________________
190
and the Loka as well.) He then actually quotes passages from the Aitareya/Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Mahābhāṣya and a popular verse that contain Arthavada.
In the course of his exposition of the topic Arthavyapti (scope of the subjectmatter of Poetry) he quotes the view of Udbhata. "Artha is two-fold: Vicaritasustha (scientifically accurate) and Avicăritaramaniya (charming but not scientifically true). Of these two, the sciences deal with the former and Poetry with the latter."81
Anandavardhana states very clearly that questions of truth and falsity simply do not apply to poetry (or creative literature in general):
"In the province of poetry where we perceive suggested elements, (the questions of logical) truth and falsity are meaningless. Such being the case, to examine (creative literature) through the (well-known) valid means of knowledge would lead to ridicule."82
Earlier he discusses at length the question of propriety and impropriety in relation to sanghațand and declares :
"Except for impropriety there is no other cause of harming rasa. The greatest secret about rasa is conformity to well-known canons of propriety."
From these passages it would seem that Anandavardhana believed in the autonomy of literature.
Rajasekhara clearly elucidates the distinction between scientific and poetic truth. "Poetic truth is founded on 'appearance' (Pratibhasa) and scientific truth, on the object reality. If appearance were the real nature of things, then the orbs of the Isun and the moon which appear to measure twelve angulas (angulama finger's 31. The editor of the Kavya-Mimämsä observes: "Yayavariya does not agree with the view of Audbhatas because they hold that the Kavyas only describe unreal aspects of things, and this means that the Kavyas are useless. He holds, therefore, that the authors of both Sastras and Kavyas describe objects as observed by them."-p. 188. This view, requires consideration. Udbhata's Bhamaha-vivarana, from which the quotation must have been picked up is unfortunately lost. It is reasonable, however, to believe that Udbhața must have written the passage while setting forth Bhamaha's Kavya-nyaya. (One of the three examples of Avicaritaramaniya, given by Rajasekhara, is drawn from Bhamaha, V. 34b.) Rajasekhara does not add a remark like "": after giving the view of Udbhața. Further, Rajasekhara himself supports Udbhata in his comment when he says: yatara' It may be stated here that one feels that a verse, illustrating "Sastra-nibandhopayogi yatha-pratibhasa vastu-svarüpa," is missing from this passage, for the example etc., is of Poetry and not of Sastra. 32. काव्य-विषये च व्यम्य प्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यत्वनिरूपणस्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षोपहासाचैव
संपद्यते ।
33 अनौचित्याहते नान्यदसभङ्गस्य कारणम् । प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥
-Dhvany loka III, p. 455
-Dhvanyaloka III, p. 330
