Abhinav Guptas Ideas in Locana on Nature of Beauty of Kavya

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_2_Pundit_Bechardas_Doshi_012016.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250002/1

Page #1
ABHINAVAGUPTA'S IDEAS IN LOCANA ON THE NATURE OF BEAUTY OF KAVYA V. M. Kulkarni In India it was the alamkarikas, literary critics, and not the philosophers who investigated the nature of beauty in kavya (literature) and for that matter fine arts in general. The attention of the alarkarikas of the earlier period is mainly confined to the body of literature, the outward expression of kavya, namely, sabda and artha, whereas the alamkarikas of the later period mainly concerned themselves with the suggested sense and more particularly with rasa, the soul or the very essence of kavya. Anandavardhana's Dhvanyalokal (c. latter half of the 9th cent. A.D.) is the first work which allots the first place to the 'suggested sense' in judging the worth of any literary piece of work. In his brilliant exposition of this work in his famous commentary Locana, Abhinavagupta (10th cent. A.D.) expands Anandavardhana's ideas about literary beauty and at times also adds to it his own contribution. The object of the present paper is to collect together all such passages from Locana, classify them under suitable headings, and elucidate Abhinavagupta's ideas on the Theory of Beauty in kavya-literature (or art in general). Nature of Beauty Anandavardhana aptly compares the suggested sense in the work of "great poets" with the incomparable beauty (lavanya) of women that is distinct from the sum total of loveliness of various parts of their body. Abhinavagupta expands this idea in his characteristic style : "Beauty which is revealed by the configuration or form of the various (comely) parts of the body is quite distinct and different from their own loveliness. Faultlessness of the limbs or their union with ornaments does not constitute beauty. For we find sensitive critics (sahsdayas) calling a woman, although possessed of various limbs that are free from such defects as "one-eyedness" when each is viewed separately, and although decorated with ornaments, as devoid of elegance, and, on the contrary, calling a woman, who is unlike the above mentioned one, as the "nector of moonlight" (lavanyamota).Abhinavagupta thereby wants to convey that the suggested sense in the form of rasa, etcetera, is quite distinct from the sense denoted by abhidha as well as the sense indicated by laksana, gunavrtti and arthapatti (or anumana), and as such it does not lend itself to paraphrase. According to Anandavardhana, a kavya is devoid of rasa etcetera, if the poet has no intention to portray rasa etcetera, and if he aims at merely composing figures of word and/or of sense. And even if in the absence of his intention there

Page #2
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 71 is apprehension of rasa etcetera, on the strength of the denoted sense, that apprehension is very faint and therefore that kavya is as good as devoid of rasa etcetera. Abhinavagupta elucidates this statement by citing the following examples: "In such a kavya,, there is no apprehension of rasa etcetera, just as there is no apprehension of taste, say, sweetness, in a particular non-vegetarian dish, prepared. by a cook who is not skilled in cooking." If one were to affirm by way of objection that there is necessarily apprehension of taste, say, sweetness, in Sikharini (a dish of curd and brown sugar with spices) on account of the innate or inherent excellence of the ingredients". Abhinavagupta replies: "In the case of such a dish prepared by an untrained cook no one experiences pleasure by the mere knowledge (exclaiming), 'ha! what a wonderful Sikharini (dish)!". On the contrary, people say with reference to it that curd, brown sugar and black pepper are not properly combined. What Abhinavagupta seems to have in mind is the fact that only when a good poet, who is intent on writing a kavya imbued with rasa, skillfully depicts vibhavas, anubhavas and vyabhicari-bhavas in his kavya that the appropriate rasa etcetera is evoked in the reader's or spectator's mind. The vibhavas etcetera, conveyed by convention etcetera, immediately give rise to aesthetic relish. The apprehension of the rasa is unlike the apprehension of religious injunctions which causes expectancy to do something next, or the knowledge of a sage (yogi). In rasa experience there is no suggestion of anything to be done. It is a condition of restful joy. Abhinavagupta further declares that "from sentences in the kavya we do not expect the apprehension which proves useful for such activity as taking a cow out for grazing or bringing back a cow home in the evening; what we really expect is the apprehension of rasa etcetera, which leads to restful joy or aesthetic repose."'s Anandavardhana says that elsewhere it has been shown that particular words are agreeable in certain context and disagreeable in certain other context and that this difference is based on their power of suggestion. On this Abhinavagupta comments: "Elsewhere, that is in (Udbhata's) Bhamaha-vivarana, it has been shown. that words like 'a garland', 'sandal (paste)', etcetera, are quite agreeable in the context of 'iragara rasa' but disagreeable or repulsive in the context of bibhatsa rasa. To put it differently; Words, when oriented towards the emotion being. depicted, become the source of aesthetic relish. The discrimination culminates in the later doctrine of aucitya (fitness of everything that has bearing on the rasa concerned). The beauty of the suggested sense consists in its capacity to suggest the particular rasa; and rasa by itself is of the nature of aesthetic repose or rest and consists in delight or bliss."

Page #3
V. M. Kulkarni There cannot be any kavya worth the name in the absence of rasa etcetera; rasa doubtless is the life-breath of kavya but sometimes even a vyabhicari-bhava which is subservient to rasa causes greater aesthetic relish. 8 Abhinavagupta is one with Anandavardhana in asserting that a thing, although marvellous in itself, does not cause any wonder if it is universally known. Sources of Literary Beauty The earlier writers on poetics recognised sabdalamkaras like anuprasa) arthalamkaras (like upama), gunas (like madhurya), vsttis (like upanagrika) or ritis (like Vaidarbhi) and dosabhava (absence of defects) as sources of literary beauty. To the later writers on poetics like Anandavardhana, however, dhvani (suggestion, the suggested sense) is the first and foremost source of literary beauty. This suggested sense may take the form of rasa or alamkara or vastu. Of these three kinds the rasadi (rasa, bhava, etcetera) dhvani takes the place of pride. Anandavardhana asserts that all figures of speech like rupaka attain beauty only when they embody suggested sense that is subordinate. Abhinavagupta illustrates the truth of this statement by citing illustrations of upama, rupaka, sl: $1, yathasamkhya, dipaka, sasamdeha, apahnuti, paryayokta, tulya-yogita, aprastuta prasamsa, aksep1, and atisayokti which are all prosaic, dry and devoid of any touch of suggested sense. They answer the external requirements of the definitions of the concerned alamkaras all right, but are devoid of their very lifebreath, the guni-bhuta-vyangya. For instance, Upama : "The ox is like a cow.' Rupaka : "The rammer is a sacrificial post.'.... Dipaka : "Bring the cow and the horse.' Sasamdeha : "Is that a person or the tree-trunk?' Apahnutih : "This is not silver (but a pearl-oyster).' Paryayokta : 'This fat (Devadatta) does not eat by day.'.... Atisayokti : (i) The kundika (spouted water-jug) is samudra (an ocean).' (ii) "The Vindhya mountains grew (high) upto the sun's path in the sky.' All these examples are bald and devoid of any suggested sense and thus want in beauty and therefore they cannot be termed as alamkaras. 10 Abhinavagupta's contention that "a man free from passions (a saint) does not see things topsy-turvy : If he hears the sound of lute, he does not think he has

Page #4
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 73 heard the harsh-sounding crowing of a crow," would suggest that he held beauty to be objective !* Abhinavagupta elsewhere observes that when rati (love) is presented on the stage or in a poem, even a saint or an ascetic (who is free of passions) experiences rasa-hrdayas savada.11 Anandavardhana asserts that alamkara (like upama) is universally known as the source of beauty, All alamkaras truly become so if they are used as subservient to rasa etcetera, which is the very soul, or essence, of kavya. Abhinavagupta comments on this as follows : "Upama embellishes the literal sense. However, this literal sense, when endowed with excellence by upama (or any other alamkara), serves to suggest (rasadi--) dhvan. So, really speaking, the dhvani-atina is alamkarya. The ornaments like kataka (bracelet), keyura (armlet) when put on one's person, embellish the sentient person by suggesting his particular mental condition appropriate or inappropriate. 1 2 For instance, a corpse when decorated with alamkaras like) kund:la (earings) does not shine, as the soul has departed. An ascetic, if he puts on ornaments such as a bracelet of gold etcetera, becomes a laughing-stock, as in his case the mental state of a lover is inappropriate. As far as body is concerned, the question of propriety or otherwise does not arise : It is, then, one's self alone that is alarmkarya as one proudly feels "I am splendidly decorated."13 Emotions : The Content of Kavya Anandavardhana thus says in the third Uddyota : "In the province of kavya where we perceive suggested sense, the notions of satya (truth) and asatya (falsehood) are meaningless. To examine kavya through the well-known pramanas (means of valid knowledge) would simply lead to ridicule."14 The purport of this observation is that the things in kavya have no place in the everyday world of space and time, and, owing to this lack of ontological or physical status, the question of reality or unreality in this case does not apply. That, however, does not mean that they are unreal. In fact the distinction of existence or non-existence does not at all arise in their case. * This reminds of Mankhaka's lines in his Srikanthacarita : (i) vANI kimaNAGkaleva dhatte TaDa vinA pakrima vibhramaNa -II. 11 (ii) **** ffi IF741=ogha atar -II. 14 "Deviation in the activity of the poet is like the beautiful curve of the crescent moon and quite unlike that of the dog's tail." 10

Page #5
V.M. Kulkarni Abhinavagupta elucidates this passage of Anandavardhana by citing a dissimilar example (vaidharmya-drstanta): "We are not to examine these statements in kavya as to whether they are true and consider whether they command us to do something as the Vedic utterances enjoining Agnistoma sacrifice do. They simply contribute directly to giving aesthetic delight (and only indirectly to refining or influencing our character and culture of mind and heart). The aesthetic delight which is essentially of the nature of transcendental camatkara is not different from vyutpatti.18 The aesthetic delight is evoked in a reader when a vastu or alamkara or rasadi is/are portrayed by the poet in his kavya. The rasadi-dhvani is accorded the place of supremacy as it is the source of the highest delight next only to that of the realisation of Brahma. Naturally, emotions are the central theme and content of kavya according to both Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the two greatest aestheticians India has produced. Dhvani : The Method of Kavya Anandavardhana regards "sabdarthau" (word and sense) as only the outer vesture of kavya while emotion as its 'atman'. Emotions, of course, are never conveyed by their mere denomination. They can be conveyed or communicated only indirectly through an appropriate portrayal of their causes and effects. This indirect method of conveying emotions and feelings is called 'dhvani' (suggestion, suggestiveness). This method is extended to two other spheres of theme and content of kavya, namely vastu (a fact, a bare idea) and alamkara (figure of speech). Both vastu-dhvani and alarkara-dhvani can be paraphrased; but rasadi-dhvani can never lend itself to paraphrase. The beauty lent by suggested sense is the greatest alamkara of poetic speech just like bashfulness of women. 18 Abhinavagupta, too, upholds this method of dhvani as propounded by Anandvardhana. In the course of his exposition he often draws our attention to 'gopanasara-saundarya'17; and in one passage he aptly compares dhvani to a beautiful or noble lady's breasts, partly covered or concealed and partly revealed, the better to excite curiosity and passion, a simile which on account of its inherent beauty and aptness became famous in later alamkara literature. At one place he makes a perceptive remark: "what charm is there if the sense to be conveyed is done so directly or openly by the power of denotation ?"18 Anandavardhana boldly declares that dhvani (suggestion) is 'kavyasya-atma' (the soul, the very essence, of poetry, and by extension literature). It may present itself in the form of vastu or alamkara or rasadi. He is perfectly aware of the importance of rasa-dhvani. But it is Abhinavagupta who gives it the place of supremacy and asserts that the other two dhvanis are only its aspects, and that they are not really valuable in themselves but only insofar as they lead to rasadidhvani.19

Page #6
75 Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya Anandavardhana is perfectly aware of the fact that the hackneyed examples of secondary usage (laksana, and gunavrtti) like 'gangayam ghosah', 'agnir manavakah', 'simho batuh', although suggest particular purposes, their suggested sense is not so charming or elegant 20 Abhinavagupta expands and develops this idea in his Locana. He insists that the perception of beauty is the salient or characteristic feature of kavya. He further adds that the perception of beauty must afford aesthetic repose to the reader. In its absence the linguistic function, called vyanjana, does not start. Recoiling in fact, it comes to rest in the literal sense. It is like a poor man before whom heavenly wealth presents itself for a moment and instantly disappears from his view. While commenting on the word (dhvaneh svarupam) atiramaniyam from Anandavardhana's Vrtti", he rightly observes: "By this expression he points out the difference of divani from (and its superiority to) the bhakta (the secondary usage) There hardly is elegance in these examples of secondary usage: simho bajuh' (the boy is a lion), 'Gangayam ghosah' (there is a settlement of cowherds on the river Ganga)." Why these and such other examples want in beauty and why they do not deserve the title kavya he explains in another passage: The Objector: Thus the sentence "The boy is a lion" might constitute kavya as the soul if the form of suggestion is present in it. The siddanti: If so, you will have to call a jar 'living'; for atman, which is allpervasive, is also present in it. The Objector: If the soul is possessed of a body endowed with various organs. etcetera, only then it is called 'living' and not simply any kind of body. The siddhanti: If the soul of dhvani (suggestion) is invested with a body consisting of words and meanings that are beautiful on account of the presence of gunas (excellences) and alamkaras (figures of speech), appropriate to the particular (rasa-) dhvani, then we call those sabda and artha as kavya (sabdarthau kavyam). Aim/s of Kavya Dhvanyaloka merely refers to priti or ananda, (aesthetic) pleasure, joy or delight as the unique goal of literature. The discussion of Kalidasa's Kumarasambhava (Canto VIII, "Devisambhogavarnana") by Anandavardhana, however, is a pointer to his view that literature (or art as such) cannot be divorced from morality. So, one may not be wrong if he drew the inference that Anandavardhana believed. in priti and vyutpatti (aesthetic pleasure and culture or refinement of character or moral sensitivity or proficiency in the means of attaining the four goals of human life,) as the twin aims of literature.

Page #7
16 V.M. Kulkarni In contradistinction to Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta discusses this important issue of aesthetics in his Locana on more occasions than one. While commenting on Bhamaha's verse meaning, "Study of (genuine and) good kavya (poetry) leads to fame and delight as well as proficiency in (the means of attaining) the four great ends of man as well as proficiency in fine arts," Abhinavagupta pronounces his view : The readers of genuine kavya attain vyutpatti and priti (aesthetic delight or pleasure) no doubt, but, between them, says Abhinavagupta, aesthetic delight is the chief aim. Otherwise one could posit the question: "Since the Vedas and Smotis which are authoritative like masters (who issue command) and Puranas which advise or guide us like friends (they do not command, only tender advice), these two along with kavya are equally sources of vyutpatti; what is, then, the distinctive feature of kavya leading to the saine goal ? As similarity with a loving wife (who successfully persuades her husband to do what she likes keeping her persuasive character concealed from view and providing love's enjoyment) has been recognised as the characteristic feature of kavya, the answer to the above question is that immediate aesthetic pleasure is the principal aim of kayya and the aesthetic pleasure is also the ultimate fruition of vyutpatti and of kirtti (fame) too." Abhinavagupta next emphatically asserts : <Page #8
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 77 5. kAvyavAkyebhyo hi nayanAnayanAthupayoginI pratItirabhyarthyate, api tu pratItivizrAntikAriNI, sA vAbhiprAyaniSThaiva nAbhipretavastuparyavasAnA / - Locana, p. 442 zabdavizeSANAM ceti / anyatreti / bhaamhvivrnne| vibhAgeneti / srakcandanAdayaH zabdAH zRGgAre cAravo vIbhatse tvacAraNa iti rasakRta eva vibhaagH| rasaM prati ca zabdasya vyaJjakatvamevetyukta prAk / -Locana, p. 358 """kintu zabdasamaya'mANahRdayasaMvAdasundaravibhAvAnubhAvasamucita prAgviniviSTaratyAdivAsanAnurAgasukumArasvasaMvidAnandacarvaNAvyApArarasanIyarUpo rasaH, sa kAvyavyApAraikagocaro rasadhvaniriti, sa ca dhvanireveti, sa eva mukhyatayAtmeti / -Locana, pp. 49-50 8. bhAva-grahaNena vyabhicAriNo'pi caLamANasya tAvanmAtra vizrAntAvapi sthAyicarvaNAparyavasAnocitarasapratiSThAmanavApyApi prANatvaM bhavatItyuktam / / -Locana, p. 90 9. kSuNNaM hi vastu lokaprasiddhayAdbhutamapi nAzcaryakAri bhavati / -Dhvanyaloka, pp. 534-35. kSuNNa hoti / punaH punarvarNananirUpaNAdinA yatpiSTapiSTatvAdatinibhinnasvarUpamityarthaH / --Locana, p. 534 10. tathAjAtIyAnAmiti / caarutvaatishyvtaamityrthH| sulakSitA iti yatkilaiSAM tadvinirbhuktaM rUpaM na tatkAvye'bhyarthanIyam / upamA hi 'yathA gaustathA gavayaH' iti / rUpakaM 'khalevAsI yUpa' iti |""diipkN 'gAmazvam' iti / sasandehaH 'sthANurvA syAt' iti / apahnatiH 'nedaM rajatam' iti / paryAyoktaM 'pIno divA nAtti' iti / 'atizayoktiH 'samudraH kuNDikA', 'vindhyo vardhitavAna'kaMvAgRhNAt' iti / evamanyat / -Locana, pp. 472-473 ratau hi samasta-deva-tiryaG-narA di-jAtiSvavicchinnaiva vAsanAsta iti na kazcittatra tAdRgyo na hRdayasaMvAdamayaH, yatterapi hi taccamatkAro'styeva / -Locana, p. 205. etadukta bhavati-upamayA yadyapi vAcyo'rtho'laGkriyate, tathApi tasya tadevAlaGkaraNaM yad vyaGgyArthAbhivyaJjanasAmarthyAdhAnamiti vastuto dhvnyaatmaivaalngkaaryH| kaTaka-keyUrAdibhirapi hi zarIrasamavAyibhizcetana Atmaiva tattaccitta vRttivizeSaucityasUcanAtmatayAlaGkriyate / -Locana, p. 197 13. tathAhi--acetanaM zava-zarIraM kuNDalAdyupetamapi na bhAti, alaGa kAryasyAbhAvAt / yati-zarIraM kaTakAdi-yuktaM hAsyAvahaM bhavati, alaGkAryasyAnaucityAt / na hi dehasya kiJcidanaucityamiti vastuta AtmaivAlakAryaH, ahamalakRta ityabhimAnAt / -Locana, pp. 197-198 14. kAvya-viSaye ca vyaGgyapratItInAM satyAsatyanirUpaNasyAprayojakatvameveti tatra pramANAntaravyApAra parIkSopahAsAyaiva saMpadyate / -Dhvanyaloka, p. 455 aprayojakatvamiti / na hi teSAM vAkyAnAmagniSTomAdivAkyavat satyArthapratipAdanadvAreNa pravartakatvAya prAmANyamanviSyate, prItimAtraparyavasAyitvAt / prItereva cAlaukikacamatkArarUpAyA vyutpattyaGgatvAt / etaccoktaM vitatya prAk / upahAsAya veti / nAyaM sahRdayaH kevalaM zaSkatarkopakramakarkazahRdayaH pratIti parAmaSTuM nAlamityeSa uphaasH| -Locana, p. 455 11. 12. 15. agara

Page #9
V.M. Kulkarni Masson and Patwardhan quote the last two lines and render them as follows: "(The person who attempts to discover whether a poem is "true" or "false">) will be ridiculed as follows: This is somebody who is insensitive to literature. He is not able to appreciate an aesthetic experience for his heart has become hard by his indulging in dry logic." ---Aesthetic Rapture, Vol. II : Notes Poona, 1970, p. 21, f. n. 143 16. (i) vastvalaGkArAvapi zabdAbhidheyatvamadhyAsate tAvat / rasa-bhAva-tadAbhAsa-tatprazamAH punarna kadAcidabhidhIyante, atha cAsvAdyamAnatAprANatayA bhAnti / -Locana, p. 78 (ii) mukhyA mahAkavigirAmalaGkRtibhRtAmapi / pratIyamAnacchAyaiSA, bhUSA lajjava yoSitAm // -Dhvanyaloka, III. 37 mukhyA bhUSeti / alaGkRtibhRtAmapizabdAdalaGkArazUnyAnAmapItyarthaH / pratIyamAnakRtA chAyA zobhA sA ca lajjA sadazI gopanAsArasaundarya prANatvAt / alaGkAradhAriNInAmapi nAyikAnAM lajjAmakhyaM bhaSaNama / pratIyamAnAcchAyA antarmadanodbhadajahRdayasaundaryarUpA yathA, lajjA hyaMntaruddhinamAnmathavikArajugopayiSArUpA madanavijRmbhava / vItarAgANAM yatInAM kaupInApasAraNe'pi trapAkalaGkAdarzanAt / -Locana, p. 475 17. ...'zRGgArarasataraGgiNI hi lajjAvaruddhA nirbharatayA tAMstAn vilAsAn netragAtravikAraparamparArUpAn prasUta iti gopanAsArasaundaryalajjAvijambhitametaditi bhAvaH / -Locana, p. 476 18. (i) tallakSaNAprayojanaM zUra-kRtavidya-sevakAnAM prAzastyamazabdavAcyatvena gopyamAnaM sannAyikAkucakalazayugalamiva mahArghatAmupayad dhvanyata iti / -Locana, p. 138 (ii) zabdaspRSTe'rthe kA hRdyatA / -Locana, p. 528 .."tena rasa eva vastuta AtmA, vastvalaGkAradhvanI tu sarvathA rasaM prati paryavasyete iti vAcyA dutkRSTau tAvityabhiprAyeNa 'dhvaniH kAvyasyAtmeti sAmAnyenoktam / -Locana, p. 85 20. vasta cArutvapratItaye svazabdAdabhidheyatvena yat pratipAdayitu miSyate tad vyaGgyam / tacca na sarva guNavRttaviSayaH prasiddhayanurodhAbhyAmapi gauNAnAM zabdAnAM prayogadarzanAt / "gaGgAyAM ghoSaH""guNavRttistu vAcyadharmAzrayeNaiva vyaGgyamAtrAzrayeNa cAbhedopacArarUpA saMbhavati, yathA tiikssnntvaadgnirmaannvkH| -Dhvanyaloka, pp. 426-433 (i) yaccoktam-'cArutvapratotistahi kAvyasyAtmA syAt' iti tadamIkurma eva / nAmni khalvayaM vivAda iti / -Locana, p. 105 (ii) 'na hi siMho baTuH', 'gaGgAyAM ghoSaH' ityatra ramyatA kAcit / -Locana, p. 37 21. [tasya hi dhvaneH svarUpam "atiramaNIyam] atiramaNIyamiti bhAktAd vyatireka mAha / na hi 'siMho baTuH', 'gaGgAyAM ghoSaH' ityatra ramyatA kAcit / -Locana, p. 37 2. nanvevaM 'siMho baTuH' ityatrApi kAvyarUpatA syAt dhvananalakSaNasyAtmano'trApi samanantaraM vakSyamANatayA bhAvAt / nanu ghaTe'pi jIvavyavahAraH syAta, Atmano bibhutvena tatrApi bhAvAt /

Page #10
Abhinavagupta's Ideas in Locana on the Nature of Beauty of Kavya 79 zarIrasya khalu viziSTAdhiSThAnayuktasya satyAtmani jIvavyavahAraH na yasya kasyaciditi cetguNAlaGkAraucityasundarazabdArthazarIrasya sati dhvananAkhyAtmani kAvyarUpatAvyavahAraH / -Locana, p. 59 23. (i) ""tatra kavestAvat kIrtyApi prItireva saMpAdyA / zrotRNAM ca vyutpattiprItI yadyapi staH... tathApi tatra prItireva pradhAnam / "iti prAdhAnyenanAnanda evoktH| caturvargavyutpatterapi cAnanda eva pAryantikaM mukhyaM phalam / -Locana, pp.40-41 (ii) prItireva vyutpatteH prayojikA / prItyAtmA ca rasaH .... na caite prItivyutpattI bhinnarUpe eva dvayorapyeka viSayatvAt / -Locana, p. 336 24. kathamacArutvaM tAdRze viSaye sahRdayAnAM nAvabhAtIti cet "tathA hi-mahAkavInAmapyuttamadevatA viSayaprasiddhasaMbhogazRGgAranibandhanAdyanaucityaM zakti tiraskRtatvAt grAmyatvena na pratibhAsate / yathA kumArasaMbhave devIsaMbhogavarNanam / tasmAdabhineyArthe'nabhineyArthe vA kAvye yaduttamaprakRte rAjAderuttamaprakRtibhirnAyikAbhiH saha grAmyasaMbhogavarNanaM tat pitroH saMbhogavarNanamiva sutarAmasabhyam / tathaivottamadevatAdiviSayam / " -Dhvanyaloka. pp. 316-334 25. Dhvanyaloka-vrtti on IV. 5 pp. 529-534,