________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Guņībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya. 1125
While dealing with their anti-vyañjanā stand, we have talked (see chapters on vyañjanā, tātparya, etc.) a lot on the approach of Bhațța nāyaka, Mahimā, Dhananjaya, Dhanika, Mukula, and Pratīhārendurāja, hence we do not have to add anything fresh about them. They were all die-hard anti-dhvani theorists, and anti-vyañjanā theorists though of course they advocated the supremacy of 'rasa' in poetry and 'rasa' for them was apprehended by means other than vyañjanā, and 'rasa', though ‘kāvyā”tmā' for them, was never termed 'dhvani' by these theorists. But they were taken care of and denounced very ably by Mammața, Viśvanātha and the rest. After this the dhvani-thought-current flows smoothly and Ruyyaka, Sobhākara Mitra, Vidyādhara, Appayya and Jagannātha have chosen to go with the same.
We know that Anandavardhana had talked about three-fold dhvani. Hence our next topic for a fuller discussion naturally could be rasa-dhvani and certain questions pertaining to its realisation in literature and drama, or in fact all finearts. Some other topics such as those concerned with the nature of rasa, bhāva, rasā”bhāsa, etc. rasa-bhāva-relationship, rasas deemed as praksti-rasas and vikrtirasas, the number of rasas, the problem of śāntarasa, treatment of rasa beginning with Bharata, earlier alamkārikas, Anandavardhana down to Jagannātha, and even at the hands of Rūpa and Jiva Gosvāmī, i.e. the vaišnava alamkārikas, and of course rasa in the hands of Kuntaka, Bhoja and even anti-dhvani theorists,- all this will hold us later. With this rasa-mīmāmsā will be over but prior to that we will see how Anandavardhana, in his catholic vyañjanā-dhvani-rasa theory has correlated such thought-currents as alamkāra, guna, rīti, vștti, samghatanā, doșa, anumiti etc. with rasa-dhvani. This will be done in the very next chapter that follows and then of course, after dealing with dhvani-virodha, we will pick up consideration of the types of major dramatic forms, which we had avoided on the earlier occasion. With this part I. of this Sahrdavāloka will be completed, to be followed by part II with indivinual chapters on guna, dosa. alamkāra, rīti, vrtci, laksanas, vakrokti, aucitya, kaviśiksā, kāwaharana, etc, ending with consideration of modern writers on Alamkāra and general concluding remarks.
It may be noted before we end this chapter that these writers, i.e. Kuntaka, Dhanañjaya, Dhanika. Mahimā, and Bhoja had hardly anything to say about the other two varieties of criticism based classification, viz. the guṇībhūta-vyangya and the citra variety of kavya. But at least Āhandavardhana and his followers down to Jagannātha did recognise these varieties and it will be very interesting to look into the same before we close this chapter.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
