1. Dhvanyaloka Locana Krishnamoorthy K. MLBD (Chapter 1 English Translation) MLBD

DHVANYĀLOKA

Ānandavardhana

TEXT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND NOTES

K. KRISHNAMOORTHY

KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA OF MAMMATA

R. C. Dwivedi

Complete Text with Sanskrit Comm. and English Trans., Notes & Intro. in 2 Vols. The present Volume contains the text, English translation, the Sanskrit Comm. Sampradāyaprakāśikā of Vidyācakravartin, and the complete comment Sanketa of Ruyyaka. The reader would find a remarkable improvement on the old text and English trans. of Kāvyaprakāśa. The editor has used new terms and technique evolved in the field of Sanskrit Poetics. The Sanskrit Comm. and English Trans. are useful contributions which help to solve the intricacies and complexities of the text. (For 2 Vols.) Rs. 58

58

SĀHITYA DARPANA OF VIŚVANĀTHA

P. V. Kane

The book is divided into ten chapters. The present edition contains three chapters only—I, II and X, which are generally prescribed for the post-graduate students of Indian Universities. Ch. I details the Fruits of Poetry, discusses the definitions of Kāvya proposed by other writers, points out their defects and gives the correct definition with illustrations. Ch. II defines sentence and word and then explains the three powers of word, viz., Denotative, Indicative and Suggestive. Ch. X deals with Śabdālaṅkāras and Arthālaṅkāras in detail. The edition is useful. The editor has added to the text exhaustive analytical notes (pp. 1-331) which will help to understand the true characteristics of Indian poetic art. The book is accompanied by an Appendix and an Index. Rs. 22

22

FIGURATIVE POETRY IN SANSKRIT LITERATURE

Kalanath Jha

This book is an attempt at resolving an important tangle, that of the utility of Figurative Poetry in Sanskrit Literature. It is divided into seven chapters. Ch. I is introductory. It re-defines poetry and assesses the place of figurative poetry in that context. Ch. II deals with the historicity of different divisions and subdivisions of this branch of poetry as also with some new concepts either co-ordinate with them or contributory to their development. Chs. III & IV discuss the various divisions of Śabdacitra and Ubhayacitra with apt illustrations from copious sources. Chs. V & VI deal with Arthacitra and the development of Citrakāvya right from the Vedic age. Ch. VII affirms and establishes the conviction of the concept treated in the previous chapters. The book is documented with Preface, Abbreviations, Appendices, Bibliography and Index. Rs. 35

35

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS Delhi Varanasi Patna

DHVANYALOKA

ध्वन्यालोक :

DHVANYĀLOKA of Ānandavardhana

Ānandavardhana

Critically edited with Introduction, Translation & Notes By Dr. K. KRISHNAMOORTHY, WITH A FOREWORD BY Dr. K.R. SRINIVASA IYENGAR,

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS Delhi :: Varanasi :: Patna

MOTILAL BANARSIDASS Indological Publishers & Booksellers Head Office : 41-U.A. Bungalow Road, Delhi-110 007 Branches : 1. Chowk, Varanasi-1 (U.P.) 2. Ashok Rajpath, Patna-4 (BIHAR)

Author

First Edition : 1974 Second Edition : Delhi, 1982 This book has been published on the paper supplied through the Govt. of India at concessional rate

Printed in India By Shantilal Jain, at Shri Jainendra press, A-45, Phase I, Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi-110 028 Published by Narendra Prakash Jain, for Motilal Banarsidass, Bungalow Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-110 007.

Foreword by Dr. K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar

i-vii

Author's Preface

ix-x

Introduction

xi-xli

Critical Text and English Translation of Dhvanyāloka

1-299

Notes

301-385

Glossary of technical terms and English equivalents

386-394

Index of Kārikās

395-398

Index of Parikaraślokas, etc. in the Vṛtti

399

Index of quotations

400-402

Index of authors and works

403-406

Errata

407

PREFACE

This edition is substantially a reprint of the first edition published by the Karnatak University, Dharwar, in 1974.

It has not been available for some time and I am happy that thanks to the kindness of Ms. Motilal Banarsidass, this de-luxe edition is within the reach of scholars and students interested in literature.

I have taken this opportunity to give at the end an appendix of 'Additions and Corrections' which incorporates the revisions rendered necessary in the light of reviews by esteemed scholars in different learned journals.

My thanks are due to my friend Sri Suresh Kulkarni for the cover design which brings out symbolically the ever-spreading waves of dhvani-resonance as well as the blooming lotus-hearts of responsive readers of poetry by the sunrise of the Dhvanyaloka.

Dharwar 21st December 1981 K. KRISHNAMOORTHY

FOREWORD

In acceding to Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's request for a Foreword to his new critical edition of the Dhvanyāloka, with Notes and an English translation, I am not claiming any special knowledge of Sanskrit poetics or even a general acquaintance with Sanskrit, that may entitle me to speak with anything like authority. But I have known Dr. Krishnamoorthy rather intimately, and I have followed his career of scholarship with pride and admiration; and having myself for many long years pursued with indifferent success the profession of literary criticism, I am greatly interested in studies on the Sanskrit schools of poetics, and more particularly in the attempts of savants to trace the filiations between Western and Indian canons of aesthetic criticism. A new literature is invariably the product of a cross-fertilization of apparently alien cultures, as, for example, Elizabethan drama derived as much from the indigenous tradition as from the impact of classical literature, generally through translations. Indian literature today cannot deny the imperatives of our national tradition, which from Vedic times has run as a continuous stream, now broad and deep, now perhaps no more than a tenuous trickle, and at times indeed but a pure spring flowing under the sandy soil, invisible to the man who is in a hurry. On the other hand, the introduction of Western education into India in the 19th century opened new possibilities to the Indian writer, and accordingly new forms of literature, new modes of expression, new currents of ideas have been explored during the last hundred years or more in almost all our regional literatures. Even as the contemporary Indian creative writer is thus the heir to the two great traditions, the indigenous and the Western, the present day critic too-if he is to prove worthy of his vocation and rise to the height of his opportunities-must needs drink deep in the springs of both the Indian and Western traditions in criticism. A succession of great writers-Bharata, Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Mammaṭa, Jagannātha-have given us a body of critical thought as impressive in volume as it is invaluable as a guide to literary appreciation. The theories, evolved at first with reference to classical Sanskrit literature, were

taken over by the critics of many of the new regional literatures, and so in course of time came to have a national currency. In the appreciation of literature, rasa or communicated sensibility is the deciding factor and dhvani or the richness of the undertones is the soul of poetry. Such in a nutshell was the rasa-dhvani theory, perhaps the most rewarding peak of all the Himalayas of Sanskrit treatises on poetics. No less rewarding to the modern Indian critic is the Western tradition in criticism beginning with Aristotle and Longinus and, notwithstanding diversions and periods of suspended animation, persisting till our own time of the New, Newer and Newest critics. The modern Indian critic should be ready to draw upon both these wells of living tradition, for only thus can he achieve a vigorous and fruitful play of his critical powers. There is here a great opportunity for him, and he can make the two opulent traditions of critical thought, the Indian and the European, meet in a new synthesis suggestive of the deeper unity of human aspiration and realisation through the ages.

There are, however, the usual difficulties incident to any new adventure, whether in the material world or in the more elusive world of ideas. Of the classics of Western criticism we have both definitive editions and also reliable translations in almost all European languages. Aristotle, Longinus, Horace, Dante, Boileau, Lessing, Coleridge, Arnold, Croce, I. A. Richards, Eliot, F. R. Leavis, Allen Tate, George Lukacs-they are easily accessible to us, and competent historical surveys of European criticism-as well as monographs on individual critics are also available. As regards Indian poetics, the monumental labours of Dr. S. K. De and Mahāmahopādhyāya P.V. Kane, Krishna Chaitanya's survey, and the occasional but illuminating studies of scholars like the late M. Hiriyanna and Mahāmahopādhyāya Kuppuswami Sastri, and the meritorious work of Dr. Raghavan and Sankaran, have revealed to our gaze vista upon vista of critical enquiry and exegesis, and we still suffer as it were from a feeling of awe and bewilderment at the variegated richness of the prospect. Yet more needs to be done. The classics of Sanskrit criticism must be made available to the 'common reader' through translation in English and in the major regional languages of India. Comparative studies of the Indian and

Western schools of criticism, whether on a comprehensive scale or governed by a principle of resolved limitation to particular facets, would be no less welcome and would help to stimulate critical activity on the right lines. It is thus a matter of very real gratification to me that my esteemed friend, Dr. Krishnamoorthy has canalized his erudition and industry towards these essentially fruitful fields of activity.

In his thesis, The 'Dhvanyāloka' and Its Critics,—which, although completed when he was hardly twentyfive without effective guidance from a teacher, was approved cum laude for the Ph. D. degree of the Bombay University by two such savants as the late Mahāmahopādhyāya P. V. Kane and Professor H. D. Velankar — Dr. Krishnamoorthy boldly and with ample justification gave Ānandavardhana the central place in the history of Sanskrit poetics. Besides outlining an account of the life and life-work of Ānandavardhana set in relation to his age and also the wider background of Sanskrit poetics, Dr. Krishnamoorthy drew pointed attention to suggestive parallels between Indian and European critical thought. Self-contained chapters from Dr. Krishnamoorthy's thesis first appeared in learned journals, and its publication in its entirety, in 1968 won him the gratitude of students of Indian critical thought the world over. It brought him the Mysore University Golden Jubilee Award for Research. Of not less importance are Dr. Krishnamoorthy's Kannada renderings of the Dhvanyāloka Kāvyalāṅkāra, Kāvyadarsā and Kāvyaprakāśa, ( winning him an award of the Karnatak State Sahitya Akademi 1973 ) as also his study of Kālidāsa ( 1972 ) published in New York, his monograph on Ānandavardhana's poetics in Kannada, his Sanskrit essay entitled Alañkāra-Śāstre Kāvya-Vaividhya-Vāda-Vimarśah which was awarded the Navinam Ramanujacharya prize and has been published by the Mysore University and his Essays in Sanskrit Criticism which has been awarded the Rani Sethu Parvati Prize by the Kerala University — an impressive body of work that has elicited deservedly high praise from scholars. Now comes his excellent edition of the Dhvanyāloka, with a translation. in English which I have no doubt will receive a ready welcome from the students of Indian and Western literature.

others have written about the Dhvanyāloka or translated it in part, it is to Dr. Krishnamoorthy that we owe both the complete English translation of the Kārikās as well as the Vrtti, and an orderly account of its current of ideas and an appreciation of the abiding value of its critical canons.

In the present edition of the Dhvanyāloka, Dr. Krishnamoorthy has collated readings from ten manuscripts as also the earlier editions, and has arrived at an almost definitive text of this great classic. The Notes are the fruit of his constant study of the subject for a period of over two decades. And he has taken advantage of this occasion and revised the English translation, which had first appeared in 1955, so as to make it at once close to the original and very readable in English. Whereas in his Kannada version of the Dhvanyāloka he has translated verse into verse, here in the English version his aim is only to provide a faithful and clear prose rendering of the verse portions of the original, though by resorting to italics and indented spacing, these passages are set strikingly apart from the main prose commentary. With a text like the Dhvanyāloka teeming with subtleties and intricacies and numerous illustrative quotations, what is needed is not a merely facile or free or readable paraphrase but a scrupulously exact translation, a version that reproduces with absolute fidelity the original text in its entirety. This ideal Dr. Krishnamoorthy has steadily kept before him, and it is all the more to his credit that his rendering of the Dhvanyāloka is fairly free from clumsy, clogging or twisted phrases or sentences, and thus raises no barrier between itself and the reader.

This is not, of course, the place to enter into a detailed discussion on Sanskrit poetics or on the particular topics covered by the Dhvanyāloka. Even as, try as we might, we cannot empty life of its mystery, we cannot, for all our analytical categories, explain away the whole mystery of poetic creation. Life is a complex of fact and fancy, logic, meaning and mystery and poetry as it were pierces life where it is most sensitive, and seeks to pluck the heart of the mystery—yet the mystery, something of it at least, must remain to tantalize or to silence us. What we ordinarily see of life is the veil of appearance, and to the extent we penetrate through it and touch the hidden

centre, our apprehension is complete or final. The poet uses words in a metrical order to convey something of the mystery—the deeper significance—of life. But words too are mere appearance, and words have to be so charged with significant undertones that the poet may be able to convey through appearances the reality that lies behind them. We often refer to the poet's inspiration, the divine afflatus that is like a sudden surge of primordial poetic energy. But inspiration has to be turned into the currency of language before it can become poetry. We may likewise describe poetry at its purest as a “mystic incantation allied to prayer”, or as soul communing with soul. When poetic expression approximates to the mantra, the effect on the hearer is far more profound than the mere words would seem to warrant: it is as though, leaping over the physical boundaries or the coils of intellectual cognition, the meaning intended by the poet lodges directly in the reader's soul. Words, grammatical organization, rhythmic arrangement, jugglings with sound, figures of speech, the operations of the intellect, the emotional excitement, the rule of current fashions and the pull of tradition—all have their part to play in determining the composition of a poem; yet without the soul-quality there is no poem, only a life-less mass of words, a temple without the installed deity, a statue without life. Dhvani in poetry is really this soul-quality which is at once the excuse and the explanation of the rest. Not the outer habiliments of form and diction, the riot of śabdālaṅkāras, and arthālaṅkāras, not the stern logic of the plot or the innate worth of the sentiments, but it is this reality within, the soul-quality, this undertone of seminal suggestion that constitutes the utter uniqueness of poetry.

Sanskrit rhetoricians mention the basic categories of vastu (matter, plot or form), alaṅkāra (embellishment, fullness of detail or diction) and rasa (sentiment, sensibility or emotional intensity); but Ānandavardhana rightly urges that in respect of all these, the reality within is of far greater consequence than the outer appearance. Not until the story or the plot is seized in terms of universality does it become poetic, nor until verbal expression becomes a new way, the only satisfying way in the context, of adequately conveying the writer's individual vision of life or character does such expression become poetic;

and likewise, not until the communicated sensibility is so laden with the undertones of significance as to kindle the soul to a new awareness of life's "deep magic" can such sentiment or sensibility be called truly poetic. In a word, only when a poem, instead of imprisoning or suffocating the reader within the granite walls of precise meaning, proves rather to be a magic casement opening on the foam of the endless oceans of ambrosial significance can it deserve the name of poetry. What we seek in a scientific statement is the sufficiency of the statement; in poetry we seek to pierce the māyā of visible or cognizable picture or statement, and touch or apprehend the intangible reality within. It would not do to apply to poetry the categories of analysis that might be valid with regard to a science or to a prose treatise. It would be like judging men—a Buddha, a Christ, a Gandhi, or even imaginative characters like Hamlet, Stavrogin and Tess—in terms of poundage, colour or height. Poetry not only tells us something, but does something to us. Tragedy effects the katharsis of the emotions of pity and terror, said Aristotle; great poetry transports us, said Longinus; and Ānandavardhana said—if not in so many words as Abhinavagupta did—that poetry is a means of cultivating the double vision so that we may be enabled to perceive the visible and invade the invisible, mark the immediate contours of Appearance, yet peer beyond them and glimpse the very image of splendorous Reality.

There is, then, the element of pleasure in poetry; and there is pleasure even in tragedy, even in Vālmīki's description of Rāma's banishment or Kālidāsa's presentation of the rejection of Śakuntalā. Pleasure, certainly, but of what kind? "A superior amusement...not an amusement for superior people", says T. S. Eliot. The pleasure that the sensitive reader—the Sahṛdaya—derives from poetry is not the sort of amusement or pleasure that is meant merely to "kill time"; on the contrary, it works almost a sea-change, and leaves upon him a permanent effect. We are not the same people after reading the poem that we were before. The words of the poet are verily like a dance of creative life, they are like unto a racing squadron of the spirit, and whereas the five senses open without, the sixth sense that poetry gives us opens within, and the undertones of

Dhvanyāloka

Dr. Krishnamoorthy

Dhvani carry us almost to the threshold of Reality. The pleasure is not denied, it is only transformed into a discipline in awareness, a deepening of consciousness, a realization of things undreamt of before. The Rasa-Dhvani theory of poetry is thus naturally affiliated to the main Vedantic tradition in philosophy, although the encrustation of multiple categories and hair-splitting differentiations may tend to obscure this fact. But that is no reason why, at this distance of time, we should miss the quintessential aspect of the Rasa-Dhvani theory in our excessive preoccupation with the burden of detail and the controversial fog, which have more a historical than an integral relation to the theory. Be that as it may, Dr. Krishnamoorthy deserves our gratitude for his sustained attempts to popularise Indian aesthetics, not only as a unique discipline in poetic appreciation, but also as a springboard for comparative studies. The present edition of the Dhvanyāloka with Notes and a dependable and readable English translation comes as a natural climax to Dr. Krishnamoorthy's varied labours in the field of Sanskrit studies, and especially Sanskrit poetics. In recent years there has been a revival of Sanskrit studies in the country, and Sanskrit has been showing every sign of its amazing vitality as a living language and literature. It is, therefore, gratifying that dedicated scholars like Dr. Krishnamoorthy are giving their time so purposefully to promote the study and dissemination of Sanskrit literature. With the habits of the cloistered scholar, unattached to coteries or empire-builders, undaunted by difficulties or discouragement, Dr. Krishnamoorthy has long persevered in his chosen path, and has now won a position of authority and responsibility in the academic world as Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit at the Karnatak University. I do earnestly hope that with his learning and dedication, his sensibility and industry, he will be able in the years to come to build in his university a flourishing School of Comparative Aesthetics oriented towards the critical appreciation of the flowering new literature in the Indian subcontinent.

PREFACE

This edition which embodies the result of my work for over a decade is being released with the hope that it is a substantial improvement on the bare English translation which appeared in the Poona Oriental Series in 1955 and which has been long out of print.

The text has been now critically edited for the first time by collating some fresh manuscripts which have not been used by previous editors of the Dhvanyāloka. The English translation itself has been rewritten in the light of valuable suggestions made by scholars of repute, Indian and foreign, while reviewing it in learned journals. I have endeavoured strictly to follow Abhinavagupta's explanations throughout this English translation. In the light of my experience as a post-graduate teacher of the Dhvanyāloka for twenty years, I have added copious notes which discuss the most crucial points from the standpoint of University students. A useful introduction has been added to this edition discussing text-readings and problems of authorship and literary theory, taking into account the research done up to date.

To facilitate reference, the Sanskrit original and the English translation are so arranged as to face each other. Lines have been numbered and the headings of chapters prominently provided on each page. No pains have been spared to provide as many indexes as possible; viz. of kārikās, parikaraślokas, illustrative verses and of works and authors. A glossary of Sanskrit and English equivalents is another useful feature of this edition. I have strictly avoided using material published by me elsewhere in this work.

I have to thank heartily Dr. K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar for taking the trouble of touching up his Foreword to suit this edition. I must thank Pandit K. Bhujabali Shastri for procuring for my use the palm-leaf manuscript of the Dhvanyāloka from the Dānashālā Math, Moodabidre. I am also thankful to the Director, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona for allowing me to consult the Dhvanyāloka manuscripts in his charge.

I am very grateful to the Karnatak University not only for enabling me to complete this research work but also for having arranged its publication. In this connection, the unfailing courtesy and keen interest evinced by Sri. C. S. Kanavi, Director of Publications and his staff deserves special mention.

It is my duty and pleasure to record various kinds of assistance rendered to me by colleagues, Dr. D. N. Shanbhag, Dr. B. R. Modak, and Vidwan M. C. Dixit at all levels of preparing this work and seeing it through the press.

I might utilise this occasion to announce that I look forward to bring out an edition of the Locana also on similar lines as a companion volume, in the near future.

It is hoped that this edition will be found useful by scholars and the general public interested in Sanskrit literature and criticism. The few misprints in the text noted in the Errata at the end may be rectified by readers. But it must be mentioned that the Aryabhushan Press has done its very best in the printing of this work for which thanks are due.

Dept. of Sanskrit, K. Krishnamoorthy Karnatak University, Dharwar. 12-7-1974.

INTRODUCTION

THE TEXT OF THE DHVANYĀLOKA

The first notice of the manuscripts of the Dhvanyāloka was made in 1877 by G. Bühler in his detailed Report of a tour in search of Sanskrit manuscripts. The text of the Dhvanyāloka was first published in the Kāvyamālā Series by the Nirnaya Sagar Press Bombay in 1890 on the basis of three manuscripts, along with Abhinavagupta's Locana. In 1902 it was first completely translated into German by that great savant Hermann Jacobi of Bonn which appeared serially in Vols. LVI and LVII of the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft during the years 1902-1903. In the old volumes (IX-X 1917) of the Indian Thought from Allahabad. Prof. K. Rama Pisharoti began on a very ambitious scale an English translation of both the text of the Dhvanyāloka and the Locana. But it is found to stop abruptly at Uddyota II, Kārikā 16 (immediately before the Saṅgrahaślokas; see p. 60 of the present edition). Meanwhile the NS Press issued subsequent revised editions, the fourth being issued in 1935 by Wasudev Laxman Shastri Panshikar.

A perusal of these will show how the readings were more often than not incorrect. Both Jacobi and Pisharoti have written numerous notes suggesting their reconstructed readings in view of the extremely confusing misreadings found in the NSP editions. My paramaguru, Prof. M. Hiriyanna of Mysore was recalling how he wrote the first ever thesis on the Dhvanyāloka for the M. A. degree of the Madras University as soon as the editio princeps appeared; but, though he got the degree, how he desisted from allowing its publication because the text itself was so corrupt.

In these circumstances the scholars had to be satisfied with the broad surveys of the Dhvani theory contained in the works of the pioneer-scholars; S. K. De, P. V. Kane and A. Shankaran which appeared between 1923 and 1929. The

learned works of modern scholars1 have indeed illuminated many a point in the Dhvanyāloka, but they avoid discussion of readings.

A number of subsequent editions of the Dhvanyāloka have appeared in India, sometimes with independent new commentaries in Sanskrit by modern editors2. The text of the Locana in the NSP3 edition was no better than that of the Dhvanyāloka itself and it was limited to the first three Uddyotas.

These deficiencies were sought to be remedied on the basis of fresh Kerala manuscripts by Shri Ramashāraka. This edition of the Dhvanyāloka and complete Locana with Ramashāraka's Sanskrit com. called Bülapriyī [ Abbreviated here as BP ] ( published in 1940, in the Kashi Sanskrit series, Benares ) was published by Pattābhirāma Shastri.

No doubt he has successfully recovered several improved readings in the text of both the Dhvanyāloka and the Locana, as Pattabhirama Shastri has demonstrated in his introduction to this edition. But this edition too suffers from one serious omission.

It does not give variant manuscript readings anywhere. However, scholars are usually found citing the readings in this edition rather than the NSP edition.

In 1944, the Kuppuswami Shastri Research Institute, Madras brought out a critical edition of the Dhvanyāloka, Locana, Kaumudī by Uttungodaya ( on the Locana ), and Upalocana by Kuppuswami Shastri, on Uddyota-I based on some southern manuscripts.

Though it is a very good edition as far as it goes, it does not go beyond Uddyota-I.

1. ( i ) V. Raghavan : Bhoja's Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa, Madras, 1963.

( ii ) S. P. Bhatta harya : Studies in Indian Poetics, Calcutta, 1964.

( iii ) Ramaranjan Mukherji : Literary Criticism in Ancient India, Calcutta, 1966.

( iv ) J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan : Śāntarasa and Abhinavagupta's philosophy of Aesthetics, Poona, 1969.

( v ) Mukund Madhav Sharma : Dhvani Theory in Sanskrit Poetics, Varanasi, 1968.

2. E. g. Dhvanyāloka-1. with the Didhiti com. of Badrinath Shārma, Vārāṇasi, 1937; 2. with Avadhāna com. by Madhusudana Mishra Sharma, Calcutta Sanskrit Series, 1938; though these do not contain the Locana, they virtually echo the Locana and do not help in deciding a correct reading of the text of the Dhvanyāloka.

Meanwhile, when the present editor took up this work for a detailed study in 1946, he wrote out for himself a working English translation to help him write the thesis entitled 'The Dhvanyāloka and its critics', which was awarded a Ph. D. degree by the Bombay University in 1947 (since published in 1968, Kāvyālaya, Mysore). The Poona Oriental Series was good enough to issue the English translation itself independently as No. 92, in 1955.

Mention must be made of other editions which have since appeared with English or Hindi translation and notes, though they do not bother themselves about problems of correct readings. One in English is by B. Bhattacharya, published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyāya, Calcutta; first Uddyota, 1956, (1965, II Ed.), and second Uddyota 1957. One in Hindi, is by Rama Sagar Tripathi, published by Motilal Banarasidass of Delhi, in 1963. These are of some help only to students preparing for their University examinations and do not serve the scholars interested in deciding the text.

My references to various manuscript catalogues show that there are scores of manuscripts of both the Locana and the Dhvanyāloka deposited in manuscript Libraries all over India, not to speak of Nepal, and Great Britain. They are in Sharada, Grantha, Malayalam, Telugu, Nevāri and Kannada Scripts, besides the Devanāgari. In spite of my efforts over two decades. I could succeed in consulting only Poona manuscripts (ten in number. These are referred to by their numbers as recorded in the manuscript catalogue of the B. O. R. I.). But I was extremely lucky in securing for my use, a manuscript of the Dhvanyālaka with Locana (upto the end of the uddyota III) from the Danashāla Math of Moodabidre in the South Kanara District of the Karnatak State. It is a palm-leaf manuscript in Kannada script and is about two hundred years old. The text is complete in 28 folios i. e. 55 pages and on the reverse of folio 28, begins the text of the Locana. Each folio measures 20" × 2 1/4". It has been designated as Kāvyālokālankāra in the said collection. And it has been used fully for the first time here (referred to as MB). I was also able to check up some of these new readings which appear most appropriate with another very old palm leaf manuscript of the Dhvanyalokā and

the Locana in Telugu Script displayed by the Andhra Sahitya Parishat, Kakinada at the Sanskrit Vishva Parishad Session at Bombay in 1961. But, unfortunately, I could not secure it for a second consultation as it is reported to be lost.

My purpose in the present edition has been to constitute an accurate and dependable text with all the available printed and manuscript material for select passages which required utmost attention in so far as they could not yield proper meanings. Hence I have not mechanically set out all the critical variants which did not materially alter the argument of the text. I have spared no pains to record the readings from not only MB and Poona manuscripts, but also from both the NSP ( referred to as ग throughout the footnotes in this edition ) and BP which are printed editions. The क, ख, and ग, variants noted by NSP are also recorded here. Another noteworthy feature of the present edition is the recording of readings as found in testimonial of later writers. The pride of place among them goes to the anonymous Kalpalatāviveka ( abbreviated as KLV ) recently published as No. XVII in the Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharateeya Samskriti Vidyamandir, Ahmedabad in 1968. It contains the bulk of the Locana and the Dhvanyāloka almost like a transcript. It is also interesting that it has some Kārikās not found in any other edition ( See footnote on p. 98 of this edition ).

IMPROVED READINGS IN THIS EDITION

An idea of the extent to which the present attempt has succeeded in reclaiming improved readings may be had by a look at the following table wherein only some outstanding instances are cited along with the readings found in other editions. It should be noted also that the BP which does not have an Errata contains a large number of misprints too, which are not taken into consideration here.

Readings adopted in this edition

Readings in other editions

P. 14 L. 13

वरयुवतिध्वनिलक्षणमि-वागगीतानाम् ।

... मिव प्रगीतानाम् (NSP)

P. 24 L. 4

उपसर्जनीभावेन

उपसर्जनाभावेन ( BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 24 L. 12

ध्वनिसंभावनां निराकरोति ।

ध्वनिसंभागनां करोति । ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 28 L. 3

तदप्रसिद्धालङ्कार°

तदत प्रसिद्धालङ्कार° ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 30 L. 1

भो चतस्त्यास्ते भक्तिलक्षण ध्वने: ।

तत्तत्स्थास्ते भक्तिलक्षण ध्वने: । ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 34 L. 10

समग्र एव लक्ष्यत इति ।

समग्र एव लक्ष्यति इति । ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 62 L. 17

न प्राधान्येन ।

प्राधान्येन । ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 64 L. 11

उपमा श्लेषस्य

श्लेषस्य ( NSP ) उपमा श्लेषस्य ( BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 110 L. 14

मन्मथोन्माथकापादनावस्था°

मन्मथोन्माथकदनावस्था° ( BP ) मन्मथोन्मादकतापाद-नावस्थान° ( NSP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 112 L. 20

न विरोधी ।

न विरोधि । ( BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 114 L. 10

रसश्च्युतः

रसच्युतः ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 124 L. 11

उत्तमदेवताविषयप्रतिष्ठ-संभोगशृङ्गार°

उत्तमदेवताविषयप्रसिद्ध-संभोगशृङ्गार° ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 124 L. 13

यथौचित्यत्यागः

यथौचित्यात्यागः ( BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 168 L. 7

दुष्टृत्वं नानुवादे

नानुवादे ( BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 182 L. 12

सर्वाकारमहंकाररहितत्वे शान्तरसप्रभेदत्वम् ।

सर्वाकारमहंकाररहितत्वेन शान्तरसप्रभेदत्वम् ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 186 L. 2

क्षिप्रमेवावज्ञाविषयता

क्षिप्रमेवावज्ञानविषयता ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 192 L. 10

तदवधारितप्रकरणानां

तदनधारितप्रकरणानां ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 220 L.

लिङ्गितया

लिङ्गितया ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 226 L. 17

अमिश्र

आमिश्र ( NSP, BP )

Reading adopted in this edition

P. 230 L. 14

प्रतिपदपाठनैव

प्रतिपादपाठनैव ( NSP, BP )

Readings adopted in this edition

P. 262 L. 13 सर्वस्वलक्षणविषयं सर्वलक्षणविषयं ( NSP, BP )

P. 278 L. 6 अंशिरप° अङ्ङिरप° ( NSP, BP )

P. 276 L. 13 चशब्दः च शब्दः ( NSP, BP )

P. 284 L. 11 वा न प्रतिभासन्ते प्रतिभासन्ते ( NSP, BP )

It will be observed that in most of these, the existing readings are misreadings since they yield meanings inapplicable in the particular context. The present editor has avoided undue emendation and attempted to fix the text first on manuscript evidence and next on the evidence of the Locana. It is hoped that this will serve as a first step in the direction of a definitive text of Dhvanyāloka free from avoidable errors.

TITLE OF THE TEXT

Though all printed editions give, without exception, the title of the text as 'Dhvanyāloka', this has not the support of even a single manuscript consulted by the present editor. Even when the Descriptive catalogues of manuscripts describe the colophon as Dhvanyāloka, it has been found to be inaccurate on verification in the original manuscripts in question. The manuscripts mostly record the alternate titles 'Kāvyāloka' and 'Sahrdayāloka' though some times the forms 'Sahrdayāhrdayāloka' or 'Sahrdayāvaloka' are also met with. It is interesting to observe in this connection that Abhinavagupta himself uses the form of only 'Kāvyāloka' in his Locana, while he uses the form 'Sahrdayāloka' at least thrice in his Abhinavabhāratī.1 Maheśvarānanda in his Mahārthamañjarī pays a tribute to the Locana and the Kāvyāloka in these words :-

साहित्याब्धौ करणधारोऽहमासं काव्यालोके लोचनं नानुशील्य ।

1. ( i ) तच्चास्माभिः सहृदयालोकलोचनं तद्विवरणे विस्तारतो व्याख्य्यातम्... N aṭṭaśāstra, Vol. I, GOS, Baroda, 1934, Pp. 299–300.

( ii ) ...इति चिसन्तैनैवोक्तम् ॥ यथा सहरयालोककार:-संघिसंध्यद्ध... Ibid, Vol. III, 1954, P. 42.

(iii) ...निर्णीतमस्माभिः सहेदयालोकलोचने च । Ibid. Vol. IV, 1964

Even the commentators of kāvyas like Rāghavabhaṭṭa, Mallinātha and post-dhvani writers on poetics do not testify to the title ‘Dhvanyāloka’.

The present editor was even wondering for some time whether, after all, the name Dhvanyāloka was a late fabrication by Durgaprasad or somebody. But his hesitation was allayed by a recent publication of Dr. Kunjunni Raja, who has edited for the first time with English translation and notes a small work, the Dhvanyālokasaṅgraha by an anonymous author, from a single palm-leaf manuscript1. The form ‘Dhvanyāloka’ is thus attested by manuscript evidence much earlier than the 19th century. Dr. Raja (Op. cit. foreword, p. iv) also mentions that the previous portion of this palm-leaf manuscript contains the Locana text wherein also the name Dhvanyāloka occurs at the beginning, in the words—ध्वन्यालोकलोचनव्याख्यारंभः।

These facts have thrown an interesting sidelight on the different forms of the title of Ānandavardhana's work. The thesis of the duality of the authorship of the Dhvanyāloka advanced by Jacobi, De, Kane and others has been effectively disproved by the present writer elsewhere.2 The earliest references to the author of the Dhvanyāloka are sometimes made by the expression सहर्यये:3. This led pioneers like Sovani and Kane to conclude that Sahṛdaya was the proper name of only the Kārikākāra and that Āloka was the name of Ānandavardhana's Vrtti thereon. These scholars ignore Abhinavagupta's own indisputable references to Kārikas of the Dhvanyāloka as of Ānandavardhana's authorship found in more than one place in his Abhinavabhāratī, a work written by him after the Locana.

1. Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras, Vol. XXIV, Part II, 1973. P. 12.

2. K. Krishnamoorthy, Dhvanyāloka and its critics, Kāvyālaya, Mysore, 1968, Ch. III.

3. Cf. ( i ) Pratīhārenduraja-Kāvyālaṅkāra-Sāra-Saiṅgraha--laghu--Vrtti, Ed. N. B. Banhatti, Bombay, 1925, P. 85 etc. ( ii ) Mukulabhaṭṭa's Abhidhāvṛttimātṛkā, Ed. R. P. Dwivedi, Chowkhamba, Benares, 1973, P. 66.

Eg. (i) एतमेवार्थं सम्यगानन्ददवधेनाचायोंडपि विविच्य न्यरूपयत्— ध्वन्यात्मभूते श्रृङ्गारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशितः । रूपकादिरलङ्कारवर्गे एति यथार्थताम् ॥

इत्युक्तवा क्रमेण विवक्षा तत्परत्वेन नाट्यितत्वेन कदाचन । काले च प्रहणत्यागौ नातिनिर्वहणैषिता ॥

Nātyaśāstra

इत्यादिना ग्रन्थसन्दर्भेण सोदाहरणेन । तचास्माभिः सहृदयालोकलोचने तद्विवरणे विस्तरतो व्याख्यातमिति तत्कुतूहलं तदेव गृह्यीतात् । — Nātyaśāstra, Vol. II. GOS, Baroda, 1934, Pp. 299-300.

(ii) यस्तु वेणीसंहारे भानुमत्या सह दुर्योंधनस्य दर्शितो विलासः, स नायकस्य तादशेऽवसरे अन्यनुचित इति चिरन्तनैरेवोक्तम् । यथा सहृदयालोककारः— संधिसंध्यङ्गगटनं रसबन्धौऽपि पेक्षया । न तु केवलया शास्त्रस्थितिसंपादनेचछया ॥

एतच्च विवरण एवास्माभिरविवतत्य दर्शितम् ॥—Ibid. Vol. III, 1954, P-42.

(iii) कविंहि सामजिकतुल्य एव । तत एवोक्तम्— श्रृङ्गारी चेत्कविः काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत् । स एव वीतरागश्चेद्रौरसर्वमेव तत् ॥

इत्यानन्दवर्धनाचायैण । Ibid, Vol-I, 1956, P. 294.

These clinching references are enough to justify our holding that the careful distinction he actually made between the Vrttikāra and the Kārikākāra in the course of his Locana was dictated by exegetical procedure and nothing else.

Even the work of Bhattanāyaka which was written to demolish Dhvani was called by the name हृदयदर्पण or सहृदयदर्पण. This raises the question regarding the exact significance of the attested titles सहृदयालोक and सहृदयदर्पण. I don't think that this question has been fully discussed. I secured transcripts of three unpublished commentaries on the Locana available at Tirupati and Madras MS. libraries. They are all anonymous. But the one fragment called काव्यालोकलोचनव्याख्या (obtained from Tirupati) which is a very learned and voluminous discussion of only the Mangala- sloka of Abhinava, explains pointedly the significance of the word sahrdaya therein as follows :-

सहृदयरबदेन तु सामान्यान्वयाचिनापि सहृदयविशेष आन्नन्दवर्धनाचायोंडत्र विवक्षितः । उक्तं ह्यमुनान्यत्र “विदग्धकविसहृदयचकवातिन ” इति । तस्य हि विदग्धता तत्त्वालोकादिग्रन्थप्रणयनेन प्रसिद्धा । विषमबाणलीलादिकाव्यरचनया च कवित्वम् ; काव्यतत्त्वावबोधविदग्धतास्तद्भं सहृदयत्वं किमुच्यते ध्वनिमार्गोपदेशप्रथमदेशिकस्य । अस्ति च तस्यैव श्लोक: —

“ या न्यायोपलबधा रसनिरसनितुं कोऽपि चकवानां न वा हस्त्रिा परिनिष्ठितार्थविषयोन्मेषा च वैपश्चिती । ते डेडप्यवलम्ब्य विश्वमनिशं निर्वर्णनान्तो कतयं श्रान्ता नैव च लब्धमहाभिश्राय त्वद्भक्तितुल्यं सुखम् ॥

इति । अत्र च प्रथमश्लोकोऽ्याद्ययानान्ते वक्ष्यते — सहृदयचकवर्ती खल्वयं ग्रन्थकृदिति । ( Page 29 ).

This brilliant summing up of Abhinavagupta's stand regarding the authorship of the Dhvanyāloka is from one whose mind is unprejudiced by the controversies of modern scholars. He states categorically that the word sahrdaya is general in its connotation to apply to perceptive critics of poetry. But in the invocatory verse of Abhinava the expression सहृदय in the compound कविसहृदयार्य्यं could also stand for the admittedly foremost of the sahrdayas, viz. Ānandavardhana himself. This has been our contention all along. The word Āloka cannot be divested of its earlier part and made to refer exclusively to the Vṛtti as Kane chooses to do. The name Āloka is an essential part of the compound name and it should stand for both Kārikā and Vṛtti. This commentator has not failed to draw our attention to Abhinava's own testimony that Ānandavardhana was the doyen of not only poets but also perceptive critics or sahrdayas.

Thus if it is accepted that the full title of the work is Sahrdayāloka it would naturally mean the Light on Poetry shed by the best sahrdaya, viz. Ānandavardhana, or for the benefit of sahrdayas in general and thus would become significant. Any other way of understanding the compound would be forced and lacking in significance.

The procedure of Ānandavardhana himself in slyly hinting at his name is observed in so wording the first Kārikā (which is by the bye very poetic ) that it contains the word सहृदयमनःप्रीति

which could be explained by the synonym आनन्द. This is truly in line with the concluding expression in the work viz. आनन्दवर्धन इति प्रथिताभिधान:। Thus understood, the title of its critique by Bhaṭṭanāyaka also becomes easy to follow as a sly reference to the Dhvanyāloka itself.

Even prior to Abhinava, the Candrikākāra quoted in the Locana had committed a slip in exegetical procedure by explaining the meaning of a Kārikā introducing new material from the Vrtti though not expressly stated in the Kārikā itself. More than all, at the end of the first chapter, Abhinava writes an equivocal verse alluding to Āloka as the title of the whole work (i. e. both Kārikā and Vrtti) and that both Candrikā and Locana were commentaries thereon :-

कि लोचनं विनालोको भाति चन्द्रिकयापि हि । तेनाभिनवयोध्दत्र लोचनोन्योऽन्वयध्वात् ॥

The significance is brought out by Kaumudī as follows :

लोचनं स्वकीयमेतद् व्याख्यायानम् । आलोक: व्याख्येयत्वेन प्रस्तूयमान: काव्यालोकग्रन्थ: । चन्द्रिका अस्यैव अन्यकृतं व्याख्यानान्तरम् । — KSRI Edition, Madras, 1944, P. 302.

Another anonymous commentary on the Locana from Madras, (R 2680, Govt. Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras-5), has the following explanation :-

लोचनं तत्र आँ व्याख्यानग्रन्थस्वश्र: । लोको व्याख्येयतयाऽत्र ध्वानिग्रन्थ: । चन्द्रिका ज्योत्स्ना ध्वनिनिर्णयायानग्रन्थश्वान्त्य: ।

The protagonists of the dual authorship theory labour under the misapprehension that Āloka is only the name of the Vrtti and that Dhvani is the name of the Kārikā. These citations should dispel their doubts; for, Abhinava and others refer to the whole work by the partial name Āloka as much as others refer to it by the other partial name Dhvani when they talk of Dhvanikāra, Dhvanikrt, etc. The name Dhvani itself is too specialised to be the name of any treatise. It could only be an abbreviated form of a fuller title, in this case, Dhvanyāloka. Just as रघुवंशकाव्यकर्त is referred to by the short form रघुकर्त

Dhvanyālokagranthakāra

Dhvanyālokagranthakāra can be popularly called ध्वनिकार. In this usage Dhvani is nothing but a shortened form of a longer title, such as Dhvanigrantha, Dhvaniśāstra and Dhvanyāloka. In any case all these refer both to the Kārikā and the Vrtti written by Ānandavardhana himself.

The earliest references to the author or the work Dhvanyāloka also confirm the above conclusion. About 900 A.D. Jayantabhaṭṭa, the author of the Nyāyamañjarī, refers to a पण्डितन्मन्य ‘who took to (प्रपेदे) Dhvani to explain वाक्यार्थ’ and ridicules him. This shows how he was aware of only one author and not two and proceeds to review an instance of Dhvani actually found in the Vrtti and not in the Kārikā. Similarly Rājaśekhara, in one of his eulogistic subhāṣitas quoted in anthologies, talks of Ānandavardhana as establishing the poetic theory of Dhvani in a work called Dhvani and carved out glory for himself.

An equally remarkable reference to the work by the short form Dhvani is that of Utpalācārya1 in his Spanda-pradīpikā2. Commenting on the first Spanda-kārikā of Kallaṭa, Utpalā explains a word by citing the Dhvanyāloka in these words - यतु ‘शक्तिचक्रविभवप्रभवं’ इति पदमुपन्यासतं तदुद्देशार्थम् । साभिप्रायतवन्महाकवे: । उत्तं च ध्वनौ—प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वस्त्वस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम् । यत्तत्प्रसिद्धावयवातिरिक्तं विभाति लावण्यमिवाज्ञानासु ।

In the B. O. R. I. collection of manuscripts there is a work called ध्वनिगाथापञ्जिका (MS. No. XII — 182 ). Its author was one Ratnākara of Kashmir and he uses the word Dhvani to mean ध्वन्यालोक or ध्वनिशास्त्र as he himself states at the beginning —

वारदेवों शिरसा नत्वा वाचो वैचित्र्यहेतवे । करोति कवित्त्वाथानां ध्वनिशास्त्रस्य पञ्जिकाम् ॥

and also at the conclusion of the work —

गाथानां पञ्चिकां कृतां ध्वनिशास्त्रस्य यन्मया । पुण्यं रत्नाकरेणापि विभुद्र: स्यात्ततो जन: ॥

1. His date is first half of the tenth century according to Bühler. See Bühler's ‘Tour...’, p. 79.

2. Edited by Vaman Shastri Islampurkar, Vizianagaram Sanskrit Series, Benares, Vol. XIV, 1898, p. 12.

The short form Dhvani in his usage covers the illustrative portion of the text also, and is a synonym for Dhvaniśāstra which is the meaning of the word Dhvanyāloka as we will see presently.

The general definition of Dhvani, viz., यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा is quoted by the Ceylonese commentator Ratnaśrījñāna (931 A. D.) of Dandin's Kāvyādarśa and he tries to bring it under samāsokti.

[Kāvyalakṣaṇa of Dandin with com. of Ratnaśrijñāna, Mithila Research Institute, Darbhanga, 1957. He was domiciled in Magadha.] The Kannada Kavirājamārga of King Nṛpatunga (9th Century A. D.) alludes to Dhvani at the end of his treatment of alaiṅkāras.

Now all these early references envisage an acquaintance with Dhvani examples found only in the Vṛtti and not in Kārikās.

Hence, we may conclude that in Indian tradition there is not a single shred of evidence to dispute Ānandavardhana's authorship of the Kārikās and the Vṛtti together called by the name Dhvanyāloka or Kāvyāloka or Sahṛdayāloka.

With this background the significance of the three titles can be clearly grasped.

The word āloka which is an essential part of the title as we saw above has two senses, viz. (i) light and (2) sight.

That this author had a special fancy for the word āloka is also evidenced by the title he gave to his philosophical treatise (unfortunately lost), namely, the Tattvāloka.

The second meaning, of āloka makes it correspond to Darśana which is another name for a 'system of thought', i. e. a Śāstra1.

Possibly both the meanings were intended to be conveyed by the author.

The title Kāvyāloka presents the least difficulty.

It is a synonym of Kāvya-prakāśa, i. e. Light on Poetry or a systematic treatise on poetry.

The word Dhvanyāloka could mean Light of (in poetry) or a systematic treatise on suggestion (in poetry).

The last title, namely Sahṛdayāloka, would carry the meanings of Light (or a systematic treatise) for the benefit of Sahṛdayas.

As we saw above, it may also contain a veiled hint that Ānandavardhana, the author of the work, is himself a Sahṛdaya par excellence.

1. Cf. न्यायदर्शन, सांख्यदर्शन etc.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DHVANYĀLOKA

As pointed out by me elsewhere in detail,* the Dhvanyāloka is an epoch-making work in Sanskrit poetics. Ānandavardhana builds a new structure of poetic theory on the foundation of the thought of his predecessors viz. Bharata, Bhamahā, Udbhata and Vāmana. For the first time in the history of Indian Thought he asks basic questions relating to aesthetics and semantics and answers them systematically like a philosopher. This would be achievement enough for a writer. But he goes far beyond a mere philosophical theory. He gives us for the first time, again, in Indian poetics examples of literary analysis and practical criticism. Unlike his predecessors, Ānandavardhana gives a large number of illuminating examples from the best writers in Sanskrit literature and discusses with insight the reasons for their appeal to a man of taste. None can lay the charge that literary theory is considered in a vacuum in this work. He not only helps the reader to understand and appreciate poetry better, but he also offers valuable guidance to the poet by laying down for the first time the basic principles of poetic creation. Ānandavardhana is, thus, both the Aristotle and the Longinus of India.

One is really wonderstruck by the modernity of some of the fundamental ideas of this 9th century Indian author. It was Bergson who argued that by animating words with a life of their own, the poet suggests to us things that speech is not calculated to express. This was Ānandavardhana's finding on which he builds a whole superstructure. Similarly, we are reminded while reading this work of I. A. Richards' distinction between emotive language and referential language, John Crowe Ransom's 'structure' and 'texture' of poetry, the classical rule of the unity of action, and of the neo-classical organic

• See : K. Krishnamoorthy— ( i ) The Dhvanyāloka and Its Critics, Kāvyālaya, Mysore, 1968. ( ii ) Essays in Sanskrit Criticism, Karnatak University, Dharwar 1964. ( iii ) Some thoughts on Indian Aesthetics and Literary Criticism, University of Mysore, 1968.

form. The modern ideas of ‘ambiguity’, ‘implication’, calculated complexity’, ‘irony’, ‘language of paradox’ have their counterports in the different variations of Dhvani. Ezra Pound defines poetry as ‘simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree’. Hulme wants the poet ‘to bend language to express the poet's unconventional vision, to break the stiff general patterns of language in which words tend to be used like dead counters. T. S. Eliot and others talk of the ‘objective correlative’ of the poet's vision in adequate metaphorical language. To the readers of the Dhvanyāloka the germs of such ideas appear to be already anticipated by Ānandavardhana in his own way.*

Ānandavardhana's novelty of approach is most evident in the third chapter where he gives for the first time detailed rules on the following :–

1. The relation of Saṅghatanā or phonetic patterns of diction to the psychological theme of rasas.

2. The canon of propriety which decides the success or failure of a poet.

3. The question of aṅgāṅgibhäva of rasas in whole works.

4. Deterrents of rasa.

5. Opposition and harmony between rasas.

6. The status of other aesthetic concepts viz. alaiṅkāra, guṇa, rīti and Vṛtti vis-a-vis rasa.

7. The beauty of figurative meaning vis-a-vis suggested rasas.

Some of these correspondences are discussed by me at length in the article ‘Some Aspects of T. S. Eliot's Critical Theory in the light of Sanskrit Poetics’, published in ‘Indian Response to Poetry in English’, Macmillan, Madras, 1970, pp. 34–43.

For an interesting attempt to evaluate Western poetry from the stand-point of Dhvani, see, Krishan Rayan, Suggestion and Statement in Poetry, London, 1972.

One of the most perceptive modern studies of Rasa-dhvani is by D. H. H. Ingalls, An Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry, Introduction, Cambridge Mass, 1965.

It will be observed that none of these considerations were worked out by any of his predecessors mentioned by Ānandavardhana. But some germs of these ideas are found to be present in Rudrata's Kāvyālaṅkāra. Rudrata's examples of Bhāvālaṅkāra and Sūkṣmālaṅkāra1 remind us positively of Vastudhvani, while his treatment of Virasa as a doṣa2 is reminiscent of Anandavardhana's account of anaucitya. Further, the concluding verses of Rudrata ( XVI, 37-41 ) clearly indicate the rules of decorum pertaining to the treatment of human characters which are further elaborated by Ānandavardhana in his account of aucitya and anaucitya. So also there are similarities between the two writers in the treatment of rītis and vrttis in relation to rasas. What is much more striking is Rudrata's dictum regarding the naming of compound figures. ( Saṅkara or Saṃsṛṣṭi ) by the joint name of the constituents. In the whole range of Sanskrit poetics it is only Rudrata who sanctions such a compound usage3. Ānandavardhana uses at least two such compound expressions, viz. शेषव्यतिरेक and उपमा-श्लेष. All these facts taken together point to the strong possibility that Ānandavardhana was familiar with Rudrata's text as we have it to day, though he has not cited him by name. Incidentally, it must be recorded that Abhinavagupta has actually quoted Rudrata's Bhāvālaṅkāra as implied in Ānandavardhana's account of Guṇībhūta-vyaṅgyālaṅkāras4. This is a matter which invites further investigation.

Equally intriguing is the correspondence of these ideas which we find in the Śṛṅgāratilaka of Rudrabhaṭṭa :-

विरसं प्रत्यनीकं च दुःसन्धानरसं तथा । नीरसं पात्रदूषं च काव्यं सद्दोषम् शस्स्यते ॥

1. Cf. Rudrata—Kāvyālaṅkāra, VII, 38-40, 98-99.

2. Ibid, XI-12-14.

3. Ibid, X-24. तत्रैमान् is explained as follows by Namisādhu :- येषामेकाधिकाराणां मिश्रभावस्थितौ एवं मिलितार्थी नामत्यर्थः ' येभिः सहितैः समुच्चयेऽथ च संकरः तदा सद्दोषिसमुचय इति नाम ।

4. See Locana, p. 232, K. S. R. I. Edition.

विहाय जननीमृत्युशोकं सुगन्धे मया सह । यौवनं मानय स्पष्तमित्यादि विरसं मतम् ॥ प्रबन्धे नीयते यत्र रस एको निरन्तरम् । महती वृद्धिमिच्छन्ति नीरसं तच्च केचन ॥ ... अन्येष्वपि रसेष्वेते दोषा वज्र्याः मनीषिभिः । यत्सपकोत्कर्ष यात्येव काव्य रसपरम्पराम् ॥

Kāvyamālā Ed. Bombay, 1899

[ Kāvyamālā Ed. Bombay, 1899. III-46-48 and 53 ]. A little earlier he also gives a list of contrary rasas (Vv. 21-23) even like Ānandavardhana. One cannot positively say that either Rudrata or Rudrabhatta (if they were different authors) was posterior to Ānandavardhana.

These ideas are also echoed by a number of Prakrit poets who were positively prior to Ānandavardhana. Haribhadra (730-830 A. D.) in his Samarāicchakahā refers to the three-fold division of Kathās into Divya, Mānusa and Divya Mānusa (alluded to in the Dhvanyāloka) :- दिवयं दिववमाणुसं माणुसं च । तथ्थ दिवयं नाम जत्थ केवलमेव देवचरियं वण्णिज्जइ । [Jacobi's Ed. P. 2]

Similarly, Kautūhala (circa 750 A. D.) in his Līlāvatī states— तं जह दिव्वमाणुसी, माणुसी तहव्वेअ ।

The various kinds of kathā noted by Ānandavardhana have also their parallels in Uddyotanasūri's (778 A. D.) Kuvalayamālā :- तासो पुण पंचकहावो । तं जहा— सभलकहा, खंडकहा, उल्लावकहा, परिहासकहा,... [ अनुच्छेद 7 ]

The above considerations strongly suggest that Ānanda-vardhana, himself a famous Prakrit poet, was very well aware of the different types of Prakrit kathā literature. He has made use of several ideas which were in the air at his time but which had found no clear systematisation in the works of earlier theorists.

Reverting to the earlier question of angi-rasa vis-a-vis anga-rasas, it is interesting to notice that Ānandavardhana himself has referred to two rival opinions on the part of interpreters of Bharata (Vide. p. 178 of the text, infra, lines 17-19); Ānandavardhana himself following the first view that one rasa can serve as a vyabhicāri or accessory of another; the second view being that sthāyibhāvas themselves are styled by the term rasas throughout by Bharata. Abhinavagupta in his Locana rightly cites Bharata's text :-

बहूनां समवेतानां रूपं यस्स्य भवेद् बहु । स मन्तव्यो रसः स्थायी शेषा: सद्भारिणो मता: ॥

(Nātyaśāstra, G. O. S. Edn., Vol. I. p. 375)

He also records the view of one Bhāguri who openly admitted Sthāyitā and sañcuritā of rasas while commenting on this. This throws interesting sidelight on the pre-Abhinavagupta commentatorial tradition on the Nātyaśāstra, followed by Ānandavardhana Rudraṭa, Rudrabhaṭṭa etc. which bars one's rushing to any conclusion on the question of mutual borrowing, when taken in itself.

DHVANI THEORY AFTER ĀNANDAVARDHANA

Another intriguing question is that of pre-Abhinavagupta commentators on the Dhvanyāloka. the Locana abounds in references to previous commentators, though only one is specified by name as Candrikākara.* The other name mentioned is that of Vivaraṇakṛt, which is too vague to decide whether a commentator of Dhvanyāloka is meant or Udbhata, the author of the Bhāmahavivaraṇa. These references justify the conclusion that the Dhvanyāloka came to be studied with great enthusiasm within a century of its composition and that its study had spread to remote provinces like Magadha and Karnataka.

Even independent writers who differed from Ānandavardhana fc nd it impossible to ignore him. In fact, Bhaṭṭanāyaka, Kuntaka, Mahimabhaṭṭa, Dhananjaya, Bhoja, Pratīhārendurāja and Rājaśekhara have all restated as it were the essentials of

• Cf. Locana, KSRI Ed. Pp. 54, 60, 131, 184, 193, 213 etc. and NSP Ed. (1935), Pp. 109, 120, 150, 152, 161, 194, 260, 265, 269, 290, etc.

the new theory itself by adopting different terminologies. This is an indirect compliment indeed to the soundness of the facts behind the Dhvani theory. Later text-book writers of repute like Mammata, Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha and Jagannātha make no bones about accepting the Dhvani theory as the last word in Indian poetics. For all this success of the Dhvani theory Abhinavāgupta shares the credit with Ānandavardhana. It was Abhinavagupta indeed who refuted eloquently all the rival stands and vindicated the cause of Dhvani.

ĀNANDAVARDHANA'S SEMANTICS

Ānandavardhana is the first writer in Indian poetics to attempt an enquiry into semantics. As a preliminary to his exposition of the essence of poetry, he distinguishes between the two well known usages of language, viz., use of language outside poetry on the one hand and the unique usage exclusive to poetry on the other. The first, referential usage, is a gift of convention and is well within the reach of everyone who knows the language. The second is the indirect use of language wherein the meaning may be either metaphorical or implicit. Ānandavardhana notes that meaning at this second level too is not very far from the first or conventional level. The first level of meaning is characterised as vācyārtha and the second as bhākta. Poetry too starts from these two levels of meaning only. But it does not stop there as in common parlance or scientific discourse. It uses them as a jumping-off ground to convey an entirely new meaning which is different not only in degree but often in kind also. This third meaning which is unique and exclusive to poetry is alone characterised as the essence of poetry. And it has its parallels in fine arts like music.

Combining in himself the triple rare attainments of poetic genius, impeccable scholarship and immaculate literary taste, Ānandavardhana succeeded not only in laying his finger on rasa as the soul of poetry but also in offering a scientific explanation of it as Dhvani. The theory was so formulated that it could assimilate the essence of all the traditional aesthetic categories while emphasising the claims of rasa.*

*For a fuller exposition of this see : K. Krishnamoorthy, Dhvani as the meeting-point of all principles of Sanskrit Literary Theory—Principles of Indian Literary Criticism, Delhi, 1969, Pp. 201–209.

'RASA' IN THE 'DHVANI' THEORY

In the history of Indian aesthetic thought, the concept of Rasa is the oldest since Bharata himself gives in his Nāṭyaśāstra some citations from earlier works which already refer to rasa. His greatness lay in giving it a vital and central place in his scheme of tenfold plays and explaining it in terms of vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāri-bhāva schematically. It appears that all the elements in a play, viz., plot, characterization, style, setting and acting are governed by the dictates of rasa. His famous rasa sūtra led to diverse explanations at the hands of later philosophers, the chief of whom are Lollata, śaṅkuka, Bhatta-Nāyaka and Abhinavagupta. We also know for certain that poets like Kālidāsa, Bāṇa, Bhavabhūti and Māgha were quite conversant with the general outlines of the rasa theory. Nor need we have any doubt that early theorists like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Udbhata and Rudrata accepted by and large the value of rasa in poetry too. In their rough and ready analysis of poetry which was by definition beautiful, they had only two heads:-śabda ( sound ) and artha ( sense ); and all aspects of beauty had to be subsumed uder the one or the other head. Thus, beautiful sound comprised of śabdālaiṅkāras involving the principles of alliteration and rhyme. The beauty of sense or meaning could primarily lie in the poet's artistic turn of thought or imaginative creation called vakrokti and a number of figures of speech were defined and illustrated. In such a scheme there is no wonder that the beauty of emotional content due to rasa, bhāva, etc. also came to be recognised only as certain alaiṅkāras viz. Rasavad, Preyas, Ūrjasvin, Udatta and Samahita or as certain guṇas. In general terms, the ancient theorists also affirmed the desirability of infusing Mahākāvyas with all the rasas to sustain interest.

It will be seen that this broad idea of beauty in literature, analysable into alaiṅkāra or guṇa is in no way adequate to explain the unique essence of all literature. If we want a dependable yardstick to distinguish gradations in poetic success, the alaiṅkāra-cum-guṇa scheme cannot take us far. Even the doctrines of mārga or rīti or saṅghatanī will be found insufficient to arrive at precise literary estimates of poets of varying degrees

of achievement. The more we study alaṅkāras, the more puzzled we become when asked whether they are merely means of ornamentation or form the resulting beauty itself. This is the famous distinction between alaṅkāra and alaṅkārya which we owe to the searching philosophy of Dhvani, formulated for the first time in the Dhvanyāloka by Ānandavardhana. The differentia of poetry cannot be rendered precise until it can mark off the boundaries of poetic language from the other uses of language. We have common parlance as well as scientific use of language We may utilise some alaṅkāras and guṇas in our daily conversation as well as scientific writing. Would our activity be really poetic on such occasions? In fact, we all know that while every educated man can understand ordinary human talk as well as scientific discourse, not all educated men can appreciate poetry. Again, what about the varying temperaments and moods of poets ? What exactly do they want to achieve by their work? and can we know when they have succeeded or when they have failed? Such are some of the considerations which prompted Ānandavardhana to reinterpret the earlier concepts and to propound the theory of Dhvani as the best and most adequate explanation of aesthetic experience or rasa in literature. The new principle of dhvani or suggestion is so formulated that it not only solves all these issues effectively but also meets with the approval of accredited experts in linguistics, logic and semantics.

It is Ānandavardhana's contention that only the Dhvani theory can logically explain all the facts of the poetic process to the satisfaction of the creative poet on the one hand and the appreciative critic on the other. When we say logic, we should not forget that the logic of poetry is not the same as logic in other fields; it is a magic indeed which eludes the logic we are used to outside poetry. But to establish it with unassailable arguments to the satisfaction of confirmed sceptics is no easy task and the several threads of argument that lie scattered in the Dhvanyāloka and Locana all converging to the one centre of rasa are more often than not missed even by a wary student. I propose to indicate some of them here.

Rasa indeed is the corner-stone of the arch of Dhvani. It is first and foremost, an aesthetic canon. Rasa is that which

initially inspires the poet into creativity and ultimately ensures the aesthetic delight of the critic. In life there is ample joy and pain, but no rasa or pleasurable relish of them. Impersonal, disinterested and universal delight is exclusive to poetry and termed rasa. Even spiritual bliss, termed sometimes rasa in the Upaniṣadic language ( cf. Raso vai saḥ ) differs from kāvyarasa in so far as it does not follow any prescribed course of yoga but is more or less a result of inborn taste. If poetry is thus sui generis, it is only because of rasa; and it is this paramount status of rasa which has to be emphasized in any adequate analysis of poetic beauty. We shall see how only the theory of Dhvani answers to this description.

The thesis of the Dhvani theorist can be simply stated :- ‘Dhvani’ is the quintessence of poetry; and ‘rasa’ is the quintessence of ‘dhvani’. What then is Dhvani? Dhvani is an exclusively poetic feature concerned with exploiting the beauty of every element in the medium of language like alaṅkāra, guṇa and rīṭi to serve the ultimate artistic end of rasa. In other words, Dhvani is the name of the whole poetic process itself which, for want of a better equivalent in English, is usually rendered as ‘suggestion’. This marks it off from the conventional capacity of language to give accepted meanings, i. e. meanings shared by all the community in their social or intellectual intercourse. It marks it off from the secondary or figurative usage of language too whose province does not include rasa. In other words, dhvani is that meaning in poetry which is appreciated by the critic as most beautiful, knowingly or unknowingly. The beauty of vācyārtha or explicit meaning and lakṣyārtha or implicit meaning is only an outer aspect of poetic beauty. Words and common meanings in poetry are no doubt used by the poet with an eye to beauty. This is exactly what is described by the ancient concepts of alaṅkāra, guṇa and rīṭi or vṛtti. But the soul or core essence of poetry is not adequately explained by any or all of them. The concept of alaṅkāra or embellishment demands an alaṅkārya or a subject to be embellished. The concept of guṇa too requires a subject which it qualifies. The doctrines of rīṭi and vṛtti too become meaningful only in relation to the essence of poetry and not otherwise. The ancients in their theorising were getting gradually wiser about the special and unique status of

rasa, but none pitched upon the only complete explanation, viz. Dhvani. Thus, to speak of rasa as an alaṅkāra of a special class called rasavadādi shows only a very vague awareness of the problem; regarding rasa as a guṇa is an improvement upon it. To associate it with rīti and vṛtti is certainly a further improvement, since both these are more abstract than alaṅkāra and guṇa. But the logical culmination of aesthetic theory is an open recognition of the inmost essence of poetry as exclusively rasa; and this is done only by the concept of dhvani.

If the task of the dhvani-theorist is rendered easy in a way by the concepts already in the field, it is also hampered in another way because the beauty already analysed has to be accommodated properly in the new explanation in a scientific manner. In the analytical method of the ancients, poetry is seen in its elements of śabda or sound and artha or sense. So alaṅkāras or guṇas are features, outer or inner, of only śabda or artha or both. All that their synthetic grasp could formulate was rīti or racanā or style and vṛtti or mode of acting in drama and mode of alliteration in poetry. The new theorist had to arrive at a new perspective to urge the claim of rasa to greater recognition in its own right, without underestimating the value of the earlier findings in the field. That the Dhvani theory meets the challenge boldly is indeed its best claim on our attention.

Unless this new perspective of dhvani is realised, we miss the very message of the Dhvanyāloka. What is wanted is a finer analysis in our general notion of beauty itself. That beauty or cārutā exists at many levels is the first theorem of Ānandavardhana. Grant this and the rest will follow as corollaries. The beauty of vīcakaśabda and vīcyārtha is no doubt explained by the concepts of alaṅkāra and guṇa; but this beauty is quite distinct from the beauty of vyaṅgyārtha whose most celebrated representative is rasa. We should not commit the mistake of thinking that the two are exclusive in the best passages of poetry. On the other hand, they mostly co-exist. But what is incumbent on the critic is the exercise of his aesthetic judgment in arriving at a clear decision about the relative prominence of the two kinds of beauty in any given passage. If the critic feels that the beauty of the expressed element (vācya) outshines the beauty of the

suggested ( vyaṅgya ), it helps him to rate that passage as second-rate poetry. If on the other hand, he is convinced that the suggested beauty surpasses the beauty of the expressed, he will rate it as dhvani-kāvya or first-rate poetry. If the suggested element is almost negligible in appeal, it will be third-rate poetry ( citra-kāvya ).

It is only from such a perspective involving the criterion of vyaṅgya-prādhānya that the nature and scope of rasa can be realised fully in the dhvani-theory. Only when all the elements of vācya-vācaka charm stop attracting attention to themselves and participate generously in contributing to the supremacy of the vyaṅga effect, viz. rasa, we get real dhvani :

" वाच्यवाचकचमत्कार्त्वहेतूनां विविधातमनाम् । रसादिरपरता यत्र स ध्वनेर्विषयो मतः ॥ " ( II 4. )

Though theoretically sound, this canon involves some practical difficulties. When there is a clear recognition of diverse elements of beauty like alaṅkāra and rasa, it may go difficult to decide their relative superiority. So Ānandavardhana gives us an unfailing guideline to show the way out :

" प्रधानेऽन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राङ्गं तु रसादयः । काव्ये तस्मिन्नलङ्कारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः ॥ " ( II. 5 )

One need not despair that all rasa, bhāva, etc. are as a rule suggested and the suggested must be superior to the expressed beauty. Ānandavardhana says that rasādis also may be suggested and yet remain aṅga or subsidiary to the aṅgin or principal beauty of vācya. This is the famous aṅga-aṅgi-bhāva extended to the relation between rasa and alaṅkāra for the first time by Ānandavardhana. Before his time, theorists were aware of this relationship between two alaṅkāras only ( as in Saṅkara ) or between two rasas only. But in Ānandavardhana's system it can hold good between an alaṅkāra and rasa too.

The implications of this indeed are far-reaching. If rasa is principal, it is called dhvani; if rasa is subsidiary, it loses its claim to the title of dhvani and acquires the lower status of rasavadalaiṅkāra. It means that rasa has a dual role in poetry. It may be both dhvani and alaṅkāra depending on the intention

of the poet. From this follows the dictum that the status of an alaṅkāra is always lower than that of dhvani. This is the most intriguing and confusing part of the Dhvani argument. Again and again, we are told that what is suggested in poetry is more intrinsic and aesthetic than what is merely denoted, that vyaṅgya-cārutva is ipso facto superior to vācyā-cārutva. We are also told that rasādis are never vācya but exclusively vyaṅgya. How then can the beauty of vyaṅgya rasa be ever subordinated to any other ? Is it not a contradiction in terms to speak of rasādis as alaṅkūra which is only a vācya-saundarya-prakāra ?

Such an apparent contradiction is dictated by the exigencies of facts in poetry and cannot be rated merely by considerations of logic. If the intrinsic status of rasa is one thing, its functional status in poetry may be another. A mere presence or touch of suggestion ( vyaṅgya-saimsparśa ) does not constitute Dhvani what constitutes Dhvani is that vyaṅgya which is also exclusively important in relation to other elements of beauty in the poem. It must be realised at the outset that various elements of beauty will be coexisting in any instance of good poetry. Some of them will be vācya and some of them may by vyaṅgya. The relative prominence of the vācya over the vyaṅgya or vice versa will alone be the decisive factor in deciding whether something is alaṅkūra or dhvani. Thus, we have a new philosophy of alaṅkāra also in the dhvani system which is different from that of the old school. Any element of beauty which subserves the beauty of another comes to be styled alaṅkūra. According to this new definition, rasa can be deemed alaṅkūra in examples like ‘kṣipto hastāvalagnaḥ…’. The mistake of the ancient theorists lay in the fact that they deemed even principally suggested rasādis as alaṅkaras, though logically they could only remain alaṅkūrya, totally distinct from alaṅkūras.

Apart from rasādis, coming to the vācya-alaṅkāras themselves, it may be asked what their alaṅkārya is. This is a question raised by Ānandavardhana himself. His answer is that it is mostly vastu or idea intended by the poet. Every poem has a theme or a subject or an idea which is its vastu. This may be conveyed directly or figuratively, or suggestively. Thus, we can speak of vīcya-, lakṣya- and vyaṅgya- vastus. It is not im-

possible that two or more of these coexist in a poem. What involves the exercise of the critic's judgment is the task of deciding which of them provides the final resting place ( samvid-viśrānti ) in his understanding of the poem. Now it may be the one, now the other. This freedom and impreciseness is of the very essence of poetry. It cannot be ordered to any logical rule. All that the Dhvani theory states is that the vācya vastu or alaṅkāra, howsoever beautiful in itself, must be reckoned as inferior to the vyaṅgya-vastu or alaṅkāra or rasa in respect of appeal to men of taste.

It will be seen how the vyaṅgya element is regarded as threefold as against the vācya element which is only two-fold. That is so because of the unique nature of rasa which can never be vācya. By reciting the names of rasas like Sṛṅgāra, Hāsya, Karuṇa, we do not feel love, mirth or sorrow. They can only be suggested by a proper manipulation of the antecedents, consequents and incidental moods of characters in a situation suited to the sentiments concerned. So, then, though rasa is never vācya, vastu and alaṅkāra, however, can be both vācya and vyaṅgya.

What we have in poetry is the varying juxtaposition of vācya and vyaṅgya elements. Let us look at the logical possibilities:— The two vācya elements and the three vyaṅgya ones make five in all. In all poetry, the first vācya-vastu must be invariably present. It may be associated with either a vācya alaṅkāra or a vyaṅgya vastu or a vyaṅgya alaṅkāra or a vyaṅgya rasādi. Now vācya vastu+vācya alaṅkāra is only alaṅkāra in the new system, because the two belong to the same functional order. But when the two orders are interposed, the resultant beauty demands the exercise of the critic's judgment. Thus, in vācya alaṅkāra+vyaṅgya vastu it will be regarded as alaṅkāra only if the beauty of the vyaṅgya vastu is subsidiary to the beauty of the vācya. This is known as the principle of gumībhūta-vyaṅgya which adequately explains all the alaṅkāras without denying the suggested element in them. On this principle indeed vyaṅgya rasa too is regarded as rasavadalaṅkāra. But if the vyaṅgya vastu or alaṅkāra or rasa is not subsidiary to the vācya, but surpassing it in beauty, then these come to be raised to

the highest state of dhvani. This is the functional philosophy underlying the three divisions of vyañgyārtha into vastu-dhvani, alaṅkāra-dhvani and rasa-dhvani. Unless something is exclusively ever, of the three, the province of Rasa-dhvani is not only the largest but also the sweetest. Its nature is such that it cannot but colour every minute ingredient or aspect of poetry on the one hand and every class of dhvani on the other. In poetry, language is used uniquely because the poet endeavours to convey emotions, moods and feelings in addition to mere facts and actions. Even such hard and dry things like stones and bones become associated with some mental feeling like anguish; and therefore even in seemingly rasa-less passages of poetry, a perceptive and sensitive reader will experience some shade or the other of rasādi. So the logically distinct categories of vastu-dhvani and alaṅkāra-dhvani cannot be deemed to be totally exclusive of rasa any time. Once we theoretically admit that dhvani is the essence of best poetry to do full justice to the claims of rasa, we cannot rule out logically the application of that definition to vastu-dhvani and alaṅkāra-dhvani also. These latter too are definitely more aesthetic than their vācya counter-parts and they also, in some measure at least, partake of the healing touch of rasa which is not however prominent enough to be classed as rasa-dhvani.

Such a wide theory embracing all varieties of vastu-, alaṅkāra-, and rasa- dhvani in the category of best poetry is also practically more serviceable than a theory restricted to rasa. In Prakrit folk- poetry abounding in examples of subtle wit and clear hints to love assignations, the canon of rasa cannot apply in toto, though their appeal to the intelligent reader is unquestioned. These are best explained as vastu-dhvani suggested by the unique nature of the characters and the situation in question. Similarly, great poets have shown their preference in leaving certain figurative ideas and images suggested instead of openly expressing them as in prose. Actually, the term alaṅkāra-dhvani is a misnomer. What is suggested now is only a vastu and it should be strictly called vastu-dhvani only. But to distinguish this vastu which is due to kavisamaya or praudhokti from other vastus we refer to its general status elsewhere as alaṅkāra and call it alaṅkāra-dhvani

after the analogy of Brāhamaṇa-Śramaṇa-nyāya which is similar to our reference to some as Brahmin-Christians today.

Theoretically too, exclusion of vastu-dhvani and alaṅkāra-dhvani, would land us in a hopelessly miserable state in establishing the aesthetic value of vyaṅgya as superior to vācya when we are confronted in argument by learned logicians and grammarians and the like who can be presumed to understand only vyaṅgya-vastu as distinct from vācya-vastu and not also vyaṅgya-rasa, because vyaṅgya-rasa is by definition something that can be felt only by the few gifted ones called sahrdayas or rasikas and outside the reach of merely learned specialists. Hence, vastu-dhvani examples only are cited to convince such hard-headed sceptics and rasa-dhvani illustrations are avoided.

All this carries the implicit assumption that there is such a unique function of language as suggestion over and above the two well known functions called denotation and indication. The Mīmāṁsakas and other philosophers who are supposed to be experts in this matter have nowhere spoken of this function. Even in Bhartrhari's philosophy of Sanskrit grammar, there is a sort of predilection to assume an almost mystical 'revealing power' to explain the evolution of all meaning from sound forms in terms of sphoṭa or śabda-brahman. If what is exclusive to poetry is a unique speciality, a speciality not figured out by all philosophers of language, there is no wonder at all; and that speciality can be none other than rasa or aesthetic experience of the reader, as ably pointed out by Abhinavagupta while dismissing the bhāktavāda. The theory of secondary meaning is differently held by different schools and can be conveniently widened to include all meanings other than the conventional one; yet it cannot explain or cover the fact of rasa-dhvani, showing its inadequacy to explain literature. Even the best advocate of lakṣaṇā can only plead for some varieties of vastu-dhvani (viz. avivaksita-vācya) as covered by forms of lakṣaṇā; but the vast bulk of literary charm lies outside that limited sphere.

While classifying dhvani varieties, Ānandavardhana gives such significant titles as remind us of the relative status of vācya all the time. Under this logical scheme Rasādi-dhvani comes to be styled asamilakṣyakrama-vyaṅgya. That is to say, the vyaṅgya

rasa is felt almost simultaneously with the comprehension of the vācyārtha. The logical time-sequence between two becomes so thin as to escape notice. This is compared to the quick piercing of a hundred lotus leaves placed one above the other with a needle in the shortest span of one second. Abhinavagupta is our authority on the state of the reader during rāsāsvāda. But Ānandavardhana spares us from any account of these. By the term rasa he refers not only to the reader's aesthetic response and to the poet's creative afflatus which are both subjective, but to the permanent states or sthāyibhāvas objectively embodied in the poem through characters and plot. The characters are the seat of such rasas and there can be opposition between two rasas like love and detachment when they are only rasavad-alaṅkāra. The fleeting mental states or vyabhicāribhāvas of Bharata are simply referred to as bhāvas, without any epithet. The other constituents of rasādi group are the ābhāsas, uddīpana, práśama, sandhi, sablalata, etc. of the rasas and bhāvas with varying degrees of intermixture and pitch. We have no space to dwell on their details here.

Ānandavardhana criticises the summary treatment of Rasavad Alaiṅkāra by the ancients. He hoists them on their own petard. It is their credo that the province of each alaiṅkāra must be different without any room for overlapping and hence their definitions are carefully constructed from this point of view, guarding against the fallacies of Too Broad and Too Narrow. But when rasa is primarily felt in a passage replete with human emotional behaviour and it is characterised as rasavad-alaṅkāra, either they should mean that other figures like the simile have no scope there or if their coexistence is admitted, they will have to give up the postulate that figures like the simile have an exclusive field of their own. For, in literature, sentient emotional behaviour of some sort or the other will be attributed even to inanimate objects in nature and figures like the simile will have no scope at all left to them uncovered by Rasavadalaiṅkāra. If, on the other hand, they deny such attributed sentiment the name of Rasavadalaiṅkāra, they will be branding some of the best examples of rasa as rasa-less, exposing themselves to the charge that they are lacking in taste. They are thus cornered by the two horns of the dilemma. The only way out is to distinguish primarily beautiful rasādi

which is dhvani from rasādi subserving another element in the poem and which is rasavadalankāra. Thus, in the new scheme, even other alankāras like Preyas, of the early theorists will come to be designated as rasavadalankāra only.

Such a realisation of the vital role of rasādis entitling them to the rank of dhvani will help immensely in the revaluation of other concepts also. It will at once stand out how guṇas stand apart from alankāras. The guṇas though felt as inhering in śabdārthas really belong to rasas only in their variety. Some rasas like Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa melt the hearts of readers and are styled madhura or soft and sweet. Some others like Vīra, Raudra and Bībhatsa rouse our hearts and are styled as characterised by ‘ojas’ or brilliance. Besides these two, only one more guṇa is enough to explain the common effectiveness of all rasas and all racanās and that is prasāda or lucidity.

Ānandavardhana dwells on the vyañjakatva or suggestive charm of each minute element in poetry like syllable, base, affix, termination, word, gender, number, collocation of compounds or otherwise, sentence, paragraph, canto and whole work—only in relation to rasa-dhvani. From the minute attention of early theorists to parts of vācya-vācaka, he turns our attention to the much more profitable task of analysis of vyaṅgya-vyañjaka, from parts to the whole. He affirms that beauty so detected alone is the most significant aspect of beauty in poetry. If the vācya aspect is also taken into account, the only significant charm detected will be of prasādaguna or lucidity in addition. If we leave out vācya also from consideration, the only charm holding our attention would be alliteration and so forth : —

रसादिसमपेरणसामर्थ्यमेव नैसर्गिकं शब्दानां विशेष इति व्यञ्जकत्वाश्रयस्त्वे तेषां मुख्यं न चारुत्वम् । वाचकत्वाश्रयस्तु प्रसाद एवार्थपेक्षयां तेषां विशेषः । अर्थानपेक्षयां त्वनुप्रासादिरेव । ( Vṛtti on III. 16; p. 158 ).

All this clarification by Ānandavardhana is meant to render more cogent Udbhata's idea that particular words alone are suited for particular rasas. We are indebted to Abhinavagupta for citing Bhāmahavivarana by name in this context ( p. 358 ). To what extent Udbhata had gone beyond the early theorising in his Bhāmahavivarana is unknown; but it is clear that Anandavardhana

was not fabricating anything preposterous or very new and which was not already hinted at in glimmering flashes by earlier thinkers.

Only the implications of this general theory on poetic creation and critical appreciation remain to be glanced at in conclusion. The testimony cited in the Dhvanyāloka of the most celebrated Ādikavi Vālmīki himself as unburdening his śloka or sentiment of pathos through the outlet of a spontaneous outburst, viz., śloka is more than clinching. It proves that the creative process is spurred into activity at all because of rasāveśa. The spell of rasa or overmastering passion is an aesthetic experience to the core and is to be carefully distinguished from raw personal emotion familiar to all in life. Vālmīki did not have the worldly and personal emotion of sorrow when he saw the surviving bird crying piteously and wallowing in the blood of its mate just killed by the hunter. In that case he would have just wept and acted like any one of us and not composed a rhythmic verse. This intense constructiveness of vision goes beyond objects of physical sight. In Blake's much quoted words, " it can see the world in a grain of sand and Heaven in a wild flower. But howsoever sombre the theme, it brings to the artist no grief in the usual sense of the word. For grief disables, but this kind of vision empowers. It has been said that God is a person who feels all the pain there is in the world without being disabled by it at all. And thus much of divineness there is in a great artist."1 We thus come to the conclusion that Rasa in poetry is alaukika or something quite unique, impersonal and super-normal, something all sweet and beautiful, an end in itself, aesthetically satisfying. Poets can wring out this rasa or joy even out of pain itself in the world. The poet's pratibhā is creativity at once vivid and beautiful or रसावेशवैशद्यसौन्दर्यनिर्माण-क्षमत्वम् in the words of Abhinavagupta. When the vision is clear and deep, the poet will effortlessly achieve the task of marshalling all his material towards the one goal of rasa and devises his plot, characters and style in due regard to the principle of unity of rasa in the midst of a variety of shifting rasas and bhāvas. Vālmīki's concentrated attention to the principal sentiment of

1. C. E. Montague, A Writer's Notes on his Trade, Penguin Books, London, 1930, p. 189.

Karuna or pathos and Vyāsa's all out emphasis on Śānta or tranquillity are instances in point. The main thread of angi-rasa is never allowed to be lost in the midst of a thousand and one aṅgas. But they are epic sages. Even among later poets, Kālidāsa provides the best example of a rasakavi in his poems as well as in his plays. He never repeats himself or echoes his predecessors. What makes him truly himself is his devotion to the claims of rasa at evey step. Though a genius, he desists from the temptation of too many alaṅkāras and will keep various aṅga-rasas and bhāvas within the limits of propriety so that the aṅgi-rasa shines out in full splendour. The detection of this propriety or aucitya in the treatment of rasa by the poet is alone the primary business of the critic and not the labelling in terms of alaṅkāras. Even lapses will be ignored and his rasa admired by critics if the poet's genius is strong.

Thus, the philosophy of dhvani which gives the most adequate and searching explanation of rasa will be found to bear many a parallel in the thought of modern writers like I. A. Richards, Christopher Caudwell and Susan Langer. It touches the inmost depth of poetry on the one hand and illumines the most serviceable procedure for practical literary criticism on the other. The best supporters of Ānandavardhana are his worst critics because they all tacitly admit that Rasa is the soul of poetry though they demur to the new name Dhvani. Let me close with a nice tribute to him paid by Rājaśekhara :-

ध्वनिनिनातिगभीरेण काव्यतत्त्वनिवेशिना । आनन्दवर्धन: कस्य नासीद आनन्दवर्धन: ॥

ध्वन्यालोक:

DHVANYĀLOKA:

PRATHAMODDYOTAH

स्वेच्छाकेसरिणः स्वच्छस्वच्छायायासितन्दवः¹। त्रागन्तां वो मधुरिपोः प्रपन्नार्तिच्छदो नखाः² ॥

काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति बुधैः समाम्नातपूर्वं- स्तस्याभावं जगदुरपरे भाक्तमाहुरस्तमन्ये । केचिद्वाचां स्थितमविषये³ तत्त्वमूचुस्तदीयं तेन⁴ ध्वान्तः सहेतुमनःपातितयै तत्स्वरूपं ॥ २ ॥

बुचैः काव्यतत्त्वविद्रिः काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति संज्ञितः, परम्परया यः समाम्नातपूर्वे⁵ सम्यक् आ समन्तात् स्मृतः प्रकटितः;, तस्य सहृदयजनमनः- प्रकारानानस्याप्यभावमन्ये जगदुः । तदभाववादिनां नामी विकलपा: सम्भवन्ति ।

तत्र केचिद्वक्षीरन् - 'शब्दार्थशरीरं तावत्काव्यम् । तस्य च शब्दगता- श्रृङ्गारादहेतवोऽनुप्रासादः प्रसिद्धा एव । अथैगताश्रोंपमादयः । वृत्तेस्सङ्घटनाधर्मोक्ष ये माधुर्यौजस्स्तैडपि वातीयान्ते । तदनतिरिक्तवृत्यो वृत्त्योदपि या: काचिदुपनागरिकाद्या: प्रकाशिता:, ता अपि मताः श्रवणगोचरम् । रीतयश्च वैदर्भीपप्रभृतयः । तद्रुचतिरिक्तः कोऽयं 'ध्वनिनिर्मोक्तुं' ।

अन्ये ब्रुमः । 'नास्त्येव ध्वनिः । प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानव्यतिरेकिणः काव्य- प्रकारस्य काव्यत्वहानेः सहृदयहृदयाह्लादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम् । न चोकप्रस्थानातिरेकिणो⁶ मार्गेस्य तत्सम्भवति । न च तत्समयान्तःपातिनः

१. 'विजितेन्तवः' ग. २. 'वः प्रपन्नार्तिच्छदो मधुरिपोनखाः' ग. ३. 'मविषयै' ग. ४. 'येन' ग. ५. समाम्नातः समाख्यातः तस्य - व. ६. 'तत्र' क - ख - पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ७. तत्र-BI' ८. वर्ण omitted in MB. ९. 'काव्चि' ग. १०. 'तिरिक्त-मिणो' ग.

THE LIGHT OF SUGGESTION

THE FIRST FLASH May Lord Hari's claws preserve you In his Lion's form self-adopted; They outshine the moon in clear hue And destroy the woes of the devoted.

Though the learned men of yore have declared time and again that the soul of poetry is suggestion, some would aver its non-existence, some would regard it as something (logically) implied and some others would speak of its essence as lying beyond the scope of words. We propose, therefore, to explain its nature and bring delight to the hearts of perceptive critics.1

The word learned men has the sense of those who know the truth about poetry. Through an unbroken tradition, these have taught that the soul of poetry has been named Suggestion. Although it is felt so by cultured critics in their minds (even to-day), others affirmed its non-existence. The following are the different views of those who believe in its non-existence :

According to some (of the objectors) : "Poetry is but that whose body is constituted by sound (or word) and meaning. Sources of charm through sound such as 'alliteration' are well-known; and so are the sources of charm through meaning such as 'simile'. Merits or qualities of composition like 'sweetness' are also familiar to us. Also we have heard of dictions such as the 'cultured' propounded by some, though in truth their features are no different from qualities of style. We have further heard of styles like Vaidarbhī. But what could this concept of DHVANI (suggestion) be which is different from any of these ?"

Others assert thus : " 'Suggestion' does not exist indeed; for a species of poetry opposed to all well-known canons will necessarily cease to be poetry. Poetry can only be defined as that which is made up of such words and meanings as will delight the mind of the critic. This will not be achieved by a route which excludes all the well-known canons mentioned. Even if the

Dhvanayalokaḥ

सहृदयान् कांश्चित्पारिकल्‍प्य तत्सिद्ध्‍या ध्वनौ काव्यत्‍वव्यपदेशः: प्रवर्तितोऽपि सकलविद्‍धन्‍मनोऽ्याहितामलमते³ । पुनरपरे तस्याभावमन्‍यथा कथयेयुः । ‘ न सम्भवत्येव ध्वनिर्‍नोऽपि पूर्वः कश्‍चित्‍ । कामनीयकमनतिवर्तमानस्य तस्योक्तेष्वेव चारुत्‍वहेतुष्‍वन्तर्भावात् । ⁵तेषामन्‍यतमस्यैव वा अपूर्वसमासार्‍यामात्रकरणे यत्किच्‍न्‍ कथन्‍³ स्यात् ।

किं वा वाग्‍विकल्‍पानामानन्‍त्यात्सम्भवत्यपि वा कर्ंश्चित्काव्‍यलक्षणविधायिभिः प्रसिद्धैरदर्शिंते प्रकालरेशे ध्वनिध्‍वेनिरिति यदेतदलीकसहृदयत्वभावनासमुल्‍कुलितलोचनैरन्‍वित्यते तत्र हेतुं न विद्मः । सहृशो हि¹ महात्माभिरन्‍यरलंकृतिरपकारः: प्रकाशितः: प्रकाश्‍यन्‍ते च । न च तेषामेषा दशा श्रूयते । 10तस्मात्प्रवादमात्रं ध्वनि: । न त्‍वस्य क्षोदक्षमं तत्‍वं² किंचिदपि³ प्रकाशयितुं शक्ष्‍यम्‍ । तथा चान्‍येन कृत एवात्र श्‍लोकः ।

यस्मिन्‍नास्‍ति न वस्तु किंचन मनःप्रह्‍लादि सालंकृतिं व्‍युत्पन्‍नै रचितं च नैवं⁴ वचनैरेकोक्तिशून्यं च यत्‍ । काव्‍यं तद्‍ध्‍वनिना समन्‍वितमिति प्रीत्‍या प्रशंसाभ्‍नडो नो विद्मो³ ‘डभिदधाति किं सुमतिना पृष्ठः: स्‍वरूपं ध्‍वने: ॥’ 15भाक्तमाहुस्‍तमन्‍ये । अन्‍ये तं ध्‍वनिसंज्ञितं काव्‍यात्‍मानं गुणवृत्ति-रित्‍योहुः । यद्यापि च ध्‍वानेराब्‍दसंकीतनेन काव्‍यलक्षणविधायिभिरगुणवृत्तिरन्‍यो वा न कश्‍चित्प्रकारः: प्रकाशितः:, तथापि अमुया²वृत्त्‍या काव्‍येषु व्‍यवहारं दर्शयता³ ध्‍वनिमार्गोऽपि न लक्ष्य इति⁴ परिकल्‍प्यैवमुक्तस्-20‘भाक्तमाहुस्‍तमन्‍ये’ इति ।

१. ‘पारिकल्‍पिततत्‍व’ -घ २. ° त्‍ववहारः - MB ३. ‘मेव लभ्‍ने’ -ग. ४. कश्‍चित्प्रकारः - MB. ५. काव्‍यशोभाहेतु° - MB. ६. ‘कथन्‍ ’ -ख; ‘कथितं’ -ग. ७. कश्‍चित्प्रकारः: -क–ख. ८. °डपि -क–ख. ९. °रन्यैरालंकृतिरलं - MB. १०. ‘क्षोद-क्षमत्‍व’ -ग. ११. ‘दर्शिं’ -क–ख. १२. ‘नालंकृते’ -ख, ‘सौलंकृते’ -ग. १३. यन्‍न -MB १४. ‘भिदधातु’ -ग.; विद्‍धाति -MB. १५. ° व्‍युतिमाहुः -MB १६. गुणवृत्त्‍या -घ. १७. ‘मनाक्‍सृष्टो लक्ष्यत इति ’ -घ. मनाक्‍सृष्टो संलभ्‍यते -MB.

The Light of Suggestion

designation of poetry were to be accepted as applying to DHVANI on the unanimous support of a coterie of self-styled critics, it would fail to win the acceptance of all the learned.

Yet another opinion about its non-existence is : " It is indeed impossible that 'suggestion' can be something unknown before. Since it is not distinct from a source of charm, it gets naturally included in the causes of charm already enunciated. By coining a novel designation to just one of them nothing profound will have been stated. Moreover, since the ways of speech are endless, even if there should be an insignificant element left unexplained by the famous framers of the rules of poetry, we cannot understand the reason why persons should close their eyes under the self-assumed illusion of being 'perceptive critics' and dance about with joy saying that they have discovered DHVANI therein. Thousands of other great men have expounded, and are still expounding, figurative elements ( of speech ). But we do not hear of any such over-excitement on their part. Therefore, DHVANI is but a fabrication; and it would be impossible to demonstrate any truth about it which can bear scrutiny. In fact, a gentleman has already composed a verse to this effect :

Poetry, wherein there is nothing to delight the mind and no embellishment, which is destitute of felicitous words and artful turns, is praised so warmly by the dunce as being endowed with DHVANI ( Suggestion ). But we are at a loss to imagine what answer he would give when faced with a straight question by an intelligent critic about the nature of DHVANI itself !

Some others mention it as something ( logically ) implied. ( To put it differently, ) others declare that the soul of poetry, designated by the term Suggestion, is the same as a secondary usage of words. Although it is true that no literary theorist has ever shown any element like a secondary usage of words as being specifically identical with Suggestion by mentioning the word 'Suggestion' itself, we have noted here such a view because we can conclude that one who points out the secondary usage of words in poetry has slightly touched the fringe of the doctrine of Suggestion, though one does not define it.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

केचित्पुनः लक्षणकरणशालीनबुद्धयो ध्वनेःस्तत्वं गिरामगोचरं सहृदयहृदयसंवेद्यमेव समारल्यातवन्तः ।

तेनैवंविधासु विमतिषु स्थितासु सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपं बूमः ।

तस्य हि योः स्वरूपं सकलसौकविकाव्यापारनिर्द्धूतमात्रमणीय-5मणीयसीभिरपि चिरन्तनकाव्यरक्षणविधायिनां बुद्धिभिरनुन्मीलितपूर्वम्, अथ च रामायणमहाभारतप्रभृतिनि लक्ष्ये सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धव्यवहारं लक्ष्यतां सहृदयानामनानन्दो मनसि लभतां प्रतिष्ठामिति प्रकाश्यते ।

तत्र ध्वनेरेव लक्षणयितुमारडस्य भूयिकां रचयितुमिदमुच्यते-योऽर्थः सहृदयस्खाध्यः काव्यात्मेति व्यवस्थितः ।

वाच्यप्रतीयमानाकाङ्क्षी तस्य भेदाभूमौ स्मृतौ ।। २ ।।

काव्यस्य हि ललितोचितसत्रिवेशचारुणा शरीस्येवात्मा सारूपतया स्थितः सहृदयस्खाध्यो योऽर्थस्तस्य वाच्यः प्रतीयमानश्चेति द्वौ भेदौ ।

तत्र वाच्यः प्रसिद्धो यः प्रकाररूपप्रादिभिः ।

बहुधा व्याकृतः सोऽन्यैः काव्यलक्षणविधायिभिः ।

ततो नेह पतन्यते ।। ३ ।।

केवलमनूद्यते यथोपयोगामिति ।

प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वस्त्वस्ति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम् ।

यत्तत्प्रसिद्धावयवातिरिक्तं विभाति लावण्यमिवाझ्नासु ।।४।।

१. करण omitted in MB. २. o विधासु तिसृषु - MB. ३. o रमणीयमणीयसीभिरपि - MB.; अपि o omitted in व. ४. o प्रभृतिनि - MB. ५. पुनरन्यदेव - व. ६. अर्थः o व. KLV. ७. o तस्य योः - व, KLV. ८. 'स्मृतः' क ख. १०. 'ध्यायिभिः' भट्टोद्टप्रभृतिभिः - MB. ११. 'भट्टोद्टप्रभृतिभिस्ततो' - ग. १२. 'आश्रिति' - ग, MB, KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

Still others, not astute enough to frame a definition, rest content with saying that the true nature of suggestion is beyond all words and that it is discernible only to the minds of perceptive critics.

In view of the prevalence of so many conflicting opinions, we propose to elucidate the nature of Suggestion for the delight of the perceptive critics.

Suggestion itself is both the quintessence of the works of all first-rate poets and the most beautiful principle of poetry though it remained unnoticed even by the subtlest of the rhetoricians of the past. However, refined critics are certainly alive to its primary presence in literary works like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata; and with a view to placing their delight on a secure footing, we shall explain its nature (in detail).

The following is meant to serve as a groundwork for the theory of Suggestion which has been taken up for a detailed study :—

That meaning which wins the admiration of refined critics is decided to be the soul of poetry. The ‘explicit’ and the ‘implicit’ are regarded as its two aspects.

That meaning which wins the admiration of perceptive critics and which is of the very essence of poetry—even as the soul is of a body which is naturally handsome by the union of graceful and proper limbs—has two aspects, viz., the explicit and the implicit.

Of these, the explicit is commonly known and it has been already set forth in many ways through figures of speech such as the simile by other writers; hence it need not be discussed here at length.

The expression, ‘other writers’, alludes to writers on poetics (like Bhatta Udbhata). ‘(Hence it need not be discussed here at length’ should be taken to imply that) the conclusions of earlier writers will be freely quoted whenever a need arises for them.

But the implicit aspect is quite different from this. In the words of first-rate poets it shines supreme and towers above the beauty of the striking external constituents even as charm in ladies.

Dhvan yaloka

प्रतीयमानं पुनरन्यदेव वाच्याद्‌वस्त्वरति वाणीषु महाकवीनाम् । यत्तत्स-हृदयसुप्रसिद्धं प्रसिद्धौ येभ्योलड्‌कृतिभ्यः प्रतीतेभ्यो वावयवेभ्यो व्यतिरिक्तल्वेन प्रकारते लावण्यमिवाऽ‌ऽनासु । यथा हृद्‌नासु लावण्यं पृथड्‌निर्वर्ण्यमाने निखिलावयवव्यतिरेकि किमप्यन्यदेव सहृदयलोचन(मूलं तत्वान्तरं तद्‌देव ५.सौद्थे: ।

स ह्यर्थो वाच्यसामर्थ्योक्षिसं वस्तुमात्रमलड्‌कारा रसादयश्वेत्यनेकप्रभेद-प्रभिन्नो दर्शोयिष्यते । सर्वेषु च तेषु प्रकारेषु तस्य वाच्यादन्यत्वम् । तथा ह्याघस्तावत्प्रभेदो वाच्याद्‌विरुद्वान् । स हि कदाचिद्वाच्ये विधिरूपे प्रतिषेधरूपः । यथा—

भम धम्मिअ वीसर्यो सो सुणओ अज्ज मारिओ देण । गोला णईकच्छवुड्‌डवासिणा दरिअस्सीहे ण ॥ [ भ्रम धार्मिक विश्वास्तः स शुनकोद्य मारितस्तेन । गोदानदीकूलताकुञ्जवासिना द्वारिसिंहेन ॥ इति च्छाया ] कदाचिद्वाच्ये प्रतिषेधरूपे विधिरूपो यथा —

अत्ता एत्य णिमज्जइ एत्य अहं दिअसअं पलोएहि । मा पाहिअ रत्तिअञ्झअ सेज्जाए मह णिमं जाहिसि ॥ [ श्वश्रूरप्ति निर्मज्जति अत्राहं दिवसं प्रलोकय । मा पथिक रात्र्यन्वअ सेज्जाए मह णिमज्जाहिसि ॥ इति च्छाया ] कचिद्वाच्ये विधिरूपेऽनुभयरूपो यथा —

वच्च मह वि अ एक्कइ होन्तु णीसअरोइअव्वाइं । मा तुज्झ वि तिअ विणा दक्खि वर्‌णहअस्स जाणन्तु ॥

१. ‘यन्तत्सहृदयहृदयप्रसिद्धं' -घ २. ‘वावयवेभ्यः' - ख. ३. ‘अप्रथक्पृथ-हुनिर्वर्ण्यमा' ', -ग. ४. अलङ्काररसादय° - BP. ५. प्रकारो - MB. ६. प्रकारेऽपु omitted in MB. ७. ‘दूरपाविभेदवान्' -ग. ८. ‘कचिद्वाच्ये' - घ.; BP. ९. क्वाचित्प्रतिषेधे विधिरूपो -घ. foot notes. १०. महण् - घ. ११. दक्खिवण्ण -व., BP.

The Light of Suggestion

The implicit aspect is entirely different from the explicit aspect and it is found in the words of first-rate poets. It is most familiar to the minds of refined critics and it shines forth as being over and above the 'striking external constituents.' The expression 'striking' connotes not only what is 'adorned with figures' but also what is 'perceptible to the senses.' Charm in ladies is a simile in point. Just as charm in ladies exceeds the beauty of all the individual limbs observed separately, and delights like ambrosia the eye of the admirer in a most unique fashion, so also does this implicit meaning. It will be shown in the sequel that this meaning embraces various divisions such as the bare idea, figures and sentiments, all implied by the inner power of the explicit. In all these varieties, it will be seen to differ from the explicit. To illustrate : even the first variety itself differs very widely from the explicit. Sometimes the implicit meaning will be of the nature of a prohibition when the explicit is of the nature of positive proposal; e. g.,

Ramble freely, pious man ! That dog to-day is killed By the fierce lion that dwells In Godā river dells.

Sometimes, though the explicit meaning is of the nature of a prohibition, the implicit will be of the nature of a positive proposal; e. g.,

Mother-in-law lies here, lost in sleep; And I here; thou shouldst mark These before it is dark. O traveller, blinded by night, Tumble not into our beds aright.

Sometimes, though the explicit meaning may be of the nature of a positive proposal, the implicit may be neither a definite prohibition nor a definite proposal; e. g.,

Get thee gone! I pray, May all sighs and tears be mine, I say.

Dhvanȳaloka

[ तत्र ममवैकल्या भवन्तु नि:श्वासरोदितव्यानी | मा त्वापि तया विना दाक्षिण्यहतस्म्य जानिषत || इति च्छाया ] काचिद्वाच्ये प्रतिषेधरुपेडनुभयरुपो यथा - दे आ पसिअ णिवत्तमु महुअसिजोहाविलत्तमणीवहे |

अहिसारिआणो विग्गं करोसी अण्णाणं वि हआमे || [ प्राथेये तावत्प्रसिद्ध निवर्तेतु मुखश्रृङ्जयोस्तनाविकृततमोनिवहे | अभिसारिकाणां विदनं करोण्यन्यासामपि हताशो || इति च्छाया ] काचिद्वाच्याद्विमित्रविषयत्वेन व्यवस्थापितो यथा - कम्म व ण होइ रोसो दट्ठूण पिआएँ सव्वणं अहरम् |

सम्भरपेउअमघाइणि वारिअव्वामे महसु एहिअम् || [ कम्म वा न भवति रोषो दष्ट्रा प्रियाया: सवनमघरम् | सम्भ्रमपात्रमघ्नानि वारितव्यामे सहस्रदान्निम् || इति च्छाया ]

अन्ये चैवंप्रकारा वाच्याद्विभेदिन: प्रतीतिमानमेदा: सम्भवन्ति | तेषां दिड्मात्रमेतत्प्रदर्शितम् |

द्वितीयोऽपि प्रभेदो वाच्याद्विभिन्न: सप्रपञ्चमग्रे दर्शयिष्यते | तृतीयस्तु रसादिलक्षण: प्रभेदो वाच्यसाम्योक्षिस्म: प्रकाशते, न तु साक्षाच्छठत्‌ग्यापारविषय इति वाच्याद्विभिन्न एव | तथा हि वाच्यत्वं तस्य स्वशब्दनिवेदितत्वेन वा स्यात्‌, विभावादिप्रतिपादनमुखेन वा | पूर्वस्मि-

न्नपेक्षे स्वशब्दनिवेदितत्वभावे रसादी नामप्रतिप्रतीतिप्रसङ्ग: | न च सर्वत्र तेषां स्वशब्दनिवेदितत्वम् | यत्राप्यस्ति तत्‌; तत्प्रापि विशेषविभावादिप्रतिपादनमुखेनैव प्रतिपत्ति: | स्वशब्देन मा केवलमनूद्यते। न तु तत्त्वत: |

2. 'नमाणवहे' - व, म. 3. 'उपमस्म्रा°' - थ. 3. 'चेदंबिधा: प्रकारा' - व. 4. 'काचिद्वाचार' - म. 5. 'प्रकाशयते' - क - ख. 6. 'मव' -क-ख-पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. 7. 'निवेदयितु° सत्नापि वस्ले' -क-ख. 8. तत्‌-च पुस्तके नास्ति. 9. 'मुखेन तेषां' - MB. 10. 'अपनीनि:' - म. 11. 'भा' क-ख-पुस्तकयोरनास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Let them not be thine again In false courtesy to me.

Sometimes, though the explicit meaning is of the nature of a prohibition, the implicit is neither a prohibition nor a proposal; e. g., Humbly I beg thee, please go back; Indeed, O sweet, thou drivest all gloom By the bright light of your moon-face. A pity it is that thou dost harm The journeys of other wantons Seeking their lovers' arms.

Sometimes, the implicit meaning will relate to something entirely different from that to which the explicit is related. e. g., Who will not rise in rage Seeing his beloved's lip wounded? You heeded not my warning And kissed the lotus hiding a bee. Now rightly pay the penalty!

There are various other forms besides these in which the varieties of the implicit meaning appear distinct from the explicit. What has been demonstrated above should be taken only as a pointer in that direction.

That the second class of the implicit ( viz. figures of speech ) too differs from the explicit will be demonstrated in detail later on.

But the third class of the implicit, viz., sentiments etc., is seen to shine forth as a result of the latent power in the explicit. It never becomes an object of direct verbal denotation and hence it is decidedly distinct from the explicit. If at all it could be an object of the explicit, it might be so alleged either as being directly denoted by its proper names or as being denoted through the delineation of characters in a setting, etc. If the first alternative were true, there would be no possibility of an experience of sentiments etc., in instances where their proper names are not

DHVANYĀLOKA:

विषयान्तरे तथाऽऽतस्याऽऽन्दर्शनात्। न हि केवलशृङ्गारादिशब्दमात्रभाजि विभावादिप्रतिपादनरहिते काव्ये मनागपि रसवत्त्वप्रतीतिरस्ति। यतस्तु स्वाभिधानमन्तरेण केऽलभ्योडपि विभावादिभ्यो विशेषेभ्यो रसादीनां प्रतीति:, केवलाज्ज स्वाभिधानादेवप्रतीति:; तन्मादन्वयव्यतिरिके भावाभावप्रयोगानुपलब्ध्यसामध्य- ५ स्थित्वमेव रसादीनाम, न त्वभिधेयत्वं कथञ्चिदिति तृतीयोऽपि प्रभेदो वाच्याभिन्न एवेति स्थितम्। वाच्येन त्वस्य सहेतुं प्रतीतिरित्यपे दर्शयिष्यते।

काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थस्तथा चादेकवेः पुरा। क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः इलोकत्वमागतः॥५॥

विविधवाच्यवाच्यविवेकिरचनाप्रपञ्चचारुणा: काव्यस्य स एवार्थः सार- १० मृतः। तथा चादिकवेर्वाल्मीकेः सान्निहितसहचरीविरहकतरकौञ्चाक्रन्दजनितः शोक एव श्लोकतया परिणत:। शोको हि करुणस्थायिभावः। प्रतीप- मानस्य चान्यभेददर्शनेनैवोपलक्षणं, प्राधान्यात्।

१. 'तथा' ग-पुस्तके नास्ति. २. 'दर्शनात्' -ग. ३. 'विशेषेभ्यो' ग-पुस्तके नास्ति. ४. 'स्वाभिधानमात्राद्' -क-ख. ५. सहेतुं - घ. ६. 'प्रदर्शयिष्यते' - ग. ७. 'विविधवाच्यविशिष्टवाच्य' - घ. ८. 'प्रपञ्च' क-ख-पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. Also not found in the citation made in KLV. p. lll. ९. निहतसहचरी - BP.; निहित. MB. १०. After this ग cites the verse :

"मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः! यत्क्रौञ्चमिथुनादेकमवधी: काममोहितम्॥"

११. 'करुणरसे' - व. १२. प्रतीपमानरूप एवोति प्रतिपादितम् (घ). १३. प्रभेद (घ).

The Light of Suggestion

employed. Never are they so denoted directly by their proper names. Even when proper names are present, the experience of sentiments etc. is not due to them but only due to the delineation of characters in a proper setting etc. The experience of sentiments etc. is only given a designation by the proper name and is not at all conditioned by it. In fact we do not have the experience ( of sentiments etc. ) in all the instances where proper names are used. Indeed, there is not even the slightest experience of the presence of sentiments in a composition which contains only their proper names such as the Erotic and which is destitute of all delineation of the characters in a setting and so forth. Since we can have the experience of sentiments etc. only through the characters in a setting etc. irrespective of their proper names and since we cannot have the experience only by the use of proper names, we may conclude on the basis of these considerations, both positive and negative, that sentiments etc. are only implied by the latent power of the explicit and in no way denoted explicitly. Thus it is established that even the third class of the implicit meaning is quite distinct from the explicit. It will be shown in the sequel, however, that its experience will appear to be almost simultaneous with the explicit.

The Light of Suggestion

That meaning alone is the soul of poetry; and so it was that, of yore, the sorrow of the First Poet ( i. e. Vālmīki ) at the separation of the curlew couple took the form of a distich.

The Light of Suggestion

That meaning alone happens to be the quintessence of poetry whose outward charm is secured by the combination of varied and uncommon explicit meanings, expressions and art of arrangement. That is why the sorrow of the First Poet, on hearing the wail of the he-curlew afflicted with separation from its close mate, transformed itself into a distich. Sorrow indeed is the abiding emotion which is at the basis of the sentiment of pathos. As already explained, it is only of the nature of the implicit. Though one can discern other sub-species of the implicit, they can all be understood by the synecdoche of sentiments and emotions since these happen to be the most important representatives of the rest.

ध्वन्यालोक:

सरस्वती स्वादु तदर्थवस्तु नि:ष्यानन्दमाना महतां कवीनाम् । अलोकसामान्यमभिव्यनक्ति? परिस्फुरन्तं प्रतिभाविशेषम् ॥६॥

तत् वसुतत्त्वं नि:ष्यानन्दमाना महतां कवीनां भवती अलोकसामान्यं प्रतिभाविशेषं परिस्फुरन्तमभिव्यनक्ति । येनास्मिन्नन्तिविचित्रकविपरम्परावाहिनि संसारे कालिदासप्रभृतयो द्वित्रा: पञ्चषा वा महाकवय इति गण्यन्ते ।

इदं चापरं प्रतिप्यमानस्यार्थस्य सद्भावसाधनं प्रमाणम्—शब्दार्थशासनज्ञानमात्रेणैव न वेधते । स तु काव्यार्थतत्त्वज्ञैरेव केवलम् ॥ ७ ॥

शब्दार्थशासनज्ञानमात्रेडपि परैन वेधते सोऽर्थो यस्यात्केवले काव्यार्थतत्त्वज्ञैरेव ज्ञायते । यद् न वाच्यरूप एवासावर्थ:?? स्यात्तद्वाचकरूपपरिज्ञानादेव तत्प्रतीति: स्यात् । अथ च वाच्यवाचकलक्षणमात्रकृतश्रमाणां काव्यतस्वार्थमौननाविमुगतानां स्वरश्रुत्यादिलक्षणमिवाड्प्रगीतानां गान्धर्वलक्षणविदामगोचर एवासावर्थ: ।

एवं वाच्यव्यतिरेकिणो व्यङ्ग्यचैस्य सद्भावं प्रतिपाद्य प्राधान्यं तस्यैवति दर्शयति?—सोडर्थस्तद्रुचक्तिसामर्थ्ययोगी शब्ददृश कव्वन । यत्नेन: प्रतिपाद्यो तो शब्दार्थौ महाकवेः ॥

सैं व्यङ्गचोड्येस्तद्रुचक्तिसामर्थ्ययोगी? शब्ददृश कव्वन, न सर्वे:?

१. 'अलोकसाम्यं' प्रतिभगविशेषं परिस्फुरन्तं समभिव्यनक्ति' -क-ख. २. प्रति-स्फुरन् -च. ३. तत् घ पुस्तकके नास्ति. ४. 'वसुतत्त्वं' इत्यारभ्य 'व्यनक्ति' इति पर्यन्तं क - ख-पुस्तकयोरनास्ति. ५. सरस्वती-च. ६. 'स्याति' क - ख. ७. 'इति' - ग-पुस्तकके नास्ति. ८. 'हि' -च, KLV. ९. 'शब्दार्थशासनज्ञानमात्रेडपि परैन वेधते सोऽर्थो ' -च. १०. 'च' क-ख-पुस्तकयोरनास्ति. ११. 'एवास्यार्थ:' - ग. १२. 'तत्' क - पुस्तकके नास्ति. १३. 'तद्वाचकरूप' - ग. वाचक स्वरूप-च. १४. 'काव्यार्थतत्व' क - ख. १५. 'स्वलक्षण'-ग. १६. गम्भ प्रगीतानां-च. १७. 'व्यङ्गचस्यार्थस्य' -ग. १८. 'प्रतिपाद्योति' - च., 'प्रदेशयितुं' - ग. १९. 'सं' व्यङ्गचोऽर्थे-स्तद्रुचक्तिसामर्थ्ययोगी? ' शब्ददृश कव्वन, न सर्वे:? - ग, BP. २०. 'अर्थस्तद्रुप्रकाशनसामर्थ्ययोगी' - च. २१.न शब्दमात्रं - ग, BP.

The Light of Suggestion

The speech of first-rate poets streaming forth that sweet content reveals clearly their extraordinary genius which is as unearthly as it is ever bright.

The Light of Suggestion

The speech of first-rate poets which streams forth such subjects as are full of the said meaning will reveal most clearly the extraordinary genius of the poets; a genius which not only appears unearthly but also ever bright. Hence it is that though the world of traditionally accepted poets is very wide and varied, only two to three or at the most five to six amongst them, such as Kālidāsa, are counted as first-rate poets.

The Light of Suggestion

Here is another evidence to prove the existence of the Implicit meaning :

The Light of Suggestion

It is not understood by a mere learning in grammar and in dictionary. It is understood only by those who have an insight into the true significance of poetry.

The Light of Suggestion

By a mere learning in rules of grammar and meanings recorded in lexicons, that meaning connot be grasped; for it can be grasped only by those who have an insight into the true significance of poetry. In case this meaning too were the same as the explicit, then it should have been quite possible to understand it merely by a knowledge of the nature of explicit meanings and expressions. But the fact is that that meaning ( i. e. implicit meaning ) remains beyond the understanding of persons with a grounding merely in the science of meanings and words but averse to aesthetic contemplation of the intrinsic significance of poetry, even as the true appreciation of notes and tones of music will remain beyond the reach of scholars in the science of music if they are not good musicians.

The Light of Suggestion

Thus after establishing the existence of the implicit meaning as distinct from the explicit, the over-riding superiority of that meaning is demonstrated in what follows :

The Light of Suggestion

That meaning, and that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it, only these two deserve the careful scrutiny of a first-rate poet.

The Light of Suggestion

' that meaning ' refers to the implicit and ' that rare word which possesses the power of conveying it ' points out that it is not any and every word ( recorded in the dictionary ). Such a

ध्वन्यालोक:

तावेव शब्दार्थौ महाकवे: प्रत्यभिज्ञेयौ । न्यायचर्याज्ञकाभ्यामेव हि सुप्रयुक्ताभ्यां महाकवित्लाभो महाकवीनां, न वाच्यवाचकरचनामात्रेण । इदानीं न्यायचर्याज्ञकयो: प्राधान्येऽपि यद्वाच्यवाचकावेव प्रथममुपाद्धते कवयस्तदापि युक्तमेवेत्याह--

आलोकार्थी यथा दीपशिखायां यत्नवान्ननः । तदुपायतया तद्‌दर्थे वाच्ये' तदाहतः ॥ ९ ॥

यथा ह्यालोकार्थी सन्नपि दीपाशिखायां यत्नवाञ्छनेन भवति तदुपायतया। न हि दीपशिखामन्तरेणालोक: सम्भवति । तद्‌लव्यतिरिक्तमर्य प्रत्यादत्तो जने वा' च्येडर्थे यत्नवान् भवति । अनेन प्र³तिपाद्यस्य केव्ल्येडर्थं प्रति व्यापारो दर्शित: ।

प्रतिपाद्यस्यापि तं दर्शयितुमाह -- यथा पदार्थद्वारेण वाक्यार्थ: सम्प्रतीयते । वाच्यार्थपूर्विका तद्‌द्रृ³म् तिपत्तस्य वस्तुन: ॥१०॥

यथा हि पदार्थद्वारेण वाक्यार्थावगमस्तथा वाच्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिपूर्विका तद्‌व्यतिरिक्तस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपत्ति: ।

इदानीं वाच्यार्थप्रतीतिपूर्वकत्वेऽपि तत्प्रतीतेः कार्य्यस्यार्थस्य प्राधान्यं यथा न व्यालुप्यते' तथा दर्शयति --

१. 'अर्थो वाच्यो' - ग.; 'वाच्ये प्रति तमाहतः' - No. 254 (BORI) २. 'जनो' क-ख-पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ३. 'वाच्यार्थे' - ख. ४. 'प्रतिपाद्यस्य' - ख. ५. 'अर्थ' क-ख-पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ६. 'प्रतिपत्तस्य' -क - ख; प्रतिपत्तव्य० - घ. ७. 'हि' क - ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ८. 'वाक्यार्थस्यावगम:' ग. ९. 'व्यालुप्यते' - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

word and such a meaning - only these two deserve the careful recognition of a first-rate poet. The status of first-rate poets is achieved only by the effective employment of suggested meanings and suggestive expressions and not by a mere use of conventional meanings and conventional words.

The Light of Suggestion

It is shown below that poets are quite justified in availing themselves, at the outset, of the conventional meaning and conventional word even if the suggested meaning and the suggestive word happen to be far superior.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as a man interested in perceiving objects (in the dark) directs his efforts towards securing a lamp since it is a means to realise his end, so also does one who is ultimately interested in the suggested meaning proceed by first evincing interest in the conventional meaning.

The Light of Suggestion

Even though a man may ultimately be interested only in the perception of objects, he will (first) direct his efforts towards securing light as it serves as a means to achieve his end. In fact, without a lamp, there could be no perception possible. So also a man who is ultimately interested in the suggested meaning will first direct his efforts towards the conventional meaning. By this it is shown how a poet-labours towards the suggested meaning.

The Light of Suggestion

That this is true of the reader also is shown below :

The Light of Suggestion

Just as the purport of a sentence is grasped through the meaning of individual words, the knowledge of that sense is got at only through the medium of the explicit sense.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as the purport of the sentence as a whole is known only through the medium of word-import, so also is the knowledge of the suggested sense gained through the medium of the conventional sense.

The Light of Suggestion

Now, even though the knowledge of the suggested sense is thus invariably preceded by a knowledge of the conventional sense, it is shown below how its importance does not grow less on that account :

धान्यालोक:

स्वसामर्थ्यवशेनैव वाक्यार्थं प्रथयत्रापि । यथा व्यापारनिष्पत्तौ पदार्थौ न विभाव्यते ॥११॥

यथा स्वसामर्थ्यवशेनैव वाक्यार्थः प्रकाशयन्नापि पदार्थो व्यापारनिष्पत्तौ न विभाव्यते विभक्ततया —

तद्वत्सचेतसां सोडयं वाच्यार्थाविमुखात्मनां । बुद्धौ तत्त्वार्थदर्शिन्यां झटित्येवावभासते ॥१२॥³

एवं वाच्यलयतिरेकिणो व्यङ्ग्यस्यार्थस्य सद्धावं प्रतिपाद्य प्रकृत उपयोगयन्त्राह —

यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थौ । व्यङ्ग्युक्तः काव्यविशेषः स ध्वानिरिति सूरिभिः कथितः ॥१३॥

यत्रार्थो वाच्यविशेषः वाचकविशेष:" शब्दो वा तमर्थं व्यङ्ग्युक्तः स काव्यविशेषो ध्वनिरिति । अननेन वाच्यवाचककारुत्वहेतुभ्य उपमादिमभ्योडनुप्रासदिम्यक्ष विभक्त एव ध्वनिरेवषय इति दर्शितम् ।

यद्ययुक्तम् — ' प्रसिद्धप्रस्थानातिक्रमिणो मार्गस्य काव्यत्वहानेःध्वोर्नास्ति ' इति तद्ययुक्तम् । यतो लक्षणकृतामेव स केवलं न प्रसिद्धः, लक्ष्ये तु परीक्ष्यमाणे स एव सहृदयहृदयाह्लादकारि काव्यतत्त्वम् । ततोडन्यच्चित्रवेल्ल्यग्रे दर्शयिष्यामः ।

१. प्रतिपाद्यन - BP & KSS Editions २. ' झगिति '- क, KLV.

३. यत्राऽ(ज्ञा)त्रभासते । (?) इति वपुस्तके वृत्तावधिकः । यत्रावभासते No. 254 ( BORI ).

४. प्रकृते ध्वनिलक्षणे उपयोगे गमयन्त्राह - KLV. ५. ' वाचकविशेषः ' क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति.

६. सहृदयहृदयाह्लादि काव्यमू. क-ख. ७. ' एव ' क-ख-पुस्तक योन्त्रास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Though by its own power the word-import is responsible for conveying the sentence-import, just as it escapes notice once its purpose is served —

The Light of Suggestion

While it is true that word-import itself conveys sentence-import through its own power, just as it does not at the same time appear as distinct from the sentence-import once this latter has been conveyed :-

The Light of Suggestion

So also that suggested meaning flashes suddenly across the truth-perceiving minds of perceptive critics when they turn away from the literal meaning.

The Light of Suggestion

So far, the existence of suggested meaning apart from the explicit has been set forth; and now it is made to serve the purpose on hand in the following text:

The Light of Suggestion

That kind of poetry, wherein the (conventional) meaning renders itself secondary or the (conventional) word renders its meaning secondary and suggests the (intended or) implied meaning, is designated by the learned as DHVANI or 'Suggestive Poetry'.

The Light of Suggestion

The kind of poetry wherein not only meaning, i. e., specific meaning but also word, i. e. specific word, goes to suggest only the said (implicit) meaning, is signified by the name DHVANI or Suggestive Poetry. By this it is shown how the province of Suggestive Poetry is quite distinct from that of the sources of charm in explicit meaning, such as the figure simile on the one hand, and from that of the sources of charm in distinctive sound, such as the figure alliteration on the other.

The Light of Suggestion

The prima facie view already mentioned, viz., "Suggestion does not exist indeed; for, a species of poetry opposed to all well-known canons will necessarily cease to be poetry", is unsound. The reason is that it is unfamilar only to writers on poetics and if one were to examine the best specimens of literature, it alone would emarge as the most intrinsic principle of poetry delighting all refined critics. We shall show later on that all else is only 'puzzling picture'.

ध्वन्यालोक:

यदप्युक्तम् कामनीयकमनतिवर्तमानास्य तैःस्योक्तालङ्कारादिप्रकार-

ध्वन्तभोव: इति, तदप्यसमोचीनम्; यतो वाच्यवाचकমাত্রाश्रयिणि प्रस्थाने

व्यङ्गचव्यञकसमाश्रेयेण व्यवस्थितस्य ध्वने: कथमन्यभोव:, वाच्यवाचकचारुत्व-

हेतवो हि तस्याङभूतास्तदेकरूपा एवेति प्रतिपादविष्यमाणत्वात् ।

परिकरश्लोकशास्त्र–

‘व्यङ्गचव्यञकसंनन्धनिबन्धनतया ध्वने: ।

वाच्यवाचकचारुत्वहेतवन्तःपातिता कुतः ॥’

ननु यत्र प्रतीयमानस्योर्थस्य वैचित्र्येनाप्रतीति: स नाम मा भूद्वने-

विषय: । यत्र तु तैःप्रस्तुतिरास्ति, यथा समासोक्त्याक्षेपानुक्तनिमित्तविशेषोक्ती-

‘पर्यायोक्तापह्नुतिदीपकसङ्करलङ्कारादौ, तत्र ध्वेनरन्यभोवो भविष्यतीत्यादि

निराकृतंमाभिहितम्–‘उपसरजेन्नकृतस्वार्थो’ इति । अर्थो गुणीकृतात्मा,

गुणींकृताभिधेय: शब्दो वा यत्रार्थोऽन्तरमभिधानकक्षि स ध्वनिरिति । तेषु कथं

तस्याङभोव: । व्यङ्गचप्राधान्ये हि ध्वनि: । न चैतत्समासोक्त्यादिव्वस्ति ।

समासोक्तौ तावत् –

उपोद्घमेण विशिष्टवार्तकं तथा रसादीनां श्लेषानुविद्धम् ।

यथा समस्तं तिमिरांशुकं तथा पुरोडपि रागादिलक्षितं न लक्षयितम् ॥

१. ‘उदितं’-ग . २. तस्योक्तेष्टव काॅण्यशोमाहेतुष्वनन्तभोव: - MB. ३.‘हि’

क-ख. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ४. प्रतिपिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात् - घ. ५. ‘अव्यर्थस्य’. - ग

६. ‘तन्न’- omitted BP. ७. ‘पर्यायोक्तापह्नुति’ - ग. ८. ‘° महदादौ’ - ग.,

० सदृशालङ्कारप्रस्तुतप्रशंसादौ - MB. ९. ‘तत्र तत्र’ - ग. १०. ° मिधेयश्च-घ

११. ‘पुरो विरागात्’ - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

The other objection, viz., "since it is not distinct from a source of charm, it naturally comes under the causes of charm already enumerated", is also fallacious. How can suggestion which is grounded on the relation of the suggested sense to the suggesting word be ever comprehended by a theory which is based on the relation of only the conventional sense to the denotative word? It will be expounded later that the sources of beauty in conventional meanings and expressions can only be ancillary and never identical with it.

The Light of Suggestion

Here is a mnemonic verse :

The Light of Suggestion

Suggestion, indeed, is conditioned by only the relation between the suggested and the suggester; when such is the case, how can it ever be subsumed under the source of beauty in the expressed and the expression?

The Light of Suggestion

Perhaps some might argue in the following strain : 'Such instances (of figures of speech) wherein no implicit meaning is clearly discernible may by all means be regarded as incapable of subsuming suggestion. But suggestion can certainly be subsumed under such figures of speech as Condensed Metaphor, Paralipsis, Metonymy, Periphrasis, Fancied Denial, Ellipsis implying a Simile, and Merging of Figures, since we have a clear perception of the implicit meaning in these. It is in order to refute such an argument that the words, 'renders itself or its meaning secondary' etc., have been included in the text.

The Light of Suggestion

The idea is that when in a work of poetry an explicit meaning renders itself secondary or when a word renders its own denotative meaning secondary and each of these suggests another sense, we call it Suggestive Poetry. How can this suggestion be brought under the said figures? Suggestion is possible only when the suggested element is exclusively important. This is not so in Condensed Metaphor and the like. In an instance of Condensed Metaphor such as—

The Light of Suggestion

The twilight (heroine's face) with twinkling stars (shining pupils) was illumined (kissed) by the moon (the hero) glowing red (overcome by emotion) so suddenly (with such love) that the entire mass of darkness (black garment) disappearing in the east (slipping even in front), due to illumination (love) was not at all noticed.—

घन्ट्यालोक:

इत्यादौ व्यङ्ग्येनानुगतं वाच्यमेव प्राधान्येन प्रतीयते, समारोपितनायिकानायकव्यवहारयोरिनशाशिनोरेव वाक्यार्थत्वात् । आक्षेपेडपि व्यङ्ग्यचविशेषाक्षेपिणो वाच्यस्यैव चारुत्वं प्राधान्येन वाक्यार्थ आक्षेपोक्तिमध्योदेवन जायते । तथाहि तत्र शब्दपारूढो विशेष-5 भिधानेच्छया प्रतिषेधरुपो य आक्षेपः स एव व्यङ्ग्यचविशेषमाक्षिप्तमुरुव्य काव्यशरीरम् । नाल्वे तर्कर्षो निबन्धना हि वाच्यव्यङ्ग्यचयोः प्राधान्यविवक्षा । यथा –

अनुरागवती सन्ध्या दिवसस्तत्पुरस्सरः । अहो दैवगतिचित्रा तथापि न समागमः ॥

10 अत्र सत्यामपि व्यङ्ग्यचप्रतीतो वाच्यस्यैव चारुत्वमुत्कर्षवदिति तस्यैव प्राधान्यविवक्षा । यथा च दीपकपहुत्यादौ व्यङ्ग्यचत्वेनोपमाया: प्रतीतावपि प्राधान्येनाविवक्षितत्वात् तया व्यपदेशस्तद्रदत्नापि दृष्टव्यम् । अनुक्कनिमित्तायामपि विशेषोक्तौ-

15 आहृतोऽस्मि सहायैरमित्युक्त्वा विशुकोविद्रोडपि गन्तुमना अपि पथिकः सड्ढोचं नैव शिथिल्यति ॥ इत्यादौ व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्रकरणसामर्ध्योत्प्रतीतिमात्रम् । न तु तत्प्रं तीतिनिमित्ता काचिचारुत्वानिपत्तिरिति न प्राधान्यम् ।

1. ' एव ' -क -ख पुस्तकयोरास्ति. 2. ' हि '-क -ख. 3. ' वाक्यार्थ '-ग.; काव्यार्थ No 254 ( BORI ). 4. ' तथाहि तत्र हि-ग. 5. ' शब्दपारूढरूपो '-घ. 6. ' निबन्धनाभिदा '-ग. 7. क्रिट्ट BP. 8. ' सहायैरमीत्युक्त्वा '.-घ. 9. ' न तु ' क-ख-पुस्तकयोरनास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

it is the explicit meaning alone which appears as prominent and the suggested sense is only secondary to it. The main subjects of description are the night and the moon. And the behaviour of a heroine and that of a hero are attributed to them ( only secondarily ).

The Light of Suggestion

Even in Paraleipsis, we find beauty more in the explicit than in the particular idea it hints at. That the explicit is relatively more important than the implicit in this figure is brought out even by its title-'the pointer'. In an instance of Paraleipsis in poetry, that which stands out as the chief element is the very act of hinting at and it will be of the nature of a disavowal serving the purpose of conveying speciality; and it will be found expressed openly, in so many words, though all the while it will be hinting at the suggested idea. Between the expressed and the suggested, which of them is intended to be relatively more important can be settled only by determining the relative excellence of charm. For example—

The Light of Suggestion

Twilight is full of love ( red colour ), And the day chases her face to face ; But oh, look at the decree of Fate The twain do never meet !

The Light of Suggestion

Though a suggested idea is understood here, charm is felt to exist only in the expressed. Hence that alone should be taken to be primarily intended.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as in figures like Ellipsis implying a simile and Fancied Denial, although we find a suggested simile, we do not designate these figures by that name because the explicit aspects in them are intended to be more important, so also in Paraleipsis the same consideration should be kept in sight.

The Light of Suggestion

The same is true of Metonymy in which ( the effect alone is mentioned and ) the cause is omitted :

The Light of Suggestion

The friends are calling outside; ‘ Coming ’ is his reply form inside All his sleep is gone by. Still the traveller rolls in languor Though with a mind to go.

The Light of Suggestion

In instances like this, we simply get at the suggested idea by force of context and we do not come across any charm therein. Hence the suggested idea is not of primary importance.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

पर्यायोक्तेडपि यदि प्राधान्यान्न व्यङ्ग्यत्वं तद्वतु नाम तस्य ध्वनान्तर्भावः। न तु ध्वनेऽत्रान्तर्भावः। तस्य महाविषयत्वेनाऽऽड्ढितत्वेन च प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्। न पुनः पर्यायोक्ते भामहोदाहृतसदृशो व्यङ्ग्यस्यैव प्राधान्यम्। वाच्यस्यात्रोपसर्जनीभावेनाविवक्षितत्वात्॥

अपह्नुतिर्दीपकयोरपुनर्वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यं व्यङ्ग्यस्य चाऽनुयायित्वं प्रसिद्धमेव॥ ५ ॥

सङ्करालङ्कारेडपि यदालङ्कारान्तरच्छायानुगृह्णाति, तदा व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्राधान्येनाऽविवक्षितत्वात् ध्वनिविषयत्वम्। अलङ्कारद्रयसम्भावनायां तु वाच्यव्यङ्ग्ययोः समं प्राधान्यम्। अथ वाच्योपसर्जनीभावेन व्यङ्ग्यस्य प्राधान्यम्, तत्रालङ्कारो ध्वनिविषय एव, न तु स एव ध्वनिरिति वक्तुं शक्यम्॥ पर्यायोक्तनिर्दिष्टन्यायात्। अपि च सङ्करालङ्कारस्य क्वचित् सङ्करोक्तिरेव ध्वनिसम्भावनां निराकरोति॥ १० ॥

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि यदा सामान्यविशेषभावान्निमित्तनिमित्तिभावाद्वा औपम्यमानस्याऽप्रस्तुततस्य प्रतीमानेन प्रस्तुतेऽभिसम्बन्धः तदाऽभिधीयमानप्रती-

यमानस्याप्रस्तुततया प्राधान्यम्। यदा तावत्सामान्यस्याऽप्रस्तुततस्याऽभिधीयमानस्य प्रतीमानेन सम्बन्धस्तदाऽविशेषप्रती-प्रकारणकने विशेषणं प्रतीमानेन सम्बन्धस्तदाऽविशेषप्रती-प्रकारणकने विशेषणं प्रतीमानेन सम्बन्धस्तदाऽविशेषप्रती-प्रकारणकने विशेषप्रतीतौ सत्यामपि प्राधान्येन तस्य सामान्येनाऽविनाभावात्सामान्यस्याऽपि प्राधान्यम्॥ यदापि विशेषस्य सामान्यनिष्ठत्वात् तदाऽपि सामान्यस्य प्राधान्ये सामान्ये सर्वविशेषाणाम्-न्तर्भावाद्विशेषस्याऽपि प्राधान्यम्॥ निमित्तनिमित्तिभावे चाऽयमेव न्यायः॥ १५ ॥

१. 'नाम'-ग. पुस्तके नास्ति. २. प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात्-घ. ३. 'च'-घ-पुस्तके नास्ति. ४. तत्राऽपि व्यवस्थानं-घ. ५. अपि च सङ्करालङ्कारस्य सङ्करोक्तिरेव घवदनिसम्भावनां करोति - घ. ६. अभिधीयमानस्य इत्यारभ्य अभिधीयमान० इतने पर्यन्तं घ-पुस्तके नास्ति. ७. 'विशेषणेन'-ख. ८. 'सत्यां'-ग-पुस्तके नास्ति. ९. 'विनाभावात्'-क-ख. १०. 'प्राधान्येन'-क-ख. ११. 'विशेषणानां'-क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

So also in Periphrasis, if the suggested idea were to be regarded as primarily important, it might by all means be brought under suggestion; but suggestion will not be subsumed under it. For not only the province of suggestion is wider but its importance also is greater (than that of the expressed) as it will be explained later. In the figure Periphrasis as illustrated by Bhāmaha, we do not have at all any exclusive importance attached to the suggested idea, since the expressed one is not intended there to be secondary.

The Light of Suggestion

So far as Fancied Denial and Ellipsis implying a simile are concerned, it is well known that the expressed element alone is primary therein and that the suggested element is secondary to it.

The Light of Suggestion

In Merging of Figures too, when one figure favours the shade of another figure, the suggested alone is not primarily intended and hence it cannot be reckoned to subsume suggestion. In instances where two figures may be said to exist simultaneously, the expressed and the suggested get equal importance. If in an instance the expressed is secondary and the suggested has primary importance, then it might, of course, be brought under suggestion. But it is not possible to say even then that it is itself identical with suggestion. The argument given in connection with Periphrasis is applicable here also. What is more, the very expression we use to signify this figure, viz., 'Merging of Figures' prevents often even our imagining that it might be the same as suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

So also in the figure, Vicarious Reference, in instances where the expressed extraneous idea and the implied contextual idea are related to each other either as universal and particular or as cause and effect, the expressed and the implied get equal importance of course. In other words, when the expressed extraneous idea is a universal and it is related to the implied contextual idea which happens to be its particular, the universal itself gets equal importance since its relationship with the particular is one of inseparable inherence. Similarly, even when the extraneous particular happens to be related to the contextual universal, notwithstanding the importance accruing to the universal (by its sheer relevancy), the particulars are comprehended by the universal. The same logic applies also to instances where the expressed and the implied are related to each other

Dhyanyalok:

यदा तु सारूप्यमात्रंवशेनाप्रस्तुतप्रशंसासायामप्रकृतप्रकृतयोः सम्बन्धस्तदाप्यप्रस्तुतस्य सरूपस्माभिधीयमानस्य प्राधान्येनाविवक्षायां ध्यानोववान्तर्भावः । इतर्थात्वलङ्कारान्तर्गतत्वमेव । तद्यमत्र संक्षेपः -

( १ ) ' व्यज्ज्यचस्य यत्राप्रधान्यं वाच्यमात्रानुयायिनः । समासोक्त्यादयस्तत्र वाच्यालङ्कृतयः स्मृताः ॥

( २ ) व्यज्ज्यचस्य प्रतिभामात्रे वाच्यार्थोनुगमेSपि वा । न ध्वनिर्यत्र वा तस्य प्राधान्यं न प्रतীয়ते ॥

( ३ ) तत्परावेव शब्दार्थों यत्र व्यज्ज्यचं प्रति स्थितौ । ध्वने: स एव विषयो मन्तव्य: सङ्करो न तु ॥³

तस्मान्न ध्वनरन्यत्रान्तर्भावः ।

इतश्व नान्तर्भाव:; यतः काव्यविशेषोऽङ्गी ध्वनिरिति कथितः । तस्य पुनरध्यानि - अलङ्कारा गुणा वृत्तयश्चेति प्रतिपादयिष्यते । न चावयव एव पृथभूतोऽवयवीति प्रसिद्धः । अपृथभमावे तु तद्भतवं तस्य न तु तत्वमेव । यथापि वा तत्स्वं तत्रापि ध्वनिरेवाविषयत्वात्तन्निष्ठत्वमेव ।

' सूरिभि: कथित ' इति विद्वदुपज्ञेयमुक्ति:, न तु यथाकथचिद्वित्प्रवृत्तौति ध्यातिपाद्यते । प्रथमे हि विद्वांसो वैयाकरणा:, व्याकरणमूलत्वात्सर्वविद्यानाम् । तेऽपि न श्रूयमाणेषु वर्णेषु ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति । तदेवान्त्यस्तन्मतानुमारिभि:

१. ' वशेनान्तस्य ' - क-ख. २. ' प्राधान्यस्य ' - क-ख. ३. These three -परिकरश्लोकस have-been printed as कारिकास in N. S. P. edn. ४. ' अलङ्कारो ' -क-ख. ५. ' न '-क-ख-पुस्नकयोनास्ति. ६. ' प्रकाइयते '-ग. ७. ' तेषु श्रूय° '-क-ख. ८. ' व्यवाहरन्ति '-ख. ९. ' तदेवान्त्ये:' इत्यारभ्य ' आविष्करणीयम् ' इत्यन्तं क-ख-पुस्नकयो: नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

as cause and effect. Even in instances of Vicarious Reference where the relation is of similarity, if the extraneous expressed idea bearing similarity is not intended as primarily important, it comes, of course, under the category of suggestion. Otherwise ( i.e. if it is intended as primarily important ), it will just be one of the figures.

The Light of Suggestion

The following mnemonic verses sum up the position :-

The Light of Suggestion

1. Wherever we find the implied meaning unimportant and merely ancillary to the expressed, we should clearly conclude that such instances contain only figures like the Condensed Metaphor.

The Light of Suggestion

2. In places where we have just a glimmer of the implied, or where the implied is just a handmaid to the expressed, or where its primary importance is not clearly discernible, there is no Suggestive Poetry.

The Light of Suggestion

3. Only those instances wherein we find both the word and the meaning solely directed towards the implied meaning should be regarded as real instances of Suggestive Poetry admitting of no confusion whatever.

The Light of Suggestion

It is thus established that suggestion cannot be subsumed under other heads.

The Light of Suggestion

Another reason why it cannot be so subsumed is the statement that ' it is only the full-limbed species of poetry which gets the designation of DHVANI or Suggestive Poetry'. It will be explained hereafter that the limbs ( of poetry ) are figures, qualities, and varieties of diction. Looking upon each component part as the whole itself is quite unheard of. When considered collectively, it will be but a part of the whole and never identical with the whole. Even if identity were possible in some instances, Suggestive Poetry cannot be looked upon as conditioned by its limbs mentioned, since its sphere is very extensive.

The Light of Suggestion

The expression, " is designated by the learned " brings out the fact that this designation was first devised by the learned and that it has not gained currency in a haphazard fashion. The foremost among the learned are grammarians because grammar lies at the root of all studies. They indeed refer to articulate letters by the term DHVANI or Suggester. In the same way, since the element of suggestion is common ( to both ), not only the

ध्वन्यालोक:

सूरिभि: काव्यतत्त्वार्थदर्शिभिरवाच्यव्यवाचकसम्मिश्र: शब्दात्मा काव्यामिति व्यपदेश्यो व्यङ्कत्वसाम्याद्वनिरत्युक्त:। न चैवंविधस्य ध्वनेर्वक्ष्यमाणप्रभेदतद्वेदसङ्कलनया महाविषयस्य यत्प्रकारानं तद्रप्रसिद्धालङ्कारविशेषमात्रप्रति- पादनेन तुल्यमिति तद्वाचितचेतसां युक्त एव संग्रभ:। न च तेषु कत्थनिदर्श्येया कल्पविततेशुषीकृतमाविष्करणीयम्॥

तदेवं 'ध्वनेष्टावदभाववादिन: प्रत्युक्ता:। आस्ति ध्वानि:॥ स चासावविवक्षितवाच्यां विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यश्रेति द्विविध: सामान्यान। तत्रास्योदाहरणम् - सुवर्णपुष्पां पाणिर्वा चिन्तयति पुरुषोत्तमम्। शूरश्र कृतविद्यश्र यश्र जानाति सेव्यतुम्॥

द्वितीयस्यापि - शिखरिणि क नु नाम कियाचिरं किमाभिधानमसावकरोत्पप:। तरुणि येन त्वाघरपाटलं दशति बिम्बफलं शुकशावक:॥

यदप्युक्तं भक्तिध्वनिराविति तत्प्रोतिसमाधायिते - भक्त्या बिभर्ति नैकतं रूपभेदादयं ध्वानिः। अयमुक्तप्रकारो ध्वानिभक्त्या नैकेन त्वं बिभार्ति, भिन्नरुपत्वात्। वाच्य- व्यतिरिक्तस्यार्थस्य वाच्यव्यवकाम्यां तात्पर्येण प्रकाअशानं यत्र व्यङ्ग्यप्राधान्ये स ध्वानि:। उपचारमात्रं तु भक्ति:॥

१. 'तदत्र'-च. २. 'नैकतां'-ग. ३. अर्थप्रकाशनं-घ. ४. 'व्यङ्ग्यप्राधान्ये' -क-ख पुस्तकयोरास्ति. ५. 'तु'-क-ख पुस्तकयोरास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

word and its meaning but its essential verbal power and also that which is usually referred to by the term poetry, has been given the same designation, viz., DHVANI by other learned men whose insight into the fundamental truth about poetry is profound and who are followers of the principles laid down by grammarians. A treatment, then, of such a comprehensive concept as suggestion, with all its divisions and subdivisions yet to be explained in the sequel, is not at all on a par with the enumeration of the well known, specific figures of speech and hence the enthusiasm of persons imbued in their minds with the value of suggestion is quite proper. None need display jealousy to show somehow that they are all men of deranged minds.

The advocates of the view that suggestion is non-existent have been thus refuted. Suggestion does exist.

Broadly considered, it will be two-fold : ( 1 ) with unintended literal import and ( 2 ) with intended but further-extending literal import.

The following is an example of the first kind :

Three persons will gather Flowers of gold from the earth : The bold, the learned, And he who knows how to serve.

The following illustrates the second :

On which mountain and for how long Did this one perform penance ? And what might be its name ? For, the young parrot pecks The fruit so red as your lips.

The counterview that metaphorical indication itself is suggestion is answered in what follows :-

Suggestion does not bear identity with indication because there is difference in nature between the two.

Suggestion which has been explained above does not bear identity with logical implication or indication since the two have different natures. Suggestion is the unidirectional communication of a sense other than the expressed by both the expressed sense and the expression while at the same time the

ध्वन्यालोक:

मा' चैतस्याद्दक्तिलक्षणं ध्वनोरित्याह — अतिद्ययासेरथाव्यासेर्न चासौ लक्ष्यते तया ॥ १४ ॥ नैवं. भक्त्या ध्वनिलक्ष्यते । कथम् ? अतिद्ययासेरव्यासेश्व । तत्रातिसामिधेनिल्यातिरिक्टेड अपि विषये भक्ते: सम्भवात् । यथा हि सङ्केतकृतं ५ महोत्सवं नास्ति तत्राप्युपचारितशब्दवृत्त्या प्रसिद्धचुरोधप्रवर्तितलव्यवहारः कवयो दशयन्ते । यथा —

कसारद्धा: मत्तानं वदति बिसिनीपण्ठरागयन्तम् ॥ तथा° — चुम्बिजइ सअहुत्तं अवरुअणिजइ सहस्सहुत्तं वि ॥ रमिअ पुणो वि रामिजइ पिए जणे णत्थि पुणरत्तमू ॥ [ चुम्ब्यते शतकृत्वोऽपि रुद्यते सहस्रकृत्वः । रत्वा पुनरपि रम्यते प्रिये जने नास्ति पुनरुक्तम् ॥ इति च्छाया ]

तथा° — कुविआओँ पसण्णाओँ ओरणमुहीओँ विहसमाणाओ । जह गहिआ तह हिअअं हरन्ति उच्च्छन्तमहिलाओ ॥ [ कुपिता: प्रसन्नावदनाः विहसन्त्यः । यथा गृहीतास्तथा हृदयं हरन्ति स्वैरिण्यो महिलाः ॥ इति च्छाया ]

१. 'तत्रैतस्याद्दाक्तिलक्षणं'-घ, KLV नच मा भूद्रक्थान्निर्दिति चैकं रूपं, भवतु भक्तिर्ध्वेनलक्षणमित्याह-MB. २. 'न च'-ग, KLV. ३. 'च'-ग. ४. 'व्यङ्गच- कृतं'-BP. ५. 'परिमलनमप्राप्य '-व. ६. 'प्रशिथिलभुजाक्षेप '-घ. ७. 'यथा'-गा.. ८. असहुत्तं-BP. ९. प्रियो जने-घ. BP. १०. 'यथा',-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

implied sense will be exclusively important. But indication is merely metaphorical application.

One might perhaps urge—“ Indication may not be identical with suggestion; but it can at least be regarded as a differentia of the latter ”. This view is countered below :

Nor is this a differentia of that as both the fallacies of Too Wide and Too Narrow would result ( if one were to hold such a view ).

Nor is suggestion determined by indication, ‘ Why ’ ? ‘ Because of the fallacy of Too Wide and also of the fallacy of Too Narrow ’. The fallacy of Too Wide is there inasmuch as indication can exist even in such instances as are devoid of suggestion. Even in instances where no excessive charm due to suggestion is present, poets are seen to employ words with metaphorical applications in pursuance of established usage as in the following example :

This bed of lotus-leaves bespeaks The torment of the damsel that slept thereon. Faded at its two ends with pressure Of her buxom breasts and burly hips. The part that spanned her slender waist Remains green without such pressure. And here it is in disorder By the movements of her drooping creeper-like arms.

To take another example :

The beloved one is kissed for the hundredth time, Is embraced for the thousandth time, And with but a brief pause, is fondled again; Yet there is no tautology for lovers.

Here is another example :

Angry or pleased, in tears or in smiles, In whatever state they are caught, Wanton women steal one’s heart.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तथा — अज्जाएँ पहारो णवलदाए दिण्णो पिएण थणवट्टे । मिउओ वि दूसहो व्विअ जाओ हिअए सवत्तीणाम् ॥ [ भार्याया नवक्तया दत्तः प्रियेण स्तनपृष्ठे । mृदुकोडपि दुःसह इव जातो हृदये सप्त्नीनाम् । इति छाया ]

ध्वन्यालोक:

तथा²— परार्थे यः पीडामनुभवति भृशं डपि मधुरो यदीयः सवेषामिह खलु विकारोडप्यभिमतः । न सम्प्राप्तो वृत्तिं यदि स भृशमक्षेत्रपतितः किमिक्षोद्भवेषोऽसौ न पुनरगुणाया मरुद्रुवः ॥ इत्यत्रैकशुपसङ्गनुभवातिशब्दः । न चर्वविधः कदाचिदपि ध्वनेर्विषयः ।

ध्वन्यालोक:

यतः — उक्त्यनन्तरेणाशङ्क्यं यत्तत्सारुन्वं प्रकाशयन् । शब्दो व्यञ्जकतां बिभ्रद्र्ध्वन्ययुक्तेर्विषयी भवेत् ॥१५॥ अत्र चोदाहते विषये नोक्त्यन्नतराशङ्क्यचारुत्वक्विकिहेतुः शब्दः ।

ध्वन्यालोक:

किश्च— 'रूढा ये विषयेऽन्यातra शब्दाः स्वविषयादापि । लावण्ययुक्तास्ते न भवन्ति पदं ध्वनेः ॥१६॥ तेषु चोपचरितां ब्दवृत्तिरस्तीति । तथाविधे च विषये कतिचित्सम्भव- 20 न्नपि ध्वानिव्यवहारः प्रकाशान्तरेण प्रवर्तते । न तथाविधशब्द्मुखेन । अपिच- मुख्यां वृत्तिं परित्यज्य गुणवृत्त्यार्थदर्शनम् । यदि वदिष्य फलं तत्न शब्दो नैव स्वलद्वातिश ॥ १७ ॥

१. 'तथा'-ग. २. 'च'-ग. ३. 'अयं'-ग. ४. 'इत्यादाविक्षुपदेऽनुभूति- शब्दः'-क-ख; इत्यत्रैकशुपदेऽनुभूति शब्दः - घ. ५. 'कदाचिदपि ध्वनेर्विषयः । यतः'-क-ख; कदाचिदपि ध्वनेर्विषयाडभिमतः १-घ. ६. 'णाशङ्क्यं'-ख. ७. 'नोक्त्यनन्तरेणाशङ्क्य' -क-ख. ८. 'निरूढा'-ग. ९. 'शब्दमपत्ति'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

This is also an example :

Though it was but a mild blow Which the husband gave with a fresh creeper On the bosom of his youngest wife, It became a smarting blow as it were On the hearts of his other wives.

The following is still another example :

If that which suffers pain for others' sake And remains sweet though broke in twain, If that whose various deformities too Are held to be ever pleasing, Falls on a barren soil and fails to grow, Is it the mistake of the sugar-cane, And not at all of the worthless desert ?

In this last example, the word suffers is an instance of indication. Such instances can never be regarded as instances of suggestion. For—

Only that word, which conveys a charm incapable of communication by any other expression and which is pregnant with suggestive force, becomes a fit instance for the title “Suggestive”.

In the illustrative examples given above the word does not become a source of suggesting any charm uncommunicable by other expressions. Moreover —

Words which signify by common usage meanings other than what they primarily denote, as for instance the word lāvanya, do not become instances of Suggestion.

But in such words anyway, there is metaphorical application. Even if the title ‘Suggestion’ should be possible of application towards them, it would be on the basis of an entirely different consideration. Words of the kind mentioned will have nothing to do with it.

If one gives up the primary denotative power of a word and understands a sense (secondarily conveyed by it) through its indicative power, it is because of a purpose. In conveying this purpose, the word does not move falteringly at all (as it moves falteringly when indicating a meaning secondarily).

ध्वन्यालोक:

तत्र हि चारुत्वातिशयविशिष्टार्थप्रकाशनलक्षणे प्रयोजने कर्तव्ये यदि शाब्दस्यामूल्यता तदा तस्य प्रयोक्ते दुष्टत्वैव स्यात् । तस्मात् — वाचकत्वाश्रयेणैव गुणप्रक्तिव्यवस्थित । तस्मादन्यो ध्वनिरन्या च गुणवृत्ति: । अव्यातिरपैस्य लक्षणस्य । न हि ध्वानिप्रभेदो विवक्षितानन्यपरवाच्यलक्षण: अन्ये च बहव: प्रथकारा भक्त्या व्याप्तन्ते; तस्माद्विकलक्षणम् । कस्यचिद्वनिबन्धस्य सा तु स्यादुपलक्षणम् । सा पुनर्भक्तिवैधमणप्रभेदमध्यादन्यतमस्य भेदस्य यदि नामोपलक्षणतया संभाव्येत, यदिं च गुणवृत्त्यैव ध्वनिलक्ष्यत इत्युच्यते, तदभिधाव्यापारेण तदितरौडलड्कारवर्ग: समग्र एव लक्ष्यत इति प्रत्येकमलङ्काराणां लक्षणकरणवैयर्थ्यप्रसङ्ग: । किं च — लक्षणेऽन्यै: कृते चास्य पक्षसंसिद्धिरेव न: ॥ १८ ॥

कृतेsपि वा पूर्वमेवान्यैर्ध्वनिनिलक्षणे पक्षसंसिद्धिरेव न: यसमादध्वनिरस्तीति न: पक्ष: । स च प्रागेव संसिद्ध इत्ययत्नसंपन्नसमीहितार्थ: संर्वृत्ता: स्मः । लक्षणेऽन्यै: कृते चास्य पक्षसंसिद्धिरेव न: । यसमाद् ध्वनिरस्तीति न: पक्ष: । स च प्रागेव संसिद्ध इत्ययत्नसंपन्नसमीहितार्थ: संर्वृत्ता: स्मः ।

१. 'अत्र'-गा २. 'लक्षणप्रयोजने 'त्र' ३. 'अव्याप्तिरप्यस्य' -खु. ४. 'तदितरदलङ्कारवक्ष्यमाणा भक्त्या'-ग. ५. 'रलक्षण:' KLV. ६. 'संभाव्येत' BP. ७. 'तदितरलङ्कार'-ग. ८. लक्षणयति-च. ९. 'लक्षणकरण'-घ. १०. 'वादिन:'-क-ख. ११. 'संपन्न:'-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

In order to justify secondary usage, one will have to posit a purpose, namely, the communication of a meaning imbued with great charm. If the word were to convey this purpose too in a secondary way only, then the very employment of the word would be fallacious. But it is not so in fact.

Therefore—

The fact is that indication is grounded on the primary denotative force of words. How can it ever be a definition of suggestion whose sole support is suggestivity?

Hence suggestion is one thing and indication another.

The definition (that suggestion is indication) contains the fallacy of Too Narrow also. Indication does not cover instances of suggestion like ‘that with intended but further-extending literal import’ as also numerous other instances. Hence, indication cannot be a definition of suggestion.

(At the most), it might serve as a pointer to one of the species of suggestion.

One could only fancy that indication might serve, if at all, as a pointer to just a single species from among the numerous varieties of suggestion pointed out in the sequel. With all this, if one were to assort dogmatically that suggestion is indeed defined by indication, that way, one might say that the act of defining individual figures is an utter waste since the primary denotation of words defines the entire group of all individual figures. What is more—

If one were to say that the definition of suggestion has already been propounded by others, it would only substantiate our own position.

Even if it be true that the definition of suggestion has already been propounded by earlier writers, it would only mean a substantiation of our own position. For, our position is that suggestion exists; and in case it has been established already, we should consider ourselves to be extremely fortunate inasmuch as our object has already been realised without any labour at all on our part.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

येडपि सहृदयहृदयसंवेद्यमनास्ल्येयमेव ध्वनेरात्मानमाप्तुंसुस्तेऽपि न परीक्ष्यवादिनः । यत उक्तया नीत्या वक्ष्यमाणया च ध्वने: सामान्यविशेषलक्षणे प्रतिपादितेऽपि यधनालव्येयत्वं तत्त्वरेषामेव वस्तूनां प्रसक्तं । यदि पुनर्ध्वेनरतिशयोक्त्यानया काव्यान्तरातिशायि' तैः स्वरूपमालव्यायते तत्तेऽपि युक्ताभिधायिनं एव ।

इति ³श्रीराजानकानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविराचिते सहृदयालोके प्रथमोद्योतः ॥

१. 'तत्प्रसक्तं' B1. २. 'आतिशायित' स्वरप -ग. ३. 'श्रीमदानन्द° -क-ख. ४. सहृदयहृदयालोकेh-Nepal Ms. 'काव्यालोके' -क. 'सहृदयालोकनाम्रि काव्यालङ्कारे' -प. No Ms. gives 'ध्वन्यालोके'. ५. 'संकत:' -ख.

The Light of Suggestion

Even those, who assert that the nature of suggestion is within the experience of only the perceptive critics and that it is inexpressible, betray only their lack of discernment. (The reason is not far to seek). We have already propounded the general definition of suggestion; and definitions of its several varieties will be set forth hereafter. If inspite of all these, it should be thought of as "inexpressible", then this would be true of everything in the world. If, on the other hand, they are only giving expression to the all-surpassing nature of suggestion by means of this exaggeration, then they also might be regarded as but stating the truth itself.

द्वितीयोद्योतः

एवमंविवक्षितवाच्याविवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यत्वेन 'ध्वनिनिर्देशप्रकारः प्रकाशितः। तत्राविवक्षितवाच्यस्य प्रभेदप्रतिपादनायेदमुच्यते -

अर्थान्तरे सङ्क्रमितमत्यन्तं वा तिरस्कृतम् । अविवक्षितवाच्यस्य ध्वनेरवार्च्यं द्विधा मतम् ॥ १ ॥

तथाविधाभ्यां च ताभ्यां व्यङ्गचस्यैव विशेषः । तत्रार्थान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्यो यथा -

स्निग्धघनश्यामलकान्तिलक्षितवियतो वेलाढलाका घना वाताः शीकरीणः पयोदसुहृदामनन्दकेकाः कलाः । कामं सन्तु हृदयं कठोरहृदयो रामोऽस्मि सर्वं सहे वैदेही तु कथं भविष्यति हहा हा देहि घोरा भव ॥

इत्यत्र रामशब्दः । अनेन हि व्यङ्ग्यध्वनान्तरपरिणत संज्ञी प्रत्याय्यते, न संज्ञी मात्रम् ।

यथा च न ममैव विषमबाणग्लीलायाम् - ताला जान्ति गुणा जाला दे सहिअण्हि वेप्पन्ति । रइकरणानुगइआइ होन्ति कमलाइ कमलाइ ॥

[ तदा जयन्ते गुणा यदा ते सहृदयैर्गृह्यन्ते । रविकरणानुगृहीतानि भवन्ति कमलानि कमलानि ॥ छाया ॥ ]

इत्यत्र द्वितीयः कमलशब्दः ।

१. 'अविवक्षितवाच्यो' -क-खव. २. 'वाच्यतद्ब'-घ. ३. 'वाच्यस्य'-क-खव. ४. 'विशेष' इति व्यङ्गचप्रकाशनपरस्य ' ध्वनिनेरवार्यं प्रकारः', तत्रार्थान्तर-व' इति गमशब्देन हि'-क-खव. ६. 'रूपपरिणत:' -घ. ७. 'संज्ञा°' -घ. ८. 'अत्र' -घ.

THE SECOND FLASH

So far, two varieties of suggestion, viz., 'that with unintended literal import' and 'that with intended but further-extending literal import' have been mentioned. Now the sub-varieties of the first are set forth in what follows :-

'Merged in the other meaning' and 'Completely lost'-these are the two kinds of the expressed in 'Suggestion with intended literal import'.

The first, viz., 'Merged in the other meaning' is instanced in the following :-

The quarters all are painted deep With the glistening black of clouds, And the cranes in circles fly ( with excitement ); The breezes are moisture-laden And these friends of clouds, the peacocks, Send their joyous notes in the wind. Let them all confront me ! I shall bear them all, as I am Rāma Whose heart is adamant to be sure; But how will Sītā fare ! Alas ! Alas ! My dear queen ! Be bold, I beseech thee.

The word Rāma in this example carries the suggestive force mentioned. The word does not merely denote an individual with that proper name but conveys the sense of a person endowed with various qualities by the force of suggestion. An illustration is also found in my own work, Viṣamabānalīlā :-

Merits become merits indeed When critics of culture hold them so. Lotuses will be lotuses Only when sunshine shelters them.

Here the word 'lotuses' repeated a second time is an instance in point.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्यन्ततिरसकृतवाच्यो यथादिकवेरवोल्लम्भके: - रविसंक्रान्तसौभग्यस्तुषारावृतमण्डल: । निःश्वासान्ध इवादर्शचन्द्रमा न प्रकाशते ॥ इति । अत्रान्धशब्द: । यथा व न गअणं च मत्तमेहं धारालुअज्जुणाइँ अ वणाइँ । णिरहड्ढारमिअड्ढा हरन्ति णीलाओ वि णिसाओ ॥ [ गगनं च मत्तमेहे धारालुलितार्जुनानि च वनानि । निरहड्ढारम्गाढा हरन्ति नीला अपि निशा: ॥ छाया । ] अत्र मत्तनिरहड्ढारशब्दे ।

असंक्लष्याक्रमपोतचोतः क्रमेण प्रोक्तितः पर: । विवक्षिताभिधेयस्य ध्वनेरात्मा द्विधा मतः ॥१८॥ सुख्यतया प्रकाशमानो व्यङ्गचोऽर्थो ध्वनेरात्मा । स च वाच्यार्थो- पेक्षया काश्चिदलक्ष्यकमतया तुल्यं प्रकाशते, काश्चित्क्रमेणेति द्विधा मतः । तत्र रसभावतदाभासतत्त्वशान्त्यादिक्रम: ।

ध्वनेरात्माऽविभावेन भासमानो व्यपाश्रित: ॥ ३ ॥ रसादिरर्थो हि सहेतु वाच्येनावभासते । स चाङ्गित्वेनावभासमानो ध्वनेरात्मा । idानीं रसवदलङ्कारादलङ्क्ष्यक्रमव्योतनात्मनो ध्वनेर्विभक्तो विषय इति प्रदर्शयते - १. 'वाच्यार्थो ध्वनिनिर्या'-ग. २. 'इति'-क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ३. 'यथा च श्लोक:-गअणं च'-ग., तथा च omitted in BP. & घ. प्र. 'लीलाइ वि'-क-ख. ४. 'भासभावशान्त्यादि'-MB. ६. 'सहेतु'-घ. ७. 'अत्र'-क-ख पुस्तकयोरनास्ति. ८. 'अलङ्कारादो'-क ख. ९. 'दर्शयते'-KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

We can cite the following verse of the First Poet, Vālmīki, to illustrate the second variety, viz., 'Suggestion with completely lost literal import':

All the charm to the sun hath fled And the orb is hid in snow; Like a mirror by breath blinded, The moon now does not glow.

Here the word 'blinded' contains the said suggestion. So also the following verse :

The sky with dizzy cloud, The Arjun woods with rain-drops dripping loud, And nights with moons not proud, Though black in hue, They capture you.

Here the words 'dizzy' and 'not proud' are full of suggestion.

The nature of suggestion 'with intended literal import' is also two-fold: (i) 'of discernible sequentiality' and (ii) 'of undiscernible sequentiality.'

The nature of suggestion is the implied sense which is communicated prominently. A variety of it is grasped simultaneously with the expressed, since the sequentiality existing between the two is not discernible. Another variety of the same comes about when the sequentiality is discernible. Of these two;

Sentiment, emotion, the semblance of sentiment or mood and their (rise and) cessation etc., are all of 'undiscerned sequentiality'. It is decided that when we have the prominent presence of this variety, we are having the very soul of suggestion.

Categories like sentiment shine forth along with the literal import. If they shine also with prominence we have the very soul of suggestion.

It will be shown in what follows that the sphere of this suggestion 'of undiscerned sequentiality' is quite distinct from that cf the figure of speech called Rasavadalānkāra or Figurative Sentiment :-

Dhvanyālokaḥ

वाच्यवाचकचारुत्वहेतूनां विविधात्मकम्। रसादिपरता यत्र स ध्वनेविषयो मतः॥ ४ ॥

रसभावतदाभासत्तत्प्रशमलक्षणं मुख्यमर्ये मनुवर्तमान यत्र शब्दार्थ-लङ्कारौ गुणाध्रयौ परस्परं ध्वन्यपक्ष्यौ विभिन्नरूपौ व्यवस्थितास्तत्रैव काव्यं ५ ध्वनिरिति व्यपदेशः।

प्रधानेऽन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राऽऽडं तु रसादयः। काव्ये तस्मिन्नलङ्कारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः॥ ५॥

यद्यापि रसालङ्कारस्याऽन्यैदृशतो विषयस्थापि यस्मिन् काव्ये प्राधान्यतयान्योऽर्थो वाक्यार्थीभूतस्तस्य चाऽऽड्भूता ये रसादयस्ते रसादेरलङ्कारस्य विषयाः इति मामकैः पक्षः। तद्यथा चाटु प्रेयोऽलङ्कारस्य वाक्यार्थत्वेऽपि रसादयोऽङ्गभूता दर्श्यन्ते।

स च रसादिरलङ्कारः शुद्धः संकीर्णो वा। तत्राऽयो यथा किं हास्येन न मे प्रयास्यसि पुनः प्राप्ताश्रिराऽदारैरं केयं निप्कृतिः प्रवासरुचिता केनाऽसि दूरीकृतः।

स्वमान्तोप्तति तेँ बदनं प्रियतम्यासक्तकण्ठग्रहो बुद्ध्वा रोदिति रिक्तबाहुलयस्तारं रिपुस्त्रीजनः॥

इत्यत्र करुणरस्य शृङ्गाराङ्गभावात्स्फुटमेव रसवदलङ्कारत्वम्।

?. 'शब्दालङ्कारा अर्थालङ्कारा गुणाश्र' -क-ख; KLV. २. प्राधान্যে — No. 254 (BORI). ३. 'अन्यै:' -ग पुस्तके नास्ति. प्र. 'ये' ग पुस्तके नास्ति.

५. 'विषय' -ख. ६. 'मामक:' -ग; MB, KLV. ७. 'वो' -क-ख. ८. 'शुद्धस्य' :- ग-पुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Only that, wherein all the several beautifiers of the expressed sense and the expression exist with the single purpose of conveying sentiment and so on, is to be regarded as coming under the scope of suggestion.

The poem in which the chief category is of the nature of sentiment, emotion, their semblance or cessation and wherein all figures, both of sound and sense, and qualities come in only as handmaids of the chief category and remain as much distinct from what is suggested as from one another, gets the designation of Suggestive Poetry.

But if in a poem the chief purport of the sentence should relate to something else, and if sentiment and so on should come in only as auxiliaries to it, it is my opinion that sentiment and so on are figures of speech in such a poem.

Although others have explained the scope of Figurative Sentiment (in quite a different way), still it is my view that only such sentiments etc. as become auxiliaries to some other purport of the sentence which happens to be much more important are to be regarded as figures. For instance, one can easily see how in hymns of praise, sentiments etc., appear as auxiliaries though they are generally regarded as instances of the figure of Affectionate Praise.

The Figurative Sentiment according to our view may be either pure or mixed. The following is an illustration of the first kind :

'Why this jest? Thou shalt not certainly part again from me, Having returned after so long. O ruthless one! whence this flair for travel? Thus in dreams do the wives of your enemy speak Clasping fast the necks of their beloved lords; But soon they awake To find empty their embraces And to lament loud.'

In this example the pure sentiment of pathos is an auxiliary (to the praise of the king) and hence it is clearly Figurative Sentiment.

ध्वन्यालोक:

एवमेवंविधे विषये रसान्तराणां स्पष्ट एकीभावः। संकीर्णो रसादिरङ्गभूतो यथा —

सिसो हसनवल्नः प्रसभममिहतोऽ प्याददानोंडुकान्तं गृहनन् करोत्यपास्त्वद्गणानिपातितो नेक्षितः सम्भ्रमे । आलिङ्गन्योऽवृत्तास्त्रिपुरयुवतिभिः साश्रुनेत्रोत्पलाक्षिभिः कामीवाद्रौ पराश्रः स दृढतु दुरितं शम्भवो वः शराश्रिः ॥

इत्यत्र त्रिपुररिपुप्रभावातिशायस्य वाक्यार्थत्वेऽ इष्योऽविग्रलम्भस्य श्लेषसहितस्याङ्ग-भाव इति, एवंविध एव रसवदलङ्कारस्य न्याय्यो विषयः। अत एव चेष्टोऽविग्रलम्भ-करणयोरङ्गत्वेन न्यायस्यानात्समावेशो न दोषः। यत्र हि रसस्य वाक्यार्थी-भावस्तत्र कथमलङ्कारत्वम्? अलङ्कारा हि चोरुत्वहेतु प्रासिद्धः; न त्वसावात्मैवात्मनश्वरत्वहेतु।

तथा चायमत्र संक्षेप: —

रसभावादितात्पर्यमाश्रित्य विनिवेशानम् । अलङ्कतीनां सर्वोऽमलङ्कृतत्वसाधनम् ॥

तस्मादच रसवदयो वाक्यार्थीभूता: स सर्वे: न रसादेरलङ्कारस्य विषय्ये; स ध्वने: प्रमेयः, तस्योपमादयोऽलङ्कारा:। यत्र तु प्राधान्येनार्थान्तरस्य

१. 'संकीर्ण' -क-ख. २. 'तथा' -ग. ३. 'आदधानो' -क-ख. ४. 'रसवदाद्यलङ्कारस्य' -ख., रसवदादेरलङ्कारस्य - KLV. ५. 'समावेशो' क-ख, MB. ६. 'चारुत्वे सिद्धिहेतु:' -क-ख. ७. 'न त्वादमैवात्मन:' तथा -क-ख, KLV. ८. 'तथापि' -ग. ९. 'विनिवेशितम्' -क-ख. १०. 'सर्वे ते न' -घ., 'सर्वे——विषया:' -क-ख-पुस्तकयोरास्ति. ११. वा विषय:-घ. १२. 'तु' क-ख. १३. 'अर्थान्तर वाक्यार्थी' -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

The mixed variety of auxiliary sentiment is instanced in the following :-

Let the fire of Śiva's shaft burn down our sins; a shaft that conducted itself in the manner of a lover who has given offence afresh to his beloved :-Though shaken off by the wives of Tripura with fearful eye-lilies, it would cling fast to their hands; though forcibly pushed out, it would hold on to the ends of t' eir skirts; though violently thrust aside by the hair ( of its feather ), it would fall at their feet and yet remain unnoticed because of their agitation; and though pushed back, it would hug them verily.

Here, the main purport of the sentence is the extraordinary glory of Śiva. The sentiment of love-in-separation due to jealousy is conveyed by double entendre and this is made auxiliary to it ( i. e. praise of glory. ) Only such instances are proper illustrations of Figurative Sentiment. Hence it is that though the sentiments of love-in-separation due to jealousy and of pathos are mutually opposed, since they have been both rendered auxiliary ( to the main purport, their inclusion in the same place does not become a defect. But in instances where sentiment itself happens to be the main purport ) how can it ever be a figure ? It is well known that a figure is ( nothing but ) an enhancer of charm. It is indeed impossible that a thing can become an enhancer of its own charm.

The following verse sums up the position :-

It is only the employment of figures, one and all, in view of the main purport of sentiment, emotion, etc., that really justifies their being regarded as sources of charm.

Therefore, none of those cases where sentiment etc. happen to be the main purport, become instances of Figurative Sentiment. On the other hand they will only form a species of suggestion. Simile etc. are all enhancers of its charm alone. But in cases where the main purport happens to be some other meaning and

ध्वन्यालोक:

वाक्यार्थीभावे रसादिभिश्वारुत्वनिष्पत्तिः क्रियते, स रसादेरलङ्कारताया विषयः। एवं ध्वनेरुपमादीनां रसदृङ्लड्कारस्य च विभक्तविषयता भवति। यदि तु चेतनानां वाक्यार्थीभावो रसादिलेङ्कारस्य विषय इत्युच्यते 5 तर्ह्युपमादीनां प्रविरलविषयता निर्विषयता वाभिहिता स्यात्। यस्माद्चेतनवस्तुवृत्ते वाक्यार्थीभूते पुनश्चेतनवस्तुवृत्तान्तयोजनया यथाकथञ्चिद्विततव्यम्। अथ सत्यामपि तस्यां यत्राचेतनानां वाक्यार्थीभावो नासौ रसदृङ्लड्कारस्य विषय इत्युच्यते। तन्महतः काव्यप्रबन्धस्य रसनिधानभूतस्य नीरसत्वमभिहितं स्यात्। यथा—

तरङ्गभूभङ्गा श्वभ्रिताविहगश्रेणीरशनाविकर्षन्ती फेनं वसनमिव संम्रभशिथिलम्। यथाविदं याति स्वलितमभिसन्धाय बहुशो नदीरुपेणयं धृतमसहना सा परिणता॥

यथा वा—

तन्वी मेघनादप्रहितवचसा धौताधरराश्रुाभः शून्येवाभरणैः सकालविरहाद्विश्रान्तपुष्पोद्गमा। चिन्तामौनमिवाश्रिता मधुकृतां शब्दैर्विना लड्क्यते चण्डी मामवधूय पादपतितं जातानुतापेव सा॥

१. 'अलङ्कारताविषयः'-क-ख. २. 'विविक्त'-ग. ३. 'इति'-ग पुस्तके नास्ति. ४. 'तदुपमा'-क-ख; KLV. ५. 'वृत्तान्ते'-क-ख. ६. 'वृत्तान्त'-क-ख पुस्तक-योर्‍नास्ति, ७. 'नयना'-क-ख. ८, 'नदीभावेनेयं'-क-ख. ९. 'इष्यते'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

when its beauty is enhanced by sentiment etc., we get proper instances of Figurative Sentiment. Thus understood, the distinct spheres of suggestion, figures like simile and Figurative Sentiment become clearly demarcated. If one were to assert that the treatment of sentient subjects alone serves to exemplify Figurative Sentiment, it would mean that figures like simile would either be left with very little scope or no scope at all. For even when the theme happens to be the behaviour of an insentient object, the behaviour of a sentient object also will in one way or another be superimposed upon it. Again, even when such a superimposition is present, one would have to say that it is not an instance of Figurative Sentiment in case the insentient ones alone form the main theme of description. And this would be tantamount to an assertion that the vast bulk of literature which happens to be really the golden treasury of sentiments is without any sentiment. Here is an example :

The Light of Suggestion

Frowning with its waves as with brows, Girdled with the line of fluttering birds, Throwing off its foam as a garment slipped in anger, Hurrying in devious ways with far too tumbling steps Surely, here is my jealous beloved, Changed into the form of the stream.*

The Light of Suggestion

This is another example :

The Light of Suggestion

There standest thou creeper, All slender, thy poor sad leaves are moist with rain. Thou silent, with no voice of honey-bees Upon the drooping boughs; as from thy lord The season separated, leaving off Thy habit of bloom. Why I might think I saw My passionate darling penitent With tear-stained face and body unadorned Thinking in silence how she spurned my love.*

The Light of Suggestion

• Translation Sri Aurobindo's.

Dhvanyāloka:

यथा वा— तेषां गोपवधूविलाससुहृदां राधारहः साक्षिणां क्षेमं भद्र कलिन्दशैलतनयातीरेऽतावेशमनाङ् । विच्छेदेऽपि स्मरतल्पकल्पनमृदुच्छेदोपयोगेऽधुना ते जाने जरठीभवन्ति विगलन्नीलत्विषः पल्वलाः ॥ ५ ॥

इत्येवमादौ विषयेडचेतनानां वाक्यार्थीभावेऽपि चेतनैवस्तुवृत्तान्तयोज- नास्त्येव । अथ यत्र चेतनवस्तुवृत्तान्तयोजनाम्ति तत्र रसादिरलङ्कारः;; तदेवं सत्युपमादयो निर्विष्या: प्रविरलविषया वा स्युः। यत्र चात्रास्त्येवासावचेतन- वस्तुवृत्तान्तो यत्र चेतनवस्तुवृत्तान्तयोजना नास्ति, अनन्तो विभावत्वेन । तस्मादृजुत्त्वेन न रसादिनामलङ्कारता । यः पुनरझो रसो भावो वा सर्विकार- मलङ्कार्यः स ध्वनेरात्मेति । किश्च—

तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येऽङ्गिनं ते गुणाः स्मृताः । अङ्गाश्रितास्त्वलङ्काराः मन्तव्या: काव्यदिवत् ॥ ६ ॥ ये तमर्थं रसादिलक्षणमाङ्गिनं सन्तमवलम्बन्ते ते गुणाः शौर्यादिवत् । वाच्यवाचकलक्षणान्यजानि ये पुनरङ्गाश्रितास्तेऽलङ्काराः मन्तव्या: काव्यादिवर्त ।

शृङ्गार एव मधुरः परः प्रहादनो रसः । तन्मयं? काव्यमाश्रित्य माधुर्यं मतितिष्ठति ॥ ७ ॥

१. 'यथा वा'-ग पुस्तके नास्ति. २. सन्त्यनेक- MB. ३. 'सचेतन'-क-खव. ४. 'अत्र यत्र'-ग. ५. 'विभान्तवेन'-क-खव. ६. 'तस्मादृजुत्त्वेन च'-ग पुस्तके नाम्न. ७. 'योऽङ्गिनं ते गुणाश्रिता:'-पा. ८. 'कुणडलादिवादीनि'-ग., KLV; 'कटाकादिवादीनि'-च. ९. यथा च -क. १०. 'एको'-ग. ११. 'तद्रूपं'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

Or, to take a still another example :

How do they do, those bower-huts, O friend, On the bank of the river Jamunā ? Those companions of the sports of cowherdesses And those witnesses of Rādhā's amours ? Now that none will pluck them soft To 'turn them into beds of love, I am afraid that all those fresh green leaves Do lose their greenness and become old.

In these examples, though insentient objects happen to be themes of description, the attribution of sentient behaviour to them is quite obvious. Perhaps it might be argued that one may accept the presence of Figurative Sentiment in instances of this type wherein one finds attribution of sentient behaviour. At that rate, figures like simile will be left with no scope at all or, at the most, with very little scope. For, there is no such insentient theme at all in poetry in which the attribution of sentient behaviour is wholly absent; it will be found at least in the form of ( a sentimental description of ) the setting or situation. Hence, only sentiments that are secondary in importance should be regarded as figures. If one finds a sentiment or emotion with paramount importance, it will serve only as the object for beautification by other figures etc. and is of the very essence of suggestion. Furthermore—

Those which inhere in this principal element are regarded as qualities. And figures are to be known as those that are associated with its parts even like ornaments such as the bracelet.

Those that ever inhere in the principal element ( of poetry ) viz. sentiment etc., are qualities like the quality of valour and so forth ( in the world ). On the other hand, those that relate to its component parts only, viz., the expressed sense and the expression, are to be regarded as figures or ornaments like the bracelet and so on ( in the world ). So also—

The Erotic indeed, is the sweetest and the most delectable of all sentiments. The quality of sweetness is grounded securely on poetry which is full of this sentiment.

घन्यालोक:

शृङ्गार एवं रसान्तरोपेक्षया मधुरः प्रहादहेतुत्वात् । तत्प्रकाशनपरशब्दार्थेतया काव्यस्य स माधुर्यलक्षणो गुणः । श्राव्यत्वं पुनरोजसोऽपि साधारणामिति ।

शृङ्गारे विप्रलम्भाख्ये करुणे च प्रकर्षवत् । माधुर्यमार्द्रतां याति यतस्तत्राधिकं मनः ॥ ८ ॥

विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारकरणयोसु माधुर्यमेव प्रकर्षत् । सहृदयहृदयवर्जनातिशयानिमित्तत्वादिति ॥

रौद्रादयो रसा दीप्त्यां लक्ष्यन्ते काव्यवर्तिनः । तद्व्यक्तिहेतु शब्दार्थावाश्रित्यौजो व्यवस्थितम् ॥ ९ ॥

रौद्रादयो हि रसा: परां दीप्तिमुज्ज्वलतां जनयन्तीति लक्षणया त एैव दीसिरित्युच्यन्ते । तत्प्रकाशनपर: शब्दो दीर्घेसमासरचनालङ्कृतं वाक्यम् ।

यथा—चञ्चद्विजभ्रमितचण्डगदाभिघात--संचूर्णितोरुगलस्य सुयोधनस्य । स्त्यानावसद्‌दघनशोणितशोणितपाणि-रुत्तंसायिष्यति कचांस्तव देवी भोमः ॥

तत्प्रकाशनपरशब्दोऽनुप्रक्षितदीर्घेसमासरचनः प्रसन्नवाचकाभिधेयः ।

यथा—

१. 'प्रहाहेतुत्वात्प्रकाशनपरः । शब्दार्थयोः'-च .. २. 'श्राव्यत्वं'-ग. ३. 'मतः'-ग. ४. 'इति'-ग. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ५. 'देवि'-क-ख. ६. 'लक्षणया त एव'-क-ख-पुस्नकयोर्नास्ति. ७. °त्युच्यन्ते-BP, घ. °त्युच्यन्ते is acc. to MB. ८. 'तत्प्रकाशनपरशब्दो'-क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

The Erotic shines indeed as sweeter and more delectable than every other sentiment. 'Sweetness' is a quality which relates to word and meaning of compositions (imbued with this sentiment) and not to mere sound-harmony. For, sound-harmony is found alike in forcefulness too (and is not a differentia of sweetness).

In sentiments viz., Love-in-separation and the Pathetic, sweetness will be uppermost. It is so because the mind is moved very much in such instances.

The quality of sweetness alone is uppermost in the sentiments of Love-in-separation and the Pathetic as it causes great delectation in the minds of refined critics.

Sentiments like the Furious are characterised by great exciting power in poetry. The quality of forcefulness is that which inheres in sound and sense which produce this effect.

Indeed sentiments like the Furious produce excessive excitement (in the readers). Hence, by secondary usage, one might refer to the sentiments themselves by the term 'excitement'. The sound which produces this effect is none other than a sentence adorned by lengthy compound constructions. As for instance:

cañcad-bhuja-bhramita-caṇḍa-gadābhighātā-samcūrṇitoru-yugalasya suyodhanasya | styānāvabaddha-ghana-śoṇita-śoṇa-pāṇi-ruttaṁsayisyati kacāṁstava devi bhīmah ||

The sense which produces this effect of forcefulness does not stand in need of lengthy compound constructions; it may contain simple constructions only. As for instance:-

ध्वन्यालोक:

यो यो: शास्त्रं बिभर्ति स्वभुजगुरुमद: पाण्डवीना̐ चमूना̐ | यो यो पाञ्चालकन्ये शिशुरधिकवया गर्भशाय्या̐ गतो वा ॥ यो यस्तत्कर्मसाक्षी चरति' मयि रणे यश्र्व यश्र्व प्रताप: | क्रोधान्धस्तस्य तस्य स्वयमपि जगतामन्तकस्यान्तकोऽहम् ॥

इत्यादौ तयोरजस्त्वम् ।

समर्पकत्वं कवयस्य यतु सर्वरसान् प्रति । स प्रसादो गुणो जेय: सर्वसाधारणाक्रिय: ॥ १० ॥

प्रसादस्तु स्वच्छता शब्दार्थयो:³। स च सर्वरससाधारणो गुण: सर्वरचनासाधारणश्र्च व्यञ्ज्यार्थोपेक्षयैव मुख्यतयो व्यवस्थितो मन्तव्य: ।

श्रुतिदुष्टादयो दोषा अनित्या ये च दर्शिताः । ध्वन्यातमन्ये शृङ्गारे ते हेया इत्युदाहता: ॥ ११ ॥

आनित्यदोषाश्र्व ये श्रुतिदुष्टादय: सूचितास्तेऽपि न वाच्ये अर्थमात्रे⁵, न च व्यङ्ग्ये शृङ्गारन्यपरेकिणि शृङ्गारे वा ध्वनरनात्मभूते । किं तहि⁷? ध्वन्यातमन्येव शृङ्गाराङ्गीभूतया व्यङ्ग्ये ते⁸ हेया इत्युदाहता: । अन्यथा̱ हि तेषामनित्यदोषतैव⁹ न स्यात् !

१. 'चरति'-क-ख. २. द्वयो:-BP. ३. 'शब्दार्थयोरिति'-क-ख. ४. 'साधार- रणश्र्वेति'-घ. ५. 'मुख्यतया दृश्य:'-ग, MB. ६. 'नेऽपि वाच्येऽर्थमात्रे'-क-ख; नेऽपि न वाच्यार्थमात्रे-घ. ७. 'मुख्यतया'-ग. ८. ध्वनरनात्मभूते-क. ९. ध्वन्यातमभूते किं तहि'-क-ख. १०. 'ये ते'-क-ख. ११. 'तथाहि'-ग. १२. 'नित्यस्त्वदोषमेव'-क-ख. 'नित्यदोषत्वमेव'-MB.

The Light of Suggestion

yo yaḥ śastram bibharti svabhujagurumadah pāndavīnām camūnām yo yaḥ pāñcālagotre śiśuradhikavayā garbhaśayyām gato vā yo yastatkarmasākṣī carati mayi rane yaśca yaśca pratīpaḥ krodhāndhastasya tasya svayamapi jagatāmanta-kasyantako'ham ( Whosoever with over weening pride of his strong arms Bears weapons in Pāndavas' battalions, Whosoever is sprung from Pāñcāla clan— Whether child, grown-up or embryo, Whosoever has been a silent witness of that ghastly deed And whosoever will cross my way as I move in the battle-field, I, in my blinding rage, shall prove a Destroyer Of each one of them and of even Yama himself !) Thus sound and sense can both become imbued with forcefulness.

The Light of Suggestion

That quality in poetry by which poetry throws itself open to the entry of all sentiments may be taken as perspicuity. Its applicability is universal. 10 Perspicuity is just the lucidity in sound as well as in sense. It is a quality common to all sentiments and all kinds of composition. Hence this quality should be understood as primarily relating to the suggested sense only.

The Light of Suggestion

Defects like ‘indelicacy’ which have been shown to be impermanent (by the ancient writers) have been in fact illustrated as blemishes only with reference to the erotic sentiment when its nature is suggestion. 11 Impermanent defects like ‘indelicacy’ which have been mentioned by earlier writers do not become defects at all when they are found in instances of expressed sense only; or even in instances of suggested erotic sentiment, if the suggested sentiment is also not of the utmost importance therein, or in instances of sentiments other than the erotic. That the defects are to be avoided as such only when the erotic happens to be principally suggested, becomes clear by the illustrations given (by the ancient writers themselves). If this were not so, they would not at all be impermanent defects.

ध्वन्यालोक:

एवमयं संलक्ष्यक्रमोद्भवोऽयो र्घ्वनेरात्मा प्रदर्शित: सामान्येन ।

तस्याऽऽज्ञानां प्रभेदा ये प्रभेदा: स्वगतातश्र ये । तेषामानन्त्यम्‍योऽन्यसम्बन्धपारिकल्‍पने:॥ १२ ॥

अज्ञितया व्यङ्गच्यो रसादिर्विवक्षितान्‍यपरवाच्यस्य ध्वनेरेक आत्मा य

उक्‍तस्तस्याऽऽज्ञानां वाच्यवाचकानुपातिनामलङ्काराणां ये प्रभेदा निरवधयै:, ये च स्वगतातस्याऽऽङ्गिनोऽर्थस्य रसभावतदाभासतत्प्रशामलक्षणा विभावानुभाव-

व्यभिचारिप्रतिपादनसहिता अनन्ता: स्वाथ्र्यापेक्षया नि:सीमाना विशेष-

स्तेषामन्योऽन्यसम्बन्धपारिकल्पने क्रियमाणे कस्यचिदनयतस्यापि रसस्य प्रकारा: परिसङ्ख्येयातुं न शक्यन्ते किमुत सर्वेषाम्। तथा हि शृङ्गारस्याऽऽङ्गिनस्त-

वदाचो द्वौ भेदौ—सम्भोगो विप्रलम्भश्र । सम्भोगस्य च परस्परप्रेमदर्शने सुरतविहरणादिलक्षणा: प्रकाराँ: । विप्रलम्भस्याप्यभिलाषेऽप्यो-

विरहप्रवासविप्रलम्भादया: । तेषां च प्रत्येकं विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिभेदाँ: । तेषां च देशकालावश्रयै: भेद इति स्वगतमेदापेक्षयैकस्यं तस्यापरिमेयत्वम्‍,

किं पुनरङ्गप्रभेदकल्पनायाम्‍ । ते ह्यङ्गप्रभेदा: प्रत्येकमङ्गिप्रभेदसम्बन्धपारिकल्पने क्रियमाणे सत्यामनन्त्यमेवोपयान्ति ।

१. 'अयं' क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. २. 'कमयोतो' क-ख; कमोयोत्य-घ. ३. 'निरवयवा'-ग. ४. 'श्रृङ्गारस्य नावदायो' -ग; 'श्रृङ्गारस्यैवाङ्गिनस्तावदायो'-घ. KLV. ५. 'द्वौ'-क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ६. 'विरहणादि'-ग. ७. 'प्रकार लक्षणा:' क-ख. ८. परमेक-ग पुस्तके नास्ति ९. 'भेद:'-ख-ग. १०. 'कालाभ्रया- लक्षणा:' क-ख. ११. 'भेद इति स्वगनापेक्षयेनस्य' ग; 'भेदा इति स्वगतभेदापेक्षयैव तस्य'-घ, क-ख. KLV. १२. 'कल्पनया'-च., KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

So far we have explained in general terms the nature of 'suggestion of undiscerned sequentiality'.

The sub-divisions of its parts and its own sub-divisions become endless indeed if one were to take into account their mutual permutations also.

It has been pointed out that the soul of suggestion with intended but further-extending literal import, is such sentiment etc. as is principally suggested. The external parts of this suggestion are the figures which relate to sound and sense. Now if the endless sub-divisions of these figures and the divisions of its intrinsic soul, viz., sentiment, abiding emotion, the semblance and cessation of these - which once again become endless by contact with different stimuli of setting, responses, and passing moods - and all the mutual relationships possible between each other amongst them be added up and reckoned, it would be clear that the entire varieties of even a single sentiment will baffle all counting, not to mention the impossibility of counting all varieties of all the sentiments. We may thus take the instance of the erotic sentiment which happens to be principally suggested in a work. First of all, it falls under a two-fold division : ( i ) love-in-union and ( ii ) love-in-separation. Love-in-union can be further divided into ( i ) exchange of love-glances, ( ii ) dalliance, ( iii ) honeymoon and so forth. So also love-in-separation embraces such classes as ( i ) desire, ( ii ) jealousy, ( iii ) separation, ( iv ) journey and so forth. Every one of these classes will get different associations of stimuli of setting, emotional responses, passing moods and so on. These subclasses too become still more different by differences of circumstance such as place and time. Thus it will be impossible to count exhaustively all the varieties and sub-varieties of a single sentiment itself. What need we say then of counting exhaustively all varieties of suggestion when we take into account the different varieties of its external parts also ? And if we should set about considering the permutations and combinations of each of the varieties of the external parts with each of the varieties of intrinsic sentiments too, there can be no doubt at all that their number will be limitless.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

दिदृक्षात्रं तच्च्यते येन व्युत्पन्नानां सचेतसाम्। बुद्धिरासादितालोका सर्वत्रैव भविष्यति॥१३॥

दिदृक्षात्रकथनेन हि व्युत्पन्नानां सहृदयानामेकत्रापि रसभेदे³ सहालङ्कारैरज्जाझिभावपरिज्ञानादासादितालोका बुद्धिः सर्वत्रैव भविष्यति।तत्र—

शृङ्गारस्याझिनो यत्नादेकरूपानुबन्धनात्। सर्वेष्वेव प्रभेदेषु नानुप्रासः³प्रकाशकः॥१४॥

आझिनो हि शृङ्गारस्य ये उक्ताः प्रभेदास्तेषु सर्वेष्वैवप्रकारानुबन्धतया प्रबन्धेन प्रवृत्तोऽनुप्रासो⁴ न व्यङ्गकः।अझिनन्नित्यनेनाझ्भूतस्य शृङ्गारस्यकरूपानुबन्ध्यनुप्रासानुबन्धेन कौतुकारमाह।

ध्वन्यातम्भूते शृङ्गारे यमकादिनिबन्धनम्। शक्तावापि प्रमादितवं विमलम्भे विशेषतः॥१५॥

ध्वनेरात्मभूतः शृङ्गारस्तात्पर्येण वाच्यवाचकाभ्यां प्रकाश्यमानस्तस्मिन्यमकप्रकाराणां निबन्धनं दुष्करशब्दभङ्गश्लेषादीनां शक्तावापि प्रमादितवम्।'प्रमादितव'मित्यनेनैतदह्रयते⁹।—काकतालीयेन कदाचित्कस्याचिदेक⁸स्य यमकादेर्⁹निष्पत्तावापि भूनालकङ्कारान्तरवलद्रसाझ्भाव

1. There is a lacuna from here up to तत् स्थानमेव under Kārikā 26 in No. 254 of BORI. 2. 'कल्पनेन'-ग. 3. 'रसभेदेऽज्जाझिभाव'-ग; 'रसभेदे कर्तव्येऽलङ्कारे᳚डज्जाझिभाव'-व. रसप्रभेदे'-KLV. 4. 'बन्धवान्त्र'-BP. 5. सर्वेष्वेव प्रभेदेषु'-क-खव.

2. 'प्रवृत्तोऽनुप्रासो'-ग. 7. अझिनरुपस्य शृङ्गारस्य'-क-खव. 8. 'ध्वनेरात्मभूतः'-गपुस्तके नास्ति. 9. 'दुष्म्। शब्द'-ग. 10. 'ह्रयते'-ग. 11. 'कस्याचित्'-गपुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Hence their broad indication only will be given here. But it should be enough to educate refined critics. Their minds will have received the light which would enable them to guess aright everywhere.

The Light of Suggestion

Refined critics can indeed be educated even by a mere indication of the direction. If their mind has been illumined in such a way that it can correctly discriminate between what is extrinsic and what is intrinsic when they are to employ figures to beautify any single sentiment, the mind will certainly be able to judge properly in every other instance too. The point is this :-

The Light of Suggestion

In none of the varieties of the principal erotic sentiment does alliteration become a source of suggestion since it involves great effort at achieving similarity.

The Light of Suggestion

In none of the varieties mentioned above of the principal erotic sentiment does alliteration become a partaker of suggestion, because it will proceed with the exclusive purpose of achieving similarity (in sound). The employment of the adjective 'principal' in the text serves to point out that when the erotic sentiment is only secondary in importance, the use of such alliterations abounding in similarity of sounds is left to the option of the writer.

The Light of Suggestion

Even if the poet should be an expert in the use of figures like assonance, his employment of them in the erotic sentiment which is of the nature of suggestion, and particularly in that of love-in-separation, would amount only to a lapse on his part.

The Light of Suggestion

In instances where we find the erotic sentiment as of the nature of suggestion, i. e. as that which is principally suggested by both sound and sense, it would be a lapse indeed on the part of a poet if he were to employ various kinds of assonance and difficult verbal puns involving the splitting of words in different ways, however skilful he might be in devising these. The following is the point made out by the expression "would indicate only a lapse on his part" : Though assonance etc. can be used once or twice in an accidental way, they should not be pressed into the

ध्वन्यालोक:

निबन्धो न कर्तव्य इति । 'विप्रलम्भे विशेषत' इत्यनेन विप्रलम्भे सौकुमार्योत्कर्षाय र्वाप्यते । तस्मिन्योत्कये यमकादेरड्‌स्यै निबन्धो नियमाद्‌न कर्तव्य इति ।

अत्र युक्तिरभिधीयते —

रसान्‌क्षिततया यस्य बन्ध: शक्यक्रियी भवेत् । अपृथग्यत्नानिर्वर्त्य: सोज्ज्वलड्ढगारो ध्वनौ मतः ॥ १६ ॥ निष्पत्तावश्रयभूतोडपि यस्यालड्ढारस्य रसान्‌क्षिततयैव बन्ध: शक्यक्रियो भवेत्सोडस्मिन्नलक्ष्यकमल्यकड्ढचे 'ध्वनावलड्ढारो मतः । तस्यैव रसाङ्‌त्वं मुरुद्यमित्यर्थे ।

कपोले पत्राली करतलनिरोधेन मृदिता निपीते नि:श्वासयमभ्रतहृदयड्ढघररसे: । मुहु: कण्ठे लयस्तरलयति बाप्प: स्तनतटीं प्रियो मन्युरजातस्तव निरुरोधे न तु वयम् ॥

रसाङ्‌त्वे च तस्य लक्षणमपृथग्यत्नानिर्वर्त्यत्वमिति यो रसं बन्धु-मध्यंवस्थितस्य केवरलड्ढारस्तां वासनामत्यूच्य यत्नान्तरमास्थितस्य निष्पद्यते सैन न रसाङ्‌मिति । यमके च प्रबन्धेन बुद्धिपूर्वकं क्रियाणे नियमेनैव यत्न-स्तरपरिग्रह आपतति शब्दविशेषान्वेषणरूप: । अलड्ढारान्तरेप्वपि तत्‌तुल्यमिति चेत्, नैवम् ।

अलड्ढाराणि हि निरूप्यमाणदुर्‌घटना न्यापि रससमाहितचेतस: प्रतिभावतः केवर्हम्पूर्वकया परापतन्ति । यथा कादम्बर्यां कादम्बरीदर्शन-वसरे; यथा च मायामांशिरोदर्‌शनेन विहलांयां सीतदेव्यां सेतौ ।

युक्तं १. 'विप्रलम्भड्ढारे'-ग. विप्रलम्भशृङ्‌गारस्य-MB. २. 'स्थाप्यते प्रकाशयते'-ग. ३. 'यमकस्या ड्घुतस्य'-ग. ४. 'इति'-क-खव पुस्तकयोर्‌नास्ति. ५. 'तत्र'-क. ६. 'अपि'-गा पुस्तके नास्ति. ७. 'साक्षिणया'-खव. ८. 'तटम्'-व. ९. 'रसाङ्‌नत्वे' -क-खव. १०. 'लक्षणमक्‌षुण्णमपृथग्यत्नं निर्वर्त्यन्त इति'-घ. अक्षुण्णण-गा पुस्तके नास्ति.

११. यो-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. १२. 'रससंचारध्मध्य'-ग. 'निर्‌वर्त्यमिति - MB. १३. 'कवयोर्‌डलङ्‌कार:'-क-खव. १४. 'स'-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. १५. 'बुद्धिपूर्वके'-क-खव. १६. 'रामादि'-घ; 'राम' क-खव पुस्तकयोर्‌नास्ति. १८. 'इति.' क-खव. सेतौ सेतुबन्धकाव्य इत्यर्थ: -marginalia.

The Light of Suggestion

service of sentiments quite in the same profusion as one might turn the other figures of speech to such use. The expression, "particularly in that of love-in-separation", explains the excessive tenderness of that sentiment and when it is to be delineated, assonance etc. should never be employed as a rule.

The Light of Suggestion

The reason for this is given below :-

The Light of Suggestion

Only that is admitted as a figure of suggestive poetry whose employment is rendered possible just by the emotional suffusion of the poet and which does not require any other extra effort on his part.

The Light of Suggestion

Though in the result it might appear very amazing, that figure, whose employment is due only to the poet's over-mastering emotion, is regarded as a figure of 'suggestive poetry of undis-cerned sequentiality'. The idea is that it alone serves as the best vehicle of sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

For example :-

The Light of Suggestion

The paintings on the cheeks are faded By the pressure from the palm of your hand; This juice of lips, so sweet as nectar Is quaffed by your sighs; The tear that claps the neck so often Has made the edge of your bosom throb O hard-hearted one ! Anger has become your darling, not I.

The Light of Suggestion

The figure which can be a promoter of sentiment usually bodies itself forth in all its completeness without any extra effort on the part of the poet. Hence if one were to find that the figure indicates an extra effort of the poet in its employment rather than his concentration in the sole delineation of sentiment, though this latter alone is his avowed object, one can conclude that it cannot serve as a promoter of sentiment. In the pertinacious and deliberate employment of assonance on a poet's part, one can see invariably his extra effort in the choice of select words. If one were to state that this fact is equally applicable to other figures too, it would be wrong. The other figures will come (spontaneously) swarming at the beck and call of a poet concentrated upon sentiment and gifted with (a rich) imagination and will compete with one another for

Dhvan yaloka

चैतत्, यतो रसा वाच्यविशेषैरेभादेषल्व्या: । तत्प्रतिपादकैश् शब्दैस्तत्प्रका शिनो वाच्यविशेषा एव रूपकादयोऽलङ्काराः । तस्मात्त तेषां बहिरङ्गत्वं रसाभिनिव्यक्तौ; यमकादिकरमार्गेषु तु तात्स्थ्यतमेव । यत्तु रसवन्ति कानिचिद् यमकादीनि हश्यन्ते, तत्र रसादीनामङ्गता; यमकादीनां त्वङ्गितैव । रसाभासे चाङ्गत्वमप्यविरुद्धम् । आङ्गितया तु व्यङ्ग्ये रसे नाङ्गत्वं, पृथक्प्रयत्नानिर्वृत्य त्वादमकादे: । अस्यैवार्थस्य सङ्क्षेप: —

रसवन्ति हि वस्तूनि सालङ्काराणि कानिचित् । एकैनैव प्रयत्नेन निर्वर्त्यन्ते महाकवे: ॥ यमकादिनिबन्धे तु पृथमयत्नोदस्य जायते । रचनाश्रयि रसोद्भुत्वं तस्मादिषां न विद्यते ॥ रसाभासाङ्गभवस्तु यमकादेन वार्यते । ध्वन्यातमभूते शृङ्गारे त्वङ्गतां नोपपद्यते ॥ इदानीं ध्वन्यातमभूतस्य शृङ्गारस्य व्यञ्जककोडलङ्कारवर्ग आस्वाद्यते --

ध्वन्यातमभूते शृङ्गारे समीक्ष्य विनिवेशित: । रूपकादिरलङ्कारवर्ग एति यथार्थताम् ॥ १७ ॥

१. 'तस्मात्तेषां किं न बाहि०' -गा. २. 'तत्' -गपुस्तके नास्ति. ३. 'एव बहिरङ्गत्वम्' -क-खव. ४. 'कानिचिद्वस्तूनि यम०' -क-खव. ५. 'रसानों' -क-खव. ६. 'रसाभावे' -क-खव. ७. 'व्यङ्ग्येन' -क-खव. 'आङ्गिना तु व्यङ्ग्ये' -व. ८. 'निर्वर्त्तन्ते' -क-खव. ९. 'जायते' -. १०. 'ह्र्ज्जता' -क-खव. ११. 'शृङ्गारस्य' - च पुस्तके.

No. 254 ( BORI). नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

their first preference at his hands, though outwardly they might appear to involve great labour on his part. We may cite as instances the description in Kādambarī of the moment of Kādambarī's sight ( by the hero ) and the description of the vexed Sītā at the sight of the severed head of Māyā-Rāma in the poem Setubandha. Indeed it is quite natural this should be so. For, sentiments have to be conveyed only by way of particular primary senses. And figures like metaphor are just the kind of primary senses that serve to convey sentiments by means of their own expressive words. Hence they are never extraneous to the delineation of sentiment. But a tour de force such as a complicated assonance can never be anything but an extraneous element to it. Even in stray instances of assonance which show a touch of sentiment etc., the sentiment should be regarded only as subsidiary, and it is the assonance alone which is primary in importance. But so far as suggested sentiment is concerned, these intricate rhymes can never become its vehicles since they invariably acquire supreme prominence for themselves by reason of the extra effort necessitated in their employment.

The Light of Suggestion

This idea is summed up in the following words:—

The Light of Suggestion

1. Most emotional themes are adorned with figures also by a single effort of the first-rate poet.

The Light of Suggestion

2. However proficient a poet might be in the employment of figures, extra effort on his part will be called forth in devising assonance etc. Hence intricate rhymes cannot serve as vehicles of sentiments.

The Light of Suggestion

3. This does not, however, prevent assonance etc. from being made vehicles of semblance of sentiment. But in the erotic sentiment, which is of the nature of suggestion, they cannot be regarded as accessories.

The Light of Suggestion

The group of figures that enters into the suggestion of the erotic sentiment, intrinsic to dhvani will be set forth below:—

The Light of Suggestion

The galaxy of figures like metaphor becomes truely significant ( i. e. will be real ornaments ) when they are employed with great discrimination in instances of the Erotic Sentiment which is intrinsic to dhvani.

Dhvanyāloka:

II, 17-19 ]

अलङ्कारो हि बाह्यालङ्कारसाम्यादृङिनश्रृङ्गारत्वहेतुरुच्यते । वाच्याल-

ङ्गारवर्गश्व रूपकादिर्योवानुक्तो वक्ष्यते चैं कैश्चित् अलङ्काराणामनन्तत्वात्सैर्वोङपिैं यदि. समीक्ष्य विनिवेश्यते तद्लक्ष्यकमव्यङ्ग्यस्य ध्वनेरङ्गिन:

सर्वैष्यैव चारुत्वहेतुर्निष्पद्यते ।

एषां चास्य विनिवेशने समीक्षा —

विवक्षा तत्प्रतिवेन नाड़ींत्वेन कदाचन ।

काले च ग्रहणत्यागौ नातिनिर्वहणेषिता ॥ १८ ॥

निर्व्यूढावापि चाड़ंत्वे यत्नेन प्रत्यवेक्षणम् ।

रूपकादेरलङ्गारवर्गस्याड़ंत्वसाधनम् ॥ १९ ॥

रसबन्धेष्वत्याहतमनाः कवियिमलङ्कारं तदङ्गतया विवक्षति ।

यथा —

चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिं सृशसि बहुशो वेपथुमतीं

रहस्याल्यायीव स्नासि मृदु करणान्तिकचरं ।

करौ व्याधुनंवत्या: पिबसि रतिसर्वस्वमधरं

वयं तत्त्वान्विष्ठान्मधुकर हतास्त्वं खलु कृति ॥

अत्र हि भ्रमरस्वभावोक्तिरलङ्कारो रसानुगुणः ।

'नाड़ींत्वेन' तिै नैं प्राधान्येन । कदाचिदंशादितात्पर्येणैव विवक्षितोडपि

ह्यालङ्कार: काव्यदृङित्वेनैव विवक्षितो दर्श्यते ।

१. 'बाह्यालङ्कारस्यादृङिनश्रृङ्गारत्वहेतु:'-क-खव. २. 'वा'-ग. ३. 'स.'-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. ४. आप-क-ख व पुस्तकयोरनास्ति. ५. 'सर्व एव'-घ. ६. 'या चास्य'-क.

'यस्य चास्य'-खव. ७. 'समीक्षा सा चास्य प्रकाशयने'-क-खव-MB. ८. 'कथंचन'-घ.

९. 'रसबन्धे ध्वन्यध्वन्यादिति'-घ. १०. 'गम:'-क-खव. ११. 'करौ'-घ. १२. 'व्याधु-

न्वत्या:'-घ. १३. 'इति'-क-खव पुस्तकयोरनास्ति. १४. 'न'-घ पुस्तके नास्ति.

१५. 'केनाचित्'-क-ख. १६. 'अङ्गित्वेन दृष्ट:'-क-खव.

The Light of Suggestion

An alañkāra (lit. 'ornament') or figure is regarded as a beautifier of the principal element in poetry in the same way as an external ornament is regarded as a cause of beauty in one's whole personality. The principal element of poetry in 'suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality' and all the figures of speech defined by the ancients such as metaphor—and even the figures yet to be defined, since the number of figures is legion—will serve as promoters of its beauty if they are employed with proper discrimination.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is the nature of discrimination to be exercised by the poet in the employment of figures:- The sole consideration that it is only a means to the delineation of sentiment and never an end in itself, the necessity of employing it at the right time and of abandoning it at the right time; the absence of over-enthusiasm on the poet's part in pressing it too far, and finally, his keen watchfulness in making sure that it remains a secondary element only—these are the various means by which figures like metaphor become accessories (of suggested sentiment).

The Light of Suggestion

Here is an example of the utilisation of a figure of speech as an accessory to sentiment by a poet who is bent upon delineating sentiments only:- 'Her moving corner'd eye Trembling as in pain, thou touchest oft and oft; Like secret-whisperer, Tenderly thou hummest, flitting by her ear; She waving both her hands, Thou doest drink her lip, be-all of pleasure soft; We, searching for the truth, Are undone, O drone ! thou, yea, art lucky here ! '1

The Light of Suggestion

The realistic description of the bee's behaviour in the above verse is in keeping with the sentiment. "Consideration that it is never an end in itself" implies that though a figure may be utilised as an accessory to sentiment in an instance, it should not at the same time be also intended as pre-eminent.

The Light of Suggestion

1. Roby Datta's translation.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

यथा— चक्राभिघातप्रसभाञ्जयैव चकार यो राहुवधूजनस्य । आलिङ्गनोदामविलासवन्ध्यं' रतोत्सवं चुम्बनमात्रशोषम् ॥ अत्र हि पर्यायोक्कस्याऽऽडित्येन विवक्षां रसाद्‌दतां पर्याय इति सत्यपि ।

5 अङ्ङन्त्वेन विवक्षितमपि यमवसरे³ गृह्यते नावसरे । अवसरे गृहीतिर्यथा— उद्यामोत्कलिकां विपाण्डुररुचं प्रारब्धजृम्भां क्षणा- दायासं श्वसनोद्‌मैरविगलैरातन्वतीमात्मनः । अद्योद्यालताभिमां समदनां नारीमिवान्यां ध्रुवं पश्यन् कोपविपाटलद्युति मुखं देङ्‌या: करिष्याम्यहम् ॥ इत्यत्र उपमा-श्लेषस्य । गृहीतमपि च यमवसरे त्यजति तद्रसानुगुणतया लड्‌खड़ारान्तरापेक्षया ।

यथा — रक्तस्त्वं नवपल्लवैरहमपि श्वासै: प्रियाया गुणै- स्त्वामायान्ति शिलीमुखा: स्मरधनुरुक्तास्तथा³ मामपि । कान्तापादतलाहतिस्तव मुदे तद्‌ध्रनममाप्यावयो: सर्वं तुल्यमशोक केवलमहं धात्र्रा सशोक: कृत: ॥

१. 'चुम्बनं'-क-खव. २. अङ्ङन्त्वेन-ना पुस्तके नास्ति. 'अङ्ङितवेनो'-घ. ३. 'इयमवसरे'-क-खव. ४. 'उपमा'-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. उपमा श्लेषस्य-BP. ५. 'रसत्वे'-च.

The Light of Suggestion

For example,

He is indeed the Lord

Who, by his brisk order to his discus to smite,

Made the amorous sport of Rāhu's wives,

Devoid of its wild frolic of embraces,

And confined to kisses forsooth.

Here, periphrasis is indeed intended as pre-eminent though there is the idea that it should serve as an accessory to the sentiment.

It is not enough if the poet intends his figure to be secondary; he must make sure of its timely employment also. The following is an instance of a figure so employed with regard to propriety of circumstance :-

To-day I shall make the Queen's face purple with anger

Gazing upon this garden-creeper, as upon a mistress

That in a moment has displayed buds profuse (powerful longing),

Has a complexion pale with opening buds (has commenced to yawn),

And manifests the disturbance (anguish) felt

By the ceaseless puffs of wind (by constant heavings of sighs).1

In this instance the double entendre based on simile is most appropriate.

The following is an instance of abandoning half-way even a figure of speech already taken up for treatment in favour of other figures which are more helpful in revealing sentiments :-

Red thou art by fresh tendrils;

And so (i. e. fascinated) am I by thy sweet virtues.

Bees do swarm towards you;

So do they (i. e. arrows) come towards me,

Shot by the bow of the God of Love.

A bloom from the darling's sole will delight you;

And so does it delight me too.

Thus O Sorrowless Tree, one in all respects are we;

But I am consigned to sorrow by God !

1. Translation based on that of M. R. Kale.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्र हि प्रबन्धप्रवृत्तोडपि श्लेषो व्यतिरेकविवक्षया त्यज्यमानो रसविशेषं पुण्णाति । नात्रालङ्कारद्रव्यसन्निपातः, किं तर्हि? अलङ्कारान्तरेव श्लेषव्यतिरेकलक्षणं नरसिंहवాదिति चेत्—न; तस्य प्रकारान्तरण व्यवस्थापनात् । यत्र हि श्लेषविषय एव शाब्दे प्रकारान्तरणे व्यतिरेकप्रतीतिज्ञायते5 स तस्य विषयः । यथा—

' स हरिनाम्ना देवः सहरीव रतुर्गानिवाहन '

इत्यादौ ।

अत्र हान्य एव शाब्दः श्लेषस्य विषयोडन्यश्र व्यतिरेकस्य । यदि चैवंविधे विषयेsलङ्कारान्तरत्वकल्पना क्रियते तत्तस्मैष्टेविशेषापहारं एव स्यात् । 10 श्लेषमुखेनैवात्र व्यतिरेकस्यात्मलाभ इति नायं संस्कृतेरविषय इति चेत्, न; व्यतिरेकस्य प्रकारान्तरणेऽपि दर्शनेनात् । यथा—

नो कल्पापायवायोरदयरदलतस्माधरस्यापि सन्ध्या गाढोद्रीणोज्ज्वलश्रीरहनि न रहिता नो तस्य कज्जलैन । प्राप्तौ पतङ्गान्न पुनरुपगता मोषमुप्णातिवेषो वौ वार्ता: सेवान्त्यरुपा सुखयतु निखिलद्रोपदंश पर गौत: ॥

१. व्यवस्थानात्—MB. No. 254,BORI. २. क्रियते—क, ख. व. ३. नात्र। श्लेषस्य—च. व. 'क्रियते तत्तः संस्कृतेरविषयापरिहार'—ग.

The Light of Suggestion

The double entendre in the initial part of the above verse has been given up half-way in order to make room for another figure viz. poetic contrast. As such, it intensifies the sentiment in question. The two figures do not merge into each other in this instance. Then how exactly are the two related ? If one were to say that they are related like the Man-Lion ( an avatār of Viṣṇu ) inducing the impression of a new figure altogether though consisting of two clearly different parts, viz., that of double entendre and poetic contrast, it would be wrong. For, the nature of Merging of Figures has been defined differently. If we find one and the same word giving rise to both double entendre and poetic contrast, we may regard it is an instance of Merging of Figures.

For example : 'sa harir nāmnā deval, saharīr varaturaganivahena' That Viṣṇu is Hari only by name; But the King is similar to Hari And also a possessor of the best of steeds, Thus deserving the title 'Sahari' Better than the real Hari.

But in the instance at issue the 'words that contain double entendre and poetic contrast respectively are quite different ones. If even in instances like this, only a different figure ( i. e. Merging of Figures ) is supposed to exist, then it would mean robbing Collocation of Figures of all its scope. It is indeed a pointless argument that this cannot be an instance of Collocation of Figures in as much as the existence of poetic contrast is achieved only through the agency of double entendré. For poetic contrast is often instanced in other ways also; e. g. :- May the light of the lamp of all lands, With its wick so unique, bring us delight; It is not put out even by the force of terrible gales That blow at the time of the deluge To rend even mighty mountains in twain; It spreads an intense and brilliant light Even by day all round; It is never sullied by slightest soot; Though it is brought forth by the firefly ( also, the sun), It never gets dim by the rise of the sun.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्र हि साम्यमपक्वप्रतिपादनं विनैव व्यतिरेकं दर्शितः। नात्र शेषमात्राचारुत्वप्रतीतिरस्तीति शेषस्य व्यतिरेकाज्ज्ञतवैनैव विवक्षितत्वात् न स्वतोडलङ्कारतेत्यपि न वाच्यम् । यत एवंविधे विषये साम्यमात्रादपि सुप्रतिपादिताच्चारुत्वं हृश्यत एव । यथा—

आक्रन्दा: स्तनितैरिलोचनजलानि श्यान्तधाराम्बुभि— स्तद्विच्छेदभुवश्र शोकशिखिनस्तुल्यास्तडिद्द्रिध्रमै: । अन्त्रं दयितासु तव श्रशी वृत्ति: समेत्यावयो— स्तत्कि मामनिशं सवे जलधर त्वं दग्धुमेवोद्यत: ॥

रसनिवर्हणेकतानहृदयौ यं चै नात्यन्तं निर्वन्धुमिच्छति ।

कोपात्कामलोलम्राहुलतिकापाशेन बध्वा हृदं नीत्वा वासनिकतां दयितया सायं सखीना पुर: । भूयो नैवमिति स्वलतिकलागिरा संसूच्य दुश्रोषितं धन्यो हन्यत एव निद्धृतिपर: प्रेयानुदत्याहसन् ॥

अत्र हि रूपकमाक्षिप्तसमाननिवृंह न परं रसपुष्टये । निवन्धुमिष्ठमपि यं यत्नादृज्जतवेन प्रत्यवेक्षते यथा—

The Light of Suggestion

In this example, poetic contrast is used without any reference to the points of similarity between the things described. Nor would it be right to think that in the earlier example, double entendre is not intended as individually important, that it is intended only as an accessory to poetic contrast and that we do not have any feeling of beauty due exclusively to double entendre. For poetic contrast can be rendered beautiful even by a good description of mere similarity (i.e. even without the assistance of double entendre) as in the following example:

Similar are my moans to your rumbles, And my tears to your ceaseless showers; The flames of sorrow within me in her separation Are like the flashes of your lightning withal; My darling's face is there within me And within you the moon is found. Thus alike we are in all respects; Yet my friend! O cloud! tell me, Why are you so intent upon burning me down?

The following is an example which illustrates how a poet bent upon the sole object of delineating sentiments will desist from carrying a figure too far :-

He is indeed a lucky lover who is bound fast By the noose of his beloved's creeperlike arms So soft and tense in her mounting anger, Then to the bed-chamber is led in the evening Even as the confidants are looking on, Is warned not to do it again with an allusion To his love-offence in a faltering and sweet tone, And is beaten by the weeping beloved As he tries to hide his fault smilingly.

The metaphor (of binding the lover) in this verse which has been allowed to be implied only (in the latter lines) and not carried into every detail contributes to the full delineation of sentiment.

The following example illustrates how the poet looks to it carefully that the accessory nature of the figure is not disturbed even when he intends to utilise the figure in detail so as to heighten the sentiment :-

स्यामास्वद्धं चाकितहारिणीप्रेक्षणे दृष्टिपातं

गण्डच्छायां शाशिनि शिखिनां बहुभारेषु केशान्

उत्पश्यामि प्रतनुषु नदीवीचिषु भ्रूविलासान्

हन्तैकस्यं कचिदपि न ते भीरु साहस्यमस्ति ॥

5 इत्याॅद ।

स एवमुपनिबध्यमानोऽलङ्कारो रसाभिव्यक्तिहेतु: कवेर्भवति । उक्तप्रकारातिक्रमे तु नियम एव रसमझहেতु: सम्पद्यते । लक्षणं च तथाविधं महाकविप्रबन्धेष्वपि हश्यते बहुश: । तच्च सूक्तिसहस्रयोजितात्मनां महात्मनां

दोषोद्दोषणमातमन एव दूषणं भवतीति न विभज्य दर्शितम् । किं तु रूपकादेरलङ्कारवर्गस्य येयं व्युत्कत्कल्पे रसादिविषये लक्षणादर्शिता तामनुसरन् स्वयां चान्यहक्षणसूत्रप्रेक्ष्मणो यदलक्ष्यक्रमप्रातिभयं भनन्तरोक्तमेनं 'ध्वनेरातमुपनिबन्धनाति

सुकवि: समाहितचेतास्तदा तस्यात्मलाभो भवति महीयानिति ।

क्रमेण प्रतिभात्यात्मा योगस्यानुसन्धानभि: ।

शब्दार्थशक्तिमूलत्वात्सोऽपि द्वेधा व्यवस्थित: ॥ २० ॥

अस्य विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यस्य ध्वने: संलक्ष्यैक्रमव्यङ्ग्यत्वानुरणनप्रस्यो

य आत्मा सोऽपि शब्दशक्तिमूलोऽर्थशक्तिमूलश्रेति द्विप्रकार: ।

१. 'हारिण'-क. ख. २. 'वक्त्र'-ग. ३. 'चाण्ड'-घ. ४. 'तथाविधमपि'-ङ. ५. 'आप'-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. ६. 'सहृदयसम्माचितातमनां'-MB. ७. 'महतां'-च. ८. 'दूषण'-छ. ९. 'तु'-ज. १०. 'व्युत्कत्कल्पे'-झ. ११. 'लक्षण'-ञ. १२. 'कथपिततम'-ट.;

क्रमप्रतिभासं° No. 254 (BORI). १३. 'सकमध्यङ्कयत्वाद'-ण. १४. 'तस्मै'-त. १५. 'चेतास्तदस्या'-द. १६. 'योगस्य'-ध.

The Light of Suggestion

'In the Priyañgu do I trace thy limbs, In eyes of startled antelope thy glance; Thr moon recalls thy radiant countenance, The peacock's tails thy shining tresses; While tiny ripples in the streamlets view To imitate the archings of thy brows, Yet alas, O jealous one, in none of these Is there the whole likeness of thee !11'

The Light of Suggestion

A figure of speech thus utilized by a poet will succeed in revealing sentiments. In case the conditions laid down be transgressed, it invariably becomes a destroyer of sentiment. Even this is seen amply illustrated in the works of great poets. But it has not been shown in detail here since a loud exposure of the defects of great men who have the bright light of a thousand good sayings about them would amount to a censure of the critic himself. But it deserves to be reiterated that the poet will have best fulfilled his purpose only when he exercises concentration in infusing his work with the soul of suggestion 'with undiscerned sequentiality' described above, follows faithfully the mentioned ways in which the galaxy of figures like metaphor can be harmonised with delineation of sentiment and imagines for himself the other details left unsaid herein.

The Light of Suggestion

The other element of this suggestion manifests itself in the same way as resonance and the temporal sequentiality of the two meanings will be discernible. It is also two-fold :-- 'that which is based on the power of word' and 'that which is based on the power of sense.'

The Light of Suggestion

This suggestion 'with intended but further-extending literal import' contains an element which is similar to resonance in so far as it is suggested in such a way that one can notice temporal sequentiality (between the expressed and suggested senses). It is further subdivided into 'that which is based on the power of word', and 'that which is based on the power of sense'.

The Light of Suggestion

One might raise an objection at this juncture to this effect : 'If one were to consider every instance where a new sense is conveyed by the power of word as a variety of suggestion, then

The Light of Suggestion

1. Translation Rooke's.

Dhvanȳaloka:

ननु शब्दशक्त्या यत्रार्थोऽन्तरं प्रकाशते स यदि ध्वने: प्रकार उच्च्यते तदिदानीं श्लेषस्य विषय एवापहतः स्यात्, नापहत इत्याह—

आक्षिप्त एवालङ्कार: शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशते¹ । यास्मिन्नुक्त: शब्देन शब्दशक्त्युद्भवो हि स्फ़ीः ॥ २१ ॥

यस्मादलङ्कारो, न वस्तुमात्रं, यस्मिन् काव्ये शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशते सन् शब्दशक्त्युद्भवो ध्वनिरित्यस्माकं विवक्षितैः । वस्तुदृये च शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशामानेऽपि श्लेष: । यथा—

येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन बालिजित्काय: पुराखीकृतो यशोभिः² तदुज्झड़हारवलयो गडां च योद्धारयत् । यस्याहु: शाशिमाच्छिरो हर इति स्तुत्यं च नामामराः पायात्स स्वयमनङ्ककक्षयकरस्त्वां सर्वदोमाधव: ॥

नवलङ्कारान्तरप्रतिभायामापि श्लेषव्यपदेशो भवतीति³ दर्शितं भट्टोद्भट- टेन, तत्पुनरपि शब्दशक्तिमूलो ध्वानिनिर्वकारां इत्याराहुःचेदमुक्तं 'आक्षिप्त' इति । तदयमर्थ:—यत्र शब्दशक्त्या साक्षादलङ्कारान्तरं वाच्यं सत्प्रतिभासते स

१. प्रकाशते—MB. २. स एव-च. ३. 'विवक्षितम्' -BP. ४. प्रकाश्यमाने—MB. ५. 'श्लेषस्य व्यपदेश इति' -क. ख्व.; श्लेषव्यपदेश एवति No. 254 (BORI). ६. निरवकाश: -ष;ग. पुस्तके नास्ति. ७. साक्षादलङ्कारं-च.

The Light of Suggestion

the figure double entendre would be completely robbed of its scope ! The following text points out that it is not so. Only that instance wherein is present a figure that is not expressed directly by any word but conveyed solely by the suggestive power of the word itself, should be regarded as suggestion based on the power of the word.

For, only a figure which is conveyed by the power of the word is intended by us to form an instance of suggestion based on the power of the word and not all ideas so conveyed are instances of this suggestion. If two ideas are manifest ( simultaneously ) as a result of the power of the word, we have only an instance of double entendre. For example :——

Meaning that relates to Hara : He by whom the god of Love was destroyed, By whom the very body of Bali's enemy ( i. e. Hari ) was turned into a shaft, Whose necklaces and bracelets are serpents forsooth, Who bore the Celestial River on his head, And whose holy title, ‘the moon-crested Hara’, Is praised by all the gods; May that slayer of Andhaka And the spouse of Pārvatī preserve thee !

Meaning that releates to Hari : He, the Unborn, by whom the Demon of the Cart was destroyed, Whose body that triumphed over Bali was into a feminine form changed, Who slew the proud serpent Kālinga, Who held aloft the mountain as well as the earth, Whose holy name, ‘the beheader of Dragon's Head’, Is glorified by all the gods, And who was himself the cause Of the destruction of Yādavas— May that all-giver Mādhava preserve thee !

In fact, Bhatta Udbhata has pointed out that the name double entendre can apply to such instances too wherein we get the idea of another figure through the particular figure present

Dhvanyaloka

सर्वे श्लेषाविषय:। यत्र तु शब्दशक्त्या सामर्थ्योक्षितं वाच्यव्यतिरिक्तं व्यङ्ग्यच-मेवालङ्कारान्तरं प्रकाशोते स ध्वनेर्विषय:। शब्दशक्त्या साक्षादलङ्कारान्तर-प्रतिभा यथा—

तस्या विनापि हारेण निर्गाढ़ेव हारिणा। जनयामास कस्य विस्मयं न पयोघरौ।।

अत्र शृङ्गारव्यभिचारी विस्मयाख्यो भाव: साक्षाद्विरोधालङ्कारश्वप्रतिभासंत इति विशेषच्छायानुग्राहिण: श्लेषस्यायं विषय:, न त्वनुस्वानोपम्यङ्कचस्य ध्वने:। अलक्ष्यक्रमे: व्यङ्ग्यचस्य तु ध्वनेविव्येन श्लेषेण विरोधेन वा व्यञ्जितस्य विषय एव। यथा ममैव—

स्वाङ्यारोषितन् सुन्दर्शनकर: सर्वोऽङ्गलीलाजित- त्रैलोक्यां चरणारविन्दललितेनाक्रान्तलोको हरि:। विभ्राणां सुरविन्दुरूपमकिलं चन्द्रात्मचक्षुर्दृश- न्याने यों स्वतनोरपर्यदधिकां सा रक्मिणी वोढवताम्।।

१. 'शब्द—श.' टि. २. 'अव्यङ्गच'-म. ३. 'भान्ती'-क-ख. ४. 'कम—' पुस्तिकायां 'मम' इति पाठ:। ५. 'व्यङ्गचप्रतिभासस्य'-घ. ६. श्लेषविरोधेन—No. 254 (BORI).

The Light of Suggestion

there. In view of this, one might again doubt whether suggestion based upon the power of the word can be left with any independent scope at all. It is in order to remove such a doubt that the word 'suggestive' has been used in the text. Hence this is the idea : All instances wherein, through the power of the word, only an expressed figure is conveyed by another expressed figure, should be brought under the province of double entendre. But such instances where a new figure is conveyed by the suggestive power of the word only, a figure which appears thus to be quite different from an expressed one, will come under the scope of suggestion based upon the power of the word. The following is an example of an expressed figure conveyed directly ( i. e. not suggestively ) by the power of the word :-

Her bosoms without a garland though, Garlanded ( also, ravishing ) by nature were; Whom would they not amaze !

The mood of 'surprise' described here happens to be a passing mood related to the erotic sentiment. Alongside of it we also find the figure of paradox. Hence this should be regarded only as an instance of double entendre which assists in conveying a shade of paradox; and not as an instance of suggestion based on the power of the word. All the same, the Erotic sentiment conveyed here by the use of the expressed figures double entendre or paradox can of course be regarded as an instance of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality. Here is another example taken from one of my own works :-

The entire body of Rukminī is praiseworthy While Hari's hand alone is handsome ( also, he holds a discus called 'The Handsome' in his hand ) ; She has triumphed over the three worlds By the graces of all her limbs, While Hari has measured out the worlds By the grace of his lotus-foot alone; Her whole face is of the form of the moon While he is but moon-eyed. Thus indeed did Hari find Her person far superior to his own ; May that Rukminī protect us.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्र वाच्यतयैव व्यतिरेकच्छायानुग्राही श्रेष: प्रतीयते॥ यथा च भ्रामिरतिमलसहृदयतां प्रलयं मूर्छां तमः शरीरसादम॑। मरणं च जलधुजगजं प्रसह्य कुते विषं वियोगिनीनाम् ॥

यथा वा— चमक्हिअमाणसकचणपडुअणिम्महिअपरिमला जस्स । अलवणिडअदाणपसारा बाहुप्पलिहा च्चिअ गइन्द्दा ॥ ( ख्वणिटतमानसकाचणपडुजानिर्म्मथितपारिमला यस्स । अलवणिडतदानप्रसरा बाहुपारिघा इव गजेन्द्रा: ॥ ) ( छाया )

अत्र रूपकच्छायानुगृहीतो श्रेषो वाच्यतयैववभासते। स चाक्षिसो- डलङ्कारो यत्र पुन: शब्दान्तरेणाभिहितस्वरूपपस्तत्र नै शब्दशक्त्युद्भवानुरण- नरुपल्यझ्चध्वनिनिव्यवहार:। तंत्र वक्रोक्त्यादिव्याच्यालङ्कारव्यवहार एव। यथा—

हष्ट्र्य च केराव गोपरागहतयां किच्चिन् हष्ट्रं मया तेनैव स्वहितास्मि नाथ पतितां किं नाम्नालम्ससे । एकस्त्वं विषमेऽु खिन्नमनसां सर्वोबलानां गति- गोंप्यैव गदित: सले शमवताद्रोषे हरिवंशिरस॑ ॥

१. °यादवग्रहीत:-MB. २. 'प्रतीत एव'-क-ख. ३. 'सादं च'-क-ख. ४. °दुग्रहीत:-MB. ५. न-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. ६. किन्तु वाच्यश्रेषालङ्कार-KLV. ७. 'हतया'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

The double entendre which assists in the communication of Paradox happens only to be expressed in this verse. Here is another instance :

Reeling, jadedness, and laziness; Sinking, swoon and stupor; Slenderness of body and death itself— All these are perforce brought upon wives in separation By the poison (also, water) of cloud-like snakes (also, of snake-like clouds).

To give a still another example :-

Laden with the scent of golden lotuses, Squeezed by them in the Mānasa lake (also, laden with the glory of smashing out the fond dreams of his enemies) And shining with unimpaired abundance of ichor (also gifts), The mighty elephants are just like his arm-bolts.

Here also the double entendre which assists in the use of the metaphor happens to be expressed only.

Even a suggested figure will not become an instance of resonant suggestion based on the power of the word if it also gets expressed at the same time by other expressions. In such instances we will find only an expressed figure like Evasive Speech. The following is an example in point :-

O Krishna, nothing was seen by me, Blinded as I was by the dust raised by cows (also, as I was drawn by love for the cow-herd.) Hence I have stumbled (also, strayed away from morality); And why don't you, O lord, give support to a fallen person? (also, why don't you behave like a husband towards me?) Are you not the only succour for the frail women Whose minds are troubled by uneven paths (also, whose minds are troubled by the five-arrowed Cupid) ? Thus in the cow-pen was Hari addressed By the cowherdess with equivocal words; May he preserve us for long.

ध्यनालोक:

एवञ्जातीयक: सर्वे एव भवतु कामं वाच्यशेषस्य विषय:। यत्र तु सामध्योक्षितं सदलङ्कारान्तरं शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशाते स सर्वे एव ध्यानोर्विषय:।

यथा—— अत्रान्तरे कुसुमसमयुगमुपसंहरन्नजूम्भत् ग्रीप्माभिधान: फुल्लमलिक- 5 धवलाइहासो महाकाल:।

यथा च—— उत्तत: प्रोद्सद्वार: कालागुरुमलीमस:। पयोधरभरस्तन्या: कं न चके डभिलाषिणम्॥

यथा वा—— 10 उत्कान्त्या: प्रजानां सहोचितसमयाकृष्टष्ट: पयोधि: पूर्वाद्रौ विप्रकीर्णो दिशि दिशि विरमत्याहि संहारभाज:। दीर्घांशोर्दीर्घेदु:खप्रभवभवभयोदन्वदुत्तारणावो गावो व: पावनानां परमपरिमितां प्रीतिं सुत्पादयन्तु॥

एषद्वाहरेषु शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशामाने सत्यप्राकरणिकेऽध्यन्तरे वाक्य-15 स्पासम्भदारथोभिधायित्वं मा प्रसाद्धीदित्यप्रकरणिकप्राकरणिकयोरथयोरुपमानो- पमेयभाव: कल्याणतया सामध्योक्ष्ययालंकारतां न राक्ष्णोपलम्भ इति विभिन्न एव शेषादनुस्वानोपमव्यङ्ग्यस्य ध्यानोर्विषय:।

१. 'तस्या:' - म. २. 'क्षितिसुरै:'-च, BP. ३. 'एतेषु ' क-खव. ४. 'संचन्धा' - ग,...संवद्धाभिधायित्वं-KLV. ५. कल्पनीया-MB. ६. 'इत्याक्षिमोड्यं' क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

Instances of this kind may, by all means, be objects of expressed double entendre. But passages where another figure is conveyed only by the suggestive power of the word deserve to be regarded only as instances of suggestion. As for instance:-

In the meanwhile appeared ( also, yawned ) the Terrible Time ( also Lord Siva ) of the name 'Summer' putting an end to the two flowering months ( also, bringing an end of the aeons ) and with radiant laughter in the form of mansions festooned with blooming jasmines ( also, with boisterous laughter white like full-blown jasmines ).

Another instance :-

Buxom ( also, louring ), and adorned with a garland ( also, showering a downpour ), And dark as the black aloe, Whom would not the lady's heavy breasts ( also, the heavy clouds ) Make passionately amorous ?

To take a still another instance :

Bringing delight to the public by sucking And showering down water ( also, milk ) at proper times, Scattering wide in every quarter in the forenoon And receding back at the close of day, Those veritable ships that ferry one across The ocean of rebirth's terror and suffering, May such rays ( also, cows ) of the blazing Sun Bring us delight, holy and limitless.

In all these examples, an extra meaning is conveyed by the power of the word and in order that the two meanings might not appear as entirely disconnected, we will have to postulate the relation of the standard of comparison and the object compared as existing between the two since there is justification also for doing so. Thus the double entendre we see here is not grounded on words only as it is the case when it happens to be an expressed figure. But it is a figure suggested by the special suggestive power of the word. Thus the examples of double entendre and resonance-like suggestion are entirely different from one another.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अन्येडपि नालङ्कारा: शब्दशक्तिमूलानुस्वानरुपोव्यङ्ग्यचे ध्वनौ सम्भवन्न्येव। तथा हि विरोधोऽपि शब्दशक्तिमूलानुस्वानरुपो हृश्यते। यथा स्थानवीश्वरालङ्कार्यजनपदत्वादिव भट्टनाणस्य——

' यत्र न मनस्तङ्गामिन्य: शीलवत्यश्च गौर्यो विभवरतात् श्यामा: पद्मरागिण्यश्च प्वरद्विजशुचिवदना मदिरामोदद्रिसनाश्रया प्रमदा:'।

अत्र हि वाच्यो विरोधस्तच्छायानुग्राही वा श्लेषोऽयमिति न शक्यं वक्तुम्। साभाच्छलेन विरोधालङ्कारस्याप्रकाशितत्वात्। यत्र हि साक्षाच्छब्दावेदितो विरोधालङ्कारस्तत्र हि श्लिष्टोक्तौ वाच्यालङ्कारस्य विरोधस्य श्लेषस्य वा विषयता।

10 यथा सङ्गतं——

' समवाय इव विरोधिनां पदार्थानाम्। तथा हि——सन्निहितवालान्धकारौपि भामवन्मूर्ति:' इत्यादौ। यथावा ममैव——

सर्वेकदर्शनमक्षाणां धियामिशां धियां हरि कृष्णम्। चतुरात्मानं नित्यक्रियमरिमथनं नमत चक्रधरम्॥

15 अत्र हि शाब्दशक्तिमूलानुस्वानरुपो विरोध: स्फुटमेव प्रतীয়ते। एवंविधो व्यतिरेकोऽपि दृश्यते। यथा ममैव——

1. ' दृश्यन पर ' -क-ल, KLV. 2. ' श्वसनाश्रयं ' इत्यतः परं - ' ( चन्द्रकान्तवपुष्ट: शिरीषकोमलाङ्गया कञ्चुकुकिन्यरच पृथुकलत्रश्रियौ दरिद्रमध्यवकलिताश्च लावण्यवत्या मदनप्रदीप्तया अप्रसक्ता: प्रसन्नौज्वलरागाच्च अतु कता: प्रौढहासै: )-घ

2. ' विरोधच्हाया ' - च् . 4. ' हर्यच्हलेन ' - च् . प् . ' अपि ' शब्द: - घ पुस्तके नास्ति. 5. ' मूर्तिंश्च-व् . 7. ' एतं विरोधव्यतिरकोऽपि ' - KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

Other figures are also possible in this suggestion which is based upon the power of the word and which is of the nature of resonance. For instance, the figure of Paradox becomes a promoter of this suggestion. An example is found in Bāṇa's description of the country of Sthānvīśvara:-

Where women are outcaste-seekers ( also, elephant-gaited ) and yet chaste, Gaurīs ( also, white in complexion ) and yet enamoured of persons other than Śiva ( also, riches ), dark ( also, beautiful ) and yet red in complexion ( also, possessing rubies ), with mouths as clean as those of the best Brahmins ( also, sparkling and clean teeth ), yet breathing out the odour of wine.

It is not possible to state here definitely either that the primarily expressed figure is Paradox or that it is double entendre helping the idea of Paradox. The reason lies in the fact that the figure of Paradox has not been conveyed expressly by the words. But in instances where Paradox is expressly conveyed by words, if we find double entendre also, we will have either the expressed figure Paradox or the expressed figure double entendre. Here is an instance from the Harṣacarita:-

It was just like a meeting-place of opposite things. Thus for instance, it not only had the proximity of rising darkness ( also, the blackness of hair ), but it was the embodiment of the Sun ( also, its body was luminous ) . . . .

For the suggested Paradox, an instance can be cited from my own work:-

Bow down, you all, to that god Who is the only refuge for all, while he is deathless ( also, homeless ), Who is the supreme ruler ( also, not the lord of intelligence as also the lord of intelligence ), Who is Hari ( also, green ) as well as Kṛṣṇa ( i. e. dark and also remover of sins ), Who is four-fold in form ( also, who is a clever person ) and also inactive, And who is the destroyer of enemies ( also, breaker of wheels ), While he holds a wheel in his hand.

Dhvanyālokaḥ

खं येडत्युज्ज्वलयन्नि ल्लनतमसो ये वा नखोन्द्वासिनो ये पुष्णन्ति सरोरुहश्रियमपि क्षिताव्जभासंस्कृध ये । ये मूर्धस्ववभासिनः क्षितिभृतां ये चामराणां शिरां- स्याक्रामन्त्युभयेडपि ते दिनपते पादाः श्रियै सन्तु वः ॥ एवमन्येडपि शब्दशक्तिमूलानुस्वानरहपव्यझचध्वनिपकाराः सन्ति, ते सहृदयैः स्वयमनुसर्तव्याः । इह तु ग्रन्थविस्तरभयान्न तत्त्प्रपञ्चः कृतः । अर्थशक्त्युद्भवस्त्वन्यो यत्रार्थः सम्पकाशते । यस्तात्पर्येण वस्त्वन्यदूग्यनक्त्युक्तिं विना स्वतः ॥ २२ ॥ यत्रार्थः स्वसामर्थ्योद्भूतोऽनतरमभिव्यनक्ति शब्दव्यापारं विनैव सोऽर्थ- शक्त्युद्भवो नामानुस्वानोपमव्यक्योचो ध्वनिः । यथा— एवं वादिनि देवर्षौ पाथि पितुर्यशस्विनी । लीलाकमलपत्राणि गणयामास पार्वती ॥ अत्र हि लीलाकमलपत्रगणनमुपसर्जनीकृतस्वरूपं शब्दव्यापारं विनै- १. येडभुज्ज्वलयन्नि - KLV. २. 'मूर्धनि ' - ग. ३. 'श्रियै ' - ग., KLV. ४. 'नः '-क-ख ५. 'रूपा ध्वनिप्रकारः ' - क-ख. ६. 'सम्पकान्ति ', - क-खः MB. ७. 'तत् '-क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. <. After this KLV adds a Kārikā, vrtti and illustration not found in any other MS. just preceding Kārikā २२ :-- किश्च— वस्तुमात्रेऽपि व्यक्तौ शब्दशक्त्यक्त्या प्रधावनत् । शब्दशक्त्युद्भवस्यास्य ध्वने सादृ गोचरः कचित ॥ वस्तुमात्रमपीति । यद्वस्तुमात्रप्रतीतिमात्रं प्रतीयमानमस्य ध्वनेरप्रयोजकमुक्तं तदप्यर्थः । कृचिदिति वस्तुमात्रप्रतीतौ यत्र श्लेषाद्यप्रतीतस्यान्यतिरिक्कोऽर्थ विषय इत्यर्थः । यथा— पथिय । न एत्थ सरीरमत्यि मणं पत्थरत्थले गामे । उग्गयपओहरं पेक्खिऊण जड़ वसासि ता वस्सु ॥ पथिक ! नात्र संसतरोडस्मिन् मनाक् प्रस्ततरस्थले ग्रामे । नात्रोदतपयोधरं प्रेक्ष्य यदि वसासि तद् वस ॥ [ छाया ] संस्तरस्तृणादिशय्या । प्रस्ततराः पाषाणाः । एवमपि चेन्तमेवभयं तद्वस । यद्यर्हं तु प्रहर- चतुष्टयमुपभोगेन नात्र निद्रां कुर्वन्ति लभ्यते । सर्वे ह्यात्राविदृद्धाः । तदुन्र्तापयोधरां माभुप- मोक्तं यदि वयमि तदाडSस्तोतिः । अत्र वाच्यबाधेन व्यङ्ग्यस्य स्थितत्त्वाद्योनोऽपमेयभावः । The above Prakrit Verse is No. 879 in Weber's ed. of Gāthāsaptaśatī and is quoted in;Kāvyaprakāśa IV. ५८ (Zalkikar's ed.). ९. स प्रकाशते -BP, KLV. १०. 'ध्वनिते '-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

In this example, of course, Paradox based upon the suggestive power of words and of the nature of resonance is most transparent.

We find in the same way poetic contrast too conveyed suggestively as for instance in the following verse of mine:-

May both those feet (also, rays) of the Sun to your welfare conduce;

Both they that dispel darkness (also, sin)

And they that profusely illumine the sky (also, the different senses);

They that partake of (or enhance) the beauty of lotuses,

They that shine on the heads of earth-supporting mountains (or kings);

Also they that rest on the heads of heavenly gods (or the tips of chowries).

Similarly, there are also other varieties of this suggestion based upon the power of the word and of the nature of resonance. They should all be understood by perceptive critics in their own wisdom. They have not been recorded in detail here for fear of the work's growing too voluminous.

The other variety of suggestion is based upon the power of sense and it is instanced in places where the second meaning is conveyed only by way of implication by the first meaning and not by the expressed words at all.

That instance where one meaning gives rise to another through its own power of implication and not through the denotative power of words becomes an example of suggestion based upon the power of meaning and similar to resonance. The following is an example :

As the divine sage said this,

The down-faced Pārvatī by her father's side

Counted the petals of the toy-lotus

She held in her hand.

Here, the idea of counting lotus petals is conveyed expressly and it (i.e. the expressed meaning) subjugates itself in communicating the second idea, namely, bashfulness, one of the

Dhvanayaloka

वार्थान्तरं व्यभिचारिभावलक्षणं प्रकाशयति । न चायमलक्ष्यक्रमन्यङ्घचस्यैव ध्वनेर्विषयः । यतो यत्र साक्षाच्छब्दनिवेदितेम्यो विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिभिर्यो रसादीनां प्रतीति:, स तस्य केवलस्य मार्गः । यथा कुमारसम्भवे मधुप्रसङ्गे वसन्तपुष्पाभरणं वहन्त्या देव्य आगमनादिवर्णनं मनोभवशरसंघानपर्यन्तं शम्भो: शृङ्गारपरिवृत्तधैर्यस्य चेष्टाविशेषवर्णनादि साक्षाच्छब्दनिवेदितम् । इह तु सामर्थ्याक्षिप्तव्यभिचारिमुखेन रसप्रतीति: । तस्माद्यमन्यो ध्वने: प्रकार: ।

यत्र च शब्दव्यापारसहायोडर्थोऽन्तरसस्य व्यङ्ग्यत्वेनोपादीयते स नाम्य ध्वनेर्विषय: । यथा—

मड़े़तकालमनसं विटं ज्ञात्वा विद्र‍गधया । हमवेतरापिंताकूतं लीलापदं निमीहितम् ॥

अत्र हि लीलाकमलनिमीलनस्य व्यङ्ग्यत्वमुक्त्यैव निवेदितम् ।

तथा च—

शब्दार्थशक्त्याक्षिप्तोऽपि व्यङ्गयोऽर्थ: कविना पुनः । यत्राविध्रियते स्वोकत्या सान्नैवावड्ढुगितिर्ध्वने: ॥ २३ ॥

शब्दशक्त्यार्थशक्त्या शब्दार्थशक्त्या वाक्षिप्तोऽपि व्यङ्गयोऽर्थ: कविना पुनरन्यत्र स्वोकत्या प्रकाश्यते मोद्मादनस्वानोपमद्र‍कादन्य एवालङ्कार: । अलङ्क्यत्रमव्यङ्गचस्य वा ध्वने: सति सम्भवे स ताहगन्योऽलङ्कार: ।

१. 'निवेदितेभ्य:' -क-ख. २. 'शक्त्यापि क्षिमो' -ग. शक्त्या वाक्षिप्तो—घ. ३. व्यङ्गचाद्यादध्वने: ... KLV. ४. 'एव कम:' क-ख.; एवंाक्रम: No. 254 (BORI).

The Light of Suggestion

passing moods, without taking the assistance of the denotative words at all. This cannot be regarded as an instance of suggestion with undiserned sequentiality. Only those contexts where Sentiments, etc are made known by the descriptions of the situational stimuli, responses and the passing moods which are themselves expressed by so many words will serve as proper instances of this suggestion. The description of Pārvatī adorned with flowers of spring up to the point of Cupid's discharge of his arrow in the description of spring in the Kumārsambhava and also the description of the several responses of Siva at a time when his mind was perturbed ( in the same poem ) will show us how they are all expressed by words directly. But here sentiment is made known to us in a quite different way; and that is through the passing mood suggested by the power of implication ( in primary sense ). Hence this should be regarded as another variety of suggestion. But a context wherein one meaning is made to suggest another by taking the assistance of denotative power will not be an instance of this type of suggestion. The following is an example in point :

The Light of Suggestion

Knowing the mind of the paramour Seeking the time of assignation, The clever maid closed her toy-lotus With a smiling glance telltale.

The Light of Suggestion

The fact that the closing of the lotus is suggestive has also been expressed in so many words in this example.

The Light of Suggestion

Moreover,

The Light of Suggestion

A context wherein even an idea suggested by the power of the word and sense is again expressed directly in so many words by the poet, will instance only a figure far removed from suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

When a poet expresses again directly in so many words what has already been suggested either by the power of the word or of sense or of both, we get only a figure quite different from this resonance-like suggestion. In case it happens to be an instance of suggestion with undiserned sequentiality, we may say that such a procedure will serve as a new figure.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तत्र शब्दशक्त्या यथा—

वत्से मा गा विषादं श्रसनमुरूजवं सन्त्यजोर्ध्वप्रवृत्तं कं वा गुरुस्ते भवतु बलभिदा जृम्भितेनात्र याहि । प्रत्यालिड्गनसुराणामिति भयशमनेच्छद्भिरा कारितो यस्मै लक्ष्मीमदाद्रः स दहतु दुरितं मन्थमूढां पयोधि: ॥

अर्थशक्त्या यथा—

अम्बा शोतेष्टत्र वृद्धा परिणतवयसामग्रणीतरात्तालो नि:शेषागारकर्मश्रमशिथिलतनुः कुम्भदासी तथात्र । आसीन्न पापाहमेका कतिपयदिवसप्रोषितप्राणनाथा पान्थायेत्यं तरुण्य कथितमवसरव्याहृतिव्यासपूर्वम् ॥

उभयशक्त्या यथा 'दृष्ट्या केशव गोपरागहत्या' इत्यादौ ।

प्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशरीर: सम्भवी स्वतः । अर्थोऽपि द्विधो ज्ञेयो वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य दीपक: ॥ २४ ॥

अर्थशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपव্যঙ्ग्ये च ध्वनौ यो व्यङ्ग्यकोट्य उत्कृष्टस्यापि

१. 'संवृणोद्ध' -म. २. 'मन्थमुग्ध:'-ग. ३. 'व्यङ्ग्यच्ध्वनौ' -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an instance where what is suggested by the power of the word is expressed also :-

' O my daughter dear ! don't court misery ( also, the poison-eater, viz., Śiva ). Give up your deep sigh ( also, fast-moving Windgod ) issuing forth so high ( also, the up-stretching Firegod ). Why do you tremble so ( also, why should you bother about Varuṇa or Brhaspati ) ? Enough of yawns ( also, Kubera ) that drain away your strength ( also, the enemy of Bala, viz., Indra ) You please come this way with me'— Arranging thus for the rejection of the gods Under the guise of allaying her fears, The Ocean indeed did give away Lakṣmī, Agitated at the churning, to Viṣṇu. May he remove our sin !

The following is an instance where what is suggested by the power of sense is expressed also :-

' Here my old mother sleeps, And here my father, the oldest of the old; Here it is that the house-maid stretches her body, So tired and jaded by her ceaseless chores ! Here I am, woe is me, all alone; Even my husband went on a journey a few days ago'— Thus did the young woman speak to the traveller Under the guise of welcoming words.

The example already quoted, “O Kṛṣṇa” serves as an instance where what is suggested by the power of both the word and sense is expressed also.

The sense which suggests another sense is also two-fold :

1. Existing only in ornate expression and 2. Naturally existing.

The sense which has been pointed out as the suggester of a second sense in suggestion ( of the form of resonance based upon the power of sense ) is also of two kinds. The first is that whose

ध्वन्यालोक:

द्वौ प्रकारौ— कवे: कविनिबद्धस्य वा वक्तुः प्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशारीर एक:;, स्वत:सम्भवी च द्वितीया । कविप्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशारीरो यथा— मज्झेहि सुरहिमासो ण दाव अप्पेइ जुअइजणणलक्खमुहे । अहिणवसहआरमुहे णवपल्लवपत्तले अणडगास्स हारे ॥ [ सज्जयाणि सुरभिमासो न तावद्पयाति यावत्क्षणमुखवान् । अभिनवसहारमुखान्वपल्लवपत्रलाननङ्गस्य हारान् ॥ ] यथोक्तमेव — कविनिबद्धवक्तृप्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशारीरो 'शिखरिणि ...' इत्यादि ।

यथा वा— सारवइण्णजोअणहत्यालम्भं समुण्णन्तोहिम । अम्भुद्धाणं विय मम्हस्स दिसिणं तुह थणेहिम ॥ [ सादरावितवीणयौवनहस्तालम्भं समुद्यमद्भ्याम् । अम्भोधराणां इव मम हृदयस्य दिशि तव स्तनाभ्याम् ॥ ] इति च्छाया स्वत:सम्भवी य औचित्येन बहिरपि सम्भाव्यमानसद्भावो न केवलं भणितिवरोनैवाभि निष्पन्नशारीर: । यथोक्तमेतत्— ‘एवं वादिनि ....’ इत्यादि ।

यथा वा— सिहिपिञ्छक्रणऊरा जाआ वाहस्स गलवि णि भमइ । मुत्ताफलरइअप्रसाधनाणं मज्झे सपत्नीनास ॥ [ शिखिपिच्छकरणपूरा जाया व्याधस्य गर्विणी भ्रमति । मुक्ताफलरचितप्रसाधनानां मध्ये सपत्नीनाम् ॥ ] इति च्छाया अर्थत्क्तेरलड्ढूगरो यत्राप्यन्य: प्रतीयते । अनुस्वानोपमव्यङ्ग्य: स प्रकारोऽपर: ध्वने: ॥ २५ ॥ वाच्यालङ्कारातिरिक्तो यत्रान्योऽलङ्कारोऽर्थसमध्यात्मप्रतीतियमानोडव-भासते सोऽर्थशक्त्युद्भवो नामानुस्वानरुपव्यङ्गचोद्यो* ध्वनि: ।

१. 'वस्तु'-ग. २. 'निष्पन्नो यथा'-ग. ३. इत्यादौ-च. ४. 'बहिरपि'-ग पुस्तके नास्ति. ५. 'अभि'-क-ख. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ६. 'बहुआ'-ग. ७. अनुरणनरूपो ऽयो' -ग. पुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

existence is real only in the ornate expression either of the poet himself or of a character created by the poet. The second exists naturally.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an example of suggestive sense whose existence is real only in the ornate expression of the poet;

The Light of Suggestion

The month of spring keeps ready but does not fling The arrows of Cupid, with sharp heads Of new mango buds and feathers of fresh leaves, At young women, that targets are.

The Light of Suggestion

The example already given, viz., 'On which mountain etc.' will serve as an instance of suggestive sense which is real only in the ornate expression of the character created by a poet; or, here is another example :

The Light of Suggestion

By your rising breasts, so fondly Served by the handmaid, youth, Cupid seems welcomed warmly Through gesture of rising in courtesy.

The Light of Suggestion

The naturally existing is that sense which can possibly exist in fact in the world of reality also. It does not owe its existence only to the ornateness of poetic expression. Examples of this are had in illustrations already cited viz. As the divine sage, etc. The following may be taken as another example :

The Light of Suggestion

Decking her ears with peacock's plumes, The wife of the hunter moves in pride In the midst of all her rivals With their ornaments of pearls.

The Light of Suggestion

Contexts where a new figure of speech is seen to result from the mere power of sense and is suggested in the form of resonance should be deemed as instances of another variety of suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

When we find a new figure conveyed by the power of sense itself, a figure which is quite distinct from the ordinarily expressed figure, we should regard it as another variety of resonance-like suggestion based on the power of sense.

Dhvanyāloka:

तस्य प्रविरलाविषयत्वमाशङ्क्य चेद्रमुच्यते—

रूपकादिरलङ्कारवर्गो यो वाच्यतां श्रितः ।

स सर्वो गम्यमानत्वं बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बता प्रदर्शितः ॥ २६ ॥

यमानतया बाहुल्येन प्रदर्शितस्तत्प्रभवावृत्तभट्टोद्भटादिभिः । तथा च ससंदेहार्द्रहृदयप्रकाशमानत्वं प्रदर्शितमित्यलङ्कारान्तरस्यो व्यर्थचत्वं न यत्नप्रतिपाद्यधर्म ।

इयत्पुनरुच्यत एव —

अलङ्कारान्तरस्यापि प्रतीतो यत्र भासते ।

तत्परत्वं न वाच्यस्य नासौ मार्गो ध्वनेर्मतः ॥ २७ ॥

अलङ्कारान्तरेsपि त्वनुरणनरूपालङ्कारप्रतीतो सत्यामपि यत्र वाच्यस्य व्यर्थप्रतिपादनेनाल्पत्वेन चरितत्वं न प्रकाशितं नासौ 'ध्वनिर्मार्गः ।

तथा च दीपिकादावलङ्कारेsपि तत्परत्वेन चारुत्वस्याव्यवस्थानात् 'ध्वानिव्यपदेशः ।

यथाह—

चन्द्रमयूरेहि णिसा णालिनी कमलेहि कुसुमुच्चेहि लुआ ।

हंसेहि सरअमोहा कवकहा सज्जनेहि करइ गरुइ ॥

[ चन्द्रमयूरैनिशा नलिनी कमलैः कुसुमगुच्छैर्लता ।

हंसैः सररदशोभा काव्यकथा सज्जनैः क्रियते गुर्वी ॥ ]

इत्यादिषूपमागर्भितोऽपि सति वाच्योलङ्कारमुखेनैव चारुत्वं व्यवस्थितो न

व्यङ्गचालङ्कारतात्पर्येण । तस्मात्तत्र वाच्यालङ्कारमुखेनैव काव्यस्य व्यपदेशो

न्याय्यः । यत्र तु व्यङ्ग्यप्रतिवेनैव वाच्यस्य व्यवस्यां तत्र व्यङ्ग्यमुखेनैव व्यपदेशो युक्तः ।

१. 'तत्र' -क-ख. २. 'अन्यवाच्यत्वेन' -ग. ३. ...रलङ्कारवर्गः - KLV. ४. 'संदेहादिषु' -BP. ५. युक्त्यादीनां -MB, KLV. ६. अलङ्कारान्तरत्वे'-क-ख. -क-ख. पुस्तकयोरान्ति. १०. 'एवं' ११. 'पुनरुक्तं'-क-ख. १२. 'ध्वने:'-क-ख., MB.; No 254 (BORI), KLV. १३. 'अलङ्कारान्तरस्य रूपकादेरलङ्कारो'-ग-च. १४. 'दीपकालङ्कारे' १५. 'अव्यवस्थानात्'-ग. १६. 'तथाहि' क-ख. १७. 'उपमालङ्कारगर्भत्वे सत्यापि'-ग., उपमागर्भत्वे सत्यापि-KLV. १८. 'काव्यव्यपदेशो' BP, KLV. १९. 'काव्यस्य व्यवस्थापनं' क-ख., काव्यस्य व्यवस्थापनं-KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is said in order to remove a plausible doubt that the scope of this variety may be quite a limited one.

It has been shown effectively (even by the ancient writers) that the assemblage of figures like metaphor though generally found to be expressed only, also become suggested quite often.26

It has already been shown conclusively by eminent writers like Bhatta Udbhata that figures like metaphor which are commonly found to be expressed in many instances will also be conveyed by suggestion in quite a large number of instances.

Thus in the figure of Poetic Doubt etc. they have pointed out the suggestion of other figures viz., simile, metaphor and exaggeration. Hence there is no need at all for laboriously explaining how one figure may be suggested by another. Still this much deserves to be recorded :-

Even if there should be found a suggested figure, unless there is also a singleness of aim towards it on the part of the expressed, it cannot be considered as a mode of suggestion. 27

Even if in the figure expressed there should be a resonance-like suggestion of other figures, it will not merit the title of a mode of suggestion unless the expressed one shows also extra beauty in its principally hinting at the other ones. So it is that though simile is hinted at in figures like Ellipsis, we don't call the suggested simile by the name of suggestion since there is not beauty solely contributed by it. The following is an example :-

To night is greatness brought by moon-beams And to the lotus-plant by flowers; And to the glory of autumn by swans; And so it is to poetic works At the hands of good critics.

In this and such other instances, though the figure simile is implicit, all the beauty is centred only in the expressed figure and not in the singleness of aim directed towards the suggested figure. Hence such instances of poetry should properly be described as containing only expressed figures. But instances where the expressed is utilized as wholly directed towards the communication of the suggested alone, may be called after the suggested figures.

ध्वन्यालोक:

यथा— प्रासश्रीरेष कल्माषपुनरपि मयि तं मन्थखेदं विदुध्या- निद्रामप्यस्य पूर्वामनलसमनसो नैव सम्भावयामि । सेतुं बन्धाति भूर्य: किमिति च सकलद्रीपनाथानुयात- स्वप्नयायाने वितर्कोत्तरी दृशता इवाभाति कम्प: परोषे: ॥

यथां वा ममैव— लावण्यकान्तिप्रिपूारितादिडमुरवेऽस्मि- न्स्मेरेऽधुना तव मुखे तरलायताक्षि । क्षोभं यदेति न मनागपि तेन मऽ्ये सुन्द्यक्तमेव जलराशिरयं पयोधि: ॥ इत्येवंविधे विषयेऽनुरणनरूपरूपकाश्रयेण कालचारुत्वनव्यवस्थाना्दूपक- ध्वनिरिति ब्यपदेशो न्याय्य: ।

उपमाद्वानियथा— वीराणं रमइ घुसिणारुणाम्भि ण तहा पिआथणुच्छड्डे । दिढ़ी रिअगअक्भत्थलम्भि जह बहलसिन्दूरे ॥ [ वीराणं रमते घुसृणारुणे न तथा प्रियास्तनोत्सङ्गे । हृष्टा रिपुगजकुम्भस्थले यथा बहलसिन्दूरे ॥ छाया ]

यथा वा ममैव विषमबाणलीलायामसुरपराक्रमणे कामदेवस्य— तं ताण सिरिसहोअररअणाहरणम्मि हिअअमेकरसम्म । बिम्बाहरे पिआण णिवेसिअं कसुमबाणेन ॥ [ तत्तेषां श्रीसहोदररत्नाहरणे हृदयमेकरसमम् । बिम्बाधरे प्रियाणां निवेशितं कुसुमबाणेन ॥ छाया ॥ ]

आक्षेपध्वानियथा— स वक्तुमखिलान् शक्तो हयग्रीवाश्रितान् गुणान् । योऽम्बुकुम्भै: पारिच्छेदं ज्ञातुं शक्तोऽमहोदधे: ॥

१. No. 254 (BORI) has this additional example :– यथा च— ज्योत्स्नापूरपसरधवले सैकते डस्मिन्सरस्व- वादद्वान्तं स्वचिरमभवतु सिद्धगुह्यो: कयोऽश्रित: । एक: प्राह प्रथमनिहितं केशिनं कंसमन्न्य: स त्वं तत्कथय भवता को हतस्तत्र पूर्वम् ॥

२. अतुर्णनरूपका श्रयेण–घट. ३. 'घरपुराक्कमे–MB. ४. शक्तो ताव–KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an instance in point :- Already he possesses Lakṣmī Wherefore should he trouble me by churning ? I fancy not he likes to sleep anon Since his mind is never relaxed. Or does he build a bridge across me once again ? What use can it serve at all To him recognised as a sovereign Emperor, Over all the lands far and near. The shuddering Ocean at your very approach Seems to harbour such conjectures.

or to give another instance :- Filling all space with the light of beauty And smiling when your face doth remain, O sweet-eyed one, since the sea doesn't swell, I am sure it is only a mass of water ( also, inertness ).

In the above example since the beauty of the verses is due to metaphor which is suggested like resonance, we should properly regard them as instances of Suggested Metaphor.

Here is an instance of Suggested Simile :- The eyes of heroes will not so delight In their beloveds' red-anointed breasts As in the temples of enemies' elephants, Painted deep in red minium.

The following is another example selected from my own work Viṣamabānalilā and the context is the conquest of Cupid over demons :- Robbing the gems born with Lakṣmī Had been their sole desire so far; But now had Cupid put in its stead, Their beloved's reddish lips.

The suggested figure of Paralipsis is illustrated in the following verse :- He alone can possibly recount Hayagrīva's merits in full, Who by single pots can measure out The capacity of the mighty main.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्रातिशायोक्त्यां हयग्रीवगुणानामवर्णनीयताप्रतिपादनरूपस्यानुसंधानपरस्याक्षेपस्य प्रकाशनमयँ ।

अथोत्तरन्यासध्वनि: शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्योऽर्थशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्यचोदाहरणम्— देव्वाएत्तम्भि फले किं णीरइ एत्तिअँ पुणो भणिओ३ । कइडिलपइवँ: पइवाण अण्णाण ण सरिच्छा ॥

[ दैवायत्ते तु फले किं क्रियतामेतावत्पुनर्भणाम् । रक्ताशोकपल्वा: पइवानमन्येषां न सहशा: ॥ ]

पदप्रकाशाश्रायं ध्वनिरिति वाक्यस्यार्थानन्तरतात्पर्येऽपि सति न विरोध: ।

द्वितीयस्योदाहरणं यथा— हिअअट्ठविआमण्गु अवरुणगमुहं हि मं पसअन्त । अवरदरसम्भि ण हु दे पहुअणअ रोसिउँ सक्कम्भ ॥

[ हृदयस्थापितमन्युमपरोषमुखीऽपि मां प्रसादयति । अपराधेऽस्मिन्नपि न खलु ते बहुज्ञ रोहितुं शक्ष्यम् ॥ ]

अत्र हि वाच्यविशेषेण सापराधस्यापि बहुज्ञस्य कोप: कर्तुमशक्य इति समर्थनं सांमान्येन्वितमन्यत्तात्पर्येण प्रकाशते ।

व्यतिरेकध्वनिरप्युभयरूप: सम्भवति । तत्रास्योदाहरणं प्राक्प्रदर्शित- मेव । द्वितीयस्योदाहरणं यथा— जाइज्ज वणुहेरे खुज्ज वि अ पाओवो गइअवत्तोँ । मा माणुसम्मि लोए ताएकरसो दरिद्दो अ ॥

[ जायेय वनोत्तरे कुञ्ज इव पादपो गडिावक्त्रों । मा मानुषे लोके त्यागेकरसो दारिद्रेश्व ॥ ]

अत्र हि त्यागैकरसस्य दरिद्रस्य जन्मानभिनन्दनं छुदितंकुर्ज्जपादप- त्वात् ।

१. अत्रातिशयोक्त्या निर्देशेन या-KLV. २. प्रकाशनोक्तौ-KLV. ३. ‘भणामो’ -ख-ग. ४. अन्यसामान्यो-च. ५. गडि-अवत्तोँ-घ. सद्य:पत्तोँ-KLV. ६. घटितपत्र:-च. ७. घटित०-MB. शटितपत्रकुब्ज-KLV. ८. ‘छुटितपत्ककुब्ज’-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Paraleipsis which describes the merits of Hayagrīva as indescribable and which thus brings out his extraordinary greatness is suggested in the above example by means of the expressed exaggeration.

The suggested figure of Illustration may take the form of both resonance-like suggestion based on power of the word and that based on power of sense. The following is an example of the former :-

When the fruit is left to Fate, It cannot be helped; Yet this we do repeat— The red Aśoka's tender leaves Are not the same as other leaves.

The suggested Illustration here is conveyed by a word ( viz., fruit ) and hence there is no contradiction involved when the sentence as a whole is taken as implying a general idea.

The following is an example of the latter :-

I conceal my anger in my heart And show no sign of wrath upon my face; Yet, O clever man, as you cajole me, I cannot be angry with thee Though you might an offender be.

The general statement that it is impossible to be angry with clever men though they might have given offence, is got at by exclusive suggestiveness of the expressed; and it illustrates the particular statement expressed herein.

In the same way the suggested Contrast also is two-fold. The first can be illustrated in the example already cited; and the following is an example of the second :-

I would rather be born as a tree, Stunted and shorn of leaves, in the forest, Than as a generous but poor person In this world of men.

The expressed ideas in this example are —censure of the life of a generous-hearted poor person and praise of the life of

Dhvanyāloka:

जन्माभिनन्दनं च साक्षच्छन्दवाच्यम् । तथाविधादपि उपमानोपमेयत्वप्रतीतिपूर्वकं शोच्यतायामाधिक्यं तत्पर्येण प्रकाशायति ।

चन्दनासक्तकमुजगानि:श्वासानिलमूर्छ्छित: । मूर्च्छ्यतेयेष पथिकान्मधौ मलयमारुत: ॥ 5 ॥

अत्र हि मधैव मलयमारुतस्य पथिकमूर्च्छ्छोकारित्वं मन्मथोन्माथ-दायित्वेनैव । तत् चन्दनासक्तकमुजगानि:श्वासानिलमूर्छ्छित्वेनोत्प्रेक्ष्यंतामित्युत्प्रेक्षा साक्षादनुक्तापि वाक्यार्थसामग्र्योदनुरणनरूपो लक्ष्यते । न चैवंविधे विषये इवादिशब्दप्रयोगमन्तरेणासंघदधतेवेति शङ्क्यतें वक्तुम्, गमकत्वादन्यत्रापि तदप्रयोगे तदर्थावगतिदर्शनात् । तथा— ईसाकलुस्स वि तुह मुहस्स णं एस पुण्णिमाचन्दो । अज्ज सारिसत्तणं पाविऊण अड्डे विअ ण माइ ॥ [ ईप्योकलुस्सापि तव मुखस्य नन्वेष पूणिमाचन्द्र: । अद्य सदृशात्वं प्राप्याऽपि एवं न माति ॥ ] छाया ॥

15 यथा वा — त्रासाकुल: पारपतन् पारिता निकतान् पुनर्भिन् कैश्चिदपि धान्वाभिरन्वगानिध । तस्यौ तथापि न मृग: काचिद्जनाभि-राकरणपूर्णनयनेषुहतेङ्क्षणश्री: ॥

१. 'उपमानोपमेयत्वं'-क.-ख. २. 'करणत्वं'-क.-ख....कारणत्वं-KLV. ३. 'थोन्माथकदायी'-KLV. ४. ... तत्वेनोत्प्रक्ष्यत इत्युत्प्रेक्षा-KLV. ५. 'रूपकद्रुण्या'-क.-ख-KLV. ६. 'संघद्वैति'-घ. ७. 'शङ्क्यं'-घ., KLV. ८. इव-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

a bare and stunted tree. But it is arrived at by suggestion that a comparison is intended between the tree so described and the man so stated, and that the latter deserves far more pity than the former. In fact this Fancied Contrast is exclusively suggested.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an example of suggested Poetic Fancy:-

The Light of Suggestion

The stuporous Southern Wind Wafting the breaths of snakes entwined to sandal trees Is causing stupor in travellers In this season of spring.

The Light of Suggestion

Since the verse describes the season of spring, the Southern Wind can cause stupor in travellers only in so far as it excites the passion of love in them, And the Wind itself is poetically fancied as stuporous because of its carrying the breaths of snakes entwining sandal trees. This fancy is not expressed clearly by words ( like "as though" ), but is conveyed suggestively by the power of sense of the sentence itself just like resonance. It is not possible to say that, in the absence of express words like "as though", such instances have no connection at all with Poetic Fancy; for there is clear evidence for it. We find other examples too of Poetic Fancy where words expressing it are absent; e. g.

The Light of Suggestion

Obtaining at last similarity to your face Sullied by jealousy though, This full-orbed moon has outgrown The limits of his own body in joy.

The Light of Suggestion

To give another instance:

The Light of Suggestion

Though no bowmen pursued the frightened deer, Fleeing past houses ( in the street ), The deer did not stop its flight anywhere, Because its lovely eyes were shot at by arrows— The full and sidelong glances of ladies.

Dhvanyāloka

शब्दार्थव्यवहारो च प्रासिद्धिरेव प्रमाणम् । श्लेषध्वनिर्यथा — रम्या इति प्राहवतीः पताका: रांगं विविक्ता इति वर्गयन्ती: । यस्यामसेचन्त: नमद्वलीकाः समं वधूभिर्विलभ्रीयुवानः ॥

अत्र वधूभिः सह विलभ्यसेवन्ते इति वाक्यार्थप्रतीतिरनन्तरं वधू इव वलभ्य इति श्रेषप्रतीतिरशब्दादर्थेसामध्यान्मुरुयत्पैन वंतेते । यथासंख्य-

ध्वनिर्यथा — अदूरतः पल्लवितः कोरकितः पुष्पितश्व सहकारः । अदूरतः पल्लवितः कोरकितः पुष्पितश्व हृदि मदनः ॥

अत्र हि यथेहोशमनद्देशो यच्चारुत्वमनुरणनरूपं मदनविशेषणभूताड्कु रितादिशब्दगतं तन्मदनसहकारयोस्‍तुल्ययोगितासमुचयलक्षणाद्वाच्यादति रिच्यमानमालक्ष्यते । एवमन्येऽप्यलङ्काराः यथायोगं योजनीयाः ।

एवमलङ्कारध्वानिमार्गं व्युत्पाद्य तस्य प्रयोजनवत्तां स्वयपयितुमिद-मुख्यते-- शरीरिकरणं येषां वाच्यत्वे न ( वाच्यत्वेन ) व्यवस्थितम् । तेऽलङ्काराः परां छायां यान्ति ध्वन्यन्तां गताः ॥ २८ ॥

ध्वन्यङ्गता चोभाभ्यां प्रकाराभ्यां व्यज्यक्त्वेन व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन च । तत्रेह प्रकरणाद्यङ्गचत्वेनत्यकनतव्यम् । व्यङ्ग्यत्वेडप्यलङ्काराणां प्राधान्य-

१. कामं-घ. २. विवर्त्तने-घ. ३. 'कुत्सितः'-ग. ४. 'अनद्देशो'-क-ख-KLV. ५. At this point: KLV adds what appears like Kārikā-किश्व वाच्यालङ्कारशकैस्तु वस्तु यत्र प्रतীয়ते ! अनुस्वानोपमयङ्गयोः मन्तव्यः स चाङ्गदि च ध्वानिः । This is not found in any of the manuscripts.

The Light of Suggestion

Convention alone is the authority for all such usages of words and senses.

The following illustrates a suggested double entendre :

The youths in the town enjoyed

Terraces along with women;

For they were lovely with flags ( also fame ) aloft

In seclusion ( also, symmetrical in limbs )

and swelling redness ( also, love );

With arched ridges ( also, the three folds on the feminine belly ) too.

As soon as we get the idea that the youths enjoyed the terraces of their houses with their women, we also get an idea of the double entendre that the terraces were like women. Though the words do not directly convey the double entendre (since the surface-meaning of words is enough to make the sentence meaningful ), it happens to be principally suggested (as reinforcing the implied simile ).

The following is an example of suggested Relative Enumeration :

The mango tree put forth sprouts,

Turned into leaf, budded and blossomed;

Love in the heart too put forth sprouts,

Turned into leaf, budded and blossomed.

Here, the resonance-like charm due to the adoption of the same order in predicating about Love and the mango tree far outshines the charm to the expressed figures-‘Combination of Equals’ and ‘Conjunction of things with common actions.’

In the same way readers should find out for themselves instances of other suggested figures also. Having thus enunciated the way of suggested figures, the following is said in order to proclaim its usefulness:-

Those very figures which do not possess invariably even the capacity of forming the body of poetry when they appear in their expressed state, will be found to assume extraordinary beauty when they become participants of suggestion.

Participation in suggestion is possible in two ways: ( i ) through the suggesters and ( 2 ) through the suggested.

Dhvanȳālokaḥ

विकल्पायामेव सत्यां ध्वनवन्तःपातः । इतरथा तु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वं प्रति-पादयिष्यते । आङ्कितवेन व्यङ्ग्यचतायामपि । अलङ्काराणां द्वयी गति: - कदाचिद्वस्तुमात्रेण व्यज्यन्ते, कदाचिदल-ङ्कारान्तरेण । तत्र —

व्यज्यन्ते वस्तुमात्रेण यदालङ्कृतयस्तदा । भवेद् ध्वन्यङ्गता तासां

अत्र हेतुः — काव्यप्रत्तेसतदाश्रयात्॥ २९ ॥

यस्मात्तत्र तथाविधव्यङ्ग्यालङ्कारपरत्वेनैव काव्यं प्रवृत्तम् । अन्यथा तु तद्व्यङ्ग्यमात्रमेव स्यात् । तस्मादेवालङ्कृतिनाम्रूपू

पुनः

अलङ्कारान्तरव्यङ्ग्यभावे ध्वन्यङ्गता भवेत् । चारुत्वोत्कर्षतो व्यङ्ग्यमाधान्यं यदि लक्ष्यते ॥ ३० ॥

उक्तं हि — चारुत्वोत्कर्षनिबन्धनो वाच्यगुणभङ्ग्ययोः प्राधान्यविवक्षा इति । वस्तुमात्रव्यङ्ग्यत्वे चारालङ्काराणामन्तरोपदर्शितलिङ्ग्य एवोदाहरणेऽ्यो विषय उन्नेयः । तदेवमियमात्रेणालङ्कारविशेषरूपेण वाच्येनार्थोऽन्तरस्यालङ्कारस्य वा प्रकाशने चारुत्वोत्कर्षनिबन्धने सति प्राधान्येऽङ्गशक्तियुद्धवानुरणनरूप-व्यङ्ग्यो ध्वनिरवगन्तव्यः ।

एवं ध्वने: प्रभेदान् प्रतिपाद्य तदाभासविवेकं कतुसुच्यते —

ख. 'अलङ्कार्यो'-BP. ३. 'यत्र'-क-ख. ५. °ध्वना हि-MB.

२. 'पुनः' क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ६. 'उन्नेतव्यः'-ग.

९. 'वस्त्वन्तरस्य'-क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

this context it should be taken that the second kind of participation is meant. Even when figures are suggested, they will come under suggestion only if the suggested element is also intended as principal. Otherwise they will be of the form of subordinate suggested sense only as will be pointed out later. The same is true of instances also wherein, though there is a suggested figure, the expressed figures alone appear as principal in importance.

Figures have a two-fold course : ( 1 ) Sometimes they are suggested by the idea itself; ( 2 ) at other times they are suggested by figures. Of these,

When figures are suggested only by the idea itself, they are invariably participants of suggestion; for the very procedure of poetry is dependent upon it.

The last quarter of the text adduces a reason in support of the statement made earlier. The reason is that poetry proceeds only by way of incorporating such suggested figures; otherwise it would be just an ordinary discourse.

If other figures are suggested they will become participants of suggestion in case the principal importance of the suggested is dicernible in respect of extraordinary charm.

The phrase, ' even by expressed figures ,' is to be understood in the text after ' if other figures are suggested .'

It has already been remarked that the relative importance or otherwise of the expressed and the suggested depends solely upon the degree of beauty brought about by the two. Figures suggested by the idea itself may also be easily illustrated with examples already cited. Thus in fine, we may conclude that in instances where by means of either the idea ( or sense ) itself or a figure contained in the idea, another idea or another figure is suggested in such a way that the principal beauty is centred only in the latter, we will get resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of sense.

Having thus explained the varieties of suggestion, the following is said in order to distinguish between suggestion and its semblance :-

Dhvanyāloka:

यत्र प्रतीयमानोऽर्थ: प्रविष्टष्ट्वेनं' भासते । वाच्यस्यार्थान्तया वापि नास्यासौ गोचरो ध्वने: ॥ ३१ ॥

द्विविधोऽपि प्रतीयमान: स्फुटोऽस्फुटश्व । तत्र य एव स्फुट: शब्द- शक्त्यार्थैकशात्या वा प्रकाशते स एव ध्वनेर्मार्गो नेतर: । स्फुटोऽपि यौगभिधे- हीत्योज्ज्वलत्वे प्रतीयमानोऽप्यवसित सौक्ष्यानुरणनरूपव्यञ्ज्यस्य ध्वनेरगोचर: ।

यथा— कमलआरा ण मलिआ हंसा उड्डाविआ ण अ पिउच्छा । केण वि गामतडाए अउमं उत्ताणअं फडिहमु ॥ [ कमलाकरा न मलिता हंसा उद्धायिता न च पितृध्वस: । केनापि ग्रामतटकेsभ्रमुत्तानितं द्विसहम् ॥ छाया ]

अत्र हि प्रतीयमानस्य मुखभङ्ग्या जलधरप्रतिम्बदर्शोनस्य वाच्य- कृत्यमेव । एवंविधे विषयेऽनपेक्ष्यतापि यत्र व्यङ्ग्यापेक्षया वाच्यस्य चारुत्वो- त्कर्षप्रतीतिः प्राधान्यमवसौयते; तत्र व्यङ्ग्यस्यार्थान्तरवेन प्रतीतेर्ध्वेनविषयत्वम् ।

यथा— वाणीरकुडण्णडडीणसुणिकोलाहलं सुनन्तिए । घरकम्मवावडाए बहुए सीआन्ति अज्जइ ॥ [ वेतसलताकुडण्णडीनशकुनिकोलाहलं शृण्वन्त्या: । गृहकर्मण्यापृताया बध्वा: सीदन्त्यर्ज्जुनि ॥ छाया ]

एवंविधो हि विषय: प्रायेण गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यस्यैवोद्दाहरणत्वेन निर्देश्यते । यत्र तु प्रकरणादिम्रातिपत्त्या निधारिताविशेषा वाच्यार्थ: पुन: प्रतीमान- ज्ञतैनैवावभासते सोऽस्यैवानुरणनरूपव्यञ्ज्यस्य ध्वनेर्मार्गि: ।

यथा — उच्चिणसु पडिअं कुसुमं मा धुण सेहालीअं हालिअसुहं । अह दे विसमअरावो' ससुरेण सुओ वलअसद्दो ॥ [ उच्चिनु पतितं कुसुमं मा धुनि: शोफालिकां हालिकस्नुषे । एष ते विसमअरावो' श्रशुरेण श्रुतो वलयशब्द: ॥ छाया ]

१. 'प्रविष्टष्ट्वेनं'-क; प्रविष्टतया-BP, No. 254(BORI), KLV. २. 'व्यूढं' ज्ञाति गाथासमशतोधृत: पाठ: । ३. प्रतीतौ ध्वने° KLV. ४. 'हि'-क, पुस्तके नास्ति. ५. 'व्यङ्ग्यापेक्षया'-क. ६. Locana has rendered this in Sanskrit as विषमविपाक: possibly suggesting the reading रसमविगागो; but हेमचन्द्र reads अतिसाणविरसो under I. 19. of Kāvyanuśāsana.

The Light of Suggestion

If in an instance the implied sense is such that it can be caught only with great difficulty or if it is only subordinate to the expressed sense, in either case, it will not be an instance of suggestion.

The implied sense is two-fold: (1) clear and (2) vague. Of these two, only the first kind belongs to the way of suggestion when it is conveyed by the power of either the word or the sense and not the second. Even if it should be clear, if the implied sense appears as subordinate to the expressed, it will be outside the scope of this resonance-like suggestion. For instance

The lotuses have not been crushed,

Nor have the swans flown away, O aunt;

Some one has thrown the cloud itself

Into our village-tank upside down.

Here the implied idea is that the guileless woman saw a reflection of the cloud, and it is subordinate to the expressed idea. In this and such other instances where we find greater beauty in the expressed than in the suggested element and can conclude therefore that the expressed is more important than the implied, we cannot see suggestion instanced because it happens to be subordinate only. To take an example :

As she hears the twitter of birds,

Flying away from the shrubs of water-reeds,

The limbs of the daughter-in-law

Busy in her chores

Drop (all too suddenly).

It will be pointed out in the sequel that examples like the above illustrate subordinate suggested poetry. But on the other hand, resonance-like suggestion is present in instances, where, even after determining all the implications of the expressed sense in view of the context and so forth, we find that the expressed appears only as subsidiary to the suggested. For example :

Pick the fallen flowers only,

Don't shake the plant,

O village-chief's daughter-in-law,

For, the loud jingle of your bangles

Is heard by your father-in-law!

अत्र ह्याविनयपातिना सह रममाणा सखी बहिःश्रुतवलयकलकलया सख्या प्रतिशोध्यते । एतदपेक्ष्योयं वाच्यार्थप्रतिपत्तये । प्रतिपत्तौ च वाच्येऽर्थे तस्याविनयप्रच्छादनात्पर्येणाभिधीयमानत्वात्पुनरव्यङ्ग्यचाङ्गित्वमेव तस्यासिक्नुर-णनरूपव्यङ्ग्यचर्वनावन्तर्भावः ।

ऐवं विवक्षितवाच्यस्य ध्वनेऽतदभावविवेके प्रस्तुते सत्यविवक्षितवाच्यस्यापि तं कथं माह-अव्युत्पत्तेरसक्तेर वा निबन्धो यः स्वलदते ।। ३२ ।। शब्दस्य स च न श्रेयः सूरोभिविषयो ध्वनेः । स्वलदृतेरुपचरितस्य शब्दस्याव्युत्पत्तेरशक्तेरौ निबन्धो यः स च न ध्वनेर्विषयः । यतः—

सर्वेष्वेव प्रमेदेषु स्फुटत्वेनावभासनम् । यद्वच्यङ्ग्यस्याङ्गीभूतस्य तत्पूर्णं ध्वनिलक्षणम् ॥ ३३ ॥ तच्चोदाहृतविषयमेव ।।

इति श्री राजानकानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविरचिते सहृदयालोके द्वितीय उद्योतः ।।

१. ‘वाच्यार्थे’ -क-ख. ‘अर्थे’-घ. पुस्तके नास्ति. २. ‘व्यङ्ग्यत्वमेव’-क-ख. ३. ‘एवंविभवाचस्य’-ग. ४. ‘कुने’-KLV. ५. ‘तरकतुं’- क-ख. ६. ‘अशक्ते-रशक्ते’- क-ख. ७. ‘यतः’-ख. ८. ‘अभिधान्दो’- क-ख. ९. ‘काव्यालोके’- क-ख; सहृदयालोके No. 254 (BORI).

The Light of Suggestion

Here a lady dallying with a rude paramour is warned by her confidant who hears the loud sound of her bangles outside. We have to understand so much in order to grasp the expressed sense itself fully. After this is understood, when we catch the hidden hint that the confidant is trying to conceal the crudeness of the paramour at the same time, the verse once again becomes a participant in suggestion and deserves to be classed as an instance of resonance-like suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

Having thus distinguished between the real and the apparent forms of suggestion with intended expressed sense, the author now proceeds to distinguish the real and apparent forms of suggestion with unintended expressed sense i -

The Light of Suggestion

The usage of a word with faltering denotation either because of the poet's want of education or because of his lack of genius, should not be regarded by the learned as a way of suggestion. 32

The Light of Suggestion

Usage of words with only a metaphorical application due to either inadequate education or want of genius will not come within the scope of suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

The full definition of suggestion in all its varieties includes clarity of mainfestation and principal importance of the suggested element.

The Light of Suggestion

This has been abundantly illustrated by now.

तृतीयोद्योत:

एवं व्यज्जचमुखेनैव ध्वने: प्रदर्शिते समभेदे स्वरूपे पुनर्व्यञ्जकस्वेनैतत्प्रकाशयते - आविवक्षितवाच्यस्य पदवाच्यपकाशता। tदन्यास्पन्दनरूपव्यज्जकस्य च ध्वने:॥ ९ ॥ आविवक्षितवाच्यस्यागात्यन्तातिरसृकृतवाच्ये प्रभेदे पदप्रकाशता यथा महर्षेर्व्यासस्य ससैता: समिध: श्रिय:| यथा वा कालिदासस्य - क: सन्नद्धे विरहविधुरां त्वय्युपकेते जायाम्र किमिव हि मधुराणां मण्डनं नाकृतिनार्ँ एतेषूदाहरणेषु 'समिध' इति 'सन्नद्ध' इति 'मधुराणामि'ति च पदानी व्यज्जकत्वाभिप्राये'णैव कृतानि। तस्यैवर्थान्तरसंंक्रमितवाच्ये यथा - रामेण प्रियजीवितेन तु कृतं प्रेम्ण: प्रियेऽनुचितम्। अत्र रामेणोत्येतत्पदं साहसैककरसत्वादिव्यज्जकाभिसंस्क्रमितवाच्यं व्यज्जकम्। यथा वा --

एमएअ जणो तिस्सा देउ कवोलोपमाइ सासिबिम्बम्। परमत्थविआरे उण चन्दो चन्दो विअ वराओ॥ [ एवमेव जनस्तस्या ददाति कपोलोपमायां शशिबिम्बम्। परमार्थविचारे पुनश्चन्द्रश्चन्द्र इव वारक:॥ छाया ]

१. व्यज्जचमुखेन–MB. २. मुखेन तत्प्रकाशयते–घ. ३. 'स्वप्रभेदे'–घ. ४. ध्वनि: क्षमा दया शौचं कारुण्यं वागनिष्ठुरा। मित्राणां चानुमित्रद्रोह: समैता: समिध: श्रिय:॥ MB. ५. 'यथा वा'–ग-पुस्तके नास्ति; 'यथा वा तत्रैव'–घ. ६. सरसिजमनुविध्दं शेवलेनापि रम्यम्। मलिनमपि हिमांशोल्क्ष्म लक्ष्मीं तनोति॥ इयमधिकमनोज्ञा वल्कलेऽपि तन्वी किमित...॥ MB. ७. 'व्यज्जकाभिप्राये'णैव–घ. MB. ८. MB. cites full verse as given in लोचन. ९. 'व्यज्जक्यार्थसंस्क्रमित'–क - खव.

THE THIRD FLASH

So far the nature and varieties of suggestion have been pointed out in detail from the standpoint of the suggested. Now the same shall be set forth from the standpoint of the suggester: Both the varieties of suggestion with unintended literal import and reasonance-like suggestion are suggested by individual words and by whole sentences.

Here are some examples for suggestive words which convey suggestion of the sub-class "with the expressed sense completely lost," under the class of "unintended expressed sense."

1 ...These seven are the faggots of wealth.

2 When you have come well equipped, Who can any more neglect his wife ?

3 What will not be an ornament to figures Which are by nature comely.

In these examples, the words, faggots, equipped and comely are used with exclusive suggestive force.

An example of a suggestive word carrying suggestion of the sub-class, 'with expressed sense merged in another' is furnished in the following:- Nothing worthy of your love has been done, O sweet, By Rāma whose love for his own life is greater.

Here the expressed sense of the word Rāma merges itself in the suggested ideas of unique valour, etc. and hence the word carries a suggestive force.

The following is another instance:- Thus do the folk quote the moon As a fitting comparison to her cheeks; But if one were to reflect aright, The moon is but a poor fellow like the moon.

The word 'moon' used for a second time in the above instance is a conveyer of suggestion 'with expressed sense merged in another.'

श्वन्यालोक:

अत्र द्वितीयश्वान्दर्शब्दोर्ध्यान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यः । अविवक्षितवाच्यस्यात्यन्ततिरसृकृतवाच्ये प्रभेदे वाक्यप्रकारता यथा—

‘ या निशा सर्वभूतानां तस्यां जागर्ति संयमी । यस्यां जाग्रति भूतानि सा निशा परयतो मुनेः ॥

अनेन हि वाक्येन न निशार्थो न च जागरणार्थः: कामश्रद्धिवक्षितः । किं तर्हि? तततज्ञानावहिततत्त्वमतत्वपराड्मुखतवं च मुनेः प्रतिपादयत इति तिरसृकृतवाच्यस्य व्यङ्ग्यक्तवम् । तस्यैवार्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यस्य वाक्यप्रकारता यथा—

विसमइओँ चिअ काण वि काण वि वोलेउ अमिआणिम्माओ । काण वि विसामिअओँ काण वि आविसामिओँ काले ॥

[ विषमय इव केशामपि केशामपि प्रयत्यमृतनिर्मोणः । केशामपि विषार्तमयः केशामप्यविषामृतं कालः ॥ इति छाया ]

अत्र हि वाक्ये विशामृतशब्दाभ्यां दुःखसुखरूपसंक्रमितवाच्याभ्यां व्यवहार इत्यर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यस्य व्यङ्ग्यक्तवम् ।

विवक्षिताभिधेयस्यानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्यस्य शब्दराक्त्युद्भवे प्रभेदे पदप्रकारता यथा—

प्रातः श्वैवार्थजनस्य वाच्यां दैवेन सृष्टो यदि नाम नास्मि । पाथि प्रसन्नाम्बुधरस्तडागः कूपोदथवा किं न जडः कृतोऽहम् ॥

अत्र हि जड इति पदं निर्विशेषेण वक्तात्मसमाधानाधिकरणतया प्रयुक्तमलङ्करणरूपतया कुसमाधीकरणतां स्वशक्त्या प्रतिपादयते ।

१. वाक्यार्थ -म. २. वाच्यस्यार्थ-व-B. P., KLV. ३. 'सङ्कान्त'-क-ख. ४. वाच्यस्याल -क. ५. 'वार्तुं'-क - ख, दातुं -MB. ६. 'इत्येतत्'-क - ख. ७. अत्यन्त -म. इति पाठो No. 254 ( BORI ).

The Light of Suggestion

An example of a suggestive sentence of this sub-class of suggestion itself under the class of 'that with unintended expressed sense is the following:- When it is night for all creatures. The saint doth keep vigil; When the creatures are awake, It will be night for the wise seer.

The Light of Suggestion

The sentence does not intend as its purport either the idea of night or the idea of waking state. What else is it then? The idea intended is being alive to the knowledge of Reality and averse to unreality on the part of a sage. Hence the expressed sense of the sentence is completely given up and the sentence is suggestive.

The Light of Suggestion

Here is an example of a suggestive sentence conveying the sub-class of suggestion, viz., 'that with expressed sense merged in another':- To some it passes like nectar indeed. To some both poison and nectar; And to some neither poison nor nectar.

The Light of Suggestion

Here the words 'poison' and 'nectar' are used in such a way as to merge in the sense of 'miserable' and 'happy.' Hence these words possess the suggestivity of the type mentioned.

The Light of Suggestion

The following illustrates the suggestivity of a word in the sub-class of resonance-like suggestion based upon the word under the class of suggestion with intended expressed sense:- Granting I was not created by Fate To fulfil the wishes of suppliants, Why was I not made insentient, Say, a limpid lake on the roadside, Or even a well for that matter?

The Light of Suggestion

The word 'insentient' is used by the despondent speaker to apply to himself; but it also applies to the lake and the well by its own verbal force.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तस्यैव वाक्यप्रकाशातां यथा हर्षचरिते सिंहनादवाक्ये-- 'वृत्तेऽस्मिन्महाप्रलये धरणीधारणायाधुना त्वं रोषः । एतद्वि वाक्यमनुबन्धनहुपबन्धान्तरं श्लाघ्यशक्त्या स्कुटमेव प्रकाशायति ॥

अत्रैव कविप्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशरीरीस्यार्थस्यादवे प्रभेदे पद-५प्रकाशता यथा हरिवंश-- चूडांकुरावअंसं घणसरमहच्चणमणहरसुरामोअमे । असमर्यिअं पि माहिअं कुसुमसरेण महुमासलक्च्छमुहमं ॥ [ चूडाकुरावतंसं क्षणत्सरमहाह्वेमनोहरसुरामोदमे । असमर्यिंतमपि गर्हितं कुसुमशरेण मध्यमासलक्ष्मी मुखम् ॥ छाया ]

अत्र असमर्यिंतमपि कुसुमशरेण मध्यमासलक्ष्म्या मुखं गृहीतमित्य-10समर्पितमर्यादयेतदर्थाभिधेयपदमर्थशक्त्या कुसुमशरस्य बलात्कारं प्रकाशोयति । अत्रैव प्रभेदे वस्यप्रकाशता ययोदाहृतं प्राक् ' सज्जेहि सुरहिमासो ' इत्यादि । अत्र मज्ज्यत इति सुरभिमासो न तावदपेयत्नज्ञाय शानित्ययं वाक्यार्थ: कविप्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशरीरो मन्यथोन्माथकतापादनावस्थां

वसन्तसमयस्य सूचयति । स्वत:संभविरार्यशक्त्युद्भवे प्रभेदे पदप्रकाशता यथा-- वाणिअ हत्थदन्ता कुतो अम्हाण वाचकित्ती अ । जाव लुकिअलअमुही घरम्मि परिसक्कए सुण्हा ॥ [ वाणिकक हस्तदन्ता: कुरोटस्माकं व्याक्करकतयस्य । यावल्लुकितालकमुखी गृहे परिषक्कते स्नुषा ॥ छाया ]

१. प्रभते० MB. २. 'लक्षयति'-क-खव. ३. छणसरमहं घणमहुरामोअमू-च. ४. अपणामअं वि.-क-ख. ५. लक्षयति-क - खव. ६. No. XII 184 ( BORI ) and No. XII.183 (BORI) stop at this and omit the rest up to सूचयति । ७. 'वस्यमात्'-क - ख; मन्यथोन्माथकदनावस्थ† -BP.; No. 254 (BORI). ८. 'संभवितार्थ' - प., MB.

The Light of Suggestion

An example of suggestive sentence coming under this very class of suggestion is found in the sentences of Simhanāda in the Harṣacarita:- When this joy-ending incident has befallen, you are the only person left to assume the burden of state ( just as the Primeval Serpent alone is capable of bearing the burden of the earth when the great deluge is raging ).

This sentence clearly conveys the resonance-like suggested sense by its verbal force alone.

The following quotation from Harivijaya ( of Sarvasena ) is an example of suggestive word in the sub-class of suggestion based upon the power of sense, viz., that which exists only in the ornate expression of the poet:- Though unoffered, Lord Cupid caught The face of the goddess of Spring, Whose ears were bedecked with mango-sprouts And perfume profoundly sweet.

In the statement, ' though unoffered, the face of the goddess of Spring was caught by Cupid ', the word ' unoffered ' which denotes only a circumstance, suggests, by the power of sense, the use of force on the part of Cupid.

In this variety of suggestion itself, an example of a suggestive sentence is furnished in the illustration already cited, viz., ' The spring gets ready ' etc. In that example the purport of the sentence that ' the spring keeps ready but does not yet fling the arrows of Cupid ' is existent only in the ornate expression of the poet and it suggests the passion-exciting nature of spring.

The following is an instance of word-suggestiveness of the sub-class of suggestion viz., ' naturally existing ', under the class of suggestion based upon the power of sense:- O merchant, how can we have Elephant-tusks or tiger-skins, So long as the daughter-in-law here Moves with curls fluttering on her face ?

स्वन्यालोक:

अत्र लुलितालकमुखरीतयेतत्पदं व्याधवध्वा: स्वत:सम्भावितशरीरार्थशक्त्या सुरतकीडासक्तिं सूचयन्स्तत्क्षीयस्ये भरतु: सततसंभोगक्षामतां प्रकाशयति ।

तस्यैव वाक्यप्रकारात् यथा - सिहिपिञ्छकणगूरा बहुआ वाहस्त् गविरी भमइ । मुत्ताफलरइअपसाहरणे मज्झे सवत्तीणम् ॥ [ शिविपिच्छकर्णगूरा भार्या व्याधस्य गर्विणी अभवति । मुक्ताफलरचितप्रसाधनानां मध्ये सपत्नीनाम् ॥ छाया ]

अनेनापि वाक्येन व्याधवध्वा शिविपिच्छकर्णगूराया नवपरिणीताया: कस्याश्चित्सौभाग्यादितिशाय: प्रकाश्यते । तत्संभोगैकरसो मयूरमात्रमारणसमर्थ: पतिंजंत् इत्यर्थत्रकाशनात् तदन्यासां चिरपरिणीतानां मुक्ताफलरचितप्रसाधनानां दौर्भाग्यमितिशय: रुच्याप्यते । तत्संभोगकाले स एव व्याध: करीरवधव्यापारसमर्थे अभसीदित्यर्थप्रकाशनात् ।

ननु काव्यविशेषो ध्वनिरितियुक्तं तत्कथं तस्य पदप्रकारात् । काव्यविशेषो हि विशिष्टार्थप्रतिपत्तिहेतु: शब्दैरर्थभविशेष: । तद्दावशं पदप्रकारात्वे नोपपद्यते । पदाना स्मारकत्वेनावाचकत्वात् । उच्चते - स्यादेश दोष: यदि वाचकत्वं प्रयोजकं ध्वनिर्यवहारे स्यात् । न त्वेषम्; तस्य व्यज्जकत्वेन व्यतिरस्यनात् । किं च काव्यानां शरीरीणामिव संस्थानेव विशेषावच्छिन्नसमुदायसाध्यापि चारुत्वप्रतीतिरवयवव्यतिरेकाम्यां भागेभु कल्प्यत इति पदाना अपि व्यज्जकत्वमुचेन व्यवस्थितो ध्वनिव्यवहारो न विरोधी ।

अनिष्टस्य श्रुतियेद्रदापादयति दुष्टताम् । श्रुतिदुष्टादिशु न्यकं तद्द्विष्टश्रुतिगुण्णम् ॥

१. 'स्वचयाति तदीयस्य' -ग. २. 'अपि'-क-ख. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ३. 'प्रक्याय्पते' -ग. ४. तत्संभोग इत्यर्थम्य 'रुच्याप्यते' इति पर्यन्तं घ-पुस्तके नास्ति. ५. ओ रथो -B1. ६. 'प्रथश्गात' - ग. ७. शब्द omitted in No 185 XII ( BORI ). ८. एतच्च इलेखन परिहृत्य वस्तुतत्त्वनोपसंहरति । This additional sentence occurs after this in XII 185 ( BORI ) which occurs only as marginalia in XII 184 ( BORI ). ९. शरीरिणामिव - घ. & No. 254 ( BORI ). १०. 'संस्थाने' - ग. ११. भवति:- क-ख. १२. गुण:- ग.

The Light of Suggestion

The word 'with curls fluttering on her face' can possibly apply to the hunter's wife and at the same time it conveys by the power of sense her great passion for dalliance and the consequent weakness of her husband due to his sexual indulgence.

An example of sentence-suggestiveness in the same variety of suggestion is the illustration—Adorning her ear with peacock's plumes, etc., already cited (under III. 24). This sentence too illustrates the great conjugal felicity of a hunter's newly wedded wife whose ears are bedecked with peacock's plumes. Besides, since it is hinted at that the husband's strength, which once was great enough to kill down mightiest elephants and bring many rare pearls to his wives who used them as ornaments, has now been reduced to such an extent by constant dalliance with her that he can kill only peacocks, the conjugal misfortune of the first wives is also suggested.

One might raise the following objection at this juncture :— 'Suggestion has been defined earlier as a species of poetry.' How can such a species be suggested by a word? A species of poetry can mean only that composition of words which enables one to understand a specific meaning. This fact will be inapplicable to it when it is held that it is suggested by a word; for, words are only reminders of such a suggested meaning and not at all denoters.

Here is our answer to the objection :— the alleged defect would have tainted our assertion if it were true that denotation was the criterion for deciding the existence of suggestion. But it is not true. It has already been established that suggestiveness alone is the criterion in question. In life also, we often speak of the presence or absence of beauty in the individual limbs of persons though in fact it is only the combined beauty of all the graceful and symmetrical limbs that can really be present or absent in a person's body as a whole. In the same way, there is no contradiction involved in one's regarding the individual words also as suggesters of beauty which is really occasioned by the combination of different words and in referring to them by the word suggestion. These ideas are summed up in the following aphorisms :—

1. Just as reminiscence of something undesired clearly becomes a blemish in defects like “Indelicacy”, so also the reminiscence of something desired should be regarded as an excellence,

Dhvanyālokaḥ

padānāṁ smarakatve'pi padamātrāvambhāsinḥ | ten 'dhvaneḥ' prameyatve sarvendriyevāstiti ramyatā || vicchittishobhinaikena bhūshaneiva kāminī | padavyotye'nā sukavedhvaninā bhāti bhāratī ||

⁵Iti parikaraślokāḥ

yasya valakshyakrameṇa padānāṁ dhvanirvārṇapadādiṣu | vākye sadṛśanāyāṁ ca sa prabandhē'pi dīpyate || 2 ||

tatra varṇānamarthakṛtvaicchrotkatvamasmādvīryāśāḍhūcchedamucyate—

ṣaṣṭhau sarapakṣayor'goṣe dvayorvakṣaḥpi bhūyasā | virodhinḥ sṛjuḥkṛtare te na varṇā rasacchyutāḥ || 3 ||

tad etau nivedyanete vībhartsādau rase yadā | tadā tāṁ dīpyaṁtyeva tena varṇāḥrasacchyutāḥ || 4 ||

ślokadvayenānvayanvyatirekābhyāṁ varṇānāṁ dyotkatvam darśitaṁ bhavati | pade cālakṣyakrameṇa padānāṁ dyotanaṁ yathā—

utkampinī bhayaparitaskalitāṅśukāntā te locane pratidiśaṁ vidhure skipanti | krūraṇa dāruṇatayā sahasaiva dagdhā dhūmānvitātena dahaneva n vīkṣitāsi ||

atra hi “te” ityetatpadaṁ rasamayatvena sphuṭamevāvabhāsate sahṛdayānām

१. पदान्तरेऽभिधीयते -क, ख. २. ‘ने संभवन्ति’ -ग., MB. ३. संयोगो -घ. ४. रसच्यु नः-घ, BP. ५. रसच्युतः-घ, BP. ६. द्योतकत्वं -घ. ७. ‘धूमान्वितेन’-क-ख. ८. ‘सहृदयानां’ -क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

2. Though words are only reminders, there is certainly charm therefrom in all the varieties of suggestion that manifests itself through the individual words.

The Light of Suggestion

3. Just like a damsel who appears charming by just a single ornament full of beauty, so also the work of a good poet will appear to advantage when adorned by suggestion even in one word.

The Light of Suggestion

Suggestion with undiserned sequentiality will flash forth in letter, word etc., sentence, composition, and finally the work as a whole.

The Light of Suggestion

The objection that letters cannot be suggestive because they are meaningless by themselves is answered below :

The Light of Suggestion

The (Sanskrit) letters 'ś', and 'ṣ' letters conjunct with 'r' and 'dh'-all these become deterrents of the erotic sentiment. Hence those letters are not conducive to a particular sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

When these very letters are employed in relation to the sentiment of disgust and so forth, they will only intensify them. Hence also letters suggest sentiments.

The Light of Suggestion

The above aphorisms show negatively and positively that letters do possess suggestiveness.

The Light of Suggestion

Suggestiveness of word in 'suggestion with undiserned sequentiality' is illustrated below :

The Light of Suggestion

There thou stood, trembling all over With the hem of thy garment slipping down in fear And throwing those distressed glances In each and every direction; Oh ! you were burnt down so soon By the cruel fire fiercely; You could not be seen by him surely, Since he was blinded by his own smoke.

The Light of Suggestion

That the word those in this example is suggestive of sentiment can be clearly discerned by receptive critics. Another example :

भवान्यालोक:

यथा वा

झागिति कनकचित्रे तत्र दृष्टे.कुरङ्गे रभसाविलसितास्ते दृष्टिपाताः प्रियाया: । पवनाविलासितानां नीलोत्पलानां परिश-

प्रकारमिव किरन्त: स्मर्यमाणा दृशान्ति ॥*

पदावयवेन ज्योतनं यथा —

त्रिडङ्गयोगानतवदनया सन्निधाने गुरूणां बद्धोत्कम्पं कुचकलशायोमेन्युन्मत्तनिगृह्य । तिष्ठेत्यक्तं किमिव न तया यत्समुत्सृज्य बाष्पं मद्य्यासक्तश्वसितहरिणीहारिनेत्रत्रिभाग: ॥

इत्यत्र "त्रिभाग"शब्दः ।

वाक्यरूपश्वालक्ष्यकमव्यझचयो ध्वानि: शुद्धोऽलङ्कारसट्कीर्णश्रुति द्विधा मतः । तत्र शुद्धस्योदाहरणं यथा रामाभ्युदये — ' कृतककुपितै:—,' इत्यादि श्लोक: । एतादृशं वाक्यं परस्परानुरागं परिपोषप्राप्तं प्रदर्शयत्सर्वत्र एव परं रसतत्त्वं प्रकाशयति ।

*This verse is not commented upon in the Locana.

१. क-ख - पुस्तकयोश्रुतुर्थंचरण एवास्य श्लोकस्यास्ति. २. 'लड्कारसट्कीर्णोण' - MB; No. 254 ( BORI ) ३. 'परस्परानुरदद्रागपरिपोषकतया प्राप्त' -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

The sight of the deer of wondrous gold, Suddenly brought into my beloved's looks Such a fine glimmer and sweetness —Even like the petals of the dark lily Blown about by a sudden breeze— That even a recollection of those looks Brings me scorching pain.

The Light of Suggestion

Suggestiveness of a part of a word is instanced in the following :— With her shy face bent down in the presence of elders. Suppressing her great sorrow Which made her bosoms heave, Did she not almost tell me "remain" ! When through her tears she fixed on me Her one-third glance so lovely As that of a frightened fawn ?

The Light of Suggestion

Here the part of the word viz., 'one-third' is suggestive. A suggestive sentence in 'suggestion with undiscerning sequentiality' is two-fold : ( 1 ) Pure and (2) Mingled with another figure. The following quotation from Rāmābhyudaya is an example of the first :—

The Light of Suggestion

He, whom you followed even into the forest With feigned anger, tears and piteous looks; Though stopped lovingly by mother so much, That very beloved of yours, O sweet, Lives indeed with a heart of adamant, Even when he is parted from you, And even though he sees the quarters Darkened by the new rain-clouds.

The Light of Suggestion

This sentence as a whole exquisitely conveys fullness of sentiment showing as it does the height of mutual love ( in the hero and the heroine ).

DHVANYĀLOKA

अलङ्कारान्तरसमुद्देशो यथा - ' स्मरणवनदीपूरेरणोढा:' इत्यादिश्लोक:। अत्र हि रूपकेण यथोक्तव्यङ्ग्यचर्वणैकलक्षणानुगतेन प्रसाधितो रस: सुतराम्- भिन्न्यज्यते । alक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यस्य: सङ्केतनायां भासते ध्वनिरित्युक्तम् , तत्र सङ्केतना- इ स्वरूपमेव तावतिरूप्यते- असमासा समासेन मध्यमेन न भूषिता । तथा दीर्घसमासेति त्रिधा सङ्केतनोदिता ॥ ५ ॥ कैश्चित् । तां केवलमनूद्येदमुच्यते-- गुणानाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती माधुर्यादीन्व्यानक्ति सा । रसान्- सां सङ्केतना रसादीन् व्यानक्ति गुणानाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्तीति । अत्र च विकलप्यं गुणानां सङ्केतनायाश्रैक्यं व्यतिरेको वा । व्यतिरेकेऽपि द्वयी गति: । गुणाश्रया सङ्केतना, सङ्केतनाश्रया वा गुणा इति । तत्‌शैैक्यपक्षे सङ्केतनाश्रय- गुणपक्षे च गुणानात्मभूतानाधेयभूतान्वाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती सङ्केतना रसादीन्- व्यानक्ति‌त्ययमर्थ: । यदा तु नानात्वपक्षे गुणाश्रयसङ्केतनापक्षं तदा गुणाना- श्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती गुणपरतन्त्रस्वभावा न तु गुरूपैवित्यर्थ: । किं पुनरेकं विकलप्यं प्रयोजनमिल्यविभाव्यते । यदि गुणा: सङ्केतना चेत्येकं तत्‍तं सङ्केतनाश्रया वा गुणा:; तदा सङ्केतनाया इव गुणानाम्‍नियतविषयत्वप्रसङ्ग: । गुणानां हि माधुर्यप्रसाद-

1. Locana gives the whole stanze as follows : स्मरणवनदीपूरेरणोढा: पुनर्गहुरसंतुभि- यंदोपि विभ्रता: निष्ठान्याराद्गुणणमनोरथा: । तदोपि लिखितिनप्रहयैरड्कै: परसपरमुनुमुवा नयननालिनीनालानीतं पित्रा‌न्नि रसं प्रिया: ॥
2. 'प्रसाधित:' क - ख. No. 184 & No. 185 XII ( BORI). ३. नात्र- त्मय निरीहयने -MB, No. 254 (BORI) - KLV. ४. 'सा' -घ पुस्तके नास्ति
3. गतिर्‍बाध्या - घ. ६. नानात्वपक्षो KLV. ७. पक्षश्र - MB. KLV
4. तिष्ठन्तीति - घ. ९. विकलपस्य - MB. १०. 'चैक' म. ११. गुणानाम्‍प्यनित्य -MB.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an example of the second variety :

Buoyed up by the flooded river of new love, But obstructed by the mighty dams (or elders like dams), Though the lovers have to stay still With their desires unfulfilled Like so many figures with painted limbs, Yet they remain facing one another And drink the nectar of love Through pipes of eye-lotuses.

The sentiment is beautifully suggested here by the suggestive figure, metaphor.

It has been mentioned that 'suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality' can relate to 'texture' or composition also. The nature of 'texture' itself is explained below :-

'Texture' is said to be of three kinds: (1) without compounds (2) with medium-sized compounds and (3) with long compounds.

'By others' is to be understood in the text. It is only quoted here and will be commented upon in what follows :-

Composition or texture is grounded in qualitites like Sweetness and suggests sentiments.

'Composition or texture is grounded in qualities and suggests sentiments'. Here a doubt may arise (a) whether there is identity between qualities and texture or (b) whether there is difference. In case there were difference between them, once again there would be scope for these two alternatives: (c) qualities may be the substratum of texture or (d) texture may itself be the substratum of qualities. Of these, in the alternatives of (a) and (d) the text would mean that texture is grounded in qualities which are either identical with itself or the nature of its attributes and that it suggests sentiments. But in the other alternatives of (b) and (c) 'grounded in qualities' will mean 'depending upon qualities', and not 'identical with qualities'. If one were to ask - "what is the use of such alternative explanations ?" -here is our reply :-

In the views (a) and (d) qualities too will come to be as variable as texture itself (though in fact they are constant)

श्वन्यालोक:

प्रकर्ष: करुणाविप्रलम्भशृङ्गारविषय एव। रौद्राद्भुतादिविषयमोजः। माधुर्यप्रसादौ रसभावतदाभासविषयौवेति विषयनियमो व्यवस्थितः;, सङ्घटनायास्तु सं विघटते। तथा हि शृङ्गारेऽपि दीर्घसमासा दृश्यन्ते रौद्रादिष्वसमासा चेतिः

तत्र शृङ्गारे दीर्घसमासा यथा – ‘मन्दारकुसुमरेणुपिञ्जरितालकका’ इति। यथा वा –

अनवरतनयनजललवनिपतनपरिमुषितपत्रलेखं तैलकरतलनिषण्णमबले वदनमिदं कं न तापयति ॥ इत्यादौ।

तथा रौद्रादिष्व्यसमासा दृश्यते, यथा – ‘यो यः शस्त्रं बिभर्ति स्वशुजगुरुमदः’ इत्यादौ! तस्मान्न सङ्घटनास्वरूपा:, न च सङ्घटनाऽथया गुणा:।

ननु यदि सङ्घटनान गुणानां नाश्रयस्तत्किमालम्बन एते परिकल्प्यन्ताम्‌ । उच्च्यते – प्रतिपादितमेवैषामालम्बनम्‌ ।

तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येगडि‌नं ते गुणा: स्मृता:। अज्ञाश्रितास्त्वलम्बारा मन्तव्या: कटकादिवत् ॥ इंति॥

अथवा भवन्तु शब्दाश्रया एव गुणा:, न चैषामनुप्रासादितुल्यत्वम्‌ । यत्सदृशानुप्रासादियौडनपेक्ष्यार्थशब्दधर्मौ एव प्रतिपादिता:। गुणास्तु व्यङ्ग्यविशेषावभासिनो वाच्यप्रतिपादनसमर्था: शब्दधर्मोऽपि। शब्दधर्मत्वं चैषामन्या-श्रयत्वेऽपि शरीराश्रंयत्वमिव शौर्यादीनाम्‌ ।

१. ‘असौ’-क-खव. म संघटनते – MB. २. दृश्यन्ते – घ. ३. पत्रलेखान्तम्‌ – घ. ४. ‘समासो’ – घ. ५. तस्मान्न गुणा: – घ. ६. ‘परिकल्प्यन्ते’ – घ; परिकलपनाश्र – ग. ७. इत्यग्रान्तरे No. 254 (BORI), KLV. ८. ० तार्यविस्तारा: – घ. ० वस्तुविस्तारा: – No. 254 (BORI), No 185 (BORI). ९. ‘प्रतिपादिता:’-घ; पुस्तके नास्ति १०. ‘गुणास्तु’ इत्यारम्य ‘एव’ इत्यपर्यन्तं-घ. पुस्तके नास्ति। MB. (BORI), KLV.

The Light of Suggestion

Among qualities, Sweetness and Perspicuity are constantly present in abundance only when the Erotic sentiment of love-in-separation is delineated. Similarly, Forcefulness is related to sentiments of the Furious and Wonderment. Once again, Sweetness and Forcefulness are found only in instances expressive of sentiment, emotion, mood or their semblance. But there is no such conformity to any rule regarding the varieties of texture. Thus we find a texture with long compounds even in the Erotic sentiment and one without compounds even in the Furious sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an example of texture with long compounds in the Erotic sentiment :— mandāra-kusumarenupiniaritālakā.

The Light of Suggestion

The woman with her curls variegated by the pollen of mandāra flowers.

The Light of Suggestion

Or to give another example :— anavarata-nayana-jala-lava- nipatana-parimusita-patralekhāntam / kara-tala-niṣaṇṇamabale Vadanamidam் kam் na tāpayati // Whom does not your face torment, tender maid, With all its drawings on the cheek wiped out By the fall of incessant tears from the eyes, And resting in the palm of your hand ?

The Light of Suggestion

For an illustration of the furious sentiment in which there is texture without compounds, we may mention the instance already cited — ‘Whoever bears weapons’ etc. Hence qualities are not identical with texture in their form. Nor are they attributes of texture.

The Light of Suggestion

One might urge as follows :— ‘If texture is not a substratum of qualities, then what other substratum can be imagined for these ? Our reply is that we have already explained their substratum ’ ( in II.6 ).

The Light of Suggestion

One might even accept that qualities are verbal. But even so they will not become similar to verbal figures like alliteration. For, even the ancient writers have declared that alliteration etc. are purely verbal characteristics having nothing to do with sense. But qualities can become characteristics of only such words whose primary meanings have the capacity of unique suggestiveness. Just as we regard qualities like valour as characteristics

dhvanyālokaḥ

ननु यदि शब्दाश्रया गुणास्तत्सङ्घटनारूपतवं तदाश्रयत्वं वा तेषां प्रासमेव । न व्यसङ्घटेताः शब्दा अर्थविशेषप्रतिपाद्यरसायाश्रितानां गुणानामवाचकत्वादाश्रया भवन्ति । नैवम्; वर्णपदव्यञ्चत्वस्य रसादीनां प्रतिपादितत्वात् ।

5 अभ्युपगते वा वाक्यव्यञ्चत्वेऽपि रसादीनां नियता न काचित्सङ्घटना तेषामाश्रयत्वं प्रतिपद्यत इत्यनियतसङ्घटनाः शब्दा एव गुणानां व्यञ्जनविशेषानुगता आश्रयाः । नतु माधुर्ये यदि नामैव मुख्यते तदुच्यताम्; ओजः पुनः कथं नियतसङ्घटनाशब्दाश्रयत्वम् । न ह्यस्य सङ्घटना कदाचिदोजः आश्रयतां प्रतिपद्यते ।

10 उच्यते—यद् न प्रौढिमात्रग्रहणदूषितं चेतस्तत्त्वापि न न ब्रूमः । ओजः कथं संमासा सङ्घटना नाश्रयः । यं तु रौद्रादीन् हि प्रकारयति काव्यस्य दीसिरोभिति प्राक्प्रतिपादितम् । तच्चौजो यद्यसमासायामपि सङ्घटने जायते स्यात्तत्को दोषो भवेत् । न च चारुत्वं सहृदयहृदयसंवेद्यमास्ते ।

15 तस्मादनियतसङ्घटनाशब्दाश्रयत्वे गुणानां न काचित्स्वति: । तेषां तु चक्षुरादीनामिव यथास्वं विषयानियमितस्य स्वरूपस्य न कदाचिद्व्यभिचारः ।

१. ‘तदाश्रितत्वं’ क-ख. No. 254 (BORI). KLV. २. °रसाश्रितानां - MB. KLV. ३. °वाचकादाश्रया - MB; अर्थविशेषं प्रतिपाद्य रसायाश्रितानां° - घ, °अवाचक आश्रया - No. 254 (BORI). ४. रसादीनां प्रति प्रतिपादितत्वात्° - घ. ५. °व्यञ्जनानुगतानां - No. 254 (BORI). ६. ‘नामैव मुख्यते’ ग. ७. °सङ्घटन-शब्दा° - BORI., No. 254 (BORI). KLV. ८. ‘प्रतिपद्यते’ ग. ९. ‘उच्यते’ - घ. १०. °त्रापि न ब्रूमः° - घ. ११. ‘असमाससंघटनाश्रयः ’ क - ख. १२. ‘यतः’ क - ख. १३. ‘ओजोगुणः’ - क - ख. १४. घटनायां - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

of the body, though in fact they are only characteristics of the soul, so also one might speak of qualities as characteristics of the word though they really relate to other things (viz. sentiments).

The Light of Suggestion

The objector might argue further as follows :

The Light of Suggestion

'If qualities are verbal, it practically amounts to saying that they are either identical with texture or its attributes. For words which are not 'textured' can never become substrata of sentiments, etc. and are suggested only by specific factors mentioned above. They can never become substrata, because they are not at all capable of denoting qualities.

The Light of Suggestion

The argument is fallacious. As it has been explained earlier, sentiments etc. can be conveyed by letters as well as individual words.

The Light of Suggestion

Furthermore, even in instances of sentiment etc. suggested by a sentence, we do not have any constant texture which serves as the substratum of qualities. Hence such words only, as do not have any constant texture but as are enlivened by a touch of specific suggested elements, deserve to be regarded as substrata of qualities.

The Light of Suggestion

The objector might continue his argument like this :– 'If you say this about the quality of Sweetness, you might say so by all means. But how can Forcefulness be said to have a substratum in words whose composition is inconstant ? Will the quality of Forcefulness ever arise from words without the texture of long compounds ?'

The Light of Suggestion

Our reply is this :– 'If your mind is possessed by the ghost of blind faith in convention, we cannot say anything. Otherwise, we will ask you why it should not be so ? Why should not the texture without long compounds be a substratum of Forcefulness ? We have already explained that Forcefulness is nothing but the brilliance in poetry which is suggestive of sentiments like the Furious, etc. What would be wrong with it if it should be found even in a texture without long compounds ? There is indeed no blemish which can be discerned by receptive critics. Therefore, nothing is lost if we regard qualities as attributes of words which do not possess a constant texture. Just as the objects of perception for the different senses such as the eye are clearly demarcated from one another, so also the objects

श्रन्यालोक:

तस्मादन्ये गुणा अन्ये च सङ्घटनाः । न च सङ्घटनामाश्रिता गुणा इत्येकं दर्शोनम्; अथवा सङ्घटनारूपा एव गुणाः ।

यत्तु उक्तम् - " सङ्घटनावद्गुणानामप्यनियतविषयत्वं प्राप्नोति, लक्ष्ये व्यभिचारदर्शनात् " इति । तन्नोचितमुच्यते:-यत्र हि लक्ष्ये परिकलिप्तविषय- 5 व्यभिचारस्तादृरूपमेवास्तु । कथमचाहुतं तौदृशो विषये सहृदयानां नावभांतीति चेत् ? कविशक्तितिरोहितत्वात् । द्विविधो हि दोषः: कवेरयुक्तिप्रकृतोदशक्तिकृतश्व । तत्रान्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्तितिरसृकृतत्वाद्दोषाच्छन्न लक्ष्यते । यस्तु- शक्तिकृतो दोषः सः झटिति प्रतीते । परिकरश्लोकश्वात्र -

" अन्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्त्या संत्रियते कवे: । यस्तु शक्तिकृतेतरस्तं झटित्येवावभासते ॥ "

तथा हि-महाकवीनामऽयुक्तिप्रकृतमऽयुत्पत्तमदेवताविषयप्रतिष्ठद्धसंभोग- शृङ्गारनिरन्धनाद्यनौचित्यं शक्तितिरसृकृतत्वाद् ग्राम्यत्वेन न प्रतिभासते यथा कुमारसम्भवे देवोसम्भोगवर्णनम् । एवमादौ च विषये यथौचित्ययोगस्थथा दर्शितमेवाग्रे । शक्तितिरसृकृतत्वं चात्रयथोचितमवसीयते । यथा हि 15 शक्तिरहितेन कविना अन्यविधे विषये शृङ्गार उपनिबध्यमानः स्कुटमेव दोष- त्वेन प्रतिभासते ।

१. 'अन्युत्पत्तिकृतं' क-ख. २. 'तादृशेऽपि' ग. तादृशविषये - व. ३. प्रतिभा- तीने -घ, KLV. ४. 'कृतो दोष:' ग. ५. स झटित्यवभासते BP. ६. Text acc. to MR. महाकवीनामऽयुक्तिप्रकृतमदेवताविषयप्रतिष्ठद्ध - व, BP. ८. 'अनौचित्यहस्तमदने विषय' क-ख. ९. यथौचित्ययोगस्थथा - BP. १०. विषये- ग्रन्थे नास्ति । ११. 'अवभासते' ग.

The Light of Suggestion

of different qualities (viz., sentiments) are clearly demarcated from one another and do not admit of even a single exception. Hence qualities and texture are entirely distinct from one another. This is not the same thing as saying that qualities have texture for their substratum, or even that qualities are of the nature of texture itself.

The objector has also remarked: - "If texture were to be inconstant in its application, qualities too would be equally inconstant in view of the several exceptions we find to this general rule." To this we reply in the following manner: - If in a solitary instance you find an exception so imagined by you, let such exceptions exist by all means. If the objector should ask again "How is it that, in the instance pointed out by me, absence of charm escapes the observation of perceptive critics?", we would give him the reply that any such supposed lack of charm remains concealed because of the poet's genius. Defect is of two kinds: - (1) Born of the poet's ignorance and (2) Born of the poet's lack of genius. Of these, the first will often escape notice as it will be concealed by the genius of the poet. But the defect due to ignorance attracts the critic's attention at once. The following aphorism sums up this very idea: -

A poet's defect resulting from ignorance will be hidden from view by his genius; but a defect due to his want of genius will attract one's attention immediately.

This may be illustrated now. Even first-rate poets have delineated indecent Erotic sentiment in relation to divine characters and yet this impropriety does not strike one as vulgar because the indecorum has been camouflaged by the poet's genius. The description of Goddess Pārvatī's amours in the Kumārsambhava is an explicit instance. How there is indecorum in this and such other examples is brought out in the sequel. Whether genius has really camouflaged the defect or not is decided on the strength of positive and negative grounds. Thus for instance, in any other poet (except Kālidāsa) such a delineation of the Erotic sentiment would certainly strike one as a clear blemish.

ध्यनालोक:

नन्वस्मिन् पक्षे 'यो यः शस्त्रं बिभर्ति' इत्यादौ किमचारुत्वम् ? अप्रतीतामानमेवारोपयामः। तस्मादुणव्यतिरिक्त्वे गुणवृत्तौ च सङ्कटनौैया अन्यः कश्चित्रियमहेतुर्वक्तव्य इत्युच्यते।

तत्रियमो हेतुरुच्यते वकृृत्रीच्यया: ॥ ६ ॥

तत्र वक्ता कावि: कविनिबन्धो वा, कविनिबन्धोऽपि रसभावरहितो रसभावसमन्वितो वा, रसोदपि कथानायकाश्रयस्तद्विपक्षाश्रयो वा, कथानायकक्ष धीरोदात्तादिभेदभिन्न: पूर्वस्तदनन्तरो वेति विकल्पा:। वाच्यं च ध्वन्यात्परसाङ्गं रसाभासाङ्गं वा, अभिनेयार्थमनभिनेयार्थं वा उत्तमप्रकृत्याश्रयं तदितराश्रयं वेति बहुविधकारणम्। तत्र यदा कविरपगतरसंभावो वक्ता तदा रचनायाः कामचारः।

यदापि कविनिबन्धो वक्ता रसभावरहितस्तदाऽस एव; यदा तु कवि: कविनिबन्धो वा वक्ता रसभावसमन्वितो रसश्च प्रधानाश्रितत्वाद्ध्वन्यालम्बनभूतस्तदाऽनियमेन तत्समासामध्यमसमासे एव सङ्कटन। करुणविप्रलम्भशृङ्गारयोस्त्वसमासैव सङ्कटन। कथमिति चेत्, उचिते-रसो यदा प्रतीयेन प्रतिपाद्यस्तदा तत्प्रतीतो व्यवधायकौ विरोधिनौ सर्वात्मनैव परिहार्यौ; एवं च दौर्वेसमासा सङ्कटन।

समासानामनेकप्रकारसम्भावनया कदाचिद्रसप्रतीतिं व्यवदधातीति तस्यां १. 'प्रतीममानं' म. २. 'संघटनां' क-ख. ३. नान्यः No. 254 (BORI) ४. वा करिचत्-घ. ५. तदितरो KLV. ६. '० रस्यान्' ग. ७. अपरसमासो KLV. ८. 'तदापि' क-ख. ९. 'प्रधानभूतत्वाद्' - घ. १०. तदापि-घ. ११. 'कथं चेत्' -ग. १२. 'परिहार्याः'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

According to the view that qualities are identical with textures one might very well ask what absence of beauty is there in instances like Whoever bears weapons, etc. ? We submit that it is such as is incorrigible. Therefore, whether texture is different from Qualities or whether it is identical with Qualities, some other rule which governs the employment of texture will have to be given out. Hence it will be explained hereafter :

The Light of Suggestion

The propriety or decorum of the speaker and the spoken is the consideration which governs it.

The Light of Suggestion

The speaker may be either the poet or a character created by the poet. The latter may also be further divided into one who is unaffected by sentiment and emotion or one who is affected by sentiment and emotion. Sentiment, again, may relate to the hero of the story or to his rival. The hero is of different kinds as ' the high-spirited ', ctc., and also 'major' and 'minor' and so forth.

The Light of Suggestion

'The spoken' too may be subsidiary either to the suggested sentiment or to the suggested semblance of sentiment; may be meant to be staged or may not be so meant; may relate to high characters or only to low characters.

The Light of Suggestion

In these various alternatives, there is full freedom of choice of the texture when the speaker happens to be devoid of sentiment and emotion. Even when the character created by the poet is devoid of sentiment and emotion, the above will apply. But when the poet or a character created by him happens to be 'a speaker' suffused with sentiment and emotion, and sentiment itself is principally intended and as such of the nature of suggestion, then as a rule, we will have only two kinds of texture, viz., that without compounds and that with medium-sized compounds. So far as the sentiments, viz., the Pathetic and Love-in-seperation are concerned, the texture will be only the one without compounds. If one were to ask why, we would give the following reply :-When sentiment is to be primarily delineated, all possible impediments and deterrents to its comprehension should be avoided in every way. In these circumstances, an excessive fondness for employing the said texture may impede the comprehension of sentiment since compounds lend themselves to various kinds of interpretations.

ध्वन्यालोक:

नात्यन्तमभिनिवेशः शोभते। विशेषतोऽभिनेयार्थे काव्ये, ततोडन्यत्रं च विशेषतः करुणाविप्रलम्भशृङ्गारयोः। तयोर्हि सुकुमारतरत्वात्स्वल्पायामप्य- स्वेच्छतायाँ शब्दार्थयोः प्रतीतिमेन्थरीभवति। रसान्तरे पुनः प्रतिपाद्ये रौद्रादौ 5 मध्यमसमासा सङ्घटना कदाचिद्रौद्रोदात्तनायकसम्बन्धलब्ध्यापाराश्रयेण दीर्घ- समासापि वाँ तदाक्षेपाविनाभाविरसोचितवाच्यापेक्षया न विशुङ्गणा भवतीति साऽपि नात्यन्तं परिहार्यो। सर्वासु च सङ्घटनासु प्रसादलयो गुणो व्यापी। स हि सर्वरससाधारणः सर्वसङ्घटनासाधारणश्चेत्युक्तम्। प्रसादातिशे व्यसमासापि सङ्घटना करुणाविप्रलम्भशृङ्गारौ न व्यनक्ति। तदपरित्यागे च मध्यमसमासापि 10 न न प्रकाशयति। तस्मात्सर्वत्र प्रसादोऽनुसर्तव्यः। अत एव च “यो यः शास्त्रं बिभर्ति ” इत्यादौ यद्योजसः स्थितिरेष्यते तत्प्रसादस्य एव गुणो न माधुर्येण। न चाचारुत्वम्; अभीप्सितरसप्रकाशनात्। तस्माद्गुणाव्यतिरिक्तत्वे व सङ्घटनाया यथोक्तादौचित्याद्द्विषयतयामोदस्तीति तस्या अपि रसव्यञ्जकत्वम्। तस्याश्च रसाभिव्यक्तिनिमित्तभूताया योऽयमनन्तरोक्को 15 नियमहेतुः स एव गुणानां नियतो विषय इति गुणाश्रयेण न व्यवस्थानमप्यविरुद्धम्।

विषयाश्रयमप्यनदौचित्यं तां नियच्छति।

काव्यप्रभेदाश्रयत: स्थिता भेदवती हि सा॥ ७॥

१. ‘ नत्नान्त्र ’-म, KLV. २. ‘स्वेच्छतायाँ ’-क-ख. ३. o सम्बन्ध o-MB. 4. ‘व्यापारश्रये ’-ख. ५. ‘समासाश्रयाप ’-क-ख. ६. ‘ तमासापि प्रकाशयति ’ -. ष; न प्रकाशयति - क, ग, No. 254 ( BORI ). ७. ‘गुणोऽतिरिक्तत्वे ’-ग. ८. ‘व्यतिरेकत्वे वा ’ -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

This is particularly true of literature meant for the stage and even in other forms of literature when the sentiments, viz., the Pathetic and Love-in-separation happen to be delineated. Since these two sentiments are most delicate, even the slightest obscurity in word or meaning will impede their comprehension. When other sentiments like the Furious are to be delineated, there is no need for eschewing middle-sized texture entirely: sometimes when the exploits of a "brave and braggart" hero are to be described, it is not essential that even the texture with long compounds should be completely forsaken. For even such textures are in no way inferior to the expressed meanings which suggest sentiments.

To all these textures, the quality of Perspicuity is uniformly applicable. It has been already remarked that it is common to all sentiments as well as all textures. If perspicuity should be abandoned, even textures without compounds will not be able to suggest the sentiments of Pathos and Love-in-separation. On the other hand, if it is not so abandoned, even textures of middle-sized compounds can suggest them. Hence Perspicuity deserves incorporation everywhere. So if one does not like to regard an instance like Whoever bears weapons... etc. as containing Forcefulness one should at least consider it as an instance of the quality, viz., Perspicuity and not of Sweetness. No loss of charm will result (in the example even if one should regard it like this ), since the intended sentiment will be suggested anyway. Therefore whether one holds that texture is identical with qualities or that it is different from qualities, it is indeed suggestive of sentiments since its scope is governed by the rule of decorum explained above. The same rule of decorum which we described so long as applicable to textures suggestive of sentiment, will invariably govern the aim of qualities too ; and hence even if one were to decide that texture depends on the support of qualities, it would not contradict our position.

Another consideration which governs the usage of a texture is its decorum with regard to the literary medium adopted. Texture thus becomes different in different forms of literature.

Sāhityadarpaṇaḥ

Viśvanātha Kavirāja

वक्तृवाच्यगतौचित्ये सत्यपि विषयाश्रयमन्दौचित्यं सङ्घटनां नियच्छति । यतः काव्यस्य प्रभेदाः - मुक्तकं सङ्स्कृतप्राकृतापभ्रंशानिबद्धम्, सन्दानितकविशेषककलापकुलकानि, पर्योयान्धः, परिकथा, खण्डकथासकलकथे, सर्गबन्धोडभिनेयार्थमाश्रयायिकाकथे इत्येवमादयः । तदाश्रयेणापि सङ्घटनाविशेषवती भवति । तत्र मुक्तकेषु रसबन्धाभिनिवेशिनः कवस्तदा श्रयमौचित्यम् । तच्च दर्शीतमेव । अन्यत्र कामचारः ।

मुक्तकेषु प्रणन्धेषु रसबन्धाभिनिवेशिनः कवयो दृश्यन्ते । तथाहि मुक्तकेष्वमुक्तकाः शृङ्गाररसस्यान्तद्नः प्रबन्धायमानाः प्रसिद्धा एव । सन्दानितकादिषु तु विकटनिरचनौचित्यान्नमध्यमसमासाद्दीर्यसमासे एव रचने ।

प्रबन्धाश्रयेषु यथोक्तप्रबन्धौचित्यमेवानुसर्तव्यम् । पर्योयान्धे पुनः समासमध्यमसमासे एव सङ्घटने । कदाचिदर्थौचित्याश्रयेण दीर्घसमासायामपि सङ्घटनायां पुरुषा ग्राम्या च वृत्तिः परिहर्तव्या । परिकथायां कामचारः, तत्रेतिवृत्तमात्रोपन्यासेन नात्यन्तं रसबन्धाभिनिवेशात् । खण्डकथासकलकथयोस् तु प्राकृतप्रसिद्धयोः कुलकादिनिबन्धनभूयस्त्वाद्दीर्घसमासायामपि न

१. 'विषयाश्रयगतमनौचित्यं' ग., 'विषयाश्रयमनदौचित्यं' - घ. २. कालापक-घ. ३. परिकथा सकलकथा खण्डकथा - घ. ४. ° माख्यायिका कथेत्येवमादयः - घ. ५. 'अन्यत्र तु' क - ख. ६. 'मुक्तकेषु हि'-घ. ७. ° स्पन्दिनः प्रत्येकं - MB. ८ 'बन्धौचित्यात्' - ग. ९. 'संघटने'-घ. १०. 'प्रबन्धाश्रितेषु' - क - ख. ११. 'पद्यबन्धेषु' क - ख. १२. 'कथायां तु' क - ख. १३. कयोः - त्र.

The Light of Suggestion

In addition to decorum of speaker and the spoken, decorum of the literary medium also governs the choice of texture. Literature in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramśa has various forms such as 'pearls' (muktakas i. e., single stanzas forming a self-contained unit) or run-on verses of two, three, four or more stanzas in the same metre forming a single unit, stanzas in one or more metres describing a single topic, didactic stories in verse, full-fledged fiction in verse, short stories in verse, epics, dramatic works, historical novels in prose and romantic novels in prose. Texture becomes varied due to differences in their literary forms also. Of these, a poet who is intent on delineation of sentiment in Pearls will be guided by the considerations of decorum relating to sentiment. This decorum has already been explained. In Pearls where the poet has no such intent, he is free to employ any texture he likes.

Poets are, however, mostly seen to be intent on delineating sentiment even in Pearls as in full-fledged literary works. Thus the Pearls of the poet Amaru are famous for their profusion in the Erotic sentiment; and they are regarded as good as full-fledged works in point of charm. In run-on verses of two stanzas etc., affected and involved construction itself becomes proper and therefore we will have textures of medium-sized and long compounds. But if these run-on verses occur as parts of another whole poem, then the decorum towards a whole poem, indicated already, will apply to it. In works dealing with a single theme and containing verses in one or more metres, the textures to be employed should be only those without compounds and with medium-sized compounds, Sometimes, though the texture of long compounds might occur in view of decorum of content, 'harsh' and 'pallid' dictions will have to be avoided therein. But there is no such rule so far as didactic stories in verse are concerned. The reason is that there will just be a narration of the story and no intention of delineating sentiment. Full-fledged stories and short stories in verse are common only in the Prakrit language and they abound in run-on verses up to more than five stanzas. Therefore, the use of texture with long compounds also will not be wrong in them. The decorum of diction should always be decided in view of the sentiments to be delineated.

विरोधः । वृत्यौचित्यं तु यथारसमनुसर्तव्यम् । सर्गबन्धे तु रसंतात्पर्ये यथारसमौचित्यमन्यथा तु कामचारः; द्वयोरपि मार्गयोः सर्गबन्धविधायिनां३ दर्शोनादसतात्पर्यं साधीयः । अभिनेयार्थे तु सर्वथा रसबन्धेऽभिनिवेशः कार्यः । आभ्यायिकाकथयोस्तु गद्यानिबन्धनकौतुकोत्पाद्ये छन्दोबन्धभिन्नप्रस्थानत्वाद्दिह नियमे हेतुरक्तपवोऽपि मनाक् क्रियते ।

एतद्यथोक्तमौचित्यमेव तस्यां नियामकम् । सर्वत्र गद्यबन्धेऽपि छन्दोनियमवर्जिते ॥ ८ ॥

यदेतदौचित्यं कत्रृवाच्यगतं सङ्क्षणया नियामकमुक्तमेतदेव गद्ये छन्दोनियमवर्जितेऽपि विषयापेक्षं नियमहेतुः । तद्वात्रापि यदा कविः कविनिषद्रो वा वक्ता रसभावरहितस्तदा कामचारः । रसभावसमाविष्टे तु वक्तरि पूर्वोक्तमेवानुसर्तव्यम् । तत्रापि च विषयौचित्यमेव । आभ्यायिकायां तु भूतं मध्ममसमासादिर्वसमासे पेढ सङ्क्षेपणे । गद्यस्य विकटनिबन्धोऽश्रयेण छायावत्त्वात् । तत्र न तस्य प्रकृत्यमानत्वात् । कथायां तु विकटनिबन्धप्रकुर्येऽपि गद्यस्य रस-

चन्योक्तमौचित्यमनुसर्तव्यम् ।

रसबन्धोक्तमौचित्यं भाति सर्वत्र संश्रिता । रचना विषयापेक्षं तत्रु किश्चित्क्विद्भेदवत् ॥ ९ ॥

अथवा पद्यवद्बन्धेऽपि रसबन्धोक्तमौचित्यं सर्वत्र संश्रिता रचना भवति१० । तत्तु विषयापेक्षं किश्चित्क्विद्भेदवद्वति, न तु सर्वोकारम् । तथा हि

१. ‘रस०’ क-ख-फुसकयोः नास्ति; ‘रसतात्पर्येण’ - घ. २. ‘कामचारात्’-ग. ३. ‘बन्धायिनां’- ग. ४. ‘विभिन्नप्रस्थाने निबन्धनत्वात्’-क-ख. ५. ‘नस्मात्’ - क-ख, No. 254 (BORI). ६. ‘यथा निबन्धोऽपि’-ग. ७. ‘तत्रापि’ -क-ख, KLV, तत्रापि वा - घ. ८. ‘एतत्’ - क-ख, KLV. ९. विकटनिबन्धो - घ, KLV. १०. ‘भाति’ - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

If an epic should be intent upon delineating sentiments, the decorum of sentiment will govern its use of texture. Otherwise, it is left to the free choice of the poet. We can see writers of epics who have composed works in both these ways; but of the two, the works that are intent upon sentiment should be regarded as superior. In dramatic works, anyway, there should be a sole intent of delineating sentiment. So far as historical novels and romantic novels are concerned, they are found mostly in prose only and their method differs from that of metrical works. Since the ancients have not given any specific rules concerning these, we shall frame them here in brief:

The Light of Suggestion

The considerations of decorum detailed above will also govern all prose works which are not governed by the rules of metre.

The Light of Suggestion

Though prose works are not governed by rules of metre, the considerations of decorum mentioned above, viz., that of the speaker, the spoken and the literary medium, govern them. Here too, the poet is free to employ any texture he likes when the speaker is a poet or a character invented by a poet devoid of all sentiment and emotion. But if the speaker happens to be suffused with sentiment and emotion, the mentioned principles of decorum should be applied. And among them also decorum of the literary medium is of the highest importance. In the historical novel we find mostly textures with medium-sized and long compounds. The reason lies in the fact that literary prose attains beauty through the assistance of affected and involved construction. But in the romantic novel, though there is preference for involved construction, decorum of sentiment should be retained.

The Light of Suggestion

Texture with decorum in the delineation of sentiments will shine out wherever it might be found. It will, however, assume a shade of variation coupled with the decorum of literary medium.

The Light of Suggestion

In other words, texture with decorum in delineating sentiments will shine out everywhere - in prose-works as well as in metrical ones. But due to decorum of particular literary media it acquires slightly different shades, but does not transform itself entirely.

Dhvanyāloka:

गद्यवन्धेडप्यतिदीर्घसमासा रचना न विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारकुणयोराख्यायिकायामपि शोभते । नाटकादावप्यसमासैवं नं रौद्रवीरादिवर्णने । विषयापेक्षं त्वौचित्यं प्रमाणतोडपकृष्यते प्रकृष्यते च । तथा ह्याख्यायिकां नाट्यन्तमस्मासा स्वविषयेडपि नाटकादौ नातिदीर्घसमासा चेति सङ्क्षिप्यनाया दिङ्नुसर्तव्या ।

इति काव्यार्थविवेको योऽयं चेतरचमत्कृतिविधायो । सूरिभिरनुसृतसमौरसदुपज्ञो न विस्मार्यः³ ॥ ५ ॥

इदानীমलङ्कृयकवयद्धचो ध्वने: प्रबन्धात्मा रामायणंमहाभारतादि प्रकाशमान: प्रसिद्ध एव । तस्य तु यथा प्रकाशानं तत्प्रतिपाद्यते । -

विभावभावानुभावसंश्चारिभिोचित्यचारुणः । विधि: कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योन्मेषक्षितस्य वा ॥ १० ॥

इतिट्टतत्त्ववशायातां त्यक्त्वाननुगुणां स्थितिम् । उत्प्रेक्ष्योऽयन्तराभीष्टरसोचितकथोचयः ॥ ११ ॥

सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया । न तु केवलया शास्त्रास्थितिसम्पादनेच्छया ॥ १२ ॥

१. °समासैव घटना - घ. २. 'न' - घ पुस्तके नास्ति. ३. इय-मायां - क - ख - घ. ५. 'पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति:' - ग पुस्तके KLV,M.B पुस्तके चास्ति. ४. 'ध्वनिप्रबन्धो रामायण' -घ. ५. 'तथा' - ग. ६. 'वशागता' - ख. ७. उत्प्रक्ष्यो - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

For instance, even in prose works, and even if there should be a historical novel amongst them, texture with long compounds will not be beautiful when the sentiments of Love-in-separation and Pathos are being delineated. So also in dramas etc., even while portraying the Furious and the Heroic sentiments, only the texture without compounds is utilised. The decorum of literary medium is both greater and smaller in degree than the decorum of sentiment ( from different points of view ). In the historical novel, we do not have texture without compounds even while depicting sentiments of Love-in-separation and Pathos. So also in dramas etc. we do not get texture with very long compounds even while depicting the Furious and such other sentiments. In this way one should understand the direction in which texture is employed.

The Light of Suggestion

' Suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality ' relating to a whole work is quite well known in such works as the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata. How it is suggested therein is explained below :-

The Light of Suggestion

Construction of only such a plot, either traditional or invented, as is charming with its decorum of ( the accessories of sentiment, viz., ) stimuli of setting, abiding emotions, emotional responses, and passing moods;

The Light of Suggestion

Thus we have enunciated for the first time such principles of literature as will illumine the minds of readers. Learned men who are given to gathering intrinsic excellences from others should never forget these.

The Light of Suggestion

If, in a theme, adapted from a traditional source, the poet is faced with situations conflicting with the intended sentiment, his readiness to leave out such incidents and inventing in their place even imaginary incidents with a view to delineating the intended sentiment :

The Light of Suggestion

The construction of divisions and sub-dividions of the plot only with a view to delineating sentiments and not at all with a desire for mere conformity to rules of poetics :

ध्वन्यालोक:

उद्दीपनप्रशमने यथावसरमन्तरा । रसस्यारन्धाविश्रान्तेरनुसन्धानमाङ्गिन: ॥ २३ ॥

अलङ्कृतीनां शक्तावप्यानुरूप्येण योजनम् । प्रभन्धस्य रसादीनां व्यङ्गयत्वे निबन्धनम् ॥ २८ ॥

प्रबन्धोऽपि रसादीनां व्यञ्जक इत्युक्तं तस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे निबन्धनम् । प्रथमं तावद्विभावभावानुभावसंचारीौंचित्यचातुर्यं कथाशरीरस्य विधियर्थायथं प्रतिपादयिषितरसभावापेक्षया यं उचितो विभावो भावोऽनुभाव: सञ्चारी वा तदौचित्यचारुः कथाशरीरस्य विधियर्थञ्जकत्वे निबन्धनमेकम् । तत्र विभावौचित्यं तावत्प्रसिद्धम् । भावौचित्यं तु प्रकृत्यौचित्यात् । प्रकृतिहि-

त्पमध्यमाधमभावेन् दिव्यमानुषादिभावेन च विभेदिनी । तां यथायथमनुसृत्यासङ्गीणः स्थायी भाव उपनिबध्यमान औचित्यं भागं भवति । अन्यथा तु केतकरमानुषाश्रयेण दिव्यस्यं केवलदिव्याश्रयेण वा केवलमानुषस्यो-

त्साहादय उपनिबध्यमाना अनुचिता भवन्ति । तथा च केवलमानुष्य राजादेवेण्णने सापार्णवलड्ढनादिलक्षणा व्यापार उपनिबध्यमाना: सौष्ठवभृतोऽपि नीरसैव नियमेन भवन्ति, तत्र त्वनौचित्यमेव हेतुः ।

नतु नागलोकगमनादय: सातवाहनप्रभृतीनां श्रूयन्ते, तद्लोकसामान्यप्रभावांतिशयवर्णनेन किमनौचित्यं सर्वोर्वीभरणक्षमाणां धरामुजामिति ।

१. 'यथा वा रसमन्तरा' - क-ख. २. 'प्रतिपिपादयिषितरस' - स्व. ३. 'व्यक्तमा-घषभावेन' - ग. ४. औचित्यवान् - घ. ५. 'दिव्यस्योत्तम्' - ग. ६. केवलं - घ - पुस्तके नास्ति. ७. 'मत्रुष्यस्य' - स्व, केवलमत्रुष्यस्य - ग. ८. भान्ति - घ. ९. 'प्रभावादाति' - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Bringing about both the high tide of sentiment and its low ebb appropriately in the work; preserving the unity of the principal sentiment from begining to end;

A discreet use of figures of speech even when the poet is capable of using them in any number; such are the conditions which underlie the suggestiveness of a whole work of literature in regard to sentiments, etc.

It has been already observed that a whole work of literature may also be suggestive of sentiments, etc. The conditions that underlie such suggestiveness are (enlisted here):-

(1) The first condition is the construction of a beautiful plot, beautiful because of decorum in the use of stimuli of setting, emotions, emotional responses and passing moods with a view to the sentiments and emotions primarily intended to be delineated. Of these, the decorum of stimuli of setting is well known. The decorum of abiding emotions results from the decorum relating to the nature of characters Nature of characters can be divided into (1) High (2) Middle and (3) Low from one point of view and (1) Divine and (2) Human from another. Whatever the nature of the character delineated, the adoption of such an abiding emotion as is peculiar to the one chosen (without scope for confusion) will ensure decorum. Otherwise indecorum will result if one were to attribute 'divine' (i.e. super-human) high-spiritedness to characters who are but human or to attribute 'human' high-spiritedness to characters who are divine. Thus it is that the description of supernatural exploits like jumping across the seven seas on the part of kings etc. who are only human, will appear devoid of sentiment in spite of their intrinsic worth. The reason for this is indecorum and nothing else.

At this point one might raise the following objection:- Indeed legendary kings like Sātavāhana have been credited with superhuman exploits like going to the netherworld of serpents etc. (in the well-known stories about them). How can there be any indecorum in even an exaggerated description of superhuman powers etc. on the part of kings who are supreme emperors of the entire earth?

ध्वन्यालोक:

नैतदस्ति; न वयं बूमो यत्प्रभावातिशायवर्णनमनुचितं राज्ञाम्, किं तु केवल- मानुषाश्रयेण योत्पाद्यवस्तुकथा क्रियते तस्यां दिव्यमौचित्यं न योजनीयम् । दिव्यमानुष्यां तु कथायामुभयमौचित्ययोजनमविरुद्धमेव । यथा पाण्डवादिषु सातवाहनादिषु तु येषु यादृपदौँ श्रूयते तेषु तावन्मात्रमनुगम्य- 5 मानमनुगुणत्वेन प्रतिभासते । व्यतिरिकं तु तेषामेवोपानिबध्यमानमनुचितम् ।

अनौचित्यादते नान्यद्रसभङस्य कारणम् । प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपरिष्टपरः ॥

अत एव च भरते प्ररूळ्यातवस्तुविषयत्वं प्रनूळातोदारत्नायकत्वं च नाटकस्यावश्यकतन्यतयोपन्यस्तम् । तेन हि नाटकौचित्यानौचित्यविषय कविभिः स्थीयते । यस्तूपपाद्यवस्तु नाटकादि कुयोत्पस्य प्रसिद्धानुचितनायक- स्वभाववर्णने महान् प्रमादः ।

ननु यद्युत्साहादिभाववर्णने कथमिहदिव्यमानुष्याचौचित्यपरीक्षा क्रियते तत्कियतां तु किं तथा प्रयोजनम् ? रतिरहि भारतवर्षोचितेनैव 15 व्यवहारेण दिव्यानामपि वर्णनीयेत स्थितिः । नैवम्; तत्रौचित्यातिक्रमेण सुतरां दोषः । तथा ह्यधमप्रकृत्यौचित्येनोत्तमप्रकृतेः शृङ्गारोपनिबन्धने का भवेल्लो- पहास्यता । 'त्रिविधं' प्रकृत्यौचित्यं भारतवर्षेऽप्यस्ति शृङ्गारविषयम् । यत्तु

१. मानुष्यां-BP. २. पाण्डवादि-MB. ३. 'अपदानं'-ग. ४. 'तदेव' -क-ख. ५. 'काव्यस्योपनिबन्धनं'-Poona Ms. ( BORI, XII, No. 186 and No. 183 ). ६. प्ररूळ्यप्रयुक्तं-ग. ७. 'विषये कर्तव्ये कविना'-ग ८. 'चित्र्यते'-घ. ९. 'विविधं'-व.

The Light of Suggestion

The objection does not apply to what we have said. We do not say that any and every exaggerated description of the powers of human kings is improper. What we say is that while a new plot is being invented by the poet with a human being as the hero, divine characteristics should not be depicted in him. But if the plot happens to be one chosen from a well known legend in which both the divine and human elements are already found interfused, the poet can, by all means, bring in these elements into his own plot without being open to the charge of indecorum. The stories of Pāṇḍavas, etc. provide good examples. Even in stories of Sātavāhana, etc. an inclusion of just such superhuman elements as possess the authority of legends would be advisable. Description of other superhuman elements which do not possess such authority would be certainly improper. Hence the following should be deemed as the quintessence of the matter.

There is no other cause for a breach in sentiment except indecorum. The greatest secret about sentiment is conformity to well known considerations of decorum.

This is indeed the reason why Bharata has laid the strict rule that in a drama par excellence only a well known plot and a well known noble hero should appear. If this rule is followed, a poet can never go wrong in the matter of decorum in relation to the hero with impossible superhuman characteristics when writing a drama with a plot invented by himself.

There is scope at this point for another objection :—“ We can agree to your making a distinction between ‘human’ and ‘superhuman’ decorum so far as abiding emotions like ‘high-spiritedness’ are concerned; but what is the use of making this distinction in decorum when abiding emotions like love are involved? The fact is that we can describe even divine love only in terms of love familiar to us in kings of our own land, viz., Bhāratavarṣa ”.

It is not so. Transgression of decorum would indeed be a grave defect even in the other emotions. Would it not be ridiculous if the love of a low character is depicted after the manner of a high character? Even in our own land there is thus a different decorum to be observed in regard to each of the three—

ध्वन्यालोक:

दिव्यमौचित्यं तत्सत्रानुपकारकमेवेति चेत्-न वयं दिव्यमौचित्यं शृङ्गारविषय-मन्यतिक्विद्बूमः । किं तर्हि? भारतवर्षविषये यथोत्तमनायकेषु राजादिषु शृङ्गारोपनिबन्धैस्स्था दिव्याश्रयोऽपि शोभते । न च राजादिषु ग्राम्य-शृङ्गारोपनिबन्धनं प्रसिद्धं नाटकादौ, तथैव देवेपु तत्परिहर्तव्यम् । नाटकादेरभिनेयार्थत्वाद्भिनयस्य च सम्बोगशृङ्गारविषयस्यासम्भ्यतावात्त्र परिहार इति चेत्; यद्भिनयस्यैवंविषयस्यासम्भ्यता तत्कालस्यैवंविषयस्य सा केन निवार्यते? तस्मादभिनेयार्थेडनभिनेयार्थे वा काव्ये यदुत्तमप्रकृते राजादेरुत्तम-प्रकृतिनांयिकाभिः सह ग्राम्यसम्भोगवर्णनं तत्पित्रोस्सम्भोगवर्णनमिव सुतराम-सद्यम् । तथैवोस्मदेक्तादिविषयम् ।

ने न सम्भोगशृङ्गारस्य गुरुतरलक्षणं पैकः प्रकारः शृङ्गारनयेपि प्रभेदः । परस्परप्रेमदर्शनादयः सम्भवन्ति, ते कस्यादृत्तमप्रकृतिविषये न वर्ण्यन्ते? तस्मादुत्साहवद्रतावपि प्रकृत्यौचित्यमनुसर्तव्यम् । तथैव विस्मयादिषु । यत्क्वैव-विधे विषये महाकवीनामप्यसमोक्ष्यकारिता लक्ष्ये दृश्यते स दोष एव । स तु शक्तितिरसकृतत्वादेषां न लक्ष्यत इत्युक्तमेव । अनुभवौचित्यं तु भरतादि-प्रसिद्धमेव ।

१. 'यच्चान्यदिव्यमौचित्यं' -घ. २. न(द)ग्राम्युपकार० -घ. ३. 'शृङ्गार उपनिबद्ध:' -क.-ख. ४. प्रसिद्धग्राम्य० -घ., BP; 'अप्रसिद्धग्राम्यसंभोगशृङ्गार' -क.-ख. ५. 'परिहारतव्यम्' -क. ६. 'अभिनेयार्थत्वान्नत्र परिहार ' - ग, अभिनेयत्वाद० -घ. ७. 'अभिनेयस्य' -घ. ८. विषयत्वान्नत्र - घ. ९. 'सम्भ्यता' - क-ख, ' सद्यता' -घ. १०. तस्मादभिनेयार्थे च काव्ये - घ. ११. 'उत्तमस्वाभिः सह.' -ग. १२. वर्णनाव सुतरामसद्यम् -क.-ख. १३. 'यावदन्ये च परस्परप्रेम-दर्शनादयः प्रभेदाः सन्ति' - ख. १४. 'तस्मात्' -ग.

The Light of Suggestion

fold types of characters in delineating the Erotic sentiment. If one were to say that decorum relating to divine characters is extraneous, we would say in reply that we affirm no such thing at all as a different decorum with regard to the Erotic sentiment which is unique to divine characters. On the other hand, we would affirm that the delineation of the Erotic sentiment in divine characters also will become delightful only when it is done after the manner of the Erotic sentiment in kings and such other high characters in our land. In dramas etc. one does not usually come across any delineation of vulgar erotic sentiment in the high characters such as kings. Along the same lines, this should be avoided in depicting the love of divine characters also. Even if one were to say that dramas are only meant to be enacted and, since an enacting of physical erotic sentiment would be indecent, it is eschewed only in dramas, we would ask back why the same indecency as relates to their enacting should not also relate to their description in poetry. Hence the truth is that both in dramas meant to be represented on the stage and in poems meant only to be read, any description of vulgar Erotic sentiment with reference to high characters like royal heroes and heroines would be as much impolite as a detailed account of the sexual act of one's own parents. The same is true also of its description with reference to divine characters who are of a high stature.

Nor is dalliance the only form of the Erotic sentiment. It includes other forms, too, like mutual love, sight, etc. Why should not they be delineated with reference to high characters? Thus we can conclude that decorum in the nature of characters is as much applicable to emotions like love as to high-spiritedness. The same is true of emotions like surprise. While it is true that in these matters even first-rate poets have erred and shown indiscretion, still their defect does not appear glaringly as a defect because it is covered up by their genius, as mentioned already.

Decorum relating to the depiction of emotional responses has been treated at length in the well known works of Bharata and others.

ध्वन्यालोक:

इयत्तोच्यते - भरतादिविराचितां स्थितिं वानुर्वतमानेन महाकविप्रबन्धान्वा पर्यालोचयता स्वप्रतिभां वानुसरता कविनावहितचेतसा भूत्वा विभावाद्यौचित्यभ्रंशापरिल्यागे परः प्रयत्नो विधेयः औचित्यवतः कथाशरीरस्य वृत्तस्योत्प्रेक्षितस्य वा ग्रहो व्यज्जक इत्येनैतत्प्रतिपाद्यति - यदितिहासादिषु कथासु रसवत्सु विविधासु सतीष्वपि यत्तत्र विभावाद्यौचित्यवत्कथाशरीरं तदेव ग्राह्यं नेतरत् । वृत्तादपि च कथाशरीरादुत्प्रेक्षिते विशेषतः प्रयत्नवता भवितव्यम् । तत्र हृदन्वधानात्स्वलतः केवलबुद्धिप्रतिसम्भावना महती भवति । परिकरश्लोकशास्त्र—

कथाशरीरमुत्पाद्यवस्तु कार्यं तथातथा । यथा रसमयं सर्वमेव तत्प्रतिभासते ॥

तत्र चाम्युपायः सम्यक्विभावाद्यौचित्यानुसरणम् । तच्च दर्शितमेव ।

किञ्च— सन्ति सिद्दरसप्रख्या ये च व रामायणादयः । कथाश्रयां न तैरोज्या स्वेच्छा रसविरोधिनी ॥

तेषु हि कथाश्रयेपु तावत्स्वेच्छैव न योज्या । यदुक्तम्— 'कथामार्गे न चातिक्रमः' । स्वेच्छया वा यदि योज्यते, रसविरोधिनी न योज्या ।

इदमपरं प्रबन्धस्य रसाभिव्यञ्जकत्वे निबन्धनम् । इतिवृत्तवशायातां कथाविदसानुगुणां स्थितिं त्यक्त्वा पुनरुत्प्रेक्ष्याप्यनन्तराभीष्टरसोचितकथोन्नेयो

१. 'औचित्यवता' - क-ख-व. २. 'तो स्थितिं वानुवर्तमाने' वृत्तदीप' कथा' - क ख.. ३. व-हि तत्-घ. ४. 'हि' घ - पुसने नास्ति ५. 'शरीरात्तु' - क-ख-व. ६. 'एतत्प्रति-' भासते - १ ७. 'कथाश्रयातु'-क-ख. ८. 'निर्दर्शनम्' -क-ख-व. ९. कथोन्नेयोऽपि-घः

The Light of Suggestion

We shall content ourselves with saying only this much :- Every poet who is not only obedient to the rules laid down by Bharata and others but who has critically studied the literary works of first-rate poets and who also follows the dictates of his own creative imagination, should direct all his efforts with great concentration towards the avoidance of indecorum in the matter of stimuli of setting, etc.

The Light of Suggestion

The statement in the text that it is the adoption of a plot endowed with decorum - whether historical or invented - which will become suggestive, indicates this : Though in chronicles etc. there may be several sentimental stories, only that in which there is decorum of setting etc. should be selected by the poet as his theme and not any other. He will have to show greater care in the construction of an invented plot than in that of a historical one. For, if the poet were to stumble in that due to his carelessness, it would make one conclude that the poet's want of education is very great. These ideas are summed up in the following aphorism :-

The Light of Suggestion

When constructing an invented plot, one should so arrange every individual part that the whole becomes full of sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

Conformity to the rules of decorum of setting etc. is the means towards achieving it; and it has already been explained. Moreover,

The Light of Suggestion

The sentiments of works like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahā-bhārata are indeed fixed as it were. The poet's liberty should not go to the extent of violating these fixed sentiments in plots based upon such works.

The Light of Suggestion

When such works happen to be sources of the plot, the poet's freedom of invention should not find any scope at all. Even the ancients have declared : "There should not be any transgression in the construction of a well known traditional story ". If at all the poet's freedom should find scope, it should be such as will not go against the original sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

( 2 ) The second condition which governs the suggestive power of a whole work of literature is this : If, in a plot adopted from a well known source, the poet is faced with situations

ध्वन्यालोक:

विघेय:, यथा कालिदासप्रबन्धेषु । यथा च सर्वसेनविराचिते हरिविजये । यथा च मधीय एवाजुनचरिते महाकाव्ये । कविना काव्यसुपनिबन्धनता सर्वोत्कर्षरसपरतन्त्रेण भावितव्यम् । तत्रेतिवृत्ते यदि रसानुरूपं संस्थं पर्येत्तां भडक्त्वापि स्वतन्त्रतया रसानुरूपं क्यान्तरसङ्घादयेत् । न हि कवेरीतिवृत्तमात्रनिवर्हणेन किचित्प्रयोजनम्, इतिहासोदितत्सिद्धे: ।

रसादिव्यञ्जकत्वे प्रबन्धस्य चेदमन्यनमुल्यं निबन्धनं, यत्सन्धीनां मुखप्रातिमुखगर्भावमर्शानिर्वहणास्यानां तदङ्गानां चोपक्षेपादीनां घटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया, यथा रत्नावल्याम्; न तु केवलं शास्त्रस्थितिसम्पादनेच्छया । यथा वेणीसंहारे विलासास्वस्य प्रतिमुखसन्ध्यङ्गस्य प्रकृतरसनिबन्धानुगुणमपि द्वितीयेऽङ्के मरतमतानुसारणमात्रेच्छया वचनम् । इदं चापरं प्रबन्धस्य रसवयङ्कत्वे निमित्तं यदुद्दीपनप्रशमने यथावसरमनन्तरा रसस्य, यथा रत्नावल्यामेव । पुनरारङ्गाविश्रान्ते रसस्याङ्गीणोडनुसन्धिः, यथा तापसवत्सराजे ।

प्रबन्धविशेषस्य च नाटकादे रसव्यक्तिनिमित्तमिति दृ चापरमवगन्तव्यं यदलङ्कृतीनां शक्तावप्यानुरूप्येण योजनम् । शक्तो हि कवि: कदाचिदलङ्कारनिबन्धने तद्विभावनादीनपेक्षतिरसभङ्ग: । प्रभञ्जनारभते वातवेगा-र्थोपमर्दनिबन्धनशक्तिक्रम् । हृष्यन्ते च कवयोडलङ्कारनिबन्धनैक-रसाऽनपेक्षितरसाः प्रबन्धेषु । किञ्च —

१. प्रबन्धसुपनिबन्धनता - घ. २. 'यथावसरमनन्तरा रसस्य' - क-ख- पुस्तकपाठोऽस्ति. ३. 'परमवगन्तव्यं' - ग., चावगन्तव्यं - घ. ४. 'रसाऽनपेक्षातरसाः' - क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

conflicting with the intended sentiment, he should be prepared to leave out such incidents inventing in their place even imaginary ones in conformity to the intended sentiment. Kālidāsa's works provide us very good illustrations (of this condition): and so does the Harivijaya of Sarvasena. An example may also be found in my own epic poem - Arjunacarita. A poet writing a whole work should be entirely bound by the demands made by sentiment. If he finds, therefore, in a historical source an element which is inappropriate to the sentiment, he should not hesitate to break away from it freely and to invent a new episode in its place which will be appropriate to the sentiment. The poet achieves no purpose indeed by blind fidelity to the story in sources, for this will have already been accomplished by the chronicles themselves.

The Light of Suggestion

(3) Another important condition which governs the suggestiveness of works is this :- The divisions of plot, viz., Opening, Enlargement, Complication, Deliberation and Conclusion and their sub-divisions such as the 'sowing of the seed,' etc., should be constructed only with a view to the delineation of sentiment, as in Ratnāvalī; and not with any desire for achieving conformity to rules (just for the sake of conformity) as in Venīsamhāra, where Merriment, a sub-division of the division of plot, viz., Enlargement, has been included in the Second Act though it is most inappropriate to the main sentiment, only because of the keenness of the author in obeying the rules laid down by Bharata.

The Light of Suggestion

(4) Another condition governing the suggestiveness of works is the proper portrayal of the rise and fall of the relevant sentiment. This is also found illustrated in the Ratnāvalī. Similarly, preservation of the unity of the principal sentiment is also important and this can be seen in Tāpasavatsarāja.

The Light of Suggestion

(5) There is also another condition which governs the suggestiveness of specific works like the drama and it is the discreet use of figures of speech even when the poet is capable of using them in plenty. A poet who is an adept in the employment of figures often becomes so much engrossed in them that he will compose his work in utter disregard of the delineation of sentiment. This rule has been laid down here for the edification of such a person. We commonly come across such instances of poets

Dhvanyāloka:

अनुस्वानोपमाप्त्यापि प्रभेदो य उदाहृतः । ध्वनेऽस्य प्रवन्धेषु भासते सोऽपि केशवचित् ॥१५॥

अस्य विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यस्य ध्वनेःरणनरूपतया चोदपि यः प्रभेद उदाहृतो द्विप्रकारः सोऽपि प्रभन्धेषु केशवचितो ते । तथ्या मधुमथनाविजय 5 पात्रजन्योक्तिषु । यथा वा कामदेवस्य सहचरसमागमे विषमबाणलीलायाम् । यथा च गृध्रगोमायुसंवादादौ महाभारते ।

सुप्सिड्‌धचनसम्बन्धैस्तथा कारकशक्तिभिः । कृतादितसमासैश्च ज्योत्स्नोडलक्ष्यक्रमः कचित् ॥ १६ ॥

अलक्ष्यक्रमो ध्वनिरात्मा रसादिः । सुकविगोष्ठीषु सङ्कीर्णोऽपि कोषेषु वचनकोषे 10 सम्भन्थविशेषैः कारकशक्तिभिः कृतद्रिरोषैस्तद्धितविशेषैः समासैश्च व्यञ्ज्यमानो हृश्यते । यथा—न्यक्कारो ह्ययमेव मे यदरयस्तत्राप्यसौ तापसः सोऽप्यत्रैव निहन्ति राक्षसकुलं जीवत्यहो रावणः । शिथिलीकृतशक्तिजित्प्रबोधितवता किं कुम्भकर्णेन वा सङ्ग्रामप्रतिक्रियाविधौ निपुणग्र्‍नत्नौषधज्ञौः किमोषधिभिः ॥

15 अत्र हि श्लोके भूरसा सर्वेषामप्येषां स्फुटमेव व्यङ्ग्यत्वं हृश्यते । तत्र ‘मे यदरयः’ इत्यनेन सुप्सम्भन्धवचनानामभिव्यक्तत्वम् । ‘तत्राप्यसौ तापसः’ इतनेन सुप्सम्भन्धवचनानामभिव्यक्तत्वम् ।

१. रसादिभिः-घ. २. प्रयुक्ते -घ. ३. ‘अमीषां’-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

whose only ambition is the use of the figures to the utter neglect of sentiments. Moreover,

The Light of Suggestion

Of this suggestion, the variety which is of the form of resonance and which has been already illustrated is found often in entire works of literature also.

The Light of Suggestion

In fact suggestion which is of the form of resonance and which includes two sub-classes has been illustrated under this form of suggestion, viz., Suggestion 'with intended but further extending literal import.' Here it is added that it will be found often in entire works of literature also. The words of Pāñcajanya in Madhumathanavijaya furnish a good illustration. So does the situation of Kāmadeva's meeting with his friends in my own work Viṣamabānalīlā. The words of the Vulture and Jackal etc. in the Mahābhārata are also illustrations in point.

The Light of Suggestion

Case-terminations, conjugational terminations, number, relation, accidence, primary affixes, secondary affixes, and also compounds—all these become conveyers of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality.

The Light of Suggestion

The essence of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality, i. e. of sentiment etc. is conveyed even by the speciality in case-terminations and conjugational terminations, in number, relation and accidence, in primary affixes, secondary affixes and compounds. The conjunction 'also' in the text indicates that even prepositions and tenses might become suggestive. Here is an example :-

The Light of Suggestion

That my enemies exist is insulting enough to me, But more so that he is an anchorite ! He too kills down the race of demons even in my own place And forsooth Rāvaṇa is still alive ! Fie, fie upon Indrajit ! Or what use is there in waking up Kumbhakarṇa either ? Of what avail are these arms of mine though fattened By pillaging the hamlet of a heaven ?

The Light of Suggestion

Every element in this verse is full of clear, suggestive force. In 'that my enemies exist' the case-termination; relation,

Dhyanālokaḥ

तापस' इत्यत्र तद्धितानिपातयोः । 'सोडप्यत्रैव निहन्ति राक्षसकुलं जीवत्यहो रावणः' इत्यत्र तिङ्ङारकराक्तीनाम् । 'धिङ्घिकृ शत्रुजितम्' इत्यादौ श्लोकार्थे ऋतद्धितसमासोपसर्गणाम् । एवंविधस्य व्यञ्जकभूयस्त्वे च घटमानेः काल्यस्य सर्वातिशायिनो बन्धच्छायाः समुन्मीलति । यत्र हि व्यञ्जनावभासिनः पदस्यै- ५ कर्यैव तावदाविर्भावस्त्रापि काऽत्रे : कापि बन्धच्छाया किमुत यत्र तेषां बहूनां समवायः । यथात्रैन्तरोदिते श्लोके । अत्र हि 'रावण' इत्यस्मिन् पदेऽ- थान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्येन ध्यानिप्रभेदेनालङ्कृतेऽपि पुनरनन्तरोक्तानां व्यञ्जक- प्रकाराणामुद्रासनम् । हृश्यन्ते च महात्मनां प्रतिभाविशेषभाजां बाहुल्येनैव- विधा बन्धप्रकाराः । यथा महर्षेर्व्यासस्य—

10 अतिक्रान्तसुखा: कालाः प्रत्यपस्थितदारुणा: श्वः श्वः पापीयदिवसा: पृथिवी गतयौवना ॥

अत्र हि कृतद्वितवचनैरलक्ष्यैक्रमलव्यधृत्:, ' पृथिवी गतयौवना ' इत्थनेन चात्यन्तोतरसूक्तवाच्यो ध्यानिप्रकार: प्रकाशितः । एषां च सुवादीनामेकैकरा: समुदितानां च व्यञ्जकत्वं महाकवीनां 15 प्रभन्धेषु प्रायेण हृश्यते । सुमन्तस्य व्यञ्जकत्वं यथा — ताली: शृङ्गारयसुभगः कान्तया नर्तितो मे । यामध्यास्ते दिवसविगमे नीलकण्ठः सुहृद्दः ॥

9. 'एवंविध' -कf. 2. 'कापि महुन्मीलति' -MB. 3. 'बन्धच्छायां' -क.-ख. 4. 'यथात्रैन्तरोदाहते' -क.-ख. 5. 'च पदेऽनत्यन्त'° -क.-ख. 6. 'तेषां' -कवल. 7. 'ध्यान्त्रापि हृश्यते' -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

and number are suggestive. In 'but more so that he is an anchorite (tāpasa )', we have a suggestive secondary affix as well as an indeclinable. In 'he too kills down the race of demons in my own place ; and forsooth, Rāvaṇa is still alive', we have the suggestive force of conjugational termination and accidence. In the second half of the verse we have suggestiveness of primary affix, secondary affix, compound and preposition. An all-surpassing beauty of construction will be manifest in a poem where numerous suggestive elements combine as in this instance. A rare beauty of construction will result in poetry even by the presence of a solitary suggestive word. When such is the case, what need we say about the combination of numerous suggestive elements ? The example given above illustrates this very strikingly. In the word 'Rāvaṇa' we not only find the charm due to suggestion with the expressed sense merged in another, but also the charm due to various elements of suggestiveness described above. Such constructions are found in abundance in the works of great writers who are gifted with extraordinary genius. The following is an instance taken from the great sage Vyāsa :-

Past are their delights And times do present more and more terrors. Each morrow, the days become More evil; Earth, alas, has lost her youth.

In this instance suggestion with undiserned sequentiality is conveyed by primary affix and number and suggestion 'with the expressed completely given up' in the expression 'Earth, alas, has lost her youth.'

These case-terminations etc. are generally pregnant with suggestion both individually and collectively in the works of first-rate poets. Here is an example of suggestive case-termination :-

.. Made to dance by my dear wife With her rhythmic claps, so sweet By the sound of gingling bangles, Our friend, the peacock, will resort To the golden perch at the close of day ....

तिरुन्तस्य यथा — अवसर रोउँ चिअ णिम्मिआइँ मा पुंस मे हअच्छीइँ । दंसणमेत्तुमभत्तोहिं जेहिं हिअअँ तुह ण णाअम् ॥ [ अवसर रोदितुमेव निर्मिते मा पुंसय हते अखिणी मे । दर्शनमात्रोन्तताम्यां याम्यां तत्र हृदयमेव रूपं न ज्ञातम् ॥ इति च्छाया ]

यथा वा — मा पन्थं रुन्धीओ अहेहि बालअ अहोअसि अहिरिओ । अम्हेअ णिरिच्छाओ सुण्णवरं रक्खवदल्वं णो ॥ [ मा पथानं रुध: अपेहि बालक अपौढ अहो आअसि अहीक: । वयं परतन्त्रा यत: शून्यगृहं मामकं रक्षणीयं वर्तते ॥ इति च्छाया ]

सम्बन्धस्य यथा — अणणत्त वच्च बालअ हिँआन्ति किं मं पुलोएसि एअम्हं । मो जाआभीरुआणं तडं विअ ण होइ ॥ [ अन्यत्र व्रज बालक स्नान्ती किं मां प्रलोकयस्येवम् । मो जायाभीरुकाणां तटमेव न भवति ॥ इति च्छाया ]

कृतकप्रयोगेषु प्राकृतेषु तद्दितविषये व्यञ्जकत्वमावेद्यत एव । avज्ञातिराये क: । समासानां च वृत्त्यौचित्येन विनियोजने । nिपातानां न्यञ्जकत्वं यथा— अयमेकपदे तया वियोग: प्रियया चोपनत: सुहृःसहो मे । नववारिधरोदयैदहोभिरभिवीतगयं च निरातपत्रंरमयै: ॥

१. अण्हाँ - घ. २. किसमलहेसिएअम् (!) - घ. ३. हो जाआभीरुआण तुह ...विभणु होइँ (?) - घ. ४. 'अवज्ञानिशये ...समासानां ' - ग., ' अवज्ञातिशये क: ।' - घ. पुस्तके नास्ति । ५. 'अतिदु:सह: ' - ग. ६. 'वारिधरोदयै: ' - ग. ७. निरानपाधेरमयै: - B1.

The Light of Suggestion

The following is an example of suggestive conjugational termination :-

Get away from here, Don't exasperate my hapless eyes Made as it were only to weep; For they didn't see through thy heart But became crazy at thy first sight.

To give another example :-

Don't stand in the way; get away O boy ! O,, how shameless indeed thou art ! We are not at all free as we have a duty To guard the deserted house.

A suggestive relation is illustrated in the following :-

Go elswehere, O boy ! Why do you look at me so when I bathe ? Indeed, you should know— The bank is not at all the place For those who fear their wives.

In Prakrit, words which are derivatively formed from nouns by the addition of the affix 'ka' ( such as "bhiruka" in the above instance ) are clearly suggestive of contempt.

Compounds also become suggestive when words are compounded in deference to the principles of diction. The suggestiveness of indeclinable conjunctions etc. is illustrated in the following verse :-

All too suddenly has this separation come And that too from my beloved; so unbearable it is !: And now that the new rain-clouds have also appeared, I believe the beauty of days will be halved For want of any sunshine.

ध्वन्यालोक:

इत्यत्र चशब्द: । यथा वा——

मुहुरड्गुलिसंवृताधरोष्ठं प्रतिषेधाक्षरविक्किरवामिरामम् । मुखमंसविवर्ति पक्ष्मलाक्ष्या: कथं नयुन्तामितं न चुम्बितं तु ॥

अत्र तुशब्द: । निपातानां प्रासिद्ध्यमपि हि यौक्तिकत्वं रसोपकर्षयाक्तिमाति⁵ दृश्यमम् । उपसर्गाणां व्यञ्जकत्वं यथा——

नीवारा: शुगरंभकोटरमुखप्रश्रथास्तरुणामध: प्रसृग्धा: कचिदृगुदीफलभिद: सूच्यन्त एवोपला: । विश्वासोपगमादभिन्नगतय: शब्दं सहन्ते मुगास्तोयोधारणपाथाश्र वल्कलशिखानिष्पन्दलेखांकिता: ॥

¹⁰इत्यादौ । द्वित्राणां चोपसर्गाणामेकत्र पदे य: प्रयोग: स चापि रसव्यक्त्यनुगुणतयैव निर्देश: । यथा — ‘प्रभ्रश्यत्युत्तरीयत्विषि तमसि समुद्रीक्ष्य वीतावृत्तीन् द्राग्जन्तून्’ इत्यादौ । यथा वा — ‘मनुष्यवृत्या समुपाचरन्तम्’ इत्यादौ ।

निपातानामपि तथैव । यथा — ‘अहो बतासि सृगणीयवीर्य:’ इत्यादौ । यथा वा ——

१. इतदनन्तरम्—— मदमुखरकर पोतमुगन्मयूखं प्रविरलवमानवृक्षसंनिवेशाश् । वनमिदमवगाहमानभीमं व्यसनमिवोपारि दारणरसमेति ॥

अत्र प्रशब्ददस्योच्छ्वासस्य न रसव्यअक्त्वमधिकं योतते । इति घ — पुस्तके डास्ति ।

२. ‘यथा वा’ क-ख पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Here the conjunction 'too' is suggestive. In the same way, the conjunction 'but' in the following example is suggestive :-

The face of my sweet-browed beloved,

With lips covered frequently by the fingers,

Lovely with indistinct no's

And resting upon her shoulders

Was somehow raised up by me;

But kissed it could not be.

Suggestiveness of indeclinables is quite well known; but we are thinking here only of suggestiveness of sentiment.

Suggestive prepositions are found in the following example:-

Beneath the trees are seen wild rice

Fallen from the mouths of crevices

Wherein parrots do nestle.

Stones so oily and shining indicate

They have been used in cracking wild nuts.

With great confidence the deer wander free

And are unvexed by the din ( of the chariot );

The roads to the rivers are marked by water streaks

Dripping from the tips of bark-garments.

The preposition 'pra' in the Sanskrit verse is suggestive.

Sometimes two or three prepositions are prefixed to a single word and if this does not savour of a blemish, it is because of suggestiveness of sentiment alone; e. g.—

(1) 'prabhrasyatyuttarīyatvisi tamasi samudviksya vītāvṛtīn drāg jantūn......' ( when darkness was drawing to a close with its hue of an upper garment, seeing all creatures getting up...)

(2) "manusyavṛttyā samupācarantam......" ( enacting as you do the behaviour of men...)

The same is true of indeclinables etc. also:

(1) 'Aho batāsi spṛhaṇīyavīryah......' ( Indeed your valour is covetable, I say !)

Dhvanyālokaḥ

ये जीवन्ति न मान्ति ये सृं वपुषि प्रीत्या प्रतुत्यन्ति चैं प्रस्त्यान्दिप्रमदाश्रवः पुलकितां हस्ते गुणिन्यूर्जिते । हा भिक्षतमहो क यामी शरणं तेषां जनानां इते नीतानां प्रलयं राठेनै विधिनां साधुद्द्रिषः पुष्यतां ॥ ५ इत्यादौ ।

पदपौनरुक्त्यं च व्यज्जकत्वोपेक्षयैव कचित्प्रयुक्तिमानं शोभामावहति । यथा — यदृच्छानाहितमातिशयैर्हुञ्चाटुगर्भं कार्योंन्मुखः खलुजनः कृतकं ब्रवीति । तत्साधवो न न विदन्ति विदन्ति किन्तु केतुं वृथा प्रणयेमत्य न परिशान्ति ॥

इत्यादौ ।

कालस्य व्यज्जकत्वं यथा— समविषमणिविसेसा समन्तओ मन्दमन्दसअआरा । अइरा होहिन्त पहा मणोरहाणं पि दुलडहा: ॥

[ समत्रिषमनिरविशेषः समन्ततो मन्दमन्दस्वारा: । अटृहोदीयन्ति प्रहाराः मनोरथानां अपि दुल्लभाः ॥ इति इल्काया ]

अत्र ह्याचिराद्विष्यन्ति पन्थान इत्यत्र भविष्यन्तीत्यस्मिन् पदे प्रत्यय: कालविशेषाभिधायी रसपरिपोषहेतु: प्रकाशते । अयं हि गाथार्थ: प्रवासविप्रलम्भशृङ्गारविभावतया विभाव्यमानो रसवान् । यथात्र प्रत्ययांशो व्यज्जकस्तथा कचित्प्रकृत्यंशोडपि दर्श्यते । यथा—

The Light of Suggestion

(2) They who are revived, Who do not contain themselves with joy and who dance about shedding tears of joy With bodies thrilled at the very sight Of a virtuous person; They have now, alas! been led to ruin by wicked Fate Who favours only enemies of the good; And woe is me! alas! Where can I now turn for help For the relief of those persons?

The Light of Suggestion

Repetition of words also becomes agreeable when such repetition is resorted to only in view of suggestiveness, e.g.:- It is not that the good are not aware, They are aware that the wicked one speaks False words brimming with sweetest praise Only because he is intent on cheating And is selfish to a degree; And yet they cannot bring themselves To betray his false affection.

The Light of Suggestion

Suggestiveness of tense is illustrated in the following :- Ups and downs in the roads will all be levelled, Journeys everywhere become slow and slower still; Before long, they will exceed the reach Even of one's mind-chariots.

The Light of Suggestion

The future tense in the verb 'will exceed' is highly suggestive of sentiment in this example. The sentiment will become clear if one understands that the purport of the verse is nothing but the portrayal of a setting that serves as a stimulus for the sentiment of Love-in-separation due to journey. Just as the termination part of a word shows suggestive force in the above example, so also the basic part of a word may become suggestive as in the following:-

Dhvanyaloka

तन्द्रेहं नतभित्ति मन्दिरमिदं लब्धावगाहं दिवः सा धेनुर्जरती चरन्ति करिणामेता घनाभा घटा: । स शृङ्गो मुसलध्वानि: कलमिदं सङ्गीतकं योषिता-माश्रयं दिवसैर्द्विजोड़यमियतां भूमिं समारोपित: ॥

अत्र श्लोके दिवसैरित्यस्मिन् पदे प्रकृत्यंशो चोतक: । सर्वनाम्नां च व्यङ्कक्त्वं यथानन्तरोक्ते श्लोके । अत्र च सर्वनाम्नामिव व्यङ्कक्त्वं हृदि व्यवस्थाप्य कविना केत्यादिशब्दप्रयोगो न कृत: । अनया दिशि सहृदयै-रन्वेषणं व्यङ्ककविरोषा: स्वयमुत्प्रेक्षणीया: । एतच्च सर्वं पदवाक्यरचना-10 द्योतनोक्त्यैव गतार्थमपि वैचित्र्येण ज्युत्पत्तये पुनरुक्तम् ॥

ननु चार्थसमन्व्यक्षेप्या रसादय इत्युक्तम् । तत्र सङ्क्षादीनां व्यङ्कक्त्वं वैचित्र्यकथनमन्वितमेव । उक्तमत्र पद्यानां व्यङ्कक्त्वोक्त्यवसरे । किञ्चार्थविशोषाक्षेप्यैष्यत्प्रेक्ष्यपि रसादीनां तेषामर्थविशेषाणां व्यङ्ककशब्दाविनाभाव-वित्बाद्यथाप्रदर्शितं न्यङ्कक्स्वरूपपरिज्ञानं विभज्योपयुज्यत एव । शब्दविशेषाणां 15 चान्वयत्र च चारुत्वं यद्विभागेनोपदर्शितं तदपि तेषां व्यङ्कक्त्वेनैवावस्थित-मित्यवगन्तव्यम् ॥

'यत्रापि न तत्र संपत्तिभासते तत्रापि व्यङ्कके रसगोचरे पददर्शनं मौषवं तेषां प्रवाहपतितानां तदेवास्यादपोद्धृतानामप्यवभासते इत्यवसातव्यम् ॥

१. यथात्रैवानन्तरोक्ते - घ. २. न तु-च. ३. तत्रान्वित-घ. ४. यत्रापि तत्संप्रति न प्रति° - BP. ५. 'तेषां तेषां'-व. ६. अवभासते इत्यवस्थातव्यम्-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

That was a hut with broken walls And this is a mansion touching heavenly heights; That was an aged cow, And such herds of elephants, dark like clouds, Are now moving hereabout. How awkward was the thud of the pestle then! But now I hear sweet music of lovely women. What a wonder it is that the poor Brahmin Has been raised in a few days to such a state!

Here the basic element in the word 'divasaih' ('within a few days') is suggestive. The suggestiveness of pronouns also can be discerned in the above example itself. It is because of the suggestive force of the demonstrative pronouns that the poet has not made use of express words like 'where' (in order to bring out the contrast). Along these lines, perceptive critics should imagine for themselves the suggestiveness of other types also (unmentioned here). Though all this was implied certainly in the statement that suggestiveness is found in word, sentence and texture, yet they have been set forth in detail so that critics might be edified in diverse ways.

At this stage, one might object as follows:—‘Formerly it was declared that sentiments etc. are suggested only by the power of sense; now, will not this statement contradict the present statement that case-terminations etc. can also be suggestive in different ways. We have already given our reply to such objections while proving the suggestivity of words. Moreover, even supposing that sentiments etc. can be suggested only by specific senses, a classified treatment of suggestive elements given above would still be useful, since specific senses are inseparably connected with suggestive words. The classification proposed in other works regarding the charm attained by particular kinds of words in particular contexts also becomes justifiable only when we understand it to be based on the suggestiveness of words.

It might be urged that often such suggestiveness of sentiments is not found in specific words. But one will have to grant that a kind of charm is discernible even in such instances. For we will have appreciated the suggestive charm of specific words, etc.

ध्वन्यालोक:

कोडन्यथा तुल्ये वाचकत्वे शब्दानां चारुत्वविषयो विशेष: स्यात् । अन्य एवासौ सहृदयसंवेध्य इति चेत्, किमिदं सहृदयत्वं नाम ? किं रसभावान्पेक्षकान्वाश्रितसमयविद्वेषाभिज्ञत्वम्, उत रसभावादिमकाव्यस्वरूपपरिज्ञान-नैपुण्यम् ? पूर्वोक्तिमन् पक्षे तथाविधसहृदयत्वव्यवस्थापितानां शब्दविशेषाणां चारुत्व-नियमो न स्यात् । पुनः समयान्तरेणान्यथापि व्यवस्थापनसम्भवात् । द्वितीयस्मिस्तु पक्षे रसज्ञतैव सहृदयत्वमिति । तथाविधे: सहृदयै: संवेद्यो रसादि-समर्पणसामर्थ्यमेव नैसर्गिकं शब्दानां विशेष इति व्यञ्जकत्वाश्रय एव तेषां मुख्यं चारुत्वम् । वाचकत्वाश्रयस्तु प्रसाद एवार्थापेक्षायां तेषां विशेष: । अर्थापेक्षायां त्वनुप्रासादिरेव ।

एवं रसादीनां व्यञ्जकस्वरूपमाभिधाय तेषामेव विरोधिरूपं लक्ष्यतुमुपक्रम्यते ।—

प्रबन्धे मुक्तके वापि रसादीनिबन्धुमिच्छता । यत्नः कार्यः सुमौतिना परिहारे विरोधिनाम् ॥ १७ ॥

प्रबन्धे मुक्तके वापि रसैभावनिबन्धनं प्रत्याहतमना: कविविरोधि-परिहारे परं यत्नमादधीत । अन्यथा त्वस्य रसमय: श्लोक एकोऽपि सम्यङ् न समप्यते ।

कानि पुनस्तानि विरोधीनी यानि यत्नत: कवे: पारिहर्तव्यानीत्युच्यते—

१. व्यञ्जकत्वाश्रय एव -घ. २. वाचिकत्वाश्रयाणां तु सौष्ठव -ग. ३. After प्रसाद MB has उपमादि:. ४. 'लक्ष्यितुमुपक्रमते-क-ख. ५. सुकाविना -MB. ६. रसाभाव -घ. ७. परं प्रयत्नं -MB.

The Light of Suggestion

at least in other works of first-rate poets abounding in suggestion of sentiment; and by constant appreciation of charm in such words found in a different context, we imperceptibly fall into the habit of fancying the same charm in these words by association even when they are found separately in other works. If it were not so, it would be impossible to explain the distinction that exists in words in point of denotation. If one were to dismiss it by the glib statement that the divergence is perceptible only to refined critics, we will have to put this counter-question to them:-What constitutes a refined critic? Is it a mere knowledge of certain conventional canons of literary criticism irrespective of sentiments and emotions; or is it a skill in appreciation of literature imbued with sentiments, emotions, etc.? If the first alternative be true, no beauty can be present as a rule in all instances of words advocated by these so-called refined critics, for it is quite possible to establish another coterie of critics and advocate the absence of beauty in such instances. And according to the second alternative, the definition of a refined critic will be nothing but sensitivity to sentiments. The natural uniqueness in particular words, which such critics find is none other than the power of infusing sentiments, etc. And hence their beauty is principally based on the suggestiveness of words. From the standpoint of denotation, the only uniqueness of charm discernible in them would just be the quality of Perspicuity. If sense too should be left out of account, only Alliteration, etc. would constitute the said uniqueness.

Whether it is the whole work or a single stanza, a good poet who is desirous of incorporating sentiments etc. in what he writes should take pains to avoid hindrances to them.

17

A poet who is intent upon incorporating sentiments and emotions in his works, whether they be big or small, should turn all his efforts towards avoiding impediments. Otherwise he will not succeed in composing even a single verse full of sentiment. The following verses answer the question, 'what, then are these impediments which deserve to be carefully avoided by the poet?'

ध्वन्यालोक:

विरोधिरससम्बन्धिविभावादिपरिग्रह: ।विस्तरेणान्वितस्यापि वस्तुनोडन्यस्य वर्णनम् ॥ १८॥

अकाण्ड एव विच्छित्तिरकाण्डे च प्रकाशनम् ।पारिपोष गतेरस्यापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम् ।रसस्य स्याद्विरोधाय वृत्त्यनौचित्यमेव च ॥ १९ ॥

प्रस्तुतरसापेक्षया विरोधी यो रसस्तस्य सम्बन्धिनां विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिणां परिग्रहो रसविरोधहेतुकः सम्भावनीयः । तत्र विरोधिरससम्बन्धिविभावपरिग्रहो यथा शृङ्गारादिविभावत्ववर्णने । विरोधिरसानुभावपरिग्रहो यथा प्रियं प्रति प्रणयकलहकुपितासु कामिनीषु वैराग्यकथाभिरनुनये ।

अयं चान्यो रसभङहेतुर्येत्प्रस्तुतरसापेक्षया वस्तुनोडन्यस्य कथन्वितस्यापि विस्तारेण कथनम् । यथा विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारे नायकस्य कस्यचिद्र्णीतुमुपक्रान्ते क्वेयमत्कादालिङ्ङारनिर्बन्धनरसिकतया महता प्रबन्धेन पर्वतदिवर्णनम् । अयं चापरो रसभङहेतुरवगन्तव्यो यदकाण्ड एव विच्छित्तिः रसस्याकाण्ड एव च प्रकाशनम् । तत्रानवसरेऽ विरामो रसस्य यथा नायकस्य

१. शृङ्गारादिवर्णने - घ. २. 'रसस्यापेक्षया' - ग. ३. 'उपकान्तस्य' - घ; 'अनुकान्ते' - ग. ४. 'भङ्गहेतुमावहति' - ग; ५. 'अकाण्ड एव प्रकाशनम्' - ग.'काण्डे च प्रथमम्' - घ. ६. 'रसस्य' घ -पुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Sketching the setting etc., of an opposite sentiment, describing something whose connection with the subject on hand is only very remote,

Stopping the delineation of sentiment abruptly as also elaborating it again and again though it has already received sufficient elaboration, and indecorum in respect of behaviour—all these hinder the course of sentiment.

(1) The first impediment to sentiment is the sketching of setting, emotional responses and passing moods which belong to a sentiment not only other than but opposed to the sentiment in hand. For instance, if after portraying a person as spiritual-minded (i.e. as substratum of the sentiment viz, tranquillity in its own proper setting), the poet makes the same person appear in the role of a romantic lover abruptly, (i.e. in the role of a substratum in a setting of the Erotic sentiment), the intended sentiment is hindered. An example of sketching the abiding emotion of an opposed sentiment is had when the hero tries to humour his wives who are angry because of lovers' quarrels by stories in praise of renunciation of worldly pleasures. Similarly, an example of an opposed sentiment is seen if the hero is discribed as getting wild with rage and putting forth gestures of fury when his sweetheart feigning love-anger does not yield to his importunities.

(2) The second impediment to sentiment is the lengthy description of a subject whose connection with the sentiment on hand is only a very distant one. This is illustrated in an instance where the poet who has begun a description of the hero, goes off at a tangent to describe mountains, etc. at an inordinate length.

(3) The third impediment to sentiment is unwarranted stoppage of the delineation of sentiment and elaboration of it at the wrong place. Unwarranted stoppage of it is instanced when, after portraying the rise of mutual love between the hero and the heroine, instead of describing their endeavours at union, the poem proceeds to dwell upon their other irrelevant activities. Elaboration of it at the wrong place is had when a god-like

Dhvanyāloka:

कस्याचित्सृङ्गारण्यसमागमया नायिकया कयाचित्परां परिपोषपदवीं प्राप्ते शृङ्गारे विदिते च परस्परानुरागे समागमोपायचिन्तोचितं व्यवहारे मुक्तसृज्य स्वतन्त्रतया व्यापारान्तरर्वणे । अनवसरे च प्रकाशानं रसस्यै यथा प्रवृत्ते प्रबन्धविविधवीररसडये क्ल्पसङ्उयकल्पे सङ्ङमे देवेप्रायस्यापि तावन्नायक-

स्यानुप्रकान्त विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारस्य निमित्तमुचितमनन्तरेैव शृङ्गारकथायामवतारवर्णने । न चैवंविधे विषये दैवग्यामोहितत्वं कथापुरुषस्य परिहारो यतो रसबन्ध एव कवे: प्राधान्येन प्रवृत्तिनिबन्धनं युक्तम् । इतिवृत्तवर्णनं तदुपायैकयुक्तं: प्राक् ' आलोकार्थी यथा दीपशिखायां यत्नवाज्ज्ञ:' इत्यादिना ।

अत एव चेतिवृत्तमात्रवर्णनप्राधान्येऽङ्ङाङ्गिभावरहितरसभावनिबन्धने न कविरामेवविधानि मत्वलिनानि भवन्नीति रसादिरुपलक्षितङ्ङाङ्गातत्पर्यमेवेषां युक्तमिति यत्नोद्यमाभिररङ्ङो न ध्वनिप्रतिपादनमात्राभि: क्रियते । पुनश्रायमल्यों रसभङ्ङहेतुरेवधारणीयो यत्परिपोषं गतस्यापि रसस्य पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम् ।

उपयुक्तो हि रसः स्वसामग्रीलङ्घपरिपोषः पुनः पुनः परामृश्यमाणः: परिम्लानकुसुमकल्प: कल्पते । तथा वृत्तेऽव्यवहारस्य यदनौचित्यं तदपि रसभङ्ङहेतुरेव ।

यथा नायकं प्रति नायिका: कस्याश्चिदुरिचिंतां भर्तिमन्तरेण स्वयं सम्भोगमिलासकथने । यद्वा वृत्तीनां भरतप्रसिद्धानां काव्यलक्षणान्तरप्रसिद्धद्वानामुपनागरिकाद्यानां वा यदनौचित्यमविषये निबन्धनं तदपि रसभङ्ङहेतु: । एवमेषां रसविरोधिनामन्येषां चानया 'दिशा स्वयमुपेक्षितानां परिहारे सति कविरभिरवहितैर्भवितव्यम् । परिकरश्लोकाश्शात्र -

१. कयाचित्सह प्‍रौ-ःक-ख, MB. २. 'चिन्तनोचितं '-क-ख. ३. 'रसस्य ' -ब - पुस्तक नास्ति. ४. प्रबन्धे - BP. ५. स्वप्रवृत्ते -घ. ६. 'वर्णने तु-MB. ७. 'चाङ्ङाङ्गि' - ग. ८. 'पुनःपुनरामृश्यमाणः:' - व. ९. 'चित्यमाविषये निबन्धनं'-MB. १०. उचिताङ्ङमात्-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

hero as Rāma is, for no reason at all, shown as getting interested in activities of love when a terrific battle is raging at its height spelling death of the greatest heroes ( as at the time of universal destruction ), though there has been absolutely no previous occasion leading up to even the sentiment of love-in-separation at that time. Nor can such a procedure be justified on the ground that the character is shown there only as a victim of delusion due to Destiny. For it is proper that the poet should write only with a view to delineating sentiment. The plot is only a means towards that end as observed in I.9 and so forth.

Such mistakes are committed by poets when they become primarily interested in describing the plot for its own sake and delineate sentiments without discriminating between principal and subsidiary ones. Hence our effort has all along been to make it clear that the poets do well to have the sole intention of infusing suggested sentiments etc. into their works and not merely to exhibit our enthusiasm in propounding a novel doctrine of suggestion.

( 4 ) The fourth impediment to sentiment is its over-elaboration again and again, though it has already received sufficient elaboration. A sentiment which has received full elaboration in the shape of a description of its various constituents, and brings enjoyment will itself look like a faded flower if it is pressed far to much again and again.

( 5 ) Indecorum in respect of behaviour is also another impediment to sentiment. For instance, if the heroine throwing aside decorum conveys openly to the hero her desire for dalliance, we get this defect. The word Vrtti in the Text may mean either Kaiśikī ( the graceful ) etc. which are laid down by Bharata or the Upanāgarikā ( The Urban ) etc. laid down by other writers on Poetics. Indecorum in respect of the one or the other will be equally an impediment to sentiment.

Good poets must be very attentive in steering clear of these impediments to sentiment and also of other similar hindrances which can be imagined along these lines by the poets themselves. The following lines sum up the points :-

DHVANYĀLOKA

मूल्या व्यापारविषया: सुकवीनां रसादय: । तेषां निर्बन्धने भाव्यं तै: सदैवाप्रमादिभि: ॥ नीरसस्तु प्रभन्धोऽयं सोडप्रशब्दो महान् कवे: । स तेनाकविरेव स्यादन्येनास्मृतलक्षण: ॥ पूर्वे विशृङ्खलगिर: कवय: प्रासकीर्तय: । तान्समाश्रित्य न त्याज्या नीतिरेषा मनीषिणा ॥ वाल्मीकिकिल्यासमुल्ल्यास्र्व ये प्रय्याता: कवीश्वराः । तद्भिप्रायबाहुल्योऽयं नास्माभिरदर्शितो नय: ॥ इति ।

विवक्षिते रसे लड्यमात्रिष्ठे तु विरोधिनाम् । वाध्यानामझभावं वा प्राप्तानामनुकुलचेष्टला ॥ २० ॥ स्वसामग्र्यां लड्यपरिपोषे तु विवक्षिते रसे विरोधिनां विरोधिरसाझानां वाध्यानामझभावं वा प्राप्तानां सतामुक्तिरदोषां । वाध्यत्वं हि विरोधिनां शाक्याभिभवत्वे सति नान्यथा । तथाचं तेषामुक्ति: प्रस्तुतरसपरिपोषायैव सम्पद्यते । 'अझभावं' प्राप्तानां च तेषां विरोधित्वमेव निवर्तते । अझभावप्राप्तिहिं तेषां स्वाभाविकी समारोपकृता वा । तत्र येषां नैसर्गिकी तेषां तावदुक्ताविरोध एव । यथा विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारे तद्र्झानं वाध्यादीनां, तेषां च तद्र्झानामेवादोषो नातद्र्झानाम् । तद्र्झत्वे च सम्भवत्यपि मरणस्योपन्यासो

१. 'हि निर्बन्धो' -ग.MB. २. प्रय्यानात्-घ. ३. 'स्वसामग्री'-घ. ४. 'निर्दोषा' -ज., MB. ५. तथाच-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. ६. तदुक्तविरोध एव-घ. ७. अझभाव-आगमानां व तेषां-घ. ८. 'स्वाभाविकी' इत्यादि 'नैसर्गिकी तेषां' इति पर्यन्तं -घ. पुस्तके नास्ति. ९. तेषां -घ. पुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

Sentiments etc. are the most important ends for the activity of poets; hence poets should always be very attentive in delineating them.

A work devoid of sentiment is the most unpardonable solecism on the part of a poet. It will brand him as a poetaster with nothing but oblivion in store for him.

Time was when poets could win fame by their words unfettered by any rule; but the wise should not take them as their models and depart from the principles laid down above.

As a matter of fact, we have shown nothing here which is against the opinions of the most celebrated first-rate poets like Vālmīki and Vyāsa.

After the intended leading sentiment has been established on a secure footing, there will be no defect in including even hindrances provided that these come either as foils or as ancillaries.

After a full development of the intended leading sentiment as a result of its accessories, it would not at all be a defect to portray even the hindrances in case these serve as only foils or ancillaries of the intended leading sentiment. Hindrances will serve as foils only when they are positively overshadowed by the intended leading sentiments, not otherwise. Hence an account of the foils only enhances the development of the intended leading sentiment. If hindrances should come in as ancillaries, they will have lost their very hindering power. Hindrances can come in as ancillaries, either in a natural way or in an imagined way. In a description of natural ancillaries there is no scope at all for any hindrance. For example, there is no defect involved only in describing disease etc. while delineating the sentiment of Love-in-separation ( because disease is a natural ancillary of love-in-separation ) ; but it would be a defect if one were to describe therein things which are not ancillaries ( such as death, for instance ). Even if one were to think that death also is a possible ancillary of Love-in-separation, a mention of death

Dhvanyaloka

न न्याय्यः । आश्रयविच्छेदे रसस्यात्यन्तविच्छेदप्राप्ते: । करुणस्य तु तथाविधे विषये परिपोषो भविष्यतीति चेत् न; तस्याप्रस्तुतत्वात्, प्रस्तुतस्य च विच्छेदात् । यत्र तु करुणरसयैवं कालार्थित्वं तत्राविरोधः । शृङ्गारे वा मरणस्यादौ धिकालप्रत्यापत्तिसम्भवे कदाचिदुपनिषन्धो नात्यन्तविरोधी । दीर्घंकालप्रत्यापत्तौ तु तस्यास्तरा प्रवाहविच्छेद एवैतयैवंविधेति वृत्तोपनिषन्धनं रसबन्धप्रधानेन कविना परिहर्तव्यम् ।

तत्र लङ्घप्रतिष्ठे तु विवक्षिते रसे विरोधिरसादानां बाध्यत्वेनोक्तावदोषो यथा—

काकायं शरालक्षणः कः च कुलं भूयोडपि हृश्येत सा दृष्टान्तां प्रश्रयस्य मे श्रुतमहो कोपेऽपि कान्तं मुहुर्न । किं वक्ष्यन्त्यपकल्मषा: कृतधिय: स्वप्रेम्णापि सा दुर्लभा चेतः स्वस्थ्यमुपैहि कः खलु युवा धन्योडधरं पास्यति ॥

यथावा पुण्डरीकस्य महाश्वेतां प्रति प्रवृत्तिनिर्भरानुरागस्य द्वितीयमुनिकुमारोपदेशावर्णने । स्वाभाविक्यामङ्गभावप्रसङ्गावदोषो यथा—

अथिमिरतिमलसहृदयतां प्रलयं मूर्छन्तमः शरीरसादृक्ष । मरणं च जलधिजगज्जन प्रसङ्ग कुलते विषं वियोगिनीनाम् ॥

The Light of Suggestion

would be improper, since a rupture of the substratum itself invariably brings about a rupture of sentiment also. One might aver that the portrayal of death lends greater beauty to the delineation of the Pathetic sentiment. But Pathos is not only irrelevant to the sentiment of Love-in-separation which is relevant here, but the relevant sentiment itself is broken up. It ( portrayal of death ) will not be a hindrance only when pathos itself happens to be the principal sentiment, or we might say this much :-on very rare occasions, mention of death will not appear as a very great hindrance to the Erotic sentiment, provided there is a prospect of this separation due to death coming to a speedy end by reunion ( in another form ). If a long period of time should intervene between death and such reunion, death would once again be a hindrance, since the even flow of the current of love would be stopped by it abruptly in the middle itself. Hence, a poet intent upon delineating sentiments should avoid such episodes in the plot.

How hindrances too do not appear as defects when they serve as foils of the intended leading sentiment is illustrated in the following example :-

Where is misdeed and where the spotless race of the moon ? Would that I see her again ! My learning should resist all evil; But how lovely is her face even in anger ! What will the pure and wise ones say about this ? Ah, she is not to be had by me even in dream ! Take courage, my heart ! Which youth will be so lucky As to drink ( the honey ) of her lips ?

Similarly, the advice of the ascetic's companion to Puṇḍarīka deeply fallen in love with Mahāśvetā is another instance.

The following is an example where a hindrance does not appear so because of its being ancillary to the intended leading sentiment in the natural course of things :-

Reeling, jadedness and laziness etc. ( supra, p. 77 )

ध्वन्यालोक:

इत्यादौ। समारोपितायामप्यविरोधो यथा 'पाण्डु क्षामं' इत्यादौ। यथावा- 'कोपात्कोमलोल्लोलहुलतिकापारोन' इत्यादौ। इयं चाङ्गभावप्राप्तिरन्या यदधिकारित्वात्प्रधान एकस्मिन्न वाक्यार्थे रसायोर्भावयोर्वी परस्परविरोधिनोर्द्धयोर्जर्भावगमनं तस्यामपि न दोषः। यथा 'सिमो हस्तावलम्ब:' इत्यादौ। कथम्? तत्राविरोध इति चेत्, द्व्योरपि तयोरन्यपरत्वेन व्यवस्थानेन। अन्यपरत्वेऽपि विरोधिनोः कथम् विरोधानिवृत्तिरिति चेत्, उच्यते-विधौ विरुद्धसमावेशास्य दुष्टत्वं नानुवादे। यथा—

एहि गच्छ पतोत्तिष्ठ वद मौनं समाचर । एकवाराग्रहमस्तैः क्रीडन्ति धनिनोऽर्थिभिः ॥ इत्यादौ। अत्राहि विधिप्रतिषेधयोरनूद्यमानत्वेन समावेशो न विरोधः। स्तथेहापि भवति। श्लोके 'हासिन्रीष्योविग्रलम्बश्रृङ्गारकरुणवस्तुनोः'

The Light of Suggestion

In the following examples we have the use of hindrances not appearing as defects, because of their being ancillary to the intended sentiment in an imagined way:-

1. Your pallid and sunken face, Your passionate heart and sluggish body Declare loudly, O friend, The disease of consumption Rankling within your heart.

2. It is indeed a lucky lover, etc.

A hindrance can become subsidiary (to the intended sentiment) in another way also. Two sentiments or emotions mutually opposed may both be made ancillary to another idea which happens to be the principal import in the sentence by force of its contextual importance. The hindrance due to opposed sentiments will cease to be a defect in that case. Verses like 'Let the fire of Śiva's shaft etc.' illustrate this. It might be asked how there is no opposition between the two sentiments therein. The reply is that both of them are definitely subsidiary to the main import. Once again it might be asked how the natural opposition between two opposite things disappears. We answer that such opposition will appear a defect only in positive statements and not in mere quotations. For example in the following verse :-

"Hither ! . . . Away ! You may sit ! . . . no, get up ! Speak up ! . . . Silence ! " Thus do the wealthy persons play With suppliants possessed by desire.

There is no real opposition though both positive injunctions and prohibitions are found side by side, because they are only quotations. In the same way we can understand that there is no opposition in the verse referred to (viz., Let the fire of Śiva's shaft, etc.). Neither the element of Love-in-separation due to jealousy nor that of Pathos is positively affirmed in this verse. Its main import is the extraordinary glory of Śiva as the

ध्वन्यालोक:

विधीयमानत्वं । त्रिपुरारिप्रभवातिशायस्य वाक्यार्थेत्वत्तदङ्गत्वेन च तयो-

व्यवस्थानात् ।

न च रसेषु विध्यनुवादव्यवहारो नास्तीति शङ्क्यं वक्तुं, तेषां वाक्यार्थेत्वेनानुपगमानात् । वाक्यार्थेषु न च वाच्यस्यौौ विध्यनुवादौ तौ 5तदङ्गतां रसानां केन वार्येते । यैर्वा साक्षाद्रसादीनां कार्यार्थता नाम्युपगम्यते, तैस्तेषां तत्रिमित्तता तादवस्थ्यमभ्युपगन्तव्यो । तथाप्यत्र श्लोके न विरोधः ।

यस्मादनूद्यमानाङ्गेनिमित्तोभयरसवस्तुसहकारिणो विधीयमानांशाब्दाविशेष-प्रतीतिरुत्पद्यते ततश्व न कश्चिद्विरोधः । हृश्यते हि विरुद्धोभयसहकारिणः

कारणात्कार्यविशेषोत्पत्तिः । विरुद्धफलोत्पादनेहेतुत्वं हि युगपदेकस्य कारणस्य 10विरुद्धं न तु विरुद्धाभ्यामसहकारित्वं । एवंविधैरङ्गविरुद्धवद्विषयः कथम्-

भिनयः प्रयोक्तव्य इति चेत्, अनूद्यमानैवंविधवाच्यविषये या वार्ता सात्रापि भविष्यति । एवं विध्यनुवादनयाश्रेयेणात्रः श्लोके परिहस्तावद्विरोधः ।

किं च नायकस्याभिनन्दनीयोदयस्य कस्यचित्प्रभावातिशयवर्णने तत्प्रतिपक्षाणां यः करुणो रसः स परिक्षकाणां वैक्लव्यं नादधाति प्रत्युत 15 प्रीत्यतिशायनिमित्तां प्रतीपष्यत इत्यतस्तस्य कुण्ठेराकिकल्वाद्विरोधविधा-

१. 'स्यापनात्'-क-ख. २. 'गमनीया'-क-ख. ३. 'मानाङ्ग'-ग.

४. 'कथन'-क. ख. ५. 'फलोपादान'-क. ख. ६. विरुद्धवं-७. 'एवं विधं'-ग. विध-घ. पुस्तके नास्ति । ८. प्रतिपद्यते-च. ९. 'अकुण्ठ'-ग.

The Light of Suggestion

destroyer of Tripuras. The two elements of sentiment just now mentioned are clearly mainfest as subsidiary to this main import.

Nor is it posible to say that the procedure of direct assertion and indirect narration is not found in sentiments. The reason is that every one accepts them as imports of sentences. When purport of sentence and expressed sense can both contain the procedure of direct assertion and indirect narration, who can prevent the sentiments from containing these since sentiments are also suggested only by them? Even those who do not accept that s ntiments themselves can be the main import of poetry will have to concede that at least they are conveyed by the main import. Even then, there will be no opposition in the verse in question ( viz., Let the fire of Śiva's shaft, etc.). There is no scope at all for any opposition because we get the idea mainly of the extraordinary greatness of Śiva as the directly asserted element in the verse and it is this element which is reinforced by the indirectly narrated elements of the other two sentiments ( viz., Love-in-separation and Pathos ). That particular effects are produced by the agency of two causes opposed to each other, yet co-operating in the production of effect, is a matter of common observation. Opposition would be there only when it is held that the same cause gives rise to two opposite effects simultaneously and not when it is said that two causes opposed to each other are contributing simultaneously towards the production of a single effect. It might be asked how such subjects involving opposite elements would have to be represented on the stage. The answer is that what applies to the representation of similar expressed subjects when they are indirectly narrated also applies to these indirect and suggested elements. Thus the opposition in the verse has been got over by the assistance of the analogous principle of (direct assertion and indirect narration.

Furthermore, while the extraordinary greatness of a hero who is at the height of his admirable powers is made the main subject of description, the pathetic sentiment in respect of his enemies does not cause any sorrow in the minds of critics; on the other hand it serves to produce great delight. Since the power of the pathetic sentiment will thus have been practically

Dhvanyālokaḥ

III, 20 ]

यिनो' न कश्चिद्दोषः । तस्माद्वाक्यार्थीभूतस्य रसस्य भावस्य वा विरोधी रसँविरोधीति वक्तुं. न्याय्यः, न त्वङ्गभूतस्य कस्याचित् ।

अथवा वाक्यार्थीभूतस्यापि कस्याचित्कारुणरसविषयस्यै तादृशेन रूढेन वस्तुना भृङ्गारेणैत्रैव संयोगे रसपारिपोषकत्वं जायते । यतः ५प्रकृतिमधुरोः पदार्थोः शोचनीयतां प्रापाः प्रागवस्थाभाविभिः संस्मर्यमाणैविलासैरधिकतरं शोकावेशैरुपजनयन्ति । यथा——

अयं स रसानोल्कर्षी पीनस्तनाविमर्दनः । नाम्यूरुजघनस्पर्शी नीवीविवर्त्तनसः करः॥

इत्यादौ । तदत्र त्रिप्रयवतीनां शृङ्गारः शृङ्गाराद्भिरद्भिराषः कामी ०यथा व्यवहरति स तथा व्यवहत्वानित्यनेनापि प्रकारेणास्त्येव निर्विरोधत्वम् । तस्माद्यथा यथा निरूप्यते तथा तथा दोषाभावः । इत्यं च —

१. 'दायिनः' - क. ख. २. यो रसः स रसविरोधीति-व. ३. 'विशेषस्य' -

क. ख. ४. 'पारिपोषमात्रात्-ग. ५. 'रमणीयाः' - क. ख. ६. शोकावेशं - व.

व. B. O. R. I. Ms. No. 254 of 1875-76 ( New No. 28 ) (Des. Cat. Vol. XII. No. 183 ) ends here. ८. स्म - घ - पुस्तके नास्ति.

The Light of Suggestion

stultified, no fault would be committed if one were to delineate its opposite sentiment also (i.e. the Erotic) in the place. Therefore, only that sentiment deserves to be termed as a hindrance to sentiment, which hinders either a sentiment or an emotion that happens to be the main import of the sentence in question and not at all the one which hinders only another ancillary sentiment or emotion.

The opposition in the verse may be got over in another way also :-Suppose the primarily intended import in the verse (viz., Let the fire of Śiva's shaft, etc.) is looked upon as an element of the sentiment of Pathos itself. In that case, the element of Erotic sentiment will have to be considered as conveyed in an indirect manner. If we thus consider that the Erotic element is subsidiary to the Pathetic element, the Pathetic sentiment will only acquire added significance. For, the sight of naturally lovely objects reduced to a pitiable state evokes greater sorrow (than the sight of objects without such loveliness) in the onlooker due to the reminiscences called up in his mind of all their past beauty. The following provides an instance:-

This is that hand which used to draw out our girdles,

And which used to caress our bosoms;

Which used to touch lovingly

Our navels, thighs and pubes

And untie the waist-knots of our lower garments !

In the same way, we can understand in the verse under consideration that the fire of Śiva's shaft conducted itself like a lover who has given offence but lately, and even thus considered, the seeming opposition therein will disappear. Thus from whatever standpoint we consider the verse, the opposition can be explained as unreal. On the analogy of this, all such instances as the following should be regarded as devoid of the defect of opposition :-

ध्वन्यालोक:

कामन्ट्य: क्षतकोमलाङ्गुलिग्रहेंद्रकैक: सदर्भो: स्थली: पादै: पातितथवकैरिव पतद्वाष्पाम्बुधौतनना: । भीता भर्तृकरावलम्वितकरास्त्वद्वैरिनार्योद्‌धुना दावाग्रिं परितो भ्रमन्ति पुनरप्युद्‌धिवाहा इव ॥ इत्येवमादीनां सर्वेषामेव निर्विरोधत्वमवगन्तव्यम् । एवं तादृद्रसादीनां विरोधिरसादिभि: समावेशसमावेशयोरविषयविभागो दार्शित: । इदानों तेषामेकप्रबन्धाविनिवेशने न्याय्यो य: क्रमस्तं प्रतिपादयितुमुख्यते —

प्रसिद्धेऽपि प्रबन्धानां नानारसनिबन्धने । एको रसोद्‌धरीकर्तव्यस्तेषाममृतकर्त्स्नामिच्छता ॥ २१ ॥

प्रबन्धेषु महाकाव्यादिषु नाटकादिषु वा विप्रकीर्णतया झटितिभावेन वहवो रसा उपनिबन्ध्यन्ते इत्यत्र प्रसिद्धौ सत्यामपि य: प्रबन्धानां छायातिशययोगामिच्छति तेन तेषां रसानामन्यतम: कश्चिद्‌द्वारक्षितो रसोद्‌धृतित्वेन विनिवेशायितव्य इत्ययं युक्ततरो मार्ग: ।

ननु रसान्तरेषु बहुषु प्राप्तपरिपोषेषु सत्सु कथं केषाञ्चिद्‌दिता न विरुध्यत इत्याशङ्क्येदमुख्यते —

रसान्तरसमावेश: प्रस्तुतस्य रसस्य य: । नोपहन्त्याङ्गितां सोड्‌स्य स्थायित्वेनावभासिन: ॥ २२ ॥

प्रबन्धेषु प्रथमतरं प्रस्तुत: सन् पुन: पुनरनुसन्धीयमानत्वेन स्थायी यो रसस्तस्य सकलप्रबन्ध्यापिनो रसान्तरैरन्तरालवर्तिभि: समावेशो य: स नाङ्गितामुपहन्ति । एतदेवोपपादयितुमुख्यते—

१. बलद्रकै: BP. २. भावेन वा—घ. ३. उपनिबन्ध्यन्ते—घ. ४. 'छायायोगं' ग., 'छायातिशयमिच्छति'—घ. ५. 'संधिदृश्यापिन'—क. ख., MB. 'रसद्यापिनो'—घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Stepping on grounds over-grown with hard grass, With blood gushing out of their tender toes, Causing their feet to appear As if they were painted with lac, With faces washed in streams of flowing tears, Overcome by fright and holding the hands of their husbands, Your enemies' wives go round and round wildfires As though they are going through The ceremony of a wedding once over !

The Light of Suggestion

Thus far, we have pointed out the distinction where sentiments can be delineated side by side with the sentiments opposed to them and where they should not be so delineated. We shall explain in what follows the proper order to be followed in the delineation of such sentiments in one and the same work :-

The Light of Suggestion

Though there is a convention that more than one sentiment should find a place in entire works of literature, one of them alone should be made principal by the poet who aims at greatness in his works.

The Light of Suggestion

Though in fact the convention is that, in epics etc. as well as in dramas etc., several sentiments should be delineated with either equal importance to each or differing importance, the better procedure is that a poet who is intent upon adorning his work with abundant beauty should make it a rule to give principal importance to only one intended sentiment amongst them.

The Light of Suggestion

It might be asked how any single sentiment can be rightly made principal when several other sentiments too have received fullness of treatment. The following text answers the objection :-

The Light of Suggestion

The importance of an intended sentiment which is shining throughout the work abidingly cannot be marred by the inclusion of other sentiments.

The Light of Suggestion

When a sentiment happens to be intended as primary in a work and is kept up constant by being delineated again and again, its importance cannot be marred at all by the inclusion of other passing sentiments since it underlies all the rest. The reason why it is so is explained in the following :-

ध्वन्यालोक:

कार्यमेकं यथा व्याऽपि प्रबन्धस्य विधीयते । तथा रसस्यापि विधौ विरोधो नैव विद्यते ॥ २३ ॥ सन्ध्यादिमयस्य प्रबन्धशरीरस्य यथा कार्यमकनुयायि व्यापकं कलुप्यते न च तकार्यान्तरेsङ्गीभवति, न च तैः सङ्गीर्यमाणस्याऽपि तस्य प्राधान्यमपचीर्यते तथैव रसस्याऽप्येकस्य सञ्चिवेशो क्रियमाणे विरोधो न काऽऽश्रित । प्रत्युत प्रत्युतदितविवेकानुसन्धानवतां सचेतसां तथाविधे विषये प्रह्लादातिशयः प्रवर्तते ।

ननु येषां रसानां परस्पराविरोधः यथा — वीरशृङ्गारयोः शृङ्कारहास्ययोः रौद्रशृङ्गारयोर्वीररौद्रयोर्वीरहास्योः रौद्रकरुणयोः शृङ्गाराद्भुतयोर्वा तत्र भवतां झाझीभिः भावैः तेषां तु स कथं भवेद्येषां परस्परं बाध्यबाधकभावः । यथा — शृङ्गारशान्तयोर्वीरशान्तयोर्वा इत्यादिझाझीभेदमुख्यते — अविरोधी विरोधी वा रसोज्झीभिर्नि रसान्तरे । परिपोषं न नेतव्यस्थथा स्यादविरोधिता ॥ २४ ॥

आङ्गिनि रसान्तरे शृङ्गारादौ प्रबन्धव्यझ्झ्ये सतिे अविरोधी विरोधी वा रसः परिपोषं न नेतव्यः । तत्राऽविरोधिनो रसस्याझीरसापेक्षयात्यन्तसाम्यं न कर्तव्यमित्यं प्रधानः परिपोषपरिहारः । उत्कर्षमात्रोपणत्कर्षो- तया विरोघासम्भवात् । यथा— एकन्तो हुअइ पिआ अण्णन्तो समरतूराणिघोसो । णेहण रणरसेण अ भडस्स दोलाइअं हिअअम् ॥ [ एकतो रौद्रति प्रिया अन्यतः समरतूर्यनिर्घोषः । स्नेहेन रणरसेन च भटस्य दोलायितं हृद्यम् ॥ इति च्छाया ]

१. कलुप्यते-च परिकल्प्यते-MB. २. 'तत् कार्यान्तरे'-क ख. ३. 'अपनीयते' - ग. ४. 'रसादीना' - क. खव. ५. 'भाव एव' - क. खव. ६. 'शान्तशृङ्गारयोः' भृङ्गार-रौद्रयोश्च-MB. ७. 'न त्वाह' - ग., तत्राऽविरोधी-च. ८. तयोरविरोध°-MB.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as one plot is made to remain major in a work as a whole, so also one sentiment can be made to remain major and it will not at all lead to a discrepancy.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as one plot consisting of several parts is made to progress uniformly and pervade the work as a whole and just as it never gets mixed up with minor plots, and even if it should get mixed up, just as its importance does not suffer, so also when a single sentiment among several other minor ones is made as the major one in a whole work, there is not any discrepancy involved. On the contrary, such a procedure will bring abundant delight to refined critics whose discriminative power is sharp and appreciation vast.

The Light of Suggestion

Perhaps one might object to this as follows :– 'The relation of principal and subsidiary may hold good at best to such sentiments which are not opposed to each other, e. g. : The Heroic and the Erotic, the Erotic and the Marvellous, the Heroic and the Furious, the Furious and the Pathetic or the Erotic and the Marvellous. But how can it ever hold good in the case of sentiments that are mutually opposed such as – the Erotic and the Disgustful, the Heroic and the Terrible, Quietude and the Erotic ?'

The Light of Suggestion

Our reply to the objection is given below :– When a sentiment is delineated in a work as the principal one, no other sentiment, whether unopposed or opposed to it, should be treated elaborately. This will ensure one that no opposition between them will remain any more.

The Light of Suggestion

When any single sentiment like the Erotic happens to be principal in a work, no other sentiment, whether unopposed or opposed, should be treated fully at the same time. Full treatment of the other sentiments can be avoided in the following ways :– (1) Even an unopposed sentiment should not be given importance greater than that of the principal sentiment. Even if the two should get equal importance, there will be no scope for any opposition between them. e. g. :–

The Light of Suggestion

On one side cries the beloved And the war-drum dins on the other; The heart of the soldier oscillates Between love and lust for fight. Or—

यथावा—

कंण्ठाच्छित्वाक्षमालावलयमिव करे हारमावर्तयन्ती कृत्वा पर्यङ्कन्थं विषधरपतिना मेखलाया गुणे न ।

मध्यामन्त्राभिजापसृरदधरपटल्यज्जितालव्यक्तहासा देवी सन्ध्यामिवसूर्याहसितपशुपतिस्ततत्र दृष्टा तु वेङ्ड्यत् ॥

इत्यत्र ।

आङ्ङिरसविरुद्धानां व्यभिचारिणां प्राचुर्येणानिर्देशनम्, निवेशाने वा स्तिरमेवाङ्ङिरसङ्ग्याभिचार्यनुगृत्तिरिति द्वितीयः । अज्ञत्वेन पुनः पुनः प्रत्यवेक्षा परिपोषं नीमास्याप्यङ्गभूतस्य रसस्येति* तृतीयः । अनया दिशान्येडपि 10 प्रकारा उत्प्रेक्षणीयाः । तिरोभवसु रसस्याज्ञरतापेक्षया कल्प्याचिन्मूलता सम्पादनीय। यथा शान्तेङ्ङिरसिनि शृङ्गारस्य शृङ्गारे वा शान्तस्य ।

परिपोषाहितस्य रसस्य कथं रसत्वामिति चेत्—उक्तमत्राङ्ङिरसापेक्षयैति । अङ्ङिनो हि रसस्य यावान् परिपोषस्तावांसतस्य न कर्तव्यः; स्वतस्तु सम्भवी परिपोषः केन वार्यते । एतचापेक्षिकं प्रक्षर्योगित्वमेकस्य रसस्य बहुरसेु 15 प्रबन्धेषु रसानामङ्ङाद्रिभावमन्युपगच्छतां*प्यश्राक्यप्रतीक्षेमित्यनेन प्रकारेण- विरोधिनां विरोधिनां रसानामङ्ङाद्रिभावेन समावेशो प्रबन्धेषु स्तादविरोधः ।

एतच सङ्ङ येषां रसो रसान्तरस्य व्यभिचारीभावति इति दर्शने तन्मतेनोच्यते । मतान्तरे तुं रसानां स्थायिनो भावाः उपचाराद्रसाशब्देनोक्तास्तेषामङ्गत्वं निर्विरोधमेव ।

१. ‘कण्ठं चिच्छित्वाक्षम ले'गादिर्‌श्लोके’ -क. ख., कर्णे कृत्वाक्ष° -MB. २. प्राचुर्येण निवेशनम् -घ. ३. ‘अपि त्वङ्ग°’ -ग. ४. ‘रस यैवोति’ -क. ख. ५. न सम्पादनीय -घ. ६. रसस्य -घ. पुस्तके नास्ति. ७. समासस्तु सम्भवि -घ. ८. ‘प्रत्युपेक्षितं’ -ग. ९. रसय -घ. १०. गच्छतामप्य° -MB. ११. ‘अविरोधिता’ -क. ख. १२. निर्देशनं -घ. १३. मतान्तरे डप -घ. १४. मङ्गत्वे -घ. १५. निर्विरोधितमेव -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Telling the beads of her necklace, snatched off the neck, like a rosary, in her hand, Turning the girdle like a snake into a knot of yogic pose, Showing her smile with throbbing lips muttering faked magical spells, The goddess was seen sending Siva into a smile at her envy of Sandhya. May she preserve you !

(2) Passing moods which are opposed to the principal sentiment should not be described at length, and if described at all, there should be an immediate reversion to the passing moods of the principal sentiment. (3) Even when a subsidiary sentiment is being treated fully, it should be at all events kept only as a subsidiary one by constant care. Other ways could be imagined by readers themselves along the lines indicated.

If the subsidiary sentiment happens to be an opposed one, it should be carefully depicted only as being lesser than the principal sentiment; for example, if Quietude is the principal sentiment, the Erotic should be lesser in importance; so also, if the Erotic is the principal sentiment, Quietude should become lesser. The words, "than the principal sentiment", have been included in the gloss in order to silence the objection that there can be no sentiment at all, properly speaking, in the absence of full treatment. The idea is that the subsidiary sentiment should not be given the same degree of full treatment as is given to the principal sentiment. Who can ever deny the natural treatment which even a subordinate sentiment might receive (in the usual course of things)? Thus no one - not even those who do not accept the principal and subsidiary relation of sentiments-can ever deny that a single sentiment will have principal importance in spite of the fact that the work may contain several sentiments also alongside of it. Thus too, the opposition of sentiments can be avoided in works by portraying such unopposed or opposed sentiments with due deference to the principal and subsidiary relationship. The above has been written from the standpoint of those who hold that one sentiment can become an acessary of another as a passing mood. Since in the opinion of others, the abiding emotions themselves are metaphorically designated by the term 'sentiment', there is no difficulty at all in sentiments becoming ancillaries.

ध्यन्यालय:

एवमविरोधिनां विरोधिनां च प्रबन्धस्थेनाङ्गिना रसेन समावेशो सामान्य-भविरोधोपायं प्रतिपादयेद्भिर्विरोधिविषयमेव तं प्रतिपादयितुमिच्छते । विरुद्धैकाश्रयो यस्माद्विरोधी स्थायी भवेत्। स त्रिभिन्नाश्रयः कार्यस्तस्य पोषेऽप्यदोषता ॥ २५ ॥

ऐकाधिकरण्यविरोधी नैरन्तर्यविरोधी चेति द्विविधो विरोधी । तत्र प्रबन्धस्थेन स्थायिनाङ्गिना रसेनौचित्यापेक्षया विरुद्धैकाश्रायो यो विरोधी, यथा वीरेण भयानकः, स विभिन्नाश्रयः कार्यः । तस्य वीरस्य य आश्रयः कथानायकस्तद्विपक्षविषये सन्निवेशायितव्यः । तथा सति च तस्य, विरोधिनोऽपि यः परिपोषः स निर्दोषः । विपक्षविषये हि भयानककथानायकस्यैव पोषणं भवति । एतच्च मद्यपानक्रमादिसम्पत्सुतरामुद्योतिता भवति । चरितेऽर्जुनस्य पातालावतरणप्रसङ्गे वैराग्येन प्रदर्शितम् । एवमैकाधिकरण्यविरोधिनः प्रबन्धस्थेन स्थायिना रसेनाङ्गभावगमने निर्विरोधित्वं यथा तथा दर्शितम् । द्वितीयस्य तु तत्प्रतिपादयितुमुच्यते—एकाश्रयत्वे निर्दोषो नैरन्तर्ये विरोधवान् । रसान्तरव्यवाधिना रसो व्यङ्ग्यः सुमेधसा ॥ २६ ॥

१. विरोधिविषये-घ. २. 'इदं' म. पुस्तं के नास्ति. ३. विरोधी-व. ४. 'दिशा'-ग. ५. 'वा'/ग. ६. 'कथने' ग. ७. 'प्रबन्धे'-क-ख. ८. 'विरोधिनाम्'-क-ख. ९. व्यङ्ग्यः ( व्यस्यः ) सुमेधसा-घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Hitherto we have explained such general means of overcoming opposition between sentiments, as are commonly applicable to the resolution of opposition between the principal sentiment and the unopposed subsidiary sentiments as well as that between the principal sentiment and the opposed subsidiary sentiments. In what follows, the specific means of overcoming opposition between two opposed sentiments is set forth.

If a sentiment opposed to the principal one happens to occur in the same substratum as that of the latter itself, the opposed sentiment should be given a different substratum; ( once this is done) there will be no defect even if it should be treated in full. 25

The Opposite is of two types :-( 1 ) 'Opposite of another in the same substratum.' and (2) 'Opposite of another coming beside it'. So far as the principal sentiment is concerned, if another sentiment also is found in the same substratum, i. e. acquires equal importance with it-e. g. when the Heroic is the principal sentiment, the occurrence of the Terrible along with it in one and the same character-we will have an instance of the first type of the Opposite and in such places, the substratum of the other sentiment should be varied : The terrible sentiment should be delineated only with reference to the enemy of the hero who is the substratum of the Heroic sentiment. When this is done, there would be no fault in even treating the opposed sentiment at length. By describing great terror on the part of the enemy, the extraordinary glory of the hero in point of his policy as well as prowess will only be thrown into a bolder relief. This has been very well illustrated in the description of Arjuna's descent to the netherworld in my own work, Arjunacarita.

The manner of avoiding the opposition caused by a conflicting sentiment in the same substratum and of making it subsidiary to the principal sentiment in 'he work has been pointed out in the above text. The same is pointed out below with reference to the opposite of the second variety :-

A sentiment which has no opposition due to the sameness of substratum but which becomes an opposite of another ( i. e. principal ) sentiment coming closely beside it, should be so conveyed by the intelligent poet that a third sentiment will intervene between these conflicting ones. 26

ध्वन्यालोक:

य: पुनरेकाधिकरणत्वे निर्विरोधो नैरन्तर्ये तु विरोधी स रसान्तरव्यवधानेन प्रबन्धे निवेशयितव्य: । यथा शान्तशृङ्गारौ नागानन्दे निवेशितौ । शान्तश्र तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्य य: परिपोषस्तल्लक्षणो रस: प्रतीत एव ।

तथाहि चोक्रम— यच्च कामसुखं लोके यच्च दिव्यं महत्सुखम् । तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्यैते नाहिंत: षोडशों कलाम् ॥

इति । यदि नाम सर्वजनानुभवगोचरता तस्य नास्ति नैतवतासावलोकसामान्यमहानुभावचित्तवृत्तिविशेष: प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्य: । न च वीरे तस्यान्तभाव: कर्तुं युक्त: । तस्याभिमानमयत्वेन व्यवस्थापनात् । अस्य चाहङ्कारप्रशमकरूपतया स्थित: । तयाश्रयविधाविशेषसद्भावादपि यद्यपि पारकल्प्यते तद्वीररौद्रयोरपि तथा प्रसङ्ग: । दयावीरादीनां च चित्तवृत्तिविशेषाणां सर्वेकारमहङ्काररहितत्वेऽपि शान्तरसप्रभेदत्वम्, इतरथा तु वीरप्रभेदत्वमिति व्यवस्थाप्यमाने न कश्चिद्विरोध: । तदेवमस्ति शान्तो रस: । तस्य चाविरुद्धरसव्यवधानेन प्रबन्धे विरोधिरसमावेशे सत्यपि निर्विरोधत्वम्, यथा 15प्रदर्शिते विषये ।

एतदेव स्थिरीकृतमुद्यते— रसान्तरान्तरितयोरेकसन्ध्यस्थयोरपि । निवर्तते हि रसयो: समावेशे विरोधिता ॥ २७ ॥

१. नागानन्दे – घ. २. ‘तथेत्यारभ्य कलामित्यन्तं क. ख. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. ३. ‘वलोक’ – य. ४. ‘न च वीरोत्साहलक्षण:' – या. चिरे क. ५. तस्याभिमानमयत्वेन–घ. ६. व्यवस्थानात्--MB. ७. ०रहितत्वेऽपि–BP. & घ. The reading given in the text is from MB.

The Light of Suggestion

Though a sentiment may be free from opposition conditioned by the sameness of substratum, if it should be found to conflict with another closely occurring sentiment, it should be introduced into one's work only after making a third sentiment intervene between them. The delineation of the sentiment of Quietude and the Erotic in the play Nāgānanda affords an illustration of this.

We state emphatically that there is a sentiment of Quietude and its nature is delineation of the joy due to the decline of desire. So it is that the ancients have also said :

Both the passionate joy of this world And the boundless joy in Heaven cannot come To the level of even a sixteenth fraction Of this joy due to decline of desire.

Even granting that this joy is above the experience of many individuals, one will not be justified at all in dissenting to its constituting a unique experience of some extraordinary personages. Nor is it right to include it under the category of the heroic sentiment itself. For, it is an established fact that the heroic ( sentiment ) is full of egotism; while this ( Quietude ) exists only when there is absence of egotism. If one were to imagine identity between the two notwithstanding this difference, one might at that rate imagine even the heroic and the furious as identical. Hence the best way of avoiding the difficulty would be to decide that specific states of mind like 'heroism in compassion' which are singularly free from egotism form varieties of the sentiment of Quietude and the same states of mind will form varieties of the heroic sentiment at other times ( when there is a touch of egotism about them ). Thus it is established that the sentiment of Quietude exists. A sentiment opposed to it may also be delineated in a work containing it without incurring any fault provided a third sentiment unopposed to it is made to intervene between the two as in the example already mentioned.

This very idea is reinforced in the following : By the intervention of another sentiment, even the opposition of two sentiments in the same sentence will disappear.

ध्वन्यालोक:

रसान्तरव्यवहितयोरेकप्रबन्धस्थयोरपि1रोधिता निवर्तते इत्यत्र न काचिद्धान्तिः । यस्मादेकवाक्यस्थयोरपि2 रसयोरुक्तया नीत्या विरुद्धता निवर्तते । यथा—

भूरेन्धिदीर्घात्रवणैरिजातमहारजोवासितग्राह्ममद्यैः । गाढं शिवाभिः परिरम्यमाणान्सुराज्ञनाश्छिष्टमुजान्तरालाः ॥ सशोणितैः कृण्यमुजां सुरद्रिः पत्तैः खगानासुपवीज्यमानान् । संवीजिता श्वन्दनवारिसेकैः सुगन्धिभिः कल्पलतादुकूलैः ॥ विमानपर्यङ्कतले निषण्णाः कुतूहलाविष्टतया तदानीम् । निर्दिश्यमानां डलना डुलीर्मवीराः स्वदेहान् पतितानुपश्यन् ॥

इत्यादौ । अन्राह गृढारम्भनत्सयोस्तदङ्क्योर्वाररसव्यवधानं समावेशो न विरोधी ।

विरोधमविरोधं च सर्वत्रैतयं निरूपयेत् । विशेषतस्तु शृङ्गारे सुचुपारंतमो वासौ ॥ २८ ॥

यथोक्तलक्षणानुसारेण विरोधाविरोधौ सर्वेषु रसेषु प्रबन्धेऽन्यत्र च निरूपयेत्सहृदयः; विशेषतस्तु शृङ्गारे । स हि रतिपरिपोषात्मकत्वादते स्वस्येनापि निमित्तेन भृङ्गासम्भवात्सुकुमारतांः सर्वेभ्यो रसेभ्यो मनागपि विरोधिसमावेशं न सहते ।

अवधानातिशयवान् रसे तत्रैव सत्कविः । भवेच्चस्मिन् प्रमादो हि झटित्येवोपलक्ष्यते ॥ २९ ॥

१. विरुद्धयोरिरोधिता - घ. २. सुकुमारतरो - घ. ३. सुकुमारतरः - ष.

The Light of Suggestion

It cannot indeed be a delusion that the opposition between two sentiments in a work will disappear by the intervention of a third sentiment. For, it is seen that even the opposition of sentiments in the same sentence will disappear in deference to the principle laid down. The following is an illustration:-

The heroes comfortably seated in aeroplanes, Saw below with wonder their own corpses Pointed out by heavenly nymphs; Their chests were scented with heavenly perfume now While the bodies below were soiled by the earthly dust; They were now embraced by the heavenly nymphs, While the bodies below were clasped by she-jackals; They were now being fanned by the barks of the heavenly tree Sprinkled with scent of sandal-wood juice While their bodies below were fanned by the flapping wings Of flesh-eating vultures, smeared with blood.

In this illustration the heroic sentiment intervenes between the sentiments or the accessories of the sentiments of the Erotic and the Disgustful; and hence there is no opposition.

The opposition and non-opposition of sentiments should be clearly noticed in the above manner, particularly so in the Erotic sentiment, for it happens to be the most delicate of all (sentiments).

The perceptive critic should notice carefully the opposition and non-opposition of sentiments in whole works and other instances in accordance with the principles laid down above. He must particularly do so in the Erotic sentiment. For the Erotic sentiment is brought about by a full treatment of the emotion of love; and the nature of love is such that it will be marred by the slightest slip. Hence the Erotic sentiment is the most delicate of all sentiments and will not easily bear the inclusion of opposed sentiments even to the slightest extent.

A good poet should be extremely careful so far as that sentiment is concerned. Otherwise, the slightest inattention (or lapse) on his part will appear glaring at once.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तत्रैव च रसे सर्वेऽपि रसेम्यः सौकुमार्योतिरायययोगिनि कविरवधानवान् प्रयत्नंवान्स्यात् । तत्र हि प्रमाणतस्तस्य सहृदयमध्ये क्षिप्रमेवावज्ञाविषयतां भवँति । शृङ्गाररसो हि संसारिणां नियमेनानुभवविषयत्वात्सर्वरसेम्यः कमनीयतया प्रधानभूतः ।

एवं च सति—विनेयानुनमुखीकरणं काव्यशोभार्थमेव वा । तद्विरुद्धरसरसृष्टदङ्गनां न दुष्यति ॥ ३० ॥

शृङ्गारविरुद्धरसंघः शृङ्गाराज्ञाणां यः स न केवलमविरोधलक्षणयोगे सति न दुष्यति यावद्विनेयेयानुनमुखीकरणं काव्यशोभार्थमेव वा क्रियामणो न दुष्यति । शृङ्गाररसाद्रुतानुनमुखीकरणः सन्ति हि विनेयाः सुखे विनेयापदेशे ग्रूह्नन्ति । सदाचारोपदेशरूपा हि नाटकादिगोष्ठी विनेयजनहितार्थमेव मुनिभिरवतारिता ।

किं च न शृङ्गारस्य सकलजनमनोहराभिरामत्वादङ्गसमावेशः काव्ये शोभातिशायं पुष्टयतीत्येनापि प्रकारेण विरोधिनः रसे शृङ्गाराङ्गसमावेशो न विरोधी ।

ततश्च—सत्यं मनोरमा रामा; सत्यं रम्या विभूतयः । किं तु मत्ताजनापाङ्गभङ्गलोलं हि जीवितम्॥ इत्यादिषु नास्ति रसविरोधदोषः ।

विज्ञायेत्थं रसादीनामविरोधविरोधयोः । विषयं शुकवत्काव्यं कुर्वन्नुन्मत्ताति न कवित्॥ ३१ ॥

१. 'प्रयतः' - क-ख. २. प्रमाणतस्तस्य - घ. ३. °मेवावज्ञाविषयतां - घ; BP. Text acc. to MB. ४. 'भविष्यति' - क-ख. ५. सर्वसंसारिणां - क-खव. ६. °पदेशं - घ. ७. 'मनोहरामत्नात्' - ग. ८. काव्यशोभा° - घ. ९. 'शृङ्गारविरोधीनि रसे' - क-ख., विरोधि रसे - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

The poet should be very attentive in regard to that sentiment as it is more delicate than every other sentiment. If he should carelessly falter in this sentiment, he will at once become a butt of contempt in the circle of refined critics. As Erotic sentiment is invariably within the experience of all persons, it is not only the most charming but also the most important sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

In these circumstances,

The Light of Suggestion

Either for the sake of winning the attention of people who deserve to be instructed or for the sake of endowing the work with unique charm, a touch of the opposite sentiments may be brought into the accessories of the Erotic sentiment. It will not then be a fault.

The Light of Suggestion

The touch of opposite sentiments will not mar the accessories of the Erotic sentiment, not merely when the principles relating to non-opposition of sentiments are followed, but also when the purpose of winning the attention of people who deserve instruction or that of endowing the work with unique charm is present. People who deserve instruction will grasp the moral instruction happily only after their attention has been won. Sages brought entertainment parties such as the drama into vogue only for the propagation of moral instruction in a pleasing way to those who deserve to be so instructed. The inclusion of the accessories of the Erotic sentiment in opposed sentiments is justifiable on another ground also. It is the fact that the Erotic sentiment has the power to delight the minds of one and all. Hence there is no defect due to the employment of an opposed sentiment in instances like the following :-

The Light of Suggestion

It is true that women are winsome And true it is that riches attract; But life itself is ever so fleeting As the fickle glances of a tipsy dame!

The Light of Suggestion

When a good poet composes his poem bearing in mind these concepts of non-opposition and opposition of sentiments etc., he shall never blunder.

ध्वन्यालोक:

इत्यमनेनानन्तरोक्तेन प्रकारेण रसादीनां. रसभावतदाभासानां परस्परं विरोधस्याविरोधस्य च विषयं विज्ञायं सुकवि: काव्यविषये प्रतिभातिशाययुक्त: काव्यं कुर्वन्न काचिन्मुह्यति ।

एवं रसादिषु विरोधाविरोधानिरूपणस्योपयोगित्वं प्रतिपाद्य व्यङ्ग्यवाचकनिरूपणस्यापि तद्विषयस्य तत्प्रतिपाद्यते—

वाच्यानां वाचकानां च यदौचित्येन योजनम् । रसादिविषयेणैतत्कर्म मुख्यं महाकवे: ॥ ३२ ॥

वाच्यानामितिकृतविरोषणां वाचकानां च तद्विषयाणां चित्येन यद्योजनमेतन्महाकवेस्मुख्यं कर्म । अयमेव हि महाकवेस्मुख्यो व्यापारो यद्रसादीनैव मुख्यतया काव्यार्थीकृत्य तद्वचक्यानुगुणत्वेन शब्दानामर्थानां चोपनिबन्धनम् ।

एतच्च रसादितात्पर्येण काव्यनिबन्धनं भरताद्यावपि सुप्रसिद्धमेवोति प्रतिपादयितुमाह—

रसाङ्गदुगुणत्वेन व्यवहारेर्थशब्दयो: । औचित्यवान्यस्ता एता वृत्तयो द्विविधा: स्थिता: ॥ ३३ ॥

व्यवहारो हि वृत्तिरित्युच्यते । तत्र रसानुगुण औचित्यवान्वाच्याश्रयो यो व्यवहारस्ता एता: केशिक्याद्यो: वृत्तय: । वाचकाश्रयाश्रोपनागरिकाद्या: ।

वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्येण सन्निवेशिता: कामपि नाट्यस्य काव्यस्य चच्छायामावहन्ति । रसादयो हि द्व्योरपि तयोर्जीवभूता; इति वृत्त्यादि तु शरीरभूतमेव ।

१. ‘परिज्ञाय’ - म. २. ‘रसादिविशेषण’ - म. ३. विविधा: स्मृता: - घ.

४. ‘वृत्तिहच्यते’ - म. ५. ‘कैशिक्यादय:' - म. ६. ‘वा'- क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

When a poet gifted with extraordinary genius bears in mind, while he composes his work, the concept of opposition and non-opposition of sentiments, emotions, their semblances, etc., in the manner indicated above, he can never go wrong.

The Light of Suggestion

The usefulness of the treatment of opposition and non-opposition of sentiments has been explained above. In the following, the usefulness of the treatment of the expressed and the expressions also as are suggestive of sentiment is indicated:-

The Light of Suggestion

The main task of a first-rate poet lies in a proper marshalling of all the contents and the expressions in the direction of sentiments etc.

The Light of Suggestion

The main business of a first-rate poet is none other than the proper marshalling of both contents, i. e. plots, and expressions used in setting them forth, in the direction of sentiments, etc. In other words, the main function of the poet lies only in making one sentiment principal throughout the poem and in employing both words and senses only in such a way that the sentiment is suggested clearly.

The Light of Suggestion

The following text shows how this idea of writing a poem only with the main intention of suggesting sentiments etc., is a well known concept even in ancient treatises such as that of Bharata :-

The Light of Suggestion

Vṛttis ( lit. Modes ) are said to be of two kinds only because they relate to appropriate employment of senses and sound in keeping with sentiments, etc.

The Light of Suggestion

Modes of employment are themselves given the designation of " Mode ". The mode of employing senses in conformity to sentiment as well as to the considerations of decorum underlies the various ( dramatic ) Modes such as Kaiśikī etc. Similarly that which relates to sounds underlies the ( figurative ) Modes such as Upanāgarikā (the urban) etc. Thus mode, properly employed with the sole intention of coveying sentiments etc., will lend charm to dramatic as well as poetic works. Sentiments, etc. constitute the life-essence of both these Modes ; plots, etc. serve only as the body.

ध्वन्यालोक:

अत्र केचिदाहुः-" गुणगुणिव्यवहारो रसादीनामिति वृत्तादिभिः सह युक्तिः, न तु जीवशारीरव्यहारः । रसादिमयं हि वाच्यं प्रतिभासते न तु रसादिभिः पृथग्भूतम् । " इति । अत्रोच्यते-यदि रसादिमयमेव वाच्यं यथा गौरत्वमयं शरीरम्; एवं सति यथा शरीरे प्रतिबिम्बमाने नियमेनैव गौरत्वं प्रतिभासते सर्वस्य तथा वाच्यत्वेन सहैव रसाद्योडपि सहृदयस्यासहृदयस्य च प्रतिभासेरन् । न चैवम्; तथा चैतत्प्रतिपादितमेव प्रथमोद्योते ।

स्यान्मतम्; रत्नानामिव जात्यत्वं प्रतिपत्तृविशेषतः: संवेद्यं वाच्यानां वाच्येन रसादिरूपत्वमिति । नैवर्मं; यतो यथा जात्यत्वेन प्रतिभासमाने रत्ने रत्नस्वरूपानतिरिक्तत्वमेव तस्य लक्ष्यते तथा रसादीनामपि विभावानुभावादिरूपवाच्यत्वाति 'रिक्तत्वमेव लक्ष्यते' इति । न चैवम्; न हि विभावानुभावादिभिश्चारिण एव रसा इति कस्यचिद्वगमः । अत एव च विभावादिप्रतीत्यविनाभावविनी रसादीनां प्रतीतिरिति तत्प्रतीत्योः कार्यकारणभावेन व्यवस्थान्यत्क्रमो दृश्यते । स तु लाघवान्न प्रकाशात इति 'अलक्ष्यक्रम एव सन्तो व्यज्यन्ते रसादयः ' इत्युक्तम् ।

ननु शब्द एव प्रकरणाद्यवच्छिन्नो वाच्यव्यङ्गचयोः सममेव प्रतीतिगोचरवर्त्तीति किं तन्न प्रकाशनया । न हि शाब्दस्य वाच्यप्रतीतिपरामर्शी एव गौणप्रत्ययत्वाति ।

१. 'युक्तिः'-व. पुस्तकिनास्ति. २. 'ततैवम्' क; 'तत्रैवम्'-ख. ३. रसानां विभाव - घ. ४. 'वाच्यान्ति'-ग. ५. लक्ष्यते - घ. ६. 'व्यवस्थापनात्'-क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

Some might raise the following objection:— ‘Sentiments, etc. are related to plots, etc., by the quality-substance relation and not by the life-body relation. One can perceive the expressed only as full of sentiment but never the expressed as an entity separate from sentiment.’ Here is our reply: Is the expressed sense full of sentiment in the same way as the body is full of whiteness ? If it were true, just as a sight of the body will be invariably accompanied by the perception of its whiteness also on the part of one and all, so also sentiments, etc., would have to be perceived by all critics, refined or otherwise, along with the perception of the expressed sense itself. But such is not the fact. That has been explained in the FIRST FLASH itself.

The Light of Suggestion

There is scope for this view also :— ‘Just as the quality of preciousness in diamonds is discernible only to select connoisseurs, so also the presence of sentiments, etc., in the expressed sense is discernible only to select critics.’ This view also is untenable. If it were correct, just as the preciousness in diamonds of quality will be discerned as not being different form the very nature of their being diamonds, so also sentiments would have to be discerned as not being different from the nature of the expressed situations, emotional responses, etc. But it is not so. No one gets the idea that the setting, the emotional responses and passing moods are themselves sentiments. The apprehension of the setting, etc. is only an invariable condition of all apprehension of sentiments etc.; hence we might posit a cause-effect relation to exist between the two apprehensions. There is, therefore, bound to be some temporal sequentiality also between the two. But this sequentiality is not noticed since it is minute. Hence it is that we mentioned above that sentiments are suggested only through undiscerning sequentiality.

The Light of Suggestion

This is another possible objection :— ‘Since the word itself aided by the context, etc., produces the apprehension of the expressed as well as the suggested meanings at the same time, is there any point in imagining temporal sequentiality to exist at all between them ? There is no such rule that a word can become suggestive only when there is a conscious apprehension of the

Dhvanyālokaḥ

व्यङ्ग्यकत्वे निबन्धनम् । तथाहि गीतादिशब्देष्योडपि रसाभिव्यक्तिरास्ति । न च तेषामन्तरा वाच्यपरामर्शः¹। अत्रापि ब्रूमः:- प्रकरणाद्यवच्छेदेन व्यङ्ग्यकत्वं शब्दानामित्यनुमतमेवैतदस्माकम् । किं तु तदूर्ध्वव्यङ्ग्यकत्वं तेषां कदाचित्स्वरूपविशेषनिबन्धनं कदाचिद्वाचकराक्तिनिबन्धनम् । तत्र येषां वाचकशक्तिनिबन्धनं²तेषां यदि वाच्यप्रतीतिमन्तरेणैव स्वरूपप्रतीत्या निष्पत्तं³ तद्वेव तर्हि वाचकशक्तिनिबन्धनम् । अथ तन्निबन्धनं तत्रियमेव वाच्यवाचकभावप्रतीत्युतरकालत्वं व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीते: प्राप्तमेव ।

स तु क्रमो यदिं लाघवात्न लक्ष्यते तत्किं क्रियते । यदि च वाच्यप्रतीतिमन्तरेणैव प्रकरणाद्यवाच्छिन्नशब्दमात्रसाध्यै रसादिप्रतीति: स्यात्तदभावित्यादि³करणानां वा व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतिभावे न स्वभावव्युत्पत्तीनां प्रतिबन्धकाव्यमात्रश्रवणादेवासौ भवेत् । सहभावे च वाच्यप्रतीतिरनुपयोगः, उपयोगे वा न सहभावः । येषामपि स्वरूपप्रतीतिनिबन्धनं व्यङ्ग्यकत्वं यथा गीतादिशब्दानां तेषामपि स्वरूपप्रतीतिरङ्ग्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतेः⁴ नियमभावी क्रमः । तत्तु शब्दस्य क्रियापौर्वापर्येमनन्यासाध्यतत्फलघटनास्वाइुभाविनीषु वाच्येनाविरोधिन्यङ्गभिधेयान्तरविचक्षणे रसादौ न प्रतियते ।

१. रसादाभिँ - घ. रसांदि प्रतीतिरस्ति - MB. २. वाच्यप्रतीतिपरामर्शः - MB ४. ३. 'कारणाद्यच' -ख. ४. 'विषय' - क-ख. ५. 'प्रतीत्यादुनि निष्पत्तं' - क-ख. ६. 'प्रकाराद्यवाच्छिन्नमात्र' - क-ख. ७. 'द्यनभावित' - घ. B.P. ८. 'प्रकाराणां' -क-ख. ९. गीतशब्दानां-घ. १०. 'व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतेश' -ग-पुस्तके नास्ति. ११. नियम-भावक्रम:-घ. १२. तत्र तु - घ. १३. 'वाच्यविरोधिनी' -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

expressed sense. For example, suggestion of sentiments, etc. is certainly achieved even from sounds in music and so forth; and there is no intervening apprehension of expressed sense at all between the sounds and the suggested sentiments.' The following is our reply :- We also agree that only such words as are aided by context etc., become suggestive. But this suggestiveness is sometimes due to their specific nature itself and sometimes due to the denotative power of words. In instances where suggestiveness is due only to the specific nature of sounds and where apprehension of expressed meanings does not play any part at all, it would be tantamount to saying that suggestiveness is not governed by the denotative power of words at all. But if suggestiveness is to be governed at all by the denotative power of words, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the apprehension of suggested sense can only be later in time than the apprehension of expressed sense and words that denote it.

If that temporal sequentiality is so brisk that it escapes notice, what is to be done ? If in truth the apprehension of sentiments were possible just by words aided by context etc. without any need of the apprehension of expressed sense, then every reader acquainted with the context, including those who are quite ignorant of the denotation of words, should have had the apprehension of sentiment by merely hearing a poem. If the apprehension of the expressed and the suggested were simultaneous, there would be no use at all for the apprehension of the expressed. On the contrary, if there should be any use for the apprehension of the expressed, it is possible that the two can co-exist. It is true that in music we have suggestiveness due to the perception of the specific nature of sound alone. But even there we do have, invariably, temporal sequentiality between the apprehension of the nature of sounds and the apprehension of suggested sentiments. But this temporal sequentiality in the two functions of sounds cannot be noticed when sentiments are suggested; because sentiments are neither opposed to the expressed sense nor appear as similar to the other senses; they are not capable of being conveyed by aught else and all their accessories work together with lightning quickness.

Dhvanȳalokaḥ

काचित्तु लक्ष्यत एव, यथानुरणनरूपव्यञ्ज्यप्रतीतिषु । तत्रापि कथमिति चेदुच्यते — अर्थशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपव्यञ्ज्ये ध्वनौ तावदभिधेयस्य तत्सामर्थ्योक्षितस्य चार्थस्याभिधेयान्तरविचक्षणततयोन्तरविचक्षणे ये प्रतीति तयोरशक्यानिह्नवो निमित्तनिमित्तिभाव इति स्कुटमेव तत् पौर्वापर्यम् । यथा ५ प्रथमोद्योते प्रतीयमानार्थसिद्धचर्यमुदाहृतासु गाथासु । तथाविधे च विषये वाच्य-व्यङ्ग्यचयोरत्यान्तविचक्षणत्वाऽपि एकस्य प्रतीति: सैवेतरस्स्योति न शक्यते वक्तुम् । शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपव्यञ्ज्ये तु ध्वनौ— गावो व: पावनानां परम्परिमतां प्रीतिमुत्पादयन् इत्यादावर्थद्वयप्रतीतोः शान्द्यामर्थद्वयस्योपमानोपमेयभावप्रतीतिरुपमावाचक- 10 पदद्वयहेतु मलयर्थौपमार्थौपचारिताहि, तत्रापि मुख्यार्थाभिधेयलक्षण-प्रतीत्यो: पौर्वापर्यम् । पदप्रकाराशाब्दशक्तिमूलनुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्ये॑डपि ध्वनौ विशेषणपद- स्योभयार्थसम्बन्धयोग्यस्य योजकं पदमन्तरेण योजनमशब्दमप्यर्थोदवस्थित-मित्यत्रा॑पि पूर्ववदभिधेयतत्सामर्थ्योक्षितसालङ्कारमात्रप्रतीत्यो: सुस्थितमेव 15 पौर्वापर्यम् । आर्थ्येपि च प्रतिपत्तिस्थाविधे विषये उभयार्थसम्बन्धयोग्यशब्द-सामर्थ्यप्रसावि तत्र शब्दशक्तिमलां कल्प्यते ।

१. 'विलक्षणस्य ये प्रतीती' कॢप्ते । २. सुलक्ष्यो — BP. ३. 'अपि ह्नरो' - ग २. 'प्रतीप्स्यो:' — ग. ५. योगा — च. ६. 'प्रातिपद्भूत॑ति — व. ७. 'शब्दद्वला' — ग.

The Light of Suggestion

But in some contexts, the sequentiality is noticeable also; instances where we find apprehension of resonance-like suggestion may be cited as examples. One might ask us ' how is it so ? ' and here is our reply :-There will be apprehension of two senses in resonance-like suggestion based on the power of senses viz., ( 1 ) the expressed sense and ( 2 ) the sense suggested by the power of sense but quite distinct from the other expressed sense. Since no one can conceal the cause-effect relation between the apprehensions of the two senses, the temporal sequence between them is obvious. Prakrit stanzas quoted in the FIRST FLASH for establishing the existence of the implied sense serve as illustrations of this also. Since in those instances the difference between the expressed and the suggested is very great, it is impossible to affirm that the apprehension of the one is identical with that of the other. Even in resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of sound- as, for instance, Bringing delight to the public etc. where we have the apprehension of two senses from the same words, similitude between the two senses will be found suggested. Since we do not have any word openly expressing similitude, we will have to agree that it is suggested only by the power of sound. Thus it is clear that there is temporal sequence between the apprehension of the expressed sense and the suggested figure even in that type of suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

Similarly, the temporal sequentiality between the apprehensions of the expressed sense and the suggested figure is patent also in the specific variety of resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of sound, viz., that which shines out in individual words. The fact is that the adjective will be equivocal. Instead of understanding the second sense also by virtue of the same word. Since the second sense is not conveyed by a specific word, we will have to hold that it is conveyed only through the power of sense. Though the apprehension of the suggested is thus produced by sense alone, it is still regarded as based on the power of the equivocal word itself.

Dhvanȳālokaḥ

अविवक्षितवाच्यस्य तु ध्वने: प्रसिद्धस्वविषयवैमुख्यप्रतीतिपूर्वकमेवार्थान्तरप्रकाशानमिति नियमभावी क्रम:। तत्राविवक्षितवाच्यत्वादेव वाच्येन सह व्यङ्ग्यस्य कमप्रतीतिविचारो न कृत:। तस्मादभिधानाभिधेयप्रतीत्योर्निमित्तनिमित्तिभावान्त्रियमभावी क्रम:। स तु कतिपयैरचिल्लक्ष्यते क्वचिल्लक्ष्यते॥

तदेवं व्यञ्जकसुनेन ध्वानप्रकारेषु निरूपितेषु कश्चिदूदूयात्-किमिदं व्यञ्जकत्वं नाम? व्यङ्ग्यार्थप्रकारानं हि व्यञ्जकत्वम्। तद् व्यङ्ग्यत्वं चार्थस्य व्यञ्जकसिद्धचधीनम्; व्यङ्ग्यापेक्षया च व्यञ्जकत्वसिद्धिरित्योन्यसंश्रयादव्यवस्थानम्। ननु वाच्यव्यतिरिक्तस्य व्यङ्ग्यस्य सिद्धि: प्रागेव प्रतिपादिता तत्सिद्धचधीना न व्यञ्जकसिद्धिरिति क: पर्यनुयोगावसर:॥

स त्वर्थो व्यङ्ग्यतयैव कमाद्व्यपदिश्यते। यत्र च प्राधान्येनावस्थानं तत्र वाच्यत्वं यैवासौ व्यपदेष्टुं युक्त:, तत्परत्वाद्वाच्यस्य। अतश्व तत्पकाशिनो वाक्यस्य वाचकत्वमेव व्यापार:। किं तस्य व्यापारान्तरकल्पनया? तस्मात्तात्पर्यविषयो योडर्थ: स तावन्मुख्यतया वाच्य:॥

?. 'तत्र त्वविवक्षित'-क-खत्। नत्रापि त्रिषक्षित -घ. २. 'युक्त:'-ग. ३. किमिदं व्यञ्जकत्वं नाम व्यङ्ग्यार्थप्रकाशनम् (1-घ), नाहि व्यञ्जकत्वं चार्थस्य व्यञ्जकसिद्धचधीनं व्यपदूच्यत्वम्, (1-घ.) व्यङ्ग्यापेक्षया च व्यञ्जकत्वसिद्धिरित्यो-BP. घ. Text according to M. B. y. वाचकत्वस्य - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Even in suggestion based upon unintended expressed sense, since the apprehension of the suggested sense comes only after the apprehension that the conventional meaning of the word is inapplicable (in the context), temporal sequentiality is present as a rule. Since the expressed sense therein happens to be unintended, the question whether there is temporal sequentiality or not between the expressed and the suggested senses, was not taken up before. It is clear, therefore, that even as the apprehensions of denotative word and denoted sense involve a cause-effect relation and consequently temporal sequentiality, so also the apprehensions of the expressed and the suggested involve a cause-effect relation as well as temporal sequentiality. As already illustrated, sometimes it is noticed and sometimes it is not.

The Light of Suggestion

Some might object as follows to our procedure of dividing suggestion into various kinds from the standpoint of suggestiveness:-"What is this suggestiveness? The power of conveying the implied sense need not be designated by the name 'suggestiveness' at all. The existence of the suggested sense is dependent upon the existence of the suggestive word; so also is the existence of the suggestive word dependent upon the existence of the suggested sense. As the definition thus moves in a vicious circle, nothing definite will have been established about either." We would put them a counter-question: when we have already established the existence of suggested sense as distinct from the expressed (by other arguments), what scope for objection is there if suggestiveness were made to follow from the existence of the suggested?

The Light of Suggestion

The objector might argue further as follows: 'It is true that the existence of the suggested sense as distinct from the expressed has been established by the arguments already given. But why should that sense be called by the name "suggested" alone? It is right that we should designate it as "expressed" itself wherever it happens to be primarily important since it is primarily intended to be conveyed by the sentence as a whole. Thus the sentence which conveys that sense has only one function and that is denotation. What is the use of attributing a new function to it? Thus the sense which happens to be the main purport of a sentence can only be primarily "expressed."

DHYANYALOKA

तत्स्वतीतरुपायमात्रं पदार्थप्रतीतिरिव वाक्यार्थप्रतीते: ।

अत्रोच्यते-यत्र शब्द: स्वार्थेऽभिधानोऽर्थान्तरमवगमयति तत्र यत्तस्य स्वार्थोऽभिधायित्वं यच्च तदर्थान्तरावगमहेतुत्वं तयोरविशेषो विशेषो वा । न तावद्विरोध:; यस्यार्थौ हि व्यापारौ भिन्नाविष्यौ भिन्नरूपौ न प्रतीयेते एव ।

तथाहि वाचकत्वलक्षणो व्यापार: शब्दस्य स्वार्थेविषय: गमकत्वलक्षणस्त्वर्थान्तरविषय: । न चै स्वपरव्यवहारो वाच्यव्यङ्गच्योरपह्नोतुं शाक्य:, एकस्य सम्बन्धित्वेन प्रतीतेऽपरस्य सम्बन्धिसम्बन्धित्वेन । वाच्यो ह्यर्थ: साक्षाच्छब्दस्य सन्नन्धी तदितरसत्वाभिधेयसामध्य्योक्षित: सम्बन्धिसम्बन्धी । यदि च स्वसम्बन्धित्वं साक्षात्तस्य स्वातद्रार्थान्तरत्वव्यवहार एव न स्यात् । तस्माद्विषय-

भेदस्त्वाक्त्योऽव्यापारयो: सुप्रसिद्ध: । रूपभेदोऽपि प्रसिद्ध एव । न हि यैत्राभिधानशक्ति: सैवावगमनशक्ति: । अवाचकस्यापि गीतशब्दादे रसादिलक्षणार्थावगमदर्शनात् । अशब्दस्यापि चेष्टादेरर्थविशेषप्रकाशनप्रसिद्धे: ।

तथाहि ‘ब्रीडायोगान्नतवदनया' इत्यादि श्लोके चेष्टाविशेष: सुकविनार्थप्रकाशने हेतु: प्रदर्शित एव । तस्माद्द्वितीयविषयत्वाद्द्वितीयस्वरूपत्वाच्च स्वार्थोऽभिधा-

यितुमर्थान्तरावगमहेतुत्वं च शब्दस्य यत्तयो: स्पष्ट एव भेद: । विशेषशब्देन तर्हीदानीमवगमनस्यांभिधेयसामध्य्योक्षितस्यार्थान्तरसस्य वाच्यत्वव्यपदेश्यता । शब्द-

१. तत्र: - घ. २. वाच्यगम्यो - घ. ३. तुप्रशस्य: - प. ४. अर्थान्तरव हार - छ. ५. ऽविशेष - घ. ७. शब्दस्य । - घ. ७. ‘अवगमनीयस्य’-क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

Apprehension of other senses from the sentence prior to the apprehension of word-meaning is only a means to the knowledge of sentence-purport.

We shall now reply to the objection thus : Let us take an instance where a word conveys another meaning after having conveyed its primary meaning earlier. Is there any difference or no difference at all between the two functions of the word, viz. the denotation of primary meaning and the implication of another sense? The view that there is no difference at all between the two is untenable. For, not only the scopes of the two functions are different, but their natures are also different. To illustrate: the scope of the function of denotation in a word is confined to its primary sense; while the scope of the function of implication includes a sense other than the primary one. It is not possible to deny that the expressed is " its own " sense of a word while the implied sense is " one belonging to another ". The apprehension of the implied will be remotely related to the word through the medium of the expressed sense. While the expressed sense is directly related to the word, the implied sense is related to that which in its turn is related to the word since it is implied by the power of expressed sense. If the implied sense too were directly related to the word, then there would be no need at all for referring to it as another sense. Thus the difference in scope between the two functions is clear.

In the same way, their difference in nature too is obvious. The function of denotation itself cannot be the same as the function of implication since we find suggestiveness of sentiments etc. even in words of music. It is well known too that gestures, etc. which are not even sounds, possess the function of suggesting specific ideas. In the illustration ' With her face bent down ': etc., the specific gesture ( viz. side-glance ) of the heroine has been described by the great poet in a way suggestive of unique charm. Since the scope and natures of the two functions are thus quite different, it is clear that the denotative function of words and the implying function of words are quite different from each other. When the separate individuality of the two functions is accepted, it will not be possible to give the designation

Dhvanyaloka

व्यापारगोचरत्वं तु तस्यास्माभिरिष्यत एव, तत्तु वग्यचत्वेनैव न वाच्यत्वेन । प्रसिद्धाभिधानानतरसन्निधयोग्यत्वेन न तस्यार्थान्तरस् प्रत्तीते: शब्दान्तरेणै स्वार्थाभिधायिना यद्विषयीकरणं तत् प्रकारानोक्तिरेव युक्ता । न च पदार्थवाच्यार्थयो: वाच्यवाचकयो: । यतः पदार्थ-प्रतीतिं रसत्यैवेति कश्चिद्धिद्वद्दिरिदमस्थितम । यैरप्यसत्यत्वमस्या नाम्युपेयते तैरप्यर्थपदार्थयोगेष्टतदुपादानकारणन्यायोडम्युपगन्तव्य: । तथाहि घटे निष्पन्ने तदुपादानकारणानां न गृथुपरम्भस्तथैव वाक्ये तदर्थे वा प्रतीते पदतदर्थानां तेषां तदा विभक्तयोग्यम्भे वाक्यार्थबुद्धिरेव दूरीभवेत । नत्वेष वाच्यवाचक-योर्न्याय: । न हि व्यझ्यचे प्रतीयमाने वाच्यबुद्धीद्दूरीभवति, वाच्यावभास-विनाभावेन तस्य प्रकाशनात् । तस्माद्वाच्यार्थयो:पन्यायस्थो; यथा हि प्रदीपद्वोरण घटप्रतीतावुत्पन्नायां न प्रदीपप्रकाशो निवर्तते तद्वदन्यझ्यप्रतीतौ वाच्यावभास: । यतु प्रयमोद्यते 'यथा पदार्थद्वारेण' इत्याद्युक्तं तदुपाय-त्वमात्राँत्साम्यविवक्षया ।

१. 'विषयत्वं'-क-ख. २. च प्रतीते:- घ. ३. 'श्लेषणान्तरेण '-क. ४. प्रतीति-रस्त्यैवति - घ. ५. 'वाक्य-वाक्यार्थ '- क-ख. ६. 'व्यङ्ग्यवाच्ययो: '- क-ख. ७. सांम्यमात्रस्य° -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

of " the expressed " to that other meaning which is only implied by the power of the expressed sense. But we would quite agree that the other sense too comes within the power of words. But at the same time we would say that the meaning is conveyed only by way of suggestion and not by way of denotation. If a word which is capable only of denoting its primary meaning directly is also seen actually conveying another meaning, directly denoted not by this word but by some other word only, then we would be right in regarding it as an instance of suggestiveness of word.

The Light of Suggestion

The analogy of word-import and sentence-purport too does not quite apply to the Expressed and Suggested senses since in the opinion of some philosophers, the very apprehension of sense from individual words is unreal. Even those who do not hold that it is unreal will have to agree that the analogy of the relation between the pot and its material cause will explain better the relation between sentence-purport and word-import. Just as the material causes of a pot cannot be recognised separately after the pot has come into being, so also word and its sense are not recognised separately after the sentence and its purport have been apprehended as a whole. If they could be recognised separately, the very apprehension of the whole sentence-purport would have to be driven away to a distance. But this principle does not hold good with reference to the expressed and suggested senses. When the suggested sense is apprehended, the expressed sense is not driven away to a distance since the apprehension of the suggested is inseparably occasioned by the apprehension of the expressed. Hence the analogy of the pot and the lamp would fit them best. Just as the light of the lamp will not recede as soon as the perception of the pot is brought home to the observer, so also, the expressed sense will continue to shine out even after the apprehension of the suggested sense has been achieved. In the light of these considerations, it should be understood that the remark made in the FIRST FLASH-Just as the purport of a sentence etc. ( No. 10)-aims only at pointing out the similarity between the two in respect of their being means to some other and ( and that the analogy ) is not intended to be pursued to the last detail.

ध्वन्यालोक:

नन्वेवं युगपदर्थद्वययोगित्वं वाक्यस्य प्राणं तद्वदेव च तस्य वाक्यतैव विघटते, तस्या ऐकाध्यै लक्षरणत्वात्; नैष दोष:; गुणप्रधानभावेन तयोर्यवस्थानात् । व्यङ्गचस्य हि क्वचित्प्राधान्यं वाच्यस्योपसर्जनभाव: क्वचिद्वाक्यस्य प्राधान्यमपरस्य गुणभाव: । तत्र व्यङ्गचप्राधान्ये ध्वनिरित्युक्तमेव; वाच्यप्राधान्ये तु प्रकारान्तरं निर्देश्यते । तस्मात्स्थितमेतत् - व्यङ्ग्यचपरत्वेऽपि काव्यस्य न व्यङ्गयत्वाभिधेयत्वमपि तु व्यङ्गयत्वमेव ।

किं च व्यङ्गचस्य प्राधान्येनाविवक्षायां वाच्यत्वं तावद्वार्द्धिनाम्यपगन्तव्यमतत्परत्वाच्छब्दस्य । तदस्ति तावद्व्यङ्गच: शब्दानां कश्चिद्विषय इति । यत्रापि तस्यं प्राधान्यं तत्रापि किमिति तस्य स्वरूपमपह्नूयते । एवं तावद्वाक्याद्वाक्यान्तरादेव व्यङ्गचकत्वं; इत्थं वाक्यकत्वाद्वाक्यान्तर्गतस्यापि पदस्यापि व्यङ्गचकत्वं शब्दैकाश्रयमितरचु शब्दाश्रयमरथाश्रयं च शब्दार्थयोद्देश्योरपि व्यङ्गकत्वं प्रतिपादितत्वात् ।

गुणवृत्तिस्तूपचारण लक्षणया चोभयाश्रयांपि भवति । किन्तु ततोऽपि व्यङ्गकत्वं स्वरूपतो विषयतश्र भिद्यते । रূপमेदस्तावदयम् - यदमुख्यतया व्यापारो गुणवृत्ति: प्रसिद्धा । व्यङ्गकत्वं तु मुख्यतयैव शब्दस्य व्यापार: । न ह्यादौ व्यङ्गचत्रयप्रतीतियों तस्या अमुख्यत्वं मनागपि लक्ष्यते ।

१. 'वाक्यतयैव घटते' - क-ख. २. 'स्थापनात्' - क-ख. ३. 'सर्जनी' - क-ख. ४. 'गुणभाव:' -क-ख, च गुणभाव: - घ. ५. 'वाक्यस्य' - ग. ६. 'एतस्य' - क-ख. ७. 'अपहियते' - ग. ८. 'व्यङ्जकत्वसामान्यतं' - घ. ९. चोभयाश्रिता - MB. १०. स्वरूपं - MB.

The Light of Suggestion

Some might say :- ' At this rate a sentence will have to possess two senses simultaneously. If that should be the case, its very nature as a sentence will be upset. For, a sentence can only be that which conveys a single sense.' But there is no fallacy in our argument. For, we decide that one of these senses is primary and the other secondary. In some instances, the suggested will be primary and the expressed secondary. In other instances the expressed itself will be primary and the suggested will be secondary. We have already declared that the designation of ' suggestion ' is to be given only when the suggested sense happens to be primary. When the expressed itself is primary it comes under one of the varieties of poetry to be explained in the sequel. Hence this much is certain :- When poetry intends the suggested sense, the latter can never be expressed, but only suggested.

What is more, in instances where the suggested is not intended as primary, you (i. e. the objector ) will not be able to regard it even as expressed, since the word does not intend it at all. This also adds support to our conclusion that there is some definite scope for suggested senses of words. And where it happens to be intended as primary, why should its existence be gainsaid ? Hence suggestiveness is positively different from denotation. Another reason which supports the same conclusion is this :- Denotation is based upon words only, while suggestiveness is based not only upon words but also upon senses; since suggestiveness, as already pointed out, relates to words as well as senses.

Indication also is based upon both metaphorical application and secondary sense. But suggestiveness differs from it too both in respect of nature and of scope. This is the difference in scope: it is well known that indication is the name given to a verbal function which does not proceed principally. But suggestiveness is a verbal function which proceeds principally. The apprehension of the three-fold suggested sense from the expressed does not in the least appear to be subordinate.

DHVANYĀLOK:

अयं ध्वान्यः स्वरूपभेदः — यदणुवृत्तिरमुख्यत्वेन व्यवस्थितं वाचकत्वमेवोच्यते । व्यञ्जकत्वं तु वाचकत्वादत्यन्तं विभिन्नमेव । एतच्च प्रतिपादितं । अयं चापरो रूपभेदो यदणुवृत्तो यदर्थोडर्थान्तरमुपलक्ष्यति, तदोपलक्षणीयार्थोऽत्मना परिणत एवासौ सम्पद्यते । यथा “ गङ्गायां घोषः ” इत्यादौ । व्यञ्जकत्वमात्रे तु यदर्थोडर्थान्तरं व्योतयति तदा स्वरूपं प्रकाशयन्नेवासावन्यास्य प्रकाशकः प्रतीते प्रदीपवत् । यथा — ‘ लीलाकमलपत्राणि गणयामास पार्वती ’ इत्यादौ । यदि च यत्रान्तरासक्तसप्रतिप्तीतिरर्थोडर्थान्तरं लक्षयति तत् लक्षणाव्यवहारः क्रियते, तदेवं सति लक्षणैव मुख्यः शब्दव्यापार इति प्रासम् । यस्मात्सार्थीयेण वाक्यानां वाच्यव्यतिरिक्ततात्पर्यविषयार्थीभावित्वम् ।

ननु त्वत्पक्षेऽपि यदर्थो व्यङ्ग्यचत्रयं प्रकाशयति तदा शब्दस्य कीदृशो व्यापारः । उच्यते—प्रकरणाद्यवच्छिन्नशब्दवशेनैवार्थे स्य तथाविधं व्यञ्जकत्वमिति शब्दस्य तत्रोपयोगः कथमपहूयते ।

विषयभेदोऽपि गुणवृत्तिव्यञ्जकत्वयोः स्पष्टं एव । यतो व्यञ्जकत्वस्य रसाद्योडलङ्कारविशेषा व्यङ्गचतुरुपावच्छिन्नं वस्तु चेतित त्रयं विषयः । तत्र रसादिभिरतिरगुणवृत्तिरिति न केनचिदुच्यते, न च शक्यते वक्तुम् । व्यङ्गचारूप्रतीतिरपि तथैव । वस्तुचात्रुत्वप्रतीतये स्वशब्दानाभिधेयत्वेन यत्प्रतीत्योत्पादयितुमिष्यते तद् व्यङ्गचम् । तच्च न सर्व गुणवृत्तविषयः, प्रासिद्धचतुरोधाम्यामपि गौणानां शब्दानां प्रयोर्गरोनात् । तथोक्तं प्राक् । যদपि गुण-

वृत्तेविषयस्तदपि च व्यञ्जकत्वानुप्रवेशोन । तस्माद्गुणवृत्तेरपि व्यञ्जकत्वस्यात्य-

१. व्यवहि-ते -- घ. २. वाचकादत-यं त -- घ. ३. पदर्थो- -- घ. ४. ‘लक्षण-यात्परिणत’ - क-ख. ५. ‘बोधयति’ - ख. ६. ‘यत्रान्तिरसक्तसप्रतिप्तीति-रसक्त’ - ख. ७. स्वरूप-प्रतीति° - घ. ८. यस्मात्प्राति-यैव - घ. ९. ‘स्कुटः’ - म. १०. असकृदन्वितं समयादुपयोगितं वृथागवभासितं चेतित त्रयम् । इदं वाक्यं -- व. पुस्तके डधिकमस्ति । ११. वस्तुचारुत्व° -- BP. १२. यत्प्राती-योत्पादयितुमिष्यते -- B. inserts the full stop before यद् । १३. °विषयः-- घ. १४. °धाम्यामपि -- MB. १५. गुणवृत्ते- -- घ. पुस्तके नास्ति ।

The Light of Suggestion

This is another difference is respect of their natures :- Indication is practically denotation itself with this difference that it is a subordinate verbal function. But on the other hand, suggestion has been proved to be quite different from denotation. Still another difference between the two functions is this. When another sense is conveyed by a sense through indication, the first sense merges itself with the second and becomes one with it, as for instance in the sentence — The Hamlet ( is ) in the Ganges. But when one sense conveys another through suggestion, the first sense retains its individuality while conveying the other just like a lamp. Pārvatī counted the petals of her play-lotus, etc. are illustrations in point. If the name 'indication ' were to be given to those instances also where one sense conveys another without losing its own importance, then it would be tantamount to saying that indication itself is the primary verbal function. For in general, every sentence possesses the power of conveying a purport over and above the expressed senses of individual words.

The following question may be put to us :- ‘ Well, even granting the truth of what you say, what is the precise verbal function involved when a sense conveys the three-fold suggested content ?’ Here is our reply :- The sense therein acquires the said suggestiveness only because of the words aided by context etc. Hence how can anyone deny the use of words in such suggestion ?

The difference in the scope of indication and suggestiveness is also obvious. The scope of suggestiveness is three-fold, viz., ( 1 ) sentiments etc., ( 2 ) specific figures of speech and ( 3 ) suggested ideas. Of these, none will or can say that the apprehension of sentiments etc. is identical with indication. The same is true of suggested figures also. So far as suggested idea is concerned, that alone is suggested therein which is especially intended to be conveyed by the poet by a process other than denotation, when he finds that the beauty he wants to endow to the idea on hand cannot be achieved by means of denotation itself. All this cannot be included in the scope of indication since we can see several examples of indication based merely on convention or usage. This has been already explained. If at all there is any touch of beauty instanced in indication, it will be entirely due to the entry of the suggestive element therein.

ध्वन्यालोकः

न्ताविलक्षणत्वम् । वाचकत्वगुणवृत्तिविलक्षणस्यापि च तस्य तदुभयाश्रयत्वेन व्यवस्थानम् ।

व्यञ्जकत्वं हि कचिद्वाचकत्वाश्रयेण व्यवतिष्ठते, यथा विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ । कचित् गुणवृत्त्याश्रयेण यथा आविवक्षितवाच्ये ध्वनौ ।

तदुभयाश्रयत्वप्रतिपादनायैव च ध्वने: प्रथमतरं द्वौ प्रभेदावुपन्यस्तौ । तदुभयाश्रितत्वाच्च तदेकरूपत्वं तस्य न शक्यते वक्तुम् । यस्मात् तद्वाचकत्वैक-रूपमेव, कचिल्लक्षणाश्रयेण वृत्ते: । न च लक्षणैकरूपमेवान्यत्र वाचकत्वाश्रयेण व्यवस्थानात् । न चोभयधर्ममत्त्वेनैव तदेकैकरूपं न भवति । यावद्वाचकत्वलक्षणादिरूपरहितत्वेनापि । तथाहि गीतध्वनीनामपि व्यञ्जकत्व-

10मात्र रसादिविषयम् । न च वेषां वाचकत्वं लक्षणा वा कस्यचिद्दर्शने । शब्दादन्यत्रापि विषये व्यञ्जकत्वस्य दर्शोनाद्वाचकत्वादिशब्दधर्मप्रकारत्वमर्युक्तं वक्तुम् । यदि च वाचकत्वलक्षणादीनां शब्दप्रकाराणां प्रसिद्धप्रकाराविलक्षण-त्वेऽपि व्यञ्जकत्वं प्रकारत्वेन परिकलप्यते तच्च्छब्दस्यैव प्रकारत्वेन कस्मान् परिकल्प्यते ।

15तदेवं शब्दे व्यवहारे त्रय: प्रकारा: — वाचकत्वं गुणवृत्तिव्यञ्जकत्वं च । तत्र व्यञ्जकत्वं तदा व्यङ्ग्यप्रधानानां तदा1 ध्वानां, तस्य भाविव्यतिरेकवाच्यो विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यश्रेति द्वौ प्रभेदावनुक्रान्तौ प्रथमतरं तौ सविषतरं निरर्णीतौ ।

अन्यो बूयात् - ननु विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ गुणवृत्तिता नास्तीति

1. 'यथास्मिन्' - क-ख. 2. 'तदुभयाश्रयत्वाच्च' - क-ख, MB. 3. 'शक्यं' - ग. 4. 'शब्दाधिकेत्वेन' - ग. 5. 'नापि दर्शनेनात्' - MB. 6. 'च विषय' - घ. 7. व्यञ्जकत्वस्यापि - घ. 8. 'अशक्यं' - ग. 9. च-घ. पुस्तके नास्ति. 10. 'ध्वने-स्तस्य' - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Hence indication and suggestiveness are widely different from each other. The truth is that suggestiveness not only differs from denotation on the one hand and indication on the other; on the contrary, it is actually based upon each of them also.

In suggestion with intended but further-extending expressed sense, suggestiveness gets assistance from denotation, in suggestion with unintended expressed sense, it gets assistance from indication. These two varieties of suggestion were proposed at the outset itself with a view to bringing out the fact that suggestiveness is assisted by both denotation and indication. It is not possible to regard suggestiveness which is assisted by both these to be identical with either. Since it sometimes derives assistance from indication, it cannot be identical with denotation alone; since it gets assistance sometimes from denotation, it cannot be identical with indication alone. Thus it cannot be comprehended by either since it partakes of the characteristics of both. Besides this, it also partakes of the characteristics of sound which is devoid of both the verbal powers of denotation and indication. Thus the sounds of music do possess suggestiveness in respect of sentiments, etc., and they are never seen to possess either denotation or indication.

Furthermore, since we can see suggestiveness in instances which are not even sounds, it is wrong to consider it as a form of verbal functions like denotation. Though suggestiveness is thus different from the well-known functions, viz., denotation and indication of words, if it should be still regarded as another form of verbal function itself, why should not one regard it at that rate as a form of word itself?

Thus it is clear that the functions of words are three-fold — (1) Denotation, (2) Indication and (3) Suggestiveness. When the suggested sense itself happens to be the principal one also in an instance of suggestiveness, it deserves the title of suggestion. This suggestion may be divided into two important categories, viz., (1) that with unintended expressed sense and (2) that with intended but further-extending expressed sense. These have been treated elaborately at the outset itself.

The objector might argue as follows:— ‘You are right when you say that there is no element of indication in suggestion

ध्वन्यालोक:

यदुच्यते तदुक्तम् । यम्माद्वाच्यवाचकप्रतीतिपूर्विका यार्थान्तरप्रतिपत्तिस्तत्त्र कथम् गुणवृत्तिव्यवहार:? न हि गुणवृत्तौ यदा निमित्तेन केनचिद्विषयान्तरे शब्द आरोप्यते अत्यन्तातिरसक्तस्वार्थे यथा - ‘अङ्गिमोणवकः ’ इत्यादौ, यदा वा स्वार्थमन्दोनापरित्यजस्तत्सम्बन्धद्वारेण विषयान्तरमाकामति, यथा - ‘गर्जायां घोष:’ इत्यादौ, तदविवक्षितवाच्यत्वमुपपद्यते । अत एव च विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ वाच्यवाचकयोरपि स्वरूपप्रतीतिरर्थावगमनं च दृश्यत इति व्यञ्जकत्वव्यवहारो युक्तानुरोधी । स्वरूपं प्रकाशयन्नेव परावभासको व्यञ्जक इत्युच्यते । तथाविधे विषये वाचकत्वस्यैव व्यञ्जकत्वमिति

10 गुणवृत्तिव्यवहारो नियमेनैव न शक्यंते कर्तुमे । आविवक्षितवाच्यस्तु ध्वनिगुणवृत्ते: कथम् भिद्यते । तस्य प्रभेदद्वये गुणवृत्तिप्रभेदद्वयैरुपता लक्ष्यत एव यत: ।

अयमपि न दोष: । यस्मादविवक्षितवाच्यो ध्वनिगुणवृत्तिमार्गाश्रयोडपि भवति न तु गुणवृत्तिरूप एव । गुणवृत्तिरहि व्यञ्जकत्वशून्यापि दृश्यते । व्यञ्जकत्वं च यथोक्तचारुत्वहेतुं व्यङ्ग्यं विना न व्यवतिष्ठते । गुणवृत्तिस्तु 15 वाच्यधर्माश्रयेैणैव व्यङ्ग्यमात्राश्रयेैण चाभेदोपचाररूपा सम्भवति, यथा ‘तीक्ष्णत्वादङ्गिमोणवकः ’; ‘आहादकर्त्वाच्छन्द एवास्या मुखमित्यादौ । यथा च ‘प्रिये’ जने नास्ति पुनरुक्तम् इत्यादौ । यापि लक्षणरूपा गुणवृत्ति: साप्युपलक्षणीयार्थसंवन्धमात्राश्रयेैण चारूपनव्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतिं विनापि सम्भवत्येव, यथा-‘मद्रा: क्रोशन्तीत्यादौ ’ विषये ।

१. ‘संशये परित्यजन्’ -ख. २. न ता विवक्षित - घ. ३. ‘एव हि परावभासमाने’ - क-ख. ४. “नियमेन वे शक्यते-क-ख. ५. कर्तुम् - घ. ६. एव ! यतोडयमपि - घ. ७. ‘हेतुकं’ -क-ख. ८. ‘आहादहेतुत्वात् ’-ग. ९. ‘प्रयोजने’ -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

with intended but further-extending expressed sense. For it is impossible to speak of indication where a second meaning is apprehended over and above the apprehension of the expressed sense. There are two forms of indication :-( 1 ) Usage of a word to convey a second meaning because of some reason and in such a way that the primary meaning is entirely concealed as in the example :- 'The student is a veritable fire.' ( 2 ) Usage of a word in such a way that its primary meaning is retained in part while another meaning also is conveyed as in the example 'There is a hamlet in the Ganges.' In both these forms of indication, the primary sense is not intended in full. Therefore, it stands to reason that in suggestion with intended but further-extending expressed sense where the primary sense is fully intended and the denotative word itself conveys another sense also, one should speak of suggestiveness. Indeed, that which illumines itself along with shedding light upon other objects is regarded as suggester. In the instances mentioned, denotation itself possesses suggestiveness also and it is not at all possible to speak of indication as being applicable to them. But what difference is there between suggestion with unintended expressed sense and Indication ? 'The same two forms of indication described above constitute the two forms of this suggestion also.'

The Light of Suggestion

The fact is that there is no defect involved even in this state of affairs. Though suggestion with unintended expressed sense might operate in the wake of indication, it does not assume the form of indication itself. For, it is possible to come across indication which is completely devoid of the suggested content which is a source of beauty. This has been already pointed out. The first form of indication, viz., metaphorical attribution of identity, takes its stand in the characteristics of the expressed sense. For instance, the student is referred to as veritable fire because of his fire or short temper. The face of the heroine is spoken of as the moon itself because of its pleasing nature. Similarly, other examples are '......there is no tautology for lovers.' The second form of indication, viz., secondary sense also is possible if there is just a connection with the secondarily indicated sense though there is no apprehension of suggested content full of beauty: 'cots creak' etc. are examples.

ध्वन्यालोक:

यत्र तु सा चारूप्यवद् यत्रतीतिहेतुस्तत्रापि व्यञ्जकत्वानुप्रवेशो नैव वाचकत्ववत् । असम्भाविना चार्थेन यत्र व्यवहार:, यथा ' सुवर्णपुष्पां पृथिवीम् ' इत्यादौ तत्र चारूप्यवद् यत्रतीतिरेव प्रयोजकोति तथा-वियेऽपि विषये गुणवृत्तौ सत्यामपि ध्वनिनिर्णयहार एव युक्त्यनुरोधी, तस्माद्-विवक्षितान्यचे ध्वनौ द्वौ प्रकारपि प्रमाणयोग्येन कतविशेषविशिष्टा गुणवृत्तिरने तु तदेकलपा सहृदयहृदयाह्लादिनी प्रतीममानां । प्रतीतिहेतुत्वाद्विषयान्तरे तद्रूप-शून्यायांश्र दर्शोनात् । एतच सर्ज प्राक्प्रोतिमपि स्कुटतप्रतीतये पुनरुक्तम् ।

अपि च व्यञ्जकत्वलक्षणो य: शब्दार्थयोर्धमे: स प्रसिद्धसमभ्न्याऽनुरोधीति न कस्यचिद्विमतिविषयतामहैति । शब्दार्थयोर्हि प्रसिद्धो य: 10सम्भनया वाच्यार्थावचक्रमाव्यहार्यस्तमनुरुन्धान एव व्यञ्जकत्वलक्षणो न्याय:; सामध्यान्तरसम्भनादै:पाधक: पततते । अत एव वाचकत्वातस्य विशेष: वाचकत्वं हि शब्दविशेषस्य नियत आत्मा व्युत्पत्तिकालादारम्य तदविनाभावेन तस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात् । स त्वनियत:, औपाधिकत्वात् । प्रकरणादवच्छेदेन तस्य प्रतीतेरितरथा त्वप्रतीतेः । ननु यद्वनियतस्तत्किं तस्य स्वरूपपरिक्षया । 15 नैषदोष:; यत: शब्दार्थनि तस्यानियतत्वं, न तु स्वे विषये व्यञ्जकैलक्षणे । लिङ्गलिङ्ग्यायवाचस्य व्युत्कमवस्थ लद्वते; यथा लिङ्गलमात्रव्याप्यनियताव्-

१. 'विशेषगाविटा' -क-खव. २.प्रतीममानां प्रतीति° -BP. ३. °शून्याया -BP. ४. 'संपन्धगुंम्पत्ति' -क-खव. ५. 'व्यञ्जक' -क. ६. लिङ्गलिङ्गिन्याय° -MB. ७. मथ हि -घ. ८. °मात्रंशु नियता° -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Of course, in some instances, indication becomes a source of the apprehension of the suggested content full of beauty; but it is entirely due to its touch of suggestiveness as in the case of events, e. g. Three persons will gather..., the treatment can be justified only in view of the apprehension of suggested beauty; and hence it stands to reason that we should regard them as instances of suggestion only, though indication might also be present therein. Thus in both the divisions of suggestion with unintended expressed sense, we will find indication tinged with a shade of suggestiveness. This will not appear identical with indication but quite separate from it and brings great delight to the minds of refined critics. Though all this has been indicated already, it has been repeated with the object of making the point clear.

Furthermore, the fact is indisputable that the suggestive power of words follows only in the wake of wellknown convention. The suggestive power of words follows the track of the wellknown conventional relation of word to meaning which is given the designation of the denoter-denoted relationship. But it becomes coloured by its association with other adventitious circumstances. That is where suggestiveness differs from denotation The denotation of every word is constant because, right from childhood when one first picks up the language, the meaning of each word remains quite unchanged throughout one's life. But the suggestiveness of words is not so constant. The reason is that it is adventitious. Its apprehension is there only when all circumstances such as context combine in conveying it; otherwise it will not be apprehended at all. It might be argued : 'What is the use of examining the nature of such an adventitious concept?' The examination of its nature is not at all a defect, in so far as its adventitiousness is seen only from the standpoint of suggested sense which happens to be its main province. The analogy of probans in an inference is well applicable to suggestiveness. Since inference is dependent upon

ध्वन्यालोक:

भासम्र, इच्छाधीनत्बात्; स्वविषयाव्यभिचारि च । तथैवेदं यथा दर्शितं व्यङ्कत्वम् । शब्दात्मन्यनियतत्वादेव च तस्य वाचकत्वप्रकारतां न शाक्या कल्पयितुम् । यदि हि वाचकत्वप्रकारता तस्य भवेत् तच्छब्दात्मनि नियततापि स्याद्वाचकत्ववत् । स च तथाविध औपाधिको: धर्म: शब्दानामौपत्तिक-5 शब्दार्थसम्बन्धवादिना वाक्यतत्त्वविदा पौरुषेयपौरुषेययोर्‌वाक्ययोर्‌विशेषाभिधत नियमेनाभ्युपगन्तव्य:, तदनभ्युपगमे हि तस्य शब्दार्थसम्बन्धनित्यत्वे सत्यप्य-पौरुषेयपौरुषेययोर्‌वाक्ययोर्‌अर्थप्रतिपादने निर्विशेषत्वं स्यात् । तदनभ्युपगमे तु पौरुषेयाणां वाक्यानां पुरुषेच्छानुविधानसमारोपितौपाधिकनिरापारान्तराणां सत्यपि स्वाभिधेयसन्वन्धापरित्यागे मिथ्यार्थतापि भवेत् ।

10. दर्शयते हि 'भावानामपरित्यक्तस्वभावानां भावानामौपाधिकी समीक्ष्यन्ते सम्बन्धसम्पादितौपाधिकनिरापारान्तराणां विरुद्धक्रियत्वम् । तथा हि-हिममयूख-प्रभृतिभिर्निर्वापितसकलजीवलोकं शीतलत्वमुद्रहतामेव प्रियाविरहदहनदह्यमान-मानसैर्‌जनेरालोक्यमानानां सतां सन्तापकारित्वं प्रसिद्धमेव । तस्मात्‌पौरुषेयाणां वाक्यानां सत्यपि नैसर्गिकेऽर्थसम्बन्धे मिथ्यार्थत्वं समर्थयितुमिच्छता वाचकत्व-15.व्यतिरिक्तं किंचिदूपमौपाधिकं व्यक्‍तमेवाभिधानीयम् । तच्च न्यग्भावाद्‌धते मान्यताम् । व्यङ्गचत्प्रकारान् हि व्यञ्जकत्वम् । पौलिकेयाणी च वाक्यानि

11. 'इच्छाविषयत्वात्' -ग. 2. शब्दात्मनि नियतत्वादेव -घ. 3. 'वाचकत्व-प्रकारता' -ग. 'रोपितौपाधिकनिरापार'° -ग. 'रोपितोपाधिकनिरापारा°' -घ. त्वक्तस्वख्य° M.B.

The Light of Suggestion

one's desire, when there is no such desire to infer on a person's part, the existence of the quality of probans in anything is far from constant from the man's point of view of the probandum. Suggestiveness also is exactly like this. Though from the standpoint of word, it might be inconstant, one should not rush to the conclusion that it is a variety of denotation. If it were really a variety of denotation, it too should have been as constant as denotation itself in respect of word. An adherent of the Mīmāṃsā school of philosophy will have to accept perforce the conclusion that words have an adventitious power of the nature of suggestiveness. For he is a believer in the theory that not only there is a natural and eternal relation between word and its sense but also that there is difference between sentences uttered by men and those revealed in the Vedas. If he does not accept this adventitious power of words, the result would be that human utterance and superhuman revelations would both be on a par, since the relation between word and its sense is acknowledged to be eternal in both the cases. But if he should accept this adventitious power, he can easily count for the possibility of falsity in human utterances. For, though one might hold that the relation between sentences and their purport is eternal, there will also be room left to attribute adventitious drawbacks such as delusion due to the fleeting desires of the speaker.

Instances too can be found in nature of objects which produce effects opposite to their nature due to their contact with adventitious circumstances though their nature itself is not completely lost on that account. For example, even the cool-rayed moon and such other cool objects which allay the heat of the entire universe by their refreshing coolness are seen to cause intense pain to onlookers who are afflicted by the burning pangs of separation from their beloveds. One who likes, therefore, to uphold the doctrine that the relation of word to its meaning is natural or eternal, will have to affirm obviously some adventitious element at least which belongs to words and which is distinct from denotation if he should explain properly the falsity of human utterances. And it cannot be anything other than suggestiveness. Suggestiveness is the same as the communication of what is suggested. All human utterances primarily communicate the intention of the speaker. That intention is

DHVANYĀLOKA

प्राधान्येन पुरुषाभिप्रायमेव प्रकाशयन्ति । स च व्यङ्ग्यच एव न त्वभिधेयः, तेन सहाभिधानस्य वाच्यवाचकभावलक्षणसम्बन्धाभावात् ।

नव्यनेन न्यायेन सर्वेषामेव लौकिकानां वाक्यानां ध्वनिव्यवहारः प्रसक्तः । मत्रेषामप्यनेन न्यायेन व्यङ्ग्यत्वकत्वात् । सत्यमेतत्; किं तु वक्त्रभिप्रायप्रकाशनेन यद्यपि व्यङ्ग्यत्वं तत्तु सर्वेषामेव लौकिकानां वाक्यानामविशिष्टम् । तत्तु वाचकत्वान्न भिद्यते, व्यङ्ग्यं हि तत्र नान्तरीयकतया व्यवस्थितम्; न तु विवक्षितत्वेन । यस्य तु विवक्षितत्वेन व्यङ्ग्यचस्य स्थितिः तद्वच्यङ्ग्यत्वं ध्वनिव्यवहारस्य प्रयोजकम् । यत्राभिप्रायविशेषरूपं व्यङ्ग्यं शब्दार्थाभ्यां प्रकाशते तद्वति त्रिवक्षितं तात्पर्येण प्रकाशमानं सत् । किन्तु तदेव केतलमपरिमितविषयस्य ध्वनिव्यवहारस्य न प्रयोजकमव्यपकत्वात् । तत्र हि दर्शितभिद्नयरूपं तात्पर्येण यत्त्यमात्राभिप्रायरूपमविशिष्टं च सुत्रेमेव ध्वनिव्यवहारस्य प्रयोजकमिति यथोक्तव्यङ्ग्यत्वाविशेषे ध्वनिलक्षणे नातिव्याप्तिरिन चाव्याप्तिः । तस्माद्वाक्यतत्त्वविदां मतेः तावच्च्यङ्ग्यत्वलक्षणः शब्दो व्यापरो न विरोघी प्रत्युतानुगुण एव लक्ष्यते ।

परिनिश्चितानिर्धप्रशाब्दब्रह्मणां विपश्चितां मतमाश्रित्यैव प्रवृत्तोऽयं ध्वनिव्यवहार इति तैः । स हि किं विरोधाविरोधौ चिन्त्यते । कृत्रिमशब्दार्थसम्बन्धवादिनां तु युक्तिविदामनुभवसिद्ध एवायं व्यङ्ग्यकभावः शब्दानामर्थान्तराणामिवावि रोधश्विति न प्रतीक्ष्यपदवीमवतरति । वाचकत्वे हि तार्किकाणां विप्रतिपत्तयः प्रवर्तन्ताम्, किमिदं स्वाभाविकं

१. वाचकतावलक्षण -घ. २. सर्वेषामेवालौकिकानां:- घ. ३. सर्वेषामेवानेन - घ. ४. वक्त्रभिप्रायविशिष्टार्थप्रतिपादनेन - ख. व. ५. 'यदि हि' - खव., यदि - घ. ६. न तु - घ. ७. 'न तु विवक्षितत्वेन ' - घ, पुस्तके नास्ति. ८. न - घ. ९. व्यवस्थितः - घ. १०. 'शब्दार्थाभ्यामेव' - क.खव. ११. 'प्रकाशमानं' - क.खव. १२. यत् - घ. १३. प्रयोजकम् । व्याप्तिकत्वात् - घ. १४. तत्र हि दर्शित - क.खव. १५. विशिष्यते - घ. १६. मतेः न - घ. १७. (न) - घ. १८. येः ध्वनि - घ. १९. नातिव्याप्तिरिति - BP. २०. निर्विरोधश्विति - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

suggested but not denoted since the relation of denoter-denoted does not apply at all to the intention and the word.

The Light of Suggestion

As for the objection that at this rate all sentences in the world will have to be designated as suggestive since all sentences in the world do contain suggestiveness ( of intention), we say that the objection is valid in a way. It is a fact that suggestiveness of the speaker's intention is common to all human utterances in the world. But the thing is that this suggestiveness is in no way different from denotation itself. The suggested and the expressed are so organically bound up with each other therein and the suggested is not at all intended as exclusively important, which consideration alone entitles a content to get the designation of suggestion. If the speaker's intention which shines through words and meanings should be intended as important, it is only when it is directed towards the communication of the suggested alone exclusively. Nor can we think that even this suggestiveness is enough to explain all instances which come under the province of suggestion. For, the province of suggestion is unlimited while that of the said suggestiveness is but limited. Hence the conclusion is established that whether it be of the nature of speaker's intention or not, if the three-fold suggested content should be principally manifest, it will provide sufficient ground for the designation of suggestion. This definition of suggestion which takes into account suggestiveness as explained above cannot be tainted by the fallacies of too wide or too narrow. Thus the verbal power of suggestiveness will be found to be in agreement with the views of the experts on the theory of sentences ( i. e. Mīmāṁsakas ) far from conflicting with their doctrines.

The Light of Suggestion

So far as the system of grammar is concerned, the question whether the theory of suggestion is compatible with that system or not, does not arise at all; for the very expression ' suggestion ' has been borrowed ( into the field of poetics ) from the grammarians who maintain that sound in its eternal form of SPHOTA ( lit. Burst ) is identical with Ultimate Reality itself ( and that it is only suggested and never expressed ).

The Light of Suggestion

Turning to the rationalistic system of logicians, it will be seen that the theory of suggestion cannot clash with their views

शब्दानामाहोस्वित्सामयिकमित्याद्या: व्यञ्जकत्वे तुं तत्त्वष्टभाविनी भावान्तर-साधारणे लोकप्रसिद्ध एवानुगम्यमाने: को विमतिनामवसर:? अलौकिके हर्थे तार्किकाणां विमतयो निविलाः प्रवर्तन्ते न तु लौकिके। न हि नीलमधुरादिष्वशेषलोकेन्द्रियगोचर बाधारहिते तत्थे परस्परं विप्रतिपन्ना हसन्ते। न हि बाधारहितं नीलं नीलमिति ब्रूते परेरण प्रतिषिध्यते नैतन्नीलं पीतमेतदिति। तथैव व्यञ्जकत्वं वाचकानां शब्दानामवाचकानां च गीतध्वनिनामशब्दरूपाणां च चेष्टादीनां यत्स्ववेशमनुभवसिद्धमेव तत्केनापह्नूयते। अशब्देऽर्थ रमणीयं हि सूचयन्तो व्यवहारास्तथा व्यापार निबद्धाश्वानिबद्धाश्च विदग्धपरिषत्सु विविधा विभाव्यन्ते। तज्ज्ञुपहास्यतामात्मन: परिहरन् कोडिसन्दीधितं सचेताः॥

10 अथ बूयात, अर्थात्पत्तिरित्यभिधानावशेर: व्यञ्जकत्वं शब्दानां गमकत्वं तत्त्वलिङ्गत्वमथश्र: : व्यङ्ग्यप्रतीतीरेवङ्गिप्रतीतिरेवेति लिङ्गलिङ्गिभाव एव तेषां व्यङ्ग्यचव्यञ्जकभावो नापर: कश्चित्। अतश्वैतदवरमेव बोद्धव्यं यस्मादुक्त्राभि-प्रायापेक्षया व्यञ्जकत्वमिदानीमेव त्वया प्रतिपादितं वक्त्रभिप्रायशानुमेयरूप एव॥

१. 'हि'-ग. २. भावान्तरसाधारणे -ष. ३. 'तार्किकाणां निविश: प्रवर्तन्ते' -ष्मो, 'तार्किकाणामभिनिवेशाः प्रवर्तन्ते'-घ. ४. एव-घ. पुस्तके नास्ति। ५. 'दूवते निबन्ध'-ग. ६. 'व्यवहारास्तथा व्यवहार निबद्धाश्रा-निबद्धाश्र'-क-ख. ७. निबन्धाइच -ष. ८. 'तज्ज्ञुपहास्य' -ष. ९. 'कति संदधीत -ग. 'परिहरन्कथमाभिसंधीत' -ष. १०. (इद्यात्) -घ. ११. अभिस्वाना° -ष. १२. अवसर -घ. १३ लिङ्गलिङ्गिभाव -ष. १४. 'मार्चेन: पर:' क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

either. Indeed they hold that the relationship between a word and its meaning is conventional or man-made. So they also admit that suggestiveness is within our experience and that it is seen not only in meanings but also in words. Hence there is no need at all for refuting their views. The logicians indeed may hold divergent views so far as denotation is concerned, e. g. ' Is this a natural power or a man-made one ?' But there is no scope at all for any conflicting opinion so far as suggestiveness is concerned, because suggestiveness follows in the wake of denotation, and is found to be present even in other places ( where denotation is absent ) and its experience is pretty universal. All the controversies of logicians relate only to imperceptible objects and never to perceived ones. Logicians are never seen to hold conflicting views about such subjects of common and doubtless perception as - 'This is black ' and ' This is sweet '. When one logician perceives an object as black without the association of any contradictory circumstances and says - ' This is black ', another logician does not proceed to challenge him and assert - ' This is not black; this is yellow '. So also when suggestiveness is found by experience to exist in words which are denotative, in sounds of music etc. which are not even denotative, and finally in gestures and so forth too which are not words at all, no one can gainsay it. Various turns of speech both in verse and prose which are suggestive of non-denoted beautiful meanings are commonly met with in the gatherings of wits. Which man of taste can be deaf to their implications without becoming a butt of ridicule ?

But the logicians might bring forward the following objection: It is true that in the instance mentioned, one does catch the implication of spoken words for they certainly possess suggestiveness. But in fact this suggestiveness is none other than implication; and implication is the same as the state of an inferential probans. The apprehension of the suggested idea is thus identical with the inferential knowldge of the probandum. In other words the relation of suggester - suggested is none other than the relation of probans - probandum. There is also another reason which substantiates this conclusion: you have yourself explained just now that words possess suggestiveness directed to the speaker's intention and it is our conviction that the speaker's intention is only inferable.

Dhvanyāloka:

अत्रोच्यते-नन्वमपि यदि नाम स्यात्तत्किं नाश्रित्यम् ? वाचकत्वगुण-वृत्तिव्यतिरिक्तो व्यञ्जकत्वलक्षणः शब्दव्यापारोडस्तीतयस्माभिरस्युपगतम् । तस्य चैवमपि न काचित् क्षति: । तद्धि व्यञ्जकत्वं लिङ्गत्वमस्तु अन्यद्वा । सर्वथा प्रसिद्धशब्दप्रकारविलक्षणत्वं शब्दव्यापारविषयत्वं च तस्यास्तीति नास्त्येवावयोरिवाद: । न पुनरयं परमार्थो यदन्यञ्जकत्वं लिङ्गत्वमेव सर्वत्र व्यतिरेकप्रतीतिश्व लिङ्गप्रतीतिरेवेति ।

ग्रादपि स्वपक्षसिद्धयेडस्मदुक्तमनूदितं त्वया वक्तुमिप्रायस्य व्यङ्ग्य-त्वेनाभ्युपगमात्तत्प्रकाशने शब्दानां लिङ्गत्वमेवेति तदित्थ्यथास्माभिरभिहितं तद्विभज्य प्रतिपाद्यते; श्रूयताम् - द्विविधो विषय: शब्दानाम् अनुमेय: प्रतिपाद्यश्च । तत्रानुमेयो विवक्षालक्षण: । विवक्षा च शब्दस्वरूपप्रकाशनेच्छा चेति द्विपकारा । तत्राद्या न शब्दव्यवहाराङ्गम् । सा हि प्राणितमात्रप्रतिपत्तिफला । द्वितीया तु शब्दविशेषावधारणावसितलिङ्ग-हितापि शब्दकरणव्यवहारनिबन्धनम् । ते तु द्वे अप्यनुमेयो विषय: शब्द-नाम् । प्रतिपाद्यस्तु प्रयोक्तुरर्थप्रतिपादनसमीहाविषयीकृतोऽर्थ: ।

म च तद्विविध:—वाच्यो व्यङ्ग्यश्च । प्रयोक्ता हि कदाचित्स्व-

१. 'अत्रोच्यते' घ - पुस्तके नास्ति. २. व्यञ्जकलक्षण: - व. ३. This and the following paragraphs are found quoted in Sāhityacūdāmaṇi, a commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa by Bhaṭṭa Gopāla. (KP. TSS Edn. p. 276 ) ४. 'सिता च्च्यमहितामपि' - क-ख. ५. 'निबन्धनी' - क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

To this, our rejoinder is as follows: even if the alleged view be true, there is nothing lost. Our only purpose is to establish the fact that suggestiveness is a verbal power, over and above two other powers, viz., denotation and indication. And this position of ours will not suffer in the least even if we should accept your allegation. It might be called by the name of suggestiveness, or that of an inferential probans or by any other name for that matter. But whatever the name by which we might call it, the fact remains that we will have admitted that there is no cause at all for any real dispute between us. But the truth is that suggestiveness is not identical with the state of an inferential probans nor is all apprehension of the suggested idea identical with inferential knowledge.

The Light of Suggestion

You have indeed made a clever use of our own words in substantiating your position. You have remarked glibly that the speaker's intention is certainly implied and added that such implication is the same as the state of an inferential probans We shall therefore explain in greater detail the real meaning of our statement for your benefit. The scope of words is two-fold : (1) Inferable and (2) denotative. Of these, the inferable is always of the nature of the speaker's intention. This intention of the speaker, once again, is two-fold : (1) desire to utter words for their own sake and (2) desire to convey meaning through words. Between these, the first type of speaker's intention does not play any part in verbal discourse. It only serves to distinguish an animal from a non-animal. But the second type of speaker's intention plays the part of a proximate cause in verbal discourse though it is rendered rather remote due to several other intervening factors between the utterance of the word and the apprehension of its meaning. And both these types of speaker's intention are inferable from words.

The Light of Suggestion

But the denotative scope of words relates to meaning itself which happens to be the aim of the speaker's intention to convey meaning. It is also two-fold : (1) the expressed and (2) the suggested. The speaker may use words with a view to conveying

शब्देनार्थं प्रकाशयितुं समीहते कदाचित्स्वशब्दानभिधेयत्वेन प्रयोजनापेक्षया कयाचित् । स तु द्विविधोऽपि प्रतिपाद्यो विषय: शब्दानां न लिखितया स्वरूपेण प्रकाशते, अपि तु कृत्रिमेणाकृत्रिमेण वा सम्बन्धान्तरेण । विवक्षाविषयत्वं हि तस्यार्थस्य शब्दैरिङ्गितया प्रतीयेते न तु स्वरूपम् । यदि हि लिख्यतैव तत्र शब्दानां व्यापार: स्यात्तच्छछद्रार्थे सम्यक्प्रमध्यात्वादिविवादा एव न प्रतितेरेतां1 धूमादिलिङ्गानुमितानुमेयान्तरत्वात् । व्यङ्गच्श्वार्थो वाच्यसामध्य्यांकिसितया वाच्यवाचकद्रु2स्य सम्बन्धी भवत्येव । साक्षादसाक्षाद्वावो हि सम्बन्धस्याप्रयोजक: । वाच्यवाचकभावाश्रयत्वं च व्यङ्गजकत्वस्यैव प्रागेव दर्शितम् । तस्माद्वक्त्रभिप्रायरूप एव व्यङ्गच्ये लिखितया शब्दानां व्यापार: । तद्विषयीकुर्वते तु प्रतिपाद्यतया । प्रतीमाने तस्मिन्नभिप्रायरूपेऽनभिप्रायरूपे च वाचकत्वेनैव व्यापार: सम्बन्धान्तरेण वा । न तावद्वाचकत्वेन यथोक्तं प्राक् । सम्बन्धान्तरेण व्यङ्गजकत्वमेव । न च व्यङ्गकत्वं लिख्यत्स्वरूपमेव आलोकादिष्वनन्यथा हृश्यता3त् । तस्मात्प्रतिपाद्यो विषय: शब्दानां न लिख्यत्वेन

1. 'शब्दात्' -ग. 2. 'लिख्यतया -घ. 3. लिख्यतया -BP. & -व. 4. व्यहार: -ष. 5. प्रतितेरेतां1 -ब. 6. 'व्यङ्गच्यप्रयोजकत्वस्य' -क-खव. 7. 'व्यङ्गच्यो' -क-ख. 8. 'अनभिप्रायरूपेऽनभिप्रायरूपे' -ष. c. 'अनभिप्रायरूपे' -घ पुसनके नास्ति. 9. लिख्यत्वेन -ब

The Light of Suggestion

his meaning directly by means of them ( and then we have the expressed meaning ), or he may use words which do not directly convey his meaning, with a view to achieving some purpose ( and then we have the suggested meaning ). Both these aspects of the denotative scope of words are far from appearing as probandum of any inference based on words. On the other hand, the relationship between word and such denotative content is one other than inference whether it be a conventional or an unconventional relationship. It is only the aspect of intention on the part of a speaker to employ words or meaningful words that is inferable and not the meaning itself conveyed by his words. If it were true that the meaning itself could form the probandum of an inference having words for its probans, there should be no scope for doubts at all whether any meaning is right or wrong. For instance, when the probandum viz., fire, is inferred from the probans viz., smoke, there is indeed no room for any doubt about the existence of fire. Since the suggested meaning is conveyed by the power of the expressed itself, it, too, is related to the word just as the expressed meaning is related to the word. Directness or remoteness is not the differentiating condition of a relationship. That suggestiveness is related to denotation has been already shown. The conclusion is thus indisputable that words will have the state of an inferential probans only while implying the intention of the speaker and that the meanings themselves which are signified by the words are due to the verbal power of denotation and not inference. Now we may take instances of meanings which are suggested by a word. These may be of the nature of intention and may not be as well. Can we say that all such meanings are conveyed by the power of denotation alone in words ? Or should we postulate some other function ? It has been already shown that the power of denotation alone cannot explain the suggested meaning. Hence we will have to admit another function and that function itself is called suggestiveness by us. The nature of suggestiveness is not co-extensive with the nature of an inferential probans, since the former exists in objects like light where the latter is absent. Just as the denoted content of words is not

ध्वन्यालोक:

सम्पन्धी वाच्यवत् । यो हि लिङ्गित्वेन तेषां सम्पन्धी' यथा दर्शितो विषय: सैं न वाच्यत्वेन प्रतीयते, अपि तूपाधितत्वेन । प्रतिपाद्यस्य च विषयस्य लिङ्गितत्वे तादृश्याणां विप्रतिपत्तीनां लौकिकैरैव क्रियमाणानामभाव: प्रसज्येतेति । एतच्चोक्तमेव । यथा च वाच्यविषये प्रमाणान्तरानुगमेन सम्यकत्वप्रतीतौ काञ्चित्क्रियमानायां तस्य प्रमाणान्तरविषयत्वे सत्यपि न शब्द्यापारविषयताहानिस्तदू'यझचस्यापि । कार्यविषये च व्यझ्घग्रहणतीनां सत्यासत्यत्वनिरूपणस्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरग्यापारपरिक्षो'पहासायैव सम्पद्यते । तस्मालिङ्गप्रतीतिरेव सङेत्न गझचप्रतीतिरिति न शक्यते' वक्तुम् । यत्त्वानुमेयरूपं गझच विषयं शब्दानां व्यझकत्वं तदू'ध्वनिव्यवहारस्याप्रयोजकं । अपि तु व्यझकत्वलक्षण: शब्दानां व्यापार औत्पत्तिकराब्दार्थसम्बन्धवादिनाप्यभ्युपगन्तव्य इति प्रदर्शनार्थमुपन्यासतम् । तादृशव्यझकत्वं कदा चिल्लिङ्गत्वेन कदा चिद्धूान्तरेण शब्दानां वाचकानामवाचकानां च सर्ववादिभिरप्रतिक्षेप्यमित्ययमस्माभिर्यत्न आराढ: । तदेवं गुणवृत्तिवाचकत्व-

१. लिङ्गित्वेन सम्पन्धी - च. २. 'असौ ' - ग. ३. त्वौपाधिक्त्वेन - ष. ४. विप्रतिपत्तीनां लौकिकानां - घ. ५. 'गमनेन'-क-खव. ६. 'कार्य'-ग. ७. 'वाच्यं-व्यझच'- क-खव. ८. 'सत्यत्वानिरूपणाप्रयोजक' - ग. ९. 'शक्यं' - क-खव १०. 'नुमेयरूपं - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

identical with the probandum of an inference, so also the suggested content is not identical with it. Contrariwise, that which becomes the object of an inferred probandum as shown above, does not constitute what is denoted but constitutes only an adventitious attribute of what is denoted. If the denoted meaning too were to be inferable as probandum, there could be no occasion at all for any differences of opinion regarding it in the world. But such differences are within our common knowledge and this has also been explained already.

The Light of Suggestion

It is no doubt true that sometimes one does resort to inference or other Instruments of Knowledge while deciding the truth of even an expressed meaning. Though it thus falls within the scope of other Instruments of Knowledge, its being at the same time an object of the verbal power of denotation does not suffer in the least. The same is true of suggested meaning also. As a matter of fact, the question of logical truth and falsity in regard to suggested meaning is entirely futile. Such being the case, it would be nothing but ridiculous if one were to indulge in discussions regarding different Instruments of Knowledge applicable therein. In short, we can wind up the discussion by saying that it is impossible to identify the apprehension of the suggested meaning with the apprehension of the inferred probandum in every case.

The Light of Suggestion

Though it is true that we have affirmed above the existence of an implied aspect in words (viz., speaker's intention) which is also inferable, and that it can also be called by the name of suggestiveness, we never believe that it is a conclusive factor at all in deciding about the designation of suggestion to be given to particular instances.

The Light of Suggestion

The reason why we made that remark is quite a different one; it was put forward by us only as an argument to elicit the support of even philosophers holding the doctrine of eternal relationship between word and sound to the fact that suggestiveness is a unique function of words. That suggestiveness, as a matter of fact, co-exists sometimes with the state of inferential probans of words, and sometimes shines through denotative words as well as non-denotative words. We have laboured this point at length just to show that no scholastic

Dhvanȳāloka:

दिम्यः शब्दप्रकारेम्यो नियमेनैव तावद्विलक्षणं व्यज्जकत्वम् । तदन्तःपाति- त्वेऽपि तस्य हठादमिधीयमानं तद्द्रिशेषस्य ध्वनिर्यत्प्रकारणं विप्रतिपत्तिनिरासाय सहृदयनुत्पत्तये वा तत्रियमाणमनतिसन्धेयमेव । न हि सामान्यमात्रकक्षणे- नोपयोगिविशेषलक्षणानां प्रतिक्षेपः शakyः कर्तुम् । एवं हि सति सत्तामात्र- एव लक्षणे कृते सकलसद्रुलक्षणानां पौनरुक्त्यप्रसङ्गः । तदेवम्— विमतिविषयो य आसीनमनूषिणां सततंमविदितसत्तवः । 'ध्वनिसञ्ज्ञीतः प्रकारः काव्यस्य व्यज्जितः सोऽयम् ॥ प्रकारोऽन्यो गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यः काव्यस्य हइयते । यत्र वयङ्ग्यान्वये वाच्यचारुत्वं स्याद्यकरिष्यत् ॥ ३४ ॥

व्यङ्ग्योद्र्थो ललनावण्ययप्रलयो यः प्रतिपादितसत्तस्य प्राधान्चे ध्वनिरित्युक्तम् । तस्य तु गुणीभावेन वाच्यचारुत्वप्रकर्षे गुणीभूतव्यङ्गो नाम काव्यप्रभेदः प्रकल्प्यते । तत्र वस्तुमात्रस्य व्यङ्ग्यस्य तिरस्कृतवाच्येम्यः प्रतीयमानस्य कदाचिद्रच्यरुपवाच्यार्थापेक्षया गुणीभावे सति गुणीभूत- व्यङ्ग्यता ।

यथा —

१. “पातित्वेऽपि तस्य ग्रहादमिधीयमानं तद्द्रिशेषस्य ध्वने” -क-ख. पातित्बेनापि-च. २. तस्य ग्रहादामिधीयमानेतद्द्रिशेषस्य-च. ३. ‘अभिसन्धेयमेव’ -क-ख. ४. ‘अभि प्राप्नुयाद्’ क -ख. ५. सङ्केतः KLV. ६. ‘च’ ग., तस्मैव -च. ७. वाच्येम्यः -ष.

The Light of Suggestion

objection should be raised by any of the controversialists, adherents as they might be of different systems of thought. Hence we might conclude that suggestiveness is a power of words, quite different from all other powers like indication and denotation. Notwithstanding all this, controversialists might still persist in asserting dogmatically that it is included under them only; but our doctrine of suggestiveness which attempts at explaining the speciality of suggestiveness, at disarming all divergences of opinion and at educating the taste of critics will not certainly deserve any censure. It is not indeed possible to belittle the usefulness of detailed definitions of particulars, simply because general definitions are already there. If one should belittle them, it would be no better than saying that the definitions of all particular concepts in philosophy are just so many repetitions in view of the fact that the general definition of the Summum genus itself, viz., Reality, has been propounded at the very outset. Thus—

The Light of Suggestion

The variety of poetry designated as suggestion, which had become a source of controversy for long, because its real nature had eluded even persons of the best intellect, has now been explained.

The Light of Suggestion

We can see another variety of poetry viz. poetry of subordinated suggestion, wherein the artistic excellence of the expressed is greater than that of the suggested, though the latter also happens to be present alongside of the former.

The Light of Suggestion

The suggested sense has been compared to the composite charm of lovely women and it has already been mentioned that when it happens to be exclusively important, we get the type of poetry which merits the designation of DHVANI. When the same happens to become secondary and the expressed alone shines forth prominently, we get another type of poetry which can be regarded as GUṆĪBHŪTA-VYAṆGYA or ‘Poetry of subordinated suggestion’. In this variety, once again, a bare idea conveyed by such words as have lost their conventional denotation might be the suggested element and it might become secondary to the purport of the sentence as a whole got at by its component denotative words, as in the following example :—

Svanṭhyālokaḥ

लावण्यासिन्युुरणपैरैव हि केयमत्र यत्रोत्पलानि शाशिना सह सम्प्लवन्ते । उन्मज्जति द्विरदकुम्भटटी च यत्र यत्रापरे कदलिकाण्डमृणालदण्डा: ॥

अतिरसृकतवाच्येम्योडपि शब्देम्य: प्रतीयमानस्य व्यझ्झचस्य कदाचिद्वाच्यप्राधान्येन काव्यचारुत्वापेक्षया गुणीभावे सति गुणीभूतव्यझ्झचता, ५ यथोदाहृतम् - ' अनुरागवती सन्ध्या ' इत्येवमादि । तस्यैव स्वयमुख्यप्रकाशीकृतत्वेन गुणीभाव: यथोदाहृतम्—‘ सड्ढ़ेतकालमनसम् ' इत्यादि ।

रसादिस्वरूपव्यझ्झचस्य गुणीभावो रसवदलङ्कारे' दर्शितः; तत्र च तेषामाधिकारिकवाक्यापेक्षया गुणीभावो विवहनप्रवृत्तभृत्यानुयायिपराजवत् । व्यझ्झचालङ्कारस्य गुणीभावे दीपकादिविषय: ।

तथा — प्रसन्नगम्भीरपदा: काव्यबन्धा: सुवावहा: । ये च तेषु प्रकारोऽ्यमेवं योग्य: सुमेधसा ॥ ३५ ॥

ये चैतड्परिमितस्वरूपा अपि प्रकाशमानास्तर्थाविधार्थेरमणीयाः सन्तो विवेकिनां सुखावहा: काव्यबन्धास्तेषु सर्वेष्वेवायं प्रकारो गुणीभूतव्यझ्झचो 15 नाम योजनीयः । यथा—

लच्छी दुहित्ता जामाउओँ हरी तेस घरीणिआ गड़इगा । आमिआमिअङ्ङा अ सुआ अहो कुडुम्बं महोअहिणो ॥ लक्मीदुहिता जामाता हरितस्य गृहिणी गड़गा । अमृतमृगाढ्ढौ च सुतावहो कुडुम्बं महोदधे: ॥ [ इति च्छाया ]

१. चारुत्वापेक्षया -घ २. गुणभाव: -घ. ३. रसादिस्वरूपव्यझ्झचस्य - घ. ४. गुणी- मावे रसवदलकूारो -च. ५. 'रसवदलङ्कारविषय: प्राकप्रदर्शित:' क-ख. ६. 'तत्र च रसादिमाधि' क-ख. ७. 'विवहिप्रवृत्त' -ख. ८. गुणीभावो -घ. ९. प्रकारोऽ्यमेव -घ. १०. परिमितस्वरूपा - घ. ११. 'प्रकाशमानचिन्तनायं' क-ख. भ्रकाशमानास्तथा रमणीयाः

The Light of Suggestion

Who could be this new ocean of charm With dark lilies floating beside the moon; With twin temples of elephants merged Beside plantain-stems and lotus-stalks?

The Light of Suggestion

Even when words other than those whose expressed sense is concealed are employed, if only the suggested sense conveyed by them should be secondary to their expressed meaning, we find sometimes this variety of poetry with subordinated suggestion. Instances quoted already such as Twilight is blushing etc., will serve as examples.

The Light of Suggestion

If what is suggested is also expressed again by other words, we should consider it too as an instance of subordinated suggestion. Examples of this have been already given : e.g. Knowing that her paramour, etc. If the suggested element happens to be of the nature of sentiment etc., and if it is also secondary to the expressed, we would consider it as an instance of Figurative sentiment as already demonstrated. The subordination of sentiment, etc., to the main purport of the sentence in such instances can be likened to the circumstantial subordination of a king who has to walk behind his own servant when the latter is a bridegroom taken in procession When a suggested figure is secondary to the expressed, we have instances of figures like Ellipsis implying a simile, etc.

The Light of Suggestion

In all poetic compositions that look delightful by reason of their lucid and elegant words, only this variety of poetry should be recognised by the intelligent critic.

The Light of Suggestion

Despite the fact that poetic compositions which look lovely and bring delight to discriminating critics appear unlimited, this very variety, viz., poetry of subordinated suggestion, should be recognised in all of them. For example :— Lakṣmī is his daughter, Hari himself the son-in-law And wife no less than Gaṅgā; Verily, Amṛta and the Moon are his two sons, Ah, what a family indeed this Mighty Ocean has!

Dhvanyaloka:

वाच्यालङ्कारवर्गोऽयं व्यङ्गचांशानुगमे सति । प्रायेणैव परां छायां बिभ्रल्लक्ष्ये निरीक्ष्यते ॥३६॥

वाच्यालङ्कारवर्गोऽयं व्यङ्गचालङ्कारस्य वस्तुमात्रस्य वा यथायोगमनुगमे सति छायातिशयकारीकरोति दरिद्रतां । स तु तथारूपः प्रायेण सर्व एव परिक्ष्यमाणो लक्ष्ये निरीक्ष्यते । तथा हि-दीपक-

समा-सोकत्यादिवदनये डप्यलङ्कारा: प्रायेण व्यङ्गचालङ्कारान्तर-वस्त्वन्तर-संशिनो दृश्यन्ते । यतः प्रथमं तावदतिशयोक्तिगर्भता सर्वालङ्कारेषु शक्यक्रिया ।

कुतैव च सा महाकवित्विः कामपि काव्यच्छविं पुष्यति, कथम् ह्यतिशययोगिता स्वविषयौचित्येन क्रियामाणा सती काव्ये नोत्कर्षमावहेत् । भामहेनाप्यतिश-

10 योक्तिलक्षणे यतु तद्गुण-

सैषा सर्वैव वकोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते । यत्नोडस्यां कविना कार्यः कोडलङ्कारोज्ञया विना ॥ इति ॥

तत्रातिशयोक्तिर्यमलङ्कारमभितिष्ठति कविप्रतिभावशात्तस्य चारुत्वाति-शाययोगोऽन्यस्य त्वलङ्कारमात्रतैवैति सर्वालङ्कार-शरीर-स्वीकरण-योग्यत्वेनाभेदो-

15 पचारात्सैव सर्वालङ्कार-रूपेत्ययमेवार्थोऽङ्गवक्तव्यः । तस्याश्रालङ्कारान्तर-संकीर्णत्वं कदाचिदङ्गत्वेन कदाचिदन्यङ्गचालेन । व्यङ्ग्य अलंकारि-कदाचिद्रुणभावेन । तत्राद्ये पदे वाच्यालङ्कारमागें: । द्वितीये तु ध्वना-

वन्तभौः । तृतीये तु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य-चमत्कारपता ।

अयं च प्रकारोऽन्येषामप्यलङ्काराणामस्ति, तेषां तु न सर्वविषयः । 20 अतिशायोक्तेस्तु सर्वालङ्कारविषयोऽपि सम्भवतीत्यं विशेषः । येषु नालङ्कारेषु

१. 'व्यङ्ग्यस्याश्रस्यालङ्कारस्य वा यथायोगं' म. २. वा-घ पुस्तके नास्ति ।

३. 'व्यङ्गचालङ्कारान्तरसंश्रया' क-ख. व्यङ्गचालङ्कारवस्त्वन्तरसंश्रया-च. ४. पुष्यति-च. ५. सर्वत्र-च. ६. अतिशाययोगे'-च. ७. 'सैवालङ्कार'-क-ख. ८. 'तु'-च पुस्तके

The Light of Suggestion

The whole host of figures is seen in many an instance to put on a new charm when it is brought into touch with the suggested element.

The earlier writers on Poetics have themselves shown how a few of the figures of sense acquire a new charm when they get into touch with the suggested element consisting of either a figure or a bare idea. But a scrutiny of instances will reveal that this is true of all the figures. To illustrate : Just like the figure Ellipsis implying a simile and condensed metaphor, all the other figures too are seen generally to contain a touch of either another figure or another idea which happens to be suggested. For, in the first place, one can posit at least a touch of exaggeration in figures one and all. In fact the greatest poets have amply incorporated exaggeration into their works with a view to endowing them with a unique shade of charm. When such exaggeration is utilized in a work in keeping with principles of decorum, how can it ever fail to cause delight ? Bhāmaha, indeed, has given the following definition of Exaggeration :-

This ( Exaggeration ) is itself the artistic turn of speech and it is by this that poetic content is made manifest. A poet should strive after this in particular and what figure can be there without it ?

This should be understood to convey the following sense only :-Only that figure in which Exaggeration reigns supreme, acquires abundant beauty due to the poet's genius. Others are ornamental figures only in name. Hence all figures deserve to be regarded as so many bodies ( whose soul is exaggeration ) only and by a metaphorical application of identity between them, ( one might say that ) exaggeration is itself the same as the host of all figures.

This sometimes merges with other figures expressly ( 1 ), and suggestively at other times. Its suggestibility too may be optionally principal ( 2 ), or secondary ( 3 ). In the first case, we have the well known expressed Figures. In the second case it comes under DHVANI or suggestive poetry. In the third case it will be poetry of subordinated suggestion. This characteristic is no doubt found in figures other than Exaggeration also.

साहस्यमुखेन तत्त्वप्रतिलम्भः यथा रूपकोपमातुल्ययोगितानिदर्शनादिषु तेषु गम्यमानधर्ममुखेनैव यत्सादृश्यं तदेव शोभातिशायशालि भवतीति ते सर्वेऽपि चारुत्वातिशाययोगिनः सन्तो गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचस्यैव वृक्ष्यः। समासोक्त्याक्षेपपर्योयोक्तादिषु तु गम्यमानांशाविनाभावेनैव तत्त्वव्यवस्थानुबन्धीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचता निर्विवादैव। तत् तु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यतायामलङ्काराणां केशाञ्चिदलङ्कारविशेषगर्भेतायां नियमः। यथा व्याजस्तुतेः प्रेयोलङ्कारगर्भते। केशाञ्चिदलङ्कारमात्रगर्भेतायां नियमः। यथा सन्देहादीनामुपमार्गभेतवे। केशाञ्चिदलङ्काराणां परस्परगर्भेतापि सम्भवति। यथा दीपकोपमयोः। तत् दीपकसुपमार्गभेत्वेन प्रसिद्धम्। उपमापि कदाचिद्दीपकच्छायानुयायिनी। यथा मालोपमा। तथा 10 हि ' प्रभामहत्या शिक्ष्येव दीपः ' इत्यादौ स्फुटैव दीपकच्छाया लक्ष्यते।

तदेवं व्यङ्ग्यचांरसंस्पर्शो सति चारुत्वातिशाययोगिनो रूपकाद्योदलङ्काराः सर्वे एव गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचस्य मार्गः। गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वं च तेषां तथाजातीयानां सर्वेषामवोक्तानुक्तानां सामान्यम्। तल्लक्षणे सर्वे एवैते सुलक्षितिता भवन्ति। एकैकस्य स्वरूपविशेषकथनेन तु सामान्यलक्षणरहितेन प्रतिपदपाठनेनैव शब्दा 15 न शक्यन्ते तत्त्वतो निर्देशितुम्, आनन्त्यात्। अनन्ता हि वाङ्मिकल्पास्तत्पकारा

१. विषयः -ग. २. 'स्थापनात्' -क-ख, ३. 'काचित्' -ग. ४. 'इत्यादि विषय' -ग. ५. 'उपलक्षण' -क-ख. ६. 'रूपकाद्यलङ्कारः' -ग. ७. 'उक्तानां' -ख; 'उक्ताद्युक्तानां' -ग. ८. रूपविशेषकथनेन -घ. ९. प्रतिपाद° -BP. घ. घ.

The Light of Suggestion

But these other figures do not have an all-inclusive reference to the whole host of figures. The uniqueness of Exaggeration lies in this that it is pervasive of every figure of speech.

The Light of Suggestion

In figures like Metaphor, Simile, Combination of Equals, Corroboration, etc., wherein similarity is the chief justification for their being styled as ornaments, the idea of similarity which is manifest only through implication attains excessive charm and hence they all come within the purview of poetry of subordinated suggestion. So far as figures like condensed Metaphor, Paraleipsis and Periphrasis are concerned, since the suggested element in them happens to provide invariably the justification for their being styled as ornaments, there can be no dispute regarding their claims to be brought under poetry of subordinated suggestion. But with regard to some figures under this class of poetry, their capacity to get a touch of other figures will be restricted only to particular ones. Veiled praise, for instance, involves only the figure 'Sweet Flattery.' In other figures, the said scope is further limited to suggestion of figures only (as against ideas). For instance, in Fancied Doubt, etc., only Simile is involved. Yet other figures may be found to be mutually involved, e. g. Ellipsis implying a Simile and Simile. That the figure Ellipsis involves simile is widely known. (Though not so well-known), even Simile may involve a shade of Ellipsis, as for instance--a Wreath of Similes. Thus in an example such as--Like a lamp in union with radiant light, etc., the shade of Ellipsis is quite clear.

The Light of Suggestion

All figures, then, which contain a touch of suggestion and at the same time owe their excessive charm due to that touch, deserve to be brought within the compass of Poetry of subordinated suggestion. The only feature shared in common by all the figures, mentioned as well as unmentioned here, is thus the element of subordinated suggestion. And hence by proper understanding of the latter's nature, all the characteristics of the former will become clear automatically. The procedure (of rhetoricians) who refrain from attempting a general definition of ornaments and give details only of individual figures cannot lead one to an apprehension of the truth about them

ध्वन्यालोक:

एवं चालङ्कारा: | गुणीभूतव्यङ्गचस्य च प्रकारान्तरेगापि व्यङ्गचार्थानुगमलक्षणेन विषयत्वमस्त्येव | तदर्थं ध्वनिनिष्पन्नद्रु पोद्वितीयोऽपि महाकाव्योऽतिरमणीयो लक्षणीय: सहृदयै: | सर्वथा नास्त्येव सहृदयहृदयहारिण: काव्यस्य सु प्रकार यत्र न प्रतीममानार्थसंस्पर्शौ सौभाग्यम् | तदिदं5 काव्यरहस्यं परामिति सूरिभिरिभावनीयंयै ।

मुख्यया महाकविगिरामलङ्कृतिभृतामपि | प्रतीममानच्छायैषा भूषा लज्जेव योषिताम् ॥ ३७ ॥

अनया सुप्रसिद्धोऽप्यर्थ: किंapi कामनीयकमानीयते ।

तद्यथा—

वित्रम्भोत्था ममयाङ्गाविधाने ये सुग्धाक्ष्या: केऽपि लीलाविलोष्णा: | अश्रुण्णास्ते चेतसा केवलेन स्थितैकान्ते सन्त्तं भावनीयाः ॥

इत्यत्र केऽपित्यनेन पदेन वाच्यमस्पष्टमभिदधता प्रतीममानं वस्त्वेकिष्ठमन-त्मर्पयता का छाया नोपपादिता ।

अर्थान्तरगतिः काक्वा या चैषा परिह्रयते ।

सा व्यङ्गचस्य गुणीभावे प्रकारमिममाश्रिता ॥ ३८ ॥

या चैषा काक्वा क्रचिदर्थोन्तरप्रतीतिदर्शयते सा व्यङ्गचस्यार्थस्य गुणीभावे सति गुणीभूतव्यङ्गचलक्षणं काव्यप्रभेदमाश्रयते । यथा — “स्वस्था

१. लक्षणेन् - घ. २. निष्पंदं° - घ. ३. ‘तदिदं’- ग. ४. ‘भावनीयामिति ’ - क-ख-व. ५. ‘अलङ्कार ’- ग. ६. ‘काव्यार्थ: ’ - क-ख. ७. लीलाविलासा: - घ. ८. ‘प्रती-यमानत्वं ’ - क-ख. ९. ‘वस्तु ’ घ - पुस्तके नास्ति. १०. ‘गुणीभावव्यङ्चलक्षणामिमं ’ - क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

just as a bare enumeration of individual words cannot lead to the truth about all words possible in the world. The reason is that they are infinite. Indeed, the variations of human speech are infinite and the figures of speech in poetry too are equally infinite. But subordinated suggestion has a wider range of application, in so far as it can enter into relationship with suggested elements also. Therefore, this second manifestation of suggestion too should be recognised by refined critics as a beautiful avenue for first-rate poets. Certainly, there is not a single variety of poetry holding out an appeal to the hearts of refined critics which does not attain artistic excellence by the slightest touch of suggested sense. The learned should deem this as the greatest secret of poetry.

The Light of Suggestion

Even for such expressions of poets as are already adorned by figures, this shade of suggestion will be a most important ornament even as bashfulness will be for women.

The Light of Suggestion

By this shade, even a common place will be invested with unique charm as for instance in the following :— The indefinite graces of the bride with guileless looks Are so uncommon as they spring From her implicit obedience to Cupid's behests That one can only contemplate them In some solitary spot.

The Light of Suggestion

The word ‘indefinite’ (original : ke'pi ) conveys the expressed sense very vaguely and at the same time offers itself to be flooded with infinite suggested feeling most easily, and in so doing, is there any shade of beauty left uncontributed by it to the passage as a whole ?

The Light of Suggestion

Of course we see the communication of a new meaning by the agency of Ironie Tone. Even this will come within this variety of poetry so long as the suggested element happens to remain secondary.

The Light of Suggestion

The communication of a new meaning through Ironic Tone also comes within the scope of this variety of poetry, viz., poetry of subordinated suggestion.

ध्वन्यालोक:

भवन्ति मयि जीवति धार्तराष्ट्राः । यथा वा—

आम असइओ ओरम पइव्वए ण तुएँ मालिणिअ सोल्म । किं उण जणस्स जाइ व चन्दिरं तं ण कामेओ ॥ [ आम अत्यप. उपरम प्रतिव्वते न त्या मालिनितं सोल्म । किं पुनर्जेन्स्य जायेव नापितं तं न कामयामहे ।। [ इति छाया ]

शब्दशक्तिरेव हि स्वाभिधेयसामर्थ्यौकिक्षकाकुसहाया सत्यर्थोर्वशेष- प्रतिपत्तिहेतुतने काकुमाचरम् । विषयान्तरे स्वेच्छाकृतात्कुंमात्रान्नथाविधार्थ- प्रतिपत्त्यसम्भवात् । स चार्थः काकुविशेषसहायशब्दव्यापारोपारुढोऽप्यर्थ- सामर्थ्येलम्यै इति व्यज्जचरूप एव । वाचकत्वानुगमेनैव तु यदा तद्विनष्ट- वाच्येप्यप्रतीतस्तदा गुणभीतव्यज्जचतया तथाविधार्थव्यतिरेकात् काव्यस्य व्यपदेशः । व्यज्जचवि¹ शिष्टवाच्याभिधायिनो हि गुणीभूतव्यज्जचत्म्म ।

प्रभेदस्यास्य विषयो यश्र युक्त्या प्रतीयते । विधातन्या सहदयर्र्न तत्र श्वानियोजना ॥ ३९ ॥

सड़ड़ोणो हि कश्रिद्वनेगुणीभूतव्यज्जचस्य च लक्ष्ये दर्यते मार्गः । तत्र यस्य युक्तिसहायता तत्र तेन व्यपद्शोः कर्तव्यः । न सर्वत्र श्वानिराणणा भवितव्यम् । यथा—

१. 'कृतकाकुं'-ग. २. 'व्यापारोऽप्यर्थरुढो'- क-ख. ३. 'सामर्थ्येल्लभ्यै'-ग. ४. 'वाच्यार्थो'- क-ख. ५ व्यज्जचस्य विशिष्ट -व. ६. 'कचित्'-ग. ७. 'तत्र' -ग. पुस्तके नास्ति'. ८. यस्य -व, KLV. ९. 'तदनेन'- क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

For example :

Without worry will the sons of Dhṛatarāṣṭra Remain as long as I live. (?)

To take another example :-

Yes, we are unchaste; but please stop scolding, O paragon of chastity ! You have never sullied your morals truly; But like the wife of a commoner I am not in love with a barber.

It is not merely the Ironic Tone which is responsible for conveying the second sense but the power of words only which takes assistance from Ironic Tone suggested by its own power of denoted sense. For in other instances, where we resort to Ironic Tone at our will, it is not found that specific senses are communicated. The specific sense so communicated is suggested only in as much as it results only by the power of expressed sense though it is ingrained also in the power of word itself deriving assistance from specific Ironic Tone. When the apprehension of the expressed sense associated with suggested sense occurs in such a way that the latter is definitely subordinate to the former, we have indeed subordinated suggestion and instances of poetry containing it should be designated by this name. The characteristic of subordinated suggestion is indeed none other than denotation of the expressed sense in association with the suggested.

Instances which can reasonably be brought under this class of poetry should not be classed under DHVANI by refined critics.

The pathways of Dhvani or primarily suggestive poetry and poetry of subordinated suggestion often merge into each other in individual instances. Whether it is the one or the other name which the instance deserves should be decided only on the basis of stronger arguments in favour of the one or the other. One should not be unduly biased in favour of Dhvani everywhere. For instance,

Dhvanyalok

पत्युः शिरक्षणकलामनेन स्पृशोति सकल्या परिहासपूर्वकम् । सा रञ्जायित्वा चरणौ कृतातिशयोल्येन तां निर्विचनं जघान ॥

यथा च— प्रत्यच्छतां कुशमात्रि मानिनि विपक्षगात्रि दायितन लिम्पति । न किंचिदूने चरणेन केवलं लिलेख बाष्पाकुललोचना भुवम् ॥

इत्यत्र 'निर्विचनं जघान', 'न किंचिदूने', इति प्रतिषेधमुखेन व्यङ्ग्यस्यार्थस्योक्त्या किश्चित्प्रतिषयीकृतत्वादुणौमांव एव शोभते । यदां वक्रोक्तिं विना व्यङ्ग्योऽर्थस्तात्पर्येण प्रतायते' तदा तस्य प्राधान्यम् । यथा—'एवं वादिनि देवर्षौ' इत्यादौ । इह पुनरुक्तिरभङ्ग्यास्तीति वाच्यस्यापि प्राधान्यम् । तस्मात्तत्रानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्यचर्वणानिल्यपदेशो विधेयः ।

प्रकारोऽयं गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्योऽपि ध्वनिरूपताम् । धत्ते रसादितात्पर्यपर्यालोचनया पुनः ॥ ४० ॥

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्योऽपि काव्यप्रकारो रसभावादितात्पर्यालोचने पुनरेष निरीक्ष सम्पद्यते । यथांत्रैव नान्तरोदाहते श्लोकद्वये ।

यथा च— दुराराधा राधा सुभग यदननेनापि मृजंत— स्तवैस्तत्प्राणेशाजघनवसनेनाशु पतितम् ।

?. 'तथा' - क-ख. २. 'न किंचित्' - ग. ३. 'गुणभाव' - ग. ४. 'तस्माद्यङ्ग्योक्तिं विना' -क-ख. ५. 'प्रकाशते तत्र' -क-खव. ६. 'भ्रमः' -क-ख. ७. 'रसभाववतत्पर्य' - क-ख. ८. 'पर्यालोचने स पुनः' - क-ख. ९. 'पुनरेव ध्वानिः' - ग. १०. 'यथा तत्रैवोदाहते' -ग. ११. 'मृजतः' - क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

After painting her feet red, The handmaid wished laughingly- 'May you touch the crescent moon On your husband's head with this !' At this, Pārvatī gave her a blow With her garland without a word.

The Light of Suggestion

To cite another example :- When her sweet partner addressed her Unwittingly by her rival's name While handing her flowers above her reach, She did not say anything; She only drew lines on the earth with her foot And her eyes were bedewed with tears.

The Light of Suggestion

The suggested content has been to some extent expressed also by the negative statement- 'without a word', and 'did not say' in the above examples. Hence it is better that we regard them as instances of subordinated suggestion only. It is only when suggested content is exclusively conveyed without any touch of indirect denotation that we might regard it as principal as in the example- 'when the divine sage spoke thus......'. But in the examples in hand, the suggested content is found repeated in an indirect way and hence the expressed content also is as important as the suggested itself. Therefore, one should not give it the name of poetry with resonance-like suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

This class of poetry viz., that with subordinated suggestion will also assume the form of DHVANI or that with principal suggestion if one views it from the standpoint of exculsive purport of sentiments etc.

The Light of Suggestion

When viewed from the standpoint of purport, viz., sentiment, etc., even poetry with subordinated suggestion will become poetry with principal suggestion itself. The two examples just now quoted illustrate this. The following is another instance :- 'O gallant, Rādhā indeed is too stubborn; She goes on shedding tears though you have Wiped them with the waist-garment of your dearest sweet-heart.'

Dhyanālokaḥ

कठोरं क्षोञ्चतस्तदलमुपचारौर्वीरम हे क्रियात्कल्याणं वो हरिरनुनयेष्वेवमुदितः ॥ एवं स्थिते च 'न्यक्कारो ह्ययमेव' इत्यादिकश्लोकनिर्दिष्टानां पद्यानां व्याख्यानुसारेऽपि व्याख्यातद्वैक्रियोभ्यांतौरसापेक्षया व्याख्यातत्त्वमुक्तं । न तेषां पद्यानामर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यस्यध्वनिभ्रमो विधातव्यः;, विवक्षितवाच्यतत्त्वेऽपि । तेषु हि व्यङ्ग्यचविशिष्टत्वं वाच्यस्य प्रतियते न तु व्यङ्ग्यचरूपपरिणतत्त्वम् । तस्माद्वाच्यं तत्र ध्वनि:, पद्यानि तु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यानि । न च केवलं गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचान्येव पदान्यलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यचध्यनेव्यङ्गकानि यावद्यावदनन्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यानि 'ध्वनिप्रभेदरूपाण्यपि' । यथात्रैव श्लोके रावण इत्यस्य ० प्रभेदान्तररूपपद्यव्यङ्गकत्वम् । यत्र तु वाक्य रसादितात्पर्य नास्ति सम्भावितस्तत्र गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यतैव समुदायधर्मे । यथा— राजानमपि सेवन्ते विषमप्युपयुञ्जते । रमन्ते च सह स्त्रीभिः: कुशला: खलु मानवाः ॥

१. श्लोके -घ. २. 'न तेषां पदाथानां' क-ख. ३. 'न च केवलपदान्यलक्ष्य' -ग. ४. 'अपि तु' -ग. ५. 'ध्वनिप्रभेद - व, KLV. ६. 'नतरूपस्य व्यअक्तत्वम्'-घ. ७१. 'पमुअने' - घ. ८. 'हन्त' - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

The heart of a woman is indeed adamant; So you may stop these attempts at allaying her anger; May Hari who was addressed thus During his conciliations preserve us.

The Light of Suggestion

Now it will be remembered that the different words found in the example- 'That I have foes is sufficient shame......' have been spoken of as suggestive from this standpoint only, i. e. from that of sentiment etc, which happens to be the purport of the sentence as a whole, though in fact we have a communication there of the expressed also in association with the suggested content. One should not commit the mistake of regarding those words as instances of suggestion with expressed content merged in the unexpressed; for the truth is that all of them have an expressed content which is intended (as important). The expressed content in them is no doubt associated with the suggested, but in no way can we say that it has transformed itself into the suggested. Therefore, the sentence therein is Dhvani or container of principal suggestion, while the words are all examples of subordinated suggestion. Nor need one think that only words with subordinated suggestion can become revealers of the suggested content with undiscerned temporality; for, words instancing other types of suggestion also such as that with the expressed merged in the unexpressed, can become its revealers in the same way. For example, in the illustration under consideration, the word Rāvana which belongs to a type of suggestion other than subordinated suggestion, we have suggestiveness. But in a sentence where there is no primary purport of sentiment, etc, even if there should be the presence of words with subordinated suggestion, the sentence as a whole will come only under the category of subordinated suggestion (and not under that of principal suggestion). The following and such other instances might be cited as examples :

The Light of Suggestion

Even a king they serve, They make use of even poison, And they dally with women too ; How clever of mankind all !

DHVANYĀLOKA:

इत्यादौ। वाच्यलव्यझचयोः प्राधान्याप्राधान्यविवेके परः प्रयत्नो विधातव्यः;, तेन ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्योरलङ्काराणां चासड्ख्येयो विषयः सुज्ञातो भवति। अन्यथा तु प्रसिद्धालङ्कारविषय एव व्यामोहः प्रवर्तते। यथा— लावण्यद्रावण्यनययो न गणितः कलेशो महान् सीत्कृतः स्वेच्छन्दस्य सुखं जनस्य वसतः चिन्तानलो दीपितः। एषापि स्वयमेव तुल्यरमणाभावाद्द्राकी हता कोर्थश्वेतसि वेधसा विनिहितस्तन्यासतनुं तन्वता ॥

इत्यन्न व्याजस्तुतिरलङ्कार इति व्याख्यायि केनाचित्, तन्न चतुरस्त्र; यतोऽस्याभिधेयस्यैतदलङ्कारस्वरूपमात्रपर्यवसायित्वे न सुविशिष्टता। यतो न तावदयं रागिणः कस्यचिद्विकल्पः। तस्य 'एषापि स्वयमेव तुल्यरमण- भावाद्राकी हता' इत्यैवविधोक्त्यनुपपत्तेः। नापि नीरागस्य; तस्यैवविधविकल्प- परिहारैकव्यापारत्वात्। न चायं श्लोकः कविताप्रबन्ध इति श्रूयते, येन तत्प्रकरणानुगतार्थंतास्तस्य परिकल्प्यते। तस्मादप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेyam्। यस्मादन वाच्येन गुणीभूतात्मना निःसामान्यगुणावलेपाद्मातस्म निजमहिमोत्कर्षजानित-

१. 'व्यङ्ग्ययोरौच -- घ. २. येन - घ. ३. तथा हि - घ. ४. अजितः - घ. ५. 'स्वेच्छन्दस्य सखीजनस्य वसताश्चिन्तानलो दीपितः' - क-ख; स्वेच्छन्दं चरतो जनस्य हृदये चिन्ताज्वरो निर्मितः - घ. ६. 'स्थगुणादूरूपरमाणाभावात्' - ग. ७. इत्ययं श्लोको व्याजस्तुत्यलङ्कार° तन्न चेतत् चतुरस्त्रम् - ग. ८. 'रुचयित्वेन - घ. ९. निः- सामान्य - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Great attention should be paid in the matter of deciding the principal or subordinate nature of the expressed and suggested contents. It is only thus that the distinct scopes of principal suggestion, subordinated suggestion and figures of speech can be clearly grasped without confusing the one for the other. Otherwise, confusion will arise even in regard to well known figures themselves as in the following :-

No heed was paid to the lavish expense Of the stuff of loveliness And great pains were taken upon himself; But in the result, only a torch of misery has been lit In people who were so long living happy and free; Even this luckless lady herself Has been drowned in despair For want of a befitting spouse. What might have been the idea in the Creator's mind When he brought the body of this charming lady into being?

A critic has remarked that the figure of speech in this example is Veiled Praise. But the remark is not proper. For, if it were true that the purport of this sentence is exhausted in the nature of this figure alone, there will be no complete agreement between the various parts of the sentence. Certainly, the alternatives found in the example cannot be looked upon as coming from the mouth of any passionate lover. For, no lover would ever say anything in the strain of - 'Even this luckless lady herself has been drowned in despair due to the absence of a befitting spouse'. Nor could they be from the mouth of an ascetic since the sole activity of an ascetic consists in avoiding such alternatives ( relating to passion ). We do not also know the original source from which this verse has been selected. Had we known the source, perhaps we might have been able to understand by it a sense in keeping with the context in which it occurred. For all these reasons, the figure instanced herein is indirect narration ( in our opinion ). By so looking upon it as an indirect narration we would clearly understand the fact that it is nothing but a lament on the part of a person who is puffed up with the

III, 40 ]

श्वन्याालोक:

242

समत्सरजनज्वरस्यं विशेषज्ञमात्मनो न कद्विदेवापरं परस्यतः परिदेवितमेतादिति प्रकाश्यते । तथा चायं धर्मकीर्तेः श्लोक इति प्रसिद्धिः । सम्भाव्यते च तस्यैव । यस्मात्—

अनध्यवसितावगाहनमनल्पधीशक्तिना—

प्यबहृष्टपरमार्थतत्त्वमाधिकाभियोगैरपि । मतं मम जगत्यलङ्घ्यसद्वाराप्रतिग्राहकं प्रयास्यति पयोनिधेः पय इव स्वदेहे जरामरम् ॥

इत्यनेनापि श्लोकेनैवंविधेऽभिप्रायः प्रकाशित एव । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायां च यद्वाच्यं तस्य कदाचिद्विवक्षितत्वं, कदाचिदविवक्षितत्वं, कदाचिद्विवक्षिता-

10 विवक्षितत्वमिति त्रीन् बन्धच्छाया । तत्र विवक्षितत्वं यथा—

परार्थे यः पीडामनुभवति भड्ढेडपि मधुरो यदीयः सर्वेषामिह खलु विकारोडप्यभिमतः ।

न सम्प्राप्तो वृन्दावनिफदि स भृङ्गामक्षेत्रपतितः किमिक्षोदेऽप्योडसौ न पुनरगुणाया मरुभुवः ॥

15 यथा वा ममैव—

अमी ये हश्यन्ते न तु सुभगरूपाः सफलता भवत्येषां यस्य क्षणमुपगतानां विषयताम् । निरालोके लोके कथमिदमहो चक्षुरघुना समं जातं सर्वैर्न सममथवान्यैरेकवयवैः ॥

20 अनयोर्हि द्वयोः श्लोकयोरिशुचकृष्ण विवक्षितस्वरूपे एव न चैव प्रस्तुते । महागुणस्याविषयपतितत्वादग्राप्तपरभागस्य कस्यचिच्च्वरूपमुपवर्णियितं द्वयोरपि श्लोकयोस्स्तात्पर्येण प्रस्तुतत्वात् । अविवक्षितत्वं यथा—

१. 'समस्तसमत्सरज्वरस्य'-क-ख. २. 'मधुर इत्यादि'-ग-पुस्तके एनाबदेवास्ति, न तु संपूर्ण पद्यम. ३. 'देशे'-क-ख. ४. तु -व.

The Light of Suggestion

pride of matchless merits in himself, who has brought fever upon jealous rivals by the excess of greatness achieved by him and who cannot find a single critic of sound judgement able to appreciate him fully. There is also a tradition which ascribes this verse to Dharmakīrti. It is most plausib e that it is really his composition. For the same idea has been adumbrated by him in other verses of his like the following one :-

With depth unfathomed Even by one whose intelligence is vast, With its essence ungrasped Even by those of great industry, My doctrine, alas, will grow old in my own body Like the ocean's water, Since it can never obtain a worthy recipient.

The expressed in Indirect Narration will reveal a threefold shade of construction :— ( 1 ) Intended ( 2 ) Unintended and ( 3 ) Both intended and unintended at the same time. The first, viz., Intended is instanced in 'If that which suffers pain for other's sake ' etc., or in the following verse of mine :-

The things of beauty which are commonly seen Find their fulfilment only when they become Objects of sight at least for a trice, But if the world should become void of light, How can the eye see things any more ? It will only be on a par with all other limbs Or, perhaps, not even on a par with other limbs.

In the two verses just now referred to, the sugarcane and the eye are intended in fact though they do not constitute the main subject of description. The main subject of description for both the verses is the pitiable state of a very meritorious person who does not receive any recognition of his merits by others owing to the undeserved environment into which he has been driven. The following is an instance of the second, viz., Unintended :-

ध्वन्यालोक:

कुत्वं भो: कथयामि दैवहतकं मां विद्धि शठोटकं वैरास्यादिव वाक्षि साधु विदितं कम्मादि कथम्यते । नामेनात्र वटस्तमध्यगजनः सर्वोत्तमना सेवते न छायापि परोपकारकरणीं मार्गस्थितस्यापि मे ॥

न हि वृक्षविशेषण सहोक्तिप्रयुक्ती सम्भवत इत्यविवक्षिताभिधेय- नैवानन श्लोकेन समृद्धासत्पुरुषसमीपवर्तिनो निर्धनस्य कस्याचिन्मनस्विनः परिदेवितं तात्पर्येण वाक्यार्थीकृतमिति प्रतীয়ते । विवक्षिततत्त्वाविवक्षिततं यथा —

उपहजआएँ असोहिणीऐँ फलकुसुमपत्ररहिआएँ । वेईँ वेईँ देओ पामर हो ओहोसिज्जिहोसि ॥ उत्पथजाताया अशोभनाया: फलकुसुमपत्ररहिताया: । बद्धया वृत्तिं ददत् पामर भो अवहासिष्यसे ॥ [ इति छाया ]

अत्र हि वाच्यार्थो नात्यन्तं सम्भवी न चासम्भवी । तस्माद्वाच्य-व्यङ्ग्ययो: प्राधान्याप्राधान्ये यत्नतो निरूपणीये ।

प्रधानगुणभावाभ्यां व्यङ्ग्यस्यैवं व्यवस्थिते । काव्ये उभे ततोज्ञयेऽताचित्रमाभिधीयते ॥ ४१ ॥

चित्रं शब्दार्थयोरेव द्विविधं च व्यवस्थितम् । तत् किञ्चिच्छब्दचित्रं वाच्याचित्रमत: परम् ॥ ४२ ॥

व्यङ्गचस्यार्थस्य प्राधान्ये ध्वानिसंज्ञित: काव्यप्रकार:, गुणभावे तु गुरुगभीरत्वयङ्ग्यता । ततोऽन्यद्रसभावादितात्पर्येरहितं व्यङ्गच्यार्थविशेषप्रकाशन-शुष्कताम् -ग. २. 'करणे' -क-ख. ३. 'वासिनो' -क-ख. ४. न चासम्भवा -चं. 'दुस्तके नाशिन्त' । ५. 'तु' -ग.

The Light of Suggestion

'Ho ! who may'st be thou ?' 'Well, listen—take me to be a luckless tree of ill-omen'; 'Why, you seem to talk in a strain of disgust ( with Life ) !' 'Quite so !' 'what for ?' 'I shall tell you presently :—Look at yonder banyan tree; All the travellers flock to it for refuge. Though I stand by the roadside, Even my shade is not doing good to men '. Since conversation with a tree is impossible, the verse with its unintended expressed content conveys by implication the purport, viz., that it is the lament of a self-respecting person who is in penury though he is a henchman of a very rich patron, because of the latter's wicked nature.

The following is an example of the expressed content which is both intended and unintended :—You will become a butt of ridicule, O boor, If you go on fencing (or nourishing) this thorny shrub Which has sprung up in an out-of-the-way corner, Which is so ugly and bereft Of all fruits, flowers and leaves ! The expressed content in this verse is neither quite possible nor quite impossible.

We may conclude therefore by saying that the principal or subordinate nature of the expressed and the suggested contents should be carefully noted.

These two classes of poetry are decided thus on the principle of importance or unimportance of the suggested content. That which is other than both is given the name of Portrait ( CITRA ).

Portrait-like poetry is also seen to be two-fold inasmuch as it is based either on word or on meaning. The first variety is word-portrait and the second, meaning-portrait.

If the suggested content is all important, we get the class of poetry called Dhvani or poetry with principal suggestion; if the same is subordinate, we get the second class of poetry

Dhvanyālokaḥ

शक्तिशून्यं च काव्यं केवलवाच्यवाचकवैचित्र्यमात्राश्रयेणोपनिबद्धमालेयंप्रक्लव्यं यदभासते तच्चित्रम् । न तन्मुख्यं काव्यम् । काव्यानुसारो ह्यसौ । तत्र किंशब्दचित्रदचित्रम् यथा दुष्करयमकादि: । वाच्यचित्रम् शब्दचित्रादन्यदृश्यद्वार्यसंस्पर्शरहितं प्राधान्येन वाक्यार्थतया स्थितं रसादितात्पर्यरहित-मुत्प्रेक्षादि ।

अथ किंचिद् चित्रं नाम ? यत्र न प्रतीयमानार्थसंस्पर्श: । प्रतीयमानो ह्यर्थस्त्रिभेद: प्राकप्रदर्शित: । तत्र यत्र वस्त्वलङ्कारान्तरं वा व्यङ्ग्यं नास्ति स नाम चित्रस्य कल्प्यतां विषय: । यत्र तु रसादीनामविषयत्वं स काव्यप्रकारो न सम्भवत्येव । यस्यादवस्तुसंस्पर्शिता काव्यस्यै नोपपद्यते । वस्तु च 10 महोत्तमवाक्यार्थस्य भावस्य वा अज्ञातस्य प्रतिपादने, अनन्तोर्विभावत्वेन । नित्ततृत्तिविशेषा हि रसादय:, न च तदस्ति वस्तु किश्चित्प्रतीतचित्रवृत्तिविशेषमुपजनयाति तद्नुत्पादनेन वा कविविषयतैव तस्य न स्यात् कविविषयज्ञश्चित्तया कश्चिद्विरुपयते ।

अत्रोच्यते - सत्यं न ताहक्काव्यप्रकारोऽस्ति यत्र रसादीनाम-15 प्रतिपत्ति: । किं तु यदा रसभावादिविवक्षाशून्य: कविः शब्दालङ्कारमथोलङ्कार-

१. 'आलेह्यामिव' - ग. २. तत्र: शब्दो - BP. & ष. ३ 'नावत्काव्यस्य' - ग. ४. 'भावस्य वा' - क-खव. ५. 'भावस्य वा' व - पुस्तके नास्ति । ६. 'वाक्यार्थ' - ग. ७. अनन्तो व - पुस्तके नास्ति । ८. 'अतों विभावत्वेन' - क-खव. ९. 'तदुपादाने च', - ग. १०. 'काव्यवाक्प्रकार:' - क-ख. ११. विमतिपात्ति: - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

called Gumībhūta-vyaṅgya or poetry with subordinate suggestion; that class of poetry which is seen to differ from either, and which is destitute of purport relating to sentiments and emotions, etc., which is devoid of the power to reveal any suggested content and which owes its construction only to the strikingness of the expressed meanings and expressions denoting them, gets the name of citra or Portrait. It is not poetry at all, strictly speaking. It is only an imitation of poetry. One of the sub-divisions of this poetry of portraiture is word-portrait such as Rhyming Repetition and so on whose employment involves much labour. The second subdivision differs from word-portrait and may be called meaning-portrait. It will also be devoid of even a touch of the suggested content and will be wanting in the purport of sentiments etc. Poetic Fancy and such other figures are illustrations of this.

An objector may argue as follows :—

"Now what is this portrait-like poetry ? That in which were is not a touch of suggested content. The suggested content has been already shown to be three-fold. Of these three types, instances where the first two types of suggested content, viz., ideas and figures are absent, may by all means be imagined as instances of Portrait-like poetry. But indeed no class of poetry is possible in which sentiments etc., are not involved. For, we cannot of course regard poetry as devoid of content itself. And all subjects in the universe become ultimately connected with some sentiment or emotion, at least in the form of stimulii. Sentiments are indeed so many states of mind; and nothing in the world can be imagined which does not bring about a particular state of mind in man. In case a thing does not have any effect on one's state of mind, it cannot become a subject at all for the poet's activity. When something has become a subject for the poet's activity, how can we speak of it as portrait ?"

This is what we would say in reply : It is no doubt true that no species of poetry exists which absolutely does not convey sentiment. But all the same, if the poet is seen

ध्वन्यालोक:

वोपनिबन्धनाति तदा तद्विवक्षापेक्षया रसादिशून्यतार्थस्य परिकल्प्यते। विवक्षो-पारूढ एव हि काव्ये शब्दानामर्थः। वाच्यसामर्थ्येवशो हि च कविविवक्षा-विरहेsपि तथाविधे विषये रसादिप्रतीतिर्भवन्ती परिदृश्यला भवतीत्यनेनापि प्रकारेण नीरसत्वं परिकलप्य चित्रविषयो व्यवस्थाप्यते। तदिदमुक्तम्—

"रसभावादिविषयविवक्षाविरहे सति । अलङ्कारनिबन्धेऽ यः स चित्रविषयो मतः ॥ रसादिषु विवक्षा तु स्यात्तात्पर्यवती यदा । तदा नास्त्येव तत्काव्यं ध्वनेरयतु न गोचरः ॥ "

एतच्च चित्रं कवीनां विशुद्धालङ्गिरों रसादितात्पर्यमनपेक्ष्यैव काव्यप्रवृत्तिदर्शनादस्माभिः परिकल्पितम्। इदानीन्तनानां तु न्याय्ये काव्यनयव्यवस्थापने क्रियमाणे नास्त्येव ध्वनिर्यतिरिक्तः काव्यप्रकारः। यतः परिपाकवतां कवीनां रसादितात्पर्यविरहे व्यापार एव न शोभते। रसादितात्पर्ये न च नास्त्येव तद्रस्तु यदभिमतरसाक्ष्तां नीतिमानं प्रगुणीभवति। अचेतना अपि हि भावा यथायथमुचितरसविभावार्वतया चेतनावृत्तान्तयोजनया वा न सन्त्येव ते ये यान्ति न रसाङ्कताम्। तथा चेदमुख्यते —

१. 'सामध्येन काव्य' - म. २. 'रसादिप्रतीतेः' - क - ख. ३. 'तच्चु' - ग-कख्व. ४. 'मतश्व' - कख्व. ५. 'विशुद्धलङ्ग नितरां' ग. ६. 'अनवेक्ष्यैव' ग. ७. 'साते' - कख्व. ८. भावतया - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

without any exclusive intention of conveying sentiments, emotions, etc., and is more keen on employing figures only, either of sound or sense, we may take it (for all practical purposes) that the content is devoid of sentiments etc., in view of the keenness on employment of figures. The content of words in poetry is based only upon the poet's intention. Though some sort of apprehension of sentiments etc. is possible by force of the expressed sense itself even in instances wherein no such keen intention towards them is present on the poet's part, still it will be negligibly slender and from this standpoint also, one might justify the existence of a scope for Portrait-like Poetry. This is summed up in the following aphorisms :-

The Light of Suggestion

1. The employment of figures in the absence of intention towards the purport of sentiments, emotions, etc., should be regarded as an illustration of Portrait-like Poetry.

The Light of Suggestion

2. If on the other hand, there exists a sole intention towards sentiments, etc., no poetry can remain outside the sphere of Dhvani or poetry of principal suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

This class of Poetry, i. e., Portrait-like poetry, has been noted at all by us because of the practice of poets who recognise no laws in their usage of words and who go about composing poems without any intention of incorporating sentiments, etc., therein. But if we should strictly apply the new principle of poetry laid down here, there can be no class of poetry other than Dhvani or poetry with principal suggestion. For, in the absense of whole-hearted intention towards sentiments etc., the very activity of poets will not appear charming; and contrariwise, in the presence of whole-hearted intention towards sentiments etc., there will be no subject which will not attain exceeding charm by being made an accessory of the intended sentiment. Even amongst insentient objects, there are none which will not become accessories of sentiment either by acting as stimuli towards the intended sentiment or at least by a metaphorical application of the behaviour of sentient objects to themselves. Hence it is that we say—

Dhvanyaloka

" अपारे काव्यसंसारे कविरेकं प्रजापतिः । यथास्मै रोचते विश्वं तथेदं परिवर्तते ॥ गृढ्नारी चेत्कवि: काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत् । स एव वीतरागश्चेन्नीरसं सर्वमेव तत् ॥ भावानच्चेतनानपि चेतनवच्चेतनानचेतनवत् । ध्यवहारयति यथेष्टं सुकवि: काव्ये स्वतन्त्रतया ॥"

तस्मात्तस्येव तद्रस्तु यत्सर्वोऽत्मना रसतात्पर्यवतः कवेऽतदिच्छया तदभिमतरसाङ्गतां न हि त्ते । तथो पनिबध्यमानं वाऽन चारुत्वातिशयं पुष्णाति । सर्वमेतच्च महाकवीनां काव्येषु दृश्यते । अस्माभिरपि स्वेषु काव्यप्रबन्धेषु यथायथं दर्शितमेव । स्थिते चैवं सर्व एव काव्यप्रकारो न ध्वनिनिर्मितामातिपत्तिः; रसाद्यपेक्ष्यां कवेः गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचमत्करणाडपि प्रकारस्तदृशतामवलम्बत इत्युक्तं प्राक्³ । यदा तु चाटुषु देवतास्तुतिषु वा रसादीनामङ्गतया व्यवस्थानं हृद्यवत्³पु च षट्पद्ज्ञागाथासु कासुचिद्वाङ्गचविशिष्टवाच्ये⁴ प्राधान्यं तदपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचस्य ध्वनिनिष्यानद्भुतत्वमेवेल्युक्तं प्राक् । तदेवमिदानींतनकविकाव्यनयोपदेशे क्रियामाणे प्रातमिकानामभ्यासार्थिनां यदि परं चित्रेण व्यवहारः, प्राप्तपरिणतीनां तु ध्वनिरेव काव्यमिति स्थितमेतत् ।

तद्यमात्र संग्रहः — यास्मिन् रसो वा भावो वा तात्पर्येरण प्रकाङ्क्षते । संर्वृत्याभिहितं वस्तु यत्रालङ्कार एव वा ॥ काव्याध्वनि व्यङ्गचंप्राधान्यैकिनिबन्धनः । सर्वत्र तत््र विषयी ज्ञेयः सहृदयैर्जने: ॥

१. कविरेव - घ. २. रसाद्यपेक्षया - व. ३. अवलम्बते प्राक् - घ. ४. षट्प्रज्ञागाथासु - BP. ५. वाच्यात् - घ. ६. प्राधान्येन काव्यामिति - घ. ७. प्रकाश्यते - घ. ८. भिहितौ - BP. ९. काव्याद्ध्वनिः - घ. १०. ध्वनेरङ्ग्यर्च - घ. ११. 'विजयी' .ग.

The Light of Suggestion

In the boundless realm of poetry, the poet alone is the creator, and as it pleaseth him, so doth this world revolve.

If the poet be intent upon the erotic sentiment in his poem, the whole world will be suffused with that sentiment. But if he be void of emotion (in his poem), the world too will be devoid of sentiment. A good poet will freely design even insentient objects to act as sentient ones and sentient objects to act as insentient ones.

Thus it is clear that there is absolutely no such subject which does not become an accessory of the intended sentiment by the poet's desire so long as his concern is solely with sentiment. Nor does it ever fail to acquire exceeding charm when so handled. All this is seen in the works of first-rate poets. In our own poetic compositions too, we have tried to illustrate these principles as far as possible. Thus viewed, all classes of poetry will come only within the sphere of Dhvani or poetry with principal suggestion.

From this standpoint of sentiment etc. on the part of the poet, even the class designated by the name of 'poetry of subordinated suggestion' will come only under the sphere of Dhvani, as we already said. It has also been said that in quatrains of affectionate praise and devotional hymns, if sentiments etc. are regarded as subordinate and that in Prakrit verses known as Hṛdayavatīs and in some gnomic verses of worldly-wise men, if the expressed sense itself with an undercurrent of suggested content strikes us as important, the reason is to be sought in the fact that the poetry of subordinated suggestion too is a derivative of Dhvani itself.

Thus, when we strictly apply the new principle of poetry enunciated here, we can speak of Portrait-like Poetry only in a loose way, only as an aid to the understanding of beginners in the study of poetry. So far as persons with well-developed intellects are concerned, Dhvani or poetry with principal suggestion alone will deserve the title of Poetry. So, the following sums up the position :-

Refined critics should understand that Dhvani whose sole condition is the principal nature of the suggested content embraces all instances of poetry wherein is found a purposively conveyed sentiment or at least an idea or figure conveyed in a covert fashion.

स्वन्यालोक:

सगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचैः सालङ्कारे: सह प्रभेदैः स्वैः। सङ्करसंकरष्टिभ्यां पुनरप्युद्योतते बहुधा ॥ ४३ ॥

तस्य च ध्वने: स्वप्रभेदैर्गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचैन वाच्यालङ्कारैश्च सङ्करसंकरष्टिभ्यां क्रियमानाभ्यां बहुप्रभेदतां लभ्ये हरत्यति । तथाहि स्वप्रभेद-5 सङ्कीर्ण:, स्वप्रभेदसंकरष्टौ गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचसङ्कीर्णौ गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचसंकरष्टौ वाच्यालङ्कारान्तरसङ्कीर्णौ वाच्यालङ्कारान्तरसंकरष्टौ संसृष्टालङ्कारसङ्कीर्ण: संसृष्टालङ्कारसंकरष्टौ इति बहुधा ध्वनि: प्रकाशते ।

तत्र स्वप्रभेदसङ्कीर्णत्वं कदाचिदनुप्रास्यानुप्रासकभावेन । यथा ‘एव-वादिनि देवर्षौ’ इत्यादौ। अत्र ह्यर्थशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्यच्वानिप्रभेद-10 नालक्ष्यत क्रमव्यङ्ग्यचध्वनिप्रभेदौडनुगृभ्यमाण: ।

ख्वणपाहुणिआ देअर एसआ जाइऍ किंपि देइ भणिदा । रुअइ पडोहरवलहिअरम्मि अणुणिजडु वराइ ॥ [ क्षणप्राधुणिका देवर एषा जायया किमपि ते भणिता । रोदिति शून्यवधूटीहेडनुनीयतां वराकी ॥ ] [ इति च्छाया । ]

15 अत्र ह्यनुनीयतामत्यन्ततिप्रसदमथान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्यचेत्वने विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य-त्वेन च अन्यतरपक्षानिरण्णेयं प्रमाणमस्ति । एकव्यङ्ग्यैकानु-प्रवेशेन तु व्यङ्ग्यचत्वमलक्ष्यत क्रमव्यङ्ग्यचस्य स्वप्रभेदान्तरापेक्षया राहुल्येन

१. प्रभेद: - B². २. ‘वाच्यालङ्कारान्तरेऽपि’ -क-ख. ३. ‘सकृणालङ्कार-संसृष्टश्रेति’ -ग. ४. ‘निश्रये’ -क-ख. ५. ‘कदाचिद्र्ध्वनिप्रकारैकव्यङ्ग्यैकानु’. ग. ६. ‘व्यङ्ग्यत्वं’ -क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

It shines in divers ways with its several varieties of subordinated suggestion, Figures, its own sub-varieties, their intermingling and collocation.

The Light of Suggestion

If one should take into account the permutations and combinations of the different types of Dhvani itself and the varieties of subordinated suggestion and Figures of sense, their resulting number would be many. Thus to name some of the major manifestations of Dhvani—(1) Merged with its own varieties, (2) Co-existing with its own varieties, (3) Merged with subordinated suggestion, (4) Co-existing with subordinated suggestion, (5) Merged with other figures of sense, (6) Co-existing with other figures (7) Merged with other co-existing figures (8) Co-existing with other mutually co-existing figures.

The Light of Suggestion

The first manifestation will sometimes involve the relationship of the governor-governed as in—‘As the divine sage’ etc. Here the variety of Dhvani, viz., resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of sense governs the other variety of Dhvani, viz., suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality.

The Light of Suggestion

Sometimes the relationship existing between the two may be one of doubt that both are simultaneously applicable as in the following example :—

The Light of Suggestion

O Brother-in-law ! this lady Just came out to see the procession, When your wife said something in her ear; And she is weeping so loud. Pray, you comfort the piteous lady In the empty terraced-house close by.

The Light of Suggestion

The expression—“Pray, comfort her” may be imagined both as an instance of suggestion with its expressed content merged in the unexpressed and as an instance of suggestion with the expressed content intended but further-extending. There is no positive ground for deciding one way or the other.

The Light of Suggestion

Often we see that several varieties of suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality do all enter into a single suggestive word as in the verse—‘The quarters are smeared’ etc. ‘Co-existence with its own varieties’ is also instanced in this verse itself. Here

ध्वन्यालोक:

सम्भवति । यथा—‘ स्निग्धश्यामल ’ इत्यादौ । स्वप्रभेदसंश्रुतत्वं च यथा पूर्वोदाहरण एव । अत्र ह्यर्थानतरसंक्रमितवाच्यस्य्यातन्तिरसृतवाच्यस्य च संसर्गः । गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यसड्ढीर्णत्वं यथा— ‘ नक्कारो हायमेव मे यदरयः ’ इत्यादौ । यथा वा —

कर्त्ता यूतच्छलानां जतुमयशरणोद्दीपनः सोडुमिमानीकृष्णाकेशोत्तराव्यपनयनपटुः पाण्डवा यस्म दासाः । राजा दुःशासनादेगुह्रनुजशातस्याझराराजस्य मित्रं कास्ते दुर्योंधनोऽसौ कथयत न रूषा दृष्टुमभ्यागतौ स्वः ॥

अत्र ह्यलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्गचस्य वाक्यार्थीभूतस्य व्यङ्गचविशिष्टवाच्यार्थाश्रितत्वे च ध्वने: सड्ढीर्णतायामपि न विरोधः स्वप्रभेदान्तरत्वात् । यथाहि ' ध्वनिप्रभेदान्तराणि परस्परं सड्ढीर्णेन्ते पदार्थवाक्यार्थाश्रयत्वेन च न विरुद्धानि ।

किं चैकल्यङ्ग्याश्रयत्वे तु प्रधानगुणभावो विरुध्यते न तु व्यङ्गच-भेदापेक्षया ततोऽप्यस्य न विरोधः । अयं च सड्ढीर्णसंश्रितव्यवहारो बहूनामेकत्र वाच्यवाचकभाव इव व्यङ्गचव्यञ्जकभावेऽपि निर्विरोध एव मन्तव्यः । यत्र तु पदানি कानिचिदविवक्षितवाच्यान्यनुरणनरूपव्यङ्गचवाच्यानि वा तत्

१. संक्रमिता - घ. २. सकीर्णतायामिरोघ: - घ. ३. 'तथा हि ' - क-ख. ४. 'यत्र ' - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

indeed we find a collocation of two varieties of suggestion viz., that with its expressed content merged in the unexpressed and that with its expressed content wholly lost. 'That there are enemies', etc. illustrate the mingling of Dhvani with subordinated suggestion. Here is another example :-

Do tell us where that Duryodhana is, That designer of the gambling ruse, That burner of the lac-dwelling, That self-conceited one, That expert in undraping Draupadī And loosing her braids of hair, That master whose slaves are Pāṇḍavas, That " King ", that eldest of a hundred brothers like Duśśāsana, And that friend of Karṇa; We have come here to see him truly, And not out of anger.

In this example the suggested content with undiserned sequentiality conveyed by the sentence as a whole is found mixed up with words that denote the expressed with an undercurrent of the suggested. Though there is thus an intermingling of the subordinated suggestion got through word- content, and principal suggestion got through sentence-purport, there is no opposition between them just as no opposition will be involved in the intermingling of two varieties of Dhvani itself. Just as varieties of Dhvani can intermingle without opposition, so also can other manifestations of suggestion based upon word-content and sentence-content intermingle without any opposition.

Furthermore, opposition between the principal and sub-ordinate elements is possible only when the suggested content of the two happens to be one and the same, not when the suggested contents of the two are different from each other. Hence it should be understood that as in the case of denotet-denoter relationship, so in the case of suggested-suggester relation-ship also, the expressions 'intermingling' and 'collocation do not involve any opposition.

dhvanyālokaḥ

'dhvanigubhūtavyangyachayāḥ saṃsakṛtatvam | yathā — 'teṣāṃ gopavadhūvīlāsasuhṛdām' 'ityādau | atrā hi 'vīlāsasuhṛdāṃ' 'rāgārahaḥsākṣiṇām' ityete pade 'dhvaniprabhedarūpe; 'te', 'jane' ityete ca pade guṇībhūtavyangyarūpe |

vācyālankārasaṃskṛtatvam eva lakṣyaṃ kavyeti vyapadiśyate rasavattā5 kāvye sarvatra suvyavasthitam | prameyatvānāmapy api kadācit saṃskṛṇatvaṃ bhavatyeva | yathā mamāpi—

yā vyāparavatī rasān rasa itiṅ kācitkavīnāṃ navā | dṛṣṭayo pariniṣṭhitārthaviṣayāneṣā caṃ vaiṣakṛtī | te dṛśe apyavalambya viśvamaniśaṃ nirvṛṇayanto yathā |10| śrāntā naiva ca laṅghamadhyasāyana tvadṛkṣititulyam sukham ||

ityatra virodhālankāraṇāntarasamkrāmitavācyasya dhvaniprabhedasya saṃskṛṇatvam | vācyālankārasaṃskṛtatvaṃ ca padāpekṣayyeva | yatra hi kānicitpadāni vācyālankārabhāṇi kānicic ca dhvaniprabhedayuktāni | yathā——

dīrghāṅkuśena paṭu madakalam kūjitam sārāsīnāṃ | pratyūṣeṣu ṣkutitakamalāmodamaitrīkaṣāyaḥ || yatra śrīṇāṃ harati surataglanimajjñānakūlaḥ | siprāvārtaḥ priyatam iva prārthanācāṭukāraḥ ||15||

१. रसालङ्कारी च -घ. २. सर्वत्रैच -व. ३. 'प्रसाधितु' ग. ४. 'पारिजातश्रान्तौ' -क-ख. ५. 'अस्ति' -ग. ६. 'असंस्कृतत्वम्' ग. ७. 'सारसीनां' -ग. ८. 'शिप्रावातः' -ग.

The Light of Suggestion

Examples where some of the words have unintended expressed content or an expressed content implying resonance-like suggested content, will instance Collocation of principal suggestion and subordinated suggestion. 'How do they do', etc. are examples. In this example the expressions—'those companions of the sports' and 'those witnesses of Rādhā's amours' carry principal suggestion while the words 'all those' and 'I am afraid' carry subordinated suggestion.

The Light of Suggestion

The intermingling of figures of sense and suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality is most commonly met with in all poetry which is full of sentiments and adorned by figures. Other varieties of suggestion too can intermingle with figures as in the following verse of my own composition :

The Light of Suggestion

That fresh outlook of poets Whose activity succeeds in enjoying sentiments all, And that learned outlook which proceeds Towards probing the truth of objects verily— Both these outlooks we have tried to utilize In figuring out the world so long And we have become exhausted in the attempt O Lord, reclining on the sea, We never obtained in any of these, Happiness comparable to devotion to Thee.

The Light of Suggestion

In this example, the figure paradox is found intermingled with the variety of suggestion, viz., that with the expressed content merged in the unexpressed.

The Light of Suggestion

Collocation of Suggestion with figures of sense is possible only in regard to words. In examples of this kind, some of the words will contain figures of sense while some others will contain varieties of suggestion. For instance—

The Light of Suggestion

Lengthening artfully the sweet and excited notes of the cranes, And perfumed all over by friendship with the scent of new-blown lotuses at dawn, The wind over Siprā, so agreeable to the body, Will remove the women's fatigue of limbs due to amorous sports As if he were a dear lover Proficient in the art of coaxing.

Dhvanyaloka

अत्र हि मैत्रीपदमविवक्षितवाच्यो ध्वनि:। पदान्तरेष्वलङ्कारान्तराणि । संस्कृतालङ्कारान्तरसङ्कीर्णो ध्वनिर्यथा—

दन्तक्षतानि करजैश्व विपाटितानि प्रोदितद्युतिमदपलूक भवतः शरीरे । दत्तानि रक्तमनसा मृगराजवध्वा जातस्य हैमेनिभिरप्यवलोकितानि ॥

अत्र हि समासोक्तिसंसृष्टेन विरोधालङ्कारेण सङ्कीर्णस्यालङ्क्यक्रम-वयङ्ग्यस्य ध्वने: प्रकाशनम्। दयावीरस्य परमार्थतो वाक्यार्थीभूतत्वात् । संस्कृतालङ्कारसंसृष्टत्वं च ध्वनिर्यथा —

आहरणअपआआएस्सु पाहअसामाइएस्सु दिअहडु । सोहड पासारिआआणं णाच्चिअं मोरवन्दाणम् ॥ [ आभिनवपयोदरसितेषु पथिकृत्यमायितेषु दिवसेषु । शोभते प्रसारितग्रीवाणां ( गीतानां ) नृत्तं मयूरवृन्दानाम् ॥ ] [ इत्थे छाया ]

अत्र ह्युपमारूपकाभ्यां शब्दशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपलयङ्ग्यस्य ध्वने: संसृष्टत्वम् ।

एवं ध्वने: प्रभेदा: प्रभेदभेदाश्र केन शक्यन्ते । सङ्ख्यातुं दिङ्मात्रं तेषामिदमुक्तमस्माभि: ॥ ४४ ॥

अनन्ता हि ध्वने: प्रकारा:; सहृदयानां व्युत्पत्तये तेषां दिङ्मात्रं काथितम् ।

१. 'प्रकाशनेन' - क-खव. २. 'भूतत्वम' - क-खव. ३. °अररसिस्सु - घ. ४. 'ते स्वयमुप्रेक्षणीया:' - क-खव.

The Light of Suggestion

In the word 'friendship' in this example we have suggestion with unintended expressed sense. We have other figures in the other words.

A way of suggestion intermingled with other figures which are themselves mutually co-existing is instanced in the following:-

The imprints of teeth and marks of nails

Left upon your body full of thrill

By the lion-queen intent upon blood, (also, love)

Were gazed at with eagerness even by ascetics.

Here we find Suggestion with undiscerned sequentiality mingled with the figure paradox, which in its turn co-exists with the figure, condensed metaphor. For, the main purport of the sentence is nothing but the sentiment of heroic self-sacrifice (due to boundless compassion).

A way of suggestion co-existing with another figure which in its turn co-exists with yet another figure is illustrated in the following :-

When days echo the rumbles of new clouds

And look dark to the eyes of travellers (also, 'when the audience of travellers get interested in new performances on the boards),

The dance of peacock-herds with uplifted necks

Looks lovely indeed. (also, 'the vocal music of peacock flocks accompanying their dance-performance looks lovely').

Here the way of suggestion, viz., resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of word co-exists with the other figures, viz., simile and metaphor.

Such are some of the different ways of principal suggestion and some of the minor classes of the major ways. Who can ever count them exhaustively? We have just indicated therefore, their direction only.

The ways of principal suggestion are indeed limitless. We have only pointed out their direction with a view to educating refined critics.

Dhvanyaloka

इत्युक्तलक्षणो यो ध्वनिविवेच्यः प्रयत्नतस्तत्रिद्रिः | सत्काव्यं कत्थं वा ज्ञातं वा सम्यगभियुक्तैः || ४५ ||

उक्तस्वरूपाध्वनिनिरूपणनिपुणा हि सत्कवयः सहद्याश्र नित्यमेवं काल्यविषये परां प्रकर्षपदवीमासादयन्ति ।

अस्फुटतस्फुरितं काव्यतत्त्वमेतदयोदितम्‌ । अशाङ्कनुवृत्तिर्याकर्तुं रीतयः सम्पवार्तिता: ॥ ४६ ॥

एतदृश्वानिप्रवर्तनेनैव निर्णीतं काव्यतत्त्वमस्फुटस्फुरितं सदृशाक्नुवृत्तिः । प्रतिपादयितुं वैदर्भी गौडी पाञ्चाली चेति रीतयः प्रवर्तिताः । रीतिलक्षण-विधायिनां हि काव्यतत्त्वमेतदस्फुटतया मनाक्स्फुरितमासीदिति लक्ष्यते तदत्रैव स्फुटतया सम्प्रदर्शितमित्येन रीतिलक्षणेन न किश्चित् ।

शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया: काश्चिदर्थतत्त्वयुजोऽपरा: । वृत्तयोगपि प्रकाशन्ते ज्ञातेऽस्मिन् काव्यलक्षणे ॥ ४७ ॥

अस्मिन्‌ व्यङ्गच्यव्यङ्गकभावविवेचनमये काव्यलक्षणे ज्ञाते सति या: काश्चित्प्रसिद्धा उपनागरिका: शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया वृत्तयो याश्रार्थतत्त्वसम्पद्या: केचिक्यादयस्ता: सम्यगीतिपदवींमवतरन्ति । अन्यथा तु तासामदृष्टार्थनामिव वृत्तीनामश्रद्धेयत्वमेव स्यात्‌ । एवं स्फुटतयैव लक्षणीयं स्वरूपमस्य ध्वने: । यत्र शब्दानामर्थानां च केषाञ्चित्प्रातिपच्चोर्विशेषसंवेद्यं जात्यत्वमिवं रत्नविशेषणां चारुत्वमनालम्ब्येयमवभासते' काव्ये तत्र ध्वनि-व्यवहार इति यल्लक्षणं ध्वनेरुच्यते केनचित्तदयुक्तमिति नामिधेयंतामर्हति ।

१. 'नियेमनैव काव्य' -क-ख-घ. २. वर्णनेन -घ; वर्णने. No. XII. 185 (BORI). ३. 'लक्ष्यते तत्‌'-ग.; आसीदिति तत्‌ -घ. ४. सम्प्रदर्शितान्नयेन -ग, BP. ५. 'शब्दतत्त्वाश्र याः' -घ. ६. Kumarasvāmin in Ratnāpana has the following variant for b 'दर्शतत्त्वाश्रया: पराः'. Pratāpa-rudrīya, Ed. Raghavan, Madras, 1970, p. 42. ९. 'प्रतिपत्तिपदवीं'. -ग. Locana notes 'v. 1. प्रतीतिपदवीं'. ८. 'लक्षणीयस्वरूपस्यास्य' -क-ख. ९. 'प्रतिपत्ति' -क., 'प्रतिष्चन्य' -ख. १०. 'जात्यत्वमेव' -क. ११. 'एवावभासते' -क-ख. १२. 'नामधेयं'-ग. नावधेयता° -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Principal suggestion which we have defined hitherto should be attentively studied not only by all the poets who aspire after writing good poetry but also by all the critics who aspire after understanding it well.

The Light of Suggestion

It is only by their skill in recognising principal suggestion defined above that good poets and good critics attain abiding glory in matters relating to poetry.

The Light of Suggestion

Those who were unable to explain properly this essential principle of poetry as they had only a glimmer of it (and nothing more), have brought into vogue the theory of styles.

The Light of Suggestion

We have explained above the fundamental principle of poetry by using the term DHVANI. Since only vague glimmerings of this principle were had by ancient writers, they could not explain it exhaustively and thus did they bring into vogue the theory of three Styles, Viz., Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī. While the theorists of style show only vague flashes of this very principle of poetry, we have very clearly demonstrated it in all its bearings and hence there is nothing for us to consider seriously about the theory of styles.

The Light of Suggestion

Once this theory of poetry is fully understood, even the so-called "Modes" relating to the nature of sounds as well as to the nature of meanings will become intelligible.

The Light of Suggestion

When this theory of poetry involving a discrimination of the suggested-sugester relationship is grasped, other categories like literary modes, viz., those relating to sound such as Upajāgarikā as well as those relating to sense such as Kaiśikī will become quite intelligible (even in the same way as the styles). Otherwise, Modes will remain only incredible like unseen objects, and will not come within the range of personal experience (though there might be testimony of the ancients to that effect). Therefore, the nature of principal suggestion should be understood clearly.

The Light of Suggestion

The definition of Dhvani by another critic, viz. 'it is that kind of poetry wherein some indefinable charm is brought about both in words and in meanings, a charm which is discernible only to select critics even like the preciousness of rare gems', does not deserve consideration here as it is untenable. For, the uniqueness in the very nature of words which distinguishes one

ध्वन्यालोक:

यतः शब्दानां स्वरूपस्थैय्यस्तावदर्थदर्शितत्वे सत्यप्रयुक्तप्रयोगः। वाचकत्वाश्रयस्तु प्रसादो व्यक्तित्वं चेति विशेषः। अर्थानां च स्फुटत्वेनावभासेनं व्यक्त्यपरत्वं व्यक्त्यांशाविशिष्टत्वं चेति विशेषः।

तौ च विशेषौ व्यास्यायातुं शक्येते" व्यास्यतौ च बहुपकारौ। तद्यतिरिकानारुयेयविशेषसम्भावना तु विवेकावसादभावमूलैव। यस्मादव्येयत्वं सर्वशब्दैगोचरत्वेन न कस्याचित्सम्भवति। अन्ततोऽनारुयेयशब्देन तस्याभिधानसम्भवात्। सामान्यसंस्पर्शविकल्पशब्दौगोचरत्वे सति प्रकाशमानत्वं तु यदानारुयेयंवमुख्यते कचित् तदापि काव्यविशेषाणां रत्नविशेषाणामिव न सम्भवति। तेषां लक्षणकारैरव्याकृतत्वात्। रत्नविशेषाणां च सामान्यसम्भावनयैव मूल्यस्थितिपरिकल्पनादर्शानाच्च। उभयेऽपि तेषां प्रतिपत्तिविशेषसंवेद्यत्वमस्त्येव। वैचित्रिका एव हि रत्नतत्त्वविदः, सहृदया एवाहि काव्यानां रसज्ञा इति कस्यात्र विप्रतिपत्ति:

यत्वनिर्देश्यत्वं सर्वस्वलक्षणविषयं बौद्धानां प्रसिद्धं तत्त्वमतपरिक्षायां ग्रन्यान्तरे निरूपयिष्यामः। इह तु ग्रन्यान्तरश्रवणालवप्रकारान् सहृदयवैमनस्यप्रदायीत न प्रक्रियते। बौद्धमतेन वा यथा प्रत्यक्षादिलक्षणं तथास्माकं ध्वनिलक्षणं भविष्यति। तस्माल्लक्षणान्तरस्याघटनादर्शाल्लार्थेत्वाच्च तस्योक्तमेव ध्वनिलक्षणं साधीयः। तदिदमुक्तम्—

अनारुयेयांशाभासितं निवोध्यार्थतया ध्वने:। न लक्षणं, लक्षणं तुं साधीयोऽस्य यथोदितम्॥

इति श्रीराजानकानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविरचिते

सहृदयालोके तृतीय उद्योत: ॥

१. 'स्वरूपस्थैय्यस्ताव' - घ. २. 'वाचकत्वाश्रयस्तु' - क-ख. ३. 'भासमानं व्यक्त्यपरत्वं' - क, ख. ४. व्यक्यांशाविशिष्टत्वं - घ. ५. 'मशक्यो' - घ. ६ व्याख्यातो बहुपकारम् - घ. ७. 'सादनिमर्लं समूलैव' - मग. 'सादगभंरभसमूलैव' - घ. ८. शब्दार्थ - घ. ९. शब्दगोचरत्वे - घ. १०. प्रकाशमानत्वं तदनारुयेयमुख्यते - घ. ११. 'कदापि' - ग. १२. 'रूपाणाम्' - क-ख. १३. 'उभयेषा प्रतिपत्तिविशेष' - ग. १४. 'च' - क-ख. १५. 'सर्वलक्षणविषये' - घ. सर्वलक्षणविष्यं-BP. १६. घटनादर्शनादशब्दार्थ -च. १७. 'च' - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

word from another is nothing but the absence of unintelligibility and tautology. Similarly, the positive excellences of words are harmony, and suggestivity. The unique excellences of meanings are perspicuity, suggestiveness and association with the suggested element. These unique characteristics of both words and meanings are quite definable and in fact they have been defined in several ways. If one should still imagine that there is some other indefinable uniqueness in words and meanings, it will only indicate that the man has taken leave of his good sense. For never indeed possible logically ; since at least the word 'indefinable' itself will have ultimately expressed it, if not any other. If one should modify the notion of 'indefinability' to mean 'indeterminate or general experience of something which eludes specific usage of words', this view also agrees only with the unique charm of gems and not with the charm of poetry, since the latter has been explained by several writers on poetics quite determinately unlike the former whose values are never fixed only by general considerations. There is of course similarity between the two in the fact that their worth can be recognised only by select connoisseurs. There is not scope for any conflict of opinion at all in regard to the fact that only jewellers can recognise the worth of gems and that refined critics alone can appreciate the sentiments in poems.

The Light of Suggestion

As regards the well-known theory of the Buddhists that every thing-as-such in the world is indefinable, we shall take it up for discussion in our other work concerned with a review of Buddhist theories. It is not taken up here because of our fear that any exhibition here of our learning in other works might only offend the minds of the refined critics. We will only say that our definition of DHVANI will be at least on a par with the definitions of perception, etc., proposed by the Buddhist philosophers themselves.

The Light of Suggestion

Thus it might be taken that the definition of Dhvani propounded here is valid since no other definition will hold good for it and since it is not subsumed by the conventional meanings of words. The following sums up the conclusion :-

The Light of Suggestion

Indefinable manifestation is not a definition of Dhvani since its content can be defined. The definition given already should be deemed as the correct one.

चतुर्थोऽध्यायः

एवं ध्वानिं सपप्रपञ्चं विप्रतिपत्तिनिरासार्थं क्युत्पाद्य तद्र्युत्पादने प्रयोजनान्तरमच्यते —

ध्वनेर्यः सगुणोभूतव्यङ्ग्यस्याद्वा प्रदर्शितः ।

अनेनानन्यमायाति कवीनां प्रतिभागुणः ॥ १ ॥

य एष ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यस्य च मार्गः' प्रकाशितः, तस्य फलान्तरं कविप्रतिभानन्त्यम् ।

अतोन्यतमेनापि प्रकारण विभूषिता ।

वाणी नत्वमायाति पूर्वार्थान्वयवत्यापि ॥ २ ॥

अतोऽपि ध्वनैकतप्रभेदमध्येsदन्यतमेनापि प्रकारेण विभूषिता सती वाणी पुरातनकवीनिबद्धार्थैसंस्पर्शवत्यापि नत्वमायाति ।

तथाहि—विवक्षितवाच्यस्य ध्वने: प्रकारद्वयाश्रयणेनै नवत्वं पूर्वोक्तानुगमेऽपि यथा—

स्मितं किमिवस्मुरुघं तरलमधुरो द्रष्टिविभवः

परिस्पन्दो वाचामभिनवविलासौजसः सरसः ।

गतानामारम्भः किलकिलायितलीलापरिमलः

स्पर्शन्त्यास्तारुण्यं किमिव हि न रम्यं मृगदृशः ॥

१. अंशा. — ग. २. अतो हि — घ. ३. श्रपे — क-ख. ४. पूर्वोक्ता — गमेऽपि—

क-ख. ५. विलासो — घ. ६. °परिकर:-घ.

THE FOURTH FLASH

The theory of principal suggestion has been propounded thus far in all its bearings with a view to clearing up conflicting opinions. In what follows, the other practical uses to which such a theory might be put is explained :-

By the ways of principal suggestion as also subordinated suggestion shown thus far, the quality of creative imagination in poets will assume endlessness.

1

Endlessness of creative imagination in poets will be another outcome of the theory of principal and subordinated suggestion laid down already.

If one should ask-‘ how is it ?’, ( here is our reply :)

By a mere touch of even a single variety of suggestion ( among the many that have been enumerated ), the poet's expression will acquire novelty though it might perhaps embody only a trite idea.

2

The expression of a poet will appear quite novel though it might embody an idea already found in an earlier poet, if it is adorned by at least a single variety of suggestion from among the many varieties that have been mentioned.

How a touch of the two varieties of suggestion with unintended expressed content endows novelty even to themes corresponding to those known already is illustrated in the following :-

Her gentle smile is winsome And the grace of her looks tremulous and sweet, Her utterance of words is ebullient with novel arts and emotion; The course of her movements is like the sweet perfume That spreads out of an opening bud, Indeed as the deer-eyed lady steps into her youth, Is there anything that does not look lovely ?

सविभ्रमास्मितोद्भेदा लोलाक्ष्यः प्रसवलदूगिरः । नितम्बालसगामिन्यः कामिन्यः कस्य न प्रियाः ॥

इत्येवमादिषु श्लोकेषु सत्स्वापि तिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वानिसमाश्रयेण अपूर्वत्वमेव प्रतिभासते ।

तथा —— यः प्रथमः प्रथमः स तु तथाहि हतहस्तिबहलपलाशः । श्वापदगणेपु सिंहः सिंहः केनाधरीक्रियते ॥

इत्यर्योः

स्वतेजःकीर्तमहिमा केनान्येनातिशाय्यते । महाद्रिरपि मातङ्गः सिंहः किं निभूयते ॥

इत्येवमादिषु श्लोकेषु सत्स्वापि अर्थान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्यध्वनिसमाश्रयेण नवत्वम् ।

विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यस्याप्युक्तप्रकारसमाश्रयेण नवत्वं यथा —— निद्राकैतविनः प्रियस्य बदने विन्यस्य वक्त्रं वधूः । बोधत्रासनिरुद्धचुम्बनरसाप्याभोगलोलं स्थिता ॥ वैलक्ष्यादिवशमुखीभवेदिति पुनस्तस्याप्यनारम्भणः । साकाङ्क्षप्रतिपत्ति नाम हृदयं यातं तु पारं रतेः ॥

१. तथाहिमहतहस्तिनत्पन्तपलाशो — ग. २. अस्य — ग. ३. केनाभिभूयते — घ. ४. तत्रालक्ष्यक्रमप्रकारसमाश्रयेणास्थात्स्वद्‌ । ४. एनद्वाक्यं — क. ख. पुस्तकयोर्नास्ति. यथा — घ.

The Light of Suggestion

This verse has acquired a novelty all its own thanks to the touch of suggestion with unintended expressed content, notwithstanding the existence of an earlier verse embodying the same idea. Here is the earlier verse :-

To whom are women not dear, With their graceful smiles and tremulous looks, With their faltering words and lingering steps Under the weight of heavy hips ?

So also the following verse ( 1 ) appears novel because of its association with suggestion in which the expressed content is merged in the unexpressed despite the existence of an earlier verse ( viz., 2 ) unfolding the same idea :-

1 He that is first is first indeed; Among the host of beasts, He that subsists upon the profuse flesh Of elephants by himself killed, Is the lion in truth; By whom will the lion be baffled then ?

2 Can one who has won glory by the wealth of his own valour Be outshone by anyone else ? Will ever the lion be defeated Even by the mightiest elephant ?

Novelty is seen in the same way by a touch of these varieties of suggestion, with intended but further-extending expressed content; the first is the new verse and the second an old one embodying the same idea :-

1 The bride placed her face over her lover's, Feigning sleep as he lay, And stayed so for a while close to his forehead, Her eagerness to kiss him being halted By her fear that he might wake up. He too would not make a move Fearing that she might turn away her face Because of bashfulness. His heart in that acute suspense Reached the acme of delight !

इत्यादे: श्लोकस्य — शून्यं वासगृहं विलोक्य रैनादुत्थाय किञ्चिदिच्छन्नै— निन्द्राव्याजसुपागातस्य सुचिरं निर्वर्णये पत्सुरेखवम् । विकसितं परिचुम्बय जातपल्कामालोक्य गण्डस्थलीं लज्जानम्रमुखी प्रियेण हसता बाला चिरं चुम्बिता ॥

इत्यादिषु श्लोकेषु सत्त्वपि नवत्वम् । यथा वा—— 'तरङ्गभ्रमङ्गा' इत्यादिश्लोकस्य ' नानाभङ्गिश्रमद्भू:' इत्यादिश्लोकापेक्षयान्यतवम् ।

युक्त्यानुसर्तव्यो रसादिर्वहुविस्तर: । मिथोऽप्यनन्तता याति काव्यमार्गा यथाश्रयात् ॥ ३ ॥

बहुविस्तारोडयं रसभावतदाभासतत्प्रशमंलक्षणो मार्गो यथास्वं विभावानुभावप्रभेदकलनया यथोक्तं प्राक् । स सर्व एवानया युक्त्यानुसर्तव्य: । यस्य रसादेराश्रयादयं काव्यमार्ग: पुरातनै: कविभि: सहृदयै: रसंल्लयैर्वा बहुप्रकारं शृण्णात्वानिम्नेतोदप्यनन्ततामेति । रसभावादीनां हि प्रत्येकं विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसमाश्रयादपरिमितत्वम् । तेषां चैकैकंप्रभेदापेक्षयापि तथाङ्गाद्वृत्तानुपनिबन्धाश्रयध्वया रसिकजनध्यानध्यै— द्वर्तते । प्रतिपादितं चैतच्चित्रविचारावसरे । गाथा चात्र कृतैवं महाकविना— अताहडिए विहसणिठए व हिआअम्मि जा णिवेसेइ । अत्याविसेसे सा जइ विकडकइगोअरा वाणी ॥

[ अतथास्थितानपि तथासंस्थितानिव हृदये या निवेशायति । अर्थविशेषण् मा जयति विकटकविगोचरा वाणी ॥ [ इति च्छाया ]

१. अत्य्. - ग. इत्यादि -घ. २. श्लोकेषु -घ. पुस्तके नास्ति । ३. दिशानया° -घ. ४. रसादिबहुविस्तर: -प. ५. मिथोऽ° - BP. ६. प्राप्त: BP. न्ततामेति - MB. ७. प्रभेदन° -घ. ८. प्रभेदकतया - ग. ९. दिशानु° -घ. १०. मिथो - BP. ११. चैतामेक° - ग. १२. तथा च गाथात्र कृत - क-ख.

The Light of Suggestion

2 Seeing the sleeping chamber secluded, The young wife gently rose a bit from her bridal bed And went on feasting her eyes for long On the face of her husband feigning sleep; She then kissed his face without hesitation And finding that his cheeks were thrilled at her kiss, She bent down her head abashed. Then it was that the laughing husband Kissed her long in turn.

The Light of Suggestion

Another example, equally striking, is the verse : 'Frowning with its waves as with brows', etc. Despite the existence of verses like—nānābhaṅgī-bhramadbhrūh.

The Light of Suggestion

The sentiments etc. whose scope is very wide should be followed along the said course. The otherwise limited range of poetry has become so unlimited only because of their influence.

The Light of Suggestion

The scope of sentiments, emotions, their semblances, and their cessations is indeed very vast in view of the numerous varieties of stimuli and responses that are possible in regard to each of them. This has indeed been shown already. And all of them should be followed only along the said course (of suggestion). It is indeed because of the influence of sentiments, etc. that the field of poetry which has been narrowed down in several ways by the works of a thousand poets, or to be precise, of innumerable poets in the past, can still hold out infinite possibilities (for present as well as future poets). Sentiments and emotions, etc. become infinite indeed because of the association of each one of them with different stimuli, responses and passing moods. Even if the poet handles a subject taken from life in deference to the demands of any single sub-division of these, the subject becomes infused with characteristics quite unknown to it in life. This has already been set forth in our treatment of Portrait-like Poetry. A celebrated poet has indeed written a sententious verse conveying this fact :—

The Light of Suggestion

Homage to the Muse of the gifted poets Which makes us feel in our hearts As though things that are quite unreal Are very real forsooth.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तदित्यं रसभावाद्याश्रयेप काव्यार्थानामानन्त्यं सुप्रतिपादितम् ।

एतदेवोपपादयितुमुच्यते —

वक्ष्यमाणार्था: काव्ये रसपरिग्रहात् । सर्वे' नवाः इवाभान्ति मधुमास इव द्रुमाः ॥ ४ ॥

तथा हिर्विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्यस्यैव शब्दशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपपर्यवृचै-प्रकारसमाश्रयेप नवत्वम् । यथा—‘घरणीधारणायाधुना त्वं शेष:' इत्यादौ ।

शेषो हिमगिरित्वं च महान्तो गुरवः स्थिराः । यदृक्छितमर्यादाश्रयन्नी विभ्रते भुवम् ॥'

इत्यादिषु सत्व्वापि ।

तस्यैवार्थशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपपर्यवृचसमाश्रयेप नवत्वं यथा —

'एवं वादिनि देवर्षौ' इत्यादिश्लोकस्य

कृते वरकथालापे कुमार्यः पुलकोद्वमैः । सूचयन्ति स्फुरमन्तलज्ज्जयावनतनना: ॥

इत्यादिषु सत्वु । अर्थशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपपर्यवृचस्य कविप्रौदोक्तिनिर्मितशोभारात्वेन नवत्वं यथा —

'सज्जे सुराहमासो' इत्यादि: सुराभिसमये प्रहत्ते सहसा प्रादुर्भवन्ति रमणीयाः ।

रागवतामुल्कालिक्काः सहैव सहकारकल्काभिः ॥

इत्यादिषु सत्वप्यपूर्ववतमेव ।

१. सर्वे नवत्वमायान्ति मधुमासे द्रुमा इव - MB.

३. 'रणनव्यङ्गचरूप°-ग. ४. बिभ्रया: सिनिम्मू - क-ख.

५. हि-ष पुस्तके नास्ति श्रयणेन -ग.

६. 'प्रौढो-किमात्रानिमिंत° -ग. प्रौढोकिनिष्पन्न° - MB.

The Light of Suggestion

The unlimitedness lent to poetic themes due to their association with sentiments, emotions, etc. has been demonstrated hitherto. This is accounted for in the following :- Even trite subjects in poetry will put on a new freshness if they get into touch with sentiment just as the same trees appear quite new with the advent of spring.

The following illustrates how novelty is achieved by a commonplace theme due to the influence of resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of word under the class of suggestion with intended but further-extending expressed content:-

1 Now you alone are left with ( also, the primeval Serpent ) for bearing the burden of the earth.

2 The Primeval Serpent, Mount Himālaya, and you — Are all great, mighty and constant; For the moving earth is borne by all the three Without overstepping the self-apportioned limits.

The second is the older verse.

An illustration of novelty due to the influence of resonance-like suggestion based upon the power of sense is found in the verse-‘As the divine sage’, etc. despite the existence of verses like—

When the talk about the bridegroom is going on, Girls bend their faces in bashfulness And betray the eagerness within their hearts By their bristling thrills outside.

In the instance ‘The spring keeps ready’, etc, we have novelty due to the touch of the same variety of suggestion with a subject which is real only in the ornate expression of the poet despite the existence of verses like—

At the advent of spring. Do come forth at once Longings in lovers' hearts And buds in the mango tree.

शवन्यालोक:

अर्थशक्त्युद्भवानुरणनरूपव्यङ्ग्यचस्य कविनिबद्धवक्तृप्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशरीरत्वेनं नवत्वं यथां — ‘ वाणिअ हत्यिदन्ता ’ इत्यादिगाथार्थस्य करिणीवेहव्वारो मह पुत्तो एक्काण्डवि्णिवाइ । हअ सोन्हाएँ तह कहो जेह कण्डकरण्डअं वहिअ ॥ [ करिणीवैधव्यकरो मम पुत्र एककाण्डविनिपाती । हतस्नुषया तथा कृतो यथा काण्डकरण्डकं वहिअति ॥ [ इति छाया ] एवमादिष्वर्थेषु सत्स्पनालीडतैवं । यथां व्यङ्ग्यच्यमेदसमाश्रयेण ध्वने: काव्यार्थोनां नवत्वसुत्पद्यते', तथा व्यञ्जकभेदसमाश्रयेणापि ।

तत् तु ग्रन्थविस्तरभयान्न लिख्यते, स्वयमेव सहदयैरम्युद्यम् । अत्र च पुन:पुनरुक्तमपि सारतयेदमुच्यते — व्यङ्ग्यचव्यञ्जकभावेऽस्मिन् विविधे सम्भवत्यपि । रसादिमय एकस्मिन्‌ कवि: स्यादवधानवान्‌॥ ५॥ अस्मिन्नर्थोनन्त्यहेतौ व्यङ्ग्यचव्यञ्जकभावे विचित्रे शब्दानां सम्भवत्यपि कविपूर्वींथिलभार्या" रसादिमय एकस्मिन्‌ व्यङ्ग्यचलव्यञ्जकभावे यत्नादवदधीत । रसभावतदाभासरूपे हि व्यङ्ग्ये तद्व्यञ्जकेषु च यथानिदृष्टेषु' वर्णपदवाक्यरचनाप्रबन्धेष्वाहितमनस: के: सर्वपूर्वं काव्यं सम्पद्यते । तथा च रामायणमहाभारतादिषु सङ्ग्रामादय: पुन:पुनराभिहिता अपे नवनवा: प्रकाशन्ते ।

प्रबन्धे चाङ्गी रस एक एवोपनिबध्यमानोऽर्थविशेषलाभं नवनवा: प्रकाशन्ते ।

१. ° शरीरतवे सति -ख. २. सारविणिज्जोअलणहत्थालं समुपणमन्त्तेहि । अब्भुद्राणणिभव ममहस्से दिण्णं तुह थणोहिं ॥ अस्य हि गाथार्थस्य उदिह...कआ मोआ जेह जेह थणआ विणन्ति बालाणं । तह तह लद्धावसो व्व ममहो हिअअमाविसइ ॥ एतद्रार्थेन न पौनरुक्त्यम् ।

३. इत्येवमादिषु सत्स्पनालीडतैवं -क. ख. ४. यथा. च-घ. ५. अप्रथयार्थंत्वमुत्पद्यते-ग. ६. एतस्मिन् - क-ख. ७. विचित्रं - BP. ८. शब्दानामिति नास्ति - घ. ९. कविपूर्वींलभार्थे - घ, १०. एतस्मिन्न् - क-ख. ११. यथामति - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

In the instance 'O merchant' etc., we have novelty due to the touch of the same variety of suggestion with a subject which is real only in the ornate expression of a character invented by a poet despite the presence of verses like-

My son who brought widowhood to cow-elephants By shooting just a single shaft, Has now been reduced to such a state By this wretched daughter-in-law That he must carry a bundle of shafts.

Novelty is produced in poetic themes not only by their union with the varieties of suggested content, but also by their contact with the varieties of the suggestive elements. But we will not record it here lest the work should grow too voluminous. Refined critics may very well imagine it for themselves.

Though it has been reiterated again and again, still the following is said once more since it happens to be the very essence of the matter on hand :

Though several varieties of the suggested-suggester relationship are possible, the poet should be most intent upon one of them in particular, viz., that relating to the delineation of sentiments etc.

Though words involving the relation of suggested-suggester are possible in various ways, the poet desirous of securing novel poetic themes shoul be most intent upon one of them only, viz., suggestion of sentiments, etc. So long as the poet exercises undeflected concentration regarding the suggested contents, viz., sentiment, emotion, its semblance, and the suggesters previously explained, viz., letter, word, sentence, and texture, and the work as a whole, the poet's entire work will become strikingly novel. That is why in epics like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, the subjects of 'battle' etc., appear quite new though they are described again and again.

In a work as a whole the delineation of a single sentiment as the predominant one will endow not only novelty of content but also abundance of charm. If one should ask for examples,

Dhvanyaloka

छायातिशायं च पुष्णाति। कामं त्रिवेदति चेतू—यथा रामायणे यथा वां महाभारते। रामायणे हि करुणो रसः स्वयमादिकविना सूत्रितः ‘शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः' इत्येवंबादिना। निर्हूढश्व स एवं सीतात्मन्तवियोगपर्यन्तमेव स्वप्रबन्धमुपरचयता। महाभारतेऽपि शास्त्ररूपे काव्यच्छायान्वायिनी वृष्णिपाण्डवविरसावसानवैमनस्यदायिनीं समासिमुपनिबद्धता महामुनिना वैराग्यजननतात्पर्यं प्राधान्येन स्वप्रबन्धस्य दर्शयता मोक्षलक्षणः पुरुषार्थः शान्तो रसश्व मुल्यतया विवक्षाविषयत्वेन सूचितः। एतच्चांशेन विवृतमेवान्यैरस्याविधायिभिः। स्वयमेव चैतदुद्रि णां तेनोदीर्यमहामोहमग्नसुज्जीहृषिता लोकमतिविमलज्ञानालोकदायिना लोननाथेन —

यथा यथा विभ्रयते लोकलत्न्यमुपश्रितम्‌। तथा तथा विरागोऽत्र जायते नात्र संशायः॥

इत्यादि बहुशः कथयता। ततश्व शान्तो रसो रसान्तरैः, मोक्षलक्षणः पुरुषार्थः पुरुषार्थान्तरैः तदुपसर्जनत्वेनानुगम्यमानोऽङ्गित्वेन विवक्षाविषय इति महाभारतात्पर्यं मुख्यतमेवावभासते। अङ्गाङिभावश्व यथा रसानां तथा प्रतिपादितमेव।

पारमार्थिकान्तस्तत्त्वानपेक्षया शरीरस्येवाङ्गभूतस्य रसस्य पुरुषार्थस्य च स्वप्राधान्येन चारुत्वमप्यविरुद्धम्‌।

१. यथा च—क-ख। २. स्वयमादिमुनिना ख्यातिः—-ग। ३. शाब्दबृपपूर्वकाव्यावस्थित-वयिनी-ग. शास्त्रकाङ्ग्यरूपच्छायान्वयिनी - घ. ४. स्वयं चोद्रीणां - च. ५. रस.दीनाम्‌। -क. ख. ६. पारमार्थिक¹नत्सत्च्वानपक्षया शरीरस्यैव° - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

we would say in reply that the Rāmāyaṇa is itself one example and that the Mahābhārata is another. Into the Rāmāyaṇa indeed, the First Poet himself has incorporated the sentiment of pathos as is clear by his own declaration—“ Sorrow has taken the turn of a stanza ”. It has in fact been kept up as predominant till the very end of the work in view of his concluding the work at the point of the eternal loss of Sītā by Rāma.

The Light of Suggestion

In the Mahābhārata too, which combines both the elements of instruction and poetry in one, it will be seen that its conclusion in a note of despair consequent on the miserable deaths of Vṛṣṇis as well as Pāṇḍavas, as constructed by the great sage, reveals his primary intention of preaching the moral of renunciation through his work and throws light upon the fact that he intended final emancipation as the foremost of human values and Peace as the most predominant sentiment in the whole work. This has been partially brought out even by the other commentators on the Mahābhārata. Even the reverend sage himself whose foremost desire was the rescue of his fellowmen from the deep abyss of ignorance in which they were weltering by vouchsafing to them the light of supreme knowledge, has declared in no uncertain terms :-

The Light of Suggestion

' Just ( as much ) as wordly pursuits Turn out to be unavailing, One's sense of aversion to them will become firm; There is no doubt at all '.

The Light of Suggestion

and so on in the same strain more than once. It stands out most clearly that the main purport of the Mahābhārata is the communication of the fact that Peace is to be regarded as the most prominent sentiment, the others being secondary to it and that final emancipation is the most prominent of human values, the other values being only subsidiary to it. The principal-subordinate relationship of sentiments has been set forth already.

The Light of Suggestion

Just as the body might be invested with prominence though it is only secondary when the really prominent soul is not taken into consideration. so also a secondary sentiment as well as a secondary value might be justly regarded as prominent in itself and beautiful.

ननु महाभारते यावान् विवक्षाविषय:, सोडनुक्रमण्यां सर्वमेवानुकीर्त्तो न चैतत्तत्र हश्यते, प्रत्युत सर्वपुरुषार्थप्रबोधहेतुत्वं सर्वरसगर्भत्वं च महाभारतस्य तस्मिन्नुदेरो स्वशब्दनिवेदितत्वेन प्रतियते । अत्योच्यते । मत्यं शान्तस्यैव रसस्याङ्गित्वं महाभारते मोक्षस्य च सर्वपुरुषार्थेम्य: प्राधान्यमित्येतत् स्वशब्दाभिधेयत्वेनानुक्रमण्यां दर्शितं, दर्शितन्तु व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन: —. भगवान् वासुदेवश्व कीर्त्यतेऽत्र सनातन:' इत्यस्मिन् वाक्ये । अननेद्वायमथो व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन विवक्षितो यदत्र महाभारते पाण्डवादि-चरितं यत्कीर्त्यते, तत्सर्वमवसानाविरसमविद्याप्रपञ्चरुपकथापरमार्थसत्यस्वरुपस्तु भगवान् वासुदेवोऽत्र कीर्त्यते । तस्मात्तस्मिन्नेव परमेश्वरे भगवति भवतभावितचेतसो, मा भूत विभूतिषु नि:सारासु रागिणो, गुणेषु वाऽनयविनय-प्रकामादिप्रस्तुतमीषु केवलेषु केशचिद् मर्वात्मना प्रतिनिविधीय: । तथा चाप्ये-पश्यत नि:सारतां संसारस्ये त्यमुनेवार्थीतोतिशायं ज्योतयन् स्कुटमेवावभासते व्यङ्जकशक्त्यनुगृहीतश्वाब्द: । एवंविधमेवोर्थ गर्भीकृतं सन्दर्शयन्नोडनन्तर-श्लोक लक्षण्ते—‘ स हि सत्यम ' इत्यादि ।

अयं च निगूढर्मणीयोडर्थो महाभारतावसाने हरिवंशावर्णनेन समासि-विदघता तेनैव कविवेधसा कृष्णद्वैपायनेन सम्यक्स्फुटीकृत: । अनने चार्थेन संसारातीते तत्वान्तरे भक्त्यतिशायं प्रवर्तयता सकल एव सांसारिको व्यवहार: पूर्वपक्षीकृतो न्यक्शेण प्रकाशते ।

1. अत्योच्यते - BP. 2. अननेदन्ति नास्ति - घ. 3. संकीर्त्यतेन - ग. 4. नरसत्व-भियारय कीर्त्यन्ते इति पयेँन्त-घ पुस्तके नास्ति. 5. नि:सारतां सर्वस्यास्य संसारधु-व्यहारस्य - क-ख. 6. ज्योतयत् - घ. 7. शक्त्यानु - घ. 8. व्यङ्जकत्वानुगृहीतश्व शब्द: - घ. 9. एवं विधमेव अर्थ - घ. 10. स्वश्रृङण प्रकाशयने - ग. प्रकाशते - च.

The Light of Suggestion

It might be urged by some that all the points sought to be conveyed in the Mahābhārata have been enumerated exhaustively in the Introduction itself while the above point is conspicuous by its absence in the Introduction. They might add that, on the other hand, Vyāsa expressly claims in the Introduction that his work throws light on all the human values and that it contains all the sentiments.

Here is our answer to the objection : though it is true that nowhere in the Introduction we come across an express statement to the effect that in the Mahābhārata, Peace is intended to be the most prominent of all sentiments and that final emancipation is intended to be the most prominent of all human values, it is also true that this has been conveyed in a suggestive way through the sentence—

Herein, forsooth, will be glorified Lord Vāsudeva too, the Eternal.

The idea implied in this sentence is that all the other subjects described in the Mahābhārata such as the exploits of the Pāṇḍavas end only in tragedy and belong only to the realm of ignorance while the only eternal and truly abiding subject glorified here is Lord Vāsudeva. Therefore (suggests Vyāsa), ‘be devoted in heart only to that supreme Lord; don't remain attached to empty pleasures and don't be too intent upon excellences even like statesmanship, modesty, and valour just for their own sakes’! It is to suggest the utter futility of worldly existence indeed that ca (‘too’) figures last in that sentence. The verses that immediately follow, viz., ‘He alone is Real’, are also imbued with this very significance.

By appending Harivaṃśa at the end of the Mahābhārata, the great Poet-Creator Krṣṇa Dvaipāyana has made this inner and beautiful significance abundantly clear. By propagating the cause of whole-hearted devotion in that Absolute Reality beyond the realm of worldly existence, he appears definitely to have regarded the entire activities of worldly existence to be of the nature of a prima facie case (deserving refutation). He indulges in lengthy descriptions of the greatness of deities, sacred spots.

ध्वन्यालोक:

प्रभावातिशायवर्णनं तस्यैव परब्रह्मणः प्राप्त्युपायत्वेन तद्भूयित्ल्वेनैव देवताविशेषणमन्येषां चै। पाण्डवादिचरितवर्णनस्यापि वैराग्यजननतत्पर्योद्वैराग्यस्य च मोक्षमूलत्वान्मोक्षस्य च भगवत्प्राप्त्युपायत्वेन सुरुच्यतया गीतादिषु प्रदर्शितत्वात परब्रह्मप्राप्त्युपायत्वमेव। परम्परया वासुदेवादिसंज्ञाभिधेयत्वेन चापरिमितशक्त्यास्पदं परं ब्रह्म गीतादिप्रदेशान्तरेषु तदभिधानत्वेन लघुप्रसिद्धि माथुरप्रादुर्भावानुकृतसकलस्वरूपमंशिरूपं विवक्षितं, न तु माथुरप्रादुर्भावांश एव, सनातनशब्दविशेषितत्वात्। रामायणादिषु चानया संज्ञया भगवन्मूर्त्यन्तरे व्यवहादर्शोनात्। निर्णयतश्वायमर्थे शब्दतस्वविदिरेव।

तदेवमनुक्रमणीनिर्दिष्टेन वाक्येन भगदद्वयतिरेकिणः सर्वस्यैवस्याऽनस्याऽनित्यतां प्रकाशयता मोक्षलक्षण एवैकः परः पुरुषार्थः शाब्दयेन, कालकलयनं च तृष्णाक्षयसुखपरिपोषलक्षणः शान्तो रसो महाभारतस्याऽऽडितत्वेन विवक्षित इति सुप्रतिपादितम्। अत्यन्तसारभूतत्वाच्चायमर्थो व्यर्थचतुर्नैव दर्शितो न तु वाच्यत्वेन। सारभूतो ह्यर्थः स्वशब्दानभिधेयत्वेन प्रकाशितः

१. तत्तद्भूयित्ल्वेनैव वा - च. २. च - घ पुस्तके नास्ति। ३. स्वरूपमडिरूपम् - ग. सकल स्वरूप शंसिरूपं - च. Reading is clearly अंशिरूपं in No. XII 186 and No. 255 of BORI. ४. विशेषकत्वात् - ग. ५. अंशः - व. ६. प्रकाशयन्तो-घ. ७. साररूपो - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

asceticism, etc., only because they serve, in his opinion, as the channels of realising that Supreme Reality ; other particular gods also are glorified only as so many manifestations of His Supreme glory. The description of the exploits of Pāṇḍavas etc. is also meant to produce a sense of renunciation; renunciation, in its turn, is the very basic instrument of final emancipation; and final emancipation itself has been shown in the Bhagavadgītā and other works to be a sure means towards the attainment of the Supreme Reality. Thus, indirectly, even the description of the exploits of Pāṇḍavas etc., might be regarded as a means towards the attainment of the Supreme Reality. Instead of referring to the Supreme Reality by the very word Supreme Reality, Vyāsa uses a synonym, viz. Vāsudeva. By this word Vāsudeva we should consider as intended the meaning of Supreme Reality only, which is the abode of boundless power, because in several contexts like the Gītā, this word has been widely used to convey the meaning of Supreme Reality itself. It should not be understood to mean only the human form born as son of Vāsudeva in Mathurā but wholly the Supreme Reality itself imitating in every way the nature of such a human being born in Mathurā ; because, the word under consideration, viz., Vāsudeva, is qualified by the adjective, viz., Eternal. And in other works like the Rāmāyaṇa, we find this word used as a proper name for other incarnations also of the Supreme Lord. This fact has indeed been established even by grammarians themselves.

Hence we are quite justified in saying that the purport implied by the sage for the sentence in question of the Introductory chapter is the perishable nature of everything with the single exception of the Supreme Lord and that the Mahābhārata as a whole is intended by him to convey the highest human value, viz., final emancipation, when the work is regarded as a scripture, and to delineate the sentiment of Quietude—whose nature is of heightened tranquillity and happiness at the cessation of desire—as the predominant sentiment in the work when it is regarded as a poem. As this purport happens to be the most essential one, it has not been stated expressly but conveyed by way of suggestion. An intrinsically essential idea acquires beauty only when it is revealed in a way other than the expressed. In polished literary

ध्वन्यालोक:

सुतरामेव शोभामावहति । प्रसिद्धिश्रेयमस्त्येव विदग्धवित्तत्परिषत्सु यदभिमततयं वस्तु व्यङ्गचत्वेन प्रकाशयते, न साक्षाच्छब्दवाच्यत्वेन्‌ । तस्मात्‌ स्थितमेतत्‌ — अङ्गीभूतस्यान्याश्रयेण काव्ये क्रियामाणे नवार्थी लाभो भवति, वन्धच्छायाँ च महती सम्पद्यते इति । अत एव च रसानुगुणार्थविशेषोपनिबन्धनमलङ्कारान्तरविरहितपि छायातिशाययोगि रच्य्ये दृश्यते । यथा—

मुनिर्जयति योगीन्द्रो महात्मा कुम्भसम्भवः । येनैकचुलुके दृष्टौ तौ दिव्यौ मत्स्यकच्छपौ ॥

इत्यादि । अत्र ह्यदुतरसानुगुणमेकचुलुके मत्स्यकच्छपदर्शनं छायातिशायं पुष्णाति । ततत्रैकचुलुके सकृज्जलाधिसन्निधानादपि दिव्यमत्स्यकच्छपदर्शनमक्षुण्णत्वादद्भुतरसानुगुणतरम्‌ । क्षुण्णं हि वस्तु लोकप्रसिद्धचाद्भुतमपि नाश्रर्यकारि भवति । न चाक्षुण्णं वस्तूपनिबध्यमानमद्भुतरसयैवानुगुणं, यावद्रसान्तरस्यापि । तथ्यथा—

सिज्जइ रमाअहिज्जइ वेढइ रत्थोंतुल्लभपडिलम्मो । सो पासो अज्जविहि ण्हअ जेणासि वोलिणो ॥ [ स्विद्यति रोमाञ्चिज्जइवेपते : रच्छातलगं । स पाथ्थोडय्यापि सुभर्ग येनास्यतिकान्तः ॥ [ इति छाया ]

एतद्राथार्थोद्‌ भाव्यमानाद्‌ या रसप्रतीतिरभेवाति सा त्वां सृष्ट्र स्विद्यति, रोमाञ्चते, वेपते इत्येवंविधादर्थात्‌ प्रतीयमानान्नागपि नो जायते । तदेवं ध्वनिप्रभेदसमाश्रयेण यथा काव्यार्थानां नवत्वं जायते तथा प्रतिपादितम्‌ ।

१. वाच्यद्वेनैव - घ. २. नवनवार्थलाभो - घ. ३. प्रवन्धच्छाया - कुव. ४. 'सकल' घ पुस्तके नास्ति । ५. रच्छाकुलकं - घ. ६. सह्‌ अतीइ - घ. ७. प्रतीमानातमना मनागपि - व.

The Light of Suggestion

circles it has indeed become a convention of wits to communicate their best ideas only through suggestion and not at all by express words.

Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that novelty in poetic theme as well as great beauty of construction is achieved by adopting a single sentiment as predominant in any poem as a whole. That is why compositions containing only themes in keeping with sentiment are often seen to hold out abundant charm although they may be lacking in different figures of speech. For instance—

'Victory to that sage, the foremost of ascetics, The mighty soul who was pitcher-born ; For he could behold both the divine Fish and Tortoisc In the hollow af his single hand'.

and such others might be cited. The idea that, in the hollow of a single hand, one could see both the divine Fish and Tortoise heightens the sentiment of Wonderment. Further, though the idea of the whole ocean being comprised in the hollow of the sage's hand is traditional, the idea that both the divine forms of the Lord, viz., the Fish and the Tortoise were seen by him there at the same time, is most original and it heightens the sentiment mentioned, all the more. An idea which is already familiar due to wide currency among people will not cause surprise, though it might embody an element of wonder.

An original poetic theme conforms not only to the sentiment of wonder but also to the other sentiments as in the following example :-

That part of her body Which touched the end of your balance As you passed her along the street Still sweats, horripilates and trembles; O, thou handsome youth !

The sentiment apprehended by contemplating upon the verse as it is, will never be had by any express statement to the effect, ' By your touch, she sweats, horripilates and trembles '.

Thus we have demonstrated how poetic themes are rendered new by the contact of one or another major variety of Dhvani

Dhvanyāloka:

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यचस्यापि त्रिभेदव्यङ्ग्यापेक्ष्यां ये प्रकारा:, तत्समाश्रयेणापि काव्यवस्तूनां नवत्वं भवत्येव । तत्वतिविस्तारकारीति नोदाहृतं, सहृदयै: स्वयमुत्प्रेक्षणीयम्

ध्वनेरित्य् गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यस्य च समाश्रयात् । न काव्यार्थोऽरामोदस्ति यदि स्यात् प्रतिभागुण: ॥ ६ ॥

सत्वपि पुरातनकविप्रबन्धेषु यदि स्यात् प्रतिभागुण:, तस्मिस्त्वसति न किश्चित् कवेर्वस्ति । बन्धच्छायाप्यर्थद्रयानुरूपशब्दसन्निवेशोऽर्थप्रतिभानभावे कथमुपपद्यते । अनपेक्षितार्थविशेषाक्षररचनैव बन्धच्छाया इति नेदं नेधीय:³ सहृदयानाम् । एवं हि सत्यर्थानपेक्षच्चतुरमयुरवचनरचनायामपि काव्यव्यपदेश: प्रवर्तते । शब्दार्थयो: साहित्येन काव्यत्वे कथं तथाविधे विषये काव्यव्यवस्थेति चेत्-प्रोपनिबद्धार्थविरचने यथा तत्काव्यवहारस्तथा तथाविधानां काव्यसन्दर्भाणाम् ।

न चार्थोन्तर्य् व्यङ्ग्यार्थापेक्षयैव यावद्राच्यार्थोऽपेक्ष्यापीति प्रतिपादयितुमुख्यते— अवस्थादेशकालादिविशेषरोपे जायते । आनन्त्यमेव वाच्यस्य शुद्धस्यापि स्वभावतः ॥ ७ ॥

१. स्यापि प्रभेदापेक्षया -घ. २. सन्निवेशाथⁿ -घ. ३. नेतर्रेदया -क. ४. प्रवर्तते -व. ५. यथा काव्यतद्रहार: -ग. यत्का व्यतस्तस्य

व्यवहारस्तया -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

or principal suggestion. In the same way, the element of subordinated suggestion too which is threefold from the point of view of the suggested content will ensure novelty to poetic themes if adopted in the work. But we have refrained from illustrating it here in detail for fear of making the work unduly prolix. Refined critics should fancy it for themselves.

The Light of Suggestion

So long as these varieties of principal and subordinate suggestion are utilised in a work and so long as the poet has the gift of creative imagination ( in so utilising them ), there can be no dearth of poetic themes.

The Light of Suggestion

The ellipsis to be supplied in the text is ' notwithstanding the existence of several ancient poetic works ' before ' so long as he has the gift of creative imagination '. But in the absence of creative imagination, the poet can certainly have no poetic theme at all. Nor can it be held justifiably that even in the absence of creative imagination directed towards vision of meanings, strikingness in style is possible of achievement; since style is nothing but employment of apt words to convey both types of meaning ( viz. the expressed and the suggested ). Refined critics would certainly not countenance the position that style is a mere arrangement of letters without any concern regarding the meaning to be conveyed. At that rate, every clever arrangement of sweet-sounding syllables, irrespective of meaning, should have deserved the designation of poetry. But it might be asked whether the designation of poetry is not commonly applied to all unions of words and meanings including the ones under consideration ( viz. those that owe their beauty to style alone ). Our reply is that such specimens are regarded as poetry only in a loose way after the analogy of a composition which is allowed to be ascribed to an imitator though it contains only ideas borrowed from another poet.

The Light of Suggestion

This infinitude of poetic themes is brought about not only by way of suggested content but also by way of expressed content. This is set forth in the following :—

The Light of Suggestion

Infinitude is achieved by the expressed content also even when it remains in its pure and natural state by reason of the considerations of circumstance, place, time, etc.

Dhvanyaloka

शुद्धस्यानपेक्षितव्यङ्गचस्पापि वाच्यस्याननुगमेव जायते स्वभावतः । स्वभावो ह्ययं वाच्यानां चेतनानामचेतनानां चं यद्वम्याभेदाद्देशभेदात्कालभेदात् स्वालक्षण्यभेदाच्चानन्तता भवति । तैश्व तथाव्यवस्थितैः साद्धिः प्रसिद्धा नेकस्वभावानुसरणरूपया स्वभावोक्त्यापि तावदुपनिरध्यमानैरनिर्वधिः काव्यार्थः सम्पद्यते । तथा ह्यवस्थाभेदान्नवत्वं यथा — भगवती पार्वती कुमारसम्भवे 'सर्वोपमाद्रव्यसमुच्चयेन' इत्यादिभिरुक्तिभिः प्रथममेव परिसमापितरुपवर्णनापि पुनरम्गवतः शम्भोरलोचनगोचरमायान्ती 'वसन्तपुष्पाभरणं वहन्ती' इति मन्मथोपकरणमूतेन भङ्ग्यन्तरेनो पोर्णिता । सैव च पुनर्नवोद्वाहसमये प्रसाध्यमाना 'तां प्रादुमुखीं तत्र निवेशय तन्वीम्' इत्याद्युक्तिभिरेवेनैव प्रकारेण निरूपितरुपसौष्ठवां न च ते तस्य कवेरेकत्रैवासकृकृता वर्णनप्रकारा अग्नरुक्तत्वेन वा नवनवार्थेनिर्भरत्वेन वा नै प्रतिभासन्ते । दर्शितमेव चैतद्विषमबाणलीलायाम्—

ण अ ताण घडइ ओही ण अ ते दीसन्ति कहवि पुनरुत्ता । जे विब्भमा पिआणं अत्था वा मुकडवाणीणम् ॥ [ न च तेषां घटते डवाधिः, न च ते दृश्यन्ते कविना पुनरुक्ताः । ये विभ्रमाः प्रियाणामर्थो वा सुकविवाणीनाम् ॥ ] [ इति च्छाया ] अयमपरश्रावस्त्याभेदप्रकारो यदचेतनानां सर्वेषां चेतनं द्वितीयं रूपमभिमानितत्वप्रसिद्धं हिमवदृृङादीनाम् । तच्चोदितं तेचेतनविषयस्वरूपयोजनयोपनिबध्यमानमन्यदेव सम्पद्यते । यथा कुमारसम्भव एव पर्वतस्वरूपस्य पुनः सप्तर्षिप्रियोक्तिषु सचेतनतत्स्वरूपापेक्षया प्रदर्शितं;

१. चेतनाचेतनानां -घ. २. स्वालक्षणयलक्षणभेदाच्चानन्तता -घ. ३. निरूपितरुपसौष्ठवां -घ. य. न not found in BP and घ, but occurring in XII. 186 and No. 255 (BORI). ५. तद्बोचिन् BP. ६. प्रियोकिनु ( ह्रस्व ) -घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Even the expressed content which is pure, that is to say, independent of the suggested element, will attain to infinitude in the natural course of things. It is indeed the nature of the expressed content that it becomes infinite by differences of circumstance, place and time as also by differences within itself in sentient as well as insentient objects. Even a faithful description of the several natures of such express ideas in a well known way will bring about an unlimitedness of poetic themes. To illustrate the novelty due to differences in circumstance, we may mention the description of Pārvatī in the Kumārasambhava. Though the description of her beauty has been completed even at the outset by the verses beginning with : By a combination of all subjects bearing comparison, etc., she is once again made the subject of description in a different way as the instrument of Cupid when she comes within the range of Lord Śiva's sight in verses such as : "Deckèd in the ornamental flowers of spring", etc., and further on, her exceeding beauty of form is described yet again at length in presenting how she was dressed up as a bride at the time of the wedding in verses beginning with : 'Placing that damsel in her front'. These repeated descriptions of the poet do not at all appear as tautological or as devoid of ever-fresh and rich significance. This has indeed been strikingly declared in my work ( Viṣamabānalīlā ):

There is no limit to them And they will never look like repetitions; The graces of sweethearts And the meanings of the words of good poets.

The second variety of 'circumstance' is this : all insentient objects such as the mountain Himavān and the river Gangā are accredited with a second sentient personality that presides over their insentient form. That presiding personality of theirs lends itself to be treated in a way natural to other sentient persons and, when so treated, it will appear quite novel. For instance, in the Kumārasambhava itself, we have first of all a description of Himavān in his mountainous form and later on he is endowed with the nature of a sentient being and addressed persuasively by the Seven Sages. We find

dhvanyālokaḥ

तद्पूर्वमेव प्रतिभाति । प्रसिद्धश्रायं सत्कवीनां मार्गः। इदं च प्रस्थानं कविव्युत्पत्तये विषमगणनालीलायां समप्रपञ्चं दर्शितम् । चेतनानां च गाल्यादवस्थाभिरनित्यत्वं सत्कवीनां प्रसिद्धमेव । चेतनानामवस्थाभेदेऽप्यवान्तरावस्थाभेदानानात्वम् । यथा कुमारोणां कुसुमशराभिन्नहृदयानमन्यासां च ।

तत्रापि विनीतानामविनीतानां च । अचेतनानां च भावानामारम्भावस्थाभेदभिन्नानामेककराः स्वरूपमुपनिबध्यमानमान्न्यमेवोपयुज्यते । यथा——हंसानां निनदो यैः कवलितैरासज्यते कूजतामन्यः कोऽपि । कषायकण्ठलुठनादाध्वरेो विभ्रमः ।। ते सम्प्रत्यकठोरवারণवधूदन्ताडनुरस्पर्धिनो निरीहाः कमलकरेषु शिशिनीकन्दर्पमग्रण्येयः ।।

एवमन्यत्रापि दिशान्यानुसर्तव्यम् । देशाभेदानानात्वमचेतनानां तावत् यथा वायूनां नानादिग्देशचारिणमन्येषामपि सलिलकुसुमादीनां प्रसिद्धमेव । चेतनानामपि मानुषपशुपक्षिप्रभृतीनां ग्रामरण्यसालिलादिसमेधितानां परस्परं महान् विशेषः समुपलक्ष्यत एव । स च विविच्य यथायथमुपनिबध्यमानस्थै-

वान्त्यमाश्रयते' । तथाहि——मानुषाणामेव तावद्देशादिभिन्नानां ये व्यवहारव्यापारादिषु विचित्रा विशेषास्तेषां केनान्तः शक्यते गन्तुम्, विशेषतो योषिताम् । उपनिबध्यंते च तत्सवॅमेव सुकविविरियथाप्रतिभम् ।

१. चुपासदम् - ग. २. वाचेतनानां चेतनानां - ष. ३. ररसीघु - ष. ४. लक्ष्यते - XII 136 and No. 255 ( BORI ). ४. °याति - BP.

The Light of Suggestion

novelty positively in such a description. This is indeed an established practice of poets. This principle has been shown at length in the Viṣamabānalīlā for the benefit of the poets seeking instruction.

Even among sentient themes, ‘circumstances’ of age such as childhood bring about novelty. This is, in fact, commonly found in the works of poets. And even between two themes whose circumstance of age is identical, there might exist other minor circumstances conducing to difference. For example, what a world of difference is there between girls who are love-smitten and girls who are not (though they might be of the same age)! And even amongst one class of these, there might exist further variations due to their modesty or wantonness. Again, in insentient themes too, there is scope for difference in circumstances like germination, etc. Utilisation of individual differentiating circumstances like this into poetry would endow it with infinitude. Here is an example :

Such terminal sprouts of the lotus-creeper, As compete in beauty with the peeping tusks Of a young cow-elephant; And by eating which a unique sweetness of sound Is attained by the cooing swans, Through the clearing up of their throats By the astringency of their taste, Have now come out in lotus ponds.

In the same way other examples too should be imagined (by the readers themselves).

Variety due to place is possible in insentient themes also. Thus winds blowing from different directions and over different places and even other objects like waters and flowers are well known to vary. In sentient objects, of course, individual differences in men, beasts and birds due to their being brought up in town, forest and water (respectively), are found to be most remarkable. If these differences are properly appreciated and embodied in a work, the scope of poetic themes will naturally become infinite. To illustrate : Among men only, there are so many differences in speech, dress, etc. between one individual and another due to the differences in their province and country that no one can recount them exhaustively. This is much more so in regard to variation in women. All this is incorporated into their works by poets according to their individual imaginations.

ध्वन्यालोक:

कालभेदाच्च नानात्वम् । यर्थतुभेदाद् दिम्ब्योमसकिलादीनामचेतनानाम् । चेतनानां चात्सुक्यादयः कालविशेषाश्रायिणः प्रसिद्धा एव। स्वलक्षण्यप्रभेदाच्च सकलजगद्वतां वस्तूनां विनिर्णयनं प्रसिद्धमेव। तच्च यथावस्थितमपि तावदुपनिबध्यमानमनन्वितामेव काव्यार्थस्यापादयति।

अत्र केचिद आहुर्। यथा सामान्यात्मना वस्तुनि वाच्यतां प्रतिपद्यन्ते, न विशेषात्मना। तानि हि स्वयमनुभूतानां सुखादीनां तन्मित्तानां च स्वरूपमन्यत्रारोपयद्भिः स्वपरानुभूतिरूपैः सामान्यैर् श्रयेणोपनिबध्यन्ते कविमिः। न हि तैर् तीतमनागतम् कर्तुमनुच्च परचित्तदृश्‍लक्षणं योगिभिरिव प्रत्यक्षीक्रियते। तच्चानुभाव्यानुभावकसामान्यं सर्वप्रतिपत्तृसाधारणं परिमितत्वात् पुरातनानामेव गोचरீभतत्‍वम्‌ तस्यां विषयत्वप्पत्तेः। अत एव स प्रकारविशेषो यैर् न गृहीतैर् भिन्नवत्‍वेन प्रतीतते, तेषामभिमानमात्रमेव भणितिकृतं वैचित्र्यमात्रमात्रास्तीति।

यत् तु उक्तं सामान्यमात्राश्रयेण काव्यप्रवृत्तिस् तत् च तत्रोच्यते। यत् तु उक्तं सामान्यमात्राश्रयेण काव्यप्रवृत्तिस् तत् च परिमितत्वेन प्रागेव गोचरīकृतत्वान् नास्ति नवत्वं काव्यवस्तूनामिति तद् युक्तम् । यतस् तु यदि सामान्यमात्राश्रित्य काव्यं प्रवर्तते किं कृतस्तर्हि महाकविनिबध्यमानानां काव्यार्थानामनतिशयः? वाल्मीक्यादीनामनन्यस्य कवित्वप्रदेश एव वा, सामान्यव्यतिरिक्तस्य काव्यार्थस्याभावात् ।

१. स्वलक्षण्यभेदाच् - घ. २. 'नमविगीतमेव - घ. ३. स्योपपाद्यति - ग. ४. 'भूतानमनः - ग. ५. स्वरूपानुरूप° - घ. स्वपरानुभूतसामान्य° - क-खव. ६. 'सामान्यमान्नाश्रयेण - घ. ७. परिचिन्तादि - BP. ८. 'भाव्याद्भाव° - BP. ९. 'प्रतिपत्ति° - ग. १०. तस्य - घ. ११. तथास्य विषयस्यानुपपत्तेः. - क - ख:. १२. भ्रममात्रमेव - घ. १३. कृत 'अभिधानिवाच्यच्य - ग. १४. तत्रोच्यते यत् सामान्याश्रयेण काव्यप्रवृत्तिस् तत् प्रदर्शितप्रकारं काव्यवैचित्र्यवस्त्वादिविशेषादिकं पुनरुक्तमेवास्तु न चेत् तथा तत्कयं न काव्पान्नयस्‍म । यनूर्क - घ, MB. १५. काव्यानामतिशयः - ख. १६. एवं - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Variety is contributed by time also. For instance, seasonal differences bring about differences in atmosphere, sky, water and such other insentient objects. With reference to sentient beings also, feelings of anxiety, etc. produced by particular times are quite common.

Equally well known is the practice of describing all objects in the world with an eye to their innate individual differences.

At this point, some might raise an objection : ‘Objects are communicated only by their generic nature and not at all by their specific traits. On the basis of their own personal experiences of joy, etc. and their causes, poets universalise that the same experiences should follow from the same causes elsewhere also. Thus they embody ideas in their works only on the basis of the generic nature of experience common to them as well as to other persons. Surely, poets do not have any direct vision into the specific variations of all things in the past, present and future, like Yogins. And the generic universal of experience which is common to all experiences that are possible and which is common to men, one and all, is but restricted in scope and one can very well regard it to have been completely exhausted by the ancient poets themselves. For one cannot reasonably say that it has remained outside the ken of the ancients all along. Hence the idea of the moderners that a specific variation of an object is being presented in a novel fashion is only an empty boast. The only variation that actually exists is in the manner of presenting the (old) idea; that is all’.

This is our reply :-The statement that poetry proceeds only on the basis of generic nature and this being but limited, it must have been exhausted already and, therefore, there can be no novelty about poetic themes, is incorrect. For, if it were true that poetry proceeds on the basis of generic nature only, how could we account for the fact that the objects described by first-rate poets possess the highest beauty ? Furthermore, since there would be no matter for poetry except universals, there would be no possibility at all for a second poet to be rightly so regarded after Vālmīki, the first poet; for he will have

Dhvanyālokaḥ

चादिकविनैव प्रदर्शीतत्स्यात् । उक्तिवैचित्र्यानैष दोष इति चेत्-किमिदंयुक्ति-वैचित्र्यम्? उक्तिरहिं वाच्यविशेषप्रतिपादनंवचनम् । तद्वैचित्र्ये' कथं न वाच्यवैचित्र्यम् । वाच्यवाचकयोरविनाभावेन प्रवृत्ते: । वाच्यानां च काव्ये प्रतिभासमानानां यदूपं तत्‍तु ग्राह्यविशेषाभेदेनैव प्रतीयते । तेनोक्तिवैचित्र्य-

5 वादिना वाच्यवैचित्र्यमपि नेच्छताप्यवड्यमेवास्युपगन्तव्यम् । tदयमत्र संक्षेप:- वाल्मीकिल्ययतिरिक्तस्य यथैकेस्यापि कस्यंचित् । इष्यते प्रतिभार्थेषु तत्तदनन्वयमक्षयम् ॥

किञ्च उक्तिवैचित्र्यं यत्काव्यनवत्वेⁿ निष्‍न्नमुच्यते, तदस्मत्- 10 क्षानुगुणमेव । यतस्तो यावानयं काव्यार्थोऽनन्यमदहेतु: प्रकार: प्रसिद्धशब्द:, स सर्वे एव पुनरुक्तिवैचित्र्याद् द्विगुणं त्वमपपद्यते⁾ । यश्श्रायुपमा श्लेषादिरलङ्कार- वर्गे: प्रसिद्ध: स भणितिवैचित्र्यादुपानिषध्यमान: स्वयमेवानवधिषयते⁾ पुन: शतशाखताम् । भणितिश्व स्वभाषाभेदेनⁿ व्यवस्थिताः सती प्रतिनियतभाषा- गोचरार्थवैचित्र्यानिबन्धनं पुनरपपं काव्यार्थानामानन्त्यमापादयति । यथा ममैव- 15 मह मह इति भणन्तहो वज्जादि कालो जणस्स । ताइ ण देहु जणदिणु गइअरामादि मणस्स ॥ मम मम इति भणतों व्रजति कालो जनस्य । तथापि न देवो जनादेनो गोचर्रो भवति मनस:॥ [ इति छाया ]

१. प्राप्तिपादि - BP. २. तद्वैचित्र्येण - ष. ३. बाह्यⁿ - घ. ४. वाच्यविशेषो भेदेनैव XII 186 and No. 255 (BORI). ५. प्रतिभानान्त्यं - घ. ६. 'मक्षतम् क-ख. ⁷. यत्काव्यनवत्वेन - म. काव्यनवत्वेन - घ. ८. काव्यार्थानां - थ. ९. द्विगुणन्त्वम् - थ. १०. उपपद्यते XII 186 and No. 255 (BORI). ११. मार्ग: - घ. १२. वृत्तेषु instead of धत्ते, XII 186 and No. 255 (BORI). १३. कथामेदेन - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

already exhausted the poetic subject which is a generic universal. The objector might explain it away by pointing out that it is variation in the manner of presentation which entitles a second person to call himself a poet. But we would ask a counter-question, 'what exactly is this variation in the manner of presentation'? Presentation is nothing but speech which is capable of conveying the intended sense. If there should be variation in the manner of presentation, how then can there be no variation in the matter which is so presented? Matter and manner are indeed related by the inseparable relationship of inherence. The generic nature of matter in poetry however is cognised as nondifferent from its specific variations. So an adherent of the doctrine of variation in manner of presentation will be forced by logic to accept variation in matter too, whether he desires it or not. The following states this in brief :

The Light of Suggestion

If one would reckon at least a single person besides Vālmīki as endowed with poetic genius, there is no escaping the principle that poetic themes are inexhaustible.

The Light of Suggestion

Moreover, the contention that variation in manner of presentation conditions novelty in poetry is more in line with our own view. For, the number of conditions which have been shown by us so far to govern the novelty of poetic themes will be doubled in fact in view of the variation in the manner of presentation. The whole group of well known figures like Simile and double entendre, will itself assume infinite variation and branch off into a hundred ramifications when employed with a view to effecting variation in the manner of presentation. Variation in manner may bring about infinitude of poetic themes in another way also. Since the meanings of expressions are restricted to a particular language only, if various other meanings are also conveyed by the same expressions from the standpoint of other languages, we will have strikingness of subject-matter. One of my own verses can be cited as an example :

The Light of Suggestion

The time of men is spent In repeating "Mine, Mine" (also, "Madhumathana" according to another dialect); Even so Lord Janārdana does not Come within the range of one's mind.

Dhvanyaloka

ईत्यं यथा यथा निरूप्यते, तथा तथा न लभ्यतेऽन्तः काव्यार्थोनाम् । इदं तुच्यते — अवस्थादिविमिन्नानां वाच्यानां विनिबन्धनम् ।

उत्पत्तिरितं पाक । भूस्नैव हृश्यते लक्ष्ये, न तच्छक्यमपोहितुम् ।

तज्जु भाति रसाश्रयात् ॥ ६ ॥ तदिदमत्र संक्षेपेणाभिधीयते सङ्क्वीनामुपदेशाय — रसभावादिसम्बद्धा यथौचित्यानुसारिणी ।

अन्वीयते वस्तुगतिर्देशकालादिभेदिनी ॥ ७ ॥ तत्का गणना कवीनामन्येषां परिमितशक्तीनाम्, वाचस्पतिसह्याणां सहसैरपि यत्नतः ।

निषद्धा सों ध्रयं नैति प्रकृतिर्जगतामिव ॥ १० ॥ यथा हि जगत्प्रकृतितीतकल्पपरम्पराविर्मूतविविधवस्तुप्रपञ्चा सती पुनरिदानीं परिक्षीणापरंपदार्थो निर्मीयते शक्तिरिति न शक्यते᳚ऽभिधातुम् ।

तद्‌देवेयं काव्यस्थिति- रेन्ताभिः कविमतिभिरनुसृक्तापि नेदानीं परिहीयते, प्रत्युत नवनवाभिर्‌व- त्यत्तिभिः परिवर्धते ।

इथं स्थितेऽपि— संवादास्तु भवत्येव बाहुल्येन सुपेधसाम् । स्थितं ह्येतत् संवादिन्य एव मेधाविनां बुद्ध्रयः ॥

१. 'इत्यं' - घ पुस्तके नास्ति । २. वाच्यार्थानां निबन्धनं - ग. ३. तल्लक्वी° - घ. ४. तत् - घ पुस्तके नास्ति । ५. निबद्धापि - घ. ६. °पर - घ. पुस्तके नास्ति । परिमित in place of परिक्षीणापर XII. 186 & No. 255 ( BORI ). ७. संवादिन्यो - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

Thus, the deeper we examine the nature of poetic themes, the more we will be convinced of their endlessness. This much, however, might be stated here :

The Light of Suggestion

We find in plenty examples of utilising the expressed content with variations of circumstances etc. But it will shine out only in the association of sentiment.

The Light of Suggestion

The phrases 'as has been shown already' and 'it cannot be denied that' should be understood in the text in the latter and former half respectively of the first sentence.

The Light of Suggestion

Hence the following is stated in brief for the edification of good poets :-

The Light of Suggestion

If only the real nature of objects in the world, differing as it does according to place, time, and so on, is utilised in such a way that it is imbued with sentiment, emotion etc. and that it is in keeping with the demands of decorum;

The Light of Suggestion

The ellipsis to be supplied in the following text is-" not to speak of human poets with limited powers ".

The Light of Suggestion

Like the resources of primordial Nature herself, the infinite possibilities of poetic themes can never be drained off even by a million Brhaspatis composing with all their might simultaneously.

The Light of Suggestion

Though primordial Nature has been responsible for the creation of numerous worlds containing varied objects over a legion cycles of past aeons, it is not possible to say even now that her ability for the creation of new objects has diminished even by an iota. So also, the realm of poetry will not grow less, though countless poetic minds might take nourishment from it. On the contrary, it will become richer with newer and newer possibilities. All the same-

The Light of Suggestion

There are bound to be plenty of coincidences amongst great minds.

The Light of Suggestion

For it is a well known truth that the thoughts of great men bear strong affinities to one another.

ध्वन्यालोक:

नैक रूपतया सर्वे ते मन्तव्या विपाश्रिता ॥ ११॥

कथंमिति चेत्,—

संवादो हन्यसाध्रुयं तत्पुनः प्रतिबिम्बवत् ।

आलेख्याकारवत् तुल्यदेहिवच्चं शरीरिणाम्॥१२॥

संवादो हि काव्यार्थस्योच्यते यदन्येन काव्यवस्तुना साध्रुयसम् ।

तत्पुनः शरीरिणां प्रतिबिम्बवदालेख्याकारवत्तुल्यदेहिवच्चं त्रिधा व्यवस्थितम् ।

किञ्चिद्विद्धि काव्यवस्तुवन्तरस्य शरीरिणः 'प्रतिबिम्बकल्पम्', अन्यदालेख्यप्रसल्यम्, अन्यतुल्येन शरीरिणा सदृशसम् ।

तत्र पूर्वमनन्यात्म तुच्छात्म तदनन्तरम् ।

तृतीयं तु प्रसिद्धात्म नान्यसाम्यं त्यजेत्काविः॥१३॥

तत्र पूर्वं प्रतिबिम्बकल्पं काव्यवस्तु परिहृतेऽव्यं सुवतिना ।

यतस्तदन्यात्म तात्विकशारीरोपन्यम् ।

तदनन्तरमालेख्यप्रसल्यमन्यसाम्यं शरीरान्तरयुक्तमपि तुच्छात्मत्वेन त्यक्तव्यम् ।

तृतीयं तु विभित्तिकमनीयशारीरिसदृशावे सति संसवादमपि काव्यवस्तु न त्यक्तव्यं कविना ।

न हि शरीरि शरीरिसंवादवेदपि सदृशोदप्येक एवति शक्यते वक्तुम् ।

एतदेवोपपादयितुमुच्यते —

आत्मनोडन्यस्य सन्दावे पूर्वस्थित्यनुराग्यापि ।

वस्तु भातितरां तन्व्या: शाशिच्छायामिवाननम् ॥१४॥

१. किन्तु नैकतया सर्वे ते मन्तव्या विपाश्रिता ॥ -MB.

२. संवादोपनन्य° -ग.

३. देहवच्च - ग. ४. देहवच - ग.

५. शारीरिज: प्रतिबिम्ब: -घ. ६. कमनीयं शरीर° - घ, विमित्त° घ- पुस्तके नास्ति.

७. सद्दावेऽपि ससंवादं काव्य° -क-ख. ८. तत्त्यान्यसख - घ.

The Light of Suggestion

But all of them should not be regarded by the wise as being identical ( in respect of plagiarism )

The Light of Suggestion

The following points out how they are not identical.

The Light of Suggestion

Coincidence means correspondence with another. It may be like that of a reflected image or like that of a painted picture or like that of two living persons resembling each other.

The Light of Suggestion

Coincidence in poetic themes is just another name for the resemblance of one poetic theme to another. It is determined to be of three kinds :-( 1 ) Like that of a reflected image of persons, ( 2 ) Like that of a painted picture of persons, and ( 3 ) Like that of two living persons resembling each other.

The Light of Suggestion

Some poetic themes are like reflections of other poetic themes. Some others are like painted pictures of other poetic themes; still others are just similar to other poetic themes.

The Light of Suggestion

Of these, the first has no separate existence at all of its own; the existence of the second is no more than a non-entity; while the third has a definite existence of its own. A poet need not reject such similarity in themes.

The Light of Suggestion

An intelligent man should avoid the first kind of coincidence, viz., that like a reflected image, because it has no separate life of its own or, in other words, not even a real body of its own.

The Light of Suggestion

The second kind of coincidence, viz., that like a painted portrait also deserves to be eschewed, since its soul is nothing but a non-entity though it has a body of its own.

The Light of Suggestion

But the third kind of coincidence in poetic themes need not be rejected by the poet at all, since it possesses a lovely body of its own which is real ( as well as a distinct soul ).

The Light of Suggestion

It is not at all possible to affirm that two living persons who bear a close resemblance of features are identical with each other.

The Light of Suggestion

This is accounted for in the following :-

The Light of Suggestion

So long as there is a separate life of its own, even a poetic theme bearing close correspondence to an earlier one will acquire exceeding beauty; just as the delightful face of a woman will appear exceedingly charming in spite of its strong resemblance to the moon.

Dhanyaloka

तत्त्वस्य सारभूतस्यात्मन: सद्भावेडन्यस्य पूर्वस्थित्यनुयाय्यपि वस्तु भातितराम् । पुराणरमणीयच्छायानुग्रहीतं हि वस्तु शरीरवत् परां शोभां पुष्यति । न तु पुनरुक्तत्वेनावभासते । तन्या:1 राशिच्छायमिवाननम् । एवं तावत्2 तत्त्वसंवादानां समुदायरूपाणां वाक्यार्थानां3 विभक्ता:4 सीमาน: । पदार्थरूपाणां च वस्त्वन्तरसहश्रानां काल्यवस्तूनां नास्त्येव दोष इति प्रतिपादयितुमुच्यते—

अक्षरादिरचनैव योज्यते5 यत्र वस्तुरचना पुरातनी । नूतने स्फुरति काव्यवस्तुनि व्यक्तमेव खलु सा न दुष्यति ॥ १५ ॥

न हि वाच्यवाचकाभ्यां पद्यते6 वा काव्यवृत्तिभूषितं घटयतु शाक्यन्ते । तानि तुं तन्येव उपनिबद्धानि न काव्यादिषु नवतां विरुध्यान्ति ! तथैव पदार्थरूपाणि इलेषादिमयानर्थतत्त्वानि । तस्मात् —

यदपि तदपि रम्यं काव्यशरीरं यत्र लोकस्य किञ्चित् स्पूारितमिदमितीयं बुद्धिरभ्युद्यिहते । सुरणेयं काविदिति सहृदयानां चमत्कृतिरुत्पद्यते ।

अनुगतमपि पूर्वच्छायया वस्तु तादृक् सुकविरुपनिबन्धनन नीयतां नोपयौति ॥ १६ ॥

तदनुगतमपि पूर्वच्छायया वस्तु तादृक् तादृशं सुकविर्विवक्षितव्यङ्गचवाच्यार्थ-समर्पणसमर्थशाब्दरचनारूपया रचछायोपनिबन्धन नीयतां नैव याति ।

१. तत्त्वसंवादानां वाक्यवेदितानां काव्यार्थानां7 - घ. तत्त्वसंवादानां वाक्यार्थरूपाणां8 - MB. २. योज्यते - ग. ३. तु-घ पुस्तके नास्ति । ४. काव्यं9 - ग, MB. ५. नेह याते - MB. ६. तादृशं -घ पुस्तके नास्ति ।

The Light of Suggestion

So long as its vital essence is present, even a poetic theme similar to an earlier one will appear exceedingly beautiful. Just as a body appears lovely thanks to the association of even past graces, so also a poetic theme will look graceful even while it bears similarity to lovely shades of meaning in earlier works. It will never appear as tautological. The face of a lady bearing resemblance to the moon is a simile.

The Light of Suggestion

Hitherto different coincidences between units of whole sentences have been clearly demarcated. In the following it is shown that correspondences between individual words in poetic themes do not become flaws at all :-

The Light of Suggestion

Even when the already existing elements of poetic themes such as arrangements of letters etc. are utilised, it will certainly not smack of a flaw so long as the poetic theme as a whole is shining with novelty.

The Light of Suggestion

Not even a Brhaspati can use letters or words which are entirely new. Though the self-same letters and words which are common to all poetry are employed in present works also, their novelty does not suffer on that account. The same is true of meanings too which are conveyed by words involving double entendre. Therefore,

The Light of Suggestion

Whatever theme it might be, so long as it produces the impression in the minds of people: "Yes, this is a lovely and unique flash";

The Light of Suggestion

The meaning is 'so long as the favourable impression that it is an extraordinary flash is produced in the minds of refined critics'.

The Light of Suggestion

Though it might smack of earlier usages, a theme can very well be utilised by a good poet. He will never become an object of censure by so doing.

The Light of Suggestion

Even such a theme reflecting a shade of another earlier thought can very well be utilised by a good poet so that a new grace of construction, involving a texture of words capable of surrendering the expressed content to the intended suggestive content, is made to shine forth. He will not be open to any reproach if he does this.

ध्वन्यालोक:

तदित्यं स्थिते'--

प्रतयन्तां वाचो निमितविविधार्थामृतरसा

न सादः' कर्तव्य: कविभिरनवद्ये स्वविषये'।

सैन्ति नवाः काव्यार्थी:, परोपनिबद्धार्थविरचने न काश्चित् कवेःगुण

इति भावयित्वा--

परस्वादानेच्छाविरतमनसो वस्तु सुकवे:

सरस्वत्येवैषा घटयाति यथेष्टं भगवती ॥ १७ ॥

परस्वादानेच्छाविरतमनसः सुकवे: सरस्वत्यैषा भगवती यथेष्टं घटयति वस्तु । येषां सुकवीनां प्राक्तनपुण्याभ्यासपरिपाकवशेन प्रवृत्ता वाक् तेषां परोपरचितार्थपरिग्रहनि:सृग्धानां स्वव्यापारो न कचिदुपयुज्यते । सैव भगवती सरस्वती स्वयमभिमतमर्थमाविर्भावयति । एतदेव हि महाकवित्वं महाकविनामित्योम् ॥

इत्यऋष्टरसाश्रयोचितगुणालङ्कारशोभाभृत्तो

यस्माद्रस्तु समोहितं सुकृतिभिः सर्वं समासाद्यते ।

काव्येऽव्येडखिलसौन्दर्यधाम्नि बुधबोधने' ध्वनिदर्शित:

सौडयं कल्पतरुपमानमहिमा भोग्योऽस्तु भव्यात्मनाम् ॥

सकाव्यतत्त्वनयवत्मे चिरप्रभुस्-

कल्पं मनस्सु परिपक्वाधियां यदासीत् ।

तद्वच्याकरात् सहृदयालयलाभेतो-

रानन्दवर्धन इति प्रतिताभिधानः ॥

इति श्रीराजानकानन्दवर्धनाचार्यविरचिते सहृदयालोके

चतुर्थ: उद्योतः ॥

॥ समाप्तोडयं ग्रन्थः ॥

१. रस्स्यातम् - BP. २. वादः - घ. ३. सविष्ये - ग. ४. Printed in - घ.

५. सुकृतिनां कवीना - घ. ६. एवमिह हि - क-ख. ७. ओमित्यनन्तरं 'इत्ययान्तशब्दनार्थोच गद्यविरचिते सहृदयालोके काव्यालङ्कारे ध्वनिप्रतिपादने

चतुर्थ: उद्योतः समाप्तः' इत्यपि, अनन्तरं च इतीत्यादि श्लोकद्वयम् । -क - ख.

८. नित्याकृष्ट -घ. ९. शोभात्तो - घ. १०. सौन्दर्यादायनि बुधोद्याने - ग.

११. सक्काव्यतत्त्वविषयं सुकृतिप्रभुम् - घ. १२. सहृदयालोकन्नि काव्यालङ्कारे - ग.

The Light of Suggestion

Hence the following cannot be gainsaid.

May words that appear ( to critics ) as full of manifold ideas and ambrosial sentiments be freely spread out. Poets need have no compunctions in the flawless realm of thier own.

Poets need not be under the impression that only new ideas should be striven after and that there is no virtue in writing what others have already written.

The Goddess of Speech, Sarasvatī, herself will provide the desired ideas of a good poet whose mind is averse to borrowing the belongings of another.

For a poet whose mind is averse to the idea of borrowing the belongings of another, the Goddess of Speech, Sarasvatī, herself will provide the desired matter. The creative activity of good poets is indeed an outcome of the fruition of excessive merit amassed by them in their past births and such men will neither be eager in borrowing ideas invented by others nor will they find any need of taking great pains over their work. The Goddess Sarasvatī herself will present them with the ideas that they are after. This in fact is the greatness in the poetry of great poets.

Poetry indeed is the name of a veritable garden of gods ( also, of scholars ); it puts on beauty of qualities and ornaments which are not only delicate but also contributory to the heightening of sentiments; from it do blessed men gather all the objects after their hearts. We have shown in it the presence af DHVANi or Suggestion and may it prove a source of enjoyment to sublime souls even like the magnificent Wish-fulfilling Tree !

The true nature of the essence of good poetry was but dimly discerned and remained asleep as it were, all along, even in the minds of men with mature intelligence. It has now been set forth at length in order that it might wake up once again in refined critics, by one who is known by the famous name—Ānandavardhana.

UDDYOTA I

Page 2. Line 3 : The invocatory verse marks the beginning of the Vritti. Abhinavagupta points out that even this verse suggests all the three types of dhvani, viz. Vastu, Alankāra, and Rasa. Possibly there is also a veiled hint here of the author's polemical strength. If we regard notions of conventional rhetoric as inimical to the pursuit of poetry, they have to be silenced once and for all by an exponent of dhvani, who thus deserves the title ' Narasimha ' in his own way.

kārikā 1. Ānandavardhana follows the Shāstraic method of Pūrvapakṣa-Siddhānta in expounding his thesis of dhvani in poetry. The anti-dhvani views are brought under three major heads in this initial Kārikā itself. But we have no evidence to decide their historical authenticity. Abhinavagupta opines that they are views imagined by the author himself.

The word ध्वनि: has been paraphrased as काव्यतत्त्ववविद्धि: in the Vritti, here; while the Vritti on I. 13 alludes to grammarians. There is no doubt that Ānandavardhana was a close student of Bhartrhari's Vākyapadīya and derived inspiration therefrom for his new theory. But it would be a mistake to suppose that Bhartrhari or anybody else for that matter had used the term dhvani to designate poetry. This was a task accomplished for the first time by Ānandavardhana. Only the term dhvani used by the grammarians in the general context of meaningful language as such was adopted into the field of poetry because of its comprehensive connotation to refer to the ' Sugge ster ', the 'Suggested' and 'Suggestion'. In काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनि: the term dhvani denotes primarily व्यङ्ग्यार्थ. ( 2 ) This leads us to think that experts on poetry had already extended the application of dhvani of grammarians to include the essence of poetry.

The Abhāvavāda, it will be seen from the forthcoming discussion, may be attributed to the conventional theorists of the Alankāra school, with Bhāmaha and Udbhata at the fore. Incidentally, Vāmana also comes in. One is not sure whether Rudrata's text was known to Ānandavardhana ( For a full discussion, see-Introduction ).

Dhvanyāloka

The Bhāktavāda carries a reference to the Mīmāṁsā-thinkers who have classified all meaning under two heads, viz. मुख्य or primary and भाक्त ( गौण ) or secondary. The term bhākta is a very old term and constantly used in several philosophical sūtras; cf. Brahma-sūtra, II. iii. 3, II. iii. 16, II. iv. 2, and III. i. 4. We have the word used also in Śaunaka's Bṛhaddevatā, I. 72–3. These thinkers see no reason why the principle of meaning in poetry should be different from general principles of meaning. They think that all associated and suggested meanings can be fully explained as the handiwork of bhakti or gunavṛtti. The later texts prefer the use of the word laksanā when they mean bhakti.

The view of treating dhvani as something ineffable may be taken either in a complimentary way or as a criticism. This school of objectors accepts dhvani as the essence of poetry and grants its existence; yet objects to the treatise because in its opinion dhvani is essentially indefinable —

L. 8 : सहृदय—Some scholars ( Sovani, Kane; HSP, pp 191-2 ) have wrongly supposed that the Kārikā-kāra, was different from Ānandavardhana, the Vṛttikāra, and that the former's proper name was ‘Sahrdaya’. The present passage does not permit such wild guess-work. The word sahrdaya has been used earlier not only by Vāmana but also by Udbhata in his Bhāmahavivaraṇa. cf. सहृदयहृदयानां रञ्जक: कोऽपि पाक: । Kāvyalāṅkāra-sūtravṛttl, I. i. 21; सहृदयहृदयावर्जनलक्षणासहास्प्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । Raniero Gnoli, Udbhata's commentary on the Kāvyālaṁkāra of Bhāmaha, Roma, 1962, P. 39. Thus it is clear that the word sahrdaya was long current in Kashmir literary circles as a general name for tasteful readers even before Ānandavardhana (For a fuller discussion, see-Introduction ).

L. 9 : बुधैः—Since the subject-matter is poetry here, the Vṛtti explains budha as implying experts on poetry. But, as we saw above, this restriction in meaning does not contradict the general sense of ‘ grammarian ’ for that word. परम्परया...प्रकटितः—As pointed out by Abhinavagupta we should understand that the author presupposes only an oral tradition among experts on poetry; for we have no written records to that effect.

L. 10 : तस्य...मानस्यापि—The first and foremost evidence for the validity of dhvani is the felt experience of connoisseurs. And it is a landmark in the history of Sanskrit poetics. All the earlier theorists wrote more or less normative guidebooks to poets. The readers' say did not figure prominently in them.

L. 11 : अभाव...संभवन्नि—Three forms which Abhāvavāda might assume are posed at length in what follows : The first of these is the most formidable one and represents the conventional view of orthodox theorists. In the orthodox analysis, poetry is divisible into its elements of sound and sense. The concept of Śabda- and artha- alaṅkāras explains the beauty of both the elements. While the doctrine of guṇas takes into account the organisation of syllables with different poetic values. The theory of styles (rītis) and of Vṛttis also is based on guṇas. Thus when all the noticeable aspects of poetic beauty are accounted for, there is nothing left for a new formulation like dhvani.

The different rītis, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī were noted by Vāmana while the Vṛttis, viz. Upanāgarikā, Komalā, and Grāmyā were codified by Udbhata in his exposition of alliterative effects (Kāvyālaṅkārasaṅgraha, Chapter I).

The second form of the Abhāvavāda urges that a piece of composition devoid of the excellences shall ipso facto cease to be poetry, No amount of affirmation by a self-chosen coterie will raise the compositions with so-called dhvani to the level of poetry.

The third form denies the existence of anything like dhvani because it can at the most be a new name for old beauties.

Page 4. L. 12 : यस्तिमग्रस्ति...—This quotation contains a devastating ridicule of the followers of dhvani. It is ascribed to Manoratha, a senior contemporary of Ānandavardhana, thus proving that there must have been some historical truth in the controversy between pro-dhvani and anti-dhvani camps before the appearance of the Dhvanyāloka on the scene.

Abhinavagupta takes the initial words of the second line to stand for Śabdālaṅkāras; and the word ‘Vakrokti’ to mean saṅghatanā, a meaning not supported by any logic. Apparently,

Dhvan'yāloka

he wants to distinguish somehow between 'alaṅkṛti' in the first line and the 'vakrokti' here. But even without resorting to this strained construction, we can very well take the normal meaning of it either as a specially admired individual alaṅkāra of that name or as a general principle underlying all alaṅkāras. Abhinavagupta's objection to such an interpretation is not convincing; because the absence of some recognised figures (as mentioned in the first line) cannot be identical with the absence of the underlying principle of all alaṅkāras. The possibility of unrecognised figures existing even in such an eventuality is not illogical.

L. 16: The word गुणवृत्ति is employed here as a synonym for bhakti. The secondary usage of words stems from a common possession of qualities between two things. These theorists are convinced that, in all examples of linguistic usage, there are only two functions involved :—(1) primary denotation, (2) secondary or metaphorical indication. Hence, if dhvani is a linguistic function and different from the first, it must obviously come under the second.

L. 17: यद्यपि च …—Ānandavardhana turns now to the actually recorded statements of rhetoricians. No one has either mentioned the term dhvani or equated it with bhakti. But they have accorded the status of poetry to certain examples on the ground that gunavṛtti figures therein. So it is, in a way, an extension of the idea implied in their procedure.

The final anti-dhvani stand is characterised by this author as coming from those who are too incompetent to define dhvani, though they may enjoy its beauty.

Page 6. L. 4: तस्य हि …—The positive merits of the new doctrine are set out here. Dhvani is the quintessence of the poetry of all master-poets and is the most beautiful in itself, though undetected and left unexplained by all the writers on poetry in the past. What is more, it is widely instanced in great works like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata.

In this context Abhinavagupta supplies what has come to be regarded as a classic definition of a 'sahrdaya':—येषां काव्यानुशीलन-वशाद्विशदोभूते मनोमुकुरे वर्णनीयतन्मयीभावनयोग्यता ते स्वहृदयसंवादभाज:

सहृदया: । Though Ānandavardhana does not use the technical terms of Indian aesthetics, viz. तन्मयीभवन and हृदयसंवाद, one can have no doubt that he did subscribe to a theory of 'like-heartedness,' between the poet and the responsive reader.

Kārikā 2 : The reader's appreciation is always related to poetic meaning. And that alone deserves to be characterised as the soul or the essence of poetry. Now poetry is a whole; therefore be anything other than a whole. But it is possible to distinguish two aspects of the whole meaning, viz. the vācya and the vyaṅgya. The previous writers, in their aesthetic analysis, did not make the distinction though they were aware of it; and hence could not do justice to the specially important part contributed by suggested meaning in poetry. Ānandavardhana is very subtly introducing the basis of his aesthetic analysis here without denying the beauty of the vācya in poetry. The very idea of ātman is such that though it is figuratively used, it cannot give an equal status to any two entities denoted by it. As Abhinavagupta notes pertinently, the idea of two ātmans for anything is incompatible. Hence the implied relative superiority of vyaṅgyārtha alone is established in such a way that there is no underestimation of the vācyārtha, its means.

L•11 : काव्यस्य हि···-It is often found that the 'soul of poetry' is discussed without any reference to its 'body'. It is usually taken for granted that the body consists of śabda and artha. Such a general idea does not bring out the properties of these peculiar to poetry. Ānandavardhana has unmistakently emphasized here how his doctrine of dhvani as the soul does full justice to the claims of not only the body consisting of figurative beauty and guṇas in respect of artistic use of śabda and artha, but also to that of the soul whose beauty lies at the root of all harmony.

Kārikā 3 : When the above distinction from the aesthetic standpoint is made, the fact will emerge that all theories of alaṅkāra, guṇa etc., formulated by rhetoricians of the past are confined to an elucidation of the beauty of the vācya element

alone. Ānandavardhana states here that he has nothing but respect for the work of the ancients; and that he will utilise the same wholeheartedly. But it is clear that the real philosophy of poetry which is concerned with the soul begins at the point where the early theories end.

Kārikā

4: That vyaṅgya exists over and above vācya in poetry is brought out with a happy simile here. The beauty of individual limbs, natural as well as embellished, is distinct from the total grace of a lovely woman.

Page 8. L. 6

स ह्यर्थो …—The proviace of vyaṅgyārtha is inclusive of (1) vastu, (2) alaṅkāra and (3) rasādi. The vṛtti labours at length to prove how each one of the types is distinct from vācya. L. 10: भ्रम …—This verse is a quotation from Hāla's anthology of Prakrit lyrics, the Gāthāsaptaśatī; No. 175 in Weber's edition.

The readers have to imagine a proper context to grasp the intended vyaṅgyārtha. But for the fact that the speaker is a wanton, there would be no scope for any suggested meaning. The suggested prohibition (मा भ्रम) of the unwanted intrusion of the pious man is a vastu or a bare fact.

L. 15

Op. cit. No. 669. According to Prof. V. M. Kulkarni, the reading of the last word is णिमडिजहिसि (Journal of the Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Vol. I. 1967 p. 17). Here also, the speaker is a woman of loose morals. It is a veiled invitation to the traveller to her bed. Here also the suggested is a mere vastu since there is no figurative touch or expression of feeling. L. 20: Op. cit. No. 944 (supplement 7). In examples like this and the following, the reader is left in doubt about the exact intent of the speaker.

Page 10. L. 4

Op. cit. No. 968. Here also the suggested import is dubious. L. 9: Abhinavagupta says that this is spoken by a clever confidant to warn her guilty mistress of the approach of the latter's husband. L. 15: द्वितीयोऽपि प्रभेद: = suggested alaṅkāra. अत्रे = in the second chapter. L. 16: तृतीयस्तु …—It is the speciality of rasādi that it is exclusively suggested unlike vastu and alaṅkāra which can also be expressed by words. L. 18: स्वशब्द...—The only two conceivable possibilities of

conveying rasādi are :- ( 1 ) by using their proper names; ( 2 ) by way of description of their Vibhāvas etc. ... qaffman ... कथथ्विदिति ( p. 12, L. 5 )—The first possibility is completely ruled out. Instances, positive as well as negative, are given to reject this possibility. There need be no poetry in instances where the names of rasa occur. There can be very good poetry in the absence of those names also. Hence, rasādi is by no means directly denoted by words.

P. 12. L. 5 : तुतीयोस्फि ... - Rasādi then, springs only from a function of language other than denotation. Abhinavagupta takes it that this might allude to tātparya-śakti as much as Vyañjanā. But Ānandavardhana has not made any such clear distinction. He seems to emphasize that what is not vācya must be, ipso facto, vyañgya.

L. 6 : अग्रे = In the third chapter. The rise of the two meanings viz. vācya and rasādi is so instantaneous that it is impossible to perceive any time sequence in them. Hence rasādi is called असंलक्यैकवव्यङ्ग्य.

Kārikā 5 - This is one of the most crucial kārikās in the text and bristles with problems of interpretation and text reading. Ānandavardhana here is citing the testimony of the famous epic-poet, Vālmīki, in support of his main thesis that rasa-dhvani is the soul of poetry. The wording of the kārikā reminds us not only of the Rāmāyana ( Bālakānda ii, 15 ) but also of the Raghuvaṃśa ( XIV. 70 ). Both these passages make one think that the sorrow of the sage Vālmīki at the sight of the tragic end of one of the mating birds found a spontaneous expression in metrical form, viz., मा निषाद etc. The wording of the vrtti on the kārikā does not conclusively show whether the śoka in question is originally of Vālmīki or of the surviving bird. However, the additional clarification offered in the vrtti “ that śoka indeed is the sthāyibhāva” of karunarasa raises certain fundamental issues. Is he by chance trying to distinguish between empirical sorrow ( located in the bird ) from impersonal sorrow produced in the witnessing sage ? Another problem posed here is whether the specific śloka viz. मा निषाद etc., is the form taken by Vālmīki's śoka or whether it refers to the whole epic. In the vrtti on IV. 5 the author openly states in so many words that the sage

Dhvanyāloka

has 'woven' (आसूत्रितः) this karuna-rasa into the Rāmāyana as a predominent content.

Some manuscripts (vide: NSP edition) construe the reference in question to be मा निषाद and quote it in the body of the vritti. But in view of other considerations noted above as well as its absence in other manuscripts, our edition has relegated it to the footnote. Even if it were held as a genuine part of the text, it would have to be understood as containing the essence of the Rāmāyana as a whole in order to do justice to the express statement of Ānandavardhana in the fourth Uddyota, besides the clear implications of the present Kārikā.

The purpose of the present Kārikā is to find a poet's testimony for the thesis that vyaṅgyārtha alone is the soul of poetry. Rasa happens to be the most important element in vyaṅgyārtha. Vālmīki's assertion (शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः) in the Rāmāyana should yield the meaning—“Karuna-rasa has been transformed by me into the form of the epic-poem,” if it is to be relevant in this discussion. Hence the word śloka should mean karuna-rasa and the vṛtti has clearly indicated this by the expression शोको हि करुणस्थायिभावः. There is a likelihood of our mistaking the personal sorrow to be the sthāyibhāva and to think that this sthāyibhāva is different from karuna-rasa. But the truth is that, like the other technical terms in नाट्यशास्त्र, viz. vibhāva and anubhāva, bhāva too, whether vyabhicāri or sthāyi is applicable only in the realm of artistic representation and does not connote its empirical counterpart. Further, there is no separate entity like rasa other than sthāyibhāva. Rasa is only the name given to the sthāyibhāva at the point when it yields aesthetic delight.

Abhinavagupta has taken great pains to bring out this implication of Ānandavardhana. He even goes to the extent of construing the third quarter in the Kārikā in a very oblique way ;—कौञ्चदर्शनद्रवयोगोऽस्थ:=कौञ्चवध्र्य सहचर्यध्वंसमहिम्ना...उद्बुद्धः. And adds that the sage has no personal sorrow like the surviving bird. The sight of the bird's sorrow excites his aesthetic contemplation of universal sorrow (शोकस्थायिभाव-करुणरस) which spontaneously overflows in metrical form. The nature of the sage's creative experience is one of pure aesthetic delight.

It has been very difficult for this editor to fix the reading of the vṛtti on this Kārikā. Most of the manuscripts consulted give the reading सहितसहचरीविरहकातरकौन्च. The editors of the NSP edition indicate that only ग manuscript gives निहत° for सहित. ( Omission of this in our footnote is by oversight ). But the reading of BP as well as of KSRI is निहतसहचरी° indicating thereby that the Kerala manuscript tradition is unanimous regarding this reading. P. V. Kane holds positively that the former Kashmir reading adopted in this text is more genuine of the two ( History of Sanskrit Poetics, pp. 364–365; footnote No. 1 ). But further studies of this editor show that the Kerala reading was perhaps known to Orissa scholars also as early as Candidāsa, as the following extract from his काव्यप्रकाशदीपिका will show :-

......सहचरबधग्न्याकुलकौन्च्यालोकप्रतिफलिततदीयशोकोद्बुद्धकविवदनविनिगतानादिरसतत्स्वपरिणामरूपादिकाव्यप्रतिफलनातमकसहृदयहृदयानन्द... ( S. P. Bhattacharya's edition, Varanasi, 1964, page 357 ).

Obviously, this is a paraphrase of the relevant Locana passage. The word वध here possibly alludes to विरह or else it is a paraphrase of निहत. A more positive evidence in favour of the reading निहत is provided in the testimonia of the earliest reference to this Vṛtti passage by Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā—निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौञ्जयुग्मान...् ( GOS Edition. Baroda, 1934, page 7 ).

These extracts raise further issues. Was the bird which was shot a male or a female ? Both Ānandavardhana and Rājaśekhara assert it to be the female. This is diametrically opposed to the statement in the Rāmāyaṇa. Long before Kuppuswamy Shastri, Candidāsa quoted above had tried to emend the text of क्रौञ्जाक्रन्द into क्रौञ्च्याक्रन्द, सहचरोविरह into सहचरबध ( सहचारिविरह-Kuppuswami Shastri ). But these are in our opinion pointless. A similar ingenious attempt by G. H. Bhatt ( J. O. I, Baroda, Vol. IX, Pt. 2, pp. 148–151 ) to explain the compound as referring to the male bird's death is also noted and negatived effectively by Kane. His logic is this : "Supposing that निहत is the correct reading, we expect सहचरीविरहकातर-निहत-क्रोञ्च, as he must have been कातर before he was shot " ( Loc. Cit. ). The

Dhvanyāloka

attempts of both Kuppuswamy Shastri ( Upalocana ) and G. H. Bhatt involve a very forced and far-fetched dissolving of the compound to yield the sense of the male as the bird shot down. This is hardly permissible in the uniformly straightforward style of the vṛtti. The reading सन्निहितसहचरीविरह offers an easy meaning if we understand विरह itself to mean ultimate parting due to death of the female bird in inimitable embrace of the male.

As indicated above, the verse मा निषाद...may be taken to represent the essence of the Rāmāyaṇa as a whole symbolically. If Rāma and Sītā are understood by the mating birds, Rāvaṇa represents the hunter who brings pain to Sītā, the female bird. Such a symbolic interpretation has been suggested even by Paṭṭābhirāma Shastry in his notes on BP. besides P. V. Kane ( op. cit. ). On the other hand, if a literal meaning alone were to be understood from the verse, it would be difficult to illustrate even karuṇa-rasa therein. For, the verse is more an imprecation or curse hurled on the hunter by the sage in anger, and less an embodiment of sorrow or pity at the suffering bird.

Whether poetry is the expression of the poet's feelings or emotions, personal or impersonal, is a much discussed question in Western literary criticism. We have poets like Shelley ( cf. our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought ) and Wordsworth who says, " poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; and takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquillity; the emotion is contemplated till, by a species of reaction, the tranquillity gradually disappears, and an emotion kindred to that which was before the subject of contemplation, is gradually produced, and does itself actually exist in the mind " ( Preface to Lyrical Ballads ). There are philosophers like Bergson who confirm this :-" If the artist is able to attain the emotion, the original mood, which lies beneath the common-place, conventional expression that conceals the individual mental state, he is a poet. By animating words with a life of their own, the poet suggests to us things that speech is not calculated to express ". ( Vernon Hall, A Short History of Literary Criticism, London, 1964, p. 148 ).

Western classical theory also offers some parallels :-" The essence of all poetry is to be found, not in high-wrought subtlety

of thought, not in pointed cleverness of phrase, but in the depths of the heart and the most sacred feelings of the men who write " ( Rev. John Keble, Lectures on Latin poetry). " "True poetry is nothing else than each poet's innermost feeling in rhythmic language " ( Ibid ).

With this may be compared also the aesthetic theory of Croce that "art is not feeling in its immediacy since the poet does not totter under the emotions he sings " ( Vernon Hall. A Short History of Literary Criticism, London, 1964 p. 152 ).

It is interesting to compare this idea of rasa in the creative artist with T. S. Eliot's oft-quoted dictum :- " Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality ". ( Points of View, London, 1951, p. 54 ). The present writer has fully discussed this question in his paper : Some aspects of T. S. Eliot's critical theory in the light of Sanskrit Poetics, Indian Response to poetry in English, Macmillan, Madras, 1970, pp. 34-43. Pravas Jivan Chaudhury institutes a comparison between this aesthetic attitude in Indian aesthetics and Keat's " negative capability " as well as Hegel's theory of " the effacement of all idiosyncracy ". ( The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Cleveland, Ohio, Vol. XXIV, No. 1., p. 200 ). In all these comparisons we should bear in mind that we have here only a very cryptic statement by Ānandavardhana and that we owe all the details of the aesthetic theory to Abhinava-

gupta's Locana ( For a full exposition of this in particular relation to sādhāramīkarana, vide :- G. Hanumantha Rao : Sādhāranīkarana according to Abhinavagupta, Arts Journal of the Mysore University, Vol. XXIII ( 1967 ) pp. 18-34 ; for a short but authoritative account of it see, M. Hiriyanna, Art Experience, Radhakrishnan Memorial Volume, Allen & Unwin ). Rabindranath's view of the creative artist's experience also bears affinity with the aesthetic attitude discussed here : " Poetry is the outcome of the desire to see with the mind what the eye sees and with the eye what the mind imagines" (Reminiscences, p. 240).

Also : "It is necessary to remark here that merely because something has been written when feelings are brimming over, it is not therefore necessarily good. Such is rather a time when the utterance is

Dhvanyāloka

thick with emotion. Just as it does not do to have the writer entirely removed from the feeling to which he is giving expression, so also it does not conduce to the truest poetry to have him too close to it... The mind of the artist must attain a degree of aloofness - the creator within must be allowed the sole control. If the subject, matter gets the better of creation, the result is a mere replica of the event, not a reflection of it through the artist's mind (Ibid. p. 238). Equally interesting is the parallelism in thought (noted by Rama Pisharoti in his Translation of the Locana, Vide, Indian Thought, Vol. IX, Allahabad, 1917, p. 29) in one of Hazlitt's essays who defines poetry to be the "natural impression of any object or event by its vividness exciting an involuntary movement of imagination or passion, and producing by sympathy a certain modulation of the voice or sounds expressing it".

I. 11-12. प्रतীয়मानार्थ...प्रधानतया।—This is an important point noted in the vrtti. It serves to remove any possible misunderstanding in holding vyañgyārtha to be the soul of poetry and illustrating it only through rasa leaving out other varieties like vastu and alaṅkāra. Rasādi should be regarded as the meaning exclusively poetic and the other varieties too come to be associated with it in poetry in some form or other. It must be thus understood that a poetic vastu and a poetic alaṅkāra also are distinct from prosaic vastu and prosaic alaṅkāra. It is by the relieving touch of rasa that these two acquire poetic charm. The word rasa is a generic term here and stands for all feelings or emotive meanings classed variously by writers under heads like bhāva (vyabhicāri), rasābhāsa, bhāvābhāsa, rasapraśama, bhāvapraśama.

Page 14. Kārikā 6 : This is a poetic tribute paid to the creative genius of great poets. The word अलौकसामान्यम् (extraordinary) is reminiscent of Kālidāsa (Kumārasambhava, V. 75b). The rarity of great poets, like that of prophets, is well known. (cf. If thou partake the animating faith that poets, even as prophets, each with each connected in a mighty scheme of truth, have each his own peculiar faculty, Heaven's gift, a sense that fits him objects unseen before ... to perceive.

(Wordsworth, Prelude, Book XIII)

Among Sanskrit poets too it is a common idea; e. g. Bāṇa says—

सन्ति श्रान ईवासडृख्या जातिभाजो गृहे गृहे । उत्पादका न बहवः कवयः शारभा इव ॥

Harṣacarita

Harṣacarita, I. 5.

For a similar idea see also :

कस्यापि शक्तिप्रभवात्प्रभावा-

दुदेति तत्काव्यमहारहस्यम् ।

क्वित्थो गुरूणां सदनेपु नित्यं

कश्चिद्बुधक्षेत्रयते न वा यत्न् ॥...

बहर्थसिद्धा परिपाकभूमि:

कस्यापि वाणी रसवत्युदेति ।

Śrīkanthacarita

Maṅkhuka

—Maṅkhuka, Śrīkanthacarita, II. 4, 8.

Pratibhā may be equated with what English critics mean by the word 'Imagination'. The following observations on Imagination may be of interest : “Imagination is a power intermediate between intellect and emotion, working towards both, and partaking of both...Closely connected with this is what some have called penetrative, others the interpretative power of imagination. It is that subtle and mysterious gift, that intense intuition, piercing beneath all surface appearance, goes straight to the core of an object, enters where reasoning and peddling analysis are at fault, lays hold of the inner heart, the essential life of a scene, a character, or a situation and expresses it in a few immortal words. What is the secret of this penetrative glance, who shall say? It defies analysis...The joy of imagination in its own vision, the thrill of delight, is one of the most exquisite moods man ever experiences ”.

Aspects of Poetry

J. C. Shairp

—J. C. Shairp, Aspects of Poetry, p, 7 ff

Abhinavagupta has focussed our attention here to the views of his teacher Bhatta Tauta on pratibhā from the lost work Kāvyakautuka. Some quotations of Tauta are given below in extenso :-

Dhvanyāloka

नात्रृषि: कविरित्युक्तं ऋषिश्र किल दर्शनेत्‌ । विचित्रभावधर्मांशतच्वप्रख्या च दर्शनम्‌ ॥ स तत्वदर्शनादेव शास्त्रेषु पठित: कवि: । दर्शनेनादृणेनाच्चाथ लब्धा लोके कविश्रुति: ॥ तथा हि दर्शने स्वच्छे नित्येऽप्यादिकवेर्‌मुने: । नोदिता कविता लोके यावज्जाता न वर्णता ॥

Quoted from Hemacandra, Kāvyānusāsana.

The pratibhā is contagious and transports the reader all at once according to Tauta ; cf. नायकस्य कवे: श्रोतु: समानोऽनुभवस्तत: । ( quoted in Locana). Many modern critics have misunderstood this quotation as related to the rasa experience common to the poet and the reader alike. What is really intended here is not aesthetic experience but the power of imagination or Pratibhā. The imaginative faculties of the poet and the reader are alike and hence the concept of sādhāranīkarana becomes possible. This itself was called by the name of bhāvakatva or bhāvanā-vyāpāra by Bhattanāyaka. Vide : प्रतिपत्तुं प्रति सा प्रतिभा नानुमीयमाना, अपि तु तदावेशेन भासमानेत्यर्थे: यदुक्तमस्मदुपाध्यायभट्टतौतेन । ... ( Locana, before नायकस्य etc. )

That the gift of pratibhā is divine and its working effort-less is further supported by a happy quotation from Bhattanāyaka in the Locana :– वारधेन्सुदृङ्ग एकं हि रसं यद्वालृण्णया । तेन नास्य सम: स स्वादुध्दते योगिभिर्हि य: ॥

It will be seen that for the first time in the history of Sanskrit Poetics, Pratibhā or creative imagination has been here linked up with suggestion. Again, for the first time, relative superiority of poems is sought to be decided by the test of aesthetic suggestion.

Kārikā 7 : In India, as in the West, the traditional approach to the understanding of poetry was very much scholarly and pedantic. No special qualification of taste was laid down for a literary critic apart from general learning in different allied branches like prosody, grammar and dictionary. Even as late a commentator as Mallinātha conforms to this scholarly tradition.

to judge from the vast Śāstra literature asserted by him as mastered. Ānandavardhana sounds a note of warning to this school of pedantic interpreters of poetry. He declares in no uncertain terms that the central meaning of poetry has nothing to do with laborious learning, and that it can be grasped only by the few sahrdayas gifted with taste. Cf. "Two different concepts of the interpretation of literature are current :

( a ) That it is simply to reveal the intention of the author by removing obstacles to understanding; i. e. to explain vocabulary idiom, and syntax, to gloss obscure allusions, to clarify arguments. It is thought that the intended meaning will then stand out clear; and the expositor's work is at an end.

( b ) That a work of literature contains a latent or hidden sense that is not necessarily revealed by the simple removal of difficulties. It is the task of the critic to expound this latent meaning... "—Graham Hough. An Essay on Criticism, London, 1966, p. 67.

P. 14. L, 13. Correct the misprint in the text from लक्षणमिवाडप्रगीतानाम to लक्षणमिवाप्रगीतानाम.

There are two readings of the text here of the word translated by us as " if they are not good musicians. " The readings are प्रगीतानाम and अप्रगीतानाम. Abhinavagupta gives the etymological meaning of प्रगीत only; but his commentators ( like Rāmasāraka, Uttungodaya and Kuppuswami Shastri ) think that he is in favour of the reading अप्रगीतानाम in the Vṛtti. Hermann Jacobi follows the Kavyamālā Edition and adopts the reading pragītānām in this German translation which reads :-

" Wie solchen, welche sur die Theorie der Musik kennen die individuellen ganzen und Zwischentone guter sanger unerkennbar sind." ( ZDMG, LVI, p. 588 ). The word प्रगीत means " good singer " according to both Abhinavagupta and Jacobi; not "good song". The word appears with the genitive case-ending in the text and the question is whether it is to be construed with the immediately following word गान्धर्वलक्षणविदाम or with the immediately preceding word स्वरश्रुत्यदिलक्षणम. Jacobi adopts the latter construction and translates that those who know

the theory of music only might miss the 'whole note' (semibreve) and 'middle notes' of good singers. But we have preferred the other construction in so far as it agrees on all fours with the comparison in question. The balance may be brought out as follows :

1. वाच्यवाचकलक्षणमात्रकृतश्रमाणां = गान्धर्वलक्षणविदाम्

2. काव्यतत्त्वार्थभावनाविमुखानां = { अप्रगीतानाम्

Put in apposition to above. { Put in apposition to above.

3. असावर्थे:-Subject = स्वरश्रुत्यादिलक्षणम्—Subject

4. अगोचरः—Predicate = अगोचरम्—Predicate understood.

Though at first sight it might seem that the reading प्रगीत in the general sense of a song is more natural, it does not serve as an effective simile in this context. As we saw above, it involves a forced construing (as done by Jacobi) even in the sense of 'good singers'. This meaning of the word finds strange confirmation from a usage of Kālidāsa. We have in his prastāvanā of the Vikramorvaśīya the line कि नार्यः कलमधुराक्षरं प्रगीता: ('Have the damsels started singing sweetly ?') This verse has been relegated to the foot-notes in Prof. H. D. Velankar's critical edition (Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1961, p. 2) though supported by 8 Mss.

The passage is very significant as illustrative of Ānandavardhana's aesthetic attitude which surveys the other arts too like music in discussions about poetry unlike his predecessors who gave only rules of rhetoric. For the whole idea, cf :-

1. "The real danger of dictionary understanding is that it so easily prevents us from perceiving the limitations of our understanding...In addition to directing a fairly precise thought, most language simultaneously endeavours to excite some refinement of feeling. This function of language fails at least as often as the communication of sense. And our means of discovering for ourselves whether we have or have not understood this feeling correctly are even less satisfactory than in the case of thought. As a rule, close contact with persons who are exacting in this respect can give us the necessary training...Subtleties of tone are rarely appreciated without some special training."—I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism, pp. 327-8.

( 2 ) " A critic must be able to feel the impact of a work of art in all its complexity and its force. To do so, he must be a man of force and complexity himself, which few critics are. A man with a paltry impudent nature will never write anything but paltry impudent criticism. And a man who is emotionally educated is rare as a phoenix. The more scholastically educated a man is, generally, the more he is an emotional boor." - Coombs, Literature and Criticism, p. 13.

Kārikā 8 : What is said of the critic in the previous Kārikā is here extended to the creative process of poets. The poets are exhorted to be alert in focussing all their attention on the suggestive words and meanings.

The word pratyabhijñeya has been so explained by Abhinavagupta as to carry the implications of the pratyabhijñā school of Kashmir Shaivism. But this appears far-fetched since we have no positive indication anywhere in the text, pointing to Ānandavardhana's faith in this school. These two kārikās (7 & 8) bring out forcefully the unique importance of vyañgyārtha in all poetry of the best order. Cf. (1) " Indeed a poet's aim may be to select and to use words so as to annul their referential expression, thus to evoke images and feelings which refer to nothing beyond themselves. " - R W. Church, An Essay on Critical Appreciation, Allen and Unwin, 1938, p. 199-200. (2) " The business of a poet is not to clarify, but to suggest; to imply, to employ words with auras of association with a reaching out toward a vision, a probing down into an emotion, beyond the compass of explicit definition. " - Harold Hobson, New York Journal, American, Jan. 31, 1958.

P. 16. Kārikā 9 : The word āloka in this Kārikā could mean 'light', as well as 'sight' ( i. e. seeing objects ). We have preferred the second meaning even as Abhinavagupta does. The ultimate end served by dīpaśikhā or lamp-flame is the sight of objects, rather than light. But Jacobi renders it as " Helligkeit " ( brightness ).

Though the poet's primary concern is vyañgyārtha, he has no other go but to start with vācyārtha. The medium of poetry is common language ; but the poetic use of language is quite

Dhvanyālokaḥ

different from its referential use. That is why Kārikā 2 brings out how the beautiful meaning in poetry lends itself into a two-fold analysis, though it is really an undifferentiated totality. Critical function as much as the creative activity both have as the basis such an analysis. This kārikā emphasizes the aspect of the poet's creative activity while the next is devoted to the aspect of critical appreciation. Though inevitably a linguistic discourse is involved in the poetic activity, it is something which does not hold his exclusive attention. All his concentration as a poet is directed towards the suggested meanings only. Thus vyaṅgyārtha is established as the unique differentia of poetry.

Kārikā 10 : What is true of the poet is true of the critic too in his own way. All his attention and sensibility are involved only in his getting at the vyaṅgyārtha intended by the poet, though here too he has to start first with the comprehension of vācyārtha. A happy analogy is cited of padārtha and vākyārtha. The import of a sentence as a whole is the goal in all human speech. But that is rendered possible only by the means of understanding individual words and their meanings in relation. The Locana brings out clearly how, for a beginner in the study of language, a time interval also is possible between the understanding of the individual words and the vākyārtha as a whole. But, for one who is intimately familiar with the language, no time interval comes to be felt by him because the understanding of the final import is so fast. In the same way, a critic with a refined sensibility will catch the vyaṅgyārtha itself in a flash, almost simultaneously with the vācyārtha. But even then, the fact remains that the means for arriving at the vyaṅgyārtha is none other than the vācyārtha itself. Here too, a beginner could clearly notice that the understanding of the vācyārtha is a prelude to the understanding of the vyaṅgyārtha. This is the padārtha-vākyārtha-nyāya adduced to bring out the supremacy of the vyaṅgyārtha in poetry as distinguished from other modes of speech. This nyāya is substituted by ghata-pradīpa-nyāya in the third chapter in order to emphasise the simultaneous awareness of both the meanings (Vācya and Vyaṅgya) in poetry. Not only the jar illumined by the lamp but also the lamp itself are simultaneously cognised. In the same way, vācya and vyaṅgya meanings admit of simultaneous comprehension.

The padārtha-vākyārtha-nyāya would not serve this purpose. For, when the vākyārtha is understood, the padārtha is no longer felt separately.

P. 18. Kārikās 11–12 : The implications of the above analogy are fully drawn out here from the point of view of the exclusive importance of vyañgyārtha in poetry. The vrtti explains how though the padārtha, the means, is not entirely absent, its existence is not distinctly felt. In the same way, the sensitive critics are wholly and solely immersed in their appreciation of the vyañgyārtha, and the vācyārtha escapes their attention The Locana explains that the total absence of vācyārtha is not intended here. Though it may be present remotely in the background, it does not engage the attention of the critics prominently. So explained, there would be no opposition between the padārtha-vākyārtha-nyāya set out here, and the revised ghaṭa-pratipañya-nyāya cited in the third chapter.

Kārikā 13: All the previous arguments are brought to a focus in the present kārikā which has been often regarded as significant and has given occasion to an elaborate explanation in the Vrtti here and more specifically under kārikā 16. Though it may incidentally serve as a definition of dhvani, it seems to be concerned more with indicating the vast connotation of the term dhvani itself. If we take it as a mere definition, then dhvani will be the name only of a kāvyaviseṣa, and the initial declaration itself, viz., kāvyasyātmā dhvanih would become a conundrum, since a kāvyaviseṣa can by no means become the ātman of kāvya. A close reading of the Vrtti under kārikā 16, as well as the Locana will leave no room for doubt that what is meant in the two karikās is a statement only of the vast connotation of the term dhvani to include :-

( i ) vācyārtha which is vyañjaka;

( ii ) vācaka-śabda which is vyañjaka;

( iii ) vyañgyārtha;

( iv ) vyañjanā-vyāpāra; and

( v ) poetry as such with the above constituents. The central point in all this is the fact that the vyañgyārtha is deliberately intended by the poet to be more important and beautiful than the vācyārtha, and he takes all pains to see that the beauty of the vācyārtha is strictly kept in the background and is not allowed to outshine the beauty of the vyañgyārtha. When this is understood, it follows that the creative activity itself is none other than the deliberate use of vyañjanā-vyāpāra. When individual words are suggestively used with a view to charming vyañgyārtha, we have vyañjaka-śabdas. When the several vācyārthas in a sentence combine to suggest another beautiful meaning, they come under the class of vyañjaka-arthas. In both these cases, what s important is, that the vācaka-śabdas and vācyārthas should not attract the readers' attention to their own beauty as compared with the vyañgya beauty. Now the emergent over-all beautiful vyañgyārtha is the goal which charms the reader. It can assume three forms viz., Vastu ( Ideas ) Alañkāra ( suggested figurative shade ) and Rasādi ( Emotions and sentiments ). Such is indeed the soul of poetry. A poem taken as a whole and made up of these elements ( kāvyaviśeṣa ) deserves therefore to be regarded as the best specimen of poetry. The term dhvani is applicable thus not only to vyañgyārtha as we already saw, but also to all the constituent factors of suggestion in poetry; and ideal poetry itself can be none other than dhvani.

Ānandavardhana tries hard in the vṛtti here to justify his choice of the term Dhvani with wide connotations by citing the example of Vaiyākaraṇa philosophers like Bhartrhari. Bhartrhari propounded an idealistic philosophy of Śabda-brahman or Sphota to explain meaning from language which is at the basis of all human activity ( प्रक्रिय जगतो यतः, Vākyapadīya, I. i. ). His theory, known as Sphotavāda, is primarily a semantic concept. According to this theory, meaning is revealed in a flash by the whole and indivisible aspect of speech, an aspect which underlies all distinctions of syllables or sounds. When we say 'cow', the three letters are uttered in sequence, howsoever unnoticeable; and the total meaning of the animal we understand is not the result of any summation of the part-meaning of the three letters.

The words analysable into letters with varying shades of tone and pitch must have, according to this school, an abiding whole aspect, which alone can reveal a whole meaning and this aspect is termed sphoṭa. Since words can have meaning only in the context of a sentence, the sphoṭa of the sentence as a whole should be regarded as the revealer of meaning. This involves recognition of the 'revealing potency' (vyañjakatva) in the whole sphoṭa aspect of words and sentences. The sentence reveals or suggests Sphoṭa which in its turn reveals or suggests meaning (artha) in one unitary flash. The revealer (vyañjaka) of meaning is thus the semantic aspect of śabda and the revealer of this in turn is its own linguistic aspect. In this context Bhartrhari has primarily used the term Dhvani to refer to the linguistic aspect of śabda (varṇa). He has also referred to views of grammarians which regard the semantic aspect of śabda also as Dhvani. In addition to these vyañjakas being called Dhvani, the revealed or suggested meaning as such and the process of suggestion involved are also termed Dhvani in some of the views cited in the Vākyapadīya and quoted in the Locana.

So Ānandavardhana found that the term Dhvani already enjoyed a status of prestige in the usage of Vaiyākaraṇas; and it was propounded to explain the mystery of meaning arising from language. In poetry too, which is nothing more than a specialised use of language, the same concept could explain all the issues with slight modifications to suit the unique poetic purpose. Here also there could be no doubt that Dhvani alone could be involved in the delineation of Rasa, the purpose unique to a poet. So with a slight extension of meaning, vyañjakarśabda in poetry could be spoken of as continuing its operation even after the close of the significatory function explained by the Vaiyākaraṇas. That is to say, while Sphoṭavāda explains the vyañjakatva of śabda with reference to vācyārthe, its primary meaning only, vācyadhvani is concerned with the vyañjakatva of śabda after the rise of the primary meaning towards a suggested meaning (such as Rasa) beyond vācyārthe.

What is more, in grammar, the question of vācyārthe becoming vyañjaka does not arise at all; while that alone is the basic issue in poetry. The vācyārthe itself becomes suggestive of different ideas

Dhvanyāloka

and feelings to the reader, depending on the uniqueness of the characters and situations described in poetry. Hence व्यञ्जक in poetry is not only शब्द in the narrow sense of Vyākaraṇa but also अर्थ ( i. e. वाच्यार्थ or लक्ष्यार्थ in its wake ). Since poetry is nothing but a designation given to both शब्द and अर्थ taken together, काव्य itself can be regarded as tantamount to शब्द in the ultimate sense of the grammarians.

The use of the word Dhvani in all these five senses indicated above follows thus as a happy extension of the fundamental philosophy of language acceptable to grammarians. This philosophical foundation was laid securely for the first time to poetic theory by Ānandavardhana in the history of Sanskrit poetics. For a further discussion of this, see : K. Krishnamoorthy, Essays in Sanskrit Criticism ( Karnatak University, Dharwar, 1964 ), p. 41 ff.; The Dhvanyāloka and its critics, ( Kavyalaya, Mysore 1968 ), Chapt. II; S. K. Ramachandra Rao, Development of Psychological Thought in India ( Kavyalaya, Mysore, 1962 ), p. 161 ff.; K. V. Abhyankar, A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar ( Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1961 ), p. 405.

Line 12. अनेन ..... दर्शितम् — A clear grasp of the above considerations will positively reveal the striking distinction between alaṅkāras of vācaka-śabda and vācyārtha on the hand and the beauty of exclusive vyaṅgyārtha on the other. This consideration is enough to show the mistake committed by the ancient theorists when they included rāsādi ( which are exclusively vyaṅgya ) under the head of alaṅkāras which are exclusively vācya. Had they made this important distinction between vācya and vyaṅgya, they would have been saved from what is nothing short of a blunder from the aesthetic standpoint.

Line 14. यदप्युक्तम् ..... दर्शयिष्याम: — The second variety of ध्वन्यभाववाद is now taken up for refutation. Its main contention is that anything not conforming to the classical canons ceases ipso facto to be poetry. Ānandavardhana points out that dhvani is widely familiar to readers of literature though it is unfamiliar only to the theorists. The acid test which decides whether something is genuine poetry or not is only the experience of tasteful readers, and not the pronouncements of theorists.

From this new standpoint it follows that whatever is not dhvani in the opinion of sahrdayas is not poetry at all. It may be given only a concessional admission because of its startling or pictorial properties, denoted by the term चित्र. (See third chapter for a treatment of चित्र ). Rudrata treats चित्र claborately.

P. 20. Line - 1. यत्रदृश्यमुक्तमू ... पातिता कृतः - The next anti-dhvani view is अन्तर्भाववाद and it has been refuted at length in the text. In fact, this is the most formidable charge brought by the adherents of early poetics against the new theory of dhvani.

No one can deny that the early theorists too were aware of the presence of vyaṅgyārtha in poetry as indicated by their definitions of some alaṅkāras. But as Ānandavardhana notes pointedly and repeatedly, they appear to have given more importance to the principle of vācya-beauty rather than that of vyaṅgya-beauty, The only underlying common ground for all alaṅkāras is vācya-vācaka-cāruatva while the underlying ground for dhvani in all its manifestations is vyaṅgya-vyañjaka-cāruatva. Ānanda-vardhana's accuracy of insight into the nature of alaṅkāras is illustrated further in his detailed exposition of this point-

L. 8. ननु ..... तस्याऽन्तर्भावः - The objector might urge that alaṅkāras like samāsokti do involve an element of vyaṅgyārtha and dhvani could easily be included under them. This would be possible if a mere presence of vyaṅgyārtha were sufficient to raise it to the status of dhvani. But the fact is otherwise. vyaṅgyīrtha becomes dhvani only when vyaṅgyīrtha is also more prominent and more beautiful than the vācyārtha. This has been laid down as an important condition that governs Dhvani in the Kārikā. The वाचकशब्द and वाच्यार्थ should both be intended by the poet to be less prominent and therefore less beautiful than the vyaṅgyārtha. It follows that no alaṅkāra like samāsokti can explain dhvani.

Cf. "Subordination (as opposed to abrogation ) of sense is nearly omnipresent in poetry. The poet makes a statement about something, not in order that the statement may be examined and reflected upon, but in order to evoke certain feelings, and when these are evoked, the use of the statement is exhausted. It is idle and irrelevant to consider the statement further." - I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism, p. 354.

Dhvanyāloka

L. 14. समासोक्तौ तावत् ....— The verse उपोढरागेण etc., has been quoted from Udbhata's Bhāmaha-vivaraṇa [ Raniero Gnoli, Udbhata's Commentary on the Kāvyālankāra of Bhāmaha, Roma, 1962, p. 34 ]. The fragment reads :—स्पष्टं पुनरिदमुदाहरणं समासोक्ते:-उपोढ°. We have the reading रक्षितम् there instead of लक्षि‌तम् in the last quarter. Perhaps it is a better reading because रक्षितम् suggests the woman's inability to save her garment from slipping off inspite of her best will. The current reading लक्षि‌तम् shows that she was unconscious of the whole thing. The emotion of bashfulness is better suggested in the former reading than in the latter.

P. 22. L. 1. शश्यादौ...वाक्यार्थ‌त्वात — The main theme of the verse which is relevant ( प्रस्तुत ) here is the beauty of the moon during twilight. It is vācya. The behaviour as well as emotions of lovers attributed to the personified moon and twilight is vyaṅgya and अप्र‌स्तुत. Now the alaṅkāra of samāsokti consists only in such vyaṅgya, adding beauty to the vācya. The vyaṅgya therefore cannot be regarded as exclusively important.

At this point the Locana raises the interesting question whether rasa is not involved in this. It is, he declares, certainly present; but at a stage later than that of samāsokti. Samāsokti transforms the bare moon and night into विभाव etc. which in turn release rasa ultimately. What is called samāsokti is अप्र‌धानव‌यन्त्रय only which is a part of the figure and not the ultimate rasa which samāsokti leads up to. Vide: तेनात्र ध‌यद्ध‌ये प्रतितेऽपि न प्राधान्यम् । तथाहि नायक‌न्यवहारो निशाशशिनावेव शृङ्गार‌विभावरूपौ सङ्कुर्वाणौ सल‌क्‍ष‌रतां भजते, तत्स‌तु वाच‌याद्विभाव‌भी‌ताद्र‌सनि:‌ष‌यन्त्र:-Locana, BP. Ed. p. 11.

This is a very subtle point and unless it is realised, confusion will result in distinguishing samāsokti from verses like तन्वी मेघज‌लाद्रे. ..and तर‌ङ्गभूभ्रृ...cited later as brimming with rasa by Ānandavardhana. Both involve चेतन‌त्वारोप on अचेतन‌वस्तु. But the beauty of samāsokti lies more in the vācya, accompanied by vyaṅgya, while beauty in the latter is more due to the vyaṅgya-rasa itself. The poet's intention ( वि‌व‌क्षा ) in the former is to describe nature primarily, whereas the poetic intention in the latter is depiction of human sentiment prominently.

L. 3. आक्षेपेऽस्मि कान्‍यशरीरम् । Turning to the next figure Ākṣepa, Ānandavardhana finds the same principle involved in samāsokti. The very title of the figure Ākṣepa, viz. ' Suggestive ' denial reveals how the vācyārtha is relatively more important than the vyaṅgyārtha; for the suggester is vācyārtha itself, while the special idea suggested is vyaṅgya. Then he explains this further by citing Bhāmaha's definition of the figure. When there is a specific verbal negation as it were in a sentence with a view to suggesting some special idea, the expressed negation becomes the main source of charm.

L. 6. चारुत्वोत्कर्ष ... विवक्षा । This is the fundamental principle of aesthetic judgment propounded for the first time in Indian literary criticism. In all poetry there will be two elements :- the plainly stated and the suggested. The literary critic's judgment is involved in deciding which is relatively more prominent. The criterion for such judgment is provided only by his aesthetic impression of the two. That which strikes him as more beautiful will decide his characterising it as Dhavnikāvya or Guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya. Whereever the vācyārtha is strikingly more beautiful, it is only Guṇībhūtavyaṅgya and this is very much true of ākṣepa.

L. 8. अनुरागवती ... समागमः ॥ This beautiful verse is sometimes ascribed to Pāṇini in anthologies. Māṇikyacandra in Kāvyaprakāśasaṅketa and Hemacandra in Kāvyānuśāsana offer the explanation that पुरस्सर should be taken to mean ' towards her and not merely moving in front, back-turned like the vanguard of an army. The heroine Twilight must be understood to be advancing to meet her lover, the Day; and the Day, like a passionate lover, is also moving to meet her as it were. Though they thus move eagerly towards each other, they never meet. They are ever so close and ever so parted. If they were to be moving mechanically, one behind the other, as in the ranks of an army, the question of their meeting would never arise even after ages '. The context requires that it should be explained as an example of the figure ākṣepa. But Abhinavagupta finds it more to be of the nature of samāsokti ( as defined by Bhāmaha ), and unlike ākṣepa ( according to Bhāmaha ). So he adopts the ingenious procedure of calling it ākṣepa also according to Vāmana's definition of ākṣepa ( उपमानाक्षेपक्ष्याक्षेप: - IV-3-27 ). In fact Vāmana in his main

dhvanyālokaḥ

definition talks only of belittling the उपमान in order to extol the उपमेय and this has no relevance at all to this verse. Almost all the later theorists who quote this verse ( e. g. Mammata, IX 7 f. ) follow Abhinavagupta blindly and call it samāsokti. Even Abhinavagupta is hesitant in taking it as a pure समासोक्ति. He is quite aware that the treatment of ākṣepa is not yet complete even when he calls the verse as an instance of समासोक्ति. ( तेन आक्षेपप्रेयस्समर्थनमेवापरिसमासस्मिति मन्तव्यम् । तत्रोदाहरणत्वेन समासोक्तिश्लोकः पठितः ) Before concluding his remarks on this he alludes also tlo the oral explanation of his guru ( possibly Bhattatauta ) to the effect that this verse serves not only as an example of समासोक्ति according to Bhāmaha but also that of आक्षेप according to Vāmana; and that it is immaterial whether it is one or the other or both. The main point of illustration is that the suggested meaning is secondary to the beauty of the expressed in all alankāras:-एषापि समासोक्तिरेवास्तु आक्षेपो वा, किमनेनास्माकम्। सर्वथाडलङ्कारेपु व्यङ्ग्यं वाच्येऽपि गुणाभिव्यक्तौ नः साध्योऽमित्याशङ्क्याडनुग्रन्थोऽस्मद्गुरुभिरनूद्यते । ( KSRI Edn., p. 200).

But as we have seen, Ānandavardhana's vrtti has already completed the treatment of samāsokti earlier and taken up ākṣepa for exposition here. In the treatment of the other alankāras too hereafter, there is an example invariably provided. If this verse is taken as samāsokti, ākṣepa would go without an example, and samāsokti would have a second example even in the absence of any need. That would be very unusual in a systematic writer like Ānandavardhana. Thus arises a problem of interpretation not touched by previous scholars.

Here is our attempt at a solution. The verse must be taken as an illustration of ākṣepa according to the definition of Bhāmaha only. The first line taken in itself fulfils the requirements of samāsokti completely. But that is no reason why the second line should be ignored altogether in deciding the alankāra of this verse. The emphatic part of the verse is in the second line. It is the philosophy of life deduced by the poet by his observation of Nature ( recorded in the first line ). The question is whether it contains any वाच्य निषेधाभास (apparent denial stated explicitly ) and whether it has any suggested implication, ( विशेषाभिधानस्ता ) intended by the poet. 'तथा!पि न समागमः' does

contain a निषेध, which cannot be anything but an आभास because of the fact that Day and Twilight can never physically co-exist in Nature, and it is too well known a fact to deserve any special emphasis on the part of a poet. This leads us to conclude that the poet must have some other purport to justify his use of verbal negation. The fancied purport which we might reconstruct may be stated in some such way as this:-

In the world of lovers and in the tradition of romantic poetry, the consummation of a couple in mutual love is nothing but union. Even when the heroine remains passive in her love, the hero's actions continue till the goal of union is achieved. There is greater joy in the result than in the quest. But this feature is reversed in the case of Day and Twilight imagined as lovers. They seem to derive greater joy in the eternal quest itself than in the momentary union. That is why the quest goes on for ever and ever ! So understood, this vyañgyārtha emphasising the desirability of the quest of lovers for the quest's sake will make the verse conform to the definition of ākṣepa by Bhāmaha. But the point of relative beauty between the vācyārtha and the vyañgyārtha remains yet to be decided. It will be easily seen that all the beauty of the verse is more centred in the vācyārtha which is the suggester and not in the vyañgyārtha so much. Because all its concern lies in adding beauty to the vācyārtha itself and thus justify its being designated as an ākṣepa-alankāra.

Our proposed solution finds remarkable corroboration by the detailed treatment of Ākṣepa-varieties by Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa. In all the varieties, the word Ākṣepa is used by him only in the uniform sense of denial. One of these varieties called कार्याक्षेप is explained as the denial of the occurrence of the effects though the causes required are all there :-

दूरे प्रियतमः सोऽयमागतो जलदागमः । वर्षाक्ष फुल्ला निचुला न मृताः चास्मि कि निवद्म ॥ II. 134. कार्याक्षेपः स कार्यस्य मरणस्य निवर्तेनात् । तत्कारणसम्प्लास्या धारां जलदागमम् ॥ II. 135.

Though there is the dreadful advent of the rainy season with blossomed trees and the lover is far away, the expected

Dhvan'yāloka

effect of the beloved's death is denied here. Similarly, Rudraṭa also considers आक्षेप to be no more than a denial of well known facts. cf. Kāvyālankāra, VIII. 89-90. Outwardly Daṇḍin's kāryākṣepa which applies in toto to the verse अनुरागवती...is almost similar to Viśeṣokti of later writers. But as Rangācārya Reddy points out while commenting on Daṇḍin, the denial of the effect of a fancied cause is Ākṣepa, while the denial of the effect of a real cause is Viśeṣokti.

L. 12. यथा च...दृश्यते—The principle explained above is strengthened by citing as proof the status of the vyaṅgya simile in alaṅkāras like Dīpaka and Apahnuti. Unless there is a suggested simile there can be no vācyalaṅkāra like Dīpaka. But they are still designated as Dīpaka etc. and never as Upamā because striking beauty relates to the former and not to the latter. This logic applies with equal force to other alaṅkāras also like Ākṣepa and Samāsokti considered above, and others, Viśeṣokti, Paryāyokta etc., which follow.

L. 15. आहूतोऽपि...स्थिलयति—In the Subhāṣitāvali and the Sarṅgadhara-paddhati, the author of this verse is given as Bharcu or Bharvu ( who is the guru of Bāṇa. ). This example of Viśeṣokti too appears to have been quoted by Ānandavardhana from Udbhata's Bhāmahavivaraṇa. For, the Locana expressly gives Udbhata's explanation of this verse. The lethargy of the traveller to leave his bed despite reasons to the contrary is given by Udbhata as the biting cold of winter, ( शीतकृता खल्वान्तरत्न निमित्तमिति भवोद्‌वृत्तः, तदभिप्रायेणाह... ). It also gives another possible reason for the lethargy :-

It is the eagerness of the lone traveller to have a dream-union with his beloved ( कान्तासमागमे गमनादपि लघु तरमुपायं स्वप्नं मन्यमानो निद्रागमननभूःध्यातया सद्रोचं नात्यजत् ). In either case, it is obvious that the beauty is traceable not to the suggested reason but to the viśeṣokti which is vācya, By Viśeṣokti we mean here the deliberate omission of the reason itself as a source of charm.

P. 24. L. 1. पर्यायोक्तेऽपि ...... यिष्यमाणत्वात — Paryāyokta has definitely vyaṅgyatva. An objector might urge that it is not only present but prominently present. In such a case there would be no difference left between vastudhvani and paryāyokta.

Notes

Ānandavardhana is prepared to concede this. But the other varieties of Dhvani viz. Alañkāradhvani and Rasadhvani are left untouched and unexplained by the characteristic of a Paryāyokta. While the scope of Paryāyokta is very narrow and may at the most touch the fringe of just vastudhvani, the scope of the other two varieties of Dhvani is far wider. Hence, logic demands that Paryāyokta itself be brought under vastudhvani and not vice versa.

L. 3. न पुनः ..... विवक्षिततत्वात् —As Locana observes, one might perversely urge all instances of vastudhvani cited earlier ( भम ध्वनिमघ etc. ) as examples of paryāyokta. To prevent it Ānanda-vardhana mentions here that only examples like the one actually cited by Bhāmaha deserve to be regarded as paryāyokta. The reference is to गृहीष्यध्वसु व नाथं भुज्जमहे यदधीतिनः । विप्रा न भुञ्जते ( तस्म रसादाननिवृत्तये ) ॥ Kāvyalañkāra III. 9.

Beauty lies in the plainly stated periphrasis itself, viz. ‘ we won’t eat either at home or on the way food which has not been first partaken of by learned brahmins ’ and not in the suggested part, ‘ since we are afraid of being poisoned ’.

L. 5. See note on p. 22. L. 12.

L. 7. सदृरालङ्कारेऽपि ...... निराकरोति — Among the ancient theorists, the concept of collocation and commingling of figures ( संसृष्टि and सदृर ) is a unique concept. It is a wide concept attempting to explain multi-faceted beauty in actual instances of poetry due to the presence of more than one tinge or shade of different alañkāras. Ānandavardhna seems to use the two words more or less as synonyms. Abhinavagupta distinguishes four types of such mixed figures :-

( i ) Sandeha-saṅkara, where one is left in doubt as to which of the two ( or more ) equally applicable figures is decisive, for want of any criterion, positive or negative, to fix it one way or the other;

( ii ) Śabdārthālaṅkāra-saṅkara or co-existence of alañkāras coming under different heads like śabda and artha. This itself is called saṁsrṣṭi by later writers.

Dhvanyaloka

( iii ) Ekavakyūnsa-sankara, where more than one arthālaṅkāra is noticed in one and the same passage of poetry; and

( iv ) Anugrāhyānugrāhakabhāva-sañkara, where the relation between the two figures simultaneously applicable is that of the donor and the donee.

The last of these alternatives is taken up first for disposal. The donor which is an alaṅkāra is paramount by definition while the suggested vyaṅgya can in no wise be deemed as all important. The second and the third alternatives do not involve at all the presence of vyaṅgyārtha and are thus irrelevant. In the first alternative, however, reason demands that both the alaṅkāras applicable, one in a vācya way and the other in a vyaṅgya way, are deemed equal in importance. Yet if one were to swear that the vyaṅgya figure is positively more prominent than the vācya figures, Ānandavardhana's reply is the same as that noted in the case of paryāyokta. Such stray instances might by all means be brought in the realm of vastudhvani. But it would never be logical to include the far wider field of Rasadhvani in the narrow scope of any alaṅkāra or mixture of alaṅkāras. The very term saṅkara ( commingling ) used to denote figurative beauty is indicative of the fact that no element therein is preponderant over another.

L. 13. अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि ... न्यायः - In the figure aprastutapraśaṁsā several types are usually distinguished depending on the prastuta, ( which is vyaṅgya ) and the aprastuta ( which is vācya ). Such relations are sāmānya-viśeṣa and kārya-kāraṇa with reference to either of them. Several beautiful examples of this figure are furnished by Ānandavardhana himself and explained in detail under III. 40. Ānandavardhana first shows how these are mutually inclusive and not exclusive. Hence, in none of these four possible alternatives of aprastuta-praśaṁsā, the suggested alone is exclusively prominent.

P. 26. L. 1. यदा तु .. रत्नमेव. Only we are left with the fifth variety based on the relation of similarity. Here again, if in a stray example the sensitive critic actually finds the vācya aprastuta less important than the vyaṅgya prastuta he is justified in giving it also the status of vastu-dhvani. Otherwise, in

most of the examples, the common feature would be the greater beauty of the vācya only. Hence all such alaṅkāras involving greater beauty of the vācya over the vyaṅgya fall under the second class of poetry Guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya; they should not be mistàken to belong to the first class of poetry viz. Dhvani.

Verse 1 : In alaṅkāras like Samāsokti there is the undoubted presence of some vyaṅgyārtha. But this is not enough to raise them to the rank of Dhvani because they serve no better than handmaids to the beauty of the vācyārtha. Hence such alaṅkāras are only aspects of primary beauty in the vācyārtha only.

Verse 2 : From the above the rule is deduced that nothing can be Dhvani which is not felt as all-important. Its mere presence or assistance rendered to vācyārtha cannot make vyaṅgyārtha deserve the title of Dhvani.

Verse 3 : Hence we are brought to the inevitable conclusion that we have a clear instance of Dhvani only when all the other elements in the poem-sound as well as sense-are wholly concerned in giving greater prominence to the vyaṅgyūrtha.

L. 10. Thus the very possibility of grouping Dhvani under the category of any alaṅkāra whatsoever is completely ruled out

L. 11. इत्थं...तन्निष्ठत्वमेव—All the above discussion has been pointed towards the conclusion that Dhvani can never come under alaṅkāras. But it could possibly be urged by the pūrvapakṣin that Dhvani can well be brought under other aesthetic categories like guṇa and vṛtti, if not alaṅkāra. Ānandavardhana counters this also by emphasising how Dhvani is a whole while the other heads mentioned, guṇa, vṛtti etc. are only parts of the whole even like alaṅkāras. No wise man would ever regard a mere part torn apart as equivalent to the whole. Even if it were not to be taken apart, it would remain a part only and never become the whole. The part-whole relation is something analogous to the servant-master relation involving inherent opposition, as Abhinavagupta notes (स्वामिभृत्यतयवद्विरुपपन्नरूपयोर्विरोधादित्यर्थः: 1 ). As repeatedly shown, some stray instances which might lie on the border-line could easily be accommodated under vastudhvani: but not vice versa since the scope of Dhvani is far wider as it includes rasa not touched by the rest.

Dhvan'yāloka

L. 15. 'सूरिभि ... °रितयुक्त :-See supra p. 322 f.

P. 28. L. 2. न चैवंविधस्य....प्रत्युक्ता: — The detailed refutation of the pūrvapakṣin's stand that antarbhāva of Dhvani is possible under the well known categories like alaṅkāra is now brought to a pointed conclusion. The main fact which has emerged in all this discussion is that the range or scope of dhvani is far wider than that of any other aesthetic category. The wide range is such that a space of two full chapters ( II and III uddyotas ) is rendered necessary for the treatment of the major divisions and sub-divisions of poetry infused with Dhvani. Now the antarbhāva-vāda which equates the exposition of Dhvani with the discovery of a new figure of speech does less than justice to the claims of Dhvani.

Thus the contention of the critics that Dhvani is no better than a fad concocted by self-styled sahrdayas loses all force. To deny them their well deserved credit smacks only of envy. They are quite justified in their enthusiasm about Dhvani.

L. 6. अस्ति ध्वनि: ... सामान्येन — It has thus been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that all poetry worth the name contains predominant suggested meaning. Unless at least a sample is given of its repeatedly asserted vastness of scope, it would be difficult to distinguish it from bhakti or secondary usage of words to connote an indirect meaning. Hence the primary divisions of Dhvani contained in chapter II are briefly mentioned and illustrated here.

L. 9 : सुवर्णपुष्पां...सेवितुम् — This is Mahābhārata, Udyogaparvan, XXXV, 74; also quoted in the Pañcatantra I. 45. The expression suvarnapuspāṁ in this verse means literally 'flowers of gold' and is an epithet of the Earth in the verse. The primary meaning of the sentence as a whole is thus tainted with incompatibility. The earth cannot bear flowers of gold at all. Hence, resort to a metaphorical meaning through bhakti or lakṣaṇā becomes a necessity. The meaning we ultimately understand is that of the Earth 'replete with all coveted riches in an abundant measure' ( सुलभसमृद्धिसंभारभाजनता — Locana ). At the next stage we get in a flash the significance ( prayojana ) of such a metaphorical usage. It is the unique greatness of the three categories of men specified in the verse, viz. the hero, the scholar, and the

servant. It is obvious that this significance is distinct from the purely secondary meaning. And it is this alone which is designated by the term अविवक्षितवाच्य - ध्वनि. The Locana compares the poetic charm of suggested meaning to the beauty of a noble lady's breasts hidden behind her elegant bodice ( गोप्यमानं सन्नायिकाकुचकलशयुगलमिव ).

L. 12. शिखरिणि ..... गुरु शावक:- The verse appears to be taken from a romantic play. The author is given as Dharmakirti in the Saduktikarnāmrta. It is in the nature of a very nice compliment ( चाटु ) paid by a gallant to the beauty of his sweetheart. The literal meaning is not at all incompatible here, because a lover by his nature may be expected to indulge in exaggerated praise, not only of his beloved but also of natural landscape. The primary purport relates to the extraordinary good fortune of the parrot in securing a fruit as red as the lady's lips, a good fortune rhetorically conceived as the result of some extra-ordinary penance on some rare mountain. This beautiful primary meaning ( of the sentence ) is quite intended and hence it is vivaksita, unlike the previous verse where the primary meaning is avivaksita. But the vācyārtha leads on to the suggested idea viz., "I should like to kiss your pretty lip and I congratulate myself on my good fortune." This is the mainly intended idea of the speaker and not the praise of the parrot alone. Hence, it is a clear example of vastudhvani recognised as such by later writers too like Viśvanātha ( Sāhityadarpana, IV ).

Appayyadikṣita however, takes it as an example of vyājastuti - alañkāra ( Kuvalayānanda 71 ). His vyājastuti, however, provides for disguised praise of one thing through the overt praise of another. And so understood, it can be an example of vācyalankāra also. But this does not do justice to the principle of चाटुत्वोत्कर्ष laid down by Ānandavardhana. All the standard Ālañkārikas like Mammata and Ruyyaka confined the limits of Vyājastati to disguised praise or censure involving elements of both. In their vyājastati the vācyārtha is incompatible invariably. But in vastudhvani it may be quite compatible as in the present instance: cf : अत एव अस्या ( व्याजस्तुत्या ) ध्वनेर्भेद: । स हि वाक्यार्थे वस्तुवाच्यौचित्यपर्यालोचनबलादवगम्यते । इह पुनः प्रमाणान्तराद्.

Dhvanyaloka

वाधितः सन् वाच्यार्थे स्वयमनुपपद्यमानत्वात् परत्र निन्दादौ स्वं समर्पयति । तत्रैव प्रकृतवाच्यार्थस्य विश्रान्तेः । Jayaratha's Vimarśinī on Alaṅkārasarvasva, p. 112.

Kārikā 14 a : Apparently the word dhvani in this Kārikā, juxtaposed with bhakti should only mean the vyāpāra of vyanjanā. But coming as it does immediately after I. 13 which extends the application of the word dhvani, the Locana would prefer to understand all the extended meanings here also. Cf. उत्तप्रकार इति पद्यस्वर्थेषु योजयम्।—शब्दे, अर्थे, व्यापारे, व्यङ्ग्ये, समुदाये च।

P. 30. Kārika 14 b. : While Kārikā 14a denies the identity of bhakti and dhvani, this part is concerned with showing how bhakti cannot even be lakṣaṇa or a differentia of dhvani.

L. 4 : यत्र हि ... ध्रियन्ते — Extra-ordinary charm is the only criterion which decides what is dhvani in poetry. But instances of bhakti in poetry are possible even without any such special chárm.

L. 7 : परिम्लानं ... शायनम् — This is from Harṣa's play, the Ratnāvalī [II. 12]. Here the word बदति in the last line is metaphorically used to mean सूचयति. And it is thus an instance of bhakti, but not of dhvani.

L. 12 : जुम्हिब्जइ etc. : Prof. John Brough has reconstructed the second and third quarters of this Prakrit verse as follows : Second—अवक्खिडअजइ सहस्सहुअं पि। Third: विरमिअ पुणो रमिज्जइ । — Poems from the Sanskrit, Penguin Books, 1969, p. 146. Here the word पुनरुक्तम् is an example of only bhakti, not of ध्वनि.

L. 17 : कविभ्राःओ etc. : Here the words गृहीतः and हरन्ति are metaphorically used even without any special charm associated with dhvani.

P. 32. L. 2 : अञ्ञाएँ etc. : The word दत्तः is figuratively used.

L. 7 : परार्थे etc. : Bhallaṭaśataka, V. 56. Also found in anthologies like Śāṛiṅgadharapaddhati and Saduktikarnaāmṛta.

Kārikā 15

Once again the Locana would have us understand all the five meanings of dhvani in the Kārikā. Cf. : शब्द इति पञ्चस्वर्थेषु योज्यम्। Otherwise it would refer to the Vyañjaka-śabda alone. The acid test of beauty in literature is the unique usage of words which baffles all attempts at a paraphrase in other words. This idea has a very striking parallel in one of the maxims attributed to his tutor by S. T. Coleridge :- "Whatever is translatable in other and simpler words of the same language, without loss of sense or dignity, is bad." .... "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 ), without making the poet say something else, or something worse, than he does say." [ Biographia Literaria, p. 4 and pp. 11-12 ( Everyman's Library ) ]. Also cf.: 'The best poets have tried to construct a poetry that could never be reduced to the expression of a thought and so could not be translated into other terms without perishing ' - Paul Valéry, Questions de Poesie; "The essence of prose is to perish - i. e. to be ' understood ' - i. e. to be dissolved, permanently destroyed, entirely replaced by the image or the impulse which it represents according to the linguistic convention. For prose always implies the universe of experience and acts - universe in which ( or because of which ) our perceptions and our actions or emotions must, in the end, correspond or speak to one another in the same way uniformly. The practical universe can be reduced to a collection of aims." Paul Valéry, Au Sujet du Cimetiere Marin. [ Both these citations are taken from Laurence Lerner, The Truest Poetry, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1964, p. 148-9.]

Kārikā 16

The field of lakṣaṇā which touches the fringe of dhvani is restricted to प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा only. The प्रयोजन part when beautiful may be properly brought under dhvāni. But the fact is that it is more often than not without beauty. This applies with greater force to usage of words involving रूटिमूला लक्षणा. The example of the word लावण्य is cited in the Kārikā. It denotes 'loveliness' though its etymology takes us back to the word लवण meaning 'salt'. In such examples of 'dead metaphors', there is no question of poetic beauty or dhvani at all. Cf.! "when a meta-

phor, such as "the arm of a chair", has become so common that it is no longer recognised as such, it is called a dead metaphor." - A Reader's Guide to Literary Terms, Thames and Hudson, London, p. 128. Daniel H. H. Ingalls has a very illuminating note on the word लावण्य in his article Words for Beauty in Classical Sanskrit Poetry in Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown (American Oriental Society, 1962) :- "The word lāvaṇya appears first in classical Sanskrit, where it becomes the favourite word for referring to the beauty of women. The word is derived by Pāṇini (5·1·123) from lavaṇa, 'Salty', and its original meaning was 'saltiness'. The passage to beauty may strike one as strange. By way of explanation one may observe that lavaṇa is one of the six tastes or flavors (rasa) : madhura, āmla, lavaṇa, kaṭu, tikta, kaṣāya. Lāvaṇya is related to lavaṇa as mādhurya (sweetness) is related to madhura (sweet). But lavaṇa is the flavor (rasa) par excellence, for one adds salt and 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 appropriate that lāvaṇya, as an abstraction of the chief rasa, should be used of a particularly striking type of beauty. . . Lāvaṇya 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."

Kārikā 17 : The author is selecting प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा and contrasting it with dhvani. This kind of significant metaphor does involve an element of suggestion since the significance itself is suggested and not secondarily implied. Even the first condition of lakṣaṇā cannot apply to the verbal function involved in the suggestion of the प्रयोजन. The condition inapplicable is स्वलद्र-तितव, or incompatibility (lit. impeded movement). The word स्वलद्रति has been used in this special sense by the earlier philosophical writer, Dharmakīrti in his Pramāṇavārttika ; cf.

यत्र हृद्याडसदर्थापि जने: शब्दो निवेशित: । स मुख्यस्तत्र तल्लास्याद्रुणोऽन्वयत्न स्वलद्रति: ॥ III·37.

This idea is attributed to Bhartrhari also by a commentary on the Vṛkyapadīya, II 267-269 :-

यो वाह्यके प्रवर्तमान: शब्दद्रव्य... । यत्रास्वलद्रति: शब्दस्तत्र मुख्योद्रथ:, स्वलद्रुतितवे तु गौणार्थतेति बोधव्यम् ॥

Notes

Dandin is the first rhetorician who notes the aesthetic significance of secondary usages of words and employs the term gaunavrtti for this usage. Cf.

निष्प्रयूतोद्गीर्णवान्तादि गौणवृत्तिद्युपाश्रयात् । atिशयन्दरमयन्त्र ग्राम्यकक्षां विगाहते ॥

[Kāvyādarśa I. 65]

तेऽमी प्रयोगमार्गेऽनु गौणवृत्तिन्यपाश्रया: । at्यन्तमुनदराहष्टास्तदुदाहृतयो यथा ॥

[Ibid. II. 254]

The most important condition for resorting to Lakṣanā is śabaladrutitva or apparent inapplicability of the word's dictionary meaning in a given context; e. g. The boy is a lion. The indicated meaning 'The boy is brave' removes this difficulty. But the purpose of saying 'The boy is a lion' instead of 'The boy is brave' is the idea of conveying the extraordinary nature of the boy's bravery. Now this meaning which forms the purpose is conveyed straightway by the word and indication cannot function when there is not the said incompatibility or śabaladrutitva in the word. This explanation is according to Abhinavagupta, and it equates śabaladrutitva with mukhyārthavādh. Another explanation would be to take it in a positive sense rather than in the negative sense detailed above. Positively understood, it refers to the movement of the word in signifying the intended sense. It is a convenient metaphor to explain the indirect relation between the word used and the secondary sense grasped. While the relation between the word and its meaning is direct, we can figuratively say that the word's movement or gati towards its sense is straight or unflattering. But when the relation is indirect, the gati will be śabaladr or faltering. The gati of the word then is faltering only in cases of indication and not so in cases of denotation or suggestion. Cf. also Mammata's Kāvyaprakāśa, II. 16.

P. 34. Kārikā 18 : This Kārikā refutes the equation of gunavrtti with dhvani by showing how bhakti leaves out of account a large number of dhvani instances. At this point Abhinavagupta expatiates on the different possible explanations of lakṣanā and points out how none of those possibilities can explain the

Dhvan'yāloka

unique phenomenon of rasa in poetry which must therefore be regarded as dhvani.

Kārikā 19a : At the most, all that can be conceded is that it can serve as an upalakṣaṇa or pointer in some instances of dhvani.

Kārikā 19b : This shows clearly that the author had no access to any written exposition on the theory of dhvani, though it was a wellknown concept traditionally handed down in literary circles of Kashmir. He admits here the possibility of earlier works only as a hypothesis. For a fuller discussion cf. : K. Krishnamoorthy, Dhvanyāloka and its Critics, Ch. II.

The plan adopted by Ānandavardhana in his treatment of dhvani is very well brought out by Abhinavagupta in his Locana on this passage. The whole of the first chapter is concerned with a general exposition (Sāmānya-lakṣaṇa) of dhvani. The general definition itself is contained in the Kārikā अर्थ: शब्दो वा etc. (I. 13). While all the preceding Kārikās lead upto it, the succeeding ones follow from it. But the specific treatment (विशेषलक्षण) of the types of dhvani in poetry is to be found only in the following chapters, from the point of view of vyaṅgya in the second chapter and from the point of view of vyañjaka in the third chapter. Even with all this if one were to say that dhvani is ‘indescribable’, it would be nothing more than a pointless criticism. It may be true only in the metaphysical sense. Nothing on earth can be exempt from such a charge. But Ānandavardhana has no quarrel with such a description of dhvani in case it has a complimentary sense underlining the unique beauty of dhvani in poetry.

P. 36. L. 5 : In some copies the word युक्ताभिधायिनं एव in the text appears incorrectly as युक्ताभिधायिन एव.

UDDYOTA II

P. 38. Ll. 1-2. This introduction in the vṛtti implies the common authorship of the kārikā and the vṛtti in the text. The kārikā here takes up for sub-division the two broad types of dhvani mentioned earlier in the First Uddyota (P. 28, 1.7). The Locana also favours this idea if properly understood.

Karikā 1

These designations of dhvani-types are influenced by the consideration that the shades of difference in the vyañgyārtha have their origin in the vācyārtha itself which acts as vyañjaka.

In the sañkramita variety the expressed sense may be felt continuing to be present, though tinged with the suggested sense. But in reality it is like the string of a flower-garland fulfilling the function of merely holding the flowers together. Whereas in the tiraskṛta variety the expressed sense is no more than a means to an end, disappearing once it has fulfilled its function.

Ll. 12-13

What is suggested is Rāma's experience of countless ordeals like the loss of his kingdom. It is next to impossible to recount them all expressly. Should we, by any chance, do so, they would be devoid of any special charm. When suggested, however, they lose their individual sense and come to be felt in their generality even like the taste of a sweet beverage.

ll. 8-11

हिनरध... भव — This is Mahānātaka, V. 7. ( JRAS, 1898, p. 296 ).

P. 40. Ll. 2-3

रवि...प्रकाशते This is Rūmāyana III, xvi-13. This is a description of winter by Rāma, when at Pañcavaṭī. Several qualities like unusual haziness, futility, etc. justify the figurative use of 'blind' in the verse. The moon's ineptitude for illumining objects is what is suggested.

Bhatta Nāyaka

misses the point when he asserts that the use of the word इव rules out any lakṣaṇā. For इव in the verse indicates the similarity obtaining between the moon and a mirror, not between the moon and the blind. The word 'blind' qualifies only the mirror. To repeat the word इव in the second context may be good Mimāṃsā, but it is bad criticism ( cf. Locana ).

It should be noted that all the examples given under Kārikā 1 are of individual words only, since that is the speciality of the type called अर्थांतरसंक्रमितवाच्य. But the next Kārikā refers to the other type called विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य which relates to the content of a verse or a passage as a whole. The major category of Rasa comes under this. The suggested figures of speech also represent its another aspect.

Dhvanyāloka:

L. 9 : The word tipsy (मत्त) suggests those who indulge in unbecoming acts, who impose themselves etc. The word 'not proud' suggests dependent, lacklustre, dispirited, etc. (Vide : Locana).

L. 12 : ध्वने:- By Dhvani here is meant Suggestion. While so far we distinguished suggestion from the point of view of expressed sense, now we are to do so considering the process. (cf. Locana)

L. 16 : Note that only when this variety is predominant, (अकिञ्चित्), we have the nature of suggestion.

This variety must be envisaged as encompassing both Rasādi-dhvani and Rasavad-ālankāras. The first is already established. There can be no poetry in its absence. In point of fact, poetry derives its life from Rasa. Rasa, it is true, consists in an invariably charming usage. And yet it is not strange that the charming usage itself should vary when what go to make up its constituents differ in themselves. Thus we have Bhāva-dhvani when a vyabhi-chāri-bhāva that has reached its acme (in excitation) takes on the poetic charm. E.g. Purūravas' exclamation in the Vikramor-vasiīyam — तिष्ठते कोपवशात् … . In this example a variety of Vyabhichāribhāva, namely, वितर्क takes on a poetical charm and becomes enjoyable.

Now an objection might arise : If the poetic charm is brought about by means of vibhāvas or anubhāvas, why not call it vibhāva-dhvani or anubhāva-dhvani ? It cannot be called so because vibhāvas and anubhāvas are self-expressive. Their fruition comes to a cease in the cittavṛtti itself. They provide us with no delight apart from Rasas and Bhāvas. In case however they themselves are suggested, we have made room for them in Vastu-dhvani.

When there is a semblance of fruition due to the semblance of vibhāvas, anubhāvas etc. the kind of experience we come by is called Rasābhāsa; e.g. while Rāvana addresses Sītā in amorous words we have Śṛṅgārābhāsa. Bharata, to be sure, lays down that a mimicry of Śṛṅgāra results in Hāsya. But that applies to the time following the fruition. There is no hāsya-rasa at the time of the fruition of दूषारकषणसौहृदन्न इव मे... Nor is there 'eros'

( रति ) pure and simple. It is eros in disguise. Hence we must also conclude it to be Śṛṅgārābhāsa. Such can be the case also with other Rasas. In reality Rasa-dhvani is one. Bhāva-dhvani etc. are its variant forms. Though the nature of the end is uniform, the differing means may be held as criteria to distinguish it, as for instance a connoisseur in perfumes may separate the genuine musk from the imitation although perfume itself is one and indivisible. ( Vide : Locana ).

L. 18 : Besides being predominant, the Rasādis can also occur as subordinate; e.g. in the figures of speech like Rasavat, Preyas, Ūrjasvin and Samāhita. That Rasādi-dhvani cannot be equated with Rasavadādi alaṅkāras, is being shown in the Kārikā 4 (cf. Locana).

P. 42. Kārikās 4-5 : These two Kārikās are crucial to Ānandavardhana's poetics. They represent the originality of his approach towards the relative beauty of rasa and alaṅkāra in kāvya. Both these terms are given a new significance in this work. Though both rasa and alaṅkāra were very familiar concepts long before Ānandavardhana, there had been no scientific or systematic distinction drawn between them. Thus Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin could regard rasas in poetry as forming an alaṅkāra viz. rasavad. Contrariwise, Daṇḍin could assert that alaṅkāras called forth rasa in poetic content. (cf. कामं सर्वोऽलङ्कारो रसमर्थे निषिठति। Kāvyādarśa). Ānandavardhana thinks that this promiscuous use of the words reveals only absence of precise thinking about the soul of poetry. In his own deeper analysis which penetrates to dhvani, both rasa and alaṅkāra acquire quite precise connotations. They become names of two clearly distinct levels of beauty in poetry.

Throughout the treatment of Ānandavardhana, rasas, or, more precisely, rasādis have an objective existence and are not merely subjective states of the reader, as made out by Abhinavagupta. They are different shades of emotions, feelings, moods and sentiments, depicted by the poet in relation to characters or personified nature in his poetic work, through a description of suitable vibhāvas etc. Besides these suggested elements, the poem is bound to have another layer of beauty in the very medium artistically handled by the poet. This latter beauty is to be clearly distinguished from

Dhvanyāloka

the former. In Ānandavardhana's language, the former beauty is vyaṅgya while the latter is vācya. But in any given passage, which order of beauty is relatively more appealing is the question par excellence before the sahrdaya. His literary judgement consists only in deciding in each individual case one of them as predominant ( aṅgin ) and the other as ancillary ( aṅga ). According to this dhvani analysis, then, that which is held as predominant decides whether one is dhvani or alaṅkāra. Rasa, thus, can appear not only as dhvani but also as alaṅkāra. If rasa is suggested and is also predominantly beautiful, i. e. if alaṅkāras are serving as its handmaids, it is naturally dhvani. But on the other hand, when, though rasa is suggested, it in itself becomes subordinate to the beauty of the vācya or alaṅkāra, rasa cannot be regarded as dhvani, and is functionally on a par with alaṅkāras, and deserves to be designated, therefore, by the name rasavadalankāra. [For a critical exposition of rasavadalankāra, see M. Hiriyanna's paper thereon, P. O. C. XVI.]

L. 10 : तथथा चादिशु...दर्शयन्ते- Cf.

प्रेयोऽग्रागतं कृष्णमवादीद्विदुरो यथा । अथ या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि ग्रहागते । कालेनैषा भवेत्प्रीतिस्ततवैवागमनात् पुनः ॥

Kāvyalaṅkāra

Bhāmaha

Bhāmaha's Kāvyalaṅkāra, III-5.

According to Bhāmaha it is the figure of sweet flattery that predominates in verses known as cātus. Rasādis become subordinate to it. Bhāmaha maintains that a loving celebration of the elders, gods, kings, sons etc. is the figure of sweet flattery —

भामहेन हि गुरुदेव्रपतिपुत्रविषयप्रीतिवर्णनं प्रेयोऽलङ्कार इत्युक्तम् ।

Locana

brings in poetic charm is that which is predominant ( Vide : Locana ).

Ll. 13-16 : Quoted by Vallabhadeva in his Subhāṣitāvalī [ 2570 ] anonymously. In this verse a lady in her dream encounters her smiling husband. “ Since I know how cunning you are, I shall keep you chained in my arms; you shall not go,” says she. ‘ Ruthless ’ etc. refer to his faults for which he is lovingly rebuked. Her innocence is implied. As all this is the result of a dream, it disappears as soon as the lady wakes up. In this verse the lament of the widowed queens of the enemy, who meet their beloved only in a dream, is pathetic no doubt. But the pathos is made subordinate to the heroism of the king who is eulogised. Hence Karunarasa is said to be an alaṅkāra here.

L. 17 : The sthāyibhāva of Śoka when roused by the disappearing of the dream turns out to be the sentiment of Pathos ( Karunarasa ) when it comes to be felt. Since it becomes an auxiliary to the celebration of the royal mightiness, it is only a figure, viz. Rasvadalai̇kāra. Its poetic charm is unquestionable, especially when compared with a prosaic statement like “your foes were killed by you”. The charm of the verse owes itself to the pathos. Things like ‘ face ’ may get embellished by ‘ moon ’ etc, thanks to similarity; in other words, similes etc. become instrumental in setting forth the beauty of things natural. In the same way, a vastu or a rasa when aided by another rasa becomes beaútiful. Hence there is no discrepancy in a rasa becoming an alaṅkāra any more than a vastu becoming one. The question ‘what beauty does a rasa add to a natural sense ?’ may be met with a counter-query ‘ What beauty does a simile bring in ?’ If the answer is that “ a simile compares’, then the parallel reply is “ rasa sweetens ( सरस ) the natural sense ”. There is no room then for a specious objection like ‘ What does rasa embellish among the vibhāvas etc.’ We have settled definitely that prastuta-artha itself is the alaṅkārya; not vibhāvas etc. [ Vide : Locana ].

P. 44. Ll. 3-6 : Amaruśataka, 2. Unlike the previous example, we have here a mixture of pathos and love, both subordinated to the chiefly intended glory of Śiva.

L. 7 : श्लेषसहितस्य — This is a double entendre because in one sense it refers to the lover and in the other sense to the fiery

shaft. In the first instance the tears of the ladies are due to jealousy; in the second to chagrin as there would be no hope of reunion left.

L. 8 : अत एव...—The rasa which is auxiliary here is supported by a figure of speech. Hence it is not pure. Though the verse contains Pathos, the text does not speak of it in reference to vipralambha; because Pathos does not bring beauty in the context. Only jealousy going with vipralambha adds charm as an alaṅkāra. But it is an auxiliary; not the purport of the sentence. Had it been the purport, even a shadow of Pathos—which is a sentiment hostile to Love—could not have been brought in. Vipralambha being a form of Eros (रति), has hope or expectation for its basis; whereas Pathos, a form of grief (शोक) is founded on hopelessness. Hence the two are incompatible. ( Vide : Locana ).

Ll. 9f. : Whenever any rasa is not intended by the poet as all-important, it ceases to be dhvani and becomes an alaṅkāra even like simile etc. But if it is primarily intended, it rises to the status of dhvani.

यत्राहि...— That is, including simile etc. The same principle involved in rendering the simile etc. figures of speech, holds good also in the case of Rasādis. By principle is meant the presence of something else that has become alaṅkārya. That alaṅkārya may even be a vastu. For, in such a case the vastu itself is transformed into a vibhāva etc. and dissolves itself in the purport of sentiment etc. Thus, in the final analysis, it is the Rasa-dhvani that emerges as the ‘soul’ everywhere. ( Vide : Locana ).

L. 16. तस्यो...ड्रष्टा: - The meaning is this : At first sight it would seem that a figure like simile has expressed sense for its alaṅkārya. But as a matter of fact, the embellishment or figure is nothing other than the capacity to signify suggestive sense. That would make Dhvani itself an alaṅkārya in reality. It is true things like ear-ring, necklace etc. become embellishments by their contact with the body. But what they embellish is not the inert body, it is rather the conscious ego or the spirit, the basis ( आलम्बन ) for the suggestion as to the state of the wearer’s mind, or the propriety of the occasion. In the absence of the ego to be embellished, ornaments like ear-ring fail to add beauty to a dead corpse. Also things like wristlets will bring in only

ridicule if a hermit wears them, for in such a case there would be an incongruity with respect to the soul, though not to the body. Thus, it is clear that it is the 'soul' that is the alaṅkārya. This is further borne out by a statement like 'I am adorned' (Vide : Locana).

P. 46. Ll. 3f. : If such a functional distinction is not made, confusion would result everywhere in distinguishing alaṅkāra-dhvani, rasadhvani, rasavadalaṅkāra and upamādi alaṅkāras. Udbhata seems to have held that all human psychological behaviour is the subject of rasavad-alaṅkāra. Such a view would restrict the province of all the other alaṅkāras like simile. If the view were to be extended to include personified treatment of nature also, there would be no scope left at all for any other alaṅkāra. On the other hand, if rasa should be denied to the latter, then it would be a denial of felt beauty in all such examples. Either course would be improper. But Ānandavardhana's view which distinguishes two orders of beauty keeps in tact the contributions of vācya alaṅkāras as well as vyaṅgya rasa.

P. 59. L. 5 : तथोपरमादीनां.....स्यात् — The implication of the adversity is that as the insentient objects lack mind and senses and consequently sentiments etc., only figures like simile will have a place there.

Ll. 7 ff. अथ तस्यामपि...स्यात् — This is reductio ad absurdum. The adversary maintains that a Rasavad-alaṅkāra may be present only where there may also be Rasa. In that case, argues Ānandavardhana, a vast bulk of literature would be devoid of any sentiment (नीरस) just because it cannot have Rasavad-alaṅkāra [What could be a greater sin than that ?]. Whereas according to the Dhvani-theory lack of sentiment (नीरसत्व) is not a necessary conesequence of absence of Rasavad-alaṅkāra. Rasa-dhvani may as well be present there.

Ll. 10–13. Kālidāsa, Vikramorvasīya, IV. 28.

Ll. 15–18. , , , IV. 38.

P. 48. Ll. 2–5. These are the words uttered by Kṛṣṇa now at far away Dvārakā, when he meets a cowherd coming from Bṛndāvana. The sight of the cowherd takes Kṛṣṇa back in memory to the shores of the Yamunā. His pangs at the separa-

Dhanyaloka

tion from his beloved Rādhā are again roused as he recalls the one-time excitants of his love — those bowers on the shore ( uddīpak vibhāv ) and the company of the milk-maids and Rādhā ( ālamban vibhāv ).

L1. 8-9. यस्मान्नास्त्येव...विभावत्वेन — It may be that Sāttvika bhāvas like stupor, and horripilation are described as effortless in their manifestation. But because they are consequent states ( anubhāvas ), they do point to a sentient being. Similarly, when the most inert objects like the moon, a garden etc. are described, their role is to act as excitants ( vibhāv s ) of emotion; apart from this, they have no room in poetry. This is the fundamental difference between literature on one hand and science ( शास्त्र ) and ‘history’ ( इतिहास ) on the other. ( Vide : Locana ).

L. 11. किञ्च — An additional reason is adduced to show how Rasa is the object of embellishment. ( Cf. Locana ).

Kārikā 6 : This simile became the common stock of all succeeding writers on Poetics.

L. 16. तथाच — This is in answer to the query “ why call sweetness ( mādhurya ) etc. qualities of Rasādis when they are attributes of śabdārthas ? ”

Kārikā 7. Since Eros ( रति ) is present instinctively in gods, men and irrational beings, there is no one of them who cannot find delight in it. Hence, figuratively we may say Eros itself is sweet. Actually, sweetness is a quality of Rasas like Love. It is only by transference that we attribute it to śabdas and arthas. These last possess it in so far as they are capable of conveying the sweet Rasa that is Love ( Vide : Locana.).

P. 50. L. 2 ; श्रव्यत्वं पुन: — This is the view held by Bhāmaha. Bhāmaha maintained that words which sound sweet and are not excessively compounded characterise a ‘sweet’ poem. This view is rejected here. Cf.

श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थं काव्यं मधुरभिष्यते । Kāvyālankāra, II 3.

L. 2. ओजसोऽपि — For, the verse ‘यो य: शास्त्रं ...’ is full of both ‘Ojas’ and sweet-sounding words.

Kārikā 8 : Love in union ( सम्भोगशृङ्गार ) is ‘sweet’. Love in separation is sweeter; Pathos is sweeter still. Thus there

are degrees in 'sweetness'. Similarly the śabdārthas suggesting rasa may be regarded as sweet, sweeter, and sweetest ( Vide : Locana. )

L. 6. माधुर्यसेव - If 'sweetness' is to be found also in Pathos, is not the phrase रञ्जार एव meaningless in Kārikā No. 7 ? Not so. By एव we do not mean to deny sweetness to other rasas. What is intended by एव is that qualities like sweetness are in reality to be found only in the rasa which is the soul, but by extension of meaning they may be attributed to śabdārthas ( Vide : Locana ).

L. 10. रौद्रादयो-like Raudra, i. e. the Heroic ( वीर ) and the Marvellous ( अद्भुत ).

Ll. 13-16 : Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa, Venīsaṃhāra I. 21.

P. 52. Ll. 1–4 : Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa, Venīsaṃhāra III. 32.

L. 5. At this juncture Locana adds :-Indignation ( क्रोध ) has been let flow in यो यः शास्त्रं ..., until it has reached its climax.

Thus sweetness and excitement are rival. Their mixtures in various proportions are what we have in हास्य, भयानक, बीभत्स and शान्त Rasas. In हास्य both sweetness and forcefulness are in equal proportions. In भयानक however, forcefulness predominates; so also in बीभत्स. In Śānta, now one may predominate, now the other. The same mutual relationship applies to all the nine Rasas. ( Vide : Locana.).

L. 9. Locana comments in this connection :—Thus sweetness, forcefulness and perspicuity — these are three qualities that are required and sufficient. Bhāmaha too holds on to these only. They have a direct function to fulfil in the fruition of the rasas; by indication, however, they are extended to śabdārthas suggestive of rasas.

Kārikā 11 : For श्रुतिदुष्ट and other verbal flaws, see Bhāmaha, Kāvyālaṅkāra, I. 47 ff. Also Daṇḍin, Kāvyādarśa, III. 125 ff. श्रुतिदुष्ट is the flaw instanced in words that bring indecent associations; e. g. विट्, वान्ते, हिम्, अपण्डित etc.

L. 13. रञ्जारे - According to Locana, the erotic in the context should include वीर, शान्त and अद्भुत. For, the flaws mention-

ed above will be felt as such in these sentiments also. In बीभत्स, हās्य and रौद्र however, they may cease to be blemishes.

L. 14 : ध्वन्यालोक्येव ... उद्दाहता: — The instances quoted by Bhāmaha wherein these cease to be defects contain rasas other than śṛṅgāra. Cf.

तथा हि विरुद्यमाणानां कारणं मदविकारोऽत्र । मदह्निकपोलानां द्विरदानां चतुरश्राति ॥

Kāvyālaṅkāra, I. 57 b & 58a

Hence Ānandavardhana's guess is quite brilliant.

P. 54. Kārikā 12 : भज्ज्ञानां stands for 'alaṅkāras' ( Locana ).

P. 56. Kārikā 14—In this and the following Kārikās the author breaks entirely new ground. He reveals a taste which was unknown in the earlier period of decadence.

P. 58. Kārikā 16—In point of fact none of the दुष्कर-यमकs are conducive to any rasas. And yet in order to win over the large number of the blind literati who suffer from a distorted aesthetic sense, Ānandavardhana seems to reduce the domain of the blemishes to अलङ्कार, at any rate विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. ( Locana ). Cf.

" Images, however beautiful, however faithfully copied from nature, and as accurately represented in words, do not of themselves characterise the poet. They become proofs of original genius only so far as they are modified by a predominant passion, or by associated thoughts or images awakened by that passion." Coleridge, Biographia Literaria. Cf. also :

" Figures naturally impart assistance to, and on the other hand, receive wonderful aid from sublime sentiments…A figure, then seems most dexterously applied when it cannot be discerned that it is a figure." Longinus, On the Sublime, P. 139 ( Cassell's National Library Edition ).

Ll. 10–13 : Amaruśataka. As the heroine refusing to give in sits there sighing and shedding tears, with her chin cupped in her hand, the hero would win her over artfully. While he delightedly savours the heroine's consequent states ( अनुभवs ) like jealousy or love-in-separation, figures like हेतु-उत्प्रेक्षा and व्यतिरेक flood to his mind without effort. The connoisseur too likewise would be able to enjoy the rasa without an obstacle ( Locana ).

According to Arjunavarmadeva, the figure of speech is Apahnuti. Abhinavagupta says that the figures instanced here are, "Śleṣa, Rūpaka, Vyatireka, and so forth." But the existence of these figures in no way impedes a grasp of the sentiment of love.

L. 16 : यमके च...हप: - Examples like Ghatakarparakāvya, Nalodaya and Śiśupālavadha XIX may be quoted in galore from Sanskrit literature. L. 20 : सेतो = सेतुबन्धमहाकाव्ये. It is a Prakrit art-epic by Pravarasena; sometimes ascribed to Kālidāsa.

P. 60. L. 1 : Read चैतत्, यतो रसा in the text. L. 4 : रसाभासे ...Rasābhāsa is a technical expression whose connotation differs from writer to writer. In the eyes of later writers like Hemacandra and Viśvanātha, attribution of complete sentimental behaviour to insentient objects is rasābhāsa. So understood, verses referred to from the Vikramorvaśīya above ( P. 46 ) will be very good instances. But Abhinavagupta thinks that incompleteness or deficiency in the subjects sentimentally described is rasābhāsa. He quotes a verse of his own as example wherein speech is said to be lacking in charm though equipped with all excellences and ornaments until she succeeds in winning the fascination of her dear husband, Śiva (cf. श्रेष्ठु सौभाग्यफल हि चाहता—Kālidāsa, Kumārasambhava, V 1). Abhinavagupta adds that this is rasābhāsa because real śṛṅgāra is impossible so long as the heroine is lacking in excellences or ornaments as stated in Bharata) to the effect "Love relates to youths, gorgeously dressed, etc." ( यत्सौभाग्यप्रकर्षनतनयन्ति स्मरमवलम्बनमकः ); cf. Locana, pp. 199-200 Kashi Sanskrit Series Edn. The precise sense in which Ānandavardhana is using the word is not clear. For a further discussion on this, see K. Krishnamoorthy, Essays in Sanskrit Criticism, Karnatak University, Dharwar, 1964, p. 74 ff.

P. 62. ll. 12–15 : Kālidāsa, Śākuntala, I. 22. L. 16 : Others have seen in this description figures like Rūpaku and Vyatireka ( Locana ).

P. 64. ll. 2–3 : The suggested idea is that Rāhu's head was severed by the discus of Viṣṇu, though it continued to live trunkless. Plainly stated, there is no beauty in this idea. Hence the Periphrasis which adds beauty to it. According to the

Dhvan'yāloka

ancient school of critics, the verse is figurative because there is a euphemestic turn given to an otherwise ordinary idea. According to Ānandavardhana, the figure is so for an entirely different reason; viz. because it gets the touch of śṛṅgāra-rasa. Śṛṅgāra-rasa here is not primary, but accessory since the context is one glorifying Viṣṇu and not one describing the amours of Rāhu's wives. It is only in such cases where rasa is present and yet subordinate, that an alaṅkāra gets importance and acquires real beauty.

Ll. 7-10 : Harṣa, Ratnāvalī, II. 4.

L. 11 : It is appropriate in that it paves the way for the succeeding ईष्योऽ विप्रलम्भम्. It suggests contextually a rasa which the hero will shortly enjoy ( Locana ).

The expression उपमा-श्लेष occurring here and also श्लेष-व्यातिरेक occurring below ( P. 66 line 3 ) are unique names of mixed or compound figures. Such compound titles of alaṅkāras are conspicuous by their absence in all early alaṅkāra works. Since Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana mention only संकर and Rudraṭa mentions only संसृष्टि as a single head of mixed figures, they have no relevance to Ānandavardhana's discussion regarding the alaṅkāra in रकसत्वं etc.

Yet it is only Rudraṭa who gives for the first time a rule that any two mixed figures in a given example may be designated by a new compound name formed by adding the individual names of both. This rule is not mentioned even by Daṇḍin and Udbhata. ( Vide : Rudraṭa, Kāvyālaṅkāra X. 24 :

एषां तु चतुर्णामपि संकीर्णानां स्युरगणिता भेदाः। tस्मानास्तेषां लक्षणमंशेषु संयोज्यम् ॥

on which Namisādhu has this comment:- tतस्मान इति - येषामलङ्काराणां मिश्रभावस्त एव मिलितास्तेषां नामेत्यर्थः ।

This fact throws a new light on the relative dates of Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana. It becomes an unmistakable proof for Rudraṭa's priority to Ānandavardhana. This is a point missed both by Abhinavagupta and by modern scholars. The usual opinion held is that Ānandavardhana is not familiar with

Rudrata's Kāvyalainkāra

Rudrata's Kāvyalainkāra. But the passages adduced above go to establish that Ānandavardhana could not have used the nomenclature of श्लेष etc. at all if he had not studied Rudrata's text.

But here as elsewhere Ānandavardhana is also heavily indebted to Udbhata in holding that संसृष्टि is the name of separable figures and that these are distinct from the varieties of inseparable figures called by the name संकर. Ānandavardhana thinks that in रक्तस्तवं we have संसृष्टि of श्लेष and वयतिरेक since they do not overlap. On the other hand in उद्दामोत्कलिकाम there is a संकर of उपमा and श्लेष. The पूर्वपक्ष view quoted under रक्तस्तवं urges that it is also a case of संकर only and hence the compound designation श्लेषण्यतिरेक applies to it. Ānandavardhana refutes this view.

But later writers like Mammata and Viśvanātha hold a different opinion regarding the distinction between संकर and संसृष्टि.

ll. 14–17 : Hanumānātaka, V. 24. रक्त may mean either red or love-possessed. The red hue of the Aśoka vine works as a stimulus ( उद्दीपनपक ) for the hero's love. Hence it is हेतुश्लेष. Sahokti, Upamā, and Hetu—these three may favour ( अनुग्राहक ) a Śleṣa ( Locana ).

P. 66 : Ll. 12–15 : Mayūra, Sūryaśataka, 23.

P 68. ll. 5–8 : Yaśovarman, Rāmābhyudaya, cf. ZDMG. XXXVI, p. 521.

ll. 12–15 : Amaruśataka, 9,

L. 16. There would have been great impropriety for instance if the metaphor of the arm-noose had been prolonged by describing the lady as a tribal woman and the bed-chamber as the prison's enclosure.

P. 70. ll. 1–4 : Kālidāsa, Meghadūta II. 54.

P. 72. L. 12 : cf. Udbhaṭa, Kāvyālainkārasaṅgraha :- एकप्रयत्नोच्वार्याणां तुच्छायां चैव बि᳒िताम् । स्वरितादिगणाभ्र्रैर्नैरन्त्यैः श्लेषमाह्रयेत ॥ अलंकारान्तर्गतां प्रतिभां जनयत्पदैः । द्विविधैरर्थशब्दोक्तिविशिष्टे तत्प्रतीतयताम् ॥

Dhvanyāloka

P. 76. Ll. 2-3 : Quoted also by Hemacandra as an example of Madhyama-Kāvya — Kāvyanuśāsana, Ch. II.

Ll. 6-7 : चमहिषुं ... Hemacandra quotes this verse and explains it as an example of figures suggesting new ideas (vastu). Here the metaphor of ‘arm-bolts’ suggests according to him that the hero does not stand in need of any military force as horses or elephants for his conquests—Kāvyanuśāsana. p. 79, (Bombay Edn.).

L. 12. तत्र…एव—This figure Vakrokti in this specific sense was not recognised by early writers like Bhāmaha, Dandin, and Vāmana. But the idea is quite common in later works like Ruyyaka’s Alankārasarvasva.

But it is interesting to note that it is already traceable in Rudrata’s kāvyālainkāra II, 14-17. Jacobi attempts to infer that Rudrata also could not have been earlier than Anandavardhana and brings him under King Śankaravarman of Kashmir.

Cf. WZKM, II, p. 155 and ZDMG, 56, p. 763 fn. Hence this becomes the earliest reference to the specific figure of speech Vakrokti in a restricted sense.

P. 78. ll. 4-5 : Bāṇa, Harṣacarita, II.

ll. 7-8 : Ascribed to Śakavddhi in the Subhāṣitāvali.

ll. 10-13 : Mayūra, Sūryaśataka, 9.

P. 80. ll. 4-5 : Bāṇa, Harsacarita, III.

ll. 11-12 : ,, ,, I.

P. 82. ll. 11-12 : Kālidāsa, Kumīrasambhava VI. 84.

The divine sage referred to here is sage Angiras according to Kālidāsa and as correctly explained by Mallinātha. He is not Nārada as wrongly interpreted by Jagannātha (Rasagangīdhara, vol. I. Edited Madhusudan Shastri, Benares Hindu University, 1963, p. 374) and following him by Nāgojibhatta (op. cit.).

J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan have discussed elaborately the issue arising out of Anandavardhana’s words साक्षाच्छब्दनिवेदितेभ्य: as epithets of not only vibhāvas and anubhāvas but also of vyabhicāribhāvas which are admittedly vyangya and

Notes

not vācya. Their article is entitled—‘ Solution to a Long-confused issue in the Dhvanyāloka’ and is published in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, September-December 1972. pp. 48–56 :—

Notes

Abhinava is supposed to provide the solution to the seeming contradiction. “ If we have correctly understood the Locana, he is explaining the words Sākṣāchabdanivedita to mean; that the apprehension of rasa etc. is vyavadhi-vandhyaiva i. e. it takes place without any delay, immediately. In other words, he is saying that Ānanda only intends sākṣāt in the Vṛtti to mean “ immediately ”. One must not construe it with Śabdaniveditebhyah. And this is in keeping with the doctrine, where rasadhvanipraṭiti must be jhaṭiti, “ immediate ”. What then are we to do with Śabdaniveditebhyah? It will apply only to the vibhāvas and the anubhāvas, which must of course always be svasabdanivedya. In other words, the word sākṣāt does not stand for sva, nor is it used in the same sense in which it is used elsewhere in the D. Āl. (e. g. p. 80 where it definitely means svasabdanivedita ). We admit that this is somewhat unusual and it is not absolutely certain that Abhinava intends to explain sākṣāt by vyavadhivandhya, but we submit that this is the only possible solution to the problem.” (Thick type ours).

Notes

In fact it is not the only possible solution and it does not explain Abhinava's stand correctly either. It reads all that Abhinava said about the general nature of asainlakṣyakrama-vyaingya as implied in the word sākṣāt without any justification. They have made a hair-splitting distinction between sākṣāt śabdanivedita and svasabdanivedita which is unwarranted. Because Ānandavardhana himself has used an identical expression viz. साक्षाच्छब्दनयापारविषय in explaining rasa as beyond the pale of direct communication [ supra, p. 10, L. 17 ]. But at the same time they aver that ( sākṣāt ) śabdanivedita means svasabdani-vedita with reference to vibhāvas and anubhāvas contained in the phrase vibhāvānubhāva-vyabhicārībhyaḥ and deny that it has that sense with reference to the third member of the same compound word ! I cannot think of a more glaring ardhaja-ratiya, which involves self-contradiction too !

They have ignored that Ānandavardhana has used the expression twice in the IV Uddyota again under Kārikā 5 while discussing the dominant rasa of the Mahābhārata. They are—

(१) ...सर्वरसगर्भीतवं च महाभारतस्य तस्मिन्नुदेशे स्वशब्दनिवेदिततत्वेन प्रतीयते ।

(२) ...मोक्षस्य च सर्वपुरुषार्थेभ्यः प्राधान्यमित्येतत् स्वशब्दाभिधेयतयेनानु-

क्रमण्यो दर्शितम्, दर्शितं च न्यायैरप्यतद्वेन ।

These passages leave no doubt about the meaning of svaśabda-nivedita which is vācyārtha as distinguished from vyaṅgyārtha. There can be no difference at all in the meanings of śabdanivedita, sākṣāt-śabdanivedita, sva-śabdanivedita, and sva-śabdābhidheya which are undoubtedly synonyms.

Is there no other solution then to the vexed problem of self-contradiction noted by me for the first time in my ‘Dhvanyāloka and Its Critics’ (P. 226)? Masson and Patwardhan State :——“And long before Krishnamoorthy the great commentator on the Kāvyaprakāśa, Śridhara,…found this equally disturbing”, suggesting that they have first noticed it. But the fact is that I have noted it myself in my footnote to the above passage. They quote my sentence with the preface—‘consternation all about!’ suggesting my utter confusion, while all that I stated was “here indeed is a glaring contradiction on the face of it.” Why they ignore my phrase ‘on the face of it’ and talk of ‘consternation’ is what I cannot understand.

The seeming contradiction can be solved in the light of the general philosophy of Dhvani itself :—Vyaṅgyārtha is are vyaṅgya, i. e. distinct from and more strikingly beautiful than vīcya. The first two have a vīcya status also in addition to a vyaṅgya status. But rasādis have only one status i. e. vyaṅgya as they are never vīcya. They are not vastu; they arise only when they are primarily suggested through a poem. But supposing they are not primarily suggested and they are secondary to something else. Then their status is reduced from that of Dhvani to that of Alaṅkāra, though they are vyaṅgya incidentally. Let us suppose again that the rasādis are suggested neither primarily nor secondarily but are conveyed directly or indirectly like so many vastus in the vīcya or the guṇa way. What would

be their status? They would cease to be rasa or alankāra or even vyañgya-vastu. All this is from the point of view of 'vyañgya' which is related to the point of view of 'vyanjaka'. The problem under discussion relates to the vyanjaka standpoint vis-a-vis the vyañgya.

A subtle point in the Dhvani theory which is often missed is the joint participation of both śabda and artha in the process of dhvani, in its triple vyañgya possibilities. Outside poetry, śabdas convey only two types of artha or meaning viz., the vācya and the lakśya. They do not have any vyanjanā or suggestive power at all concerned with beauty. But in poetry, the last alone is the most fundamental and primary consideration for the use of words. Śabdas can become vyanjaka, and arthas also can become vyañjaku. When śabda or artha is vyanjaka of vastu and alainkāra, the critic can distinguish two consecutive levels in his comprehension of the meaning, viz. the earlier vācya and the vyañgya following in its wake. Hence both the varieties of such dhvani, viz. śabdaśaktimūla– and arthasaktimūla—are designated by the title samlakśyakramavyañgya and both are described as anusvānopama or anurananarūpa i. e. like resonance.

But in the most important variety of rasādivyañgya, śabda and artha both contribute towards the vyañgya, so swiftly and conjointly that it is impossible almost to distinguish any ordered sequence between the referential and the emotive meaning. As soon as the śabda is uttered, the vācyārtha is felt along with the vyañgyārtha. It is such a unique phenomenon which Ānandavardhana has to analyse. In his analysis, he drops the word artha because it is common to poetry and non-poetry and uses the word vibhāvādi which has exclusive reference to poetry. His usage of the word vibhāvādi should not mislead us into thinking that he is talking of anything other than artha, or to be more precise, the vācyārtha itself. So understood, how all examples of asamlakśyakrama-vyañgya-dhvani are suggested by vibhāvādis which are śabdanivedita becomes easy to follow. In fact all these examples are arthanivedita in the sense that they are suggested along with the vācyartha but arthas are śabdanivedita. So in an adroit use of the langauge he apparently dispenses with artha altogether though he has given full recognition to it

Svanyaloka

as vibhāvādi itself when he talks of vyabhicāribhāvas as svaśabdanivedita: Such vyabhicāribhāvas, even like their associate vibhāvādis must end up in rasa at once if they are to be termed asamlakṣyakrama. That is to say, they won't permit any enjoyment of them as vyabhicāribhāvas distinct from rasa.

Ānandavardhana has never described rasa as svaśabdanivedita while he is prepared to characterise vyabhicāribhāvas as such. Why is it so ? This is the central point at issue. The vyabhicāribhāvas indeed have a dual role. As indicated clearly by Bharata in his famous rasasūtra, they might serve as promoters of rasa. Or else, they might themselves become the ultimate meaning intended by the artist when they would become primary even like rasas meant to be developed in a work. In the former capacity they serve merely as means to the end of rasa. But in the latter capacity, they become ends in themselves. This seems to be the general idea of Ānandavardhana.

Bearing this functional distinction in mind, Ānandavardhana can class the vyabhicāribhāvas under two heads; once under the head of rasādi when they are fully manifested and independently treated and then under the head of vibhāvādis when they serve no better purpose than suggesting rasas, being then as good as vācyārthas or vācyavasthus. It is well known that vibhāvādi gets directly described in words, because, as already pointed out, vibhāva is identical with artha ( cf. Abhidheyaneva … vibhāvādi-kaiḥ - Locana, on our text p. 12. line 4 ). This applies equally to vyabhicāribhāvas. Hence it follows that when vyabhicāribhāvas are on a par with the vibhāvādis in being śabdanivedita they serve as means to the suggestion of rasa. This is exactly why rasa is called asamlakṣyakramavyangya. Simultaneously with vibhāvādi and vyabhicāribhāvas, rasa also is felt at once by the man of taste. And all men of taste get the same feeling or delight without any effort.

If on reading the verse एवं वादिनि etc. every man of taste could feel the mood of lajjā exclusively and pointedly without any intervening thought-process, it would also be an instance of asamlakṣyakrama. But this is not so. The sahrdaya's experience is more like vastudhvani where out of the two or three possible explanations of the situation described that occur to

him, he chooses one in preference to the others according to his taste. The process involved here is more intellectual and less emotional than in the enjoyment of rasa. It is nothing but emotional in the case of rasādi. Thus though it is comparable to inference, it is not logical but aesthetic.

Now let us look at the verse from the vyañjaka standpoint of the dhvani theorist. We saw how the vyabhicāribhāva is not śabdanivedita. What else could it be ? Assuredly it should be arthānivedita or implied by sense (अभिधेयसामर्थ्योक्षितं to use Ānandavardhana's own expression). Such sense implications may involve more than one suggested possibility. In this instance Pārvati's action of counting lotus petals might be as much due to her girlish pranks as to her lajjā. Thus lajjā here is not śabdanivedita and hence it is not an accessory of any full-fledged सम्बोगशृङ्गार. The context does not favour it. It is only an instance of samlaksyakramavyangya-vastudhvani.

We should not forget that the seemingly contradictory statements arise from his applying to one and the same example two different standpoints viz. vyaṅgya and vyañjaka. From the vyaṅgya standpoint to any emotive meaning, rasa or bhāva, which comes so sweepingly and overpoweringly to the sahṛdaya with the vācyārtha that he cannot distinguish the two, we must give the designation of asam̉laksyakrama. But from the vyañjaka point of view, if vācyārtha alone comes first and vyaṅgyārtha is an afterthought, it has to be classed as sam̉laksyakrama though it may be a bhāva. In a given instance like एवं वादिनि the critic might apply both these standpoints and characterise it as sam̉laksya or asam̉lakṣya as he chooses. Ānandavardhana is himself aware of this as clearly mentioned by him here (इह तु सामर्थ्योक्षितस्याभिचारिमुखेन रसप्रतीतिः।) and later in the words स्वप्रभेदसंकीर्णतया कदाचिद्युगपयानुभावकभावेन। यथा ‘एवं वादिनि’ इत्यादौ (P. 502 BP. Ed.) on which the Locana comments :—लज्जया हि प्रतीतयाभिलाषशृङ्गारोऽनुगृह्यते वयभिचारिभूततैवेन.

To take an example of an asam̉laksyakramavyaṅgyavyabhicāribhāva, we may take the first two lines of the erotic verse of Amaru शून्यं वासगृहं ... (See p. 268 infra). There the lajjā of the mugdhā nāyikā directly contributes to śṛṅgāra. In एवं वादिनि

Dhvanyāloka

however, there is no such immediate association of śṛṅgāra, because it has to be supplied from earlier contexts in the epic. In the former we have a wholly emotive or evocative use of language, while in the latter the emphasis is on the referential side.

Bhāvas which are reduced to the level of referential facts are certainly to be distinguished from highly emotive meanings in poetry. Such a distinction has to be made even while considering bhāvas which are generally classed under rasādis.

All this lengthy discussion would serve to show how vyabhicāribhāvas like lajjā can be sometimes described as śabdanivedita and at other times as arthanivedita or abhidheya-sāmarthayākṣipta. The problem of Ānandavardhana was to coin a new critical vocabulary not only to give a general theory of aesthetics but also to highlight practical literary analysis. The seeming contradiction appears because he uses the same expression śabdanivedita to cover these two aspects. But a close study of the book should help in discovering that there is no cause for ‘costernation’.

P. 84. L·3 : यथा कुमारसंभवे — The reference is to the third canto. ll. 9-10 : Cf. Kāvyādarśa II. 261.

P. 84. Kārikā 23 : The compound word शब्दार्थशक्त्या apparently denotes only शब्दशक्ति and अर्थशक्ति. But the vṛtti has explained it as including the third शब्दार्थशक्ति also. The Locana removes the apparent variation between the two by dissolving the compound as an एकशेष including all the three entities :- शब्दश्व अर्थश्व शब्दार्थश्व चेत्त्येकशेषः. The Bālapriyā explains this as follows :- शब्दश्व अर्थश्व शब्दार्थश्व; शब्दार्थश्व च शब्दार्थश्व न शब्दार्थः; तेषां शक्त्या

P. 86. ll·2-5 : Ascribed to Rudrata in the Subhāṣitāvalī. L·11 : See P. 76 supra for fuller citation.

P. 86. Kārikā 24 : The word प्राधोक्ति is used for the first time by Ānandavardhana in the nistory of Sanskrit poëtics. As interpreted by Abhinavagupta it means an adroit expression capable of bringing the intended matter into association with the expression. — उत्कृष्टपि समर्पयितव्यवस्तुप्रपञ्चोचिता प्राधेत्युद्यते । This explanation is something merely etymological and vague. In the context it is clear that Ānandavardhana is using the word

Praudhokti in sharp contrast to svatah-sambhavi, or 'naturally possible'. The subject described may be either natural or imaginative. Praudhokti refers to the latter. A subject which is true only in the poet's imagination and not to be seen in the natural world comes to be called प्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्नशरीर. Bhoja in his Sarasvatīkanthābharana has given a better description of Praudhokti :-

उक्ते: प्रौढ: परिपाक्र: प्रोच्यते प्रौढिसंज्ञया। ( I. 77 ).

Though Mammata uses this word in the same sense as that of Ānandavardhana, commentators like Govinda Thakkura, Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa and Vāmanāchārya Jhalakīkar wrongly take it to mean Kavi-sampradāya or Kavisamaya. Ānandavardhana has apparently distinguished this from Kaviprasiddhi when he says-

शब्दार्थयोरबहारे च प्रसिद्धिरेव प्रमाणम्। while commenting on a utprekṣādhvani in ग्रामाकुलः etc. [ under II·27 ].

Later writers, however, like Jayadeva, Appayya Dīkṣita and Jagannātha regard the Praudhokti as an independent alaṅkāra by narrowing down its scope. Cf.

प्रौढोक्तिस्ततदशक्तस्य तच्च्छक्तत्वावकल्पनम् । कलिन्दजातीरोहा: इयामलाः सरलद्रुमाः ॥ ( Candrāloka, V. 47 )

Cf. also : Kuvalayānanda 125: and Rasāṅgādhara; Ch. II.

The word प्रौढोक्त is used by some Alaṅkāra-writers in the general sense of a hypothetical admission for the sake of argument. Cf. मडनायकेन तु न्यायन्यायापारस्य प्रौढोक्त्याभ्युपगतस्य काव्यांशातवं नयगभावितशब्दार्थस्वरूपस्य न्यायापारस्यैव प्राधान्यमुक्तम् । - Ruyyaka, Alaṅkārasarvasva, R. P. Dwivedi's Edition, Varanasi, 1971, p. 24. Jayaratha in his विमर्शिनी thereon brings out the force of this expression as follows :- प्रौढोक्त्येति । न पुनर्लक्षणकरणेन । अत एव उक्ते: प्रौढत्वं यल्लक्षणं तदश्रयं तस्याप्यनुपगम: ।

That is to say, provisional acceptance of a position which defies proof. But it is accepted as an alaṅkāra in a technical sense by Jayadeva, Appayya Dīkṣita and Jagannātha as already noted.

Dhvanyāloka

They all agree that when an unreal reason is adroitly adduced by the poet to explain an effect, we get examples of प्रौढोक्ति or ‘fanciful expression’. But Ānandavardhana uses it for the first time with reference to the theme of poetry. If the theme is self-existing in the world of nature, it is स्वतःसंभवि. If it exists only in the imaginative expression of the poet or the character created by the poet it is प्रौढोक्तिमिद्ध. It is merely the product of the speaker's imagination and has nothing corresponding to it outside his mind. As in the verse, सज्जेढ……the basic idea, free from all embellishment by the poet is that in spring mango blossoms come out together with tender leaves. But this idea has not got any suggestiveness until it is transformed by the speaker's imagination. The transformation consists mainly in making the spring sentient (though it is really non-sentient), cupid an archer, flowers into arrows and the young ladies into targets. Unlike Rūpaka or metaphor, here a whole situation is fancied by the poet. Ānandavardhana gives another verse where a similar idea is expressed without any प्रौढोक्ति, viz. सुरभिसमये (Infra, p. 270, Ll.16-17). What is suggested in the previous verse by the प्रौढोक्ति of the poet is here openly expressed (रागवतामुक्तकलिका:) and that accounts for the comparative dullness of this verse as Abhinavagupta puts it in his comment on the latter, झटितिसमुचितेर्धं का हयता। Yet there is no alañkāra here coming under any formal pattern recognised by the writers. It is vastu or subject; but प्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तु i. e. subject invented by the imaginative expression of the poet himself.

For a fuller discussion of this see : K. A. Subramania Iyer, The concept of Praudhokti in Alañkāra-śāstra, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras XVI, 1946-7, pp. 20-31.

P. 88 : L. 8 : See p. 28 supra for fuller citation.

Ll. 14-15 : It would be interesting to compare in this connection Aristotle's distinction of subjects into possible and probable.

L. 15 : See p. 82 supra for full citation of एवं वादिनि ...

L1. 19–20 : Hāla, Saptaśatī, 173.

P. 90. L. 5 : महो कृतादिभि: — Cf.

Kāvyālaṅkārasaṅgraha

अलङ्कारान्तरवक्ष्यां यत्कृतत्वा धीषु बन्धनम् । असं देहोदपि सं देहकं सं देहनाम यत् ॥

P. 92. L1. 7–10 : As Abhinavagupta points out, the expressed figure here is śleṣa, while the suggested figure is rūpaka.

L. 18 : विषमवाणलीलायां — We are told by Abhinavagupta that the theme of this Prakrit art-epic of Ānandavardhana was Cupid's triumph over the three worlds.

L1. 19–20 : Here atiśayokti is the figure expressed while upamā is the one suggested.

L1. 24–25 : Apparently this is a citation from the lost work Hayagrīvavadha by Bhartrmentha.

P. 94. L. 9 : As the Locana explains, the expressed meaning stops with the idea that the fruit of the Aśoka is unlike the sweet fruits of trees like the mango. But by suggestive force of the word 'fruit ' we make out that the successful fruition of even royal efforts rests with Fate. That is why the suggested universal statement deriving support from the particular instance quoted is arthāntaranyāsa.

L. 17 : प्राकप्रदर्शितमेव — The reference is to the verse रक्तस्तवं... (p. 64 supra.)

P. 96. L. 9 : Cf.

Kāvyādarśa

Dandin

मन्ये खाद्र धुवं प्रायो नूनमित्येवसादिभि: । उत्प्रक्षा व्यज्यते शब्दैरिवशब्दोऽपि तादृशै: ॥

L1. 16–19 : Māgha, Śiśupālavadha, V. 26.

P. 98. L1. 2–3 : Māgha, Śiśupālavadha, III. 53. The question may be asked whether there is अनुरणनध्वनि in statements like the following : 'Devadatta has grown stout; but he does

Dhvanȳaloka

not eat by day'. Here the abhidhā does not rest with its own sense. We have अभरणध्वनि only when there is a change over in sense even after the abhidhā is complete. This general consideration is provided in the Locana, while discussing श्लेषध्वनि.

L. 5 : श्लेषप्रतीति...विवर्तंते — Since all the attributes can apply equivocally to both terraces and women.

L. 11 : Abhinavagupta gives in his Locana on this several examples of other suggested figures viz. Dīpaka, Aprastutapraśaṁsā, Apahnuti, Sasaṅdeha, Prativastūpamā and Atiśayokti.

Kārikā 28 : This Kārikā forcefully sums up the author's attitude towards the place of figures in poetry. So long as the alaṅkāras are only vācya, they do not deserve to be regarded as part and parcel even of the external body of poetry i. e. śabda and artha. Even for those who do not recognise dhvani, alaṅkāras will be but extrinsic elements of grace ( cf. कायस्थ शोभायाः कर्त्तारो धर्मा गुणाः । तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलङ्काराः—Vāmana, Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra III, 1–2 ). But if they enter into relationship with dhvani, they will really become intrinsic elements of charm. Here we have a strikingly novel review of the use of figures.

In this connection the Locana comments :-- But does not the beauty-spot with which a belle marks her forehead seem distinct from her body even though somehow one with it ? Is it not a fact that however artfully a poet may strive to endow them with a naturalness, the alaṅkāras hardly become one with the body of poetry ? a fortiori, how are they to appear as a 'part' of the soul ? The answer is that even when the suggestion plays but an ancilliary part, it invests the alaṅkāras with a charm untraceable in their expressed state. It is like the special status a 'King' acquires even if it be in the children's game.

P. 102. L1. 7–8 : Hāla, Saptaśatī, 110.

L1. 15–16 : Hāla, Saptaśatī, 874. वाणी रकड्कणो etc. The suggestion is that the paramour has already arrived at the rendezvous ( already agreed upon ). This sense is ancillary to the expressed.

L1. 22–23 : Hāla, Saptaśatī, 959.

UDDYOTA III

P. 106. L. 1. एवं वयङ्ङ्यमुखेनैव...so long the nature and varieties of suggestion have been exposed from the vyañgya standpoint.

The author here introduces the discussion on the varieties of suggestion from the standpoint of ‘Suggestor’ (वयञ्जक). In a sense former varieties like ‘unmeant expressed’ etc. also are suggesters. The word or sense becomes subordinate when suggestion is prominent. In unmeant expressed, the expressed sense is completely neglected while in ‘meant but further extending expressed sense’ (विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य) suggestion becomes prominent (प्रधान). In that case the ‘sense’ also becomes suggester. Therefore it is from the standpoint of ‘suggested’ (वयङ्ङ्यमुख). The sense becomes suggested and also suggester. But the letters, words, etc. can never become suggested. They are always suggesters. Therefore, Ānandavardhana deals with those varieties here and says ‘from the standpoint of suggester’ (Locana).

L. 7: सतैता: ... श्रिय: - Mahābhārata, V, xxxviii. 38.

L. 9: क: सन्नद्धे ... जायाम् - Kālidāsa, Meghadūta I. 8.

L. 11. किमिव हि मधुराणाम् - Kālidāsa, Śākuntala, I. 15.

P. 108. L. 3-4: या निशा ... मुने: - Bhagavadgītā II. 69.

P. 110. L. 12: सज्जेहि सुरहिमासो — See p. 88 supra, for full citation.

L1. 17-18—Hāla, Saptaśatī, 951.

P. 114. Kārikās 3 & 4 :-Positively and negatively, facts are adduced to show how letters play a part in the portrayal of sentiments. We have the negative argument in Kārikā 3, and the positive argument in Kārikā 4. The Locana has taken pains to show how the words in the Kārikā are to be split as ते न वर्णा in Kārikā 3, and तेन वर्णा in Kārikā 4 to maintain the logical force of the argument. This has been followed in our translation. The Locana also refers to the significant use of the locative case in Kārikā 2, while enumerating the vyañjakas of rasadhvani such as varṇa, pada and so on. This indicates that they all participate in their

own way in the suggestion of rasa. They should not be taken to imply that they can solely and wholly suggest rasa by themselves. The direct causes of rasa are only vibhāvādis and not letters etc.

L1. 15-18 : Māyurāja, Tāpasavatsarājacarita, Act. II.

P. 118. L 1. : स्मरनवनदी etc. — Ascribed by Vallabhadeva to Narasimha.

Kārikās 5 & 6 : The concept of Sainghatanā is presented and discussed at length here for the first time in the history of Sanskrit Poetics. It was only mentioned in passing in the vṛtti on kārikā I. 1. Since Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana do not use this word, we have to guess that Udbhata must have been responsible for a full-fledged theory of Sainghatanā, while explaining the substratum of guṇas. We all know that both guṇas and alaṅkāras belong to śabda and artha of kāvya. How to distinguish a śabda-guṇa from a śabdālaṅkāra or an arthaguṇa from an arthālaṅkāra? Udbhata thought that the beauty of śabda or artha as such is only alaṅkāra. But beauty due to an artistic arrangement of śabda or artha by the poet comes to be regarded as guṇa. This has been hinted at by Abhinavagupta in his Locana on the vṛtti of kārikā, I. 1 : — द्विविधं चाङ्गत्वम् — स्वरूपमात्रनिष्ठं, सङ्घटनाश्रितत्व । तत्र शब्दानां स्वरूपमात्रकृतं चारुत्वं शब्दालङ्कारेभ्यः । सहृटानाश्रितं तु शब्दगुणेभ्यः । एवमर्थानां चारुत्वं स्वरूपमात्रनिष्ठमुपमादिषु । सहृटानापेक्षतिं त्वर्थगुणेभ्यः ।

[ NSP. Edn. 1935, P. 6 ]. It follows, thus, that saṅghatanā is the basis of all guṇas and is intimately related to them. But Ānandavardhana is concerned here not with proving whether guṇas are the basis of saṅghatanā or vice versa, though he dwells on both the possibilities at length. His purpose is to point out how saṅghatanā too participates in the suggestion of particular rasas. It is a unique speciality of the Sanskrit language that it can provide for the use of short, long or medium-sized compounds. And saṅghatanā primarily has reference to the usage of samāsas only with a view to artistic effect. For a fuller discussion see : K. Krishnamoorthy, Some Thoughts on Indian Aesthetics and Literary Criticism, Mysore University, 1969.

P. 120. Ll. 8-9 : यो यः शाब्दं ...— See p. 52 supra for full citation.

P 124. L 11

उत्तमदेवताविषयप्रतिष्ठित्संभोगशृङ्गार — This happy reading as against the current reading उत्तमदेवताविषयप्रसिद्धसंभोगशृङ्गार is found in the Moodabidre manuscript used for the first time in this edition. Neither the Bālapriyā nor J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan ( Śāntarasa and Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics, BORI, Poona, 1969 P. 11, fn 1 ) have noticed the inadequacy of the current reading. Abhinavagupta is positive that उत्तमदेवताविषयप्राप्त्यशृङ्गार is a flaw, as revealed in his other statements.

The reference is obviously to Kālidāsa, Kumārasaṁbhava, Canto VIII.

P. 126

L. 1. यो य: शास्त्रं ... — See p. 52, supra for full citation.

L. 5 : तत्र वक्रोक्ति:— See supra p. 86, l. 14 and p. 88 l. 1.

P. 128

Ll. 10–11 : यो य: शास्त्रं — See p. 52, supra for full citation.

P. 130

Ll. 7–8 : तथा ह्यमरुकस्य...एव—Cf. the saying अमरुककवेरेक: श्लोक: प्रभृतन्ध्वनातयते । ( i. e. one verse of Amaruka is as good as a whole work ).

P. 134

Kārikā 12 : The sandhis are five phases in the development of the dramatic plot roughly corresponding to Introduction, Rising action, Climax, Denouement and Catastrophe. The sandhyai̇gas are the various intermediate stages that form a sandhi and are sixty-four in number. For a detailed account of these see Nāṭyaśāstra, XIX, 37 ff. and Daśarūpaka. I. 22 ff.

P. 138

Ll. 7–8. This is an important verse. This verse states the novel view of Ānandavardhana on defects. Earlier writers dealt with faults that might occur in the usage of words, sentences, and the senses conveyed in poetry. They even discussed whether defects are positive or negative. But Ānandavardhana being रसभङ्गनिवादिन् considers defects and merits also in relation with sentiments. So for him impropriety in the delineation of sentiment is the gravest blemish. This actually becomes the guiding principle for later writers to write on defects in poetry. Rasabhaṅga or hindrance to the even progress of sentiment is the gravest blemish which is a result of impropriety.

Dhvanȳaloka:

The principle of propriety is the widest and it covers each and every part of poetry as M. M. Kuppuswami Sāstri declares— औचितीमनुधावन्ति सर्वे ध्वनिरसौष्ठया: । गुणालङ्कृतिरीतीनां नयाश्रान्तजुषां च या: ॥ ( Highways and By-ways of literary criticism in Sanskrit,— P. 27. )

Later on Ksemendra develops the theory and goes to the extent of saying that it is the soul of poetry. ( ‘काव्यस्य जीवितम्’ औचित्यविचारचर्चा ).

But it will be seen that propriety is decided on the basis of sentiment. It is not an independent principle like rasa and it would be absurd to say propriety exists even without rasa.

Abhinavagupta

Abhinavagupta observes— उचितशब्देन रसविषयमेवौचित्यं भवतीति दर्शयन् रसध्वनेरीजिवितत्वं सूचयति । तदभावे हि किमपेक्ष्येदमौचित्यं नाम सर्वत्रोद्भोष्यत इति भाव: ॥ Locana ( P. 45, BP. Edn. )

V. K. Chari

Cf. “ There can be no universal theory of poetic excellences and blemishes, [ Guna and Doṣa ] for the sole determinant of these excellences or blemishes is their function in a given context.”—V. K. Chari, The Language of Poetry, The Indian Journal of English Studies, Vol IV. No. 1, pp. 10 f.

L. 9 : अत एव च भरते — See Nāṭyaśāstra XVIII—10.

Aristotle

P. 142. L. 7 : … कवेरन्युत्पत्तिसंभावना...—Cf. Aristotle's remarks on the different provinces of the Poet and the Historian—“ It is not the Poet's province to relate such things as have actually happened, but such as might have happened, such as are possible, according to probable or necessary consequence. . . The Historian and the Poet are distinguished by this that the one relates what has been, the other what might be. On this account Poetry is a more philosophical and a more excellent thing than History; for, Poetry is chiefly conversant about general truth, History about particular. ”—Aristotle's Poetics, H. Morley's translation, ( Cassell's National Library ) p. 32.

Notes

P. 142. Ll. 14-15 : Abhinavagupta remarks — स्वेच्छा तेषु न योज्या, कथम्चिद्वा यदि योज्यते तत्प्रसिद्धरसविरुद्धा न योज्या । यथा रामस्य धीरललिततत्त्वयोजनैन नाटिकानायकत्वं कश्चित् कुयादिति तत्त्वयन्तासमञ्जसमू ॥ ( Locana )

L. 16 : Abhinavagupta ascribes it to Yaśovarman, the author of the drama called Rāmaabhyudaya. The verse quoted in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa is as follows — औचित्यं वचसां प्रकृत्यनुगतं, सर्वत्र पात्रोचिता पुष्टिः स्वावसरे रसस्य च, कथासार्गे न चातिक्रमः । शुद्धिः प्रस्तुतसंविधानकविधौ प्रौढिश्व शब्दार्थयोः विद्धि द्विद्रिः परिभाव्यतामवहितैः एतावदेवास्तु नः ॥ ( Quoted by Dr. V. Raghavan; Some Concepts of Alaṅkāraśāstra, p. 205. )

P. 144. L. 1 : यथा कालिदासप्रबन्धेषु — Abhinavagupta remarks that the chronicles which form the sources of Kālidāsa's Raghuvaṃśa do not relate the wedding of Aja and such incidents.

L. 2 : यथा च मदीय एवाजुनचरिते — Abhinavagupta points out that incidents like Arjuna's conquest of the netherworld which occur in this poem are invented by the poet only and have no basis in the earlier chronicles.

Ll. 6-8 : रसादि...पेक्षया — The five stages in the action of the hero towards the achievement of his goal are called Pañca-avasthās by Bharata and they are — 1. Beginning ( Prārabbha ), 2. Effort ( Prayatna ), 3. Possibility of goal's realisation ( Prāpteḥ sambhava ), 4. Certainty of goal's realisation ( Niyatāpti ), and 5. Realisation of goal ( Phalayoga ). The parts of the plot ( Itivrtta-khaṇḍāḥ ) that relate to these are respectively called mukha, pratimukha, garbha, avamarśa, and nirvahana according to Abhinavagupta. He also opines that the artha-prakṛtis or factors that ensure the intended goal, bīja ( seed ), bindu ( unexpected extension ) — patākā ( sub-incident ) and prakarī ( mixed incident ) also may come in when the hero's goal is to be secured only by the efforts of his minister — and kārya ( attainment of goal ) are included in the concept of sandhis. For details see Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra, XXI. 20 ff.

Dhvan'yāloka

L. 17 : हृयन्ते च …प्रबन्धेषु — As an example of this overfondness for figures, at the expense of rasa, Abhinavagupta quotes a verse from the drama Svapnavāsavadatta — स्वकृतपक्ष्मकवाटं नयनद्वारं स्वरूपताडेन । उद्दाव्य सा प्रविश्टा हृदयग्रहीं मे नृपतनुजा ॥

P. 146. L. 4 : तथ्यथा मधुमथनविजये — Abhinavagupta quotes the relevant verse from the Prakrit poem, Madhumnathanavijaya :- लीलादाढा हूअदूअसअल्ममहिमण्डलसक्खिअ अज्जो ! कोस्सम्हुणालाहरतुज्जाइ भञ्ञञ््मि ॥ (?)

L. 5 : विषमवाणलीलायाम् — The friends in question are Spring, Youth, Malaya breeze and others. Abhinavagupta quotes one verse said by Youth :- मिहअवहणिडअरोओ णिअकूसो अविवेअरहिओ वि ! सवण्णि वि तुमाम्मे पुण्णोवअन्ति अ अताणन्ति पसुविअत्ति ॥ (?)

L. 6 : यथा … महाभारते — Mahābhārata, XII. 153. The story is very interesting. The corpse of the son just dead is taken to the cemetery by the bereaved father and relatives for purposes of funeral rites. A vulture who wants to feed upon the corpse while yet it is day tries to persuade the men to go back early —

'How terrible this cemetery is with vultures and jackals ! Everywhere there are skeletons frightening living beings. There is none who can live on for ever and escape death. Whether it is a friend or a foe, death is the natural end of all creatures...' A jackal whose intent is to feed upon the corpse after nightfall when the vultures would not trouble him, argues with the men that they should stay at least till it gets dark - 'See, the sun is still shining ! Be affectionate yet. This moment is most unholy and the boy may yet come back to life. Oh, how his body shines like gold ! He has hardly stepped into youth. Are you like fools deserting him without a qualm on the words of a vulture ?...'

Hanumān­nātaka

Ll. 12-15 : Hanumān­nātaka, IX. 15. Quoted also by Hemacandra (Kāvyānuśāsana, NSP. p. 181 ) and Viśvanātha.

L. 17 : तत्र ‘मे यदरयः:’ ... न्यज्जकतवम् — The references are to words in the original Sanskrit verse and cannot apply for obvious reasons to the translation.

Mahābhārata

P. 148. Ll. 10–11 : Mahābhārata, I. 128. 6.

Meghadūta

Kālidāsa

Ll. 16–17 : Kālidāsa, Meghadūta, II. 19.

Saptaśatī

Hāla

P. 150. Ll. 2–3 : Hāla, Saptaśatī, 706.

Saptaśatī

Hāla

Ll. 8–9 : ,, 961.

Vikramorvaśīya

Kālidāsa

Ll. 20–21 : Kālidāsa, Vikramorvaśīya, IV. 10.

Śākuntala

Kālidāsa

P. 152. Ll. 2–3 : ,, Śākuntala, III. 23.

Śākuntala

Kālidāsa

Ll. 6–9 : ,, ,, I. 14.

Sūryaśataka

Mayūra

L. 11 : Mayūra, Sūryaśataka, 4.

Ll. 12–13 : मनुष्यवृत्या... — Abhinavagupta has given the verse in full :-

मनुष्यवृत्या समुपाचरन्तं स्वबुद्धिसामान्यकृतानुमानः । योगीश्वरैरप्यधुबोधमीश त्वां बोदुमिच्छन्त्यबुधास्त्वत्कृतैः ॥

Kumārasambhava

Kālidāsa

L. 14 : भडो बतासि ... — Kālidāsa, Kumārasambhava.III. 20.

Dhvan'yāloka

P. 154. L. 6 : The construction of this sentence is rather awkward. In पौनरुक्त्यं प्रयुज्यमानं शोभामावहति, the word प्रयुज्यमानं seems to be redundant. Perhaps पदं is to be understood before प्रयुज्यमानम्.

Ll. 14—15 : Hāla Saptaśatī, 675.

P. 156. L. 12 : उक्तमन्त्र … वसन्तं — See supra, p. 83 and cf. p. 41.

L. 14 : शब्दविशेषाणाम् … प्रदर्शितम् — By Udbhata, in his Bhāmahavivaraṇa, according to Abhinavagupta.

P. 158. L. 2 : किमिदं सहृदयत्वं नाम —

Cf. “All the same, the principle of reader participation can be looked at in terms of the lamp and the jar — the stated meaning, when the reader makes contact with it, acts upon an existing capacity within him for response to symbolized emotion, and the suggested meaning is rendered manifest in his consciousness. Sanskrit theory, as we saw in the last chapter, assumes that when the sensuous correlates of the emotion activate one of the emotional sets latent in the reader, the supreme aesthetic response is evoked. It also assumes that only the reader whom nature or nurture has equipped with a special sensibility can respond in this way. As Lascelles Abercrombie says… ‘ …the author must rely on his readers' ability to respond to what his language can only suggest… It is the sense of language, that makes the enjoyer of literary art '. This type of reader goes to work actively on the poem— on this showing, being illuminated is not a passive role for the jar but an energetic act of response.” — Krishna Rayan, Suggestion and Statement in Poetry, London, 1972, p. 56.

Cf. also :— “ To the majority of people aesthetic pleasure means a state of mind which is essentially indistinguishable from their ordinary behaviour. It differs merely in accidental qualities, being perhaps less utilitarian, more intense, and free from painful consequences. But the object towards which their attention and consequently, all their other mental activities, are directed is the same as in daily life : people and passions. By art they understand a means through which they are brought in contact with interesting human affairs. Artistic forms proper — figments, fantasy — are tolerated only if they do not interfere with the

perception of human forms and fates. As soon as purely aesthetic elements predominate and the story of John and Mary grows elusive, most people feel out of their depth and are at a loss what to make of the scene, the book or the painting. They have never practiced any other attitude but the practical one in which a man's feelings are aroused and he is emotionally involved; a work that does not invite sentimental intervention leaves them without a cue."

— Jose Ortega Y. Gasset Weyl ( Spanish writer translated by Helene ), The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968, p. 9.

P. 156, L. 17 : यत्रापि.....— Abhinavagupta explains : The words like स्तक, चन्दन etc. even though they are not suggestive of erotic sentiment in a given place, they add charm to the meaning almost suggestive of it because their suggestive capacity is familiar to 'us' in other places. Thus in ( तटो तारां तनुते ) sensitive critics prefer the feminine form ( तटी ) to masculine and neuter forms of the word तट on the principle न्रीति नामापि मधुरम् :

Even names are beautiful if they are feminine.

स्तकूचन्दनादिशब्दानां तद्गानां शृङ्गारादिव्यञ्जकत्वाभावे'पि व्यञ्जकत्व-शक्तितेरभूयसा दर्शनात्तदधिवासितचन्द्रीभूतमर्थे प्रतिपादयितुं सामर्थ्यमस्ति । तथाहि- ' तटी तारं ताम्यति ' इत्यत्र तटराश्रयस्य पुंस्त्वनपुंसकत्वे अनाहतय ब्रीत्वमेव-श्रितं सहृदयैः ' न्रीति नामापि मधुरम् ' इति कृत्वा ।

Kuntaka quotes the whole verse तटी तारं ताम्यति and also says न्रीति नामेव पेलकम् । ( Vakroktijīvita III. 22 ). Probably Abhinavagupta might have been acquainted with his work. A similar idea occurs in Kāmandakīya Nītisāra also —

नामापि न्रीति संद्धादि विकरोत्येव मानसम्म । कि पुनर्दर्शनं तस्य विलासोल्लासितभ्रुवः ॥

But in this verse the word नाम means perhaps the name ' woman '. So it is not probable that Abhinava took the verse from Kāmandaka.

It does not appear plausible that Kuntaka quotes the verse after reading Locana. However we cannot say anything on the priority of Kuntaka to Abhinavagupta on this meagre evidence. Both of them might have taken it from some common source.

ध्वन्यालोक:

Pp. 158–60. Kārikās 17-19 : Cf. “A third sort of imperfection in the pathetic is that which Theodorus has named the Parenthyrse, or an ill-timed emotion. It is an attempt to work upon the passions, where is no need of pathos; or some excess, where modification is requisite. For some authors, as if from the efforts of intoxication, fall into passionate expressions, which bear no relation at all to their subject, but are whims of their own, or borrowed from the schools. The consequence is, as might be expected, that they meet with nothing but contempt and derision from their unmoved audience — transported themselves, whilst their hearers are calm and unexcited ” — Longinus, On the Sublime, p. 100.

P. 166. Ll. 13–14 : यथा वा … वर्णने — Bāna, Kādambarī, p. 146 ( Ed. Peterson ).

Ll. 15—16 : श्रमिमरति — See supra, p. 76, for full citation.

P. 168. L. 2 : कोपात्कोमल—See supra, p. 68, for full citation.

L. 4 : क्षितो हस्तो—See supra, p. 44. for full citation.

P. 172. Ll. 7–8 : Mahābhārata, XI 24. 19, spoken by the wives of Bhūriśravas at his death in the battle; cf. also for the description of the battle in which he fell, op. cit. VII. 142.

P. 182. Ll.5–6 : Mahābhārata, XII, 174. 46; 177. 51.

L. 13 : तदेवमस्ति शान्तो रस:— J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwardhan in their Śantarasa and Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics ( BORI, Poona, 1969 ) add the following note on this text cited by them —

Ānanda is seriously concerned with showing that śāntarasa does exist. ( pratīyata eva and asti śānto rasaḥ.) It is, therefore, likely that this was a controversial point in the ninth century (indeed it has remained controversial until the present day ). Since the kārikās mention all of the eight rasas by name at some point or another, there is absolutely no reason why they should not have mentioned śānta, had śānta been known to their author. The fact that Sānta is never mentioned in a single kārikā leads us to believe that their author was unaware of its existence ( at least of its

formal existence as a rasa, though there is no reason why he should not have known about śānta as an attitude ), and most probably, therefore, lived before the time of Udbhata, the first author to mention śānta as a rasa ( p. 95, fn. 6 ).

This is indeed a strange argument from silence. Even if the Kārikākāra were held to be different from Ānandavardhana, he could not have been earlier than Udbhata whose views are hinted at by him. ( But, for arguments supporting their identity see, K. Krishnamoorthy, Dhvanyāloka and its Critics. Kavyalaya, Mysore, 1968, Chapter III ). We know positively that Udbhata mentioned Śānta as a ninth rasa ( V. Raghavan. The Number of Rasas, Adyar Library, Madras, 1967, p. 13 ) and the Kārikākāra could not have been ignorant of it. Masson & Patwardhan are not justified in thinking Udbhata to be later than the Kārikākāra because the concepts of saṅghatanā and kāvyavṛttis ( cf. III last kārikā ) mentioned in the kārikā are clearly a reference to Udbhata's doctrines. Further, as already noted by Raghavan, Śāntarosa is known under the name of Prośānta to an early canonical work of the Jains viz. Anuyogadvārasūtra, whose date is very much earlier than Udbhata's ( Loc. cit. p. 66 ).

P. 186. Ll 11-12. नाटकादिगोष्ठी ... वतारिता - cf. Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, ch. I. This well known idea is echoed by Mammata in his saying-काव्यं यशसे ... कान्तासम्मिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥ Kāvyaprakāśa. I. 2.

Ll. 16-17 : Attributed to Vyāsa in Kṣemendra's Aucitya-vicāracarcā.

P. 188. L. 17 : कैशिक्याद्या वृत्तय: — cf. Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, ch. XX.

P. 194. L. 8 : गावो व: — See supra, p. 78 for full citation.

P. 198. L. 13 : त्रोड़ायोगा ... — See supra, p. 78 for full citation.

P. 200. Ll. 4--5 : यतः ... रास्थितम् — Perhaps the Sphoṭa-vādins are meant.

P. 200. L. 10 — घटप्रदीपन्याय: — In the words of a modern exponent of the Dhvani theory [ Krishna Rayan, Suggestion and Statement in Poetry, London, 1972 ], “ the ' founding

Dhvan'yālokaḥ

metaphor ' to apply Richards' phrase [ I. A. Richards, Speculative Instruments, London, 1955, P. 41 ] of the central poetic in Sanskrit - the Dhvani Poetic - is the lamp and the jar. The metaphor identifies the two factors of suggestion as the suggestor and the suggested. On the one hand, there is stated meaning, which is the suggestor; and on the other, there is suggested meaning. The lamp is stated meaning ( vūcyārtha ); the jar is suggested meaning ( vyañgyārtha ), which it illuminates and reveals. The metaphor was used by Sanskrit critics, although probably not quite in the manner Richards has in mind, as an instrument for analysing and describing the relationship and comparative status of stated and suggested meanings. This, I think, is a unique enquiry; a full-length study of poetic meaning as dual and hierarchical has not been, as far as I know, undertaken elsewhere. ( Pp. 52–53 ) … The use of the lamp-jar metaphor as an instrument of reflection in ninth century Sanskrit Criticism yielded several insights into the behaviour of the stated and suggested components of meaning when the suggested component is emotion and the stated component is its objective correlatives. … In the first place, the jar was already there, the lamp only revealed it. The lamp and the jar are a conventional formula in Indian philosophy for stating the theory of manifestation. Applied to poetry, the theory sees the process of suggestion as the revealing of what is already there rather than as the presenting of anything new ( P. 55 )… The second observed feature of the lamp-jar relationship is that the lamp continues to shine even after the jar has been illuminated ( P. 56 )… ( thirdly ) the lamp not only reveals the jar but reveals itself. ( P. 57 )…Sanskrit theory makes the point that, strictly speaking, the suggested meaning is apprehended, despite the apparent simultaneity, after the stated meaning and indeed through it and is governed by it. Language, we may add, cannot suggest unless it has first stated, and then what is stated is the base which supports what it suggests. Sanskrit criticism calls this Vācyārthāpekṣā ( dependence on stated meaning ) ( Pp. 57–58 ) … ( fourthly ) the lamp and the jar are not necessarily found together. Inference is based on the invariable concomitance of the middle term and the major term; stated and suggested meaning have no such relationship ( P. 60 ). ”

This is indeed a very perceptive and penetrating explanation of the maxim of the jar and the lamp employed by Ānandavardhana. But colonel G. A. Jacob has misunderstood the implications of this maxim in his Laukikanyāyāñjalih, Part II, Bombay ( NSP ) 1909, p. 26. He writes :

" Ghatapradīpanyāyah — The simile of a lighted lamp inside a vessel. Raghunath 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 Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka as the following extract will show:— ' न त्वेष...वाच्यावभास: । Abhinavagupta when explaining Dhvanyāloka I. 12 refers to this passage in the following words :— अत एव...न विरोधः । According to these great authorities on alaṅkāra, therefore, the nyāya 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 absolutely essential as a basis for the figurative meaning which it also conveys. "

Jacob and Raghunatha are both wrong in thinking that a lighted lamp is ever placed inside a vessel. It is something inconceivable in Indian life. In Indian poetics as well as philosophy the analogy of the jar and the lamp is used in quite a different sense as seen above. They refer simply to the object illuminated (ghata) and the light (pradīpa) illuminating it. That the analogy was very much in vogue in philosophical circles even before the time of Ānadavardhana is corroborated by a reference to it by Bhartrhari in his celebrated work Vākyapadīya ( II. 298–299 ). He says :—

घटादिषु यथा दीपो येनार्थेन प्रयुज्यते । tतोऽन्यस्यापि सञ्चार्य्यात् स करोति प्रकाशनम् ॥ संश्रित्य तथा दृश्येऽपि शब्दो येन प्रयुज्यते । तदर्थप्रकाशनायापि प्रयोक्तॄणां प्रसिद्धये ॥

[ Ed. K. V. Abhyankar & V. P. Limaye, University of Poona, 1965, p. 41 ].

Dhvan-yāloka

This reference is clinching and shows to what extent Ānanda-vardhana is indebted to Bhartrhari here as elsewhere.

P. 204. L. 6 : लीलाकमल ... See supra, p. 82 for full citation.

P. 208. L. 17 : ... प्रिये जने नास्ति पुनरुक्तम्—See supra, p. 30 for full citation.

P. 210. Ll. 2-3 : सुवर्णपुष्पां ... See supra, p. 28 for full citation.

P. 214. Ll. 16-18 : कृत्रिमशब्दार्थे...मवतरति--Buddhist logicians also may be understood by this reference since they hold that the relation of word and its meaning-is non-eterna1.

P. 224. L. 1 : शब्दप्रकारेऽ्य:--To be taken apparently in the sense of शब्दग्यापारेऽ्य: and not in the sense of शब्दभेदेऽ्य:.

P. 226. Ll. 1–2 : (1) The words ‘dark lilies’, ‘moon’, ‘temples of elephant’, ‘plantain stems’ and ‘lotus stalks’ suggest respectively the eyes, the face, the breasts, the thighs and the arms of the damsel that is being described. The words are literally inapplicable to the lady and hence have lost their primary meaning; but suggestively, however, they convey the idea. But these suggested meanings are subordinated to the expressed sense that she is a new ocean of Beauty. The context is a description of the woman's beauty clearly indicated by the words-'who is this maiden here’ (अपरैव हि केयम्). The suggested beauty of the various expressions becomes subordinate to the expressed idea-that she is an ocean of Beauty. Hence, this is an example of the poetry of subordinated suggestion.

Abhinava strikes an important note on this—

The expressed sense becomes a विभाव for the love of the hero. Then, from the final Rasa-Dhvani point of view, even the expresed sense becomes subordinate. Further he says, it is the case in all the examples of poetry of subordinated suggestion :-

अत एवेयति यथापि वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यं तथापि रसध्वनौ तस्यापि गुणतेति सर्वेऽस्य गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यस्य प्रकारे मन्तव्यम्।

(2) A second type of instances are found when the suggested idea becomes subordinate to expressed sense retaining its meaning. This second variety is similar to the suggestion based on primary sense (अभिधामूलध्वनि). The example अनुरागवती... illustrates this.

P. 226. L. 5 : अनुरागवती सन्ध्या ... See supra, p. 22 for full citation.

L. 6 : सड्ढेतकालं ... See supra, p. 84 for full citation.

Ll. 7-8 : आधिकारिकवाक्यापेक्षया -- obviously means प्रधानवाक्यार्थापेक्षया.

L. 16-17 : लक्ष्मी हरिणा ... Abhinavagupta explains the suggested sense as follows :-‘ Laksmī or wealth is related to Hari and Gaṅgā on the one hand and to Moon and Nectar on the other. That is to say, wealth can be obtained through devotion to Hari and bathing in the Ganges; and once wealth is got, one can enjoy the pleasures with Moon and Nectar. In other words, the wealth is best spent on wine in the company of women on moonlit nights ’. Though beautiful in itself, this suggested sense is suppressed by the contextual primary meaning, viz., ‘ The family of the mighty ocean is extraordinary. ’

P. 230. L. 10 : प्रभिमहत्यो ... See Kālidāsa's Kumārasambhava, I. 28.

P. 230. L. 11 : तदेवं...भाग: — If we understand the nature of the poetry of subordinated suggestion, we can understand the nature of all the poetic figures. It becomes the general definition of all the poetic figures; for, the so-called poetic figures or alaṅkāras deserve that name only when they are pre-eminently beautiful. And beauty is brought about only by suggestion either principal or secondary. If the underlying suggestive beauty is not recognised, we are liable to regard all comparisons as similes, all identifications as metaphors and so forth. Abhinavagupta writes a notable paragraph to illustrate this point —

मूलकथिता इति यत्किल्बषां तद्विनिमुक्तं रूपं तत्काव्येऽलंस्यथेनेयम् । उपमा हि ' यथा गौस्तथा गवय ' इति । रूपकं ' खलेवाली यूप ' इति । श्लेष: द्विवचनेऽचीति तन्त्रातमक: । यथासंख्यं, ' तुदीशालातुरेति ' । दीपकं ' गामश्वम् ' इति । ससंदेह: ' स्थानुरिव स्यांत् ' इति । अपह्नुति: ' नेदं रजतमिति ' । परिकरोकतं ' पीनी दीवा नातीनिति ' । तुल्ययोगिता ' स्थाद्वोरिव्च ' इति । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा सर्वाणि ज्ञापकानि यथा पदसंश्नायामन्तवचनम् ... ' अन्यतत् संश्नाविच्छा प्रतयत्यप्रग्रहणे तदन्तर्विधिरिति ' इति शाब्देप्रश्लेषोभयन् विभागाद् विकल्पाभिप्रायविशेषाभिहितस्य वा इह तद्वपि विधे: पूर्वनिदिष्ट-नात् प्रतिषेधेन समीकृत इति न्यायात् । अतिशयोक्तित: — ' समुद्र: कुण्ठका विन्ध्यो वर्धितवान्कवेःर्माग्नात् ' इति ! एवमन्यत् ।

Dhvan'yālokaḥ

Even though they have the elements of figures enumerated above, we cannot call them poetic figures, for, they lack charm contributed by the presence of guṇībhūtavyaṅgyaṁ. Figures thus become truly so only when they are helped by the underlying suggestion.

P. 232. L. 17 : स्वस्था भवन्ति ... Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa, Veṇīsaṃhāra, I. 8.

P. 234. Ll. 2-3 : Hāla, Gāthāsaptaśatī, 417.

P. 236. Ll. 1-2 : Kālidāsa, Kumārasambhava, VII, 19. Ll. 4-5 :--Bhāravi. Kirātārjunīya, VIII. 14.

P. 236. L. 9. गुणैरादिन्त... —See supra, p. 82. for full citation.

P. 236. Kūrika 40 :-This is very important. Even the instances of the poetry of subordinated suggestion assume the form of Dhvani when viewed from the standpoint of sentiment. That is, when sentiment is the main purport, then individual instances also come under Dhvani. Sentiment is the underlying principle which governs the whole. An individual part may not be very beautiful in itself while we analyse a beautiful object. But that particular part also might become beautiful when we appreciate the beauty of the whole. However this is not strictly logical.

Abhinavagupta notes a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the verses quoted. According to an earlier commentator ( he may be Candrikākāra ), in these instances, the suggested meaning is subordinated to sentiments. That is why these instances also can be called Dhvani when viewed from the Rasa standpoint. But Abhinavagupta strongly opposes that view and ridicules him.—

यस्तु त्रिष्वपि इलोकेषु प्रतीयमानस्यैव रसाख्त्वं व्याचष्टे स म स देवं विकीर्ण तथाऽन्योत्सवमकार्षीत् ! एवंहि व्यङ्ग्यस्य या गुणीभूतता प्रकृता सैव समूलं हृदयेत् । रसादिव्यातिरिक्तस्य हि व्यङ्ग्यस्य रसाखभावयोगित्वमेव प्राधान्यं नान्यत् किश्चिदिति भले पूर्वंवद्ये: सद्द विवादेन ॥

P. 238. L. 3 : न्यक्कारो...—See supra, p. 146 for full citation.

P. 240. Ll. 4-7 : Ascribed to Dharmakirti by Vallabhadeva also.

P. 242. Ll. 11-14 : पर्यै...See supra, p. 32 for full citation.

P. 250. L. 13

...हृदयवतीषु च षट्प्रज्ञानादिगाथासु ... - Dr. V. Raghavan has noted some references and discussed the meaning of the word ' Ṣatprajñā ' in his article, " Gleanings From Somadevasūri's Yaśastilakacampū - Gangānātha Jha Research Institute Journal, Allahabad, Vol. I, Part III, 1944, pp. 370-72. He says :- " Somadeva continues his description of rogues. He speaks of fourteen families of rogues of which the sixth family, he says, arose from the dust of the feet of Ṣatprajñās.

Dhvanyāloka ( p. 222 )

यदा तु चाटु षु देवतासु तिष्ठु वा रसादी नामज्जतया व्यवस्थां, हृदयवतीषु च षट्प्रज्ञानादिगाथासु च विच्छ? व्यविशिष्टवाच्यप्राधान्यम् ।

Locana ( pp. 222-23 )

हृदयवती धीवति । ' अभलिया ' इति प्राकृतकवि गोष्ट्यां प्रसिद्धासु त्रिवर्गोपायोपेयकुशलाः स हृदयाः षट्प्रज्ञाः प्रतीवेश्मिका उच्यन्ते । तत्राथा यथा भट्टेन्द्रराजस्य— लंघिअगणा फलहोलअओ हेंतु ति वहइअंतिए । हलिअस्सासिं पाडिवेस ... ... ... ॥ अथ लइइअतगगना: कार्पासलता भवन्ति वप्ति हालिकस्याशिषं वर्धयन्त्या प्रतीवेश्मिक: परनि क्तिं प्रापित इति चौर्यसंभोगाभिलाषिणीयमित्यनेन व्यकृतेन विशिष्टवाच्यमेव सुन्दरम् ।

Dhvanyāloka

In a gāthā in the Vajjālaggam (Bib. Ind. edn., pp. 58-59, No. 281), Vidagdha-paddhati, Ṣatprajñā is used in the sense of a Vidagdha and an adept in the art of love-making :

[ जइ कहवि ताण छप्पवयणयाण तुण्यंङ्गि गोयरेँ पडसि ।

तं थोरवसहुहेक्कमंडिया दुक्कुरं जियसि ॥ ]

यदि कथमपि तेसिं षट्प्रज्ञानां तत्त्वक्खि गोचरेँ पतसि ।

तदो त्कृष्टवृषभदेहेकमणिडता दुष्करं जीवसि ॥

In explanation of the name Ṣatprajñā given to these gifted men, Abhinava seems to say that they are so called because of their knowledge ( prajñā ) of six ( ṣaṭ ) things: the upāyas ( means ) and upeyas ( ends ) pertaining to trivarga (dharma, artha and kāma — 3 × 2 = 6). Monier Williams says on the basis of some authority that six things are the four puruṣārthas, lokārtha and tattvārtha;

and it is probably the same authority as quoted in the Śabdakalpadruma :

धर्मार्थकाममोक्षेु लोकतत्त्वार्थयोरपि ।

षट्सु प्रज्ञान्ति यस्सोचैः स षट्प्रज्ञ इति स्मृतः ॥

In Abhinava's explanation, there is the omission of Moksa and in Ānandavardhana too, the implication is that the Ṣatprajña is a man of taste and a wordly-wise man. Originally a wise man, then one with much wordly wisdom and taste, then one with a gift for fine expression and enjoyment of good things, the Ṣatprajña thus gradually underwent a semantic pejoration until he came to mean a Vita. The Prakrit verses he uttered dealt mostly with love and that of the clandestine variety. The lexicons also came to understand him so. "

Dr. A. N. Upadye has published the text of a Gūthākoṣa composed by Vidakdhas and entitled Chappannaya-Gāhāo in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XI, No. 4, ( June, 1962 ), pp. 385-402. It contains 164 verses in the Māhārāṣṭrī Prākrit, and is a Jaina recension. It has also some verses in common with the Vajjālaggam and the Gūthāsaptaśatī.

P. 252. L. 8 : एवं वादिनि...See supra, p..82 for full citation.

Ll. 11-12 : Hāla, Gāthāsaptaśatī, 983.

P. 253. L. 23 : In the English translation of the verse खणपाहुणीआ a serious mistake has crept in. Instead of "This lady just came out to see the procession when", read "This lady has come as a guest at the festival; but "

P. 254. L. 1 : स्थगंधइयामल — See supra, p. 38 for full citation.

Ll. 3 : न्यकारो — See supra, p. 146 full citation.

Ll. 5–8 : Bhatṭanārāyaṇa, Veṇīsaiṃhāra, V. 26.

P. 256. L. 1 : तेषां गोपवधू...See supra, p. 48 for full citation.

Ll. 14–17 : Kālidāsa, Meghadūta, I. 32.

P. 258. Ll. 10--11 : Hāla, Gāthāsaptaśatī, 560.

P. 260. Ll. 7--8 : एतद्...प्रवर्त्तिता: — cf. Vāmana, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti, I. ii. 9.

P. 262. L. 14 : ग्रन्थान्तरे — The work is Vṛtti or gloss on Dharmottara's ṭīkā or commentary (Dharmottarī) on Dharma-kīrti's Pramāṇa-viniścaya according to Abhinavagupta.

UDDYOTA IV

P. ?68. Ll. 2--5 : Amaruśataka, 82.

L. 7 : तरङ्खूभङ्ग...See supra, p. 46 for full citation.

L. 7 : नानाभक्ति...—This verse is not available in full.

P. 270. Kūrikā 4 :— John Drinkwater makes use of this very simile in writing about the limitless possibilities of genius :— "And so poetry is beautifully like life itself in seeming not to change yet always being new. Each year you see the trees covering themselves with green, the flowers in bloom...And in a way these seem to be the same trees and flowers and seasons that have been passing before men's eyes far back through the ages, and yet each year they are all marvellously new, as truly exciting discoveries for us when we see them as though there had never been such life before. And so with the poet and his poetry". — The Way of Poetry. p. 27.

L. 6 : चरणपीठारुपाडुणा हत्थ कोष: — Bāṇa Harsacarita, (NSP Ed.) p. 127.

L. 11 : एवंवादिनि — See supra, p. 82 for full citation.

Svanyaloka

L. 15 : सज्जेइड...See supra, p 88 for full citation.

P. 272. L. 2 : वाणिअअ —See supra, p. 110 for full citation.

P. 274. Ll. 2-3 : शोक: श्लोकत्वमागत: — Vālmiki, Rāmāyaṇa, I. i. 40.

P. 276. Ll. 2-3 : प्रत्युत...प्रतीयते—cf. Mahābhārata, I. i. 49; ii. 238; and also I. i. 92 and ii. 385.

L. 6 : भगवान् वासुदेवश्र—Mahābhārata, I. i. 256.

L. 14 : स हि सत्यम्— ,, I. i. 256 ff.

L. 18 : न्यक्षेण— ‘न्यक्षं कात्स्न्येनिकृष्टद्यो: ’ — अमरकोश.

P. 284. L. 6 : सर्वेऽपमादग्र्य ... — See Kālidāsa's Kumāra-sambhava, I. 49, for full citation.

L. 7: वसन्तपुष्पा ... See ibid, III 53, for full citation.

L. 9: तां प्रादुर्मुखीम् ... ,, ,, VII 13 ,, ,,

P. 290. L. 10: read यावसायं for यावासयं.

P. 290. 15 : महमह ... This verse of Ānandavardhana is an instance of what he calls अर्थवैचित्र्य or different shades of meaning due to peculiarities of प्रतिनियतभाषा or individual language dialects. Abhinavagupta in his Locana takes it as an allusion to सैन्धवभाषा. We have given the text of the verse as seen in our manuscripts. But modern Prakrit Scholars feel that the reading is too corrupt and requires major emendations. Two such attempts at emendation may be noted here :—

( i ) महु महु इत्ति भणंतहो वच्चदि कालो जणस्स । तओ ण देउ जणहणाउ गोहरोभोदि मणस्सु ॥

Dr. Bhayani, Vidyā, Journal of Gujarāt University, Vol. XIV, No. 1 January 1971.

( ii ) महु महु इत्ति भणंतहो वज्जइ कालो जणस्स । तओ ण देउ जणहणु गोहरोभोदि मणस्स ॥

—Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, Prakrit Verses in works on Sanskrit Poetics, Journal of the University of Bombay, New Series, Arts, Vol. Xl. No. 76, Oct. 1971, p. 45.

The point of illustration in this verse is the pun involved in the beginning words ‘महमह’, which can be derived from

Sanskrit मम मम as well as मधुमथ. It is because of this pun that there is a shade of paradox also according to Abhinavagupta. This points to the original reading महुमहु rather than महमह.

cf. Mahābhārata, XII. xiii. 4.

द्रयक्षरस्तु भवेन्‌मृत्यु: त्र्यक्षरं ब्रह्म शाश्वतम् । ममेति च भवेन्‌मृत्यु: न ममेति च शाश्वतम् ॥

P. 294. L. 2 : read चेत् for चत्.

P. 294. Kārikā 14 : It is interesting to compare these ideas with the views of Alexander Pope on plagiarism :- “ A mutual commerce makes poetry flourish; but then poets, like merchants, should repay with something of their own what they take from others; not, like pirates, make prize of all they meet ” - Alexander Pope To W. Walsh, 2 July, 1706 [ published in Works ( 1753 ), vii, 45 ].

P. 298. L. 12. ऋत्थ्योम् .... - The ideas in this chapter have been elaborated by Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāḿsā, chs. XI, XII and XIV.

The concluding verses along with his own compositions cited as illustrations throughout the work show that Ānanda-vardhana was himself a poet of no mean order. [Cf. Rājatarangiṇī's reference to him as ' Kavirānandavardhanah '. ]

GLOSSARY of Technical terms and English equivalents

अङ्ग ( anga )

an accessory, a part

अङ्गिन् ( angin )

the principal, the whole

अकवि ( akavi )

poetaster, a non-poet

अतिशयोक्तिः ( atiśayokti )

Exaggeration, Hyperbole

अतिव्याप्तिः ( ativyāpti )

fallacy of Too Wide

अत्यन्ततिरसकृतवाच्य ( atyantatira-skṛtavācya )

an expressed sense completely lost or concealed in the suggested

अद्भुतरस ( adbhutarasa )

wonderment as a sentiment

अनित्य ( anitya )

non-eternal, unstable

अनित्यदोष ( anityadosa )

temporary or occasional defects

अनिर्देश्यत्व ( anirdeśyatva )

indefinability

अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकभाव ( anugrāhy-ānugrāhakabhāva )

governor-governed relationship

अनुभव ( anubhava )

experience

अनुभाव ( anubhāva )

emotional reaction

अनुमान ( anumāna )

inference

अनुरोध ( anurodha )

a governing force, directing force

अनुवाद ( anuvāda )

indirect speech or quotation

अनुस्वान ( anusvāna )

resonance

अन्योन्याश्रय ( anyonyāśraya )

fallacy of Circular Definition

अपशब्द ( apaśabda )

solecism

अप्रस्तुत ( aprastuta )

Irrelevant, extraneous

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ( aprastutapraśa-msā )

vicarious reference, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

अभिधेय ( abhidheya )

same as artha below

अभिनेयार्थ ( abhineyārtha )

dramatic work, play

अर्थ ( artha )

sense, meaning, content, subject, object, significance, theme, import, connotation

Glossary

अर्थान्तरन्यास

exemplification ( of a universal with a particular or vice versa ) : a figure of speech in Indian Rhetoric

अर्थान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्य

a literal meaning retained in the suggested; see atyantatiraskṛtavācya

अलङ्कार

a figure of speech or ornament

अवमर्श

one of the five major divisions of the dramatic plot roughly corresponding to denouement

अवांतरभेद

sub-division

अविनाभाव

integral relation

अविवक्षितवाच्य

unintended literal import

अव्याप्ति

fallacy of Too Narrow

अव्युत्पत्ति

imperfect education

असंभव

fallacy of non esse or non sequitur

असंलक्ष्य क्रम

of undiscerning sequentiality

अहङ्कार

ego

आक्षेप

a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric roughly corresponding to Paralipsis

आख्यायिका

literary chronicles in prose

आत्मन्

soul, essence, life, body, entity, spirit

आधार

substratum, base

आधिकारीक

the main plot

आधेय

the contained

आश्रय

same as ādhāra above

इतिवृत्त

theme, plot

उत्प्रेक्षा

fancied image, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

उत्साह

high-spiritedness

उपचार

metaphorical identification

उपनागरिका ( upanāgarikā )

the urban or the refined, one of the literary Vrttis or dic-tions in Indian rhetoric

उपलक्षण ( upalaksana )

synecdoche, pointer

उपाधि ( upādhi )

adventitious circumstance, extra-neous condition

ओजस् ( ojas )

Fieriness, forcefulness

औचित्य ( Aucitya )

decorum, propriety, rightness, aptness

औपाधिक ( aupādhika )

coloured by adventitious circu-mstances, incidental

कथा ( kathā )

prose romance.

करण ( karana )

proximate cause

करुण ( karuṇa )

the pathetic sentiment, pathos

कलापक ( kalāpaka )

run-on lines up to twelve verses

कविनिबद्धप्रौढोक्तिसिद्ध ( kavinibaddhapraudhoktisiddha )

Existing only in the ornate expression put into the mouth of a character created by the poet

कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्ध ( kavipraudhoktisiddha )

Existing only in the ornate expression of the poet

काकु ( kāku )

ironic tone

कारिका ( kārikā )

verse text, aphoristic verse

कार्य ( kārya )

effect, action or plot

काव्य ( kāvya )

poem, poetry, literature

काव्यप्रभेद ( kāvyaprabheda )

forms of literature

कुलक ( kulaka )

run-on lines running to 16 and above in poetry

कृत्रिम ( krtrima )

conventional, natural

खण्डकथा ( khaṇḍakathā )

short stories in verse, verse fables

गमक ( gamaka )

pointer

गर्भे ( garbhe )

a division of dramatic plot corresponding to climax

गुण ( guṇa )

quality, merit, excellence

गुणवृत्ति ( guṇavṛtti )

indication, implication

Glossary

गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय (gunībhūtavyangya)

poetry containing subordinated-suggestion

ग्राम्या-वृत्ति (grāmyā-vṛtti)

the soft diction

चतुरस्र (caturasra)

well-balanced, square, measured

चमत्कार (camatkāra)

strikingness, a striking effect

चारु (cāru)

quatrain containing affectionate praise, eulogy

चारुत्व (cārutva)

artistic excellence, beauty

चित्तवृत्ति (cittavṛtti)

state of mind, mood

चित्र (citra)

portrait, portrait-like poetry, pictorial art

छाया (chāyā)

shade of beauty

जात्यत्व (jātyatva)

preciousness, precosity

तात्पर्य (tātparya)

purport, implication, intent, gist, content

तुल्ययोगिता (tulyayogitā)

combination of equals, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

दयावीर (Dayāvīra)

compassionate heroism; spirited compassion

दीपक (dīpaka)

ellipsis implying a simile making two things meaningful

दीप्ति (dīpti)

brilliance in style

दृष्टान्त (drṣṭānta)

analogy, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

दोष (dosa)

defect, blemish, flaw

धर्म (dharma)

characteristic, speciality

धीरोरात (dhīrodātta)

Hero marked by nobility

धीरोरद्धत (dhīroddata)

Hero marked by hauteur

ध्वनि (DHVANI)

the function of suggestion, suggestive expression or meaning, suggested content, poetry with principal suggestion, suggestivity of expression in poetry; also words and imports pregnant with suggestivity

Dhvanyaloka

नित्य ( nitya ) eternal, essential

नित्यदोष ( nityadosa ) permanent defect, inherent defect

निदर्शना ( nidarśanā ) corroboration, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

नियत ( niyata ) constant

निर्वहण ( nirvahana ) conclusion, denouement

निषेध ( nisedha ) prohibition

नैसर्गिक ( naisargika ) natural

पदार्थ ( padārtha ) word import, word meaning

परिकथा ( parikathā ) didactic stories in verse, verse fables

परुषा-वृत्ति ( parusā-vṛtti ) the harsh diction

पर्यायबन्ध ( paryāyabandha ) several stanzas in varied or single metre on the same topic

पर्यायोक्त ( paryāyokta ) a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric corresponding to periphrasis, roundabout description

प्रकृति ( prakṛti ) status of characters, primordial Nature

प्रकार ( prakāra ) variety, kind, type

प्रतिपत्तृ ( pratipattr ) connoisseur, reader, responsive or tasteful critic

प्रतिपाद्य ( pratipādya ) same as abhidheya above

प्रतिभा ( pratibhā ) genius, creative imagination, vision

प्रतिमुख ( pratimukha ) a major division of the dramatic plot corresponding to Rising Action

प्रतीति ( pratīti ) apprehension

प्रतीयमान ( pratīyamāna ) the implicit or suggested content

प्रमाण ( pramāṇa ) instrument of knowledge

प्रसाद ( prasāda ) perspicuity, lucidity, clarity

प्रसिद्धि ( prasiddhi ) conventional usage, known usage

Glossary

प्रस्थान (prasthāna)

प्रेयस् (preyas)

प्रौढोक्ति (praudhokti)

बन्ध (bandha)

बन्धच्छाया (bandhacchāyā)

बाध्य (bādhya)

बीभत्स (bībhatsa)

भङ्गी (bhaṅgī)

भणिति (bhaniti)

भणितिवैचित्र्य (bhanitivaicitrya)

भयानक (bhayānaka)

भाव (bhāva)

भावना (bhāvanā)

महाकवि (mahākavi)

महाकाव्य (mahākāvya)

माधुर्य (mādhurya)

मुख (mukha)

मुक्तक (muktaka)

यथासङ्ख्य (Yathāsankhya)

युक्ति (yukti)

रस (rasa)

रसबन्ध (rasabandha)

रसवदलङ्कार (rasavadalankāra)

रसाभास (rasābhāsa)

रीति (rīti)

रौद्र (raudra)

लक्षण ( laksana )

definition, theory, defining feature

लक्षणा ( laksanā )

secondary meaning

लिङ्ग ( linga )

the probans of an inference

लिङ्गि ( lingi )

the probandum of an inference

वक्रोक्ति ( vakrokti )

artistic turn of speech, evasive speech, indirect denotation

वस्तु ( vastu )

idea, subject, theme

वाक्यार्थ ( vākyārtha )

purport of a sentence

वाचक ( vācaka )

word

वाचकत्व ( vācakatva )

the power of denotation

वाच्य ( vācya )

the expressed, literal or denoted sense, explicit primary and conventional meaning

विकटबन्ध ( vikatahandha )

affected and involved construction

विधि ( vidhi )

proposal, construction, direct assertion

विप्रतिपत्ति ( vipratipatti )

divergent view

विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार ( vipralambhaśṛṅgāra )

the sentiment of love-in-separation, love of separated lovers as a sentiment

विभाव ( vibhāva )

stimulus and stimulii provided by characters and excitants

विमति ( vimati )

conflicting opinion

विरोधिन् ( virodhin )

the opposite, reverse

विवक्षा ( vivaksā )

intent, intention of communication, desired or intended meaning

विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य ( vivaksitānyaparavācya )

an expressed meaning with extended signification; intended but further extending literal sense

विशेषक ( viśesaka )

run-on lines extending up to four verses

विषय ( viṣaya )

object, content, literary medium, poetic theme, instance

वृत्ति ( vṛtti )

( i ) procedure, ( ii ) literary modes of diction or ways of characters represented, ( iii ) gloss

व्यक्ति ( vyakti )

suggestion, conveying

व्यतिरेक ( vyatireka )

Fancied contrast, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

व्यपदेश ( vyapadeśa )

designation

व्यभिचारिभाव ( vyabhicāribhāva )

passing moods

व्याजस्तुति ( vyājastuti )

veiled praise, a figure of speech

व्यापार ( vyāpāra )

function or power of words

व्यञ्जकत्व ( vyañjakatva )

suggestiveness or suggestivity, extended signification, suggestivity and meaningfulness

शब्द ( Śabda )

sound, word, language

शब्दव्यापार ( śabdavyāpāra )

the power of words to communicate meaning

शृङ्गार ( śṛṅgāra )

the erotic sentiment

श्रव्यत्व ( śravyatva )

sound-harmony

श्रुतिदुष्ट ( śruti-duṣṭa )

Indelicacy, harshness

सकलकथा ( sakalakathā )

full-fledged stories in verse, verse stories

समासोक्ति ( samāsokti )

condensed metaphor

समुच्चय ( samuccaya )

conjunction of agents with common actions, a figure of speech in Indian rhetoric

सर्गबन्ध ( sargabandha )

epics running to several cantos

सहृदय ( sahrdaya )

perceptive or sympathetic critic, responsive reader, man of taste

सामर्थ्य ( sāmarthya )

power of implication

सादृश्य ( sārūpya )

similarity, congruency

Dhvanyaloka

स्थायिभाव ( sthāyibhāva ) स्वतःसम्भवी ( svataḥsambhavi ) सङ्कर (saṅkara ) सङ्घटन ( sanghaṭanā ) सन्दानितक ( sandānitaka ) सन्देह ( sandeha ) सन्धि ( sandhi ) सन्ध्यङ्ग ( sandhyaṅga ) संलक्ष्यक्रम ( samlaksyakrama ) संसृष्टि ( saṁsr̥ṣṭi )

Kārikā

अकाण्ड एव विच्छित्तिः अक्षरादिरचनैव योज्यते

III

IV 19 160 3

Kārikā

अतो हान्यतमेनापि अर्थशक्तेरलङ्घारो

IV

IV 2 264 9

Kārikā

अर्थशक्तेरलङ्घारो

II

II 25 88 21

Kārikā

अर्थशक्त्युद्भवस्त्वन्यो

II

II 22 82 8

Kārikā

अर्थान्तरगतिः काक्षा

III

III 38 232 14

Kārikā

अर्थान्तरे सङ्क्रमितं

II

II 1 38 1

Kārikā

अनुस्वानोपमात्मापि

III

III 15 146 1

Kārikā

अलङ्कारान्तरव्यङ्ग्यभावे

II

II 30 100 10

Kārikā

अलङ्कारान्तरसत्यापि

II

II 27 90 9

Kārikā

अलङ्कृतीनां शक्तावप्यो°

III

III 14 136 4

Kārikā

अवधानातिशयवान्

III

III 29 184 18

Kārikā

अवस्थादिविमिन्नानां

IV

IV 8 292 3

Kārikā

अवस्थादेशकालादि°

IV

IV 7 282 15

Kārikā

अविरोधी विरोधी वा

III

III 34 176 13

Kārikā

अविवक्षितवाच्यस्य

III

III 1 106 3

Kārikā

अव्युत्पत्तेरशक्तेर्वा

II

II 32 104 7

Kārikā

असमासा समासेन

III

III 5 118 6

Kārikā

असंलक्ष्यैकसमोचितः

II

II 2 40 10

Kārikā

अस्फुटस्फुरितं

III

III 46 260 5

Kārikā

आक्षिप्त एव अलङ्कारः

II

II 21 72 3

Kārikā

आत्मनोडन्यस्य सद्धावे

IV

IV 14 294 16

Kārikā

आलोकार्थी यथा

I

I 9 16 5

Kārikā

इत्थं तत्त्वावसायातां

III

III 11 134 11

Kārikā

इत्युक्तलक्षणो यो

III

III 45 260 1

Kārikā

उक्त्यन्तरेणाङ्गकं

I

I 15 32 13

Kārikā

उद्द्योतनप्रशमने

III

III 13 136 1

Kārikā

एकात्रयत्वे निदर्शो

III

III 26 180 14

Kārikā

एतयथोक्तमौचित्यं

III

III 8 132 6

Kārikā

एवं ध्वने: प्रभेदा:

III

III 44 258 17

Dhvanyālokaḥ

Kārikā

कस्य चिद्घवनिभेदस्य कार्यमेकं यथा ष्यापि काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनिरिति काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थ: क्रमेण प्रतिभात्यात्मा गुणान्वाश्रित्य तिष्ठन्ती चित्रं शब्दार्थभेदेन त एव तु निवेशयन्ते

तत्र पूर्वमनन्यात्वं तत्र वाच्य: प्रसिद्धो य: तद्वत्सचेतसां सोऽर्थ: तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते तस्याऽऽधानां प्रभेदा ये दिदृक्ष्यं तूल्यते येन

दृष्टपूर्वा अपि ह्यर्था: ध्वनेरित्थं गुणीभूतवच्यस्य ध्वनेरेय: सगुणीभूतवच्यस्याध्वा ध्वन्यात्मभूते रस्ज्ञारे यमकादि

ध्वन्यात्मभूते रस्ज्ञारे समीक्ष्य निर्झरंधावपि चादृते प्रकारोड्न्यो गुणीभूत: प्रकारोडयं गुणीभूत:

प्रतायन्तां वाचो निमितं प्रतीममानं पुनरन्यदेव प्रधानगुणभावाभ्यां प्रधानेडन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे प्रबन्धे मुक्तके वापि प्रभेदस्यास्य विषयो

प्रस्तुतग्रम्भी रपदा: प्रसिद्धेऽपि प्रबन्धानां प्रौढोक्तिमात्रनिष्पन्न: भक्त्या बिभर्ति नेकत्वं

Uddyota & Kārikā No.

Page

I 19

34

III 23

176

I 1

2

I 5

12

II 20

70

III 6

118

III 42

244

III 4

114

IV 13

294

I 3

6

I 12

18

II 6

48

II 12

54

II 13

56

IV 4

270

IV 6

282

IV 1

264

II 15

56

II 17

60

II 19

62

III 34

224

III 40

236

IV 17

298

I 4

6

III 41

244

II 5

42

III 17

158

III 39

234

III 35

226

III 21

174

II 24

86

I 14

28

Kārikā

सुह्या महाकविविगिरो सुह्यं स्त्रति परित्यज्य यत्र प्रतीयमानोऽर्थ: यत्रार्थ: शब्दो वा तथा पदार्थद्वारेण यदपि तदपि रम्यं यस्तवलक्ष्यकमनुज्ञो युक्त्यानयानुसर्तव्यो योडर्थ: सहृदयै:लाघ्य: रसवन्धोक्तमौचित्यं रसभावतदाभास° रसभावादिसम्भव: रसाक्षिप्तया यस्य रसायनु गुणत्वेन रसान्तरसमावेश: रसान्तरान्तरितयो: रूढा ये विषयेऽनन्यत्र रूपकादिरलङ्कारवर्गो रौद्रादयो रसा दीप्त्या *वस्तुमात्रमपि वयृदयं वाचकत्वाश्रयेणैव वाच्यस्पतिसहक्षणां वाच्यवाचकचमत्कृतव° वाच्यानां वाचकानां च वाच्यालङ्कारवर्गोडयं *वाच्यालङ्कारशक्के: after II विज्ञायेत्थं रसादीनाां विभावभावानुभाव° विनेयातुनमुखीकृतं विरुद्दै:काश्रयो यस्तु विरोधमविरोधं च विरोधिरससम्बन्ध°

Index of Kārikās

Uddyota & Kārikā No. Page Line

Dhvanyāloka:

Kārikā

Uddyota & Kārikā No.

विवक्षा

II 18 62 6

विवक्षातत्त्वपरत्वेन

विवक्षिते

III 20 164 9

रसे

लड्धप्रतिष्ठे

विषयाश्रयमप्यन्वयदौचित्यं

III 7 128 16

व्यङ्ग्येऽन्यङ्गकभावेडस्मिन्

IV 5 272 11

व्यज्यन्ते

II 29 100 5

वस्तुमात्रेण

शब्दतत्त्वाश्रया:

III 47 260 11

काव्यिद्ध

शब्दार्थशकत्याक्षिप्तसोडपि

II 23 84 13

शब्दार्थशासनज्ञान°

I 7 14 8

शारीरीकरणं

II 28 98 14

येषां

रसो

III 3 114 9

सरेफसंयोगे

रञ्जनस्याङ्गीकारो

II 14 56 5

यत्नात्

रञ्जार

II 7 48 17

एव

मधुर:

शब्दारे

II 8 50 5

विप्रलम्भाभ्ये

श्रुतिदुष्टादयो

II 11 52 10

दोषा:

संवादास्तु

IV 11 292 18

भवन्त्येव

संवादो

IV 12 294 3

ध्यान्यसाहस्रयं

सगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्ये:

III 43 252 1

सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्घघटनं

III 12 134 13

समर्पणकत्वं

II 10 52 6

काव्यस्य

सरस्वती

I 6 14 1

स्वादु

सर्वेष्वेव

II 33 104 11

प्रभेदेषु

शोभाढ्यवचनसंवलनं:

III 16 146 7

सोऽर्थस्तद्वाच्यधिकिसामर्थ्य°

I 8 14 17

स्वसामर्थ्यवशेनैव

I 11 18 1

INDEX OF PARIKARAŚLOKAS ETC.

Śloka

Page

भनाख्येयेयांशभासितवं

262

भनिष्ठस्य श्रुतिः

112

अनौचित्यादते नान्यद

138

अपारे काव्यसंसारे

250

अव्युत्पतिप्रकृतो दोषः

124

इति काव्यार्थविवेको

134

इत्यक्तिष्ठरसायोचित°

(concluding penultimate verse)

298

कथा शरीरमुत्पाद्य°

142

काव्याध्वनि

ध्वनिनिर्णयज्ञ°

250

तत्परावेव शब्दार्थों

20

नीरसस्तु प्रबन्धो यः

164

पदानां स्मारकत्वेऽपि

114

पूर्वं विश्रुङ्खलङ्गिरः

164

भावान्चेतनानपि

250

मुख्यो व्यापारविषया:

164

यमकादिनिबन्धे तु

60

यस्मिन्रसो वा भावो वा

250

Line

Śloka

18

रसभावादितात्पर्य°

21

रसभावादिविषयो°

7

रसवदिति वस्तूनि

1

रसादिषु विवक्षा तु

9

रसाभासाड्गभावस्तु

5

वाल्मीकिन्यतिरितिकथ्य

वाल्मीकिन्यासमुद्र्याक्ष

13

विच्छित्तिशोभैकेन

5

विमतिविषयो यः

6

न्यग्रोधो न्यग्रोधकसम्बभू°

6

न्यग्रोधस्थ्य प्रतिभामात्रे

20

न्यग्रोधस्थ्य यत्राप्रधान्यं

4

गुज्जरी चेत्कविः काव्ये

3

सकाव्यतत्स्वनयवल्मी

(concluding verse)

7

298

14

सन्ति सिद्धरसप्रहृतः

1

स्वेच्छाकेसरिणः

17

2

śloka

3

III. INDEX OF QUOTATIONS*

Śloka

अकृरित:

98

7

अज्जाए पहाओे

32

2

अण्णत्त वच्च

150

13

अतहड्ढिए

268

18

अतिक्रान्तसुखा:

148

10

अत्ता एत्थ

8

15

अनघ्यवसिताव°

242

4

अनवरतनयनजल°

120

6

अनुरागवती सन्ध्या

22

8

अभो ये दश्यन्ते

242

16

अम्बा शेते डत्त्र

86

7

अयंमेकपदे तथा

150

20

अयं स रशनोत्कर्षा

172

7

अवसर रोउं

150

2

अहिणअपओअरिसएसु

258

10

अह्दो बतासि

152

14

आकन्द्ता: स्तनिते;

68

5

आम्प असइओ

234

2

आहुत्तोऽपि सहायै:

22

15

ईसाकल्हसस्स वि

96

11

उच्चिणसु पडिअ°

102

22

उत्कम्पिनी भय°

114

15

उदिअह...कथामोक्षा

272 footnote

उद्दामोत्कलिकां

64

7

उन्नत: प्रोळसद्वार:

78

7

उपोढरागेण

20

15

उप्फहजाआए

244

9

एकन्तो रहइ

176

19

एमेअ जणो तिस्सा

106

18

एवं वादिनि देवश्री

82

11

एषापि स्वयमेव

240

6

एहि गच्छ पतोलित्थ

168

8

कण्ठाच्छतवाक्षमालां

178

2

कर्त्ता धूतच्छलानि

254

5

कणोले पत्ताली

58

10

कमलाइरा न मल्लिआ

102

7

करिणीवेधवअरो

272

3

कस्तवं मो: कथयामि

244

1

कस्स व ण होइ

10

9

किकायं शाशल्क्ष्मण:

166

9

°किमिव हि मधुराणां

106

11

किं हास्येन म मे

42

13

कुविआओ पसण्णाओ

30

17

कृतककुपितै:

116

13

कृते वरकथालपे

270

12

कामन्त्या: क्षतकोमल°

174

1

कोपात्कोमललोळ°

68

12

°क: सन्दधे विरहविधुरां

106

9

क्षिम्रो हस्तावलम्ब:

44

3

खणपाहुणिआ देहर

252

11

खं येडणयुज्जवलयित

82

1

गअणं च मत्तमेहं

40

5

°गावो व: पावनानां

194

8

चक्राभिघातप्रसभाज्ञयैव

64

2

चड्ढइअभ्जश्रमित°

50

13

चन्दनासक्तभुजग°

96

4

• See Notes for sources of these where traceable.

Index of Quotations

Sloka

चन्द्रमण्डऐँ णिस्सा चमहिअभमाणस° चलापाण्हां दिट्ठि सुम्बिज्जइ सभाहुतं चूअअकुरावअंस जाएज्ज वणुद्देस ज्योंत्स्नापूरप्रसर° झगिति कनकचित्रे ण अ ताण घडड तद्देहं णत्थि तत्ती मेघजलाइत्त्र° तरुअभूभङ्ग तस्या विनापि हारेण ताल जआन्ति गुणा तालेइ शिडिल्लयसुभगेइ तेसां गोपवधूचिलास° तं ताण सिरिसहोभर° त्रासाकुल: परिपतनं दत्तानन्दा: प्रजानां दन्तकषतानि करजेक्ख दीर्घीअकुवन्तं पडु मदकलं दुराराधा राधा मुनमग देहा पसिद्ध देन्त्रएत्थिमि फलेइ दट्ठया केशव गोपाराग° निद्राअकितविन: त्रियस्स णीवाराः चुकगम्भेइ नो कल्पापायवायो: णयक्आरो हआयमेव मे पत्तु: शिरश्छन्दकला° पाण्डइए ण एत्थ परार्थे य: पीडामनुभवति

90 76 62 30 110 94 92 116 284 156 46 46 74 38 148 48 92 96 78 258 256 236 10 94 76 266 152 66 146 236 82 32 242

Sloka

परिम्लानं पीतस्तनं° प्रभ्रश्यत्युततरीयतिच्छि° प्रयच्छतोच्चेः प्रातुं धनेरर्थिजनस्स प्रासश्रीरेश कस्मालं भगवान वासुदेवश्श अहम धम्मिमभ वीसत्यो भूरेणुदिङ्घान्त्रव° भमिमिरतिमलस्स° मदमुखरकपोत° मनुष्यवृत्या मह मह इति मा निषाद मा पन्थ रन्धिओ मुनिज्जयति योगीन्द्रो मुहरुड्ंगुलिसंस्कृता° यच्च कामसुखं लोके यत्र च मत्तमात्तङ्गमिन्थ: यथा यथा विपर्येति यदृच्छनाहितमति: यस्सि णत्यन्ति न वस्सु या निआ सर्व्भूतानं या ह्यापारवती रसानं ये जीवन्ति न मानित्त येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन यो यशात्त्रं बिभर्ति य: प्रथम: प्रथम: रक्खस्त्वं नवपल्लवेइ रस्स इति प्राप्तवती रविङ्कान्तसौ भाग्य: राजानमपि सेवन्ते

30 152 236 108 92 276 8 184 761 661 152footnote 152 12 290 12footnote 150 7 280 152 2 182 5 80 4 274 10 154 8 4 12 108 3 256 7 154 1 72 8 120 521 8 1 etc. 266 7 64 14 etc. 98 2 40 2 238 12

15 11 7 2

रामेऽपि प्रियजीवितेन

106

लच्छी दुहिदा

226

लावण्यकान्तितपरिपूरिंत

92

लावण्यद्रविणधययो

240

लावण्यसिन्धुरपरैव

226

वच्च मह त्त्रिह

8

वल्से मा गं विषादं

86

वाणिअह हरिथिदन्तता

110

वाणीऋकुजरूढेऽपि

102

त्रिसमइडो त्तिअ

108

त्रिषु लोकेषु मन्त्रथाज्ञा

232

वीराणं रमणं

92

त्रीणांयोगादितवदनया

116

चने ऽसिमन् महाप्रलये...

110

शिखरिणि कं तु नाम

28

88

घूर्णयं वासगृदं विलोक्य

268

चंपो तिमिरिसत्वं च

270

इयमास्वाद्यां चकितहगिणी

70

लाध्याशेषतनुं

74

मेढ्रुतकालमनसं

84

सत्यं मनोरमा रामा:

186

मज्जेजहि सुराहिमासो

88

°ससैता: समिध: प्रिय:

106

समवाय इव...

80

समविसमणिच्चिसेसा

154

स वत्थम्हिलानू हक्को

92

सविग्रहमिततो द्दराद:

266

सव्वेकसरणमक्खय

80

स हरिनाम्ना देव:

66

मा ऽरविट्ठ णं

88

सिज्झइ रोमा ऽधिजइ

280

सिद्धिपिट्ठक रणणउरिट्ठ

88

सुरभिसमये प्रभृते

270

सुवण्णपुप्पां पुथिवीं

28

मैषा सव्वैव वकोक्तिः

228

स्मरणवनदीपूरे णोडइ:

118

स्वतेजः कीतमहिमा

266

स्वस्था भवन्ति मथि

232

सिन्धुरदययामलकान्त

38

स्मितं किच्चिन्मुखे

264

हंसानां निनदेषु यै:

286

हिअट्ठा चिअमण्णु

94

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS

Abercrombie, Lascelles, 372 Abhyankar, K. V., 324 Alexander Pope, 385 Amaruśataka, 345, 350, 353, 359, 367, 383 Anuyogadvārasūtra, 375 Appayyadīkṣita, 335, 361 Aristotle, xxiii, 362, 368 Arjunavarmadeva, 351 Bāna, xxix, 315 Harṣacarita, 315, 354, 383 Bergson, xxiii Bhagavadgītā, 365 Bhāguri, xxvii Bhallataśataka, 336 Bhāmaha, xxiii, xxviii, 303, 304, 327, 328, 331, 343, 344, 349, 350, 352, 354, 366 Bhamahavivaraṇa, xxxix, 326, 330 Bharata, (Nāṭyaśāstra), xxii, xxvi, xxix, 341, 367, 368, 369, 375 Bhāravi, 380 Bharcu, 330 Bhartrhari, 303, 322, 338, 377, 378 Bhartrmentha, 363 Bhāsa, 370 Bhattacharya. B., xiii Bhattacharya, S. P., xiin., 311 Bhat, G. H., 311, 312 Bhattanārāyaṇa, 349, 380, 383

Bhaṭṭanāyaka, xviii, xx, xxvii, xxix, 316, 341, 361 Bhaṭṭa Tauta, 315 Bhaṭṭendurāja, 381 Bhavabhūti, xxix Bhayani, Dr., 384 Bhoja, xxvii, 361 Brahmaśūtrā, 304 Brhaddevatā, 304 Brough, John, 336 Rühler, G., xi Candīdāsa, 311 Caudwell. Christopher, xLi Candrikākāra, xx, xxvii Chari, V. K., 368 Chaudhury, P. J., 313 Church, K. W. 319 Coleridge, S. T., 337, 350 Coombes, 319 Croce, 313 Dandin, xxii, xxix, 329, 330, 339, 343, 349, 352, 354, 360, 363, 366 De. S. K., x, xvii Dhanañjaya, xxvii Dharmakīrti, 335, 338, 380, 383 Dharmottara, 383 Drinkwater, John, 383 Dwivedī, R. P., 361 Eliot, T. S., xxiv, 313 Ganapati Shastri, T., 370 Ghatakarparaḷīkāvya, 351

• Names of Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Dhvanyāloka and Locana etc. which occur very frequently are not included in this Index.

Gnoli, Raniero

326

Kāmandakīyanītisāra, 373

Govinda Ṭhakkura

361

Kallata, xxi

Harṣa

351

Kalpalatāviveka, xiv

Hāla

363, 364, 365, 371, 380, 382, 383

Kane, P. V., xi, xvii, 311, 312

Hall, Vernon

312, 313

Kautūhala, xxvi

Hazlitt

314

Kavirājamar̄ga, xxii

Hanumannāṭāka

371

Kāvyādarśa, xxii

Hanumantha Rao, G.

313

Kāvyakautuka, 315, 316

Haribhadra

xxvi

Kāvyālaṅkāra, xxv, 348

Hegel

313

Kāvyālaṅkārasaṅgraha, 363

Hemacandra

316, 327, 351, 354, 371

Kāvyamīmāṁsā, 385

Hiriyanna, M.

xi, 313, 344

Keats, 313

Hobson, Herald

319

Kebel, John, 313

Hough, Graham

317

Krishnamoorthy, K., xiiin, xviiin, xxviiin., 324, 340, 351, 356, 366, 375

Hulme

xxiv

Krishna Rayan, 372, 375

Ingalls, Daniel, H. H.

xxivn, 338

Kṣemendra, 375

Jacob, G. A.

377

Kulkarni, V. M., 308, 384

Jacobi, H.

xi, xvi, 317, 318, 319

Kuppuswami Shastri, xii, 311, 312, 317, 368

Jagannātha

xxviii, 354, 361

Kunjunni Raja, K., xvii

Jayadeva

361

Kuntaka, xxvi, 373

Jayantabhaṭṭa

xxi

Kuvalayamālā, xxvi

Jayaratha

336

Kuvalayānanda, 335

Jhalakīkar, Vāmanācārya

361

Langer, Susan, xLi

Jose Ortega Y. Gasset Weyl

373

Lerner Lawrence, 337

Kālidāsa

xxix, xLi, 351

Līlāvatī, xxvi

Kumārasambhava

314, 351, 354, 360, 367, 371, 379, 380, 384

Lollata, xxix

Meghadūta

353, 365, 371, 383

Longinus, xxx, 350, 374

Raghuvamśa

309, 369

Madhumathanavijaya, 370

Śākuntala

351, 365, 371

Māgha, xxix, 363

Vikramorvasīya

315, 347, 351, 371

Mahābhārata, 306, 334, 365, 370, 371, 374, 384, 385

Kāmandaka

373

Mahānāṭaka (See Hanumannāṭaka ) 341, 353

Mahārthamañjarī, xvi

Mahimabhaṭṭa, xxvii

Maheśvarānanda, xvi

Mallinātha

xvii, 316, 354

Mammaṭa

xxviii, 328, 335, 339, 353, 361, 375

Mānikyacandra

327

Maṅkhuka

315

Manoratha

305

Masson J. L. and Patwardhan, M.V.

xii, f. n. 354, 356, 367, 374

Mayūra

353, 354, 371

Māyurāja

365

Montague, C. E.

xxx

Mukherji, Ramaranjan

xii, f. n.

Nāgoji Bhatta

354, 361

Nalodaya

351

Nrpatuṅga

xxii (See Kavirājamārga)

Nyāyamañjarī

xxi

Pañcatantra

334

Pāṇini

327

Panshikar W. L.

xi

Pisharoti, K. R.

xi, 314

Pound Ezra

xxiv

Pramāṇavārttika

338

Pratīhārendurāja

xxvii

Pravarasena

351

Raddi, Rangacharya

330

Rāghavabhaṭṭa

xvii

Raghavan, V.

xii, f.n. 369, 375, 381

Raghunāthā

377

Rājaśekhara

xxi, xxvii, xLi, 311, 385

Ramachandra Rao, S. K.,

324

Ramashāraka

xii, 317

Rāmāyaṇa

306, 309, 310, 341, 384

Ransom, J. C.

xxii

Ratnāvalī

351

Ratnaśrijñāna

xxii

Richards, I. A.

xxiii, xLi, 318, 325, 376

Rudrabhaṭṭa

xxv, xxv

Rudraṭa

xxv, xxvi, xxix, 330, 352, 353, 354, 360.

Ruyyaka

335, 354, 361

Saduktikarnāmṛta

335, 336

Samarāiccakahā

xxvi

Sarasvatīkanṭhābharaṇa

361

Śāṅgadharapaddhati

330, 336

Śaṅkuka

xxix, 304

Setubandha

351

Sankaran, A

xi

Shairp, J. C.

315

Sharma, Mukunda Madhav

xii, f. n.

Shelley

312

Śiśupālavadha (See Māgha)

351

Somadeva

381

Spandapradīpikā

xxi

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita

315

Śṛṅgāraprakāśa (See Bhoja)

369

Sṛṅgāratilaka

xxv

Subhāṣitāvalī

330, 345 354, 360

Subramania Iyer, K. A.

362

Svapnavāsavadatta

370

Tagore, Rabindranath

313

Tattvāloka

xxii

Udbhaṭa

xxiii, xxvii, xxix, xxxix, 303, 304, 326, 330, 352, 353, 366, 372, 375

Uddyotanasūri

xxvi

Upadhye, A. N.

382

Utpala

xxi

Uttungodaya

xii, 317

Vajjālaggaḿ

382

Vākyapadīya

303, 321, 338

Valery, Paul

337

Vallabhadeva

345, 366, 380

Vālmīki

xl, 309

Vāmana

xxiii, 303, 305, 327, 352, 354, 366, 383

Velankar, H. D.

318

Vidyādhara

xxviii

Vidyānātha

xxviii

Vimarśinī

336

Viśvanātha

xxviii, 335, 351, 353, 371

Vyāsa

xl, 375

Wordsworth

312, 314

Yaśovarman

353, 369

ERRATA

Page Line Incorrect Correct

41 24 For emotion Read emotional mood

45 4 For our Read your

61 16 Add : There is nothing wrong even if assonance is deemed a fitting medium, for portraying 'semblance of sentiment after the sentence ending with the words ... primary in Importance.

83 9 Add : And yet which do not shine in the sky

83 10 Add : And yet which outshine the lotus's colour

124 11 Perhaps the variant प्रसिद्ध fits better than प्रतिष्ठित if understood as all too common portrayal of love

135 23 to 26 should come immediately after the first paragraph and before suggestion with ....

142 f.n. 6 Add : घ after the dash.

202 3 For वाक्यस्य Read वाच्यस्य

219 9 After the word Admitted Add : that it is both different from the well known function of conventional denotation and yet a function of word nonetheless, and so Before line 10 : 'there is no cause ...

250 6 For घवहारयति Read व्यवाहरयति

272 8 For सुत्पादयति Read मृत्पादयति

370 27 For I shall not think of devotion to you Read : I shall never forget your devotion to me For The restoring of correct readings of these two Prakrit verses, see V.M. Kulkarni, 'Prakrit verses in Works on Sanskrit Poetics', Bombay University Journal, Arts, Vo,. XL, No. 76 (Oct. 1971).

401 1 Below परिम्लानं पीनस्तनं Read पाण्डु क्षामं Page 168 Line 1