History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.54

c6.54

¹ Some scholars object to the use of the word ‘schools’. Their argument is: all extant writers were aware of रस, गुण, रीति, अलङ्कार and were not opposed to rasa or guṇa or alaṅkāra. But this is not a correct statement of the position. There are four or five elements in high poetry. Bharata, Daṇḍin, Bhāmaha, Vāmana, and others knew all this. But the question is; what is the soul or essence of poetry (applying metaphorically to poetry the image of body, limbs and soul) ? Here it is quite clear that the authors differ as to the soul of *Poetry* e.g. Vāmana says ‘ritirātmā kāvyasya’, Dhvanikāra says ‘kāvyasyātmā dhvaniriti’ and vide also his remarks quoted on p. 166 above. The Vakroktijivitakāra denies the independent existence of ध्वनि or व्यंग्य as the soul of poetry and includes the latter under its all-embracing Vakrokti. In each of these the emphasis is on a different matter. The case is analogous to that of the Vedānta schools of Śaṅkara, Bhāskara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and Vallabha. All these admit the authority of the Upaniṣads and Vedāntasūtra and also admit the existence of Brahma, Jiva and the world but they differ on the relation of these to each other. Therefore, they are treated as different schools. The same holds good as to the different schools of Sanskrit Poetics.