________________
1101
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. vipariņamante tatha idam śabda-brahma api, avidyópādheḥ tena tena rūpeṇa tathā tathā vipariņamate tad yatha-santi me pañca putrāḥ, mataram pitaram śusrūṣitavan asmi, yóham yuvā dramiḍa-deśe dramiḍa-kanyābhiḥ saha avsam, sóham idānīm paścime vayasi ganga-tire tapaś carāmi, iti.-atra ca śabdárthayoḥ pṛthag avabhāsād vākyárthasya abhidhīyamānatāyām pratīyamānatāyām vā na anupapattiḥ; na ca etavatā śabda-vyāpāro viramsyati. yatas tātparyam asya hi agrato viseṣeņa vaksyamāṇam aste.
Bhoja seems to accept three categories of meaning: (i) Expressed i.e. abhidhīyamāna, (ii) Implied i.e. pratīyamāna (3) tatparya or dhvani which is even beyond this. This is illustrated by citing a verse viz. “prāpta-śrīr eṣa....” etc., which is also read in the Dhvanyaloka. Bhoja suggests that from the expressed sense, the sense of the king being taken as an avatara of Visnu is implied'pratīyamāna' and from this 'pratīyamāna' sense, a further sense of this kingavatāra taken as superior to other avatāras is suggested which for Bhoja is the final 'tātparya' or 'dhvani'. Actually we may observe that the dhvani theorists have already suggested that dhvani rests either on väcyártha, or lakṣyártha or even 'vyangyártha' at times. So, if at all there is further suggestion in this verse it is just a vyangyártha based on vyangyártha and nothing beyond that. The fact remains that 'principal suggested sense' is termed 'dhvani' by the dhvani theorists and if this basic condition is overlooked than it is a case of not grasping the dhvani theory properly. By just coining new terms, as was the case with Kuntaka, we do not alter the basic facts. Vācya-vyangya-further vyangya' is a three tier scheme already accepted by the dhvanivādins. The basic point is whether the suggested sense, whatever it is at the final level, should be principal. Bhoja seems to feel that 'dhvani' is only that 'tātparya' in kavya which is of the form of suggestion based on suggestion. No, we can not accept it. The real heart of the technical terminology called "dhvani" lies in a meaning being suggested as principal through any agency, be it word or sense, and either vācya, or lakṣya or vyangya; and in case of the latter, being rendered subordinate to the finally suggested sense which is deemed as 'principal', it being the highest source of highest beauty. Dr. Raghavan should have clarified this point.
So, when Bhoja observes what he does, we take it as a futile exercise. He says : (pp. 221, Śr. Pra. Vol. I, Ch. VI-ibid): "atra varṇanīya-rāja-viseṣasya digvijayinoḥ yathāśruta-vākyártho' bhidhiya-mānas 'tvayi' iti pade viṣṇvadhyāsávatāraḥ samastīti pratīyamānas tad avatarántarāṇām nidrā'lasatvā❞didoṣayogad asya ca tad vyudāsāṭ tato vaisista-pratipādanam tātparyam, yasya
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
