DHVANI THEORY

 

INTRODUCTION
Ṛājāṇākā Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā was a reputed Kashmirian poet, rhetorician and philosopher.  He was patronized by king Avantivaram of Kashmir. Kalhana, the celebrated author of Rastarangini the most authoritative chronicle of Kashmir mentions him as one of the ornaments adoring the court of king Avantivarman. Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā is the author of the works, both literary and philosophical. His theory of ḍḥvāṇī  which came into limelight in the 9^th century A.D. dominated Indian poetics from the 9^th to 12^th century A.D.

GENESIS OF THE THEORY OF ḌḤVĀṆĪ

Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā’s theory of ḍḥvāṇī changed Indian poetics in its essence. Aestheticians of poetry were compelled to revive their notions about the older concepts like Āḷāṃkāṛās, gūṇā, ṛīṭī etc. in the light of the theory of ḍḥvāṇī. Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇāa made a great discovery by stating that every part of speech and small factors like case endings and particles can at the touch of imagination be enriched in meaning. Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā and his followers clearly mention that they have derived inspiration for “Ḍḥvāṇyāḷokā’ from the Sphotvad of the grammarians. Therefore it is worthwhile to examine Sphotvad of the vāīyākārāṇī and their concept of ṣpḥoṭā and ḍḥvāṇī   Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā in his ‘Ḍḥvāṇyāḷokā’ hails the Vaiyakaranis with great respect. He says,

“The expression is designated by the learned, the foremost among the learned are grammarians because grammar lies at the root of all studies.”

WHAT IS ḌḤVĀṆĪ

The word ḍḥvāṇī in ordinary parlance means ‘sound’ or ‘tone’.  In language sound carries meaning. A word in its basic grammatical sense is a combination of letters. The Sanskrit grammarians argue that the letters are not the ultimate cause of meaning.They assert that a simple arrangement of words can not lead to a sense for various reasons.

•       Firstly, the meaning is signified by the word as a whole and not by individual letters.

•       Secondly mere combination of letters also fails to produce meaning.

The reason being letters are not uttered simultaneously and they disappear as soon as they are uttered. Nullifying the belief that letters in their combination signify the meaning of a word, the Sanskrit grammarians discovered a distinct entity called sphota. They argue that meaning is also signified by the sound which becomes the meaning of the word. The sound manifest ‘an external and imperceptible element’ (sphota) which really conveys the idea that strikes the mind of the listeners. The sound that manifest sphota are termed ‘ḍḥvāṇī ’.

THE CENTRAL THESIS OF THE THEORY OF ḌḤVĀṆĪ

The central thesis of the theory of ḍḥvāṇī  is that words in their capacity of conveying sense, possess a threefold function, and consequently express a three fold sense.

The three functions are known as

•       Ābḥīḍḥā (denotation)

•       Ḷākṣḥāṇā (indication)

•       Vyāṇājāṇā(Suggestion)

And the three senses conveyed are

•       Ābḥīḍḥeyā  (denoted, primary)

•       Ḷākṣy (indicated)

•       Vyāṇgyā (suggested)

Respectively 

       Similarly three kinds of words that give rise to them are termed

•       Vācāk (Denotative)

•       Ḷākṣḥāṇīkā (Indicative)

•       Vyāṇjṇīkā(suggestive)

The primary meaning of word is that which is ascribed to it by convention through the accepted usage of the world. In a given context it is the meaning directly conveyed to the listener. The word “Cow” denotes the sense of a particular domestic animal familiar to the listener. It is also the dictionary meaning of the particular word.

The power or the function which operates to convey this meaning is ābḥīḍḥā. The type of words that     convey such conventional meaning is called vācāk (denotative). Denotative word is that which conveys a direct conventional meaning.

The indicated (Ḷākṣy) is an extended meaning derivable from a word under certain condition. This kind of meaning arises only when the primary sense of a particular word is inapplicable and inoperative. Under such circumstances a second sense connected with the primary sense arises due to popular usage or  a special purpose. For example, the expression,

‘the hamlet on the river Ganges’

The primary sense of the phrase ‘on the river Ganges’ is inoperative and the indicated sense ‘on the bank of the river. The function of words that conveys this secondary meaning is called indication (Ḷākṣḥāṇā)

The suggested sense is that which is obtainable from a word over and beyond its denoted or indicated senses and in addition to them. The function of suggestion operates when the other two functions- denotation and connotation are inapplicable. Ḍḥvāṇī  is that where the literal meaning is suppressed, that is, the literal meaning is not intended by the speaker and also it makes no sense in the context. For example:

Ṣūvāṛṇpūṣḥpām pṛūṭḥāvīṃ ćḥīṇvāṇāṇṭīṇ pūṛūṣḥāyāḥ

Ṣūṛāṣyā kṛūṭvīggḥyāṣyā yāṣyā jāṇāṭī ṣevīṭūṃ

“Three persons will gather flowers of gold from the earth. The bold, the learned, and he who knows how to serve.”

In the above example, the literal meaning is that the three kinds of persons get the gold flowers out of the earth. This is obviously impossible because earth cannot yield flowers of gold. Therefore, this example cannot be understood through the primary meaning; the secondary usage or lakșanā gives the meaning of the example. The ‘purpose’(prayojana) of this sentence is to show that success comes to three types of people: the warrior, men of knowledge and to the one who serve. Hence, the meaning of this example is understood through the three semantic operations i.e. ābḥīḍḥā , lakșanā and vyañjanā. First of all, the literal meaning (abhidhā) is considered as the literal sense is not applicable in the present context; therefore, we need another potency of a word to derive meaning, that is, lakșanā. The poet’s purpose is to praise the 3  warriors, men of knowledge and those who serve others. Rather than praising them directly, he uses the secondary sense in order to suggest (vyañjanā) the great value of the three kinds of people. Its realization is also dependant on the capacity of apprehension inherent in the responsive reader. (sahradaya) and his imaginative experience.

Suggested sense can arise based upon either denotative sense or intended sense. That is they can be,

•       Ābḥīḍḥāṃūḷā

•       Ḷākṣāṇāṃūḷā

In the first, there is no part played by lakșanā, ḍḥvāṇī proceeds directly on the basis of primary sense. In the second ḍḥvāṇī is based upon lakșanā, the primary sense being insignificant. In Ḷākṣāṇāṃūḷā  primary sense may either become amalgamated with the new sense or get itself destroyed completely. Accordingly there are two subdivisions of it.

ĀṚṬḤĀṆṬĀRĀ- ṢĀṂKṚĀṂĪṬĀ  VĀĆYĀ

i.e where the implication modifies the primary sense (literal meaning is set aside)

ĀṬĀYĀṆṬ –ṬĪṚṢKṚṬṬĀ VĀĆYĀ

Where the implied sense entirely reverses the primary sense (literal meaning is shifted)

DEFINITION AND VARIETIES OF ḌḤVĀṆĪ:

      Ḍḥvāṇyāḷokā defines ḍḥvāṇī  as follows,

“That kind of poetry wherein either the meaning or the word, renders itself or its meaning secondary and suggests the implied meaning is designated by the learned as ḍḥvāṇī  or suggestive poetry”

(ḍḥvāṇī  is a type of poetry wherein words and sense lose their primary signification in order to suggest other things)

    On the basis of suggested idea ḍḥVĀṇĪ  is divided into three varieties,

•       Vastu ḍḥvāṇī  

•       Ṛāṣā ḍḥvāṇī  

•       Aḷāṃkāṛ ḍḥvāṇī  

VASTU ḌḤVĀṆĪ

When the suggested sense is of the nature of a mere appealing idea it is vastu ḍḥvāṇī .

“Ramble freely, pious man!

That dog to-day is killed By the fierce lion that dwells

In Goda river dells.”

In the example, the woman is telling the religious man to wander freely in the garden because a lion has killed the dog that used to scare him. Though the direct meaning of these words is injunction, the suggestive meaning is prohibition, because a person, who is scared of a dog obviously cannot face a lion. Abhinavagupta lays stress on the power of suggestion, and argues that the present example cannot be understood either from its denotative meaning, or indicative meaning. It is not denotation because of samketāgrahaṇa. The power of direct designation exhausts after it has once operated. It cannot designate two different things ‘go’ and ‘not go’ at the same time. It can mean directly only one of these; the other meaning must be furnished by a different power viz. suggestion.

ĀḶĀṂKĀṚĀ ḌḤVĀṆĪ

When the suggested sense is that of a poetic figure it is āḷāṃkāṛā ḍḥvāṇī . Here the expressed sense may or may not be an āḷāṃkāṛā but the suggested sense should clearly convey the āḷāṃkāṛā.

 

 

 

“Why this jest?

Thou shalt not certainly part again from me

, Having returned after so long,

O ruthless one! Whence this flair for travel?_

Thus in dreams do the wives of your enemy speak

But soon they awake

To find empty their embraces

And to lament loud.”

 

 In this example, all that the poet wants to convey is that the king has killed all his enemies. Instead of saying this plainly, as it would be without much force, the poet manages to convey the idea by making a comparison with another situation. The poet tells the king that all his enemies’ wives hug their husbands in their dreams and lament why they left them and had come back after so many days. So on awaking, they realize their empty enclosed arms and they scream out sorrowfully, realizing that they were only dreaming the arrival of their dead husbands. Here, the poet heightens the valour of the king by making a comparison between the dream and reality. The agony of the widows of his enemies embellishes the greatness of the king, just as a face of a beautiful girl gets embellished by comparing it to the full moon in all its glory. In such poetic situations, the poet uses āḷāṃkāṛās (figures of speech) to heighten the poetic impact.

 

ṚĀṢĀ ḌḤVĀṆĪ  

When the expressed sense consists in the portrayal of vībḥāvās, āṇūbḥāvās and vyabhicharibhavas and consequently the suggested content evoke Rasa, it is rasa ḍḥvāṇī .

“A tremulousness of the eyes,

Hesitating in mid-glance;

Limbs daily growing thinner

Like severed lotus stems

And cheeks so pale they seemed

To imitate white durva grass:

Such was the costume put on by the gopis

As they and Krishna came of age.”

 In the above example, Krishna is at the peak of his youth and so are the gopis. The gopis look at the young Krishna, not directly but catch glimpses of him. Just as a lotus which has been cut off, becomes dry, the gopis too have become skinny and lifeless without Krishna’s love. Their lips have become so dry and yellow that even dry and pale grass appears to be more colorful. In this example, the poet conveys abhilasā (desire), cintā (worry), autsukya (eagerness), nidrā (sleep), adhrti (frailty), glāni (drooping), ālasya (languor), ṣrama (weariness), smrti (remembrance), vitarka (speculation) and the likes without mentioning or naming them. Out of these varieties Rasa ḍḥvāṇī  occupies the first position. G.Vijayvardhan says,

“Rasa is the supreme goal in kavya as well as in any work of art. In the function of suggestion too, the prime aim is evocation of rasa.”

CLASSIFICATION OF ḌḤVĀṆĪ

On the basis of the presence of suggested sense Dhvanyaloka divided poetry into three grades,

•       Ūṭṭāṃ kāvyā  

•       Ṃāḍḥyām kāvyā  

•       Āḍḥāṃ ćīṭṛā kāvyā  

•       Ūṭṭāṃ kāvyā  

In the first grade of kavya the suggested signification alone matters. It represents the highest and best kind of poetry which may be termed as ḍḥvāṇī  kavya.

•       Ṃāḍḥyām kāvyā  

The second class of poetry is Madhyam kavya, in which the suggested significance is lost in the primary charm of the expressed sense. Suggestion is present but only has a secondary importance. This kind of poetry is also called gunibhut vyangya kavya.

•       Āḍḥāṃ ćīṭṛā kāvyā  

 The third class of poetry is given the name of Chitra, pictorial poetry. It is the lowest grade of     poetry-as the element of suggestion plays no part in it. Rasa receives hardly any attention in this variety of poetry.  This is the lowest type of poetry because it is only by the aid of several striking figures that the author makes his composition picturesque. Ṛāṣā- ḍḥvāṇī  is the vital essence of poetry which lacks in ćīṭṛā kāvyā  .

 

CONCLUSION

Unlike the ancient writers on Sanskrit rhetoric who aimed at nothing more than the provision of elaborate systems and devices. Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇā enunciated the broad general principles of poetry based on an insight into the psychology of human nature. Āṇāṇḍvāṛḍḥāṇāa demonstrated that emotive and suggestive significance is the very soul of poetry. By thoroughly explaining the linguistic and logical implications of the theory of ḍḥvāṇī  he tried to secure for it a high place of honour in the eyes of thinkers. K.Krishmurthi has appreciated the theory by saying,

“It marks the termination of the old school of criticism and gives the birth of a modern school, modern in style, in theory and in approach.”

Riti Theory

 

INTRODUCTION

Ṛīṭi is a theory of language of literature. Though it is described for the first time in Bharat’s Ṇāṭyāṣāṣṭṛā  itself under the rubric of vṛṭṭī, It is Vāmana who developed it into a theory. Vāmana is considered to be the founder of ṛīti saṃpradāya .However, the concept of ṛīti was not completely new sidddāṅta in Indian poetics; it is Vāmana who developed rīti as a systematic school of poetics. Vāmana delves deep into the nature of poetry and considers rīti to be the soul of poetry. His famous dictum

 

 rītirātmā kāvyasya

(rīti is the soul of poetry)

 

is unequivocal assertion that, it is rīti that differentiates poetry from other forms of writing like philosophy or other sciences.

 

 WHAT IS ṚĪTI

Rīti means style or characteristic way of presentation adopted by the poet. For Vāmana, rīti means a particular arrangement of words and phrases (viśiṣṭapadaracanā). So rīti is a result of phrasal and verbal organization in a work of art .Other words used by other scholars are mārga, gati, pantha, and prasthāna. Earlier Daṇḍin had referred to two mārgas of representation: vaidarbhi and gaudiyā . Daṇḍin had said that each has a characteristic style. Vāmana added third one to it pancāli. Other scholars added more rītis to it. Rudraṭa added Latiya and Raja Bhoja added Avaṇtikā taking the total to five.  At the outset of  Kavyalamkarasutra (9th century A.D.) Vāmana defines rīti as,

 

 viśiṣṭapadaracanā

 (Arrangement of marked inflected constructions).

 

He goes on to differentiate between guṇas and alaṃkāras, classifies guṇas into śabda guṇas and artha guna and on the basis of the presence or absence of gunas classifies riti into vaidarbhi, gaudiyā and pancāli. Like Dandin, he accords the highest status to the vaidarbhi riti as it possesses all the excellences but also associates the gunas, ojāṣ and kāṇṭī with the gaudiyā riti and ṃāḍḥūṛyā and ṣūkūṃāṛāṭā with the pancāli riti. Thus while the gaudiyā is marked by the grand, the glorious and the imposing the pancāli is characterized by sweetness and softness.

 

Vāmana gives primacy to rīti over alaṃkāras. Guṇas are the qualities or poetic excellences which create beauty in poetry as against doṣas which are blemishes of poetry. So guṇas are an essential condition for poetry. Bharata and Daṇḍin both had enumerated ten guṇas. Vāmana retained the same ten guṇas but he created two sets of the same ten guṇas under two categories: śabda guṇas and artha guṇas. Thus, Vāmana has explained guṇas in terms of śabda (word) and artha (sense). For example, prasāda (lucidity) as a śabda guṇa gives lucidity so the text becomes easy to read and prasāda as an artha guṇa gives appropriateness of meaning

 

 

 

 

KUNTAK

Kūṇṭākā does not accept the classification as enumerated by Dāṇḍīṇ and Vāṃāṇā. He does not consider regional variations to be the basis of classification of literary modes of expression. Instead he identifies three ṃāṛgāṣ – ṣūkūṃāṛā, vīćīṭṛā and ṃāḍḥyāṃā - on the basis of what he terms kāvīṣvābḥāvā or the power, nature and the practice of the poet. The ṣūkūṃāṛā ṃāṛgā according to Kūṇṭākā, is marked by natural grace and charm, the vīćīṭṛā by decorativeness and the ṃāḍḥyāṃā by a combination of elements of both the styles.

 

MAMMATA

Ṃāṃṃāṭā  does not admit rīti as a separate element in poetic compositions. He discusses the concept of rīti under the rubric of vṛṭṭī. Ṃāṃṃāṭā gives the name of three vṛṭṭīs – upāṅāgāṛīkā, pāṛūṣā and koṃāḷā or gṛāṃyā – and says that these were referred to as vaidarbhi, gaudiyā and pancāli by earlier theorists. The upāṅāgāṛīkā is characterized by letters suggestive of the ṃāḍḥūṛyā guna, the pāṛūṣā by that of ojāṣ and the koṃāḷā by letters other than the above. But Ṃāṃṃāṭā makes it clear that mere arrangements of the letters can never impart poetic charm until and unless they help in the manifestation of ṛāṣā.

 

VISWANATHA

Viswanatha points out that ṛīṭī is just pāḍā ṣāṃgḥāṭāṇā, the formal arrangements of words and letters that help in the manifestation of ṛāṣā and can thus never claim to be the soul of poetry.

 

ANANDVARDHANA

Anandavardhana, the most important figure associated with this school, did not admit rīti as an important element of poetry but accepted another factor namely ṣāṃgḥāṭāṇā. He classifies

ṣāṃgḥāṭāṇā, into samāsa, madhyamā samāsa and dīrgha samāsa on the basis the presence

or absence of compounds.

 

 CONCLUSION

Vamana’s theory of rīti  lost relevance because it conceived poetic compositions only from the formal point of view without referring to its inner nature. But it improves upon the doctrines of the Alamkara school in giving primacy to the gunās over the alāmkārās as defining features of poetic compositions. The theory of rīti, despite its limitations, has been a major contribution to the study of literary compositions. This theory of language has close affinities with modern day stylistic studies of literature.

 

Concept of Guna/Dosa

 

INTRODUCTION

This theory examines literary compositions in terms of qualities (guna) and defects (dosa), both of form and meaning. From Bharat downwards every theorist has more or less, concerned himself with this aspect of compositions. But it is Dandin and subsequently, Udbhata who make guna/dosa the primary features, the locus of literariness.  

BHARATMUNI

Acarya Bharata does not treat the Guna-doctrine systematically and does not state categorically whether they belong to Sabda or Artha, or in what relation they stand in poetry. He states merely that ten Gunas are the mere negation of dosa ;but this cannot be a general definition of Gunas.

 1. Ojas:  vigour or brilliance of long compounds;

2. Prasada:  clarity and lucidity;

3. Shlesha:  well knit composition skillfully employing many shades of meanings;

4. Samata:  evenness of sound within a line;

5. Samadhi:  ambivalence through the use of metaphors;

6. Madhurya:  sweetness in the refinement of expression;

7. Sukamarata: soft and delicate;

8. Udaratva:   liveliness;

9. Arthavyakti: directness avoiding obscure words, pun etc; and,

10. Kanti: glow or luminous elegant turns of phrases or grace

BHAMAHA

In the begining of the second chapter Bhamaha deals with ‘Gunas’ with the help of which the kavya is beautified. He gives a few guidelines for better composition. Instead of the ten gunas enumerated in the ‘Natyashastra’ he accepts only three

·         Madhurya

·         Prasada                      

·         ojas

 

Madhurya:

According to Bhamaha Sweetness means sweetness of sound and simplicity i.e. freedom from complexity of meaning.

Prasada:

According to Bhamaha clearness means such clarity of meaning that from the learned to the child, all are equally able to grasp it.

Ojas:

According to Bhamaha powerfulness means the use of compounds.

Bhamaha, who was also a logician, concerns himself with defects. In two chapters (Kavyalamkara), he enumerates and discusses the general defects of expression and form and the defects springing from failure of logical thinking.

VAMANA

Vamana  has said that Kavya is an organic whole composed of elements where Guna (quality or poetic excellence) and Alamkara (the principle of beauty) are also vital to it. Thus, Kavya has two dimensions: the substance (Vastu) of which it’s made (words and meaning); and the value of beauty for which it is made (Guna and Alamkara). The merit of Vamana’s theory lies in coordinating this principle with other elements of Kavya. According to Vamana  the special features that create beauty (shobha) of Kavya are the Gunas. As he says

Kavya-shobhayah kartaro dharmah Gunah

(Guna) is highly essential (nitya) for a Kavya (Purve niyatah). According to him there can be no luster in the Kavya without Guna

pūrve guṇā nityāḥ tair vina kavya sobha anupapatteh-

Thus, Vamana assigns greater importance to the notion of Guna or stylistic element or poetic excellence; and, Alamkara comes next.  In the process, Vamana attempted to clarify the distinction between Guna and Alamkara. Vamana retained the ten Gunas enumerated by Bharatmuni. He modified their names, and also increased the number of Gunas to twenty. 

While retaining the ten traditional Gunas, Vamana created  two sets of the same ten Gunas under two broad heads: Sabda-Gunas (qualities relating to words) and Artha-gunas (qualities relating to sense or meaning).  These two classifications are sometimes referred to as the subtle (Artha Sarira) and gross (Sabda Sarira) bodies of Kavya. 

That again goes back to the two basic concerns of the Sanskrit Poetics -Sabda and Artha – the word and its meaning; the first is about how the word is treated in the text, and the other is about the shades or the layers of meaning that the word is capable of revealing. Both, Sabda and Artha brighten the beauty (Kavya shobha) and enhance the quality of Kavya –

 khalu śabdā-arthayor dharmāḥ kāvya śobhāṃ kurvanti te guṇāḥ.

Thus, Vamana (Kavyalamkarasutra) also concerns himself with ideal qualities of literary compositions and the short comings. But, for Vamana ,dosa are restricted to the figures of speech.

DANDIN

Dandin takes a more wholistic view and assimilates the concepts of rasa and riti in his connection of guna and dosa. In this sense, in Dandin, guna and dosa are primary attributes of literary compositions. In chapter 1 (Kavyadarsa) he discusses various qualities as attributes of riti and riti for him is a method of expressing and evoking rasa, states of being. In the third chapter he discusses,

·         Logical failures

·         Linguistic failures

·         Failures of accurate reference to facts of life and world (loka)

·         Failure in communicating the described meanings

Dandin, with a remarkable insight then added that through sheer originality and poetic power, any of these defects may be transformed into an excellence.

After Dandin, Udbhata tried to correlate guna/dosa with both alamkara and riti and claimed that excellences and defects are not independent features which can be distinguished in isolation- in fact, guna and dosa are properties  of figural composition.

CONCLUSION

In some thories , it is mentioned that Nir-doshatva or faultlessness is itself a Guna. Thus Gunas and Doshas are not absolute entities. Their merits or defects are relative; and, each, in its turn, enhances or diminishes the beauty of the composition depending on the context in which it is placed.

                       

The Alamakara Theory

 

Introduction:

The tradition of Indian Kavyashastra begins with Bharat’s magnum opus Natyashastra. In the course of dealing with drama Bharatmuni anticipated other schools on Indian poetics particularly Rasa in chapter 6, Natyashastra contains the seeds of ‘Alamkarashastra’ as well as it deals with Alamkaras or figures of speech, in the chapter 4 of Natyashastra. These alamkaras were later developed by the thinkers and poeticians like Bhamaha into an independent school and even shastra so much so that Alamkarshastra becomes an autonomous shastra within Kavyashastra. ‘Kavyalamkar’ of Bhamaha stands as an epicentral text not only in the Alamkarshastra but also in Indian Poetics.

Bhamaha is considered as the founder of the Alamkara school in Sanskrit poetics. The term ‘alamkara’ in Sanskrit stands for the principal of poetic beauty itself, in which sense of this general meaning, the entire science of criticism is named ‘Alamkarshashtra’. The word Alamkara is derived from the word ‘alam’ which in Sanskrit primarily means the making of adornments or decorations.

The earlist systematic work on Alamkara that has survived the ravages of time is that of Bhamaha. To him all alamkaras or figures of speech are based on Vakrokti, or exaggerated and twisted form of expression with embellishments. He was very particular about the grammatical correctness of expression and the absence of flaws in logical arguments.

ALAMKARAS:

In his treatise Bhamaha discusses Kavyalamkara in 151 verses out of total 369. There in he emphasizes the importance of figures of speech in the kavya. He gives five chief figures of speech. And then along with the sub- classification of it, he includes Atishyokto and Vakrokti as alamkara and sums up with thiry eight alamkaras. Bhamaha classifies alamkaras in two categories,

·         Sabdalamkara

·         Arthalamkara

Śabdālaṃkāra means figures of speech based on the word and arthālaṃkāra means figures of speech based on the meaning or sense of the word. The most important figures of speech, he describes are five i.e. Anuprasa, Yamaka, Rupaka, Dipaka and Upma. In his words,

Anuprasah sayamko rupak dikakopame

Iti vayamlamkaraha pagchaievaancheiruda hataha

Out of the five main alamkara the first two i.e. Anuprasa and Yamaka belong to Sabdalamkara and remaining three i.e. Rupaka, Dipaka and Upma belong to Artalamkara. Bhamaha then goes on to describe each in detail.

Anuprasa:

Sarupvarnvinyasaynuprasam Pcakshate

(i.e. the occurrence of the same sound at the start of adjacent) in other words it is an alliteration.

 Alliteration is a figure of speech in which the same sound repeats in a group of words, such as the “b” sound in: “Bob brought the box of bricks to the basement.” The repeating sound must occur either in the first letter of each word, or in the stressed syllables of those words.

Yamaka:

Yamaka is when repetition of letters deffering from each other in meaning , but similar in sound, are used to create surprising effect. Bhamaha uses the lines,

Sadhuna sadhuna ten rajata rajata bhuta

Means, ‘our close persons’ welfare is made through welcoming them through a good person)

Rupaka:

It is ‘an implied simile’. It means carrying over. Thus,a metaphor means the transfer of a name or descriptive term to an object different from. Mammat says metaphor shows identification of the ‘upman’ means an object or thing with the ‘upmey’ means the thing compared. It suggests ‘an extreme resemblance between upman and upmey. For example,

Mukham chandram

Dipaka:

Bhamaha describes ‘Dipak’ in relation to ‘dip’ means ‘a lamp’. A lamp illuminates all the objects round about it. Bhamaha does not give any characteristic of this figure of speech but only sub- classification into three kinds i.e. Addipak, Madhyadipak and Antyadipak, which again are exemplified.

Upma (Similie)

This figure of speech shows likeness between two different objects. Their common qualities are brought together to compare. In it, an object, scene or action is introduced by way of comparison for explanatory illustration as for merely ornamental purpose, for example,

Radha’s face is as beautiful as moon.

Here Radha is ‘Upman’, a person to be compared to other thing ‘moon’ which is ‘upmey’for both have their common qualities- beauty.

OTHER FIGURES OF SPEECH:

Along with these five main figures of speech Bhamaha gives more alamkaras and discusses each in detail.

Atisayokti:

With a specific object if the speech is brought to a complete identification with other object is called ‘Atisayokti’ means ‘hyperbole’. This figure of speech presents things as much greater or smaller than they really are.

Utpreksha:

It is a poetical fancy that represents identical faculty on sense of one thing with another. It shows likeness of one thing with the other. For instance,

Asyamukham nujam chandraha

Here, the speaker narrates one’s face identical with the moon. He has a face like shining moon means ‘ a bright- faced person’.

Prativastupama:

It means ‘realization or understanding of parallel ideas in two different sentences’. It means the first sentence represents the upmey and the other sentence represents the upman. Bhamaha writes,

Samanvastunyasen prativastupamochyat

Yathevanbhidhanidpi gunsamyapratitah

Means between two sentences, the things even if are not same or common, yet they are felt like common. One is as the other, is, for example, ‘useful persons are rare’ and in the second sentence we find ‘such tress are also rare.” Here ‘men’ and ‘trees’ are uncommon things – ‘vastu’. Thus two opposite or anti- objects are compared.

 

Vibhavana:

It means ‘peculiar causation. Its result or effort  arises without its cause. For example, upitamata shikhino means in  the rainy season, the peacocks are intoxicated without drinking water. The other example is Nipodavilaptasurbhi, means kadamba tree is different and alone from other common trees yet it is full of fragrance.

Vyatirek:

It means ‘a sense of excellence’. It shows a thing’s or object’s distinct faculty or characteristic. Here one thing is shown superior to another. ‘upmey’ is shown excellent over ‘upma.’ For example

·         Her skin is softer than the rose

·         His speech is sweeter than the nectar

Svabhavokti:

It means ‘a natural description’ according to the mood of the thing on person related to subject in a poem.

Akshep:

When desire of telling more is prohibited, it becomes Akshep or nishedh.

Artantarnyas:

When stated meaning and suggested meaning differs there occurs Arth+ antar= arthantar.

Samasokti:

Here compound statements are used to achieve embellishment or gravity, for this many adjectives are used.

Vakrokti:

After dealing with these figures of speech Bhamaha added to it Vakrokti. It is an essential part in poetic composition. It suggests a sense – bhava means vicitrabhava we get through some lines in a poem. It consists of striking expression which is different from the current mode or established trend of using figures of speech.

Conclusion:

The theory of Almakara, more than any other, seems to have influenced poetic compositions in Sanskrit. It is an accepted fact that the Mahakavya tradition was nourished in the teaching of the alamkara school. Whatever poetic theories came to be in vogue, in actual practice, poets seems to have had the alamkara theory always in mind. Though the theory of alamkaras was the oldest in literary speculation and was superseded by theories or rasa and dhvani, yet alamkara was a subject dealt with even by the writers of comparatively recent times.For example Mammata and Visvanatha, though they were followers of rasa- dhvani theory, have devoted considerable space to alamkaras. And even after the dhvani theory was universally accepted once and for all, books like Kavalayananda of Appayya Diksita were written dealing solely with alamkara. This would convey an idea of the extent of the influence that the alamkara school extorted on poetry as well as on the theory of poetry.

 

History of Sanskrit poetic Tradition

VAKROKTI

Concept of Kavya

AUCITYA

 

AUCITYA

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘Aucitya’ and the emphasis upon it as the life of poetry is of comparatively recent origin, the principle of Aucitya (appropriateness) had been implicitly reckoned with from the time of the earliest writers on the theory of poetry in Sanskrit. Bharata recognized the expedience of the principle in connection with rasa. Bhamaha, Dandin and Rudrata admitted it in their conception of gunas and dosas. However, the slinging out of aucitya as a factor responsible for poetic beauty, and the exposition of its relevance in all constituents of poetry was first accomplished in Dhvanyaloka. Kuntak too attached due importance to the concept. Ultimately it was Ksemendra who attempted to raise aucitya to the position of the ‘life’ of poetry, and to give a comprehensive exposition of it in all detail in his valuable treatise.

THE TERM AUCITYA

As described by Ksemendra the greatest exponent of this theory

Uchitasyabhavah tadaucityam pracaksyate

(i.e. the sense of aptness is known as aucitya)

When one thing befits another, or when the things suit each other well and match perfectly, they may be said to be proper or appropriate. Such matching and fitting quality is aucitya. To clarify this further, when the different components of a composition are appropriate to the context, when they match and balance harmoniously to achieve the purpose of the poet, the quality is named aucitya.

Anandvardhan gives a comprehensive exposition of the principle of aucitya with a clear understanding of its function in poetry. He implies that aucitya has to be adhered to at every step in all poetry of any worth. According to the theory of Dhvani, the ideal kavya is that in which rasa is manifested through dhvani i.e. rasadhvani. Hence the supreme goal in any poetic composition is manifestation of rasa. Anandvardhan relates aucitya primarily to rasa.

AUCITYA AND RASA:

The indispensability of aucitya for proper evocation of rasa is emphatically stated as follows:

 

Anaucityadrate nanyad

Rasabhangasya karanam

Prasiddhaucitya bandhastu

Rasasvopanisat para

(i.e. Other than impropriety there is no cause that contributes to the breach of rasa. The prime secret of rasa manifestation is conformity to well known tenets of propriety rasa.)

Thus, aucitya is regarded as an intrinsic element of rasa, and consequently in poetry. With regard to rasa aucitya has two aspects. On one hand, it is the condition of appropriateness of the subordinate and rasa manifesting elements to the dominant rasa, and again it is their harmony and proper mutual relationship among themselves so that they promote the evocation of rasa.

Aucitya in respect of nature of characters (alambanvibhava) will determine the selection of the sthayibhava to be nourished in the context. Characters in literature are divided into three grades on the basis of their social standing as

·         Noble

·         Middling

·         Lowly

Anandvardhan emphasizes the need for aucitya in this respect too when emotions come to be represented in literature. The emotion of love is certainly common to all these grades. But, how that emotion is portrayed, ought to differ in each case. If love in a noble character is depicted in the way a lowly character would behave in under similar circumstances, it would lead to nothing but derision. Thus in the depiction of all sentiments, propriety in relation to character concerned has to be born in mind.

In the subject of samghatana (verbal collocation) too Anandvardhana emphasizes the need of propriety. Samghatans are dependent upon gunas and evoke rasa. The factor that governs the selection of Samghatana is said to be the property of the speaker and the spoken, as well as of the literary form employed. That is to say, the criterion for determining whether the poet should use an elaborate style with hardly any compounds, is propriety in respect of the characters involved, of the subject matter conveyed and of the literary medium adopted.

Similarly according to Anandvardhana propriety should prevail in other factors suggestive of rasa such as guna and riti. The idea is summed up in Dhvanyaloka as follows,

“The main task of a master poet is to employ all expressed and expressive elements with due propriety towards rasa .”

 

 

KUNTAK’S VIEWS

The next theorist of note to dwell upon the importance of aucitya was Kuntaka. In his opinion, aucitya is an indispensable attribute of all poetry. For, he considers aucitya as a guna which is common to all poetry. Kuntaka deals with two sets of gunas.

The first is constituted of variable gunas which vary with each marga and which thereby form the distinguishing features of the different margas.

The second set comprising of two gunas, namely aucitya and saubhagya, remains constant and should be found in each and every marga. Thus aucitya amounts to an essential feature in all types of poetry.

KSEMENDRA AND AUCITYA

The student advocate of aucitya theory was Ksemendra, a later contemporary and pupil of Abhinavgupta. He was a prolific writer- a poet and a critic- and one of his works that is  Aucityavicarcarca was written in order to expound his theory of aucitya. In his opinion, the soul of poetry was neither rasa, nor dhvani nor any other factor laid down by the earlier theorists. He declared aucitya to be the soul of poetry,

Aucityam rasasiddhasya

Sthiram kavyasyajivitam

(i.e. Appropriateness is the abiding life of poetry that is endowed with rasa.)

Ksemendra is vehement in declaring the indispensability of aucitya in poetry. All components of kavya perform their function only when they are employed with due reference to appropriateness.

Ksemendra questions,

“Of what use are alamkaras or gunas in the absence of aucitya?”

Alamkaras are mere ornaments and gunas are formal excellences , what imparts life to them is aucitya. They deserve to be called alamkaras and gunas if only properly placed. Without aucitya a guna even becomes a positive defect. Ksemendra makes all such components subordinate to aucitya.

In accordance with the view of Anandvardhana  and Abhinavgupta, Ksemendra equates alamkaraas to eternal ornaments like necklaces and bangles  decorating the body and gunas to inherent human qualities like bravery or compassion.

The entire text of Aucityavicarcarca from karika eleven onwards is detailed treatment of each of those aspects of aucitya. This study is of an empirical nature. Ksemendra explains why the particular feature in the given verse is proper or otherwise. In this analysis Ksemendra does not hesitate to criticize the verses of eminent writers and very often finds fault even with his own verses. These comments show his high sense of aesthetic judgment.

According to him, there are 28 kinds of aucitya and four main kinds of aucitya, which are

·         Bhashasaili aucitya

·         Racanavidhana aucitya

·         Visay aucitya

·         Kalpana aucitya

Ksemendra deals with the appropriateness of poetic idea in relation to poetic beauty. Whatever ideas the poet conceives through his genius in the general import of the whole work, a poet is at liberty to make certain changes in  original story to make it more appealing and such changes serve their purpose only when they are introduced appropriately.

Ksemendra deals with the subject of aucitya of rasa at considerable length, and that forms his major subject of discussion. He declares aucitya to be the very life of rasa, which in turn is implicitly admitted to be the invariable requisite in poetry.

Rasa can not be conveyed by words that merely express the emotional state, and therefore the frequent use of interjection ‘ha’ ,’ha’ (alas alas) would convey no karuna rasa. A poetic figure alamkara can hinder the realization of rasa, if improperly used while its proper usage would certainly be advantageous.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

 

The discovery and recognition of the principle of aucitya can be reckoned as significant advance of aesthetic thought in Sanskrit. In the absence of aucitya, no literature would achieve its purpose. Anything that runs contrary to the development of the main theme would be inappropriate. The concepts of rasa, concepts of Dhvani and aucitya are the three main stages of Sanskrit literary criticism. They form the Sanskrit theorists’ valuable contribution to the aesthetic theories of all times, and reflect the most advanced stage of their theoretical thought.