________________
SAHṚDAYALOKA
anuprāsā"di) or excellences such sweetness (i.e. madhurya"di) respectively. Vṛttis have no independent power beyond anuprāsā"di. Because they are non-different Bhamaha and other ancients have not taken their separate cognition. Eventhough the vṛttis are made current by alamkarikas such as Udbhața and the like, there is no substance in vṛttis which deserves to be taken as independent of anuprāsa etc. Same is the case with styles, i.e. rītis with reference to gunas. Thus vṛttis and rītis are not substantially different from anuprāsā"di and mādharyā"di respectively. Thus, the argument that dhvani, like vṛttis and rītis, should be cognised as a source of beauty independent of gunas and alamkāras, falls flat. Thus poetry, which is relished by a cognition which is one in itself and not comprising of parts (i.e. akhanda-buddhi-samāsvādya), if at all is analysed from the point of artificial analysis, will fail to yield an independent entity called 'dhvani': "-tena akhandabuddhi-samāsvadyam api kāvyam apoddhāra-buddhyā yadi vibhajyate, tatha'pyatra dhvani-śabda-vacyo na kaścid vyatiriktórtho labhyate iti 'nama'-śabdena aha." (Locana, Dhv. I. i.,pp. 10, end. Nandi, ibid)
1184
The view of the second type of objectors is placed by Anandavardhana inthe following words (Dhv. I. i.,vṛtti, pp. 1,3, Edn. K. Kris, ibid)- "anye bruyuḥ- 'nasty eva dhvaniḥ, prasiddha-prasthana-vyatirekiṇaḥ kavya-prakārasya kavyatva-hāneḥ. sahṛdaya-hṛdayā"hlādi-śabdártha-mayatvam eva kāvya-lakṣaṇam. na ca uktaprakārátirekino mārgasya tat sambhavati. na ca tat samayantaḥ pātinaḥ sahṛdayān kāñcit parikalpya tat-prasiddhyā dhvanau kāvyatva-vyapadeśaḥ pravartitópi sakala-vidvan-manogrāhitām ālambate."
-"Others assert thus:" Suggestion does not exist indeed; for a species of poetry opposed to all well-known canons will necessarily cease to be poetry. Poetry can only be defined as that which is made up of such words and meanings as will delight the mind of the critic. This will not be achieved by a route which excludes all the wellknown canons mentioned. Even if the designation of poetry were to be accepted as applying to 'dhvani' on the unanimous support of a coterie of self-styled critics, it would fail to win the acceptance of all the learned." (Trans. K. Kris. pp. 3,5, ibid).
Abhinavagupta places the argument of the objector beautifully. It is like this (Locana, Dhv. I. i.; pp. 10, Edn. Nandi, ibid)- "tathā hi khadga-lakṣaṇam karomi ity uktvā, ātāna-vitānā"tmā, prāvriyamāṇaḥ, sakala-dehā"cchadakaḥ, sukumāras' citra-tantu-viracitaḥ, samvartana-vivartana-sahiṣṇur acchedakaḥ, succhedyaḥ, utkṛsta-khadgaḥ iti bruvāṇam paraiḥ paṭaḥ khalv evamvidho bhavati, na khadga iti yuktyā paryanuyujyamāna evam brūyāt īdṛśa eva khadgo mama abhimata iti tādṛg vā etat. prasiddham, hi lakṣaṇam bhavati, na kalpitam iti bhāvaḥ."
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
