History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.90

Language: English

c6.90.1

उद्भट; दण्डी, रुद्रट and प्रतीहारेन्दुराज may also be held to belong to this school. It is not to be supposed that they were unaware of the theory of *rasa*. Vide p. 341 above. उद्भट defines 'रसवत' as 'रसवदर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिसदयम् । स्वशब्दस्थायिसञ्चारिविभावाभिनयास्पदम् ॥' (IV), in which he refers to the technical terms स्थायिभाव, विभाव, सञ्चारि (or व्यभिचारि) भाव and in the next verse names the nine *rasas*. दण्डी also defines रसवत and ऊर्जस्वि and says 'मधुरं रसवद्वाचि वस्तुन्यपि रसस्थितिः ।' (I. 51). He is quite aware of the eight *rasas* and their स्थायिभावs 'इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसवत्ता स्मृता गिराम्' (II. 292); 'प्राक् प्रीतिर्दर्शिता सेयं रतिः शृङ्गारतां गता' (II. 281): vide also काव्या० II. 283, 285, 287. रुद्रट says 'तस्मात्तत्कर्तव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा रसैर्युक्तम्' (XII. 2). These writers were well aware of the existence of *rasa*, but they had not found out how to apply the theory to *kāvya* in general. To them *alaṅkāras* seemed to be the most important part in *kāvyas*, so much so that they made *rasas* subordinate to *alaṅkāras* and defined such figures as रसवत. भामह and दण्डी hardly made any distinction between अलङ्कारs and *guṇas*. Both भामह and दण्डी regard भाविक as a *guṇa* ('भाविकत्वमिति प्राहुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुणं' III. 52 and काव्यादर्श II. 364); while दण्डी regards the ten गुणs as *alaṅkāras* when the word is used in a wide sense (काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलङ्कारान् प्रचक्षते ।...काश्चिन्मार्गविभागार्थमुक्ताः प्रागप्यलङ्क्रियाः ।' II. 1 and 3).

c6.90.2

दण्डी in काव्यादर्श II. 367 states that the (64) अङ्गas of the *sandhis* in a drama, the (16) अङ्गas of *vṛttis* and the (36) लक्षणas described in another tradition (viz. dramaturgy in the नाट्यशास्त्र) are all looked upon by him as *alaṅkāras* (यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणाद्यागमान्तरे । व्यावर्धितमिदं चेदमलङ्कारतयैव नः ॥). The अल. स. (p. 3 and p. 9) says 'इह तावद्ग्रामोद्भटप्रभयश्चिरन्तनलङ्काराः । प्रतीयमानमर्थं वाच्योपस्कारकतयालङ्कारपच्चनिक्षिप्तं मन्यन्ते ।...उद्भटादिभिस्तु गुणाल्लङ्काराणां प्रायशः साम्यमेव सूचितम् ।...तदेवमलङ्कारा एव काव्ये प्रधानमिति प्राच्यानां मतम् ।'. The तरल says 'अभाव एव ध्वनेरिति भामहप्रभृतयो मन्यन्ते' (p. 24). This may lead one to think that भामह is ध्वन्यभाववादिन्. But this is not entirely correct. भामह, दण्डी and others were no doubt not aware of the theory that प्रतीयमान sense is the soul of poetry and they do not employ the words ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य in their works. But they do refer to प्रतीयमान sense. In their definitions of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति, आक्षेप, they included a good deal of प्रतीयमान sense (i. e. गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य of ध्वन्यालोक) e. g. यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तस्मानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिः' (भामह II. 79). All the rest of ध्वनि they would have included under the figure पर्यायोक्त. जगन्नाथ remarks with great force and truth: ‘ध्वनिकाराप्राचीनैर्वामहभट्टप्रभृतिभिः स्वग्रन्थेषु कुत्रापि ध्वनि-गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यादिशब्दा न प्रयुक्ता इत्येतावत्तैव तैर्ध्वन्यादयो न स्वीक्रियन्त इत्याधु-निकानां वाचोयुक्तिरयुक्तैव ।

c6.90.3

यतः समासोक्तिव्याजस्तुत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसालङ्कारनिरूपणेन कियन्तोऽपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोऽपि व्यङ्ग्यप्रपञ्चः पर्यायो-क्तकौ निक्षिप्तः । न ह्यनुभवसिद्धोऽर्थो बलेनाप्यपह्नोतुं शक्यते । ध्वन्यादिशब्दैः परं व्यवहारो न कृतः । न ह्येतावताऽनङ्गीकारो भवति ।’ रसगङ्गा० pp. 414-415. Though भामह and दण्डी did not speak of ध्वनि (or व्यङ्ग्य) as the pervading element of poetry, they spoke of वक्रोक्ति or अतिशयोक्ति as all important and as lying at the root of all figures; vide भामह II. 85 (सैषा सर्वैव०) and ‘अलङ्कारान्तराण्यप्येकमाहुः परायणम् । वागीशमहिता-मुक्तिमिमामतिशयाख्याम् ॥’ काव्या. II. 220. For the meaning of वक्रोक्ति, vide section 12 below. रुद्रट defined a figure भाव (vide p. 145 above), in which there is some वस्तु (matter of fact) that is व्यङ्ग्य. He cites an example of implied उत्प्रेक्षा (IX. 13). Therefore he also was not unaware of व्यङ्ग्य sense. The prominence given to alaṅkāras by दण्डी and भामह (who says I. 13 न कान्तमपि निर्भषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ।) persisted, though in a lesser degree, even in later times. Even though मम्मट is a thorough-going follower of the ध्वन्यालोक his treatment of alaṅkāras is longer than that of any other topic in his work. The number of alaṅkāras separately named by various writers exceeds two hundred. Vide I. A. vol. 41 for 1912 p. 204-208 for further information about alaṅkāras, Annals B. O. R. I. vol. I. pp. 87-98 (on ‘History and significance of alaṅkāras’ by Prof. Sovani); Annals B. O. R. I. vol. II. pp.

c6.90.4

69-72 (on classification of alaṅkāras by Prof. P. K. Gode), Mookerjee Silver Jubilee vol. III pp. 661 ff), (‘Psychological basis of alaṅkāras), History of Sanskrit Poetics’ by Dr. De, vol. II pp. 41-94, ‘Les Fleurs de Rhetorique dans l’ Inde’ by Prof. H. R. Divekar (1930), ‘Use and abuse of alaṅkāras in Sanskrit Literature’ (in ‘Indian Culture’ vol. III pp. 675-705 by Dr. Raghavan and in his work ‘Some concepts &c’ pp. 48-91), ‘Bhoja’s conception of Alaṅkāras’ in -‘Śṛṅgāraprakāśa’ vol. I pp. 361-417.