________________
1034
SAHRDAYĀLOKA meaning principally denoted by a sentence. The term 'anga' refers to the rasā”di and the reverberating suggestion. Thus 'aparánga' is that wherein ‘rasā”di' or the reverberating suggestion becomes subservient to rasā”di and the expressed sense, principally denoted by a sentence."
But J. seems to be clearer here. He observes that if one rasa, say śrngāra is subordinate to another rasa which is principle, say karuna (as in the illustration viz. "ayam sa raśanotkarşī” etc.), ultimately some rasa-or suggested sense is principal and hence this should be taken as "dhvani" of the ancients. In fact we have 'karuna-dhvani' in this example. But the charm of suggested śrngāra also can not be denied. So, such examples should be taken out as a separate class from others such as the arthálamkāras-paryāyokta and the rest-where suggested sense is subordinated to an expressed sense, i.e. the charm of the expressed is rated higher as compared to whatever suggested sense is apprehended. In the first variety (i.e. in rasavad ādi alamkāras, illustrated by the example viz. "ayam sa rašanotkarśī.” etc.), the expressed sense is not at all more charming then both the subordinated and the principal suggested emotive sense or rasā"di. These should not be therefore clubbed together as done by Mammata and others. So, J. gives ‘uttama' as second variety of kavya, and 'gunībhūta-vyangya' as the third.
We can argue that here also from the ultimate point of view some rasā"di make for the principal suggested sense, then why not call it "uttamottama” ?. But J. feels that, of course, here the principal suggested sense in form of some rasā"di is charming enough to be designated as "dhvani-kāvya” of the ancients, but in this variety, it is the subordinated suggested rasā"di, which is superior to the expressed steals the thunder as compared to the principal suggested rasā"di. It is like Sachin Tendulkar's double century, even when his side, i.e. the India XI, looses a test match. Now, this sort of an experience of the refined and cultured critics cannot be denied. It is therefore that J. splits the original gunībhūta-vyangya of the dhvanivādins into two, i.e. 'uttama' and 'madhyama'.
J. tries to draw a line of distinction between uttamottama and uttama by observing that the camatkāra caused by the former is greater than the one caused by the latter, for 'vyangya' is pradhāna in one, and a-pradhāna in another, both being 'camatkāra-kāri' in their own way.
The point is that when M. says that one rasa is subordinated to another rasa as in ‘aparánga' variety, he does not name which rasa is the ultimate source of charm. If in the example, "ayam sa raśamotkarsi', the karuna is believed to be the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
