________________
1150
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Viśvanātha is clear when he accepts only 'dhvani' and 'gunībhūta-vyaūgya' as varieties of kāvya and rejects the third type-"citra” as it is without a touch of
He has an interesting discussion : He observes : (S. D. with Laksmī, Edn. '85, Chowkhamba SK-Samsthan, Varanasi) (pp. 291, ibid): –
“kecic citrā”khyam trtīyam kāvya-bhedam icchanti. tad āhuḥ :- "sabda-citram vācya-citram a-vyangyam tv avaram smrtam” iti. tan na; yadi hi a-vyangyatvena vyangyábhāvas tadā tasya kāvyatvam api násti, iti prāg eva uktam. īşad-vyangyam iti cet, kim nāma īşad-vyangyam ? āsvādya-vyangyatvam, anāsvādya-vyangyarvam vā ? ādye prācīna-bhedayor eva antaḥpātaḥ; dvitīye tv akāvyarvam. yadi ca āsvādyatvam tadā a-kşudratvam eva, kşudratāyām anásvādyatvāt. tad uktam dhvanikrtā
"pradhāna-gunabhāvābhyām vyangyasyaivam vyavasthite ubhe kāvye tatónyat tac
citram ity abhidhīyate.” iti. - “Some want a third variety of poetry called 'citra'. They have said, "Poetry without suggestion is said to be of low type-(=avaram), and it is two-fold such as that portrait-like which is based on sound (i.e. word) and the other which is based on sense (i.e. artha).
This cannot be accepted. If by 'a-vyangyatva' i.e. absence of suggestion is meant (total) absence of suggestion, then it ceases to be poetry at all. This we have made clear even before. If (by a-vyangya) it is meant to be “having slight suggestion”, then also we ask, "what is this having slight suggestion ?" Is the suggested sense (present here) is an object of relish or not? If the first alternative is accepted, (this type) falls within the area of the first two varieties (i.e. dhvani or gunībhūta-vyangya) as suggested by the ancients. If the second alternative is accepted (i.e. of vyangya' not being relished) it ceases to be poetry. If it is an object of relish then it (=suggested sense) ceases to be feeble, for if it is feeble it cannot be relished. It is said (by Dhvanikāra) -“When suggested sense is determined to be either principal or subordinate, (we get) two types of poetry. Anything else than that is said to be citra."
Thus Visvanātha does not favour recognition of citra and also seems to argue that Anandavardhana held the same view. One thing is certain that Anandavardhana has placed his arguments in such a way that we may or may not take him to support citra'; both these interpretations being seemingly right.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
