Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.35

v2.c84.35

It follows from the prominence given by Kuntala to vakrokti in poetry that all ideas of dhvani and rasa should be comprehended in certain aspects of vakratā, just as the vṛttis of Udbhaṭa, connected with *anuprāsa*, as well as *anuprāsa* itself and *yamaka* of orthodox writers, are taken as kinds of *varṇa-vinyāsa-vakratā* or *vakratā* depending upon the peculiar arrangement of letters. The idea of *dhvani* is included partly in *rūḍhi-vaicitrya vakratā*, where Ānandavardhana’s own verse *tālā jāanti guṇā* as well as the verse *snigdha-śyāmala-kānti* cited by Āuanda as an example of *arthāntara-saṃkramita-vācya dhvani* (i. e. the case of suggestion where the expressed sense passes into another sense), is given as instances. Other aspects of *dhvani* are acknowledged in *upacāra-vakratā*, where the verse *gaaṇam ca mattamehaṃ*, cited by Ānanda as an instance of *atyanta-tiraskṛta-vācya dhvani* (i. e., the case of suggestion where the expressed sense disappears entirely), is given as an example. From Kuntala’s treatment it appears that he takes *upacāra* in the sense of a supposed or fancied identification of two objects, however distinct, on the basis even of the slightest resemblance. As such, therefore, it is admittedly involved in figures like metaphor (*rūpaka*) and forms the basis of metaphorical expression generally. This would come under the comprehensive domain of transferred expression known as *lakṣaṇā*, and would be included by the *dhvani*-theorists under *lakṣaṇā-mūla-dhvani*, i. e. suggestion based on transference or Indication¹⁶. Kuntala would thus belong to that group of writers regarding whom the Dhvanikāra says that they do not deny the existence of *dhvani* but regard it as *bhākta* (*bhāktam āhus tam anye*), i. e., depending on a transference of sense or Indication.