________________
Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Gunībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya. 1137
In the manner thus shown by the author of Dhvani, wherever the poetic fignre is suggested only by the matter itself, there is no sub-ordination of suggestion.” (Trans. R. C. Dwi., pp. 153, ibid).
Thus, instead of the fifty-one principal sub-divisions of dhvani or suggestive poetry, we have only 42 principal sub-divisions of gunībhūta-vyangya or poetry with subordinated suggestion. The alamkāra, suggested by the three-fold vastu i.e. idea or matter, viz. svataḥ-sambhavī, kavi-praudhókti-siddha, and kavi-nibaddhavaktr-praudhókti-siddham which again is threefold each, viz. pada-gata, vākya-gata and prabandha-gata-is never subordinated to the expressed sense and thus does not give rise to the gunībhūta variety of poetry. Mammața further adds that by samspsti and samkara (i.e. by inter-mixture and collocation) with the other sub-divisions of dhvani and alamkāra, the total mounts to a very great extent :
“sálamkārair dhvanes taiś ca, yogaḥ samsrsti-samkaraiḥ, -(K. P. V. 47) (pp. 1 54, ibid). tad uktam dhvanikștā"sa-gunībhūta-vyangyaiḥ sálamkāraiḥ saha prabhedaiḥ svaiḥ, sankara-samsrsți-bhyām punar apy udyotate bahudhā” iti. "anyonya-yogād evam syād
bheda-samkhyā'tibhūyasi.” (K. P. V. 47 cd). evam anena prakāreņa avántara-bheda-ganane ati-prabhūtatarā gananā. tathā hi sủngārasyaiva bheda-prabheda-gananāyām ānantyam, kā gananā tu sarveșām.”
(K. P. V. pp. 154, ibid). Thus, it seems that Mammata has tried to treat the problem in a more systematic way as compared to Anandavardhana.
Hemacandra, in a style so characteristic to him, reduces the divisions and subdivisions and accepts fundamentally only three varieties of gunībhūta-vyangyakāvya, which he styles as ‘madhyama' after Mammața. He observes' : "When (the suggested sense) is not (principal), when the predominance is doubtful or equal, 'madhyama' is three-fold :
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
