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 614

'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guna,......
1169
"svargaprāptir..." ity ādau, viseṣókti-vyatirekau guna-nirapekṣau kāvyavyavahāra-pravartakau." (pp. 328, 330, ibid)
-"This is indeed the difference between excellences and figures. Therefore, the following statement is invalid. "The heroism etc. subsists by 'inherence' but the necklace etc. (the ornaments) exist by conjunction; this be (the empirical) distinction between excellences and ornaments. (But in poetry) Floridity (ojas) etc. (i.e. excellences) and alliteration and the like (i.e. the figures) both of these subsist by inherence; any distinction (between these two in poetry) would be blind following of others like a flock of sheep. (This is said to be Udbhataś view).
And again the statement: "Excellences are attributes which produce the poetic beauty, but the figures heighten it," is equally untenable. Because the question would arise: "Is poetry regarded as such due to the presence of all the excellences or due to a few of them? If due to (presence of) all, then how the 'gaudi' and 'pañcālī dictions (=styles), which do not possess all the excellences, constitute the soul of poetry? If due to a few, then - "Here in the hill... (vs.no. 338)"- such examples may be designated poetry when the excellences Floridity etc. are present.
"The woman of ...." (vs. 339)- In such examples viśeşókti (peculiar allegation) and vyatireka (contrast by dissimilitude) are responsible for the use of poetry even in the absence of excellences." (Trans. R.C. Dwivedi; pp. 329, 331, ibid).
Prof. Dr. Dwivedi (pp., ft. note adds: "In this verse i.e. svarga-prāptir anena. etc.), there are no letters which may suggest sweetness; floridity. (ojas) is out of context and perspicuity is absent. In the absence of all the excellences the poetic beauty will not be produced, to heighten which, the figures are admitted by Vamana. But the above is a case of good poetry."
Now Mammata in our opinion has overplayed his cards in writing these lines in refutation of Udbhata and Vamana. Certainly Ānandavardhana has never engaged himself in the refutation of views expressed by individnal ālamkārikas. On the contrary, he has positively refrained from doing this and just so, very very wisely. For, it is better, he thinks, to express one's views in a positive way, rather than getting engaged in verbal squibbles and negatively denounce individual views, as done by such authors as Mahima for example or even by Mammata and his followers, especially Viśvanatha to some extent and even by Jagannatha to a greater extent. Here what Mammața has argued is explained by a number of his commentators sush as Śrīvidyā Cakravartin who in his Sampradaya-prakāśinī