History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.91

Language: English

c6.91.1

Several questions arise in connection with alaṅkāras viz. the classification of them, difference between guṇas and alaṅkāras, the number of them and lastly their positioh in the theory of rasa and dhvani. Only a brief treatment on all these points can be attempted here. It appears that भामह (I. 15 शब्दाभिधेयालङ्कार-भेदादिष्टं द्वयं तु नः ।) divided alaṅkāras into those of शब्द and those of अर्थ. Vide V. 66 also. दण्डी had the same distinction in view, since he defines arthālaṅkāras at length in the 2nd pariccheda and śabdālaṅkāras like Yamaka in the the third. Udbhaṭa enumerates four śabdālaṅkāras first, then treats of arthālaṅkāras, regards śleṣa ( in IV) as an arthālaṅkāra but divides it into śabdaśleṣa and arthaśleṣa, for which he is severely criticized by Mammaṭa. Rudraṭa enumerates śabdālaṅkāras in II. 13 (such as Anuprāsa, Yamaka) and mentions arthālaṅkāras in VII. 9 and introduces four bases of classification in figures of sense (vide p. 143 above). In the सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण II. 1 Bhoja divides alaṅkāras into those of śabda, those of artha and those of both; enumerates, defines and illustrates 24 of each. The most remarkable thing about this classification is that figures like उपमा, रूपक, अपह्नुति, अर्थान्तरन्यास are declared by him to be alaṅkāras of both śabda and artha. A few writers such as the authors of the अग्निपुराण and चमत्कारचन्द्रिका follow him in this respect. Bhoja (in सर. क. V. 8) divides वाङ्मय into वक्रोक्ति, रसोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति.

c6.91.2

He elaborates this subject in the शृङ्गारप्रकाश and includes guṇas and rasas also among alaṅkāras. The अल. स. gives a far more reasonable classification of arthālaṅkāras under seven heads viz. सादृश्य (उपमा, रूपक), विरोध (विरोध, विभावना, विशेषोक्ति), शृङ्खलाबन्ध (कारणमाला, एकावली), तर्कन्याय (काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान), काव्यन्याय (यथासंख्य, पर्याय, परिवृत्ति), लोकन्याय (प्रत्यनीक, प्रतीप, मीलित), गूढार्थप्रतीति (सूक्ष्म, व्याजोक्ति). The प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण (pp. 337-339) states the basis of classification of alaṅkāras and their differences from guṇas (सङ्घटनाश्रया गुणाः शब्दार्थश्रयास्त्वलङ्काराः). For want of space I do not pursue this question further. Bharata mentioned four alaṅkāras and ten guṇas. Hence he must have made a distinction between them, although he does not express it. Daṇḍin includes guṇas under the word alaṅkāra in the wider sense, as shown above. He defines alaṅkāras as काव्यशोभाकरान्धमलङ्कारान् प्रचक्षते । ते चाद्यापि विकल्प्यन्ते कस्तान् कात्स्न्र्येन वक्ष्यति ॥ काव्यादर्श II. 1. भामह's treatment of guṇas is meagre. In काव्यालङ्कार II. 1-3 he defines three guṇas viz. माधुर्य, प्रसाद and ओजस्. Daṇḍin defines and illustrates ten guṇas, the names being the same as in भरत (17. 96=16. 96 of GOS ed. p. 334), काव्यादर्श (I. 41) and वामन (III 1. 4) though the definitions often differ. वामन defines 'काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मो गुणाः । तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलङ्काराः ।' काव्या. सु. III. 1. 1-2.

c6.91.3

He further says that guṇas are नित्य and enumerates and defines ten guṇas of śabda and ten of artha (under the same names). The ध्वन्यालोक estblished the relation of guṇas and अलङ्कारs. When by a metaphor it was said that rasa or dhvani is the soul of poetry, then the rasa theorists had to state the place of guṇas and alaṅkāras. The ध्व० (II. 7) states that just as bravery and the like are the guṇas of the soul and bracelets are ornaments put on some limb of the body (wrist &c.), so the guṇas, mādhurya, ojas and prasāda are the guṇas of rasa (तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येऽङ्गिनं ते गुणाः स्मृताः । अङ्गाश्रितास्त्वलङ्कारा मन्तव्याः कटकादिवत् ॥ ध्व. II 7) and it is further pointed out that mādhurya is pre-eminently appropriate to विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार (love of separated lovers) and करुण (tragic sentiment), the guṇa ojas to raudrarasa and prasāda (perspicuity) is common to all rasas and to all compositions. When the predominant rasa is śṛṅgāra, anuprāsa does not help in its evolution and to employ Yamaka in śṛṅgāra is a great mistake, particularly in विप्रलम्भ (ध्व० II. 15-16). Most of the later writers such as Mammaṭa hold that the guṇas are three, that they are the qualities of the soul of poetry like bravery (which is a quality¹ of the spirit), that they are permanently associated with rasa and figures of speeeh are like ornaments worn on the limbs of the body (ये रसस्याङ्गिनो धर्माः शौर्यादय इवात्मनः । उत्कर्षहेतवस्ते स्युरचलस्थितयो गुणाः ॥ उपकुर्वन्ति तं सन्तं येऽङ्गद्वारेण जातुचित् ।

c6.91.4

हारादिवदलङ्कारास्तेऽनुप्रासोपमादयः ॥ काव्यप्रकाश VIII. 1-2). Most of the alaṅkārikas follow this position.