History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.53

Language: English

c6.53.1

काव्यादर्श I. 10; ‘इष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली । काव्यं स्फुटलङ्कारं गुणवद्दोषवर्जितम् ॥’ अग्निपुराण 336. 6-7; ‘रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्’ रसगङ्गा० (p. 4); *vide* also चन्द्रालोक (I. 7). On the whole Jagannātha’s definition is preferable, as it avoids all reference to debatable points and ध्व. I p. 8 also gives a similar definition in one place viz. ‘सहृदयहृद्याह्लादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम्’. These latter definitions emphasize one of the aspects of poetry, viz. that, though poetry may employ the words of the current language, it differs from the everyday speech of people in the choice of words, in the diction that it employs which is chosen with an eye to beauty. But these definitions are very defective in one respect. If, as Daṇḍin says, words are the body of poetry, it may be asked (to continue that metaphor) : ‘what is the soul of Poetry ?’ To this question various answers have been given by several schools.¹ The रस school of भरत made रस the soul of poetry (dramatic), while the school of आनन्दवर्धन (called the ध्वनि school) extends the conception underlying the rasa theory and lays down that व्यंग्य sense is the soul of poetry. Some of the definitions dominated by the rasa school and ध्वनि school are ‘आस्वादजीवातुः पदसन्दर्भः काव्यम्’ चण्डीदास in काव्यप्रकाशदीपिका (p. 13); काव्यं रसादिमद्वाक्यं श्रुतं सुखविशेषकृत् शौदोदनि in अलङ्कारशेखर (p. 2); ‘वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यं’ साहित्यदर्पण; निर्दोषं गुणवत्काव्यमलङ्कारैरलङ्कृतम्।

c6.53.2

रसान्वितं कवेः कुर्वन्कीर्तिं प्रीतिं च विन्दति॥ सरस्वती०. On account of the limitaions of space imposed in this work it is impossible to refer to the criticisms passed on these definitions. *Vide* my notes to साहित्यदर्पण pp. 5-30 for some of them. In order to understand the relative positions of रस, ध्वनि, गुण, अलङ्कार, रीति in the theory of Poetics, the different schools or rather theories must be enumerated and their doctrines briefly stated. The principal theories in chronological order of the extant works are those of rasa, of alaṅkāra, of rīti, of dhvani, of vakrokti. *Vide* ध्वन्यालोक pp. 5-12 where the author refers to three schools, one totally denying the existence of ध्वनि, the 2nd saying that what is called ध्वनि is included under भक्ति (i.e. उपचार or लक्षणा) and the third asserting that ध्वनि is not capable of scientific treatment but can only be experienced by the mind of the man of literary taste (सहृदयहृदयसंवेद्य). In the first class (ध्वन्यभाववादिनः) again three sub-schools are pointed out slightly differing from each other (*vide* लोचन p. 4). समुद्रबन्ध speaks of five schools in a somewhat different manner ‘इह विशिष्टौ शब्दार्थौ काव्यम्। तयोश्च वैशिष्ट्यं धर्ममुखेन व्यापारमुखेन व्यङ्ग्यमुखेन वेति त्रयः पन्थाः। आद्येऽलङ्कारतो गुणतो वेति द्वैविध्यम्। द्वितीयेपि भक्तित्वैचित्र्येण भोगकृत्त्वेन वेति द्वैविध्यम्। इति पञ्चसु पक्षेषु पञ्चाध उद्भटादिभि- रङ्गीकृतः, द्वितीयो वामनेन, तृतीयो वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारेण, चतुर्थो भट्टनायकेन, पञ्चम आनन्दवर्धनेन।’ (p. 4).

c6.53.3

It is to be noted here that समुद्रबन्ध does not mention the *rasa* theory of भरत; while भट्टनायक is really an adherent of the *rasa* school, though his method of explaining it is peculiar (*vide* pp. 221-23). He did not follow the ध्वनिकार in his treatment of the function of words as explained above. Besides these, the view of महिमभट्ट that all ध्वनि is included under अनुमान stands by itself, but as he had no followers, he need not be considered as the founder of a school. The वक्रोक्तिजीवितकार also had hardly any followers and there was no school and further the meaning of वक्रोक्ति has changed from time to time. जयरथ in his विमर्शिनी quotes two verses (p. 9) in which twelve different theories opposed to the *dhvani* theory are enumerated ‘तात्पर्यशक्तिरभिधा लक्षणाऽनुमिती द्विधा। अर्थापत्तिः कश्चित्तन्त्रं समासोक्त्या- अलङ्कृतिः॥ रस्य कार्यता भोगो व्यापारान्तरबाधनम्। द्वादशेत्थं ध्वनेरस्य स्थिता विप्रतिपत्तयः॥’. But he points out that, as said in the ध्वनिकारिका (काव्य- स्वात्मा etc.), three theories opposed to that of ध्वनि are principal. Vide Prof. Sovani’s learned paper in the Bhandarkar Com. vol. pp. 383 ff on the ‘pre-dhvani schools of alaṅkāra’. It may not be strictly accurate to employ the word school for the several पक्षs (theories) about what constitutes the soul of kāvya.

c6.53.4

But, since that word has been frequently employed by many of those who have written on the subject of Sanskrit poetics and since even as early as Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṃsā the views of Vāmanīyas (the followers of or school of Vāmana) and of Audbhaṭas are mentioned (vide pp. 14, 20 for वामनीयाः and pp. 22, 44 for औद्भटाः), the word ‘school’ may still be retained for the theories of rasa, alaṅkāra and dhvani. The A. B. (GOS. vol. I. p. 266) also refers to the views of Audbhaṭas on Nāṭyaśāstra VI. 10. Vide ‘definition of poetry or Kāvya’ in JOR (Madras vol. III. pp. 85-100, 170-180, 199-223, 331-348 and vol. IV. 45-56 by Pandit D. T. Tatacharya.