Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.28

v2.c85.28

Apart from this technicality and the emphasis put on the essentiality of rasa, which however is not reconciled to other elements of poetry, Viśvanātha’s scheme does not substantially differ from that of Mammaṭa, on whose work he also appears to have written a commentary. In one passage, indeed, he pays an elegant tribute to his predecessor’s work by admitting his own indebtedness to it. After defining poetry as a sentence the ‘soul’ of which is rasa, he proceeds in the usual way to analy the 'sentence' (vākya) and the different functions of its constituent word and sense, establishing suggestion or vyañjanā as the function necessary and important for the purpose of conveying the suggested rasa (bodhe rasādīnām). He accepts only two divisions of poetry, viz., dhvani and guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya kāvya, and rejects the third, the citra-kāvya (which is suffered by Ānandavardhana and accepted by Mammaṭa) on the ground that it is entirely devoid of rasa and therefore inconsistent with his own definition of poetry. It is curious, however, that Viśvanātha, following Ānandavardhana, partially admits the suggestion of vastu and alaṃkāra under suggestion of perceptible process (kramóddyota-vyaṅgya), based on the power of word or sense or both. The case of poetry of subordinate suggestion (guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya), where the rasa involved is secondary, is justified by holding that the mere circumstance of the rasa being collaterally suggested does not destroy the claim of such poetry; for the relish of rasa alone, whether circumstantial or essential, is the true criterion. It is this partiality to rasa which makes him include a treatment, omitted by most writers on Poetics, of the varieties of dramatic composition, in which the delineation of the rasas, the moods and sentiments, is already established as fundamental by both poets and theorists. Consistently with the same idea, a doṣa or blemish is defined as the detractor of the rasa (rasāpakarṣaka), while a guṇa is explained as a particular mode or quality of the rasa depending on śabda and artha and enhancing the beauty of the *rasa* when the *rasa* is principal. The *guṇas* are really attributes of the *rasa*, but they are figuratively spoken of as belonging to a word and its sense : which figurative use also explains the old distinction between *śabda-guṇa* and *artha-guṇa*. The *guṇas* are accepted as three in number, viz., *mādhurya*, *ojas* and *prasāda*, depending upon a combination of particular letters and justified by the attributes of expanding, pervading and melting the mind in its enjoyment of *rasa* ; and the ten *guṇas* of older writers are mentioned and criticised after the manner of Mammaṭa. It is curious, however, that Viśvanātha admits the *rītis* separately, instead of comprehending them, as Mammaṭa does, under the *vṛttis* or considering them redundant after the enumeration of the three *guṇas*. He defines the *rīti* as *pada-saṃghaṭanā* or particular arrangement of words (and letters) which helps the *rasas* (*upakartrī rasādīnām*). The *rīti*, however, relates entirely to the external frame-work of poetry, and is likened to the conformation of the body in relation to the soul⁶.