________________
1180
SAHĶDAYĀLOKA "Though the learned men of yore have declared (time and again) that the soul of poetry is suggestion, some would aver its non-existence, some would re it as something (logically) implied and some others would speak of its essence as lying beyond the scope of words. We propose, therefore, to explain its nature and bring delight to the hearts of perspective critics. (Dhv. I. i.) (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 2, ibid).
We had quoted above what Jayaratha had to say about opposition to dhvani. It contained a reference to some who took two-fold lakṣaņā as equivalent to dhvani. Here a view holding dhvani as “bhākta” i.e. bhakti grāhya' is mentioned in Dhv. I. i. This is identical with Jayarathas reference. Under Dhv. III. 33, Anandavardhana has distinguished vyañyanā from abhidhā, lakṣaṇā, anumiti and also tātparya. All these opponents are mentioned by Jayadeva. It was Bhatta-nāyaka who supported "rasasya-bhogah", perhaps in his, now not available work viz. "Hşdayadarpana specifically drafted by him for demolition of dhvani i.e. 'dhvani-dhvamsa.' He rejected vyañjanā in favour of two powers such as "bhāvakatva" and "bhojakatva". (i.e. the power of revelation and enjoyment). Ānandavardhana has considered the views of the Mimāmsakas and the same is referred to by Jayaratha as those who prefer tātparya over vyañjanā. The view with two-fold anumiti is the same as the view of the Naiyāyikas considered by the Dhvanikāra under Dhv. III. 33, where also abhidhā/vyañjanā are carefully distinguished. 'Kvacit tantram' is taken care of under sabda-sakti-müla-dhvani and blesa in the Dhy. We will take the refutation of arthāpatti under anumāna (Dhv. III. 33). 'rasasya kāryatā' is the view of Lollata and the "vyāpārántara-bādhana' of Jayaratha is the same as "vācām avisayaḥ”view, referred to in Dhv. I. i.
We will now proceed with what Anandavardhana has to say under Dhv. I. i.He observes that the learned critics have, from times of yore, had recognised 'dhvani’ as the 'soul of poetry. We know that, as Abhinavagupta explains, this ancient tradition was inherited by Anandavardhana. The tradition was orally floated and at least Abhinavagupta knows no written document discussing dhvani, prior to the Dhvanyāloka. So this thought-current which was critically examined and promulgated by unknown ancients must have had to face rough weather in form of opposition, the first view being of those who flatly rejected di abhāvam jagadur apare.” We will look into the same as blow :
First of all we will take notice of what the Locana has to say in the beginning. The Locana observes (under Dhy. I. i., pp. 86, Edn. Nandi, ibid) : "yasya adhigamāya pratyuta pravartanīyam kā tatra abhāva-sambhāvanā ? atah kim kurmah ?
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
