11. CHAPTER EIGHT KUNTAKA' S VAKROKTIJĪVITA

CHAPTER EIGHT KUNTAKA' S VAKROKTIJĪVITA

In the preceding examination of the works of Mukulabhatta

and PratIharenduraja, w we have seen that Anandavardhana's

revolutionary reconceptualization of the nature of poetry and

the imperatives of poetic analysis provoked a negative

response from defenders of established theories of language.

We have also seen, however, that this negative response is

highly selective. Only one aspect of Anandavardhana's

argument is singled out for criticism: his insistence that

what he calls dhvani lies entirely outside the range of

phenomena dealt with by earlier theorists of both language in

general and poetic language in particular, and requires the

acceptance of a previously unrecognized, specifically poetic,

mode of signification (vyañjana). Other central features of

Anandavardhana's new approach to literary analysis (the

predominance of rasa in aesthetically effective literature,

the importation into poetic analysis of a Mimamsa-derived,

teleological model of textual coherence along with many of the

terms and concepts employed by the Mimamsakas in the analysis

of Vedic texts, etc.) seem for the most part to be accepted

without reservation even by Anandavardhana's critics. In

their works, and in those of most subsequent Kashmiri

Ālamkārikas up to the time of Mammata (c. 1100 AD), attention

is focussed primarily on the linguistic/philosophical issues

raised by Anandavardhana's claims for vyañjana as a distinct

semantic function.

390

391

Kuntaka, the author whose work we will now turn to

examine, represents the one major exception to this tendency

during this period. He takes no clear stand on the question

of the explicability of dhvani or vyañjana as cases of more

widely recognized semantic or cognitive functions (such as

figurative expression or inference); in general, he avoids the

linguistic and philosophical arguments which absorb so much of

the attention of his predecessors and contemporaries.

His work, to a degree unequalled in the entire history of

Alamkārasastra, concentrates on the criticism of specific

literary works. In this respect, of course, he is following

up on and extending Anandavardhana's own preliminary efforts

in the area of literary criticism. However, as we shall see,

Kuntaka's critical efforts and his examination of the full

range of techniques employed in the creation of poetry calls

into question and ultimately undercuts the central pillar of

Anandavardhana's aesthetic theory, the unifocality (ideally

the rasa-focality) of all coherent literary works. Kuntaka is

the only figure in this period to seriously (albeit tacitly)

challenge the teleological model of literary aesthetics

devised by Ānandavardhana.

Kuntaka's Relation to Abhinavagupta

The date of the Vakroktijivita, Kuntaka's only known

work, can be fixed with certainty between the middle of the

tenth century (since it quotes extensively from the works of

the early tenth century dramatist Rajasekhara) and the middle

392

of the eleventh (the approximate date of Mahimabhatta, who

quotes it) . The relative priority of Kuntaka and

Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 AD) is more difficult to establish with

certainty (as neither quotes or unambiguously refers to the

other), and has been a focus of dispute among modern scholars.

Some, most notably S.K. De, take Abhinavagupta's failure

to respond to Kuntaka's ideas as sufficient to indicate that

he was unfamiliar with the Vakroktijivita, a work which "if

written before Abhinava's time, ought not to have been, from

its important nature and content, thus entirely ignored by a

rival theorist. "1 Others, chiefly K. Krishnamoorthy, find

evidence for Kuntaka's priority; while there are no explicit

references to Kuntaka or the Vakroktijivita to be found in

Abhinavagupta's works, there is a passage the Locana (his

commentary on the Dhvanyaloka) and another in the

AbhinavabharatI (his commentary on Bharata's Natyasastra) that

discuss the aesthetically effective use of such grammatical

features as gender and number in terms which seem to echo

Kuntaka's treatment of the same topics and adduce several of

the same examples, strongly suggesting that he was familiar

1De, S.K., History of Sanskrit Poetics (Firma KLM, 1976 [second. ed.]), Vol. I, pp. 128. Presumably because he is generally less prone to offer detailed critiques of fellow Ālamkārikas, Kuntaka's failure to refer to Abhinavagupta is not taken to be similarly probative in setting their relative dates. Cf. also S.K. De ed., VakroktijIvita (Firma KLM, 1961 [third ed.]), Introduction, pp. xii-xv. Kane feels the evidence is insufficient to draw any definite conclusion, but leans toward De's view (P.V. Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics, Motilal Banarsidass, 1971 [fourth ed.], pp. 235-6).

393

with the latter's work.2

To these two passages which seem to indicate

Abhinavagupta's acquaintance with the VakroktijIvita I can add

a third: in his commentary on Anandavardhana's discussion of

the verse "praptasrīr esa ... " ("Having already obtained

Śri ... " -- cf. Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., p. 261 and above, Chapter

Four, p. 129) he refers to and refutes the view that the

alamkāra in the verse is not rūpaka ("metaphorical

identification") as Anandavardhana claims, but vyatireka

("contrast").3 In the extant Alamkara literature the only

author who explains this verse as a case of vyatireka is

Kuntaka.4 Kuntaka himself notes that his interpretation of

the verse departs from the general understanding of the verse

as a suggested rupaka, so it is very unlikely that he is

following any previous author in labelling it a case of

vyatireka. It seems clear, then, that Abhinavagupta's comment

refers to Kuntaka's reading of the verse. This passage, along

with the two adduced by Krishnamoorthy, would tend to

establish a strong presumption in favor of Kuntaka's priority.

It remains to be explained, however, why Abhinavagupta,

if he was aware of Kuntaka's work, should almost totally

refrain, as he does, from discussing or criticizing his views,

2Kuntaka, Vakroktijīvita, K. Krishnamoorthy ed. and tr. (Karnatak University, 1977), Introduction, pp. xiv-xvii.

3Locana on Dhvanyaloka 2.27, p. 262.

Vakroktijīvita 3.48 -- Krishnamoorthy's ed., pp. 221-2.

394

when he gives such extensive and detailed critiques of the

views of other critics of Anandavardhana's work. For

Krishnamoorthy, Abhinavagupta's silence is easily explicable;

Kuntaka is not (despite the claims of De and others to the

contrary) an opponent of Anandavardhana. "That Kuntaka is an

anti-dhvani theorist is a canard of modern scholars which does

not have any firm basis ... Kuntaka has accepted the dhvani

principle without any reservations, and hence Abhinavagupta

saw no need to criticize him. "5 As we shall see, this

argument overlooks several crucial areas of divergence between

Anandavardhana's and Kuntaka's views.

Kuntaka does not, like Mukulabhatta, Pratīhārendurāja,

and others (e.g. Bhattanayaka -- cf. below, Chapter Nine, pp.

458ff), explicitly challenge Anandavardhana's arguments for

the existence of suggestion as an independent, specifically

poetic, mode of verbal expression -- he does not explicitly

endorse or support them either -- indeed one can find in his

work no direct reference at all to the controversy currently

raging over the existence and nature of dhvani and its

relation to recognized modes of linguistic expression.

Abhinavagupta can overlook Kuntaka's work not because he is a

supporter of Anandavardhana, but rather because he simply has

nothing to say one way or the other on what has become the

major point of contention between Anandavardhana's supporters

and opponents.

5Ibid., Introduction, pp. xvi-xvii.

395

Kuntaka's silence on the dhvani question has provoked a

certain amount of dissension regarding his attitude toward

Anandavardhana's theories both among later Alamkarikas and

among modern scholars. Jayaratha (c. 1200), in his commentary

on the Alamkarasarvasva of Ruyyaka (c. 1150), and Vidyadhara

(c.1300), in his Ekavali, both place Kuntaka among those who

would explain dhvani as a type of figurative expression

(bhakti), and De takes the same e view.6 Krishnamoorthy

decidedly rejects such an understanding of Kuntaka's position,

arguing, as we have seen, that Kuntaka is fundamentally in

agreement with Anandavardhana; he finds support for this view

in the remarks of Samudrabandha (c. 1300), another commentator

on the Alamkarasarvasva, and in Mahimabhatta's contention that

Kuntaka's vakrokti is nothing but a thinly disguised variant

of Ānandavardhana's dhvani.7

The inability of these respondents, both ancient and

modern, to arrive at any consensus regarding Kuntaka's

appraisal of Anandavardhana's dhvani theory stems from his

failure to deal with the issue directly. This total avoidance

of what had become the most pressing and controversial

question for the Alamkarikas of his day is one of the most

6CE. Ruyyaka, Alamkarasarvasva (with the commentary of Jayaratha), Kavyamala 35 (Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1982 [reprint]), p. 8; Vidyādhara, Ekāvali (Osmania University, 1981), p. 47; De, op. cit., Vol.2, pp. 191-192.

7VakroktijIvita, ed. Krishnamoorthy, cit., Introduction, pp. xxi-xxii, xxix-xxx. Cf. also Mahimabhatta, op.

Vyaktiviveka (Kashi Sanskrit Series 121, Varanasi, 1982 [third ed.]), p. 142.

396

surprising features of Kuntaka's work, although it has been

largely overlooked by these scholars in their efforts to

definitively situate him on one or the other side of the

dhvani controversy. Given the overwhelming, indeed almost

exclusive, prominence of the dispute over dhvani among the

Ālamkārikas of Kashmir during this period, Kuntaka's failure

to confront this question certainly cannot be attributed to an

oversight on his part; he has deliberately chosen to ignore

the central aesthetic question of his day. Kuntaka departs

from his predecessors (both Anandavardhana and his opponents),

not by offering some new analysis of the question of dhvani or

"suggested" meaning more generally, but by attempting to

marginalize the question altogether and to move the study of

poetry in a different direction.

Vakrokti

Kuntaka's general label for the entire range of factors

(phonemic, morphological, and semantic) which impart beauty to

poetic texts is vakrokti -- "oblique expression". It is the

"obliqueness" of poetic language, its deviation from everyday

usage, that serves as the basis for its beauty. Kuntaka's

analysis of poetry consists primarily of an examination of the

various types of "obliqueness" employed by poets at all levels

of language.

In this presentation of obliqueness of expression as the

basic principle of poetic beauty, De sees an attempt to

revive, in a somewhat modified form, the alamkara-based

397

poetics of the pre-Ānandavardhana Ālamkārikas (chiefly Bhamaha

and Udbhata) .8 There is a certain plausibility to this view.

It is from Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara (2.85-86) that the term

vakrokti is drawn. For Bhamaha, vakrokti is the general

principle of figuration which underlies all alamkäras (rather

than the name of a particular alamkara, as it is for Vamana

[4.3.8] and Rudrata [2.14-17] ) ;9 Kuntaka uses the term in the

same way. Kuntaka draws on Bhamaha's remarks (1.15-17) to

support his argument for the co-equal role of word and meaning

in the composition of good poetry.10 His discussion of

sentence-level obliqueness (vakya-vakratā) consists largely of

a catalogue of meaning-based alamkāras fashioned very much on

the model of those given by Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata, etc .; 11

his analysis of phoneme-level obliqueness is similarly

modelled on these authors' treatment Of sound-based

alamkāras. 12

8Cf. S.K. De ed., VakroktijIvita, op. cit., Introduction, pp. xlvi-xlvii, " ... Kuntaka, as a follower of Udbhata and the Alamkara school, started a vigorous but short- Bhamaha,

lived reactionary movement which wanted to go back to the old position in a somewhat original way by an attempt to reconcile new ideas with the old;" and p. lx, "What Kuntaka really intended to do was, no doubt, systematizing [sic.] and extending the alamkara-theory of Bhamaha and Udbhata and give [sic.] a longer lease of life to the already doomed Alamkāra school."

9Cf. above, Chapter Six, pp. 276-277.

10Vakroktijīvita, ed. Krishnamoorthy, p. 9.

11Ibid., pp. 169-244.

12Ibid., pp. 74-82.

398

On the other hand, Kuntaka's treatment of vakrokti is, as

Krishnamoorthy notes,13 in many respects heavily influenced

by Anandavardhana's work. A great many of Anandavardhana's

example verses are re-used in Kuntaka's work. On occasion he

specifically notes parallels between the types of vakrokti he

discusses and the types of dhvani dealt with by

Anandavardhana. 14 His treatment of vakrokti at the level of

the episode (prakarana) or the complete composition

(prabandha) is very clearly informed and inspired by

Anandavardhana's groundbreaking examination of the techniques

by which poets introduce aesthetic coherence into entire

compositions and his preliminary forays into the area of

literary criticism.

It is difficult, then, to conclusively identify Kuntaka

as either a follower of the alamkära-based aesthetic of such

pre-Anandavardhana Ālamkārikas as Bhamaha and Udbhata or a

follower of Anandavardhana's own dhvani-based mode of literary

analysis. Kuntaka construes his vakrokti as broadly as

possible, broadly enough to comprehend the alamkaras and other

formal features of poetic language dealt with by the earlier

13Krishnamoorthy, K., The Dhvanyaloka and Its Critics, Mysore: Kavyalaya, 1968, pp. 260, 264-5.

14E.g. Vakroktijivita 2.10-12 (p. 89); here, in his discussion of that type of paryaya-vakrata ("obliqueness in [choice among] synonyms") -- in which the terms the poet chooses to describe his subject are crafted so as to convey, by paranomasia, a second, related sense -- Kuntaka notes that this variety of vakrokti is equivalent to Anandavardhana's sabdaśaktimula-dhvani.

399

Ālamkārikas as well as Ānandavardhana's dhvani. In doing so

he, characteristically, circumvents the conflict between these

two rival approaches to literary analysis, incorporating as

much as he can of the insights of both Anandavardhana and his

predecessors under the all-inclusive rubric of vakrokti.

The term vakrokti, as Kuntaka employs it, designates not

any particular kind of formal element or any specifiable

semantic technique employed by poets, but rather can refer to

any factor of any kind which gives beauty to a literary

composition. Vakrokti comprises such a wide variety of

phenomena that it would be difficult to give any precise

characterization of it. And, indeed, Kuntaka does not attempt

to do so; he does not provide a general definition of vakrokti

at all, but only gives a list of sub-types.15 Rather than

attempt to divide this vakrokti into sub-classes on this basis

of distinctions in the process by which it is conveyed (as,

for instance, Anandavardhana does in his classification of

dhvani) Kuntaka provides a categorization of vakrokti based on

the type of linguistic unit which manifests it. He divides

vakrokti into six main classes: "obliqueness" (vakratā)

operating at the level of 1) the phoneme (varna), 2) stem

(pada-pūrvārdha16), 3) suffix (pada-uttarārdha), 4) sentence

(vakya), 5) episode (prakarana), and 6) composition

15Ibid., p. 26.

16Literally, "the prior half of the word", i.e. the nominal or verbal base to which suffixes are added.

400

(prabandha).

In discussing these six classes of vakrokti and their

various subdivisions, Kuntaka usually follows the same

pattern, avoiding general definitions wherever possible and

substituting a list of further subtypes or a set of examples

Such definitions as he does provide are often virtually

tautologous: e.g "Obliqueness of adjectives [visesana-vakratā]

is that in which the beauty of an action or active factor

[karaka]17 appears through the power of an adjective, "18 or

"Obliqueness of tense [käla-vakrata] is that in which a tense

becomes beautiful due to its extreme appropriateness. "19

This tendency to avoid substantive definitions of vakrokti and

its sub-types seems to stem from Kuntaka's intention to keep

the concept of vakrokti as broad and all inclusive as

possible; any attempt to characterize vakrokti and its

subtypes more precisely might result in the exclusion of some

poetic techniques or devices from the scope of vakrokti, and

Kuntaka clearly wishes to avoid such exclusion. Vakrokti, for

him, comprises any aesthetic device employed by poets, for any

purpose, at any level of language.

Kuntaka's varna-vakratā, obliqueness in the use of

phonemes, is, as already noted, modelled on the class of

sound-based figures (sabdālamkāras) dealt with by earlier

17Cf. above, Chapter Three, p. 78.

18Vakroktijivita, ed. Krishnamoorthy, op. cit., p. 96.

19Ibid., p. 113.

401

theorists. Apart from relabeling these figures as "vakrokti",

Kuntaka has little to add to his predecessors' treatment of

this topic, and his own discussion of it is quite brief. He

reiterates Anandavardhana's proscriptions against overly

repetitive alliteration20 and against the alliterative use of

"harsh" sounds, 21 but, significantly, he does not, like

Anandavardhana, specifically link these prohibitions to the

requirements of rasa.22

Kuntaka's discussion of obliqueness in the use of nominal

or verbal stems (pada-purvardha-vakrata) and suffixes (pada-

uttarardha-vakratā) is more complicated and less clearly

modelled on the work of earlier Alamkärikas. Under the first

of these headings he discusses a wide range of devices

manifested in poets' lexical choices, some involving the

selection of particular lexical items for their capacity to

convey some special connotation or unstated meaning above and

beyond their literal senses, and some in which sheer

morphological oddity seems to be valued for its own sake.

In his typology of the suggestive and connotative uses of

lexical choice, Kuntaka includes several varieties which are

clearly modelled on one or another of the types of suggestion

dealt with in the Dhvanyaloka. His "obliqueness in the use of

20Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., pp. 218-19; cf. above, Chapter Four, p. 175.

21Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., p. 303; cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 175-176.

22Vakroktijīvita, Krishnamoorthy's ed., pp. 78-9.

402

conventional terms23n (rūdhi-vakratā) corresponds very

closely to Anandavardhana' s arthantarasamkramita-vacya dhvani.

Among the examples of rudhi-vakrata he includes both of

Anandavardhana's examples of this type of dhvani (including

the familiar verse "snigdhasyamalakanti ... " ["The clouds, with

cranes wheeling against them ... "], where, in the phrase "I am

Rama", the word "Rama" serves not to identify the speaker but

to connote the great sufferings he has endured in the

past).24 It has already been observed that Kuntaka treats

Ānandavardhana's sabdasaktimula dhvani as a type of paryaya-

vakratā ("obliqueness in the use of synonyms" -- cf. above, p.

398). Kuntaka's samvrti-vakratā ("obliqueness in the use of

concealment") -- making reference to an entity or property by

a pronominal or other indefinite expression (rather than

designating it specifically) in order to suggest some special

quality -- is dealt with by Anandavardhana as a type of

subordinated suggestion.25

However, Kuntaka describes other varieties of pada-

pürvärdha-vakrata in which the communication of unstated

meaning plays no role at all. The use of forms containing

augments or infixes, of compounds which contain within them

nominal or participial suffixes, of verbs formed from nominal

23Proper names, as well as other terms whose meanings are not etymologically derivable.

24VakroktijIvita, op. cit., Dhvanyaloka, pp. 167-170 and above, Chapter Four, pp. 200-201. pp. 83-4. Cf. also

25Ibid., pp. 98-101. Cf. Dhvanyaloka, pp. 476-77.

403

stems rather than verb roots, and of other such grammatically

unusual constructions are included among the subtypes of this

class of vakrokti.26 Kuntaka values such forms not for any

special shade of meaning they impart but, seemingly, simply

because they are atypical -- because their sheer oddity lends

a striking quality to poetry in which they are employed.

In some varieties of pada-pūrvārdha-vakratā both

suggestive and non-suggestive uses are included. For example,

in discussing "obliqueness of gender" (linga-vakratā) Kuntaka

examines three ways in which the choice of words bearing a

particular grammatical gender can impart beauty to poetry.

The designation of the same referent by two or more words

bearing different genders will lend beauty to a verse.27 In

the case of words which may optionally bear any gender, use of

the feminine form (rather than masculine or neuter) will

similarly impart beauty, due to the great degree of

"tenderness" thought to attach to this gender.28 Or, words

of a particular gender may impart beauty when they are

peculiarly appropriate to the overall meaning expressed by a

verse, as in the following example:

O fearful one, out of pity, these creepers [f.], unable to speak, showed me, with their branches whose shoots were bent, the path by which you had been carried away by

26Ibid., pp. 101-104.

27Ibid., p. 105.

28Ibid., p. 106.

404

the Raksasa. 29

Here Rama, returning from Lanka with the rescued Sita, points

out to her the path by which she was taken when seized by

Ravana. The creepers, whose bent shoots showed Rama the

direction in which she had been taken, are fancifully imagined

to have consciously assisted him by pointing the way she had

gone. According to Kuntaka, the use of the feminine word latā

to refer to the creepers emphasizes their sympathy for the

abducted Sita and thereby helps to explain their eagerness to

assist Rama in rescuing her, and is thus specially appropriate

to the fanciful sense of the verse.

The first two types of linga-vakrata do not depend for

their effectiveness on their ability to convey some unstated

sense. The application of words of different gender to a

single referent creates a seeming anomaly and thereby imparts

a striking quality to a verse in which it is employed;

preference for the feminine gender even when others are

grammatically possible is based on its intrinsic "tenderness",

quite apart from any capacity it may have to suggest an

additional meaning. Only the third type of linga-vakratā

depends for its effectiveness on the suggestive capacity of a

particular gender.

29Tbid., p. 107. tvam raksasā bhīru yato 'panītā tam margam etah krpaya lata me/ adarsayan vaktum asaknuvantyah sākhābhir avarjitapallavabhih// (Kālidāsa, Raghuvamsa 13.24)

405

"Obliqueness in the use of suffixes" (pada-uttarārdha-

vakratā) similarly comprises both constructions which are

valued for their intrinsically beautiful or striking quality

and those which are valued for their capacity to convey

unstated meanings. Among the sub-varieties of this type of

vakrokti Kuntaka includes the use of suffixes which are

appended to other suffixes (pratyayantara-vakrata) 30 and the

transposition of grammatical person (purusa-vakratā -- e.g.

when a speaker refers to himself in the third person) ;31 such

usages, due, respectively, to their morphological or syntactic

oddity, seemed to be desired for their intrinsically striking

quality. Other sub-varieties involve the suggestive use of

suffixes -- for example, "obliqueness of tense" (kala-vakrata),

as an example of which Kuntaka gives the following Prakrit

verse:

Everywhere the roads, even and uneven alike, movement on them getting slower and slower, impassable even to desires.32 will soon become

Here, Kuntaka explains, a traveller separated from his beloved

anticipates the impending rains which will make it impossible

for him to return to her; his anticipation of their enforced

30Ibid., pp. 119-20.

31Ibid., p. 118.

32Ibid., p. 114. samavisamanivisesa samamtao mamdamamdasamcārā/ airā hohimti pahā manorahānam pi dullamgha// (Hala, Sattasal 7.73) The example is borrowed from Anandavardhana, who quotes the same verse as an example of the suggestive use of tense -- cf. Dhvanyaloka, p. 356.

406

separation during the coming rainy season (expressed by the

verb's future-tense suffix) intensifies his present longing

and thus serves to heighten the vipralambha-srīgara ("love in

separation") conveyed by the verse.

As with pada-purvardha-vakrata, some types of pada-

uttarardha-vakrata have both suggestive and non-suggestive

uses. For example, "obliqueness of number" (samkhya-vakratā)

includes the co-referential use of words whose suffixes bear

different grammatical numbers (singular, dual or plural), as

well as the substitution of one grammatical number for another

in order to convey an unstated meaning, as in the following

verse:

Again and again you touch her trembling glance as it shifts to the corner of her eye; you sound sweetly, hovering near her ear, as if telling something in secret; although she strikes at you with her hands, you taste her lip, the essence of pleasure: we, because we seek the truth, have failed, but you, O bee, are successful.33

Here the speaker (Dusyanta), by referring to himself in the

plural, emphasizes his exclusion from intimacy with Śakuntala,

thereby heightening the contrast between himself and the bee

and intensifying the vipralambha-srngara conveyed by the

verse.

Kuntaka's examination of sentence-level obliqueness

(vakya-vakrata) deals mainly with two topics. As noted above,

the bulk of this examination consists of a catalogue of

meaning-based poetic figures (arthalamkaras) on the model of

33Ibid., pp. 116-17; cf. above, Chapter Four, pp. 177-178.

407

those given by Bhamaha and the other pre-Ānandavardhana

Ālamkārikas. However, under the heading of vakya-vakratā

Kuntaka includes, in addition to these figures, "obliqueness

of subject" (vastu-vakrata) -- poetic effect achieved through

the selection of particular subjects for description. The

aesthetic effectiveness of sentences depends not only on the

mode of description employed therein (i.e. the use of

particular alamkaras), but on the entities, objects, or

situations one chooses to describe. The subjects of

description chosen by poets may impart vakrata to their verses

either due to their natural beauty (svabhava-saukumārya) , 34

or to their ability to kindle some rasa (rasa-uddīpana-

sāmarthya) .35 As we shall see (below, pp. 423ff) this

treatment of rasa as only one possible goal among others

toward which poets may direct their efforts is characteristic

of Kuntaka; it is an attitude which sets him apart not only

from Anandavardhana but from virtually the entire post-

Dhvanyaloka Alamkara tradition in Kashmir, supporters and

opponents of the dhvani-theory alike.

Literary Criticism in the Vakroktijivita

It is in his discussion "obliqueness" at the level of the

episode and the whole composition (prakarana- and prabandha-

vakrata, respectively) that Kuntaka makes his most concerted

efforts in the area of literary criticism. That Kuntaka's

34Ibid., pp. 125ff.

35Ibid., pp. 141ff.

408

interest in the detailed analysis of specific literary works

is unequalled in the entire history of Alamkārasāstra has

already been noted by Krishnamoorthy:

In the whole range of Sanskrit poetical theory, we do not have anyone who can be termed a practical literary critic in the modern sense of the term except Kuntaka ... None of [the earlier Ālamkärikas] even attempt the task of reviewing or appreciating a literary work as a whole, analyzing the various elements that work up to a unity of impression ... Kuntaka indeed is the only writer who attempted this task of literary analysis, appreciation and appraisal from a total perspective, of critical

almost all the major poets and playwrights in classical Sanskrit literature.36

Kuntaka examines a variety of techniques employed by poets to

give coherence and aesthetic impact to their compositions and,

in doing so, comments on the overall stucture and intent of

many of the more important works of the Sanskrit poetic

tradition in a way that is extremely rare in Alamkārasāstra

generally.

In doing so, of course, he is following Anandavardhana's

lead. As we have seen, 37 Ānandavardhana, because his

teleological approach to poetic analysis required that the

features of any literary work be evaluated in terms of their

capacity to further the overall goal of the entire work rather

than their intrinsic beauty, was led to examine and evaluate

existing literary works as wholes in a way which had no

precedent in Sanskrit literary theory. While Anandavardhana's

critical remarks on existing works are relatively few in

36Ibid., Introduction, pp. xxxv-xxxvi.

37Cf. above, Chapter Six, pp. 260ff.

409

number, they thus represent a major innovation in the practice

of Alamkāraśāstra. Kuntaka makes this kind of criticism of

specific literary compositions as wholes a major component of

his work.

As he does this it is clear that he has the example of

Anandavardhana in mind; indeed, he discusses some of the very

same cases dealt with in the Dhvanyaloka. One of the

varieties of prakarana-vakrata mentioned by Kuntaka is the

arrangement of the episodes of a work such that each is

closely connected to those preceding and following it and

irrelevant episodes are avoided; as an example of the failure

to achieve such an arrangement, he gives the erotic episode

between Duryodhana and his. wife in Act Two of Bhattanarayana's

Venīsamhāra.38 Like Anandavardhana before him, Kuntaka

contends that this episode is entirely out of keeping with the

rest of the work. The play as whole deals with a massive war

in which Duryodhana, his brothers, and many other relatives,

friends, etc. will ultimately be killed; in such a situation,

Duryodhana's jealousy of his wife and his subsequent romantic

dalliance with her are nothing but a senseless digression.

Again echoing Anandavardhana, Kuntaka argues that the poet has

introduced such an episode solely to conform to the rules of

plot-construction given in Bharata's Natyasastra, without

regard for the incoherence it produces in his work.

38Ibid., p. 274; cf. also Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., pp. 336- 40 and above, Chapter Six, pp. 260-263.

410

Anandavardhana discussed the need for poets who base

their plots on existing stories to alter these stories to meet

the requirements of the rasa they wish to evoke, inventing new

episodes where necessary. 39 Along with other examples of

such alteration, he mentioned the works of Kalidasa; while he

did not refer to it specifically, one of the examples he

presumably had in mind was the play Abhijñanasakuntala, in

which Kalidasa explains King Dusyanta's rejection of Śakuntala

(who carries his unborn child) by inventing the story of a

curse which causes him to forget her. Kuntaka describes the

invention of an episode which enhances the rasa of a work as

another type of prakarana-vakrata, and, as an example,

discusses Kalidasa's alteration of the epic story of Sakuntalā

in composing his play.40 Kuntaka feels that in the version

of the story found in the Mahabharata (Poona ed., 1.62-69)

Dusyanta's rejection of Sakuntala is not sufficiently

accounted for, and appears as nothing more than an act of

senseless cruelty. Had Kalidasa simply retold the story as it

was known to him, the ability of the play to convey the rasa

of love in separation (vipralambha-srīgāra) would be impaired.

By inventing the story of the curse, Kalidāsa explains

Dusyanta's failure to acknowledge Śakuntala without making him

into an unsympathetic character and is able, by portraying the

39Dhvanyaloka, op. cit., pp. 335-336; cf. also above, Chapter Six, pp. 267-268.

40Vakroktijīvita, op. cit., pp. 249-251.

411

great remorse and pangs of separation suffered by Dusyanta

when the curse is ended and he realizes what he has done to

Sakuntala, to greatly intensify the intended rasa of his play.

Prakarana-vakratā, as Kuntaka explains it, comprises a

variety of techniques employed by poets in the construction

and arrangement of episodes in their works; some depend for

their effectiveness on their ability to intensify the rasa of

a work, others do not. Examples of the former include the

invention or alteration of episodes so as to eliminate

elements in one's source-narrative which detract from the

intended rasa of one's work and the construction of a single

episode in which the primary rasa of one's work achieves an

intensity not equalled elsewhere. The first is exemplified by

the curse-episode in Kalidāsa's s Abhijmanasakuntala; as

illustrations of the second Kuntaka gives the following. two

examples.

In the fourth act of Kalidasa's play Vikramorvasiya, the

king Pururavas, mistakenly believing that his lover, the

divine UrvasI, has deserted him in a fit of jealousy, is

driven to the point of insanity by the pain of separation.

The extended depiction of the king's madness conveys, with the

greatest possible intensity, the vipralambha-srīgāra which is

the primary rasa of the work. In the eighteenth chapter of

Bharavi's Kiratarjuniya the Pandava hero Arjuna, who has gone

to the Himalayas to practice austerities in the hope of

acquiring divine weapons, engages in battle, a alone and

412

unarmed, with Siva himself and, seizing hold of the god, lifts

and suspends him in midair. This spectacular feat brings to

a peak the vira- ("heroic") rasa which the work is intended to

convey. In both of these cases the primary rasa, which has

been introduced and developed elsewhere in the work, is

brought to a unique pitch of intensity in a single episode;

this episode thus serves as the emotional climax of the work

in question.41

However, Kuntaka describes other varieties of prakarana-

vakratā in which rasa plays no role at all. It is difficult

to give a general characterization of these non-rasa-based

modes of prakarana-vakratā; some seem to be valued for their

capacity to produce coherence and unity in the plot of a work,

others for their anomalous and intrinsically striking quality.

One of the types of prakarana-vakrata Kuntaka discusses

is the construction of separate episodes of a work such that

they are mutually connected and one assists another.42 For

example, in the first act of Bhavabhuti's Uttararamacarita,

Rama and his pregnant queen Sita divert themselves by viewing

paintings depicting scenes from their own lives. Sītā

questions Rama about one painting and is told that it depicts

him, in his youth, acquiring the use of the divine Jrmbhaka

weapon; Räma promises that her own children will likewise

acquire the use of this weapon. Subsequently Rama, hearing

41Ibid., pp. 266-8.

42Ibid., pp. 252-255.

413

that his subjects suspect that Sīta was unfaithful to him

while held captive by Ravana and fearing the appearance of

impropriety, reluctantly forces her into exile. She is taken

in by the sage Valmiki and bears twin sons, Kusa and Lava.

Years later, Rama undertakes the performance of the horse-

sacrifice. In Act Five of the play, Lava, now a young man,

encounters and does battle, single-handed, with the army

guarding Rama's sacrificial horse; in the course of the battle

he disables the opposing army by means of the Jrmbhaka weapon,

an act which ultimately facilitates his recognition as Rama's

son. Bhavabhuti has used the picture-viewing episode in Act

One to foreshadow and to prepare the audience for this later

incident. The creation of connections between disparate

episodes in this way is one kind of prakarana-vakratā.

Another plot-related mode of prakarana-vakrata is the

construction of episodes required by genre-convention in such

a way that they further the story of the work as a whole.43

Works of particular genres are conventionally expected to

contain certain standard episodes; a mahakavya, for example,

is expected to contain descriptions of, among other things,

cities, battles, royal assemblies, sunset, moonrise, and so

on.44 Such descriptions, Kuntaka contends, ought not to be

43Ibid., pp. 262ff.

44Lists of such episodes (varying somewhat from one another) are given by several of the early Alamkārikas -- cf. Bhamaha, Kavyalamkara 1.19ff; Dandin, Rudrata, Kavyalamkara, 16.7ff. Kavyadarsa 1.16ff;

414

treated as self-contained units, but should connect with and

advance the overall plot.

For example, in the sixteeenth chapter of his Raghuvamśa

Kalidāsa describes the play of the King Kusa and his wives in

a lake, during the hot season. The water-play of lovers is

one the conventional subjects generally decribed in a

mahākāvya; Kalidasa, however, does not treat this description

as an end in itself. While playing in the lake, Kuśa loses an

armlet given him by his father Rama. The fishermen he sends

to search for the lost armlet cannot recover it, and tell the

king that it must have been taken by the Nagas45 who live in

the lake. Kusa angrily prepares to attack the Nagas, and the

Naga king Kumuda appears to conciliate him. His sister

Kumudvati, he says, saw the armlet falling through the water

and took it. In order to placate Kusa he returns the armlet

and offers him Kumudvati in marriage. Kusa accepts her as his

wife, and she becomes the mother of his son and heir, Atithi,

whose deeds are the subject of the next chapter of Kalidasa's

poem. Kalidāsa, rather than treating the conventionally

expected description of water-play as an end in itself, has

used it to make a smooth transition from one phase of his

story to the next.46 This type of prakarana-vakrata, like

the previous one, is a device which serves to knit together

bodies of water. 45Divine, serpent-like beings frequently associated with

46Ibid., pp. 263-266.

415

the various episodes of a work and produce a coherent plot.

There are other types of prakarana-vakrata which are

motivated by the requirements of neither rasa nor plot-

coherence. One such type is the creation of a play within a

play, as in Act Three of Rajasekhara's Balaramayana and Act

Seven of Bhavabhuti's Uttararamacarita.47 The construction

of a play within a play adds a new level of depth and

complexity to a scene -- it is delightful for an audience to

see the characters of a play themselves become an audience for

yet another play. The value of such episodes, as Kuntaka

explains them, does not depend on their relation to or

development of the overall plot of the plays in which they are

included -- they are interesting and pleasing to spectators in

and of themselves.

Kuntaka's prakarana-vakratā thus comprises a variety of

compositional techniques used for a variety of ends. Like

Ānandavardhana, Kuntaka pays attention, in a way earlier

Ālamkarikas had not, to the connections and functional

relationships between the components of literary works.

However, unlike Anandavardhana, he does not see these

components as necessarily directed toward the communication of

rasa or any other single, ultimate goal of the work in

question. An episode may be crafted so as to heighten the

rasa of a work, and be valued for this reason, but this is not

the only basis on which the aesthetic value of an episode may

47Ibid., pp. 270-272.

416

be judged; an episode may be functionally related to the work

of which it forms a part in other ways (e.g. by contributing

to the coherence or fluid development of the plot), or may be

beautiful and hence valuable in and of itself.

The techniques Kuntaka discusses under the heading of

prabandha-vakratā ("obliqueness of whole compositions") are

similarly disparate in function. As with prakarana-vakratā,

several of the varieties of prabandha-vakrata are rasa-based.

One such is the substitution of another primary rasa for the

primary rasa of one's narrative source.48 For example:

Bhattanarayana's Venisamhara retells the central story of the

Mahābhārata. The primary rasa of the Mahabharata is santa

("quiescence") ;49 by depicting the overwhelming devastation

of the war, the distress of the Pandavas even in the face of

victory, and the decline and death of the Pandavas and of

Krsna and his kinsmen, the Mahabharata produces a distaste for

all worldly accomplishments and a desire for liberation from

samsara. However, rather than retain this santa rasa in his

own work, Bhattanarayana has made vira ("heroism") his primary

rasa; his play emphasizes the valour of the Pandavas in

conquering their foes and culminates with their triumphant

48Ibid., pp. 275-6.

49Kuntaka follows Anandavardhana in his interpretation of the Sanskrit epics; the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are each designed to convey a single primary rasa, sänta in the former case and karuna ("pathos") in the latter. Cf. Vakroktijivita, p. 276; Dhvanyaloka, Kashi ed., pp. 529-33; and above, Chapter Four, p. 132.

417

success. Works in which the hero is ultimately successful,

Kuntaka argues, will generally be more pleasing, as well as

edifying, to their audiences. Seeing the Pandavas persevere

in the face of adversity and ultimately succeed in their aims

will inspire spectators to do likewise. Thus Bhattanarayana's

choice of vira rather than santa as the main rasa in his work

has a salutary effect, and constitutes a kind of prabandha-

vakratā.

Another rasa-based mode of prabandha-vakrata, closely

related to the first, is the telling of only a portion of a

known story, in order to avoid elements elsewhere in the story

which would contradict the rasa one wishes to convey.50

Bharavi's Kiratārjuniya, for example, retells only a small

part of the story of the Mahabharata. It begins with the

Pandavas, during their forest exile, considering means by

which they can defeat the Kauravas and win back their kingdom.

Arjuna resolves to go alone to the Himalayas to practice

austerities in order to acquire the divine weapons they will

need to conquer the Kauravas. He there encounters the god

Śiva, disguised as a tribal hunter (kirāta), who provokes a

fight with him. Arjuna, alone and unarmed, does battle with

the god; Siva reveals himself and, pleased with Arjuna's

ability, grants him the weapons he seeks. Rather than

continue the story up to the point where the Pändavas achieve

their ultimate goal, the defeat of the Kauravas, Bharavi

50Vakroktijivita, pp. 276-8.

418

concludes his work at this point.

In the Mahabharata, during the subsequent war between the

Pandavas and the Kauravas, Arjuna in many cases resorts to

underhanded means to defeat his opponents: e.g. in killing his

great uncle Bhisma he shields himself from attack by placing

himself behind Sikhandin (whom Bhisma has sworn never to

attack) ; he surreptitiously severs the arm of Bhūrisravas

while he is engaged in single combat with another warrior; he

beheads his greatest rival Karna as he struggles to remove his

chariot wheel from the mud in which it has become stuck. Had

Bharavi continued his story up to the point of the Pandavas'

victory, he would have had to deal with these morally

problematic actions on the part of his hero, and the vira-rasa

he wished to convey in his work would have been impaired as a

result. By ending his story where he does, Bharavi is able to

foreshadow the final victory of the Pandavas -- if Arjuna can,

alone and unarmed, successfully do battle with Siva himself,

he will surely be able, armed with his newly won weapons, to

defeat the Kauravas -- without having to describe those later

actions of Arjuna which would be detrimental to the rasa of

his work.

Kuntaka discusses other varieties of prabandha-vakratā

which are not designed to foster the unbroken development of

rasa, and may even require a break in this development. One

such type is the introduction into one's work of a second plot

which is seemingly unrelated to the first but which ultimately

419

assists in its development.51 The action of a narrative

ought, ordinarily, to progress toward a single goal; the

introduction of a second, irrelevant, goal will produce a

break in the development of the main plot (and any rasa

conveyed by it) but, if it ultimately feeds back into the main

plot, will add a desirable element of vakrokti to a work. In

the first chapter of Magha's poem Sisupalavadha ("The Killing

of Sisupala"), the divine sage Narada comes to see Krsna and

asks him, on behalf of all the gods, to destroy his own cousin

Śisupala, who, we are told, is the latest incarnation of the

asura Hiranyakasipu (earlier reborn as Rāvana), and Krsna

promises that he will do so. When Narada has gone, however,

Krsna does not set out to attack Sisupāla in fulfillment of

his promise, but chooses rather to attend the rājasūya

sacrifice of his ally Yudhisthira; this would appear to a

diversion from his ultimate goal but, in fact, during the

sacrifice Sisupāla (also in attendance) challenges Krsna's

right to the honors Yudhisthira confers on him and a fight

ensues between the two, in which Sisupala is killed. What

appeared to be a digression was in fact the means of bringing

the plot to fruition, and this apparent digression creates an

interesting and appealing convolution in the development of

the narrative.

Another variety of prabandha-vakrata, one bearing neither

on rasa nor on plot development, is the selection of an artful

51Ibid., pp. 278-79.

420

and interesting name for a composition.52 Names which simply

and straightforwardly describe the main action of the works

they designate -- e.g. Hayaqrivavadha ("The Killing of

Hayagriva" ) , Pandavabhyudaya ("The Triumph of the Pandavas",

Ramacarita ("The Acts of Rama") -- add nothing at all to the

appeal of these works. Titles which hint at the content of

their works, rather than simply state them outright, give a

certain additional beauty to these works -- e.g.

Abhijñānasākuntala ("Of Recognition and Sakuntala") or

Mudrāraksasa ("Raksasa and the Signet Ring") .

Kuntaka's examination of the poetically effective

construction of episodes and compositions and the literary-

critical observations which emerge from it, while clearly

modelled on Anandavardhana's efforts in the same area, are

somewhat less restricted in scope. For Anandavardhana, the

only principle which can guide poets in molding their works

into aesthetically coherent wholes, and hence the only basis

on which these works can be meaningfully evaluated, is the

direction of all the elements of a work toward the

communication of a single primary rasa. For Kuntaka, the

effective communication of a primary rasa is one goal toward

which the construction and arrangement of episodes and whole

compositions may be usefully directed, but not the only such

goal. He examines many of the compositional techniques used

by poets to enhance the capacity of their works to convey

52Ibid., p. 281.

421

rasa, but also examines many other techniques directed toward

other ends. Rasa certainly plays a major role in the creation

of great literature, but it is not the only end towards which

poets may meaningfully direct their efforts.

The Retreat from Theory

This unwillingness to restrictively prescribe a fixed

goal for poets in the construction of their works is

characteristic of Kuntaka's general approach to literary

analysis; throughout his work Kuntaka repeatedly emphasizes

both the open-endedness of his classification of vakrokti and

the multiplicity of aesthetic purposes which the various types

of vakrokti he discusses may serve.

One of the most interesting and unusual aspects of

Kuntaka's work is that it makes no attempt to provide an

exhaustive typology of the literary features it deals with.

In his introductory discussion of vakrokti he remarks as

follows:

These several major types of obliqueness [vakrata] are shown by way of example; thousands of others are possible. Thus, people of taste imagine these for themselves, [sahrdayas] should in the tradition of great poets.53

It is not possible, he argues, to restrict vakrokti to any

fixed number of types; vakrokti arises through the imaginative

capacity (pratibha) of the poet, and, "because imaginative

capacity is endless, no limit is possible [for the types of

53Ibid., p. 35.

422

vakrokti] . w54 He frequently makes the same point in his

examination of the various subdivisions of vakrokti. At the

end of his discussion of pada-uttarardha-vakrata ("obliqueness

of suffixes") he tells his readers that they should imagine

other varieties of such vakratā for themselves and

characterize them by means of definitions similar to those he

has given.55 Having concluded his survey of various modes of

pada-purvardha-vakrata ("obliqueness of stems"), he says "This

is only a general outline [diñ-matra] of this [pada-pūrvārdha-

vakratā]; the rest is to be seen in practice. #56 In

discussing both rūdhi-vakratā ("obliqueness of conventional

terms") and upacāra-vakratā ("obliqueness of metaphor"),

Kuntaka notes that many varieties of such vakrata are possible

beyond those he specifically discusses, and he invites readers

to imagine other varieties for themselves (svayam

utpreksanīyam) .57

54Ibid., p. 36.

55Ibid., p. 121-122.

56Tbid., p. 113.

s7Ibid., pp. 85, 94-5. It is important to distinguish this invitation for readers to imagine new types of the phenomenon under discussion from the far more common practice of inviting readers to supply their own examples for a given list of types. When Alamkärikas are discussing a figure or other literary feature which they analyze into a great many sub-varieties, they frequently, rather than provide examples- verses to illustrate each type, simply state that "one should supply examples for oneself" (svayam udaharanīyam) . What Kuntaka asks of his readers is quite different; readers are not simply to find examples for types already listed but to move beyond the author's list of types altogether, thus making the category under discussion an open-ended one.

423

Kuntaka, by leaving his categories open-ended and

allowing for the existence of types and sub-types of vakrokti

beyond those he himself discusses, abandons any pretense of

giving a complete and systematic account of vakrokti -- indeed,

he indicates that such an account would be impossible.

Vakrokti is the product of the poet's imaginitive capacity,

which operates without limits; it cannot be restricted to a

fixed list of possible types, however extensive. Vakrokti

manifests itself at all levels of language, from the phoneme

to the whole composition; one can find and examine a great

many of its manifestations at any of these levels, but one can

never hope to produce a complete description and typology of

all its possible forms. The most one can do (and what Kuntaka

tries to do) is to provide a general survey of the more common

and notable forms of vakrokti to be found in existing literary

works.

Kuntaka is not only reluctant to restrict the

manifestations of poetic expression to a specific (and

therefore limited) list of types; he also refuses to restrict

the uses to which such expression may be put by insisting that

the elements of a literary work serve a single goal. For

Anandavardhana, as we have seen, all the elements of a

literary work ought ideally to be (and in the best works

typically are) ultimately directed toward a single goal: the

communication of a single, primary rasa. Anandavardhana's

earliest critics, Mukulabhatta and PratIharenduraja, while

424

they differ with him in other respects, seem to accept this

ideal of rasa-directedness without reservation. As we shall

see, later participants in the dhvani controversy

(Bhattanāyaka, Abhinavagupta, Mahimabhatta) are even more

determined in their insistence that all literature have rasa

as its ultimate goal. Kuntaka, however, is not willing to

insist on rasa as the primary goal of poetry. For him, the

effective communication rasa is an important goal toward which

the construction and arrangement of the various elements of

poetic language may be directed, but it is always presented as

one possible goal among others.

We have already seen that Kuntaka's treatment of

prakarana- and prabandha-vakrata deals with a variety of

compositional techniques, of which some serve to enhance rasa

and some serve other, non-rasa-related, ends. Elsewhere in

his work Kuntaka frequently refers to rasa as one among

several ends toward which the various elements of poetic

language may be directed. The meanings to be employed in

poetry, he says, should be "only those by which some natural

greatness (svabhava-mahattā) or subservience to the nourishing

of rasa is manifested. "58 In discussing vastu-vakratā

("obliqueness of subject") Kuntaka states that the subjects of

description chosen by poets are of two kinds, those in which

the nature (svabhava) of the thing described is predominant

s8Ibid., p. 17.

425

and those in which rasa is predominant.59 Alamkaras should

be avoided in verses where the subject of description is such

that either its natural beauty (svabhava-saukumārya) or the

development of rasa would be impaired by excessive

ornamentation.60 In Kuntaka's work, rasa and "natural

beauty" are not always paired in this way, but when the two

are paired they are invariably presented as equally valid

alternatives: there is never any indication that one is to be

preferred to or given priority over the other.

To this pair of goals to be pursued in composing poetry,

ornamentation (alamkāra) is often added as a third

alternative. Kuntaka sums up his survey of visesana-vakratā

("obliqueness of adjective") with the general recommendation

that poets employ adjectives "which by their own power endow

rasa, svabhava, and alamkara with extraordinary splendour. "61

While discussing poetic skill (kavi-kausala) he observes that

"the cause of [a poem's] capacity to delight connoisseurs is

its great excellence of development [pariposa] in the

description of the natural beauty of things, or in the

revealing of some rasa, such as srīgära, or in the creation of

strikingness [vicchitti] by the arrangement of various

ornaments, 62 and that poetic skill introduces into these

59Ibid., p. 143.

60Ibid., p. 126.

61Ibid., p. 98.

62Tbid., p. 134.

426

three elements -- rasa, svabhāva, and alamkāra -- an element of

novelty which makes them pleasing to people of taste.63 In

his examination of the figure atisayokti ("hyperbole") 64 he

states that through the action of this figure rasa, svabhava,

and alamkāra develop a high degree of vakratā. 55 As with

rasa and svabhava alone, these three are always stated as

alternatives without priority given to any one over the

others.

Thus rasa is for Kuntaka neither the necessary nor even

the preferred goal toward which the selection and arrangement

of the elements of a poem should be directed. Certainly poets

can and often do make the conveying of rasa the primary goal

of their works and allow this goal to guide their selection of

figures, subjects of description and so on; but rasa always

remains, for Kuntaka, only one of several possible goals which

may guide this selection. It is in this refusal to insist on

the central role in effective poetry of either suggested

meaning generally or rasa in particular that Kuntaka's

approach to poetic analysis most clearly differs from that of

Ānandavardhana.

Along with this rejection of Anandavardhana's

teleological, rasa-centered aesthetics, Kuntaka's work shows

63Ibid., pp. 134, 137.

64Which, as we saw earlier, Bhamaha regards as the basic principle underlying all poetic ornamentation; cf. Bhamaha, Kāvyālamkara 2.85 and above, Chapter Six, pp. 276-277.

65Ibid., p. 193.

427

a general lack of concern with the relations of sub- and

superordination between poetic elements which absorbed so much

of Anandavardhana's attention. unstat Although many of the

techniques for conveying unstated meanings dealt with by

Änandavardhana are discussed as varieties of vakrokti, what

was for Anandavardhana the most crucial distinction to be

borne in mind when dealing with such meanings -- that between

unstated meanings which are predominant with respect to the

directly expressed meanings which suggest them, and those

which are subordinate -- is completely ignored; in Kuntaka's

analysis of such meanings there is no analogue to

Ānandavardhana's division between dhvani- and

gunībhūtavyangya-kāvya.

Kuntaka's mode of literary analysis operates very much at

an empirical level; he declines to attempt a complete and

systematic theoretical account of either the means or the ends

of literary expression. He discusses, under the general

rubric of vakrokti a wide and disparate variety of techniques,

operating at all levels of language, which poets use to make

their works beautiful and pleasing, but he repeatedly points

out that those he mentions are only examples and that there

are many more such techniques apart from those he specifically

examines. He examines several of the goals poets can and do

aim to accomplish by the use of figures and other elements of

poetic language, but is unwilling to restrict poets to any

single paramount goal and provides no principles which could

428

serve to guide poets in their choice among these possible

goals. If Kuntaka's analysis of vakrokti can be described as

a "theory" of poetics at all, it is one so flexible and so

open ended as to be virtually devoid of substantive content;

it is less a general theory of poetic beauty than a loose

framework within which a wide array of particular, often

largely unrelated, poetic devices may be discussed.

It would seem, then, that De (cf. above, pp. 396-397) is

basically right to see in Kuntaka's work an attempt to revive

the formalist aesthetic of the earlier Alamkarikas which had

been supplanted by Anandavardhana's poetic teleology. His

work, like theirs, offers a catalogue of discrete, isolable

elements which enhance the beauty of literary compositions in

which they are included, rather than general and

comprehensive theory of literary aesthetics of the kind

offered by Anandavardhana.

Conclusion

Kuntaka is the only major figure among the post-

Ānandavardhana Ālamkārikas of Kashmir to significantly depart

from the rasa-centered, teleological model of literary

aesthetics developed in the Dhvanyaloka. He refuses to accept

the limitations Anandavardhana's unified aesthetic theory

would impose on the creative liberty of poets; but rather than

attempt to replace this theory with another, superior one, he

simply provides a (non-exhaustive) survey of various devices

and techniques, operating at all levels of language, which

429

poets may incorporate into their compositions with any of a

number of aesthetic purposes in mind. Thus he sidesteps,

rather than explicitly attacks, the teleological approach to

literary interpretation.

Similarly, he sidesteps what has by this time become the

most pressing and divisive question in the Kashmiri Alamkāra

tradition -- is it necessary, in order to explain the semantics

of poetic language, to postulate a new, specifically poetic

mode of signification (Anandavardhana's suggestion), or can

the facts of poetic expression be satisfactorily accounted for

via the same semantic processes found in everyday, non-poetic,

language? Kuntaka takes no stand on this question one way or

the other. As already noted (above, pp. 395-396), later

Alamkarikas and modern scholars alike have attempted to

discern Kuntaka's views on this question, and have been unable

to reach any consensus regarding them -- he simply has nothing

to say in this matter.

Thus Kuntaka is an exceptional figure in several crucial

respects. Despite their vehement disagreements with one

another there develops among the Kashmiri Alamkärikas of this

period a general framework of agreement regarding the basic

function of poetry (to convey rasa) and also regarding the

proper role of Alamkarasastra (to provide a rigorous,

philosophically defensible account of the processes by which

poetic meaning, including rasa, is communicated). Kuntaka

alone stands entirely outside this framework. He departs from

430

the conventional understanding of the purpose of poetry and

the purpose of Alamkārasāstra as well.

Consequently his work, whatever its intrinsic merits, is

largely irrelevant to what have by his time become the primary

concerns of the Alamkarikas of Kashmir and is therefore

largely ignored by later figures in the field. It is this

that accounts for Abhinavagupta's failure to deal

substantively with Kuntaka's views in his commentaries on the

Dhvanyaloka and the Natyasastra, as well as the general

neglect of the Vakroktijivita in later Alamkara literature.