________________
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guņa,....
1177 suggestive only of gunas or excellences and that it should not be taken as suggestive o rasā"di. For, if we accept 'racanã' to be suggestive of rasa, it involves 'gauravadosa', for in that case we will have to go for two types of racanã or construction, one each suggesting gunas and rasas. Again there is no 'pramāna' for accepting this situation. Again, there is no rule that a racan, cannot suggest 'guna' without suggesting guņi(-i.e. rasa) first. For if we accept this rule then, this rule will stand violated with reference to sense-organs such as those of smell, taste and hearing. For these three sense-organs are suggestive of gunas but not gunis in form of akāśa, prthvī, etc. Thus, as the independent guņis such as prthvi etc. are suggested by their own sense-organs and as guņas such as smell etc. are suggested by their own independent set of organs, and after that getting united they become object of pratyaksa or direct perception, in the same way here, both rasa and mādhuryā"di gunas are suggested by their own agents and then either jointly or severally they are tasted : -"ittham ca sva-sva-vyañjakópanitānām guninām günānām udāsīnānām ca yathā parasparópaśleşena audāsīnyena vā tat tat pramiti-gocaratā, tathā rasā"dīnām tad-gunānām ca abhivyakti-visayatā iti tu navyāḥ."
Candrikā (pp. 371, ibid) explains as follows :-“sva-sva-vyañjakair varņā”dibhiḥ, upanītānām bodhitānām, guņinām prthīvy adīnām, guņānām gandhā"dīnām, udāsīnānām guna-guni-bhāvena mithósambaddhānām padárthānām ca, pramitigocaratā, pramātmaka-pratyaksa-visayatā, kadācit upaślesena, gunānām guninām mithaḥ sambaddhatvena, kadācit punar audāsīnyena mithósambaddhatvena ca yathā bhavati, tathā guņinām rasānām guņānām mādhuryā"dīnām cā'bhivyaktivisayatā, āsvāda-gocaratā, kadăcin militatvena, kadācic ca pārthakyena bhavati iti vyavasthayā, rasā”dy a-vyañjakatve'pi mādhuryā"di-vyañjakatā varnādīnām na asambhavinī iti tu navyā vandanti ity arthah.”
So, Jagannātha has his own interpretation and independent view-point.
Anandavardhana presented his scheme only to silence all opposition to dhvani. We will look into this below.
It may be noted that samghatanā is a concept which in this name, appears only in the Dhvanyāloka and then disappears. Later perhaps it is identified with gunas or with vịtti based on the presence or absence of the types of samāsas or compounds, wedded perhaps also with the type of consonants - vyañjanas-such as harsh or soft
mixed. Whatever it may be, the ground reality is that after Anandavardhanas effort in the field of literary aesthetics, rasa, say rasa-dhvani remained in centre and all concepts floated by various authorities were woven together in a well-knit carpet and not a single concept was dishonoured or denounced.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
