________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya. 1127
However, the sensitive critics also feel an undereurrent of suggested sense in which there is a faint realisation of the fact of a loving lady, with her heart full of love, trying to pursue an unyielding hero. This undertone enhances the beauty of this expressed sense in form of a lovely description of sunset.
Yet another type of poetry, The citra-kāvya, is taken notice of by Anandavardhana and his followers. It is a type in which there is practical absence of any undercurrent of suggestion of the subordinated type, which could add to the charm of the expressed. Here only the expressed carries all grace and moves the cultured critics. The illustration is, "vinirgatam mānadam ātma-mandirāt," etc.
In this illustration, the bare description of Amarāvati causes poetic charm. Thus, we observe that an effort in analysing poetic experience has given rise to a three-fold, criticism based classification, of poetry.
We have seen that Kuntaka, Dhanika, or Mahim, and the rest were not interested in Anandavardhanaś scheme and hence they do not discuss these two varieties. But for us it will be interesting how Anandavaredhana treats and elaborates this topic of gunībhuta-vyangya and citra kävya and how later ālamkārikas who follow his dictate, build a grand edifice on what Anandavardhana has laid down as a base. It may also be noted that even the earlier alamkārikas such as Bhāmaha, Dandin etc. the predecessors of Anandavardhana also did not indulge in this criticism based classification but were satisfied with one based on external form only.
In the Dhvanyaloka, Anandavardhana discusses the nature and scope of what he calls dhvanikävya with all its divisions and sub-divisions upto Dhv-III. 33. He concludes with the words : (Dhv. III. 33) (vịtti : (pp. 224, ibid) :
"vimativișayo ya āsīn manīșiņām satatam a-vidita-sa-tattvah, dhvani-samjñitaḥ prakāraḥ
kāvyasya vyañjitaḥ sóyam.” 'The variety of poetry designated as suggestion, which had become a source of controversy for long, because its real nature had eluded even persons of the best intellect, has now been explained.” (Trans. K. Kris-, pp. 225, ibid). .
Anandavardhana then comes to the second variety of poetry of subordinated suggestion, and observes : (Dhv. III. 34, pp. 224, ibid).
“prakārónyo guṇībhūtavyangyaḥ kāvyasya dịśyate
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
