Sahrdayaloka Part 02

SR No.: 006909
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 642
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 481

1036
SAHṚDAYALOKA
tarhi na aprādhānyam, atha ca aprādhānyam, tarhi na camatkārótkarṣah. yadi ca vyangyasya camatkārótkarṣépi vācyópapādakataya angatvam iṣyate, tadā tad angatvam api a-kiñcitkaram, camatkārótkarṣa-nibandhanasya siṣṭa-paripāțisammata-prādhānyasya tathā'pi a-vyāhatatvāt.
kiñca, yatra tulya-camatkārā"dhāyakatvena vācya-vyangyayoḥ samam sandigdham vā prādhānyam, tayor guṇībhūta-vyangya-prakārayor bhavanmate kutrántarbhavaḥ ? na ca avyaptir eṣitum śakyate, "brāhmaṇātikramatyāgaḥ bhatām eva bhūtaye, jämadagnyaś ca vo mitram anyatha durmanāyate." "harstu kiñcit parilupta-dhairyaś candrodayā"rambha ivamburāśiḥ, umāmukhe bimba-phaládharosthe vyāpārayāmāsa vilocanāni."
camatkāra-apalāpa-anarhatvena, madhyama-kāvyatāyāḥ sarva
ityanayoś sammata-tvāt."
The Candrikākāra has made an additional point in raising a question as to how J. will deal with those varieties of guṇībhūtavyangya of the Kashmir School of M., wherein both vācya and vyangya have equal-sama-prominance, or wherein the prominance of either is in a doubtful state ?
The best course was laid perhaps by the, we may use the term, "logicianālamkarika" - Mahimabhaṭṭa who was very clear that between väcya and vyangya (or 'anumeya' as he calls it), the latter is necessarily more charming and therefore no question ever arises of a “guṇībhūta-vyangya❞ Viśvanatha goes half way when he rejects 'citra' as a type of poetry at all, for according to him poetry without any charm whatsoever of a suggested sense is no poetry at all. This is, in a way recognising halfheartedly the ever-supreme-status of vyangya as advocated by Mahimā.
So, the crux of the problem results into this viz. that either you classify poetry on the basis of the position of vyangya only, or on the basis of camatkārapradhanya only. But there is bound to be some confusion if your concept of 'pradhanya' is not clear.
Prof. Dr. P. Sri. Ramachandrudu (pp. 72, ibid) observes - "But what all PR. (Pundita-Rāja) wants to show here is a kind of sama-vyāpti between 'vyangyaprādhānya-prādhānya' and 'camatkāra-prādhānya-prādhānya' (wherever there is camatkara-prādhānya, there is vyangya-prādhānya and vice-versa.). That he gives ultimate importance to camatkara is evident from his incidental remark (while explaining the verse, "śayitā savidhe." etc.): "camatkāro na syāt ity asyaiva