History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.44.4

c6.44.4

Old writers like Daṇḍin held that pratibhā (in a poet) was natural (नैसर्गिकी च प्रतिभा, quoted on p. 348). Rudraṭa (I. 16), Hemachandra (p. 4) and others say that व्युत्पत्ति and अभ्यास polish, brighten and sharpen pratibhā. The ध्व० (p. 169) makes it clear that if a poet has शक्ति (i. e. प्रतिभा), it conceals the defects that may arise from lack of व्युत्पत्ति, but if a poet is deficient in प्रतिभा and has only व्युत्पत्ति, the defects in his composition are noticed at once (अव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्त्या संहियते कवेः । यस्त्वशक्तिवृतो दोषः स झटित्यवभासते ॥ ध्व. p. 169). The important question is : how does a man become possessed of प्रतिभा ? It appears that early writers held that प्रतिभा was the outcome of saṃskāras (impressions) made on the soul in countless births (e. g. काव्यादर्श I. 104 न विद्यते यद्यपि पूर्ववासना; काव्यमी. I. p. 12 ‘जन्मान्तरसंस्कारापेक्षियी सहजा’; वामन I. 3. 16 वृत्ति ‘कवित्वबीजं जन्मान्तरासंस्कारगतविशेषः कश्चित्’; भ्र. भा. vol. I. p. 346 कवेः वर्णनानिनपुणस्य यः अन्तर्गतोऽनादिप्राक्तनसंस्कारप्रतिभामयः &c.). The रसगङ्गाधर (pp. 8-9) does not accept the theory that प्रतिभा is invariably due to अदृष्ट. The काव्यमी. (pp. 12-14) brings out this idea by stating that pratibhā is of two kinds viz. कारयित्री (creative) and भावयित्री (appreciative): पृथगेव हि कवित्वाङ्गाकत्वं मावकत्वाच्च कवित्वं । स्वरूपभेदाद्विषयभेदाच्च । काव्यमी. p. 14. The काव्यमी. p. 11) distinguishes between शक्ति and व्युत्पत्ति and states that शक्ति alone is the cause of poetry.