________________
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guņa,......
1171 they become instrumental in causing poetry beauty are intrinsically, or inherently connected (samavāya-vșttyā) to poetry. Thus viewed Udbhaļas view can be defended.
In the same way when Vāmana observes 'gunas' as 'visesa' or special mark of 'rīti' or style, which is said to be the 'soul of poetry, in a metaphorical language not to be taken literally as already noticed by us, what Vāmana expects here is the "guņatva” type of beauty. Individual guņas are only various external presentations of this quality of excellence. It is all abstraction and there is nothing physical about it. So when 'riti' graced by this excellence is said to be the soul by Vamana, what is meant is that only such subtler form of poetic beauty is more acceptable to Vāmana as is dhvani' with Anandavardhana. Alamkāra being less subtle form of beauty in his opinion is therefore metaphorically said to be "atiśayahetu” as against "karaka-hetu” that goes with gunas or subtler form of poetic beauty. Two or three styles, that are bestowed with this 'guna’-tattva, are said to be the 'soul metaphorically. Individual forms of expression, such as three, four, five or ten or even more gunas are only an accident: the presence of 'gunatattva' is fundamental. Thus Mammataś approach is biased and more physical which goes to disrespect the essence of what either Udbhata or Vamana wants to underline. It is therefore that Anandavardhana, having a better understanding of things, avoids condemning these views. - our observations are applicable to all followers of Mammața who likewise fail to appreciate the spirit behind Udbhațaś or Vāmanaś observations.
Mammațas approach to the problem of rītis and vrttis also follows the tradition of dhvanivādins such as Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Though not specified by the former the latter in his Locana takes vịttis only as types of anuprāsa (: vsttayaḥ anuprāsa-jātayah), and rītis are not different from the concept of gunas. But Mammata slightly differs. He of course takes vịttis as types of anuprāsa, but he adds that some people call vrttis by the name of rītis. Thus he identified both vrtti and rīti which was not done by either Anandavardhana or Abhinavagupta. It is clear that in course of centuries, literary criticism also takes slightly different expression at the hands of theorists even belonging to the same school of thought. This sure is an illustration where we find complete identification of the cocepts of rīti and vrtti as enunciated differently by earlier alamkārikas such as Vamana and Udbhata and also accepted as such by early promoters of dhvani such as Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Of course Mammata seems to follow the basic guideline promoted by the Dhvanikīra that vrttis and rītis are also suggesters or vyañjakas of rasa in poetry.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
