Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c11: III Bhamaha

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c11

Language
English

III Bhamaha

v1.c11.1

The earliest direct citation of Bhāmaha in later Alaṃkāra literature is to be found in two passages in Ānandavardhana's *vṛtti* on the *Dhvanyāloka* (pp. 39, 207). The next interesting reference occurs in the commentary of Pratihārendurāja, who informs us (p. 13) that his author Udbhaṭa composed a work, presumably a commentary, on Bhāmaha, which is described here as *Bhāmaha-vivaraṇa*. This statement is confirmed by Abhinavagupta (*Locana* pp. 10, 40, 159, *vivaraṇakṛt*) and Hemachandra (Comm. pp. 17, 110); while Ruyyaka cites the commentary generally as *bhāmahīya udbhaṭa-lakṣaṇa* (p. 183) and Samudrabandha discribes it as *kāvyālaṃkāra-vivṛti* (p. 89). There are also numerous passages in Udbhaṭa's independent work, *Kāvyālaṃkāra saṃgraha*, which unmistakably copy some of the definitions of poetic figures directly from Bhāmaha, and do not hesitate to repeat the very language of the earlier work¹.

v1.c11.2

Vāmana, Udbhaṭa's contemporary, also appears to betray an acquaintance with Bhāmaha's text. I see, for instance, the definitions of the figures *rasavat*, *atiśayōkti*, *sasaṃdeha*, *sahōkti*, *apahnuti*, *utprekṣā*, *yathā-saṃkhya*, *aprastuta-praśaṃsā* *paryāyōkta*, *ākṣepa*, *vibhāvanā*, *virodha* and *bhāvika*.

v1.c11.3

Bhāmaha, for instance, defines the figure *upamā* (ii 30) as *virudhenópamānena.....upameyasya yat sāmyam guṇa-leśena sópamā*; and Vāmana seems to paraphrase this definition in the concise form of a *sūtra* *upamānenópameyasya guṇa-leśataḥ sāmyam upamā* (IV.².1). ¹ Again, speaking of effective implication (*atiśayavān arthaḥ*) to be found in *upamā*, Bhāmaha lays down (ii 50)

v1.c11.4

¹ Cf Bharata xvi 41.

v1.c11.5

*yasyátiśayavān arthaḥ katham só'sambhavo mataḥ*
*iṣṭam cátiśayárthatvam upamótprekṣayor yathā.*

v1.c11.6

Reading together Vāmana IV.2.20 and 21 (*anupapattir asambhavah* and *na viruddhó'tiśayaḥ*), we find that Vāmana is apparently repeating the same view and in his *vṛtti* on the first *sūtra*, he adds *upamāyān atiśayasyéṣṭatvāt*, making it clear in the next *sūtra* that an effective implication (*atiśaya*), which is contradictory, should be avoided. Vāmana also reproduces anonymously a verse of an unknown poet whose name is given by Bhāmaha (ii 46) with the same verse as Śakhavardhana. Such repetition of views in more or less standardised phraseology in a technical treatise, or the quotation of the same illustrative verse in a similar context need not be taken as conclusive; but Vāmana, in his *vṛtti* on V. 2.38, actually though not accurately quotes, a part of a verse from Bhāmaha ii 27, and comments on the peculiar usage of the word *bhaṅguram* employed therein. ²

v1.c11.7

² The verse is quoted with Bhāmaha's name in Jayamaṅgala on Bhaṭṭi x 21, and anonymously in the *Vakrōkti-*

v1.c11.8

This will justify us in placing Bhāmaha chronologically before Udbhaṭa and Vāmana who, as we shall see, flourished in the last quarter of the 8th century A.D., and will give us one terminus to the date of Bhāmaha.

v1.c11.9

With regard to the other terminus, controversy has been keen and busy. Pāṭhak finds in the mention of a *nyāsakāra* in Bhāmaha vi 36 a clear reference to the Buddhist Jinendrabuddhi, author of a commentary (ed. Varendra Research Society) on the *Kāśikā*, and comes to the conclusion that "as the *nyāsakāra* (meaning Jinendra) lived about 700 A.D., Bhāmaha must be assigned to the 8th century".¹ Against this K. P. Trivedi has demonstrated² that the allusion to the opinions of the *nyāsakāra* cannot be taken as an unmistakable reference to Jinendrabuddhi's views, and that the existence of some other *nyāsakāras* are also made probable by the citations of Mādhava, as well as by a punning passage in Bāṇa's *Harṣa-carita*.³ Jacobi⁴ has joined issue by adding a doubt on the correctness of the date assigned by Pāṭhak to Jinendrabuddhi who, on the authority of Kielhorn, was probably later than Haradatta (d. 878 A.D.).

v1.c11.10

¹ *IA* xli p. 232 ff, at p. 235; see also *JRASBom* xxiii pp. 25-26.

v1.c11.11

² *IA* xlii pp. 204 f, and at pp. 260-1.

v1.c11.12

³ *kṛta-guru-padanyāsaḥ* (ed N. S. P. p. 96), explained by Śaṅkara as *kṛtābhyasto guru-pade durbolha-śabde nyāso vṛttir vivaraṇo yaiḥ*.

v1.c11.13

⁴ *Sb. der Preuss. Akad.* xxiv (1922) pp. 210-11.

v1.c11.14

*jīvita* (along with other verses from Bhāmaha,) and in *Locana* p. 40 anonymously.

v1.c11.15

No fresh light is thrown on the question by the conjecture¹ that Bhāmaha in i 42 refers to the *Meghadūta* by his condemnation of the poetical device of employing clouds, among other things, as messengers; nor by Pāṭhak's other equally fanciful supposition that Māgha ii 86b refers to Bhāmaha i 16². Nothing, again, is gained by the controversy over the question whether Bhāmaha, the son of Rakrilagomin and worshipper of Sārva, was a Buddhist, as indicated by the opening and closing verses of his work.³ Jacobi's recent researches, however, have shown⁴ that Bhāmaha has made considerable use of the teachings of Buddhist philosophers in ch. v, and that the upper limit to Bhāmaha's date should be determined with reference to that of Buddhist Dharmakīrti, some of whose philosophical doctrines Bhāmaha has utilised, even to the repitition of Dharmakīrti's actual phraseology. Dharmakīrti is placed by Jacobi between the sojourn in India of Hiuen Tsang and I-tsing respectively (630—643 and 673—695 A. D.), as he is not known to the former, while the latter refers to him among those of late years⁵. The upper limit, therefore, of Bhāmaha's date should be fixed at the third quarter of the 7th century A. D.

v1.c11.16

¹ Haricānd, *L'Art Poétique de l'Inde* p. 77.

v1.c11.17

² But see Daṇḍin i 10; Vāmana I. i. 1 (*vṛtti*); Rudraṭa ii 1; Ānandavardhana p. 5, for the same idea of *śabda* and *artha* as constituents of poetry.

v1.c11.18

³ On this controversy, see *JRAS*, 1905, pp. 535 f; *JRAS*, 1908, pp. 543f; Trivedi introd. to *Pratāparudra*; Haricānd in *op. cit.* p. 71; *Brahmavādin* 1911 etc.

v1.c11.19

⁴ *op. cit.* pp. 211-12.

v1.c11.20

⁵ see Takakusu, *Record of the Buddhist Religion*, 1896, p. 181, cf p. lviii. Tārānātha in his *Geschichte* (tr. Schiefner

v1.c11.21

This will place Bhāmaha approximately in the period between the last quarter of the 7th and the last quarter of 8th century; and as it is probable that he might have been a younger contemporary of Dharmakīrti's and also presumably lived some time before his commentator Udbhaṭa, it will not be wrong if we place him towards the end of the 7th and the commencement of the 8th century A. D.

v1.c11.22

We have already discussed the relation which Bharata's treatment of *alaṃkāras* might have borne to Bhāmaha's much fuller and later disquisition. What we find in Bharata constitutes the earliest speculation on the subject that we possess: but Bhāmaha himself tells us that he had predecessors whose work he apparently utilised. While referring to these predecessors (or contemporaries) generally as *anye*¹, *apare*² or *kecit*³, Bhāmaha cites twice by name one Medhā-

v1.c11.23

¹ i 13, 24; ii 4, 57; iii 4; iv 12 etc.

v1.c11.24

² i 14, 15, 31; ii 6, 8; iii 4; iv 6 etc.

v1.c11.25

³ ii 2, 37, 93; iii 54 etc. He also cites one Rāmaśarman in ii 19, but from ii 58 this author appears to be a poet. The Rājamitra cited in ii 45 appears from iii 10 to be a *kāvya*.

v1.c11.26

pp. 184-5) makes him a contemporary of the Tibetan king, Strong-bstan-sgam-po, who died about 650 A. D. Cf Kern, *Manual of Indian Buddhism*, p. 130.

v1.c11.27

vin in ii 40,88. One of these passages is referred to by Namisādhu on Rudraṭa xi 24, where (as well as in two other places on i 2, ii 2,) the full name is given as Medhāvirudra, which form also occurs in Rājaśekhara (p. 12)¹. This writer, who was earlier than Bhāmaha but probably later than Bharata, is also cited by Vallabhadeva on Śiśu xi 6.

v1.c11.28

¹ Rājaśekhara couples Medhāvirudra's name with that of Kumāradāsa and adds the information that he was a born-blind poet. The name does not constitute the names of two different poets, Medhāvin and Rudra, as some writers unfortunately suggest, nor need we take it on the late authority of the *Trikāṇḍa-śeṣa* as a name of Kālidāsa.

v1.c11.29

At one time it was believed², on the indication given by the *Jayamangalā* on Bhaṭṭi, that the alaṃkāra-chapters in that *kāvya*, especially canto x, was meant to illustrate the rhetorical teachings of Bhāmaha in particular; but the date now assigned to Bhāmaha will readjust his relation to Bhaṭṭi in a new light. Bhaṭṭi tells us in xxii 35 that he composed his poem in Valabhī ruled over by Śrīdharasena.³ It appears that no less than four Śrīdharasenas ruled at Valabhī roughly between 550 and 650 A.D., of whom the last flourished, as his latest grant shows, in 651 A. D. Bhaṭṭi, therefore, at the latest, lived in the first half of the 7th century; and if, as his editor concludes,¹ he may be assigned to the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century, he was certainly older than Bhāmaha by almost a century. Bhāmaha probably knew his work and therefore remarked, while dismissing verbal juggleries like *prahelikā* (ii 20):

v1.c11.30

² Jacobi in *ZDMG* lxiv.

v1.c11.31

³ *kāvyam idaṃ vihitaṃ mayā valabhyāṃ / śrīdharasena-naréndra-pālitāyām.* Jayamaṅgala reads *śrīdhara-sūnu-naréndra* in the second line, but this cannot be supported in view of the fact that we do not hear of any prince of the name Narendra, son of Śrīdhara, in the list of Valabhī princes known to us. Mallinātha and Bharatamallika do not comment on this verse.

v1.c11.32

¹ ed. B. S. S. introd. p. xxii.

v1.c11.33

*kāvyānyapi yadīmāni vyākhyā-gamyāni śāstravat*
*utsavaḥ sudhiyām eva hanta durmedhaso hatāḥ*

v1.c11.34

with a pointed reference to Bhaṭṭi's self-boasting in xxii 34 :

v1.c11.35

*vyākhyā-gamyam idaṃ kāvyam utsavaḥ sudhiyām alam*
*hatā durmedhasaś cāsmin vidvat-priyatayā mayā.*

v1.c11.36

The treatment of *alaṃkāras* in Bhaṭṭi may, therefore, be presumed to supply one of the missing links in the history of rhetorical speculations anterior to Bhāmaha. A remarkable coincidence of treatment, which probably started the theory of Bhaṭṭi's appropriation of Bhāmaha's teachings, is at once noticeable not only in the order, number and naming of the different poetic figures, but also in their respective characterisation; but a detailed examination will at the same time shew that beneath this general agreement there are enough discrepancies which will indicate that neither of them follows scrupulously the views of the other. The agreement apparently shows that the two authors were not chronologically distant from each other by such a considerable length of time as might betoken a material difference in the number, order or definition of the poetic figures; while the discrepancies may be reasonably explained as indicating that they did not probably draw from the same source.

v1.c11.37

The special object of this particular canto in Bhaṭṭi being that of illustrating the various forms of poetic figures prevelant in his time, we may presume that it was probably based on a particular treatise on Alaṃkāra to which the poet faithfully adheres. He mentions in all 38 such independent figures, along with 39 sub-species of some individual figures. He does not himself give the names of these figures, but they are indicated by the Jayamaṅgalā, as well as in some MSS which apparently preserve the traditional nomenclature. These, with one trifling exception (udāra = udātta), correspond to the particular names given to them in Bhāmaha. As to the order or sequence of treatment, a comparative table will show that Bhāmaha gives the first 23 figures (up to viśeṣokti) in the same order as in Bhaṭṭi with the exception of the pairs, rūpaka and dīpaka, arthāntaranyāsa and ākṣepa, which are given in an inversed order. The rest of the figures appears with a slightly different arrangement, because Bhāmaha admits aprastuta-praśaṃsā omitted by Bhaṭṭi, and adopts a somewhat different order in mentioning the five figures here treated in common, until we come to virodha. From here, again, the order is the same, excepting that Bhāmaha mentions bhāvika (which is separately illustrated in another canto by Bhaṭṭi) and Bhaṭṭi admits an unknown figure nipuṇa, and adds *hetu* which is expressly rejected by Bhāmaha. As the exposition of Jayamaṅgla shows, Bhaṭṭi generally follows the definitions of Bhāmaha, where the figures are common (even in the cases of sub-species of these figures ¹), with only a few exceptions.

v1.c11.38

¹ e. g. the figure *ākṣepa*, of which the two sub-divisions *ukta-viṣaya* and *vakṣyamāṇa-viṣaya* are found in both Bhāmaha and Bhaṭṭi, they being unaware of the different interpretation of Vāmana and the somewhat fine differentiations of Daṇḍin. The same remark applies to *dīpaka* and its three sub-species, which do not agree with the exposition of Bharata, Daṇḍin or Vāmana. Cf also the three sub-species of *śleṣa*, viz. *sahōkti-śl°*, *upamā-śl°*, and *hetu-śl°*, illustrated by Bhaṭṭi and mentioned by Bhāmaha in iii 17, although later writers, like Daṇḍin and Udbhaṭa, speak of *śleṣa* as coming with many other figures. Pratihārendurāja distinctly alludes to this division admitted by Bhāmaha: *bhāmaho hi "tat sahōktyupamā-hetu-nirdeśāt trividham yathā" iti śliṣṭasya traividhyam āha* (p. 47).

v1.c11.39

These exceptions, though few, are yet significant. They refer in particular to the figures *yamaka* (of which Bhaṭṭi mentions 20, while Bhāmaha only 5 sub-species), *upamā* (where the treatment of sub-species is slightly divergent), *rūpaka* (of which the four sub-species of Bhaṭṭi do not correspond to the two of Bhāmaha), *aprastuta-praśamsā* omitted by Bhaṭṭi, and *nipuṇa* omitted by Bhāmaha. At the same time, Bhāmaha mentions but rejects *prahelikā*, *hetu*, *sūkṣma*, *leśa* and *vārttā*, of which Bhaṭṭi admits only *hetu* (probably as an after-thought) and *vārttā*. Bhaṭṭi does not recognise *svabhāvōkti*, which is mentioned but apparently disfavoured by Bhāmaha. It is possible that Bhaṭṭi's original ended naturally with *āśis*, as Bhāmaha's work itself does; but he tacked on *hetu* and *nipuṇa*¹ as two supplementary figures popular in his time. The *bhāvika*, which both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin call a *prabandha-guṇa*, is illustrated by Bhaṭṭi in a separate canto (xii), entitled *bhāvikatva-pradarśana*. But by far the greatest divergence is noticeable in the treatment of the sub-species of *yamaka*, *rūpaka* and *upamā*. No two writers are indeed agreed with regard to the treatment and classification of *yamaka*, and Bhaṭṭi on this point is scarcely in agreement with any of the known writers on the subject, such as Bharata, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa, the author of the *Agni-purāṇa* and Bhoja among earlier authorities. Probably he is drawing from some old author whose work is not known to us². In the classification of *rūpaka*, which Bhāmaha sub-divides into *samastavastu-viṣaya* and *ekadeśa-vivarti*, Bhaṭṭi seems to follow a different tradition, which mentions four sub-species, respectively designated as *kamalaka* (*viśiṣṭopamā-yukta*), *avatamsaka* (*śeṣarthānvavasita* or *khaṇḍa-rūpaka*¹), *ardha-rūpaka* and *lalāmaka* (*anvarthópamā-yukta*). In the sub-species of *upamā*, Bhaṭṭi illustrates *upamā* with *iva*-and-*yathā* (in common with Bhāmaha); and his *luptópamā* and *taddhitópamā* probably correspond to some extent to *samāsópamā* and *upamā*-with-*vat* mentioned by Bhāmaha; but Bhaṭṭi does not illustrate *prativastūpamā* of Bhāmaha nor does he refer, to *nindo*⁰, *praśaṃso*⁰, *ācikhyāso*⁰ and *mālo*⁰, criticised by Bhāmaha but recognised by Daṇḍin². At the same time, Bhaṭṭi's *saho*⁰ and *samo*⁰ have nothing directly corresponding to them in Bhāmaha.

v1.c11.40

¹ This figure is included in *udāra* or *udātta* by Jayamaṅgala, while Bharatamallika and Mallinātha take it as an illustration of *preyas* on the authority of Daṇḍin and Devanātha (the latter probably a commentator on Mammaṭa having the same name).

v1.c11.41

² The names of some of these sub-species of *yamaka* are now lost but for the naming of them in Bhaṭṭi, and later authors speak in altogether different terminology. Some of these are apparently preserved in Bharata, who mentions as many as ten sub-species, but in most cases they are differently defined. For instance, the *samudga* of Bhaṭṭi may be the same figure as defined by Bharata, but the *yukpāda* of

v1.c11.42

¹ mentioned in *Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra* iv 66.

v1.c11.43

² Bharata (xvi 49-50) mentions *nindo*⁰ and *praśaṃso*⁰ while his *kalpito*⁰ probably *kalpito*⁰ is admitted by V defined in a different sense.

v1.c11.44

It will be clear from this brief exposition that, leaving aside the sub-species, there is a general agreement between the treatments of Bhaṭṭi and Bhāmaha with regard to the independent poetic figures. It

v1.c11.45

Bhaṭṭi x 2 is called *vikrānta* by Bharata and is known as *saṃdaṣṭa* in Rudraṭa. Similarly the *pādānta* illustrated in x 3 is called *°āmreḍita* in Bharata; while *cakravāla* of Bharata is different from the figure so named in Bhaṭṭi and seems to coincide with the *kāñcī* of the latter, while the *kāñcī* of Bharata is an altogether different sub-species It appears that names like *vṛnta*, *mithuna*, or *vipatha* cannot be traced in any of the existing works, but some of the kinds illustrated by Bhaṭṭi under these strange names may be found under different designations in other writers later than Bhaṭṭi. In naming these in Bhaṭṭi, Jayamaṅgala is probably following a tradition or an authority entirely unknown to us.

v1.c11.46

may be noted that Bhāmaha agrees with Bhaṭṭi in taking *ananvaya*, *sasandeha*, *upamā-rūpaka* and *utprekṣāvayava* as self-standing figures, while Daṇḍin includes the first two in the sub-species of *upamā*, and the last two in those of *rūpaka* and *utprekṣā* respectively.¹ Bhāmaha also agrees with Bhaṭṭi in rejecting *prahelikā*, *sūkṣma* and *leśa*; but *vārttā* and *hetu*, also similarly rejected by Bhāmaha, are admitted by Bhaṭṭi. Daṇḍin expressly recognises all these, excepting *vārttā*, in place of which he probably admits the more comprehensive *svabhāvókti*, which is disfavoured by Bhāmaha and not illustrated by Bhaṭṭi. The most material discrepancy with reference to independent figures occurs in the remarkable omission in Bhaṭṭi of *aprastuta-praśamsā* (which, like *svabhāvókti*, is a recognised figure in later times) and in the occurrence of *nipuṇa* unknown in later literature. Coming to the sub-species, however, the discrepancies are more striking. Admitting that some of the fine differentiations, as in the case of Daṇḍin’s innumerable sub-varieties of independent figures, may have been invented by the ingenuity of the author himself, this argument does not seem to apply very well to Bhaṭṭi, who was himself no theorist but only professed to illustrate the poetic figures popular in his time and presumably based his treatment on some standard treatise. The conclusion, therefore, is likely that Bhaṭṭi made use of a text unknown to Bhāmaha but not materially differing from Bhāmaha’s own sources; and that the interval between these two authors did not witness much change in the discussion of poetic figures, except what is apparent in the simplification of the treatment of *yamaka* and *rūpaka*, in the dropping of a figure like *nipuṇa* and adding an important figure or an important sub-figure like *aprastuta-praśaṃsā* or *prativastūpamā* respectively. The progress is not so remarkable as that indicated by the enormous stride made in the interval between Bharata, who mentions only four independent figures, and Bhaṭṭi ,who mentions thirty-eight.¹

v1.c11.47

¹ Daṇḍin is followed in this view by all later writers, except Vāmana, who still regards these as independent figures. It seems therefore that Vāmana VI. 3. 33 is a criticism of Daṇḍin ii 359, and not vice versa, as Peterson supposes.

v1.c11.48

¹ Although the name Bhāmaha is not a common one in Sanskrit, it attaches itself (besides two verses in *Subhāṣ.* 1644-1645 that are also found in our text ii 92, iii 21) to a commentator on Vararuci’s *Prākṛta-prakāśa*, who is probably a different author. The *Kāmadhenu* comm. on Vāmana also cites several verses from a treatise apparently on the *kalās* by Bhāmaha (p. 29, ed. Benares); but as our Bhāmaha, as well as his *Bhāmahālaṃkāra* (p. 39), is also cited in several places in the same commentary, it is possible that these verses occurred in some lost chapter of his work where he mentioned the names of the *kalās* (*atra kalānām uddeśaḥ kṛto bhāmahena preceding the verses cited*).

v1.c11.49

Edition. By K. P. Trivedi as Appendix viii to his ed. of *Pratāpa-rudra* in B. S. S. 1909. The work is named *Bhāmahālaṃkāra*.

v1.c11.50

Mss. Oppert 3731; *Madras Cat.* 12920.

v1.c11.51

Commentary. The only known comm. is *Bhāmaha-vivaraṇa* by Udbhaṭa, which is now lost. See above p. 45.

Linked texts (19)