________________
"Classification of Poetry (Criticism Oriented)
1037 badhakarvāt" (R.G. p. 11). Moreover, the scope of Camatkāra is wider because it can be associated with vācya and śabda etc. also, and applying this only as a measuring rod, he excludes the sabda-citra from the scope of kāvya." Actually, we feel that even this defence also cannot save J. from the confusion he has landed himself in. Again, by arguing that the scope of camatkāra is wider, Ramachandrdu seems to accept it even at the sabda-citra level, as done by, of course implicitly, Kuntaka, whose vicitrā abhidhā theoretically covers even sabda-citra. Now, let us see what J. has to say about madhyamakāvya. For J. madhyama
is that type of poetry, where the expressed sense (vācyārtha) alone is charming inspite of the presence of negligible vyangya. J. observes : "vyangya camatkāra-asamānádhikarano vācya-camatkāras tộtīyam.” - i.e. the third type of poetry (i.e. madhyama) is that wherein 'vācyártha-camatkāra' i.e. surprise (on account of beauty) caused by the expressed sense does not stay on equal footing (i.e. in the same location). (i.e. in itself it is placed higher) as compared to vyangyacamatkāra.
All the instances of poetry with expressed figures of speech such as utpreksā and the like, fall under this variety. In this context J. observes that even in such figures, there is a touch of some vyangya, of course negligible, and only its presence makes the vācya charming. J. observes : “yathā yamunā-varnane - 'tanaya maināka-gavesana-lambīksta-jaladhi-jathara-pravista-himagiri- bhujāyamānāyā bhagavatyā bhāgīrathyāḥ sakhi - iti.
atra utpreksā vācyā eva camatkệti-hetuḥ. śvaitya-pātāla-tala-cumbitvā”dīnām camatkāro leśataya san api utprekşā-camatkşti-jathara-nilīno nāgariketara-nāyikākalpita-kāśmīra-dravánga-rāga-nigirņo nijánga-gaurimeva pratīyate.
na tādņśósti kópi vācyárthaḥ yo manāg anámssta-pratīyamāna eva svato ramanīyatām ādhātum prabhavati-anayor eva dvitīya-trtīya-bhedayor jāgarūka-ajāgarūka-gunībhūta-vyangyayoḥ pravistam nikhilam alamkāra-pradhānam kāvyam.” (pp. 58, 59, R.G. Edn. Athavale, ibid).
Thus, for J., madhyama kāvya is that wherein the expressed sense-vācyárthaalone is charming eventhough there is almost negligible presence of some vyangyai.e. suggested sense also. All examples of poetry with figures of speech such as utprekṣā and the like fall under this class. J. observes that even in all such alamkāras there has to be some touch of vyangya', though very faint. But it is the presence of even such negligible vyangya that makes the vācya charming. Thus, instead of placing all figures of sense i.e. arthálamkāras under one group of ‘avara'
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
