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 594

Dhvani in Kuntaka, Bhoja and others, and Guņībhūta-vyangya and Citra-Kāvya. 1149
Mammața, we will go to observe, uses the term "adhama" or "low-class” i.e. worst type of poetry for this so called 'citra' kāvya. This for him (K. P. I. iv) is “avara" and is two-fold such as "sabda-citra" and "artha-citra" as suggested by Anandavardhana. Mammața also observes that (K. P. VI).
“yadyapi sarvatra kāvye antato vibhāvā”dirūpatayā rasa-paryavasānam, tathā’pi sphuộasya rasasya anupalambhād a-vyangyam etat kāvya-dvayam uktam. atra tu śabdárthálamkāra-bhedād bahavo bhedāḥ, te ca alamkāra-nirņaye nirnesyante." (K. P. VI., pp. 192, End. R. C. Dwivedi, ibid).
“Though everywhere in poetry, ultimately the character being that of the determinant and the rest, there is culmination in the rasa (i.e. all poetry delineating the vibhāvas etc., is ultimately posited in rasa). Yet these two kinds of (portrait-) poetry, because of the absence of distinct sentiment, are devoid of suggestion. But of this (portrait-poetry) there are many varieties on account of the divisions of the poetic figure into that of the word and the sense. These will be taken up at the time of elucidation of the figures.”
(Trans. R. C. Dwivedi, pp. 193, ibid). Vidyānātha has something else to say about 'citra' kāvya. While others take 'asphuţa-vyangya' as variety of guṇībhūta-vyangya, Vidyānātha takes it to be ‘citrakāvya? He observes (pp. 51, Pratāparudrīya, Edn. Madras, 1914 A. D., C.Chandrasekhara Sastrigal) :
“vyangyasya prādhānyáprādhānyābhyām a-sphuţatvena ca, trividham kāvyam, vyangyasya prādhānye uttamam kāvyam dhvanir iti vyapadiśyate. a-prādhānye madhyamam gunībhūta-vyangyam iti gīyate. vyangyasya a-sphuţatve adhamam kāvyam citram iti giyate.” ... (pp. 52, ibid).
"citram trividham śabda-citram artha-citram ubhayacitram ca iti.”
Thus for him, even in gunībhūta-vyangya the "vyangya' or suggested sense has to be “sphuţa” or clear. 'asphusa-vyangya', for him, gives rise to 'citra' which is 'adhama'. Thus he adopts the terminoogy of both Anandavardhana and Mar but with a difference that his 'citra' or 'adhama' is not "a-vyangya” i.e. it is not "without suggested sense totally.” Thus the prima facie view,-advanced in the Dhv. and practically accepted by Anandavardhana that no poetic content worth its name could be totally bereft of suggestivity as, in one way or the other, even as a stimuli, it is connected with the mental states (cittavștti) and therefore with 'rasa', which in itself is “mānasa-cittavrtti-rūpa”,-is acceptable to Vidyānātha.