________________
1046
SAHRDAYĀLOKA of Ā. The whole text of his VJ. is replete with references to ..'s views. At places where he explains a number of varieties of vakratā, he seems to give a new name to the varieties of dhvani, say it is old wine in new bottles, and he illustrates these, very often, with instances accepted from the Dhv. At all these places, he does not choose to refer to or mention 'vyañjanā' by name, a term itself never used by him, though of course, he uses terms such as, "pratiyate", "lokóttarātiśayā'dhyāropam garbhīkrtya" (Under I. 19, pp. 29) etc. Instead, he has, what he calls, “vicitrā abhidhā, and we had earlier an occasion to observe minutely what exactly is meant by K. by this terminology in our Ch. V on abhidhā. This vicitrā abhidhā' for K., seems to include in its wider fold all sabda-vrttis viz. abhidhā, laksana and vyañjanā. He seems to concern himself with kavi-vyāpāra i.e. poetic effort taking shape through 'vicitrā abhidhā' or beautiful poetic expression in general. This causes a sort of ambiguity, if not also on his part, at least on the part of those scholars, for whom a very clearly defined scheme of sabda-vșttis based on their inherent difference in nature and scope i.e. vişaya-bheda and svarūpa-bheda, is inherited from the writings of A. and Abhinavagupta, followed by Mammata and a host of brilliant writers belonging to the dhvani school of thought. So, perhaps this concept of 'vicitrā-abhidhā' may place K. on par with the "dirgha-dirghataravyāpāra-vādin". But, to be fair to K., we may observe that his vicitrā-abhidhā is certainly not the dīrgha-dirghatara-vyāpāra of the Mimamsaka opponent, but we may agree with Dr.K.Krishnamoorthy in his general observation that K.'s was an act of pragmatic criticism and from a wider point of view whatever gave birth to genuine poetry, that expression was "vicitra abhidhā” or beautiful poetic expression for him. This has nothing to do with the accepted norm of abhidhā-vrtti which yields the connotated meaning only through direct expression. Here, we may observe that if vyañjanā, as envisaged by Ā. and Abhinavagupta, were the only differentia, 'the sine quonon' of a true dhvanivādin, then in that sense K. is not a dhvanivādin. But we know that even for the die-hard opponents of A. or dhvani-school in general, such as Mahimā, the acceptance of implicit sense i.e. pratiyamāna artha' is welcome. What these anti-dhvani theorists discard and take upon themselves to dinounce is the concept of vyañjanā-vrtti, but not the fact of implicit sense. So, an ālamkārika, in our consideration, should be deemed as dhvanivādin in the true sense of the term, only if he accepts the implicit sense or pratīyamāna artha, arrived at through the agency of vyañjanā and vyañjanā alone and in no other way. The mere acceptance of the suggested sense, either as principal or as subordinate also, does not make one a true dhvanivādin, worth the name. Viewed thus, and also
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
