________________
1124
SAHRDAYĀLOKA in themselves; their ultimate aim is the manifestation of 'rasa'. Dr. Raghavan observes (pp. 168 ibid) that padártha-vākyártha-nyāya between vibhāvā”divācyavācaka and dhvanyamāna rasā"di could only be an analogy which emphasises the fact that vibhāva, etc. are rasa-para and the former are upāyamātra, the means for the latter. Anandavardhana also, we know, has a similar approach. Even he holds that though padárthas are real, they are not independently cognised when the sentence-sense is cognised. Similarly the apprehension of the vibhāvā"dis lead to that of rasā”di in such a quick fashion, that the sequence between the two is not apprehended, observes Anandavardhana. (Dhv. I. 10-12). Rasa therefore is the vākyártha, so to say, with the apprehension of vibhāvā"dis forming the padártha. Dr. Raghavan observes that here the vākyártha i.e. rasā”di must naturally be apprehended through 'tātparya', otherwise called 'dhvani' by Bhoja, and as such, Bhoja contradicts neither Anandavardhana nor Dhanika.
Dr. Raghavan tries to defend his observation here that Bhoja contradicts neither Anandavardhana nor Dhanika by suggesting that in Dhanikaś Avaloka we find a clear mention of rasa being vākyártha, those that manifest it i.e., vibhāvas, etc., being padártha, and the vākya being the Kāvya : "tatra vibhāvā”dayaḥ padárthasthānīyāḥ, tat-samsrsto rasā”diḥ vākyárthaḥ, tad eva kavya-vākyam yadīyau tāv imau padártha-vākyárthau.” D. R. Avaloka.
Here, once again, we beg to differ from Dr. Raghavan. For Ānandavardhana padártha-vākyártha-nyāya is just an analogy to be abandoned later in favour of ghata-pradipa-nyaya between the first apprehension of vibhāvādi and the apprehension of rasā"di that follows. This second 'nyāya' takes us to vyañjanā. But this is not so for Dhananjaya / Dhanika for whom a dīrghatara-tātparya, which is for them “a-tulādhịtam” is more welcome then vyañjanā-dhvani. So, if Bhoja calls his tātparya' by the name of 'dhvani' he has to side either with Anandavardhana or with Dhanika. Our impression is that Bhoja does not discard vyañjan, and thus leans towards Ānandavardhana, though he equates dhvani with tātparya. For him ‘tātparya' is thus the 'ultimate principal sense' and just not the sum total of padárthas. So, for all practical purposes, Bhoja should not be taken as an antivyañjana-dhvani theorist like either Bhatta Nayaka, or Dhananjaya / Dhanika or Mahimā, but should be placed along with Kuntaka, or even above Kuntaka for Bhoja names dhvani and accepts it in his own way. By and large, Kuntaka and Bhoja are not anti-dhvani theorists but their acceptance of dhvani has a wider area than just vyañjanā. Both may, be termed "antarbhāva-vādins" so far as 'dhvani' is concerned.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
