Sambodhi 1982 Vol 11

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 93

84
V. M. Kulkarni
like mādhurya (sweetnegs), výttis (dictions) like upanāgarikā (the cultured) and rītis like vaidarbhi. They fail to notice the central essence of kavya as their attention is concentrated for all practical purposes on its 'body-the outward expression or externals of poetry, viz sabda (word), and artha (sense). Certain forms of these are regarded as doșas and certain others as guņas; and they hold that what confers excellence og poetry is the absence of the one and the presence of the other. No doubt, there are minor differences in certain matters among these alamkārikas. For instance, some like Udbbat, make no distinction between gunas and alamkāras. Vāmana, however, makes a clear distinction between them. Dandia defines and distinguishes between the Vaidarbha and the Gauļa styles Bhāmaha holds that there are no such two distinct styles. These and such other minor differences apart, these ālamkārikas reveal cognate ways of thinking. We may therefore regard them as, on the whole, representing the first stage in the growth of literary criticism and aesthetics.
It is Anandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyaloka, ao epoch-making work, who completely revolutionized the Saaskrit poetics and aesthetics by his novel theory that dhvani (suggestion) is the soul of poetry-the vary essence of creative literature. This novel theory he ha formulated and clearly expounded for the first time. His statement in the opening Kārikā "IETETICHT saraftfa : Fatratage:" : is not to be taken’literally. Ho makes this state pent with a view to investing it with authority.1 He distinguishes between two kinds of meaning-the vācyārtha (including the (1) There are two clear indications in the text of Dhvanyaloku. itself which
prompts one to take this view: (i) अणीयसोभिरपि चिरन्तन काव्यलक्षणविधायिनां बुद्धिभिरनुन्मीलितपूर्व' (तस्य ध्वनेः 2697)
-Dhy. Vitti on I.1, p. 35 And, further on, (towards the end of the third Uddyota), we have the following Kārikā (ii) 37892efta #15i, afaha a अशक्नुवद्भिाकतु, रीतयः संप्रवर्तिताः॥
-DHV. III-46 This is a clear reference to Vamana (who flourished about 800 A.D.) who speaks of riti as the very essence of poetry and describes the three wellknown ritis, Anandavardhana's literary activity lies, according to Kane, between 860-890 A.D. As there is hardly a gap of about 60 years between Vāmana and Anandavardhana, and as we do not know of any authors who flourished during this span of 60 years and wrote about 'dhvani as kävyasya atma' we are justified in saying that the Dhvanikāra made this statement with a view only to investing Dhvani with authority.