________________
'Dhvani' and other thought-currents such as guņa,......
1183
'kumbhakara' is generated. Keeping this in view other words such as "suvarṇakāra", "nagara-kāra" etc. also can be generated, (by anybody with help of Paniniś sūtra). So, why brag around by such a small achievement (as calling a guna or alamkāra) by the name 'dhvani') for this is similar to the instance given above (of wider application of Paninis sūtra). This is the third type of objectors. Add to these three, the two (viz. bhāktavādins and aśakya-vaktavya-vādins) and we arrive at a total of five types of objectors. This is the substance (of what Anandavardhana has laid down)."
We have seen how Anandavardhana has presented the first type of objectors, (which is three fold in itself).
Abhinavagupta here further observes that by the use of "tāvat", it is suggested that nobody is basically opposed to the idea that poetry is both word and sense taken together. For there is no merit is just giving a name to a thing. 'Kavya' is the name given to the union of sabda and artha. Now, if the new name 'dhvani' is given to the same (i.e. union of word and sense, having the name of 'kāvya), nothing new is to be served. So, perhaps 'dhvani' is not of the form of the union of word and sense, but is its (=union's) beauty. Thus dhvani is just the beauty of word and sense taken together. Now this beauty can be twofold. Either it rests on its form only (i.e._ it is sva-rupa-matra-nistha) or it rests on the construction (of word and sense, i.e. samghatana-nistha). The beauty resting on svarupa or form is arrived at by śabdálamkāras or figures of sound, and the beauty arrived at by construction (i.e. samghatana-nista-cārutva) results from sabda-gunas (i.e. excellenas based on word). Similarly the two-fold beauty residing in artha or meaning results from upamā"di alamkāras and excellences such as sweetness etc. (i.e. mādhuryā”di gunas) respectively. Thus there is nothing beyond this (i.e. nothing beyond śabártha-guna'lamkāra). So, 'dhvani' is not at all a basically new concept. For, whatever is else than either guna or alamkāra can never claim to be a cause of beauty, like the blemishes both permanent or impermanent such as 'a-sādhu' or 'duḥ-śrava' etc. respectively. Now your dhvani (which is not poetry itself, and therefore) is a device of beauty and hence it can not be other than that (i.e. either guna or an alamkara). This is argument in negation (i.e. vyatirakīhetu) Now, says the objector, even if some people argue that just as dictions (i.e. vṛttis) and styles (i.e. rītis) are different from gunas and alamkāras and still are (independent) devices of beauty, in the same way dhvani also can be an independent device of beauty, the answer (from the original objector to dhvani) could be this. In fact vṛttis and rītis are not basically different from alamkāras such as alliteration (or,
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
