________________
ARPITA G. PATEL
SAMBODHI
critic. While in the third verse, viz. t. etc., the whole mass of ancillories such as autsukya, āvega, cāpalya, harşa etc; is depicted towards 'rati' the basic emotion. Thus, the aesthetic chewing of determinants and consequents result in the rise of ancillory feelings, which on their part being subordinate terminate in the chewing of the basic emotion thus giving rise to imperceptibility of sequence. In this case the counting of lotus-petals and girls looking downwards can be possible through other reasons also. Thus, this description does not drown the heart immediately in 'lajja'. But when the penance practiced earlier is remembered, the apprehension of 'lajja' occurs. Thus there is Krama-Vyangyatā i.e. perceptibility of sequence. The rasa or sentiment is arrived at here, when the other form of vyabhicāri is considered. So, from that point of view there is imperceptibility of sequence too, but there is perceptibility from the point of lajjā. The Locanakāra has thus quoted this verse to illustrate both the perceptibility and imperceptibility of sequence in case an emotion. (6) ISIC 46145U. (Ku. Sam. 6/84); Dhv. 3/33. Anandavardhana distinguishes between the nature and scope of laksanā and vyañjanā under Dhv. 3/33. The secondary function – gunavrtti – rests on either 349R - similarity or secondary usage. But suggestion is different from either of these. Different in nature is that while gunavrtti or indication is a subordinate function, vyañjanā or suggestion is the principal one. The three types of suggestions derived from meaning can never be taken as subordinate. Second difference from the point of view of nature is that the power of expression itself, at a subordinate level, is taken as indication. Suggestion is completely different from expression. Anandavardhana has brought home this point in the first chapter of his Dhv. itself. Again the difference is nature is seen because when in indication one meaning gives other meaning, the first one as it were merges - i.e. it is not traced independently, in the secondary sense; e.g. in 'IŞTI 19:' But in case of vyañjanā, when one meaning makes for another meaning, the first one gives the second meaning while exhibiting its own self along with the suggested sense; e.g. in i 46.. Now, when a meaning without discarding oneself reveals another meaning, if you take laksanā, then it will be clear that laksanā itself is the primary function of a word. Thus, this verse is quoted by the author to distinguish between the nature and scope of the expressed and the suggested senses. (7) paaiffa. (Ku. Sam. 6/84). (8) T: freka(Ku. Sam. 7/19).
