1. Dhvanyaloka Anandavardhana Bishnupada Bhattacharya Udyota 1 Firma K.L. Mukopadhyaya

DHVANYALOKA

OF

ANANDAVARDHANA

( UDDYOTA I)

EDITED

WITH AN ELABORATE ENGLISH EXPOSITION

By

SRI BISHNUPADA BHATTACHARYA, M.A., P.R.S., ESHAN SCHOLAR, GRIFFITH PRIZEMAN, KAVYATIRTHA. Principal, Sanskrit College, Calcutta.

WITH A FOREWORD

By

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR DE, M.A., P.R.S., D.LIT. (LONDON)

IPI.GAMA

FIRMA KLM PRIVATE LIMITED CALCUTTA 1981

DHVANYALOKA

OF

ANANDAVARDHANA

[ UDDYOTA I]

[ Second Edition Revised & Enlarged ]

SRI BISHNUPADA BHATTACHARYA

Secretary, Vangīya Sanskrita Siksha Parisbat, Govt. of West Bengal ; formerly, Professor & Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Krishnanagar College.

WITH A FOREWORD

BY

DR. SUSHIL KUMAR DE, M.A, P.R.S., D.LIT. (London)

IDI-KANAIA A

FIRMA KLM PRIVATE LTD. CALCUTTA 1981

Published by :

S.P. Ghosh FIRMA KLM PRIVATE LTD. Post Box 7818 Calcutta 700 012, India

Ist Edition : Calcutta 1956 2nd Edition : Calcutta 1965, Reprint : Calcutta 1980

Printed by : Skylark Printers at 11355, Id-gah Road. New Delhi-110055 Phone: 517661.521596

FOREWORD

A work, which would speak for itself, hardly requires a foreword. But my young friend, the author, who has already made some small but admirable contributions to the study of Sanskrit Poetics, seeks an introduction for his more ambitious work to the scholarly world. I gladly accede to his request and recommend it to the good sense of all students of Sanskrit literature. The object of this work is mainly expository. The author takes the accepted text of the Dhvanyaloka and gives a full running exposition in English of its terse Karika and Vrtti. He takes good care to elucidate and illustrate his points by profuse quotations from earlier and later Alamkāra literature. Those who want to study the difficult text critically, in its proper historical perspective, will un- doubtedly find the present work immensely interesting and helpful. There is also a very able introduction which deals with the various general problems connected with the Dhvanyaloka and its authorship, and utilises the latest researches on the subject with keen critical sense and well- balanced judgment. Jagannätha, one of the latest but not the least important writers on Sanskrit Poetics, speaks of the Dhvanyaloka as having been alamkāra-saraņi-vyavasthāpaka. The tribute

iv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

is by no means exaggerated ; for the tentative speculations of earlier thinkers are brought together and harmonised in this classical work into a more or less comprehensive system on the basis of its own theory of suggestion. It standardised the scheme of Sanskrit Poetics, and in this sense it is truly an epoch-making work. To interpret such a work is indeed an ambitious undertaking. Our young author, with che learning and sobriety of more mature years, has dared much, but has also notably succeeded, He is competently conversant with his subject, which has a wide literature and abstruse technique. Though modest in scope, his treat- ment, even if it errs on the side of profuseness, shows a mastery not only of the whole field of theory, but also of incidental details, and gives evidence of sound scholarship and just criticism. The present publication comprises only the first Uddyøta. The second Uddyota, I understand, is ready for the press. Let me hope that the author will receive sufficient encouragement to publish the remaining portions and complete his eminently useful work. S. K. De.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The present edition of the Dhvanyaloka, Uddyota I, has been thoroughly revised. The important variants according to the Nirnaya Sagara Press (NSP) and Kuppu- swami Sastrin's (KS) editions have been duly noted under each section of our text which mainly follows the version in the Chowkhamba Edition. Some typographical changes have also been introduced in this edition with a view to bringing out clearly the difference between the Karika and the Vrtti texts. I hope that the present revised edition also will meet with the same encouraging response from serious students of Sanskrit Poetics as the pevious one.

August 1965 B. P. Bhattacharya

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION It is needless here to dilate upon the importance of the Dhvanyaloka in the field of Sanskrit literary criticism. It would be enough if we characterise it as the fountain-head of all later speculations regarding the fundamental concepts of Sanskrit Poetics. Since the discovery of its manuscript by Dr. G. Bühler several editions have been published embodying the karikas, the vrtti and the °Locana, in some cases accompanied by some sub-commentaries. But as yet no complete English translation or exposition of chis important text has appeared though long ago Dr. Jacobi published a German translation of the treatise in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gessellschaft (vols. lvi and Ivii) upto the Third Uddyota, which however re- mains a sealed book to most scholars in India due to their lack of an adequate acquaintance with that language. Of course, recently an English translation has been announced, but cill now it has not seen the light of the day." In these circumstances, it is hoped, the present edition of the Dhvanyaloka with an introduction and an elaborate exposi- tion in English may not be deemed useless. As serious

I understand that there is an incomplete English translation of the Dhvanyaloka (I-II) by K. Rama Pisharody published in Indian Thought ( Vols. IX-X ), 1917-18. I have not however seen it.

viii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

students of Sanskrit Poetics would be more benefited by the clarification of the difficult concepts and abstruse pole- mics embodied in a treatise of this type than by a literal rendering in a different idiom, I have incorporated in the body of the exposition copious extracts from standard texts on Sanskrit Poetics, belonging to both pre-dhvani and post- dhvani periods that are expected to throw sufficient lighc on the abstruse dialectics of the exponents of the Dhvani- school vis-à-vis representatives of other rival schools of chought. Thus the present edition would be deemed more useful to advanced types of students than to mere beginners or dilettantes for whom, for that matter, the Dhvanyaloka is hardly intended. However, I intend to bring out in the near future a companion volume incorporating a free English rendering of the text, the two thus supplementing each other and enhancing their usefulness. In preparing the present edition I have mainly utilised the editions of the Dhvanyaloka (with °Locana) as published by the Nirnaya Sagara Press, by Chowkhamba (with the sub-commentary Balapriya) and by the late MM. Kuppuswami Sastrin (with the sub-commentary Kaumudi with his own gloss Upalocana extending up to the end of the First Uddyota), important variants being noted in the supplementary notes appended at the end .* The present fasciculus contains * In our notes references are to the Chowkhamba Edition unless otherwise specified.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION ix

only the First Uddyota. The text of the Second Uddyota is in the course of active preparation along similar lines and is expected to be shortly out. The remaining Uddyotas would gradually follow if the scheme meets with sufficient encouragement, To teachers of my post-graduate days, especially to Dr. Satkari Mookerjee, M.A., Ph. D. and Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya, M.A., Sahitya-sastrin, from whom I had the previlege of studying this difficult text, I convey my heart- felt gratitude. It was to their inspiring lectures, to one's incisive analysis of the abstruse concepts in course of which he brought to bear upon the task his vast store-house of philosophical wisdom and to the other's passionate enthusiasm that even transformed the reading of a critical text into something of a literary banquet, the critical insight of the one thus supplementing the aesthetic appreciation of the other, that my love for this treatise of Anandavardhana is mainly due. I would however be failing in my duty if I forget to express my deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Sushil Kumar De, M. A., D. Lit. (London), who helped me in various ways by lending me books of reference in course of my writing the introduction as also by placing at my disposal his valuable collation of the important available manuscripts of the Dhvanyāloka. I am all the more grateful to him for kindly contributing a Foreword to chis edition.

x THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ANANDAVARDHANA

There are likely to be misprints here and there as the preparation of the present edition had to be done single- handed, from the copying of the manuscript for the press to the reading of the final proofs, for which I crave the indulgence of scholars. Finally, I convey my gratefulness to the authorities of the Education Department, Government of West Bengal, but for whose kind favour as evinced by my appointment as Associate Professor of Sanskrit Language and Literature in the Post-Graduate Research Department of the Sanskrit College, Calcutta, though for a brief period, the publica- tion of the present fasciculus would have been indefinitely deferred. July 1956. B. P. Bhattacharya

LIST OF CONTENTS

Foreword by Dr, Sushil Kumar De, Pages

M.A., D. Lit. (Lond.) iii-iv

2. Preface v-X

3. Introduction : xiii-lxviii

(i) Anandavardhana-His Date, Genealogy and Works. (ii) Kārikā and Vrtti.

(iii) Kārikākāra and Vrttikāra.

(iv) Dhvanikāra and Anandavardhana.

(v) Parikara,° Samgraha° and Samksepa-ślokas. (vi) The Text of the Kārikās. (vii) The Antiquity of the Dhvani-Theory.

(viii) Influence of the Dhvanyaloka on later Sanskrit Poetics.

(ix) Some Authors of Anti-Dhvani Schools.

4. Text and Exposition 1-241

5. Appendices I-III 245-301

(i) Mahimabhatta and the Definition of Dhvani.

(ii) Suggestion versus Inference in Sanskrit

Aesthetics.

xii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

(iv) Indices: (a) Alphabetical Index of Kārikās. (b) Alphabetical Index of Vrtti-

verses.

(c) Alphabetical Index of Illustrative Quotations in the Vrtti.

INTRODUCTION

I, Anandavardhana-His Date, Genealogy and Works Rājanaka Anandavardhana, to whom the Dhvanyāloka is generally ascribed was a reputed Kashmirian poet, critic and philosopher. As regards his date there is very little room for controversy. For, Kalhana, the celebrated author of the Rajatarangini, the most authoritative chronicle of Kashmir, mentions him in the following verse as one of the ornaments adorning the court of King Avantivarman: - "मुक्काकणः शिवसामी कविरानन्दवर्घनः। प्रथां रन्नाकरश्वागात् साम्राज्येऽवन्तिवर्मराः ॥"-V. 34.1 Now, according to Bühler and Jacobi Avantivarman flourished during the period 855-884 A.D. Thus, on the evidence of the Rajataranginī, Anandavardhana attained fame during the reign of Avantivarman, the first Utpalite king of Kashmir. Recently, attempts have been made by some scholars to establish Anandavardhana's con- temporaneity with King Samkaravarman (883-902 A.D.), the son of Avantivarman.2 The arguments advanced in

I See M. A. Stein's Translation of the Rajatarangini, Vol. I., p. 189 and Notes. 2 Cf. "The exact period, counted by years of the Christian era, in which Anandavardhana flourished is not

X1V THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA support of this view are that (1) Anandavardhana mentions Ramabhyudaya, a drama by king Yasovarman, and cites a verse from it1 and that (2) Yaśovarman, is another name of Samkaravarman.2 Bhatta Jayanta, the

known. But Kalhana admits that he obtained fame during the reign of Avantivarman (855/56-883 A.D.). He might have outlived the first Utpalite and could very well be contemporary of his son, Samkaravarman (883-962A.D.). The latter half of the ninth century thus may be the approximate age in which he might have lived."-Sunil Chandra Roy: The Author of the Ramabbyudaya-His Date and Identity (Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. XXX, No. 4, December 1954). Anandavardhana quotes only the pratika-viz. "y4T रामाभ्युदये-'कृतककुपितैः' इत्यादिश्लोकः"-Uddyota III, pp. 307-8 (Kasbi Sanskrit Series Edn.). The full verse is given by Abhinavagupta in his °Locana as follows: - "कृतककुपितैर्वाष्पाम्भोभिः सदैन्यविलोकितै- र्वनमपि गता यस्य प्रीत्या धृतापि तथाम्बया। नवजलघरश्यामा: पश्यन् दिशो भवतीं विना कठिनहृदयो जीवत्येव प्रिये स तव प्रियः ॥" 2 For a discussion of the identity of Samkaravarman with Yasovarman vide Kavi M. Ramakrishna's Bhatta Jayanta and Yasovarman of Kasmīra in the Ācārya Puspanjali Volume, Calcutta, 1940 ; also Sunil Chandra

INTRODUCTION XV

author of the Nyaya-manjari, was a contemporary of King Samkaravarman,1 and from a critical examination of the verses in which Jayanta refers to and refutes the Dbvani theory,2 it appears probable that Anandavardhana, the first systematic propounder of the theory of dhvani was an older contemporary of Jayanta and as such a contemporary of Samkaravarman as well. So, 902 A.D. can be regarded as the terminus ad quem for Anandavardhana's date.

Roy's article entitled "The Identity of the Yasovarman of Some Mediaeval Coins" in the Journal of the Asiatic Society (Letters), Vol. XVII, No.3,1951, pp. 251-53. I See Kavi M. Ramakrishna, loc. cit.

2 Compare : "एतेन शब्दसामर्थ्यमहिम्रा सोऽपि वारितः। यमन्यः परिडतम्मन्यः प्रपेदे कंचन ध्वनिम् ॥ विधेनिषेधावगतिर्विधिबुद्धिनिषेधतः। यथा-भम धम्मिअ वीसत्थो मा स्म पान्थ गृहं विश। मानान्तरपरिच्छेद्यवस्तुरूपोदेशिनाम् ।। शब्दानामेव सामथ्य तत्न तत् तथा तथा। अथवा नेदृशी चर्चा कविभि: सह शोभते। विद्वांसोऽपि विमुह्यन्ति वाक्यार्थगहनेऽध्वनि ॥" -Nyāya-manjarī, P. 45 (Kasbi Sanskrit Series). It is to be noted that Jayanta Bhatta, in the above extract pointedly refers to the two gathas : 'भम धम्मिश्र वीसत्थो-'and 'अत्ता एत्थ शिमज्इ-मा पहित्र रत्तिअन्धअर सेज्जाए मह शिमज्जिहिसि' which have been cited by Anandavardhana in

xvi THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

As regards Anandvardhana's genealogy very little is known save that he was the son of a Nona or Nonopādhya- ya as is attested by the colophon at the end of Uddyata III of his work as preserved in a MS. of the India Office Library. The variant Jonopadbyaya is also found in the colophon at the end of Uddyota IV. But the latter reading seems to be incorrect inasmuch as Hemacandra, in his commentary on the Kavyanusāsana, while referring to Anandavardhana's Devisataka, cites him as Nona-suta or the son of Nona.1 Anandavardhana was the author of several works, both literary and philosophical, besides the Dhvanyaloka, which is the most celebrated of all. He composed the Devisataka, a century of devotional stanzas addressed to the Goddess (Durga), full of difficult literary artifices like muraja-bandha, gomūtrikā-bandba, sarvatobbadra, mabā-yamaka, kancī- yamaka, āvali-yamaka, dvyaksara, ardha-bhrama, punarukta- vad-ābhāsa, apasabdābhāsa, pādābbyāsa, repha-vivartitaka,

his Vrtti on Uddyota I to illustrate the nature of eafa and its difference from वाच्यार्थ. I See also Ānandavardhana's Devīšataka, v. I0I, where he introduces himself as Nona-suta :- 'देव्या खप्नोद् गमा दिष्टदेवीशतकसंज्ञया। देशितानुपमामाधादतो नोण-सुतो नुतिम् ॥' -Kāvyamāla, Pt. IX (NSP.)

INTRODUCTION xvii

prabelika, caturartba and ślesa of all sorts, the very devices that have been banned by the author himself in his Dhvanyaloka, II. 13-16 and urtti thereon.1 This illustrates once again the divergence between theory and practice, which is so common in human behaviour.3 Visamabanalila, from which two Prakrit gathas are cited by Ananandavardhana in his vrtti-text3 and the Arjuna-carita in Sanskrit which has been referred to by Anandavardhana himself in his vrtti on Dhvanyaloka, III. 25 and from which

Compare also .Locana on Dhvanyaloka, II. 16 :- 1 "तेन वीराद्गुतादिरसेष्वपि यमकादि कवेः प्रतिपत्तुश्च रसविन्नकार्येव सर्वत्र। गड्डरिकाप्रवाहोपहतसहृदयघुराधिरोहणाविहीनलोकावजना भिप्रायेणा तु मया शङ्गारे विप्रलम्भे विशेषत इत्युक्तमिति भावः। तथा च 'रसेऽङ्गत्वं तस्मादेषां न विद्यते' इति सामान्येन वत्त्यति।"-P. 22. Compare also Dhvanyaloka, III. 41-42, that furnish the definition of चित्रकाव्य and Anandavardhana's strictures thereon: 'न तन्मुख्यं काव्यम्। काव्यानुकारो ह्सौ। तत किश्विच्छ्दचित्रं यथा दुष्कर- यमकादि। ... "-PP- 494-95• 2 Compare : 'स्वकृतिष्वयन्त्रितः कथमनुशिष्यादन्यमयमिति न वाच्यम् । वारयति भिषगपथ्यादितरान् स्यमांचरन्नपि तत् ।।' -Vyaktiviveka, p. 153. (Benares Edn.) 3 Under Dhvanyaloka, II. I (यथा च ममैव विषमबाण- लीलायाम्-'ताला जाअन्ति-') and II. 27 (यथा वा ममैव विषमबाणलीलायामसुरपराक्रमरो कामदेवस्य-'तं ताण सिरिसहोअर-').

xviii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Abhinavagupta cites a verse,1 are two other literary works composed by him. These two seem to have been alluded to also in the concluding verse of the Devisataka as interpre- ted by the commentator Kayyata.2 Anandavardhana was also the author of several philoso- phical treatises, as is attested by the Vrtti as also by Abhinava's Locana thereon. In his Vrtti on Dhvanyaloka III. 47, while refuting the position of the opponents who try to discourage all attempts at providing definitions of dhuani on the ground that it is अनिर्देश्य-i.e. indescribable or indefinable,3 Anandavardhana refers to

I Cf .: 'एतच्च मदीयेऽर्जुनचरितेऽर्जुनस्य पातालावतरणप्रसङ्ग वैशयेन प्रदर्शितम्' on which Locana comments: "प्रदर्शितमिति-'समुत्थिते धनुर्ष्वनौ भयावहे किरीटिनो महानुपप्नवोऽभवत् पुरे पुरन्दरद्विषा'-मित्यादिना।" -p. 388. 2 Compare : 'येनानन्दकथायां त्िदशानन्दे च लालिता वाणी। तेन सुदुष्करमेतत् स्तोत् देव्या: कृतं भक्त्ा ॥'-Devisataka,v.104 and Kayyata's comments thereon: 'केन कविनेत्याह-येनानन्द- कथायां विषमवाणालीलायां त्रिदशानन्देऽर्जुनचरिते च बाणी भारती लालिता विनोदिता। विषमबाणालीलार्जुनचरितविरचयितुः कवेः कृतिरेतत् स्तोत्नमिति वाक्यार्थः ।'-Anandavardhana's विषमबाणलीला is quoted in Sara-samuccaya as noticed .in Peterson's Second Report, P. 17 f. 3 Compare the view of the third group of the

INTRODUCTION xix

the position of the Buddhist philosophers that has been critically examined by him in a separate treatise, which was a commentary on the Viniścaya-tīka of Dharmottara as pointed out by Abhinavagupta.1 The Pramāna-viniscaya was a work on Buddhist Logic by Dharmakirtti, and Acarya Dharmottra wrote a commentary on it entitled Pramānaviniscaya-țīka.2 Thus Ānandavardhana, according to his own confession wrote a commentary on Dharmottara's Viniscaya-tīka. That Anandavardhana was intimately conversant with the philosophical treatises of the great Dharmakirtti is further attested by the citation of two verses,

Abbava-vadins referred to in the very first karika of the Dhuanyaloka-viz. 'केचिद् वाचां स्थितमविषये तत्त्त्वमूचुस्तदीयम्' See also urtti on Dhvanyaloka, I.19.

I Compare: 'यत्वनिर्देश्यत्व' सर्वलक्षणाविषयं बौद्धार्ना प्रसिद्धं तत्तन्मतपरीक्षायां ग्रन्थान्तरे निरूपमिष्यामः'-on which Abhinavagupta remarks: "ग्रन्थान्तरे इति विनिश्चयटीकार्यां धर्मोत्तर्या' या वित्ृतिरमुना ग्रन्थकृता कृता तत्नव तद् व्याख्यातम्"-Locana,

P. 529. 2 See MM. Satish Chandra Vidyābhūsana's A History of Indian Logic, pp. 308-y and pp. 320-31 for Pramāna- viniścaya of Dharmakīrtti and Viniścaya-tīkā of Dharmottara. According to that scholar Dharmottara's date is circa 847 A.D. which does not conflict with the date assigned to Ānandavardhana.

XX THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA ascribed by him to the latter.1 Besides the commentary on Dharmottara's Pramāna-viniścaya-țīka, Abhinavagupta refers to Anandavardhana's Tattvaloka, which appears to have been a work on Advaita Philosophy, twice in his .Locana.2 Thus, Anandavardhana was both a poet-critic and philosopher of the first rank, a fact to which he himself seems to have been fully alive as is evidenced by one of his verses cited in the vrtti on Dhvanyaloka, III. 43-viz.

I Cf. "यथा-'लावरायद्रविराव्ययो न गणितः-' .. तथा चायं धर्मकीर्त्तेः श्रोक इति प्रसिद्धिः। सम्भाव्यते च तस्यैव। यस्मात्-'अनध्य- वसितावगाहनमनल्पधीशक्किना-' इत्यनेनापि श्लोकेनवंविधोऽभिप्रायः प्रकाशित a I"-Vrtti on Dhvanyaloka, III. 40. The latter verse occurs as Colophon in Dharmakīrtti's Pramāna-vārttika. See Journal of the Bibar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XXIV, Pts. I-II, for the Text of the Pramāna-varttika. 2 Cf. 'येऽप्यविभक्कं स्फोटं वाच्यं तदर्थ' चाहुः, तैरप्यविद्यापदपतितः सर्वेयमनुसरणीया प्रक्रिया। तदुत्तीर्णत्वे तु सर्व परमेश्वराद्वयं ब्रह्म त्यस्मच्छास्त्र- कारेणा न न विदितं तत्त्वालोकग्रन्थं विरचयतेत्यस्ताम्'-Locana, p.67. Also :- "तदेवमनुकमणीनिर्दिष्टेन वाक्येन भगवद्व्यतिरेकिणः सर्वस्यान्यस्य अनित्यतां प्रकाशयता मोच्लक्षणा ऐवैकः परः पुरुषार्थः शास्त्रनये, काव्यनये च तृष्णाक्षयसुखपरिपोषलक्षणः शान्तो रसो महाभारतस्यात्ञिवेन विवत्ित इति सुप्रतिपादितम्"-Vrtti on Dhvanyaloka, IV. 5, on which Abhinavagupta comments : 'शास्त्रनये इति। तत्नाखादयोगाभावे पुरुषेणार्थ्यत इत्ययमेव व्यपदेशः सादरः, चमत्कारयोगे तु रसव्यदेशः-इति

INTRODUCTION xxi

यथा ममैव - 'या व्यापारवती रसान् रसयितु काचित् कवीनां नवा दृष्टिर्या परिनिष्ठितार्थविषयोन्मेषा च वैपश्चिती। ते द्वे अप्यवलम्व्य विश्वमनिशं निर्वर्णायन्तो वयं श्रान्ता नैव च लब्धमब्धिशयन ! त्वद्भक्तितुल्यं सुखम् ॥21

In the anthologies some verses are attributed to Ananda- vardhana2-a fact which goes to prove his prolific activity as a poet.

भावः। एतच्च ग्रन्थकारेण तत्त्वालोके वितत्योक्कम् इह त्वस्य न मुख्योऽवसर इति नास्माभिस्तद् दर्शितम्।'-°Locana, P. 533. It was Dr. S. K. De who first drew the attention of scholars to this lost treatise of Anandavardhana in the Introduction to his edition of the Text of Kavyaloka-locana IV (published in the Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, 1922) in these words: "Another point of interest is the mention by Abhinava of a work, called Tattvaloka, by Ānandavardhana, in which the latter is said to have discussed in detail the relation between Śāstra-naya and Kavya-naya. This work yet remains to be recovered." It seems that the former of these two references to Tattvaloka in the °Locana escaped the cautious eyes of the learned scholar.

I Op. cit., PP 5°7-9. 2 See Vallabhadeva's Subhāșitāvalī, Introduction, pP. 9-10 (Peterson's Edition).

xxil THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

II. Kārikā and Vrtti The Dhvanyaloka, as is usually the case with most of the ancient Indian philosophical texts (sastras), is divided into two distinct parts-viz. the karika and the urtti. In most cases these two parts are the work of the same author, as for example, in Mammata's Kāvyaprakāsa,1 in Vāmana's Kāvyālamkāra-sūtra-vrtti, in Hemacandra's Kāvyānušāsana, etc. It was Dr. Bühler who first hinted at the difference of authorship of these two portions of the Dhvanyaloka in the following words :- "From Abhtnavagupta's Tīkā it appears that verses2 are the composition of some older writer, whose name is not given. But it is remarkable that they contain no mangala- carana."'3

I In this connection reference might be made to the difference in interpretation of the kārikā: malā tu pūrvavat (Kāvyaprakāsa, X) involving a controversy as regards the authorship of the karika and urtti-texts of the Kavya- prakasa. See 'Malā tu pūrvavat'-an article by Divekar in Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. VI, Pt. I (1925) and Dr. S. K. De's rejoinder of the same under the same caption in the same Journal, 1926-27, PP· 419 ff. 2 Viz. the Kārikās.

3 Kashmir-Report, p. 65 ff.

INTRODUCTION xxiil

Since this brief utterance of Bühler a heated controversy has raged round the question of authorship of these two parts, which goes on unabated even to this day, and which shows no sign of being set at rest till some definite and unassailable testimony is available. III. Kārikākāra and Vrttikāra Just as Abhinavagupta in his °Locana differentiates between the two parts of the Dhvanyaloka as noted above, in the same way he frequently seems to draw our attention to the differences of opinion of the authors of the two texts -viz. the Kārikā-kāra (or-°krt.) and Vītti-kāra (or-°krt) and appears to be at great pains to reconcile the apparently divergent viewpoints of the two authors.1 The Vrttikāra is also referred to as grantha-kara and grantha-krt in numerous places in Abhinavagupta's °Locana, while the Kārikākāra is once designated as asmanmūla-granthakrt in the °Locana,2

I Some of the important passages of Abhinavagupta's °Locana, where the Karikakara and the Vrttikara are set one against the other, have been collected by Harichand Sastrī in his Kalidāsa et l'Art Poetique de l'Inde, pp. 86-87. See also Dr. S. K. De in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, I, Pt. 4, p. 3- 2 Cf. "ननु यदि सङ्गटना गुणानां नाश्रयस्तत्ाकमालम्बना एते परिकल्प्यन्ताम्। उच्यते-प्रतिपादितमेवैषामालम्बनम् । 'तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येऽजिनं ते गुणा: म्मृताः।

xxiv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the qualifying prefix asmat°, in all probability, standing for the Vrttikara, in whose eyes the Karika-kara was in reality the mulagrantha-krt, the karika constituting the mūla- gratha or basic text on which the urtti was but an expository gloss. In one place again Abhinavagupta refers to the kārikā-text as mūla-kārikā.1 Again, Abhinavagupta more than once makes use of the title Sastrakara with reference Ānandavardhana.2 Now, it is but natural to conclude on a cursory review of the above facts that the authors of the two texts-viz. the karika and the urtti, are numerically different, as was first hinted at by Dr. Buhler, and later upheld by Sovani, MM. Dr. P. V. Kane, Dr. S. K. De, Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya and others. But Dr. Satkari Mookerjee in an

अङ्गाश्रितास्त्वलंकारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिवत् ॥' इति। (Dhv., II. 7)-on which Locana comments : प्रतिपादितमेवेति। अस्मन्मूल प्रन्थकृतेत्यर्थः ।'-P. 312. I Cf .: "एवं त्रिप्रकारमभाववादं भक्त्यन्तर्भूततां च निराकुर्वता अलक्षणीयत्वमेतन्मध्ये निराकृतमेव। अत एव मूलकारिका साक्षात् तन्निरा- 26 करणार्था न श्रयते। वृत्तिकृत्तु निराकृतमपि प्रमेयशय्यापूरणाय कराठेन तत्- पक्षमनूद निराकरोति-येऽपीत्यादिना।"-0Locana, p.162. 2 'तदुत्तीर्णत्वे तु सर्वं परमेश्वराद्वयं ब्रह्म त्यस्मच्छास्त्रकारेण न न विदितं तत्त्वालोकग्रन्थं विरचयतेत्यास्ताम्।'-°Locana, p. 67. This reference to तत्त्वालोक has also escaped the notice of MM. Dr.P.V.Kane. See his History of Sanskrit Poetics (1951), p. 194, fn. 1.

INTRODUCTION XXV

illuminating study entitled A Dissertation on the ddentity of the Author of the Dbvanyaloka published in the B. C. Law Volume, Pt. I, tried to evaluate the above data bearing on the apparent difference of authorship from an altogether novel viewpoint, taking his stand on the rules of exegesis. The results that he arrived at are briefly enumerated in the following concluding paragraph of his article referred to above :-

'To sum up the results of our enquity : We have explained for the first time the rules of exegesis which require that the Vrttikara, irrespective of his numerical difference or identity with the author of the original, must behave as a different person and author and observe the subordinate role which the status of a commentator involves as a matter of irrefragable form. Secondly, the differentiation of the Vrttikara from the Karikakara in the commentary of Abhi- navagupta on the Dhvanyaloka is nothing more than formal and official distinction which is necessitated by the duty of protecting Anandavardhana qua the Vrttikara from the charge of utsutra exposition.1 Thirdly, the designation of

I For a reference to this defective method of exegesis known as utsūtra-vyākhyāna (i.e. an interpretation not warranted by the sutra) see the comments of Abhinavagupta on the introductory remarks of the Vrttikara on the Dhvanya-

xxvi THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Anandavardhana as the Sastrakāra, the propounder of the school of dhvani, would be unjustifiable if the kārikas were the handiwork of a predecessor. Fourthly, the omission of the name of the Karikakara by Anandavardhana or Abhi- navagupta is proof of the fact that the difference of the Karikakara from the Vrttikara is only a fiction of formality. Fifthly, the statements of Abhinavagupta himself have been adduced which are intelligible on the postulation of the identity of the author of the vrtti with that of the karika.1 Sixthly, the confusion of functional difference has been shown to be due to the oblivion of the fundamental rules of exegesis, which has obtained currency since the end of the 18th century, if not earlier. Seventhly, the colophon of the Dhvanyaloka and the comments of Abhinavagupta thereon have been shown to contain indication of the identity of Anandavardhana with the author of the karika. Finally, the testimony of Jayantabhatta has been recorded, which together with the testimony of the numerous authors of established fame, give out the Dhvanyaloka to

loka, II.I-"वृत्तिकारः सङ्गतिमुद्दयोतस्य कुर्वासा उपक्रमते-एवमित्यादि प्रकाशित इति। मया वृत्तिकारेंस सतेति भावः । न चेतन्मयोत्सूत्रमुक्कम्, अपि तु कारिकाकाराभिप्रायेरोत्याह-तन्नेति।"-p. 165. Compare also the ruling of the Bhasyakara in the Paspasa: 'यो ह्युतसूत्र' कथयेन्नादो गरृह्येत'-Mababbasya. I e.g. 'मया वृत्तिकारेण सता' cited above.

• INTRODUCTION xxvii

be the product of a single person, viz. Ānanda- vardhana."1 The rules of exegesis, so clearly set forth by Dr. Mookerjee in his dissertation, certainly have a very important bearing on the differentiation of the Vrttikara from the Kārikakara by Abhinavagupta in his °Locana, and Dr. Mookerjee's arguments are extremely valuable in so far as they stress the one inportant fact, that irrespective of the issue of numerical or personal identity of the authors of the two texts, they must always be looked upon as functionally different which alone is sufficient to explain the strenuously punctilious attempts of the author of the °Locana as regards their differentiation. The issue of personal identity may still be regarded as an open question as Dr. Mookerjee himself admits in the following statement : "I do not chink the question to be a closed one and I propose to record the results of my reflection which may serve to stress the need of re-consideration and re-assessment of the problem with all its relevant issues".2

IV. Dhvanikāra and Ānandavardhana Even conceding that Anandavardhana, the acknowledged author of the vrtti-text, is numerically identical with the author of the karikas, there remains still one question that

I Op. cit., Pt. I., p. 193. 2 Loc. cit., p. 179.

xxviii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA deserves to be carefully discussed. It is true that most of the later authors, both writers on poetics and authors of different anthologies, ascribe indifferently to Anandavardhana and Dhvanikāra the authorship of the karikas as also of verses cited in the urtti-text, which prima facie proves the identity of the two.1 But, on the other hand, there are cases, and they are not infrequent either, where the karikas are attributed to Dhvanikara, while the verses appearing in the urtti are ascribed distinctly to Anandavardhana.2 This

I For a list of such karikas and verses cited in the urtti see Hari Chand Sastrī's Kalidasa et l Art Poetique de l' Inde, pp. 84-85. 2 See Harichand, op. cit., pp. 86-87. It is to be noted in this connection that Mahimabhatta, in his Vyaktiviveka, p. 211 (TSS. Edn.) ascribes a prose passage of the urtti in which is included a kārikā (III. 36), to Dhvanikāra himself. Dr. Mookerjee lays great stress on this fact and observes: "It is a matter of historical truth that so far as Indian tradition is concerned there is perfect unanimity among writers on Sanskrit Poetics beginning with Mahimabhatta and down to the latest writers that the author of the Karika and that of the Vrtti are a self- identical person. Mahimabhatta wrote the Vyaktiviveka, a product of extraordinary learning and ingenuity, with the express purpose of refuting the position of

INTRODUCTION xxix has led to a supposition that it is the Kārikakara, who first formulated the dbvani-theory by systematising it in short mnemonic verses, who has been referred to as Dhvanikara and, as such, is to be distinguished from his

Anandavardhana. He has criticised Abhinavagupta's exposition also. MM. Kane asserts that he was a contemporary of Abhinavagupta. Mahimabhatta refers to the author of the Karika and of the Vrtti as Dbvanikāra without distinction and expressly states that the author himself explains the text in the vrtti (Artho vācyavisesa iti svayam vivṛtatvāc ca, VV., p. 82, Benares Edn.). So also has Ksemendra referred to these texts as the composi- tion of Anandavardhana, the acknowledged writer of the gloss. Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijivita, a reactionary work written for the confutation of the Dhvanyaloka, has been shown by MM. Kane to refer to Anandavardhana as the author of the entire text, the Kārika and the Vrtti included. These writers belong to Kashmir, the home-land of Anandavardhana and Kuntaka was the predecessor of Abhinavagupta. It is highly improbable that these writers, who were pre-eminently noted for their acumen and accuracy and who are the compatriots of our author and were separated by a short interval from the latter should all be guilty of recording a wrong tradition."- loc. cit., pp. 182-83.

XXX THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

scholiast, the Vrttikara, who is Anandavardhana himself. The up-holders of this theory who form a very considerable group try to substantiate their thesis depending on a statement of the Vrttikara, i.e. Anandavardhana, on the very first karika of the Dhvanyaloka, and Abhinavagupta's gloss thereon :- "तथा चान्येन कृत एवात्र श्लोक :- 'यस्मिन्नस्ति न वस्तु किश्चन मनःप्रह्लादि सालंकृति व्युत्पन्नै रचितं च नैव वचनर्वक्रोक्तिशून्यं च यत्। काव्य® तद् ध्वनिना समन्वितमिति प्रीत्या प्रशंसञ्जडो नो विद्योऽभिदधाति किं सुमतिना पृष्टः स्वरूपं ध्वनेः ॥' -on which Abhinavagupta observes : "तथा चान्येनेति। ग्रन्थकृत्समानकालभाविना मनोरथनाम्ना कविना।" Jacobi maintains on the evidence of this statement of Abhinavagupta, that the Dhvanikāra or the author of the karikās, was a contemporary of Manoratha, who according to Kalhaņa's Rājatarangiņī (IV. 497 and 671) flourished in the reign of Jayāpīda and his successor Lalitāpīda (circa 780-813 A.D.). This is more than half a century earlier than the upper limit of Anandavardhana's date. But, as against this hypothesis, we are to note that Abhinavagupta uniformly refers to the Vrttikāra himself as grantha-kara (-°krt), while the Karika-kara, as we have noted above, is once referred to as asmanmula-grantha-krt in the °Locana. The dilemma has been very clearly stated by Dr. S. K. De in the following passage :-

INTRODUCTION xxxi

"If we suppose that by grantha-krt Abhinavagupta means Anandavardhana, then Manoratha, who is thus made a contemporary of the latter, lives in the middle or second part of the ninth century, i.e. somewhat later than the - date asigned to him by Kalhana, ptesuming of course that both the Manorathas are identical persons. If, on the other hand, we suppose that grantha-krt refers, as Jacobi conjectures, to the anonymous Dhvanikāra, we are confronted with the fresh difficulty that by the term grantha-krt Abhinavagupta invariably means Ānanda- vardhana. To remove this difficulty we must suppose either that (1) Kalhana is wrong, as Pischel argues, in assigning Manoratha to the reign of Jayapīda-Lalitāpīda, or (2) that Abhinavagupta has confused the Kārikakara with the Vrttikara in a manner not usual with him. As there are no definite means of these equally plausible propositions, the conjecture that the original Dhvanikara was a con- temporary of the Manoratha of Kalhana cannot be taken to have been definitely proved.'1 Now, in the absence of any definite proof as to the independent authorship of the Kārikās, Ānandavardhana

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I., pp. 112-13. The theory of Prof. Sovani that the name of the unknown author of the dhvani-karikas was Sabrdaya has long since been abandoned. The term Sabrdaya,

xxxii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

himselE has been designated as Dhvanikāra and Dhvanya- carya and has been distinctly regarded as the formulator of the Dhvani-theory. Even though the Kārikakāra be regarded as distinct from Anandavardhana, the Vrttikāra, the honorific designation of Dhvani-kara with reference to the latter can be justified on the ground that like Patanjali, the author of the Mababbasya on Pānini's Astādbyāyī, Sankara, the author of the Bbāsya on the Vedanta-Sūtras, it was Ānandavardhana who brought out fully the implications of the aphoristic dhvani-karikas and imparted the final shape to the novel theory of Dhvani, which exercised an undisputed sway over all later speculations in the field of literary criticism in Sanskrit. As Jagannātha in his Rasagangadbara observes: -

which frequently occurs in the Kārikas, in the Vrtti and °Locana, has invariably been used as a qualitative adjunct to refer to "connoisseurs (of art)" or "aesthetes." As Anandavardhana observes : "वकटिका एव हि रत्नतरवविदः, सहृदया एव हि काव्यानां रसज्ञा इति कस्यात् विप्रतिपत्तिः"-Vrtti on III. 47; so also Locana: "येषां काव्यानुशीलनाभ्यासवशाद् विशदीभूते मनोमुकुरे वर्णानीयतन्मयीभवनयोग्यता ते हृदयसंवादभाजः सहृदयाः"-PP. 38-39. Abhinavagupta refers to Anandavardhana as 4- चक्रवर्त्ती खल्वयं ग्रन्थकृदिति भाव:'-°Locana, p. 41. For a detailed discussion of this problem see MM. P. V. Kane's History of Sanskrit Poetics (1951), pp. 184-189.

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

"ध्वनिकृतामालंकारिकसर शिव्यवस्थापकत्वात्।" In this connexion the following observations of Dr. S. K .- De deserve our notice :- "Indeed, it seems that Anandavardhana in his classical urtti attempted to build up a more or less complete system of Poetics upon the losely joined ideas and materials sup- plied by the brief Karikas; and his success was probably so marvellous that in course of time the Karikākara receded to the background completely overshadowed by the more important figure of his formidable expounder; and people considered as the Dhvanikara. not the author of the few memorial verses but the commentator Anandavardhana himself, who for the Arst time fixed the theory in its present form. The term "Dhvanikara" itself came gradually to be used in the generic sense of "the creator of the Dhvani school," and therefore indiscriminately applied by later writers, to Anandavardhana, who, though not himseif the founder of the system, came to receive that credit for having first victoriously introduced it in the struggle of the schools.',1

I Op. cit .. Vol. I., pp. 108-9. Of course, in the light of these observations, the appellation sastrakāra as used by Abhinavagupta with reference to Anandavardhana would not also appear to be indefensible. But Dr. Mookerjee, in his dissertation referred to above, holds a totally opposite C

xxxiv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

V. Parikara°, Samgraha° and Samksepa-ślokas Besides the Kārikas, the Dhvanyaloka incorporates within its body certain expository verses that are meant either to sum up the discussions raised in the Karikas or in the Vrtti, or to supplement the arguments furnished in the Karikas. In the former case they are called samgraba- ślokas or samksepa-ślokas, while in the latter they are refered to as parikara-ślokas, which are defined by Abhinavagupta as- "परिकराथं कारिकार्थस्याधिकावापं कर्तु श्रोकः परिकरशलोकः।"1

view on this point. As he remarks; "The question now naturally arises whether Anandavardhana could be described as the sastrakara, if he were only the writer of the Vrtti alone and the Karikas, which abundantly set forth the docttine with its details, were the work of a different person. Barring the scholastic devices of Abhinavagupta who tries to make out the Vrtti to be only a paraphrase and elabora- tion of the Karika, even if we take a dispassionate view of the relative position of the Kārika and the Vrtti, it must be owned that the original contribution of the Vrtti is almost nil. In the circumstances, is it not unthinkable that the author of the Vrtti should pass off as the promulgator of the dbvani school, which the title of sastrakara conferred upon him by Abhinavagupta implies ?"-loc. cit., p. 189. I °Locana, p. 107. Compare: "One of the most

INTRODUCTION XXXV

If we disinterestedly examine the above three categories of verses quoted in the urtti by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta's short comments thereon, certain facts emerge distinctly that appear to have some important bear- ing on the authorship of the Dhvani-karikas. Barring the verses introduced by the Vrttikara with the remark 'aTHa संच्ेप:' or 'तथा चायमत्रसंचपः' which evidently are the Vrttikara's own composition, in regard to the samngraha-ślokas some have been specially pointed out by Abhinavagupta as being Vrttikara's own,1 while with regard to the authorship of the rest the °Locana makes no comment. So, also, with regard

cogent arguments against the theory of identity is furnished by the large number of what are called in the Vrtti parikara-ślokas, samgraba-ślokas and samksepa-ślokas. Besides chese, there is a verse quoted in the afa with the words तदयमत्र परमार्थ: on ध्व° III. 10-14. and five verses quoted by the वृत्ति with the words तदिदमुककं and तदिदमुच्यते (the first two being expressly ascribed to the afaT himself by लोचन and one out of the group of the three on p. 222 being ascribed to आनन्दवर्धन in the अभिनवभारती). Thus there are over twenty-five verses quoted in the urtti itself, all of which are the composition of आनन्दवर्धन."-P. V. Kane: History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 173. The references are to the Nirnavasagara Edition.

1 Compare: 'उक्कमिति मयवेत्यर्थः'-°Locana, p. 497.

xxxvi THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

to the authorship of the parikara-ślokas Abhinavagupta is completely silent. What is the reason of this marked difference of behaviour on the part of the author of the °Locana with regard to these verses? Is it implied thereby that some samgraha-ślokas and the parikara-ślokas are of a different authorship? If we subscribe to this viewpoint, then the conclusion becomes irresistible that a long interval of time elapsed between the date of the Karikakara and that of the Vrttikara so as to make the speculations regarding the import of Karikas as embodied in the above parikara- ślokas and samgraha-ślokas possible.1 VI. The Text of the Kārikās As regards the text of the Dhvani-kārikas even, some scholars are suspicious in respect of genuineness of some of them. In this connexion, we might quote here the follow- ing lines from Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya's article on Dhvanyaloka and Text of the Dhvanikarikas as being typical of the viewpoint of a section of scholars :- "It appears to us that the entire fourth Uddyota is

I Harichand Sastrī hints at such a probability when he observes : "Anandavardhana avait eu des précurseurs; c'est à eux qu'il emprunte les parikara-śloka, les samgraba- śloka, les samksepa-sloka qu'il cite à l'occasion."-Op. cit., P. 90. See also MM. P, V. Kane's History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 173-74.

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

more likely than not an apocryphal work so far as the original Dhvani-karikas are concerned. Here it is that the use of halting forms and enclitic particles, of poetic similes and analogies is carried to a limit far exceeding that of a technical work, untrammelled by considerations of matter and content. A favouritism for certain words, e.g. faqu, गुरवृत्ति, स्खलद्गति, प्रतिभा (used in a special sense 1. 15-as opposite to the ordinary sense as in I. 6, IV. 1, 6) and for restricted meanings of them evinces itself in che portion which we would ascribe to Ananda. Excepting che intro- ductory kārika, composed in the śārdūla-vikrīdita and two verses composed in the upajati, which certainly form a part of the original work, che Karikas of the Dhvanikara are composed in anustubh and arya, the former being pre- ponderant in number. Anandavardhana's additions are all in the form of anustubb verses, excepting in the last three karikas, the fourth Uddyota, composed in the rathod- dhatā, malinī and the sikbariņī, rather unusual metres for the true karika form. It may be noted in passing that in the apocryphal portion Ananda has tried to escape detection by explaining the words in the kārikas in the urtti follow- ing, exactly as if they are other's composition, in the manner we find illustrated, e.g. in the Vakroktijivita."1

I Proceedings of the Sixth Oriental Conference, p. 621. The above utterances of the learned scholar cannot

xxxviii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

VII. The Antiquity of the Dhvani-Theory It should be carefully noted that Anandavardhana, in the Dhvanyaloka, never considers his own self as being the formulator of the theory of Dhvani, which came to lay down for the first time an altogether new standard of literary criticism in Sanskrit, though later writers on Poetics have frequently conferred upon him the enviable title of Dhvanikāra and Dbvanyācārya. On the other hand, Anandavardhana frequently states in the urtti that the element of dhvani was already recognised as the only essential factor in a poetic composition in the circle of true literary connoisseurs (sabrdayas). Even if the Kārikākāra be regarded as distinct from the Vrttikara, the recognition of the theory of dhvani as the quintessence of literary art must be regarded to have been long anticipated by teachers much older in date than the Kārikakara himself though it might not have been formulated in definite well-conceived texts. This is evident from the very first kārika of the Dbvanyaloka and Anandavardhana's gloss on it, which has been clarified all the more by Abhinavagupta in his °Locana.1 I Kārikā, I. 19, the

be regarded as anything more than ingenious conjectures in the present state of our knowledge. I Cf. "काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बुधर्यः समाम्रातपूर्वः"-which has been explained in the urtti as: "बुधः काव्यत्र्वविद्धिः,

INTRODUCTION xxxiX

Dhvanikara again clearly professes that even if the theory of dhvani might have been defined and formulated by some of his predecessors, that does not at all detract from che importance of his work which not only admits the existence and undeniability of the principle of dbvani, but also gives an elaboration of the same. Ānandavardhana

काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति संज्ञितः, परम्परया यः समाम्रातपूर्वः, सम्यक् आर्प्रा समन्तात् म्रातः प्रकटितः।" The plural in बुध: is significant in so far as it hints at the existence of a long tradition of ceachers who recognised the principle of dhvani as the soul of poetry, which itself is a guarantee that the theory was not one to be lightly discarded. As °Locana points out: 'बुधस्यकस्य प्रामादिकमपि तथाभिधानं स्यात्, न तु भूयसां तद्यक्वम्। तेन बुधैरिति बहुवचनम्।'-The subsequent expression समाम्रातपूर्वः in the Karika, which has been rendered all the more explicit in the urtti by prefixing परम्परया, has also been unambiguously interpreted by Abhinavagupta in the following passage: "तदेव व्याचष्टे-परम्परयेति। अविच्छिन्नेन प्रवाहेण तैरेतदुक्कम् विनाऽपि विशिष्टपुस्तकेषु विनिवेशनादित्य- भिप्रायः। न च बुधा भूयांसोऽनादरणीयं वस्त्वादरेणोपदिशेयुः, एतत्वादरेणो- पदिष्टम्। तदाह-सम्यगास्नातपूर्व इति। पूर्वग्रहरोनेदम्प्रथमता नात सम्भाव्यत इत्याह, व्याचष्टे च-सम्यगा समन्ताद् म्रनातः प्रकटित इत्यनेन ।I"-loc. cit. We are to note in this connexion the introductory words of Yaska's Nirukta-viz. 'समाम्नायः समाम्नातः स व्याख्यातव्यः' with reference to the text of the

x1 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

elsewhere says that the composition of poetry with the full recognition of the principle of rasa (poetic emotion), which is dhvani par excellence, as the sole vitalising essence of art, was not anything strange or unknown to such ancient doctors as Bharata and others.ª Even the Riti-theorists had a faint glimpse of this fundamental element of poetry, though they were not gifted enough to have a firm grasp of it and furnish a clear and convincing enunciation of this doctrine.2 They, thus, set thernselves arduosly to the task

Nigbantu, which was but a traditional collection of Vedic vocables divided into three distinct sections, though different recensions of it were prevalent. Exactly parallel is the expression समाम्नातपूर्वः as referring to the Dhvani theory. That the Karikakara himself, whether he is to be identi- fied with Anandavardhana or not, was not the first propounder of the doctrine of dhvani is unshakably established by the clear statement of Abhinavagupta quoted above, viz. 'पूर्वग्रहरोनेदम्प्रथमता नाक्न सम्भाव्यते'. The Karikakara might at best be reckoned as the first systematic writer on the doctrine of dhvani, who gave a definite shape to the various ideas, that had long since been current in a floating state, with regard to the various aspects of dhvani. 'एतच् रसादितात्पर्येण काव्यनिबन्धनं भरतादावपि सुप्रसद्धिमेव' -Vrtti on Dhvanyāloka, p. 401. 2 Comare Dhvanyāloka, III. 46 :

INTRODUCTION xli

of formulating the various ritis, which was in truth nothing but beating about the bush. Even such an ancient writer as Bhamaha, who was the greatest exponent of the concept of vakrokti or alamkāra (figures of speech) as the sole cause of poetic charm, could not altogether deny the existence of dhvani or suggested sense, though he tried to evade the main problem by including the latter under such figures of speech as पर्यायोक्क, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा etc.1 Not

अ्रस्फुटस्फुरितं काव्यतत्त्वमेतद् यथोदितम्। अ्शक्नुवद्भिर्व्याकर्त्त® रीतयः सम्प्रवर्त्तिताः ॥ on which the Vrtti runs as: "एतद्ध्वनिप्रवत्तनेन निर्णीतं काव्यतत्त्व- मस्फुटस्फुरितं सदशक्नुवद्धिः प्रतिपादयितु वैदर्भी गौडी पाश्चाली चेति रीतयः प्रवर्त्तिताः। रीतिलक्षणविघायिनां हि काव्यतत्वमेतदस्फुटतया मनाक स्फुरितमासीदिति लक्ष्यते। तदत स्फुटतया सम्प्रदर्शितेनान्येन रीतिलक्षरोन न किश्चित् ॥-See Abhinavagupta's comments : 'रीतिरहि गुरोष्वेव पर्यवसिता। यदाह-'विशेषो गुणात्मा' गुणाश्र रसपर्यवसायिन एवेतिह्युक्तं प्राग गुणानिरूपरो 'शक्वार एव मधुरः' इत्यत्न ति ॥'-0Locana, P. 527. 1 'पर्यायोक्वेऽपि यदि प्राधान्येन व्यङ्गयत्व तद् भवतु नाम तस्य ध्वनावन्तर्भावः। नतु ध्वनेस्तत्रान्तर्भावः। तस्य महाविषयत्वेनाङ्गित्वेन च °Locana : 'तत्न ति यादृशोऽलक्कारत्वेन विवत्ितस्तादृशे ध्वनिर्नान्तभवति, न तादृगस्माभिर्ध्वनिरुक्कः । ध्वनिर्हि महारिषयः सर्वत भावाद् व्यापकः, समस्तप्रतिष्टास्थानत्वाचाङ्गी। न चालद्वारो व्यापकोऽन्यालङ्कारवत्। न चाङ्ी, अलंकार्यतन्त्रत्वात्। अथ व्यापकत्वाङ्गित्वे तस्योपगम्येते, त्यज्यते चालङ्कारता, तर्हि अस्मन्नय एवायमव-

xlii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

that the critics alone were aware of the existence of dhvani. Even great poets lıke Vālmīki, Vyāsa, Kālidāsa, etc. recognised the principle of dbvani as the very essence of their poetic art.1 From the evidence collected above it

लम्ब्यते केवलं मात्सर्यग्रहात् पर्यायोक्कवाचेति भावः'-P. 119. Udbhata also includes Rasavat, Preyas, and Urjasvin, that have a purely emotional appeal, and as such should be reckoned as instances of dhvani, among alamkaras. Compare: ₹ हि तावद् भामहोद् भटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्तनालंकारकाराः, प्रतीयमानमर्थ

of Ruyyaka, p. 3; also : 'यत् पुनरलंकारकोटिनिविष्टत्व' वस्तु- ध्वनेरुदभावयन् भामहादयस्तदपि विचारविधु रम्'-Ekavali of Vidyadhara, p. 30. The following observations of Prof. K. P. Trivedi, however, with reference to Bhamaha, are somewhat far-fetched: "From the following remarks of Anandavardhana it is clear that Bhamaha is not ध्वन्यभाववादी or one who denies the existence of ध्वनि, as Mallinatha considers him to be-'

शयोक्किर्यमलंकारमधितिष्ठति कविप्रतिभावशात्, तस्य चारुत्वातिशययोगोऽ्न्यस्य त्वलंकारमात्नतैवेति सर्वालंकार सवीकरणयोग्यत्वेनाभेदोपचारात् सैव सर्वालंकार- तस्याश्च अलंकारान्तरसंकीर्णत्व कदाचिद् वाच्यत्वेन कदाचिद व्यङ्गयत्वेन ।'-Some Notes on Bhamaba in the Sir R. G. Bbandarkar Commemoration Volume, p. 409. I Compare: 'तस्य हि ध्वनेः स्रूपं सकलसत्कविकाव्योपनिषद्- भूतम् अतिरमणीयम् ... '-Vrtti on Dhuanyaloka, I. I.

INTRODUCTION xliii

becomes clear that neither Anandavardhana nor the

Kārikākāra, if he be regarded as a distinct personality, should be regarded as the first discoverer of this novel element in poetry. The doctrine of dhvani was first syste- matically formulated in the Karikas in a very succinct form, and Anandavardhana, quâ Vrttikāra, elaborately analysed the implications of the Kārikas, by way of furnishing a detailed classification of that novel theme and showing by concerete illustrations drawn from great authors the way in which it was worked up as an indissoluble element in all truly great works of art. So the Kārikas and the Vrtti, just like Panini's Astādbyāyī and Patanjali's Bbasya thereon, together gave the final concrete shape to the doctrine of dbvani, which before that date was in a nebulous state. Anandavardhana in the last colophon verse of the Dhvanyaloka expressly records that he did nothing but interpret and analyse (vyakarot) the implications of the new theory of poetry which lay long dormant in the minds of persons of mature intellect. But this task of interpretation itself was executed in such a masterly fashion that it earned an undying fame for its author and placed him in the same rank with acāryas like Bhartrhari So Anandavardhana's contribution towards a logical and

1 On the third foot of the penultimate colophon- verse of the Vrtti-text-viz. 'काव्याख्येऽखिलसौख्यधान्नि विबुधोद्याने

xliv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

systematic formulation of the dhvani-theory was in no way inferior to that of the Karikakara, but in many respects far more important, even though one might be loth to look upon them as identical. VIII. Influence of the Dhvanyaloka on Later Sanskrit Poetics The Dhvanyaloka is universally acknowledged as an

ध्वनिर्दशिंतः' °Locana observes; "दशित इति। स्थित एव सन् प्रकाशितः, अप्रकाशितस्य हि कथ भोग्यत्वम्।" So also: "सत्काव्य- तत्त्वनयवर्त्म चिरप्रसुप्तकल्प' मनःसु परिपक्कधियां यदासीत्। तद, व्याकरोत् सहृदयोदयलाभहेतोरानन्दवधन इति प्रथिताभिधानः"-Vrtti-colophoa and °Locana thereon. Compare:"The statements ( आनन्दो मनसि लभतां प्रतिष्ठाम् ... P. II, अस्मदुपज्ञो न विस्मारय: p. 144 (N. S. P. Edn.) if regarded as included in the text, and the last verse सत्काव्यतरवविषयं ...... तद्व्याकरोत् ...... हेतोरानन्दवर्धन ... ) are meant to emphasize and form a proper estimate of the services that Anandavardhana rendered to the cause of critical appreciation of literature from the laksyas-in the shape of the Ramayana, the Mababbarata, and the great works of classical marks like the Gaba-sattasai, the Amaru- sataka and like those of Kalidasa, an appreciation in the wake of or line of interpretation chalked out or vaguely hinted at by the Dhvanikara,"-Dhvanyaloka and Text of Dbuanikarīkas by Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacyarya, loc. cit., p. 619.

INTRODUCTION xlv

epoch-making work in the history of Sanskrit literary criticism. Besides propounding for the first time in a systematic way the novel doctrine of dhvani, which almost all the later writers took for granted, the contribution of the Dhvanyaloka chiefly lies in the re-assessment of the various concepts of Sanskrit Poetics like guna, alainkāra, rīti, urtti, dosa, etc., with reference to the central concept of dhvani. It is true that Anandavardhana the Dhvanikāra is regarded as the greatest exponent of a new school of literary criticism-viz. the Dhvani-school, as distinct from the traditional schools of Sanskrit Poetics.1 But in reality he is the staunchest advocate of the rasa-theory as well as expounded by Bharata in his Nātya-śāstra.2 Ānanda-

I See Professor V. V. Sovani's article Pre-dhvani Schools of Alamkara in the Sir R. G. Bhandarkar Comme- moration Volume, pp. 387 ff. 2 'न हि रसादते कश्चिदर्थः प्रवर्त्तते'-NS., Chapter VI. We should note here that the Dhvanikara too accords rasa the highest place in poetry in numerous kārikās, e. g., I. 5 ; IV. 4-5. See also the utterances of the Vrttikara with reference to fad+To as incorporated in the samgraba- ślokas cited under III. 41-42 (p. 497). Even such eminent opponents of the Dhvani-school as Bhattanāyaka, Mahima- bhatta and others whole-heartedly acknowledge the essential

xlvi THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

vardhana included Bharata's doctrine of rasa within the purview of the comprehensive scheme of Suggestion and thus gave it a new shape. Bharata is completely silent as regards the function needed for conveying the rasa that is the central theme in poetry, while the Dhvanyaloka estab- lishes rasa as dhvani par excellence (i.e. conveyed through the function of Suggestion) as distinguished from the two other categories of dhvani-viz. vastu and alamkāra, that could occassionally be conveyed through Denotation (abbidba) as well.' Having thus established rasa as

chatacter of rasa in poetry. Compare: 'काव्यस्यांत्मनि संज्ञिनि रसादिरूपे न कस्यचिद् विमतिः'-Vyaktiviveka. I 'यस्तु खप्नेऽपि न स्शब्दवाच्यो न लौकिकव्यवहारपतितः, किंतु

नानुरागसुकुमारखसंविदानन्दचर्वाव्यापाररसनीयरूपो रसः, स काव्यव्यापारैक- गोचरो रसध्वनिरिति, स च ध्वनिरेवेति, स एव मुख्यतयात्मेति ॥'- °Locana, PP. 51-52. Also: 'तेन रस एव वस्तुत आत्मा, वस्त्वलंकार- ध्वनी तु सवथा रसं प्रति पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्यादुत्कृष्टौ तौ इत्यभिप्रायेण ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मेति सामान्येनोक्रम्'-Op. cit., p. 85. Note also: "The Dhvani-school as well as Bhattanāyaka's Hdaya- darpana are in agreement with Bharata on this point, and may be said to have only developed the teaching of Bharata. ... The only difference between the Dhvanikāra, Bhatta- nāyaka, Mahimabhatta was as regards the function par excellence which is operative in poetry."-Sovani, loc. cit.

INTRODUCTION xlvii

uyangya par excellence and as the very quintessence of poetic art, the Dhvanyaloka proceeds to the re-appraisal of the various traditional concepts of poetics by bringing them into proper relation with rasa. Thus, the various figures of speech like upamā, rūpaka etc. are shown to have their proper value when they serve to heighten the emotional effect of poetry, failing which they are reduced to tawdry decorative elements without any emotional appeal as in a citra-kavya, which in truth should not be regarded as a species of poetry at all.1 Thus in the Second Uddyota

I Dhvanyaloka, II. 14-19 and urtti thereon. But in this connection we should take note of the defence of poetic em- bellishments irrespective of their relation with the suggested sense in Kuntaka's Vakroktjivita. The following remarks of Dr. S. K. De are worth quoting on this point : 'Kuntaka, thus, supplies a deficiency in the teaching of the Dhvani- theorists, who ignored all embellishments unconnected with the suggested sense as mere vag-vikalpa or ukti-vaicitrya. To them the ornamental expression of poetry was detach- able, external and non-essential addition ; but Kuntaka gives a new interpretation of such uktivaicitrya and justifies. the poetic ornaments as such. If they are a part of poetic expression, they have a right to be considered, for they form thereby the expression itself. If the poetic imagination justifies them as a source of beauty, the question of their

xlviii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA of the Dhvanyaloka certain definite principles are laid down for judicious introduction of figures of speech in a dhvani- kavya in which the emotional appeal is predominant. There it is unambiguously pointed out that figures apper- taining to sounds like yamaka should always be eschewed by true poets in a dhvani-kavya. It was left to Dhvanikara to enunciate the proper function of alamkaras in genuine works of art, and thus bring them down from the supreme position to which they were elavated by teachers of the Alamkara school like Bhamaha. As regards gunas or poetic excellences as well, the Dhvanyaloka introduces an altogether novel approach. In older treatises like Dandin's Kavya- darsa, and Vamana's Kavyalamkara-sutra-vrtti, though the connection with the suggested sense or of their essentiality or non-essentiality need not arise, they being themselves essential. In Kuntaka's view, therefore, poetry is always embellished expression, as distinguished from plain and matter-of-fact expresssion of sciences and scriptures, and embellishment in the general sense is always a characteristic of poetic expression. This embellishment comprehends in its specific sense the whole domain of rhetorical figures (which Kuntaka includes in the particular province of Vakya-vakrata), if they are justified by the poetic imagina- tion and become poetic figures thereby ...... "-Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics in the New Indian Antiquary, 1947, pp. 64-63.

INTRODUCTION xlix

gunas were accorded the most prominent place, still on a subtle analysis they were found to differ very little from alamkaras. They are as much decorative elements of words (sabda) and meanings (artha) as the common figures of speech, only standing in a somewhat more intimate relation with poetry than the latter. But according to the Dhvani- kāra the gunas are no more attributes of sabda and artha than heroism (saurya) is an attribute of the body. This conception of gunas served as the only reasonable basis of differentiation between alamkaras and gunas-which could be ill distinguished according to the viewpoint of the ancients. The gunas were really attributes of the respec- tive emotions (rasa) which constitute the soul of poetry, just as heroism etc. were attributes of the Spirit (atman). Not only in the conception of gunas does the Dhvanikara differ from the older teachers, but also as regards their number. The Dhvanikara enumerates only three of them, -viz. madhurya, which was inherent in srngāra, karuņa (and santa), ojas that resided in such emotions as raudra, vīra, adbbuta etc., and prasāda that was common to all. In respect of the number of gunas, the Dhvanikāra may be regarded as being affiliated to Bhamaha's view,1 though the

I 'एवं माधुर्यौजःप्रसादा एव त्यो गुणा उपपन्ना भामहाभिप्रायेरा। ते च प्रतिपत्ताखादमयाः तत आस्ाद्ये उपचरिता रसे ततस्तद्व्यजकयोः शव्दार्थयोरिति तात्पर्यम्'-Locana on Dbvanyaloka, II. I0. D

1 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

latter's conception as to the nature of the gunas has no similarity to the Dhvanikara's.1 The Dhvanikara's approach to the problem of ritis, too, widely differs from that of the authors of the Riti-school.9 While the latter extol the different ritis as the highest element in poetry irrespective of their usefulness and application, the Dhvanikāra allots to them only a subservient role in poetry and brings them into relation with the proper emotional content of a poem, which it should be their function to enrich. A proper treatment of the concept of dosas or peetic defects and their classifica- tion into two broad categories as nitya-dosas and anitya- dosas, the Dhvanikāra points out, are possible on the basis of rasa-dhvani. So also is the case with the different urttis. In this way the Dhvanikara for the first time established the element of rasa as the central theme in poetry with irrefutable logic, and consequently:there can be no fallacy, if we reckon him as the most enthusiastic representative of Bharata's Rasa-school besides being the propounder of the doctrine of Suggestion (dbvans). Thus, the Dhvanikara's view

Consult in this connection Dr. S. K. De's paper on Bhamaba's Views on Guna in the K. B. Pathak Comme- moration Volume (1934), PP. 353-358. 2 See the present author's The Riti-School and Anandavardhana's Dhvani Theory in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Letters), Vol. XVII, No. I.

INTRODUCTION li . as regards the nature of poetry can be conceived of as being eclectic in the good sense inasmuch as no element of poetry, whether it be guna or alamkāra, or rīti or vrtti as propounded by the ancient teachers of different schools, was ignored in this scheme. The Dhvanikara found place for them all in his novel system, though he gave a new turn to their traditional conceptions to suit his end in view.1 Mammata in his Kāvyaprakasa, proves to be the greatest exponent of this eclectic system of poetic criticism, the frame-work of which was firmly settled by the Dhvanikara himself.ª Viewed in this light it becomes easy for us to

I The following observations ot Abhinavagupta by way of refutation of the views of the teachers of the anti- dbvani schools may be cited in this connexion: "a-aa 'सिंहो वटुः' इत्यत्नापि काव्यरूपता स्यात् ; ध्वननलक्षरास्यात्मनोऽत्नापि समनन्तरं व््यमाणतया भावात्। ननु घटेऽपि जीवव्यवहारः स्यात् ; आत्म- नो विभुत्वेन तत्नापि भवात्। शरीरस्य खलु विशिष्टाधिष्ठानयुक्कस्य सत्यात्मनि जीवव्यवहारः, न यस्य कस्यचिद इति चेत् गुणांलंकारौचित्यसुन्दरशब्दार्थशरीरस्य सति ध्वननाख्यात्मनि काव्यरूपताव्यवहारः। न चात्मनोऽसारता काचिदिति 4 I''-Thus, it is evident that a piece of poetry to be truly good, it is not enough that it should be endowed with Suggestiveness ( 5r4e4 ) alone, but it should be couched in an expression embellished with proper gunas, alamkāras etc. as well. 2 Note :- "Ananda was faced with other problems

lii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

comprehend the full import of Jagannatha's encomium on Dhvanikara already referred to above, viz. 'ध्वनिकृतामालक्कारिक- सरणिव्यवस्थापकत्वात्'.

and, disturbed mainly as he was with issues and counter- issues raised by the works of Vamana and Udbhata he had to traverse grounds the bases of which were of a different nature. Some striking features in the scheme followed by the earlier writer (viz. the author of the Dbvani-karikās) seem to be concerned with the नित्यानित्यदोषव्यवस्था, the easiest of शब्दालकार's in general, the enumeration of alamkāras as rūpakadi, the subdivisions of kāvyas, including the relation and interrelation of plot with rasa and the consequent question of vrttis in works of the Katha type and drama, as also topics like the three gunas, which have in the traditional ways been preserved in works of the Kashmirian school. Amongst the topics introduced by Ananda which may be kept dissociated from the main work, may be mentioned the incidental use of sabdaurttis, of samghațanā and rīti theories, which occupy so prominent a place in Vāmana's scheme and the question of figures speech, particularly that relating to rasavat, preyas and ūrjasvi, which figure largely in the works of Bhamaha and Udbhata (laterly in that of Kuntaka). Ananda's credit lies, however, in co- ordinating these themes and blending them into a harmonious

INTRODUCTION liii

IX. Some Authors of Anti-Dbvani Schools Inspite of their superior critical acumen, the Dhvani- theorists had to face vehement challenges from various quarters, which they ably controverted. The Dhvanikāra anticipates some of the contentions against the theory of which he was going to furnish an elaborate exposition in the very opening karika of the Dhvanyaloka- काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बुधर्यः समाम्नातपूर्व- स्तस्याभाव जगदुरपरे भाक्कमाहुस्तमन्ये। केचिद्वाचां स्थितमविषये तत्त्वमूचुस्तदीयं तेन व्र मः सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्सरूपम् ॥1

whole, and thus preparing the basis of a scientific, methodi- cal and comprehensive treatment of the sastra, in a manner surpassing that of later writers on the subject, including that greatest writer of Alamkāra-nibandha, viz. Mammața." -Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya, loc. cit. I Note also °Locana where Abhinava summarizes the three main complaints against the Dhvani-theory : aa समयापेक्षरोन शब्दोऽर्थप्रतिपादक इति कृत्वा वाच्यव्यतिरिक्कं नासति व्यङ्गथम् ; सदपि वा तद् अभिधावृत्त्यात्िप्तं शब्दावगतार्थवलादाकृष्टत्वाद् भाक्कम्; तदनातिप्तमपि वा न वक्कुं शक्यं कुमारीष्विव भत्त सुखमतद्विद्सु।"-But Jayaratha in his Vimarśinī notes as many as 12 rival theories. Cf .- तात्पर्यशक्किरभिधा लक्षणानुमिती द्विधा। अर्थापत्तिः क्वचित् तन्त्र समासोक्ताद्यलंकृतिः ॥

liv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Besides the contentions anticipated and refuted in the first chapter of the Dhvanyaloka a few other stern criticisms were levelled against the Dhvani-theory of which the anumana-theory deserves special mention. Though no

रसस्य कायता भोगो व्यापारान्तरबाधनम्। द्वादशेत्थं ध्वनेरस्य स्थिता विप्रतिपत्तयः ॥-P. 9 (NSP. Edn.) Dr. V. Raghavan's attempt to identify these 12 theories will be found interesting. Cf .- "Jayaratha, in his commentary on the Alamkara-Sarvasva quotes two karikas from some unknown writer which give the anti-Dhvani theories as twelve in number: तात्पर्य- शक्किरभिधा ..... etC. "The twelve theories are not easy to be identified. They may be stated thus : (1) Tātparya-Mīmāmsakas. (2) Abhidhā-very old Mīmāmsakas. (3) and (4) Two kinds of Lakşanā-the two kinds of Laksaņā are Ajahatsvārthā and Jahatsvārtha; the latter is also called Laksita-laksaņā or Laksaņa-laksaņā. (5) and (6) Two kinds of Anumāna -the two kinds are not known. (7) Arthapatti-the Anumana paksa slightly bettered. (8) Tantra-clever expression containing double significance as in the case of Ślesālamkāra. (9) Samāsokti and other Alamkāras-this is the old Alamkaras held as covering all cases of dhvani, the viewpoint refuted by Ananda in Uddyota I. (10) Rasa- kātyata-is the view of the old Rasa writers like Dandin

INTRODUCTION 1v

reference to it has been made in the opening chapter of the Dhvanyaloka, still Anandavardhana notes it in brief in Uddyota III where he tries to endorse the claim of vyanjana being recognized as a separate urtti.1 The Anumāna-

and Lollata (the Cirantanas) as shown by Abhinava in his Abbinavabbarati. They are Utpattivadins regarding Rasa. This is an anti-theory of Rasadhvani only. (11) Bhoga- this also refers to Rasadhvani. It is Bhatta Nāyaka's theory of Rasa and it can be taken as referring to Bhatta Nāyaka's Bhāvanā also. (12) The last Paksa is given as व्यापारान्तरवाधनम्. I ventured the guess that this may refer to Kuntaka's Vakrokti but Professor Mm. S. Kuppuswamy Sastri considers Vakrokti as included in the Alamkāra Paksa. The Vakroktijivita further accepts Dhvani, though not as the Atman of poetry . So, according to Prof. Sastri, the last refers to the Anirvacaniya-vada, the third of the three main anti-theories mentioned by Ananda. This vicw accepts that Dhvani is not included in any other vyāpāra, that it is different from them, but leaves Dhvani there saying that it is not possible to define it."-Bhoja's Śrngāra Prakaśa, Vol. I, Part I, pp. 149-50 (Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay, 1940). I Compare: अस्त्यतिसन्धानाबसर :- व्यज्जकत्व' शब्दानां गमकत्व तच्च लिङ्गत्वम् ; अतश्च व्यङ्गथप्रतीतिर्लिन्नप्रतीतिरेवति लिङ्गलिन्िभाव एव तेषां व्यङ्गथव्यञ्ञकभावो नापर: कश्वित् ।-Op. cit., Ch. iii, p. 448.

1vi THE DHVANYĀLOKA DF ĀNANDAVARDHANA school found in Mahimabhatta, a Kshmirian, the most enthusiastic upholder of its cause. The Vyaktiviveka which is replete with instances of a wonderful skill of its author in polemics was written with the sole aim of proving the thesis that it was after all useless to reckon a separate function of words, viz. uyanjana.1 Mahimabhatta, in the first instance, takes up the verse 'yatrarthab sabdo va' where the Dhvanikara furnishes a working definition of Dhvani- kāvya and with a rare zeal, which we can term ferocity even, tears it clause by clause pointing out blemishes at every step.a Though Mahimabhatta tried his utmost to . demolish the dhvani-theory, yet his endeavours could not be appreciated by men of letters. This neglect, in conse- quence of which the anumana-theory gradually fell into an unmerited oblivion, was due to his 'being pitted against the famous Anandavardhana.' (Kane, HAL., p. xciii). Another

I Compare : अनुमानेऽन्तर्भाव सर्वस्येव ध्वनेः प्रकाशयितुम्। व्यक्तिविवेक कुरुते प्रराम्य महिमा परा वाचम्॥ Vyaktiviveka, Chap. I, 1. See Dr. S. K. De's The Theory of Rasa in Sanskrit Poetics in Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volumes, Orientalia, Pt. 2, p. 223, fn. 48. 2 Note: एतच्च विविच्यमानमनुमानस्यैव संगच्छते नान्यस्य। तथाहि अर्थस्य तावद् उपसर्जनीकृतात्मत्वमनुपादेयमेव। तस्य अर्थान्तरप्रतीत्यर्थ- मुपात्तस्य तद्यभिचाराभावात्। नहि अप्नयादिसिद्धौ धूमादिरुपादीयमानो गुणातामतिवर्त्तते। ...... et seq .- Vyaktiviveka, Chap. I.

INTRODUCTION lvii

cause of the neglect of rhe Vyaktiviveka is the terseness of the language in which the arguments have been couched: it lacks that grace and easy felicity which characterize the writings of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and which to no small extent made their works popular in educated circles. In the Third Uddyota Anandavardhana brushes aside the contention of the anumiti-vadins with the curt remark that even though we might concede for argument's sake that the power of suggestion is no other than the process of logical inference, still we must falter when we come to the instance of the lamp and the jar on the analogy of which the whole fabric of the theory of dbvani has been built up ; for with no stretch of imagination can we regard the jar as being inferred from the presence of light.1 In

I Note: "[अतोच्यते-नन्वेवमपि यदि नाम स्यात् तत् किं नश्छिनम्? वाचकत्वगुरवृत्तिव्यतिरिक्को व्यज्जकत्वलक्षणः शब्दव्यापारोऽस्तीति अ्रस्माभिरम्युपगतम्। तस्य चैवमपि न काचित् क्षतिः। तद्धि व्यज्ञकत्व लिङ्गत्वमस्तु अरप्रन्यद् वा। सर्वथा प्रसिद्धशाव्दप्रकारविलक्षणत्व शव्दव्यापार- विषयत्व च तस्यास्तीति नास्त्येवावयोर्विवादः।] न पुनरयं परमार्थ :- यद् व्यञ्ञकत्व लिङ्गत्वमेव सवत्र, व्यक्ञयप्रतीतिश्व लिङ्गप्रतीतिरेवेति"- Dhvanyāloka, Chap. iii, p. 449, on which Abhinavagupta has the following statement: "प्रदीपालोकादौ लिङ्गलिङ्गिभावशून्योऽपि

कथ तादात्म्यम्?"-Locana. For the application of ghata- pradīpa-nyaya in Sanskrit Poetics consult in this connection

Íviii THE DHVANYALOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the commentary on the Vyaktiviveka, Rūyyaka, the author of the Alamkara-sarvasva, too, criticizes the views of the author Mahimabhatta. In the Alamkara-sarvasva, he briefly touches upon the views of the Vyaktiviveka-kara and points out the flaws in his thesis.1 Jayaratha, too, the commentator of the last-named work, brings out in bold relief the utter improbability of the views of the Vyaktiviveka-kara while commenting on the passage referred to just now.ª Most of the critics of the anumiti-theory

Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya's article Tmo Nyāyas in Relation to the Dhvani Creed in his Studies in Indian Poetics (1964), pp. 60 ff. 1 Compare : "यत्तु व्यक्तिविवेककारो वाच्यस्य प्रतीयमानं प्रति लिङ्वितया अनुमानान्तर्भावमाख्यत् तद्वाच्यस्य प्रतीयमानेन सह तादात्म्य- तदुत्पत्त्यभावात् अविचारिताभिधानम्। तदेतत् कुशाग्रीयधिषरौः चोदनीय- मतिगहनम्-इति नेह प्रतन्यते ॥"-Alainkara-sarvasva, PP. I2-13. 2 Cf. "इह लिङ्गलिङ्गिनोस्तादात्म्यतदुत्पत्तिभ्यामेव तावत्प्रतिवन्धो निश्चीयते। तन्निश्रयेनैव च साध्यसिद्धिः। अन्यथा हि साध्यसिद्धिन स्याद् व्यभिचारात्। तत् तादात्म्यं यथा कृतकत्वानित्यत्वयोः। तदुत्पत्तिर्यथा वहिधमयोः। वाच्यप्रतीयमानयोः पुनस्तादात्म्यतदुत्पत्ती न स्तः। तथाहि -"निःशेषच्युते"-त्यत्न विधिना निषेधो निषेधेन वा विधिः प्रतीयते। न तस्य वाच्येन सह तादात्म्यम्-विरुद्धत्वात्। न ह्यभावो भावात्मा भवति, भावोऽन्यभावात्मा। नापि तदुत्पत्तिः-अभावस्य जन्यजनकत्वानुपपत्तेः। नापि निःशेषच्युतचन्दनादीनां विशेषणानां तदन्तिकगमनानुमापकत्व युक्कम्।

INTRODUCTION lix

lay stress on one point particularly, viz. that an inference of the pratiyamana from the vacya is invariably vitiated on account of the 'middle term' (i. e. hetu) being undistributed (i.e. anaikāntika). Thus, in spite of the ingenuity of the author of the Vyaktiviveka his novel proposition failed to gain much ground in the teeth of the increasing popularity of the dhvani-theory. It must be alleged to his credit, however, that unaided though he was, he left a permanent impression in the field of poetics. Even the commentator Rūyyaka, does not spare taunting him for his daring enterprise.1 It can be safely asserted that had Mahimabhatta been fortunate enough in having a commentator like Abhinava- gupta-sympathetic and sincere-his position would have been much different from what it is today. Next to the anumiti-theory, the vakrokti-theory of Kuntaka deserves special mention. The theory is nothing but an elaboration of the implications of the assertion of Bhamaha2 to their logical consequence. This theory also

तेषां स्नानादौ अपि सद्भावादनैकान्तिकत्वात्। एतच्च ध्वनिकारेश।दूषित- त्वात् ग्रन्थकृता स्वकराठन दूषितम्।"-Vimarsini, p.13. I Compare: 'तदेवं महाविदुषां मार्गमनुसृत्य सहृदयशिक्षादराय विचारयतोऽम्य महामतेः न किश्चित् पर्यनुयोगलेशस्याप्यवसर इत्यलमति- 7 1"-Comm. on Vyaktiviveka, p. 152. Note: सैषा सर्वैव वकोक्किरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। 2 यत्नोऽस्यां कविना कार्यः कोऽलंकारोऽनया विना॥ -Kāvyālamkāra, II. 85

1x THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

sprang up as a protest against the views of the dhvani-theorists, who though conceding the existence of alamkara-dhvani still make it subservient to rasa-dhvani, which according to them is dhvani 'par excellence'.1 We have noted the views of Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana as regards the nature of alamkaras and gunas and how they make them quite secondary in their function. According to tl Dhvanikara dhvani and gunībhuta-vyangya-these are the main divisions of kavya. The third variety is merely an imitation of kavya, and not so in reality. It is citra.2 But what is most interesting is the treatment of rasa in Vakrokti- jivita. Kuntaka agrees with the Dhvanikara that the touch of sentiment makes a poetic art live, but still he will not reckon sentiment as anything quite different from the common figures of speech. This peculiar treatment of rasa is quite a logical outcome of his view as regards the nature of alamkāras or vakrokti in

I "यस्तु स्वप्नेऽपि न स्वशब्दवाच्यो न लौकिकव्यवहारपतितः

वासनानुरागसुकुमारखसंविदानन्दचर्वणाव्यापाररसनीयरूपो रसः, स काव्य- व्यापारैकगोचरो रसध्वनिः, स च ध्वनिरेवेति स एव मुख्यतया आरत्मा।"- °Locana, pp. 51-52. 2 "रसभावादितात्पर्यरहितं व्यङ्गयार्थविशेषप्रकाशनशक्तिशून्यं च काव्यं केवलवाच्यवाचकवैचित्र्यमात्ाश्रयेणोपनिबद्धमालेख्यप्रख्यं यदाभासते तच्चित्रम्। न तन्मुख्यं काव्यं, काव्यानुकारो ह्सो।"-Dhuanyaloka, p. 495.

INTRODUCTION 1xi

general. He does not regard vakrokti as adventitious or an extraneous element in a kāvya, just as Dhvanikāra and others thought ; but according to Kuntaka they are inextri- cably blended up with sabda and artha and cannot be detached without materially compromising the splendour of the poet's art. Thus Kuntaka's logical conclusion is that Vakrokti is the soul of a poetic creation.1 So a kāvya can- not be a kavya without vakrokti and the usage 'kāvyasyāyam alamkarab' is quite erroneous and illogical as it gives rise to the false notion that a kavya might exist as it were without vakrokti. This being Kuntaka's view about vakrokti in general, it is but quite logical that he would not regard rasa as distinct from the vakroktì inasmuch as rasa too imparts grace to the poetic art in the same way as other figures of speech do. As Dr. S. K. De so rightly observes:

I Compare: "वकोक्ति: काव्यजीवितम्". Note also Ruyyaka: पुनर्वै दग्ध्यभङ्गीभणितिसभावां बहुविर्धा वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधान्यात् काव्यजीवितमुक्कवान्। व्यापारस्य प्राधान्यं च काव्यस्य प्रतिपेदे। अभिधानप्रकारविशेषा एव चालंकाराः। सत्यपि त्रिभेदे प्रतीयमाने व्यापार- रूपा भणितिरेव कविसंरम्भगोचरः। उपचारवक्रतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपश्चः सवोकृतः। केवलमुक्तिवैचित्र्यजीवितं काव्यं न व्यक्गयार्थजीवितमिति तदीर दर्शनं व्यवस्थितम्।"-Alamkara-sarvasva, p. 8. Kuntaka defines वक्रोक्ति as-'वक्रोक्तिरेव वैदग्व्यभङ्गीभणितिरुच्यते', which has been again explained in the वृत्ति as: "वक्रोक्तिः प्रसिद्धाभिधानव्यति- रेकिणी विचित्रैवाभिधा। वैदग्ध्यं कविकौशलं तस्य भङ्गी विच्छित्तिः ।"'

1xii THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANI)AVARDHANA 'From the prominence given to the analysis of Alamkaras it will be clear that Kuntaka could not put enough emphasis on Rasa and Bhava as elements of poetry. The Rasa is dealt with topically in connection with the poetic figures, or the different margas in which it is involved, as also in the treatment of prakarana-prabandba-vakratā. Kuntaka admits the necessity of Rasa, but regards its delineation apparently as a special kind of realizing vakratva in com- position. He quotes with approval an antara-śloka which lays down (Chap. iv.): "निरन्तररसोद्धारगर्भसौन्दर्यनिर्भराः।

गिरः कवीनां जीवन्ति न कथामात्माश्रिताः ॥"

He admits that it is not the mere matter or plot but the beauty imparted to it by the continuous development of Rasa which can make the words of a poet live, and in this he follows the dictum of Anandavardhana, but as he had already accepted the essentiality of Vakrokti, the Rasa could be comprehended only as an element of Vakrata."1 Neverthe- less, Kuntaka does recognize the pratīyamāna or vyangya sense,2 and practically concurs with the Dhvanikāra in

I Vakroktijīvita, Intro., pp. xxxv-xxxvi. 2 Compare: वाच्योरऽर्थो वाचकः शब्दः प्रसिद्धमिति यद्यपि। तथापि काव्यमार्गेऽस्मिन् परमार्थोऽयमेतयोः ॥ -The urtti on which runs as follows : "ननु च द्योतकव्यज्जकावपि

INTRODUCTION 1xiii

accepting the two varieties of dbvani based on Indication (i. e. laksaņā-mūla)-viz. atyantatiraskrta-vācya and arthantara-samkramita-vacya-although he includes them under the single comprehensive head, viz. upacāra vakrata.1 As MM. Kane states: 'The Vokroktijivita denies the independent existence of Dhvani or vyangya as the soul of poetry and tries to include it under its all-pervading vakrokti. It therefore makes the soul of poetry to consist of something that is striking by its being very different

शब्दौ संभवतः; तदसंग्रहान्नाव्याप्तिः। यस्माद् अर्प्रतीतिकारित्वसाभान्या- दुपचारात्तावपि वाचकावेव। एवं द्योत्यव्यङ्ग्ययोरर्थयोः प्रत्येयत्वसामान्या- दुपचाराद् वाच्यत्वमेव।"-Op.cit., I. I. I यत्र दूरन्तरेऽन्यस्मात् सामान्यमुपचर्यते। लेशेनापि भवत् काश्चित् वक्तुमुद्रिक्कवृत्तिताम् ॥ यन्मूला सरसोल्लेखा रूपकादिरलंकृतिः। उपचारप्रधानाऽसौ वक्रता काचिदुच्यते॥ - Vakroktijīvita, II. 13-14

-On which Kuntaka cites the two verses, viz. "गअरं च मत्तमेहं-" etc. and "स्न्निग्धश्यामलकान्तिलिप्तवियतः-" as instances which are quoted by Anandavardhana in his Dbvanyaloka to illustrate the two aforesaid varieties of लक्षणामूलत्वनि. The above two verses (viz. Vakroktijivita, II. 13-14) have been cited by Jayaratha, too, in his gloss on Alamkāra sarvasva, p. 8.

1xiv THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

from and above what is ordinary. It therefore holds the same view as those who regarded dhvani to be bbakta.' (HAL., p. lxxxv.)

Thus we find that Kuntaka gave a new impetus to the theory of Bhamaha and revived it once more from the region of oblivion. Though he was influenced to no small extent by the writings of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, still he succeeded in giving a new turn to the course of literary criticism, and his theory too appeals to our reason. He is right in stating that we cannot rob a composition of its figures without injuring its effect, and as such it is quite erroneous to look upon the figures as artificial or adventitious. They constitute part and parcel of the whole creation.

Coming to more recent times we find the polymath Ksemendra, a Kashmirian author of the eleventh century A.D., starting a new theory to the effect that aucitya or 'Propriety' alone is the soul of a poetic composition. He calls aucitya as rasa-jivita-bhūta-being, as it were, the very soul of rasa. This view, that rasa must be developed with reference to proper anubhāvas and vibbāvas and sthayins, is not a new discovery at all on the part of Ksemendra. It has found eloquent expression in the works of Anandavardhana, Mahimabhatta, etc., who regarded impropriety as a blemish that materially hampers the

INTRODUCTION 1xv

realization of the aesthetic pleasure or rasa.1 The originality of Ksemendra lies in the fact that he pushes this doctrine of aucitya too far, and holds it as underlying every sort of literary embellishment that heightens the beauty of a poetic art, whether it be guna, alamkara or rasa. Thus he is led to the logical conclusion that aucitya alone is the sine qua non of a poetic art. He defines aucitya as- "उचितं प्राहुराचार्याः सदृशं किल यस्य यत्। उचितस्य च यो भावस्तदाचित्य' प्रचक्षते ॥"2

Just as ornaments, when placed in improper places, cease to adorn 'the limbs, so also the gunas and alamkaras improperly introduced only make a pcem ludicrous, instead of adding

Compare : अनौचित्यादृटते नान्यद्रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्। प्रसिद्धौचित्यवन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत् परा ॥

-We should also note here that a sentiment when developed by improper विभावs, अनुभावs, etc. ceases to be sentiment proper and is styled रसाभास and not रस. Cf. "तदाभासा अनौचित्यप्रवर्त्तिताः"-Kauyaprakasa, VI. The most popular instance of रसाभास is the following verse from Kumara° iii. e.g. "मधु द्विरेफः कुसुमैकपात पपौ प्रियां स्ामनु- वर्त्तमान:" etc. where the permanent feeling has been improperly developed, resting as it does in a non-sentient bee. 2 Aucityavicāra : kārikā 7. E

K

1xvi THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

to its grace.1 Thus Ksemendra holds aucitya to be the sole underlying principle of literary embellishments, and poets should introduce them constantly keeping in view the fact that the element of aucitya is not violated in doing so. This brief review of the views of some of the principal anti-dbvani theorists, will be enough to reveal what an enormous impression was made by Anandavardhana and his famous scholiast Abhinavagupta in the field of literary criticism. The current of literary criticism was in an ebb, til! Anandavardhana with his novel doctrine appeared in the field and rejuvenated once more the dying stream. It must be noted, that however the rival theorists might have denounced the position of the Dhvani-theorists, they could not but admit the presence of a sense quite distinct from the väcya sense which is conveyed by the denotative or primary power of words. This is an axiomatic truth which they could not but concur with. And the credit of the Dhvani theorists

Compare: उचितस्थानविन्यासादलंकृतिरलंकृतिः। औचित्यादच्युता नित्यं गुणा एव गुराः सदा॥ Note also the anonymous verse quoted in the urtti to illustrate the point- कराठे मेखलया नितम्बफलके तारेण हारेए वा पाणौ नूपुरबन्धनेन चररो केयूरपाशेन वा। शौर्गेण प्रणाते रिपौ करुणाया नायान्ति के हास्यताम् औचित्येन विना रुचिं प्रतनुते नालंकृतिर्नो गुगा: ॥

INTRODUCTION 1xvii

lies in this, that they were the first and foremost to reveal this truth The only point on which the rival theorists ventured to disagree was concerning the process or vyāpāra which was auxiliary in conveying the pratīyamana sense.1 The Dhvani-theorists reckoned quite a distinct function of words, viz. vyanjana or Suggestion, while some disapproved it and thought Inference or anumana as the process which conveyed the pratīyamāna sense, and others again, laksanā or Indication as the function which was sufficient to include in its scope the vyangya as well as the laksya sense. Though Anandavardhana has very aptly established the existence of the fourth power of words, viz. vyanjana, still he is not very particular about it. His foremost aim was to establish the existence of the pratiyamana sense which was altogether different from the vacya sense, and he thought his task ful- filled, successful as he was in doing so. About the function which was required to convey that sense, opinions might differ-he himself has acknowledged this, and on his part

I तदेवं लक्षणदोषदुष्टपदव्युदासेन परिशुद्धो ध्वनिलक्षणावाक्यस्यायमर्थो- Sवतिष्ठते॥ वाच्यस्तदनुमितो वा यत्नार्थोऽर्थान्तरं प्रकाशयति। सम्बन्धतः कुतश्चित् सा काव्यानुमितिरित्युक्का ॥ इति। एतच्चानुमानस्येव लक्षरां नान्यरय। यदुक्कं "त्रिरूपलिङ्गाख्यानं परार्थानुमान"मिति। केवलं संज्ञाभेदः ॥ "काव्यस्यात्मनि संज्ञिनि रसादिरूपे न कस्यचिद् विमतिः। संज्ञायां सा केवलमेषाऽपि व्यक्त्ययोगतोऽस्य कुतः ॥"-Vyaktiviveka, Chap. i, 25-26.

1xviii THE DHVANYĀI OKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

he thought vyanjana or Suggestion as the most logical and convenient way of revealing that sense.1 This is, sum- marily, the position of the Dhvani-theorists vis-à-vis their opponents.2

I Compare: वाचकत्वगुणवृत्तिव्यतिरिक्को व्यज्ञकत्वलक्षणाः शब्द- व्यापारोऽस्ति-इत्यस्माभिरम्युपगतम्। तस्य चैवमपि न काचित् क्षतिः। तद्धि व्यजकत्वं लिङ्गत्वमस्तु अन्यद्वा। प्रसिद्धशाब्दप्रकारविलक्षणत्वं शब्द- व्यापारविषयत्व च तस्यास्ति-इति नास्त्येवावयोर्विवादः ।-Dhvanyaloka, Chap. iii. 2 For a brief study of the viewpoints of Pratīhārendu- rāja, Bhatțanāyaka, Dhananjaya and Dhanika in relation to the Dhvani-theory see Dr. A. Sankaran's Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit, Chapter VII (Immediate Opposition to the Theory of Dhvani).

DHVANYALOKA

OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA [ UDDYOTA I]

[ TEXT & EXPOSITION ]

АЛОДАУИАУНО

Uddyota I

TEXT

श्रीनृहरये नमः1

९१। स्वेच्छाकेसरिणः स्वच्छस्वच्छायायासितेन्दवः। त्रायन्तां वो मधुरिपोः प्रपन्नार्तिच्छिदो नखाः॥

[ 'Ben. S. S. Edn. ] EXPOSITION

S1. [This is the benedictory verse of the urtti wotk. The urtti and the karikas constitute two separate and independent texts, and we must always be particular in discriminating between these two works. So also, the vṛttikāra and the kārikākāra must always he looked upon as two different personages-functionally, though in some cases, and not infrequently too, they might be numerically identical. If we bear this important fact in mind it would be easy for us to grasp the cogency and import of. some of the remarks of Abhinavagupta, the author of the °Locana commentary, which have caused much confusion regarding the identity of the authors of the vrtti and kārika texts.]1

I For the authorship of the Dhvanikarikas vide the following important papers: (i) Professor Sivaprasad Bhatta- charya's Dhvanyāloka and Text of Dhvanikārikas (Proceed- ings of the Sixth Oriental Conference, Patna) ; (ii) The

2 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

In the present benedictory stanza the vrttikāra invokes the Man-Lion ( नरसिंह) incarnation of the slayer of the demon Madhu (मधुरिपु), i.e. Lord Visnu, who by means of his ten finger-nails, that put to shame even the lunar disc by virtue of their brilliance, tore into pieces the limbs of his enemy Hiranyakasipu and thus, by means of his heroic feat, drove away the fears and anxieties of his devotees who sought his protection. According to Abhinavagupta, as also in the opinion of Bhattenduraja, whose disciple he was. this verse illustrates all the three varieties of the suggested sense-viz. aJ, अलंकार and रस, the existence of which is sought to be established in this work. Abhinavagupta's comments are worth quoting on this point :- (१) मधुरिपोर्नखाः वो युष्मान् व्याख्यातृ-श्रोतृन् तायन्ताम्। तेषामेव सम्बोधनयोग्यत्वात्। सम्बोधनसारो हि युष्मदर्थः, ताण चाभीष्टलाभं प्रति साहायकाचरणाम्। तच्च प्रतिद्वन्द्वि- विघ्नापसारणादिना भवतीति। इयदत ताएं विव्तितम्। नित्योद्योगिनश्ष भगवतोऽसम्मोहाध्यवसाययोगित्वेन उत्साहप्रतीतेवीररसो ध्वन्यते। (२) किंच ते नखा: खच्छेन सच्छतागुरोन नैर्मल्येन। सच्छमृदुप्रभृतयो हि मुख्यतया

Authorship of the Dhvanikarikas by Mr. A. Sankaran, B.A. (Hons.), in the Proceedings of the Third Oriental Conference, Madras, 1924 ; and (iii) A Dissertation on the Identity of the Author of the Dhvanyaloka (Dr. B. C. Law Volume, Part I) and Supplementary Note to the same (Indian Culture, Vol. XII, No. 2) by Dr. Satkari Mookerjee M.A., Ph. D.

UDDYOTA I 3

भाववृत्तय एव। स्वच्छायया च वक्रहृद्यरूपयाSSकृत्याSSयासितः खेदित इन्दुयैः। अार्थशक्तिमूलेन ध्वनिना बालचन्द्रत्व ध्वन्यते। (३) किंच तदीयां स्वच्छतां कुटिलिमानं चावलोक्य वालचन्द्रः स्वात्मनि खेदमनुभवति। "तुल्येऽपि स्वच्छकुटिलाकारयोगेऽमी प्रपन्नार्तिनिवारणकुशलाः, न त्वहम्" इति व्यतिरेकालंकारोऽपि ध्वनितः। किंचाहं पूर्वमेक एव असाधारण- वैश्ह्द्याकारयोगात् समस्तजनाभिलषणीयताभाजनमभवम्, अद्य पुनरेवंविधा नखा दश बालचन्द्राकाराः सन्तापार्तिच्छेदकुशलाश्चेति तानेव लोको बालेन्दु- वहुमानेन पश्यति, नतु मामित्याकलयन् बालेन्दुरविरतमायासमनुभवतीवे- त्युत्प्रेक्षाऽपह्न ति-ध्वनिरपि। एवं वस्त्वलंकाररसभेदेन तिधा ध्वनिरत्र शलोकेऽस्मद्गुरुभिर्व्याख्यातः ॥

TEXT 5२1 काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बुधैर्यः समाम्नातपूर्व- स्तस्याभावं जगदुरपरे भाक्तमाहुस्तमन्ये। केचिद् वाचां स्थितमविषये तत्त्वभूचुस्तदीयं तेन व्र मः सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपम् ॥१॥

बुधैः काव्यतत्त्वविद्धिः काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति संज्ञितः' परम्परया यः समाम्नातपूर्वः2। सम्यक् आ समन्तात् म्नातः3 प्रकटितः। तस्य सहृदयजनमनः- प्रकाशमानस्याप्यभावमन्ये जगदुः। तदभाववादिनां चामी विकल्पाः सम्भवन्ति ॥

[ I ध्वनिसंज्ञितः-KS. 2 सम्यगाम्नातपूर्वः-KS. 3 KS. reads आम्रात: for म्रातः. ]

4 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION

§2. From this karika it can be easily gathered that Anandavardhana only systematized and gave a definite shape to the Dhvani-theory which was known to his predecessors, and from whom he too had his lessons on the nature of the true essence of poetry. As Abhinavagupta brings out the signficance of the expression समाम्रातपूर्व :- परम्परायेति। अविच्छिन्नेन प्रवाहेण तैरेतदुक्कं विनाऽपि विशिष्टपुस्तकेषु विनिवेशनांत् इत्यभिप्रायः। न च बुधा भूयांसोऽनादरणीयं वस्त्वादरेणो- पदिशेयुः। एतत्त्वादरेणोपदिष्टम्। तदाहु :- सम्यगाम्नातपूर्व इति। पूर्व- ग्रहरोनेदम्प्रथमता नात सम्भाव्यत इत्याह, व्याचष्टे च-सम्यगासमन्तादू म्नातः प्रकटित इत्यनेन। Thus it is plain that there was no definite treatise on Dbvani before Anandavardhana's date. Compare also the concluding verse of the vrtti-text:

सत्काव्यतत्त्वनयवर्त्म चिरप्रसुप्त- कल्पं मनःसु परिपक्कधियां यदासीतू। तद् व्याकरोत् सहृदयोदयलाभहेतो- रानन्दवर्घेन इति प्रथिताभिधान: ।। -Colophon at the end of Uddyota IV. The kārika has been cited by Mahimabhatta in his Vyakti-viveka to illustrate the defect (काव्यदोष) known as प्रक्रम- मेद (inversion of the order of words). Compare: "काव्यस्यात्मा ... "-इत्यत्न ध्वनिरितीतिशब्दस्य तावत् प्रक्रमभेदः। स हि काव्यात्मपदान्तरं प्रयोक्कव्यः "काव्यस्यात्मेति" इति। अन्यथा ध्वनिनैवास्य संबन्धे विज्ञायमाने तस्य सर्वनामपरामर्शाभावे अभावो भाक्ृत्वं वागविषयत्वं च न प्रतीयेत। तस्य अभिधानात्मन इतिना व्यवच्छेदात्, अन्यस्य च ध्वनेरनुपादानात्। स हि

UDDYOTA 1 5

अभावा दिधर्माधिकरणभावेन सर्वनामपरामर्शयोग्योवश्यमुपादेयः । न चोपात्तः। यश्चोपात्तः स तदभिधानानुकारखरूपमात्प्रधानो नार्थोभिमुख इति काव्यात्मन एवार्थस्य तदधिकरणभावो विज्ञायते, न ध्वनेः। स हि तत्र संज्ञामात्म्। यत् स एवाह-"काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिसंज्ञित" इति।-Vyakti-viveka, Vimarśa II, p. 393(Haridas Sanskrit Series Edn. Benares). Most probably, Mahimabhatta took his hints from the comments of Abhinavagupta who notes the प्रक्ममेद. Cf .: एवं तु युक्कतरम्। इतिशब्दो भिन्नक्रमो वाक्यार्थपरामर्शकः.। As regards the construction in the expression काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति and the position of the enclitic इति after ध्वनिः instead of after काव्यस्यात्मा Abhinavagupta makes the follow- ing significant comment: " ... इतिशव्दः स्वरूपपरत्वं ध्वनिशव्दस्याचष्ट, तदर्थस्य विवादास्पदी- भूततया निश्चयाभावेनार्थत्वायोगात्। एतद्विव्ृशोति-संज्ञित इति। वस्तुतस्तु न तत्संज्ञामातणोक्म्। अपि त्वस्त्येव ध्वनिशब्दवाच्यं प्रत्युत समस्तसारभूतम् । न ह्यन्यथा बुधास्तादृशमामनेयुरित्यभिप्रायेण विव्ृशोति- -तस्य सहृदये-त्यादिना। एवं तु युक्कतरम्-इतिशब्दो भिन्नक्रमो वाक्यार्थपरामर्थकः । ध्वनि-लक्षणोऽर्थः काव्यस्यात्मेति यः समाम्रात इति। शब्दपदार्थकत्वे हि ध्वनिसंज्ञितोऽर्थ इति का संगतिः ? एवं हि ध्वनिशव्दः काव्यस्यात्मेत्युक्तं भवेत्, 'गवित्ययमाहे'ति यथा। न च विप्रतिपत्तिस्थान- मसदेव, प्रत्युत सत्येव धर्मिणि धर्ममात्कृता विप्रतिपत्तिरित्यलमप्रस्तुतेन भूयसा सहृदयजनोद्वेजनेन। ...... " Thus, according to the first explanation the enclitic इति placed just after the word 'ध्वनि' suggests that here the latter has ne corresponding meaning conveyed by it, but stands merely for the word itself viz. ध्वनि. Usually a word is

6 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

used to convey a corresponding meaning, but when it is followed by the enclitic इति it becomes self-connotative (स्वरूप-पर ) instead. This property of इति is known as पदार्थविपर्यासकत्व, since through it an अथपदार्थक word is trans- formed into a शब्दपदार्थक one. For instance, in the sentence 'गौर्धावति' the vocable गौः refers to the object 'cow' which is its meaning, while in the sentence 'गवित्ययमाह' the same vocable, followed as it is immediately by इति, is self- connotative referring to the word गो itself. The above passage of the °Locana is closely reminiscent of the follow- ing extract from the Mababbasya on Panini's sutra: 'न वेति विभाषा' (I. I. 44) where the significance of इति is thus explained : ॥। इतिकरणोऽर्थनिर्देशार्थः॥ इतिकरणः क्रियते सोऽर्थनिर्देशार्थो भविष्यति। किं गतमेतदितिना, आहोखिच्छव्दाधिक्यादर्थाधिक्यम् ? गतमिल्याह।

कुतः ?

॥ लोकतः ॥ तद् यथा लोके "गैरित्ययमाह" इति गोशब्दादितिकरणः प्रयुज्यमानो गोशब्दं सवस्मात् पदार्थात् प्रच्यावयति। सोऽसौ स्वस्मात् पदार्थात् प्रच्युतो यासावर्थपदार्थकता तस्याः शब्दपदार्थकः सम्पद्यते॥ एवमिहापि नवाशव्दा- दितिकरणः प्रयुज्यमानो नवाशव्दं सस्मात् पदार्थात् प्रच्यावयति। सोऽसौ स्वस्मात् पदार्थात् प्रच्युतो यासी शव्दपदार्थकता तस्या लौकिकमर्थ प्रत्याययति नवेति यद्गम्यते नवेति यत्प्रतीयते इति ।।" See Kaiyyata's Pradīpa and Nāgojī Bhatța's Uddvota

UDDYOTA I 7

thereon under the above Bhasya-text. Compare also the following comments of the Tattvabodbini on Bhattoji Dīkșita's Siddbanta-Kaumudī on the above sūtra: - "अतेदं बोध्यम्-इतिशब्दः काकातिन्यायेनोभाभ्यां संबध्यते। स च पदार्थविपर्यासकृत्। तेन निषेधो विकल्पश्च नवाशब्दार्थः संज्ञीति विभाषा- शब्दार्थो विकल्पः संज्ञा। ... इतीति किम्? घु-संज्ञावत् 'स्वं रूपम्-' इति वचनात् शव्दस्य संज्ञा मा भृत्। तथा हि सति 'विभाषा श्वेः' इत्यस्य नवशब्दः श्वयतेरादेशः स्यात्। इतिशब्दे तु सति अर्थः संज्ञीति लभ्यते। तथाहि-लोके अर्थप्रधानः शब्दः, 'गौरित्ययमाह' इत्यादौ शब्दसरूपपरः संपद्यते। व्याकररो तु 'स्व' रूपम्-' इति परिभाषणात् स्रूपपरत्वमौत्सर्गिकम्। इतिशब्दसमभिव्याहारे तु अर्थपरतेति विशेषः। इयमेवेतिशव्दस्य पदार्थ- विपर्यासकत्वं नाम ॥। ... " The frequent use of the term सहृदय in the texts of the kārikā and vrtti had led Prof. Sovani to posit the theory that Sabrdaya was the author of the karika-text. (Vide his paper in the Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, 1915). But, in fact, सहृदय refers to the 'connoisseurs' of poetry. As Abhinavagupta notes: येषां काव्यानुशीलनाभ्यासवशाद् विशदी- भूते मनोमुकुरे वर्णानीयतन्मयीभवनयोग्यता ते स-हृदय-संवादभाजः सहृदयाः। यथोक्कम्-"योऽर्थो हृदयसंवादी तस्य भावो रसोन्भवः। शरीरं व्याप्यते तेन शुष्कं काष्ठमिवारिनिना ॥"-इति॥ -°Locana, pp. 38-39. Jayaratha in his विमर्शिनी (Comm. on Ruyyaka's अलंकार- सर्वस् ) notes that there were twelve rival theories opposed to the Dhvani theory, though ध्वनिकार in the first karika notes only three different views of his opponents, for these are

8 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the most important of all. His observations are as follows : तदेवं यद्यपि "तात्पयशक्किरभिधा लक्षणाऽनुमिती द्विधा। अर्थापत्ति: क्वचित् तन्त्रं समासोक्त्याद्यलंकृतिः ॥ रसस्य कार्यता भोगो व्यापारान्तर- बाधनम्। द्वादशेत्थं ध्वनेरस्य स्थिता विप्रतिपत्तयः ॥"-इति नीत्या बहवो विप्रतिपत्तिप्रकाराः संभवन्ति, तथापि "काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति" इत्युक्कनीत्यैव ध्वनेर्विप्रतिपत्तिप्रकारत्नयमिह प्राधान्येन उक्कम् ॥-Vimarsini, P. 4 (NSP. Edn.). Thus the three principal contentions of the rival theorists can be stated as follows: (1) नास्त्येव ध्वनिरिति ; (2) भक्किरेव ध्वनिरिति, and (3) अनिर्वाच्यो ध्वनिरिति। As Abhinavagupta puts them: (१) तत्न समयापेक्षरोन शब्दोऽर्थ- प्रतिपादक इति कृत्वा वाच्यव्यतिरिक्कं नास्त्येव व्यङ्गथम् ; (२) सदपि वा तदभिधावृत्त्यात्िप्तं शब्दावगतार्थबलाकृष्टत्वाद भाक्कम्; (३) तदनाच्िप्तमपि वा न वक्कुं शक्यं कुमारीष्विव भर्त्तृ सुखमतद् वित्सु इति तय एवैते प्रधानविप्रत्ति- प्रकारा: -°Locana, p. 14. In the following text the author would refute these contentions one by one and would finally establish the separate existence of the suggested sense and a novel function of words, viz. Suggestion ( व्यज्जना), which conveys that sense. The three above mentioned contentions of the opponents of the Dhvani-theory are referred to as fanaq's by the Vrttikara: 'तद्भाववादिनां ..... सम्भवन्ति।' Abhinavagupta brings out the significance of the term विकल्प in the present context as follows :-

"ननु सम्भवद्वस्तूमूलया सम्भावनया यत् सम्भावितं तद् दूषयितुमशक्य- मित्याशङ्कयाह-विकल्पा इति। नतु वस्तु सम्भवति तादक यत इयं सम्भावना, अपि तु विकल्पा एव। ते च तत्त्वावबोधबन्ध्यतया स्फुरेयुरपि,

UDDYOTA I 9

अत एव 'आचक्ीरन्' इत्यादयोऽत सम्भावनाविषया लिङ्प्रयोगा अतीत- परमार्थे पर्यवस्यन्ति। यथा- यदि नामास्य कायस्य यदन्तस्तद्बहिभवेत्। दराडमादाय लोकोडयं शुनः काकांश्च वारयेत्। इत्यत्। यद्यवं कायस्य दृष्टता स्यात तदैवमवलोक्येतेति भूतप्राणातैव। 'यदि न स्यात् ततः किं स्यात्'-इत्यतापि किंवृत्त यदि पूर्ववन्न भवनस्य सम्भावनेत्ययमेवार्थ :- इत्यलमप्रकृतेन बहुना।"-°Locana, Pp. 13-14. Mm. Kuppuswami Sastri in his sub-commentary Upalocana notes: "विकल्पास्सम्भवन्ति" इत्यत् वृत्तिगतस्य विकल्पशव्दस्य 'विविधाः कल्पनाः' 'विपरीताः कल्पनाः' इति वार्थो वर्णनीय हति लोचनकाराणमाशयः।- Dhvanyaloka, PP. 35-36 (KSRI Edn.). But as it appears from the above quoted Locana-text Abhinavagupta takes विकल्प to mean असम्भवद्वस्तुमूला सम्भावना, so that the sense in which the word विकल्प is used here appears to correspond closely with विकल्प as defined by Patanjali in his Yoga- Sutra: "शव्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः।" Abhinava- gupta thus means to suggest that the contentions of the opponents are वस्तुशून्य, i. e. not founded upon real facts and as such unsubstantial in essence.

TEXT

६३। तत्र केचिदाचक्षीरन्-शब्दार्थशरीरं तावत काव्यम्। तत् च' शब्दगताश्चारुत्वहेतवोऽनुप्रासादयः प्रसिद्धा एव। अर्थगताश्चोपमादयः। वर्णसंघटना- धर्माश्र ये माधुर्यादयस्तेऽपि प्रतीयन्ते। तदनतिरिक्त-

10 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA वृत्तयो वृत्तयोऽपि याः कैश्चिदुपनागरिकाद्याः प्रकाशिताः, ता अपि गताः श्रवणगोचरम्। रीतयश्च वैदर्भी- प्रभृतयः। तद्ववतिरिक्तः कोऽयं ध्वनिर्नामेति॥

[ I KS. reads तस्य for तत्र च। 2 KS. omits वर्सा ।]

EXPOSITION

S3. Those who are अभाववादिन्'s can again take up three different positions, and as such the first objection noted above can have three sub-varieties (अरवान्तरमेदाः)- These are, in the words of Abhinavagupta: "तत अभाव- विकल्पस्य तयः प्रकाराः। (१) शब्दार्थगुणालंकाराणामेव शब्दार्थशोभा- कारित्वात् लोकशास्त्रातिरिक्क-सुन्दरशब्दार्थमयस्य काव्यस्य न शोभाहेतुः कश्रिद् अन्योऽस्ति योऽस्माभिन गणितः-इत्येकः प्रकारः। (२) यो वा न गणितः स शोभाकार्येव न भवतीति द्वितीयः । (३) अथ शोभाकारी भवति तर्हि अरस्मदुक्क एव गुरो वाऽलंकारे वाऽन्तभवति, नामान्तरकररो तु कियदिदं पारिडत्यम्। अथाप्युक्लेसु गुरोषु अलंकारेषु वा नान्तर्भावः, तथापि किंचिद्विशेष- लेशमाश्रित्य नामान्तरकरम्, उपमाविच्छिवितिप्रकाराणामसंख्यत्वात् तथापि · गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्कत्वाभाव एव। तावन्मात णा च कि कृतम् ? अन्यस्यापि वैचित्र्यस्य शक्योत्प्रेक्षत्वात्। चिरन्तनैर्हि भरतमुनिप्रभृतिभिर्यमकोपमे एव शब्दार्थालंकारत्वेनेष्ट, तत्प्रपश्चदिकप्रदर्शनं तु अन्यैरलंकारकारैः कृतम्। तद्यथा 'कर्मरायण' इत्यत् कुम्भकारादुदाहरणं श्रृत्वा स्यं नगरकारादिशब्दा उत्प्रेच््यन्ते। तावता क आत्मनि बहुमान :? एवं प्रकृतेऽपीति तृतीयः प्रकार: ॥"-°Locana. The first of these sub-contentions is discussed in this passage. शब्दार्थशरीरं ... काव्यम्-शब्द and अर्थ constitute the body of poetry. 'तावत्' signifies that there

UDDYOTA I 11

is complete agreement on this issue. As Abhinavagupta notes: 'तावद्ग्रहोन कस्याप्यत न विप्रतिपत्तिरिति दर्शयति।' Vide Dandin's Kavyadarsa, I. 10: "शरीरं तावदिष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली". Also, Bhamaha-'शब्दार्थौ सहितौ काव्यम्"- Kavyalaikara, I. 16. The position of these Negativists ( अभाववादिन्) might be expressed thus: All are agreed on the point that शब्द and अर्थ make up the body of poetry. And we have already recognized the elements that enhance the beauty of the poetic creation by embellishing शब्द and अर्थ. For example, figures of speech like अनुप्रास and उपमा adorn शब्द and अरथ respectively. We have recognized, too, गुणा's like माधुर्य, etc., that belong to the particular arrangement (संघटना) of words and- meanings.1 We have also heard of such urttis as उपनागरिका, etc., viz. परुषा or नागरिका, उपनागरिका or ललिता and कोमला or ग्राम्या-which, in fact, are not different from अनुप्रास and are mcrely varieties of the same and as such can be reasonably subsumed under the latter.2 Ritis like वैदर्भी, गोडी and

I That the reading संघटना० is preferable to वर्णासंघटना and is in keeping with the °Locana is quite evident from the following observation: 'संघटनाधर्मा इति। शब्दार्थयोरिति शेषः ।'-°Locana.

2 Bhāmaha recognizes two different varieties of अनुप्रास-viz. ग्राम्यानुप्रास and उपनागरिकानुप्रास ( though not mentioned by name ). Vide Kāvyālmnkāra, II. 5-6. Udbhața

12 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

पाश्चाली, that are not independent of गुणा's like माधुर्य, etc., have also come to our notice. What then is this novel element called ध्वनि, which you are striving to raise to

recognizes three different वृत्ति's-परुषा, उपपनागरिका and ग्राम्या. His definitions and illustrations of these three afa's are as follows .:-

(१) शषाभ्यां रेफसंयोगैष्टवर्गेण च योजिता। परुषा नाम वृत्तिः स्यात् हह्रह्मादैश्व संयुता ।। तत्र तोयाशयाशेषव्याकोशितकुशेशया। चकाशे शालिकिंशारुकपिशाशामुखा शरत् ।। (२) सरूपसंयोगयुतां मूर्ध्नि वर्गान्त्ययोगिमिः । स्पशैर्युतां च मन्यन्ते उपनागरिकां बुधाः ॥ सान्द्रार विन्दवृन्दोत्थमकरन्दाम्बुबिन्दुभिः ॥ स्यन्दिभि: सुन्दरस्यन्दं नन्दितेन्दिन्दिरा क्वचित् ॥। (३) शेषैर्वरार्यथायोगं कथितां कोमलाख्यया। ग्राम्यां वृत्तिं प्रशंसन्ति काव्येष्वादृतबुद्धयः ॥ केलिलोलालिमालाना कलैः कोलाहलैः क्वचित्। क़ुर्वती काननारूढश्रीनूपुररवभ्रमम् ॥ सरूपव्यञ्ञनन्यासं तिसृष्वेतासु वृत्तिषु। पृथक पृथगनुप्रासमुशन्ति कवयः सदा ॥- Udbhata's Kāvyālamkāra-Sāra-Samgraba, pp. 5-6. (Bombay Sanskrit Series Edn.). For an etymological mean- ing of the term वृत्ति, compare Locana: "तथाहि अनुप्रासानामेव दीप्त-मस्णा-मध्यमवर्णानीयोपयोगितया परषत्वललितत्व- मध्यमत्वस्वरूपविवेचनाय वर्गतयसम्पादनार्थ' तिस्न्नोऽनुप्रासजातयो वृत्तय

UDDYOTA I 13

the highest position and endeavouring to show as being quite different from the existing elements of poetry like गुरा's and अलद्दार's ?1

इत्युक्काः। वर्त्तन्ते अनुप्रासभेदा आसु इति। ... "-Abhinavagupta reminds us that Bhamaha does not mention the term afa in his treatise but recognizes only ग्राम्यानुप्रास and उपनागरिकानु प्रास, while, though it has been first used by Udbhata still he identifies the three afa's with the three different varieties of अनुप्रास. This shows that वृत्ति's are not essentially different from अनुप्रास. Vide : अनतिरिक्कत्वादेव वृत्तिव्यहारो भामहादिभिर्न कृतः। उद्भदादिभिः प्रयुक्कऽपि तस्मिान्नार्थः कश्चिदधिको हृदयपथमवतीर्णा इत्यभिप्रायेणह-गताः श्रवणगोचरम् इति।-Locana. Rudrata, however, rccognizes five different ąfa's-viz. मधुरा, प्रौढा, परुषा, ललिता and भद्रा, as against the above three mentioned by Udbhata. Namisädhu, the commen- tator, quotes a Prakrit author called Hari, who enumerates eight different वृत्ति's : तथाहि अष्टौ हरिणोक्काः। यथा-'महुर परुसं कोमलमोजस्सि निठ्ठ र च ललियं च। गंभीर सामराएं च अद्धभगिति उनायच्चा ।I"-Rudrata's Kavyalamkara, p. 17 (NSP. Edn.).

I We are to note that ancient authors like Dandin and Vāmana, etc., recognized two separate elements called u's and अलंकारs. It is in Vamana that we meet with an attempt to draw a clear-cut line of division between the two. As he states: काव्यशोभायाः कर्त्तारो धर्मा गुणाः। तदतिशय- हेतवस्तु अलंकारा: ।

14 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ANANDAVARDHANA

Thus according to these dissenters, गुणा's and अलद्कार's

alone can make a poetic art beautiful and attractive, and as

tafa can be included under neither of these two elements, it

But Dandin, who is older, seems to confound them, as Bhoja, the author of the सरखतीकराठाभरण, notes. As he remarks : "नानालंकारसंसृष्टः प्रकाराश्च रसोक्कयः" इत्युक्कम्। तत् "अलंकारसंसृष्टः" इतीयत्येव वक्कव्ये नानालंकारग्रहणं गुणारसानामुपसंग्राहर्थम्। तेषामपि हि काव्यशोभाकरत्वेन अलक्कारत्वात्। यदाह-"काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलंकारान् प्रचक्षते। ते चाद्यापि विकल्प्यन्ते कस्तान् कार्त स्न्येन वच्यति॥ काश्चिन्मागविभागार्थमुक्काः प्रागप्यलंक्रियाः । साधारणमलंकारजातमन्यत् प्रदर्श्यते ॥"-(काव्यादर्श)। तत्न 'काव्यशोभाकरान्' इत्यनेन श्लेषोपमादि- वद् गुण-रस-भाव-तदाभास-प्रशमादीनप्युपगृह्राति। मार्गविभागकृद्गुणनाम- लंक्रियोपदेशेन श्लेषादीनां गुणत्वमिवालंकारत्वमपि ज्ञापयति ॥"-Op. cit,. PP· 7°3-704 (NSP. Edn.). Vide also Tarunavācaspati's comments on Kāvyādarsa, II. 3. But Bhoja's interpretation of the Kavyadarsa text itself seems to be based on miscon- ception, and it can be explained in a way so that the distinc- tion between गुण's and अलंकार's which is so fundamental according to Dandin's view remains, as originally intended. As Vidyābhusana Pandit Rangacaryya Raddi Shastri observes in his own comm: एवं सामान्यतः अलंकारनिरूपरो प्रतिज्ञाते प्रसङ्गतः पूर्व निर्णीतानामलंकाराणां पुनर्निरूपणं पिष्टपेषणावद् विफलं स्यादिति तान् परिहृत्यैव निरूपणां क्रियते इति कथयति-काश्चिदिति। काश्चित् श्रुत्यनुप्रास- यमकादयः । अलंक्रियाः शब्दालंकाराः। मार्गविभागार्थम् गौडवेदर्भमार्गयोवै-

UDDYOTA I 15

is prima facie impossible to recognize the claim of ध्वनि to

the rank of a decorative element in poetry, and to the

highest position at that.

सदृश्यद्योतनार्थम्। प्रागपि प्रथमपरिच्छेदे। उक्काः। तत् श्रृत्यनुप्रासः ५२ श्लीकेन वृत्त्यनुप्रासः ५५ श्लोकेन यमकं च सामान्यतः ६१ श्लोकेन निर्दिष्टम्। तत्प्रयोजनं तु श्रुत्यनुप्रासो वैदभैरङ्गीकृतः न गौडैरित्यादिना मार्गभेदकथनम्। अतः तेऽलंकाराः न पुनर्निरूप्यन्ते इति भावः। अन्यत् पूर्वक्कात् अन्यत्। साधारणमुभयमार्गसमानम्। गोडवैदर्भानुमतमित्यर्थः। अलंकारजातम् स्भाव- ख्यानमुपमा इत्यादिना अग्र निरूप्यमाणोऽलंकारसमूहः। प्रदश्यते विविच्यते। यमकस्य पूर्व सामान्यतः लक्षणामुक्कम्। तद्विशेषप्रकारनिरूपणं तु-'तत् तु नैकान्तमधरमतः पश्चाद् विधास्यते।' (१.६१) इति पूर्वप्रतिज्ञानु- रोधेनैव तृतीयपरिच्छेदे सोदाहरणं प्रपश्चितमस्तीति ज्ञेयम्।-P. 114. (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Government Oriental Series, Class A, No. 4). Vide also MM. Premchand Tarkavāgīsa's comments on KD., II. 3. As for Udbhata's view, compare Rūyyaka's Alamkāra-sarvasva: उद्भटादिभिस्तु गुणालंकाराणं प्रायशः साम्यमेव सूचितम् ।-P.7. We should note also the statement of Udbhata, which has been cited by Mammața in his Kāvyaprakāsa, Chap. VIII: एवं च समवायवृत्या शौर्यादयः संयोगवृत्या हारादय इत्यस्तु गुणालकाराणां भेदः। ओजःप्रभृतीनामनुप्रासप्रभृतीनां च उभयेषां समवायवृत्त्या स्थिति :- इत्यभिधानमसत्।-According to Hemacandra this is a citation from Udbhata's भामहविवरण. Vide: इति भामहविवररो यद्भट्टोद्भटोऽभ्यधात्-काव्यानुशसनटीका, p. 17.

16 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT S४। अन्ये व्रयुः-नारत्येव ध्वनिः। प्रसिद्ध- प्रस्थानव्यतिरेकिणः काव्यप्रकारस्य काव्यत्वहानेः। सहृदयहृदयाह्ादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम्। न चोक्तप्रस्थानातिरेकिणो मार्गस्य तत् संभवति। न च तत्समयान्तःपातिनः सहृदयान् कांश्चित् परिकल्प्य तत्प्रसिद्धया ध्वनौ काव्यव्यपदेशः प्रवर्तितोऽपि सकल- विद्वन्मनोग्राहितामवलम्बते ॥

EXPOSITION §4. Others might argue: 'There is no such element as ध्वनि or suggested sense. For, to be true poetry a literary composition must conform to the prevalent poetic standards. Otherwise it would fail to charm the connoisseurs of poetic art. And ancient critics like Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana, etc., recognize as true poetry only those composi- tions which have their words ( शब्द ) and meanings (अर्थ) beautified by the गुर's and अलंकार's unanimously agreed upon. But you, who are going to posit eafar, deviate from these established standards and would not even blush to call a composition true kavya even though it might lack गुरा's and अलंकार's (as in गतोऽस्तमर्क:).1 So it is mere

I Cp. लक्षरो गुणालंकारादिनिवेशोऽपि न युक्कः। "उदितं मएडलं विधोः" इति काव्ये दूत्यभिसारिकाविरहिरायादिसमुदीरितेऽभिसरणविधि निषेधजीवना-

UDDYOTA I 17

obstinacy to assert ध्वनि to be the soul of poetry ( काव्यात्मा), as it throws overboard the recognized norms of poetic criticism.' Abhinavegupta explains the significance of the expression प्रसिद्धप्रस्थान thus: प्रसिद्धं प्रस्थानं शब्दार्थी तद्गुणालं- काराश्चति। प्रतिष्ठन्ते परम्यरया व्यवहरन्ति येन मार्गेण तत् प्रस्थानम्॥- on which Uttungodaya, the author of the sub-commentary Kaumudi on °Locana, observes: ननु वृत्तौ प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानव्यति- रिक्कत्वमेव ध्वनेरुक्कम्, न तु गुणादिव्यतिरिक्कत्वम्, अतः कथ तस्य हेतूकरणामित्याशङ्कय व्याचष्टे-प्रसिद्धमित्यादिना॥ इतिः प्रकारे, वृत्तयो रीतयश्चेत्यर्थः। कथमेषां प्रस्थानशब्दवाच्यत्वमिति तदाह-प्रतिष्ठन्त इति ॥ गमनव्यापारार्थवृत्तिरपि प्रपूवोडयं तिष्ठतिः इह सादृश्याद् शरचित्याद् वा यथायोगगमनादि प्रवर्नमानकाव्यगोचर-कविसहृदय-परम्पराव्यापार विशेषविषयो- वगन्तव्यः ; तद्गोचरत्वेन तद्धेतुत्वात् मागत्वमापाद्य च हेतुविशेषकरणार्थतया शब्दव्ृत्तिर्गमयितव्येति भाव: ॥I-Kaumudi, P. 51. उक्तप्रस्थानातिरेकिणो मार्गस्य-An oblique reference to

भावादिपरे "गतोऽस्तमर्कः" इत्यादौ च अव्याप्त्यापत्तेः। न चेदमकाव्यमिति शक्यं वदितुम्। काव्यतया पराभिमतस्यापि तथा वक्क शक्यत्वात्। काव्य- जीवितं चमत्कारित्वं चाविशिष्टमेव ॥-Jagannatha-Pandita's Rasagangadhara, p. 7 (NSP. Edn.). In this connection we might refer to the strictures of Bhamaha in his Kāvyālamkāra against compositions like 'गतोऽस्तमर्कः which he designates as mere वार्ता. Compare : गतोऽस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पच्िराः। इत्येवमादि कि काव्यं वार्त्तामेना प्रचक्षते ॥- Op. cit. 2

18 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÂNANDAVARDHANA the ध्वनिमार्ग that deviates from the time-honoured systems of poetic criticism. Abhinavagupta explains it as: नृत्तगीता- च्िनिकोचनादिप्रायस्यैत्यर्थः. If the suggested meaning (व्यङ्गय) were something different from words and meanings that are urranimously accepted by poeticians as constituents of poetry it would fall outside poetry proper, which consists of words and meanings and their properties like Tu's and अलंकार's. The extra-verbal acts or their meanings are not poetry whatever else they might be, just as dances, musical tunes, gesticutations and movements of the eyes, ogling, etc., though they communicate a meaning, agreeable or otherwise, are not instances of poetry. Thus suggestion or व्वनि being other than शब्द, अर्थ and their properties like गुणा, अलंकार, रीति and वृत्ति that are recognised as constituent elements of 15 would be reduced to the status of such extra-poetic performances as नृत्त, गीत, अच्िनिकोचन, etc., siguificent though they are in their own way, and fall outside the pale of काव्य like the latter. As Abhihavagupta puts it :- "भवत्वेवम्, तथापि नास्त्येव ध्वनिर्यादृशस्तव लिलच्िषितः। काव्यस्य ह्यसौ कश्चित् वक्कव्यः ; न चासौ गीत-नृत्त-वाद्यादिस्थानीयः काव्यस्य कश्चित्। कवनीयं काव्यम् ; तस्य भावः काव्यत्वम्। न च नृत्तगीतादि कवनीयमुच्यते॥ -°Locana. In explaining Abhinavagupta's observation नृत्तगीसाच्त as cited above with reference to ध्वनि Uttungodaya makes the following comments : "नृत्तगीतेति॥ आ्रदिशब्दे- नात्िसम्बन्धिनोऽन्ये विकारा गृह्यन्ते। प्रायशव्दस्तुल्याथः।"-Kaumudi,

UDDYOTA I 19

P. 52. Also: "तदयं प्रयोग :- विवादाध्यासितो ध्वनिर्न काव्यशब्द- गोचरो भवितुमर्हति, तद्वाच्यगुणादिव्यातिरिक्कत्वात्, नृत्तगीतादिवत् ; न च साध्यविकलो दृष्टान्तः, तेषामकवनीयत्वेन काव्यत्वाभावस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात्। -Ibid, p. 51. न च तत्समयान्तःपातिनः ... अवलम्बते-Now, the followers of the Dhvani school might confute the arguments of the Negativists by asserting that though ध्वनि might not be recognized by the opponents, yet those who are affiliated to this school and who are true सहृदय's would regard ध्वनि as the best kind of poetry, and as such it matters very little whether the opponents agree to it or not. This, the opponients state, is not the sound way of reasoning. For ध्वनि is merely a chimera, and no definition, howsover ingeniously devised it might be, can make an imagination a reality. As Abhinavagupta so humorously puts it: "ननु ये तादृशमपूर्व काव्यरूपतया जानन्ति त एव सहृदयाः। तदभिमतत्वं च नाम काव्यलक्षणाम् उक्कप्रस्थानातिरेकिए एव भविष्यतीताशङ्कयाह-न चेति। यथा हि खड़गलक्तणं करोमीत्युक्त्वा 'आतान-वितानात्मा प्राब्रिय- माणाः' सकलदेहाच्छादकः सुकुमारश्चित्रतन्तुविरचितः संवर्तन-विवर्तनसहिष्णुः अच्छेदकः सुच्छेद उत्कृष्टः खड़ग' इति ब्रवाणाः, परैः 'पटः खल्वेवंविधो भवति न खड ग'-इत्ययुक्कतया पयनुयुज्यमान एवं व्रयात्-'ईदृश एव खड़ गो ममाभिमत' इति, तादगेवैतत्। प्रसिद्धं हि ल््यं भवति न कल्पितम् इति भाव: ।"-°Locana. Vide Uttungodaya's comments on the above passage :

I. KS. reads प्राव्रियमाणसरूपः ।

20 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

आयाम: (मतो) विस्तारः आतानः, तिर्यग् विस्तारः वितानः, प्रावरणम् परिधानं तद्योग्यस्वरूपः इत्यर्थः, संवर्तनं विकासनम् ; विवर्तनं संकोचनम्- Kaumudi, p. 53. आतान etc. are properties of पट (cloth) and not of खड्ग (sword) that has totally opposite properties, and as such they cannot serve as a definition ( लक्षणा ) of the latter. Similarly, if ध्वनि be regarded as the characteristic mark of काव्य, than it would convince a particular coterie of literary connoisseurs affiliated to a particular school only. though to a vast majority of connoisseurs who disown the existence of ध्वनि it would be nothing but unmeaning jargon. As Abhinavagupta observes: "सकलविद्वदिति। विद्वांसोऽपि हि तत्समयज्ञा एव भविष्यन्तीति शङ्कां सकलशब्देन निराकरोति। एवं हि कृतेऽपि न किश्चित् कृतं स्यादुन्मत्तता परं प्रकटितेति भावः।"

TEXT ६५। पुनरपरे तस्याभावमन्यथा कथयेयु :- न सम्भवत्येव ध्वनिर्नामापूर्वःकश्चित्। कामनीयकमन- तिवर्त्तमानस्य तस्योक्तेष्वेव चारुत्वहेतुष्वन्तर्भावात्। तेषामन्यतमस्यैव वा अपूर्वेसमाख्यामात्करणे यत्किश्वन कथनं1 स्यात्। किंच वागविकल्पानामानन्त्यात सम्भवत्यपि वा कस्मिंश्चित् काव्यलक्षणविधायिभिः प्रसिद्धैरप्रदर्शिते प्रकारलेशे ध्वनिर्ध्वतिरिति यदेतदलीकसहृदयत्व- भावनामुकुलितलोचनैर्नृ त्यते, तत्र हेतु न विद्यः।

UDDYOTA I 21 सहस्रशो हि महात्मभिरन्यैरलङ्कारप्रकाराः प्रकाशिता: प्रकाश्यन्ते च। न च तेषामेषा दशा श्र्यते। तस्मात प्रवादमातं ध्वनिः। न त्वस्य क्षोदक्षमं तत्त्वं किंचिदपि प्रोकाशयितु शक्यम्। तथा चान्येन कृत एवात्र श्लोक :- यस्मिन्नस्ति न वस्तु किंचन मनःप्रह्लादि सालंकृति व्युत्पन्नै रचितं च नैव3 वचनैर्वक्रोक्तिशून्यं च यत्। काव्यं तद् ध्वनिना समन्वितमिति प्रीत्या प्रशंसस्जडो नो विझ्ोऽभिदधाति किं सुमतिना पृष्टः स्वरूपं धवनेः॥ [ I. कथितं-KS. 2. For यदेतदलीक० KS. reads तदलीक०. 3. For नैव KS. reads यत्र. ] EXPOSITION S5. Now the Dhvani theorists might argue: 'Let ध्वनि be included under गुणा's or अलंकार's. That is quite immate- rial and does not shake our position in the least. For, though ध्वनि might be regarded as one of the numerous figures of speech, still none of our predecessors had termed it as such or raised it to the position of the soul of poetic art.1 And it is for the first time that we do so, and I As Abhinavagupta puts it: ननु भवत्वसौ चारुत्वहेतुः शब्दार्थगुणालंकारान्तर्भू तक्च। तथापि ध्वनिरित्यमुया भाषया जीवितमित्यसौ न केनचिदुक्क इत्यभिप्रायमाशक्कय तृतीयमभाववादमुपन्यस्यति।-loc. cit.

22 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

as such we can reasonably claim the credit due for this innovation.' To this the Negativists ( अभाववादिन्'s) might reply: 'If you admit ध्वनि to be merely a variety of गुण or अलंकार there is no justification for raising such a hue and and cry for merely giving a new appellation to some already existing गुण or अलंकार. You might call a घट a $T, but that would not add anything to our knowledge. And if you succeed in discovering a new turn of expression or a new shade of meaning it would be only a new figure of speech. It is a fact that the list of figures is being continually swelled by the speculations of critics. But that does not warrant such a fanfare. The discovery of a new figure or the invention of a new structure of speech may be creditable indeed. But it exceeds all limits of decorum and modesty to claim that the discovery is of a major principle which escaped the notice of the ancient doctors.' तेषामन्यतस्यैव ...... स्यात्-"न तु प्रज्ञातिशयवतां 'प्राज्ञा वस्तुनि युध्यन्ति न तु सामयिके ध्वनौ' इति-नीत्या नाम्नि विवादो युक्कः ।' -Jayaratha's Vimarśinī, p. 120. किश्च. विद्यः-Even if the ancient authors failed to notice any peculiarity which you may name tafa, still it is not proper, on the part of the Dhvani theorists, to wax eloquent in self-approbation and to raise such a pother over their achievment. For as the modes of expression

UDDYOTA I 23 (वागविकल्प ) are infinitely varied,1 it is humanly impossible to exhaust the list of अलंकार's and गुर's and, as such, if a new figure of speech be discovered it does not behove one to be devoid of all sense of decorum and dance fran- tically on that account. As Dandin states: 'काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलंकारान् प्रचक्षते। ते चाद्यापि विकल्प्यन्ते कसतान् कात स्त्येन वच््यत्ति॥" -Kavyadarsa, II. 1. The reduplication in ध्वनिध्वनिरिति indicates संभ्रम on the part of the Dhvani-theorists and

I Abhinavagupta takes the expression वागविकल्प to refer to the infinite varieties of शब्द, अर्थ and अभिधा, all three being the meaning of the term वाक. As he explains: वाग- विकल्पानामिति। वक्कीति वाक शब्दः। उच्यत इति वागर्थः । उच्यतेऽनयेति वागभिधाव्यापारः। तत् शब्दार्थवचित्र्य प्रकारोऽनन्तः । अभिधावैचित्र्यप्रकारोऽप्यसंख्येयः ॥-Locana. Vide Uttun- godaya's comments thereon: इह वाकश्देन कर्तृ-कर्म-करणार्थ- व्युत्पत्र न तन्त्रवृत्या आवृत्त्या वा शब्दार्थाभिधाव्यापारास्त्रयोऽपि संगृह्यन्ते। विकल्पशव्दश्ात् न पूर्ववद् वस्तुशून्यप्रत्ययवचनः किन्तु वैचित्र्यवचनः ।"- Kaumudi, pp. 55-56. Cf. "आसंसारमुदारेः कविभिः प्रतिदिनगृहीत- सारोऽपि। अद्याप्यभिन्नमुद्रो विभाति वाचां परिष्यन्दः ॥"-Quoted by Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāmsā. Compare also Rava- gangadhara-"वागभङ्गीनां तु पर्यालोचने एकस्मिन्नेव विषयेऽनन्तंप्रकार: सम्पद्यते, किमुत विषयभेदे। यथा-"इह भवद्भिरागन्तव्यम् इति विषये 'अयं देशोऽलंकर्त्तव्यः" इति, "देशस्यास्य भाग्यान्युज्जीवनीयानी"ति, "तमांसि तिरस्करणीयानी"ति, "अस्मन्नयनयोः संतापो हरणीय" इति, "मनोरथः पूरणीय" इत्यादिः ॥"-P. 556.

24 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA

eo ipso अनादर or disrespect towards the latter on the part of the opponents. As Abhinavagupta points out: taf- ध्वनिरिति वीप्सया संभ्रमं सूचयन्ननादरं दर्शयति-on which Uttun- godaya comments : 'गच्छ गच्छ'-इत्यादिवदभिनिवेशातिशयजनित- संभ्रमसूचिकैषा वीप्सा ध्वनिवादिवचनानुकरणारूपतयाऽनुकर्त्तभाववादिगत- ध्वनिविषयमनादरमवद्योतयतीत्यर्थः ॥-Kaumudi, P. 57. The Kashi Edn. of the above Locana text, however, reads 'ध्वनिर्ध्वनि० सूचयन्नादरं दर्शयति' which appears incompatible with the context. सहस्रशो हि.प्रकाश्यन्ते च-Bharata in his Natyasastra defined only four अलंकार's-viz. उपमा, दीपक, रूपक and यमक, while writers on poetics lıke Dandin, Medhavin, Bhamaha and others discovered a good many additional figures, so that the number of figures of speech reaches well over sixty in later works like the Sabityadarpana.1 Compare also Bhamaha's statement :- इति निगदितास्तास्ता वाचामलंकृतयो मया। बहुविधकृतीर्दृष्ट्राऽन्येषां सयं परितर्क्य च ॥- Kauyalamkara, V. 69.

I So late a writer as Visvanātha himself is credited with the discovery of a new figure of speech called निश्चय which is defined as : "अन्यन्निषिध्य प्रकृतस्थापनं निश्चयः पुनः' (X. 39), and he illustrates it by-"वदनमिदं न सरोजम् ... ", etc. Note also his arguments in favour of its recognition as an altogether novel figure which he winds up with the remark: इति पृथगेवायमल कारश्चिरन्तनोक्काल कारेभ्य :- Sabitya- darpana, p. 29 ( Kane's Edn. )

UDDYOTA I 25

तस्मात् प्रवादमात्नं ... शक्यम्-So ध्वनि is merely a figment of the imagination, an empty talk and cannot stand critical test. This is the common conclusion arrived at by all the three groups of opponents of the theory of ध्वनि as stated above, whatever might be the minor differences between their respective approaches to the problem. Abhinavagupta unambiguously states: तस्मात् प्रवादमात्नमिति सर्वेषामभाववादिनां साधारण उपसंहारः। यतः शोभाहेतुत्वे गुणालंकारेभ्यो न व्यतिरिक्कः, यतश्च व्यतिरिक्कत्वे न शोभाहेतुः. यतश्व शोभाहेतुत्वेऽपि नादरास्पदं तस्मादित्यर्थः ।-Locana. Uttungodaya's remarks help to clarify the issue farther: आनन्तर्यात् तृतीयप्रकारमात्नविषयत्व प्रतीयमानमुपसंहारस्य वारयन्नाह-सर्वेषाम् इति॥ अभावरूपस्य साध्यस्य प्रकारत्येऽप्येकत्वात् आनन्त्यस्याविशिष्टत्वाददोष इति भावः। तथापि तच्छव्देन समन्तरप्रकृतानादरास्पदत्वहेतोरेव परामर्शौचित्यात् कथमुपसंहार- साधाररायं घटतामित्याशङ्क्य समर्थितोपसंहारस्यावश्यकत्वादभावमात्स्य च त्रिभिरपि प्रकार: समर्थितत्वात् तन्मुखेन प्रकृतत्वस्य हेत्वन्तरेप्यविशिष्टत्वात् तच्छन्दस्य त्रिविधाभावहेतुपरामर्शकतयोपसंहारसाधाररायं समजसमित्या- शयेनाह-यत इत्यादिना ॥-Kaumudi, PP. 58-59. तथा शोक :- The verse, as Abhinavagupta records, 1S by Manoratha, a poet and contemporary of Anandavardhana: "तथा चान्येनेति-ग्रन्थकृत्समानकालभाविना मनोरथनान्ना कविना।"1

I Compare MM. Kane's comments on this remark of Abhinavagupta : 'An additional argument for asserting that the theory of ध्वनि in poetry had been propounded before आनन्दवर्धन is this that आनन्द quotes a verse which

26 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA The verse records a sarcastic fling at the Dhvani theorists, for their departure from the traditional views on poetry. Abhinavagupta explains the verse as follows: यतो न साल कृति अतो न मनःप्रह्रादि। अनेनार्थालङ्वाराणामभाव ऊक्कः। व्युत्पत्र रचितं च यन्न वचनैरिति शब्दाल काराणाम्। वक्रोक्तिरुत्कृष्टा संघटना, तच्छून्यमिति शब्दार्थगुणानाम्। वक्रोक्तिशून्यशव्देन सामान्यलक्षणभावेन सर्वाल काराभाव उक्ल इति केचित्। तैः पुनरुक्कं न परिहृतमेवेत्यलम्॥ प्रीत्येति॥ गतानुगतिकानुरागेरोत्यर्थः ॥ सुमतिनेति॥ जडेन तु पृष्टो भ्र भङ्जकटाच्ैरेवोत्तरं ददत् तत्स्वरूपं काममाचक्ीतेति भावः ॥ Vidyādhara, in his Ekāvalī, faithfully reproduces Anandavardhana's statements recording the views of the अभावादिन्'s though in some cases he adds a few fresh arguments of his own. We give below the relevant extracts from the Ekavali : शब्दार्थवपुस्तावत् काव्यं, वपुषि च केनाप्यात्मना भवितव्यम्, आरत्मा च ध्वनिरेव, तस्य चाभावं मन्यमाना लोकायतिका इव केचन नास्ति ध्वनि- रित्याचक्ते। ...... ननु ध्वनिर्नास्तीति प्रतिज्ञाविरोधः । ध्वनिरित्यनेन विधिः नास्तीत्यनेन च निषेधः, तयोश्ष परस्परविरुद्धयोरेकस्मिन् धर्मिणि तिमिरात- पयोरिव सहानवस्थानदुःस्थयोरेव निवारितत्वात। न चात्र विरोधपरिहार- the लोचन ascribes to मनोरथ, a contemporary of आनन्द° in which the theory of ध्वनि is ridiculed-'काव्यं तङ्ुनिना ...... ध्वने: ।' Vide राजतर (IV. 497 ) for मनोरथ and others and IV. 67I-"मानी मनोरथो मन्त्री परं परिजहार तम्." The सुभा (51, 58, 440 ) quotes verses of a मनोरथ. If this मनोरथ is identical with the मनोरथ who flourished in the reign

UDDYOTA I 27

प्रयोजकयोः देशकालयोरन्यतरस्याप्युपादानमस्ति येन विरोधः समाधीयेत। किं च प्रतीतः प्रतिषिध्यते ध्वनिरप्रतीतो वा। आद्येऽपि "क्वचिन्नास्ति", "क्वचिदपि नास्ती"-ति वा। प्रथमे सिद्धसाधनम्। अरस्माभिरपि ध्वनेः क्वाचित्कनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वस्याभ्युपगतत्वात्। न द्वितीयः । प्रतीतस्य सार्वत्रिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वे व्याघातात् ।। अथ लब्धसत्ताक एव ध्वनिस्तथापि यदि न करोति काव्यस्य कामनीयकम्, तर्हि किमनेन अजागलस्तनायमानेन। उतख्वित् करोति, तर्हि गुणालंकारान्तर्भत एव। तथाविधस्य च नामान्तर- कररो नैपुएां कियन्नाम। अ्रतानुमानमपि। व्यतिरिच्यते। चारुताहेतुत्वात्। यदेभ्यो व्यतिरिच्यते न तच्चारुताहेतुः । अविमृष्टविधेयांशादिदोषवत्। चारुताहेतुश्च ध्वनिः। ततो न व्यतिरिच्यते तेभ्यः-इति॥ ननु गुणालंकारव्यतिरिक्का अपि रीतयो वृत्तयश्च यथा चारुताहेतवस्तथैव ध्वनिरपि भवतीति चेदुच्यते तत् विचारानुगुराम्। गुणातिमेकणोपजातमहिमानः कथमपि न भवन्ति रोतयः। वृत्तयस्तावत् अलंकारान्तभूता एव परुष-मधुर-मध्यमार्थनिरूपणाय दीप्त-मसण-मध्यमवर्णा- रब्धानां तासामनुप्रासजातिरूपतयाऽम्युपगमात् चारुत्वविधायिनः संभवतोऽपि सामान्यलक्षरोनव परिगृहीतत्वात् चिरन्तनैः पृथकत्वेनाप्रदशितस्य गुणालंकारयो- रन्यतरस्य कस्यचित् ध्वनिरिति पारिभाषिकं नामान्तरं विधाय यदेतन्नि- रतिशयतकताटङ्वितशेमुषीकत्वमात्मनः ताराडवयितुमुद्युजते भवन्तस्तत्न को वेद किं निमित्तमिति ॥-Op. cit., pp. 23-29. (Bombay Sanskrit Series Edn. )

of जयापीड ( which does not look likely ) the ध्वनि- कारिका's were composed between 800-815. Perhaps the लोचन is somewhat wrong in making आनन्द a contem- porary of मनोरथ' -History of Alamkara Literature, LXIV.

28 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT ६६। भाक्तमाहुस्तमन्ये। अन्ये तं ध्वनिसंज्ञितं काव्या- त्मानं गुणवृत्तिरित्याहु:। यद्यपि च ध्वनिशब्दसंकीर्त्तनेन काव्यलक्षण- विधायिभिर्गुणवृत्तिरन्यो वा न कश्चित् प्रकारः प्रकाशित:, तथापि अमुख्यवृत्त्या2 काव्येषु व्यवहारं दश्यता ध्वनिमार्गो मनाक्स्पृष्टाऽपि न लक्षित इति परिकल्प्यैवमुक्तम्-"भाक्तमाहुस्तमन्ये" इति॥

[ I :KS. reads गुणवृत्तिमाहुः 2 गुणावृत्त्या-KS. 3 लक्ष्यते-KS. 1

EXPOSITION 8 6. It is to be noted that the लिट form जगदुः is used in the karika-viz. 'काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति-'with reference to the अभाववाद, while the Present Indicative (लट) form 'आरहुः' is used in connection with the भाक्कवाद. This may appear to some to be due to inadvertence on the part of the author. But Abhinavagupta with his keen critical insight justifies this difference in usage in the following words :- 'अभाववादस्य संभावनाप्राणत्वेन भूतत्वमुक्कम्। भाक्ववादस्त्वविच्छिन्नः पुस्तकेषु-इत्यभिप्रायेण 'भाक्कमाहुरिति' नित्यप्रघत्तवर्त्तमानापेक्षतयाभिघानम्।' See also Uttungodaya's comments thereon : 'कारिका- यामभाववादविषये जगदुरिति लिटः प्रयोग: ; भाक्कवादे पुनराहुरिति

UDDYOTA I 29

वर्त्तमानार्थस्य लटः; तत्र कोऽभिप्राय इत्यपेक्षायामाह-अभाववादस्येति। उक्तमिति॥ जगदुरित्यनेनेति शेषः। अरविच्छिन्नो वर्तमानतया स्थित एव पुस्तकेषु लक्षणाकारविरचितेषु लक्षणाग्रन्थेषु इत्यर्थः। तेन नाभाववाद- वदस्य भूतत्वमिति आहुरिति वर्त्तमानकालावच्छेदनिर्देशो निर्दोषः इत्यर्थः। -Kaumudi, p. 62. Here Abhinavagupta seems to anticipate one of the charges of Mahimabhatta and justify the use of आहुः in the Present Indicative as against जगदुः and ऊचुः in the Perfect. Compare : कालविशेषप्रक्रमभेदश्वात्ावगन्तव्यो जगदुरूचुरिति कांलविशेषस्य प्रकान्तस्यानिर्वाहात्-Vyaktiviveka, Vimarsa II, P· 396 ( Kāshi Sans. Series Edn. ). भाक्तम्-भक्कि+अण. भक्नि is used here as a synonym of लक्षणा and गौणी, which are two different वृत्ति's according to the Mimamsakas. It is explained by Abhinavagupta to refer to both: (१) भज्यते सेव्यते पदारथेन प्रसिद्धतया उत्प्रेच््यते इति भक्किधर्मः अभिधेयेन सामीप्यादिः। तत आगतो भाक: लाक्षणिकोऽर्थः । यदाह-"अभिधयेन सामीप्यात् सारूप्यात् समवायतः। वैपरीत्यात क्रियायोगात् लक्षणा पञ्चधा मता ॥" इति। (२) गुणासमुदायव्रत्तेः शब्दस्यार्थभागस्तैचरायादिर्भक्किः। तत आगतो गौणोरऽर्थो भाक्कः॥ भक्ि: प्रतिपादये सामीप्य-तैच्रयादौ श्रद्धातिशयः। तां प्रयोजनत्वेन उद्दिश्य आरगतो भाक्क: इति गौणो लाक्षणिकश्च॥ मुख्यस्य चार्थस्य भङ्गो भक्तिः-इति॥ एवं मुख्यार्थबाधा निमित्तं प्रयोजनमिति तयसद्भाव उपचारबीजमित्युक्कं भवति ॥ -°Locana.1

I It is to be noted that Kumārila in his Tantra- vārttika on Šabara's Bhāsya on JS. 1. 4. 23. distinguishes between लक्षणा and गौणो as two separate functions. We

30 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Uttungodaya very clearly brings out the purport of the . Locana-text thus : "श्रद्धातिशयरूपाया भक्कहेतोरागतः गौणो लाक्षणिकश्च शब्द इति शेषः। सत्येवं हि न पुनरुक्कत्वम् अपेत्तितत्वाच्चवमेव

quote here the passage, though somewhat long, for easy reference: " ...... अत तु सर्वगौणवत्तीनां लक्षणामुच्यते। ननु च सहचरण-स्थानादीनि अन्यान्यपि अक्षपादप्राभृतिभिः (Vide Gautama's Nyaya-Sutra) गीणनिमित्तानि उक्कानि। लोके च दृश्यते-यष्टीः प्रवेशय, मश्चाः क्रोशन्ति, अश्वसहस्त्रणामुको राजा जित इति। तान्युप- संहर्त्तव्यानि। लिङ्गसमवायेनेवोपसंहृतानीति केचित्। छत्तिसमवेतेतर- प्रत्ययवद्धि यष्टिसहचरितादिप्रत्ययो भवति। अथवा गौराया वत्तरिह निमित्त- मभिधीयते, न लक्षणायाः। किंचानयोर्भेदोऽप्यस्ति। वाढमस्ति। कुतः ? -"अभिधेयाविनाभूते प्रतीतिर्लक्षरोष्यते। लक्ष्यमारागुणर्योगाद् वृत्तेरिष्टा तु गोणता।" तत् यथैवाकृतिवचनः शब्दस्तत्सहचरितां व्यक्तिं लक्षयति तथव यष्टिमश्चाश्वादयः तत् संबद्धपुरुषलक्षणार्था भवन्ति। 'अ्रन्निर्माणावक' इति तु नाग्नित्वाविनाभावेन माणवकः प्रतीयते। किं तर्हि-'वह्नित्वलत्ि- तादर्थाद् यत् पैङ्गल्यादि गम्यते। तेन माावके बुद्धिः सादृश्यादुपजायते॥ सर्वत्र च तत्सिद्धिकरादौ इयमेव प्रस्तरप्रभृतौ यजमानादिशव्दानां वृत्तिरिति त उदाहृता: ॥-Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 354. ( Anandastama Sansk it Series Edn.). Comp. "तत्सिद्धि-जाति-सारूप्य-प्रशंसा- लिङ्ग-भुमभि। षड्भिः सर्वत्र शब्दानां गौणी वृत्तिर्व्यवस्थिता ।"-Cited in the Jaiminīya-nyayamālā-vistara of Mādhavācārya. Mammata, in his Kāvyaprakāsa, Chap. II, cites Kumārila's definition of लक्तरा. But he seems to have an erroneous idea as to the interpretation of the kārika, for he cites it in support of the view that लक्षणा and गौणी are but variants

UDDYOTA 1 31

व्याख्यानं गरीयः। एवं निमित्तप्रयोजनगोचरतया 'भज सेवायाम्' इति धातोः भक्किशव्दसिद्धयङ्गीकारेणा व्यांख्याय मुख्यार्थबाधविषयतया "भओो आमर्दे" इति धातोस्तत्सिद्धिमुपजीव्य भक्किशब्दं व्युत्पादयति-मुख्यस्य

of the self-same function, which as will be seen from the extract from the Tantra-varttika, is just the reverse of what Kumārila held. His commentators, too, failed to notice this incogruency and had obviously no idea of the context in which the karika was originally read. For example, Candidasa observes: उक्कं चान्यत्रति। लक्षणातो भिन्ना गौणीति ये मन्यन्ते तन्मतं रिक्कतरमिति सूचनपरम् ।-P. 50 (Saraswati Bhavana Texts, Ed. by Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya, M.A.). The reason why Kumarila considered गौणी to be different from लक्षणा seems to have been this, that while सामीप्य, विरोध, समवाय, etc., are all primary relations (साक्षात्संवन्ध), सादृश्य or similarity, according to the Bhattas, is merely a derivative one ( परम्परासंबन्ध)-viz. तद्धिन्नत्वे सति तद् गतभूयो- धर्मवत्त्वं सादृश्यम्-and as such in गौर्वाहीक:, etc., the secondary sense is indirectly conveyed. For example, the term 1f:, first of all, conveys by अभिधा or denotation गोत्व, as accor- ding to Mīmamsakas all terms have universal connotation (cf. "संकेतितश्चतुर्भेदो जात्यादिर्जातिरेव वा"- Kauyaprakasa), which by, Indication ( लक्षणा) conveys the idea of जडत्व and मान्य, which on their part again convey, by a second लक्षणा, their substratum or आधार-the वाहीक. Thus, in fact, गौणी is idential with लत्तितलक्षणा as in द्विरेफ. Compare :

32 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA

चेति॥ गङ्गास्त्रोत-आदेः। इहापि तत इत्यादेरनुषङ्गो द्रष्टव्यः। कथित- व्याख्याप्रकारस्य फलमाह-एवमिति॥ भङ्गार्थव्याख्यानस्य मुख्यार्थबाधारूप- बीजसिद्धिः फलम्, सेवाभागार्थव्याख्यानस्य निमित्तसिद्धिः, श्रद्धातिशयार्थ-

"लच्ितलक्षणा हि गौणी"-Nayana-prasadini on Citsukhi, p. 152 ( NSP. Edn. ). Candīdāsa, with apparent good reason, endeavours to show that the distinction between लक्षणा and गौरी is more technical and scholastic than real. We quote here the following extracts from his commentary on the Kauya-prakasa : ननु गौर्वाहीक इव्यादावपि वाहीकादेर्गोतादात्म्यादिरेव शरपरविवेकित्वाद्यतिशयप्रतीतिफलोपासनीया। गवादिभेदराहित्यमात्नप्रतीतौ हि गोगतधर्मादिसदृशधर्माधिकर णत्वमात्रप्रतीतिफलायां "गोसदशो वाहीक" इत्यादि प्रयोगनिर्विशेषत्वम् न च तद्भेदप्रत्ययस्थगनादेव तद्धर्मातिशयप्रत्यय इति न्याय्यम्। न चेवंविध-युक्किप्रसरनिषेधे प्रकृतेऽपि जागर्त्ति अ्रज्ञाडिरिड- माराव: (?)। तस्मात् अलीक एव एतावान् उपचारकेतव विवेचनाय प्रयास इति चेत् । सत्यम् एतत्। किन्तु प्राचीनप्रशायमनुरुन्धानेन ग्रन्थकृता इत्थमभिहितम्। वस्तुतस्तु सम्बन्धस्वरूपभेदमाश्रित्य कथश्चित् निर्वाह्यो गौणशुद्धविभाग इति। एतच्च संबन्धभेदमातात् वत्तिभेदाङ्गीकारोऽतिप्रसजक इति मत्वा लक्षणायामेव गौणीमन्तर्भाव्य परिगरायता सूक्ष्मद्दशाSसत्ितमेव मन्तव्यम्। सर्वथेवाभेदाध्यासक्च प्रयोजनमिति च साध्यवसानगौरो वक्यति। यद्वा सन्बन्धान्तरं लच्यलक्षकयोः साक्षात् दत्तपदं भवति, सादृश्यं तु गोवाही- कादेधर्मसाजात्यरूपं न तथा इति गौणशुद्धव्यपदेशः ॥-Op. cit., pp. 48-49. Also: जातिमात्रमभिधाविषय इति नये लक्ष्यमाणस्यात्तिप्य- माणखलक्षणास्य ये गुणाः, यद्वा लक््यमाणा मुख्यार्थविशेषतया प्रतीयमाना ये गुरास्तद्योजनात् सजातीयगुरावरवलक्षणात् सादृश्यात् उज्जीविताया वृत्तगौंयातेति। साक्षात्सम्बन्धराहित्यात् गौणी न लक्ष्यत इत्यथः।

UDDYOTA I 33

व्याख्यानस्य प्रयोजनम्-समग्रोपचारबीजसूचकत्व भाक्कशब्दस्य प्रदर्शयितुम् इत्थ' वितत्य व्याख्यानमस्माभिः कृतमिति, काव्यात्मानं गुरावृत्तिमित्यनेनैव व्याख्यातप्रायत्वाद आनर्थक्यं नाशक्कनीयम् इत्यमिप्रायः ॥-Kaumudi, P. 64.

नन्वेतावता च वैषम्यं नात्यन्तवैजात्यावहम्। तथाहि मुख्यार्थबाध-सम्बन्ध- रूढि-प्रयोजनान्यतरानुरोधस्तावत् उभयत् समानः। साक्षादसाक्षारवेन सम्बन्धमात्नवैचित्यं किंचिदवान्तरवैधर्म्यमाधत्ते इति लक्षणाविशेष एव गौणी।। -loc. cit. The following extract from Appayya Dīksita's Vrtti-varttika would be found useful : तत्सादृश्येन प्रतिपादकत्व- रूपा गौरायपि लक्षणाप्रभेद एव, तत्सदृशेऽपि तन्निरूपित-सादृश्याधिकरणत्व- परम्परासंबन्धस्वात्। नहि साक्षात्संबन्धे विशिष्टबुद्धियोग्यसंबन्धे वा सत्येव लक्षरोति नियमः। चन्तुरादेर्घटनेल्यादिषु संपुक्कसमवायादिवद् विशिष्टबुद्धययोग्यस्य परम्परासंबन्धस्यापि प्रत्यासत्तित्वोपपत्तेः। व्यतिरेक- लक्षणास्थले तन्निरूपित-विरोधाधिकरणत्वादिपरम्परासंबन्धमात्रणा तादृशेन लक्षणाक्लृप्तेश्व। एतेन-"सादृश्यं न संबन्धः" इति गोणी लक्षणातो भिन्ना, विशिषधीयोग्यस्यैव संबन्धत्वात्। संयोगे सति "दराडी देवदत्त" इतिवत्, सादृश्ये "सिंहवान् देवदत्त" इति विशिष्टवुद्धेरदर्शनात्-इति निरस्तम्। विशिष्टबुद्धयनियामकपरंपरासंबन्धमात्नस्य प्रत्यासत्तित्वोपपत्तेस्तावता लक्षणाक्लृप्तेश्व दर्शितत्वात्। तस्मात् सादृश्यगर्भ-तदन्यसंबन्धनिमित्ततया गौणी शुद्धा चेति लक्षणाया एव द्वैविध्यम्॥-Op.cit.,p.18 (NSP. Edn.). Madhusūdana Saraswatī, however, in his Vedānta- kalpalatika supports the Mīmāmsaka view differentiating गौणी from लक्षणा. We cite below his illuminating observa- tions : शक्यवृत्तिलच्यमाणगुणासंबन्धो गौणी। यथा 'सिंहो माणवक' इत्यत् सिंहपदस्य सिंहवृत्तिशार्यादिगुशालक्षरास्य तद्वति मागवके वृत्तिरिति। अ्रत

3

34 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA अन्ये-Refers to Udbhata, Vamana, etc. Udbhata, in his gloss on Bhamaha's Kāvyālamkāra-called Bhāmaha-vivarana, a work no longer extant-recognized लक्षणा as a separate function of words. Cf. भामहेनोक्कम् "शब्दश्छन्दोऽभिधानार्थाः" (काव्यालं० I. 9) इति। अभिधानस्य शब्दाद् भेदं व्याख्यातु भट्टोद्भटो वभाषे-"शब्दानाममिधानम् अभिधाव्यापारो मुख्यो गुरावृत्तिश्" इति।

It is clear from the extracts from Bhamaha, Udbhata and Vamana that they recognised only two different functions (व्यापार) of words (शन्द)-one मुख्य which is. generally called अभिधा and the other अमुख्य or गौणा or गुरावृत्ति which included both लक्षणा and गौणी within its scope. Thus, in their view, words had two functions-primary and secondary, and two meanings corresponding to them- primary and secondary. Compare Kaumudī on the above Locana text : अभिधानशब्दोऽयं नाभिधायकशब्दवचनः ; किंतु

एव लक्षणा गौणीतो बलवती, गौराया वृत्तिद्वयात्मकत्वात्। तदुक्कम्- "अभिधेयाविनाभूते"ति। ...... गौरायास्तु वृत्तिद्वयात्मकत्वात् न लक्षणाया- मन्तर्भावः । न च सादृश्यसंबन्धेन सिंहपदस्य माणवके वृत्तिर्लक्षणौवेति साम्प्रतम् , सादृश्यस्य शाब्दबोधे भानाभावप्रसज्जात्, शक्यसंबन्धस्य खोपस्थाप- कत्वाभावात्, संबन्धिभानाथ मेव तस्य वृत्तित्वाभ्युपगमात्। तस्मात् लक्षणावैलक्षरायात्, अतिरिक्कैव वृत्तिगौ णीति चतुरस्म् ... व्यअ्जनाख्याSपरा वृत्तिरित्यालंकारिकाः। ते तु गौणी लक्षणामध्येऽन्तर्भाव्य मुख्या लक्षणा व्यञ्जना चेति तविध्यमाचतते ॥-Cp. cit., pp. 39-41. (Saraswati Bhavana Texts, Benares.)

UDDYOTA I 35

तद्व्यापारस्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिकार्यावगम्यस्य परिस्पन्दादिविलत्षणास्य मुख्य-गुणवृत्ति- भेदमिन्नस्याभिधाख्यस्यायमभिधायक इति न पुनरुक्तिरित्यथः॥-loc. cit. Thus, these authors had made a distinct and appreciable advance upon the so-called Negativists who recognized only अभिधा as the sole function of words and वाच्यार्थ as the only possible sense, since in accepting Indication ( लक्षणा) as an additional function they had just touched the fringe of Suggestion (ध्वनि). For, लक्षणा, to be valid, must either be based on रूढि or have some प्रयोजन. And in a प्रयोजनमूला लक्षणा, the प्रयोजन must always be conveyed by Suggestion.1 Though Udbhata, Vamana and others had no idea of the existence of Suggestion in a case of लक्षणा, still by recognizing लक्षणणा,based on प्रयोजन (which they thought to fall within the purview of the self-same function), they advanced a step further towards the recognition of saT as a separate function and व्यक्यार्थ as different from वाच्यार्थ. यद्यपि ...... प्रकाशित :- It might be argued that though Udbhata, Vamana, etc., recognized भक्ति or लक्षणा as an additional function, still it is erroneous to hold that they

I Vide: लक्षणामार्गावगाहित्वं तु ध्वनेः सहृदयैर्नतनतयोपवर्णितस्य विद्यत इति दिशमुन्मीलयितुमिदमत्नोक्कम्। एतच विद्वद्धिः कुशाग्रीयया बद्धया निरूपणोयम्। न तु मगित्येवासयितव्यम् इत्यलमतिप्रसंगेन । -Mukulabhatta's Abhidbāvrttimātrkā, p. 21 (NSP. Edn.). Mukulabhatta was the teacher of Pratīharenduraja, the commentator of Udbhata's Kavyālamkāra-sāra-samgraha.

36 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

equated it with ध्वनि or व्यज्जना for no such term as ध्वनि or व्यज्जना is to be met with in their works, So it is misrepresenting them to state-"काव्यात्मानं गुवृत्तिरित्याहुः". To this the Dhvanikara answers, that all this is true. But as they recognized only two functions-viz. अभिधा and लक्षणा, and as अभिधा conveyed only the primary sense (मुख्यार्थ), it is an a priori conclusion that all other senses should be conveyed by लक्षणा, and as व्यक्रथार्थ too is different from the primary sense, it, too, must be subsumed under the लक्ष्य sense. Thus, according to these authors लच््य and व्यङ्षय senses stand on the same footing, and it is from this standpoint that Anandavardhana represents them as having equated भक्ति with ध्वनि. Compare Locana: गुणाा: सामीप्यादयो धर्मास्तैच्रयादयश्च। तरुपायैर्वृत्तिरर्थान्तरे यस्य, तैरुपायैवृत्तिर्वा शब्दस्य यत्र स गुणावृत्तिः शब्दोरऽर्थो वा। गुराद्वारेण वा वर्त्तनं गुरावृत्तिरमुख्योऽभिधाव्यापारः। एतदुक्कं भवति-ध्वनतीति वा, ध्यन्यत इति वा, ध्वननमिति वा यदि ध्वनिः, तथाऽपि उपचरितशब्दार्थ- व्यापारातिरिक्को नासौ कश्वित्। मुख्याथे हि अभिधव इति पारिशेष्यात् अरमुख्य एव ध्वनिः, तृतीयराश्यभावात्।1 Thus according to the upholders of the भक्किवाद, व्यजकशब्द=लक्षणिकशब्द ; व्यक्थार्थ=लक्ष्यार्थ ; and व्यज्नाव्यापार =लक्षणाव्यापार.

1. Compare: व्यङ्गयेन रहिता रूढौ सहिता तु प्रयोजने। Kauya-prakasa, II. Also : यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातुं व्यज्जना समपास्यते। फले शब्दकगम्येऽत व्यजनान्नापरा क्रिया॥-Zbid. For a refutation of the view that प्रयोजन too is conveyed by लक्षणाा, see infra.

UDDYOTA I 37

तथापि ........... मनाकस्पृष्टोऽपि न लक्षितः-Abhinava- gupta explains the statement as: तैस्तावद् ध्वनिदि- गुन्मीलिता। यथालिखितपाठकैस्तु स्वरूपविवेकं कर्त्तुमशक्नुवद्धिस्तत् - स्वरूपविवेको न कृतः, प्रत्युतोपालभ्यते, अ्रभम्ननारिकेलवत् यथाश्रुततद्- ग्रन्थोद्रहणामात्नेरोति। अत एवाह-परिकल्प्यवमुक्तमिति॥ यद्येवं न योज्यते तदा ध्वनिमार्गः स्पृष्टः इति पूर्वपक्षविधानं विरुध्यते ॥-Locana. The purpose of this passage has been brought out clearly in the Kaumudi thus: गुराव्ृत्तिव्यवहारदर्शनात् ध्वनिमार्गस्पर्शे सत्येव तत्सरूपविवेकाकरणात् भक्तिरेव ध्वनिः, न तदतिरिक्क इति तदभि- प्रायमुक्किपर्यन्तमुररीकृत्यायं भाक्कवादः प्रवृत्त इत्यर्थः । लक्षणाकरयायोग्यत्वे सति तदनुपलन्धिलक्षणा-प्रमाणगम्यत्वेनोपपादिते भक्कयतिरिक्कध्वन्यर्थामाव- रूपेऽर्थ वृत्तिगतं परिकल्प्येति पदमनुकूलयति-अत एवेति॥ नन्वत्र ध्वनिमार्गविस्पृष्टत्व न दृश्यत इति प्रतीयमानमर्थमपहाय किमित्येवं कृच्छाव- बोधार्थस्वीकरणामित्याशङ्कयाह-यद्येवमिति। भक्तिरेव ध्वनिः। न तु तदतिरिक्क इति हि पूर्वपन्षोऽत्र दिदर्शयिषितः। तस्योद्भटादिना खग्रन्थेषु ध्वनिमार्गास्पर्शे केवल गुणवृत्ति-व्यवहारमात्करणे विरोधः स्यात्, योग्यानुप- लब्धेरभावोपस्थापकस्य तदानीमनुद्भावितत्वात्। यथोह्मप्रकारे तु व्याख्याने बलापादननिबन्धना तदुक्तिः शक्योपपादा स्यादित्येषेव अ्रन्थयोजना गरोयसीत्यर्थः ॥-Op. cit., p. 70.

TEXT ६७। केचित् पुनर्लेक्षणकरण-शालीनबुद्धयो ध्वनेस्तत्त्वं गिरामगोचरं सहृदय-हृदय-संवेद्यमेव समाख्यातवन्तः । तेनैवंविधासु विमतिषु स्थितासु सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपं ब्र मः॥

38 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION § 7. Anandvardhana here puts forth the view of the अनिर्वचनीयवादिन्'s. Shy as they are in formulating any accurate definition, they posit that the true essence of Suggestion is inexplicable and can be ill defined by words, and it can only be relished by the connoisseurs of poetic art only through personal experience. शालीन-बुद्धयः= अप्रगल्भमतय :- Locana .= "of bashful intellect". For the derivation of the form शालीन, note Panini's Sutra: 'शालीन- कौपीने अधृष्टाकार्ययोः' (V. 2. 20). Abhinavagupta sums up admirably the relative pesition of these three opponents of the Dhvani theory in the following extract :- "एते च त्य उत्तरोत्तर' भव्यबुद्धयः। प्राच्या हि विपर्यस्ता एव सर्वथा। मध्यमास्तु तद्रपं जानाना अपि सन्देहेनापह्न वते'। अन्त्यास्तु अनपह् वाना2 अपि लक्षयितु न जानते-इति कमेणा विपर्यास-सन्देहाज्ञान -. प्राधान्यमेतेषाम्"4-°Locana, pp.33-34. Thus in the case of the अभाववादिन्'s विपर्यास or विपर्यय ( complete ignorance as to the nature of ध्वनि) prevails ; in the case of भाक्कवादिन्'s संदेह or संशय (doubt) as regards the existence of ध्वनि is the predominant feature, while the अनिर्वचनीयवादिन्'s are prevented out of ignorance (अज्ञान) from formulating a logical definition of ध्वनि though

I KS. reads निह्ह वते for अरवह्द वते। 2 अनिह्ध वाना :- KS.

3 विपर्यय-KS. 4 मेषाम्-KS.

UDDYOTA I 39

admitting its existence. Uttungodaya clearly points out how each subsequent viewpoint is preferable to that immediately preceding it thus :-

सर्वापेक्षयात्यन्तापकर्षो दर्शितः। सन्देहस्य जिज्ञासाप्रसञ्जकतया भाक्कवादिनां तत् प्रधानत्वाभिधानात् शिक्षाधिकारयोग्यतया तेषामभाववाद्यपेत्षयोत्कर्षो दशितः। अन्त्यानां तु वस्तुतत्वावबोधतां लक्षणकरणामातविषयमेवाज्ञानं न वस्तुत्त्त्वविषयम ; तच्च सुखोच्छेदमिति तेषां सर्व्वपूर्वापेत्षयोत्कर्षः । ध्वनिवाद्यपेक्षया कियानप्यपकर्ष इति दशितम्। अतश्च सिद्धान्तपक्षानन्तरित- पूर्वभूमित्वादन्त्यपक्षस्य तदारोहे सति सभ्यगभूतध्वनित्त्वदर्शनमयन्नलभ्यमधि- कारिधियः सिद्धमित्येतत् क्रमेरोत्यनेन द्योतितम् ॥"-Kaumudi, loc. cit., pp.71-72. तेनैवंविधासु विमतिषुब्रम :- 'As there are so many divergent views regarding the nature of Suggestion, we are going to expound the theory for the delectation of the connoisseurs. Anandavardhana uses the same word 'विमति' in the following arya verse as summing up his views in his vrtti on Dhvanyāloka, Uddyota III: - विभतिविषयो य आ्रसीन्-मनीषिणां सततमविदितसतखवः। ध्वनिसंज्ञितः प्रकार: काव्यस्य व्यजितः सोऽयम् ॥ -PP· 457-58 (Kashi Edn. ). विमति := विरुद्धा मतिः= विप्रतिपत्ति := संशय := doubt based upon a conflict of views. Every logical discussion, according to Naiyāyikas, must be preceded by an account of the different views of the various contending parties, which give rise to doubt (संशय) as to the true nature of the thing to be

40 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

discussed, and as such संशय, according to them, is the conditio sine qua non in all sorts of serious disquisition. Compare : 'यत्र संशयस्तत्र वमुत्तरोत्तरप्रसङ्ग:' -Nyaya-Sutra, II. I. 7: 'यत्र यत्र संशयपूर्विका परीक्षा शास्त्र कथारयो वा, तत् तत्नवं संशये परेणा प्रतिषिद्धे समाधिर्वाच्य इति। अतः सर्व-परीक्षा-व्यापित्वात् प्रथमं संशयः परीक्ित इति।'-Vatsyayana-Bhasya thereon. Note also Abhinava- gupta's Locana : 'तेनेति-एककोऽप्ययं विप्रतिपत्तिरूपो वाक्यार्थो निरूपरो हेतुत्व प्रतिपद्यते'-P. 34. The view of the अनिर्वचनीयवादिन्'s seems to to very beautifully expressed in the following verse attributed to Vijjaka : 'कवेरभिप्रायमशब्दगोचरं स्फुरन्तमार्द्रषु पदेषु केवलम्। वदद्भिरङ्ग : स्फुट रोमविक्रियैर्जनस्य तूष्शीम्भवतोऽयमजलिः ॥'

TEXT 8८। तस्य हि ध्वने: स्वरूपं सकल-सत्कवि-काव्यो- पनिषद्भूतम् अतिरमणीयम् अणीयसीभिरपि चिरन्तन- काव्यलक्षण-विधायिनां बुद्धिभिरनुन्मीलितपूर्वम् अथ च रामायण-महाभारत-प्रभृतिनि लक्ष्ये सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धव्यवहारं लक्षयतां सहृदयानामानन्दो मनसि लभतां प्रतिष्ठाम् इति प्रकाश्यते॥

EXPOSITION 58. तस्य हि ... लभतां प्रतिष्ठाम्-Construe the sentence as तस्य हि ध्वने: स्रूपं लक्षयतां सहृदयानां मनसि आ्नन्दः प्रतिष्ठां लमताम्, the expressions सकलसत्कविकाव्योपनिषद्भूतम्, अतिरमणीयम्,

UDDYOTA I 41

अणीयसीभिरपि ... अनुन्मीलितपूर्वम्, रामायणा ... प्रसिद्धव्यवहारम्, being all qualifying adjuncts of ध्वनेः स्वरूपम्. The संगति (i.e., construction ) of the urtti passage has been very clearly re-stated by Abhinavagupta :- तस्य हीति। विमतिपदपतितस्येत्यर्थः । ध्वनेः स्वरूपं लक्षयतां सम्बन्धिनि मनसि हृदये आनन्दो निर्वृत्यात्मा चमत्कारापरपर्यायः प्रतिष्ठां परैर्विपर्यासाद्युपहतरनुन्मील्यमानत्वेन स्थेमानं लभतामिति प्रयोजनं सम्पादयितु तत्स्वरूपं प्रकाश्यत इति संगतिः ॥'-°Locana. "The essence of Dhvani is being expounded for the pleasure of the connoisseurs who are ever intent upon seeing it defined." सकल ...... भूतम्-the secret essence of all true poetic creations. 'उपनिषद्भूतम्' has been explained by the author of the Balapriya, a sub-commentary on °Locana as follows :- 'उपनिषद्भूतेति। काव्यतरवानभिज्ञर्द्जञयत्वादतिरहस्यभूतेत्यर्थः ।'-ibid., P. 37. Abhinavagupta brings out the significance of the qualifying clauses, which, in his opinion, are directed towards the confutation of the principal charges of the five rival theories respectively as recorded above. Compare: - "तत्स्रूपशब्दं व्याचक्ाणः संक्षपेण तावत् पूर्वोदीरितविकल्पपश्चकोद्धररं सूचयति-सकलेत्यादिना। सकलशव्देन च 'प्रकारलेशे कस्मिंश्चित्' इति निराकरोति। अतिरमणीयम्-इति भाक्काद व्यतिरेकमाह। नहि 'सिंहो वटुः' 'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यत् रम्यता काचित्। उपनिषद्भूत-शब्देन तु 'अपूर्वसमाख्यामात्नकरण' इत्यादि निराकृतम्। अणीयसीभिरित्यादिना गुणालंकारानन्तर्भूतत्व® सूचयति। अथचेत्यादिना 'तत्समयान्तःपातिनः' इत्यादिना यत् सामयिकत्व शङ्कितं तन्निरवकाशीकरोति। रामायण-

42 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

महाभारत-शब्देन आदिकवेः प्रभृति सवे रेव सूरिभिरस्यादरः कृत इति दर्शयति। लक्षयताम्-इत्यनेन 'वाचां स्थितमविषय'-इति परास्यति। लच्यतेऽनेनेति लक्षो लक्षणाम्। लक्षेण निरूपयन्ति लक्षयन्ति। तेषां लक्षणद्वारेण निरूपयताम् इतर्थः ।'-°Locana. आनन्द :- There is a pun on this word. It means, on the one hand, the aesthetic delight consequent upon the perusal of the best kind of poetic creation. Though there are other ends that can be attained from a study of poetry, viz. the attainment of the four ends of human life ( धर्म, अर्थ, काम and मोक्ष), still none can compare with the experience of the beatific delight. Compare: "चतुर्चर्गफलास्ादमप्यतिक्रम्य तद्विदाम्। काव्यामृतरसेनान्तश्रमत्कारो वितन्यते ॥"-Vakroktijivita, I. 5. From the point of view of the poet also it is the delight in his creation which amply repays his labours and surpasses in value the munificent gifts of his royal patron.2 Cf .:- "यशःप्रभृत्येव फलं नास्य केवलमिष्यते। निर्माणाकाले श्रीकृष्ण- गुण-लावराय-केलिषु ॥ चित्तस्याभिनिवेशेन सान्द्रानन्दलयस्तु यः। स एव परमो लाभः खादकानां तथैव सः ॥"-Kavikarnapura's Alamkara- kaustubha, Kirana I, p. 7 (Varendra Research Society Edn.). As Locana puts it: 'आनन्द इति। रसचवर्णात्मनः प्राधान्यं दर्शयन् I Uttungodaya clarifies the etymology of the form लक्षयन्ति thus :- लक्षणं निरूपयन्ति-इत्यस्मिन्नर्थे लक्षयन्तीति रूपं भवति। "प्रातिपदिकात् घात्वर्थे बहुलमिष्ठवच्च" इति निरूपयन्तीति धात्वर्थे वतमाना- ल्लक्षप्रातिपदिकारिाच् , तस्येष्ठवद्धावात् टिलोपः।- Kaumudi, loc. cit. 2 Compare: 'हेम्नो भारशतानि वा मदमुचां वृन्दानि वा दन्तिनां श्रीहर्षेए समपिंतानि कवये बाणाय कुताद तत्।'

UDDYOTA I 43

रसध्वनेरेव सर्वत्र मुख्यभूतमात्मत्वमिति दर्शयति । ... तत कवेस्तावत् कीर्त्यापि प्रीतिरेव संपाद्या। यदाह-'कीर्त्ति' खर्गफलामाहुः'-इत्यादि। श्रोतृणां च व्युत्पत्ति-प्रीती यद्यपि स्तः, यथोक्तम्-'धर्मार्थ-काम-मोच्ेषु वेचत्तरायं कलासु च। करोति कीत्ति प्रीति च साधुकाव्यनिषेवराम् ॥"-इति । तथापि तत्न प्रीतिरेव प्रधानम्। अन्यथा प्रभुसम्मितेभ्यो वेदादिभ्यो मित्सम्मितेभ्यश्चेतिहासादिभ्यो व्युत्पत्तिहेतुभ्यः कोऽस्य काव्यरूपस्य व्युत्पत्ति- हेतोर्जायासम्मितत्वलक्षणो विशेष इति प्रधान्येन आ्रनन्द एवोक्कः। चतुर्वग- व्युतपत्तेरपि चानन्द एव पार्यन्तिकं मुख्यं फलम् ॥।' Secondly, there is also a covert reference in the word आनन्द to the name of the author of the present treatise-viz. Anandavatdhana. Vide the maxim: नामकदेशग्रहरो नामग्रहाम्. As Abhinava- gupta shrewdly observes: "आनन्द इति च ग्रन्थकृतो नाम। तेन स आनन्दवर्धनाचार्य एतच्छास्रद्वारेण सहृदयहृदयेषु प्रतिष्ठां देवतायतनादि- वदनश्वरीं स्थितिं गच्छतु इति भावः। यथोक्कम्- 'उपेयुषामपि दिवं सन्निबन्ध-विधायिनाम्। आस्त एव निरातक्कं कान्तं काव्यमयं वपुः l' इति।2 यथा मनसि प्रतिष्ठा एवंविधमस्य मनः। सहृदयचक्रवर्त्ती खल्वयं ग्रन्थकृद् इति यावत्। यथा 'युद्ध प्रतिष्ठा परमार्जुनस्य' इति। खनामप्रकटीकरणं श्रोतृणां प्रवृत्त्यङ्गमेव सम्भावनाप्रत्ययोत्पादनमुखेनेति ग्रन्थान्ते वच््यामः। एवं ग्रन्थकृतः कवेः श्रोतुश् मुख्यं प्रयोजनमुक्कम् ।"

This is Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara, I. 2. Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara, I. 6. 3 Reference to the concluding verse of the Dhvanya- loka, Uddyota IV, viz .: - सत्काव्यतत्त्वनयवर्त्त्मचिर प्रसुप्तकल्पं मनःसु परिपक्कधियां यदासीत्। तद्व्याकरोत् सहृदयोदयलाभहेतोरानन्दवर्धन इति प्रथिताभिधानः ॥

44 THE DHVANYÅLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT ६९। तत्र ध्वनेरेव लक्षयितुमारब्घस्य भूमिकां रचयितु- मिदमुच्यते- योऽर्थः1 सहहय-श्लाध्यः काव्यात्मेति व्यवस्थितः। वाच्य-प्रतीयमानाख्यौ तस्य मेदावुभौ स्मृतौ ॥।२। काव्यस्य हि ललितोचितमंनिवेशचारुणः शरीर- स्येवात्मा सार रूपतया स्थितः सहृदय-श्रलाध्यो योऽर्थस्तस्य वाच्यः प्रतीयमानश्रेति द्वौ भेदौ॥

[I अर्थः for योऽर्थः-KS. ]

EXPOSITION

89. 'तत्र इदमुच्यते'-The present karika, says the Vrttikāra, forms a prelude, as it were, to the theory of suggestion which is going to be defined. The Vtttikāra in introducing the present karika points out that though the वाच्य is also mentioned along with the प्रतीयमान sense in the body of the kārikā, yet it is made for the sake of

-"तद्व्याकरोदिति। इह बाहुल्येन लोको लोकप्रसिद्धया सम्भावनाप्रत्यय- वलेन प्रवर्त्तते। स च संभावनाप्रत्ययो नामश्रवणवशात् प्रसिद्धान्यतदीय- समाचार-कवित्व-विद्वत्त्वादिसमनुसररोन भवति। तथाहि 'भतृ हरिणा इद कृतम् , यस्यायमौदार्यमहिमा, यस्यास्मिन् च्छास्त्र एवंविधः सारो दृश्यते तस्यायं श्लोक-प्रबन्धस्तस्मादादरणीयमेतदिति' लोकः प्रवर्त्तमानो दृश्यते। लोकश्चायं प्रवर्त्तनीयः तच्छात्त्रोदितप्रयोजनमम्पत्तये। तदनुग्राह्यश्रोतृजनप्रवर्त- नाज्जत्वाद् ग्रन्थकारा: खनामनिबन्धनं कुर्वन्ति।"-Locana.

UDDYOTA I 45

making the difference of the two clear only, which would ultimately lead to the proper comprehension of ध्वनि or प्रतीयमान sense. Thus, there is no incongruency between the premiss as contained in the very first karika, viz. 'तेन व्र मः सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्रग्पम्' and the present karika. As Abhi- navagupta interprets the urtti-text 'घवनेरेव': ननु 'ध्वनिस्वरूपं ब्रमः' इति प्रतिज्ञाय वाच्य-प्रतीयमानाख्यौ द्वौ भेदावर्थस्येति वाच्याभिधाने का संगतिः कारिकाया इत्याशङ्कय संगति कर्त्तुमवतरणिकां करोति- ध्वनेरेवेति।-on which Uttungodaya observes: पूर्वकारिकायां हि ध्वनिस्वरूपाभिधानं सहेतुकं प्रतिज्ञातम् उत्तरकारिकायां तु वाच्यार्थाभिधानं कृतमिति किं केन सङ्गतम्-इतीमां शङ्कां निराकर्त्तुं ध्वनेरेवेत्यवतरणिकाग्रन्थ इत्यर्थः। यो लक्षयितुमारव्धो ध्वनिस्तस्यव भूमिकां रचयितुमित्युक्कया वाच्यार्थो- क्रसङ्गतिरेवकारेण निवारिता ।-Kaumudi, p. 84. भूमिका- 'भुमिरिव भूमिका'-'Locana-'like the foundation of a building'. इवार्थे कन्. Without knowing the nature of वाच्यार्थ, it is not possible to grasp the essence of व्यङ्गयार्थ which comes in in the wake of the former. As Abhinavagupta explains :- "यथा अपूर्व-निर्मारो चिकीर्षिते पूर्व भूमिर्विरच्यते, तथा ध्वनिस्रूपे प्रतीय- मानाख्ये निरूपयितव्ये निर्विवादसिद्धवाच्याभिधानं भूमिः। तत्पृष्ठेऽधिक- प्रतीयमानांशोललिङ्गनात्। वाच्येन समशीर्षिकया गणनं तु तस्यापि अनपहच- नीयत्वं प्रतिपादयितुम्।"- Op. cit., PP. 42-43. Abhinavagupta brings out the significance of the term स्मृतौ thus: स्मृतावित्यनेन 'यः समाम्नातपूर्वः' इति द्रढयति'।-on which Kaumudi comments:

I Vide: "इवे प्रतिकृतौ" (P. V. 3.96) इति कन्प्रत्ययान्तमिदं भूमिकेति पदमित्याह-भूमिरिवेति ॥-Kaumudi, p. 84.

46 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

ननु "तस्य भेदावुभौ स्थितौ" इति वक्वव्ये "समृतौ" इति वदतः कोऽभिप्रायः ? न ह्येतद्विषयं धर्माचार्यवचनं सूचयितुमिति संभावयितुं शक्यमित्याशङ्कय तदमिप्रायमाह-स्मृतावित्यनेन। ध्वनेः यत् स्वकपोलपरिकल्पितत्वशङ्का- कलङ्कसंतालनार्थ बुधैः समाम्नातपूर्वत्वमाद्यकारिकायामुक्कं, तन्नार्थवादमात- मिति मन्तव्यम्। किन्तु तथाभूतार्थमेवेति सूचयितुं तदर्थस्यैव पुनर्वचनं स्मृतावित्यनेन कृतम् ; अभ्यासे हि भूयस्त्वमर्थस्य भवति इति न्यायादित्यर्थः । -loc. cit. "योऽर्थः ...... स्मृतौ" (Karika)-Now, it might be argued that the Dhvanikara here is inconsistent. For, in the opening verse he has stated that "the suggested sense is the soul of poetry" (काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति), but in the present karika he says, "the sense which causes the delight of the सहृदय and is termed the soul of poetry has two divisions, viz. वाच्य and प्रयीयमान", thus placing वाच्य and प्रतीयमान on the same footing. This objection has been raised by Visvanatha in his Sahityadarpana, I: -

'अर्थः सहृदयश्लाध्यः काव्यात्मा यो व्यवस्थितः । वाच्यप्रतीयमानाख्यौ तस्य भेदावुभौ स्मृतौ ॥'-इति। तत्र वाच्यस्यात्मत्वं 'काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिः' इति खवचनविरोधादेवापास्तम्।" But all this criticism is quite uncalled for. The inconsistency, as noticed by Viśvanātha, is only apparent and not real, and if Visvanātha had cared to glance at the following comments of Abhinavagugta, he would never have raised the question again :- "शब्दार्थ-शरीरं तावत् काव्यम्'-इति यदुक्कम्, तत्र शरीरग्रहणादेव

UDDYOTA I 47

केनचिदात्मना तदनुप्राणकेन भाव्यमेव। तत्न शब्दस्तावत् शरीरभाग एव सन्निविशते सर्वजनसंवेद्यधर्मत्वात् स्थूल-कृशादिवत्। अर्थः पुनः सकलजन- संवेद्यो न भवति। न हि अर्थसात्रणा काव्यव्यपदेशः, लौकिक-वैदिकवाक्येषु तदभावात्। तदाह-सहृदयश्षाध्य इति। स एक एवार्था द्विशाखतया विवेकिभिर्विभागवुद्धया विभज्यते। तथाहि-तुल्येऽर्थरूपत्वे किमिति वस्में- चिदेव सहृदयाः श्लाघन्ते। तद् भवितव्यं केनचिद् विशेषेण।1 यो विशेषः स प्रतीयमानभागो विवेकिभिर्विशेषहेतुत्वादात्मेति व्यवस्थाप्यते। वाच्यसंवलना- विमोहितहृदयैस्तु तत्पृथगभावे विप्रतिपद्यते, चार्वाकैरिव आत्मपृथगभावे। अरपत एव 'अर्थः' इत्येकतया उपक्रम्य सहृदयश्लाध्य इति विशेषणद्वारा हेतुमभिधाय अपोद्धारदृदशा तस्य द्वो भेदौ अंशौ इत्युक्कम्, नतु द्वावप्यात्मानौ काव्यस्येति॥" ललितोचितसन्निवेशचारुण :-- The words and senses that constitute the body of poetry should be adorned and properly selected and arranged : "ललितशव्देन गुणालंकारानुग्रहमाह। उचित-शब्देन रसविषयमेवौचित्य भवति इति दर्शयन् रसध्वनेर्जीवितत्व सूचयति। तदभावे हि किमपेक्तयेदमौचित्यं नाम सर्वत्र उद्धोष्यते-इति भावः ।।"-°Locana p. 45. We are to note that according to the Dhvani theorists Rasa (Poetic Emotion) is the Soul of Poetry and all other elements like गुणा, अलंकार, रीति, शचित्य etc. are subordinate to it. But Ksemendra, in his treatise called Aucitya-vicāra- carca, tries to controvert this thesis of the Dhvani-theorists. According to him aucitya or propriety is the soul of

I The same idea is expressed in the following arya from Govardhana's Arya-saptasati: "अध्वनि पदग्रहपरं मदयति हृदयं नवा न च श्रवणाम्। काव्यमभिज्ञसभायां मीरं केलिवेलायाम्॥

48 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

poetry and all other considerations are secondary to the poets, We should note that it was Anandavardhana, who, in course of his exposition of the Dhvani theory, first of all recognized aucitya as an important factor which every poet should take note of if he aspires to compose true poetry. He expressed his view in the following couplet and gave a few instances, where this element of aucitya was flagrantly ignored, in consequence of which the senti- ment had to suffer. He said: "अनौचित्याहृते नान्यद्रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्। प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत् परा ॥"-Dhvanyaloka, III. -Thus, according to his view, rasa is the principal element in a kāvya, and aucitya is to be taken note of inasmuch as it enhances the aesthetic pleasure and as such it is quite subservient to rasa. If we note some of the statements of Anandavardhana in the Third Uddyota of his Dhvanyaloka it would be clear that he had never even conceived of attaching to aucitya a rank higher than rasa. For, the writers of the Dhvani school regard rasa-dhvani as the quintessence of every true poetic art. Compare: "व्यङ्गय-व्यज्ञकभावेऽस्मिन् विविधे सम्भवत्यपि। रसादिमय एकस्मिन् कविः स्यादवधानवान् ॥।" -Dhvanyāloka, IV. 5. So also :- "वाच्यानां वाचकानां च यदौचित्येन योजनम्। रसादि विषयेणौतत् कर्म मुख्यं महाकवेः ॥"-Op.cit., III. 32.

UDDYOTA I 49

In the Fourth Uddyota the Dhvanikara notes some of the varieties of this aucitya :- "अवस्था-देश-कालादिविशेषैरपि जायते। आनन्त्यमेव वाच्यस्य शुद्धस्यापि स्वभावतः ।"-Op.cit., IV. 7. He refers to Kalidasa's Kumārasambbava VII, in which the youthful dalliance of Parvat and Siva is described in detail, as an instance where this element of aucitya has been violated. For our sense of decorum does not permit us to relish this passionate amour on the part of the two Supreme Deities who are looked upon by the whole mankind as their parents (cf. जगतः पितरौ वन्दे पार्वतीपरमेश्वरौ). As Ānandavardhana so aptly remarks: 'रतिरहि भारतवर्षोचितेनैव व्यवहारेय दिव्यानामपि वर्णानीयेति स्थितिः। ...... तथाहि अधमप्रकृत्यौचित्येनोत्तमप्रकृतेः शङ्गारोपनिबन्धने का भवेन्नोपहास्यता। ...... तस्मादभिनेयार्थेऽनभिनेयार्थे वा काव्ये यदुत्तमप्रकृते राजादेरुत्तम-प्रकृतिभि- र्नायिकाभि: सह ग्राम्यसम्भोगवर्ानं तत् पित्ोः सम्भोगवर्णानमिव सुतरामसभ्यम्। तथैवोत्तमदेवतादिविषयम् । ... यत्त्वेवंविधे विषये महाकवी- नामप्यसमीच्यकारिता लक्ष्ये दृश्यते स दोष एव। स तु शक्कितिरस्कृतत्वात् न लच्यत इत्युक्मेव ।'-Dhvanyaloka-urtti on karikas III. 10-14. So also : तथाहि महाकवीनामप्युत्तम-देवताविषयप्रसिद्धसंभोगशङ्गार निबन्धनादनौ- चित्य' शक्तितिरस्कृतत्वात् ग्राम्यत्वेन न प्रतिभासते। यथा कुमारसम्भवे देवीसम्भोगवर्णानम्।'-Vrtti on III. 5. For, as Anandavardhana himself states, there should be propriety with reference to विभाव, अनुभाव and सश्चारिभाव.

4

50 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

So it is clear from this short analysis that Anandavardhana views aucitya as a subsidiary element only, that goes to embellish a poetic art, just as other elements like alamkaras, vrttis etc. But the Kaśmīrian Ksemendra, though he came much later in date, tried to go one step farther. He wrote his treatise Aucitya-vicara-carca only to secure for aucitya the highest rank, higher even than that of rasa-dbvani. This is quite a novel thesis no doubt, but if we are to be conscientious in our judgment, we are bound to state that Ksemendra has not been able to gain for aucitya much beyond what had already been accorded to it by Ānandavar- dhana. His work is nothing more than a running com- mentary on Anandavardhana's thesis, and only an elaborate expostion of the implications contained in the latter's statements. And at places his language is so complicated and confused that it becomes quite apparent that he himself had no very clear conception of the cause for which he was fighting. For example, we may quote here his definition of rasaucitya: - "कुर्वन् सर्वाशये व्याप्तिमौचित्यरुचिरो रसः। मधुमास इवाशोकं करोत्यक्कुरितं मनः ॥" -Aucityavicāra°, Kārikā 16. -'औचित्येन भ्राजिष्णुः शङ्गारादिलक्षणो रसःः"-(urtti thereon). It would be quite evident from this extract that

UDDYOTA I 51

Ksemendra, too, unconsciously perhaps, regards rasa as some-thing higher than aucitya, which only serves to heighten the emotional effect. Here his language itself gives him the lie ! Even though Ksemendra has not been successful in raising the status of aucitya to any higher level, still he has brought to light the great importance of this element, as adding to the beauty of a poetic art, and as such he deserves credit. What we are required to do is to take the statement-"औचित्य' रससिद्धत्य स्थिर काव्यस्य जीवितम्।"-cum grano salis.1

TEXT

8१०। तत्र वाच्यः प्रसिद्धो यः प्रकारैरुपमादिभिः । बहुधा व्याकृतः सोऽन्यैः काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभिः' । ततो नेह प्रतन्यते॥३॥ केवलमनूदते पुन थ र्यथोपयोगमिति॥

[ I KS. adds भट्टोद्दटप्रभृतिभि: after it. 2 पुनः dropped in KS. ]

I For a detailed study of the theory of Aucitya and Ānandavardhana's attitude towards it vide Dr. Suryakanta's "A Study of Kşemendra's Kavikantbāhharana, Aucityavi- cara-carca and Suvrttatilaka with an English Translation etc.", Introduction. ( The Poona Orintalist, Vol. XVII. 1952. Nos. 1-4).

52 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION

SIO. "Of these fwo main divisions of artha, the nature of the vacyartha and its adornments has been discussed in detail by ancient authors on poetics like Bhāmaha, Dandin and others, and as such they have not been discussed at any great length in this treatise, but only been referred to according to requirements." Abhinavagupta explains 'तत्न' in the karika as: 'तत्नेति द्यंशकत्वे सत्यपीत्यर्थः।-on which the Kaumudi comments : "पूर्वकारिकायां प्रतीयमानोंऽश एव काव्यस्यात्मेति पार्यन्तिकोऽर्थ उक्कः ; ततस्तत्रेति तत्परामर्शकता प्रतीयेत ; तद्व्युदासाय वाच्य-व्यङ्गयरूपांशद्वय- परामशकतामाह-द्यंशकत्व इति॥ न च पूर्ववन्निर्धारणसप्तम्येषा। किन्तु सतिसप्तमीत्याह-सतीति ॥ द्वयोरंशयोः सतोरित्यर्थः। द्वयोरंशयोः सतोरेकस्यैव प्रतिपादनं विरुद्धमिति अपिना दर्शितम्।-loc. cit., PP.

92-93. By प्रसिद्ध in the karika the लौकिक nature of the primary sense (वाच्यार्थ) is emphasised as opposed to the अलौकिक character of the व्यङ्गय sense, and chiefly of रस. This has been clearly pointed out by Abhinava in the following observation :

प्रसिद्ध इति॥ वनितावदनोद्यानेन्ददयादिवल्ौकिक एवेत्यर्थः।- which has been further clarified in the Kaumudi as : लौकिक एवेति। व्यङ्गयस्य हि रसात्मनो मुख्यस्य अलौकिकत्वं वितनिष्यत इति भाव: ।-loc. cit. It is to be noted that the NSP. Edn. includes the

UDDYOTA I 53

statement काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभि: in the urtti within the karika and construes 'ततो नेह प्रतन्यते ... यथोपयोगमिति' as the urtti thereon. But all this is erroneous. This is clear from °Locana : "अन्यैरिति कारिकाभागं काव्येत्यादिना व्याचष्टे। "ततो नेह प्रतन्यते" -इति विशेषप्रतिषेधेन शेषाभ्यनुज्ञा इति दर्शयति-केवलमित्यादिना॥- on which the Kaumudi observes : "काव्येत्यादेः वृत्तसम्वन्धात् कारिकान्तःपातित्वशङ्कामपाकर्तुमाह-अन्यै- रितीत्यादि ॥"-loc. cit. अनुवाद means 're-statement'. Comp. 'प्रमाणान्तरावगत- स्यार्थस्य श्देन संकीर्त्तनमात्मनुवादः'-Kasika on P. II. 4.3 (अनुवादे चरणानाम्'), as opposed to प्रतनन (vide 'प्रतन्यते' in the karika ) which means : अज्ञातज्ञापनलक्षणं प्रतिपादनं हि प्रतननम्- Kaumudi, P. 93. The author of the Vakroktijivita too makes similar observations regarding वाच्य and वाचक. Cf :- "वाच्योऽर्थो वाचकः शब्दः प्रसिद्धमिति यद्यपि। तथापि काव्यमार्गेऽस्मिन् परमार्थोऽयमेतयोः॥"-Vakrokti0, 1.8. प्रकारैरुपमादिभि :- Of the figures of speech that embellish the expressed sense ( वाच्यार्थ), उपमा ( Simile) stands out pre-eminent. As Vamana says: 'सम्प्रत्यर्थालंकाराणां प्रस्तावः । तन्मूलं चोपमा-इति सैव विचार्यते।'-Kauyalamkara-sutra-vrtti, IV. 2.I. So also : "उपमैका शैलूपी सम्प्राप्ता चित्रभूमिकाभेदान्। रजयति काव्यरज्ने तृत्यन्ती तद्विदां चेतः ॥"-Appayya Diksita's Citra-mīmāmsā, p. 2. (Nirnayasāgara Edn.)

54 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT ९११। प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वस्त्वस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम् । यत्तत् प्रसिद्धावयवातिरिक्तं विभाति लावण्यमिवाङ्गनासु ।।४।। प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वाच्याद् वस्त्वस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम्। यत्तत् सहृदय1-सुप्रसिद्ध प्रसिद्धेभ्योऽलं- कृतेभ्यः प्रतीतेभ्यो वाऽवयवेभ्यो व्यतिरिक्तत्वेन प्रकाशते लावण्यमिवाङ्गनासु। यथा ह्यङ्गनासु लावण्यं पृथङ- निर्वर्ण्यमानं निखिलावयवव्यतिरेकि किमप्यन्यदेव सहृदय-लोचनामृतं तत्त्वान्तरम् ,तद्वदेव सोऽर्थः ॥

[ I NSP. reads सहृदय-हृदय० 2. KS. Chow. reads लावराये. 3 KS. reads पृथकपृथङ० ]

EXPOSITION

SII. अन्यदेव वाच्यात्-The suggested sense is quite distinct from the expressed (i.e. primary) sense, and can in no way be equated with the latter as it is the very quintes- sence of a poetic art or 'सारभूत' as Abhinava points out. Änandavardhana, here, likens the suggested sense to the supple grace of the limbs of a beautiful maiden. Just as लावराय or grace is distinct from the ornaments like necklace, bangles etc. on the one hand, and absence of defects like

UDDYOTA I 55

blindness etc. on the other, and is quite a tertium quid so also the suggested sense ( प्रतीयमानार्थ or व्यक्रयार्थ) of a poem cannot be subsumed under the alainkaras like उपमा, रूपक on the one hand and गुणा's like माधुर्य, शज: etc. on the other. For the definition of लावराय cf. : "मुक्काफलेपु च्छायायास्तरलत्व- मिवान्तरा। प्रतिभाति यदङ्गेषु तल्लावरायमिहोच्यते ॥"-Sabdakalpa- druma.1

Note Abhinavagupta's comments on this point: - "लावरायं हि नाम अवयव-संस्थानाभिव्यङ्गथमवयवव्यतिरिक्तं धर्मान्त- रमेव। न चावयवानामेव निर्दोषता वा भूषणयोगो वा लावरायम्। पृथङनिर्वरायमान-काणणादिदोष-शून्य-शरीरावयवयोगिन्यामपि अलंकृतायामपि 'लावरायशून्येय'मिति, अतथाभूतायामपि कस्याश्चित् 'लावरायामृतचन्द्रिकेय' मिति सहृदयानां व्यवहारात् ।"-Op.cit. It is clear from the above excerpt from the °Locana that लावराय or grace cannot be equated with the absence of defects of the limbs (अयवानामेव निर्दोषता) or with the presence of adornments (भूषणायोग: ) therein since it does not stand in the relation of agreement and difference (अ्रन्वय-व्यतिरेक ) with either of these two elements. So it must be regarded as an independent element altogether. In the same way the प्रतीयमानार्थ or suggested sense is some- thing totally distinct from mere absence of poetic defects

1 Uttungodaya in his sub-commentary Kaumudī cites a different definition of लावराय. Cf: प्वमानमिवाभाति यदङ्गं कान्तिपाथसि। मनःप्रह्लादजननं तल्लावरायमिति स्मृतम्॥-Ibid., p. 98.

56 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA as also from the charm brought about by the presence of poetic figures like उपमा, रूपक etc. and is like लावराय in relation to the body poetic ( काव्यशरीर). That the existence of this element ( i. e. प्रतीयमानार्थ) cannot be denied is hinted at by the verbal form विभाति in the karika predicated with reference to the former, since an absolutely non-existent (अररसत्) entity cannot be cognised as being existent by anybody. There is a necessary and invariable relation (अररविनाभाव ) between existence (सत्ता ) and cognition (भान) of a thing. And since the cognition of the suggested sense cannot be gainsaid by true connoisseurs of poetry, its existence also is an undeniable fact. As Abhinavagupta explains the significance of 'विभाति' : "यदेवंविधमस्ति तद्भाति ; न ह्यत्यन्तासतो भानमुपपन्नम् ; रजताद्यपि नात्यन्तमसद्भाति; अ्रनेन सत्वप्रयुक्कं तावद्धानमिति भानात्सत्वमवगम्यते ; तेन यद्धाति तदसि्ति तथा- इत्युक्कं भवति।"-°Locana. The significance of the plural case-ending in महाकवीनाम् in the expression वाणीषु महाकवीनाम् is also explained in the °Locana thus :- "महाकवीनामिति बहुवचनमशेषविषयव्यापकत्वमाह। एतदभिधास्यमान- प्रतीयमानानुप्राशितकाव्यनिर्माणण निपुणाप्रतिभाभाजनत्वेनैव महाकविव्यपदेशो भवतीति भाव: ।"

Thus the प्रतीयमान sense pervades (व्यापक) all the compositions of the greatest of poets like Vyāsa, Vālmīki, Kālidāsa etc. and as such is a well-known element of poetic art.

UDDYOTA I 57

The present karika has been cited by Kuntaka in his Vakroktijivita, Unmesa I. We quote here the relevant extract from that treatise :- 'ननु च कैश्चित् प्रतीयमानं वस्तु ललना-लावराय-साम्यात् लावराय- मित्युत्पादित-प्रतीति (?)- 'प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव-'इति। तत् कथ' बन्ध-सौन्दर्यमात्र' लावराय- मित्यमिधोयते ?1 नैष दोषः। यस्मादनेन दृष्टान्तेन वाच्य-वाचक-लक्षणा- प्रसिद्धावयव-व्यतिरिक्कत्वेनास्तित्वमात्र साध्यते प्रतीयमानस्य, न पुनः सकल- लोक-लौचन संवेदयस्य ललना-लावरायस्य सहृदय-हृदयानामेव संवेदं सत् प्रतीयमानं समीकर्तु पार्यते। तस्य बन्धसौन्दर्यमेव अव्युत्पन्न-पद-पदार्थानामपि श्रवणमात शौव हृदयहारित्वस्पर्धया व्यपदिश्यते। प्रतीयमानं पुनः काव्य- परमार्थज्ञानामेवानुभवगोचरतां प्रतिपद्यते, यथा कामिनीनां किमपि सौभाग्यं तदुपभोगोचितानां नायकानामेव संवेद्यतामहृति। लावरायं पुनस्तासामेव सत्कविगिरामिव सौन्दर्य' सकल-लोक-गोचरतामायातीत्युक्कमेवेत्यलमति- प्रसङ्ग न ।I"-Op. cit., p. 56.

I Kuntaka enumerates लावराय as one of the गुणा's of the सुकुमारमार्ग, one of the three माग's or styles of composi- tion as recognised by him-viz. सुकुमार, विचित्र and मध्यम. He defines it as :

वर्ा विन्यासविच्छ्ित्तिपदसधानसंपदा। स्वल्पया बन्धसौन्दर्य लावरायमभिधीयते ॥-VI., I. 32. In the above passage Kuntaka objects to the equation (समीकरण ) of लावराय with the प्रतीयमान sense as has been done by the author of the Dhvanyaloka.

58 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT ६१२। स ह्यर्थो वाच्यसामर्थ्याक्षिप्त वस्तुमात्र- मलंकारा रसादयश्चेत्यनेक-प्रभेद-प्रभिन्नो दर्शयिष्यते। सर्वेषु च तेषु प्रकारेषु तस्य वाच्यादन्यत्वम्।। EXPOSITION S12. By the expression स ह्यर्थ: the Vrttikara refers to the प्रतीयमान sense alluded to in the preceding karika. Here the nature (स्वरूप) of the suggested sense and its difference (व्यतिरेक ) from the वाच्य or primary meaning of words are being distinctly stated. As Abhinavagupta points out :- "ननु लावरायं तावत् व्यतिरिक्कं प्रथितम्; प्रतीयमानं किं तदित्येव न जानीमः। दूरे तु व्यतिरेकप्रथेति। तथाभासमानत्वमसिद्धो हेतुः इत्याशङ्कय "स ह्यर्थः' इत्यादिना सरूपं तस्याभिघत्ते। "सर्वेषु च" इत्यादिना च व्यतिरेकप्रथां साधयति। ... " -Locana. The suggested sense, again, falls into three distinct categories-viz. vastu, alamkāra and rasa, which have their own sub-varieties. And in all these cases, the suggested sense, be it vastu or alamkāra or rasa, is quite different from the expressed sense. सर्वेषु ..... अन्यत्वम्-The sense which is conveyed by the function of abbidba or denotation is called वाच्यार्थ, but the व्यङ्गनार्थ like शैत्य-पावनत्वादि (in गङ्गायां घोषः ) can never be communicated by denotation, because there is no संकेत. Compare : 'नाभिधा समयाभावात्'-Kauya-Prakasa, II. Though

UDDYOTA I 59

vastu, alamkāra and rasa, can all be coneyed by suggestion, there is this much difference that while the first two can be conveyed through Denotation as well, the last one is always and invariably suggested and never expressed. As Abhinavagupta puts it :- "तत्र प्रतीयमानस्य तावद् द्वौ भेदौ-लौकिकः, काव्यव्यापारक- गोचरश्चेति। लौकिको यः खशब्दवाच्यतां कदाचिदधिशेते। स च विधि-निषेधाद्यनेकप्रकारो वस्तु-श्देनोच्यते। सोऽपि द्विविधः-यः पूर्व क्वापि वाक्यार्थेऽलंकारभावमुपमादिरूपतयाऽन्वभूत्, इदानी त्वनलंकाररूप एव, अन्यत् गुणीभावाभावात्, स पूर्वप्रत्यभिज्ञानबलादलंकारध्वनिरिति व्यपदिश्यते ब्राह्मण-श्रमण-न्यायेन।1 तद्र पताभावेन तूपलच्तित वस्तुमात्- मुच्यते। मात्रग्रहोन हि रूपान्तरं निराकृतम्। यस्तु खप्नऽपि न खशब्द- वाच्यो न लौकिक-व्यवहारपतितः, किन्तु शब्द-समर्प्यमाण हृदयसंवादसुन्दर-

न्दचर्वर्णाव्यापार-रसनीयरूपो रसः, स काव्यव्यापारक गोचरो रसध्वनिरिति, स च ध्वनिरेवेति, स एव मुख्यतयाSSत्मेति॥"-Locana. In the above passage Abhinavagupta gives us a synoptic table of the main divisions af the प्रतीयमान sense as also

I. "The maxim of the Brabmana-ascetic. The श्रमण is a Buddhist ascetic, and therefore not a Brahman,- but the expression ब्राह्माश्रमण implies that though now a Buddhist he was formerly a Brahman. The maxim is used by the authors of the Kavyaprakasa and the Sabityadarpana in exactly the same connexion."-Laukika-nyāyanjali, Part I .. pp. 38-39(Collected by Colonel G. A. Jacob. NSP.)

60 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

their mutual difference. The classification can be shown thus: -

प्रतीयमानार्थ (ध्वनि)

लौकिक त्रलोकिक 1

वस्तुमात्र (-ध्वनि) अलंकार (-ध्वनि ) रस भाव etc. (विधि-निषेधाद्यनेकप्रकार)

The difference between the two लौकिक varieties of the प्रतीयमान sense as pointed out by Abhinavagupta has been further clearified by Uttungodaya in his Kaumudi thus: - "न केवलं प्रतीयमानस्यैव द्वैविध्यं तद्विशेषस्य लौकिकस्यापि द्वैविध्य- मस्तीत्यर्थः । उक्र हि प्राक् लौकिकस्यावस्थाद्वयम्-वाक्यार्थे रसादौ : प्रधानतयाऽलंकार्ये सयमुपमाद्यन्यतमात्मनाSलंकारभवमनुभूय पश्चादिदानी व्यङ्गयत्वावस्थायामलंकारभावमपहाय अलंकार्यतया प्राधान्येन वर्त्तमानः सन् वस्तुध्वनिरित्येव व्यपदेष्टुं योग्योऽपि अलंकारध्वनिरिति व्यपदिश्यते इत्यर्थः । अन्यत्न ति। वाच्येऽथं। व्यपदेशान्तरावाप्तौ हेतुः-पूर्वप्रत्यभिज्ञान- बलादिति। पूर्वमतिचिरमनुभूतस्यालंकारभावस्य प्ररूढ सुदृढ संस्कार द्वारेण इदानी' प्रधान्यावस्थायामपि वस्तुसामर्थ्यायातस्य स एवायमिति उत्कटतयानु- सन्धीयमानत्वादित्यर्थः । नन्वेवं वस्तुशव्देनालङ्कारस्यापि संग्रहसंभवात् किमिति पृथक ग्रहणामित्याशङ्कय, वस्तुत्वे सत्यपि उक्कादेव विशेषात् पृथक् चमत्कारित्वात् अवान्तरभेदोपजीवनेन पृथक् तद्ग्रहणामिति प्रदशयन् वस्तु- मात्रमिति मात्रग्रहरामुक्काभिप्रायगर्भित वृत्तिगतमनुकूलयन्नाह-तद्रूपता- भावेनेति। अलंकाररूपत्वाभावेन यदुपलच्ितं वस्तु तद् वस्तुध्वनिव्यपदेश्यम् ; अलंकात्वविशिष्ट' यद् वस्तु तत् प्रागुक्कनीत्याऽलंकार-ध्वनिः, इत्येवमवान्तर-

UDDYOTA I 61

भेदनिबन्धन एव तद्भेदः, न तु रसादिध्वनिवदात्यन्तिकमेद निबन्धन इत्यर्थः ।"-lbid., Pp. 99-100. Now, it may be asked that if vastu and alamkara can as well be conveyed. through Denotation (abbidba ), what is the use of proceeding along a tortuous way and resorting to Suggestion (व्यज्ना) ?1 To this the Dhvani theorists would assert that an idea conveyed through suggestion is more charming than the one expressed through Denotation as is attested by the unanimous verdict of all true connoisseurs of art. As Anandavardhana states: - "वाच्योऽर्थो न तथा खदते प्रतीयमानः स एव यथा" -Dbvanyāloka Mahimabhatta also notes: - "यतः सर्वेष्वलंकारेषूपमा जीवितायते। सा च प्रतीयमानैव तद्विदां खदतेतराम्॥" -Vyaktiviveka, p. 343. (Chowkhambā Edition). Govinda Țhakkura, in his commentary on Mammata's Kāvyaprakāsa, Ullāsa V, expresses the same idea :- [तदुक्कं ध्वनिकृता- 'व्यज्यन्ते वस्तु-मात्रण यदाऽलंकृतयस्तदा। ध्र वं ध्वन्यङ्गता तासां काव्यवृत्तेस्तदाश्रयात् ।' इति।2

I Compare the saying-"अके चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थ' पर्व व्रजेत्।" 2 Cf. Dbvan yāloka. II. 29.

62 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

अ्रत्न ध्वन्यङ्गता व्यङ्गथतया। ध्रवं ध्वनिनैव ता व्यज्यन्ते। तद्वयञ्ज- कस्य ध्वनित्वमेव। कुतः ? काव्यवृत्तस्तदाश्रयात्। काव्यवृत्तस्तदभिसंधान- पूर्वकत्वात्। वस्तुमातापेक्षयाऽलंकारस्य चारुतानियमादित्यर्थः ।] ननु यद्यलंकारापेक्षया वस्तुमातस्य नातिशयनियमस्तदा कथमलंकारेण वस्तुमात्र- व्यञ्जने ध्वनित्वम्-इति चेत। उच्यते-स एवार्थो वाच्यः सन् न तथा चमत्करोति यथा व्यङ्गयतापन्न इत्यनुभवसिद्धम्। अतो वाच्यताऽपकर्षहेतुः, व्यङ्गयता तूत्कर्षाय इति स्थितम्। यत्र चालंकारेण वस्तुमात्रं व्यङ्गय तत्न अलंकारस्य वाच्यत्वेन किंचिदपकर्षात् वस्तुमातस्य च व्यङ्गयत्वेन किंचिदुत्कर्षात् युज्यत एव ध्वनित्वम्। यत्र तु वस्तुनाऽलंकारो व्यज्यते, तत्र वस्त्व- लंकारयोर्वाच्यत्व-व्यङ्गयत्वाभ्याम् अतिशयेनैव उत्कर्षापकष इति कुतो गुणीभूत- व्यङ्कयत्वावकाशः ।।"-Kauyapradipa, p. 145 (N.S.P. Edn.).

TEXT ६१३। तथा हि-आद्यस्तावत् प्रभेदो वाच्याद् दूरं विभेदवान्। स हि कदाचिद् वाच्ये विधिरूपे प्रतिषेधरूपः । यथा - "भम धम्मिअ वीसत्थो सो सुणओ अज्ज मारिओ देण। गोलाणइ-कच्छ-कुडङ्ग-वासिणा दरिअसीहेण।।"

EXPOSITION

S13. Anandavardhana now proceeds to demonstrate how the first variety of the suggested sense-viz. vastu- matra, differs toto caelo from the expressed sense ( वाच्य). For example, when the expressed sense is injunctive in force (विधिरूप), the suggested sense is prohibitive in character (प्रतिषेधरूप ), and no sane man would ever think of identify-

UDDYOTA I 63

ing injunction with probibition, or affirmation with negation. As Abhinavagupta explains: 'दूर विभेदवान् इति। विधि-निषेधौ विरुद्धौ इति न कस्यचिद् विमतिः ।'-Locana. The Prakrit gatha quoted here is Hāla's Gaba-sattasai, II. 75 (NSP. Edn.). Here a courtesan addresses a virtuous ascetic who is in the habit of daily plucking flowers from the grove situated on the bank of the river Godavari-the rendez-vous of the hatlot and her paramour, and informs him, nervous even at the presence of a dog, of the advent of a lion in the locality, thus covertly hinting that his wanderings are not safe henceforth. Abhinavagupta thus puts forth the motif of the harlot: - 'कस्याश्चित् संकेतस्थानं जीवित-सर्वसायमानं धार्मिकसञ्चरणान्तराय- दोषात् तदवलुप्यमान-पल्लव-कृसुमादि-विच्छायीकरणाच्च परितातुमियमुक्तिः।' The nature of the fafa or injunction as implied by the लोट form भम ( Skt. भ्रम ) has been very minutely analysed by Abhinavagupta in the following extract from the Locana: - 'अत्न सवतःसिद्धमपि भ्रमणं श्रयेनापोदितमिति प्रतिप्रसवात्मको निषेधा- भावरूपः, न तु नियोगः प्रैषादिरूपः अरत् विधिः। अतिसर्गप्राप्तकालयोर्हिं अरयं लोट्।" In explaining the purport of this passage the author of the Kaumudi comments: - "तत्नेति॥ गाथाया यथोक्कार्थपरत्वे स्थिते सतीत्यर्थः । अत्न वाच्यार्थ- कच््यायां यो भ्रमेति विधिः स निषेधाभावरूप एव, न तु प्रेषादिरूपो नियोगः । नियोगो हि अप्रवृत्तप्रवत्तनात्मको मुख्यतयावस्थितो विधिः प्रसिद्धः, स च प्रवर्त्य-

64 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

पुरुषापेक्षया क्रमेरा ज्यायः-सम-कनीयोभिनियोक्कृभिः पुरुषैः प्रतिपाद्यमानः सन् प्रैषामन्त्रणाध्येषणाभेदेन भिन्नव्यपदेशगोचरभावमाचरतीति विधिस्वरूपनिरुपण- धुरीगाधिषणा: प्रतिपेदिरे॥ तथाहु :- कार्यमेव हि वक्करां ज्याय:समकनीयसाम्। प्रवर्त्त्यापेक्षया भेदात् प्रैषादिव्यपदेशभाक ॥-इति। इह तु नासावुक्करूपो विधिः सम्भवति प्रतृत्तपुरुषविषयत्वात् ; अतः प्रवृत्ति- प्रतिबन्धकप्रतिषेधेन प्रवृत्तिहेतुत्वस्य प्रतिषेधाभावे विधौ च तुल्यत्वात् उपचारात् प्रतिषेधाभावोऽपि विधिरुच्यत इत्यर्थः। प्रसिद्धश्वायमेवंविधो विधिरन्यत विधिवृत्तपरीक्षकव्यवहारेष्विति दशयति-प्रतिप्रसवात्मक इति॥ प्रथमं सामान्योपाधौ प्रतिषिद्धस्य पश्चात् क्वचिद् विशेषविषयेऽनुज्ञानं प्रतिप्रसवः प्रतिषेधनिवर्त्तनरूपः।"-/bid., p. 105. Mahimabhatta, who does not regard suggestion as a separate function and strives to prove it as another name for Inference (anumāna), thus explains the gatba bringing oue the inferential character of the prohibition ( निषेध) conveyed

here :-

"तत्न वस्तुमातस्य तावत् 'भम धम्मितर-' इत्यत्न केनचित सुकृतिना यूना सह विस्रम्भ-सम्भोग-सुखाखादलालसया विजने वने विविध-कुसुमामोद- मुदित-मधुकृति कृतसङ्कतया कयाचित् कुसुमापचिचीषया भ्रमतो धार्मिकस्य मनोरथ-परिपन्थि तद्देशासादनं विघ्रमिव मन्यमानया जानानयाऽपि केसरि- किशोरकस्य करौर्यातिरेकं कुक्कुरमारणा-मात्र-तासोपन्यासेन अस्य प्रियमावेदयितु- कामया विदग्धयाऽपि मुग्धयेव विधिमुखेन भ्रमरास्य प्रतिषेषो विहितः। "अत् हि द्वावर्थौ वाच्य-प्रतीयमानौ विधि-निषेधात्मकौ क्रमेश प्रतीति- पथमवतरतः, तयोर्घमाग्न्योरिव साध्य-साधन-भावेनावस्थानात्। "तत्ाद्यस्तावत् अविवेक-सिद्धः स्पष्ट एव, भ्रमरा-विधि-लत्यास्य साध्यस्य तत्परिपन्थि-क्ूर-कुक्कुर-मारणात्मनः साधनस्य चोभयोरप्युपादानात।

UDDYOTA I 65

"द्वितीयस्तु अत एव हेतोः पर्यालोचित-िजर्थस्य विवेकिनः प्रतिपत्तुः प्रयोजकस्वरूपनिरूपरोन सामर्थ्यात् प्रतीतिमवतरति। तथ सामर्थ्य मृतेऽपि कौलेयके क्ररतरस्य सरवान्तरस्य तत्र सद्भावावेदनं नाम, नापरम्। तदेव साधनम्। तयोश्र साध्य-साधनयोरविनाभावनियमो विरोधमूलः। स चानयोर्लोकप्रमाण सिद्ध इत्युक्कम् । "ननु यद्यतो वाक्यादर्थद्वयावगमः तत् कथमुत्तरस्मिन्नेव नियमेन विश्रान्तिर्न पूर्वस्मिन, उभयत्नापि वा, तयोः प्राकरणिकत्वेन विशेषाभावात्। उच्यते-न तावदत वाच्यानुमेययोरर्थयोः समुच्येन अवगतिरुपपद्यते, 'भ्रम मा च भ्रमी'- रिति विधि-निषेधयोरेकाश्रयत्वविरोधात्। "नापि विकल्पेन, 'भ्रम वा मां वा भ्रमी'-रिति वचनोच्चारणानर्थक्य- प्रसङ्गात्। नाप्यङ्गाङ्गिभावेन, विधि-निषेधयोस्तदसम्भवात् । "केवलं योसौ भ्रमणा-विधौ हेतुभावेन दप्त-पञ्चाननव्यापारस्तत्ोपात्तः स एव विमृश्यमानः परम्परया धार्सिकस्य तन्निषेधे पयवस्यति-तयोर्बोध्य- बाधकभावेनावस्थानात्। को ह्यनुन्मत्तः कु : कुक्कुरमात्रसद्भावभयात् परिहृत- भ्रमणास्ततैव दप्तसिंहसद्भावशङ्कायामपि सवित्र्रम्भं भ्रमेदित्यनुमेयार्थ-विश्रान्ति- नियमहेतुर्बाध्य-बाधक-भावोऽस्त्येवात विशेषः । ... "तत्न 'भम धम्मित! वोसत्थो'-इति वाक्यार्थरूपो भ्रमणविधिर्वाच्यः। तस्य 'सो सुराओ अज् मारिओ देश' इत्यादिना करकुक्कुरमारणं दप्त-सिंह- विहितं वाक्यार्थरूपमेवार्थो हेतुः। तत्प्रतिषेधस्तु अरनुमेय एव न वाच्यः, तस्योक्कनयेनाक्षेपात्। "तत्न 'गोलाणई-कच्छ-कुडङ्गवासिणा' इति गोदवरीकच्छ-कुहरस्य धर्मित्व- निर्देशः। 'दरित्र-सीहेरो'-ति श्वमारण-कारणाभिधानद्वारेणोपात्तस्य दृप्त- सिंह-सद्धावस्य हेतुभावः। 'कुडङ्गवासिरो'ति तद्विशेषरोन तस्य धर्मिि सन्भ्ावोपपादनम् । "तस्यास्य हेतोः साध्यस्य च निर्भय-भ्रमण-विधि-लक्षणास्य सहानवस्थान- लक्षणो विरोधः प्रसिद्ध एव इत्येकस्य सद्धावावेदनेन अपरस्य स्वभाव- 5

66 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

विरुद्वोपल्ध्या प्रतिषेधे विज्ञायमाने सति समशीषिकया उभयार्थप्रतीतिरेवात न समस्तीति तद्विश्रान्तिपर्यनुयोगो निरवकाश एव।

"तेनानुमेय एव भ्रमराम्य निषेधो न व्यक्गय इत्यवसेयम्, यथा 'नाव शीतस्पर्शोऽग्ने'-रित्यतः शीतस्पशस्य। ...

"अपि चास्मिन्नुदाहररो दारुणतरान् इतरान् ऋत्तप्रभृतीन् प्रसिद्धतद्- व्यापारानपास्य यदेतत् करि-कलभ-कुम्भ-निर्भेदक-हेवाकिनः केसरिणः कौलेयक- वधाभिधानमौचित्यैकनिकेतनस्य कवेस्तत्र चिरं चिन्तयन्तोऽपि अभिप्रायं न विद्यः ।

"न हि दप्ततया यत्किश्चनकारिणोऽन्यस्यापि स्वजाति-समुचितं चरितम- पहाय अप्रसिद्धमेव किमपि रसभक्कभीरवः कवयो वणयितुमाद्रियन्ते, किमुत जगद्विदितव्यापारस्य केसरिणः।

"अनौचतिनिबन्धो हि परं रसभक्जकारणं कवयो वदन्ति। यत् स एवाह- "अनौचित्याहृते नान्यद्रसभङ्गस्य कारणम्। प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत् परा ॥-इति॥"1

"तस्मात् 'दरित-रिकखेण'-इत्यत्र पाठः श्रेयान् ॥"-Vyaktivive ka, Vimarśa III. The latter part of Mahimabhatta's criticism is quite out of place and wide of the mark as Anandavardhana is not the author of the verse, and he merely quotes it to illustrate his point. But, as against this, Uttungodaya's eloquent praise of the Prakrit gatba is worth quoting :-

I Attributed to Anandavardhana himself: cited in the urtti on Dhvanyaloka, III. 10-14.

UDDYOTA I 67

"गाथा चैषा मुक्ककरूपापि प्रवन्धायमान' इवेति गाढतरकाव्याभ्यासपु रातन- पुरायपरं परापरिप्रापितकाष्ठाप्राप्तसहृदयाग्र सरभावः परिमितविभावादुन्मीलने

राचार्यस्तत्समुचितपूर्वापर-परिकल्पनपुरःसरं वक्कतदभिप्रायतदवसरादिविशेष- प्रदर्शनेन गाथां व्याख्यातु' पीठबन्धं विधत्ते-कस्याश्चिदिति ॥"

TEXT

९१४। कचिद् वाच्ये प्रतिषेधरूपे विधिरूपो यथा- "अत्ता एत्थ णिमजइ एत्थ अहं दिअसअं पलोएहि। मा पहिअ रत्तिअन्धअ सेजाए मह िमज्जहिसि1 ॥"

[ I. KS. reads सेज्जाए महँ मज्हिसि. The lasr foot is read in the Vyaktiviveka as सेज्जाए महँ णा मज्जहिसि. ]

EXPOSITION

§14. The gatha quoted is VII. 67 of Hala's anthology. This, too, is addressed by a married lady, whose husband is away from home, to a traveller (for the time being a guest at her dwelling), who is eager to meet her, but is unable to do so on account of the presence of her mother-in-law.

I This is an echo of Anandavardhana's observation with reference to Amaruka's Century: मुक्तकेषु प्रबन्धष्विव रसबन्धाभिनिवेशिनः कवयो दृश्यन्ते। यथा ह्यमरुकस्य कवेर्मुक्नकाः श्रक्गार- रसस्यन्दिनः प्रबन्धायमानाः प्रसिद्धा एव।-Dhvanyaloka: urtti on III. 7, P. 325 (Benares Edn.).

68 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

To console him she cleverly states : "Here lies my mother- in-law, and here is my place-mark you, O traveller ! daytime as it is, and don't you, blind as you are at night, be silly enough to steal into our beds (through excessive eagerness)." This prohibition, however, is apparent and is only a clever way of expressing the acquiescence of the lady to the traveller's request by giving covert hints as to the time of the meeting and cautioning him by making him aware of the mother-in-law's resting-place so that he may not mistake the mother-in-law's bed for that of his love. As Abhinavagupta comments :- "काचित् प्रोषितपतिकां तरुणीमवलोक्य प्रवृद्धमदनाङ्कुरःसम्पन्नः पान्थोनेन निषेधद्वारेण तयाऽभ्युपगम्यते इति निषेधाभावोऽत विधिः। न तु निमन्त्रण- रूपोSप्रवृत्तप्रवर्त्तनास्वभावः सौभाग्या भिमानखराडनप्रसङ्गात्। अत एव रात्र्यन्धेति समुचितसमयसंभाव्यमानविकाराकुलितत्वं ध्वनितम्। भावतदभावयोश्च साक्षाद् विरोधाद् वाच्याद् व्यक्कयस्य स्फुटमेवान्यत्वम्

पी'ति। तत्ाहमिति शब्दस्य तावन्नायं साक्तादर्थः ; काक्कादिसहायस्य च तावति ध्वननमेव व्यापार इति ध्वनेर्भषणामेतत्। अत्तेति प्रयत्नेन अनिमृत-संभोग-परिहारः। अथ यद्यपि भवान् मदनशरासारदीर्यमाणाहृदय उपेत्ितु न युक्कः, तथापि किं करोमि पापो दिवस- कोऽयमनुचितत्वात् कुत्सितोऽयमित्यर्थः। प्राकृते पुंनपुंसकयोरनियमः । न च सर्वथा त्वामुपेते, यतोऽत्वाहं तत् प्रलोकय नान्यतोऽहं गच्छामि। तदन्योन्यवदनालोकनविनोदेन दिनं तावदतिवाहयाव इत्यर्थः। प्रतिपन्नमात्नायां च रात्रौ अन्धीभूतो मदीयायां शय्यायां मा श्िषः। अपि तु निमृत- निभृतमेवात्ताभिधान-निकटकराटकनिद्रान्वेषण-पूर्वकम् इतीयदत ध्वन्यते॥" -Locana.

UDDYOTA I 69

Mahimbhatta's exposition is as follows :- "अत हि चलित-चारित्रमुद्रा प्रोषितपथिकयुवतिः कश्चित् युवानं वासरावसाने वसतिं प्रार्थयमानमुद्दिश्योत्पन्नमन्मथव्यथावेशा श्वश्रसन्निधौ तस्मै शयनस्थानं विविक्कमुपदिश्य निशान्घताऽध्यारोपेण खशयनसंस्पर्श-प्रतिषेध- मुखेन श्वश्रशय्यासंनिवेशदेशं दशयन्ती रात्रावत मदीय एव शयनीये त्वया निभृतमुपस्थातव्यम्-इति तैस्तराकारैः प्रतिषेधमुखेन खाभिऐेतमर्थमस्मै निवेदयते।

"तत् केचिदविदित-स्वरूपस्येव पथिकस्य अकस्मान्निशान्धतोपचेपः ख- शयनीयोद्देश-दर्शनं च-इत्युभयमव्यभिचारि साधनमिति मन्यन्ते। तद्वशाद्धि तस्य नायिका-शयनोद्देशोपसर्पणामपि कल्पनीयं स्यात्। श्वश्व्राश्र तस्याविनय- दोषाशङ्कानिरास इत्युभयममपि सिध्यति। "यत्वत श्वश्रशयनदर्शनं तत् तदाशङ्कानिरासार्थमेव न पथिक-प्रवर्त्तनाङ्गतां गच्छति। आत्मन एव शयनोद्देशदर्शने हि तस्याः शक्का स्यात्। "यद्वा शयनयोर्विप्रकर्ष-प्रकाशनपरं तदिति तत्प्रृत्त्यङ्गमेवास्तु तदिति च। तचायुक्कम्। अत हि श्वश्रः प्रत्याय्या वर्त्तते नान्यः। न चायं चिरपरि- शीलनावसेयो निशान्धताख्यो हेतुसां प्रति सिद्धः। तथाविधश्चोपादीयमानः प्रत्युत तस्या: शङ्कामुपजनयेत्। उभयार्थकारी ह्यत हेतुरुपादेयो भवति यो न श्वश्त्राः शङ्कामाधत्ते पथिकं च प्रवर्त्तयति। न चायं निशान्घताख्यो हेतुस्तथेति व्यर्थस्तदुपन्यासः । "किश्ायं निशान्धतोपन्ेपः पत्तद्वयेऽप्यप्रयोजक एव शयनसन्निवेशदर्शन- संस्कारादेव तदुभयसिद्धः। "ये तु शयनीययोर्विप्रकर्ष-दशनेन अन्योन्य-दर्शनस्य अस्फुटत्वमनुमीयमानं हेतुतया मन्यन्ते, अत एव च "अत्ता एत्थ शिमज्जइ" इति पठन्ति, तेऽप्ययुक्कवादिनः। अनैकान्तिकत्वात्। दृश्यन्ते हि अचलितचारित्राणमपि युवतीनामेवंविधा: सद्धावगर्भा भणितयः।

70 THE DHVANYĀI OKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"आकार-विशेषारं हेतुत्व-परिकल्पनमुपहासायैव, तेषां वाच्यत्वाभावात्, वाच्यस्यैव व्यज्जकत्वेन प्रकृतत्वात्।

"किश्चात्न निरूप्यमाणो हेतुरेव न लभ्यते। स हि विधेयानुगुणो वा स्यात् प्रतिषध्यानुगुरा उभयानुगुणो वा। तताद्यः श्वश्त्राः शङ्कामेव जनयेद- सिद्धत्वात् चाक्षुषत्वादिवत्। द्वितीयो न विवच्ितार्थ-सिद्धिहेतुर्विरुद्धत्वात्, कृतकत्वमिव नित्यत्वे। तृतीयस्तु सन्देहमेव जनयत्यनैकान्तिकत्वात्, प्रमेयत्वादिवदिति। यदाहु :- "नासिद्धो भाववर्मोऽस्ति व्यभिचार्युभयाश्रयः । धर्मो विरुद्धो भावस्य सा सत्ता साध्यते कथम् ॥" इति। "अपि च यथाऽडद्य उदाहरणे भ्रमणविधिहेतुरेव निरूप्यमाणः प्रतिषेधे पर्यवस्यति तथेह प्रतिषेधहेतुरेव विधाविति कुतो विधिरूपार्थान्तर-प्रतीति- सिद्धिः। तस्माद्विधेयस्य अर्थान्तरस्य निबन्धनाभावात् प्रतीतिरेव नास्तीति कुतस्तस्य व्यज्जयत्वमित्ययुक्कमेवेदमुदाहरराम् ॥"-Vyaktiviveka, PP. 4°3-4°7.

Thus, according to Mahimbhatta, Anandavardhana is not justified in citing the above gatha as an illustration of suggestion, since there is no necessary and invariable relation (अविनाभाव) between the expressed sense (निषेध) and the so called suggested sense ( विधि) which in Mahimabhatta's opinion is the prerequisite and essential condition of suggestion which, in reality, is no other than Inference.

The following verse from Srīharsa's Naisadbacarita is interesting as it has some bearing on the present illustration : -

UDDYOTA I 71

निषेधवेशो विधिरेष तेऽथवा तवव युक्का खलु वाचि वक्रता। विजुम्भितं यस्य किल ध्वेनेरिदं विदग्धनारीवदनं तदाकरः ॥-Canto. IX. 50

TEXT 5१५। क्कचिद् वाच्ये विधिरूपेऽनुभयरूपो यथा- "वच्च मह व्विभ एक्केइ होन्तु णोसास-रोइअव्वाइ। मा तुञ्फ वि तीअ विणा दक्खिण्णहअस्स जाअन्तु।"

EXPOSITION §15. The suggested sense in the illustration does not stand in the relation of contradicrion ( विरोध ) with the expressed sense ( वाच्यार्थ) as in the preceding two gatbas. Here the injunction ( विधि)-viz. व्रज, does not suggest its negation-viz. व्रज्याभाव, as in the first case by भ्रमण भ्रमणाभाव was suggested. Nor there is any suggestion of a separate injunction as such. The suggested sense here bears no definite relation with the expressed sense and can neither be classed under विधि nor under निषेध and as such is termed अनुभयरूप. As Abhinavagupta explains :- "अत् व्रजेति विधिः। न प्रमादादेव नायिकान्तर-संगमनं तव, अरप्रपि तु गाढानुरागात्-येनान्यादड मुखरागः, गोतस्खलनादि च। केवलं पूर्व- कृतानुपालनात्मना दाच्िरायेनकरूपत्वाभिमानेनैव त्वमत स्थितः। तत् सर्वथा शठोऽसि इति गाढमन्युरूपोऽयं खरिडतनायिकाभिप्रायोऽत प्रतीयते। न चासौ व्रज्याऽभावरूपो निषेधः, नापि विध्यन्तरमेव अन्यनिषेधाभावः ॥

72 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

-Op. cit., pp- 73-74. Compare: 'उपाचार विधिर्मनखिनीनां न तु पूर्वाभ्यधिकोऽपि भावशून्यः ।'-Malavikagnimitra, III. 3. Mahimabhatta's comments on the above gatba are as follows :- "अत् कयाचित् खरिडतयाऽन्तर्ज्वलितेर्ष्याप्रकोपया सावहित्थं सोल्लुरठनं सप्रणायौचित्यं च यः प्रियं प्रति भेदो (?) विहितस्तत्र तस्यामेव भवान निर्व्याजमनुरक्लहृदयो मयि तु कितव! तव कृतकोपचार-वचन-रचनामात्रमेत- दिति नायकस्यान्यत् अनुरागातिशयः साध्यः। "तत्न च गच्छ तद्विरहविहितानि निःश्वास-रोदितव्यानि ममव एकस्या भवन्तु मा तवापि दात्िरायमात्नविवशस्य तया विना तानि भूवन् इति तत्न तस्य प्रस्थानानुमतिर्हेतुः। प्रस्थाने हि तस्य तद्विरहविरतिः। तद्विरतौ च तद्धेतुकानां निःश्वास-रोदनादिदुःखानामपि विरतिः । "स्नेहोत्कर्षानुविधायिनो हि प्राणिनां विरहव्यथावेशा भवन्ति, तेषां तत्कार्यत्वात्, कार्य-कारण-भावश्रेषामध्यात्मप्रमाणसिद्धः। धर्मिषि सद्भाद- सिद्धिश्वास्य हेतोः सतोऽसत एव वा प्रतिषेधसामर्थ्यादवसीयते, प्राप्तिपूर्वका हि प्रतिषेधा भवन्तीति। "तस्य च सत्यासत्यत्व-विचारो निरुपयोग एव प्रतीतिमात-परमार्थत्वात् काव्यनाट्यादीनाम्-इति विरह-व्यथावासितोऽनुरागातिशयः कान्तस्यानुमेय एव भवति न व्यङ्गथ इत्यवसेयम् ॥"-Vyaktiviveka, pp. 407.408.

TEXT

१६। कचिद् वाच्ये प्रतिषेधरूपेऽनुभयरूपो यथा- "दे आ पसिअ णिवत्तसु मुह-ससि-जोह्ा-विलुत्त-तमणिवहे। अहिसारिआणँ विग्घं करोसि अण्णाणँ वि हआसे।।'

UDDYOTA I 73

EXPOSITION

§16. According to some, in this Prākrit gatha, a lover shrewdly praises the beauty of the maiden he loves. Their explanation is as follows :- "अत् व्यवसितात् गमनात् निवर्त्तस्वेति प्रतीतेर्निषेधो वाच्यः। गृहागता नायिका गोत्र-स्खलिताद्यपराधिनि नायके सति ततः प्रतिगन्तुं प्रवृत्ता, नायकेन चाट्पक्रमपूर्वकं निवर्त्यते। न केवलं खात्मनो मम च निर्वृतिविम्न करोषि, यावदन्यासामपि। ततस्तव न कदाचन सुख-लव-लाभोऽपि भविष्यतीत्यत एव हताशासीति वल्लभाभिप्रायरूपश्चाटुविशेषो व्यङ्गयः । "यदि वा सख्या उपदिश्यमानाऽपि तदवधीरणया गच्छन्ती सख्योच्यते -न केवलमात्मनो विघ्न करोषि, लाघवादबहुमानास्पदमात्मानं कुर्वती, अत एव हताशा, यावद् वदन-चन्द्रिका-प्रकाशितमार्गतया अन्यासामपि अभि- सारिकाणां विघ्न' करोषीति सख्यभिप्रायरूपश्चाटुविशेषो व्यङ्गयः।" But Abhinavagupta demurs against such interpretations, for then this verse cannot be legitimately cited as an illustra- tion of dbvani, but it is reduced to a case of गुणीभृतव्यक्गय where the suggested sense is subordinated to the expressed sense, which becomes the object of the final cognition and relish. As he remarks: - 'अत्र तु व्याख्यानद्वूयेऽपि व्यवसितात् प्रतीपगमनात् प्रियतमगृहगमनाच्च- निवर्त्तस्वेति पुनरपि वाच्य एव विश्रान्तेर्गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेदस्य प्रेयोरसवदलंकार- स्योदाहरणमिदं स्यात् , न ध्वनेः।' The above extract from °Locana has been thus explained by the author of the Kaumudi :- इत्थं व्याख्यानद्वयं प्रदर्श्य तस्य खानभिद्रेतत्व हेतुप्रदर्शनेनाह-अत्न त्विति। तुशब्दोऽयमरुचिं द्योतयति। यदिदं व्याख्यानद्वयं तस्मिन्निहास्यां

74 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

गाथायां प्रेयोरसवदलंकारस्यैवोदाहरणं स्यात् ; न ध्वनेः-उदाहार्यतया प्रस्तुतस्य ध्वनेरिति सन्बन्धः ॥ प्रेयांश्व रसवांश्वेति प्रेयोरसवदिति द्वन्द्वस्यकवद्भावः ; तच्चालंकार इति च पश्चात् कर्मधारयः ; प्रेयसो रसवतो वा अलंकारस्येत्यर्थः । भावस्य निर्वेदादेः देवतादिविषयाया रतेर्वा गुगीभावे प्रेयोऽलकारः; शङ्गा- रादिरसस्याङ्गभावे रसवान्नाम, "रस-भाव-तदाभास-तत्प्रशमानां निबन्ध रसवत्- प्रेय-ऊजखिविसमाहितानि"-इति लच्ितत्वात्। तत सख्युक्तिपक्ते देवादि- विषयेति सख्यादीनामपि संग्रहात् सख्या नायिकाविषयाया रतेर्भावत्वात् प्रेयोऽलंकार एव स्यात् न ध्वनिः, वाच्यं प्रति तस्य गुणीभावात्। नायिकोक्ति- पत्ते तस्य नायिकाविषया रतिः शरद्गार इति तस्य गुणीभावे रसवदलक्कार एव स्यात् न ध्वनिरित्यर्थः ।-Op.cit.,Pp. 137-138. So Abhinavgupta furnishes his own interpretation of the verse in the following words :- "तेनायमत्र भावः-काचिद् रभसात् प्रियतममभिसरन्ती तद्गृहाभि- मुखमागच्छता तेनैव हृदय-वल्लभेन एवमुपश्लोक्यतेऽप्रत्यभिज्ञानच्छलेन। अत एव आत्मप्रत्यभिज्ञापनार्थमेव नर्मवचनं 'हताशे'-इति। अन्यासाश्च विघ्नं करोषि त चेप्सित-लाभो भविष्यतीति का प्रत्याशा। अत एव मदीयं वा गृहमागच्छ, त्वदीयं वा गच्छाव इत्युभयत्ापि तात्पर्य्यात् अनुभयरूपो चल्लभाभिप्रायश्राटात्मा व्यङ्गय इयत्येव व्यवतिष्ठते।" He also refers to yet another explanation, which accord- ing to him is not acceptable :- "अन्ये तु-'तटस्थानां सहृदयानामभिसारिकां प्रतीयमुक्तिः' इत्याहुः। तत्र हताशे इत्यामन्त्रादि युक्कमयुक्कं वेति सहृदया एव प्रमागाम्।" Is this a reference to the interpretation of the author of the Candrika ? Mahimabhatta thus establishes the inferential character of the suggested sense in the above illustration: -

UDDYOTA I 75

"अत काचित् कामपि निशान्धकाराभिसरणसमुद्यतां सहजसौन्दर्य- कान्तिकमनीयमुखीं सखीमालोक्य मुदितान्त:करणा प्रणायोपालम्भनिभेन तस्यास्तां रूपसम्पदम् इत्थमुपवरायतीति चाटुकार्थोऽत् प्रतीयमानोऽनुमेयः । तत्न च वाच्यस्य प्रतिषेधानुपपत्तिरेव हेतुः। तदनुपपत्तिश्व सम्बोधन- द्वारेणा उपात्तस्य मुखशशिज्योत्स्नाविलुप्ततमोनिवहत्वस्य हेतोरार्थस्यासिद्धेः, परमार्थतो मानुषोमातस्य तथाविधाया वदनेन्दुकान्तेरसम्भवात्। अतस्तस्याः तदन्यासां चाभिसारिकाणगाम अभिसरणवित्न एव न सम्भवतीति तत्प्रतिषेधप्रणायप्रयासः सख्याः तस्याम् अनर्थक एवेति प्रतिषेध- विधरनुपपत्तिसिद्धिः। अतो वदनेन्दुकान्तेर्यदेतद् 'विलुप्ततमोनिवहत्वम्' उपात्तम् तद् अन्यथाऽनुपपद्यमानं वदनस्य कान्त्यतिरेकलक्षरामर्थान्तरमेव चाटुरूपम् अनया मङ्गयाऽनुमापयति। कान्त्यतिरेकमन्तरेण निर्मलस्य तदतिशयारोपस्य लोकैरनादृतत्वात् इति तत्प्रमाणसिद्ध एवानयोः सम्बन्धो बोद्धव्यः ।" -Vyaktiviveka.

TEXT

६१७। क्वचिद् वाच्याद् विभिन्नविषयत्वेन व्यवस्था- पितो यथा- "कस्स व ण' होइ रोसो दट्ठण पिआएँ सव्वणं अहरम्। सभमर-पउमग्घाइणि वारिअवामे सहसु2 एह्िम्।।"

[ I KS. reads कस्स वा. 2 सहस्सु-KS. ]

EXPOSITION

§17. In all the previous illustrations, both the ex- pressed and the suggested senses are cognised by the same

76 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA person-viz. by the ascetic in the first illustration, by the traveller in the second, by the lover in the third and by the fiancee in the fourth. But this illustration is cited by the author to show that while the expressed sense is cognised by one person, the suggested sense is cognised by quite a different person, the substratd of the cognitions of these two senses being thus distinct ( विभिन्नविषय). And, this is also another reason why the suggested sense must be held to be different from the expressed sense. As Abhinavagupta puts it :-

मेदाद मेद इति प्रतिपादितम्। अधुना तु विषयमेदादपि व्यङ्गयस्य वाच्याद् मेद इत्याह-ककचिद् वाच्याद् इति।"- Locana. This observation of the °Locana has been made very clear in the sub-commentary Kaumudi :- उक्कोदाहरगौरेवात्यन्तिक विरोधनिबन्धनस्य वाच्यव्यङ्गयमेदस्य सिद्धत्वात् किमर्थ' मिन्नविषयोदाहरणप्रदर्शनमित्याशङ्कय विषयामेदप्रयुक्कां कामप्यमेद- शङ्कामपि निराकृत्य तद्ेदस्यातिस्फुटीकरणार्थ तदित्याह-एवमिति॥ आद्योदाहररो द्वयोरपि वाच्यव्यङ्गथयोरेको धार्मिक एव विषयः, द्वितीये पथिक:, तृतीये प्रियतमः, चतुर्थे अभिसारिकेति विषयैक्ये सत्यपीत्यर्थः। ...... "_ ibid., p. 139. The gatba is addressed to a lady by a maid-in-waiting in the presence of her husdand: "Who is not enraged to see the lips of his beloved (thus) scarred ? Now dost thou withstand (all the admonitions of thy husband) as thou didst smell the lotus with bees (humming) in it, disobeying

UDDYOTA 1 77

all our requests to the contrary." The husband, ignorant as he is of his wife's conduct, takes the maid's words at their face value, while the suggested sense-viz. the dalliance with her paramour (whose kisses caused the scars on her lips), is cleverly hinted at by the maid with an eye to the lady. Abhinavagupta brings out a variety of suggested meanings in this gatha, each intended for a particular person and thus explains the verse :- कस्स वेति॥ अनीर्ष्यालोरपि भवति रोषो दृष्ट्रव; अकृत्वापि कुतश्चिदेवापूर्वतया प्रियायाः सव्ररामधरमवलोक्य। सत्रमरपद्माघ्राणाशीले शीलं हि कथंचिदपि वारयितुं न शक्यम्। वारिते वारणायां, वामे तदनङ्गीकारिणि। सहस्वेदानीमुपालम्भपरम्परामित्यर्थः । अतायं भाव :- काचिदविनीता कुतश्चित् खरिडताधरा निश्चिततत्सविध- संनिधाने तद्भर्त्तरि तमनवलोकमानयेव कयाचिद् विदग्धसख्या तद्वाच्यता परिहारायैवमुच्यते। सहस्वेदानीम्-इति वाच्यमविनयवतीविषयम् । भत्तृ विषयं तु-अपराधो नास्तीति आवेद्यमानं व्यङ्गयम। सहस्वेत्यपि च तद्विषयं व्यङ्गयम्। तस्यां च प्रियतमेन गाढमुपालभ्यमानायां तद्व्यलीक- शङ्कित-प्रातिवेशिक-लोकविषयं चाविनयप्रच्छादनेन प्रत्यायनं व्यङ्गथम्। तत्- सपत्न्यां च तदुपालम्भतदविनयप्रहृष्टायां सौभाग्यातिशयख्यापनं प्रियाया इति शब्दबलादिति सपत्नीविषयं व्यङ्गयम्। सपत्नीमध्ये इयता खलीकृता- जस्मीति लाघवमात्मनि ग्रहीतुं न युक्कम, प्रत्युतायं बहुमानः, सहस्व शोभस्वेदानीम् इति सौभाग्य-प्रख्यापनं व्यक्गथम्। 'अदेयं तव प्रच्छन्नानुरागिणी हृदयवल्लभा इत्थं रच्षिता, पुनः प्रकटरदन-दंशन-विधिन विधेयः' इति तच्चौयकामुकविषयसम्बोधनं व्यङ्गथम्। 'इत्थ' मयतदपढ़ तम्' इति स- वैदग्ध्यख्यापनं तटस्थ-विदग्ध-लोकविषयं व्यक्षयम इति। तदेतदुक्कं 'व्यवस्था- पित'-श०्देन ।"-° Locana.

78 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Compare also Māņikyacandra's commentary on Mammata'a Kāvyaprakāsa called Kāvyaprakāsa-samketa, pp. 178-179 (Mysore Edn.). Vidyādhara reproduces verbatim Abhinavagupta's words. See Ekavali, pp. 46-47. "अत्न काचिद् विदग्धा सखी कामपि कामुकान्तिके परपुरुषपरिक्षताधर- पल्लवामालोक्य तदसहनस्भावं च तं कामुकमाकलय्य तस्याः परपरिभोगशङ्का- कलक्कमपाकर्तुमधरक्षतस्यान्यथासिद्धत्वमुपालम्भनिभेन तामाह। तत्र सत्रण- वन्लभाधरदलदर्शनं सर्वथैव कामुकलोकस्य ईर्ष्याप्रकोपकारणं भवेदिति व्याप्ति- वचनम्। तव च वारितवामायाः सभ्रमराम्भोजाघ्राणशोलायास्तन्निबन्धनमिद- मधरस्य सत्रणत्वमिति पक्षधर्मोपसंहारः। सह्यतामिदानी तस्य निजस्या- विनयस्य विपाकः प्रियतमप्रकोपरूपस्त्वयेति निगमननिर्देशः-इति वाच्यार्थ- विषयः साध्यसाधनभावस्तावत् स्पष्ट एव ।।

अनुमेयार्थविषये तु तस्मिन् परपुरुषभोगशङ्कानिरासः साध्यः। तस्य सम्रमराम्भोजाघ्राणशीलत्वेन सम्बोधन समर्पितेन अरनुमितमधरपल्लवपरिक्षते- रन्यथासिद्धत्वम् आर्थो हेतुः। तयोश्चाविनाभावनियमोऽनुरागिणामध्यात्म- प्रमाणसिद्ध एवेति सिद्धम् ॥I-Vyaktiviveka, Pp. 411-412. In this passage, Mahimabhatta establishes the inferential character of the so-called suggested sense in the gātha 'कस्स व-'.

TEXT ६१८ । अन्ये चैवंप्रकारा' वाच्याद्विभेदिन: प्रतीय- मानभेदाः सम्भवन्ति। तेषां दिङन्मात्रमेतत् प्रदर्शितम्।

[ 1. KS. reads चैवंविधाः प्रकारा :... ]

UDDYOTA I 79

EXPOSITION

§18. Hemacandra, in his Kāuyānusasana, adds a few more illustrations besides those already cited by our author with a view to bringing out the difference of the suggested sense from the expressed sense. We quote here the relevant extracts for the facility of the readers: -- "मुख्य-गौणा-लच््यार्थ-व्यतिरिक्कः प्रतीति-विषयो व्यङ्गयार्थः। स च ध्वन्यते द्योत्यते इति ध्वनिरिति पूर्वाचारयः संज्ञितः। अयं च वस्त्वलंकार- रसादिमेदात् त्रिधा। तथाहि आद्यस्तावत् प्रभेदो मुख्यादिभ्योऽत्यन्तं भिन्नः। (१) स हि वाच्ये विधिरूपे प्रतिषेधरूपो यथा- 'भम धम्मिअ्र-' इति। (२) क्वचिन्निषेधे विधिर्यथा-'अत्ता इत्थ नु मज्जइ-' इति। ... । (३) क्वचिद् विधौ विध्यन्तरं यथा- बहलतमा हअराई अज्ज पउत्थो मई गहं सुरागम्। तह जग्गेसु सअरज्जिअ्र न जहा अम्हे मुसिज्जामो।"1 अत् यथा वयं न मुष्यामहे तथा त्वं जागहीति विध्यभिधाने रातिरत्यन्ध- कारा, पतिः प्रोषितः, गृहं शून्यमतस्त्वमभयो मत्पार्श्वम् आरगच्छेति विध्यन्तरं प्रतीयते॥ (४) क्वचिन्निषेधे निषेधान्तरं यथा- "आसइयं अणायेण जेत्तियं तत्तिएण बंधदिहिं। उरमसुवसंह इन्हिं रकखिज्जइ गहवईच्छित्तम् ।।" -अत् गृहपति-क्ेत्े दुष्ट-वृष-वारण-परे निषेध-वाक्ये उपपतिवारएं निषेधान्तरं प्रतीयते॥ (५) क्वचिद्विधिनिषे विधिर्यथा-

I Hala's Gaba-sattasai, IV.35 (NSP. Edn.): "गृहं शून्यमित्य- नेनेहैव स्वच्छन्दमागच्छेति ध्वनितम्।"-Gangadhara Bhatta's gloss.

80 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"महुएहिं किं च पन्थिअ जइ हरसि नियसं नियम्बाओ। साहेमि कस्स रत्ने गामो दूरे अहं एक्का ॥"-इति। -अत विधिनिषधयोरनभिधाने अहमेकाकिनी, ग्रामो दूरे इनि विविक्कोपदेशात् नितम्बवासोऽपि मे हरेति विधिः प्रतीयते। (६) क्वचिद- विधिनिषेधे निषेधो यथा- 'जीविताशा बलवती धनाशा दुर्वला मम । गच्छ वा तिष्ठ वा पान्थ स्वावस्था तु निवेदिता ॥"1 -अत गच्छ वा तिष्ठ वेति अविधिनिधेधे 'जीविताशा बलवती धनाशा दुर्वला मम" इति वचनात् 'त्वया विनाहं जीवितुं न शक्कोमि' इत्युपच्तेपेण गमननिषेध: प्रतीयते ॥ (७) क्वचिद् विधि-निषेधयोर्विध्यन्तरं यथा- "रिगअ्र-दइअ-दंसनुक्खित्त पहिश्र अरारोणा वच्चसु पहेए। गहवइ-धूया दुल्लङ्व-वागुरा इह हयगगामे ।।" -अत् अन्येन पथा व्रजेतिविधि-निषेधयोरभिधाने 'हे सकान्ताभिरू- पताविकत्थन पान्थाभिरूपक ! इह ग्रामे भवतो गृहपतिसुता द्रष्टव्यरूपे'-ति विध्यन्तरं प्रतीयते ॥ (८) क्वचिद् विधिनिषेधयोनिषेधान्तरं यथा- "उच्चिणासु पडितकुसुमं मा घुरा सेहालिय हलितर-सुन्हे। एस अवसाण-विरसो ससुरेणा सुओ वलयसद्दो।।" अत्र पतितं कुसुममुच्चिनु मा धुनीहि शेफालिकामिति विधिनिषेधयोरभिधाने 'सखि ! चौर्यरते प्रसक्के वलयशब्दो न कर्त्तव्यः'-इति निषेधान्तरं प्रतीयते ॥ (8) क्वचिद्विधौ अ्रनुभयं यथा- "सिनियं वच्च किसोयरि पएणा यत्तेणा ढविसु महिवद। मज्जहि सिविच्छ्रयच्छणि विहिणा दुरेकणा-निम्मचिया॥" -अत् शनैव्र जेति विध्यभिधाने न विधिर्नापि निषेधः, अपि तु वर्ाना- मात्र प्रतीयते ॥

I See Dandin's Kāvyādarsa, II. 139.

UDDYOTA I 81

(१०) क्वचिन्निषेधऽनुभयं यथा- "दे तर पसित्र ... " (११) क्वचिद्विधिनिषेधयोरनुभयं यथा-"वच्च महं वित्र-" इति। (१२) क्वचिदविधिनिषेधेऽनुभयं यथा- "गाह-मुह-पसाहिअ्रंगो निद्दाघुम्मन्त-लोयो न तहा। जह निव्वराणाहरोसा मलंग दूमेसि मह हिययम् ॥" -विगतमत्सराया मम न तथा नख-पदादि-चिह्न' भवदङ्सद्गि खेदावहं

वाच्योऽर्थः। तद्वलसमुत्थस्तु सहृदयोत्प्रेत्ितोऽत्यन्तवाल्लम्यान्मुखचुम्बनपर एव तस्यास्त्वं यत्त्वदधर-खराडनावसरोऽस्या वराक्या न जात इति न केवलं तस्या भवानतिवल्लमो यावद् भवतोऽपि सा सुतरां रोचते इति वयमिदानीं त्वत्प्रेमनिराशाः संजाता इति नायिकाभिप्रायो व्यङ्कयः ॥ (१३) क्वचिद् वाच्याद्विभिन्न-विषयत्वेन व्यवस्थापितो यथा- "कस्स व न होइ रोसो .. " इति॥ -Op. cit., pp. 26-34.

TEXT ६१९। द्वितीयोऽपि प्रभेदो वाच्याद्विभिन्नः सप्र- पञ्चमग्रे दर्शयिष्यते। तृतीयस्तु रसादिलक्षणः प्रभेदो वाच्यसामर्थ्याक्षिप्तः प्रकाशते, न तु साक्षात शब्दव्यापारविषय इति वाच्याद्विभिन्न एव। तथा हि वाच्यत्वं तस्य स्वशब्द- निवेदितत्वेन वा स्यात्, विभावादिप्रतिपादनमुखेन वा। पूर्वस्मिन पक्षे सवशब्दनिवेदितत्वाभावे रसादी- 6

82 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA नामप्रतीतिप्रसङ्ग। न च सर्वत्र तेषां स्वशब्द- निवेदितत्वम्। यत्राप्यस्ति तत्, तत्रापि विशिष्ट- विभावादिप्रतिपादनमुखेनैवैषां प्रतीतिः। स्वशब्देन सा केवलमनद्यते, न तु ततकृता। विषयान्तरे तथा तस्या अदर्शनात्। न हि केवलशृङ्गारादिशब्द- मात्रभाजि विभावादिप्रतिपादनरहिते काव्ये मनागपि रसवत्त्वप्रतीतिरस्ति। यतश्च स्वाभिधानमन्तरेण केवलेभ्योऽपि विभावादिभ्यो विशिष्टेभ्यो' रसादीनां प्रतीति:, केवलाच्च स्वाभिधानादप्रतीतिः, तस्मादन्वय- व्यतिरेकाभ्याम् अभिधेयसामर्थ्याक्षिप्तत्वमेव रसा- दीनाम्, न तु अभिधेयत्वं कथन्चित्-इति तृतीयोऽपि प्रभेदो वाच्याद् भिन्न एवेति स्थितम्। वाच्येन त्वस्य सहेव प्रतीतिरित्यग्रे दशयिष्यते॥

[ I. KS. omits विशिष्टेभ्यः ] EXPOSITION S19. द्वितीयोऽपि प्रमेद :- refers to that variety where the suggested sense is in the form of a figure of speech (अरलंकार ), which is reducible to a particular kind of relation (सम्बन्ध ) as subsisting between the व्याच्यार्थ and the व्यङ्रचार्थ. अग्रे दर्शयिष्यते-As the suggestion of अलंकार's is much more varied and complex than that of mere वस्तु (fact), it is

UDDYOTA I 83

dealt with in extenso in the Second Uddyota, a major portion of which is devoted to the discussion of the nature of अलंकारध्वनि. As Abhinavagupta observes :- अग्रे इति। द्वितीयोद्दयोते 'अरसंलच्यक्रमव्यङ्गयः क्रमेणा द्योतितः परः' इति विवत्ितान्यपर- वाच्यस्य द्वितीयप्रभेदव्णनावसरे। यथा हि विधि-निषेध-तदनुभयात्मना रूपेगा संकलय्य वस्तुध्वनिः संक्षेपेण सुवचः, तथा नालंकारध्वनिः, अलंकाराणां भूयस्त्वात्। अत एवोक्लम् -सप्रपञ्चमिति।"-Locana. तृतीयस्तु रसादिलक्षण :...... इति वाच्याद्विभिन्न एव -The particle तु (तृतीयस्तु:) serves to differentiate the third variety of suggestion-viz, of रस, भाव etc., from the previous two categories. For while वस्तु and अलंकार can be at times conveyed through denotation, रस, भाव etc. are always suggest- ed. Compare: "तु-शब्दो व्यतिरेके। वस्त्वलंकारावपि शब्दाभि- धेयत्वमध्यासाते तावत्। रस-भाव-तदाभास-तत्प्रशम: पुनर्न कदाचिद- भिधीयन्ते, अथ चास्वाद्यमानताप्राणतया भान्ति। तत्न ध्वननव्यापाराते नास्ति कल्पनान्तरम्। स्खलद्गतित्वाभावे मुख्यार्थबाधादेलक्षणानिबन्धनस्या- नाशङ्कनीयत्वात् ॥-Locana, P. 78.1 Abhinavagupta explains सशच्द as :- स्वशन्देति। शृङ्गारादिना शब्देन अभिधाव्यापारवशादेव ॥- °Locana. It is interesting to note here that while the followers of

I Vide Dhvanyāloka, II. 4. I Compare: "प्रागसत्त्वाद्रसादेरनो बोधिके लक्षणाभिधे। विंच मुख्यार्थवाधस्य विरहादपि लक्षणा॥" - Viśvanātha's Sābityadarpaņa, V. 3.

84 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the Dhvani school hold that रस, भाव etc. must always be suggested, Udbhata, the reputed author of the Kavya- lamkara-sara-samgraba, explicitly states that T ( according to him a variety of अलंकार ) can be expressed in five different ways-viz. through स्व-शब्द, स्थायि-भाव, संचारि-भाव, विभाव and अभिनय. Thus according to him, if any sentiment is expressed though the generic term T or through any of the specific terms like शद्गार, करुणा etc. there would be no impediment in the way of our realisation of the senti- ment. Compare : रसवद्दर्शित-स्पष्ट-शङ्गरादि-रसोदयम्। स्वशब्द-स्थायि-सश्चारि-विभावाभिनयास्पदम् ।। शङ्गार-हास्य-करुणा-रौद्र-वीर-भयानकाः। बीभत्साद्भुत-शान्ताश्च नव नाय्य रसा: स्मृताः ॥ -Kāvyalamkāra-sāra-samgraba, IV. 3-4- Pratīharenduraja's commentary on the above verses is as follows :- "एषां च शङ्गारादीनां नवानां ख-शब्दादिभिः पश्चभिरवगतिर्भवति। यदुक्कं भट्टोद्भटेन-'पश्चरूपा रसाः2 इति। तत् ख-शब्दाः शद्गारादेर्वाचकाः श्रङ्गारादयः शब्दाः। स्थायिनो रसानामुपादानकारणाप्रख्या रत्यादयो नव

1. The quotation 'पश्चरूपाः रसाः attributed to Udbhata, cannot be traced to any known work. Most probably it is from Udbhata's lost commentary on Bhamaba's Kavyalamkara or from his commentary on Bharata's Natya- sastra, which too is lost. That Udbhata wrote a com-

UDDYOTA I 85

भावाः। संचारिणास्तु निर्वेदादयो रसानामवस्थाविशेषरूपाः। विभावास्तु तेषां निमित्तकारणभूता योषिदादयः ऋतुमाल्यानुलेपनादयश्च। आङ्गिकादयस्तु चत्वारो रसानां कार्यभूता अभिनयाः। एतेषां च ख-शब्दादीनां पञ्चानां समस्त व्यस्ततया आस्पदत्वात् येन काव्येन स्फुटरूपतया शरङ्गारादि-रसाविर्भावो दश्यते तत् काव्यं रसवत्। रसाः खलु तस्यालंकारः।'-The illustrations

mentary on the Natya-sastra is attested by the following

verse: - "व्याख्यातारो भारतीये लोल्लटोद्भट-शङ्कुकाः । भट्टाभिनवगुप्तश्च श्रीमान् कीत्तिधरोऽपरः ॥" -Šāradātanaya's Bhāvaprakasa. It is to be noted that the same quotation is found in the commenrary on Hemacandara's Kavyanusasana: रसादे: स-शब्दोक्कि: क्वचित् संचारि-वर्ज दोषः"-Op.cit., III, on which Hemacandra himself comments-एतेन-"रसवद् दर्शित-स्पष्ट- श्रङ्गारोदिरसोदयम्। सव-शब्द-स्थायि-संचारि-विभावाभिनयास्पदम् ।"- इत्येतद्-व्याख्यानावसरे यद् भट्टोद्भटेन 'पश्चरूपा रसा' इत्युपक्रम्य 'ख्व-शब्दाः शृङ्गार।देवाचकाः श्रक्गारादयः शब्दा:' इत्युक्कम्, तत् प्रतित्िप्तम्।- Op. cit., pp. 110-III.

Kuntaka in his Vakroktijīvita criticises in sarcastic terms the fantastic view of Udbhata, that रस, भाव etc. can be expressed through denotation (i.e. स-शव्दवाच्य): "यदपि

( i.e., 'रसवद् दशितस्पष्टशङ्गारादि-रसोदयम्'-इति भामहकृतं लक्षणम्) विशेषितम्, तत्र स्व-शव्दास्पदत्व रसानाम् अपरिगतपूर्वमस्माकम्। ततस्त एव रससर्वस्वसमाहितचेतसस्तत्परमार्थविदो विद्वांसः परं प्रष्टव्याः-किं स्व-

86 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

given by Udbhata from his lost Kumarasambhava are as follows :-

इति भावयतस्तस्य समस्तान् पार्वतीगुणान्। संभृतानल्पसंकल्पः कन्दर्पः प्रबलोऽ्भवत् ॥ स्विद्यताऽपि स गात्रेण बभार पुलकोत्करम् कदम्बकलिकाकोशकेसरप्रकरोपमम् ॥ क्षणमौत् सुक्यगर्भिराया चिन्तानिश्चलया क्षणाम्। क्षएं प्रमोदालसया दृशाSस्यास्यमभूष्यत ।। Pratībārenduraja thus explains them :- "कदम्बकलिकाकोशः कदम्बकलिकाभ्यन्तरम्। अत् भगवतः अभिलाषिक- विप्रलम्भशङ्गारो निबद्धः। तस्य सशब्दः कन्दपः प्रबत इति। स्थायी तत्नैव सवशब्देनैवोन्मीलितः कन्दर्प इति। रतिपरिपोषात्मको हि श्रङ्गारो रसः । रतिश्र यूनोर्मन्मथात्मिका। अतो रतिविशेषस्य वाचकत्वात् कन्दर्पशब्दः स्थायिनोऽत सव-शब्दः। संचारिशाश्च श्रत्सुक्य-चिन्ता-हर्षाः स्वशब्देनो- न्मीलिताः। स्वेदरोमाश्चौ च सात्त्विकौ स्व-शब्दोपातौ। तयोरपि च संचारित्वम्। सात्त्विकानां स्थायिभावावस्थाविशेषत्वेन निर्वेदादिवत् सश्ारि- त्वात्। विभावस्तु भावयतस्तस्येति निर्दिष्टः। भगवती हि तत्तद् गुणोपेत- त्वेन विभाव्यमाना विभावः। अभिनयस्तु अत्र अपाङ्गाभिनयो निर्दिष्टः-

शब्दास्पदत्व रसानामुत रसवतः इति। तत्न पूर्वस्मिन् पच्ते रस्यन्ते इति रसास्ते स्वशब्दास्पदास्तेषु तिप्ठन्तः शङ्गारादिषु वर्त्तमानाः सन्तस्तजज्ञैराखाद्यन्ते। तदिदमुक्कं भवति-यत् स-शब्दरभिधीयमाना: श्रुतिपथमतरन्तः चेतनानां चर्वणा-चमत्कार कुर्वन्तीत्यनेन न्यायेन घृतपूर प्रभृतयः पदार्थाः स्शब्दैरभिधीय- मानास्तदाखादसम्पदं सम्पादयन्तीत्येवं सर्वस्य कस्यचित् उपभोगसुखार्थिनः तैरुदारचरितैरयत्नेनैव तदभिधानमात्रादेव तैलोक्य-राज्य-सम्पत्सौख्य-समृद्धि: प्रतिपाद्यते इति नमस्तेभ्यः ।"-Op.cit., Unmesa III, p. 159.

UDDYOTA I 87

दृशा-इति। अतोऽताभिलाषिकः शृङ्गाररसः स्व-शब्दादिभिः पश्चभिर- भिव्यज्यते ।"-ibid., pp. 53-54. Thus, Udbhata's view about rasa runs counter to that of the Dhvani theorists, who hold it as a grave defect of a poem if any rasa or the स्थायिभाव or संचारिभाव pertaining to it is expressed through the denotative power (अभिधा) of words. Mammata says: "व्यभिचारिरस-स्थायिभावानां शब्दवाच्यता"-Kauya-prakasa, VII. 60. Thus it is not improbable that the present section of the Dhvanyaloka is directed against Udbhata's position. न च सर्वत्र ......... et .- The purpose of this section is to refute the theory of स्वशब्दवाच्यत्व of रस, भाव etc. by pointing out the absence of अन्वय and व्यतिरेक as between स्वशब्द on the one hand and T etc. on the other, and thus ultimately to establish the function of suggestion as being the sole competent function in respect ot communication of the emotional moods like रस etc. As Abhinavagugta, points

out :- तत्न स्वशव्दस्यान्वयव्यतिरेकौ रस्यमानतासारं रसं प्रति निराकुवन् ध्वननस्यैव ताविति दर्शयति-न च सर्वत्रेति ॥-°Locana. This notion of अन्वय-व्यतिरेक has been further made clear by Uttungodaya in his sub-commentary Kaumudi :- तत्नेति ॥ द्वयोः पत्तयोर्मध्य इत्यर्थः। खशब्दनिवेदितत्वस्य भावे रसादिप्रतीतेः भावोऽन्वयः ; तदभावे रसादिप्रतीतेरभावो व्यतिरेकः ; तन्निराकरणामुखेन ध्वननव्यापारस्य तत्समर्थनम् उत्तरग्रन्थसन्दर्भेणा प्रदर्श्यत इत्यर्थ: ॥-loc. cit., p. 148.

88 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

न च सर्वत्र तेषां स्वशब्दनिवेदितत्वम्-This points to the absence of व्यतरेक(-व्याप्ति), while यत्राप्यस्ति तत् ...... न तु तत्क्ृता shows the absence of अन्वय(-व्याप्ति). Cf. Locana: एवं व्यतिरेकाभावं प्रदर्श्यान्वयाभाव दर्शयति-यत्रापीति॥ नहि केवल.मनागपि रसवत्त्वप्रतीतिरस्ति-Had the senti- ments like "ATT etc. been liable to be conveyed through the expressive or denotative power (अभिधा-व्यापार) of words a mere perusal of the verse-"शङ्गार-हास्य-करुण-रौद्र-वीर- भयानकाः । वीभत्साद्भत-शान्ताश्च नाव्य नव रसाः स्मृताः ॥"-would have given rise to the realisation of all the different senti- ments. But this is not so. Consequently, it must be granted that the realisation of the aesthetic emotions depends on the proper presentation of विभाव's, अनुभाव's and संचारि-भाव's through words embellished with attractive figures of speech. वाच्येन त्वस्य ...... इत्यग्र दर्शयिष्यते-रस, भाव etc. are called असंलक्ष्य-क्रम-व्यङ्गय in contradistinction with वस्तु and अलंकार that are styled संलक्ष्य-क्रम-व्यङ्गय, for in the case of the former group no sequence ( क्रम ) is observable between the cognition of the expressed sense ( viz. विभाव's, अनुभाव's and संचारिभाव's) and the final aesthetic relish. Compare :- रस-भाव-तदाभास तत्प्रशान्त्यादिरक्रमः । ध्वनेरात्माSङ्गिभावेन भासमानो व्यवस्थितः॥-Dhvanyaloka, II. 3.1 Also: 'न खलु विभावानुभाव-व्यभिचारिण एव रसाः, अपि तु

I See our edition of Dhvanyaloka, Pt. II, pp. 8 ff.

UDDYOTA I 89

रसस्तैरित्यसि्ति क्रमः, स तु लाघवान्न लच्ष्यते ॥'-Kauyaprakasa, IV. Abhinavagupta thus brings out the significance of the indeclinable particle इव in सहेव- "इव-शव्देन विद्यमानोऽपि क्रमो न संलच्यते-इति तद् दर्शयति।"

TEXT 8२0। काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा। क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्रोकत्वमागतः ॥।५।1 विविध' -वाच्यवाचकरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणः काव्यस्य स एवार्थः सारभूतः। तथा चादिकवेर्वाल्मीके: निहत- सहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्च्ाकन्दजनितः शोक एव श्लोकतया परिणतः । शोको हि करुणरसस्थायिभावः। प्रतीय- मानस्य चान्यभेद1-दर्शनेSपि रस-भाव-मुखेनैवोपलक्षणं, प्राधान्यात।।

[ I KS. reads विविध-विशिष्ट०. 2 KS. omits वाल्मीके :. 3 KS. adds प्रतीयमानरूप एवेति प्रतिपादितम्. 4 प्रभेद for भेद in KS. ] EXPOSITION

$20. स एवार्थ :- Though सः अर्थः ought to refer to the

Compare : 'तामभ्यगच्छद्रुदितानुसारी मुनिः कुशेष्माहरणाय यातः। निषादविद्धारडजदर्शनोत्थः श्रलोकत्वमापद्यत यस्य शोकः ॥' -Raghu° XIV. 70

90 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

suggested sense or 'प्रतोयमान वस्तु' in general which has been mentioned in the immediately paeceding kārikā, yet in the present karika the tbird variety of suggestion-viz. रसध्वनि, is mainly in view in consonance with what follows. As Abhinavagupta observes: - "स एवेति प्रतीयमानमात्नेऽपि प्रकान्ते तृतीय एव रसध्वनिरिति मन्तव्यम्, इतिहासबलात् प्रकरान्तवृत्तिग्रन्थबलाच। तेन रस एव वस्तुत आत्मा, वस्त्वलंकारध्वनी तु सर्वथा रसं प्रति पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्यादुत्कृष्टौ तौ-इत्यभिप्रायेण 'ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मा'-इति सामान्येनोक्कम्।"-°Locana. The second half of the above karika is meant as an illustration of the proposition that रसध्वनि is the soul of a poem. In the Ramayana, it is the करुण-रस or tragic emotion that pervades the whole poem. In the Fourth Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka Anandavardhana states : - "प्रवन्धे चाङ्गी रस एक एवोपनिबध्यमानोरऽर्थविशेषलाभं छायातिशयं च पुष्णाति। कस्मिन्निवेति चेत्-यथा रामायरो यथा वा महाभारते। रामायणे हि करुणो रसः स्यमादिकाविनासूत्ितः-'शोकः श्रोकत्वमागतः' इत्येवंवादिना। निर्व्यूढश्च स एव सीतात्यन्तवियोगपर्यन्तमेव खवप्रबन्धमुप- रचयता॥ "कोञ्चद्वन्द्व ..... श्ोकत्वमागतः"-The Ramayana is the outward manifestation and embodiment of the poet's tragic emotion ( करुण-रस ) that was aroused by the pitiful cries of the kraunca bird at the sight of its consort ( क्रौश्ी) being pierced to death by an arrow of the fowler. The term x1 -: has to be construed with क्रौश्व in the compound क्रौश्द्वन्द्व- वियोगोत्थ: and not with आदिकवे: Abhinavagupta gives

UDDYOTA I 91

reasons in support of this construction in the following passage :- "शोक इति॥ क्रौश्वस्य द्वन्द्ववियोगेन सहचरीहननोद्भूतेन साहचय- ध्वंसनेन उत्थितो यः शोक: स्थायिभावो निरपेक्षभावत्वात् विप्रलम्भशङ्गारोचित- रतिस्थायिभावाद अन्य एव। स एव तथाभूतविभाव-तदुत्थाकन्दाद्यनुभाव- चर्वराया हृदय-संवाद-तन्मयीभवनक्रमाद् आखाद्यमानतां प्रतिपन्नः करुणरस- रूपतां लौकिकशोकव्यतिरिक्कां सचित्तद्रुतिसमाखाद्यसारां प्रतिपन्नो रसपरिपूर्णा- कुम्भोच्लनवत् चित्तवृत्तिनिःष्यन्दखभाव-वागविलापादिवच्च समयानपेक्षत्वेऽपि चित्तवृत्तिव्यञ्जकत्वात् इति नयेन अकृतकतयैव आवेशवशात् समुचितशब्द- च्छन्दोवृत्तादिनियन्त्रितश्रलोकरूपतां प्राप्त :- 'मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः । यत् कौश्चमिथुनादेकमवधीः काममोहितम् ॥' इति। नतु मुनेः शोक इति मन्तव्यम्। एवं हि सति तद्दुःखेन सोऽपि दुःखित इति कृत्वा रसस्यात्मतेति निरवकाशं भवेत्। न च दुःखसन्तप्तस्यैषा दशेति। एवं चर्वणोचितशोकस्थायिभावात्मककरुणरससमुच्चलनस्वभाव-

त्वात् स एव काव्यस्यात्मा सारभूतखभावोSपरशब्दवैलक्षरायकारकः । एतदेवोक्कं हृदयदर्परो-'यावत् पूर्णो न चैतेन तावन्नैव वमत्यमुम्" ॥ इति- °Locana.

Thus, every true poem is merely an expression of the poet's overflowing emotion and is a medium to transmit this emotion to the readers in succession, and it is because of this that emotions ( रस) are truly styled as the soul of

I By एषा दशा is meant the state of artistic creation, which cannot be caused by a sorrowful state of the mind: एषेति।। शोकरचनारूपेत्यर्थः ।-Uttuigodaya's Kaumudi.

92 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

poetic composition. This idea has been admirably represen- ted by Abhinavagupta in his scholium known as Abbinava- bbāratī on Bharata's Nātya-sāstra, VI. 42 :- "यथा बीजाद् भवेद् वृत्षो वृत्तात पुष्पं फलं तथा। तथा मूलं रसाः सर्वे तेभ्यो भावा व्यवस्थिताः ॥" -The readings of the commentary are extremely corrupt and obscure though the purport thereof is sufficiently clear: - "बीजं यथा वृक्षमूलत्वेन स्थितं तथा रसाः। तन्मूलादि(हि)प्रीतिपूर्विका व्युत्पत्तिरिति च व्याख्यानार्हाः। कविगतसाधारणीभूतसंविन्मूलश्ष काव्यपुरःसरो नटव्यापारः। सैव च संवित् परमार्थतो रसः। सामाजिकस्य च तत्प्रतीत्या वशीकृतस्य पश्चादपोद्धारबुद्धया विभावादिप्रतीतिरिति प्रयोजने (नं) नाट्ये काव्ये सामाजिकधियि च। तदेवं मूलं बीजस्थानीयः कविगतो रसः। कविर्हि सामाजिकतुल्य एव। तत एवोक्रम्-"शभारी चेत् कवि :- "2 इत्याद्यानन्दवर्धनाचार्येण। ततो वृक्षस्थानीयं काव्यम्। तत्न पुष्पादिस्थानीयोऽभिनयादिनटव्यापारः। तत फलस्थनीयः सामाजिक- रसस्ादः। तेन रसमयमेव विश्वम् ॥"-Op.cit., Vol. I, p. 294. प्रतीयमानस्य च ..... प्राधान्यात्-Abhinavagupta explains the purport of this statement thus: - ननु प्रतीयमानरूपमात्मा, तच्च त्रिभेदं प्रतिपादितम् ; न तु रसैकरूपम् ; अ्रनेन चेतिहासेन रसस्यवात्मभूतत्वमुक्कं भवतोत्याशक्क्य अ्रभ्युपगमेनैवोत्तरमाह -प्रतीयमानस्य चेति।। अन्यो मेदो वस्त्वलंकारात्मा। भावप्रहरोन व्यभिचारिणोऽपि चर्व्यमाणस्य तावन्मातविश्रान्तावपि स्थायिचर्वणापर्यवसानो- चितरसप्रतिष्ठामनवाप्यापि प्राणत्व भवतीत्युक्कम्। यथा-

2 Cited in the vrtti on Dhvanyāloka, III. 41-42.

UDDYOTA I 93

"नखं नखाग्रेण विघट्ट्यन्ती विवत्तयन्ती वलयं विलोलम्। आमन्द्रमाशिश्चितनूपुरेश पादेन मन्दं भुवमालिखन्ती॥"

-इत्यत लज्जायाः । रसभावशव्देन तदाभास-तत्प्रशमावपि संगृहीतावेव, अवान्तरवैचित्र्येऽपि तदेकरूपत्वात्।। प्राधान्यादिति॥ रसपर्यवसाना- दित्यर्थः। तावन्मात्ाविश्रान्तावपि चान्यशब्दवैलक्षरायकारित्वेन वस्त्वलंकार- ध्वन्योरपि जीवितत्वमौचित्यादुक्कमिति भाव: II-°Locana. Compare: -

"व्यङ्गयव्यञ्जकभ।वेऽस्मिन् विविधे सम्भवत्यपि। रसादिमय एकस्मिन् कविः स्यादवधानवान्।।" -Dhvanyāloka, IV. 5. Also: 'यतः परिपाकवतां कतीनां रसादितात्पर्यविरहे व्यापार एव न शोभते'-Dhvanyaloka-urtti, Uddyota III,

TEXT

९२१। सरस्वती स्वादु तदर्थवस्तु निःष्यन्दमाना महतां कवीनाम्। अलोकसामान्यमभिव्यनक्ति परिस्फुरन्तं' प्रतिभाविशेषम् ।६।।

तद्2 वस्तुतत्त्वं निःष्यन्दमाना महतां कवीनां भारती अलोकसामान्यं प्रतिभाविशेषं परिस्फुरन्त- मभिव्यनक्ति। येनास्मिन्नतिविचित्रकविपरम्परावाहिनि

94 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA संसारे कालिदासप्रभृतयो द्विला: पञ्चषा वा महाकवय इति* गण्यन्ते।।

[ I KS. प्रतिस्फुरन्तं-NSP. 2 KS. drops तत्. 3 NSP. & KS. read सरस्ती for भारती. 4 KS. drops इति here ]

EXPOSITION §21. In the immediately preceding karika, viz. ('काव्यस्यात्मा-' ), the Dhvanikara has referred to इतिहास or traditon in order to establish the supremacy of the व्यङ्ञय sense, especially of रस, whereas in the present karika he appeals to the poet's own experience ( ख-संवेदन) on the occasion of any poetic creation with a view to lending additional support to his thesis. This has been clearly pointed out by Abhinavagupta in his OLocana : "एवमितिहासमुखेन प्रतीयमानस्य काव्यात्मतां प्रदर्श्य स्वसंवित्सिद्धमप्येतदिति दर्शयति-सरखतीति॥ वागरूपा भगवती त्यर्थः।" The author of the sub-commentary Kaumudi further clinches the purport of the Locana-text thus : "समनन्तरकारिकाया अपि यद्यपि काव्यात्मत्वप्रसाधकत्वमविशिष्टम्, तथापि तद्विषयप्रमाणणन्तरप्रदर्शनेन तद् द्रढिमनिबन्धनत्वादानर्थ्यमनाशङ्कयमित्याह- एवमिति॥ न केवलमितिहास एवात् प्रमाणं ख-संवेदनमपीत्यर्थः । तेन स्वप्रत्यक्ष सिद्धत्वादत्यन्तानपह्ववनीयत्वमर्थस्य समर्थितम् ।।" "The Goddess of learning herself, out of divine grace, so weaves out the theme overflowing with emotion, the quintessence of poetic art, to devise which no conscious

AV UDDYOTA I 95

effort is needed on the part of the poet, as to reveal the light of the poet's genius that shines forth with a transcendent halo." The same thought is repeated in the following karika of the Dbvanyaloka :- "प्रतायन्तां वाचो निमितविविधार्थामितरसा न साद: कर्त्तव्यः कविभिरनवद्य सवविषये। परस्वादानेच्छाविरतमनसो वस्तु सुकवेः सरस्वत्येवैषा घटयति यथेष्ट भगवती ॥"-IV. 17 -which has been explained in the vrtti as follows :- 'येषां सुकवीनां प्राक्कन-पुरायाभ्यास-परिपाकवशेन प्रवृत्तिस्तेषां परोप- रचितार्थ-निःस्पृहाणां स्व-व्यापारो न क्वचिदुपयुज्यते। सैव भगवती सरस्वती स्वयमभिमतमर्थमाविर्भावयति। एतदेव हि महाकवित्व महाकवीनाम् ॥" It should be noted that the expression 'अर्थवस्तु' in the present kārika has been para-phrased in the vrtti as 'atJ- तत्त्वम्'. As Locana observes: वस्तुशन्देनार्थशब्दं तत्त्व-शब्देन च वस्तुशब्दं व्याचष्टे।-which has been explained in the Kaumudi as follows: "कारिकायां यदर्थवस्तुशव्देनोक्नं तदेव वृत्तौ वस्तुतखव- शब्देन व्याख्यानाभिप्रायेणोक्म्। अर्थश्चासौ वस्तु चेति अर्थ-वस्तु ; अर्थशब्दोऽत वस्तुवाचकः ; वस्तु चातत्त्वमपि भवति, न त्विदं तथेति योतयितु तखववाची वस्तुशब्द इति नान्यतरवैयर्थ्यमित्याह-वस्तु- शब्देनेति ॥"-Thus, it is the considered opinion of the Dhvanikara that the emotional element or rasa is the only real essence ( तरव) of poetic art. The production of a great genius is marked by spon- taneity while that of a talent is laboured and forced. Compare Abhinavagupta's comment ;-

96 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"निःष्यन्दमानेति। दिव्यमानन्दरसं स्वयमेव प्रस्तुवाना इत्यर्थः । यदाह भट्टनायक :- "वाग्धेनुर्द्ग्ध एतं हि रसं यद् बालतृष्पया। तेन नास्य समः स स्याद् दुह्यते योगिंभिर्हि यः ॥" तदावेशेन विनाप्याक्रान्त्या हि योगिभिर्द् हयते। अत एव- "यं सर्वशैलाः परिकल्प्य वत्सं मेरौ स्थिते दोग्धरि दोहदच्े। भास्वन्ति रत्नानि महौषधीश्व पृथूपदिष्टा दुदुहुर्घरित्रीम् ।।" -इत्यनेन साराग्रथवस्तुपात्नत्व हिमवत उक्कम्॥"-Op. cit., Pp.91-92. Abhinavagupta in his Locana has defined प्रतिभा as 'प्रतिभा अपूर्ववस्तुनिर्माणाक्षमा प्रज्ञा' which has been further explained in the Kaumudi as follows : "अपूर्वेति॥ अपूर्वतया वस्तुनो निर्मारो ; अथवा अपूर्वस्यैव वस्तुनः निर्मारो। यहाहुः-"प्रज्ञां नवनवोन्मेषशालिनीं प्रतिभां विदुः" इति। वामनोऽपि-"कवित्ववीजं प्रतिभानम्" इति। तथा चाह-"द्वे वर्त्मनी गिरो देव्याः शास्त्र' च कविकर्म च। प्रज्ञोपजं तयोरादं प्रतिभोद्भ्वमन्तिमम् ॥"-इति।"-Thus there is a difference between प्रज्ञा and प्रतिभा, the former lying at the basis of scientfic productions ( शास्त्र) and the latter being the toot cause of poetic art ( काव्य). Bhatta-Tauta, in his lost Kāvya-kautuka, has thus defined प्रतिभा and differentiated it from other intellectual functions like प्रज्ञा, मति, स्मृति etc. :- "स्मृतिर्व्यतीत विषया मतिरागामिगोचरा। बुद्धिस्तात्कालिकी प्रोक्का प्रज्ञा त कालिकी मता। प्रज्ञा नवनवोन्मेषशालिनी प्रतिभा मता।

तस्य कर्म स्मृतं काव्यम्-" इति॥

UDDYOTA I 97

Note also Vyakti-viveka :- "रसानुगुणाशब्दार्थचिन्तास्तिमितचेतसः । क्षणां सरूपस्पर्शोत्था प्रज्ञैव प्रतिभा कवेः ॥ सा हि चन्तुभगवतस्तृतीयमिति गोयते। येन साक्षात्करोत्येष भावांस्त्रैकाल्यवर्ततिनः ॥।" -Op. cit,, II. 117-118.4 Abhinavagupta distinctly states that just as this divine प्रतिभा is self-evident (खसंवेदन-सिद्ध) to true poets, similarly to real connoisseurs ( सहृदय) of poetic art the same intui- tive faculty is required for the relish of the emotional content of the poem. As he observes : प्रतिपत्तन् प्रति सा प्रतिभा नानुमीयमाना, अपि तु तदावेशेन भासमानेत्यर्थः। यथोक्कमस्मदुपाध्याय- भटटतौतेन-"नायकस्य कवेः श्रोतुः समानोऽनुभवस्ततः" इति।-In the case of the poets this intuition is called कारयित्री प्रतिभा, while in the case of the connoisseurs it goes by the name of भावयित्री प्रतिभा. This has been discussed by Rajasekhara in. his Kavya-mīmāmsā in great detail. Compare : "2T शब्दग्राममर्थसार्थमलङ्कारतन्त्रमुक्तिमार्गमन्यदपि तथाविधमधिहृदयं प्रतिभासयति सा प्रतिभा। अप्रतिभस्य पदार्थसार्थः परोक्ष इव, प्रतिभावतः पुनरपश्यतोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इव। .... सा च द्विधा कारयित्री भावयित्री च। कवेरुपकुर्वाणा कारयित्री। ... भावकस्योपकुर्वाणा भावयित्री। सा हि कवेः श्रममभिप्रायं

I Compare: 'तेन खलु पुनः समयेन तं भगवन्तमाविर्भूत-शब्द- ब्रह्म-प्रकाशम् ऋषिमुपसंगम्य भगवान् पद्मयोनिरवोचत्-ऋषे प्रबुद्धोऽसि वागात्मनि ब्रह्मणि। तद् ब्रहि रामचरितम्। अ्रप्रव्याहतज्योतिरार्ष ते प्रातिभं चक्षुः। आद्यः कविरसि इति ॥'-Uttara-ramacarita, Act II. 7

98 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

च भावयति। तया खलु फलितः कवेर्व्यापारतरुरन्यथा सोऽवकेशी स्यात्।" -Op. cit., Chapter IV. कालिदास-प्रभृतयो ... महाकवय इति गण्यन्ते-It is because of this spark of genius that a few , amidst the great con- course of poets, like Kālidāsa, are styled mahākavi. Compare :- "पुरा कवीनां गरानाप्रसङ्के कनिष्ठिकाSधिष्ठितकालिदासा। अद्यापि तत्तल्यकवेरभावादनामिका साऽर्थवती वभूव ॥" So also :- Ton

"मुक्कके कवयोऽनन्ताः संघाते कवयः शतम्। महाप्रबन्धे तु कविरेको द्वौ यदि वा त्यः ॥" -Rājasekhara's Kāvya-mīmāmsā. द्वित्रा :- दौवा तयो वा॥ पश्चषा-पञ्च वा षड वा-Bahuvrihi compounds by the sutra-'संख्ययाऽव्ययासन्नादूराधिकसंख्याः संख्येये' -Panini, II. 2. 25. The समासान्त suffix डच is added by the rule : 'बहुत्रीहौ सख्येये डजबहुगणात्'-Panini, V. 4.73.

TEXT ९२२। इदं चापरं प्रतीयमानस्यार्थस्य सद्धावसाधनं

प्रमाणम्- शब्दार्थशासनज्ञानमात्नेणैव न वैद्यते। वेद्यते स तु1 काव्यार्थतत्वश्ञैरेव केवलम्।।।। 2सोऽर्थो यस्मात् केवलं काव्यार्थतत्त्वज्ञैरेव ज्ञायते। यदि च वाच्यरूप एवासावर्थे: स्यात तद् वाच्यवाचक-

UDDYOTA I IMAVHO BHT 99

रूप'-परिज्ञानादेव तत्प्रतीतिः स्यात्। अथ च वाच्य- वाचकलक्षणमात्रकतश्रमाणां काव्यतत्त्वार्थभावना- विमुखानां स्वरश्रुत्यादिलक्षण'मिवाप्रगीतानां गान्धर्व- लक्षणविदामगोचर एवासावर्थः॥

[ I. NSP. reads fg for g. 2. NSP. & KS. both add शब्दार्थशासन-ज्ञानमात्रेऽपि परं न वेद्यते before सोऽर्थ :... etc. 3. NSP. & KS. read ०स्वरूप० for रूप०. 4. KS. has ०सवलक्षण० for ०लक्षणा०.]

EXPOSITION §22. The present karika too supplies another reason why the suggested sense must be held to be distinct from the expressed sense. While the expressed sense of a sentence can be cognised by anybody who is acquainted with the conventional meaning ( संकेतिताथ ) of the words, it is only the connoisseurs ( सहृदय) alone who are able to grasp the suggested sense. Had the suggested sense been identical with the expressed sense, even the lay-men would not have failed to understand it. Abhinavagupta, while commenting on the urtti-text:] इदं चापरं ... प्रमाणम् , points out that in the karika : 'प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव-' the author had shown the distinction between the प्रतीयमान and the वाच्य sense in respect of स्वरूप and विषय, whereas in the present karika he assigns another reason- viz. भिन्नसामग्रीवेद्यत्व, that serves to demarcate the above two

100 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

meanings from each other. The सामग्री (or the totality of causes) on which the comprehension of the वाच्य sense depends is totally different from that which gives rise to the realisation of the प्रतीयमान or व्यङ्गप sense. Consequently, the generating causes of the two being different, their effects must also be different-a conclusion guaranteed by the Law of Causality. Cf. : 'इदं चेति॥ न केवलं "प्रतीयमानं पुन- रन्यदेव-" इत्येतत्कारिकासूचितौ स्वरूपविषयमेदावेव, यावद्धिन्नसामग्रीवेद्य- त्वमपि वाच्यातिरिक्कत्वे प्रमाणमिति यावत् ।"-°Locana. The com- prehension of the वाच्य depends on शब्दार्थशासनज्ञान while that of the व्यङ्गय, besides the knowledge of शब्द, अर्थ and their relation ( संकेत), requires also the capacity of appre- ciating the hidden meaning of a poetic production, which alone is its quintessence and is the source of beatific delight on the part of true connoisseurs. Abhinavagupta explains the expression 'काव्यंतत्त्वार्थभावनाविमुखानाम्' in the urtti as follows: "काव्यस्य तत्त्वभूतो योरऽर्थस्तस्य भावना वाच्यातिरेकेणानवरतं चर्वणा तत्न विमुखानाम्।" The term भावना has been used in an identical sense by Jagannatha in his Rasagangadbara: 'कारणं च तदवच्छिन्ने भावनाविशेष: पुनःपुनरनुसन्धानात्मा।' -Op. cit., Chap. I. The expression स्वरश्रुत्यादिलक्षणाम् in the urtti has been elucidated in the OLocana as: "स्वराः षड्जादयः सप्त ।' श्रुतिर्नाम शब्दस्य वेलच्रायकारि यद्रपान्तरं तत्परिणामानां खर-तदन्तरालोभयमेद- कल्पिता द्वाविशतिधा। आदिग्रहरोन जात्यंशकग्रामरागभाषाविभाषान्तर- भाषा-देशीमार्गा गृह्यन्ते।"-The Kaumudi cites the following

UDDYOTA I 101

text from Bharata enumerating the seven principal musical notes : "षड्जश्र ऋषभश्रेव गान्धारो मध्यमस्तथा। पञ्चमो धैवतश्रैव निषादः सप्त ते खराः ॥"

This is further clarified by an illutration drawn from the science of music ( गान्धर्व-विद्या ). Just as those un- initiated into the art of music (अप्रगीत) cannot fully appreciate the difference between the various notes and melodies, as propounded in theory, in a particular musical performance, howsoever well-versed they might be in the theories of musical science and definitions of the various elements like स्वर, श्रति etc. thereof, so is it with the suggested sense. Mammata in his Kavyaprakāśa reproduces almost verbatim the arguments of the Dhyanikara for positing the existence of the suggested sense as distinct from the expressed sense supplementing them with a few more of his own : "अपि च वाच्योऽर्थः सर्वान् प्रतिपत्तन् प्रत्येकरूप एवेति नियतोऽसौ। नहि 'गतोऽस्तमर्कः' इत्यादो वाच्योऽर्थः क्वचिदन्यथा भवति। प्रतीय- मानस्तु तत्तत्प्रकरण-वक्क-प्रतिपत्तादिविशेषसहायतया नानात्व भजते। तथा च 'गतोऽस्तमर्कः' इत्यतः सपत्र प्रत्यवस्कन्दनावसर इति, अभि- सरणमुपक्रम्यतामिति, प्राप्तप्रायस्ते प्रेयानिति, कर्मकररान्निवर्त्तामहे इति, सान्ध्यो विधिरुपक्रम्यतामिति, सन्तापोऽधुना न भवतीति, विक्रेयवस्तूनि संहियन्ताम् इति, नागतोऽद्यापि प्रेयान् इत्यादिरनवधिर्व्यङ्गयोऽर्थः तत्न तत्र प्रतिभाति।

102 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"वाच्यव्यङ्गययोनिःशेषेत्यादो निषेधविध्यात्मना, 'मातूसर्यमुत्सार्य विचार्य कायम् आर्याः समर्यादमुद।हरन्तु। सेठ्या नितम्बाः किमु भूधराणमुत स्मरस्मेरविलासिनीनाम् ॥।"-इत्यादौ संशय-शान्तश्गार्यन्यतरनिश्चयरूपेरा, 'कथमवनिप ! दर्पो यन्निशातासिधारा- दलन-गलित-मूर्ध्ना विद्विषां सीकृता श्रीः। ननु तव निहतारेरप्यसौ कि न नीता त्रिदिवमपगताङ्ग र्वल्नभा कीर्त्तिरेभिः ॥" -इत्यादौ निन्दास्तुतिवपुषा स्रूपस्य, पूर्वपश्चाद्भावेन प्रतीतेः कालस्य, शब्दाश्रयत्वेन शब्द-तदेकदेश-तदर्थ-वर्ण-संङ्गटनाश्रयत्वेन चाश्रयस्य, शव्दानु- शासनज्ञानेन प्रकरणादिसहाय-प्रतिभानर्मल्यसहितेन तेन चावगम इति निमित्तस्य, बोद्धमात्-विदग्धव्यपदेश्ययोः प्रतीतिमात्र-चमत्कृत्योश्ष करणात् कायस्य, 'गतोऽस्तमर्कः' इत्यादौ प्रदर्शितनयेन संख्यायाः, 'कस्स व ण होइ रोसो'- इत्यादौ सखी-तत्कान्तादिगतत्वेन विषयस्य च भेदेऽपि यद्येकत्व तत् क्वचिदपि नीलपीतादौ भेदो न स्यात्। उक्लं हि-'अयमेव हि भेदो भेदहेतुर्वा यद्विरुद्ध- धर्माध्यासः कारणभेदश्व।'-इति।" -Op. cit., Ucchvāsa V. All these arguments have been summed up by Viśvanatha in the following kārikā: - 'बोद्ध-स्रूप-संख्या-निमित्त-कार्य-प्रतीतिकालानाम्। आश्रय-विषयादीनां भेदाद्भिन्नोऽभिधेयतो व्यङ्गयः ॥" -Sāhitya-darpaņa, V. 2

TEXT ६२३। एवं वाच्यव्यतिरेकिणो व्यङ्गास्य1 सद्भावं प्रतिपाद्य प्राधान्यं तस्यैवेति दर्शयति-

UDDYOTA I 103

सोर्ऽर्थस्तद्व्यक्तिसामर्थ्ययोगी शब्दश्च कश्चन। यत्नतः प्रत्यभिज्ञेयौ तौ शब्दार्थौ महाकवेः ॥८॥ 3यड्ोऽ्थस्तद्व्यक्तिसामथ्ययोगी शब्दश्च कश्चन, न शब्दमातम्*। तावेव शब्दार्थौ महाकवेः प्रत्यमिज्ञेयौ। व्यङ्गाव्यञ्जकाम्यामेव5 सुप्रयुक्ताम्यां महाकवित्वलाभी महाकवीनाम्, न वाच्यवाचक- रचनामात्ेण। [ I KS. reads वाच्यव्यतिरेकिव्यङ्गयस्य as a single compound. 2 NSP. has प्रतिपादयति for दर्शयति. 3 NSP. adds सः before व्यङ्गयोऽर्थः. 4 For न शव्दमात्रम् NSP. reads न सर्व :. 5 NSP. inserts हि here. ]

EXPOSITION §23. In the preceding section the Kārikākāra has endeavoured to show and has finally established the separate existence of the suggested sense. In the present kārika he is going to prove that it is the suggested sense alone that is predominant in a poem. The word प्रत्यभिज्ञेयौ occurring in the karika has been derived in two different ways by Abhinavagupta : "प्रत्यभिज्ञेयौ इत्यरहार्थ कृत्यः; सर्वो हि तथा यतते इतीयता प्राधान्येन लोकसिद्धत्व प्रमाणमुक्कम्॥ नियोगार्थन च कृत्येन शिक्षाक्म उक्कः ॥" -Thus the कृत्य-suffix यत् added to प्रति-अभि-Vज्ञा has been added either in the sense of अह or of नियोग. Now it may be asked what is the purpose of using the particular word

104 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

प्रत्यभिज्ञेयौ with reference to शब्द and अर्थ pertaining to poetry instead of some such word as प्रतिपत्तव्यो that may as well convey the same idea. To this Abhinavgupta makes the following observation :- "प्रत्यभिज्ञेयशव्देनेदमाह-"काव्यं तु जातु जायेत कस्यचित् प्रतिभावतः" इति नयेन यद्यपि स्वयमस्यतेत् परिस्फुरति तथापीदमित्थमिति विशेषतो निरूप्यमाणं सहस्रशाखीभवति। यथोक्कमस्मत्परमगुरुभिः श्रीमदुत्पलपादैः- 'तस्तैरप्युपयाचितैरुपनतस्तन्व्याः स्थितोऽप्यन्तिके कान्तो लोकसमान एवमपरिज्ञातो न रन्तुं यथा। लोकस्यैष तथाऽनवेच्ितगुास्यात्मापि विश्वेश्वरो नैवालं निजवैभवाय तदियं तत्प्रत्यभिज्ञोदिता ।।" इति। तेन ज्ञातस्यापि विशेषतो निरूपणामनुसन्धानात्मकमत् प्रत्यभिज्ञानम्। न तु तदेवेदमित्येतावन्मात्नम् ॥- Locana. Thus, प्रत्यभिज्ञा(-नम्) has been used in a specialised sense, a sense that is adopted by the teachers of the Pratyabhijna School of Philosophy of Kashmir of which Abhinavagupta himself was one of the foremost exponents, and not in the usual sense in which the term is found to be used by philosophers, to denote a particular kind of knowledge consisting in the identification of the thing perceived ( अनुभूत) with that recollected (स्मृत). This has been clearly hinted at by Abhinavagupta in the concluding portion of his commentary cited above. सोऽर्थः. .. महाकवेः-The prospective mabakavi should always select words with an eye to the nature of the suggested sense, and should not rest satisfied with the

UDDYOTA I 105

combination of words that convey no other sense besides their conventional meanings. To him the suggested sense alone is the sense par excellence, and those words alone matter that are capable of suggesting it. व्यङ्गव्यस्काभ्यामेव ...... महाकवीनाम्-Cp. 'मुख्या महाकविगिरामलंकृतिभृतामपि। प्रतीयमानच्छायैषा भूषा लज्जेव योषिताम् ।' -Dhvanyāloka, III. 37. Abhinavagupta explains the word महाकवेः as 'यो महान् कविरहं भूयासमित्याशास्ते।' Kuntaka, even though he does not concur with the Dhvanikara in positing the suggested sense as anything different in nature from the expressed sense, is keen enough to note the difference in vocabulary and import of a truly great poem from those in ordinary use. We quote here the following extract from his Vakroktijivita, though somewhat long, for the convenience of readers and we hope it will serve as a commentary on the present kārika : - "वाच्योरऽर्थो वाचकः शब्दः प्रसिद्धमिति यद्यपि। तथापि काव्यमार्गे Sस्मिन् परमार्थोऽयमेतयोः ॥ -तस्माद् वाचकत्वं वाच्यत्वं च शब्दार्थयोरलोंके सुप्रसिद्ध' यदयपि लक्षणाम्, तथाप्यस्मिन् अलौकिके काव्यमार्गे कविकर्मवर्त्मनि अयमेतयोर्वच्यम।णालक्षणाः परमार्थः किमप्यपूर्व तत्त्वमित्यर्थः। कीदृशमित्याह- "शब्दो विवत्िताथ कवाचकोऽन्येषु सत्खपि। अर्थः सहृदयाह्लादकारिखस्पन्दसुन्दरः ॥" -स शब्द: काव्ये यस्तत्समुचितसमस्तसामग्रीकः। कीटक् ?- विवच्ितार्थ क-

106 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

वाचकः। विवचितो योऽसौ वक्कुमिष्टोऽर्थस्तदेकवाचकः, तस्यैकः केवल एव वाचकः। कथम्-अन्येषु सत्खपि। अपरेपु तद्वाचकेषु बहुष्वपि विद्य- मानेषु। तथा च-सामान्यात्मना वक्कमभिप्रेतो योऽर्थस्तस्य विशेषाभिधायी शब्द: सम्यग वाचकतां न प्रतिपद्यते। यथा- 'कल्लोलवेल्लित-दृषत्-परुष-प्रहारै रत्नान्यमूनि मकराकर माऽवमंस्थाः । किं कौस्तुभेन भवतो विहितो न नाम याच्ना-प्रसारितकरः पुरुषोत्तमोऽपि ॥' -अत रत्न-सामान्योत्कर्षाभिधानमुपक्रान्तम्। कौस्तुभेनेति रक्नविशेषोत्- कर्षाभिधानमुपसंहरतीति प्रक्रमोपसंहारवैषम्यं न शोभातिशयमावहति। न चैतद् वक्कुं शक्यते-यः कश्चित् विशेषे गुाग्रामगरिमा विद्यते स सर्वः सामान्येऽपि सम्भवत्येवेति। यस्मात्-'वाजिवारणलोहानां काष्ठपाषाण- वाससाम्। नारीपुरुषतोयानामन्तरं महदन्तरम् ॥" ...... कत्रिविवचित- विशेषाभिधानक्षमत्वमेत्र वाचकत्वलक्षराम्। यस्मात् प्रतिभायां तत्कालो- ल्लिखितेन केनचित् परिस्पन्देन परिस्फुरन्तः पदार्थाः प्रकृतप्रस्तावसमुचितेन केनचिदुत्कर्षेण वा समाच्छादितखभावाः सन्तो विवत्ताविधेयत्वेन अभिधेयता- पदवीमवतरन्तस्तथाविध विशेष प्रतिपादनसमर्थेनाभिधानेन अभिधीयमाना- श्वेतनचमत्कारितामापद्यन्ते ॥ ...... "अर्थश्च वाच्यलक्षणाः कीदृशः-काव्ये यः सहृदयाह्लादकारिखस्पन्द- सुन्दरः। सहृदया: काव्यार्थविदस्तेषामाह्वादमानन्दं करोति यस्तेन स्वस्पन्देन आत्मीयेन सवभावेन सुन्दरः। तदेतदुक्कं भवति-यद्यपि परार्थस्य नानाविध- धर्मखचितत्वं सम्भवति तथापि तथाविधेन धर्मेण सम्बन्धः समाख्यायते यः सहृदयहृदयाह्वादमाधातुं क्षमते। तस्य च तदाह्लादसामर्थ्यं सम्भाव्यते येन काचिदेव स्वभावमहत्ता रसपरिपोषाङ्गत्वं वा व्यक्किमासादयति। ..... यथा च -"तामभ्यगच्छद्रुदितानुसारी मुनिः कुशेष्माहरणाय यातः। निषादविद्धा- रडजद शनोत्थः शोकत्वमापद्यत यस्य शोकः ॥"-अत् कोऽसौ मुनिर्वाल्मी कि-

UDDYOTA I 107

रिति पर्यायपदमात्रे वक्कव्ये परमकारुशिकस्य निषाद निर्भिन्नशकुनिसन्दर्शनमात्न- समुत्थितः शोकः शोकत्वमभजत यस्येति तस्य तदवस्थजनकराजपुत्नीसन्दर्शन- विवशवृत्तेरन्तःकरणापरिस्पन्दः करुणरसपरिपोषाङ्गतया सहृदयहृदयाह्लादकारी कवेरभिप्रेतः। ... तदेवंविधं विशिष्टमेव शब्दार्थयोर्लक्षणामुपादेयम्। तेन नेयार्थापार्थादयो दूरोत्सारितत्वात् पृथड न वक्कव्याः ।"-Op. cit., I.8-9 and urtti thereon. It is the inferior poets and literary quacks alone that are absolutely regardless of the choice of words and their imports. As it has been very admirably put in the following arya, cited by Namisādhu, the com- mentator on Rudrata's Kāvyalamkāra- "गणायन्ति नापशब्द न वृत्तभङ्गं क्षयं न वाऽ्थस्य। रसिकत्वेनाकुलिता वेश्यापतयः कुकवयश्च ॥" -Op. cit., p. 76. (NSP. Edn.)

Thus, by orienting the poet's attention towards the suggested sense and words that are chiefly capable for that end, Anandavardhana implicitly states the predominance of the function of suggestion in a poetic composition .. As Abhinavagupta observes: -

"एवं व्यङ्गनव्यञ्जकभावस्यापि प्राधान्यमुक्कमिति ध्वनति ध्वन्यते ध्वनन- मिति त्ितयमप्युपन्नमित्युक्कम्।"-° Locana.

TEXT

९२४। इदानीं व्यङ्गव्यञ्जकयोः प्राधान्येऽपि यद् वाच्यवाचकावेव प्रथममुपाददते कवयस्तदपि युक्त- मेवेत्याह-

108 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA आलोकार्थी यथा दीपशिखायां यत्नवाञ्जनः। तदुपायतया तद्वदर्थे वाच्ये तदादृटतः॥९॥ यथा ह्यालोकार्थी सन्नपि दीपशिखायां यत्नवान जनो भवति तदुपायतया-नहि दीपशिखामन्तरेणालोक: सम्भवति-तद्वद् व्यङ्गामथें प्रत्याद्टतो जनो वाच्येऽर्थे यत्नवान् भवति। अनेन प्रतिपादकस्य कवेर्व्यङ्गमर्थं प्रति व्यापारो दर्शितः ॥

EXPOSITION §24. Now it might be contended that it is the expres- sed sense that is sought to be conveyed first by the poet and it is the denotative (aT?) words that he primarily uses, and from this precedence of the वाच्यार्थ and preference for T7 we should rather infer the prominence of the expressed sense than that of the suggested sense. The present karika is intended as an answer to this possible objection. Though it is the expressed sense which is intended to be conveyed first by the poet, yet that, by no means, establishes its predominance. So is it with the denotative words (वाचकशब्द). The final aim of the poet is to convey. the suggested sense. That is the end ( उपेय) in view. And to that end he is bound by necessity to use denotative words and convey the primary or expressed sense-which together constitute the means ( उपाय). Or in other words, the वाचक word and the वाच्य sense are the उपाय's, while the

UDDYOTA I 109

व्यङ्गय sense is the उपेय. And it is fallacious to argue from the precedence of the उपाय (means) its predominance over the उपेय (end). As the maxim runs :- "उपादायापि ये हेयास्तानुपायान् प्रचक्षते। उपायानां हि कत्तृ त्वं नावश्यमवतिष्ठते ।।" Abhinavagupta thus puts the case :- "ननु प्रथमोपादीयमानत्वात् वाच्यवाचकतद्भावस्यैव प्राधान्यमित्याशङ्कय उपायानामेव प्रथममुमादानं भवति इत्यभिप्रायेण विरुद्धोऽयं प्राधान्ये साध्ये हेतुरिति दर्शयति-इदानीमित्यादिना।"-°Locana. This is explained further by means of an illustration in the first half of the karika. Thus one, who is eager to bave a sight of the beautiful face of his beloved ( आलोकन- मालोकः । वनितावदनारविन्दावलोकनम्,1 as Locana explains) in the dark, must have to light a taper first, but on that account, the taper cannot claim superiority to the end in view for which it was intended. Compare :- "यो हि यदर्थ- मुपादीयते, नासौ तमेवोपसजनीकरोतीति युक्नं वक्कम्। यथोदकाधयुपादानार्थ- मुपात्तो घटादिस्तदेवोदकादि। अन्यथा प्रधानेतरव्यवस्था निर्निबन्धनेव स्यात्। अत एव घटादिरेव प्रतिनिधीयते नोदकादि।"-Vyakti-viveka : Vimarśa I, pp. 15-17 (Chowkhamba Edn.). अनेन प्रतिपादकस्य ...... दर्शित :- Thus, in the present karika, it is shown that from the point of view of the poet,

I Kaumudi observes: आलोकशब्दोऽयं न करणव्युत्पत्त्या प्रकाशगुणावाचक: ; भावव्युत्पत्त्या चाक्षुषज्तानवचन इत्याह-आलोकन- मालोक इति॥'

110 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA it is the व्यङ्गय sense that is predominant and the expressed sense is invariably subordinate to it. तदादत: in the karika is to be explained as तस्मिन् (व्यज्जेयऽर्यें ) आराद्ृतः (आरदरवान्). Cf. "आहृतौ सादरार्चितौ"-इत्यमरः (III. 3.85)-'कर्त्तृ-कर्मणोः क्ः' (आदृतः ) इति क्ीरखामी। तथा च प्रयोग :- 'इति स्म पृच्छत्यनुवेलमादृतः' ( Ragbu. III. 5)।" TEXT ९२५। प्रतिपाद्यस्यापि तं दर्शयितुमाह- यथा पदार्थद्वारेण वाक्यार्थः सम्प्रतीयते। वाच्यार्थपूर्विका तद्वत् प्रतिपत् तस्य वस्तुनः ॥१०॥ यथा हि पदार्थद्वारेण वाक्यार्थावगम-स्तथा वाच्यार्थप्रतीतिपूर्विका व्यङ्गयस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपत्तिः ॥ [ I NSP. reads प्रतिपत्तव्यवस्तुन :- an evidently incorrect reading. 2 KS. has वाक्यार्थस्यावगम: ] EXPOSITION $25. From the standpoint of the सहृदय's, too, it is the suggested sense that is prominent and superior to the expressed sense, even though it is the latter that is cognised first. For, just as without first knowing the meanings of particular terms (पदार्थ) the import of a whole sentence (वाक्यार्थ) cannot be grasped, so also without first knowing the primary sense of a sentence (वाच्यार्थ) the suggested sense (व्यङ्गयार्थ) cannot be cognised. Thus, the वाच्यार्थ is in the position of पदार्थ while the व्यङ्गयार्थ is comparable to वाक्यार्थ. Abhinavagupta adds that though there is, thus,

UDDYOTA I 111

a sequence (क्रम) between the cognitions of the वाच्यार्थ and व्यङ्गथार्थ, yet that sequence is not perceived by those whose intellectual and aesthetic faculties are too keen and developed, in the same way as the sequence between the cognition of the meanings of the particular words on the one hand and the final cognition of the import of the whole proposition on the other is not noticed by one who is well accustomed with the nature of propositions and judgments on account of constant practice in the art of reading, just in the same way as recollection of अविनाभाव between साध्य and साधन etc. is not noticed by one who is practised in the art of inference (अनुमान). As Abhinava- gupta notes: - "अनेन श्लोकेन अत्यन्तसहृदयो यो न भवति तस्येष स्फुटसवेद्य एव क्रमः । यथाऽत्यन्तशव्दवृत्तज्ञो यो न भवति तस्य पदार्थवाक्यार्थक्रमः। काष्ठा- प्राप्तसहृदयभावस्य तु वाक्यवृत्तकुशलस्येव सन्नपि क्रमोऽभ्यस्तानुमानाविनाभाव- स्मृत्यादिवदसंवेद्य इति दशिंतम् ॥"-Locana.

Uttungodaya comments on this passage of °Locana chus: इह पदार्थवाक्यार्थसहोदरत्वं यद्वाच्यव्यङ्गचार्थप्रतिपत्त्योर्दर्शितम्, तस्यान्यदपि प्रयोजनमस्तीति [ति दर्शयति ]-अनेनेति॥ आत्यन्तिकत्वं सहृदयभावस्य काष्ठाप्राप्तिः। एष इति वाच्यव्यङ्गयार्थनिष्ठः। तदीयाया बुद्धरपरिचितविषयतया मन्दमन्दमेव सश्चरणासम्भावनादन्तरान्तरा विश्रान्ति- सम्भवाद् इत्यर्थः। तत्र दृष्टान्तमाह-यथेति ॥ किमिति पुरुषविशेष- नियतत्वेन क्रमपरिस्फुरणामुक्कम्? सर्वस्यापि स क्रमो विद्यमानत्वादेव किं न प्रतीतिपथमारोहेदिति, नेत्याह-काष्टाप्राप्तेति॥ सतोऽपि क्रमस्या- संवेदनं दृष्टान्तोक्का निष्टङ्क्यति-अभ्यस्तेति॥"

112 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT ९२६। इदानीं वाच्यार्थप्रतीतिपूर्वकत्वेऽपि तत्- प्रतीतेर्व्यङ्गस्यार्थस्य प्राधान्यं यथा न व्यालुप्यते1 तथा दर्शयति- स्वसामर्थ्यवशनैव वाक्यार्थ प्रतिपादयन्2। यथा व्यापारनिष्पत्तौ पदार्थो न विभाव्यते ॥११। यथा स्वसामर्थ्यवशेनैव वाक्यार्थ प्रकाशयन्नपि पदार्थो व्यापारनिष्पत्तौ न भाव्यते विभक्ततया। तद्वत् सचेतसां सोर्ऽर्थो वाच्यार्थंविमुखात्मनाम्। वुद्धौ तत्त्वार्थदर्शिन्यां टित्येवावभासते ॥१२।॥

[ I. NSP. reads व्यालुप्येत. 2. प्रथयन्नपि for प्रतिपादयन् in NSP. 3. Both NSP. and KS. read विभाव्यते for भाव्यते. 4. NSP. adds यत्ना (न्ा) वभासते as urtti following the karika. ]

EXPOSITION Sa6. Now it might be argued that since the वाच्यार्थ is cognised first by the सहृदय's, it should be ranked superior to व्यङ्गयार्थ. This contention is refuted in the present section. The karikas $11-12 must be construed together as they are syntactically interdependent. On the urtti text प्राधान्यं यथा न व्यालुप्यते Locana makes the following observation : "प्राधान्यादेव हि तत्पर्यन्तानु- सरसारणरणकत्वरिता मध्ये विश्रान्तिं न कुर्वते इति क्रमस्य सतोऽप्यलक्षरां प्राधान्ये हेतुः ।"-Abhinavagupta means to say that it is true

UDDYOTA I 113

that the वाच्यार्थ is cognised first and then follows the cogni- tion of the व्यङ्गयार्थ. Still the sequence between the two is not noticed by the सहृदय's inasmuch as their mind is keenly bent on the realisation of the T sense, which succeeds. And this eagerness ( रणरणक) for the व्यङ्गय sense is a mark that establishes its superiority ( प्राधान्य) over the वाच्य sense. This relation between the वाच्यार्थ and ara is clarified by an analogy of the verbal knowledge (शाब्दबोध) arising out of a sentence (वाक्य) composed of word-units ( 4). The resultant knowledge . of the meaning of the whole sentence ( वाक्याथ) is depen- dent on and as such consequent upon the knowledge of the meanings of the individual words ( पदार्थ) that precedes it. Yet the sequence is distinctly noticed. Nor are the meanings of the individual words comprehended in isolation when the resultant knowledge of the complete sentence arises. Similarly, to real connoisseurs (सहृदय's) the suggested sense, following on the wake of the expressed sense, appears to be comprehended simultaneously with the latter, which also loses as it were its distinct individual character. Abhinavagupta explains the term विभाव्यते in the karika thus : "विशव्देन विभक्कतोक्का। विभक्कतया न भाव्यत इत्यर्थः । अ्ररनेन विद्यमान एव क्रमो न संवेद्यत इत्युक्म्। तेन यत् स्फोटाभिप्रायेणा- सन्नेव क्रम इति व्याचक्षते तत् प्रत्युत विरुद्धमेव ।।" The following is the process how we gather the import of a sentence : It is the meanings of individual words un- 8

114 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA related with one another which we first cognise on the basis of the relation called aa, and when the individual mean- ings have been conveyed by the respective terms, it is the function known as तातपर्य which is tripartite in nature, embodying as it does आसत्ति, योग्यता and आकाडक्षा, that brings into relation the mutually unrelated concepts and the result is the relational thought-unit better known as a Judgment in Western Logic. Compare :- "पदेभ्यः प्रतिपन्नास्तावदर्थाः आ्रकाङ्क्षा-सन्निधि-योग्यत्ववशेन परस्पर- मभिसम्बध्यन्ते। यो येनाकाडच्ितो यश्च सन्निहितो यश्च सम्बन्धुं योग्यः स तेन सम्बध्यते नातोऽपरः। अत एव 'अङ्गुल्यग्र हस्तियूथशतमास्ते' इति. नास्ति सम्बन्धः, योग्यत्वाभावात्। ... तस्मादभिहितानामेव पदार्थानामन्वयः इति युक्कम्। तदुक्कम्-'पदानि हि स्वं खमर्थमभिधाय निवृत्तव्यापारारयथे- दानीमर्था अवगता वाक्यार्थं सम्पादयन्ति'-इति ॥"-Jayanta Bhatta's Nyāyamanjarī, Vol. I. p. 365 ( Chowkhamba Edn. ). This is known as अभिहितान्वयवाद-a theory advandced by Kumārila Bhatta and his followers as an explanation of the mode in which our relational thoughts ( संसर्गावगाहि-ज्ञान ) arise from propositions. Anandavardhana seems to have adopted this view of the Bhatta school inasmuch as he states explicitly that the meanings of individual words are first cognised. The rival theory of the followers of the Prabhakara school is known as अन्विताभिधानवाद. स्वसामर्थ्य ... विभाव्यते-When the resultant Jndgmental Cognition (viz. वाक्यार्थबोध) has been arrived at through the cognition of particular concepts ( पदार्थ) mutually brought

UDDYOTA I 115

into relation by virtue of their inherent capacity known as तात्पर्यशक्कि, consisting of three constituent elements, viz. आकाडक्षा, योग्यता and सन्निधि, we are not separately aware of the individual concepts any more as they are completely merged in the final judgmental cognition. स्वसामर्थ्यम्-'आकाङक्षा-योग्यता-सन्निधयः'-Locana. The word स्व refers to 'पदार्थः' which is the विशेष्य (प्रधान) in the kārikā.1 तद्वत् ...... अवभासते-Similar is the case with the व्यङ्गयार्थ too. For, though the सहृदय's cognise the वाच्यार्थ first and then the suggested sense, yet unsatiated as they are by a mere cognition of the expressed sense ( वाच्यार्थ), their keen intellect, capable of probing into the every essence of things, lights, in quick succession, upon the suggested sense, which constitutes the very quintessence of poetic art, and is not fur- ther aware of the separate existence of the expressed sense. Thus, from the viewpoint of सहृदय's also the suggested sense is all-important and the priority in the cognition of the expres- sed sense is no ground for attaching to it any superiority. Now, it might be contended that this statement of the Dhvanikara is inconsistent with what he says in the

I Compare: अत एवोकं मिश्रप्रमुखैः-"निजखवात्मादिशव्दानां प्रधानक्रियाकत न्वयित्वव्युत्पत्तिः ।"-See in this connection Govinda Thakkura's remarks on the verse 'जङ्गाकारडोरुनालः' -as cited in Kāvyaprakāsa, VII. Cf. Pradīpa with Prabhā, p. 220 (NSP. Edn.)

116 THE DHVANYĀI OKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Third Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka. There it is stated thar the relation that subsists between the cognition of the ex- pressed sense and that of the suggested sense is identical with what is found in the case of the jar and the lamp (घटप्रदीपन्याय), and not one holding good as between the cognition of particular concepts and that of the final judg- ment (पदार्थवाक्यार्थन्याय). But, in the present karika the पदार्थवाक्यार्थन्याय is cited to illustrate the relation between the वाच्या and the व्यङ्गयार्थ, and not the घटप्रदीपन्याय. So the contradiction is quite evident. To this Abhinava- gupta replies by observing that it is not the intention of the Dhvanikara in citing the पदार्थवाक्यार्थन्याय to rule out completely the cognition of the suggested sense, as is the case with पदार्थ and वाक्यार्थ. What is sought to be con- veyed thereby is that the cognition of the expressed sense is not completely sublated during that of the suggested sense, just in the same way as the flame of the lamp does not cease to be known even when the cognition of the jar arises :-

"तेनात विभक्कतया न भासते, न तु वाच्यस्य सर्वथवानवभासः। अ्र्रत एव तृतीयोद्द्योते घटप्रदीपद्ृष्टान्तबलाद् व्यङ्गथप्रतीतिकालेऽपि वाच्यप्रतीतिर्न विघटते इति यद् वच्यति, तेन सहास्य अ्रन्थस्य न विरोधः ।"-0Locana.1

I The घटप्रदीपन्याय has been thus expained by Col. G. A. Jacob :- "The simile of a lighted lamp inside a vessel. Raghu-

UDDYOTA 1 117

It may be asked, however, that if घटप्रदीपदृष्टान्त is the proper illustration that clearly explains the nature of the relation as subsisting between the cognitions of वाच्यार्थ and व्यङ्गयार्थ, what might have been the motive of the Dhvani- kara for referring to the पदार्थवाक्यार्थन्याय as an illustration in the present karika? To this the Vrttikara gives the

natha points out that a lamp so placed illuminates only the interior of the vessel, and he applies it to one whose knowledge of Brahman is of a low order. The maxim is used very differently, however, by Anandavardhana in his Dhvanyālôka iii. 33 (page 190), as the following extract will show :- "न त्वेष वाच्यव्यङ्गययो्न्यायः। नहि व्यक्ञय प्रतीयमाने वाच्यवुद्धिर्दूरीभवति। वाच्यावभासाविनाभावेन तस्य प्रकाशनात्। तस्माद् घटप्रदीपन्यायस्तयोः। यथैव हि प्रदीपद्वारेण घटप्रतीतावुत्पन्नायां न प्रदीप- प्रकाशो निवर्तते तद्वद् व्यक्ञयप्रतोतौ वाच्यावभासः ॥" Abhinava- gupta, when explaining Dhvanyālôka i. 12, refers to this passage in the following words :- 'अत एव तृतीयोद्दयोते घटप्रदीप- दृष्टान्तबलाद् व्यङ्यप्रतीतिकालेSपि वाच्यप्रतीतिन विघटत इति यद् वच्यति तेन सहास्य ग्रन्थस्य न विरोधः ।" According to these great authorities on Alankâra, therefore, the nyâya teaches that as the lamp continues to burn after it has lighted up the interior of the vessel, and is indeed essential to the continuance of that illumination, so the expressed meaning of a sentence is essential absolutely as a basis for the figurative meaning which it also conveys."-Laukikanyāyānjali, Part II, p. 26.

118 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

following answer in the Third Uddyota of the Dhvanya- loka: -

"न च पदार्थवाक्यार्थन्यायो वाच्यव्यङ्ग्ययोः। यतः पदार्थप्रतीति- रसत्यैवेति कैश्विद् विद्वद्भिरास्थितम्। यैरपि अर्प्रसत्यत्वमस्या नाभ्युपेयते तैर्वाक्यार्थपदार्थयोर्घटतदुपादानकारणन्यायोऽभ्युपगन्तव्यः । यथा हि घटे निष्पन्ने तदुपादानकारणानां न पृथगुपलम्भस्तथैव वाक्ये तदर्थे वा प्रतीते पद- तदर्थानां तेषां तदा विभक्कतयोपलम्भे वाक्यार्थवुद्धिरेव दूरीभवेत्। न त्वेष वाच्यव्यज्ञययोन्योयः। नहि व्यक्षय प्रतीयमाने वाच्यबुद्धिर्दरीभवति, वाच्यावभासाविनाभावेन तस्य प्रकाशनात्। तस्माद् घटप्रदीपन्यायस्तयोः । यथव हि प्रदीपद्वारेण घटप्रतीतौ उत्पत्रायां न प्रदीपप्रकाशो निवत्तते तद्वत् व्यङ्गयप्रतीतौ वाच्यावभासः।1 यनु प्रथमोद्दयोते-'यथा पदार्थद्वारेरा-' इत्याद्युक्रम्, तदुपायत्वमात्ात् साम्यविवत्तया।"-Dhvanyaloka, pp. 419-21 (Chowkhamba Edn.). The relation between the व्यङ्गय and व्यञ्ञक (व्यङ्गय- व्यञ्जकभाव ) has been very neatly explained in the following extract from Rūyyaka's comm. on Kāvyaprakasa where the implication of the analogy of the घटप्रदीपद्ष्टान्त has been clearly brought into light: - 'तथाहि द्विविधमिह संचेपेरा व्यजनम्-एकं तावत् कारणसूच््मरूपतयाS-

I Compare 'ज्ञान-शब्द-दीपा: तयः प्रकाशाः ख-पर-प्रकाशाः'- cited by Mahimabhatta in his Vyakti-viveka. Also- "स्वज्ञानेनान्यधीहेतुः सिद्धेऽर्थे व्यज्जको मतः । यथा दीपोऽन्यथाभावे को विशेषोऽस्य कारकात् ॥"-quoted by Viśvanatha in his Sabityadarpana and attributed by him to Dharmakīrtti.

UDDYOTA I 119

वस्थितस्य स्थूलरूपत्व यथा क्तीरावस्थायां शुक्कावस्थस्योत्तरं दधिरूपत्वम्। एतच्च प्रतीत्यनपेक्षमपि केवलवस्तुसमवेतमेव व्यज्नम्। द्वितीयन्तूपाय- प्रतीतिसापेक्षोपेयप्रतीतिरूपं यथा प्रदोपघटादौ प्रदीपप्रतीतिसाहित्येनव घट- प्रतीते :- प्रदीपस्य व्यज्कत्वात्। तदुक्रम्- "स्वज्ञानेनान्यधीहेतुः सिद्धऽर्थ व्यज्जको मतः । यथा दीपोऽन्यथाभावे को विशेषोऽस्य कारकात् ॥" तत्नेह रसस्य विभावादीनाश्च द्वितीयो व्यङ्गयव्यज्ञकभावप्रकार आश्रीयते, पानकरसादिन्यायेन विभावादिप्रतीतिसाहित्येन रसप्रतीतेः। अतएव ध्वनिकृता रसाद्याश्रयेणासंलच््यक्रमव्यङ्गयमुक्कम्, प्रदीपघटदृष्टान्तश्व व्यज्ने प्रदर्शितः । संलच्यक्रमव्यङ्गपादौ कथ व्यञ्जकत्वमिति चेत्, तत्रापि व्यञञक- प्रतीतिपुरःसरत्वेन व्यङ्ञयप्रतीतेः क्रमवत्त्वेऽपि व्यक्ञाप्रतीतिकाले तावद् व्यञ्जकप्रजतेरस्ति सहभाव इति प्रदीपघटन्यायेन स्थित एव व्यङ्गयव्यज्ञक- भाव:। तत हि पूर्व' केवलं व्यजकप्रतीतिः पश्चात्तु व्यज्जकसहितव्यङ्गय- प्रतीतिरितीयानेव पूर्वकल्पाद्विशेषः। वास्तवस्तु क्रम उभयत्ाप्यस्ति, केवलं पूर्वत्रोत्पलपत्रव्यतिभेदन्यायेन न संलच्यते, उत्तरत्न तु संलच्यत एव। संलक्षरोपि व्यक्ञयप्रतीतिकाले तावद् व्यञ्ञकप्रतीतिरस्तीत्येतावता प्रदोपघट- दृष्टान्तोऽतापि न () संगच्छते। तदुक्कं ध्वनिकृतैव-"न हि व्यङ्वेच प्रतीयमाने वाच्यबद्धिर्रीभवतीति"। एवमेव चेतत्। व्यङ्गचप्रतीतौ हि व्यअ्कप्रतीतिरुपयुक्का, न व्यज्जकप्रतीतौ व्यङ्गयप्रतीतिः, घटप्रतीतिवदेव प्रदीपप्रतीतेः केवलाया अपि भावात्। तदेतत् प्रसक्कानुप्रसक्कमास्ताम् ·-- ॥" -Kāvyaprakāsa-samketa of Rucaka: Edited by Prof. Siva Prasad Bhattacharya (Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. II. Nos. 7-8, pp. 17-18). TEXT ९२७। एवं वाच्यव्यतिरेकिणो व्यङ्गस्यार्थस्य सद्धावं प्रतिपाद्य प्रकृत उपयोजयन्नाह-

120 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतखवार्थो। व्यङ्क्तः काव्यविशेषः स ध्वनिरिति सूरिभिः कथितः ॥१६॥। यत्ार्थो वाच्यविशेषः वाचकविशेषः शब्दो वा तमथे व्यडक्तः, स काव्यविशेषो ध्वनिरिति। अनेन वाच्यवाचकचारुत्वहेतुभ्य उपमादिभ्योऽनुप्रासादिम्यश्च विभक्त एव ध्वनेर्विषय इति दशितम्॥

EXPOSITION $27. Having thus established the separate existence of the suggested sense in the foregoing sections, the Dhvanikāra, in the present kārikā, furnishes a definition of dhvani-kāvya, where the suggested sense alone is predominant. The word 'सद्भावम्' in the urtti has been explained by Abhinavagupta in two different ways, viz. "सद्भावमिति॥ सत्तां साधुभाव प्राधान्यं च। दवयं हि प्रतिपादयिषितम्।"-on which the Kaumudi has the following comment : "ननु ध्वनेरेव (रिव) प्राधान्यस्यापि प्रतिपादितत्वात् कथ वृत्तौ सद्भावमातस्य प्रतिपादित- त्वोक्किरित्याशङ्कय "सद्भावे साधुभावे च सदित्येतत् प्रयुज्यते" इत्युक्कत्वात् साधुत्वस्य प्राधान्यलक्तरास्य च सच्छव्देन संग्रहान्न दोष इत्याह- सत्तामिति ॥"-Thus, सद्भाव means both existence (सत्ता) and excellence (साधुभाव, प्राधान्य) at the same time. 'प्रकृत' in urtti refers to the definition of dhvani ( ध्वनि-लक्षणा) as formulated in the karika below. Locana explains उपयोजयन् as-"उपयोगं गमयन्। 'तमर्थम्' इति चायमुपयोगः ॥"

UDDYOTA I 121

यत्नार्थः शब्दो वा ......... कथित :- "A species of poetry wherein a word suggests a meaning by making its ( primary ) meaning subordinate to the former, or the primary meaning subordinates itself to the meaning sugges- ted by it has been called dhvani by scholars." Abhinavagupta explains the expression उपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थौं thus :- "सशब्द आत्मवाची। स्वश्चार्थक्र खार्थौ। तौ गुणीकृतौ याभ्याम् यथासंख्येन। तेनार्थो गुणीकृतात्मा, शब्दो गुणीकृताभिधेयः ।" Thus, in the अविवच्ित-वाच्य category of suggestion based upon लक्षणा or Indication, it is the words (शब्द) that principally give rise to the cognition of the suggested sense, while in the विवत्ितान्यपरवाच्य variety of suggestion it is the expressed sense (अर्थ) that is mainly suggestive. In determining whether शबद or अर्थ is the main factor we have to resort to the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference or अन्वयव्यतिरेक. Thus, if the suggested sense is absent when a particular word is altered, it becomes evident that it was conveyed by that word and it is a case of शब्दशक्तिमूल- ध्वनि. So also with अर्थ. Thus Mammata lays down the very convenient maxim : 'इह दोषगुणालंकाराणां शब्दार्थगतत्वेन यो विभाग: सोऽन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामेवावतिष्ठते'-Kavyaprakasa, IX which must be extended in the case of dhvani and guņībbūta-vyangya as well. Now, an objection has been raised by Bhattanāyaka that if शब्द and अर्थ be severally and independently taken to

122 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA be suggestive (as it seems to be hinted at by the disjunctive particle va in the above karika), we should expect व्यनक्ति instead of az :. To this Abhinavagupta answers by saying that in the case of शाव्दी व्यज्ना, अर्थ is not at all insignificant, for had it been so, a word, of which the primary meaning is not known, might have suggested any- thing and everything. So a too has its share in the case of शाब्दी वजना, though it is the verbal factor that is predomi- nant there. Similarly, in the case of आर्थी व्यज्ना, शब्द too has its rôle to play, though a subordinate one. Thus, the Dhvanikara by using the dual form 'व्यड्क्कः' hints that शब्द and 4 conjointly are requisities in every case of suggestion, whether it be शाब्दी or आर्थी-a designation that is based upon a consideration of prominence of either of these two elements, which again has to be determined by a process of अन्वय-व्यतिरेक, as has been pointed out already.1 As Abhi- navagupta observes :- "व्यडक् इति द्विवचनेनेदमाह-यद्यप्यविवच्ितवाच्ये शब्द एव व्यज्जकस्तथापि अथस्यापि सहकारिता न तुय्यति; अन्यथा अज्ञातार्थोऽपि शब्दस्तद्व्यजकः स्यात्। विवत्ितान्यपरवाच्ये च शब्दस्यापि सहकारित्वं भवत्येव। विशिष्टशव्दाभिधेयतया विना तस्यार्थस्याव्यज्जकत्वात्-इति

I Cf. 'परिवृत्तिसहत्व-तदभावाभ्यां तु शब्दाप्राधान्यमर्थप्राधान्यं विपरीतं च इत्येतावान् विशेष इति भाव:'-Vaidyanatha's Prabba on Govinda Țhakkura's Pradīpa under Kāvyaprakāśa, III. 3 : शब्दप्रमाणवेद्योऽर्थो व्यनक्त्यर्थान्तरं यतः । अर्थस्य व्यज्कत्वे तच्छन्दस्य

UDDYOTA I 123

सर्वत्र शब्दार्थयोरुभयोरपि ध्वननं व्यापारः। तेन यद् भट्टनायकेन द्विवचनं दूषितं तद् गजनिमीलिकयैव। 'अर्थः शब्दो वा'-इति तु विकल्पाभिधानं

अनेन.दर्शितम्-Thus the definition serves to differen- tiate the field of dhvani from that of the figures of speech like अनुप्रास, उपमा etc. that merely adorn the words and senses and as such are subordinate to them, while in a dhvani-kavya it is the suggested sense that is predominant. So it is not possible to include dhvani within the purview of the time-honoured alamkaras. That the figures of. speech

सहकारिता ॥" See also : "तद्युक्को व्यज्कः शब्दः यत् सोऽर्थान्तर- युक्कथा। अर्थोऽपि व्यज्कस्तत् सहकारितया मतः॥"-ibid., II. 15. Viśvanātha echoes almost verbatim the above statements of Mammata as regards the mutual interdependence of ₹15₹ and अर्थ in respect of their suggestiveness. Compare : शब्दबोध्यो व्यनक्त्यर्थः शब्दोऽप्यर्थान्तराश्रयः । एकस्य व्यअ्जकत्वे तदन्यस्य सहकारिता॥ - Sāhityadarpaņa, II. 18.

I Mahimabhatta, however, does not regard this defence of Abhinavagupta satisfactory and upholds Bhatta- nayaka's criticism : "अत् केचिद् विद्वन्मानिनो द्विवचनसमर्थना- मनोरथा्िप्तचित्ततया वाच्यवाचकयोर्विस्मृतसुप्रसिद्धप्रती तिक्रमभावास्तयोरेक- का लिकतां शब्दस्योक्कनयनिरस्तामपि व्यञ्जकतां पश्यन्तस्तन्निबन्धनां ध्वनिभेदयो- रविवत्तितवाच्यविवत्ितान्यपरवाच्ययोर्ध्वननव्यापारं प्रति पर्यायेण अपन्योन्य- सहकारितां, तदपेक्षां चानयोः प्रधानेतरतामुपकल्प्य सहकारितया व्यक्किक्रियां

124 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

become significant only when they are made subordinate to शब्द and अर्थ that constitute the body of poetry has been admirably pointed out by Pratīhārendurāja in his com- mentary on Ubhata's Kavyalainkara-sarasamgraba-"अलंकारस्य खलु अलंकार्यपरतन्त्रतया निरूपरो क्रियमारो सुष्ठ स्वरूपं निरूपितं भवति। खात्मनि अवस्थितस्य तस्यानलंकारत्वात्, समुद्धकस्थितहारकेयूरपारिहार्या- द्यलंकारवत्। अतः पुनरुक्कवदाभासत्वस्य अलकारताख्यापनाय काव्य- परतन्त्रतया निर्देशो युक्क एव ।।"-Op. cit., p. 2. (Bombay Sanskrit Series Edn. ). What more, the alamkara's are solely dependent on वाच्य and वाचक and as such on अभिधा or denotative function of words, while dhvani is conveyed through the power of suggestion, and as such they are mutually exclusive. As Abhinavagupta observes: - "गुणालंकाराणां वाच्यवाचकभावप्राणत्वात्, अस्य च तदन्यव्यङ्गय- व्यञ्जकभावसारत्वात् नास्य तेष्वन्तर्भावः।"-Locana. Abhinavagupta clearly points out here that the term dhvani is applicable to शब्द, अर्थ, व्यापार, both severally and collectively. In the kārika, however, the term dhvani has been employed by the author in its collective sense as it primarily applies to काव्य here. As he says: "स इति॥ अरथो

प्रत्युभयोरपि कर्त्तत्वात् तदपेक्षो 'व्यडक्कः' इति द्विवचननिर्देशः, प्राधान्या- पेक्षश्र-'यत्ार्थः शब्दो वेति' विकल्प इति मन्यमाना 'व्यड्क्ल इति द्विवचनेनेदमाह ·अर्थः शब्दो वेति विकल्पाभिधानं तु प्रधान्याभिप्रायेण' इनि यदाहुः, तद् भ्रान्तिमूलं न तरवमित्यलमवस्तुनिर्बन्धेन"-Vyakti- viveka, pp. 90-91.

UDDYOTA I 125

वा शब्दो वा व्यापारो वा। अर्थोऽपि वाच्यो वा ध्वनतीति शब्दोऽप्येवम्। व्यङ्यो वा ध्वन्यते इति व्यापारो वा शब्दार्थयोर्ध्वननमिति। कारिकया तु प्राधान्येन समुदाय एव काव्यरूपो मुख्यतया ध्वनिरिति प्रतिपादितम् ॥"- Thus the term dbvani can mean : (1) the suggestive word; (2) the suggestive primary meaning ( वाच्य) ; (3) the suggested sense (व्यङ्गय) ; (4) the function of suggestion (व्यञ्जनाव्यापार ) and (5) the poem as a whole having any or all of these elements ( काव्य-समुदाय) as its constituents.

The expression काव्यविशेष has been thus explained by Abhinavagupta: -

"काव्यं च तद्विशेषश्चासौ, काव्यस्य वा विशेषः। काव्यग्रहणाद् गुणा- लंकारोपस्कृतशब्दार्थपृष्ठपाती ध्वनिलक्षणा आत्मेत्युक्कम्। तेनैतन्निरवकाशंम् -श्रुतार्थापत्तावपि ध्वनिव्यवहारः स्यादिति। यच्चोक्तम्-चारुत्वप्रतीतिस्तर्हि काव्यस्यात्मा स्यात्' इति तदङ्गीकुर्म एव। नाम्रि खल्वयं विवाद इति। यच्चोक्कम्-'चारुणः प्रतीतियदि काव्यात्मा प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणादपि सा भवन्ती तथा स्यात्' इति, तत् शब्दार्थमयकाव्यात्माभिधानप्रस्तावे क एष प्रसन्ग इति न किंचिदेतत्।"-0Locana. Is Abhinava refuting here the views of Bhattanayaka or of the author of the lost commen- tary Candrika ? It is difficult to guess.

TEXT

९२८। यदप्युक्तम्-'प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिक्रमिणो मार्गस्य काव्यत्वहानेर्ध्वनिर्नास्ति' इति, तदप्ययुक्तम्। यतो लक्षणकृतामेव स केवलं न प्रसिद्धः, लक्ष्ये तु

126 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

परीक्ष्यमाणे स एव सहृदयहृदयाह्वादकारि काव्यतत्त्वम्। ततोऽन्यच्चित्रमेवेत्यग्रे दर्शयिष्यामः ॥

EXPOSITION S28. यदप्युक्तम्-'प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिक्रमिणः ... नास्ति' इति -The Dhvanikāra here refers to the second sub-variety of the thesis of the abhava-vadins (Negativists), who deny the separate existence of the element of dhvani on the ground that the definition of dhvani-kavya does not accord with the time-honoured and accepted definitions of kāvya as furnished by the teachers belonging to such well-known schools of Poetics (प्रसिद्धप्रस्थान ) as the Alarnkara°, Riti°, Vrtti° and Guna-schools, and as such a dhvani-kāvya is nothing but a figment of imagination on the part of the Dhvani-theorists alone, and has no correspondence in the actual field of poetic art. Vide notes on Sec. §4. To this Anandavardhana rejoins : तद्प्ययुक्तम् ..... दर्शयिष्याम :- Dbuani is not merely a chimera residing in the brains of the Dhvani-theorists who endeavour to furnish a suitable definition of it ( लक्षणाकृताम्), having no actual counterpart in literary compositions, but, if a thorough and minute investigation is made of all the great poetic products of acknowledged repute (like the Rāmāyana, the Maba- bharata etc.) it will be found that suggestion ( ध्वनि), pervades them all entering therein either as a principal element, when it is called eafa, or as a subordinate factor,

UDDYOTA I 127

when it is known as गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय. But no poetic art worth the name can afford to go without this essential element ( काव्यतत्त्व) which alone causes the delight of true connoisseurs of poetry (सहृदयहृदयाह्वादकारि). Any literary composition, that has not the touch of this essential element of suggestion, however abounding in other poetic devices like अलंकार, रीति, वृत्ति etc. it might be, can never be truly regarded as a specimen of poetic art, but can be looked upon as a specimen of literary craftsmanship which can at best cause our admiration and wonder. Anandavardhana terms it as चित्रकाव्य (शब्दचित् and वाच्यचित्र) in the Third Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka :- "प्रधानगुराभावाभ्यां व्यङ्गयस्यवं व्यवस्थिते। काव्ये उभे1 ततोऽन्यद् यत् तच्िचित्रमभिधीयते॥ चित्रं शब्दार्थभेदेन द्विविधं च व्यवस्थितम्। तत्र किंश्चिच्छव्दचित्र वाच्यचित्रमतः परम् ॥" -Op. cit., IlI. 41-42 So also :- "रसभावादिविषय विवत्ताविरहे सति। अलक्कारनिबन्धो यः स चित्रविषयो मतः ॥ रसादिषु विवक्षा तु स्यात् तातूपयवती यदा। तदा नास्त्येव तत् काव्यं ध्वनेर्यत्र न गोचरः ॥" -cited in the vrtti thereon. I In the °Locana on the present section where this karika is cited the reading is द्विधा काव्यं for काव्ये उभे in the Kashi Edn. while in the KS. Edn. it is द्विधा काव्ये.

128 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

The designation चित्र as applied to kavya has been thus interpreted by Abhinavagupta : चित्रमिति॥ विस्मयकृद्वृत्तादि- वशात्, न तु सहृदयाभिलषणीयचमत्कारसाररसनिःष्यन्दमयमित्यर्थः । काव्यानुकारित्वाद वा चित्रम्, आलेख्यमात्त्वाद् वा, कलामातत्वाद् वा।

.. ."1-Uttungodaya in his Kaumudi further clarifies the purport of the °Locana-text thus: "चित्रशब्दस्यार्थान्तरे प्रसिद्धत्वात् कथं काव्यवाचकत्वमित्याशङ्कय 'अरहो चित्रम्' इत्यादिवद् विस्मयकारित्वगुणयोगादयं व्यपदेश इत्याह-विस्मयकृदिति ॥ विस्मय- कृत्वं ध्वनेरप्यस्तीति परिसंख्याना(न)र्थतामभिप्रेत्याह-वृत्तादिवशादिति॥ आदिशव्देनानुप्रासादिसंग्रहः। विस्मयकार्येवेत्यत् व्यवच्छेद्यमाह-न त्विति॥ लोकप्रसिद्धचित्रद्रव्यगुायोगाद् वा चित्रत्वमित्याह; विष्णाद्यनु- काररूपत्वम्, आरलेख्यमात्नत्वम्, कलारूपत्वं च चित्राणाम् ; तद्योगात् काव्ये चित्रशव्दप्रवृत्तिरित्यर्थः। क्रमेणात काव्याभासत्वम्, निःसारत्वम्, अकतूलल चोहम्॥ विशेषः। अ्रत एवात्र वाशब्दाः समुच्चयार्था एव न विकल्पार्थाः ॥" The Vrttikara unambiguously states in his gloss on Dhvanyaloka, III. 41-42 that चित्रकाव्य's, devoid of any suggestiveness (व्यज्जना) as they are, are mere simulations

I Cf. "आलेख्याश्चर्ययोक्षित्म्"-Amarakosa, III, 3. 179. On Mammata's Kavyaprakasa I .: "शब्दचित्र' वाच्यचित्रमव्यङ्गय त्ववरं स्मृतम्", the commentator Manikyacandra re-iterates verbatim the above remarks of °Locana : "यच् काव्यं केवल- वाच्यवाचकवैचित्र्यभाक तचचित्रं रसादिव्यङ्गयार्थरहितत्वेन काव्यानुकारित्वाद विस्मयकारिवरत्तादियोगाद वाSSलेख्यसादृश्याद् वा कलामातत्वादिना वेत्याह -शब्दचित्रमिति।"

UDDYOTA 1 129

of poetry and not real poetry at all: "न तन्मुख्यं काव्यम् । काव्यानुकारो ह्यसौ।" As regards the existence of ध्वनि as a well-established and essential element of poetry in reputed poetic compositions of highest merit even before the advent of the Dhvani- theorists vide Anandavardhana's observations on the sug- gestiveness of the Ramayana and the Mabābharata in Dhvanyaloka, IV. 5 and urtti thereon.

TEXT २९। यदप्युक्तम्-'कामनीयकमनतिवर्त्तमानस्य तस्योक्तालंकारादिप्रकारेष्वन्तर्भावः'-इति, तदप्य- समीचीनम्। वाच्यवाचकमात्राश्रयिणि प्रस्थाने व्यङ्गाव्यञ्जकसमाश्रयेण व्यवस्थितस्य ध्वनेः कथमन्त- र्भावः १ वाच्यवाचकचारुत्वहेतवो हि तस्याङ्गभूताः, स त्वङ्गिरूप एवेति1 प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात् । परिकरश्लोकश्चात-

वाच्यवाचकचारुत्वहेत्वन्तःपातिता कुतः ॥ [ I NSP. reads न तु तदेकरूपा एव for स त्वङ्गिरूप एव while KS. has नतु अङ्विरूपा एव. 2 NSP. has the reading प्रति- पिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्. ]

EXPOSITION §29. The Vrttikāra here refers to the third sub- 9

130 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

contention of the अभाववादिन's, who try to comprehend ध्वनि under the different अलंकार's (Vide Sec g5).

वाच्यवाचक ...... कथमन्तर्भाव :- The अलंकार's like अनुप्रास and उपमा etc. that enhance the beauty of शब्द and अर्थ respectively are entirely dependent on the latter and as such subordinate to them, as has been amply shown in the foregoing sections. But dhvani has nothing to do with denotation and can be communicated solely through व्यजना or suggestion as will be shown later. So how can the latter be equated with or subsumed under the former, i. e. अलंकार's based upon denotation?

वाच्यवाचकचारुत्व ... प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्-What more, in a ध्वनिकाव्य the अलंकार's like अनुप्रास and उपमा are always subservient (अङ्गभूत) to the suggested sense, which is the soul (अङ्गिरूप) of poetry. And it is not sane to identify अद्ग with अङ्गिन्, the soul with the ornaments belonging to the body. For, though the अलंकार's seem prime facie to adorn the limbs, in the last analysis it is the soul that is truly adorned. As Abhinavagupta observes in his gloss on the vrtti on Dhvanyāloka, II. 5 :-

"एतदुकं भवति-उपमया यद्यपि वाच्योरऽर्थोलङ्कियते, तथापि तस्य

वालंकार्य:। तदेवालंकरणं यद् व्यङ्गचार्थाभिव्यज्ञनसामर्थ्याधानम् इति वस्तुतो ध्वन्यात्मै- कटककेयूरादिभिरपि हि शरीरसमवायिमिश्रेतन आरत्मैव

कुंराडलायुपेतमपि न भाति, अलक्कार्यस्याभावात्। यतिशरीरं कटकादियुक्तं

UDDYOTA I 131

हास्यावहं भवति, अलङ्कायस्यानौचित्यात्। न हि देहस्य किश्चिदनौचित्यम् इति वस्तुत आात्मैवालंकार्यः, अहमलंकृत इत्यभिमानात्।"-Locana. Compare Ekavali : 'गुरोषु न तावद् ध्वनेरन्तर्भावः। नाप्यलं- कारेषु। वाच्यमात्रविश्रान्तेषु श्लेषादिषु व्यभिचारात्। ... .. किंचवमन्त- र्भावाभिधानं न संगच्छते। रसादीनाम् आत्मत्वेन प्रतिपन्नानामलंकारत्व- शङ्काया दूरनिरस्तत्वात्। किं च ध्वनिर्गुणालंकारेभ्यो न व्यतिरिच्यते चारुत्वहेतुत्वाद् इति यद् भवद्भिरभ्यधायि तदपि दुरभिधानम्। ध्वनेर्ध्वन्या- त्मतया, चारुत्वहेतुत्वादिति हेतोः सिद्धिपद्धत्यनध्यासः। एवं त्रिविधस्यापि धवनेरलंकारत्व तावत् प्रत्यादिष्टम्।-Op.cit., pp. 29-31. Ruyyaka, too, in his Alamkāra-sarvasva observes: - "तस्माद्विषय एव व्यङ्गयनामा जीवितत्वेन वक्कव्यः। यस्य गुणालंकार- कृतपरिग्रहसाम्राज्यम् । रसादयस्तु जीवितभूता नालंकारत्वेन वाच्याः। अलंकाराणामुपस्कारकत्वात् रसादीनां च प्राधान्येन उपस्कार्यत्वात्।"-on which Jayaratha comments: - "गुणानां 'ये रसस्याद्विनो धर्माः'-इत्यादिनीत्या साक्षादेव तद्धर्मत्वात्। अलंकाराणामपि 'उपस्कुर्वन्ति तं सन्तम्-' इत्यादिनीत्या शब्दार्थलक्षणाङ्गा- तिशयद्वारेण तदुपस्कारकत्वात्। अलंकाराणां च रसादिरूपं व्यङ्गयमर्थ- मलंकुवतां मुख्यया वृत्त्या अलंकारत्वम्। अलंकार्यसद्भ।वनिबन्धनत्वात् तस्य। रसाद्यात्मन एव च व्यङ्गयस्य अ्रलंकायत्वेन प्रतिष्ठानात्। अत एव च यत्र स्फुटव्यङ्गयार्थरहितत्व तत्र 'गुणावृत्त्या पुनस्तेषां वृत्तिः शब्दार्थयोर्मता'-इत्यादिनीत्या शब्दार्थमात्ननिबन्धनत्वेन उक्किवैचित्र्यमात्र- पर्यवसायित्वादेषां गौणमलंकारत्वम्। यदभिप्रायेशौव च चित्राख्यकाव्यभेद- प्रकारत्वमलंकाराणां निरूपयिष्यते। अतएव अनुप्रासादयोऽलंकाराश्चित- मित्याद्यन्यैरुक्कम्। स च प्रतीयमानो यद्यपि वस्त्वलंकाररसत्वेन त्रिविधस्तथापि तेन विना काव्यात्मत्वाभावात् मुख्यत्वेन रसस्येव आत्मत्व युक्कम्।"-Op. cit., p. II.

132 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA प्रतिपाद्यिष्यमाणत्वात्-'To be shown later', referring to Dhvanyaloka, II. 4 et seq. परिकरश्ोक-a verse that supplements the arguments embodied in the karika proper. As Abhinavagupta explains :- 'परिकरार्थ' कारिकार्थस्य अधिकावापं कर्तु श्लोकः परिकरश्लोकः"-Locana.

TEXT ६३०। ननु यत प्रतीयमानस्यार्थस्य वैशद्येना- प्रतीतिः स नाम मा भूद् ध्वनेर्विषयः । यत्र तु प्रतीति- रस्ति, यथा-समासोक्ताक्षेपानुक्तनिमित्तविशेषोक्ति- पर्यायोक्तापह्न तिदीपकसङ्करालङ्कारादौ, तत ध्वनेरन्त- र्भावो भविष्यतीत्यादि निराकर्तुमभिहितम्-"उप- सर्जनीकृतखवार्थौ" इति। अर्थो गुणीकृतात्मा, गुणी- कृताभिधेयश्र शब्दो वा यत्ार्थान्तरमभिव्यनक्ति स ध्वनिरिति। तेषु कथं तस्यान्तर्भावः ? व्यङ्गप्राधान्ये हि ध्वनिः। न चैतत् समासोक्तवादिष्वस्ति॥

EXPOSITION §30. Now the opponents might argue that the element of tafa is no innovation on the part of the Dhvani- theorists, for though Bhamaha, Udbhata and other ancients did not mention ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय in their treatises totidem verbis, that is no proof as to their ignorance of it. For they have indirectly comperehended them under such

UDDYOTA 1 133

figures of speech as समासोक्कि, आत्ेप, विशेषोक्ति, पर्यायोक्क, अपह ति, दीपक, संकर etc. in each of which there is an apprehension of some suggested sense (प्रतीयमानार्थ), be it वस्तु, अलंकार or रस (भाव etc.). Compare :- "इह हि तावद् भामहोद्भटप्रभृयश्चिरन्तनालंकारकाराः प्रतीयमानमथ वाच्योपस्कारकतयाऽलंकारपक्षनितिप्तं मन्यन्ते। तथाहि-पर्यायोक्काप्रस्तुत- प्रशंसासमासोक्त्याक्षेपव्याजस्तुत्युपमेयोपमाऽनन्वयादौ वस्तुमात् गम्यमानं वाच्योपस्कारकत्वेन 'स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेपः परार्थ" खसमर्पराम्' इति यथायोगं द्विविधया भङ्गया प्रतिपादितं तः। रुद्रटेन तु भावालंकारो द्विधवोक्कः। रूपकदीपकापह् तितल्ययोगितादौ उपमाद्यलंकारो वाच्योपस्कारकत्वेनोक्कः । उत्प्रेक्षा तु खयमेव प्रतीयमाना कथिता। रसवत्प्रेयःप्रभृतौ तु रसभावादि- र्वाच्यशोभाहेतुत्वेनोक्कः। तदित्थ' त्रिविधमपि प्रतीयमानमलंकारतया स्थापित- मेव।"-Ruyyaka's Alamnkara-sarvasva, pp. 3-6. Jagannatha, too, in his Rasagangadbara observes :- "इदं तु बोध्यम्-ध्वनिकारात् प्राचीनर्भामहोद्भटप्रभृतिभिः खग्रन्थेषु कुत्नापि ध्वनिगुणोभूतव्यङ्गयादिशब्दा न प्रयुक्ा इत्येतावतैव तैर्ध्वन्यादयो न

प्रशंसाद्यलंकारनिरूपरोन कियन्तोऽपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोऽपि व्यङ्ञयप्रपञ्चः पर्यायोक्ककुत्तो नित्िप्तः।1 नहि अनुभव-

I Compare: "यत्र खलु वाच्यविवत्तापूर्वकत्वेनार्थान्तरं प्रतीयते 'चक्राभिघाते'-य्यादौ तत्न पर्यायोक्कमेदता पर्यायोक्कलक्षरास्याप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा- लक्षणाविचारवशेन तद्व्यतिरिक्कविषयावगाहित्वात्। यत्र तु अविवत्िते वाच्येऽ्र्थान्तरस्य प्रतीतिस्तत्ाप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। अतश्च पर्यायोक्काप्रस्तुप्रशंसयोरेव यथाक्रमं विवच्िताविवत्ितवाच्ययोः सर्वध्वनिभेदसामान्यभूतयोः ध्वनिभेदयो- रन्तर्गतिर्वाच्या।"-Pratiharenduraja's Lagbuurtti on Udbhata's Kāvyālamkāra-sāra-samgraba, p. 91.

134 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

सिद्धोऽर्यो बालेनाप्यपह्रोतुं शक्यते। ध्वन्यादिशव्दैः परं व्यवहारो न कृतः । न ह्येतावताऽनङ्गीकारो भवति। प्राधान्याद् अलंकार्या हि ध्वनिरलंकारस्य पर्यायोक्लस्य कुच्ौ कथंकारं निविशताम् इति तु विचारान्तरम् ॥"-Op. cit., PP· 554-55 (NSP. Edn.). It is worth while to quote the following extract from Pratīharenduraja's commentary on Udbhata's work, as it fully elucidates the position of the followers of Udbhata's school vis-a-vis Anandavardhana's tenet :- "ननु यत्र काव्ये सहृदयहृदयाह्वादिनः प्रधानभूतस्य स्वशब्दव्यापारास्पृष्ट- त्वेन प्रतीयमानकरूपस्य अर्थस्य सद्भावस्तत् तथाविधार्थाभिव्यक्किहेतुः काव्य- जीवितभृतः कैश्रित् सहृदयैर्ध्वनिर्नाम व्यञ्जकत्वभेदात्मा काव्यधर्मोऽभिहितः, स कस्मादिह नोपदिष्टः। उच्यते। एतेषु अलंकारेष्वन्तर्भावात्। तथाहि -प्रतीयमानेकरूपस्य वस्तुनस्त्रैविध्यं तैरुक्ं वस्तुमात्नालंकाररसादिभदेन। (१) तत्न वस्तुमात तावत् प्रतीयते। यथा-'चक्राभिघाते'ति। अ्रत् हि राहुवधूरतोत्सवस्य या चुम्बनमात्शेषता तत्कर्मिका चक्राभिधातप्रसभाज्ञा- करशिका चकारेतिकरणलक्षणा क्रियाऽभिधीयते। सा चैवंविधा कार्यभूतत्वात् कारणमन्तरेणानुपपद्यमाना तथाविधवेरस्यकारिराहुशिरश्छेदनलक्षणं कारणं नालंकाररूपं नापि रसादिरूपम्,अपि तु वस्तुमात्रूपं कल्पयति। अतोऽत वस्तुमातस्यैवंविधस्य शब्दव्यापारास्पृष्टस्य प्रतीयमानता। तद्विषयस्य च काव्यधर्मस्य ध्वननाभिधानस्य वाच्यवाचकव्यापारशून्यावगमनस्वभावत्वात् पर्यायोक्कालंकारसंस्पर्शित्वम्। तदुक्कं-'पर्यायोक्कं यदन्येन'-इत्यादि । "ननु पर्यायोक्कशव्देन प्रकारान्तरेण उच्यमानत्वात् प्रतीयमानं वस्तु अभिधीयते। तच्चेह प्रतीयमानं प्रधानत्वाद् अलंकार्यतया वक्ुं युक्कं न त्वलंकृतिकरणतया। अ्रतः कथं तस्यालंकारव्यपदेशः ? उच्यते- प्रधानमपि गुणानां सौन्दर्यहेतुत्वादलंकृतौ साधनत्वं भजति। दृश्यते हि लोके व्यपदेशः साम्यलंकरणाका भृत्या इति। अतोऽतापि प्रतीयमानस्य

UDDYOTA I 135

सत्यपि प्रधानत्वे खगुणाभूतवाच्यसौन्दर्यसाधकतमत्वाद् अलंकारव्यपदेशो न विरुध्यते। यदि वा भगवद्वासुदेववर्तितया योऽसौ वीररसोऽवगम्यते तदपेक्षया तस्य मुख्ययव वृत्या गुराभूतत्वाद् अलंकारता। एवमुत्तरत्नापि यथासंभवं योज्यम् । ..... (२) अलंकाराणं तु यद्यपि 'लावरायकान्ति- परिपूरिते-त्यादौ प्रतीयमानकरूपता, तथापि अनन्तरोक्कलक्षरोषु अलंकारेषु अनुप्रवेशो भविष्यति पर्यायोक्के वा। ...... न च यस्यालंकारस्य प्रतीयमानरूपता तस्येहालंकारत्वं केनचिन्निवारितम् इति प्रतीयमानरूपतया रूपकाख्योऽलंकारो भविष्यति। ... (३) रसभावतदाभासतत्प्रशमानां तु प्रतीयमानतायाम् उदाहराम्-'याते गोतविपयये' इति। ... अतोऽत संभोगशङ्गारस्येर्ष्याविप्र- लम्भतिरोधानहेतोः प्रतीयमानता। तत् च पूर्व' रसवत्वलक्षणोऽलंकारः प्रतिपादितो 'रसवद्दर्शित-' इत्यादिना। ... यतापि भावास्तथा रस- भावाभासा रसभावतदाभासप्रशमाक्ष प्रतीयमानास्ततापि यथाक्रमं प्रेयख- दूर्जख्विसमाहितलक्षणालंकारयोगो वाच्यः। एवमेतत् प्रधानभूतेषु रसादि- षुक्कम्। गुराभूतेष्वपि च रसेषूदात्तालंकारः प्रतिपादितः 'चरितं च महात्मना'- मित्यादिना। अतश्च रसादिष्वभिव्यज्ञकत्वस्य नार्थान्तरता ॥"-Op.cit., pp. 85-89. To controvert this view of the ancient Alamkārikas like Bhamaha, Udbhatal and others the Dhvanikāra has employed the adjunct उपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थौ. True, that in the figures of speech above noted there is the cognition of the suggested sense-viz. वस्तु, अलंकार, रस etc., but it is subordinate to the expressed sense, and as such they cannot be regarded as cases of dhvani where the suggested sense alone is predomi- nant. They can, however, be legitimately reckoned as instances of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ञय. Thus, it comes up to this that che ancient theorists were inconsistent inasmuch as they

136 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

confounded ध्वनि which is always adorned (अलंकार्य) with instruments of adornment ( अलंकार) like पर्यायोक्क, समासोक्ति etc., though the other type of poetry, viz. गृणीभृतन्यङ्गय, could be consistently subsumed under them. As Jagannatha has noted-'प्राधान्यादलंकार्यो हि ध्वनिरलंकारस्य पर्यायोक्कस्य कुक्षौ कथंकारं निविशताम् इति तु विचारान्तरम्'. That alainkaras like समासोक्ति, दीपक, रूपक etc. though they are commonly classed as instances of चित्रकाव्य, can as well be regarded as types of गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय, has been explicitly stated by Anandavardhana under Dhvanyāloka, III. 36 :- 'येषु चालंकारेषु सादृश्यमुखेन तत्त्वप्रतिलम्भः, यथा रूपकोपमातुल्य- योगितानिदर्शनादिषु, तेषु गम्यमानधर्ममुखेनव यत् सादृश्यं तदेव शोभाति- शयशालि भवतीति ते सर्वेऽपि चारुत्वातिशययोगिनः सन्तो गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयस्यैव विषयाः । समासोक्त्याच्तेपपर्यायोक्लादिषु तु गम्यमानांशाविनाभावेनैव तत्त्वव्यवस्थानात् गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयता निर्विवादव। तत च गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयताया- मलंकाराणां केषाश्चित् अलंकारविशेषगर्भतायां नियमः। यथा व्याजस्तुते प्रेयोऽलंकारगभत्वे। केषाश्चिदलंकाराणां परस्परगभताSपि संभवति। यथाः दीपकोपमयोः । तत्न दीपकमुपमागर्भत्वेन प्रसिद्धम्। उपमाऽपि कदाचिद् दीपकच्छायानुयायिनी। यथा मालोपमा। तथाहि। 'प्रभामहत्या शिखयेव दीप:'-इत्यादौ स्फुटैव दीपकच्छाया लच्यते। तदेवं व्यङ्गयांश- संस्पर्शे सति चारुत्वातिशययोगिनो रूपकादयोऽलंकाराः सर्व एव गुणीभूत- व्यङ्गचस्य मार्ग: ॥' So Jagannatha is justified in criticising the views of some of the scholiasts, who view चित्रकाव्य and गुणीभूतव्यङ्गथ- काव्य as mutually exclusive in their scopes :- "यत्तु 'अतादृशि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गथम्-' इत्यादिकाव्यप्रकाशगतलक्षखे

UDDYOTA I 137

चित्रान्यत्वं टीकाकारैर्दत्तम्, तन्न। पर्यायोक्कसमासोक्त्यादिप्रधानकाव्येषु अव्याप्त्यापत्त:। तेषां गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयतायाश्चितंतायाक्ष सर्वालंकारिक- सम्मतत्वात्।"-Op.cit., p.20. We should note, however, that Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka, criticises the dichotomy of kavya into ध्वनि and गुरोभूतव्यङ्गय, as adopted by the Dhvanikara and opines that there is no real or essential difference between the one and the other save one of degree, which cannot be taken as a ground for classification: - "किंच काव्यस्य स्वरूपं व्युत्पादयितुकामेन मतिमता तल्लक्षणामेव सामान्येन आख्यातव्यम् , यत्र वाच्यप्रतीयमानयोगम्यगमकभावसंस्पर्शस्तत् काव्यम् इति। तावतैव व्युतूपत्तिसिद्धेः। यत्तु तदनाख्यायैव तयोः प्रधानेतरभावकल्पनेन प्रकारद्वयमुक्कम् तदप्रयोजकमेव। यो हि यद्विशेषप्रतीतौ निमित्तभावेन निश्चितः स एव तदर्थिनः प्रतिपाद्यो भवति नान्यः, अतिप्रसज्गात्। यथा दरिडप्रतीतौ दराडः। अनुमेयार्थसंस्पशमात च अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां काव्यस्य चारुत्वहेतुर्निश्चितम्। अतस्तदेव वक्कव्यम् भवति, न तस्य प्राधान्याप्राधान्य- कृतो विशेषः । न हि तयोः सामान्यविशेषयोस्त्रिष्वपि वस्तुमातादिष्वनुमेयेषु चेतनचमत्कारी कश्विद् विशेषोऽवगम्यते। ... तदेवं प्रकारत्येऽपि अनुमेयार्थ- संस्पर्श एव काव्यस्य चारुत्वहेतुरित्यवगन्तव्यम्। यदाह ध्वनिकार :- 'सर्वथा नास्त्येव हृदयहारिणः काव्यस्य स प्रकारः, यत्र प्रतीयमानार्थसंस्पर्शेन न सौभाग्यम्।' तदिदं काव्यरहस्यम् परममिति सूरिभिर्विभावनीयम्॥" -Op. cit., pp. 136-141.'

तारतम्यस्य स्फुटमुपलब्धेः । ...... सत्यपि तारतम्ये यद्येकभेदत्वं कस्तर्हि ध्वनि- गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग धयोरीषदन्तरयोर्विभिन्नभेदत्वे दुराग्रहः।" -Rasagangādbara, p. 24-

138 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

TEXT S३१। समासोक्तौ तावत्- उपोढरागेण विलोलतारकं तथा गृहीतं शशिना निशामुखम्। यथा समस्तं तिमिरांशुकं तया पुरोऽपि रागाद् गलितं न लक्षितम्।। -इत्यादौ व्यङ्गेनानुगतं वाच्यमेव प्राधान्येन प्रतीयते समारोपितनायिकानायकव्यवहारयोर्निशा- शशिनोरेव वाक्याथँत्वात्।।

EXPOSITION S31. The definition of समासोक्ि is as follows :- "समासोक्ति: समर्यत् कार्यलिङ्ग विशेषौः । व्यवहारसमारोपः प्रस्तुतेऽन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥" -Sabityadarpaņa, 56b-57a. Abhinavagupta cites here the definition of समासोक्ति as furnished by Bhamaha in his Kāvyālamkāra :- "यत्रोक्के गम्यतेऽन्योऽर्थस्तत् समानविशेषणैः । सा समासोक्किरुदिता संच्िप्तार्थतया यथा ॥" and comments: "अन्न समासोक्वेलक्षणं स्रूपं हेतुर्नाम तन्निर्वचनम् इति पादचतुष्टयेन क्रमादुक्कम् ।।" उपोढरागेण ... न लक्षितम्-Here the adjective qualifying शशिना, viz. उपोढरागेण, can as well apply to a lover. Moreover, the words like निशामुखम्, विलोलतारकम्, तिमिरां- शुकम्, रागात् are all paronomastic (श्िष्ट). Hence the

UDDYOTA 1 139

bebaviour of a lover ( नायकव्यवहार) is conveyed through suggestion though not expressed. But the suggested sense is not predominant here. It is the expressed sense, viz. the description of the moon in the dusk ot the evening, that is the final import of the verse. The moon is presented to us with the behaviour of a lover superimposed on it. Abhinavagupta thus explains the above verse :- "उपोढो रागः सान्ध्योऽरुिमा प्रेम च येन। विलोलास्तारका ज्योतींषि नेत्रतिभागाश्च यत्र। तथेति॥ टित्येव प्रेमरभसेन च। गृहीतमाभासितं परिचुम्बितुमाक्रान्तं च। निशाया मुखं प्रारम्भो वदन- कोकनदं चेति। यथेति॥ फटिति ग्रहरोन प्रेमरभसेन च। तिमिर चांशुकाश्च सूच््मांशवः तिमिरांशुकं रश्मिशवलीकृतं तमःपटलं, तिमिरांशुकं नीलजालिका नवोढाप्रौढवधूचिता। रागाद् रक्कत्वात् सन्ध्याकृतादनन्तरं, प्रेमरूपाच हेतोः। पुरोऽपि पूर्वस्यां दिशि अग्र च। गलितं प्रशान्तं पतितं च। रात्र्या करणभूतया समस्तं मिश्रितम् , उपलक्षणत्वेन वा। न लक्षितं रात्रिप्रारम्भोऽसौ इति न ज्ञातम्, तिमिरसंवलितांशुदर्शने हि रात्रिमुखमिति लोकेन लच््यते, नतुस्फुट आलोके। नायिकापने तु तयेति कर्त्तृपदम्। रात्रिपक्े तु अपिशब्दो लक्षितमित्यस्यानन्तरः । अत च नायकेन पश्चाद्गतेन चुम्बनोपकमे पुरो नीलांशुकस्य गलनं पतनम्। यदि वा 'पुरोऽग्र नायकेन तथा गृहीतं मुख'मिति सम्बन्घः। तेनात व्यङ्ग्य प्रतीतेऽपि न प्राधान्यम्। तथाहि नायकव्यवहारो निशाशशिनावेव श्रङ्गारविभावरूपौ संस्कुर्वाणोऽलंकारतां भजते, ततस्तु वाच्याद्विभावीभूताद् रसनिःष्यन्दः ॥"-°Locana. Abhinavagupta here refers to an alternative explanation of the verse, as proposed by some earlier commentator- perhaps the author of the Candrika ?- and refutes it as follows :-

140 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"यस्तु व्याचष्ट-'तया निशयेति कत्तृपदम्। न चाचेतनायाः कर्त्तृत्व- मुपपन्नमिति शब्देनात नायकव्यवहार उन्नीतोऽभिधय एव, न व्यङ्गय इति, अतएव समासेनोक्िः'-इति, स प्रकृतमेव ग्रन्थार्थमत्यजत् 'व्यङ्गय नानुगतम्' इति। एकदेशविवर्त्ति चेत्थ रूपकं स्यात्, "राजहंसैरवीज्यन्त शरदव सरोनृपाः" इतिवत् ; न तु समासो क्विः, तुल्यविशेषणाभावात्, 'गम्यते' इति चानेनाभिधाव्यापारनिरासात्-इत्यलमवान्तरेण बहुना ॥" We should note that the masculine and feminine genders of the two words शशिन् and निशा respectively are the pre-condition for super-imposition of the behaviour of नायक and नायिका on each of them respectively, and aid suggestion in conveying the अप्रस्तुत sense. As Jagannatha observes: - "तस्मात् 'निशामुखं चुम्बति चन्द्रिकैषा', 'अहर्मुखं चुम्बति चराडभानुः' इत्यादौ अप्रतीयमानं नायकत्वं1 प्रकृते टापप्रथमाभ्यां प्रतिपादितेन प्रकृत्यर्थगतेन स्त्रीत्वेन पुंस्त्वेन च साधिकरण एवाभिव्यज्यते। एवं च निशा शशिनोर्नायकत्वसिद्धिः श्िष्टविशेषरौः, व्यज्ञनव्यापारेगौवाप्रकृतार्थबोधनम्, शक्के: प्रकरणादिना नियन्त्रणात्। तदित्थं व्यजनमाहात्म्यादेवाप्रकृतवाक्यार्थ- तादात्म्येन प्रकृतचाक्यार्थोऽवतिष्ठते। गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेदश्वायमिति तु रमणीयः पन्था: ॥"-Op. cit., p. 499.

'पुमान् स्रिया' (पा० १. २. ६७) इत्येकशेषः । Abhinavagupta splits up the expression समारोपितनायिकानायकव्यवहारयोः in the urtti above as follows in order to justify the absence of एकशेष-"नायिकाया नायके यो व्यवहारः स निशायां समारोपितः, नायिकायां नायकस्य यो व्यवहारः स शशिनि समारोपित इति व्याख्याने नकशेषप्रसङ्ग:।"-Locana.

UDDYOTA IVIIG SH 141

निशा-शशिनोरेव वाक्यार्थत्वात्-The description of the moon and the night is the chief import of the verse since it is contextual or प्राकरणिक.1

TEXT ३२। आक्षेपेऽपि व्यङ्गाविशेषाक्षेपिणोऽपि' वाच्य- स्यैव चारुत्वं प्राधान्येन वाक्यार्थ आक्षेपोक्तिसामर्थ्यादेव ज्ञायते। तथाहि' तत शब्दोपारूढो विशेषाभिधानेच्छया प्रतिषेधरूपो य आक्षेपः स एव व्यङ्गविशेषमाक्षिपन् मुख्यं काव्यशरीरम्। चारुत्वोत्कर्षनिबन्धना हि वाच्यव्यङ्गयोः प्राधान्यविवक्षा। यथा- अनुरागवती सन्ध्या दिवसस्तत् पुर सरः। अहो दैवगतिः कीद्टक् तथापि न समागमः ॥ अत सत्यामपि व्यङ्गाप्रतीतौ वाच्यस्यैव चारुत्वमुत्- कर्षवदिति तस्यैव प्राधान्यविवक्षा ।।

[ 1. अपि dropped in NSP. and KS. 2. तथाहि lacking in NSP. and KS. ]

I Compare-'आगत्य संप्रति-' इत्यत् नायकवृत्तान्तोऽर्थशक्तिमूलो वस्तुरूपो निरपेक्षरविकम लिनीवृत्तान्ताध्यारोपेराव स्थितः ।'-Kavyaprakasa, Chap. V. Also-'न ह्यात नायकवृत्तान्तो रविकमलिनीवृत्तान्तवत् प्राधान्यं लभते। कुतः ? रविपद्मिनीवृत्तान्तस्य प्रभातप्रस्तावाद् वाच्यस्य सतोऽङ्गतां नीतत्वात्'-Manikyacandra's Samketa thereon, p. 156 (Mysore Sans. Series Edn.)

142 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION S32. Bhamaha defines आक्षेप as-"प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया। वक््यमाणोक्कविषयः स आरक्षेपो द्विधा मतः।"- Kavyalamkara , II. 68. Thus, where an apparent negation (निषेधाभास) is expressed only to convey with much greater force the intention of the speaker it is called आक्षेप. This negation might again be twofold-viz. it might refer to something about to be spoken ( वत्तमाण), or it might be the negation of a statement already expressed in words (उक्र). Thus, the ultimate intention ( इषट ) of the speaker is suggested and not expressed. The apparent negation which is expressed in words (शब्दोपारूढ), being incompatible (बाधित) with the context and such other factors, gives rise to the cognition of the ultimate intention of the speaker. As Jagannātha so clearly states :- "चतुर्विधेऽस्मिन्नाक्षेप इष्टोऽर्थः, तस्य निषेधः, तस्याप्यसत्यत्वम्, अर्थगत- विशेषप्रतिपादनं चेति चतुष्टयमुपयुज्यते। तेन नात् निषेधविधिः। न वा विहित-निषेधः। अपि तु निषेधेनासत्येन विधेरात्तिप्यमाणत्वात् योगार्थादा- च्षेप: ।"-Rasagan gadbara, pP. 564-65. Thus, आज्तेप is based on लक्षणालक्षया inasmuch as the expressed sense, viz. negation, is only apparent and has to be given up contradicted as it is by all other factors. Compare :- 'अत् च निषेधः स्वयमनुपपद्यमानत्वाद् अविश्राम्यन् खात्मानं विध्यर्थे समर्पयति-इति 'परार्थं ससमर्पणाम्'-इत्येवंरूपलक्षणणामू नत्वमस्य सिद्धम्। यदुक्कमन्यत-"यत्र स्वयमविश्रान्तेः परार्थ खसमर्पराम्। कुरुतेऽसौ त

UDDYOTA I 143

आक्तेपो निषेधस्येव भासनात् ॥"-इति ।-Jayaratha's Vimarsini on Alamkārasarvasva of Rūyyaka, p. 117. Abhinavagupta quotes the definition of आक्षेप from Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara : आक्षेप इति-'प्रतिषेष इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया। वत््यमाणोक्कविषयः स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः ॥' -तत्नाद्यो यथा-'अहं त्वां यदि नेचेय तणामप्युत्सुका ततः। इयदेवास्त्वतोऽन्येन किमुक्कनाप्रियेण ते ॥'-इति वत्त्यमाणामरणविषयो निषेधात्माSSद्ेपः । तत्नयदस्तु इत्येतावदेवात् 'म्रिये' इत्यात्तिपत् सत् चारुत्वनिबन्धनम् इत्याच्तेप्येणा आच्तेपकमलंकृतं सत् प्रधानम्। उक्कविषयस्तु यथा ममव-

'भो भोः कि किमकाराड एव पतितस्त्व' पान्थ काऽन्या गति- स्तत्तादक तृषितस्य मे खलमतिः सोऽयं जलं गूहते। अस्थानोपनतामकालसुलभां तृष्णां प्रति क्रुध्य भो- स्त्र लोक्यप्रथितप्रभावमहिमा मार्गः पुनर्मारवः ॥' अत कश्चित् सेवकः प्राप्तः प्राप्तव्यमस्मात् किमिति न लभे इति प्रत्याशा- विशस्यमानहृदयः केनचिदमुनाSत्ेपेण प्रतिबोध्यते। तत्न आरत्तेप्येण निषेधरूपेण वाच्यस्यैव असत् पुरुषसेवातद्वैफल्यतत्कृतोद्वेगात्मनः शान्तरस- स्थायिभूतनिर्वेद विभावरूपतया चमत्कृतिदायित्वम् ।।'-°Locana. आक्षेषेऽपि ...... जञायते-In the figure of speech आच्षेप, too, it is the expressed sense that is predominant even though it gives rise to the knowledge of the suggested sense. And this view gains support from the derivative meaning of the term आच्ेप which is explained as आत्िपति व्यङ्गयविशेषम् इति आच्षेपः' and as such refers to the expressed

sense. चारुत्वोत्कर्ष ...... प्राधान्यविवक्षा-While commenting on

144 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the passage Abhinavagupta makes the following observa -. tion : तदाह-चारुत्वोत्कर्षेति ।। अतैव प्रसिद्धं दृष्टान्तमाह- अनुरागवतीति ॥ तेनाच्तेपप्रमेयसमर्थनमेवापरिसमाप्तमिति मन्तव्यम्। तत्न तूदाहरणत्वेन समासोक्किश्लोकः पठितः "अहो दैवगतिः कीट्ृक्" इति। गुरुपारतन्त्र्यादिनि मित्तकोऽसमागम इत्यथः ।-Locana. Thus, according to Abhinavagupta, the verse 'अनुरागवती-' has been cited here primarily to illustrate the point that the predominance of the suggested sense or the expressed sense depends upon the excellence or attractiveness ( चारुत्वोत्कर्ष ) of the one over the other and not as an illustration of the the figure of speech आच्ेप. This has been further clarified by Uttungadaya in his sub-commenary: व्यक्ञयापेक्षया वाच्यस्य चारुत्वाधिक्येऽपि व्यङ्गयस्य किं न प्राधान्यमित्याशङ्कय तन्निषेधे हेतुत्वेनोत्तर- ग्रन्थमवतारयति-तदाहेति॥ तत् तत् वाच्यस्यैव प्राधान्य न व्यङ्गयस्ये- त्यस्मिन्नर्थे हेतुमाहेत्यर्थः ॥ अत्रैवेति॥ चारुत्वोत्कर्षकृतं प्राधान्यमित्येत- स्मिन्नर्थे। एवकारोऽलंकारोदाहरणत्वशङ्काशमनार्थः ॥ प्रसिद्धमिति॥ दृष्टान्तत्वे हेतुः ॥ तेनेति॥ दृष्टान्तोक्तित्वादेवालंकारान्तरोदाहरणत्वा- भावादित्यर्थः ॥-Kaumudi, p. 199. In determining which of the two senses (viz. expressed and suggested) is principal and which of them is subordi- nate, the sole criterion should be चारुत्व or beauty. In आच्तेप, it is the TEA sense that charms us, for it is the mode of expression that is more attractive than the suggested sense. And as the expressed sense excels the suggested sense in beauty of form, it is reasonably held as superior to the latter.

UDDYOTA I 145

We should note that Vamana's definition of आक्षप differs totally from that of Bhamaha, Dandin and Udbhata. As he says: 'उपमानाक्षपश्चाक्ेप:'-Kauyalamkara-sutra, IV. 3.27. (१) "उपमानस्य आत्तेपः प्रतिषेधः उपमानात्तेपः। तुल्यकार्यार्थस्य

तस्याश्वेन्मुखमस्ति सौम्यसुभगं किं पार्वरोनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पदं दृशौ च यदि चेत् किं नाम नीलोतपलैः । किं वा कोमलकान्तिभि: किशलयैः सत्येव तत्ाधरे हा धातुः पुनरुक्कवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्वपूर्वो प्रहः ॥2 (२) उपमानस्यात्तेपतः प्रतिपत्तिरित्यपि सूतार्थः3। यथा- ऐन्द्र' धनुः पाराडुपयोधरेण शरद् दधानार्द्र नखत्तताभम्। प्रसादयन्ती सकलक्कमिन्दु' तापं रवेरभ्यधिकं चकार ॥4 -अत शरद् वेश्येव, इन्दु' नायकमिव, रवेः प्रतिनायकस्येव इत्युपमानानि गम्यन्ते ॥।"-Vrtti thereon.

I Abhinavagupta notes : वामनस्य तु 'उपमानाच्तेपः" इत्या्तेपलक्षणाम्। उपमानस्य चन्द्रादेराक्षेपः। 'अस्मिन् सति किं त्वया कृत्यम्' इति ।-Locana. 2. The verse is cited by Abhinavagupta also in his Locana with the following variants: दृशौ यदि च ते for दृशौ च यदि चेत् in b; ही for हा in d. 3 This second interpretation of the sūtra is also noted in the °Locana thus: यदि वोपमानस्यान्षेपः सामर्थ्यादाकर्षणम्। 4 Also cited in the °Locana with the following comments : "ई्ष्याकुलषितनायकान्तरमुपमानमतात्िप्तमपि वाच्यार्थमेव अलङ्करोतीति।" 10

146 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

The first variety of आकेप as explained by Vamana corresponds to प्रतीप of later writers, while the second variety is identical with समासोक्ि of Bhamaha, Udbhata and others. Anandavardhana cites the verse "अनुरागवती सन्ध्या-" with a view to illustrating by a single verse both the figures of speech, समासोक्ि (according to Bhamaha) and आक्षेप (according to Vamana). Whether it be regarded as समासोक्ति or आक्षेप, the suggested sense here is subordinate to the expressed sense which is more charming. As Abhinavagupta observes :- "वामनाभिप्रायेायमाक्षेपः, भामहाभिप्रायेण तु समासोक्ति- रित्यमुमाशयं हृदये गृहीत्वा समासोक्कयान्तपयोः युक्कय दमेकमेवोदा- हरणं व्यतरद् ग्रन्थकृत्। एषाऽपि समासोक्तिर्वास्तु, आ्रक्तेपो वा, किमनेना- स्माकम्। सर्वथाऽलंकारेषु व्यङ्गय वाच्ये गुणीभवति इति नः साध्यम्- इत्याशयोऽल ग्रन्थेऽस्मद्गुरुभिनिरूपितः।"-Op. cit.'

TEXT ६३३। यथा च दीपकापह्न त्यादौ व्यङ्गत्वेनोपमायाः प्रतीतावपि प्राधान्येनाविवक्षितत्वात्' न तया व्यपदेश- स्तद्वदतापि द्रष्टव्यम् ॥

[ I. KS. reads प्राधान्येन विवच्ितत्वात्, which seems to be an evident misprint. ]

EXPOSITION S33. यथा च ...... द्रष्टव्यम्-Abhinavagupta introduces this passage with the following remarks :-

UDDYOTA I 147

"एवं प्राधान्यविवत्तायां दृष्टान्तमुक्का व्यपदेशोऽपि प्राधान्यकृत एव भवतीत्यत् दृष्टान्तं खपरप्रसिद्धमाह-यथा चेति॥ उपमाया इति॥ उपमानोपमेयभावस्येत्यर्थः। तयेति॥ उपमया ॥"- Locana.

Now it might be contended that granted that the suggested sense is subordinate to the expressed sense in the case of the figures of speech समासोक्ि and आक्षेप as shown above, why should they not be designated as गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय- काव्य's primarily rather than चित्रकाव्यs? To this the Dhvanikara replies that the designation ( व्यपदेश ) goes after the principal element and not the subordinate one. And as in the case of the above two figures of speech, it is the expressed sense that is more charming and on that account superior to the suggested sense, the poems too are respec- tively named after the figures of speech in the form of the expressed meaning and not after the suggested sense. For, the maxim runs: प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति. This he illus- trates by referring to the cases of दीपक and अपह ति. दीपक, according to Udbhata is based on similarity (शपम्य). As he defines it: - "आदिमध्यान्तविषयाः प्राधान्येतरयोगिनः । अन्तर्गतोपमाधमा यत्र तद् दीपकं विदुः ॥-Op. cit., I. 14.1

I Abhinavagupta quotes the definition of Bhamaha: "दीपके हि "आदिमध्यान्तविषयं त्रिधा दीपकमिष्यते"-इति लक्षराम्।" See Kāvyālamkāra, Il. .25. Though Bhamaha does not expressly hint at the उपमानोपमेयभाव as the basis of दीपक, yet

148 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Ruyyaka, also, follows Udbhata: प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां तु' दीपकम् ।। औपम्यस्य गम्यत्वे इत्याद्यनुवत्तते। ...... तत् इवाद्यप्रयोगा- दुपमानोपमेयभावो गम्यमान: ॥"-Alainkara-sarvasva, PP. 71-72. The illustration given by Udbhata of this figure of speech is as follows:

"संजहार शरत्काल: कदम्बकुमुमश्रियः । प्रेयोवियोगिनीनां च निःशेषसुखसंपदः ।।"-

which has been explained by Pratiharenduraja as: -

"अत्र संहरणात्मा धर्मः कदम्बकुसुमशोभाकर्मकत्वेन विरहिणीसुख- संपत्कर्मकतवेन च उपनिवध्यमानोऽन्तर्गतोपमः शरत्समयस्योपवरार्यमानतया कदम्बकुसुमश्रीसंहारस्य प्राकरणिकाथनिष्ठत्वाद् विरहिणीसुखसंपत्संहारस्य च अप्राकरशिकार्थ विषयत्वात्। तेनातान्तर्गतोपमत्वम्। यथा प्रेयोवियोगिनीनां निः्शषा: सुखसंपदः संजहार तथा कदम्बकुसुमत्रियोऽपीति॥"- Op. cit., PP.15-16.2

Udbhata clearly mentions it. Similarly, Vāmana defines दीपक as follows :- "उपमानोपमेयवाक्येष्वेका क्रिया दीपकम् ॥

तत्त्रैविध्यम् आदिमध्यान्तवाक्यवृत्तिभेदात् ॥" -Kāvyālamkāra-sūtra , IV. 3. 18-19.

I The TSS. Edn., however, reads the sūtra as : 'प्रस्तुतानामप्रस्तुतानां च दीपकम्।'

2 Rājānaka Tiiaka, in his comm. Vivrti, thus succinctly explains the verse: "अत संहरणामादावुफात्तो धर्मः। सुखसंपदामुप- मानत्व' कुसुमश्रियां चोपमेयत्वमार्थमित्यादिर्दीपकः। कालशव्दोऽनन्त(न्तक)-

UDDYOTA I 149

Thus, though in every case of दीपक there is an apprehen- sion of similarity in the background, still it is not styled JyHT, since the knowledge of similarity is not so charming as, and is consequently subordinate to, the mode of expression in which a single word, whether it be expressive of quality ( गुणा) or action (क्रिया), is construed with both the प्राकरणिक and अप्राकरणिक statements. As Abhinavagupta observes: अत दीपनकृतमेव चारुत्वम्.1

वृत्ति: संहृत्तृतां ध्वनयन् साकूतः।"-Udbhata's Kavyalamkara- sārasamgraba, p. 1I (GOS. Vol. No. LV.) Tilaka, while explaining Udbhata's definition of दीपक, thus comments on the significance of the designation :- 'प्रकाशवदेकस्थमनेकोद्दीपनात् दीपकम् ॥'-Op. cit., P. II. Similarly, Rūyyaka (or Mankhuka ?) observes :- "प्राकरशिकाप्राकरणिकवर्गस्य मध्यादेकत निविष्टः समानो धर्मः प्रसङ्गेना- न्यतोपकाराद् दीपनाख्याद् दीपसादृश्येन दीपकाख्यालङ्कारोत्थापकः ।"- which has been explained by Samudrabandha in his comm. thus :- "एकत्रेति। प्राकरणिकेSप्राकरणिके वा। दीपनाख्याद् दीपसादृश्येनेति। अ्नेन दीपयतीति रावुलि वा दीप इवेति 'संज्ञायां कन्' (पां ५.३.७५) इति वा दीपकमिति निरुक्किदरशिता। घटार्थमादीपितो हि दीपः पटादीनपि प्रकाशयति।"-Alankara- sūtra of Rajanaka Śrī Ruyyaka with the Vrtti Alankāra- sarvasva of Śrī Mankhuka and commentary by Samudra- bandha on the latter : Edited by K. Sambasiva Šāstrī (TSS. Vol. XL. 2nd. Edn. 1926), p. 68.

150 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Similarly, अपह् ति, 1o0, is based on औपम्य. Yet, it is not designated as उपमा, inasmuch as it is the expressed negation that is more charming than the suggested similarity. Cf. 'तत्नापह्न त्येव शोभा'-Locana. Bhamaha defines अपह्र ति as: "अपह्न तिरभीष्टस्य किचिदन्तर्गतोपमा" (Op. cit., III. 21) and illustrates it by-

"नेयं विरौति भृङ्गाली मदेन मुखरा मुहुः । अयमाकृष्यमारास्य कन्दर्पधनुषो ध्वनिः ॥"-III. 22. We are to note, however, that Rudrata in his Kāvya- lainkara regards दीपक as a variety of वास्तव, and not of औपम्य, and accordingly in his opinion there is no apprehension of similarity in the case of दीपक. Compare :-

"अर्थस्यालंकारा वास्तवमौपम्यमतिशयः श्लेषः । एषामेव विशेषा अन्ये भवन्ति निःशेषाः ॥ वास्तवमिति तजज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुखरूपकथनं यत्। पुष्टार्थमविपरीतं निरुपममनतिशयमश्लेषम्॥

विषमानुमान-दीपक-परिकर-परिवृत्ति-परिसंख्याः॥ ... "

-Op. cit,, VII. 9-11. Bhamaha, in his definition of दीपक, too, does not allude to the suggested similarity :- "आदिमध्यान्तविषयं त्रिधा दीपकमिष्यते। एकस्यैव त्र्यवस्थत्वादिति तद् भिद्यते व्िधा॥" -Op. cit., II. 25. -and this might have led Udbhata in his commentary

UDDYOTA I 151

called Bhamaba-vivarana to observe at a दीपक need not always be based on similarity, a view which Abhinavagupta records in his ° Locana and refutes, though in his independent Kāvyālamkāra-sarasamgraba Udbhata explicitly lays down similarity as the pre-condition of दीपक. Cf :- "यत्तु विवरणकृत्-दीपकस्य सर्वत्ोपमान्वयो नास्तीति बहुनोदाहरण- प्रपश्च न विचारितवांस्तदनुपयोगि निःसारं सुप्रतिक्षेपं च । 'मदो जनयति प्रोतिं साऽनङ्ं मानभज्जनम्1 । स प्रियासङ्गमोत्कराठां साSसह्यां मनसः शुचम् ॥'-इति।2 -अनापि उत्तरोत्तरजन्यत्वेऽपि उपमानोपमेयभावस्य सुकल्पत्वात्। नहि क्रमिकाणां नोपमानोपयमेभावः। तथा हि-"राम इव दशरथोऽभूत् दशरथ इव रघुरजोऽपि रघुसदशः । अज इव दिलीपवंशश्चित्र रामस्य कीर्त्तिरियम् ॥।"-इति न न भवति। तस्मात् क्रमिकत्वम् समं वा प्राकरणिक- त्वमुपमां निरुणाद्वीति कोडयं तास इत्यलं गर्दभीदोहानुवर्त्तनेन ।।"-°Locana. Rūyyaka, in his Alamkara-sarvasva, does not regard मालादीपक as a figure based on औपम्य but on शङखला or sequence, and his view might have been inspired by Udbhata's statement in his lost Vivarana to which Abhinavagupta refers in the passage quoted just now. Ruyyaka's definition of मालादीपक is-"पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्योत्तरोत्तर- गुणावहत्वे मालादीपकम् ॥ ...... मालात्वेन चारुत्वविशेषमाश्रित्य दीपक- प्रस्तावोल्लङ्गनेनेह लक्षणं कृतम् ॥"-on which Jayaratha comments :- "ननु चास्य प्राच्यैदीपकानन्तर लक्षणं कृतम् इह किं न तथेत्या-

I v.I. मानभङ्गुरम् -KS. 2 Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra, II. 27.

152 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

शङ्कयाह-मालात्वेनेत्यादि। मालाशव्देनात शड्खला लक्ष्यते। तस्या एवोपक्रान्तत्वात्। न चात् मालोपमावत मालाशब्दो ज्यः। एकस्योपमेयस्य बहूपमानोपादानाभावात्। अत्र हि औपम्यमेव नास्ति। कोदराडशरादीनां तस्याविवक्षणात्। अत एवास्य दीपकभेदत्व न वाच्यम्। औपम्यजीवितं हि तत्। प्राच्यैः पुनरेतद् दीपनमात्रानुगुरायात् तदनन्तर लच्ितम्। शङ्खलात्वेन तु विशिष्टमस्य चारुत्वमितीह लक्षयां युक्कम्। एतच्च दीपक एव अ्रन्थकृतोक्कम्। 'छायान्तरेण तु मालादीपकं प्रस्तावान्तरे लक्षयिष्यत'-इति॥"-0Vimarsini, pp. 141-42, Thus, Abhinavagupta's reflections on Udbhata's view are not just, as 'मदो जनयति प्रीतिम्-' being an instance of मालादीपक is based on शङखला and not on औपम्य, as shown above. Compare also Rasagangādbara :- "उत्तरोत्तरस्मिन् पूर्वपूर्वस्योपकारकतायां मालादीपकम्। यथा- 'आस्वादेन रसो रसेन कविता काव्येन वाणी यथा-' इत्यादि। एतच्च प्राचामनुरोधादस्माभिरिहोदाहृतम्। वस्तुतस्तु एतद् दीपकमेव न शक्यं वक्कम्, सादृश्यसंपर्काभावात्। किंतु एकावलीप्रमेद इति वच््यते।" -Op. cit., PP. 437-38 ; vide also p. 614.

TEXT S३४। अनुक्तनिमित्तायामपि विशेषोक्तौ- आहतोऽपि सहायैरोमित्युक्ता' विमुक्तनिद्रोऽपि। गन्तुमना अपि पथिकः संकोचं नैव शिथिलयति॥ इत्यादौ व्यङ्गपास्य प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात प्रतीतिमात्रम्। नतु तत्प्रतीतिनिमित्ता काचिच्चारुत्वनिष्पत्तिरिति न प्राधान्यम् ।

UDDYOTA I 153

[I. NSP & KS. read सहायैरेमीत्युक्का. So also Ruyyaka's Alamkāra-sarvasva where the verse is cited under the fig. of speech विशेषोक्कि. See op. cit., p. 127 (NSP. Edn.); p. 142 (TSS. Edn.). ]

EXPOSITION S34. Visesokti is a figure of speech based on causality (कार्य-कारणभाव). For an effect (कार्य) to be produced there must be some cause ( कारण) to account for it. But in विशेषोक्नि the effect is described as absent even though all the causal factors are apparently present. Thus there is an apparent violation of the law of causality. But it is only apparent. For though prima facie all the causal factors seem to be present there, yet if we examine carefully we would be able to discover some factor, which might be expressed in words or not as the case might be, to account for the absence of the effect, and thus the law of causality here remains inviolate. Now, if the special causal factor (निमित्त) be expressed, the विशेषोक्कि is known as उक्क-निमित्ता, otherwise it is termed as अनुक्क-निमित्ता, in which case the निमित्त is conveyed through suggestion (व्यञ्जना). As Rūyyaka defines it :- "कारणसामग्रेत्र कार्यानुत्पत्तिविशेषोक्तिः॥ इह समग्राणि कारणानि नियमेन कार्यमुत्पादयन्तीति प्रसिद्धम्। अन्यथा समग्रत्वस्येव अभावप्रसज्गात्। यत्तु सत्यपि सामग्ये न जनयन्ति कार्य, सा कश्चित् विशेषमभिव्यज्क्कुं प्रयुज्यमाना विशेषोक्किः। सा च द्विविधा-उक्कनिमित्ता अनुक्कनिमित्ता च। अचिन्त्यनिमित्ता नु अनुक्कनिमित्तेव। अनुक्लस्य च

154 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

चिन्ताचिन्त्यत्वेन द्वविध्यात् ॥"-Op. cit., pp. 126-127. (NSP. Edn.). Thus, finally, विशेषोक्कि is divided into three diffierent varieties-viz. उक्क-निमित्त, अचिन्त्य-निमित्त and अनुक्त-चिन्त्य- निमित्त. In the first two varieties there is no apprehension of the suggested sense, and as such Anandavardhana here takes up the third variety where the निमित्त is suggested. As Abhinavagupta comments :- "यथा-'स एकत्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुधः । हरताऽपि तनुं यस्य शम्भुना न हृतं बलम् ॥"1 इयं चाचिन्त्यनिमित्तेति नास्यां व्यक्गयस्य सद्भावः। उक्तनिमित्तायामपि वस्तुखभावमात्त्वे पर्यवसानमिति तत्नापि न व्यक्ञयसद्भावशङ्का। यथा- 'कर्पूर इव दग्धोऽपि शक्तिमान् यो जने जने। नमोऽस्त्ववार्यवीर्याय तस्मै कुसुमधन्वने ॥' तेन प्रकारद्वयमवधीर्य तृतीयं प्रकारमाशङ्कते-अनुक्तनिमित्तायामपीति।." -Op. cit., pp. 116-117. 'आहतोऽपि ...... शिथिलयति'-Here, the निमित्त that is suggested is, according to Udbhata, the biting cold of a winter dawn. But this suggested sense has no beauty at all and as such cannot claim any predominance over the expressed sense. Cf: "शीतकृता खल्वात्तिरत् निमित्तम्" इति भट्टोद्भटः। तदभिप्रायेणाह-'न त्वत्र काचिच्चारुत्वनिष्पत्तिरिति'।"

I. Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra, III. 24. Abhinavagupta also cites the difinition of विशेषोक्ति as formulated by Bhāmaha, op. cit., III. 23.

UDDYOTA I 155

-°Locana. But some scholiasts have tried to discover a much livelier form of suggested sense in the above āryā as noted by Abhinavagupta himself. But that, too, is not very attractive :- "यत्तु रसिकैरपि निमित्तं कल्पितम्-'कान्तासमागमे गमनादपि लघुतरमुपायं खप्न' मन्यमानो निद्रागमबुद्धया संकोचं नात्यजत्'-इति तदपि निमित्तं चारुत्वहेतुतया नालंकारविद्धिः कल्पितम्, अपि तु विशेषोक्तिभाग

तु विशेषक्तिरेवेयं न भवेत्। एवमभिप्रायद्वयमपि साधारणोक्कया ग्रन्थकृन्न्य- रूपयत्, न तु औद्भटेनैवाभिप्रायेण ग्रन्थो व्यवस्थित इति मन्तव्यम्॥" -9Locana. Rūyyaka in his Alamkāra-sarvasva quotes this verse as an instance of अनुक्कनिमित्ता विशेषोक्कि and adopts this second view regard ng the nature of the suggested sense. Compare :- " ... .. तथा आरह्वानादायः संकोचशिथिलीकारहेतव इति तेषु सत्खपि तस्यानुत्पत्तौ प्रियतमासप्नसमागमाद्यनुक्कं सच्चिन्त्य निमित्तम् ॥" -Op. cit., pp. 127. (NSP. Edn.). TEXT ६३५। पर्यायोक्ेऽपि यदि प्राधान्येन व्यङ्गत्वं तद्गवतु नाम तस्य ध्वनावन्तर्भावः। न तु ध्वने- स्तत्ान्तर्भावः। तस्य महाविषयत्वेनाङ्गित्वेन च प्रतिपाद- यिष्यमाणत्वात्।1 न पुनः पर्यायोक्ते भामहोदाहत- सदृशे व्यङ्गस्यैव प्राधान्यम्। वाच्यस्य तत्ोपसर्जनी- भावेनाविवक्षितत्वात॥। [ NSP. reads प्रतिपिपादयिष्यमाणात्वात्.]

156 THE DHVANYALOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION S35. Udbhata defines पर्यायोक as :- "पर्यायोक्कं यदान्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते।1 वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्यां शून्येनावगमात्मना ।।" -which has been explained by Pratiharenduraja as follows: "वाचकाभिधायकस्य सशब्दस्य वृत्तिर्व्यापारो वाच्यार्थप्रत्यायनम्। वाच्यस्य तु अभिधेयस्य व्यापारो वाच्यान्तरेरा सहाकाङ्क्षासन्निधियोग्यतामाहात्म्यात् संसगगमनम्। एवंविघस्य यो वाच्यवाचकयोर्व्यापारस्तमन्तरेणापि प्रकारान्त- रेणार्थसामर्थ्यात्मनाऽवगमखभावेन यदवगम्यते तत् पर्यायेण सकराठानभिहितमपि सान्तरेण शब्दव्यापारेण अवगम्यमानत्वात् पर्यायोक्कं वस्तु। तेन च ससंश्लेषवशेन काव्यार्थोऽलंक्रियते ॥।"-Op.cit., p.55.2 Thus, in पर्यायोक्क the expressed sense suggests another sense. This suggested sense, however, though not conveyed in words, is identical with the expressed sense, the only difference being in the respective process of conveying each. As Rūyyaka states: -

The first half of this definition is borrowed by Udbhata from Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra, III. 8ª. The second half is Udbhata's own addition and brings out the implications of the first half more clearly. 2 Rājānaka Tilaka, in his comm. on Udbhața's Kāvyālamkara-sarasamgraba thus succinctly explains the definition :- "वाचकवृत्तिरभिधा। वाच्यवृत्तिराकाङ्क्षासंनिधियोग्यतावशात् संसर्ग- गमनम्। ताभ्यां विनाऽर्थसामर्थ्यात्मनाSवगमखभावेन यत् प्रयिपाद्यते तत् पर्यायेणान्येन रूपेणाभिधानमिति पर्यायोक्कम्। ...... "-Op. cit., P.35.

UDDYOTA I 157

'गम्यस्यापि भङ्गन्तरेणाभिधानं पर्यायोक्तम्। यदेव गम्यं तस्यवाभिघाने पर्यायोक्कम् ।।" It might be asked, however, that how can the self-same thing be simultaneously suggested as well as expressed. To this Rūyyaka answers: - "गम्यस्य सतः कथमभिधानमिति चेत्, गम्यापेक्षया प्रकारान्तरेय अभिधानस्य भावात्। न हि तस्यैव तदैव तयैव विच्छित्या गम्यत्वं वाच्यत्वं च संभवति। अतः कार्यमुखद्वारेणाभिधानम्। कार्यादेरपि तत्न प्रस्तुतत्वेन वर्णानार्हत्वात् ।"-Op.cit., p. III. The mannet in which the 4 sense is cognised is different from that in which it is expressed in words and this constitutes the essence of पयोयोक or Periphrasis. Thus, in the verse :- "स्पृष्टास्ता नन्दने शच्याः केशसंभोगलालिताः । सावजं पारिजातस्य मञ्जर्यो यस्य सैनिकैः ॥" -tlie conquest of beaven by Hayagriva is being suggested, and at the same time it is expressed through the effects of that conquest-viz. Hayagrīva's soldiers plucking with contempt the twigs of Parijata so carefully reared up for the decoration of Saci's locks, though not in so many words: "अत्न हयग्रीवस्य कार्यमुखेन सवर्गवजयो वर्णितः। प्रभावातिशय- प्रतिपादनं च कारणादिव कार्यादपीति कार्यमपि वर्णनीयमेवेति पर्यायोक्कस्यायं विंषयः ॥"-Alamkara-sarvasva, p. 112.1

I Samudrabandha in his comm. observes on the above text of Alamkara-sruasva thus : कार्यमुखेनेति॥ सैनिककर्त्तृकसावज्ञ-

158 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Mammata, too, states :- "यं प्रेत््य चिररूढाऽपि निवासप्रीतिरुज्किता। मदेनैरावणमुखे मानेन हृदये हरे: ॥ "अत् ऐरावणशकौ मदमानमुक्कौ जातौ इति व्यक्ञयमपि शब्देनोच्यते। तेन यदेवोच्यते तदेव व्यक्षयम्। यथा तु व्यङ्गय न तथा उच्यते ॥"-This he illustrates by referring to a thing which is simulaneously the object of perception ( प्रत्यक्) and of description. Thus, when we perceive a white cow, the content of our preceptual knowledge is something indeterminate, uncharacterised by a universal ( जाति), a quality ( गुण), an action ( क्रिया) or a nomenclature (नामन्) attached to it. But when we seek to describe the same individual cow through the medium of language, we can do so only by superimposing on it all those charcteristics-जाति, गुणा, क्रिया and नामन् which are merely ideal constructions ( विकल्प) abstracted ( भिन्न ) and later on related together (संसृष्ट) through the analytic-cum-synthetic function of our intellect. Thus, just as in the above instance the same individual cow is simultaneously the object of indeterminate perception (अरविकल्पक-प्रत्यक्ष ) and determinate verbal description (विकल्प ) s0 in the instances cited there can be no incongruity in the same thing being expressed and suggested through different modes. As Mammata notes: -

पारिजातमजरीस्पर्शनलक्षास्य कार्यस्य खवर्गविजयलक्षणाकारणमन्तरेणानु- पपत्तेः ॥-Op. cit., p. 123 (TSS. Edn.).

UDDYOTA I 159

"यथा गवि शुक्ले चलति दृष्ट गौः शुक्कश्चलतीति विकल्पः । यदेव दृष तदेव विकल्पयति। न तु यथा दृष्ट' तथा। यतोऽभिन्नासंसृष्टत्वेन दृष्ट भेद संसर्गाभ्यां विकल्पयति ।"-/bid.1 This text of Mammata closely corresponds with the following extract from Tilaka's Vrtti on Udbhata's Kāvyalamkara-sara-samgraha already referred to :- "( यदा) हयग्रीवदर्शने शक्र रावणौ निर्मदौ जाताविति वक्कव्ये- 'यं प्रेक्ष्य चिररूढापि निवासप्रीतिरुज्फिता। मदेनैरावामुखे मानेन हृदये हरे:॥' इति भक्गयन्तरेणाभिधीयते तदा पर्यायोक्कता। अत हि गम्यमानोरऽर्थोऽभिहितः । 31

यथा तु गम्यते न तथाऽभिधीयते। प्रत्यक्षगोचर एव हि विकल्पेऽपि सुघटः। यथा त्वविकल्पे न तथा विकल्पे। अत एव समानप्रतिपत्तिकारिणा शब्दान्तरेणाभिधानमिति पर्यायोक्कम् ॥" -Op. cit., p. 44 (GOS. Edn.).

I Compare : "संसृज्यन्ते न भिद्यन्ते खतोऽर्थाः पारमार्थिकाः । रूपमेकमनेकश्च तेषु बुद्धरुपप्तवः ।।" -Tattvasamgraha-Pañjikā of Kamalaśīla, p. 228 (Gaekwad Oriental Series Edn.). Cf. "All reals are momentary point-instants, exclusive of all similar or dissimilar entities and there can be no relation between them. Nor can there be any split of the integer of reality into a quality and a substance. But linguistic usage proceeds on the assumption of such relations of synthesis and analysis, integration and division, which are not possible between two real objective

160 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Thus, even the ancients like Bhamaha, Udbhata, too, recognised in the figure of speech yafala a distinct appre- hension of the suggested sense. So it might be argued that the element of dbvani is not anything apart from that figure of speech and can easily be brought within the purview of the same. This being the case, the claim of the Dhvani-theorists that they have for the first time brought to light the element of dhvani is totally groundless as it was long ago recognised by the ancients who equated it with an alamkāra. To this the VEttikara answers by saying :- पर्यायोक्तेऽपि.ध्चनावन्तर्भाव :- We, the Dhvani theorists,

facts. For instance, the word 'forest' denotes a number of trees, individual by individual, that are absolutely detached from one another and have no objective nexus between one and the other. Again, when we speak of a 'blue fower', the two things 'blue' quality and the 'flower' substance are understood to be distinct entities brought together. But in reality, the flower and the blue are one and the same thing, the division is only a conceptual constrution without any factual basis."-Dr. Satkari Mookerjee : Buddbist Philosopby of Universal Flux, p. 128. We should note that the above text of the Kāvyaprakasa is based upon the Buddhist theory of Perception.

UDDYOTA I 161

do not deny that in the figure of speech पर्यायोक there is cognition of the suggested sense, but we cannot agree with the ancient Ālamkārikas like Bhāmaha, Udbhata, etc., who would fain bring within its scope all forms of dhvani. For, the suggested sense, in this figure, is not always predominant. But if, in any particular instance, the sugges- ted sense be more striking and charming than the expressed sense, there can be no valid objection to regarding पर्यायोक in that instance as a case of dbvani proper.1 न पुनः .... प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्-The ancient Alam- karikas were inconsistent in comprehending under this figure of speech the whole domain of dhvani-kavya. For the scope of dhuani is much more extensive ( महाविषय) than that of पर्यायोक. For, even where there is no पर्यायोक्क, there are found cases of ध्वनि. A particular वर्ण (letter), a parti- cular प्रत्यय (suffix), a particular रीति (style) or गुण (poetic quality) might give rise to the cognition of some suggested sense which excels in charm the expressed sense.9 As Abhinavagupta notes : 'ध्वनिर्हि महाविषयः सर्वत्र भावाद् व्यापकः।"

I Compare: ध्वनित्वं पुन्न क्वाप्यलंकृतिकाव्ये दृष्टमिति चेत्, पर्यायोक्कसादृश्यमूलाप्रस्तुतप्रशंसादिकाव्ये ध्वनित्वस्य स्फुटत्वात्।-Rasa- gangādhara, p. 212 (NSP. Edn.). 2 Compare Dhvanyāloka, III. 2; III. 16. 3 Compare : 'न हि व्यज्ञनभेदा: सर्वेऽप्यपरिमिता अलंकारप्रकार- गोष्पदेऽन्तर्भावयितुं शक्यन्ते।' -Rasagangadbara, P. 419. 11

162 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA What more, ध्वनि is the soul (तरङ्विन्) of a poem, and how can it be reasonably equated with a mere figure of speech ? Compare : 'प्राधान्यादलंकार्यो हि ध्वनिरलंकारस्य पर्यायोक्कस्य कुच्ौ कथंकारं निविशतामिति तु विचारान्तरम्'-Rasagangadbara. न पुनः ..... अविवक्षितत्वात्-It has been admitted above that some cases of पर्यायोक might be truly regarded as instances of ध्वनि. But this admission does not go to prove the fact that Bhamaha and other ancient authors had any clear conception regarding this position. It is we, assert the Dhvani-theorists, who have brought out the implications which were not even grasped by them : "न चेयदपि प्राक्कनेद ष्टम् ; अपि तु अस्माभिरेव उन्मीलितमिति दर्शयति-न पुनरिति।"-Locana. In the verse which Bhamaha cites as an illustration of this figure of speech the suggested sense is not predominant, as the expressed sense is not intended to be subordinate to the former. If, instead of the illustration as furnished by him, the gatha 'भम धम्मित्र-' were recognised as the true example of पर्यायोक्क we might have paused to consider that the ancients might have recognised in the figure of speech पर्यायोक्क a pure case of dbuani. As this is not the case, it stands to reason that the पर्यायोक्क as conceived by the ancients cannot be identified with dbvani proper and is merely an ordinary figure of speech where the expressed sense is embellished by the suggested sense. It should be noted, however, that Bhamaha's पर्यायोक्क can be equated with a variety of the गुरीभूतव्यङ्गय type of poetry of the Dhvani-theorists. We

UDDYOTA I 163

cite below the comments of Abhinavagupta on this

point :- "भामहस्य यादक तदीयं रूपमभिमतं ताद्गुदाहररोन दर्शितम् ; तत्नापि नैव व्यङ्गास्य प्राधान्यम्, चारुत्वाहेतुत्वात्। तेन तदनुसारितया तत्सदृशं यदुदाहरणान्तरमपि कल्प्यते तत्न नैव व्यङ्गथस्य प्राधान्यमिति सङ्गतिः। यदि तु तदुक्कमुदाहररामनादृत्य 'भम धम्मित-' इत्यादयुदाहियते तदस्मच्छ्ष्यतव। केवलं तु नयमनवलम्ब्य अपश्रवरोन आत्मसंस्कार इत्यनार्यचेष्टितम्। यदा- हुरैतिहासिका :- "अवज्ञयाSप्यवच्छाद्य शरावन् नरकमृच्छ्ति"-इति। भामहेन ह्युदाहृतम्- "गृहेष्वध्वसु वा नान्न भुञ्ज्महे यदधोतिनः। विप्रा न भुजते-" इति।1

This is Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara, III. 9. In T. Naganatha Sastry's edition the second half is read as "a भुजते द्विजास्" तच्च रसदाननिवृत्तये. It has been translated thus: "We don't eat either at home or abroad food which has not been eaten by Brahmins learned in Vedas. This is to prevent poison being administered." In a note Shri Sastry observes: "°Locana (N. S. Ed., p. 40) quotes this verse and explains that these are words of Sri Krishna. Where and when he used them is not stated. The words a रसदाननिवृत्तये in the text are the author's. He says that the not eating of food untasted by the Bralmins is to prevent being poisoned for no one would poison food which is likely to be eaten by Brahmins. No doubt this meaning is derivable from Sri Krishna's words. In that case it will

164 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

एतद्धि भगवद्वासुदेवचनं पर्यायेण रसदानं निषेधति। यत् स एवाह -"'तच्च रसदाननिवृत्तये"-इति। न चास्य रसदाननिषधस्य व्यङ्गयस्य किश्चित् चारुत्वमस्ति येन प्राधान्यं शक्केयत। अपि तु तद्व्यङ्गयोपोद्बलितं विप्र- भोजनेन विना यन्न भोजनं तदेवोक्कप्रकारेण पर्यायोक्कं सत् प्राकरणिकं भोजनार्थ- मलंकुरुते। न ह्यस्य निर्विषं भोजनं भवत्विति विवन्षितमिति पर्यायोक्कमलंकार एवेति चिरन्तनानामभिमत इति तात्पर्यम् ॥।"-°Locana.1

TEXT ३६। अपह्न तिदीपकयोः पुनर्वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यं व्यङ्गस्य चानुयायित्वं' प्रसिद्धमेव।

be 'Dhvani' but still explains Locana, this dhvani has no particular charm and is not important; but helped by this, the literal meaning becomes more attractive." I Abhinavagupta, while earlier citing the definition of पर्यायोक् as formulated by Udbhata, which has been already quoted by us, explains the term पर्यायोक in such a way that there remains no ambiguity as to the predominance of the väcya sense over the vyangya sense in this figure of speech. As he says :- "पर्यायोक्कं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते। वाच्यवाचकतृत्तिभ्यां शून्येनावगमात्मना ।। इति लक्षणाम् । "शत्रुच्छेददृढेच्छस्य मुनेरुतूपथगामिनः । रामस्यानेन धनुषा देशिता धर्मदेशना ।। इत्यत् भीष्मस्य भार्गवप्रभावाभिभावी प्रभाव इति यद्यपि प्रतीयते, तथापि

UDDYOTA I 165

सकरालंकारेऽपि च्छायामनुग्ह्वाति, तदा व्यङ्गपस्य प्राधान्येनाविवक्षित- त्वान्न ध्वनिविषयत्वम्। अलंकारद्वयसंभावनायां2 तु वाच्यव्यङ्गायोः समं प्राधान्यम्। अथ वाच्योपसर्जनी- भावेन व्यङ्गस्य तत्ावस्थानं3 तदा सोऽपि ध्वनि- विषयोऽस्तु, न तुस एव ध्वनिरिति वक्तुं शक्यम, पर्यायोक्तनिर्दिष्टन्यायात्। अपि च संकरालंकारेऽपि च० क्चित्5 संकरोक्तिरेव ध्वनिसंभावनां

निराकरोति०॥ [ I. NSP. drops च and reads व्यङ्गयस्यानुयायित्व. 2. KS. reads अलंकारद्वयसंभावनया. 3. NSP. has तत्ापि व्यवस्थानं. 4. NSP. reads संकरालंकारस्य leaving out अपि and च. 5. क्कचित् dropped in NSP. 6. NSP. reads करोति for निराकरोति -an evident misreading. ] तत्सहायेन "देशिता धर्मदेशना" इत्यभिधीयमानेनैव काव्यार्थोऽलंकृतः । अतएव पर्यायेण प्रकारान्तरेणवगमात्मना व्यक्षय नोपलच्ितं सद् यदभिधीयते तदभिधीयमानमेव सत् पर्योयोक्कमिति-अभिधीयत इति लक्षणापदम्, पर्यायोक्नमिति लक्यपदम्, अर्थालङ्कारत्व सामान्यलक्षणायातं-सर्वं युज्यते। यदि तु 'अभिधीयते' इत्यस्य बलाद् व्याख्यानम्-अभिधीयते प्रतीयते प्रधानतयेति, उदाहरएं च "भम धम्मित-" इत्यादि, तदालङ्कारत्वमेव दूरे संपन्नम्, आत्मतायां प्यवसानात्; तदा चालङ्कारमध्ये गणना न कार्या, भेदान्तराणि चास्य वक्कव्यानि। तदाह-यदि प्राधान्येनेति॥" -°Locana.

166 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION S36. अपह्न तिदीपकयोः ...... प्रसिद्धमेव-See supra notes on Sec. $33. When more than one figure of speech mingle together in a particular piece of poetry, we may have two different species of alarnkara known as संसृष्टि and संकर. Ruyyaka in his Alamkara-sarvasva admirably brings out the distinc- tion between these two figures of speech and their claim to be ranked as separate alainkāras :- "उक्कालंकांराणं यथासंभवं यदि क्वचिद् वचनं स्यात्, तदा ते किं पृथकत्वेन पयवसिताः, उत तदलंकारान्तरमेव किंचिद् इति विचार्यते-तत्न यथा बाह्यालंकाराणीं सोवर्णामणिमयप्रभृतीनां पृथक् चारुत्वहेतुत्वेऽपि संघटना- कृतं चारुत्वान्तर जायते, तद्वत् प्रकृतालंकाराणामपि संयोजने चारुत्वान्तर- मुपलभ्यते। तेनालंकारान्तरप्रादुर्भावो, न पृथक पयवसानमिति निर्रायः। अलंकारान्तरत्वेऽपि च संयोगन्यायेन स्फुटावगमो भेदः। समवायन्यायेन वाऽस्फुटावगम इति द्वैधम्। पूर्वत् संसृष्टिः, उत्तरत्न संकरः। अत एव तिलतण्डुन्यायः, क्षीरनीरन्यायश्च तयोयथार्थतामवगमयतः ॥-Cp. cit., pp. 192-195. Thus, in aufe the constituent alamkaras are quite

I These two maxims-viz. त्तीरनीरन्याय and तिलतराडल- RT, have been explained in Col. Jacob's Laukika- nyāyānjali, Pt. II, pp. 22 ff and p. 33. There is also a reference to another न्याय, viz. नरसिंहन्याय, in some alamkara- works in connexion with the commixture of figures of speech. See ibid., p. 23.

UDDYOTA I 167

independent of each other, and the beauty consists in the mere juxtaposition. But in the case of HaT, the constituent figures of speech are interdependent on one another, and this interdependence might arise in four different ways according to Udbhata-viz., by संदेह, by a commixture of alamnkaras belonging to both शब्द and अर्थ, by co-inherence in a common substratum, and lastly, by the relation of principal and subordinate subsisting between one another.1 Of these, however, the second vatiety of संकर, viz., शब्दार्थालंकार-संकर, has been discarded by Ruyyaka, as he comprehends it under संसष्टि. Compare :- "शब्दार्थवर्त्यलंकारसंकरस्तु भट्टोद्भटप्रकाशितः संसृष्टावन्तर्भावितः इति त्रिप्रकार एव संकर इह प्रदशितः।"-Alainkara-sarvasva, on which Jayaratha comments :- "संसृष्टाविति-अनयोर्हि आश्रयभेदात् तिलतराडलन्यायेन स्पष्ट एव भेदावगम इत्यत्वान्तर्भावो युक्कः।"-Op. cit., p.204. Now, in the first three varieties of संकर-viz., संदेह- संकर, शब्दार्थवर्त्त्यखंकारसंकर and एकवाचकानुप्रवेशसंकर, there can be no possibility of suggested sense, as is prima facie evident.

Compare : 'बहूनामलंकाराणं परस्परनिरपेक्षाणं द्वयोर्वा तथा- विधयोरेकत शब्द एव अर्थ एव वा उपनिबन्धे सति संसृष्टिरलंकारः। यत्र तु परस्परापेक्षत्व तत्न संदेहैकशब्दाभिधानानुग्राह्यानुग्राहकसंकरास्त्रयः पूर्वम- भिहिताः। यत्र च शब्दार्थलक्षणाश्रयद्वितयनिष्ठतयाSनेकालंकारोपनिबन्ध- स्ततापि शब्दार्थवर्र्र्यनेकालंकारसंकर उक्कः। एतद्वलक्षरायेन तु संसृष्टिः।' -Pratīhārendurāja on Kavyālamkāra-sārasamgraba, II. 5.

168 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

In the fourth variety, however, viz. अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभावसंकर, there is indeed some possibility of suggestion, and as such, the opponents might try to bring tafa under its scope. To refute this the Vrttikara states: - संकरालंकारेपि ... ध्वनिविषयत्वम्-If the suggested sense be not principally intended, as is the case in the fourth variety of संकर, there can be no ध्वनि. For example, in the verse -- "प्रवातनीलोत्पल निर्विशेषमधीरविप्रेचितमायताच्या। तया गृहीतं नु मृगाज्नाभ्यस्ततो गृहीतं नु मृगाङ्गनाभिः ॥"1 -the affinity of Parvati's unsteady glances with those of the deer is suggested, but this suggested simile is subordinate to the expressed doubt which is more charming. So this, too, cannot be an example of ध्वनि. Now, it might be argued that in the first variety, viz. संदेह-संकर, where there is doubt as to the nature of the alainkara and where any alamkara might be posited in the absence of any positive and determining factor, there can be a case of ध्वनि. To this Anandavardhana answers : अलंकारद्वयसंभावनायां तु ...... प्राधान्यम्-In संदेह-संकर, both the alamkras, suggested as well as expressed, are equaly predominant. For, as there is no definite clue as to which alamkara should be expressed and which suggested, both may be suggested as well as expressed alternately and it

1 Kālidāsa's Kumārasambhava, I. 46.

UDDYOTA I 169

would be illogical to arbitrarily mark out the one as predominant in preference to the other. Thus, in none of the four varieties of संकर can there be a genuine case of ध्वनि. We quote here Abhinavagupta's comments on this section, which would make the point clearer :- "संकरालंकारेऽपीति- 'विरुद्धालंक्रियोल्लेखे समं तद्वृत्त्यसंभवे। एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावे च संकरः ॥।'1 -इति लक्षणादेक: प्रकारः। यथा ममैव- 'शशिवदनासितसरसिजनयना सितकुन्ददशनपंक्किरियम्। गगनजलस्थलसंभवहृद्याकारा कृता विधिना ॥' इति। अत शशी वदनमस्याः, तद्वद् वा वदनमस्या इति रूपकोपमोल्लेखाद् युगपद् द्वयासंभवात् एकतरपत्तत्यागग्रहरो प्रमाणाभावात् संकर इति व्यङ्गयवाच्यताया एवानिश्चयात् का ध्वनिसंभावना? योऽपि द्वितीयः प्रकार :- 'शब्दार्थालंकाराण- मेकत भावः इति ततापि प्रतीयमानस्य का शङ्का ? यथा-'स्मर स्मरमिव प्रियं रमयसे यदालिव्नात्' इति। ततव यमकमुपमा च । तृतीयः प्रकार :- यत्र कत वाक्यांशेSनेकोरऽर्थालंकारस्ततापि द्वयोः साम्यात् कस्य व्यङ्गयता। यथा- 'तुल्योदयावसानत्वाद् गतेऽस्त' प्रति भाखति। वासाय वासरः क्वान्तो विशतीव तमोगुहाम् ॥' इति। अत् हि स्ामिविपत्तिसमुचितव्रतग्रहणाहेवा किकुलपुत्र रूपणामेकदेश विवर्त्तिरूपक दर्शयति। उत्प्रक्षा चेवशब्देनोक्का। तदिदं प्रकारद्वयमुक्कम्। 'शब्दार्थवर्त्यलंकारा वाक्य एकत्र वर्निनः ।' 'संकरश्चैकवाक्यांशप्रवेशाद् वाभिधीयते ॥'-इति च।2

I. Udbhata's Kāvyālamkāra-sāra-samgraba, II. I Ibid., Il.

170 THE DHVANYĀI OKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

चतुर्थस्तु प्रकार :- यत्ानुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभावोऽलंकाराणाम्। यथा- 'प्रवातनीलोत्पल- इति। अत् मृगाज्ञनावलोकनेन तदवलोकनस्योपमा यद्यपि व्यक्षथा, तथापि वाच्यस्य सा संदेहालंकारस्य अभ्युत्थानकारिणीत्वेन अनुग्राहकत्वाद् गुणीभृता, अनुग्राह्य त्वेन हि संदेहे पर्यवसानम्। यथोक्कम्- 'परस्परोपकारेण यत्रालंकृतयः स्थिताः । स्वातन्त्र्येणात्मलाभं नो लभन्ते सोऽपि संकरः ॥' इति।1 तदाह। यदालंकार इत्यादि॥ एवं चतुर्थेऽपि प्रकारे ध्वनिता निराकृता। मध्यमयोस्तु व्यङ्गयसंभावनैव नास्तीत्युक्कम्। आद्ये तु प्रकारे 'शशिवदने'-त्यायुदाहृते कथश्चिदस्ति संभावनेत्याशङ्कय निराकरोति- अलंकारद्वयेति॥ सममिति॥ द्योरपि आन्दोल्यमानत्वाद् इति भाव: ।"-Locana. अथ वाच्योपसर्जनीभावेन ......... पर्यायोक्तनिर्दिष्टन्यायात्- Now, it has been stated above that in संकर usually, the अलंकार, even if suggested, is not principal. But there are cases where, in संकर, the suggested अलंकार is predominant and the expressed अलंकार is subordinated to it. Then it would legitimately come within the purview of ध्वनि. Abhinavagupta cites the following Prakrit stanza to illustrate the point :- 'होइ रा गुणाखुराओ खलाएँ एावरं पसिद्धिसरणाणम्। किर पहिणुसइ ससिमणं चन्दे पिशमुहे दिद्ठे॥2

I Ibid., II. 2 This is the reading of the gatba in the °Locana as printed in the Benares Edn. In the edition of the late Kuppuswami Sastrī the second half is read as :-

UDDYOTA I 171

[भवति न गुणानुराग: खलानां केवलं प्रसिद्धिशरणानाम्। किल प्रस्नौति शशिमशि: चन्द्रे न प्रियामुखे दृष्ट ।। इतिच्छाया ॥] Here the अर्थान्तरन्यास as expressed in the second half is based on the अपह ति and व्यतिरेक that are suggested. This is a case of ध्वनि proper, for it is the contrast (व्यतिरेक) between the face of the maiden and the moon that is more picturesque and striking: 'अतार्थान्तरन्यासः तावद् वाच्यत्वेनाभाति, व्यतिरेकापह्व ती तु व्यङ्गयत्वेन प्रधानतयेत्यभिप्रायेणाशङ्कते- अथेति॥ तत्ोत्तरम्-तदा सोऽपीति॥ सङ्करालंकार एवायं न भवति, अपि तु अल कारध्वनिर्नामायं ध्वनेद्वि तीयो भेदः ।'-Locana. Thus, a particular instance of संकर might sometimes be regarded as an instance of ध्वनि. But it is in no way logical to subsume the whole domain of ध्वनि under संकर, for just the same reasons that have been put forward in the discussion of पर्यायोक्क and its relation to ध्वनि. See supra. As Locana puts it: यच्च पर्यायोक्के निरूपितं तत् सर्वमताप्यनुसरणीयम् ॥ अपि च ...... निराकरोति-The Vrttikara, at last, winds up the discussion by pointing- out that in no instance of संकर

'किर पहवइ ससिमणी चन्दे पिशमुहे दिट्ठे।' This gatba is also cited by Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka, Vimarśa III, p. 432 (Kashi Edn.) with the comment :- "अत् प्रियामुखस्य पूर्णोन्दुरूपत्वं तत्कार्यस्य चन्द्रकान्तमणिप्रस्नुतिलक्षणास्य सम्भाव्यमानोत्पादस्य सतो जाड्यजनितप्रसिद्धिशरणत्वरूपप्रतिबन्धकबलादनुत्- पादे सत्यनुमीयते॥"-loc. cit.

172 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

can there be any genuine case of dhvani, for the very disignation संकर rules out all speculation concerning the existence of dbvani, inasmuch as it signifies a complete merger of the individual traits of the component figures, and, as such it is futile to contemplate here the relation of principal and subordinate with reference to them. As Abhinavagupta comments: - "अथ सर्वेषु सक्करप्रमेदेषु व्यङ्गयसंभावनानिरासप्रकारं साधारणमाह- अपि चेति॥ 'क्वचिदपि संकरालंकारे चे'ति सम्बन्धः। सर्वभेदभिन्न इत्यर्थः । सङ्कीणता हि मिश्रत्व लोलीभावः, तत कथमेकस्य प्राधान्यं कीर- जलवत् ?"-°Locana, p. 124.

TEXT ६३७। अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि यदा सामान्य- विशेषभावान्निमित्तनिमित्तिभावाद् वा अभिधीयमानस्या- प्रस्तुतस्य प्रतीयमानेन प्रस्तुतेनाभिसम्बन्धः', तदाऽभि- धीयमान2-प्रतीयमानयोः सममेव प्राधान्यम्। यदा तावत् सामान्यस्याप्रस्तुतस्याभिधीयमानस्य प्राकरणिकेन विशेषेण प्रतीयमानेन सम्बन्धस्तदा विशेषप्रतीतौ सत्यामपि प्राधान्येन तत्5-सामान्येनाविनाभावात् सामान्यस्यापि प्राधान्यम्। यदापि विशेषस्य सामान्य- निष्ठत्वं तदापि सामान्यस्य प्राधान्ये सामान्ये सर्व- विशेषाणामन्तर्भावाद् विशेषस्यापि प्राधान्यम्।

UDDYOTA 1 173

निमित्तनिमित्तिभावे चायमेव न्यायः। यदा तु सारूप्य- मात्रवशेनाप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामप्रकृतप्रकृतयोः सम्बन्ध-

स्तदाप्यप्रस्तुतस्य सरूपस्याभिधीयमानस्य प्राधान्येना- विवक्षायां ध्वनावेवान्तःपातः । इतरथा तु अलंकारा- न्तरमेव ॥

[ I. NSP. drops the portion अभिधीयमानस्याप्रस्तुतस्य ... प्रस्तुतेनाभिसम्बन्ध :. 2. NSP. reads अभिधेय० 3. NSP. has तस्य सामान्येन for तत्सामान्येन. So also KS. 4. KS. reads त्रलंकारान्तरत्वमेव. ]

EXPOSITION

837. The Dhvanikara now takes up the case of अप्रस्तुत- प्रशंसा, where from the expressed sense which is अप्राकरणिक (अ्रप्रस्तुत ) we apprehend the प्राकरणिक sense through sugges- tion, provided there are certain definite relations between the expressed and the suggeseed senses. These relations are सामान्यविशेषभाव (relation as between a uniuersal and a particular), कार्यकारणभाव (causality), and सारूप्य (similarity). Compare: - "अप्रस्तुतात् सामान्यविशेषभावे कार्यकारणभावे सारूप्ये च प्रस्तुतप्रतीतावप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ॥। इहाप्रस्तुतस्य वर्णनमेवायुक्कमप्रस्तुतत्वात्। प्रस्तुतपरत्वे तु कदाचित् तद् युक्तं स्यात्। न चाप्रस्तुतादसम्बन्धे प्रस्तुतप्रतीतिः अतिप्रसङ्गात्। सम्बन्धे तु भवन्ती न त्रिविधं सम्बन्धमति- वर्त्तते। तस्यैवार्थान्तरप्रतीतिहेतुत्वोपपत्तेः। त्रिविधश्च सम्बन्धः-सामान्य-

174 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

विशेषभावः कार्यकारणभावः सारूप्यं चेति। ...... 1-Alamnkara-sarvasva,

p. 104. अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि ...... सममेव प्राधान्यम्-When the expressed and suggested senses stand either in the relation of universal and particular or in the relation of cause and effect, both are equally predominant, and as such we cannot argue the predominance of the suggested sense alone. The author explains this statement in the following

sentences. Abhinavagupta, after citing the definition of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा as given by Bhamaha (or by Udbhata ?), comments :- "अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य या स्तुतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा सा त्रिविधा परिकीर्त्तिता॥" अप्रस्तुतस्य वणानं प्रस्तुताक्षेपिणा इत्यर्थः। स चात्तपत्तिभिः प्रकारर्भवति- -सामान्यविशेषभावात्, निमित्तनिमित्तिभावात्, सारूप्याच्च। तत्न

I Compare : अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य या स्तुतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेयं प्रस्तुतार्थानुबन्धिनी ॥ अधिकारादुपवर्णनावसरात् अपगतस्य प्राकरणिकादपरस्य वस्तुनो यत्ोप- निबन्धः सा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। न चैवमपि तस्य उन्मत्तप्रलापप्रख्यता। यतः सा केनचित् ख्ाजन्येन प्रस्तुतमर्थमुपनिबध्नाति। तदुक्कम्-'प्रस्तुतार्थानु- बन्धिनी'।-Udbhata's Kavyalamkara, V. 8 and Pratibarendu- raja's comm. thereon. This definition of Udbhata corresponds with Bhamaha's. Cf. Kāvyālamkāra, III. 29.

UDDYOTA I 175

प्रथमे प्रकारदये प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतयोस्तुल्यमेव प्राधान्यमिति प्रतिज्ञां करोति- "अप्रस्तुत" इत्यादिना "प्राधान्यम्" इत्यन्तेन।-0Locana. यदा तावत् ...... प्राधान्यम्-When the relation is one of सामान्यविशेषभाव we might conceive of two different varieties -viz. either the expressed अप्राकरणिक might be universal in character and the suggested प्राकरणिक particular or vice versa. As the author of the Alamkara-sarvasva states: सामान्यविशेष- भावे सामान्याद विशेषस्य विशेषाद् वा सामान्यस्य प्रतीतौ द्वेतम्।-loc. cit. In the first variety the suggested particular is not cognised as one isolated from the universal to which it belongs, but as one characterised by that universal. For example, we cannot conceive of a particular cow ( गो-व्यक्ति) without filst cognising the cow-universal ( गोत्व-सामान्य). For, विशेष and सामान्य are mutually inalienable, they are indissolubly related together. Thus, when विशेष is suggested, the सामान्य, too, is a fortiori implied in it. So, both stand on the same footing, and we can have no dhvani here. Ccmpare: - "सामान्यस्य विशेषाश्रयत्वात्, विशेषस्य च सामान्यनिष्ठत्वात् सामान्य- विशेषयोः परस्परमागुरयो सम्बन्धः।"-Jayaratha's Vimarsini, P. 104. यदापि विशेषस्य .. पराधान्यम्-In the second variety, too, when by the expressed अप्राकरशिक particular che प्राकरणिक universal is suggested, though prima facie the latter alone seems to be predominant, still the universal cannot be cognised apart from the constituent particulats and as such

176 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

the particulars, too, are comprehended in it. Compare: 'सामान्यान्यन्यथासिद्धेविशेषं गमयन्ति हि'; also 'निर्विशेषं हि सामान्यं भवेच्छशविषाणवत्'. Thus this second variety also cannot be regarded as a case of ध्वनि proper. We quote here Abhinavagupta's comment :- "तत् सामान्यविशेषभावेऽपि दयी गतिः-सामान्यमप्राकरणिकं शब्दे- नोच्यते, गम्यते तु प्राकरणिकों विशेषः, स एकः प्रकारः। यथा- "अहो संसारनैर्घृ रायमहो दौरात्म्यमापदाम्। अहो निसगजिह्मस्य दुरन्ता गतयो विधे: ॥" अत्र हि दैवप्राधान्यं सर्वत्र सामान्यरूपमप्रस्तुतं वर्शितं सत् प्रकृते क्वापि वस्तुनि विनष्टे विशेषात्मनि पर्यवस्यति। तत्ापि च विशेषांशस्य सामान्येन व्याप्तत्वाद् व्यङ्गयविशषवत् वाच्यसामान्यस्यापि प्राधान्यम्। नहि सामान्य- विशेषयोर्युगपत् प्राधान्यं विरुध्यते। यदा तु विशषोऽप्राकरणिकः प्राकरणिकं सामान्यमाच्तिपति तदा द्वितीयः प्रकारः। यथा- "एतत्तस्य मुखात् कियत् कमलिनीपत्न करां पाथसो यन्मुक्ामशिरित्यमंस्त स जड़: शरावन् यदस्मादपि। अङ्गुल्यग्रलघु क्रियाप्रविलयिन्यादीयमाने शनै- स्ततोष्टीय गतो हहेत्यनुदिनं निद्राति नान्तः शुचा ॥" इति।

I See Bhallatasataka, v. 94 (Kāvyamālā Edn.). Also cited in Rūyyaka's Alam°-sarvasva under fig. of speech अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ; Kavyaprakasa, Ullasa X. The verse 'एतत् तस्य-' has been explained in the Udabarana-candrika as follows : पतदिति। कस्यचिन्मूर्खस्य वृत्तान्तं कुतश्विदाकरार्य विस्मयेन भाषमाणं कंचित् प्रति कस्यचिदुक्किरियम्। मुखादित्यनन्तरं श्रुतमिति शेषः। तस्य मुखाच्छ्र तमेतत् कियत्। अल्पमित्यर्थः ।

UDDYOTA I 177

अत् अस्थाने महत्त्वसम्भावनं सामान्यं प्रस्तुतम्। अप्रस्तुतं तु जलबिन्दौ मशित्वसम्भावनं विशषरूपं वाच्यम्। तत्ापि सामान्यविशषयोर्युगपत् प्राधान्ये न विरोध इत्युक्कम्। एवमेकः प्रकारो द्विभेदोऽपि विचारितः 'यदा तावद्-' इत्यादिना 'विशेषस्यापि प्राधान्यम्' इत्यन्तेन ॥" -Locana. निमित्तनिमित्तिभावे चायमेव न्याय :- In the second variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा based on causality (निमित्तनिमित्तिभाव) the same observations hold good. For example, when the expressed अप्राकरणिक cause (निमित्त) suggests the प्राकरणिक effect ( निमित्तिन्) the cognition of the cause lingers and vice versa. As Abhinavagupta puts it: - 'एतमेव न्यायं निमित्तनेमित्तिकभावेऽतिदिशंस्तस्यापि द्विप्रकारतां दर्शयति -निमित्तेति। कदाचित् निमित्तमप्रस्तुतं सदभिधीयमानं नैमित्तिकं प्रस्तुत- माचिपति। यथा- ये यान्त्यभ्युदये प्रीति नोज्फन्ति व्यसनेषु च । ते बान्धवास्ते सुहृदो लोकः खार्थपरोऽपरः ॥ अताप्रस्तुतं सुहृद्बान्धवरूपत्वं निमित्तं सज्जनासक्त्ा वर्णयति नैमित्तिकीं

अपाये वा पश्चमी। मुखादपगतमित्यर्थः। किं तदित्याह-स जडो मूर्खः कमलिनीपते स्थितं वारिणः करां बिन्दुं मुक्कामशिरित्यमंस्तेति यत्। अस्मादन्यदपि शृशु। शनैरादीयमाने ग्रृह्यमारो करो अङ्गुल्यग्रस्य लघुक्रिय- याल्पचेष्टया प्रविलयिनि विलीने सति मम मुक्कामणिः कुतो्ीय गत इत्य- नुदिनमन्तः शोकेन न निद्रातीति। अत जडसामान्यप्रस्तावे तद्विशेषाभिधान- रूपा ।"-See Govinda Thakkura's Kauya-pradipa, p.338 [footnote] (NSP. Edn.). Manikyacandra, while commenting on this verse, remarks : 'मुखादित्यपेत्ित क्रियमपादानम्।' 12

178 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

श्रद्धेयवचनतां प्रस्तुतामात्मनोऽभिव्यडक्कुम्। तत् नैमित्तिकप्रतीतावपि निमित्त- प्रतीतिरेव प्रधानीभवत्यनुप्राणकत्वेनेति व्यङ्गथव्यञ्जकयोः प्राधान्यम्। कदाचित्तु नैमित्तिकमप्रस्तुतं वरायमानं सत् प्रस्तुतं निमित्तं व्यनक्ति। यथा सेतौ- सग्गं अपारिजाअं कोत्थुहलच्छिरहिअं महुमहस्य उरम्। सुमरामि महणापुरओ अमुद्धअन्दं हरजडापब्भारम्।1 अत् जाम्बवान् कौस्तुभलक्ष्मी विरहितह रिवत्तःस्मरणादिकमप्रस्तुतं नैमित्तिकं वर्णायति प्रस्तुतं वृद्धसेवाचिरजीवित्वव्यवहारकौशलादि निमित्तभूतं मन्त्रिताया- मुपादेयमभिव्यड्क्कुम्। तत्न निमित्तप्रतीतावपि नेमित्तिकं वाच्यभूतम् प्रत्युत तन्निमित्तानुप्राणितत्वेन उद्धुरकन्धरीकरोत्यात्मानमिति समप्रधानतव वाच्य- व्यज्ञययोः ॥"-०Locana. Having thus shown that the first two varieties of अप्रस्तुत- प्रशंसा cannot be reckoned as instances of ध्वनि, the Vrttikara now examines the third variety based on similarity (सादृश्य). यदा तु ... अन्तःपातः-When the expressed अप्रस्तुत suggests a similar प्राकरणिक (i. e. प्रस्तुत), there might be ध्वनि, provided the latter is intended primarily to be conveyed by the poet, and the expressed sense is subordinated to it. इतरथा तु .. अलङ्कारान्तरमेव-Otherwise, it would be nothing but a common figure of speech. Thus, the upshot of this discussion comes upto this that if in the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा based on सारूप्य (सादृश्य), the suggested sense be more striking

IThis is Pravarasena's Setubandba, IV. 20. The Sanskrit rendering is : सर्गमपारिजातं कौस्तुभलक्ष्मीविरहितं मधुमथनस्योरः। स्मरामि मथनात् पुरतः अमुग्धचन्द्रं च हरजटाप्राग्भारम्॥

UDDYOTA I 179

and picturesque than the expressed sense, it would be a case of dhvani. But if the reverse be the case it would go by the designation अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, a variety of गुणोभूतव्यङ्गय. Compare °Locana :- "एवं द्वौ प्रकारौ प्रत्येकं द्विविधो विचार्य तृतीयः प्रकारः परीच्यते सारूप्य- लक्षणः । तत्ापि द्वो पकारौ-अप्रस्तुतात् कदाचिद् वाच्याच्चमत्कारः, व्यङ्गथ तु तन्मुखप्रेक्तम्। यथास्म दुपाध्यायभट्ट न्टुराजस्य- 'प्राणा येन समर्पितास्तव बलाद् येन त्वमुत्थापितः स्कन्धे यस्य चिरं स्थितोऽसि विदधे यस्ते सपर्यामपि। तस्यास्य स्मितमात्केण जनयन् प्राणापहारक्रियां भ्रातः प्रत्युपकारिणां धुरि परं वेताल लीलायसे ॥' अरत्न यद्यपि सारूप्यवशेन कृतन्नः कश्चिदन्यः प्रस्तुत आत्ति्यते, तथाप्य- प्रस्तुतस्यैव वेतालवत्तान्तस्य चमत्कारित्वम्। न ह्यचेतनोपालम्भवदसम्भाव्य- मानोऽयमर्थो, न च न हृद्य इति वाच्यस्यात प्रधानता। यदि पुनरचेतनादि- नात्यन्तासम्भाव्यमानतदर्थविशेषरोन अप्रस्तुतेन व्णितेन प्रस्तुतमात्तिप्यमाएं चमत्कारकारि तदा वस्तुध्वनिरसौ। यथा ममैव-

'भावव्रात हठाज्जनस्य हृदयान्याक्रम्य यन्नर्त्तयन्

भङ्गीभिर्विविधाभिरात्महृदयं प्रच्छाद संकीडसे।

स त्वामाह जडं ततः सहृदयम्मन्यत्वदुःशिचितो

मन्येऽमुष्य जडात्मता स्तुतिपदं त्वत्साम्यसन्भावनात् ।' कश्चिन्महापुरुषो 'वीतरागोऽपि सरागवदि'ति न्यायेन गाढविवेकालोक- तिरस्कृततिमिरप्रतानोऽपि लोकमध्ये सवात्मानं प्रच्छादयन् लोकं च वाचालयन् आत्मन्यप्रतिभासमेवाङ्गीकुर्व स्तेनैव लोकेन मूर्खोऽयमिति यदावज्ञायते, तदा तदीयं लोकोत्तरं चरितं प्रस्तुतं व्यक्ञ्यतया प्राधान्येन प्रकाश्यते। जडोऽयमिति ह्युद्यानेन्द्यादिर्भावो लोकेनावज्ञायते स च प्रत्युत कस्यचिद् विरहिण तत्सुक्य-

180 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

चिन्तादूयमानमानसताम् अन्यस्य प्रहर्षपरवशतां करोतीति हठादेव लोकं यथच्छं विकारकारणाभिनत्तयति। न च तस्य हृदयं केनापि ज्ञायते कीदृगयमिति। प्रत्युत महागम्भीरोऽतिविदग्धः सुष्ठुगर्वहीनोऽतिशयेन क्रीडाचतुरः ; स यदि लोकेन जड इति तत एव कारणात् प्रत्युत वैदग्ध्यसम्भावननिमित्तात् सम्भावितः; आत्मा च यत एव कारणात् प्रत्युत जा्य न सम्भाव्यस्तत एव सहृदय: सम्भावितः; तदस्य लोकस्य जडोऽसीति यद्युच्यते तदा जाष्बमेवं- विघस्य भावव्रातस्याविदग्धस्य प्रसिद्धमिति सा प्रत्युत स्तुतिरिति जडादपि पापीयानयं लोक इति ध्वन्यते। तदाह-यदा त्वित्यादिना॥"

Jagannatha's observations on the relation of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा with ध्वनि are worth quoting :-

"इदं तु बोध्यम्-अत्यन्ताप्रस्तुतस्य वाच्यतायां तस्मिन अपर्य- वसितयाऽभिधया प्रतीयमानार्थस्य बलादाकृष्टत्वेन ध्वनित्व न निर्बाधम्। द्वयो: प्रस्तुतत्वे तु ध्वनित्व निर्बाधमेव। एवं सादृश्यमूलप्रकारे द्वैतम्। कार्यकारणभावसामान्यविशेषभावमूलास्तु चत्वारः प्रकारा: गुणीभूतव्यङ्गस्यैव भेदाः। अभिधादिस्पशलेशशून्यस्य केवलागूरणमात्स्य ध्वनित्वप्रयोजकत्वात् ॥" -Rasagangādhara, p. 542. Vide also :- "किं च अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायां प्रस्तुतं व्यङ्गयमिति निर्विवादम्। निगोर्या- ध्यवसाने तु लक्ष्यं स्यात्। अपि च यत्र वाच्यस्य अत्यन्ताप्रस्तुतत्व तत्ाभिधाया अपयवसानात् स्यादपि कदाचित् लक्षणाया अवकाशः। यदा तु द्योरप्यर्थयोः प्रागुक्कदिशा प्रस्तुतत्व तदा तु बाधलेशास्फुरणात् लक्षणा- गन्धोऽपि नास्ति। कुतः पुनर्निगरणं लक्षणौकदेशः? किं तु आगूरणमेवेति। तत्नाप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाया: सादृश्यमूलाया आवश्यकत्वाद् अन्यलापि तज्जातीयस्थले सैवोचिता। यदि तु प्रकारस्यास्य ध्वनिप्रभेदत्वात् ध्वनेश्च अलंकार्यस्य अलंकार- ताऽनुपपत्तिरिति सूक्ष्ममीच्यते, तदाSप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाया भेदान्तरमेव विषय इत्यपि वदन्ति ॥"-Op. cit., p. 545.

UDDYOTA I 181

TEXT

६३८। तद्यमत्र संक्षेप :- व्यङरस्य यत्राप्राधान्यं वाच्यमात्ानुयायिनः। समासोक्तरादयस्तत्र वाच्यालंकृतयः स्फटाः ॥ व्यङ्गास्य प्रतिभामात्ने वाच्यार्थानुगमेऽपि वा। न ध्वनिर्यत्र वा तस्य प्राधान्यं न प्रतीयते॥ तत्परावेव शब्दार्थो यत्र व्यङ्गा प्रति स्थितौ। धवने: स एव विषयो मन्तव्यः सङ्करोज्झितः ॥1

EXPOSITION

$38. In these verses the Vrttikara summarises the arguments that have been advanced in the preceding section against the inclusion of ध्वनि under any of the common figures of speech. व्यङ्गास्य यत्राप्राधान्यं .. स्फुटाः-Where the suggested sense is subordinate to the expressed sense and serves to embellish the latter, that is merely an instance of such figures of speech as समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, पर्यायोक्क etc., as already shown above in detail. Abhinavagupta points out that the conclusions arrived

I These verses are shown as Kārikās (I. 14-16) in the NSP. Edn. But as thie introductory remark of the Vrttikara shows ( 'तदयमत्र संचेपः' ), these should be rather considered as संग्रहश्लोक's or mnemonic verses summing up the preceding discussion.

182 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

at in course of the discussion as to the mutual relation of dbuani on the one hand with figures of speech like समासोक्ति, आन्तेप, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा etc. on the other would apply mutatis mutandis in the case of other figures of speech as well where there is some possibility of the existence of the suggested sense. As he observes: "उद्देशे यदादिग्रहणं कृतं "समासोक्कि-" इत्यत्र द्वन्द्वे तेन व्याजस्तुतिप्रमृतिरलंकारवर्गोऽपि संभाव्यभानव्यङ्गथानुप्रवेशः संभावितः । तत्र सर्वत्र साधारणामुत्तरं दातुमुपक्रमते-तद्यमत्नेति॥ कियद्वा प्रतिपदं लिख्यतामिति भावः ।"-°Locana. व्यङ्गास्य प्रतिभा ..... न प्रतीयते -Where the apprehension of the suggested sense is not too clear ( प्रतिभामात) as in दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता etc. (where there is an apprehension of similarity, i.e. औपम्य, in the background), or where the suggested sense stands on the same level with the expressed sense, i.e. where both of them are equally prominent as in the first two varieties of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा based on सामान्यविशेषभाव and कार्यकारणभाव, that too is not a case of ध्वनि. Compare Abhinavagupta's comments :-

'यत्रेति॥ काव्ये। अलंकृतय इति॥ अलंकृतित्वादेव च वाच्योप- स्कारकत्वम् ॥

प्रतिभामात्े इति। यत्रोपमादौ म्लिष्टार्थप्रतीतिः ॥1 वाच्यार्थानुगम

I Uttungodaya, in his Kaumudi, clarifies the expression 'म्लिष्टार्थप्रतीतिः' thus :- "प्रतिभामात इत्यनेन

UDDYOTA 1 183

इति। वाच्येनार्थेनानुगमः समं प्राधान्यम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामिवेत्यर्थः। न प्रतीयते इति। स्फुटतया प्राधान्यं न चकास्ति, अपि तु बलात् कल्प्यते, तथापि हृदये नानुप्रविशति। यथा-'दे आर पसिश्र शिवत्तसु' इत्यत्न अन्यकृतासु व्याख्यासु। तेन चतुषु प्रकारेषु न ध्वनिव्यवहारः ॥ सद्भावेऽपि व्यङ्गयस्य अप्राधान्ये, म्लिष्टप्रतीतौ, वाच्येन समप्राधान्ये, अस्फुटे प्राधान्ये च।" -°Locana. The same ideas recur in Karika 31 of the Second Uddyota :- 'यत्र प्रतीयमानोऽर्थः प्रम्लिष्टत्वेन भासते। वाच्यस्याङ्गतया वापि नास्यासौ गोचरो ध्वनेः ॥' तत्परावेव ...... सङ्गरोज्मित :- That only is the genuine case of ध्वनि where the denotative ( वाचक) words and the expressed ( वाच्य) sense both subordinate themselves to the suggested sense, and which is immune from the possibility of being comprehended under any of the existent varieties of अलंकार (सङ्करोज्भित:). Abhinavagupta explains the term सङ्करोज्भित: as-"संकरेणालङ्कारानुवेशसम्भावनया उज्मितः इत्यर्थः । सक्करालंकारेरोति त्वसत्। अन्यालंकारोपलक्षणात्वे हि क्लिष्ट स्यात् ॥" -°Locana.

म्लिष्टा अस्पष्टा। व्यङ्गयात्मनः अर्थस्य। क्वेतिचेत् तत्ाह-उपमादा- विति ॥"-p. 235. In Amarakosa, I. 5. 23, the word frag has been thus explained :- "श्राव्यं हृयं मनोहारि विस्पष्ट प्रकटोदितम्। अथ स्लिष्टमविस्पष्टम् ............ ।।"

184 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA Uttungodaya further clarifies the expression 'संकरोज्भितः' in the following extract :- "संकरशब्दः सांकर्यवाचकः ; तच्च ध्वनेः समासोक्कयाद्यलंकारानुप्रवेशरूप- मित्याह-अलंकारेति॥ अनुप्रवेशाननुप्रवेशयोः तदुज्भितत्वोक्किरयुक्केति मत्वा संभावनयेत्युक्कम्। अलंकारानुप्रवेशो हि प्रागाशङ्गि; ततः शङ्कान- वसरोऽतोच्यत इत्यर्थः। संकरालंकारवाचकोऽयं संकरशब्दः किंन स्यादिति, नेत्याह-संकरेति॥ किमयं संकरालंकारमात्विषयः, आहोखिदुपलक्षणा- मुखेन समासोक्त्यादेरपि संग्रहार्थ :? नादः, इतरालंकारेषु ध्वन्यन्तर्भावानुमति- प्रसङ्गात्। न द्वितीय इत्याह-अन्यालंकारेति॥ प्रधानेन ह्युपलक्षरं न्याय्यम् ; संकरालंकारस्य चेतरालंकारसमुदायात्मकस्य तदपेक्षया प्राधान्या- संभवादुपलक्षणनीत्या तत्संग्रहस्तावत् क्लिष्ट एव; यथाश्रुत्यर्थस्थिति- संभवे सति तदतिक्रमेणणाश्रुतार्थपरिकल्पनापि क्लेशाय कल्पत इति सर्वथा नेत्थंकारं व्याख्यानं समुचितमित्यर्थः ॥"-Op. cit., pp. 236-37. This third verse cited in the urtti-text is almost identical in import with the karika which constitutes the definition of ध्वनि-viz., 'यतार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतखार्थौ। व्यड्क्ः काव्यविशेषः स ध्ननिरिति सूरिभिः कथितः ॥'

TEXT ६३९। तस्मान्न ध्वनेरन्यत्ान्तर्भावः ॥ इतश्र नान्तर्भाव :; यतः काव्यविशेषोऽङ्गी ध्वनिरिति कथितः। तस्य पुनरङ्गानि-अलङ्कारा गुणा वृत्तयश्रेति प्रतिपादयिष्यन्ते। न चावयव एव पृथगभूतोऽवयवीति प्रसिद्धः। अपृथगभावे तु तदङ्गत्वं

UDDYOTA 1 185

तस्य। न तु तत्त्वमेव। यत्रापि वा तत्त्वं तत्रापि ध्वनेर्महाविषयत्वात् न तन्निष्ठत्वमेव॥।

EXPOSITION 839. Thus, as shown in the preceding sections, ध्वनि cannot be comprehended under either गुणा's or अलंकार's. Anandavardhana adduces one. more reason in support of

his view : इतश्च ...... प्रतिपाद्यिष्यन्ते-The term ध्वनि refers to a particular species of kauya ( काव्यविशेषः), as has already been stated more than once, and the alamkāras, gunas and urttis- are the elements that constitute it. Compare :- "तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येऽद्विनं ते गुणाः स्मृताः । अक्गाश्रितास्त्वलंकारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिवत् ।।" -Dhvanyāloka, II. 6. The significance of the observation 'इतश्व नान्तर्भावः' has been very clearly brought forth in the Locana. thus :-

समाश्रयत्वात् न तादात्म्यमलंकाराणां ध्वनेश्च यावत् स्ामिभृत्यवदद्गिरूपाङ्ग- रूपयोर्विरोधादित्यर्थः ॥" The sub-commentary Kaumudi, while commenting on the above °Locana-text distinctly points out that the particle in 'इतश्' has the sense of समुचय : "इतश्च" इत्यत् चशब्दस्य समुच्चयार्थस्यार्थमाह-न केवलमिति॥ यथान्योन्यविरुद्धात्मनोः दहन- तुहिनयोरन तादात्म्यं तथा विरुद्धाश्रययोरपि। अन्योन्यविरोधश्च वाच्यवाचक-

186 THE DHVANYĀLCKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

व्यङ्गयव्यज्ञकभावयोः प्रसिद्धः भिन्नसामग्रीत्वादितः ; तस्मान्न तदाश्रयालङ्कार-, ध्वन्योरपि तादात्म्यसंभव इत्यर्थः । अ्रद्गाद्गिभावस्य गुणाप्रधानभावगर्भत्वात्। तस्य च स्ातन्त्र्यपारतन्त्र्यविरोधात्, एकस्मिन् वस्तुनि विनिवेशासम्भवान्न तादात्म्यमित्यर्थः ॥-loc. cit. न च.प्रसिद्ध :- It is not.sane to equate गुए's, अलंकार's etc. with ध्वनि, for it would be tantamount to identifying the particular individual limbs with the whole organism. The term ध्वनि eomprehends within its connotation गुर's, अलंकार's, वृत्ति's etc. beside the suggested sense which excels them all. So, how can the particular अलकार's or गुणा's be reasonably identified with ध्वनि, of which they form only a part ? Nor can it be argued that the whole (is e. ध्वनि in this case) does not exist apart from the parts (viz. गुणा's, etc.) that constitute it. What is a jar but a collection of myriads of atoms ? Thus, the अलंकार's, गुणा's and other elements can be severally identified with tafa. Ananda- vardhana refutes this contention by stating : 'न चावयव एव ...... प्रसिद्धः' -Though it might be conceded that the whole is nothing but the parts taken together, yet it is extremely absurd and foolish to argue that each of the several parts is, on its part, identical with the whole. Not each atom of earth that constitutes the jar can be identified with the jar itself, even though we might concede that the jar exists in the parts and not apart from them. Similasly, the अलंकार's etc. that constitute only a portion of ध्वनि (i.c., ध्वनिकाव्य) cannot severally be identified with the latter.

UDDYOTA 1 187

अपृथगभावे तु ...... तस्य-If, however, the former position be given up and it be conceded that the parts together, and not severally, constitute the whole, we are driven to the conclusion that अलंकार's etc., severally, are parts or con- stituents (अद्) of ध्वनिकाव्य, the अङ्विन्, and not identical with it ( न तु तत्त्वमेव). Now, it might, however, be contended that some अलंकार's as, for example, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा based on सारूप्य, some instances of पर्यायोक etc., have already been shown to be identical with ध्वनि, To this Anandavardhana replies: यत्रापि वा तत्वं ..... तन्निष्ठत्वमेव-Though we have regarded अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा based on सारूप्य as an instance of ध्वनि, yet the scope of ध्वनि is not exhausted thereby, and extends far beyond the limits of those particular figures. We quote here the comments of Abhinavagupta on this section : इतश्चेति। न केवलमन्योन्यविरुद्धवाच्यवाचकभावव्यङ्गयव्यज्ञक- भावसमाश्रयत्वात् न तादात्म्यमलंकाराणां ध्वनेश्व, यावत् खामिभृत्यवदङ्गि- रूपाङ्गरूपयोर्विरोधात् इत्यर्थः ॥ अवयव इति ॥ एकेक इत्यर्थः। तदाह- पृथग्भूत इति॥ अथ पृथगभूतस्तथा मा भूत्, समुदायमध्यनिपतितस्तर्हि आस्तु तथेत्याशङ्क्याह-अपृथगभावे त्विति॥ तदापि न स एक एव समुदायः, अन्येषामपि समुदायिनां तत्न भावात्। तत्समुदायिमध्ये च प्रतीयमानमप्यस्ति ; न च तदलंकारखरूपम्, प्रधानत्वादेव। यत् तु अलंकाररूपं तदप्रधानत्वात् न ध्वनिः। तदाह-न तु तत्त्वमेवेति॥ ननु अलंकार एव कश्वित् त्वया प्रधानताभिषेकं दत्त्वा ध्वनिरिति आत्मेति चोक्त इत्याशङ्कयाह-यत्नापि वेति॥ न हि समासोक्त्यादीनामन्यतम एवासौ तथास्माभिः कृतः, तद्विविक्कत्वेऽपि तस्य भावात्। समासोक्ताद्यलंकार-

188 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

स्वरूपस्य समस्तस्याभावेऽपि दर्शितत्वात् "अत्ता एत्थ-" इति, 'कस्स व ण-'इत्यादि। तदाह-न तन्निष्ठत्वमेवेति ॥-Locana.

TEXT 8४०। 'सूरिभिः कथितः' इति विद्वदुपज्ञेयमुक्तिः, न तु यथाकथञ्चित् प्रवृत्तेति प्रतिपाद्यते। प्रथमे हि विद्वांसो वैयाकरणाः, व्याकरणमूलत्वात् सर्व- विद्यानाम्। ते च श्र्यमाणेषु वर्णेषु ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति। तथैवान्यैस्तन्मतानुसारिभिः सूरिभिः काव्यतत्त्वार्थदर्शिभिः वाच्यवाचकसम्मिश्रः शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपदेश्यो व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्याद् ध्वनि- रित्युक्त:। न चैवंविधस्य ध्वनेर्वक्ष्यमाणप्रभेदतद्भेद- संकलनया महाविषयस्य यत् प्रकाशनं तदप्रसिद्धा- लंकारविशेषमात्रप्रतिपादनेन तुल्यमिति तद्भावित- चेतसां युक्त एव संरम्भ:। न च तेषु कथंचिदीर्ष्यया कलुषितशेमुषीकत्वमाविष्करणीयम्। तदेवं ध्वनेस्तावद- भाववादिनः प्रत्युक्ताः ॥

[ I. NSP. & KS. read तदत प्रसिद्धालंकार० for तदप्रसिद्ध ... ]

EXPOSITION S40. सूरिभि: .प्रतिपाद्यते-The Vrttikara here justifies the use of the term सूरिभि: as the subject of the past

UDDYOTA 1 189

participle कथित :. It has been used to convince the opponents that the theory of dbvani is not the improvisa- tion of the authors of the so-called Dhvani-school alone but it was first formulated by the Grammarians, the foremost of all learned men, though in a different context.

विद्वदुपज्ञा-The regular from as a तत् पुरुष compound ought to have been विद्वदुपज्ञम् (उक्कि:) in neuter by the rule-'उपज्ञोपक्रमं तदाद्याचिख्यासायाम्"-Panini, II.4.21 as in 'पाणिन्युपज्ञमकालकं व्याकरणम्' which has been explained by Haradatta in his Padamanjari as-"पूर्वाणि व्याकरणानि अद्यतनादिकालपरिभाषायुक्कानि। तद्रहितं तु व्याकरणं पाणिनिप्रभृतिप्रवृत्तम् इत्यस्ति तदादित्वस्याख्यानम्"-loc. cit.1 To justify this feminine form ( विद्वदुपज्ञा ) Abhinavagupta explains it as. a बहुव्रीहि compound : "विद्वद्धय उपज्ञा प्रथम उपक्रमो यस्या उक्करिति बहुव्रीहिः। 'उपज्ञोपक्रमम्-' इति तत् पुरुषाश्रयं नपुंसकत्वं निरवकाशम्।"-°Locana. प्रथमे हि ...... सर्वविद्यानाम्-Compare :- • उपासनीयं यत्नेन शास्त्र व्याकरणं महत्। प्रदीपभूतं सर्वासां विद्यानां यदवस्थितम् ॥।

I In Amarakosa, II.7.13 the terms उपज्ञा and उपक्रम have been thus defined : "उपज्ञा ज्ञानमादयं स्याज् ज्ञात्वाSडरम्भ उपक्रमः ।"-on which Ksirasvamin comments : "उपज्ञायत इत्युपज्ञा, इदंप्रथमतया ज्ञानं चन्द्रस्योपज्ञा चन्द्रोपज्ञमसंज्ञकं व्याकरएम्। उपज्ञाय आरम्भणमुपक्रमः । यत् कात्यः-यस्मात् प्रवृत्त आरम्भ: स उपक्रमः, नन्दस्योपक्रमः-नन्दोपक्रमाणि मानानि। 'उपज्ञोपकमं तदाद्याचि- ख्यासायाम्' (पा० २.४. २१) इति नपुंसकत्वम्।"

190 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

किं बहुना- "इदमादं पदस्थानं मुक्किसोपानपर्वणाम्। इयं सा मोक्षमाणानामजिह्या राजपद्धतिः॥ रूपान्तरेण ते देवा विचरन्ति महीतले। ये व्याकररासंस्कारपवित्रितमुखा नराः ॥" -Vakyapadīya, cited by Haradatta in his Padamanjarī, Vol. I, pp. 13-14. Also-"सदोपभुक्तं सर्वाभिरन्यविद्याकरेशुभिः ॥ नापारयित्वा दुर्गाधममुं व्याकरणाणवम्। शब्दरत्न® खयंगम्यमलंकर्त्तमयं जनः ॥" -Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra, VI. 2-3- Jayanta Bhatța, too, in his Nyāya-manjarī, speaks highly of the Grammarians. Cp :- "मनुना च पंक्विपावनत्वेन अधिगतव्याकरणो मीमांसकश्च स्वस्मृतौ पठितौ-'यश्च व्याकुरुते वाचं यश्च मीमांसतेऽध्वरम्'-इति। पुष्प- दन्तोऽप्याह- 'भ्रष्टः शापेन देव्याः शिवपुरवसतेर्वन्द्हं मन्दभाग्यो भाव्यं वा जन्मना मे यदि मलकलिले म्त्यलोके सशोके। स्न्िग्घाभिर्द् ग्धधारामलमधुरसुधाबिन्दुनिर्ष्यान्दनीभिः कामं जायेय वयाकरराभणितिभिस्तूर्ण मापूर्णकर्ाः ।' -इति ॥" -Op.cit., Vol. I. p. 392. ते च श्रूयमाणेषु ... ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति-The Grammarians argue that it is the सफोट or eternal ( नित्य) and indivisible (अविभाग ) word that conveys the sense and not the word popularly conceived as such, that is meaningless, being a collection of unmeaning and discrete sounds as it is. The

UDDYOTA I 191

sounds that are produced through the contact of our sense-organs are by themselves momentary and isolated1, but they serve to suggest the eternal word (स्फोट), which is one and indivisible (अखराड) sound-unit and cannot further be analyscd into constituent sound-units. This स्फोट is termed dhvani by the वैयाकरण's. But they also refer to the empirical sounds, that are momentary in character, also as dbvani (ध्वनतीति ध्वनिः), because they suggest ( ध्वनति) that eternal स्फोट which alone is significant and expressive. Patanjali in the Paspasa-Ābnika of his Mababhasya states: -"अथवा प्रतीतपदार्थको लोके ध्वनिः शब्द इत्युच्यते".2 Bhamaha, in his Kavyalamkara criticises the theory of sphota advanced by the Grammarians in the following kārikās :-

Cmpare:' ...... एकैकवर्णवर्त्तित्वाद् वाचः, उच्चरित प्रध्वंसितत्वाच्च H वर्णानाम्। एकैकवणवत्तिनी वाक। न द्वौ वर्णौं युगपदुच्चारयति। तद् यथा। गौरित्युक्के यावद् गकारे वाक् प्रवर्त्तते तावत् नौकारे न विसर्जनीये। यावदौकारे न गकारे न विसर्जनीये। यावद् विस्जनीये न गकारे नौकारे। उच्चरितप्रध्वंसितत्वाच्च वर्णानाम्। उच्चरितः प्रध्वस्तश्। अथापरः प्रयुज्यते न वर्णो वर्णास्य सहायः ॥-Mababbasya on P. VI. 3.59; also on P. 1.4.109. 2 Cf. also : 'ध्वनिं कुर्वन्नेवमुच्यते-शब्दं कुरु शब्दं मा कार्षीः।' -For a differentiation between स्फोट and ध्वनि vide Maba- bhasya under Varttika 5 on P. I. I. 70. 'स्फोट: शब्दः, ध्वनिः शब्दगुणः।'

192 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

"प्रतीतिरर्थेंषु यतस्तं शब्दं ब्र वते परे। धमभासोरपि प्राप्ता शब्दताऽन्यानुमां प्रति ॥ नन्वकारादिवर्णानां समुदायोऽभिधेयवान्। अर्थप्रतीतयें गीतः शब्द इत्यभिमन्यते ॥ प्रत्येकमसमर्थानां समुदायोऽर्थवान् कथम्। वर्णानां क्मवृत्तित्वात् न्याय्या नापि च संहतिः ॥ न चापि समुदायिभ्यः समुदायोऽतिरिच्यते। दारुभित्तिभुवोऽतीत्य किमन्यत् सद् कल्पते॥ तस्मात् कूटस्थ इत्येषा शाब्दी नः कल्पना वृथा । प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं वा यत्र तत् परमार्थतः ॥ शपथैरपि चादेयं वचो न स्फोटवादिनाम्। नभ:कुसुमस्तीति श्रद्दध्यात् कः सचेतनः ॥ इयन्त ईदृशा वर्णगा ईदृगर्थाभिधायिनः। व्यवहाराय लोकस्य प्रागित्थं समयः कृतः ॥ स कूटस्थोऽनपायी च नादादन्यक्च कथ्यते। मन्दा: सांकेतिकानर्थान् मन्यन्ते पारमार्थिकान्॥ विनश्वरोऽस्तु नित्यो वा सम्बन्धोरऽर्थेन वा सता। नमोऽस्तु तेभ्यो विद्वद्भ्यः प्रमाणं येऽस्य निश्चितौ॥ -Op. cit., VI. 7-15. तथैवान्यैः ... ध्वनिरित्युक्त :- The critics (viz. the Dhvani- theorists), too, have formulated their theory of ध्वनि on the analogy of the sphota-theory of the Grammarians. Just as the Grammarians apply the term dhvani to the sounds that

I Compare : 'परिनिश्चितनिरपत्र शशब्दब्रह्मणं विपश्चितां मतमाश्रित्येव प्रवृत्तोऽयं ध्वनिव्यवहार इति तैः सह किं विरोधाविरोधौ चिन्त्येते ॥'-Dhvanyaloka, Uddyota llI (pP. 443-444).

UDDYOTA I 193

suggest the eternal sphota, so also the critics of this school apply the self-same term ध्वनि to the words ( वाचक-शब्द) and the expressed sense ( वाच्यार्थ ) that severally and jointly suggest the implied sense ( प्रतायमानार्थ). Now, it might be argued: 'Even conceding that the वाच्यार्थ and the वाचकशब्द are referred to as ध्वनि on the analogy of the similar usage of the Grammarians, on what grounds would you designate the function of suggestion ( व्यज्ना-व्यापार ) and the implied sense (प्रतीयमानार्थ) as well by. that self-same term ?' Abhinavagupta with great ingenuity has interpreted the text of the vrtti in such a way as to comprehend all the four elements ( viz. शब्द, अर्थ, व्यापार and व्यङ्गय ) within the connotation of the term dbvani and has cited relevant texts from Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya to justify the interpretation proposed by him, thus placing the theory of Dhvani on a sound basis by showing that in all its aspects it corresponds exactly with the usage of the Grammarians who are the highest authority regarding linguistic questions. We quote here the text of Abhinavagupta's commentary in full :- "श्रूयमाणेष्विति॥ श्रोत्शष्कुलीं सन्तानेनागता अ्रन्त्याः शब्दाः श्रयन्ते इति प्रक्रियायां शब्दजाः शब्दाः श्रयमाणाः इत्युक्म्। तेषां घराटानुरणनरूपत्वं तावदसिति। ते च ध्वनिशव्देनोक्काः। यथाह भगवान् भर्त हरि :- "यः संयोगवियोगाम्यां करौरुपजन्यते। स स्फोट: शब्दजाः शब्दा ध्वनयोऽन्यैरुदाहताः ॥" इति।1

I Vākyapadīya, I. 103. 13

194 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

एवं घरटार्निह्रादस्थानीयोऽनुरणनात्मोपलच्ितो व्यक्कयोऽप्यर्थो ध्वनिरिति व्यवहृतः। तथा श्रयमाणणा ये वणों नादशब्दवाच्या अन्त्यबुद्धिनिर्ग्राह्याः स्फोटाभिव्यजकास्ते ध्वनिशब्देनोक्काः। यथाह भगवान् स एव- "प्रत्य यर नुपाख्येयग्र हणानुगुरौस्तथा। ध्वनिप्रकाशिते शब्दे सवरूपमवधार्यते ॥" इति।1 तेन व्यजकौ शन्दार्थावपीह ध्वनिशन्देनोक्कौ। किंच वर्शोषु तावन्मात्- परिमारोष्वपि सत्सु। यथोक्कम्- "अल्पीयसापि यत्नेन शब्दमुच्चारितं मतिः। यदि वा नैव गृह्ाति वर्णं वा सकलं स्फुटम् ॥" इति।2 तेषु तावत्स्वेव श्र्यमारोषु वक्कुर्योऽन्यो द्रुतविलम्बितादिव्ृत्तिभेदात्मा प्रसिद्धा- दुच्चारणाव्यापारादभ्यधिकः स ध्वनिरुक्कः। यदाह स एव- "शब्दस्योद्ध मभिव्यक्ववृत्तिमेदे तु वैकृताः। ध्वनयः समुपोहन्ते स्फोटात्मा तैर्न भिद्यते ॥" इति।3 अस्माभिरपि प्रसिद्धेभ्यः शब्दव्यापारेभ्योऽभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणारूपेभ्यो- Sतिरिक्को व्यापारो ध्वनिरित्त्युक्कः। एवं चतुष्कमपि ध्वनिः। तद्योगाच्च समस्तमपि काव्यं ध्वनिः। तेन व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकव्यपदेशोऽपि न न युक्कः॥" -Locana.

I I bid. I. 84.

2 Śloka-vārttika §Sphoțavāda : v. 10.

3 Vākyapadīya, I. 78. 4 The concluding line of the 'Locana-text cited above has been interpreted in the sub-commentary Kaumudī thus :- "ननु चतुष्कव्यतिरेकेणा काव्यस्यापि तत्समुदायात्मकस्य ध्वनिव्यपदेशः प्रतीयते ; स किनिबन्धन इत्याशङ्कय समुदायिव्यतिरेकेण समुदायस्य परमार्थ

UDDYOTA 1 195

Abhinavagupta explains the expression 'वाच्यवाचकसम्मिश्रः शब्दात्मा' as referring to the above-noted four elements of व्यज्ना-viz., वाच्य, वाचक, व्यक्कय and व्यजना as also the poetry as a whole which is a collection of all these four elements: - "वाच्यवाचकसम्मिश्र इति॥ वाच्यवाचकसहितः संमिश्र इति मध्यपदलोपी समासः। 'गामश्वं पुरुषं पशुम्' इतिवत् समुचयोऽत चकारेण विनाऽपि। तेन वाच्योऽपि ध्वनिः; वाचकोऽपि शब्दो ध्वनिः ; द्वयोरपि व्यज्कत्वम् ध्वनतीति कृत्वा। संमिश्रयते विभावानुभावसंवलनयेति व्यङ्गयोऽपि ध्वनिः, ध्वन्यत इति कृत्वा। शब्दनं शब्दः शब्दव्यापारः; न चासौ अभिधादिरूपः, अपि त्वात्मभूतः, सोऽपि ध्वननं ध्वनिः। काव्यमितिव्यप- देश्यश्च योऽर्थः सोऽपि ध्वनिः। उक्कप्रकारध्वनिचतुष्टयमयत्वात्। अत एव साधारणं हेतुमाह-व्यञ्जकत्वसाम्यात् इति ॥ व्यज्जकत्वं व्यङ्गयव्यज्ञक- भावः सर्वेषु पच्तेषु सामान्यरूपः साधारण इत्यर्थः ॥"-Op.cit., p. 135.1

निरूपणानर्हत्वात् समुदायिभृतव्यक्गयादिध्वनिव्यपदेशहेतुरेव तद्वेतुरिति न हेत्वन्तरचिन्तनेन मनः खेदनीयमित्याह-तद्योगादिति॥ तेनेति॥ ध्वनिशब्दसमुदायात्मकत्वेनैव हेतुनेत्यर्थः। व्यतिरेको मेदः; अरव्यतिरेकस्त्व- भेदः ; भेदव्यपदेशस्तावत् 'काव्यस्यात्मा' इति; अभेदव्यपदेशः 'काव्य- विशेषः स ध्वनिः' इति ; समुदायसमुदायिनोमिथो भेदाभेदयोर्वस्तवयोरेव सद्भाभावात्तदुज्जीवनेन भेदाभेदव्यपदेशोपपत्तिरित्यर्थः ॥ नन युक्त इति॥ अयुक्कत्वस्य भेदाभेदयोरेकत मिथो विरुद्धखभावतया प्रसक्कत्वादिह प्रतिषेधः। 'सर्वत्र वस्तुसन्देहे निर्णेत्ी केवला मतिः । सात्यन्तभेदवैधर्म्म्यादमेदमपि कर्षति॥" इत्युक्कन्यायाद्विरोधसमाधिरनुसन्धेयः ॥"-Op.cit., p. 244. I It is to be noted that the interpretation proposed by Abhinavagupta, though ingenious, is somewhat strained

196 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

In the Kāvyaprakasa Mammața also notes that this theory of eafar was formulated on the analogy of the sphota- theory of the Grammarians and as such it rests on an unshakable foundation :-

"इदमुत्तममतिशयिनि व्यङ्गेग वाच्याद् ध्वनिर्बुधैः कथितः।' -इदमिति काव्यम्। वुधैवैयाकरणौः प्रधानभूतस्फोटरूपव्यङ्गयव्यज्जकस्य शब्दस्य ध्वनिरिति व्यवहारः कृतः । ततस्तन्मतानुसारिभिः सूरिभिरन्यैरपि न्यगभावितवाच्यव्यक्गथव्यज्ञनक्षमस्य शब्दाथयुगलस्य ।"-Op. cit., I. 4 and vrtti thereon.

Candīdāsa, in his gloss on the Kāvyaprakāsa, thus brings out the significance of the word ga: in the above

extract: -

and far-fetched and seems to have not been the intention of the Vrttikara himself. Manikyacandra's Samketa on the Kavyaprakasa is very clear on this point: -

"ननु ध्वन्यते द्योत्यते इति व्यङ्गय', स च काव्यात्मा। तत् कथं काव्यं ध्वनिरित्याह। आरत्मात्मवतोरभेदेनोपचारात्। यदा तु ध्वनतीति ध्वनि :- इति कर्त्तव्युत्पत्तिः, तदा नोपचारः। ...... यद्यपि ध्वननमिति भावव्युत्पत्या ध्वनिः शब्दार्थव्यापारः, ध्वन्यते इति कर्मव्युत्पत्त्या व्यङ्गयोऽर्थः, ध्वनतीति कर्त्तृव्युत्प्या ध्वनिः शब्दोरऽर्थो वा शब्दार्थयुगलं काव्यरूपं वा, तथापि कारिकायां शव्दार्थममुदाय एव काव्यरूपो मुख्यतया ध्वनिनाम्रा प्रख्यापितः, यथोक्कप्रकारध्वनिमयत्वात्।"-Op.cit., p. 12 (Mysore Edtion). See, however, Locana, p. 106: "कारिकया तु प्राधान्येन समुदाय एव काव्यरूपो मुख्यतया ध्वनिरिति प्रतिपादितम्।"

UDDYOTA I JAYRAUGJUF 97

"बुधैरिति कारिकापदं ध्वनिव्यवहारनिर्मुलत्वशङ्कानिरासाय1 इत्याह 'वैयाकरणै'-रिति। प्रधानेति-अर्थप्रत्ययरूपफलप्रत्यासत्त्येत्यर्थः। स्फुट- त्यर्थोस्मात् इति स्फोटः, पूर्वपूर्ववर्णानुभवजनितसंस्कारसध्रीचीनान्त्यवर्णानु- भवजनितप्रतिपत्तृगतातिशयव्रश।दपरोत्त इव क्रियमाणः सकलाभिधेयाभिधान- मयतया सवीक्रियमाणः, यमिमं शब्दब्रह्म त्याहुः। स च व्यङ्गयः सन्नेवाविष्किरिय- माणनेऽर्थमभ्यानयति। तदनुगुणा शब्दे वर्णात्मके काचिदुक्किः। सा च नाभिधादि:, संकेताद्यपेक्षाविरहात्। वर्णाश्च ध्वननद्वारैव तथा विप्नवन्तीति- ध्वननाख्या सा शक्किः।"-loc. cit., p. 16 (Saraswati Bhavana Text). Mahimabhatta, in his Vyaktiviveka, criticises the Dhvani theorists for taking their stand on the Sphota-theory of the Grammarians, for between the momentary sounds (क्षणिका वर्गाः) and the eternal Word (स्फोट ) there can be no suggestion ( व्यङ्गयव्यञ्ञकभाव) in the real sense of the term :- 'अत एव श्रयमाणानां वर्णानां ध्वनिव्यवदेश्यानाम् अ्रन्तःसन्निवेशिनश्च स्फोटाभिमतस्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गयव्यज्ञकभावो न संभवतीति व्यज्ञकत्वसाम्याद् यः शब्दात्मनि काव्ये ध्वनिव्यपदेशः सोऽप्यनुपपन्नः। ततापि कार्यकारणमूलस्य गम्यगम कभावस्योपगमात्।।"-Op.cit., p.57. नचैवंविधस्य.युक्त एव संरम्भ :- Having thus established with weighty arguments and with irrefutable logic the existence of dhvani, Anandavardhana recalls the sarcastic remarks of the Negativists, viz. किश्च वागविकल्पानामानन्त्यात

I Compare: "बुधरिति बहुववनेन ध्वनिव्यवहारस्यानादित्वं सूच्यते"-Manikyacandra's Samketa, loc. cit.

198 THE DHVANYALOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

सम्भवत्यपि वा कस्मि क्ित काव्यलक्षणाविधायिभिः प्रसिद्धैरप्रदर्शिते प्रकारलेशे ध्वनिध्वनिरिति यदेतदलीकसहृदयत्वसम्भावनामुकुलितलोचननृ त्यते, तत् हेतु न विद्यः. (Vide Sec 5). The endeavour of the Dhvani-theorists cannot be discarded as fruitless, for the element of dbvani is quite a novel discovery and the most important one at that, and the opponents can in no way belittle this innova- tion of the new school by assimilating it with the notice of a new and hitherto unknown figure of speech. Dhvani stands superior to all other elements of poetry in so far as it is the soul, while the other figures of speech etc. appertain to the exterior of a poetic art. And in view of all this, the formulators of this novel theory are entitled to no mean credit and nobody can legitimately blame them if they wax a little in self-approbation. As Abhinavgupta comments :- "यत् पुनरेतदुक्कं 'वागविकल्पानामानन्त्यात्' इत्यादि, तत् परिहरति- न चवंविधस्येति। वक््यमाणः प्रभेदो यथा मुख्ये द्व रूपे ; तद्भेदा यथा -अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यः, अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य इत्यविवत्ितवाच्यस्य, असंलक््यक्रमव्यङ्गयः संलक्ष्यकमव्यङ्गय इति विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्यस्येति ; तत्नाप्यवान्तरभेदाः ॥1 महाविषयस्येति॥ अ्रशेषलच््यव्यापिन इत्यर्थः ।

1 Uttungodaya, in his Kaumudī, thus brings out the import of the term mla as applied to the main divisions of dhvani, viz. अविवत्ितवाच्य and विवत्ितान्यपरवाच्यः "मुख्ये मुखे भवे; अत एव च प्रधानभूते च। अ्र्नेन प्राथमिकः प्रधानभूतो वा भेदः प्रभेद इति प्रोपसर्गार्थी निरूपितः ; भिद्यते व्यवच्छिदते रूप्यतेऽनेनेति मेदो

UDDYOTA 1 199

विशेषग्रहरोनाव्यापकत्वमाह। मात्रशव्देनाङ्वित्वाभावम्। तत्न ध्वनिस्वरूपे भावितं प्रगिहितं चेतो येषाम्, तेन वा' चमत्कारसरूपेण भावितमधिवासितम्, अत एव मुकुलितलोचनत्वादिविकारकारणं चेतो येषाम् इति।"-Op. cit., PP. 135-136. न च तेषु ...... आविष्करणीयम्-शेमुषी-प्रज्ञा. It is not proper on the part of the opponents to give vent to jealousy and vindictive spirit toward the dbvani-theorists, since the arguments advanced by the latter in favour of their thesis are all based on logic and sound reason.

तदेवं ..... प्रत्युक्ता :- Thus, in the preceding sections the views of the Negativists (with their tbree sub-groups) have been duly criticised and refuted. "अभाववादिन इति॥ अवान्तरप्रकारत्यभिन्ना अपीत्र्थः।"-Locana, loc. cit.

TEXT

S४१। अस्ति ध्वनिः। स चासाविवक्षितवाच्यो विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यश्रेति द्विविधः सामान्येन।

रूपमिति रूपशब्देन मेदशव्दार्थोऽपि। ...... तद्भेद इत्यत्र तच्छव्देन प्रभेद- परामर्श इत्याह-तद्धेदा इति ॥' The classification of dbvani into its two main varieties as also into subvarieties thereof has been shown in detail in Dhvanyāloka II. ( Vide Sec.§Iff. of our edn. of Dhvanyāloka, Uddyota II). I Cf. 'वा शब्द: समुच्चये, न विकल्पे ।।'-Kaumudi.

200 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

तताद्यस्योदाहरणम्- सुवर्णपुष्पां पृथिवीं चिन्वन्ति पुरुषास्त्रयः। शूरश्च कृतविद्यश्च यश्च जानाति सेवितुम्॥। द्वितीयस्यापि-

शिखरिणि क्व नु नाम कियच्चिरं किमभिधानमसावकरोत्तपः। तरुणि थेन तवाधरपाटलं दशति बिम्बफल शुकशावकः॥

EXPOSITION

S41. अस्ति ध्वनि :- The existence of dhvani has thus been established by refuting the objections of the abhava- vadins. It is a reality and not a figment of imaginatian. स चासौ ...... सामान्येन-Dbuani has been, first of all, classified into two broad divisions-viz., अविवच्तितवाच्य and विवत्ितान्यपरवाच्य as it has been pointed out by Abhinava- gupta. The first of these two varieties is based on लक्षणा or Indication and has two more sub-divisions according as it rests on उपादानलक्षणा (or अजहत्खार्था लक्षणा) or लक्षणालक्षणा (or जहत्खार्था लक्षणा). In the first case it is called अर्थान्तरसंक्मित- वाच्यध्वनि while the second variety is known as अत्यन्ततिरस्कृत- वाच्यध्वनि. Compare :- "अतादे मुख्यार्थस्यार्थान्तरे संक्रमणं प्रवेशः। न तु तिरोभावः। अ्रत एवात अजहत्खार्था लक्षणा। द्वितीये तु खार्थस्यात्यन्तं तिरस्कृतत्वात् जहतखार्था।"-Sabityadarpana, Chap. IV.

UDDYOTA I 201

Also :- "अयं च ध्वनिमेदो लक्षणामूलगृढव्यङ्गथप्राधान्ये सति संभवति। अविवत्ितत्व वाच्यस्यान्वयानुपपत्तेः। सा च वाच्यस्यानुप- युक्कत्वेन, उपयोगिनि रूपान्तरे तात्पर्याद वा, खत एव अन्वयायोग्यत्वाद् वा। अनुपयुक्कत्वमपि पुनरुक्कत्वात्, विशेषानाधायकत्वमालाद् वा। ततोभयतापि वाच्यसर्थान्तरे उपयोगिनि लक्ष्यताऽवच्छेदके संक्रमितमाश्रयत्वेन परिणामितम् । वाच्योऽप्यर्थो रूपान्तरेणा लक्ष्यत इत्यर्थः। द्वितीये तु वाच्यमत्यन्ततिरस्कृतं न केनापि रूपेणान्वयप्रविष्टम् ॥"-Govinda Thakkura's 0Pradipa on Kāvyaprakāsa, IV. I. We should note that in the case of suggestion based on लक्षणा, the suggested sense must invariably be some vastu. It can never partake of the character of an alamkāra or rasa, for in a लक्षणा the प्रयोजन is always some sort of vastu. The other principal division of ध्वनि-viz. विवत्ितान्य- परवाच्य, again can be divided into two categories-viz., संलच््यक्रमव्यङ्गय (where the sequence between the cognitions.of the expressed and the suggested sense is noticeable) and असंल च्यक्रमव्यङ्गय ( where the above sequence is not perceptible at all). वस्तु and अलंकार fall within the scope of the first category, while रस, भाव etc. are classed under the second group. Rūyyaka, in his Alāmkāra-sarvasva, has briefly shown these divisions of dhvani in the following passage :- 'तत्नोत्तमो छनिः। तस्य लक्षणाभिधामूलत्वेन अविवत्ितवाच्य- विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्याख्यौ द्वौ भेदौ। आद्योऽपि अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यात्यन्त- तिरस्कृतवाच्यत्वेन द्विविधः। द्वितीयोऽपि अलत््यक्म-संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्गयतया द्विविधः। लक्षणामूलशब्दशक्तिमूलो वस्तुध्वनिः। असंलच््यकमव्यङ्गयो-

202 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

ऽर्थशक्तिमूलो रसादिध्वनिः। संलच््यक्रमव्यङ्गयः शब्दार्थोभयश क्विमूलो वस्तुध्वनिरलंकारध्वनिश्र ॥"1-Op. cit., pp. 14-15. All these divisions of dbvani have been shown in detail by the Karikakara in the following Uddyota. See Karikas, II. 1-3. The Vtttikara here refers to those divisions in anticipation of the Kārikākāra's views. As Abhinavagupta observes :- "उदाहरणापृष्ठे भाक्तत्वं सुशङ्कं सुपरिहरं च भवतीत्यभिप्रायेश उदाहरण- दानावकाशाथ भाक्कत्वालक्षणीयत्वे प्रथमं परिहरणायोग्ये अप्यप्रतिसमाधाय भविष्यदुद्दयोतानुवादानुसारेण वृत्तिकृदेव प्रभेदनिरूपणं करोति-स चेति। पश्चधाऽपि ध्वनिशब्दार्थे येन यत्र यतो यस्मै यस्य चेति बहुव्रोह्यर्थाश्रयेण यथोचितं सामानाधिकररायं सुयोजम्। वाच्येऽर्थे तु धवनौ वाच्यशब्देन सात्मा। तेनाविवत्ितोऽप्रधानीकृतः खात्मा येनेत्यविवच्ितवाच्यो व्यज्ञको- sữ: 1 यदि वा कर्मधारयेणार्थपत्ते अविवत्ितश्वासौ वाच्यश्रेति। विवत्ितोऽन्यपरश्चासौ वाच्यश्चेति। तत्ार्थः

1 While commenting on the above passage, the scholiast Samudrabandha points out that though अविवच्ितवाच्य etc. have been shown as divisions of ध्वनि, yet these divisions are not barred out in the case of the other type of poetry-viz. गुरीभूतव्यङ्गय, as recognised by the Dhvani-theorists. As he states :- तत्नोत्तमो ध्वनिरिति ॥ ध्वनिलक्षणाः काव्यभेद उत्तमः । यद्यपि 'तस्य लक्षरो' त्यादिना ध्वनेरेव प्रकारभेदो दर्शितः, तथाप्यर्थान्तरे संक्रमितादि- प्रकारवैचित्र्यस्य गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय Sपि साधारणत्व।दुपलक्षामेतत्।।" -Op. cit., p. II (TSS. Edn.).

UDDYOTA I 203

कदाचिद् अनुपपद्यमानत्वादिना निमित्तेनाविवच्ितो भवति; कदाचिदुप- पद्यमान इति कृत्वा विवचित एव ; व्यङ्गयपयन्तां तु प्रतीतिं सवसौभाग्यमहिस्रा करोति। अत एनार्थोऽत प्राधान्येन व्यज्ञकः, पूर्वत शब्दः। ननु च विवत्षा च अन्यपरत्वं चेति विरुद्धम्। अन्यपरत्वेनैव विवत्तणात् को विरोधः ?" -Op. cit., pp. 136-137. "सुवर्ण ...... सेवितुम्"-"Only three types of men can pluck the golden flowers of this Earth-viz., the brave, the learned and the parasites." This verse illustrates the अविवत्ितवाच्य variety of ध्वनि based on लक्षणा. Here the primary sense being incompatible, we have to resort to Indication or लक्षणा. In reality, the Earth is not a tree, nor has it any golden sprouts in the true sense of the term, so that the primary sense ( मुख्याथ) of the expression 'सुवर्णा- पुष्पाम्' cannot be construed with 'पृथिवीम्' , and as such has to be abandoned altogether in favour of the secondary sense. So also with the verb 'चिन्वन्ति' which primarily means 'to pluck'. The object for which such लाक्षणिक words have been employed by the poet is to convey the idea that these three types of men alone can achieve success in this world and can amass wealth. Compare Abhinavagupta :- 'सुवर्रगानि पुष्प्यति इति सुवर्णापुष्पा। एतच्च वाक्यमेवासम्भवत्खाथम् इति कृत्वाSविवच्तिताच्यम्। तत एव पदार्थमभिधाय अन्वयं च तात्पर्यशक्कयाऽव- गमय्यव बाधकवशेन तमपहस्त्य सादृश्यात् सुलभसमृद्धिसम्भारभाजनतां लक्षयति। तल्लक्षणाप्रयोजनं शूरकृतविद्यसेवकार्ना प्राशस्त्यमशब्दवाच्यत्वेन गोप्यमानं सन्नायिकाकुचकलशयुगलमिव महार्घतामुपयद् ध्वन्यत इति शब्दोऽत प्रधानतया व्यञ्जकः, अर्थस्तु तत्सहकारितयेति चत्वारोऽत व्यापाराः II'-°Locana.

204 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA Mahimabhatta, on the other hand, thus establishes Inference : - "अत् शूरादीनां त्याणां सर्वत्रव साधीनाः सम्पदो भवन्तीति साध्यम्। तत् सुवणापुष्पपृथिवीचयने कर्त्तृत्वाभिधानं तेषां हेतुः। तद्धि मुख्यमनुपपद्य- मानं वाक्यार्थोपचारवृत्या तत्सदृशमेव सर्वत्र सुलभविभवत्वमनुमापयति। यथा पदार्थोपचारे 'गझ्ञायां घोष' इत्यत् गङ्गाशब्दो गङ्गासमीपवत्तिनं तटम्। द्विविधो हि उपचार इष्टः पदार्थवाक्यार्थविषयत्वात्। उपचारे च वाच्यस्यो- पायत्वात् अप्राधान्ये सति अविवत्ितत्वमेव भवति, उपचारविषयस्यैव उपेयतया प्राधान्यात्। तयोश्च प्रसिद्धिकृत एवाविनाभावनियमोऽवगन्तव्यः, साध्यक्षा- नुमेय एव, न वचनगोचरतां गच्छतीत्युक्म् ।।"-Vyaktiviveka, pp. 412-413. 'शिखरिणि ...... शुकशावकः'-In this verse, a paramour covertly expresses his own heart-felt desire to his lady-love by referring to the parrot's pecking at the bimba-fruit crim- son as her lips. This is an example of विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्य variety of dhvani. The primary sense here is not incompatible as in the preced- ing illustration, and as such there is no trace of लक्षणणा or Indication in this case. Abhinavagupta explains this verse as follows :- "शिवरिणीति॥ न हि निर्विघ्नोत्तमसिद्धयोऽपि श्रीपर्वतादय इमां सिद्धिं विदध्युः। दिव्यकल्पसहस्रादिश्चात् परिमितः कालः। न चैवंविधोत्तमफल- जनकत्वेन पश्चाग्निप्रभृत्यपि तपः श्रुतम्। तवेति भिन्न' पदम्-समासेन विगलिततया सा न प्रतीयताम्-तव दशतीत्यभिप्रायेण। तेन यदाहु :- 'वृत्तानुरोधात् त्वदधरपाटलमिति न कृतम्' इति, तदसदेव॥ दशतीति॥ आखादयति अविच्छिन्नप्रबन्धतया, न त्वौदरिकवत परं भुड्के; आप क

UDDYOTA 1 205

रसज्ञोऽत् ति तत्प्राप्तिवदेव रसज्ञताप्यस्य तपःप्रभावादेवेति॥ शुकशावक इति॥ तारुरायादुचितकाललाभोऽपि तपसैवेति। अनुरागिशश्च प्रच्छन्न- खाभिप्रायप्रख्यापनवैदग्ध्यचाटुविरचनात्मकविभावोद्दीपनं व्यङ्गथम्। अ्रत च तय एव व्यापारा :- अभिधा तात्पर्य ध्वननं चेति ; मुख्यार्थबाधाद्यभावे मध्यमकच्यायां लक्षणायास्तृतीयस्या अरप्रभावात् ।'-Op. cit. Compare Vyakti-viveka : "शिखरिणी"-त्यत्न त्वदधरपल्लवपरिचुम्बनामृतं नाल्पपुरायः पुमानासादयतीति चाटुकरूपोऽर्थः साध्यः। तत्सादृश्यलवालम्बिनो बिम्ब- फलस्यापि परिखराडनविधौ शुकशावकस्य लोकोत्तरतपःपरिणामशालित्वसमारोपो हेतुः। यत्र खलु यत्सादृश्यसद्भावमात्भाजो भावस्य पुरायोपचयपरिश्रम- परिप्रापणीयत्वमाशङ्कयते तत्र तस्य तत्सम्बन्धिनो मुख्यस्यैव कथ नावगम्यते? तस्मात् अत्ापि साध्यसाधनभावगभतैवोपपन्नेति सिद्धम् ।"-Op. cit., P. 413.

TEXT ९४२। यदप्युक्तं भक्तिर्ध्वनिरिति तत् प्रति- समाधीयते- भक्तरा विभत्ति नैकत्व रूपभेदादयं ध्वनिः। अयमुक्तप्रकारो ध्वनिर्भक्ता नैकत्वं बिभर्त्ति, भिन्नरूपत्वात्। वाच्यव्यतिरिक्तस्यार्थेस्य वाच्य- वाचकाभ्यां तात्पर्येण प्रकाशनं1 यत्र व्यङ्गप्राधान्ये स ध्वनिः। उपचारमात्रं तु भक्तिः ॥

[ I. NSP. reads तातूपर्येणार्थप्रकाशनं for तातूपर्येण प्रकाशनं.]

EXPOSITION $42. The Dhvanikara now takes up the second

206 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

contention of the opponents-viz., that dhvani or the suggested sense per excellence is nothing distinct from the लक्ष्य sense, and can be conveyed through the self-same function of लक्षणा. Abhinavagupta states, that the opponents who endeavour to deny eafa any independent status might take up three different positions-(1) They might hold that भक्वि and ध्वनि are completely identical in all their aspects and as such, of the two above terms, one is the synonym of the other, as is the case with the terms घट and कलश ; (2) some of them might, again, hold that afas is the essential mark, the differentia of dhvani, just as पृथिवीत्व is the essential and uncommon attribute of earthly objects (पाथिवद्रव्य); (3) or, it might be argued that भक्ति is merely an adventitious, an accidental attribute (an accidens according to Western Logic) of ध्वनि. The Dhvani kara would refute all these possible contentions one by one. In the present section he examines the first of these three positions. Compare :- "अयं भाव :- भक्किश् ध्वनिश्चेति किं पर्यायवत् ताद्रप्यम्, अथ पृथिवीत्व- मिव पृथिव्या अरन्यतो व्यावर्त्तकधर्मरूपतया लक्षणाम्, उत काक इव देवदत्त- गृहस्य सम्भवमात्रादुपलक्षराम् ? तत्न प्रथमं पत्तं निराकरोति-भकत्या बिभर्त्तीति।"-°Locana. 'भक्तरा ..... ध्वनिः'-Dhuani cannot be identified with भक्ि inasmuch as they are entitatively different ( भिन्नरूप). For the designation dbvani applies to that piece of poetry where the words and the ptimary sense subordinate them-

UDDYOTA 1 207

selves to the प्रयोजन, which should excel in charm the expressed sense. But afa does not require these conditions. Mere super-imposition ( उपचार), i. e. of one thing on another, even without any consideration of the charm arising from the cognition of the प्रयोजन underlying the act of super- imposition, would satisfy all the requirements of भक्कि. In ध्वनि, on the other hand, the beauty of the प्रयोजन is the predominant factor. But in भक्कि. no consideration of its excellence should deter us. As Abhinavagupta explains :- "रूपसेदं दशयितुं ध्वनेस्तावद् रूपमाह-वाच्येति ॥ तात्पर्येण विश्रान्ति- घामतया1 प्रयोजनत्वेनेति यावत्। प्रकाशनं द्योतनमिर्त्थः ॥ उपचारमात्न- मिति॥ उपचारो गुगावत्तिर्लक्षणा।2 उपचरणम् अतिशयितो व्यवहार

I That the word तात्पर्येण in the urtti-text here does not refer to the function called तातूपर्य that is required for the genesis of the relational thought-unit ( संसर्गावगाहि ज्ञान) from a sentence is made clear by Abhinavagupta by para- phrasing it as विश्रान्तिधामतया. It is a nominal formation from the word तत्पर (Cf. 'तत्परावेव शब्दार्थौ-' Sec. S38). This has been clearly pointed out by Uttungodaya in his gloss Kaumudi: "तात्पर्यशव्देन नाव द्वितीयकच््यानिवेशिनो व्यापारस्य ग्रहणामित्याशयेनाह-विश्रान्तिधामतयेति॥" 2 The word उपचार includes within its connotation both गुणवृत्ति and लक्षणा-two distinct types of secondary function. Compare Kaumudi on this °Locana-extract: "उपचारशब्दोऽयं साधाररायेन गौणलक्षणावृत्त्योर्ग्राहक इत्याह गुणवृत्तिर्लक्ष-

208 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

इत्यर्थः। मात्रशब्देनेदमाह-यत्र लक्षणाव्यापारात् तृतीयाद् अन्यश्चतुथः प्रयोजनद्योतनतमा व्यापारो वस्तुस्थित्या सम्भवत्रप्यनुपयुज्यमानत्वेनानाद्रिय- माणात्वादसत्कल्पः, "यमर्थमधिकृत्य"-इति हि प्रयोजनलक्षणाम्-तत्नापि लक्षणाSस्तीति कथं ध्वननं लक्षणा च इत्येकं तत्त्वं स्यात् ।।"-°Locana. The Vrttikara, in the Third Uddyota, has brought out the distinction between भक्वि and ध्वनि much more explicitly- "अविव्तितवाच्यस्तु ध्वनिर्गुरावृत्तेः कथं भिद्यते। तस्य प्रभेदद्वये गुणा- वृत्तिप्रभेदद्वयरूपता लक्ष्यत एव यतः अयमपि न दोषः। यस्मात् अविव्ित- वाच्यो ध्वनिर्गुावृत्तिमार्गाश्रयोऽपि भवति, नतु गुरवृत्तिरूप एव। गुरावृत्तिर्हिं व्यज्जकत्वशून्याऽपि दृश्यते। व्यजकत्वं तु यथोक्कचारुत्वहेतुं व्यङ्गय विना न व्यवतिष्ठते। गुसावृत्तिस्तु वाच्यधर्माश्रयेगौव व्यङ्गयमात्ाश्रये चाभेदोपचार- रूपा संभवति, यथा-तीच्यात्वाद् 'अन्निर्माणवकः', आह्लादकत्वात् 'चन्द्र एवास्या मुख'-मित्यादौ। यथा च 'प्रिये जने नासि्ति पुनरुक्कम्' इत्यादौ। याऽपि लक्षणारूपा गुणावृत्तिः साऽपि उपलक्षणीयाथसंबन्धमात्ाश्रयेण चारुरूपव्यङ्गयप्रतीति विनाऽपि संभवत्येव, यथा-मश्चाः क्रोशन्तीत्यादो विषये ।।" -Dhvanyaloka, pp. 432-433.

TEXT S४३। मा चैतत्;' स्याद् भक्तिर्लक्षणं ध्वनेरित्याह- अतिव्याप्तेरथाव्याप्तेर्न चासौ लक्षते तया ॥१४॥

न च भक्तना ध्वनिर्लक्ष्यते। कथम ? अतिव्याप्ते-

णेति।। कथमनयोस्तच्छव्दप्रवृत्तिरिति तदाह-उपचरणमिति॥ यस्मिन्नर्थ येन शब्देन व्यवहार: प्रसिद्धतमः तमतिलङ्गयान्यस्मिन् समीपस्थे कथंचित्तच्छन्द- प्रवृत्तिद्वारको यो व्यवहारः स उपचारः गौणलाक्णिकयोरर्थयोरपि अ्रपविशिष्ट एवेति उपचारशब्देन तदुभयसंग्रहो युक्त इत्यर्थः ॥।"

UDDYOTA I 209

रव्याप्तेश्र। तत्ातिव्याप्तिर्ध्वनिव्यतिरिक्तेऽपि विषये भक्ते: संभवात्। यत्र हि व्यङ्गकृतं महत् सौष्ठवं नास्ति तताप्युपचरितशब्दवृत्त्या प्रसिद्धनुरोधप्रवर्त्तित- व्यवहारा: कवयो दृश्यन्ते। यथा-

परिम्लानं पीनस्तनजघनसङ्गादुभयत- स्तनोर्मध्यस्यान्तः परिमिलनमप्राप्य हरितम्। इदं व्यस्तन्यासं श्रथभुजलताक्षेपवलनैः4 कृशाङ्गयाः सन्तापं वदति बिसिनीपत्रशयनम् ॥

तथा- चुम्बिज्इ सअहुत्तं अवरुन्धिज्इ सहस्सहुत्तम्मि। विरमिअ पुणो रमिज्इ पिओ जणो णत्थि पुनरुत्तम्।।

तथा- कुविआओ पसन्नाओ ओरण्णमुहीओ विहसमाणाओ। जह गहिओ तह हिअअं हरन्ति उच्छिन्तमहिलाओ॥

तथा- अज्जाएँ पहारो णवलदाए दिण्णो पिपण थणवट्ट। मिउओ वि दूसहो व्विअ जाओ हिअए सवत्तीणम्॥

तथा- परार्थें यः पीडामनुभवति भङ्गऽपि मधुरो यदीयः सर्वेषामिह खलु विकारोऽप्यभिमतः। न सम्प्राप्तो वृद्धिं यदि स भृशमक्षेत्रपतितः किमिक्षोर्दोघोऽसौ न पुनरगुणाया मरुभुवः॥ 14

210 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

न चैवंविध: कदाचिदपि ध्वनेर्विषयः ॥6 [ I. NSP. reads ततैतत् स्याद् ... 2. NSP. & KS. both have the reading व्यअ्जकत्वकृतं. 3. परिमलनम् for परिमिलनम् in NSP. & KS. 4. NSP. reads प्रशिथिलभुजाक्षेपवलनेः for श्लथभुजलता०. 5. NSP. reads त्रनुभूतिशब्द: for अनुभवति०. 6. The word अभिमतः is added after घ्वनेर्विषय: in both NSP. & KS. ]

EXPOSITION

§43. The first position, however, might be altogether given up and the second standpoint adopted. It might be argued that भक्नि is the definition (लक्तणा), i.e. the essential and specific attribute of ध्वनि. To this the Dhvanikara replies by saying: 'अतिव्याप्त :...... तया"-Nor can it be urged that भक्ति is the definition of dhvani, inasmuch as the definition in that case becomes either too wide or too narrow. An attribute can be regarded as a definition, if it inheres in all the individual members belonging to that class to be defined ( यावल्लक््यत्ृति). The attribute पृथिवीत्व can be called a definition, since it is found in every instance of gfaat. The necessity of a definition consists in the differentiation (व्यावृत्ति ) of the individual or class to be defined from all other individuals or classes. Thus पृथिवीत्व

I Cf. "असाविति ध्वनिः। तयेति भक्कया।"-°Locana.

UDDYOTA I 211

serves to mark off पृथिवो as a class from all other categories like जल, तेजस etc. We are to note that a लक्षणा or definition is a sort of केवलव्यतिरेकिहेतु1, i.e. a हेतु whose absence or negation ( अभाव) agrees with the absence or negation of the साध्य ('साध्याभावव्यापकत्वं हेत्वभावस्य यद् भवेत्'). Thus, the negation of पृथिवीत्व agrees with the negation of पृथिदी, as in categories like सलिल, तेजस् etc., which are different from पृथिवी, there is an absence of पृथिवीत्व too. Compare :- "पृथिवीत्वाभिसम्बन्धात् पृथिवीति। पृथिवीत्व नाम सामान्यविशेषः, तेनाभिमतः सम्बन्धः समवायलक्तणः, तस्मात्। ...... ननु पृथिवीस्वरूपसिद्धौ किं लक्षरोन? सिद्धे साधनस्य वैयर्थ्यात्, तदसिद्धौ चाश्रयासिद्धः। न, सरूपसिद्धौ अपि इतरव्यवच्छदस्य साध्यमानत्वात्। तथाहि पृथिवी अबादिभ्यो भिद्यते, पृथिवीत्वात्। यत् पुनरितरेभ्यो न भिद्यते, नासौ पृथिवी, यथा अबादि। न चेयं न पृथिवी। तस्मादितरेभ्यो भिद्यते। ·.... अथ किमेतत् लक्षणमिति? उच्यते। केवलव्यतिरेकिहेतुविशेष एव लक्षणम्। तथा चाचार्याः-'समानासमानजातीयव्यवच्छेदो लक्षणार्थः' इति। ...... व्यवहारसिद्धिर्वा लक्षणाप्रयोजनम्। तथाहि-विवादाध्यासित द्रव्यं पृथिवीति व्यवहियते लोकेन, पृथिवीत्वात्। यत् पुनः पृथिवीति न व्यवहियते न सा पृथिवी, यथा अबादि। न च नेयं पृथिवी। तस्मात् तथा व्यवडियत इति ॥"-Udayana's Kiranavali, pp. 41-43. (Benares Sanskrit Series Edn.) Thus, in the way shown above, it becomes evident that a definition is a special variety of हेतु, and as such, to be

I The English rendering of the term would be 'purely negatively concomitant.'

212 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

valid, it must satisfy all the conditions that a valid reason (सद्धेतु ) is required to satisfy. Those conditions are पत्तसत्त्व, सपक्षसत्त्व and विपक्तासत्त्व. But if any of these three conditions be lacking, the definition becomes fallacious. Thus, if the first condition be not fulfilled, the definition is known as असम्भव (absurd) ; if, again, the second condition be lacking the definition becomes too narrow (अव्याप्त) ; and, the absence of the third factor would give rise to the third variety of fallacious definition known as too wide (अतिव्याप्त ). Thus, the above three fallacies of definition exactly correspond with the three varieties of invalid reason ( हेत्वाभास), known as विरुद्धत्व, भागासिद्धि and साधारणत्व. Now, in the light of the foregoing discussion about the nature of valid definition, भक्नि cannot be regarded as the definition of eafa. For, it is vitiated by the two fallacies known as अतिव्याप्ति and अव्याप्ति. भक्ति is a too wide definition because in cases where there is no trace of ध्वनि, there is भक्वि. As the Vrttikara states: 'तत्नातिव्याप्तिः ...... संभवात्'. This he elucidates further in the following sentence: 'यत्र हि ...... कवयो दृश्यन्ते'-Though it might be argued that in all cases of लक्षणा (based on प्रयोजन ) there must be suggestion and as such it is not proper to argue that भक्वि and ध्वनि are not invariable concomitants, yet the mere existence of व्यङ्गय, which is प्रयोजन in this case, is not the criterion of a ध्वनिकाव्य as has been so frequently expressed. The प्रयोजन, which is व्यङ्गय, must be striking

UDDYOTA 1 213

too. But even in cases, where the प्रयोजन is insignificant and devoid of any charm, the poets do employ indicative or figurative ( लाक्षणिक) words merely in deference to past tradition without pausing to think as to whether such a figurative use would serve in any way to enhance the beauty of the meaning. Thus, it is plain that in such cases, the absence of ध्वनि does not agree with the absence of भक्कि, which should have been the case had भक्वि been the derinition of ध्वनि. Compare Abhinavagupta's °Locana ;- "ननु ध्वननमवश्यम्भावीति कथं तद्व्यतिरिक्कोऽस्ति विषय इत्याह- महत् सौष्ठवमिति॥ अत एव प्रयोजनस्यानादरणीयत्वाद् व्यञ्जकत्वेन न कृत्य' किश्चिदिति भावः। महद्ग्रहरोन गुणामात्र' तद् भवति। यथोक्कं- 'समाधिरन्यधर्मस्य क्वाप्यारोपो विवच्ितः' इति दर्शयति। ननु प्रयोजनाभावे कथ तथा व्यवहार इत्याह-प्रसिद्धानुरोधेति॥ परम्परया तथेव प्रयोगात्। वयं तुव्रमः-प्रसिद्धिर्या प्रयोजनस्यानिगूढतेत्यर्थः ; उत्तानेनापि रूपेणा तत् प्रयोजनं चकासन्निगूढतां निधानवदपेक्षत इति भावः। वदतीत्यु- पचारे हि स्फुटीकरणप्रतिपत्तिः प्रयोजनम् यद्यगूढं खशन्देनोच्येत, किमचारुत्वं स्थात् ? गूढतया वणाने वा किं चारुत्वमधिकं जातम्? अ्ररनेनवाशयेन वच््यति-"यतः-'उक्त्यन्तरेणाशक्यं यत्'-इति ॥"-Op. cit. 'परिम्लानं .... बिसिनीपत्रशयनम्'-This is from Sriharsa's love-play Ratnāvali, II. 12. It is the speech of Udayana, the king of the Vatsas, the hero of the play with reference to Ratnavali the heroine and depicts her love-lorn condition through the description of the bed of fowers on which she had lain bearing the impress of her lovely limbs,

214 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA especially her breasts and hips. The context has been indica- ted by the scholiast Uttungodaya thus: 'रत्नावल्यां केलीगृहगतस्य सुसंगतासंगतसागरिका निगृढ निर्वरार्यमानतत्तादृशव्रुत्तान्तविशेषस्य चित्रफलका- चलोकनसमनन्तरं वसन्तकसन्दर्शितसरसतरशतदल[दल]कलितशयनीयविषयैषा चत्सराजस्योक्कि :- परिम्लानमिति॥" The verse is also cited in Mammata's Kāvyaprakāsa, Ullasa VIII, to illustrate the poetic excellence ( काव्यगुण) known as प्रसाद. Manikyacandra in his scholium °Samketa, makes the following observation, without however, referring to the context: "परीति। दाहाधिक्येनाधोमुखी स्त्री शयने लुठिता अतः स्तनजघनस्थानयोर्ग्लानिः।"-Op. cit., p. 303 (Mysore Edn.). The Udāharana-candrikā on Kāvyaprakāsa thus explains the verse succinctly : परिम्लानमिति। इदं विसिन्याः कमलिन्याः पत्राणां शयनं तल्पः कृशाङ्गयाः संतापं वियोगतापं चदति कथयतीत्यन्वयः । कीदृशम्। पीनयो: स्तनजघनयोः सङ्गादुभयतस्त- दुभयस्थानयोः परिम्लानम्। न्युव्जकायशयनात्। तया तनोः कृशस्य मध्यस्य परिमिलनं संघर्षमप्राप्यान्तर्मध्यभागे हरितं हरिद्वर्णम्। तथा निर्बलतया शलथा शिथिला या भुजलता तस्याः च्ेपैर्वलनैश् व्यस्तोऽन्यथाभूतो न्यासो रचना यस्य तथाभूतम्। इच्छापूर्वकत्वतदभावाभ्यां च्षेपवलनयोर्भेदः । श्लथनाक्षेपणाभिघातेन यानि वलनान्युद्वर्त्तनानीति केचित् ॥"-See Kāvyaprakāśa with °Pradīpa, pp. 283-284 (NSP. Edn.). Here the verb वदति has been used in a figurative sense, since the root v वद् in its primary sense ( 'वद व्यक्कायां वाचि') cannot be construed with such an inane thing as बिसिनी पत्तशयनम् as its agent (कर्तृ). Nor can it be argued that the poet used this लाक्षणिक word with a view to conveyin

UDDYOTA 1 215

some ग्रयोजन. For, the प्रयोजन, if it has any, would be स्फुटोकरएाप्रतीति, and it might as well be conveyed through denotation. Thus, though there is no evident ध्वनि here, yet there is भक्वि. Compare: "वदतीत्यचेतनस्य वदनसामर्थ्यविरहात् बाधितमुख्यार्थ सादृश्यात् सूचकत्व लक्षयति। तत्प्रयोजनं च स्फुटीकरण- प्रतिपत्तिः। बिसिनीपत्र: नलिनपत्रः शिशिरोपचारवस्तुषु मूर्धाभिषिक्क- र्विरचितशयनीयमिति तादृशदशान्तरात्यन्तान्तरक्गभावसुभगम्भावुकस्य तस्य वक्कुरश्रद्धेयवादत्वशङ्कानवकाशो दर्शितः ।"-Uttungodaya's Kaumudi, P. 266. 'चुम्बिज्इ ......... पुनरुत्तम्' -Here the term 'पुनरुक्त' is लाक्षणिक, even though there is no evident प्रयोजन for resorting to such लक्षणा. 'अवरुन्धिव्इ आलिक्यते। पुनरुक्कमित्यनुपादेयता लच््यते, उक्कार्थस्यासम्भवात्'- Locana. Uttungodaya makes the purport of this ,observation of °Locana clear thus : "उक्तार्थस्येति॥ चुम्बनादौ वचनात्मकस्य चेतनोचितस्यार्थस्य भवितु- मयोग्यत्वात्। अनुपादेयत्वमुपेक्षायोग्यत्वम्। अत्नापि यत् प्रयोजनमधिक- फलशालित्वरूपं न तस्य मुख्यं प्रयोजनत्वमित्यादरस्थानं न भवतीति द्रष्टव्यम्। गृहीतहरणाशब्दयोरपि मुख्यार्थबाधः स्पष्ट एव आदानहरणायोरसंभवात्। अतो ग्रहरोनोपदेयता उपादानयोग्यत्व हृदयेनाङ्गीकारपूर्वकोऽभिमानविशेषो लच्यते ; प्रयोजनमत्नात्मसात्करराम्। हररोन तत्पारतन्त्र्यापत्तिर्लच्यते, सीकारात्मनोऽर्थम्यासंभवात् ; प्रयोजनमत्नात्यन्तिकं वेवश्यम् ।।" 'कुविआओ ...... महिलाओ'-'अत ग्रहोन उपादेयता लच््यते, हरणोन तत्परतन्त्रतापत्ति:'-°Locana. 'अजाए ........ सवत्तीणम्'-कनिष्ठमार्यायाः स्तनपृष्ठे नवलतया कान्तेनोचितकीडायोगेन मृदुकोऽपि प्रहारो दत्तः सपत्नीनां सौभाग्यसूचकं तत्- कीडासंविभागमप्राप्तार्ना हृदये दुसहो जातः मृदुकत्वादेव अन्यस्य दत्तो मृदुः

216 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

प्रहारोऽन्यस्य च सम्पद्यते दुःसहश्र मृदुरपि इति चित्रम्। दानेनात तत्- फलवरं लक्ष्यते।"-°Locana. 'परार्थे .. मरुभुवः'-Uttungodaya thus explains the verse : "परार्थ इति ॥ इक्तुर्हि परार्थ' पीड्यते तथा प्रस्तुतो महापुरुषः परार्थ पीडामनुभवति। इत्तुश्र भज्यमानोऽपि माधुर्यातिशयवान्; अरन्योऽपि परुषीकररो सत्यपि स्वयमनुकूलखभाव एव। विकारो गुलादिः कोपादिश्व, सर्वेषामभिमतः आदरस्थानमेव। वृद्धिः परिपोषः अभ्युदयश्च। क्षेत्रमुचितं स्थानम् अनुषरभूमिभागश्च।"-Kaumudi. Here the verb अनुभवति must be taken in its figurative sense ( लच््यार्थ), as in its primary sense it cannot be construed with the nominative form इतुः, an insentient substance. Compare Locana : "परार्थेति। यद्यपि प्रस्तुतमहापुरुषापेक्षयाऽनुभवतिशब्दो मुख्य एव, तथाप्यप्रस्तुते इक्षौ प्रशस्यमाने पीडाया अनुभवेनासंभवता पीडावस लक्ष्यते। तच्च पीड्यमानत्वे पर्यवस्यति।"-loc. cit. 'न चैवंविध ..... विषयः'-Such instances can never be reckoned as illustrations of ध्वनि, for the प्रयोजन has no beauty at all. TEXT

8४४। यतः-

उक्तरन्तरेणाशक्यं यत् तच्चारुत्व प्रकाशयन्। शब्दो व्यक्ञकतां बिभ्रद् ध्वन्युक्तेर्विषयीभवेत् ।।१५। अत् चोदाहते विषये नोक्तान्तराशक्यचारुत्व- व्यक्तिहेतुः शब्दः॥

[ I. In the NSP. Edn. विषयी and मंवेतू are read as two separate words instead of being compounded. ]

UDDYOTA 1 217

EXPOSITION

§44. The Dhvanikara enunciates in the present kārika the essential characteristic of a truly suggestive word which can be designated as ध्वनि proper ( 'ध्वनतीति कृत्वा') :

"IE any word through suggestion conveys some sense the beauty and charm of which is lost if it be expressed in any other mode, that alone can be called afa." अत्र च ...... शब्द :- In the preceding five instances the terms वदति, पुनरुक्कम् (पुनरुत्तम्), हरन्ति, दिराणो (दत्तः) and अनुभवति do not communicate to us any such idea which could not have been expressed through denotation ( fr ) without any appreciable loss of the charm. For example, for the figurative ( लाक्षणिक) word वदति one might easily substitute सूचयति which through denotation would have directly conveyed the self-same idea without any deteriora- tion of the effect thereby1.

I It is interesting to note in this connection the words of S. T. Coleridge which seem to echo the very idea contained in the above Kārika of the Dhvanyaloka. Coleridge speaking of Rev. James Bowyer, one of the tutors in his school-days, observes: - 'In our own English compositions, (at least for the last three years of our school education,) he showed no mercy to phrase, metaphor, or image, unsupported by a sound sense, or where the same sense might have been conveyed

218 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Abhinavagupta explains उक्त्यन्तरेणा as :- 'ध्वन्यतिरिक्केन स्फुटेन शब्दार्थव्यापारविशेषेरोत्यर्थः ।' The word &T54, in the present karika, is to be explained, adds °Locana, so as to include all the five senses in which the term ध्वनि is used-viz. शब्द, अर्थ (including both वाच्य and व्यङ्गय), व्यापार and the काव्य as a whole comprising all

with equal force and dignity in plainer words. Lute, harp, and lyre, Muse, Muses, and inspirations, Pegasus, Parnassus and Hippocrene were all an abomination to him. In fancy I can almost hear him now, exclaiming "Harp? Harp? Lyre? Pen and ink, boy, you mean ! Muse, boy, Muse ? Your nurse's daughter, you mean? Pierian spring ? Oh aye ! the cloisterpump, I suppose !" -Biograpbia Literaria, p. 4 (Everyman's Library). In a footnote on the same page, Coleridge remarks :- "This is worthy of ranking as a maxim, ( regula maxima,) of criticism. Whatever is translatable in other and simpler words of the same language, without loss of sense or dignity, is bad. N. B .- By dignity I mean the absence of ludicrous and debasing associations." Later on, he expresses the same feeling in almost identical terms: - "As the result of all my reading and meditation, I abstracted two critical aphorisms, deeming them to comprise the conditions and criteria of poetic style ;-...... secondly,

UDDYOTA I 219

these foregoing elements. As he succinctly points out: "शब्द इति पश्चस्वर्थेषु योज्यम्॥ ध्वन्युक्तेविषयीभवेदिति॥ ध्वनि- शब्देनोच्यते इत्यर्थः ॥"-The sub-commentary Kaumudi further clinches this remark as follows: शब्दो ध्वन्युक्कर्विषय इत्युक्के: शब्दध्वनिपत् एव कारिकाकृतोऽभिमत इति भायात् ; तन्निवृत्त्यर्थमाह- पञ्चस्विति॥ शब्दतेऽभिधीयत इति वाच्यम्, शब्दतेऽनेनेति वाचकः, शब्धते व्यज्यत इति व्यङ्गथः, शब्दनमिति व्यापारः, उक्कचतुष्टयमयत्वात् समुदायश्चेत्यर्थः । ध्वन्युक्किर्ध्वनिरिति शब्दः तस्य विषयो भवेत्। अ्रवि- वच्तितार्थस्तु च्तििरित्याशयेनाह-ध्वनीति॥ अथवा विवच्ितार्थ एव

that whatever lines can be translated into other words of the same language, without diminution of their significance, either in sense or association, or in any worthy feeling, are so far vicious in their diction ...... I was wont. boldly to affirm, that it would be scarcely more difficult to push a stone out from the Pyramids with the bare hand, than to alter a word, or the position of a word, in Milton or Shakespeare, (in their most important works at least), wich- out making the poet say something else, or something worse, than he does say."-Op. cit., pp. 11-12. I have quoted at length from Coleridge only with a view to directing the attention of the readers to one impor- tant fact-viz. how the intellects of great literary critics converge together on important issues. As the proverb runs: 'संवादिन्यो हि महात्मनां बुद्धयः'-Great men think alike."

220 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

अ्ररनेवंरूपत्वे विषयत्वाभावामिप्रायेण, वाचकत्वावस्थायामविषयभूतस्यैवोक्कविध- व्यज्जकत्वावस्थायां विषयत्वापत्तेः ।" This irreplaceability of the ideas and expressions in the works of the greatest poets may be compared to the concept of yTE, as recognised by a section ot ancient Indian Poeti- cians. Rājaśekhara, in his Kāvyamīmāmsā deals at some length with this novel concept citing several current views on the topic. The following excerpt may be found to be relevant here :- "पदनिवेशनिष्कम्पता पाकः" इत्याचार्याः। तदाह- "आवापोद्धरणे तावद् यावद्दोलायते मनः। पदानां स्थापिते स्थैर्ये हन्त सिद्धा सरखती।"

"आग्रहपरिग्रहादपि पदस्थर्यपर्यवसायस्तस्मात् पदानां परिवृत्तिवैमुख्य पाकः" इति वामनीयाः ॥ तदाहु :- "यत् पदानि त्यजन्त्येव परिवृत्तिसहिष्णुताम्। तं शब्दन्यायनिष्णाताः शब्दपाकं प्रचक्षते ॥" -Op. cit., Chapter V.

TEXT

S४५। किश्न-

रूढा ये विषयेऽन्यत्र शब्दा: सवविषयादपि। लावण्याद्या: प्रयुक्तास्ते न भवन्ति पदं ध्वनेः ॥१६

तेषु चोपचरितशब्दवृत्तिरस्तीति। तथाविधे च विषये क्वचित सम्भवन्नपि ध्वनिव्यवहारः प्रकारान्तरेण प्रवर्त्तते। न तथाविधशब्दमुखेन।।

UDDYOTA I 221

EXPOSITION

$45. In the preceding section the Dhvanikara has shown how भक्नि as a definition of ध्वनि is too wide (अ्रतिव्याप्त) on the ground that in all cases of प्रयोजनमूला लक्षणा, there is no universal agreement between the two. The present karika is meant to supply one more reason for discarding such a view, by stating that in रूढिमूला लक्षणा there is no trace of ध्वनि at all, as the प्रयोजन which is to be suggested is wanting in this variety of लक्षणा. For example, words like लावराय, कुशल etc. are used figuratively to convey senses that are different from their strictly derivative meanings ( व्युत्पत्तिलभ्य अररथ), and yet it would not be proper to designate them as ध्वनि merely because there is लक्षणा. Still that would have been exactly the case if the view put forward by the opponents-viz. that भक्वि is the definition of ध्वनि, had been adopted. Abhinavagupta explains the karika as follows: -

"एवं यत्र प्रयोजनं सदपि नादरास्पदं तत् को ध्वननव्यापार इत्युक्का यत मूलत एव प्रयोजनं नास्ति, भवति चोपचारस्ततापि को ध्वननव्यापार इत्याह- किश्चेति॥ लावरायाद्या ये शब्दाः स्वविषयाल्लवणारसयुक्कत्वादेः स्वार्थादन्यत् हृद्यत्वादौ रूढा:1, रूढत्वादेव च त्रितयस न्निध्यपेक्षणाव्यवधानशून्याः, यदाह- 'निरूढा लक्षणाः काश्चित् सामर्थ्यादभिधानवत्'-इति,1 ते तस्मिन् स्वविषया-

I The quotation is from Kumārila's Tantra-vārttika, the second half of the verse being : "क्रियन्ते साम्प्रतं कांक्रित् काश्चिन्नैव त्वशक्तितः ।"

222 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

दन्यत् प्रयुक्ता अपि न ध्वनेः पदं भवन्ति। - न तत्र ध्वनिव्यवहारः। उपचरिता शब्दस्य वृत्तिर्गोणी लाक्षणिकी चेत्यर्थः । आरदिग्रहरोन आरनुलोम्यं प्रातिकूल्यं सव्रह्मचारात्येवमादयः शब्दा लाक्षणिका गूह्यन्ते। लोम्नामनुगतम् अ्रनुलोमं मदनम् ; कूलस्य प्रतिपत्ततया स्थितं स्रोतः प्रतिकूलम् ; तुल्यगुरुः सव्रह्मचारी-इति मुख्यो विषयः। अन्यः पुनरुपचरित एव। न चात प्रतोजनं किश्चिदुद्दिश्य लक्षणा प्रत्तेति न तद्विषयो ध्वननव्यवहारः ।"1 -Op. cit. तथाविधे ...... शब्दमुखेन-It might be argued, however, that if the above view be conceded, there would be no ध्वनि at all wherever such terms as लावराय, आनुलोम्य etc.are used. But contrary instances are not rare. The Vrttikāra answers: "We do not state that there should be no ध्वनि

I While commenting on the urtti-text : "कर्मणि कुशलः" इत्यादौ ...... सान्तरार्थनिष्ठो लक्षणा" in Mammata's Kauyaprakasa, II. 9, the commentator Manikyacandra makes the follow- ing observations in his gloss : "कर्मणीति। कुशान् लातीति दर्भग्रहणायोगान्मुख्यार्थबाधे विवेचकत्वादौ सम्बन्धे रूढे: प्रवीणोऽर्थो लक्षणा- व्यापारेरा लच्यते। आदिशब्दाद् द्विरेफद्विकानुलोम्यलावरायादयः। द्विरेफशब्देन हि रेफद्वितययोगिभ्रमरशब्दलक्षणाथलक्षणाद्वारेएा रूढ्यनुृत्तिरेव षट्पदादौ क्रियते ...... यद्भद्टकुमा रिल :- निरूढा लक्षणा: काश्चित् सामर्थ्यदभिधानवत्। क्रियन्ते सांप्रतं काश्चित् काश्विन्नव त्वशक्कितः ॥ निरूढा इति। भ्रष्टोपचारप्रतीतयः । लक्षणा इति। लक्षणाशब्दाः। अभिधानवत्, वृक्षादिनामवत्। ......... "-Samketa, pp. 26-27 (Mysore Edn.).

UDDYOTA I 223

at all wherever निरूढलक्षाणिक terms are employed. There may be ध्वनि in such cases. But that does not compromise our position at all. For, if we analyse critically we will be able to discover that in those cases, the source of ध्वनि is not these निरूढ words (कुशल, लावराय, प्रतिकूल, etc. ) themselves, but some other factor. And as such the opinion expressed above is universally valid." As Abhinavagupta comments: -

"ननु 'देवडिति लुणाहि पलुतम्मिगमिज्वालवणुज्वलं गुमरिफोल्ज- परराय'(?)-इत्यादौ लावरायादिशब्दसन्निघानेऽस्ति प्रतीयमाना भिव्यक्किः। सत्यम्, सा तु न लावरायशब्दात्, अपि तु समग्रवाक्यार्थप्रतीत्यनन्तरं ध्वनन- व्यापारादेव। अत हि प्रियतमामुखस्येव समस्ताशाप्रकाशकत्व ध्वन्यते इत्यलं बहुना। तदाह-प्रकारान्तरेणेति॥ व्यज्जकत्वेनैव। न तूपचरित- लावरायादिशब्दप्रयोगादित्यर्थः ॥"0Locana.

Uttungodaya, in his Kaumudī, comments on this °Locana-passage as follows : "अत्र हीति॥ हेतुहेतुमद्भावस्यान्वय- व्यतिरेकावसेयत्वात् कृत्स्वाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्त्युत्तरकालनियतभावित्वाच्च यथोक्क- व्यङ्गथार्थप्रतीतेस्तच्छक्किमूलत्वमेवास्याः शक्याध्यवसानम् नतु लावरायशब्द- शक्तिमूलत्वम् ; तथात्वे हि संप्रतिपन्नोदाहररो लावरायशब्दव्यापारान्वय- व्यतिरेकानुविधायितया भवितव्यमिति, न लावरायादिशन्देषु ध्वनिव्यवहारोप- पत्तिरित्यर्थः । ग्रन्थे प्रकारान्तरमिति यथोक्कनीत्या अथश क्किमूलव्यङ्गथात्मा प्रभेदो शहीत इत्याह-तदाहेति॥ ...... "

TEXT 5४६। अपि च-

224 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

मुख्यां वृत्तिं परित्यज्य गुणवृत्त्यारऽर्थदर्शनम्। यदुद्दिश्य फलं तत्र शब्दो नैव रखलद्गतिः ।।१७।। तत् हि चारुत्वातिशयविशिष्टार्थप्रकाशनलक्षणे प्रयोजने कर्त्तव्ये यदि शब्दस्यामुख्यता तदा तस्य प्रयोगे दुष्टतैव स्यात्। न चैवम्।

EXPOSITION

$46. The Dhvanikāra adduces a fresh argument, apart from all considerations of the fallacies shown above (viz. अतिव्याप्ति and अव्याप्ति ), against भक्कि being the definition of ध्वनि. The contents of लक्षणा and ध्वनन are altogether different, and in view of this, it is not proper to regard the one as the attribute ( लक्षण) of the other. It might, however, be asked: What is the difficulty in considering the प्रयोजन too as लच्ष्य and thus dispensing with the fourth function of Suggestion? In that case, there can be raised no objection on the ground of fallacious definition. The karika is intended as a reply to such a possible contention. As Abhinavagupta puts it: - "एवं यत् यत्र भक्किस्तत् ध्वनिरिति तावन्नास्ति। तेन यदि ध्वनेभीक्क- लक्षां तदा भक्तिसन्निधौ सर्वत्र ध्वनिव्यवहारः स्यादित्यतिव्याप्तिः। अभ्युपगम्यापि व्रमः-भवतु यत्र यत्र भक्तिस्तत् तत्र ध्वनिः ; तथापि यद्विषयो लक्षणाव्यापारो न तद्विषयो ध्वननव्यापारः। न च भिन्नविषययो- धर्मधर्मिभावः। धर्म एव च लक्षणामित्युच्यते। तत लक्षणा तावदमुख्यार्थ- विषयो व्यापारः। ध्वननं च प्रयोजनविषयम्। न च तद्विषयोऽपि द्वितीयो

UDDYOTA I 225

लक्षणाव्यापारो युक्कः, लक्षणासामग्रयभावात् इत्यभिप्रायेणाह-अपि चेत्यादि॥"1 The प्रयोजन cannot be लक्ष्य for the simple reason-viz. that the conditions of लक्षणणा are absent here. To be लक्षणा, there must be मुख्यार्थबाध, सम्बन्ध and प्रयोजन. In the expression 'गङ्गायां घोषः' the term गङ्गा signifies तट through लक्षरा because the primary sense of the term, viz. प्रवाह, is incompatible and because there is some end in view -viz. the cognition of शत्य and पावनत्व, originally appertaining to the stream, on the bank thereof. But शैत्य- पावनत्व too cannot be similarly conveyed through लक्षणा, for in that case it should be shown that even the secondary sense of the term गङ्गा, viz. तट, is incompatible, which is, however, not the case. Nor is there any प्रयोजन for resorting to . second लक्षणा. And if, for the sake of argument, some प्रयोजन be forged out, that would entail a regressus ad infinitum (अनवस्था), because the second प्रयोजन would again be conveyed through लक्षणा, for the justification of which a third प्रयोजन would have to be posited and so on without end. Abhinavagupta explains the karika as follows: - "मुख्यां वृत्तिमभिधाव्यापारम् ; परित्यज्य परिसमाप्य; गुणवृत्त्या ल्षणा- रूपया अर्थस्यामुख्यस्य दशनं प्रत्यायना ; सा यत्फलं कर्मभूतं प्रयोजनरूपमुद्दिश्य क्रियते, तत् प्रयोजने तावद् द्वितीयो व्यापारः। न चासौ लक्षणौव ; यतः

I Comp. "तच्छ्व्देन प्रयोजनम्। सामग्री तयसान्निध्यलक्षणा।" -Kaumudi.

15

226 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA -

स्खलन्ती बाधकव्यापारेण विधुरीक्रियमाणा गतिरवबोधनशक्किर्यस्य शब्दस्य तदीयो व्यापारो लक्षणा। न च प्रयोजनमवगमयतः शब्दस्य बाधकयोगः । तथाभावे ततापि निमित्तान्तरस्य प्रयोजनान्तरस्य चान्वेषरोनानवस्थानात्। तेनायं लक्षणालक्षगाया न विषय इति भावः। दर्शनम् इति रायन्तो निर्देशः । कर्त्तव्य इति॥ अवगमयितव्य इत्यर्थः ॥ अमुख्यतेति॥ बाधकेन विधुरोकृततेत्य्थः ॥ तस्येति शब्दस्य ॥ दुष्टतवेति॥ प्रयोजनावगमस्य सुखसंपत्तये हि स शब्दः प्रयुज्यते तत्मिन्नमुख्येऽर्थे। यदि च 'सिंहो बटुः' इति शोर्यातिशयेऽवगमयितव्ये स्वलद्गतित्वं शब्दस्य, तत्तर्हि प्रतीति नव कुर्यादिति किमर्थं तस्य प्रयोगः। उपचारेण करिष्यतीति चेत्, तत्रापि प्रयोजनान्तरमन्वेष्यम् ; तत्नाप्युपचारेऽनवस्था। अथ न तत रखलद्- गतित्वम् , तर्हि प्रयोजनेवगमयितव्ये न लक्षणाख्यो व्यापारः तत्ंसामग्रय- भावात्। न च नास्ति व्यापारः । न चासावभिधा समयस्य तत्नाभावात्। यद्व्यापारान्तरमभिधालक्षणातिरिक्कं स ध्वननव्यापारः ॥ न चैवमिति॥ न च प्रयोगे दुष्टता काचित्। प्रयोजनस्याविन्ननेव प्रतीतेः। तेनेयमभिधैव मुख्येऽर्थे बाधकेन प्रविवित्सुः [ प्रविवृत्सुः ] निरुध्यमाना सती अचरितार्थ- त्वादन्यत्न प्रसरति; अत एवामुख्योऽस्यायमर्थ इति व्यवहारः ; तथैव चामुख्यतया संकेतग्रहरामपि तत्नास्तीत्यभिधापुच्छभूतैव लक्षणा ॥"- °Locana. Mammatabhatta reproduces the very words of the Dhvanyaloka and its commentary .Locana in his Kāvya- prakāsa. Compare: "यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातुं लक्षणा समुपास्यते। फले शब्दैकगम्येऽत व्यज्ञनान्नापरा क्रिया॥"

-प्रयोजनप्रतिपिपादयिषया यत्र लक्षराया शक्दप्रयोगस्तत् नान्यतस्तत्प्रतीति- रपि तु तस्मादेव शब्दात्। न चात व्यञ्जनादतेऽन्यो व्यापार:। तथाहि- "नाभिधा समयाभावात्" !

UDDYOTA I 227

'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यादौ ये पावनत्वादयो धर्मास्तटादो प्रतीयन्ते न तत्र गङ्गादिशब्दाः संकेतिताः ॥ "हेत्वभावान्न लक्षणा ॥" मुख्यार्थबाधादितयं हेतुः। तथा च- "लच््यं न मुख्यं नाप्यत् बाधो योगः फलेन नो। न प्रयोजनमेतस्मिन् न च शब्दः स्खलद्गतिः ॥" -यथा गङ्गाशव्दः स्रोतसि सबाध इति तटं लक्षयति, तद्वद् यदि तटेऽपि सवाधः स्यात् तत् प्रयोजनं लक्षयेत्। न च तटं मुख्योऽर्थः । नाप्यत बाधः । न च गङ्गाशव्दार्थस्य तटस्य पावनत्वायैलक्षणीयैः संबन्धः। नापि प्रयोजने लच्ष्ये किश्चित् प्रयोजनम्। न च गङ्गाशब्दस्तटमिव प्रयोजनं प्रतिपादयितुम- समर्थः ॥ "एवमप्यनवस्था स्याद् या मूलन्षतिकारिणी॥" -एवमपि प्रयोजनं चेल्लदयते तत् प्रयोजनान्तरेण तदपि प्रयोजनान्तरेरोति प्रकृताप्रतीतिकृदनवस्था भवेत् ॥I- Ullasa II.

TEXT

5४७1 तस्मात्- वाचकत्वाश्रयेणैव गुणवृत्तिर्व्यवस्थिता। व्यक्ञकत्वैकमूलस्य ध्वने: स्याल्लक्षणं कथम् ॥१८॥ तस्मादन्यो ध्वनिरन्या च गुणवृत्तिः। अव्याप्ति- रप्यस्य लक्षणस्य। नहि ध्वनिप्रभेदो विवक्षितान्य- परवाच्यलक्षणः, अन्ये च बहवः प्रकारा1 भक्तना व्याप्यन्ते। तस्माद् भक्तिरलक्षणम् ॥

[ 1. KS. reads तद्भेदप्रकारा: for प्रकारा: ]

228 THE DHVANYÃLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

EXPOSITION

§47. In the present karika the Dhvanikāra winds up the above discussion : 'वाचकत्वाश्रयेणैव ......... लक्षणं कथम्'-लक्षणा depends invariably on वाचकत्व or अभिधा, since the incompatibility of the मुख्यार्थ or primary sense first presented through the function of denotation or अभिधा is the conditio sine qua non of लक्षणा, whereas ध्वनि, which is completely independent of अभिधा, is based solely on suggestion, a function which is found to belong to unmeaning sounds (अवाचकवण even. This being the case it is absurd to maintain that ध्वनि and भक्ति are identical or the one (ध्वनि ) is dejined or determined by the other (लक्षणा or भक्नि). As Abhinavagupta explains :- 'तस्मादिति-उपसंहरति। यतोऽभिधापुच्छभूतेव लक्षणा, ततो हेतोर्वाचकत्वमभिधाव्यापारमाश्रिता तद्बाधनेनोत्थानात् तत्पुच्छभूतत्वाच्च गुरावृत्तिः, गौणलाक्षशिकप्रकार इत्यर्थः, सा क्थं ध्वनेर्व्यञनात्मनो लक्षणं स्यात्, भिन्नविषयत्वादिति। एतदुपसंहरति-तस्मादिति॥ यतोऽति- व्याप्तिरुक्का, तत्प्रसङ्गन च भिन्नविषयत्व तस्माद्धेतोरित्यर्थः ॥"-Op. cit. Mammatabhatta's arguments are substantially based on the Dbvanyaloka, and its commentary, though he notes a few more points that differentiate लक्षणणा from व्यज्ञना. Compare :- "ननु 'रामोऽस्मि सर्व' सहे', 'रामेणा प्रियजीवितेन तु कृतं प्रेम्गाः प्रिये नोचितम्' इति, 'रामोऽसौ भुवनेषु विक्रमगुणाः प्राप्तः प्रसिद्धिं पराम्' इत्यादौ लक्षसीयोऽप्यर्थो नानात्व भजते, विशेषव्यपदेशहेतुश्च भवति, तदवगमक्ष

UDDYOTA I 229

शब्दार्थायत्तः प्रकरणादिसव्यपेक्षश्रेति कोऽयं नूतनः प्रतीयमानो नाम? उच्यते-लक्षणीयस्यार्थस्य नानात्वेऽपि अनेकार्थशब्दार्थाभिधेयवन्नियतत्वमेव। न खलु मुख्येनार्थेन अनियतसंबन्धो लक्षयितु शक्यते। प्रतोयमानस्तु प्रकरणादिविशेषवशेन नियतसम्बन्धोSनियतसंबन्धः संबद्धसंबन्धश्रेति द्योलयते। न च-'अत्ता एत्थ शिमज्जइ-' इत्यादौ विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ मुख्यार्थबाधः, तत् कथमत्र लक्षणा? लक्षणायामपि व्यञ्ञनमवश्यमाश्रयितव्यम् इति प्रतिपादितम्। यथा च समयसव्यपेक्षाऽभिधा तथा मुख्यार्थबाधादितय- समयविशेषसव्यपेक्षा लक्षणा। अत एवाभिधापुच्छभृता सेत्याहुः। "न च लक्षणणात्मकमेव ध्वननम्, तदनुगमेन तस्य दर्शनात्। न च तदनुगतमेव, अभिधावलम्बनेनापि तस्य भावात्। न चोभयानुसार्येव, अवाचकवर्णानुसारेणापि तस्य दृष्टेः। न च शब्दानुसार्येव, अशब्दात्मक- नेत्रत्िभागावलोकनादिगतत्वेनापि तस्य प्रसिद्धः-इत्यभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणाख्य- व्यापारत्नयातिवर्त्ती ध्वननादिपर्यायो व्यापारोऽनपह्रवनीय एव॥"- Kāvyaprakāsa, Ullāsa V. अव्याप्ति :......... व्याप्यन्ते-Having thus refuted the argument of the opponents, endeavouring to define ध्वनि by means of लक्षणा on the ground of the fallacy of अतिव्याप्ति, the author adds chat it is also vitiated on account of the fallacy of अव्याप्ति as well. For, incases of रसध्वनि, भावध्वनि etc., that are varieties of असंलच्यक्रमव्यङ्गय-a subdivision of the विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्यध्वनि, there is no trace of लक्षणा at all, since the primary sense ( मुख्यार्थ) is not found to be incompatible in those cases. As Abhinavagupta puts it :- "एवमतिव्याप्तेरथाव्याप्तेर्न चासौ लक्ष्यते तथा"-इति कारिकागतामतिव्याप्तिं व्याख्याय अव्याप्तिं व्याचष्टे-अव्याप्तिरप्यस्येति। अस्य गुणावृत्तिरूपस्येत्यर्थः। यत्र यत् ध्वनिस्तत्र तत् यदि भक्तिर्भवेत्, न स्याद्

230 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

अव्याप्तिः। न चैवम्। अवित्ितवाच्येऽस्ति भक्ति :- 'सुवर्णपुष्पा'-मित्यादौ ; 'शिखरिगि-' इत्यादौ तु सा कथम् ॥-°Locana.

TEXT ९४८ । कस्यचिद् ध्वनिभेदस्य सातु स्यादुपलक्षणम्॥ सा पुनर्भक्तिर्वक्ष्यमाणप्रभेदमध्यादन्यतमस्य भेदस्य यदि नामोपलक्षणतया सम्भाव्येत।।

EXPOSITION S48. Thus, the first two sub-contentions of the भक्ति- वादिन्'s being confuted, they might fall back on the third view-viz. भक्वि is the उपलक्षण (accidens) of ध्वनि. An उपलक्षणा is an occasional mark, just as the काक (crow) is an उपलक्षण of देवदत्तगृह, i.e. a crow sitting at the top of Devadatta's residence serves to distinguish it from other houses, and as such it is a distinguishing accidens of Devadatta's residence.1 It is important, however, to keep in view the distinction between उपलक्षणा on the one hand and विशेषण and उपाधि on the other. (1) वर्त्तमानं व्यावर्त्तकं विधेयान्वयि विशेषणम्-यथा 'नीलमुत्पलम्' ; (२) वर्त्तमानो व्यावर्त्तको विधेयानन्वयी उपाधि :- यथा 'कर्णशष्कुल्युपहितं नभः श्रोतम्'

I Compare : " ...... कतरद् देवदत्तस्य गृहम्। अदो यत्रासौ काक इति। उत्पतिते काके यद्यपि नष्ट' तद् गृहं भवत्यन्ततस्तमुद्देशं जानाति ।।"-Mababbasya on Panini I. I. 26.

UDDYOTA I 231

इति ; (3) व्यावर्त्तकम् अवर्त्तमानं विधेयानन्वयि उपलक्षणम्-यथा 'काकवद् देवदत्तगृहम्' इति॥ It is true that भक्वि is an occasional mark of ध्वनि as is attested by the existence of भक्वि in the varieties of अवि- वत्ितवाच्यध्वनि. But the opponents can gain nothing thereby. Nor is the position of the Dhvani-theorists compromised in the least by such an admission. Compare °Locana. :- "ननु मा भूद् ध्वनिरिति भक्किरिति चैकं रूपम्। मा च भूद् भक्तिर्व- नेलक्षणाम्। उपलक्षणां तु भविष्यति-यत्र ध्वनिभवति तत् भक्किरप्यस्तीति भक्त्युपलच्तितो ध्वनिः। न तावदेतत् सर्वत्ास्ति। एतावता च कि परस्य सिद्धम् ; किं वा नस्त्ुटितम् इति। तदाह-कस्यचिदिति ॥"-loc. cit. The following extract from Vidyadhara's Ekavalī is a faithful resume of the foregoing sections of the Dhvanyaloka dealing with the position of the भक्तिवादिन्'s :- "अथ भक्करूपचारादागतोऽयम् इति ये भाक्कमभिदधते त एवं प्रष्टव्याः। भक्किर्व्यक्किश्चेति तत्त्वान्तरमिति यद्यभिसन्धिः तदा भक्किव्यक्कयोः किं तादात्म्यम् , उत भक्तिर्व्यक्ेर्लक्षणम्, उपलक्षणं वा ? न प्रथम: पक्तः। उभयो- रप्यनयोः परस्परविरुद्धानां धर्माणामुपलम्भसंभवात्। तथाहि मुख्यार्थवाधाद्यनु- संधानप्रवृत्तत्वं भक्तेः। वक्तृबोद्धव्यादिवैशिष्ठ्यानुसंधानप्रवृत्तत्वं तु व्यक्कः। तत् कुतस्तयोस्तादात्म्यशङ्काकलङ्कावतारः। किं च भेदसिद्धये अपनुमानमप्यस्ति। भक्ति- व्यक्की मिथो भिन्ने। मिन्नधर्मयोगित्वात्। यद् भिन्नधर्मयोगि तन्मिथो भिन्नम्। यथा घटपटादि। न द्वितीयः। वत्त्यमाणदूषरागणाग्रस्तत्वात्। तथाहि-लक्षणास्य केवलव्यतिरेकित्वादेवं किलानुमानरचना। व्यक्तिरितरेभ्यो भिद्यते। भक्ति- मत्वात्। यत् पुनरितरेभ्यो न भिद्यते न तद् भक्किमत्। यथाSभिधादि। तथा च सत्यभिधैकमूले ध्वनौ भक्केरभावात् भागासिद्धो हेतुः। व्यक्करितरेभ्यो भिन्नत्वे साध्येऽस्य हेतोरितराभित्ने विवेचकत्वमात्नं लक्षयति कुशलादौ रूढेऽपि क्वचिद्

232 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

गतत्वाद् विरुद्धत्वमपि। अ्र्प्रनेन हि विवेचकत्वादिमात्रं लक््यते, न तु किंचिद् व्यज्यते। न तृतीयः। विवचितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ भक्त्युपलत्ितत्वा- भावात्। उपलक्षणात्वाभ्युपगमेऽपि भक्तिव्यक्त्योरभिन्नत्वासंभवाच। उप- लक्षरोन विनापि उपलक्षणीयस्य सिद्धेश्च। एतेन यत् कुन्तकेन भक्कावन्त- र्भावितो ध्वनिस्तदपि प्रत्याख्यातम्1॥-Op. cit., Pp. 48-51.

I Compare in this connexion the observations of Dr. S. K. De in his Introduction to Kuntaka's Vakrokti- jivita: "Vidyādhara, purporting to refute the views of Kuntaka, remarks that the latter proposed to include dhvani in the scope of bbakti. This statement probably refers to the passages in our text, dealing with upacara-vakrata in which, as well as in some other varieties of vakrata, our author incorporates all ideas of dhvani, the term bhakti being apparently used here, as elsewhere, as synonymous with upacara."-Op. cit., p. ii. (Third Edn., 1961). Rūyyaka, while reviewing Kuntaka's view, distinctly points out: "उपचारवक्रतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपश्चः खीकृतः।"-on which Jayaratha comments : "उपचारवक्रतादीनामेव मध्ये ध्वनिरन्तर्भूत इति तात्पर्यार्थः। यदाह- "यत्र दूरान्तरेऽन्यस्मात् सामान्यमुपचर्यते। लेशेनापि भवेत् कर्तु किंचिदुद्रिक्कृत्तिता॥ यन्मूला सरसोल्ल खा रूपकादिरलंकृतिः । उपचारप्रधानासौ वक्रता काचिदिष्यते।।" इति। एतामेवोदाजहार च-"गअरां च मत्तमेहं-"इति। ... एवं सर्वोऽपि ध्वनिप्रपश्चो वक्रोक्किभिरेव स्वीकृतः।"-Op. cit., p. 8 (NSP.

UDDYOTA I 233

TEXT 5४९। यदि च गुणवृत्त्यैव ध्वनिलेक्ष्यत इत्युच्यते तदभिधाव्यापारेण तदितरोऽलंकारवर्गः समग्र एव लक्ष्यत इति प्रत्येकमलंकाराणां लक्षणकरणवैयर्थ्य- प्रसङ्ग:' ॥

[ 1. NSP. reads लक्षणाकररो वैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्गः ]

EXPOSITION §49. It might, however, be maintained that in spite of all that has been said against भक्नि being the essential and invariable attribute of ध्वनि, there is no necessity. of enun- ciating the definition of भक्ति afresh, for भक्ञि, as it has been admitted by all as the उपलक्षणा of ध्वनि, can well serve the function of a लक्षसा, inasmuch as the object of लक्षणा and उपलक्षणा is the same-viz. differentiation (इतरव्यावृत्ति). Such an objection is answered by the Vrttikara in the present text: यदि च ...... वैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्ग :- Such a course of argument if carried co its logical extreme, might be applied to the domain of alamkaras as well. For alambaras have

San.). See also Samudrabandha's comm. on the above text: "उपचारवक्रतादिभिरिति। आदिशब्देन विशेषवकतादयः परिगृद्धन्ते। उपचारवकत्वं नाम यत्रामूर्तस्य वस्तुनः मूर्त्तदव्याभिधायिना शब्देनाभिधानं 'निकारकणिका', 'हस्तापचेयं यशः' इति। .. एतदुभयमपि लक्षणामूलस्य ध्वनेविषयः ।"-P. 8 (TSS. Edn.)

234 THE DHVANYĀLCKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

as their basis words, meanings and their mutual relation (viz. संकेत or अभिधा), and as all these elements that consti- tute the foundation of all figures of speech have been fully discussed and analysed by the Grammarians and the Mimamsakas, there is left very little scope for the authors like Bhamaha, Udbhata etc. for displaying their erudition and critical acumen and applying them to the task of severally defining the figures of speech. All their labours would be regarded as quite uncalled for and futile. As Abhinavagupta notes: - "ननु अत् भक्तिस्तावच्चिरन्तनैरुक्का। तदुपलक्षणामुखेन च ध्वनिमपि समग्रभेदं लक्षयिष्यन्ति ज्ञास्यन्ति च। किं तल्नक्षरोनेत्याशङ्कयाह-यदि चेति॥ अभिधानाभिधेयभावो ह्यलंकाराणां व्यापकः। ततश्व अभिधावृत्ते वैयाकरणमीमांसकैनिरूपिते कुत दानीमलंकारकाराणां व्यापारः तथा हेतुबलात् कार्य जायते इति तार्किकरुक्के किमिदानीमीश्वरप्रभृतीनां कर्तृणां ज्ञातृणां वा कृत्यमपूर्व स्यादिति सर्वो निरारम्भः स्यात्। तदाह-लक्षण- करणवैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्ग इति ॥"-°Locana. Uttungodaya in his Kaumudī further clarifies the above Locana-text thus : ननूपलक्षणात्वाभ्युपगन्तृभिः न भक्तिव्यतिरेकेण ध्वनिस्वरूपाभाव एव सिषाधयिषितः, किन्तु भक्वितो व्यतिरेकेर संभवत्नयं ध्वनिर्न लक्षणीयो भवितुमहति। सजातीय- विजातीयव्यावृत्ततया स्वयमवगम्य तयेव द्वारा तत्प्रतिपितूसवोऽपि प्रतिबोधयितुं शक्या इति निरर्थकस्तल्लक्षणाकरणाप्रयास इति एतदाशङ्कते-नन्वत्नेति॥ कथमभिधाव्यापारेशैव समस्तालंकारसिद्धिरुक्कति तत्ाह-अभिधानेति॥ अभिधानाभिधयभावस्य शब्दार्थालंकारभेदभिन्नसमस्तालंकारव्यापकत्वात्तस्य चाभिधाव्यापारजीवितत्वात्तन्निरूपरो कृतेऽलंकारनिरूपणामनर्थकमेव स्यात्। तत्र

UDDYOTA 1 235

पदगतो व्यापारः पदविद्धभिर्निरूपितः ; वाक्यगतस्तु वाक्यविद्भिरपि। अ्रभिधाशव्देनात तात्पर्यशक्तिरपि संग्रृह्यते अन्विताभिधानसमयानुसारेण। एते चैवमलंकारकारा: कृतकनृ ताखलीकृतवृत्तयस्तूष्णीमेव स्वैरमासतामित्यर्थः। ... लक्षास्य करणास्य च वैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्ग इति विभज्य व्याख्येयमिति भावः ॥- Op. cit., pp. 297-98.1

TEXT ६५०। किंच-

लक्षणेऽन्यैः कृते चास्य पक्षसंसिद्धिरेव नः ॥१९॥ कृतेऽपि वा पूर्वमेवान्यैर्ध्वनिलक्षणे पक्षसंसिद्धिरेव नः, यस्माद् ध्वनिरस्तीति नः पक्षः । स च प्रागेव संसिद्ध इत्ययत्नसम्पन्नसमीहितार्थाः संवृत्ताः स्म: ॥ येऽपि सहृदयहृदयसंवेद्यमनाख्येयमेव ध्वनेरा- त्मानमाम्नासिषुः, तेऽपि न परीक्ष्यवादिनः। यत उक्तया नीत्या वक्ष्यमाणया च ध्वनेः सामान्यविशेष- लक्षणे प्रतिपादितेऽपि यद्यनाख्येयत्वं तत् सर्वेषामेव वस्तूनां तत् प्रसक्तम्। यदि पुनर्ध्वनेरतिशयोक्तानया

The terms pada-vid and vakya vid in the above ex- tract refer to the Grammarians and Mīmāmsakas respec- tively.

236 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

काव्यान्तरातिशायि तैः स्वरूपमाख्यायते तत् तेऽपि युक्ताभिधायिन एव ।।

[ I NSP. has संपन्ना :- So also KS. ]

इति श्रीराजानंकानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविरचिते ध्वन्यालोके प्रथम उद्दगोत: ।।

EXPOSITION §50. But, if despite all the positive proofs adduced by the Dhvani theorists in favour of eafa bring regarded as a novel element of poetry, the opponents persist in their theory and belittle the efforts of the former, the Dhvanikara replies: लक्षणेऽन्यै ..... न :- "If it be argued that ध्वनि had been already defined by the ancients in so far as they recognised afa as an additional function and included such figures of speech as पर्यायोक्क, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा etC. within the scheme of their works, we can only bow and say that our labours have been so far saved thereby. For, we have no fascination at all for reserving to ourselves the credit of being recognised as the founders of a new school or propounders of a novel theory. Our object has been to establish eafa on a firm basis with the help of logic and sound reasoning. If we have been long anticipated by some of our forerunners, we have no grudge at all for that. We are all the more thankful to them. But in spite of all this, we can claim this much credit for ourselves

UDDYOTA I 237

that it is we who have first systematised the Dhvani theory by giving it a new form and shape and classifying with logical precision the different varieties of dbvani under definite heads." As Abhinavagupta observes :- "मा भूद्धापूर्वोन्मीलनम् पूर्वोन्मीलितमेवास्माभिः सम्यङ् निरूपितम्। तथापि को दोष इत्यभिप्रायेणाह-किंचेत्यादि।"-Locana. Abhinava- gupta expcains प्रागेव in the by Vrtti adding'अस्मत्प्रयत्न।दिति शेषः।' Thus, the Dhvanikara has at length refuted the views of the Negativists (अभाववादिन्'s) and the भक्तिवादिन्'s as well. But it might be contended that the third view which holds that the real nature of ध्वनि is indefinable ( 'केचिद् वाचां स्थितमविषये तत्त्वमूचुस्तदीयम्'-I. 1) remains unassailed and the Kārikakara is inconsistent in not having examined this view. To chis Abhinavagupta answers: "True that the Karikakara has neither examined this third contention in any karika nor has he confuted it in explicit terms. Yet it is prima facie evident that the position of the third group of opponents cannot stand in view of the fact that the Kārikākāra has already furnished a definition of dhvani in the karika: 'यत्ार्थः शब्दो वा-'( 1.13) and overthrown Negativists and भक्किवादिन's, and that is why he has not thought it necessary to revert to it and refute it afresh. But the Vrttikāra anticipating such a possible objection does not fail to accord due consideration to the view of the अलक्षणीयतावादिन्'s and refute it in the text: 'येऽपि ......

238 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

युक्ताभिधायिन एव'. Compare: "एवं त्रिप्रकारमभाववादं, भक्त्यन्तर्भुततां च निराकुर्वता अलक्षणीयत्वमेतन्मध्ये निराकृतमेव। अत एव मूलकारिका साक्षात् तन्निराकरणार्था न श्रयते। वृत्तिकृत्तु निराकृतमपि प्रमेयशय्यापूरणाय कराठेन तत्पक्षमनूद्य निराकरोति-येऽपीत्यादिना॥" Locana.

येऽपि ...... तत् प्रसक्तम्-The Karikakara has defined the distinctive characteristics of the ध्वनिकाव्य's in general in I. 13 and the specific varieties of eafa have been defined and discussed in Karikas, II. I ff. Thus Kārikākara has been successful in his attempt at defining ध्वनि in all its detail. If, however, despite this the opponents be obstinate enough to argue that tafa is indescribable and indefinable and profess themselves to be agnostics so far as the nature of tafa is concerned, the Dhvani-theorists cannot but submit and answer that everything would be indefinable on such a view. 'यदि पुनः ...... युक्ताभिधायिन एव'-'But if it is meant to be a mere hyperbole intended only to convey the indes- cribable charm of ध्वनि that surpasses all other elements of poetry like गुणा's, अलंकार's etc. in beauty and strikingness, that beggar all verbal descriptions, we cannot but concede the reasonableness of such a view and agree with them whole-heartedly.' Compare :- "उक्कया नीत्या 'यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा-' इति सामान्यलक्षणं प्रति- पादितम्। वत्यमाणाया तु नीत्या विशेषलक्षणं भविष्यति 'अर्थान्तरे संक्रमितम्' इत्यादिना। तत्र प्रथमोद्दयोते ध्वनेः सामान्यलक्षणामेव कारिका-

UDDYOTA I 239 कारेण कृतम्। द्वियीयोद्द्योते तु कारिकाकारोऽवान्तरविभागं विशेषलक्षणं च विद्धदनुवादमुखेन मूलविभागं द्विविधं सूचितवान्। तदाशयानुसारेण तु वृत्तिकृदतैवोद्दयोते मूलविभागमवोचत् 'स च द्विविधः' इति ॥ सर्वेषामिति। लौकिकानां शास्त्रीयाणां चेत्यर्थः ॥ अतिशयोक्त्येति॥1 यथा 'तान्यक्ष- राशि हृदये किमपि स्फुरन्ति' इतिवदतिशयोक्त्ा अनाख्येयतोक्का, साररूपतां प्रतिपादयितुमिति द्शितम् । इति शिवम् ॥"-° Locana. In the Third Uddyota the Vrttikara elaborately examines this view of the अलक्षणीयतावादिन's from which we quote below for easy reference: - " ...... एवं स्फुटतयैव लक्षणीयं स्वरूपमस्य ध्वनेः । यत्र शब्दाना- मर्थानां च केषाश्चित् प्रतिपत्तविशेषसंवेद्यं जात्यत्वमिव रत्नविशेषाणं चारुत्वम- नाख्येयमवभासते काव्ये तत्न ध्वनिव्यवहार इति यल्लक्षणं ध्वनेरुच्यते केनचित् तदयुक्कमिति नाभिधयतामर्हति। यतः शब्दानां स्वरूपाश्रयस्तावत् तक्किष्टत्वे सत्यप्रयुक्कप्रयोगः। वाचकाश्रयस्तु प्रसादो व्यञ्चकत्वं चेति विशेषः। अर्थानां च स्फुटत्वेनावभासनं व्यङ्गयपरत्वं व्यङ्गयांशविशिष्टत्वं चेति विशेषः । तौ च विशेषौ व्याख्यातुं शक्येते, व्याख्यातौ च बहुप्रकारम्। तद्यति- रिक्कानाख्येयविशेषसम्भावना तु विवेकावसादभावमूलैव। यस्मादनाख्येयत्वं सर्वशब्दागोचरत्वेन न कस्यचित् सम्भवति। अन्ततोऽनाख्येयशब्देन तस्याभि- धानसंभवात्। सामान्यसंस्पर्शिविकल्पशब्दागोचरत्वे सति प्रकाशमानत्वं तु यद्यनाख्येयत्वमुच्यते क्वचित् तदपि काव्यविशषाणं रत्नविशेषाणामिव न

I Uttungodaya clearly points out that the term अतिशयोक्कि here does not refer to the particular figure of that name. As he says: "अतिशयोक्किरतालंकार इति न मन्तव्यमित्याह -अनाख्येयतोक्तपति ॥ अतिशयो वचनगोचरातिवर्त्तित्वरूपोऽत विवच्ितः। तस्योक्किर तिशयोक्कि । ... "-Kaumudi, p. 301.

240 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

संभवति। तेषां लक्षणाकारैर्व्याकृतरूपत्वात्। रत्नविशेषाणां च सामान्य- संभावनयैव मूल्यस्थितिपरिकल्पनादशनाच्च। उभयेषामपि तेषां प्रतिपत्त- विशेषसंवेद्यत्वमस्त्येव। वैकटिका एव हि रत्नतत्त्वविदः सहृदया एव हि काव्यानां रसज्ञा इति कस्यात् विप्रतिपत्तिः । "यख निर्देश्यत्व' सर्वलक्षणाविषयं बौद्धानां प्रसिद्धं तत् तन्मतपरीक्षायां ग्रन्थान्तरे निरूपयिष्यामः।1 इह तु ग्रन्थान्तरश्रवरालवप्रकाशनं सहृदयवैमनस्यप्रदायीति न प्रक्रियते। बौद्धमतेन वा यथा प्रत्यक्षादिलक्षएं तथाऽस्माकं ध्वनिलक्षरं भविष्यति।2 तस्माल्लक्षणान्तरस्याघटनाद् अशब्दार्थ- त्वाच्च तस्योक्कमेव ध्वनिलक्षणं साधीयः। तदिदमुक्कम्-

I Here Abhinavagupta informs us that Anandavar- dhana was the author of a sub-commentary on Dharmot- tara's Pramāna-viniscaya-tika, a celebated treatise on Buddhist logic. 2 We should note that according to the Buddhist philosophers definition ( लक्षणा) of a thing is absurd and impossible. We quote here the following extract from the Prasannapada of Candrakīrti, the great scholiast of Nagarjuna's Madhyamika-karika : 'किंच। भेदेन वा तल्लक्रां लच््यात् स्याद् अभेदेन वा? तत् यदि तावद भेदेन, यदा लच्याद् भिन्नत्वाद् अलक्षरावत् लक्षसामपि न लक्षणम्। लक्षणाच्च भिन्नत्वाद् अलत््यवल्लत््यमपि न लक्ष्यम्। तथा लच््याद् लिन्नत्वाल्मक्णास्य लक्षणानिरपेत्तं लक्ष्यं स्यात्। ततश्च न तल्लच्यम्, लक्षणानिरपेक्तत्वात् खपुष्पवत्। अथाभिन्ने लक्ष्य- लक्षरो तदा लक्षणादव्यतिरिक्कत्वाल्लक्षणास्ात्मवद् विहीयते लक््यस्य लक्ष्यता। यथा

चोक्कम्-

UDDYOTA İ 241

"अनाख्येयांशभासित्वं निर्वाच्यार्थतया ध्वनेः। न लक्षणं, लक्षणं तु साधीयोऽस्य यथोदितम्।।" -Op. cit., pp. 517-520 (Benares Edn.).

End of Uddyota I

"लक्ष्यात् लक्षणमन्यच्चेत् स्यात् तल्लक्ष्यमलक्षणम्। तयोरभावोऽनन्यत्वे विस्पष्ट कथितं त्वया॥" इति॥ न च विना तखवान्यत्वैन लक््यलक्षणासिद्धी अन्या गतिरसिति। तथा च वच््यति- एकीभावेन वा सिद्धिर्नानाभावेन वा ययोः। न विद्यते, तयोः सिद्धि: कथं नु खलु विद्यते॥" इति॥ -Madhyamaka-Šāstra § Pratyaya-parīksā-prakaraņa, I. 21. Nevertheless, Buddist philosophers like Dharmakīrtti and others have not desisted from defining प्रत्यक्ष (Cf. तत्र प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढमभ्रान्तम्-Nyayabindu), अनुमान and other categories. The Dhvanikāra, too, takes his stand on the practice and precedent of the Buddhist philosophers and defines ध्वनि, even though in the ulcimate analysis ध्वनि like all other things might be indefinable and as such he cannot . be blamed for any inconsistency regarding his position. 16

APPENDIXES & INDEXES

ЯЧхо в 8ахиа9чА

APPENDIX I 1 Mahimabhatta and the Definition of Dhvani (Dhvanyāloka, I.13) It is well known that Mahimabhatta is one of the most ruthless critics of the theory of Suggestion advanced by the exponents of the Dhvani School. We propose to confine ourselves to the consideration of the definition of dbvani as furnished by Anandavardhana in his Dhvanyaloka and the vigorous criticism it has evoked at the hands of Mahimabhatta. Anandavardhana's definition of dhvani is as follows: - "A species of poetry wherein a word suggests a meaning by making its primary meaning subordinate to the former, or the primary meaning subordinates itself to the meaning suggested by it, has been called Dhvani by scholars."1 Mahimabhatta's foremost charge against this definition is that the qualifying adjunct upasarjanīkrta-svārthau is quite a misfit. An adjective to be significant must be

I यत्ार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतखार्थौं। व्यङ क्रः काव्यविशेषः स ध्वनिरिति सूरिभि: कथितः ॥ .. -Dhvanyāloka, I. 13.

246 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA probable (sambhava) in the first instance, and secondly it must also be variable (vyabbicāra)-i. e. it must not be the invariable attribute of the substance which is to be qualified by it.ª These are the two criterions of a true adjective. As for instance, when we say 'fire is cold' (sito vahnib), 'coldness' (saitya) cannot be an adjective with reference to the substantive 'fire,' since 'coldness' in fire is impossible, being contradicted by experience as it is. Similarly, in the sentence 'fire is hot' (usno vabnib) the so-called adjective 'hot' (usnab) is quite redundant inasmuch as the quality of of heat is the unique and invariable characteristic of fire, and as such serves no useful purpose by being predicated of the latter anew. But in the expression 'a blue lotus' (nīlam utpalam), the adjective 'blue' is perfectly legitimate, since it is possible and also variable not being solely confined to the class of lotuses. A lotus need not be necessarily blue, it may be red as well. Viewed in this light the adjective upasarjanikrta-sva as meant to qualify artha becomes devoid of significance, lacking as it does one of the essential features of a true adjunct. For, as the primaty sense is used only for the sake of giving rise to the cognition of a new sense, it necessarily follows that

2 Compare: सम्भवव्यभिचाराभ्यां स्याद् विशेषणामर्थवत्। नो शैत्येन न चौष्रयेन वहिः क्वापि विशेष्यते॥ -Kumārila.

APPENDIX I 247

the former is subservient to the latter, being only a means to this end. When we infer 'fire' from 'smoke', the latter is subservient to the former, and it requires no additional statement to bring home to our mind the subservient character of smoke, which is but an instrument. Now, the dhvani-theorists might defend their position by arguing that it need not always be the case, that when there is a suggested sense the primary sense should be subscrvient. For example, in the figures of speech like samāsokti, paryayokta etc., where we have the cognition of a suggested sense, the primary sense is predominant, being intended to be conveyed as such by the poet and not the suggested sense which only serves to embellish the former. And consequently the adjective upasarjanīkrta-sva serves a definite purpose by distinguishing a case of dhvani from gunibhuta-vyangya where the suggested sense is secondary only. But for the qualifying clause there would have been no way of distinguishing the one from the other, the cognition of the suggested sense being equally existent in both the varieties. Mahimabhatta retorts that this explanation is not at all convincing. The primary sense is predominant no doubt, not with reference to the suggested sense, but with reference to the universe of discourse or context. It would be a contradiction in words to hold that the primaty sense generates the cognition of the suggested sense, and at the same time

248 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

dominates over the latter. The argument of the dhvani- theorists is vitiated by a confusion of issues. They fail to take cognisance of the essenial difference between contextual difference and logical predominance. The predominance of the primary sense consists only in its being relevant to the context. But as a means to the under- standing of the suggested sense it is subordinate to the latter.3 That a primary meaning is the logical ground for the cognition of the suggested meaning is not open to question. And even if it be admitted that dhvani-theorists by the above logic have been able to prove the significance of the adjunct upasarjanikrta-sva by showing its variability (uyabhicara) in regard to the primary sense, it does not improve their position a whit further. For, nothing substantial is gained thereby. It cannot be denied that gunibbuta-vyangya possesses the same charm and excellence as a dhvani-kāvya does. And as such it is nothing more than mere scholasticism to draw an imaginary

3 "यत् पुनरस्य क्वचित् समासोक्त्ादौ प्राधान्यमुच्यते तत् प्राकरणिक- त्वापेक्षयेव। न प्रतीयमानापेक्षया। यथा-'उपोढरागेण विलोलतारकम्-' इत्यत् हि प्रतीयमानेनानुगतम् वाच्यमेव प्राधान्येन प्रतीयते समारोपितनायिका- नायकयोनिशाशशिनोरेव वाक्यार्थत्वात्। तदपेक्षया च तस्य लिज्नत्वादुप- सर्जनीभावाव्यभिचार एव।"-Vyakti-viveka, pp. 10-12 (Kashi Sanskrit Series).

APPENDIX I 249

line of distinction between the two varieties which are exactly akin from the viewpoint of aesthetic relish.4 Ruyyaka, however, would in no way yield up his position, and his admirable and scholarly defence of the issue raised by Mahimabhatta is worth perusal. In interpret- ing the motive of the Dhvanikara, he states that there might be three different ways in which the term gunīkrta- sva (i. e. upasarjanīkrta-sva) might be explained. Firstly, the primary sense is subservient as it is a means to the final cognition of the suggested sense ; secondly, it might be subordinate owing to its being less charming than the suggested sense ; and lastly, it is subordinate as it is not embellished by the suggested sense, since (in a case of dhvani) it is halting in character, the suggested sense being sought to be primarily conveyed. Mahimabhatta has full justification for his criticism if it is meant to be directed against the first two interpretations, for then it becomes difficult to show the variability of the adjectival clause gunīkrta-sva. For, if the first explanation be adopted dhvani and gunībhūta-vyangya cannot be distinguishable, the primary sense being equally subservient in both the

'व्यभिचारेऽपि वैफल्यादनुपादेयमेवैतत्, गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग यपि काव्ये चारुत्वप्रकर्षदर्शनादिति वच्यते'-Ibid., p. 12. Compare also the Dhvani-karika : मुख्या महाकविगिरामलंकृतिभृतामपि। प्रतीयमानच्छायैषा भूषा लज्जेव योषिताम्॥-III, II

250 THE DHVANYÄLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

cases, and consequently nothing is gained by the addition of the qualifying adjective. The adoption of the second view would also be of no avail, as has been made out by Mahimabhatta himself, for in the gunībhūta vyangya variety too it is the suggested sense that is really charming and the denotational sense is as much insipid and pedestrian as in a case of dbvani. But the Dhvanikāra, when he used the restrictive adjunct gunikrta-sva in regard to artha in the definition of dhvani, had in view neither of these two explanations, but the third interpretation, which if adopted would make the addition of the qualifying clause inevitable and significant. For, the essential distinction of dbvani from gunibhuta-vyangya lies in this that while in the latter the primary sense is embellished by the suggested sense in the former it is not so, the suggested sense being predominant there. And thus in Rūyyaka's showing the term gunikrta-sva is as much significant as the term nila in nilam utpalam, being not the unique and invariable characteristic of the primary sense, which lacks this attribute in a piece of gunībhūta-vyangya poetry.5

5 'अत व्याक्किवादिनोऽयमभिप्रायः-यदेतदर्थस्य गुणीकृतात्मत्व तदर्थान्तरप्रत्यायकत्वेनोपायत्वादप्राधान्यं, प्रतीयमानापेक्षया अचारुत्वं, विश्रान्त- त्वेनार्थान्तरानुपकार्यत्व चेति तयः पक्षाः सम्भवन्ति। तत्ादयं पक्षमनूदय कामं दूषितम्। तथा हि-वाच्यस्यार्थस्य प्रतीयमानापेक्षया अप्राधान्य- मुपायत्वादव्यभिचारि 'यो हि यदर्थमुपादीयत'-इत्यायुक्केः। अचारुत्वेऽस्य

APPENDIX I 251

And consequently, the non-mention of this adjunct would only entail a confusion between the two divisions of kāvya according to Dhvanikāra. Thus principai

Mahimabhatta's criticism is wide of the mark and is an outcome of malicious spite. The next point of attack in the definition is that the term sabda with its qualifying adjectival clause gunīkrtartba is quite unnecessary and at the same time absurd (asambbava). According to Mahimabhatta words have only one function-viz. denotation, and as such they cannot convey anything beyond the primary sense. In Mahimabhatta's theory the so-called suggested sense is inferred from the primary sense, which is directly conveyed by words themselves. Thus there can be no direct function of words with regard to the suggested sense as the dhvani-theorists would have it.6

पुनर्व्यवच्छेद्य नास्ति, गुणीभृतव्यक्कयऽपि वाच्यस्य चारुत्वदर्शनात्। तृतोयस्तु पक्तो गुरीभूतव्यक्कयनिरासाय सिद्धान्तितः । तथाहि- समासोक्त्यादौ प्रतीयमानोर्ऽर्थो वाच्यार्थौपयिकोऽपि न स्ात्मनि विश्रान्तिं भजते, प्रत्यावृत्त्य वाच्यार्थोपस्काराय प्रवृत्तत्वात्-इति। ततश् वाच्यस्य स्वविश्रान्तत्वेन अर्थान्तरोपकार्यत्व व्यावस्यम्-इति विशेषणमुपपन्नम्। गुणीकृतात्मतार्थस्य न प्रतीतावुपायता। नाचारुत्वमपि त्वथैर्बौद्धरनुपकार्यता ॥- इति संग्रहश्लोकः ।' -Rūyyaka's Vyaktiviveka-vyākbyāna, p. 13. 6 शब्द: पुनरनुपादेय एव। तस्य खार्थाभिधानमन्तरेण व्यापारान्त- रानुपपत्तरुपपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्।-/bid., pp. 13-14.

252 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Moreover, the adjective gunīkrtartha as applied to sabda is implausible, being contrary to our reasoning. Sabda or word is always subordinate to the sense expressed by it, being only a symbol, an instrument to convey that idea. Only in a case of imitation can the words alone have any primary significance per se, the sense being totally overlooked. For, when we quote somebody's statement we only mean to represent the words themselves (which were actually uttered by the original speaker) in that very sequence, without busying ourselves in the first instance with the ideas they stand for.' But in a case of suggestion a word cannot sudordinate its sense in the way above noted, for the suggested sense cannot be understood without the previous cognition of the primary sense. Thus, in a case of dbvani the words must first of all express the primary sense, which on its part, will ultimately make the understanding of the suggested sense possible. And it is nonsense to argue, notwithstanding the contradiction it entails, that the word still subordinates the primary sense. For, such a line of argument is tantamount to holding that the jar subordinates the water for which it is

7 न च तस्यानुकरणव्यतिरेकेणा उपसर्जनीकृतार्थत्व सम्भवति। यथा- "त कर्णामूलमागत्य पलितच्छघ्मना जरा। कैकेयीशङ्कयेवाह रामे श्रीन्यस्यतामिति ।।"-Ibid, p. 14.

APPENDIX I 253

requisitioned. The criterion that must be kept in view in distinguishing the subordinate from the principal is that while the former is susceptible of replacement, the latter admits of no such personal choice or substitution. For example, the jar might be replaced by a bucket, and it would equally serve the end in view. The same standard applies to words too. A particular word might be replaced by a synonymous word which would in no way affect the primary sense. Thus a word is invariably subordinate ,to the primary sense which is always principal, and as such the adjective upasarjanīkrtartha as qualifying sabda is absurd and contradictory.8 Another defect in the definition of dhvani is that the pronominal stem tat referring to the expression pratīyamānam vastu (Dhvanyāloka, i. 5.) has been used in the masculine instead of in the neuter, which would have been grammatically correct. If the masculine form has to be retained in the definition the previous forms have to be changed in keeping with grammatical consistency.9

8 अन्यस्य तु उपसर्जनीभावाव्यभिचार एव तस्य तदर्थमुपादानतः। यो हि यदर्थमुपादीयते, नासौ तमेव उपसर्जनीकरोतीति युक्कं वक्कुम्। यथोद- कादुपादानार्थमुपात्तो घटादिस्तदेव उदकादि। अन्यथा प्रधानेतरव्यवस्था निर्निबन्धनैव स्यात्। अत एव घटादिरेव प्रतिनिधीयते नोदकादि-इत्यसम्भवो लक्षणपदोष: ।-lbid., pp. 15-17. 9 किंच तमिति तदः पुंस्त्वेन निर्देशोऽनुपन्नः। तस्यानन्तरप्रकान्तार्थ-

254 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÄNANDAVARDHANA

Mahimabhatta further criticises Anandavardhana for using the expression kāvya-visesab ('a patticular species of poetry'). According to the Dhvanikāra a literary composi- tion to be kavya must be enlivened by the suggestion of the aesthetic emotion, the dhvani par excellence. So, without rasa-dhavni there can be no kavya at all. Consequently, it is futile to circumscribe the sphere of dhvani by qualifying the term kavya by visesa, inasmuch as it gives rise to the false notion that there are other specimens of kavya besides what can be properly subsumed under dhvani. Nor can there be any varying degrees of charm in the aesthetic realisation which can be made the basis of this differentiation implied by the expression kavya-visesab, for in each case the final blissful experience is indeterminate in its character and does not admit of any determinate analysis leading to comparison inter se.10

परामर्शिनस्तल्लिङ्गतापत्तेः। न चात्र तल्लिङ्गताविशिष्टः कश्चिदर्थः प्रकान्तः । वस्तुनो नपुंसकलिङ्वस्यानन्तरं प्रक्रान्तत्वात्। तेन तत्र व- 'प्रतीयमानः पुनरन्य एव सोऽर्थोऽस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम्। योऽसौ प्रसिद्धावयातिरिक्कश्रकास्ति लावरायमिवाङ्गनासु ।" -इति, 'सरस्वती खवादुतमं तमर्थम्' इति च पाठविपर्यासः कर्त्तव्यः । न त्वत्व 'वस्तु तदि'-ति। तत्ैव हि पाठविपर्यासे पर्यायक्रममेदः पुंस्त्वनिर्देशश्च परिहतौ भवतः। अत तु एक एव तदः पुंस्त्वनिर्देशदोषः । एषैव च प्रमेयशय्या श्रेयसी ॥।-Ibid., pp. 9t-92. 10 अपि च काव्यविशेष इति काव्यस्य विशिष्टत्वमनुपपन्नम्। काव्य-

APPENDIX I 255

It might be argued that there are nine different emotions (rasa), and the distinction implied might have reference to any particular emotion amongst them. But such a course of argument would lead to the exclusion of poetic compositions from the category of dhvani-kavya that do not suggest that particular sentiment.11 One might however contend that there are other varieties of suggested sense besides rasa-dbvani which is raised to the status of the soul of literary art-viz. vastu-dhvani and alamkāra-

मातस्य ध्वनिव्यपदेशविशेषत्वेन इष्टत्वात्, तस्य रसात्मकत्वोपगमात्। यत् स एवाह- "काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादिकवेः पुरा। क्रौश्द्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः शरोकत्वमागतः ॥"

न च तस्य विशेषः संभवति निरतिशयसुखाखादलक्षणत्वात्।

यदाहु :- "पाठ्यादथ ध्र वागानात् ततः संपूरिते रसे। तदाखादभरकाग्रो हृष्यत्यन्तर्मुखः क्षराम्॥ ततो निर्विषयस्यास्य स्वरूपावस्थितौ निजः । व्यज्यते ह्रादनिष्यन्दो येन तृप्यन्ति योगिनः ।" तदभावे चास्य काव्यतैव न स्यात्। किमुत विशेषः इति अनारम्भणीय- मेवैतत प्रेक्षावतां स्यात् वैफल्यात्-1bid., Pp. 93-95. II 'न च रसानां वैशिष्ट्य तदात्मनः काव्यस्य विशिष्टत्वमिति युक्नं वक्कुमव्याप्तेः। एवं हि प्रतिनियतरसात्मन एव तस्य ध्वनित्व स्यात्, नान्यस्यान्यरसात्मनः, वैशिष्ट्याभावात्। इष्यते च तत्ापीत्यव्याप्ति- लक्षणदोषः'-Ibid., P. 98.

256 THE DHVANYALOKA OF ANANDAVARDHANA

dhvanì. Thus, when rasa-dbvani would be characterised by the suggested vastu and alamkara severally or jointly, then and then only would it be regarded as a specimen of dhvani-kavya. But this defence, too, would be of no avail, for when a piece of poem manifests exclusively a particular emotion without suggesting either vastu or alamkara, the designation of dhvani would not be applicable -a ridiculous position, which is very hard to accept.12 Consequently, the qualifying word visesa is indefensible. Mahimabhatta, following Bhațțanāyaka, severely criticises the dual ending in vyanktab as also the use of the indeclinable va signifying option.13 Besides, in Mahimabhatta's opinion the function of suggestion (vyanjana-vyapara) is logically absurd and easily replaceable by inference.

12 'न च रसात्मनः काव्यस्य वस्तुमातादिभिर्विशेषः शक्य आधातुम्, तेषां विभावादिरूपतया रसाभिव्यक्किहेतुत्वोपगमात्। न च व्यञ्ञकानां वैचित्ये व्यक्गयस्य विशेषोऽ्ंभ्युपगतु युक्कः शावलेयादीनामिव गोत्वस्य। ततोऽस्य विशिष्टतोपगमे वा यत्र तयोरुमयोरेककस्य वा व्यक्यता तत्रव ध्वनिव्यपदेशः स्यात् न तु केवलरसात्मनि काव्ये वैशिष्टयाभावात्' -Ibid., p. 99. 13 See our notes on Dhvanyaloka, I. 13 for Bhatta- nayaka's criticism and Abhinavagupta's refutation thereof.

APPENDIX I 257

And lastly, the specific mention of the nominative- suribbib, of the participial form kathitab, is needless and consequently unjustifiable. Thus, summing up, Anandavardhana has committed in the definition ten glaring mistakes. Needless to point out that if other subsidiary definitions are put to this critical test, numerous defects would be easily detectable- observes Mahimabhatta.14 Mahimabhatta himself proposes a fresh definition of the so-called dhvani-kavya, based upon a critical emendation of Anandavardhana's definition, in consonance with his theory of Inference. As he concludes- "तदेवं लक्षणादोषव्युदासेन परिशुद्धो ध्वनिलक्षणावाक्यस्यायमर्थोऽव- तिष्ठते- 'वाच्यस्तदनुमितो वा यतार्थोऽर्थान्तरं प्रकाशयति। सम्बन्धतः कुतश्चित् स काव्यानुमितिरित्युक्का ।' एतच्च अनुमानस्येव लक्षणं नान्यस्य। यदुक्कम्-'त्रिरुपाल्लिज्ञात् परार्थोनुमानम्' इति। केवलं संज्ञाभेदः॥"

14 'अर्थस्य विशिष्टत्व' शब्दः सविशेषणास्तदः पुंस्त्वम् । द्विवचन-वाशब्दी व्यक्तिर्ध्वनिर्नाम काव्यवेशिष्ट्यम्।। वचनं च कथनकर्तः कथिता ध्वनिलक्मणीति दश दोषाः । ये त्वन्ये तद्गेदप्रभेदलक्षणागता न ते गणिताः ॥' -Ibid., p. 104.

17

2 Suggestion versus Inference in Sanskrit Aesthetics1 It is a great pity that Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka has not received that amount of recognition and praise which it is really entitled to. A parallel and comparative study of Anandavardhana's Dbvanyaloka (with the gloss of Abhinavagupta) and Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka would greatly enhance the clear understanding of their respective positions, by showing the weakness and strength in the views of either, and would thus enable us to appraise their proper worth. Rūyyaka, the reputed author of Alamkara-sarvasva and the scholiast of Mahimabhatta's tract, had affiliated himself to the Dhvani school and was the most unsympathetic of the critics of the theoty of Inference advanced by Mahimabhatta. At his hands the theory of Dhvani, which, in spite of the remarkable exposition of Abhinavagupta, had some points unexplained that might give rise to ambiguities, was given a new orientation. By confuting the adverse criticisms of Mahimabhatta, the strongest opponent of the Dhvani theory, he served the cause of his school in a manner which no other theorist could have achieved and by so doing placed the Dhvani theory in an unassailable position.

I Vide Indian Culture Vol. XIII. No. I.

APPENDIX I 259

Mahimabhatta says that there is only one function of words-viz. denotation (abhidba), and to posit two other additional functions-viz. Indication (laksana) and Sugges- tion (vyañjana), is absolutely unwarranted.2 According to him the sense conveyed by a sentence (vakyārtha) is reached through Inference (anumana). In this respect, Mahimabhatta seems to have been a follower of the Vaisesika theorists who admitted only two instruments of knowledge (pramana)-viz. Perception and Inference, and included verbal testimony (sabda-pramāna) of the Naiyāyikas under the latter. Thus, according to these philosophers, from the sentence 'che cow exists' we infer the existence (sadbya) of the cow (paksa).3 While explain- ing the third variety of suggestion, Mahimabhatta, cites as an instance the case of conceptual knowledge as derived from the utterance of such words as 'cow', 'horse' etc. Here the utterance of these words helps to bring forth into our mind the corresponding images which were already existent there in a state of dormancy merely because the

2 sabdasyaikābhidhā saktir arthasyaikaiva lingatā/ na vyanjakatvam anayoh samastītyupapāditam/ / Compare: sabdopamānayor naiva prthak prāmānyam isyate/ anumānagatārthatvād iti vaiśesikam matam/ / -Kārikāvalī § 140-141.

260 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

respective images were known in previous cases to be connected with the corresponding concepts, just as the sight of smoke gives rise to the cognition of fire, since in our previous experiences they were represented as invariable concomitants.4 And, Mahimabhatta adds, these are pure cases of Inference, where we pass from the known to the unknown, and it is merely by courtesy that they are referred to as cases of suggestion.5 We must however, note one important point at the very outset. Though Mahimabhatta follows the Vaisesika atomists in holding the duality of pramanas, and denies Verbal Testimony any separate claim to recognition, still he is not quite in line with the latter inasmuch as in the case of simple cognitions derived from such isolated concepts as 'cow', 'horse' etc. he does

4 Compare: tasyaivānubhūtapūrvasya samskārātma- nā'ntarviparivartinah kutaścit avyabhicāriņo'rthāntarāt tat- pratipādakād vā samskāraprabodhanamātram trtīyā, yathā dhūmād agneh, yathā cālekhyapustakapratibimbānukara- ņādibhyah, sabdācca gavādeķ/-V yaktiviveka, p. 78. 5 trtīyasyāstu yallaksaņam tad anumānasyaiva sam- gacchate na vyaktieh/yaduktam-'trirūpāllingād yadanu- meye jnānam tadanumānam'-iti/ taccānumānam eva/na hi arthad arthantarapratītir anumanam antarenarthantaram upapadyate/ upamānādīnām ca tatraivāntarbhāvāt/ -Op. cit., p. 78.

APPENDIX I 261

not admit inference, but recognises abbidba (denotation). The apparent incongruency of this position with what has been said before can be met by holding that Mahimabhatta introduced this much modification into the theory of the Atomists, on the ground that in case of such simple con- cepts as 'cow' etc., the usual paraphernalia of Inference are lacking, since an Inference requires at least three factors-viz. paksa (minor term), sādbya (probandum), and hetw (probans).6 But in the case of judgments like 'the cow exists' (gaus tisthati), the resultant cognition is inferential, since every judgment has for its basis the subject-predicate relation which constitutes the conditio sine qua non of Inference. Now, it might be contended that in every case of Inference the 'Probans' (betu) must be stated, and there must be the invariable concomitance (vyapti) between the Probans and the Probandum. But us- ually in an ordinary sentence, and the more so in an artistic compostion like a verse, the 'Probans' is rarely expressed. So how can we prove the inferential character of the cognitions arising from judgments like 'the cow exists' ? To meet

6 tatra padasyārtho vācya eva nānumeyah, tasya niramsatvāt, sādhyasādhanabhāvābhavataḥ/-Op. cit., P. 40. On this point we might refer to Srīdhara's Nyaya- kandali. Cp .- "tāvadhi sabdo nārtham pratipādayati yāvad ayam asyāvyabhicārītyevam nāvagamyate, jñāte

[262 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

[ this contingency Mahimabhatta states that the probandum in the resultant cognition might be twofold-viz. its existence might be well known to readers or hearers concerned and to adduce reasons for its establishment would then be of little practical importance ; or, it might be unknown, being a creation of the poet's fancy, when, however, it is but quite in the fitness of things that the reason must be expressly- stated in its support. And having thus shown that Denotation (abhidha) is the only function of words which can be admitted with any cogency of reason, and having established the Inferential character of our complex cognitions generated by judgments based on the subject-predicate relation, Mahimabhatta proceeds to state that the self-same Inference has to be resorted to for the cognition of what the Dhvani-theorists would fain call the suggested sense (vyangyartha), instead of positing a

tvavyabhicāre pratipādayan dhūma iva lingam syāt/atrāha kaścit-anumāne sādhyadharmaviśisto dharmī pratīyate/ śabdād arthānumāne ko dharmī? na tāvad arthah/tasya tadānīm apratīyamānatvāt/ 'sabdo dharmī'-ti cet, kimasya sādhyam? arthavattvam cet-na, parvatāder iva vahnyādinā sabdasyārthena saha samyoga-samavāyādilaksanah kaścit sambandho nirūpyate yenāyam arthaviśistah sādhanīyah/ so'rthapratītyuttrakālīno nārthapratipādanāt pūrvam sambhavati/-NK., Viz S.S. Edn., p. 214.

APPENDIX I 263 altogether novel function styled suggestion or vyanjana to that end. The reasons are plain. Whereas in cases of suggestion the thing suggested and that which suggests must be given to our consciousness simultaneously, in inference there is an appreciable sequence between the two cognitions- e.g. of smoke and of fire. And as you Dhvani-theorists, too, cannot deny this sequence between the cognition of what you call vacyartha (which according to Mahimabhatta, as has been already shown above, is inferential) and that of vyangyārtba, you have no other way but to submit to our criticisms and adopt the position which we are striving to defend, says Mahimabhatta. What you can, at most, claim is that though there cannot be any suggestion between what you call vacyartha and vyangyartba in the primary sense of the term, it might, however, be applied in a secondary sense, -just as the term 'cow' is secondarily used to denote a 'fool', and the ultimate reason for falling back on such a secondary use might be to communicate the 'transcendental charm' which is experienced as a result of the cognition of the suggested sense (according to Dhvani-theorists) .?

7 yathā ca vākyārthavisaye sādhya-sādhanabhāve sādhyasādhanapratītyoh sulaksah kramabhāvah tathā vastu- mātrād aunumeyavişaye'pyavagantavyah/ kevalam rasā- dişu anumeyeşu ayam asamlakşyakrame gamyagamaka- bhāvah iti sahabhāvabhrāntimātrakțtah/ tatra anyeșām

264 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

But though Rasa might be thus secondarily referred to as vyangya, still in the case of vastu and alamkāra no cogent reason can be found for such usage since no one ever, even through illusion, experiences the simultaneity in the cognitions of vacyartba and the so-called vyangyārtha in these two varieties. Mahimabhatta, then, proceeds to elucidate his point further by making a classification of the different varieties of 'manifestation' (abbivyakti). Now, the thing mani- fested might be already existent, or it might be previously non est, being subsequently brought into existence by the manifester. The first variety of manifestation might, on its part, be again classified into three distinct categories -viz. (a) an effect becomes manifest, though it was previously existent in the cause in an unmanifest state of energy, according to the Samkhya realists, as for example 'curd' in the 'milk' or 'oil' in the 'sesamum-seeds';8 (b) the

vyangya-vyañjakabhāvābhyupagamah, tannibandhanaś ca dhvanivyapadeśah/ sa tu tatra aupacārika eva prayukto na mukhyaḥ tasya vaksyamāņanayena bādhitatvāt/ upa- cārasya tu prayojanam sacetanacamatkāritvam nāma/ taddhi mukhye citrapustakādau vyaktivișaye paridrstam eva/-Op. cit., p. 63. 8 The Samkhya philosophers hold the previous existence of the effect in its causal stuff on grounds which

APPENDIX I 265

thing brought into light might, again, have its own entitative existence per se, but due to some impediment it might not have been cognised, just as a jar, though already there, cannot be cognised till the light of the lamp reveals it by removing the screen of darkness that prevented it from being perceived; (c) and lastly, it might be an ideal image which, though it lay in our mind un-cognised, might become the object of cognition as a result of the perception of some other object having invariable con- comitance with the former-just as the perception of smoke generates the idea of fire which was already existent as a mental impression. The second kind of manifestation, however, has no subdivision. As an instance of this last variety, Mahimabhatta cites the case of the manifesta- tion of the rain-bow by the sun's rays where the. latter manifests the former which had no previous existence as a separate entity.9

have been summed up in the following verse of Iśvarakrsna's Sāmkbya-saptati : "asadakāraņād upādānagrahaņāt sarvasam- bhavābhāvāt/saktasya. sakyakaraņāt kāraņabhāvācca sat kāryam / /"-which has been cited in the Sarvadarsana- samgraha. 9 Cf. sato'sata eva vārthasya prakāśamānasya sambandha-smaraņānaveksiņā prakāśakena sahaiva prakāśa- vişayatāpattir abhivyaktir iti tallaksaņam ācakșate/ tatra

266 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Having thus reviewed the nature of manifestation in all its various types, Mahimabhatta proceeds to examine the definition of suggestion as furnished by Anandavardhana and his followers in the light of the foregoing discussion. Anandavardhana, in defining Dhvani, states that where the sense conveyed by denotation (abbidha) serves to bring to light another sense 'which has no direct or necessary connection with it' by making itself subservient to the latter, it is called Dhvani. Mahimabhatta demurs that the first two types of manifestation cannot hold good in the case of the denotational sense for the alleged suggested sense which is manifested by the former can neither be an object of sense-perception as is the case with curd or oil, nor can it be cognised simultaneously with the former

sato'bhivyaktis trividhā, tasya traividhyāt/, tacra kāraņātmaņi kāryasya śaktyātmanāvasthānāt tirobhūtasya indriyagocaratyāpattilakșaņa āvirbhāva ekā/ yathā- kşīrādyavasthāyām dedhyādeh/ tathāvasthāna'nupagame tu saiva utpattirityucyate kaiścit/, tasyaivāvirbhūtasya kutaś- cit pratibandhāt aprakāśamānasya prakāśakena upasarjanī- kṛtātmanā sahaiva prakāo dvitīyā/ yathā-pradīpādinā ghatadeh/ taduktam-"svajnanenanyadhīhetuh siddhe'rthe vyańjako matah/yathā dīpo'nyathābhāve ko viśeșo'sya kārakāt/ /"iti/Dhvanikāreņāpyuktam-"svarūpam prakā- sayanneva parārthāvabhāsano vyanjaka ityucyate/yathā-

APPENDIX I 267

in the same way as the cognition of the jar sychronises with that of the lamp. If it be contended that the third type of manifestation, as between smoke and fire, is on a par with the case in point, Mahimabhatta would assent to it, but would further add that this is not a case of manifestation but merely an instance of Inference proper. No one would dare gainsay the fact that fire is inferred from smoke and not manifested in the sense the jar is manifested by the lamp.10 What constitutes the essence of suggestion or manifestation, as we might call it, is that the thing suggested and the instrument of suggestion must be cognised together. And as this very essential characteristic is lacking in the case of Dhvani, it is nothing but an empty dogmatism on the part of the Dhvani-theorists to

pradīpo ghațāde"-iti/ tasyaivānubhūtapūrvasya samskār- ātmanā'ntarviparivartinah kutaścit avyabhicāriņo'rthāntarāt tatpratipādakād vā samskāraprabodhamātram trtīyā/yathā- dhūmād agneḥ/ yathā cālekhyapustakapratibimbānukaraņā- dibhyah, śabdācca gavādeh/, asatastu ckaprakāraiva, tasya prakārāntarāsambhavāt/ yathā-arkālokādinā indracāpādeh/ -Op. cit., pp. 76-78. 10 na caitallaksanam vācye samgacchate/tathā hi- sato'bhivyaktir ādyayor arthayor laksaņam/ na tat pratīyamā- neşu ekam api samsprastum kşamah tasya dadhyāder iva indriyavișayatāpattiprasangāt, ghațāder iva vacyartha-

263 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

to be persistent in their view. Now, Dhvani theorists might point out that though theymight admit the justice of this criticism in the case of suggestion of vastu and alamkāra, still in the case of rasa their position remains untouched, as there is no sequence perceptible between the cognition of vibhava's, anubbava's and sancaribbava's on the one hand and that of rasa on the other. Mahimabhatta's reply to this contention is the same as above. He states that mere non-perception is not a sufficient proof of the fact that there is no real sequence between the two cognitions for as vibhava's etc. are causes of the final cognition of the senti- ment which is the effect it would be a violation of the law of causality if there were no real sequence between them.11

sahabhāvena idantāpratīter asambhavāt/na ca svarūpā- samsparśi lakanam bhavati/ tțtīyasyāstu yallaksaņam tadanu- mānasyaiva samgacchate, na vyakteh/yaduktam- "trirūpāllingāt yad anumeye jnanam tad anumānam-"iti/ taccānumanam eva/arthad arthantarapratitir anumānam nāntareņā'rthāntaram upapadyate/ upamānādīnām ca tatrai- vāntarbhāvāt/-Op. cit.,p. 18. Also-“na hi vācyādarthān- tarapratītir abinābhāva-sambandha-smaraņam antareņaiva sambhavati, sarvasyāpi tatpratītiprasangāt/ nāpi sahabhāvena, dhūmāgnipratītyoriva tatpratītyorpi kramabhavasyaiva samvedanād-ityasambhavo lakşanadosah/-Ibid., p. 79. II na ca rasādisvapi vibhāvādiprakāśanasahabhāvena prakāśanam upapadyate/yatastair eva kāranādibhiļ kțtrimair

APPENDIX I 269

It is merely through illusion that we experience the two cognitions to be synchronous, inasmuch as one closely follows on the heels of the other. It will not, pethaps, be out of place here to deal with the nature of the suggestion of rasa, for later writers on poetics have been much occupied with this topic. Ānanda- vardhana states that the sequence between the cognitions of vibhava's etc. and the final relish is not observable and as such rasa is spoken of as asamlaksyakrama-vyangya. But Abhinavagupta in his scholium supplements the statement of Anandavardhana by observing that the latter's view is not to be taken literally. For when he says that rasa is a-krama, it is not his intention to rule out rasa from the other category of the vyangya sense classed as samlaksya- krama, where the sequence between the cognitions of vacya and vyangya sense is obvious, What he secks to imply is that rasa's, bhava's etc. alone can be subsumed under the division known as a-krama, and not vastu and

vibhāvādyabhidhānair asanta eva ratyādayah pratibimbakalpāḥ sthāyibhāvavyapadesabhajah kavibhih pratipattrpratītipatham upanīyamānā hrdayasamvādād āsvādyatvam upanayantaḥ santo rasā ityucyante/na ca kāraņādibhih kāryādaya iva pratibimbakalpāḥ sahaiva prakāśitum utsahante kārya- kāraņa-bhāvāvasāyasyaiva avasādaprasangāt/-Op. cit., pp. 79-80.

270 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

alamkara which must always be classed under the second head, and as such there can be no bar to rasa, bhava etc. being elassed under the latter.12 That Abhinavagupta was merely unfolding the implications of Dhvanikara's state- ment becomes apparent when we turn to the verse "evamvādini devarsau-" (Kumara° VI. 84), which the latter cites as an instance of bhava-dhvani. Here the 'maidenly blush' (lajja) of Parvatī is suggested by the act of counting the lotus-petals with her face turned downward. Ananda-vardhana observes that here the mere act of counting petals cannot suggest 'maidenly blush', till other contex tual factors have been taken into account. When we have noted that the sage Narada came to her parent and spoke to him of Siva's readiness to own her as his wife, then and then only can Parvati's behaviour as described in the above verse give rise to the idea of her bashfulness.13

12 Cf. yo rasādir arthah sa evākramo dhvaner ātmā na tu akrama eva saḥ/kramatvam api hi tasya kadācid bhavati/cadā cārthasaktyudbhavānusvānarūpabhedatā-iti vaksyate/-Abhinavagupta's Locana on Dhvanyaloka, II. 3. 13 atra hi lilakamalapattragananam upasarjanī- krtasvarūpam sabdavyāpāram vinaivārthāntaram vyabhicāri- bhāvalaksaņam prakāsayati/na cāyam alaksyakramavy- angyasyaiva dhvaner vişayah/ yato yatra sāksācchabda-

APPENDIX I 271

Thus, when intervening factors like the consideration of the context etc. deter the final realisation, rasa, bhava etc. too would have to be ranked with vastu and alamkara. Jagannatha, the author of Rasagangadbara has anticipated a probable objection to this view of including rasa, bhāva, etc. under both the categories, for then we should have eighteen different varieties of samlaksyakrama-dhvani instead of twelve only, since parity of reasoning demands that rasa, too, would have its six-fold mode of suggestion beside the already recognised twelve varieties of suggestion

niveditebhyo vibhānubhāvavyabhicāribhyo rasādīnām

pratītih, sa tasya kevalasya mārgahj -Dhvanyāloka. Compare °Locana on it : etaduktam bhavati-yadyapi rasabhāvādir artho dhvanyamāna eva na vācyaḥ kadācit api, tathāpi na sarvo'laksyakramasya vişayah/ yatra hi vibhavanubhāvebhyah sthāyigatebhyah vyabhicārigatebhyaś ca pūrņebhyo jhațityeva vyaktis tatrāstu alaksyakramah/ iha padmadala-gaņanam adhomukhatvam cānyathāpi kumārīņām sambhavyate iti jhațiti na lajjāyām viśramayati hrdayam, api tu prāgvrttatapaścaryādivrttāntānusmaraņena tatra prati- pattim karotī'ti kramavyangyataiva/ rasastu atrāpi dūrata eva vyabhicārisvarūpe paryālocyamāne bhātīti tadapeksayā laksyakramataiva, lajjāpeksayā tu tatra laksyakramatvam/ amum eva bhāvam evaśabdah kevalasabdaśca sūcayati /

-loc. cita

272 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

of vastu and alamkara.1 To meet this objection, Jagannatha states that Abhinavagupta, when he viewed rasa as a subdivision of the samlaksya-krama category, thought it needless to illustrate separately the six modes of sugges- tion on the analogy of vastu and alamkara, for when the final relish of rasa is impeded on account of an intervening sequence, it loses the inherent charm which constitutes its very quintessence and as such it should be then ranked with vastu-dhvani. In this way, the two apparently incompatible views of Abhinavagupta might be reconciled. But, how- soever ingenious this interpretation might appear, it ignores the verdict of our experience which in no way discriminates between the above two modes of rasa-dhvani. And Jagannatha, too, does not fail to note, perfunctorily

14 Cf. "syādetat/ yadyayam rasādiḥ samlaksya- kramasya vişayah syāt anuraņanabhedagaņanaprastāve- "arthasakti-mūlasya dvādaśa bhedā"-ity-Abhinavaguptoktiḥ, "tenāyam dvādaśātmakaḥ"-iti Mammațoktiś -ca na sam- gaccheta, vastvalamkārātmanā dvividhena vācyena svataḥ- sambhavitva-kavipraudhoktinispannatva - kavinibaddhavaktț- prauhoktinispannatvais tribhir upādhibhis traividhyam āpannena sadātmanā vastvalamkārayori 'a rasāder apyabhi- vyanjanād astādasatvaprasangāt/"-Rasagangādbara, p. 130 (NSP. Edn.).

APPENDIX I 273

chough, this inconsistency in his interpretation.15 Nāgoji- bhatta, however, would not subscribe to this view. He

contends that the cognition of rasa, bhave etc. always sychronises with that of vibhava's, anubbāva's and sancāri- bhava's. Whenever there is the totality of causes the effect must ensue. Now, the vibhava's etc. are the causes of the final cognition of rasa, and as such there can be no relish of rasa till all the elements constituting the totality of causes have become the objects of our cognition. In the verse cited above, there is, admittedly, a perceptible sequenee between the cognition of the vacya sense and that of the context (which is also one of the constituents forming the totality); but no sooner the cognition of the context makes up this deficiency than the final cognition of rasa ensues with all its attendant charm. Thus there might be a sequence between the cognition of the vacya sense and that of vibbava's and other causal factors, but between the latter and the final relish of rasa there

15 atrocyate-prakațair vibhāvānubhāva-vyabhicāti- bhir alaksyakramatayiva vyajyamāno ratyādih sthayibhāvo rasībhavati, na samlaksyakramatayā/ rasībhāvo hi nāma jhagiti jāyamānālaukika-camatkāravişayasthāyitvam/ sam- lakşyakramatayā vyajyamānasya ratyādes tu vastumātrataiva, na rasāditvam iti tesām āśayasya varņanena na taduktīnām virodhah/ u papattistu arthe'smin vicāraņīyā/-Ibid., p. 131. 18

274 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

cannot be any observable sequence that might act as a hindrance.16 Let us now resume the main thread of our discussion. We have seen how Mahimabhatta has refuted the doctrine of suggestion put forward by the Dhvani theorists basing his arguments on the very statements of his opponents. But it now remains to be seen how Rūyyaka, the commen- tator of Vyaktiviveka succeeds in reinstating the theory of Dhvani by exposing the voidness of Mahimabhatta's criticisms. Mahimabhatta quotes from the Dhvanyaloka a passage to prove his point, where Anandavardhana appears to be playing his opponent's game, and he does not fail to make capital out of it. In that passage Ananda- vardhana states that as there is causality between the cognition of vibbava's etc. on the one hand and the final cognition on the other, there must be real sequence, and on account of this causal connection (avinabhava) the cognition Nāgojībhatta, the scholiast of Rasagangādhara comments on the last sentence of the extract as follows : "vibhāva- dipratīteh rasapratīteś ca vidyamānasya sūksma-kālāntaratva- rūpasya kramasya sabrdayenākalane tasya vigalitavedyā- ntaratvānāpattya rasatvabhangāpattih/vigalitavedyāntaratvam ca sakalasahrdayānubhavąsāksikam iti tavāpi sammatam iti tadupapttir bodhyā/" 16 navyāstu-vaktr-vaisistya-prakarnādi-jnāna-sahita- syaiva vyanjakatvāt tatsahitavibhāvādijnānottaram jāyamāna-

APPENDIX ! 275

of the one gives rise to that of the other .. 17 Mahima- bhatta takes his cue from the term avinabbāva, which was used by Anandavardhana in a sense quite different from what Mahimabhatta attaches to it. In Mahimabhatta's view avinabbava had a purely technical sense, denoting 'invariable concomitance' (avyabhicāra) that constitutes the keystone of valid Inference. But Rūyyaka observes that this is merely a dodge to avoid the real issue. It is not sane to ascribe to others views which they do not really profess.18 Mahimabhatta's lengthy dissertation to

rasapratīter vibhāvādijnānāpeksayā vidyamānakramālaksaņ- ena ca alaksyakramatvam/ tacca prakaraņādijnānavilambena vibhāvādijnānavilambe'pi pūrvodāharane'ksatam eva/ na hi vibhāvādijnānasya tajjanakasya sa kramam ādāya alaksya- kramatvam, api tu tajjanyasya/ etadevābhipretya “artha- saktimūlasya dvādasa bhedāh"-ity-Abhinavaguptoktih, yat- kincidvācyārthāpeksayā kramo'pi grhyate ityabhipretya laksyakramoktir yathākathancit neyā/-Ibid. p. 131. 17 na hi vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicāriņa eva rasā iti kasyacit avagamaḥ/ ata eva vibbāvādipratītyavinābhāvinī rasādīnām pratītir-iti tatpratītyoh kāryakāraņabhāvena avasthānāt kramo' vaśyambhāvī/ sa tu lāghavānna laksyate ityalaksyakramā eva santo vyangyā rąsādaya ityuktam/- Dhvanyāloka. 18 atra Dhvanikrto nānumānāngam avinābhāvo'-

276 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ÃNANDAVARDHANA

disprove the function of suggestion which, according to the the Dhvani theorists, subsists between the primary and the implied sense is equally untenable and cannot stand critical test. The supporters of Dhvani cite the instance of the jar and the lamp (ghata-pradipa-drstanta) to illustrate the way in which the suggested sense is cognised. Mahimabhatta, too, admits that the jar and the lamp are presented to our con- sciousness together,19 but he would in no way concede the simultaneous cognition of the vacya and the vyangya sense, as is clearly brought out in course of his criticism. But Rūyyaka, with rare ingenuity, succeeds in controverting the contentions of Mahimabhatta by bringing into surface the true implications intended to be conveyed by the bhipretah/ kintu nimittatvamātram yad anumāne'pi sam- bhavati/ yathā-'abhidheyavinābhūtapratītir laksaņocyate/' anumānavādinastu anenaiva sabda-cchalena utthānam/- Op. cit., p. 62. Śabda-cchala or vak-chala which can be rendered as 'perversion of the intended senses of words' is a mode of fallacious argument and it has been defined by Gautama in his Nyāya-sūtra, I. 2. 12 : 'avisesābbibite'- rthe vaktur abhiprāyad arthāntara -- kalpanā vakschalam'. 19 Compare: 'svajnānenānyadhīhetuḥ 7 siddhe'rthe vyanjako mataḥ/ yathā dīpo' nyathābhāve ko viśeso'sya kārakāt/ /' -cited by Mahimabhatta.

APPENDIX I 277

Dhvani theorists in referring to the case of the jar and the lamp as a parallel instance. He argues that there is no denying the fact that at the moment the vibbava's etc. are cognised the final realisation of rasa cannot ensue, for the effect must follow the cause in point of time. And the Dhvani theorists were not such fools as to be blind to such a glaring inconsistency in their position. If they contend that the vacya and the vyangya senses are cognised together they mean to imply thereby, that when the final realisation of the suggested sense ensues the cognition of the primary sense is not sublated, just as the cognition of the lamp lingers even when the cognition of the jar is generated, and as such there is no inconsistency in the view of the Dhvani theorists when they posit that the cognitions of vibhava's etc. and rasa are synchronous. Rūyyaka quotes an extract from Anandavardhana to show that Mahima- bhatta missed this vital issue, and was buffeting with the winds.20 The anumana-theorists might again turn round

20 tatra vyaktivādino vyańgyatvābhyupagame'yam abhiprayah-iha vibhāvādi-svabhāvanimittapratipattikāle nimittino rasādeh pratipattir nāsti, nimittino nimittamukha- prekşitvena; tato vyangyatvam nopapadyate/ gamyatvam punar nirbādham eveti tāvad bhavato'numānavādinaḥ paramārthah/, na caitad asmābhir apahnūyate ghațapradī- pādau vyaktivisaye tathā darsanāt/kintu vyangyābhimate

278 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

and raise a protest against the proposed solution. We have cases where negation in the primary sense suggests some positive injunction or vice versa. For example, in the verse "bhrama dharmika-" the positive injunction implies negation. How can we hold that in such cases too the realisation of the suggested sense in no wise sublates the cognition of the primary sense, inasmuch as negation and predication being mutually opposed and exclu- sive of each other cannot become the objects of cognition at one and the same moment? Rūyyaka would not yield his position even in such cases. According to him nothing can prevent predication and negation being cognised together at one sweep, in the same way as we cognise the two very dissimilar Aavours of jasmine and onion

rasādau yadā pratipattir jāyate, tadā vyañjakasya vibhā- vādch pratipattir na nivarttate tatsahabhāvena rasādeḥ pratīteh/alaksyakramavyangyatvena . tu vāstavakramā- bhyupagamo vyanjakābhimatavibhāvādipratītyupakramā- bhiprāyena/vyanjakapratītikāle hi niyamena vyangya- pratītir iti nāsmākam āśayah/ vyangyapratītikāle tu niyamena vyanjakapratītir bhavatyeva ityāsayena akramatvam vyaktiś ca samarthitā/tathā coktam-"na hi vyangye pratīyamāne vācyabuddhir dūrībhavati vācyāvinābhāvena tasya prakāsanād"-ityādi, na tu viparyayenoktam-"na hi vācye pratīyamāne vyangyabuddhir dūtībhavatī-"ti .... tena nāsti rasādīnām vyangyatve vipratipattih/

APPENDIX I 279

mingled together, though each, in its turn, strives to subdue the other.21 It is, however, strange that Mahimabhatta did not perceive the beam in his own eye while engaged in pointing out the defects in his opponent's views. Every case of suggestion cannot be fitted into the scheme of a regular syllogism, as he would have it, and therein lies the inherent weakness of his position. Rūyyaka, in his Alamkara-sarvasva, an independent treatise on Poetics, referred to this fallacy while commenting on Mahima- bhatta's theory of Inference. A reason to be valid must stand either in the relation of identity (tādatmya) or of causality (tadutpatti) with the probandum (according to the

21 nanu avirodhivyangyapratītikāle vācyasya kathancit pratītir astu/'bhama dhammia-' ityādau tu virodhivyangya- pratītikāle vācyasya katham pratītiḥ? naișa doșaḥ/tatrāpi prakāśakatayā/(yatra tu ?) tato'satyenāpi pratītisadbhāvāt vyangyatvam nāsamanjasam kincit/ yatah kavyartho gopyamānatvena pratipattrmātrasyāpratibhātah sahrdaya- syaiva bhāsate/ jātīpalāndu-nyāyena nikumbitasya (?)

prakațanāt (iti) vyaktivācoyuktir eva laukiki samīcīneti tatra vyañjakatvam eva sādhīyaḥ iti/ The obscure maxim referred by Rūyyaka in the above passage is not met with elsewhere, nor has it been noticed by Col. G.A. Jacob in his Laukika-nyāyānjali.

280 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Buddhists), and neither of these two relations can be shown to be subsisting in a case of suggestion, which completely annuls the validity of the theory of Inference.22 In this brief account, we have tried to make clear the respective positions of these two rival schools by referring only to the salient features in their theories, and have deliberately eschewed all technical and scholastic side-issues that would have made our study unnecessarily lengthy.

22 Cf, "yattu Vyaktivivekakāro vācyasya pratīyamānam prati lingitayā vyanjanasya anumānāntarbhāvam ākhyat tat vācyasya pratīyamānena saha tādātmya-tadutpattyabhāvād avicāritābhidhānam/"-Compare also Mammața's Kāvya- prakaśa, Ch. V towards the end.

APPENDIX II

Supplementary Notes Section.

§ 1. The following definition of karika as furnished by Bharata in his Natya-sastra may be noted in this conection: अल्पाभिधानेनार्थो यः समासेनोच्यते बुधैः। सूत्रतः साऽनुमन्तव्या(नुपठिता) कारिकार्थप्रदशिनी॥ -NŚ., VI. Abhinavagupta explains the verse as follows :- अथ कारिकां लक्षयति-अल्पाभिधानेनेति। अ्रनेनार्थस्य कारिकात्व' लक्षणारूपस्य दर्शयति। तद्वाचकस्य सूतस्य तत्संचिप्तार्थविवरणात्मकस्य श्लोकस्य । अ्रनेन लक्षणावाक्यं द्विधेति तात्पर्यम्। योऽर्थोऽल्पैः शब्दः समासेन बहुतरलच््यसंग्रहेणा सूत्र वाचक- माश्रित्योच्यते सोऽर्थः कारिका। झप्तिसाधकत्वात् तदर्थिनी कारिका। सूत्रतः सूतरोन। एतेन सूत्रमपि कारिका। तत्सूत्रमपेच्य या अनु पश्चात् पठिता श्लोकरूपा सापि कारिका। तथाहि-सूचना- त्मकत्वात् सृत्ाल्मब्धो योरऽर्थो लक्षणात्मकः स एव सम्यगितिश्रय्य( सम्यगतिश्रव्य)तया पर्णान्यनेनेति (वर्णनात्मनेति) वृत्तबन्धेनोच्यमानोSल्पैश्च शव्दैरनिरूप्य- माणोऽर्थस्य लक्षणीयस्य प्रकर्ष धर्म्यन्तराद् व्यवच्छेदं दर्शयन् धर्मः कारिका। क्रियतेऽनेन ज्ञप्तिरिति

282 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA कारिका। लक्षणामिति यावत्। तदर्थप्रकाशकत्वात् श्लोकोऽप्युपचारात् कारिका। एतदुक्कं भवति-उद्दिष्टस्य धर्म्यन्तरव्यवच्छेदकं लक्षणां वक्कव्यम्। तच्च पूर्वं सूत्र एा। ततोऽप्यकृताक्षेपो- त्तरप्रपश्चेन तद्विवरणामात्नरूपेणा सुखग्राह्येणा शोकेन। उभयोरपि हि लक्षणामेव प्रतिपाद्यम्। तदेव कारिकोच्यते। सृत्नश्लोकावुपचारादिति॥" - Abhinava-bhāratī, Vol. I., p. 264 (GOS. Edn. 1956), The verse "स्वेच्छाकेसरिण :- " has been cited by Kuntaka in his Vakrokti-jīvita to illustrate क्रियावैचित्र्य with the following observation : "अत् नखानां सकललोकप्रसिद्धच्छेदन- व्यापारव्यतिरेकि किमप्यपूर्वमेव प्रपन्नार्तिच्छेदनलक्षएं क्रियावैचित्र्यमुपनिबद्धम् । ...... "-Op. cit., Pp. 36-37 (Ed. Dr. S.K. De, 3rd Edn, 1961). For similar ideas the following verses may be cited as parallels : (a) सुखपरस्य हरेरुमयैः कृतं त्रिदिवमुद्धृतदानवकराटकम्। तव शररधुनानतपर्वभिः पुरुषकेसरिणाश्च पुरा नखैः ॥ - Abhijnana-sakuntalam, Act VII. (b) पाद: पायादुपेन्द्रस्य सर्वलोकोत्सवः स वः। व्याविद्धो नमुचिर्येन तनुताम्रनखेन खे। -Bhāsa's Dūta-vākya.

APPENDIX II 283

§ 2. 'काव्यस्यात्मा-' This is the आदिवाक्य of Dbvanyāloka. See Vakrokvi-jivita in this connection on the utility of आदिवाक्य- "एवं नमस्कृत्येदानीं वक्कव्यवस्तुविषयभूतान्यभिधाना- भिधेयप्रयोजनान्यासूत्रयति। वाचो विषयनैयत्यमुत्पादयितुमुच्यते। आदिवाक्येऽभिधानादि निर्मितेमीनसूत्रवत्॥। इत्यन्तरशलोकः ।"-Op. cit., p. 2. Consult also Abhinavagupta's remarks on Nātya- sāstra, Vol. I, p. 6. As regards the natute of the four anubandbas to be stated at the beginning of a treatise vide : ज्ञातार्थ ज्ञातसम्बन्धं श्रोतुं श्रोता प्रवर्त्तते। शास्त्रादो तेन वक्कव्यः सम्बन्धः सप्रयोजनः ॥ Compare: 'काव्यबन्धाः षटस्त्रिंशल्लक्तणान्विताः कर्त्तव्या इत्युक्कम्। तत् गुणोऽलंकारो रीतिर्वृत्तयश्चेति काव्येषु प्रसिद्धो मार्गः, लक्षणानि तु न प्रसिद्धानि'- Abbinava-bharatī on Natya-sastra, Chap. XVI., p. 294 (GOS. Edn.). § 9 Kārika 2 has been cited in the Vyakti- viveka as: 'अर्थः सहृदयश्लाध्यः काव्यामा यो व्यवस्थितः। ...... '-Op. cit., p. 82. But from Abhinavagupta's comments on the verse it is evident that the reading adopted by him was 'योऽर्थ :...... ' and not

284 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

'अर्थः ...... ' Cf. "योऽर्थः इति यदा अनुवदन् परेाप्येतत् तावदुपगतमिति दर्शयति। इत्यादिना तदम्युपगम एव द्वंयशत्वे सत्युपपद्यत इति दर्शयति। ... "-°Locana, loc. cit. § 13. The Sanskrit chāya of the gātha cited is as follows: 'भ्रम धार्मिक विश्वस्तः स शुनकोऽय मारितस्तेन। गोदानदीकूललतागहनवासिना हप्तसिंहेन ।' In Vyakti-viveka, Vimarśa III, where this gatba has been eited the reading ado- pted is 'भम धम्मिअ! वीसद्धो-', the Sanskrit rendering of which would be 'भ्रम धार्मिक वित्रव्ध :- ' instead of ०वीसत्थो in our text. Rūyyaka in his gloss on Kāvya-prakāsa, Chap. V, where this gātha has been quoted gives the Sanskrit rendering as- भ्रम घार्मिक विश्वस्तः स श्वाऽय मारितस्तेन। गोदावरीनदीकच्छकुडुङ्गवासिना दप्तसिंहेन॥ Consult Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya's notes on the different readings prevalent of this gātha in his edition of Rūyyaka's Kāvyaprakāsa-samketa, P. 43, fn. 24 (Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. II, Nos. 7-8). § 14. श्वश्ररत्न शैते अथवा निमज्जति अत्ाहं दिवसकं प्रलोकय। मा पथिक रात्रयन्ध शय्यायामावयोः शयिष्ठाः ॥ छाया।

APPENDIX II 285

Abhinavagupta, while commenting on this gatha, notes that the particle मह is an indeclinable and stands for Skt. आवयोः - and not for मम, as then the meaning intended to be conveyed would become apparent and as such the charm of the suggested sense would be lost. As he says : "मह इति निपातोऽनेकार्थवृत्तिरत्नावयो- रित्यर्थे नतु ममेति। एवं हि विशेषवचनमेव शङ्काकारि भवेदिति प्रच्छन्नाभ्युपगमो न स्यात्।"-°Locana. On the significance of the suffix- in the form दिअसत्रं (Skt. दिवसकम् ) he adds : ययपि भवान् मदनशरासारदीर्यमाराडृदय उपेत्ितु न युक्कः तथापि किं करोमि पापो दिवसकोऽय- मनुचितत्वात् कुत्सितोऽयमित्यर्थः। प्राकृते पुंनपुंसकयोर- नियम:।"-loc. cit. The suifix-क here has been added in the sense of कुत्सा accord- ing to Panini's rule : 'कुतूसिते' (V. 3. 74). Suggestiveness of तद्धित-sufixes like -क has been clearly pointed out in the vrtti on Dhvanyaloka, III. 16 : "कृत-कप्रयोगेषु प्राकृतेषु तद्धितविषये व्यञ्ञकत्वमावेद्यत एव। अवज्ञातिशये कः"-on which °Locana has the the following comments :- "कृतकेति । कग्रहणां तद्धितोपलक्षणार्थम्। कृत: कप्रत्ययप्रयोगो येषु काव्यवाक्येषु यथा जायाभीरुकाणमिति। ये

286 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

ह्यरसज्ञा धर्मपत्नीषु प्रेमपरतन्त्रास्तेभ्यः कोऽ़न्यो जगति कुत्सितः स्यादिति कप्रत्ययोSवज्ञातिशयद्योतकः ।" -Op. cit., P. 353 ( Benares Edn.). See Rūyyaka's comments on this gātba in Kāvya-prakāsa, Ullāsa III; also Udāba- raņacandrikā, p. 55 fn. (NSP. Edn.). Compare : 'अम्बा शेतेऽत व्ृद्धा-' for similar ideas, cited under Dhvanyaloka, II. 23. § 15. व्रज ममैवैकस्या भवन्तु निःश्वासरोदितव्यानि। मा तवापि तया विना दात्िरायहतस्य जनिषत॥ छाया।। The gatha is from Hāla's Sattasai, No. 944 (Supplement 7) in Weber's Edn. It occurs twice in the Vyakti-viveka with the v.l. 'वच्च मह व्विअ एकाए-' for 'वच्च मह विअर एक्केइ-'. Mahimabhatta has the following observation on the gatha : "अत् कयाचित् खरिडतयान्तर्ज्वलितेर्ष्याप्रकोपया सावहित्थ सोल्लुरठनं सप्ररायौचित्य' च यः प्रियं प्रति मेदो विहित- स्तत्न तस्यामेव भवान् निर्व्याजमनुरक्तहृदयो मयि तु कितव ! तव कृतकोपचारवचनरचनामात्मेतदिति नायकस्यान्यत्ानुरागातिशयः साध्यः।" -Op. cit., p. 407 ( Vimarśa III). For definitions of खरिडता नायिका and दच्तिरानायक vide Sabitya- darpana, III. 35 and 75 (NSP. Edn.).

APPENDIX II 287

§ 16. प्रार्थये, प्रसीद तावत् निवत्तख मुखशशिज्योत्स्नाविलुप्त- तमोनिवहे। अभिसारिकाणां विघ्न करोष्यन्यासामपि हताशे॥ छाया॥ Cited also in Vyakti-viveka, p. 408. The two particles दे and त are indeclinables used in Prakrit only. They have been explained by Abhinavagupta in his ·Locana as : 'दे इति निपातः प्रार्थनायाम्। आ्र इति तावच्छब्दार्थे।-on which Uttungo- daya notes : "दे आ इति निपातौ प्राकृतसिद्धौ।' -° Kaumudī, loc. cit. For a similar use of & compare Gaba-sattasai, V. 66 (NSP. Edn.). § 17. कस्य वा न भवति रोषो दृष्ट्रा प्रियायाः सत्रसामधरम्। सत्रमरपद्माघ्राणशीले वारितवामे सहस्वेदानीम् ॥ छाया। The Sanskrit tendering usually accepted for the expression सभमरपउमग्घाइणि is ·घ्रायिणि. But घ्राणशीले is also found in Rūcaka's °Samketa on Kavya-prakāsa, V and this rendering is followed by other commentators like Śrīdhara, Lauhitya Bhattagopāla etc. Rūyyka's explanation of the gatha in his °Samketa is closely reminiscent of Abhinavagupta's. Com- pare op. cit., p. 42.

288 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

§ 20. There is some amount of uncertainty as regards the genuineness of the reading

vrtti. This seems to go against the statement of Valmīki that it was the male क्रौश that was pierced to death by the fowler's arrow and not the female कौश्ची as implied in the vrtti-text. But Rāja- śekhara in his Kāvya-mīmāmsā echoes the statement of the Vrttikara when he says: "निषाद-निहृत-सहचरीकं क्रौश्चयुवानं करुण- क्रेङ्कारया गिरा कन्दन्तमुद्दीच्य शोकवान् श्रलोकमुज्जगाद" (GOS. Edn. p. 7). Mm. Kuppuswami Shastrin in his sub-commentary Upalocana interprets the vrtti in a somewhat tortuous way to reconcile it with the Rāmāyana verse. As he says :- "यथा हि वृत्तिग्रन्थे "निहत ... जनितः" इति पदस्यार्थ एवं वर्णनीय :- निहतः सहचरीविरहकातरः क्रौश्चः विभावः, आ्रक्रन्द- श्चानुभावः, ताम्यां जनितः-इति। एवं विवरणे "वियुक्का पतिना तेन क्रौश्चेन सहचारिणा" इति रामायणापद्यस्य सर्वथानुग्रहः स्यात् ; सहचरणाशीलता च सहचारिपदप्रत्ययार्थो वाल्मीकेरभिसंहितः सम्यगुद्धा- टितः सहचारिपदविवरणपरतया "सहचरीविरह- कातर-" इति पदं प्रयुक्तवता सहृदयचक्रवर्त्तिना ध्वनिकारेरा-इति च ज्ञातु शक्यते ॥"-He also

APPENDIX II 289

proposes the emendation 'निषाद-निहत- साहचरीकम् क्रौश्चयुवानम्' for Rajasekhara's 'निषाद0 ...... सहचरीकम्' neaning by निहृत- साहचरीक as ध्वस्तसाहचय. But all this seems to be unconvincing. That Ananda- vardhana meant by the expression 'निहृत- सहचरी ... जनितः' 'the killing of the female क्रौशी is further attested by his state- ment in Uddyota IV, there being a close paralle- lism between सीतात्यन्तवियोग and निहतसहचरी- विरह° See also MM. Kane's observation on the proposed interpretation of MM. Kuppuswami Shastrin : "The word in ध्व° is संनिहित and not निहृत ; besides the लोचन has 'सहचरीहनन'. Supposing that निहृत is the correct reading we expect सहचरीविरहकातरनिहतक्रौध, as he must have been कातर before he was shot unawares. Why should the क्ौध male be °विरहकातर ? Further, the verse is indicative of Rama's life. When सीता was carried away by रावणा, she was as if dead to him and it is राम that laments ( as भवभूति says अपि आ्रावा रोदिति about राम's condition). So क्रौश्वीहनन corresponds with सीतापहरण and कौश्चाकन्द 19

290 THE DHVANYÂLOKA OF ANANDAVARDHANA with Rama's lamentations. And the काव्यमीमांसा is quite clear."-Historyof Sanskrit Poetics, p. 349 (1951 Edn.). Had the Vrttikara some other recension of the Ramayana before him? For example, in the N-W. Recension of the Ramayana we find the follow- ing account regarding the slaying of the male Kraunca bird by a fowler :- "ततः स तमसातीरे विचरन्तमभीतवत्। ददर्श क्रौश्चयोस्तत मिथुनं चारुदर्शनम् ॥ तस्माच्च मिथुनादेकमागत्यानुपलच्तितः । जघान कश्चिद् धानुष्को निषादो मुनिसन्निधौ। तं शोणितपरीताङ्गं वेष्टमानं महीतले। दृष्टा क्रौश्ची रुरोदार्ता कृपरां खे परिभ्रमा ॥ तं तथा निहतं दृष्टा निषादेनारडजं वने। मुने: शिष्यसहायस्य कारुरायं समजायत॥ ततः करुणवेदित्वात् धर्मात्मा स द्विजोत्तमः । निशम्य करुणं कौश्चीं कन्दन्तीं प्रजगाविदम् ॥ मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः। यत् क्रौश्चमिथुनादेकमवधीः काममोहितम् ॥ -Bāla-kanda, II. 12-17 (Ramayana, North-Western Recension : Edited by Bhagavad Dutta, B.A., 1931, Lahore).

APPENDIX UI 291

§ 22. सर-श्रुत्यादिलक्तणमिव ........ असावर्थ :- For the explanation of such technical terms of Music as स्वर, श्रुति, प्राम, जाति etc. see Rao Sahib Prabhakar R. Bhandarkar's article entitled Contribution to the Study of Ancient Hindu Music in Indian Ant .- quary, 1912. "In music proper, desig- nated by the term gāndbarva, seven notes are recognised and named shadja, rishabba, gāndbāra, madbyama, panchama, dhaivata, and nisbāda (sometimes also called saptama or the seventh), and represented by the syllables sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, dha, and ni respectively. ... Viśvāvasu says that srutis are of two kinds, viz., (1) those on which the notes are located, and (2) those which intervene between two notes ...... Some mention sixty-six śrutis, i.e. twenty- two for each of the three octaves, and have even gone to the extent of giving names to every one of these, others con- tenting themselves with naming only the twenty-two. In Bh. (Nātyasāstra) the srutis have not been designated by proper names at all. Some maintain that the number of srutis is infinite, which

290 THE DHVANYÂLOKA OF ANANDAVARDHANA

with Rama's lamentations. And the काव्यमीमांसा is quite clear."-History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 349 (1951 Edn.). Had the Vrttikara some other recension of the Rāmayana before him? For example, in the N-W. Recension of the Ramayana we find the follow- ing account regarding the slaying of the male Kraunca bird by a fowler :- "ततः स तमसातीरे विचरन्तमभीतवत्। ददर्श क्ौश्चयोस्तत्र मिथुनं चारुदर्शनम् ॥ तस्माच्च मिथुनादेकमागत्यानुपलच्ितः । जघान कश्चिद् धानुष्को निषादो मुनिसन्निधौ॥ तं शोणितपरीताङ्गं वेष्टमानं महीतले। दृष्टा क्रौश्ी रुरोदार्ता कृपरां खे परिभ्रमा ॥ तं तथा निहतं दृष्टा निषादेनारडजं वने। मुने: शिष्यसहायस्य कारुरायं समजायत ॥ ततः करुणावेदित्वात् धर्मात्मा स द्विजोत्तमः । निशम्य करुरं क्रौथ्चीं क्रन्दन्तीं प्रजगाविदम् ॥ मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः। यत् क्रौश्चमिथुनादेकमवधीः काममोहितम् ॥ -Bāla-kanda, II. 12-17 (Ramayana, North-Western Recension : Edited by Bhagavad Dutta, B.A., 1931, Lahore).

APPENDIX U 291

§ 22. सर-श्रत्यादिलक्षणामिव ........ असावर्थ :- For the explanation of such technical terms of Music as खर, श्रुति, ग्राम, जाति etc. see Rao Sahib Prabhakar R. Bhandarkar's article entitled Contribution to the Study of Ancient Hindu Music in Indian Ant .- quary, 1912. "In music proper, desig- nated by the term gāndharva, seven notes are recognised and named shadja, rishabba, gāndbāra, madbyama, pañchama, dhaivata, and nisbāda (sometimes also called saptama or the seventh), and represented by the syllables sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, dha, and ni respectively. ... Viśvāvasu says that śrutis are of two kinds, viz., (1) those on which the notes are located, and (2) those which intervene between two notes ...... Some mention sixty-six śrutis, i.e. twenty- two for each of the three octaves, and have even gone to the extent of giving names to every one of these, others con- tenting themselves with naming only the twenty-two. In Bh. (Nātyasāstra) the śrutis have not been designated by proper names at all. Some maintain that the number of śrutis is infinite, which

292 THE DHVANYÃLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA statement, if it refers to the interval of an octave and is not merely an extension of the last view of sixty-six śrutis to the infinite number of octaves that are con- ceivable, simply means that the interval of an octave is divisible int an infinity of minute parts .... Kallinatha's objection to the view of infinite srutis is that the ear is incapable of appreciating such infinitesimal srutis. Though the argument is quite valid, it does not strike at the root of che question. It may still be asked: Why just twenty-two śrutis, and not twenty-four or twelve, each of which is quite as appreciable by the ear as one of the system of twenty-two? The only complete reply would be :- Simply because the system of twenty-two suits best the purpose in hand, which is to indicate the relations of the various notes in the grāma."-loc. cit. Abhinavagupta explains the term प्रगीत in the expression अप्रगीतानाम् in the urtti as follows :- "प्रकृष्ट' गीतं येषां ते प्रगीताः ; गातु' वा प्रारब्धा इत्यादिकर्मणि क्वः; प्रारम्भेणा चात्र फलपर्यन्तता लच्यते।"-From this it might

APPENDIX II 293 appear to some, as MM. Kuppuswami notes, that the reading in the vrtti according to Abhinava should be प्रगीतानाम् and not अप्रगीतानाम्, which is erroneous : "अप्रगीतानाम्" इत्येव वृत्तौ पाठः समादरणीयः। प्रगीतानाम् इत्यस्यैव लोचने विवरणात् तथैव पाठो भवेदिति न भ्रमितव्यम्। "प्रारम्मेरा चात्र फलपर्यन्तता लच््यते" इति लोचनेकारोक्किः प्रगीतपदस्य द्वितीयविवरणविषया। प्रथमविवररो गीतस्य प्रकृष्टत्वं च अभ्यासपाटवोपगतगानकौशलरूपम्। एतदेव फलमभिप्रेतम् "फलपर्यन्तता" इत्यत्। एवं प्रगीत- पदार्थवर्राने खयमेव सुधियः नवर्थयोजनेन "अप्रगीता- नाम्" इत्यस्य 'अभ्यासातिशयाधिगमनीयगानकौशल- रहितानाम्' इति प्रकृतानुगुणामर्थ' जानीयुरिति लोचन- कारणामभिसन्धि: ॥-Upalocana, loc. cit. S 29. Compare: "It appears that the अग्निपुराण-was aware of the theory of dbvani promulgated in the Dhvani-kārikās and elaborately set forth in the Dhvanyāloka. Ic says that ध्वनि will be included in some one out of पर्यायोक्क, अपह्न ति, समासोक्ि, अप्रस्तुत- प्रशंसा, आत्षेप. 'स आ्रन्तेपो ध्वनिः स्याच्च ध्वनिना व्यज्यते यतः' and 'एषामेकतमस्येव (स्येव ?) समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः ।' अरभि° 344. 14 and 18. This shows that though the अमिपुराण knew the theory of ध्वनि it was not willing to

294 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

subscribe to it. This view of the अग्निपुराण is similar to the view of भामह and उङ्भट as said by the अलङ्कारसर्वस ... "-MM. P. V, Kane: History of Sanskrit Poetics (1951), p. 7. § 31. 'उपोढरागेण ......... लत्ितम्"-This verse is attributed to Panini in anthologies. It has also been cited by Rūyyaka in his Alamkāra-sarvasva as an instance samā- sokti based on श्लिष्टविशेषण. Cf. "तत्न श्िष्टतया यथा "उपोढरागेण-"। अत्न निशाश- शिनो: श्विष्टविशेषणमहिम्रा नायकव्यवहारप्रतीतिः।

प्रतीतेः "-which has been explained by the scholiast Samudrabanhha as follows : "उपोढरागेणेत्यादि। रागो लौहित्यमनुरागक्च। तस्य वहनीयत्वेन गुरुतमत्व सूच्यते। विलोलतारकं विलोलनक्त्र विलोलकनीनिकं च। तथेति। फटिति कामसूतोक्कचुम्बनादिप्रकारातिशयेन च, तादृशस्यैव चुम्बनादेस्तारकातरलतादिहेतुत्वात्। गृहीतम् आक्रान्तं चुम्बितं च। मुखमारम्भो वक्कं च। समस्त सकल' मिश्रितं च। तिमिरांशुकं तिमिरमंशवश्च रविसम्बन्धिनः, तिमिरसदृशं प्रौढाङ्गनोचितं नीलवसनं च। तया निशया हेतुभूतया, लक्षणक्रियां प्रति कर्तृ- भूतया नायिकया च। पुरोऽपीति। प्राच्यामग्रतक्ष रागात् सन्धारुणिम्नः । अर्रनन्तरमिति शेषः। अ्रप्रनु-

APPENDIX II 295

रागादित्येव। गलितं प्रशान्तं भ्रष्ट च। ल्ितं, न केनचिदत्यर्थात्। प्रभातसन्ध्यानन्तरं प्राच्यां गलितमपि तिमिरमिश्रं सूर्या शुजालमुदयरक्ेन्दुकरसम्पृक्कनैशतमो- युक्कत्वाद् रात्रिमुखस्य गलितत्वेन न लच्षितमद्यापि स्थितमिवाभूदित्यर्थः । नायिकापक्े गलितमपि न तावत् प्रत्यक्षेणानवगतमेव, अपि तूत्रीतमपि नेत्यर्थः । ननु कथमत्र नायकव्यवहारप्रतीतिः, नतु नायकत्वारोप इत्यत आह-अपरित्यक्तेति। रूपके हि मुखादीनां स्वरूपपरित्यागेन कमलादिरूपमेव प्राधान्येन प्रतीयते ।" -Op. cit., pp. 85-86 (TSS. Edn.). See also Mahimabhatta's Vyakti-viveka, p. II, where this verse is quoted and Rūyyaka's remarks thereon. S 32. The verse "अनुरागवती सन्ध्या-" has been cited in Kāvya-prakāsa, Ullāsa IX and explained by Mānikyacandra as follows : "तत् पुरस्सर इति। आयान्त्या इव सन्ध्यायाः कामिवत् दिवसः पुरस्सम्मुखं सरतीति व्याख्या, न त्वग्र दिनं पृष्ठतश् सन्ध्या यातीति, एवं हि कदापि न सङ्गम: स्यात्।"-Ibid., P. 329 (Mysore Edn.). The reading in the second half is 'अरहो दैवगतिश्चिता-' according to Kavya- prakāsa which is supported by Mahima- bhatta in his Vyakti-viveka, Vimarśa I, where the verse is quoted. Vide op. cit., p. 138.

296 THE DHVANYÃLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

The verse 'ऐन्द्रं धनुः-' is cited and discussed in Atamkāra-sarvasva, p. 92 (NSP. Edn. ) and pP. 95 ff. ( TSS. Edn. ).

§ 34. 'आहूतोऽपि ......... शिथिलयति'-Ascribed to Bharvu or Bharscu, according to Banabhatta the spiritual preceptor of the Maukharis, in anthologies. § 41. 'सुवर्णापुष्पाम् ... सेवितुम्'-This verse occurs in the Mababharata, Udyogaparvan, Chap. 35. 74. 'शिखिरिणि ·.. शुकशावकः'-Attributed to Dharmakīrtti in the Sadukti-karnāmrta of Śrīdharadāsa. § 42. The view that dhvani may be subsumed under bhakti or laksana is held among others by Mukulabhatta in his Abhidha- urttimatrka. Cf. 'लक्षणमागावगाहित्व' तु ध्वनेः सहृदयर्नतनतयोपवर्णितस्य विद्यत इति दिश- मुन्मीलयितुमिदमत्नोक्कम्। एतच विद्वद्धि: कुशाग्रीयया बुद्धया निरूपणीयम्। न तु भगित्येवासूयितव्यमित्यल- मतिप्रसंगेन ।' -Op. cit,, p. 21. (NSP Edn. ). Mukula recognises only two functions (व्यापार) viz. mukbya (i.e. अभिधा ) and amukbya (i.e. लक्षणा), and corresponding

APPENDIX II 297

to them two kinds of meaning ( अर्थ). Cf :- "शब्दव्यापारतो यस्य प्रतीतिस्तस्य मुख्यता। अर्थावसेयस्य पुनलच्यमाणत्वमुच्यते ।।" -Kārikā § I. As for the exact significance of the term उपचार the following definition should be noted: "अत्यन्तविशकलितयोरर्थयोः सादृश्य।तिशयमहित्रा भेदप्रतीतिस्थगनमुपचारः।" § 43. (i) 'परिम्लानं .... पत्रशयनम्'-This is Ratna- vali, Act II. II. Compare: "तस्याः पुष्पमया शरीरलुलिता शय्या शिलायामियम्-"-Abbijnana- sakuntalam, Act III; also-"प्रियंवदे! कस्येदमुशीरानुलेपनं मृणालवन्ति च नलिनीपत्नाणि नीयन्ते ?"-Ibid. (ii) 'चुम्बिज्जइ ...... पुनरुत्तम्'- चुम्ब्यते शतकृत्वोऽवरुध्यते सहस्रकृत्वः। विरम्य युना स्म्यते प्रियो जनो नास्ति पुनरुक्कम्॥ छाया।।

(iii) 'कुविआओ ... महिलाओ'- कुपिताः प्रसन्ना अवरुदितवदना विहसन्त्यः । यथा गृहीतास्तथा हृदयं हरन्ति स्वैरिरायो महिला ॥ छाया॥ (iv) 'अज्ाएँ पहारो ...... सवत्तीणम्'- आर्यायाः प्रहारो नवलतया दत्तः प्रियेण स्तनपृष्ठे। मृदुकोऽपि दुःसह इव जातो हृदये सपत्नीनाम् ।। छाया।

298 THE DHVANYĀLOKA OF ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Uttungodaya explains the comments of Abhinavagupta on the gatha as follows : "उचितकीडायोगेनेति॥ तस्मिन्नवसरे उचितो यः कीडायोग: क्रीडाप्रसङ्ग इति ; उचितायां कीडायां वा योगेन संभवेन । सपन्नीहृदयव्यथाजनकत्वे हेतुस्तत्- कीडासंविभागाप्राप्तिः। तादृशी क्रीडा तत्क्ीडा ; तदप्राप्तिः कथं परितापहेतुरित्यत उक्कम्-सौभाग्य सूचकमिति ॥ तत्नापि मृदुकत्वं हेतुः। तत्र सूचितं विरोधं विशदयति-मृदुकत्वादेवेति॥ मृदुकत्वादेवामृदुः संपद्ते; अन्यस्य दत्तोऽन्यस्य च संपद्यते ; मृदोश्च सुमहतया प्रसिद्धस्य दुःसहत्वमितीयान् विरोध इहावसीयत इत्यर्थः ॥"-Kaumudi, loc.

cit.

(٧) 'परार्थे यः पोडाम् .. मरुभुवः' -- Variously attributed in different anthologies, e. g. to Induraja in Sarngadbara-paddhati and to Vākpati in Sadukti-karņāmrta. § 45. The following note on the word lavanya will be found helpful: - "The word lavanya appears first in classical Sanskrit, where it becomes the favourite word for referring to the beauty of women. The word is derived by Pāņini 5. 1. 123 from lavaņa, 'salty', and ite original meaning was 'saltiness." The passage to 'beauty' may strike one

APPENDIX II 299

as strange. By way of explanation one may observe that lavana is one of the six tastes or favors (rasa): madbura, amla, lavaņa, katu, tikta, kaşāya. Lāvaņya is related to lavaņa as mādburya (sweetnėss) is related to madhura (sweet). But lavana is the flavor (rasa) par excellence, for one adds salt not sweetness to food to bring out its taste, Since the word rasa is used of everything that excites one's interest, curiosity or aesthetic sense, it is appro- priate that lavanya, as an abstraction of the chief rasa, should be used of a particularly striking type of beauty ....... Lavanya, then, is the physical beauty of women, although it may appeal to more than one's physical senses, which forms an additive to the real woman, who is something else and distinct."-Daniel H. H. Ingalls: Words for Beauty in Classical Sanskrit Poetry in Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown (American Oriental Society, 1962). Cf. also: "ख्यातः सर्वरसानां हि लवणो रस उत्तमः".

APPENDIX III

A. Alphabetical Index of Karikas in Dhvanyaloka,

Uddyota I.

Section Serial Number

आलोकार्थी यथा दीपशिखायाम् § 24 9 उक्त्यन्तरेणशक्यं यत् ... § 44 15 कस्यचिद् ध्वनिभेदस्य .. § 48 19 काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बुघः ... § 20 I

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थ: § 2 ... 5 तत् वाच्यः प्रसिद्धो यः ... § I0 3 तद्वत् सचेतसां सोऽर्थः ... § 26 I2 प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव ... § II 4 भक्कया बिभर्त्ति नकत्व § 42 14 मुख्यां वृत्तिं परित्यज्य 46 17 यत्नार्थः शब्दो वा § 27 I3 यथा पदार्थद्वारेण ... § 25 IO

योऽर्थः सहदयश्लाध्यः ... 9 2

रूढा ये विषयेऽन्यत ... § 45 16

वाचकत्वाश्रयेगोव § 47 18

शब्दार्थशासनज्ञानं ... § 22 7 सरसती खादु तदर्थवस्तु ... § 21 6 सोऽर्थस्तद् व्यक्तिसामर्थ्ययोगी ... § 23 8

स्वसामथ्यवशेनैव ... § 26 II

301 APPENDIX III B. Alphabetical Index of the Vrtti-verses Section

तत्परावेव शब्दार्थो § 38 ... ...

§ 29 ... ...

व्यङ्गयस्य प्रतिभामात्र § 38 ... ...

व्यङ्गयस्य यत्राप्राधान्यं § 38 ...

स्वेच्छ्ाकेसरिणः I ... ...

C. Alphabetical Index of Illustrative Quotations in the Vrtti. Section

अज्जाए पहारो 43 ...

अत्ता एत्थ गिमज्जइ ... § 14

अनुरागवती सन्ध्या ... ... § 32

आहूतोऽपि सहायैः ... § 34 ...

उपोढ रागेए § 31 ...

कस्स व ए होइ ... ... § 17

कुविआाओ 43 ... ...

चुम्बिज्जड़ 43 .. ...

दे आ पसितर $ 16

परार्थे य: पीडाम् ... ... 43 परिम्लानं पीनस्तनं § 43 ... भन धम्मिश वीसत्थो ... ... 13 यस्मिन्नस्ति न वस्तु किश्वन ... ... 5 वच्च मह व्विअ ... ... शिखरिणि क्व नु नाम ... ... § 41 सुवणापुष्पाम् § 41 ... ...

Other Books

BHATTACHARYYA, S. Select Asokan Epigraphs- Rs. P Historical Study and Analysis. 10.00

BOROOAH, ANUNDORAM A Comprehensive Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. 75.00

BHATTACHARYYA, S. M. The Alamkara Section of the Agni-Purana. 45.00

CHATTERJI, S. K. Indo-Aryan and Hindi Rev. Ed. 35.00

DE, Dr. S. K. Bengali Literature in the 19th Century. 55.00

-do- Early History of Vaisnava Faith and Movement in Bengal, from Sanskrit and Bengali Sources. 65.00

-do- History of Sanskrit Poetics (Two Vols. combined.) 3rd Rev. Ed. 80.00

-do- Aspects of Sanskrit Literature. 40.00 -do- The Vakroktijivita. 55.00

-do- Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics. 50.00

DASGUPTA, A. R. The Lyric in Indian Poetry. 10.00

HAY, S. N. (Ed.) Brahma Pauttalik Samvad. 15.00

CHATTERJI, J. Balmikiya Ramayane Gitikavya Dharmita. 30.00