1. Dhavani Theory In Sanskrit Poetics CSS 1

DUE: DATE SLIP GOVT. COLLEGE, LIBRARY KOTA (Raj ) Students can retain library books only for two weeks at the most

BORROWER'S No. DUE DTATE SIGNATURE

CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT STUDIES VOL. LXIII.

THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

By MUKUNDA MADHAVA SHARMA, M. A., D. Phil., Kavyatīrtba

Reader of the Department of Sanskrit, Gauhati University, Gauhati ( Assam ).

THE CHOWKHAMBA SANSKRIT SERIES OFFICE

VARANASI-1 1968

Publisher : The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi-1 Printer : Vidyavilas Press, Varanasi-1 Edition : First, 1968. Price : Rs. 25-00

The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office Publishers and Oniental & Forcign Book-Sellers K. 37/99, Gopal Mandir Lane P. O. Chowkhamba, Post Box 8, Varanasi-1 (Inda ) Phone : 3145

FOREWORD OF Dr. SATKARI MOOKERJEE, M. A., Ph, D. Quondam Asutosh Professor of Sanskrit, University of Calcutta and Whilom Director, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, I feel flattered by the request of Dr. Mukunda Madhava Sharma for writing a foreword to his work "The Dhvani.Theory in Sanskrit Poetics." This work removes the facile impression that the Dhvani Theory has been exhausted by modern writers. The contour and the main signposts have been surveyed. But the hidden resources lying in the unplumed depths are to be rediscovered and the implications and suggestions have to be worked out. This has been done in the present work to a large extent. After all, as Anandavardhana has said in the Dhvanyaloka, "An old thing may present itself as surpri- singly new in the words of a man of genius. Nature assumes a new form in the spring after shading its withered leaves." In fact, the new is the old regenerated. Dr. Sharma's treat- ment is not along the stereotyped lines. He has presented the familiar topics of the Dhvani Theory in a new garb with its irresistible charms of novelty. The perusal of this book even by Veteran Professors will be rewarding. I wish that not only students of Sanskrit Poetics but of literary criticism should make time to read this book and read between the lines. The present sit:ation in India charged with melancholy tensions which find frequent vent in violent explosions does not leave scope for tsuitable intellectual climate for serious study. But I think that this must be a passing phase and may prove tobe a kind of labour pain for the production of a new lease o'ca-fe. A nation cannot live in tension for ever. In that perie emert slm and peace concentrated study of old works athese words -ence of a creative climate which will be ushered while intellectu will receive their mead of appreciation. Mean- intellectual activits cannot acquiesce in a moratorium of their ticians for acquisthies in spite of the devious moves of poli- and justification of a silent protest agairion of power and pelf. This is the warrant such intellectual enterprises which contain st sordid games of Politics.

FOREWORD OF Dr. GAURINATH SASTRI, M. A., D. Litt., VIGE-CHANCELLOR, VARĀNASEYA SAMSKRTA VISVAVIDYĀLAYA, VARANASI,

In the evolution of Alamkāra Literature, dhvani or vyanjana occupies a paramount place. Abhidha as a sabdavyapāra, is recognised by different Indian philosophers, but there is a difference of opinion amongst them, with regard to laksana. Though the Mimamsaka recognises it as vakyavrtti and not as padavrtti, yet he does not accord the same status to it as abhidha. Whatever it may be, it took quite a long time to recognise vyanjana as a separate padavrttì. Indeed, there have been attempts to maintain that whatever sense, is conveyed by vyañjana may be expressed by abhidha. Similarly, it has been contended, that vyangyartha may be conveyed by laksana, and there is no justification for admitting vyanjana as a sepa- rate vrffi to express what may be called vyangyartha. It may be observed in this context that the medieval ālamkarikas felt that for the purpose of esoteric experience ( rasanubhuti ) the aid of vyanjana or dhvani must be sought, for rasa experience is never possible on vacya-bhumi, the plane of denotation. So long as we are concerned with vacyartha, there is no occasion for rasa experience. It is why Ãnanda- vardhana and Abhinavagupta have said that though dhvani is of three types, vastu, alamkara and rasa, yet it is rasadhvani with which the alamkarika is chiefly concerned, as it is the rasadhvani which is the soul of poetry. · It is, therefore, quite in the fitness of things that the pre- sent author has set himself to the task of unfolding the concept of dhvanì as recorded in Alamkara literature from the time of Anandavardhana. It is very gratifying that he has been able to present the view of the Alamkarikas with as much precision. as possible. I would only hope that the author would undertake a com- parative study of Sanskrit poetics and western aesthetics some- time in future which will enable us to realize the value and im- portance of the contributions of the Indian mind to the subject.

Dedicated to the Sacred Memory

of

MY FATHER DB. RUCHINARAYAN SHARMA, who inspired me for Sanskrit studies

and

MY UNCLE PRINCIPAL TULSINARAYAN SHARMA, who initiated me into the realm of Sanskrit learning

Urdhvordhvamāruhya yadarthatattoam Dhīh pasyati śrāntimavedayantī / Phalai tadādyaiḥ parikalpitānām Vivekasopānaparamparāņām // "The truth, which is perceived by our tireless intellect, climbing higher and higher, is the result of the ladder of thought designed by earlier thinkers." ( Abhinavabhārati, VI ).

PREFACE

Speculations on poetics in India reached the zenith with the promulgation of the dhvani theory by Anandavardhana. The essence of the theory, however, was already present in a tradition handed down by the Natyasastra and, as is usually the case with other Indian sastras, the germs of the theory can be traced even in the Vedic literature. But this theory found the first systematic expression only in Anandavardhana's magnum opus, Dhvanyaloka. That, Anandavardhana's theory caused a great commotion in the entire atmosphere of Indian intelligence, can be gathered from the reference to a host of opponents who faught an ineffectual fight even before the theory was put in the form of a treatise. Later on, thanks! to the dhvani theory, India also saw the rise of a galaxy of: intellectual giants like Abhinavagupta, Mahimabhatta and Mammata. And in the present age we can realise the far- reaching implications of the dhvani theory if we make even a casual comparison with the modern western thoughts on literary criticism.

In the present work I have tried to explain and analyse the most salient features of this great dhvani theory with a special reference to the text of Dhvanyaloka. While doing so, I have deliberately avoided the longer discussions on chro- nology. But I have tried to show the development of the theory in a precisely chronological order up to its probable impact on the modern creative talents. In explaining the topics of the Dhvanyaloka I have devoted more space only to those which seemed to require some fresh critical com- ments. But yet I cherish a feeling of discontent in respect of the extent of the treatment of some of the topics of my own choice. Here is an instance. I gave the work to the publishers as early as in 1964 and in course of these four years I have come to realise that my treatment of the relation of the dhvani theory with the western thoughts on poetry in general and symbolism in particular, should have been

(xn )

more comprehensive But I am happy, that it is not so premature now, to announce the completion of an all com prehensive study of symbolism, partaining to the different media of expression, wherein I have applied my best efforts to make up the short-comings of the present work

I am extremely grateful to the modern scholars, whose works I have studied and utlised for explaining the dhvan theory in a new way It is, however, a matter of regret for me that I could not utilse and accommodate in this work my belated acquaintance with two important works, viz., Dr V Raghavan's Bhofas Śrngaraprakasa and Krishna Chaitanya s, Sanskrıt Poetics Though I had occasions to differ from the views of some of the modern scholars, I have an unmixed respect and admiration for them and I hope, my attitude towards all of earlier authorities can be understood from the preamble verse of this work that I have quoted from the Abhunmvabharatt I have really no words to express my gratitude to my guru Professor Narenda Chandra Bhattacharya, M A , Vedânta Samkhya Mimamsatirtha, Tattvaratna Shastri, now Curator, the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, who guided me in my research work that culminated in my getting admitted to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Calcutta in 1963 The present work is a retouched version of the thesis that I prepared under his kind supervision I consider myself extremely fortunate to have come to a close association with as great a schofar as Professor Dr K C Pandey, M A, Ph D, D Litt, M. O L, Shastri, U G C Professor of Sanskrit, Lucknow University, through this very humbte work, Professor Pandey was ous of the adjudicators of the present work in its thesis form and this has offered me the rare privilege to find him as one of my very kind gurus, since then With all my heart melting with devotion, I also remain extremely gratefuf to my gurus Professor Dr Satkarı Mookerjee, M A, Ph. D, quondam Asutosh Professor of Sanskrit,

( xiii )

Calcutta University and whilom Director, Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, and Dr. Gaurinath Sastri, M. A., D. Litt., Vice- Chancellor, Varanaseya Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, for their kind and learned forewords.

It is also my pleasant duty to offer my thanks to Shri Aswini Kumar Barua, B. A., now a Journalist of the P. I. B., New Delhi, Shri Dharmeswar Chutia, M. A., an Assam Government Research Scholar working for his Ph. D. under my guidance, and my wife Sm. Elima Sharma for their untiring help in preparing the type-script, putting the diacri- tical marks and preparing the Index.

I am also highly thankful to the celebrated family of the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office for their courtesy and the interest they took in bringing the work to light. The work was lying with them since 1964. But the delay in getting it out of the press is only because of my unsparing preoccupa- tions with the Department of Sanskrit, Gauhati University as its Head, till July 1967.

1-5-68. M. M. S. 32, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GAUHATI-14, ASSAM.

हाऊीय मराघालय

CONTENTS Foreword of Dr. Satkari Mookerjee ... iii Foreword of Dr. Gaurinath Sastri ... Preface ... ... ... xi Seclect names of works referred to with abbreviations xix Some other important abbreviations ... ... xxiii

CHAPTER I Page INTRODUCTION 3-58 What is Poetics 3 Indian Poetics ... ... 3 Schools of Poetics ... ... 5 The Rasa School ... ... 6 The Alamkara School 8 ... ... The RIti School ... 15 ... The Dhvani School 17 ... ... The authorship of the Dhvanyāloka 19 ... ... Kārikākāra and Vṛttikāra 23 ... ... Antiquity of the theory ... ... 28 Sources of the theory ... ... 33 The Vakrokti School ... ... 44 The anumana theory ... 50 ... The aucitya theory 56 ... ...

CHAPTER II

DHVANYALOKA AND THE DHVANI THEORY 59-154 The basis of the theory ... 59 ... Varieties of the pratIyamānārtha ... 60 An outline of the rasadi variety ... 61 Importance of rasādi 63 ... Significance of the episode of Vālmiki 66 ... Types of Kävya and position of rasa ... ... 70 Utility of the dhvani theory 72 ... ... Other devices for novelty ... ... 76 The definition of dhvani 77 ... ... Other meanings of the word dhvani ... ... 80 Views of the opponents 84 ... ...

(xV1 )

Dhvani is not indefinable 89 ... Varietics of dhvani 90 .4. Avivakşıtavācya type 91 Vivakşitānyaparavācya 92

Asamlakşyakramavyangya 93 ... The sabdasaktyudbhava type 95 Šleşa and sabđaśaktimiila 96 ... Example of Sabdasaktimtila 98 ... Samāsoktı and šabdasaktımūla 99 ... . Scope of abhidha in sabdasaktmuladhvani 101 ... The grammarian's view on homonyms .. 105 ... Scope of anumana in sabdasaktımula 107 ... ... Arthasaktyudbhava type 107 ... Example of arthasaktyudbhava 108 ... . Abhinava's position clarified 111 ... Sabdārtha saktyudbhava type 112 ... .. Types of the suggestive meaning 114 Suggestion of alamkāras 116 .. Factors governing suggestion in arthasaktyudbhava 116 The speciality of intonation 117 ... Position of alamkära in the dhyan theory 120 Position of gunas in the dhvani theory 130 Jagannātha's conception of guņa 133 Samnghatana in dhvani theory 137 ... Letters as suggestive of rasa 138 444 . Suggestion by order of words 144 .. The position of the vrttis 4 .. 146 A reply to Viśvanātha's objection : prahelikā ... 150

CHAPTER III THE REALISATION OF RASA 155-184 ... Bharata's Rasa sutra 155 ... Interpretations of Bharata's sūtra 157 .. Bhatțanayaka's conception of rasa ... 158 Abhinava's theory of realisation of rasa .. ... 162' The seven vighnas ... 166 ... Some important points in Abhinava's theory 171 Further points from Locana 173 .

( xvii )

Rasa and Vyañjanā 174 Rasa and the drama 177 ... ... Rasa and the poet 179 ... ... Anandavardhana's conception of rasa ... ... 180 The objective correlative ... ... 183

CHAPTER IV

THE VYAÑJANA FUNCTION 185-237 ... The attitude of earlier theorists ... 185 Implications of the terms śakti and vyāpāra ... 185 Ananda's arguments in favour of vyaujana function 188 A confusion of Vyañjakatva with lingatva 194 Bhattanāyaka's attitude towards Vyafjanā 201 Mahimabhațta's attitude towards Vyanjanā 203 ... Ruyyaka's criticism of Mahimabhatta's view ... 207 Suggested vastu cannot be had through anumana 210 The case of inference of alamkāras ... ... 211 The case of inference of rasa 212 ... , Mammața and Vyañjanā ... 213 ... Dhanañjaya, Dhanika and Vyaňjanā 215 ... An analysis of Dhanika's position ... 219 ... Dhvanivadin's reply to Dhanika's arguments 220 Mukulabhatta and Vyañjanā ... 224 Mukula's position and prayojanamūlālakșaņā 227 Implication of "jfianasya visayo hyanyah" etc. ... 229 Refutation of Mukula's position ... 232 Jayantabhatța and Vyañjanā 234 Jagadīśa and Vyañjanā ... 235

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS ... ... 238-272 See what the Kavya actually suggests ... ... 238 Applicability of the theory 241 ... ... A word on sadhāraņīkaraņa 243 ... The problem of the villain 244 ... ... 'Component feelings of poetic relish' ... ... 246 Sympathetic feeling ... 247 ...

II D,

( xvin )

Antipathetic feeling 248 ... Recollection or Reminiscential feelings ... 248 Reflectional feelings 249 ... Critical feelings 250 Purpose of Kāvya ...

... 251 ... Pleasure is the chief end of Kavya .. 255 ... A new approach to Karuna rasa ... 256 . Dhvan Theory and the New Poetry ... 258 APPENDIX ...

GENERAL INDEX 273

... 277 CORRIGENDA .. 288

Select Names of Works Referred to with Abbreviations Preceding them 1. A. Bh. Abhinavabhāratī on NS, GOS. Vol. I, 1956, Vol. II, 1934. 2. A Critical History of English Poetry, by Grierson and Smith. Chatto & Windus. 1950. 3. Adhunik Banglā Kāvya Paricaya ( Bengali ) by Dr. Dipti Tripathy. 4. Ādhunik Hindi Kavitāmen Prem Aur Saun- đarya ( Hindi ) by Dr. Rameswarlal Khandel- wal, National Publishing House, Delhi 1958. 5. AE The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhi- navagupta by Raniero Gnoli. Roma 1956. 6. Amarakośa. 7. Appreciations by Walter Pater. 8. AS Alamkārasarvasva of Ruyyaka, NSP. 1939. 9. Aspect of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta 1959. 10. A System of Logic by J. S. Mill. 11. ATSE The Achievement of T. S. Eliot by P. O. Matthiessen. Oxford University Press. 1947. 12. Avaloka. Com. on DR by Dhanika. 13. AVC Aucityavicāracarcca by Kșemendra. Haridasa Sanskrit Series. Chowkhamba. 1933. 14. AV M Abhidhāvrttimātrka of Mukula Bhatta. N.S.P. Bombay 1916. 15. Bhavabhuti and His Place in Sanskrit Lite- rature by Anundoram Borooah. Calcutta 1878. 16. Bhāsāpariccheda of Višvanātha. Edited by Pancānana Sāstrī. 1st. edn. Calcutta 1358 sāl. 17. Cārudatta of Bhāsa. 18. Collected Poems by William Empson. Chatto & Windus. 1955. 19. C. M. Citramīmāmsa of Appayadıksita, Kavyamala 38. N. S. P. Bombay 1926. 20. Contemporary French Poetry by Joseph Chiary. 21. C. S. The Chequer'd Shade by John Press. Oxford University Press, London 1958.

(*x)

22. De Poetica of Aristotle, Trans. by Ingram Bywater, Oxford 1946 23. Dhv. Dhvanyaloka with Locana and Balapriya and Divyanjana commentaries. Edited by Pandit Pattabhirama Sastr Also called Benaras edition or Chowkhamba edition or KSS edi- tion, 1940 References to Dhv. are references to this edition unless otherwise specificd. 24 Dhv. Trans 'Theory of Suggestion in Poctry' being the English translation of Dhv by Dr. K Krish namoorthy. Poona 1955 25. DR Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya with Avaloka of Dhanika with Hindi exposition by Dr Bhola- shankar Vyas Chowkhamba cdition, Banaras 1955 26 East and West ( of the Is M. E. O, Rome ) year VI No 4 Jan' 56 27. English Literature of the Twentieth Century by A. S. Colfins, 1956. 28. Foundations of Educational Psychology by Peter Sandiford Longmans, Green and Co, 1940 29. Palgrave's Golden Treasury Book IV. Mac. millan, 1950 30 Hindusthan Standard, Puja Annual, 1959. 31. HSL A History of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. A. B. Keith, London 1920 ( and 1941 ). 32 History of Sanskrit Literature by S. K. De, Calcutta University, 1947. 33. HSP. De Studies in the History of Sinskrit Poettes by Dr. S K. De Vol. I. London 1923, Vol. II, London 1925. 34. HSP. Kane History of Sanskcit Poettes by MM P V. Kane, Bombay 1951. ( Roman numerals for page numbers refer to the 1923 edition ). 35. I. Acst. Indian Aesthetics by Dr. K. C. Pandey, Chowkhamba, Benares 1950. 36 IPF The idea of Poetry in France by Margaret Gifman, Harvard University Press, 1958.

( xxi )

37. IT M Indian Theories of Meaning by Dr. K. Kun- junni Raja. Adyar Library, 1963. 38. KD. Kāvyādarsa of Dandin. Edited by Pandit Rangacarya Reddi Shastri. Poona, 1938. 39. KL, Kāvyālamkāra of Bhamaha, Chowkhamba, Bhãmaha 1928. 40. KL, Rudrața Kāvyālamkāra of Rudrața, NSP. 1909. 41. KP. CSS. Kāvyaprakāśa, Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. VI, 1933. 42. KP. Jhal. Kavyaprakāśa with BālabodhinI of Jhalaki- kara, Poona 1950. 43. KP.Sam. (or KP.Samketa) Kāvyaprakāśa with Samketa of Māņikya- candra. Edited by Dr. R. Shama Sastry. Mysore, 1922. 44. Kāvyaprakāsa. Ullāsa X. Edited by S. S. Sukhtankar, Bombay, 1941. 45. KSS Kāvyālamkārasārasamgraha of Udbhata with Laghuvrtti of Pratīhārendurāja edited by Narayana Daso Banahatti. Bombay 1925. 46. Kşemendra Studies by Dr. Suryyakanta, Poona 1954. 47. KSV Kāvyālamkārasūtravrtti of Vāmana (NSP.). 48. KTS Kāvyatattvasamīkșā by Dr. N. N. Choudhury, ( 1959 ). 49. The Locana com. of Abhinavagupta as in the Benaras edition of Dhv. 50. Manu Sam. Manusamhitā.

38. MB. Chow- khamba Mahābhāşya ( Navāhnikam ). Chowkhamba 1954. 52. MB. NSP Mahābhāsya of Patañjali (vidhisesarūpam dvitIyam khandam ) NSP. Bombay 1935. 53 New Bearings in English Poetry, by F. R. Leavis. Chatto & Windus ( 1932 ), 1959. 54. NM NyāyamañjarI of Jayantabhatta, Kashi Sans- krit Series, Benares 1936.

5S. NR The Number of Rasas by Dr. Y. Raghavan, Adyar Library, 1940 56 N$ Natyasastra of Bharata with A. Bb GOS. Vol I 1956, Vol 1I, 1934 57. Nyāyaratnamāla of Parthasarathimisra, GOS 1937

58 Prof P K Gode Commemoration Volume, Onental Book Agency, Poona 1960 59 Poetry Direct and Oblique by E M W. Till yard Chatto & Windus 1948 60 PLM Paramalsghumafjusa by Nagesabhatța. Chow- khamba Benares, 1917 61. PSR Psychological Studies in Rasa by Dr Rakesa- gupta, B H U Press 1950 62. RG Rasagangadhara of Jagannatha ( 1st Anana) edited in Bengalı by Dr. Smti. Sandhya phaduri, Calcutta 1953 63. Sastradipika of Parthasarathimiśra Transiated by D Venkataramiah, GOS 1940 64 Selected Essays of T. S Eliot 65 SD Sabity adarpana of Višvanātba. 66 Soviet Literature, 1961 ( No. 9) 67. SP 'Selected Prose of T S Eliot' in Penguin Books 1953 69 SSP Śabdašaktprakāšıka of Jagadıśa, Kashı Sans- krit Series, Benares ( 1934), with the Krsna- kantI commentary. 70 SVV Sabdavyāparavicara of Mammata in the same Vol with AVM, NSP 1918 71. The Sacred Wood by T. S Eliot, Methuen & Co London, 1953 72 Tattvapradipıkā of Citsukha 73 The Renaissance by Walter Pater 74 The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism by T. S Ehot, Faber & Faber. 75 TMP The Trend of Modern Paetry by Geoffrey Bullough Oliver and Boyd, London, 1949

( xxiii )

ó. TRD Some Aspects of literary criticism in Sanskrit or The Theories of Rasa and Dhvani by Dr. A. Sankaran. 77. TTD Trends in 20th century Drama, by Frederick Lumley, Barrie and Rockliff, London 1960. 78. URC Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti. 79. VJ. De. The Vakroktijīvita of Rājānaka Kuntaka. Edi- ted by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta, 1922. 80. VJ. HindI Hindi Vakroktijivita. Edited by Dr. Nagendra. Delhi 1955. 81. VKPD. Vākyapadīya ( Brahmakāņda ) of Bhartrhari with Bhavapradipa com. of Pandit Sri Sūrya- nārāyana Śukla. Chowkhamba, 1937. 82. V. Varttika Vrttivārttika of Appayadīksita. Kavyamala 38, N. S. P. Bombay 1926. 83. VV. Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatța, Kashi Sans- krit Series, Benares 1936. 84. VVV. Vyaktivivekavimarsa on VV by Ruyyaka occurring in the said edn. of VV. 85. Vrtti Vrtti portion of the Dhv. Benaras edn. 86. Veņīsamhāra of Bhatțanārāyaņa. 87. Word Word, Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, Vol. 17. No. 2. ( August 1961 ).

Some other Important Abbreviations

1. A. G. Abhinava gupta. 2. Com. Commentary. 3. GOS. Gaekwad's Oriental Series. 4. K. Kārikā, 5. NSP. Nirnayasagara press.

Select names of books consulted but not mentioned in the body of the text

1. The Philosophy of Word and Meaning by Gaurinath Sastri, Sanskrit College, Calcutta 1959. 2, Towards a Theory of the Imagination by S. C. Sen Gupta, Oxford University press, 1959.

राज्रकीय मर्ता घालय कोटा

THE DHVANI THEORY

IN

SANSKRIT POETICS

फ्रसांक-

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

What is Poetics : Poetry has been a very precious possession of the mankind from a very primitive period. Poetical productions, obviously, led to the development of a literary taste and the origin of the "science of poetics." It is, however, not to be understood as a mathematical science like physics and chemistry. In poetics we are concerned with the effects of poetry in the mind of the man of literary taste and, as such, we are to examine certain mental states. The merits of a poetical work is determined by this science on the basis of these mental states. It will be observed that the man of literary taste may vary in temperament and, as such, the assessment of the merits and the nature of appeal of a certain poetical work may not be the same in case of all the readers. Thus; poetics, in so far as it has the states.of mind as the subject-of .study falls at par with introspective-psychology, the claim of which to be called a science is very insecure in contrast with modern! psychology.1 But the ideal of investigation in poetics is essentially the same as in physics or chemistry. In poetics also the general rules and principles hold good universally. Thus, poetics is useful in so far as it embodies certain broad 4 generalisations on the nature of poetry and suggests some precisely proved means and techniques for the production of better poetry. Indian poetics : India claims the distinction of having a long and glorious literary beritage. Sanskrit kāvyas were composed from as early a period as that of the Rāmāyana ( c. 400-200 B. C. ) which marked the beginning of a more

1. Vide, Foundations of Educational Psychology, pp. 4-11.

4 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

illustrious literary tradition ^ Even Rgveda, the earhest of all the extant literary compositions of the world, had a good amount of poetic element and even now claims a good degree of poetic appeal 3 This long literary heritage resulted in a stan dard literary taste and consequenty there was a very large number of works on poetics* These works had the already existing kavyas as the objects of criticism or they formulated certain rules for composing good type of kavyas and presented a theoretical discussion on the fundamentals of kavya There is a purpose in using the word "kavya here The word kavys has a much broader conotation than the English word "poetry " The question as to what kavya is, will be dscussed by and by, but it will be sufficient to remember here that, the word Layya means not only poetical compositions in verse but also fictions, dramas and campus ( romancee composed in mixed prose and verse ) ete a In English the term "hterature' is often used to mean technical literatures also" and the term "poetry' is used in a much restricted sense to mean only the hiterary composi tions in verse Hence, the term 'kavya' is used here more convemiently to cover all the varieties of the typs of fine art based on words ind meaning The two monumental works viz, The History of Sanskrit Poettes by MM P V Kane and the Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics by Dr.S K. De have already given the history of the glorions tradition of . Sanskrit poetics at suh a length that an elboration of the

2 HSL. heith, pp 42-45 HSP Kane, pp 314-317 ibid Index of works AD 1 11 6 Thamaha also understands a broader mean ng of the word Lavya like the broader mean ng of the Engl sh word I terature Compare Vrttadevad cartasama cotpadya b.stu ca / kalTharisrayam ceti caturdht bhidyate punal // (KI. I. 17) Yide also Lagbuvrth, Pp 83-84 for Indurtja's comm-nt on th s VICW Compare Banahath's notes on KSS, p. 155 in which he says that works deal ng w th arts and sciences are one of the four varieties of kavya " ele

CHAPTER I 5

same here would be a repetition of repetitions. Yet for the convenience of understanding the dhvani theory there is the necessity of referring here to some theories which dominate the main schools and trends in Sanskrit poetics without enter- ing deeper into the controversial questions of chronology, etc. Schools of poetics : Of the traditional writers, Samudra-

bandha, commentator on Ruyyaka's AS, classified the schools after the latter in a interesting way. He observed "iha visiştau śabdārthau kāvyam tayośca vaisiştyam dharma- mukhena, vyapāramukhena, vyangyamukhena veti trayah pakşāh adye'pyalamkārato guņato veti dvaividhyam dvitīy'epi bhaņiti-vaicitryena bhoga-krttvena veti dvaividhyam iti pañ- caşu paksesvādya udbhațādibhirangīkrtah, dvitiyo vamanena, trtiyo vakroktijīvitakāreņa, caturtho bhaļțanāyakena, pacama Anandavardhanena." ( An association of word and meaning having a speciality is kavya. They owe their speciality to' three factors, viz., an attribute a function and a suggested sense. The first sourse of speciality has two varieties, viz., alamkāra ( figure of speech ) or a guna (quality). The second source has two varieties, viz., strikingness of speech and the function called bhogakrti. Of these five alternatives the first one is followed by Udbhata and others, the second one is followed by Vamana, the third is followed by the author of Vakroktijivita, the fourth by Bhattanayaka and the fifth by Anandavardhana. ) Samudrabandha here recognises the ( 1 ) alamkāra school, ( 2 ) the guna school, ( 3 ) the vakrokti school, ( 4 ) the bhojakatva school and the ( 5) dhvani school. The guna school refers to the riti school of the modern classi- fication but the latter may be called guna school also as accor- ding to that school the essential nature of kavya depends on the qualities ( gunas ) that bestow speciality upon the styles ( ritis ) designated as the soul of poetry. In the modern classification there is no mention of a vakrokti school or a bhojakatva theory and the pioneer advocate of the theory, Bhattanayaka, is better known as a strong opponent of the

6 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

dhvam school and his theory as the dhvanidhvamsa theory .? Samudrabandha was anterior to Visvanatha and Ksemendra and as such the ( 6 ) rasa theory and the (7) aucitya theory f do not occur in his enumeration Samudrabandha's classifica- tion is defective in so far as it does not accommodate Mahima bhatta's anumiti theory and also does not leave any scope for recognising Bharata's con ribution to the field of poetics Modern scholars enumerate the following schools and th-ories-( 1 ) rasa school, (2 ) riti school, ( 3 ) alamkāra school, ( 4 ) dhvani scoool, ( 5 ) vakrokt school, ( 6) Anumitı theory and ( 7 ) aucitya theory 8 This classification feaves scope for the inciusion of all the known writers in one school or the other In the following lines we are examining the schools and theories in their outlines

The Rasa School This school is characterised by a par- tiality for rasa The followers of this school advocated that rasa is the most essential and indispensible element mn a kavya Poctry owes its being to the depiction of rasa and in a charac- teristic Indian way they call rasa the atma ( soul ) of poetry Bharatamuni the author of the NS was the ancientmost propounder of this school Bharata observes -- "na hi rasadrte kascidarthah pravarttate" ( No meaning proceeds from speech without any kind of sentiment ) ? The NS is primarily a work on dramatureey. But Bharata had the occasion to discuss the different aspects of kavya also since the text of the drama, presented verbally ( and thus involving the va ika abhinaya ) 13 at par with non-dramatic kavya Dr Keith has rightly observed, "the topics which were to engage wfiters on poelis, however, appear in elementary, though not undeveloped, form in the

7 KTS p 7 8 S S Sukihankar, KP X Introduction. For only the schools vide HSP, Kane, p CXLVII 9 NS, VI-31.

CHAPTER I

Nāțyasāstrā."10 But Bharata's partiality for rasa is very clearly betrayed by his declaration that the propriety of the use of the . different types of the elements like vrtti, laksana, guņa, alam- kāra, etc., is determined by rasa.11 Compare-"etacca rasā- ditātparyeņa kāvyanibandhanam bharatādāvapi suprasiddhame- veti pratipādayitumāha" etc. ( Dhv. p. 401 ). The poetics por- tion of the Agnipurana also claims an affiliation of its unknoin author to this school by the declaration "vagvaidagdhya pra- dhäne'pi rasa evatra jIvitam."12 Of the writers of regular works on poetics Visvanätha may be singled out as the fore- most advocate of this school since he gives the very definition of poetry in terms of rasa, recognised as the soul. Compare : "vakyam rasātmakam kāvyam." Modern writers would include : Abhinava, Mahimabhatta and Bhattanayaka also in this school. It is quite meet and proper, when S. S. Sukthankar includes Abhinava-for Abhinava not only believed that rasa is the soul but he had also given the most appropriate explanation of the term rasa. Dr. N. N. Choudhury associates the names of Bhattanayaka and Mahimabhatta also with this school.13 Since Mahimabhatta also recognises rasa as the atma ( soul ) of poetry by saying "Kāvyasya atmani samjnini rasādīrūpe na kasyacid vimatih."1+ we can include him safely. But as we do not have the full text of Bhattanāyaka's Hrdayadarpana . we cannot be sure of his position. Regarding Bhattanayaka we are to depend on whatever information is supplied by

10. HSL. p. 373., 11. NS( Trans. ) pp. 308 ( XVII-42 ), 320 ( XVII-107, 108, etc. ), 401 ( XXII ). 12. Agnipurana, 337, 33. 13: KTS. p. 6. 14. VV. I. Also compare, "kavivyāparo hi vibhāvadısamyojanītmā rasabhivyaktyavyabhictrī kavyamucyate taccabhineyanabhineyarthatvena dvividham." VV. p. 95. and "rastmakam ca kavyamiti kutastatrăna- ucityasamsparsah sambhavyate, yannirasarthamittham kavyalaksanam =- caksīran vicaksanammanyāh." VV. p. 126.

8 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

writers like Abhmava, Ruyyaka and Jayaratha Bhattanāyaka recognises superiority of rasa by observing * vägdhenurdugdha etam he rasam yadbalairsnayā / tena nasya samah sa syad duhyate yogibbir h yah // ( Locana, p 92) We will have an ossasion to study Bhattanayaka's position m greater detail, but for the present it will be sufficient to note that Abhinava himself included Bhattanayaka in the rasa school by pomung out that he himself recognised rasadhvani as the soul of poetry-"rasadhvanistu tenaivatmatay angIkrtah " ( Locapa, p 52 ) Anandavardhana also had no little partia- lity for rasa Hence, we shall have to examine more carefully Why he is to be relegated to an independent dhvan school in .

the following pages The Alamkara School According to this school the most essential element in kavya is alamkāra ( the figures of speech ) None of the folloners of this school ever called alamkara the soul of poetry But the fact that they recogmsed alam- kara as the most essential element is gathered from an exami- nahon of the emphasis they put on alamkaras. They, how- ever, knew about rasa ard guna, but relegated rasa to a subordinate position by mcluding it as the essential element of some type of alamkara and they seldom maintained a dis- tinction between guna and alamkara. Compare, Dr. Keith's remarks on Bhamaha that, 'he has, however, no clear marking line between qualities and figures' 13 and Ruyyaka's statement "udbhatādıbhıstu gunālamkārānām prāyasah samyameva suci- tam "16 Ip the opinion of the followers of the dhvant shool - gunas may occur only in relation to the rasa But the follo- wers of the alamkara school put gunas at par with the figures by conceiving them without any invariable relation with rasas. Bhamaha (7the A D ) was the pioneer of the alamlara school His partiality for the alamkaras is evidenced by the

16 HSL p 382 16. AS p 9

CHAPTER I 9

statement-"Its ( kāvya's ) adornment like Rūpaka and others is propounded by others in several ways. Even the charming face of a damsel does not shine stripped of ornament."17 His partiality for alamkara is further betrayed by the fact that "he insists that there is a common element in all poetry, Vak- rokti ( i. e. figurative speech ), while he denies, accordingly, to Svabhävokti the right to be styled a figure at all."18 But it requires to be very carefully noted here that, Bhämaha recog- nises rasa and iustructs that the Mahākavya embodies the different rasas.19 In the Ākhyāyika also he seems to recognise the presence of rasa because of saying that it deals with 'separation of lovers' ( vipralambhodayānvitah ).20 But what is most interesting is that, in Abhinava's opinion Bhämaha recog- nises the association of rasa as the jivita ( life) of kāvya. Vide Locana, p. 401, "vrttayah kāvyamātrkāh iti bruvānena - muninā rasocitetivrttasamāśrayaņopadeśena rasasyaiva jivitat- vamuktam. bhāmahādibhiśca --

svādukāvyarasonmiśra-vākyārthamupabhuñjate /21 prathamālıdhamadhavah pibanti kațubheșajam // ityādinā rasopayogajīvitah sabdavrttilaksano vyavahāra uktaḥ."

17. " .. ...... na kantamapi nirbusam vibhati vanitamukham" ( KL. Bhamaha, I. 13 ) 18. Keith, HSL. p. 383. 19. KL. Bhamah, I. 21. "yuktam. ....... rasaisea sakalaih prthak." 20. KL. Bhamaha, I. 27 21. In the parisista I ( Index, p. 2 ) the Chowkhamba edition referring io Abhinava's quotation reads the verse as given' here. But the same edition reads in the body of the text ( 32 ) : svadukavyarason- misram sīstramapyupayunjate. ( Even a technical treatise, i. e., sastra, may be presented when mixed with the sweet sentiment of kavya ). This reading seems to be more appropriate when the verse is read along with the earlier and latter verses. Abhinava possibly had the other reading and conveniently utilised that to strengthen his own doctrine.

10 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

MM. Kane begins his account of the alamkara school with the statement-"The foremost representatives of this school are Bhamaha and Udbhata ; Dandr, Rudrata and Pratihārendu- raj belong to this school." ( HSP. Kane, p. CL ). Of these writers Udbhata does not give any definition of kavya He begins his KSS abruptly with the treatment of alamkaras He re ognises rasas and bhavas but relegates them to a subordt- nate position by mcluding them all in the alamkaras-rasavat, preyasvat, Orjasvt and samahita. Udbhata holds that rasas like śrangāra are manifested also by their sthayibhāvas expre- ssly mentioned by name ( rasavat ... svasabdasthayısaficari- vibhavabhinayaspadam KSS IV 3, p. 52 . Thus it appears that Udbhata does not recognise rasa as a state of the mind of the man of taste developing to an unperturbed bliss through the cognition of and rumination on the emotions of the chara- cters. Vivrttikara very rightly observes that, when the words, expressive of the sthayibhavas, are used, they are capable of indicating them generally, but are not powerful enough to develop them as emottonal conditions in the muind of the men of taste. If such were the case, relish of all the risas by the verse śrngarahasya, etc, will be an accomplished fact. Cf. "yatra svašabdastadyācakastadvācakaḥ sāmānyena na tu tada- bhıvyaktau saktah. evam hi śrngārahāsyetyādıślokānnāty ādıva sakalarasapratıpattıh syāt." ( KSS. Notes, p 101 ). It will be helpful to remember that the author of Vivrtti, a commentary to KSS, was later than Abhinava and followed the latter in the matter of rasa reabisation We cannot very happily agree with the observation that, "Rudrata must be regarded as a representative of the alankāra school. Although he knows the rasa theory propounded by Bharata and although he says that kavya must be endowed with rasa ( tasmat tat kartavyam mahtyasā rasatryuktam / chap. 12. 2) sull he looked upon alamkaras as very impor- tant " ( HSP. Kane, p LVI ) Because, a proper analy sis of the contents of Rudrata's Kavyalamkara would show that he ----

CHAPTER I 11

, should better be ascribed to the rasa school. Rudrata declares in the verse 1.4 that kävya should have rasa to fetch an endless fame for the poet. Compare- "jvaladujjvalavākprasarah sarasam kurvan mahākavih kāvyam / sphuțamākalpamanalpam pratanoti yašaņ parasyāpi // By recognising the arthadosa, viz., Virasa, he instructs that the rasas should be delineated in an appropriate manner. ( KL. Rudrața, XI. 12, 13, 14). He introduces the question as to why kavya should have rasa again in the chapter XII. He says that, "instructions on caturvarga may be imparted to those who have a taste fer rasas in an easy and wholesome manner with the kavya, whereas they are afraid of the sāstras lacking in rasa." Compare-

"nanu kāvyena kriyate sarasānāmavagamścaturvarge / laghu mrdu ca nirasebhyaste hi trasyanti sāstrebhyah // ( XII. 1.) "Hence, kavya should be endowed with rasa with all care, otherwise it will be as teasing as the sastras."

"tasmāt tat kartavyam yatnena mahlyasā rasairyuktam / udvejanameteşām śāstravadevānyathā hi syat // ( XII. 2. ) Then he proceeds to give an elaborate information regarding the nature and varieties of rasa in as many as four chapters viz. XII, XIII, XIV and XV. Then he introduces the final chapter viz., XVI with the verse : jagati caturvarga iti khyātir dharmārthakāmamokșāņām / samyakfānabhidadhyadrasasammisrān prabandhesu // (XVI. 1.) once again emphasising on the delineation of rasa in kāvya. Another point that we should remember is that unlike most of his compatriots and contemporaries Rudrata does not include rasas, etc., in one or the other type of the alamkara. He not only advocates in favour of rasa as indispensible, but also gives it a distinct status by treating it in distinct chapters.

12 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

The celebrated commentators Namisadhu has rightly observed fuoder XII 2, "athalamkaramadhya eva rısa apı kım noktah / · ucyate-kāvyasya hı Šabdārthau śartram / tasya ca vakroktıvā- stavādayah kațakakundalādaya iva krtrımā alamkarāh / rasāstu sıundaryādaya iva sahaja gunāh it bhinnastatprakaranara- mbhah' ( KL Rudrata, p 150 ) Ruyyaka prior to his general statement that 'according to the earhier rheroricians afamkara are the most important element in the kavya ( tadevamalam kāra eva kāvye pradhānamitt pracyānām matam, AS p 9) observed that 'Rudrata also recognised two vari-ties of the bhava alamkara' ( rudratena tu bhavalamkaro dvidhaivok- tah, AS p 6) But this statement need not lead us to include Rudrata in the alamkara school since Ruyyaka's intention here, wis to show how the suggested matter of fact ( Vastu ) was incl ided in an alamkara irrespective of its importance or lack of importance by the earher rhetorician Rudrata also This was meant to show that Rudrata did not recognise dhvan but not that be did not recognise the importance of rasa Prattharenduraja, author of Laghu vrtti, com to Udbhata's KSS, had a peculiar loyalty for the alamkara school In fact it will be more precise to recognise him as a bundle of con- fusions In the capacity of a commentator_of Udbhata he had to uphold the cause of the alamkara school, whereas, in the heart he was a devoted follower of the rasa school This conflict of outlook caused confusion not only of Prati- harenduraja but also of the modern scholars We have already seen how MM Kane has associated Prattharenduraja with the alamkara school Tis is because of Prattharenduraja's observation that, Udbhata dtd not discuss the question of dhvani separntely because of the fact that the dhvans may be included mn the alamkaras themselves Compare, "nanu yatra kavye sahrdayahrday ahladinah pradhānabhūtasya svasabdavyapārāsprstatvena pratiyamanaıkarupasyārthasya sadbhavastatra tathavidharthabhivyaktihetuh kāvyajtvitabhutah Kaıscıt sahrdayaır dvanırnām vyafjakatvabhedatma kavya- dharmo'bhıhıtah sa kasmadıha nopadıştah/ ucyate/ eşveva-

CHAPTER I 13

lamkāresvantarbhāvāt" (KSS, p. 85 ). This would have been enough to ascribe him to the alamkara school; but, there is a good amount of evidence to prove his devotion to the rasa school and a disguised loyalty for Anandavardhana. Hence, observe the following points. ( 1 ) For PratIharenduraja, the consonants employed in the thee types of vrttis should be helpful for suggesting rasas, compare : "evametāstisro vrttayo vyākhyatāņ/ tāsu ca rasādyabhivyaktyānuguņyena prthak prthaganuprāso nibadhyate." ( KSS, p. 6). This interpretation of kārikā 1/7 of KSS, ( which does not have any reference to rasa ) seems to be much after the heart of Anandavardhana, since we can safely compare PratIhārenduraja's quoted vrtti with Ananda's kārikā : rasādyanuguņatvena vyavahāro'rtha śabdayo/ aucityavānyastā etā vrttayo dviđhāh sthitãh // (Dhy 3/33) (2) There is enough evidence to show that PratIharendu- raja has been much charmed by Ananda's theory. For we see Pratīharenduraja actually declaring once that rasa is the. soul of poetry although it was never warrented by the text com- mented on by him. cf. 'na khalu kāvyasya rasānām cālam- kāryālamkārabhāvah kintvātma-sarīrabhāvah/ rasā hi kāvya- syātmatvenavasthita śabdārthau ca šarīrarūpatayā/ (ĶSS, p. 83). Because of this conviction PratIharenduraja finds much difficulty in compromising with the conception of the alāmkāra rasavat. If rasa is the soul of kavya, then why should rasa be counted as an alamkara ( embellishment ) in case of rasavat ? He gives the reply to himself that in time of calling rasa alamkara this aspect of rasa was not intended to be referred to. cf. 'yattu rasādīnām pūrvamalarkāratva- muktam tadevamvidhabhedāvivaksayā' ( KSS, p. 83 ). But evidently it has never been the intention of Udbhata to recog- nise rasa as the soul of poetry. Only Pratihārendurāja, being under the overwhelming influence of Ananda could not help cherishing rasa as the soul of poetry and consequently he had o face conflict of ideas as evidenced above. The learned

14 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS . - editor of KSS rightly observes on the line "yattu rasadtnam', etc, "But this, after all, is a meagre satisfaction and it shows the more clearly that Udbhati did not know or atleast did not accept the theory that rasa was the soul of poetry" ( KSS Notes p 159) Discussing about the suggested sense in the verse 'cakra- bhighata' ett, an illustration of paryayokta, Prattharenduraja says that the pratiyamana, 1 e, suggested vastu does not render the piece a dhvani, stnce the suggested vastu is an embellishment to the express sense which is rendered charming by it Then he finally concludes that the sugges- ted vastu is decidedly subordinate to the vira rasa with relation to Vasudeva But, as regards the position of the suggested rasa itself he is silent and he seems to admit that very rasa as the soul of kavya ( cf ato'trāpi pratiyamānasya satyapt pradhanatve svagunabhuta-vacyasaundarya sādhakata- matvadalankāravyapadeso na virudhyate/ yadı vā bhagavađ- vasudevavartıtaya yo'sau vIrarasovagamyate tađapeksayā tasya mukhyayaıva vrtyā gunabhūtatvādalamkāratā / KSS p 86) Thus Pratyharenduraja sufficiently betrays his weakness towards the dhvant theory newly and very admirably propoun- ded by Anandavardhana, who was anterior to him

MM. Kane is Dot prepared to identify Prattharenduraja, the author of Laghuvrtti with Bhattenduraja, Abhinava's teacher. Narayana Daso Banhatti, on the other hand, advocates the identity of the two authors ( vide, KSS Intr. pp XXV- XXVIII ) Among other arguments, MM. Kane observes "We do not know the parentage of the latter (Prattharenduraja) But we khow this that the latter did not anprove of the theory of dhvani and included dhvanikavya under alamkaras, while Bhattenduraja seems to have approved of it and explamed the Dhvanyaloka to Abhinavagupta" (HSP, Kane, p LXX) But our observation as to Pratibarenduraja's weakness for the dhvam theory shows that there was hardly any improbability in Pratiharenduraja's explaining the Dhvanyaloka in the

CHAPTER I 15

capacity of Abhinava's theacher, although, he had occasions to observe that Udbhata included dhvani in alamkaras in the capacity of Udbhata's commentator. The Riti School : The chief exponent of this school was Vamana ( c. 800_A.D.).22 According to Vamana the soul of poetry is style (rIti), 'which is a specified arrangement of words, the term specified referring to distinction according to the qualities possessed which are the cause of charm in poetry, while the figures are ranged as things which add to the charm.'23 Vamana's own words in the KSV are : rītirātmā kāvyasya ( 1. 2. 6 ), visistapadaracanā rītiḥ ( 1. 2. 7. ), viśeso guņātmā ( 1. 2. 8 ), kāvyasobhāyāh kartāro dharmā guņāh ( 3. 1. 1. ), tadatisayahetavastvalamkārāh ( 3. 1. 2 ), guņanirvītyā kāvyasobhā/tasyāśca atisayahetavo'lamkārāh / . ( beginning of 4. 1. ). Dandin ( c. 750 A. D. )24, who used the term märga for rIti, also was to some extent an exponent of the riti school.25 Dandin did not specifically mention riti as the soul of poetry but recognised the ten gunas as the vitals of the vaidarbhI mārga ( iti vaidarbhamārgasya prāņā dašaguņā smrtah. KD. 1.42). Thus Dandin also deserves with Vamana, the credit of probing deeper into the essential element ( soul or ätman ) of poetry. The gunas were recognised also by Bharata. But the definitions of the individual gunas varied from writer to writer.

Vāman establishes the essential nature of the gunas by saying that "kavya is appreciated because of embellishment" ( kāvyam grāhyamalamkārāt 1. 1. 1 ) and "embellishment is another name for charm" ( saundaryam alamkārah 1. 1. 2 ). "The gunas are the essential cause of charm in .poetry" ( kavyasobhāyāh kartāro dharmā gunāh 3. 1. 1. ). Vāmana

22. HSL, Keith, p. 381, 23. Ibid. 24. HSP. Kane, XXVII. 25. Ibid, p. XXI.

16 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

recognises rasa also. Kantt, as one of the qualities of sense, is defined as the quility of having a prominent risa. (diptarasatvam kāntıh 3 2 15. diptā rasāh šrngārādıyo yisya sa diptarasah tasya bhāvo diptarasatvam kāntıh ) Vămina also recognised some amount of suggested vastu in the alamkara called vakroktı ( KSV 3. 18) In KD 1 93 and 1 94 we find the definition of the samadhi guna and an example which is almost similar to Vamana's dafinition of vakrokti and contains ' a suggested matter of fact Thus both the prominent exponents of the riti school recogntsed the presence of the two types of suggested sense ( viz rasn and maiter of fact, 1 e, yastu )'3 and had room for them in their scheme Hence, Ananda- vardhana observes that the exponents of the rlti school had to promulgate the ritt theory as a result of their attempt to ex- plain the essentials of the dhvam theory which they vaguely understood. ( Dhv. III 46 and HSP Kane, p CLIII and com- pıre vāmanena tu sādrsyanbandhanāya laksanāyā vakro- Ityalamkāratvam bruvata kaściddhvanı bhedo'lamkāratayai- voktah, AS. pp 8-9) But, there is one technical defect with Vamana's theory that he recognises ritt in general as the soul of poetry, whereas, of the three kinds of rIti, viz, VaidarbhI, Gaudi and PafcalI, the Vaidarbhi is strongly insisted on, the other two disparaged. Anandavardhana, the chief exponent of the dhvam theory was possibly influenced by Bhamaha, in recognising only three gunas Of the later writers Mammata, a devoted follower of the dhvani school, shows, how the twenty gunas ( i e ten gunas of sense and ten gunas of word ) may be reduced to onlv three and a guna like samata of Vamana is in fact a fault of kavya. Whatever be the fate of the rini school in later times and whatever be Anand's atutude towards Vamana, there can be no gain saying of the fact that

26, The third variety of the suggested sense viz, alamkora is also in fact a vastu, ie, matter of fact, but the only distinchon is that the former is more imaginary.

CHAPTER I 17

.Vamana also contributed largely to the origin of the dhvani! theory in the hand of Anandavardhana. The Dhvani School: The founder of this school was Anandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyaloka. Anandavar- dhana, belonged to the court of king Avantivarman of Kashmir ( 855-883 A. C.). "This date agrees well with what we know from other sources. He quotes Udbhata and so is later than 800 A. C .; while he is quoted by Rājasekhara ( about 900 A. C. ). Therefore the period of his literary activity would lie between 840-870 A. C."27 In the Dhvanyaloka for the first time we hear the word dhvani used in a technical sense of "a particular type of poetry." Amarasimha, who is definitely earlier than 700 A. C.,28 reads the word dhvani twice and gives the meaning as sound. ( cf. sabde nināda ninada dhvani dhvana, etc., p. 45 and, dhvanau ta madhurāsphute kalo, p. 47 in Amarkosa ). According to Anandavardhana's theory; the words can convey also a suggested meaning in addition to. their conventional primary meaning. In the domain of poety thel suggested meaning occurs in three forms, viz., vastumatra (mere matter of fact ), alamkara ( figures of speech ) and rasadi ( rasa and other such mental states ). A composition where a suggested sense predominates is called dhvani. In other words the suggestive aspect of poetry is called dhvani. This sugges- tive aspect of poetry is its very sonl in so far as all ideal compositions embody a predominant suggested sense. Of the three types of the suggested sense the rasadi type is considered to be the best and the very propriety of the gunas and alam- karas and other such elements depend on their assistance to suggest the rasadi varicty of the suggested sense. The theory also attributes new meanings to the gunas and rItis and the . alamkaras like rasavat of the earlier theorists. For explaining the phenomenon of the words conveying the suggested sense Anandavardhana introduces a new func-

27. HSP. Kane, p. LXVIII. 28. HSL, Keith, p. 413.

18 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

tion of the words called vyafjana in-addition to the abhidha and laksana of the earlier theorists For defending his novel view Ananda seeks an malogy of the vyafjana funetion with the sphots theory of the grammarians The conception of vyafjana was elready there, but it is discovered in the domain of language for the first time by the dhvan theory. The dhvan theory has been propounded for the first time in the Dhvanyaloka, which 'is an epoch-making work in the history of alamkara literature' because of a very intelligent analysis of the suggestive potentialty of the language and particularly because of helping development of a new out- look of the poets in respect of the content of their composi- tion As it is very rightly observed by Dr K Krishnamoorthy in his preface to the English translation of the Dhvanyaloka, the dhvani theory had been promulgated at a day when the Sanskrit hterature has already been subject to a tendency towards decadence and a morribund literary acrobatic to pro du e more and more crude figutes of sp-ech relegating the most appaaling and essential element of poetry, viz, rasadi to an insignificant position Ananda, by laying greatest emphasis on the suggested sense and particularly the rasadı variety tried to rejuvinate the dec iying gemus of the days of Valmiki and Kaldasa and to give a new fillp to the creative impulse of the Indian poets

The Dhvanyaloka has been commented on by the great Kashmirian scholar philosopher Abhinavagupta whose "lite rary activity falls batween 990 A C and 1020 A. C" ( HSP. Kane, p. LXXI ) This commentry is known as Locana and Abhinava himself informs us of another commentary named 'Candrika' the author of which belonged to the same family as that of Abhinava 2 By now the Dhvanyaloka has been issued in several Indian and foreign editions, some of them

2@ For more informations about Candrikakara vide HSP, Kans, P LYXI

CHAPTER 1 19-

also bearing new commentaries. Of the Indian editions the more important ones may be indicated as follows : ( 1) The editio princeps of the text with the commentary of Abhinava, edited by Pt. Durgaprasāda, NSP, 1891. (2) Chowkhamba Ldition with a modern commentary by BadarInātha. ( 1937 ). ( 3) Käshi Sanskrit Series Edition with Locana and Balae priya ( 1940 ) edited by rt. Pattābhirāma ShāstrI. (4) The Calcutta Sanskrit Series Edition (No 25. B) with a modern commentary by Madhusudana Mishra ( 1931 ), edited by Prof. Narendra Chandra Bhattacharya VedantatIrtha. (5) The first chapter only with Locana and Kaumudi Commentaries and Upalocana on Locana by MM. Kuppu- swami Shastri, issned by K. S. R. Institute, Madras ( 1940 ). (6) Pirst two chapters ( in 2 vol. s ) with English exposi- tion by Prof. Bishnupada Bhattacharya, Calcutta ( 1956-57 ). The Dhvanyāloka is divided into four chapters, called uddyotas. From another angle of view it may be divided into two portions, viz., the karikas ( main verses, which are serially numbered ) and a running vrtti ( commentary ) on it. The vrtti consists of prose explanation of the kārikās, illus- trative verses and some more verses which are not numbered like the kārikas nor explained by the prose vrtti, nor meant for illustration but for summarisation of the deliberations of the vrtti or for supplementing the view expressed in a kārikā. These are sometimes called parikaraślokas, sometimes samgrah- ślokas and sometimes samksepaślokas. The authorship of the Dhvanyaloka : There is no division of opinion as regards the fact that Ananda was the author of the prose vrtti with illustrations. But Dr. De believes that the kārikās were composed by an earlier kārikākāra, whose kārikās were explained by Ananda with the prose vrtti. He further believes that the samgraha, parikara and samksepaślokas were also composed by a scholastic tradition earlier to Ananda, and

20 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

the latter simply incorporated them into his own work For the sake of convenience let me quote a few lines from HSP De vol I p 114 "If, on the other hand, we place the Dhvant- kara in the time of Kalhana's Manoratha, this would only leave a bare margin of two generations between the Kārıkākāra and Vrttikara, which does not seem to be enough to make room for a period of scholastic exposition of the former, of which undoubted traces are preserved to us in the few memo- rial verses-parikarašlokas ( pp 34, 130, 137, 147, 163) 30 samgraha-ślokas ( pp 87, 223 ) samksepaślokas ( pp 44, 74, 243 )-incorporated by Ananda in his vrtti, which itself, therefore, is not likely to be the first of its kind These lokas are a sort of recapitulation-stanzas which are adduced by the Vrttikāra from unknown sources sometimes to explain the meaning of karikas but more often to amplify and supplement them "

Author of the parikara-slokas etc Now, my contention is that the so called memorial verses were also composed by Ananda, the unquestionable author of the vrttt htmself My arguments are as followg

(1) Abhinava is very particular about the distinction, be it numerical or formal or functional between Karkakara and the Vrttikara, as will be shown below But he is silent about the distinction in the authorship of the prose vrttt and the memoral verses (2) When occasian arises, Ananda does not farl to name the predecessor Thus, for example, he names Bhamaha in p 119 Even when Ananda simply refers to a predecessor as 'anya' as in p 26, ' tatha canyena krta evatra slokah yasmın nasti na vastu" ete, Abhinava is prompt eoueh to name the predecessor ( cf granthakrtsamānakalabhāvinā manoratha nāmnā kavina )

30 Here the references are to the Kavyamslt edit on 1891, 1911

CHAPTER I 21

(3) When in p. 107. Ananda presents a parikaraśloka saying "parikaraślokaścātra-vyangyavyanjakasambandha," etc., Abhinava remains silent about the author, but simply com- ments "parikarārtham kārikārthasyādhikāvāpam kartum ślokaḥ parikaraślokaḥ."

Again in p. 192, Ananda says "tadayamatra samksepah" and introduces three samksepaslokas. Abhinava comments there "tatra sarvatra sādhāraņamuttaram dātumupakramate- tadayamatreti" which rather implies an identity in authorship. (4) From the comments or absence of any comment by Abhinava it seems to be clear that parikarasloka is given by the Vrttikāra to teli something with the force of a kārikā, a samk- sepasloka is meant as a brief summary of a longer argument in prose, and the samgrahaślokas31 are systematic recapitula- tion of the views expressed in the prose vrtti. (5) The samgrahaslokas, or samksepaslokas or even the parikarašlokas need not cecessarily imply an author different from the Vrttikara, inasmuch as we bave instances of the Vrttikara himself composing the samgrahaslokas elsewhere. The verses occurring in the text of the Vyaktiviveka, by Mahi- mabhatta, who belonged to the middle of the 11th century A. D.32, are mostly named as samgrahaślokas or āntaraślokas or ântarāryas. Should we suppose the Vyaktiviveka also to have been composed by more than one author ? If not, what is the propriety in taking a different stand in case of the Dhvanyāloka ? (6) The only apparent reason which led the learned Doctor to imagine authors other than the Vrttikara for sam- grahaślokas, etc., is the hypothesis that the kārikas were com- posed by a fictitious Kārikākāra, who is supposed to have

31. It will be interesting to find the terns karika and samgraha defined in the Natyasastra also. Vide, NS ( VI/9, 11 ) and NS ( Trans, ) p. 101, 32. I. Acsthetics, p. 271

22 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

flourished two generations earlier than Anarda A scholastie tradition, in the form of the composition of the samgraha- ślokas, etc, by several unknown writers, is supposed to have been there to fill up the gap of two generations Bat it will be presently shown that the said hypothesis is not secure and the consequent theory of unknown authorship for the sam grahaslokas, etc, also fails along with the theory of a diffe- rent Kārıkakara (7) Moreover, a careful study of the parikaraslokas, etc, would show, that a good number of the vital aspects of the dhvant theory are revealed by them Under such circumstances how could Ananda claim the entire credit of revealing th theory for the first time ? (cf vrtti pp 35-38, "tasya bi dhva- Deh svarūpam . sabrdayānāmānando manası labhatām pratı- sthamiti prakasyate," also Locana p 41, 'Ananda iti ca gran- thakrto nama,' etc, and also the last verse of Uddyota IV by Ananda and Locana thereon ) If there were earlier thinkers and also makers of the theory in part, why should then Abhi- nava, the learned commentator, give the unquestionable appel- lation of Sastrakara to Ananda alone ? (8 ) Dr De, further argues that ' in course of time the Kari- kakara receded to the background, completely overshadowed by the more important figure of his formidable expounder, and people considered as the Dhvanikara not the author of the few memorial verses but the commentator Anandavardhans humself who for the first time fixed the theory in its present form " This quotation has a connection w th the question of the parikaraslokas, etc In the said quotation it is observed that in course of time people forgot about the Karikakara but why should Ananda himself have forgotten hts entity / As the definition of a parikarasloka, given by Abhmnava ( Locana p 107), would show, these verses, supposed to have been taken by Ananda from unknown sources, were later in ume than the karikas It is simply unb-hevable that the hame of the Kankakara and the names of the supposed unknown authors

CHAPTER I 23

of the parikaraslokas, etc., were all forgotten by or unknown to Ananda. We also cannot believe that, Abhinava, who had a family tradition of studying the Dhvanyaloka and a line of preceptors ( guruparamparã ), knew nothing of the authors of the kārikas and the parikaraslokas, etc., if there were really any such authors.

Kārikākara and Vrttikāra : The most fascinating of the problems related with the authorship of Dhvanyaloka is about the distinction between the Kärikakara and the Vrttikara. This problem has given rise to a good deal of controversy among the leading Sanskritist Scholars during the last sixty years or more. Dr. Buhler ( Kashmir Report p. 65) and the learned editors of the Kāvyamala edition of the Dhvanyaloka conjec- ture that the karikas have been written by some one different from Ananda, the author of the vrtti. A large group of scho- lars consisting of Prof. Jacobi,33 Prof. Keith,34 Dr. De,35 MM. Kane,36 Mr. Sovani,37 etc., supported this contention and the last went to the extent of propounding that Sahrdaya was the name of the author.of the karikas. But another group of scholars consisting of Dr. A. Sankaran,33 Dr. K. Krishna- moorthy,39 Dr. S. K. Mookerjee,40 Raniero Gnoli,41 etc., opposed the view of the former school and advocated in favour of a numerical identity of the Kariķakāra and Vrttikāra.

33. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesselschaft. 34. HSL. p. 386. 35. HSP. De. Vol. I. chap. IX. 36. HSP. Kane. pp. 152-190 etc. 37. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1910. pp. 165-67. 38. TRD. pp. 50-60. 39. Authorship of Dhvanyaloka. Indian Historical Quarterly, XXXIV/3 & 4 ; Dhv. Trans, Preface, p. XVII. 40. B. C. Law. Vol. Part-I. pp. 179-194. 41. East & West. (Journal of the Is. M. E. O., Rome ) Year VI, No. 4, Jan. 1956. pp. 293-94.

24 THE DHVANI THEOPY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Few arguments in favour of identity IfI enter into a fresh discussion of the views for and against the theory of identity of the authors of the vrtti portion and the kārıkā portion, that would merely be 1 boring repetition Yet, I cannot resist the temptation to present a few arguments which may not be quite insufficient to show the identity of the Vrtti kara and Karikakara This labour will not be fruittess, for, if we be sure of the authorship of the different parts of the Dhv, there will be less of confusion in interpreting and under standing the intriguing portions of it (a ) Tradition records the name of Ananda alone as the author of the Dhvanyaloka MM Kane says on p LXIII, ' I feel inclined to hold ( though with hesitation ) that the Locana is right and that Prattharenduraja, Mahtmabhatta Kse mendra and others had not the correct tradition before them' I also feel inelined to add here that it could have been likely op the part of Mahimabhatta and Ksemendra to have a wrong tradition before them as they were still later than Abhinava in time But Prattharenduraja-who was none oth-r than the preceptor of Abhinava in my opinion and who was contem porary to the latter in the opinion of MM Kane -- must have had the more correct tradition being anterior to Abhinava and Dearer to the author ( or authors ) of the Dhvanyaloka (b) It is simply unbehevable that people totally forgot about the distinct Dhvanikara ( HSP De Vol I p 109), when even as early a writer as Bhasa lives in so many refereoces (c) The name Sahrdaya for the so-called Dhvanikara suggested by Mr Sovan, 1s simply fictitious mnasmuch as Anandavardhana himself is called -sahrdayacakravartt by Abhinava ( Locana, p 41 ) (d) On p 259 of Dhv vrttt says 'ıyatpunarucyata eva, then follows the karka 11/27, alamkArantarasyapr ete Abhinava supplies the corrective to the vrtti as '-ıyadıtı / asmabhiritt

CHAPTER I 25

vākyasesah". 'asmābhih' joined with the 'ucyate' occurring in the vrtti, spoken by the Vrttikara means-by us ( or by me, the bahubacana being in the sense of gaurava ) it ( the follow- ing kārika ) is said. This implies, on the strength of the correc- tive of the Locana itself, an identity of the Vrttikara with the Kārikākāra. (e) In TRD. p. 51., Dr. A. Sankaran quotes a reference of Abhinava to Ananda as "etadevopajīvyānandavardhanācār- yenoktam suptinvacanetyādi ( Abh. bh. Vol. II. chap. XIV. p. 367 )". This 'suptinvacana' begins a kārikā of the Dhv. III- 16, ( p. 347 ) and nowhere in the vrtti of that work does this expression occur. Now the same Abhinava, who is relied upon to establish the difference between Karikākāra and Vrttikāra, unmistukably assigns the authorship of the karika to Ananda. (f) It seems that in the capacity of the commentator to Dhv. Abbinava had to draw the distinction beween the Kārikākāra and had to justify a case which seemed apparently to be an utsūtravyākhyāna ( p. 165. Banaras edn. ); but as a commentator of the N S., free from the capacity of the commentator of the Dhv., he did not hesitate to attribute the said kārika to Ananda, who was known to Abhinava as the real author of the kārika portion also. (g) In "mayā vrttikāreņa satā" of Locana the word 'satā' is redundant unless it implies the otherwise numerical identity to the Kārikākāra and Vrttikāra ( Dhv. p. 165 ). ( h) Abhinava, no doubt, distinguishes between the Käri- kākāra, and that is a formal distinction, but, he nowhere distinguishes the Karikākāra (.or Dhvanikāra or.Shrdaya ) from Anandavardhana. (i) In the learned opinion of Abhinava, Ananda is the śāstrakāra; it is simply unbelievable that Abhinava means only the vrtti portion by the terms sāstra. (j ) Under kārikā II. 5. Vīttikāra saying ' ...... māmakInaḥ paksah' seems to identify himself with the Kārikākāra. But

26 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

this is not a sure case of identification inasmuch as in the Karika itself the expression 'me matih' occurs So, to take a surer case, 1 refer to the vrtti on karika 11/21 saying ". dhvanırıtyasmakam vivakşıtam' Dr De conjectures Kuntaka alone to be the author of both the karikas and the vrtti of Vakroktijivita on almost similar grounds ( Vide, VJ D- intr p V1 ) In this way arguments may be multiplied to as many num- bers to show that Ananda was the author of the entire Dhva- nyaloka consistıng of the kārikas, vrtti and the parikaraslokas, etc Fourth-uddyota-karikas are not apocryphal Strangely enough some s holars are suspicious in respect of the genuina ness of some of the karikas Prof Siva prasad Bhattacharyya who believes the karikas not to have baen composed by Ananda himself says in the artiele 'Dhvanyaloka and the text of the Dhvanikarikas' ( Proceedings of the sixth Oriental conference, p 621 )-"It app-ars to us that the enture fourth uddyota is more likely than not an apocryphal work so far as the Original Dhvanikarikas are concerned' I have gathered this peculiar view of Prof S Bhattacharyya from a quotation in the 'Dhy of Annda' by Prof B P Bhattacharyya, Intro p XXVII As it appears to me from the extract Prof S P Bhattachary ya believes that Ananda, who is in his opinion distinct from the genuine Kankakara, is responsible for the interpolations And he remarks "Ananda has tried to esrape detection by explaming the words in the karikas in the vrtti following, exactly as if they are other s compositions in the manner as we find illus- trated e g in the Vakroktijlvita " But I am sure that any body Studying all the uddyota carefully and with a critical eye, would hardly find any difference in Ananda's manner of explaining the words of the karskas in the vrtti Instead of maintaining a difference as the Vrttikara from Kankakara, he shows sigos of identity Example 1, Vide vrtti on p 527, tadittham rasabhā vādyasrayena, ete , followed by the karıka, drstapūrvā apı hya-

CHAPTER I 27

rtha etc. ( Dhv. IV. 4), followed by no word for word commen- tary, but only illustrations. This is a deviation from the usnal way of the vrtti and is tending'more to show an identity of the Kārikākāra with the Vrttikāra. Example 2. Vide vrtti on p. 529 "tattu granthavistarabhayānnalikhyate svayameva sabrdayaira- bhyuhyam atra ca punahpunaruktamapi sāratayedamucyate- vyangyavyañjakabhāvesmin, etc, ( kārikā No. IV. 5 )." Taking into consideration "na likhyate" and 'idamucyate' directly connected with the following karika, we become more- convinced of the identity of the Vrttikāra and Kārikākāra. When there is no difference between Kārikākāra and Vrttikāra, when Ananda is the author of both the portions, when Ananda is genuine, then the question of interpolation and Ananda's conceit does not arise. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharyya points out another evidence that the fourth uddyota kārikas are in varied and novel chandas; hence, these are not by the same Kārikā- kāra, but interpolated by Ananda. My argument against this view is that Ananda is the author of the whole Dhv. If the, introductory kārika could be in Mandākrāntā chanda, then what is the harm.in Ananda's ( who is a poet himself ) taking to Mālin, Rathoddhatā, and SikhariņI in the fourth uddyota ? Just asthe introductory karika is introductory the fourth uddyota is also the concluding uddyota. Hence the distinct. feature of it.

By now we are on firmer ground to take the whole of the Dhvanyaloka to have been composed by one single author, namely Anandavardhana. Hence, we need not be accused of using the karikas and the vrtti together, like Wilson who has been accused by Hall of "using together the Dasarupa and its exposition."42 There is reason to believe that before propoun- ing the theory of dhvani in the said book Anandavardhana had discussions about the same with the contemporary scholars, some of whom did not approve of it. After the composition

42. Bhavabhuti and his place in Sanskrit Literature, p. 15.

28 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

was out, the theory was strongly opposed by the theorists like Bhattanayaka and Mahsmabhatta But the arguments of such rivals were either too weak and faulty or hushed up by stronger criticism of the followers of the dhvan school and the theory had a long line of robust supporters like Abhinava, Mammata, Visvanātha and Jagannātha who accepted the theory with sltght modifications and advocated for it with the greatest zeal In the following pages we will see how the theory of Ananda influenced the later writers and why the modification had to be incorporated in Antiquity of the theory : From Dhv. karıka 1 1, it is gathered that the doctrine 'dhvant is the soul of kavya' was introduced by the learned persons in an unbroken tradition, although the same has not been written in a defintte textbook before the Dhvanyaloka. In this respect we are enlightened by Abhinava who says"avicchinnen pravahena tairetaduktam vināpi visıştapustakesu vinıvesanādıtyabhiprāyah" (p 11 ) But, I doubt if the vrtti actually means to say this In my opinion Budhaih ( kavyatattvavidbhih ) means the great poets who flourished in a paramparā, 1 e , avicchinnapravāhah, who knew (1e, recog- nised) the essential element in a kavya, the very soul of a kavya so to say, .now termed as dhvam by Ananda for the first time ( Lavyasyatma dhvantritı samjbitah ), and duly exhibited it in their compositions ( prakatitah ) The vrttis on p 10, must be understood in this way Otherwise if we follow Abhinava's interpretation, we cannot compromise the same with the vrttif* on pp 35-38 The word 'budhah" does not mean the theorist on the essence of kavya, because the traditional theorsts are called kavyalakşanavıdhayıns ( vrtti on p 35) whose intel- 43 Paramparays yah samamnTtaporvah samyak Kramantid mnstah prakațitah 4 44 Tasya hi dhvanch svarupam cırantanakāvyalakşanavidhayr nam buddhibbiranunmfhtapurvam" p 35 'atha ca rimayanamaht bhtraiaprabhrtini loksye rarvatra pras ddhavyavaharam faksyayatam", etc p 38

CHAPTER I 29

lect could not reveal the very subtle element of dhvani. Then how can they be supposed to have told about dhvani as the soul of kavya ? It has not been explained or revealed before Ānanda ( anunmilitapurvam ) but it was only exhibited ( praka- tita ); and, Ananda, finding dhvani to have been profusely present in Rāmayana and Mahābhārata, etc., reveals it for the first time to please the men of taste. Now, in the very body of the kārika I. 1., he refers to the views of those who opposed the idea of dhvani. Of these some views were apprehended by himself in the manner of Patañjali, the author of the Mababhasya, and it is quite plausible, that, Ananda who considers the grammarians as foremost amongst the learned men, read the Mahabhasya and was impressed by its mode of arguments. Some views of the opponents are, of course, real. As for instance, Mano- ratha, who is said to have been a contemporary of Ananda did not find anything novel in the theory of dhvani and com- posed a satirical verse addressing only one ( not many to give the theory a hoary antiquity ) advocate of dhvani as jada, "yasminnasti na vastu ...... dhvaneh," Dhv. pp. 26-27. The verse of Manoratha certainly had Ananda alone as the object of aspersion. The view "bhāktamābustamanye", at least, is imagined on the basis of earlier theories ( cf. vrtti pp. 21-32. yadyapi ...... parikalpyaivamuktam 'bhāktamāhustamanye' iti ). But the expressions ( a ) kecidācakșIran ( p. 16 ), ( b ) bhāktā- māhuḥ ( p. 28 ), ( c ) sahrdayahrdayasamvedyameva samākh- yätavantah ( p. 33), (d) and the reference to Manoratha ( p. 26 ) need not necessarily mean that the theory was current for a pretty long time among the budhas-and the opponents also formed their adverse opinion againt the views of the budhas, advocating for the dhvani theory, fiourishing Iong before Ananda. Because, Ananda was a poet and critic of the later half of the ninth century in Kashmir. He wrote in addi. tion to Dhvanyaloka, Devīsataka,Vișamayanalilā, Arjunaca rita, and Tattvaloka. The scholar certainly had an associaiont

30 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

with a learned circle and when he expressed his ideas abour dhvam before starting to write the Dhv, he was very likely to get a rebuff from the contemporaries like Manoratha .< And

46. Idestification of Manoratha has presented a problem to scholan like Dr. De. Abhinava says that Manoratha was a poet contemporancour with the grarthalrt, As wformed by Kalhana in Rajatarangit ( IV. 497 and IV. 671 HSP De Vol I. p 112 ) Manoratha was atsociated with kings Jayapida and Laluspfda of Kashmir between C. 780 and 831 A D Anandavardhana is associa ed with king Avanhvarman of Kashm r who ruled betwcen C 865 and 884 A D, by the following reference Mukislanab f vasvamt kavirInandavardhanah / PrathIm ratnakarascagIt Emrajye'vantivarmanah // ( Rajataranginf V 34. as in KSS, Int. p X ) On the srengih of Kalhana's reference, Ananda is placed between C 855 and 884. and Manoratha is placed between C 780 and 813 Thus it appears to Dr De, that, Kalbana's Manoratha cannot be the same as one referred to as conteroporan-ous with Ananda by Abbinava. Again in the opin'on of Dr De granthakrt cannot mean the Karikskara, suppo sed to be different from and earlier than Ananda by them, also 5o, Dr De. concludes that Manoratha referred to by Abhinava is later than and d ferent from Kalhana's Manoratha, In my opimion there is no difficulty in underatanding Kalhana's as Manoratha contemporancous with Ananda. Kalbana's Manoratha was a poet Possbly he supported some pre-dhvan school of poetics We do rot know when the hiterary carer of this Manoratha came to an end We s mply gather that he avoided the company of the voluptuary Laltapida. (mani manoratho mantri param parjahtra tam, IV 671 ). Hence it is very ltkrly that he continued to live for a stll longer period of lime. MM. Kane also thieks that ance this Manoratha should have seen the ksrikss for a strong criticism 'karikas were composed between 800-825' ( HSP. Kane. p 189 ). Hence it is clear that Manoratha flourished at least up to 825 Now, Ananda i said to have 'attained fame' in the time of Avantiarman. ( pratham agst ). Hence, in order to attain fame by 855 A. D, Ananda must have begun his literary activity much earl er-

CHAPTER I 31

starting confidently to write his own work, with the mirth of triumph, he refers to the views of all his contemporary oppo- nents. But Ananda's statement "tathaivanyaistanmatānusaribhib stribhih kavyatattvarthadarsibhirvacyavacakasammisrah ... dhvanirityuktah" ( vrtti, pp. 133-135 ) seems to go against my views expressed above because of the 'plural suribhih and the past darticiple uktah' ( Vide, TRD. p. 61 ). Yet I have a humble say. As gathered from the vrtti. pp. 132-135, 'suribhih,' here Tefers to the grammarians and the kävyatattvavits of the vrtti on karika, 1. Now 'dhvaniriti suribhih kathitah' means 'gram- marians called dhvani and the poeticians also called dhvani. But, inasmuch as the grammarians called only the varnas

We may suppose that he wrote the Dhv. some 20 years earlier in about 835 and in the earlier 10 years or more, in the twenties of that century he had occassions to discuss about the dhvani theory with senior contem- poraries like Manoratha. It is Ananda who referred to Manoratha as 'any.' ( cf. vrtti. p. 26 ). But, he did so only by way of illustrating the view of the abhavavadins. { vide vrtti pp. 12, 13, tadabhavavādinam camī vikalpsh sambhavanti ). And the Karikakara ( whoever he might not be ) himself had the abhava- vadins in mind. ( Karika I. 1. ). As I hold that Ananda himself was the Karikakara, we need not think that, the karikas themselves were .composed in the time of Manoratha. Even if the Karikakara is taken as completely distinct from Ananda, he dees not himself make any reference to Manoratha in his karika to show a contemporaneity with Manoratha. And the conjecture of Dr. De is unwarranted since Kalhana's Manoratha 'himself can be supposed as a senior contemporary of Ananda. Moreover, Ananda's manner of referring to Manoratha as 'anya' also shows that possibly he had bitter occasions of arguments with the former on dhvani Udbhata, the author of KSS, who is said to have been the sabhapati of Jayāpīda ( Rajtarangīņi, IV, 495 ) also, need not be taken as a contempo- rary of Ananda, inasmuch as he is not associated by Kalhana with Lalitapida-since he seems to have been already too old and venerable to :get a lac of dinsra every day in time of Tayapīda,

32 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

as dhvam and they did not recognise any dhvanı in kāvya, the support received by Ananda in propounding the dhvant theory is onty to the extent of an analogy, or at best, he finds the anticipation of the vyanjana vrtti ( resident in pada, padāmsa, padartha, etc ) in the vyafyjana function of the varnas recog- msed by the grammarians. Yet Ananda declares that the very conception of dhvani is based on the vicws of the gramma- rians. (cf. also, pariniścita nirapabhramsa, etc Dlv, vrtti. p 443) It is very natural that Ananda who seeks the support of the grammarians for the sake of dignity of his theory, would also try to associate the theory with a great antiquity. That is why he uses 'suribhih' to give the abrupt idea of a large group of scholars talking of dhvam or it can be very well explained as used in bahuvacana in the sense of gaurava. 'Kathitah' is also meant to make the theory lool. age-long and hence dignified "Tathaiva tanmatanusaribhih" is more an Intellectual stunt It has been the practice of most of the ancient Indian masters to give their own views a tinge of a hoary antr- quity by associating them with a long line of teachers or with a mythological origin For example, the Carakasamhita recounts a long line of teachers and the kavyamimamsa gives a mytho- logical origin of the sahityavidya. This "suribhih kathitah" must not be accepted in its face value as we have no scientific evidence of the term dhvamt being used for Kavya even for once before the Dhv, and it must be supposed as simply justt* fyıng Kalluka's remark 'prayena hi acaryanam iyam sailt yat svābhıprāyamapı parābhiprāyamıvāmanantı' ( Manu Sam I ) Dr. Keith observes that "The Kankas assert that the doctrine is old, but if so we must assume that it had not won much success, and it may be that the author referred really to some not distant predecessor, justifying himself by the view that the doctrine was imphet in the older writers." ( HSL.p 387) We will presently see, in course of discussing the sources of the theory, the justification of Dr. Keith's observation in the por- tion italicized by me above

CHAPTER I 33

Sources of the theory : It is seen above that although the term dhvani was newly introduced to the field of poetics and although Ananda claims to have propounded the theory of dhvani for the first time, he inherited the fundamental idea from a long series of predecessors : and it will not be fruitless to make an attempt here to trace the theoretical background of Ananda's ideas.

(1) The most important factor in the dhvani theory is the vyaujana function of the words and meanings of poetry. Bharata called the phenomenon of the suggestion of the sthayi- bhāva developing into a rasa vyañjanā, since he used the expression vyañjitan ( suggested ) in the extract quoted below. 'Vyañjanā,' for Ananda, precisely means 'revelation.' The ana- logy of the lamp and the jar is drawn between the suggester and the suggested sense in Dhv. III. ( p. 421 ). Cf. "tasmad ghatapradīpanyāyastayoh, yathaiva hi pradīpadvāreņa ghața- pratītāvutpannāyām na pradīpaprakāso nivartate tadvadvyan- gya-pratItau vacyavabhasah." The analogy implies that, the suggester exhibits its own self while revealing the suggested element. Cf. also "svarūpam prakāśayanneva parāvabhāsako vyañjaka ityucyate" ( Vrtti. p. 431 ). Ānanda also, recognises and demands in strong terms an order in understanding the suggester and the suggested. ( Dhv. pp. 405-431. Cf. tasmāda- bhidhanabhidheyapratityoriva vacyavyangya-pratity ornimittani- mitti-bhāvānniyamabhāvī kramah / sa tūktayuktyā kvacillaks- yate kvacinna lakşyate // ) Such a difinite meaning of vyañjaka or vyanjana seems to have been derived from Bharata's own explanation of the sutra, "vibhavanubhava-vyabhicāri-samyo- gādrasanispattih," running as-"ko drstāntah / atrāha yathā nānā-vyanjanauşadhidravyasamyogād rasanispattiņ tathā nānā- bhavopagamād rasanispattih // yathā hi gudādibhirdravyair- vyañjanair-oşadhibhiśca ...... nānā-bhāvābhinaya-vyaūjitān vāga- ngasattvopetān sthāyibhāvānāsvādayanti sumanasah preksakāḥ harşādimścādhigacchanti/ tasmān-nātyarasā ityabhi-vyākhyātāḥ" 3 D.

34 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

(NS pp 287 289 ) The sentiment is produced (rasa n spattih ) 40 Now one enquires, 'What is the m-aning of the word rasa ?' How is rasa tasted ?' ( In reply ) it ss said that just is well disposed persons while eating food cooked with many kinds of spices enjoy ( āsvadayanti ) its tastes ( rasa ) an i attain pleasure and satisfaction so the cultu red people taste the Dominant States ( sthayibhava ) while they see them represented47, by an expression of the various States with Words Gestures and the Tempernmentta, and derive plensure and satisfaction Thus is explained ( the Memorial Verse ending with ) tasman natyarasa itt (NS Trans p 105) It is to be noted here that white Bharata used the term vyafjana only with reference to the suggestion of the sentiments ( rasa ) Ananda had also matters of fact (vastu) and imaginary ideas ( alamkāras ) as suggested ( vyanjita ) by the words and primary meanings in poetry (2 ) Ananda uses also the terms 'avagamana', 'pratyayana and 'dyotana', etc , in the sense of vyanjina ( suggestion ) The grammarians also concerved of the upasargas and nipatas as suggestive ( dyotaka ) The upasargas and mipatas cannot express their own meaning themselves but they reveal the meanings ( dyotaka bhavanti ) of the expressve words, used side by side, in a special form Cf namakhyatayostu karmopasamyogadyotakā bhavantı ' (Nnirukta, 1 1 4)

46 Although very I terally tranala ed as 'produced here the express on nispatii may have d fferent mplicatlons according to d fe rent explanat ons of the st ra 47 Literally agges ed' ( vyai tn ) 48 These three refer to the three types of abh naya v z vscika angika and sattvika It may be no ed that words ges ures and tempe* raments are d reetly influenced by the Dom nant States whereas the codu mes have a remo e relation w th the Dom nant states in the sub eets and hence there is no reference to the aharya type of abh naya

CHAPTER I 35

and "sa eşa nāmākhyātayorevārthavišesa upasargasamyoge sati vyajyate / yathā pradīpa-samyoge dravyasya guņaviśeso- bhivyajyamāne dravyāśraya eva bhavati, na pradīpāšrayah" // ( Durgacarya's com. on the same ). Ananda does not refer to these dyotaka ( suggestive ) particles. But, yet, it will not be unjust to believe that Ananda had these conceptions of the grammarian in his mind in time of promulgating his theory of vyaujana function of poetry. In this connection we may also compare the following words of Nagesa, who points out that the grammarians also have to recognise the vyanjana function of the alamkarika since it has already been recognised by them in case of the nipatas and the sphota "ata eva nipa- tānām dyotakatvamākara uktam sphoțasya ca vyangyatā haryadibhiruktaiva, dyotaktvam ca samabhivyahrtapada- śakti-vyanjakatvameva iti vaiyākaranānāmapyetatsvīkāra āvaśyakah."49 (3) For designating the suggestive type of kavya as dhvani Ananda endeavours to find a sanction in the doctrine of the grammarians. The grammarians do not recognise any suggestive function of the expressive words but they hold that . the syllables that we hear suggest an eternal and complete word within the heart of the hearer, which is called sphota and which alone is associated with the meaning. The words that we hear consist of certain evanescent sounds represented by the letters constituting the said word. Such sounds, called srūyamānavarnas, can never get together to convey the corre- sponding meaning. What the succeeding sounds ( srūyamana- varnas ) do is that they reveal ( suggest ) the eternal undivided word bit by bit so that by the time the last sound of the word is heard the entire word gets revealed to convey the idea,49a

49. 'Vaiyakaranasiddhantalaghuman uisas, p. 156. yah' pended to V. Varttik a, pQuoted fromtho vyañjanznirna- 49a. The process of the revelation of the sphota is illustrated by the grammarians by means of various analogies. For these Vide ITM. p. 124.

36 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SASKRIT POLTICS

Thus the sruyamanavarnas which suggest the sphota and the kavya have one thing in common and that is their suggestive capacity, 1 e, vydjakatva These sruyamanavarnas are also called dhvani by the grammarians Compare, "athava prati tapadarthako loke dhvamh Sabda ityucyate (M B Chow khamba, p 12 ) and "sphotah sabdah dhvamh śabdagunah' of Pataijalı ( quoted in Bhavapradipa com, VKPD p 67) The relation between dhvan ( suggestive sound ) and sphota, as it is conceived by Patatjalı, can be very clearly understood from the following lines of the Bhavapradipa commentary Hence, compare, "etadeva taparasutre bhasye uktam- dhvanıh sphoțašca sabdānām dhvanıstu khalu lakşyate alpo mahamsca Kesam idubhayam tatsvabhavatah atra Kaıyatah 'dhvanıh sphoțaśca vyangyo vyanjakaśca sta iti sesah śabdanam vyanoyanam sambandhi vyatjako yo dhvanıh sa eva mahanalpasca lokşyate vyangyastvabhınnakala eva'" ( VKPD p 48) Dr K Kunjunm Raja observes that Pata fijali's conception of sphota is different from that developed by Bhartrhari in the Vakyapadiya *> But Ananda is concerned not so much with the nature of sphota as he is with the relation between dhvant and sphota Yet while Ananda's acquaintance with MB can never be ruled out, it is more reasonable to seek mn Ananda's outfook a more direct influence of the Vakyapadtya This conjecture may be warranted also by Bhartrharis tempo- ral proximity to Ananda and by the epoch making nature of the Vakyapadtya Bhartrharı calls the Sruyamanavarna nāda ( VKPD, I 84 p 73) That the nâda and the sphota also stand in the relation of the suggester and the suggested { vangyavyatjakabhava ) in the theory of Bhartrhar may be gathered from such statements as grahanagrāhyayoh sıddha miyatā yogyatā yatLa / vyaneyavyaojaLabhavena tathaiva sphoțanādayoh // ( VKPD I p 83)

49b ITM pp 102-105

CHAPTER I 37

We may also consider the following points to trace how Bhartrhari might have contributed to Ananda's conception of vyañjanā. 1. It is advocated also by Bhartrhari that the suggested element, viz., sphota ( also called sabda ) is nitya and that the phenomenon of suggestion is not restricted to the anitya objects alone. ( VKPD. I. 95. p. 82 ) 2. According to Bhartrhari there is an order ( krama- niyama ) of realisation of the suggester and the suggested. Compare : yathānupūrviniyamo vikāre ksīrabijayoh / tathaiva pratipattrņām niyato buddhişu kramah // ( VKPD. I. 91. p. 79 ) That Ananda also demands this order of realisation in Dhv. pp. 405-413 is already pointed out. 3. A very important factor in the phenomenon of vya- njana is that the suggester reveals itself along with the sugges- ted. Compare, "vyañjakatvamārge tu yadārtho'rthāntaram dyotayati tadā svarūpam prakāśayannevāsāvanyasya prakāšakaḥ pratīyate pradīpavat. yathā līlākamalapatrāņi ganayāmāsa pārvatī ityādau." ( Dhv. p. 424 ). In the example, referred to, 'the counting of the play lotus by Pärvati' is cognised by us as the express ( väcya ) sense while the same suggests also the idea that 'ParvatI was feeling shy'. The behaviour of the lamp revealing itself while suggesting something else is relegated to the sabdah also by Bhartrhari. Compare : grāhyatvam grāhakatvam ca dve šaktī tejaso yathā / tathaiva sarvaśabdānāmete prthagiva sthite // ( VKPD. I. 55. P. 54 ).

Here the word 'tejas' stands for the lamp of the analogy, the word 'sabda' stands for the sruyamanavarnas in which form it reveals itself. What is supposed to be suggestsd by the sabda revealing itself in the form of the srūyamānavarna is the sphota, which is also called the nity sabda and which

38 THE DHVANI THLORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

alone is maintuined to be meaningful This position can be more clearly understood by studying the kārkās 1 44 & I 56 (4) That Ananda had the idea of dhvani actually from Bhartrhart may be gathered from the following statement, betraying his unstinted allegiance to the grammarians, as "parınıšcıtamırapabhramšašabdabrahmanam vipaścitām mata- masrityaıva pravrtto'yam dhvanivyavahāra . kim virodha virodhau cintyete" ( Dhv III pp 443-444 ) Here he refers to the grammarians as those who have duly established the conception of the Brahman identified with the pure ( nirapa- bhramsa ) word This is undoubtedly a reference to Bhartrhari for Brahman is conceived as the eternal ( anadtoidhanam ) word by him in the very first karika of the VKPD anādınıdhanam brahma sabdatattyam yadaksarm / vivartate'rthabhāvena prakrıyā jagato yatah //49c (4 ) Of the writers on poeties Bhamaha largely contributed to the shaping of Ananda's vi-ws regarding a sense other than the universally recogntsed and commonly understood express sense Ananda observes that, all the alamkaras are often seen to have a touch of either another figure or iother idea which happen to be suggested In case of the association with an additional alamkara he notices that all alamkaras have at least a touch of exaggeration ( atıayoktı ) This attšayokti some- times merges with other figures expressly and as a suggested content at other times When suggested the atisayokt may appear either as the principal sense or as the subordmnate sense When it is the principal sense we have a dhvami on that score and when it is secondary we have a guntbhuta- vyangya type of kavya (t e, a poetry with an unpredominant suggested content ) In propounding this position Ananda expressly makes a reference to Bhamaha's view on the invaria ble presence of atisayoktı with all alamkaras Compare tathaht dIpakasamāsoktyādıvadanyepyalamkarāh prāyena

49e Also vide Appendit, A

CHAPTER I 39

vyangyālamkārāntarasamsparšino dršyante ...... bhāmahenāpya- tisayoktilakşane yaduktam- saişā sarvaiva vakroktiranayārtho vibhāvyate / yatno'syam kavinā kāryah ko'lamkāronayā vinā // etc. ( Dhv. III, pp. 464-470 ). In respect of the presence of an additional meaning ( anyā- rtha ) in some of the kavyas, which was recognised later on as the suggested sense by Ananda, Bhamaha's definition of samasokti-"yatrokte gamyatenyorthastatsamānaviseșanah” with the word 'gamyate' is also significant. It is also to be noted that Ananda accepted in name and number the same three gunas of Bhämaha, although he reorien- ted the conception of the same. (5) Ananda does not deal with the definition of the different alamkaras. When there is an occasion to refer to any . alamkära he simply refers to the views of the earlier alamkā- rikas, particularly Bhämaha and Udbhata, his compatriots. In Ānanda's śabdaśaktimūla variety of dhvani (Dhv. II. 21 ) homonyms suggest some figure. The phenomenon of the alamkäras being suggested by express figures seems to have occured to Ananda from a study of Bhāmaha's atisayokti and the idea of sabdasaktimūla-alamkāradhvani appears to have come to him from a study of Udbhata's definition of slesa. Ślesa, according to Udbhața, is a composition of (i ) homo- nyms which are pronounced in the same manner and of ( ii ) words which appear to have the same pronounciation but which really differ in some attributes such as-svarita, etc.50 The alamkara also conveys the idea of an additional alamkāra ( alamkārāntaragatām pratibhām janayatpadaih ). The alamkāra is divided into two varieties, viz., śabdaślesa and arthaśleșa. ( vide. KSS. IV, 9-10). In śabdaśaktimūla variety of dhvani

50. Theorists like Mammata and Visvanatha would recognise this latter variety of homonyms only in the Vedas and not in kāvya, ( vide KP. II. 19 ).

40 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

also we have an invariable suggestion of some alamkara ( āksıpta evalamkarah šabdašaktyā prakāśate Dhv II 21) It may be conjectured that Ananda derives the idea of his sabdasaktimūla-dhvan from Udbhata s Sless and that is why he feels it necessary to draw a line of demarcation between the two on the verv out set in the words nanvalamkarāntarapra tıbhayamapi slesavyapadeso bhavatiti darsitam bhatțodbhatene, tatpunarapı śabdasaktımulo dhvamır nıravakāsa ityasankyeda muktam 'aksptıh' itt' ( Dhv p 235) (6) It is already observed that Vamana s KL contaied the germs of the dhvam theory to a great extent and Ananda remarks that the ritnadins propoundd their theory only as a result of their ineffectual effort to analyse dhvani (ef Dhv III 46) Presence of a meaning other than the express' meaning in words and sent-nce has been known to Vamana also Vamana recognises a suegested sense in the alsapa alamkara and hence explaning the stitra "upamanaksepaśca ksepah ' in a second way says "upamanasyaks-patah paratıpatti rityapı sutrathah yatha, aindram dhanuh .. atra saradvešyeva ındum nâyakamıva, raveh pratınayakasyeva ityupamananı ga myante it1 The words in the italicized portion seem to mean, "the standards of compirision are suggested The expressions 'akşıpta' and 'gamyate ( gamyante ) are very frequently used by Ananda to refer to the suggested sense Ananda might have had the idea of a meaning other than the express one from literary elements of this nature in Vamana's work It may, however, be questioned that stmilar ideas regarding a meaning other than the express one are met with in the KD of Dandin also, and it may be clear from a quotation like the following illustration of the aksepa alamkara na ciram mama tapaya tava yātra bhavisyatt / yadı yāsyası yātavyam alamaśankayatr te // ıtyanujfiāmukhenaiva kantasy akşıpyate gatıh / maranam sūcayantyaıva so'nujnākșepa ucyate // ( KD IL 135-136)

CHAPTER I . 41

Here the idea of marana ( death ) is a suggested meaning of the verse-na ciram, etc. That according to Dandin also the 'suggested meaning' is different from the express may be gatbered from his own expression "sucayantyaiva". But it would have been more after the heart of Ananda to use the word 'äksepa' in the sense of 'suggestion' and not in the sense of 'obstruction' in the manner of the present context. At any rate the possibility of Ananda being influenced by Dandin is remote and in the matter of an 'additional meaning' he is more likely to have been influenced by Bhamaha and Vāmana and Udbhata since there are more positive references to these writers. In this context we may also contrast Dandin's defini- tions of samāsokti, paryāyokta and āksepa, etc., with those · of Bhämaha, with profit. (7) We have already seen how Rudrata cherished a great partiality for rasa and anticipated its being given the foremost importance by Ananda. In the case of vastuvyanjana ( i. e., the suggestion of a matter of fact ) also, he had enough to contribute to the moulding of the dhvani theory of Ananda- vardhana. As very rightly observed by Ruyyaka, Rudrata includes vastuvyañjana in the two types of his bhava-alamkāra, recognised by Rudrata for the first time. Definitions and examples of both the types of bbäva alamkāra, as quoted below would clearly show the recognition of a meaning other than the express one by Rudrata. First variety is defined as : yasya vikārah prabhavannapratibandhena hetunā yena / gamayati tamabhiprāyam tatpratibandham ca bhavo'sau // ( KL, VII. 38 )51. Here the word 'gamayati' means, 'suggests'. The example 'gramataruņam ...... mukhacchāyā' is given by Mammața him- self to show the presence of a subordinate type of the suggested sense. ( KP., I. ). The second variety is defined as : 51. Locana reads, 'prabbavannapratibandhastu betuna' and gives the verse 'ekakinT yadavala' as the illustration, whereas it is intended as the example of the second variety.

42 THE DHVANI THFORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

abhidheyamabhidadhānam tadeva tadasadrśasakala gunadosam / arthantaramavagamayatı yadvakyam so'paro bhavah // ( KL, Rudrata, VII 40) Here it 15 explicitly stated that there may be a meaning standing as quite opposite to the express sense in respect of all the qualities and faults of the latter ( tadasadrsasakalaguna dosam ) and this meaning is had through suggestion and not expression ('gamayatı and not 'abhidadhatt') Its example "ekakını yadavala pantha' ( Locana, p 130 ) is re ognised by Abhinava to have 1 suggested sense but he shows that it is not 1 case of dhvant only because the suggested sensa is not predominant We may possibly ba justified in recogmising Rudrata s treatment of the bhavalamkar as the intellectual background for Ananda's arguments for establishing the distin ction of the express and the suggested senses (8) By now it is sufficiently clear to us that in respert of the suggestion of rasa Ananda had the idea from Bharata As regards the suggestion of figures he took the clue from Bhamaha and Udbhatt And as regards the suggestion of matters of fact he had the impetus from a number of alamkaras and their illustrations given by Bhamaha, Udbhata, Rudrata and Vamana The definitions of the alamkaras Iile samāsokti, paryayokta and aprastutaprasamsa deminded an invariabe presence of some suggested content in the illustrations, some of which could even be interpreted as eases of dhvant Hence Ananda takes great pains to establish a distinct status for the dhvani type of kavya by asserting boldly that in dhvant the suggested content must be unquestionably predominant (a) paryayoktepı yadı prādhānyena vyangyatvam tadbha Compare

vatu nāma tasya dhvanavantarbhāvah / na tu dhvanestatranta rbhavah / tasya mahāvışayatvenangıtven ca pratıpađayışya manatvat / na punah paryayokte bhamahodāhrtasadrše vyan gyasyaıva pradhanvam / vacyasya tatropasarjantbhavenāviva ksitatvat / ( Dhv pp 118-119)

: CHAPTER I 43

( b ) samkarālamkārepi yadā ...... / atha vācyopasarjanībhā- vena vyangyasya tatrāvasthānam tadā so'pi dhvanivișayo'stu, na tu sa eva dhvaniriti vaktum sakyam / paryāyoktanirddișta- nyāyāt / ( pp. 120-124 ) (c ) yadā tu sārūpyamātravaśenāprastutaprašamsāyāmapra- krtaprakrtayob sambandhastadāpyaprastutasya sarūpasyābhi- dhiyamānasya prādhānyenāvivakșāyām dhvanāvevāntahpātah / itarthā tvalamkārāntarameva. ( pp. 126-129 ) Thus Ananda's efforts to distinguish his own position themselves would show his intellectual indebtedness to his predecessors, (9) In Dhv. III, Ananda observes : "Conceding to the fact that sentiments, etc., can be suggested only by specific senses, a classified treatment of suggestive elements would be useful, since specific senses are inseparably connected with suggestive words. Such a classification regarding the charm attained by particular kinds of words in particular contexts, which has been proposed also in other works, becomes justitia- ble only when we understand it to be based on the suggestive- ness of words." Compare : "sabdavisesānām cānyatra ca cāru- tvam yadvıbhāgenopadarśıtam tadapı teşām vyañjakatvenai- vavasthitamityavagantavyam". (Dhv. p. 358). Abhinava informs us that anyatra refers to the Bhamahavivarana of Udbhața. Abhinava illustrates a classification of senses by the statement : "srakcandanādayah sabdāh śrgāre cāravo Vibhatse tvacārava iu rasakrta eva vibhagah / rasam prat ca sabdasya vyanjakatvamevetyuktam prak." This information from Abhmava renders it clear that Ananda derived some clue regarding the suggestvny of senses trom Udbhata's Bhä- mahavivarana also. ( 10) it is interesting to note that while Ananda remains. silent about the contributions of Bhamaha and Udbhata to the development of his own theory, he recognises Vămana's efforts to approach to the conception of dhvani in at least two places. Compare :

44 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

( a ) dhvanımārgo manāksprstopi na Iakșita, etc

( b) asphutasphuritam, etc. ( Dhv. III. 46 ). ( Dhv p 32 ).

The reason for this preferential reference may be conjec- tured as follows. Bhamaha and Udbhata also talked of an 'anyartha' but did not point out its ontological difference from the express sense But Vamana talked at least of the laksana function in his definstion of the figure vakrokti, thereby, delving deeper towards the nature of dhvan 51a In Ananda's point of view, even this much reference to a function of the words is very significant since his entire theory rests on the recognition of a new function of words called vyafjana With this inte llectual background Ananda wrote his Dhv, for propounding the dhvam theory. In the next chapter, we shall see the contents of the theory in greater detail and the references to the later writers henceforth, are expected to reveal the course of development of the theory in the hands of the later critics and supporters of the theory The Vakrokt School : Kuntala, author of the Vakrokti- jivita, was the founder of this school. The salient features of Kuntaka's theory are as follows : (1) Kavya becomes ltvely in association with vakrokti Cf SarIram jiviteneva spuriteneva jivitam / vinā nirjivatām yena vākyamyātı vipaścıtām // (unđer Kārıkā I 17, VJ Hindt, p 63) (1) Vakrokti is otherwise called 'kavıvyāpāravakratva' or "Vakrakavıvyāpāra *. Vakroktt is defined as 'vaidagdhyabhan- gibhaniti' ( 1 10) It is also recognised as the alamkrti, 1. e, embellishment of Sabda and artha, the physical constituents of a kavya (Iu) The importance of vakrokti is also emphasised by way of stating its invariable association with kavya so much so that an unembellished kavya can never be conceived of. (I 16).

51a For an elaborate discuss on vide Dhv. Uddyota I ( edited by Prof. B P. Bhattacbaryya ) pp 17-19

CHAPTER 1 45

( iv ) To constitute a kāvya words and meanings occur in a composition which is a source of an unworldly delight to the man of taste. ( I. 7). The capacity of kavya to delight, causes a natural elevation or consummation of rasa. "tasya ca ......... kācideva svabhāvamahattā rasaparipoşāngatvam vā vyaktimāsādayati". ( under K., I. 9. VJ. Hindi, p. 44 ) (v) Whatever renders the poetry charming must be reco- gnised as an alamkāra. Compare : I. 10 and "kintu vakratāvai- citryayogitayābhidhānamevānayoralamkāraņ / tasyaiva sobhā- tišayakāritvāt". ( VJ. HindI, pp. 51-52 ) .. By the term vakrokti Kuntaka designates all the charming elements of kāvya like guņa and dhvani and not only the already well known alamkāras like upamā and rūpaka. The alamkāra, that he discusses in his work, is unlike the well known alamkäras, by dint of its being capable of bringing an unworldly charm to the kāvya. ( I. 2. ) ( vi ) In kārikā I. 7., Kuntaka defines kāvya as an indiscer- nible association of sabda and artha. In the vrtti he adds "śabdārthau kāvyam, vācako vacyaśceti dvau sammīlitau kāvyam" ( VJ. Hindi, p. 18 ). But by 'vācakasabda' he means the 'vyañjaka sabda' also. The artha ( vācya ) must have 'svabhāvamahattā' or must be helpful to the delineation of rasa, so that the artha may be capable of delighting the sahrdayas.

( vii ) As an example of kävya teing instrumental to the delineation of rasa he cites the poem "tamabhyagacchat" which results in suggesting karunarasa and as such presents a case of rasa-dhvani, if not by itself, atleast in association with the neighbouring verses. As an example of svabhāvamahattā Kuntaka cites the verse "damstrāpistesu" which does not have any alanikara. It cannot be said to have svabhāvokti; for, svabhāvokti is not an alamkara for Kuntaka. What then is the source of appeal ? A careful examination would show that a devavisayakarati ( sentiment of love for the god ) or the information regarding the poet's devotion to the god, conveyed

46 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

to us by suggestion prominantly, is the sole source of appeal Thus we may sec that according to Kuntaka also, the kāvya may be appealing either because of its being instrumental to the sugcestion of rasa or because of suggesting a matter of fact ( vit) Although Kuntaka recognises only that kavya which has alamkara, yet a kavya having no alamkara of the ordinarily known types like upama and rūpaka also may be an ideal Lavya if the matter under description possesses an inherent beauty or if the piece is instrumental to the delineation of rasa Even when it possesses alamikara the same must be duly appropriate and must occur in proper quantity. We cannot say that the bare deserption is kavya and the beautiful aspect of the object described presents a case of svabhavokti mnasmuch as the beautiful alone makes the 'bare kavya*, which may be embellished later on Compare karika III, 1. and vrttı noticing particularly-"tasmadatyantaramanIyasvābhāvi kadharmayuktam varnaniyam vastu parıgrahantyam / tathā- vıdhasya tasya yathāyogamaucitvānusārena rūpakādyalamkāra yojanayā bhavitavyam / etāvamstu višeso yat svābhāvitaszun daryaprādhānyena vivakşıtasya na bhūīyasā rūpakādyalamkāra upakārāya kalpata / vastusvabhāvasaukumāryasya rasādıposa- nasya vā samacchadanaprasangat" / In such enses the kāvya cannot bear the burden of embellishments in the manner of a damsel, fond of putting ornaments, discarding ornaments in time of bathing, separation, austerity and the gratification of the sex A man of taste relishes only the natural beauty of poetry Compare "tathā caitasmin visaye sarvākāramalamkā- ryam vilasavativa punarapı snānasamaya virahavrataparigra- ha suratāvasānādau nātyantamalamkaranasahatām pratipadyate/ svābhavikasaukumāryasyaiva rasıkahrdayāhlādakārıtvăt" / ( VJ Hindt, p 297) (1x) The position revealed just above is quite after the heart of Ananda who desires that the alamkaras should be appropriate to the rasas and at times the delineation of the alamkaras should be abandoned Vide, Dhv. Kārikās II, 14-19,

CHAPTER 1 47

and particularly "kāle ca grahaņatyāgau nātinirvahaņaișitā" ( Dhv. p. 223 ). Mammata also maintained almost the same position by holding that ordinarily poetry should always be embellished but in places ( i. e., where there is a rasa, as it may be gathered from his examples ) the kävya may also occur with- out any alamkāra. ( Vide, KP. I ). (x) Examples of matters of fact having inherent charm ( vastu-vakratā ) would show that either they present charming älambana or uddipanabibhävas and thereby become instrumen- tal to the suggestion of rasa and present cases of dhvani-kāvya or they present cases of vastudhvani themselves. In the verse 'tām prānmukhim tatra nivesya tanvīm,' etc., an excess of beauty of Pärvati is wanted to be conveyed. Compare: "atra tathā- vidhasvābhāvikasaukumāryamanoharah sobhātiśayah kaveh pratipadayitumabhipretah" ( VJ, Hindi, p. 298 ), which reveals the fact that the idea of excess of beauty is conveyed by sugges- tion. Hence, here we may discover a vastudhvani and from the standpoint of Ananda the appeal of the verse may be due to that vastudhvani. And as regards rasadhvani there is a recognition by Kuntaka himself. ( xi) Possibly the VakroktijIvita would be the best example to show how far-reaching the infiuence of Dhvanyaloka was. Kuntaka does not adversely criticise the dhvani theory but it is clear that in the VJ. he wants to present a parallel theory and not a rival one. Dr. Keith observes : "a poem attains at best a transcendental, charm ( lokottaravaicitrya ) which can be judged in the long run only by the man of taste, a result in which Kuntala agrees largely with the theory which he attacks" ( HSL. p. 392). Kuntaka recognises the vyañjanā vyāpāra and refers his readers to the Dhvanikāra himself in respect of the same. Compare : "pratīyate iti kriyāpadavaici- tryasyayamabhiprāyo ...... yasmād dhvanikāreņa vyangyavyañja- kabhāvo'tra sutarām samarthitastat kim paunaruktyena." ( VJ. Hindi, p. 196). Kuntaka never had the occasion to refute the idea of dhvani. On the contrary, he equated some of the

48 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

varieties of vakrokti with some sort of dhvam Compare his remark under the context of piryāyavakratā "esa eva ca sabdaśaktımülānu-ranana rüpavyangyasyn padadhvinervişavah ( p 211 ) Ananda recognised the suggestive capacity of the words, syllables, sentences and the prabandhas, ete , and Kuntaka also recognised vakrata in the different aspects of the compost tion as enumerated above, and this fact led Ruyyaka to remark "upacaravakratadibhih samasto dhvamipripancah svikrtah ( AS p 10) Kuntaka's attitude towards rasa was also almost the same as that of Ananda Hence, we may compare with profit, nirantararasoJgaragarbhasandarbhanirbharah / gırah kavinām jīvanti na kathāmātramāśritah // ( VJ. IV, 11 ) with "kavioa kāvyamupanibadhnatā sarvātmanā rasaparatan- trena bhavitavyam na hı kaveriti vrttamātranırvahan-na kifcitprayojanam itthasadereva tatsiddheh". ( Dhv III, p 336) ( xn1) The major point of difference between the two theories is that the vakrokti theory recognises vakrokti as th- JIvita ( life ) of poetry while dhvant theory recogmses dhvani as the soul of poetry But in final analysis we observe that both the theories demand that in kavya there must be a lokotta ravaicitrya as so very rightly pomted out by Dr Keith So far we have seen how Kuntaka has been a subject to the intellectunl sway of Anandavardhana. But his own work has been of very little consequence It may be supposed thit Mammata adopted his principle in accepting citra as a genuine ( though the worst ) variety of kavya But Kuntaka also did not appreciate an alamkara of sound for alamkara's sake The meaning must have adequate appeal We gather it from his observation on the verses "bhana tarunt , ete, ( VJ Hindi, pp 18-19 ) as "pratibhadaridryadainyad*, ete This position of Kuntaka was adopted and appreciated by Mammata by sayıng "atra vacyasya vicıntyamanam na kıncidapı cātutvam pratiyate ityapustarthataivanuprasasya vaiphalyam" (KP X.)

CHAPTER I 49

and by Visvanatha by quoting the verse "ananuranan" as an illustration of "anuprāse vaiphalyasyapustarhatvam" (SD. VII.).

In this manner we find some of the views of Kuntaka being adopted by later ālamkārikas but his conception of vakrokti lost all its width and has been reduced to the position of a mere śabdālamkāra. Ruyyka recognised vakrokti as the designation of alamkāras in general but ultimately adopted the term to designate a variety of arthälamkāra in his own work. Cf. "vakorktiśabdaś-cālamkārasāmānyavacanopīhālamkāra viseșe samjūitaḥ" ( AS. p., 222 ). Vidyānātha in Ekāvalī and Appa- yadīkșita in CM also took it to designate a variety of arthāla- mkāra. But Mammata's vakrokti is only a śabdālamkāra and Viśvanātha also considers vakrokti as a ñgure of words. Moreover, Viśvanatha criticised Kuntaka's theory on the strength of the argument that vakrokti being simply an alamkāra can never be the jivita of kävya. But it will be fair to Kuntaka to note here that Visvanatha's argumnnts against the theory of Kuntaka is not justified in so far as the latter's conception of vakrokti was quite different from that of the former.

Of the later critics of the theory Mahimabhatta was possibly most correct in making the assesment that the vakrokti theory was nothing other than the dhvani theory in disguise. Mahima quotes the definition of vakrokti and questions that vakrokti should mean a statement distinct from the ordinary speech either because of (1) a propriety in the use of words and senses or because of (2) the statement being suggestive of 'a prātiya- mãna ( suggested ) sense. Now, (1) if the former alternative is understood then we must hold that the vakrokti is suggestive of rasa in so far as there can be a question of propriety only with reference to a contextual rasa. . If indeed vakrokti thus pre-supposes an invariable presense of rasa then there is no novelty in the theory of vakrokti. (2) If the second alterna- tive is understood then the definition of vakrokti is nothing other than a definition of dhvani itself and Mahima suspects 4 D ..

50 THE DHVANI THLORY IN SANSKRIT POCTICS

that it is because of this fact the classification of vakrakti and the various examples are entirely modelled on the scheme of dhvani Compare

yat punah "sabdarthau sahitau tadvıdāhlađakārını "ıtyadına sastradsprasiddhasabdārthopambandhavyatreki yad vaicitryam tanmatralaksanam vakratvam nāma kāvyasya Jivita mıtı dvitlyapalşaparıgrahe punardhvanerevedam lakşanam anaya bhangyabhihitam bhavatr abhinnatvadvastunah / ata eva cāsya ta eva prabhedāstanyevodaharanām taitupadaršitant/ ( VV pp 124-126 ) The anumana theory The anumana theory has been pro pounded by Mahimabhatta in bis ilfustrious work called Vyaktiv iveka We have seen that although Kuntaka tried to develop a parallel theory he had very little dispute with Ananda But writers like Bhattanayaka, author of Hrdayadarpana and Mukulabhatta, suthor of Abhidhavrtumatrka wrote with the express purpose of demolishing the dhvam theory Comment ing on Mahimabhattas reference to Hrdayadarpana in the verse, VV, I, 4, Ruyyaka says that the Hrdayadarpana was meant for demolishing the dhvam theory ( darpano hrdaya darpanākhyo dhvanidhvamsagrantho'pi ) The Hrdayadarpana is not yet discovered, but we know from Ruyyaka's references that he was fully acquainted with the work Mukulabhatta wanted to include the vyanjana function in laksana But it will be seen that his was a meagre doctrine and Mammata very ably met his challenge in the SVV and the KP Dhanatjaya, the author of DR and Dhamka the author of Avaloka on DR, were the other notable critics who tried to prove the redun dancy of the vyatjana function and argued that the tātparya is enough to convey the so called vyangya (suggested) sense Of all the fater critics of the dhvam theory the most notable was, however, Mahimabhatta Mahima wrote a full length book called Vyaktiviveka to evnmine afresh the true nature of the vyangya sense and found out that all the varieties of dhvani

CHAPTER I 51

may duly be included in the scope of anumana ( inference ). anumāne'ntarbhāvam sarvasyaiva dhvaneņ prakāsayitum / vaaktivivekam kurute praņamya mahimā porām vācam // ( VV, I, 1 ). Mahima criticised not only the conception of dhvani but also every word and syllable of the Dhv., wherever he found a fault. But it may be observed that, Mahima had in the core of his heart a great amount of admiration for Ananda and had agreement with Ananda's views in most places as regards the causes, effects and the essense of kāvya. Mahima also expressly recognised Ananda's greatness and like Bhäravi saying "varam virodho'pi satam mahatmabhih" he said : "iha sampratipattito'nyathā vā dhvanikārasya vaco'vivecanam nah / nityatam yaśase prapatsyate yanmahatam samstava eva gauravāya // ( VV. I. 3 ).

We may now note the salient features of Mahima's theory as follows : ( i) Mahima does not disagree with the view that the soul of poetry is rasa. He says : "kāvyasyātmani samjini rasādirupe na kasyacidvimatiḥ". (2) Mahima recognises the phenomenon of vyajanā in case of the lamp and the jar. But such a natural vyanjakatva is not recognised in the dhvani kāvya. There is only an arti- ficial vyañjakatva as in the case of dhūma ( smoke ) and agni ( fire ). svābhāvikam dhvaneryuktam vyanjakatvam na dīpavat / dhūmavat kintu krtakam sambandhāderapeksaņāt // ( VV. p. 133 ). ( 3 ) Mahimabhatta does not recognise any dyotakatva ( i.e., vyañjakatva ) even in case of the upasargas and the nipatas. For example, the sense of prakarsa.( excess ) depends on the use of the upasarga 'pra' and assuch the sense of prakarsa

52 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

should be understood as a vacya sense of 'pra', These so called dyotakas are as good as the visesanipadas and have vacakatva all right as in the case of the word oila 10 nilotpala The upasargas and the nipatas are called dyotaka in a figura- tive manner because of a wrong observation of simultaneity in the cognition of the nipata or the upasarg and the associate word. Cf. "pradiprayogānugama vyatırekānusārını bhramo bhaktermbindhanam // ( VV p 134) This being the position regarding dyotaka upasargas and mpatas, an analogy with the suggestive dhvani cannot be established (4) Mahima does not recognise a relation of the suggester and the suggested between the audible letters and the sphopa Hence, according to Mahima, the application of the term dhvant on the basis of a similarity of the suggestive kavya with the audible sounds (srtyamana varnas), otherwise called dhvam,is not justifi ed. Compare "ata eva śrūyamānānām sabdānām dhvanı vyapa- desyānām. gamyagamaka-bhavasyopagamat" ( VV P.57) ( 5 ) Mahimabhatta recognises abhidha alone as a function of the word According to him there is no Laksanavrth and the laksyartha also can be had through a process of anumāna He argues that there cannot be more than one sikti ( power ) of the word. If at all there be more than ore sakt they should all operate at a time just as in the case of fire we find both the saktıs, dāhakatva and the prakāstkatva ( 1 e, powers of burn ing and revealing ), operating simultaneously Hence if we recognise both the ablidha and the Iaksana saktis in the word then there should not be an order of cogmition of the senses comveyed by the tao powers Hence, the ]-ksana function must telong to some different substratum and that is none other than the vacyartha ( express sense ) If the vacyartha is sup posed to be the substratum of laksana then that function must be identical with inference. In 'gaurbahika' the primary meaming of the word 'gauh' which appears to have identity with 'bahlka' leads to the inferenee of a partial identity

CHAPTER I 53

(similarity) between 'gauh' and 'bahika' because of its failure to have any congruity in respect of its identity with Bahika. Com- pare : "yat punarasyānekaśakti ...... / tathāhi gaurbāhīka ityādau tāvadgavādayo'rthā bādhitabahīkādyarthāntaraikātmyāstādrūpy- avidhananyathanuyapattyā kenacidamsenatatra tattvamanumā- payanti na sarvātmanā." ( VV. pp. 108-110 ). Just as a case of anyatbanupapatti leads to inference here, we have the case of avinābhāva leading to an anumāna in "krsāngyāh santāpam vadati visinipatrasayanam." For Mahima anumāna is defined as the arrival at the knowledge of some other thing from the knowledge of some thing on the strength of avinābhava ( i. e., invariable concommitance or the relation of non-separation ). Wherever there is the act of speaking ( vadana ) there must be an expression of an idea ( prakāśa ) and as such 'prakāša' is the invariable effect of 'vadana'. Compare :

"avinābhāvāvasāyapūrvikā hyanyato'nyasya pratītiranumā- namityanumānalaksanamuktam / tathā hi vadatītyādau vadanā- derarthäntarasya prakāsādeh pratītiḥ. ....... na cāyam svārtha- meva pratipādayati tasya bādhopapatteh" ( VV. p. 111 ). That the word 'vadati' conveys not only its express sense which is to be discarded as incongruous, is the opinion also of the supporters of the vyañjana and the laksana functions.

( 6 ) If it is argued that the idea of prakāsa is had by a process of 'arthapatti' then also that is none other than a case of amumana since arthapatti is included in the scope of anuma- na. Compere :

"tarhyanyathanupapattyā ......... arthāpatteranumānāntarbh- āvābhyupagamādityuktam". ( VV. p. 112 ). (7) Mahima explains and designates the phenomenon of suggestion ( vyanjanā ) as poetic inference ( kāvyānumiti ), which is defined as follows : vācyastadanumito vā yatrārtho'rthāntaram prakāśayati / sambandhatah kutašcit sā kāvyānumitirityuktā // ( VV. I. 25. p. 125 ).

64 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Mahima tries to explatn all the varieties of dhvani as cases of kavyanumit In sabdasaktimula dhvant he must have some reason to arrive at the non-contextual meaning and as such the instances present kavyanumiti Even in case of slesa Mabima demands that there must be an adequate reason for con veying more than one Esense and as such whatever additional meaning is had must be derived as an inferred meaning If there be no adequate reason for arriving at a further meaning the very effort of the poet to present a slesa will prove only a fruitless strain Compare

tasmadarthantaravyaktıhetau kasmimscarasatı / yah slesabandhanırbandhah klesayaiva kaverasau // ( VV I 86, p 348 )

( 8 ) Just as Ananda belteves that the meaning had through suggestion has a greater appeal, Mahima thinks that the mean ing that is arrived at through anumans is more appealing Cf "vacyo hyartho na tatha camatkāramatanotr yatha sa eva vidhınışedhadıh kākvabhıdheyatāmanumeyatām vavatırna itı svabhava evayamarthanām /' ( VV I p 54) (9 ) But even then the poem must have the invariable asso- ciation of rasa In absence of rasa even a series of antmeyå rthas will not render it a kavya and the composition will be as condemnable as prahelika For instance, in the verse, vivarta sura a smae, we have a good number of anumeyarthas, but the mental process of the numerous inferences itself obstructs any relish of rasa, Compare " tadıyamupayaparamparoparoha nissaba kavyamıtyatıvyaptıh // ( p 86), ' kavivyaparo kavyamucyate ( p 95), and 'isyate casau tatrapt prahelikadau ca nirase syāt aoumtyate (p 100) ( 10 ) According to Mahimabhatta the permanent mental states of love sorrow, etc, belonging to poetical characters are inferred through the cognition of the vibhava, anubhava and the vyabhicaribhavas described in the kavya A pleasurable rumination over the sthayibhava ( permanent state ), thus

CHAPTER I 55

inferred is called rasa. It is the inexplicable magic of the poetry that the inferred sthayibhavas lead to the exquisite pleasure of rumination whereas in ordinary life the sthayibhāvas as be- longing to others do not lead to any such pleasure. Compare : "āstām vā ratyādirnityaparokşah / pratyakso'pi hyarthaḥ sāk- şāt samvedyamānah sacetasām na tathā camatkāram-ātanoti yathā sa eva satkavinā vacanagocaratām gamitah / yaduktam- kavišaktyarpitā bhāvāstanmayıbhāvayuktitaḥ / tathā sphurantyami kāvyānna tathādhyaksatah kila // iti / so'pi ca teșām na tathā svadate, yathā tairevānume- yatām nīta iti svabhāva evāyam na paryanuyogamarhati / ( VV. I. pp. 73-74 ).

( 11 ) Mahima accepts almost all the cases of dhvani and explains them in terms of kavyanumiti. But wherever he finds difficulty in applying the proccss of inference he discards the case altogether. According to Ananda there is sabda-saktimūla dhvani in the verse "unnatah prollasaddhārah" (Dhv. II. p.241). But as Mahimabhatta finds it difficult to admit a process of anumäna, he contends that in the said verse no additional ( suggested ) meaning is cognised at all. Cf.

"unnatah prollasaddhāraḥ kālāgurumalīmasa / payodharabharastanvyāh kam na cakre'bhilāșiņam //" ityatra tvanantaroktah prakāro na sambhavatīti kuto'rthā- ntarapratītiņ / ( VV. III. p. 417).

( 12 ) In the matter of aucitya and dosa Mahima is fully after Ananda, since aucitya and dosa owe their origin to the relative position of the contextual rasa. ( Vide, VV. II ). That vyanjana may be confused with anumana has been apprehended by Ananda himself, and in the proper place we shall see how to reconcile the dhvani theory with the bold arguments of Mahimabhatta. But, despite Mahima's intelle- ctual wealth he hardly succeeded in having any follower and the only commentary, supposed to have been composed by

5b THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Ruyyaka and recovered only partratly, also defends the dhvant theory against his bold criticisms

The aucitya theory This theory has been propounded by the Kashmirian polymath Ksemendra ( 2nd & 3rd quarter of the 11th century ) The plam meaning of aucitya is propriety The theory claima that aucitya is the very life of kavya, whi h is in intimate relation with risas like srngara, etc ("aucityam rasasıddhasya sthiram kavyasya jivitam', k 5) This aucitya, 1 e,, appropriateness is desired to be present in as many as twentyeight places Ii e the word, sentence, meaning of the composition, guna and alamkara and, indeed, in every ltmb of the kavya ( Karikas, 8-10 ) Aucilya is so very important that it infuses life to rasa, the very soul of kavya ("aucitya sya rasajtvitabhutasya vicaram kurnte'dhuna," k 3) A sketch of the development of the conception of aucitya from the days of Dandtn through Anandavardhana, Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta is given in full length by Dr Suryakanta It is observed by him that of all the writers Ksemendra alone gave aucitya the status of the very soul of poetry Dr Surya kanta also regrets that Ananda does not give iy definition of aucitya ( Ksemendra Studies, p 67 ). Ksemendra, on the other hand, defines aucitya as follows . ucıtım prahuracaryah sadrsam kıla yasya yat / ucitasya ca yo bhavastadaucityam pracaksate // "The great masters have called that to be proper which 1s verily suited to a certain thing The abstract idea of berng propar, goes by the name of propriety ( aucityn )' But in this definition also 'a certain thing' with reference to which alone the aucitya is determined remains uncertain An analysis of Ananda's treatment of aucitya shows that an element of kavya may be proper or improper only with reference to the contex- tual rasa. Ananda declares "Except impropriety, there is no other cause for the abatement in the relish of poetry. A com- position containing the well known propriety is the very secret

CHAPTER I 57

of rasa " ( Dhv. III. 3). An analysis of the Aucityavicaracarca will show that Ksemendra also determines propriety or impro- priety with reference to the contextual rasa. Let us have some examples : In the verse "magnāni dvișatām" ( AVC. p. 2. ). the word 'mugdha' is admired as rendering the meaning more appropriate. But the meaning, in fact, is rendered more sugges- tive of the simplicity of the nayika and thus renders the piece more effectively suggestive of rasa. Again, compare vrtti under the verse "lavanya dravina" ( AVC. p. 2), where a better word is suggested for being more appropriate to the love-lorn lady under description, which surely indicates the determina- tion of propriety by the contextual vipralambhaśrngāra rasa. Or, we may compare the vrtti under the verse "devo dayavān" ( AVC. p. 3 ) running as "atra bhimasya ...... padairunnidraraud- rarasasvarūpānurupo vakyārthah sajīva ivāvabhāsate" where there is a direct reference to a rasa as the factor regulating the aucitya of the words ( padas ). In this manner examples may be multiplied to a good number to show that the word 'yasya' in Ksemendra's definition of aucitya means nothing other than rasa although it is not explicitly stated in the definition. To be brief, Ksemendra in his whole thesis echoes what has been very briefly stated by Ananda in-

"anaucityādrte nānyadrasabhangasya kāraņam / prasiddhaucityabandhastu rasasyopanisatparā // ( Dhv. III. )52

It may be noted that Ksemendra does not have any occasion to critise Ananda; rather he follows Ananda as by quoting the kārika,- "avirodhI virodhī vā raso'ngini rasāntare / paripoșam na netavyastathā syādavirodhitā // ( Dhv. III, 24 )53 Thus we have a brief sketch of the principal trends in the

52. Also vide, HSP, Kane, p. XCVIII. 53. In AVC. p. 14. the Larika is read as "virodhi vavirodhi va" .

58 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

development of Sanskrit poetics. By now we can also see what a strategic position the dhvam theory occupies in that course of development and as the first propounder of the same theory Anandavardhana occupies the most important position amongst all the alamkarikas Ananda's influence over the later writers is recognised by Jagannatha, the last of the most notable writers in the expression-"anandavardhanena sarvālamkārik- asaranivyavasthapakatvat " Hence, we are led to discuss in the following pages, some of the more important contents of the dhvant theory in general and the Dhvanyaloka in particular. We will also try to assess its value by way of referring concurr- ently to some of its western and modern parallels.

राजकीय मदादालन पमाक -

CHAPTER II

DHVANYĀLOKA AND THE DHVANI THEORY

The basis of the theory : The dhvani theory is based on the postulate that the most important element in poetry is its import. In Dhv. I. 2, Ananda states that, the meaning of poetry, which is recognised as the soul of poetry when it can appeal to the men of taste, has primarily two aspects, viz., the 'expressed' and the 'suggested'. Compare :

"yo'rthah sahrdayaslāghyah kāvyātmeti vyavasthitah / vācyapratIyamānākhyau tasy bheđāvubhau smțtau // ( I. 2 ). In Dhv. I. 1, and in several other places Ananda propounds that dhvani is the soul of kavya, or in other words, the suggest- ed meaning alone is the most essential element. Hence, the meaning in general being called the soul of kāvya in I. 2, may cause a confusion and, indeed, it has been much objected to by Mhimabhatta. But in fact Ananda's stand is not vitiated by the karikā 1. 2. Ananda in this kārika propounds for the first time that in kävya the meaning (artha ) alone is the most im- portant factor; and the meaning being appealing to the men of taste may even be designated as the very soul of kavya. In the second kārika itself it is not convenient for Ananda to state that the more predominant pratIyamanartha is the soul of kāvya, because he is yet to introduce a variety of meaning called the pratiyamanartha. The karika I. 2, is only an ade- quate fore-word to the introduction of a pratīyamānārtha as distinct from the express sense which is commonly known and already set forth in various ways by the earlier ālamkārikas. ( I. 3. ). In the vrtti of kārikā 1, 4 Ananda ably shows that in poetry there may be a meaning other than the commonly understood express sense. Such an implied meaning is alto- gether different from the express sense and in no case liable to be confused with the latter. For example, the verse. "bhama

60 ' THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

dhammia"1 expressly conveys the idea of an injunction (vidhi), but the men of taste gather also the additional idea that the intelligent girl is prohibiting the ptous man from going to the bank of Godavarı. Prohibition (nisedha ) being just the opposite of injunction ( vidhs ) need not be confused with the express sense. More examples and arguments are presented by Ananda himself to show as to how the suggested sense clams a sharp distinction from the express sense in the first and the third uddyotas. Varieties of the pratiyamanartha : The pratiyamanartha (i e, suggested sense ) may be of three types In one of these types we get it as a vastumatra, 1 e., a mere matter of fact. Such a matter of fact is had in the verse 'bhama dhammis' in the form of the mformation that the girl is prohibiting the pious man. The second type is alamkara, 1. c., a figure, The figures of speech, which are defined in so many words, have certain single ideas at their base. In case of upama we have a basic idea of similarity, in case of vyatireka we have the basic idea of superiority of either the upameya or the upamana over the other. When such ideas are presented in a charming manner we have an alamkara If the charming idea is expressly conveyed then we have a vacya alamkara and if the charming idea is suggested we have a suggested alamkara. For example in the verse, Virānam ramat ghusiarunammi na tađa piāthanucchange / dıththi riugaakumbhatthalammt jaha bahalasindtire //( sic. )2 The express meaning is that the temples suceeed better than the breasts in drawing attention of the heroes. Hence, there 1s 1. Dhv p 52. "O pious man, now you roam with all conhdence, for, the deg has been killed to-day by the ferce lion which reudes on the bank of the river Godavar" 2. Dhy p 262. "The mght of heroes does not so delight in therr beloveds' breasts red with saffren anointment as in the temples of enemies' elephants, painted decp in vermilion."

CHAPTER JI 61

an express vyatirekalamkara. The suggested idea is that, there is a point of similarity between the breasts and the temples. The breasts are as large as the temples and hence attractive. But this idea of similarity is not expressly conveyed and hence we have a suggested alamkara. The suggested alamkāras are also matters of fact in a sense. But while vastumatra is a bare statement of fact the suggested alamkara happens to be more charming and involves some of the basie ideas underlying the different vācya alamkāras.

An outline of the rasadi variety : The third variety of the pratiyamana sense is called rasādı. 'Rasādi' means 'rasa and others like rasa'. The list of 'rasa and others like rasa' is not given completely by Ananda. Ananda names only rasa, bhāva rasābhāsa, bhāvābhāsa and bhāvaprasānti (Dhv. II. 3), Abhinava presents a very long discussion on the nature of rasa. Abhinava's conception of rasa will be discussed at length later on. It will suffice to remember here that it is an exquisite joy caused by the rumination of a sentiment3 felt by the reader with sympathy for the hero of the kavya. The feeling is suggested to be belonging to the poetical character but because of an identification of the sympathetic reader with the poetical character the reader experiences the feeling as belonging to himself also. But yet it is not precisely like a personal feeling of the ordinary life. Since the reader shares the feeling with the poetical character and the sentimental poet and also the other readers like himself the feeling is said to be experienced in a generalised state. The reader's capacity to ldentify himself with some literary character or the poet is called 'hrdayasam- väda'4 and that such a case of indentification is necessary for the realisation of rasa is explicit from the following extracts.

3, Here sentiment means a sthayibhava or a permanent mental state like that of love or sorrow. 4. According to Ananda 'samvada' means 'anyasadrsya'. Signifi- cance of the term may be had from Dhv. iv, 11-13,

62 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

( a ) tannıdanabhūtāyā hrdayasamvadādyupakrtaya vibhāva dısāmagrya lokottararīpatvāt ( Locana p 187) (b) rama dıcarıtam tu na sarvasya hrdaysamvaditi mahatsāhasam ( Locana p 187) (c) hrdayasamvadatanmayibhavana kramadasvādyamanatam pratipannah (Locana pp 85 86) Hence, the realisation of rasa consists in an intense experience of a sentiment and the resultant exquisite joy For example, a verse is said to have the suggested meaning as karuna-rasa (: e, pathetic sentiment ) when from the reading of its con tents the sentiment of pathos develops also in the heart of the reader It is the unworldly way of the world of poetry that a continued experiencing of the same feeling of pathos itself leads to an exquisite joy Abhinava defines bhavadhvan as follows 'tatra yadā kašcıdudrıktavasthām pratıpanno vyabhıcārī camatkārātıšaya prayojako bhavatı, tada bhavadhvanih' ( Locana, p 175) Here 'udrikta' may mean' 'inereased', excessive', 'distinet' or 'evident or 'abundant' It is not clear from Abhinava's words if the vyabhicari is to be simply recognised or it is to be ex p-rienced by the sahrdaya (1 e, man of taste ) as belonging to himself But as bhava is treated in the same footing as rasa and as both are said to be suggested instantancously, being ter med as asamlaksyakramavyangya ( 1 e, suggested through an unnoticeable sequence ) we may conclude that in bhavadhvan! also the relevant vyabhicaribhava is experienced by the reader himself For example, if in a piece the vyabhicaribhāva lajja ( shame ) is to be taken as suggested instancously, thus present ing a case of bhavadhvani, the same feeling of lajja must be etperienced by the readers themselves To define rasabhāsa Abhinava says, "yada tu vbhavābhāsā dratyābhasodayastada vibhāvanubhāsaccarvanābhāsa itı rasā bhasasya visayah " ( Locana, pp 177-178 ) This means that the rasabhasa is the relish of a sentiment from a semblance of vibhava ( and anubhava ) for, in order to explain the signi ficance of the term abhasa Abhinava says-' anukrtiramukhy-

CHAPTER II 63

atā ābhāsa iti hyeko'rthah" ( p. 179 ). Vivhāva has two aspects namely, ( 1) älambana or the object ( or person ) in respect of which the emotion of the dramatic character arises, and (2) uddipana or the entire surrounding, which enhances the emo- tion towards the object which primarily stimulates emotion. In case of rasābhāsa semblance of vibhava means semblance of ālambana vibhāva, and we have such a vibhava when the rela- tion of the poetic character with the object of emotion is not genuine or when such an emotion, although it is duly stimulat- ed, is not proper towards the object in hand.

Abhinava does not define bhāvābhāsa, but, it can be inferred that a suggestion of vyabhicarI on the strength of a semblance of vibhäva's is meant by bhavabhasa. Once we understand what is 'bhava' there need not be any difficulty in understand- ing bhāvodaya, bhāvaprasama and bhāvasandhi which are its different aspects only. ( Cf. "rasabhāvaśabdena ca tadābhāsa- tatpraamāvapi samgrhītāveva, avāntaravaicitrye'pi tadekarū- patvāt" ( Locana. p. 90 ).

Importance of rasādi : This rasadi variety is the most im- portant variety of the suggested sense. With the enthusiasm to assert it Ananda says: "That very rasadi variety is the soul of poetry. That is why in the days of yore, sorrow of Valmiki at the separation of the curlew couple took the form of a śloka," (Dhv. I, 5). In this statement there are two parts, viz., ( 1) 'that very rasādi veriety is the soul of kāvya' ( kāvyasyātmā sa evārthah ) and (2) 'the sorrow of the first poet, caused by the separation of the curlew couple took the form of a verse' ( ādikaveḥ purā krauncadvandvaviyogotthaḥ Sokah ślokatvamagatah ). From the first part we learn that although there are other varieties of the suggested sense, although the suggssted sense in general should be recognised as the soui of poetry because of the general statements 'kāvyas- yātmā dhvanih' (I. 1 ) and 'arthah sahrdayaślāghyah kāvyāt- meti vyavasthitah' ( I. 2) yet rasa and bhava are specifically

64 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

mentioned because of their importance. (cf "pratiyamanasya cānyabhedadarsane'pi rasabhavamukhenaivopalaksanam pra- dhanyat " Vrttt, pp 89-90 ) It is also to be noted that the expression 'rasabhasa' stands for all the varieties of 'rasadi Elsewhere Ananda recognises the importance of either the suggested or the express sense on the strength of its appeal ( ef cārutvotkarsanbandhana hi vācyavynngyayoh pradhany avivaksā Vrtti p 114) Even if we suppose the pradhanya of rasadi over the other varieties of the pratryamana ( viz vastu and alamkara ) to be on account of greater appeal, we may recognise vastu and alamkara also as the soul of kavya in their own capreity Interpreting Ananda's expression 'pradhanyat', Abhiava says -- "pradhānyaditi / rasaparyavasanādityarthah / tāvanmātravišrāntāvapı cānyasabdavaılakşanyakāritvena vast valamkāradhvanerapı jIvitatvamaucityāduktamitı bhāvah'/ ( Locana p 90) This observation asserts thait vastu and alamkara even occuring as the suggested sense only help del neating the rasa Abhinava also observes that bhavadhvani, etc, also simply help the delineation of rasa So the most im- portant and appealing factor in kavya is risa Even then there is propriety in considering vastudhvant and alamkara dhvani also as the life of kavya because of their superiotity over ordi- nary expressions But yet there is the scope for the doubt that if rasa is the most important etement and bhavadhvamt and others simply contribute to its suggestion then what is the pro priety in recognising dhvan in general, having all the varieties of the suggested sense, as the soul of kavyn ? In fact, Mahi mabhatta posed this question and even Visvanatha, huimself a supporter of the conception of dhvani, objected to the indt- scrimtnate stitement "Lavyasyatma dhvanih". In my opinion the reply to all this is implicit in the words of Ananda and Abhinava themselves The whole of the Raghuvamsa is a kāvya and even a single verse also may be supposed to be a kavya Sometimes an entire kavya and sometimes even a part of it may be considered a kavya and their respective merits may be subjected to assesment separately. In most of the varieties of

CHAPTER II 65

kavya we find rasa as the most essential element of the entire composition. In some verses or parts of the longer kāvya we may be charmed by the suggested vastu or the alamkara also. At times we single out verses from the body of a longer com- position. 5 In such cases the charm of the composition may be due to a bhävadhvani or due to the presense of a predominant suggested sense of any variety other than the rasa. That even parts of an entire composition are taken into consideration is evident from the following observations.

( i) sa ca rasādidhvanirvyavasthita eva ...... tathāpi tasya rasasyaikaghanacamatkārātmano'pi kutaścidamsātprayojakībh- ūtādadhiko'sau camatkāro bhavati. ( Locana. p. 175 ).

( ii ) evam rasadhvanerevāmI bhāvadhvniprabhrtayo nisy- anda āsvāde pradhānam prayojakamevamamsam vibhajya prtha- gvyavasthapyate. ( Locana. p. 179). ( iii ) yadi vā prabandhe'pi muktakasyāstu sadbhāvah, pūr- vaparanirapekşeņāpi hi yena rasacarvaņā kriyate tadeva mukta- kam / yathā - 'tvāmālikhya praņayakopitām' ityādiślokah. ( Locana, p. 326 ). The verse 'tvāmalikhya' occurs in the Meghadūta; but Abhinava is prepared to consider it as a muk- taka ( i. c., a poem comprising of a single verse ) free from the entire context. Thus the verse 'tvāmalikhya' may stand as a piece of dhvani on its own merit. This very principle of relative charm and isolation is follow- ed in time of considering the citra and the gunIbhutavyangya type of kāvya also. Citra is conceived as a variety of compo- sition having no rasa or any suggested sense but only an appeal due to its figures. The gunibhūtavyangya type is conceived as a type of kävya having a suggested sense sans predominance. In this connection we may consider the following points. ( i)

5. Rajaśckhara also favours the idea of assesing the merits of a verse in isolation from the context. cf. "The subject of description may be in an isoloted verse or in a prabandha, cach of which is of five kinds." ( HSP. Kanc, p. LXXIII ).

5 D.

66 THE DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Dhv Il1, 39 states that we should not be very hasty to call that kavya a dhvam when it appears more reasonable to apply only the designation of a guntbhutavyangya kavya to it (n1) But with reference to the contextual rasas even isolated cases of gumibhutavyangya also should be considered as dhvan Dhv III 40) (n1) In gunibhutavyangya the suggested sense is subservient to the vacya sense But that superiority of vacya is only relative It is also subordinate in relation to the rasa suggested by the larger extent of the composition where the gunibhutavyangya occurs Compare ' ata eveyatı yadyıpı vācyasya pradhānyam, tathāpi rasađh vanau tasyapı gunateti sırı isyr gunibhūtavyangyasya prakare mantavyam / ata eva dhvanerevatmatvamityuktacaram bahu śah' ( Locana p 461 ) (iv) But, yet there may be stray ind singled out instances where we may find unalloyed cas s of gunibhutavyaneya also For this we are to examine very carefully as to whether there is an intention of the poet to d-lı neate rasa with the help of the singled out pissage Compare "yatra tu vakye rasadıtatparyam nastı gumībhūtavyangyaih padarrudbhasite pi tatra gunibhutavyangyatuvz samudayadha rmah ' ( Dhv p 485) 6 Sigmficance of the episode of Valmiki Coming to the second part of the kar ka Dhv 1, 5, we question, how does tle episode of Valmiki help in establishing the fact that rasa is the most important element in kavya ? The reply is that Ananda here lays bare the fact that the Ramayana is an ideal kavya because of rasa and that it is rich in rasa can be established by a reference to the way of its origin itself What Ananda means to say is that a sorrow hnas been caused in the heart of Valmikt

6 Tor a cortect a sessment of te att tude of Fnantavardhana o- wards the livya baving a suber! rate sugges ed sens v le VVV p 103 laksye ca dv t dham k tamds a e muklyan gaunam ca / ta ra mullem ya ra vya gyasyn rrrdhan mas am guribha aya gyid ga nam / ullavam ca gr fyzma o 1 llava al ra ddla v

CHAPTER II 67

by the pitiful wailings of the curlew whose beloved has been killed and Valmiki burst into the verse "mā nisāda", etc., It cannot be known if Ananda meant that there is karuna rasa in the verse "ma nisada". Ananda says "nihatasahacarIvirahakā- tarakrauňcākrandajanitah śoka eva ślokatayā pariņata/śoko hi karuņasthāyibhāvah/" ( Dhv. pp. 88-89 ). From this it is clear that there was an intimate relation between the phenomenon of the spontaneous composition of the poem "ma nisada" and a sense of sorrow ( soka ) in the heart of the poet. Ananda fur- ther asserts that soka is also the sthayibhāva of karuna rasa. The verse 'ma nisāda' is the begining of the whole Rāmāyana which has karuna as its principal rasa ( Dhv. pp. 529-530 ). Ananda believes that in order to delineate sentiment in poetry the poet himself must be sensitive. The feeling to be depicted must already run through every vein of the poet. It is very desirable for the poet himself to be suffused with emotions. To assess this position of Ananda we may compare the following also.

( i ) Figures come in a competitive manner to the composi- tion of a poet suffused with emotion. (" ... rasasamahita cetasah pratibhānavatah kaverahampūrvikayā parāpatanti." Dhv. pp. 221-222 ).

( ii ) śrngārī cetkaviḥ kāvye jātam rasamayam jagat / sa eva vItarāgaścennīrasam sarvameva tat // ( Dhv. p. 498 ). It is also severally stated that the reader also must have a heart sufficiently sensitive to feel the sentiment depicted in a piece of composition. Note the significant term-"sacetasam" in Dhv. I. 12. Ananda, indeed, explains 'sahrdayatva' as the aliveness to the depicted sentiments. cf. "rasajñataiva sahrdaya- tvamiti" ( Dhv. p. 359 ). All these extracts clearly show that according to Ananda, poetry owes its very origin to an intense feeling of sentiment in the heart of the poet and any composition of such a poet im -.

68 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

bubed in sentiment is destined to be rich in the suggestion of rasa. 7 Thus with the help of the episode of Valmiki, Ananda tries to bring home the idea that rasa is the most important ele- ment in kavya. Ramayans is great because of its mst, and it is an instruction from Ananda to the would be ports that in order to make the kavya rich in sentiment the poet himself must have an intense feelirg as Valmiki hd Morcover, Anand1 believes that the poet and the reader and the pocticat character must all experience the sime s'timent, and this is nothing other thin what has been more preetsely stated by Bhattatauta, Abhinava's teacher, in the extract "rayak asya Laveh Srotuh samanonubhavastitah" ( quoted in Locan, p. 92 It requires to be noted here that in some of the p'aces refer- red to above Aninda does not ue the t-rm ris in its techni- cal sense of a sentimental experience or relish of tl e reider but in a loose sense to mean a sentiment in general. In fact we cannot help using the term rasa in a general non technical sense also. Rasa as an experience belongs to the render but yet the kavya which stimulates the experience of permanent state is also said to hive rass. Hence, Dhananjaya observes that we should have a secondary implication of the etpression 'rasavt

7. c. "Given the ssme natural cualiheations te who feels the emo 'ons lo be described will be the most convincing, dis irss and anger, for laranre ae portrayed mor truthfully by one who is f eling hem at th - momen'. Hence, it is that poriry drmands a man with a srcial g ft for it. or els ene w'th a touch of madory in him, the forrir can eas ly anme ttr rrqu red mood, and the latter may ir actally tesd- hmelf with emot on Dr Tort ca, Chapter XVIT. That a senttment s m lar to tat ef theport is ented in tbe heart d the reader is che-rved by thr moit molern erit- abso. Hlenee, comparr : ". a portry wh ch by meara of myths ard symsols sems to conrey rarLer thas to derenbe the extrely comples emoronal aord in ellectuaf s'ate wberes an caprr ence i m lar to that of the port will ans." Centempor- ary French Poetty, p. 1.

CHAPTER 1I 69

kāvyam' as a 'kāvya capable of arousing a sentiment ( in the heart of the reader )' and not as a 'kavya possessing a rasa', just as we have a secondary significance in the expression 'äyurghrtam' because of a cause and effect realation. $

Abhinava, commenting on kārikā, I. 5, seems to tell us some thing different from what has been intended by Ananda. 9 In Abhinava's estimate the soka which has been the source of the verse 'mā nișāda' and its sentiment, already became a rasa in the heart of the adikavi. In order to be delineated in the kāvya the soka experienced by the poet no longer remains a personal feeling, but it gets duly universalised. 10 This universalised feeling of soka causes druti ( melting ) in the heart of the poet and gets manifested in the form of a verse in the manner of the waters flowing over the brink of a jar. Quoting Bhattana- yaka's 'yavatpūrno na caitena tāvannaiva vamatyamum' Abhi- nava wants to assert that in order to give vent to it in the form of a kavya the poet must experience a sentiment with all his heart. The experience of the sentiment should be so intense and sincere that the poet's experience of the sentiment would be. much different from the experience of an ordinary man. Cf. "krauncadvandvaviyogena ...... karuņarasarūpatām laukikašoka- vyatiriktā ......... pratipanno ...... šlokarūpatām prāptah", etc. ( Locana, p. 86 ). Up to this Abhinava does not appear to have any difference from Ananda. But Abhinava's observation "na tu muneh soka iti mantavyam" appears to run counter to the plain words of Ananda as, "adikaveh sokaḥ slokatvamāga- tah." But Abhinava's words may be interpreted to mean that the muni being a sympathetic heart, his soka does not remain a

8. DR. IV. 9. Dhv. Trans. pp. 156-158. 10. The emotions of the poetical character shared also by the reader is experienced in a universal form neither strictly belong to the character nor to the reader. The phenomenon of universalisation will be discussed in the next chapter.

70 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS Soka of the ordinary personal mture Abhinava himself destres that rasa in its technical sense may be had only when it is sugeested by the vibhavas etc , as d-lineated in the kavya which is a piece of art and hence, the feeling of Soka by the mun caused by an worldly scene should not te considered as a rasn Yet we may suppose that the designation of rass is applied to the said fecling of rasa only to sho its distinction from the ordinary personal feelings of the men of non porti al natute It is said not to be 'a soka of the munt' to rrean that the f-eling of sorrow is not strictly personal But with all thesr confusing observittons Abhinava sincerelv tries to tread the verv paith laid by his predecessors in Annda, Dhattatquta ind Bhaitanayaka."a Types of kavya and posttion of rasa . Anandavardhana finds diflerent variehes of kavya before him. Some of those varicties have rasa and others are devoid of rass Ananda proposs to disruss as to what type of composition ( samghatina ) should be employed in the different ty pes of kavya Types of compo- Sttion are understood in terms of the length and frequency of the compounds (1 e, samasas ) The criterion for choosing a type of composition for a particular veniety of kavya is th- presence or absence of rasa in the sard variety Such varicties of kavya are named in the vrtti as follows : "yatah kavyasy1 prabheda muktakam simskrtaprakrtāpabhra- msamıbaddham/ sandānıtakavıšeşakakalāpıkakufakānı/ paryāya- bandhah parikatha khandakathāsakalakathe sargabandhobhine- yarthamakhy aynakathe ityevamadayah /" (Dhv. p 323) " Ananda observes that multakas (single self sflii-nt verse poems ) rray or may not haye rasa ef "tatra muktakesu rasa- bandhābhinivesinnh Lavestadātrayarraucityam/ aryatra kams- caraht (p 324) Any typ- of compostion is allowed in 'pankatha" because rasa is not very sircerely des red to be d-pi- cted there ef "pankathayam kama-drah .. naty antarasabandhā bhini-S3t" (p 325) Even in the epic tl ere may be or may rot 10a. Sec 'Pams and the Fort' in Chap Itt, below 11 Vide Lecana for drfin.t ors

CHAPTER II 71

be the intention to delineate rasa. It is however, more desirable to have rasa in the epics. cf. "sargabandhe tu rasatātparye ... sadhiyah" ( p. 325-26 ) Abhinava also illustrates "Bhattajay- antaka's 1la Kādambarikathāsara as an epic having the inten- tion of simply telling facts and the Raghuvamsa as an epic hav- ing the intention of delineating rasa. ( Locana, p, 326 ). In case of katha and ākhyāyika also the poet or the poetical charac ter may or may not be suffused with sentiment. cf. "tatha hyatrāpi ...... pūrvoktamevānusartavyam". (Dhv. p. 326). In this manner Ānanda recognises a good number of kāvyas virtually devoid of rasa. But yet he instructs that it should be the sole intention of the poets to depict rasa in all the varieties of kāvya. He further declares that the very purpose of the work Dhvany- äloka was not only to explain what dhvani is but also to ins- truct that the poet should solely intend 3on depicting rasa. cf. "kavinā kāvyamupanibadhnatā ...... tatsiddheh" ( p. 336 ) and " ... rasādirūpavyangyatātparyamevaișām yuktamiti yatnosmābh- irrabdho na dhvanipratipādanamātrābhiniveśena" ( pp. 363-364 ).

A most important factor determining the presence or absence of rasa is the intention of the poet. Ananda discuses the citra type of composition only on the basis of lack of intention to depict any rasa. Even in a citra there may be a flimsy flash of rasa but that does not deserve to be counted. cf. "väcyasãm- arthyavaśena ... vyavasthāpyate" ( pp. 497-497 ) Ananda finally observes that after his instructions are imparted only the begin- ners may be found to indulge in citra but the matured hand would compose dhvani alone. ( cf. "tadevamidanImtana ...... sthitametat", pp. 499-500 ). But it is to be noted that as soon as we say 'dhvanireva kavyam' we revert to the old position

1la. By the expressian Bhattajayantaka Abhinava means to refer to Abhinanda, ( son of Jayantabhatta, the celebrated" logician of Kashmir ) who was the author of the Kadambari Kathasara. ( vide, S. K. De, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 324. )

72 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

that even vastu and almkara miy b' honoured when pres-nted in a form of dhvam This post on is further elirified by the samgrahaslok as following the above extract running as vasmin raso va bhavo va tatparyena prikasate / samvrtyabhihitam vastu yatralamkar eva va // kavyadbvam dhvamirvyangy tprad! anyar anbandhanah / sarvatra tatra vişay1jh-yah sahrdayarjınash // Possibly this very catholt tty \ edded to Anand: s partil ty for r isa allows us to recognise a dhvam school is distinct from tt e raca school

Utility of the dhvam th-ory Proposiny to examine th- utility of the dhvani theory we are instantan ousty remtnded of Abhinava s observation under karika 1 5 as 'anyasabdavailaks anyakarıtvena vastval imkaradhvan-rapı jivitatvmiucityadakt amitı bhavah ( Locana p 90) wbi h points out that even matters of fact when suegested endo vs the composition with ! distinetion ( vailakşanya ) Ananda also shoss on severa! oucasions that even a vistu ( a matter of fact ) when conveyed through suggestion becomes more ippealing In this connec tion we may ohserve the following points

(1) In Karika I 25, Aninda says th't in dhvan s egest on convevs su h a charming meaning which cannot b- conveyed bv th- ordinary spee h If normally express-d tle same mitter of fact will not be as charming as when it is sungested (11) The ideas v h h ate sa gested by a fev words will r- qaite many more words to b= d-neted Sagg-suon hielps con veying su h volumes of ideas that It is alrio t impossibte to co vey the siri- b, express s ateen s Mo - charrung ideas "re corveyed in a corpa t manner through sigeest on w th 1 grent economy of words. ef ' vyangy m dharmin' ram priy ojır tüpam rajvanırv isanadyasam wyam / tuceasarishyat vadabhidhawapd enisalyu amsrpinam ( Locana, under Dhy

CHAPTER IL 73

. ( iii ) We may also compare Abhinava's comment on the verse "ravisamkrantasaubhagya" as "asadharanavicchāyatvānup ayogitvādidharmajātamasmkhyam prayojanam vyanakti." Hence an amazing ecoonmy is also another source of appeal. ( iv ) What is implicitly obserevd in I. 25 and expressly stated by Abhinava is believed by the modern western critics also. Through suggestion the poet may communicate the in- communicable and volumes of ideas at a time. cf. "By reduc- ing semantic and grammatical redundancy to an unusual level, by relaxing linguistic and social restrictions, the poet attempts to communicate the incommunicable. This is the essence of poetic licence. The thought expressed is accompanied by several "other thoughts which are merely suggested" ( Word, p. 211 ). Modern poets of the west and also of India following the ideal ofthe poets like T. S. Eliot, use the suggestive language for conveying greater volume of ideas and feelings in a compressed from. Compare, "By means of such references and quotations Mr. Eliot attains a compression, otherwise unattainable, that is essential to his aim; a compression approaching simultaneity- the co-presence in the mind of number of different orientations fundamental attitudes, orders of experience" ( New Bearings in English Poetry : p, 107). According to E. M. W. Tillyard, suggestion through the employment of allusion ( i, e., quotation form eatlier poets) results in even economy of space and enrich- ment of texture. Compare :' ... The reference is a true obliquity; it implies without a word of statement : and the result is econo- my of space and enrichment of texture." ( Poetry Direct and Oblique, p. 63). ( v ) Utility of composing kävyas in the form of dhvani lies in the fact that the more appealing idea can be presented only as the suggested content and never as the expressed sense, as it has been observed by Ananda again and again. Compare : "prasiddhisceyamastyeva ... . yadabhimatataramı vastu vyangya- tvena prakāšyate na sākşācchabdavācyatvena." ( Dhv. p, 533 ). This principle is accepted also by Mahimabhatta who would,

THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSARIT POETICS

however, designate the suggested ( vyangya ) as inferred ( anu- meya ), for, he obsetves, "vacyo hyartho na tatha camatkframa tanoti yatha si eva vidhinjsdhadth kakvabhidheyntamanttmey- atam vavitirna it svabhava evayamarthanam " ( VV p 54) ( vi) The theory of dhvam had its utthty also in bringing a rejuvenation to the old and hackneyed poctical ideis In course of the development of certain literature certain ideas get stereo- typed ind lab-lled is poetical and begin to lose the inherent chirm on ac ount of being much commonplice Hen e, the same ideas require to be given a new expression, and indeed rovelty is the greatest seeret of beiuty as it his been so very nghily obcerved by Magha in the stitement "ksan" ksan- yinnavitarupaits tadeva rupam ramintyntayah" The more familiar and the easily accessibte have less app-al whereas the new and the cryptic attract us more " The moneers of the modern poetry in the west also are alive to such a problem of old and worn out ideas We find signs of a reaction of the new poets to the hackneyed poetical expressions in the following extract from the New Bearings in Enghsh Poetry : 'On the next sentence-'we have become accustomed to the idea that certai things are not poetical' -- our commentary runs: Worse, we hive become accustomed to the idea that certain things are poctical, e g flowers, dawn, dew, birds, love, archaisms and country place names ; 'that a poet can mention a rose but not a

12 Abhinara alo obarrves that the sugges ed meaning b ag not con- veved by the words at the d rect expres mesn ng becom- more attrartis- 1 ke the breasts of a young lady, hall h dden frem the eye. and there lics the necesty of conveyirg a matter of fact through suggest on Compare. "tallalfaraprago anam surakrtavidyawvak"ntm prikistyam afab'avzeyat- veragopyamEnam mann"vikIkucakatasam va mahrghat-mu, ayaddhvaryata 11" ( Lecama p 138 ) Abo compar- "ntpdhripayodbars ivtdurta p'agtfbas no gorjar's ana witftarsm migudhah / artbo g r'map Hiat plb- Itasca kaud't sayhbigrameti marabar avad istactbhat f/ ( Quo el by Pi. Fa tath rams Saetn in Dhr, p 128 )

CHAPTER II

Rolls-Royce'-suspicious" ( p. 23). Ananda also introduced the theory of dhvani for a re-orientation in the poetical express- ions. Compare Dhv. IV. 1. and 2. He further observes, "ato dhvaneruktaprabhedamadhyādanyatamenāpi prakāreņa vibhū șita satī vāņī purātanakavinibaddbārthasamsparśavatyapi nava- tvamayati." ( The expression of a poet will appear quite novel though it might embody an idea already found in an earlier poet, if it is adorned by atleast a single variety of suggestion from among the many varieties that have been mentioned. ) 13 This position is very convincingly illustrated by the distinction in the appeal of the verses 'evam vādini' and 'krte varakathālāpe' ( Dhv. p. 528 ).

The suggested meaning itself is supposed to be charming, and if at the same time it occurs as the predominant content it renders the composition all the more beautiful. That is why Ananda advocates in so strong terms in favour of dhvani ( i.e., a kävya having a predominant suggested sense ). The modern critic also desires that the suggested content, in order to be more appealing and effective must occur as the predominant meaning of the composition. Campare -"Lastly it must be borne in mind that the common place, to be of the highest effect, must be powerfully and consistently dominant." ( Poetry Direct and Oblique , p. 49 ). ( vii ) The most important purpose served by the dhvani theory was to lay the greatest emphasis ,on rasa. It is already observed that by the time of Ananda the Sanskrit literature was degenerating to a very regretable extent and it became a slave to the fad and fashion of stereotyped figures. Poetical ideas required to be presented in a new manner and that is why every idea and every object of description was desired to be given a tinge of rasa. Even the old and hackneyed ideas assume new values and charms in association with rasa. This utility of rasa is brought to a bold relief in the kārika,-

13. Translation by Dr. Krishnamoorthy.

76 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

drstapürvā apı hyarthā kavye rasaparigrahāt / sarve nava ivabhant madhumasa iva drumsh // ( Dhv. IV. 4 )

But rast cin never be denoted It must be suggested and that is how we carnot help having dhvanis In this cennectton it will be interesting to refer to the following observation also. "Sensibility, then, we may expect to be a very frequent subje.t of oblique expression, and it is likely to be most truly pres-nt when least is said about it mantfestations." ( Poetry Direct and Oblique p 39) Other dev ces for novelty Anandavirdh ina was, however, a realist, and as such being less stubborn about the use of dhvan for novelty, enumerated also other devices for eflecting novelty in the expressed content Those devices are namely, the effecting of distinetien in respeet of the circumstances (avastha), place and tire, ete. (Dhv. IV. 7). D stinctions in cireumstances may mean deseription of the same object in different situations D stirction in circumstances may be effected by persomfication of nonsentient objeets like the rivers and the hills The ron- sentient ebje.ts are all supposed to have a second sentient per- sonality and novelty in poetry may be obtained by delineating their personalty with propriety. Ananda observes, "ayamapir- aścāvasthāthedaprakāro yadacetanānam sarveşām cetanam dvitham rUpamabhimanitvaprasiddham " himavadgangadt- nan/ tacco.itacetinvişiyasvırOpayojanayopambadhyaman1- maryadeva sampadyate " ( Dhv p 539) Distinction in respect of place is reckoned, for instanee, in case of the description of the wonen belonging to different regions Compire: "tathi hi minuşant'resa .. , v.s.șito yoşıtăm" ( p. 541 ) le th s connection ve ate very natarally reminded of the al-

14 Tle art ef pemon fea ton la in lact as old a tte fgvrde I terae fure antit lapt losoph cally sine onrd by the strra "abh mimvyapad-f- sru v ssnug bay'm" (Lratmaid ra, 2. 1, 5) w'lch setms to te echord by Anzala Lere.

CHAPTER II

ready quoted verse, 'nandhripayodhara'. Distinction in respect of time may be noticed in case of the different seasons.

The definition of dhvani: The definition of dhvani is given in the karika I. 13, which runs as-'yatrathah sabdo va tamar- thamupasarjanikrtasvārthau / vyanktah kāvyavisesah sa dhvani- riti sūribhih kathitah //' ( That kind of poetry, wherein either the conventional meaning or the word renders itself or its con- ventional meaning secondary (respectively ) and suggests the implied meaning is designated by the learned as DHVANI or suggestive poetry. )

This definition has been subjected to severe criticism by Mahimabhatta, who pointed out as many as ten defects, ( VV. p. 104). The ten defects are duly discussed and a proper reply from the standpoint of Ananda is also given in the KTS ( pp. 38-47 ). 15 Commenting on the expression "kāvyavisesa" Abh- inava writes, "kāvyam ca tadviseșaścāsau kāvyasya vā viśesah/ -syaditi" ( Locana, pp. 104-105 ). According to this explana- tion "kāvyaviseşa" may mean "either a kind of kāvya" or a "speciality of kāvya". In "kāvyagrahaņād," etc., Abhinava takes the second meaning, i, e., 'a speciality of kāvya which belongs to a kävya, consisting of sabda and artha and embelli- shed by guna and alamkara, as its soul ( ātma ).' This meaning very agreeably accommodates itself with Ananda's observation "kāvyasyātmā dhvaniriti" in kārikā I.1. If 'kāvyasya višeșa' or a 'distinction of kavya' is called dhvani we should naturally have the desire to know, what this distinguishing factor is ? Now, as pointed out by Ruyyaka 'visesa' should mean either a veriety or 'a speciality'. ( "atra višesasabdah prabhedaparyāyotiśaya- paryayo vā syāt." VVV. p. 92 ). But "sa kāyyaviseșa" has a direct relation with 'yatra' ( where ), which means a substratum or a domain, lying wherein the word and the meaning suggest the pratiyamanartha ( tamartham). If kāvya-viseșa means a speciality, it cannot have the relation of identity with what is

15. Vide. I. Aest pp. 313-332.

78 THE DHVANI THFORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

referred to by 'yatra' H-nee at teast in this karika, 'kAvy avis esa' means a Lind of kavya' ( taking visesa is prabheda- paryaya ) Abhinava understands as many as five meanings of the term dhvant, viz,, ( 1) the function of suggestion. (11) sueg-stive expression ( in ) suggestive meining, ( Iv) the suweested content and ( v) portry with predominantly sugeested sense In cas- of the prsent kārikă he desires us to take the last sense of the term dhvams ( Lo ina pp 105 106) But if we understand a viriety of kavya from the expression Lavyavis-sa then we are sure to have the doubt 1s to how 'n Lind of kavya may be called 'the soul of kavya Und-rsta idingdhvan as a kind of kavya Mahimabhatța argues that we cannot cnll a varicty of kavya a dhvant we must call Låvys in generat a dhvan since it is d-sired that all the Lavyas should have rasa cf apica kavyaviseşa ityatra rasatma Latvopagamåt. ( VV pp 92-93) Dhvam even being under stood as a type of kavya may be called the sout of kavys It may be seen that dhvam, gunibhOtavy aneya and citra are onty grades of Lavya whereas the different varieties of kavya are maltaka Lulaka, khandakatha ete as seen above Such cor - plete kavyas are referred to as prabandha ( whole composition) Kåvyimn general is supposed to be a collection of words 16 Ananda calls the 'whole coriposition a prabandha ( cf idant malaksyakramavyangyo dhvanih prabandhātma ramayanamah- abharaiadau prakasamanah prasiddhah eva Dhv pp 328-329) Abhinavs shons that the prabandl a is constituted of words (ef ' varnasamadayas a padam prabardhah Locana, p 302) Ar eda tells ts that the kavya is a colletton of wo ds in the etpre's ons like, * Sabdatma kavyam ti vyapdesyo (Dhs p 135 ) In such a Favyia part cul'r port on also my be suzg -.

CHAPTER II 79

tive and the same suggestive portion being constituted of sabdas may technically be called a kavya. This kavya, occurring with- in a longer kāvya may be designated as dhvani because of the predominant suggested sense. In this way, we may have an easy justification for calling a kind of kävya a dhvani and at the same time recognising dhvani as the soul of poetry in so far as even an entire prabandha should have at least a portion suggestive of any one variety of the pratIyamanarthas and the rest of the prabandha should, as a rule, be helpful to the sugg- estion of that sense. 17 This principle of considering even a portion of a whole composition as dhvani is at the root of con- sidering even individual words as dhvani. Compare : "kim ca kāvyānām ... cārutvapratitiranvayavyatirekābhyām bhāgesu kalp- yata iti padānāmapi vyañjakatvamukhena vyavasthito dhvanivy- avahāro na virodhi." ( Dhv. p. 301 ). Even for them who con- sider rasa as the soul of poetry, there must be some portions which do not have the instantaneous suggestion of rasa but may claim to have rasa as their soul by virtue of being helpful to the suggestion of rasa as the description of the appropriate situation, location, etc. ( or in other words, of vibhavas, etc. ). Portions lacking in immediate suggestion of rasa will be consi-

17. Tillyard desires also some non-suggestive poetry for putting the suggestive poetry into bolder contrast and for preparing the ground for the suggestive portion. Compare, "It is doubtful if we can get the full force of the best verse without having the humble kinds as a standard of com- position. A long poem like the Illiad supplies within itself its own back- ground; Pinder gained by the discovery of Bacchylides; Chaucer gains if Gower is not forgotten. Direct postry will thus correspond to sheer obs- ervation of manners and of mind that fills the bulk of some of the greatest novels and which prepares for their crucial episodes. Ever since Poe pro- neunced that a long poem was a saries of short genuine roems united ly long stretches of stuff that was not poetry at all, people have been apt to slight this humble but necesrary funetion of direet pretry". ( Fortry Direet and Oblioue, P. 24 ).

80 THT DHVANI THORY IN SANSKRIT POCT CS

dared as having rasa by virtue of the rasa of the entire composi- tion That is why Visvantthn hid to observe 'mnu tirht pr bandhantirvartinīm keşām-inntrasānām padyānam Lavynt- vam na syaditt cet n rsavatpdyantargatamraspidināmiva pidyırasem pribindhirsenaiv teşam rasavattangikirit ( SD 1) Hence it is quite plausible that the expression yatra ift karika I 13 refers to the suegestive portion of a kavya as 1 whole For a similr impliration of 'vatri' we mav compare Dr V Raghavan's observition on ' bhavilatvimiti prhuh pri- bandhavısıyam gunam/ pratyaksa iva drsyante yitrārthd bhuta bhavinah //" of Bhamahn as ' the t-rm 'prabindhn' may br tenddered here as 'that pirt of the po-n on the force of th- nord 'yatra' and on the basis of the Jayimaneala which points r it only one cinto in illustration of this Bhavil itvs* (Some con epts of the Alimkarsastra, pp 117-118) We ma now Lnderstand 'kavyavisesi' in the sense of 'a sp-crlity' of kavys, s: e, the sugeestive portion ( cilled dhvim ) may prove 1 spe- crilsty of the entire prabandha Other meanings of the word dhvam It is already pointed o it that necording to Kirika, I 13 dhvamt is i typ- of kavyn and arcording to Abhinava the word dhvan may have five <ees, viz, ( 1) vyanjaky arthi (saggestive meaning ). (u ) wamjaka Sabds (suggestise word ) (m) vyafjana Vyinara ( the function of sucgestion ), ( n ) vyansya ( the suocest d content ) and ( v ) samudaya Lavya (i e kavys as a whole ) It is also already seen that Ananda applies the term dhvan to Kavya on the strergth of the analagy ofth- sugeesti tavya wrh ti- audible sounds, which ire sarceshve of the spheta and ire d^sier ated as dhvam in the \KPD Abhinava also quot's fur- I aer verses form the VKPD to shoy the jastifi ntion of hving the five differert senses of th" term dhvam, cnumerited aboy» 1> Abhinava also tr es to show thit, th+ termi dhyam muy te used in the five different senses on the strength of certain ind ce' ons 18 Ve, 1 Acs (p 231 ) for an expcs lo of the releven port en of the Lecans

CHAPTER II 81

had from the following words of the vrtti : "tathaivanyaistanm- atānusāribhiņ ... vācyavacakasammiśraḥ śabdātmā kāvyamiti vya- padesyo vyafjakatvasamyad dhvanirityuktah." humble opinion, it is difficult to derive all the five meanings of But in my

the term dhvani from this passage of the vrtti. Abhinava wants to connect ( i ) vācyavacakasammiśrah and ( ii ) abdātmā and ( iii ) kävyamiti vyapadesyah, separately with the clause 'dhvani rityuktah'. The aggregation ( samuccaya) of the three objects, viz., vācyavācakasammiśrah, etc., is to be understood even with- out the use of the particle 'ca' as in the verse 'gamasvam' 19. The expression 'vacyavacakasammisra' itself means the three elements, viz., 'vācyartha', 'vācakaśabda' and 'sammiśra'. Hence, ( i ) vācyārtha and ( ii ) vacakasabda are called dhvani. According to Abhinava the expression 'sammisra' refers to the vyafgyärtha and hence, ( iii ) vyangyärtha is also dhvani. But the exposition of the term sammisra is not very convincing. For, if we follow the words "sammisryate vibhāvānubhāvasam- valanayeti vyangyo'pi dhvanih," then we should understand only one variety of the vyangya viz., rasa. Explaining the expression 'sabdātmā' Abhinava observes, "sabdanam sabdah śabdavyāpā- rah ... api tvatmabhutah, so'pi dhvananam dhvanih". Thus, (iv) the vyañjanvyāpāra is also dhvani. But here we question, why should the vyanjanāvyāpāra be supposed to be ātmabhūta ? Abhinava's reply would possibly be like .this-vyañjanavyapara is called ätmabhūta, because it is called dhvani and because dhvani is called the atma in 'kāvyasyatma dhvanih' (K. I. 1 ). But this would involve a logical see-saw. Because, if at all the vyāpara is called dhvani, it would be known to us only from the present fpassage of the vrtti duly understood. That (v) kävya is to be called dhvani is intended to be instructed by Ananda himself. The plain meaning of the present portion of the vrtti may be as follows : Grammarians call the śrūyamanavarnas dhvani. 19. This refers to the verse, -- aharaharnayamano gamasvam puruşam paśum / vaivasvato na trpyati suraya iva durmadī // ( MB. NSP. p. 463 ). 6D.

82 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

The sruyamanavarnas suggest the invisible cternal sphota #0. The alamkartas also call kavya, which consists of words ( SabdAtma ), dhvant when it possesses suggestiveness ( vyan- jakatva ). The audible sounds ( Srūyamanavarnas ) suggest sphota and the suggestive kavya suggests the different types of the suggested sense And this is the basis of the analogy ( vya- Sjatatvasamyat ) For making the analogy between kavya and SrUyamavarnas more precise it is pointed out that Favya con- sists of words. Bat in 1 13, it is observed that artha also may suggest. ( yatrarthah sabdo va vyanktah ) That is why Ananda points it out clearly that in kavya, made of words, the meaning and the words remain duly mingled up ( vacyavācaka-sammts- rah ), Hence, when we conceive of a kavya we conceie it in terms of some meaningful words So, of the five meanings of the term dhvam, we may accept three meanings, viz, sabda, artha and samudayakavya, also on the strength of this passage of the vrtti. Yet, we question why did Abhinava have the fascination to call the vyangya artha and the vyafjanavyapara dhvan ? .The reason may be like this : In kanks I 1, dhvant is called atma. Again Ananda calls the appealing artha atmå in I. 2 and the rasadi variety of the suggested sense atma in 1 5 Possibly because of these expressions Abhinava thoueht it necessary to interpret the vyangya artha also as dhvam, even with som- appareot difficulty. In the expressions (1) anye tam dhvanisamjbitam kavyatmanam gunavriuntyahuh ( p 28 ) and ( 2) yadyapyuktam bhaktırdhavanıntı ( p 141). Ananda seems to concerve dhvam as a Sabdavyāpira, whi b may be confused with another vyapara, viz., lalmana S expressions, it may be cony*tured, led Abluna to iterpret the vyanjana function also as dhvant. But, in my humble opr mon, the opponent is intentionally presented by Ananda to be confusing dhvam as a furction. By way of refuting the view

20. For a foll trea ment of tpbora, vids, "Sphoca and the Spotrn Werd" by T. V. Kapal Stas ry in 'Srf Agrob ndo Mand r Anneal.' 16 Augun. 1955

CHAPTER II 83

of the opponent confusing dhvani as bhakti, Ananda clearly Says that bhakti and dhvani are quite different in form, The former is nothing other than gunavrtti ( i. e., secondary func- tion ) and the latter is something where the vacya and the väcaka suggest a predominant vyangya artha. Compare, "vācyavyatiriktasyarthasya vācyavācakābhyām tātparyeņa pra- kāśanam yatra vyangyaprādhānye sa dhvaniḥ/upacāramātram tu bhaktih" ( Dhv. p. 141 ), and Abhinava's words "upacāro guņavrttirlaksaņā". ( Locana, p. 141 ). But whatever be the merits of our present contention regard- ing the five meanings of the term dhvani, proposed by Abhinava, we must not fail to notice that the later tradition has accepted the said meanings of the term almost invariably. As observed by MM. Kane, "the commentary of Abhinavagupta occupies in the Alamkara literature a position analogous to that of Pataň- jali's Mahābhāşya in grammar or Šankarāchārya's bhāsya on Vedantasutras." 21 Abhinava has to be recognised as the chief exponent of the dhvani theory, without however, minimising the importance of Anandavardhana, 'but for whom probably there would have been no Abhinavagupta's theory of meaning'.22 That is why Abhinava influenced the notion of the latter suppor- ters of the theory to a great extent as it may be evidenced from the case of Manikyacandra. Manikyacandra, commenting on Mammata's sutra defining dhvani, observes,-"nanu dhvanyate iti vyangyam, sa ca kāvyātmā, tat katham kāvyam dhvanirity- āha ? ātmātmavatorabhedenopacārāt/yadā tu dhvanatiti dhvanih 'iti kartrvyutpattih tadā nopacāra/ .... karikāyām sabdārthasamu- dāya eva kāvyarūpa mukhyatayā dhvanināmnā prakhyāpitah yathoktaprakaradhvanimayatvat." ( Kp. Sam. p. 12). This passage very distinctly echoes the Locana. Compare, for instance, (1) "sa iti/ ...... kārikayā tu prādhānyena samudāya eva kāvyarūpo mukhyatayā dhvaniriti pratipāditam/" ( Locana, pp. 105-106 ); ( 2) "kāvyamiti vyapadeśyaśca yo'rthah so'pi 21. HSP. Kane, p. LXIX. 22. I. Acst. pp. 215-216.

84 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

dhvanıh, uktaprakāradhvanicatuştayamayatvāt" ( Locana, p 135 ) and ( 3) "dhvanıreva kavyamıtı/ātmātminorabheda eva vastuto vyutpattaye tu vibhagah krta ityarthah" ( Locana, pp 500-501 ) Views of the opponents Like Patafjali Ananda apprehends his own opponents. In karika I 1, he enumerates all the possi ble views of the opponents and the same karika also serves the purpose of stating the reasons for composing the very work The opponents may be classified in three broad groups, viz, ( 1 ) Those who claimed a total absence of any thing called dhvant, ( 2) Those who wanted to identify dhvant with laksana and ( 3 ) Those who believed that there is something worth called dhvani but beyond the scop- of any deseription or analysis The first group itself may be supposed to maintain various viens as follows ( 1) The carlier theorists have completely taken into account all the sources of beauty in poetical com- positions Hence, there cannot be anything more to be called dhvam (n) If at all some element of poetry is discovered newly to be termed as dhvam, that must be discarded as no source of beauty (ni) If at all it is a source of beauty it is sure to be some- thing within the scope of the gunas or alamkaras or other such elements already recogmised by earher theorists It is very hkely that, only a variety of the already recognised elements is newly named Even if it be claimed as an entirely new element of po-try, never before recognised by earher theorists, there need not be a great clamour for it Since, numerous sub-varit- bes of the different figures are b-ing discovered every day and this dhvans is nothing more than a sub-vaniety of some fgute We tray assum- that there were some contemporary seho- Tars who actually raised the objections, pointed out above We are told of such a contemporary poet, who is identified by Abhinava as Manoratha, by Ananda himself But that the second group of opporents, who claimed that dhvan 1s identi cal with lakyana, is imaginary is also told by Ananda cf "yadyapi ca „.parikalpyaivsmaktam-'bhakiamthustamanye'mtt"

CHAPTER II 85

( Dhv. pp. 31-32 ). And those "whose minds were not astute enough to frame a definition, simply gave out that the true nature of dhvani was beyond all words and that it was dis- cernible only to the minds of the sahrdayas" were also real contemporaries. According to MM. Kane, Bhattanāyaka also maintained such a view regarding dhvani. Cf. "the principal point on which he differs from the Dhvanyaloka is that he regards dhvani as transcending definition and as purely svasa- mvedya. So he was a follower of whom the Dhvanikārika says, 'kecidvācām sthitamavisaye tatvamucustadiyam' or as the Dhvanyâloka says, 'kecitpunarlakşaņakaranaśālinabuddhayo dhvanestattvam girāmagocaram sahrdayahrdayasamvedyameva samakhyatavantah.' " ( HSP. Kane, p. LXXVIII ). We, however, know at least of one theorist, viz., Jayantabhatta, who tried to refute the conception of dhvani but had to declare that the essential nature of it is quite indiscernible. Compare :

athavā nedrši carccā kavibhih saha sobhate / vidvamso'pi vimuhyanti vākyārthagahane' dhvani // and, paramagahanastarkajnānāmabhūmirayam nayah. ( Nyāya- mañjarī, p. 45 ). Ānanda's reply to the opponents: (1 ) Ananda gives a sharp reply to his opponents that, the view, viz., "there is no dhvani; because, a type of poetry additional to all well known varieties will necessarily cease to be poetry" is unsound. Because, when poetry is subjected to a proper analysis, as is done in the Dhv- anyaloka, the conclusion that dhvani is the essential element of poetry can never be resisted. cf. "yadyapyuktam ... laksye tu parīksyamāne sa eva ... kavyatattvam/" ( Dhv. pp. 106-107 ). (2) Ananda further argues that dhvani cannot be included in one or the other variety of the figures of speech. Because, the figures generally depend on the relation of the expressed and the expression, whereas dhvani depends on the relation of the suggester and the suggested between poetry and its content. Cf. "vyangyavyañjaka ... kutah" ( p. 107 ).

86 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSARIT POETICS

( 3 ) There are, however, some figures which owe their very origin to the presence of some suggested content, e g, sami- sokti, parydy okta and akşepa Änanda shows that in all such alamkaras the suggested content is either equal in importance with or subordinate to the express sense But the very defint- tion of dhvam demands that the suggested sense must be pre- dominant over the express sense A case of equal predomin- ance of the vacya and the vyangya senses is had in case of samdehasamkarālamkāra Abhinava gives the verse "sasiva- dana" as its illustration ( Locana, p 121 ) And Ananda with reference to the samkaralamkara observes, "almkaradvayasam- bhavanayam tu vacyavyangyayoh samam pradhanyam" (p 123) A cas- of the suggested sense being subordinate to the express sense is illustrated by the verse "upodharagena", whtch is an example of samasoktt Here mss and Sasin are expressly described and their deseription is rendered more beautiful by the suegested idea of the behaviour of a couple of lovers ( pp 109-111 ) This and simtlar cases are included under the purview of gunibhtitavyangya by Anandavardhana If there be stray etamples of any of these alamkaras involving a more predominant suggested meaning they will be called dhvam, but dhvan itself would not be included in the scope of the alamkara concerned The criterion for considering etther of the vacya and the vyangya as more predominant is a greater amount of charr ef "carutyotkarşambandhanā hi vācyavyan- Eyayoh pradbanyavivaksa" (p 114) To sum up the argu- ments Ananda gives three samks-paslokas ( on pp 130-131 as "ryangyasya samkarojjhitah" ) and Abhinava more preciselv gives us the cases where in spite of the presence of a suggested sense we cannot have dhyant, in hts observrtion "tena caturşu prakāreşu ra dhvanıvyavahārah sadbhave'pi vyangyasya (1) apradhanye ( 11 ) mlistapratitau ( itt ) vacyena samapradhanye ( Iv ) asphuje pradbanye ca" ( Locana, p 131 ) It may be interesting to not- here that, Mammata, who for the first time presents a classification of ganibhotavyangya

CHAPTER II 87

variety of kavya, derived much of his ideas from this observa- tion of Abhinava. Compare :

agüdhamaparasyāngam vācyasiddhyangamasphuțam / samdigdhatulyaprādhānye kākvāksiptamasundaram // vyangyamevam guņībhūtavyangyasyastau bhidāsmrtāh / ( KP. V. 1. 2).

Mammata's conception of the agudhavyangya variety is based on the Vrtti "yatra hi vyangyakrtam ... kavayo drsyante" ( pp. 142-143 ) and the Locana thereon as "vayam tu brūmah ... uktyantareņāśakyam yaditi" ( pp. 143-144 ) which desire that the suggested content also must not be very easily cognizable. Prasiddhi referred to by Ananda is due to frequent use of the symbol and is the cause of rendering the suggested content less clandestine. This is very ably observed also by E. M. W. Tillyard. "Any very wide use of the fixed symbol in poetry is not likely to succeed. It is peculiarly liable to abuse. Excessi- vely easy to invent, the fixed symbol risks becoming aridly mechanical on the one hand and fraudulently suggestive on the other. But capable as it is of powerful effect when used with economy it will always be valuable as a minor means of poetical obliquity." ( Poetry Direct and Oblique. p. 67).

Bhakti is not dhvani : Replying to the view that dhvani is identical with bhakti Ananda says that dhvani ( i. e., suggestive poetry ) cannot be identified with bhakti (i. e., indication ) because they are different in nature. Dhvani is ( a type of poetry ) where a sense other than the express is communicated by the express sense and the expressive words, being intent on communicating the same suggested sense which is exclusively important. But bhakti is simply a metaphorical expression. ( Dhv. p. 141 ).

Bhakti also cannot define dhvani because of the fallacies of ativyāpti and avyapti. There will be ativyāpti because there may be cases of figurative expression where the suggested sense had through the implication (gunavrtti) is very easily discernible

88 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

and as such does not hive any beauty The suggested sense in such a case does not assume any predominance because of the absence of any special charm A composition may be called dhvan only when it suggests such a beautiful meaning which is incommumcable in a way o her than saggestion Cf, "uktyantarena visayibhavet' ( p 146) Hence, the mere association of a suggested sense with the use of an upacara ( metaphor ) will not present a case of dhvani This corresponds to the samksepaslokas "vyangyasya pratibha- matre , ete (Dhv p 130) There may even be cases of lakşana which do not convey any suggested sense at all Such cases of mrdha lakşana 3 also occur without any dhvam and hence there is the fallacy of ativyapti wheo bhakti is taken as the definition of dhvant Morcover, it cannot b- claimed that the beautiful suggested sanse which comes in the wake of the imphed meaning is also had through implication ( laksana ) Implication depends on the faslure of the primary meaning to have a syntactical relation with th- meanings of the other words in the sentence That is why laksana ( implicttion ) is said to be the tail of abhidha ( denotation ) But dhvan is solely dep-ndent on the suggestivity of the words which occurs irrespe- ctive of the consistancy or inconsistancy of the primary mean ing ( Dhv I 17, 18) If we propose to define dhvint with lakşans the fallacy of avyapts nlso will oceur B-cause, there

23 Vide Dbr I 1" in 'tivanya' the elymolegical meaning la aken to be the primary meaning. Elymological 'saltness' (f e., lavanarya bl Iva) bag incempat bie mukbyfrtharidha is conceived and the common mean Ing of 'grace' ls taken as the laktyirtha Mammata also docs so In case of the word 'kulala' Tut Vifranstha's arguments in ths cerneetlon apnear to be more cenv'neing Like the word 'gaub', ltvanya' is abso a reaka werd In the Gbdathanda of the Bhayipariceheda such words are cons'dered at vicakspadas of tbe rodba varletv Hence, what we obsre here ls that conception of the d fferent varietien of laljara was . ill Ia the feyu ve sg- In tbe days of Anandavardhana

CHAPTER 1I 89

is the presence of laksaņā only in the avivaksitavācya type of dhvani. The other varieties are free from the presence of lak- saņā. Lakșaņā may at best be recognised as a variable associate of dhvani but that is not enough for defining dhvani or identi- fying dhvani with laksaņā ( kārikā I. 18). In the Uddyota III Ananđa very clearly distinguishes between guņavrtti and vyañ- jakatva whereby the distinction of dhvani from bhakti is more clearly established. Dhvani is not indefinable : The view that, "dhvani is that kind of poetry wherein some indefinable charm is brought about both in words and in meanings, the same charm being discernible only to select critics like the preciousness of rare gems" is untenable. Because, all the sources of such a rare charm including the suggestivity of the poetry are duly explain- ed and may surely be fully explained. There cannot be any other unique charm which is indefinable. If it is supposed that 'indeflnability' means 'inexpressibility by all words' then such a supposition also will not stand; because, what is taken to be indefinable,( anakhyeya ) may be referred to by the word 'indeffnable' itself. If the expression 'indefinable' is supposed to mean an 'indeterminate experience of something which eludes determinate usage of words' 24 then it may be pointed out that, the experience of such a unique charm is duly expounded by the writers on poetics. The Buddhist logicians, however, claim that everything in the world is indefinable and on the strength of their postulate one may argue that dhvani is also indefinable. But such a view of the Buddhists also require to be duly examined. It is indeed subjeted to a proper examina- tion by Anandavardhana in his DharmottarI, a commentary on Dharmakīrti's Pramāņaviniścaya. Ananda, however, concludes that their definition of dhvani will be at least on par with the definitions of perception, etc., proposed by the Buddhists themselves. 24, cf. "samanyasamsparsivikalpasabdagocaratve sati, prakāśamāna- tvam tu yadanakhyeyatvamucyate kvacit ... " ( Dhv. p. 519 ).

90 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

According to a definition proposed by the Buddhists, perce> ption ( pratyaksa ) is the unerring cogmtion of given sensum in complete isolation from all ideata. cr "pratyakşam kalpanāpo- dhamabhrantam' ( Nyayavindu, 1) In perception the object of cognition is a unique individual ( svilaksana ) and the pro- cess of cogmition is 1 mere sensing without any element of ideation ( kalpana ) in it According to Dignaga perception is a cognition which is not at all subj-ctively d-termined and is not modified by ideas or concepts ( kalpans ) "5 The concepts of name, class quality, nctton and relation do not enter into the perception of an object The perceived object is a unique indi Vidgal which do"s not admit of any deseription by concept and words It is just what it is immedistely sensed to be (tatortha dvijhānam pratyaksam ) Words and concepts express such aspects of things as are general or common to many things "$ But a thing is an idividual in so far as it excludes all other things from within itself 27 Hence a p-reeived individuat cannot be expressed by words or concepts From this it follows that, perception is a pure sensation which cannot be properlv described or embodied in verbal judgements But yet we have a definition of pratyaksa Similarly dhvani also may be a unt- qu- charm supposed to be beyond the description of ordinary expression but yet having a definitton like the definition of pra- tyakşa, proposed by th- Buddhists "9 Varicties of dhvam: One of the arguments of Ananda against the opponent who want to inelude dhvant in some vart- cty of the figures is that dhvant itself can be divided and sabdi- vided into so many varieties and as such dhvam having 1 much wider domai can never be ineluded in the scop- of any alam kāra Compare "na caivamvidhasya dhvanervaksyamāna pra- 25 25. Cuch werds are relerred to by Ananda as ' Aratnyaramapar - vikalpsabda.' ( Dbr p 51D ) 27 'apohavtda' referred to in KP It 28 Alo vide Sutradpikt, p. 4D

CHAPTER II 91

bhedatadbhedasamkalanayā mahāvisayasya ..... samrambhah" ( Dhv. pp. 135-136 ). As proposed in this quoted statement Ānanda duly endeavours to classify dhvani into so many varie- ties and sub-varieties and finally declares that it is-not possible for any one to enumerate all the varieties and sub-varieties of dhvani and hence he simply indicates the direction for classi- fication. ( Dhv. III. 44). The tendency of classifying dhvani into innumerable varieties is found to be inherited also by the later theorists like Mammata and Visvanätha. But instead of engaging ourselves with all the varieties of dhvani, it will be necessary for us to discuss only the major varieties for under- standing the essentials of the theory. Dhvani is firstly divided into ( 1) the avivakșitavācya and ( 2 ) the vivakşitānyaparavācya types. In the former, the pri- mary meaning is not desired to be conveyed at all. The primary meaning being discarded, a secondary meaning ( laksyärtha ) occurs to our mind and a suggested meaning appears in the wake of the same. In the latter variety the primary meaning ( vācyārtha ) is not undesirable. Even remaining consistent the primary meaning suggests any one of the three types of the suggested sense, viz., vastu, alamkāra and rasādi by virtue of being different from the ordinary statements of fact. Let us now study these two varieties in greater detail.

Avivakşitavācya type: The primary meaning ( vācyārtha ) in this type may either be atyantatiraskrta ( absolutely incongr- uous) or arthäntarasamkramita ( i. e., requiring partial modifi- cation ). In both the cases, however, the words are used to convey a secondary meaning only with the purpose of suggest- ing further ideas. When such suggested ideas become the source of a greater appeal we have a dhvani. The verse "ravisamkr- anta" 29 is given as an example of the former type, where the primary meaning of the word andha ( blind ) is to be rotally suppressed ( atyantatiraskrta ) as it is not at all applicable to a

29. Dhv. p. 172.

92 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

mirror as an adjective The word 'andha' means the mirror stself through implication based on its inrapacity to reveal ( reflect ) things in the manner of a blind eye The purpose of 'implying the mirror by the word 'andha' is to suggest a lot of ideas like that of failure of the mirror to reflect things Com- pare, ' Andha sabdo tra ādarsam lakşanayā pratıpāđayatı / asamkhyam prayojanam vyanakti/ ( Locana, p 172) Here the word andha means the mirror and hence its primary meaning ( 1 e , blind ) is said to be absolutely suppressed The verse snigdhasyamala $ miy be citrd as an example of the second variety where the word 'rama with its primary meaning as Rama the son of Dasaratha is redundant. lo fact such an npparently redundant word is used only to convey a meaning much different from what it expressly means Here through implication the word 'rama means a 'Rama who is mature or seasoned ( 1 e parinata ) with a good number of virtues that are conveyed to us through suggestion (c g, the experience of being exiled ) Hence, the primary meaning 1s not fully discarded but it is remoulded ( Vide Dhv p 169 and Lo ana thereunder ) Vivals tanyaparaväcya Now in contrast with the above examples we may take up an example of that type of dhvant where the primary meaning is not to be discarded Let us refer to the verse ' sikharm kva nu nama (Dhv p 138) Here a young lover says in the presence of his young beloved- O yoare lady, I wonder in what mountain for how long a tim*, of what name a penance this young parrot underwent in order to have the fortune of chew ing the bimba phala as red as your lower Ip Here all thet the young nayaka says is intended to be expressly stated and the express meaning suegests the idea that the speaker is flatt-ring the nayikd so that she may b- sttraeted towards her adm rer Here the suggested content is a matter of fact ( Le, vastt) Some body may think that the

30 Dbr p 167

CHAPTER II 98

very question of the näyaka regarding the practising of penance by a parrot is incongruous, since a parrot is not supposed to be competent for the same. If the primary meaning is thus supp- osed to be illogical, we shall have to admit a lakșanā function in this verse also. In fact, Abhinava talks of such a possibility. Compare, "atra ca traya eva vyāpārāh-adhidhā tātparym dhva- nanam ceti/ ... yadi vākasmikavišiştapraśnārthānupapattermukhyā- rthabādhāyām sādršyāllaksaņā bhavatu madhye/", etc. (Locana, p. 140 ). But in my opinion, Ananda does not find any Incon- gruity here. He may recognise the express sense of the verse "sikhariņi" as unfailing, because the ideas of the poets and of the peculiar poetical characters are supposed to be naturally of a mature and more imaginary nature. The meaning which suggests further ideas in this type of dhvani is shown to be of two types in kārika II. 24, and accordingly, the suggestive meaning of the verse "sikharini" is supposed to be the more mature statement of a poetical charater in a peculiar state of the mind, in whose world of imagination even a parrot may practise penance. If thus we understand the verse as admitting of no incongruity ( and as such of no laksana ) we are more justified in calling it vivaksitanyaparavācya. We must not discard the primary meaning involving an artificial wonder of the speaker and that alone would lead us to the suggested content that, the speaker is flattering the nāyika. But yet, what Abhinava seems to mean is that while in avivaksitavācya type the laksanā function is the very basis of the suggested content, in the vivaksitanyaparavacya type the suggested content dues not depend on the laksana function as such. There may, however, be noticed the casual presence of some words or expressions used with secondary significance. The vivaksitānyaparavācya type is sub-divided into two varieties, viz., asamlaksya-krama-vyangya and samlaksyakrama- vyańgya. Asamlaksyakramavyangya : In this type of dhvani we have the suggestion of rasa, bhava, rasābhasa, bhāvabhasa and

94 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

bhavasanti, etc., which appear as the predominant meaning of the composition ( Dhy. 1I. 3). As we have alreidy noticed, rasa and bhava, ete., refer to certain states of the mind of the reader. These mental states, forming the suggested meaning of the composition occur almost simul- tancoasly with the understanding of the express meaning of the plece and hence in this type of dhvant the suggested sense ( vyangya ) is sud to be realised after the express sense (vacya) Without any noticeable sequence. For example, the reader is supposed to be instantancously infused with the feeling of anger ( krodha ) and to have and exquisite joy from ruminating over the same, while reading the verse "cancadbhuja"; 3l through an sdentification of himself with the dramatte character I. e., Bhimasena. All the process of identification, expenience of a permanent mental state and the relish of the exquisite joy runs very rapidly and lasts only so long as the situation as depicted in the poem is an objeet of cognition. That is how we have the suggested content in this type of dhvani. In the verse referred to above we are said by Abhinava to have the relish of the raudra rasa which has krodha (anger ) as its permanent mental state. In this manner we have the relish of all the nine rasas and the bhavas in their different forms. The psychologi- Cil process involved in the realisation of rasa will be further diseussed in the next chapter. In the opmion of Abhinava, a bhavadhvam is the conspic- uous suggestton of a vyabhicaribhava, which being experienced serves as the source of exquisite joy. But this is only a means to te realisstion of rasa which is also the experience of a sthayt developing into an unperturbed joy. While hesding to- wards the telsh of rasn we relish in a certain phase the bhava- dhvani also. Hence, bhavadhvani is orly a subordinate aspect of the all paramoant rassdhvant. Cf. "evam rasadhvanerevam Shavadhvansprabhrtayo nisyands Asvade pradhanam prayoja-t

31. DS. p. 210.

CHAPTER II 95

kamevamamsam vibhajya prthagvyavasthāpyate." ( Locana, p. 179 ). While experiencing the bhävadhvani we recognise its prominence; but when we take the contextual rasa into account it is once again relegated to a subordinate position. The tem- porary importance enjoyed by the bhäva is like the importance of the servant on the day of his marriage, when he is followed even by the king. But the supremacy of the king is hardly diminished by the casual importance of the servant. This idea is very clearly conveyed by Mammata in the words : "mukhye Tase'pi te'ngitvam prāpnuvanti kadācana/ te bhāvašāntyādayah / angitvam rajānugatavivāhapravrttabhrtyavat." (KP. IV ). It may be pointed out here that the analogy of the king and the servant is introduced for the first time by Ananda in connec- tion with the relative importance of rasadi and the express sense in rasavadalamkāra which will be discussed presently. Hence, cf., "rasādirūpavyangyasya guņībhāvo rasavadalamkāre darśi- taḥ; tatra ca teșāmādhikārikavākyāpeksayā guņībhāvo vivahan- apravrttabhrtyānuyāyirājavat/" ( Dhv. III. p. 462 ). In the samlaksyakramavyangya type we are not instantane- ously overwhelmed by any feeling or idea. In this type of dhvani we pass on from the expressly conveyed idea to the suggested idea through a noticeable sequence as we did in the case of the verse 'sikharini'. This type of dhvani is said to be of three types, viz., śabdaśaktyudbhava, arthašaktyudbhava and sabdarthasaktyudbhava. Let us treat them one by one. The śabdaśaktyudhava type : This variety of dhvani is de- fined in kārikā II, 21. It owes its origin to the use of certain homonyms ( i. e., anekārthakasabdas ). The homonyms convey more than one primary meaning wherefrom we gather the suggested meaning. In order to have two primary meanings as the basis of the suggested meaning we must have only the homonymous words. If we change the order of the words or if we try to substitute other words of meanings suitable to the context we do not have more than one primary meaning and the very basis being absent we also fail to have the suggested

06 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

meaning Since the words do .not allow any alteration the words are taken to be chiefly responsible for conveying the suceested sense That is why this type of dhvant is called Sabdasaktimtla, 1 e, based on the power of words It may be noted that the criterion for classifying the figures as 'figures of words' and 'figures of sense' is the possibility or otherwise of altering the words ( 1 e, sabdaparivrttisahamanatva and sabda panvrttyasahamanatva ) This type of dhvant is sard to be based on the capacity of the words because of the suggested sense being dependent on the use of words capable of convey- ing two primary meanings at a time, although the primary meanings also contribute to the rising of the suggested content That, sabdasakti means the peculiar capacity of the words to convey more than one conventional meaning at a time is clear from the vrtti-"arthyapi ca pratipattistathavidhe vişaya ubhay- Arthasambandhayogyasabdasamarthyaprasaviteti Sabdasakti mtla kalpyate" (Dhv p 412)

Śleşa and sabđasaktımula But it may be noticed that in Slesa also there is the use of homonymous words Then how can we distinguish sabdasaktımoladhvani from sless ? To give an ad-quate reply Ananda says -- Aksıpta evālamkārah šabdašaktyā prakāate / yasmmnanuktah sabdena sabdasaktyudbhavo hi sah // (II 21', The points of difference between Sleşa-alamkara and sabdafaktı mota-dhvan are as follows ( 1) In lea we have two matters of fact from the same set of words which do not brook any alt-ration In other words, in flesa we have two matters of fact du- to poer of word ( Sabdasakt ) bat in the sabdrtakt muls we have a suggested alamkara ( and not a matter of fact ) based on the Sabdasaku ef "yasmadslamkaro na vastumilram śleşth " (Dhy p. 235) These words have the further purpos- of ela ifying the por"t that in sabdafaktimdla we have a sugee sted alathkara but rot a suggested matter of faet The expression 'ra vastumstram' need not be transiated as 'not only a matter

CHAPTER II 97

of fact' because the word 'matram' does not have the usual sense of restriction here. Here and also elsewhere Ananda uses the term 'vastumatram' in a technical way to mean the marter of fact variety of the suggested sense. Cf. "sa hyartho vācyasāmarthyaksiptam vastumātramalamkārarasādayaścetyane- kaprabhedaprabhinno darsayisyate." ( Dhv. p. 50 ). Pratībā- rendurãja also seems to have understood the expression 'vastu- matram' like this. Hence, compare his own classification of dhvani where vacakasaktyāśrayavyañjakatva corresponds to sabdasaktyudbhava of Ananda. There he remarks-"tatra vāca- kaśaktyāśrayamalamkārāņameva vyangyatvāt ekaprakāram / tatra hyalamkārā eva vyajyante natu vastumātram nāpi rasā- đayaḥ / ... vācyaśaktyāśrayam tu rasādivastumātrālamkārābhivya- ktihetutvāt trividham." ( KSS. p. 89 ). If we are to understand the word 'matram' of the vrtti as a restrictive particle we should also have an inclusive 'ca' or 'api' after 'yasmādalamkārā'.

But it is said by earlier theorists like Udbhata that in case of śleșa also a further alakmāra may be discerned. Udbhața's definition of sieșa demands the use of homonymous words and points out that slesa invariably gives rise to the idea of an additional alamkāra. ( KSS. IV. 9-10 ). Hence, Ananda obser- ves that in slesa we have the additional alamkāra also as vācya; but in śabdasaktimula the alamkāra is suggested but not expre- ssly stated. For example in the verse-

"tasyā vināpi hāreņa nisargādeva hāriņau / janayāmāsatuņ kasya vismayam na payodharau // ( Dhv. p. 236 ) the word 'harinau' is homonymous. In one case it means 'attractive' and in another case it means 'having a neck-lace." Connecting the second meaning, i. e., 'having a hara' with 'vināpi harena' we have the figure 'virodhabhäsa' which is ex- pressly conveyed because of the particle 'api'. Thus we have- a 'vācya ślesa' and a 'vācyavirodhābhasa' on account of the- same śleșa.

7 D.

28 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Example of sabdasaktimula In contrast with Slesa, we have a case of Sabdasaktımüladhvant in-"atrantare kusumasamaya yugam upasamharan ajrmbhata grişmabhidhānah phullamallıkā- dhavalattahaso mahakalah " (Dhv p 241 ) Here we have tro portions, viz the visesya portion ( mahakala ) and the vise- şana portion ( kusumasamayayugamupasamharan, etc ) Mahā- kala means the great season, 1 e, summer 32 It may also mean the Lord Siva The visesana portion also has two meanings which may be differently applicable to the two meanings of the word mahakala An example of slesa is "yena dhvastamanobhavena" ( Dhv p 235 ) Here the whole verse is homonymous ( shista ) and it may be applicnble as a benedi tion soliciting the favour either of Madhavi ( 1 e, Vis- nu ) or Umadhava (te Siva, the consort of Uma ) Thus we have two completely different meaings from the same words as differently applicable to Visnu ind Siva So far we have no difference between slesa and Sabdasaktimbla in respect of having more than one primary meaning But the point of difference is that in slesa both the meanings are contextual ( prakaranika ) Since 'yena dhvastam' is a mangala verse, it may be equally applicable to Siva and Vişnu But in Matrant are", etc, where we should have only the description of the summer season, we are confronted with a meaning applicable to Siva Mahakala The meaning applicable to Siva is not contextual Whereas in case of ślesa we casily accept both the primary meanings of the homonymous words, in case of Sabda- SaktimDla we search for a relation of the non-contextual meaning with the contextual The idea of any such relation ts not expressly stated, but conveyed to us as the suggested content of the piece When the relation of sinularity between the contextual and non-contextual content is suggested we have a sugeested upama. When the suegested relation is that of identity we have i0paka When the relation is that of superority

mmayah Locana, P. 241

CHAPTER II 99

we have the figure vyatireka as suggested. That is how in Śabdaśaktimūla we have a suggested alamkāra, whereas in ślesa we need not as a rule have a suggested alamkāra. Compare : "esūdāharaņesu ...... dhvanervișayah” ( Dhv. p. 244 ). If, however, the alamkara which is suggested like this be pointed out by some other expressive word in the same instance we cannot call it a case of sabdaśaktimuladhvani. There we will have some alamkära like vakrokti. For example, in the verse, "drsțyā keśava", the expression 'saleśam' ( i. e., with equivocal words ) lays bare the whole trick and as such we cannot consider the present verse as a case of sabdasaktimūladhvani.

Samāsokti and šabdaśaktimūla : There is also scope for confusing śabdasaktimūla with samāsokti. In samāsokti also there is the use of homonymous words. For example, in the verse : upodharāgeņa vilolatārakam tathā grhitam sašinā nišāmukham / yatha samastam timirāmsukam tayā puro'pi rāgādgalitam na lakșitam // ( Dhv. p. 109 ). Almost all the words of the verse are homonymous and the visesanapadas are applicable not only to the nisa ( night ) and the sast ( moon ) but also to a nāyaka and a, nāyikā as the case may be. Thus we have the suggested idea of the behaviour of a couple of lovers ( i. e., nāyakanāyikā-vyavahāra ). Then why should it not present us a case of śabda-saktimūladhvani as in the case of 'atrantare', etc. ? Udbhata gives the definition of samasokti as : prakrtārthena vākyena tatsamānairviseșeņaib/ aprastutarthakathanam samasoktirudahrtā // . ( KSS. II. 10). Just as the meaning applicable to 'the great season' is pras- tuta and the meaning applicable to 'Lord Siva' is aprastuta, we have the meaning applicable to 'nisa and sasi' as prastuta and that applicable to 'nayaka and nayikā' as aprastuta. More-

100 THE DHVANI THLORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

over, Mammata expressly demands the use of homonymous words in samasokti Cf. "paroktirbhedakash listaih samāsoktih" (K. P. X) That is how the cases of samasokti may be confu- sed as sabdasaktimula. The distinction is, however, more clearly stated by Mammata himself In sabdasaktimufa the visesya is also presented through a homonymous word; where- as in samasokti only the visesanas are had through homonyms From the word 'mahakala' itself we can have both the meanings 'Lord Siva' and the 'great season' without any reference to the adjectives whereas the idea of a couple of lovers in 'upodharagena' is had only through a reference to the adjectives presented by the homonyms By the by, it may be poited out that in Mammata's "niru- pādanasambhara", given as an example of Sabdasaktimbla, we should have a vacya samasokti since the visesya portion is free from pun ( slesa ) and the same alamkara suggests a vyatreka and as such it does not appear to be a sure case of sabdasak- tim0la Only alamkara is suggested in Sabdasaktimola : As desited by Ananda in Sabdasaktyudbhava we have only an alamkāra as the suggested content and never an ordinary matter of fact. Prattharenduraja also recognises only an alamkāra as the suggested content in this variety of dhvam as it can be gathered from the few lines quoted a little earier (vide. p 97) But the theorists, Mammata, Visvanatha and Jagannatha would have a suggested vastu also in the sabdasaktyudbhava type. As the example of such a variety the verse, panthia na ettha sattharamattht manam pattharatthale game / unnaa paoharam pekkhiūna jai vasası tā vasssu // is given both by Mamraja and Visvanatha Here the suggested sense as pomted out by Mammaja is "yadyupabhogakimo'si tadåssva." In this verse the word 'payodhara' at least 1 homorymous and ricans cither 'louds' or 'breasts'. The sugg=sted treaning is had becruse of the latter meaning Sipue the word 'payodhara' docs not allow ary alteration,

CHAPTER 1I 101

the suggested sense is said to be based on the power of word. It cannot be gainsaid that the matter of fact as pointed out by Mammata is suggested here. Hence, in order to accommo- date this and similar cases, it appears necessary to recognise a śabdasaktimuladhvani with a suggestion of vastu also. Scope of abhidha in sabdaśaktimūladhvani : In 'atrāntre,' etc., we have three meanings, viz., the contextual ( prākara- nika ) description of the 'great season', the non-contextual ( aprakaraņika ) description of 'Lord Siva' and the suggested alamkāra ( i. e., the idea of similarity between the season and the Lord Siva ). Here the meaning relating to the great season is decidedly abhidheya ( i. e., conveyed by abhidhā ) and the alamkāra is decidedly vyangya (i. e., suggested ). But there is difference of opinion regarding the status of the non-contextual meaning relating to 'Lord Siva'. According to the latter theorists like Mammata and Viśvanātha the aprākaraņika sense is also suggested. Cf. śabdaśaktimūle tu abhidhayā niyantraņenānabhidheyasya arthāntarasya tena sahopamāderalamkārasya ca nirvivādam vyangyatvam." (KP. V) and SD. II, 21. Their argument is that, once abhidha is restricted to one of the many senses of the homonyms, it cannot function once again to convey another sense because of the rule "sabdabuddhikarmaņām viramya vyāpārābhāvaḥ". But according to Ananda both the prākaraņika or aprākara- nika senses had from the homonyms both in slesa and sabda- saktimūla are conveyed by abhidhā. Even the theorists like Mammata have more than one meaning from the homonyms in śleşa as abhidheya, all of them being prākaranika. As for Ananda the non-contextual. meaning is also abhidheya, there is the scope for confusion of ślesa with śabdaśaktimūla and the necessity of clarifying the point of difference. That, for Ananda the non-contextual is also abhidheya is clear from his expression "vakyasyāsambaddhārthābhidhāyakatvam mā prasānksīdityaprākaraņika-prākaranikārthayorupamānopa- meyabhavah kalpayitavyah" ( Dhv. p. 244 ). Ānanda is not

102 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

confronted with the maxim "Sabdabuddhikarmanam" etc, because of a reason conjectured below It is sure that he did not have an occasion to refer to this maxim That, Visvanatha ind others followed this maxim may be because of an influence of Abhinava who observes " na kramena viramy 1 vyaparabhavat abhidhanat" ( Locana, p 55 ) In between Ananda and Abhinava there were already many theorists to cherish different opimons regarding the function involved in conveying the non-contextunl meaning These varying views are properly introduced by Abhinava with the expressions, 'atra kecinminyante', 'anyetu', 'eke tu* and 'itare tu' ( vide. Locana, pp 241-244 ) Abhinava's own view is that the meaning applicable to 'the great season' alone is abhidheya All the additional meanings are had by the suegestive function ( dhvanana vyapara ) Cf "maham- ścāsau dmadairghya Sabdasaktimulit ' ( Locana, p 241 ) And it may be noted that this wis enough to tinge the views of latter writers beginning from Mammaty Ananda's view 15, however, duly expounded in the following lines of the Locana-"itare tu ata evālam karadhvanıryamiti yuktam / vaksyate ca "asambaddhartha bhıdhāyakatvam mrā prasānkştt' ityādı/ mırākrteti tātpar yam " (pp 243-244 ) That Ananda considers the apra karanika artha also as abhidheya and that alamkara alone is suggested may be gathered also from the expressions like the following ones (a ) ' abdafaktımolanurananar0pı- vyangye tu dhvanau paurvaparyam" ( Dhv pp 410-411) (b)"purvavadabhidh-ya tatsimarthyaksipt3lam\ Aramatrapran tyoh', et ( Dhv p 411 ) Mahimabhatta on Sibdasaktimtla From his mod of argument it appears that Mahimabhatta possibly under stood that, Ananda winted to have both the prakara- mly and aprakaranika senses with abhidhs function Com- pare "dattanardah prajšnam. mrm0larevetyavagantavyam" (VV III p 417-419) It may also be cony-ctured fromt th-

CHAPTER II 10$

fact that, Mahimabhatta puts the sabdasaktimūla an a par with śleşa. Cf. "tatra dharmyarthasya śleşādabhinnatvam yathā ...... devatāvišeșavācino ......... vaksyate” ( VV. II. pp. 344-345 ). Here the expression "devatavisesavācinah" is quite significant in respect of the abhidha function for conveying the ,aprā- karaņika sense. But this is not Mahimabhtta's final observa- tion. In his firm opinion there cannot be a homonymous word' in the true sense of the term and as such the question of hav- ing two abhidheya arthas from the same word does not arise. Under such circumstances the question of having the apraka- raņika sense as abhidheya is remoter still. Mahimabhatta's argument is that the same word ( homonymous ) cannot convey two meanings in the manner of a lamp which may reveal two objects at a time. The word will convey only one meaning as required by the context. The lamp may rveal a further object either by 'tantra' or by 'prasanga'. 33 But the word cannot convey a second meaning without a parama- rśa on the part of the cogniser ( pratipattr ). Hence, the so called ślista ( homonymous ) word may convey a second mea- ning only when there is adequate reason to serve as the linga. If this position is conceded then the second meaning must be recognised as inferred. Compare : ekonekārthakrdyatra svabhāvenaiva dīpavat / samayasmrtyanākānksastantrasya visayo hi sa // Sabde tvasiddhamekatvam pratyartham tasya bhedataḥ / ... ... ...

tasmādarthāntaravyaktihetau kasmimścanāsati / yah śleşabandhanirbandhaņ klesāyaiva kaverasau // ( VV. II. pp. 347-348 ). Even where more than one meaning seem to be unders- tood from a homonymous word the same word must not be taken as the cause of both the meanings. For, if both are to

33. "tulyapradhanatvena sīdharanyam tantram, atulyapradha- natve tu prasanga." ( VVV, II. p. 347 )

104 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

be recognised as meanings of the same word then which one of them will occur first ? Moreover there is the rule of the grammarians that for every meaning there must be a separate word 34 Hence, for the two senses we n ust have two words as distinct 'hetus' For having two senses from a homonym we must either physically repeat the word or must differently conpect it with different contexts Mahtma holds that in either of the cases the second meaning is had not because of an inherent capacity of the word but because of an additional factor and as such the second meaning is anumeya Cf "tatra vācyarthavisayasyāsya vyarthah fabda- saktıparıkalpanaprayāsahī/" (VV IlI pp 418-419 ) In 'atrān- tare', etc, Mahimabhalta does not recognise the suggested upamalamkara but recognises an idea relating to lord Siva Once he observes that the word mahakala is repeated for conveying the idea of the god This repetition is due to samdsokti present in the passage Cf "atra hi samāsoktiniban- dhanā devatāvišeşavacino mahākālašabdasyavrttirna tu tasyar- vobhayārthatvanıbandhaneti vakşyate* (VV. II p 345) Again he observes that the idea of the god is inferred through its relation with 'attahasa' and 'yugasamhara' From these attributes we arrive at the sccond meaning relating to Lord Siva, in the manner of samasokti but not because of any inherent function ( sakti) ofthe word 'mahakala' effe- ctive i0 respect of both the meanings Cf "atrantare tobbaş arthavttermahākālasabdasya sa saktirityetaduktam vak- şyate ca" ( VV. IlI p 417) Mahutna's conception of samaso- ftt may te had from his observation-"na hi višeşanasamya- mevaikamaprastutārthāvagatihetuh / yathahuh -- prakrtarthena vatyena tatsamanairvifesanaih / aprastutarthakathanam samasokturudābnia / it, kim tarhi tatkāryasamāropo'pmi"

34 The maxim l 'pratyanham isbdsnivrtpnalkentnekaryzbbi- diaim" of Mabtbltya en the faniai's rale "marpiatm," eic. (Are NSP p 23 )

CHAPTER II 105

( VV. II. p. 337 ). Thue we see that, according to Mahimabha- tta the second meaning is had from a repetition of the word 'mahākāla' and the same repetition is encouraged by the adj- ectives (samānavisesaņa ) equally applicable to the 'great season' and the 'Lord siva'. But it may be noticed that alth- ough 'phullamallikadhavalattahasa, etc., are not labelled as anekarthaka-sabdas yet for connecting with the great season and the god Siva they must be differently understood. In case of the season it means "phullamallika eva dhavalātta- hasah" and in case of the god it means "phullamallikā iva dhavalah attahāsah yasya." Thus these expressions are also as good as homonyms. But in so far as the reason for understanding these expressions differently is not independent of a knowledge of the two meanings of the word 'mahakala' itself, Mahimabhatta's way of exposition involves the fallacy of a logical see-saw.

The grammarian's view on homonyms : Mahimabhatta literally follows the grammarian's maxim "arthabhede sabda- bheda." But it may be observed that Ananda also does not seem to disregard the same. Hence, let us trace the reason of their difference. The grammarians themselves recognise ane- kärthakasabdas capable of conveying more than one meaning. Bhartrhari tells us of the factors-samyoga, viprayoga, etc., for distinguishing one of the many vacya senses of a homonym. Nāgesa refers to the sentence 'aksā bhajyantām bhaksyantām divyantām' having aksa ( meaning sense organ, vibhitaka tree and dice respectively ) as an anekärthaka and all its senses as abhidheya. ( vide, Uddyota, MB. NSP. p. 73 ). Nāgeśa obser- ves in PLM also that the words vary with the meanings. The words having different meanings are identified as anekārthaka only beacuse of similarity in form. "arthapadayostādātmyātta- ttadarthatādātmyäpannah śabdo bhinno iti hetorarthabhedāc- cabdabheda iti vyavahārah/ samānākāramātreņa tu eko'yam śabdo bahvartha iti vyavahāraḥ" (PLM. p. 12). Patajalì says- "işyate ca ekenapyanekasyābhidhānam syāditi taccāntareņa

106 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

yatnam na siddhyat" ( MB NSP p 73 ) Thus in Slesa we must repeat the homonymous word to have its various meanings Because of this repetition of the same word in two different con- structions of the sentence, at least within the mind, the obj-ction of the same abhidha functioning for two senses( i e, viramya vyapara ) does not arise Since by repetition there are two words, there are also two abhidhas which may be interpreted as 'yatna' of Patanjals In my opimion Ananda can have also the non-contextual meaning of the sabdasaktyudbhava as abhidheya b-cause he is already prepared to have the same meaning from a repeated word having a new abhidha We are informed by Prattharenduraja that Udbhata also maintaied the doctrine of 'arthabhede sabdabbeda Cf "iha khalu arthabh-dena tavacchabda bhidyanta it bhattodbhatasya siddbantah/", et ( KSS p 58) We know that Ananda had great esteem for Udbhat and adopted his ideas in many cases and as such it may be conjectured that this doctrine was in Ananda's mind also We have alrendy seen that this view is held by Mahima also But the repetition of the word is determined by some factors and as such the second meaning is anumeya In reply to this contention of Mahima it may be pointed out that what is supposed to be the abhidheyartha by Mahimabhatta also depe- nds on the factors like samyoga, viprayoga, ete , as pointed out by Bhartrhant But yet the abhidheyartha is not taken to be anumea At that rate the s-cond meaning also should not be considered as anumeya Heo e it s-ems quite likely and reaso- nable on the part of Ananda to take both the contextual and non-contextual meanings as abhidheya

Appayadıkşita also in his Vrttsvārttika takes the aprākara- mka serse in sabdasaktimtla as conveyed by abhidha (pp 6-15 ) According to him the prakarantka is distinguished ty prakarana ( context ) and the aprikaramka 1s distinguished by its co-exutence ( samsbhivyahara, Le., "abdasyanyasya sannidht' of Bhartrhart ) with the other senses of the words, logrally connected with it. Fron a perusal of Appayas

CHAPTER II 107

words we are led to conclude that, in slesa the prakarana cannot distinguish the two senses, both being prākaranika, but they are to be distinguished with the help of sabdasya- nyasya-sannidhi, etc. In śabdaśaktyudbhava, however, the prakaranika sense may occur to the mind earlier. That does not deprive the aprākaraņika of an abhidhā sakti for it, because even in slesa we cannot have both the senses at the same instance. We have either of the two indiscriminately earlier. It may also be remembered that even in ślesa a strict simultaneity of the two meanings or a literal repetition of the same word is never demanded. Scope of anumāna in śabdaśaktimūla : A very vital point in connection with sabdasaktimūla that requires our close examination is the expression "kalpayitavya" in Ananda's words -- "aprākaraņikaprākaraņikayorupamānopameyabhāvaḥ kalpayitavyah". Kalpanā means inference also. In Mīmāmsā 'kalpanā' also means 'arthāpatti' (vide, Apte's Dictionary ) and as a matter of fact here the process of arriving at the so called suggested meaning should be recognised as a case of śrutärthāpatti, According to Naiyāyikas, arthāpatti is included in anumana itself. Hence we are naturally confron-' ted with the question as to whether anumana is also involved in śabdaśaktimūla. Mammața and Viśvanātha also repeat the very words-"upamanopameyabhavah kalpanIyah" without any question. Hence, we will have an occasion to examine whether anumana is also responsible for the suggestion of the alamkāra in the sabdasaktimūla-dhvani in later sections. Arthasaktyudbhava type : We have seen that in sabda- saktyudbhava we must have some select homonymous words which do not brook alteration. Hence, the suggested sense in that type of dhvani is said to be based on the capacity of words. But in arthasaktyudbhava we need not have such unchangeable words. The peculiar primary meaning is itself competent to give rise to the suggested content. The sugges- ted content of the piece does not have any conventionally

108 THIE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

expressive word for it Hence, Ananda says, that artha- saktyudbhava type of dhvam is that where such an express meaning shines which suggests with all intention ( svatah tåtparyena ) another matter of fact ( vastu ) which does not have expressive words corresponding to it in the said ptece ( uktim vina ) Compare arthasaktyudbhavastvanyo yatrarthah sa prakasate / yasthiparyena vastvanyad vyanaktyuktim vina svatah // On the expression "svatastatparyena" Abhinava sa5s- "svatastātparyenetyabhıdhavyaparanirakaransparamidam padam dhvananavyaparamaha na tu tātparyasaktim" In the fourth chapter we will see that Ananda possibly did not conceive of any tatparyasakti, but by the time of Abhinava it was quite commonly talked of On the strength of certain other expressions of Ananda we understand that 'tatparyena' maans being intent on it Since it ts a variety of dhvam the suggested sense must be invariably predominant and the suggested sense may gain predominance only when the express sense is intent on suggesting the same Hence, compare . ( 1 ) tatparaveva Sabdārthau yatra vyangyam prat sthitau / dhvanch sa eva visayo mantavyah samkarojjhitah // ( Dhv I p 131 ) and ( 2 ) alamkarantarasyapı pratitau yatra bhāsate / tatparatvam na vacyasya nasu margo dhvaner matah // (Dhv II 27. p 259 ), etc. Exsmple of Arthasaktyudbhava . evam vadimi davarsau parsva pituradhomukhy IIlakamalapatran ganayāmasa parvati'/ ( Dhv p 248 ) ( When the celestial sage said this, Pirvatt, who was near her father, began counting petals of the play- lotus) This ts a verse from the sixth canto of Kumarasambhava of Kslidåss The verse gives us an express sense which is in no way ineongroous. Hence the vleya is vivaksita. But the samne vicya leads us to a saggested sense throach notr eable stages (t. c, samlaksya-krama ) After we cognise the etpress seese telling us of Pirvatt's counting the petals of the play-lotrs

CHAPTER II 109

we remember Parvati's earlir austerities for winning Siva's love and thus take ParvatI's weakness for Siva into account. Thus finally we arrive at the idea that Parvatl, who is enga- ging herself in the act of counting the petals, is feeling shy to hear a proposal regarding her marriage with Siva. - This information ( i. e., vastu ) regarding Pärvatt's feeling of shy- ness is conveyed by the capacity of the peculiar description of the situation which is had as the express meaning and not because of an unalterable set of words and hence, it is a case of arthaśaktyudbhava. In this connection a few words of Ananda deserve our close examination. Commenting on the above quoted verse Ananda writes : "atra hi līlākamalapatragaņanam upa- sarjanīkrtasvarūpam sabdavyāpāram vinaivārthāntaram vyabhi- cāribhāvalaksņam prakāśayati." ( p. 248 ). Ānanda says that a vyabhicāribhāva is suggested here. It is not simply a case of rasa dhvani. Ordinarily we have the suggestion of rasa from the expressly described vibhāva, anubhäva and vyabhi- cāribhāva. But here we have the vyabhicāribhāva itself as the suggested content. When we take account of the vyabhi- cāribhava thus suggested and the alambana ParvatI herself, we have the relish of rasa. Hence, in between the express sense of counting petals and the suggested information regar- ding lajjā, there is a krama (i. e., order of understanding); but in between the knowledge of the vyabhicarI and the further suggestion of rasa there is no krama. Thus the suggestion of rasa yet remains instantaneous. Abhinava observes, "rasa- stvatrāpi dūrata eva vybhicārisvarūpe paryālocyamāne bhātīti tadapekşayālakşyakramataiva, lajjāpeksayā tu tatra laksya- kramatvam." ( Locana, p. 250 ). We have seen earlier that when a vyabhicaribhāva is predominantly suggested it gives us a bhävadhvani. A bhāva- dhvani is called alaksyakramavyangya-dhvani. But here we have a vyabhicari-bbava as predominantly suggested and yet it is classed under samlaksyakrama variety. Hence, we

110 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

are to understand the difference between the suggested vya- bhicari in its two ispeets In my opinion the bhava of the alakşyakramavyangyadhyant is a fceling felt by the sahrdaya along with the poetical character to whom it primarly bel- ones But here the vyabhicaribhava is gathered to be belon- ging to the po tical charcter alone and it is not equilly felt by the sahrdaya Hence it remains an 'information regard- ing the vyabhicaribhava.' Ananda's 'vyabhtcaribhavalaksanam' literally means 'vynbhicaribhavavişayakam'

The confusion caused by Ananda's expression "arthan- taram vyabhicatibhavalakşanam prakašayati" his been worse confounded by Abhinavi's observation-"etaduktam bhavati yadyapı rasabhāvādirartho dhvanynmāna eva bhavatt na våcyah kadācıdapı, tathāpı na sarvo'lıkşyakramasya vişayah" ( Locana, p 248 ) These few words of Abhtnavi have often been quoted by later writers like Appayadıksita and Jagannatha to give us the confusing idea that the bhav is in these two types of dhvant are same except in the matter of having a krama Hence, com- pare . (1) "nanu rısādıdhvamrasamlaksyakrams itt prastddham, kathimatra tsyanurananena vyangyatocyate/ maivam/ .... taduktam abhınavaguptapādācāryaıh -- "yndyapı rasabhāvādr- rartho " ete (CM p 26) (2) "upapădayışyate ca sthayyadināmapi samlaksyakramavyangyatvam" (RG p 29) ( 3 ) Raising an objection to Abhinava's observation "rasabha- vadirartho." et". Jagannatha sys that "it is not possibl- to have rasa, bhav, etc, as samlaksyakrama, for, in such a case we should have eighteen Varttes of samlakşyakrama variety of dhvam leaving scope for rasadt atso to b- suggested through a noticeable order Yet we have a consistency of the words of Abhinava if we understand that rat, ete, being suegrsted thro- ugh a noticenble order become matters of fact ( vastu ) But the possiblity of such an interpretation is doubtful" Cf "na khalu dharmigrahtkaminsıddham ratyadıdhvaneralaksya- Lramavyaneyatvam/ samlaksy atramataya vyajyamanasys rtyadestu vastamatrataiva, na rasaditvaruitt teşimāšayasys

CHAPTER II 111

varņanena na taduktinām virodhah/ upapattistvarthe'sminvi- cāraņtyā." ( RG. p. 248 ). Abhinava's position clarified : If we read Abhinava's words more carefully we can learn that there is nothing to cause any confusion. Abhinava's words seem to refer to Ananda's state ments-" ..... abhidheyasamarthyāksiptatvameva rasādīnām/ na tvabhidheyatvam kathañcit" ( pp. 78-84 ) and kārikā II. 3 ( p. 175 ), where rasa, bhäva, etc. are said to be a-krama. But these two statements of Ananda seem to run counter to his vrtti on "evam vdini", saying " ... vyabhicāribhāvalaksaņam prakāsayati", where a vyabhicāribhāva is said to have krama. To bring a compromise between the apparently vying views of Ananda, Abhinava says that although rasa, bhava (i. e., vyabhicaribhāva ), etc, are always suggested (as alaksyakrama) yet some of them ( say some vyabhicārbhāva ) may also be conveyed by samlaksyakrama ( and thus may be matters of fact ). So the heart does not immediately rest in lajjā, i. e., the heart does not get the relish which is experienced in case of alaksyakrama by experiencing and ruminating over lajjā, ( na lajjāyām viśramayati hrdayam ). The lajjā in ques- tion is not a feeling to be felt by the sahrdaya, but it is the matter of fact which the sahrdaya thinks about. ( .... vyabhicā- risvarūpe paryālocyamāne bhātiti .... ). That Abhinava himself takes "evam vādini" as an illustration of vastudhvani is again clear from his observation-"evam arthasaktyudbhavo dvibhe- do vastumātrasya vyaūjanIyatve vastudhvanirūpatayā nirūpi- - tah", etc. ( Locana, p. 257 ). In fact Ãnanda does not tell us that a vyabhicaribhāva is suggested. What he says is that the express idea of counting petals "reveals another meaning relating to a vyabhicaribhāva" ( arthāntaram vyabhicāribhāvalaksaņam prakāśayati ). More- over, "evamvadini" is not the only instanse of samla- kşyakramārthasakutyudbhava. In other instances we have vastu and vastu alone. In kārika II. 22. Ananda clearly says that another matter of fact is suggested ( vastvanyad vyanakti ).

112 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

From Il 24 also we learn that Ananda recognises only a vastu as suggested ( vastuno'nyasya dipakah ) We must not argue that in II 22 and II 24 the term vastu is used to mean all the three varicties of the suggested sense as is done in I 4 , because in contrast with the contents of II 22 and II 24 Ananda tells us in II 25 that in arthasaktyudbhava type alamkara also may form the suggested content But we are once again confronted with Abhinava's words- "yo rasadırarthah sa evakramo dhvanerātmā na tvakrama eva sah/ kramatvamapt ht tasya kadācıdbhavatı / tađā cārthasaktyu- dbhavanusvanarOpabhedateti vaksyate /* (locana, p 174) where bhavas of the two types of dhvani are distinguished only on the basis of krama and without any reference to the state of the mind of the reader But our doubt may be solved by referring to a few latter words where vastudhvant is distin- guished from rasa and bhava, which are said to be states of mind Hence bhava of samlaksyakrama which is recogmsed to be a vastu, as seen above, automatically becomes distingtished from bhava recognised as a state of mind being put on a par with rasa Hence compare, "nanvevam vibhavadhvaniranubhāva- dhvanısca vaktavyah/ maivam / taccarvanāpı cittavrttişveva paryavasytītı rasabhāvebhyo nādhıkam carvanlyam/ yadā tu vibhavanubhavavapt vyangyau bhavatastada vastudhvanirapı kim n sthyate " ( Locana, p 177) Sabdarthassktyudbhava type In the vrtt on kanka HI 23, Ananda informs us that there may also be a variety of samlaksyakrama where both sabda and artha together suggest the additional meaning. Since, unlike the earher tro varie- ties, this variety owes its origin to the capaeity of both the meaning and the word, we may designate it as ubhava- Sakytudbhava Bat Ananda docs not give us any example of this variety specifically He simply says : "Sabdafaktyartha- Sakty3 fabdarthalsktya valsipto pi vyangyo'rthah kavind punar yatra prakifikryate' ete, where from we take the clue to the present variety

CHAPTER 1I 113

Mammata says that there is only one variety of ubhaya- śaktyudbhava and gives us the verse-"atandracandrābharaņā samuddīpitamanmathā/ tārakātaralā śyāmā sānandam. na karoti kam/" as illustration where we have an upamalamkāra as the suggested content. Here 'syama' means either a 'woman' or 'the night'. The other words are also all homonymous. The expression 'sānandam na karoti kam' is. not homonymous, strictly speaking. But yet it is equally applicable to both the meanings of 'syama.' If we consider the non-homonymous nature of 'sanandam,' etc., the 'verse- presents us a case of ubhayasaktyudbhava. But just as in 'aträntare,' etc., we have the non-homonymous expression 'aträntare' as equally applicable to both the meanings of 'mahākala' we have 'sanandam', etc., in the verse under- consideration. Hence, Mãnikyacandra seems to be quite justified in observing-"tathātra. yadyapyartho'pi vyañja- kastathāpi ślistaśabdasaktireva vyangyamunmīlayati nārtha- saktiriti sabdotthadhvanireva na dvyuttha iti tattvam" ( KP. Sam. IV. p. 119 ). In fact here also we have an alamkāra,. owing to the use of homonymous words exactly as we- have in śabdasaktyudbhava. Viśvanātha also hardly finds- any illustration as different from that of sabdasaktyudbhava. His illustration also gives us only an alamkāra as the suggested content and the same verse may easily be passed as. an illustration of sabdaaktyudbhava. Hence, in order to find. a justification for rocognising this veriety Pandit Durgā- prasada remarks that when in a varse changeable words. and unchangeable words occur in equal quantity we should call that a case of ubhayasaktimūla. Cf. "yatra tu kāvye parivrttim sahamānānāmasahamānānām ca śabdānām naikajātī- yaprācuryam, api tu smyameva, tatra śabdārthobhayaśakti- mūlakasya vyangyasya sthitiriti dvyuttho dhvaniņ/ na cāya- manyatarasaktimūlakatayaiva vyapadestum sakyah/ viniga- makābhāvāt." ( SD. NSP. IV. p. 210). Ananda's own idea of ubhayasaktimula is best illustrated by the verse "drstyā

114 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

kefava"35 which had every claim to be treated as 10 example of ubhayasaktimtila variety of dhvani but does not happen to be designated as a dhvani because the very suggested sense is also referred to by an expressive word. Antnda tells us in II 23, that if the suggested sense conveyed by the powers of sabda, artha or both is referred to in the same context by another expressive word then that would not present a case of dhvam but an embellishment In the present verse the expression 'salesam' ( 1e with sigmficance ) reveals the whole trick of suggestion Happily, commenting on Ananda's words-"ubhayadaktya yatha 'drstya kesava gopa- ragahrtaya' ityadau"38 Abhinava ably says that we hav- to recognise fabdasaktı in the expressions, 'goparaga,' ete, and an arthasakti because of the context, which is helpful for giving rise to suggested ideas The additional idea may be suggested to us only when we gather as a meaning from the context that Krşna is the object of secret love for all the young women Hence, compare, "sabdasaktistavadgopirāgadiśibda- šleşavašāt / arthasaktıstu prakaranavašāt / yāvadatrı rādhāra manasyakhilatarunianacchannanurāgagarimāspadatvam vıdıtam tāvadarthāntarasyāprattteh, salesamiti catra svoktih" ( Locana, p 254) This is how we are told that the basis of recognising ubhayasaktimDla is the instrumentality of both the contest and the use of homonyms for suggestion and not the mathematical calculation of equal quantity of variable and non-vartable words Type of the suggestive meaning It is observed that in arthassktyudbhava type of dhvani, a meaning suggests a further meaning The meaning which is thus responsible for giving rse to the suggested cont-nt is said to be of two typ-s, viz., ( 1 ) praudhoktimātranişpannašarira, i e., possible only in a miture (1e, poetical) expression, and ( 2 ) svatahsam- bhavt, Le, common to the ordinary speech (vide Dhv II 24) 35 Dbr I p 240 36 DE I1, D 253

CHAPTER II 115

The mature poetical expression may belong either to the poet or to the character delineated by the poet. The poets and the poetical characters depicted to be endowed with peculiar states of the mind are supposed to have more imagi- nary ideas and more poetical expressions. Hence what is impossible in the ordinary world may simply be possible in their world of imagination. In the verse "sajjehi surahimaso"37 the month of spring is said to be making the arrows of Cupid ready for use. That is how the non-sentient month or season is conceived as capable of an action similar to that of a sentient being. In the ordinary imagination it is incongruous; but in the poet's world of imagination there is not even an iota of inconsistency in conceiving the month or the season like that.

In the mature expression of the poetical character also, ordinarily impossible things are accepted as possible, without any question. Hence, so far it is mentioned by the hero, there is no inconsistency in .the parrot's practising penance, as expressly stated in the verse "sikhariņi kva nu nama."38

The svatah sambhavi type of meaning is always consistent, be it in the poetical speech or in the ordinary expression. For example, in the verse "evam vädini" we find such an express meaning, which does not require any poetic licence for being passed as consistent.

We may notice that this recognition of a mature way of expression ( praudhokti ) facilitates the recognition of certain such expressions as based on poetic convention ( i.e., kavisama- yakhyäta ) which would have otherwise caused the poetic defect of khyataviruddhata. That is why, when there is a reference to the "drinking of the moonlight by the cakora bird"39 we should neither take it as a case of khyataviruddhatā,

37. Dhv. p. 255. 38. Dhv. p. 138. 39. "jyotsna peya cakorairjaladharasamaye manasam yanti hamsah" ( vide, SD. VII. 23-25, for some of the kavisamayas. )

116 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

nor, in my opimion, as a case of laksana. That there is no question of laksana in case of the praudhoktis is indicated by Ahanda bimself by treating them under the context of vrvaksi- tāny aparavacya Supgestion of alamkaras. It is already seen in the first chapter,40 that earher alamkarikas like Udbhata recognise also the presence of a suggested alamkara in dipaka, sasamdeba, etc. Compare

ādımadhyāntavışayāh prādhānyetarayoginah / antargatopamadharma yatra taddIpakam viduh //(KSS I ,14),anđ alamkārāntaracehāyām yatkrtvā dhişu bandhanam / asamdehe'pi samdehartpam samdeha nama tat // ( KSS VI 3) With reference to such a position of the carlier theorists Ananda says that in arthasaktyudbhava we can have an alam- Lara also as the suggested content But only when the sugges- ted alamkara is more predominant, on account of greater appeal, we have a case of dhyant ( Dhv II 26-30) Since there is a reference to an express alamkara suggesting an additional alamkara, we gather that in arthasaktyudbhava the express sense suggestive of the vastu or alamkara may itself be embellished Hence, we may have either the suggestion of a (1) vastu or an (2) alamkåra from a vastu and the suggestion of a ( 3 ) vastu or an ( 4 ) alamkara from an alam- kara These four varieties may appear to be taelve fold on the basis of the three types of the suggestive sense referred to in {I 24 That is how we have twelve varieties of arthasaktyu- dbhava in KP

Factors govermng sugsestion in arthašaktyudbhava : Another very vital question discussed by Mammeta is regarding . the factors whisb govern the suggestivity of the express sense Some of the factors are found in the '<peciality' (Le , vaisntya) of the speaker, the addresse, the modulation of the voice, the sentence, the cortent of the speech, the proxtmity of 40 Vide, Sourers of the Theory, p. 25.

CHAPTER II 117

another person, context ( prastava.), locality, and time. For example in the verse "evam vādini" we pass on to a suggested sense'only because of the speciality of the context which relates to as special a thing as Parvati's proposed marriage with Siva, for whom she already cherishes a weak- ness. The suggested sense, indeed, occurs to us because of a consideration of all these factors. Compare ; vaktrbaddhavyakākūnām vākyavācyānyasannidhe / prastāvađesakâlādervaisistyātpratibhājușām./ . y'orthasyānyārthadhīheturvyāpāro vyaktireva sā // (KP. III. ) ;

The speciality of intonation : Of all the factors named by Mammața, kaku or intonation requires our closer examination. Bharata speaks of two varieties of kaku, viz., sākāmkșā and nirākāmksā.41 This intonation occurs in the form of certain modulations of the voice which are called alamkāras ( i.e., notes ). They are six in number and are named as, ucca ( high note ), dipta ( excited ), mandra ( grave ), nIca( low ), druta ( fast ) and vilambita (slow ). The sākāmksā kāku belongs to a sākāmksa vākya and the nirākāmkşā kāku belongs to a nirākāmksa vākya. That vākya (i.e., sentence ) is called nirākamksą, where only the conventional meaning is conveyed by the words,: In the sākāmksa vakya, the words convey more than what appears as the conventional meaning of the words. .The meaning additional to the conventional meaning arises due to, the speciality of intonation. Such a kāku is indicated by Abhinava as arthakāku. ( A. Bh. Chap. XVII. Vol. II. 392). The modulation of voice ( kāku ) attached to the nirākāmksa vakya also suggests certatn conditions of the speaker like surprise, intolerence, joy and lamentation. But

41. "dvividha kākuņ sākanksā nirākanksā ceti, vākyasya sākānkşa- tvanirākankşatvāt," (NŚ.) Rājaśekhara defines kāku as a quality in the mode of utterance which is employed with the purpose of conveying a special sense. "abhiprayavan pathadharmab kakuņ.".

118 THE DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

here we are concerned only with the arthakaku of the saka- mkşa vakya which alone conveys the suggested meaning as the intended content of the statement for expressing which the expressive words are not adequate Mammaja gives the verse "tathabhutam drstva" of Vent sambara, where Bhimasena says with a modulation of the voice, "guruh khedam khınne mayi bhajalı nadyapı kuruşu" The express meaning of the words appears as follows, "The master gets angry with me but not yet with the Kauravas" Due to kaku, the statement suggests the meaning-"The master ( Yudhisthira ) should not be angry with me, he should rather be angry with the Kauravas " This suggested meaning arises only because the words are uttered with a dipta (exeited) intonation and not in an ordinary manner ( atra mayi na yog- yah khedah kurusu tu yogya itt kakva prakasyate ) It appears that the 'dipta ( excited ) aspect' of the statement itself is referred to is the speciality of kaku by Mammata But we will presently see that Mammata's intention is something different. The karika Dhv IIJ, 38, where Ananda refers to the use of kaku is vaniously interpreted According to Abhinava, kāku gives rise to a suggested sense which is bound to be subordi nate Because, kaku is a conspicuous speciality of the word ( sabda ) itself and hence, the suggested sense is as good as one referred to by expressive words as in the verse "drstya kelava" where the word "saledam" reveals the whole trick So the suggested sense conveyed by kaku iyariably gives us a gunibhiitavyangya Lavya The same express sense aided by the suggested sense conveyed by kaku may once again give rise to a more predominant suggested sense like rasa In the portion-"svastha bhavartt mayi jivati dhartrastrah" of & verse of Ventsamhara, quoted by Ananda for illustration, th- sugges'ed seose du- to kaku is that "it is quite impossibt for the soos of D'rtarigra to remain alive yet while lam

42 Compare-"anye tribah," e c., in Locans, p 478

CHAPTER II 119

living." This suggested sense augments the force of the express sense, which serves as an anubhva for the suggestion of the contextual raudrarasa.43 Because of Abhinava's con- viction that the suggested sense conveyed by kāku is bound to present a case of gunibhūtavyangya Mammata names a variety of guņībhūtavyangya as kākvākșipta. ( Vide, KP. V.). The suggested meaning of 'assertion' in the verse "mathnami kauravasatam" in said to be guņibhūta as it is as good as the express sense being simultaneously intelligible with the express- ly stated 'nisedha' ( i.e., negation ). Because of this relation of kaku with guņibhutavyangya Mammata adds in connection with the verse "tatha bhutam" that what is immediately sugges- ted by käku is a question which may be as follows- "kuruşu kim na khedo guroryanmayi khedah" ( as suggested `by Manikyacandra ). This immediately suggested sense, serving as the speciality of kaku, gives rise to such a suggested sense ( i.e., mayi na yogyah, etc. ) which need not once again be treated as gunibhuta. Hence, finally, we have a dhvani

in the verse "tathābhūtam" also.

Abhinava points out that kaku is an attribute of the word itself ( sabdasyaiva kasciddharmaḥ ). Yet Mammața is justi- fied in counting it as a factor for suggestion in the arthasak- tyudbhava inasmuch as Ananda points out that it is in fact the express sense which suggests the additional meaning with the help of käku and as independent from the express sense the kaku cannot suggest the meaning itself.

Strangely, Mahima also recognises an additional meaning. conveyed by kāku. ( Vide. VV. p. 54). For instance, he recog- nises the idea of "assertion" conveyed by kāku in the verse "mathnami kauravasatam." It is not vācya (i.e., express ) since he illustrates the verse only to show the greater charm of the meaning on account of being different from the express. sense. But, yet he would recognise the meaning conveyed

43. Vide Locana, pp. 478-479.

120 THE DHVANI THCORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

by kaku not as suggested but as conveyed by abhidha (ie. kakvabhidheya ) The dhvan theorist would possibly say that it is a difference only in nime Whnt is kakvabhidheya for Mahima is vyangya for the dhvant theorist.

Mammata quotes yet another verse from Venisamhira itself for sllustrating a case of gunibhotavyangya owing to the use of kaku * Illustrations of kaku are all quoted from a drama because of the fact that the kaku is discermble only in the acting of a drama Hence, Aristotle does not think it to be strietly betonging to the realm of poetry. In this connec- tion he observes-"As regards the Diction, one subject for inquiry under this head is the turn given to the language when spoken; e g , the difference between command and prayer, simple statement and threat, question and answer, and so forth. The theory of such matters, however, belongs to Elocution and the professors of that art. Let us pass over this, then, as appertaining to another art, and not to that of poetry." ( De Poetica, chapter, 19 ) Position of alamkara in the dhvamt theory . We have already observed that in sabdasaktyudbhava and atthasaktyud- bhava type of dhvam an alamkara also may be predominantly suggested But in such a case it is not to be understood as an alamkara in the true sense of the term An alamkara always presupposes an object more important than itself which is embellished by it. But the alamkara which occurs as the principal suggested content of a variety of dhvant can never be subordinate. It is the principal object which deserves to be embellished by other so called alamkaras Yet it is called an alamkara according to "brahmans -< ramananyaya " A śramana does not have any caste distinction and as such if a brahmin takes to the way of a sramana (ie, a buddhist monk), he ceases to be s brahmin Yet with reference to his earlier identity the framans may be identified as brabmana Sramana.

t. "pthatol hamnlaam" eic, ia KP. V.

CHAPTER II 121

Similarly the ideas of 'sadrsya,' 'adhikya,' etc, which are principally suggested are designated as alamkāra only because they could have been called so had they been conveyed as the express sense. This distinction requires to be carefully noted because in the dhvani theory alamkaras do not generally occupy a very honourable position. The alamkaras, are adored and appreciated only when they are depicted with the intention of suggesting rasa and bhava etc. Cf.

rasabhāvāditātparyamāśritya vinivešanam / alamkrtInām sarvāsāmalamkāratvasādhanam // ( Dhv. II. p. 197 ). The poet must not indulge in depicting an alamkāra for alamkara's sake. There should not be any special effort for depicting an alamkāra. Alamkāras occur automatically in the composition of the poet infused with sentiment. ( cf. Dhv. II. 16). Hence, if any alamkära is found to be detrimental to the depiction of rasa then it should be condemned. Hence, yamaka is to be totally discarded in case of srngara rasa ( Dhv. II. 15). This being the position of alamkāras Ananda feels it necessary to clarify the actual idea of rasavat and ... other such alamkaras which involve rasa and bhava. f Rasavat and other such alamkāras : (1 ) Anandavardhana, who has great esteem for his predecessors, like Bhamaha and Udbhata, does not altogether discard the conceptionof alamkaras where rasa and bhava are treated as embellishments. But Ananda offers some modifications to make those alamkāras suitable to his own scheme. Udbhata and Bhamaha and Dandin indiscriminately relegated the rasa and bhavas to the status of embellishments without taking note of their predominance or inferiority in a piece. Hence, Ananda says,-"If in a kāvya the chief purport of the sentence should relate to something else, and if sentiment and so forth should come in only as auxiliaries to it, then that sentiment and so forth are figures in such a kavya."

122 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

pradhāne'nyatra vākyārthe yatrāngam tu rasadayah / Lāvye tasmionalamkaro rasadiriti me matih // ( Dhv, I1 5 p 29.) (2 ) The alamkaras whtch consist of rasa and bhava as named by earlier theorists are as follows -- Dandın gives the alamkaras -- preyah, rasavat and Orjasvr (KD II 275 ) Preyah is defined as 'priyatarakhyana' and in both the examples of preyas we find the suggestion of a priti for some god ( te, devavişayaka ratt ) A compositıoa having rasa in any status is said to be rasavat ( rasavadrasa- pesalam ) Orjasvi is that where there is a suggestion of ahamkara This ahamkara is nothing other than the vyabhi- canbhava called garva Bhamaha gives one more alamkara of this type and that is samahita Bhāmaha's conception of preyas is same as that of Dandin Compare, KD II, 276 with KL III. 5 Bhamaha's risavat desires a distinet delineation of the rasas like srogara (ef rasavaddarsitaspastasngarādirasam yatha ) Bhamaba's example of Orjasvi also suggests Karna's garva Cf, Orjasvi karnena yathā pārthāya punarāgatah / dvihsanđadhåt kım karnah Salyetyahırapākrtah // (KL I1I 7) From the example of samahtta, given by Bhamaha, only this much may be conjectured that, it consists of a bhava- prasama (KL. II 10) In his example, which only sefers to the situation where we may have a cass of samahita, we get the word prasakti, meaning pacification, and this may refer to the prasama of some bhava 45 Udbhata, whose treatment of rasavat, etc., seems to have

45 It may be eplned that Ehemaha bere acmually deires e bbEva- prama, on the nreng h of the astumaptton that Udthata mys capl e dy only wiat Is Implicit in Thimabs; for Phimaba's InBeence over Udtha s in rapeet of thi group el alamkaras Is very clear from a comparis op ef the debsitiens of rasarat t ira by bo h o them.

CHAPTER II 123

been closest to the memory of Ananda, defines preyasvat as follows- "ratyādikānām bhāvānāmanubhāvādisūcanaih / yatkāvyam vadhyate sadbhistatpreyasvadudāhrtam // ( KSS. IV. 2 ). Its example contains the suggestion of a vātsalya- bhäva ( i.e., love for children ) which is in fact a rati for putra, etc. PratIharendurāja observes-"evamayam ratyat- mako bhāvo vātsalyasvabhāvaścaturbhiranubhāvādibhiratrāva- gamitah" ( KSS. p. 52 ). Udbhața defines rasavat almost in the same manner as Bhamaha. ( rasavaddarsitaspastasrngārā- dirasādayam, etc. ). But in case of suggestion of rasas in rasavat we must have the suggestion of the bhavas rati, etc., and in preyasvat also we have the suggestion of the bhāvas rati etc. Hence there must be a distinction of the two types of bhavas. Pratihārendurāja says that ratyādibhavas of pre- yasvat include the sthayi, vyabhicarI and sattvikabhāvas. To distinguish between the ratyadibhava of the two alamkāras Vivrttikāra points out under preyasvat-

"ratiriha devagurunrpādivișayā grhyate / kāntāvişayāyāh stuteņ sūcane rasavađalamkāro vaksyate /." This expression, however, clearly betrays the influence of Mammata, who was anterior to Vivrttikara ( KSS .. Intr. p. XXXI ). Udbhata's ūrjasvī is said to be containing either a rasābhāsa or bhāvābhāsa of later ālamkārikas like Mammața ( KSS. IV. 5). Udbhața's samāhita is defined as "rasabhāva- tadabhasavrtteh prasamabandhanam / anyānubhāvanihsunya- rūpam yattatsamahitam" ( KSS. IV. 7). On the strength of this definition, anticipated by Bhamaha, we suppose Bhamaha's samãhita as containing a bhavaprasama. In Udbhața's definition of samähita we hear of a rather unfamiliar object namely a praśama of rasa (i.e., an abatement of the operation of a sentiment ). ( 3 ) Ananda says that rasa and bhava, etc., my be embel- lishments only when they are subordinate to some other meaning of the composition. Presenting an example, Ananda

124 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

says, "tadyatha catuşu preyo'lamkarasya vākyarthatve pi rasadayo'ngabhuta drsyante " In the verse 'kim hasyens' 46 we have karuna risa as auxiliary to another meaning The other meaning which is embellished by karunarasa is a pre- yo'lamkara in the technical conception of Udbhata, etc, In other words, the other meaning ( te, vakyārtha ) is a priya- tarākhyana or the vakyartha is suggestive of a ratibhava ( love or devotion ) for the person addressed, in order to present a preyasvat Abhmnava points out that the principal meaning is the statement of 'narapatiprabhava.' The statement is embellished by karunarasa since the plai meaning-'you have killed the soldiers'-is rendered more appealing by way of making it more delectable, Compare, "na hi tvaya ripavo hatā itı yadrganalamkrto'yam vakyarthastadrgayam, api tu sundaratartbhuto'tra vākyārthah, saundaryam ca karunarasa- krtameva" and "nanu rasena kım kurvata prakrto'rtho'lankri- yate rasenāpi tarhı sarasīkriyate so'rtha iti svasamvedya- metat" ( Locana, p 194) The whole statement in its em- bellished form is a catu ( ic., a flattering statement or eulogy ), as pointed out by Ananda in the line quoted above In the verse "kşipto hastavalagna" 47 the principal vakyartha 1s "tripurarıpuprabhavatisaya", as pointed out by Ananda himself and there irsavipralambhasrngara serves oaly as an ertbel- lishment. (4) By the observation "tadyatha ... drsyante" Ananda seems to show simply how rasa and bhava may occur also as auxilary ( Le , subordinate, angabhuta ) elements. His example "'kim hasyens" preseots an auxilaty rasa and hence a rasa- vadalamkara of the rew conception But the same verse gives us a preyasvat alamkara and heoce according to Udbbata ve should bave the sugg-stion of some other bhava of ratyadi groap This bhiva is to appear as more predominant since

46 Dav, II p. 193. 47. DOT. IL p 195

CHAPTER II' 125

it is conveyed by the väkyärtha (i.e. the principal meahing embellished'by karuna rasa ). Now the question is, is the bhäva supposed to be suggested by the väkyartha embellished by káruņa rasa, a bhāva of asamlaksya type ? As interpreted by Abhinava, Bhāmaha's preyo'lamkāra is a description of a priti ( love ) for guru, deva, nrpati and putra. ( Locana, pp. 191-192 ). If it is simply a description then it may be taken as a . matter of fact ( i.e., vastu.). This matter of fact being predominantly suggested we may finally have a vastudhvani. But ratyädi in the definition of preyas given by Udbhata may seem to be ratibhava of the asamlaksya type. It is already indicated that rati of asamlaksya type, that too for the nāyikā or nāyaka, will present a rasa; and as there is an alam- kara called rasavat, and as the example of preyas describes love for a child the rati of preyas means rati for guru, nrpa, etc. We know that Abhinava recognises only a vyabhicāribhāva duly exited in the heart of the sahrdaya as presenting a bhavadhvani. Hence, it appears that any delineation of love for guru, etc., would be only a matter of fact description for him. We find devadivişayaka rati, recognised in alakşyakrama- bhävadhvani only in the writings of the later theorists begin- ning from Mammata. But Ananda and Abhinava do not tell us of any such bhava to be present in the verses 'kim hasyena' and 'ksipto hastavalagna'. What Ananda' observes in the words-"yadā tu catusu devatāstutișu ·vā rasādInāmangatayā vyavasthänam ... tadapi guņībhūtavyangyasya dhvaninispanda- bhūtatvamevetyuktam prak" 48 may be found to be justified by recognising a principally suggested matter of fact regarding an eulogy of the king and the god in the illustrated verses in the manner of recognising a vastudhvani in the verse "sikhariņi" where also we find a cātu as pointed out by Abhinava. Ananda once again observes : "rasadirūpavyang- yasya guņībhāvo rasavadalamkāre daršitaļ; tatra ca teșāmā-

48. Dhv. III. p. 499.

126 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

dhıkārıkavākyāpeksayā gumbhāvo vivahanapravrttabhrtyānuyā yirajavat" ( Dhy III p 462 ) Here Adhikarıka vakya m-ins the sentence as construed to have the principal vacya ( Le., meaning ) which is principal on account of leading to the more predominintly suggested meaning such as the matter of fact regarding the rajavişayakaratı in 'kim hasyena' (5) If in this manner rasa and bhava are treated as alamkaras, their very use may be justified only if they help the suggestion of some rasa or bhava as desired in the samksepi- śloka-"rasabbāvādıtātparyamasritya" ( Dhv II p 197) But we find only vastu as principally suggested in the two verses given for illustration of subordinate rasas Yet the delineation of the rasa as the alamkara may be supposed to be justified in consideration of their assistance for the suggestion of a more predominant contextual rasa where the suggested matters of fact also may serve the purpose of vibhava, ete Compare,-"ayam bhāvah tadavasyamanyenālamkaryens bhavitavyam / tarc1 yadyıpı vastumātramapı bhavats, tathapi tasya punaripi vıbhavadirOpatātparya vasanādrasādı tātparyamevets sarvatra rasadhvanerevåtmabhåvah" ( sic ) 50 (6 ) Ananda and Abhinava are slow in recognising deva- divişayakaratı as presenting cases of bhavadhvam of the asam laksyakrama type, possibly be ause of the fact that the bhava of asamlaksyakrama must be equally experienced also by the sahrdaya through hrdayasamvada But it is doubtful if any feeling of devotion for the king occurs at all in the mind of the sahrdaya by reading the verse 'kim hasyena' Ananda and Abhinava are not prepared to call it a case of asamlaks, a+ krama be ause the reader is hardly expected to have the same

4D Adh'Ltr ka meam pracipal ef "adhlitray pbale sricyams dh'kint ca tatprathub / taryet vrttam kavbbirzibigzrikame cyate" (S D VI ) for a imlar ime Vide, abo, NS' (Trams ) Inter p Lt 50 LecaAs, P. 197.

CHAPTER II 127

ardent feeling of devotion for the king as that of the speaker. Hence, the reader simply derives the information ( vastu ) that the speaker is flattering the king as the principally suggested content. That in cases of the panegyrics addressed to god and kings, etc., Ananda does not recognise any sentiment of asamlaksya type as the principal content may be confirmed also by the following observation of Dr. Keith : "We are on much firmer ground regarding the Devisataka of Anandavar- dhana the writer on poetics ( c. 850), whose hundred very elaborate stanzas hardly conform to his own theory that the poet who pays too much attention to ornaments falls into the error of neglecting the suggestion which should underlie poetry, but the deviation is excused by his own admission that in panegyrics of the gods the sentiment is of secondary im- portance." ( HSL. p. 218 ). ( 7) But we find that even in the verses where rasa is subor- dinate, Ananda desires the suggestion of the contextual rasa. In other words, such verses, where there is the prabhāvātisaya- varnana in respect of a certain god with the help of subordinate rasa, as in 'ksipto hastāvalagna,' may be helpful for the sug- gestion of a contextual rasa. We may have an illustration from the passages in the Mahäbhärata, which describe the excess of greatness of the gods, which help the suggestion of the contextual santarasa by way of exhibiting the greatness of parabrahman, the realisation of which leads to the realisation of santa. Here it will suffice for us to compare a few words from a much longer discussion of Ananda regarding sänta- rasa of the Mahabharata, as follows : "devatātirthatapahpra- bhrtinām ca prabhāvātisayavarņanam tasyaiva parabrahmaņah prāptyupāyatvena tadvibhūtitvenaiva devatāvišesāņāmanyesām ca" ( Dhv. İV. p. 532 ). ( 8 ) Mammata and later writers consider also devadivișa- yaka rati 51 as being suggested as asamlaksyakramabhāva.

51. "ratirdevīdivişayā vyabbicarī tathanjitah" where devādi refers also to muni, guru, nrpa, putra, etc. ( vide KP. IV ).

128 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

It appears that Mammata derived the idea of considering devadıvişayaka ratı as bhava from the definition and illustration of preyasvat given by Bhamaha and Udbhata It might have been duly experienced by the time of Mammata that just as the love between the hero and the heroine is exeited in the heart of the reader, the love for the child as expressed by the poet may also be equally shared by the reader In this manner there is scope for samananubhava ( Le, hrdayasamvāda ) also in the case of devadivişayakaratt That is why the later writers include the feeling of love for the child or the god or the friend, ete, at least in the scope of bhavadhvant. As early a writer as Rudrata went even to the extent ,of recognising preyan as a rasa3 where the sthayibhava is sneha This is a love ( rati ) for the child and friend, etc The later vaişnava writers took special note of the devavişayaka rati for recognis- ing also a bhaktirasa But there is possibly a practical reason for the tack of any reference to devadıvişayaka ratı giving cases of asamlaksyakramabhavadhvan in the writing of Ananda It is a matter of experience that while the love for the child is more generally shared the devotion for a god ref-rred to in a particular panegyrie may be restricted onty to a section of the readers That some of the sentiments may be more generally experienced is admitted by Ananda himself by observing-"Srngåraraso ht samsārinām miyamenānubhava vişayatvatsarvaras-bhyah kamantyataya pradhanabhttah* ( Dhv III p 397 ). A sincere sharing of the love ( or honour ) for a king by the render is very doubtful Some of the deto- tional lyrses in Sanskrit are mere enumeration of names 5$ and in sore cases the feeling of devotion may not be fully evoled in the heart of the reader be ause of an indifference of the reader to the particular god addressed in the pece But

52 That ram is g'ven a s atu bigher than that of bhara le atready thown 53 Vide 'Samskrit Dero-tonal Peetry' ia 'Arpecti ef Sanıkrıt Lite rturt' by Dr S, K De ( p. 101 )

CHAPTER II 129

the principle is already laid down by Ananda and particularly by Abhinava for recognising even such bhavas as genuine bhavas of asamlaksya type if there be hrdayasamvada. In our opinion, even the patriotic poems, evoking a love for the country, similar to that of the poet 5f or the poetical charac- ter, 55 in the heart of the reader, may be treated as cases of asamlaksyakramabhavadhvani, and as such Mammata's ex- pression 'devadi' should refer also to 'svadeśa.' ( 9 ) Pandit Pattabhirama Sastri contends that the rasadi occupying a subordinate position should be considered only a guņībhūtavyangya and never an alamkāra simply because of being ( indirectly ) helpful to the delineation of rasa in- asmuch as even gunas will have to be considered alamkāra on that score. The learned editor further adds that, it is a secret that, Mammata does not recognise rasavat, etc., as alamkāras only because of their feeble claim to be called so. Cf. "rasopakārakatvamātreņālankāratvavyavahāro guņesvapi ativyāpnuvan kathankāram nirākāryā iti guņībhūtavyangyānām guņībhūtavyangyatvameva nālamkāratvam iti kāvyaprakāsādi- pramanikanibandharahasyamapyatrānusandheyam" ( Dhv. p. 195 ). But it may be pointed out that Mammata himself called rasavat, etc., as alamkāras and the same are not defined and illustrated in the tenth chapter only to avoid repetition, and the rahasya is also pointed out only by the less dependable commentators. · The subordinate rasa may be called rasopa- kāraka in so far as it embellishes the principal vakyartha which suggests the more predominant contextual rasa by rendering the suggestive vakyartha more delectable. But the gunas are never conceived as rasopakäraka. As it will be presently seen, the gunas are invariable associates of rasa and even Mammața calls the gunas invariable attributes of rasa ( ye rasasyāngino dharmā ......... syuracalasthitayo gunāh. KP. VIII ).

54. As in the case of Kipling's 'For All We Have and Are.' 55. As in the case of Tennyson's 'The Charge of the Light Brigade.' 9 D

130 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

( 10 ) While discussing arthasaktyudbhivt variety of sam- lakşyskramavyangvadhvan we have seen that the bhava of the asamlaksyal rama bhavadhvamt should be experienced by the sahrdaya also Like Mammata Jagannatha also considers the vyabhicanbhavis and the devadivisayarats is presenting cases of bhavadhvani, which is defined by him as "vibhava- dıvyajyamanaharsādyanyatamatvam taltvam " Here, harşadı refers to the thirtythree vyabhi-aribhavas and ratt ( love ) for guru, deva, nrpa and putra, ete They make the number of bhavas thirtyfour (' harşadayastu trayastrımsadvya- bhicārinah / gurudevanrpaputrādıvisayā ratišceti catustrimiat." RG 1.) Under the context of discussing these bhavas Jagannatha also refers to a view according to witich the bhavas of bhavadhvant are to be experienced by the readers also in the manner of experiencing the sthayibhava in case of the sugeestion of rasa Jagannatha observes, "harsadinam ca sāmājıkaentanāmeva sthāyıbhavinyāyenābhivyaktih, sapi rasa- nyayena itr kecit / vyangyantaranyayenetyapare manyante" (RG 1)

Position of gunas in the dhvani theory : Bharata recognised ten gunas and same gunas are enumera- ted also by Dandın in the kārkā, "Sleşah prasādah samată mādhuryam sukumārata / arthavy aktırudārtvamojsh kāntisamādhayah" // ( KD I 41 ) Vamans recogmsed ten Sabdaeunas of these nimes and another ten arthagunas of the same names Bhamaba for the first time reduced the number of gunas to three Bharata desired the use of the gunas in conformity with the rasas "d but the gunas themselves are not con-erved in terms of rasa 5* It

56 Vide sources of the sbeory in the brst chapter 57. Compare for imrance bs defin tion of midburya which is at follows . "When a wateace beard or uttered tauny t'eied dors not t re or dagunt ( asy one ), it ls an tanance ef sweetsrm ( msdburya ) " NS ( Tram, ), XVII. 101. p. 210.

CHAPTER II 131

was Ananda who for the first time conceived of gunas in terms of rasas. In his conception gunas owe their very being to the corresponding presense of rasas. But instead of making guņas subordinate to rasas in this manner Vämana gave gunas the higher status by including the rasas in the scope of one of his twenty gunas, viz., känti, which is defined in the words, "dīptarasatvam kantih." Bhāmaha's guņas are same in name to those of Ananda but his gunas do not have anything to do with rasas. His conception of gunas may be had simply from the words- "kecidojo'bhidhitsantah samasyanti bahūnyapi / yathā mandārakusumareņupiňjaritālakā / śravyam nātisamastārtham madhuramisyate / āvidvadanganābālapratītārtham prasādavat // ( KL., II. 2, 3 ).

These gunas are understood without any reference to rasa. But Ananda's gunas hinge upon the rasas. Just as the quality of heroism depends upon the soul, the gunas also depend on the soul of kāvya in the form of rasadi. Cf. "ye tamartham rasādilakşaņamanginam santamavalambante te gunāh śauryā- divat." ( Dhv. II. p. 204 ). To show the relation of gunas with rasa, Ananda says that the rasa śrngara itself is madhura, i.e., sweet, on account of being highly delightful. This delight is characterised by a melting of the heart. The mental state of melting is called druti. Thus the quality of madhurya, i.e., sweetness invari- ably owes its origin to the corresponding presense of the erotic sentiment. In practice, however, the madhurya guņa is said to be present in a kävya ( consisting of words and senses ) which suggests the śrngara rasa. Hence, we cannot recognise mādhurya without any reference to a rasa, only on account of the softness of the sounds, which may be experienced also in case of the ojah guna. Cf. Dhv. II. 7 and "śrūgāra eva rasāntarāpeksayā madhuraņ prahlāđahetutvāt / tatprakāśana- parasabdārthatayā kāvyasya sa mādhuryalaksano gunah / śra- vyatvam punarojaso'pi sādhāraņam." ( Dhv. p. 207 ).

132 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

We have seen that the qualty of madhurya is intimately related with the psychological stat- of melting of the heart Heoce, the madhurya is more and more conspicuous io vipra lambha srogara and karuna respretively because of greater and greater degree of melting

In the same manner the reahsation of the rasas, raudra, vIra and adbhuta, causes a great dIpti 59 ( or ujjvalatā, ie, blooming, expansion and burning ) in the heart of the reader The raudra, vira, and adbhuta rasas are invariable causes of the diptL Because of this relation of causality, the said rasas are th-mselves called dipti in a figurative manner ( ie laksa naya ) The words and meanings which are capable of sug gesting ( re, prakāfana para ) such rasas are said to have th- quality of ojah The carher theorists demanded that ojah belong only to a composition having long compounds Bst Ananda gives the verse "yo yah fastram" for showing that Ojah does not mvariably depend on long compounds of a composition ( anap-kutadirghasamasaracanah ) But, that ojah solely depends on the corresponding presence of the rasas like raudra, is clear from the expression 'asrıtya' of the kārika, 1I 9 ( tadvyaktıhetd sabdarthavasrityaujo vy avasthitam ) In defining prasada, however, Ananda does not differ mueh from bis predecessors Almost like Bhamaha he says "pras5- dastu svacchată {sbdārthayoh" (Prasada is the transp-rency of th- words and m-anings ) It is common to all the rasas and all the types of corposition, having long compounds of without having any compoand But yet prasada is recogoised orly with reference to the suggested sense Prasada is charac- terised by the capacity of all the rasas to overpower the heart of the sahrdaya tmmediatelv But this immediste effeet of rases mv take place only when the rass is istantancouly realised on account of a clearty of th- expression and th- serse *dpb prat patarLrdayt (Locars, p 208 )

CHAPTER II 133

Abhinava tells us that in fact the sweetness ( madhurya ) belongs to the srngara and other such rasas themselves. But the same sweetness is superimposed on the words and meanings capable of suggesting such rasas. The technical definition of mädhurya is "the capacity of words and meanings to suggest a madhura rasa." Cf. "etaduktam bhavati-vastuto mādhuryam nāma śrūgārāde rasasyaiva gunah / tan-madhurarasābhivyañ- jakayoh sabdārthayorupacaritam madhura-srogārarasābhivya- ktisamarthatā saboārthayormādhuryamiti hi lakșaņam" (Locana, pp. 206-207 ).

From Ananda's words we learn that, gunas, as understood in their technical implication, belong to the words and the meanings suggestive of rasa. ( Cf. kāvyamāsritya mādhuryam pratitisthati; sabdārthāvāśrityaujo vyavasțhitam and prasāđastu svacchata sabdārthayoh ). Druti, dipti and the mental state of being overwhelmed are the effects of the rasas. Gunas always owe their occurrence to the corresponding presence of rasa.

Jagannātha's conception of guna :

Mammata recognises the gunas as the dharmas (i.e., attributes) of rasa. We calla composition madhura (i.e., having mādhurya) only in a figurative way ( i.e., through the use of upacāra ). With a reference to this view of his predecessors Jagannatha proceeds to Iquestion the very conception of gupas. He con- tends that in case of the fire we perceive the burning as its effect and the hot temperature as its quality, distinct from the effect. But in case of rasa we cannot perceive any quality as distinct from its effects like druti and dipti. Hence, what we can conceive are the effects of rasa like druti and not the gupas like madhura, Thus if we are to conceive of the gunas at all then we are to conceive them only in terms of the mental conditions like druti. In the expression "srngaro madhura" ( as we have in Ananda's karika, II. 7. ) #we are to understand the meaning as follows :

134 THE DHVANI THLORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Srgāra is madbura and hence, śrogāra has 'mādhurya' This madhurya is the capacity of Srngara to cause drutt, which is a mental state, ie, cittavriti Hence, madhurya has the relation of causality ( prayojakata ) with druti Because of this relation druti may be said to be identical with madhurya, ie, we may say that druti is madhurya, in a figurative manner just as we do in the expression 'ayurghrtam', where there is an identifi-ation of longivity with ghee on account of a causal relation ( :e., prayojakata ) Now we come to this position- Madhurya ( 1e , the capacity ) produces druti Hence, drutt is madhurya, on account of prayojakatasambandha Rasa produces druti ( identified with madhurya ), Le, Rasa produces madhurya Hence, Rasa is mudhura

This expression is possible in analogy with the expres- sion, 'vajigandha usna.' In fact vanigandha (1e., Physalis Flexuosa ) produces warmth, when it is consum-d H-nce vajigandha its-If is called warm in the manner of identi fying a garmeot as warm when it is capable of pro ducing warmth Thus Jagannatha con ludes that, the guns mådhurya is the capacity to produce the mental state of druti. Anything that is produced may have many causes, some of them being general causes, e g, Ivara, Ivareccha, pragabhāva and adrsta Now, when madhurya is conceived as the causa- lity for druti, it is to be understood not as belonging to the grocral causes like adrşta, but as belonging to the particular causes, viz., fabda, artha, rass and racacă Jagannatha does net corsider this capacity to prodpce druti to be restricted only to the rasa, but in his opmion the capacity belongs equally to the word and the sugeestive meaning also Such being the case, he does not fetl th- recessity of recognising any lakyars in the expression 'madhura racan5.' whi h relegates the må- dhurya guns also to the words Cf · evametesu gunes rasa- mltradharmequ vyavasthitesu r adhura racana, ojasv bandbs ryadsyo vyavabara supacārikā it marrmatabhattadayah"

CHAPTER II 135

and, "atha srngāro madhura ityādi vyavahāra kathamiti cet, evam tarhi drutyādicittavrttiprayojakatvam, prayojakatāsam- bandhena drutyādikameva vā mādhuryādikamastu / vyavahā- rastu vājigandhoșņeti vyavahāravadaksatab / prajojakatvam cādrstādivilakşaņam šabdārtharasaracanāgatameva grāhyam / ...... tathā ca sabdārthayopi mādhuryāderīdrśasya sattvādupa- cāro naiva kalpya iti tu mādrśah." in RG. I.

It requires to be noted here that according to Dr. Sandhya Bhaduri Jagannātha revives the position of Dandin, Vamana and Bhojarāja, 59 and Prof. N. N. Choudhuri observes that Jagannatha "concludes that the theory of the old school re- presented by Dandin and Vamana that gunas are the qualities of word and sense is perfectly sound and the subtleties intro- duced by Anandavardhana and his followers are uncalled for scholastic devices." 60 But in my opinion Jagannātha neither wanted to revive Dandin's or Vamana's conception of guņa nor did he maintain any difference from Ananda. For, while the earlier theorists like Dandin and Vamana conceive of the gunas without any reference to states of mind caused by rasas, Jagannatha conceives them as the capacity of rasas to produce certain mental states like druti. In my opinion instead of differing from Ananda he adopts Ananda's con- ception of gunas in principle. For, it is already pointed out that according to Ananda also the gunas belong to the words and the meanings. For Ananda srngara is madhura and the quality of mädhurya belongs to the words capable of sugges- ting śrngara. Hence by way of suggesting srngra the words may serve as the cause of druti according to Ananda also. "śņūgāra eva rasāntarāpeksayā madhuraḥ ...... tatprakāśana- parasabdārthatayā kāvyasya sa mādhuryalaksano guņah." ( Dhv. p. 207). In course of arguments also Jagannätha betrays much evidence of his being influenced by Ananda.

59. Vide her translation of RG in Bengali, p. 137. 60. Kavyatattvasamīkss, pp. 75-76.

136 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Jagannatha's identification of druti with madhurya reminds us of Ananda's words "yatha raudradın hi prakāsayatah kāvyasya diptiroja itt prak pratipāditam" ( Dhv p 315 dipti= ojah, so, druti=madhurya )

Without any difference with the followers of the dhvani theory Jagannatha also recogmises only three gunas, viz., madburya, ojah and prasad1 Jagannatha no doubt reproduces the defimtions and illustrations of the gunas recognised by earlier alamkarikas like Vamana But that is only to show how the same gunas may be included in the scope of the thre gunas recognised in the dhvani theory Indeed Mammata also refers to those older d-finitions only to show the propriety of reducing the twenty gunas of Vamana to three That Jagan natha also, on his own part, recognises only the three gums of the dhvam theory is further evidenced by the fact that, after reprodu ing Mammata's way of reduring the number of gunas to three, he dwells at length on the letters and compost- tions which are suitable or unsuitable only to th- three gunas, viz., prasāda, madhurya and ojah.

Anandavardhana does not point oat the I-tters that s tegest madhurya or ojah. Mammata indicates them in detail and Jagannätha dwells on ther at still greater length For ex- arple, Mammața observes "varnassamāso racanā teșām vyanjakatamitah / ke kasya ityaha- mordhni vargāntyacās sparšah atavarga ranau laghu / avrttirmadbyavrttirva madhurye ghatara tatha f/"

Jagannitha also speaks almost in the same tune as-"tatra favargavarjıtšnam varginăm prathamatrttyzh farbhirantasth- aiśca ghațiti avrttirmrd rvttirvā racanānupūrvyātmlā mā- dhuryasya vyafjiks" (RG I) But all these th-ores of the Iater writers are bised on Ananda's treatment of samghotanh and the varnas, suggestiv- of rasa introdoced by the kariks, IN 2.

CHAPTER II 137

Samghatana in dhvani theory : Ananda maintains that samghatana ( composition ) is also a factor suggestive of rasa. Samghatana as shown by earlier theorists is of there types, viz., ( 1 ) compo- sition without any samasa, (2) composition with medium- sized samāsa and (3) composition with long compounds. ( Dhv. III. 5). Conceding to this classification Ananda adds that samghatanās are grounded in qualities like mādhurya and suggest the rasas. The propriety of the speaker and the contents of the speech determines it. ( Dhv. III. 6). But we know that, Ananda also determines a sentence having long compounds as the 'sabda' that reveals the quality named ojah, ( while the 'artha' responsible for the delineation of ojah need not depend on long compounds ). Since there may be a reference to the question of compounds also in time of considering the gunas we are required to know clearly as to what is the difference between samghatana and guna. The difference is that, a composition may have gupas only when it possesses rasa, irrespective of the presence or absence of compounds. A sentence having long compounds also will not be said to have ojah if there is no rasa. But in that very sentence we must have any of the three types of samghatana which occurs irrespective of the presence or absence of rasa. Yet samghatanas are said to be suggestive of rasa because the propriety of using a certain type of samghatana is determined by the type of rasa. The type of the appropriate samghatana is, however, determined also by the theme ( visaya ). The poet is at liberty to use any samghatana in that kāvya where rasa is not largely suggested. Cf, "parikathāyām kāmacārab, tatretivītta mātropanyāsena nātyantarasabandhābhinivesāt." ( Dhv. III. p. 326 ). It is to be noted here that, the realisation of rasa owes its origin to the cognition of vivhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicaribhava, which may be presented by the meaning of the words. Then how can we suppose the nature of com- position to be suggestive of rasa ? The reply may be had from

138 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

the words of Ananda himself Ananda maintains that in karuna and vipralambha srngara the composition should not have samasa The realisation of these two rasas consists of a very delicate condition of the mind of the sahrdaya which may be disturbed by the slightest difficulty in grasping the meaning on account of the presence of compounds When other sentiments like raudra are to be delincated there is no need for eschewing middle sized compounds entirely, some- tim's when the exploits of a ' bravely hauchty" hero are to be described it is not essent al that even the composition with long compounds should be completely forsaken For in such cas-s 'compounds are also not iess helpful for the suggestion of the rasa Cf ' karunavipralambhasrngārayostvasamāsaiva samghatanā / tayorhi sukumārataratvāt svalpāyāmapyas vacchatayam sabdarthayoh pratitirmantharibhavati / part harya (Dhv III pp 320-321 ) This observation of Ananda shows that, the samghatanas suegest rasa by way of pre paring a proper psychological atmosphere for the relish of r3s3 This very eriterion is followed also in case of consider ing mere letters as suggestive of rasa

Letters as saggestive of rasa Ananda maintains that, letters art also suggestive of rasa But there may be an objection that mere letters are mean ingless and ;hence cannot be suggestive of rasa, for, rasa can be experianced only through the realisation of vibhara, ef", presented as the 'meaning' of the kavya Hence, Anands establishes the surgestivity of the letters on the ground of the relation of ngseement and cortranety, as follows- The lett-rs sand s, I-tters conjunet with 'r', and 'dha'- all these becom" deterrents of the erotic sentiment When these very letters are employed in relation to the sentirent of disgust and so forth, they will only intensify them Hen e letters suggest sentiments ( Dhy II1 3 4) Compare, * Šaşau sarephssamyogo dhakaras åpı bhüyasa / virodhtnah syuh śrogare tena varna rasacyutzh /!

CHAPTER II 139

ta eva tu niveśyante vībhatsāđau rase yadā / tadā tam dīpayantyeva tena varņā rasacyutaḥ // ( p. 303 ). It may be noted here that in enumerating the letters s, s, etc., Ananda had Udbhața's definition of the parusā vrtti in his mind. Compare, "saşābhyām rephasamyogaistavargena ca yojitā / paruşā nāma vrttih syāt hla-hva-hyādyaiśca samyutā" ( KSS. I. 4). Presently we will see that, Ananda wants the different vrttis also to be employed in conformity with the* contextual rasa. The question, as to how the meaningless letters may be suggestive of rasa, is very ably discussed by Abhinavagupta. According to Abhinava's aesthetics the rasas are certain psy- chological states and the extraordinary bliss resulting out of the very experience ( pratiti ) of these states. It is a matter of experience that some letters are agreeable to the ears while others are repulsive. That is why they react differently and cause different psychological states. That, meaningless sounds also may evoke sentiments is evidenced by the meaningless sounds of pure music, such as the seven primary notes regu- lated by the sound of the kettle drum or the sounds produced to imitate the rhythm of dances. 61 Compare, "etaduktam bhavati ...... anukaraņaśabdavacca." ( Locana. pp. 304-305 ). The later writers up to Jagannätha worked out in greater detail the list of the letters which evoke different sentiments, either directly or by indicating the corresponding gunas and it is a

61. There are varient readings of the relevent portion of Locana which runs in the KSS edn. as follows : "srotraikagrahyo'pi ca svabbavo rasanisyande vyāpriyata eva, apadagitadhvanivat puşkaravādyaniyamita višıstajātikaranaghrāhyanukaraņaśabda- vacca" where, the kavyamala edn. ( 1928 ) reads 'ghranadya- nukarana' and suggests also the reading "karanaprabhavadyanu- harasabdavat." In my opinion the most suitable meaning as shown here may be conveyed by the reading "jatikaranadyanu- karanaśabdavacca."

140 THE DHVANI THENRY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

task for the science of psycho-accaustic to put the worked out details to a seientific test. It may be interesting to note here that, in this manner even particular metres may be re- cogmised as suitable for particular sentiments, as it is done by a theorist like Ksemendra. Hence compare in his Suvt- tatilaka, kāvye rasānusārena varnanānugunena ca / kurvīta sarvavrttānām vinıyogam vibhāgvita // ( 3/7 ) śrngārālambanođāranâyıkārOpavarnanam / vasantadı tadangam ca sacchāyamupajātibhin / ( 3/17) vasantatilakam bhått samkare vtraraudrayoh / kuryāt sargasya paryante mālioIm drutatālavat // ( 3/19 ), etc. It may be easily noticed that in considering the suttability of the different elements like letters and metres for different sentiments the laiter are broadly grouped into two classes. The two groups may be indicated as follows : ( 1 ) 'Madhura group,' consisting of rasas admitting of madhurya guna, viz., śrngāra and karuna. This group also may include santa and the lately recognised rasas like vatsala, nhich ate capable of causing a melting of the heart. (2 ) 'Ojah group,' consisting of the rasas admitting of the ojah guna, viz., raudra, vira, adbhuta and vibhatsa, which are capable of causing expansion ( vistara ) and the burning of the heart, 62 The other rasas, viz, hasya and bhayanaka share the characteristics of both the groups according to the situation and the quality of prasada is common to all the rasas. 62. A troad d r's'on of tbe letters into twro groops, viz., hanh and agrreable, srems to be in the mind of Abblsava also when la the coatest of the gunar of Eharata be obuerres as followi ? mabbivs o hi kerasa varath maatapayantiva nikrataativa reptataktridaya ita çarujarrttipdrrakth, saye tu nirvzpuyas* tivopansgarikocitth lokagocara ersyamarthsh svarararedyo p'tl na vira' lryirgis trat (Abhinar Sharant, NS. VoL II. p. 319).

CHAPTER II 141

In the west also, the poems are classified into two groups, viz., tender-toned poems ( corresponding to the poems of the madhura group ) and aggressive-toned poems ( corresponding to the poems of the ojah group ). In the matter of indicating the more frequent letters of these groups also there is much similarity with Sanskrit poetics. The following lines from a paper entitled "Communication in Poetry" by Iva'n Fo'nagy, will be very interesting in this context.

"The majority of the sounds occur with about the same relative frequency in both groups. All the more striking is the fact that the frequency of certain sounds shows a significant difference in the two groups. The phonemes /1/, /m/, and /n/ are definitely more frequent in tender-toned poems, whereas /k/, /t/ and /r/ predominate in those with aggressive tone. For some reason precisely these sounds seem to be the most signi- ficantly correlated with aggression-either positively or nega- tively. The back vowels are also generally more frequent in the aggressive poems. But the tense and high /i/, which according to Grammont may express anger, also occurs fre- guently in the aggressive poems.

Of course, it may be supposed that the relatively greater frequency of /t/, /k/ and /r/ in words suited to the expression of aggressive emotions reflects a peculiarity of the Hungarian language. The question poses itself whether the 'sound spec- trum' shows a similar modification in a count based on French or German poems." etc. ( Word, Vol. 17. No. 2., p. 195 ). Mahimabhatta's conception of rasa realisation is very peculiar. He maintains that the sthayibhavas belonging to the characters delineated in a kävya are inferred on the strength of the vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicāribhāvas duly described in the kavya. The very cognition of the sthayibhava produces the relish of rasa which is experienced only by the man of taste. ( yatra vibhāvādimukhena bhūvānāmavagamastatraiva sahrdayaikasamvedyo rasāsvādodaya iti vastusvabhāva evāyam

142 THE DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

na paryanuyogapadavimavataratı prāmānıkānām.' VV 1) Mahima further holds that the letters also help th* inference of the sthayibhava belonging to the literary character becaus" it is a common nature of the persons subject to different psvchological states to use different sets of letters Compare, 'tatha hi ye ratisokakrantantahkaranah ye ca krodhotsāhadi Vivašaste madhurataravarnaviracıtāmasamāsaprāyām rephasa karatakarikarkašam ca dirghasamasabhuyistham samghațanš mtšritya bhumna bhāșamanā drsyanta tr svabhāva evayam' (VV III) The weakness of this position of Mahimabhatta lies on the fact that the nature of the letters is determined by the contextual rasa also in those places where the spesker may not himself be infused with any sentiment Rati and Soka, et~, are said to b- belonging to the poetical characters, but the poetical charicters may not always be the speaker Even an impattial deseription of the vibhavas, ete, may suegest rasa Moreover. it is also a commonly experienced fact that the different sounds really have difTerent psychotogical effects even without b-ing aided by any mental pro ess like inference Hence, Mahima s explanation loses ground to Abhinava's stand that in poetry, the sounds help the suggestion of rasa by the description of vibhava, ete, by way of preparing the suitable mental atmos phere for it.

It is also observed by Iva'n Fo nagy in a very interesting way that the sounds play a double role 'On the one hand they are elements in conventional symbols, connected with content indirestly, through the word and the sentence on th- other hand they are imm-distely linked with experience through the natural relationsh p of sound and content." ( Ibid ) That exp-rences may be evoked by the sonds directly without any obligation to the denotstive word corresponding in meaning to the said experience is very ably illustrated in the following' lines-"In poetie communication the message conveyed by sounds is in fact completed in the course of transmtsston In the line from Attila Jo zsel's poem Esik 'It is raining

CHAPTER II 143

dunnyög motyog a cipo ......... 'the shoes mumble and mutter' ..... the 'moist' palatals make the metaphor absolutely clear. The words have the meaning of mumble and mutter, as they are translated, but the Hungarian /n'/ and /t'/ sounds lost in the English translation give the original words a squelching and squashy quality, which really imitates the sucking sound of the wet shoes in the mud." ( Ibid. p. 214. ).

A very interesting example of sound being happily wedded to the sense and as such of being suggestive of the appropriate situation may be had in the lines;

"And like a downward smoke, the slender stream

Along the cliff to fall and pause and fall did seem." from Alfred Tennyson's 'The Lotos Eaters', where the sounds not only suggest the 'fall and pause' of the stream but also the drowsiness of the whole situation.

It may be noted here also that the Symbolists very ably recognised this independent wealth of sounds, i.e., the capacity to suggest rasa. Compare : "But whereas the Imagists, aiming at clear, precise images, appealed almost exclusively to the eye, the aim of the symbolists was to approximate poetry to music, in particular to the music of Wagner, using words as the musician uses notes, not to convey logical meaning, but by their associations and patterned sounds to induce or evoke in the reader a state of mind which M. 1 'Abbe' Bre'mond likens to the mystic trance." ( A Critical History of English Poetry, p. 507 ). Here 'mystic trance' may be said to be the same as the absorption ( i.e., tanmayIbhavana ) of the sahrdaya in the relish of rasa. But yet, these sounds must be the sounds of letters which belong to the meaningful words, which are capable of suggesting sentiments by way of descri- bing the vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva. Otherwise it will be difficult to distinguish between the domain of music and the domain of poetry with which alone our poetics is con- cerned. From the view point of poetry the meaningless sonnds

14€ THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS*

are only auxihary agents for suggesting rasa as it is very rightly observed by Abhinava in the words "ata eva ca sahakaritame vābhıdhātum nımittasaptamt krtā varnapadādısvitı / na tu vamaıreva rasābhıvyaktıh, vibhāvādısamyogāddhi risanışpat- tırityuktam bahusah" ( Locana, p 305)

Suggestion by order of words To distinguish Vyafjana from Abhidha Ananda agai and again says that while Abhidha belongs only to the words, Vyafijans my belong to the word, part of a wird, letters, Samghatana, etc The list of the elements bearing suggestivity, given by Ananda, is not complete We are thus teft by the theorist with the freedom of showing that even the order of words in the sentence may have a lot of suggestive potentility. Students of Sanskrit poetics may best refer to "Word order Ind its stylistie value in the ISOPANISAD" by Salvador Bucca in the Professor P K Gode Commemoration Volume ( p 34) for an illustration of this suggestive potentrhty of the word order Hence, compare :

"Oceasional place of the subject tdam sarsam ( 1 a ) after the verb, at the third place of the sentence te loka ( 3 a ) after the verb, at the third place of the sentence deva, ( 4 b ) after the verb, at the third place of the sentence mulham ( 15 b) at the end of the sentence and of the verse tarirom, ( 17 b ) at the end of the sentence and of the verse In all these cases the place has been determined by the erphasis lud on the elements of th- sentence placed at the beginnirg In the first case the word emphasized is ta, the logiest subyeut of the sentence, which expresses a furdamental id+s of the Upamsad In 3a the strong place is occupied by

CHAPTER II 146

asūrya 'devilish,' which is a very important and meaningful predicate of the subject, for it expresses the nature of the worlds, where the slayers of the Self go. In 4b na is placed at the beginning; it is the negation of all the sentence, and it emphasizes the incapacity of the devah to reach the Brahman."

In all these, what requires to be specially observed is that we have the idea of an emphasis in addition to the express sense of the words simply due to the occasional positions of the words in a sentence. This idea of emphasis ( or excess or atisaya ) must be recognised as a suggested idea (vyangyärtha), which may be compared to the idea of excess we have in respect of Rama in "ramo'smi sarvam sahe;" but the expression. must be reckoned as a case of Vivaksitānyaparaväcyadhvani owing to the speciality of the sentence (vakya). [ Vide, Factors. governing suggestion in arthaśaktyudbhava, p. 116, above. ]

The suggested idea of an emphasis that we have due to. word-order need not be confused with a case of kāku, which invariably requires a dramatic uttering of the words, whereas here the visual experience of the physical presence of the word itself is sufficient for giving the suggested content. Compare : Not only words, but sounds and sound-clusters,- morphemes bound as well as free, the syntactical arrangment, the usual word-order as well as its violation, that is to say, sound in all its myriad combinations, and, silence as well-can. contribute to the final purpose of a poem : the evocation of Rasa, "the aesthetic sentiment." [ T. N. Sreekantaiya : Mean- ing in Poetry : P. K. Gode Com. Vol. p. 393 ]. The position of ritis : In the opinion of Ananda, the rIti. theorists also scarcely understood the most essential element. in the kävya to be something like dhvani., From their treat- ment of rItis, it appears, that they were also making attempts to explain this very, essence of poetry, i.e., dhvani. But they failed to identify and analyse dhvani and introduced the ritis. instead. Ananda ovserves like this possibly because of the 10 D.

146 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

fact that the riti theorists also recognised some suegested sense in kavya, they were also charmed by the suggested sense, but in their attempts to define and analyse kavya they failed to distinguish the dhvant element of t'e kavya and instead of calling it the most essential element relegated the suggested sense to an insigfi ant position Thus, for exampl-, Vamana named a guna as kantr Kanti is the quality of having distinct rasas like śrngāra ( dipta risatvam kantih KSV III 2 15) If he would have said that kant alone makes a kavya or if he would have called it the most essential quality, then we would have had reasons to say that he also recognised at least a particular aspect of dhvanı But for Vamana kanti 1s as good as nineteen other gunas Thus he relegated kanti to an insignificant position Yet the rIti theorists for the first time enquired about a soul of the kavya And Ananda recognisey their naive att-mpt to analyse the most essential element of kavya, which is nothing other than dhvani Since Ananda clearly explains what is the most essential element in kivya by way of propounding the dhvani theory, he fecls it unne es sary to explain the riti theory anew or to adopt it to his sch-me with any modification Compare Dhy III 46 and the vrth thereunder. (Dhv p 517) The position of the vrttis The vrttis ere of two kinds, je, (1 ) the vrttts of drama ( natya ) and the (2) vrtlis of kavya The vrthis of natya are given by Bharata and they are namely-Bharatt, Kaisikt, Arabhati and Sattvati. The vttis of kavys are given by Udbhats and they are natnely-Parusi, Uparaganka and Gramya Ananda adopts them to his own sch-m- and interprets them as the proper use of artha and sabda respectively for belping the suggestion of rasadı. ( "rasadyanu- gunatvena vyaraharo'rthasibdayoh,' Dhy III 33) Accord ing to Ananda vtti mears vyavabara (1e., use ) Hence, the vftts of natya m-an the use of the maning and the vrtts of L3vya mean the us- of the words Butt th- vrttr must always be con-rived as having a propr-ty by way of being he'pful

CHAPTER II 147

to the suggestion of rasa. In fact Bharata also desired the vrttis to be understood as related to some rasa. Cf. "kaiśikī ślaksnanepathya śrngararasasambhavā" ( quoted in Locana, p. 518 ). 68 But in time of presenting the vrttis Upanāgarikā, etc., Udbhata does not make any reference to any sense. He simply says that these are the three modes in which anuprāsas occur. ( KSS. I. 7 and pp. 5-6). Ananda yet feels that these three modes of the arrangement of similar consonants may be congenial for suggesting different rasas, and the vrttis may be appreciated only as such. 6* Ananda once again ob- serves that after the introduction of the dhvani theory the two kinds of vrtti assume the position of ritis. ( samyagritipadavi- mavataranti ). In my opinion, what Ananda means to say is that the vrttis also appear to have been certain naive attempts to explain rasa, the most essential element, like the ritis and as such even in the dhvani scheme they are to be conceived as factors helpful for the suggestion of rasa. The gunIbhūtavyangya kāvya : Guņībhūtavyangya is defi- ned as the kavya, which has got an association with some suggested sense but where the expressed sense itself is more beautiful. ( Kārikā III. 34 ). Ānanda suggests that this guņī- bhutavyangya type should be skillfully employed in association with all the kavyas having an appealing suggestion of rasa. Compare kārikā III. 35. where 'prasanna-gambhīrapadah kavyabandhah sukhāvahah' means the kāvya having rasas, because the prasada guna is common to all the rasas and the presence of the same guna is indicated by prasanna-gambhira, etc. The following points are to be noted.

63, Compare, NŚ. XXII. 25, XXII. 40, XXII, 47, XXII. 55. etc. 64. Abbinava observes that the unworldly nature of rasa is more strongly confirmed by the fact that even meaningless ways of alliteration are helpful for the suggestion of the same. cf. "ataśca raso'yamalaukikaḥ / yena lalitaparuşanuprasasyārthā- bhidhananupayogino'pi rasam prati vyanjakatvam" ( Locana, p. 158 ).

148 THE DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

( 1 ) A suggested rasadı becomes subordinate to vacyartha as in rasavadalamkāra ( p 462 )

( 2 ) A suggested vastu becomes subordinate to the vacya as in samāsokti alamkāra ( p 471 ) ( 3) A suggested alamkara may also become subordinate to the vacya as in the case of the figure dipaka where an upamă is invariably suggested but not predominantly ( p 462) The citra type The composition which has no intention to depict any rasa, which does not have the capacity to convey any suggested sense, which has simply the charmingness of the vacya sense and the vacaka word, is called a citra That is not a kāvya proper but a mere semblence of kāvya (vide vrth p 494) Citra is of two varteties, namely, ( 1 ) sabda- cıtra, example -- duşkarayamaka etc -as in KD 1I1 71 (p 347) Samanayāsamanaya samānayā samānayā / sa mă na yāsamanayā samānaya samānayā //, and ( 2 ) vācya citra -- as for example, an utpreksa without any association with suggested serse or intention for sugeesting rasads

But the doubt arises-can there be any composition whicb dors not present some fact ? And can there be a fact which canpot cause a feeling or mood or sentiment ? ( Even if certain fact brings a passiveness of the mind that too must be recogni- sed as a stite of mind ( cittavrtt) akin to the Santarasa ) Mo-cover, if a composition cannot evoke any feeling then the very parpose of the poeti. composition fatls Hence, there cannot be some 'citra' type of composition devoid of the capacity to aroase a fecling or mood, and the occasion of determining ahat citra is, does not arise Ananda admits thr validity of such an objection, and shows t is own doubt as to the availability of sush a composition, call-d citra in th+ stnctest sens- of the term and says that the citra is simnly imaemed to fe there Ananda's strong conviction is that for s composition's being heavy with sentiment the poet must have the iotention to compose it with that defimte purpose Th-

CHAPTER II 149

reason behind such a conviction is possibly that, for Ananda, a · poet himself must have the anubhava ( experience ) of a certain sentiment in order to relegated it to the heart of the sahrdaya. It is some sort of sentimental communication between the poet and the sahrdaya. Even when the poet does not intend to convey a sentiment the väcya sense referring to some fact or other may yet cause some feeling in the heart of the sahrdaya; but that is destined to be very remote and weak and the com- position being so scarcely associated with sentiment may be deemed to be as good as without sentiment-and hence the calculation of a citra type. Let us take the case of the duskara- yamaka quoted above. As the commentator informs, this is the request of some nayaka to his friend for fetching his love. There is also a description of the nayika that she is beautiful and learned. Here, after we understand the meaning we may have some shred of srogära-but that is too flimsy to be counted at all. The fact is that our composition of the mind is so much perturbed by the effort to understand the vācya sense and our eyes, ears, and of all, intelligence is so much captivated by the form of the words that we do not any further have the mind congenial for an unperturbed relish of the feeling ( a vItavighna pratiti ). Still worse is the case with gomutrikā, ardhabhrama, etc. It is regretable that Ananda finds some poets who do not have command over their speech and indulge in composing citras. Hence he imagines this type. But as determined and suggested by his new theory, a composition without suggested sentiments, etc., does not become of a poet. Dispensing thus with the citra type Ananda proceeds to remind that when the contextual rasa is taken in- to consideration we cannot have an independent instance of guņībhūtavyangya also ( vrtti. p. 499 ). But as normally the case is, some citra also may occur in the body of a larger prabandha having a predominant and more appealing rasādi. As a matter of fact there must also be some citra aspect of the kāvya. A kāvya cannot have rasādi or any suggested sense for

150 THE DHVANI THFORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

every word of it. There must also be some descriptive portion for the depiction of the rasadi But what is discouraged is a citra for citra's sake Hence, Ananda opines that only the novice may spare to compose citras, but, for the mature pocts dhvan alone is kāvya (cf vrtt pp 499-500, prāptaparinatīnām tu dhvanıreva kāvyamitı sthitametat ) Änanda observes that all good poetry possesses a suggested content, either commen surating with the small extent of it or being present in a parti cular portion of the kavya but predominating over the whote length of the composition and serving as its soul Hence In saying 'dhvanireva kavyam' he does not even leave any scope for gunibhotavyangya But for a proper analysis and for a better understanding of what dhvani is, through a contrast with citra and also guntbhotavyangya, all these different types are to b examined Tillyard also believes that postulation of "direet' poetry which is in fact very rare is also needed for a better presentation of the oblique poetry through contrast Compart- "the terms 'direet' and 'oblique" poetry are a false contrast. All poetry is more or less oblique there is no direct poetry But the terms 'less oblique and 'more oblique' would sound ridiculous and the only way to be emphatic or even generally intelligible 15 by exaggeration to force a hypothetical but convenient con- trast " ( E. M. W Tillyard Poetry Dtrect and Oblique. p 10) A reply to Visvanatha's objection prahehka. Anands would recognise a kavya even with a vastu predominantiy suggested as a genuine case of dhvani In this connection it is necessary to examine Visvanatha's criticism of Ananda's stand Višvarātha writes-' yattu dhvanıkārenoktam "kāvyasyātmā dhvanih' it tat kun vastvalamk ararasadilaksanastrirupo dhva- mh Lavyasyatma uta rasadiropamātro vā ? nadyah prahelilā dåvativy apteh / dvitlyascet ? omiti brmah (SD I ) It should be nored that for Visvanatha the Dh kariks ! 1 sayours of a defimtion of kavya, which it is not Even if dhyans is taken as the soul of Lavya then what is the body for the residence of that soul ? Visvanitha says 'vakyarr

CHAPTER II 151

rasātmakam kāvyam' ( SD. I. 3 ). Here the vākya is specified as the desired body for the soul rasa. This may be taken as a definition of kavya. But it is not logical to say that kāvya is defined as 'a kāvya where the soul is dhvani.' Because the doubt yet remains-'what is kavya, the substratum for the soul dhvani.' Hence 'kāvyasyatma dhvanih' is not a definition of kävya and it must not be understood as determining the scope of kavya once for all. Visvanātha's greatest objection is to vastudhvani, for, in his opinion if vastudhvani (and also alamkaradhvani ) is recognised as the 'soul of kāvya' then even the examples of prahelika will have to be recognised as kāvya. But Viśvanātha calls any suggested vastu vastu- dhvani without any reference to the predominance of it. An example of prahelika presents a suggested vastu. But since it is a suggested vastu and not rasa, it cannot be called a kāvya. Of the earlier theorists Dandin names and illustrates as many as sixteen varieties of prahelika and refers to fourteen other varieties. Visvanātha would not recognise it even as an alamkära, because it is detrimental to rasa. An alamkāra, according to him, must be an upakāraka for rasa (cf. SD. X. 1.) Prahelikā is only a charming way of speech. Compare : 'rasasyaparìpanthitvannalamkāraḥ prahelikā / uktivaicitryamātram sā cyutadattākșarādikā // ( SD. X. 13 ).

Example :

pândavānām sabhāmadhye duryodhana upāgatab / tasmai gām ca suvarņam ca sarvānyābharaņāni ca // From the peculiar verbal construction of the verse the meaning appears as that, Duryodhana was warmly received by the Pandavas; but that is simply absurd and the actual meaning is had only when we write as follows-Sabhämadhye' (a)dur ( aduh ) yo ( yah ) dhana ( adhana), etc. This form of the sentence can be had only by a re-arrangement of the same words. And the actual meaning appears as that 'the poor man who came to the sabha was given (aduh ) cow, etc.'

152 THE DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS This is a prahelika on account of keeping the kriya understood ( knyāgupti ) Višvanātha does not give us to learn what n the suggested sense here Yet let us examine if this s a case of dhvani according to the theory of Ananda ( 1 ) There are two senses One sense related to the poor man, another related to Duryodhana Both the senses are primary senses of the words taken separately (2 ) It is not a case of Slesa, because both the senses are not contextual ( 3 ) The words are here anckarthaka In such cases Visva nstha finds an abhidhamulalabdivyafjana. (SD II 21) The pon contextual meanng, in such a case, is recognised as sug gested That is a suggested vastu and as such should present a case of vastudhvant (4) But, even if the non-contextual meaning is taken as suggested, it cannot be considered as a case of dhvam, since the idea relating to Duryodhana is not more appealing than and predominant over the express sens- relating to the poor man Hence, we cannot apply Ananda's definition of dhvani to this case (5) It is also not a case of gunibhütavyangya Applyig Dhy III 34, we do not find it to be so, because the idea of the poor man being received, te, the vacya sense, also does not charm us much (6 ) That it is not a citra is deelared by Vivanatha hims-if in the karika defining prahelika, quoted above (7) We do not have both the express sens" and the sug- gested sense as the source of camatkrtt Hence, we cannot have it as a genuine case of kavya Here we simply have a puzzi- or riddle, or being charmed by neither of the express sense or the suggested sense but hy the mere manner of spee h # must call it a cas of ukttraicitrya and must not confus* it with Ansnda's Yastudhvam

CHAPTER II 153

( 8 ) So far we are accepting Visvanätha's own stand as regards the nature of the non-contextual sense relating to Duryodhana. We are supposing that Visvantha would re- cognise the non-contextual sense as suggested and presenting a suggested vastu. But as observed earlier Ananda would recognise also the non-contextual sense as the primary sense of the words conveyed by Abhidha. Hence, there being no suggested vastu, according to Ananda, the confusion of the verse with vastudhvani must not occur at all.

( 9 ) Let us suppose again that Viśvanätha finds here a case of suggested alamkāra of the sabdasaktyudbhava type and thus an alamkara-dhvani. But according to Ananda there cannot be a suggested alamkära here. And there is also little justification in imagining, as a critic, some sort of a relation like sādrsya, virodha, etc., between the contextual and the sug- gested sense. Even if we suppose that there is an alamkara, it is a pretty doubtful if any sahrdaya is delighted by that. The suggested alamkära being not appealing and predominant and distinctly suggested, we cannot call it a dhvani. More- over, it is crystal clear that the composer of prahelikā does not ever have the intention to convey such a suggested sense. . The intention to that effect being not there, the imagined sug- gested sense does not deserve any consideration. ( cf. Dhv. p. 496, 'vivaksopārūdha eva hi kāvye śabdānāmarthaḥ'). Hence, this is not a case of dhvani.

( 10) Such verses may yet occur in the body of a genuine kävya, and may at times serve the purpose of suggesting rasadi. For example, for delineating a buffoon or a clown causing the sentiment of laughter, a number of such verses may be put to his lips. But taken apart from the context they cannot stand as kāvya on their own merit. It requires to be noted here that a good number of so called udbhataslokas also may be dispensed with in this manner. A dhvani is a kavya. To be recognised as a dhvani a certain

154 THF DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

composition or a certain group of words must first of all be recognised as a kavya. But we do not call a delightful assem- blage of words kavya unless we get the delight really because of the sense conveyed by the words. If we do not demarcate the scope of kavya like this, it would indeed be difficult to find a scope for the riddles and the puzzles and the like Mere alamkaras, particularly the sabdalamkaras, also cannot present genuine instances of kāvya, but a kāvyanukāra because a kavya is expected to appeal to heart by presenting a charming fact or an tmaginary idea or a sentiment. Ifthe composition faus to do any thing more than appealing to the intelleet alone, it would not be called a kavya according to the dhvam theory, masmuch as the man of taste, who can appreciate a kāvya, is called a sahdaya and in the term sahrdaya itself there is a reference to the heart ( hrdaya ). The discovery of this subjective aspect of kavya is indeed a great achivement for the dhvant theory. Yet the kavyas of different posts may vary in capacity to appeal to heart. Hence the gradation of kavya is also shown. It will be observed that the amount and nature of appeal of the same Lavya may vary from reader to reader also. That it is a fact and that it was recognised by the theorists themselves will be shown with illustrations. Since, they admit a gradation of the kavya, a kåvya having the capacity to arouse a sentiment is recogni- sed as the best type of Lavya; and this leads us to the pheno- menon of rasa-realsation.

CHAPTER III

THE REALISATION OF RASA

Bharata's Rasa sūtra : According to Bharata no meaning can proceed ( from speech ) without ( any kind of) rasa ( i.e., sentiment ). 1 With this conviction he tells us the process of realisation of rasa in the sutra-"vibhāvānubhāva- vyabhicarisamyogadrasanispattih" of the sixth chapter of the NS. This sūtra plainly means "rasa results from the com- bination of vibhāvas, anubhāvas and vyabhicāribhāvas ( with the sthayibhavas )." That the word samyoga means a connec- tion with the sthayibhavas may be gathered from the prose exposition of the sutra by Bharata himself or a still later verse called anuvamsya śloka running as- bhāvābhinayasambaddhān sthāyibhavamstathā budhãh // āsvādayanti manasa tasmānnāțyarasāh smrtāh //, where 'bhāva' means 'vibhava and vyabhicaribhavas' and 'abhinaya' means 'anubhävas'. 2

The sthayibhavas are the permanent or dominant moods, which are made manifest within the heart of the men of taste by the reading of kävya or the witnessing of a dramatic per- formance. These sthayibhavas belong to all human beings in varying degrees of intensity. They are enumerated by Bharata as rati ( love ), hāsa ( gaiety ), soka ( sorrow ), krodha ( anger ), utsãha ( enthusiasm ), bhaya ( fear ), jugupsā ( repug- nance ), and vismaya ( wonder ). Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta recognise also a ninth sthāyibhāva, viz., nirveda ( passiveness ). These permanent moods are connected res- pectively with the sentiments ( rasas ), viz., srngāra, hāsya, karuņa, rauđra, vīra, bhayānaka, bībhatsa, adbhuta and šānta.

I. "na hi rasadrte kascidarthah pravartate" ( NS. VI ). 2. Vide Abhinavabharatī, NŚ. p. 290.

166 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Vibhava means the situation which evokes the dormant permanent moods ( sthaytbhavas ) into operation It has two aspects, viz., Alambana and uddipana The p-rsons or the objects in relation to which the permanent moods begin to operate in the mind are known as alambana vibhavas (te, supporting objects ) For example, love ( rati ) manifests itself in relation to a man or woman and hence the man or the woman is the alambanvibhava in case of srngararasa The other objects belonging to the same situation which encourace the intensity of the permanent mood ire called uddipanavibha vas ( or exciting situation ) In case of love the objects like the spring season and the oon rise are recognised as uddi panavibhāvas The anubhavas are the external manifestations of th+ operation of the permanent mood within In case of love ( rati ) the movements of the eyes and the side glances etc, are recognised as anubhavas Bharata does not give elaborate description or definttion or any definite number of the vibhavas and anubhavas as they may be understood from an observation of the behaviour of the people around (ef ' tatra vibhavanu bhāvau lokaprasıddhau / lokasvabhāvānugatatvācca tayorlakșa nam nocyate tiprasanganivrttyartham. NS VII p 348) The anubhavas whi h are ordinarily called so can be produ ed by an effort also Hence they may be called voluntary effects of the permanent emotions There are also eight other effe ts of the rising of the permanent moods whi h get mamtfested in the person having an excited permanent mood automatically These are not designated as anubhavas bat separately classrd as såttvika bhavas Yet, as they o cur as after-effects of the permianent moods thery are also 'nothing more than anubhs vas'3 They are named as Paralysis, Perspiration, Horrr pilatior, Chang- of Voice Trembling Change of coleur, Wecping and Fairting +

CHAPTER III 157

Vyabhicaribhavas are transitory mental states. They occur to the mind in a fleeting manner in course of experiencing a permanent mood. Although they are mental states they may be acted out in a manner so as to make others know about their occurrence. In kävya also they may be suggested through appropriate descriptions. The anubhavas are thirty three in number and they are like passiveness ( nirveda ), weakness ( glāni ), apprehension ( śankā ) and shame ( vrīdā or lajjā ). 5 Interpretations of Bharata's sūtra : Bharata's sūtra is vari- ously interpreted by later writers like Lollata, Śankuka, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta to show the way of realisa- tion of rasa. According to Lollata, rasa primarily belongs to the hero. For example, it was Räma who had love ( rati ) for Sita and as such the rasa (srogara ) belonged to Rama. The spectator ascribes this rasa to the actor on account of the actor's clever acting. Thus the spectator's knowledge about Rama's love for Sita gives him pleasure. The love is sthäyibhäva; and the very sthayI being brought to its full form ( upacita ) by vibhava, etc., becomes rasa. It is called sthäyI in its undeveloped form and belongs both to the hero and the actor, who is supposed to be the same with the former. Cf. "tena sthāyyeva vibhāvānubhāvādibhirupacito rasaḥ / sthāy bhavastvanupacitaḥ / sa cobhayorapi / ......... anukāryye'nukar- taryyapi cānusandhānabalāt iti" ( A. Bh. p. 272 ). This view does not treat of rasa as a matter of the reader's or the spe- ctator's feelings or emotions.

According to Sankuka, the actor skilfully imitates the actions of the hero to whom a certain sthayI actually belongs. The sthayI is inferred to be belonging to the actor on account of the vibhavas, etc., which are very skillfully presented. The sthayI is specially called rasa, on account of its being an im- itated one. Cf. "tasmāddhetubhirvibhāvākhyaiņ ...... anukar- trsthatvena lingavalatah pratiyamanah sthāyI bhāvo mukhya-

5. Vide NŚ. VI ( 18-21 ) and VII p. 355 and NS. Trans. 125.

158 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

rāmadıgatasthāyyanukarana rūpah / anukaranarūpatvādeva ca namantarena vyapadisto rasah' ( A Bh p 272) It appears that Abhinava refers to the view of Sankuka hims-lf when he maintains that, according to others, the sthayt wht h is cognised through inference is called rasa because of produemg a delight in the mind of the cogniser on account of its inh-rent charm 6 This very position is confirmed by Marmata also when he says-" anumtyamano'pi vastusaundaryabalā- drasaniyatve nanyānumiyamanavilaksanah sthayitvena sam-hā vyamāno ratyādırbhāvastatrāsannapı sāmājikānam vasanaya carvyamano rasa itt śrišankukah* 7 The most poignant defect of this theory is that, if the sthay1 1s sitnply inferred to be orcurring in the heart of the hero or the actor it would be as good as an inference of th Practical world, ind as such it would have other ordtnary rections in the heart of the spectator in stead of an unmited pleasure designated as rasa, as it is observed by Bhattanāyska cf "na ca sabdānumānādibhyah tatpratītau lokasya saras'ti prayuktā pratyaksādıva / nāyakayugilakāvabhāse ht pratyu a lajjajugupsāsprhadisvocitacittavrttyantarodayah" ete More- over, it is a matter of common experience that the relish of rasa is never perturbed by any process of anumana " Bhattinayaka's conception of rasa We have reen that according to Lollaja rass is produced by a connection of the sthayI with vibhavas, ete, which bring the sthayt into full form Hence his view is called utpattivada According to Sankuka the speetator coenises the sthay1 as belonging to th- hero ymitsted by the actor, throu»h inlerence Hence, accord ing to him there occurs a coenition of rasa ( rasah prattyat+ ).

CHAPTER III 159

The third notable theory was the theory of suggestion propoun- ded by Anandavardhana. Ananda says that in kāvya rasa can never be expressly stated. It is suggested by the expressly stated descriptions of vibhava etc. 10 Hence, according to nanda rasa is conveyed through suggestion. ( rasah abhivyajyate ). In Bhattanayaka's opinion rasa cannot be realised in the aforesaid ways. If rasa as understood in the sense of a developed sthayI is inferred or cognised as belonging to the hero or the actor or if it is gathered to have been produced in relation to the hero or the actor the spectator is very likely to take a dispassionate note of it. The question of such a sthäyi belonging to the hero is not likely to cause any relish in the heart of the spectator or the reader. It is already pointed out by quoting a few words from the A. Bh., that, the sthayI, in so far as it is cognised as belonging to any body other than the man of taste himself, would simply cause certain personal attitudes like shame, aversion and desire and never the relish of rasa. The sthayi also cannot be cognised as belonging to the man of taste himself; for that will be as good as supporting the utpattivada. But it is impossible, because, for instance, if the love between Rāma and Sitā is delineated in the kävya the man of taste cannot have the same feeling of love, as Sitã can never serve as a vibhava (i.e., object of love ) for him. It cannot be said that, let Sita be taken as a beloved ( kāntā ) in a general form, because in case of the description of gods such a generalisation would not be possible. It cannot be said that Sita would remind the man of taste of his own beloved, because in the matter of crossing of seas, etc., similar experiences of own life are are not there to be recol- lected. It cannot be said that in such a case an enthusiastic Räma is recollected, for such a Rama is not an already known object. If rasa is taken to be produced in the heart of the

10. cf. "trtīyastu rasādilakşanah ...... darsayisyate" ( Dhv. I. pp. 78-84 ) etc.

160 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

man of taste then in case of karuna rasa only soka ( Le. sorrow ) would be experienced and there would be no pleasant rehsh According to Bhattanayaka rasa also cannot be said to be vyangya (ie, suggested ) Because, suggestion of rasa 1s possible if it already remains ready made If the sthayi is snd to be there in the form of a sakti 11 (1e, an impression in the sub conscious mind ), which may be suggested by vibhåvas, etc, in proper occasion, then, there should be greater and greater efforts to have more and more of vibhavas etc, for better and berter suggestion of rasa in the manner of dest- ring to have more and more light for more and more distinct manifestation of the jar But in actuality, the men of taste do not try to have more and more of vibhavas ete , in time of realt sation of rasa Moreover, in the opinion of Bhattanayaka it is not stated by the theory of suggestion of rasa as to whose sthây! 1s suggested The question yet remains as to whether the rass (ie, sthay1 raised to the status of rasa ) belongs to the man of taste himself or to some one else ? Compare "nandktam bhattanāyakena raso yadā paragatatayā pratiyate tena na pratiyate notpadyate nabhivyajyate kavyena rasah" ( Locana, pp 180-182 ) and . bhattanayakastvaha-raso na prattyat-/ svagatatvaparagatatvadı ca pūrvavadvikalpyam /" ( A Bh p 276) Arcording to Bhattanayaka's own theory rasa is nenher produred nor cognised nor sugeested It is in fact relished by the man of taste There are three functions of poetry ( 1 ) Abhidha-this power presents the meaning of the poetry

13 dastl ls tere suppord to meas an lmpren on In tbe subeenr c'otmnd (ic. a t mbira ) beeaus accerd ag to the "ftmtm saka tbe aptrra (i.c, v rtue ) that inet ous of the yiga and rerdrs ln the sell as a samkzra is a poteney ( ie . fakri ) of the yaga, wh.ch is fasremenul in weurng wargs ( Vide, Sistra- dpks, p 106)

CHAPTER III 161

in the form of the description of the vibhāvas etc. ( 2 ) Bhava- katva-This power generalises the vibhāvas, etc., by liberating them from all relations in which they stand in ordinary life. This brings forth the realisation of the sthayi corresponding to generalised vibhāva, etc. ( 3 ) Bhojakatva-This function of poetry takes away the qualities of rajas and tamas from the self of the man of taste and renders the quality of sattva more prominant in which state the realised sthayi is so relished so. as to have the melting ( druti ) and expansion ( vistara ) and blooming ( vikäsa ) of the heart and a pure bliss which is on a, par with the bliss of realising the Supreme Self. Hence, 'rasa- nispatti' of Bharata's sutra according to Bhatțanāyaka means. bhukti ( i.e., relish ) of rasa and his theory is known as bhukti- vāda. Compare, “tasmātkāvye ......... parabrahmāsvādasavi- dhena bhogena param bhujyata iti" ( A. Bh. p. 277 ) and "tena. rasabhāvanākhyo dvitīyo vyāpāra; yadvasādabhidhāvilakșa- ņaiva / taccaitadbhāvakatvam nāma rasān prati yat kāvyasya tadvibhavādīnām sādhāraņatvāpādanam nāma / bhāvite ca rase tasya bhogah yo'nubhavasmarana-pratipattibhyo vilaksaņa. eva ...... parabrahmasvādasavidhah" ( Locana, p. 183). This. is the view of Bhattanayaka, as represented by Abhinava. We- may notice that Bhattanayaka does not make any reference to the sthayI. He maintains that in one stage 'rasa' is realised ( cf. "bhävite ca rase" ) and in the final stage 'rasa' is relished. ( cf. "tasya bhogah," etc.). But we may suppose that accor- ding to him in both the stages the term rasa means the relevant sthayi in a generalised form on the strength of his observation, as represented in the A. Bh., that, if rasa is realised as belong- ing to the man of taste he should be sorry in case of karuna rasa, instead of having any pleasure. ( cf. "svagatatvena hi pratītau duhkhitvam syāt" ). Although 'rasa' means the sthayibhava in the expression "bhavite ca rase" which corresponds to the stage of realisation of rasa, it does not mean a personal permanent. mood of the man of taste. The vibhavas, etc., which correspond to the 11 D.

162 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

sthayt are satd to be generalised That is how they are strpped of all the temporal and spatial specialities Sita, when genera fised, is cognised simply as a heroine Consequently the sthayi which is realised also becomes generalised Thus the realisation of rass means a simpl- awareness or conciousness of the sthayt of an untversal form This realisation leads to a state of bliss in which the self takes rest within itself ( "nijs samvidvišrāntı' )

Abbinava's theory of realisation of rasa Proceeding to present his own theory of realisation of rass Abhinava says that rasa is a meaning ( artha ) of kavya, (' tat kavyartho rasah" ) This he observes on the strenzth of Bharata's explanation of the term 'bhava' as "kavyarthan bhavayantit bhavah' ( NS VII ) Commenting on these words Abhinava observes that by the term 'bhava" certam mental states ( cittavrttis ) are referred to, they are the sthayi- bhavas, anubhavas of the alambanavibhava and vyabhi ar bhavas In NS Vll 3, Bharata says that bhavas bring the rasas to the scope of experience (" bhāvayantı rasănimăn yasmāttasmādamī bhĀvā ")

Hence, rasa is a kavyārtha (1c., a meaning of kavya ) But it is not to be understood as an express meaning Be ause rasa never occurs as the lexicographical meaning of the words. But it is an artha in so far as it is desired by the meanirg of words and sentences to be chiefly conveyed ef " tatra ca padārtha vākyārthau raseşveva paryavasyata iti kāvyasyār tháh rasth / arthyante pradhanyenetyarthth / na tvarthast 'bdo'bhidheyavact' (A Bh p 343) In my opinion this assertion that, rasa is an artha of kavya, in the beginning of the presentation of his theory may also be due to the fact that there were some thinkers who would not recognise rasa as a sense of kav)a Such a sestion of thinkers is referred to by Anarda in the words ' yairva saksatkavyarthata rasadi-im nābhyupagamyat+, tatsteşām tanbimittatā tāvadavašyarrsbhyu-

CHAPTER III 163

pagantavyā" ( Dhv. p. 373 ). Contrary to the view of such thinkers the dhvani theorists recognise rasa also as a suggested 'sense' of kävya.

Some opponent may question in this stage, 'can there be such a meaning which is .different from and additional to the primary ( abhidheya ) meanings of the words and sentences ?' Abhinava replies that in the sentences "rātrimāsata" ( They lay by the night ) and "tamagnaupradat" ( He offered it to fire ) the literal meanings relate to the past tense. But the hearer gathers also an additional idea ( pratIti ) designated as ( pratibhā ), bhāvanā, vidhi or niyoga as the case may be, in which the verbs are freed from the given tense and appear in the forms "aste" and "pradadami". This additional idea which occurs to the mind of the hearer in the shape of an action of the present tense belonging to himself ( i.e., prada- dāmi ) in case of 'agnau prādāt' is also recognised as a meaning of the sentence. Similarly in kāvya also we may have an additional knowledge or idea ( i.e. pratiti ). 12 In kāvya, for example, the literal meaning of the verse "grivabhangābhirā- mam" gives us only the description of a frightened deer. Thence an additional knowledge ( pratiti ) arises in the mind of the man of taste which has a bhaya ( fear ) as its object, as free from its relation to the deer or the time of the occurr- ence of the deer in the manner of the 'action of offering' being free of its expressly stated past tense or the third person, in case of "tamagnau pradat." 13 The bhaya, which is thus cognised as free from its temporal and spatial specialities ( bhayameva param deśakālādyanālingitam ), is cognised

12. cf. "yatha hi 'rātrimasata' ...... ... kāvyātmakādapi sabdadadbikāriņo'dhikāsti pratipattih" ( A. Bh. p. 278 ). See, AE, pp. 63-64, for a more informative exposition of this passage. 13. Vide, "Philosophical explanation of elimination of time etc." ( I. Aest, p. 159 ).

164 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

through an unperturbed cognition ( nirvighna pratitigrahyam ) and overwhelmes the heart and becomes the 'bhayanaka rasa" In case of such a cognition of the sthay1 bhaya, one's own self is neither very prominantly involved nor completely sup- pressed 14 The bhaya which originally o.cured with the deer is ex- perienced also by the man of taste This is because of the sthayt being generalised Such an universalisation of moods is possible because of the similarity of the hearts whereis the endless impressions of the moods he as a varnish In other words the man of taste gets identified at a stage with the poetical character and experiences the same feelings as that of the latter on account of similanty of the heart ( 1 e., hrdaya- samvada ) It cannot be contended that certain feelings are peculiar only to the characters like Rama and henee, a hrdaya- samvada with Rama is not possible, because the heart of every being carries the impressions of a variety of moods as it is observed in the Yoga sutras IV, 9-10 15 The identification of the reader with the poetical character is rendered possible by the fact of th- latter being freed from the temporal and spatial limitations Once the identification is accomplished the sthäy is experienced In course of experience the man of taste for- gets even himself and cognises the sthayI and sthayI alone. This cogmtion by an unperturbed mind ( vitavighns pratit ) gives such an unmixed joy to the cogmizant that the joy can hardly be distinguished from the knowledge In other words the act of knowing itself is the experiencing of a joy Thus as far as the impheation of the sotra of Bharata goes "a bhava

14 "adb lart estra na v iejara ull kbitah" ( A Eb. p 179) 15 Vide A Eb p 279, 'ata eva marvarimTlkintmekaglana s ya va prat pattih fetarim rasparipcriya marvejmanid vinn! citrfkrtace a'tm YmstrmTidtt" and Locasa, p 187 "riel dcantam to na srrarya brdayammyzdit mahat erbaneo

CHAPTER III 165

cognised by a blissful and unperturbed cognition is rasa." cf. "sarvathā tāvadeșāstipratītirāsvādātmā yasyām ratireva bhāti ... sarvatha rasanatmakavItavighnapratItigrāhyo bhāva eva rasaḥ" ( A. Bh. p. 280).

We have so far been severally referring to identification of the man of taste with the poetical character. Sometimes the poet himself, with his emotional statement, may appear as the poetical character. In such a case the reader will have an identification with the poet himself.

Identification of the man of taste with the poetical or dra- matic character is aided by the factors like the propriety of guņa, alamkāra, etc., in kavya and by the factors like music and the costume in drama. 16 Through identification the man of taste considers himself to be in the same situation as that of the poetical character and shares the feelings of the latter. But this identification is also an object of the world of poetry and not usual to the ordinary world; for, even getting identified 'the man of taste retains his personality in so far as the pleasure derived from the realisation of rasa may latter on be recalled by his own self. The unperturbed cognition of the sthayI gives the man of taste an unalloyed joy. This joy is also called camatkāra. This camatkara is the continued absorption in an enjoyment but not frauglit with any pain on account of a sense of lack of satiety. This is indeed an unworldly state of enjoyment for all the worldly enjoyments are mixed with an element of dissatisfaction on account of lack of satiety. On the other hand when satiety is attained the same enjoyment cannot be pursued any further. 17 It will be seen that this camatkāra, which cannot be distinguished from the realisation of rasa is the same as what is meant by bhoga by Bhattanāyaka.

16. Vide also I. Aest. p. 158. 17. cf. "tatha bi-sa catrptivyatirekeņāvicchinno bhogāveśa ityu- cyate" ( A. Bh. p. 279 ).

166 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

The seven vighnas ( obstacles )

The cognition of the sthayt for the realisation of rasa is said to be an unperturbed cogmtion (ic, vtavighoa pratiti ) The possible obstacles are also pointed out by Abhinava 16 The obstacles are as follows-( I ) Incompatibility in cognition due to lack of belief in the incidents or persons deseribed in the kavya as true 19 Ifthe situstion cannot be believed to be as it is pre- sented, the question of the man of taste's considering himself to be in that situation cannot arise In other words the man of taste must move only in the world as it is created by the kavya around him He would hardly find himself a citizen of that world of poetry if he is conscious of its unreality from the vety beginning. This obstacle may be removed in two ways In respect of the situations which are also ordinarily possıble, ( lokasāmānya ) a hrdayasamvāda is enough In other words, a similarity of the heart due to the possesion of similar impressions of permanent moods with the poetical characters is enough for bringing a tinge of reality ( Le, com patibility ) to the poctical situation It must not be expected that there would be hrdayasamvada in case of all the readers. Because, it is also observed by Abhinava that although the basic mental states ( 1e, the cittavrtts ) belong to all human beings, yet they belong in varying degress. cf " ata evānut tamaprakrtışu bāhulyena hāsādayo bhavanti 20 na hye- tAccıttavrttıvāsanssOnyah prānt bhavatı / kevalam kasyacıtkā cıdadhikā cıttavțttıh kācıđūnā / kasyacıducitavişayanıyantritā Lasyscrdsnyaths" ete. (A Bh pp 282-283)

18 Vide, A. Ph. pp 280, 282 Some editiens or quotationy bave the read ng 'vighazietryim mpta' There is aiso tomne d fereace In Ind cating the oeven vighnas In toodera worls 19 "prar pattivayegyarf-mambhi anIrirabo mima"(A.Ph p 280) 20 Vidr PSR p 31, for tbe truth of this statement, erablubed by a praci cal ezperiment

CHAPTER III 167

Again, in respect of the activities which are not common to ordinary beings of the world ( alokasāmänya ), the first obstacle may be removed by the presentation only of the famous personages such as Räma, 21 which may bring into operation a deep-rooted belief even in the extraordinary feats of such personages, based on popular tradition. The super- natural elements which we often have in the Sanskrit dramas, apparently seem to have great possibility of this obstacle of incompatibility. For example, in the third Act of the URC there is the introduction of the invisible Sita and in the last Act of the MalatImadhava Saudamin is said to have flown down from the ŚrIparvata. But, these and similar supernatural elements do not generally present the said obstacle because of the poet's skill of presenting them in an appropriate situation. In a world of sylvan deities ( vana devIs ) where the rivers, Tamasā, Murala and Bhagirathi are personified, it was quite plausible for Sita to have been invisible through the influence of BhägirathI. The spectators also can very easily put belief in the flying of SaudaminI, since in the very first Act they are given to learn that Saudamin is practising Yoga in the ŚrI- parvata. Since the possibility of a lack of belief is skillfully eliminated, the obstacle does not arise even in case of the presentation of the supernatural ( i.e., alokasāmānya, as called by Anandavardhana ) elements.

( 2 ) Attributing of a temporal or spatial speciality to the situation as related to the man of taste himself or to some one else ( say, the dramatic character or the actor ). 22 If the sentiments of pleasure or pain depicted in the kavya or the dramatic performance be supposed to be belonging to the man

21. Ananda also discuises this as a question of propriety and ob- serves, "ata eva ca bharate prakhyatavastuvişayatvam prakhyāto- dattanayakatvam ca nātakasyāvasyakartavyatayopanyastam." ( Dhv, III. p. 331 ). 22. "svagatatvaparagatatvaniyamena deśakālaviśeşīveśah."

168 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

of taste, limited by his own time and place, himself then he should have other feelings like the ixiety to retain the pleasure or the anxiety to abandon the pain Similarly, if the feelings of pleasure or pain be supposed to be helonging to some one else with own temporal or spatial limitations then the man of taste would have quite different feelings like those of indifference or disgust But for the realisation of rasa the same feeling as that of the poetical character alone is desired to be experieuced by the man of taste, for which the man of taste must find himself free from his own temporal or spatial distinctions and must find the poetical charaster as some one belonging to the situation immediately present to the man of taste. For avoiding this obstacle, or in other words, for creating the illusion of the poetical world, dance, music and costume, ete, are introduced in the drama. The clements of the theatre which help to create the iHusory atmosphere, lite the scenery, costumes, traditional conventions, ete, are technically called natyadharmt. The realistic part of the representation 1s called lokadharmL In case of kavya proper, however, we do not have advantages of the natya- dharml or the lokadharm! (1e. the artificial or realistic representation ) There, the plain and the figurative expressions employed for a skillful representation of the vibhavas etc serve as the lokadharml and the natyadharmi of the drama and h+lp suggestion of rasa, 23 (3 ) The state of being subject to one's own feelings of ples sure or pun The persoo whose heart is like a clear mirror on account of being free from personal feelings is called a sahr- daya The sahrdaya alone can accommodate the sertrneot depicted in the kavya or natya ( 1e. drama ) in the manner of

2: d. "ktrye'pl ca lokantryadharmuthinfyena wabhsvokt -rakror

pya-msnviberit yogid yatera rameans" (Locast, p 185).

CHAPTER III 169

a clear mirror capable of holding images. If the heart is preoc- . .cupied with personal pleasures or pains, the sentiment of the „poetical or the dramatic situation will not find any place in the heart of the reader or the spectator. In case of the theatre devices like the singing and instrumental music are employed to overcome this obstacle by making the person forgetful of his own feelings. That is how the audible art plays its part in the theatre. This role of music may te likened to the part played by the letters in suggestion of rasa in kāvya discussed in the last chapter. The efficacy of the vocal or the instru- mental music, etc., for removing this obstacle is, however, somewhat limited. If the personal feeling is deeper in degree the said devices may not be totally helpful. It is also to be noted that sahrdayatva (i.e., the capacity to get absorbed in the poetical situation ) also varies from man to man and from .time to time in respect of its nature and degree. 25 (4) Lack of means for cognising the poetical situation. 26 If the means of cognition are absent how can the cognition occur at all -? ( 5) Along with it we can consider the fifth obstacle named as 'lack of clearity' ( sphutatvābhāva ). 27 The mere verbal references to a certain incident or situation may not present the situation in a clear form. Even after the verbal description or symbolical suggestion of a certain situation the mind of the man of taste naturaliy desires to have a direct cognition. And indeed 'all the forms of knowledge are based on direct perception', as it is observed by Vatsayana in Nyāyasūtra- bhasya, I-3. A thing which is directly perceived cannot be

25. Vide. I. Aest. p. 153. ( Psycho-physical Condition ). 26 pratītyupāyavaikalya, 27. I consider the fourth and the fifth obstacles separately on the strength of the words-"tasmattadubhayavighate'bhinaya" etc., said in the A. Bh. ( p. 281 ) with reference to these 'two' obstacies.

170 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

proved to be otherwise by any other means of knowledge A fire band being rapidly turned, no doubt, gives the perception of a circle of fire ( alatacakra ) We cannot say that this perception is rendered invalid by other means of knowledge. The cogmiton of the cirele of fire is proved to be invalid by another stronger perception itself and not by any other meaos of knowledge Hence, dramatie representation stself, aided by realistic representation ( lokadharmt ), the vrttis and pra- vrtus (1e., local styles ) 2s is the means to avoid the tso obstac'es namely 'lack of means of cognition' and 'lack of clearity ' ( 6 ) Subordination of the principal ( apradhanata ). "9 The mind of the man of taste gets the restful satisfaction only by ruminating over the permanent mental state Vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicaribhavas are, no doubt, directly pre- sented on the stage But the sthay stands paramount over them and hence the sthayi alone can give the relish of rass. If the sthayl is not principally delineated there will not be the realisation of rasa Hence, the whole situation consisting of the presentation of the vibhavas, etc. should aim at predomi- nartly d-picting the sthayi (7 ) Association of doubt ( samsayayoga ) The vibbavas and anubhavas and vyabhtcaribhavas do not have any fixed relttion with the sthayL. A tiger may serve as the alambans- vibhava for both krodha ( anger ) and bhaya (fear ) The anubhava in the form of tears may be related to sorrow ( soka ) ard joy ( ananda ) as well Hence, if any one or two of the vib*3vas, ete , are represented in isolation from the others,

28 Vide, NS 11 24-26 Vrttr ate already referred to in the Preced ag chapler 29 cf. "apradhtne ea varum karya smridrdrimysti .. cvams-

vşilakşanas y hayt ca krat" ( A. Lb po 281-283 )

CHAPTER III 171

that would lead to a confusion ( samsaya ) in respect of the sthayI. Hence, all the elements, i.e., vibhavas, etc., are to be represented together. 30

Some important points in Abhinava's theory :

So far we have been understanding that the sthayI, which is realised in a generalised form in an unperturbed blissful state, is rasa. But Abhinava gives us to learn that what is cognised in this blissful state is not a sthayl in the ordinary sense of the term. The cognition of this mental state consists solely of a blissful rumination. According to Sankuka, the sthayI, which is brought to knowledge by vibhāvas, etc., is rasa because it can be relished. 31 But if we follow the words of Śankuka literally the sthayi that is cognised in the ordinary life also. should be called rasa, and the sthayi known through inference also should be called rasa. But, what is in fact realised in case of śrngāra, for example, is neither a rati ( i.e., a feeling. of love ) belonging to others nor one's personal feeling of love. What happens is only a rumination 32 over the vibhavas, etc., which assume a generalised form on account of the personal impression ( i.e., vāsana ) of a sthãyI, appropriate to those vibhävas, etc. Hence, in course of the rumination over those vibhavas, etc., a blissful conciousness arises, in which, however, the sthayI and one's own self also appear. 33 That blissful conciousness lasts only so long as the rumination over the vibhavas, etc., lasts. In this manner the realisation of rasa . differs from the mere knowledge of a sthayI.

The rasa, even if it is understood as the sthay1 appearing in a blissful conciousness, is not a product of the vibhāvas,

30. cf. "tatranubhavanām ...... upattab" ( A. Bh. p. 284 ). 31. "sthāyyeva vibhavadi-prattyayyo rasyamanatvadrasa ucyate." 32. This is called 'carvans', i.e., chewing the cud. 33. "romancadayasca ... desakalaniyamena tatra ratim gamayanti / yasyam svatmapi tadvasanavattvadanupravistah" (A.Bh. p. 285).

172 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

etc., for, it vanishes as soon as the rumination over the vibhavas, ete , disappears The sthayt which arises in such a blissful conciousness does not stand as an afready accomplished object to be made known by vibhavas, ete That is how the vibhavas, etc, do not serve as a cause of cognition for the sthayl 34 Now a question arises, 'What does Bharata mean by rasa- mişpatti ?' Because, the expression 'nispatti' literally means production Abhinava's reply is that what is said to be pro- duced here is not rasa ( 1e, the sthaya, which is relished in a generalised form ) but the rasana (1e, relish ) which issues out of the realisation If rasa (1e, the generalised sthay1) 1s said to be produced ( in a figurative way ) on account of being solely animated by that relish 35 then Abhinava's own position is not vittated But the relish is nothing other than a blissful conciousness This leads Abhinava to give the final verdict that in his own opinion the blissful conciousness itself is rasa and not the object of the blissful cognition (1e, the generatised sthay: ) Thus rasa being a blissful relish, even in case of the karuna rasa there is the same unalloyed pleasure The blissful conciousness is the realisation of the self by itself The rasas are variously named as śrngara, karuna, ete, only because the conciousness is effected by the sthayt at a certain stage of the experience. But it is not the final stage In the final stage of the realisation of rasa, there is the relish and relish alone. Only in the mitial stage, the sthayt, which lies in the sub-concious ( vasana ) is brought to the realm of conciousness by dramatie performance or poetry Compare asmanmate samvedsnamevanandaghanamāsvadyate / tatra kā duhkhaf3okå / kevalam tasyatva citratakarane ratr-Sokadivass.

34 Vide, A Eb pp 284-285 35 Sthsyf us far as ir is an obect of blindul coscicnes alone b rua sad not the ord nary nhlyt 36 Vide, L. Acn. pp 128-29

CHAPTER III 173

navyāpārah / tadudbodhane cābhinayādivyāpārah /" ( A. Bh. p. 292 ).

Further points from Locana :

So far we have been referring only to the A. Bh., for Abinava's theory on rasa. In this connection, a few references to the Locana also may give us much enlightenment. Here he observes that,-

(1) Realisation of rasa is different from other forms of know- ledge because of the difference of the means. Here the vibhavas, etc., which serve as the basis of the cognition of the sthayI are not the things of the ordinary world. They are extraordinary ( lokottara ), in so far as, vibhãvas, etc., give rise to rasa only in the realm of drama or poetry. The realisation of rasa is called carvaņā ( i.e., chewing the cud ), āsvādana ( i.e., tasting ),. or bhoga ( relish ). cf .- "kim tu yathā ...... tadvadiyamapi pratītiścarvaņāsvādanabhogāparanāmā bhavatu / tannidāna- bhūtāyā hrdayasamvādādyupakrtāyā vibhāvādisāmagryā loko- ttararūpattvāt" ( Locana, p. 187 ).

( 2 ) But the expression "rasa pratIyante" ( i.e., Rasas are realised ) must not be understood literally. It is a figurative- expression like "odanam pacyate" (Boiled rice is being cooked).37 Because, it is already observed that rasa does dot stand as an

37. Odana means "boiled rice." There can be the odana only when the process of cooking is over. In time of the cooking affair it does not stand as an already prepare d object. Like- wise rasa is also not a readymade object to be tasted later on. There is no rasa before the act of realisation. But there is also some difference between the two figurative expressions. We have odana actually when the process of cooking is over but we cease to have rasa when the process of realisation is over. We do not actually bave odana so long as the process of cooking conti- nues, But we bave rasa only so long as the process of reali-

sation continues.

174 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

already accomplished object to be realised later on. Rasa is called rasa only so long as the process of realisation goes on. The existence of a rasa prior to or after the process of knowing cannot be conceived of. This very realisation is a peculiar type of relish. cf. "rasah pratiyanta itt odanam pacititi vadvya- vahārah / pratiyamāna eva hi rasah / pratiureva višișțā rasanā" ( Ibid, p 187 ) ef also, "sa ca rasana rüpă pratitirutpadyate" ( lbid, p 188 ) ( 3 ) Rasadhvant is the excess of relish resulting Crom a rumination over the sthayI, which appears to the cognizant prominantly on account of the conneetion of the vibhava, anu- bhava and vyabhicaribhava. Cf "rasadhvanistu sa eva yo'tra mukhyatayā vıbhāvānubhavıvyabhicārisamyojanodıta sthāyip- tıpattıkasya pratıpattuh sthāyyamsacarvanā prayukta evāsvā- radaprakarsah" ( Locana, p 179 )

rasa and vyañjana Abhinava had the grentest difference with Bhattanayaka only in respect of the functions involved in the realt sation of rasa Bhattanayaka recognises the functions called bhava. katva and bhojakatva which are not recogmised by any other school of thought. Abhinava by way of showing that these two functions are unwarrented and uncalled for, includes them in the scope of the vyatjana function of the words and the meanings Kavya stself, with its appropriate alamkaras and gunas, brings rasa to the realm of realisation ( 1e, bhavana ). The function with which the kavya does so is nothing other than suggestion ( 1e, vyanjana ). The relish of rasa, which is said to be due to the bhojalatva function, also can be had by suegestion. Because, what is conceived as bhavana ( realt- sation ) is nothing other thin bhoga ( relish ). Hence, tf rasa is said to te suggested the bhoga ( relish ) also happens to be suggested along wtth rass. So, Abhinava's conclusion is that

38. Vide, Theery of Ram and Dbvanl, p. 104.

CHAPTER HI I75

"rasa is suggested; and it is relished in the manner of reali- sation." cf. "tasmat sthitametat-abhivyajyante rasah pratī- tyaiva ca rasyanta iti." ( Locana, p. 190 ). Bhattanāyaka raised the question that if rasa is said to be suggested then it must be an already accomplished fact. As far as my knowledge goes Abhinava does not give any direct reply to such an objection. But such an objection cannot occur if vyañjana is understood to be the function of revelation having an analogy with the jar and the lamp. In other words, something is said to be the suggestor of another thing when the former reveals the latter while keeping itself manifest. For example, the lamp suggests the jar, for the lamp also reveals itself while revealing the jar. 39 This conception of vyañjanā does not demand the vyangya to be already existent. We have seen how it is severally observed by Abhinava that the realisation of rasa is there only so long as the perception of the situation depicted in the kāvya ( i.e., the vibhāvas, etc. ) is there. Hence, it is rightly said that kavya suggests rasa.

If it is insisted that the object which is suggested ( i.e., the vyangya ) should be an already existent object, then we may possibly bave yet another interpretation. In the finest analysis of Abhinava rasa is an unalloyed relish. This unalloyed relish is identical with the self. For, in the sruti, the self is conceived as saccidananda ( i.e., real, conciousness and joy ). It is already observed that in Abhinava's theory realisation of rasa means the realisation of the self by itself. Jagannätha also understands the realisation of rasa as the realisation of the self and quotes the statement-"raso vai sah, rasam hye- vayam labdhvanandibhavati" from the Taittiriyopanisad (II. 7) in support of his doctrine, 40 That is how rasa can be said

1 39. cf. "tasmadghatapradīpanyāyastayoh, yathaiva hi pradīpadva reņaghatapratītāvutpannayam na pradipaprakaso nivartate tadvadvyangyapratītau vācyāvabhasah" ( Dhv. p. 421 ). 40. But Jagannatha wrongly represents the view of Abhinava in this connection. Vide, I. Aest, p. 127.

176 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

to be suggested, even when the function of suggestion is con- ceived in the manner of Bhattanayaka

Rasa and the experience of the Absolute : If in this way reahisation of rasa means the realisation of the self then hon do-s the aesthetic conciousness ( 1e, rasasvada ) differ from the mystical conciousness (1e, brahmāsvada ) ? Abhinava does not identify one with the other He simply says that rasasvada is on a par with the brahmasvada 4 Because, when there is the experience of the Absolute, there can be no further coming back to the realm of worldly experience But in case of the realisation of rasa, there is the coming back of the subjeut to the realm of worldly experience even after the ex- perienee of the unalloyed bliss which is an aspect of the Absolute itself This point is very clearly marked by Dr. Pandey in the words "Acsthetic experience, therefore, accor- ding to Abhinavagupta, in its final stage, belongs to the level of Vyatireka Turtyatita, in which all objectivity merges in the subconscious and the Subject, the S-If, shines in its Ananda aspect"4

The Vyatireka Turtyatita refers to a stage in the mystie experienee, according to the Kashmir Saiva Philosophy, of which Abhinava was the greatest exponent. Turlyatna is that stag- of the mystic experience, where the subjectivity not only predominates but also rises above the objectivity. This Turtya- tia is of two types The first is called 'Vyatıreka Turlyatita', in which the objectivity persists in the sub-conscious The seond i5 called 'Avyatireka Turtyatits' This is the highest stage, "from which there is no descent " 43 Brahmasvada may be called the Avyatireka Turiya'hta, when we call rast- svlda as Vyatireka Turlyaina and that is how we observe the

( Locana, p 190) 42. I Aeat p 130 43 Ib4, p. 122

CHAPTER II 177

propriety of explaining rasasvāda ( or rasa itself ) as "brahmā- svādasahodara."

Rasa and the drama :

Coming again to the question of practical delineation of rasa, Abhinava observes that in certain cases only one or two of the three factors namely, vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicaribhava occur. In such cases, what is not clearly depicted in the piece, occurs to the realm of imagination of the man of taste and thus completes the whole situation, suitable for the depiction of the relevent rasa. 44 Viśvanātha also observes that in the case where only one or two of the vibhavas, etc., occur, there may be the suggestion of rasa if an imagination of the less prominant factors is possible on the strength of the context, etc. 45 Visvanatha gives the verse "dirghaksam saradindukanti," for illustration, where Agnimitra simply gives a description of the nāyika Malavika. Thereby, we get the description only of the alambana-vibhava. Yet, indeed, we complete the picture of the whole situation by imagining the vyabhicaribhava in the form of an autsukya 46 and anubhavas in the shape of side glances, etc., of Agnimitra. This is how we have the relish of śrhgara rasa from the said verse even in the absence of a clear delinea- tion of the appropriate anubhavas and vyabhicaribhavas. But, Abhinava observes that the best type of relish can be derived when all the three elements are adequately delineated. But the delineation of all the elements is generally not practicable in shorter parts of compositions or single verses called muktaka.

44. A. Bh. pp. 286-287. 45. sadbhivascedvibhavaderdvayorekasya va bhavet / jhatityanyasamaksepe tathā doșo na vidyate // ( SD. III. 17 ). 46. Autsubya means a restlessness on account of a delay in union with the desired object, causing burning of the beart, etc., ( SD. III. 159 ).

12 D.

178 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

The ntuation may be presented in its entiretv only in a whole composition. Of all the types of compositions the drama is the best in this respect.fta Because, all the affairs ( as anu- bhavas ) of the characters ( who form the alambana vibhavas ) and the whole back ground ( which serves as the uddipana vibhava ) can be vividly presented by the staging of the drama.4eb In course of reading a whole composition the reader draws up a mental pieture of the affairs of the characters in such a manner that he gets the experience of witnessing a

46". Possibly becaur of ths advantage of the drama to be most appraling with the suggrition of the greatest amount of rara, it is observed that nataka is the most appealing of all the varsetes of kavya in te celeLrated verse : Kzeyesu natslem ramys i tatra rama salraa / Tatrtți ca caturthinto jatra Slokarstu" stayam I/ 46b. It may be obwred here that the tact ground scenery t a necessity in ite naging of a drama In cave of a blank screen { without any pleture ) ss in the case of many modern dramarle performances, the Lackground requires to be duly Imagined by the speetalors In the matter of this relative advantage of the drama we may compare the fellowing lines of John Press ( though spoken in a alightly different cootext ) : "in T. S. Hot's The Corteadl Party, a similar ery ls torn frem Edward, dnven to a d ipa npg fury by his unlored wile : And then you came back, you The angrl ef destruetion-just as 1 felt rure. In a moment, at your touch, there is notbing bot ru n O God, what hare I dent ? The Pytbon. TLe octopus. On the stag thesc incoherent, breken enes can be giren sn sdded force and #i goificante by the voiee and gratures of a ikilled actor, wher-a nondramatie portry most rely solely uprn ibe words prnted en the page or, at beat, upos telog resd mloud in a room ..... " CS, p. 165.

CHAPTER III 179

dramatic performance 47 and consequently gets the relish of rasa in the manner of getting it from the drama. But in cases of muktakas, etc., the reader has to depend on his own ima- gination for getting a full picture of the situation. Those who are sahrdayas ( i.e., men of taste ) on account of constant reading of kavyas and virtues of privious births, can easily form the mental picture of the whole situation and can get all that is desired from the drama, from the kavya itself.

Rasa and the poet :

In pp. 66-68, we found an apparent disagreement between the views of Ananda and Abhinava, in connection with the episode of Valmiki. But we may have a happy solution to the whole confusion from an observation of Abhinava in the A. Bh. In A. Bh., under VI. 38, there arises the occasion for Abhinava to question like this: If according to the theory of rasa- nispatti, bhävas give rise to the rasas, then, what is the pro- priety in saying that "no meaning can proceed ( from speech ) without ( any kind of ) rasa." 48 Abhinava gives the reply thus : The acting ( nata-vyāpāra ) presupposes the kāvya which owes its origin to the realisation of the bhavas in a generalised ( i.e., impersonal ) form by the poet himself. Such a realisation itself is in fact rasa. The process of the poet's experiencing the bhavas with a sympathetic heart is already explained in connection with the episode of Valmiki. Hence, the source of kävya is the rasa belonging to the poet. The poet is indeed as good as a man of taste who relishes rasa by

47. The reader imagines as if the incidents are occurring just before his eyes. cf. "yadaba vāmanah-"sandarbhesu dasarupakam śreyah / tadvicitram citrapatavadviśesasākalyāt" ( kavyalamkāra- sūtra. 1. 3. 30-31 ) iti, tadrupasamarpanaja tu prabandhe bhașa- veşapravrttyaucityadikalpanat" ( A. Bh. p. 287 ). In the italicized portion the reading is taken from the foot-note. 48. "na hi rasadrte kascidapyartbah pravartate."

180 THF DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

reading the Lavva or witr-ssing the dramatic represertation This position that the po t already realises the rasa wht b he relegates to his kavya is strengthened by Anindavardhina's words

Srngari cetkavih kāvye jātam rasamayam jaoat / sa eva vitarāgaścennirasam sarvameva tat // ( Di III p 498)

( If the poet is suffused with the srngara r a the whole Rorld will be suffused with that s-ntim nt But if he b devoid of any rasa the world Llso will be depi ted in he void of any sentiment )

H-re the emotion of the poet is sa d to be u' eady a rasa Henc", there is no impropr-tv when Ati ava conceives Valmiki's soka not as a persoal so a but as roa Compare ' nanu yads bhav-bhyo rasastarhi kathamultam a hi rasadrt- Laseidapyarthah pravartate / tena porvim ta evoddesyah' kavigatasadharantbhOtasamvinmolasca Fāvyn : saro nața Vaparah / saiva ca samvi paran a thato rasah / tidey.m mtam vijasthartyah Lavigato rasah / kavir it samaj latulya e a/ tat evoktam "m_årl cet Lavih' ityam davardhard cay-na / (A Bh p 294)

Anandavardhana's coreeption of rasa

In the last quotahon w+ bave sear how Abhinava is refe ring to a v ew of Anardavardhana with greit esteem Ananda dees rot dwell at length or the psychologv of the realisation of rara Yet from Abhinava's att tade to va ds him and from sone of his stray remirks we can formi a7 opimion that Amnda's conception of rsa ras almost lile t iut of Ab' iava But th- sari conception wus ir a cruda ferm ard tool the proper shape in th- hasds of Abhinava, corune down through a tradiion repres-nted by Bhojansyaka ard Bhug,iuta Let us ron ref rto com of Ananda s statemerts to see hov 41s ide s chime gith tho e of Abhinasa

CHAPTER III 181

( 1 ) We see from an analysis of Apanda's treatment of gunas that, he understands gunas in terms of certain mental conditions of the man of taste like druti and dipti. From this we may conclude that Ananda understands rasa not as the knowledge about sentiments of the characters but as a mental condition ( cittavrtti ) of the sahrdaya ( i.e., man of taste ) himself.

(2) Ananda does not recommend a composition having compounds for depicting the delicate rasas like the karuņa and vipralambha srngāra. His argument is that these rasas are very delicate and hence the realisation ( pratiti ) of them may be hampered even by the slightest haziness regarding the composition and the idea. "tayorhi sukumāratvāt svalpāyā- mapyasvacchatayam sabdārthayoh pratitirmantharIbhavati" ( Dhv. III. p. 321 ). If the rasas be understood as mere informations regarding the sentiments of others then the question of certain rasas being delicate does not arise. Hence, the rasas are understood as certain cittavrttis of the sahrdaya himself.

( 3) That the readers ( or spectators ) generally share the sentiments of the hero may be gathered from the following statement made in connection with the question of rasavirodha ( i.e., clash of sentiments ): "kim ca nāyakasyâbhinandanī- yodayasya kasyacitprabhāvātišayavarņane tatpratipakșāņām yah karuņo rasaḥ sa parīkşakāņām na vaiklavyamādadhāti pratyuta prityatiśaya-nimittatām pratipadyata." etc. ( Dhv. III. 375 ). The question of the reaction of the sorrow of the villain in the heart of the reader occurs only because of the conviction that the sentiments of the characters usually have similar repercussions in the heart of the men of taste also.

(4) For sharing the sentiments with the characters the men of taste should already have impressions of similar senti- ments. This idea of Ananda may be gathered from his state- ment that, the santa rasa ( conceived as a cittavrtti in the form

182 THT DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

of an excess of joy due to loss of desire ) cannot be denied on the score that it is not a cittavritt experienced by all. (cf "yadı nāma sarvajanānubhavagocaratā tasyn nāsti naitāvatā- savalokasamanya mahanubhavacittavrttiviscşth pratikseptum Sakyah," Dhv. III. p 393) Then agun, the spngara rasa is said to be the most apperl- ing and most important, as it is invariably wihin the experience of all persons "Srngāraraso hi samsārinām . tyamenānubhava- vsayatyat sarvarasebhyah kamantyatiyd pridhanabhutah" (Dhv III p 397). This also shows that for Ananda also hrdayasamvada is a prerequisite for the realisnt o 1 of ras

(5) An tmaginary opponent ruises an obpa ion in con. nection with the citra as follows 49. "All th- kavy's must describe some thing or other of the world All the things deseribed in the kavya must serve at least as the vibhavas for some rasi or bhava. Becnuse the risas and bhavas, ete, are certain mental states There cinnot be anv obyeet of the world which does not cruse some mental <tit Hence the Lavyas embodving the descriptions of different obj .. ts ir- variably have rasa. That is why, a citra varicty of composition as free from rasa can never be conceived of." Here, the opponen* conccives rasas as certain cittivrttis ( cittavrtt vis-5t hi rasc. dayah ) From the occasion of argument it may be gathered that the eittavrttis are corceived as belonging to the reader and not as brlonging to the peetical charactrs-because, ihe kivy i. where the citra variety is apprehended, 1s said to have the defireation of only ordinry objects or at test of vibhavas. The question of the rasas being corceived as th- cittavrttis of the vibhavas does net arise at all The opponert is an imaginary opponert and his arguments betray the coneeption of Ananda himseif Th" is why Anandr concedes to bis arguments; but finds other arguments to

CHAPTER III 183

establish the citra variety. It is at least clear that Ananda does not question the opponent's conception of rasa which is much after the heart of Abhinava.

The objective correlative :

It appears to me that the theory of the suggestion of rasa, which has been so very briefly stated by Bharata in his sūtra "vibhavanubhavavyabhicarisamyogādrasanispattih" is once again very briefly presented by one of the greatest theorists of the present century in T. S. Eliot in his theory of "objective correlative." It is interesting to note that this great poet- theorist, who desires that poetry should "evoke" an "emotion" in the heart of the reader discusses the process of this evocation so precisely nowhere other than in his paper on the Hamlet. In the passage, quoted below, embodying his theory, in my opinion, "set of objects" correspond to "alam- banavibhavas," "situation" to "uddipana-vibhāvas" and the "chain of events" either stands for anubhavas or suggestion of vyabhicaribhavas. The concluding line of the quotation, as it appears to me, desires an appropriateness ( aucitya ) and adequacy of the vibhävas, etc., in respect of the desired senti- ment. Hence, compare : "The only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an "objective correlative", in other words, a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events, which shall be the formula of that particular emotion, so that when the external facts, which must turn in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked .. ... The artistic "inevitability" lies in the exact equivalence of the external to the emotion." [ The Sacred Wood, pp. 100-101 ].

F. O. Matthiessen in his ATSE ( p. 56) explains and analyses Eliot's theory of 'objective correlative' in such a manner that his analysis may stand as a very strong support to my interpretation. This theory, propounded in the context of the method of expressing emotion in poetry, prefers the dramatic poetry. "Perhaps the most important thing that

184 THF DHVAVI THTORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

15 revealed by applying Ehot's conception of the 'oby-utie correlative' to his oun work is the essentiallv dramatic nature of alf his poetry," observes Matthiessen ( Ibid, p 67) It 15 observed in the section entitled 'Rasa and the drams" in tmis chapter abov, as to hon Vamana and Abhinavaeupta also have singled out the dramy as the best type of Favyi on the ground of presenting the entire objet and the s toation and the chain of events in their entirety for a full communtation of the sentiment The drimane porm also pres-rts the characters, their spre hes and the description of the sitthtions in a manner so as to evoke sentimnt in the heart of the reader and thereby to make it a pe e of art more benutilul thin the poem which simply informs the reader about an idet or the personal senttment of tr poet The following ohservation of Matthiessen would show bow the theory of 'objective co~ relative* is applicable also to th- dramia proper "These ref-ctions perhaps make clear why it is iecurate to say that Donne is a dramatie poet but not Spanser, that the songs of Campion and Shakespaare are dramatie but not those of Swinburne, or wh Keats at th- time of his death was increasinely absorbed with the desire to write plays, or why. among ports of scemingly equal nature like Wyatt and Surrey the ab lity to cut thtough grareful Renuissan e dauora- tion of sentiment to a bare statement of immednte evotion is what gives a few poms of the former their heigh'-red utalty " ( ATSE pp 68-59 ) H-re, in my op nion, "ability to decor ition efsentiment" may refer to rasadhvan and . bare statemen' of imm-diate emotion" to vastudhivam of a type that we have in case of "evam vadını devarşau ' ( Vide p. 1(S above ).

CHAPTER IV THE VYANJANA FUNCTION

The attitude of earlier theorists :

We have seen that the theorists like Bhamaha and Vamana, who were earlier to Ananda also recognised a sense other than the express sense. They have referred to this additional sense ( anyo'rtha ) in their definitions of the alamkaras like samāsokti and paryayokta. But none of them clearly explained as to how the additional meaning differs from the primary or the secondary meaning of the words and expressions. That is how they left much scope for confusing the additional ( i.e., suggested ) sense with the express or the secondary sense. They also did not discuss about the power ( i.e., vyapāra ) of the words involved in the communication of an idea other than the conventional image ( i.e., the väcyartha ). The dhvani theorists call the additional meaning vyangya and the power of the words involved in the communication of said meaning vyañjanā. Ananda establishes the existence of a meaning other than the primary and the secondary meanings in the first ud- dyota itself with the help of so many illustrations. In the third uddyota of the Dhv., he establishes the vyañjana function as distinet from the abhidha ( i.e., the denotative function ).

Implications of the terms s'akti and vyapara : The words are supposed to convey the different types of meaning with the help of different vyaparas or śaktis. For example the word 'ganga' of the expression 'gangayam ghosah' is supposed to convey its primary meaning as 'the current of the waters' with the help of abhidhā vyapāra; its secondary . meaning as 'the bank of the river' with the help of laksanā- vyapara and the idea of 'the holy calm of the bank of the Ganges' with the help of vyañjana-vyāpara. The vyāpāras

186 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS . are also called Saktis and the Naiyayilas designate abhidha smply as saktt What then do the terms 'Sakti' and 'vyaptra' man ? - * The Mimamskas conceive sakti as a different category (1e, padartha ) It is an imperceptible potency to occasion an effect by the adequate cause ' Hence, Sakti of the word 15 a latent potency of the word to convey the primary mean ing Parthasarathi observes thit a word denotes 1 n eaning by its ntural power just like the visuil organ revealiog a co ored shap- It is the uncommon pover of the visual organ with which the colour is revealed Likewise the word al o possesses its uncommon poteney to convey the meaning " Laksina vyapara, in this manner, means a secondary potency whi h op-rates on the oc.asion of the faslure of the primry pot-ey to convey the proper meaning But while i: is csv to conccive abhidha is an inherent of natural pot-ncy it is not so in case of lakina Hence, Visvinatha cal's laksins an ithf iil potency ( re, laksana sakt rarpitā )

The Naiyayikas do not con eive sikti as a different ente grrv ( ie, pidartha ) What is con ewed hy the Mimimsaky as sitte is explained is karinatva (re, the stite of beine 1 ciase ) Udayina observes, ' na hi no darsane saktipadārtha eva nāsti / ko sau tarhı ? kārinatvam (Kus imāfjilt ! 13) They call the abhidha and faksand also as vrttr For them vrttr means the relstion 3 betwcen the word and the

CHAPTER IV 187

meaning. While abhidha ( i.e., sakti ) is an eternal relation tracing its origin to the will of the God, the secondary relation owes its origin to the intention of the speaker.

When we analyse the term vyäpara 4 we have to understand that abhidha and laksana are functions of the word. They have the word as their samavāyikarana ( since in the form of an act they inhere in the words ) and the meaning which is conveyed by them as their effect. ( The function is a cause on account of being an unconditional invariable antecedent of the meaning conveyed. )

Ānanda uses the terms sakti, vrtti and vyāpāra, etc., indis- criminately. For example, ( 1 ) On p. 415, vācakatva is cailed a vyāpāra and vyañja- katva is called an additional vyāpāra. ( 2) Vyāpāra īs also called as śakti. cf." ...... na hi yaıvābhidhānasaktiņ saivāva- gamanaśakt h." ( p. 417). ( 3 ) Again, abhidhana is conceived as a sambandha ( i.e., relation ) in "prasiddhābhidhānantara- sambandhayogyatvena ...... yuktā." ( pp. 418-419 ). (4) The term vrtti is, however, used only with reference to laksaņā which is called gunavrtti but apparently without any special implication. (5) Ananda also uses the term 'dharma' in the sense of vyapāra as in "api ca vyanjakatvalaksano yab śabdārthayorcbarmah ...... " etc. ( p. 436 ). ( 6) He conceives the suggestive capacity also as a sabdavyapāra on a par with the denotative and indicative capacities. cf. "sabda-vyāpārago- caratvam ...... vyangyatvenaiva na vācyatvena." ( p. 418 ). All these references would be enough to show that Ananda conceives vyāpara as a capacity ( i.e., sakti ) but he does not understand sakti as a different padartha. He recognises it in general as a kāranatva or a dharma and recognises the ad- mission also of a relation ( sambanda ) in the conception of the same. If the conception of sakti be as rigid as that of

4. "tajjanyatve sati tajjanyajanakatvam vyapIratvam,"

188 THF DHVANE THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

the Mimamsaka then Salti should mrean a self-sufficient potentiality of the word to convey the meaning instantaneouely w .thout the mtervention of any other mental process "

We can trace the working of this very conviction when Visvanatha argues that we cannot arrive at the meaning Bhaltka from the expression "gaurbahila" te ause of the relition of 'non-separat on ( avinabhava ) since the desire to have another meaning for completing the verb.I jideement must be fulfilled by the word 'Aself' Visvanatha does not allow the admission of any n entil reasoning or mental pro.ess to intervene in between the cognition of the word and the cogmtion of the meaning f

But presently we will see thit Ananda's corception of Sakti or vyapar was so liberal as to allow at times the irtervention of some other mental process also

Ananda's arguments in fayour of vyaajana function : Ananda apprehends thit some one may raise an olj-ction Iike this . Let there be the cognition of a meaning other tnan the primary meining ( ie, vasyartha ) of a «-ntence But why shoald such an additional meaning be decignated as suggested sense ( ie, vyangya artha ) ? Let that vyangva artha also be desienated and constdered as the va-ya artha, when that is mainly intended to be conveyed The or ginat primary meaning which oscurs to the mind before the cogn tion ef the suegested sense nay be relegated to the posttion

Comnare : 'za ra pratytyaka va-calpanameva jsyah / Atds- ar hapratyayadarantt taryaira ta ra kEranatrim kalpsyitom yuktam / na tu fabdit pinnktrodbolra a atesrths

mtis, p 107 ). 6. e'. "av af htvalabbvarysribarys fibd 'evay- prar-kaashavt / Shd byttAft ubleas va porya- * ( SD 11 ).

CHAPTER IV 189

of the meaning of the words, being instrumental for the said suggested meaning in the manner of the word-meanings which are instrumental for the usual primary meaning of a sentence. cf. "satyamevaitat ;...... padārthapratītiriva vākyārthapratīteh" ( Dhv. III. pp. 414-415 ). 7

Ananda, with this apprehension in his mind, proceeds to argue that the suggested sense should never be confused or designated as the vcya sense. Because, the vacya and the vyangya senses are conveyed by two entirely different functions ( vyaparas ) of the words. If the suggested sense is conveyed by a distinct function it will not cease to be different from the vacya even being put at the position of the usual vācya sense in case of being chiefly intended to be conveyed. Hence, he presents the following points to bring out the distinct fea- tures of the vyañjana function : ( 1 ) Vyañjana is distinct from abhidha, because they have different scopes (i.e., visayabheda ). Abhidha conveys the väcya sense directly related to the word and vyañjana con- veys the meaning which is related to the related vacya. Had the suggested sense been directly related, it would not have been designated as a different sense at all. ( "arthantara- vyavahāra eva na syāt," Dhv. III. p. 417. Compare 'anyo'rtha' of Bhamaha .

( 2 ) Vyañjanā is different from abhidha because of diffe- rence in form ( i.e., rüpabheda). Words alone convey the conventional meanings with the help of abhidhā sakti. But even the meaning-less musical sounds may convey senses in the form of rasa, etc., with the help of vyañjanā ( p. 417 ). ( 3 ) The vyangya artha also cannot be relegated to the position of the vacya artha. Because, the relation between the vacya and the vyangya is not like the relation between the meaning of the words ( padärtha ) and the meaning of the

7. We will observe that Dbanika actually raised a similar question in his Avaloka on the DR.

190 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

s"nten e ( vakyartha ) Be ause, the very analogy is not an apt one The grammarans take the sentenses as indivisible and do not concerve of words as parts of the sentence Even those who recognise the words as distinct parts of the senten e ( say the followers of Kumarda ) must take note of the fact that the meanings of the words yield completely to the total meaning of the senten e When the meaning of the sentence is cosnised, the meanings of the words cease to be cogmised disunctly But the va.ya sense does not cease to be cognised even when the suggested sense is cognised The vacya sense suggests the vyaneya and it is the very nature of the s iggestive factor to app-ar atong with the suggested content The relation between the vacya and the vyingya is like that between the lamp and the jar Compare, "na hi vyaneye pratiyamane vå~yabuddhirdd ibhavats vacyāvabhasah' ( Dhv 11I pp 420-421 ) (4 ) Ablnava says that the opponent, who v ants to hive the vyaneya irtha as the va ya sense when chiefly desired to be co iveyed, wants, in fact, to identify,vyadjana with 'tatparya Salu if not abhidhagikt 8 But it will be helpful to not" hete that, Ananda does not corceive of tatparyadakti H- con-cives tatparva as the intertion of the spealer in respect of the meaning of the sentence This tatparya is relegated even to the s ord and the reaning, which are intent upon conveying the suggested sense This tatparya is not con-eived by Ananda as a fun tion of the words of the same status as that of abhidhs, laksans or vyatjant There is also teason to believe that al hoach Kumårila was the frst exponent of the abhibstanvayavada which conceives tatparya as a separate function he also con e*ived tatparya not as a fun tion but as an intention in resp-et of the meaning of the sentence. The statas of a Sakti was given to tatparya by the writers like Jayantabhatta, who were

tyz kytha" ( Lecans p 418 )

CHAPTER IV 191

all Jatter than Ananda. Abhinava conceives tätparya as a function; for, as we will see again, he utilised the Nyaya- mañjarI to a great extent in his treatment of the functions of the word.

( 5) Another point of difference between vācakatva ( abhidhā ) and vyañjakatva (vyañjanā ) is that abhidhā resides only in śabda, whereas vyaūjana resides both in sabda and artha. ( p. 423 ).

(6) Now a doubt arises, that the gunavrtti (i.e., the secondary function ) also in its two varieties, namely, upacāra and laksaņā, depends both on sabda and artha. Hence, the distinction of the vyañjana from gunavrtti also should be clearly shown. ( p. 423 ). 9

( 7 ) Vyañjanā is different from lakșaņā because of rūpa- bheda ( i.e., difference in form ) and visayabheda ( i.e., diffe- rence in scope ). Vyañjana conveys a sense, which is direct (i.e., mukhya) and lakșanā conveys a sense, which is secondary ( i.c., amukhya ). Guņavrtti or lakșaņā behaves as the abhidhā in a secondary way ( inasmuch as the secondary sense is only a substitute for the primary sense, when the latter is unsuitable to the context ). But vyañjana is different, because, the suggested sense is not a substitute for the primary sense. The primary sense completely yields to the secondary sense. But the primary sense reveals itself along with the suggested sense like a lamp. For example, in the verse "evam vadini" the primary sense of the sentence reveals itself along with the suggested sense. If here the suggested sense be supposed to

9. It may be noted that the secondary function is said to be resident in sabda alone by some theorists like Visvanatha. cf. "ss sabda- syārpita ... saktirlakșana nama." ( SD. II ). But some other theorists relegate it, in some cases, to the primary meaning also. cf. "kevalam sabdastamartham lakşayitva ... artho varthāntaram lakşayitva ... karoti." ( Locana, I. p. 152 ). Thus it may be noticed that the secondary function also was variously conceived.

192 THT DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

be conveyed by laksand then at that rate laksant itself will appear to be the principal function of the sentences, berause, the sentences often convey certain meanings, other than the primary sense, as the contents octually desired to be conveyed by the sentence ("yasmāt prāyena vakyanām va yivyatt- rıktatātparyavişıyārthavabhasitvam," p. 424) It is to be noted here that Ananda calls the primary meaning consisting of desrription of counting of petals as 'va.ya' and the meaning relating to Parvatl's lajja as the 'tatparyavisay artha' But those who recognise tatparya as a sakti would call the primary totl meaning of the sentence as the 'tatparvivisayartha.' Aoanda does not refer to any tatparyasalt but what he means is that the suggested sense is ictually intended to be conveyed,10

( 8) There 15 difference between the suggestive and the sacordary function also in respect of their scope ( ie, vişnti- bheds ) Laksani conveys the meaning only in the form of a vastu, whertas vyanjana may convev vastu, alamiars anl ristdi alike. Bit, indeed, nobody can claim to have the sug- ra<ted figure or rasadi with faksanā ( p. 425) 11 ( 9 ) Vyanjana sometures depends on abhidli ard somte tirres on laksans. Hence, because of depending separately on both of them Vyanjand is not idertical with esther of them. Morcover, vyanjana also belongs to certai elements wh ch are quite free from abhidha or lalsinh. For cxample, the meaning-less mesical sourds suggest rasas with the vynhjana furction ( p. 42S )

10. Coriray, "Fer in general, evety sentence poris the porer e cosvryeg s purport over and above the eiprened ires tf lnd videal worts " ( Dhe. Trans p. 105 ) for, there is no ref-r-nee to fed mdual wrords in the releyent portion of the toxt od a powr It eot taat by 'if parya 11. We will sce laver on that Makulibbsta properd to bave al!

CHAPTER IV 193

( 10) In the avivaksita type of dhvani there is, however, some association of laksanā; but, yet vyañjana is not identical with laksana. Because, we may have certain secondary senses also without any suggested sense occurring at the wake of it. ( pp. 431-433 ).

( 11 ) The denotative capacity of the word is an invariable attribute of it. From the day of learning it ( i.e., vyutpattikā- lādarabhya ) the word conveys its primary meaning without fail and without the help of any other factor. But the sug- gestive capacity is a variable capacity as it is superimposed on the word. It operates only with the help of certain variable factors like the context and the speciality of the speaker ( pp. 436-437). :

( 12 ) The Mimamsakas believe in a natural and eternal relation between the word and the meaning. But, the suggested sense is not inherently and eternally related to the word. Hence, such a meaning cannot be recognised by them as it appears. But Ananda says that even the Mimamsakas have the necessity to recognise a suggested sense. Because, they distinguish between the sentences of the vedas and the sentences uttered by men. Such a distinction is due to the unreliability of the sentences uttered by men. The unreliability is on account of the fact they convey also certain variable meanings which are super-imposed on the words by the speaker himself. These supe- rimposed meanings generally consist of the desires of the spea- ker. But such meanings must be recognised as vyangya, since they are not ivariably related with the words ( pp. 438-443 ). ( 13) Now, one may raise the objection that, since all the sentences uttered by men suggest also the intention (i.e., abhiprāya ) of the speaker all such statements should be con- sidered as dhvani. Ananda replies that the suggested content in the form of the desire of the speaker is so organically bound up with the express sense of the sentence ( i.e., vacya ) that they can hardly be distinguished from the väcya in respect of

13 D.

TO4 THE DHIVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

their importance. 12 If, however, the said intention of the speaker be the principal ( ie., mainly intended or vivaksita ) content that would present a case of dhvant. But, yet, the suggested content in the form of intention of the speater will not be the only determinant of dhvani. Such a content would present us onty a suggested vastu (re, matter of fict). But dhvant has yet other two varictes of suggested sense, viz, alaikara and rasadt. That is how dhvam is free from any confusion with the statements, made in course of the practical conversations. Hence, the vyatjand function should be up to the approval of the Mimamsakas also ( 14) Ananda says that the question of any difference or agreement with the grammarians does not arise at all; for, the very propriety of using the term 'dhvan' depends on their vIews ( pp. 443-444 ) 13

( 15 ) Ananda does not apprehend any objection from the Togicians as regards the existence of a suggested sense, because, he has the conviction that logicians hardly indulge in any dispute as regards the actually experienced things. No body can, indeed, gainsay the experience of a suggestivity of the expressive words, musical sounds and the movement of hands, ete ( pp. 445-447 ).

A confusion of vyanjakatva with lingitva : ( 16) But the only objection of the logtcian, which is possible, is that the suggested sense is not conveyed by a Sabdavyapåra (ie., a function of the word ), but by a mental process of infercace (ie, anumana ). Sabda serves as the probans ( ie., libga ) and the suggested sense as the liogt ( 1e., probandum ) Ananda himself admits that the intention of 12. "ma'tu vicakatvzana bhidya.e vyafgyash hi tatra niatar'yaks" tays vyarar.biram" 19. The relatton of the dhrant theory with grammar is already d.xuued ip the orit chapter.

CHAPTER IV 195

the speaker is suggested. But according to the logicians that can be nothing other than an inferred fact.1# ( pp. 447~448 ). (17) The reply is that there may be cases of vyañjana being confused with anumāna. Vyafijana may wrongly be called anumāna also. Certain senses conveyed by vyañjanā may be arrived at by anumana also, but yet the position remains unperturbed that vyañjanā is a śabdavyāpāra, a function of the word ( or the senses), other than abhidhā and laksaņā. The great truth is that vyanjana is not identical with anumana and the knowledge of the suggested sense is not always the knowledge of the lingI, i.e., inferred object ( vide vrtti p. 449, "na punarayam paramārtho yadvyañjakatvam lingatvameva sarvatra vyangyapratitiśca lingapratītireva"). From the utterence of a certain- pauruşeyavākya an abhiprāya may be inferred but not all abhiprāyas.

The purpose ( i.e., scope ) of a word is two fold-inferable and denotative. The inferable is the speaker's intention ( abhi- präya ). The intention of the speaker, that can be inferred, is either his desire to utter a word or his desire to convey a mean- ing by the word. These two inferred desires never constitute · the sense of the word. The sense, which cannot be inferred, is again two-fold, viz., expressed or suggested. These meanings of the word ( pratipadyo visaya ) are never inferred ( vide vtti p. 451, sa tu dvividho'pi pratipādyo śabdānām na lingitayā svarūpeņa prakāśate, api tu krtrimeņākrtrimeņa vā sambandhān- tareņa ). (18) It may once again be argued like this: When the suggested sense is apprehended, its validity is arrived at with the help of anumana. Hence, the vyangyartha once again be- comes anumeya. In reply to this it is said that the validity of even the väcya sense is arrived at with the help of anumana; but, yet we suppose the vacya sense to be had by a verbal function. Similarly the suggested sense also should be held

14. Vide points 12 and 13 above.

106 THF DHVAM THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

to be within the purview of a verbal function ( viz, vyanrya ) cven when its validity is established with anumana More- over, the suggest-d sense which we relish in the Lavya is, in fact, never put to any taste of validity ef "yatha ca vacya vişaya sampadyat- ' ( pp 454-455) It may be noted here that the varbal testimony is regarded as identical with mnference by the Vaisesikas, because, they arrive at the validity of the knowledge derived from the stat^ ment with an anumana 15 But their view is duly criticised by the Mimamsakas 10 The weakness of the Vaisesika's stand is pointed out by Abhinava in the observation that the meaning of the words is not inferred, but only the validity of the meaning is inferred ef "na caitavată vacyasya pratitirāoumā nıkt kıntu tadgatasya tato dhikasya satyatvasya, tadvyangye'pi bhavişyatı ( Locana, p 454 ) ( 19 ) Although the scope of vyatjana is distinguished from that of anumana as shown above, there are yet certain expres sions of Ananda which savour of a confusion of lingitva ( Le, the state of being a probans ) with vyatjakatva (ie, the state of being suggestive ) The expressions are as follows (1) "tasmādvaktrabhıprāyarūpa eva vyangye lincatays Sabdanăm vyaparah' ( pp 452-453 ) That, for which the Sabda plays a probans is elso at the same time called a vyangya Thus the intention of the spraker is inferable, but it is alto cal'ed vyangya It is no doubt vyangya, for, the sabda behaves like a vyatjaka in respeet ofit ("svartipam prakalayann"va paravabhisako vyafaka ityu yate" ) The intention, wht h is inferred from a statement is of two types, viz., the intent:o to uttr the words and the intention to cenvey meanings But thase intertions are pot m-anings of the statemert, strictly 35 ' Idam tEnsmavimmvid Sptartkyatysi" ls the form ef lelereacr 16 Vde Itapripz, p 454, for tbe relerant quota loes from tle Sickarintla aed vide <astr"p kt, po 97-85 fer fartber

CHAPTER IV 197

speaking. The meaning which is intended to be conveyed may itself be either vacya or vyangya. These two meanings are, in deed, conveyed not through any inference but through a natural or an artificial relation. ( "sa tu dvividho'pi pratipādyo vişaya śabdānām na lingitayā svarūpeņa prakāsate, api tu krtrimenākrtrimeņa vā sambandhāntareņa" p. 451 ). But yet, the hint is there that the intention, which is inferred, may be called also suggested. Hence, anumāna is also a case of vyañjanā. But vyañjanā cannot be included in the scope of anumana as it has a wider scope. For instance, there is sug- gestion in case of the lamp and the jar also, but no anumana.

( ii ) "Tasmāt lingipratītireva sarvatra vyangyapratītiriti na ·akyate vaktum" ( p. 455 ) confirms the position that in some cases the cognition of the suggested content may be a case of the probandum itself.

( iii ) "Yattvanumeyarūpavyangyavişayam sabdānām vyaš- jakatvam taddhvanivyavahārasyāprayojakam" ( pp. 455-456), shows that, what is inferred may also be called suggested.

' (iv ) But, while the probans ( lingi ) may be treated as a suggestive factor ( vyañjaka ), all the suggestive factors may not be treated as probans ( i.e., linga ). That is why the lamp is not a linga in respect of the jar, the musical sound is not a linga in respect of the sentiments.

( v) In some cases suggestion is aided by inference or in some cases by casuality. In this manner suggestion may be found to have a much wider scope than that of inference, cf. "taddhi vyapjakatvam ...... ārabdhah" ( Vrtti, p. 456 ). Abhinava distinguishes the scope of anumana even more clearly. Cf. "yata eva hi ......... tadevamiti" ( Locana, p. 456 ).

( 20) It may be observed from the foregoing points that Ananda was very liberal regarding the scope of vyañjana. Hence, it is very likely that Ananda really means that the

198 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

relation of similarity between the contextual and the non- contextual meanings in ' atrantare, ete ", is to be inferred (1e, kalpsyitavya ) In this manner, i0 case of "evam vadint' also we may apprehend the admission of an anumana Cf api tu smaranena tatra pratipatum Larofiikrama vyangyataiva" ( Locana, pp 249-250 ) But except in case of holding the itention as antmeya, in other cases there 1s an effort to distinguish vyatjana from anumana in their very essential form Abhinava observes that in case of gathering the suggested sense an accurate mental process of suggestion does not take place Cf "na ca tatra sabdasya kāranatve yaıva . lıngasyetıkartavyatā pakşadharmatvagrahanādıkā sāsti ( Lorana, pp 450-451 ) and "atha yatra yatraıvam sabdapra yogastatra vācyam" ( Locana, p 60) and ' sahakāribhe- dācca śaktibhedah spaşta cva anumapakatvavyāparah" ( Locana, p. 63) Abhinava demands that in order to explain cases of suggestion as inference there must be the recollection of universal concomitance, ete Koowledge of universal con commitance is instrumental ( sabakar ) for inference If such instrumental factors differ, the function also differs Thus tle difference in the thought procedure involved in vyabjana and aoumana respectively results in the distinction of the two (21 ) But it may be observed that the difference in thought procedure ( Le, sahakribheda ), which is taken as the basis of dtstinction between anumana and vyafjand, is very subti- In fact in the whole f-ld of epistemology a good amount of difference of opinion may be observed in respeet of different cas-s of irference For example, in Srutirthapatti a fact is postulated on the strength of a verbal statement. In Advaita- vedinta and Bhaffamtrimsi it is a diferent pramana But accordirg to nyaya 17 it is nothirg other than anumring

frettrhtea i also dor eot dffet fom s-umias ), (Nylya

CHAPTER IV 199

Abhinava would take the postulated idea as suggested; but according to him the verbal statement in srutārthapatti will not present a case of dhvani only because the statement is not embellished with figures or endowed with qualities. 18 Hence, from the Naiyayika's point of view, cases of anumana in the guise of śrutärthāpatti may be identified as cases of vyañjanā at ease ( Vide, Šāstradīpikā, pp. 100-108 ). 19 Difference is found to be very little also between Naiyāyika's jñanalaksana perception and inference, because of which the Advaitavedantin includes the former in the latter. There are many cases of 'complicated' perception which claim to be reckoned as inference. For example, J. S. Mill is strongly of the opinion that, 'the perception of distance by the eye is, in reality, an inference grounded on exprience; though in familiar cases it takes place so rapidly as to appear exactly on a par with those perceptions of sight which are really intuitive, our perceptions of colour" ( A System of Logic, p. 4). But, how- eyer subtle the distinction of vyanjana might be, Ananda would not hesitate to uphold it or to bring it to a bolder relief, as it is evidenced by his statement that, "it is not possible to discard the usefulness of detailed definitions of particulars, simply because general definitions are already there." ("na hi sāmānyamātra-laksaņenopayogi-višesa-laksanānām pratikșe- pah śakyah kartum," p. 457 ).

( 22 ) Both for Ananda and Abhinava the realisation of rasa and bhäva is not a thing to be arrived at through a process of inference or any type of reasoning. It is maintained that the meaningless musical sounds also suggest sentiments. The realisation of the sentiments is a spontaneous and almost in- stantaneous effect and it does not come in the wake of any

18. Cf. " ...... tenaitanniravakasam śrutārthapattāvapi dhvanivyava- harah syaditi" ( Locana, p. 105 ). 19. Vide also point, 4, under "Mammata and Vyañjanz" ahead.

200 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSARIT POETICS

inference That there is the absolute absence of any pro.ess of reasoning in case of the suggestion of sentiments is the greatest argument for distinguishing vyatana from anumana But as we have seen, some amount of reasoning is admitted in case of sabdasaktimtla and arthasaktimula Possibly taking clue from this loophole, Mahima demanded that all the dhyans may be brought under the scope of anumana (V V. I 1) Because of this amount of allowance to reasoning in dhyan, the later supporters of the dhvam theory could draw a very thin line of demarcation between vyanjana and anumana For example, they endeavoured to show that the process of reasoning, involved in the verse "nihsesa cyuta," is grounded on fallacious probans That is why it does not present a case of anumana But vyatana may hold ground despite of a fallacy in the process of reasoning Cf "evamvidhadarthade- vamvıdho'rtha upapattyanapekşatve pi prakāšata itı vyaktıvā dınah punastadadiişanam' (KP V ) " This argumnt for distingushing vyafjana from onumana, with the admission to some amount of reasoning, is on a par with Prabhakara s argu ments for distinguishing arthapatt from anumana against the will of the Naiyayika, who identifes the former with the latter (Vide, Sastradīpitā, pp 100-101 ) But it is a matter of opinion The Naiyayila ientifies arthapatti with anunana at all cost. Lilewise, Mahima also jumped to the coclusion that all varicties of dhvani may be included in anumans To sum up, Ananda's views are as follows

(1) Although in some eases vyadjank appears in the form of an anumana, it is a verbal function ( sabdavybpara ) different from abudhs and laksans (n ) Vyafjana has a seops, wider than that of anumana Hence, the former is distinet from the latter (m ) At least in case of the suggestion of sentiments vyafjanå does not admit of any reasoniog or anuzana

CHAPTER IV 201

Bhattenayaka's attitude towards vyañjana:

We have already seen that Bhattanayaka gets the suggested sense in the form of rasa with the help of the function bhava- kattva and bhojakatva. We have also seen how these un- familiar functions bave to yield to the vyañjana function in the exposition of Abhinava's theory of rasa-realisation. We may notice that Bhattanayaka also recognises some meaning other than the vacya ( i.e., anyo'rtha ) in forms other than that of rasa. But the anya artha which would have been a suggested content for the dhvani theorists is included by him either ( i) in the realisation of rasa ( and hence supposed not tó be conveyed by vyañjana but to be realised with the functions of bhavakatva and bhojakatva ) or (ii ) in the vacya sense' itself and hence considered to be conveyed by the abhidha itself. ( iii ) Sometimes he denies the presence of the suggested sense altogether and explains that the beauty of the piece is due to some expressed idea.

Evidence to (i) above is had from Locana pp. 68-69. "yattubhattanāyakenoktamiha drptasimhadipadaprayoge ca dhārmikapadaprayoge ca bhayānakarasāvešakrtaiva nişedhā- vagatih tadIyabhīruvIratva-prakrtiniyamā-vagamamantareņai- kāntato nişedhāvagatyabhāvāditi tanna kevalārtha-sāmarthya- nisedhāvagaternimittamiti, etc." These words have a reference to the verse 'bhama dhammia' ( Dhv. p. 52), where, from an expressed vidhi we get the suggestion of a nisedha. Bhatta- nayaka possibly means to say that the reader of the verse would have the experience of bhayanaka rasa ( with the help of bhojakatva and bhavakatva, etc. ) and whoever would have the experience of bhayanaka rasa would also certainly feel (timid and) prohibited as regards going to the Godavari-tIra, etc. Abhinava's reply to this contention of Bhattanayaka is very interesting. Vide the continuation of the quoted Locana ( pp. 68-69 ). Of Abhinava's arguments the strongest is, how- ever, that there is no experience of bhayanaka rasa from the

202 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

vers- at all If one be obstinate about the suggestion of a rasa in the said verse then that must be recognised as sengara rasa. Evidence to ( 11 ) above is furnished by Locana, p 72, "yattvaha bhattanayakah ahamityabhinayaviš-şenātmadasāvedanācchābd- ametadapitı/ tatrāhamıtı šabđasya tāvannāyam saksādarthah, kākvādısahāyasya ca tāvatı dhvananameva vyāpāra iti dhvaner bhosanametat /' These words have a reference to the verse, * atta ettha nimajjas ' ( Dhv p 71), where an express nişedha suggests a vidhi Bhattandyaka says that the vidhi (1e, the invitation of the pathtka to her cot ) 13 expressed by the word "aham', because, the word being uttered in a dramatic manner ( Le , abhinaya viseşena ) tells about her love-lorn condition and henee also the invitation ( vidht ) The argument against his position is that the vidht is not th primary sense of the word 'aham, the vidhi is not con- ventronally related to the word 'aham', so to say Moreover, it is said to have expressed the idea of the woman's condition ard the invitation because of the dramatrs way of uttering the word Hence, the abhinaya is sahakart and this abhinaya is nothing other than a Laku ( 1e, a modulation of voice ) due to the peeuliarty of which we should get no primary sense but a sangested sense only Evidence to ( m1 ) above is furnished by Locana, p 171 "yattu brdayadarpana uktam 'ha ha hett sam-rambhartho'yam camatkarah' it1 / tatrap samrambha åvego vipralambhavyabhicarit rasadhvanistāvadupāgatah / na ca ramasabdabhivyaktarthasahayakena vina samrambhollaso pi / aham sah- tasyah kum vartata ityevamatma hi samram- bhah /" This passage has a reference to th- verse "soigdha- Syamalakanti" ( Dhv p 167) Bhattanayaka means to say that the int-rjections 'ha ha ha' mean a samrambha ( ie., an agitation ) and that samrambha is the source of charm He possibly demands that the m-aning relating to samrambha is a prmary ( te, abhihita ) meaning But even conceding to ths position, Abhissva would raise the oby-ction that sam- rambha is simply an 'avega' and 'avega' is a vyabhicaribhava for

CHAPTER IV 203

śrngara rasa. As such the charm is finally due to śrigara rasa, and according to Bhattanayaka himself it would be a case of rasadhvani. But the idea of 'samrambha' itself does not occur from the mere interjections if the suggested sense of the word rama does not precede. And the samrambha understood, here, is really an agitation of the mind, i.e., a concern over the pitiable condition of Sita standing in contrast with Rama's own ability to face the adverse situation as suggested by the word 'Rama' in 'ramo'smi.'

Mahimabhatta's attitude towards vyañjanā:

Mahimabhatta says that abhivyakti (i.e., suggestion ) is defined as follows :

"Suggestion is the revelation of an object, whether it be already existent or otherwise, by a revealer, which does not look for the help of any relation between the revealer and the revealed, along with the revelation of itself ( i.e., the revealer ).21

The revelation ( abhivyakti ) of the already existent (i.e., sato bhivyakti ) is of three types. They are as follows 22 : (1) When the effect, that lies latent and hence as imper- ceptible in the cause, becomes perceptible we have one variety of the 'suggestion of the real'. For example, when the milk becomes the curd we have this type of abhivyakti. ( 2) When a revealer, remaining subordinate, reveals a perceptible ( i.e., already manifest ) object, temporarily obscured by some other factor, while revealing itself, we get the second variety. For example the revelation of the jar by the lamp. ( 3) We have the third variety, when the residual traces. of already experienced objects are revived by an object which

21, "sato'sata eva vārthasya prakāsamānasya sambandbasmaranāna- vekşina prakāsakena sabaiva prakasavişayatāpattirabhivyaktiriti tallaksanamacakşate" ( VV. pp. 76-77 ). 22. cf. "tatra sato'bhivyaktistrividha ...... sabdacca gavadeh" ( VV. pp. 77-78 ).

204 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

is invariably concomitant with the experienced, or by some object or word which symbolises or stand for it. ( a) For example, whea we see the smoke our idea of the already ex- perienced fire is revived by the relation of invariable concomi- tance between the smoke and the fire. ( b) We have this type of suggestion also when our idea of cow is revived by its symbolical representations like picture, plastic art, 23 smage and imitation. (c ) We have this type of abhivyakti also when simply the word 'cow' revives the image of the cow in our mind. 24

(4 ) The revelation of the unreal ( asato'bhivyaktt ) is of only one type. We have such an abhivyakt, when the rais- bow is revealed by the rays of the sun, 25 Mahimabhatta contends that the first type of sato'bhivyakti cannot be had in case of poetical suggestion because the sug- gested meaning is not directly perceptible like the curd. The second type of sato'bhivyalti also cannot be had in case of the suggested sense because the suggested and the express sense cannot be cognised simultancously, in the manner of a simul+ tancous perception of the lamp and the jar. ("vacy arthasa- habhåvenedantapratiterasambhavat" ). The definition of third variety of abhivyakti is applicable Only to anumana and not to vyakti (1e., suggestion ). The example, (a ) will be recognised as anumana by all. The ctample, (b), which corresponds to upamana (i.C., comparis.on), is also nothing other than anumana, sioce, according to Mahimabhatta, upamana also falls within the parview of

23. Vide, I. Acit, p. 300. 24. The thrre cxamples Indieated by the Ietter, a, b, and e. cer- reipend to the third, fourth and te Lhth varet'es of Reyyaza's sraln s, which will be referred to below.

( W.p 78).

CHAPTER IV 205

anumana. The example, (c) is dubious. 26 Taking all the examples together Mahimabhatta contends that the third variety of abhivyakti is actuallay anumāna. Cf. "trtīyasyāstu yalla- kşaņam tadanumānasyaiva sangacchate, na vyakteh ..... , upa- mānādīnām ca tatraivāntarbhāvāt" ( VV. p. 78). Here he does not explain, as to how inference takes place in case of understanding a cow from 'word' ( 'sabdacca gauh' ). Then he proceeds to argue that the consciousness of the additional ( i.e., suggested ) meaning from the väcya sense is not possible without the consciousness of the relation of invariable con- comitance between the two. That is why one and all cannot understand the suggested sense. Moreover, the conscious- ness of the other meaning is not simultaneous with the vācya sense. There is a sequence; of consciousness like that in case of knowing the fire from the smoke. Hence, suggestion in poetry is nothing other than inference.

If it is argued that there is simultaneity of conciousness in case of the suggestion of rasa then the definition of abhivyakti will have the fault of being very widely applied. For, in case of the suggestion of vastu and alamkara there can never be any simultaneity of conciousness.

Mahimabhatta further contends that in case of the sug- gestion of rasa also the vibhavas, etc., do not get revealed simultaneously with rasa. Since, there is a relation of cause and effect between vibhavas, etc., and the unreal and image- like sthayi which being brought to the realm of the conscious- ness of the men of taste is called rasa. Cf. "na ca rasādișvapi vibbāvādi-prakāśanasahabhāvena prakāšanamupapadyate, etc." ( VV. p. 79 ).

26. Mahimabhatta says "sabdacca gavadch." Ruyyaka understands it as "vacaka sabda" ( i.e., denotative word ). But there can- not be any inference in respect of the denotation of the cow by the word cow. Hence, 'sabda' in the present expression of Mahimabhatta means the descriptive or suggestive composition. Dr. Pandey calls it the 'poetical art'.

206 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Mahimabhaita poits out that even in case of the suggestion of rasa there is an imperceptible sequence ( i.e , an asam'aksya- krama ) according to the dhvant theorist himself Now, if for avoiding all these discrepancies the coadition of simultaneous cognition of the suggester and the suggested 'be excluded from the definition of abhıvyaktı, then abhiyaktı would include anumana also, because, in case of th- fire and the smoke also, the fatter reveals the former remamning subordi- nate to the same If for excluding cases of anumans (like that of the fire from smoke ) it is claimed that only the uoreal 1s revealed in case of abhtvyakti, then the definition will not include the case of the lamp and the jar, as the jar is existent ? If for including the case of the jar and the lamp the revea- led is not desired to be unreal then the case of the rainbow and the suprays will not be included If both the alternatives regarding the nature of the reveal-d be excluded from the definition then the definition will cease to be a definiton of abhivyaktı and will be nothing other than a d-finition of anumana Mahima holds that, in fact, the expres- sion 'sato'sata eva vA' (1e, 'of the real or the unreal' ) in the definhon of sbhivyakn is redundant, for, we cannot conceive of a third thing, still different from the real and the unreal. In this manner Mahtmabhatta eodeavours to show that in kavya there cannot be, in fact, any suggestion (re, abhivyatti), but if there be the cons-iousness of an additional idea from the consciousness of the vacya sense, then that is nothing orher than a case of inference ( 1e, anumana )

The definition and classification of abhivyakti (Le, sug- gestion ) elaborated above, are attributed to the dhvani theorist

27 Wab'mabba'ta doms cot tell vs wparately that the foarth type ef abhiryakti ts not poarble 'n karya Dat be would pou bly argue that the foarth type of abbiryaktl Is not desired la kirys for frar ef the fa lare of the sralogy of the jar and the lamp

CHAPTER IV 207

by Mahimabhatta himself. Mahima's contention is that although the dhvani theorist conceives abhivyakti to be of the four types as explained by Mahima, yet the poetical suggestion corresponds only to the third variety. But Mahimabhatta's own conception of abhivyakti is different. Abhivyakti must be an automatic revelation as in the case of the lamp and the jar. But poetical suggestion does not belong to the second variety, of which the case of the lamp and the jar is an example as there is the intervention of the recollection of some relation between the suggestive meaning and the suggested content. Because of this admission to the recollection of relation poeti- cal suggestion is a case of anumana like that of the fire from the smoke and can be called a suggestion ( i.e., vyangya ) only in a figurative way. Compare : svābhāvikam dhvaneryuktam vyajakatvam na dīpavat / dhūmavat kintu krtakam sambandhāderapeksaņāt // ( VV. I. 74 ).

Ruyyaka's criticism of Mahimabhatta's view : Ruyyaka analyses Mahimabhatta's classification of abhi- vyakti to have six different varieties. Ruyyaka finds the six varieties by classifying the third variety of Mahimabhatta into three types according to the nature of the factor which revives the residual traces of the already experienced. These three varieties correspond to the examples a, b, and c, referred to above. Thus classifying abhivyakti into six varieties in his own way Ruyyaka contends that the dhvani theorist recognises only one variety of abhivyakti, i.e., the second variety. There is no impropriety in applying the definition of this type of abhivyakti to the poetical suggestion. The question of applying the definition of other five varieties for explaining poetical suggestion does not arise, since the other five varieties are not at all recognised by the dhvani theorist. Compare : "iha ca sadasadvişayatvenābhivyaktirdvidhā pratipāditā / ...... tatra vyaktivādinā ghațapradīpanyāyena sadvisayā vyaktirangīkrtā /

208 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POFTICS

yatha ca na dosastathopapaditam / Siştam tu palsapafcalam anabhy upagamnparahatameva." ( VVV. pp 76-77 ) In this qyotation we find a reference to an earher argument of Ruyyaka in defence of the dhvani theorist's conception of Vyaojana Ruyyaka contends that the analogy of the jar and the lamp is applicable to the suggestion of rasa by the vacya sense B-cause, there is the simultaneity of cogmtion of the vibhavas, et+, and rasa (ie, the generalised sthayi, brought to the realm of realisation ) 23 Replying to Mahimabhatta's contention that there is a causal relation betneen the vibhavas, ete, and rasa and hence 1 sequence of cogmition and so there is no simultaneity of cognition (1e, sahabhavena pratitt ), Ruyyaka says that, a case of sequence of realisation does not vittate the case of a simultaneity of cognition Let the vibhavas, ete, be cognised earher But what is desired by the dhvam theorist is that in t me of reatisation of rasa the consciousness of the vibhaves, ete , (ie, the situation ) also must be there. That is why the dhsam th-orist says -- "na hi vyangye pratiyamane vacyabud- dhurdd i bhavats vacyavina bhavena tasya prakasanat." instead of "na hi vacye pratiyamane vyangyabuddhirduribhavati, etc." Compare "vyanjaka pratitikale ht myamena vyangyapra- titıntı oasmakamāsaych / vyangyapratitikale tu niyamena vyan- jılaprattırbhavatyevetyāsayenakramatvam vyaktica samar- th tu," ete ( VVV 1.p 53) Ruyyaka further contends that the four varicties of abbi- Watt ate unduly attribsted to the dhvani theorists For, dhvam theorsts recognise only the 'jar and the lamp' type of abhivyaktr It is quite improper to criticise the views of others with definitons cooked up by oneself

28 Tha s mulane ty of cogalt oa is very clearly pointed cut by Vammala In ts cperf en of Abhinava's theo-y of rasa rlat oo in the cpriren "viths ad yvitzradhlb' ( KP IV )

CHAPTER IV 209

The contention that, in case of recognising the poetical suggestion as an abhivyakti of the 'milk and the curd' type, the suggested object should be directly perceptible, may be raised also in case of including the poetical suggestion in the 'jar and the lamp type.' As such, the realisation of rasa can- not be called a case of abhivyakti; since, rasa is not a directly perceptible object.

Bv way of solving this tangle Ruyyaka says that, this objection is invalid; because, the dhvani theorist understands by the term abhivyakti, only a revelation in general. The dhvani theorist never talked of any abhivyakti where the sug- gested must be a directly perceptible object. Hence, even being directly imperceptible, rasa can be said to be suggested' ( i.e., vyangya ). 29 Ruyyaka concedes to the objection that in case of the sug- gested vastu and alamkāra there is an order of cognition of the vacya and the vyangya. But, that is not a very strong argument for dismissing the vyañjana function. The position. of the dhvani theorist, according to Ruyyaka, is that, the two functions, viz., abhidhā and laksaņā are recognised in respect of the primary and the secondary sense. But, these two fun- ctions cannot proceed up to the third stage ( of the suggested sense ). For example, the idea of the holy calm of the bank. of the Ganges falls to this third stage of meaning. In case of rasa, which stands on a par with this third stage, the vyanjanā function is recognised. Hence, it is proper to recognise the same vyañjanā in case of vastu and alamkāra also. The vācya sense is cognised in time of the consciousness of the

29. cf. "yattu sadasadvisayatvena caturvidha vyaktiratronmīlitā tadapi na sangatam ghata pradīpanyayasyatrestatvāt / yopin- driyagocaratapattiprasanga udbhavitaņ so'pyasamañjasah / na hyatmiyena laksanena paramatam dūsyate / ... samīnyena dhīgocaratāpattilaksanatvādvyakteh / tataśca rasīdau vyańgya- tvamanavadyameva" ( VVV. I. p. 59 ). 14 D.

210 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

suggested sense also in case of vastu and alamkara. There 1s. however, no harm if in time of cognising the vacya the vyangya đoes not happen to be cogntsed 30

Suggested vastu cannot be had through anumana : Here we may notice that, the intervention of the recollec- tion of the relation of invariable concomitance in case of suggestion 31 is not duly refuted by Ruyyaka also. It is also true that some amount of reasoning preceds the cognition of the suggested content in the form of the considerstion of the speciality, ete. But, we have already noticed that, the latter theorists dismiss the admission of any anumana in case of arriving at the suggested Vasto on the ground of fallacious probans For example. Mahimabhatta would infer the absence of roaming ( abhramanam ) from the presence of the lion in the bank of the Godaviri ( godavari tire simhopalabdheh ), which is expressly stated. Visvanatha contends that the pre- sence of the lion is a fallacious probans ( anaikantika h-tu ) Because, even a timid person may roam even after learning about the presence of the lion, because of direction from the master or out of love for the beloved. Further, the probans is dubious ( samdigdhasiddha ) on account of the bad character of the speaker ef. "tatha-hyatra 'bhama dhamama' ityadau grhe Svanivrttya vihitam bhramanam codavaritire simhopalabdhera- bhramanamanomāpayatı itı yadvaktavyam tatrānukāntiko

30. ef "yatpuaarvastvalamktrayoraiyamena vcyinantarakilsbhi- vitrens pratitervyangyatvamssaman,amam bbavatltyuktarh, tatra prattvidrfyate / tha fabdarytbh dhalaltanthbedena deiridbo

rtbe pragılbba'a lti tatra vyspārīntaramabbyupeyam / rartdau ca tattulyakaktye vyad arsmopapiditamttrhzpi tadeva namira* ytuis yuktars / .. na dtantmityuktam-va ( VVV. I. p. 59 ). 31 Mabima con'ends, "na ea vicytdarthsdarthintaraptatftfravint-

tatpra ftiprasingtt" ( VV. 1. p. 79. )

CHAPTER IV 211

hetuḥ / bhīrorapi guroļ prabhorvā nideśena priyānurāgeņa vā gamanasya sambhavāt / pumścalyā vacanam prāmāņikam na veti samdigdhāsiddhiśca" ( SD. V. ).

The case of inference of alamkaras :

Mahimabhatta does not recognise the presence of any suggested alamkara in the cases of the sabdasaktimula dhvani. For lack of adequate reason he cannot arrive at the non- contextual meaning and hence the question of recognising a suggested alamkära for rendering the non-contextual meaning congruous, does not arise for him. 32 At this rate there should be no suggested alamkāra also in the verse "durgālamghita" (SD. II.). Hence, Visvanätha says that it would be a foolish- ness similar to that of an elephant to deny the presence of the suggested alamkara in the verses like "durgalamghita" which is, indeed, a matter of experience. Cf. "durgālamghita ityādau ca dvitiyārtho nāstyeva-iti yaduktam mahimabhattena tadanu- bhavasiddhamapalapato gajanimilikaiva" ( SD. V ). In case of the verses like "prāpta-śrīreșa kasmāt" 33 Mahima- bhatta arrives at the 'basic idea' of the suggested figure through a process of anumana. The process of anumana is as follows : The activities which are widely known to be the activities of Lord Väsudeva are said to be not proper for the king on account of his having already achieved the desired objects. Hence the king is identical with the Lord : This inferred idea of identity is the suggested rüpaka of the dhvani theorist. 34

32. Cf. "evam casya vacyatirekiņo'rthantarasya pratītireva na sa- mastīti yatraprastutābhidhanaprasangabhayat tayorupamanopa- meyabhavaprakalpanam tadapi nirmulamevetyavagantavyam" ( VV. III, p. 419 ). 33. Dhv. II. p. 261. 34. Cf. " ...... bhagavato vāsudevasyamī vyaparab prasiddhāssanto yadanyatra rajadavaropya tasya samthitaprāptyā nisidhyante tena tatkaryatvat karanabhutabhagavadrOpataropameva tatranuma- payantīti rūpakānumitiriti vyapadesah pravarttate" ( VV. III. p. 430 ).

212 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

But the alamkara is also an imaginary type of matter of fact. H-nce, it may be supposed that the dhvan theorists would dismiss the admission of anumana on the ground of fallacious probans, here also

The case of inference of rasa

We have seen in the first two chapters,35 how Mahimabhatta realises rasa through inference In this connection Visvanatha questions Does Mabimabhatta recognis- the knowledge of the love of the poctical characters like Rama, which may be derived through inference, as rasa ? Or does he recognise the exquisite joy of the man of taste, in which his self sees itself, derived through a tumination over the mental state of love as rasa ? The followers of the dhvam theory do not accept th- knowledge of the love of poetical characters as rasa If the second alternative is accepted then it is evidently clear that, the proposed probans is fallacious on account of the lack of the knowledge of invariable concomitance and hence, there cannot be any inference Moreover, the mere knowledge derived through the reasoning "wherever there is the express statemient or dramatic presentation of such and such vibhavas and vyabbicaribhavas, there is the origin of the rasas like roeara*34 is also not considered as rara by the followers of the dhvan theory A perfect process of anumana cannot operate in respest of the realisation of what is understood as rasa by them Compare SD V 4, and vrtt thereunder

It my be noted here that, in the matter of aesthetics Mabimabhatta ts a follower of Srilankuka, but he effects an improvement on the latters inferential theory by ( 1) recogm sirg a distinet subjective condttion of the aesth-tie experienee,

J5 Vd, p. 54 and p 143 36 be dLssxmabs cayo vs tatra tatra irigirsdi rarirthmah"

CHAPTER I V 213

and by (2) distinguishing between the practical inferential experience and the aesthetic inferential experience, 37 It may also be noticed here that, Abhinava also apprehends an opponent like Mahimabhatta and contends that the mere inference of a mental state belonging to others is not a rasa. Viśvanātha, in the foregoing argument appears to have derived the spirit from the relevent portion of the Locana which runs as follows : "nanvevam ...... kimatra paracittavrttimātre prati- pattireva rasapratipattirabhimatā bhavataḥ ? na caivam bhra- mitavyam; evam hi lokagatacittavrttyanumānamātramiti kā rasatā ? yastvalaukikacamatkārātmā rasāsvādah kāvyagatavi- bhavadicarvaņāprāņo nāsau smaraņānumānādisāmyena khilī- kārapātrīkartavyah” ( Locana, p. 155 ).

Mammata and vyañjanā :

Mammata was the most robust writer after Ananda and Abhinava to place the conception of the vyañjana function in a very sound footing. We will have several occasions to refer to the strong arguments of Mammata in the later sections. In the present section we are trying simply to trace his in- tellectual background.

He discusses the necessity of recognising vyañjanā as a distinct function in the second and the fifth ullasas of the KP. (1) In the second ulläsa his arguments for distinguishing vyañjanā from laksaņā are based on Locana on Dhv. I. 17. (2) The arguments for recognising vyadjana in case of the non-contextual meaning of the homonyms are based on Locana on Dhv. II. 21, etc. ( 3) In the fifth ullasa Mammata applies the whole wealth of his knowledge of Mimamsa and Nyāya for establishing vyañjana as a distinct function. His arguments against 'naimittikanusārena nimittāni kalpante,' 'so'yamișoriva dirgha-dirgha-vyaparah' and 'yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah

37. Vide, I. Acst. pp. 285-290.

214 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

are based on Locana on the illustrative verse 'bhama dhammia' under Dhv. I. 4 (4 ) It is noticed that Abhinava's conception of 'tatparya-sakti' is based on Jayanta's Nyayamatjart It may also be noticed that, the arguments which are presented to be directed against śrutarthapatti by the Prabhakara in the NyayamanjarI are taken in the Locana to be as good as arguments directed against vyanjana. The pråbhakara wants to have the idea gathered through srutartbapatt as an ordinary (express ) meaning of the word itself In order to convey the additional idea the word itself is said to have longer and longer functions. ef. "prābhakarāstu drstab śruto vett bhāşyam . .. tamartham sabdameva pratijānate ...... .. vākyārthapratItā- vişoriva dirghadirgho vyaparab ... , etc." (NM. p. 43 ). The plausible argument against this further potential capacity ( dirghadirgho vyaparah ) 15 that if the additional idea had by Srutarthapatti is put on a par with the primary sense then the primay sense may claim identity with the gauna and laksya sense also. The relative validity of the sruti, linga, sthana, ctc., also would cease to exist. cf. "nanvevam satı ...... bhavi- şyati." ( NM. p. 44). These very arguments are presented by Mammata in defence of vyanjana in the fifth ullasa. While Jayanta gathers the idea conveyed by srutarthapatti with a process of aumana, Abhinava and Mammata derive it because of vyanjand Abhinava and Mammata agree with the Prabha- kara in the matter of recognising the idea derived through frutarthapatti as a meaning of the word itself but they differ in respect of the fuoction involved in arriving at the said idea. (5) Arguments of Mammata on the question of the tatpar- yartha of "vişam bhakşaya, etc." are durected against Dhanika. ( 6 ) That, Mammata thoroughly remembers the Dhv. III, can be seen from most of his further arguments in the fifth ullasa. (7) Refatation of the claim to include vyadjank in anumina is evidently reant for Mahimabhatta. ( 8 ) Mammata wrote a full-length book natred Sabdavyaparavicara to refute Mukula- bha'ta's arguments for incladıng vyanjana in laksant.

CHAPTER IV 215

Dhanañjaya, Dhanika and vyañjana: Dhanañjaya, the author of Dasrupaka and Dhanika, the author of Avaloka, the commentary on the former, flourished earlier than Mammata. They contend that the vyañjanā function is redundant. The so called vyangya artha may be had as the tātparyartha ( with tatparyasakti ) as it is also a meaning of the sentence.

Dhanabjaya concedes to the fact that the suggested sense may not have a denotative word for it. But that should not be the reason for not calling it as vacya, he contends. The sthäyibhava, which is said to be suggested by the express des- cription of the vibhavas, etc., is not conveyed by any expressive words. But, yet it should be considered as the vācya sense itself of the sentence. The sthayibhava is indeed the 'vākyārtha' the vakya being intent on conveying the same. Dhanañjaya says :

vācyā prakaraņādibhyo buddhisthā vā yathā kriya / vākyārthaņ kārakairyuktā sthāyibhāvastathetaraiņ // ( DR. IV. 37 ).

Dhanika, by way of commenting on this point, explains their position more clearly.

There is no expressive word ( i.e., denotative word or vācaka sabda ) for conveying the idea of the sthayt bhäva which is designated by the dhvani theorist as vyangya. But, yet we may call that sthayi as the vākyārtha (i.e., tātparyārtha or the intended meaning of the sentence ). Because, the mean- ings of all the sentences are to be conceived in terms of a kriyā ( i.e., action ) even if there be no word in the sentence for faithfully denoting the same. For example, in the sentence, 'gämabhyāja', the action of carrying the cow is expressly stated by a word denotative of the action. But the sentence, 'dvāram dvāram' which also conveys'the idea of an action to be performed, does not have the word 'pidhehi' ( close ) to

216 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

denote the desired action Even then, the closing of th- door is the intended meaning of the sentence Similarly, the sthayt bhava also may be taken to be the total intended meaning (re, tatparyartha ) of the sentence, but not a vangya s-nse This is what is hinted by the karika IV 37 On the basis of this kārkā, Dhamta presents a series of arguments as follows

A vakyartha is the meaning of a sentence conveyed by its tatparyasakti It cannot b- argued that we cannot have such a vakyartha for which there are no denotative words Because, all sentences result in some effect ( 1e., all sentences are Kārya para ) The ultimate effect in case of the sentences of the kåvya is the relish of rasa This relish of rasa renders it necessary to recognise the sthayibhava as the vakyartha In respect of such a vakyartha the vibhavas ete, stand on a par with the word meanings ( padartha ) whtch are usually in strumental for conveying the total meaning of the sentence Cf ' tatra vibhavādayah padartha sthantyāstatsamsrsto ratyā dırvākyārthah / tadetat kāvyavākyam yadiyam tāvimau padār thavakyarthau' (DR IV p 298) This argument is the same with what is apprehended from the opponent by Ananda vardhana in the words 'tasmat tatparyavisayo yo'rthah vakyarthapratiteh ' ( Dhv p 415) This argument is however. duly refuted by Ananda in his own way ( Vide, p 189, above )

It is apprehended by Dhamka that the opponent may argu* as follows Raca is, in fact, a relish The musical sounds also may produce a similar relish But the relation b-tween th- musical sound and the relsh can never be called the relation of the denoter and the denoted ( It is undoubtedly the relation of the sugeester and the suggested ) Likewise the relation between the kavya and rass is not the relation of the denoter and the denoted In reply to this nreumert Dhanika siys that, the aralogy is not an apt one For, the relish caused by the musical sound may be derived also by the illiterate person, whereas the relish of rasa can be had

CHAPTER IV 217

only by the literate. Cf. "na caivam ......... svānandodbhūteh" ( DR. IV. p. 240 ). Dhanika reinforces his arguments with certain quotations from another work of his, viz., Kāvyanirņaya, as follows : (1 ) Dhanika argues-As the so called vyangyārtha is con- veyed by tätparya ( i.e., within the scope of the intention of the speaker ) there cannot be really a vyangyärtha ( as addi- tional to the tätparyärtha ) and bence, there cannot be any dhvani.

( 2) The dhvani theorist argues-But how can you call the meaning as tätparyartha when it is not conveyed by denotative words ?

( 3 ) Dhanika replies-There may be a tätparyärtha even when there is no word as denotative for it. As for instance, in the sentence, "vişam bhaksaya" ( take poison ), we have, as the tätparyartha, something which is quite different from what is denoted by the words 'vişam' and 'bhaksaya'. The tātpar- yärtha does not ask to take poison. But even such a tātpar- yärtha, as we have in 'visam bhaksaya', not conveyed by denotative words, is not called the vyangyartha by the dhvani theorist himself.

(4 ) The dhvani theorist may say that, even a meaning which is not conveyed by denotative words may be the tatpar- yärtha when the denoted meaning is inconsistent ( or where the sentence does not rest after communicating simply the denoted sense ). But where, there is a meaning, additional to the consistent denoted meaning, we can have dhvani ( i.e., a vyangyärtha ). Where the purpose is not fulfilled by the ordinary denoted sense, the denoted sense is discarded and the apparently additional meaning is accepted as the tätpar- yärtha, (5) Dhanika replies-This argument is not proper. For, it cannot be claimed that the purpose of the sentence is

218 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

fulfilled by conveying the denoted sense itself and the suggested sense remains outside the scope of tatparyasakti How can it be claimed that, the tatpiryasakti will cover only to the extent of the denoted sense and the suggested ( 1e, dhvami) will remain out of its scope? The purpose of the whole sentence ( 1e, kavya ) will be fulfilled only when the so called suggested sense is conveyed The communication of the suggested sense is the intended result of the sentence and such a result ( 1e, kārya ) is always intended by the sentence and the tatpiryasakti necessarily functions upto that desired sense, be it immediately denoted or additionally conveyed The extent of the tatparyasakti is never measured by any measuring rod 39

(6 ) That, even the so called suggested sense is within the scope of tatparya can be illustrated by the verse 'bhama dhammia' where the prohibition is really intended by the speaker ( 7 ) Lastly, Dhanika explains the process of the communt- eation of rasa to be as follows Through our observation of the couples in Jove in the prictical life we are familiar with the relation of invariable concomitance between vibhavas, etc, and the sthayibhava When in Lavya, vibhavas, ete , are pre- sented we conelude that such and such a bebaviour of the couple is not possible without a feeling of ratr ( ie, the sthayr- bhava for love ) Hence, from the kavya which gives us a d-seription of vibhavas, etc, we gather the idea of the sthay1 with the help of laksand aided by the relation of avinabhava ( 1e., non-separation ) Compare loke tathavidha-cesta- yukta-strIpumsadısu ratyādyavinābhavadarsanadihapi tathopa- mtandhe satı ratyadyavinābhuta cestadipratipādakasabdaśra-

"etzratyeva v frta' s'ttparyaryeti kimkrtam /

(DR. IV. p 242 ).

CHAPTER IV 218 .

vaņādabhidheyāvinābhāvena lāksaņikī ratyādipratītiņ ( DR. IV. p. 244 ).

An analysis of Dhanika's position : In the last mentioned point we may notice that Dhanika is dragging us to a hopeless confusion of tātparyasakti, laksaņā- śakti and anumāna ( i.e., avinābhāva ). For Dhanika the idea of sthãyI is not conveyed by vyañjana. It is conveyed by lakșaņā with the help of avinābhāva (i.e., a process of in- ference ). But according to his earlier arguments, what is said to be vyangya by the dhvani theorist is within the scope of tatparya itself. We cannot understand 'tātparya' of Dhanafjaya as merely an intention like the tatparya of Ananda. Because, he calls it tātparyasakti, indeed. Compare : "na cāpadārtha- sya vākyārthatvam Dāstīti vācyam kāryaparyavasāyitvāttāt- paryasakteh" ( DR. IV. p. 238 ). That is how we are to admit two functions ( i.e., saktis ) and a process of anumāna also. But, it is quite precipitate for Dhanafjaya's conception of rasa to drag in the avinābhava, since that would make him a sup- porter of the inferential theory. But, in fact, Dhanañjaya is a follower of Bhattanäyaka in the matter of aesthetics. 39 Here, we may, however, notice that, Dhanika's conception of the väkyartha is based on the view of the Mimamsakas. The position of the Mimamsakas, who hold that the total meaning of the sentence is communicated by the meanings of the individual words through implication ( i.e., laksanā ) is very clearly represented by Pärthasarathi in the following verse : tasmānna vākyam na padāni sākșād vakyārthabuddhim janayanti kintu / padasvarupābhihitaih padārthaiḥ samlakşyate'sāviti siddhametat // ( Nyāyaratnamālā, p. 125 ). But when the meaning of the sentence is thus taken as a

39. I. Acst. p. 127.

.220 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

laksyārtha by Dhanika it would be wiser to recognise 'tatparya' not as a function but simply as the intention of the speaker. And in fact, according to the Nyaya-Vaisesika school, tatparya, tnderstood as the intention of the speaker is an invariable factor for the operation of laksana. 40 But from the admission of avinabhava Dhanika's conception of laksana seems to be like what is embodied in an un-identified quotation in the TattvapradIpikā which is as follows : manantaravirodhe tu mukhyarthasya parigrahe / mukhyārthenāvinābhlte pratitırlakșanocyate // ( p 262 ). ( Lakşana 15 the cognition of a meaning, which is related to the primary sense through the relation of avinabhava, on the occasion of the recognition of an incongruity of the primary meaning with the help of some other source of knowledge )

Dhvanivadin's reply to Dhanika's arguments : Mammata feels that Dhanika is not properly understanding the Mimamsaka's conception of tatparya and hence he is making a wrong application of the same for criticising the conception of vyanjana. Hence, for refuting the position of Dhanika, Mammata clearly explains the very theory of tat- parya," The relevent rules and their imphcations are as follows: ( 1 ) Yatparah sabdah sa Sabdarthah-Whatever is intended by the word is its meaning. (2) Yadeva vidheyam tatraiva tatparyam-Only what is desired to be done ( Le, enjoined ) is the intended meaning ( tätparya ). ( 3 ) Why this restriction ? Because, even only a few words in the sentence ( or a part of the sentence ) may tell about what is particularly desired to be done. Ifa certain thing is already enjoied elsewhere, then with reference to the import

40. Cr. "Lataes fatyasambandhar stparytnopspattitah" ( Phays+ pariccheds, Sabdakkan'a ). 41. Vide, KP. V.

CHAPTER IV 221

of the sentence at hand that need not be taken as desired to be conveyed ( i.e., tatparyārtha ). The fire burns only what is not already burnt. Similarly the sentence also enjoins what is not already enjoined. "adagdhadahananyāyena yāvada- praptam tāvadvidhīyate." (4) If there be any injunction that must enjoin only an action. At that rate all the sentences should imply some action. Mammata says yes, 'bhūtabhavyasamuccaraņe bhūtam bhavyāyopadiśyate.' 'Bhūta' means 'kārakapadārthas' ( i.e., ideas not ordinarily implying any action; i.e., they are not sadhya but siddha ) and 'bhavya' means 'kriyapadarthas' implying action ( i.e., sädhyas ). But when these are uttered together the karakapadarthas also assume the form of sādhyas and imply some relevent action. ( 5 ) Thus, in the sentence, 'lohitosnīsā rtvijah pracaranti' the 'moving about of the priest' (i.e., rtvikpracarana ) is an injunction already known from elsewhere. Hence, only the red head-dress ( i.e., lohitosnīs ), which is a kārakapadārtha assumes the form of a 'bhavya' and enjoins the act of wearing the red head-dress. So, the sentence is said to have tātparya only to that effect. This is what is the actual implication of the maxim "yatparah sabdah sa sabdarthah." ( 6 ) From the fore-going exposition, it will be clear that only used ( i.e., upatta ) words may have tatparya in respect of what is enjoined. 42 If words, which are not uttered or used in the sentence but simply learnt from some other source, are also supposed to convey tatparyartha then sometimes the ex- pression "purvo dhavati" (The former runs ) should have tätparya indiscriminately in respect of a meaning as "aparo dhāvati" ( The latter runs ). But, infact, it does not happen to be so, only because, only the used words can convey the tātparyartha,

42. cf. "yadyapi ...... śrutayoreva parasparaniyamah" ( Nyāyaratna- māla, p. 103 ).

222 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

(7) Now, some one may argue that the sentence, 'vişam bhakşaya' ( Literally, 'Take poison' ) means 'etadgrhe na bho- ktavyam' ( 'Do not take food in his home' ) The 'prohibition of taking food' alone being destred to be conveyed, that alone should be recogmised as the meaning of the sentence, having tatparya Hence, here we do not have the used words (ie, upatta sabdas ) conveying the tatparyartha That is how the suggested sense also, which is not the literal meaning of the used words, should be recognised as tatparyartha ( 8) Mammata gives the reply with utmost economy of words He means to say that, we must not take 'vişam bhakşaya' as an isolated sentence It is a part of an entire sentence running as 'vişam bhakşaya ma casya grhe bhunkthah', where the use of the particle 'ca' connecting the two clauses, enakes it a single sentence 43 Taken as a whole, the statement

43 tatra caktra ekavākyatāsdeantrthah / na cakbyatavakya- yordvayorangıngıbhtva iti vişabhakşanavikıaya rabrdvtkya+ tvenlAgar kalpantyeti (KP V.) It appear to me that, th s Is after an observation of Firthartrathl, whieb rums a follow . nivaiyamarinsbhIvanimittalva lakyana / ckavikyatipi tatra mimittam /" ( NyiyaratnamalI, p 123 ) In tbe Nayakaratna commentary, 'ckavskyats' is explafned as "pa dInim parapamiamabhivyibarah" (t e, jurtaposition of words ) Parthastrathi further observes that, sometlm's the 'ckavikyatr' may be apparent ( I e, pratyabst ) and some times it la Interred from the context ( ic , prakarantdyanum-yz ) In the latter cate an appareatly complete sentrace ts connected with another principal stavement through the relation of the phacipal and the subordinate ( angingibhira ) Mammara with the anzicty to desy the staus of A sentence eren as the subord nate claus to 'riyem bhaksaya' moram to say that there the chavikysrz is apparent and that ls not became of any afgtigibhiva c. "ckavtkyati ca kracitpratyakys yatht so- mesa yajteti / kracit prakaraaIdyaumeyi yatht darisporaı-

CHAPTER IV 223

being that of a well-wisher, the clause, 'visam bhaksaya' will not convey its literal meaning at all. This clause forming a part of the entire statement will simply contribute to a secon- dary meaning of the entire stament as-'visabhakşaņādapi dūstametadgrhe bhojanamiti sarvathā māsya grhe bhunkthab' ( The taking of food in his home is worse than taking poison and hence never take food at his home ). When, thus a secondary meaning is recognised in place of the literal meaning, the secondary meaning itself is taken to be the tātparyärtha of the used words. The secondary meaning is not additional to the literal meaning. But it is only a substitute for the same. (9 ) Thus tätparya covers only upto the minimum consis- tent meaning of the sentence. Hence, in the sentence 'bhama dhammia', tātparya may mean only the bhramanavidhi. If there be any additional meaning, that will not fall within the purview of tätparya, but that will be a vyangyartha conveyed by yet another function of the words and senses called vyañ- jana. Hence, the idea of nisedha in the said verse is not a tātparyārtha but a vyangyārtha. ( 10) Even if we understand 'vidhi' as the tātparyartha, that will imply an action. The beauty of the verse lies in the fact that we have the idea of vidhi as the tätparyârtha and then the idea of nisedha not as the tätparyartha but as the vyangya. We may assume that the dhärmika understands the vidhi as the tatparyartha. But for us it is suggested that there is a nisedha, and it is simply expected that the dhärmika also would derive the idea of the nisedha additionally. ( 11 ) Viśvanātha points out that 'tatparyam na tuladhrtam' is not a very happy argument, because of the maxim that, the verbal functions can operate only in respect of one meaning ...

masābhysm yajeta samidho yajatītyanayob ramidupeta darša- pilmamāsabbavanā kartavyetyevamrupaikavākyata . kalpyate" ( Nyayaratnamāla, p. 125 ).

224 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

The same function cannot be rejuvinated for conveying mean- ines of different stages. " And this is the reason for recog- nising a laksana function as different from abbidha. ( 12 ) Another argument of Visvanatha is that, the tatparya- sakt of the Mimamsaka helps in having only the minimum conststent meaning of a sentence. Hence, for having any meaning beyond that we must recognise vyanjana. If to avoid this difflculty Dhanika says that his tatparya is different from the tatparya of the Mimamsaka, then in his opinion also there will be a fourth function, additional to the already accepted three of the Mimamsaka ( namely, abhidhā laksana and tăt- parya ) Let this fourth function be named not as tātparya but as vyanjarā. cf "yat punaruktam .tanmate'pt turiya. vrttisiddheb" ( SD V.)

Mukulabhatta and vyanjana: Mukula was the son of Bhattakallata and the teacher of Prattharenduraja. He fourished in the first half of the tenth century. 5 Mukula, in his Abhudhavrttimatrka, tries to show that ( 1 ) all the suggested senses can be had by taksank. He refers to the 'atyanta-tiraskrta vacya' and 'avivakşita-vācya' types without giving a direct criticism of them but wrongly including a vivaksitavacya type also in the same footing as that of the former ( A. V. M. p. 28 ). ( 2) He names the capacity of the word to convey the mean, inz as abhidhavyapāra, classifies it into mukhya and lākyanika abhidhavyapara, and tries to show that the suggested sense is had by sıt forms of lakşana.

44. cf. " .. .. tayorepari fabdaboddhikarmantm viramya vylpiri- bharh it vad bhirera pirantyo dandah" (SD V) Here, Vifranttha underrands rIrparya as fabdafakti in tbe stricten wax of the term 45. HSP. Kore, p. LXXVL

CHAPTER IV 225

( 3) He recognises the three conditions of laksanā as mukhyärthabādha, mukhyarthapratyāsatti (relation with primary sense ), and prayojana; classifies prayojana into two types and adds that both the varieties of prayojana also become the object of cognition along with the respective lāksaņika senses. cf. "etacca prayojanadvitayam mukhyārthāsambhave sati mu- khyarthapratyāsannatayā pūrvapradarsitena sambandhapanca- kenāvagamyamāne lākşaņike'rthe yathāvisayamanusartavyam ...... na hi tatpunyatvamanoharatvādisvasabdaih sprastum sakyate avyāptyativyāptiprasangāt." ( AVM. p. 17. ) ( 4 ) Strangely enough, Mukula also refers to some 'vyangya dharma' 46 in connection with 'ramo'smi' of the verse "snig- dhasyamala" ( which the dhvani theorists take as the prayojana of laksana and hence as suggested ) 47 but he says elsewhere that the same dharmas are conveyed by laksana. Compare : "atastenāpi rājyabhramsavanavāsasītāpanayanapitrmaraņādayah sväbhidheyabhūtārthaikagāmino'sādhāranaduhkhahetavo dhar- mā visiștasāmagryanupravișțeva laksitāh" ( AVM. p. 11 ). From this he may be said to be advocating for 'visiste laksaņā', referred to by Mammata.

(5 ) Mukula's endeavour to show that, all the three types of suggested sense namely, vastu, alamkāra and rasādi are conveyed by laksaņā, is evidenced by his treatment of the three illustrative verses given in AVM. pp. 12-14. Illustrating a case of laksana due to the speciality of the speaker ( vaktrni- bandhanatvena ) he gives the verse "drstim he prativesini" ( AVM. pp. 12-13 ). According to him laksaņā conveys the idea of the fact that, "the speaker would have erotic dalliance with the parapurusa." He comments that the express sense, 46. AVM. p. 20. The printing, however, wrongly reads 'vyangyam dharma' for 'vyangya dharma', which is evidently correct. 47. In the dhvani theory the 'dharmantaraparinatarama' is the tecondary sense whereas the dharmas themselves are suggested. . (Dhv. p. 169 ). 15n

226 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

telling that there would be scratches by the reeds ( nala ), etc , 1s fals- ( asatya ) and hence, badhita Hence, the secon dary sense, observed above occurs to make it consistent. Compare, " atrahi parapurușa tenatra vaktrvišeşaparya İocanayāsatyArthe nısthaya upadanatmikayah pratipattih /" ete ( 6 ) Illustrating laksanå du- to the speciality of the whole sentence he gives the verse, "prapta sriresa kasmāt" and adds that praptasrih, ete, refer only to Lord Vasudeva H-nce, the doubts ( samsaya vitarka ) as regards the activiti's are inconsistent untess there be identifcation of the king with Văsudeva Hence, it is also a case of upādānalakșanā which conveys the id-a of the identification of the king with Vasudeva, which, helps in making the statement consist-nt Compare te ca vitarkah praptasrirityadina bhagavadvāsuđ>vasya vyārāravıšesavişayah / yāvacca tasya nrpaterbhagavadvāsude vata na samastı tāvatkatham tadiyeşu vyāpāraviš s-şu sam- Sayah samupajāyate prāptašrirıtyādışu ca trısu vitarkeşu bhagavadvāsudevavişayeşu yathāyozam tattatkāryanırākarana- hetugarbhatayā pravartamānesu nrpaterbhagavadvāsuđ-vatā ksıptā tenātropādānātmikā lakșana" etc ( AVM pp 13-14) (7) Illustrating lakşana due to the consideration ( paryl tocana ) of th- express sense, Mukula gives the verse, "durvarā madaneşavo disi diśi" Here the express sense is that the fve things namely, the arrows of Cupid, the spring season, etc. are of the nature of fire and are unbearabl- When the express sonse is taken into consid-ration vipralambha srngara is con veyed by laksans Without this vipralambha srngara th- words in th- s-rten-e are in-onsistent. It is also a case of up3dins lakşini due to th- ( nature of ) express sense Compire, "ityatra hi strarafara prabhrtfnam pancanamadhy arop tavahn! bhavanamasshyatvam vAkyarthibhutam / atastasya va yata / tatpary alocanasāmarthya ca vipralambhatrngārasyaks-pa ityu pădārătmikā latșanā vā yambandhanā rapt ca vitye padinăm vipralambhasreg3raks-pamantaren3nvayopapattih ctc (AVM. p 14)

CHAPTER IV 227

Mukula's position and prayojanamūla laksanā : Mammata gives a counter criticism of Mukula's views sharply but in brief in the SVV and in a general way in the KP. Mukula's views may be refuted, from the stand point of the dhvani theorists, in the following manner. ( 1 ) Mukula recognises a prayojana of laksaņā but does not explicitly say how it can be arrived at, but implicitly says that it occurs along with the secondary sense, decidedly being conveyed by laksaņā, as evidenced by his sporadic statements.

In case of laksaņāmūlā vyañjanā, as in the sentence 'gangāyām ghosah'-the suggested idea of coolness ( sitatva ), etc., cannot be conveyed by abhidha, inasmuch as the word ganga does not have a conventional invariable relation with the ideas as coolness, etc. ( nābhidhā samayābhāvāt. KP. II. 24). Moreover, we cannot have the sense of coolness, etc., with the help of laksana; because, as regards this sense the three conditions of laksaņa are not present ( hetvabhāvānna laksaņā, ' KP. II. 25 ). We have already arrived at the secondary sense 'tata' from the incosistency of the primary sense 'current' with the laksana function residing in the word ganga. Naturally, the same function will not work again to convey the idea of sItatva, etc., due to the maxim "sabdabuddhikarmaņām," etc. Then again, since the primary sense of the current is already out of picture we must take the secondary sense of 'tata' ( bank) as the primary sense, with regard to a fresh laksana function. But the secondary sense is certainly not the primary sense. It is also not inconsistent or incongruous ('napi badhah') The secondary sense also does not have a definite and in- variable relation with the sense of sitatva, etc., which is desired as a laksyārtha. Since, there is no conventional relation of the word ganga with sitatva, it cannot be a case of rūdhimūlā- laksaņā. Hence, it can at best be a case of prayojanamūla lakșaņā. But to be a prayojanamūlā lakșaņā with regard to the sense of sitatva, etc., which is desired as the secondary

228 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

sense, we must have another idea as the prayojana We do not have such a prayojana But it is also an experienced fact that, the word ganga does not fail to convey the idea of the prayojana also Compare, laksayam na mukhyam ete ( KP II 26) Then since the word is supposed to convey the idea of prayojana with laksana, let us forcibly imagine of some other prayojana But the prayojana of the original prayojana Sitatva, ete, will also have to be explained as conveyed by another laksana with the imaginary presence of still another prayojana In this manner there will be the fault of anavastha ( ie, reeresus ad infinitum ) Cf "evamapyanavastha syåt ya mülaksayakārınī" ( KP II 27) 49

Then let us suppose that the laksana function itself conveys the idea of the bank as having its holy calm ( ie, the pavana tvådıdharmayuktatața ) Such a lakșanā is designateđ by Mammața as "višisțe lakşana" (ef "višisțe lakşanā naivam' KP II 30 ) Mukula may be supposed to cherish such a view But Mammata replies that we cannot have ( from laksana ) the secondary sense along with the prayojana, because of the dictum that, the visaya ( object ) and the phala ( fruit ) of jhana ( kowledge ) are different from each other, "jnanasya vişayo hyanyah phalamanyadudahrtam' 49 The object of perception is milaghata and the fruit thereof is some such idea as 'nilaghato jaayate maya' ( the black jar is known by me ) Now if the laksyartha be taken as including the prayojana or phala of laksanajnana then the visaya and phala of joana will not be di Terent from each other For, the visaya or the object of knowledge which is taken to be 'pavanatvadivisistatata' in the sentence 'gangayam ghosah' is not different from pavana tvädi, the recognised phals of lakşanajdina

48 ( Te forege'eg argumen.a of Mammsta ar buxd en Locans, pP 148-180 ) <O FP II 29

CHAPTER IV 229

Implication of 'jnanasya visayo hyanyah', etc. There is, however, some controversy as to the proper impli- cation of the said words of Mammata, i.c., "jñānasya visayo hyanyah phalamanyadudāhrtam / pratyakşāderhi nilādirvişayah phalam tu prakațatā samvittrvā" ( Vide, Pradīpa quoted on p. 71, KP. CSS.). The point of objection is that, just as samvitti or prakațatā is a jñāna, similarly the phala of laksaņā- jnana is saityadipratīti and not aityādi. Hence the mafim is not aptly applicable where the suggested sense or prayojana is only śaityādi. Pradīpa suggests an interpretation of Mammata's stand as follows : 50

The object of knowledge ( jñānasya visayah ) being the cause ( janaka ) of jñāna is different from the joana and similarly the phala ( say, a knowledge, samvitti or the know- ledge of saityadi in case of laksaņā ) is also different from jnana, being the effect ( karya ) of it. Now naturally there being a sequence of occurrence between the cause of knowledge ( i.e., visaya ) and the effect of knowledge ( i.e., phala ) the two are different from one another, and hence, cannot be put in the same footing. Mammata's words, "prayojanānena sahitam lakşaņlyam na yujyate," preceding the dictum, “jāā- nasya vişayo hyanyah," etc., may be understood to say that, the visaya and the phala must not be put on a par by. having, both of them as related with the same laksana function at the same instance. Pradipa seems to opine that though "saityadi jnāna" above is the phala yet the term phala is loosely applied to saityadi itself and the dictum is rendered applicable. Hence, if the knowledge of the secondary sense includes also the knowledge of the saityadi, etc., then no phala would be had as distinct from the object of knowledge ( i.e., lakşaņā-jnāna- vișaya, viz., tața ) and then there would be no necessity of postulating a vyañjanā vyāpāra for the cognition of a phala ( i.e., prayojana ) distinct from the secondary sense. But the 50. Vide, KP. CSS. p. 71.

230 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

difficulty is that the visaya and phala are always different and the latter cannot be mneluded in the former. Pradipa also sug- gests a simpler solution for the problem of distinguishing the scope of laksana from that of the phala ( thus showing the necessity of recognising the vyanjana function ) as follows : 'Laksana is based on anvayaoupapattt ( mcompatibility of the conventional meaning of a word with the rest of the sentence ) and hence, the laksyartha will include the mimmum requisite for removing this incompatibility ( anupapatti) and hence the laksyartha is ganga-tata and not vis sta gangatata.' 51 Lakşana is not meant to have as its object also what is not vitally necessary for removing the imcompatibility. Thus, it does not have saitya, pavanatva, etc, as its object Compare "joānasya janakibhūto vişayo yatha jnānadanyastathā phala- mapı tasya svato bhınnam, Lāranasyeva kāryasyāpt bhiona- kalatvanıyamāt saityādau tu kvacit phalapadmaupacārikam drsyate, tatha ca lakşyajnānameva yadı saityajnanam tađā prayojanam na syadityarthah /. anvayanupapattya hi lakşană prasaranti yāvadanvayopapādakam tāvadeva vişayīkarotı natvanupapādakamapītı katham tațe pāvanatvamapı vişayı- kuryāt" etc. ( KP. CSS. p. 71 )

Thus lakşana cannot convey the prayojana. But the secondary sense is found to have certain speciality, the idea of which must be conveyed by some function of the word itself, which the dhvani theorists name as vyatjand, dhvanana or dyotana ete. (2 ) From Mukula's words-"etacca prayojanadvitayam mukbyarthasambhave sati mukhyarthapratyasannataya ... . avagamyamane lakşanıke'rthe yathavişay manusartavyam" ( AVM. p. 17), it also appears that, when the secondary sense is had with laksaca the prayojana is to be urderstood by some other process of reasoning ( anusartavyam, i r , to be followed ). The necessity of sach a process of reasoning as regards the $1. Dr. Thater's "sbert anstyr's," KP. CSS p. 31.

CHAPTER IV 231

prayojana seems to be supplied by the following words also (in continuation of the above quotation ), "tatra sambandha- lakşanā yathā gangāyām ghoșa iti. atra hi śabdābhidheyasya srotovisesasya ghoşādhikaraņatvānupapattyā mukbyasabdārtha- bādhe sati yo'sau samIpasamīpibhāvātmakah sambandhastađā- śrayeņa tatam laksayati / atra ca lakşaņāyāb prayojanam tațasya gangātvaikārthasamavetāsamvijnānapadapuņyatvamanoharatvā- dipratipadanam, na hi tatpuņyatvamanoharatvādi svaś- abdaih sprastum śakyate / avyāptyativyāptiprasangāt ( AVM. p. 17). From this quotation we learn that tata alone is said to be conveyed by laksaņā and puņyatva, etc., ( i.e., the pra- yojanas ) are said to be beyond the scope of expressive words. ( Since, both the mukhya-vyāpāra and laksaņā are abhidhā for Mukula, we should understand both the vacaka and the lāksaņika words from the expression svasabđa ).

Possibly apprehending such a position of Mukula, Mammata contends that in prayojanamula laksana a function other than' the laksaņā itself must be recognised. We have laksaņā in those cases only when the prayojana is there. That prayo- jana cannot be cognised by the instruments of knowledge i.e., pramãnas ( other than the sabda itself ) such as the cause of the incongruity of the primary sense. We do not think that, the primary sense fails, it must have a cause, and the cause is the understanding of prayojana. Why ? Because the prayo-' jana is not so unimportant to be arrived at by the reasoning of the said manner, rather the word is used in the secondary. sense to convey the same prayojana more smoothly. ( Compare,, Locana, p. 150; prayojanāvagamasya sukhasampattaye hi sa sabdah prayujyate tasminnamukhyārthe ). Pratyakșa does not precede the meaning of word. No anumana occurs before its cognition ( with any pratyaksa preceding it ). We cannot establish an anumana in this case with the help of another anumāna because that would lead to anavastha. There is also no smrti involved in the cognition of the meaning of a

232 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

word because the idea ( had from a sabda ) was not exp-rienced before Even where smrti is present it cannot be said to be invariably associated ( or it does not relate to any thing definite ) Thus sabda alone is the pramana ( re, source of vald knowledge ) there Sabda does not convey the sens- without a vyapara ( Le. function ) The funetion is not abhidha due to so many reasons It is none other than vyanjank for having the phala Compare "saprayojanayam ca lakşanayam tadatırıkto vyāpāro'vašyam angīkartavyah / tathā ca satı pra yojane laksana / tacca na mukbyartha badhantmittavat pra- mānantarādboddhavyam / tadarthameva lakşanā-sabda prayo- gåt na khılu śabde'rthe pratyaksam kramate / nāpi tat- pUrvakamanumanam / nanumanantaram anavasthapatteh tadanubhavābbāvāt // ( SVV pp 5 6)

Refutation of Mokula's position ( 3 ) In the verses illustrating laksana due to speciality of speaker, ete, we cannot have the suggested senses because of lakşana In the verse, "drstim he prativesins' there is no jnconsistency or incongruity of the primary sense (mukhyārtha badha ) Hence the question of lakșana does not arise at all. We do not indeed rej-ct the primary sense as inconsistant or fals here. We accept the primary sense and aided by the speciality of the speaker ( vaktrvaisistya ) have the suggestion of her actual iotention to meet the lover In the verse 'praptasriresa' the sense of in onsistenry of the doubt does not arise Hence, Mammata observes that there is no mukhyarthabadha and also no s.ope for lakpini. Abhinava very lucidly poits out the consistency of the doubt 5* H- says that, the ocean thioks that, only those who have not acquired Lakghmt and those who have yet to conquer the whole world and those who desire to steep should come to perform churning, ete Bat, this king ( who is addressed

52 Vde Locana, II. p 262

CHAPTER IV 233

in the eulogy ) has already acquired LakshmI ( i.e., the royal fortune ); hence, he need not churn the ocean; he has already conqurred the whole world and so he need not erect any setu; he is very enthusiastic and hence he need not feel sleepy also. Then, why should this king come to the ocean and purturb it ? Thus, the doubt is quite consistent in respect of the king also. Abhinava adds that, the expressions like punah, pūrvam and bhuyah alone are not responsible for the suggestion. Because, these expressions need not ecessarily mean an identity of the subject. But the express sense of the whole verse is so peculiar that it suggests an identity of the king with Vāsudeva and hence a rūpakālamkāra is derived as the suggested content of the verse. Similarly, in the verse "dur- vāra madaneșavo" also, an expressed sense, without appearing inconsistent ( badhita ) suggests the rasa. Mukula does not show why there should be anvayanupapatti of the express senses of the words. The dhvani theorists would explain that, there is no mukhyartha-badha. All that is had as express sense is really meant by the speaker. Here, there is no inconsistency in the nayika's calling the arrows of Cupid, etc., the five fires. Because it is a very natural way of stating things for such a nayika in the lovelorn condition. In these last two verses the iota of inconsistency that appears can be done away with by considering the fact that these are the words of the nāyaka and nāyikā, specially delineated by the poet with a special way of expressing ideas ( Vide, p. 115, above ). Com- pare also Mammața in SVV. p. 5, "drstim he ...... duhsahāh // ityatra ca nādeyapānīyānayanena parapurusasambhogasya nadagranthilekhanena sambhāvyamānanakhadaśanaksatānām ca nihnavātmakam vastu, bhavān haririti rūpakālamkāraḥ vipralambhaśrngāraśca raso lakşyate iti nodāhāryam / mukh- yārthasya bādhābhāvāt / ...... āksiptasyālamkārasya laksyatve ca bahnyānayane pātrānayanasya laksyatvaprasangāt / abā- dhitasyaiva vācyasya rasapratĪtikrttvāt /" The argument of Mammața about the suggested alamkāra in "prāptaśrīreșa" is

234 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

very iteresting Mukula says that the doubts of the ocean are not consistent if we do not have the idea of the identi- fication, because, that alone removes the sense of inconsis- tency in the express sense of doubts The counter argument is that we really have a laksyartha when there is incongruity of the express sense But, do we again apply the secondary sense to bring consistency to the inconsistent express sense? Moreover, the inconsistency that Mukula finds in "prapta- Srireşa" is also not a very conspicuous one If there is any inconsistency here, then we should find an inconsistency also in the expression bahoyanayana, because, babn cannot be brought with a bare hand So, to remove this inconsistency we must gather the secondary sense of bringing a patra (ie, a container of the fire ) also according to the way of argu- ments of Mukula But we do not have any laksana involved in the realisation of the sense of the expression "bahnyaoa. yana." Similarly we must not drag in any laksyartha to Bod consistency in the express sense of "praptasrIresa " The idea of rilpaka occurs to our mind only as the suggested sense.

Jayantabhatta and vyanjanā. Jayanta is a very prolific Natyayika of the 9th century His words and arguments are repeated even by as great writers as Abhinava and Mammata to their best advantage

Jayanta includes the Srutarthapatti as in "plno devadattah diva na bhunkte" in anumana. On the strength of the same arguments he discards the distinction of dhvam (Le, sug gestion ) of the msedha in the verse "bhama dhammua" or of the vidhi in the verse "masma pantha grham visa" from anu- mana But significantly enough, searcely introducing the argument for including dhvani in anumana, he desists from any further argument with the poet. It may be conjectured here, that, while it is easy to ioclude the suggestion of th matter of fact in anumana, it is not easy to include rass in anumana even for Jayanta. Hence compare,

CHAPTER IV 235

etena sabdasāmarthyamahimnā so'pi vāritah / x × X X

athavā nedrši carcā kavibhih saha sobhate / vidvämso'pi vimuhyanti vākyārthagahane'dhvani // tađalamanayā gosthyā vidvajjanocitayā ciram paramagahanastarkajnānāmabhūmirayam nayah / ( NyayamañjarI, Pramāņa Prakaraņa, p. 45 ).

Jagadīs'a and vyanjana: Jagadīśa Tarkālamkāra, the author of the Śabdasaktipra- kāsika flourished in c. 1700, and by that time it was fully realised and established that rasa is a blissful state of the mind of the sahrdaya himself. Possibly because of a recognition of this subjeetive aspect of rasa realisation, Jagadiśa had to introduce the conception of a 'mental cognition' ( i.e., mänasa- bodha ) at the cost of the vyabjana function, which he endea- voured to dismiss in a manner represented below :

( 1 ) In "mukham vikasitam", etc., the idea of a fragrance of the mouth similar to that of the flower is suggested. The Ālamkārika cannot arrive at that meaning with laksana because, there is no failure to have a syntactical relation between the primary meanings of the given words. ( ...... upasthitarthan- vayānupapattidhIrūpasya laksaņābījasya tatrāsattvādityālam- kārikā vadanti, SSP. p. 146 ). But Jagadīśa would like to 'have the suggested meaning also with the help of laksaņa; because, according to him the knowledge of the failure to have a syntactical relation between the primary meanings of the used words is not the only cause of laksana. In "yastih pra- vesaya" ( Get in the lances ), he says, there is apparently no inconsistency, but, yet we have laksaņa.

( 2 ) In case of the use of anekārthakasabdas ( i.e., homo- nyms ), Alamkārikas ( like Mammața and Viśvanātha ) woulđ have the additional meaning with vyanjana. There is no scope of laksanā at all. Abhidhã also cannot operate to the

236 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

extent of the second meaning, since, it is arrested in respect of the first meaning itself by the prastava ( 1e, context ), etc

In reply to this contenton Jagadisa would say that, the restriction of tatparya or context, ete, should not be the reason for recognising an additional function called vyafgana Beeause, according to Jagadisa, the knowledge of the tatparya or the context, etc, is not the invariable requisites for the cognition of a verbal judgement As such the second meaning of the homonymous words also may be arrived at with abhidha itseif in the manner of having the first meaning Compare "tātparyadhıyo hetutvasya pūrvam 53 parāstatvāt, ata eva pra- karanādīnāmananugatanām kvacıdasattve'pi kşatyabhavat" ( SSP. p 151 )

( 3) Another argument of Jagadisa is that, it ts doubtful if we really have a second meaning from the homonymous words at all The knowledge of lack of tatparya in respeet of the second meaning itself will hamper the cognition of the same Compare, "vastutah .. tattadarthakaćabdasāmānyam pratyeva tattadarthanistAtparyakatvadhiyah pratibandhakatvat" ( SSP. pp 152-153 )

(4 ) Then, he continues that, if at all the ides of an addi- tional meaning occurs to the mind, then, that must be recog- nised to have been derived through a mental process of an association of idea. For the relish ( camatkara ) caused by kavya, which can be explained as a variety of mental pro.ess rtself may be as good a cause as the verbal cognition. Herce in respeet of the suggested sense, enther in the form of the second meaning of the homonyms or in the form of rasa ("). we need not take the word itself as the imm-diate antecedent. Instead, a mental ref-ction may be taken as its cause. That is how the additional vyasjana funchon may be shown to be

CHAPTER IV 237

redundant. Compare, "tattadarthânām yathā kathañcidupa- nayavaśena manasaiva višistadhīsambhavāt mānorathikasu- khaprabhedaparyyavasitam camatkāram pratyapi sābđasyeva mānasasyāpi bodhasya višişya hetutāyāh suvacatvāt, atiriktasya vyanjanākhyapadārthāntarasya .. ... ... pramāņaviraheņāsattvāc- ceti samksepah" ( SSP. pp. 153-154 ). (5) According to Jagadisa, only that is the meaning of the word which has the knowledge of the words as its invari- able and immediate antecedent. (cf. "yatrānvayavyatirekā- bhyamākānksādimattayā śabdasyāvagamo hetuh," etc., SSP. p. 7). But, it may be pointed out that, the mental reflection ( mãnasabodha ) of Jagadiśa itself results from a cognition of words and as such the manasabodha at least must be recognised as a meaning of the word, the knowledge of the word being invariably antecedent to it. It is, however, a matter of opinion as to whether the pleasure ( camatkāra ) and the reflections caused by the reading of kavya can be recognised as meanings of words. If ideas ( i.e., reflections ) are closer to the words, then they may be explained as meanings of words. But if they are separated by a series of ideas, they may not be considered meanings of words. But the dhvani theorists themselves, who recognise a series of suggested senses in the verses like "viparla suraa samae" or "ua niccala," do not give us any definite limit to the communicative capacity of words. A similar question of the limit of ideas evoked by kävya is discussed also in the next chapter under the heading of "reflectional feelings."

पस्चकालय CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

See what the kavya actually suggests : We have observed in the second chapter that, according to Ananda, all the types of dhvams can appeal We may explain the appeal of all the good Kavyas to be due to some predo minant suggested sense Of the three main varieties of the suggested sense viz vastu, alamkara and rasadi, vastu may be of inumerable types Of cours-, to make kavya a dhvanı, the suggested matter of fact must be predominant and most appealing Alamkaras, 1e, the basic imaginations involved in the alamkaras may also be of many types The rasas are nine in number but they may also have innumerable sub- varieties according to the nature of the sthayibhava and the nature of the vibhavas etc The same sthayt ratt, may be for the beloved or for the guru or the king or the child or the motherland, etc. Thus the same sthayi bhava may develop into different types of śrngara rasa or different types of bhava of the asamlaksyakrama type. Along with these we must take into account the thirtythree vyabbicaribhavas which b-ing principally saggested in asimlaksyakrama may present different types of dhvant Sin e there are innamerable things to be sageested in in- rumerab'e ways, we must be slow in naming the saggested sense of a parti-ular Lavya. Particularly in time of determi- ning the asamliksya krama vyangya of dhvam we must esk outselves, if we are reatly having the corresponding feeling or emotion for it In other words, we should have the proper hrdayaserivada Let us take a concrete eample. In the beginning of the Uttararamacarits. Murals says . vadho-parityagat prabhrts

CHAPTER V 239

anirbhinno gabhiratvadantargudhaghanavyathah / puțapākapratikāso rāmasya karuno rasaḥ // ( III. 1; URC. p. 67).

As regards the expression 'Karuno rasah' of the given verse commentator Virarāghava says, "Karuno rasah istajana-viyoga- janya-duhkhatisayātmakarasah." But although there is the mention of the term 'Karuno rasah' yet we must not suppose that this particular verse suggests Karuna rasa for the sabr- dayas. This verse which refers to a pathetic state of Rāma due to the separation from his beloved, in fact, suggests Murala's sympathy for Räma and generates a similar sympathetic feeling in the heart of the sahrdaya also which may be best explained as a rati for Rãma. Since there is a suggestion of rati for one of the devadi class of Mammata ( KP. IV. 48), we must take the kavya as a bhava-dhvani. It should be noted that, here and in other similar cases, Bhavabhūti does not use the expression, 'Karuno rasah' in the technical sense of Abinava.

Let me cite another example; In URC. III. 47 ( p. 99 ) Tamasã says :

"aho.samvidhānakam- eko rasaḥ karuņa eva nimittabhedād bhinnaḥ prthakprthagivāśrayate vivartān / āvarta-buđ-buda-tarangamayān vikārān ambho yathā salilameva hi tatsamastam //"

Here, commentators like Haridasa Siddhanta-vaglša think that apparently there is dosa due to naming the rasa by svasabda. ( Vide, URC. with his com. p. 222 ). Siddhānta-vāgiśa also tries to defend the dosa in some precarious way. But to me it appears that there is no conspicuous dosa in the verse even though the rasa is distinctly named. Because we must not jump to the abrupt conclusion that the verse suggests Karuņa

240 THE DHVA THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

rasa " In case of Karuna not being the prineipally suggested rasa, here, we cannot call its being named a dosa. Ananda also believes that we may determine the anitya dosas like sruti- dusta, ete, only with reference to the principal rasa of the pieces ( Dhy II 11 p 214) But the svasabda-vacyatva, ete, are said to be direct defeets of the rasa ( Vide, SD I) More over, Visvanātha observes that in certain cases the naming of the vyabhicaribhavas may not be a dosa, 55 but he does not say anything lite that about the naming of rasa itself Hence, apparently it remains a dosa But, in my optnion even in this case we must take into account the suggested sense desired to be principally conveyed by the pot We must, being in the posstion of a cntie, see what the poet desires to be the principal sense of the piece Ananda also says-"Vivakşop- drodha eva hi kavye sabdanamarthah" ( Dhv III p 496)

54 We hnd this eagernest to discover the presence of a suggrated sense, which is not actually suggeated, even in the carlier com- mentators Even as celebrated a commentator as Raghavabhatrs proceeds to d scover the suggeition of Srngirarasa ia Satuntals I, I becate of the famialne geadre in all the eight 'forms, referred to as "ys" etc , and called "tanu," which may also mean lean and thin ( hrlz ), giving the idea of the behaviour of a atyaka ( bero ), wbo is In emsoclation with eight niylkss ( beroines ), through Samtsokti ef "atha ea yetyidi sarvatra

Sakuntalz, I I ) Rigbava continuca tbat sugge lon of Stegira in tbe vety first verse i duc to the presence of Śrhgtra at the principal rasa of the drama ( tarpradhinatradssya ropa kasya ) Bot in tay ep's on, we can bardly have ary rrluk ef dtgtra ram in this vere and, at beit we may recogn ie ber+ a satter ef fa t ruggrien ( vastudhvani ) regard eg the presener ef <- gira u the pris.ipal weatiment of the drams. 83, SD VII 20-20

CHAPTER V 241

And in the verse "eko rasah" we find that the principally suggested sense is a rati ( sympathy ) for Räma in the asam- lakşya-krama. Hence here is a bhavadhvani. The apprehended karuna rasa being out of picture, the question of the dosa does not occur. Moreover, the expression 'karuno raşah' does not diminish the relish of the suggested bhava and hence the general definition of dosa "rasāpakarșakā doșāh" ( SD. VII. 1 ) does not apply here.

In this manner, we are to take sufficient caution in time of determining the suggested senses of dhvani. It is also to be remembered that a dhvani need not have a definite magni- tuđe. Even muktakas ( i.e., single verses with poetical beauty ) may be considered as dhvanis due to the predominant and appcaling rasadi suggested therein. Thus, the single verses of Amaruka ( i.e., of the Amarusataka ) may be considered as very good specimens of dhvani ( Dhv. p. 325 ). Then again even as large compositions as the Ramayana or the Maha- bhärata may be considered as dhvanis each, with reference to the principal rasa of the whole composition. Such long com- positions may have different rasas suggested in different parts, but yet, one particular rasa should be principally suggested. ( Dhv. Kārikā. III. 21, p. 378). With reference to such a principal rasadi the whole prabandha is a dhvani.

Applicability of the Theory : That, the dhvani theory, if understood in its true spirit, may be applied for the literary criticism of all the genuine kävyas may be shown by way of examining the views of a modern nonconformist writer. Thus, Dr. Räkesagupta in his Introduction to PSR ( p. 3 ) deciares that a great convention of the Indian poetics has been broken by his new theory on poetic relish. In order to 'establish a new theory he shows a good deal of faws in the conventional theory. But I will show here that his doubts can be solved and objections can be refuted by the contents of the conventional theories of Ananda

16 D.

242 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

and Abhinava themselves, and the same theories may be accep- ted as standards for literary criticism,

Dr Gupta writes in the Introduction-"Now it was but natural for the exponents of Rasa theory, who should have synthesized both the nbove sense of the terms, to make Rasa mean relish of the emotional hiterature only and to call a combination of the different factors operating in the portrayal of an emotion ( Vibhavas ete ) the cause of its consummation ( "vıbhāvānubhava vyabhicarisamyogad rasanispatth" NS, Chap V1) The enrliest critics, however, could have reason to limit their theory of Kavya Rasisvada ( Relish of Poetry ) to this fextent, for, fixed as their attention was on the dramas alone, they sincerely believed that poetic relish consists solely in emotional appeal ( "na hi rasadrte Kascidapyarthah pravar- tate," lhid , Chap VI ) But, the position of the later writers on poetics, who laid down unambiguously that poetry is not only the emotional kind, has been surely very unsale in carrying on the old narrow tradition of Rasa theory" (pp. 2,3).

But, it must be noted here that, like the 'earlier critics, Aninda also recognised that the relish of dramas consists solely in emotional appral Compare Vrtti p 326, "abhina- yarthe tu sarvatha rasabandhe'bhinivesah Laryah," ete What Dr Gupta means by "carrying on the old narrow tradition of Rasa theory" is "vague. Abhinava presented his theory of rasa primarily whie commerting on the NS, and as such in connection with the drama. He also referred to the theory of rasa, in the Locana, only in connection with rasadi as sug- gested Hence, his theory of rasa, cannot be expected to explain pleasure had from all the varieties of kavya As Dr. Gupta hurself observes-Ananda also speaks of other varicties of kavyas devo d of rasa, Ananda does not carry on the narrow tradition of rasa-theory to explain all the varieties of Kavya. There is also no justification in enitlelsing and reshaplng the theory of rasa es given by Abhlnava and as anticipated by

CHAPTER V 243

Ananda to explain the pleasure ( or in the words of Dr. Gupta- interest ) had from all the kāvyas.

A Word on sadhāranikarana :

Dr. Gupta says that generalization ( sādhāranIkaraņa ) of characters and their mental conditions is psychologically im- possible ( Vide PSR. pp. 52, 53, 54, 62, 63, etc. ). But it occurs and there is sufficient explanation for it in Abhinava's theory itself. It is also observed that, "unless he 56 clearly cognizes that it is love between Sakuntala and Dusyanta, he shall not at all follow the play all of which will only be Greek and Latin to him" ( PSR. p. 55 ). But the view of the dhvani theorist is that, when the spectator gathers an information about the love between Dusyanta and Sakuntala that is merely a suggestion of matter of fact, i.e., a vastu-vyanjana for him. The state of having the suggestion of such a matter of fact need not be confused with relish of rasa. But when at moments the realisation of rasa occurs, then there is cognizence of the rasa and rasa alone. In the given example ;there is rati for Sakuntala generalized, if the spectator is male and rati for Dusyanta if the spectator be a lady. This state refers to the 2nd. obstacle. This is an absorbed state of the mind i.e., a state of tanmayibhavana, according to Abhinava. It is very transitory, because, this state is 'vibhāvadijivitāvadhih' and is sure to be over soon along with the change or absence of vibhävas, etc .; and in the play or in the poetry situations are gradually changing from one to another. In this con- nection we may refer with profit to an example of absorbed relish given by Abhinava himself ( Vide, p. 163 above ).

Dr. Gupta says-"We have seen ...... that it is not necessary that even . an absorbed perceiver would not think of anything else during his perception of a literary phenomenon ...... etc." ( PSR. p. 62 ). But, I contend that, just in the absorbed moment the perceiver would certainly not think of anything else.

56. The spectator.

244 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

According to Nyaya and Vai-sika the atomic mind cannot afford to do so-and according to modern psychology also- st is not possible on the part of the mind to get absorbed some where and to think of something eise If at all the mind does so then it will not be called an absorption at all On pp 63, 64, etc, of PSR, Dr Gupta presents further objections to the theory of generalization He questions, "The Anubhavas ete suggest that the emotions are there, but how are they able to pass them on to the pereeiver ?' In reply to this question it must first be elarified that when the percerver gathers the ioformation that, "the emotions are there," that would not be a case of suggestion of rasa but a case of sug- gestion of vastu, ie, a matter of fact Since it is a vastu- vyafjara, a question as to the process of the emotions being passed to the perceiver does not aris- Dr. Gupta further questions, "The Vibhavas et* are direetly related to the Asraya or the character in whom the emotion resides, and not to the perceiver. How are they able to kindle the same emotion in the perceiver ?" The reply in bri-f is that it is due to hrdaya- samvada (ie, similarity of experience ) and according to the theory, kavya has the capacity (Sakti) of suggestion (vyafjana) which relegates or kindles the emotions in the heart of the render who finds himself in the deseribed situation. It is usual only with the kavya and the occurrence of a similar emotion does not happen in the world ( loka ), that is why, this pheno- menon of kavya is called extraworldly ( alaukika ).

The problem of the villain : Dr. Gupta further contends-"Also in actuslity we do not fied people experiencing the depicted emotions ... There Is the villain, for sastance, with whom a perceiver in his emotional moods feels displeased or antipathetic. Wrenever this villain even attempts to make love Nith the heroine, he feels offended ard anooyeJ; and wherever a m sfortuce befalls him, he feels a sort of satisfaction." etc. ( p. 64). It happens so

CHAPTER V '245

because the emotions of the hero alone are relegated to the spectator or the reader. Just as in case of the male spectator there is the experience of Dusyanta's rati for Sakuntala-here is also the experience of the hero's ( i.e., nayaka's ) antipathy for the villain ( pratinayaka ). Since the misfortune of the villain cannot make us sorry, his lamentations or the situation depicting his misfortune must not be supposed to suggest a karuņa rasa for us. Instead, in that case we have the sugges- tion of a matter of fact, a vastu, a happy information that, the villain is experiencing sorrow. Ananda and also Bharata were cognizant of such situations. In Ravana's offering love to Stta, Bharata would not like to have a suggestion of srgara but 'hasya'. Compare, Locana, p. 178. 'Śrūgārānukrtiryātu sā hāsyaļ iti muninā nirūpitam' etc. It is häsya because the perceiver is almost sure that Ravana would be laughably repudiated. In other situations it may also cause disgust as apprehended by Dr. Gupta under the influence of the perceiver's sharing the emotions of the hero; for Ravana's offering love to Sitā would not certainly cause laughter to Rāma. Ananda refers to almost a similar situation in Vrtti. pp. 374, 375. "kim ca nāyakasyābhinandanIyodayasya kasyacit prabhā- vātisayavarņane tatpratipaksāņām yah karuno rasah sa parī- kşakāņām na vaiklavyamādadhāti pratyuta prītyatīśayanimi- ttatām pratipadyata ityatastasya kuntha-śaktikatvāt tadvirodha- vidhāyino na kaścid dosah," etc. The karuņa rasa ( strictly speaking the feeling of sorrow ) of the pratināyaka gives satis- faction to the perceiver as observed also by Dr. Gupta. In the Vrtti, 'kunthasaktika' possibly implies that the feeling of sorrow as observed in the case of the pratināyaka is only a bìt of information i.e., a vastu suggested, which augments the effect of virarasa and the consequent delight of the näyaka and the sympathetic perceiver also. The feeling of sorrow, when not equally experienced by the perceiver also, does not rise to the level of rasa -- according to the theory of Abhinava

246 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

and my assumption is that, Ananda also tales it to be nothing more than a suggested vastu, seems to be supported by the Vrtti, on p 377 "tadatra tripurayuvatınam sambhavah sara- gmrardraparadhah kāmı yatha vyavaharati sma tatha vyava- hrtavān ityanenāpi prakārenastyeva nurvirodhatvam,' etc, where, the behaviour of the Kami, which, when relished could have been a rasa, is presented as a vastu, re, a matter of fact In the case of the villain and the hero, orly one emotion re, the emotion common to the haro alone is relished, but, Ananda is puzzled with another case where two confiliting emotions belong to the same character Vide Vrth on pp 376- 7 "athavā vākyārthibhütasyapt kasyacıt karunarasavışıyasya tadršena Srngara vastuna bhangiviseşāšrayens samyojanm rasaparıpoşāyuva jayate / yatah prakrtimadhurāh padārthāh socamyatam praptah praeavasthabhavibhih samsmarvamanai vilāsaır adhıkataram Sokāvesamupajanayantı / yathā ayim sa rasanotkarşI, etc " Here both the feelings belong to the same Asraya-the nayika She feels in turn the emotions of spngars and karuna Correspondingly the sympathetic perceiver also gets the relish of spngara and karuna The sex of the nayika need not present an obstacle, because, the pereeiver relishes ratt and Soka in abstract form Anapda aptly observes the eficacy of srogara to augment the effeut of karuna A similar psychological phenomenon of an emotion b-ing intensified throagh contrast is observed also by Keats in hs 'Happy Ins-nsibility' ( Gold-n Treasury, IV p 29 ) Compare also Bhasa's, 'sukbam hi duhkhany anubl dya Sobhate ghanandhalaresviva dtpadarś nam / sukhāttu yo yatı naro darıdratam dhrtsh Sortrena mr ah sa jlvati // ( Carudatta, I)

'Component feeliegs of poetic relish' Dr Gapta observes -- ' Poetic Relish ts a mental phenore- zon and is composed of the feelings whi-h ar- evoked in th=

CHAPTER V 247

mind of the perceiver as psychological reaction to his perception of poetry. Feelings thus evoked cannot always correspond with the emotion depicted in poetry" ( PSR. p. 83). His complaint seems to be that the traditional theory of rasa realisation is not competent to explain the phenomenon of such component feelings. My reply is that, such feelings may occur, but all of such feelings need not be expected to be explained by the traditional theory of rasa realisation. The dhvani theory can be applied for explaining the occurrence of such feelings to a great extent. Some of such feelings are so casual and accidental that the theory in general is not res- ponsible for them. Let me consider those feelings one by one.

Sympathetic feeling : Dr. Gupta observes, "It should be carefully noted that to feel sympathy does not mean to feel the exact emotion of the person or the character, with whom sympathy is felt. When we see a person in misery, what we mostly feel is pity and not miserableness" ( p. 84). Dr. Gupta's word 'mostly' itself indicates that sometimes we also feel miserableness. In that case that is the suggestion of karunarasa i.e., a relish of rasa. But when we feel sympathetic, that is the suggestion of bhava. Because, as observed by Mammata, love or affection for gods etc., is called a bhāva. Compare, "ratirdevādivișayā vyabhī- cari tathanjitah bhavah proktah" (KP. IV). Here the word 'adi' incluđes muni, guru, nrpa, putra etc., also. Bhāva falls under rasadi and must be fit to be explained by the theory of rasa- nispatti which requires sadharanikarapa of the rati. Sadhara- nikarana being a relative term requires some one other than the perceiver to share the emotion. In most cases it is the poet himself, with whom the emotion primarily occurs, ( cf. Dhv. p. 318. "tanniyame heturaucityam vaktrvācyayoh / tatra vakta kavih kavinibaddho vā, etc."). The poet need not be physically present; even in his absence he may be deemed to be physically present and the emotion is generalised and shared

248 THE DHVAN THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

with him Example, "The Bridge of Sighs" by T Hood, where we feel the po-t to be the sympathetic speaker ( Golden Trea- sury, IV, p. 71 )

Antipathetic feeling To iflustrate this feeling, Dr Gupta writes, "We feel only hatred and anger when we find the villam trying to win the love of the heroie by all fair and foul means, and laugh when he is slapped by the daunttess maiden chaste to her rel lover" ( PSR p 85 ) It may be noted here that, Dr Gupta compre- hends different emotions under the term of antipathetie feeling As in the given eximple, the so called antipatheuc feeling may be broken into the emotions of hatred or anger and laughter. When it is the feeling of hatred there is jugupss leading to Vibhatsa and in case of anger there is the relish of raudra rasa and in case of laughter there is hasya rasa

Recollection or Reminiscential feelings : ( Vide PSR pp. 85,86 ) The cases given by Dr. Gupta, would present the cases of the third obstacle of rasa realisation The Sanskrit onginal for the 3rd obstacle is 'nija sukhadivivasibhavah" When in time of the perception there occurs nyasukhadıvivasibhava, according to the theory, there cannot be a relish of rass. When a perceiver is finding similarity of the situation with the past events of his life he is no longer a sahrdaya in the strict sense of the term Morcover, these effects of kavya disco- tered by Dr Gupta are not universal and invariable Such effects are only casual with certain percervers. Hence these feelings, though not altogether demable, cannot be taken as deteroining factors ( laksana ) of a kavya. Morcover, the kavya cannot be tsken as the immediate, unrondit onal and invanable art-cedent of such feelings. The percervers certaily do not am at having such feelings from the percept on of kivya Above all, these feelings, although they occttr in case

CHAPTER V 248

of certain perceivers, cannot disprove of some pleasure had from the perception of the same kāvya.

Feeling pertaining to curiosity : ( Vide, PSR. pp, 86-87 ). This curiosity can be explained as 'avega' or better as 'autsukya' of the conventional theorists. These are vyabhi- caribhavas and as such can be principally suggested and relished. In the detective novels as illustrated by Dr. Gupta there may also be a good amount of 'vismaya'-giving rise to the adbhutarasa.

Reflectional feelings : ( Vide PSR. pp. 87, 88 ). These feelings 'set us to think about a problem connected . with some aspect of life.' "Evocation of such feelings and the like has become very frequent in the modern times with the growth of such species in contemporary literature as pro- blems and satire plays and novels, which either suggest to the perceiver a social, political or economical problem or ridicule a prevalent malpractice of the soceity." Here the observation of Dr. Gupta is quite perfect; but he does not give a clear description of what this feeling is. Since the 'feelings set us to think'-the thinking itself cannot be a feeling. The feeling precedes the thinking. So let us repeat his example, "when we see an unfortunate accomplished girl ...... committing suicide ...... we may grow critical towards this evil conventional practice of our soceity and may either feel a strong urge to root it out or brood over the problem to find an effective solu- tion to it."

'Growing critical towards the evil of our soceiety' can be explained as 'jugupsa' for the society and may be said to be a case of vibhatsarasa ('doseksaņādibhirgarbā jugupsā' ). 'Feeling of the strong urge to root out the evil' is utsäha giving the relish of virarasa. 'The brooding over the problem' is cintā, a vyabhicāribhava giving the relish of bhāva ( "dhyanam ciotā hitanapteh šūnyataśvāsatāpakrt" ). These are to be taken

250 THE DHVAN THCORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

as rasa and bhava onty if these are felt while the perception of the vibhavas, etc, are there ( Cf Vibhavadijivitavadhih, etc ) If we are set to these feelings after we finish the perception then as in the previous case we would not possibly take the kavya as the immediate cause, and if any pleasure and pain occur because of these feelings, later on, the theory would not think them to have any relation with poetic relish When a social problem is suggested as such, that is nothing other than vastudhvant It must be noted here that even in time of the traditiona! theorists themselves there were kavyas giving rise to such 'reflectional feelings' Even Annda cognized a didactic as pect of poetry Compare, Vrttr, pp 398-399 'sadacaropa- desarüipā ht nāakadıgoștht vineyajana hitārthameva mun !- bhiravatarita * ete Critical feelings ( PSR pp 88, 89) Dr Gupta discovers certain critical feelings Let m~ repto- duce his examples,-"A particular arrangement of words, the use of a particular poetic figure or some such other things may be sometimes felt by us as excellent or worthless " It must be admitted that this component feeling 'may' occur But if we feel certain aspect of the kavya as worthless that may be due to our individual taste, and thus it may not be an invariable characteristic of kavya When it is generally felt, it is certaily a blemish, a dosa It should be avoided and the conventional theory also desires the nvoidance of blemishes The psychological aspect of a do is also noticed by the theory A doss is that which hampers in the realisation of rasa ( rasspakarşaka doşãh. SD VII 1 ) Bit for under standing what poetry is, or in other words, for expluning what pocti relish is, the presen e of dosa (ie, worthless aspeet of poetry ) need pot naressarily be taken into a-count Visvanatha very convincingly deals with the qiestion in coarse of critt cising Mammata's defimtion of KAvys Cf "sati sambhave

CHAPTER V 251

Işaddoşāviti cet / etadapi kāvyalaksaņe na vācyam, ratnādi- lakşaņe kīțānuvedbādiparihāravat / na hi kīțānuvedhādayo ratnasya ratnatvam vyahantumīsah kintu upādeyatāratamya- meva kartum / tadvadatrāpi śrutidūstādyah kāvyasya" etc. ( SD. I. ).

When we feel the arrangement of words, etc., as excellent that will contribute to the camatkara or camatkrti,57 which we have from the kavya. Only in so far as this feeling, i.e., recognition of excellence contibutes to the camatkrti, it can be included in the purview of poetic relish, The traditional theorists were also cognizant of such excellences. Compare Viśvanātha's remarks on his definition of anuprasa-'svara-mātra-sādrsyantu vaicitryabbāvanna gaņitam' (S. D. X ). If we are to explait the appreciation of excellence as something independent of camatkrti then, I am afraid, many more feelings remotely related or hardly related with the poetic relish also will have to be included within the scope of poetic relish. Thus in my opinion Dr. Gupta's objections may be shown to be unfounded and most of his novel ideas may be explained in terms of the much despised traditional theory itself. Purpose of kāvya : In the dhvani school of poetics the aims of kavya are exa- mined from two angles of view, viz. the poet's and that of the reader. There can be no difference of opinion with the dhvani school which states that kävya brings fame and wealth to the poet. The aims of kavya, as observed from the stand point of the reader are viz. pleasure ( i.e., priti ) and knowledge ( i.e., vyutpatti ). But the dhvani theory recognises priti as the chief goal. Abhinava observes : "śrotrnām ca vyutpatti- prit yadyapi stah ......... tathāpi tatra prītireva pradhānam" 57. Camatkara is the unworldly pleasure derived from the reading of kavya. It is also called as ramanīyata or lokottarablada by Jagannatha in RG. I. Vide chapter 1II above for Abhinava's conception of camatkara.

252 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POLTICS

( Locana, p. 40 ) Because of considering priti as the main aim of kavya, the dhvan theorists give the status of the best Lavya to the single stanzas of Amaru, which are decidedly devoid of any moral lesson, 58 And, really the mimiature poems of Amaru are exquisite pieces of art. Amongst the followers of the dhvani theory, Mammata for the first time classified kavya into three grades, viz , uttama (best), madhyama ( mediocre ) and adhama ( worst ) From his definttion of uttama we simply learn that it should have a predominant suggested sense. In other words dhvant is said to be the best type of kavya. But this classification refers only to the form ( 1e, technique ) of kavya but not to the contents. Mammata does not tell us that the standard of kavya may vary according to the quality of the contents also Anandavardhana does not explicitly speak of the quality of contents. But from his treatment of aucitya in the third uddyota we gather that, according to htm poetry must not propagate deplorable ideas. "9 What we can gather from a study of the theory is that, according to it dhvant is a good art. The theory is immediately concerned only with the artistic ( or say aesthetic ) aspect of kavya. But, the same good art may be a great art if the contents be of a higher order, The greatness is undoubtedty due to the instructive aspect of the kāvya, which may be designated as the sastric aspect as only the technical works and the Vedas, meant for imparting instruc- tions are called fastra. 60 In my opinion, Ananda draws a

68. Vid -. HISL Kelth. p. 183 aud Dbv. III. p. 325. 59. c. "taxmidibhintyirthe nabhineyaribe vI kirye yaduttamapra-

varnaram taip-trob mibbogararesnamiva m'arimatabbyam," ete., DEv. p 332. 60. cf KP. Vrtt on I. 2 "prabt ummm rafabdapradhsoavedsdi-

thm tert prtbagsituh," ( Quored la Locana, p. 8T ), etc.

CHAPTER V 253'

line of demarcation between these two aspects ( i.e., the sastric and the artistic or aesthetic or poetic aspect ) when he explains the prescnce of santarasa in the Mahabharata. When the Mahābhāratata is considered only as a sāstra and the relish of rasa caused by it is not taken into account, we find that, the most important suggestion of it is that, 'moksa ( i.e., salva- tion ) is the highest goal of human life.' When we consider the Mahabharata as a kavya, we find that its most predominant suggested sense is the santa rasa which is 'an excess of bliss on account of loss of desires.' Compare, "tadevamanukrama- nīnirdiştena vākyena bhagavadvyatirekiņah sarvasyānyasyāni- tyatām prakāayatā mokşalaksaņa evaika parah purusārthah, sāstranaye, kāvyanaye ca trsnākşayasukhapariposalaksanah śānto raso mahābbāratasyāngitvena vivakșita iti supratipāditam" ( Dhv. IV. p. 433 ). 61 A similar distinction between the good art and great art may be observed in the writings of Walter Pater who observes in the Rennaissance as follows : "Only be sure it is passion- that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied conciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake." 62 But this speaks only for his con-

61. That the distinction is based on the presence or absence of a relish caused by the reading of the same kavya is pointed out by Abhinava as follows : "tatrasvadayogabhāve purusenārthyata ityayameva vyapadesah sadarah, camatkarayoge tu rasavyapa- desa iti bhavah" ( Locana, p. 533 ). It may also be noted here that Ananda introduces the whole discussion by stating that the Mababharata is a sastra having the colour of a kavya. Cf. "mahabbarate' pi sastrarūpe kāvyacchāyanvayini ...... mokşala- kşaņah puruşarthaḥ santo rasaśca mukhyatayā vivakşīvișayatvena scitah" ( Dhv. IV. p. 530 ). 62. The Renaissance, pp. 238-239,

254 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSARIT POETICS

ception of good art The greatness of poetry is said to be dep-ndent on the quality of its contents Cf " the distinction betwcen great art and good art depending tmmedia- tely, as regards literature at all events, not on its form, but on the matter Thackeray's Esmond, surely, is greater art than Vanity Fatr, by the greater dignity of its interests It is on the quality of the matter it informs or controls, its compass, its variety, its alliance to great ends, or the depth of the note of revolt, or th- largeness of hope in it, that the greatness of literary art depends, as the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Les Mise rables, the English Bible, are great art " 63

Even granting that kavya may have an instrochve ubly it must not be out and out a propaganda It must primarily be an art, appealing not to the intellect but to the heart For rendering the composition a genuine art the poet must delinente the basie human feelings Even the instructive purpose can be best served only when the kavya is more appealing and more artistie That is why Ananda recognises the kavya having the deliea- tion of the Srngara rasa (ie. erotic sentiment ) as the best medium for imparting instructions Cf "Srogararasangawun- mukhikrtah santo hi vineyah sukham vnayopadešān grhņanh" ete ( Dhv IlI pp 398-399 ) The necessity of depirting the bastc human feelings like that of love in poctry cannot be gainsaid even by the communist movement as it is evidenced from the following words of Alexander ;Kinllov, a Russian writer "Yes, now as then the moon will shin- down on the world and lovers will atways sit hand in hard, cheel to cheek, gazirg at the moon And what about the port ? After all, they will sit ind gaze j ist as they did three thoasand years ago ' G4 It may be firally noted that, even when Vavya is taken to be impartine som* lesson, the Iesson mus' lend to dharma and

63 Apprectations Style 64 Soriet Literstore, 1951, No. 9 p. 147.

CHAPTER V 255

moksa. Abhinava very rightly observes that the ultimate result of all the four goals of life, viz., dharma, artha, kāma and moksa, is pleasure. Hence, pleasure is the ultimate aim even of the instructive kāvya. Cf. "caturvargavyutpatterapi cānanda eva pāryantikam mukhyam phalam" ( Locana, p. 41 ).

Pleasure is the chief end of kavya :

In the foregoing section we have observed that Ananda has a preference for the srngara rasa. Does it mean that some rasas are more pleasurable than the other ? This question is indeed raised by some traditional writers also. Dr. Raghavan informs us that Rudrabhatta, the author of Rasakalika ( which is yet in manuscript form ) holds that, 'some rasas are plea- surable and some are painful.' "The Nātyadarpana also says in s. 109 ( p. 158 ) sukhaduhkhātmako rasah and proceeds to elaborately prove in the vrtti that some rasas are certainly painful and that our seeing them and enjoying them is really due to the excellence of the art of either the dramatist or of the art of the actors." 65 But, that, not to speak of other rasas, even karunarasa gives as much pleasure as may be given by śrngāra, may be inferred from the fact that the people do have almost the same desire to read kävyas having both the types of rasa. From the very fact of their desire to go through a tragedy knowingly, we may infer that they find pleasure in reading the same. Because it is the normal nature of human beings to undertake to do only what is pleasurable. This is observed by Gotama also, as follows : "idam sukhasadhana- miti jūātvā sukhāptaye pravartate, idam duḥkhasādhanamiti cādhigamya duhkhahānayeti / sukhaduhkhayoravāptihānābh- yāmayam Jokah prayujyata iti" (Uddyotakara's Nyāyasūtra- vārttika, 1. 1. 24 ). Dr. Rākesagupta does not believe in this logic. He observes that it is a "wrong pre-supposition that we undertake to do only pleasing things" and with so many ex- amples endeavours to show that people take interest also in

65. Number of Rasas. p. 159.

266 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

unpleasent affaurs He gives the example of the people who collect round the spot of a motor accident causing the death of a young man who leaves behind a young widow married only a month ago Seeing the sad incident and knowing more and more about the extent of tragedy they feel pain But, "inspite of all the pain that they are having they are still ready to welcome and to hear with interest any other detail about him, even though it may add to their sympathetic sorrow," he observes *6 In reply to Dr Gaptr's contention, it may be potnted o it that the people do not like the tragie accident itself and as such the arcident and the tragedy are painful and cause duhkha But they have 'interest' in 'knowing' more and more about the deceased and his relatives This knowing part of the activity is pleasent and that is evidenced by the 'interest' dis- covered also by Dr Gupta Will the people say that they want to know more in order to get more pain ? Or, why should we assume that the further informations relating to the deceased will give them only pain and fnot reltef The people in fact make the enquiries to get a relief from the pain by learning, if possible, that the extent of the tragedy is not very great. But above all, do men want more and more such accidents to occur b-cause they want to get interested in more and more of such tragedies ? They do not. Because on the long ron it does not give pleasure. But the case of kavya is just the reverse Will any sabrdtya be unhappy to leara that a new author of Shakes- pere's or Saratchandra's talent is writing new volumes of high class tragedy ?

A new approach to Karuna rasa It will be interesting to note here that K. N Watwe offers 1 new th-ory to solve the probl-m of the ¿karuna rasa. Accor- ding to him Karuna "is only a derived emotion aristng in the 66 Vide, PSR. pp. 78-77

CHAPTER V 257

course of the operation of a strong impulse of attachment under certain conditions. The fact that Karuna Rasa is partly or wholly enjoyable cannot be gainsaid. What the sorrowing person does, in his woe, is that he dwells on his subject of attachment, remembers the many occasions of affection, recollects his virtues and admires his excellences that evoked his attachment for him. It is neither the event of death nor a long seperation from a beloved person, nor the sorrow evoked by such an occasion, but it is rather the love for the person that is at the bottom of the pleasure."

The author furthor observes :

"When the same object of love is placed in different conditions, love gives rise to different derived emotions. It gives rise to despair, when it is beyond hope of recovery and to soarow, when it is completely lost. If there be any pleasure · in thinking of the object under those conditions and in in- ducing the desired emotions named above, it is due to the fact that the person, every time, has an occasion to revolve in his mind the emotion of love for the object." [ The Problem - of the Karuna Rasa and its solution, P. K. Gode Com. Vol. Part. Il, pp. 468-470 .

In consideration of this new solution, we may observe that, if the recollection of the earlier associations with the object of love should give pleasure of the relish of Karuna Rasa, then that should hold good even in the ordinary world. But to have any amount of pleasure in the case of a worldly sorrow ( śoka ) is normally impossible. But in the case of the relish of karuna rasa, in the reaim of poetry alone, we can pass on to a state of aesthetic pleasure through the experience of a sorrow. The theorists who opine that all the rasas lead to an aesthetic pleasure also acknowledge that soka consists of an unalloyed sorrow. But through rumination ( carvana ) that very sorrow ( soka ) becomes Karuna Rasa and gives pleasure in the manner of the painful bitings in the time of an erotic dalliance leading

17 T

258 THP DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

to an inexplicable joy. Since in the ordinary life emotion of love for the lost object does not make the sorrowful situation pleasnrable, i0 poetry also we must account for the pleasure in some other way The sorrowful is equally sorrowful both in the ordinary world and in the poetry But in the latter we pass on from the ordinary experience to a state of aesthetic experience, where there is the unalloyed bliss In reply to the view of the Natyadarpana, referred to earler, it can easily be poited out that the pleasure derived in case of Karuna Rasa is not due to any appreciation of the dramatist or the actor, for, in ume of the aesthetic relish of even the Kafuna Rasa, the absorbed speetator cannot afford to think of the dramatist or the actor or any thing out side the dramatic situation which has a mesmeric effect on his mind

Dhvani Theory and the New Poetry The dhvam theory has a utility for us even in the con- temporary phase of literary development as it serves a very anpropriate defen e also for the New Poctry. "6 By rew poctrv, I mean the type of poetry produeed by the twenticth century poets like Eliot and Empson of England and Mallarme,

66 In the 201b ceotury drama also a techn que of ruggeit eg ideas through the use of symbols is very largely employed by the dramats s lite Tenperce W Il ama of Amenca For czample, in bls first sucern, The Glars Manageris, "Whl ams har mhown bow a eripple girl, Laura, purss the thuson of her own frag le childtond threugh a collection of I ttle glan antmalt, coe of wh ch ls diferent frem the otten by baving a horn Wiea th s bern l breken, she yes the symbol as ber chance 1o 1 ve an ord nary le" ( TTD p 195 ) This thown bow ruggetnop La come to be bonoured aljo la tbe s ag But I do pet pro- pose to deal with tha tugget ve trend of the modera drama as it relates to phyreal tymbets. The sugg-rire language of tbe drama, bowerer, comes under the con ext of sugg's ive poetry ttsrll

CHAPTER V 259

Rilke and many of the continent. 67 In India the new trend has come to the poetry of the regional languages like Assamese, Bengali and Hindi as a result of the overwhelming impact of the modern western poets particularly Eliot. Writers like Abu Sayeed Ayyub 68 clearly show how the modern Bengali poets like Jivanananda, Bishnu De, Sudhindranath and Amiya Chakravarty are influenced by the different aspects of the new poetry of the west. The young modern Assamese poet also writes more with contemporary western thought in his bones than with his own literary heritage. In the expression of the new poets we find the echo of the western contempo- raries. Their 'moon-light' darkness and tears give out odours,' the 'sun teases with shrieks', their 'sky is soft' and their 'earth is rough like the rough skin of an old man,' etc., appear like cchoes from the poetry of Dame Edith Sitwell or Rilke. "In the poetry of Hem Kanta and Navakanta one notices the adoption of images, symbols and music such as one meets with in the poetry of Baudelaire, Paul Valery, Stephenne

67. These new poets are classified under the different group desig- nations such as the Imagists, the Satirists, the Metaphysicals, the L.eft-Wingers, the Symbolists, the Surrealists and the New Apocalyptics according to their poetical ideals and contents. But in respect of the diction and employment of suggestion they may all be discussed under the general designation of new pocts. For example, in Hindi, as far as the content is concerned, the PragativadI poety is based on the Marxian ideology and the Prayog(a)vadi poetry hinges on the Freudian psycho-analysis. But as far as the metre, diction and figures are concerned, both the schools show almost similar trends. ( Adhunik Hindi Kavita- men Prem Aur Saundarya, pp. 442-440 ). We may bring both these types of modern Hindt poetry under the head of "New poetry" since we are concerned with their way of com- munication irrespective of the ideal communicated. 68. Vide bis 'Modern Bengali Poctry' (Longman's Miscellany, 1943), or Dr. Dipti Tripathy's "Adhunik Bangla Kavya Paricaya."

260 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Mallarme and Ramer Maria Rilke" "Navakanta has been Influenced more deeply by T S Eliot than by others Like Ehot he also beleves that poetry requires a language rich in suggestions both to senses and the intellect ' 09 The most notable characteristic of the new poetry under the context of the dhvani theory is its techmique of communi- cation Because, the language of the new poetry is also suggestive This diction is also variously called symbolical, oblique and ambiguous But while the votaries of the new poetry demard that the suggestive language is the only langu- age for the new poetry some critics like Richards, Ogden, Tillyard and Empson endeavour to discover a special rote played by suggestivity in the poetry of all ages We may remember that Anandavardhana was also inspired to formulate his theory on dhvant because he observed the predominant presence of suggestion in the bulk of poetry already present before him since the days of Ramayana, the Adıkavya Cf " atha ca rāmāyana mabābharataprabhțtinı lakşye sarvatra prasıddhavyavabāram lakşyayatām sabrdaya- nāmānando manası labhatām pratişthāmiti prakāsyate' (Dhv p 38) and * fakşye tu parikşyaman- sa eva sahrdaya- hrdtyāhtadakar kavyatattvam" (Dhv pp 106-107) We may also remember the case of the Irish symbol st W B Yeats, aho emulated in his own poetry the suggestive art of the earlter poets In the Autumn of the Body h- desenibed (in 1898 ) how he found ' in the art of every country those faint lights and faint colours and faint outlines and faint ener gies" to which he had hims-If turned It is also Interesting to leara that . Shelley's poetry becarre palatable to him only when he reahsed the symbolism inh-rent in the recurrent images of leaves, boats, stars, caves, the moon In his own werse the rose, white birds foar, the wird, became means 69 'Amamee Toe ry To day" by Dr B R. Parea ( 11 aduhaa --

Standard, Tu a Assoal, 1959 )

CHAPTER V 261

of conjuring moods rather than sensations." (TMP. p. 30). It hardly requirs to be pointed out that the forms of literature which could evoke sentiment were unquestionable cases of suggestive kāvya (i.e., dhvani ). Other forms of literature, such as allegory and satire, which were there from earlier times, also presented cases of suggestion. Satire as a rule, is so rich in suggestion that its very designation is "vyangya" ( i.e., suggestion ) in Assamese, Bengali or the Hindi language. Leroux, a French critic, defined allegory, in 1834, as "a dis- course, or in general a sign expressing something other than what it states directly ...... In this sense, metaphor, symbol, myth, are but different degrees of allegory" ( IPF. p. 222 ). Regard- ing the suggestive element of the other types of poetical compo- sition of even the early 17th century Margaret Gilman observes -"The abundant production of odes and elegies during the early seventeenth century is marked by frequent preciosity, a wealth of versified maxims, often allied indeed with a wit and charm, a concise and suggestive quality, which have won for it in recent years a revival of popularity somewhat akin to that achieved by the English Metaphysical poets." ( IPF. p. 4). But a tendency for the deliberate employment of only the suggestive language evolved as a theory in the west only in the middle of the 19th century as it is evidenced'by the fol- lowing observation of the French critic Sainte-Beuve, who wrote in 1866 : "Today we want something different. For us the greatest poet is the one who in his works has given the reader the most to imagine and to dream about, who has most moved him to be himself a poet. The greatest poet is not the one whose work is the most accomplished : he is the one who suggests the most, with whom at first one does not grasp entirely all that he has meant to say and express, and who leaves one much to ask, to explain, to study, much for one to finish. There is nothing like these incomplete and inexhaus- tible poets to arouse and foster our admiration; for hence forth

262 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

we want poctry to be in the reader almost as much as in the author Since criticism was born and has grown up, since it has invaded everything, has outdone everything, it cares little for poetie works bathed in a clear and perfect light, it will have nothing to do vith them The vague, the obscure, the difficult, if they are combined with some greatness, are what it prefers It must have material which it may itself construct and work on For its own part it is far from dis- pleased at having its skein to untangle, and at being given from time to time, if 1 may say so, a tricky job to do It is not displeased at feeling that it has its share in a creative work " ( IPF pp 200-201 ) The following observation on these lines of Sainte Beuve also deserves quotation

"Here are the words which were to recur so often in sym- bolist theory "Imagine," "dream," "vague," "obscure," "difficult," and above all "suggest " For it seems to me that the great poetic change which took place about the middle of the century can be summed up as a passage from a postry of statement to a poetry of suggestion The change is not so cl-ar-cut, to be sure, as Sainte-Beuve's passage implies Sarely all great poetry, even all good poetry, is to some extent sug- gestive, in the sense that it implies more than the hterrl and prosaie meaning of the words " ( JPP. p 201 ) In her notes ( IPP. p 304 ) Margaret Gilman refers also to the observation of Tillyard that "All peetry is more or less obhque, there is no direct poetry " ( Vide supra, p 150) Margaret Gilmar's observation that suggestion is a mark of all great poe'ry, it is boped, would lead the reader to recall Anandavardhana's observation to the context of the Citra preserted in p 148 above

The new poets employ different devices to cike their Poetry suggestie, to commumicate what cannot be cormuni- cated in the ordinary language The rew poetry in India also

CHAPTER V 263

betrays the same trends in technique and texture. But it is very interesting to note that the most of the devices employed for an oblique communication and even the evils of the new technique may have parallels in the very many concepts of the dhvani theory. 70

The reason for employing an indirect suggestive language in the new poetry was very lucidly given by T. S. Eliot in the following lines in 1921.

"We can only say that it appears likely that poets in our civilisation, as it exists at present, must be difficult. Our civilisation comprehends great variety and complexity and their variety and complexity, playing upon refined sensibility, must produce various and complex results. The poet must be; come more and more comprehensive, more allusive, more indirect in order to force, to desolate if necessary, language in to his meaning. 71

It is also observed that the ambiguous language of the new poetry is effective not only in respect of conveying complex ideas but also in respect of suggesting and evoking complex emotions. Compare : " ...... a poetry which by means of myths and symbols seems to convey rather than to describe the ex-

70. The Imagists ( 1908-1917 ) in England, for example, rigorously demanded precision of expression and introduced the doctrine of the image. Ezra Pound, one of the chief Imagists, defined Image as "that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time" ( TMP. p. 81 ). Herbert Read, another chief Imagist wrote that" the Image discovers one thing with the help of another, and by their resemblance makes the unknown known. But it is not a logical resemblance" ( CS. p. 172 ). An examination of the use of the Images is expected to show that it presents cases of vastudhvani in the manner of Aprastutaprasamsā, 71. Selected Essays. p. 289.

264 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

tremely complex, emotional and intellectual state whence an experience similar to that of the poet will arise." 72

The conventional language is not adequate for achieving this end of conveying complex ideas and emotions. Hence new words are coined. Words are employed to convey an entirely new import The statement may even appear to be, logically speaking, obviously incorrect. 13 Poets like Edith Sitwell attribute unusual sensations and experiences to the different sense organs 74 All the devices hke these may be explained in terms of the two varietses of the avivaksitavacya type of dhvant and Edith Sitwell's queer sensibilities may find parallel in expressions like "mhsvasandha ivadarsah candrama na prakašate" 75 ( Dhv. p 172). Symbols, allusions and quotations employed for conveying greater volumes of ideas also may be explained, in most cases, as cases of vastudhvant

72 Contemporary French Poetry, p 1. 73. Word p 208 74. "But the most distlnctive feature of ber style in these years was In ber use of wase impressions. She often gve to one ictse the sitributes of anotber as had been done by Milton In the famcus phrase "blind mouthi" in Lycidas In particular what we ice she often described In terms of bearing, as in "cmcki og green," "bray og light," "jangling rain," or, la reverse, "tbe brass band's morting stabs the sky" A S. Cell as, ( EngI sh Literature of the Twentieth Century, p 85 ). 75 We can admit a latsant ard then an arivaksitvieya type of dhvan! in Fd th Sitwell's 'Crackling green,' for example, in the matter of the perceptan ot the grern enly lI we do not admst the ponlb ! ty ef an autitory perception of the green in tke manner of jilinalaisana percept'on ( re'erred to above, p. 199 ) In "sarabhl candannis paiytmt" the surabhl ( frag" rance ) may telong to the candan Put bere we must yet ade't a lalgint as cracki ig dees not normally belong to the green.

CHAPTER V 265

But in employing allusions, quotations and symbols, etc., the new poets utilise such a wide range of their learning and so strange and outlandish intellectual references that the con- tents become quite out of the grasp of the ordinary reader. The desire of the new poets to convey greater amount of in- formation and more complex emotions results in an undesirable obfuscation of the message. Some critics link Mallarme's obscurity simply to his ambition to be concise.76 And what is all the more deplorable is that some new poets create diffi- culty simply for the sake of difficulty as a religion.

Happily, along with the development of the technique of the new poetry an opinion against its obscurity also has gained ground both in respect of the western poetry 77 and its Indian counterpart. But the pioneers of the new poetry are them- selves conscious of this possible complaint. And indeed, along with an apology for their obscurity they also present a com- mentary of their own to their own compositions as did Eliot do in case of his Waste Land and Empson does in case of his Collected Poems. Eliot not only recognised but also duly analysed the question of difficulty of the new poetry as may be evidenced from the following observation in the "Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism." 78

" ...... The difficulty of poetry ( and modern poetry is sup- posed to be difficult ) may be due to one of several reasons.

76. Word. p. 212. 77. Compare the following remark on . Hopkins, who is found to have considerably inffuenced the modernists in England-"We may forgive his use of dialect words and invented words, but not his maltreatment of order and syntax-not such tmeses as "wind lily locks-laced," such contortions as, "Commonwel, Little I reck ho ! lacklevel in, if all had bread" ( A Critical History of English Poetry. p. 508 ).

. 78. The numbers are inserted by me.

266 THE CHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

( 1 ) First there may be personal causes which make it im- possible for a poet to express himself in any but an obscure way . (2) Or difficulty may be due just to novelty we know the ridicule accorded in turn to Wordsworth, Shelley and Keats, Tennyson and Browming-but must remark that Browning was the first to be called difficult, ( 3 ) Or difficulty may be caused by the reader's having been told, or having suggested to himself that the poem is going to be diffi- cult (4) difficulty, caused by the author's having left out something which the reader is used to finding, so that the render, bewildered, gropes about for what is absent, and pzzles his head for a kind of 'meaning' which is not there and is not meant to be there" ( pp 150-151) What is observed by Eliot under point I, may be explained as "asaktıkrtadoşa ( 1e, a defect due to poet's want of genius) of Ananda referred to in the parikaraloka,-

"avyutpattıkrto doşah saktyā samvrıyate kaveb / yastvasaktıkrtastasya sa jhațityavabhasate //' (Dhv III p 316) [A poet's defe t resulting from ignorance will be hidd-n from view by his gemus, but a defeut du- to his want of genius will attract ode's attention instantancousty. Dhv Trans p 64] The difficulty of the poem due to the obscurity of the suggested matter of fact is recognised as a doga by the followers of the dhvant theory as in case of the obseurity of the sug- gested matter of fact in the aprastutaprasamsa is called a doșt, vIz., kaştarthatva ( Vide, SD VII 12) The second point of Eliot is an optimisti defence of the diffi.ulty in so far as it advo ates that the dificulty of the new poetry may be lessened by a greater familarity. It is said by the votaries of the nea poetry that atthough th- new poetry is not readily intelligible to the mass b-eause of remote intell-ctust references, cte., it is hoped that the masses them- selves would deelop a greater range of information and better famlan y with th- new diction through more and more

CHAPTER V 267

reading of the new poems. It appears to be very much an echo of Bhavabhuti's,

ye nāma kecidiha nah prathayantyavajām jānanti te kimapi tān prati naisa yatnab / utpatsyate'sti mama ko'pi samānadharmā kālo hyayam niravadhir višālā hi prthvi // ( MM. I. 8 ). But it appears to be going to much ahead of time and the general run of the men of taste may hardly appreciate an attitude like that of Bhatti who boasts that his poem is intelli- gible only with the help of a commentary. It may be observed here that, although the later pervert Indian tradition calls Bhatți a mahäkavi 79 there is reason to believe that the dhvani theory itself was promulgated as an antidote to a pervert taste as evidenced in the Bhattikavya. It is also significant to note that in the whole of the Dhvanyaloka there is no reference to Bhatti in any way.

John Press observes in his "Chequer'd shade" that difficulty may be due to more than one reason. It may be due also to the employment of a difficult vocabulary and syntax ( CS. p. 7) and the difficulty of the Bhattikavya, I think, may be put under this head. But happily the difficult poets themselves become in course of time critical of the obscure expression. We find that Eliot in the later part of his poetical career repented for his earlier love for an obscure expression. William Empson also has realised the undesirability of obscu- rity. The first word of "Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning service." "Polyphiloprogenitive," suggests a wilful pedantry. "Among the many gifts handed on by Mr. Eliot from the Metaphysicals was a poetry involved with farfetched erudition. The fashion was a salutary reaction against contemporary mindlessness; it was pursued with something of the naive enthusiasm of the Renaissance, a love of new words, strange instances, subtle

79. Keith. HSL, p. 117.

268 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

allusions In practice the frequent use of unattributed allusions demanding a close knowledge of even the accepted "classics" strains the reader's attention Poetry comes to depend on scholarship In The Waste Land, Mr Eltot did not conquer this tendency of Poems 1920, yet it comes near to being a great poem

I that was near your heart was removed therefrom To lose beauty in terror, terror in inquisition, said Gerontion aptly deseribing the poet s attitude during what may be called his second prriod' (TMP pp 158-159 ) But in Part V of the East Coker ( The Four Quartets ) "the poet turns to his art and confesses his farlure to achieve perfect expression after twenty years 'Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt Is a wholly new start, and a different ktod of farlure Because one has only learnt to get the better of words For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which One is no longer disposed to say it." (TMP p 176)

Here we may atso refer to the following observation of John Press

"No poet has revelled more unashamedty in the pleasures of intellectual virtuosity than William Empson who, in s characteristically tart commentary upon his own poctry, ex- plains why he has included so many pages of notes in The Gathering Storm

Partly they are meant to be like answers to a crossword puzzle, a sort of puzzle interest is part of the pleasure that you are meant to get from th- verse The fashion for obseure poetry came in at about the same time as the fashion for crossword pazzles, and it seers to me that the revival of pazzle interest in poctrv, an old fashioned thing, bas got a bad name merely by failng to Lnow its-If ard

CHAPTER V 269

refusing to publish the answers. ( The Gathering Storm, 'Note on Notes', p. 55 )." 80

Empson wrote like this in the Gathering Storm in 1940. But by 1955 he grew more considerate to admit that the better poetry requires fewer notes, for, he says-"There is a feeling, often justified, that it is annoying when an author writes his own notes, so I shall give a note about these notes ...... Of course there are qureer forces at work, to write notes at all is to risk making a fool of yourself, and the better poems tend to require fewer notes." ( Collected Poems, p. 93 ). That the dhvani theory cannot allow this craze for puzzle- making in the name of suggestion is already discussed in the second chapter in the section, "A reply to Vivanatha." The puzzle will appear as the flaw ( dosa ) named kastärthatva, referred to above.

"Some good poets believe that they owe allegience only to their Muse, and that in our present form of society any attempt as communicating with a mass audience would involve a betrayal of that allegiance. Robert Graves states this belief unequivocally in the Foreword to his Poems, 1938-45 :

I write poems for poets, and satires and grotesques for wits ...... To write poems for other than poets is wasteful." ( CS. pp. 159-160 ). Thus the belief that poetry is only for a cotery of initiated fellows breeds the danger of unintelligibility and unpopularity. Änanda also apprehended the possibility of dhvani being the property of a few intellectuals; that is why he prefers the dhvani that may appeal to a greater circle. He recognises srh- gära as the best rasa on the same score. Significantly enough he not only demands that the quality of Prasada should be present

80. CS. p. '41. Also Vide TMP. pp. 185-186, for a similar com- ment on Empson's quoted words.

270 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

in all types of composition81 but also leaves the following words of caution "yatra pratiyamano'rthah pramlistatvena bhāsate / vācyasyān ttayā vāpi nāsyāsau gocaro dhvanch // ( Dhv. I1, 31 p 281 ) ( If in an instance the implied sense is such that it can be caught only with great difficulty or if it is only subordinate to 1h Expressed sense, in either case it will not be an instance of Sugeestion ) 82 "sarvesveva prabhedesu sphuțatvenāvabhāsanam / yadvyıngyasyäneıbhültasya tatptirnam dhvinilakşanam // ( Dhv II 33 p 286) ( The fill d-fimtion of Sugeestion in all its varicties in- cludes clarity of mantfestation and principal importance of the suggested element ) 83 But the clearity of the meaning is not something mathe matt nily measured Moreover, the sahrdayatva or the caparity to appresiate poetry may vary from time to time. It also remuns an undeniable fact that a single critic hke Ananda canno' be expected to determine all the dhvanis # The finnl court of app-al in this regard is the cirele of sihrdayas; in other words, it is the socicty which would best criticise kavya Thus the universal app-al of the Ramayana and the Mala- bharata makes them the greatest kavyas Yet, what we best

81 "prartdas u svacchais (abdirthayoh," Dhv p 213, "sarh"sa ca samghafantsu prastdikhyo guno vyapt," ete Dhy p 321 82 Dbr Trans p 52 83 Dhv Trams p 14. 84 Cf." bat every effort to formulate the common element is I m ted by the 1 mitat ons of partfcular men in particular places and at partieular times and these 1 m tations becore mantfest in the perspect ve of hs ory" t The tae of Poe ry and the Lie ef Cnticism, pp 143-142 ).

CHAPTER V 271

derive from Anandavardhana is the dhvani theory in principle and that indeed embodies a pretty good criterion for literary criticism and instructs how by delineating the basic human emotions like love and sorrow the poetry of sustained appeal may be created. We may observe here that while in the matter of the diction the new poetry claims the designation as dhvani, it lacks mostly-and surely with good many exceptions-in a sincere and passionate appraisal of the human sentiments. In other words, it appeals more to the intellect than to the heart. In the beginning of this work I proposed to use the word kavya indiscriminately for all the varieties of composition such as poetry, drama, prose fiction and prose short stories. There can be no gainsaying of the fact that of the varieties of literature that I have named above poetry is the least popular type to day. In comparison to fiction and short stories poetry is less sold. The reason is not far to seek. The fiction or the short story deals with human characters and their actions and delineate their sentiments under described circumstances. "We are human beings, and in what are we more interested than in human action and human attitudes ?"-says Eliot ( ATSE, p. 67). With the description of human characters and their attitudes the fiction or the short story also comes out with all the aesthetic appeal of a drama. The poetry which can evoke a sentiment in a similar manner is the dramatic poetry and such a poetry is bound to be popular. But if with all the wealth of symbolism and imagery the poetry does not do more than conveying a matter of fact ( vastu dhvani ) in the form of an ideal or a metaphysical theory, it is bound to lack in aesthetic appeal. We have also to draw a line of demarcation between the poem which informs us about the state of mind of the poet and one which actually evokes a sentiment in our mind ( Vide ATSE, p. 80 for a commendable attempt at distinguishing between dramatic and reflective poetry ). Communication of lofty ideas may win the appre- ciation as an intelligent or a valuable work but in order to win

272 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

the heart the poem must evoke some sentiment in the heart of the reader. Thus when it is not shorn of the poet's Isympathy for the human sentiments even the difficult but suggestive new poctry triumphs

APPENDIX An extract from a Paper entitled "Some Observations on the Theory of Sphota," Read in the XXVI Inter- national Congress of Orientalists in New Delhi in Jahuary 1964 by the same Author So far we have seen how the theory- of Sphota or One- undivided Real Word is recognised and respected by the works on grammar. religion and philosophy alike. It is curious to, note that it invaded the field of poetics also where it enjoys a very honourable recognition. Anandavardhana designates. the suggestive type of kavya as Dhvani only on the analogy of the audible sounds which are called Dhvani by the grammarians. and which also suggest the Real Word, Sphota. The audible- syllables or letters ( śrūyamānavarnas ) are called śabda in an ordinary sense. But with reference to the Real Sabda they are called Dhvani. Compare :

pratyayairanupākhyeyairgrahaņānuguņaistathā dhvaniprakāšite šabde svarūpamavadhāryate. ( VKPD. I. 83: That the relation between the audible syllables ( nadas ) and Sphota is that of the suggestor and the suggested is explicit from the VKPD. I. 97. :

grahanagrāhyayoh siddhā niyatā yogyatā yathā vyangyavyafjakabhāvena tathaiva sphoțanādayoh. Anandavardhana observes that the suggestive poetry also possesses suggestivity ( vyañjakatva ) and hence the designation Dhvani is applied by the rhetorician also to the suggestive poetry. Compare : prathame hi vidvāmso vaiyākaranāh te ca. śrūyamāņeşu varņesu dhvaniriti vyavaharanti tathaivānyaih ... kāvyamiti vyapadesyo vyañjakatvasāmyād dhvanirityuktah ( Dhv. pp. 132-135 ). Of the three types of suggested content viz. vastu ( matter of fact ), alamkāra ( figure of speech ) and rasādi ( sentiments ), 18 D.

274 THE DHVANT THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS the first two may also be expressly stated. But the third variety, namely, sentiment, can never be expressly stated. It must always be suggested. Ruyyaka, commenting on the Vyaktiviveka, very rigltly observes that we must recognise the vyanjana function, as a rule, for arriving at the rasadi variety of the meaning of poetry. And once we recognise vyabjana, for having rasadı, under compulsion, there is no barm in enlarging its scope also to vastu and alamkāra, which also casually happen to be different from the express sense and the secondary sense. Compare - "ıba sabdasyābhidhālakşanābhedena dvividho vyāpāraś- cırantanairabhyupagatah. na ca trtīyakakşānıkşipte'rthe pra- galbhate itt tatra vyaparantaramabhyupagatam. rasadau ca tattulyakakşe vyatjanamupapādıtamıtīhāpı tađeva samāsrayitum yuktam" ( VVV. I. p. 59 ). Now we may observe that the position of the suggestive poetry is analogous to the position of śrtlyamanavarnas also "because of the fact that the position of rasa is analogous to that of Sphota Sphota is the Sabdabrahman or the Supreme "Self itself. Then agam the realisation of rasa also means the realisation of the Supreme Self; for, rasa is the Supreme Self as propounded by Jagannätha on the strength of the expression "raso vai sah" of the Taittiriyopanişad ( II. 7). Because of the Real Word being of the nature of Brahman, a knowledge of the carrect words leads to emancipation. Cf. "iyam sa mokşamananāmajihma rajapaddhatih" ( VKPD. 1. 16). This spintual serviee of grammar is very admirabty put forth by Madhava in his Sarvadarfanasamgraha. But it must be noted that hoth in case of the realisation of Sphota and the realisa- tion of rasa, which are nothing other than the Parabrahman, we cannot have final emancipation instantancously. That is how aesthetic consciousness ( rasisvada ) and the realisation of Sphots differ from the mystical consciousness (brahmasvada) on the one hand and from the mystical experienee of the Paravak on the other. Possibly this is why Abhinava does not

APPENDIX 275

identify rasāsvāda with brahmāsvada but simply says that rasāsvāda is analogous to brahmāsvāda (i.e., brahmāsvāda- sahodara ). This point is clearly observed by Dr. K. C. Pandey in the words: "Aesthetic experience therefore according to Abhinavagupta, in its final stage, belongs to the lavel of vyati- reka turyātIta in which all objectivity merges in the subcons- cious and the subject the self shines in its Ananda aspect ( I. Aest. p. 130 ) [ Vide, Supra, p. 176 ].

GENERAL INDEX

A Ādhunik Bangla Kāoya Paricaya, 259 abhasa, significance of, 62 Adhunik Hindi Kavitamen Prem Aur abhavavadins, 31 Saundarya, 259 abhidha, (-śakti ), 190, (-vyāpāra), adikavi, 69 18, 52, 88, 101-3, 106f, 120, Advaita Vedanta, 198 144, 153, 160, 185-87, 189- Aesthetie Experience According to Abhi- 92, 195, 200f, 209, 224, 227, navagupta ( A. E. ), 163 231f, 235f. Agnipurāņa, 7 abhidhamtla-sabda-vyanjana, 152 agudha vyangya, 87 abhidhana, 187 ahamkara, a vyabhicaribhava, 122 Abhidhaorltimatrka (AVM), 50, 224- aharya, type of abhinaya, 34 26, 230f. ākhyāyika, 9, 71 abhidheya, 101-3, 106, 163 aksepa, an alamkāra, 40f, 86 abhihitanvayavada, 190 aksipta, 40 Abhinanda, 71 alakşyakramavyangya, dhvani, 109f, Abhinava, 7-10, 14f, 18-25, 28, 125 30, 42f, 61-65, 68-74, 77f, alambana, 47, 63, 109, 156, 162, 80-84, 86f, 93f, 102, 108-12, 170, 177f, 183 114, 117-19, 124-26, 129, alamkara, 5, 8-18, 34, 38-40, 133, 139f, 142, 144, 147, 155, 42, 45-49, 56, 58, 60f, 64f, 157f, 161-63,166, 171f, 183f, 72, 77, 83f, 86, 90f, 96f, 99- 190f, 196-202, 208, 213f, 102, 112f, 116f, 120-26, 232-34, 239, 241-43, 245, 129, 151, 153f, 165, 174, 251, 253, 255 185, 192, 194, 205, 209-12, Abhinavabharafi ( Abh. bh. ), 25, 225, 233, 238, (-dhvani ), 64, 117, 140, 155, 157-66, 169- 151, 153, (-sastra ), 80 73, 177, 179f. Alamkara Sarvasva ( AS ) 5, 8, 12, abhinaya, 34, 202 16, 48f.

abhipraya, 193, 195 Alamkara school, 8, 12f. abhivyakti, 203-9 alamkarika, 35, 39, 49, 59, 82, Achienements of T. S. Eliet ( ATSE ) 116, 123, 136, 235 183f, 271 alatacakra, 170 A Critical History of English Poetry, alaukika, 244 265 alokasāmānya, 167 adbbuta, rasa, 132, 155, 249 Amarasimba, 17 adhikarika, vākya, 126 Amaru (ka), 241, 252 adhikya, 121 anaikāntika, hetu, 210

278 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Ansoda (-vardhana ), 6, 8, 13r, 16- Aristotle, 120 18, 20-44, 46-48, 501, 54-61, artbabheda fabdabheda, nyIya, 105f 631, 66-73, 75-78, 80-91, 93, artha, dosa, 11 95-97, 1004 105-14, 116, artha guna, 130 1184 121, 123-29, 131-53, arthaksku, 117t 135-39, 144-60, 1524 165, artbalackara, 4D 159, 162. 167. 176, 179-83, artbintarasarokramita, 01 185. 187-P4, 196-200. 213, arthspani, aiamkara, 65, 107, 200 216, 219, 238, 240-43, 2451, artba fakn, 114, (-mula ), 200 250, 252-55, 260, 262, 266, Artbafaktyudbbavs, (-dhvanl ). 95, 269-271 107~D, 112, 114, 116, 1191, maavasths, dega, 228, 231 130.145 AbtkIrthaks fabdas, 95, 105, 102, arthaste a, 39 235 amrlakşya, 126, (-krama ), 1264 angthgibbava, 222 206, 238, 241, (-krama- Ehgika, abhinaya, 34 ryahgya ), 62, 93, 111. 120, aoltya, doa, 240 238, (-bhtva ), 1271, 130 SstarIryl, 21 Assamese, 259 Entara fokat, 21 atiiayozti, alamkara, 38 Inubbara, 54, 62, 109, 119, 137. Attita Jo'zsef, 142 141, 143, 149, 158r, 162, atyantatlraskrta, vicya, 91, 224 170, 174, 1771, 183, 244 Anumiam, 50-85, 107. 158, ID4- aucirya, 183, 252

200, 203. 206-7. 210-12, Autyacirererarta ( Ave ), 57

214, 219, 231, 234, (-tbeory), sutsukya, a vyabbicsribhava, 177. 249 50 #AuDcyA, 74. 104, 106, 196, 198, avagsmana, 34

(-artha ), 84 Acalole, 50, 189, 215 Avantivarman, 17, 30

anyIrtha, ( anyo'rths ), 30. 44. Zrega, & vyabhicaribhzra, 202, 249 186, 189, 201 avintbhiva, 53, 188, 218-20 snyustdriya, 61 snvaktitaricys, type of dhranl, 89, saya hIoupapatti, 55 01.93. 193. 224. 264 spobavada, 90 aryzpti, a laigana deşa, 87f Appayad1s t, 49, 106, 110 Avyatireta Turiyimta, 176 aprikaranika, artha, 101-103, 106f B sprasurs, arha, 90 Basetlider, 79

265, 266 Exbapnyz, com, 19, 19G Eaodelalre, 259 Krabbart, vrTTl, 146 srdhstbrama, e fabdacitra, 149 Eengall, 259 bhaktl, 83, 87-89, ( ram ) 128

GENERAL INDEX 279

Bhamaba, 4, 8-10, 16, 20, 38f, bhoga, 161, 165, 174, (-krti ), 5. 4]-44, 80, 121-23, 125, 128, ; bhojakatva, 161, 174, 201 130, 132, 185, 189 Bhojarāja, 135 Bhamahavivarana, 43 bhukti, 161, (-vada ), 161 Bharata, 6f, 10, 15, 33f, 42, 117, bibhatsa, rasa, 155 130, 140, 146f, 155-57, 160, brahmaņa śramaņa, nyāya, 120- 162, 164, 172, 183, 245 bharatī, vrtti, 146 Brahmasulra, 76 Browning, 266 Bharavi, 51 Buddhist, 86f Bhartrhari, 36-38, 105f Bühler ( Dr. ), 23 Bhasa, 24, 246 Bhagapariccheda, 88, 186, 220 Bhattajayantaka, 71 Camatkara, 165, 236f, 251

Bhattakallata, 224 Camatkrti, 152, 251

BhattamImamsa, 198 Campu, type of composition, 4

Bhattanayaka, 5, 7f, 28, 50, 69f, Candrika, com., 18, (-kara ), 18

85, 157-161, 165, 174-176, Carakasamhita, 32

180, 201-203, 219, 252 Carvana 173, 257

Bhattatauta, 68, 70, 180 Chaucer, 79

Bhattenduraja, 14 Chequer'd Shade, ( CS ), 178, 263;

Bhatti, 267 267,269

Bhattikdoya, 267 Cinta, vyabhicaribhava, 249

bhava, 10, 61-63, 93-95, 110- Citra, 48, 65, 67, 78, 148-50,.

112, 121-26, 128-30, 155, 182f, 262

162-64, 179, 182, 199, 238, Citramimamsa ( CM ), 49, 110 '

247, 249, (-alamkāra ), 4If, Contemporary French Poetry, 264

(-dhvani ), 62, 64f, 94f, 109, D 125f, 128, 130, 239, 241, Dandin, 10, 15, 40f, 56, 78, 121f, 249f, (-praśama ), 63, 122f, 130, 135, 151 (-praśanti ), 61, 94, (-sandbi ), De Poetiea, 120 63 DaśarŪpa(-ka ), ( DR ), 27, 50, bhavabhasa, 61, 63, 93, 123, 241 69, 189, 215-19 Bhavabhūti 27, 239, 267 devadivişayakarati, 45, 122, 125- bhavakatva, 161, 174, 201 28, 130 bhavana, 163, 174 Devisataka, 29, 127 Bhacapradita, com., 36 Dhanañjaya, 50, 68, 215, 219 bhāvikatva, 80 Dhanika, 50, 189, 214-20, 224. bhāvodaya, 63 dhvanana, 230, (-vyāpara ), 102 bhaya, 155, 163, 173 Dhvanidhvamsa, theory, 6 bhayanaka, rasa, 140, 155, 164, Dhvanikara, 20, 22, 24f, 47 201 Dhoanikūrika, 26, 85

780 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Phesnysleks, 14, 17-19, 21-24, glīni, a vyabhicanbbīra, 157 26-29. 47, 384, 66-79, 85, gomutniks, s cltrabandha, 149 87-89, 917, 94-102, 108. Gotama, 255 114-16, 118, 1214 124-29, Gower, 79 131, 135-38, 146, 150, 152t, Grammont, 141 159, 163, 167, 175, 180-82, grimyz, vrtti, 146 185, 1897. 192, 202, 211, guna, 5, 8, 15-17, 46, 55, 77, 84, 2134 216, 225, 241, 243. 120-31, 133-37, 140, 146f. 447. 252-54 165, 174, 181, (-vrtt! ), 85, Dharmakfrttt, 89 87, 89, 187, 191 Dharnettari, 89 guntbhtta, 119, (-vyaógya ), 38, Dictton, 120 651, 78, 86, 118-20, 129, 147, Dinniga, 90 1401, 152 dfpaka, atamktra, 116. 148 H drpti, 132, 136, 181 dominant state, 34 Hall, 27

Donne, 184 Hamte, 183

doja, 65, 230, 241, 250, 266, bsa, 155

259 Etsfa, 140, 165, 245, 248

drama, 258 Hindr, 259, (-poetry ), 259

drzmatorge7, 6 Hutary of Sanskrit Literature ( HSL-),

-druti 60, 131, 133-6, 161, 181 4, 7-9. 15, 17, 23, 32, 47, Durgieftya, 35 127, 252, 267

dyotaka, 341, 52 (-ma ), 5J Huststy of Sanskrit Por'tes ( HSP ).

dyotant, 34, 230 1, 6, 10, 14-18, 20, 23f, 30, 57, 63, 83, 85, 224 E Hopkios, 265

ELLoali, 49 hrdayasannada, 51, 126, 128f, Fllot, T. $, 73, 178. 1834, 288- J64, 166. 182, 238, 244 50, 263, 255-68, 271 Elocutioo, 120 Ides of Pertry in Frour ( 1 PF), .Estlirs Limetar ef th Tamint 261f Crtury, 164 epia, 71 Itoigr, 259. 263 F Imag-ry, 271 Fo'nacy, Irao, 2417 Imagits, 250, 263

G Iadien Antheties ( I, Acst. ), 77, 80.

guva, a wyabhictr bttva, 122 85, 156, 163, 165, 159, 172,

Gaot, Hd, 15 1755, 204. 213, 219

GENERAL INDEX 281

Induraja, 4 Kāvya, 3-6, 8-16, 28f, 32, 35f, Introspective Psychology, 3 38f, 42, 44-49, 51f, 54, 56, Isopanigad, 144 59, 61, 63f, 66, 68-71, 75, J 78-82, 87, 121, 131, 137f, Jacoby, Professor, 23 141, 146-55, 157, 159, 162f, Jagadīśatarkālamkāra, 235-37 165-69, 174f, 178-80, 182, Jagannatha, Panditaraja, 28, 58, 184, 196, 206, 215f, 218, 100, 110, 130, 133-36, 139, 236-44, 248f, 250-53, 255f, 175, 251 270f, (-artha ), 162, (-anu- Jayamangala, com., 80 kara ), 154 Jayapīda, 30f Kāoyādarša ( KD ), 40, 122, 148 Jayaratba, 8 Kaoyalamkara ( KL ) of Bhamaha, Jayantabhatta, 71, 78, 85, 190, 9, 122, of Rudrata 10-12, 214, 234 41f jñāna, 2281, (-laksana ), 199, 264 Karyalamkarasarasamgraha ( K S S ), jugupsa, a sthayibhava, 155, 248f 4, 10, 12-14, 39, 97, 99, K 106, 116, 123, 138, 147 Kadambari Kathāsāra, 71 Kūoyālamkūrasātra, 179, (-trtti ) Kaisikī, vrtti, 146 ( K S V ), 15f, 140, 146 Kaiyața, 32 Kaku, 117-120, 202 Kauyamīmāmsa, 32

Kakvabhidheya, 120 Kauyanimaya, 217

Kākvaksipta, 119 Kāoyaprakāsa (K P), 6, 39, 41, 47f. 50, 83, 87, 95, 100f, 113, Kalhana, 20, 30f Kalidasa, 18, 108 116f, 119f, 127, 158, 200,208, 213, 220, 222, 227f, 230, 239, Kalpana, 90, 107 247, 252 Kāntā, 159 Kanti, guna, 16, 131, 146 Khandakathā, 78 Khyātivirudhatā, doșa, 115 Karanatva, 186f Krama, 109-112, (-niyama ), 37 Kārika ( k ), 13, 19, 21-32, 38, Kriys, 152, 215, (-gupti ), 152 44-46, 56f, 59, 62, 66, 69, Krodha, 94, 155, 170 72, 75, 77f, 80-82, 84, 89, Krsnkanti, com., 236 93, 95, 111f, 118, 130, 133, Kşemendra, 6, 24, 56f, 140 136, 147, 150, 152, 216, 241, Kulaka, 78 (-kara ), 19-27, 30f Kulluka, 32 Karuna, rasa, 45, 62, 67, 124f, Kumarasambhaca, 108 132, 138, 140, 155, 160f, Kumarlla, 90 172, 239-41, 245-47, 255-58 Kuntaka, 25, 44-50, 56 Kashmir Report, 23 Knsumānjati, 186 Kastārthatva, doşa, 266, 269 L

Eatha, 71 Laghuortti, 4, 12, 14 4

282 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

lays, a vyabbicaribhava, 62, 109, Malahmsdhooa, 167 111, 157, 192 Mallarme', 2581, 265 lakşant, (-vrttl ), 18, 44, 50, 52f, Mammata, 16, 28, 39, 41, 47-50, 82, 84, 887, 93, 116, 134, 185-87, 190-93, 195, 200, 83, 86-88, 91, 95, 100-102,

209, 2134 218-20, 224-32, 107, 113, 116-20, 123, 125, 234f, 248, (-(aktl ), 219, 264, 127-30, 133, 136, 158, 199, (-mulavyaijanT ), 227 208, 213-15, 220, 222, 226. Isxşanika, 2241, 231 227-29, 231-36, 239, 247, lakyysrtha, 52, 88, 91, 220, 227f, 250, 252 230, 734 Manasabodha, 236, 237 Latitapida, 30f Mandra, 117 Left-wingers, 259 Manikyacandra, 83, 113, 119 lióga, 103, 104, 197, 214, (-tra ), Manoratha, 20, 29-31, 84 194 Mamuramhtra, 32 lingt, 1041, 197 Meghadere, 65 lirgitva, 194, 196 Memorial versc, 34 hterature, 4 Metaphydcals, 259, 267, 271 Leas, 8f. 18f, 22, 241, 62-66, Mill. J. S., 199 68-72. 74. 77(, 80, 83f, 86f, , Milton, 264 924, 95, 98, 102, 109-12, Mlistapratita, 86 114, 118, 124-26, 133, 139. mukhyxrthavadha, 88, 225, 232f 144, 147, 158, 1601, 164, Mokbya. ( -artha ). 191, 224, 168, 173-76, 1904, 196-99, 2014, 2137, 228, 2311, 242, (yIpara ), 231

245, 2521, 255 Muktaka, 65, 78, 177, 179, 241 loka (-dharm) ), 168, 170, (-1m"' Mukulabhatta, 50, 192, 241, 224-

Inya ). 166 28, 231, 2351

Lollata, 157f N

M Nada, 36

madbura, 131, 1337, (-racans ), Nageia, 35, 105 135, 140 Nalyzyikas, 107, 186, 1997, 234 midborya, 131-37, (-guna ), 140 Namtiadbu, 12 Magha, 74 nata (-rylpirs ), 179 Melients, (M D ). 29, 36, 81, artaka, 178 104-6, 127, 241, 253, 270 axtya, 146, 168, (-dharmt ), 168 AA:Ds, 29, 83, 104 Netya derters, 265, 258 : Napalttro ( N S ), 6f, 21, 25, Mahimmabbarts, 61, 21. 24. 28, 34, 117, 126, 140, 147, 180- <D-56, 59,64, 73, 77f, 102- 57, 162, 170, 242 6, 1194, 1414 200, 203-8. New. (-poctry), 258-60, 265, 265, 210-34 271r, (-portr ), 259, 262

GENERAL INDEX 283

New Apocalyptics, 259 Poetry, 3f, 6, 9, 14f, 17, 33-35,. nipatas, 34f, 51f 38, 46-48, 51, 56, 59, 62f, nirākāmksa, 117, (-vākya ), 117 77-79, 84f, 87, 89, 120, 127, nirūdba lakșanā, 88 141, 143, 145, 150, 160f, Nirukta, 34 165f, 172f, 183f, 205, 242f, nirveda, 165, 157 247, 250, 254, 257-59

nispatti, 34, 172 Poetry Direet and Oblique, 150, 262

nyāya, 198, 213, 244 prabandha, 48, 65, 78-80, 149,.

Nynyavindu, 90 241

Nyayamanliarr, ( N M ), 85, 191, Prabhakara, 200, 214

198, 214, 235 Pradīpa, com., 229f

Nyyaratnamala, 186, 188, 219, 221- Pragativadr Poetry, 259

23 prahelika, 54, 150-53

Nyayasntrabhasya, 169 prakaraņa, 106f Nyayasūtravārttika, 255 prakaraņika, 98, 101f, 106f nyaya vaiscşika, 220 prakațatā, 229

O pramana, 198, 231f

Objective correlative, 183 Pramānasamueeaya, 90

Oiah, guna, 131f, 136f, 140f Prāmanaviniscaya, 89

pada, 32, 57, (-amsa ), 32 prasăda, guņa, 132, 136, 140, 147,

(-artha ), 32, 186f, 189, 216 269f

Pancali, riti, 16 praśama, of bhava, 122f

Paņini, 104 prastāva, 117

Paramalaghumanjusa ( P L M ), 105 pratibha, 163

paramarsa, 103 Pratiharendurāja, 10, 12-14, 24,

parikaraśloka, 19, 21-23, 26, 266 97, 100, 106, 123f parikatha, 70 pratinayaka, 245 Parthasarathimisra, 219, 222 pratiyamana, artha, 14, 49, 59-61, parușa, vrtti, 139, 146 64,77,79

paryāyavakratā, 48 pratyakșa, acc. to Buddhists, 90, 231 paryāyokta, alamkāra, 14, 41f, 86, 185 praudhokti, 115f, (-matranişpan- naśarīra ), 114 Patañjali, 29, 36, 83f, 105f Pater, Walter, 253 pravrttis, of drama, 170 Prayogavadt, Poetry, 259 pauruşeya vākya, 195 phala, 228-30, 232 prayojakata, sambandha, 134

Physics, 3 prayojana, 225, 227-31, (-mula.

Pinder, 79 Iakşana ), 227, 231

Poc, 79 preyah, alamkara, 122-25, 128

Poctics, 3-7, 33, 58, 127, 141, Psychological Studies in Rasa (P S R) 166, 241-44, 247-50, 256 143, 248, 251 Psychology, 3 ,

284 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POCTICS

R Renaimsncr, 184, 253, 267

rAcanE, 134 Reeeda, 14, Rgvedic, 76 Ragbavabhatta, 240 Rtlke', 289f Raghuvaiila, 64, 71 rt, 5, (-shool ), 15-17. (~the- rajas, guna, 161 orinta ), 1466 (-vadr ), 40 REjakkhara, 17, 65 roJhimult, -latşant, 227 Rajataranginī, Sor Rudrabbatra, 255 Rudtata, 10-12, 41f, 128 Ramtyaya, 3, 29, 66-68, 241, 260, rOpaka, niamkfra, 9, 461, 98, 211, 270 23$f rasa, 9-13, 16, 34, 414 45-49, Ruyyaka, $, 84 12, 41, 48-50, 61. 54-57, 611, 64-72, 75, 56, 77, 204-210 78-81, 93-05, 109-12, 118, S 121-44. 147-49, 161, 164- 60, 162, 164-60, 171-84, fabda, 45, 77. 794, 82, 112, 114,

192, 199, 201-3, 205, 208r, 118, 134, 137, 146, 191, 104, 2121, 216, 2181, 233-36, 240- 196, 205, 231, (-atamkira ), 47, 250, 253, 255, (-dhvant), 49. 164, (-trthadattyudbhava), 45, 47, 94, 174, 186, (-niy 05, (-citra ), 148, (-guna ), patt! ), 161, 172, (-realisa- 130, (-faktl ), 96, 114, 224, tion ), 174, 248, (-scbool ), (-raktimuladhvan) ), 39f, 54t, 6r, (-theory ) 242, (-virodba), 95-103, 1064 200, 211, 181 (-leşa ). 39, (-vytpara ), 82, abhiss, 61-64, 93, 123 187. 1941, 200 rAsIdl, 171, 61, 637, 82, 91, 98, Sabdalattprakaitta ( S S P ). 233-37 110. 129. 131. 146, 148-50, fabdalaktyudbhava, type of dhrani, 155, 192, 194, 228, 238, 241, 95, 97, 100, 1064 1124 120, 153 247 Sabdemifararictra ( S. V. V. ), 50, Rarega-gWiara, (RG) 110C 120. 214, 227, 2321 135f, 251 sidhtrantrarana, 243, 247 Resekalits, 265 ssddya, 121, 155 rarsda, 175f Salatadartama (S D). 49, 80, 101. rasrat, alamksra, 17, 98, 121-25, 115. 115, 126, 150-57. 117. 120. 148 188, 191, 200, 211, 212, 224. rat, a sthayibhira, 110, 123-25, 240G 2604 266 128, 130, 142, 145, 155-57, bltyaridyz. 32

171, 216, 130, 241,243, 245- 1 Sabrdaya, supposed autbor of Kiri 47 kss. 23~25 mhrdays, man of taste, 45, 62, 83, ratteddbau, 27 1104 12$4 130, 132, 138, rait, 123-25 145, 149, 1534 168, 179, raudra, ran. 94, 119, 132, 138. 181, 235, 239, 248, 256, 270, (-cakravarf ), 24, (-ira ), 67, 169,270

GENERAL INDEX 285

Sainte, Beuve, 261f ślista, 98, 103 śakti, power of wrrd, 52, 104, 107, Ślokavārttika, 196 160, 185-190, 192, 219, 244 śoka, 67, 69f, 142, 155, 160, 170, samadhi, guņa, 16 180, 226, 257 samāhita alamkāra, 122f Sooiet literature, 254 samāsa, 70, 137f Spenser, 184 samāsokti, alamkāra, 39, 41f, 86, 99f, 104, 148, 185, 240 sphota, 18, 35-37, 52, 80, 82 Śrīśankuka, 212 samatā, guņa, 16 śrutarthapatti, 107, 198f, 214, samavāyikāraņa, 187 234 samdehasamkara, alamkāra, 86 śruti, 175, 214, ( -dușța ), 240 samghațana, 70, 137, 144 śrūyamānavarņas, 35-37, 52, 81f samgrabaśloka, 19, 21f, 72 śrgara, 10, 56, 121f, 131, 133- Samketa, com., 158 35, 140, 146, 149, 155, 157, Samksepaślokas, 19, 21, 86, 88, 1714 177, 180, 182, 202f, 126 212, 238, 240, 245f, 254f, samlakşyakramavyangya, 93, 95, 269 108-12, 130 sthayibhava, 33f, 54, 61, 67,123, samlakşyakramarthasaktyudbhava, 7 128, 130, 141f, 155-60, 162, 111 164-66, 170-74, 205, 208, samudrabandha,"5f 215f, 218f, 238 samvāda, 61 Surrealist, 259 Śankarācārya, 83 Surrey, 184 Śańkuka, 157f, 171 sutra, 34, 40, 76, [83, '155, 157, santa. rasa, 127, 148,- 155, 181, 161, 164, 183 253 Suorttatilaka, 140 Saratcandra, 256 svabbāvokti, alamkāra, 9, 45f sasamdeha, alamkara 116 śāstra, 11, 25, 252f ( -kāra ), 22, svalaksana, 90

25 svasabda 231, 239 ( -vācyatā, doșa ), 240 Šastradīpika, 90, 160, 186, 196, svatah sambhavī, 114f 199f Swinburne, 184 satire, 26I Symbol, 258f, 263-65 Satirists, 259, 269 sato'bhivyakti, 203f Symbolism, 260, 271 Symbolists, 143, 259 sattvatt, vrtti, 146 T sattvika, bhava, 34, 123, 156 Shakespeare, 184, 256 Tamas, guņa, 161 Tatparya, 50, 190-92, 217-24, Shellcy, 266 Sitwell, Dame Edith, 259, 264 235, (-sakti ), 108, 190, 192, 214-16, 218f, 224 ( artha ), śleşa, alamkāra, 39f, 54, 96-101, 214-17, 221-23,(-viayārtha), 103, 106f, 152, 196 192

286 THE DHVANI THEORY IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Tattetleta, 29 UttatarImacarita (URC), 167. 238f Tatirapradipit3 220 v Tennyson, 266 Vācaka, fabda, 15, 81. 83, 88. They of Rara and Dheani ( TRD), 148, 205, 215, 231 23, 25, 31 Vacakatva, 52, 187, 191 Tillyard, E. M. W., 73, 79, 87, 1 Vicika, abbinaya, 39 150 Vicya, 45, 52, 60f, 66, 83, 86, Trmd an 20th emtur Drama ( TTD ), 94, 97, 100, 105, 103, 119, 258 126, 1487, 152, 188-90, 1924 Treds of Modtrn Portyy ( TMP ), 197, 201, 2051, 208-10, 215, 261, 263, 268f ( -artha ), 52, 81, 91, 148, Turtystfra 176 185, 188 Vaidarbhi, mirga, 15f

ubhayaiaktyudhhava, dhvant, 112- Vaifsikas, 196, 244

14 Udayana, 186 Vakrokti, (alamkzra) 9, 16 (-school

Udbhata, 5, 10, 12-15, 17, 31, 44f, 48-50, 99,

30-44, 97, 99, 106, 116, Vakrotiiimta ( VJ ), 5. 26, 44-48

121-26, 1287, 1464 ( oks ), Vakyipadiya ( "/KPD ) 26-38, 80

153 Vakytrtha, 119, 1245, 120, 2157,

uidipana, vibhiva, 47, 63, 156, 219

178, 183 Valery, Paul, 259 tdyeta, com. on Afaiathirya, 105, Vzlmtkt, 18, 63. 66-68, 179f (-Kzra ), 255 VImana, 5, 15-17, 40-44, 1301, ayvalat3, 132 135C. 146, 1847 upicara, 88, 133, 191 Varnas, 31, 136

uptdina latşant, 226 Vasto, 12, 14, 16, 34, 641, 72,

upamt, atatkira, 451, 60, 104. 914 100C 108, 110, 112, 116,

113,148 125, 127, 1504 153, 192,194,

upamtaa, 60, 98, 204 205, 209r, 225, 238. 243 ( -dhvani ), 47, 64, 1117, 125,

upzniganks, vrtt!, 146 161-53, 184, 240, 244, 250, 263f, 271, ( -mitra ), 11, 6Cf,

epargi, 34, 510 97, ( -vatmix ), 47, (A-

deyant, alamtira, 122f jans ), 41, 245-46

Uwef Pory ad Uit t Crnm, Vatsala, rast, 140

265.250 Vatsalya, bhiva, 123

ttpartt vid, 1587 VItstyana, 169 Fi2e, 39, 103, 252

coaha, 155.249 Fedsetusttra, 83 i Veglrasiere, 118, 120

GENERAL INDEX 287

vibhava. 54, 62f, 70. 79, 109, vyabhicaribhava, 54, 62f, 94, 109- 126, 138, 141-43, 155-61, 11, 122f, 125, 130, 137, 141, 168, 170-75, 177f, 182f, 205, 143, 155, 157, 162, 170, 174, 208, 212, 215f, 218, 238, 177, 183, 202, 212, 238, 240, 242-44,250 249 Vibbatsa, rasa, 140, 248f vyakti, 204 vidhi, 60, 163, 201f, 223f, 234 Vyaktivioeka, ( VV ), 7, 21, 50-55, Vidyanatha, 49 74, 77f, 102-105, 119, 142, vighnas, of rasa pratiti, 166 203-205, 207, 210f vipralambha śrgara, 57, 132, 138, Vyaktivivekavimarśa, com. (VVV), 66, 181, 226 77, 103, 208-210 Viraraghava, 239 Vyangya (-artha ), 50, 74, 80-83, virarasa, 14, 245, 249 86, 94, 101, 120, 145, 160, virodhabhasa, alamkara, 97 175, 185, 188-90, 193, 195- Visamavānalīla, 29 197, 207, 209f, 215-17, 219, visişte laksaņā, 225, 228 223, (-dharma), 225, (-Kāvya), vismaya, 155, 249 261 Viśvanātha, 6f, 28, 39, 49, 64, 80, 88, 91, 100-102, 107, vyañjaka ( -śabda ), 45, 80, 196f,

113, 150-53, 177, 186, 188, ( -tva ), 36, 51, 82, 89, 187, 191, 194, 196 191, 210-13, 223f, 235, 240, 250f vyañjanā, 18, 32-35, 37, 44, 50f, 53, 55, 80-82, 144, 174f, vivaksita, 108, 194 ( -anyapara" vācya dhvani ), 91-93, 116, 185, 188-201, 203, 208f,

145, ( -vacya dhvani ), 224 213-15, 219f, 223f, 227, 229f, 232, 235f, 255f, 244 Vioriti, com., 10 (-Kara ), 10, 20 vrida, 157 vyāpāra, 81f, 185-89, 229, 232

Vrtti, 13, 19-21, 23-29, 31-33, vyatireka, alamkāra, 60f, 99f

45f, 57, 59, 64, 70, 81f, 87, W

96f, 11]f, 138, 146f, 150, Word, Journal, 264f

170, 186f, 195, 197 .. 212, Wordsworth, 266

242, 245f, 250, 252, 255, Y

(-Kara ), 21, 23-27, 123 Yamaka, alamkara, 121 Vrttivarttika, 35, 106, Yatna, 106

CORRIGENDA

Page Line Incorrect Correet

1 15 at par on a par 5 8

27 at par on a par 7 Nāțyašăstrā NațyaSastra 10 10 srangāra Srngāra 13 19 warrented warranted 35 0 to 15 27 Vāman Vāmana 16 30 Anand's Ananda's 19 26 samgrah- samgraha- 50 1 vakraktı vakroktı 61 8 basie bastc 63 1 Vivhāva Vibhāva 64 13 Abhiava Abhinava 82 8 Śrüyamavarnas Šrūyamānavarnas 103 1 an a par on a par 105 1 Thue Thus 112 30 ubhavaśaktyuď ubhayasaktyud- bhava bhava 113 27 varse verse 119 8 m IS 132 31 my may 149 3 relegated relegate 157 6 anubhavas vyabhicaribhavs thirty three thirtythree 1SS 16 tn stead Instead 160 fn 4 semlara samskāra 104 23 lingitva lingatva 215 2 DaśrUpaka Dafarūpika 224 11 abhıdā lakşanā abhidhā, lakşar" 265 fn 3