Influence of Purvamimamsa on Alankarasastra

C. RAJENDRAN

It INFLUENCE oF PURvAnaIiuAn,TsA oN

,tr,.lnnxAnaSAsrRA As the saying ascribed to Abhinavagupta Eoes sarvapdrsadam idam idstram, Alamkdra66stra is eclectic in nature. While it has no exclusive ontological or epistemological positions to stick to, it freely makes use of the tenets of other disciplines like grammar and logic. There is probably nothing wrong about it, since poeticians are not generally expected to address themselves to the ultimate questions of metaphysics, and this gives them a certain freedom to adopt concepts from sister disciplines without compromising their

t

I

basic positions. The borrowing of concepts does not affect the vigour or validity of poetics. However, we may wonder whether PiirvamimEmsd, the Indian science of hermeneutics, has exerted any influence on it at all. Piirvamim6rysE has not been a dominant philosophical system like the Ny6ya or VedAnta from second millennium, when Alamkara6astra developed its linguistic speculations and probably required reinforcement of its positions from other disciplines. But our scepticism in this regard is misplaced. P[rvamimEmsd, at least its language philosophy, has exerted considerable influence on Alamkdra66stra which evolved its own linguistic positions with the advent of the dhvani doctrine.

74

THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN

2OO1

The linguistic thought of both the prabhakara_s and rhe Bhdtta-s has been used by the Alamkdrika_s to define their own positions and to issues. This is not to suggest that the Alamkarika_s, "1"i"

I

rowed the interpretive tools as a tribe, have bor_ of rrar*r*r*u]r'"inOircriminately to serve their purposes"

In fact, n

tfre gr"ui po.ticians of the forma_ tive period of?r13f Alamkrrdrro.'*hich

roughly corre_ sponds 9_12 centuries were indep"ra.ii--iirl;;..r, and they disagreed with each other on many points. Their attitude to pDrvamimamra can be described as tentative, in that.they expe.r.J1fr. prrvamimamsd to accept their positions about hnguistic

b

o.oil"...*,*.".

I This new interface was heralded by

vaidhana, who,

in

Ananda_

Ohronyait o, pgstulated a new function for poetic tungu;g;-"^r*O vyafijand to ac_ count for the comprehension Uis

of which.orrJnoiu"L*pruin.ioi'riiforr;::*Z:#:::,

the primary and seconaury po*.rs of language. Anandavardhana takes the stand that suggestion is an adventitious (aupddhika) function of Ianguage and avers that it has be acceptea Uy tfr. Mimdmsaka_s .to

who make

a

distinction

6.;;;

prahuman) and pauruseya h?sW.?f., mer, being impersonaf, i, _(huma[ f.." f.o,n tt. usual blemishes attributable to the latter f*" ifr" irnperfection of the speaker. But this will

[l:

O" po..iuil

if

Mimdmsaka_s

I

$:

PURVA\.II\{AMSA AND

ALAMKARASASTRA

75

accept adventitious functions like y,afi.jana to account for the manifestation of impurities' like the speaker's intention in ordinary human language. In other words, the acceptance of v1,afijana is in consonance with the position of the Mimdmsaka-s that scriptural language is qualitatively different from ordinary language.'

The necessity of the acceptance of vyafijana by both the schools of PUrvamimamsa is elaborated at greater length by Abhinavagupta who maintains that rvhether in Abhihitdnvayavdda or Anvitabhidhdnavdda, the comprehension of the suggested meaning will be possible only when one accepts r,1,afijana. In Abhihitdnvayavdda, accepted by the Bhatta-s, abhidhd is necessary for the comprehension of the primary meaning which is generic in nature. Abhinavagupta takes tatparyaiakti as the power responsible for generating the sentence meaning and the notion of particularity as per the Bhdtta-s. But as Kunjunni Raja has pointed out, Bhatta-s accept laltsana as the power responsible for this and .tatparyaiakti was actually postulated by Jayantabhatta.z Abhinavagupta maintains that neither of these functions, nor laksana can explain the comprehension of the suggested meaning, which is explainable only on the basis of vyafijana.

In Anvitabhidh6na, the syntactical relation is conveyed by the sentence at the very outset; hence no power

is necessary for its

comprehension. Abhidha gives rise to the primary meaning. If there is any discrepancy in it, laksana is resorted to clear it. But 6

THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN

76

2OOI

the neither of these functions is capable of explaining Bhdtta-s who suggested meaning, and hence' the the process ,uf,rcribe to this view have also to accept the of vyafiiana' Thus, in short, Abhinavagupta and tier of a four other poeticians following him conceive a three tier model in the case of Bhatta-s' system and accommodate model in the case of the Prdbhdkara-s to

dhvani.

position of the Abhinavagupta further refutes the meaning of the Pr6bh-akara-s that the actual intended of the exsentence is got automatically' irrespective pressed meaning. Abhinavagupta points out that the Pr6bhdkara-s the operawho subscribe to Anvitabhidhanavada liken once shot' tion of the word to that of an arrow which' is reached' According does not rest until its hnal target to assume to Abhinava, this cannot be true' We have ship (n im it t an im i t tib hdv a) betw een c aus e - effect re I ation Otherwise' the expressed and the suggested meaning' well-known the ilimamsaka-s cannot explain their between the expressed and fositions like the difference and effect)' the secondary meaning (which are cause (ltaradaurballta) .of and also the progressiie weakn ess lf Linga' Sruti like pro*aio-' th' the six -and effect (naimittikn)' i'e' Prabhakara-s maintain that the

require any suggested meaning' does not r'e' (sanketa), anJ only the cause (nimitta)' it will reverse "onventior, the conventional meaning' requires it' the meaning ; the the normal order of the cognition of

the

1

L: L.*

puRVAMtMAnasA AND

ALAMrAnaSAsrre

7i

will be cognized first, as it does not require any convention, to be followed by the expressed meaning which requires the convention. Abhinavagupta jocularly remarks that Mimdmsaka-s would be maintaining that the great grandson will be the precursor of the father if this order is accepted.3 In shorl, we cannot assume the cognition of an intended meaning totally disregarding the natural cognition process in language where we get a conventional meaning at the very outset from which other meanings emerge. suggested meaning

II

It

seems that dhvani doctrine was severely criticized by Bliattanayaka, an aesthetician who made use of Mimamsd concepts in the formulation of his own theory. BhattanEyaka maintains that the poetic language has actually three powers : that of denotation, (abhidh-a), that of universalization (bhdvana) and that of enjoyment (bhojakatva). These are mentioned in some K6rikd-s ascribed to him by Abhinavagupta in the Abhinavabharatt.4 1 | . ,,

I

, ,

aDntana- Dnavono can),a tadbhoglkrtam eva ca. abhidhddhamatam yate i ab dd rt hdl am krtt t atalt. bhavanabhdvya eso'pi irigdrddigano bhaved. tadbhogtkrtirupena vyapyate siildhiman narah.

78

THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN

2OO1

gives the litAccordingly, the power of denotation the eral meaning, and the power of bhat'ana makes is defirasa enjoyublr. H." the concept of bhavana ni.ty i.iir.a from the Mimdmsaka-s who maintain gles rise to that a statement hke yaieta svargakamah bhavand' two operative functions called iAbfi and arthi part of the BhAvina is defined as the operation on the the thing to be agent conducive to the production of vydpioduced (bhavitur bhavananula'tlo bhdvayitur power (idbdi paraviieso bhdvand)' It is either a word 'bhavand) power motivating the listener or a material in actual objects' For example' (arthl bhdvand) "xiJing desirous of it. inll'r* tton yaieta svargakdmah' 'he power motiword heaven should ,u.tifi"' contains a injuncin the vating the listener to perform a sacrifice is to be tive mood. lt answers three queries' What is the sacrifice' motivated (kim bhdvayet), the answer it to be motiThe next query is: By what means is is the greatness vated (keni bhdvayet)' Here the answer factor' coming of the sacrifice *t i"t is the motivating content i" ttt. actual performance of the sacrifice'isthe the attainof drthi bhdvana, the motivating factor sacrifice itself and the ment of heaven, the means is the various'limbs of the method is the performance of the

t

I

sacrifice. bhdvand is exactly Thus' modelled after the ton"pi of the Mimamsaka-s' : Abhinuuug,rpta observes in his Dhvanydloknlocana

It is evident that Bhattandyaka's

guna' tqsmdd vyafiiakatvdkhyena vydparena

t

t

pURVAMiMArvrsA AND ALAMrAneSAsrna

? a

a

79

lamkaraucityddikayd .itil