________________
1058
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA from the significance of epithets only. This again, we may say, is a charm due to vyañjanā. The illustration viz. "vridāyogān nata-vadanatayā..." etc. seems to have been accepted from Ā. (Dhv. Vrtti. on III. 4)
'Samvști-vakratā' or "beauty of concealed expression' is also a variety of “padapūrvárdha-vakratā”, wherein the nature of an object endowed with a unique loveliness in its peculiar setting, which cannot be conveyed clearly in a direct way, is conveyed by a concealed expression rich in suggestive force. : (vștti, on VJ. I. 19, pp. 30, ibid) : "ayam aparah pada-pūrvárdha-vakratāyāḥ prakāro yad iyam samvștivakratvam nāma, yatra padārtha-svarūpam prastāvānugunyena kena'pi nikarseņótkarşeņa vā, yuktam vyakta-tayā sāksād abhidhātum aśakyam samvştisāmarthyópayogitayā śabdenā'bhidhiyate." This is pure vyañjanā. K. calls it "vicitrā abhidhā” in both the cases such as those of "saksāt abhidhā" and "a-sāksād abhidhā." This perhaps may lead us to brand him as a "dirghadirghatarā'bhidhāvādin', or a 'tātparya-vādin' like Dhananjaya, who is posterior to him. But after studying .. it is unthinkable not to accept difference in sabda-vịttis, éven in the presence of 'vişayabheda' and 'svarūpabheda' i.e. difference in nature and scope.
The illustration, viz., "nidrā-nimīlita-drśaḥ.” etc. (verse no. 51, pp. 30, ibid) has a word viz. "dhvananti", which means "vyañjayanti” pure and simple, but K. does not explicitely accept it. In the absence of a clear acceptance of vyañjanā, how can we call K., a dhvanivādin ? We may call him a "vicitrábhidhāvādin", or this, that and everything else, but a dhvanivādin, for he does not openly accept the scheme of Ā. We will go to observe that under VJ. II. 9, while discussing rūdhi-vaicitrayavakratā (on pp. 83, ibid) K. clearly refers to the Dhvanikāra and his vyangyavyañjaka-bhāva, and adds that it is duly and ably established there and therefore need not be re-established here : (vștti, on VJ. II. 9, pp. 83) : "yasmād dhvanikārena vyangya-vyañjaka-bhāvótra sutarām samarthitas tat kim punaruktyena ?” This shows he works under Ā.'s spell and is fully conscious of it, and yet tries to cut a new track and evolve new terminology. But he lands himself in a hopeless situation when he equates all types of vakratās, which are almost all but different names for titles given by 7., under one banner and on equal footing and thereby belieing the experience of aesthetes.
That K. is absolutely conscious about Ā.'s theory is very clear when he uses terms such as 'pratīyate', 'pratipadyate', 'prakāśyate', etc., in the sense of 'vyajyate' only. Then why does he grudge the use of vyajyate' or 'vyañjana' or 'dhvani' ? If he is a clean follower of Ā., he should have made a clear statement to this effect, as
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
