History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.115

c6.115

ध्वन्यालोक is careful to point out that a true poet should never waste his powers over composing poems that have no relation to *rasa* ‘एतच्च चित्रं कवीनां विश्वङ्खलगिरां रसादितात्पर्यमनपेद्यैव काव्यप्रवृत्तिर्दर्शनादस्माभिः परिकल्पितम्। इदानींतनानां तु न्याय्ये काव्यनयव्यवस्थापनै...एव न शोभते।’ (p. 277 quoted on p. 166 above). *Vide* his remarks on अनुप्रास and यमक (II. 15-16 pp. 103-104). After having dealt with ध्वनि as the soul of poetry it assigns to *guṇas* and *alaṅkāras* their proper position (ध्व. 75 ‘तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते &c.); *vide* p. 378-79 above on which the वृत्ति is ‘ये तदर्थं रसादिलक्षणमङ्गिनं सन्तमवलम्बन्ते ते गुणाः शौर्यादिवत्। वाच्यवाचकलक्ष्यान्यानि ये पुनराश्रितास्तेऽलङ्कारा मन्तव्याः कटकादिवदिति’। About the *rītis* (III. 47 p. 290) he says that they are explained by the position assigned to the *guṇas* (as the लोचन remarks on p. 290 रीतिर्हि गुणेष्बेव पर्यवसायिता). It speaks of सङ्घटना (ध्व० III. 2, 5, 6) which means nothing more than वर्णरचना or पदरचना¹. The काव्यप्र. VIII states: ‘अवृत्तिर्मध्यवृत्तिर्वा माधुर्यं घटना तथा’ and on the following कारिका it says ‘विकटा सङ्घटना ओजस्’ (p. 486), thus making it threefold (असमासा, मध्यमसमासा, and दीर्घसमासा) and that each of the three is generally suited to some particular *rasa* or *rasas* (though not as an invariable rule) and that *guṇas* are not of the nature of सङ्घटना, nor are they dependent upon सङ्घटना, but that the appropriateness of सङ्घटना is determined by the *rasa* and by the speaker and the subject (*vide* ध्व. pp. 164-169). The वृत्तिs dependent upon words such as उपनागरिका and those dependent upon sense (such as कैशिकी) are on the same level with *rītis* i. e. like the latter they all depend upon *rasa* as the soul.¹ Compare ध्व. p. 226 ‘तत्र रसानुगुण औचित्यवान् वाच्यश्रयो यो व्यवहारस्ता एताः कैशिकाद्या वृत्तयः। वाचकाश्रयाश्चोपनागरिकाद्याः। वृत्तयो हि रसादितात्पर्येण संनिवेशिताः कामपि नाट्यस्य काव्यस्य च