Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c80.44

v2.c80.44

²¹ To Bhāmaha and Kuntala, *svabhāvokti*, which consists in a description of the natural disposition (*svabhāva*) of an object, is obviously wanting in the requisite strikingness to be poetical; for they take it to be merely plain or unadorned description and imply that a poet should express things or ideas differently from the banality or prosiness of the *śāstras* or of common life. But Daṇḍin and later theorists, on the contrary, reckon *jāti* or *svabhāvokti* among the poetic figures. On this point we quote what we said elsewhere (Introd. to *Vakrokti-jīvita*, p. xiv, fn 17). “Though formally the expression of the *svabhāvokti* may not differ from a statement or description in common life there is still a substantial difference. For, the poet sees or conceives the very same thing not in the same way as common people. In the case of the latter, all things stand in some relation to his personal interests, which should be understood to connote also scientific interest in them as objects of knowledge. But, for the poet, the object has no connexion with his or anybody’s interests, not even as an object of knowledge; he has a vision of the thing in itself in its true nature. This is what is partially understood by *lokātīkrānta-gocaratā*, and Jagannātha makes it clear (ed. Bombay, 1915, p. 4) while explaining the term *lokottaratva* as an element of poetic charm. Literally *lokottara* means super-mundane, but in the sense indicated above it may be translated roughly as ‘disinterested’ or ‘dissociated’. Now, Daṇḍin, adopting the traditional term *alaṃkāra* and applying it to the *svabhāvokti*, could not very well accept Bhāmaha’s statement that *vakratā* is the characteristic of *all* poetic figures, because *vakrokti* excludes the *svabhāvokti* (Daṇḍin ii 362); but he tries to reconcile