Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.71

v2.c85.71

The older and the younger Vāgbhaṭas, on the other hand, though making considerable use of Mammaṭa's text (the latter especially borrowing from Hemacandra's version, too), do not admit *dhvani*, and are allied in their sympathies with the Pre-dhvani schools. The authority of Daṇḍin, for instance, carries great weight with them; and the younger Vāgbhaṭa admits some of Rudraṭa's peculiar poetic figures. At the same time, the unmistakable influence of the new school on them precludes us from affiliating them directly with the older Alaṃkāra and Rīti schools. The older Vāgbhaṭa defines poetry as *sādhu-śabdārtha-samdarbhaṃ guṇālaṃkāra-bhūṣitam | sphuṭa-rīti-rasopetaṃ kāvyaṃ kurvīta kīrttaye //* while the younger Vāgbhaṭa, whose work is written in the *sūtra*-and-*vṛtti* form like Hemacandra's, adopts literally the latter's modification of Mammaṭa's definition. The criterion of poetry, according to them, is that it must contain, through its word and sense, the *guṇa*, *alaṃkāra*, *rīti* and *rasa*, but these elements are mentioned rather in an eclectic than critical spirit. The older Vāgbhaṭa accepts without question the ten *guṇas* of older writers, but the younger Vāgbhaṭa follows Mammaṭa in limiting them to three, with the pointed remark : *iti daṇḍi-vāmana-vāgbhaṭādi-praṇītā daśa kāvya-guṇāḥ, vayaṃ tu mādhurya-aujaḥ-prasāda-lakṣaṇān trīn eva guṇān manyāmahe*. The younger Vāgbhaṭa speaks of *rasa* as as the ‘soul’ of poetry²⁴; but beyond a description, after Hemacandra and others, of the different *rasas*, he does not touch upon the theoretical aspect of the question, nor does he indicate the mutual relation of the different elements of poetry with reference to the *rasa*. Indeed, both of them do not appear to accept the reconciliation proposed by the *dhvani*-theorists, and the younger Vāgbhaṭa specifically includes *dhvani*, after Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa, in the figure *paryāyokta* with the significant remark : *evamādi-bhedair dhvanitōktir bhavati, paraṃ grantha-gaurava-bhayād asmābhir nódāhriyate, sa prapañcas tvānandavardhanād avagantavyaḥ* (p. 37). The object of these Jaina manuals (though there is nothing Jaina in them) appears to have been the presentation of a popular and easy epitome of the subject²⁵, allying themselves to no particular school or system, but following the traditional notions in a spirit of eclecticism, without critically systematising them in the light of a central theory. In this respect, they bear a close resemblance to the *alaṃkāra*-section