351. THE DEFINITION OF POETRY 353

THE DEFINITION OF POETRY 353

काव्यादश I. 10; रष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ा पदावली। काव्यं स्फुटदलक्वारं गुणवद्दोषवर्जि- तम् ।।' अगिपुराय 336. 6-7; 'रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्द: काव्यम्' रसगग्ना (p. 4) ; vide also चन्द्रालोक (I. 7). On the whole Jagannatha's definition is preferable, as it avoids all reference to debatable points and sa. I p. 8 also gives a similar definition in one place viz. 'सहृदयहृदयाह्वादिशब्दार्थमयत्वमेव काव्यलक्षणम्'. These latter defini- tions emphasize one of the aspects of poetry, viz. that, though poetry may employ the words of the current language, it differs from the everyday speech of people in the choice of words, in the diction that it employs which is chosen with an eye to beauty. But these definitions are very defective in one respect. If, as Dandin says, words are the body of poetry, it may be asked (to continue that metaphor) : 'what is the soul of Poetry ?' To this question various answers have been given by several schools.1 The # school of aRa made t the soul of poetry (dramatic), while the school of भानन्दवर्धन (called the safa school) extends the conception underlying the rasa theory and lays down that ajra sense is the soul of

1. Some scholars object to the use of the word 'schools'. Their argument is: all extant writers were aware of ra, Tw, ftfa, MEIT and were not opposed to rasa or guņa or alankāra. But this is not a correct statement of the position. There are four or five elements in high poetry. Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha, Vamana, and others knew all this. But the question is; what is the soul or essence of poetry (applying metaphorically to poetry the image of body, limbs and soul) ? Here it is quite clear that the authors differ as to the soul of Poetry e.g. Vamana says 'rītirātmā kāvyasya', Dhvanikāra says 'kāvyasyātmā dhvaniriti' and vide also his remarks quoted on p. 166 above. The Vakroktijīvitakāra denies the independent existence of ध्वनि or व्यंग्य as the soul of poetry and includes the latter under its all-embracing Vakrokti. In each of these the emphasis is on a different matter. The case is analogous to that of the Vedānta schools of Sankara, Bhāskara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and Vallabha. All these admit the authority of the Upanişads and Vedantasūtra and also admit the existence of Brahma, Jīva and the world but they differ on the relation of these to each other. Therefore, they are treated as different schools. The same holds good as to the different schools of Sanskrit Poetics.