1. Problems of Sanskri Poetics S K De 1

SOME PROBLEMS O F SANSKRIT POETICS

SUSHIL KUMAR DE

and Honorary Fellow Royal Asatse Society

FIRMA K L. MUKHOPADHYAY CALCUTTA 1959

FIRST EDITION OCTOHER 1959 Firma K L Mukhopadhyay Publshers 6/1A Bancharam Akror Lane Caleutta 12

R$ 15 00

Proted by J C Sarkhel at the Calestta Or ental Fress Private Lid 9 Panchanan Ghose Lane Calcutta 9

IN MEMORIAM

Professor HERMANN JACOBT

This roluthe coptains a selection of monographs and arttles of the detungurshed author published in vanous otental jourcals They deal wrth some problem or theory ol Sanskrit Poeties and bave a bearang on the study of Sans- kent Iterature We also reprant here the edio prrceps of Abhrnavagupta's Kavyaloka locana re, as well as of a part of bis Abboava bharat v on Bbarata s Rasa sutra

Calculta 15 October 1959 The Publishers

CONTENTS

The Problem of Poet e Express on 1

Bhamaha s Views on Guna 54

A Note on the Gandi Rit 61

The Akhyay ka and the Katha in Classical

Sanskrıt 65

The Dhvamkara and Anandavardhana 80

'Amandavardhana on Samghatana 91

The Rasarpavalamkara of Prakssavarsa 95

Mammata s Kavya prakaśa 108

Mala tu purvavat 131

The Santa rasa in the Natya Sastra and Dasa mpaka 139

Bhanudatta 144 The Curtain to Ancient Ind an Theatre 148

The Problem of Bharata and Ad Bharata 156

The Theory of Rasa 177 The Text of Kavyaloka locana w 236

THE PROBLEM OF POEIIC EXPRESSION1

One of the fundamental problems of Sanskrit Poetics as indeed of all Poetres is the problem of the content and ex pression of Poetry From the begimming of the disciplme this is recoghised and the parts of language namely the Sabda and Artha word and sense or technically the Vacaka and Vacya the expressor and the expressed had already been distingwshed by grammatical and philosophical speculation as the mednim of linguistte expression The essential element of all literature as of all language therefore is sad to consist of the material of word and sense and the earhest definitions of Poetry naturally start mn terms of Sabda and Artha So long as Puetry is a kind of expression conveyed through the merhum of language ths is mevitable Accordingly Bhamaha defines Poetry as sabdurthau sahitan katyam which is followed by Rudrata s more general state ment sahdarthau Kavyam whie Dandin describes the body of Poetry as ztartha vyavocchina podnvol and Vamara speaks of vinta poda rocana as ats essence Thus the Sabda and Artha umted together and not in themselves constitute Poetry and all later writers more or less accept tls posr ton of the Sattya of unity of Sabda and Artha as the starting point The term Sahntya imphes that Sabds and Artha are inseparable and go together Kuntaka describes thus Satutya as Anyuna anatinktatva or Paraspara spardhā.

I Lectures det vered by mvitat on at the Univers ty of Bombay in 1943 The approach is from the standpoint of modern Aesthetic, and therefore tt is d ferent from that of my Sa sArt Portes which g vet only a deser ptive-historical treatment First pr nted in New Ind an Ant quary ic nos 13-Much of the matter of this mono- graph the top es being overlappng is taken over from the author e Sanskrf Poenes as a Study of destlere whch was devered as tectures at Annamalar Unaversity m December 1935 and printed in the Dacce Un vers tv Studes vol f This last monograph, there- fore is not reprinted in this voltme

2 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS but Kahdasa conveys it more beautifully by his well known companson of Poutry to Ardhanansvara in winch Parvatt Is Vac or Sabda and Paramesvara is Artha That the poets and not only the theorists were aware of this ides is also clear from Maghas decloration that the discerning poct pays equal regard to Sabda and Artha in the well known line Sabdarthan sol Anv na dayan udinh apeksate This concept of the Salntya of Sabda and Arthe from whch lterature itselt came to take the desigaation of Sahitya is not new bul it had a grammatical ongin It meons the general grammatcal and lo icpl relanon between word and sense in all boguistie expression and did not at first connote any special noctte relation between the two We know that like Sanskrit Grammar Sanskrit Poelics started as an empincal and normative disciphmne and since from the very begining Poeties accepted the authoruy of the older scrence of Grammar to which it was closely related the grammabeal speculations on speech in general not only prompied its speculstioes on poche speecb but aisp mitu enced its method and outloot It is no wonder therefore that both Bhamaha and Vamans two of the eartrest formu lators of poute theory devote whole s-chons of their works to the quesuon of erammatical correc'ness and the gram maweal analyss of word and sence came to possess an im portant place in rhetorical speculaton As set forth by the gramtmiarians the Sabdattha or Vicaka Vacya saiibandba was laken to comprehend the consideration of the structurc and variety of the Vacak of the syntache import of a sueces s on of Vacakas mn a Vacya and of the logicality of the eipressed iden in ofher words Pada Vakya and Pramana are comprchended in all expression and conthtuted the ongmnal meaming of Salutya But it as also percerved that even thouch grammaticof correctoess or logical consistentcy charactenses speech in gentral ths is nol enough for poeuc speech What then is Salutya from the standpoint of Pochics" It is true that

THE PRORLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 3

Bhamaha's definstion sabdarthau salytau Lavyam imphes that neither Sabda nor Attha alone is Poetry but both must be umted together In Poetry there is no question of the superionty of the one or the other or of the one being Bahya and the other Abhyantara or as Bhartrhar puts it of the Artha being the Vivarta of Sabda But mere Sabitya of Sabda and Artha is nor Poctry, it is a grammatical fact common to all speech to the utterances of ordinaty life of Sastra of Akhyana as well as of Poetry Il is therefore realised that this Sabitya of Poetry must be of a special kind so that the special charm of poetic speech which distin guishes it from ordinary speech can be properly explamed It cannot be missed that Sabda and Artha in therr umty brng about a special beauty in Poetry which is not found elsewhere Poetry is not merely linguistic expression but beaubful expressioo In other words it came to be recog msed that the Sahitya of Sabda and Arth mn Poetry must bave a Visesa or specmlity Hence Vamans speaks of Vifista pada racana and Kuntaka declares more elcarly that uattam eva sahntyam abhtpretam while Samudrabandha sn summarising the vicws of dilferent schools of Pocties 1s emphatc that iha vrfittar fabdarthan kovjam The question of deciding what tius Visesa is and bow it is reahscd thus becomes the main problem of Poetics Some theorists approach the probl m from the stand point of outward expression and declare the Vitesa to be the Dharma of Sabda and Artha which could be onslysed mto categories of Lakaana Alatkara or Guna Some dive deep er into the content and maintamn that it is the poets pecu dat way the work of turs poetre imagination te Kavt vyapara which is the Visesa whether it takes the form of Ukt Bhanit Hhoga or Vyamjan But it is admitted on all hands that the Sabntya which by uts Viseya makes ord- nary Sabdartha mto poenc Sabdartha is not the sum totat of grammatical and logical relation but indicares a cerlain poctic relation between the iwo It is the magical quality

4 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKKIT POETICS pertaming to words and ideas sprioging from the imagina tive power of the poet which makes ordinary utterance with its Pada Vakya and Pramana into the chorming Uiterance of Poetry The Sahttyo therefore is a certain charmang commensurateness between content and expression and be comcs synonymous wth Poetry Exactly when ond how the term Sahuya came to be employed for Poetry in this technical sense we de not know but the concept is acknowledeed from the very beginning We find however thot it is no longer a grammatical but a poelical concept in Rajasekhara wro mentions Sahiya and Stbitya vidya as Poetry and Poctics although Rajasekhara tn tus atlegorical description does not bring out the theo- r"heal imphcations of the idea Among the theonsts the cred t of divesting Sahitya for the first time of its stirting gram matical asseciations and defimne it clearly as a poetic quality imparted by the imacinauon of the poet belongs to Kuntaka The earber speculsuons on the subjeet are vague and insufhcient but several tentative approaches aprear to have been made One of the earbest was throuch the idea of Savya to which Bana sefers end for which the Agm purara

bon The Sayya is described as the repose of word ard sense in their mutual favourablemess Ike the repose of tho body in bed The idea of Sah tya is also recogmised mn what is called the Maitri ot mutual (tiendship of verbl and ideal elements of Poetry which is apparently a variation of Kahduasa s more perfect conjueal metaphor The theory how ever is not elaborated but only feebly and incoherently voiced here ard there and it is also strange that the Sayya is someuimes taken as a mere verbal cxcellence bot at the same ome it rightly ins sts wpon what is called mpevita tity of words and ides as the foundation of pocte er pttuon The ofder views on Paka mentroned by Vamanz appear to make a similar approach but greater uncertamty and confusion preva! The term Pala mearing I terally

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 5

ripeness or maturity is employed by Vamana with refcrencc to the delightful effect of what he calls Sabda paka or maturtty of words resulting from what he considers to be the best mode of diction namely the Vaidarbhi Km H= describes Sabda paka as that attaming winch the excellence of a word gickens and in wh ch the uoreat appears as real This descriphon would lead one to believe that Vamanas Sabda paka is nothing more than mer- verbal profictency (Sabda vyutpatu) in which sense some later vriters would 1 ke to take the term But Vamana further explams that the Sabda pika occurs when the words are so chosen that they cannot bear an exehange of synonym It is clear that 1hs view makes Paka almost identical in its connotation with Sayya We fiod therefore that some later wniters for mulate Sabda pka as the perfect fitness of word and its sense but in confornuty with the prevading view about the essentality of Rasa they speak rather vaguely of Antha paka or maturity of sedse of vatious kinds brought about by the duferent taste of different sentunents Raja śckhara a naive compilation of carher vicws on the subject is interesting and deserves refetence as illustrating how undecided aesthelic ideas were and how mconstant the use of aesthelc terminology The passage runs thus The Acaryas ask what is Paka? Mangala says it is maturity (Parmama) What again is maturity ? ask the Acaryas Mangala rephes it is the skill in the use of moun and verbs Hence it is verbal excelience (Sausabdya) The Paka is fixedness in the apphcahon of words say the Acaryas It is sasd [by Vammana : 3 15] "The msertron and deletion of words occur so long as there is uncertamty mn the nund when the fixty of words is estabhshed the compos tion is successful So the followers of Vamana say The Paka is the aversion of words to alteration by means of synonyms Therefore il is said [by Vamana loc ef] The specialsts in the propmiety of words bave called that Sabda paka in wh ch the words abandon the capabhty of beirg exchanged (by

THE PROBLEMI OF POETIC EPRESSION 7

dess, the whole discussion furnshes interesting evidente of an esrly tentatrve atlempt to explamn the essental character of poetic cxpression Ts brings as to the first systematc Approach to the problem made by the so-called Alarntara School of Bhamaba. Udbhata and Rudraja from hnich starts the earlest Known formulation of a definite theory of poctc expression Although as a theory of expression the Alahkarika vew was subseqlent- dy dscarded for sts insufficency, lhe concept of Alutkara persusted and is ptihty was icknowledged throughout the history cf Sanskeit Poetics It is, therefore, important to consider and uoderstand clearly the concept of Alatilar in is vanous aspects as the Videsa or spemality of the Sabda And Arthe

SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS mous with the term Alamkara. As a collective designation. nt doubtless denotes the poenc figures as such but it also connotes a devating strikigness of expression which under- lres alt nodividual po-tic figures and forms their distingursh iog characteristic It is thus the fundamental prineiple of tigurative expression, but since Bhamnha regards the figpratve enpression to be the only proper expression of Poetry the Vakroktı becomes the disuingishing charactenishc of poctic expression and the caseotial priciple of Poetry itself Bhamaha does not define Vakrokt whach term hke the term Alamikara was pcrhaps alrcady traditionally established but in speak ing of it in connection with the figure Ausayoku he perhaps imiples in it the lokatkranta gocerare vacah which Fe expressly mentions as a characteristc of Atisayoktr As csplained by Ablunavagupta and developed by Kumtaka tbe qualification perhaps imples a heightened form of expression a certain imagicatne qualdy wlch comtitutes a poetic figure and as such distrnguishes poetie speech from the matter of fact speech of everyday life All postic expression involves some kmnd of expressional devistion which constitates its charm Bhamaha s Vakrokt signifies this expressional deviation proper to Poetry. but since exantibine the whole field of poetic expression Bhamaha fnds the Alamkara or poehc figtre ommipresent in it as a means of realising this deviation tus Vakroku becomes the essential principle of an Alawhara and necessanly of Poetry nself Although Dandn us's the term Vakrokt only once in a significant pssage as a collective des enation of indim dual Alamharas or poeue figures anl thus far agrees with Dhimaha he does not yet apply it to the essential poctic qualty und-dyine an rodindual poene tigure or indinduat Alakam On the other hand he appl es the term Alan kara itself genenically to the attoute apparently of mord and sense which produces beauty in Poetry the Ruvya sobhakars Dharma of Sabda and Artha Even mhoush he does not define the trm Kavys sobha or poctic bouty he aerees withr

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION

Bhamaha that the entire Vanmaya or poetic speech is comt- prelended by Vakrokt or-figuratne expression. with the only exception of the first or primary figure the so called Svabkavokti or natural description The reservation made with regard to Svabhavokti is not found in Bhamaha It cannot be said that, like Kuntaka, Bhamiaba entirely rejects it, he mentions it with the guarded remark i Lecit procaktate In so far as natural description mvolves strilingness of ex- pression, it would be admissible but Bhimaha would not then consider it separately it would be included ut te scope of his Vakrokt as figurative expression 1 Although Dandin would employ the term Alaihkara as the essential poehe attribute of Sabda and Artha and the beautifying principle of poetie expression, he would not mke the individual Alamkaras or poetie hieures as the sole or essental means of the beautifying principle He elaborates a theory of two modes (Murga) or lunds of poctre diction which he calls respectively Vaidarbha and Ganda and finds that the so called exeellences or Gunas (hke swectness or lucidity) form their essence Dandin therefore employs the gencrie term Alamkara meaning poetie embellishment to desrgnate both the excellences or Gunas on the one hand and the specific pocuc fgures on the other commonly known as Alamkaras and admitted as such by Bhamaha The concept of Guna is not new having been mentioned by Bharata but it is considered in a new context, it is, however,

1 Kuntaka rejects the figure Svathavokt on the ground that it consists of mere unadorned description of physical objects But the poetie inturtion of a physical fact even f unadorned being not the same as a matter-of fact tatement or deseription Dandın and otiers rglaly take it mto account We have shown elsewherc (n the article entitled Bhamaha s Views on Guna) that both Bhampaba and Dandir betray an oneasines over the tharacter of the figure Bhavka and do not know whether to classify it as a Guna or Alarhbara They vaguely realise that it invoives an aesthetie fact which concern the sustamed intuition of the poet and find it dffienlt to pack it within their lumited and formal sctieme of Quna and AlamEam

10 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

neither properly defined, nor ats relation to the old concept of Alaikara esacily determined Dandm only tells us that the Guna is an Alnkara belonging to the Vaidarbha Marga exclusively, while the poetic figure is an Alamkara which is common to both the Margas Thus, it appears that the Guna in his opinron, forms the essence or essential con- dition of what he constders to be the best poetie diction, but the so called Alaikara or poetic figure. on which the Alarkara School of Bhamaha laid exclusive stress is nol the special characteristic of any specitic diction, for it may reside in all kinds of diction Every Guna, according 1o Dandin, is an Almkara, but he states nowhere that every specific Alamitra is a Guna Vamoana further develops the rather indconne odcas of Dandin regarding Alamkara and Guna He [ollows Dandin in taking the term Alatkara both in iis denotahon and connotation, but he draws a more ngid line of distinetion berween Guna and Alamdara He states at the outset that Poetry is accepteble on accouot of Alamkara and he is carcful to explamn Chat the term Alamkara should be taken here not in the specifc sense of poetic figute, but in the general sense of poelic beauty He, therefore lays down sententiously that Alaukara is beauty (soundaryam atuikoran) He also explaios that the term Alakara or embellshment is primaruy synonymous with the act of embelkshing but an the secondary instrumental sense at is apphed to that which embellishes or the means of embellshment In all this he is evidently deve- loping Dantn's teaching, and like Dandin, but more clearly. he docs not make the presence of poetre figures ltke simile oud metaphor, an essential condition or requisite, as he does with respect to the presence of Gunas The Cuna is defined as an essential characteristic of Rit, wluch term Vamana employs for Dandin's Marga The Riti being, in his orinion, the essence of Poslsy, the Gamas are those characteristics which create the beauty of poctry, kavya sobhayah Lartaro dharmah a function which is assigned by Dandin to both

THE PROBLEM OF POCTIC EXPRESSION

the Gunas and the so-called Alamkaras or poetic figures The Alamkiras mn his opimon are such means of embellish ment as serve to heighten the beauty thus created by the Gunas tad-otifaya-hetavah The Guna therefore being ibe sine qua mon of poette expression is described as Nitya implying that the Alamkara Is Amtya the Guna is the Dharma of Riti which is the soul (Atman) of Poetry while the Alamkara is apparently the Dharma of Sabda and Artha which constitate its body In other words the Alamkara without the Guna cannot by itself produce the beauty of Poetry which the Guna can do without the Alam kara Although Vamana declares at the outset that the lerm Poetry applies to such word and sense as are beaunted by Guna and Alamkara (kavya sabdo vam gunalamkrtayoh sabdarthayor vartate) yet the Guna which is rigidly differentiated from Alamkara is taken as the essence of poetic expression in his system Although hke Bhamaha nd Danda Vamana acknow ledges the ommipresence and utility of Alamkara as a means of pcetic expression he yet elaborates after Dandm a theory of Ritr Guna to explain the Visesa of. Sabdarths sabitya He defines Rit as Višisca pada racana or particular arrangement of words and explams the Visesa or particulanty of arrangement as consisting of the Guna renlsed in varying degrees in varous kinds of Rit Whether the idea of Riti ltke that of Pravrili of Bharata was evolved from geographr cal association and named Vaidarbh: Gaudf and Pancalı accordingly but was afterwards standardised with reference to the subject it is clear that in Vamanas system it 1s synonymous with the hterary mode displayed in various distingurshable types of poate diction real sed by the unification of certam well defined etcellences such as sweer ness and lucidity which are called Gunas The Alamkaras on the other hand hke simile and metaphor are no doubt means of poete expression but they are merely striking turns of word and sense which have a subrid ary valtte

12 SOMS PROBLEMS OF SANSKEIT POETICS

From this brief teview of the growth of the fundamental concepts of Alamkara and Guna-Riti, it is clear that both the AlaaLara and Rit Schools start with Sabda and Artha. word and sense and find ther Sahiya lo consist of the poette Vitesa of Alaiikara and Guna Riti respectively as the essential Dhatma of Sabda and Attha While thesc early theonies nghtty call attention to a certain extraordmary quality in the relation of word and sense in poctic expression which distinguishes it from ordiary etpression their snadequacy from the aesthetic point of view is evident Their acute analysis of outward form and technique, with which they mainly concern themselves, is admuirable, but they forget thst the explanption of mere verbal and ideatonal arrangement is not sufficient for explaming the fact of pochc expression Mere enumeration of categories of rhetorial embellishment or of so-called literary etcellences do not adequately explain as to why they embetuish or why they are excellent. As the Dhyam theonsts rightly crbcise these earher vitws do not correlate outward poete expression to the inner coutent of poetry. nor do they as Kuntaka rightly pomts out, contelate poetsc expression to the sodridualty of the poet to the Kav- svabhava It is true that the Alathkara School employs the termt Alankara to coonote the fundamental characteniste or ptincple of the beauty of petc expression but mn actual theory and practice it is apphied to the objective beauty of poetic form realisod by certain decorative devices Lnown as poetic figures The poetic expresston, mn this view is chiely figurative or rhetorical exprestion Even iE Bhameha speaks of Vakrokti as an essential prmciple of poctic etpress- ion he does not define it mor does he claborate the idea in all its mpucauon, while his successors Udbbata apd Rudrata Dever menbon the term nor diteuss the principle The attempts of these exponents of the Abnkara School are hmited to a systematre classification of poetie expression mto fixed rbetorical categones and from this formal treatment therr

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 13

works have the gederal appearance of technical manuals comprising a collection of defimtrons, illustrations and empincal canons elaborated for the benefit of the aspiring poet Poetry is regarded, more or less, as a mechanical series of verbal devices. mn which a desuable sense must prevail, and which must be diversifed by means of certam tncks of phrasing which coosist of the so called poeuc figures and to which the name Alaikara is restricted These theorists appruach the fact of expression or embellishment os a posi- tive or accomphshed fact, just in the came way as a scientist approaches a physical fact, to be ntethodically collected in theur greatest possible vancty anslyse3 with acute scholastre acumen, and grouped io fixed classes and types In other words, they devote their effort chiefly to the working of the rutes and means formulas and categories of external production into an eract system and this practical or pedagogic oubook must have received a great rapetus from the lighly developed analytic enquiry into the forms of language made by the normative grammauans Like the grammanan and the scientist, who label and classify ever new series of facts the Sanskrit Alaitikarka pretending to find universals calculates the particular species of expreasion from the origmal four orna- ments of Bharata to one bundred and twenty five of Appayya Diksita, but considering the mnexhaustibilty of individuat poetic expressions they may be easily renewed to an infimte number while the universals of a formal analysis are of donbtfu) theoreure valve fur explamning the principle of con- crete mdrvidual expression itself The aesthetic insufficieney of rhetorical categories was however very speerhly percened but the theorics which were advanced against mere rhetone did not estirely seject it On the contrary, a reserve was made regarding ils utinty and ifs principles were catefully preserved When Vamana declared the essence of poetic expression to be the Ritt by which he meant nothing but a specific arrangement of words character. ised by the so-called "qualites" or Ganss be dd not

14 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

advance the speeulauion much forther nor did his predecessor Dandmn to whom Poetty was nothing more than a series ol words determined by a desired sense Beth aeree that the words should have a Vyavacchinna Visista or parhcular arraneement but this Vifesa cons sts not enly of a specral disposition (Ritd) but also of ornamentation (Alamkara) Dandin gives indeed an etiended interptetatron of the term ornament applying il to amyihine wich lends "beauty (Sobha) to poctry and mcluding in its scope the figuratie devices as well as modes or grades of arrangement of word and tense Vaman substanpally agrees with this view when he d'fines ornament as beanty itself but with regard to the means of realsing this beauty he draws a sharp distincton betwen pashculantes of arrangement and the mere figures of poctic speech as essential and accidental means respectively It must however be made clear that the term beauty Sobha or Saundara which is taken as the test of poeue et pression is not clearly defined There is no exposition of its character even it its means are described and deta led Bur it appears to have no other far fetched meaning than that of the togical external effeet realised by a carefully worked out adjusiment of word and sense which avonts damagibe flaws by adopting prrmanly the so-called literary qual ties and secondarily the rhetorical figures for heichteming the effect thus produced Whatever attempt later theonsis like Kuntaka m ght have made to place the concept on a betler aesthetic footing or in whatever sense larer writers m ght have employed it, there cau be no doubt that the term Rit in Dandin and Vamana sign hed nothing more nor less than a specific artangement of word and sense a mere combinat on in vary ing degrees essenually of clearly defined quahtes tike perspeu ty or smooihness and ine dentilly of equilly clearty defined rhetorical figures like s mdl ow metaphor It has no reference to the organ e expressive activity of the poetic intuy tion whch Kuntaka calls Kavi vyapara nor is it made equ valent in this sehsc to the Western concept of 'style as

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION

the expression of poetie individualty The Ritt as uoder- stood by these early theorists is capable of techmcal fornnila- tion, and as such the so catled htrary qualitres of 'simplicity 'vivacity* and so forth become only generic or specific cate gories for 'abelling particular aspects of the aesthetie acttvity, they do not explain the true character of the activity itself The so-called Riti and its copstituent Iterary qualities properly designate the different degrees in the development free or less Tree of the expressive activity and are thus aspects of successful Or less successful expression When completely successful we have the expression itself The so cailed Dogas or flaws designate embarrassed activity endmg m failure and are thus aspects of unsuccessfal expression From the aesthetic pomtt of view this success or failure of expression may also be tenmned beauty or ughness But the beautrful as the perfect expresston docs not possess degrees if ugliness does complete ugliness as complete negation aftogether ceases to be ugly For it loses its contradiction and is no longer an aesthelc fact The consideration of expression itself therefore is important rather than a scholastic defimition and classification of its different degrees of success or failure of freedom or bondage The distrnction again which the Riti theortsts draw bet- ween Guna and Alar ikara lacks a proper aesthetie foundation They find that both impart beauty to poetry that is both are parts or means of perfect expression Some hke Dandin said that there was littte difference between the two as means of producing benuty the one bemg a generie and the ofher a speeific term some sai that they differed but slightly the Guna being the Dharma of the collocatton of word and sense as a whole and Alamkara of Sabda and Artha The wew was also proposed that the Guna was Sobha hetu and Nitya while the Almakara was useful for extra beauty Sobhatrsayahetu and Anttya All these tbeorists realised onty this that both Guna and Alamkara imiparted beauty but they did not understand the yital guestion as to what in Poetry did tbey impart beauty They failed to perceive that Guna and Alamkara in what-

16 SONE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS ever scose they are used are only relative terms and that they imply a Gunm and Alskarso Vamana, no doubt. sturabled upon something more than Guna and Alamikara. upom whet he calls Rih, but Anandevardhana nghily points ott, the Riti theorists thereby only dimly perceived the reat nature of the essence of Poetry which cannot be the mere objective beauty realised by Rit-Gura and Alukim The dshnction agun, betweep literary qualtits and rhetorcal ornaments as essentml and non essennl may be of some use in logical or normative onalysis but not in acsthtne realisoon, for, given a particuler expression the qualitres are as much integrol parts of it as figures of speech The espression should be taten not as a mechamc hut as an organc whole in relation to the poctic intition As cach individual ex- pression automatically selects its own anpronnate qualitres and orpaments y cannot be definstely lasd down that a particular expresson sbould possess this and should not possess that If expression is expression, it is successful, there cannot be any question of intermediate degrees of suecess mn aesthenc eshimate Kuntaka therciore nightly eohcmes that there ean be no clossification of Rih mto good bad or indifferent types Nor can qualities or omaments be categorically attached, sincc such expression is not a fixed and generie but a var- able and indrvidual fact Kuntaka therefore nghtly says that the concepts of Rit Guna and Alamkam can only be jusufied if they are related to the Kav Karman or Kavi svabhava, to the imagtation or iodividualty of particular poets The poctic cxpression is capable of infimte diversity in accordance with the intinite diversdly of poctic individuahty Dardin wisely dechares that speech is diversfied in its mulu+ farous mode of expression and adonts the impossibility of tabelling and classifying all modes of pocuc expression with fixed and uoalterable characteristics, but maintamning that the sub vaneties re incalculible he distingmshes two broad or exheme types, namely, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi Whie his suc- cessor Vamara proposes three types adding Pancah as inter-

THE FROBLEM OF POLTIC EXPRESSION 17

mediate. and recommending the Vaidarbhi as contaiing all the literary qualities. subsequent witers add Lat. Avantika, Magadhi and so forth But the attempt to exhaust and s ereotype the entre poetical cutput within the clear- eut bounds of ready made modes and fixed qualities on the basis of more or less formal analyys like the simlar attempt of the Alamkara School to classify and label the entire poetic expression mto fixed rhetoncal categorres, is sure to prove unconvincing as the theoretic basis of poetc erpresston Neither Dandin's nor Vamant's differentanon of mdividnal Ritis and Gunas, therefore is found as the criticism of Mam- mata and others shows exhaustive and consistent These vanehies of Riti, with their constituent Gunas, are really in- stances of complete and icomplete expression erected into definne universal types, probably (as the names imply) on the basis of emtpirical observation of localsed usages But, as Kuntaka shows the Riti cannot be a Desa dhatma as localsed usage nor a Vastu dhatma as an mherent attribute of word and sense bot a Dharma of Kavi svabhava or the character of the poet, depending upon the nature of lus poetio inturtion, upon lns Sakti (poetic power) Vyutpatt (culture) and Abhyasa [prachce) In this sense the Rit becomes Synonymous with the maoner of individual poets and mot with prescribed or wnuersalised modes or grades, and all aspects of expression can be comprehended in it But since the manner of expression vaties with variows pocts tt is of infinte kind It can be classihed under broad types but the defimtion and classification are suscephible to infimte but unprofitale, multiplication

1I From what we have said it is clear that by drawing attention for the first time to the aspeets of postie actwvity indicnted by the 'quatities' or Gunas the Ritr theorists may be regorded as having gone a step further than the mere 2

18 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Alularitas but the specuiation in is halting formalsm touches only the fomre of the aesthetic problem By their very attempt at systematisstion the Alamkankas recogmised the exlstence of certain facts of poetie expression namely. its so-called embetlishment ar extraordmnuriness as uesthetic facts. the Rit theorists went further and believed that these facts are reducible to a definite priciple, but both of them failed to realse that this principle is not an external category but a category of the spint It should have been clearly under- stood that every single expressive fact stands by itself as the result of a parhcular poehc minrhon under a particular shmu- lus Such facts may be grouped genercally by the mductivo process but the continuous varration of individoal poetic expression results in an ireducible variety of expressive facts Each poet has bis own mode of expresston characteris- tie of his particular fntuition in a porticular case, and with sach dulerentanon the classifcation of 'modes', lke the classification of ornaments', would be endless without reach- ing any definue theoretic principle of expression The Dhvam theorsts who came into prominence io the next stage consequently declared that the true character of Poctry was imperleetly understood by those who took eognisance only of word and sense (Dhamaleke ) 7), but, cunously enough then ownt theory finds is origin in the convenlional manner in the analysts of laneuage ond its mtaning The tofuence of the grammatico logical concept of the Sahitya of Sabda end Artha was still acknowledged and the nen theory of Dhvami was started on the analogy of the older theory of Sphota Abandavardbana speaks of his oun system as being founded on the authonty of the gremmarians to whom be pays an elegant tribute as the first and fotetnost theorists prathame vidyamsah From grammanans and logiciaps, the Dhyam theorists acknowtedged the functions of Denotation (Ablidha) and Indicaton (Laksama) of words the lotmer giviag as the isteral sease. and the latter on the incompstibihty of the huteral sense a

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 19

further secondary but allied sense But this was not all They went further than the grammarians and logicians by contending that this did not exhaust the enbre sigmificance ot Poctry They pushed the analysis to the positing of another function of word and sense another characteristic of poetie expression namely Suggestion (Vyamjana) which gives a deeper serse never direetly expressed but depending upon the poet s particular purpose i0 employing the word it its obviously denoted or indicated sense This purpose or Prayojana being always unexpressed can be arrived at only by the process of suggestion but it constitutes the essential charm or pecphanty of poetie expression Here for the first time the poet s pucpose is brought into the consideraton of the product of the poet s mind and an unexpressed sense (Dhvani) is acknowledged beyond what is d rectly expressed but we shall see presently the analysis is still empiricat and concerns itself w th the form rather than with the essence The Dhvam Sehool in ats analysis of the essentmals of Poctry found that the content of a good poem may be generally tstiguisheo mio two parts The one is tbat which Sabda and its denoted or indicated Artha give us that which is expressed in so many words whether direetly expl cit or metaphorically implicit the other is not expressed but suggested spring ng from what is thus expressed or indicated The unexpressed or suggested part is not something vague but it is distinctly I nked up with the expressed it is manr fested by a pecuhar power of suggestion called Vyanjana tuherent in word and sense and is set forth as a fact of aesthetic experrence and distinguished from the concept of mere Vacya or denoted sense of poetry To the grammarians and learned writers it perhaps seemed paradoxical to state that the very essence of Poetry was that which was not even expressed On the other band some form of symbohcal spcech in which wisdom demands that one shonld expcess oneself more in hiats and suggestions than in actual words was always in vogue and the poets had been more or less

20 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

parhal to the method of speaking in melaphor or wrapping up then ideas in transparent symbol or allegory But suggestive poetry, according to the new theorists, is something more than the merely metaphorical or figurative on which the Alam.era and the Rau Schools placed so much emphasis The metaphorical or allegone however veiled, is still in a sense expressed and must be taken as such, but the suggested in Poctry is always unexpressed and is, therelore, a source of proper charm or strikingness by its very capaciy of con- cealment. which. bowever, is not conccalment in the sense in which an ergma is The Dhvani School thus postolates that the unexpressed or meapressible is the very 'soul' or essence of all good Poetry ; it is called into being by a particufar function of suggestion ioherent in word and sense, while such means of expression as the Gunas and Alamkaras of earlier schools are mere means or attributes which recerve thert justification for employment as such from tus mocr content of poetry The inper content of Poetry is undoubtedly a fact of aesthetic experience, berng the poctic intustion itself, but to distingish of bifurcate the content and expression as tno separate, though totimately coonected entities. 15 format analysis and not aesthetc expenence The new theorists. no đoubt clearly perceive that the consideration of the ornamental fithing out of words or of the hteraty qualties of Stfucture are not enough to solve the problem of poetic expression They clearly demonstrate that the so called ornaments or qualities bave no absolute value but depend upon the character of the partcolar titterance In recogmsmg all this they sailed very closely along the coast hut they hardly sutceeded in making an eflective landing The theory rendered great service by rightly emphasising that the literal sense alone was not sufficient but that it sbould fead to the deeper poetic purpose embodied in the auggested sense of Poctry Bot the abalysis still copcerned itself with the intellechve rather than the injuitive aspeet of poetic ex-

THE PROBLEM OF POSTIC EXPRESSION 21

pression, with the understanding of its ideas only as empirical facts The unexpressed in this case has no referece to the individual poetid inturtion, but is unzversalised as a mode of thought, and being bound up by definste hinks with fixtd and mechapical symbols of the expressed, it becomes as much a fxed and mechancal symbol as any rhetorical or qualnta- tive category It is no wonder, therefore, that the attempt resolved itself into the same empircal and normative metbod of elaborately distinguishing and classifying hundreds of varieties of the unexpressed , and even when the unexpressed was generically grouped into an unexpressed matter, an uocx- pressed ornament or an unexpressed sentiment, corresponding to the old mecbanical grouping of descriptive, ornamental or sentimental composition, the speculation only labelled and pigeon holed certain generie or specifie aspeets of the poctic fuection without exhausting or explaining the fuoction It is not cnough to say that the unexpressed is the essence of Poetry or analyse into groups the varieties of unexpressed mcaning, for Foctry in reality is exptession, which contains in itself what is obviously expressed, as well as what is implcitly suggested In acsthettc exprience, as opposed to the merely logical analysis, it is impossible to separate the unespressed and the expressed, for both of them together make up the being of pocte expression The poct's "purposc" whtch embodies the unexpressed, is undoubtedly important, but it is not meant by these thcorists to be co-extensve with poetic istuitvity, which is rich in unted images rather than in disintegrated thought or meaning 10 its power of intuitive expression rather than i presenhing this or that con- cept or idee The expression is the actabty of the intrtion. the so-called expressed and unexpressed forming ats mndis- soluble consutuents uodistinguishable in the organic whole It is true that Sanskrit theory secogmses that in order to be poetical, Janguage should be geucrically semantic, but it for- gets that the language of Poetry must be talen as the language of poetic iatuition and not of fogical mntelligence, as an

22 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

aesthettc and not an intellective fact The scholastic bipartt hion between the unexpressed and the expressed therefore, is uscful in grammatico logical analysis, but it bardly hetps us in understanding the signiucance of Poetry The whole constitutes Poetry and oot a part. it avads ua httle in externally analysing what in its internal unity canoot be analysed . there is no exteriority and interionity in poetic expression which is one and idivisible The atttude finds a parallel in one of the disastrous errors of modern phitosophy, namely, the Cartesian mistake of regarding body and mind as separate substances from which all the insuficiencies and perplexities of the ' mind body problem' flow and render clear thinking of the subject difficult The poets purpose' in poetty agai is unnecessanly and natrowly acgregated from the word and its meaning when the poetic purpose in its true sense is the word and the meaning themselves io their unsty This as the real meamng of the Sabitya of Sabda ond Artba an poshe expression It should be admitted that by the unexptessed is pre emmemtly itended the pochcal and pot the logieal or ethical meamng but the peetie iotuition knows of no dualsm between word and tts meantng between atself and its exprestion for the content bere is form and form is content In attempling to combat the science of word and sense the new theory appears to have preserved the same tradition jo a fresh garb mnasmuch as it starts with the same pre-occupation with word and sense with the same pre supposition that a word of its sense 13 a nstural mechanteal fact or symbol which cao in the manner of a scientific fact be grouped in class s types or categories The Dhvam theorists however did an important servico by direeting attention to an aspect of Poetry which had so far been impetfectly understood or entirely ignored in Sanskrit poetic theory Hitherto speculation bad been busy with the consideration of poetical ofnament or strueture, and it was thougbt enough of by these means certain definite ideas were expressed in a debinite manner But it was realised

24 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

impression (Vasana), being derived from actual experience of lite or from iberited instinets On reading a poem which describes o simdlar emotien, this latent emotion is suggested by the depicted factors, which, being generahsed or imper- sonalised. cease to be called ordmary causes but become cxtraordinary causes in Poetry The ordmnary causes, there- fore, being generalised or impersonalsed by the suggestive power of word and sense, do not reler to particularities. Rima or Sita is no longer Rama or Stta as an individual lover or his beloved, but is presented as the lover or his beloved in general In tbe same way, the emotion suggested, whnch is the souree of the relish ts atso generatised, the love of Rama or Sita being presented as love in general, and in this generalised form it is possibte for the reader to relish the emotion, even though it is not his own inasmuch as the impression is al- ready latent in his mind The emotion (Bhava) is generalt- sed and rclished as a sentiment (Rasa) also in the sense that st tefers not to any particulat reader but to readers in general The patticolar iodunduat whde relisting it as a reader, does not thmk that it is his own per- sonal emotion, and yef it is relished as such nor does he thiol that at can be relished by him alone but by all persons of sumlar senssbility It is also not the personal emotion of the poet, for it is divested of all personal interest and presented in an impersonalised form The natural emotion. whether of the poet or of the hero, becomes a poetic senti- ment, and the natural causes become poctic causes The relish partakes, no doubt, of the nature of cogmition, It 1s nevertheless different from the ordinary forms of the process inastuch as it involves sn imaginative or poetic process of ideahsahon, wlich has the power of strrting the latent emotional impressions of the reader's mind into a rclisbable condition of enjoyment The resulting retish, therefore cannot be identified with the constituent factors. for at the time of relish the factors are not experienced sepa- rately, but the whole appears as Rasa, which is thus stmple

26 SOVE FROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT LOLTICS

it is very sumlar to but not the same as, the state of true eolghtenment which comes only to the knower who, no longer on the empincal plane. transcends completely and permacently the sphere of pleature and pain As such, this state of desthetic delectation is not capable of proof because its cogoilion is iaseparable from its exstence, or, in other words it is identical with the experience of itsell The only proof of sts existenee is sts relish itself by the man of nesthette sensibility. the Rasika or Sabrdaya, the ideal connosseur of Poetry, to whom Alone it is vouchsated The reader must reproduce in himself what the poet bas produced It is clear that the theory demands the existence of the aesthetie iotumion, or capacity of emjoyment of what it calls poetie bliss , and the presupposttion of latent ippressions is only an aspect of this demand Those who do hot possess this mtuitoo can never rehsh this spirnual sime There rs plenty of people in this world who do not appreciate Poetry. and the rhcorists sre merciless in their satire on dull gram mariaos and mere dialecticians, who are incapable of attain- ing the aesthetie attilude It is the Rasia or Sabrdaya alone, who by his own mtution can identfy bimself with the mtuilion of poetie creatton (tanmayibhavana yogyata) and thereby obtam its true relish (Rasa) It tust be uodecstood that although the word rehsh' or "taste' rendets the word Rasa literally. it does not imply, apart from the reader's reproduction of the poet s production nny conscious ethical valuation good or bad taste It immphies ad experience similor to what we understand when we speak of relishing or tasting food but this realisuc descriptron must not at the same time drag it down to the level of natural pleasure because by its aloofness and sereoity it is Itfted into a personal impersonat blissfut state of miad The word Shmmung' used by Jacobi may give us the nearest approacb but the Rasa is not a mere highly pitched natural feeling or mood but indicates pute intuton which is distinet from an erpirical feeling

THE PROBLEM OF I OETIC EXPRESSION +7

It is clear that however bhssful the aestheuc enjoyment as conceived by these theorists may be it must be distin guished from the enjoyment of natural feelings and the theory does not fall into the mistake of aesthetic hedomst whtch sees no difference between the pleasure of Poetry and that of casy digestion No doubt the conventional classih cation of generic and sprcife fechngs is accepted bur they are given as constituting the materal or stimulus of Poetry They may form the sbstratum (Sthayt bbava) or concomt nant (Vyabhican bhava) of the poetie senhment (Rasa) but they are not identical with it Just as in the unity of spirit one canpot talk of cause and eflect so in the unity of Rasa the separate natural feelings say of love grief or horror wlch may form its constituents are pever experrenced but the whole appears as a single and indivisible aesthetic sentt ment of bliss from which every trace of the constluent empirical pleasure or pai is obliterated In other words love grief or horror is no longer experienced as love guef or horror in their distarbing poignancy but as pure aesthetie sentiment of blissful relish evoked by the ideal sed poette creation This fact is borne out by the common experience that after keenly feeling grief in a play on the stage the spectator tays [ bave enjoyed it He may shed tears but Visvanatho explains clearly that tears constitute no proof that pain is felt for the tears that are shed by the spectator are not those of pa n buf those of sentiment which causes a melting of the mind as a result of the nature of the partr cular aesthet e enjoyment Hence in a devotee as fagannatha obsetves tears arise on the contemplation of the de ty when the rel gious feeling is raised to a serene state of sinular enjoy ment The intu tive bliss ar sing from idealised poetic creations should therefore be distioguished from the ex petience of natural feelings and from all ratural experiences of life as something A lauk ka as something impersonal disinterested or supernormal K fallawt that the quest on of the so called qualtees

SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

and ornaments Gun's And Alamlaras which loomeo so larg" in previous theores must be revised from ths standpoint. The previous sp-culation recognised that both Gona and Alamkara imparted beauty to Poetry but sinc they wemt no decper than Sabda and Anha ex pressed word and sens they could nor arswer the vital question as to what in poetry they imparted beauty The sablty arose from theu not realsieg that Guna and Alamkara are relatne terms and that they must be related to a Gonin and Alambarya The analosy is fmaintained that Poetry hke a man has tao separable constituents body and soul The Vacya vacaka the form of poetry the expressed word and sesse however important, constiutes its body or Sanra Of som> soul Atman in Poetry Vamana had a dim idea for be stumbled upoo something more than Guna and Alamlara upon what be calls Ritr Bet the Dhvani theorsts point out that the Riu is still regarded as Vacya vacala carutsa hetn or means of exteroal embellishment of word and sense and the ess nee of Rit beins occording to Vamana a certain normatively standardis d collocation of the Gunes it becomes a redundant concept Some ideo of Rasa was stil] there from the tune of Bharats but Bhamaha and Dandin would regard it an aspect of Alamkarz Vamana as that of Guns the ferm of Poetry being alone conndered important Dot the Dhyans theor sts found that bebrod the Vacya vacaka the Sarira of Poetry the most important thing is the Sarrio bebied what is d rectly or figurslively express d by word and sense the most essential thing in Poetry is what is unexpressed but distinetly sugeested This in their opinion is pot Anez or Sarira body but the Anein Sarne Atman or soul of Poetry What is suopested as Ahgin may take the form of a matter (Vastu) or that of a poctc figure (Alamlara but in most cases it is a s ouiment (Rasa) which becomes the most important suggested Atoin This being clearly tormulated that Po try must bave an Atgmn a Qunm and Alamlarya in order to bave Cuna and

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 29

Alamkara, the problem of differentiatios of Guna and Alankara came, as a matter of course, to be solved So long as the sanra or outward form of Poetry alone is accepted and everything recogmsed as its beautifying element, there can be no tangible diffcrence between Guna and Alomkara as frmtful concepts V, on the other haod. the poetie sentiment myolved in the composition is accepfed as the Atman or essence, distinct from the Sanrmn, there cap be this differentiation that the Gunas lke the qualties of a mans soul, pertam 10 the Angin named Rasa, and the Alamkaras like ornaments on a man's body, to the Anga called Vacyn-vacaka Both the Guna and Alamkara are, thus interprefed in a new senst, and justified by boing brought in effechve relation with the underlying sentiment in a composition The mere verbal or structural form of a work cannot, except by way of analogy. be said to possess the qualities, say, of sweetness or energy. unless we mean by it that the underlying sentiment is swect and vigorous The Gunas, as they make up the verbal form. are aspects or attributes, the real cause is Rasa, even as the soul of a man and not huis body, is the true cause of vittues like heroism Pressing the analogy further, it is held that the Alamkaras or poetic figores adorn words and meanings which constitote the body of Poetry, although through word and sense they may embellish the underlying soul of sentiment indirectly, but not invanably Wherc there is no Rasa, they resutt i0 mere chartmingness of expression It is clear that these considerations simphfy the classiication and useless multipleation of Gunas and Alamkaras, and the Ritis, heig a combination of specific Gunas, is no longer Decessary as a separate concept Although secondardly the Gunas concern Sabda and Artha ust as Alamkaras primarily concern them). the Gunas, and not Alamkaras, are taken primarily as the Dharmas or attribotes of Rasa Words and ideas, for anstance. winch havc the power of suggesting the quality of sweetness (Madhurya) of pasteulat Rasas, are not by themnselves sweet, but in relation to the Rasa we call them swveet, The meatal

30 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS activity invalved in the enjoyment of Rasa is the sole criterion of a particular Guna; and in this sense onty three Guntas are justified. The Madhurya or sweetpess is supposed to consist of a melting (Druti) of the mind, appropriate to the erotie and patbetic sentiments; the Ojas or energy is a form of brilliant expansion (Vistara) of, the mind. suitable to the sentiments of herpism, borror and fury; while the Prasada or perspicuity. proper to all sentiments, is an aspect of pervasion of the mind (Vyaptil, necessary for quick apprehcosion. The Ounas, as attributes of Rasos, are thus Citta-vpttis; and the three conditions of the mind, namely. meiting, expanding and pervading. which accompany the relevant poetic sentiment. are made the basis of only three pertinent Gunas. The Dhvani thegrists undoubtedly mark an advance in explaining that the so-called Gunas or qualities of composition are not mere tricls of sound and sense but should be con- sidered in vital relation to the underlying postic seotiment. The consideration of strnctare as such, therefore, is not necessary, and the distinction betncen qualties of sound aod sense is, from this standpoiot, meamogless. The activity of the spint involved in aesthetic enjoyment can alone justily them. In all this the Dhvani-theorists show themselyes cooversant with the true pature of poetic expression. Dut since poetic expression knows of co duahsm between word and sense, just as there is bo real dualism between body and soul, it is measingless, from the acsthetic pomt of vicw, to draw an absolute distinction betwcen the so called quality and ornament. The poetic iatuitioa aotomatically chooses its cxpression, which is oaly the exterpalsation of the spirituat activity, and a hich is, therefore, not a mechameally fixed fact but a part and parcel of that achvity. The differentiation of the vanions means of externausatipe as qualities or ornaments may bave an oscful or pracheat value, and a doctrine of technique may be evolved, but since poetic espression is a variable and idividual faet with individual poets, no fixed taws of means and ends can be laid down for universal appl ;-

THE PROBLEM OF POFTIC EXPRESSION 3I

cation If we say that a poet has a new techmque, we really mean to imply that the new technique is the poem itseil A vital poetic mtuition cannot have a prescribed techmque of expression, for the suple reason that st is an sotuton of which the expression is the actuabty , it is not a voltional effort about which alone we speak of means and ends, not is it an intellectual concept which can be logically or universally formulated As the poene intuition chffers in each poet, acc- ording to his psychie orgatism and the nature of the strmul acting upon it, there is boupd to be endtess kinds of express ton which are indsvidual and concrete, which have their own standarda, spheres and means in each case and which cannot repeat themselves It does not, for rostance, help us to up derstand Kaldasa's poetry by merely understonding that tt fulfils the preseribed reqmiremeots of 'qualties' oc "ornantents' or even of arrangements of words with a view to suggest this or that sense, for his poetry is not what it is by its mere conformily to these formal reqturemente The technique of the poet is luis poetic concephon itself, it may express itself tn an orhate or simple manner, sweetty or harshty, expressively or suggestively, as is suitable to itself It may be a failure or a suceess, but there can be, theorctically spcaking. no ques- ton of standardised means. of good, bad or mndiferent tech- mque what is appropriate to itself is its own rechmqne Even the ordmary man never beleves in the manufacturing of ready made poetry No technique can be unrversalised and the enumeration of technical means can never be exhausted by formal treatment It may serve the practicat purpose of supplying information about means, materials or grouns of strmul, or even the logical purpose of exposttion but it possesses no theotetic value for the understanding of the nature of poetic creation The Dhvam theorists were nor unaware of all this, although following ofdes rhetorical convention they did not bring out all ots aesthetse implcations Abandavardhano himself deciares thaat the ways of poetie expression are infinte (anana ln ve

32 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

wkalpal) but he does not fully realise that sioce there is no end of po-tie iodividuations it is futile to distinguish or ela borate rhetorical and qualtative categories Hle is however. nght when he says that only the broad rule can be laid down that whether they are qualities or ornaments they must follow the import of the poetic iptuition wh ch in his theory is the aesthetic sentiment of Rasa iotended by the poct and if it is necessary to aceept the older conventonal categories of rhetorical figures and literary qualities the ooly rule that should govern their employment is thei approprateness to the particular Rasa Anandavardhans therefore Jays down yery cleatly that there is no other circumstance which leads to the violation of the Rasa than inappropriateness and that the supreme secret of Rasa consists in obscrving the rules of appropriateness For each poetie intuition there exisis its appropriate expression and the theory of Propriety or Aucitya alone sbould explain and jushfy it Ths in general outhne is the theory of Dhvani and Rasa finally reached by Sanskrt Po ties The chief valt- of its contribution lies in its recogoition already foreshadowed by Bhatta Nayaka of the poetic sentment as a fact of internal aesthctic experrence and of its process of tdeatisation from a natural feeling (Dhava) to a poetre emotion (Rasa) In this the theorists undoubtedly approach the very core of the aesthetic problem and solve the question of Sabdartha sahitya in a novel way But unfortunately the starting limutations still remain and prevent a proper development of mere rheto- ne into aesthetic Decause of these bimitations it cannot be maintained that they have said the last word on the subject or said it clearly and consistently, but they have certamly dealt with some of its fundamental aspects very ably A right exposition is given indeed of the zestbetic emoyment resultigg from the rdealsed creation of Poetry and incidentally of the general natute of poetic idealisation but the question is still spproached from the standpoint of the reader or critc the Samauka or Sahrdaya and the problem of poetic intuiton

34 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETTCS seties of verbal rules and modes to govern infinite cases of particular and variable poetic expression : for each creative fact is an individual occurrence which must be judged by itself. The process of idealisation is also not fully and properly explained; it becomes a kind of abstract enjoyment of abstract symbols by ignoring the concreteness of poetie intuition and creation. The ideslisation is not mere generalisation : even when be has an intuitive lmage of it. the poet nevet teaves the concretc. His Rama or Sita, however idcalised, is not a mere abstraction, and the poetic sestiment, however serene, is never divested of its warmth, colour and vivid reality. Agaio, the theory maintains that feclings slone can be raised to the state of acsthetic relish by the idcalsing capacity of poctry ; but there is no adequate rcason why the poetie intui- tion of a descriptive matter, or even of a mere ornamental idea, cannot become an aestherie fact ot Rasa. Just as the experience of fceling as feeling is not aesthetie intaition, so is also not the perception of matter or idca as such ; they are oty cases of the practical or logical forms of mental activity. But as soon as mere matter or idea, tike mere feeling, becomes a part of the poctic intuition, it becomes a form of its spiri- tuat activity, an aesthetic fact, capable of being equally well telished. It is not enough to say that a matter oc ornament may be suggested : it is necessary to recognise that matter or idea can in poctic creation stand on the same footing as the feching, on which alone siress need not taid. In empbasising sentimental poetry and distinguishing it from the descriptive or the ornamental, the Sanskrit theory falls back upon thc old error ot confusing the form with the essence. Never- theless, in spite of ils imperfections, the theory of Rasa is a highty important contributron to poctie speculalion. It todicates that the Sanskrit theotists were certainly oware of the sestheiie problem, even though they did not tackle it consistently in its eatirety. contenting themselves, as they did. by treating it only in some of ats aspeets.

36 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS It was Kuntaka who, for the first time, divested the con cept of Sabitya of its mere grammatical associations of Pada, Vakya and Tatparya, and defined it as a definite poetic quality or relation, brought about by the poetic imagntation. the Kavi protibba or Kav vyaputa The Sabitya is pot, in this sense present etther in the Sastra of in the ordinary utterances of the world, but is seen in Poetty only, at is not the mere union of the expressor and the expressed, the Vacaka and the Vacya, but the union has a special beauty in Poetry ; and the determination of this speciality is the prob lem of Poetics Kuntaka, therefore, holds that Sabda and Artha ugited together or equipoised is Poetry (drau sommi- htau kos yam) It is meaningless to emphasise either Sabda or Artha, (na šabdasyarva ramantyata vifıştasya Kevalasya kavyaivam, napy arthasya) to call one Abhyantars and the other Babya (dicyor aps pran tilam ava taram, tad vid ahlada kariart vartate. na punar ekosmin). but what is more important is that a spectal kind of Sahitya is meant (Anh iu vilistam eva salutyom abhipretam), by whuich mere Janguage blooms isto Poetry This Varhstys, in his opimon, is displayed in a composition (Bandha) characterised by Vakra Kavi-vypara and causing Tad-vid-ahlads The Vatiştya therefore, consisis of an extraordinary deviation from the common mode of speech, and tlus extraordinariness depends upon an imaginative turn of words and tdens, which he calls Vakratva. Bhangi-bhanii Vaicitrya, or Vicchitli, which causes a higher and unworldly pleasure (Ahlada) or pleasing charm (Camatkara) to these who appreeiate Poetry (Tad vid) He further explains that this Vakratva varsistya or Bhapiti varsitya rests upon the conception (Pratibha) ef the poet or on his skill (Kausala) or on an act of imagination on his part which is termed Kavi-vyapara or Kavi karman Kuntaka analyses and classifes anl pochic expression from this point of view, but what is important to note is that be puts a cear emphauis on the mmaginatve power of the poet. and considers it to be the source of the characteristic charm of

THE PROBLEM OF POSTIC EXPRESSION 37

poetic expression He refuses therefore to accept the orthodox spining up of poetic expression into exterior or ioterior, con sadering poetic expression as one and indivisible Whether the Sahitya of Sabda and Artha be the Visesa of the outward garb or the mner content, of the santa of Vacya vacaka or the Atman of Rasa-dhvan, it is the poet s pecultar way, the work of his imagination, the Kavi vyapara which makes the particular poetic expression what it is, that is the Vrsesa In bis analysis of poetic expression Kuntaka attempts to develon further the idea of Vakrokti vaguely present in Bhamaha, and systematises the views of those who laid stress on the so called Alamkara or poctic figure as the essential feature of Poetry, but in the course of his investigation he appears to have indicated, if not fully developed, certain poetic principles which go beyond the sphere of formal ana- lysis By Vakrokti, which Kuntaka considers to be essential in poetic expression he apparently thinks of figurative foris of speech, for which he often uses the phrase as a collecttve name , but u realty this it oot the entire sigaificance of the term meant by him Poetry to bim is embellshed sound and sense, the cmbellishment being chiefly (but not exclusively) the figurative device knowo as Alamkara in the narrow sense. and as this is the only ornament possible and essential he repudiates the views of those who disregard hgurstive ex- pression as accidental or non essentral But here he does not stop He uses the term Alamkara also in the larger sense of poctic beauty, not only as the fundamental priociple of fgurative expression. but also of all poetic expression generally To us be gives the name of Vakrokn, and comprehending uoder it all forms of poetic expression, he attempts a fresh tnterpretation of the problem by re thinking and re arranging under this conception the accepted idens of Ritt Guna Rasa Dhvan and Alarkāra All this may still be formal analysis but in bis conception of Vakroktt, Kuntaka shows himself cognisant of the aesthetic erohtem He well understood that att could not he the

38 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

medium of philosopbicat or scientific concepts, and lnsisted upon a clear distinction between Sastra ond Kavya, between intellective and imagloative work, by stating that words and ideas of the Kavya ditler from those of the Sastra. He also maintaios rightly that expression being the most important thing in Poetry, the poetic speech is an extraordmary devia- tion from the ordinary mode of common speech, therehy distingutshing artistic expression from the merely naturalistic. This extraordinarness dopends on a certain imaginative turn to words and ideas, which he calls Bhangi-bhaniti, peeuhar to poetic expression and abhorrent of matter-of-fact expression, and which in his system goes by the name of Vakratva or Vicchitti. He also explains that this Vakratva, for which another name is Vaicitrya or strikingness, is the charm of expression of the Vidagdha, the liferary man of taste, who must be distinguished from the Vidvat, the mere scholar ; and it is bis pleasre (tad-vid-ablada) which is the supreme test of Poetry, as something which is not Laukika He fur- ther lays down that this expression depends, as we have seen, upon the intuition of the poct (Pratibha), or in his skitl (Kautala), or on an act of imagination on his part, which is termed Kavi-vyapara or Kavi-karman, but which, being in- definable, is not defined or explained. It is obvious that Kuntaka is one of the few theorists whto put a clear empbasis on the imagmative power of the poet and coosider it to be the souree of the characteristic charm of poetie expression. He regards embellished speech as Poetry, but holds that the source of this embellishment, even it it consists of poetie figures terely, is the poetic fmagina- tion, He, therefore, draws a distinction between what may be called a speech-figure, on the one hand, and the so-called poetic figure, on the other. In a formal scheme of Poctry they may correspond ; but in a poetic figure, becaute it is poetie, Kuntaka discovers a specific dtfferentia, which consists ot a peculiar or deviating turn of expression (Vakratva), rosulting in a characteristre strikipgness (Vaicitrya

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPKESSION 39

or Vicchittt) and depending on the imaginative activity of the poet (Kavi pratibba mrvartitatva) The so called poetic figures of orthodox Poetics are admissible onty when they possess this peeular charm of poctie imagination and expres- sion the word charm apparently meaning nothing but that which gives it tts poetic peculiarity Kuntaka therefore holds that embellishments do not belong to poetry that is to say they are not added externatly but that poetry is embel lished speech itselt the particular embellishment depending on the poctic imagination Kuntaka thus supphes a deficiency in the teaching of the Dhvani theorists who ignored all embellishments unconnect ed with the suggested sense as mere Vag vikalpa or Ukt vaicitrya To them the ornamental expression of poetry was detachable external and non essential addition but Kuntaka gives a new interpretation of such Ukti vaicitrya and justifies the poetic ornaments as such If they are a port of poetie expression they have a right to be considered for they form thereby the expression ntsell If the poenc imagmation justifies them as a source of beauty the question of their conpexion with the suggested sense or of their essentrality or non essentiality need not arise they berng themseives essential In Kuntaka s view therefore poetry is always embellished expression as distinguished from plain and matter of fact expression of sciences and scnpinres and embellishment in the general sense is nlways a characteristic of poetic expression The embellishment comprehends in its specific sense the whole domam of rhetoricat tigures (which Kuntaka meludes in the particular province of Vakya vakrata) if they are jushfied by the poetic imagmation and become poetie figures thereby It may also include the qualities (Guna Riti) mere matter (Vastu) or the so called unex pressed (Dhvan) inelading the suggested sentiment (Rasa) if as form or material they become a part of the poctic ima gination and expression The skill of the poet can and does exhibit various forms of Vakrokt ip the arrangement oE

40 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

letters, rn the base or termination of words, in the words themselves. m their gender, number and synonym, in their scase, in a scatence, sa a particular toprc or m the compost ton as a whole. and all these necessarily comprehend what earher theories claborated as Guna Ritt, Aladlara, Dhvan and Rasa Thus. Kuntaka gives an exiended ioterpretalion to Bbamahas Vakrokt, by which Kustaka connotes and denotes the same thing. namely. the extraordinary form of mmagaative expression He makes Bhamaha's somewhat inchoate suggestion of heightened srecch more definite by relerting it to the poete imagmation It is, therefore, in- accurate to suppose that Kuntaka accepts merely fgurative cxpression as the denotation of Vakrokts for he brings witlun its comprehensive scope all known kinds of imagipative poetic capressioD The iaccuracy atises from the apparent cipbasis which Kuntaka puts on figurative expression but in reality his Vakrokti means much more than that It is a pity that Kontaka's explanation of poctic expression was never scriously noticed nor fully developed by orthodor wrtters Had it not been so it might have been possible to anve ultimately at a clear idea of the satore of poctic creatton-an aspect of Sanskrit Poctres which has been ignored by Sanskest theorisrs But later ariters even df they neglect Kuntaka's work into uomerited oblivion appear to have accepted directty or implicitly, his ides of a poetic Dgure and applied bis test of poctic imagmation to therr own analysit of indo idual thetoricol figures We have seen that though Kuntako regards the so cafled poelc figures as particuler forms of speech (Abhidha prakara viscga) he would yet find some srecife differenuia in them which would make them admissible namely, Vakratva or Vaicitrya, which is a peculiar tura of expression (Bhangi bhapiti) depending on an ac of imagination on the part of the poct [Kavi vyapdra) The etements theretote which go to mate up the being of a poche figure or rather convert a apeech figure iato a poeue figure are Vaicitrya ot Viechith-vdess and Kavi pratibbs

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 41

hirvarttatva In other words, Kuntaka maintarns that a form or mode of expression becomes a poetie figure or Alamhkara if the fertile imagmnation of the poct lends a peculiar charm to it. Thrs analysis is accepted by Ruyyaka, and, following himn, by most writers of Iater times Ruyyaka, for ipstance, does not elaborate a doctrine but implicitly takes the charm brought about by the productive imagioatiou of the poet (Kavi pratibha) to be the criterion of a poetic figure Thus, he thinks a form of expression involving the logical Anumana would not pruna facie constitute the figure Anumana, it should involve a poetical, and not merely logieal, Anumana Stmilarly, the doubt involved in the figure Samdeha should be not an ordinary doubt but a poetie doubt Hence, Mammata lays down sententiously that the poetie figure is strikingness itselE (varcttryam alamkarah) In these and similar cases, the question is not one of a mere form of speech, in which nothing is given but the bare thought. It must be the expression of the poetic imagination Jayaratha who commenta on Ruyyaka's work, cites the anthoriy of Kuntaka in tbis respect, and mforms us that it is not possible to define tlus poetie charm (Vicchsth or Vaicitrya), masmuch as it is of infuute varrety, bemng ientical with the play of individual poetic imagination which is infimite in scope, the jofimte iodividuation of the poctic imagination having been already admitted by Anandavardhana as well as by Kuntaka Jagannatha, therefote, defines it generally by saying that this charm is nothing bot the poetic imagination with reference to the power of poetie production In the same way. Kuntaka acknowledges the concepts of Marga and Guna, but onds fault with the empiricat classtfica tion and nomenclature of Ritis and Gunas adopted by the Riti-theorists He attempts to remterptet the theory of Riti from the point of view of poette power He objects to the naming and diterentiating ot Ritis ofter different localtics + for one would then be forced to admut infinite oumber of Ritis as there is an intinite number of countries In his

SONE PROBLEMS OF SANSNRIT POETICS

opimen a particular Riti cannot be established as a Deda dharma for it does not depend upon regional characieris ties or upon special customs of a particular place but upon the poctie power [Sakti) eulture (Vyutpatti) and practice (Abhyasa) of a particular group of poets which can never conform to mere geographical distribulion He objects also the classilication of Riis into good bad and middling on the ground that the proper diction can be onty one namely the best no matter of whatever type it is Kontaka betievcs that if driferent kinds of Rits are to be admtted as Kavt prasthona bheda then the character of the poet the Kavi svabhava atone should turnish the critetion of their distine uon He adouts that thuis Kavi svabhava is infimte but generally speabing he thinks that there ean be three mam types In one class of poets d eir naturat poette power finds an unhampered scope while in others the art is chiefly decorative and factitious These may be taken as the two cxtremo modes of composition which he calls Sukumura and Vicitra Marga respectively but there may still be a third class of poets who would like to steer a middle course and favour a mixed style called Madhyama Marga Kuntala therefore admits the Riti to a distinct place in his system but adopts a diderent basis of classification and nomenclature in accordance with ais tundamental idea of Kav vyapara or Kavi pratibha Here for the frst time the Rats is brought in direct selation with the poetic iodrvidpalty apd is understood distncily as its expression it is taken as poetie style in the scnsc in which it is understood by Westero criticism Kuntaka is fully aware that style is neither debnable nor classifiable being infioite in vanety and subale in difference according to the particular poetic intuton in o particular case but ls object in mentiomng these three cases is perhaps to indicate certain broad types of poehe temperament. We shall revert to this quesnon presently but it is clear that by taking the poetic imagination into consideration Kuntaka was able for the first time to assert however imperfectly

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 43

that the question of personabty is of the uimost mportance I0 any theory of Poetry It will be seen that these speculations are of the Ighest value in calling attention to the creative imagination whtch has been so far practically neglected by Sauskrit Poenes but which Kuntaka may be said to have discovered for the first time if the Dhavni theorists explained the poetic intuition in the Samanka with respect to the aesthetic enjoyment of poelic creattons he left out of consideration the question of poetic intuition with reference to the poet himselt In other words they considered the readers power of reproduction but not the poet s power of production Kuntaka for the first time posed the question by maintarning that we should on the contrary start with the creative imagmation of the poct himself of which the poenc expression or creation is the actuality t Kuntaka had resolutely pursued his investiga tons further on this lmpe be could bave formulated a proper aesthetic study but he still shows himself a victim of thetoric mn a different form The scholastic ter dency was almost universal and proved a difficult barrier to the under standing of the true nature of the problem This was so in Kuntaka because while he discovered the importance of the poetic imagination he could not have the credit of developing its amplcation for the enure aesthetc question he applied it chiefly to ibe analysis and class fication of fignrauve and cognate expression He had an inkling of the truth for instance when he spoke of poetic speech as a kind of express ion other than that represented by serenttic or poputar speech In mating the distiction he spoke indeed of the poctic imagination but he could not clearly see that inas much as the intetlective and the intuitive were both aspects of the spiritual achivity the distinchon is not absolate at depended simply on the nature of the poetc intution There is no absolute distocton agaip aesthetically between the tmple and the otnate for both may equully become kinds of poete expression or better

48 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POCTICS

that is to say, not the haphazard unty of daverse kinds of per- sonality but the intrinsic unity of the work as the synthetic etpression ef one poetic personality. It is not surprising. therefore, that we search in vamn for @ clear diseussion ol the character and function of the poctc imaginatioo in the whole range of Sunskrit Poctics Even though Kuntaka recognises it, his Kav karman Louts itsell mainiy to a normative analysis of empitical canons, and makes hts Poetics ultimately assume a verbal and formal character. to which his fundamental idea is lost His Vakrokti degener ates into a kind of Kavi praudhokt of fater wrilers. No doubt, tost writers solemoly affrot the uecessity of Pratibha or poetic imagination , but Pratibha in theie theorics themseives docs not assume any important role, hor is its character oc function clearly determined This imperfect understanding is also sbown by what the Sanskrit theocists often say about culture (Vyutpath) and practice (Abhyasa) in relation to the poctic imagaabon (Pratibhat It is true that the fact of poetic repre seotation is preceded by various kinds of koowledge, which. like feelings or physicat facts, act as a stimulus or material Ag adventitious aids to the externalisatron of poctic inluition. they base a relative vatue, and a cuktural backgronod is invol- ved sn all good poetry In so far as this is acknowledged, the Sansknt theorsts justly remark that ealture and practice should assist innate poetic power But, protesting their beltet in the poctic imagmation they somclumnes go funher ond speak of "maling a poet into a poet" Rudrata for mstance, expresses the opinien that poctre power is pot only inborn but also capable of attaiament It is, therefore, prescribed that the poct should be an expert in a long list of arts and sciences and make bimself proficient mn vatous kinds of poctical ezercises This demand is in conformnity enth the lcarned atmosphere in which Sanskrit Poerry at one time came to founith and which made Poeues assume a scholashe choracter In actual practicc, no doubt, the gifted poets aspired to un- trardmelled utterance , but the general tendency m an epoch

50 SOMC PRODLCMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

an undoubted aesthetie acumen by always emphasising that the poetie activity in its essence is independent of intellectuzl ty utility and moralty Although they do not diseuss the question they tacitly distinguish the poetic activity from the intellectual or the practical and give cvidence of a strong common sense by never confusing a poetie with a scientific or didactic work the Kivya with the Sastra or the Nitt It is cutions indeed that these theonsts expend a great deal of abstract and intellectualist erudition op a cold and monoto- nously tnlated rhetoric, and yet they enjoy poetry as poetry and hardly ever think of the moral end of the mtellectuel gain It is clearty indicated that poctry is not a mass of popularised ttuth nor a manifestation of empirical pleasure and pamn from the ethieal point of view but that it conveys a state of the mind to its intuitive purdty which can be reproduced m an idealised form in the reader s mind In Saaskrit therefore there never deycloped an intellectualist Poeties which valucd Poetry for the knowledge it brought and regarded it as a semi sorence, nor was there a practicist Poeties which emphasised such practcal forms of butan activity as have an utihtanan hedonistic or moralishe end in view But the farlure to cxplain and justify poetic expression purely by the poetic imagroation is seen tn the vacillatton and uncer tainty of the various attempts to discover a rigid delimbon of poctry We have seen that the earlier writers wisely leave the question alone contenting themselves with the bare mention of Sabda and Artha as the mgredients Following them the later wnters take the Sabdartha Sahitya in unbroken tradition as essential requisite of poetry. but tbey attemapt to qualfy it by the eoumeration of certain standardised characteristics of Vasesas as Alamkara Cuna Rit, Dhvan or Rass But they could not enttrely divest the Sabdartha sahitya of its grammatical and logieal associations and erect it into a purely poetie coneept They forget all about the poetic imagination and concern themselves more of less with a normative analysis and classification of general formulas

THE PROBLEM OF POETTC FXPRESSION 3 8461 51

and categories in order to explain what is an todivtduatised occurrence with each poet The fadlure to understend that the poctic intuition differs in different pocts in different circumstances led them to make a vain effort to find one universal definttion of Poetry one abstract and savariable formola for what admits of infiprte individual and concrete variations to determine logically what in its essence is non Logieal to tmmobilise the mobile by throwing a bridle on the neck of Pegasus Both the approach and the method are not correct The theorists devote themselves with great zeal to collect analyse and classify methodically after the manner of natural sciences a series of single facts snto general principles Such an empirical attitude admits indeed aesthetic oceorrences but nourishes a delusion that like facts of natural serences they can be grouped formally ihto classes and types In the conrse of their mvestigation the theorists amass calculate and measure the greatest possible var ety of such acstbetic facts formulate laws means modes and modets but as they progress they atways discover new facts which reqmre fresh adjustment In this they fad to realise that as each expression is untque and indivisible that artistic facts in their unified concreteness cannot like physi cal facts be mechanically divided and subdivided , nor can they like intellectoal facts be logically comprehended by abs tract universals Such an attitude reduces Poetics to the raok of a formal discipline like Logie and most of its pitcous perplextties arise from this qudoot The theorists unfortucately forget that a work of art is ao intuition tbat totuition is individuslity and that indiwdualty never repeats itself nor conforms to a preseribed mould They belicve thus not in unity but in the duality of imagiation and expression thereby splittieg up what is organic into mectanic ports. They hardly recogmse that word and sense as symbols ore inseparable from poetie intuition and as such they are nol fxed and a cchamical but mobile and elusive Poctry should be taken as a living discourse among diversely ex

52 SOME PROBLCMS OF SANSARIT POETICS

pressive organisms and not as an embalmed collection of dead abstractions capabte of seientific dissection Good sense has aln ays refused to accept a normative formulation of poetic expresssion No one exeepta poor speaker or versiber speaks or writes by rules and no one believes that it is possible to lay down such rulcs of speaking or wriling well Tor the real poet as for the real spealer there is hardly any armoury of ready made acapons. he forges bis own weapons to fight his own patticulor battles If these investigations of Sanskrit theorists are meant to explain the principle which lies at the root of Poctry they can never do so completely and successfully by merely mnalysing and classifyieg aesthetie facts and categorics with out taking into sccount the poctic imagination shich makes them what they are Let it not be supposed that we wish to deny or minimse the uscfulpess of such analysis and classification from the scientific or scholastic poit of vrew what we want to stress is that they fad to estabush then clarm to explain the intuitive activity involved in poetic creation As logical concepts or natural lacts, they are admissible and are of practical valoe but they hardly have unportance for aesthetc explanation They ore like labels to a thing rather than the thing iself In the true sense the caboration of such senes of laws is a negation of art itselt By tber wniversahty they negate its accidentality by their abstraction its emapiticity by their mechamism its orgamc character Thus Sanskrit Poctics attempting to solve the nddie of Poetry did hardly solve it but delighted stsell with the pleasure of abstract thought and formal calculation Nevertheless these aberretions and insuffciencies are at the game time attempts to reach the trutb and in the midst of unlfted xhadows one does often perceive a running thread ot silver limng. Even if the Sanskrit theorists could not because of inibial handicap arrive at the fnal goal they still had a clear glimpse of it. Lile the mystery of God s creation the mystery of the poets creation is unfathom

THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 53

able, and sttuck with wonder and admratom, one cap poly say

spihuramsam ordresu padeça keacam !

BHAMAHA'S VIEWS ON GUNA

Of ell early writers on Sansknt Poetics Bhamoha appears to be the most puzzling in the attitude he adopts towards the Guna doctrine The enly passage in which he employs the term guna is that in wlch he defines (ed Trivedf m 52 53)' the poctic ligure Bhavika as bhaszkatvam itt prahuh prabandha visayom yunam pratyaksa na drsyante yatrartha bhata bhavinah 1 citrodattodbhutarthat am Lathayah svabhinitata sabdanakulata cett tarya hetum pracakşate hi These verses come practically at the end of the chapter on the classification and defimtion of poetie figures (Aavyalam Karas) and prima facie the Bhavika coming in this context, should be taken as such Dandin atso follons (ed Rangacarya 1l 363 65)* the same procedure regarding the treatment of the Bhavika repeats the first line of the above definsion amplifying it still further in his own way and agrees with Bhämaha in designating the Bhavika as a prabandha vsaya guna Udbhata follows Bhamaba generally in this respect (ed Banhattı vi 6 p 79)* and defines tt almost in the same way, but he appears to regard it more or less as a specific poetic figure and omits the qualification kathaych svabhimtata as well as the designation prabandha vşoya guna These defimtions' are obviously meant to be wider than thut of a simple poetic figure in the course of whtch the Bhavike is

1 The reference ia same in the Kashi Sanskrit Series edition bot in the cdition of Naganatha Sastry (with Eng Trs, Tanjore 1927) it is mn 53 54 2 u 36466 in both the Bombay Sanstrit Series edition and the edi ton of Premacandra Tarkavagita (Calcutta 1831) 3 p 73 mn Nernaya Sagara Presa edition (Bombay 1915) 4 We are bot concerned bere with later defimtices of the Bbavila at a definite poche figute

BHAMABAS VIEWS ON GUNA 55

dealt with by thesc wrters It is a charactensuc whch os said to belong to and pervade the whole composition (prabandha vyapto gunah as Tarunavacaspati puts it) and it does not (as a poctic figute would apparently do) restrict itself to a part of a composition re it is not eka deśtka as Jayamangala on Bhap" xu 1 explaips it It is thus difficult to regard it as the elements of the defimtions themselves also shew as a limited figure of speech , it should not only be pada gata ot vakyo gota but also lke rosa of later writers prabandha gata In spite of a certam novelty or obscunty of the conception it is clear that the theorists were reluctant of uneasy about treating it as an ordinary poetie figure and therefore defined it in somewhat wider terms at the concluston of thenr treatment of such figures* The theory appears also to be reflected in practice If we are to accept the assurances of the commentators (Jayamangala and Mallinatha) the whole of canto xu of the Bhath Kavya should be taken as an Illustration of the Bhavika as a probandha gune It is remark able also that the Bhavika is not meshoned by Vamana as a poetic figure nor is it icluded by him mn his elaborate scheme of Gpnas Dandin also would not iclude it mn the list of his ten marga gata Gupas or in their wparyayas The position is somewhat puzzling The clue is furmished by the probable supposition that the Bhavika lile the Svabhavokt ' involves the implication of an aesthetic factor to which it must bave been difficult to assign a place in a clear cut scheme of Gunas and Alamkaras The Bhavika is detined by Bhamaha gencrally as a vivid representation of past and future objects as if they are directly perceptible to the eye the vividness of the representation depending on the condibons that the theme must have a picturesque strange

1 The word prohah an the defintt ons of Bhamaba and Dand a may ind eare that the view was probably trad tionat end was accepted impl citly mithout much dacutsion. 2 See my SansAr : Poer ar n p 6zf n

56 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS and exalted sigmificance and theretore capable of beiog enacted well and that the words employed must have a consistency Dandin s defimtion1 is more circumstantial. but it is more illuminating The Bhavika i8 said to consist in the mutual favourableness of all the parts of descriptive matter, in the non employment of redundant or useless qual fications i0 describing things in their proper places and in so arranging the expression that the itended denth of the theme comes out clearly These are matters of detait, but the most iapertant poiat in Dandins defimtion which brings out the essential conception is the statement that the Bhavika is so called because at is bhbsayotto and tbat the bhmo is the intention or rather the uward concepbon of the poet (kaver abhiprayah) whtch controls the detans and residcs in the poem as a whole, and not merely in ats isolated parts This bhava should not be taken as the technicaì emotional element which Pratihacenduraja commenting on Bhamaba's phrase svabhindata would apparently read into it by the interpreta tion śrngara samvelitatvat No such sigoificance is supported by the recognised commentators (Tarunavacaspatt, Hrdayom-

bhawkaivam h prahuh prabondha visayaria ganom 1 bi dvah kover abh prhyah Lavyesy anddhz sarhnah d parasparopakdritva A sorveşdre vasta parvanăm 1 višesanăna h vyart anam ahriya sthdnd-varnona t vyakur akt Lrame batad gamblurasyapt vastunah ( bhavavotram idarh sarvom ift tad bl avke h vrdnh h The varrapt read ng tu the second line is Lavyesvasya s yovasth nh in the Madras edition for kapyerv anddhi samuhueh la the first line tad bhavikam f prihwh (Cal ed\ and Wav kah tam in prafuh (Madras ed ) 2 ltis probably in view of such misconeeived atetpretation that Ahoja at a mueh later time includes the Bbavika among his twenty four Sabda-gunas (1 75) as the conduet of a sentence according to its underly ing emation or sentiment tb/ aveto vakya irngh a defimtion whach bas been cop ed by Vidyanatha in his scheme of 24 Gunas modelled oo that ot Bhes) althongh bis Artba-guna Dhavika is sabh pruyokn wnydtd in u parrow sence ( 80)

BHAMAHAS VIEWS ON GUNA 59

the other hand the vicw refcrred to by Bhamaha is imphed wo the tradition which Rudrata's Riti and the Dhvanikara s Samghatana follow in later times The only plausible mterence that can be madc from this is that Bhamaha was probably aware of some theories which approve of Madhurya Ojas and Prasada in poetic composition (in what character it is not elear but presumably as Gunas of the expopents of the Ritr theory) chiefy on the basis of the desirability of long compounds but ether he was indifferent to their literary value or did not think it worth while to treat them as distmnct or separate clements of poetic expression It is remarkable indeed that Bhamaha does not thmk n necessary to connect as the Rit theorists have since done the Gunas with Rat which term stself (or the term Marga whch Dandin employs) is never used by bam and which con ception even if it was known to him does not appear to have been seriously entertained Nor like Bharata does he view the Madhurya ete as independent Kavya gunas Bhamabo refers indeed in another context (1 31 35) to Vaidarbha and Gaudiya Kavyas (and not evpressly to Ritis of those names famiharised by Dandmn and Vamapa) in which some theorists of his time have apparently discovered differences of manner and treatment but from his remark it is clear that he himself would not pay much attention to the alteged differences 1f Bhamaha was aware of some theory of Riti or is classification hed d not apparently subscribe to it nor did be think it necessary to attach as much importance to it m his treatmient of Poctics as Dand o did This is an attitude which is mtellt gible in view of bis belonging to a different traditon of thonght wich empbassed the inierest and importance of those emibellishments ef poettc speech which are koown as alomkaras As a cotollaty from this it follows that although Bhamaha was aware of some characteristics of poetic express Lon such as Madburya Ojas and Prasada which were defined and related as constitueat excellences of Rit by the Riti theo- rists and regarded by ther as essential elements of poetry

A NOTF ON THE GAUDI RTTT 63

betrayed disapproval they bad still to take the mode of the Gaudas into account presumably because it had attamed a commendable position and found favour in an equal degree with e class of writers and readers It seems there- fore, that even long betore Banabhafta and Dandin the Gaudas exhibited a distinctive hterary diction of their own.' which side by side with the widely accepted Vaidarbht had an established tradilion mcapable of being completely sgnored Just as Bengal strove politically in these centuries against the constant agression of Magadha Thaneshwar and Kashmir to maintam its independencc it attempted in the lterary sphere to withstand the domination of the almost umiversalty accepted Vaidarbha mode of expression and succeeded in establishing its originality These references are important in hterary bistory because they supply undentable evidence that by the 7th and 8th centuries there must have grown up in Rengal a Sanskrit culture which attaied such importance as necessitated the recogmbion of its characteristic method of expression Apart from the lucubrations of Bhamaha and Dandin Vamana

1 In the absence of proper data it is impossible to determine when the dist netion between Vaidarbha and Gauda modes was first recogni sed H Jacobi (Malarasr pp xvi i) suggests that the aunpler Vaidarbha style was a reaction agarast the older and more elaborate Gauda style and came into etistence probabty in the 3rd century A D It i3 possible to argue on the contrary that the Gauda style whtch asserts itself more and more an the later Kavyz was itself a symbol of further development exhibding a tendency towards greater elaboraton Roth the standpomts ignore the possibil ty of the two stvles developing toncurrentty as rival modes The controversy of the rhetoncians makts it probable that both the Rihs devetoped side by side and entered into a competition for mastery -Bharata in his Nafya dostra (ed Grosstt lv 26) speaka of four dramalic modes or Pravrttis viz Avanti Pancala madhyamk Daksinatya and Oura magadh the last of whick rs expressty stated to bave been employed in the eastern provnces inclndng Anga Vanga Paundra and Nepala (x Y 45-47) there being no special Gaudi Pravțitı

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA IN CLASSICAL SANSKRIT The distinction made between the akhydytka aud the katha by writers on Sanskrit Poeties is well knowp Wo proposc in this paper to consider how far the prescriptions of the rhetoricians apply to the few existing specimens of the akhyayika and the katha by Subandbu and Banabhatta, and what light, if any, they throw on the development of these species of prose compositon in Classical Sansarit ! The oldest writer on Poetics who deals with this matter appears to be Bhamaha, who draws a riged distinction between the akhyayika and the katha Bhamaha lays down (1 25 9) that the akhyayika is a literary composition (1) which is written in prose in words pleasing to the car (sravya) and agreeable to the matter mtended (prakrianukila) , (2) but which may contain metrical pieces in vaktra and aperavaktra metre, the object of these verses being to give a timely indica tion of future happenings mn the story ,' (3) which should have an exalted substance (udanartha) with some characteristics supplied by the poet's imagipation as a special mark, and

1 The reader deed scarcely be reminded that the Sanshrit theotuts define poetry so as to include any literary work of the imsgmation, and absolntely refuse to make thyming or verse an essential 2 The toxt reads (ed Trvedi, BSS lzv, 1904) vaktram capara- vaktram ca kale bhavyartha samist ca Samkara quoting this verse in hs commentary on the Harye-corna (on &) IQ), reads kavye Kavyar tha lamhs ca 3 The reading, whtch is apparently cortupt, is kaver abhepraya krtath kathangih keiteid ankitd "marked by certam narratton created by the intention of the poet ' Premscandra, quoting this half verse in his commentary on the Kapyadorfa, reads kaver obhipraya ktrar ankanaır anktta katha, introducrng a grave variant and cooneeting il with the ketha Butit is not jatellrgible how he connects the next line mn Rha- maha (kenya harana ete ) with the akhyayika From the text as it standa to Bhamaha both these lines should rghtly go with the akhpayike, and not with the kathd and for this we have the authority of the teat of the Agm-purano which appropriates one of these lines 5

66 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

having for its theme the abduction of a girl (kanya harana), a fight (samgrama) a separation (vipralambha) and the (final) trumph (udaya), apparently of the bero. (4) in which an account of his own deeds1 is given by the hero himself , and (5) in which the story is divided into several pauses called uechuu sas' In the kotha on the other hand there are no vaktra or aparavaktra verses no drvision into ucchyasas and the story should not be narrated by the hero but by some one else It may be written in Sansknt or m Apabhramsa 2 whtch indieates by implication that the aklyayrka should always be composed 1o Sanskrit Dandin appears to eriticize and reject all these fine distine- uons which in his opimon are not essential but more or Icss formal requirements He states that some people would

3 ortram akhydyate ronamt nayakena sva-cestirom where the Wbrd itha in connts on with svo-cest t may ind cate "actual h story or facts of esper ence as opposed to invented fetion Th s should be cead with thamaha s prolub t on of self revelat on by the hero in the korha In the Lad d Bhamaha po otedly says what noble man faunts hs own mer ts? It may be asked in ths concexion bow is it that Bhamahs altows the bero to narrate h s oon etplods in the akiayda lo which this objcet on atso apparently appt es? To obwiate this secming Inconsistcncy we should suppose that since io the all ydyikd what is marrated coasists more or les of faeta of actual experience the hero i who ia the narrator) cannor be ruspeeted of ectf boastieg but since tbe Latl a u more or less an invented story this trait of vanity sbould not be allowed ia the heco and therefere some other person should be the carrator 2 The word ucchydsa (It breathing out) ind cates s pause for breatb and so it is a pame for a chapter which consutotes the pause for the narmator who cannot be supposed to tell the story in one breath" but should recount it in an easy manner with necessary panses ' The t nguntie forms sccord ng to Bhamaha (or htcrary com pos t ons are Sanskrit Prakrit and Apabbramta ( 16) but lt is not elear what Bhimaha meios by the tast term Danda givet a defnite con notstien to thi term as tbe language of the Abhtras and others in the Advya but in the Marait t a name appl ed to alllapguages other than Sanst t ( 30)

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THR KATHA 67 distinguish between the akhyayrka and the katha by matotain- ing that in the former the narrator is the bero himsell, in the latter the hero or some one else (nāyakena ttarena vā vaeyā), on the ground that the discovery of one s own merit in not a fault in one who is ooly stating what is true (bhatartha+ satn) Dandin disagrees with this opiion, and holds that the fact that the hero or some other person is the natrator is not a real ground of distinction, and it is not strictly observed in current poetical usage (amyomo drsjah), for sometimes in the akhyayrka the natrator is found to be some person other then the hero 1 Sccondly, Dandm urges that the cmploy- ment of specifc metres like the vaktra and aparavakrra need not be rigorously binding in an akhyaytka, for they may (like arya and other metres) incidentally occur in the kotha Thirdly, the designation ucchvasa is sometimes found indeed appled to the divisions of an akhyayika like the term tombhaka in the case of the katha , but nothing can be con cluded from this Fourthly, themes like the abduction of a gttl, fight, separation, or triumph are not special characteris tics of these prose compositrons, for they are also foond in the sarga bandha mahakavya z Fifthly, special marks duie to the invenhve power of the poet" need not be a fault else-

1 Asin the Harse corita as Taruga vacaspati in his commentary points out 2 Dandin is bere intentronally misunderstanding Bhamaba No doubt these themes are found in the mahakavye but Bbamaba probably means that while these things are subordinate in other species of poelic composition they sbould be prominent in the akhiayikd 3 This special' mark . (crhna or anka) is interpreted by commen tators old and new (Taruna vacaspat and Premacandra) as sgmifytng the trick of nsing special words (like ar at the end of Magha s poems, laktir in Bharavt onurage in Pravarasena, etc ) to idicate the end of a canto (bandha-chna) But perhaps this remark of Dandm connects itaelf with Bhamaha's remaark that the okkayrka may sometmes bear the marka of the poet's inventive power (kaver ahluprava krtath kathanarh *mfed ankitd), and refers to the invented cpisedes or parts in the matter of fact akhyāy;kā

68 SOME PROBLEMS OP SANSKRIT POETICS

where (re in a korha) for there is no himt as to the means which a poct may adopt for the attamment of his purpose And lastly Dandin expressly says that the Aathe may be composed in all languages as well as in Sanskrit for the wonderful story of the Brhat katha is sad to be writen in the bhnta bhasa 1 We are not concerned bere with the much discussed ques tion whether these remarks of Dandin are directly levelled (as they probably are) against Bhamaha in particulat but we should note that while Bhimaha makes a sharp distinction between the two species Dandmn does not admit this distine tron . and considering the admittedly a posteriori nature of these carlier works on Aladkara it is not improbable that theur respective conclusions were based upon the observance of current poetical usage which they analyse and in which an explanation of this divergence of view should bo sopght Let us now tuen therefore to Bana's Harsa cartta and his Kadambor which are respectively dengnated by the author himsell as an aklayika and a totha and see how far the teachings of these two earhest theorists are illustrated by these two typical works or whether their conclusions were based upon some other prototypes The Harsa-caria begins with twenty introductory stanzas in the loko or anastubh metre concluding this prelminary part with a verse in jagof These verses contain an obersance (namaskrra) to Vyasa and to the deities Siva and Parvatr and dwell upon poets and poetry generally meidentally praising great poets and poems of the past After briefly stating the merits of an akhydyrka (# 20) the author praises king Harsa devotion to whom supplies the motive of his literary composi tion notwithstanding the existence of great works and authors in the world

t ty which torm Dany a iplyng tht Panc Praànt showg himself conversaat w th the lesendary account of the orle n of thi work

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THS KATHA 69

After this comes the prose story of which etght ucchrasas icmain That the chapters were entitled ucchvasas by the author is fadicated by the obwious puo on # 10 Wath the exception of the first every ucchyasa begins with a pair of stanzas which give an indication of what is to follow The metres of these verses are fairly uniform consisting generally of arya with the single exception of a stanza in the floka- metre in Ucchvasa tti In the prose part we have a detailed account of the poet s tamily extending from the frst to the third Uechyasa bis youth introduction to the court and manner of his reecption there his return to bis native country and relation of the story of king Harsa to lus relatives Thus the main story begms wilh the third Ucchvasa and contnues to tbe eighth where it breaks off It may be noted that the prose parrative contatos some verses mn different metres of which one fed NSP 1918 p 125) is expressly stated to be in the vaktra metre wlnle tour (pp 18 78 125 159) are sim tarly stated to be in the apora vaktra metre The other verses conta ned in the prose narrative are mn vasanta trlaka (n p 54) sardula viknidita (u p 69) arya ( tt p 86 iv p 140 vi p 185) sragdhara (m p 93) and dloka (v p 153) the last two Ucchvasas contaming no verses at all Before taking up the Kadambars we may brielly indicate the nature of the other (and perhaps earher) kutf o in Saoskrt viz Subandho s Vasavadatta wi ich is apparently referred to by Bana himself in his Harsa carna Ths work begins witb twelve introductory stanzas in arya with an obeisance to Sarasvatı Ersna and Siva some praise of good poets and a statement of Subandhu s authorship The prose story 15 immaterial for our purpose but it may be noted here that we do not get this form of the story of Vasavadatta elsewhere the particulars of it be ng probably due to the inventive genius of the poet There is ne interruption or pause in the narrative and no division into chapters nor

70 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS

are thete vaktra or aparavaktra verses although some metrical pieces in arya sikharmnt Sardula wkradita and sragdhara occur thrice The tenor of the story is more or less peaceful love being the prevaiing sentiment, and there 1s no saragrama or Lanya harana (as in Bhamaba's akhyaytka) uness Vasavadatta s being carried away to the Vindhya mountains be construed as an instance of the last theme The Kadambri the story of which Is too well known to require recapitulation here is similar in form but perhaps less complicated in plot The prose parrative which 1s continuous is introduced by some verses in vamsastha wlch contain an obcisanee to Brahma Siva and the author s guru Bhatsu some remarks on the effects of good poctty and an accouot of the author e race and family The tenot of the story is similarly peaceful with love as the prevading sentt ment and is not based upon any known itthasa the mamn plot being probably an invention of the poet Taking the Harsa-caria as a typieal surviving specimen of the earher aklyayika (its date being the first halt of the seventh century) we find at once that while it conforms In some points to the requirements preseribed by Bhamaha it camnot yet be taken to typify exactly the aklyayrka described by him The worl is written in agrecable prose with verse adjuncts but the vaktro and aparo voktra verses contained in it are merely topical and do not fulfil the re quirement that they shouid indtcate the tenor of the plot this wrk being donc by the pairs of verses (genetally m arya) prefxed at the beginning of each chapter The stoty is jodeed udattart/ a being the lustory of a great Ling and is regularly divided into ucchvasas but it does sot touch the themes of kama larana ete , and it is difficult to see what special mark of the poet s mventive gemius it bears inasmuch as it professes to be the actual life history of a royal per sonage narrated by an eye witness But the most uportant port to pote in this connexion is that if does not conform in

THB AKHYAYIKA AND THE XATHA 71

the essential characteristic lard down by Dhamaba that the narrator must be the hero bimselt Taking these facts into consideration it will not be wrong to draw the conclusion that the prototype of Bhamaha's akhyayika was probably not the Harpo carita of Bane but some other work which has not come down to us From Bhamala s treatment we may however, conelude that in spite of some controversy in his time on this pornt two kinds of prose narratives respectively known as the ak/yayrka and the kathd existed which could be differentiated from each other on very important points Apart from merely formal requrements Bhamahas analyais makes it elear that the akhyayika in his time was more or less a work of the nature of an autobiography where the narrator is the hero bimself who recites the facts of his own expenence and who (as interpre ted by Dandin) cannot thercfore be accused of self-boasting unworthy in a noble personage Bbamaha ideed allows some scope for poetic invention and introduction of interest Ing themes to prevent its being a bare recital of facts but the prevajling tendency to matters of fact is emphasized by Bhamaha as the distinguishing mart of the akhydyka as contrasted with the Katha Bhamaba s deseription of the katha on the other hand is purely negative (excepting his ijunctron as to the language to be employed) but it appears by implication that the karho as distinguished from the aklyaytka was more or less of the nature of a fiction an un Interrupted story or narrative where the narrator should be some person other than the hero With respect to subordinate pomits viz the presence of vaktra and apara vaktra verses and divesion into ucchyasas Dandin certainly evinces a great deal of common sense in rejecting these formal requirements as essential features Dut they do not appear to be altogether immaterial and the antmus with which the earlier theorists enter into the controversy can be understood if we consider that some of these formal differences find an explanation in the respeetive differences in the general character of these Ino

SOME PROBLIMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

species The real issue ivolved in the akinayila however is pot whether the name of the chapter should be uechyasa or whether the kind of metre employed should always be vaktra and apara vaktra but the fact that it is essential that the akhyayrka should be divided into well defined pauses or chapters while the kathd should be continuous narrative and that certain verses (possibly inserted at the beginning of each chapter) should foreshadow the tenor of the chapter following The pauses in the akhyayika as already pointed out were necessary because the hero who is himself the narrator should be allowed to recount his story in an casy manner wbile the appearance of the indicative verses is eacluded in the Latha by the fact of its being an uninterrupted narratiye The semblance of realty which the oppenrance of the hero as the narrator adds io the akhynyika is similarly out of place in the Latha where the poet or some other person should be allowed to weave out the narrative This was i0 general the conception of these two species of prose composition in the time of Bhamaha The allayka was more or less a serious composition dealing generally with facts of actual experience with an autobiographical or semi historical mterest winle the kothu was essentially a fictitous narra tive-which may sometimes (as Dandin contends) possess an autobiographical form but whose interest chiefly resides id its invention The allyayika decimed in later times and did not keep strictly to the characteristies detailed above but the Katho although it was well defined (after Bana s works) mn Rudrata was less touched by changes mn form and substance even from Subandbu s time '

1 As he dehin t on of the kadl a d d not undergo much mater al change in the course of its h iory Bbamaba s somewhat seneral characteriza I on i appl cable to Subandhu s Vose edotta as well as to Bana s Kadam bar but it is poss ble that the latter was net the prototype tontemplated by him just as the Harja co a was nol the prototype ot h s akhyn xa Th s would corroborate the date of Bhamaha as a younger contemporary of Dharmaknti (as comjectured by Jacobi in So der Preu s Alad xxiy

74 SOME PRORT.EMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

When we come to the Agni purana which more or less uncritcally copies the dicta of Dandin and other authors " we find however the influence of Bana's works reacting upon the theorists and making them change their defimtrons 1o suit the new conditions According to the Agm parana we have in the akhyuyika (1) a praise of the author s family (kartr vamsa prasamsa) in prose (2) themes ltke ahduction of a girl fighting separation and other untoward ineidents (vpattay ah) (3) division into ucchvasas (4) presence of curnoin* or of vaktra and apora vaktra verses (5) a brillant diction exemplifying the excellence of rifis and wttis In the Latha on the other hand (1) there is the praise of the poet s fanuly in verse (2) there may be an episode or another story (Lathantarom) introducing the main story (mukhyasy artha vataraya) (3) we have pauses or partechedas but sometimes there may be divisions called lambhaka * (4) coruspadi verses may be introduced in cach garbha * This is practically the conventional enumeration but with a marked difference the most important point being the Aartr vamsa pratamsa and the use of the Lathantara which are omitted in the discussion of carher writers but which are aduntted here (and more pomntedly in Rudrata) probably through the influence of Bana s works Rudrata diflers very noticeably from the older writers in his treatment and it may be generally said that he has accepted and generalized the characteristres of Bana stwo works it to uaiversal rules governing the composilion of the 1 Th s po na regard ng the natute of the Alamkira tection of the Agni purana is nat ced in Saaskrit Poeties e ted above pp 101-4 2 Vamana defines (1 3 23 5) carna (one of the subd v s ons of prose d ct on) ss ana dl a lat ta padam (del cate words and no tong com pounds) ile! Lapraya be ag the reverse 3 Read bha ed va tambhala h k ac r for b! aved valombakah Avecit in the printed text A The Agn purina spcaks of kI on le katha parikad a aod karha n ka for wh ch ace Locana p 141 (wh ch adds sokala kar a), nnd Hema candra wbo def nes various otlier sub-speries (pp 339-40)

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA 75 katha and the akhayka respectively According to him, we have in the katha (1) an introductory namaskra in verse to the devas and gurnr and a statement of the author s family and the motive of Iis authorshap, (2) the prose narrative, written in Sanskrit (or m verse in other languages) in light alliterative words the plot including pura varnana etc (as in the case of the utpadya kavya xvi 3) (3) a kathantara at the begiming, which is immediately connected with the mam story, (4) a theme consisting of the winning of a girl (kama labha) which being the majn issue, the sentrment of love Is develoned fully in it (vinjasta sakala frngara) In the akhyayika on the other hand (1) we have the nomaskria to devas and gurus in verse togcther with an incidental praise of older poets a confession of the poet's own mabilty and a statement of his motive in writing notwithstanding these drawbacks which motive may spring from the poet's devotion to a particular king his addichon to the praise of other people s merits or from some other special causes. (2) the story should he written in the manner of a katha but emphasis is put on the injunclion that an account of the poet himself and hts family must be contained in st, written in prose and not in verse , (3) there are divisions into acchasas aud two arya verses should occur at the beginning of each chapter excepting the first.' It will be seen at once that these characteristecs detailed by Rudrata apply fully and strictly to the cases of Dana s lwo works Rudrata along with the author of the Agns purand gives interesting remarks concerning the introductory stanzas all the pecultarities of which are minutely observed in the

I Some matters of detad are added viz on the occanion of a douht concerning a past iocident or an tneident not wuinessed by the speaker (paroksd) or conceraing a presem or future objeet he poet an order to dispel the doubt should let somcone cite ia the presnce of the doubting person one or two of the poctic figures anyokn samaroltr or dleto and the metres employed in there cases should he drya epara vektra puspudgra or according to circumstances metres lke the malal

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA 77

ment , and this throws into relief the general character of Sanskrit prose katha as an iuvented love story, which appro- aches the nature of romantie fiction Anandavardhana, who deals with prose composition only topically (p 141) m coonexion with his discussion of somghatand (condition of compounds in diction), appears to recognize this pomt He says that in the Aatha we have the same kind of dichon as m the akhyayika . but in the former the rutes relating to Rasa should be observed (u 8) implying thereby this peculiarity of the delmeation of Rasa (especially śrngara) as its principal concern To Abhinavagupta, on the other hand, who accepts the older convention. the two species are interesting only from the point of view of form, the akhyayika, in his opinion, being characterized by ucchvasas and vektra aparavaktra verses, and the katha being entirely devoid of these Hemacandra (p 338) follows the same convention, but admits Dandin's criticism (as do most later authors) regarding the narrator and the linguistre form, and pointedly quotes the Harsa carita and the Kadambart as typical instances He agrees with Rudrata however that the kotha may be wholly in verse, citing an unkown Liavan as an example Vidyadhara does not deal with the question at all , and to Vidyanatha the katha is onknown The latter speaks of gadya and podya kāvya citing the Kadambart and the Ragha vamsa as instances , while the definition of the altn ayika is attempted, as in the case of Abhinavagupta's definition, mainly from the formal point of view Visvanatha, the latest writer who devotes some atten- tion to this question, merely puts Rudrata's generalization In a precise form , and his treatment shows that the ofder distic tions were already forgotten. and the new types evolved on the basis of Bana s works had firmly established themselves But like Rudrata, Vidvanātha emphasizes sorasa vastu as the substance of the karha, although he is stlent with regard to the question of the subject matter of the akhyayika Thus we can distinguish two or three well defined stages in the growth of the kotha and the akhyayrka in classical Sanskrit

78 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

The earlest forms of these as we have seen are noticed by Bhamaha, and their characteristics may be summarized tbus Allnayla (1) The subject matter gives facts of actoal experience , (2) The natrator is the hero himself. (3) The story is divided into chapters called uechynsas contamning indicative vaktra and apara vaktra verses . (4) Scope may be allowed to poctic invention and the themes may embrace subjeets like abduction of a girl fighting separation, and fioal trumph , (5) It should be wrtten in Sanskrit Katha (1) The subject matter is probably an invented story (2) The narrator is some one other than the hero, (3) There is no division soto uccldsas no vaktra or apara vaktra verses , (4) It may be written in Sanskrst or in Apabhramsa These characteristtes do not apply strichy to Bana's two works which however begin to influence the theorists a lsttle later, and we find a destructive ctiticism of these finc disttnchons as early as Dandin The new akhyayrka and katha wtnch arose in fater times and which find themselves modified from the older types partly on the model of Bana s two works are distinchy authorzed by Rudrata who generalizes the characteristies of Bana's two works into rutes of umversal application The characteristics may be given thos Akhyayrka (1) The sabjeet matter gives facts of actual experience (2) The narrator need not be the hero hitnself (3) It is divided into cbapters called ucchasas which should (excepting the first) open with two stanzas preterably in aryd indicating the tenor of tbe chapter in question (4) It possesses a metrical introduction of a literary character Kathe (1) The subject matter is a story generally a love story for the most part invented by the poet , (2) The narra tor should be some person other than the hero who may sometimes take that role (3) There is no division into chapters (4) It should have a literary metrical iptroduction

THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA

Tlus practcally stereotypes the tmo apectes io Saostrit Iterature eod as a natoral result of thus fxung of the cherae tenstcs the akhyeyuka and the katho declned to such an extent that most later theorsts do not think it nesessary to dhate upon the question

BSOS LI pt 3 194

THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA Anandavardhana has been assigned by Bubler and Jacobi to the middle of the minth centucy, on the strength of Rato- tarangi \ 34, which makes him one of the ornaments of the court of Avantiatman (A D 85S 84). The statements of Kalhana, no doubt, must be accepted with cauhon, but it is unlikely, as we shall see from several other consideratrons. that the tradition mn Kashmir, thus embodied in the Răja tarangi, regarding a famous author, should have maitaied a false or unfounded account We are pretty certam of the time of Abhinavagupta Anandavardhanas commentator , for, as he himsell siates, his commentary on the Ivara pratya bhrjna was written in A D 1014-15, while lus Krama stotra was composed in A D 991 This would certamly place ham towards the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century. Now, from Abhinavagupta's remarks at the end of his Locena commentary on Uddyotas 1 and mi of the Dhvanya loka, it appears that the study of this famous work was tradi tional in his family. and that his commentary was composed (ed Niroay Sagar Press, p 60), as a rejoinder to another, named Candrika written by one of bis predecessors in the same gotra (candrika karars tu paflutam ity-alam parva varsyath salta vadena bahuna p 185 , t alam nna purvaja sagotrapht sakom vnadend, p 123, cte ), and four times io his commen tary (pp 123, 174, 18S, 215) he discusses or controverts the views of this earlrer commentator, who is specifically relerred to as Candrila-kara at pp 178 and 1851 This would certatn-

I This Cendnika is also referred to in a punning verse at the begian ing of Mahmabhstta s byakt vneka ( 5) disom vertmany ati gohane skhahtam vanyah pade pade sulabhem | rabhasena yat pravrtid pratata kam candnikady odrwione on which the commentator, probably Ruyyaka remarka candrikā fyotsna dvami vicarana-grantho' pi (ed NSP p D)

THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 81

ly allow some gencrations to lte between Acandavardhana and Abbinavagupta, and would negative completely Pischel's contention that in three passages Abhmnavagupla speaks of Apandavardhana as one of his teachers. These passages occur at pp 37. 183, and 214 of the printed text, and a perusal of them with refcrence to their context will convince anyone that the honorific word gurw in the text may either rcfer to Anandavardhana, not literally but figuratively, as perompara- gurw, whose work was held in esteem in bis family (cf Jacobi, WZKM iv. pp 237-8), or (which is more likely) the reference is to one or other of Abhinavagupta's teachers, such as Bhatļa Tauta, Lakșmanagupta, or Bhațtenduraja, who are spoken of pretty oftco in this commentary, as well as in his Tantraloka and his commentaries on the the Natya- fastra and the Poratruhsikd Again, Kayyata states that he wrote his commentary on Anandavardhana's Devi-fataka (ed Kavyamala, Gucchaka ix) in about AD 977. so that by the end ol the tenth century Anandavardhana was well enough establisbed in fame to bave two such learned commentators It may also be pointed out that Rajasekbara, who lived about A D 880 920, mentions and cites Anandavar- dhana by name in hus Kavya mimamsa (p. 16), and this should certainly clear up any doubt as to the anthentienty of the date assigned by Kalbana and accepted by Bubler and Jacobı Several works have been ascribed to Anandavardhana. but what immedrately concerns us is the celcbrated work on Poeties known as Dhyanyaloka (also called Kāvyaloka or Sahrdayatoka), ot which or a part of which, he is reputed to be the author This work may be divided into two parts, viz (1) Karikas, consisting of verses and treating of dhvam, and (2) the Vrtt or exposition, gencrally in prose with ilustrative verses, of the Karikar Now the question bas been raised whether the Kartla and the Vrmh are of the same authorship or should be attributed to difterent authors Abhinavagupta and after him several writers on Poctics carefully distinguish between the Kankakara and the 6

82 SOMB PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Vrttikara implying thereby that the former is a duferent and elder writer In several places in his commentary he seems to oppose distioctly the Vrttikara and the Karikakara and to refer to them respectively as such vIz Semuctasth prakatana-dvarena paramesvora sammukhyam karon vttikarah (p 1) Nanu dhvom svarupam bruma dtt pratnaya vacya pratryamanakhyou dvau bhedau arthasya it vyakliabludhane ka samgatıh karıkaya ity ašankya samgatım kartum avataranıkam karotı (p 12) Ata eva mula karıka sakşut tau turakaranartha na šruyate vrttikrt tu mrakrtam api prameya samkhya puranaya kanthena 10t pokşam anudya mrakarotı (p 59) Dviftyoddyote kartkakaro vantara vibhagam višeşa lal sanam ca vidadhad anuvada mukkena mula vibhagam dynidhant sucHtavan Tadasayanusarena tu vrttkrid atraivoddyote mula vibhagam avocat sa co dvividha itt (pp 59 60) Vrttikarah samgatım uddyotasya Lurvana upakramate evam ity adı Prakalita itt maya yttikarena saten bhayah Na caitan mayoktam aps tu karikarabhsprayena ity aha tatrett (p 69) Ama paksam dupotvena hrdı mdhayabinjotvot sva pakşam purvaih darsayatt irttikarah (p 71) Karıkapy abhıprāya dvayenaiva yojya Na kevalam pra thamabhıpraye prathama Lartkartha-drştantabluprayena va khyeyam evam vrttt grantho pi yojyah (p 78 Vrttıkāro vakşyamana kartkabhiprayam dartayann aha (p 85) Prakrunta prakara dvayopasanl aram trttya prakara stca nam catkenaiva yatnena karomity ašayena sadharaham ava tarana padam prakşipats vrttikrt (p 104) Uktam eva dhnam svarupam tadabhasa vveka hetutaya karıkakaro navadafity ablprayena vttkrd upaskaram dadatt (p 122) Yos tu vyacaste vyongyanbm vastvalamkara rasanam mu khena ift so evam protavyah elat tavat tr bhedafvam na kart

THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 83

kākārena krtam vrttrkareno tu dorsitam Na ca idanih vrttt kāro bheda prakațanar karoti, ete (p 123) Kārkākārena pūrvam vyatıreka uktah, Na ca saryathā na Kartavyo'pi tu bībhatsadau kartavya eveh pašcad anvayah Vrttikārena tvanvaya pārvako vyatıreka tti šaiim anusartum anvayah parvam upattak (pp 130 1) Darsitam evett karikakarenett bhuta pratyayah (p 138) Yadyapy arthananta matre hetur vrtttkārenoktas tathāp: korr kakarena nokta tft (on w 3, ed S K De reprinted below), etc All these passsages are important, especially the last four in which Abhmavagupta tries to reconcile the confficting views expressed by the Kankakara and the Vrttikara It is to be noted that Abhmnava generally applies the epithet Granthakrt to the author of the Vrttt and Mula granthakrt to the author of the Kānkā (eg p 135). An exceptional weight attaches to the testimony of Abhinavagupta, whose opinion assumes a special importance when we consider that he did not live very far apart from Anandavardhana himself, and that in his famtly. the study of Dhvanyaloka was handed down as a kind of traditional heritage It, however, the commos authorsbp of the Kanka und the Vrtt be posited, then one would expect to fnd complete agreement of opinion between the two On the vtber hand. it seems that the system as given in its bare outlne by the Karikakara in his concise verses bas been considerably cx panded, revised, and modified by the Vrttikara. and mamy problems not diseussed or even hinted at by the former are elaborately treated of by the latter In one place, for in stance (p 123). Abhinavagupta clearly pomts out that the classification of dhiar according to vartu, alamkara, and rasadi is not expressly taught in any Karka although after the manner of all faithful commentators he attempts m hurs own way to reconcite this mconsistency Indeed, it would seem that Anandavardhana attempted to build up a more of less complete system of Poeties upon the loosely joined idcas and materials suppled by the Karkas and his success was so

84 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

marvellous that in course of time the Karikakara receded to the background completely oversbadowed by the more im portant figure of his formidable expounder and people consi dered as the Dhvamkata not the outhor of the few memorial verses but the commentator Anandavardhana himself who for the first time fixed the theory in its present form It may also be pomted ont that the term Dhvamkara caine gradually to be used in the generic sonse of the crcator of the Dhvant theory' and therefore indiseriminately apphed by later writers to Anandavardbana who though pot himself the founder of the theory came to receive that credit for having first victoriously introduced the system in the struggle of the schools It is not surprising, therefore that in the verse aseribed to Rajasekhara ın Ishlanas Sukti muktavali Ananđavar- dhans is regarded as the founder of the Dhyam theory Simiarly Samudrabandha (commentary on the Alamkara sudra p 4) passing in review the five schools of Poeties before Ruyyaka mentions Anandavardhana as the founder of the fifth or last Dhvam school This would also explam the two groups of apparently puzzling citations from the Dhvanyaloka met with io the works of later writers in which they either confuse or identify Anandavardhana with the Dhvanikara ( On the one band we have several Karikas cited under the name of Anandavardhana while on the other several passages which occur in the Vrtt are given under the name of the Dhvanikara 1 ) This confusion was so complete in later writers that even in the latter part of the eleventh century Mahumabhatta who professed to demolish the new

1 See for iostance Kyemendra Aucirya v cara-carecd p 134= Dhvanyaloka in 24 Hemacandra Alad kara cuda man p 26=Valla bhadeva & bhas tovar no 157=Dhvanyaloka 1 4 Govlnda Thak kura Kavya prod pa p 16=D/ vanyatoka p 221 Visvanātha Saintya darpana ed Roer p 108-DI enyaloka p 130 Jaypratha Atomkora

64-Dhvanyāloka ut 3 etc

THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 85

theory by his fierce onslaught in the Vyakti viveka, quotes from the Kanka and the Vrtt indiscrimmately under the generic appellation of the Dhvamkara. In the same way Kşemendra, in the last quarter of the eleventh century, and Hemacandra, in the brst quarter of the twelith, make Ananda vardhana responsible for Karikas m 24 and 4 respechively . while still later writers lke Govinda, Visvanatha and Kumarasvamin regard Anandavardhana bimself as the Dhvanikara, 10 whom the Karka as well as the Vritt is attri buted. Mammata, generally a careful writer, distinguishes Anandavardhana from the writer of the Kankas, whom he styles Dhvanikara or Dhvanikt (pp 213 and 214, 3rd ed Bomb Sans Series 1917), but in one place (p 445) he apparently falls into confusion and ascribes to the Dhvanikara a verse wlch probably belongs to the Vrttt If the Dhvamikara, the supposed anthor of the Kārika, is thus distinguished from Anandavardhana, the author of the Vrttr, the question naturally arises-who was this Dhvamkara, and what date should be assigned to him? It is clear from Abhrnavagupta's remarks that the Kankakara was an older writer although his name or date is nowhere given erther by Abhinavagupta or Anandavardhana It scems likely that even in the pinth and the tenth centuries his name was already for- gotten. although tradition of his authorstup still remamed Jacobi, in the learned introduction to bis transtation of the Dinanyaloke and following him. Harichand Sastri in bis L'Art Poetique de l'Inde, pose the question very ably. with out, however, furnishing e precise solution Sovam's hypo thesis (JRAS, 1910 pp 164-7) that the name of the unknown Kankakara was Sahrdaye on the ground that one of the alternative names of the work itself is Sahrdayaloko and that the use of the words sahrdaya and Lav-sahrdaya at the eed of chapter iv of the Dhamyaloke and in the begin- ning of Abhinavagupta's commentary is sigoificantly corro. boratne, is hardly convinciog For it is well Inown, as Hfarichand points out, that the word sahrdaya (ht s man

86 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POETICS

with a heart) is used in sonumerable places in Alamkara hterature as in the verses in question to designate a man of taste a judge of literaty beauty a connoisseur of Rasa Anandavardhana himself discusses sahrdayona at some length in his Vrtt (p 160) and Abbinavagupta arrives at a concise defimtion of a sahrdaya thus (p 11) yeşam Lavyanusilana bhyasa vatad višadtbhue mano mukure varnantya tanntayt bhavana yogyata te hrdaya samvadabhajch sahrdayah a del mlion which became so much standardized that Hemacaudra does not seruple to copy it literally in bis Alamkara cudamant (p 3) Simiarly Mammata begins his Kavya pralasa [Bomb ed p 10) with a reference to Kaw and sahrdaya who are thus distinguished by Vidyadhara in his Ekavali (p 2)) Kavyam Kartum vdant vindata itt Kavya vidah kavayah sahrdayas ca vettı yindatyor āvțttya grahanat poris phurotah prakra stesasya mahimnabhidhiyante and both Mammata and Visvanatha declare that the sahrdaya alone can have a true perception of Rasa in poetty It is needless to multiply rostances to establish a point which is pretty famlar to every student of Alamkare literature but they would go to disprove without any doubt Sovanis corjecttre that with sohrdayo we arrive at the namc of the unknown writer of the Kattkas The fact is that we have as yet hardly any material to decide the question fmally But it seems likely that the Dhvamkara was a much older woiter than Ananda vardhana for even id Abhmavagupta s time his actual name seems to bave been forgotten CIt 1s quite possible as Abht navagupta seems to imply and Jacobi tries to make out that this unksown Dhvamikara was a contemporary of Manoratha who 1s placed by Kalbana's Raja tarangim (iv 496 and 611) in the reign of Jayapida and his successor Lalitapida ie in the first part of the minth century (about A D 780 823) but there are dufficutnes which seriously stand in the way of our arriving at a definste decision on this poit While discussing the various theores which deny the existence of Dhvani Anandavardhana

THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 47

qootes a verse anonymously with the remark tatha canyena krta evatra slokah upon which Abhtaavagupta in his gloss remarks tatha canyena iti granthakrt samana kala bhavina Manoratha namna kavina Now if we suppose that by granthakrr Abbinavagupta means Anandavardbana then Manoratha who is thus made a contemporary of the latter lives in the last part of the minth century ie much later than the date assigned to him by Kalbana presuming of course that both the Manorathas are identical persons If on the other hand we suppose that granthakrt refers as Jacobi conjectures to the-anonymous Dhvan kara we are confronted with the fresh dificulty that by the term granthakrt Abhmnava gupta invariably means Aoandavardhana (pp 12 37 90 etc) To remove this difficulty we must suppose either (1) that Kalhana is wrong as Pischel argues in assigning Manoratha to the reigo of Jayapida and Laltapida (2) that the two Manorathas were not identical persons or (3) that Abh nava gupta himself has confused the Karıkakara with the Vrttikara As there are no definite means of deciding any one of these equally plausible propositions and as the acceptance of the onc oc the other of these would lead to widely different results the question cannot be regarded as satisfactorily settled and the attempt to make the origmal Dhvanikara a contemporary of the Manoratha of Kafbana does not seem to be at all plansible It would seem, on the other hand that the Kankas date back to a much earlier time than the first quarter of the ninth century in which the Dhvanskara is placed by Jacol as a contemporary of Manoratha The allusion to Manoratha and the apparent d screpancy in Kalhana s statement need not tcouble us nor need we challenge the otberwise trustworthy testimony of Abhinavagupta for it is qu te reasonable to suppose that the Manoratha under discussion is perhaps a poet who was Abbmavagupta says contemporancous with Anandavardhans and therefore quite a different person from the well koown Manoratha of Kalbana This is perhaps a

88 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT FOETICS

much simpler explanation than straining the word granthakrr to mean the korkakara in the face of Abhinavagupla's own distinet indicalion to the contrary and in this way we are not affected in the least by Kalhana s Manoratha with whom we have nothing to do If on the other hand we place the Dhvanikara in the time of Kalhana's Manoratha, this would only Jeave a bare margin of two generations between the Katikakara and the Vrttikara But a careful study of the Dhvam aloka would show that a longer time must indeed bave clapsed between the author and the commentator in order to make room for a period of scholastre exposition of the former ol which undoubted traces ate preserved to us in the few memorial verses-parikara flokas (pp 34 130 137 147 163) sa igraho slolas (pp 87 223) sariksepa slokas (pp 44 74 243)-incorporated by Anandavardhana io his Vrth which theretore is not likely to be the first of its kind Thest Slokas are a sort of cecapitulation stanzas which are adduced by the Vrtttkara from unknown sources somctimes co explain the meaning of the Karikas but more often to amplify and supple ment them A samktepa sloke as its name implies is a verse whch sums up and utters a theoty in a condensed and crystallized form A parikara dlota 1s thus explamed by Abhinavagupta (p 34) parikararthas t Larikarthasyadlkava port kartum Hlokah parikara-stoka and refetring to two sar igroha Slokas he remarks (p 223) evem Hloka dvayena so higrahartham abh dhatya bahu praarata prodarstkant Aarika i pophati Agoin in a rather long digression (pp 81 [) Apandavatdhana repudiates other explanatoas of Dhvani implying thercby that already before lus tume such attempted explanations bad found champions whose opiioos he thought worth refuting The space of one or two geberations as comectured by Jacobi between the onginal concerver of tho theory and its first great expounder between als Girst dogmatic formulation and ats decply thought out cxhaustie and classical exposition hardly sutlices to make these ibtermediate controversial actrvitics appear inielligible The aisumpuon

THE DHVANIKAKA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 89 commends itself, therefore, that a longer period must have intervened to allow the theory to struggle tbrough divergent opinions and establish itself authontalively, so that in Ananda- vardhana's time it could already look back upon a long past during which people had obviously progressed in the way of explaining it and had succeeded in bringing it, through various degrees of opposition and support, to a position of consider able authority And a century later, in Abhinavagupta's time, even the name of the Dhvanikara appeats to have been lost, although the tradition of his authorship of the Kankas-a tradiuon which in the next century almost disappeared -- still lingered

If Acandavardhana gave the final authontative shape to the Dhvan theory (only the details of which were worked out by Abhmnavagupta and others) the anonymous DhvamLara. who must have lived at least a centpry before his Vrttikara. was not its absolute creator This is made clear by the first Karika, which tells us that the theory was already taught by carlier thinkers, and that there existed even at that time at least three divergent views about the nature of Dbvani

Kavyasyatma dhvanr utt budhatr yah samāmnata-pūrvas tasyabhavaris jagadur apare bhaktam ahus tam anycl kecrd vocam stham avisaye tattvam ucus tadiyamt tena brumah sahrdaya-manah pritaye tat-svarapamt! Anandavardhana explains semamnate pfirvah in this verse as paramparaya yah samamnatah, and if we are to take Abbı navagupta's gloss on paroipara we understand that the theory came down in unbroken tradibon, if not explamed in pattcular books (avicchunnena pravahena tair etad uktam, vinapi vfrsta- pustakeșa vivecanad ityabluprayalt, p 2) This implies without doubt that the school existed from a very carly time, and some unknown writer io the dim past gathered together, summed up, and fixed the theery in n form which obtamed considerable hterary esteem fos bis work and the bonoured but somewhat vague appellation of the Dhvamilara for himsell But

90 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

his name and fame in course of time was eclipsed in their turn by those of bis great Vrttkara who succeeded in estab Lishing the theory for all time and to whom posterity began to aseribe not attogether undeservedly all the honours of bis predecessor so that one of the Jatest writers on Alamkara Kutošrasvamin (Rathapana p 288) glortfies him with the curious but significant epithet -- Dhvanyacarya 1

DSOS 3 1920

t ror a more recent d scumion of the question in all it anpeets se P V Kane Hstery of Samtnt Poct es (prefxed to his ed of the Sahltye darpana) Ord Ed. Dombay 1951 pp 154-90

ANANDAVARDHANA'S TREATMENT OF SAMGHATANA

The term Samghatana is not defined, but we are told that Samghatana is of three kinds, namely, Asamasa, Madhyama- samasa and Dtrgha samass It is thus a kind of collocation of words, depending on the absence or presence, in varying degree, of compounded forms It thus corresponds roughly to Rudrața's idea of Riti ' ' Older writers like Udbhata (as implied by Abhinavagupta) are said to have held that whtle Alamkaras belong to Sabda and Artha themselves, the Gunas pertain to Sabdartha sam- ghatana, the former being of the Avayava and the latter of the Avayavin As Anandavardhana takes great pais to show that this view is not correct, it is clear that the concept of Sarhghatana was already conventionally establisbed, even if there was perhaps no systematic thinking or exposition of it . ' Anandavardbana establshes that the real Asraya of Guna is Rasa, and not Sabdartha, nor Sabdārtha samghatana If Gunas are sometimes spoken of in relation to Sabda, this 1s done only through Upacara. just like talking of heroism exist- ing in a hero's physical frame ' What then is the relation of Sarghatana to Guna, and in what way can the Samghatana be said to suggest Rasa? If Rasa is the Nryamaka of Guna, what then is the Niyamaka of Samgbatana?' These are some of the problems which Anandavardhana discusses Some wrters hold that Sarghatana and Guna are not different, while others hold that they are different, The latter set of writers, again, differ among themselves, some say that Guna is the Asraya of Sarghatana, and others (like Udbbata) think that Samghatana is the Afraya of Guna Considering these views, Anandaverdhana points out that if Guna and Sarghalana are taken to be identical, or if Guna is said to de-

92 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

pend on Satlghatana as its Asraya there is the danger that like Sathghatana which is Antyata viaya the Guna will elso become Anyata vişaya But we know that the Guna being forms of Citta vttt (of Drutt Vistara and Vrkafa) have ther delinite scope (Visaya) in relatton to particolar sentiments or Rasas c g Madhurya mn Srhgara and Karuna Ojas mn Raudra and Adbhuta The Sarghatana on the other hand being dependent on mere compounding of words or Samaso cannot be said to have any defined stope. as for instance it cannot be said that Dirgha somata oceurs only in Raudra it may occur also sn Srgara simlarly Asamasa Sarghapana is not restricted to Sragura but it is found also 1n Raudra Hence Samghatana is Apıyata vişaya but Guna is not so the Rasa is the Niyamaka of Guna but it 1s not the Niyamaka of Sarghatana The Guna and Sanighatana therefore are not identical nor is the Sarghatana the Ašraya of Guna It may be objected that if Gunas are Sabdasraya even through Upacara they are also Samghatanatraya since there is hardly any Sabda which is not in the form of collocation 1 c Asamghatna It is rephed that this is not a necessaty consequence Even Asaighafta Sabda or mere Varna can through Upacara be the source of Guna The Samghatana is Amyata and indelinite things cannot be the Ascaya of Guna By Upacato therefore it may be said that Guna is Sabdasraya but never Sarghatapasraya (which is Anityo Sabdaratha collocation) even by Upacara The critie may objeet that Sargbatana is not always Am yata for even if it is admitted that no parueular Samghatana is found in Srhgara there is a Niyama with regard to Ojas inasmuch as Asamasa Samghatana is nol su table to Ojas The reply to this is that the notion that Ojas mvoives Dirgha gamasa is only a trad tonal error and that there is Ojas in such verses of Bhatta Narayana as yo yoh Sosirom even though there is no Dirgha samass The Ojas Guna depends on the Dipti of the mind which can be brought about with

ANANDAVARDHANA ON SAMGHATANA $3 equal cffect by Asamasa and Dugha samasa, and it does not depend upon mere Sabdartha collocation. The Guna primanly belongs to Rasa, which is its Asraya : but since words and their collocation can also suggest Raso, the Samghatana can also do so, provided it takes the accom- panyıng Guna as the Asraya (madhuryadin gunan dtritya rasan vyankti) The Sarghatana, therefore, is Gunafraya. it varies with the Gunas , it suggests the Guna, and through them the Rasas to which the Gunas pertain, From the poit of view of Rasa, therefore, there is Nıyama only as regards the Guna For it alone Rasa is Niyamaka From the standpoint of Rasa, Somghatana has no Niyama, 1 e the Rasa is not a Nayamaka of Samghatana, since the rule that certain kinds of Samghapana concern certain Rasas 1s often violated Dut since Sarghatana can also be Rasa vyanjaka, what is the Niyama which controls it? It cannot be that Samghatana has absolutely no Niyama Its Niyama, we are told is the more comprehensive Aucitya of the context, the Atcıtya of Vaktr, Vacya, Vişaya ete, which determmnes the suitability of Samasa vrttt in particular cases But since these circuimstances also constitute the Niyama of Rasa and. through it. of Guna, there appears to be some confusion of thought on this issue Anandavardbana appears to throk that the same comprebensive, even if somcwhat vague, Ni- yamaka of Aucitya appears to regulate both Rasa (and conse- quently Guna) and Samghatanā It is clear that if Guna is accepted as explained by Ananda- vardhana io relation to Rasa, the Sarghatana is, more or less, a superfluous concept, the Samasa vrtti being a constituent of the Guna in their vanety His concern is perhaps not to set forth a theory of Samghatana, but to show that the views of earher writers on the older concept of Samghatana is not justi fiable , ad if it is to be accepted at all, it must be recognised that it is dependent on the Guna. and admissible only as such, its only Niyamaka being the law of propriety of the context Later writers, therefore, who generally follow the scheme of

94 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Pocttcs standardised by Anundavardhana, almost ignore Sadlighajana as such Mammata makes only a passing reference to Sarlghatana in the same stramn, in his chapter on Guna, Vitvanatha brings in Samghajana in his somewhat pecultar exposition of Riti (pada sarghojana ritth ritch samghojand wlesatvat) which last concept was considered redundant by Anandavardhana but in which Visvanatha following Rudraja, makes Samass vrtli, o sine qua non Vidyanitha, however, who belongs to the new school and whose approach to poetry is quite different rather uncritically accepts Udbhaja's view expressed in the dietum samghatana dharmak ganah'

New Indian Antiqwary YH 1984

1 See Dhanydloka Iu 61-64

THE RASARNAVALAMKĀRA OF PRAKĀSAVARȘA

Students of Sanskrit Alamkara-Sistra are indebted to Pandit V. Venkatarama Sharma of the University of Madras for publishing in the IHQ, vol v, pp 173f the text of Prakasavarsa's Rasarnava along with an extensive account of the work in English During a week's stay in Madras in 1924 1 had an opportunity of examining an imperfect manuseript- copy of the work in tbe Government Ortental Manuscript Library (which Pandit Venkatarama appears also to bave utilised), but, as I coutd not devote much time to it, my examination was necessarily cursory, and the brief account whtch I gave of it in BSOS, iv, pt 2, p 283 was not only tocomplete but incorrect in one particular in the deseription of the work Pandit Venkatarama has now poblished the text, as well as a tartly full account, from two mapuscripts. and I must thank him for the correction he has made of my error , but I still find from a careful study of the published text that I was not mistaken in regarding this work as a comparatively late composition belonging to a period probably later than that of Bhoja The Madras MS gives the work of Prakasavarsa in five chapters, the first four of which deal with Guna, Dosa and Alamkara, and the last (incomplete) with Rasa Venkatarama Sharma claims that the Rasarnava is "the earliest work on Poetics after the Natyaveda" of Bharata, and that 'Prakāsa- varşa must have flourished before Bhamaha and Dandin and after Banabhatta, 1e, between 650 A C and 750 A C" But it appears. however, that the learned Pandit is entirely on the wrong track iD his views about Prakasavarsa's relation to Bhamaha and Dandin Apart from the very elaborate treatment of Guna, Dosa and Alamkara which one can bardly expect mn such a presumably early work, there is a distinct reference in it to Dhvam, and mn most of his defmtions and apparently

96 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

novel classifications Prakasavarsa appears to follow very closely the school of opinion which is represented in Sanskrit Pocties by the work of Bhoja If Pandit Venkatarama had closed his Bhamaha and Dandin and opened his Sorosvaft Lanthabherana he would have at once found out the source of most of Prakasavarsa s informabon and would have seen that like Bhoja Prakafavarsa does not hesitate ra appropriating and copying verses from Dandmn and Bhamsha a procedure which appears to have misted his editor I have already attempted to shew in my Sanskrit Poetics u pp 26if that Bhoja like the author of the Alamkara section of the Agm parana follons a tradition of thought and speculation which is different to many respeets from that of the carher established writers on Poetics although his work Is essenhally an eclectic compilalion which conforms to the tenchings of no particular orthodox school but gathers its material from all sources The importance given to Rasa in conformity with the gencral standpoit of the carher Rasa and Dhvam schools (in spite of a somewhat elaborate treatment of Guna Dosa and Alamkara which are not directly correlated to Rasa) as well as the presence of verses culled Irom drflerent older writers (especially Dandmn and Dhamaha) need not surprisc us is such a work Prakasavarsa s Rasarnavo is marked by the same featores and he shows the same reverenet to Dandin and Bhamaha whose works supplied to him as to Rhoja a large number of unacknow- ledged quotations and ideas The very fact that he refers to and quotes from a Bhamaba or a Mahabhamaha (although these quotations are not to be found in Bhamaha s koown work) precludes us apart from cvery otber consideralion from placing Prakatavarsa before Bhamaba Coming to the subjeet matter of the work itself one can see at once that there is a close agreement in the defiaitions and classifications of Guna Dosa and Alamkara between Bhoja s Sarasvafi Kanthabharana and Prakasavarşa's Rasar nava No doobt Prakasavarşa here and there adds to or

THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 97

rejects a Guna or an Alamtara from the enumeration of Bhoja Thus of the 24 Sabda gunas mentioned by Bhoja Prakašavarsa accepts 22, leaving aside Gatr and Praudh mentioned by Bhoja and to the 24 Arthalamkaras of Bhoja Prakasavarga adds four more Apart from such legitimate additions and modifications the Gunas Doşas and Alamkaras in Prakasavarşa are named defined classufied to the same way and mentioned almost mn the same order (but for exegencies of metre) as m Bhoja But the agreement is more than that The defmtions and elassifcations are mosdy copied verbally by Prakasavarss from Bhoja Some of the classifications and definitions are peculiar to Bhoja mentioned by him for the first time and some are mentioned by no other rhetoricians All these are also copied by Prakasavarsa It would be futile therefore to compare Prakasavarşa's treatment with those of Bhamaha and Dandin and it 1s not surprismg that Pandit Venkatarama has found more poiots of confusing divergence than agreement in such a procedure As the Sarasvati kanthabharana is a well known aod easily avarlable text, it is not necessary to cite here all the points of agreement occurring throughout Prakasavarsa s Rasarnava wherever the topics dealt with are common to the two works But a few typical instances may be adduced here in support of the statements made above The general scheme and classification of Gunas and Dosas are almost identical in Bhoja and Prakasavarsa and the same ideas and termioo togy are employed throughout The division of Dosas into three classes (as relating to puda vakya and vakyartha) a brch is accepted by both is indeed much older but while Bhoja for the sake of a certain symmetry and uniformity of treat ment enumerates sıxteen Dosas respectively of poda valya vakyartha Prakadavarsa accepts from them only fourteen pada dosas fourteen (but really fifteen) vukya dogas and six teen vakyartha doses using neatly the same nomenclatore and almost identical definit ons We give them here in 7

98 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

parallel columns so that the striking agreements as well as the slight differences will be clear at a glance Bhojal Prakašavarsa 1 Pada dosas (16 in number) 1 Pada dosar (14 in number, slightly different order) asadho (sabda Sastra virud- as,adhu (sabdo sastra virud dham yat) dham yat) aprayukta (kavibhu na aprayukta (na prayuktamı prayuktam yat) kavndrair yat) kaşta (padam sruter asu- khadam) kaşta (sravana durbhagam)

anartbaka (pada pūrona anarthaka (pada pūrana matrartham) matramh yat) anyartha (rudhi cyutar (To this reatly corresponds padam yat) Pkv's asamartha s belowì apustartha (yat tu tuccha bhidhcyam syat) apustartha (vacya tuccha- taya klıştam) asamartha (asamgatam asamarthe (yad baddham padata yat) fudhı vartma vyatıkra mat)-ef Bhoja's any- artha aparatita (prasiddbam apratta (fistra eva pra- sastra eva yat) yuktaıt yat)" khşfa (dure yasyartha- klışta (paramhparyena car- samhvittıh) thasya sucakam) güdbartha (aprasiddhär gudhartha (aprasiddbartha tham prayogam) samhbaddham) neyartha (sva sadıketa- neyartha (svayam kalpıta prakiptartham) samketam) samndigdba (na yat padam sasamsaya (yatrarthantara niścayakrt) sambandhah)

1 The references are to the Kavyamala edition (Nir Sag Press Bombay 1925) of Bhoja s Sarasvar Kanthabharanp but A Borooab's edit on (Caleutta 1884) has also been consulted 2 The read ng netdally is satirdr yuktam yad (with lacunae)

THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 99

Bhopa Prakašavarşa vipatita (vruddbartha prakalpanam) aprayojıka (avfeşa vıdba aprayojaka (vivakşıta pra yakam) meyasya nopakarı) desya (avyutpattımat desya (desa rudhı gatam padam) padam) gramya-(a) aslila or gramya-(a) asabhya (b) asablya tha (b) amal ga amangala and (c) ghna la and (c) ghpnavat 3 kara 3 kinds kınds The agreements are no less close and striking in the case of vakya-dosas 2 Vakya dosas (16 in num 2 Valya doşas (14 in num ber) ber but really 15 slighly different order) sabda hina (apasabdavat) sabda hina (bh nna bbasa padaviđdham) krama bhraşta (arthah krama bhrasta (sabdartha sabdo va yatra na vyutkramo yatra) kramah)' visamdbi (visamhito virupo wsamdhi (viruddba samdbi va yatra samdh h) mhsamubif punarukt mat (padam pa puaruktimat (tadrk pada darthas cabhinnau yatra) padarthanam mibandhe) vyakurna (mitho yasmin vyakımna (aneka pada vibbaktinam asamgatih) samtana vyahata smrtı bhih padair yojana yatra) samkIma (vakyantara semkırna (vakyantara pada r misram) padonmišram) apada (vibhinna prakrt stha di pada yukti)

I Th s s the read ng of A Boroonh s text the Kavyamala ed t on reads a ti af dabdo va yatra tatkran ak

100 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

Bloja Prakufa arsa vakya garbinta (vakyantara [ vakya ] garbhita (vakya sagarbham yot) ntara sagarbhem yat) bhurana ltga (yatropama bhinna ltnga (alingatvad bhinns linga) upama nopameyay oh) bhinna vacana(yad bhinna bhinna vacanna (yasmın vacanopamam vacana vaişamyam upa manopameyayoh) nyunopama (nyunam upa nyunopama toyenan upo mana višesonath) maya višeşanath) odhikopama (adhikam yat adhikopama (useşanadhık punas tath syat aupamyam) bhagna chanda (yac chan bhanna vrtta (chando lak dobhangavad vacah) şana hinam) 2 kınds bhagna yatı (asthane vira tad varna yatı bhedena tir yasya) dvidha z Sarıra (krıya pada vibı khama (krıya vrrolıfam nam yat) vakyam) a ntmat (gunanam drsyate śleşadı guna hidam-10 yatra sleşadınam vipar kinds in the same way yayah) 9 kinds accord as in Bhoja but sama ing as each doşa is dha guna is ineludeđ a viparyaya of each of the corresponding 9 gunas with the ex ception of samadhi Those who are not yet convinced by these instances will find the scheme and classiflcation of vakyartha dosas even more strikingly close 3 Vakyartho dosas (16 in 3 Yakyartha dosas (16 In number) number) apartha (samudayartha sunyam yad vacah) apartha (samudayartha sunyam yat) vyartha (gatartham yot, yac ca syan nisprayoja vysrtha (yad aprayojakam1

kam) yac ca gatarthom)

) The text teads apray ojonan

THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 3 84 61 101

Bhoja ekartha (uktyabhinnartbam) Prakasavrsa ekartha (uktyabhınoar tham)' sasamsaya (samdigdbar- sasahsayh (yatrarte yasya tham) na niscayah) apakrama (vākyam yat tu apakrama (paurvāparya- krama bhrastam) viparyayah) khinne (jātyādyuktāvanr- khınna (jatyadyuktavabır- vyudham) vyūdham)* atımatra (yat sarva lokati atimatra (lokatita ivartho tärtham) yah) paruşa (yat to krorartham paruşa (atı krūas tu vāky- aty artham) arthah) (aprastuta rasam virasa (aprākțta rasam) yat) bioopama (hinart yatro- hinopama (binam yatropa pamanam syat) manam syāt) adhikopama (tad eva yas- adhikopama (yatropama- mion adhr am) nam adbıkam) asadrsopama (yat t atuly- visndrsopama (atulyam opamanam) upa manam cet) aprasiddbopama (aprasid- aprasiddhopama (aprasid dhopamaoam yat) dhopamanam eet) mralamkara (yad alam- r ralatnkaro (alamkāra kara-binam) vvar ttam) aslda (aslılartha-pratitı krt) aslila (yad asabhyartha satbaddham) viruddha-3 kiods (a) pra- viruddha-3 kinds (a) pra- tyaksa viruddha (b) tyaksa viruddha (b) tnumana-viruddha ond aoumana viruddha and (c) agama virudha each of which again is of cach of which again (c) agama-viruddha,

three kinds-9 kinds ts of three kinds, as in in all Dhoja -- 9 kinds in all

1 The reading uktabhenndrthant ts obviousty a mistection 2 The tett pas lacunae nere

102 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

It may be urged that most of these Dosas and thei descriptiops will be met with in other writers and that in the definition and arrangement of Dosas which are more of less standardised the verbal or other agreements need not be taken as absolute proofs of borrowing But when we come to the treatment of Gunas the case is more convincing. It Is well known that in spite of the intluence of Dandin and his school as well as of the tradition of opmnion followed in the AlamLara section of the Agmt purana Bheja adopts a termino logy and scheme of Gunas which are peculiar to hunself and which difler in many poits from those of his known prede cessors but here also Prakafavarsa follows him pretty closely To the orthodox ten Gunas of Sabda and Artha respectively of Vamana viz, šlesa presada mudhurya samata saukumarya arila yaktt ojas Lant udarata and sumadht (which are however, sometimes defined stightly diffe rently by later writers who accept them) Bhoja adds aurj tya udāttara preyas susabdata saukșmya gamblirya sarikșėpa ustara sommitana bhaytkatva rift ultt gat and prau llu thus cnumcrating 24 Gunas in all which unique arrange- ment gives us perhaps the largest number menhoned by any author Prakasavarsa accepts the nomenclature and definition of the first 22 almost verbally omitting got and proudls from his hst

Bi aja Prakašavarta Sabda guras (24 in num Sabda guras (22 in number) ber) Sleşa (su fışla padata) sleşa (yatra bandho ta sam śl stah) prasada (prasiddhartha prasada (ptas ddhartha padatvam) poda nyasah) samata (yan mrdu pras samati (bandho mrdu spb phutonmisra varna ban utonm sra varna janma dha vidhnb prat na samkarah) va gamyena bhananam)

THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 103

Bhoja Prakasavarya madhurya (ya prthak-pada (a vakye) madhurya (arthocita-vaco bandbah) sukumarata (anışthurak- sukumāratā (akațhorākşara şara-prāyam) -nyāsah) artha-vyaktı (yatra saırpur artha vyaktı (sainpūrna- na-vākyatvam) kanti (yad ujjvalatvam ban vakyaia)

dhasya) kānt (bandhasyojjvalatā)!

audārya (vikatākşara-ban audarya (bandha-vaikat dhatvam) yam) udāttatā (slāghyarr viseşa udāttata (Saghyair visesa nair yogah) nair yuktam) ojas (samasa-bhuyastvam) ojas (samāsa bhūyastvam) aurjtya (gadba bandhata) aurjitya (bandha gadbat vam) preyas (priyatarakhyanar cațūktau) preyas (preyortha-pada-

susabdata (vyutpattth sup vinyassh)

tinăm ya) susabdalā (yā subanta- tinantanam vyutpatth) samädhı (anya dharma nath yad anyatradhiro samadht (anya-dharmasya bhaved anyatra ropa- panam) nam) saukşmya (antah samjalpa sa uksmya (sabdanam antah rupatvamh sabdanam) gāmbhirya (dhvanimatta) samjelpa rūpata) gambbuya (dhvanımatta) vistara (vyasenoktih) sarkşepa (samāsenābbr vistara (vyastam) sambLsepa (abbıdbanam dhanamh) samasena) sammitatva (yavadartha- sammiatva (yavadartha- padatvam) bhavilatva (bhavato vak padatvam) bhāvikatva (bhāvābhivya ya vrttr y5) ñjali vāpi) gatı (kramo yah syad arohavarohayoh) 1 The text bas laeunse here

104 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Dhoja Prakatavarsa

rıtı (upakramasya nitva riti (upakramasya nırvā hah) hah) uktı (vrlışta bhanıhr ya ukti (asthantarena1 cattha syät) sya bhananat) praudh (ukteh praudhah parıpakah) It is not necessary to dilate on this point further and men tion the Artha gunas which betray simiar parallehsm Pra kasavarsa s discussion as to how Dosas somctimes become Gunas which follows this topie closely copies from Bhoja Indeed the borrowing goes on prachcally throughout the whole work It is a pity that the Rasa chapters which give the name to the wotk are tacomplete in Prakasavarsa s pub lished text if we had the whole of it we would perhaps bave seen the same inflpence not only of the somewhat umque Rasa chapters of Bhoja's Serasveti Lonfl abl arana but also probably of bis much larger and more cxtensive Srngara prakufa Com ing to the trentment of the Alamkaras one finds that Bhoja s classification of figures as bairya abhyantara and balnabhyan tara is also accepted In order to presetve a certain umifor mity and symmetry of trcatment (which is also noticeable in his classificauon of Gunas and Dosas) Bhoja mentions six kinds each of rit witt chaya mudra uktt bhantt gumphana Sayya and pajhtr which are included in the treatment of Sabdalamkaras Most of these are admitted and dealt with in the same way by Prakasavarsa but as in the case of Gunas and Dosas he is electic with regard to the number he accents in many cases omitting one or two kinds from the enumera tion of Bhoja Of the six Ritis of Bhoja Prakasavarsa accepts five omitting Magadhi to the four orthodos Vrttis Bhoja adds two more but Prakasavarsa mentiors only five Of the six Linds respecuvely of mudra chaya and bhortt agarn fwhich

1 The text has lacunar here which is wuppl ed by the editor as

106 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

reproduced by Prakāsavarşa' Again, Bhoja admis the philosoptncal idea of upamana (as a means of knowledge) in a poctic figure of that nome and distinguishes it as a figure from the more well known wpame* This is a treatment peculiar to lumself and is accepted by no writer on Poctics (so far as we know) expect Appayya Diksita in his Kmnalayd nanda The figure upamana as conceired and defined by Bhoja is also to be found in Prakasavarso This wholesale similarity of phrascology and ideas occurring throughout in the twe works (even in the matter of pecoliat schemes and treatment of characteristic points) cancot indeed be explained a5 accidental coincidences, or mere repetition of standardised technicalities It may be coptended. however that what is said above does not necessarily prove that Prakasavarsa has actually borrowed from Dhoja for it is possible to hold that Dheja might have modelled his bigger compilation upon the smaller manual of Pralasavarsa or that both of them belonging to the same tradstion of thought probably drew upon the same source All this may be argued, but it cannot be maintamned that Prakasavarşa is a very early writer earher even than Bhamaha and Dandin The supposition however of Bhoja's borrowing from Prakasavarsa appears to be very uphkely While Bhoja s work displays a systematie and elaborate treatment (in spite of its pecultar theoretic stand- point) reinforced by abundant wealth of illustrations which hifts it much sbove an average complation Prakasavarsa's work is nothing more than a short compilation of defimtions and classifications The Rasarnava has the appearanee of having been a practical manual or text hook, and as such it is not unlikely that it was compiled chefly by wholesale

1 The defimtion is also copied by Vidyanatha who is one of the few writers who follow Bhoja's elaborate classifcatien of Gunas although Vidyanatha accepte Dhvam as essential 2 See SansArit Poenies i p 14

THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 107 appropriatons from Bhoja s standard work with just a few pieces of supplementary information culled from other sources In whichever way the question of borrowing be decided it is clesr however that Prakastvaraşa like Dhoja belonged to a tradition of opimon which is distinet from that of the established schools, and of which the earitest known example is tn be found in the Alamkara section of the Agm purana The date of this section at least of the Purana cannot be fixed too early Since it is not unaware of some theory of Dhvan itrs perhaps later but not much later than the Dhvamaloke and probably belorgs to the latter half of the 9th century A D Prakafavarsa must at any rate be later than this date He must also have been later than Anandavordhana n who establ shed the Dhvant theory in the struggle of the schools for Prakasavarsa I ke Bhoja is aware of the concept of Dhvam and iocludes it as we have already seep mn the sabda guna gombl iyd The very elaborate treatment of Guna and Dosa would by itself place him later than Dandin and Bhamaha upon whose scheme this treatment attempts in its own way to improve while the treatment of the Alathkaras in the same way supports and confirms this conclusion The statements therefore that Prakasavarsa s Ra arnave is the cari est work on Poeucs after the Nalyaveda and that be must have fourisbed before Bhamahs and Dand o appear to be misconcerved and uneritical Nevertheless the work is interestiog and iportamt as representing 1 ke Bhojas work from which it presumably draws its material a pecuhar ltne of speculat on different In tome respects from accepted vieus of the established sehools of Sanslrit Poetics As such its publication has been well deserved

MAMMAȚA S KAVYA PRAKASA The Kavya prakasa of Mammata is one of the classic works on Sanskrit Poetics and Rhetone which has always maintuned _. a great authonty and popularity throughout India' There is perhaps no other technieal work in Sansktit which has been so much commented upon and so often edited The number of commentaries so far discovered comes up to more than sixty and they count as their authors not onty independent writers on Poetics like Ruyyaka and Visvanatha but also authors having otler hterary interests like the Naiyayıka Jagadifa the grammaran Nag-sa the Smarta and Mimamsaka Kamalakara the Jama Marikyacandra the Vaişnav Baladeva and the Tantrika Gokulanatha . The reason for this great populanty hies in the fact that Mammata is the first and foremost as well as the most typieal writer of the new school of Poetics the Navyas. and b s far famed work occupies a unque postbon in the history of Sanskrit Alamkara I terature It is neither a very extensive nor a strikingly origmal work but in only one hundred and forty three Karikas and about six bundred and twenty illustratrons it traverses the whole field of Sansktit Poetics (sth the exception of Dramaturgy) and combimng as it does the merit of fulness with that of conciseness it sums up aud explains in the succiact form of a br fliant text book afmost all the previous speculations in the subject be coming in its turn the starting point of endless text books and exegetic works The history of Sanskrit Alamkara covers a period of more t1 an a thousand years but st is marked by several well defined stages The dim beginnings of the discipline ltke the dim beginnings of most other braches of Ind an speculation are hidden from us until we enter upon the first historic stage of its formulat on in a more or less self conscious form in the works of Bharatz and Bhamsha Bharatas well Lnown Napa sastro is prmcipally concerned with dramaturgy music

MAMMAȚA S KAVYA PRAKĀSA 10g

and allicd topies and deals with Poeties 1n so far as it applics to the theme in hand, but in Bhamaha s Kavyalamkara we find for the first time an exclusive treatment of Poeties proper and a more or less systematic scheme of the subject which undoubtedly betoken a preceding period perhaps of several centurtes of uoknown beginnings All that we can surmise of the unkown perrod consists of glimpses of rhetorical spe culations such as we find in Bharata in the recorded opinions or stray references to pre Bhamaha writers like Medhavm or in such schemes of Alamkara as was presumably utilised by the earlier Kavya poets in general and by Bhatt in particular This period begins with the enumeration and definiion of only four poetic figures ten Gunas ten Doas and thirty six Kavya taksanas mentoned by Bbarata but it ends with the ela borate characterisation of thirty eight independent poctic figures in Bhattt But what is importaot to note in this period is Bharora s more or less standard exposibion of dramatorgy and incidentally of Rasa which aesthetic clement however is considered not particularly in relation to poetry and poetics but in conbexion with drama and dramaturgy Tlus is followed by a comparatiely bricf but exeeedingly important penod of great fertilty and creative gemas begin ning with Bhamaba and ending with Anagdavardhana in #htch we find most of the funda mental problems and concepts of Sanskrit Poettes discussed and settled in their general out Jines This fruitful and creative stage which covers more than two centurtes and includes some of the great names in the history of the discipline gave rise to lour distinct schools of opimon represented respechvely by the Alamkara RT Rasa and Dhvani systems We have on the one hand Bhamaha Udbhaja and Rudrapa devotig themsclves to the consideration of those decorative devices of poctic expression which are known as Lovyalomkaras or poenic figures and conlining themselves chiely to a somewhai eiternal art or theory of embelluhment from which the d seipline nself takes sts name end is original trad tion Dandin and Vamana on

110 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the other hand emphasise in poetry the objective beauty of representation realised by means of what they call Marga or Ritt (rouehly poetic diction') wluch consists of a harmomious combination of cerlain f xed literary excellences of sound and sense Known as Ounas Both these systems which respective- ly bring into promunence the elements of Atmlara and Rit i8 poetry fcontent themselves with the somewhat mechanical working out of the outward form of poetic expression, the advantages of which were considered sufficient for poctry) They poit out the blemishes to be avoided and the excellenees to be attained and describe efaborately the poetical embellish ments or devices of literary expression which enhance tts beauty so much so that the whole discephine came to receive the sigmficant designation of Alattikara Sastra or the dis ciplmne of pectical embellishment Side by side with these early vriters however, we have the commentators on Bharata like Lollata Sankuka and Bhatta Nayaka who werc bringing into prommence the aesthetie importance of Rasa the consideration of the poctie feelings and sentiments which should regulate the outward cxpression of poetry, Their exposition however concerned the dramatie art and their theories did not yct come properly within the sphere of Poetres which was entirely dominated by the systems of AlamLara and Ritt but we find them gradualty influencing poeticians of rivat persuasion who betray them selves more and more alve to the sigmiticance of Rasa in pocty The bearings of this clement however on poetry were not fully realised until the Dhvamkara ond Anandavar dhana came into the field and worked it up snto their new system of Dhvant These new theorists headed by Anandavardhana marntain that no system of Poctics like no system of Dramaturgy can ignore the moods teclings and centments as essential factors of poetry and must theretore find an important place for Rasa in dis scheme What was alteady estabhished in the drama was takeo over and systematically applied to poetry

MAMMATA'S KAVYA PRAKASA 111

profoundly modifying as it did the entirc conception of Kavya) The Rasa came to be considered as the essence of poetry, and in order to harmonise it in the poetic theory the new school evolved a theory of suggeston or Vyapjana as the means of its expression ' At the same time not fully satistied with the working up of the concept of Rasa into their system the new theorists devoted themselves to a re examination of the already aceumulated ideas of Alamkaca and Ritt with a view to correlate them to the new theory of Dhvant and Rasa and thus by synthesis evolve a comprehensive scheme of poeuics (The Dhvam school in its anslysis of the essentials of poetry, found that the content of a good poem may be genc rally distinguished into two parts The one as that whrch is expressed and includes what is given in so many words whe- ther directly exphcit or metaphorically implicit , the other is not expressed but suggested springing immediately from that which is expresscd The unexpressed or suggested part whch is not sometinng vague but is distinctly hoked up with the expressed and which is manifested by a peculiar power of suggestion (vyamjana) inherent in word and sense is token to be the essence of poetry. To grammarians and learned writers it perhaps seemed paradoxical to state that the very essence of poctry waa that which was not even expressed On the other hand, some form of symbolcal speech in which wisdom demands that one should express oneself more in hints and suggestions than in actual words was always in vogue and the poets bad been more or less partral to the method of speaking in metaphor or wrapping up their ideas in trans parent allegory But sugsestive poetry according to the new theorists is somcthing different from the merely metaphorical which Vamana had already amply recognised and on which the Alamukara and the Riti systems had placed so much em phasis The metaphorical or the allegoric however veiled is still in a sense expressed and moust be taken as such. but (the segested is always unexpressed and is therefore a source

112 SOME PROELEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

of the proper charm of poctry by its very capseity of conceal ment The Dhvant school postulates that the unexpressed or mnexpressible which is the soul of all good poetry is called into beiog by a particular function of suggestion inberent mn words and their meanings y f But the unexpressed manifested by the suggestive power of sound and sense may be an unexpressed matter of fact (vastu) or an unexpressed imagmnatave mood (alomkara) but In most cases it is an emotional state which is direetly inex pressible The Dhvant school therefore took up the poctie feclings and sentiments (bhava and rasa) as an clement of the unexpressed and thus tried to harmonise the concept of Rasa with the theory of Dhvam Anapdavardhana distinctly says in one place (Dhs anyaloka p 163) that his object is not mere ly to establish Dhvam but also to harmonise it with Rasa altcady recognised in dramale theory by Bharata and others It was realised that poetry was not as Dandm thought the mere clothing of agreeable ideas in agreeable words feelings end sentiments also play an important part in it But the feelings and sentiments are in themselves inexpressible We can give a name to them but naming a feeling or sentiment is not equivalent to mamfesting it At best therefore we can suggest it What the poet can directly express or com mun cate ie not the feeling itself but the ground of the feeling or ris excitant and attendant circumstances With the help however of these expressed elements which must be general ised and conctived not in a personal (faulika) but in an impersona! (ofaukrka) form the poet ean awaken in us through their inherent suggestive power a particular impersonal condition of the mind in wh ch the relish of the natoral feel ing is possible as a poetic sentiment Itis true that the poet cannot rouse the samc fceling as for instance Rama whom he describes felt but by the suggestive power of the express ed cireumstances of Rama his conduct and bis nssociate the poet can call up a reflcetion of it and evoke in the reader s mind a s m'lar mental condition in which the reader idenlifies

114 SOVE PROOLCMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

the predominant tuplicit factor, the outward expression being impottant as a means of pointing to this tmplicit sigmfieance The analysis is comprehensive enough to mclude in its scope descrptive, ornamental as well as emotronal poetry , but it rs also percerved, if not directly stated that the emotional mood which the poct succeeds in suggesting to the reader's mind in the form of that delectable subjective condition of imperso nalised enjoyment which is called Rasa, is of the highest importance in poetry ) In a complete scheme no doubt, the vastt dhvant and the alomlara dhvant, tacitly reeognised by older writers and practised by the poets, must also be justified end the Dhvant school ceuld not at least from the standpomt of theoretic consistency, definitely make the suggestion of Rasa the exclusive end of poetry But the central question to which attention is devoted by the school is as to how a composition should help the Rasa to expression, for it is repeatedly lad down that ncither mere embelhshment nor mere narrative but the suggestion of poetic sentiment should be the guiding principle of the poct in his composition of word and sense In other words the school practically. if not theoretically, recognises that the Rasa should be the centre of gravity towards which everything else in a poem- vastu riti, guna doga and alamkara -- should move , and stress coming to be laid upon the underlyiog poetic sentiment. the suggestion of Rass came to prevail over other kinds of sug gestion The Dhvanikare and Anandavardhaca, no doubt, wisely refrained from going into the extreme position of such later wriers as Visvanatha who regord the suggestion of the emotional mood to be the exclosive end of poetry cven to the extent of ignoring the imaginatrve and the realstic, but the athitude of the Dhvam school towards the importance of Rasa tends practically towards such a proposttion and pro bably inspires the later theorists to a further development of the theory out of uself into the inevitable extrene thesis that the Rosa atone in the essence of poctry One of the triumphs of the new school was indced the admission of the old idea

116 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POBTICS

exponents of older traditions who appear to have been un- . touched by the implications of the Dhvam theory and stood apart in many respects from the school of Anandavardhana Able as they nere, these attempts languished for want of support , fand the more or less complete scheme of Poeties outlmned in the Dluamalota which wanted to harmomse and bring into a deGnite focus the scattered ideas of previous speculalion, was worked out in detan by Mammata and his followers and was ultimately standardised as the finally domioant scheme , The success of Mammata's work was indeed so complete that the authority of the Dhvm school came to be unquestionably accepted by most later writers and the systems which emerged after Mammata could no longer be strictly regarded as entirely independent systems / < It wdl be seen from what is said above that the divergent currents of thoughts and tendencies in Sansknt Poctics fowing in diferent directions through many centuries ultimately ran mlo one clear and dommnant stream in tho classical worl of Mammala y In the progress of the discipline the Alamkara school proposed to copfine itself to a theory of embellishment of expression consistently with what was probably the onginal tradition of the Sastra, whuile the Rili school laid stress on the objechive beauty of expression realised by means of diction which consisted of a harmonious combination of certam fixed hterary exceliences The Rasa school, however storting with the considcration of the drama was responsible for introducing into poehic theory the subjective clement of Rasa tepresented by fechngs and sentiments The Dhvam school headed by Anandavardhina admitted the underlying truth of afl these doctrines but elaborated a peeuliar theory of suggestion in poctry, including the suggestion of Rasa to wluich all other poctic factors were cortelatd It will be seen that a relative emphasis was 1.nd by gach of these schools on the difterent elements of Alahkara Ritt (including Gana and Dosa) Rass and Dhvam:

MAMMAȚA S KAVYA PRAKASA 117

respectively, and the currents of speculation thus fowed in "different dtrections It was however realised in the end that all these gleams of thought should be gathered into a focus and all these currents should be made to flow into one stream CIndeed one of the obvrous objects of Anandavardhana s work was not only to define and establish the concept of Dhvani mn poetry but also to work up and rattonabse mto a synthetie and comprehensive system these accumulated ideas of his great predccessors) A final and authontative shape was given to Anandavardhana s work by Mammata who gathered up the results and uttered them in the convement and concise form of a systematic text book } tThe work was however destined to be more than a mere text book It came to dominate the thoughts of generations of theorists and cclipsed by its thorongh and systematic exposition even the masterly wurk of Anandavardhana on which it was chiefly based > No doubt Jagannatha one of the Jatest but not the feast important writers on Poetics speaks of the Dhvankara aod Acandavardhana as the alamkorika saram vyavasthapaka inasmuch as the tentative eflorts of earlier thinkers and the accumulated stock of recognised ideas are brought to ether and rationally adjusted in their work i0 a more or less complete systent out it was due gicatly to the infuence of Mammata that this alamkora sarant was finally standardsed and raised to almost exclusrve autborityl The period which followed is necessarily a stage of scholast c elboration With regard to matters of general theory or ibe main proflems the majority of the post dhvam writers who accept the final determination of Mammata as almost canonical find nothing that is new to set forth they conse- quently fall back upon matters of detanl which helped to salisfy their growing acholastre bent for fine distinctions and endless analysis Here and there we come indeed across a few writers who do not enticly sacrficc iodependent thioking and somctimes we find a few isolated and straggl ng followers of the older school but most of the writers who come after

118 SOME TRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS Mammata display indeed great scholastic acumen but hardly any remarkable originality or creative gemus l1 is also the age of numberless commemtators and commentators on commentators who busied themselves tvith the hardly ispit iog task of explanation expansion or restrichon of the already established rules and formules We have also the rise of a number of popular wnters and text book makers who wanted to codily the diseinline or simplity it for general entightenment the lowest stage being reached when we come to numcrous manuals and school books of comparatively recept times It is important however to note that even accepting in the matn the general position of the Dhvam theorists some of the writers of the new school headed by Mammata are yet not entirely free from the influence of ofder schools In spite of his adberence and support of the Dhvani theory Mammiata bimself could not fer istance explicitly state kavyasy afna dhamr ta (that the soul of poctry is Dhvamt) and be betrays a willing ness to include compositions devoid of Dhyam within the meaning of the term kavya He accepts after Anandavar /dhana the great importance of Rasa in poctry but his well known debmtion of poetry sad adosau sabdarthan soguna vanalamArf puntah kvapl ( poetry consists in word and sense devord of defects and possessing the excellences and sometimes devoid also of poetic figures') follows the time honoured custom of starting with Sabda and Artha and men toning the Guna Dosa and Alamkara without however explieitly mcluding Rasa as well as Dhvant' Ip the same way Ruyyako follows Udbhaja and Kuntaka cxiensively in the principle as well as the detailed analys s of poelic figures a question which was left untouched by the Dhvadi kara and Anandavardhana who had either dismissed the poetic f gures as mere vag vikalpas or considered them only as heightening the charm of the unexpressed in poetry Visva batha agato in declaring that poctry consists of a sentence of wh ch the soul is Rasa betrays the unmistakable inhiuence of the Rasa school and maintains the extremte position

MAMMATAS KAVYA PRAKĀSA 119

regarding the exclusive essentralty of Rasa dhvam which was practically meant but wisely left unsaid by the authors of the Dhvanyaloka Even one of the latest and most thoughtful writers of this group Jagannatha revives in a new form the old definition of poetry given by Dandmn This reactionary tendency 13 interesting as indreating that these post dhvam writers were not unconscious of the importance of earlier views and it cannot be said that even though they accept the authority of the Dhvanyaloka they are yet entirely content with its clear eut scheme Rightly or wrongly thev attempt to bring back old ideas in the elaboration of the new, and it is difficult for uns reason to take these writers in a lump and affiliate them direcdy to the Dhvani school It is better therefore to call them post dhvans writers who naturally recognise the new concept of Dhvam but who cannot be regarded as out and out supporters of all the details of the theory It is also remarkable that most of these writers attempt to arrive at a precise defimti n of poetry a task which was left alone by the Dhvamkara but in dotng so they probably meant to find out a comprehensive formula which would cover the old idcas as well as the new although it must be said that they succeed less often than they involve themselves in hopeless theoretical inconsistencies It is not surprising therefore that from the purely theore -! tical point of view Mammata s defimition of poetry was subjected to much eritieism although bis erties were writers whose own defimtions were not catircly above such criticism. Visvanatha for instance, undoubtedly takes Mammatas work as the basis (wpouvya) of bis own but begios his Sahitya darpann with a vigorous attack on Mammata s defimtion He poits out in the frst place that the Gunas being merely properties of Rasa should not have been logically icladed in the defintton ot essen tials which omits even a mention of the essential Dhvant and Rasa lo the same way no mention even negative

120 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

should have been made of the Dosas in the definition He holds that if faultless composions alone are to be called poetry then some of the best poems will have to be given up masmuch as it is almost impossible to keep clear of blenushes Nor can it be said that faults mar only those parlicular words or their meanings in which ibey occur for if they are fauits at all bearing relation to the under lying sentiment in the composition they miust mar the whote poem Lastly he maintains that no reference even if negative to poetie figures ought to have been made mn the definmtion as they are admittedly non essentiat f Jagannatha s crticism is more fundamental although he agrees with Visvanatha as to the impropriety of including a reference to Guna Dosa and Aladikara in the delimition He obyjects that a word and its sense arc not what is denoted by poetry, for the nniversal experience that a poem may appeat without its meaning being understood shows clearly that a part cular kind of Subda alone constitutes poetry Artha being secondary If it is said that the essence of poetry ltcs in its eapability of awakening a sentiment (Rasa) and tasmuch as a word and its sense possess this capability both constitute poctry then it may be replied that accotding to this too wide view musical tones and theatrical gestures will have to be called poctry / some of these and other arguments appear no doubt fastidious and pedantic and have been met with equal ingenuny by the commentators and supporters of Mammata but the whole controversy indicates not only the fotility of acriving at a precise logical defimtion of poetry but also the diliculty of corbiming all the conventional elements in such a defimhon The amthors of the Dhvenyaloka probably realised this and carefully avoided the task for they content themselves with describing its general nature and its divisions en omissioa on which Mabimabhatta rdicules bım by sayıng Aim ca kavyosya svarūpart vyutpā dayitutapura mainuna tellokyopom eva samanyemalleua

MAMMAȚAS KĀVYA PRAKASA 121

_ But from what we have said above at will be clear that the apparent inconsistencies of Mammata s defimition which are to be explained by a reference to the vicws of older schools are ioteresting fro m the lstorical pomt of view They ind! cate the lurking regard whtch Mammata belonging as he does to the new school possesses for the views of such older theo rists as Vamana No doubt Mammata severely criticises and rejeets Vamana s theory and classification of Riti but the mention of Gona Dosa and Alamkara in the debiation apparenily mdicutes that he would "like to take them after Vamana as properties of Sabda and Artha and not of Rasa which is omitted from the definttion At tle same time be defines the Guna and Dosa as well as the Alamkara later on in terms of their relation to Rasa a procedure which is hardly justiffable if the essentiality of Rasa is not dectared in the definition On the other hand if it is maintared the that Rasa 1s too well knowr and established a fact in poetty to require explicit mention then the prominence of threefold suggestion and the divrsion of poetry on its basis becomes inexplicable The fact that Mammata accepts the Citra kavya (which develops no Rasa or Dhvam) grudgingly adm tted by Anandavardhana and rejected by Visvanatha also imicates probably his unconscious leaoings to the views of the Alarikara school whtch were in contlict with bis theoretrcat acceptance of the Dhvant doctrine in regard to the essentiality of Dhvani and Rasa, (There can be no doubt however that mn sprte of such in consistent attempts to mcorporate the old stock of ideas Mammaja comprehends both Dhvam and Rasa in his scheme by implication as well as by express treatment Following up his defimtion Mammata begies with the discussion of the functons of Sabda and artha incidentally establishing the furction of suggestion (vyamjona) and the superiority of the suggested sense (vyangya artha or dhvant) and divides poetry into three classes viz Dhvani Gumibhuta vyangya and Citra in relation to the suggesfed sense This leads him to enumcraie and exemplify

1.2 SOME PRORLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the various subdivisions of the three classes of poetry and in th s connexion dilate upon the nature and theory of Rasa wbich is included in the scope of what is called the sugges tion of tmperceptible process (asamlakya krama vyangya) In this context he examines and rejecis the views of Lollatt Saukuka and Bhatta Nayaka all of whom are said to have commented on Bharata s theory of Rasa and accepts the vyakt vada wh ch be ascribes to Ablinavagupta the great commentator on Anandavardhana s work as well as on Bharata s Narya sastra Mention is made of the eight ortho- dox dramatic Rasas but the ninth the Santa or he Quiet isttc sentiment is added apparently as relevant to poetry even if inadmissible ta the drama Mammaja then proceeds to discuss the Guna and tle Doşa not in relation d rectly to sabda or Artha as hs de finition would imply but in relation to the'r subserviency or otherwise to the awakening of Rasa dhvam The Gunas as excellences of composition are interpreted not atier Vamana but after Anandavardhana in a new sense and are broug!t into cficctive relation with the underlying sentiment in a work as qualities which serve to awaken and heighten its charm The verbal form of a work the expressed Sabda and Artha cannot be sa d to posses the qual ty of energy or sweetness unless we mean by it that the underlying sentiment is vigorous or sweet The Gunas therefore may be taken as properties of Sabda and Artha only mn a secondary sense (upacara) bot they are in real ty intrmately related to Rosa even as virtues I ke heraism do not res de in the body but in the soul of man The verbal form the mere sound and sense produccs the excellences only as a means or instrument the real cause is the Rasa just as the soul is the truc cause of virtues 1 ke heroism in a man The same consideration applies also but more strongly to the case of the so called poctic Gigures ( wala ik tras) and the r place in poetry should be justifed oaly by the r relation to Rase They are I kened to ornaments on a man s body as embell shments they adorn words and

MAMMATA'S KAVYA PRAKASA 123

meanings which constitute the 'body' of poetry. They thus serve to embellish indirectly. through word and sense. the underlying soul' of sentiment. but they do not do this 10- vanably. If there is no Rasa they resolve mto mere striking- ness of expression (ukh vaicttrya) , but even sometimes when the Rasa is existing they do not help at In other words, i1 1s maintarned that the poetic figures can exist without the Rasa in the form of charming turns of expression , and even when the Rasa is present, they are not invariably necessory. It should also be noted that Mammata accepts, after Anandavardhapa, ouly three Gunas and maintains that com- bination of particular letiers sigmfes parbcular Gonas Thus, the three Ritis of Vamana are resolved mto three Gunas defmed by bimsel, and the letters whose particular arrangements produce these three Gunas being almost the same as those given by Udbbata respecnively for his tbree Vrtts (viz. Upanagarila Parusa and Komala). Udbhata s three Vrttis are roughly spproximated to his own three Gunas In this coanexion Mammata demopstrates with some care that it is not necessary to accept the sets of ten Sabda gunas and ten Artha-gunas of Vamana, but that it is enough if we postulate three comprehensive fiterary excellences. viz, Ojas (energy), Prasada (lucidity) and Madhurya (sweetness) It is shown by a ctitical examiation of Vamtana's Gunas that some of them can very well be mneluded in the three defined above that some discharge the same functions as the recognised poetic figures. that some constitute mere absence of defects wbile others are sometimes positive defects Thus. Vamana's Slesa, Samadhi and Udarata are comptehended by Mammota's Ojas , Vamanas Arthavyatti is an aspoct of Mammata's Prasada but it corresponds also to the Svabhavokt Alatkara of Dandmn. Vamiaoa's Samata, consisting of a cettain uniolorauty of diction, is somelimes a fault, while Vamana's Saukumirya and Kant defined respectiely as freedom from hersbntss (or in auspiciousness) and wulgarity is simply the reverse of such

124 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSHRIT POETICS

delects as Sruti kaşta and Sruti duşța These considcrations simplify the classification of the Gunas and put a lumit to their endless multiplcation or differentiation such as one finds for instance in Bhoja's claborate scheme of 24 Gunas Mammata therefore thinks that the distinetion betwcen Sabda guna and Artha guna is meaningless and the old differentration resling on a mere adjustment of sound and sense should be superseded As the Guna is an invariable property of the Rasa the mental condibion involved in the relish of a sentiment should alone justify all classifteation of Gunas Sach a position warrants the aceeptance of only three (and not two sets of ten Gunas) which are brought mnto latimate relation to the principal sentunent of a compostton Thus the Ojas is supposed to cause a brilliant expansion (wstara) of the mind and resides in the sentiments of heroism horror and fury, the Madhurya, residing normally in the erotie sentiment of fove-in union but also appropriate to and residing in successne degree in pathos calm and love mn separation is regarded as causing a soltening of the heart (druti), while the Prasada proper to all the poetic senti ments is taken as the cause of a quick apprchension of the sense extending over the mind at once (yaph or vikase) hke a stream of water over a cloth or hite fire on dry fuel The three copditions of the mind viz expanding pervading and melling which accompany the dillerent poetic sentiments are thus made the basis of the tbree Ounas . and even if these mental states are somelimes mixed up and lead to other meotal conditions these latter cffects are too many and t00 complex to be taken as the basis of further multiplication of fresh Gunas This expositon of Mammaja follows and expands Dhyamyaloka u 8 11. but it is possible that the original hint of association of these three mental conditions with the three Gunas was supphed by Bhata Nayaka who speaks of the emjoyment of Rasa as being charactenised by the mental states of expansion (wordrd) pervasion (wkdsd) and meung (drut) Visvenatha subsiantially agrees with

MAMMATAS KAVYA PRAKASA 125

this view of Mammata but he obyjects that the Ojas ete are pot the causes of but identical with the process of czpansion etc In ins discusston of the defects (Dosas) of poetry Mammata admits defects of words of sentences of meaning as well as of Rasa But he prefaces this chapter of his work by the statement that s nce Rasa is the prmcipal thing in poetry the defects of Rasas are the principal defects The Rasa however depends upon the expressed word sentence and meaniog the defects of these arc also m reality defects of the Rasa In other words the Dosa Ike the Guna should be considered in poetry mamly in relation to the uinderlying sentiment Although the poetic figures are are nol in Mammata s opinion always necessary to poetry he yet rounds off his treatise with an elaborate anslysis and ilustration of figores of sound and sense (including a I mted number of figures which are both of sound and sensc) enumerating as many as sixty seven independent poetie figures Here he accepts implicitly Kuntakn s principle of analysis of the poetic figures and apphies it for the most part to the detailed examtnation of individunl fgures a procedure whuch is followed also by Ruyyaka Vifvanatha Appayya Diks ta and Jagannatha This topic was left untouched by the authors of the Diamyaloke but the principle which Kuntaka cnunciated in h s able anstysis of poeric expression gained ground in later times and Mammata tacitly acknow ledges that the elements which go to make up the being of a poctic figure consist of a pecubiar turn of charming express ion called Vaicntrya or Vicchitt visese and the pecuhar conception of the poet which brings sato cxistence the pecuhar charm (kav pratibha mrvartitatra) < From this brief and rapid summary of the principal toptcs of Mammata s work it wtlt be seen that its valu consiis not in its origtal ty but in the orderly concise and ciear dicuss ion of the main issues of Sansirit Poet es and his defniton as well as his general treatment attempts to cover almost all the

126 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

field of thought traversed by his predecessors He quotes more than six hundred verses from various poets to illustrate lns doctrines, and shows himself famliar with the works of almost all the distinguished writers on Poeties who preceded him The great popularity and authorty wluich the Kavya-prakasa has always emoyed and which is indicated by the large num ber of commentanes on n, most be explamed as due not to any ereative gemius or remarkable novelty of treatment, but to the systematie and lucid (albeit obseurities due to extreme brevity of exposition, necessiating commentaries) working out of the already recognised stock of ideas mn the light of the new scheme put forward in the Dhvanyaloka Although exact dates cannot be determined it is possablc to lix approximately the period of time in which Mammata flourished The lower limit may be fixed with reference to two commentaries on the Kavya prakasa The Samketa com- mentary of Mamkyacandra who belonged to the Kopka gana Vajrasakha, Rajagaccha of Guzerat, is expressly dated io Sathvat 1216=cuca 1159 A D The exact date of the other commentary, also called Samketa by Ruyyaka is not koown but we can ascetam from other sources that Ruyyaka pro- bably flounished in the second and third quarters of the 12th centory A D Mammata therefore cannot be placed later than the middle of the 12th century The upper hmi is more dificult to setile But the nearest predecessor whom Mam- mata quotes is the Kashmirian Abhinavagupta who must have been still living in 1015 A D, as this date is borne by his Brhat Vrtti on the Fvara pratyabhina Mammata also quotes from the Nava sahasanka carita of Padmagopta Parimala, a protege of the kings of Dhara rst of Muoja Vakpatiraja and then of his succcssor Sindhuraja at whose dicection the poem appears to have been wrilten within the first decade of the 11th century In an illustrative verse (on the Ggure Udatta in chapter x) Mammata also refers to the liberalty of Bhoja to learned men This Bhoja as identifed with the well known Paramara king Bhoja of Dhara the son and successor of Min

MAMMATAS KAVYA PRAKASA 127

dhuraja and nephew of Munja Vakpatiraja as wcll as the reputed author of Sarasvati kanthabharana It is curious however that in spite of bis extensive references to his pre decessors Mammata does not appear to refer to this well known work on Sanskrit Poetics but this omission may have been due to the fact that Bhoja paid no allegiance to the Kashmirian school of Anandavardhana If, however the verse in question refers to Bhoja of Dhara who butnself had hterary predilections and was a patron of learned men then it would indicate that Mammata could not have flourshed earlier than Bhoja Bhoja could not have ruled beyond 1055 AD From all these cons derations we can roughly plaee Mammata in the pertod between the middle of the 11th and the middle of the 12th century A D Allowing two gencraions to sntervene between h m and his commentator Ruyyaka we can apprommately assign Mammajas achvity to the last quarter of the 1tth and the commencement of the 12t century Mammato s name itself and his trtle Rajanaka as well as Kashmirian tradition ind cate that he probably belonged to Kashmir A very late commentator Bhimasena in his Sudthosugara or Subodhm commentary (date in Samvat 1779= 1722 23 A D) on the Kavya prakasa toforms us that Mammata was the son of Jayyata and had two brothers Kayyata and Uvvata of whom Uvvata is taken to be the well known commeatator on Vedic works But this story is doubtfui as Uwata himself tells us that his father s name was Vajrata and not Jayyats The story relied upon by Hall and Weber that Mammata was the maternal unele of the author of the Naiadha may sim larly be relegated to the region of fantastic fabies which often gather round famous names The Kavya prakosa has the appearance of a compact trea tise which is corefully planned and systematically worked out but the umty has been called in question and enough evidence has been brought forward to show that Kanka and Vrttt of nearly the whote work wes indeod composed by Mammata hut

128 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

a small porhon of the last chapter probably left incomplete by him was completed by another author whose name is given as Alaka Alaja or Allaja It is not necessary for us to enter here into the details of the question of the joint authorship of the Kavya prakafa but it is now generally accepted on the indicalions given by some of Mammata s commentators as well as by some manuseripts of his work that Mammata composed the Amya prakafa up to the treatment of the f gure A Parikara (x 32) , but the rest consisting of a small portion of the concluding chapter was composed by the author menttoned above That the fact of joint authorship is skifully concealed is supposed to have be'n alluded to in the concluding verse given in some manuscripts which apparently says that this way of the learned men different yet oppearing identical is not strange for here the only cause is a properly constructed plan of combination' It is possible to explain this state- ment as meaning that the work claims the credit ot having skilfully removed by its systematic plan all conffict of opinions held by different authors on Poctics but most commentators early as well as late agree in finding here a lunt implying that the work left incomplete by Mammata was completed by some other person and that traces of joint authorship are cleverly obliterated This view is distinetly expressed by an carly commentator like Ruyyaka who him selt a Kashmirian and living at a period not very remote from Mammata must have been recording a well known tradnion and in this view he is followed by Jayasta Bhatta Somesvara Narahars Sarasvatıtırtha Kamalakara Ananda Jajneśvara and other early as well as late commentators while somc manuseripts of the Amyaprakafa record the tradition in the colophon by mentioning the names of Mammata and Alata as joint authors Rajanaka Ananda also a Kashmu rian commentator is however more explicit and quotes a trad tional verse wh ch records Mammata's aothorship up lo the tone of Parikara Alarkara (x 32) and altributes the rest lo Alata Allati of Alaka

MAMMAȚAS KAVYA PRAKASA 129

This statemeat about the dual authorsbip of the Karya prakasa reccives confrmatioo from an independent source but the reference would indiente that Allata had a hand not only in the 10th as the above tradition makes out but also in the 7th chapter of the work which deals with the topic of Dosa For this chapter on Doşa mrnaya is cited by Arjunavarmadeva who foutished in the first quarter of the 13th century in his commentary on the Amaru sotaka with a distinct attribution of this chapter to Mammats and Alaka or Alata Arjunavarman s remark while quoting the verse prasade vartasva from Kuvya prakasa vu 14 is clear enough yathodahrtant doşa mrnaye mammatalakabhyam and it is not possible to take it as implying a general reference to the fact of jomt authorship without particularly meaning collaboration of any special chapter This has led some scholars to find traces of collaboration of Allata in other parts of the work also but the question still awaits a thorough and careful exammation Some late Bengal commentators among whom Mah-dvara Nyayalarhkara is one would impute the authorship of the Karika (here called Sutra) portion of the Kavya prakata to Bharata and the prose Vrtti alone to Mam mața while Bharata hunself is sard to have drawn upon the Alamkara section of the Agmu purana Whie the last assertion about the Agm purana has no foundation in fact and is apparently prompted by the amable but un lustoricat imagmation of later writers which delights m exalting the antiquity and authority of Puranas m gentral the suggestron of Bharata s authorship of the Karkas is too unauthenttc and fanciful to be accepted Apart from the fact that the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a supposition Mammaja's authorsbip of the Kankas in general has been declared by Hemacandta in the litst quarter of the 12th century and fias been accepted by a series of umportant authors The source of this tradition is probabty the great reverence pard to the sage Bbarata but st y

130 SOMC PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

may also be due to the fact that Mammata humselt has made considerable use of Bhorata s dicta as he has also drawn extensively upon Bh imaha Vamana Udbhata Rudrato and the Dhvanyt loka even to the extent of sometimes directly approprialing or paraphrising well known passages or illustrative verses That the work of Mammata was studied cxtensively in Bengal is indicated not onty by the popular prinled commen tary of Mahesvara NyayalamLara Bhattacarya but also by a large number of commentaries written by well known writers of Bengal which have not yet been printed Among Bengal commentators one may mention the names of Jagadısa Tarkapancanana Bhattacarya (Rahasya prakaša) Gıdadhara Cakravarlın Bhattacarya (Țila) Jayaramı Nyayapancana (Tilaka or Jayaram ) Devanatha Tarkapanco nana (Kavya kaumudt) Ramanatha Vidyavacaspati (Rahasya prakatrka) and Šrıkrşna Sarman (Rasa prakafa) the last of whom describes Nyayalamkara author of the Adarsa (ı e Mahesvara Nyayalamkara) as hıs Guru Baladeva Vidyabhusana the well known writer on Bengal Vaişnavism also wrote a commentary on the Kavya prakasa entitled Sahitya kaumadr but he belonged to Orissa and wrote under the patronage of Gajapat Prataparudra of Orissa And yet Mahesvara Nyayalamkara laments का यप्रकाशए कृता सहे गृहे टीका तथाप्येप नथव दुर्गम। The Kavya prakada has not been so often printed in Bengal as it has been in other provinces of Indra where it is pcrhaps much more extensively studied for in Bengal Visva nalba s Sohrtya darpana appears to be a more popular text book But it certaily deserves wider circulation and study in Bengal not only as a brillrant text book but also as one of the most remarkable classic works on Sanskrt Poetics

Caleuita Sansk Series No VI 1936

'MALA TU PORVAVAT"

In an article with the above heading (which is itself a quotation from Mammata's Kāvya prakāsa x 8b) in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute,' Mr Divekar attempts to throw doubt on the iterpretation of most commentalors of Mammata that the word purvavar mn this Kārika refers to malopama which, though not mentioned before in any of the Karkas, is dealt with in the Vrtti on x 4b The interpreta- tion referred to is of some importance It implies that the figure mala rupaka follows the rule lard down for the figure malopama but since malopama is not taught in any of the previons Karikas and is explained only in Vrtti on a previous occaston, the reference apparently indicates that the Kānka and the Vrtti of the Kavyo prakasa must be taken en bloc as the work of one and the same author* The passage, therefore, has been taken as supporting the tradition of the Identity of the Karikakara and the Vrttikāra of the Kāvyo- prakafa Mr Divekar, however, thinks that the word purvavar does not refer to malopama which ts not to be found in immediate context nor in any preceding Kārkā, but to the sanga-mranga bheda mentroned in the very line of which the quotation forms a part The doubt raised is legitt- mate, and the suggestion is indeed striking, but there are dificulties in accepting the solution proposed by Mr Divekar of the whole problem Mammaja is deahng mn the context with rapoke and its classificatton, and it is necessary to consider his treatment in some detail in order to understand the bearing of the passage in question Dehining rūpoka in x 7a Mammata

1 Vol. v1, pt. 1 (1925), p 50f 2 See S K. De, Santkre Poehcs,t p. t66

MALA TU PORVAVAT 133

ete on prryd in the illustration of mala given in the text' The classifcation discussed may then be tabulated as follows rupaka

sanga mranga

samasto vastu ckadesa Suddha mala vişaya vivartı

Now, from what has been sard above it is clear that mala rupaka can in its nature be only mranga. for here the successive superimposttions on one object have not the rela tion of principal and subordinate metaphorical representa trons As explained by Nagoji Bhatta in his Uddyote com mentary elavişaya nana-padartharopa rupatvan malatvam paraspara sapekșatva vrahac ca mrangatvam at tad arthaht* Now such serial representation of one upameya with sueces sive upamanas may take the form cither of a simdle (upama) or of a metaphor (rupako) according as there is bheda or abheda between the pronerties of the upameya and the npamanas , but the two figures are essentially of the same nature in having successive representations (in the one case onder simhtude in the other under metaphorcal superim postuion ) of one upameya in connection with successive upamanas This is what Mammata wants apparendy to

1 It is conceivable that thete may be successive superimposnions on successive objects standing in the sciation of priocipal and subordt nate thus ip thi case each metaphor can be taken separately and be considered as such 2 Ed Chandorkar 1915 Ullasa < p 34 $milarly Cakravartin quoted by Vamanicarya (Kavyo pr ed 1917 p 599) says sa (=mala) ca n ranga-rapa rupyamananam angangibhava wrahat Commenting on the example of mald rupaka given by Mammata Mamikyarandra (ed AnandaSrama p 234) says atra priyd rupa eka evoropa-vsayo muki ad yangh r vind tardagutyad yor rupda ttt mirangam

134 SOME PROBLEMS Of SANSKRIT POLTICS

indicate by the word parvavef in the Kanki viz that the mala rapala which is one of the sub-divisions of mranga- rupaka is of the same type as the malopamd' In other words the term pfrvavar, considered in this light. implies that, as there is 1n malopama a connection threugh stoultude. of one upameya with successive upamanas, so in mala rupaka there is a metaphorical superimpositon of successive upa manas on one upomeya And yet Mammata is not presum ably justibed in reletring to malopama which he has not defined in any previous Kanka The malopama, huwever, Is dealt with in the Vrttion x 4b The conclusion, therefore is forced that Mammeta is referring to lus owa Vrtt where he has already dealt with malopamo, unless the word purvavat can be shown to refer to something else in the same or in some previous Kanka Let us row see that other interpretation Mr. Divekar has to offer for the much discussed word phrvavat In the light of what is said above, we shoold translate the hine in question as follows This (twofold division is called) sanga or entire', but the mranga or partless metaphor* is single also serial (which is ) as before (t e, as in the case of

1 This is msde clear by the Vrll: on the passaee abich sayy malo- pamayom ive ekasmin bahare åroputah where malapamaiam hais clearly a commentary on the werd purvaver lt is not correct to presume that ' the Vrttikara generally quotes the mords of the Korikskars when be gives the meamngs in the sptti for one need pot go far but merety point out that the Vrtu on songam ctar paraphrases every werd of the Kanks withoet repcating the ongioal words 2 lo the absence of belter terms. I borrow the terms eotire and partess from Chandorkar's rendering of the tert 3 See Pradipe ed NSP 1912, p 329 It is noteworthy that the Pradipatars whom Mr Diretar quotes as his authonty on this poiot explains the Kariks ia question as referring to malopemd by the word purdvat yothaıkatra bahupantāno-yoge malopama (otharkatrãmela- dharmorope mala rupakem ity ortheh On this Vadyanathe remarks ztod tvn sutra vtt krtor ekatve jāapakam malopamayah sūtransktāya vttaveva kathanat

MALA TU PORVAVAT 135

serral simile) Mr Divekar however translates the line somewhat diffcrently This is sanga an unmixed (ri paka) 1s however mrango but mala rupaka is similar to the former He infers from this that the word parve which hc translates as former refers to the division of sanga and mronga (and not presumably to malopema) He adds H we trans late as given above mala rupaka will have to be considered as sanga implying thereby that purva or former j0 this passage refers to sanga This 1s no doubt a novel tnterpte tation but it is untenable for it will be clear from the exposstron given by us above that the mola rupaka in its very nature cannot be considered as sanga Mr Divekar quotes the opimion of the Pradipalara in support No doubt the Pradipakara apparently takes this view for comment ing on this passage he states atha sangasyaiva va citryan taram aha-mala ta purvavat It appears however that the words atha songarya must be taken as a misteading which is commented upon by Vaidyanatha Tatsat and Nagon Bhata Vaidyanatha appears to read instead atl asangasya (for atl a sangasya) and understands a sanga as śnddha addmg p irva tabdenopama paramarsah Nagojt goes further and d scusses the reading thus Avaett tu n rongasyawvets patl al ekdv saya nand padartharopa rupatvan malatvat paraspara supekșa vralac ca i rargatvam itt tad artlah cam eva yitah pap ah HIe would therefore tegard mrargosya which he finds in some manuscripts to be the proper reading Vamanacarya in his learned cdition of Kavya prakusa (3rd ed 1917 p 599) agrees with this view and remarks m /1 rupa n n rongam darsayat-mala tvitt ata evahuh prancah- mirangasyana vaicurantaram mald tvti itt pradipe tu atlo sāngasyara vaicitrantaram ala māla ta plrvavat uyuktom tad upapattis tuddyote nagopbhopor yatt akathamcit Arseti tatraiva drastavyety alam asara yrantl a viearena It cannot be determined whether this is shp on the part of Pradipatara otherwise a very caretul and discerning wrtter ot a mere misreading (as Nigons remarks would ind cate)

136 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

which subsequeotly crept in It is clear Fowever that the reading sanga of the Pradipakara has not escaped the notice of commentators on the text and should be considered as incorrect , and notbing is gained by relying on a doubtful text. It may also be pomted ont that all subsequent writers on Poeties who have taken Mammata more or less as authorta tive have agreed in regarding mola rupaka as mrongd of miravayava and never as sanga or savayava This appears to be the view of Ruyyaka ted Nir Sae p 36 Yidyadhara (p 213) Vidyanatha (ed Bom Sansk Ser p 374) Visvanatha (ed Durgaprasada 1915 p 495) and Jagannatha (ed Nir Sag p 233) The diffculty abont regarding mala as sango was probably present before Mr Divekat s mind for he adds If we how ever translate This ts sanga and mala rupaka is as before mala rupaka will be mranga It must be confessed that this proposed alternative translation is far from clear but since purvavar appears to be translated by as before it may be concluded that Mr Divekar means to imply that purvavar in th s case does not refer to sanga (as in the other translation he has gives) but to mranga so that mala rupaka as he says should be classified as mranga Having regard to the ctassidcation proposed by Mammata and bis followers this explanations is certainly not open to senious objection but The dificulty in accepling this translation apart fromi its vagueness is that it would make the word purvavat redundant in the karika as it stands If it were Mammata s zotention only to say that mala like suddha is mrango it would bave been enough lor him to state mrangam tu suddham mala ca There would be no need of adding purvevar after the word mala if the purpose was only to refer thereby to muranga which immedrately precedes it in context Even if it were supposed that the word parvavar is neeessary for reler ring poiredly to mtranga as distinguished from sanga occur tng in the samt bot the itrm wond not be happy for in that case apphed to two successively mentioned thigs in the same

SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

berng composed by bonrselt he was yustified mn makang such a reference At any rate, whatener may be tbe explanatron of thos procedure adopted by Mammata, one cannot, 1o the absence of any better interpretatron of ths passage, lind any reason for not acce ptung the interpretaton grven by Mamma- ta's innomerable commentators,

Atmels of tle BORI v 1925

THE SANTA RASA IN THE NATYA SASTRA AND THE DASA RUPAKA

It is extremely doubtful if the sanra as rasa is at all accept ed by Bharata for the genumeness of the portion of the text of the Narya sastra in which the mention of fanta as a rasa occurs is certainly not beyond question In all the four editions of Bharata s work (Grosset Kavya mala Kash and Gaekwad) the enumeration of only eight Rasas excluding the ninth anta occurs at the outset of ch vi and elaborate treatment of these eight Rasas with their corres ponding sthayins vibhavas etc their colour and deity follows It may be noted that Kalıdasa (Vikram 1t 8) credits Bharata with the mention of eight (and not nine) Rasas It is only in the Gaekwad edition that the text on santa oceurs at the end of ch vi and speaks of santa as the minth rasa Ths additional text on fanta is commented upon by Abhi navagupta and appears to have been known to Bhatta Nayaka Abhinava makes an elaborate attempt to meet the objections agarnst fanta and establish it as a Rasa He gives instances of Bharata s awareness of sunta but his arguments are based pot upon Bharata s menhon of it but upon his stlence and are meant to explain why Bharata does not expressly speak of it as a Rasa In spite of the iportance of santa to which so much attention is devoted the insertion of the fanta text at the end of the chapter on Rasa is in itself suspicious even tf this may not be put forward as a conclusive argument Abhinava himself however admits that this is the reading not of all but of those who read that there are nine rasas (ye punar nava rasa tti pathant tanmate p 333) implying that the Rasas are generally counted as eight but some old MSS (crentana pusta kesu) add a ninth Elsewhere commenting upon Bharata $ enumeration of eight Rasas and their corresponding sthuyins

140 SOME PROBLBMS OF SANSKRIT POBTICS

(p 267) Abbinava remarks that the opponents of fanta read eight (santapalapinas ta astavtt pathantt) and that some read vismaya famah (in the text of sthayin) for vismayas cett On the other hand Abhinavs adduces passages like kvocic chomah which mdicate that Bharata had some knowledge of sama or fanta but it is also clear that the instances quoted only show Bharata s recogoition of santa as an element and they do not m-ao Bharat s acceptance of santa as a Rasa sama is not mentoned by htm as one of the forty nine bhavos Abhnava himselt draws attention to the fact that Bharata's defintion of the drama emphasses that it is krıdanaka prakhya and vinoda janona and should therefore depict worldly matters from this point of view santa is apradhana and not the leading motil Agam Bharata gives laya svara guna alamkara vtt etc of the eight Rasas only in several sections of his work but fanta is got mentioned in this connexion He gives also musical jatyangas suggestive of several Rasas but here also fanta is not mentioned (ch xxix 1-4) Abhmava notes that those who admit fanta read svaccha as its colour and the Buddha as its deity Bot Dhantka states distioctly that Bharata did not characterise sunta as a Rasa by meation ing its vbhavas ete As a matter of fact except what is stated in the interpotated text on the sama at the end of ch vi Dharata docs not mention the aspeets of santa and its attendant conditions A further argument may be added Regarding the admis sion of santa there has been no untformity of opmion while is sthayl bhava has been enumerated drvergently Abbinava refers to vanous views which show that all are not agreed that ś una 15 tts sthayin Among different sthiyins proposed we have sarva-çutavrtti prasama samyag jana mrveda mrvisesa eutaurtte trini ksaya sakha dhrt utsaha jugupsa rat any of the remaining stl ayins or all the cight sthayins together 1 The non admission of santo and the positing of various kinds of sthayrn for it perhaps todicate that Bharsta whose authority is huighly respected could not bave definitely promulgated

THE SANTA RASA 141 Santa rasa or its sthaymn and the divergence arose from the absence of his express authority in this matter It 1s noteworthy that Abhinava (Jocana ed NSP p 176) temarks that it is Bharata's non mention of the sthaym of fanta whtch leads Anandavardhana to formulate trşna kşnyo as its sthayrn The objections against Santa are thus summarised but not discussed b the Dala rupaka (1) Some say that there is no Santa rasa because Bharata has not ment oned nts wbhava ete and therefore has not charactertsed it as he has done in the case of other Rasas (2) Some entirely deny its de facto existence (vastutas tasyabhavam varnayantı) because in thei opinion men are eternally incapable of exterminating raga and dvesa (anadı kala pravahayata ruga dveşayor ucchettum asak yatvat) (3) Some would include santa rasa in vira and br bhatsa apparently taking utsaha and jugupsa as its sthayin respectively (4) The real nature of tama which is the total absence of all feeling and activity involves a state of Inaction (samasta vyapara vilaya rupa) which cannot be re presented on the stage the devclopment of Santa, therefore is madcussble in the drama (pustir nadasya natyeşr) The Nagananda whtch is regarded hy some as a santa play is plainly not so because (a) the end here is not dama but lordship over the Vidyadharas and (b) the attachment to Malayavatı bemg antagonistic to the feelog of non attach ment essential in fanta both cannot mnhere in the same alambana namely Jimutavahana the conclusion therefore is that the vwra (t e daya vira) and frngara arc the Rasos in this play Dhananjaya himsell would object to sonta only in the Natya which requires the delmeation of the Rasa through tts anubhayas ete but he would permit it in the Kavya because what cannot be acted can at least be described But his commentator Dhanika would not allow santa even in poetry There can be in h s opmion no such sthayr bi avn as soma or mrveda for the development of that staie (if it is possible at all to destroy all feeligs of fove or batred) would tend to

142 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the absence of all feeling and action Such a state is the very negahon of the possibility of allrming anything about it and any deseription of it would be an inadequate descrip tion in worldly terms of what is unworidly Dhamka woutd regard Jimutavahana as an ndatta and not as a $ rto nayaka To the objeetion that Jimutavaban is depicted not as a con quering hero (ugisn) but as devoid of such , mental state he replies ti at an lattya as an excelling eminence of the mind is not lacking in Jimutavahan jgisuto or heroism need not be only of one viriety of warlike attamment one may con quer self and excel in daya dl arma or tyaga Jiutavahana may not be a ytddl a wra but he isa day tvra Here the main Rasa being wira and not f nta he is certainly an udafta huyaka and sragaro being not incompatible with wra the cpisode of Malayavati is justifabte Visvanatl a also takes Jimutavahana to be a daya vira but very mgemiously he attempts to establish that santa can be a Rasa becanse in that state the soul is about to be cmancipated (yukte viyukta dasa) and is not completely detached so that the presencc ot feeling and actvity would not be incompatible while stkha is not entirely absent what is absent is the worldly sukl a The attaiment of sama in his opinioo does not imply cessation from all activity It is held therefore that the objecttons to the santa rasa are i ot all valid A sunta play as bound to appeal te persons of devout mind just in the samc way as frrtgora and wra plays appeal to men of a different attitude It is bound to be uncommon but that does not disprove that it is capable of being depicted and relished while it is not truo to say that men are eternally slaves to raga and dvesa There has been a continuous stream of merature which depicts Santa as a Raso The non mention by Bharata is at best a technical and trifling objection The objection that santa can be easily iocluded in vra and bibhatse is msconceived The tanta may involve utsal a or energy for spirtual attaipment is not without effort but the two terms are not co extensive Thute

THE SANTA KASA 143

may be daya utsaha dharma atsaha and so forth but samta comprehends many kinds of tfsaka and is much more than mere utsaha The daya wira and dharmta wra are as Abhi nava pomis out realty two aspects of sunta which covers a much wider field The Santa mcludes daya and dharma but is not mcluded or exhausted by them In the same way, jugupsd may be on accessory of santa but dunta is not entirely [ugupsatmaka 1

Sidha bharot Hoshiarpur 1950

1 The ent re quest on is dicussed fully by V Rachavan in hrs

BHANUDATTA AUTHOR OF THE RASA MANJARI In my Sansrit Poeucs i p 249 a tentatiye approximabon was made of the date of Bhanudatta author of Rosa marjars, Rasa taranyint Gita gounisa Kumura bhärgaviya and other works to the period between the period between the 12th and the middle of the 14th century but it was indicated that the date was not beyond doubt One passage however, of the Rase manjart which was overlooked seerus to throw fresh light on the question and enabies us to fix Bhanudatta's date with a somewhot greater precision In one of the illustrative verses of the Rasa manjan which excmplifies the Sattvika Gunas 1 there is a deseription of sucli Gunas in a young girl at the sight of one Nyama dharampala * As the name of some other belter known kings of antiquity might as well have served the nurpose of the poet the mention of the Nizam in this verse is curious and cannot be dismissed casily as insigoificant It would not be improper to assume that here we have in the usual manner of Sanstrit potts an indirect compliment paid to a reigning sovereign whose patronage the poct probably enjoyed If we can decide who this Nizam was our enquiry will be narrowed down to a considcrable extent As a commentary on Rasa mamari called Rasa manjar vikasa by Gopala (alas Vopadeva) son of Nrsimha 1s expressly dated in 1S72 A D ' it is clear that by the words

1 Calted Sattvika Bhavas by other wnters 2 Ed Denares Skt Ser es (1904) stanta 121 p 232. Thelnem question rans thus tar kom rajo-pathe ngama dhararapalo yam ajokitah 3 The verse which gives the date of compesition is thus quoted by Stein (lammu Caralegue Extracts p 273)

manļaryas tu vkasa eta racita bhuvat satark pritaye lt

BHANUDATTA 145

mjuma dhararupala, the poet cannot tefer to kings of the modern Nizam dynasty wich dates from the comparatively recent time of Nizam ul mulk Asat Khan A probable clue to this problem is formshed by Ananta Pandita anth r of the Vyangyartha kaumudt commentary (1636 A D) on Rasa mafari who explains the phrasc in question as momakhyo devagiri raja If this interpretation is accepted* then the Nizam reterred to would be a king of Devagtri whose name was Nizam It is well known that Ahmad Nizam Shah obtamed possession of Daulatabad (Devagmri) some hme between 1499 and 1507 A D and founded the Nizam Shala dynasty of Dekkan which continued m power iill 1637 A D' The name Devagiti however, was changed to Daulatabad as early as 1339 AD when Muhammad 1bn Tughiag removed his capital from Delbt to that place The referenee by Bhanudatta therefore seems to iodicate a date at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th century for the Rasa mafijara

Stein interprets yuga randhra veda-dharan as 1484 with a query but it really gives as 1494 (as corrected by Ste n h mself at p 421) He thinks however that the Samvat era i used so that the date of composztton of the commentary would be 1438 A D Dut Stidhar Bhandarkar (Report of Second Tour 1904-6 p 36) n probably nght mn bold ng that lbe Saka era is used in wh ch case the date of the commemtary would be 1572 A D See Sansir: Poer es 1 pp 251 52 1 Althongh Ananta Pand ta rs a fairly late writer belong ng to the 17th century his native place was near Ahmadnagar (see Sonskrif Poctes i p 251) and tr probable thot bas aoterpretabon war based upon some curreoi trad tion for the older Nizam dynasty was all but ex tinet in bis time That the explanat on is oot a fanciful one is indicated by the fact that Ananta himself gives immedtately afterwards another (and ihs time an obvioesly fanciful) interpretation of tbe pamage apply ng it Stikgena yad va nuan oimtyan aman prapnon it niamah sa cosau dharen palah duhsaha-dånayad, dārakatved tt bhāvah cadriah Śnikrgas ty arthah I 2 Drggs Fer shta a 200f 3 Briggs op cif 1 419 10

146 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Il is somewhat spcprising that Bhanudatta who describes Videha as his native place and represents the river Ganges flowing through his country' should eutogise a prinee of Dekkan It is possible that at some time or other of luis career he might have come to the South This would pethaps explain the fact of Bhanudatta's having more southern commentators than northern The mislection vdorbhabhult for videhabhah in some manuseripts of Rasa mamjari' indeates probably some tradition wltch connected him with Vidarbha although this was not huis native place B N Bhattacharya refers' to a tradition among Bihar Pandits that Bhanudatta s father wrote a worl called Rosa- raina diptka*, and that his grand father Samkara who wrote a commentary on Snharsa's Khandano Lhanda Khadya (ed Pondir xn 672) flourished about 1405 A D Although the date of Bhanudatta s grandfather does not seriously conflict with the date of Bhanudatta proposed by us the tradition does not agree with Bhanudatta's genealogy as given by himself in lus Kumara bhargawya " which tells us that the name of hus grandfather was Mahadeva and not Samkora In this gencalogical account mention is made of one Suresvara son of Ratnesvare who was an ancestor of Bhanudatta separated by six generations from himself and who wrote a Sariraka bhasya varttika We need not identity with Eggeling . thus Suresvara with the famous Suresvara who was disciple of Samkaracarya for this would

1 deso yasya videl abuh sura sant Lattola krm r toh stanza 138 p 247 2 Sanskrr Poercs 1 p 249 fn 2 3 Journal of the Dept of f.etters Cal Univ ix 1923 p 163 4 This is probahly the work cited by Bhanudatta in hs Rasa tcrang m (ed Granthamala on i 31 ed Regnaud p 44 1 3" There marks on tls work at p 245 of Sanshzl Peer es aow requ re correct on 5 Sanskr t Poet cs 1 p 248 6 Ind a Offce Car of Sanskr : MSS v p 1540 where the genea log cal verses are quoted in fult

BHANUDATTA 147

unwarrantably push back the date of Bhanudatta to a time wluch would he inconsistent with other data furmished by his works As to the identny of Bhanudatta with the poct Dhanukara Har Datta Sarma1 relies chiefly on the ascription of large number of Bhanudatta s verses to Bhanukara by some late Anthologies By far the largest number of Bhanudatta's verses ure found assigned to Bhanukara in a compilation entitled Padya racana by Lakşmana Bhatta Ankolakara , but for ths work its editors themselves (ed Kavyamala 86) would not claim a higher antrquity than a hundred years (between 1625 ond 1650)' OE the other Anthologies the Raske fivana belongs to the 17th century, and the Subhasita haraval as P K Gode has shewn' to the end of the 17th century One would require more substantial evidence than the notorr ously careless and contused attributions in modern compila tions of uncertain value

1 In Annals of BORI xv : 1936 pp 243 58 Sce also on this quest on G V Devasthalr in New ind Ant quory vi 1244 pp 111 17 J B Chaudhur Mast m Paftonage to Sanskr te Learn ng Calcutta 1942 pp 2 32 2 See P K Gode in JOR Madras Xv 1940 pp 184 93 on the date oE this anthology 3 In ABOAT 2v 1935 pp 261-91

THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE A great deal of controversy has centred round the word Yavamika which sigmfes the curtain employed in ancient Indan theatre The object of this paper is not to reopen the entire question but certain assumptions made since the trme of Windisch Weber and Wilson appear to have received currency without much justif catton and a eritical examination of certain relevant facts has therefore become necessary It is now generally admitted that the word Yavamka can not be taken as an argument for proving Greek influence on the Indian stage or drama The word is taken to be a deriva tive from Yavana meaning Ionian the Greeks with whom Indians came into contact But since the word was not con fined to what was Greck alone and siace thero is no proof that the Greek mime had any use for the curtain it has been suggested that the word refers not to the curtain but to the material of the curtain for which the praclice of using foreign cloth possibly Persian tapestry bronght to India by Greck merchants is presumed But it should be clearly understood that there is no evidence to support thas presumption even though it has been repeated in all recent text books on the subject The attempt 2 agam to remove this difficulty and derive the word Yavanika from the root yu (unat ayrnott anaya ift) is too ingenious to be seriously considered But st is important to note in this copnexion that the word Yavamka as such is rarely recogoised by old Indian lexicographers it

1 Sten Konow Ind sele Drama (Berl n and Le pz g 1920) p 4 A Berredale Keth Sonstr: Drama (Oxford 1924) pp 51 359 M W atern tz Gesel chte der nd schen L tterafur (Le pz g 1922) 1 pp 175 76 2 T M Tr path Commeatary on Camoderagupta s K Hien mojo p 359

THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 149

is not included as a synonym of the curtain by Amara, Sasvata, Hemacandra, Halāyudha, Yādava-prakāsa or Keśava In the second chapter of Dharata's Natya sastra, where the construction of the stage is detailed, neither the word Yavanika nor any description of it occurs , but it is apparent- ly known, as it occurs later in 5 11-12 in the description of the elements of the Purva ranga efān: ca bahır gitāny antar-yavanıkā gatath ! prayoktrbhth prayojyam tantri bhanda kriam taf/ (ataś ca sarva kutapaır yuktānyanyant kārayet) vghatya var yavanıkarh nrtya pathya-krtam call This is the text given by the more recent Benares edition' (1929) which does not notice any varant reading. but it should be noted that the older Bombay edition? (1894) records the variant Javanika in both places, while the edition of Grossct (1898) reads Javanika in both places, only one of its mabuscripts having the form Yavamka This vanation of reading raises an important poit , for the word Javanika (and not Yavanika) occurs regutarly in the lextcoos e g ot Amara (2 6 120) Halayudha (2 154)' and Kesava (p. 53, {1 300)* as the name of a curtamn, but not necessarily of the theatre curtain The commentators on Amara, rightly or wrongly, derive the word from the verbal root ju thus Kşırasvamin javante syam javamka Sarvananda javanam vego'sya astit javantka Dhanuj Diksita javaty aram. juh santro dhatuh golou vege ca, lyut. svarthe kan

t ed Batuknath Sarma and Baladev Upadhyay Kasbt Skt Series Denares 1929 The tater works on Dramaturgy (Dasarapaka Natya darpana etc ) do not throw any laght on the question 2 ed Nirnay Sagar Press Bombay 1894 Parts and Lyon, 1898 4 Abhedhana ratna-mald, ed Th Aufrecht, London 1861 5 Kalpadra kota, ed Gackwad s Onental Series Raroda 1928

150 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

Similarly Hemacandra in his Abhidhana-cimantan! (2 344) includes Javam as a synonym for cortai and explains in the commentary jaante syam javant The word seems to be old and occurs in the sense of theatre cortain in the Wer

[prekşagaram ] rejur javamkaksopath sapoktā na Lhe nagal and in the Bhagavata Parana (1 8 19) m ta javamik acchannam aja dhoksajam avyayam! na laksyase m r lha drsa nato natya dharo yarhaf! Although the form Javanka is thus authenticated the etymology of the commentators is considered too fanciful and brushed aside by modern scholars who assume that the word Javanika is nothing but a Prakrilic form of the word Yava nika ' But it is clear that this assumption proceeds with the acceptance of the Yavanika Jonian equotion and thereby reatly begs the question There is yet a tl ird form Yamanka which does not appear to have rectived any senous consideration Through the indnence chieiy of the Yavanika Ionian theory this form has been summarily dismissed by Bohtlingk and Roth as a scribal nustake for Yavaoika and by Sten Konow os mercly sccondary but it is recognised independently by Indian lexicographers and found in some manuscripts of Sanskrit plays and poems Thus Mahesvara* commenting on the passage quoted from Amara above (2 6 120) gives for the curtain the synonyms pratisira javamika yamamka uraskaran (a fact which is noted in the modern Sabda kalpadruma). Bhanuji Diksita explamns furiber yamamka ta va pithah yamayalt yama uparame lynj and Sarvananda similarly notes drater uparoti arayet

1 Ed Bombay 2 29 7 ed Caleutta 46-48 In later Kavya the werd oceurs in Stfupala adt a sv 54 Harav jaya xl 38 etc 2 But contrary P schel n Gotr ng sche gelet rre Anze gen 189L p 354-The Des namta mala g ves both ja an a (4 1) and je ont (2 25) In the sense of sereen hin obv onsly these are der vatives respeet vely oE Sanskr t javan ka sod ja ant 3 Asin Dombay ed 1806

THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 151

va yamantka 1 Hemacandra in the passage quoted above co mmenting on the word javam adds yaman tty apr 1a the absence of eritical editions of Sanskrit plays and poems the editors of which usually adopt the form yavanika' the evt dence therefrom is uncertain but a few important occurrences of the form yomamka may be noted here In Hillebrandt's critical edition of the Madra raksasa * the reading accepted in two places in the stage direction is yamantka although the usual variants yavantka and javantke are also noted p 192, 17 tatalı pravisats yamanıkavrta šarıro mukhamatra drsyas canak yah p 193 1 11 yarranıkam apamryopasrtya In Megha prabhacarya's Dharmabhyudaya' one of the stage directions occurs as yamamkantorad yatı vesa dhart putrakas tatra sthopantyah p 15 (no v I noted) In a verse of Bhartrhart Sataka given in P von Boblen's edition (no 51)" and re produced m Bohtlingk's Indische Spruche (no 779|5 the word preferred is yavanka jara firnair angatr nata iva valt mandita tanur narah sansarante višau yama dhat t yavanıkam but both von Boblen and Bohtlingk conscientiously record the variae lectones namely yamamka and javantka

1 The printed text (ed Trivandru n Skt Series 1914 17) evidently wrongly reads yavanska t Z As 10 Svapna vasava-datta Act vi after śl 16 patyamat tavad rupa sadrsyam samks pyatam yuvanika w Prot na at the end of Act it after $l 21 kafcukiyo yavan kastaronarı karot Also Malavikagn m wra vi 18/19 As no variants are usually recorded it is not clear whether the editors of plays and poems proceed siricdly oo manuscript evidence or on a precunceived b as regarding greater desrabilty of the Yavanıka forot 3 Breslau 1912 K H Dhruva s edit on reads juyen ka which is translated as a fine coat of manl 4 Ed Jamna Atmananda Grantha-mala Serics no 61 Bbavmagar 1918 S Berlmn 1833 The verse is m ssing in Telang a ed t on (Bombay Skt Series Bombay 1893) 6 St Petersberg 1863 65 (10 3 vols )

152 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

It as clear therefore thut Yamanln is as much a recogmi sed torm of the word for curtain as Javamta and perhaps more than Yavanika If we accept the ctymology proposed by commentators on lexicons the form Javanika makes some sense bowever fonciful, whie Yavanika derives its validity only from the rather far fetebed explanation that it referred to the loreign material of the cloth The form Yemantka, on the other hand, perhaps makes a better and more natural sense. It is obviously derived from the root yam (1 1009). *to stop or restrain', sigmfying a covering or curtam . and it would not be onjustifiable to suggest that it was perbaps the original form, which is almost lost or replaced by the other two forms Yavanika and Jaranika Tbat it is not a fichtious derivatne of lexicographers is clear from the fact that the word yamam ftom which it is directly derived appears to be old. beung traceable as far back as the Vajusaney: Samhita (14 22) As the Ranga piha or stage appears to haye had no wings' (as in modern theatre) the question of drop-curtain docs not arise The eurtain was presumably meant (there having been no scenes) to screen off the Nepathya grha or tirng room which was behiod the Ranga pitba or stage The exact location of the curtain however is not given mn the Natya fastra nor in later dramaturgic works Wilson was of opinion that curtaios were suspended transversely so as to divide the stage into different portions open equally to the audience but screcning one set of actors from the other " But this theory of transverse curlam as Kenth has alrcady

1 Untess the two Mattavaranis whose function is obscure on the two nides of the Raaga pihab acted as euch , but thi as very unl Lely See Manbad (Hindu Theatre iD IHQ vin 1932 pp 485f 494 95) wbo 1s iocl oed to bebeve that there were no wings nor was there any drop- curtain in anctent Indian stage The Mathavaranis are probably enta blatures in the form of elepbant with up lifted trunks 2 The passage from Svapna yuseva -dana quored above mn p 151 foot-note 2 cannot be urged in support for the word yovanekd there can be exploied simply as a sereen or verl which hides Vasavadatta from the king The first Act of Mrcchakanita again is not a televant tstance

THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 153

pointed out lacks corroboration 3 The same remark applies to the conjecture of Momier Williams (Saluntala, p 4) that the curtain was "suspended across the stage, answering the purposes of scenes. behind which was the space ealled Nepathya" We have only the authority of Abbinavagupta who. in his commentary on the Narya dastra1 locates the curtain between the Ranga pitha and the Ranga Sirsa (rotra yavanika rangapitha tacchirsayor madhye, p 212) But there is some difficulty in accepting this location The Ranga sirsa as its name imphies, was presumably the place at the head or extreme end of the Ranga pitha ie between the Ranga pitha and Nepathya grha Its use is thus explamed by Abhinava- gupta tat pătranăm višruntyar agocchatam ca guptyar rangasya sobhayat ronga-sirah karyam (p 63) But since the musicians are also allowed to sit there, it has been urged that there is no point in making thent sit bebind the curtain, along with actors tired or about to enter , for the curtain io the position suggested would screen them off from the Ranga-pitha Even allowing that the orchestra may be screened off there Is no point in making tired or entering actors sit there when the retwring room is just immediately behind This might have been the case in Abhinavagupta's time , but in the original plan of the theatre given in the second chapter of the Nopa dastra, the curtam appears to bave had no place there, and its absence is perhaps in conformity with the original practice of musicians sitting openly in the Ranga arss In the face of these difficultics it is not possible to determine exactly the postion of the curtai , but it ts not unlkely that its employ ment was meant (as Napya fastra, Bombay ed 12 23. Benares ed 13 23, indicates) lo screen of the way of entrance of the petors from the uiring room to the stage But since the Nepathya grha u alloned to have two doors for

for here obvioudy we have to imagine six shifling seenes which tale place en Carudatta s house and in the street outude and such uamarked scene-bilting is common enough in Saovhrt plays 1 Ed Gackwad s Otsental Senies Baroda 1926

154 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

entrance of actors (Laryam dvara-dvayam catra nepathya- grhakasya tu)' apparently into the Ranga-sirsa and thence to the Ranga pitha it has been sometimes presumed that there must have been two curtais covering the two doors But if Abhinavgupta s view is accepted, the curtam, suspended across between the Ranga pitha and Ranga sirsa would have screened off the entire stagc from the Nepathya grha with ns two doors, thus forbidding the necessity of ony presumption of two curtains for the two doors There is again no ground for assuming that the curtain was parted in the middle, or that the actors entered through the parting drawn aside At least, no such deseription or reference is found in drama- turgic texts The curtain appears to have been smply tossed aside when actors entered Even in the case of hurried abrupt or violent entrance the position of the curtam, whether between the Ronga piha and Ranga irsa or between the Ranga firsa and the Nepathya grha, would not hinder it The stage direchon for hurried entrance apat ksepena prayifatr would, therefore stmply mean "enters without a toss of the curtain* Some of the commentators however explain the phrase differenly Quobng Halayndba, who gives Apati as a syno- nym of Pati or Javanika (apal kundapatah syat pratisira java muka 2 154). Raghavabhatta (on Sokuintola n and vi) explains apap Asepenets traskaram traskarenety arthah Katyavema's explanation 1s sumiar harşa sokadi sombhrama yaliasa najosya pravesah pafaksepena Arrate This inter pretation would imply ibat normally the entrance of actors was effeeted by drowing asule the curtaio but in the case of hurried entrance the curtain was tossed aside But Samkara appears to agree with our view when he says apap Asepena

I Atrasrdago firşa from the context Bharata Narvo-fostra Benares ed it 70 Abhinavagopta explains (p 68) diora-dvayam cva raage bras nepathya gata patra-pravesdya The position of the doors rather obscurcly given is discussed by Mantad at pp 489-90

THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 1S5

akasmad sty arthah papt kşepo na kartavya artaraja pra vesayoh iht bharatah (we have not been able to trace this quotation in the present text of Bharata) That tfe curtan was tossed aside when actors entered is irdicated by the following passage from Bharata s Aajya Sastra (cd Dombay 12 23 ed Benares 13 23) yatha marga rasopeiam prakrfnam pravetanel di ruyayam sampravyhayars paje can apakarsitell Karyah pravešah patranam narartha rasa say bi ave ht Tle assige from Damodaraguptas Kugtant mata cited by Mankad (p 494) need not go against this view the toss ng of the curtan being indicated equally by the words akstpta apakarşita or apamte Bohthngk (Sake ntola ed Bonn 1842) has a long note after the conimentators on this slage direc tion (Activ p 46 p 208) but thus was wrilten long before deficile knowledge of ancient Indian stare was available

Marslt Conm Vol pt i (Bld afy uY djd ix 1948)

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA

The recently published Enghsh transtation of Bharata's Natya-sastra' by Manomohan Ghosh, as well as P. V. Kane's revised History of Sanskrit Poctics prefixed to his new edition of the Salutya darpanaa reopens some important questions about the text, one of which is the much discussed problem * of Bharata and Adı Bharata As early as 1912, P. R Bhandarkars first pointed out that "Raghavabhatta mentions a work called Adi Bharata" and that "a MS with the name exists in the Mysore Oriertal Library" An actual exammation of the MS mn 1932 by P K Gode,* however, revealed the fact that the work which the Mysore MS contaied was nothing more than the Napya- Sastra ol Bharata itself This is what P K Gode gives as the result of bis exammation The MS is described in the Catalogue of the Mysore Oriental Library (1894) as follows 590 शदिभरतम् श्रीभरताचार्यप्रणीवम (474) आ. ८% प० असगप्रम्। With the kindness of the Curator of the Mysore Oriental Library I was able to get on loan the so called MS of the Adt Bherata tallying outwardly with the description of the catalogue given above On actoal examination. however, this work in Andhra characters turned out 10 be a regular MS of the Norya Sastra in an incomplete condition, only 15 chaplers being extant in this copy with a folto of matter from the 16th chapter Gode turther notes that the colophon to the first, as well

1 B.biotheca Indico Calcutta 1951 Third edition, Dombay, 1951 3 Indian Antiquary, xl p 158 4 ADORI, xnl, pp 92-93

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 157

as the last 15th chapter, rightly gives the name of the work as Bharatiya Natya sastra The evidence of this MS, there fore, becomes uscless mn establishrng the existence of an independent work of the name of Adt Dharata But tn 1930. Manomohan Ghosh1 collected and discussed the quotations from Adi Bharata as well as from Bharata, found in Raghavabhatta's commentary Artha dyotanrkd on Kalidasa's Abhunana sakumala He gives mneteen quofa tions* from Adt Bharata, of which, however as many as twelve are traceable in the present text of Bharata s Napya sastra Of the remaining seven quotations four are. in Ghosh's opision, untracesble and three have paranlels in it Of mine quotations from Bharata seven are shown to be drrectly traceable Raghavabbatta appears to have been fairly widely acquamn ted with works and authors on Alamkara, Natya and Samgita * Besides Bharata and Adi Bharata, be quotes (ed NSP) for instance, from Bhamaha (p 10) Kavyadara (p 19.68), Udbhala (p 110), Vamana (p 3, etc), Dhvamikara (p 11, 110), Mahma bhatta (p 44, 67), Saresvatr-Lanthabharana (p 19.98) Bhoja (p 73 199) Rajanaka Mammața (p 85), Rajaņaka Rucaka (p 58, 161, 193), Rucaka (p 179) Abhmava bharat (p 6 20) Dašarūpaka (p 6 8 50, 53, 84 110, 146 189 195, 204. 225 226, 230), Dhanika (p $ 20, 51, 64, 115). Matrgupta or Matrguptacarya (all verse quotations p 7.8 9, 13 15.20 57, 62, 74 110, 126, 151, 154. 156. 199, 230) Natya dazpana (p 6) Națya pradipa (p 6). Natya locana (p 7), Bhava prakā śikā (p 7. 9,168) Rasarnava sudbakara (p 114 17.), Sudhs

1 INQ 1930 pp 75-80 2 Our references are to the 8th edition Nerday Sagar Prems Bombay 1922. 3 Ghosh appears to have overfooked ons quotation from Adt Bharata on p 168 wbach deats with Niyatapti This makes the totel number of Raghavabhatta's quoistions twenty 4 His citations from grammatical lexical poclical and dramatie

158 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POENCS

kara (p 8, 13, 15 33, 55. 58, 69, 73 75 84. 115. 163. 188, 254), Samgıta sarvasva (p 6), Samgiıta sudhanıdhı (p 242), Sanıgıla ratnakara (p 191, 209, 229) Nagara sarvasvn (p 50), and Rati-vilase (p 76) Raghavabhatra's date is not known but since the latest work he quotes is the Rasārnava-sudhākara of Singa bhupala, he could not have flourished before 1330 AD By following a different line of investigation P K Gode' orrives at a more precise daie of Raghavabhatta in the . last quarter of the 1Sth century (1475 1550 A D ) This is a fairly late date, and since a very large number of his quotations from Adi Bharata are directly tracenble in Bharata's Napya sastra, his testimony cannot be taken as conclusive But at the same time it is clear that whatever may have been us character, some text or author under the name of Adı- Bharata was known to bint, as drslingushed from Bharata from whose Napye fattra aiso be makes independent cilations The onty other work which purports to give us a portion at least of an Adi-Bharata' is contamed in a curious MS, existing in the Bhandarkar Orientol Research Institote and eotered in its Catatogue* under the tille Natya sarvasva dipika An occount of this MS was given by D R Mankad'. but since he was unable to come to a delinite concluston and since

1 Calcutta Onentat Jontnal in 1936 pp 177-84 Raghavabhatta way a Mahtrastra Brshman whote father Prthvidhara Bhaita migrated to Benares before 1450 A D He was also the author of the Podartha daria commentary op the Tantrie work, Sarada ifaka ded Kasht Sanskrit Serres 1934) 2 Jlamkrishna kavi (ed Adha Jastra GOS 1, p S of the preface) states that he possesses a fragment of a work called Saditiva bharats which according to him may be the Adi Bharatn But he gives no account of tt nor does he appear to have consulted the Mysore and Poona MSS Sumlarly he apeaks of a Vrddha Dharate in 12000 granthay (ournal of Andhra H R S i p 23) Dut these statements are not authenticated 3 Deschptive Carologue of Mamuscripts in the Dhandarkar Orienta! Research Instituie zil (AlashkEra, Samgita and Natyz) 1936 P 4531 A ABORI AIn T 17

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 159

it bas a bearing on the Adi Bharata problem we give bere a detaded study of the MS which is necessary for understand ing the value of its testrmony The MS obtained on loan through the courtesy of the Curator of the Bhandarkar Institute consists of 61 foltos sizc 10 x 8 written in clear and bold Devanagar characters on country made paper with marginal borders ruled in double red lines having generally 10 to 11 lines to a page The general appcarance of the MS is not old Other notable characteristics of the MS are folios 1 5 contain a list of contents in three columns separated by double red lines and read at the end tfa afamru aqd foho 6 begins the text with the Mangala verse sf-nyaraufagrfe afranfa , fohos 12 13 and 14 are numbered twice but the re peated fohos contain different matter folio 14 which abruptly breaks off without completing the matter in hand is left three fourths blank thereafter the repeated fofro 12a is blank the repeated foro 12b begins the text again with भोगखेशाय नम and another Matgala verse विष्णु नोकगुरु प्रपाम् सिरमा, tolios 26 29 and 44 are not numbered folio 43b breaks off abruptly without completing the matter and leaves one fourth of space blank folo 47b is blank after folo 47a ends with इति द्वादराह्स्तप्राय्ता समासा folto 4Ba begins wath Angabbinaya folo 57b erds with शीरामाय नम सीसाल कमएाभरतरातप्रहनुम समेवभी UHa aH , leaving the page ralf blank the last folio 6ja ends with इति ससमत(:c)दसप्रसरण ममाप्त । शीकृष्णापेंग्यमस्नु ।। शीर्तु। leaving threc fourths of the page blank 61b ss blank and bordered with flowery design It will be clear even from this brief description that the MS is neither continuous nor compleie Dut what is no noliced in the Caralogue as well as by Mankad is that it is a composite MS written at least by two ditterent hands In this respect it appears to consist of different umts or frag mems of text for the Brst hand appears on folios 1 1a tend ot

160 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POCTICS

Samavaya skandha) 26 (beginning of Purvaranga) -47 ond 58 61 the second hand is d stinctly seen on toltos 15 25 (end of Adhy 6) and 48 57 At the outset there is a curious list of contents (folios 1 S) prefired to the work and called Samketa prakarana We shall see that in the beginmng of the text itself there is a similer account of the contents and the section is called Samketa dhyaya The lists give a total of 5 Skardhas 32 Adhyayas and 221 Prakaranas covering the eotire work They are enumerated thus Samavaya skandha Adhyaya 6 Prakarana 54 Sıkşa skandha Adhyaya 6 Prakarana 69 Bhava mrupana skandha Adhyaya 11 Prakarano 53 Ullasa skapdba Adhyaya 6 Pralarana 34 Vašeşika skandba Adhyaya 3 Pralarana 11

$ Skandhas Adhyaya 32 Prakarana 22! The prefixed list of contents (folios 1 5) ends with the words पृतपयत [आदि on margio probably secndam]भरतशान्। अस्य प्र घक्ष नाम नाटवसर्वखदीपिका । We shall see that so far as the text is available the contents as detailed bere do noi actually conform to the matter respectively deatt with in the work itself As the pagimation and handwriting are contr nyous it cannot be sard that this prefized list was compiled and added later on But it is curious that it contais words like Prakaranalu (-Prakarananı) Drştı bhedalu (=Drştı bhedah) Stn sthanakalu (=Str sthanakam) etc where the Telugu plural afix Iu undoubtedly indicates its Andhra Drigin After this comes the text of the work itself which com mences on lolo 6a but the MS is corrupt and tgcorreet throughout It begins thus

सि धूर मासुरतनुगिरिजासदाय।

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADIBHARATA 161

कोटीरशेखर विधु करणारसाब्धि मो पालयेत्परशिव: प्रियशाकरस्थ ॥ एपा अ्रन्थकतुस्सोपासितदेवताध्यानानुरूपा नान्दीति नस्यति (2) के्षो- चिनान्या पदनियमो नाभ्यु प)गत। आशीनमस्किया वस्तुनिर्ेशो वाषि तन्मुखम् (Dandin : 14) इति प्रामारायात। तत आशीर्वादनान्दी करोति-

व्यस तु न्मापदस्क (2) ललिपुरचिजयिनस्तारडवाडम्बराखि।

पषा आशीर्वोदरूपा नान्दी। अत प्रारम्भप्र्धार्यय सुचित। श्रभ नमस्कारनान्दीं न करोति- आ्ान्निक भुवन यस्य वाचिक सर्वैवाइमयम्। आहार्य चन्दवारादि तनमस्सासिक शिवम्॥

एव नमस्कारनान्दाममि श्ररब्धप्रन्थार्थज्ञातकथ (३) सवति। श्रनन्तर वस्तु निर्देशप्ाधान्या नान्दीभाइ- ब्रझ्मा तालघरो हरिस्तु पटदो चीगाधरा भारदी वशास्यी शशिभास्करी भ्रुविर्ता धीरवमेते सिथिवा। नदी भृझ्विरिटी सृदजललितो गेयो सुनिस्तुम्बुरु रशभुन् तकराम्सुजो विजयतते नाव्य सदैव भने।। [talea 6b) एव शिवस्य नाव्यसामाबित निरुपसायातच्छासप्रफटनीय- वस्तुनिर्देश विनसित व्ाभकत। इद नाव्मह सदा भजे इत्व निरन्वरा भ्यासात्लत्तानुभन इति भाव: एव तिमि शकैलतिविघनान्दी सूचय- निर्विम्रपरिसमाप्तर्थ विध्नेश्वर सतीति- विमध्वा तनिवारणकतरगिर्विघाटवीहव्यवाद

विभाद्यीघघनपनएटपवनो विप्नेभपञाननी विश्रव्यालकुल्तप्रमतगरडो विप्नेभर पातु न ।। After another Namaskriya to Bhumi devi we have prelimt nary remarks on the subject matter of the work (folio 6b) 11

162 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS

एवं नमस्कत्य ततः शालारम्म समानरेत्। शादी भरतशव्दार्थसरु्पं विशोति- भकारो आवसंयुक्कोे रेफो रागाभितोषत हि। तकारस्तालसहितस्तराद्धरत उच्चते॥ [folio 7a] पवतो माव इति वृतं राग इति गीतं ताल इति नाय तम्मातीर्यविकं भरत इति वर्यक्तरात्मकशव्दस् भावः। सर्पमाह- गीतं विष्णुस्ाद' तु दाघं प्श्मात्मर्क तवा। नृतं शिवात्मकें प्रोफ्त वठो भक्ता प्रयोजपेन्॥ एव' वविमूतिखस्पत्वाद्वेदस्वरूपं च तदिति विसावानो-

भामवेदाद्भबेद् मान' सृक्षमायवंसात्कृतम्।

सभपतीलाह- श्र निर्माता पिता गीतं वाघ चैव सतो भवेन्। तालस्दोदरस्तस्य कललं रसपद्धति: । एकत्कुट्रम्ब कचित नाव्यम्य पुरुपस् हि। एकेन दीन' न्यून' स्याटयोका दोषभाग्भवेन्।। lo this way, after claborate Sastra prasamso, the work refers to the mythical origin of the Sastra, and proceeds to give some information about its own purpose and its author (folo 7b): तदेनदागम पच्मि लोके भरतसंइकम। आदो महानट, शामुरक्कषान्द्रहाणे स्वयम्॥ नाव्यवेद' ददी साअं भरताय चनुमु सः। ततो धीमान्मरवमुनि1 कृतदान शास्रमुत्तगम् ॥। नात्ता स्येनैन लोकना द्वितोपकरणाय पै। तस्ाक्लोके भरतमिति1 प्रसिद्रमभवक्किल॥ तच्छु त्वा भरवं शास्र गन्धवाप्सरसा गया. । ततथ्व गीवार्गरा सर्वे भरतं प्रशशसिरे।।

1 The Pada is metrically defective (hypermetric)

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 161

ततो मुनि शा्हमतनकसव गैलाद्िर कोदजद तिलादि।

राज्ञा जनानामुपयोज्यमेतत् ।। तच्छा शिथिलीभूत जनेचित्तपसादिभि। पुनरुद्वारयाम्यय प्रत्रया देवलब्धया ।। स शास्त्रोद्वारक इत्याशङ्य नारायय शुद्धशिवश्रोरामानन्दयोगिराट प्रभुर्दीरस्तयागी विद्याभोगी द्ो गुरुदवो दि मोडशैतानि नामैकमेक्स्यैव अनिष्यति (foiro ga) इति अन्थकतुर्भेविष्यमें च रद्स्य (i)1 इदानी प्रस्तुतोपयोग मनुसरभाठ- वद्यप्पमन्तितनय कोकिताम्वातन्भव। नारायगा सिद्धशिवयोगिराजो विराजते॥। वरकोटि कलपूडिपरजो प्रह्मवेता जञअ?)सवलमुक्लऔीवत्सगोब क्वीद। भरतमखिलमापस्म्बसूल पवित स्फुटतरमवरोस योगिनारायखाय।। बेकसस नामेलकरो 'ना्यसर्वखदी पिका। सम्रहीतुस्तस्य कवेरारम्मस्सूच्यते तत ।। वद्याह्य खगुरनाथमद् प्रगाम्ब सम्य निधाय हृदि साम्बशिवादि पद्मम्। सस्तुव्य देवमुनिपूर्वकवरि मुद्दामु व्याकतुमादिभरत स्फुटमारभामि ॥ This rather long quoation from the beginning of the work i5 given not only because it will give some idea of its mode of composition which consists of verse karika and running prose commentary but also because it furnishes ir formation about the author or authors and the purpose of the work It would appear that the MS contains the text of what is called the Adi Bharata along with its commentary called Natya sarvasva d pika The author of the Adi Bharata appears to be Nara 1 As the metre is Mal nI the tead ng बरक uresd 2 MS नामेति करो

164 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

yana or Narayanatya, also called Ramananda Sıddhasiva yogiraja, who was the son of the minister Vaidyappa and his wife Kokilamba, and belonged to the Varakotikalapudi famly of the Vatsa gotra The name of the author of the com- mentary is not given, but he bows to his preceptor, named Vaidya, before he commences his exposition of the Adı- Bharata which is apparently a late work of South Indian orgin As no other MS of the so called Adi Bharata is avaiable we will bave to examine the subject-matter of the work ilself, as presented by our MS, and find out, if possible, ( whether our MS contains the entire Adi Bharata, along with its com- mentary, or gives only n part of it, and (af) whether the MS contains a continuons and single work, or fragments of differ. ent works. On fohos 8a-11a we bave a general synopsis of topics dealt with in the work in the order of Skandhas Adhyayas and Prakaranas The section as called Samketadhyaya Al- though less detailed, it corresponds generally to the prefatory list of contents (hereafter called Contents) given on folios 1-5. of which we bave spoken above, It is entircly in Anugobh ot Sloka metre, with no prose commentary A verse towards the end (folio 10b) says that all this was tought by Siva himself 1

and then summanses the extent of the worL thus (Eolio [0b) सवोशि भरते नामोद्देशप्रयरण्ानि दु। तलक विशद्विशत द्वाविशाभ्यायसक्ष्यकमू। मोकाना पतसहखराणि पद् स्कघा विनिर्मिता. ॥

1 Abbmnavagupta (Abhı Bhsrau ed GOS p 8) icforms ua that Sadativa like Brabma u someumes spoken of by some teachers who were foremest among Narttas (nastika-dhuryopadhyayah) as one of the expounders of the Natya (astra ) Saredatanaya also refers to Sada diva (# 152) Apparetly Abbmnavagupla consders stich Sadāšiva Bharata to be heretical !

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 155

समपायस शिक्षा स धो भावनिरूपसम्। उद्ासो वशैषिक इति स्वधानामेप निर्शय।। एतत्प्रकरखार्ना च क्रमादेकैकश स्फुटम्। सवेंपा पूर्वसास्त्रोक्त लज्या परिकीयते॥ This enumeration corresponds with that given in the pre liminary Contents namely that the work contains 5 SLandhas called respectively Samavaya Sikşa Bbava mirupana Ullasa and Vaiseşika 32 Adbyayas and 221 Prakaranas m 6 000 Slokas Then we have an mteresting passage in which difterent traditions of the Sastra as well as the scope and character of the present work are menttoned (folio 10b) भरवा बहुषा सवति नान्दिसारखतादय। रेषा प्रमायामादिय्व भरतस्स उमापति । अतएवादिभरतप्रवार नटन रसवम्॥ नाटकास्तु कयाप्राया दशहूपकमशक्रा। शलूपसूतधाराध पुत्तिकाप्नतिमादिभि।। वेपभाषाविकारा दिकन्पनाभिवहकता । तस्माच्छुद्दस्य नृतस्य प्रगाए न भर्वात ते॥। नटन नाटिकाना च तेषा कारगमेव हि। सस्मानाव्र शुद्धान् शाल्रि्द प्रवच्यति॥ The purport of tls passage seems to be that there are varrous Bharata sastras of which the authonty as well as the original is that Bharata who is Umapati (re Siva) Hence daneing is known as the mode of Adi Bharata The Natakas called Dasarupakas which consist mostly of words and are vanously represented by actors ete are not the standard for pure dancing (Nrtta) which is indeed the souree of both Natakas aod Natikas Hence this work speaks according to the Sastra of the unmixed element of the Natya (namely Nrtta) In other words Nrtta 13 belreved to be the proper

1 The Pada is bypermetr c 2 We aro taking the word Nalana he e as eqn valent to Nrtta below wh ch ts essent ally rala layad aya accord ag to Dhanan aya

166 SOMB PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

subject-matter of the present work, and the varicties of Nata- kas, known as Dasarupakas, bave no place m it. This state- ment is indeed borne out by the Contents (on folios 1-5) where no Rupaka pratara, nor any matier directly bearing on it, is found, this is also confirmed, as we shall see. by the topics actually dealt with in the rest of the present worl avallable in our MS This, however, raises a dificulty The avowed object of the Adi Bharaia namely, that its treatment is entirely contined to Nrtta, does not appear to be consistent with what is revea- led in the text of the Adi Bhorata as it was known to Raghava- bhatta Most of Raghavabhalta's quotations, which are to be traced also in the present text of Bharata's Napya sastra, deal with the topic of Rupako, rather than with that of Nrtta For instance, the quotation on p 6f deals with construction of the stage, Sthapaka and Sutradhata. on p 15. 69 with elements of the plot Bya Biodu ete, on p 23 with Upaksepa on p 69. 11S with Prayatna and Garbha samdbi, on p 15, 21 with lan- guage to be employed in case of different characters, on p 40 with Pataks sthanaka, on p 168 with Niyataptr. on p 248 with Nitvahana sathdhi It would appear, therefore, that the text of the Adi Bharata known to Raghavabhajts, which in ns subject matter greatly overiaps the present text of Bharata's Narya sastra was probably not the same text as the Adı- Bharata found in our MS, which is devoted exclusively to Nrtta, and not to Natya There 13, however, a passage of four lines in one of Raghavabhatta's quotations trom his Adı Bharata which almost literally agrees with a passage of four hines (tolio 13a lincs 35) in our text of the Adi Bbarata 1 speaks of the characteristics of a Sabhya thus Raghavabhatta's quotation (p 9) मध्यस्था सावधानाथ बागििनो न्यायवेदिन ।

सगर्वा रसषभावज्ञास्तरीरय वित्यकोविदा। प्रसद्वावनिषेद्धारमतुरा मत्मरच्छिदा ।

168 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

continues up to folo 14b, but breaks off abruptly leaving the rest of the page blank On the corner of the right hand mar- gin of folto 14b we have (probably secunda mana) the caption arauaa Thereafter the fohos are numbered over agamn as 12 13, and 14, of which folio 12a is left blank, but the subject matter of the repeated fohos is not the same The repeated fol:o 12b begins afresh with श्रीगसेशाय नम and another Man- gala verse as follows विष्ण लोकगुरू प्रयाम्य शिरसा परामार्गसदर्शक वीर्तिगीतिवर जनस्य लघुना फालेन कामप्रदम् । सेव्य सयतिभितृ त ्लुदपदन्यास्ातलोकतम वालाना क्ययामि लक्षसमह पूर्योकशासकमात् । Only on this verse there is prose Anvayattha but the Karıka- form in Anustubh or Stoka metre contmnues thereafter, and ends on the repcated tolio 14b with the colophon sfa nfs मरतशास्त्र समवायस्कन्ध नाव्यसर्वसदीपिकाया समोद्धारादिपरेसयान्ताशप्रकरण नाम द्वितीयोऽध्याय ॥ श्रीकृमणर्पएमस्तु॥ श्रीराम ॥ The marginal caption araagdes oceurs again (apparently secundo mann) on the repeated folo 13b, but it should be noted that with the exception of three lines of Anvayartha on the Mangala verse mentioned above the text is not accompamed in these folros by any runaing prose commcutary The text continues is Anustubh metre, wsthout any com mentary up to folo 18a and ends wilh the colophon इति धीमदादिभरते समवासस्कन्धे नाव्यसर्वस्त्रदीपिकायां शाचार्यनतादि भारद नि- कान्त नवप्रकरण नाम तृतीयोऽध्याय#। The ncat fourth chapter deals generally with the topic of Tala io Anustubh metre (without any commentary). but it is not clear where it ends, for no colophon s found The colophon to the finth chapter occurs on folio 23a as follows दत्घ रचितोऽन भरते महापधमस्त्वान्त्रवचो अध्यविद्ितो युपेनाथ अध्यायवरो न्वे (2) पदस्सटीको के राज (१) नासमछ सिदशिय योगिनाघेन सममन्दयपदेन रम्य दि इति पयमस्पग॥ Parts of this colophoo which is faithfutly transeribed here, is not intelligt

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 169 ble, but Gode conjectures' that it was written by the scribe who transeribed the orrgmal work in Andhra characters (andhra vacah) into the present Devanagari copy The next sixth chapter, which begins on folo 23a m Anuspubh metre (without any commentary) ends on folio 25b with the following colophon नरायणा सिद्धशिदरामान दयोगिराज- विरचिते आदिभरते नास्याना नास्याइ्वसामभयादि दस्तादिदेवत्ान्त सक्तत्रकरण निरूपण नाम पछोडयाय ॥ श्रौरामापेयमस्तु। श्री॥। It is notable that the Natya sarvasva dipika is not mentioned in this as well as in the previous colophos fo the fifih chapter Here ends the frst Samavaya skandha The next seventh chapter begins on the unnumbered folto 26a with the topic of Purva ranga j0 the same manner in Anustubh or Sloka metre and witbout any prose commentary and ends on the unnum bered folro 28a with the Foliowmng colophon इति श्रीआदिभरते शास्ते शिक्षास्न्ध नाठमर्वस्वदीपिकाया पूर्वरज्वादि सभास्ववात पचप्रकरय- निरुषण नाम सपमोऽध्याय # The next eighth chapter begms on the tinnumbered folro 28a with the topre of Natya svarupa samilarly in Anustubh metre and without any commentary and ends on folro 32b with thrs colopbon इति आदिमरते शिक्षा- हरन्ध नाव्यमर्वस्वदीपिकाया नाऊ्यमेमवरए नाम अष्टमोडध्याय । Here ends the Siksa skandha of which only two out of six chapters are given here After this the next folie 33 shoutd have taken up the toptes detarled in the Contents under the rest of the Siksa skandha or under Bhava nrupana skandha. but the toprc actually dealt with does mot cor respond It deals in Anusjubh metre and without any commentary with 23 Lasyangas of which only 15 are defined and the folo 33b abruptly breaks off without completing the topic It is not known whether all tus should come under the remaming portion of the second Siksa skapdha or under the thurd Bhava ntrupana skandha for the Cootepts mention a variety of topics for the Siksa skandha and give 12 Hasta 1 Calciogur p 434

170 BOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

dvadasa pranah 30 Asamyuta hastah and 16 Samyata hastah as the subject matter of the first Adbyaya of the Bhava nirupana skandha A fresh text appears to begin from folo 34b (folio 34a baing left blank) with the repetition of the Mangala verse विष्णा लोक्गुर प्रराम्य शिरसा (see above p 168) No colophon occurs hereafter up to the end of the MS As the soccessive colophons up to ths pomt show there is a kind of homogeneity of the text up to the cighth chapter or up to the sccond chapter of the second Siksa skandha re from folos I to 32b and perhaps it continues a ltttle till the text breaks off with folio 33b As far as the work thesc foltos contain goes it is more or less orderly and coberent But it should be noted that there is the intrusion of a Mangala- verse on folio 12b and what is more remarhable is that there is an almost complete absence of any commentary from folie 7a the text consisting almost entirely of Karika verses in Anustubh of Sloka metre With reference to this portion of the text th refore the question arises that if the Adt Bharata Is the original and the Natya sarvasva dipika is its commen tary the Karika verses may be allowed to conshtute the text of the oniginal but where is the systemat c commentary thereon? Cunousty enough the Contents profess to idex the Natya sarvasva dipuka and say at the end w a og aTy नास्सर्वस्वदीपिका, but mention as made at the same time that एतत्पर्यव आदि [marg sec man d] भरतशास। It we take notice of the margioal caption myaet appearing twice on the repeated folios we should be inchned to take the Kantas as bclonging to an unknown Natya sarvasva of which the Natya sarvasva dipila is apparently the commentary Aut the difliculty is that the colophons to diffcrent Adhyayas say quite elearly इवि आदिनरते नाममर्वेस्वदीपिकायां, the name Natya sarvasva alone never appearintg except in two doubt. ful caplions written probably by a different hand Or perhaps It is possible that the Adt Bharata uselt was called Natya sarvasva But there is hardty any trace of the commentary

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 171

on these Adhyayas throughout As no other copy of the text of the Adi-Bharata is available, the points raised cannot be finally determined : but we can state with some confidence that although the extent of tbe commentary and its exaet relation to the text are uncertain, the text from foltos 1 to 32b is at least one homogencous wholc. Turning to the text which follows on 34b, we find that ft commences afresh with situdmny ay and the Mangala-verse विष्शु' लोकगुर' प्रशम्य शिरसा repeated from folo 12, with just a slight verbal variation The sobject matter of what follows is Tala. in accordance with the last Pada of this Mangala- verse

तालाना कययामि तक्षसामह पुर्वोहशास्त्रकमान। According to the Contents on folio 4a, the Talas come under the heading Tala-vidhana in the 7th Adhyaya (septamadhyaye tala-vidbane) under the Bbava-miropana-skandha The Talas are also mentioned on foltos 14a and 18b But it should be noted that there are considerable differences between the topies enumerated in the Contents and those actually dealt with in the tohos followiog 34a With reference to the Talas these folios discuss six Sthanas (folio 35b), and then proceed to Tala-prana mentioned thus as ten in number कालो मार्ग कियावरनि अहो जाति पला लय। यति प्रस्वारकश्वति तातपाया दश स्मृता॥ Accordingly, the treatment of Kala-laksana follows (folios 35b-36a>, six Margas are mentoned and defned (foho 36b), the total number of Marga prakaras being given as twelve We have the the treatment of Kriya (folio 36b), Anga (folto 36b), Graha (folio 37a), Jatt (foltos 37a 37b), Kala (folio 37b) Laya (foho 38a), Yan (foho 38a) and Prastara (folio 38b) These elements are given respectively as 8, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3 and 4 10 number . but tt should be noted that the Contents (tolto 4a) enumerate them respectively as 16, 6, 6, 5. 3, 4 6 and 4 The next frhe (32b) cnzmerates t01 Talae, andd thex Guru-

174 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

not entirely tally The MS ends rfa aiyd (SIc) EHATV समाप्त ॥ श्रीकष्णापेग्मस्। श्रीरस ॥। There is no final colo phon to the work It is elear from what is satd above that these supplemen tary folios 44 to 61 contain fragments of three or four unrelal ed texts on diverse topics one of which is ctually a repro duction of a part of the Citradhyaya of Bharata s Napya fastra and the others have topics wbich are simdar to its cortesponding topics While the preceding folios give regular colophons to cach Adhyaya and Skandha these fragments are devord of them and do not appear to contam a single work From cilations one fragment at least cannot be assigned to an carly date From all this i1 is reasonable to conclode that these fragments are hardly related to the fairly continuous text contained in the preccding foltos 1 33 and cannot be regarded as forming a contiqustion The foregoing description and discussion would point to the tollowing conclusion (1) Raghavabhata probably had some text called Adt Bharata before him which he distinguishes from that of Bharata But most of the quoted passages trom his Adt Bharata are directly traceable in the printed text of Bharata or have parallels in it From his quotations it also appears that his Adi Bharata did not exclude the various topies of Natya of Dasarupaka But s nee the Adi Bharsta contained in our MS professes as well as actually deals mainty with Nrtta and Sargite and directly excludes topics proper to Natya or Dasarupaka it cannot be taken as identical with Raghavabhatta s text only one short passage of four lines quoted by hem berng directly traceable in our MS

(2) The text of the Adi Bharata presented by our MS professes to be a tairly extensive work consisting of 5 Skandhas 32 Adhyayas and 221 Prakaranas in

THE PROBLEM OF DHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 175

6 000 Sokas It was probably a late work of South Indran origin declared to have been composed by Narayana or Narayanarya, also called Ramananda Sıddhasıva-yogirāja. (3) It was chrefly a work on Nrtta or Nrtya, as distin- guished from Natya, contaied no matter peculiar to works on Dosarūpaka, and probably followed a different tradition which is said to have originated from Umapatt or Siva bimself If we sccept Abhi navagupta's testimony, this tradition was regarded as non-ortbodox in his tithe Of course it knows Bharata as an exponent of the Natya Sastra Al though some thatters mevitably overlap, the present Adt-Bharata does not appear to have any direct relation with the text of Bharata (4) Whatever may be its intrinsic valuc, the text of Adı-Bharata presenied by our MS appears to be coptained in folios { to 33, but it is mcomplete It gives eight chapters and ends with only two chapters (out of six) of the second Siksa skandha (out of the five declared Skandhas) It cannot be determined if the text is given ia extenso o oaly in tynopsss here, but the text up to the poist it goes is fairly orderly and coheret even it is often corrupt and mneorrect (5) There are occasional prose comments especrally at the beginning of this text which is written mostly i Anustubh or Sloka Karika but there is no regular runging commentary The name of the work Adt Bharata, appears connected. mn the colophons and also in the prelimmnary remarks with Natya sarva- sva dipika which last appears to be the name of the commentaty The name Natya sarvasva dipikā itself would suggest the existence of a work called Natya sarvasva on which it might have commented It is not clear if such a work existed or if the Adt Bharata itself went by the name Natya sarvasva

172 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

lagbu nirnaya is spoken of on folios 39a 40b Then comes (folio 42b) the treatment of Sadikira tala (which ends on folto 43a with the remark कोइलमते सकीएंजातितालानि and of Sladinam Guru laghu nirnayah (folie 43a) This is followed by the topics of Astavidha nayika (which should come according to Contents under Bhava mrupana skandha Adhy 3) and Dasavidha-cumbana (which does not occur io the Contents) Here folio 43b ends abruptly without a colophon It is to be poted that this portion of the text from foltos 34b to 43b is wrilten generalty in the formo of Anustubh Karika bot there are occasional short comments in prose and occasional citations of authortative works There are refeenees to or quotations from the following works Sarigita ratnakara (ol1o 34b तातस्क्प्रतिष्ठार्भे इति भातोघटि स्मृत, folio 36a eer ), Samgitarnava talakala vilasa (folo 34b) Samgitarnava (tolio 36a) Samgita vidyavrnoda (fol os 36b 37a) Samgita cudamani (Iolto 37a) Tala kala vilasa (foho 37a) Sartgita mam darpana (folio 37a) Catura sabha vilasa (tolio 37a) Sarasvatı kanthābharana (folio 38a) and Kohala maia (43a) Of these works if the Samgita ratnakara be the well known work of the same name by Sarngadeva its date would be between 1210 and 1247 AD while if the Saiugrta mant darpana be the work of the same name by Catura Damodara son of Laksnuidhara then it may be assigned to the second half of the 15th century It seems therefore that this portion of the text in out MS cannot be assigned to a date earlier than the 16th century It will be seen from this brief deseription that although some of the topics dealt with woutd come partally under the Bhava mirupana skandba (as deta led in the Contente) the portion of the MS from folto 34b to fol o 43b whtch is marked by no distinguishing colophon is of a differept

1 Kohala s logt work appears to have infueneed the redactors of

Kane introduchon to h s new ed ton of Sah tya-darpona (p 24)

THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 173 character and can hardly be regarded as forming an organic part or a legrtuate continuation of the so called Adi Bharata text preceding it It is perhaps a fragment from some other work on Nrtta or Satugita dealing generally as tt does with the technicalities of Tala The same remark applres to the remainder of the text given in our MS from the uonumbered folio 44 up to lhe end on folio 61 This part of the text has a fresh beginning (foho 44a) with sftndary a tollowed by a Mangala verse 10 Ganapati namely विपध्वा वनिवारऐक्तरशिर्विपाटवीहन्यवाट which happens to be the fifth Mangala verse occurring at the com mencement on folio 6 (see p 161 above) of the so called Adı Bharata The text which follows is written in Anusfubh Karika verse with hardly any commentary accompanying It Starting with the topic of Hasta laksana (folo 44a) it procceds to deal briefly with Ranga devata pujana (foltos 44b-45b) Natya sala laksana and Sabhapatı namaskara (fclios 46a 46b) and closes up with Hasta dvadasa praņa (46b-47a) which tast topic the Contents include under Adhyaya I of the Bhava mrupana skandha Here the fragment ends and folo 47b is left blank After this from folio 48a to folio 51a we have a reproduc tion of the topie of Citrabhmaya of the present text of Bharata s Nutyo-Sastra (ed Nirnay Sagar Press ch 25 ed Kashı Sanskrit Series ch 26) but some of verses of the printed text of Bharata (eg verses 74 75a 85 131 of the NSP edition) are missing here The colophon ends (foho 51a) signficantly with इति भारतीयोक्कचित्ाभिनय समाप् ॥ From folios 51n to 57b we hava a description 1n Anustubh metre (without commentary) of Hasta mostly of Asamyuta wh ch follows but at is not ident cal with that of Bharata The folio 57b three fourths of which is left blank closes wih श्रीरामाय नम सीतालक्माभरतरात् महनुमत्समेतधीरामाय नम। After this fol os 58 to 61 deal with the Viniyoga of Asamyuta Haste wh ch follows Bharata generally bat does

176 SOME PROBLEMS OT SANSKRIT POETICS

The author of the somewhat meagre commentary does not record his rame but he mentions his preceptor Vaidya by name (6) An examination of the temaining folios 34 to 61 of our MS shows that they do not form a continuation of the work contained in folios 1-33 They present diverse disjointed fragments of text, one of which is a direct reproduction from Bharata, while the others, having some passages corresponding to those of Bharata are presumably derived from some unknown source These, therefore, do not possess any value for our present enquiry. (7) The distinction between Bharata and Adt Dharata as P V Kane tightly observes is made by com- paratively late writers It should be remembered that the word Bharata came to mean an actor or dancer , and in course of time Bharata or Bharata- Sastra came to sigmify works on Natya, Nrtya and allied topics It is possible, therefore, that to dis tingtsh such late amorphous compilations from the older text of the sage Dharata. qualifying adjectives like Adi or Vrddhai came into existence. on the analogy of the epithet Vrddha apphed in Niti sastra to Vrddha Canakya or as P V Kane poits out on the anatogy of the epithets Vrdha or Brhat opphed to Vrddha Manu or Brbad Visnu m Smytr literature They might have derived materal Irom different sources. but they were, as these compila- tions themselves show nothing more than mere manuals to whnch were given such titles of a vague but high sounding character Without further material this is all that can be concluded about Adi Bharata and its relation to the text of Bharata Our Heritage (Journal of the Researeh Dept. Calcutta Sanikrit College) vol : 1953 1 Saradatanaya (1175 1250 A D ) in his Dhave prakaiana refers to Bharatu Vrddba as welt as to Bharata

THE THEORY OF RASA IN SANSKRIT POETICS The theory of Rasa frke the theory of Dhvant with which it is mtimately conneeted forms one of the most important aesthetic foundations of Sanskrit Poctics From its first appearance in the dramatie theory of Bharata down to its esta blishment as the soul of Poetry mn the work of Visvanatha there has been a steady working out of the idea mto a funda mental aesthetic coneeption and it is worth while to stady the gradual unfolding of the idea through its fairly long course of history The dogma of Rasa apart from any theory thereon was naturally kaown to the old writers on Poetics but in the beginning it was taken into account only in connexion with the drama and its importance as one of the essential factors of poetic theory was not properly understood This importance was probably for the first time ably set forth by the Kash mitian Anandavardbana in the ninth century and subsequently elaborated with such mastery by tus commentator Abbisava- gupta that it became thenceforth an accepted fact in Sanskrit Poetics never to be set aside by rival systems and improved only ra detail by later speculations } Butit can be easdly sbown that some theory of Rasa however undeveloped or even a Rasa School particularly in connexion with the drama was in existence long before the time of Anandavardhana although the bearings of this theory on poetry in contradistinction to drama were seldom discuss ed The smportance of this dramaturgie Rasa School must have been somcwhat overshadowed by the dommnance of the Alamkara and the Ril: Schools in the sphere of poetie theory but its comparative antiguity gomg back fo a penod even antenor to Bharata is undoubted) Dramaturgy however appears at first to have fotmed a study by itself and even among later writers only Vidyanatha and Visvanatha think it 12

THE THEORY OF RASA

nent of the Rasa theory which Bharata, if Rijatekhara is cight. must have borrowed and worked up ito his own system That the Rasa theory was older than Bharata is apparent from the fact that Bharata himselt cites in chs vi and vit several Stokas In the Arya as well as mn the Anustubh metres m support of his own statements, and in one place, he distinctly quotes two Arya slokas from a chapter of an unknown work relating to the ducussion of Rasa i, It may be mentioned, however, that Kedava Misra, a comparatively recent writer of the 16th century speaks of one sutrakāra bhagavaa Sauddhodant," who according to him was one of the first to formulate the view that Rasa is the essence of poetry Nothing is known of this mysterious Sauddhodant apparently a Buddhistic writer except that Kesava Misra on his own acknowledg ment. is following this old master, wbose views, as recorded in the Atlamkara sekhara, do not seem however, to deviate in any material way from those of Mammata With Bharata on the other hand we amve at a distinctly debnte landmark Long before the Dhvani Schoot ted by

Car Caf 1 276 ij 59 m 206) on musre histrionie art eroties grammaf and Tantra The writer on croties it eited as Nandisvara in Panca sayaka (Bik Car 533 Peterson it 110) who is supposed by Aufrecht to be the sare as Nandin queted by Vatrrayana (: 1 8) but the uame Nandikefvara is given in Rat ral asya (Oxf Cat 218a Schmidt Ind Dronk 1011 pp 46 50) See Sehm dis remarks ibid p 47 The work on hiktriothc art atinbuted to Nandikesvara iy called Abhmnayo darpana ted Manomchan Ghoch Caleutla Sansk Series 1934 Eng trs A K Coomaraswamy and Dugglrala Gopal Krishnayya with introd and ilustrations New york 1936) A work on musie called Nandikesvard mare raladhydya in Weber 1729 See also Madres Car IN : 13006-8 where mentjon is made of Bharardrpava supposed to be a condensed version appareatly after Dharata of the work of Nandikesvara by Sumatr treat ing of dramauic gestures und salas See S K De Sanskr i Poenics f p 3 footnote 1 atrarye rasa vicara mukhe ed KāvyamJlā p 67 2 Ala ikara-sekhara pp 2,20 cte

180 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POETICS

Xoaedavardbana and Abhinavagupta, was dommant Bharata's views on Rasa seem to have been discussed in some detail with the result divergent theories came to prevail under the names of Bhapta Lollaja Sankuks Bhajta Nayaka and others all of whom appear to have been commentators on Bharsta s Napya Sastral and to have therefore taken Bharata as their starting point As their discussion however, chielly related as we have stated above to the dramatie art and as there existed side by side the rival theories of the more

1 The views of all these writers whose works are now lost arc knows frem the exposit on of Ahhinavagupta (fellewed by other writers e g Mammata Hemacandra Vidysdbara ete ) who also cites some less known commentators such as Ranuis or Rabala and Bhatta Yamtra This practically coicides with the enumeration of the different com mentators on Bharata by Sorngadeva as the source of be work (13th tentury sce intro to Anandaframa ed tion of the text) with the excep tion of the name of Udbtiata mentoned by the latter (i 1 19) It is curious that Udbbaja actually quotes (iv d) the first half of Bharata vI 15 enumeraling the eight Rasas only making coough verbel change mn the latter portion of the verse to admit Ssota as the muinth Rasa in the category Rahula w cicd by Sarugadeva as one of his authormties ( ] 17) whie Lollaja and Sankoka belong in all probabil ty to the 8th and the 9th centuries Bhatta Nayaka does not appear to be very duatant chronologicatly from Abbmnava who is the oldest writer to quote bam and probably belongs to the end of the Sth or the begtnning of the 10th century a date which makes it likely that he is identical as Peterson suggesled ( atro Subhas p 50) with the Bhaita Nayaka who is men toned by Kalhana (v 159) as baving fourished in the reiga of Sarhkara varman soa of Avantivarman of Kashmt (sce JRAS 1897 p 290) Suudaram sra in his Natye-prad pa (ind Off Cat iu p 347) as well as Raghavabhatta apesks of a commentary on Bharata by Matrguptiearya who is also mentioned by Sarngadeva as one of h s authorities (: 1 17) If this Matrgupta is the tame person mentioned by Kalbapa (u 125 252) as hving under Harsa Vikramadnya and referred to by Vasudeva on Karpura manjarr (Aufrecht Car Cof : 448) as a writer on Alarara then he must have been one of the carl est commentatory on the present day text of Bharata But th s view about the date of Matrgupta is very doubtiul These points have betn dscussed in detail io Sonskr f Poenes (vol : p 241) wheh see also on questrons ol chronclogy om tted as a rule in th s art ele

THE THEORY OF RASA 181

infuential Alarkara and Ritr Schools who never reabzed its aesthetic importance the Rasa theory and its exponents never seem to have come mto prommence until the idca was taken up by the Dhvant School and worked into its system In the meantune the dramaturgic Rasa School succerded to a certain extent in reacting upon and influencing the rival schools who were apparently forced to acknowledge Rasa and accord it even a subsidiary place in their general theory of Alamkara or Ritt This will be evident from a reference to the standpoits of Bbamaha and Dandin the two earhiest known writers on Pocties whose works have survived Without gomg mto detanls we may state that to Bhamaha the most important element in poetry is Vakrokt which is apparently idenbsfied with Atrsayoktr and whicb probably means a kind of heighten ed expresston which is the uoderlyig principlo of all poetic figures or Alamkaras Bhamaha does not seem to possess a very clear notion of the function of Rasa in poetry the only direct reference to it oceurrig in the defiition of the figure rasayat which in his opmion should manifest the Rasas clearly t y Rass is thus apparently included in the sphere of a particular Alamtara and given a very subordinate place in his system Commeating however on Bhamtaha s central verse on vakrokt: II 85

saişa sarvarva vakroktır anayartl o vibhavyale Abhmavagupta atterpts to read into it his own idea of Rasa and interprets vibhavyate in the techmical scose as pramadodyanadr vibhavatar: muyate višeena ca bhavyate rasamayikmyata wh* In otber words he takes Bbamaha to mean that by Vakrokt the sense of poetry is rendered isto a suitable factor of the Rasa so that by using the word vibhavyate with the meaning given to it by Abbmnava Bhamaha apparently imphies that

tf rasavod dars ta-spasta f ga ad rasan 6 2 Locana p 208

182 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Rasa as well as Alathkara originates in Vakrokh The scholastic speculation with regard to the origin and function of Rasa does not appear, however, to have started in Bhamthe's tune, and Bhamaba, in common with Dandio. never uses the techpical terms wbhavo, anubhava etc, so famhar to later theorists Oo the other hand. Bhamaha s opinton scems to be that Rasa need not be invariably present in poetry, what must be present is Vakrokti') In v 3,no doubt, Bhamaha speaks' of Lavya rasa as minganng the rigour of the Sastra, a sentiment which is endorsed by Rudrata* and which probably josprred the dictum of later writers that the Sastra is prabhu sammita, while the Kavya is kantā samimta* Itis probable that the phrase kavyd-rasa is used here in the gencral untechnical sense of 'the flavour of poetry,' but if we read, with Abhinavagunta," a technica! meaping into it, it only shows that the earher authors were sahsfed with assigning only this plcasing and extraneous fuaction to Rasa The same remarks with regard to the recogmition of Rasa apply more or less to Dandin, but Dandin scems to be more alive to ils importance then Dhamahay Lake Bhamaba Dandin atlows Rasa to be toctuded in the poetic figures aod therefore assigns to it only a minor place in his system It may be contended that Dandn gives greater prompence to Rasa by includiog it in one of the essential quolttres (guna) of diction (rm), viz. in madhura, which is defined as the

1 : 30 36 w 85-6, V1. 23 2 sudu kavya rasonpušraih lastmam apy apayutja e! prathamal dha-madhoi ab pibant kaju bhetajam !! 3 xu 1. 2 4 Abhmhava uses the termns prubhn sommfa ind mttrd tommfp (Locone p 12) wbich is followed by Mammata (Kdyya-pr ed Dombay Sansk Ser 1917 p 9) Later writers distinguish (Elaioh pp 13 5) between the Vedas which are probhn samnate the Itthosa ete, wlch are mura-sommita and the Kavya which i Lonta sammlta 5 Locone p 182

THE THEORY OF RASA 133

establishment of Rasa in the word and in the objecil. But from n 292 it appears that Dandin means by madhurya guna mere absence of vulgarity (agramyata) and does not contem- plate the inclusion of Rasa as such. This i8 made clear by 1 64 where agramya artha is sard to be rasavaha, as well as by the Hrdayongama commentary on this point: madhurya gune pradaršıtak sabdārthayor agrāmyatayā jāto raso vākyasya bhavatt, alamkaratayā nırdistam rasavattvam asta- rasāyattam (p. 167), the last part of this passage calling attention to the fact that the only cases, where the erglit Rasas are admitted by Dandin and which we shall discuss presently, occur in connection with his mnclusion of this clement in poctic figures like rasavat, The madhurya guna, according to Dandin, may appcar in two aspects, m so far as it creates vag-rusa and vastu-rasa (1 51), the former copsishog of alliteration of similar sounds (Srwtyanuprasa) and the jatter denoting absence of vulgarity (agrāmyata)" Thus Hemacandra rightly explains Rasa in Dandin's madhurya according as it resides in voc or vosta, in this way frut varnanuprasabhyam vag rasah., agrumyabludheyata tu vastu rasah (p 198) The Rasa in madhurya, therefore, has a distinct technical connotation different from that iparted to it by the exponents of the Rasa School A simdar use of the term, which, however, Dandmn does not explam, as he does in this particular case, is to be found i0 m 149 (or iv 26 in the Madras edttron) wherc the phrase giram rasal should be interpreted, as it is done by Taronavacaspatı, as sadhut vam 3

1 vact vastunty ope rara sthah i SI 2 See t 51 67 Also Manikyacandra p 189 3 The modern commentalors are somchimes mnted by then Dom ideas of Rasa and interocet Daydin in that Irght. For instance Promacandra commenting on Dandins exposmion of the tavya-tarira in 1 10, notes Kavyanaul Sanram ca atmabhutarya rasnd ryoipya sya deha bhute afrayat cd although Dandn bunself nowhere speaks of the susgestion of Rasa as the 'soul of poctry The same remark

184 SOWE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

At the same time it cannot be aformed that Dandin was entirely ignorant of the idea of Rasa for he declares that poetie figures to which he attacbes great importance as an clement of poetry endow the sense with Rasa (: 62) although here as elsewhere tle artha rasa has a distmet reference lo agramyata from the context Agem a Mabakavya in his opinion should invariably possess rasa and Wiva (: 18) A clearer ind cation is given by bis treatment of the figures rasavat preyas and urjasvin (it 275 92) where he betrays an undoubted acquaintance with the existence of the erght recogmsed Rasas all of wich he enumerates by ther Tespecliye names and four of which (v sp gora roudro wra karm a) he dllustrates as elements of the poetle figures under discussion If we are to accept Abhmnavagupta s interpretation Dandins conception of Rasa like that of Lollata is what may be deseribed as objechve or in other words Dand n believes in the causal development of Rasa through the Excitants (wbhavas) and Eosuants (anubl avas) Without making a defintte statement on this point-for Dandmn s somewbat meagre indication hatdly jostifcs us in dorg so -- we may however aflirm that Dandin apparently speaks of Rasa as being developed as an effecr from a temporary (eg rati or Arodha) to a permanent mood (eg frngora of raudra) and the way in wh ch he deals with tbe question lends colour to Abhinavagupta s interpretatiot or at least indicates that Dandin was probably aware of some such theory For speaking of the figure rusavor which according to him possesses the characteristic of manifesting the Rasas he gives an example of the mamifestation of Erngara in such a figure with the remark rot h śrngaratamn gata r pa bahalya yogena ( 1 281) Stmilarly with reference to the development of roudra from krodha he says ty arukyu apples to the modern commentary u the ed of Dandio in Bombay Sanskrit Se tos 2 Oe Baats dt w (tx of whtet romwy delow ) teptod eed partally by Hernacandra p $7 comm

THE THEDRY OF RASA 185

param Koju krodho raudratmatăih gatah (u 283) But the Rasa in these figures is, of course, subordinate to the expressed figure itself (olamkdrataya smrtam, n1 287), of which it serves as a means of embellishment It seems, therefore, that Dandin was to some extent cognisant of rasa, bhava ete , but he could not give them a place in his system except as an embellishment of the language or of the sense. and this somewhat objective view of Rasa was apparcatly responsible for the subordinate position assigned to ot in the Alamkara and the Ritr Schools Although Vamana makes a great advance on Dandin's system in other respects. he does not seem to have gone further than his predecessor in the treatment of Rasa He emphasises, no doubt, the necessity of distinguishing between those characteristics (guna) which are essential (mtyo) and those (olamkara) which are secondary (omto) m poetry, and marks an improvement on Bhamaha and Dandm, who mclude Rasa only in the poctic figures, by ancluding it in the essential characteristies, for he defnes the artha-guna kant as that essential excellence of sense "in which resa 1s con- spicuously present" (dipta rasatvam mt. 2 15) In this respect Vamana in a way anucipates the iportance which Rasa assumed mn later schools, but it must be admitted that al- though Vamana includes Rasa in the esseptials of poetry, be had no cleat idea of its aesthetic significance except as an accessory elcment, just in the same way as he had no clear notion of the 'suggested sense" eacept as a simrlar accessory element in a parucular figure (Iv, 3 8) .Udbhata. a follower of Bhamaha and a contemporary of Vamana, adberes in tbe main to the views of his predecessors and treats Rasa as a subsitary clement on poctry. inclu- ding it hke Bhamaha mn Sgures lie rosavat, but io one passage.' cunousty enough he apparently designates Rass as the 'soul' of poetry, withopt, however, sctung up an 1 rasådyadlustlutar kavyam fvad raporayā yatah! kothydie ted rasadindik kavyurmiatvam vyasasthiam/!

186 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

acsthebc system on its basis This verse Occurs as vi 17 10 the text of Udbhata's work published by Col Jacob in JRAS, 1897, p 847. but the verse appears to be a little out of place in the context in which it occurs, and m the text published by the Nirpay Sagar Press it is wanting, although given as a quotation with a tad ahah in the accompanying commentary of Pratibatenduraja (p 77), Hermann Jacobi s supposition ' therefore, based on Jacob's text that Udbhata was the first writer to consider the question as to what constifutes the soul' of poetry, and to regard Rasa as such does not appear to be at all plausible Even if the verse m question be Udbhata's it should be taken as one of lus obiter dicta which does not ft in well with his system as a whole although Pratih5renduraja would probably fnd a place for it by reading into Udbbata as he does, bts own views about Rasa It is true that Udhhata betrays a closer acquaintance with the Rasa theery in some form or other and its tochm calities using terms like vbhave sthayin soncarin (IY 4) and anubhava (iv 2) and enumerating after Bharata vi 15 the eight orthodox Rasas with the addition of a ninth santa ID the catcgory, but all this is taken rolo account as an embellishment of the expressed figure of in other words Rasa is pot considered for its own sake but because it helps to emphasise and conshitute the charm of the particular figure Hence Pratibarendurajs remarks that the question as to the nature of rasa and bhava and how far they may stand as o merc kuvyalamkura or as the very soul' of poetry, is not discussed partly for fear of prolixsty and partly because it is not relevant a

I Ed Kavyamaln p 50 Not much capital ean be made out of this articte, Prof Jacobr admitted that his contention was no longer ienabtC. 1 Ed Kavyamala p 50 Not much capital can be made out of the fact, referred to in p 180 footnote abovo, thal Sirugadera men tuns Uobhata as one of the commentaiors on Bharata If it were tue it only shews that Udbhata was conversant with Bharalas

THE THEORY OF RASA 187

Rudrata on the other hand seems to be the earkest wrter who explcitly includes a treatment of Rasa as a sepa rate topic devoting four chapters to the discussion of Rasa and its adjunct subject of the bero and herome (nayaka nayika) It is not clear, however, what theoretical singificance he attaches to Rasa , for although at the beginning of lus work he praises poets who have won eterpal fame by composing poetry enhvened by Rasa he dovotes a comparatively small part of his work to its treatment and is entirely silent with regard to the theoretical aspect of the questton Oct of the sixteen chapters into which his work is divided only two chapters deal directly with Rasa not theoretically but deserip tively whule the rest is taken up with the detads of the poetie figures (alamkaras), on which apparcntly he puts greater em phasis Spcaking of the necessity of making a pocm sorosa he says (an I) that to those who emoy the Rasas but fight shy of the dry Sastras instruchon in the coruryargas is easier to im part through the medium of delectable writing. and this seems in his opinion, to be the chief motive for inspiring the sense of poetry with Rasa Rudraa in his theoretical athtude has no affimty with the Rasa School but rather with the Alamkara School and we have the testimony of Ruyyaka and Jayaratha to this effect Ruyyaka says' that Rudrata fard special stress on alamkara in which he comprised the three kinds of suggestion including the suggestion of Rasa (rasa

theory as hra crtatron of a balf line from Bharata and use of technical terms lite wbhava ete would indtcate It dues not prove that he belonged to the school of Kharata On the other hand evidence is Dot wanting that Udbbata belonged to the Alarhkara Sthool (Ruy yoka p 7) and was a follower of Bhomaha whose defin troms of many poete figores (eg rasdvet at Soyokn sasa, del a sahokt apal u dt utpreksa yathasa kina apratiata prašamsa paryayokta aksepo ubhavana vrodha and bhawka) he faithfully copes and on whose text he also appears to bave written a 1 vorana (Prat harendu p 13 Loranm pp 10 40 159 Hemacandra @ 17 Ruyyaka p 183 Sarmudrabandha pp 89 90) 1 Ed Kavyamata p $ Samudrabandna agrees with this

138 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS

dhvan) and that in the figure rasavof and the like the rasa and bhava imphed are taken as elements which only heighten the charm of the expressed idea Namt sadbu Rndrata s commestator however explaimog Rudrata xu 2 states mn the usual metaphorical language that in the opmton of his author sabda and ortho constitute the body of poetry the poetie figures rake the place of artifcral ornaments while rasa resembles natural qualties like beauty prowess ete (rasas tu saundaryadaya wa sahaja gunah) This interpretation only shows that like Vamana Rudrata was a step in advance of Bhamaba and Dandin inasmuch as he would regard Rasa as a natural quabty which is not extraneous but stands to tot mate relation to poetry but there ix nothing anywhere in Rudrata which will support this claborate description espe cially as Rudrata can sestcely be supposed to lool upop poet c figures wluch are of utmost mportance m his view uf poetry as mere artificial orsaments of expression The older wnters on Poetics therefore before the advent of the Dhvani School contented themselves with the working out of the outward form of expresston and hardly troubled themselves with the question of an ulterior aestbet e priociple the soul (arman) of poetry nor do they identify as some later writers do this soul antk the subtte psychologicat factor koown as raso, Vamana no doubt offers to solve the question by declanng (1 2 6) that the Ritr which has been usually but inadequately translated as style or d ction 15 ih s soul but in Vamanas view the Rittis not the expres s on of poet e individuality but the objectne beauty of representation called forth by the upilication of certain more or less fixed excellences known as gunas oc by adjustment of word and sense The older writers therefore lay the greatest emphasis on the poetic fgures or ata nkaras as Ruyyaka (p 7) testifies or on hht or diction in the objective sense and although cognisant of that aesthetic delectable ness which should be present in all poetry and which m Sanskrit goes by the pame of Rasa they could not yet bar

THE THEORY OF RAS4 1$9

monise it well into their theory of externals, and treated it more or less as an embellishment of the langoage by including if in certain poetie figures or by allowing it to form an element of the excellences of diction The Rasa could come into their system only through this backdoor aa it wete It is partly for this reason that the Dhvanikara (m 52) condemns carlier theories as crude and msufficient for the purpose of explaming the nature of poetry and capounds bis own aesthe tic doctrine in which Dhvam especially Rasa dhvan plays such an important part The Dhvanikara however io his exposition of rasa dhvan seems to have been greatly infuenced by the dramaturgie Rasa School (Bharata declared that the bustness of the drama was to evolve one or more of the eight Rasas and there fore a more or less elaborate psychology of human sentiments had been analysed in the service of the dramatic art Bharata s ideas on these psychological processes and on Rasa which is the foal ioternal experience consisting in the con sciousness of a certain objective condition of the ego were elaborated by his commentators and followers till the Dhva mkara followed by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta came ioto the field ) From the eather drama and dramatie theory therefore the idea of Rasa was taken over to poetry and poetic theory and as the transttion from the naive to the sentimental poetry was accomphshed the iheorsts went a step further and erected Rasa into one of its essentral aesthe tic foundatioos Anandavardhana is quite explicit on this point when he says ctoc ca ratad totporyena kavya mbendha- nam bharatadavaps supras ddham eva (p 181) In other words what was already well established in the drama by Bharats and others thus found its way into poetry profoundly modityang as it did, the entire conception of Kavya In the same way Abhinavagupta commenting on the concluding port on of the prose passage just belore Bbarata v 33 says nūjydt samutdaya rupad ratah natya eva rarah kavye pī năņā yamana eva rosah kavyarthab Simnarly Rodrabhaga states ai

190 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

the beginning of his work (t 5) that Bharata and others have afready discussed Rasa in connexion with the drama, while his own object is to apply it to the ease of poetry It must be noted. however, that although all later theorists take Bharata as their starting point, and build up therr own theorres ronnd his authoritatrve, if somewhat meagre, text, Bharata lumscif, like most old masters, is very simple on ms statements, and the subject does not appesr to have been yet brought into the realm of scholastie speculation Bharata's work is encyelopaedic in scope but his primary theme is the drama and his concephon of poelry dramatic, a vien which perhaps inspired Vamana's partiality towards dramatie composition expressed in 1 3 30-32 and which is concisely put by Abhınavagupta by ssying Layyam tavod datoruputma- kam ea In such a composttion Rasa, according to Bharata. should be predommamt, for he says that the drift of sense wluch arses from Rasa appeals to the heart and pervades the body. like fire lighting up dry pieces of wood ' Without Rasa there can be no sense of poctry' Although Bhorata does not go much into techmicalties he seems to be of opmion that the wbhaves and anubhavas which, according to later theory, constitute the essential factors, eall forth Rass, but he is not cleac as to what this process of evolutron exacily rs He explains bhava the basis of Rasa generally as that which brngs into esistence the sense of poetry through the three kinds of tepresentation, viz, through words, gestures and mnterpal feeling' This bhavo when permament and not fransitory, teaches the state of Rasa through the factors knDwn as vibhava and onubhava' A vbhuva is explaibed thus.

1 vt 7 2 na hi rasad rie katerd arthah pravartaie ed. Grosset p 87 ed Kavyarealu p 62. 3 veg-at ga sattvopeiån Lövy ithun bhavayonfin bhavah op eit. p 100 op cit p 69 4 sthdyma eia bhova mmsonem dpmndntr op ei p 102 op er p 70 tato v bh ionubhaye vablic n sariyagad vata nmpart h op et p 87 op ch. p 62.

THE THEORY OF RASA 191

vbhova itt Losmad ueyate, vibhavo nama vynanarthal, vbha- vyante'nena vag anga-sattvabhinaya tyato vbhavakt The word vibhavo is used, therefore, to imply koowledge or under- standing and may be explamed generally as that which makes the three kinds of representation capable of being sensed In the same way, the onubhara is explained as that which follows upon and makes the three kinds of representatron actually sensed .* The third element of Rasa, the vyabhicdrt bhava consists of accessory facts which belp and strengthen it. and is etymologically described as w abhi ity etăv upasargan cara gatau dhatuh* As to what relatson these factors bear to Rasa and how this state of relsh is brought about, Bharata simply lays down : vibhavānubhava-vyabhicar saryogad rase-mispattih, a formola which, in spite of bis own explana- tion, is so ambignous with respect to the exact significance of the central terms somhyoga and nispatt that a great deal of controversy has gatbered round nis imerpretation As each commentator has tried to explain it in bis own way. it has given rrse, as we shall presently see, to a number of theories on Rasa Bharata's own explanation, if it can be called an explanation, is that just as a beverage is accomplished through vanious scasoped artcles and berbs, so the permanent mood, the sthay :- bhova, remforced (apagota) by various bhoves, attain the state of roro + and it is so called because its essence con- sists in its taste or relish (rasa ah kah padarthah, ueyate

1 op cl, pp 1001 op c# p 69 2 anubhbya ih kasmdd weyate yod avam amuhhavavat nattar thiblemspannai vag-angosnitva kstam abhincyam dt op ei p 101 op of p 69 3 Bharata deals with taksona alamtlara doja and gang under vcla ablmata treated to ch xix to xx and these are thos made subordinate to Rasa All these elemente are considered in so far as they form dramatic embelushments, but foltanes dsappear th Later works being mncuded mlher onder ofarkora (Dandm # 366 aod Daserwpeka cu Hal iv 78) or under guna and alamidara (Vitvanatha vi p 302, ed Dargorrasada) 4 Ed Grostt p $7 td KavyamR= p 62

19> SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS

aradyatvat) He also explains that the sthayr bhava is the basis of Rasa because it attains as it were mastery or sovereignty among the forty nine different bhavos (viz, eight sthoyt bhavas eight sattyka bhavas and thirty three vyablu con bhavas mentioned by him in vn ad 6 and v 16 f) wluch naturally rest upon it as being presumably the principal theme of the composition in question ' Nothing delimite can be concluded from all this cacept that in Bharata s opinion the sthay bhava is the basis of Rasa, while the vibhava anubhava and vyabhicarin contribute to its final realisation But this explanation by its very am brguity or vagueness taxed the togenuity of the commentators its general trend anticipating theories like the utpattt vada of Lollata and the anumiti vade of Sankuka while special tech meahtics (used probably in ap untechmcal sense by Bharala himself) like vyonhta and samanya guna yoga occurring in the text suggesting or lending support to specialised doctrines like the vyakn vada of Abhinavagupta or the bhukti vada of Bhațta Nayaka The gencral foundatrons of the theory however, remain as fixed by Bharata It is practically admitted on all hands that the Rasa is reahised when a permanent mood or sthay bhava is hrought to a reltshable condilion through the three elements viz the vibhava the onubhava and the vyabhicari Bhava Of these the first two are the more important the vyablucarin being only concomitant or accessory Bharata s explanations of these terms are rendered wuh greater precision by his followers By sthayi bhava m poetry and drema are meant certain more or less permanent conditions of the mind such as love grief anger or fear This permanent mood coustituting the principal theme of composı

1 atral a vad anyonyartha-sarl skprair vibld dn blavasyamtar tLonopa cetara bhå alh sdmanya guna yogenabh n tpadyonte ra bh tar kotham danm sith na esa bhi u vesatvam apnu aprr ncyatet bahval cyahdr s Imtbl tul sthay no bla ah ed Grosset pp 107 ed Kivyamala, p 7D

THE THEORY OF RASA 193

tion and running throngh all other moods hke the thread of a garland cannot be overcome by those akta to it oc those opposed to it but can only be remforced Those elements which respectivety excite follow and strengthen (if we may use these expressions) tho sthayr bhara are in poctry and drama known as vibhava anubhava and vyabhicart bhava I although on the ordroary wond they may be lpown as mundane cause and effect (louktka karana and Karya) Devotd of techmicalmes a vibhava may be taken as that which makes the permanent mood capable of being sensed an onnbhava as that which makes it sensed while a vyobhicer falso called somcart ) bhava as that which aets as an auxilrary or gives an impetus to it In the case of Love as a permanent mood the stock examples given of wbhava ate womem abd the seasons of asubhava glance and embrace of vyublucurin the transient subordinate feelings of joy and anxtety Now Bharata says that the Rasa is realised through a certam correlation of these elements with the sthayt bhaya or permanent mood The question therefore arises to which Bharata himself gives no defimte solution viz what thrs process of realisation actually consists in and what relat on do these elements bear to Rasa in this process the sotution depending upon the explanat on of the two much diseussed 1erms samybgo and nispamn in Bharata s original dictum cited above Bhatta Lollata appears to be one of tbe eathest commenta tots of Bhatata to offer an explanation But excepting the bnef review of his opimon in Abhmavaguptas con mentary'

] Ballantyne renders these te ns convemienly f not very ade quately as the Excitant the Ensuant and the Accessory cospect vely a nomenclatore wh cb s accepted by Gang nah Jhi m hs transla ton of the Kavye prak sa H Jacob however (ZDMG 1902 p 394 f uses the terms Factor Effect and Concutrent 2 The extracts given helow are taken from a transer pt publ shed herew th of the Tr vandrum Palace MS rece ved through the knd offices of Ganganath Jha Lollatas vews are revewed after Abb 17

194 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

on Bharata which is copied more or less by all substquent wnters from Mammata and reproduced almost literally but anonymousty by Hemacandra Lollata is tknowo to us and his work is apparently lost Very litte can be gathered from this summary exposttion by an adverse critic but it appears that Lollata took the vibhava as the direct cause (Larana) of Rasa which is therefore an effeet (onukarya or utpadya) and the word nisparti of Bharata is explajned as utpath or pust 1 The Rass found in characters like Rama is attributed to the actor who imitates the charscter in form dress and action and thus charms the spectator. Mammata and his followers agree with th s interpretstion of Lollata by Abhinava but they male it more clear by saying that the permanent mood or the srhayin is directly connected with the heto (mmthyaya wrttya= suksat sambandhena) but it is recognised as existing in the actor' through a clever imitation of the originot character, this imitation being apparently the source of the charm (camatkara hetu] to the spectator The loeus of the Rasa therefore is sopposed to be in the hero but it is not clear how it is apparently transferred to the actor and how the spectator is charmed by a feeling which does not exist in him Govinda therefore tightly comments on this view of

nava, in Mammala iv ed Bom Sansk Ser., p 87 Hemacandra p 57 Mall natha on Vidyadhata p 85 Govinda of Kavyamata p 63 Hemacandra practically reproduces Abhinavagupta s very words 1 arra bl atta tollara prabhrtayas tavad eva n Vyacakhyut Vibl a 1ad bhih santyogo rtl ot atl dyfnas toto rasa it spatt k Totra wblavas e ita piith sihayyoim Layo utpanton \Branom am bhå of ca na raso Ja iyā atra v vaks ta teşām rasa koranatvčna gananānarl atvāt opi tu bha andm eva etc Abh on Bh Z wrhayyeve wblavan tbhevnd bhr upocito rosah sthoy bl ovatr- anupeeitah Sa cobhayo py anukatye nukartary ap [vi]carānusarhdhane baldd it cirantanantp cayam paksah Abh on Blt 3 ramadavanukarye tad rupadnusamdi anan nortake pr prat jamano ratsah Mammata loc ef where the term praf yamanah is nterpreted by Govnda aa arapyomanah (nate tu tulya r gatanksashdf apn valad aropyemanah aun aj kunam camatLara hetuh p 63)

THE THEORY OF RASA 195

Lollata tad apetalam sāmtajkeşu tad-abhave tatra comatkor* anubhava wradhat, na ca tagnandnt eva camatkera hetuh laukıka frngarūds daršanenāpt camatkara prasangat (p 63) The nval school of Sankuka we are told by Abhinsva gupta and following him by Hemacandra brings forward mgenrous objectons into the technicalihes of which we need not enter here 1 The laler wuters " however demur to this canse and efect theory on more phiosophical grounds Am elect they argue may exist when its chicient cause is des troyed, but as the hfe of Rasa is cicumscnbed by con tact with the vibhovas (vbhavads paramtarsa jivtavadhi) st disappears when the latter disappear a fact which goes to prove that the Rasa must not be taken as an ordinary mun dane (leuk(ka) effeet* Again the cause and the effect cannot

I Sankuka for instance malotsens that Bharata apparently uses tho termy rasa and atharin synonymoudly for the latter mentions the sare whhdses with respect to a particutar akoymn and is correspom ding rasa and hence if they are ident cal there is no quest on of ono being produced from the othes Nodang caa be gamed by re phung that in its uadeyelopes state it o sihty n bot in the develored state it is seso for such a supposit on will ivolve an mfinde muit el cition (dngniyaparnh) of the stages of sihdr m and its corrcspond ing rase If it is sad that m jis biglest slage of devtlopmemt it u rasa then how can we magine nxteen d ffereut varictics of Mtryo rana (Bbarata vi 52) or the ten d ffereut stages of fragora (Dharata axm 154 (75) ? Besides the prionty of bAtva m relatiort to rara is mot alwayy vouchsafed by experence a great sorrow felt ut rts intens ty at the begnmng is not teen to tobude fn umte but grow wromger (see Htmacandra pp 57-0 2 Among tbe carher authors Dandm as atrady noted appeara to have been infoeneed by Lollajas theory wbich is ent rely ds cedted in fater times Thy does not argue the phenty of Lellafa to Dandn for the theory in whch the mituence of M mamsaka ts apperent, mught bave obtamed in the schools befere Loflata first trought it into promipence 3> Mall natha on Ethralt p $T kbryoire ghatdd vot vrbha d năte p/ rawnu tti prasadgah . na cātyalaulikasyas oprakdldnandstmatasya taul ka pramdna-gamyatvom tee stso pp 93-4 Govndi p 69 rohdialt pardmartesya karanarah yads ss bt todl xitito-kdrenatvem tie.

196 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POITICS

be contemporaneous if Rasa is supposed to be an ellect its relish cannot be as it actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of the vibhabos Hence Visvanatha remarks that if Rasa is an ellect having for its cause the perception of the wbhayas then at the time of the relish of Rasa the vibhoros would not be perceived for we do not fod the simultancous perception of a cause and its efect The perception of the touch cf the sandal wood unguent and the perception of the pleasure produced thereby cannot toke place simultancousty however rapid the one may succeed the other ! Sankuka therefore the next commentator on Bharata rejecting this theory contends that the Rasa is not produced as an effect but anferred The permanent mood 15 mieried to cxist in the actor -- though not actually etisting in him *-- by means of the wbhmsas ete cleverly exbibited by him in his acting so as to produce an dlusion of identity with the fcclings of the hero' and the mood thus inferred being sen sed by the spectotor through its exquisite beauty. adds to itself a pecuhar charm snd thus develops into a relishable condition catled Rasa The reahsation of Rasa therefore Is simply a process of logical inferepce the mispottf of Bharata bcing explained as onumm and the vrbhava stands to Rase 10 the rclation of anumapaka or gamaia to daumapya or gamya But the mood itself though mferred in this way from the relauon of the major and middle terms (ty go balatal) 1s yet cognised as different from the objcets of ordmary in ference being inferred as it were by force of its exquisite charm as something to be rclished on account of iis cotnexion with the vibhavas etc which though artificial are not recog

1 Ch 4 p 86 ed Durgiprasada 2 noje fanta dya ntno pr Hemacandra p 58 3 ramudyabheda-bha ena nate ta palastar ea bl idbhr ahugutoh Mall na ha p 65 4 ast saundo yo balad raro ya vena s hay nam amanumea a laksanja Gov nda p 6S pract cally paraphras ng Mammata p 90

THE TREORY OF RASA 197

rised as such 1 This cognition or knowledge is charactert- sed' as based on what is called eutranaroga-nyaya. (viz the analogy by which a horse in a picture is called a horse), and should be differentiated from the true ( he is Rama"), the false ('he is Rama' with a following negation 'he is not Rams"), the doubtfol ( he may or may dot be Rama') koowledge, as well as from the knowledge of simtlarity ('he is like Rama') This theory, however, has been discredited by Iater schools because, as Govinda coneisely sums up the objections, mt disregards the well recognised fact that the inference of a thing can never produce the same chafm as its duect cogni tron* it has been pornted out that the Rasa is not capable of being cogmsed by the ordinary meana of arriving at know- ledge, for the teeling of Rama, the hero represented on the stage, being past, cannot be cognised by the organs of sense belonging to the present time and the present place The anmmana theory is discussed elaborately in connexioo with the theory of 'suggestion', coming topically within the province of the suggestion of Rass (rasa dhand, by later adherents of the Dhvam School' and the general argument

t kerana-katya sahalarbhih Artrimaw ap tathe nobhultary omanah Mammata iv , also Hemacandra p 58 2 Mammata ibd Hemacandra expanding Abhinava s exposition on this pornt puts it an this way ne rotro sortala ewn sukhit orat patnh nap ayam eva ramnd dt na capyom sukhds nap romoh syadta na yayam ir na cop to sadrsam ik timna samyan mihya sumduya sadrisa prahabhyn wlaksanas cutra-turcodi ayaveno yah sukht ramah asavayams dt pratir astt (p 59) 1 etad apy ahtdayagralu yatah pratyaksam eva janad sa-camat bhavah, p 65 karam nanumuyadır ut loka prasddhim avadha yanyatha kalpane mana

4 yd apr rasasyamapyatydbiudhonars ted aps samasya ruter aida trat sannika-deta varttamana kalendroa samnik arsadyamopyar dbtu pruyena Vidyadhara p 94 S The anwmand theoty Acver appears to have recgived bherut recognition tn the hands of later theerisis Malumabhatto suther of the Vyke wyeke was the only known writer who put forward a smilar theory, for trying to prove in opposition to the accepted Dhvam theory that the so called dhian mcudmg ram dInaw can be arrived at by the ordinary process of togtcal mference he professed hym self to be an onannh vodmn in bs idea of Rass We do not possess cnouch daia 10 decide what refauon if any Mabma borc to bis pre- decrssor Sankuka We have the testmony indeed of a very late (AD

198 SOMC FROOLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

by wlch it is sought to be disearded is that the vibhdres cannot he taken as the middle term in proving the sthayin. because the vibhavas do not stand in the same relatlon to the

1700. and bot tually carcful writer, Rimacwrana who commchted on the Sthiyo darpann that Mabima was io sealty a toltoner of Siftuta SarKukanatanu tyindmh vyakd sivekakaradindm motamh dajayatt, cd Durgiprasada p 243 ed, Roer, p 121 note ), bul Mahrma himselt who throughout laket pride to his origint ty omrls alt reference direet or Indireet to htt predecesor h is probable however thst the theory devtloped by Mahima oms not orlginated by him Anandavardhana himvell eeluten at some length (rr 201 f) & simifar theory which tried to eiablith that the cognitkem of the unexprcied is nothing more than the cognitron of the obyet of a legical concluyon so that the relahon of the sugp stor and the suerested is thas of the sytlogiste midde and mayor fenms Mahimabhattas theory bears I tils resembisnee to thal of Ssnkuts for the forner proceeds on a quite d fferent aine Although accerting the new concept of dhant he dilert from Ananda In holdne tbat it cam be rca ved hy enuming and that thercfore there it no nesd to entablnh a separate functon of syotjand and by a process of elabersie des tructive chticsm he attempts to make the defniron of dhioni con form to what he catl Ldiydnumt ay the precet by shich annther venve is revealed by the exprewed sense (wirya) of by a sense inferred somti mex chontttedly from i ip 22) He arpues that the extstenee of a trama or sequence however impereeptible (asad laktha) caanat be dencd betwren the supgested etements fadpa vettu alamtdra or wana) and the expreised (uicya) vense ( bhdras in cave of rata) and ts onty shows that the rwo senss esprecend ond unexpressed viicya and tha syn are seouential atl being such teay the relat on hp of premise and comcluyon (pp 11 f). Hence errha it merely a eround of inference which is very wide in tis scope (maki hara) and not a ryaljaka Again as fabdlr esbaustt atself after expressng its literat er prmary sense even the secondaly xense (lakwa artl a) has admittedty to be inferred not from itself but from the latter how can it he tupposed t0 be n wwlpate and convey a deerer sense? Dut such words through ther expresied sense can well become a wourte of mlertnct (anamipoley pp 27 f There is no room here to conuder this theory in detail tor take into account the different objeet ons urged agains its over-uhtlety (we Mammaja v Ruyyaka ed Kivyamals pp 123 Vidyidhara pp 32 If Vivanatha v) Mahjma hnd no, tollowrs in later literattre

TH8 THBORY OF RASA 199

sthayin as the middle term (sadhana) does to the major term (sadkya), but are simply its suggestor (vyanjaka) The wbhavas, therefore, are neither the elbcient cause (karaka hetu) nor the logical cause (japaka-hera) of Rasa. as held respectively by Lollata and Satkuka Is both these theories the dificuity cemams, namely. that if Rasa is an objectrve entity, produced or inferred, how ean it bring about a subjective feeling of relish in the audience in whom these factors are presumably absent ? If, on the other band, rt is supposed that at exists in the audicnce also, the question stilt remains as to how the particular feelings of a particular hero. like Rama who is different or superior to the spectator himn- self, can be relished or realised as his owo by the spectator. These objections ore ably set fotth by Bhatta Nayaka, as interprefed by Abhinava in his Locana (pp 67-B) , raso yadı para-gatotoya prafote, tarht tajasthyam eva syat Na ca Svagatatvena rāmadı carztamayāt kavyad asau prattyate Sva gatalvēna ca pratttau svalntam rasayotpattır evābhyupagatā syāt, sa çayuktā sāmāțkānām praty avibhāvatvat Kantātvarh sadharanam vasana vikasa hetur vibhavanayam prayojakars tf cet, devata-varnanadau tad apt katham> Na ca sva kanta- smaranam madhye samvedyate Aloka sūmūnyonām ca ramadinam ye samudra setu bandhadayo vibhavas te katham sadharanyam bhajeyah? Hence Bhatta Nayaka attempts to refute these earlier theories (as well as those of the new Dhvan] School who later on found a champion m Abbinavagupta), and sets up a peculiar theory of aesthetic enjoyment (bhoga) He asgues that (t) Rasa caonot be produced as an cifcet, because the causes, namely, the wbhds, being non-realities, cannot bring about reol edects , (2) it cannot be ioferred, beeause the character. Kama, not really being before the audicace, his feehng does not exist. and what does pot euist canmot be inferred (na ca fativato ramasya smrtir. anupalabdhatvat). Besides, how is it possible for the ordmnary reader or spectator to identify himself with the extraordinary virtues of a hero

THE THEORY OF RASA 201

Samkhya phtlosophers which is borrowed by these theorists, from the prominence of the attribute of goodness sattva) mn a man and differing from what is known as worldly happintss t It is distinguished from the two kinds of knowledge cnubhava apd smarana , and consisting of the qoabtes of melting, pervading and expanding the mind it is compared to the indesenbable bliss of divine contemplatton * According 1o Bhatta Nayaka, therefore, the Rasa consists in the sthayi bhava or the permanent mood experienced in a generalised form in poetry and drama through the powers of abhdha and bhavekatye and emjoyed by a bhssfol process known as bhoga till it is raised to a state of pleasurable relish, which s pot worldly (alankika) and which is akin to the philosophie meditation of Brahma It will be noticed that all these difftrent theories about Rasa though appled to drama and poetry, are at the same time tinged with the docirines of the vanous schools of Indran Philosophy Lollata appears to be a Mimamsaka, Sapkuka a Naiyayıka, while Bhatta Nayaka seerns to follow the Samkhya doctrine But what is more noticeable is that m Bhatta Nayaka we mark a transitioo from what may be called the objective to the subjective view of Rass and an woder standing that the whole phenomenon should be cxplamed in turms of inward experienee If we may jodge from the somc what elaborate criticism levelled agaist this theory it seems to have proctced a greater impression and undoubtedly paved the way for the later theory of Abhinavagupta to whom really belongs the credit of claborating the new aesthene system of 1 sattvodreka prakatanandamaya samvid titrants satattutna bhogenn bhupate Mammata etplained by Govinda as bhogaf ca sattia guno drek a prakatate ya anandas tat sarupananyalar bană ya sprivi tar sardpo taukita sukl anubhava-s laktanah lte sāmikhya s ddl antānu sBrena vhyn nte, p 66 2 rato nubl ava-smtiyhdr vlakşadena drud vistara vikasuimanā para brahmăsvada savdhena bhogena Abh on Bh bha te ca rose tasya bhogah yo nubl ava sorarana pratgatbhso wlasana e a

200 SOME PRORLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

bke Rama ? To solve these difficulhes, Bhaita Nayala, as interpreted by Abbinava and others, maitains that the Rasa is eojoyed in connevion with the vibhavas through the relstion of the enjoyer and the enjoyed (bhojaka and hhopa) This sehool postulites three different functions of a word. namely, abhidhd (already admitted by Mugarsakas and grammarans), bhookoto and bhojakatvo Abhalha, how- ever, is not Denbtanion merely, but is given an eatended meaning so to include lakşand or Indcation' on nis scope thus embracing the two funchons already analysed by pre- vious speculation Bhavakata which, as Ablinavagupta suggests, is derived apparently from Bharata's general defint tion of bhava is described as the power of generahsation wluch makes the vibhavas, as well as the sthayt bhava sensed in their general character without any reference to themr specific propetties ' For instance, the wbhng Sila, 1s uoderstood through this power not as a partcular individual but in the general character of a woman' and the sthayr- bhava cg Rama's love towards her. is taken as love in general without any reterence to the agent or the object * By the third funetion of bhojakaha, the sthayin is enjoyed in this gemeral form , accompanted by the vbhayos, sensed also in a gencral form and this enjoyment is described as a process of delectation sinilar to the enlighteped, self-sufficient and buissful Lnowledge prising, i0 the langvage of the

1 abhidhapr laksanana, Locana p 68 tatrabhidhd mrontara- santarartha msthatvena dvedha Goviada p 66 2 wb/ avadt sadharamkaranatmtana abbdhato duth enopusena bhavakctva iyapareng bhaiyamangh Abh on Bh tac canad bhavaka tens nomo yai kevyasya tad vbhayadinam sodhāranan apedenait tamo Locana toc cit bhavakaram sadharamlaranam tena ca voparena vibhavadayah sri aw co sedharanikriante Govinda p 66 3 sadl Granikaranai cartad eva yat suadt viteganam Kamnitvadt somanynopasthitth Gonnda loc ci A sadt aramiviena vibhaved kena bhavaka vyaparena najodi goiatvo parihorena sadharonatayangsamdl tyamanal sthay: Maltmatha p 85

THE THEORY OT RAS+

whch Vamana had atready emply recegnised and on which the Alarkara aod the Riht Schools had put to much emphasts The metaphorical or the allegonie bowever veiled it may be is sull in a scose expressed and must be taken as such but the suggestive (ryangya) is alwaya unexpressed atd is there fore a sourte of gicater charm through us capacity of concealment, for this conceatment in which coosistr the essence of art is inresty no concealment at all The new aestheue school claims a particular funclion of surgestion oppettsining to words and their senses whereby the uncapres sed or the arexpressible is called into being or to speak with Kant abereby poctry becomes an capression of the acsthetre idea Now the unexptessed through the suggestive power of word or idea may be an unexpressed thought or matter (vastu) or an unexprtssed figuze of specch (olomkara) but mn most cases it is a mood or feeling (rasa) which is directly mexpres sible The Dhvam School thercfore tool up the moods and feclings as an clement of the anexpressed and tricd to harmonise the idea of Rasa with the theory of Dhvant It was realised that poctry was not as Dandin thought the tttere clottung of agrecable ideas mn agreeable language the leelings and moods play an important part in it But the teelings and moods tn themselves are mexpressible We can gie a name to them but naming a mood or feehng is not cqunalent to expressing or developing it, At best therefore we can suggtst if What the poct con ducetly express or describe are the vibhavas etc but with the help of these cxpressed ciement which must be generalised and concerved not as they appear in the mundane world bur as they may be imagined in a poctie world the poct can awaken ta us through the power of suggestion inherent in werds or ideas a paruicu lar aloukika cond tion of the soul in which the rel sh of the fecheg is possible It is true that the poet canpot rouse the same mood or feeling as the person (eg Rama) whom he deseribes felt in tumnes past but he can call up a reflection of

203 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

the Dhvamkara and Anandavardhana ' From his extensive literary and philosophical studies as well as from his interest in the works of Bharata and bts followers, Abhinava seems to have realsed that no system of Poches, like no system of Dramaturgy. can ever completely ignore the feclings, moods and sentiments and must find an impertant place for Rass the mamfestation of which is as much the besiness of pociry as of the drama The insufliciencies of the earlier theories on Rasa are obvious but it wasa happy idea to claborate the theory in such a way as not only to supply these deficieneies but also to fit t well into the dhvani theory formulated by the new school It is not necessary for us to enter ioto the detais of the dham theory, it wil sotlice here to indreate gencrally how the idea of Rasa was worled up ioto at The Dhvani School in its analysis of the essentials of poctty, fonnd that the contents of a good poem may be gencrally distioguished into two parts The one is that which is expressed and includes what is given in so many words , the other content is not expressed but must be added to i by the imaginatton of reader or the listener The unexpressed or the suggested part, which is distinetly hoked up with the expressed and which is developed by a peeuhar process of suggestion (vyamjona) is taken to be the 'soul' or essence of poetry To the grammatians and learned writers it scemed paradoucal to state that the very essence of a poem is that which is not even expressed On the other hand some form of symbolical specch in which wisdom demands that one should express oneself more in hints and suegestions than in actual words was always in vogue, and the poets had been more or less partial to the method of speaking in metaphor of wrapping up their ideas in transparent allegories But the suggestive poetry is something different from the merely metaphorieol

1 Thac is some difference m the gonerat theoret cat postiont of Anandavardhana and Abbnavagupta which will be notced in its proper placo later

THE THEORY OF RAS< *03

which Vamana had afready amply recogmised and on which the Alamkara and the Riti Sebools had put so much emphasis The metaphorical or the allegorie however veiled it may be is still in a sense expressed and must be taken as such but the suggestive (vyangya) is always unexpressed and is there- fore a source of greater charm through its capacity of conceslment for this concealment mn which consists the essence of art is in reahty no concealment at all The new aesthetic school claims a particular luncton of suggestion appertaining to words and their senses whereby the unexpres sed or the inexpressible is called into being or to speak with Kant whereby poetry becomes an expression of the aesthetic idea Now the unexpressed through the suggestivo power of word or idea may be an ubexpressed thought or matter (vastw) or an unexpressed figure of speech (alamkara) but in most cases it is a mood or feeling (rasa) which is dtrectly mexpres stble The Dhvami School therefore took up the moods and feelings as an element of the unexpressed and tried to harmomse the idea of Rasa with the theory of Dhvam It was realsed that poctry was not as Dandin thought the mere clothing of agreeable ideas mn agreeable Janguage the feelings and moods play an important part in it But the feelings and moods in themselves are inexpressible We can give a name to them but naming a mood or feeling is not equivalent to expressing or developing it At best therefore we can suggest it What the poet can d rectly express or describe are the vibhavas cte but with the help of these expressed clement which must be gencralised and concerved not as they appeat in the mundane world but as they may be imagined in a postic world the poet can awaken m us through the power of suggest on inherent in words or ideas a particu lar alaukika cond tion of the soul in which the relisb of the feeling is poss ble It is true that the poet cannot rouse the same mood or feeling as the person (eg Rama) whom he deseribes felt in times past but he can call up a reflection of

204 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

it which is sumilar in some respects, and this condition of enjoyment in the reader s soul is the relish of rase which can be brought into consciousness by the power of suggestion mberent in words and their seose Here comes in the new colour given to the Rasa theory by the exponents of the Dhvam School They interpret Bharata's much discussed dictum to mean that Rasa is suggested by the union of the permanent mood with the vbhavos through the relation of the sugeested (ryangya) and the suggestor (wyanjako) and that the nispofh of Bharata should mean abhn yakt Commenting on Bhatlt Nayaka s theory Abhinavagupta points out that there is no need as there is no authority' for assuming the two powers of bhavakatva and bhogikarana for they are imphcitly mcluded in the idea of rasa vyanjand and its ultimate asvudo Bharata s dictum Lavyarthan bhavayanttt bhavā (vn ed Grosset p 100) implies blinakatva to be an inherent eapacity of all bhavas as the cause of existence ( bhu iti Larane dhatuh ib d ) or dilusion (vyaptyartham sbid ) of the sense of pactry the sense indicating the principal sense consisting of the relish of Rasa 1 Hence the sthayen together with the vabhicarin being bhnas themselves bring into existenee through this inherent power the extraordinary relishable sense of poetry cognised mn a gencral form (sarva sadharanataya asvadayat) In this way the sil ayin or even the Kavyn itself may be regarded generally as the bhavaka or mispadaka of Rasa and this so-called bhavokana according to Abhinava cons sts it nothing more than a suitable use of guna and dtla nkara for the ultimate purpose of awakening Rasa through the suggestive power of word and sense ' Thus disposing

I Cf eladria vyâpura-d aya kalpane pra anabla at Govinda p 65 2 uur/ a l yaha Lavyarti a bha ayant i tat kavyard o rasah oga p art) yante pradt anye ety a tlah Abh Bh ef Hemacandra p 62. 3 bha ckatva 1 aps samuc ta g nato i Lara pa grai d makant

THE THEORY OF RASA 205

of the power of bhavakana, Abhinava turns to the other power assumed as bhoga or bhogtkorong by Bhatta Nayaka He remarks that beyond the prafitr or perception of rasa, he is not aware of any otber process called bhoga If it is relish or enjoyment, it Is already adautted ; and nothing is gained by giving it a new name, just as nothing is gained by arriving at the sawe idea by the use of diflerent terms like darsana, anumiti sratt, upammh: or prahbhona according only to the distinction of the means employed 1 Hence bhoga is nothing more than the perception of Rasa. consisting of its essence of relish based on permanent moods Irke ran ete But it must not be supposed to rest there, for although it is admitted that wherever there is Rasa there is no doubt its perception, consisting in its epjoyment, yet since the natare of sativa and other gunas, involved in such enjoyment is diversified, according as they are principal or subordipate and is there fore in itself infimte and incomprebensible, the relish of Rasa is not to be measured by the mere supposition of three funchons* The bhogo supposed by Bhatta Nayaka therefore consists essentially in the asvada of Raso possible by the suggestive power of poetry. and falling naturally within its domam it need not be taken as a separate function "

asmabhır wialya vakşyatt Na ca kavye tabdānam Levalanams bhēvakarvam ne kevalānam arthanūm dvayos tu bhavakatvam asmabhsr uktam sasmad vyanjakatvākhyena vyapurena gunalam kāraucityadıkateyet Lartayyataya Aavyam bhavakam vasan bhāvayatr Locana p 70 1 prafityad, vyatirktas ca samsare ko bhoga itr in vidmah rasan eft cet sapt pranpattır eva kevalam upaya varlaksyanyan namantaram pratipndyntamh dartananunut frury-upamttt pretibi anad pamantaravar (Hemacanra p 61) 2 atho'cyate praptu atya bhogikaranam tac co vatyadt svaruparh tad asta Tathapt na taven matram Yavanta t ratas cavarya eva ratatmanah praftiayo bhogikarana svabha ah sauvadt gunanam can gengi varcitryam anantam akalpyam ift ka tritveneyarta (ebid loc eit ) 3 bhogikaranu vyaparef ca javyutmaka vasa vjayo dhvananat maI yu alaxkike drut vistara vkasatmamt bhage kartavye lokottaro dhvanana vyapard eva murdhabhrsiktah Zocana p 70

106 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POETICS

This pratifi of Rosa, Abhinava maiatains, is nothing more than its abhis yoktt ot mamfestation by the power of sugges tion tesulting int an extraordinary state of relish. known as rasand asvada ot cervana What is manifested is not the Rasa itself, but its relish, not the mood iself but ats reflee- tion in the form of a subjectrve condition of acsthetic enjoyment in the reader This taste or relish partakes no doubt, of the nature of cogmition, it is nevertheless different from the ordmary or lauktka lorms of the process, because its means, the vibhavas are not to be taken as ordmary or lauk/ka causes* Although Rase requires these factors for

1 rasanI ca badha rapana kir tu bodkIatarehhyo taukikebhya

p () Thi will make it dear why Rasas like Rarwne bibhelsa or Shoyunala which cauw piy, digust er horres be termed Rata fn which emjoyment 1s essential The relith of Rasa is supposed to he on extraord nary blas nol to te likened to ordinary pain of pleasure and the mind fs so entirely lost in it that even when the sentiment of gnict or horror is tellshed in soch a state pamn i never felt and even when lt i felt it is a pleasurable pai, The fact is borne out by the common experience that wheo gnef m represenled the apeetator or the reader says [ have enjiyed it Hlence Visvan tha remarks (it 6-7 and vyul ed Durgaprashdt p 78) that those very things which are called caoscs of poin in the world Clke banishment of Sits in the forest when conugned lo poctry and dramatie rt. presentation posesy the right to be cafled in consequence of their atsuming such a lunclion claukika wbhaves ete. and from them ooly plcasure cosues, as il does from bites and the Ike in amorous dalliance Ii i also maintared (brd 11 $) that teart constitute no proof that anything but pleasure is felt in poctry for the tears whith me shed by the reader mre not those of pan ta those of scnuiment Jagannathas remarks in the connexion are interesting He sys (p 26) that the shedding of tears and the like are due to the nature of the esperienee of the parucular pleasure and not to pain Mence ip a devotee tears arse on listening to a descnption of the deity in this cave there i not the shghtest fechng of pain Such is the power of the eutraordinary function of poetry that even uplearant thing lice sorrow generate alankila pleasute and thrr pleasam sestheue rel in shoutd be distingu shed from the etper ence realned hy other ord nary means.

THE THEORY OF RASA 207

its manifestation and cannot exist without them, it cannot yct be regarded as an ordiary eflect, and the cause and effect theory is inapplicable; for in the transeendental sphere of poetry, it is said, the connexion between cause and effeet gives place to a imaginative system of relations, which has the power of stirting the reader's soul into Rasa The resulting Rasa cannol be identifed wth its conshtuent vbhovar, for the latter ere not experienced separately, but the whole appear as Rasa, which is thus simple and indivisible, and at the time of relish nothing else but Rasa is raised to our consciousness The writers on poetics are fond of explaming this phenomenon under the analogy of a beverage, which, though made up of black pepper, candied sugar, camphor and other ingredients gives us a different taste from that of its constituents The result, therefore, is an iodrssoluble unity of taste from which every trace of the constituent elements is obhiterated Abhinavagupta goes a step further also in maintaming that the sthoyin or the permanent mood, inferred from its laukika causes (eg woman garden, etc ) remais in the bearts of the appreciating audicnce in the subtie form of latent impressions On reading a poem or witnessing a drama this permanent mood, remaiing in the form of latent impressions (rasana), is suggested by the depicted vibhavas etc, which cease to be called loukika causes but go by the name of vrbhavas ete, in poetry and drama." and which are taken in their general form without specific connexions*

I explained by Mammata as samar kenam vasanāt mataya sth roh on which Govnds comments sam wkanam suksmatayantah sthaah and Mallinstha adds samoukanam svanubhava tantta vasanatmataya sthtah explarming vasana as samtkara 2 laukika koranatvadı bhavam atrkrdntau evulaukika vrbhavadt vyapadesa bhgbiuh Abh on Bh Karanatvads partharena wbhavanadt vyaparavettvad alaukika vibhavads fabda vyavahara h Mammata ex plamned by Vidyadbara as foke iu karona korya sakakariny cvabhid/- yonre, na vbhavanubhava vybkicarital p 92 3 sodhoranyena praia I, Mammata

203 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

The wbhavas, therefore, are generalised in the minds of the reader and do not refer to particularities not through the power of bhavakatva, as supposed by Bhata Nayaka but generally through the suggestive power of word and sense and specifically through a skilful use of guna and alamkara in postry, and clever representation in the drama In the same way, the sthayi bhava o the permanent mood wlnch is the source of the Rasa,1 ts also generalised, because the germ of it is already existent in the reader s soul in the form of impressions, and this together with the beauty of the generalised representabion of the vibhavas etc, removes all temporal and spatial limitations * The mood is generalised also in the sense that it refers not to any particular reader but to readers in generat so that although it is relshcd by a parlicular idividual, yet at the time of rclshing it, he does oot think that it is relished by him alone ' but by all persons of poetic sensibilmy+ This relish is Lnown as Rasa 10 poetry and drama

I The rhuyrd is so called hecause thongh the teeling nself tike all feclings is essentially transient its impressron ia the form of vasana or . sar iskara ts more or less permanent beieg calted up when the Rasa 1s cogalsed Cf Prabla p 61 anrah Larans prayrin ruparya ratyader asu winaire p somskoratmana eia kola sthasitvad yaved raso prahr kolam anusemhdhande ca sthayi am Bot the sthayrn itself is not Itasa it moust be vyaka vrlisja and wbho ad meloke and thus made relishable (carvanopayopr) Govinda p 62. The ullimale telish of Rasa is frec from all contact either of the wbhayas or of the srhayin 2 muluta pratiširrakadina tavan nata badđhir acchadyaie gadla praktana sanivit sariskaac ca katya balad anryamunapr na satra romadh r urtramyatr rara evobhaya desa kala party igah Ahh as cited by Hemacandra n 66 3 mamare mibhasadayah aham evd rasasvadayita cvam tiha a sradyamanah + nttya promatr-tatatyena sthrto pa sudharanopaya balar tarkota wechta- parim ra pramatr bhasa vatonmipta vedyantara sar iparka tunya porimita bhovena promafra gocarkytah Mammala sodhoranyena tvakara trabhinno pi

THB THEORY OF RASA 209

To state it briehy and without any techmcalty, there is tn the mind a latent impression of feeltngs which we once went through and this is roused when we read a poem which des- cribes similar things By umversal sympathy we become part and parcel of the same fecling and imagine ourselves in that condition 7 Thus the feeling is raised to a state of relish, call ed Rasa in which lies the essence of poetic enjoyment It will be noticed that these theorists presuppose fatent tmpression of cxperience (varana) and universat sympathy (sadharanya or sadharamikarana) Those who have never experienced the fecling of love for instance, and have therefore no impression of experience left ta them as well as those who have no sense of community of human feelings can never relish Rasa mn poetry The vasand we are told is natural (svabhavki or naisargiki) but it may be acquired by study aad experience The writers on Poetrcs, therefore, are merciless in their satire on dull grammamans and old Mmamsakas to whom such relish of Rass is decied aod they declare unanrmously that rasıka eva rasasvade yogyah. As Rasa is not an objective entity which can reside in the hero or the actor it is realsed, as Dhananjaya puts it fiv 36) by the reader s own capacity of enjoyment Thus a degree of culture and aesthetic instinet as demanded in the critic, the rosika or sahrdaya, who is the adtukarin dignified with the appellation of pramatr compati ble with this subtle and extraordmary conception of poetry As Abbinavagupta puts it adlukari catra vunala pratbhanasalt hrdayah , and elsewhere (Locana p 11) he describes such a sahrđaya as yeşam kavyanwftlanabhyasa vatad wšadibhute manomuture varnanya tanmayıbhavana yogyata te hrdaya samvada-bhajah sahrdayuh > It may also be pomted out that this subtle conception of Rasa makes it difficult to express the notion propetly in West- etn eritical terminology The word has been trapslated ety mologically by the terms favour' relish ' 'gustation 'taste' 'Geschmack' or 'saveur'. but none of these renderings seems to be adcquate The simpler word 'mood' or the term Stom 14

210 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

mung' used by Jacobi, may be the nearest approach to it, but the concept has hardly any analogy in European critical theo- ries. Most of the terms employed have ideational associations of their own, and are therefore not strictly applicable, For ins- tance, the word "taste' or 'relish,' though hiterally correct. must not be understood to imply aesthetic or moral judgment, 'good or bad taste,' but must be taken to indicate an idea similar to what we mean when we speak of tasting food. At the same time, this realistic description must not lead us to drag it down to the level of a bodily pleasure ; for this artistic pleasure is given as almost equivatent to the pbilosophic bliss, knowa as Onanda being hifted above worldty joy. This peculiar condition of the ego, the Rass, is realised through the characteristic function of vychjana or suggestion in poctry. The ides is claborated by later theorists, who take pains to show that it does not come under the province of abhidha (denotation), nor of fatparya (import), nor of laksanā (indication), nor of pratyalsa (perception), nor of annmana (inference), nor of smarana freminiscence), admitted by philo sophers and grammarians. Into these technicalities which properly come under the discussion ol the vyahjana-rrtti. we need not enter ; but it may be noted that Abhinave deseribes this ebhiryakri, which is taken as synonymous with carvana,' as vita-yighna-prafiti or cognition rendered free from obstactes. Following lumt, Jagannatha notes in this connexion: vyaktis ca blagnavaraņā cit, yathā hi sarāvādina pthito dīpas tan- nivrttau sannihitārt padārthūn prakāšayatt, xvayam ca prakāšate. evam atma-caitonytn vibhavadi-so hvalitan ratyadin. Srmilarly carvana is described by the author of the Probha as vibhavdi- samūhālambanena ratyavacchinna caitanyābhivyakriš carvanā. sa ca bhagnavarara cit. The cognition of Rasa, therefore, is a distinet realisation lreed from anl doubts and obstacles by means of the vibhavas ete., which are accordingly designated

1 vyaktd carvoneri paryāyah, Oovmda, p. 62.

THE THEORY OF RASA 211

as vighnapasuraka1 It is variously described as camatkara- nzvesa (awakening of poetic charm), rasana (telish) asvāda (taste). bhoga (froition) samapatt (accomplishment), laya (fusion) and vifrant (repose) " The essence of Rasa, therefore, consists in its asvada or carvana (carvyamanaika prnah) which 1s alaukika, bemg incompassable by the ordinary processes of knowledge It is a relish in which the Rosa alone apart from its constituent clements, is raised to consciousness . and it is theretore. des cribed as a relish in which the contemplation of any other thing but Rasa itself is lost (wgalita vedyantara) or whtch 1s free from the eontact of aught else perceived (vedyantara- sporka funya), like the state of mind lost in the philosophic contemplation of Brahma It is not capable of proof or designation and cannot be made Lnown, becausc its percep- tion is inseparable from its existence , or in other words, it is identical with the knowledge of itself * The only proot of the exstence of Rasa is its relish itself by the sahrdaya* It 1s therefore sakala sahrdaya hrdaya samvedana sakşika or in the words of Mammata sakola sohrdaya samvadabhāja pramatra gocarkrtah Although it is a very ilimate relish camatkara is supposed to constitute its lite breatht This camatkara, which has been compared to the 'wonder spirit' of modern eritics is described by Visvanatha as a kind of expanding of the mind of which another name is *wonder' (camatkaros citta vistara rupo vismayapara paryuyal) implying that the marvellous always underlics the Rasa (rac camatkara saratye sarvatrapy adbhuto rasah uoder m 3) Jagannatha, however,

1 See Hemacandra p 63 sarrathe rasanatmaka vira v ghna pratt! grahyo bhava eva rasah tatra vghnapasaraka vibhava prablrtayah where the vghnar are enumerated as seven in number and discussed in detail 2 loke sakula wghna v mrmuked raiviar eva camatkaro a yveto- rasanasvadana bhoga-samapatt laya wtrantyadt fabda r abhudhiyate Hemacandra loc crt tollowing Abhinava 3 Visvanicha uL 20 4 Thd m 26

212 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS completes the idea by correlaling this comorlaro with the vaicterya ot wechan of the Atamkara School who mean by it a special charm due to an act of imagination on the part of the poet (Lavi Larma or kast pratibha) underlying and consti tuting the essence of all poetie figures 1 The comatkara thercfore which is the esseoce of all poctie ugutes is also the esscoce of Rasa and has been defined' as a fact of our consciousness (anubliaya saksrka) consisting of extraordinary pleasure (alankrantada) which depends on a concept formed by continued contemplation of itself The last step in this idea was token by the attempt of bringing Poctry to the level of Relgion by likeming this aestbetic enjoyment to the ecstatic bliss of divine contempla tion (brahmosvada) Visvanatha sums up the idea brieily thus The Rasa arsing from the exalation ol satta (parity) indivisible self manifested made up of joy and thought in their id ntity free from the contact of aught eise percened akin to the reahsation of Brahme the hife whercof is super mundane wonder is enjoyed by those competent in anscpara bleness (of the object from the realisation thereot) and as it were io its owe shape " it follows ffom this that the promatr to whom alone this bliss is vouchsaied is like n yogin or devotee who deserves this preference through his accumulated merits (punyavantah praminvanti yogivad rasa samtatim) This in its general outhncs is the Rasa theory as finally fixed by tbe Dhvam School and all later wtiters from Dhaganjaya to Jaganpathe accept this new iterpretation and attempt to work it out in detad Thus an endeavour wos made not only to explain the concept of Rasa m terms of mnward experience but also to absorb this sdea of aesthetic delectation into the new theory of Dhvanf and make it applt

L See Jacob Leber Begr If und Wesen der poer schen Fic ven in GN 1908 where th s concept on of an alomtkaro is expla ned See also Introd to the Valrokd) sa ed S K De 2 Ro a gang@dhara p 4 ed Dombay 1916 3 Sul yadarpana 1 23 ed Durgapmsida p 27 f

THE THEORY OF RASA 217

cable to poetry and the Rasa School properly so called began to merge from this time onwards into the dommmant Dhvami School Even Malmabhatta who attempted to demohsh the Dhvam theory was forced to acknowiedge Rasa and declare that on this pornt there is no difference of opinion between bimself and the Dhyankara', the only difference existing with regard to the function par excellence which should be operative in poetry But the Dhvam School and its followers consider Rasa as an element of the ueexpressed only , and though their theory which puts a great emphasis on rasa-dhvan practically leads to such a conclusion, both the Duvanikara and Anandavardhana are yet carefut not to ereet it iato the very soul of poetry From the tbeoretical standpoint at least they could not give exclusive preference to rasa dhvam however important it may be , for in them complete scheme of Poetics the unexpressed may also take the form of vastu dhvamt and alamkara dhvan and the centre of gravity in a poem may tie in its matter or in its poette figure as well as in its Rasa Abhinavagupla however appears to have attached little weigbt to these theoreticat considera tions and brushing them aside he boldly brings forward the essentiality of Rasa declaring that there can be no poctry with out Rasa (no lu tacehunyam kavyam klmerd astft) because all poctry lives through rasa (rasenaiva sarvam uvat kavyam) Be attempts however to reconcile the theoretical diserepancy by saying that although admittedly the unexpressed may also take the form of a vastu or an alamtkard these two kinds of suggestion' resolve themselves ultimately roto the suggestion of Rasa which i8 in fact the essence of poetry * Tlus opimion apparently led Visvanatha to push the theory to its logrcal himt and formulate his somewhat extreme vicw that the Rasa alone constitutes the essence of poetry (1 3) Dut the

1 kavyasy drmant rastd rupe na karacid marh p 22 2 Cocana p 65 3 rasa eva vastuta aima vastvalamkēra-dhran ta sarvaiku yosar prot paryavaryere o 27

214 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

considerations which led the founders of the Dhvamt theory to leave tluis vicw wiscly unstated, could not be easily put out of the way. and Jagannatha obrects on this very ground The definition of poctry given by Viśvanatha he says, cannot be accepted. because thereby poetry in wluch the central charm hes in the matter or 10 the poetic figure (e g in professedly descriptive and orna- mental poetry) would be entirely excluded and such an exclu sion is not watranted either by theory or by the practice of great poets Visvanatha anticipates this cbjection by saying that in these cases there is a semblance of Rasa (rasabhasd) and the verse given in Dinamaloka p 20 as an instancc of vastn dhvam is in lus apimion, admissible because therc is a touch of Rasa (rasa sparsa) and not because mere vyangya vasta can constitute the essence of poetry Jagannatha replies that nothing is gained by this clumsy subterfuge of an indirect reference to Rasa because such a reference may also be construed in phrases like the cow moves' or 'the deer leaps ' This cannot be taken as a criterion because thereby any and every content of poetry would be reduced to the posilion of a vibheva anubhava or vyabhicur bhave of the Rasa ' Jagannatha himself one of the latest writers on the sabject, therefore trics to solve the difficulty by studmusly avoiding all menhon of Rasa in his defimtion of poetry, al though in theory he, like Visvanatha adheres in the mam to the views of the Dhvam School Jagannatha mentions as many as eight different theories about Raso (p 28), but the existence of so many confhicting views as well as the fact that Rasa cannot be taken as the essence of all poetry, makes him deline poetry as ramaniyartha praupadakah sabdah masmuch as all theorists agree that Rasa, which cannot be mamitested without an accompanying state of joy conveys a peculiar ramamyata essential to poetry * It will be noticed there-

1 Sce on th's point Sulltya darpand pp 16 f and Rasa gonga di ara pp 1-8 Cf also Govinda Pradipa ed Kavysmala 1912, n (! 2 ithah nana joriyubl it demasibhar nand rupatayavasho pi

THE THEORY OF RAS4 215

fore, that recognition was refused to any attempt, like that of Visvanatha, to develop the theory further out of itself; and the views of the Dhvam School, as represented later by Mam- mața, became in spite of many attempts at improvement mn detan, a kind of canonical code for all future ume. In spite of this anquestioned dommance of the Dhvan School, which amply recognised Rasa but regarded it as one of the phases of the unexpressed in poetry, one class of wrLters stll adhered to Rasa as the only element worth considering in poetry, although they never thcoretically discussed the position like Visvanatba, and built up a system on its basis Of all the Rasas, however, as śrngara or love forms the absorbing theme of Sanskrit poetry and drama in general, and as this parti- cular poetie mood possesses an almost universal appeal, these writers naturally work out the srngara in all its detad. and we have in consequence a body of erotico-rhetorical treatises, of which the earliest and the most remarkable is Rudrabbatta's Srngara nlaka, one of whose avowed objects (1 5) is to apply the idea of Rasa, already discussed mn connexion with the drama by Bharata and others, to the case of poctry. Following upon this we have Bhoja's Srngard.prakasa, cited by Vidyadhara (p. 98) and Kumārasvamm (n. 221).4 wlnch deals with the subjcet in the usual claborate cyclopaedic manner of its suthor, with profuse illustrations of every phase of the sentrment, in no less than twenty chapters, After this come innumerable works of a similar nature, which take Rasa, especially sngara, as their principal theme, and which were composed with the apparent obect of gurding the poct 10 the composition of erotic pieces so popular and profuse in Sanskrrt poetry Of these the Bhava prakata of Saradātanaya. whuich produces the substance of most of the chapters of manişibhth paramaktādavinabhavitaya prattyamanah praponce"smin reso pamaniyatăm ayahotiti nirvvadam, p 29 I A MS of thn work has been acquired by the Madras Govt Orental MSS Library, and V Raghavan has given en extensive account, based on this MS, of this work in hia Bhojas Srngaro Prokata vol > (i 2 pls ), Bombay 1940

216 SOMC PROELCMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

Bhoja's work and the Rasernova of Siogabhopala as well us the two well known works of Bhanudatta the Rasa munjorl and Rasa tarangini deserve mention None of these speczal ised trealises however add anything of speculative interest to a topic already thrashed out to its extreme, and as they btlong properly to the province of Eroties rather than Pocties a treatment of them must be sought elsewhere The simple idea elaborated more or less in all these works' is that the [undamental Rosa 13 Srgaro, which is consequently treated in detail with regard to its vibhdvos ete This brings in topi cally the extensive discussion of Nayaka and Nayika and ther various conditions and emotions acting as a fector of the Rasa Into these claborate definitions distinctions and classt Beations of the amatory sentiment with its varying emobona! moods and situations which these works industriously discuss and which always possessed an attraction to mediaeval scholastie minds we need not enter here in the discussion of gencral principles These theorists delight in arranging into divisions and subdivisions according to rank character circumstances and the like all conccivable types of the hero the heroie and their adjunets together with the dufferent shades of gestures graces feelngs moods and emotions in conformity to the tradition which had already obtarned in the sphere of Dramaturgy We cannot refuse to recogmse the subtle power of analyss and insight which these essays indicate and although much of it is marked by scholastic

1 Th s is clear from the atnude of Bhoja in his Spagara prakaia as reperted by Vidyadhara and Kumtrasvat o both of whom po nt out that Bhoja accepts only ope Rasa the Erot e frajd mn frigorom ckam eva irAgārd prokate rasamt uraricala a Ekovar p 98 fragora eka eva rasa t Sengareprakata karch Ramapone p 221) Although Bhoja mentont as mauy as ten Rasas o tus Sorasvon kand abharane heappears to devote almost etclus ve atient on to srngdro in bis treatment In the tame way Rodrabhatta declares driguro najoko rosal 1 20 and Bhanudatta appears to take it for pranred that frigara occup es an honoured place among all the Rasas (ratra vases) jrozdmosyabl yach ta fvena ed Benarcs p 21)

THE THEORY OF RASA 217

formalism there is an unmistakble attempt to do justice to facts not only as they appear to experience but to the obser vation of general poetic usage In the elaborate working out of the general thesis that the Rasa is evolved on the basis on one or other of what they call the permanent mental moods with the belp of various emotional adjuacts, the writers on Poeties have proceeded a long way in the careful analysis of poetic emotions, the psychology of which bears an intimate relation to their theory and in itself deserves separate study A new turn was given to the theory by Rupa Gosvamin's Duvala mlaman which brings erotico religious ideas to bear upon the general theme of Rasa It attempts to deal with Rasa in terms of the Vaisnava idea of apvala or madhura rasa by which is meant the srngara rora the term uyvala being apparently suggested by Bharata's deseription of that Rasa' The madhura rasa, however is tepresented pot in its secular aspeet but primarily as a phase of bhakn rasa (madhurakhyo bhakn rasah 1 3), for the Vaignava theology admits five Rasas as forming roughly the five degrecs or atpects of the realisation of Bhakti or faith, viz santa (tran quillity), dasya (also catled prat servitude or bumilty) sakhya (also called greyas friendship or equality) vatsalya (parental affection) and madhurya (sweetness) The last also called the uyyala rasa being the principal is termed bhakti rasa rap and constitutes as such, the subjecr malter of the present treatise The Aryna ratt or the love of Krşna formns the sthayt bhava of this Rasa and the recipient here is not the literary sahrdaya but the bhakta

I yat kuhedl take tuct medhyam vnvelam darsantyam va tot chragarenopamiyate ed Grosset pp 89-90 2 1 2 explained by liva Gosvamtn as Jonta prln preyo våtsoly Oyvala namaşu mukhyepu sa evoyvalāpara paryayo bhakii rasanam rojā madhwrākhyo rasah ed Kavyamāla p 3

218 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSNRIT POCTICS

the faithful ' This sthayi bhavo Lnown es madhura ratl which is the souree of this particular Rasa is defined in terms of love of hrspa", and the nature of the Nayala and Nayika is defined io the same manner and their feclings and emollons illustrnted by examples adduced from poems desling with the love stoties ol Krsna and Radhs The work is therefore essentially e Vaispava iclgious treatise presented in a literary garb taktng krgna as the ideal hero with the caution however that what is true of krgna as the hero docs not apply to the ordmnary secular hero (: 18 20)

APPENDIX [We give in the foltowing pages the relevant text of Ablninavagupta s commentary on Bharata ch $i with reference to his famous Sotra on Rasa referred to tn this monograph The passage gives a leatned summary of the various theories on Rass obtaming in Abhinavas lime Most of at has been as we bave noniced appropriated by Hemacandra in his commentary on his owp Aavyanufusana (p 57Q Manuseripts of Abhrnava s commentary are by no means plentilul and so far two copies are known to be mh ex stene one of wluch is now in the Trandrum Palace Library and the other in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras Our text i5 based on a Devanagar transeript procured for us by Mm Ganganath Jha presumably from the Triandrum MS The text offered here being based on such imperfect material is indeed deficient and unsatisfactory in many places bui it is

csa krsno ret i sihdyt bl avo bhakd raso bha e tl c led by J va Gosvam n p A 2 madharakhyaya rater laktanem coktam -- m o ha er mrgôktyds ca aa t blogasyad Karanam | madhurapa a paryâya priyorakl yod id rat I 1 ibid loc cl

THE THEORY OF RASA 219

cpontagce We have not MS also*

220 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

एतन्नेति श्रीशड्क । विभावाद्ययोंगे स्वारयिनो लिंद्व भावैनावगलयनुपपते , भावाना पूर्वमगिधेयतामसद्ाव्, स्थितदशायां सत्तरान्तरवय्भ्यानू मन्दतर- तममाध्यस्म्याद्यानन्त्ापते, हास्यरसे पोढात्वाभावप्रा्ते, कामावस्थामु दशखसखयरसभावादिपसकात्, शोकस्य प्रधमतीवत्व कालात्तु मान्ददर्शनम्, क्रोषोत्मादरतीनाममर्पत्थैर्यसेवाविपर्यये ह्वासदर्शनमिति विप्ययस्य दृशयमानत्वाच्। वस्माद्वेतुभिर्निभावास्ये कार्ये आानुभावात्ममि सहचारिरपैश्व व्यभिचारिमि प्रयम्नार्जिवतया कृतिमरपि तथानगिमन्यमानेरतुस्त स्थत्वेन लिग्ववन्व प्रतीय- मान स्थायी भावो मुख्यरामादिगतस्थाध्यतुक्रपरपत्ादेव च नामान्वरेष व्यपदिष्टो रस। विभावा हि काव्यवलादनुसधेया, अनुभावा शिक्षात, व्यमिचारिय कृत्िमनिजानुभावाजनवलान्। स्थायी तु कान्यवलादपि नानुमषेय। रवि शोक इत्यादयो हि शब्दा रव्यादिकममिधेयीकुर्वम्त्यमि यानलेन, न तु वाचिकामिनयरूपतयावगसमन्ति। न हि वागेव वाचिकम, अपि तु तया निवृसम्, अजैरिातिकम्। तेन-'वाउनेनेन जलधि शोक क्ोधेन पीयते इति। तथा-'शोकेन कृतसतम्भस्था स्थितो यो- इनवस्थिताद दै1 इत्येवमादी न शोकोडमिनेयोऽपि त्वमिशेय 'भाति पतितो लिसन्ला इलनेन तु वाक्येन लार्थमनिदधता उदयनगत सुखातमा रति- स्थायिभावोऽभिनोयते, न रप्यते1। अवगमनशक्तियभिनयन वाचकत्वा- दन्या। अतएव स्थायिपद सूज्ने भिन्नविमकिकमपि नोपात्तम्। देन रति- रिरकियमार रटजार इति सदात्मवव तत्मभवत्व च युक्म। अर्थक्ियापि मिभ्याज्ञानारषा। न चात नतक एन सुसौति प्रतपति, नाध्यसमेव राम

7 विवशलाणणाचोदवि दुषणदवि भहानषि' इव्यस् पूर्वाप ऐेमपन्र। 8 पक्ष पूर्वापमेतय पेमचन्द्र सटिसमेव मखोयने, सत्तराच वतव "र६्य- स्पुटममयारो राद्िसिमसपभीत सचिवे दत्युपलसने।

स्वेट्ोडम डय करतमारसस्पर्मावेव मे मषि। ददि रेमपन्द पूरितमेषोद झोक। 10 न सूच्यने इतति पट्रामाट्यपसदे।

THE THEORY OF RASA 221

इदि। न चाम्यय न सुखीति, न चाषि तत्सदश इति। बिनतु य मुझी रामोऽमावयमिति प्रतीतिरखीति। तदाह-

प्रतिभाति न संदेहो न तरव न विपयय। धीरसावयमित्यस्ति नासावैवायमिव्यपि॥ विरुद्धन द्विराभदाद विवेचितगसब । युक्कया पयनुयुज्येत स्फुरननुभव क्या॥ इति। तदिदमप्यन्तस्रवशून्य विमर्दन ममि युपाध्याय"। तथा हि-अनुरूरमहपो ररा इति यदुच्यते तन कि सामाजिकप्रतीत्यभि

य वाहुर्व्याख्याचार सल्वेत विवेचयन्तीति। अथ भरतमुनिवचनानुसारेख तनाद पन्ोऽसनत। किचिद्धि प्रमाणोनोपलब्ध तदनुकरणगिति शक्य वक्कम्। गथा -एवमसो सुरो पित्रतीति सुरापानानुकरणत्वेन पय पान प्रत्यव्षावतोकित प्रति भाति। इह च नदगत कि तदुपलब्ध सदनुकरणातया भातोति चिन्सम्। तच्छ- रीर तश्निप्ट प्रतिशीर्पकादि रोमाश्वाददिकादि भुजान्तेपवलनपभृति म्चषेप कटाक्षादिक च न रतेशिततत्रतित्पतयानुकारत्नेन क्सवित प्रतिगाति। जडलेन मिन्नेन्द्रियमाहयत्वेन भिन्नाधिकरशत्वेन च ततोऽतिवेलकषसयात। मुस्यामुख्या वलोकने च तदनुकरसप्रतिभासों न च रामगता रतिभुपलब्धपूर्विण केचित्। एतेन रामानकारी नट इत्यपि निवस्त प्रवाद । अध नटगता विततरतिरेव प्रतिपना सती रत्यनुकार रटजार इत्युच्यो तक्नापि किमात्मकत्वेन सा प्रतीयत इति चिन्त्यम्। ननु प्रमदादिभि कारण बटावादिभि कार्य प्र्टलादिभिय सहचारिमिर्तिन्भूतैर्यां लीकिको कार्यरूपा कारण रूपा सहचारिरुपा च चित्तनति प्तीतियोग्या, वदात्यरपेन सा नटचितरत्ति प्रतिगाति। हन्त नर्हिं रत्याकारेषैव मा प्रतिपन्नेति दूरे रनुक्श्सवावाची- युक्ति।

11 भटनीत' दत्ि पेमचम्द्र ।

THE THEORY OF RASA 123

कृत, स उत्तरस सावमरे चर्चयिष्यते। तम्मात्मामाजिप्रतीलयनुसारेख स्वाध्यनुस्ुष रस इत्यसद्। म व्यापि नटस्येत् प्रतिपत्ति राम वव्वितृत्ति वानुवरोमीति। सदरबरणा हि तावदनुकरएामनुपल्पपहतीना"न शक्यं वर्तुम्। अथ पछात्रयमनुकरण' तक्षोकेऽप्यनुकरणात्मिकेति असक। अ्रथ न नियतस्य वम्पचिदनुवारोऽपि तूक्षममकृते शोकमनुकरोति, वर्दि वेनेति चिन्लम् न तावच्छोववेन, तसव तदभावात्। न चायपादादिना शोकम्यानुकार,

तलापि कस्योसमप्रट्टत्ते ? यव्य वस्यचिदि घेव, सोऽपि विशिषता विना कय वद्धावारोपयितु राक्य । य एव रोदिवीति चेत्, सातमापि मप्ये नटस्यानु- प्रविष्ट दृवि गतितो ुकारयनुकतृभेद। किय, नट शिक्षावशाल्यविमान मरणा चितवृत्िमाधारणोभावेन हृदयसवादात् वेवलमनुभावान् प्रदशयन् काव्यरामुचितकायुप्रमृत्युपर्गस्वादेय पटयष्त इत्येतावन्मासेडस् अतीसिने त्यनुकर वेदयते। कान्तवेपानुकारवद्धि न रामचेदितसानुकार। एवय प्रथमाध्यायेऽ्रपि दशितमम्माभि। नापि वस्ुप््तानुसारेय वदनुकारुवम्, अनुसंवैयमानस् यसरतवानुपपसे। मय्य वस्तुवृस वहशयिप्याम। न च सुनित्चनमेव विघमति कचित स्वाग्यनुक्तरा रस इति। नापि लिद्धमजायें मुनेरपलभ्यते। प्रयुव म यगानत तनचित्र्यनासपाद्रोपजीवन निष्पदादिविपर्मपे निनमिति सप्पताध्यायान्ते विवनिष्याम। मसद्वीपानुक्गमिन्वादन्यथाषि रवयगमनिकमिति तदतुकारेऽपि व 'नामान्तर कान्तवेरपतनुरपादे। योच्यते-वयनेरितालादिमि मंयुग्यमान एव गीहित्यादि, वन यममिध्यज्य मान इत्यर्थोडमिशेतसदगन्। न दि मिद्हादिमि पारमार्थिसे मीरिति

224 SOME PROBLEMS OT SANSKRIT POCTICS

व्यज्यते प्रदीपादिभिरिद"1 कितु सरमहर समूदविशेषो निकत्यते। वएन हि सिन्दरादयो गवावयवसनिवेशसदशेन सनिवेशविरोषेणावस्धिता गोसरमिति प्रतिमासस्य विषय, नैवे विभावादिसमूददो रविमरशताप्रविमाज।नग्मासावा]- वरण रय दव्यसत्। येन स्व्यमायि-सुमदु सजननशक्ति युक्का विषयसामप्री पातव मोसयाशा सुसदु सस्वमावो रस, तक्ष्यो न सामर्या दल्तस्वानीया विभावा भस्कारवा, अनुभावव्यमिवारिय स्वायिनस्तु तमामभीजन्या आान्तरा सुसदु सक्षगावा इति, तेन स्वायिभावासुरमत्वगिवयादावुपचार'गनोकुनता मन्यविरोध स्रयमेत्र वध्यमानेन दूपशाविष्कर एामीम्वर्यात मामाखिसे जन परिरच्षित इसि हिमस्योच्यते। यश्नव्यव न प्रतीतिवैषम्यप्रसज्ादि तत्क यदसोच्यवाम्। भहनायकरत्वाह-रमो न प्रतीयते, नोत्पदते, नामिष्यज्यते। स्वगतरमेन हि प्रतीतो कदसे दु सित् स्ाद। न य सा पवीतियुक्ञा सीतावेरविभान- त्वातू, समन्तास्मृत्यसवेदनान, देवतादी न माधारणीकरणयोग्यत्वात्, रमुदलदनाटेरसाघारसयात्। न न तस्वती रामस्य स्मृति, अनुपलब्धत्वात्। न च शब्दरानुमानादिभ्यस्तत्पतीती नोकस सरसता प्रयुक्ा मलन्नादिव। नायरयुगत्कावमासे दि प्रयुत तबाजगुप्सासपृद्ादिो चितचिततृत्य तरोदयम-

शुक्का। उत्पत्तावि सुनयमेतह्पराम्। शक्िस्पलवेन पूर्व स्पितस पधादभिव्यक्ी विषयाजवारतम्यापति। सगतत्वपरगतत्वादि च पूर्वद्धिकतप्यम। वसा रकान्ये दोषाभावपुणालकारमयत्वततऐेन, नाव्य चतुर्विधामिनयरपेय्, निविद्- निजमोइसक निवारणकारिया विभावादिसाधारणीकरपरामनामिधाती द्वितीये नाशेन भावकत्यव्यापारेख भाव्यगानो रसोऽतुमवस्मृत्यादिविलस्षरोन, रजसमो-

18 प्रतिवादिभि दति दुष याद । 9 'आविभावान् रसतसुपसध्याम दयादायुपचार इति पैमपन्दरत पाठ । 20 व्यप्रतयाकामरसत्वमथापिय पृति भेविग्वपाठी सूखपसके।

THE THEORY OF RASA 225

इनुचेयव चिन्यप ताद्ग तिवि काम विस्वारलक्ष ऐेन, सरचीदे कप्रकाशानन्दमयनिज्- सवि द्विशान्तिलक्षस्ेन पर वभ्मास्तादमविधन भोवेन पर भुज्यत इति।2 तस पूर्वपनरधय भटलोलटपसान्युपयमादेव नाभ्युपगत इति तहूपणननु- स्धानोपणहगेव। प्रतीलाविव्यतिर्क्रश सवारे को भोग इति न विद्य । रसैनेति 4 बेा, साध्यन् प्रतिवततिरेत्र। वेपनमुपायवलक्षरयास्रामान्तर प्रतिपधता

नम्युपगमे च नित्यो वासद्वा रस इति न तृतीया गति स्थात। न चाप्रतीत वस्त्वस्ति व्यवहारे योग्यम्। अयोच्यते प्रतीतिरिति रसस्य भोगीकरगम, तब रत्ादिस्रुपम्, तदस्तु। तथापि न ताब मालम्। यावन्तो हिं रसास्तावन्त एप रमनाहमन पतीतमो भोगीवरससरभावा। शुखाना चाहाद्गिनेचित्य- मनन्तमस्त्प्यमिति का वित्लेनेयना। भावनाभाव्य एपोमि *तारादिगलो मत 23। इठि। सत्काव्येन भाव्यनते रसा इसयुय्यते तत्र बिभावादिअनितचर्वणा- त्मकखाद्रृपप्रन्य यगोचर तापादनभेव यदि भावन तदभ्युपगम्यत एवं। यसूकम-

सवेदनाख्यव्यड्थ [सतु] परसवितिगोचर। आखादनात्मातुभावो रस कान्यार्थ उच्यते। इति, वव् व्यज्यमानतया व्यहथो लक्ष्यते। अरनुनवेन च राद्विपम इव मन्तव्गम्। नन्वेव कथ रसतत्वम् ह आस्ता नि कुर्म। मामायसिद्ध किमपूर्वमेततू

21 काटयालोकलीचने (पु ६०-६८) एयमतत्माखान दमने। 22 अभिया भावना पान्या सभोभोकतमेय न। अभियाषामतां याते शन्दाभालश्ठी तव। भाननाभाच एषोपि गु्धाराटिययो यत । तद्ी गोऊ्वत सपैय ययायते मिडधिमा हर । इति रेमचन्द्रपृत भटटनाइक के सख्षोकडपम।

15

226 SOMC PROBLEMS OF SANSNRIT POETICS

इल सपमाधमहाद हेन दन्द्रेन कि दूययिता न सोक म ऊध्यावंमारण सवर्थवस भी परपति भान्तिमद्यग्ता। अत वदाय परिकलवानां

चित्न निरासम्बनमेव मन्ये

तन्मागनामे सति सैतुवन्य- पुरप्रतिश्ठदि म विस्मयाय॥ तम्मास्मवामत न दुषितानि मवानि वाम्मब द शोधिसानि।

मूलरविनान तमामनन्ति ॥ तर्थुध्यताम्-परिशुद्धतत्वमुष्ठमेव सुनिना, न त्वपूर्त किचिन्। सथा स्ाद- काव्यार्था मावयन्तीति तस् कास्याधों रम 1 यथा ि- "रासीरासते वानमी प्रादाद" (तै म्रा) इत्यादी अरथिवादिलसितस्याधिकारिय प्रविपतिर्माव्नादिति-

प्रदासीत्यादिरुया सकमशादिसभाया। मपा दर्शन प्रति भावणादिविध्युयोगादि- भापाभिर्व्यवहता प्रतिपतिस्तथव वाद्यात्मकादपि वाव्दादधिकारियोऽधिकस्त प्रतिपति। अधिकारी चात विमलशविमानशातिहृदय। तक्ष घ 'मोवा- भज्ाभिरामम्' इति, 'उमापि नीलालक"5 इति, 'हरस् रिचित्' इत्वादि वाक्ये्यो वाक्यार्धपतीवेरनन्तर मानमी सातातारात्मिक अपइसतिततस- द्ाक्योपातकालादिविभाणा तावत्पतीतिरपनायते। तलाध यो मृगपोतक्ाहि- 23 परतिपतिमाशा'दतन' इ्त्वादि मट्रासादभगसक सभ्वने।

26 सत्र fs

THE THEORY OF RASA 227

देशकालाद्यनालिदवितम्। तवएद भीतोऽद भीतोऽय शतुर्वयस्मो मध्यम्धो

विलचणा निविघ्नमतीतिप्राप्म सान्तादिव हृदये निधीयमान चक्षुपोरिव विपरिवर्त मान मयानको रस। तथाविमे हि भये नात्मा तिरस्कृतो निविरोपत उललिखित। एवं परोकमि: ततएव न परिमितमेव साधारएयमपि तु विततम्। वयासिपइ इछ धूमागन्योर्भेयकम्पयोरेव या। वदल साक्ास्कारायमासत्यपोपिका नगदि सामझ्री: यस्या वस्तुसता काव्यापिवाना च देशकालप्रमातादीना नियमहेतू नामन्योन्यसबन्धवलादतयन्तमपसरऐो रा एवं च साधारणीमाव सुतरा पुष्पांत। अतएव सवसामाजिक्ानामेक्थनतव प्रतिपते सुतरा रसपरिपोषाय सर्वपामनादि रासनाचितोकृत नेतसा वासनासवादात्। सा धाविश्रा सविचमतकार। तज्ोऽपि कम्पपुलकोल्षस्षनादिविकार समत्कार.। यथा अज्ज विहरी चमकड बहकह वि ए मदरेश कलिआाद। चदकलावदवसच्छभाइ लच्छीइ सगाइ।। वथा हि-स चातृसिव्यत्िरेकेमाच्छिनो भोगरवेश हत्युच्यते। भुज्ञानस्याद्धत भोगसपन्दाविस व मन करय चमत्कार इति। सच सादास्कारखभावो मानसाध्यवसायो या सकक्पो या स्ृतिवा सथारयेन स्फारत्स्तु। यवाद रम्यागि वीकष्य मधुरांश् निशम्य शब्दान् पर्यु त्गुको भवति मत्सुसितोऽि नन्ु। तख तसा स्परति नूनमवोधपूर्व भावस्थितानि जननान्तरसौहदानि :34 इसादि सर्वथा सावदेवा प्रवीविरास्ादात्मा, यम्यां रतिरेव भाति। अ्ररतएव विरेषाम्तरातुपहितलवान सा ररनीया सतो न लौविनीति, न मिथ्या, नानि-

27 रिषेषकफ्शयार ति मद्रामादमासके पाठ।

228 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS

योच्या, न लोविकतुल्या, न वदारोपादिसया। तथैद घोपचयावस्थाय देशाय-

भवतु विज्ञानवादावलम्बनात्। संनथा रसनात्मरवीतविप्रपवीतिवाओी भाव एव रमः। तल विभाप- सारका विभावनवृतयः। तथा हि सीके गालविप्विनिर्मका संवितिरेय चमरकार निवेशरसनाम्याद नभोगसमाप सिलयविध्यान्त्ादिशव्देरमिभीयते। विम्रा- आासो प्रतिपतावयोग्यता संभावनाविरद्ो ना्म, स्वगतत्वपरगतत्वनियमेन देश-

यश्धानता, संराययोगध। तमादि- संचेयमसंभावयमान: संबेधे संिद निवेश- यितुं न शक्रोति। का तस विशान्तिरिति प्रथमो निम्रः: तदपसारऐो

नि सामान्योत्क्पेडनि देशवयुत्पततिपयोजने नाटवादी प्रस्यातवस्तुविषयत्वादि- नियमेन निर््मयिम्यते। न तु प्रदसनादावेतय सावसर एव वच्याम इव्यास्ता तावनू। म्वकगतानो च मुसदुससंविदाभारवादे वधासंभय' तदपगमभीकतया या तस्पविरव्ाष्यप्रतया वा तत्सहसरोजिजीपया या तव्िहासया या तस्पचिस्या- पयिपया वा तद्गोपनेच्छया वा प्रकारान्तरेण् या संवेदनान्तरसमुद्रम एव परमो चिघ्ः।परगततवनियममाजामपि सुखदुमाना संबेदने नियमेन स्वर्मनि

दरये "कार्यों नातिप्रसंगोउते ल्वादिना पूर्वरज्ानिगूहनेन प्रस्तावनालोक्नैन च सो नटसूपताधिगमस्तपुर सरः प्रतिशीरपक जिना तत्यच्छादनापकारोऽभ्युपाय, शरत्तो-

हि तस्यवातैन एवस्यक व मुखदु.खं चेति न भवति, प्रतीतिस्वहपस्व निहवादू- पान्तरस चारोपितस् प्रतिभारंविद्विध्रान्विवकल्देन खस्पे विभान्लभासा। मचयम्, नदीयपनिद्ववमान एव पर्यवमानाद। सयाहि-शासीनपाठ्यपुष्प-

THE THCORY OF RASA 229

गसिडकादि3 लोकेन दकम्। न च दन कि चितसुथ चित्स माव्यत्वादिति म एव सर्वो मुनिना साधारणीभावसिद्धरसचर्वसोपयोगित्वेन परिक्रबन्भ समाश्रित इति तक्षव स्पुटीभविष्यतीति तदिह तावनोप्रमनीयम्। त्व स एप खपर नियरवया विश्रापसर एप्रकारो व्यारयात। निजमुआादिविवशभूतथ् क्थ वस्त्वन्तरे सविद विधामयैदिति तत्प्र्यूह- व्यपोहनाय प्रतिपदार्थनिष्छे साधारययमहिय्ा सबतभोग्यत्वस्हिष्णुभि शब्दा दिविषयमयी भिरा तोद्यमान विचित्रमगडपपद विदग्यगिकादिभिरमरजन समा भितम्। येनाहृदयोऽपि हृदयवेमश्यभ्ाप्त्या सहदयीकियते। ऊक् दि-दृश्य श्रव्य चेति। कि च-प्रतीत्युपायानामभावे कथ प्रतीति स्फुटयतीति वत्कारिशब्दतिपरामवेदपि न पतीतिविभाम्यति, स्फुटप्रतीतिसपमस्तोचित प्रत्ययसाकाइतखवात। यथाहु -- 'सर्दा चय प्रमिति प्रत्यन्नपरा' इति। स्वमासातकृते आगमानुमानशवरपि अनन्ययाभवस् ससंचेदनाद्। अलात वादौ साहात्कारान्तरेव बलवता तदवधारणादिति लौक्विस्वाबद्य कम। वस्मात्तदुभय विप्रविध्यावेडभिनयबोधकघ मिर्ग्रत्तपृत्युपस्कता समभिपिच्यन्ते । अभिनयन हि सशब्दलित् व्यापार विसदशमेव प्रत्यव्तव्यापारकपमिति निश्चप्याम । अपाधने च वस्तुनि कक्ष सविद्वियाम्पति वस्यैव प्रव्ययस्य प्रधानान्तर प्रत्यन्नुधावत खात्मनि अ्रविधाम्यलात्। अ्रतोऽपधानत जडे विभावानु- भाववर्मे व्यभिचारिनिचये च सविदात्मकेऽपि नियमेन नान्यमुखनेविसि रभवतीति तदतिरिक्क स्थाय्येव। तथा न वर्वणापात तल पुरपार्थनिष्ा काशित समिच इति प्रधानम्। तचथा-ति कामवदनुपनिधमोर्भनिष्ठा, समसधर्मादिवरय वसितसत्वज्ञानननितनिर्भेदपायविभावी मोक्ोपाय इति तावदेवा प्राधान्यम्। यदयपि वेपासप्यन्योन्य गुरभावोऽति तथापि रत्स्धाने रूपके तत्तप्रधान सभवतीति रुपकमेदपर्यायेय सर्वेषा प्राधाव्यमेषा लच्ते। अप्रमागादिनिविद्ठ-

30 माष्यमुखय सधि दत्ि पाठी सूलषपसके ।

230 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

दशा त्वेरस्मिअपि रूपके पृथव प्राधान्यम्। सव सर्वेक्रमी शुसप्रधाना,

वथाहि-एक्यनशोगस विधणेडमि लोके स्रीलोयम्य हृदयविधान्तिरन्त- रायशून्यविभान्तिशरीरत्वादविध्ान्तिरपवव दु.म्। त्षत एव कापिलैरद रह चायरयमेव प्राय्तमेनोहां रजोपृशितां यदद्धिरितानन्दस्पता सर्वरखानाम्। कि तूपरभकविपयवसासपामपि बद्ु कि नास्ति स्पर्शों धीरस्य। स हि देस- सदिप्णुतादिपाय एव। एव रत्वादोनी प्राधान्यम्। दासन्दीनो तु सातिययं सकतलोक्सुत्तभविभावतयोपरअपव्वगिति प्राधान्यम्। अवएवा- नुसमम्रकृतिप हासाद्षयो यहुसनेन अमन्ति। पामरमाय रार्वीकि दरति शोचति परनिन्दामादियते, स्वल्पमुभावितत्वेन च सर्वत्र विलमयते। रत्पायन्र- तथा तु पुमरयोषयोगित्वमपि स्वादेपाम्। गृतहुषप्रमानभावकृत छव व दशरूप कादिभेद इति यच्याम । स्वायित्व चसावसामेव। जात एव दि जन्तुरिय- तीमि सविद्धि परीतो भवति। तथा हि-"दएसश्लेयविट्ठेवी मुखा- सादनसादर." इति न्यायेन सर्वो रिरसया व्यास साममन्युक्यमानितया

मन्यमानस्सत्सकतन्यदर्सनसमुदितविसमय विचिध जिददासुरेव जायते"। न हेसच्िरायृततिनासनाशून्य प्राण्तरी भवति। पेवल वस्यचित्कािदधिका चित्त- पृति काचिदना, कहचिदुचितविषयनियन्तिता कम्यचिदन्यया। सत्ानिदेव

ये पुनरमी ग्लानिशप्भृतयश्ित्तवतिविशेषास्ते समुचित् निभावामाया- जगन्मप्येऽपि न भवन्त्येव। तथा हि-रसायनसुपयुश्वतो मुनेग्तोन्यालस-

31*साअन्युरक प्रैम्रानितया समुपहमतति। दत्कर्षोपाबयद्या मोर्चाद। सपार्म माि परर्घात। प्रमायणेतपरिहार सम्तहत। बिनियनाहिभेति। किचिद्दुत्तत याभिमन्य्पानो ससुप्सने। ततब परकतपमे निवादभंनादिप्ययने।

THE THEORY OF RASA 231

श्रमप्भृतयो नोतिष्टन्ति। सस्यापि या भवन्ति विमाववलातस्यापि हेतुप्रक्षये त्तीयमाणा सर्कारशेपता तावभावशयमनुमभन्ति। उत्सादादयस्तु सपादित स्वरतव्यतया प्रतीनऋत्पा अपि सस्वारतरोपरता नातिवर्तनते, वर्तव्यान्तरविषय- मोत्माइदेरखरडनात्। यथा पतजलि-"न हि चस एक्सा स्रिर्या रहा इलन्यामु विरक्क:" इत्वादि। रस्मात्स्रायिस्पचित्तवृतिमजस्यूता एचानी व्यभिचारिए। सास्मानमुदयासमयवैचिन्परातमदत्धर्माय प्रतिलभमाना

पह्मरागमरकतमहानोलादिमयगोल कादिवत्तस्मिन् सूव सरकारवैचिभ्यमभिनिवेश यन्तोऽपि तत्मूलकृतमुपकारसदभ विभ्रतः खय च विचित्नार्थस्थायिसूत्र विचिन्- यन्तोऽन्तरान्वरा शुद्धमपि स्थायिसून प्रतिभासावकाशमुपनयन्तोऽपि पूर्वा- प्रतिभासन्त इति व्यभि चारिए उच्यन्ते। तथा हिं-ग्लानोऽममित्युक्त कुत इति हेतुप्रभ् स्वायि- वास्य सूच्यते, न तु राम उत्साइशकिमानिलल हेतुमश्रमाद। अतएव चिभावासतनोद्वोधका सन्त सरपोपरप्रकतय विद्धाना रतयुत्माह्यावेरचितानु- चितत्वमातमावहन्ति। नतु तदभावे सर्वथन ते निरपाख्या, वासनातमना सर्वजन्तूना तन्मयरयेनोक्कावात्। व्यभिचारिणों तु सविभावाभावे नामापि नास्तीति वितनिष्यते चतय्रथायोग व्यास्यावसरे। एवमप्रधानत्वनिरासर

तक्षगानिष्ठया च कृत। तव्ासुभावाना विभावाना व्यभिचारिया व प्रृथक् स्थायिनियसो नासि,

चिन्तादेवत्सा इमयाधयनेकसहचरत्वावलोकनात्। सामग्री वा तु न व्यमि चारियी। तथा हि-बन्धुविनाशो यक्ष विभाद परिदेविताथुपातादिस्तन- ावधिन्तादन्या दिश्व व्यमिवारी, सोडवश्य शोक एवल्येव सरयोदवे राङ्कात्मक- विग्रमनाय सयोग उपात। तल लोकव्यवहारे कार्यका रयासहच्चारात्मकलिङ-

232 SOMC PROBLCMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS लौंविकी कारणत्वा दिभुवमतियान्ते विभावनानुमायना गसुपरअपपापरस एया-

येसा यामाजिकधियि सम्यरयोग संबधमैकाम्म बासादितवद्विरलाकिकनिवित- नवेदनात्म कचर्वणागोचरतो नी तो पर्पथभ्यमाछे नसारो न नु गिदस भावलालालिक एव, न तु नर्वशातिरित्त वालावलम्वी स्यायिवित्कय एव रम ।

उच्य इति। एव हि लौक्कउपि कि न रस। असर्तोउपि हि यज रसनायता स्पात्तव चस्तुसत वथ न भविप्यति। सेन स्थामियतातिरदुमितिरूपशाप्ता न रसा। अतएब सूने स्थायिम्रहण न कृतम्। तप्रसुत शत्यभून सातू। केवलमीचित्यदेषमुच्यसे-स्थायी रसौभूत इति। ओोचिसय तु सत्स्थायिगतत्वेन कारणादितया परमिद्धानामधुना चवगोपयोगितया विभावत्वादिलम्बनात्। तथा दि-दीविकचिसात्यनुमाने का रसता। तेनालीहिकनमत्ारामा रसाखाद स्वसनुमानतीकिसलसचेदनविल्तलण एव। तथा हि लौकिसनातु मानेन सस्कृत प्रमदादिन ताटस्प्येन प्रतिपद्यते, अपपि तु हुदयमवादाामवमहृदय-

भावोचितचर्वय्यामाएातया। न घ सा चवणा प्रामाना तरात, येनाधुना रमृति स्यास। न चात लोविक्सत्यलाविपमाराव्यापार। कि चालीनिस-

लो विव पमाखाज नितरव्या यव बोधतसतथा योगिप्त्य ज ननितपर मवित्तिज्ञानीत् सकल नथमिनोपरागशु यशद्धपरयोगिगतलाग देवरसनानुभनाच विशिष्यते। एनासा यथा योगम नना दिविध्ा वरोदया साटस््यास्फृटत विपयावेशवैवश्य च सौन्दर्य- विरहान्। अव्ष तु खात्मे स्गतत्व नियमाभमवातवा नुपवेशात्पर गतलरनियमा- भावातद्विभावा दियाभारएयमप्रवुद्दोचिवनिजरत्या विवायनावेगवयाच न विश्रा तरादीनां सभन इत्यवोचाम बहुश। अपतएव निभावादयो न निप्पसिद्ेतवो रसस्य, तद्वोधापगमेऽपि रससमवात्। नापि पिहेनवो येव प्रमागामध्ये पतेयु,

THE THEORY OF RASA 231

सिद्धस्य वम्यचित्प्रमेयभूतस्ष रसस्याभावात्। कि तर्क्षेतद्विभावाद्य इति, अतोविक एवाय चवगोपयोगी विभावादिव्यवदार। कान्यसत्य टष्टमिति चेद्धपसामेतदस्सा कमलीविकित्वरिद्धे।पानकरसासादोऽपि कि गुडमरिचादिषु दृष इति समानमेतन। नन्वेवर रसोञ्यमेय स्यात्, एव युक्क भविनुमद्वति। रस्षतैस्थराषो सवसी न प्रमेयादिस्वभाव। तहि सूत्र निष्पत्तिरिवि कथम् नैय रसस्य, अमितु वद्विपयरमनाया। तनिघ्यत्या तु यदि तदेशयतभ्रीविवस् रसस्स निष्पत्ति- रूयते तेन न कचिदत दोप। सा च रसना न प्रमाणन्यापारों न कारक व्यापार। खय तु नामामासिकी लसवेदनसिद्धत्यान्। रसना शोषरूपेव कि तु योधान्तरेस्यो विलत्तराव, उपायाना विभावादीना लोकिकवेलकरायत। तेन विभावादिमयोगादसना यते निष्पद्यते तहसथाविधरसनागोचरो लौडिकौ- सरोडया रस इद्ि तात्य सूस। अयमत सक्षेप -मुकुटप्रतिशीपैका दिना तावनटवदविराच्लायवे। गाढमाकनसवित्सस्काराय काव्यवलादानीयमानापि न तन रामभीविधाम्यति। अतएपोभयदेशनावसाय । रोमानादयय भूयमा रतिप्रत्ीतिकारितया दटासववापि लोनिना देशकालानियमेन रति गमयन्ति। यस्या खात्मापि सड्ासनाव्त्वादनुप्रविष्।अतएब न तटस्थतया रत्यवगम । न च नियतकारणवया, येनाअनाभिपज्लादिसभावना। न च नियतपराजैक गतया, गेन दुसद्वपाधुद्य तेन मामारणीभता सतानरतेरेकस्ा एव वा सविदो गोचरीभूता रति शरह्वार। साधारणोभावना व विभावादिमिरिति।1 तत विभावप्राधान्य। यथा]- वेलीकन्दलितस्म विभ्रममथोसुय बपुस्ते दशो भक्षीमहुरकामकार्मु कमिद भ्र् नर्मकर्मक्रम । श्परपातेऽ्रपि विकारकारयामहो वक्ाम्बज मीसब सत्य सुन्दरि वेघसवितज्जगतीसार त्वमेका कृषि ॥23

सूति निष््भामन्तरमत ने सेपचन्द्रस टोकायायुद्धति (प ६६) समापा।

234 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS

अत्र च विभायकृत सौन्दर्य प्राधान्येन भाति। तदनुगतरनेन केलाविश्रम- भहुरवर्मवचोमदिया वाउुभाववर्गा भतिकमविकार।दिशव्द्बलाय व्यभिचार्वर्ग प्रतिभातीत्यत एव नास्कतत्वाशपान रत्यासादमये सारे निषेया। अनुभावपाषा यं सपा-गुदसारख तरवार पविन मकनवाध यमददा पवूर्ष भावसपादनद्विजराजस्ये दुराजस् यदिधम्य बिलोकितेषु बहुशो नि'स्येमना सोचने महालाखि दरिदति प्रतिदिन सूनाज्जिनीनालनत्। दूर्वाकाएडविडम्यकम् निविड्ो यत्पागिडमा गएडयो कृष्एो यूनि सयोवनासु मनितास्पेपेव चेरस्थिति ।।3* अन वितम्पेति पहुश इति प्तिदिनमिति य पदममर्पिता व्यमिचारिए, कृष्य इति पदापितन् विभावो गुएवन प्रतिभासते। विधानिलक्षरासम्भविलोकन-

व्यनिचारियो न प्राधान्य यद्विभावानुभावनाधान्यक्ञत तनाघ पथा- मदाक् पलुगकम आतमासमधिका तमुच्तितु बातरा शपरराहिनी जही। पजला जतमघीरतोचना

सुकुमारनमदा इनभूपएाभूतस्य व्यभिचारियरस वित्स्सामरहादे प्राधान्यम्। तद्विभावानी प्राधान्यात सो दर्याविरयट्टतादाशमिलावपितानु भावस्तु तदतुयायी। एव द्वयप्राषान्ये चोदाहायम्। किंतु समप्राधान्य एव रसास्वादस्योत्कय। तच प्रबध एव भ्वात, वस्तुस्तु दराहपक एव। यदाह चामन- सदभपु द्रारूपक ध्रेय तद्धि चित्र चितपनवद्विरोषसाकल्याव '

34 सोकोडय भट्टनदुदाजस धन्याकोपसोचनैसुद्राइत। 35 ्ेमचम्रकावयानपासनत प ई६) नामरतियोजय लोक उदाइत।

THE THEORY OF RASA 235

इति। वयूपसम्पसाय तु प्रव वे भापावेपमहचीवितादिकचपनाद। तदुप जीवनेन सुहके। तमा च तन् सहदया भूदीपरसुचित परिकल्म्म हहगहा वकषा रिमिनवसर इयादि बहुतर पोठव भरप विदधते। तेन से कायाम्यास

परिस्फुट एव साक्षारवरकवपन बाम्यार्थे सुरति। अतरव तेदा बाज्यमेव प्रतीत्युत्पतिकृत् अरभपेच्िवनाव्यमपि। तेसां तु नाव्य 'निपरततिता ककुरिता राशिरसमय इति न्यायेन सुटरां निर्मलीकरणम्। अहृदचानी च वदेव नैमैक्याथायि भत् पतिता गोतवाद्यमिकादयो न व्यसनिताय पर्यवर्स्था क नाव्योपलदपाद। तत च नदो व्यायिनामिव इद ध्यानपदस् न दि तद्याय मेव सिदूरमयो धासुदेव सारणीयप्रतिपति अमि तु तदुपायद्वारेखाविरफुटी मूतसफज्पगोचरो देवताविशोषो ध्यायिना फलहव्: तह्मटश्रक्िया नाव्योरल्

विधिस्थानीयो पर्या व्युर्पात वितर्रात।

Sr Atutonh Mockeryee Corm Vol (O tentalu) 1922

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV

The notice in the recent Descriptive Cataloguel of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Laibrary Madras of two manuseripts (A and B) in Devanagar character of Abhmava- gupta s commentary' on the fourth Uddyota of the Dhvanyaloka or Kavyaloka first drew attention to this missing chapter" of the well known work the existence of which was brilliantly conjectured long ago by Prof Jacobi* An applica- tion was made for a loan of these MSS through the India Office in 1920, but as the rules of the Library did not allow

1 Madras 1918 vol xXu pp 86667, nos 12893-4 2 The full title of thiy work (commonty known as Locana) as given jo the diferent MSS is Kā yalokalocana or Dhvanyaloka locona Abhinava himself in the present text calis the origmal Kavyaloka Tbe Anandavardhema kavyalamkara kamadhenu tike enteted by Autrecht (: 49) as Abbinavagupta s commentary on the Dhvanyaloka involves a twofold error due perbaps to Oppert s inaccurate entry Io the first place the term Anandavardl anna is an incorrect designstion in the second place by Lovyclamkara kamadhenu pika is probably meant the commeotary of the same name (ed Benares Sansk Series 1908 Srivamivilasa Press 1909) oo Vimana's Karydlamkara by Gopendra Tippa Bhopbla mixed up through a confusion with the Locana commeptary of Abhmava 3 The Kavyamalt (ed Nu Sag Press Bombay 1911) prntu only the first three uddy otas of the Locone which were the only ones knowa to Bublet (Aastmr Report pp 66 and xvi) Other MSS Burnell, Tanjore Cat 55a Kedlhoro Central Prov Rep 100 also Listr of Mss purcl ased in 1869 78 20 Oppert 2692 3 2996 5513 Bhandarkar, Rep 1887-91 593 India Off ce Car 1008 Steio Tammu Car 62, Kaknāth Kunte Lahore Rep 8 Most of these MSS are described as compiete but it caonot be deiermined whether they include the fourth uddyold 4 ZDMG 1902 p 404 footnote 1 ta addition to the argumeats adduced therein it may be poited out that Abhinava at p 12.1l 19-20 (ed. Kavyamala) prom ses to dilate upon a certain poit at the end of hu work (grenthante vatn amah) a promue wbich he bears out towards he end of the present tett

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 237

such a loan and as a rotograph transcript was imposstble the present writer had to be content with certified coptes forwarded by the Curator of the Library through the kindness and courte sy of F W Thomas of the India Office Library On return to India another attempt was made to obtain a loan of the MSS through the Cal.utta Umvertity but as there was no chance of success in this direchon Sir Asutosh Mookerjee to whom the difficulties were submitted very kudly directed Pandit Ananta Kişna Sastrı to make fresh copies personally His efforts bappily resulted in the discovery of a fresh manuseript in the possession of his friend Pandit S k Ramanath Sastrı of the Madras Oriental MSS Library with which slso (C) the present text is collated Although still deficient in many places on which probably a sight of the original MSS might have thrown some light the present writer ventures to publsh the text in its present form not only out of consideration of 11s importance but also with the hope of drawing to it the attention of interested scholarg who may have access to other MSS and can thereby help to determine some of the dificult es left unsolved here Apart from the mberent iaterest of the present iext as supplying the missing part of the learned commeatary of tbis champion of the Dhvani School there are several pomts to which attention may be deawn here As mn the other parts of bis commentary ' Abhinava appears to distingursh here between the Kankakara and the Vrthikara of the origmal text by directly opposing them a fact which further supporte Jacobrs contention* that the author of the Karika the so called Dhvamkara was difcrent from Anapdavardhana the autbor of the prose Vrttr Ablmpava uses the term wif grantha io contradistinchon to the Kar ka and in one place

1 Pp 1 12 59 60 71 78 104 123 130-1 e c 2 F rst suggested by Buhler Kasin r Rep p 65 See ZDMG loc ct p 405 F and S K De on the Dhvan kara and Ananda ardhana 10 the Burter a of the School of D en d S ad es vth 1 19 0 pp$ 9

238 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

especially, points out that the question as to the source of the endless variety of Artha imparted to poetry is mentioned by the Vrttikara although noi touched upon by the Karikakara 1 Towards the end of the present text, Abhinava gives his own reading of some of the Karikas, and his remarks apparently show that the Vrttikara in severat places reads the Karitas by splitting them up (Ahandtirtya pattuta)-a procedure which is not likely if we suppose a common authorship of the Karika and the Vrtt There are two gatha verses ia the present text (Dhoavthala* and Caiana*) one of which is ascribed to Abhinava himself in one of the MSS,* the sense and construction of which do not seem very clear from the obviousty corrupt text The fitst verse is baffling and obseure as to sense and metre in all the MSS The next verse is clearer and its chaya may he put tentalively thus Thyagi jana-kara parampara samcarana Aşaya nihsaha śarrah Arthah krpana-grhasthah surthad \ yastah sravanta "Riches, enfeebled of body through decay caused by pass- ing to and fro through a succession of hands of bouotiful fotk melt away, as it were separated from their company and lodging ta poor men's houses' This reading, which was first suggested through a discussion of this point witb Dr Barnett, may not be faultless and is perhaps capable of being improved upon, but in the main it may be accepted in the absence of anything better, and there is nothing mn it icompatible with the context The diticulty hies ie the two words savantr and satthavattha The emcodation vasantt is very natural and tempting. but it is supporled by none of the MSS while svosthavasthah, instead of sarthad tyastak 1s attracitve although svasthavasthah> sottavattha. In this connexion attention may be drawn to two Dest verses in the original text at p 240 ii 6-7 and p 243 it

2 Two other verses are cited as Abhinava s own in the present test

THE TEXT OF LAVYALOKA LOCANA IY 239 21 2 which are unintellgible as they stand but which may now be recoustructed in the light of the interesting chayas given by Abhinava Pischel! gives the latter Sloka somewhat differently thus Mahu maku tri bhanantaaho vipat kalu tanassu To v na deu Janaddonat goarihos manassu It is ioteresting to note that Abhinava in his gloss on this verse calls Apabhramsa Saindhava bhasa thus confirming the modern tradition that Apabhramsa originated in Sindhu desa Another point of interest is the mention by Abhinava of a work called Tattvaloka by Apandavardbana in which the latter is said to have discussed in detail the relation betaeen sastra naya and Kavya nayd This work yet remams to be cecovered In one of the concludmg verses as mn the invocatory Sloko at the beginning of the frst Uddyoto Abhinava men tions the name of his upadhyaye Bhattenduraja but here he couples this name with that of another teacher of his called Sci siddhicela who is not mentioned elsewhere in any of bis knowa works From Siddhicela be probably learnt philoso phy The reference to asmad apadhyaya Bhattenduraja occurs oiso at pp 25 43 116 207 223 of the printed text of the Dianyaloka and in one placc (p 16D) he is adorned with the grandiloquent epithet wdvat kayt sahrdaya cakravartin which together with the fact that in the present text Abhjnava apparently indicates that he learnt Kavya from this teacber will go to support the con jecture that this Bhattenduraja was probably a poet and cnitic held in high esteem by his great pupil Although chronology does not stand an the way there is bardly any definite means to decide whether Abbmnava s teacher Bhatten duraja was identical with Prattharendoraja the commentator

1 Maer alen tur leanns dulpabhramsa p 45 also e ted to Jacobi Sann L nara p xx 2 Sce Jacob foe ef

240 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

of Udbhata 1 From Abhinava's commentary on the Bhaga vadgita 2 we learn that Bhattendu was the son of Sribhutiraja and grandson of Saucuka of the Katyayana gorra , but Prati- harenduraja s genealogy is unknown The only facts known about the latter is that he was a native of Konkana and a pupil of Mukula,' probably the same Mukula who was the son of Bhata Kallata and autbor ef Abhidha vrth morrka* and who is placed by Buhler' on the authority of Raja tarongim v 66 in the reign of Avantivarman Two plausible reasops, however, will lend one to the opinion that the two Indurajas were probably different persons To begin with Bhattenduraja appears essentially as a poet who wrote as Abbinava's own quotations show, in Sansknt as well as in Prakrit and whose verses supplied a ready source of poetic mlustrations in his pupil s work probably iospired by himself Had be been hte Pratiharenduraja, a writer on Poetics as well as a poct bis views would very likely have been cited and diseussed io the usual course by Abhmnava It is also remarkable that Abhinava cites his teacher always as Bhatt- eoduraja and never as Pratihureoduraja although Bhatta and Pratihara being mere titles need not make any difference The conjecture is not uclikely that Abhmnava's teacher may have been the poct Bhattenduraja who is quoted under the same designation in Ksemendra s two works Anciya-vicara4 and Suyzrra trfaka" as well as in the poetical anthologies* of

1 As Peterson (Subhot p 11) scems to suggest 2 Bübler op cit pp 65 80 and ctivn 3 Kāryāla hkara sara laght vtri (ed Kāvyamāla) pp 1 $6. 4 Ed Kavyamtla p 22 It is curous that th s treatise whuch deals with the grammatico rhetoricsl question of the fuoct ons of word and ts sense is not cied at an by Abbrnava 5 Op ar pp 66 78 see Pischel Sr: goratilaka p 12 6 Under 3/ 20 31 7 Under n 2 24 29 30 & The verse pardrihe yoh pidum aser bed to ledoraja in the Paddi aft of Saragadhara (no 1052) i quoied anonymonsly ta ce by Anenda vardhana (pp 53 116) a fact wh eb however, it not decrsive becauie

THB TEXT OF KAVYALORA LOCANA IV 241

Sarhgadhara Valtabhadeva and Jalbana The commentator Pratihatenduraja on the other hand was never known for his poetical pretensions and was chiefly a writer on Poctics who obviousty belonged to the older Alamkara School and did not as Abhinava did belteve in the newly established docttine of dhvani with which however he appears to be fully conversant Referring to this new theory Pratiharendu following the views ot the ancient writers of the Alomkara and the Riti Schools states in one place that what is known as Dhvant and taken to be the soul of Poetry by some thinkers is ineluded by his author Udbhaja in the treatment of some of the Alamkaras under discussion and therefore need not be separately considered * The standpoints of Prati harenduraja and Abhinava in the realm of Pochics ate so divergent-in fact they belong to totally differcot schools of opinion-that it is difficult to admit any spirittal relationship between the two for the former was in no way a subscriber to the teachings of the Dhvant Sehool of which Abhmnava was a recogmised advocate Jacobi has already negatived" Pischel s contention" that 1n three passages (pp 37 183 214) Abbmava speaks of Anandavardhana hmself as one of hs gurus or upadhryayas It is more likely that the reference is to one or other of Ablnnava s many preceptors mentioned in bis Locono as well

Abh nava s commentary 18 s lent as to the authorsh p of th s verse and the same verse occut in Bhoflata sa aka 56 and is aser bed to anether poct Yasas nthe Sabhi taval no 947 The verse is atcibuted to Vakpatı in Sadukt Karnampta It ia cited anonymously in Hemacandra Comm p 257 Jayaratha p 108 1 ननु यब काव्ये समहयवद्याज्ञादिन प्रपानभूतम्य सभन्दव्यापारादपुटेस न

कधिर्सास्वर्ध्य निगीम ययसकलमेद्ामा कध्ययमभि्टित में कमादिह मोपडिह ? सर्पते पस्व वाजङ्वारेव्वन्तम नरात। (Op p79) 2 WZKM 1Y pp 237-8 und ZDMG loc ef p 404 footnote 2 3 Srugaro iitaka p 22 16

242 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

as in his numerous trentises on Kashmir San aism One of these is Bhatta Tauta cited at p 178 on whose work called Kovyn kautake Abhnava had as he humself tells us written a Vivarana before he wrote his Locana Nothing is known of this Bhatta Tauta (alse Bhatta Tota) , but it appears that Abhinava s commentary on Bharata was wrtten at the ins tance of this teacher who is reverently cited therein just as lus Zocana was probably inspired by Dhattenduraja The Kapa koutuka is also referred to in the Vyaktmiveka vyakkyana (p 13). and Hemacandra1 quotes thrce verses from Bhatta Tauta while in his own commentary on the same work' he reproduces after Abluinava's commentary on Bharata Totas opinion in connexion with the theory of Rasa Other reference to asmad upadhyaya Bhatta Tauta In Locona occurs at p 29 Kgemendra in his Auritya vicora attribules to him a verse (prajna nava navo*) which is grven anonymously in Hemacandra p 3 Tauta is also cited by Candidasa in his Diprka commentary on Mammata Sometimes Abhinava refers to bis numerous preceptors gencrally as asmed gurovah In his Locana (p 30) however as well as in hıs Pratyabhana vimersint Laghuvrtt * Abhnava refers to Utpala as his parama guru the teacher of his teacher This Utpala son of Udayakara 1& well known mn the history of Kashmir Sawvaism as the author of the Evara pratyabhimna on which Abhinava wrote, besides the Laghu vrtlt referred to above a Brhon Vrtti and is assigned by Buhlert to the Brst half of the 10th century It is interest ing to note that white commenting on the word pratyabhijna occurring in Dhvanyalola t 8 Abhinava discusses this term and refers to what is said on ths pomt by Utpala (sad uktam

1 Kavyonusdsona p 316 2 Ala i kara-chda mant p 59 3 Bubler op er p clxl 4 Op ct, pp 79-50 Also Bhandarkar Rep 18834 pp 76 ( Ergehng Ind a Offee Car iv p 835 Chaitery Koshm Soivoim pp 1940

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 243 asmatparama gurubluh srimad uipala-padatb p 30) From what Abhinava himself says mn his numerous works on Kash nur Saivaism we can indicate the line of spiritual succession (gurk perampare) thus Somananda-+Utpala->Lakşmana gupta->Abhinavagupta Somananda being prebably a pupit of Vasugupta the earliest founder of the Pratyabhtjna Sastrn In the concluding portion of his P'aratrundiLa vevarana Abhinava gives us an interesting personal and genealogtcal account in which he tells us that he was the son of Kasmrako Cukhala' and graodson of Varahagupta and had a brother named Manorathagupta That Abhinava was Saiva 1s abundantly shown here as elsewhere in the invocatory and concluding verses of the present text It may be noted mn this connexion that at the end of each Uddyota Abhinava invokes the diflerent manifestations (vrvarta) of Vac In the first it is pratibha in the second pasyant in the third madhyama and in the fourth Uddyota he simply speaks of the fourth mamfestation (turya sokn) implying thereby presumably vaikharr These mamfestations however, are usually enumerated as three and not four although different writers differ as to the particular name attached to individual mamfestations in succession Thus Ruyyaka speaks of Vac as frividha vigraha (p 1) which both Jayaratba and Samodra bandba explaia as constituting in succession posyont (para or vimarsa rupa) madhyama and vaikhar This agrees subs tantially with Abbinava s enumeration with the exceplion of pratiblw which is probably Vac itself and not one of its vrvartas The date of Abhinavagupta which forms e central lend mark in Alatukara literature is easily settled from his relation to Utpala and Anandavardhana as well as froe the indica tions given by hrmself in some of his works His Krama 1 Buhler s MS has kaim rako v culaka (p clv) as well as cukhala (p clvi)

244 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

stotra was written in A D 991 . His Bhairava stotra is dated AD 993* and his Brhon Vrttr on Utpala's Pratyabluqna bears the date of AD 1015' We may, therefote place Abhinavagupta with great certainty towards the last quarter of the 10th century, and be certaily lived into the first quarter of the 11th

Jowaal of the Dept of Leners (Ants) Cal Dary 1922

1 Intro to Dh anydlola ed Kāvyamsta p 2 foolnote 2 Bohler ap er p eltn 3 Bonler lbld p elx alo p 80

7EXT

श्री मद्भिनवगुप्तोन्मीलित

काव्यालोकलोचनम्

बतुर्थ उद्गेत

छृत्यपश्चरनिर्वाह्योमे5पि परमेश्वर। नान्योपकरणापेक्षो यया ता नौमि साङगीम्।1

उद्योतसमर्ति विवसुवृत्तिकार ब्राह-पवमिति। मयो जनान्तरमिति यर्थ्यपि 'सहृद्यमन प्रीतये' ( I p313) इल्यनेन प्रयोजन भगेवोक्कम, तृत्षीयोहयोतावधी च सत्काव्य कतु P 234

झातु वा(I।। 46 p 231 1 6) इति तदेवेपत् स्फुटीकृतम् तथापि स्फुटतरोकर्तुमिदानी यब। यत सुस्प्टरूय वेन विह्ञायते

N B _The references are to pages and Ines of the text in the Kavyamala edton Nr Sag Press 1911 (c 25) 1 Beeads two verses befote this which really belong to the end of Chap mu (sep aj3 ll 32a5) sw कायायोंके पथा मोदान् ध्वनिभेदान् पाममम्। ददामी बोषम मोसे ऋतरयोम संवियास्ात य पसूविवाना मेदानी स्फुट तार्पाण दायिमोन। व्रिदोषमप्रिर्या चन्य भधमा परमेसरोम। 2 वरशोतरस्तय प्रद्धमित परिकार-A जशीतसर्मात्त विरममत वरिकार-C.

246 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

P 234 अवोउस्पनिरुपितान्' स्पषटनिस्मणग यथव प्रतिभातीति अयो जनान्तरमितयुक्तम्। अथवा पूर्वोक्कयो प्रयोजनयोरन्तर पिशे पोउमिघीयते। कैन विशेषेगा सत्काव्यकरयमस्य प्रयोजन केन च सत्काव्यावयोध" इति विशेषो निरयरी। तत सत्कान्यनरये कथमत्य प्यापार इति पूर्व वक्कव्यम्। निष्पादितस्य ज्ेयत्वादिति। Kanta 1 तङुच्यते-घनेर्य इति: नतु धनिभेदासतिमानामाननमित्ति व्यधिवरसमे तदितमियापेशपाहते-कथमिति'। harika 2 महोत्तरम-अतो दीति। आसर्ता सावहूदब5 प्रकार, एवेनाप्येन भवतीस्यपि-शब्दार्थ । एतंदुश भवति-वरानोयवस्तु निष्ट प्रकाविशेष प्रतिमान तह वर्गानीयस् पारिमित्यादाद्यकविनैव स्पृपटत्वालार्वस्य तद्विपय प्रतिमानतवात्तोयमेव स्पाठ् 1 तवथ काव्य मपि तज्वातीयमिति"घष इदानों कवित्रवाह "1 उल्तिवैनिन्येश तु त एवार्थो निरवधयो भव तोति तद्िपयाछा प्रतिमानाभान-स् सपपप्नमिति। ननु प्रतिमानन्लस कि पलमिति निर्रेतु घाणी नवत्यमायातीर्युक्कम। सेन वाणीनां काव्यवाकयाना 2 तावन- वस्यमाभाति, तथ प्रतिमानवत्ये सयुषपदरो, चचार्थानन्त्ये", तच

परतो स्पनियपियाय्-B a Om tted mn A 3 Omited in A ar d B S Omitted to A and B 6 व्यपिकरकमेद्पे-A, उ्याधकरकमेदे-B 7 रुदिति-A 8 भायत तो बटन-B 9 सद्धिमयरहपत्तिभाम-B 15 वष्प्रयोग -A

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 247

स्पर्शनान्यत्यन्त विरस्कृतानि तैरनाहतसौन्दर्यसवंजनवह्भ्यात्ीग-

यत्रामितपणीय संगतवानि ध्वन्यमानानि यानि है: सिपितादे P 234

पावता यावत कियते तावतदपूर्वमेव समयत इति सर्वत तन्मन्तव्यम्। अस्येति "अपूर्वत्वमेत्र [प्रति]'भासत" इति दूरेश सवन्ध, रार्वेलैवास्य नवत्वमिति सर्गतति। द्वितीय नपम

नवरे सकान्त खार्प ज्यनकि। एव सिह-शब्दोऽपि बीसवान पेत्षसवविस्मयनीयतवादी व्यत्रयधर्मान्तरे सकान्त खार्य व्वनति। एव प्रथमसय द्ी भेदावुदाहाय द्वितीयसान्युदाहतु मासूलपति- विचक्षितेति निद्ाया कैतती कृतकसप इसर्ष । चदने P 235 विन्यस्य चक्तमिति चदनााशजमेव* तावहिव्य मुख स्क् न पारगनीति अतएव वरियस्यैति। वधूनवोहा। बोधलागेन प्रियसमतवोधभगेन" निरुद्धो दठान्" प्रवर्तमान प्रवर्तमानोऽपि कथचित् तछमात पुतधम्बनाभित्तामो यथा। अतएवाभोगेन3

I The text reads परिकर 2 ०वक्षयोय-B 3 विकविश्वषी 7-A, सामिरवैधो -- B 4 धमासरपाव्रता-B 5 -P-B 6 Omned m A, B C, but in the tere 7 भवकरणोय .- A and B 8 Abbinava apparendly accepts bere the reading of w in the text 9 वट्नस्पयनमैर-A

10 11 सरा- 12 यषो-B 13 परुएद भोगीन -- B

248 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

पुन सुननिद्राविचारनिर्वरएनयापि' लोल कृल्वा स्थिता। न तु सर्वधेव सुम्यनान् निवतित् शक्रोतीसय। एवभूता एपा यदि ममा परिबुम्ब्यते तदवितता विसुसा भवेदिति तस्यापि प्रियस् परिचुम्बनविषये निरारम्मस हृदय साकाडक्षमतिपत्ति नामेति। साकाइका सामिलाया प्रतिपति स्थितिर्यस वाहश रुड्रुदिकाकद्यिक्ष न तु मनोरथसपति चरितार्ष यद्यपि हृदयम्, वितु रते परस्परजोवितरार्वेखाभिमानरूपाया परिनिर्यते केनविद्भ्यनुभावेनालव्यायगाहनाया पार गतमिवि परिपूर्णभूत P 235 एव जार इस्पर्ष। द्विवीयल्रोकेन मु परिचुम्बन सपन्रम्। लन्नाराव्देनोक्का तेनापि प सा परिचुम्वितेति वर्थांे पोपित एवं भदार, तथापि प्रथमश्येके परस्परामिल्तापप्रसरनिरोधपरपरा पर्यवसानासमवेन या रतिकका सोनवोरमि' एक्सरूपचितवृतपनु प्रवेरमाचक्ाया रति *सुतर्रा पोपयति।

Kinka 3 सर्वरपमेद विश्यमतिदेश पोति युत्तरानपेषि1। अनुसर्तव्य इति उदाइर्तेव्य इतर्थं। यथोत्त मिति वस्पाद्वानां प्रमेदा ये प्रमेदा खगताब ये।

2 न चीष -A मिवर्णनया विलोष-B 3 पुमन-A

4 समय-A and B 5 रवार्मर-B 6 पररिमित तो-B; रपदित ते -C 1 पार पार गवमदि-6, पर्रा गतिमिति-A 9 णोड़मघो-B 10 रति-0 · भेदपिम्वति-A and B ra The textreads fिutaयt. 13 The text reads ofatन

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 249

इत्यस प्रविपादिवम्। चैतदिति न-शन्दोऽपि-शन्दस्वामें निभक्रम । एतदृपि प्रतिपादितम् "भायानचेतनानपि घेता पच्चतनानचेतनवत्" (p 122, 1 g) इतयस। अतथा स्थितानपि तथासंस्थितानिवेति हव-शब्देन एक्तरविश्रान्ति P 236 ोगाभायादेव सुतरा विचितरपानिलय। हृदय इति प्रधानतमे समसभावकनरनिकपस्थान इत्यर्भ। निवेशयति यक्ष यस हृ्यमस्ति तस तस्पाचततया तत तत स्वापयतोत्यर्य। भवएव से प्रसिद्धार्थेम्योऽन्य एवेलर्पविरोपा सपयते। हृद्यनिनिश्ठा एव व तथा भवन्ति नान्ययेल्वय। सा जयति परिच्छिन शाक्िम्य प्रजापतिपोडणुलकेश वतते। तममादादेव कवि गोबरो वमनीयार्थो विस्टो नि सीमा सपयते। प्रतिमाना वाणीनो चानन्त्य व्वनिकृशमिति' यदनुद्तिप्रमुक्त P 236 सदेव कारिकया भडका निरुम्यत इत्याह-उपपादयितुमिति। उपपर्या निस्पयितुमिक्यमँ। यद्प्र्धानसामान् सेवाति कारेशोहस्तयापि बारिकाकारेख नोछ इति भाव। यदि वा उच्यते समहस्ौभेऽ्यमिति भाव, अतएवास शरोक्स प्तिमन्ये व्याख्यान न कृतम् । हषपूनो इति। वहि प्रत्क्षादिभि Karika 4

प्रमायी प्राक्रनंध कविनिरित्युभवया नेयम्। काव्य मशुमास स्थानोयम्। रपृदां नलामिति रागतासत्कलिका दनि य शब्दस्पृष्ठेसय का हयता। एतानि बोदाहरणनि विवस

उ पम्ोडय-A

2 3 मयनोथो-A 4 वन ननरवर्मfe-B 5 The text rends vf 6 रागरतामुहकसिकामिति य शन्द स्पर्षषे-B, राववत्ामत कसिकामन् ड्रॉस व स्पूर्ट ऐथें-A

250 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT 1OETICS

पूर्यमेद व्याख्यावानीति (pP 102, 106) कि पुनरकया । सत्यपि प्राक्कनकविस्पृष्ठत्वे नूतनत्व भवत्येव तत्प्रकारानुप्रहादित्ये- तर्वति सातपर्य हि वत्तियन्धसाधिक नान्यत्। करिणीवैधव्यकरो मम पुत एवेन काएडेन विनिपातनसमर्थ।

P 237 हृतस्नुपया तथा कृतो यथा काराडकरएडक वहति॥ इत्युत्तान' एवायमर्थ। गाणार्थसयानालीदतैवेति* सबन्ध ।

Karıka 5 अत्यन्त महरोन निरपेक्षमानतया विशलम्माशर्का परिहरति। प्शीना परस्परजय, पाएडवानामपि महापथक्रेनानुचिता विपति, कृष्णम्यापि व्याधाद्विध्वस इति सरवैस्षापि* बिरसा

P 238 वसानमिति। मुस्यतयेति धदपि 'धर्मे चा च कागे च मोदे च' इत्युु* तथादि चत्वारधकारा एवमाह -यदपि धमार्थकामाना सर्वेक् ताहुडू नास्ति यदस न विद्यते तथापि पर्यन्तविरसत्वमबवावलोक्यताम्। मोक्षे व यदरप तस सारता तव विचार्यदामिति। यथा यथति तोकैखन्तरमाए मनेन सपाद्यमान धर्माथ कामतत्सापनलत्तरा वस्तु भूतवयाभिमतमपि येन येनार्जनरनपाज्या दिना प्रकारेणा'सारवत्तुचके द्रजालादि वद्विपर्येति प्रन्युव विपरीत मपधते। आ्सता तसय स्रूप चितेशर्थ। तैन तेन प्रकारेणत लोकतन्त विरागो जायत इस्नेन तत्वज्ञानोन्थ* निर्वेद शान्तरमम्धापिन सूचयता तस्पेव

: दर्युला म- A and B 3 B omits प्रपि N 4 धर्म पाये प कामे प भौदें क मरतदम। यदिशासि सदन्यत पत्रदाक्षि न वत् कषित्।। 5 मवसन्ता दुमनासिंतरिं-B 6 सपायमांधमामा-1 7 A कपक प्रका 8 सलपत सरमाम 1 ससभानाष-A

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 251

रार्वेत्र सारतवप्रतिपादनेन प्रापान्यमुह्म्। नतु शजारवीवादि

निवेशिना लोक्वासनाविष्टानामज् भूतेऽपि रसे तथागिमानो सथा

प्चिति परमेशरमलयपकररोपु तुन दोप दसर्थ। विभृतिपु रागिणो गुणेपु' च निविष्टधियो मा भृतेति सबन्ध।अम्र इत्यनुकमरायनन्तर यो भारते प्रन्थस्तल त्यर्थ। नतु वसुदेवापय बासुदेद इसुच्यते, न परमेक्षर परमात्मा महादेव इत्याशङयाह

P 239 बहना ज मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मो प्रपवे। बासुदेव सवम (Uhagavadgra vn 19) इत्ादी अति समेासह्ामिधयमिति निर्छीत साल्पर्भान। निर्णीतश्चेषि शब्दा हि नित्या एव सन्तोऽनन्तर वाकतालीय वसात् तथा सकेतिता इत्युक ऋप्यन्धकाृष्िदसम्यवत्यत् (Panmt IV 1 114 )। शास्त्तनय इति तव्ाखादयोगा भावे पुरथार्थ इत्ययमेव* ध्यपदेश सोदर, चमत्कारयोगे तु रस P 239 न्यपदेश इति भाव। एतच मन्थकारेए वत्वालोके विकलोक्म्। इह स्वस् न मुख्योउसर इति नास्माभिसद्सितम्। सुतरामे वेति यदुर तन हेत्ुमाह-प्रसिद्धिध्वेति। च शब्दो सस्मादये, यत इय लौिकी प्रसिंद्धि । अनादितो भगवद्ासादीनामयमेवा"

1 लोकशासिता पिटानाम -- B Arad w instead of wy 2 गुस-A 3 अासुदेव सचात न स्रवम्-B 4 w fo-B and C 5 निर्फोस-A 6 मन्दो-A wluch reads एव after this

7 प्रदष्शोर्य तुस दवयमेय-A प्रवषेषायत पूतययमेन-

252 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

खशब्दामिधाने आशय। अयषा हि कियाकारकसयन्यादी नारामण नमस्कृत्येत्यादि शब्दार्यनिरूपऐे च' तथाविभ एव सस्य भगवत श्राशय इत कि प्रमाणमिति भाष। विशग्धविद्ठ- ब्रहगेन काव्यनये शाखनय इति वानुसतमू। "रसादिमय एतस्मिन् कवि स्याद्वधानवान्" (LV 5, p 237 1 14) इति यबुक्क तदेव प्रसदादागतभारतसब धनिरूपयान तरमुपसदरति -तस्मात् स्थितमिति। अत इति यत एव स्ितमत एवैद्मपि यहदये दरयते सुदुपपतम्, अन्यथा तदतुपपलमेव1। नच सदतुपपत्र चारुरवेन परतीवे, तसाधेतदेव कारया रसानुपुसार्थ खमेवेलाशय। अल्कारानतरेति अन्तर-शब्दो विशेषवाची। यदि वा दित्सिते उदाहरयो' रसवदलपारस्य विदयमानरयात तद वेतयालकारा तरशब्द। ननु मस्कष्छमदर्शनास्प्रतीयमान यदेक चुलके जलनिधिसनिधान ततो मुनेमोहात्म्यप्रविपतिरितत न रसानुगुरेनार्घेन छाया पोपितेलाशभपाइ-अत्र हीति। नन्वेव प्रतीयमान जलनिधिदर्शेनमेवासुतानुगरुया भवत्वति रसानुगुशोकत

P 240 वाच्योऽर् हत्यस्मिम शे क्यमिव मुदाहरयामाशळ्याद-स्षुप दीवि।

मिलर्य । बहुतरतत्यव्यापक चतदिति दरागति'-न चता दिना। स्यारया तुसापेन वाकवालीयेन1 प्रतितय्र साम्मुर्येन

1 Omitted in B 2 पाशसतम्-A 3 wसरत-A and B 4 सदपपग्रमे-A 5 6 पशादायोन-A ani8 7 -पपो पड-B 8 -fिटला-A g Omitted :1-A 10 Cथn=काकरTको Hemacandra Deh & * 5

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 231

स पार्श्ांऽय्यापि सुमग तस्या येनासतिकान्त। रसमतीतिरिति P 240

परस्परहेमुकमद्धारप्रतीति। अ्रस्यार्थरस् रसानुगुरात्व व्यतिरेक द्वारेय डठयति-सा त्वामित्यादिना। "ध्वनेय सगुखीभूत व्यह्धस्याध्वा प्रदर्शित" इयुदयोवारममे य शोन (1vP 34 ( 5) वल नेरवता कवोना प्रतिमागुसोजन तो भत्र तीत्यैप मागो व्यास्यात इत्युपस्ह्दरति-तदेवमिलादिना।

विपमेदो मस्चचकाररसाल्मना यो व्यह्ासवस यापेक्षा वाच्ये गुषीमावस्वस्येत्यर्थ। तक्ष सरवें ये ध्वनिभेदास्वेश गुखोभावा दानन्मिति वदाह्-अतिविस्तरेति'। सयमिति तव वसतुना व्यजपन गुण्ीभूत्तेन नवत्वन्, सत्यपि पुरासार्थस्सें। यथा समेन

भन्नविद्यतरकरो नलमलसरपागब्राय पत्याया। खगाभेश्ख पिरादिरया विस्मामकले नि जुनमिएम् ।'(2)

समननरयमर्धान अजसवि शरदायलतय वस्तु धन्यमान वाच्योपस्कारक नवत्व ददानि स्यषि पुराणतविस्पुष्टेक्में। तथा द्वि पुराणो गाया

z Oautted ta A 3 म पयासो-6 4 Abhinara appacently accepes the reading of en t tT tn che text 5 The text tead ufafeuarco 6 Omitted t A

fintemwt and fhutto in the second i ue Both corn pt 8 खनमोतति-8 9 पोराफी-0

254 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

चाइअएकरपरपरस चारपासप्रसोसइस रोरा । स्रत्था किवसघरत्था सत्थावत्था सनन्तीव ।।1 (2)

P 240 अलकरेण व्यतयन वाच्योपस्कारेस नवत्वम्, यथा ममत्र

वस तमत्तालिपरपरोपमा

पयासवासन् तिल् रामवदय।

रमस्ानभूभागपरागमासुरा* कभ तदेते न मनो विरहये॥ अतात्ेपेण* विभावनया वा वन्यमानाभ्या वाच्यमुपरकृत मिति' नवसम्, गयपि पुरासार्थयोगिते। नया पुराए धोर

मुतृप्ण कामनात्सस मरशाच महदयम्। पपतानि विवभेनो वार्धके विदुषामपि॥।

इति। न्यव्नेथन रसेन" गुणीगूवेन माच्योपस्वारेस नवलम्,+2 यथा समेव जरा नेय मूर्मि छ् चमपममी फालमुन:" कधान्य " फरकारै हफ्टगरल"पेने प्रकरिति।

सुवाथा सयापया ससो-A दुमयकरपर परसवामसथथी मट्सरीस। पर्या विष्यधरता सर्धापक्षा सववोद-B C reads Iई पचसु पथ in the sccond lie = वा्योसकार-B 3 पतय-A 4 -पछणा-B

5 ममा -A, बना-B 6 चम लाक्षेमेय-8 andl C 7 Omitted an B Q This sentence and the following verse omitted in A 11 रसे-C

11 This line is omttted in A r3 नाय् A; कपय-B 14 0716 :- B

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 255

तदेन' सपश्यय च सुसितंमन्यह्दस शिवोपाय ने छन बद बत सुधोर सलु जन।। शगन्नतेन व्यतयन वाज्यमुपस्तृत शान्त रसप्रतिपत्यड्त्व। आारभनतीठि नववम्, सलप्बस्मिन पुराशलरोके जरा जीर्साशरीरेडम्मिन् वैराग्य यतर जायते। त नूयन* हृदये मृतयुद्दह नास्तोति निश्य। सत्सपीत्यादि वारिकामा उपस्कार। तीन पादान P 240

स्ष्टान मत्वा तुर्य पाद व्याख्यात पटति-यहीतिर। विद्यमानो Kinta 6

खवसी प्रतिमागुएा उकनोसा भूमान्भवति, न वत्यन्तास्षन पेसर्ष । तम्मिघिति अनन्तीभूते प्रतिभागुमे। न किचिदेवेति सरवं हि पुरायाकमिनैव स्पृषगिति किमिदानी वए्य यब कवेवर्गुनी व्यापार स्पास्। ननु यदपि वसर्यमपूर्व'नासि्त तथाप्युक्षि परिपाकमुष्फ वननायपरपर्यायवन्भच्छाया मता नवा भविष्यति यमि मेराने नव्यन्तरारा सरम्भ इसाराइपाठ-चन्धच्छायापोति। अर्थद्वय" गुगोभूत यह्य प्रधानमुतव्यथ" म। नेदीय इति निकटतरम्, हृदयानुप्रवेशो न भवतीत्यर्थ। अव हेतुमाद्- एव सतीति। वतुरत्व समासमघटना। मधुरत्वमपारृप्यम्। तथाविधानामिति अपूर्बबन्धायायुक्कानामपि। परोप निषद्धार्थ"निबन्धने परकृतकाव्यव्यवद्वार एव सादिलर्यंसाय'5

वदैतान्-B 3 •रसमराभरपङ्गलाग्- 4 समेन -A and B 5 TeTt -B C as pot avalable afres this 6 विपादान-A 7 यदिति-8 यदि-A 8 वरष पूप- A 6 <A and B 11 Omitted in B 11 +RARन-B 13 सकध :- A 14 परोपनिवभाय-8 A smply reads परोपनिबम्पन 35 स्वरदिषमारधि-B

256 SOME PRORLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

पूर्वत्वमाश्रयणीयम्। ववनीमं कार्व्य तस्य भाव काव्यत्वम्। न स्वय भावप्रत्ययान्ताङ्भावधव्यय इति सक्तितव्यम्।

प्रतिपाद्यितुमिति प्रसन्नादिति शेप। यदि या वाच्यं वावदविविधव्यद्धोपयोगि, तदेव चेदनन्तम, वद्लादेव Kinka ? व्यवयानन्य' भवतीयनेनाभिग्रायवेदं प्रकृतमेवोच्यते-शुद्ध- P 241 स्येति। व्यकयविपयो नो व्यापारसतपर्श विनर्यानन््य सस्पमातगाव। पशातु तथा सपेण्ानन्त सबदथ व्यगकोति माव:। नतु सवंधा तत व्यकथ नासवीति मन्तव्यम्, परा्म- भूसतद्रपामावे वान्यव्यवद्ारहाने। तथा चोदाहरसेपु रसवने सद्धाबो 'अस्मेत्र। आदि-प्रहर्र व्यानष्टे-स्वालक्प्या°- च्चेति सष्पादेवेद्यर्थ, यथा रुपस्पशमोस्तीव कावस्थयोरेक्द्रव्य-

न च देप घटतेश्वधि' ने च ते दश्यन्ते कधमदि पुनरका। ये विज्नमा: प्रियाणामर्था वा सुकविवाणीनाम्।। चकारान्यामतिविस्य सूच्यते। कथमपीति अयलेन विचार्य माणा पौनदकय न नम्यमिदि यावत। पियाणामिति बहुवल्लनी हि सुभगो राधावल्मन्नायलासा: कामिनी परिभोग- सुमगमुपमुज्जानो ऽपि न विश्रमपौनरक्कय पश्यति। नदा एतदेव प्रियाल्मुच्यते यदाह"

लदा-B 2 सत्र रूपधंग-B 3 सरपेनाननर-B 4 तदा-B 5 सभ्भयो-B 6 आयनक्या-AandB 7fB पोमहान' पमत तमा एशदैव मियालसुरमने वदा न वभ िfि वा-B, a cnfusion with the lnes which follow 9 B ormits due to the abore confunon, the sentente ftom सदा 10 बस़ार

THE TEXT OF AAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 257

चपे सऐे यत्रवतामुपति नदेव रुप रमयीयता या। (Magha lv t7) इति। प्रियाणामिति वाससार प्रवददपोडय1 कान्तानो विघ्यम'विशेष म भवनव एव दसयते। म हय अतिचयनादि वदम्यत शिक्षित, येन उत्सादश्याशुनरकर्ता गच्हेत। य्ि

भाव। तावदिति उत्तरकाल व्यज्नपस्पर्शनेन विचिस्नर्चा परा P 242 भजता नाम तावदिति'हु सवमामेनैव सा विचिल्नतेति दावच्छन्द स्याभिप्राय। तधिमित्तानां चेति ऋतुमात्यादीनां खालभूठ परासुभूवानो यत्सामान्य वदेव विशेषान्तरवहित तन्माज्र तस्या- भ्रपेघ न द्विसरिति कविमि एवचाल वासभावनार्य मुफम् 1 प्रसयवदशनेऽपि हि शब्द" सकेतित प्राहुष्यवद्दाराय स स्मृत' वदा सलचय मास्टि सकेतस्तेन तव न म इत्यादियुक्रिमि सामान्यमेव सपरयते। फिमितसंवेद्यमानार्थ पीनरकप* कय पामाणिै"रद्ोकार्यमिति भाव। तमैव प्रक्सयति-न चेदिति। उक्तिर्दीति" पर्यायभाततैव यदुकि P 243

· प्रवाधकपी पडयं-A 2 fATH-A 3 Omitred m A 4 वापास-A s Omnitted m A 6 wa -A and B

7 8 पई तखन न-A

9 र्वैवमाभमर्धपौमरुमतर्थ -A to Om med w A 1 Tरकरयिक-A 12 एरिभौति-A :3 छग्पतति-A 14 +निवर्स दष्ि यगोनयसत-A 17

258 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

म्राह्मचिश्ेपेति' ग्राह्य प्रसवादिप्रभाषयें विशेषसस् यो मेद। सेनायमर्थ - पदानां नावन् सामान्ये दा नद्ति वापोहे वा यत्र कुलाणि वस्तुनि समय। किमनेन बादातरेय। वाक्याशद्विशेप प्रतीयत दति कस्वाल वादिनो विमति"।

मित्युक्कम्। भन्यत यत्ततपत्युतास्माक पच्सायकमिल्याह-कि चेति। पुनरिति भूय इत्यर्थ। उपमान दि निम प्रविम

विचित्ीभरत्येव। वस्तुव विचमानत्वामियमेन भान1-योगादधि निम-शब्दखदुकातरया प्रतिम शब्द इत्येव सर्वत्र वाच्यम्" 1 मेवल" यौगिक (]काव्य P 243 टोका 'परिशीलनदीरा म्यादेवु पर्यायवभ्रम इति भाव । एवमर्था नन्त्य मलकारावन्त च गशितिवचित्रयाङ्भवति। श्रयथापि च तलतो मवतीति दशयति-मणितिक्ेति। प्रतिनियवाया माषाया गोपरो वाच्यो योपय"स्ततकृत यहेचिभ्य तमिव धन"

The tezr reads बा पषिशेष . 2 प-A 3 पायोपेश-A 5 आावयाजु विभीय वसमो भेद-B 6 वादिमोगरषि पतति -8 7 •पत्षिमा-B 8 भाव-B 9 निकट-A ID जर पुतिम-A 11 एतार्णा सुवोमा-D 12 13 पारवा-B 14 वेरस ना ---: वेस-A 15 मोगि-A 17 एसममनिक्सन-A 18 गोररोदारो -: D om ts a aicer आtt andl reads 19 मिनश्मनिमित-A and B

THE TEXT OF KAYYALOKA LOCANA IV 259

निमित यस्।अलकाराणा काव्यायोना चानन्वा 1 तत्कर्मभूत भरितिवे चित्यं कत भूतमापादयतीति सबन्य। कर्मरो विशेपण प्दलेन हेतुद्शिद।

मम मम इृति भणतो व्रजति कालो जनसा। तथापि न देवो जनादनी गोनरी भवति मनसो मपुभथन।। इति। मोनवरत भसति तस्य कथ न देवी मनोगोचरो भवतीति विरोपालकारच्छाया सन्यवमापाया मह सह इत्यनया भशित्या समुन्मेपिता।

अवस्थादिविभिन्नाना वाच्याना विनिबन्धनम्। P 243-444 भू मेव दश्यते लचये तता भाति* रसाम्यात्।। Kanika 8 इति कारिवाअन्यस्त अन्यो मम्योपस्कार। अज्ष न

शकीनामित्यन्तत कारिकयोमेध्योपस्कार*। द्वितोगकारिकायास्तुरीय पाद व्याचष्टे-यथा हीति। P 244 सचादास्त्विति कारिकाया अरधम, नैकरूपतेति द्वितीयम्। Kanka 10-11 विमिय रामाज्ञेत्यमिप्रामेपाशाङपरी-कथति चेदिति।

सवादो* हान्यसाद्वश्य तत्सुन प्रतिविम्बदद्। आलषेव्याकारवतल्यदेटिविव शरीरिगाम् ॥ Kārka 12

2 T37- ー B

4 सुज्िगन्धम-B 5 बचयेव-B 6 भारती-A 7 Omuitted by B The Kanke reads differently in the text, 8 Abluoava's ceading of the text here is ioterestttrg 9 B is corropt bere and reads ाणद्ददित काितf प्रमेय भ्रह्ते कयामि नेदिति 30 संयावो

260 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

इत्यनया कारिकया। एवा सएदीकृत्य भृती पठिता। शरीरिणामित्ययं' न शब्द: प्रतिवार्क्य द्रष्टन्य इति दर्शितम्। शरीरिण इति पूर्वमेव श्रतितव्घलरूपतया प्रधानभृतस्पेत्यथ:।

Ranka 13 तक्न पूर्वमनन्यारम सुच्छात्म सदनन्तरम्। तृतीय* तु प्रसिद्धात्म नान्यगाम्य' रयजेल्कवि:॥

P. 245 इति कारिका। अजन्य पुर्वोपनिवद्धताव्यादारमा सभावो यक्ष तदनन्यात्म। मेन रपेश भाति ततपराक विस्ृष्टमेव। यथा स्वेन रूपेण प्रतिधिम्बं माति तेन रूपेए विम्बमेद। तत्सयं तु

किनिदिपूर्वमुल्मेचितम्, प्रतिबिम्बमम्येवमेन। एव प्रथम प्रकारं व्या्याय द्वितीयं व्याचष्टे-तदनतरं त्विति। द्वितीयमिसर्थ। अन्येन सार्म्य मस वत्तथा। तुच्छात्मेति अनुकारे हनुका्य- बुद्धिरेव चित्रपुस्तकादाविय न तु सिन्दवादियुद्धि: स्करति। सापि न चावायेति भाद। पसदेषेति तृतीयस्य रूपस न व्याज्यल्वम्।

Kirka 14 भरमनोउन्यस्य® सद्गावे पूर्वस्पितयनयाय्यपि। मस्तु भातिवर ससा-'शशिच्छ्रायमिवाननम् ॥ इनि कारिफा यसी खएदीकृत्य पठितर। बेयुचितपुस्तकेवु कारिका अरासिडता एव रस्यन्ते। आात्मन इतस रज्स पूर्वपठिता- भ्यामेव तत्वस्य सारभूतस्येवि पदाम्यामरयो निरूपित।

t परोरियामिति पन्य-B, अरोरियामित प- 2 सृदोप-B 3 4 वदगन्याक्-A and D 5 तल्स्पट्मेर-B 7 The cext ceads सwखaानde 8 The text reads nowr:

THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 261

ससवादानामिति' पाठ, सवादानामिति तु पाढे वाक्यार्थ रपाया समुदायाना ये सवादास्तेवामिति। नैयधिकरसयेन सङ्गतिवस्तु शब्देन*। एके हौ वा तयो वा चतुरादयों वा पदानामर्था। तानि Kanka 15

त्विति शदरायि मदानि न तान्येवेति तेन रूपेय युक्कानि,

भाग व्यास्याय दार्शन्तिके योजयति-तथवेति। रलेादि विपयानि(नी)वि० श्लेपादिसभावानि(नी) लर्थ। मद्धत्ततेजस्त्रि गुथद्विजातयो हि शब्दा' पूर्वपू्व रवि कबिसह्स श्लेष चछायया निवध्यन्ते। निबदधान्त चन्द्रादययोपमानदवेन। तथैव पदार्थरूपाणीतव नापूर्वाणि घटयितु शक्यन्त इत्यादि विक्य्तीय त प्राशन चाक्यमतुसपनीयमू। लोकस्येति न्याचष्टे-सहृदयानामिति। चमत्कृतिरितत Kanks 16

झखाइप्रपानवुद्धिरित्यर्ष। अभ्युज्िहीत इति व्यानष्टे उत्पद्यते रदयतीस्यर्य। बुद्धेरेवाकार दर्शयतस्करणेय काचिदिति। यदपि तदषि' रम्य यत् लोकस्य किचित् P 245

स्फुरितमिदमितीय बुद्धिरम्युविद्दीते। Kor L3 16

एर्चप्रदरयाभामति-B उवाटागारभिति

3 Abhinava apparently accepts the reiding of w mn the text 4 wwtaete-B 5 Repeated by A 6 Tue text reads स्रे षादिमयाणि A rcads यानि after 7 नावमो्ट्ि मटस -A 8 चन्द्रास्यावमानलन-A 9 वु्षराकार -- B IO Omneo by B

262 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

अनुगतसधि पूर्वच्छायया वस्तु तादक सुकचिरुप नियभ्बिन्यता नैव याति। इवि कारिका सराडीकृत्य पठिता। सविषय दति सय वात्कालिकचेन स्फरित इत्वथै। पर स्वादानेच्छेत्यादि द्विताय रलोकाध पूर्वापस्कारेय सह पठति। परसादानेच्छाविरतमनसो वस्तु मुकवे P 246 हति तृतीय पाद। कुत सल्वपूर्वमानयामीत्याशयेन निद्योग Kacta 17

कारिकार्या सक्तैरिति आतावेत्वचनमित्यमिपायेम व्याचके- सुरचीनामिति। एत्देव रपष्टयति-प्राक्कनेत्यादिना तेषा मिस्य देन। आाविर्भावमवीति सुजतात्वर्ष। इतीति कारिका-

Concludins शक्ञिदा रसाश्रयेर उचिता ये गुणालकाराखतशोभा या verses ता विर्भात काव्यम्। वद्यानमप्पविष्टो यो रस सैकादिकृतसदा

पर्यास्तवाकारण सेन च था शोभा तो विभर्ति । यस्मादिति" का पादुपानात्। सर्घ समीहितमिति व्युत्पत्तिकीर्तिप्रताप लन्नसमित्यर्थ। एवच सव धूमेव निग्लोकमिति कोकार्थ मात न्यास्यातम् सुटावमिरिति' ये कहोपदेशेन विनापि

1 निष्ड निधकान्-A 1 The text reads भोपयाति 3 The cexe ceads सfमा wरोण 4 निष्ण्वदारेप-A सतो- u cerrapt and reads सनेआ 5 6 प्रमादिति-B 7 guवष B, which drops the hine from here to the end of aftow 1

THE TEXT OF KAVI ALOXA-LOCANA IY 263

वयाविय पतमाज सैसिवर्ष। असिलतीष्वघासीवि भसित

हतयम। सर्वमा त्रिय सर्वधा घ हित दुर्समं जनयतीति' भाव । वियुयोदानं न दन युकतीवो हन्वज्मोविोमादोनामेव समीदि P 246 हामादननिमिसम्: विनुषाय काव्यतत्वविद । दर्शित इति स्थित.'एव सन् प्रकाशित, अपकाशितत दि वध भोरयलम्। वन्पतरणा' उपमान यस वासटमरिमा यस्येति बहुयीटि्गमों महुम्रीदि अवेसमीदितप्रासिदि काध्यादेकायता'। ततचोड विस्वरत ।

सस्ककाव्यवलनयवारमे चिर' ममुस्- कम्पं मन सु भर्पकधियां यदासीत्।

इति सब यानिधेयतमोजनोपधदार। इछ पाहुल्पेन लोको लोक- Sce Locana p 12 II 19-20 प्रसिद्ध सुमारनामययवशेन अवतती t ॥ म सुमावनापययो नाम

प्रेन भवति रैपा दि-गतृदरियेद कृतम्, यस्ायमोदार्य नहिम:" यस्ान्मच्छान्" एंपिपसासे सरयते उलाय शोक

1 *रगेनादि सबर विययमाज -A,Bamite ches lane पार्मन-B 3 नामातोति-A 4 पदमम्- 5 प्ति -B 6 -दरया-A 7 वाधादैकागया-A 8 रर-A The cext reads एदकाव्यतसविमय सपरिस 9 मसिश+A end B 1I यआवमिताहमयरिया-A 12 पकार्मिन् शाज्-B

262 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS

अनुगवमपि पूर्वेच्छायया वस्तु साहक सुकविरुप निवध्मिन्धतां1 नैव याति' । इति कारिफा लएडीकृत्य पटिता। सविषय इवि सब आतकासिततचेन स्कुरित इत्वर्ष। पर स्वादानेच्छेन्यादि विसीय रलोकार्ध पूर्डापस्कारेवा बाद फति। परसादानेच्छाविरतमनस्ो मस्तु सुकवे P 246 हति तृतीय पाद। युत रस्तपूर्वमानयामीत्याशायेन निहधोग Kanka 17 परोपनिबद्धवस्तपजोवतो वा सादित्याशशयाह-सरसवत्यनेति। कारिकार्यां खुकबेरिति आवावेकवचनमित्यमिश्ायय व्यानषे- सुकवीनामिवि'1 एवदेव स्यति-माकनेतयादिना सेपा मित्खतेन। आविमासिवाति सजतात्पर्य । इतीति वारिया- तदृतिनिस्पछेने व्यर्थ ।

Conctud ng अ्रझ्िष रसाश्नयेर उचिता मे गुणालसरामत* शञोमा या verses ता विर्मात वाय्यम। उद्यानमप्यकिष्टो यो रस सैकादिकृतस्वदा श्रयस्तककृती यो गुशानां सोकुमार्थछायावत्सोगन्व्यभसृतीनामलक्वार पर्यासत्ाकारण सेन क या शोभा सा विर्भात। सस्मादिति' काव्यादुधानाद। सर्घ समीदितमिति द्युत्त्तिकीर्तिप्रताप तचएमित्यर्ष। एवच सब पुरमैव विततयोकमिति शीकार्ध मात व्याख्यातम। सरततमिरिति ये कष्ागदेशेन विनापि

। वियस जिशकाय-A 2 The text teads Aoutta 3 The cext reads सफfसना कश 4 निक्सदारय-A 5 छसो-A, Bies corropt and reads समeT 6 पममादिति 7 एकिक B. whh drop t I ac from here to the cod of l fwa 1

764 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS प्रयन्ध, वस्माददरणायमिति लोक परवर्तमानो दरपते। लोकछापरम प्रश्वनीय। र्रात्' साखोहित प्रयोजनसंपतये वदतप्राव्यधोनृजापवर्धनाअरवाद् भयकारा सनामनिवन्धन पुर्वत्ति: वदमित्रामेग्ाइ-य्रानन्दवर्घन हति। प्रचित शम्दे नेवदेव प्रभित मसदेव नामभ्रवग केपाविभिरृति परोति। तन्मा रमर्यविजुम्मित नाल गणानीयम्। निभ्रेयमयोजनादेव हि धतात् शोकपि रामायो यदि निर्वाते किमेतावता प्रयोजन मध्यम्यक्वमेव स्वात् । तम्मादर्िना भहरपर्क नाम प्रयितमिति' सिरम्।

सुटीकृतार्थ ने चित्यवदि प्रसरदायिनीम्। तुर्या राक्िमद् ब्दे प्रत्यच्ार्थनिदर्शनीम्॥ मानन्द्वधन विवेक विकासिकाख्या

व्यापार्यता भिनवद्युभविलोचन तन्।

मरे दुराजमतिस स्कृतनुदिलेरा'।

सेवारसो व्यरचयद ध्वनिवस्ुपत्तिम्॥

Om tted by B 2 मालोषिन-B 3 वशान्:A 4 को रिरोनान - A 5पयोन-B 6 साथ्ितमिति-A 7 प्रोमग्तिमिषि- 8 वभक्-A

INDEY OF VERSES AND CITATIONS 267

सुतप्छावा ममारसय 254 वाद्यणाकरपरपर 254

जरा नेम मूर् भृ ६° (Abhinava s) a54 सम्याआरना प्रमेश ये (Il t3, p. 83)=48 ध्में वार्ये प कामे व (cited an Sarasvati kintha' ad 'n t55) 250 धवनेर्य सगुषीभूव (Iv :, p 324) 253 नारायण नमस्कल (Mahabharata) 252 बहूना जमनाम वे (Bb-Gica vi 19) 251 भथविद्दलरइरो- (Abhnava s) 253 भावानचेतनानपि (p 223, 1 19) 249 रमादिमय एवस्पिन् (IV 5, P 237) 252 वसन्तमसालिपरपरो (Abhinava's) 54 वस्तुत शिवमये हृदि 26, शब्द सकेवित प्राहु 257

मजनातकविरसी 265 सल्काव्य कर्तु या जञातु (III 46, p 431) 245 सहृह्यमन प्रीतये (: r,p 3) 245 एपरोकृताथेवेचितर 265 The Kankas and the Sanskrit chayas of Prakrit vetses in ch iv cired and descarsed tn the course of the com mentary, ate not indexed here

266 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT PORTICS

INDEX OF PROPER NAMES ETC.

(The references are to pagts)

अनुकमणी 25t भनृ हरि 263 अभिनन्गुस 264 भई न्दुरज 264 आजन्तवर्ष न 264 भारत or भारतम्य २51, 251 काष्यालोक 264 मधुमपन 259 कारिका 255. 259. 260, 262 महामादेभर or माहेभर -65 कारिकाकार *49 राधावल्भ 256

3ष 251 लोचन 264

कृमप 250 यमुदेव, यासुदेव 25t TTNT 250, 253 पसिकार 245, 249 अन्धकार 251, 264 पत्ति इतियन्थ 249, 250, जना्न :59 160, 262

ज्योविहोम 263 बधियि 250 न्यास 25। वश्वालोफ (आनन्दवधनकृत) 25। भीसिद्धिचेल 264 माशूइद 250 सेन्धवभाषा 259

INDEX OF VERSES AND CITATIONS (The vejerences are to pages)

सनन्दवर्धनकिनै कविकामि" 264

सपें जये मनववां (Magha Iv, 47) 257

INDEX OF VERSES AND CITATIONS 267

सुसम्शावासमारसर्य 254 चाइखए करपरंपर 254' जराजीएंश रीरेउम्मिन =55 जरा नेरयं मूर्मि भृ प° (Abbonava's) 254 सम्पाद्ञानो प्रनेश ये (11. 13, p. 83) 248 धर्मे चायें च कामे(eied in Sarasvari-kintha" ad Hi. 155) 250 ध्वनेय: मगुणीभूत® (w.I, p. 124) 253 नारायरां नमसडस (Mahabhirata) 252 बहना जन्मनामग्ते (Bh-Giti vuI. 1g) 25s भभ्नविद्दलरकरो (Abhmnara's) 253 भावानचंतनानपि (p.223, 1. 19) =49 रसादिमय एवस्पन् (I. 5, P. 237) 352 दमन्तमतालिपरंपरो (Abhanava's) 54 बस्तुतः शिवमयें हृदि 265 शर्ब्द मंकेहितं प्रादु 257

सबनात्विरसी 265 सन्कान्यं कर्तु पा ज्ञातूं (1 46, p. 23145 सदस्यमन प्रीतये( I, P.3) =45 स्पुटोकृतार्थवेितंर 265 The Kankas and the Sausknt chayas of Praktit vetses in ch. wv, cited and discussed in the course of the com- mentary, are not indexed here.