Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.63

v2.c85.63

The group of three Jaina writers, Hemacandra and the older and the younger Vāgbhaṭas may be conveniently mentioned here, but they do not call for any special remark. Hemacandra's *Kāvyānuśāsana*, written in the form of *sūtra* with *vṛtti*, (Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and some other writers regard this as an *alaṃkāra* and not a *guṇa* ); the commentator notes that this is the absence of the defect *paruṣa* ( see above p. 18, fn 36). (xiii) *aurjitya*, compactness of structure. (This is said to be the absence of the defect called *visamdhi*. This defect, mentioned also by Bharata and Bhāmaha, is dealt with at p. 305. It is explained as *visamhito virūpo vā yasya saṃdhiḥ*, Kumāra-svāmin explaining *visamhitaḥ* as *vigatā saṃhitā varṇānām paraspara-sannikarṣo yatra*, and *virūpaḥ* as simply *karṇa-kaṭhoraḥ*. The *saṃhitā*, therefore, means close proximity of letters which leads to euphonic combinations sanctioned by grammar. The fault occurs (a) when there is no *saṃdhi* (*viśleṣa*) and (b) when the *saṃdhi* is harsh to the ear (*kaṣṭa*). Mammaṭa (pp. 331f) adds a third case of its occurrence when the *saṃdhi* gives rise to the implication of an indecent (*aślīla*) idea. See Trivedi's note to *Pratāparudra* pp. 73-75. (xiv) *samādhi*, attribution of the properties of one object to another (an echo of Daṇḍin's *samādhi*), e.g., attribution of the properties of an inanimate object to an animate object (what Kuntala would comprehend under *upacāra-vakratā* and other writers under the figure *rūpaka*). (xv) *vistara*, detailed corroboration of what is said. (xvi) *sammitatva*, use of the absolutely necessary words, neither more nor less, to convey the intended sense, i.e., balance of sound and sense (*arthasya padānāṃ ca tulā-vidhṛtatvāt tulyatvena sammitatvam*). (xvii) *gāmbhīrya*, presence of the suggested sense or *dhvani* (*dhvani-mattā*).