________________
1070
SAHRDAYĀLOKA bull, because here also there is similarity justifying metaphorical identification. Thus, we have here a new aspect of beauty in the use of a synonym. In all such places the relation between the direct (lit. contextual) and the indirect, (lit. noncontextual) meaning may be either one of metaphor or of simile. One might say "that is this” or, “this is like this”. This itself has been spoken of (by Ā.) as an instance of suggestion in word coming under the class - "sabda-sakti-mūlaanuranana-rūpa-vyangya", wherein there is a paranomastic power in the word giving rise to two as metaphor etc., and resembling resonant sound.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 376, ibid)
K. clearly mentions 'vākya-dhvani' also and draws illustrations viz. "kusumasamaya-yugam." etc. and “vrtte'smin..." etc. from the Dhvanyāloka (pp. 78, and pp. 110, Edn. '74, K.Kris.) We fail to understand his effort in naming A.'s dhvani differently. Only point to his credit is that he has specifically mentioned and illustrated many varieties, or say, sub-varieties of dhvani left out by A. But thereby Ki's work becomes only supplementary to the Dhvanyaloka. It may be called a useful appendix, at the most, to Ā.'s great Dhvanyāloka. Ko's effort to name it differently is just quibbling. Yes, just so, and nothing more. For, he has to admit that, in the particular illustration viz. "vịttésmin mahāpralaye..." etc., (pp. 89, ibid) : (vrtti, VJ. II. 10; verse 37, pp. 89 - ibid) : "atra yugā”dayaḥ śabdāḥ prastutábhidhāna-paratvena prayujyamānāh santópya-aprastuta-vastu-pratīti-kāritayā kām api kāvya-cchāyām samunmīlayantah pratiyamānālamkāra-vyapadesa-bhājanam bhavanti." "Though the word 'yuga' (= 'era'; 'twin months) etc., are used overtly to refer to the subject on hand, they are capable of suggesting another meaning indirectly and reveal a special kind of poetic charm which has been designated by the name, 'suggested figure of speech' by Ā." - (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 377, ibid).
What pains us is not just his naming the things differently, but it is only when K. places different varieties of vakratā on the same footing, we feel that he violates the basic principles of aesthetics in general and dhvani in particular and renders confusion worse confounded. For example, his fourth variety of 'paryāya-vakrata' viz. "sva-cchāyótkarsa peśala” (pp. 89, 90, ibid) i.e. (which by itself contributes to a new lease of excellence - Trans. K.Kris., pp. 377) - at the most comes closer to what we call 'parikara-alamkāra'. Surely this can never be equated with other 'vakratā' as above, which is dhvani, pure and simple.
K. then treats (pp. 90, ibid) yet another variety, wherein, “ayam aparah padapūrvárdha-vakratā bhidhāyi-asambhāvyartha-pātratva-garbham yaścā'bhidhīyate". i.e. 'which hints at a meaning having inconceivable elements.' (Trans. K.Kris. pp.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
