________________
'Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented)
1021 argued that in that case Karuna or, pathos will be developed, this is not acceptable to .., for, Karuņa is not relevant to the context, and that which is contextual here, i.e. vipralambha will be broken up, or damaged. If pathos is the intended leading sentiment, then there is no objection to death being portrayed. Or, in a rare case death will not hinder vipralambha, in case, this separation by death comes to an immediate end by reunion in another form : (a-dīrgha-kāla-pratyāpatti-sambhave). But if a long time-gap passes between death and such reunion, it will surely create hindrance. Thus, such episodes should be avoided by a poet intent upon delineating rasa predominntly.
A. gives an illustration where hindrances do not appear as blemishes, i.e. when they are portrayed as foils. The example is : “kvákāryam śaśa-laksmanano” etc. Or, when Pundarīka is advised by a friendly ascetic.
Again, when a hindrance is placed as an ancillary, it creates no blemish in the delineation of intended sentiment e.g. in, “bhramim aratim.” etc. There is no blemish also, when the ancillary position is even superimposed or imagined - "samāropitā api”, as in “pāņdu-kṣāmam." etc.
Ancillary position of a hindrance can be secured in yet another way also such as when two sentiments or emotions, opposed mutually, may both be made ancillary to another idea which happens to be the principal import in a sentence by force of its contextual importance : "iyam ca anga-bhāva-prāptir anyā, yad adhikārikatvāt pradhana ekasmin vākyarthe, rasayor bhāvayor vā, parasparavirodhinor, dvayor anga-bhāva-gamanam, tasyām api na dosah.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20) E.g. in the verse, “ksipto hastávalagnah." etc. If it is asked why the opposition in such case melts away, the reply that Ā. gives is that, it is so because both of them are definitely subordinate to the main import. The natural opposition will appear as such and would lead to defect only if it is a positive statement and not a mere quotation as in the verse "ehi, gaccha, pata, uttistha." etc. There is no real opposition though both positive injunctions and prohibitions are found side by side, because they are only quotations : "vidhau viruddha-samāveśasya dustatvam, na anuvāde.” (vrtti, Dhv. III. 20). Ā. also suggests that : “na ca raseșu vidhy anuvādavyavahāro násti iti sakyam vaktum, tesām vākyárthatvena abhyupagamāt.” It is not possible to say that the procedure of 'vidhi' i.e. direct assertion, and 'anuvāda' or indirect assertion is not found in sentiments. When purport of sentence and expressed sense can both contain this procedure of direct assertion and indirect narration, how can you prevent the sentiments from containing these, because sentiments are also suggested by the same : "vākyárthasya ca vācyasya yau
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
