________________
1066
SAHRDAYĀLOKA kayā yuktyā-vācya-vācaka-vịttibhyām sabdártha-śaktibhyām vyatiriktasya tad atirikta-vștter anyasya vyangya bhutasya abhivyaktiḥ kriyate.” - "The mainly intended purport therein, is conveyed by force of implication (i.e. suggestion), only in as much as it defies direct denotation. What is the exact process involved ? The process involved is implication (or suggestion) which is distinct from the two wellknown uses of language, viz. the communicative use of meanings and the denotative use of words. The word process is used here in the sense of the latent power in words and meanings towards signification.” (Trans. K.Kris., pp. 345, ibid)
This directly leads K. into the camp of Ā. and at his feet too ! Precisely because of this we may call him a dhvanivādin eventhough here also, he does not name 'vyañjanā' clearly. Perhaps because of this also, K. who looks to be a “pracchannadhvani-vādin”, is spared the onslaughts of Ā.'s great followers such as Mammata and the like, and he is hardly heard of and quoted in later works becuase he has nothing fresh to offer. He is almost neglected, for he wrongly tries to project his vicitrā abhidhā' - theory which proposes to subsume even vyañjanā under it. K. says that this 'pratīyamāna-vyavahāra' will be elucidated while dealing with vākyavakratā lateron : "eșa ca 'pratīyamāna vyavahāro vākya-vakratā-vyākhyávasare sutarām samumīlyate." (vītti, pp. 59, ibid, VJ. I. 40)
Illustration no. 100, (pp. 59-60, ibid) viz. "vakréndor na haranti..." etc. is also explained in it, which is ‘other then the expressed' - "...iti vācya-vyatirikta-vrtti dütyukti-tātparyam pratīyate." K. holds that 'vicitra-märga' also operates when an object's real nature is so described as to be brimming with the intended flow of sentiments - (vrtti, VJ. I. 41; pp. 66, ibid) : yatra yasmin bhāvānām svabhāvah, parispandaḥ, sa-rasā”kūtaḥ, rasa-nirbharábhiprāyeņa padárthānām nibadhyate, niveśyate; kīdrśaḥ ?..." etc. This is clearly under the influence of Dhv. IV. 4.
K. then comes to what he calls the "madhyama-mārga” (VJ. I. 49-51, pp. 68, ibid). He discusses the qualities of "aucitya” or propriety and "saubhāgya” or "splendour" under VJ. I. 55, 56, and 57 (pp. 69/70, ibid). In I. 56, he holds that this 'saubhāgya' is "the only life of poetry" - "kāvyaika-jīvita”. This is rather surprising. K. is not so clear as is Ā., in exactly defining the relation between 'guna' and 'rasa'.
K. speaks of second variety of "varna-vinyāsa-vakratā” at VJ. II. 2 (pp. 75, ibid), which is three-fold. The letters used are - "prastutaucitya-sobhinah” - i.e. they shine by their harmony with the theme, which necessarily is not of the type of rasā"di. We know that .. had insisted on letters being condusive to 'rasa' only, (Dhv. III. 3, 4, - "tena varnā rasacyutah”). As compared to that, K.'s approach is wider and
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
