________________
1140
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Jagannātha also, like Viśvanātha discourages the application of double standards to such cases as, "ayam sa raśanótkarsī” etc. But we feel that Anandavardhana and those who agree with him seem to have a more flexible mind and they are open to consider various angles. Jagannātha further adds that by the use of the word 'camatkāra' or Charm in the definition, he excludes instances of what may be called 'līna' or “too much concealed” suggestion, and also “vācyacitra" or poetry with figures of word and sense, as the only source of charm as 'adhama kāvya'. As observed earlier, we fail to agree with Jagannātha when he observes that while both in 'uttamóttama' variety and the 'uttama' variety, vyangya or suggested sense becomes the source of charm, yet there is a difference between the two brought about by the fact of the 'vyangya' being principal or subordinate. He also goes to include certain figures of sense such as 'samāsókti', 'paryāyókta', etc. into 'uttama' variety, because the source of charm lies in the subordinated suggested sense and not the expressed sense. Thus for him, there is a distinction between a figure and a figure. For Jagannātha, perhaps eventhough all the figures have some implicit element in them, as noted by Ananandavardhana earlier, all cannot be included in this “uttama” variety. It has to be admitted that even if we
e with Jagannātha or not, this sort of a clear perception of the difference in the source of charm, and therefore a clear line of demarcation between 'dhvani' or ‘uttamóttama' and gunībhūta-vyangya of his ‘uttama' variety on one hand, and arthálamkāres or 'madhyama' type and also ‘citra' or 'adhama' type on the other, may be taken as an original contribution of Jagannātha, for even Anandavardhana and Mammața have not perecived this.
Thus we may observe that in Anandavardhana, there is no clear line of demarcation between 'dhvani', 'gunībhūtavyangya' and 'artha-citra', and the subdivisions of gunībhūta-vyangya also are less systematic and do not carry this or that special names. But this is one way of looking at things. The other way is that perhaps the author of the Dhvanyāloka was more charitable in his approach and by neither naming them as ‘uttama' 'madhyama' or 'adhama', nor by giving any specific names to the different types of gunībhūta-vyangya Anandavardhana has evolved a more catholic approach to the enjoyment of poetic art as is perhaps noticed in the view of Candidāsa, the forefather of Viśvanātha.
· Mammața as we saw, gave a name and location to a certain taste, but Hemacandra again shows a better balanced approach by showing less enthusiasm regarding tendency of hair-splitting so common to Indian literary criticism in general. Hemacandra sides with his masters in case of the evaluation of such verses
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
