________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya. 1051 terminology, and at times seems to confuse the original clear concepts of Ā. For example, he makes a mess of things when he observes that words are both 'dyotaka' and 'vyañjaka', without drawing a line of demaracation between the two : (vịtti, VJ. I. 8; pp. 38, ibid) : "nanu ca dyotaka-vyañjakāv api śabdau sambhavataḥ.... etc. evam dyotya-vyangyayor arthayoḥ pratyeyatva-sāmānyāt.” We have observed earlier that we are not satisfied with Dr. K.Krishnamoorthy's translation (on pp. 300, ibid) in this respect, when he writes - "one might object that the indicative and suggestive words too, which have their own signification, may yet be termed 'word', and the above statement would illustrate the fallacy of “too narrow”. Our reply is that they are expressive words by implication, the metaphorical application being based on their similarity with denotative words. Similarly, the meanings alluded to..." It is clear that for all those who understand sanskrit poetics, the words 'dyotya' and 'vyangya', and the words “dyotaka" and "vyañjaka” are synonyms, and K. cannot mean 'laksya' and 'laksaka' by them. So, it is clear confusion on K.'s part. It is one thing, not to accept ... but it is quite another not to understand, or misquote, or misrepresent A. K. here seems to do the latter.
K. can also be charged for an added crime when he extends the connotation of 'vācakarva', so as to include even the vyañjakarva of Ā. Normally, one can choose a different track. But in case of K., who almost looks a disciple of Ā., this looks quite unworthy. He does this when on I. 9, he observes that: (vrtti, I. 9, V.I. pp. 16, ibid) : "kavi-vivakṣita-višeşábhidhana kşamatvam eva vācakarva-laksanam. vivaksā. vidheyatvena abhidheyată-padavim avatarantas tathā-vidha-višeşa-pratipādanasamarthenā bhidhīyamānāś cetaścamatkāritām āpadyante." i.e. "the proper definition of signification' is that capacity to convey the particular shade of thought intended by the poet'(Trans. K.Kris., pp. 302, ibid). This is criminal if one chooses to call oneself a follower of A. Actually the whole paragraph here is only a sort of paraphrase of Ā.'s "tau śabdárthau mahākaveh", but not in the way Ā. does. And all this, with the full knowledge of the terminology made current by Ā., looks unpardonable. K. knows what 'dyotayanti' means, when he observes on verse no. 28 (pp. 16, ibid), viz. "samrambhaḥ karikītakaiḥ." etc., that, (vștti, on I. 9, VS. 28, pp. 16) - "hevākasya leśa-śabdábhidhānena alpatā-pratipattir ity ete vivaksitaikárthavācakatvam dyotayanti." i.e. "the adjective 'trivial' qualifying 'enterprise' reinforces the low stature of the common lions and thus adds to the force of the intended thought.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 303, ibid). Similar is the use of the word "vyakti', when on verse no. 29, under VJ. I. 9, K. observes that "tasya ca tad āhlāda-sāmarthyam sambhāvyate yena kācid eva svabhāva-mahattā rasa-pariposángatvam vā vyaktim
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
