistaken here. But in defence of the earlier masters it can be argued that their concept of 'alamkāra' was a fluid one i.e. nebulous enough to cover both the 'alamkārya' and also 'alamkāra'. Their ‘alamkāra' was both “saundarya” itself, and 'an agent causing saundarya”.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
