Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.35

v2.c85.35

The plan of Ruyyaka’s work, written in the form *sūtra* with *vṛtti*, is stated by himself in the introductory portion of his *vrtti*. He starts, in common with other followers of the Dhvani school, with the suggested sense (*pratīyamāna artha*) and demonstrates by a rapid survey of the views of older writers that it was directly or indirectly recognised by all. But he thinks that, in the opinion of the authorities who came before the Dhvani school, the chief function of the suggested sense consisted in embellishing the expressed meaning (*vācyópaskāra*), and therefore it was naturally comprehended in the sphere of poetic figures in which the expressed sense prevailed⁸. This is generally the view of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana and Rudraṭa. The Vakroktijīvita-kāra, who came after Ānandavardhana, includes all ideas of *dhvani* in a variety of *vakrokti* based on *upacāra* or metaphorical expression. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka maintains that the suggested sense, established chiefly through the forcible utterance of the poet (*kavi-prauḍhókti*) is only a secondary element in poetry, the essential thing being the relish of *rasa* realised through a function called *bhoga* or enjoyment, which is distinct from and which transcends the denotative or generalising function of words. The Vyakti-viveka-kāra takes the relation of the expressed and the suggested in terms of the logical *liṅga* and *liṅgin*, and regards the process of suggestion as a process of inference. None of these views comes up to that of the Dhvanikāra, which is, therefore, accepted indisputably by Ruyyaka, who lays down sententiously at the end : *asti tāvad vyaṅgya-niṣṭho vyañjanā-vyāpāraḥ*. The three divisions of poetry into *dhvani*, *guṇībhūtā-vyaṅgya* and *citra* are also recognised ; but as the first two are already discussed in the *Alaṃkāra-mañjarī*⁹ and the *Dhvanyāloka* respectively, Ruyyaka proposes in this treatise to take up the remaining *citra-kāvya*, which, including in its scope all poetic figures devoid of suggestion¹⁰, naturally covers an extensive field. As all detailed consideration of this part is omitted in the *Dhvanyāloka* (as coming not properly within the limits of its theory), here was an opportunity of supplementing the work of his predecessors.