________________
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guņa,.....
1173 “rasasyótkarsápakarşahetū guņa-dosau, bhaktyā śabdárthayoḥ.” Thus for him guņas are primarily connected with rasas, and only metaphorically to word and sense. This is the position suggested by Anandavardhana. Hemacandra covers dosa also here with reference to rasas only. He observes that gunas and dosas are said to rest primarily in rasas and only metaphorically in word and sense and again dosas and guņas are said to be 'anitya' with reference to individual rasas, though they reside permanently in 'rasa' taken in a general sense. This is a very clever observation. Hemacandra further observes that alamkāras primarily reside in word and sense and through them they become condusive to rasa, i.e. 'rasopakāraka'. In his Viveka (pp. 34 edn Parikh, Kulkarni, ibid) Hemacandra seems to follow the line of Mammata and seems to agree with him in denouncing Udbhata and Vāmana. But the general approach of the Dhvanikāra of corretating gunas and alamkāras with rasa-dhvani continues in Hemacandra also. Hemacandra observes (pp. 34, 35, Kā śā. Edn. Parikh, Kulkarni.) :
guna-dosayoḥ samānya-laksanam āha- “rasasyótkarsā pakarşahetū gunadosau, bhaktyā śabdárthayoḥ." (Kā. śā. I. 12)
raso vaksyamāņa-svarūpaḥ tasyótkarşahetavo guņāḥ, apakarşa-hetavas tu došāḥ. te ca rasasyaiva dharmāḥ, upacāreņa tu tad-upakāriņo śabdárthayor ucyante. rasā”śrayatvam ca guna-dosayor anvaya-vyatirekánuvidhānāt. tathā hi, yatraiva dosās tatraiva guņāḥ, rasa-viśeşe ca doṣā, na tu śabdárthayoh-yadi hi tayoḥ syus tad bibhatsā”dau kastavā”dayo guņā na bhaveyuḥ. hāsyā”dau cāślīlatvā”dayah, anityāś caite dosah. yato yasyanginas te dosās tad abhāve na dosas tadbhāve tu dosā ity anvaya-vyatirekābhyām guņa-dosayo rasa eva aśrayah.
alamkārāņām sāmānya-laksanam āha - "angāśritā alamkārāḥ” (Kā. śā. I. 13)rasasyā'ngino yad angam śabdárthau tad āśritā alamkārāḥ. te ca rasasya sataḥ kvacid upakāriņaḥ, kvacid anupakāriņaḥ rasábhāve tu vācya-vācaka-vaicitryamātra-paryavasitā bhavanti."
Hemacandra under Kā. śā. IV. 8 (pp. 292, ibid) quotes from Mammațaś K. P. (VIII. K. P. as above) and follows him with reference to vrttis and rītis. He also mentions these while quoting definitions from the N. S. of Bharata while discussing various forms of rūpakas. In short. Hemacandraś approach is in tune with the general approach of the Dhvanikāra and with that of Mammața in particular.
Jayadeva also being a dhvanivādin accepts rīti and vștti as suggesters of rasadhvani. But he attaches greater importance to rīti when he defines kavya
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
