________________
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented)
1035
-
ultimate source or principal source of charm, the example should be placed under 'dhvani', and if 'śṛngāra' is said to be also charming or equally or more charming then we feel there is contradiction. Ultimately a poetry is to be classed as this or that by the position of principal source of charm. If this lies with the expressed and not with the vyangya it has to be termed guṇībhūta-vyangya. For J. the problem arises when both the subordinated and the principal senses are 'vyangya' in themselves. Then one variety gives uttamottama and another gives 'uttama'. But, be sure his uttamottama is not absolutely identical with 'dhvani' of the ancients in the sense that his 'uttama' also is 'dhvani'. In a way even J. is confusing things. But we have given an example from practical life where we see Sachin's best innings studed with a double century goes in vain when his side loses the match. On his part, M. also is not clear when he does not point out which one, i.e. the subordinated śṛngāra or the finally suggested karuna is a greater source of charm; so, both J. and M. are in a way confusing. Actually J. observes about these two types i.e. uttamottama and uttama, that (pp. 54, R. G. Edn. Athavale, ibid): "anayor bhedayor anapahnavanīya-camatkāryor api prādhānyāprádhānyábhyām asti kaścit sahṛdaya-vedyo viśesah" - i.e. here the phrase "pradhanyápradhanyábhyām" should be taken to mean "camatkārasya prädhānyapradhanyābhyām" and not vyangyasya-prādhinyapradhanyābhyām." True, so far so good. But what if we say that whatever causes highest camatkāra is to be taken as "pradhāna." or principal. In this case J.'s uttama also will become uttamottama, for the 'vyangya' causing highest camatkāra can never be taken as 'subordinated'. But, one point goes in favour of J., and it is that, like Sachin's century in a losing side, though subordinated from the point of view of victory of the other side, is a source of delight for the refined observes; so also here there is "kaścit sahṛdaya-vedyo viseṣaḥ."
It may be observed that our argument is somewhat akin to Badrinath Jha's Comm. 'Candrika'.
Jha (p. 66, Candrika; R.G. (Edn. '55)) suggests that there is some kind of difference like what may be called pradhānībhūta-vyangya and 'guṇībhūtavyangya, between the uttamottama and the uttama types. Shri Jha feels that J.'s observation goes against the opinion of A. who wrote: "cārutvótkarṣa-nibandhānā hi vācya-vyangyayoḥ pradhanya-vyavasthā. We have also observed to the same effect as above. Jhas words are read as: "idam punar atra vicāraṇīyam 'carutvótkarṣa-nibandhana hi vācya-vyangyayoḥ prādhānya-vivakṣā' iti dhvanikāránuśāsane jāgrati, vyangyasya yadi iha vācyápekṣaya camatkārótkarṣaḥ,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
