Dhvanyalokalocana 97
English (machine translation) 97
- Language
- English
97.2
Some based on the essence of words, others connected with the essence of meanings— / the stylistic modes also become clear when this definition of poetry is understood. //
97.3
When this definition of poetry, which consists in discriminating between suggested meaning and suggestive element, is understood, whatever well-known stylistic modes based on the nature of words there are—such as the cultured mode—and those connected with the nature of meaning—such as the kaiśikī—they properly step into the path of poetic style. Otherwise, indeed, like things that have no visible purpose, those stylistic modes would simply lack credibility and would not be established by direct experience. Thus, the inherent nature of this suggestion is to be defined strictly through clarity. As for the definition of suggestion that is stated by some—namely, that poetry in which there shines forth an inexpressible charm of certain words and meanings, cognizable [only] by qualified perceivers, like the genuineness of special gems, is the domain of suggestion—that is inappropriate and does not merit being stated. For, with respect to words, what depends on their inherent nature is the use of unhackneyed [words] when free from awkwardness; and what depends on the expressing word is lucidity and suggestiveness: these are the distinguishing traits. And with respect to meanings, the distinguishing traits are: appearing with clarity, being intent on the suggested meaning, and being qualified by an element of the suggested meaning. And those two distinguishing traits can be explained, and have been explained in many ways. But the assumption of an inexpressible distinction apart from that is rooted solely in a collapse of discernment. For inexpressibility by virtue of lying beyond the range of all words is not possible for anything, because in the end it can be expressed by the word 'inexpressible'. Moreover, what is sometimes termed inexpressibility as being manifest while lying beyond the range of conceptual words that touch upon universals does not apply to varieties of poetry any more than to varieties of gems, since their forms have been elucidated by definers, and because the determination of the value of varieties of gems is seen to take place precisely through the assumption of universals. Both of these indeed possess the quality of being cognizable by qualified perceivers: for lapidaries alone know the truth of gems, and sensitive readers alone know the aesthetic relish of poems; who disagrees on this point? As for the ineffability common to all definitions that is well known among the Buddhists, we shall examine that in another treatise when scrutinizing their doctrine. Here, however, displaying a fraction of learning from another treatise causes displeasure to sensitive readers, so it is not undertaken. Or, according to the Buddhist view, just as the definition of perception and the rest stands, so shall our definition of suggestion stand. Therefore, since any other definition does not hold together and is contrary to words and meanings, the stated definition of suggestion alone is superior. This very point has been said:
97.4
The shining forth of an inexpressible part / because its meaning cannot be stated is not the definition of suggestion; / but its superior definition is as stated.