?

*

.A NOTE ON ANANDAYARDHANA'S CONCEPT

, OF ATAITIKARA

C. Rajendran

Ofprint from The Adyar Library Bulletin

Yol, 56-1992 (pp Z to 12)

.t

"I\|

4

I,t

C. RAJENDRAN

A NOTE ON ,4.NANDAVARDHANA'S CONCEPToF ALAivIr,4.n,q.

IN the Yyaktiviveka, while discussing the defects inthe Dhvanilak$&Se, Mahimabhalta finds fault withAnandavardhana for having omitted the mention ofAbhidhA along with Artha and Sabda as a suggestiveelement. The relevant passage is as follows:

f+.q qqrfe{+q}sei€(ksiqq q}qra" fril(fiTurc{qrflq-qeia I sr;qeTT qa *wGregr<rro<wlqqra: sf,rlewaaqk€flqce q Eqi( 6qqqTut{r"qG: t wogryrori qrfllTqTfficq-

{qrrfr iwi rrgiriforflo+t<weaq r

Vyaktiviveka, R. p. Dwivedl,sEdn. p 22

The point sought to be made by Mahimabhatta isthat the Dhvanilaksala as such cannot cover instanceswherein one Alamkara suggests another AlamkSra,since in such places, the suggestive element is neitherSabda nor Artha. Mahimabhattasticks to the positionthat Alarykdra is a mode of Abhidh6 and if it is to beregarded as a suggestive element, the word Abhidhashould also be included in Dhvanilakgar,ra.

The difficulty ensuing from the non-inclusion ofAbhidha, according to Mahimabhatta, is that caseslike Dipaka which suggest figures like Upamd willhave to be excluded from the purview of Dhvani. The

8 THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN-1e92

Dhvaniv6din would maintain that such instances com-

prise Gu4ibhfltavyangya and as such there is nothing

il;;g-d excluding ii.* from. Dhvani' But even ifthis were correct, the Dhvaniv5din cannot explain

lro* g.rroine instances of Alar.nkSradhvani' given rise

to fy".*pressed Alaryk6ra-s can.be treated as Dhvani

*itt L"t the mention of Abhidhd in the Dhvanilak$ata..--R.,yyuka,thecommentatorofVyaktivivekatties

t" d;i;6 Anandavardhana pointing out that such a

"oti"" of Alamkara as AUtriOtratmaka is not at all

,..og"ir.a by Sanskrit poeticians of the past' like

gt ut"todbhutu. Abhidha is oniv a function either

U.iorgirg to Sabda that can be inferred front the cog-

nition" oi meaning, or consisting of the pronunciation

;i;h. Sabda. The Alamkara-s consisting of beauty

.r"n"t be regarded as modes of Abhidha since beauty

.un t.tong -only to the pronounced sound and the

described ireaning, not to the processes of pronun-

ciation and descriPtion as such'

Gia 6qf,ffiEt|sq}sqqrurq: I E{ fq flarai-wE;t<ffas'GtT-

qlalwriglqgxSltf,w : sraeituqt qEI(E;Iqt: qfffirf,ffit: mftT-

en*rqi: I -qo)*ixfauqiu: qI"{"qIqR: Eae}qlqaqTcri'

qTITTLTT I q q ffiqfiT<Ei.T$r<Tqi {flqilq( t qrcci lq *laeat-

q-{qqfti ss'T{tqFrqflgT{: I q q qt'q}EsT{sRqTaisqiiqrq(q'

EIqTA(4qmTsrfrlsEqTd"ITTqtqqgftqrqqTq(qqqrc'<E-qf,lt: t iq, qraffiFir qqlqr( sr6'{t?iuq? gqTFrErtT:;qpr[r:'

crftTuruqt: I Ruyyaka, Vyaktivivekavyidkhyana' p' 23

In this context, Ruyyaka refers to a curious P[rrva-

paLsa. If Alarnkaiu-t uit "ot

modes of Abhidh6' how'.u, portry be distinguished from Sastra-s and ltihflsa-s ?

;

+

ANaxoevenouANA's coNCEpr oE ar,aurAna 9

Apparently, the Plrvapaksin maintains that the powerof Abhidhf, seen in poetry is differ:ent from that ofSastra-s and Itihdsa-s, in that it is characterized by thepresence of Alarlkf,ra-s. If AbhidhA of poetry is

not regarded as the substratum of Alamkdra-s, it willnot in any way be different from or:dinary Abhidhd andhence poetry could not be distinguished from ordinaryexpressions.

In reply to this Purvapakga, supposed to have beenthat of Mahimabhatta, Ruyyaka points out that poetrymust be distinguished from non-poetry on the basis ofthe qualifledness of Sabda and Artha and not ofAbhidha. Thus, there is nothing wrong in maintainingthat Alamkara-s are to be regarded as belonging toSabda and Artha, andnot to AbhidhA. Thus, accord-ing to Ruyyaka, the exclusion of Abhidhd in thedefinition of Dhvani does not pose any problemat all.

But Ruyyaka seems to be wrong in supposingthat Mahimabha[fa's theory of Abhidhatmakatva assomething novel and totally unknown to Ananda-vardhana. In fact, Anandavardhana seems to haverecorded such a view while refuting the Bhdktavada.To quote his own words:

qT g{eifqil.terTqrurq*{q?qTffqtrq(q q-{rq qiE qrq}q-

qqTurf,uri qErTr"Ad, qlq s {urfi+q aq'f,qrteco qqEqfr f,q|lT-

ur6qrqR,Tr okorlsvgT{Eri: qqr gE qe-qil ef,o x.ttuvgr-{IUri F{Hup6<ur+q",iqqg: I

Dhvanydloka B-alapriyd Edn. p. 162

Here, Anandavardhana poinis out that explainingaway Dhvani on the basis of Bhakti is as absurd as

t

10 THE ADyAR LIBRARY BULTETIN-Iee2

explaining away all the figures on the basis of Abhidha,The point worth noticing in this connection is thatAnandavardhana concedes the essential relationshipbetween Abhidha and Alarlkara-s. He is only againstthe argument that individual Alarykara-s need not bedeflned separately if Abhidha is defined prior tothem.

From the above, it seems that when Mahimabhalfais asserting the Abhidha element of Alaqkdra-s, he isfollowing a tradition of thought recognized byAnandavardhana himself, and not departing from thetradition, as alleged by Ruyyaka. Interestingly, thesame concept appears in Kuntaka's Vakroktiitvitaalso, where the author explicitly says:

vw*mavgl$r oq]: ga{er<ffi: t

qallmqq i<it;aw g-' prflwfa-t=q-i t t

Vakrolctijtvita.I. l0

Kuntaka explicitly maintains that Alarykara-s areAbh i dha itself (fafladmflueri)

What is the essential difference between Alarpkaraas a property of Sabda arrd Artha and as a mode ofAbhidhA? In the former, the Alarykara would be anaccomplished object enhancing the beauty of itssubstratum; in the latter view, Alar.nkara would ratherbe a variation of the normal expression, a differentmanner of communication. It is in this sense thatMahimabha!{a underlines the importance of Alamkara-sas essential to the poetic expression.

fqqledEtqmqtuqi rqctsqt q wgfqq I

ffiriqs fi.qqlsqEf(q v{rt rr

Vyaktiviveka I\. 14

*

i

*

ANeNoaveRDHANA's coNCEpr or u,ayrAu llAs perthis view,Alamkara ceases to be an ornament

added for extra beauty, but an essential aspect ofexpression through which alone the poet can conveythe Rasa. In a similar view, Anandavardhana alsomaintains that no separate effort is necessary forgiving shape to them; they automatically flood theconsciousness of a poet rapt in contemplation of Rasa.

- BriTE{{r;il{ftrr Q flrs.+wurgdearaflr {vmurf6Siru:q'fldsrrfl{d; ri: ei{gFmff q<rqilfiil

I

Dhvanyaloka p.221-22

The same concept is seen implicit in Mahimabhalla

q qrf,Sf{fqcqd'<qa;il}qt: fifq: r

qmi A k oftsflaqrctrqafnaq: rr

Vyaktivivelco II. 75

M ahimabh atta maintain s that Alamk5ra - s enhancethe charm of Vibhdvddi, which are directly responsiblefor the genesis of Rasa.

{qtarg} krTrEtu : q1qT1fa6q1{fiilcrit : t

dAfq-€q1f+-dagulsrgr<rcg flETqqi: I I

Vyaktittiveka Il. 76

Thus, it can be seen that both Anandavardhana andMahimabhatta are in agreement with each other,in theirbasic notion of Alamkdra as a rnanner of expressionenhancing the suggestive value of poetry. To Mahima-bhalta, this would mean fhat Alarpkdra-s are essentially

Ilt