________________
1108
SAHṚDAYALOKA
Anubhāvas etc., like vaidagdhya, Rūpótkarśa (uddipana-vibhāva) and the like, which are gunas of the Nayaka and the Nayikā, and similar things which however come more and more under the category of vastu-dhvani. If however, Bhoja had really pursued such distinction or made some such clear classification that Vastualamkara-dhvanis for the pratiīyamāna and that Rasa-bhava-dhvani is the parama-tātparya and Dhvani, it would have been interesting. Or, if he had emphasised ‘upasarjani-kṛta-svārtha-tva' in the definition of Dhvani, he could have separated the pratīyamāna as guṇībhūta-vyangya or cases of Alamkāras where dhvani is not pronouneed. As different from this, he could have given Dhvani as cases where it dominates over the subordinated vācya. He must then have defined and illustrated both differently. As it is, we must say that Bhoja has not made out any point to distinguish the Pratiyamāna and Dhvani. A distinction into vastu-Alamkāra Dhvanis and Rasā"di-dhvani, Bhoja did not hit upon at all; he found the parama-tātparya of the form of vastu also and so he vaguely left the question, leaving it to us to define his position systematically. Hemaeandra who reprodues the text of the Śr./Pra. on the varieties of the Pratīyamāna, considers the whole text as referring to what Anandavardhana distinguishes as vastudhvani. See Kāvyānusāsana, pp. 26-34.
At best, we can say from Bhojas text only this much that the Pratīyamāna is 'Avantara-gamyamāna-artha', or ‘Abhidhīyamāna-avyavahita-dhvani' and 'Dhvani is 'parama-tātparya.'
For all practical purposes, we must ignore his vague distinction into Pratīyamāna and Dhvani. Tātparya must be described as having only two kinds, the expressed and the non-expressed or the extra-sense that is implied or suggested. It would have been enough if Bhoja had given Tätparya as being two-fold, Abhidhīyamāna and Pratīyamana. While explaining the relation of the nonexpressed, An-abhidhiyamāna or Abhidhīyamāna-atirikta, with the Sabda-Brahman as one of Vipariņāma, Bhoja mentions only the Pratīyamāna, though immediately, he cites a verse and points out in it a set of implied ideas, the former part of which he calls 'pratīyamana' and the latter part Tatparya or Dhvani."
Now this shows that even Dr. Raghavan can not clear his way through the jungle of ideas presented by Bhoja. Yes, Dr. Raghavan is right when he says that Bhoja should have mentioned only a two-fold, and not a three-fold tātparya. Actually we have tried to give a better explanation of what Bhoja had in his mind about the distinction between pratīyamāna and Dhvani. The former is the suggested sense and the latter is the suggested sense based on the suggested sense.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
