![]() What is notable here is that the variety of suggestiveness is placed outside the human mind it is the cause, not the result of poetic imagination. In response to Anandavardhana’s assertion that dhvaniprovided endless freshness to language, Abhinavagupta observes that there are a limited number of things worthy of descriptionīut by the multiplicity … these same things become limitless hence there arises an infinity of poetic imagination taking them at its object … This can come about only if the poetic imagination is endless, and that only if the objects to describe endless and that only because of the variety of dhvani. Perhaps the logician would have agreed, but I can’t help thinking that what also irritated him about Anandavardhana’s investigation was what it made of poets.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |