________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Guņībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kavya. 1121
Dr. Raghavan continues to explain as follows. After quoting the three-fold import, at the stage of defining the 'pratyāyya' or implied purport, he makes a change. Dr. Raghavan rightly observes that Śā. differs from Bhoja so far as the understanding of the concept of 'pratyāyya' import is concerned. Dr. Raghavan observes that Śā. finds it, as we (i.e. Dr. Raghavan, and also Dr. Nandi now), also found, impossible to distinguish Bhojas ‘pratīti' (i.e. implied sense) and dhvani'; and also 'pratīyamāna' and 'dhvanyamana'. So, he made the distinction that such meaning as is called forth to explain a statement whose obvious expressed sense is clearly incompatible (i.e. what we have called to be a "qualified statement," Yes, ‘qualified with reference to its special context of the speaker, the listener, etc. etc.), i.e. 'anupapanna', is called 'pratiyamāna'. The example is, 'vişam bhunksva'. This, Dr. Raghavan observes, is partly faithful but not wholly to Bhojas text.
"yathā'bhidhīyamānárthad anyathā’nupapattitaḥ, pratīyamāno vākyárthaḥ yas sa pratyāyya ucyate." "visam bhunksva' iti vākyādāv
esa tādřk pratīyate.” Bhoja, Dr. Raghavan observes, does not restrict 'pratīyamāna-tātparya' to cases of anyathā-anupapatti' of the abhidhīyamāna. For Bhoja clearly states:
"vākyárthaḥ, upapadyamānaḥ, anupapadyamāno vā." (śr. Pra. Vol-II. Ch. VII), though he illustrates only the latter with the example, viņam bhunkşva."
In other respects, Dr. Raghavan observes that Śā. faithfully summarises the whole text of Bhoja on dhvani.
At the end of the section, Dr. Raghavan observes, Bhoja takes up the question of the difference between Dhvani and Tātparya. We may add that, and Dr. Raghavan does not explain it in such a clear way, that Sā. here gives three views on tātparva-dhvani divide. The views are of Ānandavardhana, Dhananjaya-Dhanika and Bhoja. We have clearly explained above the distinction between these three.
Dr. Raghavan observes that śā. quotes the Kārikās on dhvani, viz. "pratiștham..." etc. quoted in the Avaloka on the Daśarūpaka and says this view is wrong. Dhvani and tātparya are not separate but are identical. Dhvani or the suggested idea is got at only through the tātparya-śakti of a sentence. The suggested idea is also part of a speakerś intention and everything coming within the
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
