Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.50

v2.c80.50

As a necessary corollary from the prominence given to vakrokti or alaṃkāra in poetry by this system, it follows that ideas of rasa should be included in the scope of particular poetic figures. We shall see that Bhāmaha actually assigns this function to the particular figure rasavat, and, if we are to accept Udbhaṭa’s position as indicative of that of Bhāmaha, also to the figures preyas and ūrjasvin. By putting a technical interpretation on the word vibhāvyate in Bhāmaha ii 85, Abhinavagupta attempts to make out that the rasa as well as alaṃkāra originates in vakrokti; but this is probably an instance of the not-unusual but rather far-fetched ingenuity of the commentator. Regarding vyaṅgyārtha or dhvani, the “suggested sense”, which plays such an important part in later theories, Bhāmaha nowhere expressly alludes to this idea; but we can never dogmatically affirm that some kind of suggested sense was not known to him. He defines figures like paryāyokta, vyāja-stuti, aprastuta-praśaṃsā and samāsokti, in all of which there is an indication of an implied sense. The paryāyokta, for instance, is defined as paryāyoktaṃ yad anyena prakāreṇābhidhīyate (iii 8), and Udbhaṭa expands this with vācya-vācaka-vṛttibhyāṃ śūnyeṇā-vagamātmanā, in which there is a clear indication of an avagamyamāna artha ²³. This is also apparent from the criticism of Ānandavardhana, who does not agree, however, that in Bhāmaha's paryāyokta there is a predominance of the suggested sense, inasmuch as the expressed sense is not intended there to be merely subservient (pp. 39-40). In another place (p. 108), Ānandavardhana further remarks that Udbhaṭa has shown in detail that expressed poetic figures like rūpaka can sometimes be a suggested element, a case of what is explained by dhvani-theorists as alaṃkāra-dhvani. Thus, in the opinion of the great exponent of the dhvani-theory himself, Bhāmaha as well as Udbhaṭa (cf Locana p. 10) is not an abhāva-vādin or one who denies the existence of dhvani (as Mallinātha, p.24, wrongly considers him to be), but an antar-bhāva-vādin who includes the idea of dhvani in other elements of poetry. Discussing this point, Pratīhārendurāja appears to agree with Ānandavardhana; for, in his opinion, the dhvani, which is considered by some school to be the 'soul' of poetry, is not separately dealt with by these early writers because they include it in poetic figures (p. 79). In the same way, Jagannātha (pp. 414-15) remarks that although Udbhaṭa and others, who were earlier than the author of the dhvani-system, never use the term dhvani, it is yet unreasonable to hold on that ground that the concept of dhvani was unknown to them, because they indicate some of its aspects in their definitions of figures like paryāyokta, samāsokti, vyāja-stuti and aprastuta-praśamsā. To the same effect is the general statement of Ruyyaka (p. 3), who says that Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and other ancient writers would comprehend the suggested sense in the *alaṃkāra* as an adornment of the expressed sense; in other words, they do not take it independently but as an accessory to the expressed sense, in the same way as they take *rasa* as an accessory element. Following perhaps the tradition of Bhāmaha’s *paryāyokta*, the younger Vāgbhaṭa defines (pp. 36-37) the figure as *dhvanitābhidhānam*, and refers the curious reader to the treatise of Ānandavardhana for a detailed treatment of *dhvanitókti*; while Hemacandra defines (p. 263) it more briefly as *vyaṅgyasyóktiḥ*. In all this, one can perceive an attempt to read the idea of *dhvani* into older authors like Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa and thus to find an orthodox authority for it from an early time; but it is not unlikely that the general notion of a suggested sense, like the general notion of *rasa*, was not unknown to these ancient authors, although it was only naively understood and never independently treated, being uncritically included as an element of some poetic figures.