Dhvanyalokalocana 92

English (machine translation) 92

Language: English

92.2

When both varieties of poetry have been thus established / through the primary and subordinate status of the suggested meaning, / that which is other than these is termed pictorial poetry. //

92.3

Pictorial poetry is established as twofold according to the division of word and meaning: / therein, one is verbal pictorial poetry, and beyond this is semantic pictorial poetry. //

When the suggested meaning is primary, there is the kind of poetry designated as suggestion; when it is subordinate, however, there is the condition of subordinated suggestion. Poetry other than these—devoid of the purport of aesthetic relish, emotion, and so forth, lacking the power to reveal a particular suggested meaning, composed by relying solely on the strikingness of expressed meaning and expressive word, appearing like a painting—that is pictorial poetry. That is not primary poetry; for it is an imitation of poetry. Therein, that which is verbal pictorial poetry is, for instance, difficult yamaka and the like. Semantic pictorial poetry, other than verbal pictorial poetry, is that which is devoid of the touch of suggested meaning, stands predominantly as the sentence meaning, and is devoid of the purport of aesthetic relish and so forth, such as utprekṣā and the like.

92.5

Now, what is this so-called pictorial poetry? That wherein there is no touch of an implicit meaning. For the implicit meaning was previously shown to be of three kinds. Therein, where there is no suggested subject matter or another poetic figure, let that be conceived as the domain of pictorial poetry. But where there is no scope for aesthetic relish and the like, that type of poetry is simply impossible. For the non-involvement of poetry with some subject matter is untenable. And every subject matter existing in the world inevitably becomes an auxiliary element to some aesthetic relish or emotion, at least by being a determinant. For aesthetic relishes and the like are particular mental states; nor is there any entity that does not produce a particular mental state; or, if it does not produce it, it would not fall within the poet's scope at all—and something within the poet's scope is being described as pictorial poetry.

92.6

To this it is said: true, there is no such kind of poetry where there is no comprehension of aesthetic relish and the like. But when a poet, devoid of the intention to convey aesthetic relish, emotion, and so forth, composes a verbal figure or a figure of meaning, then, in view of that intention, the absence of aesthetic relish and the like in the meaning is assumed. For the meaning of words in poetry rests entirely upon the intention [of the poet]. Or else, even in the absence of the poet's intention in such a domain, any comprehension of aesthetic relish and the like that arises through the force of the expressed meaning is extremely feeble; hence, by positing absence of aesthetic relish in this manner too, the domain of pictorial poetry is established. Thus it is said:

92.7

When there is absence of the intention toward aesthetic relish, emotion, and so on,
the composition of poetic figures is regarded as the domain of pictorial poetry.

92.8

When, however, the intention toward aesthetic relish and the like possesses primary importance,
then there is no poetry at all that is not the province of suggestion.

92.9

And this pictorial poetry was posited by us because we observe the composition of poetry by unbridled poets without any regard at all for aesthetic relish and the like as their purport. But when a proper formulation of poetic theory is made for contemporary poets, there is no kind of poetry distinct from suggestion. For in poets of mature talent, an activity devoid of the purport of aesthetic relish and the like does not look well at all. And when aesthetic relish and the like are the purport, there is no subject matter that does not become qualified [for poetic beauty] when brought into subordination to the desired aesthetic relish. For even insentient things—either through being suitable excitants of aesthetic relish in their own right, or through the attribution of sentient behavior—there are none that do not attain the status of subordinates to aesthetic relish. Thus it is said:

92.10

In the boundless universe of poetry, the poet alone is the creator;
as it pleases him, so this world transforms.

92.11

If the poet is steeped in erotic sentiment, the world becomes full of aesthetic relish in poetry;
if he himself is free from passion, that entire [world] is devoid of relish.

92.12

Even insentient things as sentient, and sentient things as insentient,
a good poet handles at will in poetry through his sovereignty.

92.13

Therefore, there is no subject matter at all that, by the will of a poet wholly dedicated to aesthetic relish, does not assume subordination to his desired aesthetic relish, or that, when composed in such a way, does not cultivate an abundance of charm. And all this is seen in the poetry of great poets. We too have shown it as appropriate in our own poetic works. And this being established, no kind of poetry transcends the nature of suggestion: in consideration of aesthetic relish and the like on the part of the poet, even the kind characterized as subordinate suggested meaning takes on the status of a subordinate to it—as was stated earlier. When, however, aesthetic relish and the like are established as subordinate in panegyrics or praises of deities, and in certain heart-touching Prakrit verses by clever authors the expressed meaning qualified by the suggested meaning is primary, even that is merely an outgrowth of suggestion, as stated earlier. Thus, when an instruction on poetic method is given to contemporary poets, resort to pictorial poetry is only for beginners seeking practice; but for those who have attained maturity, suggestion alone is poetry—this stands firm.