________________
236
SAHRDAYĀLOKA vyatirekam tam icchanti
viśesā”pādanād yathā.” Thus vyatireka has also an element of similarity implied in it and the external expression has something more to convey : "višesa-āpādana icchā". In the same way in vibhāvanā, (abnormal causation) at (II. 77, 78) kāranántara-kalpanā' - imagining some other cause which is not directly expressed, is at implicit level. This could be through the agency of vyañjanā. Bhāmaha, at II. 79, defines samāsókti : (Condensed Speech) -
“yatrókte gamyatényórthaḥ tat-samāna-viśesaņaḥ, sā samāsóktir uddistā
samkṣiptárthatayā yathā.” Tatacharya writes (pp. 55, ibid) : yasmin arthe ukte, anyórtho gamyate. nanu katham ekasminn artha ucyamāne aparórtho gamyeta? ucyate. tat-samānavišesaņāt. ukrasya arthasya yāni viśesaņāni tāni ced anyasyápi samānāni, tāni tam gamayanti.
This 'anyārtha-gamana' is implied and is mostly through the agency of vyañjanā. At least, there is a clear recognition of an implied sense here.
After defining atiśayokti (hyperbole) at II. 81, as noted earlier, Bhāmaha wants it to remain present in all the alamkāras. The poets should be vigilant in bringing forth this element in kävya as such. Anything bereft of this element of atiśaya is mere vārtā' a bare local statement not involving the poetic beauty. Precisely for this reason, in Bhāmaha's understanding, or by the way Bhāmaha has imagined them, the three figures of speech such as hetu, sūksma, and leśa are no alamkāras, as there is no element of vakrokti or poetic beauty involved in them :
"hetuś ca sūksmo leśótha nálamkāratayā matāḥ, samudāyābhidhānasya
vakrokty anabhidhānataḥ.” Tatacharya writes : (pp. 58, ibid) : "vakrábhidheya-sabdoktiḥ istā vācām alamkştih”, iti tāvat sthitam. lokátikrāntatā ca śabdárthayor vakrată, să yatra násti sa katham alamkāraḥ. na ca hetvádyalamkāra-vattayábhimateșu sthalesu vakratā kācid asti. tad ete nā”lamkāratayā matāḥ. samudāyena abhidhānam yasya
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
