________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya 1095 should stand for expressions at worldly and śāstriya level. In that case it is, i.e. tātparya itself, is called "dhvani" in 'kāvya' or poetic expression. The expression should mean, "yad vacasi arthāt loke śāstre ca, tātparyam, tad eva (ramaniyatve sati) kāvye dhvanih, iti ucyate." But as observed by Kuntaka a poetic expression - vicitrā abidhā-may operate at pure denotative level, i.e. abhidhā, or at the level of indication or laksanā or even at the vyañjanā level, Bhoja also seems to accept "abhidhiyamāna tātparva" at the level of poetic expression. Thus a part of 'vicitrā abhidhā' gets admission in Bhoja's" kāvye abhidhivamāna tātparya. If tātparya is concerned with kāvva-vākyārtha, then it is termed dhvani. But vākya in a kāvya can operate at pure abhidhā level or laksanā-level or even vyañjanā level. Thus for Bhoja 'dhvani' as tātparya of a kāvya-vākya seems to cover abhidhīyamāna as well as pratīyamāna tātparya, the first being inclusive also of lakşyamāņa as well. Dr. Raghavan has not thought of this possibility and hence he seems to equate kāvya-vākya-tātparya with Anandavardhana's 'dhvani'. But this is not the case. 'Dhvani' in Bhoja here seems to have a broader connotation covering the import of any poetic expression, operating at any level. Bhoja introduces knowingly a sort of looseness in the technical terms when he says that “tātparya" is the term with reference to worldly expressions and "dhvani" is said to be with reference to a poetic expression but the substance is the same. Just as 'Caitra' and 'Vaisakha' are termed as ‘madhu' and 'madhava' in a different context, in the same way sentence-sense, i.e. the import of a sentence is termed tātparya at ordinary parlance and "dhvani” at the level of poetry. Thus ordinary tātparya at lokaśāstra-level is termed as tātparya and the same at poetic level is termed dhvani'. But this 'dhvani' covers abhidhiyamāna tātparya at poetic level also. This is as noted above, like Kuntaka's vicitrā abhidhā. This dhvani' is wider and of course covers Anandavardhana's dhvani operating at vyañjanā level. Here, it is pratīyamāna tātparya in a kāvya-vākya, according to Bhoja.
Bhoja thus has a wider connotation for both 'tātparya' and 'dhvani'. In the wider context, the abhidhiyamāna-tātparya at poetic level covers 'dhvani' in a special sense. This refers to the 'ramanīya' meaning of kāvya-vākya at abhidhā level, and also tātparya of the gunībhūta-vyangya type and then also dhvani' at the principally suggested level.
Thus Bhoja is not averse to the fact of dhvani. We may not call him an antidhvani theorist but we may certainly brand him. like Kuntaka, as an "antar-bhāvavādin” or one who tries to subsume dhvani under various heads.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
