________________
1170
""
explains the passage as : (pp. 328, 329, 330 ibid):
-
"ittham siddham guṇálamkara-pravibhāgaṁ nigamayati-esa eva ca iti. na tu vakṣyamāņo vāmana"dy upadarsita iti yavat. ittham vibhāga-siddhau yóyam abhedavādinām upahāsaḥ,sa tan eva spṛśatīty aha-evañ ca samavāya-vṛttyety ādi. astu gunálamkārāṇām iti. laukikānām vibhāgam upagacchama ity arthaḥ. kavyaguṇálamkārāṇām tv abheda eva ity āha- "ojaḥ-prabhṛtīnām ity ādi. itir hetau. yata ubhayeṣām api samavāya-vṛttyä sthitiḥ, ato bhedábhidhānam gaddarikā-pravāheṇa bakara-prayāṇa-nayena. ekasyām gadḍarikāyām artha-paryālocanam vinaiva puraḥ prayātāyām sarvaiva panktis tam eva panthanam pramāṇīkṛtya pravartate. prakṛte' pyetad eva ābhāṇakam āyātam iti yāvat. iti svarūpāvacchedaḥ. iti yad etat sópahāsábhidhānam tad asat. tat paśutvam teṣām eva syat. bhedasya samyag vivecitatvāt, iti bhavaḥ. ittham gunálamkarayor aikyam nirākṛtya yad vāmanā❞dibhir bhedónyathā darśitas tad uddalayitum aha-"yad apy uktam ity ādinā." yad idam kāvyaśobhā-kartṛtvena kavya-vyapadeśa-hetavo guṇāḥ, labdha-tathā- vyapadeśasya tv atiśaya-hetavó lamkārā iti vibhāga ucyate, na tad yuktam vibhāga-asahatvāt. tathā hi"kim samastair gunaiḥ kāvyavyavahāraḥ kriyate, uta katipayaiḥ, nä"dyaḥ; a-samastaguṇayor gauḍī-pañcalyoḥ kāvyā"tmatva-abhyupagama-virodhāt. na dvitiyaḥ"adrāvatre" tyādāv ojaḥ-pramukha-katipaya-guna-sambhavāt, kāvya-vyapadeśaprasakteḥ. ittham ṭāvan nāsti kāvya-vyapadeśa-hetutā guṇānām iti avyāptir doṣaḥ. ativyāptir api.tathā hi-svarga-prāptir ity adau pūrvápara-vakyárthibhūta-viśeṣóktivyatirekálamkarābhyām eva guṇa-nairapekṣyeņa kavya-vyapadesa -darśanāt. nanv atra'pi śṛngāránugatamadhura-guna-sápekṣayor eva anayoḥ kavya-vyapadeśa-hetutā iti cet, mandam idam. abhivyañjaka-lalita-varṇábhāvān madhura-guna-vyaktir eva násti. dure tad vyapekṣā, nis sapatna-camatkārátiśaya kāriņor viseṣokti-vyatirekayoḥ, atósmābhir upadarsita eva vibhāgaḥ śreyān."
SAHṚDAYĀLOKA
All faithful commentators of great reputation have explained and vindicated zealously Mammaṭaś observations. The above quotation from Sampradayaprakāśinī is just an instance in point.
Jain Education International
But we stick to our observation that not unlike Anandavardhana, even Mammata and the rest should have avoided entering into such controversies. Actually even Anandavardhana recommends that poetry and poetic beauty are all abstraction and there is nothing physical about the same. Poetic beauty, if revealed in the right fashion, takes shape even through figures of speech which under such cirumstances are not 'bahiranga' i.e. 'not external' to poetry. This is Ananda-vardhanaś observation. In this sense both gunas and alamkāras when
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
