Kavyanushasana Critical Study

Author(s): A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/001713/1

Page #1

OF
THE KĀVYĀNUSĀSANA ACHARYA HEMACHANDRA А CRITICAL STUDY
PL
an
TRICO G
.
111
DR.A.M.UPADHYAY M.A. PH.D.
FOREWORD BY DR.V.M.KULKARNI
IA Educamp inte national
For Private
Personal use only
jainel brary.org

Page #2

THE KAVYANUSASANA
OF
ACHARYA HEMACHANDRA A CRITICAL STUDY

DR. A. M. UPADHYAY M.A., PH.D.
FOREWORD
DR. V. M. KULKARNI M.A., PH.D.
WORDS OF WELCOME
DR. T. S. NANDI M.A., PH.D.
AHMEDABAD
INDIA
1987

Page #3

The Kavyānuśāsana of Ācharya Hemachandra A Critical Study
by Dr. Amrut M. Upadhyay, M.A., Ph.D. 8/22, Krupa Apartments, Near Lavanya Society, Vasana, Ahmedabad 380 007, India
The Author
First Edition, October, 1987
Price Rs. 250/
ai
Cover Design : Shailesh Modi This book can also be ordered from : 1. Ms. Motilal Banarsidass
41 U. A., Bungalow Road,
Jawahar Nagar, Delhi 110 007 (India) 2. Parshva Prakashan,
Nisha Pole, Relief Road, Ahmedabad 380 001 (India) Saraswati Pustak Bhandar,
Hathi Khana, Ratan Pole, Ahmedabad 380 001 (India) 4. Students' Agencies,
Swadeshi Mill Compound, Girgaum,
Bombay 400 004 (India) 5. Vidyarthi Book Depot, Girgaum, Bombay 400 004
Printers : Haresh J. Patel
Darshan Printers, 2-Bandhu Samaj Society,
Usmanpura, Ahmedabad 380 013 Binders : Kumar Binders, Ahmedabad 300 001

Page #4

This book is dedicated to the
पूर्वाचार्य
both
ancient and modern
त पूर्वाचार्यसूक्तिज्योतिस्तोमोद्गम स्तुमः । य प्रस्तूय प्रकाशन्ते मद्गुणास्त्रसरेणवः ॥
- चन्द्रालोके (१.४) पीयूषवर्ष जयदेवकविः ।

Page #5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GRATITUDE
First and foremost I would like to thank Acharya Shri Rajayashasuri, Acharya Devendrasagarasuri, Acharya Vijaya Ramsuri, Acharya Vijaya Bhadrankarsuri, Acharya Padmsagarasuri and their worthy disciples for blessing my venture.
Some well-wishers have provided me with the necessary warmth and encouragement throughout the period of the preparation and publication of this book. Sincere thanks are due to Shri Gulabdas Broker, Dr. Ishvarbhai Patel, Dr. (Smt.) Sarayu Doshi, Dr. D. T. Shah, Dr. Y. R. Trivedi, Shri Nanalal Vasa, Dr. D. G.. Vedia, Dr. M. S. Bhat, Prof. Jayanand Dave, Dr. A. V. Shenoy, Shri Ganapatlal Jhaveri, Shri K. P. Shah, Dr. K. M. Sangani,. Dr. Vikram Parikh, Prof. N. S. Yajnik, Dr. Shantikumar Pandya, Dr. Gautam Patel, Shri Y. M. Shah, Shri Lalitkumar K.. Kolsawala, Shri Bharatkumar D. Mansawala, Shri Jayesh C. Bhansali, Dr. S. S. Jhaveri, Dr. Mrs. S. S. Amonkar, Prof. S. A. Upadhyay, Shri D. D. Mehta and Smt. Bhavana Mehta, Shri Dinesh Shah and Smt. Onita Snah, Shri Ramesh Joshi,, Shri Ramesh Shah, Shri Gautam G. Mehta and Smt. Charu G. Mehta, Shri Mahendra Nanavati and Dr. Bhanuben M. Nanavati, Prof. Ramesh Kher, Shri Arvind R. Athavale, Acharya Bhajshankar Purohit and Dr. N. J. Shah.
Many well-wishers have rendered assistance in the publication of this work with love and affection without which this work would not have seen the light of the day. In this connection sincere thanks are due to Shri Chandrakant Doshi, Shri Nagin M. Doshi, Shri Narendra M. Mehta, Shri & Smt. Surykant S. Shah, Shri Manubhai C. Shah, Shri Kanubhai Mehta, Shri Rasiklai Mohanlal Shah, Shri Shachin Nanavati, Shri Haresh Shroff, Dr. Vikram Parikh, Dr. Vihang Vahia,. Dr. Ajit Shah, Shri D. S. Upadhyay, Shri Bharatkumar Upadhyay, Shri Harsh Doshi, Shri Ramesh Shah and many other friends..

IV

Page #6

FOREWORD I have great pleasure in writing a Foreword to this book which is based on the thesis presented by my friend, Prof. A. M. Upadhyay for the Ph.D. Degree in Sanskrit of Gujarat University, Ahmedabad. There are eleven Chapters in this ibook and, with the exception of the concluding chapter, A Synoptic View of Ācārya Hemacandra's Life and Works, each chapter treats of some of the leading topics or Concepts in Sanskrit Poetics (and Aesthetics) - a subject in which Indian mind has achieved particular excellence.
The present work mainly deals with a critical study of Acharya Hemacandra's Kāvyānusāsana. This work has been generally belittled and undeservedly criticised by the historians of Sanskrit Literature and Sanskrit Poetics. Keith dismisses it in four lines : "In the contemporary of Mammața, Hemacandra, we find a placid borrowing from Mammata, Abhinavagupta, Rājasekhara, the Vakrokti-jivita and so on. His Kāvyānuśāsana, with the Viveka by himself, is destitute of originality, but contains a section on dramaturgy." P. V. Kane condemns it in these words : "The Kāvyānušāsana is a compilation and exhibits hardly any originality. It borrows wholesale from the Kāvyamimāṁsā of Rajasekhara, the Kävyaprakāśa, the Dhvanyaloka and from Abhinavagupta's works." S. K. De in his Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics charges Hemachandra of plagiarism. These historians are however not fair to Acārya Hemacandra and his Kāvyānuśāsana. It is indeed surprising that such a scholarly, carefully designed, well organized work on poetics should have remained almost entirely unacknowledged. The work makes no claim to originality like Dhivanyaloka but Kavyānuśasana deserves to be treated as a respectable compendium of previous noteworthy writings, like Kāvya-prakāśa. Instead of briefly summarising in his own language the theories and doctrines of his predecessors, too illustrious to be mentioned by name, he presents them in their original form. We will be only betraying

Page #7

poverty of imagination and scant respect for Ācarya Hemacandra's intelligence if we were to insinuate that he pretended that all the excerpts and extracts which he quoted would pass as his own. The truth is that he regards the masterpieces of his predecessors as the property of the entire world.
It is gratifying that Prof. Upadhyay's approach to Kāvyānuśāsana is markedly free from strong prejudices of the historians mentioned above. His remarkably fine study of Hemacandra's Kavyānušāsana will help restore or set right the balance and lead to a proper evaluation of Ācārya Hemacandra's encyclopaedic compendium. He brings to the study of Kāvyānuśāsana a mind adequately equipped in literature and literary criticism. He has imbibed and assimilated the ideas and critical thought embodied in the wellknown works and research papers of modern Sanskrit scholars and critics and made their judicious use in explaining and elucidating Hemachandra, whose encyclopaedic scholarship and eclectic attitude and lucid exposition has produced this masterly manual of Sanskrit poetics. Prof. Upadhyay's approach is marked by sympathetic attitude and he is fair and just in his praise of Acārya Hemacandra and his Kavyanušāsana. His exposition of the various topics dealt with by the Ācārya is very clear and methodical. The analytical table of contents with which the thesis is prefaced will greatly facilitate readers. His command of language and fascinating style of writing are praiseworthy. It is chiefly on the expository side that the excellence of Prof. Upadhyay's work lies.
We warmly welcome this study as a notable addition to the number of works in English on Sanskrit Poetics (and aesthetics). 5, Suruchi Society, Dixit Road Extension,
V. M, Kulkarni Vile Parle (East), Bombay 400 057
Vi

Page #8

WORDS OF WELCOME
It was first Prof. R. C. Parikh and then both Prof. Parikh and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni who placed before the learned a critical text of the Kāvyānuśāsana of Ācārya Hemacandra. Both the editors have brought out the real worth of the work which covers the entire span of Sanskrit Alamkāraśāstra and also dramaturgy, a unique feat not performed by any earlier author. True, Hemacandra was not a founder of any system of thought as is the case with the great Anandavardhana, but the latter's ideas got rooted in the minds of literary critics and were fully explained, established and accepted in the literary world of later alamkarikas, chiefly through the efforts of such stalwarts as Abhinavaguptapāda, Mammața and Hemacandra, Visvanātha and others. In fact Ācārya Hemacandra was the instrument in the spread of the tenets of the Kashmir School of thought in Gujarat, to the disadvantage of the Mālava School as represented by Bhoja and others. The real value of His Viveka was brough out by Dr. Kulkarni when with its help he reconstructed almost the whole portion of Abhinavabhārati on the 7th Ch. of the Nātyaśāstra of Bharata. Hemacandra fully inherited the wisdom of his predecessors and presented it in a neat fashion for the next generations to come. The undue criticism advanced by Dr. Kane, Dr. De and Dr. Keith and scholars belonging to that generation should be rightly forgotten. And it is exactly here that Dr. Upadhyay's thesis shows the way. He has not only interpreted Hemacandra in the right perspective but has tried to place him on the high pedestal to which he belongs. I welcome Prof. Dr. Upadhyay's work.
Ahmedabad 380 009
T. S. Nandi
VII

Page #9

Abh. bh.
A.P.
Av.
D.R.
Dhv.Al/(Dhv.)
Ek.
K.K.
K.M.
K.P.
K.P.P.
K.Ā.
K.A. (Bhamaha)
K.A (Rudrata)
KASS
KAS/KASV/VKASV
K.A.S.
Viveka
N.D.
N.S.
R.G.
S.D.
S.K.
Śr.Pr./S.P.
S.T.
V.J.
V.P.

ABBREVIATIONS
Abhinavabhārati
Agnipurāṇa
Avaloka
Daśarupaka
Dhvanyaloka
Ekāvali
Kavikaṇṭhābharana of Kṣemendra
Kāvyamimāṁsā
Kavyaprakāśa
Kavyaprakāśapradipa
Kāvyādarśa
Kavyalaṁkāra of Bhamaha
Kavyalamkara of Rudrata
Kāvyālaṁkārasarasangraha
Kāvyālaṁkārasūtravṛtti of Vamana
Kāvyānuśāsana of Hemachandra (with Alamkaracūḍāmaṇi and Viveka) Kāvyānuśāsana-Viveka of Hemachandra Natyadarpana
Natyaśāstra Rasagangadhara
Sahityadarpaṇa
Sarasvatikanṭhābharaṇa
Śrngaraprakāśa
Śṛngaratilaka
Vakroktijivita
Vākyapadiya
VIII

Page #10

PREFACE This publication of 'The Kāvyānušāsana of Achärya Hemachandra : A Critical Study' represents, for me, the fulfilment of a fond dream of supplying the commonly felt need for a comprehensive, analytical, critical and comparative study of the entire three-tier text of Āchārya Hemachandra's Kävyänuśāsana. This work is a thoroughly revised and considerably improved version of my Ph.D. thesis which was submitted to the Gujarat University in 1985.
The Study presented here represents a fresh look at the three -tier text of the Kavyānusāsana and its manifold conceptual and theoretic facets. In view of the fact that a proper theoretic basis of this work was not sufficiently realised, it was adjudged a mere text book modelled on the Kävyaprakāśa. But, from a theoretical standpoint, the Kavyānusāsana constitutes a very p work in the Kashmirian tradition of Sanskrit poetics as also in the realm of Rasadhvani theory. The present Study concentrates on the doctrinaire as well as the eclectic aspects of the Kavyänušāsana, and I am glad to say that a novel approach of study has been brought to bear upon this study so as to highlight the fact that the Kävyānusasana is written in the best tradition of the Dhvani School, and it deserves to be rated very highly as a standard treatise on Indian Poetics and Dramaturgy. In fact, its theoretical affiliations make it a milestone in the early history of the Dhvani doctrine and, by any yardstick, it is an authoritative spokesman of the aesthetics of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in the same way as Mammața's Kavyaprakasa is an authoritative work of the Rasadhvani School.
I am grateful to Dr. V. M. Kulkarni for his illuminating foreword to this volume, which, I believe, will serve as an authoritative introduction to my work. I also thank Dr. T. S. Nandi, my esteemed guide, for his Words of Welcome.'
IX

Page #11

In preparing such an exhaustive study on a complete technical, three-tier text like the Kāvyānuśāsana, I have utilised a number of ancient and modern critical works and I would like to acknowledge my deep debt of gratitude to these Pūrvasūris. In this connection, I must mention the works of Prof. R. C. Parikh, Prof. R. B. Athavale, Dr. V. Raghavan, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, Dr. K. Krishnamoorthi, R. Gnoli, Masson and Patwardhan, Dr. P. V. Kane, Dr. S. K. De, Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya and several other eminent scholars from which I have derived much guidance and help.
I thank Dr. R. C. Dwivedi and Dr. M. C. Pathak for their kind words about this work.
I am happy to mention that the late Prof. R. B. Athavale, with whom I had a long association took a lot of interest in my thesis and, on two occasions, just before his passing away, expressed the desire that the work should be published and also blessed my work.
Shri Haresh J. Patel, proprietor of Darshan Printers and and his dedicated Staff have done a commendable job of printing and they deserve sincere thanks. I must also thank Shri Jagadish L. Upadhyay of the Gujarat Univrsity Press for his help in correcting the proofs.
It may be noted That I have romanized all Sanskrit words except the name Acharya Hemachandra.
I would like to thank Hon. Kum. Chandrika P. Kenia, Minister of State for Education, Maharashtra State, and Prof. J. H. Dave, Hon. Director, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, for their association with the inanguration of this book at a function on the 2nd Oct., 1987 in Bombay.
A. M. Upadhyay
Vijaya Dashami, October 2, 1987 B/22 Krupa Aparments, Near Lavanya Society, Vasana, Ahmedabad 380 007

Page #12

Foreword: Dr. V. M. Kulkarni
Words of Welcome : Dr. T. S. Nandi
Abbreviations
Preface
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prelude
The Kavyanusāsana: A Brief Introduction The Kashmirian Tradition of Poetics Hemachandra's Theoretical Objective Hemachandra's Style of Composition
The Nature and the Division of the Contents The Significant Title of The Work
The Purpose and Method of the Critical Study
Chapter One: The Poetic Universe
The Benedictory Verses
The Object of the Work and its Title The Purpose of Poetry
The Connoisseur of Poetry
Poetry and Morality
Mammata's aims of Poetry Criticised The Cause of Poetry: Pratibhā
Poetry and the Various Sciences
The Technical Sciences

An Off-beat Interpretation of the twofold Creative Power
Vyutpatti and Abhyasa: Aids of Pratibha
Vyutpatti Defined
XI
V-VI
VII
VIII
IX-X

XI-XXVI
1-10
2345567
11-90
13
16
17
19
21
21
222 223
24
25
27
31

Page #13

34
35
35
35
36
53
53
56
Abhyāsa Defined Poetic Training or śikṣā Defined Kavisamaya or Poetic Convention Borrowing or Dependence The Threefold Poetic Convention What is Literary Borrowing or Dependence ? Four Types of Borrowing or Dependence Hemachandra's Indebtedness to Rajasekhara What is Plagiarism ? In Defence of Plagiarism Samasyapürana Classification of Subject-matter or Artha and Dependence The Minor Varieties of Imitation The Mothers of Poetry Theory of Literature The Definition of Poetry An Analysis of Hemachandra's Defintion of Poetry Hemachandra's Doctrine of Guņa and Dosa Hemachandra's Concept of Poetic Embellishments What are Poetic Embellishments ? Concepts of Guna and Alamkāra Distinguished Guna and Alamkāra vis-a-vis The Rasa-dhvani Doctrine Bhattodbhata's View Criticized Criteria of Samavāya and Sanyoga Hemachandra objects to Vāmana's View on Guna Vāmana's Significant Distinction The Real Difference between Guna and Alamkāra The True Function of Alamkāra General Guidelines for the Employment of Alamkāras
4
65
69
71
71
16
76
71
78
Chapter Two : The Poetic Meaning
91-190 Types of Meaning : Hemachandra's Fourfold Classification 91 The Expressed Sense : Different Views Sanketa and Upādhi
96 The Conception of Sphoța : Hemachandra stands by
99
XII

Page #14

117
The Grammarian's View of Sanketa The Jatireva View of Sanketa in Viveka Hemachandra's Brief Exposition of the Other Two Views on Sanketa The Apoha Theory Hemachandra's Conclusion
104 The Indirect Meaning : Metaphor
105 Basis of Metaphor: How It Functions
106 On How Transference Occurs in Metaphor
108 How Gauna Artha Comes About ?
109 Fourfold Power of A Word
111 Abhidhā, Gauņi, Laksaņā and Vyañjanā,
112 Mammața's Views on Other Types of Metaphors
113 Gauņi and Laksaņā Distinguished
115 Omission of Rūdhi Significant
116 Nature and Conditions of Indirect Process The Process of Indication
119 Not Every Sense Can Be Termed 'Laksyārtha'
119 Lakşaņā Not To Be Confused with Implication Etc.
119 Hemachandra's Significant Innovations...
122 ...And His Independent Stand
122 Limited Varieties of Laksaņā in Hemachandra's Classification 123 The Suggested Meaning
124 Theory of Dhvani or Suggestion
125 The Nature and Types of Dhvani
126 The Term 'Dhvani' Explained
127 Sabdi and Ārthi Vyanjanā
129 Hemachandra's Treatment of Dhvani
129 The Threefold Dhvani
132 Hemachandra's Exposition of the Threefold Dhvani
133 Dhvani Is An Elastic Term
133 Why Resort To Dhvani ?
135 The Distinction Between Vācya and Vyangya
135 Hemachandra Tackles The Various Theories of Meaning
138 The Tātparya Theory
139
XIII

Page #15

158
161
Hemachandra's Refutation of Antidhvani Views -Reviewed and Summarized
141 Statement and Suggestion : How Are They Related
143 The Range of The suggested sense demonstated
148 Hemachandra Ignores The Drift-power
149 The Arthi Vyañjanā
151 Peculiar Factors Analysed
152 Divisions of The Suggested Sense
154 Sabdaśaktimālā Vyañjanā Defined
156 Abhidhāmālā and Lakşaņāmālā Vyañjanā
156 Why Divide Vyañjana Into śabdi and Arthi ?
156 Suggetiesvness of Word as well as Sense
157 Vyañjanā Belongs To Both Sabda and Artha
158 What Is Abhidhamūlā Vyañjana ? The Problem of Homonyms
159 The Restrictive Circumstances
159 The Motive Factor In Laksaņā Is Always Suggested Abhidhamūla and Laksaņāmālā : Both śabdi
162 The Function of Perception
162 Neither Abhidhā Nor Laksaņā Can Convey The Prayojana 163 Refutation of Dvitiyalakşaņāvāda and Visistalaksaņāvāda Factors That Affect The Arthivyañjanā
166 The Śabdaśaktimüladhvani and slesa : Their Provinces Hemachandra Illustrates Types of Dhvani
169 Arthasaktimülavyangya Defined
174 Hemachandra's Criticism of Mammața's Threefold Arthasakti mūladhvani
174 Hemachandra's Treatment of Arthasaktimüladhvani Compared with Ānandavardhana's and Mammata's
175 Classification of Arthasaktimüla Unjustified
175 Hemachandra's Independent Stand on Division of Arthasaktimuladhvani
176 Kavipraudhokti Explained
177 The Poet's Imagination Is All-Informing
178 Hemachandra's Concern With True Aesthetics
180
Lauda
163
167
XIV

Page #16

Rasadi Belongs To Arthasaktimūladhvani Rasādi is Always Suggested; Never Expressed
185 186
Chapter Three : The Aesthetic Experience
191-288
198
The Starting point of the Rasa Theory
191 Analysis of The Key-words in The Rasasūtra
191 The Psychology of Rasa
192 The Interpretation of The Rasasūtra : Major Theories 194 Bharata's Conception of Rasa
194 Rasa and Bhava
194 No Rasa, No Drama
195 Mutual Relation Between Rasa and Bhāva
196 Bharata's Idea of Rasa-development
197 Hemachandra's High Sense of Priority
197 The Process of Rasa-realization in a Nutshell
197 The Vibhāvas as Excitants How Rasas Become known : Anubhāvas or Consequents 198 The Character of the Aesthetic Experience
199 Rasāsvāda : The Source of Transcendent Charm
200 The Transcendental Nature of Rasa-Experience
201 The Difficulty of Particular Assignment of Vibhāvādi 202 The Theories about the Rasa-Experience
202 The Abhinavabhārati : A Great Work on Art
203 Hemachandra Introduces Important Views on Rasāsvāda 203 The Rasa-Theories In The Abhinavabhārati
204 Lollata's Thory of Rasa
205 Sankuka Controverts Lollata's and Dandin's Views
206 Lollața's Explanation Is Illogical
207 Sankuka Submits His Own Interpretation
208 Hemachandra Quotes Dharmakirti's Verse
209 Abhinavagupta, following his master Tota, Criticises The Theory of Reproduction or Imitation, held by Sankuka 210 Hemachandra Intervenes
212 The Theory of Imitation Is Vain
213
XV

Page #17

Some Other Theories (Viveka P. 95) The Samkhya View of Rasa
Rasa Is Neither Perceived Nor Produced, Nor Manifested: Bhaṭṭanayaka's View
Bhṭṭanayaka's Theory of Aesthetic Enjoyment Abhinava Reviews Bhattanayaka's Theory Abhinavagupta's View of Rasa
The Aesthetic Perception Is Unique The Conception of Camatkāra
The Seven Barriers : How to Overcome Them? The Natyadharmi: Means of Eliminating The Obstacles Rasa is Personal Experience
Its Distinction from Other Experiences
A Summary of Abhinava's Exposition
The Philosophic Character of Aesthetic Bliss
The Number And Types of Rasa: Nine Rasas Additional Rasas Untenable
The Śrngārarasa - Defined and Explained Types of Vipralambha Sṛngāra
The Comic Sentiment
The Pathetic Sentiment The Furious Sentiment
The Heroic Sentiment
The Terrible Sentiment
Are Feelings Genuine Always?
No Genuine Fear In Superior Persons
But Ony Modesty
The Disgustful Sentiment
The Marvellous Sentiment
Hemachandra's Treatment of The Santarasa
Anandavardhana's Conception of Santarasa
Abhinavagupta's View of Santarasa Santarasa In The Abhinavabhārati
Abhinavagupta's Reply to Critics of

XIV

215
216
216
217
218
219
220
221
223
224
212
230
232
233
234
236
236
240
242
244
244
245
246
247
247
248
248
249
251
252
255
256

Page #18

The Passage On śāntarasa in The Veveka
258 Hemachandra's Treatment of śānta : Review
263 शान्तरस: The Vews of Dhananjaya and Dhanika
265 Is Jimütavahana A Santanāyaka ?
266 Only Eight Sthāyibhāvas, Says Dhanika
267 Mammata's View About Säntarasa
268 The Nine Dominant Moods or Mental States
268 The Accessory Emotions
270 Bhāvasthiti, Bhāvodaya, Bhāvaprasama, Bhāvasandhi and Bhāvasabalatā
271 The Sättvika bhāvas : Hemachandra'a Interpretation
272 Dhananjaya's Views on Sättvikabhāvas
276 Psendo-Suggestion or 37919: Somblangece of Rasa, Bhava, etc.
277 Bhāvadhvani, Bhāvābhāsa, Bhāvodaya Etc. Mammata's Treatment of Semblance of Rasa Etc., Compared with Hemachandra's
280 The Divisions of Poetry : The Uttamakāvya
282 The Madhyama Kavya
283 Mammața's Eightfold Division Rejected
286 The Adhama or Avara Kavya
286 Chapter Four : The Conception And Treatment of Poetic Blemishes
289-342
279
The notion of Poetic Blemish or Doşa Hemachandra's Detailed Exposition of Dosas The Aesthetic Criterion of Poetic Blemish The Problem Of "Vācyatvam" Hemachandra's Sources on Dosa Basis of Classification of Blemishes Accurate Definition Of Doşa Apprehension and Varieties of Dosa Hemachandra Alters The Method of Treatment The Rasadosas The First Case of the Admission of the Factors of
289 289 290 291 292 292 293 293 293 295
.
XVII

Page #19

304
308
a Conflicting Rasa
297 How to Avoid Clash of Sentiments and Factors ?
297 Eight Poetic Blemishes of Rasa
302 Artistic Continuity
304 The Art of Characterization and Rasa Propriety in Poetry
306 The Blemishes Pertaining to Word and Sense
307 The Vākyadosas
308 Hemachandra's Padadosas The Thirteen Vākyadoșas Explained
309 The Conception of Vākyadoșas
310 Propriety is the Magic Wand
311 Neutralization of Dosas
312 Uktapada Excused in Alliteration
315 Uktapada No Dosa in Dhvani
315 On the Use of the Enclitic
317 Correlation of "Yad' and 'Tad'
318 Mammața's View on Correlation
319 When Use of Parenthesis becomes a Guna
323 The Eight Ubhayadosas
328 A Comparative Study of the Ubhayadosas
328 Hemachandra's Treatment of Ubhaydoșas
329 Mahimabhatta's Conception of Doşasa
330 Two Types of Negation
334 Compound Words
336 Mahimabhatta's View on Compounds Summarized
337 Arthadoșas Explained
340 Exceptions or Apavādas A Critical Review of Hemachandra's Treatment of Dosas 341
341
Chapter Five : The Poetic Excellences or the Guņas
343-379
Hemachandra's Stand on the Guņas Mammața's Definition of Guņas Guņas and Alamkāras Distinguished
343 344 344
XVIII

Page #20

346 348
350 351
351 352 357
Three Guņas Only Hemachandra's Theoretical Affiliations Hemachandra on the Distinction Between Guņas and Alamkāras Concepts Of Conjunction and Inherence Hemachandra's Exposition of the Three Guņas and Rejection of the Ten Guņas Gunas are Three Only, Neither Ten Nor Five Vịttis And Ritis In Relation To Guņas Concepts of Riti And Vịtti in the Pre-Dhvani and Post-Dhvani Periods Ānandavardnana on Vịtti and Riti Hemachandra's Stand on Ritis Concept of Compatibility : Departure From Rules Sanctioned Hemachandra's Refutation of the Older Theories Of Guņa Dr. Raghavan's Critical Review Five Guņas as Patha-dharmas Five Guņas as Metrical Qualities A Critical Summary of the Viveka Passage on The Disposal of The Ten Guņas Vāmana's Novel Conceptions Conclusive Rejection of Ten Guņas
358 360 361
362
364
365
366 366
367 378 379
Chapter Six : The Poetic Embellishment
380-403
380 381
381
382
The Concept of Poetic Embellishment Aesthetic Considerations Arthalamkāra Sabdacitra and Artha citra Hemachandra's Exposition of the Poetic Embellishments Based on Word and Sense Six Verbal Figures of Hemachandra Yamaka : A Literary Excess Can Abhangaśleșa be Regarded as an Arthalaskāra ?
382 383 386 388
XIX

Page #21

389
389
390
391 392
The Province of Sleșa Bhāṣāśleșa What is Vakrokti ? Kākuvakrokti Rejected by Hemachandra Udbhata's Punaruktābhāsa Embellishments Based on Sense Twentynine Arthalamkāras Rationale of Treatment Hemachandra's Critical Outlook The Individual Figures Discussed Aesthetic Criterion of Utpreksā The Criterion to Decide Alamkāras A Critical and Comparative Review Kuntaka's Novel Conception of Alamkāra Dr. S. K. De's Review of Hemachandra's Method
393 393
393
394
396 401
401
402
403
Chapter Seven : Dramatis Personae The Characteristics of the Hero And The Heroine 404-419 General Introduction
404 Hemachandra's Classification
406 Hemachandra's Treatment of Nāyaka-Nāyikā -Bheda
407 The Eight Sattvika Guņas of the Hero
409 The Types of the Hero
410 Overlapping of Types Possible
411 The Interchangeability or Otherwise of Types of Heroes 411 The Hero As A Lover
412 The Opponent of the Hero : Pratināyaka
413 The Characteristics of the Heroine
413 The Concept of Parakiyā
164 Hemachandra is a follower of Bharata
418 Nayaka-Nayika-Bheda : A Highly Conventionalized Subject 418
XX

Page #22

Chapter Eight : Types of Literary Compositions or Forms of Literature
420-447
420 421 422 422 423 425 425 425 426 426 428 428 428 429 430
431
Bhatta Tauta's Lofty Conception of Poetry Hemachandra's Twelve Rüpakaā The Sattaka The Twelve Types of Musical Compositions Bssis of Classification of Geya Rūpakas The Sravya Kavya and its Varieties The Mahākavya and its Varieties The Mahakavya as a Literary Form The Five Sandhis Beauties of Form and Content Varieties of Mhakāvya Definition of Mahākāvya : Not too Rigid The Akhyāyikā Form The Katha Fom The Campū Form The Anibaddha Composition Form A Critical Review of Hemachandra's Treatment of Literary Forms Unity of Purpose Dramatic and Poetic Compositions : Justification of Distinction Twofold Dramatic Composition : Criterion of Division Hemachandra Follows Bharata Kohala Codified the Derivative Types of Drama Bhāmaha, Dandin and Anandavardhana Dhananjaya and Dhanika Hemachandra Distinguishes two kinds of Stage Performances Nātikā and Sattaka Differentiated Hemachandra Avoids The Controversy Pathya and Geya Rūpakas Emotional Fragments
432 432
432 433 433 434
434
434
435
435
436
437
437
XXI

Page #23

437
43 :
439
440
440
The Uparūpakas in the Natyadarpaņa The Number of Uparūpakas Varies with Differe nt Authors Parikathā, Khandakathā and Sakalakathā Language asa basis of Classification Hemachandra's View-point on Kathā-Ākhyāyika Varieties of the Kathā Form Hemachandra's Noteworthy Definition of a Mahākāvya Hemachandra's Method of Combination Dr. Raghavan's Explanation of the Prabandhaguņas and The Prabandhālamkāras Hemachandra's Indebtedness to Bhoja
441
442
443
443
445
Chapter Nine : Hemachrndra's Theory of Literature 448-464
448 448
451 451 452 453 453
454 455
Differentia of Literature Linguistic Dualism Art is a Matter of Attitude : A Frame of Reference The Poetic Purpose The Aesthetic Experience The Role of a सहृदय The Grounds of Poetry Pratibha Explained in Terms of Jain Philosophy The Education of a Poet The Poetic Studio Plagiarism Poetic Conventions In Defence Of Literary Conventions Belles-Lettres The Body Poetic The Aesthetic Meaning First Class Poetry The Dynamics of the Aesthetic Process
455 456 457 458 459 460 461 464 464
XXII

Page #24

465-474
Chapter Ten : Conclusion - A Critical Review of Hemachandra's Achievement The Pros and cons Hemachandra's Perspective A Comprehensive Approach The Sources of Hemachandra's Work Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's Comments on Literary Foms in the Kavyanuśāsana Evaluation
466 467 468 469
472 473
Chapte Eleven : A Synoptic View of The Life and Works of Hemachandra
475-479 Hemachandra's Works Hemachandra's Poetic Work
478
477
Notes and References
481
Bibliography Acknowledgements
516 532
XXIII

Page #25

Page #26

PRELUDE
The Kavyanusāsana of Acharya Hemachandra is an important work on Sanskrit Sahityaśastra, and is well known to scholars both in India and abroad. Hemachandracharya needs no introduction to the students of Indian Literature because, in the words of Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, he "is known to the students of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa literatures as a writer who utilized to the full his extensive and varied scholarship in whatever department he worked and racorded what he thought worth recording for the benefit of posterity". Hemachandracharya's versatility and encyclopaedic knowledge embraced many fields of Sanskrit and Prakrit learning and in the galaxy of Jain writers, Hemachandra is the "brightest star", having been a voluminous writer who wrote on numerous branches of study. 2 His prolific writings includs works on a variety of important subjects ranging from Grammar, Lexicography, Prosody, Poetics and Dramaturgy to Philosophy, Logic, Biography, Psychology as well as several poetical or creative-narrative works.
Among the scientific works of Hemachandra, his Anuśāsana Sabdanusāsana, series - the the Kavyanuśāsana and the Chando'nusasana - deserves special mention. In writing this series, Hemachandra's aim appears to have been to provide excellent authoritative works on such subjects as Grammar, Poetics and Prosody for the students of Sanskrit Composition.

1

Page #27

What strikes us most about this series of the Anušāsana works is the inter-connection between the different Anuśāsanas. Thus, while the Sabdānu sāsana, his magnum opus, is his first important scientific work on Grammar or Sabda, the Kāvyānušāsana is his second comprehensive and authoritative scientific treatise on Kāvyaśāstra or Poetics. The inter-connection between these two works, apart from the identity of authorship, is that, while the first Anuśāsana deals with the topic of "correct speech", the second one, i.e., the Kavyānuśāsana, deals with the poetic aspect of the "correct speech", i.e. Poetics. In fact, Hemachandra himself points out this inter-connection when he says (K.A.S. 1.2) : "The correct speech was discussed by us in the sabdānušāsana; now its poetic aspect is being laid down by us in its correct form." In the first verse of his Chando'nuśāsana too he states that having completed sabda-Kavya-Anusāsanas, he now speaks of the Anu śāsana of the Chandas or metres useful for poetry.3 Of these three Anušāsanas, while the first one viz. the Sabdanuśasana (the science of language) was written at the request of Siddharāja Jayasimha, the other two Anušāsanas were significantly meant for the people in general or as the introductory verse divulges Hemachandra's aim, the Kāvyānušāsana was composed to delight 'the learned ones'.
The काव्यानुशासन : A Brief Introduction
The Kavyānuśāsana, as the title suggests, is a work on the science of Poetry or Poetics. It is a comprehensive treatise on all the different aspects of poetry. Within the space of eight chapters and two hundred and eight Sūtras or aphorisms, it deals not only with all the important topics connected with the creation and appreciation of Poetry, but also with the different types of heroes and heroines, the themes and forms and other aspects of dramatic and poetic compositions. Thus it is an authoritative and extensive work on Indian Poetics in its many aspects. In the history and field of Sanskrit Poetics, therefore, the Kavyānuśāsana should rank side by side with

Page #28

the Kavyaprakāśa of Mammața, the śrngaraprakāśa of Bhojarāja and the Sāhityadarpaņa of Viśvanātha. Indeed at the time of its composition, the śộngāraprakāśa must have been the only comprehensive work on Poetics and Dramaturgy, since, although the Kavyaprakāśa was an important work on Poetics, yet it did not cover the topics on Dramaturgy and consequently it did not satisfy the requirements of a comprehensive work dealing both with Poetics and Dramaturgy. Again, even as far as the subject of poetics is concerned, Mammața's Kavyaprakāśa followed a method of treatment which was a bit tough and its language and style were a little too terse and abstruse for a beginner. On the other hand, Bhojarāja's Srngaraprakāśa was much too large and bulky a treatise, and it followed a poetic tradition which was somewhat off-beat in tenor and treatment when compared to the Kashmirian tradition of Poetics.
The Kashmirian Tradition of Poetics
It is an acknowledged fact that Kashmir has produced a galaxy of brilliant authors on Indian Poetics and Aesthetics. It is no exaggeration to say that the subject of Sanskrit Poetics received a tremendous momentum from its early beginning and reached its zenith at the hands of the various Kashmirian authors. For, "Kashmir, from early times and particularly in this period, has been the land that furnished the material groundwork and gave the signal to start for investigations by writers all over the country."'4 The sincere and tireless efforts of Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammața need a particular mention in this connection because with these authors, the theory of Dhvani, with its emphasis on the "Resadhvani", came to dominate the scene in Poetics not only in Kashmir but also elsewhere in the country; and the advent of the Dhvani-theory revolutionized the concepts of poetry and poetics. The Dhvani theory necessitated a reorganisation of all the other elements of poetry viz., Guņa, Dosa, Alamkāra, etc., since it posited Dhvani or Rasa as the most important principle of Literary Criticism.

Page #29

Hemachandra's Theoretical Objective
Hemachandra's composition of the Kavyānuśāsana, viewed against the background of the Dhvani-theory, reveals the fact that, being an ardent admirer of the Dhvani principle and the theory of Rasadhvani, Hemachandra must have felt the need to prepare a comprehensive work on Poetics representing. the predominance of the principle of Dhvani. And it can be stated without any hesitation that the Kāvyānuśāsana fulfils. this task of following, in the main, the trend set up by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, followed by Mammata, admirably. For, "In the department of poetics, where as an early Nibandha writer, he (i.e. Hemachandra) made his name, constructive work had given place to systematizing and co-ordination by the end of the century and it had become the fashion to formulate, elucidate or tabulate whatever was taught. by great masters."5 Undoubtedly, therefore, the Kavyānuśāsana occupies an important place in the field of Sanskrit Poetics, faithfully following as it does, the all-important Rasadhvani doctrine in all its ramifications.
to
While remaining loyal to the Dhvani School, the Kavyanuśāsana attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, since its main objective is to bring together all the important discussions on the relevant topics both of Poetics and Dramaturgy. So, it was with a view to preparing a complete text-book on all the relevant topics of Poetics whether they traditionally belonged or the science of Poetics to that of Dramatics that Hemachandracharya undertook to compose this work. And his credit lies in thrashing and systematizing things utilized and in modifying them when that is necessary as evidenced in his incorporation of the Alaṁkārasamikṣa of the Dhy. Al. Ch. II which Mammata did not incorporate in the K.P.; in his finding fault with Mammata's eightfold division of Guṇibutavyangya;: and, in his use of Kuntaka's approach to wards figures
speech. 7

-
4

of

Page #30

Hemachandra's Style of Composition
The Kavyānušāsana has been composed in the sutra style so far as the main topics are concerned, but the author has supplemented it with a gloss called the "Alamkāracūdāmaņi" for explaining the views presented in the Sūtras. This gioss consists of a prose exposition as well as illustrations to
rehension of the topics dealt with in the body of the Sūtra text. Thus the Sūtras, numbering 208, together with the gloss and the illustrations cited to bring home the various concepts under explanation, constitute the text of this work, the Kavyānušāsana. And this text of the Kāvyānuśāsana provides a fairly complete, systematic and lucid exposition of and information on the subject of Sahityaśāstra with the express purpose of imparting proficiency to the general student of this Šāstra. However, from the point of view of the advanced student, it was necessary to achieve completeness of information and fullness of treatment in regard to the several complex and intricate aspectis of poetics and Dramaturgy. Hence, to achieve that goal, Hemachandra composed another commentary, a kind of super-commentary or Tikā, in which he incorporated "all the available discussions of the previous writers on the subject treated". Hemachandrachārya calls this super-commentary by the name of "Viveka". Thus, when we speak of the Kāryānuśāsana, we not only mean the Sūtras, the Vștti or gloss with illustrations, but also the Viveka Tikā - especially when we are critically looking at it as a comprehensive, authoritative and useful text-book on Indian Literary Criticism. And it is, actually, due to the three-tier method adopted by the author of Kavyānuśāsana that the work has been considered dependable for the study of Sāhityaśāstra, and it has retained its currency as a text-book during the past several centuries. The Nature and the Division of the Contents
The Kavyānušāsana is divided into eight chapters and, on an analysis of the contents of these chapters, it is

Page #31

obvious that, while the first six chapters are devoted to an exhaustive treatment of all the relevant aspects of Sanskrit poetics, the seventh and the eighth chapters furnish a general description of the different types of the hero and the heroine in a literary composition and the various kinds of poetic compositions or literary forms in which Drama occupies a very important place. Thus, within the span and expanse of eight chapters, Hemachandra has concentrated on exhaustively dealing with the subject of Sahityaśästra as a whole. And, as already mentioned, in this work, we get a detailed tratment of each important topic, furnished with interesting discussions and critical observations on many major and minor matters and a large number of lively as well as instructive verses cited from numerous works from the vast Sanskrit and Prakrit Literatures, to explicate important literary concepts such as the purpose of poetry, the grounds of poetry, the equipment of a poet, the nature or definition of poetry, the essential constituent elements of poetry - Word, Sense, Sentiment, Excellences, Poetic Blemishes and Figures of Speech, the theories of word and meaning, various linguistic, semantic and poetic processes that aid the aesthetic or poetic enjoyment, the factors that hinder this process, the characteristics and types of the heroes and heroines and the divisions of compositions with their sub-divisional characteristics.
The Siginficant Title of the Work
Thus the Kavyanusa sana systematically deals with all the different aspects of Kavya in its broadest sense and justifies its existence and name. Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijivita, says that writers must name their works in such a way that the name itself reveals the core of the subject. This is a sound piece of advice which stipulates that works should be significantly named. Tested on this touch-stone, the title of the Kāvyānuśāsana appears entirely appropriate and significant. Because, while the word Kavya was generally utilized by the earlier authors either with Alamkara or Prakāśa

6

Page #32

(as in the case of Kävyalamkāra or Kavyaprakāśa) to signify certain view-points, but in the case of Hemachandra, the work, viz. the Kavyānušāsana, is part of a series of works to deal scientifically with the Sanskrit Language and Literature, This is the significance of the words sabda, Kavya and Chanda being compounded with Anušāsana. In this sense, this work is a treatise on the science of Literature or Kāvyaśāstra. It will be noticed that Hemachandra's employment of the title "Kāvyānušāsana" is a departure from the general trend since he wanted to treat of Poetics and Dramaturgy as an independent discipline or Department of Letters. A study of this work reveals that with its Sūtras, the gloss, the supercommentary and a wealth of critical and illustrative material as well as with its systematic arrangement and treatment of the subject-matter, the name "Kavyānušāsana" given to the work stands fully vindicated and as such the work deserves the title of the 'Science of Poetry' or the treatise on Literature, i.e., Sahityaśāstra. The Purpose and Method of the Critical Study
In view of the fact that Hemachandrācharya himself develops the subject-matter of his work by keeping in view the logical connection of the topics with the central idea of Literature, and in order to study the rich critical material presented under the different topics in the different chapters in a graded manner, it has been thought advisable to attempt a critical study of the Kavyānuśāsana with its gloss and the illustrations in the gloss along with the Viveka Commentary which is full of critical and illustrative material, chapter-wise, by critically studying the contents of the three-tier text in each chapter, together with a comparative assessment of the topics and concepts so studied. Thus the poetical concepts dealt with in the eight chapters have been critically studied in the first seven chapters and the study is finalised by reviewing Hemachandra's "Theory of Literature" and by attempting a "Critical Review of Hemachandra's Achievement in the

Page #33

Kavyanusāsana as a whole, thus showing its importance today in the field of Indias Aesthetics.
Thus almost the whole of the study has been taken up by the conceptual and critical study of the text. And the last chapter attempts to consider synoptically the questions conne: cted with the life and works of Hemachandrāchārya as well as such allied matters as are of historical and general interest.
Study of the Viveka Commentary
It is well known that the Viveka Commentary on the Kāvyānuśāsana is a mine of much valuable critical as well as illustrative material. In view of this, a sincere attempt is made to provide a detailed and thorough study of the Viveka Commentary in so far as its critical as well as the illustrative aspects are concerned. And, it can be confidently stated that the study of the body of the Kavyānušāsana text including the gloss along with the whole of the Viveka spread over the whole work shows the Kavyānušāsana in a new light and brings out much aesthetically stimulating information which has great critical value. The gloss is intended to extend the views of the Sūtrakāra, while the Viveka Commentary aims at 'explaining in great detail.' In other words, the Viveka of the Kavyānušāsana serves to further explain the Sūtras as well as the gloss, and to add something new to what is given in the body of the text. Hence its importance.
Hemachandra's unconventional and independent views on several major and minor issues found Tying scattered in the gloss and the Viveka Commentary have been carefully correlated in detailed expositions in the course of the study of the text and critically reviewed in order to provide a new perspective to judge this work. Thus, this whole study is made with a view to (1) appreciating Hemachandra's approach to Poetry, (2) reviewing its merits and short-comings in a critical manner, and (3) bringing out the importance of the critical and literary

Page #34

material found in the three-tier text, explaining its theoretical implications.
The method of study is so devised as to help the understanding of the text in all its three layers and aspects as also to bring out the sense of each and every passage - especially of the Viveka text which has been only partiaily handled so far, Care is taken to evaluate the views presented here so as to help judge the work of Hemachandra and realize his place in Sanskrit Poetics.
This study thus deals with all such topics of the Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra as are intimately connected with poets, poetry and poetics, and reviews critically many major or minor issues arising out of the text in so far as the composition and appreciation of poetry are concerned. It also attempts to correlate scattered opinions and views and comments and observations with the author's Theory of Literature and studies carefully the complex interplay of a wide range of factors in the creative process.
It will be seen that Hemachandra's three tier text tackles theoretical ideas and concepts in an integrated manner. Hence the method of this critical and analytical study is essentially an integrated one. As a result, it has become possible to systematically highlight Hemachandra's considered views on the highways and byways of Sanskrit literary criticism. As our chief concern here has been with Hemachandra's PoeticsAesthetics, I have followed the method of presentation of this study as under :
Chapter One Chapter Two Chapter Three Chapter Four
: The Poetic Universe : The Poetic Meaning : The Aesthetic Experience : The Poetic Blemishes or Dosas

Page #35

Chapter Five Chapter Six Chapter Seven
Chapter Eight
: The Poetic Excellence or Guņas : The Poetic Embellishments or Alamkāras : Treatment of the Characteristics of The
Hero and The Heroine (Dramatis Personae) : The Types of compositions or Literary
Forms : Hemachandra's Theory of Literature : Conclusion : A Critical Review of Hema
chandra's Achievement : A Synoptic View of Hemachandrāchārya's
Life and Works
Chapter Nine Chapter Ten
Chapter Eleven
10

Page #36

THE POETIC UNIVERSE
Broadly speaking, the first chapter of the Kavyānuśāsana is concerned with the aim, the scope and the province of the science of poetry in consonance with the then latest theories of poetry. The author of the Kavyanusāsana; Acharya Hemachandra, therefore, picks and chooses such topics of the Sanskrit Sahityaśästra as are intimately connected with poets, poetry and poetics, and, after arranging them in a graded manner, sets about dealing with them in this chapter as systematically and comprehensively as possible. Thus he treats of the topics of,
(1) the "correct speech" and the "poetic speech",
(2) the purpose of poetry,
(3) the grounds of poetry,
(4) the training and equipment of a poet,
(5) the poetic conventions,
(6) the problems of originality and plagiarism,
(7) the definition of poetry,
(8) the constituents of poetry and their inter-relation and their relation with the soul of poetry,

1
11

Page #37

(9) the definitions of Dosa, Guna and Alaṁkāra, i.e., the Poetic Blemishes, Excellences and Embellishments, respectively,
(10) the creative and aesthetic principle of Rasa and Dhvani, (11) the nature and functions of the word and the sense its varieties and examples, its relation with the primary and the secondary powers of the word, and
(12) the suggested meaning
-
(13) the best type of the suggested sense: Rasa-Dhvani, its definition, varieties and illustrations,
The array of the different topics connected with the various aspects of the composition and appreciation of Kavya, impressive as it is, reveals at once, on the one hand, the importance of these topics in the author's Theory of Literature and, on the other, the complex interplay of a wide range of factors in the creative process. But, on an analysis of the various poetical concepts treated of in this chapter, we find that it is not only the wide range of the topics, terms and concepts that is impressive here, but it is also the logical and graded arrangement of these topics and concepts as well as the extensive and intensive discussions that are attempted in relation to these topics, terms and concepts that both attract and satisfy the reader.
As mentioned in the Prelude, the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana has adopted a three-tier method, a novel method indeed, which involves the composition of the aphorisms, of an explanatory gloss (Vṛtti) with examples and of a super-commentary (Tikā). It seems the name Kāvyānuśāsana applies to the aphorisms which state the topics and define them in a traditionally accepted terminology of poetics while the gloss or Vṛtti called the Alaṁkāracūḍāmaṇi explains and makes the Sutras aphorisms easy or intelligible through the method of elucidation, discussion and illustration. The purpose of the super-commentary or Tikā called the Viveka seems to be to
or

12

Page #38

supply additional theoretical information and to attempt an in-depth discussion of several important terms, ideas and concepts related to the topic under discussion for the more advanced reader of the text. The Viveka as also the AlamkāraCūļāmaņi, contains a large number of interesting and instructive verses culled from the vast Sanskrit literature in order to illustrate and bring home to the reader the abstract concepts dealt with in the body of the text.
The Benedictory Verses
The first chapter opens with two verses which purport to be benedictory verses. Of these two verses, the first one briefly states that Acharya Hemachandra, after tendering his obeisance to the Supreme Soul, composes the (tretise calleid) Kāvyānuśāsana with a view to delight the learned (in the filed of Poetics). It appears that this opening verse of the Alamkāracūņāmaņi is merely an introductory verse in which the title of the treatise as well as the author's name are mentioned in all humility. The author, therefore, composes another benedictory verse (1.1) - a regular benedictory verse, a Mangalasloka which marks the commencement of the Kāvyānuśāsana proper in keeping with the time-honoured practice of ancient Sanskrit writers who usually begin their works with a salutation or benediction with a view to propitiating the appropriate diety and warding off obstacles in the path of the successful completion of the work undertaken. In the present verse (1.1), Hemachandra propitiates the Jaini speech, 2 viz. the Ardhamāgadhilanguage in which the religious literature of Jainism has found expre This propitiation of the speech of the Jina by Hemachandra is appropriate because, as the author himself points out, the speech of the Jina is the Samucitā lşadevata in the present context; firstly, since speech is the medium of poetry, it is intimately connected with the subject-matter of the present work which is a work on poetics and, secondly, as the author of this work, Āchārya Hemachandra, is a renowned Jain author
13

Page #39

and preacher, it is but natural for him to offer his obeisance, most fittingly, to the Speech or the language of the Jina i.e., the Ardhamāgadhi language, the language of the sacred literature of the Jainas. On both these counts, Hemchandra's attampt to praise and worship the Jaini language is fully justified. But, apart from the formal sense in which the praise of and salutation to the Jaini speech can be justified, there are more weighty reasons that impell the Jaina Āchārya to propitiate the Jaini language. According to the author, the Ardhamāgadhi language which became the language of the Jina, or the conqueror of the evil passions that assail the human mind, viz. attachment etc., and came to be regarded as the sacred language of the Jainas since their sacred books are contained in it, has three important qualifications which make it eminently suited for propitiation by a Jaina. These reasons are : (1) Every word of it is full of natural sweetness. It can also
be easily understood even by children, women and dull persons; that is to say the lofty ideais and profound religious and philosophical tenets of Jainism can be easily understood in this sweet, non-artificial and simple
language, (2) It leads to final emancipation or beautitude by imparting
knowledge of right conduct along with right knowledge and right faith; conveys the true nature of things with its three characteristics as well as the science of numbers: and contains the religious tales. In short, it contain's
all the four divisions of the sacred literature in it, (3) It was the only language at the start of creation, but,
subsequently it transformed itself ihto all the different languages of the gods, of the human beings, of the barbarians and the animals.
The author quotes two verses to substantiate the view that the Ardhamāgadhi language makes for easy reading by children
14

Page #40

and the like and that the later languages of gods and the dike called Daivi etc. are but transformations of the divine Ardhamāgadhi which is a variety of the Prākṣata language very much like water which undergoes a change of form when it resides in different reservoirs. Thus the verse, in short, means that Hemachandra holds the Ardhamāgadhi Prakrit in the highest regard because it is the language in which Lord Mahavira preched his doctrines and also because it is the oldest and the purest of all languages. Hence he offers a fuller exposition of the different terms used in the second verse and brings out the essentially sacred and ancient characteristics of the Jaini speech. This, according to him, reveals the purity of the origin of the speech which, therefore, is highly preise-worthy and eminently useful. In the same gloss, he goes on to explain what the word 'speech' signifies. That which is uttered is speech, and it is a transformation of the Dravya or the existent thing as it is made up of syllables or letters, words, sentences, etc. while explaining the first characteristic of the Jaini speech, Hemachandra states in his gloss that the natural sweetness and simplicity of this language may be confused with such qualities of music, song etc. and therefore, the second epithet that it contains profound religious principles which ensure final beautitube, is added. The Viveka commentary supplements the discussion on the unique qualities of the Ardhamagadhi language by explaining the fourfold division of things in conformity with the Jain religious tenets. Accordingly, the fourfold division includes, (1) right conduct, (2) knowledge of the true nature of things, (3) knowledge of Ganlta, and (4) an acquaintance with the religious and didactic literature
consisting of parables and biographics of great men.
In view of such vital significance of this language for the Jainist faith, and also in view of the greatest blessing that this language brings in for the larger and ultimate
15

Page #41

good of all the creatures, it is natural for this apostle of the Jaina church to dwell on the simplicity, beauty and miraculous powers of the Jaini speech with deep reverance and meditation.
The Object of the Work and its Title
Having introduced the name and qualifications of the author, the title and subject-matter of the work and having meditated upon the miraculous powers of the Jain speech, the author has prepared a proper background for the present work to get off to a good start. It is, therefore, but proper now that the author should proceed to deal with the practical aspects of the study of this work or the four requisities of a literary work. As per the practice of the writers of scientific treatises it is necessary to state the subject of the treatise, the aim of the treatise, their inter-connection or relationship and the qualified reader of the work.3 So, with a view to introduce the subject of the treatise and to show its purpose, Hemachandra states in the next verse (1. 2) that the nature of 'correct speech' having been fully explained by him in his preceding treatise on Grammar, called the Sabdānuśāsana, he now proposes to scientifically and systematically deal with the subject of the poetic speech or the theory of literature. To elaborate this statement, Hemachcndra adds in the gloss of this verse that prior to the composition of the present work, he composed a work on Grammar entitled the 'Siddhahema' in which he distinguished 'correct words' from 'incorrect words' and, now, in this work, composed by himself, he plans to discuss the nature and the different aspects of poetry in a scientific and thorough manner. This is possible because, when the correctness of speech is determined, it is easy to impart instructions about poetry which has the speech for its medium. And, due to the identity of the authors of the two works, he, himself being the author of both the works, and moreover, as both the works are complementary to each other, it is not necessary to deal with what has been explicity taught in the Sabdānuśāsana.

16

Page #42

From this statement of the author, it is clear that a thorough discussion of the nature of poetry (i.e., poetics) is to form the subject matter of the present work called the Kāvyānušāsana. But, not being satisfied with the above statement of the author, the reader may want to know the purpose of poetry before knowing the nature of poetry. In order to satisfy such readers and also to comply with the tradition of the writers of yore, Hemachandra proceeds to state (1. 3) the aim or purpose of poetry. The Purpose of Poetry (1. 3)
Poetry leads to Delight and Fame, and results in advice like that of a beloved wife. Poetry, according to the gloss, is the extra-ordinary creation of a poet. In two well known quotations - one from Bhatta Tauta and another from Bhāmaha - furnished in the gloss, the terms Pratibhā, Kavi and Kavya are explained and their inter-connection described. Thus, when a poet is gifted with the facund powers of poetic creativity and imagination, he is able to describe things in the most graphic way and it is this creation of the poet, inspired and impelled by poetic genius, that is called 'poetry' or Kavya.5 (1) Poetic delight
Coming to the three distinct effects or consequences of reading or creating poetry. Hemachandra first explains the first concept of poetic delight in his gloss. The nature of this delight or supreme joy is (a) that it is born instantly on enjoying or relishing the sentiments in a poem and (b) that, under its influence, the enjoyer becomes oblivious of everything else; (c) hence this joy is of the nature of self-realisation, This delight or supreme joy is the highest of all the aims of poetry and it is enjoyed both by the poet and the reader. In the Vivek commentary. Hemachandra makes a further remark on this joy as being the highest purpose of poetry. He observes that, while it is true that fame and knowledge result from poetry, in the ultimate analysis, it is the poetic delight

Page #43

or supreme joy or aesthetic rapture which everywhere ranks highest among all the aims of poetry. In fact, even the fame that a poet acquires, results in making the poet happy. Thus it is Joy or Bliss that matters most in a poetic experience. This is borne out by the experience of all the connoisseurs of art, viz. that, though they derive knowledge of the world from acquaintance with poetry, still their cheif object is to enjoy the pleasure of an aesthetic experience. For, if knowledge
ithout joy was favoured by a reader, why would the third aim of poetry, viz., the delectable advice in the manner of a beloved wife, find a place among the aims of poetry in preference to knowledge imparted by the Vedic commands and the Epic exhortation ? Again, even if Kavya helps one to achieve the fourfold goal or values of life by imparting Knowledge about it, the final aims or fruit thereof is Bliss which is another name for Supreme Joy. ( 2 ) Fame or the glory of the Poetic Art
Hemachandra declares that the second consequence of poetry is fame and it always accrues to the poet alone. It is the exclusive prerogative of the poet that by writing immortal pieces of literature, he should win lasting fame. Poets like Kālidāsa and others, though centuries have passed since they flourished and composed their works, are remembered and praised even to this day by appreciative readers and responsive critics. It is due to the glory of their poetic art that they have become immortal in the hearts of their readers. (3) Poetic Advice : Poetry teaches while it pleases
As for the third fruit of poetry, which consits in advice in the sweet manner of a beloved wife, Hemachandra gives a succinct exposition of the phrase 'Kāntātulyatayopadeśāya ca' in his gloss. He states that all advice or beneficial instruction is communicated in three different ways : (a) like a master, (b) like a friend and (c) like a beloved. The words of the Vedas, in which the word is important, express peremptory
18

Page #44

commands which have to be unquestionably obeyed. In such authoritative texts, the meaning is literal and direct. The words of the ancient epics and such other legendary works, wherein the meaning is persuasive (and it is the spirit in which the advice is given that is important), are like a friend's words. Here the spirit behind the advice is to be taken into account. But the way of poetry in which both word and sense occupy a subordinate position, and wherein the sentiment is the principle thing, is like a beloved's way. Just as a beloved wife's advice is brought home to us in the most agreeable manner, so also poetry reveals its sentiment, which is a source of supreme joy or bliss, through a process called 'suggestion'. Thus the delightful advice which a poem tenders is compared to the sweet and persuasive advice of the beloved who delights us as she advises us. What poetry does is that it creates in us a state of blissfulness through poetic relish and thus makes us favourably disposed to receive the advice, if any. Thus, the advice tendered by poetry is never direct or given in so many words; on the contrary, it teaches while it pleases. This is the peculiar difference between the method of poetry on the one hand and those of the Vedas and the Puraṇas in so far as the communication of advice is concerned. It tells us to behave like Rama and not like Ravaṇa, absolutely indirectlyexactly like a loving wife makes us do something by winning us over through her charming and loving behaviour.7
The Connoisseur of Poetry
It may be noted here that Hemachandra's first and third aims of poetry are intimately connected. And even the second aim, viz., fame, according to Hemachandra, is related to the first one, that is, Joy. This third fruit of poetry, viz., advice which is conveyed in a sweet and indirect manner, like a sugar-coated pill as it were, accrues to the sensitive reader or enjoyer of poetry. Hemachandra uses the word Sahrdaya for this responsive reader and explains it in the super-commentary

19

Page #45

called Viveka (para 4). Accordingly, the Sanțdaya is a men who has a mind rendered clear and pure by constant parusal of poetry, who has the capacity to identify himself with the subject-matter of the poem and who is thus able to respond to the sentiments delineated in it. According to Hemachandra, poetry comes before its appreciation and though the same person may be a poet and a responsive reader, the two faculties are distinct. In this connection, he quotes with approval what Abhinavagupta has said in his commentary 'Locana's (page 1), viz., that the art of literature reveals two aspects - that of the creator and that of the connoisseur. Hemachandra also elaborates on poetry's capacity both to delight and instruct in his Viveka (page 5). He holds that as compared to the other means of instructing young princes in the various means of state policy, poetry is the best means in as much as it wins them over through delighful advice. Poetry provides the way to their hearts through the delectation of the various sentiments. And these sentiments, being delineated by means of a conjunction of poetic apparatus, suggesting the fourfold goals of life as well as the means thereof, cause the enjoyers to imbibe unconso practical wisdom while relishing poetic sentiment. Hence it is delight that induces reception of knowledge. To sum up this discussion on poetic advice, Hemachandra quotes in his gloss three lines of a verse by Bhatta Nāyaka, the author of the lost work called the Hidayadarpana whose theory of aesthetic enjoyment involves a peculiar process known as Sadhāranikaraņa. Herein Bhatta Nāyaka distinguishes between śāstra and Akhyāna on the one hand, and Kavya on the other by stating that whereas śāstra and Akhyāna emphasize the importance of the word and the sense respectively, poetry consists in the prominence of the poetic process (of suggestion) and the subordination of the word and the sense. Bhațţa Nayāka posits Abhidhā, Bhāvakatva and Bhogikști as the three powers of a word.
20

Page #46

Poetry and Morality
Now, Hemachandra clarifies one point connected with the instruction that a poem may provide. The poetic advice may be good or bad. One may point out examples of poems with distinct immoral overtones. As an example of such a poem, he quotes in the Viveka, a verse containing a harlot's indecent, unsocial and queer advice to her daughter, which is attributed to the Karnatic poetess Vijjikā in the anthologies. Such poems provide immoral advice. So the conclusion is unavoidable that such advice is unfit to be accepted. To this contention, Hemachandra agrees, but says : "Such verses are only apparently immoral in tone; but in real terms, they serve to dissuade the readers from acting in the way shown in the verses." This forthright stand of Hemachandra on an important question of morality in literature is noteworthy.
Mammața's Aims of Poetry Criticised
While Mammața has laid down six purposes of poety, Hemachandra has mentioned only three, viz. Ananda, Yaśas and Kantātulyatayopadeśa. He has thus omitted Mammata's wealth, culture and knowledge and freedom from evil. And he has very good reasons for his selectiveness here because in his gloss as well as in his commentary, Hemachandra defends his stand and refutes criticism of his choice. In the gloss, he makes it clear that he has deliberately avoided the mention of wealth, wordly knowledge and removal of evils in the list of purposes of poetry as wealth is not definite and of poetry alone and knowledge can be accomplished by reading the scriptures and evils can be warded off by other means as well. He reverts to this question in his commentary Viveka and criticises Mammața and others for giving examples of Sriharsa and Dhāvaka, as also for stating that wealth, shrewdness in worldly life and warding off of evils accrue from poetry. Wealth, for instance, can not definitely be said to accrue from poetry at all times. He reinforces his position on
21

Page #47

this point by quotation from the Santiśataka (3. 32) which implies that "it is futile to expect wealth as a fruit of the seed of learning which results in quietitude; for things which have their fruit determined, can not be made to yield other fruits, indeed it is not possible for the seed of wheat to produce a sprout of barley !" Thus it is futile to connect wealth with poetry, so also it is wrong to affirm worldly wisdom and the removal of evil, of poetry.
The cause of Poetry: Pratibha9
After detailing and defending the effects of poetry, Hemachandra proceeds to state the cause or grounds of poetry. According to him, the main cause of poetry is poetic genius. This genius or Pratibha is a vivid imagination or faculty of bright conception. In the gloss, he elucidates his statement about Pratibha by defining it as an in-born poetic talent marked by the ability to create ever new things. This in-born poetic ability is the main cause of poetry. Though learning and constant practice in the composition of poetry are the two other factors that enhance the power of the in-born or innate poetic genius, Hemachandra does not give them a berth in the definition of the ground of poetry since he is of the firm opinion that these latter two factors only help train and refine the in-born genius, and so they are not the grounds of poetry. They are thus relegated to a secondary position as aids to the poet's power of creation.
An off-beat Interpretation of the Twofold Creative Power
The genius or Pratibha is twofold. In-born and Produced. In-born or Sahaja Pratibha is defined in terms of the technical notions of the Jain philosophy of Karma. The key terms in the Sutra are Avaraṇa, Kṣaya and Upaśama, and they mean 'obstruction', 'total destruction' and 'checking' or 'preventing from taking effect' respectively. Thus the first kind of Pratibha, viz., the Sahajā Pratibhā manifests itself when the obstacles which impede its course are totally destroyed and when the

22

Page #48

future obstacles are removed beforehand. Acording to the Jaina Philosophy of Karma, various Avaraṇas such as the Jñānāvaraṇa, Darśanavaraṇa, etc., are created by the different Karmas such as Jñanavaraṇly akarma, etc., and they cumulatively create obstructions for the soul by tainting its pure nature. It is only when these obstacles are either totally destroyed or removed before their rise that the soul regains its pristine glow or purity. To bring out the sense of this Sūtra (No. 5), Hemachandra explains the abstract idea of the purity of the Sahaja Pratibha on the analogy of the Sun, the clouds and the clear light of the Sun. When clouds etc. obstruct the light of the Sun, which is a self-luminous celestial body, it cannot shine; when, however, the obstacles such as clouds and the like are removed, the Sun, once again, shines in its natural lustre; much in the same way, when obstacles such as Jñānāvaraṇa are totally destroyed and when no further possibility of any impediment being there exists, the in-born genius of a man shines out in its innate lustre. No outside aid is required to produce such a genius. 'Matra' in the Sutra serves to suggest that no external causes such as charms and incantations are needed for the birth of the natural talent in a poet. To illustrate the extraordinary power of the in-born genius, Hemachandra mentions the case of the disciples of Lord Mahavira, the Gaṇadharas who, through the immense power of their natural genius, composed the Dvadaśāngi, the twelve sacred scriptures of Jainism.
The second division of Genius is the artificial or conditional talent called Aupadhiki Pratibha which is produced by means of (muttering) the mystic incantations and such other aids. It must be noted that Kṣaya and Upasama of the Avaraṇas are equally necessary in bringing about the artificial genius, as Hemachandra clearly points out in the gloss. But the difference, which is emphasized in the gloss, is that, while in the Sahajā variety of Pratibha, the Kṣaya and Upaśama

23

Page #49

of the Āvarana take place naturally, in the second kind of the Aupādhiki Pratibhā the Kşaya and Upašama of the Āvaraņa are caused by artificial means such as Mantra, Devtānugraha etc. Vyutapatti and Abhyasa : Aids of Pratibha
Although Hemachandra has empatically declared that Pratibha is the sole cause of poetry, yet he does not rule out the importance of Vyutpatti or learning and Abhyāsa or practice. He, therefore, treats of them in a separate Sūtra and concedes that the in-born talen in a poet needs to be cultivated by means of learning and study. However, he makes it clear that these are never the direct causes of Pratibhā but they only enhance the power of Pratibha and thus help it indirectly, for, without poetic gen us or in-born disposition to create, learning and study are futile.
Since Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa aid the creative power of the poet, Hemachandra defines these two concepts. Vyutpatti is the proficiency one acquires in the knowledge of the world the, close study of the different sāstras and the poetical compositions of previous writers. Thus the topic of Vyutpatti deals with a thorough knowledge of humanity as a whole and the observation of human nature and of the vast world made up of animate and inanimate things. It also implies profound learning and extensive acquaintance with numerous subjects such as grammar, prosody, lexicons, Vedic and allied branches of Literature, history, logic, dramaturgy, erotics, the Arthaśāstra of Kautilya, systems of Yoga and poems composed by great poets of yesteryears.
Like Vyutpatti, Abhyāsa also aids the creative activity of a poet. Hence, Hemachandra emphasizes the importance of constant practice in writing poetry under proper and able guidance of those who know how to compose literature or to judge it. Thus he accords equal place to both Vyutpatti and Abhyasa as factors necessary for the development and cultivation
24

Page #50

of the in-born Poetic genius. Nevertheless, Hemachandra sticks to his original stand that the pride of the place in the creative process belongs to Pratibhā as the latter is the sole cause of poetry and that Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa help in the cultivation of that innate creative faculty that goes by the name of poetic genius or Pratibhā. While the aphorism (No. 7) serves to introduce the twin concepts of Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa, the gloss on the same aphorism serves to make Hemachandra's position clear on the issue of poetic genius. He, therefore, states explicity that Vyutpatti and Abhyasă are not the direct causes of poetry; but they are only aids to Pratibhā which causes poetry to be created. Thus, without in-born genius, mere proficiency in the knowledge of the world, the rules of composition as well as lots of labour in application or practice are of no use. For, knowledge and practice are seen to be pointless in a man who is devoid of poetic talent.
As a matter of fact, Hemachandra wants to reinforce the point made in his gloss on aphorism No. 4 in which he defined Pratibhā as the sole cause of poetry. It was in this gloss that he declared that Pratibha is the imaginative faculty of creating new things ceaselessly and hinted that the twin help-mates of Pratibhā viz., Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa would be dealt with subsequently.
Vyutpatti Defined
So, after demonstrating the mutual relation between Pratibha on the one hand and Vyutpatti and Abhyāsa on the other, Hemachandra turns to the definition of Vyutpatti in the next Sūtra (8). Vyutpatti, thus, is the proficiency in poetry, all sciences and the things of the world around us. This brief statement about Vyutpatti is elaborated in the gloss. Vyutpatti includes an extensive knowledge, on the part of the poet, of the vast world around us both animate and inanimate as well as a keen observation of the nature and behaviour of people. It also implies that the poet should be well-versed in
25

Page #51

the different branches of knowledge. In other words, Vyutpatti means deep learning and extensive acquaintance with manifold branches of literature such as the science of words, i.e. grammar, the science of metres, i.e. Prosody, Lexicography, the scriptural literature called śruti, the Smrtis, the Purānas, the Epics and historical books, the Āgamas, Logic, Dramaturgy, Politics and Economics, Erotics, Yoga Philosophy and Psychology as well as special practical sciences like treatises on Elephants, Horses, Swords, jewellary, matallurgy, gambling, magic, archery and the auxiliary sciences such as Astronomy, Astrology, Phonetics etc. Some of these sciences are enumerated by name in the list given in the gloss, while the minor sciences are hinted at by the word Ādi (etc.) used at the end of the expression. Thus, the range of the poet's knowledge is indeed formidable and staggering,
The poet is to be sufficiently conversant with these systematic bodies of knowledge so that he can press it into service while composing his creative works. To emphasis this point, Hemachandra provides in his sub-commentary, Viveka, a long list of illustrations to prove that the Sanskrit poets actually displayed versatility of genius and tremendous powers of scientific discription when they dealt with the different situations in their literary works so as to make them realistic. Thus, he explains in his Viveka that the word Loka includes all kinds of objects animate as well as inanimate, and their behavour. This Loka is of numerous types based on location, time and the like, and a detailed discussion of this is attempted in the Chapter 10 devoted to the flaws of the sentiment, particularly in relation to the sevenfold nature of the universal objects. So far as the literary, philosophical, religious, mythological as well as the organic and inorganic physical disciplines are concerned, the Viveka commentary provides a large number of poetical illustrations to demonstrate the practical utility of the poet's knowledge of the different scientific and creative disciplines. Examples of
26

Page #52

the concrete and efficient use of grammar, prosody, glossaries of words and dictionaries, Smrti literature, the Purana literature, History, the scriptures of the Shaiva and Buddhist faiths, Logic or philosophy of the Jainas, the Buddhists, materialists, the Samkhya and the Nyayavaiseṣika schools, Dramaturgy, Kautilya's Arthaśastra, Erotics, Science of Medicine, Astronomy, reatises on Elephants, Horses, Jewellary, Metallurgy, Gambling, Magic, Painting and Archery are given. Here the method adopted by the author is first to state a scientific principle and then to show how the essence of that principle is correctly and poetically applied in the verse. Poetry and the various Sciences
In most of the cases, the Viveka commentary defines and explains terms such as Sabdanuśāsanam, Chando'nuśāsanam, Abhidhanakosa etc. and points out its relevence to poetry before illustrating the poet's proficiency in the various arts and sciences. In order to make his point convincing and his exposition authentic as well as of immense practical values to the novice pupil, Hemachandra has selected his examples with care from well known sources. Moreover, in the course of his exposition of the gloss on the definition of Vyutpatti, particularly in the gloss on knowledge, the Viveka commentary contains significant remarks and comments. Thus, for instance, he illustrates Sabdanusasana by means of a well known couplet of Bhatta Muktikalaśa which contains the name of the six types of compounds (Samāsas) treated in the treatises on Grammar. Thus he illustrates the poet's proficiency in the subject of grammar though, in this particular verse, the words, Dvigu, Dvandva, Avyayibhāva, Tatpuruşa, Karmadharaya and Bahuvrihi are so used and constructed as to yield two senses, one, traditional grammatical sense and another poetically interesting but humurous sense. Another point to be noted in connection with his illustrations of the various sciences is that the author always introduces the illustration by explaining the meaning and utility of the science under

27

Page #53

illustration. Thus, while refering to śabdānušāsana, he first explains that it is grammar and that from a study of grammar, purity and chasteness of language results, and then quotes the verse Dvigurapi etc. Similarly, with reference to Chando'nuśāsana he says it is known as Chando'viciti (Metrics) and then explains that, although a good deal of metrics can be known from reading poetry, still an exact knowledge of the measurement of particularly difficult metres can be definitely obtained from the science of metres. Then he illustrates the poet's proficiency in metrics by quoting an example from his own work on matrics, the Chando'nuśāsana (Chapter 2, Sū. 48). The third systematic work that a poet has to consult on and off is the Dictionary of names, viz. Abhidhānakośa which is described as a 'string of names' (Nāmamālā). This is a constant companion of the poet in as much as it helps the poet in determining the precise meanings of a word and its synonyms. Thus by means of a lexicon, the budding poet improves his vocabulary as also ascertains the precise senses of the different words. Now, while illustrating the poet's knowledge of words and their precise meanings as well as a clever use by him of these in his compositions, Hemachandra introduces a discussion as to whether or not a poet is at liberty to select totally new words from the dictionary for employment in his composition.11 incidentally, Hemachandra borrows a passage from the third Chapter of the First Adhikaraṇa of Vāmana's Kavyālamkārāsūtravștti, 1 2 where Vāmana has discussed this question. The passage means that the employment of a new word (which is never before used by well known authors) by the poet, by virtue of his knowledge of the dictionary is not proper; for, an unprecedented use of such words is considered to be a flaw in the composition and this flaw is known as the fault of the word (Padadoşa ). Now, if it be objected that, since here a word already employed is to be employed, then what is there to create a doubt about the meaning of that word ? In other words, proficiency in the lexicons is not necessary
28

Page #54

because such proficiency is superfluous. However, as Vāmana points out, this kind of objection is misplaced. For, the new word's incapability of being employed amounts to its inability to help communication of meaning without delay. And the communication of a meaning is always by means of common sense. For example, someone has a definite idea that the Sanskrit word "Nivi" means the knot of the lower garmet (an undergarment), but he entertains a doubt as to whether the garment belongs to a woman or a man. So he looks up a standard dictionary wherein it is clearly mentioned that "Nivi" means a "knot of the under-garment of a woman". Vamana proceeds further, and takes a concrete example in which the word Jaghana occurs with a horse. Now, for a student of literature, who is aware that the word Jaghana refers to three things - a back ( of a horse ), the race or breed ( of a being ) as also the lower part ( of the body ) - the sense of 'the knot of an under-garment' will definitely arise in his mind though he will not know whether the word "Nivi'' refers to a man or woman. It is here that the dictionary will clinch the issue in favour of a woman's garment. Thus, a reference to a certain chapter of the dictionary proves to be of great help to a budding poet. Hemachandra has abridged Vamana's gloss on Sūtra-5 of Chapter 3 of Adhikarana-l, since, if you take the whole discussion in Vāmana's work, it contains a very interesting and instructive argument. Incidentally. Hemachandra seems to have kept the Kāvyālamkārasūtravịtti of Vāmana before him while dealing with the list of the different scientific subjects. This is clear from his adoption and adaptation of Vamana's phraseology while dealing with the sciences of grammar, matrics and lexicons. One only regrets that he has not cared to mention Vāmana's name in his Viveka commentary.
Hemachandra has mentioned śruti, Smști, Purāņa, Stihāsa, Āgama, Tarka, Nātyaśāstra, Arthaśāstra, Kāmaśāstrā and Yogaśāstra in his gloss on the word Šāstra in the Sūtra. Consequently, he takes up each of these subjects for explanation
29

Page #55

and illustration in the Viveka commentary. Proceeding to explain these terms, he states that Śruti means the revealed texts of the Vedic literature such as the Vedas and the Brahmanas, and first quotes a line from the Satapath Brahmaṇa which, when translated, means "Urvasi, a nymph, verily desired Pururavas, the son of Ila", and then quotes a verse expressing the same idea poetically. Smrti means recollection of the revealed texts and quotes a smrti texts ordaining that if a person is found in possession of a part of any stolen property, he should be held responsible for stealing the whole property. He then quotes a verse from Kalidasa's play called the "Vikramorvasiya" (Act IV). Proceeding along the same lines, Purana is explained as consisting of narratives of Vedic episodes and quotes a couplet from the Agnipuraṇa which refers to the fright created in the minds of the gods by the powerful demon Hiranyakaśipu. Now, this simple idea of the Purāṇa has been admirably and quite poetically conveyed by the great classical poet Magha in his Sisupalavadha (1. 46).
History is explained as a sub-division of the Puranic form of literature. Traditionally, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahabharata are classified as Itihasa or Historical texts. Hence, Hemachandra quotes a couplet from the Rāmāyaṇa (IV. 34. 18) wherein the monkey king Sugriva is advised to behave and keep his promise lest he should follow his brother Valin slain by Rama. This simple, direct verse is transformed into a forceful threat to Sugriva in Kumarādāsa's Janakiharaṇa, a well known classic of the Sanskrit language. To illustrate the poet's assimilation of the scriptures, first, a Shaivite verse is quoted in the Viveka Commentary and then appears a verse in which the Bodhisattva extremely selflessly wishes to suffer for the evil deeds of the people at large and wants the people to enjoy the happiness produced by his own good deeds. Content with quoting this typically Buddhistic verse full of benevolence, Hemachandra does not consider it proper to multiply examples of this type from other scriptures such as the Jaina scriptures. Under Tarka or Philosophy, Hemachandra quotes

30

Page #56

from the Ārhata or Jain Philosophy, a statement regarding the Jain doctrine that the soul is of the same size as the body and quotes a verse, which utilises this doctrine though, frankly, in a different context. The Buddhist doctrine of prior intention in language (Vivakṣā) is again exemplified in a rather strange context. As for the materialistic doctrine which denies any sentient principle and admits only matter, the poetic proficiency of such a doctrine is iliustrated in a verse wherein a believer in the existence of a sentient self in the body is mocked, But the two illustrations of the Sānkhya and the Nyāyavaiseșika doctrines are taken from the Bhagvadgitā (2.16) and the sivamahimnastotra (5) respectively, and they constitute very appropriate examples indeed. The Sānkhya doctrine of Satkāryavāda and the Nyāyavaiseșika doctrine of the inscrutable nature of the lord and his boundless power have both found a most effective and moving expression in these verses. However, there is a another, equally effective four-line stanza to illustrate the Sāňkhya doctrine of the all-prevading nature of Prakști (Viveka-18).
The Technical Sciences
Among the other technical science, Hemachandra illustrates Dramaturgy, the science of Polity and the psychological science of Yoga. Bhatta Sri Sivaswamin's Invocatory verse serves to bring out all the salient teatures of the theory of Drama as laid down by the sage Bharata. The whole of the Mudrārākşasa play of Višākhadatta examplifies the artistic use of the principles of the science of Polity. The Kuttanimatam of Damodaragupta is a work on Erotics. Hence it provides Hemachandra with an apt observation on Erotics couched in poetic parlance. An example of Yoga philosophy of 'turning the search-light inwards' has bees extracted from the Citrabhāratanāțaka.
The gloss on "Sāstra" (K.A.S.I. 8 ff) ends in Ādi which means 'et cetera'. According to Hemacachandra, this is meant to include other Šāstras also. They are the science of medicine,

Page #57

astronomy etc. A verse from the Padyakadambari (Kadambari, in verse) describes the visible symptoms of fever (of love) and shows the author's proficiency in the Ayurveda branch of medicine. The verse of Vidyānanda utilises the terminology of astrology to delineate a love-theme. (Viveka-24). The next few verses of the Viveka commentary (Vv. 25-32), which has vowed at the outset to supply additional reference material, gives illustrations of proficiency in treatises on elephants, horses, gems, metals, gambling, masmerism, painting and archery. The example from Kanakajānaki, a well known ancient work, illustrates how as poet can successfully describe the minute characteristics of an animal like an elephant and his inner feelings by a knowledge of the details that constitute the treatise on elephants. Similarly a verse from the Amrtatarangakāvya describes the ocean in high tide and finds therein the various characteristic of a horse in great speed. The knowledge of the characteristics of a gem was also considered useful for the poetic art. The viveka commentary, therefore, includes a verse on Ratnaparıkşā. A stanza from the viddhaśālabhanjikā illustrates how a poet can demonstrate his acquaintance with the science of metallurgy or that of paints, specially to attempt a graphic description of a loverlorn lady. A poet is also expected to have a modicum of acquaintance with the arts and sciences connected with social pastimes such as gambling, a sleight-of-hand (Indrajāla), painting etc. Examples of verses showing the poet's deftness in using such knowledge are presented in the body of the commentary text. A verse from Candraka shows an artistic use of the vocabulory of the game of dice. Similarly, the well known Indrajāla scene from Sriharşa's play, the Ratnāvali (4. 11) examplifies how an author can surprise the audience by his knowledge of mesmerism by creating an illusory appearance of the heavenly world. A reference to the art of painting is. contained in the next verse by Vyāsa. The Kankajānaki, a Rāmāyana poem, describes vividly Rāma poised to shoot an arrow. With this rather exhaustive treatment of the topic of
32

Page #58

the poet's adeptness in the different arts, sciences and human nature, the Viveka commentary closes the discussion by remarking that other sciences not included here may suitably be illustrated. This shows that the list of the arts and sciences beneficial for the poetic creation was never final as these arts, and sciences grew in volume and number with the growth of civilisation.13
The third factor which makes for poetic culture is described as proficiency in the poems of master poets, 'Kāvyeṣu nipunata.' This phrase in the Sutra clarifies that it is not only necessary for a budding poet to cultivate a general acquaintance with the great works of literature composed upto his time, but it is also imperative that he should know the essence of these masterpieces. In other words, Hemachandra advises the apprentice to feel the throb of the great ancient poetic tradition both from the point of view of creative technique as well as the sublime height of genius revealed therein. In this connection, the concluding line of the gloss on this Sutra is very significant. Winding up the discussion regarding the importance of culture which consists in the apprentice's proficiency in the worldly subjects as also human nature, in the differents scientific works as well as in the literary masterpieces, Hemachandra aptly remarks in the last sentence of the gloss that it is undoubtely true that a poet, whose in-born. creative genius is brightened and sharpened by such proficiency in the different arts, sciences and human nature invariably succeeds in composing excellent poetry without transgressing the bounds of the world, the human nature or the arts and the sciences or the great poetic tradition. Those students of Sanskrit poetics who are familiar with the concept of 'Aucitya' or propriety in poetics will readily realise the purport of Hemachandra's words in लोकादिनिपुणतासंस्कृतप्रति भो हि तदनतिक्रमेण
guiana (K. A. S. 1. 8 ff) supported by a line quoted from Bhamaha (V. 4) which means all arts and sciences help poetry: "There is no word, no object, no smart adage or an art which
3

33

Page #59

poetry does not comprise. Infinitely heavy is the task of a poet." Such is the importance of poetic culture. Abhyāsa Defined
Poetic culture or Vyutpatti and constant practice. in poetic composition or Abhyasa have been declared by Hemachandra to constitute the refinement of the genius of a poet. As he has dealt with Vyupatti rather elaborately, he now turns to the cognate concept of Abhyāsa (K.A.S.I. 9). In the ninth Sūtra, he, therefore, takes up the treatment of Abhyasa by stressing the fact that constant practice is nothing but repeated poetic efforts on the part of an apprentice, of course, under the guidance of either one who knows how to write poetry or one who knows how to understand and appreciate poetry or both. In the gloss that follows the Sūtra, the different terms of the definition of Abhyasa are discussed thereadbare. The key-words of the Sūtra are Kavyavid and Śikṣã. The word Kāvyavid admits of a two-fold interpretation depending on the meaning of the word vid in it. Thus, it means Kavyam vetti, i.e., one who knows how to compose a poem and Kävyam vinte, i.e. one who knows how to judge a poem, a critic. Thus, a budding poet needs guidance with regard to the practical side as well as the theoretical side of the literary art during his repeated attempts at composition. The word Siksā, a topic of considerable interest in Sanskrit poetics, generally means Upadeśa or instruction but Kavyasikşā means guidance in the art of composition from those who are wellversed in writing as well as juding poetry. But guidance alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by enthusiastic and constant creative attempts by the apprentice. For, it is the poetic genius sharpened and refined by assiduous practice that becomes a wish-yielding divine cow capable of producing the nectar of poetry. In support of this statement, a passage from the well-known rhetorician Vamana (1. 3) is quoted. According to this quotation, “it is through ceaseless efforts that perfection can be acheived in any field of activity. For, a single drop of water cannot wear out a stone."
34

Page #60

Poetic Training or sikşā defined
As the word śikṣā is a technical word of Sanskrit poetics, Hemachandra defines the concept of Sikşā or Kavisikşā as it is known to students of Sanskrit poetics.14 Śikṣā consists of (i) the poetic conventions such as non-mention of things which exist, mentioning non-existent objects, artificial restriction of wide-spread objects to a particular place only and, (ii) dependence in the form of shadow and so on. While adapting and adopting portions both in the body of the text a's well as in the commentary from Rajasekhara's Kävyamimāṁsā (Chapters XIV, XV), Hemachandra's has been selective. Thus Śikṣā which means training of a poet, is two-fold : (a) consisting of poetic conventions and (b) consisting of imitations of well-known authors in various respects.
Kavisamaya or Poetic Convention
While dealing with the subject of poetic convention or Kavi. samaya, the gloss on Sūtra No. 10 (K.A.S.l. 10ff) explains that non-mention of even the actual pertains to genus, substance, quality and action, etc., non-mention of even the not actual relates to genus, substance, quality, action, and so on, restriction means confining to one application, a more widely applicable genus, substance, quality and action etc.
Borrowing or Dependence
Borrowing or Dependence ( 3451277) in the form of shadow and so on' (la), can be by way of a sort of "imaging', 'painted copy-sketch', 'corporeal equivalence' and *foreign--city-entrance-likeness'. Borrowing can further include 'dependence' in word, line, etc., as may seem proper, on another poem, as well as 'filling-up verses and son on' by virtue of the word Ādi (so on) in the Sūtra (K.A.S.I, 10). These are the instructions of a poet. This analysis of the relevant Sūtra and the Vștti thereon clearly shows that Hemachandra restricts
35

Page #61

the scope of Kaviśikṣā to only two aspects, viz., Kavisamaya and Haraņa, as Rajasekhara has named them rather broadly. Of these, the aspect of Kavisamaya is elaborately dealt with in the Vștti. Hemachandra takss up the four-fold division of each of the three poetic conventions. The three-fold poetic convention
First and foremost, he explains the non-mention of things. Certain objects actually exist in a particular place or at a particular time but the poets' convention regards them as not existing. For example, the Mālati flowers are in fact seen blooming in Spring, the sandal trees put forth flowers, the Asoka tree has fruits, but the poetic convention does not recognise these facts of nature. Consequently, the poets regard Mālati flowers as not at all existing in Spring. The sandal trees do not get flowers and the Asoka tree does not produce any fruit as per the peculiar poetic tradition. Thus the first poetic convention consists in not describing things as existing even when they actually exist. Four types of non-mentioning can be distinguished. It may pertain to Jāti called Sānianya in the above instances (Vivek-61-63) of Mālali, the sandal tree and the Asoka trez; Dravya or substance; Guņa or quality; and Kriya or action. Examples of non-mention of Dravya are the ab of moon-light in the dark half of the month in the poetic descriptions, though it actually exists, so also darkness which exists in the bright haif of the month, does not figure in poetry at all. As for the absence of Guna, the convention regards the quality of redness as not existing in the Kunda buds and the teeth of lovers, the quality of greenness as not residing in the lily and the bud, and the quality of yellowness as not being there in the Priyangu flowers, though all these qualities or colours do characterise these different objects of nature. The fourth characteristic of Kriya is said to be absent in certain objects, though it is in fact present and observable. For instance, the blue lotus actually blooms by day and the Shefālikā flowers fall off at night, yet the poetic
36

Page #62

convention disregards these phenomena, and does not allow the poet to mention these facts at all.
Proceeding to the second poetic convention which consists in describing things which are not actually found in a particular place as fra:,the gloss first explains the mentioning of a thing in regard to its genus or Jati, called Samanya here, though not existing. Thus, for instance, all rivers are supposed to possess lotuses of various kinds at all times, all reservoirs of water without exception contain swarms of swans in them, and all mountains are veritable mines of gold and gems, though, in fact, these sweeping statements are contrary to facts. But the poetic convention allows it. Similarly, the presence of substantially (Dravyatva) is affirmed with reference to darkness by describing it as capable of being grasped by hand or as a substance that can be caught in the palm of one's hand or that can be pierced through with a needle, or with reference to moonlight by stating that it can be carried in pots or collected with pots. The presence of qualities such as whitness in glory and laughter, blackness or darkness in infamy and sir, redness in anger and attachment, though not existing in these abstract notions, are poetically conventionalised to be always present in them. The activity of drinking the moonlight is ascribed to the Cakora bird, that of resorting to two different banks or sides of a river at night is attributed to the pair of loving Cakravāka birds, is poetically present, though difficult to verify.
The third poetic convention is stated to be Niyama or restriction. It is defined as restriction of Jati, Guna, Kriyā and Dravya in application, though each of these is capable of being more widely applied. However, on going through the gloss (under Sutra 10 ), we find that Hemachandra interprets the word Niyama in two ways: one, restriction of a thing to a particular place or time. This restriction is four-fold, i.e. as pertaining to Jati, Guṇa, Kriya or Dravya. Secondly, Niyama may simply mean a poetic convention in general. It

37

Page #63

is nothing but a peculiar type of poetic convention in virtue of which certain things are considered identical though in actual life they are seen to be different from one another. As per this poetic regulation, the colours dark and green or yellow and red, though different, are considered identical. Similarly, the here and the deer observed in the moon as well as crocodiles and fish in relation to the god of love, are identical. The moon born of the ocean and the moon born of Atri, the goddesses of wealth and beauty, cobras and serpants, all the different seas and the oceans as also the various epithets of the demons--all these different things are regarded as iden. tical in virtue of a peculiar poetic convention. By the same token, our eyes are credited with having various colours, the moon on the crest of Lord Siva, though not of recent origin, is described as ever young. Cupid, the god of love is described both as having a body and as not having a body. Under this. head, the gloss treats of numerous poetic conventions with concrete examples so that a budding poet may first understand what these conventions are as well as with reference to what things, classes, substances, qualities and actions thay are observed. He thus takes the first four varieties of Niyama as a restriction and explains that, restriction as to the class of objects invariably associated, can be seen in crocodiles being present only in the river Tāmraparni, restriction as to substance like sandal and barch leaf being only associated with the Malaya mountain and the Himalayas respectively, restriction of the quality of redness alone to the gems, of whiteness alone to flowers, of darkness alone to the clouds, and finally, restriction of the action of warbling by cuckoos in Spring, though it occurs in the 'Summer as well and the dancing and singing of the peacocks only in Monsoon though it is present in other seasons as well.
Thus the topics of (a) non-mention (b) mention and (c) restriction, as different aspects of poetic conventions, are elaborately treated, and their nature and variety explained
38

Page #64

in detail in the body of the text. But not content with this, Hemachandra goes into greater detail and gives a host of examples in the super-commentary, viz., Viveka. Thus, the Viveka commentary, keeping close to its avowed aim of sometimes elaborating (i) the text and (ii) providing additional explanatory and illustrative material, begins to demonstrate the practicability in poetry of the three-fold poetic convention i.e. mentioning the presence of non-existing things, the abse nce of existing things as well as restriction or regulation. He thus takes each of the explanatory examples of the gloss for fuller poetic illustration (Viveka-vv.61-125). Thus, a poet complains that, though the Spring season brings forth flowers in abundance, it is strange that it should shun the Malati plant. Another poet lauds the sandal tree, which is devoid of flowers and fruits by nature, as it removes the heat (pain) of others by its own body. Though Aśoka has no fruits, its radiant sprouts surpass the leaves of the other trees. Another poet characterises the two fortnights of a month as totally white and non-white. So Suklapakṣa is conventionally all white and Krsnapaksa is all-dark. The Siśupālavadha (2.7) of Magha refers to the whitening effect of the Kunda buds and the lovers' teeth, thereby denying the redness of these objects. An illustration of the absence of greenness in lotusbuds compares the white teeth of the Primordial Boar with the colour of the lotus-bud. Similarly, the Priyangu blossoms are described as devoid of yellowness; instead, they are painted as dark in complexion in the poetic illustration. Another illustration (69) does not mention the budding and blooming activity of the blue lotus by day. On the contrary, it is shown as blooming at night. The Sefālikā has no flowers by night, still an example is given to poetically state the opposite (70).
Examples, depicting presence of non-existent objects with their classes, substances, qualities and actions, are also given in the Viveka commentary (71-75). Thus a verse from

39

Page #65

the Meghadūta (1-31) describes blooming lotuses in a river and another verse does the same with regard to blue lotuses (Kūvalaya ). The presence of swans in each and every reservoir is suitably described in a verse which gives a graphic picture of a river full of rising waves with swans and cranes warbling in it. Two verses describe the presence of gold and gems in every mountain. The first describes a large mountain which resembles the ocean on account of its possessing elephants, various fauna and lots of gold etc.
In regard to non-mention of a class, the gloss gives the examples of (a) the Malati flower not being described in Spring, (b) the sandle tree being described as without flowers and fruits, and (c) the Asoka tree as devoid of fruits. The Viveka commentary supplies illustrations ( verse numbers 61, 62 & 63). A poet is pained to see the averseness of the season of Spring to Malati flowers, particularly since it is a season that causes bloom all around. Another verse lauds the Sandal tree, which has no flowers or fruits, but still it serves others by its own body. A third verse ( 63 ) states that though Nature did not favour the Asoka tree with fruits, yet the leaves of no other tree bear comparison with the sprouts of Asoka. As for showing the absence of substance in a thing. the gloss refers to the non-mention of moonlight in the dark half of the month as well as the non-mention of darkness in the bright half of the month. This particular poetic convention is explained in the Viveka commentary by illustrations (vv 64-65). A couplet mentions the appearance of Balarama and Krsna, comparable to the bright half and the dark half of a month respectively. Another verse (65) states that though every month has moonlight equally present in both the bright and the dark halves of the month, yet only one fortnight is fortunate enough to be called the bright fortnight.
Examples of non-mention of Guņa relate to absence of natural colours, e.g. redness not described as a quality of the
40

Page #66

buds of Kund flowers, greeness not described with regard to buds of the lotus and yellowness not affirmed of the Priyangu flowers. Illustrations ( 66, 67, 68 ) bring out the truth of this convention. Verse 66 quoted from the śiśupālavadha of Māgha states that, by the internal glow of the smiles of Krishna, who had teeth as white as the buds of a Kund flower, the goddess of speech became as though well-bathed, though her own complexion is pure (white). The next verse ( 67 ) describes the primordial Boar's extraordinary feat of lifting the earth effortlessly with its tusks fancied to resemble the white lotus-buds. Here evidently the lotus-buds are said to be very white. Verse 68 illustrate the absence of yellowness - its natural colour--in the Priyangu flowers. It means that the ocean produces the wealth of transparent pearls to beautify the circular breasts, dark like the Priyangu bloossom, of the Andhra damsels. Here darkness is attributed to the Priyangu blossoms instead of yellowness which characterizes them.
Of the absence of action, though it is present in a thing, we have three examples in the gloss : (a) The blooming of the blue-lotus during day time. This is illustrated in verse 69 of the super.commentary Viveka. Herein a girl-friend of the heroine, very fondly made up the face of the heroine, which resembled the evening moon in beauty, and thereafter she painted a blue-lotus as she wispered in the heroine's ears that the time for the blooming of this ( lotus) has arrived.'' The following verse ( 70 ) describes the pathetic condition of a Sefālikā flower which was scorched by the fierce rays of the sun during day and so she emits sighs of vapour ( tears ) as if crying, while describing her pain to the moon. Here the poet hides the fact that sephālikā flowers fall down at night. The second type of Kavisamaya admits of four divisions. It is concerned with the mention of non-existent things in respect of (i) Jāti (ii) Dravya (iii) Guna and (iv) Kriya. In regard to the presence of a non-existent class of things, we have the examples of lotuses of different types ever present

Page #67

in rivers, of swans residing in each and every reservoir of water, and of gold and previous metals present in every mountain. Verses 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 illustrate these subvarieties of the second type of poetic convention. The verse ( 71 ) from the Meghadūta of Kālidāsa describes the presence of lotuses in the Sipra river. The next verse ( 72 ) contains a description of the river Gangā which was rendered beautiful by the blue lotuses. While the Tikā ( Viveka) does not illustrate the presence of a night lotus, the author mentions in passing that illustrations of night lotuses being present everywhere can be adduced (tai HETETIQ ). Presence of gold in every mountain is evident in verse 74 where a mountain, compared by paranomastic adjectives to the ocean, is wellknown all around for its wealth of gold. Presence of gems and precious stones is described in the verse that follows ( 75 ). Here the mention of Nilāsma provides the illustration of the presence of previous stones on any and every mountain.
So far as the mention of a thing in respect of substance is concerned, the gloss refers to the poetic convention which approves description of darkness as a substance, though no substantiality of darkness is present. As a result of this, darkness is said to be capable of being held in the palm of our hand or as being pierceable by the needle. Similarly, moon-light is said to be measurable by a pot or by the cavity of a hand. This is illustrated by two verses ( 76, 77) in the Viveka commentary. A beautiful couplet from the well-known play Viddhaśālabhañjikā of Rajasekhara describes the power of intense darkness, held in a palin, makes, as it were, the quarters stick to our frame (of body ), the entire globe of earth as only traverseable by foot, and the heaven as though carried on our heads. Here darkness reduces the size of the universe, since it is so pitch dark, so dense that you can almost hold it in your palm. Darkness is so dense that it is described as Sūcīmukhāgranirbhedya i.e. fit to be pierced by the point of a needle ( 77 ). The moonlight on a full moon

Page #68

day looks like so much dazzling white liquid that you almost think it is a substance to be carried in a pitcher or a vessel. In a four-line verse ( 78 ), the poet describes the moonlight by comparing its intensity on an earlier occasion when it appeared as charming as the juice obtained by mechanically crushing the petals of a Ketaka plant and possessed the beauty of the weaving of a peari.necklace and today, when the moon is shining in its full glory, it has become fit to be collected in a pitcher, in the cavity of the folded hands and to be drunk by lotus-stalks.
The mention of a quality which does not actually exist in a thing is explained in the gloss as evident in the acription of whiteness to glory, laughter, etc., of blackness to infamy, sin, etc., of redness to anger and attachment. In all, six verses (79-84) are quoted to illustrate these qualities. The verse (79) which describes the whiteness of glory states that a certain king's boundless glory filled the three worlds and made them dazzingly white like the milky ocean. Here the quality of whiteness is shown to be present in glory. In the same way, laughter is conventionally depicted as all white. Verse No. 80 describes the uproarious laughter of Lord Śiva which is fancied to be the milky ocean drunk by him at the time of total destruction of the universe. Here the poet wants to bring out the extreme whiteness of the laughter of Lord Siva. Just as glory and laughter are all white, so infamy or bad fame as well as sin are supposed to be black, atleast poetically. Verse 81 of the super--commentary describes the glory of the hero and the infamy of his enemies as spreading together like the (white) Malati garland interspersed with the dark lotuses. Here glory is compared to the white Malati flowers whereas infamy bears likeness with the blue or dark lotuses. In the next verse, the poet utilises the popular convention that sin is black. Hayagriva, a demon who had committed the sin of vowing to destroy the race of Keśava, lost the lustre of his body which became black like the blades of a drawn sword as if through
43

Page #69

his sinful intention. Anger and attachment are regarded as red in poetic tradition. The next verse (83) describes the dread ful demeanour of the demon Bhauma whose body appeared red through the spread of the rays of his anger. The verse after this (84), treats of the redness of attachment. A certain king's love for virtues results in a red forehead mark on the faces of the quarters.
The mention of a non-existing thing may relate to an action. According to the gloss, the proverbial drinking of moonlight by the Cakora bird and the conventional separation of the Cakravāka pair at night are examples of this convention. Illustrations of these two poetical aspects of imaginary activity are found in verses 85 and 86 of the Tikā. The first verse contains a reference to the mythical Malaya region with its river-banks where Cupid practises archery and where the Cakora females drink the moonlight in the dark fortnight, having waited a long time. The second verse praises the summer which, by shortening the nights and drying up the water of the river, has favourably acted towards the pair of the Cakravaka bird. Thus the second type of poetic convention is exhaustively explained in the Viveka commentary.
The third type of Poetic Convention called Niyama con sists in restricting or regulating. According to the gloss, restriction is four-fold, e.g. pertaining to Jāti, Dravya, Guna and Kriyā. So, we have Jatiniyama, Dravyaniyama, Gunaniyama and Kriyāniyama. Now, Jātiniyama is eviden: in the restriction of crocodiles to the ocean only and of the pearls to the river Tämraparni alone. Verses 87 and 88 illustrate the two instance es of Jātiniyama. The first verse lauds the pride of the crocodile due to whose residence in it the ocean is called Makarālaya. The second verse (88) declares that the mythical river Tämraparni is a veritable wish-fulfilling cow in respect of pearls, though many other well-known reservoirs exist. Dravyaniyama is evidenced in the Sandal tree growing only on the Malaya mountain and the birch-leaf ( writing paper ) being
44

Page #70

found on the Himalayas alone. A verse ( 89 ) which praises the several excellent qualities of the unique sandal tree mentions that it is not found anywhere except in the Malaya mountain. Similarly another verse ( 90 ) from the Kumārasambhava (1.7) of Kalidasa romantically refers to the Bhurjapatra as growing in the Himalayas. The examples of Guņaniyama gen. erally in poetic descriptions, state that the gems are only red, the flowers are white alone and the clouds are always dark. A verse illustrative of the redness of gems describes the gems being fancied as the red orb of the Sun. Another verse (92) compares the whiteness of flowers to the smile of Pārvati spreading over her lustrous and red lips. The next verse (93) describes the Puşpaka air-plane with Rāma, dark like a cloud sitting in it, appearing like a heap of gems studded with a dark precious jewel. Examples of Kriyāniyama (FZTÍTA) are conventions that describe the cuckoo bird warbling only in the Spring, though it does warble in real life in the Summer and the other seasons, and the singing and dancing by the peacock in the monsoon only (94-95).
The second interpretation of Niyama means regulation of colours such as black and blue, black and green, black and dark, yellow and red, white and fair as identical colours, and of the hare and the deer in the moon, the crocodile and the fish on the Cupid's banner, etc., as nondistinct. Illustra: tions of all these different examples are given. A verse (96) describes the crossing of the river Varņā by a king called Karua. Here the Nila stream of the river appears to match the dark mass of a damsel's hair. Here Nila and Krşnna are identical. An instance of the identity of black and green is met with in the verse (97) that follows. It invoke's the blue sapphire like waters of Yamunā and the green crystal - like waters of the Gangā, which mingle like Kțsna and Siva. Verse 98 illustrates the identity of black and dark (Krsna and Syāma) by dess cribing the nights in the celestial garden as dark, though they are black. Verse 99 presents identify of the red and the yellow
45

Page #71

shades of colour by describing the red jaws of the Primordial Boar as having a yellow lustre. Kālidāsa's famous verse (Raghuvamsa -2.35) illustrates the poetic convention of nondiscrimination between the white and fair shades of colour as it represents the white Kailasa mount as fair or tawny. This poetic convention extends to cover cases of the identity of the other shades of colours as well. So Hemachandra winds up the discussion here by stating that instances of the other colours can also be cited.
as
The poetic convention in the sense of regulation of meanings is evident when the hara and the deer seen in the moon are considered as identical; the crocodile and the fish emblems of love are identical; the moon as born of the ocean is the same as the moon born out of the sage Atri; all the twelve Adityas are identical; Nārāyaṇa, Madhava, Viṣṇu, Damodara, the Lord's incarnation as a tortoise etc., refer to the self-same Lord; the goddess of wealth and the goddess of Beauty are identical; cobras and serpants, the milky ocean and the saline ocean, the seas and the oceans, and the demons known as Daityas, Danavas and Asuras are all identical. Illustrations of such identity are available in the verses (101-108) cited in the Viveka commentary. In verse 101, the moon is called T whereas in verse 102, he is described as अङ्काधिरोपितमृगः ( चन्द्रमाः ), मृगलाञ्छन: in the Maghakavya (II. 53 ). In three verses (103, 104 and 105), the God of Love is described as मकरकेतनः, मीनध्वजः and मत्स्यचिह्नः The next two verses (106 and 107) point out the identity of the moon born of the sea and the eyes of the sage Atri. Here we have a clear allusion to the mythological story of the moon's birth from the ray of light from the eye of the sage Atri which set up in the sky and that became the moon. However, as the mythological reference is incomplete in verse 106, Hemachandra adds another verse (107) from Murari's Anargharaghava (1.58) which alludes to the birth of the moon from the ocean.
was

46

Page #72

The verse No. 108 alludes to the identity of the twelve Adityas or Suns. The verse (109) following this verse illustrates the synonymity of the different names of Lord Visnu. But the verse (109) has a double meaning - one, applying to Lord Siva and another to Lord Visņu. The next verse (110) in the first part alludes to the identity of Damodara and Madhava and in the second part Lakṣmi, the goddess of wealth, is shown to be identical with Pṛthvi and Sampad as the wealth in the houses of the Lord's devotees. The next verse (111) refers to Vasuki, the Nagraja who is not defferent from the serpent which Lord Siva wears aroand his neck as an ornament. The next verse (112) depicts the ocean both as the milky ocean or Kṣirasamudra in which the Lord of the world resides and from which the goddess of wealth arises, and as Kṣārasamudra or the salty ocean in which the thirst of creatures can not even be quenched!
Pointing out the sameness of the sea as well as the ocean, the next verse (113) mentions the river Ganga as the beloved of the seven seas. Finally, on the question of identity of different objects and names in the field of conventional poetry, the author winds up the discussion on this aspect of Niyama as a poetic convention by illustrating the identity of the Daityas, the Danavas and the Asuras with passages (114, 115, 116, 117 and 118) selected from well-known Sanskrit classics. The Kadambari of Baṇa, for instance, explains the three terms and then points out their identity in a verse wherein Bāṇasura, though he belongs to the race of the Daityas is called an Asura, even though he is a Daitya. Hayagriva, despite the fact that he is an Asura, is described as a Daitya in verse 116. The same Hayagriva, though an Asura is called Danavādhipati in verse 117. Finally, in verse 118, all the different Danavas, Daityas and Asuras are dascribed by the term Asura, thus leaving no doubt in our minds that all of these terms mean one and the same race.
Now, according to the second interpretation of Niyama,

47

Page #73

miscellaneous items of the poetic conventions also come to be regarded as arising from Niyama or regulation of meanings in poetry. Thus the gloss mentions that eyes can be described as having various colours, the moon on the crest of Lord Śiva is always young and the god of love, Cupid, is described as corporeal and incorporeal, etc. The Viveka commentary provides concrete illustrations of these last three concepts. Thus, to take the case of the eyes being described as white, dark black and as having mixed hues. In verse (119) we have the description of the beauty of the side-long glances of a damsel surpassing the whiteness of the moon. Thus the whiteness of the glances reveals the whiteness of the eves in this case. The next verse (120) from the Raghuvamsa (11.93) describes the city of Ayodhya as possessed of the dark lotus-lattices in the form of the ladies' eyes. Here the eyes of the ladies are compared with blue or dark lotuses. In an illustration from the Meghaduta, the glances of the harlots are compared to the rows of black bees. But, an illustration from the same lyrical poem describes the mixed hues of the eyes of Dasapur ladies - the eyes which resemble the bees chasing the tossed Kund flowers.
The next verse (123) describes the crescent moon on the crest of Lord Siva as Balendukhaṇḍa i.e. a very young moon. Two more verses (124 and 125) deal with the corporeality and incorporeality of Cupid. In the first verse (124), Kamadeva, the god of love, claps the hand of his beloved with his own hand, implying his embodied form, while in the second verse (125) Kamadeva is called Ananga bodyless or formless and his activities are attributed to flowers, bees, ladies, the mind and words. This marks the end of the exposition of the topic of Poetic Conventions as a part of Kaviśikṣa which is an essential and important aspect of Abhyasa by which the poet's genius is brightened and sharpened.
Another aspect of Kaviśikṣā treated by Hemachandra is that of Dependence or Borrowing. Hemachandra remarks in the

48

Page #74

Viveka Commentary (p. 10) that śikṣās also include Mahakāvyārthacarvaņā, Parakrtakavyapātha and so on, and they must be taught. What is Literary Borrowing or Dependence ?
Now, the concept of poetic conventions requires a thorough study of the Kāvyas of classical poets before they can be appropriately pressed into service in actual composition. While carefully going through well-known works of his predecessors, the apprentice cannot escape the influence of great poets. Thus he borrows from or depends upon, consciously or otherwise, the structure, style, thoughts, feelings, words, phrases, lines, etc., of his predecessors' works. This borrowing or dependence is described in Manuals meant for budding poets and they form a part of the training of a poet called Kavisiksā in Sanskrit. Hemachandra too attempts a fairly exhaustive exposition of this topic, though he is greatly indebted to two well-known works in the field, viz., the Kävyamimāṁsā (Chapters 11 and 12) of Rajasekhara and the Kavikanthabharaṇa of the Kashmirian polymath Ksemendra.
It will be seen that, while Hemachandra has included the topic of "Dependence in the form of a shadow and so on" by inserting the terms Chāyādi and Upajīvanādi in the Sūtra (1. 10) itself, there is further clarification of the concept of dependence or borrowing in the gloss. While he deals with the topic of Kavisamaya rather elaborately in the gloss, he relegates elaborate reference to Chāya or Upajīvana to the Tikā. However, as things stand, it appears that he (i) considered the topic to be a popular one, and (ii) that he has nothing much new to offer on the subject. Therefore he is content to relegate this topic to the super commentary (Viveka) wherein he closely follows Rājasekhara's Kavyamīmāṁsā and copiously draws upon the material readily available in that work. He has also utilised the Kavikanthābharaṇa of the Kashmirian polymath Ksemendra.
49

Page #75

Four Types of Borrowing or Dependence
Hemachandra elaborates the idea of dependence or borrowing in the gloss. He explains that dependence in the form of a shadow means that a poet aspirant may imitate ideas or words of his predecessors in the manner of (a) imaging or reflection (Pratibimba) (b) 'painted copy sketch' or a picture (ālekhyaprakhaya) (c) 'corporeal equivalence' or a person appearing quite similar to another person (Tulyadehitulya) or (d) 'foreign-city-entrance-likeness' or a person entering a foreign town (Parapurapraveśasadrśa). Thus Chaya, a shadow, or a counterpart includes all the four types mentioned here. (The Viveka commentary remarks that Chāya means a shadow ot original and dependence on it means sometimes imitation by way of an image or reflection). The word Ādi (so on) in the expression Chāyādi serves to include borrowing of a word (Pada) or a line (Pada) and so forth from another poem. Again, the word Ādi in the expression Upajivanādi means trainings like Samasyāpūrana and so on. Samasyapurana is the poetic pastime consisting in filling up the verses. Abhyāsa, śikṣā and "Harana"
These ideas on poetic borrowing, or plain plagiarism (Harana), as Rājasekhara calls it, formed a part of the poetic training concerning Abhyasa or constant practice in writing poetry. The well-known poetic theorist Rajasekhara has dealt with this topic exhaustively in Chapters 12, 13 and 14 of his Kavyamimamsā and Hemachandra has freely drawn upon it in respect of both ideas and concepts as well as illustrations. Much of this material is arranged topic-wise in the Viveka commentary. We can understand the concept of imitation or borrowing or dependence better if we read the gloss together with the Țikā (Viveka pp. 14-20). Hemachandra's Indebtedness to Rajasekhara
The gloss has not explained in detail the terms Pratibimbakalpataya, Alekhyaprakhyatayā, Tulyadehitulyataya,
50

Page #76

Parapura-pratimataya, copajivanam as also Padapādādināmyathocitamupajivanam and Samasyāpūranadi as Hemachandra wants to deal with all these topics in greater detail, by quoting in the Viveka text the theoretical authority of Rajasekhara with examples.
Thus the Viveka commentary contains the following explanation of the different varieties of poetic imitation.
Shadow of the sense. Dependence on the sense consists in some cases by way of imaging (Pratibimbakal patāyā) as pointed out by Rajasekhara (K. M. Chapter 12). "The sense is almost the same but the setting is in other expressions. That poem, not fundamentally different, would be a kind of imaging or "poetic paraphrase". In some cases, it is in the manner of a 'copy-sketch' or just like a picture (Alekhyaprakhya) as has been said (by Rajasekhara): "Through a moderate elaboration (slight change) of particulars, a subject appears as if different." In other words, an idea is imitated by a slight change of particulars. This poem is called a copy-sketch or just like a picture. In some cases, borrowing is done by way of 'corporeal equivalence' (Tulyadehitulyataya). Rajasekhara defines it "where, despite difference of subjectmatter, identity or similarity is apprehended through extreme resemblance, that poem is called similar by corporeal equivalence or similar in respect of phraseology."
In some instances, imitation is attempted by way of 'entrance into a foreign town'. Rajasekhara defines this kind of imitation "The basis is substantially identical, but the garnishing is widely different. Such a poem representing imitation in the manner of 'a foreign city entrance', is enjoyed by good poets." And of these four types of imitation, the superiority is in an ascending order.
Now the gloss and the Tika mention that, in addition to the four main varieties of borrowing (like a shadow of the sense), there are other ways of borrowing such as (1) borrowing a word (Pada, or (2) a line (Pāda) or (3) two lines
51

Page #77

(Pādadvaya) or (4) three lines (Padatraya) or (5) a fraction of a word (Padaikadeśa) or (6) a phrase or saying (Ukti). What is Plagiarism ?
The Viveka Commentary proceeds to illustrate the imitation or borrowing of a word, a line, two lines, three lines, but declares that borrowing all the four lines or a whole verse from another author's poem constitutes plagiarism of the first magnitude and therefore, it is neither defined nor mentioned nor illustrated. Such a wholesale borrowing is considered as complete theft: 'Paripūrņam cauryameva', the Viveka Commentary affirms unequivocally and proceeds further with the illustration of the borrowing of a part of a word and that of a phrase or saying (Ukti)
Here, a statement from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā (Chapter 11) is quoted (10) to the effect that when expressions or sayings (Ukti's) of the ancient poets are employed to convey another meaning, it is not possible to recognize them. On the contrary. they are enjoyable. However, borrowing the meanings of these sayings is worse than plagiarism. So it must not be recommended. This view is attributed to yāyavariya, i.e. Rājasekhara himself.
In Defence of Plagiarism
Continuing the discussion on plagiarism, the Viveka Tīkā. quotes (11) another passage of considerable theoretical interest. If it be felt that this (borrowing of a saying or phrase) should never be preached, since they say "With the passage of time, the other thefts of a man may pass; but the theft of speech (poetical plagiarism) does not pass away even till one's sons and gransons," to meet this apprehension, the author replies: "In keeping with norms of propriety,"14 For as Avantisundari says (12): "This poet is unknown, I am a celebrated poet; this one is not established, I have established

Page #78

myself; his subject-matter (Samvidhanaka) or plot is not prevalent, mine is prevalent: his words are like medicine (gudūci), mine are like grape-wine; this poet disregards the specialities of the different dileats or his language is not distinguished, mine is distinctive." "This work is obsolete', 'This is by a foreign author', 'This one has a worn out origin or theme', "This was composed in a mere unrefined language' - due to these and such other considerations, borrowing of word and borrowing of meanings or subject may be resorted to. And it is also well-known that "There is no poet who is not a thief, there is no trader who is not a thief. But he, who knows how to conceal, thrives. One poet is a creator, another an adapter, another knows how to hide or cover-up and still another is a developer. Whoever discovers something novel in a word, sense and saying and copies from the old masters is looked upon as a great poet." Samasyāpūrana
Hemachandra now turns to illustrate the topic of the filling of verses, called Samasyāpūraņa, since the practice of composing is generally extended to cover verse-filling and such other things. Samasyapūrāņa means completing a verse when one line or two lines or three lines, which mean nothing till they are completed, are given and the remaining line or lines are to be supplied so as to make a homogenous verse with a poetic sense. Thus this process helps a novice to have practical training in composing meaningful poems. Hemachandra, therefore, has dealt with Samasyāpūrana and poetic conventions in detail.
Classification of Subject-matter or Artha and Dependence
As for illustrations presented in connection with the topic of borrowing in the form of a shadow, etc., we find that verses 33 to 60 provide concrete illustrations of both borrowing and filling up the verses. The four major varieties of borrowing or imitation, Chāyādi, viz, (1) Pratibiṁbakalpa, (2) Alekhyaprakhya,
53

Page #79

are
(3) Tulyadehitulya and (4) Parapurapravesapratima illustrated first. Rajasekhara includes all these four under Artha which is three-fold (1) Anyayoni, (2) Nihnutayoni and (3) Ayoni. Anyayoni is Chayadi. This is Pratibimbakalpa and Alekhyaprakhya. But Nihnutayoni is Tulyadehitulya and Parapurapraveśasadṛśa. Ayoni is one only. So, in all, five, not four; but as Ayoni is original, no discussion is attempted here for obvious reasons. "Among the Alamkarikas it is Vamana, the author of the Kavyalamakārasūtra (A. D. 800) who for the first time classifies the subject-matter, Artha, in poetry and vaguely refers to plagiarism."15 Vamana analyses and examines Artha in poetry for the first, time and discovers that "Arthodvividhaḥ, Ayoniḥ, Anyacchayayoniḥ va", i.e. Artha in poetry may be original or derivative. Both these have three sub-divisions each (1) that which is easily intelligible, (2) that which is subtle but can be grasped after giving some thought to it, and (3) that which is subtle and is understood only after careful attention and deep thought (VKASV 3.2.7 to 9). Anandavardhana further developed this idea (Dhv. Al. IV. 12). The examples here of Nihnutayoni and Parapurapraveśasadṛśa are an improvement upon Vamana and Anandavardhana. Ekādṛta (not Ekadṛśa) is 'Ayoni'.
Hemachandra has taken over the portion dealing with Pratibimbakalpa etc. It means he has incorporated all these four divisions as recorded by Rajasekhara along with their definitions and illustrations in his Kāvyānuśāsana-Viveka (p. 8). So we can read the four-fold Arthacchaya as Tulyadehitulyaarthacchāyā, Parapurapraveśa-arthacchāyā, Pratibimbakalpaarthacchāyā and Alekhyaprakhya-arthacchaya. Arthacchāyā means 'shadow of a meaning', i.e., dependence on meaning or subject-matter or plot.
To revert to the illustrations, the first major variety of shadow dependence (Pratibimbakal pa) is explained by means of two verses (33 and 34). As this variety consists in borrowing the sense of another's poem by couching it in different

54

Page #80

words and sentences, it is also described as "poetic paraphrase" or 'imaging' or reflection. Here the apprentice tries to given an exact reflection of the idea of his predecessor. The first verse (33) here invokes the serpents worn around Siva's throat and describes their appearance and effect in charming words and adjectives. Now the poet-aspirant faithfully copies this idea by reflecting it in another, a little less effective, verse. Here he not only retains the idea but the sense of invocation as well. However, it should be noted that the meanings of the two verses slightly differ on account of the change of the expression Candrāmộtāmbu to Galadgangambu.
The second main type of Arthacchayopajivana is illustrated in verse No. 35. This variety, called Alekhyaprakhya, consists in borrowing the idea of another poem with only a slight change. Therefore this variety is called 'imaging' or just like a picture. Owing to this reason, Hemachandra (or rather Rājasekhara) quotes another verse (35) which retains the central idea of the original kept before him by the novice while practising the Pratibimbakalpa variety with slight variations in details about the serpents etc. So here, as Rājasekhara says, there is some polish or garnishing given to the old idea with the result that the subject appears as though it is a different subject that is being treated of. The clever people call it 'imaging' or copy-sketch ! Some cleverness this !
The third way to borrow or imitate consists in having different subjects or senses expressed in a similar phraseology or word-construction. This variety is called Tulyadehitulya. and is recommended as good for adoption by well-known critics (e.g., Anandavardhana, Dhv. Al. IV. 4).16 To illustrate this, two verses (36 and 37) are quoted. The first verse contains the idea of a good horse and a bad elephant whereas. the second verse describes the simple stone in every house which, being of frequent use, is respected and worshipped, but the bright lustre of the jewel resides either in a place or in a mine. Here the ideas or objects of description differ, but
55

Page #81

the method of description is similar. Hence the imitation strikes us as charming.
The fourth variety of imitation, called Parapurapraveśapratima consists in sameness of basic principles; however, the manner of presentation is wholly different. It is like entering the form of another person, as put metaphorically by Rājasekhara. This variety is not mentioned by any early authority. Two verses (38 and 39) illustrate the true nature of this variety. In both the verses, the appearance of the Kadamba blossom, a sure sign of the advent of the rainy season, is described as an occasion of unprecedented joy for the wives of the enemies of a certain king, since kings do not undertake war-campaigns during the rainy season but remain at home. Thus the authors of these two different verses have their poetic idea based on the same principle but their manner of presentation is entirely different, because the second verse is superior in excellence to the first verse : "The wives of his foes.....took away the new Kadamba blossom from their husbands' hands and... overwhelmed by joy, kissed it, placed it on the eyes, laid it on the heart, put it on the head and then made it an ear-ornament."
As he finishes with illustrating the four major varieties of imitation, Hemachandra makes a cryptic remark : "Of these four (types) the importance is (determined) on an ascending order." This means that the last one Parapurapraveśasadựsa : is the best, the third one Tulyadehitulya comes next and the second Alekhyaprakhya occupies the third place and the first one Bimbapratibimba ranks last. The Minor Varieties of Imitation
The Țikā elaborates on the minor varieties of imitation by illustrating the borrowing of (a) word (40, 41), (b) a line (42, 43), (c) two lines (44, 45) and (d) three lines (46, 47). As for borrowing four lines, he categorically denounces it as 'complete theft'
56

Page #82

Since the word Adi (etc.) in Padapādādi in the gloss serves to include Padaikadesopajivana and Uktyupajivana, the last two minor varieties. Hemachandra also illustrates them in the Țikā, (pp. 16-18).
Looking more closely at the illustration of all these varieties, one by one, we find that the verses 40 and 41 illustrate the Padopajivana variety (described as 'Ślistasyaśliştapadena haraņam' in the Kavyamimāṁsā) with paranomastic words such as Kirāta, Silimukha, Paläsa, Kesari etc. occuring in both. In point of truth, the author of the second verse (41) borrows the words silimukha and Kirāta from the first verse (40). (Incidentally, the last verse is cited by kşemendra in his Kavikanthābharana). The borrowing of sentences, or lines (Pādopajivana) is illustrated by two verses (42, 43), the first one from Amaru (173) and the second one from Kșemendra's Kavikanthābharana. in both these illustrations we find, apart from words like Gantavyam, that the last whole line is common to both. This is called Vyastārthaprayoga in the Kāvyamimāṁsā (151). The next two verses (44 and 45) illustrate the minor variety of borrowing two lines. Here we have at least two whole lines common to both the verses. The next two verses (46 and 47) have three lines in common. Now as Rajasekhara points out "Pāda evänyathatrakaranaṁ nasvikaraṇam pādonaharanameva" and quotes Aranye Nirjane etc. This type of borrowing of three lines means you are changing only one line. According to Rajasekhara, this is not adoption or adaptation, but stealing
whole verse less one line : in the verse (Nāradasmriti 2.30) under reference, there were four lines, but the apprentice or plagiarist removes just one line from the second half and his own line to complete the verse so as to call the verse as his own ! Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for the poetaster) the plagiarist cannot copy the whole verse without laying himself open to the charge of blatant, complete and indefensible theft of the first order.
57

Page #83

The minor varieties of borrowing a word, a line etc., also cover, as stated earlier, two more varieties: Padaikadesopajivana and Uktyupajivana. The verses 48 and 49 illustrate the variety of borrowing only a part of a word.
The last of these types of borrowing is called Uktyupajivana or Uktiharaṇa in Rajasekhara. To illustrate this, a saying or quotation is given; the pair of thighs (of a damsel) resemble the juicy trunks of a plantain tree. Now this saying is very cleverly woven in a fresh verse. "Such sayings, when they produce a new idea, cannot be identified and become enjoyable," says Rajasekhara.
The next topic, indicated by the word Adi in Upajivānādi in the Sūtrā, is that of Samasyāpūraṇa etc. The question that may arise here is what does 'etc.' after the expression Samāsyāpūraṇa refer to? The answer is: "Etc." here implies other poetic trainings like Vakyārthasūnyaśabdavṛttabhyasaḥ and Puratanavṛtteṣu pada paravṛttyabhyasaḥ.
Taking up the topic of verse-filling for a brief explanation and illustration, the author first mentions Pādasamasya wherein lines such as Mrgat simhaḥ palayate and Samudraddhulirutthita as forming the fourth quarter (line) of a four-line verse, when the first three lines are given. Such poetic exercises, as we know, can become very interesting for young apprentices. So in verse 52, the idea that a lion capable of tearing apart a mighty elephant's temples starts fleeing, when fate is unfavourable, from an ordinary animal (like a stag), becomes complete only when the line Mrgatsimhah patayate is supplied. It should be noted that such verses are very ingeniously composed and supplied to the beginners in composition.
Another variety of 'verse-filling' involves the supplying of two lines-the second and the fourth lines, when the first and the third lines are already given. The point here is that sometimes one line is given, sometimes two or three lines are given, but the meaning is not tangible until after the remaining lines are supplied. Then the meaning comes out as a single and coherent idea.

58

Page #84

Now Hemachandra gives three verses (55, 56 and 57). The first of these verses means that the mythical bird Cakravaka, living as he does constantly under the fear of separation from his beloved as soon as the night descends, goes about asking all the birds as to whether they know of any place, somehow, where the Sun does not set. The second verse (56) describes Lord Siva's appearance and invokes him. The poet refers to Siva's grotesque form because he wears white serpents, yellow, matted hair with the waters of the Ganges flowing here and there, and the crescent Moon, and a throat as dark as the bluethroated bird and holds the dreadful Pinaka bow. The last
verse (57) selected from the Sisupalavadha of Magha describes the irony of bad luck because under its influence creatures experience strange consequences as, when the Sun rises and the Moon sets, the night lotuses lose their beauty, the day-lotuses bloom beautifully, the owl becomes sad while the Cakravāka bird is over-joyed. Now, Hemachandra introduces a novel kind of verse-filling exercise by means of taking the first lines of the first verse (55), the second line of the second verse (56) and the fourth line of the third vrese (57) and frames a three-lines Samasya and then fills the third line as, e.g., verse 58 which means: "Have you ever seen or heard an indescribable place here where the holder of the Pinaka bow, with floods of the Gangeś water roam about in his dark and tawny, matted hair, resides? (Why ?) I wish to go there (Why ?) This is the strange condition of those struck by ill-fate!" (This means, I want to go away to a place where the effect of ill-fate does not exist.) Now, here in this new verse, though only one line belongs to the imitator poet, still it does not appear to be 'stealing' or 'borrowing'; on the contrary, the combination of three disparate lines, unconnected by any single idea, scattered in three different verses, with a single, new line, produces a special charm or strikingness for the sensitive mind.

59

Page #85

Next, the author illustrates Vākyārthaśūnyavịttābhyasa in verse No. 59. Here the poet has arranged words so as to make a line of a certain number of syllables as per the measurement involved in writing the metre, but he has not paid any attention to the sense. This, therefore, serves the purpose of a beginner. Much in the same way Padaparāvșttyabhyāsa (changing or substitution of the different words of a master poet's verse without changing either (1) the sense or (2) the metre). The last verse No. 60 of this section, naturally, deals with this poetic exercise. Here the apprentice is first given the opening verse of Kalidasa's well-known epic, the Raghuvamsam (1. 1): Vāgarthāviva etc. and then he is asked to practice making a new verse by substituting synonyms of the key words of the verse without altering the sense and the metre. The resulting verse is also numbered 60.
This exercise has been taken over by Hemachandra from the Kavikanthābharaṇa (1. 21) of the Kashmirian polymath kşemendra. He prescribes the exercise for the second type of student (1. 14 ff) who can be trained with difficulty. The Mothers of Poetry
Finally, before closing the discussion on the subject of Kavyahetu, Hemachandra quotes a couplet from the Kavyamimāṁsā of Rājasekhara (Chapter X) to the effect that "Health, genius, application, devotion, discourses by the learned, varied knowledge, a vivacious memory and freedom from dejection - these eight are the mothers of poetry". Rajasekhara quotes this to reinforce his statement in the first paragraph of Chapter X of his Kävyamimāṁsā that apart from the knowledge of the sciences and arts and human nature, a poet's own natural and cultural endowments also count in the birth of a poem. So he is convinced that the company of a poet who is a source of support for good people, tidings of the country, charming words and quotations from the learned men, journey around different places, meetings and discussions with learned people and a close study of the compositions
60

Page #86

of the ancient poets - these are the sources of poetry. After this, Rajasekhara prescribes a set of norms for the personal life and conduct of a budding poet as he is of the firm opinion that purity of conduct pleases the goddess of learning. 'Suciśilanam hi sarasvatyaḥ Samvananamamananti' (K.M.X.). Theory of Literature
Poetics proper begins with the next Sutra (I. 11). It embodies the definition of poetry. And this definition of poetry is the most important part of the first chapter-nay, of the whole of the present treatise or any other treatise on Poetics for that matter, since it is the kernel of the subject of poetics. And, as the author has already stated and explained at some length the aims of poetry, he now thinks it proper to define poetry itself.
The Definition of Poetry
Hemachandra defines poetry as "a combination of word and sense, free from faults, full of excellences, having in it figures of speech as well". In the gloss that follows, it is made clear that the word 'ca' appearing in the definition is intended to signify that poetry is possible, at times, even when it is devoid of a figure of speech. The commentary Viveka adds by way of elucidation that the phrase, Niralaṁkārayorapi in the gloss is intended to stress the point that poetic excellences are absolutely essential in poetry, inasmuch as speech, though devoid of embellishment, can be enjoyed if it is possessed of excellences or good qualities. This is to be illustrated by means of the well-known stanza from the Amaruśataka (82) in the body of the text etc. The verse depicts a love scene in which a bride in her private moments with her lover, who was pretending to be in sleep, slowly rises from her bed and after surveying his face at leisure, heartily kisses him; then, suddenly notices that his cheeks are thrilling with joy, she blushes and looks down, when her lover seizes the opportunity to kiss her lingeringly. Here in this verse, according to the

61

Page #87

author, there is the sentiment of love fully developed by means of its appropriate Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicäribhāvas but no distinct figure of speech is in evidence, since the sentiment is predominant here. Thus this verse, despite the absence of any clear-cut figure of speech in it, is considered to be good poetry. This is due to the fact that it is possessed of excellences such as sweetness and is completely free from any poetic blemishes. This example proves that a poem without a figure can be legitimately called poetry. But, a poem without an excellence is difficult to imagine. In other words, a poem, though it is possessed of embellishments of speech or sense, yet if it is not possessed of excellences, does not become enjoyable, as the following verse illustrates (Viveka, verse 126). The verse describes the condition of ladies in separation. It contains three metaphors and a smile-in all four figures of speech of sense. And still it is lack-lustre and insipid without poetic excellences to aid the sentiment of love intended to be depicted. This can be explained by a reference to the fact that in this verse the breasts of the ladies are compared to two pot-sherds and these are covered by the petals of lotuses which are compared to plates of clay and it is further stated that the ladies, due to the excessive heat of the fire of separation from their lovers, resemble pots put on a fire place ! Clearly, the comparison of the ladies' breasts with pot-sherds, of the lotus-leaves with plates of clay, and the idea of baking of a pot applied to the plates of lotus leaves is hardly a poetic presentation of the idea of love-sickness. Now, in this verse, though we have three figures of speech, yet as no sweet qualities that help the predominant sentiment are present, the verse fails to appeal to sensitive readers. It is a flat verse, so to speak. So Hemachandra's remark is very apt : "Alamkįtamapi niragunam na svadate."
As it stands, Hemachandra's definition of poetry echoes the definition of Kavya as given by Mammata in the first flash of the Kävyaprakasa (1. 4). However, Mammața introduces the
62

Page #88

expression by using Tat to suggest togetherness of word and sense, since Tat refers to Kavya in the singular number. Hence Sabdarthau means 'word and sense' together constitute poetry, for both the word and the sense contribute to the enjoyment of poetry. But Sabda is mentioned first because it is the abode of Artha. Thus "poetry" according to Hemachandra "is constituted by word and sense, which are (a) free from blemishes (b) possessed of qualities and (c) which have, as a rule, figures of speech also." Our author believes, with Mammata, that poetry is rarely without figures of speech (of 'Sarvtra salankarau' of Mammaṭa with 'Salankarau' of Hemachandra) but a poem, even if it is without any figure of speech, cannot be denied recognition as a poem, for that reason. It is, thus, quite clear that poetry is both word and sense together with excellences or poetic qualities and without blemishes or flaws of any kind, generally having adornments but at times without these last.
Now so far as excellences are concerned, we know that they are attributes of a sentiment (or poetic flavour or the emotive content or the soul of the poem) in which they directly reside, still, since they are suggested by words and sense, they are only metaphorically said to be the attributes of the words and the senses.
Traditionally all good poems are expected to be free from blemishes. Hemachandra's definition, therefore, begins by stating that a poem should be free from poetic blemishes or faults In this respect, Hemachandra is in good company, for Mammata and others also emphasize that poetry should be faultless. Thus in all three respects, viz., in respect of Guṇa, Dosa and Alaṁkāra, Hemachandra's definition toes the line of Mammata (K. P. 1.4)
Hemachandra's definition of poetry, like Mammaṭa's, in stating that (a) word and Sense constitute poetry, (b) they must be free from faults or blemishes, (c) they must be marked by excellences, and (d) in rare cases, they can be devoid of figures,

63

Page #89

attempts to accommodate all the promiment views on the conception of poetry. Thus he includes the Sabdarthasarira school, the Riti school which considers Guņas to be the essence of poetry and also by implication the Dhvani school which considers Doșas and Guņas as pertaining to the sentiment, which is the soul of poetry. This last aspect of Guņa and Doşa is, therefore, taken up for definition and explanation immediately after this Sūtra. Hemachandra hastens to add these two Sūtras (1. 12-13) as he wants to make up for the non-inclusion of Rasa in the definition. In fact, without mentioning the most essential thing in poetry, viz., its soul, the Rasa or sentiment, the mere mention of the adjectives Adoșa, Saguna and Sālaṁkāra tends to make the definition a jumble of secondary expressions. In other words, it appears to be a description, not a definition, strictly speaking. But, we should remember the phraseology of Rasa employed in the gloss on Sūtra No. 3, wherein our author has pointed out that poetry is unique in having Rasa as the predominant element and hence word and sense are subordinated in it: "Śabdārthayorguṇabhāve Rasaprādhānye ca Vilakşaņas Kāvyam". The next Sūtra (12) also clearly states that Guņa and Dosa relates to Rasa directly and to Word and Sense only indirectly. This implies that in poetry, those Sabdārthas alone are meant which are capable enough to suggest a Rasa. But, as he is going to point out in Sūtra 13, Alamkāras belongs to the body, i.e., Sabda and Artha, the vesture of poetry. An Analysis of Hemachandra's Definition of Poetry : Thus, on an analysis of the definition as given in the Sūtra (11), as well as of the gloss and the comments in the Viveka Tika, it becomes abundantly clear that Hemachandra's .conception of poetry embraces all the essential elements of poetry, viz., Rasa, Guņa, faultlessness and embelishments, although Rasa is not expressly mentioned but tacitly accepted as the soul of a Kāvya. It seems the author really wanted to make his definition both comprehensive and easily comprehensible.
64

Page #90

While he includes Sabdārtha and their Sagunatva, Adoşatva and Salankāratva which are recognized as analysable constituents of a poom, he avoids any explicit reference to the highly abstract and technical concept of Rasa which is difficult to grasp. For it is relatively easy to understand what Doşa, Guņa or Alamkāra is, but it is not that easy for beginners to comprehend fully the inscrutable element of. Rasa.
It seems the next three Sūtras (12, 13, 14) are intended by the author to supplement the definition of poetry as stated in the previous Sūtra, because, Hemachandra realises that unless the different adjectives, viz., Adosau, Sagunau and Salankārau are organically shown to be connected with the body of poetry, viz., Sabdārthau and its soul-Rasa-in a poem, the definition will suffer from deficiency and inaccuracy. He, therefore, hastens to define Guņa and Dosa in the Sūtra (1.12) immediately following the definition and takes up the question of the definition of the Alarkāras and their relation with the body and the soul of a poem in two succeding Sūtrās
(I. 13-14). Hemachandra's Doctrine of Guņa and Doşa
In order to provide a general definition of poetic excellence as well as poetic defects or blemishes, the author states in Sūtra No. 12 that Guna and Dosa are the causes of heightening and retarding respectively the impact of a sentiment. Though these two are the attributes of the sentiment, yet they are secondarily considered to be the attributes of words and senses. It is, therefore, clear that Adoşau and Sagunau in the definition, though they grammatically qualify Sabdartha, do in fact qualify Rasa since the relation of Rasa with Guņas and Doșas is that of a thing and its attributes, The fact that excellence and blemishes belong to Rasa can be proved beyond cavil by the method of Anvaya and Vyatireka. Anvaya means Yadbhāve bhāyaḥ and Vyatireka means Yadabhāve yadabhāveḥ. This means that when the Hetu and
65

Page #91

the Sadhya are joined by a constant and invariable concommitance, it is a case of Anvaya or invariable association. If oneis present, the other is always present. But when a Sadhya and its Hetu are joined by a concommitance of absence, it is a case of Vyatireka. Guna and Dosa both inhere in the same place. Now faults reside in a particular sentiment only; neither in a word not in a sense; for, faults are impermanent. A fault is not a fault always but, in fact, it is considered an excellence sometimes. The truth of the matter is that what is a blemish in one sentiment becomes an excellence in another sentiment. Thus Dosas like Kaṣṭatva (cumbersomeness) and the like are supposed to be the Gunas in Bibhatsarasa and Doṣas like Aślilatva etc. become Guņas in sentiments like Hāsyarasa and the like. All this clearly proves that poetic blemishes or Dosas are not associated with words and senses, and they have no permanent character. Where Rasa is, the Dosas pertaining to that Rasa are discerned there only. Consequently when that particular Rasa is absent, the blemishes too vanish. It is in this way that, by a logical method of invariable concomitance between a sentiment and Dosa and therefore between Rasa and Guna, we can show that Dosas and Gunas always are attributes of Rasa and not those of Sabda and Artha. in short a Guna enhances the charm of a Rasa while a Doșa is a Dosa because it mars the Rasa and thus the whole poem. This is due to the fact that Rasa is said to be the soul of poetry. As Hemachandra is a follower of the Rasa-dhvani School of Poetics, he follows Anandavardhana and Mammata in the organisation of the different poetic elements like Guna, Dosa, Alamkara, Rīti, Vṛtti etc. around the central concept of Rasa, the best type of Dhvani or Vyangya Artha.
Thus those attributes which inhere in the principal element called Rasa are regarded as Gunas or qualities. These qualities are like the human qualities like valour and so forth. The expression Sagunau Sabdarthau is quite appropriate,

66

Page #92

since it is the words and sense that reveal the sentiment of a poem, so the qualities (Gunas) which, in fact, are the properties of Rasa may be secondarily regarded as belonging to Sabda and Artha which manifest the sentiment, just as valour, cruelty etc. are associated with the man in our common parlance, but in point of fact they belong to the soul or heart of that man. Thus Guņas are permanent attributes of the Rasa, since excellence, being the properties of Rasa follow the presence or absence of Rasa with the result that if Rasa is present, Guna is present, if Rasa is absent, then Guņa too is absent. Thus the expression Saguṇau Sabdarthau means that while it is true that, since excellences are the properties of Rasa, the words Saguṇau can not be directly applied to Sabdarthau. But it is by an indirect or metaphorical process that the term Guna conveys the concept of Rasa to which it actually belongs. It is therefore no wonder that Saguṇau Sabdarthau indirectly means Rasavantau Sabdarthau. But these Sabda and Artha are such that help reveal the excellences. It is such Guṇas that heighten the sentiment.
In the gloss that follows this Sūtra (1.12), Hemachandra takes up the three important terms in the Sūtra viz., Rasaḥ, Gunah and Dosaḥ and explains that while the nature of Rasa is to be defined, Guņas or excellences are those attributes of a sentiment which are the direct causes of heightening the effect of a Rasa and Doṣas or blemishes are directly responsible for hindering and marring the effect of a sentiment. They, i.e. Gunas and Doṣas are the attributes, Dharmaḥ, of the Rasa alone, but it is only indirectly or metaphorically that they are juxtaposed with words and senses as these latter help reveal them. The inherence of the Gunas as well as the Dosas in the sentiment can be determined by reference to the method of Anvaya and Vyatireka. Thus wherever there are blemishes, there are Gunas as well, for Doṣas appertain to a specific Rasas and not to either a Sabda or Artha. In other words Dosas and Gunas reside in the Same place and exist in referene to the same thing.

67

Page #93

If, however, Doșas belonged to the word and the sense, then blemishes such as Kaştatva etc. would not become Guņas. in Raşas like Bibhatsa etc. and in a like manner, the faultssuch as Aslilatva etc. would not deserve the appellation of Guņas in Rasas like Hāsya etc. Obviously these Doșas are variable, impermanent. Since they, viz., Dosas, are Doșas when the Rasa or the principal element whose Dosas they are, is. present but when Rasa is not there, they cease to be Dosas. Thus by the method of Anvaya (invariable association) and Vyatireka (invariable dissociation) it can be proved that Rasa is the locus in which Guņas and Doșas inhere.
Hemachandra has made the above points with reference to Doșas and Guņas only by way of a short, general introduction to these important poetic concepts, since he proposes to deal exhaustively with the concept of Doșa in Chapter III, and with that of Guņa in Chapter IV of this work. In fact at: the outset of these Chapters (III and IV), he again uses a paraphrase of the present Sūtra to explain Doşa and Guņa. (see pages 159 and 274 of the text). In these places, he also: repeats the expression Sāmānyalakṣaṇam to indicate that the definition of Doşa and Guņa is a sort of general definition.
The Viveka Commentary supplements the gloss by explaining the word Upachāreņa occuring in the gloss in connection with the use of Gunas and Dosas with Sabda and Artha, and not with Rasa. The gloss has already clarified that it is by virtue of the metaphorical or indirect way of saying things that Guņas and Doșas are said to qualify word and sense in the definition of poet. To further explain this notion of Upacāra or metaphorical usage, the Tikā says that just as. when we speak of the appearance of a person as being brave (e.g. 'He looks brave'), we are applying the inner quality of valour to the outward body which reveals it, in the same way as qualities such as sweetness and the like are spoken of with reference to word and Sense. Though Hemachandra discusses here the concepts of Doșas and Guņas rather briefly and only
68

Page #94

ncidentally (incidental to the definition of Poetry), yet he has made his theory of Guna and Dosa pratty clear by correlating it with the central concept of Rasa as being the Soul of Poetry. From the above discussion, we know that in Hemachandra's theory of poetic beauty, Rasa reigns supreme in a poem and the other concepts of Guna and Doṣa, though they dwell in Rasa, only and depend on the Rasa. We find echoes of not only the Dhavanyaloka (11. 6 & 9 etc.) but also of the Kavyaprakāśa (VII and VIII) in this view. Thus in the opinion of Hemachandra, the importance of Guna, Dosa and Alamkara is to be evaluated not by their relation to the word or the sense to which they only indirectly and incidentally relate but only in terms of their relation to the realization of Rasa to which they directly relate.
Hemachandra's Conception of Poetic Embellishment
Hemachandra is logical, atleast he makes a conscious effort to be logical, in regard to the treatment of the different constituents of poetry. His definition of poetry commences by making a reference to the absence of blemishes and then states the excellences and finally the figures of speech in relation to words and senses. Quite consistently, therefore, 'he has defined blemishes and excellences in the very next Sutra (No. 12). And now it is the turn of the third adjective used in the definition of poetry. This last adjective relates to Alamkaras, the figures of speech, which beautify both the word and the sense. Consequently, the next Sutra (13) defines Alaṁkāras or the figures of speech. Now, one may really wonder how proper justice can be done to figures of speech in just one Sutra when the subject boasts of a vast ancient iterature grown around it. To a certain extent this fear is well-founded; for, since the earliest days of Sanskrit poeticsnay, since the beginning of Sanskrit poetry, the cancept of beauty in poetry has been closely connected with the idea of ornaments as a means to poetic beauty and the concept. of the beauty of word and sense has exercised the minds

69

Page #95

of the leading lights of ancient theories on poetics such as Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhața, Rudrata and others. As all these theorists considered poetry to be a togetherness of word and sense, it followed for them that beauty of word and beauty of meaning should constitute the beauty of the whole poetic work. Hence, the figures of speech both pertaining to the word and the sense came to occupy a very important place in Poetics and consequently entire treatises came to be written on the subject of Alamkāra, and most of them were titled as works on Alamkāraśāstra. This state of affairs in that early period of Sanskrit poetics unmistakably points to the central place assigned to 'Alamkāra' in poetry. According to prominent authors like BhāmahaUdbhata and others. there can hardly be any poetry in the absence of figures. In fact, in their theories, 'Alamkāra' was considered to be the main source
ic beauty and the most important element of the poetic expression. An even the Riti School, which laid much store by Guņa, gave equal importance to Alamkāra. Vāmana, for instance, declares that the term Kāvya properly applies to aword and a sense whose charm is enhanced by the Guņas and the Alainkāras and considers them to be the sine qua non of poetry.
But with the advent of the Dhavani School, there arose a new kind of poetics which not only postulated Rasa or Dhvani to be the soul of poetry but relegated word, sense, excellences etc. to a subordinate position. Thus the new School of Poetics completely revolutionised the idea of poetry as well as the concept of poetic beauty. Keeping Rasa or Dhvani at the centre of the poetic process, it overturned the old theories of Alamkāra, Riti etc, as the chief element in poetry, and reorganized the various elements in relation to Rasa or Dhvani. which was termed the soul of poetry. The author of the Dhvanyāloka clearly says that Dhvani is the soui of a poem and Rasadhvani is the best type of Dhvani. This Rasadhvani. occurs where Rasa, Bhāva, Rasābhāsa, Bhāvabhāsa etc. constitutes the principal element and where the words, the expressed
70

Page #96

sense and the figures of speech are subordinated to Rasa, etc. This Rasadhvani is instanced in Tİ HTË fact etc., quoted by Hemachandra under Sūtra 11 (wherein he has defined poetry). It is clear, therefore, that in the new conception of Poetry, excellences, figures and styles are spoken of as the causes of the heightening of Rasa. What are Poetic Embelishments ?
Hemachandra has used the adjective Sālamkāraih to qualify word and sense in poetry. He now defines Alamkāras and determines their nature and scope in the realm of poetry in Sūtra No. 13). Being a follower of the new School of Dhvani theory, which was responsible for subordinating all the traditional concepts of poetic expression to the principal element of Rasa, Hemachandra frames a very brief but significant definition of Alamkāra by way of giving a general idea of what Alamkāra means. He states that figures of speech are dependent upon word and sense which are the body of a Rasa (the soul). In other words, Alamkāras or figures of speech reside in the body of a poem and not in the soul, Ātmā, of it. This Sūtrā along with its gloss is a clear literal echo of the text of the Dhvanyaloka (II. 6/2): "Angāśritāstvalamkārā mantavyā kațakādivat". Here the difference between a Guna and Alaskära becomes clear. According to Anandavardhaka, Mammața, Hemachandra and others of the Dhvani School, while the Guņas belong to and are the properties of Rasa, the principal element in the poem, the Alaṁkāras are related to the Sabda and Artha, Angāśritāḥ. in the opinion of theorists of this school, the relation between the Alamkāra and the Rasa is such that the existence of Alamkāra is justified according to the role it plays towards the ultimate realisation of Rasa.
Concepts of Guna and Alamkāra Distinguished
The rather short definition of the Alamkāra (Sūtra 13) is elucidated in the Gloss. Alamkāras are dependent on the word and the sense which constitute the body of the soul called
71

Page #97

Rasa. These Alamkāras, as a rule, add charm to the Rasa; but, sometimes they are not favourably disposed for the purpose of lending charm to the Rasa in a poem. However, when there is no Rasa worth mentioning in a composition, these Alamkāras merely end up rendering the words and sense. picturesque and striking. The gloss, thus provides guidelines in regard to determining the role and worth of the Alamkāra in relation to the Rasa. In addition to this, the concept of Alaṁkära is carefully distinguished from that of Guņa. Thus, while excellences or Gunas are the attributes of a Rasa, the figures are the embellishments of words and senses. In this way, the relations of Guņa, Dosa and Alamkāra with the body of a Kāvya as well as the soul thereof have been defined and determined following the Rasadhvani theory. In general, excellences, figures, styles of comosition etc. are described as the causes of the heightening of Rasa. Gunas are said to be related to words and sense, only in a metaphorical sense, since the word Guņa refers to words and meanings which develop excellence. Hence what is meant is that words and senses that reveal excellences, heighten Rasa. Even Mammața defines the qualities or Guņas as attributes of the Rasa like valour etc. which are attributes of the soul of a person. They are Nitya or permanent and always heighten the Rasa. Just as bravery etc. are attributes of the self, not of the figure or person of a man, so also sweetness etc. are the qualities of a Rasa and not that of the letters. Hemachandra, like Mammata, clearly states that the excellences such as Mädhurya etc, are the properties of Rasa alone and not of anything else, like words and senses. As for Dosas, we know that they are Anitya or impermanent in the Rasa-dhvani theory. Thus the position of the views of the Dhvani theorists and their followers including Hemachandra, can be briefly summarised as follows: 177 काव्यस्य शरीरम् , आत्मा रसः, गुणाः शौर्यादिवत् , दोषाः काणत्वादिवत् , अलंकाराः ETECTT 117
72

Page #98

Guṇa and Alaṁkāra vis-a-vis the Rasa-dhvani Doctrine
Interestingly, Hemachandra takes up for discussion the expression Angäśritaḥ, figuring in the Sutrā (13), in the Viveka commentary (p. 34). Excellences are the attributes of the Rasa, the Angin, whereas embellishments belong to the word and the sense, the body of a poem. This is the nice difference between a Guna and an Alaṁkāra. Understanding poetry on the analogy of a human body, as shown above, we can very well appreciate the meanings of the poetic concepts of Guna, of the Alamkara etc. as qualities of the mind, ornaments body and so on, keeping in mind that Rasadhvani is the soul of a Kavya. Thus the followers of the Rasadhvani theory assing the Gunas and Alaṁkāras their proper place in the context of the supremacy of Rasa-dhvani as a soul of poetry. No poet, therefore, is to waste his time in the creation of poetry that has no relation to Rasa. All elements must harmonise with this principle element (Angin) of poetry. This is the final position reached by the remarkable work on Dhvani called the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhan so far as the different component parts of Poetry and Poetics are concerned; and this position is faithfully followed by all later writers, including Hemachandra. Naturally, Hemachandra regards Sabda, Artha, Guna, Doṣa and Alaṁkāra as subordinate in importance since they appertain to the external appearance of poetry and hence they cannot be equated with the inner sense of poetry. In fact, they only serve to heighten the inner or implicit beauty that underlies a good poem.
Bhaṭṭodbhata's View Criticised
In the context of making a fine distinction between the Gunas and Alamkaras, Hemachandra observes that, in regard to this distinction Bhattodbhata, in his Commentary on Bhamaha's work on Poetics, called Bhāmahavivaraṇa, 18 holds a mistaken view. For, Udbhata believes that whereas in real life virtues or qualities are like valour etc. and ornaments are fike necklece etc. and therefore, Gunas and Alaṁkāras are

73

Page #99

distinct because Guņas are related to the human-being by Samavāyasambandha but Alamkāras are related to the same by Samyogasambandha, in Literature, however, both the Gunas and the Alamkāras stand associated with Poetry by Samavāya-- sambandha. This is an unrealistic distinction made by one (Udbhata) who is blindly following a wrong tradition which is unable to discern the real difference between the nature of Gunas and that of Alamkāras in Poetry. What Hemachandra. means by criticising Udbhata is that while he knows fully well from real life that Guna is a permanent qualify inherent in the soul of a man and Alaskāra is an appendage attached to the body by a mere external contact still he refuses to recognize the distinction between the two types of relations, viz., Samavāya and Samyoga, i. e. inherence and association which marks off Guņas from Alamkāras. This is nothing but blind faith in the tradition which militates against our own experience. From our experience of the world, it is quite clear that ornaments rest on the body only extetnally by Samyoga, and they have nothing to do with the soul of the person who wears them. Whereas Guņas are internal qullities of the soul which are inherent, Samavāya, in the nature of the person and cannot be discarded. Thus, the difference between the Gunas and the Alamkāras arises from the difference between their dwelling places (Aśraya). While the Gunas reside in the Atmā which is permanent and they inherently and permanently belong to it, the Alamkāras pertain to the Sarira which is impermanent and they non intimately and externally belong to it, the Alamkāras pertain to the rit which is impermanent and they non-intimately and externally belong to the body from which they can be removed or to which they can be added. The upshot of the above discussion, then, is that poets freely employ or discard Alamkāras in their compositions, but they cannot dispense with Gunas which belong to the Rasātmā. No doubt, Alamkāras. serve the inner--soul of a peom indirectly by enhancing the charm and indicating the beauty of the inner virtues of a poem;
74

Page #100

nevertheless, they are found to be useful in a composition only when they heighten the effect of the Rasa. But when they do not contribute to the heightening of the emotional atmosphere or when they hinder the process of Rasa realisation, they need not be employed. In fact, such figures of speech can be taken out of a poetic composition without in anyway detracting from the beauty of the poem. In other words, Guņas, being intimately connected with Rasa, the soul of poetry, can never be removed or rejected, but Alamkāras being the external appendages of the body of a poem consisting of word and sense, can be used or discarded without affecting the charm of the sentence or its Rasa. In order to make this exposition clear, Hemachandra quotes verses to provide concrete illustrations, demonstrating the truth of his observation that figures either of word or sense, even if removed or altered, do not at all mar the charm of a poem. He first gives an example of the alteration of a śabdālaṁkära or figure of word in the verse Alaṁkrtajatācakram etc. Here the expression Cārucandramaricibhiḥ containing the Anuprāsa figure of word (alliteration) in the second hemistich, is changed to Taruņendumaricibhib without altering the meaning of the verse which consists in intense love and deep reverence for Lord Siva. In another instance, the removal of a figure of meaning is attempted by retaining the Arthāntaranyāsa figure of sense, though discarding the figure simile (Upamā) in Bālamīņālakalpaih by substituting Kelicakora-lehyaih. Here, in spite of the fact that a good simile is removed from the verse, no change in the principle sentiment of love occurs - it neither increases nor decreases the charm of this sentiment. In the next verse (129). we have an example of adding a figure of speech pertaining to the sense, without, however, adding to or detracting from the sentimental value of the expression. The verse in question is the same as appeared under Sūtra 10 to illustrate the poetic convention that allows the statement of a non-existent thing. The idea expressed herein is that the female-peacocks mistake the web of the rays emanating from
75

Page #101

blue emeralds made more effulgent by the spray of water thrown out through their trunks by the elephants resorting to the other slope for the clouds full of water and watch them longingly. Now, the word Tațāntareșu in the second line is replaced by the two words Mpgākşi sanau (Oh lady with eyes charming like those of a female-deer, on top of that mountain) so as to give rise to an additional simile or Samāsagā upamā which is a well known figure of sense. But so far as the charm of the original verse is concerned, the addition of this simile does not add much to that charm. Criteria of Samavāya and Samyoga
The above examples show unmistakably that while the removal or addition of the figures of speech depends on the poets' sweet will, the Guņas are unalterable. Moreover, it is also clear that while the figures of speech are not intimately and invariably connected with the essential beauty of the verse, the excellences are the attributes of that beauty and are, therefore, intimately and invariably connected with the soul of a poem. This difference between an Alamkāra and a Guna is not due to any blind faith in the tradition, Gaddarikāpravahah, signifying lack of discrimination, but it is based rather on logical and sound reasoning of the theorists who believe in Rasa-dhvani to be the soul of a poem which has the sound and the sense for its body. Hemachandra objects to Vāmana's View on Guņa
After a scathing criticism of Bhattodbhata's traditional as well as out-moded and illogical views on the Guņas and the Ālamkāras, Hemachandra objects to Vāman's views on the variability of the Guņas. He introduces the arguments of Vamana (KASV. 3-1-1 & 2) by stating categorically that the removal or addition of the Guņas in a poem is not at all possible. Vāmana, the advocate of the Riti School, was the earliest theorist to define the terma 'Guna' and 'Riti'. His well known work on Poetics called the Kāvyalamkārasūtravștti
76

Page #102

treats the Guņas as "those elements of poetry that serve to embellishment it". And these Guņas, unlike the figures of speech or Alamāras in the narrower sense, are the inseparable attributes of poetry because they constitute the Riti described as the soul of poetry. Thus Vāmana considers Riti to be the soul of poetry and Guņa to be the constituent of Riti, This Riti is Višistā Padaracanā i.e. a special type of word-arrangement. Vāmana's Significant Distinction
While Vāmana attempts to analyse the different elements of poetry, he not only defines them but also distinguishes them. Thus, for instance, while dealing with the concept of Guna in the first chapter of the third section of his work, the Kāvyālamkārasūtravștti, which consists of terse aphorisms as
as a gloss by the same author, Vāmana begins by saying in the first Sūtra that the Guņas are those attributes or properties, Dharmāḥ, which impart beauty or charm to a poem, but states in the next Sūtra (Sū. 2) that the Alamkāras or figures of speech (like the simile, alliteration etc.) are the causes of heightening the beauty or charm thus produced. Thus, in Vāmana's theory of poetry, the Guņas are described as inseparable attributes of poetry, while the Alamkāras, since they are not absolutely indispensable in the production of poetic beauty or charm, only serve to enhance the poetic charm when it is produced, enjoy a subordinate status as a poetic element. This significant distinction between the Gunas and Alamkaras has been clearly brought out by Vāmana by quoting two verses Yuvateriva rūpam etc. and Yadi bhavati vucaścyutam etc. wherein the Guņas are explained on the analogy of human virtues which reside inseparably in the human soul and the Alaskāras on the analogy of ornaments on a human body. Thus the Guņas are the direct attributes that cause poetic beauty but the Alamkāras embellish poetry indirectly through the sound and sense and that too not invariably. Nevertheless, Vāmana's theory regards both the Guña and the Alamkāra as the properties of word and meaning, albeit
1
77

Page #103

in different degrees. Thus, in Vamana's scheme of poetry, the Guņas and the Alamkāras are not different in kind but only different in the degree of their involvement in the production of poetic beauty. The Real Difference between Guņa and Alamkara
Hemachandra, therefore, attacks Vāmana's distinction between the Guņa and the Alamkāra as represented in the first two Sūtras quoted in the Viveka Commentary. According to Hemachandra, Vāmana's conception of the Guņas as well as the Alamkāras is not universally found to be valid, as for example, in expressions like "Gato'stamarko...etc." though excellences such as Drasāda, Ślesa, Samatā, Madhurya, Saukumarya; Arthavyakti (all defined and explained by Vāmana) are present but that does not entitle the expression to be styled a poem, similarly in the following verse (161) "Api Kācicchruta Vārtā etc." by the mere presence of the figure Utpreksā (Poetic Fancy) as well as due to the presence of three or four unintended Guņas, the title of poetry is used with reference to it. Hence it is settled that Gunas become Guņas only when there is Rasa in a poem and never otherwise. That is the rule. Similarly, the Alamkāras can be independent of the Rasa. That is the difference between a Guna and an Alamkāra. This, according to Hemachandra, is the proper distinction in the opinion of the Rasa-Dhvani theorists. As he winds up the discussion on the doctrine of Guņas and Alamkāras, Hemachandra assures us in passing that the Guņas are only three and it will be clear when the Guņas are dealt with in Chapter IV of the Kavyānusāsana. The True Function of Alamkāra
The poetic embellishments which embellish the constituent words and senses of a poem have been difined and explained. It has been pointed out that these figures or embellishments are employed to subserve the principal element in a poem. The figure thus enjoys a subordinates position in a poem
78

Page #104

whose chief source of beauty is the sentiment. It has to function as a promoter of the sentiment. And it is precisely this function of the figure that makes it an integral part of the poetic expression. Hence, it is the poet's function to utilize the numerous figures so that they become not external appendages but rather true and real ornaments of the principal sense. This calls for imagination and discrimination. Since a figure of speech is regarded as beautifier of the principal element of the poem in the same way as an ornament is considered a cause of beauty in our personality. If used with proper care and discrimination, the alamkāras will unfailingly perform their function of promoting the beauty of the sentiment. General Guide-lines for the Employment of Alaṁkāras
Hemachandra, therefore, lays down general guide-lines for the employment of the figures of speech so as to aid the process of Rasa-realisation. In Sūtra No. 14, Hemachandra states that those figures of speech are considered as favourable to a sentiment which are positively agreeable to a sentiment and are employed only at a proper time and only at the pro place and which do not deter the course of a sentiment nor occur in a poem without any definite purpose.
in the Sūtra (I. 14), Hemachandra points out the nature of the discrimination that a poet should exercise while employing the figures. Thus, according to him (a) if a figure of speech is intent on helping the development of the Rasa, (b) if it is employed only at proper time and place, (c) if it is not pressed too far due to indifference, (d) and even when it is employed it is kept subordinate at all costs, then it is said to be agreeable to the Rasa or considered favourably employed. In the gloss, he adds that the word 'alamkāra' follows. He says that Tatparatvam in the Sūtra means that a figure of speech is employed only in such a manner that it becomes agreeable or favourable to the principal element, and does not become detrimental, not does it come in without
79

Page #105

any poetic purpose. It is interesting to note that Hemachandra here follows the 18th and the 19th Kārikas of the Dhvanyaloka, Udyota ll, with some of the illustrations given there. Anandavardhana introduces the two Kārikas under reference by saying that the caution to be observed while bringing in the figures of speech is this, and then he lays down that the rule here. is that (1) figures of speech are there only to help the Rasa and not there for their own sake, (2) it is necessary to employ them at the right time and drop them at the right moment, (3) the poet should not desire to press them too far, and, lastly (4) the poet should keep it subordinate to the principle element only. This is the way in which figures like metaphor become auxiliary elements in a poem. Thus, we have five aspects of this rule : (1) We have to make sure that the figure comes in only as
an accessory of the Rasa (2) It should come in at the appropriate time (3) It should be abandoned at the right moment (4) It should not be pressed too far in undue zest, and (5) It should be kept as a subordinate element
(Dhv.Āl.UdJI.18,19 etc.) To illustrate the five aspects of his caution, Hemachandra begins by quoting a beautiful verse from the sākuntala (1.20), Calāpāngām etc., to show how an Alamkāra can be employed to heighten the Rasa (Tatparatvena). In this verse we have the Svabhāvokti figure, a pen-portrait of a bee, which consists in the description of the romantic behaviour of a bee expressing the mode of love for Sakuntalā in King Duśyanta's heart. As the bee touches, the beautiful eyes, hovers humming sweetly around the ears and sits on the charming lips of Sakuntalā, the King stands observing the very lovely form of Śakuntalā as the bee behaves as a lover, as it were, and utters these words. Hemachandra remarks that this verse provides an illustration of the employment of a figure of speech
80

Page #106

so as to heighten the sentiment. This shows that the poet is intent on the delineation of the sentiment only.
It may be noted that Tatparatvena means Rasaparatvena and it means that the Alaskāra is never an end in itself, that is to say, it is never permanent but is an accessory to the sentiment. The Dhvanyāloka quotes a verse with the figure Paryāyokta in a dominating position.
The next rule regarding the obstructive nature (Bādhakatva) of an Alamkāra is illustrated in the well known verse from Sriharşa's play "The Ratnavali" (1. 16). This verse describes the boisterous dance of a damsel during the love festival and the poet intends to suggest the sentiment of love, but the figure Utprekşā with its auxiliary figure Arthaślesa completely hinders the progress of the sentiment; for, the poet uses the word Pidayeva to produce Utprekşā. This Utprekşā is supported by a second figure called Arthaślesa (double entendré) operating in the words Ākulai, Krandatah, Vyastah and Madhyabhangah so as first to convey the violent nature of the dance and then
y the second sense of bewilderment, crying, distortion, merciless striking and breaking of the waist. Thus the poet has ingeniously worked out these two figures to describe the dance-scene vividly and picturesquely as also to suggest the predominant sentiment of Sțngāra but the two figures mentioned just now create an atmosphere of pathos which is detrimental to the sentiment of love. Commenting on the verse, Hemachandra states that the figure Utprekşā in Pidayeva becomes predominant here and together with its auxiliary figure Arthaślesa gives rise to the determinants and ensuants of the pathetic sentiment and consequently becomes detrimental to the main Rasa.
As for the third caution of Hemachandra, contained in the Sūtra (14) under reference, it states that the figure should not be employed without the poetic purpose. Here, we should remember that these three rules or conditions of the employment of an alamkāra, flow, from the expression Tatparatvena Rasopakariņaḥ (Alamkārāḥ) explained in the gloss, this
81

Page #107

means that an Alamkāra is to act as an accessory to the dominant Rasa; hence it should not be detrimental to the Rasa and lastly it should not be neutral towards the Rasa, i.e., it should positively serve the purpose of suggesting the Rasa. Hemachandra illustrates the last aspect of the Tatparatva of an Alamkāra in a verse from the same play, Ratnāvali (2.8). The verse describes the feeling of love generated by seeing the lovely portrait of Sagarikā. The King's expression only gives a description of Sāgarikā by employing the two figures Upamā and slesa but does not distinctly reveal his love for Sāgarikā. Hemachandra remarks in the gloss that this expression of love in the verse being subordinated to the dominant simile with the double enténdré looks like the utterance of a neutral person i.e., looks like a statement of description. Hence the love-sentiment is not heightened by the figures at all. On the other hand, the sentiment is rendered weak. The result is that here the Alamkāra cannot be considered as Rasaparatva or Rasopakārin i.e., favourable and agreeable to the Rasa. And this is true, notwithstanding the apt comparison between Sagarika and the female-swan.
Now, it is not enough that the figure of speech should subserve the cause of the sentiment; but it is absolutely necessary that the figure comes in only at the right time; Kāle grhitih or Avasare gļhitih. We have noted above that Hemachandra has almost completely taken over this section on the definition and employment of Alamkara from the Dhvanyaloka (IX. 18, 19 ff), with illustrations and explanations, although with slight changes in the statements of the rules. Thus we have the same verse Uddamotkalikā from the Ratnāvali (2.4) in Hemachandra as well as in the Dhvanyaloka (II. 19 ff) as an illustration of a figure employed, having regard to proper time and circumstance. In the verse, the figure becomes an accessory to the Rasa and also comes in at an opportune moment. This is a very significant verse, having two figures, Upama and slesa and it brings out the king Vatsaraja's burning desire to snub his queen by creating a love-longing in Sāgarika
82

Page #108

for himself. Now the king had planted the Madhavi creeper in his garden and his queen Vasavadattā too had planted another creeper, the Navamālikā in the same garden. As time went by, a spirit of competition grew between the king and the queen, and the king challenged the queen that his creeper would flower earlier than her creeper. And, luck really favoured the king; for, his creeper put forth flowers first. The king, elated with joy at this favourable turn of good fortune, believes that this victory of his over the queen augurs very well for his desire to win Sāgarika's love, though the queen Vāsavdattā may not like it. The poet Sriharsa has composed a memorable verse suggesting the sentiment of Irsyāvipralambhaśțrgāra, separation in love, on account of jealousy - by means of a comparison (simile) between the garden creeper appearing like a love-lorn lady and causing heart-burn to the queen frustrated in her hold of love over the king. Incidentally the simile that makes the Madhavi creeper look like a love-lorn lady is rendered charming and perfect by means of several double entendre 'which make the simile possible. These two figures, viz., Upamā and Ślesa act as powerful accessories to the sentiment and come in at the right moment and in the most appropriate circumstance. It is interesting to note that this incident turns out to be an actual fact in the play, since Sagarika does win the King's love and cause heart-burning to the queen. Thus this verse is an important verse, dramatically speaking. Hemachandra has attempted a good critical appreciation of the verse from the Sākuntala, previously cited, as well as of this particular verse. In the gloss, it is pointed out that in the present verse, the figure simile which is based on a double entendré brings out prominently for our enjoyment the sentiment called Irsyāvipralambha, a variety of the Srgārarasa which consists in separation in love due to jealousy, though it is yet to take place, and thus, comes in when the Rasa is dominant, that is to say, they come in at the appropriate moment, so that they are both favourable to the development of Rasa. Hence the verse is an illustration of Kāle grahanam,
83

Page #109

However, the next verse Vātāhāratayā etc. cited from the Bhallata Sataka (87) contains an Atiśayokti, hyperbole, which is employed to heighten the feeling of disgust (Nirveda) on the part of the poet who has observed hypocracy masquerading as piety. But the poet has failed to describe instances of hypocracy (that of the serpents, the peacocks and the hunters) in an ascend-- ing order of the austerity of their vows. In other words, among the three vows, viz., of subsistence on wind, subsistence on the drops of rain water alone and being clad in the rough (sacred) skin of camūru deer, the first is the most difficult of all, hence it should have been described last. This would have ensured a proper ascending order of the vows of austerity, resulting in the proper development of the sentiment of quietude, i.e., śāntarasa. Thus the figure Atiśayokti fails to agree with the principal sentiment; nay, it actually mars the effect by not maintaining the atmosphere of the śāntarasa, though it exhibits the three types of hypocrites causing disgust to grow. Hemachandra, criticises the poet in the gloss by remarking that in this verse, since 'subsistence on air' (Vātāhāratva), which should have been mentioned last, has been mentioned first, the hyperbole is employed at an inopportune moment. To wit, from the beginning itself, the hyperbole which is brought in by means of the figures Hetūtprekşā in the first line of the stanza, fails to serve to intensify or maintain the emotion of disgust which lies in the feeling of regret for the series of merits that are repressed by the power of rank hypocracy and which is relevant here. Indeed subsisting on drops of rainy water is not a greater hypocracy than subsistence on air, nor is being clad in a deer-skin a greater hypocracy than the second vow.
If timely acceptance of a figure is important for the heightening of a Rasa, the timely dropping of an Alamkāra is. equally important. As the Dhvanyaloka says, even the abandoning half-way of a figure already taken up for treatment in favour of some other figure more favourably disposed to reveal the principal element, viz., Rasa, is perfectly justified. An
84

Page #110

llustration of this rule is cited here from the Hanumannāṭaka (V. 4). Here, Rama, filled with sorrow at separation from Sita, addresses the Aśoka tree by pointing out several common attributes that both he and the tree share except that while Rama is Sašoka i.e., full of grief, the tree is by name Aśoka, i.e., without grief. By way of a comment on this verse, Hemachandra adapts a single line from the Dhvanyaloka, where this verse is cited to illustrate the same point but with a detailed discussion following it in the Vrtti. Thus, it is pointed out by Anandavardhana that the double enténdré employed in the above verse is abandoned half-way in the third line with a view to making place for the figure Vyatireka. Hence it is helpful to the sentiment of love-in-separation. Hemachandra adopts only this much by substituting Vipralambhopakari for Visesam puṣṇāti. It is to be noted here that Anandavardhana mentions mixed figures by compounding the two names, e.g. Upama Śleṣa, Śleṣavyati reka etc. Such seperable figures usually go by the name of Sansrsti, whereas inseperable figures are designated by the name of Sankara. Incidentally, Rudrata and Namisādhu approve of the method of compounding the names of the figures. Anandavardhana seems to follow this lead.
But, in the next verse, cited from Rajasekhara's Balaramayaṇa, King Janaka denounces Ravaṇa who had offered himself as a suitor. In the first three lines, Janaka ponders over the excellent qualities of Ravana which may surely make him a Dharmavira, if taken without the fourth line. But all his qualities which make him a good bridegroom are abruptly spurned because he is Ravana and the quality of being a Ravaṇa, harasser of the world, cancells out all the other qualities at once and makes him fit to be condemned once and for all. In the first half of the fourth line, Janaka wishes that he were not Ravana and implies that he is utterly unworthy of any regard., for, the name Ravana is contemptible. But still he wonders in the last half-line: "Could all merits be found in one place?" This last half-line is ill-suited and out of place

85

Page #111

here. This statement can either give rise to a doubt (Sandeha) or deny what is said before (Akşepa) or laydown a universal proposition, Arthāntaranyāsa, but none of these ways or figures can agree with the principal sense of the verse. Whether the figure in the last half-verse is Sandeha or Akşepa or Arthāntaranyāsa, it in no way can establish Rāvana to be a hero in religion, i.e. Dharmavira. Hemachandra's remark in the gloss clearly shows that the speech of Janaka should have ended with the words a Tau, for, Rāvana harasses and tortures the world and so he is unfit to be a Dharmavīra for whom Janaka has great regard. Indeed Janaka takes into account all the good qualities of Rävaņa as these show him to be a Dharmavira, but unfortunately he is Rāvana, a dispicable torturer of mankind and so all his virtues come to nought. His prowess, his deep learning, his devotion to Lord Siva, his divine and resplendent abode, Lankā, his birth in an exalted family -- if all these qualities are found in an impious and antisocial man, they are worthless. The verse is well-sustained upto this point. But the last half-line beginning with Kva nu punah does not agree with the tone and the tenor of the verse, even if that line is interpreted to yield either the figure Sasandeha or Āksepa or to consider the sentence Nedrgvaro labhyate as containing a general proposition. The idea of Dharmavira, which is the principal sense of the verse is not at all heightened or intensified by these figures. The verse Kopatkomala etc. (KAS. aloss: verse-9) illustrates "not pressing the figure too far", Natyantanirvahah. A poet intent only on the delineation of a sentiment will always cut short a slightly introduced figure to maintain the effect of the sentiment. This verse from Amaru describes a lover being taken to task by his beloved in a soft and tender manner for his flirtations with another woman, and declares that such a lover is really fortunate. In this verse, we have a metaphor in the noose of her creeper-like arms' (Bāhulatikāpāśa) which is. appropriately cut short. Otherwise, as explained in the Viveka Commentary, which brings out the hidden sense of
86

Page #112

the verse, had the metaphor of the Bahupāśa been worked out fully by depicting the lady as a female hunter and the bed-chamber as a prison, the result would have been a complete destruction of the Sṛngāra Rasa in the verse. Therefore, the gloss briefly approves of this method of not pressing or developing the figure too far, if the charm of the Rasa is to be predominantly maintained. It is because of the strong sense of propriety on the part of the poet of this verse that the figure Rüpaka is cut short so as to allow full play to the sentiment of love. The next verse from Bhasa, on the other hand, suffers in respect of the charm of the sentiment of love, because the poet did not stop at the partial metaphor of Nayanadvära. Here, against the rule of propriety, the author has tried to fully expand the metaphor, that is, he has tried to extend or prolong the metaphor to cover not only the eyes, but also the body (Dehagṛha), the beauty (Svarupatāḍa), etc., and has consequently spoiled the charm of the Rasa.
Now, Hemachandra deals with the last condition regarding the use of figures only to heighten the sentiment. This last caution means that the accessory nature of the Alamkära is not overlooked even while the figure is developed in full so as to heighten the sentiment in a verse. In other words, the general rule is that even when a figure is fully developed, it should remain subservient to the sentiment. It is such a figure of speech which is best suited to the delineation of the sentiment. This ideal, harmonious relation between a fully developed Rasa and a fully developed but subservient Alaṁkāra is instanced in the famous verse cited here, from the Meghadūta of Kalidasa (2.41). In this verse, Hemachandra remarks, the figure Utprekṣā, poetic fancy, consisting in fancying the limbs, glances, cheeks, etc., of his beloved in the creepers etc. on the strength of resemblance, is not merely introduced but very ably and artistically sustained throughout the verse, and still it is made wholly agreeable to the principal sentiment of Vipralambhaśṛngāra. The Viveka Commentary very minutely explains the various words so as to bring out their subtle

87

Page #113

suggested shades of meaning which yield charm for the responsive readers. Hemachandra's method of unfolding the deeper and finer shades of meanings in poetically excellent verses is quite impressive. He says that the reading Bhiru retained in the last line, used for addressing the beloved of the Yaksa is quite appropriate and it is better than the reading Candi (Vide Locana pp. 232-33). But the same thing cannot be said with reference to the next verse (12) Nyancat etc. The verse, quoted from the Bälarāmāyaṇa (II. 19) describes graphically the different workings of the twenty eyes of Rāvaņa. Thus one is bent, another contracted, a third eager, a fourth is smiling, the fifth is full of significance, the sixth is partially closed, the seventh is turned back... the fifteenth dilated... and the last three eyes are full of tears, owing to specific feelings each eye is exhibiting a different expression. Now, obviously the figure of speech employed here is the Svabhāvokti, with which the author Rājasekhara presents a marvellous spectacle. But this striking pen-picture of the behaviour of all the eyes of Rāvana does not add up to much by way of helping the sentiment of love in separation, intended to be depicted here, as Hemachandra points out in the gloss. He remarks that though the Svabhāvokti is very well extended from the first line to the last line of the verse, still it fails to act as a handmaid to the sentiment of love in separation. Though Rāvana
ho was upset at not being able to win over Sitā describes his own condition with the words : 'Hanta! Hanta! Naikaprakaro madanavyāparah, yato mama Vaidehidarśanatah prabhrti' and goes on to state that owing to different feelings in his mind each one of his twenty eyes displayed a different activity, thus still the description, no doubt marvellous in itself, does not serve the purpose of the sentiment of love in separation, or the Poet's intention. Now, the Viveka Commentary intervenes, though it is customary for poets to describe eyes as reflecting different feelings in conformity with the different sentiments intended to be portrayed, as for example in the well-known verse - "Ekam dhyānanimilanänmukulitaprāyam dvitiyam punah....
88

Page #114

netratrayaṁ pātu vaḥ" we have Santa Śṛngāra and Krodha with their attendant determinants, consequents, etc., very well portrayed., hence there can be no opposition of Ravana's different eyes as reflecting different feelings. But here when we are told that these different feelings displayed by the twenty different eyes are due to the impact of the sentiment, we would expect a proper delineation of the sentiment, through the Vibhāvas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhicāribhāvas peculiar to it. But here, in the verse on Ravana's eyes, the delineation of the generation of the fleeting emotions appropriate to the sentiment by means of the determinants and consequents of the Rasa is conspicuous by its absence. Hence it is remarked that the figure Svabhāvokti is pointless so far as the main sentiment is concerned. To provide a concrete illustration of a verse which contains a proper development of the Rasa through the artistic representation of the apparatus (the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhicaribhavas), Hemachandra quotes the verse Sabhāyām tādṛśyam etc. The verse describes the sense of pity and pathos which overpowers the whole assembly that was witnessing the scene where the beastly Duḥsasana drags Draupadi by hair, and moves it to indignation and tears. Herein the poet has admirably suggested anger by twisted eyebrows and grief or pathos by the overflow of tears and the simultaneity as well as the immediacy of anger and pathos by means of the proper determinants, ensuants and accessories. Here the helpless and hapless Draupadi is the determinant of the sentiment of pathos and the evil-doer Duḥśāsana that of anger. This two-fold Vibhava instantaneously generates appropriate ensuants. Thus this is an appropriate instance of a proper blending of the opposite fierce as well as tendermost mental states. But the verse Nyañcatkuñcitam etc. does not display such poetic ability at all.
This sums up the topic of the relation of Alamkara with the Rasa. Hemachandra has defined and illustrated five different uses of the Alamkara favourable to the Rasa in question. He has also demonstrated how violation of these norms runs

89

Page #115

counter to aesthetic principles. As indicated above, Hemachandra has closely followed Ānandavardhana's Dhvanyāloka (II. 18-19) and has in fact adopted his views in toto with several illustrations. While Hemachandra has finished with this topic here, Anandavardhana adds that if a poet violates this aesthetic discipline, it results invariably in the destruction of the Rasa. Such aesthetic lapses are evident in the poetry of even great poets. But it is improper to pick holes in luminous works. He emphasises that Rasa is the whole and sole essence of poetry and figures like metaphor must be harmoniously employed. The poet should imagine what is hinted at here. 19
90

Page #116

THE POETIC MEANING
The next few Sūtras of the first Chapter (15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 ), seven Sūtras to be precise, with the gloss and the supplementary material collected in the Viveka Commentary exhaustively discuss the problem of the aesthetic meaning. Since Hemachandra has defined poetry as constituted by word and sense, devoid of blemishes, possessed of excellences and, as a rule, possessed of figures of speech and since he has already briefly explained Dosas, Gunas and Alamkāras in their relation to the principal element in a poem, viz., Rasa, he now takes up the question of words and meanings in poetry. In fact Mammata has treated of Word and Sense immediately after the definition and division of poetry since Word and Sense are the most important elements of a poem. However, as will be clear, Hemachandra's method of treatment is somewhat different. Types of Meaning : Hemachandra's Fourfold Classification
Words are of four kinds-Expressive, Metaphorical, Indicative and Suggestive, corresponding to the four kinds of Senses of these words - Expressed, Metaphorical, Indicated and Suggested. The gloss explains that the Expressive or the Denotative word conveys the primary or direct meaning, the Metaphorical word, conveys the metaphorical or figurative meaning which is based
91

.

Page #117

on common qualities or Guņas, the Indicative word conveys the indicated or indirect sense and the Suggestive word conveys the suggested sense. Hemachandra observes that the division of words is based on the different senses conveyed by the word-the same word; it is, therefore, not real (but theoretical). In other words, the senses are different, i.e., four-fold and therefore we have to conceive of four-fold words, eventhough the same word may convey several different senses, depending on circumstances. Thus sabdabheda is due to Arthabheda. Unlike such well known authors as Mammața and Visvanatha, Hemachandra gives four types of words corresponding to four types of senses. He has thus stated Mukhya, Gauņa, Lakşaka and Vyañjaka Śabdas, and Mukhyā, Gauņa, Laksya and Vyangya Arthas correspond to them. This division of words is based on the four-fold classification of Senses that these words yield. It may be noted here that this classification is peculiar to poetry only, because suggestive (and even metaphorical) words occur in poetry only, and not in sciences such as Logic, Metaphysics, etc. Mammața has significantly used the word Atra to mean "here, in poetry ".20 The Vaisesikas and others admit only a two-fold śabda, i.e., Vācaka and Lākasanika but the Dhvani theorists like Anandavardhana and others of his pursuation believe that the Suggestive word and the Suggested Sense are important in poetry and that the Suggested Sense is possible in poetry only. As Hemachandra, like Mammața, is a protagonist of Dhvani theory, he has mentioned the Vyañjakaśabda which is the basis of suggestion. The processes or powers by which the four types of Words lead to the four corresponding Senses are called Abhidhā (Denotation), Gauņi (Metaphorical), Lakşaņā (Indication) and Vyañjanā (Suggestion). These will be defined and a detailed discussion of the powers or functions called Vrtti, Śakti or vyāparā follows.
The Expressed Sense : Different Views
First and foremost, the denotative or Expressive power is defined and explained. To start with, the definition of the
92

Page #118

direct or expressed meaning is given. The expressed sense is conveyed by virtue of a direct convention. In defining the term Mukhya which stands in the Sūtra (1. 16) for Mukhyārtha, the words Sākṣāt Sariketa are used to convey the idea of a direct convention known from worldly dealings (Lokavyavahāra) whereby a particular word conveys a particular sense. The gloss clarifies that just as the word Mukhya conveys the idea of a face directly and without any obstruction as different from the sense of hands, feet, etc., similarly, the primary or direct sense is comprehended at once by virtue of a certain direct convention. Thus the words Saksāt Sanketa serve to demarcate the province of Abhidhā from that of Lakşaņā which is brought about by Vyavahita Sarketa or indirect convention. In other words, the above definition of the Mukhyārtha differentiates it from Amukhyārtha or Laksyārtha. This Mukhyārtha is accepted with reference to Generality (Jāti), Quality (Guna), Things (Dravya ) and Actions (Kriyā ), and a word expressive of such a Sense is called Mukhya or Vācaka word. Thus, for instance, Gauh is Jāti, suklah is a Guna (Quality), Calati is a Kriya (Action) and Devadatta is a proper name or a Dravya (thing). Thus a Vācaka word conveys the Mukhya or Vācya Sense, i.e., the primary sense, due to a direct convention. And there are four different functions of this significatory process. In support of his statement, Hemachandra quotes a well-known rule from the Mahābhāşya of Patañjali, a commentator of the Astādhyāyi of Pāņini. This quotation states that words function in a four-fold manner (so as to yield senses). This four-fold conventional meaning is expressed by Vācaka words. This is according to the Grammarian's view of convention or Sanketa. There is another school of thinkers, i.e., the Mimāṁsā School, which views the notion of Sanketa differently, According to the Mimāṁsā School, a word has Sarketa for Jāti only. Yet another school, that of the Logicians, considers that Sanketa can only be for Jātivisiştavyakti, And finally, the Buddhist School holds that a word has Sanketa for the exclusion of everything else. Hemachandra has made a
93

Page #119

passing reference to these four views. viz.; the Jātyādi, the Jātireva, the Jātivisistavy akti and Taditaravyāvịtti or Apoha views and clearly expressed his reluctance to attempt a detailed discussion of the Jātyādi view regarding the Sanketa or the other three views for that matter. 2-1 He justifies his stand by stating that since any further explanation of these views is not relevant to the subject in hand, it is not attempted. However, he' elucidates the above four views in the Viveka Commentary by reference to the quotation Catustayi etc. and then to the concepts of Jātireva, Tadvān and Apoha. He explains Catuştayi etc. by stating that under this theory there are four kinds of words: Jātisabdas, Gunaśabdas, Kriyāśabdas and Yadrcchāśabdas. Now when these words convey their meanings, they depend on Sanketa by virtue of which the denotative power (Abhidhävștti) operates. But the difficulty is as to how this Sanketa is to be understood. In other words, the question is as to where the convention is understood. Mammata has mentioned that the conventional denota four-fold consisting of Jātyādi or Jāti alone or Tadvan or Apoha. The grammarians, whom the Alamkārikas follow, hold the first view. The Mimāmsakas are the Jātivādins. The Naiyāyikas are the holders of the Tadvan view, i.e., they are the Jātivisistavyaktivādins and the Buddhists are the Apohavādins. The first two of these (Jätyādivādins and Jatirevavadins) are mentioned in the well-known Sūtra of Mammața (II. 8): Sanketitaścaturbhedo Jätyādirjātireva vā. These two views differ as regards the scope of Sanketa, but they agree in holding that Sanketa cannot reside in an individual and it is always with regard to the attribute or Upādhi. Because, if Sanketa is assumed with regard to an individual, there would arise the contingencies of endlessness (Ānantyadosa), violation (Vyabhicāradosa) and lack of distinction (Visayavibhāgāpraptih), because the word Go, having Sanketa only for the Vyakti would fail to cover all the individuals which are Ananta or infinite, or it would only refer to one bull or a limited number or bulls,
94

Page #120

which would constitute the fault of violation of the rule called Vyabhicāra, because the word Go meant for a single bull is extended to cover other bulls also. Now in the sentence given in the Mahābhāşya, 'Gauḥ śuklah calah ditthah' (and adopted by Hemachandra), 'Gauh' denotes a class, Suklah, a quality, Calah, an action, and Ditthaḥ, a proper noun or individual. Thus, here we have a distinct sense attached to each of the four words which come to be described as Jātisabdas, Gunaśabdas, etc. The grammarians, who give this four-fold classification of words, hold that convention is always with regard to the four Upādhis or attributes and not individuals. By this explanation of the convention, they obviate the three logical faults mentioned above.
Thus to obviate the above three faults of Infiniteness, Violation or infringement and the Negation of Distinctive. ness of Scope, the grammarians as also the Mimamsakas agree in holding that Sanketa cannot be admitted as relating to the individual but only as relating to the attributes of the individual since it is the same upādhi that persists in the different individuals, the same word can denote all the individuals characterised by the particular Upādhi. Now, though the Vaiyakaranas and the Mimāṁsakas agree on Upādhi being the ground of convention, yet the former believe that Upādhi is four-fold, i. e, it persists in Jāti, Guņa, Kriyā and Dravya, while the latter hold that Upādhi is found in the Jāti only. Thus it is that the Vaiyakaranas are known as Jātyādivādins and the mimāṁsakas as Jātivādins. The Naiyāyikas, however, hold that the Sanketa is in regard to both Upādhi as well as Vyakti and for the Buddhists, the Sariketa neither refers to the Upādhi nor Vyakti but to the exclusion of everything else. But the main two schools subscribe to the dictum : Upādhāveva Sanketaḥ i.e., the convention pertains only to the attribute. 2 2
95

Page #121

Sanketa And Upadhi
or
Now the question is what is this Upadhi? The author of the Mahābhāṣya, an exponent of the grammar school, whom the Alamkarikas follow, has already pointed out in the stock example (above) the four-fold attributes or Upadhis with regard to Jati, Guna, Kriya and Dravya. And Bhartṛhari has clearly said that Sanketa is for either of the four Upadhis Jāti, Guṇa, Kriya and Dravya.23 The passage 'Upadhiśca dvividhaḥ...' quoted in the Viveka Commentary embodies the Vaiyakaraṇa view which is held by the Alamkarikas as well. This whole passage (adapted from Mammṭa's Kavyaprakāśa, Flash II) can be summarised as under: An attribute is twofold: Vastudharma (Innate property) or Vaktṛyadṛcchasanniveśita-dharma (an attribute imposed on the thing by the sweet will of the speaker). This is the proper name or Samjñā. Now Vastudharma is again two-fold: Siddha (accomplished) Sadhya (being accomplished). This latter Sädhyavastudharma means Kriya or action or process having prior and posterior action in continuum. Siddhavastu dharma is again two-fold: Prāṇapradavastudharma (that which gives life to an entity) and Viseṣādhānahetu (that which is the cause of endowing it with speciality). This last Viseṣadhanahetuḥ prāṇapradaḥ siddhavastudharma is Jati or generality or class-characteristic. It is this Jati that makes a bull a bull. Hemachandra, or rather Mammata, supports this classification by citing Bhartrhari's dictum Gauḥ svarupena etc. which means that we cannot call an entity a bull nor a non-bull on account of its form, but it is the Jati, Gotva that gives a bull its life or its essence. In terms of the above classification, Guna is Viseṣādhānahetuḥ prāṇapradaḥ siddhavastudharmaḥ. That is to say the Guna, whiteness, serves to distinguish an existing object from other objects of the same class, e.g., a white bull from a red bull. Thus Jati gives existence to an object (Vastu) and it becomes Labdhasattāka, but Guna is not Praṇaprada to an entity because it can be dissociated from that entity. A thing
its

96

Page #122

can exist without a Guna but not without Jati. Gunas such as Śukla etc. do not constitute the nature of an entity, it is the Jāti that gives existence to the thing. So far as Kriya is concerned, the word Pacati illustrates it. It is a Sadhyavastu dharma which is described as Sadhyaḥ purvaparibhūtāvayavaḥ kriyārūpaḥ i.e. the property which is in the process of accomplishment is of the form of an action, parts of which have become prior and posterior, i.e., they occupy successive periods of time. The last category, Dravya is of the form of a Sañjña given by the sweet will of the speaker so it is called Vaktṛsannivesitaḥ vastudharmaḥ. Now the problem here is as to what attribute or Upadhi is imposed on an individual to name it. In the case of Jati, Guna and Kriya words, this question did not arise since they have generality, quality and action as specific attributes, but in the case of a Sañjñā. an arbitrary proper name such as Tom, Dick or Hary or Dittha here, we cannot think of any attribute residing in these names which we can impose on the individual by naming him. Here the grammarians explain that when we name a bull as Dittha, we only attribute the eternal form, i.e., Sphotarupa, of the word to specify that individual. This Sphota, in words like Dittha is completely grasped when the last syllable in the word Dittha is comprehended. This Sphota is described as Samhṛtakrama because it is eternal and because the order of the syllables in Dittha has nothing to do with the Sphotarupa. Thus Samhṛtakrma means devoid of sequence. This means that names such as Dittha etc. are arbitrarily applied to objects such as a bull etc. without any intention to imply any attribute of that entity. However, it is clear that Sañjñā implies a Vyakti not an Upadhi; but it is only as a matter of convenience that it is said to refer to Upadhi. In any case, when a bull is called Dittha, we look upon the name Dittha as an attribute of a bull. The words, Sanjñā, Yadṛccha and Dravya- all mean the same thing. Thus, the explanation of the attribute that forms the essence of a Sanjña, Yadṛccha or Dravya term shows that the Upadhi in

97

Page #123

this case is the ideal form 'Ditthädisabdānām svarūpam
or Sphoța of that Sanjñā term - sphotamityarthaḥ.'
The Conception of Sphota : Hemachandra Stands by the Grammarian's View of Sanketa
That Sphota is the Svarūpa of Dittha etc. is made clear by the adjectives Antyabuddhinirgrāhya and Saṁhịtakrama. Thus Sphota is understood when the last syllable, helped b impression left by the preceding syllables, is uttered. Sphota has no sequence because it is Niravayava and Akhanda and it has no parts and so it cannot have a Krama or order of constituent parts like ghata, pața, kamala, etc. have. This is the exposition of the passage cited under Catustayi etc. in the Viveka, so far as the Upādhi of a Sanjñā goes. But, there are those who believe that there is no Sphoța since in the word Dittha we can perceive only the Varnas or letters D,1,T, TH and A, and therefore there is no Saṁhrtakramasvarūpa of the word Dittha which we can impose on an individual. Even these people admit that Dittha is an arbitrary collocation of letters applied to a bull by the speaker's sweet will and so it is an Yadşcchāśabda or an imposed name that serves to distinguish Dittha from another bull. Thus these theorists who follow Varnavāda also concede that any variation in the utterance of the word Dittha carries the same reference to the bull called Dittha. So the gl element in Dittha etc. is agreed upon. And thus the four-fold division of Sarketa, advocated by the Mahābhāsyakāra stands vindicated; and Hemachandra stands by this theory.
The second view of Sanketa is explained in the Viveka under Jātireva. We know that the Mimāṁsakas hold with the Vaiyakaranas that even though an individual alone is capable of being the object of our activity and passivity owing to its capacity to carry out an action for achieving a specific purpose, yet it is not proper to establish a convention with regard to it for fear of the faults of Endlessness and Violation or
98

Page #124

Infringement and because no distinction of scope obtains for each of the words; therefore, it is with regard to the attribute of the individual that a convention is made. Thus the Jātyādivādins as also the Jātivādins agree in holding that Sanketa must be made with reference to the Upādhi and not the Vyakti, Since it is the same Upādhi that persists in the different individuals, the same word can denote all the individuals characterized by the particular Upādhi. Thus, Gauh can denote one and all the individuals characterized by the Upādhi, viz., Gotva Jäti. So, here, there will not be any Anantyadoşa or Vyabhicāradoșa. So far both the Grammarians and the Mimamsākas agree. But they differ also. The Jātireva View Of Sanketa In Viveka
So far as Mimāṁsakas (both Bhātta and Prābhākara) are .concerned, a word denotes Jāti only. And the four-fold classification of word, posited by the Grammarians is subsumed by the Mimāṁsakas under Jāti itself. The Mimāmsaka holds that it is the Jāti, Suklatva, Calatva and Ditthatva in words such as Sukla, Cala and Dittha representing Guņas, Kriyā and Dravya respectively that signify Sukla, Cala and Dittha. Thus without generality (Jāti) no word exists. And, as for the difference that obtains between the opinions of the grammarians and the Mimamsakas on the other three aspects of primary signification, viz., Guna, Kriyā and Dravya (for both agree on Jāti), the grammarians hold that denotation is four-fold because there is a clear-cut PETER HTT i.e., distinction of convention among Jati, Guna, Kriya and Dravya. Just as a Jātivācaka word like Go has convention with regard to Gotva or Cowness, so also a Guņavācaka word like Sukla (white) has convention with regard to Suklatva which is of one form in all white objects. Though it appears to be different, as it were, owing to the difference of substrata even as the same face appears different when reflected in a mirror, a polished sword or oil. The same is true of Kriyāvācaka as well as Dravyavācaka words. The action of cooking varies
99

Page #125

according to the dishes prepared but it is the same action, all the same, in every type of cooking. Finally, in the case of proper names like Devadatta, though they appear different when applied to different individuals, yet their sphoța is the same everywhere. This is the position of the Jātyādivādins i.e., the grammarians. The views of the Jātivādins, referred to by Jātireva' in the Viveka Commentary, on the other hand, are stated in the last line of the paragraph (pp. 43–44). The Mimāṁsakas, called Jativādins, declare that convention is always with regard to the genus or generality (Jāti) only. Hence, Just as in words like Go, Gotva, being the genus or Jāti under which every bull (GO) is subsumed, the convention is with regard to the Jāti, so also in Gunavācaka words like śukla; in Kriyāvācaka words like Pacati and in Dravyavācaka or Sanjñāvācaka words or Yadịcchātmaka words like Dittha; there is a notion of generality or Jāti like Suklatva ( whiteness ), pākatva (cookingness ) and Ditthatva and here it is with reference to this notion of generality or Jāti that the convention operates. Thus the Jātivādins conclude : Hani dai gia gaita7. Simply put, Jāti is the "cause of currency" and Jāti is the primary or direct or expressed sense based on convention or consent. This is the background against which we have to read the passage under Jātireva in the Viveka Commentary The passage points out that the quality of whiteness found in milk, conch-shell and cranes, etc. is not the same because the same word śukla cannot express all the whiteness in the world due to endiessness; nor can it express a few Suklas in the world due to infringement of the rule; so, it can only express one common property running in all white things. Similarly the Kriyāvācaka word Pāka cannot cover Gudapāka as well as Tilapāka or Tandulapāka, because they are different Pakas. Hence Pāka cannot express Kriya, but the Jāti of Pakatva, a common property found in all Pākas is certainly denoted by it. As regards the proper names or Yadịcchā words like Dittha etc., though the word Dittha as uttered in
100

Page #126

different ways and pitches by different speakers like parrots etc., or when it is applied to an individual in the different stages of its life (it is sometimes a child, sometimes an adolescent and sometimes aged), varies, yet in the different uses of the word Dittha there is a common property Ditthatva which is the Jati of Dittha. It is, therefore, with reference to this Ditthatvajāii that a Sarketa is established. Hemachandra, who follows Mammata here, as in several other places, paraphrases the statements from the Kavyaprakāśa (flash 11). So he goes on, in the passage under explanation, to meet a possible objection to the assumption of Jāti of Sañjñā-words. Because the stand-point of the Jātivādins with reference to Jātis of Gunas and Kriyās is comparatively more scientific than their view regarding the Jäti of Sañjñā. For, one can say with justification that the Sanjñā of Dittha as an infant has as little to do with the attributes of the bull as when it grows old. So, it is difficult to say that the word Dittha used in relation to an infant is different from that used regarding an old bull. And, if they are not different, how can there be any Jāti of the word Dittha ? As for the different utterances of Dittha by adults, children and birds, the utterance has nothing to do with the Abhidhā or primary sense of the word, because the denotation is unaffected by the pitch of the utterance. Hence, when the denotation of the word Dittha is the same, there cannot be a Jāti of Dittha and other proper names. To this exposition of the opposite view, the Mimāṁsaka replies that the main criterion of this view-point is the idea of sameness or Abhinnapratyaya. Though utterance of the word Dittha may be different and the application of the word Dittha may pertain to various stages of arowth and dec the bearer of that name, yet, it is due to the sameness of the idea in these utterances of Dittha and sameness of meaning in their applications that we can assert the generality or Jati of Ditthatva as being present in all utterances and all objects. So in the case of Sanjñā-words like Dittha etc., the existence of Jāti is proved by the criteria of Abhinnapratyaya and
101

Page #127

Abhinnābhidhāna. Thus the Mimamsaka view succeeds in establishing the existence of Jāti in Dravya (a) where the Sañjñā is considered as a Sabda and also (b) where it is. regarded as an object or Artha. However, this conclusion is. true if the same name, say Dittha, is given to one thing only. Because, if Dittha is applied to two different things like a bull and a horse, then there is no Sāmanya ditthatva or a common generic connection. The Sampradāyaprakāśini Țikā of the Kavyaprakasa draws our attention to the words 'Pratiksanaí (or Pratikalam as here) bhidyamānesu' which smack of the Buddhist view of Kșanikavāda, i.e., things are Ksanika. We may note here that Mammata has answered 24 the Jātivādins. by saying that there is only one Guņa, one Kriya and one Sañjñā. The one śuklaguņa resides in different things and as such appears as though diverse; so with Kriya and Sanjñā. Hemachandra's brief Exposition of the other two Views on Sanketa
As regards the other two views on Sanketa, Hemachandra gives a brief exposition of these under Tadvāniti and Apoha iti on page 44 of the Viveka Commentary. The quotation under Tadvān refers to the view of the older Naiyāyikas who hold that a word has Sanketa only for Jātivisistavyakti (Tadvān = Jatiman). The Pradipa commentary on the Kāvyaprakāśa explains. that, in the opinion of the Naiyāyikas, it is not possible to denote only an individual nor the class alone; for, in the first case, there is the fault of endlessness as well as the fault of violation of the rule; while in the second case, there will be the fault of excluding the individual. Hence the Sanketa is. placed on the individual characterized by the class. As interpreteď by Hemachandra, this view of the logicians implies that the Sanketa placed on Jāti is futile since Jāti as a whole cannot perform any function. In support of this interpretation, Hemachandra quotes a passage to the effect that "since the generality or class cannot perform the function of burning or cooking, it is always an individual that can perform a useful
102

Page #128

function; still it is not possible to place the Sanketa on the individual as it involves the fault of endlessness' and 'violation'. Hence a word conveys the sense of an individual implied by the class." It may be noted here that in the view of the Naiyāyikas the generic concept is already grasped and hence the question of the faults of endlessness as also of violation does not arise when fixing the Sanketa on a Jātivisistavyakti. Thus the Naiyayikas are the advocates of the Jātiviśistavyaktivāda in regard to Sanketa. The Apoha Theory
Hemachandra also takes up the Apoha theory of the Buddhists. Apoha means 'excluding everything else from the object and excluding the object from all other objects.' The Buddhists believe that everything is momentary or Kșanika. This is why the Buddhist doctrine is called Vaināśikadarśana. It is quite natural for those who hold this doctrine of Kşaạikavāda to find it difficult to fix the convention in Jāti since it is Ekanitya and Anekā nugata. Nor is it possible to fix it in Guņa or Kriyā or Sañjñā because they are Nitya. This means no positive idea can be got from words so far as things are concerned. Therefore, it is only the distinction or difference of things from all other things that words signify. Thus the word Gauh, when uttered, conveys the sense that the thing is not Aśva nor Hasti. To put it in other words, the word Gauḥ or any other word for that matter conveys no positive idea about the nature of the thing but it only marks it off from everything else. Thus, according to the Apohavāda, neither the Vyakti is Sanketita nor an Upādhi. What is Sarketita is the negative idea that a thing is neither this nor that (Atadvyāvștti ).
In the light of the position adopted by the Buddhists with regard to Sanketa, we find that the paragraph in the Viveka Commentary on Apoha sums up the Buddhist doctrine neatly. It states that "the class, the individual and the individual characterised by the class-all these are notional
103

Page #129

and unreal, and, as such, no meaning of a word is possible with reference to them. Hence words like Go and others negatively convey the sense of exclusion from everything else (Agovyāvștti). Also, since anything characterised by such a negative sense is devoid of any contact with real objects, being merely a reflection of a mental notion, it can be expressed by the exclusion of all other things, which they are not." Thus, in the Buddhist view, nothing positive can be learnt about things. Again, Sanketa for Vyakti is prevented by Anantyadoşa and Vyabhicaradosa. And, since everything is kşaņika, a positive Upadhi, which will have to last for longer than a Kșana, cannot be admitted. So all that a word fike Go denotes is that it is not A-Go, i.e., not an elephant or a horse etc.
This marks the end of the somewhat detailed discussion of the four views on the convention of words, viz., Jatyādivāda ( to which Hemachandra subscribes), Jatirevavāda, Jātiviśistavyaktivāda and Apohavada. The modern Naiyāyikas postulate a fifth view, viz., Vyaktivāda or Kevalavyaktivāda. The protagonists of this view rely on Vyavahāra for fixing the Sanketa and since Vyavahāra has to do with Vyaktis, it is the Vyakti alone which is Pravșttinivșttiyogya, as Mammaţa clearly states. No wonder, then, that these neo-logicians assign Sanketa to Vyakti only. Hemachandra's Conclusion
From Hemachandra's words in the gloss on this Sūtra (1. 16), it is clear that (a) he favours the first view of Sanketa viz., the Jātyādivāda of the grammarians, and (b) he believes that so far as theories of poetry are concerned, it is the first view that matters, since stalwarts like Anandavardhana and Mammața clearly show their allegiance to the views of the grammarians on several major and minor matters connected with poetics. Hemachandra, unlike Mammața, is so businesslike here that he does not even elaborate on the Jātyādivāda or Jātivada at all in the body of the text. But it is only in the
104

Page #130

sub-commentary Viveka that we get passages, either fully reproduced or abridged from well-known predecessors. Nevertheless, all in all, we get a fairly detailed account of the various theories of denotation based on Sanketa. The Indirect Meaning : Metaphor 2 5
Abhidhā having been dealt with, now Hemachandra turns to the definition of the indirect sense or Amukhyā Vịtti. The seventeenth Sūtra (Chap. 1) defines the Gauņa Artha and the next Sūtra (1. 18) deals with the Lākṣanika Artha. Generally Gaunārtha is not treated as a separate Artha, but included in the Laksanika Artha since both these senses are Amukhya or indirect. Moreover, two out of the three conditions laid down for the operation of the secondary or indicative power which yields the indirect sense are common to both the Gauna and the Lākṣaṇika senses. The differentia that marks off the Gauņa from the Lākṣanika sense is the Nimitta.
Thus Gauņārtha is a super-imposed sense based on similarity or identification and it arises when (a) the direct sense is incompatible, (b) when a Nimitta such as Sādęśya exists, and (c) when it satisfies a purpose of the poet. In other words, when the primary sense of a word is found incompatible and another sense is got at on the basis of similarity with a view to conveying the sense of identification of the original and the super-imposed senses, the super-imposed sense is called Gauņa Artha. Thus, a boy is called an ass or Mänavaka,a man, 'a lion.' Here, (a) the primary sense of ass or Simha (or Agni) is incompatible and hence it is set aside completely. Then it is realised that there are attributes in the ass or the lion or fire which characterize the boy, and bring about similarity. The poet who wants to stress the peculiar attributes of the boy, indentifies the boy with the ass or lion or fire by super-imposing the sense of lion or ass or fire on the boy. Thus, though the boy is different from the lion or ass or fire in reality (Bheda), still to show similarity of the two, 1.e., to call the boy an idiot, the poet conceives the boy
105

Page #131

to be identical (Abtreda) with the lion or the ass or tiro. Thus we have a metaphorical use of language. These examples fulfil the four conditions that Hemachandra has set forth in the definition. Hemachandra states that a Gauņa sense arises when (1) there is Mukhyārthabādha, (2) there is a similar sense available, (3) there is a purpose for which the Gauna sense is used, and, (4) when Abheda in the midst of Bheda is resorted to.
Basis of Mataphor : How it Functions
It is clear that in the conveyance of the Gauņa sense, likeness or similarity of qualities (Gunas) plays a prominent part. In fact, similarity (Sadrsya) as a basis of identification or super-imposition is the sine qua non of this variety of the indirect sense which is known as the metaphorical sense. As it is founded on similarity on account of Guņas, it is called Gauņa.26 The well-known example of the Gauņa process. arising from a motive is Gaurvāhikah or Gaurevāyam i.e., 'Vahika is a bull". Here the primary sense of the word Gauh a bull, when applied to Vāhika (a man) makes no sense as it is imappropriate or incompatible on grounds of direct perception. Consequentiy, we have to set aside the primary sense. Thereafter, it is seen that the bull possesses qualities. (Guņas) such as stupidity and slowness (Jādya and Mandya) which Vāhika, the man, shares. This makes them similar in respect of Guņas such as Jādya and Mandya. And on the strength of this similarity, which it is our purpose to show, between the bull and Vähika, we conceive a second sense of the word Gauḥ and identify Vähika with it. This identification takes the form of super-imposition (Āropaņa) of the two senses. And the sense which is super-imposed (Āropitaḥ arthah) is called Gauņārthah.
We, of course, know that the identification is not real, but imaginarily made or super-imposed by Upacara or metaphorical usage. 27 This identification naturally takes two forms:
106

Page #132

(1) either both Gauh and Vāhika are present in the metaphor, or (2) it is so complete that only Gauh is mentioned, wiping out every trace of separateness or two-ness. The first type of identification is the basis of the figure Rūpaka or metaphor in which the Visaya (Vāhika) or the object of identification as well as the Visayin (Gauh) or the object with which the identification is effected are both stated whereas the second type of identification gives rise to Atiśayokti of the first sort i. e., Rūpakātiśayokti. Explaining the Sūtra in the gloss, Hemachandra says that in examples like the above two, (a) when the primary meaning of Gauḥ as a bull having a hump etc. is found incompatible by direct perception, and (b) when a relation of similarity due to common qualities is present in both the Vişaya and the Visayin) and (c) when the purpose or motive of identification exists, the Gauna or metaphorical sense arises by the super-imposition of the sense of the bull (Āropya or Vişayin) on Vāhika, the man (Āropavişaya), either retaining their separateness or through complete identification (Bhedābhedena), assumed to be one, though not identical, so called because it arises from the Guņas or qualities. And the word conveying this sense is called Gauņa or metaphorical. Thus in Gaurvahikah, the Gauņārtha is super-imposed (i.e, identified) partially (Bhedena) due to the relation of similarity. This is the basis (or seed) of the figure of speech pertaining to sense called Metaphor which will be explained in the sequel. As for an instance of complete identification (Abhedena), we have Gaurevāyam. 'This is the bull itself (eva).' This is (nothing but) the first variety of the figure of speech called Atiśayokti or Hyperbole. Upacāra means secondary use of a word based on similarity between the primary meaning and the indicated meaning. In a general sense, Upacara is a figurative or metaphorical or secondary use of a word. But in the case of Gauņārtha, it specifically signifies a secondary use of a word based on similarity of the direct sense and the indirect sense. Mammata and others use it in both these senses. As a matter of fact, Upacara routinely occurs in the sense
107

Page #133

of Gauņārtha or Lakşaņā since Lakşaņā involves a secondary or figurative use of a word.2 8 On how Transfereuce occurs in Metaphor
So far we are furnished with a general elucidation of the Sūtra itself. But, since it is not clear from the Sūtra, how the qualities of Gauh, the bull, come to be applied or transferred to Vahika, the man. Now in examples like 'Gaurvāhikah', 'Simho batuh', 'Mukhacandrah udeti' or 'Candraḥ udeti', 'Agnirmānavakah', we are told, the indicative or primary sense and the indicated or metaphorical (secondary sense) are comprehended as being identical. This is the hall-mark of the Gauna sense in which Aropaņa is essential, since, unless identify is comprehended, no Āropa or super-imposition can take place. We must remember that the Vişaya (Vāhika) corressponds to Upameya and the Visayin (Gauh) corresponds to Upamāna since both are used in the same grammatical case and are identified in respect of 'sense'. When the super-imposition takes place, the word Gauh loses its Vācyārtha or Mukhyartha and the Gaunārtha comes to be super-imposed on Vähika Thus Gauḥ is the Gauņa or Upacarita word here. When the Mukhyartha of Gauh (Sāsnādimattvādi in the Sūtra) is set aside (Bādhita) by direct perception (Pratyakşādi-pramāṇena), Gauh, almost like a symbol, assumes the role of the vehicle of the metaphor, since the secondary sense is super-imposed on it. It should be noted that Gaurvāhikaḥ and Gaurevāyām (respectively) illustrate the Sāropā and Sadhyavasānā subtypes of Laksaņā as explained by Mammața (K. P. II) and interestingly, Āropa or super-imposition takes place only in case of Saropā where the consciousness of Bheda is conspicuous because both Vişayin (Āropyamāņa) and Vişaya (Āropavişaya) are mentioned by specific and separate words. Thus in Gaurvāhikah, Gauh is super-imposed (actually, its quaiities) on Vahika and both these are expressed by saparate words. It is this variety - Sāropā (Gauņilaksaņā) that gives rise to Rūpaka. This is called superimponent secondary usage. Sadhyavasānikā or Introsusceptive secondary usage, on the
108

Page #134

other hand, involves a swallowing by Visayin (Aropyamānena) of the Visaya (Aropavişaya) so that total Abheda (unlike Bheda in Rūpaka) prevails, and only Vişayin is verbally expressed. Thus, Gauḥ swallows up Vāhika with the result that only Gauh is expressed by means of a word. This variety (Sadhyavasānikā which involves Adhvayasāna, Antahkřti or Nigirana) gives rise to Hyperbole or Atiśayokti of the first type (called Rūpakātisayokti). These two together constitute Gauņi, as Pradipa, a commentory on the Kävyaprakaśa, puts it :"... Gauņi āropādhyavasānābhyam bhidyate...." In aropa there is attribution, in Adhyavasāna there is Niscaya or determinaton. These are the two varieties of Gauni as explained by Mammata (K.P.II. 7). However, the Bhātta Mimāṁsakas headed by Kumärilabhatta himself recognize Gauņi as a separate Vstti. 29 Among the Alam kārikas, Bhoja followed by Hemachandra treats Gauņīvștti as an independent process, i.e., different from Laksaņā. This explains why Hemachandra mentions four types of word and sense. 30 Despite this difference of classification and treatment, it is difficult to find any vital difference in regard to the power of Gauna and Lakşaka words. Briefly stated, the difference between Gauņi and (suddha) Lakşaņā is that while the former is Gunayogadgauņi and Upacaramiśrā, the latter is Upacārāmišrā and Suddha. 31
Now the question that needs to be answared is as to how Gauņārtha comes about. Indeed, if properly stated, the question would be : What is the Gauņa Artha here? How Gauna Artha Comes About ?
Mammata has stated three different views which we find re-stated here. The views can be stated as under :
(1) The First View : (a) The word Gauh in Vāhika yields Gotva by Abhidhā; (b) and by means of Gauri, the qualities of Jādya and Mandya in Gauh are indicated, in virtue of Tadyoga (connection of these Guņas with the Vācyártha of Gauh) or Nimitta (Sambandha) or Sahacaryasambandha as both Gotva (Vācya) and Jādyādi (Avācya) reside in Go itself;
109

Page #135

(c) the Prayojana may be assumed to be to suggest stupidity of the bull, as like Gotya, Jādyādi is its nature. Thus in the second stage, Jādyādi are indicated by Gauḥ, as its own qualities. (d) Now, in the third stage, the above qualities (indicated) become the Pravșttinimitta or cause of the expression of Vähika through Gauh. This last stage refers to Sadrśyātādrūpya due to Sāmānādhikaranya of Gauḥ and Vahika. Thus Jādyādi become the basis of expressing Vähika. Thus we have Abhidhā, Lakşaņā and once again Lakşaņā functioning to make Gauh convey the sense of Vähika in Vähikah gauḥ. The first view suffers from several defects of violation of rules of logic and tradition. It makes Abhidhā function twice and makes Lakşaņā (Gogatajāṇyādi) cause an expression - a contradiction in terms, it makes Gauh express Vähika (absurd, since no Sanketa is possible) and so forth. It is clear that Gogataguņas cannot activate Gauḥ to express Vähika. The argument involves cumbrousness and inconsistencies.
(2) The second view maintains that (a) the word Gauh yields Gotva by Abhidhā; (b) then indicates Jādyamāndyādi of Vahika due to Guņābhedasambandha; and (c) by implication or inference or invariable association expresses Vähika. Here, Abhidha Stage is the same as in view one. But in the second stage, Gauh, unlike in view one, indicates Vähika's Gunas. Therefore, Vähikaguņas are indicated by Gauh. And Vähika is not expressed but inferred from Vāhikaguņas which represent the Lakşyartha of Gauh in the Laksaņā stage; since Guņas imply a Gunin i.e. Vähika (by Akşepa). Here we have Abhidha and then Laksana and Anumāna, to cap it all. Lakşaņā is inefficient both in view one and view two. No purpose can be served by these 'involved', yet 'faulty' procedures.
(3) The third view hits the nail on the head when it finally and correctly determines the nature of Lakşaņā involved in the instance Gaurvahikah. Here Gauh expresses Gotva which is inappropriate to Vähika (Mukhyarthabādha). So we resort to Lakşaņā to get the indication af Vahikah (Parathah). As both
110

Page #136

Gauh and Vahika share the Jādyādigunas (Gauh, the Mukhyārtha and Vähika, the Lakşyartha), the Nimitta or Sambandha or Tadyoga factor is present in the Lakşaņā. And the Prayojana of showing similarity of the Guņas is easily satisfied. Thus, we find that this third and final view regarding the operation of Gauņi (Lakşaņā) in Gaurvāhikaḥ is accepted by Mammața
d Hemachandra : "Sadharanagunasravena parārtha eva (i.e. Vähika) laksyate ityapare". The first view is held by Kecit, the second by Anye and the third view by Apare (i.e. Mammața and others). Incidentally, it may be seen that in all the three views, Gauh is the Gauna word; and they are superior in an ascending order both from the view point of the effectiveness of their Lakşaņā as well as from that of the adoptability of these views as represented by Kecit, Anye and Apare (which last means 'not others'-A-pare i.e. we ourselves). 32
Four-Fold Power Of A Word
Since Hemachandra prefers to deal with Senses and Words first and postpones the explanation of the three powers of the Word, it is a bit inconvenient to give a thorough exposition of this topic. Indeed one really wonders if one can speak of the different kinds of the senses and the word without reference to the three-fold power of a word to convey the different senses. It is, therefore, in order that we understand once and for all that according to Sūtra 20 of Chapter one and the gloss thereon, there are four powers (Śaktis) of the four different types of words such as Mukhya, Gauņa, Lakşaka and Vyanjaka. Thus the four Senses Vacya, Gauņa, Lakşya and Vyangya arise due to this four-fold power of a word, viz, Abhidhā or Mukhyā Vrtti, Gauņi Vettl or Upacāra, Lakşaņā and Vyañjanā. While Mammaţa calls them Vrttis or Śaktis, Hemachandra uses the term Vyāpāra or 'function.'
These four powers or functions of a word are explained in terms of the definition of these concepts as given by Abhinavagupta in his Locana on Dhvanyaloka (1. 3 ff) where he states that id poetry there are three processes (Vyāpāras)
111

Page #137

and Hemachandra takes over the passage after omitting the sentence on Tātparyasakti. In fact while Hemachandra uses. the word Vyāpāra in the first line of the gloss, he retains the word Saktih in the definitions of Abhidhā etc. Agajn, he adds. the word Gauni in the definition of Laksaņā that he takes over from the Locana, and rewrites the sentence by saying 'Śaktirgauņi laksaņā ca', while in the definition of VyānjanāVrtti, he has verbatim reproduced Abhinava's definition, except the word Tritaya in Tacchaktitritaya and writes Taccaktyupajanita instead of Tacchaktitritayopajanita and joins this with the portion beginning with Pavitrita etc, upto Saktiḥ, and replaces Abhinavagupta's term Dhvananavyāpāra by Vyañjakatvam. And he totally drops Tātparyasakti which is the basis of the inter-connection of the expressed senses in a sentence and there is also a corresponding import-sense called Tātparyārtha. Yet, since both of these pertain to the sentence, they are not detailed here. 3 3 Abhidha. Gauņi, Laksaņā and Vyañjanā
Now, as for the difinitions of Abhidha, Gauņi as well as Lakşaņā and Vyañjanā borrowed from the Locana Commentary of Abhinavagupta, Abhidhā is the process of direct expression which depends on Sanketa or convention. So far as Gauņi and Laksaņā are concerned, both of them constitute one power or process and that is the process of indicating a sense which is indirect or secondary. This power of indication or Laksaņāvștti arises when factors such as incompatibility of the primary meaning and a usage or a poetic purpose are present. And Vyañjnasakti is the power of yielding on the basis of the primary and the secondary senses (Vācyartha and Gauņārtha and Laksyārtha) a (suggested inner) sense aided by the imaginative responses (Pratibhāsahāya) of the connoisseur. in other words, the Vyañjanā function of Word is the only function which requires the help of a responsive reader 34 or spectator who is smart enough to comprehend both the primary and the secondary senses of a word. This aesthetically profound power of the suggested
112

Page #138

sense is defined and discussed by both Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in great detail in the Dhvanyaloka and Locana respectively. When we view the Väcyartha in the light of the extraordinary, suggestive senses of a word, we realize that Väcyartha or Abhidheya is Laukika in nature, whereas the Vyangya sense, particularly the Rasadhvani, has an Alaukika nature. This is clear from the use of the word Prasiddha by Anandavardhana (Dhv. I. 3) and also Kuntaka (Vakrokti. I. 8). 35
Reverting to the discussion of some other types of the Gauna function of a word, we notice that Hemachandra here deals with instances of relations other than Sadṛśya or resemblance. To put it in the words of Mammaṭa: "Sadṛśyadanyakāryakāraṇabhāvādisambandhantaram" i.e., the relation between the expressed and the indicated sense is something different from similarity, like the relation of effect and cause, etc. The examples of this Karyakarana are expressions or metaphors like "Ghee is life", "This is life", etc. Hemachandra actually uses Mammata's words when he says: "Atra anyavailakṣyanyenāvyabhicāreņa ca karyakaritvādi prayojanam" 36. He also cites the same examples.
Mammaṭa's Views on Other Types of Metaphors
In this connection, it would be wise to take Mammaṭa's clarification of Kāryakāraṇādi sambandhäntaram. He states that in such instances, the super-imposition and Introsusception (Aropa and Adhyavasana) are caused (not by Sadṛśyasambandha) but by relations like that between the effect and cause and the like. And in the two divisions of Qualitative (Gauna) or Metaphorical Indication, the Prayojana (purpose) respectively is an apprehension of identity between the Visaya and Viṣayin, though we know there is a distinction between them, and the apprehension of complete identity. Thus the metaphor based on Kāryakāraṇabhava is also a variety of the Gauṇavyāpāra, except that here the relation is not of Sadṛśya but of cause and effect. The relation of cause and effect in Ayurghṛtam means that Ghee alone and
8

113

Page #139

nothing else is conducive to a long life. Thus in this example, the identification is partial (Sāropa) but in Āyurevedam it is complete (Sadhyavaşāna) and shows that Ghee, invariably, brings
outlongevity. The point to be noted here is that in Ayurghrtam, as in Gaurvāhikaḥ, we have Sāropā with the consciousness that the two objects are different (Bheda), in Ayurevedam or Gaurevāyam, the consciousness of difference is lost (Abheda). Thus, the one is Bhedāropa, the other, Abhedāropa. These two are, therefore, called Saropā Gauņi and Sadhyavasāna Gauni. Mammața regards this Gauņi as a variety of Lakşaņā and writes the words "Lakşyamānaguņayogād vrtteristā tu gauņatā" to define it and adds by way of comments the words 'Atra gaunabhedayorbhedépi tādřūpyapratītiḥ etc. But the words Anyavailakşanyena etc., taken over by Hemachandra, refer to the two divisions of Pure Indication called Suddhālakṣaṇā. The comment here means “The purpose is the accomplishment of the objective in a way distinct from all else and without fail". That is to say, here (in Kāryakāraņādi sambandha) the Prayo. jana is Sarvathäbhedāvagama, i.e., absolute identity. This is the sense that Mammața's remarks, in reference to the two varieties of Sāropā Súddhā and Sadhyavasānā Súddhā, have. But Hemachandra appliest he remark to Gaunabhedas of Bhede'pitādrūpyapratītiḥ and Sarvathaivābhedāgamasca prayojanam. The idea seems to be to point out that in examples like 'Ghee is life' and 'Here is Life' and others, there is a different connection between Life and Ghee, viz., the relation of cause and effect, which is other than that of similarity (Sadrśya). In other words, these two expressions, the Aropa and Adhyavasäna i.e., super-imposition and identification, have some such relation as that of cause and effect for their basis. Now, in the two types of Gauņi, the motive (Prayojana) in Gaurvāhikaḥ (Säropā Gauni) is the apprehension of identity, even when distinctness of the Vācyārtha and the Gauņārtha is consciously felt, and the motive (in Sadhyavasāna Gauņi i.e., in Gaurevāyam) is the apprehension of a total identity. But in the two divisions of Süddha, on the other hand, the motive is the consciousness
114

Page #140

of the ability of a thing to bring about the desired effect, differently from others (in Āyurghịtam) and invariably in Ayurevedam).
Apart from the relation of cause and effect, Hemachandra, following Mammata, mentions other relations with examples which come under Sädrśyetara-sambandhas and are therefore classified under Suddhā Laksaņā by Mammața, but here Hema. chandra has followed Mammata's tretament quite mechani. cally: for Mam mata treats of Laksanā first and then its two divisions, Suddhā and Gauņi, and then he deals with the Sāropā and Sädhyavasānā sub-divisions of both Suddhã and Gauni, where this question of Sādịśya and Sādrśyetara relations arises. Here Mammata naturally treats of these two kinds of relations in one place but first he deals with Gauņi Sāropā and sādhyavasānā and next with Súddhā Sāropā and Sadhyavasāna varieties in Ayurghịtam and Ayurvedam, where he uses AnyavaiTaksanyena etc. where it really applies squarely. But since Hemachandra has used it here with Kāryakāraṇasambandha it means the same thing as in Mammața when he says Súddhābhedayostvanyavailaksanyena etc.
Now, this Sādršyetara relation can include, (1) Kāryakāraņabhava (2) Tādarthya, (3) Svasvāmibhāva (4) Avayavāyavibhāva and (5) Tātkarmya. Māņikyachandra, the commentator of Manmata's Kavyaparakāša, adds some more relations : Māna or measure, Dhārana (holding) and Ādhipatya (leadership) and Sthāna. In fact, these relations can be many. The Nyāyasūtra of Gotama gives a list of ten relations such as Sahacarana, Sthāna, Tādarthya etc. Hemachandra explains Mammata's relations and gives three additional ones, viz. Manameya (Ādhavo vrihih), Samyoga (Raktah patah) and Vaiparitya (Abhadramukhe bhadramukhah). This last variety of Vaiparityasambandha called 'irony' or dramatic irony in literature or ironical sense, is interesting from a literary point of view.37 Gauņi and Lakşaņā Distinguished
The next Sūtra (1.18) defines Lakşyārtha as a separate sense-separate from Gauņa. The Sūtra states that the indicated
115

Page #141

sense (Lakşyaḥ arthah) is conveyed when the relation of the indicated sense with the primary sense of the word is entirely united (or identified). Thus in Indication (see Sūtra 1.20) (a) the secondary meaning is connected with the primary sense, (b) there is an identity between the two senses, We must remember, however, that, we have to take over the words "Mukhyārthabādhe nimitte prayojane ca" from the definition of Gauņārtha (barring the expression Bhedābhedabhyāmāropitah as the gloss expressly states). Thus the only point of difference between Gauņārtha and Laksyārtha is as regards Āropa and Tattva (Abheda) respectively. To explain, while in Gauņārtha, we have Āropa, Bheda and Abheda, in Laksyärtha only Abheda or Tattva is required. A word which conveys the Laksyārtha is called a Lakşakaśabda. Omission of Rūdhi Significant
Since Hemachandra defines Gauņi and Laksaņā Vịttis or Śaktis in the same words, we may be sure that he follows. the traditional views on Lakşaņā as hold hy Abhinavagupta and Mammața. In fact, in several places, it can be seen, nay, it has been demonstrated, that he reproduces verbatim the views of Mammata and Abhinavagupta and Anandavardhana and others like Bhoja etc. It is, therefore, clear that he accepts Mammata's three pre-requisites of an indication. Mammata prescribes (1) Mukhyārthabādha (2) Tadyoga and (3) Rūdhi or Prayojana - three conditions for an indicated sense to arise. And, when we read Hemachandra's two definitions of Gauņa and Laksya senses together, we find that in his view, Laksyārtha arises when (1) Mukhyarthabādha (2) Nimitta or Sambandha and (3) Prayojana are present. Thus here Lakşanī presupposes the three conditions mentioned by Mammata except that the third condition contains Rūļhi or Prayojana in Mammata's scheme, while Hemachandra significantly drops Rūdhi altogether and recognises only Prayojana - a definite advance over Mammaţa. And this affects the number of divisions of Laksanā ultimately. But apart from the minor
116

Page #142

variation and apart from the separation of Gauni from Lakṣaṇā, what Hemachandra states here is apparently a paraphrase of (Mukhyo'rtho...prayojanam) and partly (Gauranubandhya.... ākṣipyata iti) reproduction of Mammata's relevant statements. The last two sentences are added to make the above-mentioned variation explicit.
It must be noted that Mammata treats of Lakṣaka, Lakṣya and Lakṣaṇā in the same section and explains this hotly debated topic with a lengthy exposition (Vide, K. P. II. 12-18). Nature and Conditions of Indirect Process
other than the the indirect or of Lakṣyartha.
We know that words are used in a sense direct or primary sense. This is known as secondary sense, and is known by the name It is sometimes referred to as Bhakta or Gauna or Upacarita sense as well. But all these words refer to the same idea, viz., the indicated sense or the indicative usage.
Unlike the Vacya sense which is directly conveyed by a word by convention, the secondary sense is never directly conveyed. In this sense, it is an indirect sense and is conveyed by the Vacaka Sabda when the primary sense does not suit the context or the purpose in a given sentence. Mammaṭa says that "Indication is that process or power which is superimposed on a word by which a second sense is conveyed (or apprehended) when the primary meaning of the word is found inapplicable, and when there is a connection between the primary sense and the secondary sense either due to usage or through some motive or purpose." Thus in arriving at an indicated sense, the observance of three stipulations is presupposed: Mukhyarthabadha, Tadyoga and Rūḍhi or Prayojana. No Lakṣyartha can arise if all these three conditions are not fulfilled. Thus in the stock example, Gangāyāṁ ghoṣaḥ, the primary sense of the word Ganga is "the stream of the Ganges". But then the sentence would mean: There is a hamlet on the stream of the Ganga. But the meaning does not fit in with the context since it is absurd to

117:

Page #143

say that a Ghosa or a village is situated on the Stream of Gangā. We, therefore, look for some other meaning of the word Gangā - a more reasonable meaning. On a second thought, we realize that Gangā yields a secondary sense of Gangātaţa. This is the Laksyārtha of Gangā which is apprehended after the Vācyārtha of Gangā (viz. Gangāpravāha) was obstructed. This Mukhyārthabādha is the pre-condition of Lakşaņā. If the direct meaning is not found incompatible, there can be no indirect or Laksya sense.
Now the question is as to how the word Gangā yields the sense of Gangātaţa when Gangāpravāha is found inapplicable. To this, it can be said that since Gangataţa is connected with Gangāpravāha by Samipyasambandha, i.e., the relation of proximity, Gangā can yield the sense of Gangātaţa which can be the Adhikarana or location of a village. This reasonable sense is apprehended due to the relation of nearness between the primary sense and the secondary sense of Gangā. When this round about way of getting the sense of 'Gangātate Ghoşah' is adopted, one may wonder, why a more simple way of saying that expression directly cannot be adopted here. This doubt is cleared by the third stipulation about the Laksyārtha. The primary sense is given up and the secondary sense is understood in an indirect way because the speaker of the expression 'Gangāyāṁ ghosah' has a motive or purpose to employ the word Gangā to convey the holiness and coolness of the place. Hemachandra, while he explains the concept of Lakşaņā by means of the example Gangāyām ghoṣaḥ, points out in the gloss that the primary sense of the word Gangā etc. is the stream etc., and the bank etc. is connected with it, and the indicated sense is apprehended by the identity of the senses of the stream and the bank. He adds that the expression "Tattvena Takşyamāņa" is intended to replace "Bhedābhedabhyāmāropitaḥ" in the previous Sūtra on Gauņārtha; for the remaining terms of that definition follow here.
118

Page #144

The Process of Indication
Explaining the process of Indication in Gangayam ghoṣaḥ and Kuntaḥ praviśanti, both stock examples used in the Kavyaprakāśa, in terms of Mukhyārthabadha, Nimitta and Prayojana, Hemachandra goes on to state in the gloss that since a village cannot be situated on Ganga (Pravaha) and since spears cannot enter, the primary sense is found incompatible and set aside. Then due to nearness of the bank to the stream and the association of spears with the holders or bearers of spears (soldiers) which is the Nimitta or Sambandha, the sense of Gangatata and Kuntavantaḥ arises which is apprehended in such a way as to suggest (the purpose of) the attributes of sacredness and fierceness of the place and the person (in question) respectively, which is the purpose of resorting to this secondary process.
Not every Sense can be Termed 'Laksyärtha'
It will be seen that in Hemachandra's definition of Gaunī and Lakṣaṇa the term Nimitta is used in connection with the second condition which requires that the two meanings must be connected, in the sense of Mukhyartha or Tadyoga which means Abhidheyasambandha. The compliance with this condition is important because if there is no connection between the two (Vācya and Lakṣya) senses, every sense could become Lakṣyärtha. These connections are five : Abhidheya-sambandha (Gangayam ghoṣaḥ), Sadṛśya-Sambandha (Gaurvahikaḥ), Samavayasambandha or Sahacarya (Kuntaḥ pravišanti), Vaiparityasambandha (Bhadramukha means Abhadramukha) and Kriyayoga (Satrughnastvam).
Lakṣaṇā not to be Confused with Implication Etc.
After illustrating the Sutra on Lakṣyartha, Hemachandra reproduces verbatim from Mammata's Kavyaprakāśa (II. 11 ff) an argument to justify that Lakṣaṇa is an independent power of word and is not to be confused with implication or any other logical method of cognition. The argument here concerns Mammata's attack on the views of Mukulabhaṭṭa, the author of

119

Page #145

Abhidhavṛttimatṛakā. Mukulabhaṭṭa, while discussing the powers of a word, gives "Gauranubandhyaḥ" and "Pino devadatto diva na bhunkte" as instances of Upādānalakṣaṇā, a variety of the Súddha-lakṣaṇā according to Mammata's scheme. Now since Mammata is engaged in explaining this same Upādānalakṣaṇā (called Ajahallakṣaṇā or Ajahatsvartha more appropriately), he thinks it fit to refute Mukula's views and expose his fallacies in giving these two instances. Hemachandra abridges this statement somewhat to suit the context of Lakṣaṇa here. But the sense of the arguments is identical. The who e passage means: "Expressions like" 'A bull should be immolated' and so on should not be cited as examples (of Upādānalakṣaṇā) to argue that since here the sense of generality (the primary sense) is not possible because the immolation enjoined by the Veda cannot apply to a class; hence the individual (bull) is implied by the class-word bull; by virtue of the dictum that an individual is invariably associated with the class; and though it is not mentioned in so many words."
To state it otherwise, what Mammata means is that the expression Gauranubandhyaḥ should not be cited to prove that there is Upādānalakṣaṇa in it because an individual (bu!!) is indicated by the class on account of the incompatibility of the immolation enjoined by the Śruti applying to the whole class of bulls and is not expressed as per the dictum that the expressive power cannot reach the thing qualified owing to the exhaustion of its power in expressing the attribute. For, here, there is no purpose. And if indication of the sense of an individual (bull) is intended as implication due to invariable association (with the class), then you will have to admit indication also in understanding the subject of Kriyatam, the object in Kuru and the words Grham and Bhakṣaya respectively in Pravisa and Pindim. Thus far it is one single view or contention attributed to Mukulabhaṭṭa by Manikyachandra. However, it is also ascribed to Mandanamiśra by Udyota, a commentary on the Kavyaprakāśa. According to this view, the Jati conveys

120

Page #146

the Vyakti by Lakşaņā, since Abhidhā cannot express Gotva (Jäti) - no more as per the dictum "Višeşyam nabhidha gacchet. ...višeşaņe" (Quote-7), so the meaning of an individual bull (Govyakti) is indicated by the word Gauh, as Gotva (Vācyartha) includes Govyakti, it is a proper case of Upādānalaksaņā. Mammața refutes the view by saying that Govyakti is known by Aksepa or inference due to Avinābhāva between Gojāti and Govyakti and not by Lakşaņā. Consequently, the question of Upādānalakşaņā being present in Gauranubandhyaḥ cannot arise. Again there is no Prayojana (or Rūdhi) in such a usage. So it is a case of misapplication of Lakşaņā, though the argument is presented in an intelligent way by quoting the famous maxim (Nyāya) : Visésyam nābhidhā gacchet etc. which means the Visesya cannot be grasped until the Višeşana is grasped. The same idea is expressed in Sabdabuddhikarmanām viramya vyāpārābhāvāt."
Mammata wants to reduce the above argument to absurdity. He, therefore, says that if Laksaņā is resorted to in Gauranubandhyaḥ by Avināhbūtamūla Akşepa, then we will have to assume the same process of indication in Kriyatām to get a Kartā, in Kuru to get a Karma and to get Grham in Praviša, Bhakşaya in Pindim etc. But, as we all know, we get this idea completed by the process of implication known as Arthāpatti or Śrutārthāpatti. Kumārila has said : "Sabdi hi ākankşā sabdenaiva pūryate".
After controverting the view of Mukula regarding the alleged operation in Gauranubandhyah and establishing that it is an instance of implication, Mammata, not Hemachandra, turns to dispose of another view that of the Mimamsaka - which regards Pino devadatto divā etc. as an example of Lakşāņā. This statement, which means 'The fat Devadatta does not eat by day', conveys the sense that he must be eating by night, not by Lakşaņā, but on the strength of implication or verbal presumption. So to urge that 'nightly feeding' is indicated in the above sentence is unwarranted, since it is the province of
121

Page #147

Śrutarthapatti or Arthapatti. Now Arthapatti is a Pramāṇa according to the Mimamsakas, and it consists in presuming something to account for what goes against experience. In the present example, we suppose on the strength of Arthāpatti that Devadatta must be eating by night. This may be factual (Dṛṣṭarthapatti) or verbal (Śrutarthapatti). The followers of the Gurumata accept Dṛṣṭarthapatti while Kumārila admits Śrutārthāpatti. Indeed Kumarila has said: "Sabdi hi akānkṣā sabdenaiva puryate" i.e., A verbal expectancy requires a verbal presumption only. 38
The portion reproduced here from Mammata to explain Lakṣaṇā comes to an end with Mammaṭa's refutation of Mukulabhatta's views on Lakṣaṇā.
Hemachandra's Significant Innovations....
We can be sure from the way Hemachandra almost literally takes over ideas and expressions from Mammaṭa, Anandavardhana, and others that he fully accepts the views of these authorities on vital poetical concepts. However, he has the good fortune of being a worthy follower of stalwarts in the field of poetics. He cannot start a new Prasthana, but sometimes we find that he effects innovations and improvements in a small but significant way. The truth of this observation is brought out in the case of Hemachandra's separate treatment of Gauṇārtha and in his independent stand on the question of admitting Ruḍhalakṣaṇā. As we know, Mammata divides Lakṣaṇā into Rūḍha and Prayojanavati. Thus an example like Kuśala is regarded by him as an example of Lakṣaṇā based on Rūḍhi. Similarly words like Dvirefa - a bee (Lit. having two 'r's), a crow (Lit. having two 'k's) also come under this Rūḍha Lakṣaṇā as they have a primary or literal sense which is lost and now they convey a different sense which they did not originally possess. This is their Lakṣyartha.
.And His Independent Stand
Hemachandra, However, refuses to toe the line of Mammaṭa and frankly declares that these words express these (secondary)
...

122

Page #148

senses because they possess these meanings by convention. He, thus considers all cases of Ruḍhilakṣaṇā as instances of Vacchyartha. Consequently he did not regard Rudhi to be the basis of an indicated sense (p. 46). While stating his position on this question, Hemachandra is conscious that other authorities like Mukulabhaṭṭa actually admitted Rudhi on a par with Prayojana because of Lakṣaṇa and treated it as such (vide Viveka, p. 46). To substantiate this, he quotes a line from Mukulabhatta's Abhidhavṛttimatṛkā (10 a) which states that (the indicative sense) is due to Rudhi or Prayojana. This is all Hemachandra says about Lakṣaṇa. But he once again clarifies the distinction between the metaphorical sense and the indicated sense by saying that in this matter, where one thing metaphorically becomes another thing due to common qualities, it is a case of Gauṇartha and where this Upacara is not present, it is a case of Lakṣaṇa. The words actually mean that Gauṇartha occurs when one thing is super-imposed upon another. In this context, Upacaryate means 'concealing the apprehension of difference between two things that are altogether distinct, on the strength of some relation between them'. In other cases, it is Lakṣyartha. This view corresponds to Mammaṭa's statement Upacareṇāmiśratvat i.e as it is not mixed with the secondary or metaphorical use of a word based on similarity, it is Lakṣaṇa, otherwise Gauni. This distinction is mentioned here and the way it is mentioned, makes us think that Hemachandra wants to emphasize not the separateness of the two functions, but probably the sameness of the
process.
Limited Varieties of Lakṣaṇa in Hemachandra's Classification
When we compare Hemachandra's treatment of the concepts of Gaunt and Lakṣana and for purposes of comparison they are one, since Hemachandra mentions Gauni and Lakṣaṇā together (in his gloss on Sutra 20) - in the Kavyanusāsana with Mammata's treatment of Lakṣaṇa in all its varieties, we cannot fail to notice the limited scope of discussion in Hemachandra.

123

Page #149

Moreover, Hemachandra does not sub-divide the concept of Lakşaņā and disregards the Rūdha Lakşaņā altogether. He does not try to establish Laksanā as a separate power but takes this aspect for granted and mechanically reproduces passages from Mammața. Indeed Hemachandra's two Vittis viz. Gauņi and Laksaņā are two divisions of the same Indirect sense. Gauņi is two-fold : Sāropā and Sadhyavasānā but Laksyārtha has no sub-division. Thus he gives three kinds of Lakśyārtha. No further classification or its basis is discussed.
The Suggested Meaning or the Poetic Meaning
The first three senses - Vācya, Gauna and Lakşya or the expressed, the metaphorical and the indicated senses have been explained. Now the definition and exposition of the fourth sense is in order. Hence, Hemachandra takes up this last or fourth sense, i.e., the Vyangyartha or Dhvani in the next Sūtra (I. 19). Thus the sense called "Dhvani" is that (a) which is suggested and (b) apprehended distinctly and (c) it is other than the primary sense. The gloss clarifies this statement by saying that this is the suggested sense which is an object of apprehension and it is quite distinct from the primary sense (Mukhyārtha), the metaphorical sense (Gauņārtha), and the indicated sense (Laksyartha). This is called Dhvar
cient authorities since it means that which is suggested', 'Dhvanyate (vyajyate) dyotyate arthah aneneti'. Hemachandra, and Māņikyachandra too, explains Dhvani as 'Dhvanyate dyotyate iti dhvanir vyangyam'. According to the first explanation 'Dhvanyate vyajyate'arthaḥ aneneti dhvanih' means Vyanjaka; according to the second explanation, that of Hemachandra and Mäņikyachandra, Dhvani means Vyangya. Mammața, while explaining the meaning of Dhvani states that the Grammarians called a word as Dhvani because it is the words that we use that suggest their eternal forms called Sphoța. Thus a word is a Dhvani of the Sphota. Thus when I use the term Gauḥ, Gauh is a Dhvani of the Sphoțarūpa 'Go'. Dhvani, therefore, is the Vyañjaka of the Sphota which is Vyangya. This term
124

Page #150

Dhvani was later taken over by the aestheticians who follow the grammarians' views in vital matters and styled it as the pair of word and sense, which is capable of suggesting a clear that sense that outshines the expressed meaning. It is Mammața uses Dhvani for both the Sabda and the Artha, i.e., the Kavya. It is also clear that Dhvani is a sense found only in literature. As indicated in the definition of Vyañjanavṛtti in Su. 20 of chapter one, this suggested sense presupposes reader the sympathetic and imaginative response of the or the Sahrdaya. Mammata's explanation of Dhvani as a term and a concept carries considerable weight since he is regarded as the staunchest supporter and the most authorised spokesmen of the Dhvani theory which was securely established in the Dhvanyaloka by Anandavardhana and which was ably explained by Abhinavagupta in his Locana Commentary.
The Theory of Dhvani or Poetic Suggestion
According to the Dhvani-theorists,
sense.
Dhvani is the soul of poetry and it is revealed by an entirely distinct power of a word called Suggestion or Vyañjana. This Dhvani, as a sense, is always Vyangya and is absolutely distinct from the Vacya sense, as well as the metaphorical or the indicated The Dhvanyaloka refers to three different schools of ancient Älamkarikas who were reluctant to admit that Dhvani or Vyangyartha is the soul of poetry. These are (1) the Abhāvavādins who are ignorant of the true nature of Dhvani being believers in the expressive capacity of words only; (2) the Lakṣaṇāvādins or Bhaktavādins who are troubled constantly by doubts concerning the existence of Dhvani as the most important element in (or the soul of) poetry; and lastly (3) the Anirdeśyavādins who suffer from an inability to define Dhvani in a logical way, though they accept that there is such a thing as Dhvani. But despite the opposition of these antidhvani theorists, slowly more and more theorists veered round the concept of Dhvani and it was finally raised to the status of the Atmā or soul of Poetry by the Dhvani-theorists.

125

Page #151

The Nature and Types of Dhvani
The Dhvanyaloka and the Locan Commentary, both, explain the genesis of (a) the word Dhvani, (b) the sense of Dhvani and (c) the power called Dhvani. As there was divergence of views regarding the nature of suggestion, Abhinavagupta has dealt with five such views and according to Vimarsini, a commentary by Jayaratha on Ruyyaka's Alamkarasarvasva, there were twelve rival schools that opposed the theory of Dhvani. But most of these rival theorists' views centred round the expressed sense or at best around Väcyartha and Lakṣyärtha; so they are bracketed together and called Vacyärthavādins. Indeed, in the second Karika of the Dhvanyaloka, we have a two-fold division of Word - Vacya and Pratiyamāna, and this Vācya is called Prasiddha, meaning Laukika or ordinary, and the Vyangya or Pratiyamāna as Alaukika or extraordinary. This Alaukika sense, called, Pratiyamāna or 'Suggested Sense', is entirely different from the expressed (Vacya) sense, and it is the quintessence of poetry. As for the true beauty of this Suggested Sense, we are told that it is like the supple grace that pervades the entire being of a lovely damsel which is over and above the ornaments and make up as well as the symmetry of form of that damsel. The captivating charm of a work of art is not equal to the adornments of word and sense or excellences but is in fact much more than these beautifying elements and is different from the beauty of the external elements. It is the beauty of the entire work and not of parts or external ornaments thereof. So, suggestion, the soul of a poem, is independent of and Supreme among the other elements such as Alaṁkāra, Guṇa, Riti, Vrtti, and Sanghatana. The point to be noted here is that the mere absence of Dosa or presence of Guna and Alamkara does not constitute the essential appeal of a poem. It is the Pratiyamāna Sense, distinct from all other senses, that gives life to a poem, exactly like Lavaṇya in a damsel. It is this Pratiyamāna sense which pervades the immortal creative works of great masters like Vyasa, Valmiki, Kālidāsa and others. This Pratiyamāna or

126

Page #152

Vyangya Sense can be of three different types : Vastudhvani, Alamkāradhvani and Rasadhvani, and these have their sub-types. In all of these cases, the Dhvani sense is quite distinct from the Expressed sense. Of these three varieties of Dhvani, the Vastudhvani and the Alaskāradhvani can be conveyed through the expressive power of a word, but the last and the most important third variety, viz., Rasadhvani can never be expressed as it is always and invariably auggested. Abhinavagupta divides Dhvani into Laukika and Alaukika and subsumes Vastudhvani and Alamkāradhvani under the Laukikadhvani, but regards the Rasadhvani, the best type of Dhvani, to be a class by itself and calls it Alaukika. This last is only possible in a poetical expression - Kavyävyāpāraikagocara and is never expressed but always enjoyed aesthetically through a proper representation of the aesthetic stimulii. This is the extraordinary type of Dhvani, indeed the real Dhvani or Dhvani par excellence. This is the considered opinion of Abhinavagupta, one of the greatest aestheticians and critics. Here he lays down the divisions of Dhvani and shows their mutual difference in a nutshell. The Term 'Dhvani' Explained
As for the term Dhvani, Abhinava explains that it is applicable to śabda, Artha and Vyāpāra, both, severally and collectively. When it is applied to a Kāvya it is collectively used. Thus the term Dhvani can mean (1) the Suggestive word, (2) the Suggestive primary sense (Vācyārtha), (3) the Suggested Sense (Vyañgya), and (4) the process (Vștti) of Suggestion, and (5) the Dhvanikavya - a whole poem. We can see here that this concept of Dhvani is a highly developed aesthetic concept and a far cry from the grammarians' Dhvani. According to these grammarians, Sphoța is Dhvani as also the sounds (Dhvanati iti dhvanih) which suggest that Sphoța which is an eternal and indivisible but significant word.
Following the grammarians but developing fully their conception of Dhvani, the literary critics, chiefly of the Dhvani
127

Page #153

school, apply the term Dhvani to Vācakaśabdas (the words) and the Vācyārtha (the expressed meaning) that jointly and severally suggest the implied meaning (Pratiyamānārtha). Abhinavagupta very ingenuously comprehends all the four elements - Sabda, Artha, Vyäpāra and Vyañgya - within the connotation of the term Dhvani. This is what Mammata means when he notes in the Kavyaprakāśa (1. 4 ff) "Budhaiḥ... sabdarthayugalasya", in fact, Mammata's words in K. P. 1. 4 ff. restate in a somewhat compact and technical way the words of the Dhvanyaloka (1. 13 ff); and under "Bhaktyä bibharti naikatvam rūpabhedādayam dhvanih" Anandavardhana explicitly states that "Suggestion is the unindirectional communication of a sense other than the expressed by both the expressed sense and the expression when Vyangya is pre-eminent."
It should be noted that according to the Dhvani-theorists, a word can be merely Vācaka or merely Lākşanika, but it can never be merely Vyañjaka. In other words, the Vyargyārtha can never be revealed by a word without at the same time expressing a Vācya sense or conveying a Laksya sense, i.e., Vyañjanā must be accompained by either Laksaņā or Abhidhā. To put it in different words, the Sabdi Vyanjanā is either Laksaņāmūlā or Abhidhämūlā. The Vyangya sense or the Pratiyamāna sense of a word happens to be in addition to and not in lieu of the Vācyārtha or Laksyārtha. In the case of a suggested sense, we have to assume two powers to be possessed by a word simultaneously, i.e., Vyanjana and Laksanā or Vyañjana and Abhidhä. The Pradipa commentary calls Sābdi Vyanjanā as sabdanistha and says it is Abhidhamūlā and Lakşaņāmülā. Now in Lakşaņāmālāvyanjana we should not suppose that Lakşaņā is the cause of Vyañjanā, but it is only a Sahakärin of it. Thus the motive or Prayojana in instances of Lakşaņā such as Gangayām ghoşah or kuntāḥ pravišanti is apprehended by Vyañjanā from the word Gangā and not by Abhidhā (as there is no Sanketa in Gangā for the Prayojana) or Laksaņā which only conveys the Tața. Thus coolness etc. is revealed by
128

Page #154

Vyañjanā. Mammața has ably demonstrated all this in the second flash of his Kāvyaprakāśa. The word Ganga is able to yield the sense of Tața by ( Laksaņā ) as well as that of Saityapāvanatva by Vyañjanā. Śabdi and Arthi Vyañjanā
It may be noted that the Laksanāmālā sābdi Vyañjanā arises only in Prayojanavati Laksaņā. While the Abhidhāmālā relates to Nānārtha words or homonyms, where the Abhidha is restricted to one sense, but the other sense is obtained by it. And the cases which do not come under śābdi Vyañjanā, naturally belong to the Ārthi Vyañjanā, e.g. Nihsesacyuta etc. where the word Adhama exemplifies the latter.
The above digression is intended to serve as a general background to the theory of Dhvani or Suggestion. We must now revert to Hemachandra's gloss on Sūtra-19, which follows both Mammata and the Dhvanikāra as also Abhinavagupta in the main.
Hemachandra's Treatment of Dhvani
Hemachandra explains Dhvani, as expounded by the previous stalwart critics, by using the words Dhvanyate Dyotyate which, as we have seen are the same words that Mānikyachandra uses in his Kāvyaprakasa Saṁketa. According to Abhinavagupta, Dhyanyate means Vyangya sense (lit. that which is suggested). Similarly Dyotyate also refers to the sense which is suggested. Since Hemachandra is here concerned with the Vangya sense, he only quotes two of the well-known explanations of Dhvani as a sense. This Dhvani or Vyangyārtha is three-fold; Vastudhvani, Alaskāradhvani and Rasadhvani. Of these three, the first variety of Dhvani viz., Vastudhvani is entirely different from the Mukhyārtha, Gauņārtha and Laksyārtha. In short, it is different from all the other senses. This is a variety of the Pratiyamāna sense which represents the fourth stage of language, as Abhinavagupta
129

Page #155

explains it. This is neither expressed nor indicated but experienced or felt by or revealed to the appreciative, sympathetic and responsive reader. In other words, the word Pratitivişaya in the gloss, as explained in the Viveka commentary, refers to the Svasaṁvedanasiddhatā of the Pratiyamāna sense. This felt nature of the suggested sense is brought out very well in the Dhvanyāloka (1.4) which Hemachandra quotes (p.47, Viveka). The Kārika is intended to show that the suggested sense is quite distinct from
sed sense and can in no way be equated with the Vācyārtha as it is Sahşdayaślaghya, Kavyātmā, Kavyasārarüpatayāsthitaḥ i.e., the very essence or all-in-all of the poetic expression. To drive this point home, Ānandavardhana employs the analogy of the supple grace of the excellent beauty of a lovely mainden. This is the irrestible and capativating appeal of the Dhvani sense. Abhinavagupta explains that this Lāvanya is suggested by the form of the person but it is distinct from the form and is a different sort of attribute which appeals to us. So it is not merely a defectless or decorated body that makes for Lavanya; for a woman with an appearance that is devoid of any observeable physical defect such as squintedness etc. and with a body decked with ornaments, still comes to be described as a woman without charm or appeal; on the other hand, a woman not possessed of the above assets is quite often referred to as a moonlight o nectar of grace by the connoisseurs. Hence it is clear that Lāvanya does not stand in the relation of Anvaya or Vyatireka, j.e., agreement and difference. Naturally, therefore, it is independent of Doșa, Guņa and Alamkāra, and is a special charm or grace - altogether different from the other, worldly features. Like Lavanya, the aesthetic meaning or Pratiyamanartha is equally distinct from mere absence of Doșas and mere presence of Alamkaras like Upama, Rupaka, etc., and is comparable to Lāvanya in the Kavyasarira. Again since this Lāvanya is always apprehended by the true connoisseurs of art, its existence is an irrefutable fact. This is the felt meaning
130

Page #156

experienced to be pervading and overflowing from the works of great poets. Thus there is no doubt that like Lāvanya, the Pratīyamāna sense is an acknowledged source of charm and beauty in great poetry. It will be remembered that in his Vịtti (gloss) on Dhvanyāloka 1.4, Ānandavardhana calls this Lāvanya as "Kimapianyadeva sahşdayalocanāmptam tattväntaram" and remarks that this Pratīyamāna sense is exactly like that, i.e., like 'nectar of joy'.
Hemachandra very closely follows here the Dhvanyaloka and defines, divides and illustrates Dhvani, by and large, in the manner and words of the Dhvanyaloka. A careful look at the related topics in the Dhvanyaloka and their relation with this Sūtra, its gloss and the Viveka commentary will easily bear this observation out.
As we know, Abhinavagupta in his Locana Commentary on Dhvanyaloka (l. 4 ff) gives us a brief chart of the main divisions of the suggested senses as also of their mutual difference. Thus he states that Pratiyamānārtha is two-fold : Laukika and Kavyavyāpāraikagocara and elaborates on it to show his priority for the Rasadhvani. Thus we can show the classification of the suggested sense or Pratiyamānārtha as under:
The Suggested Sense
Laukika
Alaukika
or Ordinary
or Extraordinary
Rasadhvani, Bhavadhvani, etc. (i.e. Rasādi Dhvani)
Alamkāradhvani
Vastumātradhvani (Vidhinisedhadyaneka-prakārah)
131

Page #157

The Threefold Dhvani
Following the Dhvanikāra and Abhinavagupta, Hemachandrai gives three divisions of Dhvani, viz. Vastudhvani, etc., but he explains these divisions in the Viveka Commentary (p. 47) under the words Vastvalamkāreti. He states that Artha i.e., Pratīyamana in poetry (Iha) is two-fold : Laukika and Alaukika. Laukika again is two-fold : Sabdabhidhanayogyah avicitritātmā and Alankaradhvani. The word Vicitrita means decorated or striking. So, Vastudhvani is the suggestion of a plain idea, while Alamkāradhvani is the suggestion of a striking or ornamented idea. Here both the varieties represent ideas or senses. The mutual difference between Vastudhvani and Alamkāradhvani, we are told further in the Viveka, is that, while in Alankäradhvani where the suggested sense is pre-dominant, it is obvious that the Alamkāra is the Alamkārya i.e., the thing to be ornamented. A question may arise as to how this Alamkārya, which is bound to be an idea that is beautified, can be called an Alamkara, To this, it is replied that since the figure of speech, which has assumed the position of an Alankārya or suggested sense, at one time in the past passed under the name of an Alamkāra in the sense of a Vācyārtha; now, even though it is not a Vācya Alamkāra, still retains its previous appellation and only comes to be described as an Alamkāradhvani. In other words, in a suggested state, the name Alamkara, which smacks of Vācyārtha and a decorator, cannot be justified in relation to the principal soul of a Kavya, but on the analogy of Brāhmaṇaśramananyāya it is called an Alainkāradhvani. The maxim of the Brahmanic-āscetic means that though a man is now a monk, he was formerly a Brahmin. This maxim is used by Mammața, Visvanath and Hemachandra. Thus, the appellation of Alamkāradhvani of an Alamkarya suggested sense is only formal and not real. For, of both Vastu and Alamkāra in a suggested state, there cannot be any expressedness, still they have a connection with the primary sense when in the forms of Vidhi etc., so they are called Laukika. But, the:
132

Page #158

variety which is Kāvyavyāpāraikagocara is called Rasadi which is never capable of being expressed.
Hemachandra's Exposition of the Threefold Dhvani
Now Hemachandra takes up each of the varieties of Dhvani (Sense), viz., Vastudhvani, Alamkaradhvani and Rasadhvani for a detailed treatment. Believing as he does that first things should come first, he explains the three different types of the suggested sense in the order in which they have been stated. Here it should be noted that, in the body of the Sūtra (19), he is merely defining Dhvani as sense as distinct from the expressed sense as is shown by the expression : "Mukhyādvyatirikto pratiyamano vyangyo dhvaniḥ". This would imply that Hemachandra is alive to the ancient tradition of the Mimāmsakas as well as of the old rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vamana and Udbhata, that included the metaphorical and indicated senses under the Mukhyārtha.
Dhvani is an Elastic Term
"The concept of Dhvani has towered over all other ancient poetic concepts and surpassed and supplanted several other theories of poetry of the day, because it made the break with referential speech or expressed sense complete, and represented the emotive or literary aspect of language at its best. Moreover, the term Dhvani comprehended within its elastic concept, the ideas of emotion, structure, texture, unified character of the aesthetic experience, organic form as well as the imaginative beauty of the literary medium consisting in *ambiguity', 'ambivalence', 'implication', complexity and richness, many-sidedness, irony, paradox, tension, conflict, contrariety, and even gestures. And what is most important, the Dhvani of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta absorbed and assimilated the concept of Rasa so marvellously conceived and established by Bharata in his Natyasastra. This meaning which is unique and exclusive to poetry is alone characterised as the essence of poetry. And it has its parallels in fine arts like music. The theory was so formulated that it could assimilate the essence

133

Page #159

of all the traditional aesthetic the claim of Rasa".39
categories while emphasising
The argument for the
pre-eminent role of Dhvani in poetry assumes the realization of the fact that there is a unique aesthetic formation of poetical or artistic expression called Suggestion, which is totally different from the two well known process known as direct and indirect expression. This is the high water mark of the Dhvani theory which is summed up in the words of Anandavardhana: "Yatrarthaḥ śabdo va......" (Dhv. Al. 1.13) and "Tatparāveva sabdarthau..." (Dhv. Al. 1.13 ff).
Once we accept the position that the suggested meaning is the poetic meaning, it becomes clear that in all instances of Dhvani or Suggestion, the Vyangyartha is always more important and beautiful than the Vacyartha. This in its turn implies that, even in the case of Vastudhvani, where a bare idea is suggested, the beauty of the Vacyārtha is outshone by the beauty of the Vyangyartha. For, it is the central aim of poetry to delight the reader by the all-surpassing beauty of the suggested sense. This sense is mentioned to be of three types by Hemachandra: Vastu or Idea, Alamkara or suggestive figurative shades and Rasādi or sentiments. This threefold sense or Dhvani is the soul of poetry.
The first type of Vyangya or Dhvani called Vastudhvani, we are told, entirely different from the expressed sense and the others, suggests a bare idea or a matter-of-fact subject. In the words of war, it differs from the explicit meaning, and this is the chief characteristic, not only of the Vastudhvani but also of the remaining two types of Dhvani viz., the Alaṁkāra type and the Rasadi type. Thus, Vastudhvani completely differs from the explicit or expressed sense. Hemachandra employes the term Adi to hint the other senses such as Gauna and Lakṣya as well. In order to illustrate how a Vastudhvani or suggestion of the idea takes place, he points out that sometimes the expressed sense is of the nature of a

134

Page #160

positive proposal but the suggested sense is of the nature of a prohibition. In his gloss on Dhv. Āl. I.4, Ānandavardhana points out that though the Vastu is suggested by the inner power of the explicit statement or the expressed sense - and not only the Vastu but all types of Dhvani- still the expressed sense is never intended and it is always distinct from the suggested sense. Thus he establishes the distinct nature of the Vacya and the Vyangya senses once and for all. Thus in all cases of Dhvani, the suggested sense, be it Vastu or Alamkara or Rasa, is quite different from the expressed sense. However, though Vastu, Alaṁkāra and Rasa are always conveyed by the Vyangya sense, with this difference that whereas the Vastu and Alaṁkāra can be conveyed by Abhidha or denotation as well, the Rasādi is always and invariably suggested and never expressed. This idea is brought out very clearly by Abhinavagupta who also pointed out the difference between the Vastu and Alamkāra types of Dhvani, both
Laukika.
Why Resort to Dhvani ?
A point that needs to be explained in connection with what Abhinava says is that if Vastu or Alaṁkāra can be Sabdavacya or conveyed through Abhidha or Denotation, then why resort to Vyañjanā? The answer is that an idea conveyed through suggestion is more charming than the idea expressed through Abhidha. This is the opinion of renowned critics. The Dhvanikara himself testifies to this fact: "Vacyórtho na tatha svadate pratiyamanaḥ sa eva yatha". This makes one point clear that Vastudhvani and Alamkaradhvani have a semblance of Vācyartha (Vācyasāmarthyākṣiptatva) though the meaning suggested by it will be entirely different.
The Distinction between Vācya and Vyangya
To prove this, i.e., the distinction of Vyangya from Vacya, Hemachandra takes over several illustrations with comments

135

Page #161

from the Dhvanyāloka and adds a few more of his own. His treatment of this topic is thus fairly comprehensive.
The first verse quoted here is from Hala's anthology of Prakrit lyrics (no. 175) called the Gathāsaptasati. Introducing the verse in Prakrit, the author of the Dhvanyaloka observes that "Even the first variety itself (ie. Vastu) differs widely from the expressed sense. In fact, very often the suggested sense will be prohibitive in sense while the expressed is of the nature of a positive proposal". The verse is Bhama Dhammia etc. in Prakrit (Bhrama Dharmika etc. in Sanskrit) and is wellknown to students of Sanskrit Poetics. In this verse, the suggested sense is quite the opposite of the expressed sense since an injunctive idea is diametrically opposed to a prohibitive advice. The verse purports to be an exhortation expressed with reference to a recluse who used to roam in the thickets on the bank of Godavari to pluck flowers for his daily worship. Now, this exhortation is uttered by a wanton woman who secretly meets her lover under a bougher in the same woods, As the frequent visits of the recluse disturbed the lovers, the woman wanted to scare away the recluse who, she knew, was a timid fellow. So, she thought of stopping the man from coming permanently and thinks of an idea, concocts a tale or story. Thus, she very innocently tells the man to keep moving about freely in the place since the dog which used to frighten him daily has recently been killed by the lion who frequented the thick forests on the bank of the Godavari,
Hemachandra comments on this verse by saying that the woman who was very clever pretended to be innocent and addressed the pious man who disturbed her rendezvous by telling the recluse that the advent of a lion can be dangerous for him, and hence he should not move out.
This verse is so cleverly addressed as to show the innocence of the lady who is asking the man to "move freely". As we can see, the verse "Bhrama Dharmika, etc." directly exhorts the man to move freely but suggests unmistakably that the

136

Page #162

advent of a lion can mean sure death for the man and so he should never move about in the forest. Thus the method in the kind exhortation is to express a positive proposal and suggest a prohibition. This illustration is cited in Dhavnyaloka (1.4 ff) to demonstrate how Vastudhvani is totally distinct from the expressed sense. Here the expressed sense is Vidhirüpa (injunctive in force) but the suggested sense is Pratişedharūpa (prohibitive in nature). This is the peculiar nature of Dhvani; for no man in his right senses would ever think that Vidhi and Nişedha, diametrically opposed, can be identical. Thus affirmation and negation reside at the same time in the same word - that is the unique discovery of the Dhvani school.
Hemachandra's explanation in the Viveka Commentary lays bare the motive behind the verse, with reference to the context, and observes significantly : "ht = lat Rafi TETTE व्यङ्गयोऽस्ति तथापि महाराजशब्दव्यपदेश्यविवाहकरणप्रवृत्तसचिवानुयायिराजवदप्रधानतामेव
Taula 1" (Viveka p. 47). This means that while in Vastudhvani, sometimes a Rasa may be also suggested, still it is never predominant. It is rather like a great king or emperor who is attending the marriage function at a minister's house where (naturally) the Minister (and not the king emperor) stands out prominently. This remark provides a significant side-light on the theory and the division of Dhvani. Dr. K. Krishnamurthy brings out the importance of this observation of Hemachandra, when he states :"....But if the Vyangya vastu or alaṁkara or rasa is not subsidiary to the vāchya, but is surpassing it in beauty, then these come to be raised to the highest state of dhvani. This is the functional philosophy underlying the three divisions of Vyangyartha into Vastudhvani, Alamkaradhvani and Rasadhvani. Unless something is exclusively and relatively all-important, it won't be classed as dhvani. However, of the three, the province of Rasa-dhvani is not only the largest but also the sweetest. Its nature is such that it cannot but colour every minute ingradient or aspect of poetry on the one hand and every class of dhvani
137

Page #163

on the other. In poetry, language is used uniquely because the poet endeavours to convey emotions, moods and feelings in addition to mere facts and actions. Even such hard and dry things like stones and bones associated with some mental feeling like anguish; and, therefore, even in seemingly rasaless passages of poetry, a perceptive and sensitive reader will experience some shade or the other of rasadi. So the logically distinct categories of vastudhvani and alamkaradhvani cannot be deemed to be totally exclusive of rasa any time. Once we theoretically admit that dhvani is the essence of best poetry, to do full justice to the claims of rasa, we cannot rule out logically the application of that definition to vastudhvani and alamkaradhvani also. These latter too are definitely more aesthetic than their vacya counter-parts and they also in some measure atleast, partake of the healing touch of rasa which is not however prominent enough to be classed as rasadhvani."40
Hemachandra Tackles the Various Theories of Meaning
Incidentally Hemachandra takes up (Viveka, p. 48) the discussion of the various theories of meaning which have been or can be applied to 'Bhrama dharmika etc.'
We have seen the general explanation of this verse attempted by Hemachandra with his comment that even in cases of Laukikadhvani like Vastu and Alaṁkāra, there is always a relieving touch of Rasa. Now, "if this verse is interpreted as the utterance of a lady who is inside the thicket or bougher,. the second meaning 'Ma bhrama' will be an indicated sense, and with its purpose (removal of the Dharmika from the rendezvous) will be suggested, then the interpretation will not be appropriate. Here Vasina (stalking the thickets) may perhaps (ca) be the Abhidheya (expressed sense). But it is not possible to say that the prohibition is expressed. To explain : Since no comprehension of a Sense is possible without a Sanketa being there, a word can only convey a sense if a Senketa exists

138

Page #164

with reference to that word." This reminds us of Mammata's definition of a Vācaka sabda (K. P. 11. 7 - Vrtti). And Sanketa is of one type only because it cannot be placed on a word to yield a special meaning for fear of the fault of endlessness and infringement of the rule; just as it cannot be made with reference to a sentence to yield the sentence - meaning. For, the connection of general word-meanings (in a sentence) comes about owing to expectancy (Akānkşā), compatibility (Yogyatā) and proximity (Sannidhi). This is the view of the Abhihitānvayavādins. Mammata deals with this view in his Kāvyaprakāśa (V. 47 ff). The Tātparya Theory
We can see that here Hemachandrachārya introduces a discussion of the Tātparya theory of the Mimāmsakas. The first of the Tatparyavādins are the Abhihitānvayavādins who hold that the purport-sense also belongs to the word when the senses of words are combined together owing to the force of expectancy, compatibility and proximity. The purport sense, which possesses a special form, and which, though not the sense of the different words, represents the sense of the sentence, springs up - this is the view of those who maintain that connection arises between senses after they are expressed by the different words. 'Vācya eva vākyārthaḥ - the expressed sense is the sentence sense - thus hold those who maintain that words express a connected meaning. These are the Anvitābhidhānavādins. This is the fourth Vịtti i.e., over and above Abhidhā, Laksaņā and Vyañjanä, though Hemachandra does not explain it. Abhinavagupta enumerates the different powers in this order : Abhidhā, Tätparya, Laksanā and Vyañjanā. Thus according to him, Vyañjanā is the fourth Vịtti.
Mammața defines and explains the Tātparyavrtti and Hemachandra depends mainly on him and the Dhvanikāra as well as Abhinavagupta. We can pinpoint words, quotations, examples and ideas in both the body of the text of the
139

Page #165

Kāvyānuśāsana and the Viveka to substantiate this. Now Mammața defines "Tātparyartha as 'Tātparyarthópi kesucit" (K. P. II. 6). This then is the additional ( fourth ) Vịtti, called Tātparyavrtti or purport. This function belongs not to individual words as Abhidhā, Laksaņā and Vyañjanā do, but to the sentence as a whole. Its purpose is to convey the connection (Anvaya) between the meanings of the different words in a sentence. This connected meaning is styled as Tātparyārtha (Vide S. D. 11. 20).
The theorists who admit this Tātparyavrtti are called the Abhihitānvayavādins as they hold that, in a sentence, the different words first convey their respective individual senses and then a connection between them arises giving rise to a sentence-meaning or import of the sentence as a whole. According to them, every word has a generic (Sāmānya) meaning which it expresses independently. This may be called the Vākyārtha and it is learnt from Vrddhavyavahāra and Koša. When several words are combined to make a sentence, the senses are modified in some way to accommodate others. These together give rise to a sense which is the sense of the sentence as a whole. This is accomplished by the TātparyaVrtti which operates owing to the force of Akänksā, Yogyatā and Sannidhi. This Abhihitānvaya view--point is held by the followers of Kumāri!abhatta, a great Mimāṁsaka, as also by the adherents of the Nyāyavaiseșika school of Indian philosophy. However, another school of the Mimāṁsakas, led by Prabhakara or 'Guru', hold a different view called Anvitābhidhānavāda and this view is opposed to the Abhihitänvayavāda. Anvitabhidhänavāda means that a word expresses a connected meaning and hence no need arises for postulating a Samanya or generic sense for every word. It should be noted here that according to the Anvitābhidhānavāda, the meanings of words are known from Viddhavyavahāra, as, for example, in sentences such as Gāmānaya, Asvamanaya etc. the word Anaya used with Gām and Aśvam explained by the act of bringing, Anayanakriyā,
140

Page #166

drives home the meaning of Anayana as 'bringing' to a child. Thus here the meanings of words are understood as connected (Anvita); no separate Tātparyavștti is called for. Hemachandra's Refutation of Antidhvani Views Reviewed and Summarized
By now we are familiar with Hemachandra's method of treatment. While treating of the Vșttis or sense-functions in chapter one, he provides the main theoretical argument on the four-fold power of Word and the four senses in the body of the main text but presents additional views and examples (mostly based on or cited from Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammața) by way of supplementary material in the Viveka Vyākhyā (Vide K.A.S. pp. 42–44, 46-52 etc ). Thus the exposition of the theories of Denotation and Indication has already been duly supplemented with additional citations above.
Now, under the verse Bhrama dhärmika etc. (V.13) he again presents (in the Viveka, p. 47 ff) the well known theoretical refutation of the Anti-dhvani views and strives to establish the Vyañiana function in a convincing and logical manner by following Abhinavagupta and Mammata. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya pinpoints this (and Dr. S. K. De, HSP-II p. 244, endorses it) when he states : "In chapter-1....there are unmistakable traces of the K. Pi's influence in the expression and in the ultimate dominance of the Vyañjanā view, the author's guides are the Dhv. al. and the Locana... He has occasionally utilized the K. P., especially in the treatment of the Vittis, though Hemachandra chooses to differ from Mammata here and there..... His efforts for being exhaustive in his treatment are evidenced in his taking the cue from Anandavardhana's specifications of four varieties of Vastudhvani (K. A. S. pp. 53-56 etc.) followed in toto by almost all the later writers and amplifying them to thrice their number with apt illustrations in Prakrit. The age-old practice of giving stock-examples, which has much in its favour, is scrupulously followed, but the author is never oblivious of the practical
141

Page #167

nature of poetics and adds here and there examples which serve to increase the range of the students in their studies of Kavyas. His discretion, however, never leads him to unnecessary and irrelevant elaboration or dissuades him from picking up supplementary matter in his gloss which is much thought of by the advanced student. A paragraph in the Viveka by way of explaining the Prakrit verse Bhama dhammia (Viveka pp. 47-48, not found in Locana or V.V.)...hints at his zeal for clarification, even at the cost of throwing overboard his trusted guides" (Hemachandra and the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists, pp. 119-20, also vide p. 118, p. 126 etc. See Bibliography).
Dr. V. M. Kulkarni traces the sources of Hemachandra's Kāvyānusāsana (vide ch. 13, "Studies in Sanskrit in Sahityaśāstra", pp. 149-54) and indicates the K. P. (V), the Dhv. Al. and Locana pp. 74, 78, 137-139, 167-169, 255-257, 271-276, 351-356 and Bhoja's S. P. VII (pp. 245-50) as the principal sources on Sabdarthasvarūpa. He also invites reference to Rucaka's Sanketa as a source (Ibid, p. 152). However, the question of the mutual relation between Hemachandra and Somes'vara is left out of consideration in view of uncertainty. Dr. Kulkarni holds that we need not find fault with Hemachandra if he preferred to present his predecessors' theories and doctrines in their original form, instead of briefly summarising them in his own language. (Ibid, p. 153). Hemachandra presents a fairly complete review of the various views which go counter to the Dhvani doctrine and we can see that here Hemachandra has marshalled numerous arguments, taken over mostly from the fifth flash of the Kavyaprakāśa wherein Mammata has very ably refuted the anti-Dhvani theories of the Abhidhavadins, the Tatparyavādins-Abhihitanvayavādins, the Anvitābhidhānavādins, the Lakṣaṇāvādins, the Vedantins and the Anumitivadins, to establish that Vyañjana is an independent power entirely different from the expressed, purported and indicated senses.

142

Page #168

In the different passages quoted here by Hemachandra (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23), an attempt is made to (a) disprove the contention that Dhvani can be expressed, (b) refute that either Abhihitānvayavāda or Anvitābhidhānavāda can account for the Vyañjanāvștti, (c) reject the Dirghavyāpāravādin's claim that his extended Abhidhā can cover Vyañjanā, (d) and to establish that the same word can suggest a variety of meanings. Thus, a wide gulf divides the Vyangyārtha from the Vācyārtha. Examples also are cited to show that (1) the suggested sense is affirmative when the expressed sense is negative, e.g. 'Nihốeşacyuta....etc.' (2) the Vyangyārtha is decisive when the Vācyārtha is doubtful, e.g. 'MātsaryamutSārya...' (3) the suggested sense is Prasaṁsā while the primary sense shows Nindā, e. g. 'Kathamavanipadarpo etc.' (4) the Vācyārtha is Prašaṁsā but the Vyangya is Nindā e.g. 'He Helājita Bodhisattva etc.' and (5) the suggested sense varies with the context, speaker, hearer, etc. e.g. 'Kasya vā na bhavedroṣaḥ etc.' The concerned person alone apprehends the suggested meaning whereas the lay reader merely comprehends the primary sense. This in itself unmistakably proves that the two senses - the Vācya and the Vyangya - are totally distinct from each other. Statement and Suggestion : How are They Related ?
The above lengthy disquisition (Viveka pp. 48-52) was intended to establish that in the verse (no. 13) "Bhrama dhārmika....etc." in the positive statement 'Visrabdho bhrama' move about freely, which is the expressed meaning, the suggested sense 'Tatra nikuñje simhastişthati tvam ca śūnópi bibhesi, tasmāt tvayā tasmin na gantvyam iti' which is prohibitive in nature is revealed. Now the author produces - or rather reproduces (Dhvanyaloka ITV ff) another verse (no.14) in which the primary sense is prohibitive but the suggested sense is positive or affirmative. The verse is a gatha quoted from VII. 67 of Hala's anthology. It is addressed by a Proşitabhartykā lady to a traveller who is lodged in her
143

Page #169

house, and is enamoured of her. But the presence of the lady's mother-in-law comes in the way of their meeting. So, the lady cleverly tells the man that they could meet at night and requests him to note the place where she sleeps. Here, "do not stumble into our beds" - is the prohibitive expressed sense but 'mark our beds in day light, so that you can come here (to me)' is the affirmative suggested sense. We can see that this prohibition is only outward, and is in fact a clever way of agreeing to meet the man at night under cover of darkness, while at the same time making him aware of the mother-in-law's presence. Thus, by veiled hints or suggestion, the woman reveals her desire to welcome the man's amorous advances.
Very often, the expressed meaning is affirmative and the suggested meaning reveals another affirmative proposal. This is illustrated in the verse (15) 'Bahalatama etc.' In this verse, the expression "please keep awake, so that we are not robbed" is Vidhi in the expressed sense, but "the night is pitch dark; my husband is away; I am alone in the house, so you come to me without fear" is the suggested meaning which is also of the nature of Vidhi. The expressed Vidhi, here, results in suggested Vidhi : f fat fact
The next verse (16) illustrates how one prohibitive expressed meaning results in another prohibitory suggested meaning : facra fagaratą.
Sometimes the expressed meaning is neither affirmative nor prohibitive but the suggested meaning is affirmative, as, e.g. the verse (17) Mahuehin etc. ("O traveller ! If you remove my under-garment, whom can I call for help ? I am alone in the forest and the village is far away from this place !"). Here in the absence of the expression of either a Vidhi or a Nişedha, the words "I am alone, the village is far away" imply that the place is secluded and so the idea "you may remove my under-garment'' is suggested.
144

Page #170

. It may happen that a charming, simple verse (such as Jivitāśā etc., No. 18) may convey an expressed sense which involves neither Vidhi nor Nişedha, but the suggested sense involves Nişedna. Here, the expressed sense in Gaccha vā tiştha vā is neither affirmative nor negative, but in the words "Jivitāśā balavati dhanāśā durbalā mama" the lady suggests that "It is impossible for me to live without you (her husband), you, please, don't go."
Another illustration (verse 19) conveys both Vidhi and Nişedha by the expressed sense, but the suggested sense reveals another Vidhi. This becomes clear when we scrutinize the literal sense : "O traveller, proud of the beauty of your wife, go by another path. In this wretched village, the headman's daughter is caught in a net from which she cannot free herself' (i.e., her parents restrict her movement). Hemachandra remarks on this verse that 'Anyena pathā vraja' shows both Vidhi and Nişedha, but in the headman's daughter is worthy of looking at even by you who are proud of your wife's charms' there is another Vidhi that is suggested ultimately.
Sometimes the expressed Vidhi and Nişedha result only in another Vidhi in the suggested sense. Verse 20 suggestively tells the farmer's daughter-in-law not to (Nişedha) carry on with her secret love-game as her father-in-law can hear the sound of her bangies. But the outward meaning is "collect the fiowers etc." which is the expressed Vidhi and 'do not shake the fa tree' is the expressed Nişedha.
Often, outwardly Vidhi is meant but in the suggested sense neither Vidhi nor Nişedha is there. So, in the verse (21) 'Saniyam vacca, etc.' quoted in the Sțngāra Prakāśa (VII p. 248), "Sanaiḥ vraja" is Vidhi, but "You are extremely delicate" which is the suggested sense is neither Vidhi nor Nişedha.
Similarly, very often the expressed sense is Nişedha, but the suggested meaning is neither Vidhi nor Nişedha.
145
10

Page #171

For instance, in verse 22, (cited in the Dhvanyaloka under 1. 4 with the caption : gazteos H2401) "De a pasia etc. (O you who have reduced the thickness of darkness with the light of your moon-like face, kindly go back; for, you are throwing obstacles in the path of other women going to see their lovers, you cursed one !), we have the words laadne, go back, which express Nişedha, but the suggested meaning, the excellent beauty of the lady's face, is neither Vidhi nor Nişedha. According to one interpretation, in this verse, a lover shrewdly praises the beauty of his beloved; but Abhinavagupta disapproves it because if that is the sense, then the verse will not become a fit instance of Dhvani, but will be a case of Guņi bhūtavyangya. So Abhinavagupta explains it to yield the Dhvani-sense. He says that this is said to a woman hurriedly going to meet her lover by the lover who was proceeding to her house, and says it under the pretext of not being recognised by him. That is why the expression eart is ironically used, "How do you expect to achieve your desired purpose when you obstruct the path of other ladies desirous of meeting their paramours ? So you come to my house, or we proceed to your house." Thus, according to Abhinavagupta, in both ways, the intention of the speaker (i.e, the paramour's) is suggested. So those who say that it is a lover's shrewd praise of his beloved's beauty are not on the right lines.
Another verse (23), Vacca maham etc., quoted in the Dhvanyaloka (1. 4 ff) to illustrate Anubhayarūpavyangya when Vācya is Vidhi, is here cited by Hemachandra to illustrate Anubhayarūpavyangya when the expressed sense involves Vidhi and Nişedha both. Here we find expressed the intense dejection on the part of a wife whose husband is setting out on a journey against her wish. Here, 'go, let me alone suffer and weep' is Vidhi, and let there be no suffering on your part' is Nişedha in the expressed sense but the suggested meaning involves neither Vidhi nor Nişedha; only the rebuking of the offending lover by his beloved is suggested. The Dhvanyaloka
146

Page #172

explains it as Anubhayarūpavyangya in. a Vācyavidhi. Thus the suggested sense Vrajyabhāva is not the opposite of Vraja (Vācyavidhi). The suggested sense has no definite relation with the Vācyārtha and can neither be classed as Vidhi nor as Nisedha. Hence it is called Anubhayarūpa.41 Hemachandra's remark is also tantamount to this: here 'Mamaiva nihívásaroditavyāni bhavantú, is Vidhi; 'Mā tavāpi (tāṁ vina) tāni jayantan, is Nişedha; but the suggested sense is neither Vidhi nor Nişedha, but only the reproach of the lover for pretending to Tove her.
The next verse (24) illustrates neither Vidhi nor Nişedha in the expressed sense and lack of both (Anubhaya) in the suggested sense. "Even though your body is adorned by the tips of her nails, your eyes are unsteady with sleeplessness, yet 0 You with dark limbs, you do not torment my heart so much as you do with your lips free from scratches made by her lips." The primary sense here is that the angry woman says that she is not jealous of the rival woman; so the marks of dalliance with her do not offend her; but she is pained that the dalliance was incomplete as his lips are not bitten by the other woman. Now, this, outwardly soft, expression suggests through the force of the context that what the woman means is that, owing to his excessive love for the other woman, he went on kissing her without a break so that the lady had no chance to return the kisses resulting in scratches on his lips. This proves that their fondness for eachother is extreme. This pains the lady and hurts her. This is suggested. This suggested sense shows neither Vidhi nor Nişedha.
Now, quite often the expressed sense is meant for one person and the suggested sense for another. The next verse (25) 'Kassa va na hoi roso etc.' quoted in the Dhvanyaloka, and taken over here literally with the introductory remark itself, means "who will not be offended to witness the lips of
beloved sorely hurt? Though you were warned, yet you obstinately smelt the lotus with bees inside it. Do you, now, suffer the consequence of your perversity !"
147

Page #173

It may be noted that in all the previous verses, the expressed and the suggested senses were apprehended by the same person, but in this verse, the two senses are apprehended by two different persons - j.e., the substrata of both apprehensions are farraiano (distinct) here. If the Vācya and the Vyangya were not distinct, this distinction of the substrata of cognition would not have been possible. Thus, this last example in support of distinction of the suggested sense, proves conclusively the futility of the numerous arguments advanced against Dhvani by the Mimamsaka, the Naiyāyika, the Vedāntin, the Vaiyākaraṇa and others.
The Range of the Suggested Sense Demonstrated
The above verse (Kasya vā...) is addressed to a woman by her confidants in the presence of her husband. The husband does not know the wife's infidelity and so believes the maid. But the suggested meaning, viz., the dalliance with her lover which is the cause of the lips being bitten, is understood by the woman who, if found out, may be rebuked or divorced by the lover. Abhinavagupta admirably brings out several different senses from this verse, each meant for a different person. Thus, it can be with reference to her (a) husband, (b) to the neighbours who suspected her waywardness, (c) to the rival woman (Sapatni), (d) to the lady herseif, (e) to the paramour and (f) to the third part, who is watching all this (Viveka, pp. 57-53; Locana, p. 77).
This is the range of the suggested senses that can be had from a single verse - Abhinava seems to say; and this is the power of the poetic meaning we marvel at. Hemachandra has reproduced the Locana text on this verse in toto.
Finally, Hemachandra states that we should realise that like Vastudhvani, Alamkāradhvani and Rasadhvani are also quite distinct from the Mukhyartha, Gauņärtha and Laksyārtha.. The word which suggests is the Vyañjaka or suggestor.
148

Page #174

Recapitulation of the Four. Powers of Word
The next Sutra (1. 20) is about the various processes of the four different senses. This we have already seen in connection with the previous discussion of the Sabdarthas. We may recapitulate by stating that Abhidhā is a process of direct sense which depends on convention or Sarketa. It deals with the primary sense. But Gauņi and Lakşaņā processes are nothing but the power to indicate a sense. And both of them rely on the three prerequisites, viz. Mukhyārthabādha, Nimitta or Sambandha and Prayojana. But Vyañjakatvam or Vyañjana is the power by which some suggested inner sense is yielded with the adeptness of the person in understanding both the Vācya and the Laksya senses. Hemachandra Ignores the Drift-Power
It is to be noted that Hemachandra totally ignores in the main text of his work the Tātparyavrtti which is treated of by Mammata and others. This Vịtti is important as it determines the inter-connection between words in a sentence. In other words, Tātparyavștti and Tātparyārtha or Väkyārtha should have found scope here. But Hemachandra clarifies that since Tātparyārtha etc. are connected with a sentence in the direct sense and as such form part and parcel of the Abhidhā, hence no separate treatment of the purport-power or the purport-sense is given. However, we know that he has quoted passages from the Kavyaprakasa to supplement the body of the Kävyānuśāsan text wherein this topic has incidentally figured. We have covered it in detail.
The concepts of Abhidhā, Gauni and Lakşaņā as well as of Vyañjanā are explained in our text wholly in terms of the definitions provided by Abhinavagupta in Locana under Dhvanyāloka, Udyota I, Kārikā 4. So far as Tātparyasakti is concerned, Hemachandra clearly states that, normally, Tātparyasakti, the cause of Anvayapratipatti or understanding the connection of words, should follow the treatment of Abhidha and there is also the Tātparyārtha or Vākyārtha which is related to the
149

Page #175

Tātparyasakti, but since both of these are related to the sentence (sense), they have not been stated.
Thus Hemachandra has dropped out Abhihitānvayavāda and Anvitābhidhānavāda, as they do not deal with the power of a word, strictly speaking. Hemachandra's Exposition of Vyañjanā Process
Vyañjakatvam or the process of Suggestion has been defined as that power of conveying a sense which is aided by the sensitive reader's refined sensibility, rendered pure by the apprehension of meaning, born of those powers, viz., Abhidhā and Laksaņā. In Sūtra 21 of Chapter 1, Hemachandra states that any one or all of these three senses, Vācya, Laksya or Vyangya, in their turn, suggest some inner sense, when either the speaker (Vaktā) is some peculiar person (Vaktsvaiśiştya) or the subject on hand has some speciality (Boddhịvaišiştya) or the intonation of the sentence uttered is peculiar (Kākuvaisistya) or the expressed sense (Vācya - artha) is peculiar (Vākyavaiśiştya) or the person associated with the Speaker is peculiar (Anyāsatii) or the context, place, time, gestures and others have some peculiarity about them. In all such cases, there is definitely a suggested sense. The suggested sense in its turn proceeds sometimes from Vācyärtha, at other times from Laksyārtha and sometimes from Vyangyārtha. All these specialities or peculiarities (Vaisiştyas) have been illustrated by Hemachandra by following Mammața's treatment of these aspects in most cases.
Mammata's View of Suggestiveness
Mammaţa, in the beginning of the second flash of his Kavyaprakāśa, states the nature of Word and Sense, and then dec lares in Karika 2 : सर्वेषां प्रायशोऽर्थानां व्यञ्जकत्वमपीप्यते. i.e., Suggestiveness is admitted as belonging to all senses. This means that not only the word is suggestive, but the three-fold sense - the expressed, the indicated and the suggested - also is suggestive. This can also be taken to mean that senses,
150

Page #176

in addition to being expressed, indicated and suggested, are further Vyanjaka i.e., 'when they further suggest something else.' In three verses (6, 7 & 8), the three senses Vacya, Laksya and Vyangya are made to suggest other senses. Mammața uses the word Prāyaśaḥ in the Kārikā to show that senses are not always further suggestive. When the Vyangya is a Rasa principally developed, it is not Vyañjaka. Mammața's Prāyaśaḥ also restricts the examples to three only. His first verse illustrates Vācyasya vyañjakatvam'. In the second verse he explains the suggestiveness of the Laksya and in the third verse he demonstrates the Vyañjakatva of Vyangya rtha.
Mammața uses the terms Vyañjanam, Dhvananam and Dyotanam to denote vyañjanā, though usually he refers to Vyañjanā as Vyañja nam. The Arthi Vyañjanā
In Sūtra 21 of Chapter 1, Hemachandra first takes up Ārthi Vyañjanā or the suggestion which depends upon sense by reason of the speciality of the speaker or that of the person addressed etc., as illustrated above by three examples from Mammața. This variety, different from Śabdi Vyañjanā (which depends on Anekārtha Śabdas or Homonyms when their Vācakatva is restricted to one sense only, but another Avācyārtha shines out), called Ārthivyanjanā, is suggestion based on sense. This is the same Vyañjanā to which Mammața's words "Sarveşām prāyaśaḥ arthānām vyañjakatvamapisyate" apply. Accordingly, all senses. Vācya, Lakşya and Vyangya are generally suggestive. The Arthivyañjanā occurs in those cases of suggestion where the special conditions, which give rise to Sābdivyañjanā of Laksaņā mūla and Abhidhāmālā types, exist. It may be mentioned that Laksaņāmālā Sābdivyañjanā requires Prayojanavatilaksanā, while the Abhidhāmālā sābdivyañjanā presupposes an Aneka rtha word. In other words, Ārthīvyanjana occurs, when there is Suggestion but devoid of PrayojanavatiTakşaņā or Anekārtha sakca. For instance, in the well-known example Nihseşacyuta etc., we have Arthivyañjana but not
151.

Page #177

Prayojanavati Lakşaņā or Anekārtha words in it, though the word (Śabda) Adhama suggests it.
in order that these senses become suggestive, the presence of certain circumstances is required. These circumstances are, as Mammaţa mentions them (K. P. III. 1 & 2): "That operation of the threefold sense, which, owing to the peculiarity of the speaker, the person addressed, the modulation or intonation of voice (Kāku), the sentence, the expressed meaning, the proximity of another person, the occasion, the place, the time, etc., become the cause of the apprehension of another sense in the case of persons gifted with creative imagination, is suggestion itself." And "Here the person addressed means the person spoken to. Kāku means a modification of the voice. Prastāva means context (Prakarana). Arthasya means, 'of the (three) senses': the expressed, the indicated and the suggested." The main point of this quotation is that, while Vācyārtha is understood by all, the Vyangyārtha requires Pratibhā or imaginative ability. Again, as Ārthivyañjanā is based on Vācya, Lakşya and Vyangya senses, we may note that Ārthivyañjanā creates the apprehension of another sense, viz., a Vyangyartha which is different from the original Vācyártha, Laksyārtha and Vyangyartha as well. Thus a Vyañjaka Vyangyārtha may enable us to apprehend even a third Vyangyartha. This helps prove that Vyañjanā is a separate Vștti. Peculiar Factors Analysed
Hemachandra's list of peculiar circumstances contains ten factors, while Mammața gives nine factors only. The additional factor in the Kāvyānuśāsana is Ceștā which is understood in Mammața's Ādi. Thus, according to Hemachandra, when the speaker is a special person (Vaktr visesa), or the subject is peculiar (Pratipadyavisesa), or when there is a peculiar Kāku, or a typical sentence (Vākyavišeşa) or a Vácyavisesa or the person nearby is peculiarly connected with the subject, or the context, or place or time or gestures, etc. - all these circumstances give rise to a suggested sense (Vyangyartha) which is distinct
152

Page #178

from the expressed or the indicated or the suggested sense. It may be noted that the second factor according to Mammaṭa is Boddhavya i.e, the person spoken to, but Hemachandra puts Pratipadya or Viṣaya in its place. However, Mammata's gloss mentions Pratipadya for Boddhavya or Bodhaitavyaḥ.
The above ten circumstances or factors, when closely analysed, reveal that, while Vaktyvaiśistya and Pratipadyavaisiṣṭya belong to the things themselves, Kaku or Anyasannidhi are themselves peculiar.
Under Sūtra 21 of Chapter one, Hemachandra illustrates Vakträdivaisistya. He next illustrates the combination of Vaktrvaisiṣtya and Boddy avaiś stya in Atta etha i.e., Svaśruratra sete etc., and remarks that the knowledge of Vakta and Śrota in the verses reveals Vidhirupavyangyartha by the word Seṣva, 'you sleep.'
In this manner, we can have combinations of two or three factors, such as, in Kasya va na bhavati... etc. (p. 62, gloss). However, this statement is rather loose, as we know that only some of the factors can combine, not all. At the end of these examples, Hemachandra notes that in the above examples, we have the Vacyartha as Suggestor, i.e., the suggested meaning proceeds from Abhidha. Consequently he gives one illustration (Verse 30) of Amukhyasya Vyañjakatvam: Kathayanti sakhi subhagaṁ kṣaṇe kṣane etc. (cited by Mammața), where, due to Viparitalakṣaṇa, the lover's fault is suggested. In another instance (37), Vanijaka hastidantaḥ kutoasmākaṁ vyäghrakṛttayaḥ etc. (cited in the Dhvyanyāloka p. 299). The Vyangyasya Vyanjakatvam is illustrated. "O you merchant, how do you expect us to have tiger-skin or tusks of elephants in our house (for sale) when our daughter-in-law with her face covered with dishevelled hair is moving about in the house?" Here the adjective Lulitalakamukhi i.e., with untidy hair on her face, suggests that the son of the speaker is ever and anon in dalliance with his wife and it is further suggested that the son,

153

Page #179

much
owing to his excessive sexual indulgance, is very emaciated. So he is no longer able to kill tigers or elephants. in hunting and thus collect tusks or hides.
Hemachandra has taken over the verses 'Tathābhūtām drṣtva', 'Niḥseṣacyuta', etc. to illustrate Vaktradivaisiṣṭya and even 'Vaktrādinām mithaḥ samyoge' also. But he has supplied examples of Lakṣyavyañjakatā and Vyangyavyañjakatä in addition, which Mammata has only hinted at. Thus, the different circumstances of the Arthivyañjaña as also of the Lakṣyavyangyatva and Vyangyavyañjakatva have been fully illustrated. However, under Tathābhūtām dṛṣṭvā Mammata clarifies that the verse explains only Kakorvaisiṣtya under vacyārthasya vyanjakatā and is not to be considered as an example of Kakvākṣipta - a sub-type of Gunibhutavyangya; though he uses the term Vacyasiddhyangam, another type of Gunibhutavyangyam.
We must note that all the above verses illustrate Ārthivyañjanā and represent Dhvanikavya or Uttamakavya according to Mammata. This marks the end of the consideration of Vyañjakata of Vacyārtha, Lakṣyartha and Vyangyartha called Arthivyañjana in our text. Hemachandra has thus given us a detailed exposition of the Arthivyañjana in all its aspects. It is, however, noteworthy that while Mammata has given the Šābdivyañjanā towards the end of Chapter II and Arthi in Chapter III of the Kavyaprakāśa, Hemachandra has first taken up the topic of Arthi vyañjana for discussion.
Divisions of the Suggested Sense
Hemachandra takes up the divisions of the suggested meaning in the next Sutra (1. 22). He states that the suggested sense can be based on the power of the word as well. So, we have a twofold suggested sense the Sabdaśaktimula or that which depends on the power of words and the other is Arthaśaktimula or that which proceeds from the expressed sense (illustrated fully in the previous section). The third variety called Ubhayaśaktimula (by Mammata for instance)

154

Page #180

which depends both on the word and the sense simultaneously, is, in Hemachandra's view, not different from the Sabdaśaktimula type of Vyangya since as between a word and a sense, the word (in poetry) is more important than its sense, so far as Suggestiveness is concerned.
It is pertinent to note here that in the second Ullāsa of the Kavyaprakasa, Mammața has treated of Laksaņāmālam Vyañjakatvam in connection with Prayojanavati Lakşaņā first, and then in Kārikā 19 he defines only Abhidhāmālā Vyañjanā. But he does not give the name sabdīvyanjanā anywhere. Similarly while Karikas 1 and 2 (i.e., 21-22 of K. P. IV) define Ārthivyañjanā, Mammața does not call it by the name of Arthivyañjanā. In actual fact in Kārikā 19 of K. P. II, Mammața defines sābdivyañjaña by mens of Anekārthasya śabdasya etc. and gives Samyogo viprayogāśca etc. with examples of each of these factors but he does not care to title it as śābdivyañjanā, although it is Šābdi only. Again in the last Kārikā of the same Ullāsa (K. P. II. 20), while dealing with Vyañjaka sabda - the basis of Sābdivyañjanā, Mammața states that the Artha also collaborates with the sabda; but he makes no mention of the Šābdivyañjanā either.
It is only when we come to the example (K. P. 11,v.12) 'Bhadrātmano duradhiroha etc.' that we have a concrete and precise instance of Sabdivyañjanā otherwise called - Hemachandra in fact calls it - Šābdi Abhidhāmālā Vyañjanā or Śabdaśaktimūladhvanih. The verse contains Anekārtha sabdas but, on account of the context (Prakarana), their Abhidhā is restricted to the sense of the Rājā as it is addressed to him. But the words - all double--meaning words - also suggest by means of Abhidhāmālā vyañjanā other direct senses, which apply to an elephant as well. The ultimate suggested sense of the verse turns out to be that the king resembles an elephant (a case of a Vyangya or suggested Up amā). Thus we gather the following definition of Sabdivyanjanā - two types of it - from Kārikā 4 cd : (Yasya pratitimādhātu laksaņā sam upāsyate) "Phale sabdaikagamyettra
155

Page #181

vyañjanännäparā kriya" i.e., "With reference to this fruit (for the apprehension of which Lakṣaṇā is resorted to), it is only understood from the (indicative) word alone. And here, i.e., with reference to the motive, there is no other process except suggestion."
Sabdaśaktimālā Vyañjanā Defined
Hemachandra therefore defines Sabdaśaktimula by saying that "When in a sentence, a word in its primary sense yields various meanings but on the strength of different factors such as association (ie, not , which means conjunction) etc., other senses are restricted (or rejected), and only two sense remain; the first is the primary sense and the other is called the Suggested sense." The word that has thus two senses and suggests some figure of speech or some inner sense, gives rise to Sabdaśaktimulavyangya. Similarly, when a word, by its power of indication (Lakṣaṇa) giving rise to an indicated sense (Lakṣyartha) suggests some figures of speech or some subtle idea after its Lakṣyartha, that sense is also called Sabdaśaktimulavyangya.
Abhidhāmālā and Lakṣaṇāmālā Vyañjanā
This Sabdaśaktimula is twofold one, based on Abhidha, is called Abhidhamula, and the other based on Lakṣaṇa is called Lakṣaṇamūla. Thus Vyañjanā is first divided into Sabdaniṣṭhā and Arthaniṣṭha and then Sabdaniṣṭha or Sabdi is sub-divided into Abhidhamula and Lakṣaṇamula. As Pradipakāra puts it: "Sa (Vyañjana) ca dvedha: sabdaniṣṭha arthaniṣṭha ca. Adya tu dvedha: abhidhāmālā lakṣaṇāmula ca" (NSP. Ed. pp. 45-46). Here, clearly, Mammata is followed both by Hemachandra and Viśvanatha. Abhidhamula and Lakṣaṇāmula both are included under Sabdi or Sabdaśaktimūlāvyañjanā since Lakṣaṇa and Abhidha are both powers of a word.
Why Divide Vyañjanā into Śābdī and Arthi ?
Now, one may wonder why Sabda and Artha are conceived of as a distinct when for all practical purposes they are

156

Page #182

inseparably connected, i.e., fag (Ragu. 1.1.). So, in a sense, it is unreasonable to make Sabda and Artha the basis of two divisions of Vyañjana. Mammata has quoted the stanza Bhadratmano etc. to illustrate Abhidhamulāvyañjanā i.e., Dhvanikāvya. A käāvya consists of . If the words in Bhadratmano are regarded as Vyañjaka, then are the senses not Vyañjaka ? If both Sabda and Artha are Vyañjaka then what is the point of dividing Vyañjana into Sabdi and Arthi ? In 'Gangayam ghoṣaḥ', the word Ganga is suggestive, but it has a Laksyartha too. Is not that Lakṣyartha suggestive? Thus here also, one may ask Why divide Vyañjana into Sabdi and Arthi ?
Suggestiveness of Word as well as Sense
Mammata replies to this criticism in K. P. II. 20: "Since the word is suggestive when accompanied by the other sense, the other sense also is there considered to be suggestive due to its cooperation with that word in conveying the suggested sense.' In other words, a word is said to be suggestive where it is Arthañtarayuk means Vacyārthayuk in Abhidhamula Vyañjana (i.e., Vacyārthaḥ, tena yuk) e.g., Kara in Bhadrātmano is suggestive of Hastiśunda, but it is so when joined with Vacyartha, Hasta (Kara). That means Kara suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the sense of Hasta. Thus, here the Väcyartha () is also suggestive. In the same way, in Lakṣaṇamūlā Vyañjanã a word is suggestive when it is Arthantarayuk in the sense of Lakṣyarthayuk; e.g. in Gangayam Ghoṣaḥ, Ganga suggests Saityapāvanatvādi. But this suggested sense comes about only after the Lakṣyartha (i.e., Gangataṭa) is indicated. So the Lakṣyartha (i.e. Gangatata) is also suggestive. Thus, in Abhidhamula Vyañjana, Arthantara implies Vacyārtha. and in Lakṣaṇāmūlā Vyañjanā it signifies Lakṣyartha. So we can conclude that when a word is Vyañjaka, its Artha - Vācyartha in Abhidhamula and Lakṣyartha in Lakṣaṇāmūlā-Vyañjanā - is also Vyañjaka. But the point to be noted here is that the Vyañjakatā of Artha is Sahakaritayā (by way of collaboration),
157

Page #183

since it is the Sabda that is chiefly suggestive. Hence these two varieties of Vyañjana are called Sabdi on the dictum : "Pradhanyena vyapadeśa bhavanti". This view of Mammaṭa figures again in K. P. III. 23 where he tells us+2 that when Artha is principally suggestive as in Arthivyañjana, Sabda is also suggestive as a help-mate since Artha, only when conveyed by Sabda, becomes so suggestive.
Vyañjana Belongs to both Sabda and Artha
It is important to note that, while Abhidha and Lakṣaṇā belong to a word, Vyañjanā belongs both to a word and a sense.
Hemachandra uses Anekarthasya mukhyasya etc., like Mammata, except that while the latter uses Sanyogadyaiḥ, the former uses Sansargādi bhiḥ (perhaps Sansarga etc., is more correct and faithful to Bhartṛhari's couplet). 43
What is Abhidhamula Vyañjanā ?
As we know, in the example Bhadratmano....etc., doublemeaning words like Kara, Vamsa, Saindhava etc., possess more than one expressed meaning. When such words occur in literature, circumstances like (Samsarga or Samyoga) association or conjunction, etc., restrict it to only one sense, rejecting the other senses which it can convey. And this is the only one sense that the word conveys by Abhidha. But it is very often found that later on we comprehended another of its several direct senses. This other sense, though ordinarily a Vacyārtha of the word in question, cannot at this place be regarded as primary since the word is confined to express one sense, i.e., Vacyartha, already, and yet it cannot be denied that we apprehend another sense. Now, this sense cannot be due to Abhidha, because it is restricted to a different sense. Nor can it arise from Lakṣaṇa, since the three pre-requisites of Lakṣaṇa are absent. Hence the conclusion is irresistible that the other sense, a Vacyārtha in reality, is Avacyartha in the present context, and is no other than Vyangyartha; and the process by which it is apprehended is

158

Page #184

none other than Suggestion or Vyanjanā. This suggestion is called Abhidhāmālāvyanjanā - a sub-division of the Śabdaśaktimülavyanjanā. The Problem of Homonyms
Now, two views prevail in connection with double-meaning or multi-meaning words (Anekārtha - Śabdas). The first view holds that an Anekārthaśabda possesses as many expressive powers as its senses and it is due to these multifarious expressive powers that the same word expresses many senses. The second view maintains that there are as many words as there are senses - Yāvantah arthāstāvantaḥ śabdāḥ. Thus the word Kara, meaning "hand', is a different word from the word Kara which means the trunk or tax. The implication of the second view is that an Anekārtha sabda is impossible, for no word can have more than one sense. The Restrictive Circumstances
The two couplets (Saṁsargo ... hetavah) quoted in the Gloss (l. 23 ff). enumerate the circumstances or factors that restrict the expressive power of Anekarthasabdas and are attributed to Bhartphari not only here but everywhere. But the commentator Puņyarāja says that they contain the views of others'. He mentions that Bhartph ari's view is embodied in the previous couplet, viz., Vākyapadyiya, Kāņda 2, V. 316.
Since a word has many senses and we are at a loss to know which to understand, these factors' or circumstances serve to help us cognize one sense from the multifarious senses of the word.
We may note that Hemachandra has defined and explained Abhidhamula and Lakşaņāmūla sabdaśaktimūla vyangyārthas in one place. He, thus, takes Sū. 22 and Sū. 23 together as one topic, Having defined Šābbi and Ārthi vyañjanā in Sū. 22, he takes up the sabdi first for discussion in Sū. 23. According to him, there are two kinds of Śabdaśaktimulavyangya: one is Abhidhamula another Lakşāņāmūla. These two again
159

Page #185

are twofold each: Abhidhamula-padadhvani and Abhidhamulaväkyadhvani on the one hand, and Lakṣaṇāmula-padadhvani and Lakṣaṇāmūla-vākyadhvani on the other.
Hemachandra states 'Samsargadayaśceme Bhartṛharina proktāḥ' meaning that Bhartṛhari had laid down factors like etc. Actually the 14 circumstances or factors mentioned by name, as also the other factors such as Abhinaya, Apadeśa, Nirdeśa, Sañjñā, Ingita, etc., serve as clues that help in deciding the sense of the words. These are Samsarga (Samyoga), Viprayoga, Sahacarya, Virodhitā, Artha, Prakaraṇa, Linga, Anyasabdasannidhi, Samarthya, Aucitya, Desa, Kala, Vyakti (Viseṣa) and Svara. It will be noticed that Hemachandra gives a more detailed explanation than Mammata of these main (14) and additional 6 (14+ 6 = 20) factors.
Interestingly, Hemachandra refers to Aucitya44 and notes. that Arthaviseṣapratiti is brought about by Svara in the form of Kaku45 which is a Svara of a sort as it involves modulation of voice; Kaku in "Mathnami Kaurava-satam samare na kopāt" consists in a change in the voice of Bhimasena under the influence of an emotion. For, the angry Bhima poses a question here: "Shall I not kill the hundred Kauravas ?" The apparent meaning is that he will not kill the Kauravas; but this sense is to be rejected; for Bhima is the speaker, and he is possessed by anger which he expresses with the help of the Kaku or intonation and then the sense of the words changes suddenly: "I will definitely and unfailingly destroy all the Kauravas in the battle."
Hemachandra interprets the Adi in Svaradayaḥ to include six more factors, viz., Abhinaya (gesticulation), Apadeśa or pointing to some person and Nirdeśa is a veiled reference to a person or thing - both involve signs or gestures such as Itaḥ etc. Sañjñā is a sign - shaking the head or nodding approval. Ingitam is also a gesture or movement of a limb to indicate internal feelings. And Akara is the facial expression displaying inner feelings. Incidentally, Dr. Raghavan (S. P. p. 708) has

160

Page #186

shown that Hemachandra's six additional conditions (Svarādi) like Abhinaya, Apadeśa, etc. with illustrations are reproduced from the śr. Pr. of Bhoja (Also see 'Studies in Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra' by Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, p. 149).
Thus one or more of these clues definitely restrict the direct meaning (Vācyārtha) of a verse. But even after the expressed sense is grasped by the reader, a deep subtle sense remains hidden behind that direct sense. This is called the Suggested Sense - Kāvyātmā - which is apprehended through the function of Vyanjanā alone and this function is positively different from the expressed sense (Abhidhā) and the indicated sense (Lakşaņā). Hemachandra establishes this point by following in the foot-steps of Ānandavardhana and Mammața. which becomes clear in his discussion of Lakşaņāmālā ŚabdaŚaktimālā Vyañjanā. The Motive Factor in Lakșanā is Always Suggested
Hemachandra begins by saying that even in a word whose Mukhyartha is restrained by the incompatibility of the primary sense, the apprehension of the Prayojana (e.g. Saityapāvanatva in 'Gangāyāṁ ghoşah') is through the power of Vyañjanā alone. For there is no Sanketa or convention with reference to the Prayojana viz., Saityapāvanatva-pratiti, so there is no Abhidhā process involved in it, nor Gauņi, nor Lakşaņā, since the three pre-requisites of the latter do not obtain therein. This is so, because the Gangātata which is the Laksya, is not the primary sense of the word nor is it Bādhita or inappropriate as the location of a hamlet, nor is there any connection between the Mukhyārtha (Gangataţa) and Laksyartha (śaityādi), nor, to be sure, is the word Gangātaţa faltering in yielding its own sense, nor is there a further Prayojana for the existing Saityapāvanatvādi Prayojana.
Now, granting for the sake of argument that the Prayojana is indicated, but then it will need another Prayojana, and this other Prayojana will require a further Prayojana and it will go
161
11

Page #187

on ad infinitum. This will create a chaotic situation. Thus, while trying to gain a point, you will loose the ground or root and destroy the basis of Lakṣaṇā. As for stating that the indicated sense together with the Prayojana is the subject of Indication, it is untenable. Why? Because Viṣaya and Prayojana (Mammaṭa's Jñana and Phala) are poles apart. That is to say, the province of Lakṣaṇa is altogether different from the Prayojana or purpose of a Lakṣaṇā. For example, in direct perception, the Ghața, a pot, is the subject of perception, and its knowledge is its Prayojana 'Jñānasya viṣayo hyanyat phalamanyad udahṛtam.' This Prayojana is Arthāvagamana or Prakatyam or Samvittiḥconsciousness of the Ghata. It, therefore, stands to reason that another Vyāpāra (Vyañjana) must be posited and accepted to make up for the incapacity of either Gauṇīvṛtti or Lakṣaṇāvṛtti to yield a Lakṣyartha (Gangatira) together with Prayojana (Visiste lakṣaṇā naiva) and that power is Vyañjana or Vyañjanam.
We may do well to remember that Hemachandra has practically paraphrased and abridged a long disquisition on Vyañjana afforded by the Kāvyaprakāśa (II. 14-18). Abhidhāmālā and Lakṣaṇāmālā: Both Śābdi
It will be seen that the above argument convincingly establishes that the Lakṣaṇāmālā vyañjanā is as much Śabdi as the Abhidhamula is, and so Hemachandra's definition and explanation of the twofold Sabdaśaktimūla is fully justified.
The Function of Perception
Hemachandra has mentioned the words Arthadhigatiḥ, Prakatyam and Samvittiḥ in connection with the explication of the Prayojana of the Pratyakṣādi pramāṇa. In the Viveka Commentary (p. 66) our author states that, according to the Naiyāyikas, Arthadhigati or understanding the meaning of an object is the purpose of direct perception. According to Bhāṭṭa Mimāṁsakas, it is the revelation of the object and according

162

Page #188

to Prābhākara Mimāṁsakas it is the consciousness or selfconsciousness that is the result of a perception. The above remark of Hemachandra occurs in the context of his exposition of the passage which conclusively establishes that in Lakşaņā also the Prayojana is Vyangya and that Visiştalaksaņā is not possible; for, Vişaya and Prayojana or Jñānavişaya and its Phala are poles apart : 'Na ca prayojanasahitameva laksyam Takşaņāyā vişaya iti vaktum śakyam; vişayaprayojanayoratyantabhedat." (K. A. S. I. 23, Gloss. p. 66). Neither Abhidhā Nor Lakşaņā can Convey the Prayojana
As we know, Lakşaņā is resorted to, to convey a certain Prayojana, viz., Śaityapāvanatvādi in Gangāyam ghoṣaḥ. Now, this prayojana is not known by Lakşaņā but by Vyañjanā. More specifically, that Purpose is known from that word alone by means of Suggestion. This suggestion is Lakşaņāmālā vyañjanā. We must note that function is Śabdaikagamya or Lākşanikaśabdamātragamya i.e., the Prayojana cannot be understood by another Pramāņa, i.e., Śabdetarapramāņa, such as Anumāna and Pratyakşa. Thus it is clear that neither Abhidhā nor Lakşaņā can convey the Prayojana for which Laksaņā is resorted to. In the example 17912 ETT:, the properties of coolness, holiness, etc., cannot be expressed by Abhibhā, since there is no Sarketa; Lakşaña connot convey the Prayojana, since Lakşaņā stops after indicating Gangātaţa. Refutation of Dvitiyalakṣaṇāvāda and Višiştalakṣaṇāvāda
If another Laksaņā is resorted to for indicating the Prayojana, then it is unjustified; for, the three causes of Laksaņā are absent here. Thus in the example TETTI ETT:, the properties like coolness, holiness, etc. cannot be indicated even by another Lakşaņā; for, we will have to assume a new Prayojana for the existing Prayojana, and this process will go on endlessly. But if we admit Vyañjanā, the Prayojana (coolness, etc.) can be easily apprehended. Besides, disregarding Vyañjanā for a second Laksaņā will lead to disastrous
163

Page #189

consequences - Anavastha. The Dvittyalaksaņāvadin is, therefore, wrong in his persistence. However, there is another view - point, that of the Visiştalaksaņāvādin, who argues that no second Lakşaņā is necessary for apprehending the Prayojana in 'Gangāyām ghosah' because the first Lakşaņā indicates the Tața as qualified (Tatavisista) by the properties of coolness, holiness etc. Vyañjanā is, therefore, not necessary. In other words, the Viśistalakṣaṇāvādin holds that the Lakşyārtha in 'Gangāyām ghosah' is Pāvanatvādidharmayuktatatā. To this it is said that a Laksyārtha or an indicated sense ( Lakşaņiyam ) such as Tața, qualified ( Višişta ) by (Saityādi) Prayojana cannot: be justified. For, to believe that a Laksaņā indicates a sense qualified by the purpose is improper, i.e., Pāvanatvādivisistatata cannot be regarded as the Laksyārtha. Hence Višistalaksaņā is untenable. For the Prayojana, i.e., Pāvanatvādipratipattih is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense (Lakşyārthajñāna) i.e., Dharmavišiştataţa. Here, it is only when we know the Laksyārtha (Pāvanatvādivisişğatata) that we get the cognition of Pāvanatvādi. Thus, the Prayojana, Pāvanatvādipratipatti is Laksyārthajñānajanya, which, in short, means Jñānajanya or Janya.
On the other hand, the Prayojana, Pāvanatvādi is. Laksyārthajñānajanyapratitivişayah i.e., the object of the cognition (Pāvanatvapratitih) which is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense (Lakşyārthasya pāvanatvādivisistatatasya jñānena janyāh). When we know the Laksyārtha (Dharmaviśiştataţa ), we get the cognition of those properties. And the object of this cognition is naturally those properties only. So the Prayojana, Pāvanatvādi is Jñāpya. To this, we say :. ज्ञानस्य विषयो ह्यन्यः, फलमन्यदुदाहृतम् । प्रत्यक्षादेर्नीलादिविषयः, फलं तु प्रकटता pathaf ll in this statement, Jñana means Pramāna. So, when Jñānasya is paraphrased as Pratyakşādeh, Ādi refers to Anumana, Upamāna and Sabda. (Hemachandra uses Vişaya and Prayojana for jñāna and phala). But we are only concerned with Sabda and not Pratyaksa, Anumana and Upamāna. Mammata.
164

Page #190

and Hemachandra, however, deal with the general principle which applies to all four Pramānas, by adducing an example of Pratyakşa. Now, when we take a word like Ghata we get Ghađajñāna. The fruit of this cognition can be understood from two angles, viz., objective and subjective. Objectively, the fruit of the cognition is that the Ghata that we have cognized has Jñatatā or knownness or Prakatatā or manifestness. It now differs from other Ghatas; for, while this fe is known, the other pis are not known. Jñātatā or Prakațatā, which is thus produced in a thing, when it is known, is a Vastudharma. This is the view of the Bhātta Mimāmsakas or the followers of Kumarilabhatta. Subjectively, the fruit of the above cognition is the consciousness in the form of 'Aham ghatam jānāmi' that arises in us when we recognize the Ghata. It is this consciousness in us that distinguishes the known Ghata from others that are not known. This is designated as Samvitti or self-consciousness. Samvitti is Ātmadharma. This is the view of the Prābhākara Mimāṁsakas as well as the Naiyāyikas.
In 'Aham ghatam Jānāmi', Jñanavişaya is Ghata and Jñanaphala or Prayojana is either Arthadhigatih or Prakațată or Samvittih. Here clearly the 'Jňānavişaya is different from the jñānaphala or Prayojana or result. It can also be said that here Vişaya and Phala are both different from Jñāna. This is the sense that we get from Visayaprayojanabheda. This Višişte Lakşaņā violates the principle : 'Jñānavişayāt Jñānaphalamanyat', so it cannot be admitted. In the sense of Prakațatā or Samvitti also, Jñānavişaya and Jñānaprayojana are not one, and hence Visiştalakṣaṇā does not stand a chance. Thus Prayojana is apprehended by Vyañjana only. This is Lakşaņāmālā Sabdaśaktimālāvyañjanā - Suggestion based on Indication. This Lakşaņā is always Prayojanavati Lakşaņā. It is only such a Lakşaņā that has a Prayojana to understand 'which the Lakşaņā is resorted to. Wherever Prayojanavati Lakşaņā is present, Laksaņā mūlāvyañjanā is also present. Wherever it is absent, Lakşaņāmālāvyañjanā is also absent. However,
165

Page #191

the Anvyayavyatireka sense is not present in Abhidhāmālā vyañjanä. For it is common knowledge that Abhidhāmālāvyañjanā is not present wherever there is Abhidhā. Abhidhā is present in every Vācaka word. But every Vācaka word is not Vyañjaka. We have already seen the special circumstances that give rise to it. This Vyañjanā is called Abhidhāmālā for two reasons : (a) It comes into operation after Abhidhā has expressed the sense restricted by Samsargādi circumstances. (b) It suggests a meaning which is really the Abhidheyārtha or Vācyārtha of the word, but which the word cannot express by means of Abhidhā on account of that Abhidha having been restricted. It is also noteworthy that of the three functions of a word, Abhidhā is the only independent and self-sufficient function. This means that while Abhidhā can express a sense independently of any other power, we cannot say the same thing about the other two powers, viz., Laksana and Vyanjanā. In fact, Mammața states that even Tātparyavștti is a dependent power and that it is different from Vyañjanā (Vide K. P. V. 69 ff.)
The śābdīvyañjanā is both Abhidhāmālā and Lakşaņāmālā and in Laksaņāmālā, the suggestion of the Prayojana take place, when a word is employed in a Lākṣaṇika sense; thus it is based upon Laksanā. In Šābdivyañjanā, the particular words used are most important, the circumstances constituting the Ārthivyañjanä may or may not be present; but, it is not stipulated that they must never be present. Factors that Affect the Ārthivyanjana
As for Arthīvyañjanā, we know that herein the suggestion arises from the sense of the words, which causes one to think of something else through the particular character of the speaker, or the person addressed, or the sentence, or the proximity of another person, or the expressed sense, or the occasion (context) or the place or the time, or the modulation of voice or gestures, etc. These words of Mammata are used even by Visvanatha. As for Kāku, different opinions have been expressed
166

Page #192

ind as Visvanātha points out, the varieties of Kāku can be gathered from the original Akara works or Šāstras.4 6
From the point of view of Anandavardhana's classification of the concept of Dhvani (Dhv. Al. I. 13 ff; II. 1-3 etc.), it is clear hat the Sabdaśaktimālā ānd Arthasaktimālā varieties (of which ve have attempted a detailed critical and comparative analysis above - both on the basis of Mammața's and Hemachandra's definitions) are the two varieties of the Vivakṣitānyaparavācya - saṁlakṣyakrama variety of Dhvani. This Samlaksyakrama is sometimes divided into Sabdasakti mūlā, Arthasaktimüla and Ubhayaśa kti mūlā. For example, Mammaţa in Kavyaprakāśa V. 37-38 does so. We know that, whether in a certain instance he suggestion proceeds from the word or from its expressed sense can be checked against the possibility or otherwise of he sense being got at even by changing or substituting the Nord (Sabdaparivịttisahatva or Asahatva); if it be found that he suggestion remains unaffected even when we substitute a synonymous word, then it is regarded as based upon the Artha Arthasaktimūlā), whereas, if the slightest change in the word ilters or affects the Vyangyartha, then, it is said to be based on Sabda.
The Śabdaśaktimüladhvani is twofold: of Alamkāra or of Vastu. If Alamkara is principally represented by the word, it is Alamkāragataśabdaśaktimüladhvani, and if Vastu is principally suggested by the word, it is Vastugataśabdašaktimūladhvani. Mammaţa remarks that, though in Alamkāragatasabdaśaktyudbhzvavyangya, the Alamkāra is Vyangya and therefore Pradhana and so it cannot be an adornment but is the Alaṁkarya - the thing o be adorned, but it continues to be called by the name of Alamkāra, since formerly it functioned as an Alamkāra. Thus, on the basis of the maxim 'Brāhmaṇasramananyāya', we have :o understand the term Alamkāradhvani. The Śabdaśaktimūladhvani and ślesa : Their Provinces
Incidentally, the Sabdaśaktimālā variety, which is based on he restriction by several circumstances of the sense of
167

Page #193

Anekarthaśabdas (homonyms) needs to be precisely differentiated from the paranomastic expression. i.e., Sleşa or double entendre; for, in both cases, we have homonymous (Anekartha) words, and the apprehension of more than one sense from these words. So it may be asked, what is the difference? For, an indiscriminate use of Sabdaśaktimālā will remove the scope of Sleşa altogether from poetry. The Dhvanikāra replies to this in Kārikā 21 (Udyota 11): "It is true that in Sabdaśaktimūlā, as in Ślesa, we have the apprehension of more than one sense. But, in Sabdaśaktimālā we have also the apprehension of an unexpressed poetic figure or Alamkāra as some definite relation like Sadrśya etc., obtains between the Vacya and the Vyangya senses, in Śleșa no such relation is noticed. This is the essential difference between the two. In śleşa, two or more senses are apprehended but the unexpressed relation that connects the two distinct meanings is not present. Thus, in a verse where ślesa is present, the facts will be apprehended only as unrelated to each other, e.g., in the verse - Yena dhvastamanobhavena etc., which applies to Siva and Vişnu at the same time. Hence, Mammata has observed in K. P. IV. 38 that mere Vastu might also be suggested in an example of Sabdaśaktimüladhvani. Again, Ruyyaka or Ruchaka, in his commentary called Kävyaprakāśasaṁketa criticises Mammata for regarding Vastudhvani as a variety of Sabdaśaktimüla, though the Alamkārasarvasva admits sabdaśkatimūlā vastudhvani.47 Jagannātha also supports Mammata's two-fold classification of Sabdaśaktimālā, e.g., Sabdaśaktimālāvastudhvani with sabdašaktimülālamkāradhvani. Thus, where two
senses are understood fron Anekārthaśabdas, one is intended to be hinted at covertly, being not stated, and the other serves as a cover; it is a case of Vastudhvani, the former s is apprehended through Vyangya and the latter sense through Abhidhā. It is interesting to note that Jagannātha differentiates śleşa and Samāsokti, on the one hand, and Śabdaśaktimālā on the other, quite logically,
In brief, a case of Sabdaskatimüladhvani occurs where the relation between Prakṣta and Aprakṣta ideas is not expressly
168

Page #194

stated. So, if the poet uses words which are Vācaka of that Sambandha, it is not a case of śabdaśaktimüla. In other words, in sabdaśaktimüla, the relation must be suggested, and not expressed. Otherwise, it would be an instance of mere Alamkāra or witty and striking expressions. This holds true for Rasas also; for, if a certain emotion be properly developed and suggested through Vibhāvādi, and then again denoted by words like Srgāra, Karuņa, etc., it will detract from the Rasa of the poem.
Hemachandra Illustrates Types of Dhvani
Now Hemachandra illustrates the different types of Dhvani or Vyangya resulting from the different types of Vyañjanāvștti. For example, in the verse (58), he explains sabdaśaktimūlavyangya in a Pada (sabda) - 'Sadagamah'. In the next verse (59), 'Pathia etc.' which means : "O Pathika, the village is full of stones and there is no bed to sleep on; if you wish to stay here, owing to the rainy season, do so" the inner sense is that "the traveller will enjoy the company of the lady throughout the night, since the people there are all dull as stones; he may stay if he wants to stay looking to the buxom breasts of the Jady". This inner meaning consists of a Vastu - a bare idea. As the Vyangya arises due to the Bädha (obstruction) of the Väcyārtha, there is no Upameya - Upamānabhāva between the Vācyārtha and Vyangyártha, hence no Upamā results. The next verse saniraśanisca etc. contains the words Sani and Ašani yielding two senses, so also Udāra and Anudara have a double-sense; but the suggested sense 'even contraries serve you' is a bare statement - Vastu.
The next verse (61) contains the word Bhima which means terrible but suggests the comparison of Bhima, the son of Pandu. This Vyañjanā is based on one word (Pada) 'Bhima.' Here the king is called 'Bhima' i.e., Bhişāņa due to his fierce looks. However, in (62) Unnataḥ etc. (quoted in the Dhy. Āl. II), the Vyangya is found in the whole Vākya. The words
169

Page #195

mā
Unnataḥ, Prollasaddhāraḥ payodharaḥ, etc. are Ślista and yield double senses. Payodharaḥ means Stana and Megha. Prollasaddhara means Prollasan hāraḥ and Prollasantyaḥ dhārāḥ. The direct sense of this verse is: whom do the breasts of this lady not entice? But "whom does the rainy season not make uneasy? is the Vyangyartha. So, the Upama (similarity between Stana and Megha) is suggested here, as Hemachandra points out: "Here to make the sentence plausible, the Prakṛta and Aprakṛta are conceived of as Upameya upamana and the simile is suggested." It can be seen that here the resemblance is verbal but the Alamkara (Upamā) is to be accepted; otherwise the suggested sense (Vakyārthasyasambaddharthatvam prasankṣiḥ) will be irrelevent. In a similar instance (63), cited by Mammata to illustrate Ubhayaśaktimulavyangya, Atandra etc., Syāmā, with its adjective, is first understood as a beautiful woman and then as a moonlit night. The suggested figure in this verse is Upama through Sabdaśakti.. However, as Hemachandra observes, by 'Samuddipita', 'Sanandam', etc., the Artha is also Vyañjaka, yet, since Arthaśakti cannot function without Sabdasakti, only Sabdaśakti is suggestive here. Again, the passage from Banabhaṭṭa's Harṣacarita examplifies Virodhalaṁkāra (as it is cited and explained in the Dhv. Al. II). Here, Hemachandra calls it by the same name (but Prof. R. B. Athavale prefers 'Virodhābhāsa'). The next verse (65), illustrates Vyatirekālaṁkāradhvani. The word Padaḥ is paranomastic and means (1) the rays of the Sun, and (2) the king's feet, and the whole verse is paranomastic, thus, giving rise to the suggestion that the King's feet are superior to the rays of the Sun. This Vyatirekavyangya is based on Ślesa or double entendré, as e.g., in Nakhodbhāsinaḥ. Here Nakha means nails but 'Kha' in 'Nakha' means 'the sky'. This verse is cited in the Dhv. Al. Il also. It may be noted that Anandavardhana does not at all mention Sabdaśaktimulavastudvani as a separate category. This is taken by some writers on Poetics to mean the non-existence of Vastu-type of Sabdaśaktimula.

170

1

Page #196

Verse 60 is intended to illustrate a suggested statement based on Gauņilaksaņā by means of a wellknown Rāmāyana Verse (2. 16. 13): Ravisamkrāntasaubhāgya etc. The moon is as lack-lustre as a mirror rendered dim by the breath exhaled, i.e., the vapour put out by a breath. Here Andha is not literally taken to mean 'blind', but means 'dim'. This is Gauņi akşaņā by Mukhyārthabādha and the Prayojana of this function is to suggest extreme pallor, uselessness and other things. Here the Vyangyārtha in based on the word Andha. This verse in also cited in the Dhvanyāloka as an instance of Atyantatiraskrtavācyadhvani (Dhv. Al. II. 1 ff).
The next verse (67), the well-known verse from the Bhagavadgitā (2.69) is cited to illustrate how Gauņilakṣāņāmālāvyañjanā covers the whole Vākya or śloka. The statement "The Muni wakes throughout the night and sleeps when others are awake etc." is meaningless on the face of it. Therefore, we have to resort to Gauņilaksaņā to get the sense that "the sages are alive to the universal truths to which the ordinary people are blind". Thus the extraordinary, exceptional nature of a Yogin is suggested here by Gauņivștti.
The next verse (68) - a well-known example of Dhvani - illustrates Lakşakaśabdaśaktivyangyam vastu pade or Sabda-aktimülāvastu in a Pada based on Laksanā. Here speaker of the verse is Rāma himself. So, Rama (the proper noun) in the expression 'Rāmósmi sarvaṁ sahe' does not merely convey the vācya sense of Rāma, i.e., the son of Daśaratha, but Rāma as characterised by such Dharmas as FT: 07717727a,
haliuca, etc.
Now, Hemachandra argues that Rāma will not use the word Rāma for himself. Therefore, with the help of the process of Lakşaņā i.e., Lakşaņalakşaņā (Jahatsvārthā), the word Rāma is to be understood as a 'hard-hearted man'; and the suggested 971577 of the Lakşaņā is to bring out the agony of his mind, the sense of self-condemnation and similar other attributes
171

Page #197

of Rama. However, this verse is given as an instance of Arthāntarasamkramitavācya by Anandavardhana (Dhv. Āl. II. 1 ff). According to Anandavardhana, the Vācyartha of Rāma is transformed from a mere Sanjñin to some other sense which includes within its scope the Vācyārtha - Rāma' itself as well. But the Dharmas mentioned above are comprehended through 645T (suggestion). Hemachandra reproduces a long note on this in his Viveka which is the explanation of this verse as given by Abhinavagupta in his Locana on page 167 in connection with the same verse cited in the Dhvanyaloka (Dhv. Al. I).
Hemachandra concludes by saying that as the context as well as the words 'रामोऽस्मि सर्व सहे' render the word राम as merely 7A inapplicable and because of Ta's connection with FCTTHCE etc., indicate his sufferings and suggest his extraordinary anguish, dejection, delusion, etc. (K. A. S Gloss, p. 71, V. 68 ff).
In the next verse (69), we have an instance of Arthasakti mūlā, suggested sense based on Lakşaņā in a sentence. This verse, 'Suvarnapuspām etc.', is cited in the Dhvanyāloka (1. 13 gloss) to illustrate Avivaksitavācyadhvani or Lakşaņāmūladhvani. After refuting the objection of the Abhāvavādins and stating that Dhvani is a fact, not fiction, Anandavardhana classifies Dhvani into Avivaksitavācya and Vivakṣitā nyaparavācya (1.13 ff). And the first Avivaksita is based on Lakşaņā or Indication. To illustrate this Avivaksitavācya Lakşaņāmala-dhvani, Anandavardhana cites the present verse Suvarnapuspām etc., which means that "only those three - a brave man, a learned man and the parasite, pluck the golden flowers of this earth". Here, the primary sense is incompatible; so the Lakşaņāvștti is resorted to. As the earth does not have the flowers of gold, so the Mukhyartha of Suvarnapuşpāṁ cannot go with Pșthivi and as such it has to be abandoned in favour of the secondary sense. So also the sense of Cinvanti (to pluck) is inapplicable here. So, realizing the 72157 of the verse, that it wants to
172

Page #198

stress that only the brave, the learned and the parasites achieve success in this world, we feel that Lakṣaṇā can very well convey this purpose if Suvaṛṇapuspa is taken to mean. 'prosperity' and Cinvanti to mean 'achieving' or 'obtaining' - both of which senses can be connected with the primary sense. Thus the excellence of these three types of men can be suggested. This suggestion is very poetic in that the praiseworthy qualities of the brave etc., are, like the pair of the fully grown breast of a lovely and cultured heroine, precious and only suggested. Here the word is important, and the sense is a help-mate. So here there are all the four Vyaparas-Abhidha, Tātparya, Lakṣaṇā and Vyañjaña according to Abhinavagupta and Vyañjanā pervades this short but fully suggestive verse (Read Viveka, p. 71).
In order to explain the verse Suvarṇapuṣpām etc.,. Hemachandra provides a note in the Viveka Commentary, wherein he cites a verse Sihipiccha to explain the principle that words are not enough to sustain a Sabdi Vyañjanā. This verse outwardly means that the wife of a hunter moves about proudly with the peacock's feathers as ear-ornaments in the midst of her cowives who have cosmetics for make-up, made from pearls. This verse is quoted in the Dhvanyaloka (II. 24 ff). Hemachandra has reproduced Anandavardhana's gloss on Dhv. Al. II. 24 in the Viveka (pages 71-72), by reversing the order and varying it a little.49 On this verse Abhinava remarks: "The wife has only peacock's feathers for ornament, nothing more to beautify her, and her cowives have pearls to decorate their body. Still she is proudly moving about in their midst! The suggestion-real-is that the hunter is So engrossed in her love that he finds no time or has no energy left in him to kill elephants etc.; so he kills nearby peacocks and gets their feathers to decorate her. But she is content through love. But when the hunter was in love with the cowives, he did not lose himself and so had time to kill elephants etc. This shows the great good fortune of the heroine" (Locana. on Dhv. Al. II. 24 ff).

173

Page #199

Arthasaktimülavyangya Defined
The next Sūtra (1. 24) is devoted to the definition and the exposition of the Arthasaktimülavyangya. This variety of suggestion depends on the force of sense (Arthasakti), and so it is known as the suggested meaning based on sense. This Arthasaktimula lies at the root of the suggestion of Vastu and Alamkāra by Vastu and Alamkāra, and is present in a Pada or word, a Vākya or sentence and a whole poem or Prabandha. The gloss gives the divisions of the Arthasaktimüla as follows:
(1) Vastudhvani i.e., the sense consisting of an idea or bare
statement suggested by Vastu; (2) Vastudhvani suggested by an Alamkāra; (3) Alažkāradhvani suggested by Vastu; (4) Alamkāradhvani suggested by an Ala ṁkara.
Again, each of these four varieties is possible in a Pada or a Vākya or a Prabandha (composition or a whole poem).
incidentally, we may note that Mammața's classification of Arthasaktimula is twelvefold (Kavyaprakāśa IV 39 bc, 40 & 41 ab). First he divides Arthasaktimüla into three principal categories : (1) Svataḥsambhavi i.e., one in which the whole sense is natural (2) Kavipraudhoktisiddha i.e., one that is created or established by virtue of the poets' words full of lofty imagination, and (3) Kavinibaddhavaktspraudhoktimātranispannaśarirah i.e., one that is created by the words full of lofty imagination of the speaker or character conceived by the poet (Kavinibaddhena vaktrā). Hemachandra's Criticism of Mammata's Threefold Arthasaktimüladhvani
In his Vrtti on l. 24, Hemachandra criticises those who offer a threefold classification of the Arthasakti mülavyangya, by saying that this approach to literary classification is ille conceived and unreasonable. Hence, this threefold classification should be rejected. For, even a natural idea does not appear
174

Page #200

to be charming without the grand utterances of a poet. Therefore, Kaviprauḍhokti or the grand imagination of a poet is enough to produce a charming suggestion whether in an idea or in a figure of speech. In fact, Kaviprauḍhokti is an essential prerequisite for any beautiful piece of literature, (K. A. S. I. 24-gloss).
Hemachandra's Treatment of Arthaśaktimūladhvani Compared with Anandavardhana's and Mammaṭa's
It is also interesting to compare Hemachandra's treatment of Arthaśaktimuladhvani with its exposition as given by Anandavardhana. In his Dhvanyaloka (II. 22), Anandavardhana takes up this variety based on material significance (a variety of Samlakṣyakrama). Here, the matter (Artha), and not the form (Sabda) is more important than the words expressive of it. Again, in Sabdaśaktimula Dhvani the change of the doublemeaning (Ślista) word would be accompanied by the absence of the suggested sense. But in the case of the Arthaśaktimuladhvani, a knowledge of Prakaraṇa, Vaktṛ, Boddhavya etc., that is, of the Artha itself, is very essential so as to apprehend the suggested meaning. This is the sense that Mammata conveys in his definition or Arthivyañjana (K. P. III, 21-22),50 In fact, Mammata earlier had made a clear reference to Arthi in 'Sarveṣāṁ prayaśo'rthānāṁ vyañjakatvamapiṣyate'. Thus all the three Arths-Vacya, Lakṣya and Vyangya - can be suggestive. But these three by themselves cannot suggest anything. A set of circumstances (, etc.) is laid down to accompany these three to enable them to be suggestive. Hemachandra has enumerated, defined and illustrated these factors (K. A. S. I. 22 ff). This Arthavyāpāra or Arthivyañjana is responsible for arousing a consciousness of a different sense in those who are endowed with poetic susceptibilities or with connoisseurship.51 Classification of Arthaśaktimūla Unjustified
In Kārikā 24, Dhvanikara classifies Arthaśaktimula - a suggestion based on material significance into three sub-types

175

Page #201

according as the Artha (matter) concerned is objectively or realistically or naturally possible: (1) Svataḥsambhavi or invented by the poets' own imaginative faculty, (2) Kavipraudhoktinispanna or again brought into being not by the poets' fancy but by the imagination of a character created by the poet - the poet's creation or (3) Kavinibadhavaktrpraudhoktinişpanna. Mammața, following in the foot-steps of Anandavardhana, takes for granted the plausibility of this classification (K, P. IV). But Hemachandra contends that this classification is unnecessary and incongruous inasmuch as the three above mentioned varieties have the essential property of being the outcome of poetic fancy common to all of them. Even matters that are obiectively real per se cannot find place in a true poetic art if they are not transfigured by the poet's imagination. Mānikyachandra in his (Kāvyaprakāśa) Sanketa follows Hemachandra. Jagannāth in his Rasagangādhara criticises the threefold classification, though he recognises the first variety - viz. Svataḥsambhavi. According to him, the two varieties should be really classed under a single head.5 2 Hemachandra's Independent Stand on Division of Arthasaktimüladhvani
We have seen above that Hemachandra takes an independent stand on the division of Arthasaktimula and insists on every sense being full of Praudhokti and hence rejects Mammata's classification. For instance, in the verse Sikhariņi. . . . . . etc., a lover says, "What kind of penance and austerity this parrot practiced and how long he gets to enjoy the Bimba fruit as red as your lower-lip?" Here, the idea of austerity and penance on the part of a parrot itself is Praudhokti - a piece of the poet's powerful imagination. For, we cannot find a mountain which can yield such a fruit and there is no penance which can produce such a fruit; hence. it is a matter purely conceived by the imaginative faculty of the poet and it is, therefore, a Praudhokti. The poet does not convey this sense directly, but he makes one of his characters to say this. Thus it is an instance of pfà a ratatliti.
176

Page #202

This above view of Hemachandra is in the Viveka. This verse is quoted in the Dhv. Al. too to illustrate the Vivakṣitānyaparayācya - the second main type of Dhvani. The Vivaksitanyaparavācya is Samlaksyakrama as well as Asamlaksyakrama. And Sarlakşyakrama includes Vastu and Alamkāra. In this verse, as we know, a lover, covertly expresses his intense desire to his beloved. Thus the primary sense here is not incompatible and so it is Abhidhāmūla. Hemachandra quotes from Abhinavagupta's Locana on this. from 'Nahi....to vyangyam' (Viveka, p. 73). But in conclusion says : here in the three illustrations - three includes Sihipicchi, Sajjai and Sikharini - it is Praudhokti, suggested in the form of an idea, is what is enjoyed. That is how even Svabhava - objective beauty gives charm when mixed with imagination. This beauty of Svabhāva constitutes the charm in the poetic figure called gila or Furt. The poet himself is the creator and speaker of the poem. Hence, what is composed by the poet is of the poet only; the senses and objects of this type (imaginative type) come to be portrayed by the poet; so the Artha should not be described as Svataḥsambhavi or Kavinibaddhavaktspraudhoktimātranişpannaşarira. Kavipraudhokti Explained
These forthright and immensely significant observations of Hemachandra arise from his review of the threefold classification of Arthasakti mūla - by such stalwarts such as Anandavardhana and Mammața and others. Just as he has quoted Sikharini etc. and commented on it in connection with Kavinibaddha etc.; he has also explained the concept of Kavipraudhokti in the Viveka (page 72). He says that the expression Kavipraudhokti means the sense which is embodied in a richly imaginative expression of a poet. To illustrate this he cites Sajjei etc. (Verse 141). Now, Ānandavardhana has cited the same verse in Udyota II. 24 ff to illustrate Kavipraudhoktimātranişpannasarira variety of Arthasaktimāla and Hemachandra has adopted verbatim the Locana commentary
177
12

Page #203

on it. The verse means : "The season of love, Spring, is preparing arrows of Cupid in the form of new mango trees with feathers of fresh leaves and tips of the blossoms to hit the young damsels, but he has not handed over the same to Cupid." Here, the mere idea is that the Mango tree puts forth blossoms in Spring, but by means of the extremely creative and powerful imagination of the poet, the same idea is put as "The Spring, a sentient being, and a friend of Cupid is sharpening the arrows, but not giving over to him", very ingeniously and suggestively so as to give rise to an increasing feeling of deep and intense love. It is clear that Hemachandra has given the three illustrations - Sikhipiccha, Sajjayati and śikharini - to demonstrate that poetic genius is the cause of poetry and it is the single most powerful element in the poetic process and literary beauty. Hemachandra clearly bases this view on Dhv. Al. II. 24-25 as a true follower of Blaga87.5 3 The Poet's Imagination is All-Informing
The above exposition of the conception of Arthasakti as a Vyangya helps us to appreciate and even admire Hemachandra's words in the gloss on the Sūtra (1. 24). He says that the division of Arthasakti is ill-conceived, for the poets' imagination abides in or informs this all. It is inconceivable that there can be any charm-more especially poetic and suggestive charm in a poem even if a real object is described without a tinge of imagination. Similarly, the suggestion through a character is nothing but the poet's talent which gifts him with imaginatively rich ideas or expressions. So, what is the use of further elaboration ?
Thus Hemachandra does not divide and further sub-divide Arthasakti as Mammața does to a greater extent and even Anandavardhana also holds forth on the topic. He, however, gives illustrations of Vastu and Alaskāra types of Arthasakti mūla. Thus in verses 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77, he illustrates Arthasaktimüla in its Vastu and Alamkāra varieties. Thus verse 70 explains Vastunā Vastudhvani or a mere statement suggesting
178

Page #204

another statement. The verse (v. 70) describes how Kamadeva subjugated the demons. Before the charms of their wives, the demons forgot everything else. Here the word Kusumabāna (a delicate weapon) suggests the Charming idea that Kamadeva can attack people with delicate or subtle weapons. The next verse (71) contains a Vakya in the expressed sense which suggests another statement (Vākya): "A thing loved alone gives charm to the thing; if one does not love a thing, one does not find any charm in it" or in Bharavi's words "Vasanti hi premni guṇā na vastuni." "The river is the same (Tāpi), the same Tira is there, I am the same person as before, but I cannot enjoy the place since there is the absence of love in may heart." This verse illustrates Vastuna Vastudhvaniḥ in a Vakya. Verse (72) illustrates Vastuna alamkaradhvaniḥ in a Pada; for, here a mere Vastu suggests a figure of speech and the Dhvani is based on the word Dhiraṇām. The verse means "Brave men's glances do not find so much charm in the breasts of their beloved as they find in the temples of the elephants of the enemies." Hemachandra says that, here the word Dhirānām suggests a comparison between the breasts of the beloved and the temples of the elephants.54 The next verse (73) (Putrakṣayendhana etc.) contains Vyatirékālaṁkāradhvani suggested by a mere Vastu in Vacyārtha (in a sentence). "Vasistha, tormented by the fire of grief at the death of his son threw himself into a river." Here, it is suggested that Vasistha's grief was more terrible than the fire; hence the Poetic figure Vyatireka is suggested here. The first is a bare sentence (Vastu in a Vākya) and it suggests the figure Vyatireka. In the next verse (74), God Cupid kisses the face of Madhumasalakṣmi i.e., the beauty of Spring of vernal beauty. Hence Asamarpitampi contains Virodhālaṁkāra in a Vācya sense, and it suggests the idea that if the season of Spring is so intoxicating right now, how, much more intoxicating it will be in future? So we have Alaṁkāreņa Vastudhvani in a Pada here. Now Alaṁkāreņa Vastudhvani in a Vakya is explained in the next verse (75): "The pride of a damsel vanishes for fear

179

Page #205

of being crushed in a close embrace of the lovers." Here the expressed sense of Utpreksā suggests the Vastu or idea that she cooperated with the lover in embracing closely. Now we have a verse (76) Tava vallabhasya. ... etc. i.e., "the lower lip of your lover was pale like the petal of a lotus", which conveys the expressed Rūpaka or metaphor, and "you have, it seems, repeatedly kissed him" - this is the suggested sense by way of an Alam kāra called Anumāna or Kavyalinga. It is an instance of Pade alamkāreņālamkārah. Now Väkye alamkāreņālamkārah is illustrated in verse (77) (Sa vaktum etc.) "He only can describe the entire range of virtues of Hayagrīva who can measure with pots the water of an ocean." (Why try to describe Hayagriva's qualities ? It is impossible to describe them.) Here, the figure Nidarśanā is expressed, and it suggests Akşepālaṁkāra. Some of the above verses are also cited in the Dhv. Al. under similar circumstances, and Hemachandra cites them here with the Locana.
Now the author explicates Arthasakti mūlavyangyavastudhvani in a Prabandha. The example is the same Grdhragomāyusaṁvāda cited by Mammața. The speeches given (verses 78, 79 & 80) constitute the Vācyārtha here. Here we have a Prabandha or group of verses on one subject. This passage is from the Mahābhārata (śāntiparvan ch. 152, v. 11a, 12a, v. 19 & 65). Here a vulture and a jackal try to outsmart eachother in order that they may get to eat the dead body of a boy. They want to create a situation where no one is present. So the suggested sense is the desire of these two animals to eat the dead body of the boy. It is well to remember that Ānandavardhana gives the example of the whole of the Mahābhārata as an illustration of a suggested sense in a Prabandha.
Hemachandra's Concern with True Aesthetics
In the course of illustrating the different varieties of Arthasaktimüla sub-type of Dhvani, Hemachandra has made comments of considerable aesthetic significance. We have noted his remarks about the rich poetic imagination lying at the
180

Page #206

base of all creation. In this connection on page 74 of the Viveka Vyākhyā he explains the words "Kiin prapañcena" usad
he gloss by saying that a mere compounding of types and sub-types and multiplication of varieties and examples does not serve the purpose of poetics or literature, but it actually results in delusion and dejection for the student. It may initially dazzle the young pupil but will not equip him to read and enjoy poetry. 5 5
in connection with Vastu suggesting Alamkāra, Hemachandra gives additional references and illustrations in the Viveka (Page 75). He explains that figures like Upamā etc., are suggested by Vastu or a mere fact. The suggestion of Upamādhvani is illustrated in verse 72 (Dhirāņām etc. - see above). He cites Hiayatthiya etc. in the Viveka (V. 143). This verse is quoted in the Dhy. Āl. (11) as an illustration of Arthäntaranyāsadhvani of the Arthasaktimula variety. Hemachandra has adopted the verse as well as Abhinavagupta's comments thereon. The verse means : "You are audacious enough to try to please me, who am not showing the anger hidden deep in the heart, so, O you very intelligent man, I cannot get angry with you, though you are the offender.' Here, the lady says, "I conceal my anger in my heart and show no sign of wrath on the face; yet, О clever one, as you cajole me, I cannot be angry with you, though you have really done harm to me (i.e., offended me)." Here, the general statement that it is impossible to be angry with clever men though they might have caused harm, is got at by the exclusive suggestiveness of the expressed. This verse illustrates the Arthāntaranyasadhvani. The next verse (144) in the Viveka also is from the Dhv. Al. with Locana, and illustrates Utprekşādhvani. Kuntaka cites Candanāsakta etc. as an instance of Pratiyamānotpreksā (V. J. III, V, 113). Since the particle Iva is not present in this verse, someone may say it is not Utpreksādhvani but merely Pratiyamānotpreksā. Ānandvardhana demurs and say that the non-mention of Iva is not a defect here. Because, in cases of Pratiyamānotprekşā also, Utprekşā is grasped without Iva. And
181

Page #207

he cites two verses to prove this point (see Dhv. Al. II. 25 ff). Hemachandra has, however, quoted the whole long passage on this point with Locana. The verses 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 illustrate - Arthāntaranyāsadhvani (143), Utpreksā (144), Arthāntara (145) and Utprekşā (146). The verse Isākalusasya etc.' is cited to show that we get instances of Utpreksā where words like Iva are not there. The idea is : The full-orbed moon is overjoyed to be similar to the lady's face. The verse Trāsākulah is also meant to drive home the same point. The idea is : The deer is running away, not due to fear of getting hit by the arrows of hunters as usual, but due to the hitting of its eyes (surpassing) by the arrows of the side-long glances of ladies. At this point. Anandavardhana remarks that "Convention alone is the authority for all such usages of words and senses : शब्दार्थव्यवहारे च प्रसिद्धिरेव प्रमाणम्." Upto this point (Verse 146) Hemachandra follows Ānandavardhana who winds up by saying "In the same way, readers should find out examples of other suggestive figures". Now Hemachandra looks elsewhere for help - and he does not need to go far, for, he gets and cites verses and explanations from the Locana of Abhinavagupta for Dipakadhvani (Verse 147): 'Mā bhavantam', which means : The tree is blessed to live in the company of the Latā - without hinderance from Anala, Anila, Varuna, the axe, Vajra etc. Here Bādhista (with Mā) is hidden and so Dipaka is suggested which makes for a charming and tender meaning. By the by, at this point Abhinavagupta says: "Sarveşāmevārthālamkārāņāṁ dhvanyamānatā dřśyate." Then he gives Dipakadhvani. Next is Aprastutaprašaṁsā in Dhundhullanto etc. 56 (Viveka V. 517) - another Anyokti. The sense is : "O, bee, you will spend your whole life roaming in the (thorny) Ketaki groves, but you will never find anything like the Mälati flowers." Here the bee is Prastuta in Vācya. After the Vācya is comprehended, the suggested Aprastuta comes out. Next, Apahnutidhvani is explained in the Locana (Verse 148 in the Viveka). This is said to be Bhattendurāja Upadhyāya's. verse (in the Locana). The verse is Yatkālāguru etc., and the
182

Page #208

idea is that the spot in the moon is Kāmadeva who was rendered dark by staying in the burning hearts of ladies suffering from the pangs of separation from their lovers. Kāmadeva is lying in the moon to make its burning limbs cool. By saying that this is not the spot in the moon but it is Kamadeva etc., the figure Apahnuti is suggested. This is so because Nişedha is not Vācya here. So Apahnuti is Vyangya.5 7 This verse also contains Sandehadhvani, for, the spot in the orb of the moon is not named but hinted at in Gaurāngistanābhogasthāniye candramasi etc., suggesting Sasamdeha. There is also Prativastūpamā as Abhinavagupta points out. There is also Hetu and also Sahokti. Also Upameyopamā in Tvatkūcasadçsascandrah etc. And Abhinava finally observes : "The words of the great poets are indeed inexhaustible sources of poetic wealth." The quotation (23) Helāpi etc., eulogises the mightily gifted and outstanding personalities. It says : "A mere sport on the part of a (mighty) genius produces such a result as is undreamt of or unheard of; whereas a great effort by another fails to produce even an iota of a fruit. Indeed the mere flutter of the hair of the quarter-elephant is. sufficient to cause an earthquake; while the poor bee (may shatter itself to pieces) by falling from great height (the sky) but succeeds not in shaking a creeper !" How true !
After adducing verses to prove the various kinds of Alamkāradhvani and after reproducing the concluding remarks of Abhinavagupta, strangely, Hemachandra brings up the topic of Vyatirekadhvani and cites a verse (149 in Viveka) from the Dhv. "Al. (II. 27 ff) to illustrate it. Now Vyatirekadhvani is explained in verses Kham yety ujjval ayanti and Raktastvam under śabdaśaktimüla by Anandavardhana, but since Vyatireka is Ubhayarūpa - Śabdamula as well as Arthamūla, the Arthasaktimüladhvani (Vyatirekālamkāra variety) is illustrated under Dhy. Ā. II. 27 ff. Anandavardhana states that the contrast in Vyatireka between a tree, gnarled and devoid of foliage and a generous as well as kind-hearted man' in strained
183

Page #209

circumstances is cognised in the wake of the similarity (Sadrśya) which is first cognized, since, Vyatireka is based on Aupamya. Here the expressed idea is censure of the tife of a generous but poor man and the praise of the life of a bare and stunted tree. But it is arrived at by suggesting that a comparison is intended between the tree and the man - both so described and stated, and the latter deserves far more sympathy than the former, Thus, here the contrast is exclusively and finally suggested. Hemachandra winds up by saying (Viveka p. 79) that the other figures may be explained in this manner. 58
Now on the same page (79) of the Viveka, the topic of Alamkārasya vastuvyañjakatvam is brought up. It means that Vastu is suggested by Alamkāras like Upamā etc. that are expressed. Here the suggestion of an idea by Virodhalańkāra is instanced in Cūtānkura etc. which is the verse (74) in the gloss. Suggestion of Vastu by Upamā is illustrated in śikhariņi (page 73 - Viveka). Here in the words Tavādharapāțalam, the word Tava with Upamāsamäsa suggests the Vastu - "I wish I would peck at your nether lip" - this is the desire that is suggested as an idea (Vastu).
The example of Rūpakavācya, giving rise to a Vastuvyangya is presented in verse No. 150 (Viveka). The verse means : "The mighty elephants are like his arm-bolts : laden with the scent of golden lotuses squeezed by them in the Mānasalake (also, laden with the glory of smashing the fond dreams of his enemies) and strong with unimpared abundance of ichor (also gifts)". Here the double 'entendre' (śleșa) which assists (Chāyānugrahi) in the use of the Rūpaka is expressed only and these Alamkāras, Sleșa and Rūpaka - suggest a Vastu, a bare statement. The other instances of the variety called *Alamkārasya vastuvyañjakatvam' should be supplied. Hemachandra explains the above verse (150) by saying: "Here by the Rūpakālamkāra in the bolt-form of the arms, the Vastu in the form of Gajāsvādisāmagri other than Bhujadvaya is suggested".
184

Page #210

Other instances of suggestion of Vastu by Alamkāra can be adduced, he adds. He also explains Kşaņa (Chaneti, Viveka p. 79) in verse (74) Cūtānkura etc.,' by following Abhinavagupta. He says : 'Kșaņa means Utsava, festival' and states that the blossoming of the mango tree means 'the spreading of the power of love or intoxication.' So Kāmadeva kissed the face of Vernal beauty without her being given over to him.
After illustrating the Arthasaktimūlavyangya in a Prabandha from the Mahābhārata, he states that the suggestiveness of the sense (Ārthivyañjanā) can be illustrated with verses from the Madhumathanavijaya (Pāñcajanyokti) and with verses regarding the accessories of Cupid in the Vişamabānalilā of Anandavardhana. In the Viveka, in connection with the verse “Lilādadha etc.' (151) (i.e., Lilādanștrāgrodvyudha etc. cited by Abhinavagupta in the Locana also i.e., "you who lifted the entire earth by the playful gesture of your jaws, how, now, even an ornament of a lotus-stalk weighs you down-causes burden to you ?" Hemachandra verbatim reproduces the Dhvanikära's words (p. 81. Viveka). Here the words of Pāñcajanya (a conch-shell) suggest the desire of Vasudeva separated from Rukmiņi.
The above suggested sense develops into the Rasa (Vipralambhaśộngāra). And Humi etc. occurs in the context of the convergence of the accessories of Kāmadeva. The verse means, "I have crossed the limits; I am beyond control or correction; I am indiscriminate; still I cannot really ever forget devotion even in a dream." These words of the youthful ones reveal their respectful or reverential nature. But that develops into the Rasa in hand.
Rasādi Belongs to Arthaśaktimüladhvani
In the last sūtra (1. 25) we have a discussion of the Rasādi type of the अर्थशक्तिमूलव्यङ्गय or simply रसादिध्वनि. To begin with, Hemachandra states that poetry which portraits Rasas and Bhāvas; Rasābhāsa and Bhāvābhāsa; Bhāvaśānti, Bhāvodaya,
185

Page #211

Bhavasthiti, Bhāvasandhi and
Bhāvaśabalata - nine in all provides very good examples of Arthaśaktimūlavyaṁgya. While the Sūtra (25) mentions Rasādiśca, i.e., Rasādi also (constitute) the Arthaśaktimuladhvani (as pointed out above, this explicitly acknowledges Rasādi as a poetic principle a central and cardinal principle at that.). He separately enumerates Rasa, Bhāva etc., So as to make it clear that these are always suggested (Vyangya); for they can never condescend to the level of Vacyārtha. In other words, whereas in Vastudhvani and Alamkaradhvani the Väcya sense or the Lakṣya sense plays its part, in Rasadhvani, the Vacya sense is totally discarded, that is to say, Rasadhvani is always suggested. The word 'Ca' in the Sutra, explained in the gloss, is intended to indicate that Rasādi are suggested in a Pada, Vākya and a Prabandha, i.e., in a word, a sentence as well as in a whole poem or poetic composition. We have seen that Rasa etc.,. are all separately mentioned so as to hint that these are all suggested at all times, and they never even so much as approach direct expression. They can never be explicit. This in its turn shows the supremacy of Rasa, Bhāvas, etc., in poetry. However, as Hemachandra points out in the gloss, Vastu and Alaṁkāra may parttake of an expressed character or can be explicit.
Rasādi is Always Suggested; Never Expressed
Hemachandra lays great emphasis on the fact that Rasadhvani or suggestion of an emotion or mood always surpasses everything that is explicit or matter of fact. It is in this variety alone that the supreme importance of suggestion can be truly realized. There is no emotion that can become delectable without the sole means of suggestion; for Rasa is never denoted by words, but is always developed or prortrayed by means of a proper presentation of Vibhāvas or determinants, Anubhavas or ensuants and Vyabhicāris or the accessories or fleeting emotions of that particular Rasa. In a poem, we have a poetic description and in a drama an aesthetic representation of the

186
-

Page #212

Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas, leading up to the Rasa. This Rasa is a matter of experience, not of statement. It is impossible, in fact, to experience Rasas like Vira, Śțngāra etc., in a composition which is totally devoid of the delineation of their respective Vibhāvas etc., though there is only a mention of Vira, Sțngāra etc. Thus by both Anvaya and Vyatireka - positive and negative concomittance, the conclusion is inescapable that Rasa is portrayed not by its proper name, but by development (Upacaya) through the representation of the appropriate Vibhāvasāmagri i.e., aesthetic situation. Even here, a word of caution is necessary. It should not be supposed, as is done very often, that these Vibhāvas and the other accessories generate or produce Rasa like so many worldly causes, for they only suggest Rasa. Thus, Hemachandra emphasises at this point that Rasādi are always suggested and never expressed.
This Rasadhvani is a class by itself because it outshines what is expressed and it occupies the most dominant position in high class poetry. Indeed, this Rasadhvani, as Abhinavagupta repeatedly stresses, is the soul of poetry.59 Here it may be noted that it is not the personal grief or pain of the poet (Dhv. Al. I. 5) that develops into a poem which is full of Rasa, For, personal bereavement in life produces tears, not in poems, as we know. Abhinavagupta, therefore, explains that the poet is a sympathetic spectator whose heart is touched and he imaginatively experiences that sorrow in an ideal, impersonal kind of way which results in expansion of his consciousness which is indescribable bliss, pure as well as unique. Thus, "The sorrow of the bird gets transfigured in the vision of the imaginative poet, and the result is a poem. The sentiment of compassion (Karuņa) has pity for its immediate primary impuise, and the essence of Vālmiki's verse has of course to be sought in the Karunarasa that is suggested therein. Of the three varieties of Dhvani mentioned, Rasadhvani alone happens to be the most important."60 Thus Rasadhvani
187

Page #213

is suggestion par excellence, since Rasa, Bhāva, etc., do not admit of direct expression at all; and, in fact, ordinary ideas and figures of speech look much more delectable when they are suggested than when they are merely stated or expressed. Because, Suggestion, by its very nature, almost always outshines and outreaches the primary denotation or explicitness. Again, mo good poetry can be devoid of Rasa. Ānandavardhana repeatedly stresses that Rasa is the single most important element in poetry and all the other elements deserve consideration only in so far as they tend to make the process of Rasa-development or delectation of Rasa smooth and easy. It is for this reason that Rasadhvani cannot be conveyed by any other manner except through suggestion. Hemachandra, as a faithful follower of the RasaDhvani theory of Poetry, treats of all the topics of poetics keeping always in view the aesthetic principle of Rasa which is the peak or zenith of the theory of Dhvani.
This Rasa-Dhvani is called a variety of the Asamlakşyakramadhvani, since Rasa is suggested almost simultaneously with the Vācyārth, though some imperceptible sequence occurs between the two. Thus Rasa can be easily distinguished from other types of Dhvani.
This Rasadhvani or Asaṁlaksyakramavyangya proceeds not only from words and sentences (like other types of Dhvani, e.g., Vastudhvani, Alamkāradhvani etc. of Abhidhamula or Laksaņāmūla varieties) but also from letters, modes of arrangement - Sanghațanā, and whole works of poetry - Prabandha (Dhv. Al. II. 2). Hemachandra cites the verse (81), quoted in Dhv. Al. (Under 111. 4) which here, too, serves the same purpose :
"Tatra arthasakti mūlo vyangyo rasaḥ pade yathā utkampini...." etc.
The idea in this verse (30#fiqat etc.) is that a lovely damsel, trembling with fear, was burnt down by the fire, who was
183

Page #214

himself blind-folded by his own smoke. Here the first two lines give an effective word - picture of the frightened heroine Ratnavali (Act IV) caught in the midst of that fire. In this verse, we are told, the word 'Te' suggests that the eyes of Ratnavali, full of charming graces are vividly remembered by the King. This suggests the intense pathos in the poem. Anandavardhana remarks that the word 'Te' in this verse illustrates how a word may be endowed with a lot of Rasa.
The next verse (82) illustrates how even a Tyadyanta or termination or a padamsa can suggest subtle senses. The verse - Mā patham etc. (Ma panthanam rundhi mama apehi etc.) means: "Don't block my way, get away you childish and shameless fellow; we have to guard this vacant house." Here Apehi (a Tyadyanta) suggests 'you are immature since you are betraying our secret (relationship) in the midst of people; (for) you should come to the vacant house'.
The next verse (83) Talaiḥ etc. illustrates how a Bahuvacana (a part of a word - Padaikadeśa) can be suggestive. The verse is from the Meghaduta of Kalidasa (2. 16), and shows that the wife of the Yakṣa was adept in various Talas (timing. beats); this word Talaiḥ, therefore, intensifies the love in separation. Similarly, in the following verse (84) in Likhannaste... the present participle (Likhat) which terminates in (At) and the locative case in Bhūmau are both highly suggestive - Likhan suggests that the repentant hero is still sitting and is bent upon sitting till he is pardoned and Bhumau suggests that he is totally at a loss. In the same way, in Anyatra vraja balaka (Annattha vacca V. 85) "Go away, do not see me when I am bathing; this place is not for those who are terrified of their wives." Here Etat sthānam is suggestive of the romantic nature of the place. Again, the taddhita termination 'Ka' (in Jayabhiru-ka) suggests that the woman utterly condemns the man who is terrified of his own wife and thus for losing the fun of secret love. Similarly in verse 86, Ayamekapade etc. from the Vikramorvasiya (Act IV. 3) the two 'Ca's

189

Page #215

(connetions) show the simultaneity of the two actions of separation of Pururavas from Urvasi and the on-set of the season of rains. For, even one of these two is enough to torment a lover, what to say when both take effect on him ! The two 'Ca's here are deeply suggestive. Besides, the word Ramya in Nirātapatraramyaiḥ also intensifies the Uddipanavibhāva in the verse. In the next verse Prasnigdhah....(87), cited from the Abhijñānaśākuntala of Kālidāsa (1. 13 ) the preposition 'Pra' (in Prasnigdhah) suggests the freshness of the Ingudi fruits and thus shows the refreshing beauty of the hermitage.
In the next few illustrations, Hemachandra shows (a) how a number of Nipātas and Upasargas come to be employed together so as to suggest a subtle sense (of great admiration (V.88), (b) how several Upasargas together become highly suggestive (V.89), (c) how a verb in the past tense suggests the strength of a character (V. 90), (d) how a crude form of a word (Prakrtyañsa) can suggest rich meaning (V.91) and (e) how a single word like già can sggestively convey a charming idea or sentiment.
Interestingly, Hemachandra winds up this topic by observing that he does not consider the suggestiveness of words etc. in the case of Bhāva etc. as very poetic and as such no instances are provided here. As for the suggestiveness of the sentence (Rasātmaka vākya), Hemachandra proposes to illustrate it with charming as well as concrete instances in the next chapter on the Theory of Rasa, For, the suggestion of Rasa, founded on meaning, is clearly evidenced in Literary Works such as Dramas and others. As for letters and styles of compositions, they directly suggest poetic excellences like Mädhurya etc. and thus, through them, they become relevant to Rasa. These elements, therefore, will be dealt with in the fourth chapter on Guņas.
190

Page #216

THE AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE
While Rasa has already been introduced as a principal poetic element in the first Chapter, the complete theory and practice of Rasa, in consorance with the unbroken aesthetic tradition which regarded Rasa as the most important aspect of Poetry is now taken up by Hemachandra for a fuller treatment in Chapter Two of the Kavyānuśāsana.
The Starting Point of the Rasa Theory
The starting point of the theoretical discussion on Rasa in Indian Poetics is the famous Rasa-Sutra of the Natyaśāstra of Bharatamuni :
3
"Vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicārisaṁyogādrasaniṣpattiḥ."
In general terms, this Sūtra states that Rasa or aesthetic emotion is enjoyed as a result of the proper blending together and operation of the Vibhāvas, the Anubhavas and the Sañcaribhavas or the Vyabhicaribhavas.
Analysis of the Keywords in the Rasasūtra
The key words in this Sūtra are Vibhāva, Anubhava, Vyabhicaribhava, Samyoga, Rasa and Nispattiḥ. In order to

191

Page #217

understand the whole concept of Rasa, it is necessary to have a precise idea of the above words or concepts.
The word Vibhāva represents the twofold objective condition necessary to arouse any emotion and involving the Alambana. vibhāva which means the person or persons with reference to whom the emotion is manifested and the Uddipana-vibhāya which refers to the circumstances that excite the emotion. To take an example from Kālidāsa's Abhijñānasākuntala, the King Duşyanta feels attracted towards Sakuntalā because the setting and the situation of the hermitage of Kanva in which he meets her are favourable. Here Sakuntalā is the Alambanavibhāva of the feeling of love arising in the mind of the King Duşyanta, and the cooperative circumstances of their meeting accompanied by the beautiful surroundings of the hermitage which excite that feeling constitute the Uddipanavibhāva.
The term Anubhāva means the bodily expression of the emotion. Thus the side-long glances of Sakuntalā as also her peculiar behaviour under the influence of the feeling of love, etc, are regarded as Anubhāva.
Finally, the Vyabhicāribhāvas are a series of diverse, fleeting emotions or feelings such as anxiety; doubt, disappointment, elation, etc., that affect the mind of the person in love and feed the dominant emotion. These emotions are fleeting and unsteady by nature as they pass in quick succession, and may all at the same time aid the development of that same emotion.
The Psychology of Rasa
'Samyoga' and 'Rasanispatti' are the other two keywords' appearing in the Rasa-Sūtra and it may be noted that it is in the interpretation of these two terms that a divergence of views has prevailed. Thus opions of aestheticians have been sharply divided and heated debates have taken place with reference to the precise aesthetic significance of the two terms ::
192

Page #218

Samyoga' and 'Nişpatti'. 61 Roughly stated, the word Samyoga means 'Conjunction' and the expression Rasa-nişpatti means 'manifestation of Rasa or completion of Rasa'. But, with a view to realizing the precise aesthetic significance of these two terms, it is absolutely necessary to understand the basic assumption of the theory of aesthetic emotion or Rasa. Even a cursory glance at the Rasa theory shows that a notion regarding permanent and dormant primary emotions residing in us lies at the base of the theory of Rasa. In terms of modern, western psychology, the human personality, both from the point of view of motivation as well as cognition, is made up of some basic emotions, often termed as permanent, dormant moods which lie deep in our being. These basic emotions or moods are the amorous, the ludicrous, the pathetic, the heroic, the passionate, the fearful, the nauseating and the wondrous. These emtions are found to be present in a!! human beings in a permanent manner and are, therefore, referred to as dominant moods or Strayibhāvas. It is these Sthāvibhāvas that determine the particular internal moods or ternperaments and hence they are considered to be the dominant characteristics of the different emotional states. These emotional states of the amorous, the heroic, the pathetic and the others, exhibit in their expressions the composition of diverse, fleeting sentiments constantly passing and changing and thereby producing the appearance of the permanent and single whole of a Rasa; the diverse fleeting emotions that keep passing and changing give expression to the permanent emotion or sentiment of love or hatred, heroism or anger. This psychological explanation serves the limited purpose of clarifying the basic conception of the permanent moods which develop into Rasa. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that an emotion must be properly and aesthetically developed to be called a Rasa. Mere emotions are not Rasa, but the aesthetically stimulated and developed mental state or emotion is Rasa, or Sentiment. Thus, falling in love or getting angry with someone in our day-to-day life is not Rasa, but an
193
13

Page #219

ordinary (Laukika) emotion. Thus Rasa is from the common, worldly emotions, developed by a set of artistic stimulii situations.
The Interpretation of the Rasasutra: Major Theories
Reverting to the Rasa-Sutra, we find that the Sutra deals with Rasa, which is a dominant mood roused and developed by means of artistic stimulii. But the question that arises now is how or in what manner do the artistic stimulii operate in arousing the dominant emotions or Sthayibhāvas ?
to be distinguished as it is an emotion or circumstances or
In regard to this question, several different theories of Rasa have been put forward; chief among these being the theories of eminent aesthetic thinkers like Lollata, Sankuka, Bhaṭṭanāyaka and finally of Abhinavagupta. These different theories are nothing but commentaries on the Natyaśastra of Bharata in general and on the Rasasūtra in particular. Thus, Lollata interprets the Rasasutra and comes to the conclusion that Rasa is 'produced', and Sankuka holds that Rasa is 'inferred', while Bhaṭṭanayaka regards Rasa 'as enjoyed by a process of universalization' and finally Abhinavagupta elaborates on them and declares that 'Rasa is suggested'.
Bharata's Conception of Rasa
As the idea or concept of Rasa is defined and explained in the sixth Chapter of Bharata's Natyaśastra, it is necessary that we first try to understand Bharata's exposition of this complex idea and then try to understand what the theorists have said about Rasa and its realization in Literature.
Rasa and Bhāva
Now, as we open the sixth chapter, we have the vital questions (1) So far as Rasa in a play is concerned, tell us wherein lies the essence (Rasatvam) of these Rasas ? (2) What are the Bhāvas (emotions) and what do they create (Bhavayanti)? 62

194

Page #220

In the words of Abhinavagupta, the first question is: " रसानां केन रसत्वमित्येकः प्रश्नः ।'
And the second question regarding Bhāvas is : 'रस सहभावेन भावाः केचन प्रोक्ताः ... ते च केन प्रकारेणोक्ताः ... तत्रापि भवन्तीति व्युत्पत्तिर्भावयन्तीति किमेत्, किमुत्पादयन्ति । '
Abhinava does not, however, regard these questions as something novel. He opines that the enquiry assumes importance because of the great importance of Rasas as well as Bhāvas. He says that as the Rasa is most desirable, the enquiry is made. But the next four questions relate to Bhavas as they were not mentioned heretofore. The etymology of the word Bhāvāḥ can be given as Bhavantiti bhavaḥ or Bhavayantiti bhāvāḥ which, then, is meant here? Do they 'make' or 'pervade' ? In short, what is their function? These constitute the five questions in Abhinavagupta's view based on the words ca, vä and api used in the text. Abhinavagupta takes both the etymologies of the word Bhāva as acceptable.
No Rasa, No Drama
And when Bharata takes up the question of Rasa, he declares that without Rasa, no topic of drama can ever appeal to the mind of the spectator. In terms of Poetics, it means, there can be no true or real poetry totally devoid of Rasa. This Rasa comes from a combination of the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhicaribhavas. To illustrate the nature or concept of Rasa, Bharata takes the analogy or example of Rasa in real life. Just as flavour () comes from a combination of many spices, herbs and other substances (s), so Rasa (in a drama) comes from the combination of many Bhavas. For example, just as beverages or soups such as a (six-substance drinks or six-flavoured drinks) are created (Nivartante) from substances like molasses, spices (Vyañjanas) and herbs (Oṣadhi), the permanent or dominant emotions attain the status of Rasa when they are accompained (Upagata) by the various bhāvas. Now as to the question: Why is it

195

Page #221

called Rasa? The reply is: It is called Rasa because it cam be savoured (Asvadyatvāt). How does one savour a Rasa? As gourmets (men of taste) are able to savour the flavour of food prepared with many spices, and attain pleasure etc., SO sensitive spectators (Sumanasaḥ), savour the primary emotions, suggested (Abhivyañjita) by the presentation or enactment of the Bhavas and presented with the appropriate modulations of the voice, movements of the body and display of involuntary reactions, and attain pleasure and so forth. Therefore, they are called Natyarasāḥ ( dramatic flavours). Then he quotes the two Anuvamsya verses (N. S. VI. 35-36) which mean "As gourmets savour food prepared with many tasty ingradients (Dravyas) and many spices, so sensitive people enjoy in their minds the permanent emotions presented with different kinds of the acting or representation of (transient) emotions (and the presentation of their causes). This is why they all (ie., the Bhavas) are known as Nāṭyarasāḥ." Mutual Relation between Rasa and Bhāva
come
In relation to the question as to whether Bhāvas from Rasas or Rasas emanate from Bhāvas, Bharata states: "Some people hold that they arise from their relation of mutual dependence, but this is not true. The reason is that we actually find that Rasas proceed from the Bhavas and not the other way around." Bharata's verses bearing on this point state that (1) those who stage dramas should know that the Bhavas are so called because they give rise to (Bhavayanti) Rasas that are related to the different kinds of acting. As a spicy flavour is created from many dravyas, so the Bhavas alongwith various types of acting create Rasas. (In literature) there is. no Rasa without Bhava, nor any Bhava without Rasa. Their realization in gesture is dependent upon their relation of mutural dependence. As a combination of herbs and species will bring (Nayet) food to tastiness (Svādutām), in the same way Bhāvas and Rasas create (Bhavayanti) each other. As a tree arises from a seed, and from the tree a flower and fruit,

196

Page #222

so all the Rasas are the roots, and on them are founded the Bhāvas.
"Evamete sthāyibhāvāḥ rasasamjñaḥ pratyavagantavyaḥ" (N. S. VI. 42 ff).
Bharata's Idea of Rasa-Development
Then Bharata explains how Rasa is developed: "We will bring the dominant emotions to the status of Rasas". To achieve this objective of showing how a dominant emotion attains to the position of Rasa, Bharata first assigns the eight permanent primary emotions to the respective Rasas, and then explains in detail the nature and the apparatus of the eight different Rasas in a very subtle, psychological way.63 Hemachandra's High Sense of Priority
When we read the second chapter of the Kavyanusāsana, we find that Hemachandra has accorded a very important position to Rasa by devoting a whole chapter to the thread - bare as well as an in-depth discussion of the all-important concept of Rasa. Indeed it speaks volumes about Hemachandra's high sense of priority that he should not only elaborate on what Bharata has said in the sixth and the seventh chapters (as also elsewhere) on Rasa, Bhava, etc., in short, on the question of the Aesthetic Experience, but that he should also try to present the entire discussion of the Rasa-problem by reproducing long passages from the Abhinavabharati relating to the four main theories of Rasa, thus enabling the student to know the pros and cons of the entire theory of Rasa. Besides, the second chapter in which this Rasa-theory is comprehensively treated, contains the largest number of Sūtras (fifty nine) in the Kavyanuśāsana.
The Process of Rasa-realization in a Nutshell
Hemachandra presents the idea of Rasa in a nutshell (11. 26) by saying that Rasa is a dominant mood (Sthayibhāva) developed fully and suggested (Abhivyaktaḥ) by means of

197

Page #223

Vibhavas, Anubhavas and Vyabhicāribhāvas. We have already seen in the last Sutra of the first chapter (Sūtra No. 25 = Rasadis' ca) that Rasa, Bhāva etc. are always suggested, they are never directly expressed. The Sthayibhāvas are eight and there are eight Rasas corresponding to them. These Sthayibhāvas are in-born primary emotions, lying in a dormant state in every human being, but when they finds determinants such as women etc., and garden etc., to enhance and intensify them they becomes fully developed and attain to the position of Rasa. The Vibhāvas as Excitants
Thus the Vibhavas help the development of the Sthayibhāva. Between the two Vibhāvas, the Alambanavibhāva prompts the emotion to action or activates it, and forms a field of that emotion; a beautiful young woman, thus, becomes an Alambana (support) Vibhava of the emotion of love (Rati) born in the mind of a young man. This emotion of Rati is surely intensified by the favourableness of circumstances such as a lovely, secluded place, a proper time and things like that. This is the Uddipanavibhāva which inflammates the emotion of love. Now, in the course of the development of this love, several (33 in all) momentary or transitory fleeting emotions such as anxiety, yearning, disappointment appear and disppear, ultimately helping the progress of the development of the Sthayibhāva of love until it becomes a full-fledged Rasa, exactly as small flickering flames go to produce a big, whole flame. Since these thirty three emotions or feelings are momentary or short-lived, they are called unsteady i.e., Vyabhicarins or fleeting or momentary states i.e. the Sañcaribhavas. These Bhāvas are, by and large, fixed for a definite Rasa, although sometimes they are common to many Rasas.
How Rasas become Known: Anubhāvas or Consequents
Now the question is how these Rasas become known, because Rasa being internal emotions cannot be directly known. So, we are told that when these Rasas are fully developed,

198

Page #224

they are expressed by certain gestures, or they are acted out. These are called Anubhavas. A man in love exhibits certain characteristic gestures such as languid gait, vacant gaze, etc. These Anubhavas are found described in poetry. For instance, the words Gamanamalasaṁ sunya dṛṣṭih sariramasauṣṭhavaṁ etc. in the verse of Bhavabhūti appearing in his Mälatımādhava play. It is in this way that a Sthayibhava fully developed by means of Vibhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas, and indicated by Anubhavas or acting, is styled a Rasa. This Rasa is enjoyed or experienced by a man of taste, a connoisseur of art. 64 The Character of the Aesthetic Experience
In the gloss (II. 26 ff), Hemachandra explains (1) how a Rasa is developed, and (2) What the character of an aesthetic experience is or how the Rasa is enjoyed and by whom. It may be mentioned here that Hemachandra's explanation of Rasaexperience given in the gloss is nothing but a faithful abridgement of the vi ew of Abhinavagupta on Rasa as presented in the fourth Chapter 5 of Mammata's Kavyaprakāśa (IV 28 ff). The paragraph means: "Rasa is the permanent mood or primary emotion such as love etc. developed by means of Vibhavas. Anubhavas and Vyabhicaribhavas. This Rasa is of the nature of an experience consisting of enjoyment of it both by the poet and the connoi ssour with eyes closed since it resembles the experience of the bliss of realizing the highest principle due to the fact of its power of causing an extraordinary, supreme joy. The aesthetic experience or Rasanubhava lasts only so long as the exciting, ensuing and the fleeting emotions last and consists chiefly of relishing by the responsive mind alone being made fit for enjoyment by the process of Universalization. The Sthayibhava is a specific emotion which is always present in a primary or instinctive form in the mind of such spectators (Samajikas) as proficient in the art of experiencing poetic relish or emotion and it becomes dis tinctly manifested by such agencies as those of women etc., and garden etc., well-known in Literature and Drama whi ch agencies are Bhāvas by means of which
are

199

Page #225

the internal workings of minds such as Sthāyin, Vyabhicārin accompained by the fourfold acting, can be specifically known - and by means of ensuants or effects or acting such as side-long glances, throwing up of the hands, which enable the spectator to cognize and realise in a concrete way the special emotional states having the characteristics of permanent and transient emotions and by means of the transitory emotions such as patience, memory, etc., called causes, effects and auxiliaries in the real world (but called by these names in poetry and drama by reason of their being endowed with the faculty of exciting and so forth; on this account called Vibhāvas. Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas) - these Vibhāvas are recognized in their universalized form, not showing any restriction due to either the affirmation or negation of any of those specific relations that are involved in such conceptions as 'this is mine' or 'this is my enemy's' or 'this is not mine' or 'this is not my enemy's' - and, even though the said emotion actually subsists in the particular spectator himself, still by virtue of the generalized form in which it is presented, the spectator loses his separate individuality and has his consciousness merged in the Universal; and since the spectator represents the mental condition of all men of poetic sensibility, he apprehends the bliss of the emotion. Though this emotion is enjoyed in a highly universalized form, it has no existence apart from its apprehension." Rasāsvāda : The Source of Transcendent Charm
This is Rasa, and thus is it realized. When the spectator enjoys it, Abhinavagupta adds that "It is relished in the same manner as a mixed beverage; and whed it is enjoyed, it appears as if it is vibrating before our eyes, as if it is entering the innermost recesses of the heart, embracing and pervading our whole body and eclipsing everything else." Obviously, "this is the rapturous bliss of Brahman and the emotion thus manifested becomes the source of transcendant charm and is spoken of as Rasa."
200

Page #226

The Extra-ordinary Nature of Rasa-Experience
Hemachandra explains (basing his argument on Mammața's passage, reproduced here in part) that this Rasa is not an effect, i.e., something produced (Utpadita) by Vibhāva etc., for, if it were an effect, it would continue to exist even after these excitants and the rest cease to exist. For example, the Ghata being Karya, continues to exist even after the destruction of the Kulāladanda and other causes that operated to produce it. But this is not happening in the Rasa-experience, since Rasa lasts so long as the Vibhāvādi continue to ex Again, Rasa is not something to be made known ( 7167) by the Vibhāvādi, as it is never an accomplished entity like a Ghata, Pata, etc., in actual fact, it is only manifested or suggested by the Vibhāvādi and is something to be relished. It may be asked : Is there anything that exists and is still neither produced nor made known ? The reply is : nothing is seen to exist like Rasa which is neither Kārya nor Jñāpya; but it is true that what occurs in the Rasa-experience is not seen anywhere else because it shows the transcendental or extraordinary nature of Rasa and it does not vitiate but confirms this nature of Rasa. It may be said to be an effect by reason of its being accomplished by relishing it; and it may be regarded as known or cognized in the sense that it forms the object of a super-physical consciousness ( Faragatat:) which differs from perception etc. (ordinary forms of cognition) and from the cognition of the imperfect yogin, which is independent of the ordinary means of cognition and also from the cognition of the perfect yogin, which is self-centered and free from all touch of any other cognisable thing. The Pramāņa that apprehends it is not of the Nirvikalpaka (indeterminate) kind, since in Rasa-realization there is a due recognition of the Vibhāvādi as important elements of it, nor is it Savikalpaka or of the determinate type, since it is merely relished as an extraordinary bliss and depends wholly on its own realization (which is not true of Savikalpakajñāna). Here also the fact that
201

Page #227

it is neither of the two - उभयाभावरूप (i.e., निर्विकल्पक or सविकल्पक)and still it is 372749 i.e., partakes the nature of both, confirms that its character is extraordinary or transcendental; it does not vitiate this nature of Rasa.
The Difficulty of Particular Assignment of Vibhāvadi
Now Hemachandra explains on the basis of the Kavyaprakāģa IV) the different Vibhāvas etc. We must note that the excitants (Vibhāvas), the ensuants (Anubhāvas) and the accessories (Vyabhicāribhāvas) are spoken of in the Rasasūtra in a general way because, as a rule, they are not related specifically to any other particular Rasa. Thus, for instance, the Tiger is the Vibhāva of the Bhayānakarasa as also of the Vira, the Adbhuta and Raudra; the Aśrupāta etc., are the expressions or representation as well of the Karuņa as of the Śộngāra and Bhayānaka; similarly Cintā etc., are the Vyabhicarins. of the Karuņa, śrgāra, Vira and Bhayānakarasa. So particular assignment is difficult. So Hemachandra sets forth concrete examples 66 of (1) the Vibhāvas only, (2) the Anubhāvas only, and (3) the Vyabhicarins only.
The Theories about the Rasa-Experience
It has been hinted at above that there are various theories regarding the enjoyment of Rasa. Of these theories, Abhinavagupta puts forward four theories, including his own. In connection with the interpretation of the Rasasūtra of Bharata, while commenting on it, Abhinavagupta, who was a champion of the theories of Rasa and Dhvani, first introduces the three different views of Bhatta Lollata, shri sankuka and Bhattanāyaka on Rasanispatti or on how and where Rasa makes its appearance by way of preliminaries, which incidentally represent a gradual development of this Rasa-theory, finally culminating in the up-dated version of Abhinavagupta. In actual fact, Hemachandra has summarized the views of Abhinavagupta about Rasanispatti in his gloss on the first Sūtra of Chapter II,
202

Page #228

as given in the Kavyaprakāša. But, in order to present the Rasa-theory in full, he reproduces in the Viveka commentary the complete text of the Abhinavabhārati, a commentary on the Nātyaśāstra by Abhinavagupta, insofar as it relates to the Rasasūtra in Chapter Six of the Nātyaśāstra wherein the four Major views along with some other incidental opinions are fully presented. Thus due credit must be given to Hemachandra who very faithfully reproduces the relevant portion from the Abhinavabhārati text, unlike Mammața who recapitulates the well-known theories in the form of critical summaries. The Abhinavabhārati - A Great Work on Art
Hemachandra's reproduction of the relevant portion - relating to the Rasasutra - involves the above mentioned four views in the main. This portion presented (in the viveka) on page numbers 89 to 103 is taken from the Abhinavabhārati which, along with the Locana constitutes the two learned commentaries written by Abhinavagupta with a view to explain the texts of the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana and the Nātyaśāstra of Bharata respectively. These two works are "masterpieces of the Indian theory of aesthetics and are considered to be the best works on Art of all times and places, both for their erudition, depth, terseness and dignity of style as well as for the lasting value of the profound views expounded in them." These two works make Abhinavagupta (990-1015 AD) not only one of the greatest authorities on art but, according to J. L. Masson and M. V. Patawardhan, the greatest original writer on Aesthetics, since the works are astoundingly original. Abhinavagupta's Locana preceded the Abhinavabhārati, and hence it forms the bed-rock of the theories of Rasa and Dhvani, and it furnishes us with truly profound insights into the many intricate problems of the theories of Rasa and Dhvani formulated by Anandavardhana. 6 7 Hemachandra Introduces Important views on arcate
After explaining Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas on page 88 of Viveka in terms of Bharata's couplets (Nātyaśāstra VII.4 &
203

Page #229

VII. 5), which means that Vibhāvas are so-called because they help make concrete meanings consisting of acting in the form of speech and body and Anubhāvas are so-called because by means of them the meaning of a drama or work of art is rendered concrete with acting through speech and body, and it is possessed of Abhinaya of three types. Hemachandra mentions the Rasasūtra and reproduces the entire Rasaportion from the Abhinavabhārati as set out and interpreted by Abhinavagupta.68 We must remember that Abhinavagupta himself wants to thrash out the problem of Rasa and hence he records and explains the views of others first, not only by way of prima facie views (Purvapakşa) so as to comply with the vogue of the Sanskrit theorists, but also because the views are important and representative of the chief schools of interpretation of Rasa in vogue before his attempts to unravel and finally settle the issue of Rasa-experience in his own masterly way.
So far as the divergent views on the interpretation of the Rasa-sūtra of Bharatamuni are concerned, we know that Jagannātha has recorded twelve such views while Abhinavagupta has discussed in his Locana commentary some of his predecessors' views in detail and only recorded some other views (Vide Locana on Dhv. Al. II. 4). However, it is well-known that besides Lollața, Sankuka, Bhattanāyaka and Abhinavagupta, Dandin, too, has contributed to the discussion on Rasa and, in fact. Abhinavagupta has cited his views. Further, Bhatta Tauta, the great master of Abhinavagupta and the renowned author of the lost masterpiece Kavyakautuka, also helped improve the Rasa-theory by offering critical comments on Sankuka's views. The Rasa - Theories in the Abhinavabhārati
It is interesting to attempt a faithful resume of the different views presented on the aesthetic experience by way of the interpretation of the Rasasūtras by Bhatta Lollata, Śri Sankuka, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta along with Hemachandra's illuminating comments.
204

Page #230

Lollata's Theory of Rasa
The Rasasūtra has been explained by Bhatta Lollata like this: "The birth of Rasa arises out of the combination of the Sthayin i.e., the permanent emotions (not mentioned in the Sutra) with the Vibhavas etc. Specifically, the fas or the determinants are the cause of the birth of the mental state which constitutes the Sthayin. The consequents are not meant (in the Sutra) to be those that arise from the Rasas; since they cannot be termed as the cause of Rasa; but, on the contrary, they are the consequents (Anubhavaḥ) of the Bhāvas or emotions in the mind only. And, as for the transitory emotions or moods, although they cannot exist side by side with the Sthayin, yet, the Sthayin is not absent, for, it is in the form of a latent impression (Vāsanātmata iha tasya. vivakṣitā). So, Rasa is simply a permanent emotion (or Sthayin only), intensified (Upacita or Pusta or Paripoṣagata) by the
s, the gas, etc. But, in an unintensified state it is. only a Sthayin. This state is present both in the person represented (Anukārya, i.e., Rama) and in the actor (Anukartā i.e., Nata) by reason of the power of realization (Anusandhanabalāt). Daṇḍin, for instance, in his verse Ratiḥ Śṛngaratam etc. (K. A. 1 281), while dealing with Alaṁkāras, says that, "In association with a number of other elements, the feeling of Rati or love is transformed into the Erotic Sentiment (Rasa)" and "on reaching its peak, the feeling of anger is transformed into the Furious Rasa."
Here Hemachandra remarks by way of a summary. He says: "The idea is: Rasa is the permanent mental state or emotion called Sthayin, which when produced by the faas, rendered cognisable by the зs and intensified by the transitory moods or as is apprehended (Pratiyamānaḥ) chiefly in Rāma, the original character reproduced or represented, and then in the actor (Anukarta) by virtue of the power of realization through acting (Tadrupata) or identification of the actor with the character."
."

205

Page #231

Šarkuka Controverts Lollata's and Daņain's View
This view is not sound, says Śrī šankuka
1. For, without the Vibhāvādi, the Sthāyin i.e., the permanent mental state or emotion cannot be known. Way? Because the characteristic signs (Avagamaka) or the logical reasons
s) by which cognition is rendered possible, as the fire within a mountain, could not be known, were there no smoke.
2. Besides, Bharata would have explained the nature and scope of the Sthayin first and the Rasas only afterwards, if he had believed that the Sthāyin becomes Rasa through a combination with Vibhāvas which produce them, the Anubhāvas which exhibit them or manifest them and the Vyabhicarins which intensify them. But he has not done so. On the contrary, he has laid down the nature and scope of Rasa at the outset ! Moreover, why has he mentioned the same Vibhāvādi with the Sthāyin after describing them about the Rasas already ? The sage indeed, at every step, is going to proclaim when dealing with the Rasa : 'Atha viro nama etc.'69 And again, while describing the Sthayin he says : Utsaho nāma etc. Dynamic energy means Noble Nature. This is given rise to by lack of grief, energy, endurance, bravery, selflessness, etc. It is acted out by Anubhāvas such as Dhairya, Tyāga, Ārambha, Vaiśāradya etc. Hence, Rasa and Sthayin are not different in meaning or essence. However, the Vibhāvas 70 are extensively dealt with in the definition of Rasa, while in the context of Bhāva, they are only scantily treated of.
The point sought to be made here is : if it were true that the permanent mental states exist before the Rasa, why is it that Bharata first dealt with Rasa (Nātyaśāstra Chapter-VI) and afterwards (Chapter-VII) with the mental states ? Again, if, as Lollața claims, Rasa is no more than an intensified permanent mental state, why should Bharata have explained the Vibhavas of the mental state twice over, once in connection with it in its non-intensified state (Chapter-VID)
206

Page #232

and once again in connection with it in its intensified state (Chapter-VI)? Lollața's Explanation is Illogical
Clearly, it is illogical to explain the causes of the same thing twice over, once when it is not far from its rising state and once when it has reached its full development (Na cotpattau etc., Viveka p. 90). This is futile. Thus, if, as Lollata claims, Rasa is nothing but a feeling intensified, then, as intensity can be of many degrees, so there will be different grades in the Rasa realized. Again, if it is argued that only when the utmost intensity is reached, Rasa is then realized, in that event, the division of the Comic Rasa into six varieties, given by Bharata (Chapter-VI) would be wrong. The six-fold comic Rasa is : Smita-slight smile, Hasita-smile, Vihasita-gentle laughter, Upahasita-laughter of ridicule, Apahasita-vulgar laughter, and Atihasita-excessive laughter. Thus every feeling would become subdivided into an infinity of different gradations : weak, weaker, weakest, indifference, etc. Moreover, in the Erotic Rasa, there are ten stages as mentioned by Bharata (Nātyaśāstra XX, vv. 154-56) : Longing (Abhilāsā), anxiety (Arthacintana). recollection (Anusmrti). enumeration of the beloved's virtues (Gunakirtana). distress (Udvega), raving (Vilāpa ), insanity (Unmāda), fever ( Vyādhi ), stupor ( Jadatā) and death ( Marana ).71 Thus the ten stages of love would be replaced by an infinite number of mental states of Rasa. If each Rasa has different grades according to its intensity, then there will be endless varieties under that Rasa and feeling alone.72 Again, in the Rasaexperience what happens is contrary to what is described by Lollața, i.e., first Sthāyin exists, and when it is intensified, becomes Rasa. Thus the great sorrow which is most intense when it arises from the Vibhāva caused by separation from the beloved, gradually grows weaker and becomes quiet, and it does not intensify (Dārdhyamupaiti). And, in the feelings of anger, heroism and delight, a diminution is observed when the indignation; firmness and sexual enjoyment is absent. So
207

Page #233

Rasa is not preceded by Bhāva, i.e., the Sthayin. But the contrary is the case. The Sage Bharata has said : TATTO Hangi Hrametri 1437 etc. (Viveka, P. 91, Quote-31.) So the first view arises (Prathamasya pakşasyotthānam). In our real life, Rasa appears from Bhāva. Śrī Śankuka Submits his own Interpretation
So we submit another interpretation (says Śrī šankuka).
Rasa is simply a permanent state of mind, and more precisely, the reproduction of the permanent state of mind proper to the person reproduced - Rāma etc., and just because it is a reproduction, it is called by a different word, i.e., Rasa. This reproduced mental state is perceived by means of three kinds of elements, viz., causes, here called Vibhāvas, effects, i.e.. the Anubhävas and accompanying elements, i.e., the Vyabhicarins, and though these Vibhāvādis are unreal and artificial since they are brought into existence by means of conscious efforts of actors, yet they are not believed to be so. This permanent state is inferred by the characteristic signs. This is the sense of Sanayogād in the Rasasūtra, i.e. Gamyagamakabhāvarūpād. The Vibhāvas can be enjoyed through the power of poetry (Vastusaundaryabalāti.e. Anusandhānabalāt), the 3774795 through the skill of the actor, and the Vyabhicărins through the actor's ability to present his own artificial consequents. In fact, the permanent state can be ascertained only indirectly, through an inferential process. But, the chance, are realized directly. That is why the word Sthayin is not mentioned in the Sūtra. Thus the Sthāyin cannot be realized even through Anusandhanābala or power of poetry, but only inferred. But since they have the capacity to be enjoyed through power of visualization, this inference is different from another inference. These Sthāyins are not at all present in the actor, still they are enjoyed through skillful imitation as in the verse Seyam mamāngesu etc., and Daivadahamadya etc. realistically. Herein the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and
208

Page #234

Vyabhicãrins are realized through the power of poetry, skilk of acting and through the ability to represent the artificial consequents. But the Sthāyin cannot be realized even through power of poetry. The words 'delight', 'sorrow', etc., (as it is to be expected from expressive words) are only able to turn the feeling of delight etc. to which they refer into an expressed thing, but they are not able to communicate (Avagamayanti) it in its fullness, as if they were forms of verbal representation (Vācikābhinaya). For, verbal representation does not consist merely in words, but rather in what effect the words produce; in the same way, Āngikābhinaya does not consist merely in the movement of the limbs, but in the effect that this movement produces. In the verse Vivrddhātmāpi etc. and in soke krtostambhastathā etc.73 the feeling of sorrow is not represented but only verbally expressed. But the verse 'Bhāti patito... me vapuși' (158), represents its own sense side by side with expressing its own sense; and thus avoids mere verbal expression; the Sthāyibhāva of Rati present in Udayana causes pleasure. Representation indeed is nothing but a power of communication different from the power of verbal expression. It is for this reason that the Sage Bharata did not include the word Sthāyin in the Sūtra, not even in a different grammatical case, i.e., in the genitive case. Thus the Erotic Rasa is a mental state of love imitated. According to Bharata the erotic and the pathetic Rasas are born (prabhava) of the sentiments of love or sorrow respectively; while instead the other Rasas are made up of them (ātmaka). Thus what the Sage has said (that Rasas are made up of the Sthāyin and are born of them) is quite appropriate too. Hemachandra Quotes Dharmakirti's Verse
Further, it is found that even mistaken cognition is sometimes not without causal efficiency (Arthakriyā). To corroborate this dictum, Hemachandra quotes here a famous couplet of Dharmakirti, P. V. II. 57.74 Between two people approaching two lights, the one produced by a jewel, and the
209
14

Page #235

other by a lamp (without knowing) with the idea that it is a jewel, there exists a difference in respect of causal efficiency, but not a difference of mistaken cognition. (Causal efficiency, the capacity to produce effects is the basic criterion of every form of right cognition, and, therefore, of the real existence of a thing). Thus mirage provides an example of a mistaken cognition, but the present case is one of exception, for, here the mistaken ' perception allows the observing man to find a jewel which is real. Thus, here there is no delusion like in a mirage, and it is a source of right knowledge.
The point that sankuka drives at is that when a mistaken cognition is capable of causal efficiency, there is all the more possibility for a reproduced cognition, i.e., the Rasa-cognition, to be capable of causal efficiency. In other words, even though Rasa is Anukaraņātmaka and Anumita, the spectator is not deluded by it, but finds in the spectacle a fulfilment of his desires.
Besides, here there is none of the following perceptions : (a) The actor is really happy; (b) Rāma is really that happy man; (c) That man is not happy; (d) Is this man Rāma or not? and (e) This is similar to Rāma - but rather the perception is "This is that Rama who was happy" or "This is Rama." Like the experience one has when observing a horse or a bull in a picture, the above mentioned perception is neither valid perception, nor error, nor doubt, nor similitude. As it is said :
"What kind of an argument could disprove an experience evident in and by itself - an experience in which, it being devoid of any contradictory idea, one cannot distinguish any error ?"
Abhinavagupta, following his master Tota, criticises the theory of Reproduction or Imitation held by Sankuka.
Bhatta Tota holds that this theory is without any intrinsic worth and is unable to withstand a close scrutiny. We ask : (1) Is it from the point of view of the spectator's perception or
210

Page #236

(2) that of the actor or (3) that of the critics who analyse the real nature of the dramatic representation that you claim, Rasa has the nature of a reproduction or imitation ? (As it is said: It is the critics who analyse in this way), or (4) Finally according to Bharata's opinion ?
The first alternative cannot be maintained, for reproduction is only something perceived by means of cognition, as in the case of a person drinking some milk only, saying "In this manner, so-and-so drank wine". In this case, the action of milk-drinking reproduces the action of wine-drinking. But here, in the case of the actor what is it that is perceived in him that seems to be a reproduction of some feeling, say, of love ? This baffles us.
The actor's body, his headwear or turban, his horripilations, his faltering words, the raising of his arms, the waving of them, his frowns, his expressive glances and so on, surely cannot be regarded as the reproduction of the permanent emotion or mental state of love, which is a feeling. These being insentient, being perceived by different sense-organs and having different substrata are thus quite different from feelings. Consciousness of a reproduction requires perception of the original and the imitation thereof; but none has ever before perceived the love of Rāma, the original character. Hence the contention that the actor is reproducing Rama is dismissed as mere prattle.
If it is argued that the Erotic Rasa, the reproduction of Rati, is simply the feeling of the actor that, when perceived by the spectators appears to them in this very form, we do not agree with this argument; for when perceived, tell us, what does this feeling consist of ? It may be contended that the actor's feeling appears to the spectators to consist of just those characteristic signs - Portuis such as women, etc., pris or effects such as side-long glances, etc., HEEFTS such as .contentment, etc., which serve to render perceptible an ordinary
211

Page #237

feeling. Good, if what you say is true; then the feeling of the actor would be perceived simply in the form of delight (i.e., there would be a perception of ordinary nature, not aesthetic cognition). Thus your argument for a reproduction of delight falls flat. If you say that the faarf are real in the reproduced characters and here in the actor unreal, then let it be so but even if these विभावादि are not the real विभाव, अनुभावs and सञ्चारिभावs of the feeling of the actor, even if they are moulded solely by the power of the poem, the skill of the actor and so forth, and are thus artificial, are they perceived by the spectators as artificial or are they perceived as real? If they are perceived as artificial, how can the feeling of love be perceived through them? If you say that it is for this reason that what is perceived is not love, but a reproduction of love, this answer, we say, shows your dull-mindedness. For, it is proper to hold that a thing different from the usual one can be inferred from more apparently similar effects, only if the effect from which it is inferred is really derived from a different cause and is recognized as such by a man of experience (Suśikṣitaiḥ). But an unexperienced man can infer from them the usual cause only. From some particular scorpions, for instance, it is reasonable to infer that their cause is cow-dung; and the inference from them of another scorpion as their cause is a false cognition.
Hemachandra Intervenes
Here Hemachandra intervenes (Viveka p. 94, II. 14-19) to explain Bhatta Tota's argument. The upshot is that the well-known cause in the form of the feeling of love is not the same thing as the imitation of love. If the consequences are caused by this Rati, and are cognized by men of experience to be so, then the inference of the imitated Rati would stand scrutiny. But since it is clearly not the case, how then can the imitation of Rati stand? And if an inexperienced man infers such an imitated Rati, then it is clearly a case of a false cognition.

212

Page #238

And when the cognition of the logical reason - e.g. smokeis erroneous, the inference based on that logical reason will be invalid itself. The inference from mist, taken as smoke, of a reproduction or imitation of fire, is surely unsound. For, a veil of mist, which is an imitation of smoke and is recognized as such, does not legitimize the inference of a heap of red roses, viz., something that reproduces fire.
The Theory of Imitation is Vain
It may be argued that eventhough the actor is not angry himself, yet he seems angry. True, he resembles a man who is angry. This is resemblance and it is due to a contraction of eye-brows etc., and is like the resemblance between a real ox and another ox-like creature due to the shape of the muzzles etc. In this case, there is no imitation involved. Again, the spectators are not aware of this resemblance. (They are unaware of any resemblance between the actor and the original character, but are aware only of the fact that the actor is in a certain state of consciousness which is also shared by them). The spectators' perception of the actor is with his mental state. Therefore, the theory of imitation or reproduction is after all a vain theory.
To say that the audience has the perception "That is Rāma", is not correct. For, if this perception, divested of every doubt during the play is not stultified later on by some subsequent cognition which invalidates it, why is it not a true cognition? And, if it is stultified, why is it not a false cognition? In fact, even when no invalidating cognition appears, it will be always a type of false cognition. (According to Sankuka, the aesthetic experience consists of an imitation; thus he implicitly admits that it is unreal.) Thus Sankuka's contention that this is an experience in which, since it is devoid of any contradictory idea, one cannot distinguish any error, is untrue. Again, the same perception, 'This is Rama', is had in other actors also and hence of Rama, we have only his universal aspect. To say that the Vibhavas can be

213

-

Page #239

recognized through the power of poetry : it is difficult to explain it. In fact, the actor does not have the perception 'Sitā is mine' as in real life. That is to say, the causes in real life are not to be confused with the fahras in a poem. For, the actor does not have the perception that the Vibhāvas from a part of his real life. It is argued that this is the meaning of the word 'realization', i.e., that this is how the faras are made perceptible to the spectators; then we say that there ought to be a realization of the permanent mood.
e fact of the matter is that the perception of the actor is primarily and chiefly concerned with this and is presented in the form of : "This man is in this (emotional) state." ( Biffraesi Ferfi #talaa p. 305 ). So the thesis of Sankuka that from the point of view of the spectator, the imitation of the permanent state is Rasa, is untenable.
The actor does not believe that he is reproducing Rāma or his feeling. For a reproduction, that is, a production of action similar (Sadrsakaraṇam ) to those of someone whose nature: we have never before perceived, is not possible (since every imitation presupposes a previous perception ). Now, if it is maintained that the meaning of the term imitation is after - production (Paścätkaraṇam ), such imitation, we say, would extend to ordinary life also ( because such imitation is common in life). Perhaps it will be urged that the actor does not reproduce a specific person, but has only this notion : "I am reproducing the sorrow of some noble man". But, by what is this reproduction effected ? This is the problem. Not by sorrow which is absent in actor. Not by tears etc. for they are of another nature - i.e., they are not mental or spiritual. You may argue that the perception, ? am reproducing the as of the sorrow of a noble person" occurs in the actor. But which noble person ? For, no person can be thought of without a clear-cut idea (faratzailear). If you say that the actor is reproducing a person who should have wept like this, then his personality also intervenes, so that the relation of
214

Page #240

Anukarya - Anukarta disappears. Besides the actor is not aware of carrying out any reproduction or imitation. The actor's performance, in fact, takes place only through three causes : his skill in acting, his memory of his own faras and the consent of his heart, aroused by the state of generality of the feelings; and in virtue of this, he displays the corresponding consequents and reads the poem with suitable accompanying intonations (Kaku) of voice. So, he is conscious of this only, and not of reproducing someone. Indeed, reproduction of the deeds of Rama is different from the reproduction of the attire of the beloved person. (For, imitation of the gestures of the beloved by a person deeply in love is not the aesthetic act.)
Also, the theory of reproduction cannot be maintained from the point of the view of the nature of things (Vastuvṛtta); for, it is impossible that a thing of which one is not conscious, has a real nature.
Nor did the sage (af) ever say (in his text) that Rasa is the reproduction of a permanent mental state (Sthayyanukaraṇam rasa iti).
Some other Theories (Viveka p. 95: Yaccocyate -)
To say "The pigments orpiment, etc. surely compose a cow, etc." now, if the word 'compose' (Samyujyamāna), is understood in the sense of 'manifest' (Abhivyajyamāna), then it is wrong. For, we cannot say that minium etc. manifest a real cow like the one which might be manifested by a lamp etc. All they do is to produce (Nivartyate) a particular aggregate (Samūha) similar to it (cow). The only object of the image 'It is like a cow' is simply this minium, etc., applied so as to constitute a particular arrangement similar to the arrangement of the limbs of a cow. In the case of the aggregate of the faas etc., the situation is different : this cannot be perceived as similar to love. Hence the thesis that Rasa is the reproduction of the emotional state is untenable: "Tasmat bhāvānukaraṇaṁ rasa ityasat."

215**

-

Page #241

The Sāṁkhya View of Rasa 75
As for those, affiliated with the Samkhya view-point, who maintain that Rasa, which is made up of pleasure and pain, is nothing but an external combination (Samagri) of various elements - a combination possessing the power of generating pleasure and pain; and who hold that the determinants take the place of petals (external things or Upädānabhūta, i.e., they are not psychic states) and the consequents and the transitory mental states act to garnish it (i.e., these two are also external), while, the permanent mental states, made up of pleasure and pain, are born of that it and are internal (Antarāh). Thus the thesis is put forward that expressions such as "We shall bring to the state of Rasa the
manent mental state'' etc. must be understood metaphorically, but they know that these contradict Bharata's text and we are thus saved from looking for errors by their unsound statement. What to tell these people? We had better state the other hypothesis arising out of this difficult problem, viz. the nature of aesthetic perception. Rasa is Neither Perceived, Nor Produced, Nor Manifested : Bhattanāyaka's View
Bhattanayaka says that Rasa is neither perceived nor produced, nor manifested : 2h a grea, acea, a. For, if it were perceived by the spectator as really present in himself, then in the Pathetic ( 760 ) Rasa, he would necessarily experience pain. Again, such a perception does not stand to reason, because Sitā etc., does not play the role of a juta (with reference to the spectator); because no memory of his own beloved person does arise in the spectator's mind (while he watches Sītā); because the representation of deities etc., cannot logically arouse in the spectator the state of generality (Sadhāraṇikaraña) required for the aesthetic experience; because Samudrollanghana etc. are extraordinary exploits and thus fall short of FT97703 (generality).
216

Page #242

Further, it is not possible to say that what occurs is simply the memory of Rama, as endowed with such-and-such quality, viz., heroism, etc., insofar as the spectator has had no such previous experience. Moreover, even if it be said that he is perceived through verabl testimony (706), inference ( BFTATA ), etc., logically there cannot be any occurrence of Rasa in the audience just as it is not aroused by a thing perceived through direct knowledge. (To put it plainly, if Rasa could arise from a simple inference, it should arise from a direct perception also.) For, on the appearance of a pair of lovers united together, the mind of anyone present is subject to conflicting feelings (- shame, disgust, envy, etc.,) and we surely cannot say that the onlooker in such a scene is in a state of Rasa ! If it be supposed that Rasa is perceived as present in a third party, the spectator should be in a state of indifference. So it is not possible to suppose that Rasa can be perceived - either as direct experience or in the form of memory. The same drawback can be shown in the theory that maintains that Rasa is produced. if it is assumed that Rasa first exists in a potential form ( STIFFE GOA) and is later manifested, then the falhas must necessarily illuminate it gradually. Besides, the difficulties already faced would recur : fs Rasa manifested as really present in our own self or as present in a third person ?
Bhattanāyaka's Theory of Aesthetic Enjoyment
Therefore, we expound thus : Rasa is revealed (Bhavyamāna) by a special power assumed by words in poetry and drama, the power of revelation (71981), different from Denotation (371991), consisting of the action of Generalizing the THIETIE. This power has the faculty of suppressing the thick layer of mental stupor (HTE ) occupying our own consciousness; in poetry, it is characterized by the absence of blemishs (ar) and the presence of qualities (701) and ornaments (3775TT ); 76 in Idrama by four kinds of representation. Rasa, revealed by this power, is then
217

Page #243

enjoyed () with a kind of enjoyment (), different from direct' experience, memory, etc. This enjoyment (Bhoga) by virtue of the different forms of contact (Anuvedha) between Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas (which are mingled and obstruct the light of the self) is consisting of the states of fluidity (दुति ), enlargement (विस्तार) and expansion (विकास), is characterized by a resting (fa) on one's own consciousness (f), which due to the emergent state of Sattva, is pervaded by beautitude() and light ()77 and is similar to the tasting (a) of the Supreme Brahman.78
Abhinavagupta Reviews Bhaṭṭanayaka's Theory
Bhaṭṭanayaka has said: Abhidha, Bhavana and Bhogikṛti are the three powers (in Rasa-experience) and word, sense and ornaments belong to Abhidha; the group of Rasas such as Śrngara etc. is revealed by Bhavana and is enjoyed by an aesthete through the power of Bhogikṛti. (Viveka pp. 96-97,. Quote-34).
We agree with Bhaṭṭanayaka as far as the defect in the views of Lollata and others are concerned. But so far as the power of Bhoga is concerned, we do not know what kind of enjoyment, distinguishable from perception, etc., can exist in the world. If, as you contend, it is tasting (Rasana), we say, that this too is a perception, and is only called by another name on account of the particular means (Upaya) by which it is called into existence. The same thing happens in the case of direct perception (Darśana), reasoning (Anumana), the revealed word (Śruti), analogy (Upamiti), intuition (Pratibhāna), etc., each of which takes a different name. Besides, if we do not admit that Rasa is produced or manifested, we shall be forced to conclude that it is either eternal or non-existent, no third possibility exists. Again, the existence of an unperceived thing cannot be affirmed. The supporters of Bhaṭṭanayaka may perhaps say that the perception of Rasa is just what they call the power of bringing about enjoyment (Bhogikaraṇa ) - consisting

218

Page #244

in the states of fluidity (Druti, Vistāra etc.). Very well, then - but it is impossible that it should consist solely in these three states. For, these exist just as many forms of perception - whose nature, in your view, lies in this very power of bringing about fruition consisting of a relish, as there are kinds of Rasa. Besides, the constituent elements, Sattva etc. can be seen set out in an infinite number of different ways : one may predominate at one time and another at another. Thus it is absurd to limit the forms of relish to only three.
However, if the word revelation (भावना) in 'भावनाभाव्य एषोऽपि TATTIECOTUTE E qa' (Viveka 97), Rasas like Sțngāra etc., are revealed by the power of revelation, is used in the sense of the poem becoming the matter of perception, which consists of a tasting made up of gustation, and which is generated by the fahrette, it may be accepted without any reservation.79 This view is agreeable to Abhinavagupta. 80 And as to what is stated in the verse A T T Tên etc. (Quotation-35), (Just as in scriptures Has etc., owing to identity and contact with the result or aim; so also Vākyārtha itself is termed as śțngāra and other Rasas.), your view is entirely our own. 8 1 Abhinavagupta's View of Rasa
Let us now state the correct nature of Rasa, devoid of previous errors. It has already been stated by the Sage (Bharata) and we can add nothing new. For, the Sage has declared (in the Nātyaśāstra) FTE FT Haifa HTAT:1 (Viveka, p. 97, Quote-36) i.e., The mental states are called Bhāvas because they bring into existence (Bhāv) the ultimate aims of the poem, i.e., Rasa. Hemachandra 8 2 explains Kāvyārtha in the same way. He says, since Padartha and Vākyārtha culminate in Rasas only, so due to extra ordinariness and importance, the Artha of a Kavya or the first aim of a poem is Rasa. And thus Kāvyārtha means Rasa, as Rasa is the principal aim of a poem, not the expressed sense. So Rasa is simply the aim of poetry. The nonmention of the Rasa, Bhāva, etc., by words expressing them is already explained.
219

Page #245

Thus, Kavyartha is. Rasa, and the Sthayin and Vyabhicărin - permanent and transitory mental states that bring them into existence are called Bhavas. It is really through the cluster of Sthāyin and Vyabhicărin that the supra-mundane Rasa, whose nature is to be enjoyed, is brought about or turned out or manifested. First of all, the Sthāyin, etc., are cognized, and then in a general way, Rasa is tasted. Therefore, being recognised or realized by cognition first, Sthayin etc., are said to be producers or revealers of Rasa which is relished at a later stage. So it is settled that Rasa is the aim of the poem. To explain : In the verse 37111ZATAART 795: etc., (Šāmba regained his health when he praised the Sun God, etc.), there occurs at first the perception of its literal sense, and then, undoubtedly, arises in the mind of the perceiving subject, a perception which eliminates (FET) the temporal data, etc., assumed by the sentence in question. This perception is presented in the form of : "Whoever praises the Sun regains his health; so I too will praise the Sun to be free from disease."83 Similarly from the words of a poem the appreciative reader has an extra or additional perception.94 The Aesthetic Perception is Unique
In such a qualified person, on hearing the verse Grīvābhangabhiramam etc., (from the play. Sākuntalam I. 2), there appears immediately after the perception of their literal sense, a perception of a different order, an inner perception, consisting in a direct experience which completely eliminates the temporal distinction, etc., possessed by the sentences. Besides the young deer etc. which appears in the perception (प्रतिपत्ति) is without its particularity (विशेष) and at the same time, the actor, who (acting the deer) frightens the spectators, showing to be afraid, is unreal. Thus, what appears is simply fear - fear in itself uncircumscribed by time, space, etc. This perception of fear is of a different order from the ordinary perceptions : *1 am afraid; he - my enemy, my friend, anybody is afraid"; for these are necessarily affected by the appearance
220

Page #246

of fresh mental movements (of shunning etc.), consisting of pleasure, pain, etc., and just for these reasons are full of obstacles (1927).
The sensation of the fear referred to above, on the contrary, is a matter of cognition by a perception devoid of obstacles (fafaza), and may be said to enter directly into our hearts, to dance before our eyes : this is the Terrible Rasa. In such a fear, one's own self is neither completely immersed, nor in a state of particular emergence, and the same thing happens with the other selves. As a result of this, the state of generality involved is not limited ( a ), but extended (fada ) as happens at the moment in which is formed the idea of the invariable concomittance (Vyāpti) between smoke and fire or, in fact, between trembling and fear. Therefore this idea to be confronted with a real experience is nourished by the combination of Azfa. In this combination, indeed -- in that the real limiting causes (Niyamahetu) - time, place, the particularized cognizing subject etc., on one side, and those afforded by the poem on the other, neutralize each other and then completely disappear - the above stated state of generality is readily nourished; so that by virtue of the very uniformity (Ekaghanatā) 8 5 of the spectators' perception, it being so nourished, readily nourishes the Rasa in all of them, and this occurs because the latent impressions of their minds harmonize with each other, the minds being varied by beginning-less, latent impressions. The Conception of चमत्कार
This form of consciousness without obstacles is called 'Camatkāra' and the physical effects of it, i.e., trembling, horripilation, joyful motions of limbs etc., are also Camatkara, as in the Prakrit verse (Viveka - 159) 37657 là af hans etc. i.e. - BETA & Stat Hafa etc. which means : "Vişnu is still today in a state of camatkāra etc."86 Indeed camatkāra may be likewise defined as an immersion in an enjoyment (Bhogāveśa) which can never satiate and is uninterrupted. The word
221

Page #247

camatkāra, really speaking, properly means the action being done by a tasting or enjoying subject (Camataḥ karaṇam); in other words, by the enjoying subject, he who is immersed in the vibration (Spanda) of a marvellous enjoyment (Adbhutabhoga). It may be thought of either as a form of mental cognition (1) consisting of direct experience, or of imagination (4), or of remembrance (a) which nevertheless is manifested in a direct manner to its ordinary nature. As Kalidasa says in Ramyāņi vikṣya etc. (. V.2), there is a disquiet in the mind of a happy man on seeing beautiful objects etc., and he remembers in his inner soul, though vaguely, association of former births deeply implanted in him. In any case, it is a form of perception - in which what appears (is just a feeling, for example) love, consisting of a tasting. (in other words, a perception characterized by the presence of a generalized feeling, (love, anger, etc.). For this reason, i.e., because it is not conditioned by further specifications, this perception is apt to become the object of relish and, for that reason, it is neither a form of ordinary cognition, nor is it erroneous, nor ineffable, nor like ordinary perception (i.e., reproduction of it, in Sankuka's language), nor does it consist of super-imposition (as when wrong knowledge follows after the right one is vitiated). We may call it a state of intensification to indicate that it is not limited by space etc.; call it a reproduction to mean that it is a production that repeats the feelings (an operation that temporally follows the feelings); and, call it a combination ( विषयसामग्री ) of different elements in the sense of the Vijñañavāda (or the idealistic Buddhism according to which everything that exists is pure consciousness or perception). Rasa is, in any case, simply and solely a mental state which is the matter of cognition on the part of a perception without obstacles and consisting in relish.
The elements which eliminate the obstacles (Vighnas) are the determinants, etc. Also, in the day to day world, the

222

Page #248

different terms चमत्कार, निवेश (Immersion), रसना (relish), आस्वादन (tasting), 110 (enjoyment), Ana (accomplishment), 29 (laysis), fauna (rest), etc. mean only a (form of) consciousness completely free from any obstacles whatsoever.
There are seven obstacles to this perception. They are : (1) the unsuitability, i.e., the lack of verisimilitude ( 914192T
विरहरूपा प्रतिपत्तावयोग्यता ); (2) the immersion in temporal and spatial determinations
perceived as exclusively one's own or exclusively those of
another (Faiantara fata caritaat:); (3) the fact of being at the mercy of our own sensations of
pleasure, etc. (freefafaazitura: ); (4) the defective condition of the means of perception (orgara
à ! (5) the lack of evidence ( FETAH19: ); (6) the lack of some predominant factor ( 379arat); and (7) the presence of doubt ( ÅTT41722 ). The Seven Barrirers : How to Overcome Them ?
1. The first obstacle or barrier to the realization of Rasa consists in the lack of adequate realization of the probability or the reasonableness of things. In fact, if one is not convinced of the likelihood or verisimilitude of the things presented, he cannot obviously immerse his consciousness in them, so that no rest in them can take place, i.e., they cannot engage his all-absorbing attention. This is the first barrier to be crossed or eliminated, and the means by which it is achieved is the consent of the heart which takes place at the view of ordinary events; for, an event of ordinary character finds more ready response in the spectator's heart. When extraordinary incidents have to be portrayed, it is necessary to choose great heroes like Rāma, etc., who, by our deep-rooted belief in them, inspire our confidence in their superior capacity to undertake impossible
223

Page #249

feats. That is way in dramatic compositions, whose aim is the learning and teaching of deeds transcending the ordinary life, and which have a lofty moral purpose, the plot and the characters are al ways drawn from the Epics and well-known tradition ( felaardit ). This makes the works appealing. However, this requirement is absent in the case of farces (HEHAITE ).
2. The second barrier (Fra) is the presence of certain individualistic or distinctive features of time and place which enable the spectator or connoisseur to sever himself from the objects described. When the spectator is at the mercy of the tasting of pleasures, pains, etc., inhering in his own person, the second obstacle or barrier surely arises. This obstacle consists in the appearance of other forms of consciousness, due variously to the fear of being abandoned by the sensation of pleasure, etc., to the worry about their preservation, to have a desire to procure other similar sensations, to think of getting rid of them, give them open expression, hide them, etc., Even when someone perceives pleasure, pain, etc., as inhering exclusively in other persons, other forms of consciousness inevitably arise in him (pleasure, pain, stupor, indifference, etc.) which obviously constitute an obstacle. The Nātyadharmi - Means of Eliminating the Obstacles
The means by which this obstacle can be eliminated are the Natyadharmis 8 7 or the theatrical conventions, which include a number of things not to be found in ordinary life, as for example, the zones (Kaksyā) dividing the pavilion (Mandapa), the stage (Rangapitha), the various types of costumes, the various dialects (Bhāṣās) used, etc.; and, what is more, the different dresses of the actors, the headwear, etc., by which they hide their true identity. The various theatrical devices such as the Pūrvaranga, the prologue etc. are employed for this reason only. The presence of the above devices and improvisations eliminates the perception : this particular
224

Page #250

individual in the particular place at the particular moment feels pain, pleasure, etc. This elimination takes place insofar as in the theatrical performance there is, on the one hand, the negation of the real being of the actor, and on the other - since the spectator's consciousness does not rest entirely on the represented images -- there is no rest on the real being of the super-imposed personage (i.e., the character of Rāma etc. who is super-imposed upon the real being of the actor); so that, ultimately, there is a negation both of the real being of the actor and that of the character he is playing. The Sage (Bharata) has dealt with all this in connection with Rasa-realization to ensure universalization of feelings. In other words, the devices help to promote the gustation of Rasa ( 1470 ) through the state of generality produced.
3. The third obstacle lies in the undue assertion of selfregarding emotions. How can anyone who is overpowered by his own happiness or sorrow concentrate on something else? To overcome this barrier, various means such as music, vocal and instrumental, well-decorated halls, well-accomplished ladies, are employed so that, on account of a state of generality, these are aesthetic objects enjoyed by all the spectators and possess such a charming power (Uparañja) that even an unesthetic person (Ahşdaya) reaches limpidity of heart and is forced to vibrate in response (becomes 'possessed of heart').
4. If the means of perception are absent, perception itself will also naturally be absent. We require eyes, ears, etc., for immediate and adequate realization of any data presented to us; if they are absent, how can we be sure of the correctness of our knowledge ? So, it is the fourth obstacle not to possess sound senses of perception : प्रतीत्युपायवैकल्य.
5. The fifth barrier also arises from 37-yra or absence of clarity or perspicuity. Even where there is clear and unmistakable verbal testimony and inference so as to evoke an evident perception, perception, however, does not rest
225
15

Page #251

in them, because there is in it the expectancy of the certainty proper to direct experience which consists in an evident perception. For, as Vätsyāyana has said (Nyāyasūtra - Bhäşya 1, 1.3) Haf tigrafa: TT&TTTT - "All valid knowledge depends upon direct experience." It is quite well-known that a thing which has been directly perceived, cannot be proved to be otherwise by a number of inferences and verbal testimonies. In cases like the fire-brand, our knowledge is disproved by a more powerful perception. To remove this obstacle (as well as the third one) we use in dramatic representation something that is different from the inference and verbal testimony and that is almost equal to perception itself, viz., Abhinaya, Nātyadharmi, Vștti and Pravștti (the last two - Vịtti and Pravștti are dealt with in the 20 th and 12 th chapters of the Nāțyaśāstra). These forms are the traditionally consecrated modes of representation, viz., acting, the styles (Vștti), the local usages (Pravștti) and the realistic representation (Lokadharmi). 8 8 Representation is indeed a different operation from that of inference and verbal testimony; and, it is equal to direct perception. This helps overcome the obstacle of scatur:.
Ô. The sixth obstacle ( 379 9rat ) arises from the absence of some element as the dominant factor. The human mind does not rest contented with the cognition of subordinate things, but it runs towards the predominant thing. In the same way, the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhicäribhāvas, which help develop something else (Rasa), are certainly subordinate, and these are not realized with a sense of satisfaction, but only the Sthayibhāvas which are dominant emotional moods and to develop which the Vibhāvādi strive. The Sthāyins are dominant (and not Vyabhicārins) because they are the emotional moods or impulses which alone are directly connected with the aims or ends or goals (Puruşārthas) of the life and are dominant. Rati is associated with Kāma, and also with Dharma and Artha; Krodha is connected with Artha, Utsāha or fortitude; and energy with Kāma and all varieties of Dharma, etc.; and
226

Page #252

Sama or quietism born of the knowledge of sacred Tore with final liberation or Mokşa, the highest goal of life. Thus these emotional moods are Pradhāna or more important.
Although these different Rasas display mutual dependence or subordinateness (in this that while one Rasa is dominant the others are subservient to it), yet, each of these Rasas is dominant in a play that principally portrays it. (Hence they all become principal Rasas in different types of plays (Rūpakas). And, as a matter of fact, they even hold away in varying measures in the same play. Indeed, in ordinary life also, women, even when they are immersed in the compact (T9791 ) gustation (Carvaņā) of the form of consciousness called sorrow, find rest in their own heart, for this very sorrow consists of, and is animated by, a rest without obstacles. (This refers to the experience of love by women, who find in the pain of biting, scratching, etc., by their lovers, the fulfilment or the realization of all their desire, and they enjoy this to the exclusion of everything else.) Pain, thus, is simply and solely an absence of rest. This is why the disciples of Kapila (The Sārkhya theorists) say, to explain the acting of Rajas, that the soul of pain is mobility (Cāñcalya) ( 157 ). All the Rasas, thus, consist of beautitude. But some of them, on account of the objects by which they are coloured (i.e., the Vibhāvādi), are not free from a certain touch of bitterness; this appears in the Heroic Rasa. For, it consists of, and is animated by, precisely the firm endurance of misfortunes.
Thus Rati etc. are pre-eminent (Pradhāna). Hāsa etc. on the other hand, also occupy a pre-eminent position owing to the fact that their determinants are easily accessible to all types of people and so they possess an extremely high power of winning the heart ( 3773ca ). However, laughter, etc., are mostly met with in people of inferior nature. All low-class people laugh, grieve, are afraid, despise others and are astonished at the slightest refined expression. Even these depend on
227

Page #253

Rati etc., and as such serve the gris i.e., the goals of life. The mental states of permanent nature are solely these (nine).. A refutation of the subordinate elements has been made by Bharata, the Sage, also through the description of the permanent sentiments, by the words : स्थायिभावान्रसत्वमुपनेष्यामः । (Natyaśastra 6. 50 ff) i.e., we shall now bring the permanent sentiments to the state of Rasas. (Here Bharata implies that only the Sthayibhavas and not the Vibhavadi are brought to the state of Rasa.) This description is based on the definition. of the general marks and concerns of the particular ones.
7. The last or seventh barrier or obstacle is doubt in general). The Vibhāvas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhicaribhāvas are not severally related to any specific Sthayibhāva; for instance, s or tears (Anubhava) may arise out of joy, sorrow or even some disease in the eye; Vyaghra or tiger etc. (Vibhava) may arouse anger or fear; Bhrama. (perplexity) and Cinta (contemplation) etc. (Vyabhicaribhāvas) may be the accessories of Utsäha and Bhaya. However, their combination is fixed. Thus where the death of a close relation is the Vibhava, bewailing, and shedding tears is the Anubhava, and contemplation, weakness, etc., the Vyabhicaribhava. There may arise a doubt about the particular Sthayibhava, say TTE, which is developed. To remove this doubt, the word Samyoga. () is used in the Rasasūtra. (It means, when there is a specific combination of such Vibhava, Anubhava, etc., we know that the Sthayin developed is certainly Soka and the Rasa is Karuna)
Rasa is a Personal Experience
Rasa is that reality (7) by which the विभावादि, after having reached a perfect combination (), relation (a), pointedness (Aikāgrya) - where they will be in turn in a leading or subordinate position in the mind of the spectator, make the matter of a gustation (m) consisting of
-

228

Page #254

a form of consciousness free from obstacles and different from the ordinary ones. This Rasa differs from the permanent feelings, consists solely in this state of gustation ( zefon), and is not an objective thing (RIGHT) i.e., it is not an already realized, self-subsistent thing which can exist independently of tasting. Rasa is simply the particular form of perception called tasting which lasts exactly as long as the gustation (7 ) and does not last at any time different from it. The Vibhāvādi which consist of 31 EZT2, FT, yfa, etc., transcend the worldly states of causes, etc. FET
TITATE HTË ARCF : ) as they are understood in ordinary life. Their function consists solely in the fact that they colour (the spectator's consciousness). This function is called Vibhāvanā, Anubhāvanā, etc. (i.e., germination, corroboration, consolidation, etc.). These causes, etc. take on a nonordinary character of Vibhāvas etc. (as they are different from ordinary causes), and this nomenclature aims at expressing their dependence on the latent traces left by the corresponding preceding causes etc. (i.e., the fa uraifa arouse the latent traces of the mental process of Rati etc., provoked by ordinary causes. They, thus, require the presence of these traces and depend on them). The operation of the Vibhāvādi presupposes that the spectator, in real life, has not neglected the habit of a close observation of the characteristic signs (causes effects and concomitant elements) of other peoples' mentai processes. Like Sankuka, it cannot be said that what is called Rasa is simply a permanent sentiment, brought to our knowledge by the Vibhāvādi (through inference), and that because this is the object of a relish, it assumes the name of Rasa. Why should Rasa not exist also in day to day life? For, if an unreal thing (i.e., 471a-Firefi) is capable of being the object of relish, a real thing has all the more reason to be capable of it. Thus you may say that the perception of a permanent mental state consists in inference; not Rasa
229

Page #255

(i.e., Rasa cannot rightly be said to be of this nature). This is the real reason why Bharata did not include the word Sthāyi in the Sūtra; on the contrary, it would have been a source of trouble. (For, then, Rasa would simply be a perception of someone else's permanent mental movement). It is only due to correspondence ( औचित्य ) that 'स्थायी रसीभूतः' is mentioned by Bharata. This correspondence consists in the fact that the same things which were previously called the causes, etc., related to a given permanent sentiment, now serve the purpose of the gustation ( TOTT ), and are thus presented in the form of Vibhāvādi. 89 What kind of a Rasa is there. indeed. in inference of an ordinary sentiment? Therefore, the tasting of Rasa (which consists in a camatkāra different from any other kind of ordinary cognition) differs both from memory, inference or any form of ordinary consciousness (i.e., pleasure, pain, etc.). Indeed, he who possesses the latent traces of the ordinary inferential processes, does not apprehend a young woman etc. (Vibhāvādi), as if he were indifferent to her (impersonal - तटस्थ or मध्यस्थ, opposite of अनुप्रवेश - personal); but, by virtue of his sensibility which quality is consisting in a consent of heart-he rather apprehends her, without mounting on the steps of memory, inference, etc., as if merged in a gustation ( Cut), suitable to an indentification (with this young woman etc.) which is, so to say, the sprout of the tasting of Rasa, about to appear in all its fullness. This gustation (aut) also is not already born in the past, from some other means of knowledge, so that it is now a form of memory, nor is it the result of the operation of ordinary means of cognition (direct perception etc.); but it is aroused solely by the combination (Samyoga) of the Vibhāvādi, which, as we said, are not of an ordinary nature. Its Distinction from other Experiences
This gustation is distinguished (a) from perception of the ordinary sentiments ( tia etc. ) aroused by the ordinary
230

Page #256

means of cognition (direct perception, inference, the revealed word, analogy, etc.); (b) from cognition without active participation of the thoughts of others, which is proper to the perception of the yogins; and (c) from the compact (n ) experience of one's own beautitude, which is proper to yogins of higher orders (this perception is immaculate, free from all impressions (Uparaga) deriving from external things). Indeed, these three forms of cognition, being in due order () subjected to the appearance of obstacles (practical desires etc.), lacking evidence and at the mercy of the adored object, are deprived of beauty ( सौन्दर्य ).
In the aesthetic experience, on the contrary, because of the absence of sensations of pleasure, pain, etc., as inhering exclusively in our own person, of an active participation in our own self (a), of the absence of the above mentioned sensations as inhering exclusively in other persons, and the immersion ( आवेश ) in the latent traces of our own sentiments of love etc., reawakened by the corresponding Vibhāvādi which are generalized, because of all these causes, the appearance of obstacles is impossible.
Hence, the far are not the causes of the Nispatti or production of Rasa; otherwise, Rasa should continue to exist even when they are no longer under cognition. Nor are they the cause of its cognition (Jñapti); if they were, they would have to be included among the means of knowledge () bacause Rasa is not an objective thing (f), which could function as a knowable object (4). What is it then that is called by the expression rar? They do not designate any ordinary thing, but what serves to realize the gustation (a). Does any such thing appear anywhere else? The fact that it does not occur elsewhere can only strengthen our view of their non-ordinary () character. Does the taste of the Rasa of Panaka occur in molasses, pepper, etc. (of which it is made)? The case is perfectly analogous. But

231

Page #257

(one might say) in this way Rasa is not an object of cognition ( 37972) ! That is what it deserves to be. Rasa, in fact, consists solely of a tasting and has not the nature of an object of cognition, etc. But then why the expression zafas:' in Bharat's Sutra. This expression must be taken to mean the production not of Rasa, but of the tasting of the Rasa. If the expression ofantie is understood in the sense of a production of a Rasa whose subsistence is exclusively dependent on the said tasting, then our view is not affected by that. This tasting is neither the fruit of the operation of the means of cognition nor of the means of action. In fact, in itself, it is not ascertained by any means of knowledge ( 379ATTUTE ), for its real existence is an irrefutable datum of our own consciousness ( Fagacara ). This tasting is undoubtedly a form of cognition, but different from any other ordinary perception. This is because the means of it, i.e., the Vibhāvādi, are of non-ordinary character. To conclude : What is produced by the संयोग or combination of the विभावादि, is the Rasana or tasting; and the Rasa is the non-ordinary reality, which is the matter of this tasting. This is the sense and purport of the Sūtra. A Summary of Abhinava's Exposition
The summary is : in the first place, the identity of the actor as such is concealed by tiaras, headwear, etc.; in the second place, the idea that he is Rama, etc., aroused by the power of the poem, nevertheless, does not succeed in imposing itself upon the idea of the actor, for the latent traces of the said idea are strongly impressed on the spectator's mind. For this very reason, the spectator is no longer living either in the space and time of Rama, etc., nor in the space and time of the actor as such. Horriplation, etc., which have repeatedly been seen by the spectator in the course of everyday life as signs of love, etc., serve, in this case, to make known a love etc., uncircumscribed by either time or space in this love,
232

Page #258

just because he possesses the latent traces of it in himself, the self of the spectator also actively participates. So, this love is perceived neither with indifference from the outside, nor, as if, it were linked with a particular (ungeneralized) cause - for, in this case, intrusion by pragmatic requirements, interests of gain, etc., would interfere - nor again, as if, it exclusively belonged to a defined third person for, in this case, sensations of pleasure, hatred, etc., would occur in the spectator. Thus, the Erotic Rasa ( शृङ्गार ) is simply the feeling of love ( रति ) - which is both generalized and the object of a consciousness which may be either single or developed consecutively. The task of generalization is carried out by the faas etc. The Philosophic Character of Aesthetic Bliss9°
Thus Abhinavagupta expounds the views of the earlier commentators on Rasa and sets out his own views in exhaustive details regarding the aesthetic experience. He declares that the previous theories are the staircase on which climbing further or higher has been possible for him, and he has been able to understand the true nature of Rasa. He only claims credit for improving on the views of earlier authors and not unduly criticising their views. Thus, his method is both of analysis and synthesis. And, we can see that Abhinavagupta has given a masterly explanation and exposition of the Rasasutra which has since dominated the field of not only dramaturgy but poetics also. Both in his Abhinavabhārati as well as in the Locana Commentaries. Abhinavagupta repeatedly declares that poetic content is itself Rasa, when it is contemplated by the connoisseur (Kavyartho rasa it). He has explained Rasa-experience from the points of view of the dramatist, the actor and the spectator. He has explained the sevenfold barrier with a rare penetrating insight and shown how these can be removed successfully and conclusively established that the nature of Rasa-experience is different from the ordinary means of knowledge as also from the extraordinary perception of a Yuñjaña as well as a Yukta Yogin. The
process of

233

Page #259

Rrsa-realization is Unique and the joy resulting from it is. supra-mundane bliss. This gives an extraordinary, philosophic character to the aesthetic experience. Hemachandra's adoption of the Abhinavabharati-text on Rasānut bhava in toto shows. his unflinching adherence to the views of Abhinava. In fact,. he says so in no uncertain terms: एतन्मतमेव चास्माभिरुपजीवितम् (Viveka, p. 103).
The Number and Types of Rasa: Nine Rasas
In Sutra 27 (II. 2), Hemachandra deals with the different types of Rasas, by defining and illustrating them. According to Hemachandra, there are only nine Rasas. They are Śrngāra or the sentiment of the Erotic, Hasya or the Comic, Karuna or the Pathetic, Raudra or the Dreadful, Vira or the Heroic, Bhayanaka or the Terrific, Bibhatsa or the Disgustful, Adbhuta. or the Wonderful, and lastly Santa or the Quietistic. The gloss explains the nature and importance of these Rasas. It says. that Śṛngāra is mentioned first because it is common to all creatures and it is the most familiar and the most delightful of all the Rasas in fact, it is the Rasarāja, the king among all Rasas, according to many authorities. Hasya closely follows Śṛngara, and often serves to help and heighten the latter. Karuna is just the opposite of Hasya and is mentioned next.. Raudra is often the cause of Karuna, and comes next. Raudra is based on Artha, one of the four goals of life, and results. from frustration in one's endeavour to get some desire fulfilled. Vira is based on the religious spirit or a sense of piety, and is mentioned next since Kama and Artha depend on Dharma. As Vira removes fear, so Bhayanaka is mentioned after it. On account of the fact that the Vibhāvās of Bhayanaka are shared in common by Bibhatsa, this Rasa is mentioned immediately after Bhayanaka. Since Vira finally culminates in marvellous exploits, Adbhuta naturally comes next. So far as these traditional eight Rasas are concerned, they are all based on the first three goals (a) of life, viz., Dharma, Artha

1
234

Page #260

and Kāma which are characterized by activity (Pravștti). But the ninth Rasa, i, e., the Santarasa is characterized by passivity (Nivștti) and is opposed to the first three goals of life, directed as. it is to the questistic tendency called Moksa or final beautitude. These nine Rasas are clearly distinguished from each other by virtue of their specific natures and are only nine in number. Hemachandra deliberately stress the number Nine, because he is aware that some writers on Poetics and Dramaturgy were busy additing to the list, thus inceasing the bulk or the number of Rasas. So, in the Viveka commentary (p. 106), he amplifies his statement regarding the number of Rasas, by saying qaa. He explains that this number of nine is the only justifiable number of the Rasas because these nine Rasas are allied to the four goals of human life and also because these nine Rasas possess greater charm and beauty. Hence the question of abmitting Fa as Rasa based on the permanent mood of 3115412 (an emotion of pity or affection) is ruled out. For स्नेह is include in रति, as स्नेह or भक्ति or वात्सल्य i.e. affection and devotion, happen to be specific traits found in Rati. "Sneha' is mutual love (ra) between two equal beings, and the Rati (love) showered by a lesser being on a higher being is Bhakti or Prasakti or devotion, dedication, while the Rati (affection) shown by a higher person towards a younger or lower creature is Vātsalya or affection. In all these matters, Bhāva or emotion is what is tasted or enjoyed. So the number of Rasas is settled to be nine in Hemachandra's opinion. In the same way, we can explain the affection one feels for his friend as Rati; the affection of Rāma for Laxmana can be included under Dharmavira, for Rāma loved Laxmaņa almost religiously; again, the affection which a child feels for its parents can be subsumed under Bhayānakarasa as fear is the basis of filial love ! So also an old man's love for his grown-up son springs from fear and thus it is a part and parcel of Bhayānaka! Here Hemachandra seems to explain various feelings rather psychologically. It will not sound funny if we
235

Page #261

take a close loot at human nature and human instincts. Freudian insights also seem to support these explanations. Additional Rasas Untenable
There are some authorities that consider ter or Cupidity as a distinct Rasa with its or gluttony as its permanent mood. Hemachandra dismisses the claim of Laulya or Cupidity being a full-fledged Rasa, to, since it is nothing but the Comic sentiment in another form; for it contains ridicule, and at best this craving may be classed under love of possession or mere greed. The same reasoning applies to Bhakti too, says Hemachandra.
The Śrngārarasa-Defined and Explained
The next Sutra (II. 28 ) defines the Erotic Sentiment or Śrngära. Śrågāra exists between a man and a woman. So the man and the woman are each other's Ālambanavibhāvas or existants of love. The objects such as garlands, music, fragrance, etc., that stimulate the feeling of love are the Uddipanavibhāvas or stimulants of love. Then some prominent accessory feelings excepting Jugupsā - a sense of dislike, Alasya - lassitude and Augrya - severity, help the process of love and consequently they are its Vyabhicāribhāvas or Sancāribhāvas - transitory feelings. Thus, Sțngāra is nothing but the feeling of love (Rati) excited, inflammated and helped by various Vibhāvas and Vyabhicăribhāvas. Hemachandra clarifies his statement in the gloss to the effect that Jugupsā, Alasya and Augrya are barred from the list of the transitory feelings that help love to grow. In the Viveka (p. 106), he explains that Rati based on Jugupsā as a permanent emotion is also prohibited by this, and this permits the Vyabhicāritva or transitory nature of Jugupsā which is a Sthāyin of the Bibhatsa. And, so far as Ālasya or lethargy etc., are concerned, they belong to the excitants or fahras of love, viz., women and others, and they are certainly ruled out in regard to them
236

Page #262

only. By virtue of this, the verse aq AZER, ZEIT' ( a. xi. 3.3) as also the verse fafcia na #974 RE:' (fa.F..'. c) should not be held as contrary to this rule. For, herein the body is said to be languid and not the mental state. The Śrgāra is twofold : Samyoga or Sambhogaśộngāra or Love in Union and Vipralambhaśộngāra or love in separation. The sentiment of Sțngāra is a longstanding one ranging from the process of its start to its fulfilment ( TTIHTETTZT3757aeft... tā). This is a special trait of Rati which entirely consists of desire, which follows the different stages of love and assumes the form of a fleeting emotion (Viveka p. 107). It becomes more and more blissful as it advances. It is a tie or knot that binds two hearts together. Originally, it is the Sthāyibhāva styled Rati, but when fully developed, it is called śộngārarasa, and it is then that it is enjoyed by the spectator or reader. This Rati or love is possible between a man and a woman only. Thus it is that Rati or love between a man and a woman is exalted to a supreme position as the Sșngārarasa in literature. The other kinds of Rati - the love of mother or for a mother, the devotion to God or a Sage, or loyalty for a king, are all known as Rati, but truly speaking they do not grow into a full fledged Rasa; they only attain to the position of a Bhāva. Mammata declares in his Kāvyaprakasa (IV.35) : " fadarfer IT EZRASTET 29a: 27T: Fr:". Thus it is that Hemachandra calls it Vyabhicărirüpāyāḥ in the Viveka. Obviously, here, Hemachandra implicitly follows the conventional opinion of Mammața (K. P. IV. 35 ff) and others, and cites illustrations for Rati as a Bhava after declaring that 'देवमुनिगुरुनृपपुत्रादिविषया तु भाव एव न पुना, रसः' and that real Srigara is that which is developed with reference to Kāntā, a beloved wife. As an example of Rati or devotion with reference to God, he quotes a verse from the well-known Jain hymn, Bhaktamarastotra (2. 12). Then the devotion or reverence to a Sage is illustrated by means of the verse -'Gșhāņi nāma tänyeva....pāvanaih padāńśubhiḥ' (97), cited in the Kavyadarśa (1.86).
237

Page #263

It is already stated that the Erotic. Sentiment is twofold, but Hemachandra comments on this Statement by saying that, strictly speaking, this is not true. He argues that as both the types of śộngāra belong to Rati (a Sthāyin) which is of the nature of a tie of affection; so, Sambhoga and Árngara - these two concepts overlap, for, even in separation, the craving for union is very much there, and, again, in Sambhogaśngāra sometimes when there is a sense of security, owing to the course of unimpeded love, there is a sort of mental separation as Bharata has appropriately stated :
यद्वामाभिनिवेशित्वं यतश्च विनिवार्यते ।
că a rarzt: Fra: A Tri tha: I ( TO TO 32.300) -which means : "It is because women are perverse in their love that they repulse the advance of men and are very difficult of attainment, that men are mad after them." Hence a combination of these two - Sambhoga and Vipralambha - is more delightful, as e.g. Vítha TTA etc., (THEO 22) which very delightfully paints a mixture of separation and union (ERTIETHC) of two lovers in the same bed. Hemachandra aptly observes that the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicaribhāvas are found distinctly only in a full-fledged poem, while in stray verses (Mukatakas) we have to imagine (take for granted) the presence of all these constituents of Rasa.
The next Sūtra (11.4) contains a definition of Sambhogaśrngāra. It consists of horripolation etc, as Anuhhāvas and endurance, delight, etc., as Vyabhicāribhāvas. It consists in the lovers being united, though it is characterized by bashfullness, etc. It is made attractive by accessories such as patience (Dhști) etc. In the Viveka, it is pointed out that although sleep etc., caused by fatigue due to love is present in the Sambhoga variety of (actul) Tove, yet it does not add charm to Rati; while in Vipralambha it arises from the conception of love, and so it is properly stated that there is Sukhamayatva, i.e., a happy frame of mind. It also consists of Anubhāvas such as horripolation, perspiration, trempling, tears, slipping off of the
238

Page #264

girdle, hard breathing, fatigue, hurry, tying up the hair, collecting the clothes, re-arrangement of clothes, ornaments, garlands, etc., and activities - both verbal and physical - such as lovely glances, sweet words, etc. This Sambhogaśṛngara is of unlimited varieties (a) consisting in mutual glancing, embracing, kissing, etc., Hemachandra only make a passing reference to the many possible varieties of love in union but illustrates the most important among them with one illustration only. The verse in the वृत्ति (९९) हा द्वैकासनसंगते प्रियतमे etc. ( अमरु० १९) describes how a rogue in love with two ladies enjoys observance (Avalokanadṛṣṭvā), embraces, horripolation, kissing, etc., physically and one of the ladies reacts mentally. Here, obviously the first woman with closed eyes was not loved by him, but the other who was embraced, kissed etc., was his real beloved. So she beamed with joy.
The Vipralambha variety of Śṛngāra is threefold: (1) Abhilāṣavipralambha (one in which the lovers yearn for each other before their first union), (2) Manavipralambha (separation through anger), and (3) Pravāsavipralambha (separation caused by staying away from each other). If this separation leads to grief, it transforms itself into pure pathos (). While the Erotic sentiment in union (Sambhoga) is Sukhaprāya, and has Dhṛti etc., as Vyabhicarins, the Erotic sentiment in separation (Vipralambha) has painful accessories such as apprehension, suspicion and has mental tormenting etc., as consequents. Here, one's self pines away in a special way so as to attain a joy of union. Its Vyabhicaris are शङ्का, औत्सुक्य, मद, ग्लानि, निद्रा, सुप्तप्रबोध, चिन्ता, असूया, श्रम, निर्वेद, मरण, उन्माद, जडता, व्याधि, स्वप्न, अपस्मार, etc., and its Anubhāvas etc., संताप, जागर, कृशता, प्रलाप, क्षामनेत्र, वचोवक्रता, दीनसञ्चरण,
अनुकारकृति, लेखलेखन, वाचन, स्वभावनिह्नव, वार्ता, प्रश्न, स्नेहनिवेदन, सात्त्विकानुभवन, शीतसेवन, मरणोद्यम, सन्देश, etc. However the करुणविप्रलम्भ type of this is extremely pathetic; as, for instance, in the Verse (100) - हृदये वसतीति etc., ( कुमारसंभव, ४.९ ) - ( What you say that you stay in my heart', is a fraud; it is not a formal word;

239

Page #265

since you are bodiless, how can Rati remain unhurt?), the lamentations of Rati are quite heart-rending.
Hemachandra adds by way of a comment in the Viveka (p. 110) that Vipralambha is tinged by sorrow - even in its Vyabhicāribhāvas. So he uses the word dit in the Sūtra (II. 5). This hints at the possibility of even death in Vipralambha, but the word TF is not mentioned as can be seen in the Verse - afteng aristia fit etc. (Raghu VIII. 95) which describes Mrti as a Vyabhicāribhāva (KAS 11. 52 ff. V. 157). Hence, a good writer-does not describe hij in a play (but only hints at it). in the above Verse, the third line helps imagine the Vibhāvas to avoid the obstacle of lack of clarity (प्रतीतिविश्रान्तिस्थानत्वTRETIZ). By the use of the word 'qa:: the same meaning comes out well. Or the act of immolation or suicide implies life, not death; it is easy to cite examples for it. So far as Unmada, Apasmāra and Vyādhi are concerned, the not-too-wretched condition of these should be displayed in a Kāvya or a play; but the worst condition should never in reality be shown - this is the opinion of the ancients (Vļodāh). We, however, say : "In such a situation when one despises one's life, the hope in the form of Rati through physical enjoyment is also shattered. only; hence there is no seope for the wretched condition.
Types of Vipralambha Śrgār
1. Abhilāşavipralambha (11. 6) is due (a) either to the freak of fortune or (b) to the dependence on others. The variety due to å, or freak of fortune is illustrated in the Verse (101)
CHET etc., cited from the Kumārasambhava (IV. 75) wherein we witnees Pārvati who saw that the desire of her father was frustrated and that her lovely form was useless, returned home overwhelmed by a sense of excessive shame.
2. The second variety of the Abhilāşavipralambha, due to dependence on others ( 722 ), is illustrated in the next
240

Page #266

verse (102) from
's. The verse describes how two separated lovers pine for each other by looking at each other and drink love through eyes. Hemachandra notes that the fact that the union of Kadambari with Candrapiḍa did not result for fear of breaking a pledge, also typifies this variety of Abhilaṣavipralambha which arises from or dependence.
The next variety (II. 7) is called Manavipralambha which is twofold; Praṇayamāna and Irṣyāmāna. Praṇayamāna (a) means anger arising from the disregarding of one's love. It is possible in the case of both a man and a woman. Parvati is angry with iva, so he bends down to appease her; but in doing so, his matted hair reveals the Ganges (another woman concealed); so, Parvati kicks him. This verse (103) illustrates Pranayamāna of a woman. The next verse (104) explains it in. relation to a man's offended love. It is cited from the Uttararamacarita (3.38) wherein Rama is described as getting angry with Sita who was late in coming home, being attracted and delayed by the sports of swans. Another verse (105) illustrates how both the lovers get angry with each other at the same time. It gives a very fine description of angry lovers : both pretend to be asleep (3) but are intent on hearing. each other's sighs controlled with great effort.
Irṣyamana (anger due to jealousy) which is the second variety of Manavipralambha is possible in women alone. In the next verse (106), which illustrates Irṣyamana, an indignant Parvati rebukes Lord Siva thus: "You are bowing down before Sandhyā (a lady); you are also carrying shamelessly on your head a Nadi (a female person); Laxmi is now churned out of the ocean - take her, why do you swallow poison? Don't touch me, you voluptuous one !"
Sūtra II. 8 deals with Pravasavipralambha ( fagsı ), the third variety of Vipralambhaśṛngara. It is caused by important work, a curse or a flurry (R) or excitement due to some panic such as an invasion or a hurrycane. Pravasa (a)
16

241

Page #267

always refers to another region or country. The verse (107) arai ar etc., describes Radha's pathetic-tragic condition caused by Krishna's departure to Dwarikā. She embraced the Vañjula creeper bent down due to Kṛṣṇa's jumps into the Yamuna river, and kept singing such a pathetic song that even the creatures in the waters began to sob.
As for the variety of शापहेतुकप्रवासविप्रलम्भ, Hemachandra says that the whole of the Meghaduta of Kalidasa is an instance in point since it describes the lovelorn condition of a certain Yakṣa who was separated from his beloved due to a curse of his master Kubera.
And the संम्भ्रमहेतुकप्रवासविप्रलम्भ, a variety of विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार, is instanced in (108) Malatīmādhava (8. 13) wherein the condition of Madhava, who had gone to help Makaranda, becomes truly pitiable. The Comic Sentiment
The Rasa defined in the next Sutra (II. 9) is Hasya or the Comic sentiment. Ths essence of Hasya lies in its being produced from something done which is incompatible with a particular place, time, age and rank. Its Vibhavas (determinants) are unseemly dress or ornament, impudence, greediness, quarrel, a defective limb, the use of irrelevant words, mentioning of different faults etc. Its gras (consequents) are the throbbing of the lips, the nose, the cheek, opening the eyes wide or contracting them, perspiration, colour of the face and taking hold of the sides. Its as (transitory feelings) are indolence, dissimulation or concealment of inner feelings, drowsiness, sleep, dreaming, insomnia, envy, etc. Hasya is of two types: Self-centred or з and Centred in others i.e., Parastha. When a person himself laughs, it is called the Atmastha type, but when he makes others laugh, it is Parastha type.
The next Sutra (10) defines and explains the three kinds of Atmasthahasya. The best kind of the is fa-slight smile, which involves heaving of the cheeks, which is attended by charming eye-glances and in which the teeth are not visible.

242

Page #268

The second kind of are is fafa- the gentle laughter, which involves slight sound and sweetness, and is suitable to the occasion, and, in it, the eyes and the cheeks should be contracted and the face should appear joyful or red. ika is the laughter not suitable to time, and during it, tears come and the shoulders and the head are violently shaken, and it comes at a wrong place. Here fa and a belong to persons of the superior type ( उत्तम ), विहसित to the middle type ( मध्यम ) and the vulgar smile ( अपहसित ) belongs to the inferior type ( अधम ). Thus, we have आत्मस्थ -हास of three types : स्मित ( उत्तम ), विहसित ( मध्यम ) and अपहसित (अधम) To impart authenticity to his views, Hemachandra quotes three verses from the Natyaśastra (VI. 54, 56 & 58) of Bharata which describe the threefold laughter.
In the next Sutra (II. 11) our author defines Parasthahāsa (-) or laughter pertainingt o another.91 When a man is made to laugh at the sight of another man laughing, it is called . This is also threefold, with slight variations in names: हसित, उपहसित and अपहसित, belong to High (उत्तम), Middling ( मध्यम ) and Lowly (3) persons respectively. Here too Bharata is quoted (Natyaśāstra VI-55, 57, 59). Hasita is a smile characterized by blooming eyes, face and cheeks, only slightly displaying the cheeks. During Upahasita or the laughter of ridicule, the nose expands, the eyes squint and the shoulder and the head bend. अतिहासित is the excessive laughter in which the eyes are expanded through agitation and there is a copious flow of tears, the sound is shrill and the two sides are pressed with hands. Verse 109 is an example of Atmastha hasya. It describes the queer dress of lord Siva who, as a bride-groom, wanted to invite the attention of Parvati. Parasthahasya is described in the next verse (110). It illustrates a laughter excited by the laughter of others. Here the cloud-like dark form of Krsna is reflected in Radha's breasts and mistaking his own form for the blue garment of Radha, Kṛṣṇa keeps pulling it. At this, Radha laughs

243

Page #269

heartily and Kṛṣṇa, too,. laughs heartily, realizing his own mistake.
The Pathetic Sentiment
The
or Pathos is deat with in 11. 12. Karuna is the dominant state of Soka developed through the combination of Vibhavas like the death of a dear one, as like rebuking the fate and eras of pain. Thus the pathetic sentiment arises from determinants such as affliction under a curse, separation. from the near ones and dear ones, loss of wealth, death, captivity, flight from one's place, accidents and other misfortunes. Its consequents are cursing the fate, shedding tears, lamentation, dryness of the mouth, change of colour, drooping limbs, loss of breath, loss of memory, etc. Its transitory feelings are indifference, languor, anxiety, yearning, excitement, delusion, fainting, sadness, dejection, illness, inactivity, insanity, epilepsy (3), fear, indolence, death, paralysis, tremor, change of colour, weeping, loss of voice etc. When sorrow, characterized by anguish in heart, is developed fully, it becomes the e.g., in the lamentation Karuṇarasa; as, Kumārasambhava ( 43 ) : अयि जीवितनाथ जीवसि.
of Rati in the
The Furious Sentiment
The next sentiment to be defined (in II. 13) is the Furious. or . The Furious has, as its basis, the dominant mental state of anger. It owes its origin to Rakṣas, Demons and haughty men, and is caused by (battles due to) the abduction of one's wife and such other offensive acts done by others. Its determinants (faqs) are anger, rape, abuse, insult, untrue allegation, exorcizing, threatening, revengefulness, jealousy, etc. Its consequents (s) are red eyes, knitting the brows, frowning, biting the lips, quivering of temples, clasping the palms, drawing blood, cutting, etc., and its transitory feelings. are fierceness, daring, energy, indignation, restlessness, fury, trempling, etc. (Incidentally, it is clarified by Bharata that Raudra relates to all but specially to Rākṣasas as these are

244

Page #270

naturally furious, having many arms, mouths, unkempt hair and looks, large bodies of black colour, etc. Their speech, appearance and action all are furious by nature. Even in their love-making, they are violent.)
The verse (112)zgeyiñazvenaitq' etc. from Veņisaṁhāra (1. 21), which expresses the wrath of Bhima who resolves before Draupadi to reveng her insult, illustrates the .
The Heroic Sentiment
The next Rasa to be defined (in-II. 14) is the Heroic sentiment for वीररस. The Heroic sentiment relates to the superior types of persons and has energy (r) for its dominant mood. Its determinants (aras) are diplomacy, discipline, presence of mind, perseverance, military strength, aggressiveness, reputation of might, influence, etc. Its consequents (as) are firmness, patience, heroism, charity, etc., and its transitory feelings (fantas) are contentment, judgement, pride, agitation, energy, ferocity, indignation, remembrance, horripilation, etc. It is threefold: (1) Dharmavira or a hero in duty; (2) Danavira or a hero in charity; and (3) Yuddhavīra or a hero in battle.
The verse (133) below the Sūtra (II. 141), cited also in Que's (2. 284), illustrates all the three kinds of heroes: "How can I become a king (worth the name) without conquering the whole earth (Yuddhavira), without performing the various sacrifices (Dharmavira) and without giving alms to the supplicants (Danavira) ?"
Hemachandra observes in the (II. 14 ff.) that the best instance of Dharmvira is Jimutavahana in the Naganandanāṭaka of Sriharsa, Parasurama and Baliraja are types of Danavira and Rama in the Mahaviracarita is a type of Yuddhavira.
Further on, in the same gloss, Hemachandra points out the main difference92 between Raudra and Vira so as to avoid confusion. We should remember that in the Virarasa there is no sense of being knee-deep in trouble or being stuck up

245

Page #271

(Apatparkanimagnatā); the hero has loftier aims and is not satisfied with immediate hitting back, and he has no false cognition of his job, whereas in the Raudrarasa, the hero is full of egotism, infatuation and dismay; he may resort to crooked and horrible means to destroy his enemy and he is full of self-conceit.
In the Viveka, Hemachandra comments on the word 9 3 Nayādi in the Sūtra (11. 14) and explains 77 as a proper employment of Samdhi etc. and şādgunya - six expedients of a king or a diplomat. Vinaya is selfcontrol or control of the senses; determination with presence of mind means ability to understand the essence of things, i.e., to say, the king's ability to hold consultations successfully. His forces are cavalry etc., and so on a Tita refers to his ability to employ one or two or three or four of the Upāyas viz., Śama, Dāna, Danda and Bheda. Explaining the threefold nature of Vira, our author observes that Dharma, Dāna, and Yuddha pertain to behaviour or consequents ( 377777S) but when belonging to each hero, it is of the nature of determinants (fahras); so, due to this difference, ach is threefold as Bharata has put it in ar. T. &, 43).
The Terrible Sentiment
The next ta to be defined (il. 15) is the 17277778 or the Terrible sentiment. The dominant mood ( FIIHTT) of this sentiment is fear or 73. Its determinants (fantas) are hideous noise, sight of ghosts, panic and anxiety due to cries of jackals and owls, sight of death or captivity of near ones or news of it, staying in an empty house, going into a forest, etc. Its consequents ( 3174175 ) are trembling of the hands and the feet, unsteady glances, quaking of the heart, dryness of lips and throat, change of colour of face, change of voice, etc. And its transitory feelings (FETITHTES) are fear, stupefication, death, terror, restlessness, agitation,
246

Page #272

helplessness, etc. Hemachandra, following Abhinavagupta, points out that Bhayānaka is natural in women and low characters and children; in high characters and middling characters, fear produced by some external reason is not genuine (for they are afraid of Guru, Rājā, etc., but there is loftiness about it; even a minister like यौगन्धरायण says 'भीत एवास्मि भतुः', which shows his high-mindedness and a lofty sense of duty.) Kalidasa's celebrated verse (114) 12T250A etc., from the play śakuntala, illustrates the 1977#TA in an excellent manner because it presents an excellent pen-portrait of a frightened deer which is closely followed by the King Duşyanta. Are Feelings Genuine Always ?
Hemachandra has already touched upon the idea that in high characters fear is not genuine. To this, one may object by saying: 'Why, for instance, the kings show a mock fear towards their perceptors ? Besides, why should they show mild tremblings? Why do you say that the sentiment of fear alone is not genuine ? Can it not be equally said of other sentiments (like Srngära ) that they are often not genuine ? A prostitute, for example, shows false love for the sake of money! No Genuine Fear in Superior Persons But only Modesty
Hemachandra replies : Sometimes one has to show mock fear, for instance, to create an impression that he is a modest man, as, for instance, a king shows himself frightened before his perceptors. By his mild gestures of fear, he shows that he is a polished, polite man; he is not a man of low type. But the example of a prostitute who displays false love and synthetic manners, serves no purpose or goals of life
(-478AIHATET:). However, kings or superior persons often show genuine anger or other sentiments in order to do good to others. In such cases, it must be supposed that it is not a permanent sentiment but a transitory teeling (व्यभिचारिभाव).
247

Page #273

In this connection, Abhinavagupta says (in his Abhinavabharati under N.S.VI. 69) Fear is natural in women, lowly persons and children. Genuine fear does not exist in the Superior and middling types of people; still, they display fear of Guru and Rājā. And this adds to their greatness. Ministers show their modesty or culture when they say that they are afraid of the master; as for example, the minister यौगन्धरायण, says: 'भीत garfen :', 'I am, indeed, afraid of the master' (Ratnavali 1.7). To exhibit this fear, proper appearance and gesticulations are shown so that the perceptor etc. feel convinced that he is really afraid. But the fear is not genuine, and it is feigned, still, due to its practice over a long period of time, it is relished; hence it is called Rasa. Here, fear is not a transitory feeling. It would be so if it did not last even for a while naturally." The Disgustful Sentiment
The Disgustful or Odious Sentiment (aa) is defined, in Sutra 15 of Chapter-2, as having for its permanent mood the dominant state of disgust (Jugupsa). It is created by determinants (faras) like hearing of unpleasant, offensive, impure and harmful things, or seeking them, or descerning them - things such as words, worms, puss, etc. Its consequents (S) are contracting the limbs or stopping the movement of all the limbs, narrowing down of the mouth, vomitting, spitting, shaking the limbs (in disgust) etc. Its transitory feelings (antras) are epilepsy, fierceness, fainting, death, etc. The Verse (115) from the Malati-madhava (V. 16) provides a typical illustration of the (Sentiment of loathing or disgust) in which a famished corpse is tearing away the skin from another corpse, and after eating the flesh from its different parts, with a horrible grinning, is, at last, trying to take slices of flesh from the uneven cavities of bones.
The Marvellous Sentiment
The next Rasa is the Marvellous Sentiment (II. 16). It basis

248

Page #274

is the dominant emotion of free or astonishment. It is created by the lauas or determinants such as sight of heavenly beings or events, attainment of desired objects, entrance into a superior mansion, a temple, audience hall, a seven-storied palace and seeing illusory and magical acts. It is represented by 377hres or consequents such as wide opening of eyes, looking with fixed gaze, horripilation, tears of joy, perspiration, joy, uttering words of approbation, making gifts, crying words like ha ha ha, waving the end of dhoti or sāri and movement of fingures etc. Its #TTHIAS or transitory feelings are joy, agitation, numbness, stupor, etc. The essence of the sense of wonder (farat ) is its capacity to expand the heart, and when it is realized or relished, it is the Marvellous Rasa. The verse (116) 'ETATIZ Tata Tatear etc.', provides an excellentillustration of the 3477777. In this verse, the mother is taking Krsna to task for eating clay but then Krsna opens his mouth to show that he did not do so, and then, in the open mouth of Kșşņa, lo and behold, she saw, instead of a bit of clay, the whole world and so she was aghast with wonder. Hemachandra's Treatment of the śāntarasa
Unlike Mammata who seems to consider ca as an additional Rasa and who is inclined to restrict its operation to poetry only (K. P. IV. 27-35), Hemachandra accords the status of a full-fledged Rasa to ra by recognizing nine Rasas (29 Jat:) straight away in Sūtra 2 of Chapter-2. Thus, like Abhinavagupta, our author categorically mentions nine Rasas at the outset and then in Sūtra 17 (11. 17) he defines tra as based on 17. Now, so far as the question of the FTTHTA of the Trath is concerned, we know that there is a controversy and that Mammata and others hold that निर्वेद is the स्थायिभाव of the Fath. But Hemachandra is opposed to saat being regarded as the basis or permanent mood of 777. For, he
249

Page #275

holds that is world-weariness or
a dislike for mundane matters, and it proceeds from
as also ends in तत्त्वज्ञान. Thus निर्वेद becomes the effect as well as the
cause of
and this makes no sense. For this (i.e., absence of desire and calmness or
reason, T or tranquility of mind) must be regarded as the of the शान्तरस.
As for the faras of the ara, they are detachment, dislike for, knowledge of truth, absence of likes and dislikes, service to the sages, the grace of god, etc.; its अनुभावs Yama, Niyama, scriptural study and reflection on religious matters, etc., and its accessory feelings are contentment, memory, world-weariness, intellectual thought, etc. The verse (117) from Bharthari's Vairagyaśataka (Gangatire - etc.) illustrates the Santarasa.
which consists in
Can this Santarasa be regarded as an independent Rasa? Can it not be included under Bibhatsa - since Sama also means a sense of dislike? Again, Viṣayajugupsā is common both to Bibhatsa and Santa. In this connection, Hemachandra's view is that whereas Jugupsa is the Sthayibhāva in Bibhatsa, in Santa it is only a Vyabhicāribhāva (transitory feeling), for the prominent feature of Santarasa is a quiet mind. In Jugupsā, there is some kind of excitement of mind due to the sense of repugnance. If this excitement persists, it will mar Santarasa. Again, if it is said that Santarasa could fall under Dharmavira, the suggestion is untenable; since there is a marked difference between Dharmavira and Santarasa. In Dharmavīra, due to the lofty nature of the character, a sense of just pride is present, while in Santarasa, there is a total absence of pride or egotism. If, despite this difference, Dharmavira and Santa are mixed together, then Vira and Raudra also will have to be regarded as one.

However, if the hero of Dharmavira is portrayed as possessing such a lofty character that he is totally devoid of
250
are

Page #276

any kind of pride or egotism, and is full of quietude, we can say that he no longer remains a hero in Dharmavira, but becomes a type of Sāntarasa. Thus, it is absolutely necessary that we treat śāntarasa as an independent Rasa.
In order to supply additional reference material on śāntarasa, and to make the treatment of Santa comprehensive, authoritative and authentic, Hemachandra has reproduced the relevant portion of Abhinavagupta's Abhinavabhārati commentary on Sāntarasa (Viveka pp. 121-124). Anandavardhana's Conception of śāntarasa
Hemachandra has used the expression ZF0T277 (absence of desire) to characterize the concept of A (tranquility or calmness of mind), which is the FTTHC or permanent state of the FTA (K. A. S. II. 17). But, the expression T01272, which occurs in the Dhvanyaloka (III. 26 ft), itself needs explanation - and this explanation is met with in the comments of Abhinavagupta both in the Locana commentary on the Dhvanyaloka as well as the Abhinavabhārati commentary on the portion on TFATA in the sixth chapter of the Nātyaśāstra.
So far as the portion on the mat94 in the G.O.S. edition of the Nāțyaśāstra is concerned, it must have found its way into the Natyaśāstra some time before Udbhta's time; for Udbhata is the first author who mentions the 177747 and includes it in his list of Rasas. In the Dhvanyāloka, while its author recognizes the piata as based on 750173727, we can hear the echoes of a contraversy regarding the admissibility of the
Fa as a Rasa. For Ānandavardhana refers to a view which regards the FTA as falling outside the pale of an ordinary persons' experience and disposes off this view by saying that the possibility of Tata coming within the range of the experience of extraordinary persons should not prevent ETF779 from being regarded as a full-fledged a :
251

Page #277

यदि नाम सर्वजनानुभवगोचरता तस्य नास्ति नैतावतासावलोकसामान्यमहानुभावचित्तवृत्तिविशेषः प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्यः ।
(Dhv. Al. III. 26. ff.) Thus Anandavardhana categorically states that r is one of the Rasas and that it is characterized by the full development of the happiness that comes from the destruction of desires (Bontata ). In this connection he cites a verse to the effect that the pleasure of love as also the great happiness of heaven, cannot equal even the sixth portion of the happiness which follows the destruction of desire
यच्च कामसुख लोके यच्च दिव्यं महत्सुखम् ।
तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्येते नाहतः षोडशी कलाम् ।। Obviously, the total destruction of desire or selfish feelings, which characterizes the mental disposition called TH or tranquility of mind, is not possible in the case of ordinary persons; but the great-souled ones are capable of achieving this impossible mental state. So शान्त does exist : अस्ति शान्तो रसः . This rrath connot be included within the Heroic sentiment ( 174 ), as the Heroic sentiment depends on egoism. However, so far as art, a variety of 17h, is concerned, as it depends on compassion and is devoid of egoism of any kind, it can be regarded as a variety of शान्तरस.
Anandavardhana considers the Mahābhārata to be a highly philosophical work which stresses detachment to suggest the pre-eminence of the math among the Rasas as also of #127, among the years or goals of life. For detachment is at the base of #127. Thus, the Mahābhārata, as a whole, promotes the highest goal of life, viz. HET and, as a work of art, it portrays the rate as the most important of all the Rasa. Abhinavagupta's View of śāntarasa
It is in connection with the explanation of the philosophical expression of that Hemachandra reproduces in his Viveka
252

Page #278

(pp. 121–124) Abhinavagupta's commentary on the portion concerning the data in the sixth chapter of the Nātyaśāstra (G.O.S.edition).
While discussing the sixth obstacle (fan) to the Rasaexperience, Abhinavagupta mentions the four major mental states of रति, क्रोध, उत्साह and शम which are associated with the four goals of life, viz. TĀ, 3751, FIA and F12, respectively, Thus the mental state of th corresponds to fish and becomes its basis. This same mental state of T again figures in Abhinayagupta's extensive discussion on the , for ha is there defined as based on the permanent mental state of
शम, and it is connected with मोक्ष. Its विभावs are knowledge of the truth, detachment, purity of mind, etc. Its 377419S are and नियम as described by पतञ्जलि in his योगसूत्र, meditation on the self, devotion, compassion towards all creatures and possession of religious signs. Its afHTTTTTHIAS are face or disgust with the world, remembrance, firmness of mind, purity in the different stages of life, fata or rigidity (of the body), horipilations, etc.
Before we attempt a resume of the passage reproduced in the Viveka, we would do well to understand the context in which Abhinavagupta states his views on the śānta Rasa. As is well-known, Abhinavagupta first discussed this question while commenting on Ānandavardhana's views (on the Sāntarasa) as presented in the Dhvanyaloka (III. 26 ff.). Thus, Abhinavagupta's views in the Locana commentary deal with the exact meaning of the expression 76017277 in Anandavardhana's definition of the Fath. In this connection, he states that the complete extinction of desires, i.e., love for sense - objects, in the form of the withdrawal of the mind from every object of sense, that alone, is happiness. The development of this, which arises from the, aesthetic enjoyment of the detachment, when
253

Page #279

it turns into an abiding state of mind, constitutes the nature of śāntarasa which is indeed apprehended. Others hold that the Sthayibhāva of śāntarasa is the calming down of all mental activities. But the absence of desires, i.e., JUTTET, when it is taken to imply a complete negation of their existence, it means the absence of all mental activities and as such it cannot be regarded as Bhāva, i.e., a positive mental state. But, if it is understood in the sense of exclusion of all desires, then it agrees with our view. Because exclusion of something with the possibility of including its opposite is acceptable. Others base their view of Sānta on the following verse of the sage Bharata:
स्वं स्वं निमित्तमासाद्य शान्ताद् भावः प्रवर्तते ।
पुननिमित्तापाये तु शान्त एव प्रलीयते ।। "Various feelings, because of their particular respective causes, arise from śānta ( a state of tranquility of mind). But, when these causes disappear, they merge back into śānta)." According to these theorists, śānta is common to all Rasas ( TESTHET FH12 ) and its permanent dominant mood is that state of mind which has not been particularized into any other mood.
Abhinavagupta observes that this view is not very different from our own view. The difference is one of “non-existence of something" before its origination and non-existence of something' when it is destroyed. And it is correct to say that desires are destroyed. For it has been said : ATHICRIATGT i.e., we can never find a man who is without desires from his birth. In other words, desires, at a later stage in iife, can be destroyed. Even Bharata refers to TH in Calvi' (Nātyaśāstra 1. 106). So, barring the last stage of nirveda, in the earlier stages, described by Patañjali (Y. S. 111. 10 & IV. 27), activities like Yama, Niyama, etc., as also several worldly activities are perceived even in really śānta persons like Janaka and others. And so śānta is apprehended because of outwardly visible
254

Page #280

symptoms and many Vyabhicāribhāvas which are imaginable in the intervals of Yama, Niyama, etc. Santa is perceived and its Vibhāvas such as acquaintance with people who are devoid of desire, fruition of one's former good deeds, grace of the Tom and acquaintance with the secret teaching relating to the Self must be presumed. And so, by all these, it can be shown that Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, Vyabhicäribhāvas and a Sthāyin for śānta, all exist. Further, there is a sympathetic response in Santa, but that response is by a few qualified people only.
On the oneness of Vira and Santa, Abhinavagupta explains that while Vira and śānta are extremely opposed to each other because while the one (Vira) is full of desire, the other (santa) is devoid of desire. Still Dayāvīra is śānta. But Vira and Raudra are not even very much opposed, because their similarity consists in this, that in attaining Dharma, Artha, or Kāma, both are equally helpful ( 39713ft). Dayāvira is neither Dharmavira nor Dānavira, but it is another name for śānta. And Dayāvira is equally sanctioned by Bharata alongwith Dharmavira and Danavira. It is also wrong to suppose that Bibhatsa includes śānta since both arise from disgust ( TIERT). Although Jugupsā can be a Vyabhicāribhāva of Santa, it is not a sthāyibhāva of
Tra because in the last phases of Santa, Jugupsa is completely ruled out. But because santa is grounded on Moksa the highest goal of life, it is the most important of all the Rasas.95
शान्तरस in the Abhinavabharati
In his Abhinavabhārati commentary, Abhinavagupta disposes of the opposition to the admission of a as a Rasa and silences the criticism of the aesthetics of Urate by refuting all arguments against the tenability of Ta as a Rasa.
While some theorists admit ca as a te based on TH and arising out of fahras such as ascetic practices, association with yogins, etc., 3774198 such as the absence of lust, anger,
255

Page #281

etc., and fiTIRATES such as firmness, wisdom, etc., other theorists do not accept this view, because, they hold that TH and Tra are synonyms; that the admission of TA exceeds the list of the forty-nine व्यभिचारिन्s of भरतमुनि wherein शम is not mentioned; and that, while lautas like TH=27fe can be appropriately connected with love, etc., which arise immediately after these विभावs, but तपसू , वेदाध्ययन, etc., do not immediately give rise to 7-7. If 1971 etc., are held to be the immediate causes of तत्त्वज्ञान, then, since तत्त्वज्ञान which precedes शान्त is their immediate effect. Ata etc., causes to be the fearts of -. Again, the absence of lust, etc., cannot be the Thras, of
Tra, because, firstly many other Rasas are also characterized by their absence and secondly such an absence of lust etc. ( FTA) is not stageable. Hence the absence of lust etc. is no conclusive evidence of a. Further, firmness of mind etc., associated with attainment of an object, cannot be appropriate to a. Therefore, or does not exist.
Abhinavagupta's Reply to Critics of 7ETTA
Just as 7,79 and fra are goals of life, so also fra is a goal of life and, in fact, 12 dominates the other three goals in this that the scriptures uphold its importance as well as lay down the means of its attainment. So, if trà etc., which are the mental states appropriate to the first three goals, can become Rasas why cannot the mental state proper to the highest goal of life, become Rasa ? Clearly, therefore, the mental state which is appropriate to the attainment of FT (THTETITFear चित्तवृत्तिः) is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त. What is the name of this चित्तवृत्ति ? निर्वेद or world-weariness born of तत्त्वज्ञान, according to some theorists. These theorists derive support from the mention ( in the artza ) of a mid-way between the list of स्थायिभाबs and the सञ्चारिभावs, though tradition required a more
256

Page #282

auspiscious word to start off the list of the situas. Raz, which arises from तत्त्वज्ञान, overwhelms the other स्थायिभावs because it is more highlg stable than the others.
But an objection may be raised against निवेद. If निर्वेद, which arises from तत्त्वज्ञान, be the स्थायी of शान्त, thus making तत्त्वज्ञान the विभाव of निर्वेद, then, how could वैराग्य, समाधि, etc., be the विभावs of निर्वेद ? For, विभाव is the direct cause of a स्थायी, and nor a remote cause. Besides, the attitude of total dejection, which aaa implies, helps the emergence of EaSI from which
comes. It is not possible for detachment to follow Tiagra as also for मोक्ष to follow detachment. वैराग्यात्प्रकृतिलयः - detachment can lead to प्रकृतिलय, not मोक्ष. Thus निर्वेद is a remote cause of HTT, not an immediate cause. In truth, JEHA. displays detachment and it gets stronger from stage to stage. So तत्त्वज्ञान, not निर्वेद, is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त.
A distinction can also be made between निर्वेद and वैराग्य. face has traces of sadness, while app is the complete destruction of attachment, hatred, grief, etc. Thus ä?? is a higher form of detachment than faaz which often implies 'disgust,' etc. How can this laat be equated with 7, the स्थायी of शान्त ?
Others object to admitting an additional Forffor rate on the ground that 1777faf has admitted only eight mental states such as sia, etc. and these same Fouras when aided by extra-worldly fahas like a,etc., which are different from the fahras enumerated, become enjoyable. So, one of these eight Falhas may serve the purpose of the FAITTEI of the Trata. Thus, any one of the eight FATF777778 - 1a, 19, 11, STATE, 272, JUHAT and fact -- can be the furit of tra, if properly handled.
257
17

Page #283

And the sage ( Hafa) himself concurs with this view and admits their ability to lead to HT (N.S. VI. 17).
This view is faulty because the different Ferraras would cancel each other out and so not even one forft would remain to serve as the foreft of tra. As for the different approaches of developing different Fafas into a , the proposition is impracticable because an infinity of TTTAS will result from the dependence of these स्थायिन्s of शान्त on the approaches of the persons concerned. To say that all FATGT merge to become one FATTI of ra is to assume the co-existence of the different states of mind at the same moment - but this view is untenable; for different states of mind cannot co-exist at the same time and some of them are even antagonistic.
Thus, aut alone is the means of attaining tea. This तत्त्वज्ञान is another name of आत्मज्ञान and hence आत्मन is the स्थायिन of शान्त. As this आत्मन् is possessed of several pure qualities such as knowledge, bliss, etc., and as it is devoid of the enjoyment of sense objects, it is the स्थायिन् of शान्त. As तत्त्वज्ञान, this स्थायिन् provides the back-drop to all emotions and, thus,is the most stable of all the स्थायिनs. Thus being the most fundamental स्थायिभाव, which reduces the other
F S into accessories, the permanent nature of Tran needs no separate mention and so the number (49) of the SafuraS is not disturbed.
TH is the nature of the self (31177F Teu or 37CH+THTA). It is totally a different kind of state of mind. As such, the nature of the self is itself the knowledge of the truth (173) and it is also tranquility ( TA ).
The Passage on THTH in the Viveka
Since Hemachandra considers शम to be the स्थायीभाव of शान्तरस
258

Page #284

and since this TA is characterized by a total absence of desires, he provides supplementary material on this topic in t.is Viveka (pp. 121-124) by reproducing Abhinavagupta's views on this topic. The portion given under Foren da (K.A.S. "II. 17 ff.) is, therefore, summarized herebelow:
TH is the nature of the self, after the desires have been totally destroyed. The point is : The nature of the self, devoid of the particular dark colourations of 379, tra etc., is like a very white thread that shines through the interstices of sparsely threaded jewels. It assumes the forms of all the various feeling like that, etc., because all these tinge it. But it shines out through them according to the maxim : ApalahatSTACHT ( THTHAR: ) i.e., once this self shines, (it shines forever).
It is devoid of the entire net-work of miseries which consist in turning away from the self. It is identical with the consciousness of the realization of the highest bliss. It makes the heart of the sensitive spectator in tune with that consciousness or bliss.
Thus, the argument that Nirveda, though not an anspiscious Ha, was mentioned by the sage at the head of the list of the Hafuas, with a view to show its permanent nature, is rejected. To explain : Is this was born of poverty, etc. or born of तत्त्वज्ञान ? If the former, it will be soon mentioned as a व्यभिचारी. If निर्वेद, born of तत्त्वज्ञान, is treated as a स्थायी ( of शान्त ), then तत्त्वज्ञान itself would become its विभाव! But how can तत्त्वज्ञान which arises from arz etc. become a farra ? If you urge that because it is a cause of fatãthen we will have the contingency of the cause of another cause becoming the cause (fanta ). But, in fact, faaz, is characterized by a 7 (detachment) and is, on the contrary, a means of Jahta; for a detached man so strives as to attain 779519. anna leads to HTET - not to faz. If you say, for a knower of truth, detachment always
259

Page #285

grows from stage to stage. That is so. Such a detachment indicates the height of knowledge ( ). Hence निर्वेद cannot be the स्थायिन् of शान्त.
As for the which will be mentioned in connection with fa as a (K.A.S. II. 48; Viveka, p. 139), it refers to the true knowledge which dispells the illusory nature of the experiences of the world, which is the cause of for word-weariness, a kind of dejection, disappointment. Hence or tranquility of the mind is the permanent mentali state ( स्थायी ) of शान्तरस.
One should not suspect that T and TF are synonyms. like हास and हास्य (i.e., स्थायी and रस ); for शम and शान्त are really different : शम is सिद्ध, शान्त is साध्य, शम is लौकिक, शान्त is अलौकिक, शम is साधारण, शान्त is असाधारण. Just as the mental states appropriate toys of life such as etc. are called by the names of za etc. and are brought to the state of Rasas such as R etc. in relation to sensitive spectators through the art of the poet and the acting of the actor, so also the mental state proper to the g called A, which is the highest goal of life, is brought to the state of a Rasa.
Let us explain this: The entire group of mental states, both ordinary and extraordinary, can become the helper of the major emotion known as whose nature is the knowledge of the truth. Its अनुभावs are अनुभावs helped by यम, नियम, etc.; its faras are the grace of God, etc., and Rati etc., which to be destroyed completely, can be aesthetically enjoyed in (as subsidiary, momentary elements). Just as औत्सुक्य in विप्रलम्भ शृङ्गार or in सम्भोग शृङ्गार (as per the adage: प्रेमासमान्तोत्सवम् ); औम्य in रौद्र, निर्वेद, धृति, त्रास and हर्ष in करुण, वीर, भयानक and अद्भुत respectively - although these are all व्यभीचारिन्s, yet they appear prominently; so also in a, ar etc. appear
are soon
260

Page #286

predominantly as they are completely opposed to love. The
E of such people, who are contented in the knowledge of the self, is characterized by परोपकारेच्छा and दया and so this उत्साह takes the form of an effort calculated to help others. It is for this reason that arra is so often referred to by some people Las दयावीर and as धर्मवीर by others.
If it be urged that उत्साह is animated by ego ( अहङ्कार ) but शान्त is characterized by a relaxation of the ego ( अहङ्कारशैथिल्य), we say so what? There is nothing wrong in an opposing mood becoming a व्यभिचारिन् in शान्त, like निर्वेद in शृङ्गार. In verses like शया शाइलम् etc. ( नागानन्द 42 ), उत्साह is very much a characteristic of परोपकारेच्छा. In fact, there is no state of the mind which is devoid of are, for in the absence of desire as well as effort, one would be like a stone (इच्छाप्रयत्नव्यतिरेकेण पाषाणतापत्तेः). Again, for a self-realized man, who has no selfish thoughts, nothing remains to be done. Hence, his heart (mind) is tranquil and he can give his all, including his body. This is in accordance with the scriptures. For, body is preserved for Яs declare in words like आत्मानं गोपयेत्. But this is true in the case of unrealized persons; for, in the case of self-realized men, the goals of life (4) are all achieved. To explain :
gf, as the
धर्मार्थकाममोक्षाणां प्राणाः संस्थितिहेतवः । तान्निघ्नता किंन हतं, रक्षता किं न रक्षितम् ॥
Life is the main-stay of the four goals of life, viz.,, and. If life is destroyed, what (indeed) is not destroyed? But if life is preserved, everything is preserved (achieved).
Thus the main purpose of preserving the body is to achieve the celebrated four goals of life. But, for self-realized souls, everything is achieved (in renunciation) as declared in these words : जलेऽग्नौ श्वभ्रे वा पतेत्.

261

Page #287

Thus, if the body is to be, somehow, renounced, it is better that it is sacrificed for the good of others. If it is pointed out that persons like जीमूतवाहन ( in the play नागानन्द। have not renounced everything, then, we say, that makes no difference. For, in the case of Haaren, there is certainly the state of self-realization or knowledge of the truth. How, else, do you explain his self-sacrifice for the sake of others ?
In a war, a warrior (hero) does not discard his body, activated as he is by a desire to vanquish another warrior. In some cases, however, the desire for obtaining another, more auspicious body is predominant. So, whatever is done by the self-realized ones -- from acts of charity to laying down the body, if all this is done by the householders or ordinary men, it is also termed 79517. For the scriptures hold that a man who has acquired the knowledge of the truth is freed in all stages of life :
ज्ञानिनां सर्वेष्वाश्रमेषु मुक्तिः । And an ordinary pious man who is devout and selfless, and is intent on knowledge of the self, though he may be a householder, is freed:
देवार्चनरतस्तत्त्वज्ञाननिष्ठोऽतिथिप्रियः ।
श्राद्धं कृत्वा ददद् द्रव्यं गृहस्थोऽपि हि मुच्यते ॥ As for बोधिसत्त्वs and तत्त्वज्ञानिन्s, who lay down their bodies to serve the cause of th and with a view to do good to others, a body, appropriate to their good deeds, is, once again acquired by them.
This Trate is fully enjoyed, despite the fact that it is not a chief Rasa but is only an 375 of some other Rasa. Thus it is that I can assume a subservient role, though by nature it is a principal Rasa. In the play called Nāgānanda, though Trc is there, it is not the chief Rasa; for, in it, the achievement of त्रिवर्ग (धर्म, अर्थ and काम), with special emphasis
262

Page #288

on helping others, is the final result in the case of Talent, the hero of the play. It is clear that SEATE is principally intended here, and this sente is characterized by 321; so the principal Rasa in the Nāgānanda is 27. The other mental states, however, act as subsidiary emotions in relation to this dominant Rasa,
Thus, the efforts of some theorists (like the efforts of धनञ्जय in his दशरूपक 11. 4-5) to establish जीमूतवाहन as a धीरोदात्त hero are shown to be untenable. Nevertheless, that a which has reached the last stage, wherein all 3774193 are absent, cannot be represented. In love and sorrow, too, the peak experience (974) cannot be represented. But in the earlier stage, described by Patañjali in his Yogasūtra (III. 10 and IV. 27), activities like 7A, faqh etc., or worldly activities are perceived even in really Tra persons like Janaka and others. And so TFF is, indeed, apprehended because of outwardly visible symptoms and many of HAITHT7S which are imaginable in the intervals of यम, नियम, etc.
it may be urged that, though Tra may exist, yet, since it cannot be appreciated by everyone, it is not tenable. On these grounds, we say, even a Rasa like 1517 will cease to be a Rasa, just because it cannot be appreciated by the recluses. We must remember that everyone cannot experience everything. While Trate may not be within the range of everyone's experience, it cannot, for that reason, be discounted as a Rasa; for Tra is a special charecteristic of the mental disposition of the extraordinary, great persons. Hemachandra's Treatment of Santa : A Review
In strict critical terms, Hemachandra's treatment of the TEFATA is wholly in keeping with Abhinavagupta's views on the subject. A close study of Hemachandra's gloss on Sūtra 17 of Chapter two of the Kavyanusāsana as well as of the
263

Page #289

Viveka text (pp. 121-124) clearly reveals that Hemachandra completely follows Abhinavagupta's exposition of the Santarasa portion, both in the Locana commentary on Dhvanyaloka (III & IV) and in the Abhinavabhārati commentary on the Natyaśāstra (VI) passage on the Santarasa. However, Hemachandra uses his discrimination in the matter of adopting Abhinavagupta's theoretical views as well as extracts from his works, inasmuch as he first decides on his own line of treatment and then draws upon the information or expression contained in the Locana or the Abhinavabharati in consonance with his requirement and purpose. Thus he adapts portions from both of Abhinavagupta's texts in his gloss as well as the Viveka commentary as to make out a convincing case for the existance of as also for the tenability of as an additional (ninth) Fra and to highlight the theoretical as well as the philosophical aspects of Abhinavagupta's philosophy of aesthetic pleasure with special reference to the शान्तरस.
In terms of the Locana commentary of Abhinavagupta, i.e., the total extinction of desires or love for sense-objects, in the form of the withdrawal of the mind from every object of sense (i.e., detachment), an expression used by Anandavardhana himself, is to be developed for aesthetic enjoyment, that is to say, should become an abiding state of mind. This is शम, a स्थायिभाव of शान्त. This तृष्णाक्षयरूप राम is the nature of and this is, indeed, apprehended: gaga. This is a positive mental state from which all desires are excluded. Such a state is necessary for , the highest goal of life and it comes through spiritual discipline and can be found in high-souled persons. Among the other Rasas, , a variety of वीररस, meets the requirements of the शान्तरस to a great extent. Hence, Abhinava considers it to be another name of शान्त.
It may be added that Hemachandra has utilized the Locana commentary, too, to explain certain knotty problems connected

So
264

Page #290

with the controversy regarding the tenability of FA aesthetic principle..
AIFATA: The Views of Dhananjaya and Dhanika
Dhananjaya, the author of the Daśarupaka, a well-known treatise on Dramatorgy, refers to or tranquility of mind (IV-35) while enumerating the eight traditional as such as fà etc. He maintains that while some people have recognized शम as a स्थायिभाव, we think that it cannot be developed in plays : पुष्टिर्नाटयेषु नैतस्य.
Commenting on this, Dhanika, the author of the Avaloka commentary of the , states that a great difference of opinion prevails in regard to the. Notable among these differing views are three views. These are :
1.
A has not been defined by Bharata and he has not mentioned its विभावs;
शान्तरस cannot exist in actual practice because it is impossible to root out, etc., and
शान्तरस can be included within वीररस, बीभत्सरस etc.
In view of this, cannot be accepted as a separate स्थायिभाव. Besides, शम consists in a total cessation of activity and as such it is impossible to act it out in any, wherein acting is essential.96 But, according to Dhanika, though
cannot be introduced in a play, as its acting is impossible, yet, since all things can be described in words, its presentation in poetry cannot be ruled out : शान्तरसस्य... काव्यविषयत्वं न निवार्यते.
2.
3.
as an
Dhananjaya holds that शान्तरस, which consists in the heightening of я, need not be (separately) mentioned because the mental attitudes like fa etc., out of which it is developed, are of the same nature (as विकास, विस्तार, क्षोभ and विक्षेप, which are at the root of the other eight स्थायिभावs ). 7

265

Page #291

Further, Fata, being devoid of sorrow, happiness, anxiety, love, hatred and desire, is based on a. Such a sentiment is possible only in the state of 18 which is of the form of the realization of the true nature of the self. But this state is. indescribable and as such it is without any positive attributes. And there are no sensitive readers who are competent to enjoy such a रस. But मुदिता, मैत्री, करुणा and उपेक्षा which are the means leading to it, are of the nature of fawia, PEETTT, 1977 and fear, and as these four states of mind are known to be associated with the eight Fararhras, the aesthetic relish of Trata can be taken to have been already described..
Apart from the theoretical discussion on TFath and its FATHIA (TF), we also meet with comments of considerable: critical significance in Dhanika's Avaloka commentary. Thus; while commenting on Dhananjaya's definition of the stara a778 (11.4), Dhanika deals with the question whether shaaran, the विद्याधर hero of the नागानन्दनाटक is a धीरोदात्त नायक or a
शान्त नायक. Is again a Ta 911*?
Dhanika realizes that the definition of a Fa 7177 as given by Dhananjaya (II. 4), which states that such a tha hero should be twice-born etc. and that he should be endowed with general virtues, is very formal, is neither realistic nor exclusive. This is proved, firstly, by the fact that it excludes taaten, a fazia, who is exceedingly peaceful and compassionate, like a sage who has subdued all his passions, from being considered a TFT ATT# and, secondly, by the impossibility of all the general qualities of a TFT being found in any and every fira 27TF. If we took to the behaviour of the Buddha, of slagaren and G EZT. we find that they are stra heroes. Yet, they all may not fit in with the fixed definition
266

Page #292

of a tha hero. In the case of Flugled, the main difficulty is that his love for Fregaat rules out his being considered a Tra hero. So technically, area is a figie hero, and not a
zatia hero. But in real terms, characters like BiHIE are
Fa heroes. As between the Buddha and Singara, the difference is that the Buddha is a कारुणिक in a निष्काम way but जीमूतवाहन is कारुणिक in a सकाम way. This makes जीमतवाहन a धीरोदात्त hero. In all other ways he is an EZITCH - the most exalted - hero and can be classed with the Buddha, Yudhisthira and such other personages. Only Eight Sthāyibhāvas, Says Dhanika
We have seen how Abhinavagupta rejects the suggestion that daar is a EITTEIT hero (Viveka, p. 123, II. 18-19). His contention is that if 57# and others, despite their wordly pre-occupations, are held to be a heroes, why not staarea? Dhanika seems to agree with this contention and yet he
cannot support the view that शम, which is the स्थायिभाव of शान्त . ' is the स्थायिभाव in the play नागानन्द; for the portrayal in this
play of जीमतवाहन's love for मलयवती, which runs through the whole play, is contrary to the mental state of TA and such contraries cannot be found to exist (i.e., love and detachment cannot co-exist) in the same character. Therefore, Jate or energy connected with anott (as the principal Rasa) is the स्थायिभाव of the नागानन्द. Thus only eight Rasas are possible (and not nine, the ninth being JA ). However, as we know, Dhanika has granted the possibility of the ninth Rasa in poetry, whose medium is only words.
Thus both Dhananjaya and Dhanika seem to be set against the number of Rasas being nine or more as also against the admission of Th as a FeitfouT2 so far as the different types of Drama' are concerned.
267

Page #293

Mammața's View About śāntarasa
In the fourth chapter (IV. 29) of his Kāvyaprakāśa, Mammața mentions the well-known eight Rasas and adds that these are the eight Rasas in dramatic art (3762) ATZTTAT: Fgar:). Similarly, in Karika 30 of chapter 4, he enumerates the eight basic mental states (FATH198 ) and observes that these (eight) are the basic, permanent states or emotions. Then, after stating the thirty three accessory feelings as per Bharata's Verses (N. S. VI. 19-22), Mammața remarks in the gloss that the mention of faata or Despair, though inauspicious as a Hra, is done (by 272019a ) at the beginning of the list of the accessory feelings in order to show its nature of a permanent mental state. And it is with this निवेद as its स्थायिभाव that शान्त is also the ninth Rasa : निवेदस्थायिभावोऽस्ति शान्तोऽपि नवमो रसः (K. P. IV. 35).
From the manner of Mammața's presentation of the topic of Tate, it is reasonable to infer that he regards Fa as an additional Rasa and assigns it a role in poetry only, but not in a play ( 2177). In fact, the poetic illustration that Mammața provides for the Trata confirms our surmise that for him Tra is an additional (297, ninth ) poetic sentiment ( 278 ).
It may be noted that Mammața does not dwell any further on the subject of शान्तरस or its स्थायिन् ( निवद )and thus, unlike
अभिनवगुप्त or धनिक, he skirts the philosophical and theoretical issues connected with the TEATA by his sketchy treatment of UE.
The Nine Dominant Moods or Mental States
Hemachandra deals with the nine permanent, dominant mental states or moods of the foregoing nine Rasas in the next Sūtra (11. 18). He says that Rati (Love). Hāsa (Laughter), śoka (Grief), Krodha (Anger), Utsāha (Energy), Bhaya (Fear), Jugupsā (Disgust), Vismaya (Wonder) and S'ama (Absence of
268

Page #294

desire or tranquility of mind) are the (nine) permanent states or moods ( स्थायिनः भावाः ).
The term Bhava, according to Hemachandra, means states of mind which in everyday life cannot be enjoyed with pleasure by others, but when delineated in the province of poetry, they become fit objects of extraordinary enjoyment through the poetic and dramatic apparatus such as acting, representation, etc. Or because they pervade the mind of the audience and, therefore, they are called Bhavaḥ. Thus, the above explanation applies both to the Sthayibhāvas and the Vyabhicāribhāvas.
The Sthayibhāvas are inborn, dominant and latent emotions present in every human heart. Every man has a desire for pleasure. Every human being, at some time or the other, considers himself superior to others and laughs at them. He has his moments of anger, sorrows, lofty thoughts, loathing and wonder. The only difference found is a difference of degree or a variation in the extent of the interaction of these feelings. The standard for judging these feelings as lower or higher depends on whether they help promote the goals of life (gs) or not. These emotions or feelings deserve depiction only if they help one of the four goals of human life.
Vyabhicaribhavas such as Dhrti (contentment) etc., on the other hand, are fluctuating feelings. Some people tend to be devoid of some Vyabhicaribhavas, for instance, a sound mind and a sound body can never be a prey to indolence (Alasya) or exertion (Śrama) or langour (Glāni).
Some transitory feelings, again, appear in a man but disappear when their cause is removed. In other words, the transitory feelings, by definition, are fleeting, short-lived feelings which come and go. These feelings are not inborn and dominant or permanent as the Sthayibhāvas are. Even when these latter (Sthayibhavas) seem to disappear when the cause of their development is removed, they do not entirely disappear, but lie dormant in the heart (de fq HÒAÍ

269

Page #295

aaaa), awaiting a favourable opportunity for their development. Thus the inherent power of the dominant emotions is never exhausted.
On the other hand, the Vyabhicaribhavas spring from some outward cause. For example, when a man is tired (Glana), we ask: 'What is the cause of his fatigue (Glani)?' This shows that his feeling of fatigue is not inborn. But we never ask the question: 'Why is Rama or Bhimasen full of energy (Utsäha) ?" For, we know that this feeling never arises from external causes. Vibhavas merely develop them. It is, therefore, that these Sthayibhavas are described as Vāsanarūpa in our minds.
Sometimes, some Sthayibhāvas, when not fully developed, are called Vyabhicãribhāvas; for instance, the Rati of Rāvana towards Sitā, not being reciprocated, never attains the position of a Sthayibhāva but remains a Vyabhicāribhāva only. So also the love we feel for our elders or servants which is only a Bhāva. Anger in Sṛngara and Vira is only a Bhāva. Thus Vyabhicarins are by nature dependent, transitory and nonpermanent.
Hemachandra explains the Sthayibhāvas by saying that Rati consists in mutual love, Hasa in the dilation of the heart, Soka in the agony of the heart, Krodha in the display of fierceness, tumultuous behaviour marks Utsaha, Bhaya implies feebleness, Jugupsã means contraction of the mind, Vismaya means expansion of the mind, and Sama is total destruction of desire (1). While all the other Sthayins assume the role of a Vyabhicarin on occasions, Sama, the Sthayin of Santa, never becomes a Vyabhicarin, though it may be Apradhāna sometimes, because it is the Sthayin of Sthayins. Being the very nature of the mind, it always remains permanent and dominant (शमस्य....सर्वत्र प्रकृतित्वेन स्थायितमत्वातू ' 8 ).
The Accessory Emotions
In the next Sutra (11.19), our author enumerates the thirty three Vyabhicaribhāvas - beginning with Dhṛti, they are Dhṛti,

270

Page #296

Smrti, Mati, Vṛīḍā, Jāḍya, Viṣāda, Mada, Vyadhi, Nidra, Supta, Autsukya, Avahittha, Śañkā, Capala, Alasya, Harṣa, Garva, Augrya, Prabodha, Glani, Dainya, Śrama, Unmada, Moha, Cinta, Amarṣa, Trāsa, Apasmāra, Nirveda,99 Avega, Vitarka, Asūyā, Mrti, (Sthiti, Udaya, Praśama, Sandhi and Sabalatva). The list of the thirty three Vyabhicarins extends upto Mṛti (death). Thereafter it is mentioned that these Bhavas sometimes seem to be steady - not as steady as the Sthayibhavas, but comparatively steady - and so they are called Bhavasthiti etc. For instance, the Vyabhicaribhāva, Vitarka (conjecture) in the verse (117) Tisthet kopavaśāt etc., from the fourth act of the Vikramorvasiyam, remains steady throughout the verse, for, the verse contains a series of conjectures. Here, the main sentiment is Vipralambhaśṛngara, but the Vitarkabhāvasthiti - a series of conjectures adds a lot of charm to this poem and helps strengthen the main sentiment.
Bhāvasthiti, Bhāvodaya, Bhāvapraśama, Bhāvasandhi and Bhāvaśabalatā
Sometimes a feeling appears very prominently in a poem. This is called Bhavodaya which is explained in the verse (118) 'Yate gotraviparyaye' etc. In this verse, a women offended by the mention of another lady's name (Gotraviparyaya or Gotraskhalana) by her lover through inadvertence, being on the same bed with her husband, made a semblance of amorous gestures, but did not embrace him with her breasts. This verse illustrates Manodaya (appearance of anger). The next verse (119) ' ' etc.,' explains Bhavaprasama or the disappearance of a feeling in a prominent way. "When the lover was seen, her anger began to contract like her eyes; when he stood next to her, her anger bent down like her face; when he touched her, her anger came out like her horripilation; when he began to talk to her, her anger began to slip off like the knot of her garment; and when he fell at her feet, her anger entirely vanished as though it were ashamed (to stay on any longer)."

271

Page #297

Bhavasandhi occurs when two feelings prominently come in conjunction with each other. The verse (120) 'PATHFI etc.', illustrates this. Rāma, who was in the company of Sita was told about the arrival of Parasurāma. At that moment, he felt a genuine pleasure at the arrival of Paraśurāma and an intense joy at the embrace of Sita. Here two Bhavas are combined.
When two feelings come side by side, they give rise to Bhāvasandhi. But when diverse feelings come and go in quick succession, thus rendering the poem very charming, these feelings are called Bhāvasabalatā. This is illustrated in the verse (121) Kvākāryam etc., where a king experiences Vitarka, Autsukya, Rati, Smaraņa, Sankā, Dainya, Dhști and Cinta in quick succession, as he, on being attracted towards a charming lady, is assailed by an overpowering feeling of love.
Hemachandra explains (K.A.S., P. 128) the term Vyabhicarin by saying that they are so called because they help the development of the Sthāyibhāvas by their presence or their movements : विविधमाभिमुख्येन स्थायिधर्मोपजीवनेन स्वधर्मापणेन च चरन्तीति Tíðarftu:. The number of these is strictly thirty thiree. Hemachandra shows how the other feelings like Dambha, Udvega, Kșudhā and Trsņā etc., can be brought under Avahittha, Nirveda and Glāni respectively. He also explains all the
tartaras with suitable illustrations (K.A.S. II. 20-52). The Sättvika.bhāva3 : Hemachandra's Interpretation
s
Hemachandra deals with the eight Sättvika-bhāvas called Stambha, Sveda, Romāñca, Savarabheda, Kampa, Vaivarnya, Aśru and Pralaya in Sūtra 53 of chapter two.
These eight Sättvika-bhāvas are indications of internal feelings and as such are Anubhāvas (outward indications, though they are called Bhāvas or feelings); but although to all appearances these Sättvika-bhāvas seem to be nothing but Anubhāvas, yet they are significantly regarded by Hemachandra as Bhavas or internal feelings. Mammata and others do not treat of these Sättvika-bhāvas separately but
272

Page #298

consider them as belonging to the class of pure Anubhavas or indications of Rasa.
is the internal quality that exhibits to view the Rasas and these Sattvika-bhāvas proceed directly from that interna! quality. Ordinary Anubhavas are mere outward movements. that may or may not indicate any sentiment, but these Sattvika-bhāvas are invariably associated with the Rasas and appear only to indicate the Rasas. Thus it is evident that Sattvika-bhavas belong to a higher plane than that of the Anubhavas.
Hemachandra further clarifies that these Sattvika-bhavas are in themselves feelings or bhāvas; for, Bharata does not call them bhāvas for nothing and they stand on a par with the thirty three Vyabhicāribhāvas. But they are not included in the list of the Accessories (Sañcarins) since the latter spring from outward causes such as Alasya, Glani, Śrama, etc., while the Sattvika-bhāvas spring only from the internel quality of the heart. Thus Hemachandra is of the firm opinion that they stand superior even to the Vyabhicaribhavas. These Sättvika-bhāvas are so closely connected with the Rasas - especially with Śṛngārarasa that their Vibhavas are the same as those of the Rasas. Thus the Sattvika-bhavas themselves are indicated by Anubhavas and as such they are totally different from the Anubhavas.
Hemachandra gives an original and peculiar etymology of the term Sattvika. 'Sattvam' means 'Praṇa' and the Sthāyibhāvas which awaken from their dormant state and try to manifest themselves, on their way, come to the province of Prana and assume a totally different form. These Sthayibhāvas, transformed owing to their contact with Praṇa, are known as Sattvikabhavas.100
These Sattvika-bhāvas, although they are exactly similar to some of the ordinary Anubhavas, yet they must be regarded as different from them. Aśru, a Sattvika-bhava is not the same as ordinary tears; for these tears may be caused by anything.
18

273

Page #299

A set of feelings, coming in contact with Prāṇa with the element of Pṛthvi in it, is called Stambha. Another, coming in contact with Praṇa of the Jala kind assumes the form of Baṣpa. A third, coming in contact with Pranṇa of the Tejas type, gives rise to Sveda and Vaivarṇya. A fourth set of feelings, allied with Praṇa of the Akāśa type, gives birth to Pralaya and, finally, the fifth set of feelings, connected with Praṇa of the Vayu type, gives rise to three Sattvika-bhāvas, viz., Romāñca, Vepathu and Svarabhanga, differing in degrees from one another.
Thus there are these eight Sattvika-bhāvas. They are internal feelings. Outward Paralysis (Stambha) is a quality of the body, and thus differs from the internal Stambha a Sattvika-bhāva. Thus we have nine Sthayibhavas or dominant emotions, thirty three Vyabhicaribhavas and eight Sattvika-bhāvas making a total number of fifty Bhāvas.
In the Viveka commentary (pp. 144-145), Hemachandra elaborates on the concepts of Praṇabhūmi, 1 101 Stambha, Pralaya, Romance, Vepathu, Svarabheda, etc., and notes that these Sättvika-bhāvas are associated with each Rasa and never appear independently, like the Vyabhicāribhāvas which can come independently, on the analogy of the King attending the marriage ceremony at the house of an attendant. All these Sattvikas are not illustrated in the gloss because their examples are easy to find.
As for Prāṇabhūmi, Hemachandra explains that, in short, the Sthayins like Rati, etc., become Sattvika-bhāvas in contact with Prāṇa and are called Sattvika-bhāvas. He quotes a line from the Harṣacarita of Bana to the effect that first penance melts and then it becomes perspiration. And a Bhāva brought to this state by the Vyabhicarins, Avahittha etc., but not exhibited, is to be seen in the world too. He quotes the verse (Viveka, V. 170) which applies to Sagara also. The verse means that the heart of the beloved, the ocean of love, agitated by the sight of the moon in the shape of the lover's face, is not able to remain stable, though it spreads by means of perspiration

274

Page #300

which is obstructed from great movement. When applied to the ocean, the verse means,: The ocean which was agitated due to the rise of the moon, its lover, with its waves obstructed by the great bridge, still, a great surprise, it goes on producing waves. The first meaning is : On sighting the face of the lover, the heart of the beloved is agitated by love, lest it should run to elders, with this in view it is checked through control of sweat, etc., does not find rest and remains agitated by mental disturbance in the form of internal sweat etc.
Now, according to Hemachandra, this verse bears out his statement that it can be seen in the world also that a certain Bhāva - Sättvika-bhāva, which is internally evident but does not find scope to manifest itself due to a check or break applied to stop it from appearing outwardly. Another point that Hemachandra makes in the Viveka is with regard to the words 'Ratyādigatena' in the gloss. He explains the gloss by saying that the dormant, dominant emotions like Rati, etc., are called up by Vibhāvas and manifested by Anubhāvas. These Bhāvas are different from tears, etc., which are physical but the same Bhāvas, when they come into contact with Prāņa, become Sättvikas. These are similar to Anubhāvas b regarded as distinct from them. Our author remarks in the Viveka that the Vibhāvas are not different, for they are independent of any association with any external object. And Glāni, Alasya, Shrama, etc. (Vyabhicārins), though devoid of any exciting support (Ālambanavişayasunyatā), still because they are born of external causes, are counted as Vyabhicārins. However, Stambha etc. are not produced by external physical causes. In other words, Aśru is a Sättvika-bhāva, and is different from tears which may arise from a physical cause.
As for Stambha, it is a paralysed state of mind. When the mind is influenced by joy etc., when it is not subject to any sense - regulation, since it is gone beyond the ken of thought, and when external senses are subject to physical limitations
275

Page #301

(for example, the verse å aru etc., Setu. II. 45), then, this paralysis overcomes a person who exhibits the stage of Stambha.
Thus Hemachandra explains the nature of the Sättvika-bhāvas rather peculiarly, originally and authentically as well as. exhaustively. Hemachandra's analysis shows that the Sättvikabhāvas are nothing but Anubhāvas in a subtle, mental sense. Dhananjaya's Views on Sättvika-bhāvas
Traditionally, the Sättvika-bhāvas or Involuntary states are separately treated, although they belong with the Consequents, because in the opinion of Dhananjaya (D.R. IV.4) "they are different from the Anubhāvas just because of their arising from the inner nature (Sattva); and this is the reason for the realisation of such states". The eight involuntary states are : (1) Paralysis (Stambha), (2) Sweat (Sveda), (3) Horripilation (Romāñca), (4) Change of voice (Svarabheda), (5) Trembling (Kampa or Vepathu), (6) Change of Colour (Vaivarnya), (7) Weeping (Aśru), and (8) Fainting (Pralaya). Dhananjaya notes that of these, Paralysis is immobility of body, and Fainting is. loss of consciousness. The characteristics of the rest are sufficiently clear.
However, each of the eight Sättvika-bhāvas has its: distinguishing characteristics. Thus, Stambha or Stupefaction is an outcome of wonder, grief, some disease, fear or an ecstatic joy. Sveda or Sweat or Perspiration is a natural consequence of exercise, heat, exhaustion, sickness, anger excessive joy, bashfulness or restlessness. Romāñca or Horripilation is a physical state in which hairs stand on their ends on account of the epidermic contact or fear, excessive cold, joy and anger, or due to bodily infirmity or some disease. Svarabheda or Change of Voice is caused by an intoxicated state of mind, old age, sickness, fear, anger or joy. Kampa or Tremor is a result of cold, fear, anger, joy, senility, some peculiar physical contact or disease. Vaivarṇya or Pallor is a change in the colour of the complexion or loss of bloom
276

Page #302

on a face. It is generally due to some hesitation or dejection, grief or failure, of purpose. It is also caused by intoxication, wrath and acrimony. In the latter case, the face gets coppercoloured and the eyes are reddened. Thus, any change in the normal hue of the face is Vaivarnya. Aśru or Weeping or Tears proceed from jubilation, lack of fortitude, smoke, use of collorium, yawning, grief, or consternation. Even steadfast gaze, extreme cold or certain diseases are capable of producing tears.
According to the poetic belief, tears that proceed from excessive joy or exestatic exultation are supposed to be cool and are distinguished as tears of joy from what are known as tears of sorrow which trickle down the face on account of bereavement or grief, and are conceived as hot. Pralaya or 'Swoon springs from some shocking event, unbearable grief, extreme exertion, overdose of stimulants, use of poison, protracted sleeplessness or physical strain caused by beating, flogging or hurt.
Pseudo-Suggestion or THTA: Semblance of Rasa, Bbāva, etc.
The relish of a sentiment is the highest kind of Aesthetic experience. This is true when the presentation of the sentiment is with reference to an appropriate or proper substratum. But when the presentation of a particular sentiment is done improperly, i.e., with reference to an inappropriate substratum, it is deemed undignified. In such cases, even though the suggestion of the Rasa or Bhāva takes place, it always remains below the high standard of aesthetic relish. In other words, the aesthetic appeal in such a situation gets dimmed. Under such circumstances it is only a semblance of Rasa or Bhava that we get and so it may be called a pseudo-sentiment or Rasabhāsa. However, the inappropriateness of development of the Rasa may be due to the deficiency of proper suggestion or due to the inadequate development of the emotion which
277

Page #303

may arise from the lack of some necessary ingredients as pointed out by Bharata.
This inappropriateness differs in its nature from Rasa to Rasa. Thus, for example, when the emotion of love of a woman is developed with reference to an adulterer or with reference to numerous paramours or low characters, it becomes generally disgusting and does not attain to the position of the शंङ्गाररस. Again, if a man's incestuous love is demonstrated with reference: to the wife of a sage or preceptor or a king, the extreme immorality of this love does not permit it to reach the position of the sisrta. Again, if the emotion of love is depicted only in the lover (man or woman) and not in the beloved, then for want of response, it falls short of the necessary ingredient of reciprocity, and the unilateral love fails to develop into the full-fledged Srngärarasa. Similarly, the amorous behaviour of a monk or ascetic or hermit, especially in a monk's robes, presents a ludicrous spectacle, and the description of the same is sure to yield a debased interest. Owing to these reasons, such descriptions are considered as un toward because of inapposite time, place or situation, and as such, they result in Suggestion of only a Semblance (Abhāsa) of śrngārarasa..
Visvanatha, Bhojaraja and others add the description of feelings of Love between animals, birds, insects, etc., to the list of semblance of Rasa. But Vidyadhara, in his Ekavali, does not agree with them. 10 2 He thinks that the existence of the Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas of a sentiment is as much a reality among animals as it is among human beings.
On the same principle, Humour becomes debased if the object of ridicule is the one who deserves worship and veneration. Similarly, if grief strikes a recluse, the pathos will be unreal, If wrath or fighting zeal are depicted towards sages, they result in semblance or pseudo-suggestion. If a coward or eunuch starts fighting or shows bellicosity: the resulting Heroic will be a semblance of the real Heroic. Conversely, if a well-known hero shows timidity, the Terrific Rasa will be a
278

Page #304

semblance of the Bhayanaka. Similarly, if disgust is due to the sight of the flow of blood, marrow and fat of sacrificial beasts; wonder due to mesmerism, jugglery or other magical tricks; and dispassionate tranquility to be portrayed in an arch-knave, a villain or a Cāņdāla - all will give rise to the semblance of the respective sentiments. Bhavadhvani
There are immature sentiments also, besides the pseudo ones. Love in the form of devotion to God (Bhakti), reverence to superiors (Śraddha) and affection towards kinsmen (Premarati) and such other sentiments as also those which do not find
velopment on account of some other sentiment in high progress at a particular spot, are all classified as Bhāvadhvani ( wracaia ). Bhavabhāsa
Just as the sentiments are calied 'pseudo-sentiments' for reasons of some impropriety either in their make up or the substratum, Bhāvas or feelings can also be 'pseudo-bhāvas' (भावाभास) in case their delineation is not done in an appropriate form or manner. Bhāvodaya
Rasa, Bhāva, Rasābhāsa and Bhāvābhāsa are the suggested elements causing Camatkāra. Besides these four, there are other four phases like(1) Bhāvodaya or a sudden rise of feelings; (2) Bhava-śānti or subsiding of feelings no sooner than they
arise; (3) Bhava-Sandhi or the confluence of such distinct feelings
as are competent to suppress one another but fail to do
so at a particular spot; and (4) The commixture or variegation of feelings or Bhāvaśabalatā
which consists in the suggestion of different feelings that are either neutral or in direct opposition with one another.
279

Page #305

The commixture of feelings lends charm due to the rise in quick succession of various Bhāvas which presents a kaleidoscopic view of mental attitudes to be enjoyed by a sensitive reader or connoisseur.
Thus, all these four phases, viz. the rise, the fall, the confluence and the commixture of feelings, along with the main four principal elements of a work of art, are the object of dominant suggestion.
Winding up this topic of Semblance of Rasa and Bhāva in the case of animals, birds, insects, plants, etc., Hemachandra significantly adds : The figures Samasokti, Arthāntaranyāsa, Utpreksā, Rūpaka and Upamā are the life of these Rasābhāsas and Bhāvābhāsas-especially Samāsokti greatly helps Rasābhāsas, as can be seen in the instances cited in the text (K.A.S. 54-55 ff.) Mammața's Treatment of Semblance of Rasa etc. Compared with Hemachandra's
While Mammata (K. P. IV-36) tackles the topic of Abhāsa with just one Sūtra (Tadābhāsa anaucitya-pravartitāḥ), taking his stand on impropriety or inappositeness alone, Hemachandra first (11-54) makes sentience or insentience of the object, involved in the depiction of a sentiment, a criteria for Abhāsa of Rasa or Bhava and then, in another separate Sūtra (11-55) emphasises the criterion of impropriety or Anaucitya by stating that both Rasābhāsa and Bhāvābhāsa arise on account of inappropriate or improper delineation of the Rasa or Bhava. Explaining the Sūtra (Anaucityācca), Hemachandra remarks in the gloss that Rasābhāsa and Bhāvābhāsa arise when mutual Tove etc. are absent. And he elaborates on this the semblance of Rasa and Bhāva caused by the absence of reciprocity of feeling in the Viveka (P. 149). In point of fact, 'he reproduces the relevant portion from the Abhinavabhārati where Abhinava discusses this point. The passage means : "Śrngāra is nothing but the dominant emotion of love based on mutual affection. Here, on the other hand, Rati is a Vyabhicäribhāva being of the nature of a desire. Hence it is
280

Page #306

not a permanent mood; it appears to be a so called Sthāyi in this case. In other words, it is not Rati but a Semblance of Rati or Ratyabhasa. Since, due to the lack of realisation that 'Seetä hates me and ignores me', Seeta cannot be said to reciprocate Rāvana's love. If it had taken place, the ego of Ravana would melt away thinking 'Seetā is in love with me'. But the determination of Rāvana is futile since that Rati does not become a Sthayibhāva as it proceeds from passion (#TAFAI Attara) and hence it is the Ābhāsa of the Sthāyibhāva of (ra). It appears there as silver does in the shell. It is thus a case of Ratyäbhāsa due to the semblance of Rati resulting in a semblance of enjoyment of Sțngāra, called śộngārābhāsa. 1 0 3 In the same way, we have Hāsyābhāsa; as for example, the following verse of (my cousin) Vāmanagupta : "If people do not believe in your extra-mundane deed, what can we say ? However, this much can be said : in view of the talkativeness that provokes laughter, we wonder who will not laugh at you ?" Here, since people laugh over a matter that deserves compliments, it is a case of Hāsyabhasa. Similar examples of the other Rasas can also be provided."
The verse (168) in the gloss illustrates 791779 in which Rāvana pines away to obtain Sitā whose name acts as a spel! to him and he cannot live without her even for an instant; but, as Hemachandra remarks, herein we have Rasābhāsa because Sitā does not have love for Ravana ( Fiarat: au afa TFTHEATE JATHTA:). Verse 168 also illustrates the same Rasābhāsa wherein the poet addresses a wanton woman having many lovers. Here, the woman's feeling of love for several men gives rise to Rasābhāsa. The verse (170) from Bālarāmāyaṇa (1, 40), depicts the eagerness of Rāvana with regard to Sitā. Hence it is an example of Bhāvābhāsa (Autsukya or eagerness 'being a Vyabhicāribhāva).
Hemachandra has thus, fully explained Rasa, Bhāva, Rasābhāsa, Bhāvābhāsa, Bhavodaya, Bhāvaśānti, Bhāvasandhi
281

Page #307

and Bhavasabalatā with apt illustrations and in consonance with the views of the Rasa-dhvani school.
The Divisions of Poetry : The Uttamakāvya
o The last three Sūtras of the Second Chapter (II. 56-58), are devoted to the discussion of the Divisions of poetry,
Hemachandra divides poetry into three classes : Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. Of these three classes of poetry, the Uttama or the best kind of poetry is a Vyangyakävya. In Sūtra 56, the Uttamakāvya is defined : The best kind of poetry is that in which the suggested meaning shines more prominently than the direct or literal sense of the poem. Such a Kāvya is called a Dhvanikāvya. This is illustrated in verse: no. 171.
Hemachandra observes that in this verse it is the words. 'Tvaddantāńkita etc.' that are highly suggestive. They remind Rāvana of his utter mortification at the hands of Vālin who pressed Rāvana in his armpit and wandered over the whole earth. The troubled Ravana bit Välin in his arm-pit as he was unable to get out of the queer situation. Here, the suggested sense is of the nature of an idea or statement. bereft of any Rasa or a figure of speech. A series of ideas are suggested here one after another - thus the word 'Dantānkita' suggests (1) Rāvana's defeat (2) his capturing by Vālin and keeping him under the arm-pit (3) then Vālin's roaming the world with Rāvaņa pressed (4) then freeing himself through Vālin's grace (5) his helpless condition, and (6) despite all this his egoistic and proud attitude.
In the Viveka commentary, Hemachandra provides illustrations of Rasadhvani and Alamkāradhvani. He introduces the examples by a statement that "in the same way we must understand that poetry is best where a Rasa or a figure of speech is suggested." The verse (177) illustrative of Rūpakālaskāra being suggested is cited from the Dhvanyāloka. The verse illustrative of Rasa-dhvani is also cited in the Viveka
282

Page #308

(178). On this verse. Hemachandra remarks that, here, we have the dominant mood of love being realised by means of proper Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicäribhāvas, and it is an appropriate example of Rasadhvani. We are told to note that like Rasadhvani, Bhāvadhvani, Rasābhāsadhvani, Bhāvābhāsadhvani, etc., can also be illustrated with appropriate examples. In other words, Rasa, Bhāva, etc., constitutes the best type of poetry. Thus, the best type of Dhvani Kavya occurs when (a) an idea is suggested, (b) an Alamkāra is suggested, or (c) a Rasa is suggested. The Madhyama Kāvya
The next Sūtra (11-57) defines the (threefold) Middling type of Kavya called Madhyama Kavya. Where, in a poem, the suggested sense is not unquestionably superior to the expressed sense (Asati prādhānye), where the predominence of Dhvani is a matter of doubt (Sandigdhe pradhānye) or where the expressed sense is as prominent as the suggested sense (Tulye prādhānye), there we have the (threefold) Madhyama type of Poetry. The मध्यमकाव्य is generally styled as गुणीभूतव्यङग्यकाव्य and it is illustrated in the Prakrit Verse (172) which is cited in the Kāvyaprakāśa (V. 46 ff) too : arturs etc.
This verse is an example of the Madhyamakāvya in which the Vyangya sense is subordinated. Hemachandra observes in the gloss that the expressed sense 'Sidantyangāni' is more striking here than the suggested sense.
The next verse (173) 374 paarif etc. (Mbh., Striparvan 24.19), contains the lamentation of Bhūrisrava's widow and illustrates how sometimes the suggested sense is subordinated to another prominently suggested sense, and thus, from the point of view of the subordinated suggested sense, the verse becomes an apt instance of Madhyamakāvya. In this particular verse, there is the sentiment of love in the utterances of the wife of Bhūriśravas -. "This is the hand that pulled my girdle, pressed my breast, etc." - but, since she is uttering these
283

Page #309

words on the dead body of her husband, there is the pathetic emotion also and, between the two sentiments, evidently the sentiment of love is subordinated to that of Pathos. Thus, the verse is an apt illustration of the Guṇibhūtavyangya type of Kavya.
In connection with his comments in the gloss that 'here the sentiment of Eros is subordinated to that of Pathos' ( अत्र शृंड़गारः करुणस्याङ्गम् ), Hemachandra adds in the Viveka as to how
theh and of Bhuriśravas which caused his wife to remember his love-exploits becomes a Vibhava of the Pathetic sentiment and ultimately renders the Erotic sentiment to be subordinate to the Pathetic sentiment.
Hemachandra also gives in the Viveka (pp. 153-154) several verses with comments to illustrate how (1) (Vyabhicari) Bhāvas become subordinate to other Bhāvas (Verse 179), (2) Rasābhāsa becomes subordinated to a Bhava (180), (3) Bhāvaprasama 'becomes subservient to Ratibhava connected with a king; and how (4) the rise of the feeling of Trasa (a) (182), (5) the commixture of Avega and Dhṛti (183), and (6) the variegation of the different Bhavas such as Sanka, Asuya, Dhṛti, Smrti, Śrama, Dainya, Vibhodha and Autsukya take place. Finally, Hemachandra observes that these are also termed Alamkaras such as Rasavad etc. 104 Although Bhāvodaya, Bhāvasandhi and Bhavaśabalata are not called by the name of Alamkara, yet someone may well call them as such; so it is stated that they can be called Rasavad figures.
Now, at times, it so happens that the suggested sense is not easy to grasp; in such a case, the suggested sense has no beauty and does not appear prominently; hence it is a case of the Middle type of Kavya, as e.g., verse 176 in Prakrit. Sometimes, however, the suggested sense is all too clear, i.e., it is as good as the expressed sense (here it is called Atisphuta) and is there only in name. In such a poem, there is no suggestion at all. For example, the verse (177)

284

Page #310

etc., says clearly that money makes a man clever and youth makes a damsel conscious of her graces. The suggested sense here is that the ladies' graces are effortless or natural, but this sense is as good as expressed and so the suggested sense, being revealed by the poet himself, does not cause charm like the uncovered breasts of a woman, Hemachandra observes. The point here is that the sense of a poem, like the breasts of a lady, is charming when it is concealed. Art, they say, consists in concealing, not in revealing. In fact, Hemachandra comments further on the word 'Gūdham' in the Viveka by quoting the verse 'Mukham vikasitasmitam etc.', cited in the Kavyaprakasa (UIT. 2, V. 9) under Gūdhavyangyam. In this verse, we have an instance of a 'concealed suggested sense.
If a Vyangya is Agūdha, it becomes less charming than or is subordinate to the expressed sense, and that verse becomes an example of Madhyamakāvya or Guņibhūtavyangya. As we have seen, the verse (177) 9aard etc. is an example of Gunibhutavyangya because the suggested sense there, being obvious, is less charming than the expressed sense. In short, Hemachandra's three divisions of Kavya are based on the relative position of the suggested sense with reference to the expressed sense. This division of poetry is in keeping with the views of Rasadhvani theorists.
When there is a doubt as far as the prominence of the suggested sense is concerned, compared to the expressed sense, the second type of the Middle variety of poetry occurs. The verse (178) in Prakrit illustrates this type.
The third type of the Madhyamakāvya occurs when both the expressed sense and the suggested sense enjoy equal prominence. In the verse (138) quoted under Garva on Page 135 (K.A.S. 11.36 ff.), the suggested sense is : "Otherwise Parasuram will annihilate both the Ksatriyas as well as the demons." But the expressed sense - "If you refrain from insulting a Brahmin,
285

Page #311

it is to your advantage - for, then we shall be friends, or" - is equally beautiful. Mammața's Eightfold Division Rejected
Hemachandra has treated of the three sub-divisions of the Middling type of poetry. But because Mammața has given, eight varieties of this type, Hemachandra makes it a point to remark that there are only three sub-types of this type and not eight (sta 2 72277–154ūzt a car27 ).
. As for Mammața's treatment of the 2274757, he takes up the sub-divisions of the Guņibhūtakāvya at the outset of the fifth Ullasa of the Kāvyaprakāśa. According to him, the varieties of the poetry of subordinated suggestion are: (1) Non-concealed (Agūdha), (2) Subservient to another (Aparasyāngam), (3) Subservient to the establishment of the expressed meaning (Vācyasiddhyangam), (4) Indistinct (Asphutam), (5) Of doubtful prominence, (6) Of equal prominence, (7) Implied by intonation and (8) Not striking (Asundaram).
in his gloss, Mammaţa remarks that, like the full breasts of damsels, the hidden sense produces charm. But the sense which is not hidden, being obvious, becomes as if directly expressed. Hence it is subordinate only. Then he illustrates the non-concealed or explicit sense. Mammața also illustrates Rasa as being subservient to the emotion (Bhāva); a Bhāva to another Bhāva, a Bhāvaprasama as subservient to an emotion, the rise of fear as subservient to an emotion, the conjunction of fury and equanimity to emotion. All these are cited by Hemachandra from the Kavya Prakāśa (V).
Hemachandra says: "Not Eight ( 127 )” and then he cites the Kävyaprakaśa V. 45-46 of Mammața, saying '7UTĘ FIAT:' (Viveka, p. 157). The Adhama or Avara Kāvya
Indeed, a poem lacking in Rasa etc. cannot be called a variety of poetry. So long as an idea or reality is not touched
286

Page #312

on by the Rasa, it is not convincing. And all the objects or ideas in the world, always assume subordination to some Rasa or Bhava. Ultimately, in fact, Rasas etc. are so many mental states which are developed through the Vibhavas etc. There is hardly an object which does not give rise to some one or the other specific mental state. If it does not do so, then it is unfit to be a poetic subject" Hemachandra says in his Viveka (p. 158) with reference to the third type of poetry, viz., the Avara or Adhama type of poetry, which is defined in the next Sūtra (II. 58). In this variety, there is no suggested sense at all, but it is striking by means of the words and the expressed sense. So, from the point of view of Dhvani, this type of Kāvya, being devoid of Dhvani, is the lowest type. This type is regarded as quite inferior as poetry.
Mammața says: "The lowest type of poetry is that which is devoid of suggestion and is picturesque either in word or sense." Citra, says the gloss, is what possesses Excellences and Figures of speech. 'Avyangya' is what is devoid of a sense which is distinctly suggested. In such a Citrakāvya, the suggestion is too faint. It is the primary sense of the words or the words themselves that charm us in it. And on account of this, it has two varieties : (1) Arthacitra (where the sense appears to us as striking) and (2) Sabdacitra. In sabdacitra, the figures charm us; in Arthacitra, the figures of sense charm us, since, in the view of the Dhvani school, it is the external appendage like Alamkāras that give beauty to this variety. It is called Adhama or Avara, the lowest which never reaches the height of a Dhvanikavya but remains contented with the external beauty of the embellishments.
Hemachandra notes in the gloss, just before concluding the Chapter, that though these verses may be considered as having some sort of Rasa etc. in that they can be construed as having Vibhāvas of some Rasa. Yet the Rasa etc. is not clear or transparently delightful. Here there is no Vyangya and as such they are called Avara or an inferior kind of poetry.
07
287

Page #313

Incidentally Mammața takes up the two sub-divisions of the Adhamakāvya, viz., Sabdacitra and Arthacitra, for further treatment in the 6th flash of the Kavyaprakāśa. He notes there : The two kinds of poetry - the one striking in the word and the other striking in the meaning - have been mentioned before; the existence of the striking sense or the word is by the subservience or prominence of either the sense or the word. He adds in the gloss that it is not that in word-portraits there is no strikingness of the sense; or in the portrait of sense that of the word; as Bhāmaha (l. 13-15) says that even the charming face of a lovely lady does not shine without ornaments. It is this that they call beautification of the word (Saußabdya); there is no such perfection of the meaning on account of the division of poetic figure into that of word and sense, both the beauty of the words and depth of ideas, i.e., सौशब्द्य and अर्थव्युत्पत्ति, are desired by us.
From a critical stand-point Hemachandra's threefold division of poetry is completely in agreement with the conventional divisions offered by Mammața, although he differs from the latter's view of the types of the गुणीभूतव्यङग्य.
288

Page #314

THE CONCEPTION AND TREATMENT OF POETIC BLEMISHES
The Notion of Poetic Blemish or Doṣa
The topic of Poetic Blemishes or Dosas is regarded as an important topic in all works on Poetics. Hemachandra has defined Poetry as consisting of words and meanings without faults or blemishes, with excellences and with or without figures of speech. From this definition of Poetry, it can be seen that, amongst the characteristics of a poem, that which stands first in order and importance is "faultessness". This feature preponderates over all the others. The conspicuous position accorded to "faultlessness" of word and sense is due to the fact that a poem possessing even a multitude of excellences and figures of speech fails to charm us if vitiated by a single blemish; just as a body of woman, even though possessed of great beauty, does not attract us, if infected with a single spot of leprosy, as Daṇḍian puts it. But it is possible on the other hand, to desire some pleasure at least, from a poem that is untainted by a single fault even though not possessing any excellence or ornaments. In fact, in case of a poem, "freedom from blemishes" in itself constitutes an excellence (Guṇa).
Hemachandra's Detailed Exposition of Doșas
Hemachandra has already given a general definition of Dosa (blemish) as being detrimental to Rasa. Hence, he undertakes a detailed exposition of the concept of Poetic
19

4
289

Page #315

Blemishes along with their definitions and illustrations in the span of ten Sūtras in Chapter three of his work. The Aesthetic Criterion of Poetic Blemish
As Hemachandra's poetics revolves round the concept of Rasadhvani being the principal element in a poem, his general definition of Doşa or poetic blemish as well as Guņa or excellence clearly states : "Excellences and fauts are those attributes of Rasa which are the direct causes of heightening and marring respectively the effect of a Rasa-sentiment (K.A.S. 1. 12). They are considered as attributes of words and senses only in a secondary sense (Bhaktyā). Thus, the relation of Rasa on the one hand and Guna as well as Dosa on the other is that of a thing and its attributes. This, as we have seen, can be proved by the method of positive and negative proof. Faults and Excellences are a joint concept as both dweli in the same place. And it is well-known that blemishes dwell in a particular sentiment only - not in a word or a sense -otherwise, the fault would be a fault at all times and would never turn into an excellence; but, that is not so. Sometimes, a fault in one sentiment actually becomes a point of excellence in another Rasa. For instance, in the Bibhatsarasa, the blemishes such as Kaştatva (cumbrousness) and others are actually treated as excellences. Similarly, obscenity and other faults are turned into excellence in Hasya and other sentiments. It is obvious, therefore, that these faults cannot be dependent on, or be attributes of, word and sense. These faults have no permanent character. Where there is a Rasa, there are the
endent faults; when that Rasa is absent, the faults go away, Thus there is an invariable concomitance between Rasa and Doșa, and consequently between Rasa and Guņa.
According to Hemachandra, therefore, a poetic blemish is Anitya or Impermanent, if it is the cause of marring a poetic sentiment. Since Rasa is the Mukhyārtha, Doşa mars its effect. This is Mukhyārthahati in the words of Mammata, who defines Dosa in those terms, 1 0 5
299

Page #316

Hemachandra categorises Doşa broadly as (a) Rasadosa, (2) Padadoșa, (3) Vākyadosa, (4) Ubhayadoșa and (5) Arthadosas in the first seven Sūtras of Chapter III. Sūtra one defines the major poetic fault of naming the Rasa. Rasa, however, includes Bhāvas also, and as the gloss clarifies, the mention of Rasa, of Sthāyibhavās as well as Vyabhicāribhāvas by denoting them-, in other words, naming them-, constitutes the first and foremost poetic blemish. However, the Sūtra as well as the gloss states that a Sāncaribhava may be mentioned by name and in such cases, it does not amount to a poetic blemish. The Problem of "Vācyatvam"
Now, the use of the expression 'Vācyatvam' in the definition of the first Dosa raises the question as to how Rasa, which is always suggested, can ever be expressed. Hemachandra explains this concept of the expressedness or ar=7677 of the Rasa etc., by means of a passage of Abhinavagupta (Viveka p. 159) which means : The expressedness of Rasa, etc., may be through words denoting the Rasa, etc., or through Vibhāvas, etc. In the former case, Rasas will not be realised or experienced. As in the verse "Yadviśramaya" ... etc.", Rasa etc. are not everywhere mentioned by words. In the example, the meaning which is the soul (i.e. Rasa) is realised through enjoyment of bliss in the form of one's mental state coloured by the latent impression, i.e., the dominant mood appropriate to the determinants or excitants and ensuants through identitication, immediately after the determinants and consequents are apprehended, despite the absence of the correct Vyabhicārins such as Abhilāsā, Cintā, Autsukya, Nidrā, Dhști, etc. And it is well-known that merely by stating the words Sțngāra, etc., in the absence of Vibhāvas etc. being represented, there cannot be any experience of Rasa in a poem; as, e.g., the couplet of the Natyaśāstra (6.15), in which the Rasas are enumerated by Bharata, does not make for any aesthetic experience. So, by the method of positive and nagative proof, it is certain that Rasa etc. can be suggested by the power of the expressed
291

Page #317

sense called Vibhāvādi. So they are never expressed. Hence: it is a fault to use their names to denote them. The secondi case is our own view. By this, Udbhata's view in the verse (KASS. 4.3) 'Rasavaddarslitaspasta etc.', which lays down that Rasa can be mentioned by names, is refuted along with his theory of 'Pancarūpā rasāḥ' or Rasas have five forms.
Hemachandra's Sources on Dosa
It is clear that Hemachandra begins the treatment of Dosas. by taking his stand on the principal of Rasa as the soul of poetry. In this respect, he follows the coification of Dosa as Mammața had attempted it by taking into account the earlier views on Dosa including that of Mahimabhatta. As a follower of Anandavardhana, Mammața states his idea of Doșa clearly by saying that Doşa is that which spoils the essence or the chief element of a Kāvya, viz., Rasa and, as such, it primarily pertains, as a property, to the Rasa. But, secondarily, of course, Doşa is spoken of as pertaining to Sabda, Artha, Varna and Racanā also. Thus we have not only Rasa-dosa but Sabda-dosa, Artha-dosa, Varņa-dosa and Racana-dosa as well.
It may be noted that Mammața broadly conceives poems. as sentimental or non-sentimental. While we may have a sentiment constituting the essence of the one. a striking sense or idea forms the main appeal in the other. This kind of conceptual division of poetry helps us understand Mammațas. discussion of Dosa.
Mammata's term 'Mukhyārtha', in its general signification, applies to all poems, and it is the object of an apprehension which is primarily intended in a poem, Basis of Classification of Blemishes
Now so far as the inteded apprehension is concerned, it should firstly be undelayed and secondly, it must be of an undiminished nature in a sentimental poem. So a blemish. consists in
292

Page #318

(A) either non-production of the intended apprehension (a)
where the apprehension is itself not produced and (b) where the apprehension is produced but after much delay and (c) where the apprehension is produced but (1) the Rasa is depressed or diminished (in a sentimental poem), or (2) the
idea is not striking (in a non-sentimental poem), or (B) the destruction of the intended apprehension either (a)
direct as in the case of Rasa-dosas, or (b) indirect as in
the case of blemishes pertaining to Word and Sense. Accurate Definition of Doşa
Thus the most accurate definition of a blemish is : that from which proceeds non-production or delayed production or destruction (direct or indirect) of the apprehension of an undepressed sentiment or a pleasing sense or idea. 106 Apprehension and Varieties of Doșas
These faults may be divided into three kinds : (1) Sabdadoșas, which are apprehended prior to the apprehension of the sense of a word or sentence, (2) Artha-dosas, which are apprehended after the apprehension of the meaning of a word or sentence, and indirectly depress the sentiment, and (3) Rasa-dosas, which are also apprehended after the apprehension of the sense of a sentence and wich directly depress the sentiment. Out of these three, the first, i.e., Sabdadosas may be divided into blemishes of a word-Padadoşa, of a part of a word-Padānçadosa, and of a sentence-Vākyadoşa. The distinction between a Pada (word) and a Pedaikadesa (a part of a word) is important since the former is a noun or a verb or a base of either, whereas the latter may be a termination, case, etc. Mammata begins by describing the faults of the words first, since it is the words that enter into the composition of a sentence. Hemachandra Alters the Method of Treatment
But Hemachandra begins his treatment of Doșas by dealing with Rasadosas first. His Rasadoşas are not very different
293

Page #319

when we compare them with those of Mammata. Mammata thus provides a model to Hemachandra. It is interesting, therefore, to study the relevant portion from the Kavyaprakāśa (VII).
The method adopted by Mammata is to treat the Sabdadoṣas followed by the Arthadoṣas, and finally the Rasadoṣas.
Mammata defines Rasadosas in three successive Kārikās (60, 61 and 62) of the VIIth Chapter of his Kavyaprakāśa. These Rasadoṣas are:
(1) The expression of an (a) Accessory, or (b) a Rasa, or (c) a Sthayibhāva (Permanent mood) by its own name or term;
(2) A far-fetched (a) Consequent, or (b) Determinant; (3) Admission of a conflicting (a) Consequent or (b) Determinant;
(4) A repeated Heightening or Over-elaboration of a Rasa etc.; (5) An unreasonable representation or untimely elaboration; (6) An unreasonable interruption;
(7) An excessive expansion of even a Subordinate Element; (8) Overlooking a Principal Object;
(9) Perversion of Character; and
(10) Celebration of an unrelated object.
These ten, according to Mammata, are the blemishes of a Rasa. However, there are exceptions also. Thus, (1) in Karikā 63, Mammața declares that sometimes an Accessory, even though expressed by its own term, is not faulty; (2) A mention of conflicting Accessory etc. in such a manner that they may be sublated, is an excellence (etc. means Vibhāvas and Anubhavas). (3) (i) A sentiment which is incompatible with another by reason of identity of its subjects, should have those subjects, made different; and (ii) A sentiment which is incompatible with another by reason of 'immediacy of succession'
294

Page #320

should be separated from that another by (inserting between the two) a third Rasa which is compatible with both. (4) A Rasa (is not faulty) which, though, conflicting (i) is recalled; nor (ii) which is intended to serve the purpose of comparison; nor (iii) are those two Rasas faulty as regards each other which are subordinate to a third principal sentiment.
The above aspects of Rasadoṣas are explaind by Mammata in a thorough manner with the help of illustrations.
Hemachandraf ollows Mammata107 in many particulars not only in regard to the blemishes of the Rasas but in respect of the other Dosas as well.
The Rasadoṣas
So far as the Rasadosas are concerned, Hemachandra first deals with the expression of a Rasa by its own term or name. While in the Sutra (III.1) he states that, barring sometimes the transitory feelings, the mention by its name of the predominant sentiment in a poem constitutes a poetic blemish; however, the mention in words of the transitory mental states is not a fault at times. By way of illustration, he quotes a verse from the Sṛngaratilake of Rudrabhaṭṭa, a work on Rasa. In this verse (183), all the sentiments are mentioned by their own names and this mention obviously mars the effect of the Rasas. The idea in the verse is that "Lord Sankara manifested all the Rasas in himself by means of various things". Here, the names of Śṛngāra, Karuṇa, Vira, Bibhatsa, Bhayanaka, Adbhuta, Raudra, Hasya and Santa - Sarva Rasas, i.e., all the nine Rasas, figure.
The next verse (184) illustrates the mention of the Sthayibhāva Utsäha, which is a poetic blemish.
Hemachandra has said in the gloss that it is a poetic blemish to mention a Rasa, a Sthayin, or a Vyabhicārin, by its own term. However, there is no fault if sometimes a Sancaribhāva is mentioned by its own name. He cites a verse (185) as an example of the mention by name of the

295

Page #321

transitory emotions such as Vridā, Trāsa, Īrsyā, Dainya etc. The mention of these emotions, directly, is bad; but had they been indirectly stated, the fault would have been less conspicuous. This verse is cited in the Kavyaprakāśa (VII) also.
In this connection, Hemachandra notes in the gloss that if the sentiment is already developed by means of Vibhāva and Anubhāva, mere mention of the name of a particular Rasa does not offend so much. For example, in the verse "Yate dvāravatīm etc.", the Longing or Utkanthā of Rādhā is suggested by the poetic description of the Vibhāva and Anubhāva, and the mention of the word 'Sotkantha' serves to state what is already established by suggestion. By means of the word 'sobbed', the said Anubhāva is used to show the cause of it; so, the statement of this by name is not faulty.
Hemachandra has made an exception in the case of Vyabhicārin, which may sometimes be expressed by name. He, therefore, cites a verse (186), already utilized in the Kavyaprakāśa to the same effect, and this is a Nandi verse in the play Ratnāvali of Sriharsa. Hemachandra also adopts the comments of Mammața in the gloss verbatim. It means : Here the Vyabhicāribhāva or accessory Autsukya, 'Longing' is mentioned by name, because the mere mention of the ensuants or consequents would not have been equally significant (for the said consequence could have been due to causes other than Longing); hence the mention of the term Autsukya 108 is not regarded as a defect. So also in the verse "Durādutsukamāgate ... etc." (quoted by Hemachandra to illustrate the exceptional case where the accessory feeling - Autsukya etc. - al one is presented), the other, earlier, two verses represent instances of the Vibhāvas alone and the Anubhāvas alone. But here (where the other two factors are also indirectly implied, so that they do not vitiate the value of the rule or the general proposition that there should be all the factors present), though the poet has described the feelings of modesty or shyness (Vriļā), affection (Prema), etc. through
296

Page #322

their respective consequents, in the form of turning aside, etc., yet the feeling of Longing has been mentioned by name because the mere mention of its ensuants in the form of "approaching nearer" would not have been equally expressive of what is intended.
The next Sutra (III. 2) state that the Vibhāvas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhicaribhavas of a rival Rasa mar a Rasa, if they are mentioned (1) in a manner in which they are not checked, (2) in one and the same object or person or substratum, (3) simultaneously, and (4) without being subordinated to the principal Rasa. In all these four instances, the poetic blemish is manifest. This fault is known as Vibhāvādiprātikulya or Pratikülavibhāvādigrahaḥ according to Mammața.
The First Case of this Admission of the Factors of a Conflicting Rasa
These factors are three (1) Determinant or Vibhava, (2) a Consequent and (3) an Accessory. The verse (187), which is cited in the Kavyaprakāśa in the same connection, illustrates the admission of two factors (Determinant and Accessory) of a conflicting Rasa. Here, the Erotic is the sentiment of the verse, but the statement that 'the dear of time is fleeting etc.' goes directly against Sṛngara sentiment; for, it creates the impression of Santarasa by its reference to the transitoriness of the world.
In the above verse (187), Śṛngara is marred by the transitory state of Nirveda also. So it is a case of the presence of adverse Vibhava and Accessory. Hemachandra observes in the gloss that suitable examples of the admission of factor of a conflicting Rasa should be cited in the case of the Śṛngāra and the Bibhatsa; as also in the case of the Vira and the Bhayanaka as well as of Sant and the Raudra - all three pairs of opposite Rasas.
How to Avoid Chash of Sentimens and Factors ?
i. If the rival Rasa is unchecked (Abadhyatva) and very powerful, it is a case of a poetic blemish occurring there. But if

297

Page #323

that rival Rasa is easily checked (Bādhya) and is weak, it is not only not a poetic blemish but, on the contrary, it adds to the beauty of the sentiment in hand, in the verse (189), King Pururavas experiences diverse feelings on seeing Urvasi. But all these apparently contradictory feelings go to strengthen the feeling of love in his heart, and as such these feelings enhance the beauty of the sentiment of love.
The next verse (189) contains, in the first half, Śrngārarasa mainfestly, but the chief sentiment is sānta and the Sțngārarasa is subordinate to it; hence it does not mar the impact of śānta; on the contrary, it enhances its effect.
In this context, Anandavardhana, the author of the Dhvanyāloka is quoted (1/1.30) to the effect that a slight apprearance of a rival Rasa creats a beautiful atmosphere and attracts the listless connoisseurse. Anandavardhana also shows how to resolve the opposition between two Rasa. (Dhv. Al. III. 20, 21, 22, 23 etc. Vide 'The' Dhvanyaloka and its ctritics', 170-71).
ii. Another method of avoiding the occurrence of the Blemish of the admission of a contradictory Rasa is that the two Rasas should have different subjects; thus, when the Heroic Sentiment is developed with reference to the hero and the Bhayānaka in connection with the villain, no blemish occurs.
ii. The third method of resolving the blemish of the rivalry of the Rasas is to describe these rival Rasas separately by making a third allied Rasa intervene between them so as to remove Triath. Hemachandra points out that when developed with the same substratum simulataneously the sentiments of Santa and śrngāra, being mutually antagonistic, produce a blemish; but, when a third friendiy Rasa intervenes, no blemish results. For example, in the first act of Nāgañanda, the atmosphere is of śāntarasa, but, by introducing the Adbhutarasa - a friendly Rasa - between TFT and TETT, the author has successfully developed the śrngārarasa of Jimūtavāhan with reference to Malayavati,
298

Page #324

Thus, not only in a whole poem but in a single sentence, it is possible to remove rivalry of Rasas by introducing a third friendly Rasa. In the next three verses i(192, 193 & 194), all cited in the Kavyaprakāśa in the same connection, between two opposing Rasas, a third Rasa is introduced and thus the poetic blemish is averted. Hemachandra explains in the Viveka that if there are two different subjects, there would be no rivalry of Rasas. Someone may urge that herein we have only the Vira - neither Sțngāra nor Bibhatsa but only Rati and Jugupsă act as accessories towards the Virarasa. True. Still, the illustration is apt, for there is no rivalry between Rati and Jugupsā. This involves Āśrayaikya or sameness of substratum.
iv. The fourth method of resolving the rivalry of the Rasas and avoiding the blemish arising from it is to make one Rasa predominant and the other one subordinate. Now, this subordinate position of a rival Rasa may be natural or deliberate. For instance, in the sentiment of Love in seperation, disease, etc., though likely to give rise to Bibhatsa, are, by their very nature, parts of the love in separation, and hence they can never mar the effect of that Rasa. Disease etc. are parts of Karuna, too.
Very often, the indicators or consequents (Anubhāvas) of a contrary Rasa are brought near the predominate Rasa, but because these Anubhāvas of the Rival Rasa are not strong enough to develop the rival Rasa, they are subordinated to the main Rasa.
Sometimes two contrary Rasas are brought under and subordinated to a third Rasa - a predominant Rasa. In such a case, no Rasaprātikūlya takes place. Thus, in the verse (195), the fire of the cities burnt by Lord Sambhu is described as clinging to the bodies of the wives of demons in those cities. Here, Raudrarasa arises from the description of the terrible fire. And Árngara from the description of the prostrate lovers. Now, it is difficult to bring together these two rival Rasas. But the poet subordinates them to wonder and reverence for Lord Shankara, and avoids the fault.
299

Page #325

Now, someone may urge : How can two rival Rasas be brought together without giving rise to the blemish of Rasapratikülya ? Hemachandra replies : 'The fault lies in introducing a rival Rasa in a new statement. If it is brought in a sentence merely by way of repeating a statement already made elsewhere, then there is no blemish, as, e.g., in the next verse (196) Viz Tey etc., ('The rich play (izra) with the beggars who are possessed of the ghost of hope when they order them, 'come along', 'go', 'fall down', 'get up', 'speak', 'shut up'), the verbal forms (of order) are contradictory orders, but because they are all subordinated to the verb zfia, there does not occur any fault in having these contradictory thoughts in the same verse.
And if the statements in sentences can thus be subordinated to a third statement, it follows, naturally, that Rasas in those statements can also be subordinated to a Rasa which is the principal Rasa. Thus, in the verse 195 referred to above, one can argue that the great power of Sankara and the poet's admiration for this is the chief sentiment in the verse, and the pathetic sentiment is subordinated to it. And the Erotic sentiment which is also suggested in the verse is subordinated to this Karuņa. But both eventually become subordinated to the all-powerful Adbhutarasa (the admiration for the power and glory of Sankara). Or the sense may be : the fire of the shaft of Sambhu conducted itself in the same manner as does the lover, suggesting Śrngāra, but on reading the poem as a whole, we find Karuņa being suggested as a predominant Rasa. Thus, although śrngāra raises its head at the outset, yet, as soon as the statement of the tragic fate of the demons comes to the forefront, the śțngāra fades and ultimately its memory heightens the effect of the Pathetic sentiment by sheer contrast. In this way, these is no Rasaprātikulya or contrariety of Rasas in this verse. The verse describing the lamentations of the wives of Bhūrisravas provides a parallel instance (173). In this verse, the wives of Bhūriśrvas
300

Page #326

say, "This is that hand that used to pull out my girdle, caress the plump bosom, touch the navel and the private parts and untie the knot of the lower garment", when they see his hand fallen on the battle-field. Now, says Hemachandra, it is the experience of each one of us that objects attractive by nature generate greater intensity of pathos when past enjoyments of that object are remembered. This is how the rememberance of love-dalliances in this verse is wholly subordinated to the predominant pathetic sentiment and seems to heighten it.
The next verse (197), too, illustrates the subordination of the Sṛngararasa to the Santarasa. The verse means: "The imprints of teeth and the nail marks made on your body full of thrills by the lioness intent upon blood (also love) were gazed at with envy even by the other sages." Here the idea is that the marks of teeth and nails on the body of Buddha were as charming as on the body of a lover or just as an erotic person becomes eager by looking upon the marks so did the sages this similarity is intended. But, on a closer look at the context, we realise that there is no Śṛngara intended and as such Śṛngāra gives way to Santa which is the chief Rasa of the verse. And this Śṛngāra is not at all contrary to the Santarasa - on the other hand, it actually heightens the effect of the Santarasa.
Commenting on this verse (197), Hemachandra explains that the sages were full of envy or eagerness because they hoped to reach the position of a Bodhisattva by their compassion.
However, Hemachandra notes in the gloss that, when the rival Rasa does not heighten the predominant Rasa, there occurs a poetic blemish of Rasaprātikulya. Thus, a rival Rasa mars the effect of the predominant Rasa by making an unduly bold appearance, and in such a case we undoubtedly have the fault of Rasaprātikulya, as, for example, in the next verse (198) cited from the Raghuvaṁśa (XI. 20) we have a reference to Taḍaka's death at the hands of Rama but the poetic description of her departure presents the picture of a woman
301

Page #327

going to meet her lover. Now this unnatura! śộngārarasa weakens the dominant Pathos, instead of heightening it. Hence, here, the śțngāra is contrary to Karuņa, not conducive to it. Eight Poetic Blemishes of Rasa
In the next Sūtra (Ill. 3) Hemachandra presents another set of eight poetic blemishes with regard to Rasa :
(1) The first of these regular Rasadoșas consists in comprehension through a far-fetched Determinant or Consequent. This is instanced in the verse 199, where a woman, the fa772 intended by the poet, is apprehended with great difficulty, i.e., only after taking the context etc. into consideration, because this Determinant is not expressed; nor can it be implied by the Ensuants mentioned in the verse such as the shunning of pleasures' etc., since these Consequents are possible in the Pathetic sentiment etc. too.
It may be noted in passing that everywhere in this chapter, Hemachandra closely follows Mammața who codified the principles of Doşa for the first time in his longest treatment of Doșa following the lead given by Anandavardhana, the main architect of the Dhvani theory of Literature, not only in respect of definition, division and other theoretical details, but also in respect of most of the illustrations which he has cited here from the Kāvyaprakāśa. This becomes evident at every step in this chapter.
The next verse (200) illustrates comprehension through a far-fetched Consequent. Here, the Uddipana Vibhāva, i.e., the Moon and the Alambana Vibhāva, the Heroine, suitable to the śrngararasa, terminate in a consequent, i.e., lead to the apprehension of a Consequent, after great delay, not immediately. For, before we apprehend the consequent, we must take into account the fact that, when a young man and a woman see each other at moonrise, they fall in Love. The Consequent or Anubhava is thus far-fetched here.
302

Page #328

(2) A repeated heightening of the Rasa is a poetic blemish 109 and, as Mammata and following him Hemachandra
says, this blemish is evident in the Kumārasambhava - the too frequent heightening of Pathos in the lament of Rati. It should be noted that this is a fault as regards a minor Rasa, not a principal one; thus the Quietistic Rasa in the Mahābharata is not faulty because it does not produce dissatisfaction even though repeatedly heightened.
(3) An Unreasonable Representation (or Akände Prathā) is instanced in the second act of the Venisaṁhāra, in the representation of Duryodhan's - who, though was a Dhiroddhatanäyaka - dalliance with his wife Bhānumatí, at a time when so many heroes were dying.
(4) An Unreasonable Interruption (or Akāņde chedana) occurs in the fourth act of the Ratnāvali or in the Viracarita, in the speech of Rāma - I am going to take off my bracelet' whereas he and Parasurama were engaged in displaying an ever increasing ardour for fighting.
(5) An over-elaboration of a subbodinate element (or Argasvätivistāra) means over-describing an element which is subsidiary as in the Hayagrivavadha; where the detailed description of the diversion of the demon Hayagrīva throws into shade Lord Vişnu who is the central character of the play.
In the same way, when Love in separation is the chief Rasa, a poet should not indulge in the description of a sea, a forest, etc., merely to show his mastery of the figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, alliteration, etc. For example, the author of Haravijaya, during the description of the Separation of Krsna from Satyabhāmā, introduces an uncalled for description of the ocean etc. just to show off his rhetorical skills So also in the Kādambari, which is a prose-romance with Love in Separation as the prevailing sentiment, the poet displays a great enthusiasm for a description of the irrelevant topics such as a forest, a city, kings, etc. The fault is witnessed
303

Page #329

in the Harşacarita in Bāna's life account, in the siśupālavadha in the love-scene when the avowed aim of the poet is to describe Virarasa. All this goes against the chief Rasa and is calculated to result in a poetic blemish from which even great poets have not escaped.
(6) In fact, the poets' foremost duty is to develop to the fullest extent the principal or predominant Rasa. Any break in the development of the principal Rasa leads to a poetic blemish; for, an unhampered development of the poetic sentiment is the essence of the poetic art. Thus, overlooking the principal element (Angino'ananusandhānam), as in the fourth act of the play Ratnāvali, where Sāgarikā, the heroine, is foregotten on the arrival of Bābhravya, is a poetic blemish. Artistic Continuity
Hemachandra notes that continuity of the development of the Rasa is the essence of poetic beauty, as, for example, in the play Tāpasavatsaraja, the sentiment of love for Vasavadattā, though subject to fear of interruption in the story, is continued uninterrupted throughout the six acts of the play.
(7) Celebration of an unimportant or unrelated thing or the description of the irrelevant, called Anangașyābhidhānam, is a blemish. Some authors very often indulge in developing insignificant or irrelevant things, setting aside the chief sentiment. Ananga means that which does not contribute to the heightening of the Rasa of a poem. Description of the irrelevant or of something not helpful to the Rasa is instanced in the Karpūramānjari where the king ignores the description of the spring made by the heroine as well as by himself but praises the bard's description of the same spring. The Art of Characterization and Rasa
(8) The same principles apply to characterization in poetry. These characters can be : (i) Divine (God, Maheśvara, etc.), (ii). Human (Madhava, etc.), (iii) Both human and divine (Krşņa. etc.), (iv) Of the Nether world (Pātāliya), (v) Both human and Pātāliya,
304

Page #330

(vi) Divine & Pātāliya, and (vii) Divine-Himan and Pātāliya - in short, the characters are of seven types. These should be appropriately portrayed, keeping in view their natural traits.
As for these characters, if they are human, they should be treated as human; if supernatural or divine, then as such. When these characters are portrayed in a contrary manner, that goes against the development of a Rasa. A Particular character is, as a rule, fond of a particular Rasa. This rule has to be scrupulously observed.
So far as the sentiments of Love, Grief, Laughter and Wonder are concerned, they are common to human beings as well as divine characters. But even here, in the case of divine beings, the love in union should never be described. If a poet indulges in such a description, it will be as highly improper as to describe the love-amour of one's own parents. Kalidasa has taken liberties with this rule by describing in detail the lovesports of siva and Pārvati in the eighteenth canto of his Kumārasambhava. But in the case of Kumārasambhava, the description is so full of poetic beauty that it does not offend against good taste as it would otherwise do if a lesser poet had attempted it.
Similarly, the sentiment of Anger should be depicted as effective and quick in its results, as, e.g., the burning of cupid by the fire of Lord Siva's third eye is described by Kalidasa in his Kumārasambhava. This method of description is very artistic.
As for describing Utsaha, the basis of Vira, in relation to going to heaven, the nether world and crossing the ocean, etc., it should be delineated in the case of beings other than men. For, these wonderful acts deserve to be performed by superhuman creatures, if they are to appear real. Particularly the sentiment of wonder should be handled very carefully - i.e., it should appear natural in the characters.
And so far as human character are concerned, their actions are to be portrayed as well-known, proper and realistic. For, any attempt to exaggerate their doings will appear unreal and
305
20

Page #331

will not result in the moral that one should act like the ideal hero and not like the anti-hero or villain. Any Violation of these general norms regarding the characters terminates in perversion of character (Prakrtivyatyaya).
In regard to the forms of addressing the different characters in a composition, several forms are fixed in Poetics. To corroborate his statement, Hemachandra cites the view of Rudrata (K.A. VI. 19-20) who lays down these rules of address and that same view has inspired our author.
Propriety in Poetry
In this way, we are told, having regard to propriety in respect of place, time age, class, etc., and the dresses and behaviour of characters, one must write poetry. For Propriety is the essence of Art. 110
Interestingly, Hemachandra elaborates on the idea of perversion of character being a fault in the Viveka Commentary. He has reproduced large chunks of texts - mainly from the Kayvamimänsä of Rājasekhara who has given a long description of this subject. It seems Hemachandra found much meterial readily available on this subject and as such he has quoted extracts from this text (K.M. IX)
Thus, in connection with prakrtivyatyaya, Hemachandra quotes passages from the ninth chapter of the Kavyamímānsā of Rajasekhara. Rājasekhara deals with 'Arthavyāpti' in this Chapter, and begins the chapter by setting afoot a discussion on the question whether Kavyārtha or the theme of poetry is threefold or sevenfold. While Drauhini asserts, it is threefold, Yāyāvariya or Rajasekhara himself declares that it is sevenfold. This sevenfold classification has been adopted by Hemachandra in the gloss and it is explained and illustrated in the Viveka with the help of passages and verse taken over from the Kävyāmīmāṁsā (K.M. IX). In connection with propriety of Desa, Kāla or Time, place etc., he again cites passages from the Kavyamīmānsā. Thus from page 173 to page 176 and pages
306

Page #332

179 to 198, almost 14 pages of the Viveka Vyakhyā, are occupied by these passages.
We may note that Ānandavardhana (Dhv. Al. III. 19) mentions impropriety in the portrayal of Vșttis or the behaviour of the characters and the Vșttis of the rhetoricians.
In short, propriety is of the essence of poetic beauty, Propreity is the principal norm of Rasa i.e., of Rasa development, and it contributes directly to the successful delineation of a Rasa. This propriety as regards place, time, age, caste, dress, etc., is exhaustively explained in the Viveka Commentary by reproduction of almost a whole chapter of the Kāvyamīmānsa. The Blemishes Pertaining to Word and Sense
Blemishes or Doșas primarily pertain to Rasa and secondarily or metaphorically they belong to the Word and the Sense. Hence it is necessary to deal with Sabdadosas and Arthadosas. Now sabdadoșas either take the form of a Pada or a Vākya, and accordingly, we have (1) Padadoșas of two types, and (2) Vakyadoșas of thirteen types (K.A.S. III. 4-5). The Padadosas
As against Mammața's sixteen Padadosas or sixteen sub-divisions of the defective word, Hemachandra gives only two types of padadosas or the twofold blemish pertaining to a word. According to Mammața, the defective word is (1) harsh to hear, (2) ungrammatical in form, (3) unconventional, (4) incapable, (5) suppressed in sense, (6) improper in signification, (7) meaningless, (8) inexpressive, (9) indecent in three ways, (10) ambiguous, (11) unintelligible, (12) Kvalgar, (13) having a sense to be guessed, and then (14) obscure, (15) non-discriminated in predicate, and (16) the one causing repugnant implication. It must be noted that, according to Mammata, the last three of these poetic!blemishes, viz., Klista, Avimrstavidheyāmja and Viruddhamatikșt (i.e., nos. 14-16), are defects only when they occur in a compound word.
307

Page #333

The Vākyadoșas
Generally, a sentence-fault is that which resides in words: which are faulty only in association with other words. In Solecism, incapability and Meaninglessness, the fault does not depend on this association with other words; and, therefore, the fault is beyond the ken of a sentence-fault. This is the treditional view. But the correct definition of a 'Sentence fault' is : "A sentence fault is that which resides in words, more than one, some of which are capable of conveying the intended object". In Nyakkāro ... etc., we have instances of both; for both the words expressing the subject and the predicate are faulty here; for, if the predicate must come after the subject, the subject must also come before the predicate. This explains the propriety of the word Ansa in Avimțstavid heyāṁsa, which means "a sentence, in which, a part, which is capable of being understood as the predicate, is not prominently mentioned". So, when Mammata names it as such, he implies it as both; otherwise, to restrict it to a Padadosa, he would have called it Avimrstavidheya only. Thus, we have thirteen Vakyadosas, Now these Väkyadosas are homogeneous to those of a word. But there are twenty one other independent Vākyadoșas of a different class given by Mammața. Hemachandra's Padadosas
Hemachandra mentions the twofold poetic blemish pertaining to a word : (1) Uselessness (Nirarthakatva) (2) Ungrammaticalness (Asādhutva).
(1) Uselessness involves the use of unnecessary words such as ca, vai, tu, hi, etc. As a rule, no unnecessary word ought to be employed in a composition. So, words like ca, etc., should not be used unless their use is necessitated by the context. But when these words are used as fillers in a metrical line etc., they constitute this blemish called 'faretra. The verse (202) illustrates the use of 'hi' which is absolutely useless.
308

Page #334

Even a fraction of a word, when used without being necessitated by the context, is useless (Nirarthaka). In the next verse (203), the expression Kurangekşaņā indicates one lady. In verse 204, on the other hand, many activities of the eye are described; hence the plural is justified, as Hemachandra observes in the gloss.
Some authorities do not regard Uselessness or Nirarthakatva as a poetic blemish in case of Yamaka and other figures of word, as, e.g., in the quotation no. 205, cited from the śiśupālavadha (X. 90).
(2) The second blemish of the word, called Asādhutva or grammatical incorrectness, occurs when the word used is ungrammatical. The verse (207) from the Kirātārjuniya (XVII. 63) contains the word 'Ajaghne' which is made up from 'Han' with 'a' and is used in the Ātmanepada wrongly. For, Ātmanepada is sanctioned only when the thing struck is one's own limb, which is not the case here; since Arjuna strikes the chest of Lord Siva.
In this connection, Hemachandra notes that there is no poetic blemish of Asādhutva, if ungrammatical words are used to quote the words of others. For, all imitations are innocent. The Thirteen Vākyadoșas Explained
The next Sūtra (Ill. 5) enumerates the thirteen faults of a sentence called Vākyadoșas. These faults are (1) cacaphony due to omission of euphonic combination (Visandhi), (2) deficient in words (Nyünapada), (3) containing redundant words (Adhikapada), (4) with (needlessly) repeated word (Ukta or Kathipada), (5) containing misplaced word (Asthanasthapada), (6) having deminishing excellence (Patatprakarsa), (7) resumed though concluded (i.e., resumption of the concluded sentence for addition of an adjective - Samāptapunarättam, (8) elision of a Visarga in excess (Avisargatvam), (9) having a marred metre (Hatavịttam), (10) confused or having the words mixed up (Sankirna), (11) having a parenthetical expression (Garbhita),
309

Page #335

(12) having a broken uniformity (Bhagnaprakrama), and (13) Irregular syntax (Ananvita). The Conception of Vākyadosas
So far as the sentence-fault is concerned, we have noted above the concept of a sentence-fault in connection with Mammata's Vākyadoșas. Mammața has dealt with two sets of Vākyadosas : (1) Those homogeneous to word-faults; and (2) those which are independent. But Hemachandra gives only one set of thirteen Vākyadosas mentioned above. These faults are peculiar to a sentence.
The first sentence-fault arises from the deformity of Sandhi or cacaphony due to omission of the euphonic combination (Visandhi). This fault takes three forms: (1) Disjunction of Sandhi, (2) Indecency of Sandhi, and (3) Harshaness of Sandhi.
Hemachandra defines Visandhitva as deformity (Vairūpya) due to disjunction or indecency or harshness of words.
(1) Disjunction of Sandhi occurs when a Sandhi is not made, although according to grammar, it must be made. This may be again two-fold : Optional and Necessary. Necessary disjunction may be of two kinds : (a) when the final i, u or e of the dual terminations of nouns or verbs are not subject to the rules of 'Sandhi' (b) when the Visarga or e, ai, o and au, although dropped or changed according to the rules, are to be considered as not dropped or changed. Optional disjunction is faulty, occurring but once. For, although grammar does not give an absolute injuction that such a Sandhi must be made, still the non-making of it clearly shows that the poet is lacking in a perfect commend over the language, and thus causes dissatisfaction in the mind of the reader. Both these disjunctions of the necessary type become a blemish when they occur more than once.
Indecency or indecorousness of Sandhi or Aślijatva is caused by words suggestive of sense which cause disgust
310

Page #336

and shame. Harshness of Sandhi occurs when the euphonic combinations between two words in a sentence are harsh.
Thus Sandhi is formed when two vowels combine or a vowel and a consonant join together or two consonants combine. If two vowels are brought together without joining (even though it is so sanctioned by grammarians), it is a fault. If the Sandhi is deliberately dropped, then, there is a still greater fault. For example, the verses (208 & 209), perfectly grammatical though they are, are bad; since in sentences in which samhitā, i.e., joining the vowels or consonant is obligatory, it is bad not to join them. Even the feet of a verse yields to this rule of Sandhi.' There is however a choice as to the joining of vowels or consonants at the end of the second foot.
Visandhi occurs due to deformity giving rise to Aslilatva or indecorousness. It takes place when the words, though used in their perfectly ordinary senses. suggest some sense is indecent or loathsome or inauspicious, and give rise to Aslilatva. as in the quotation (210), the word Virecakam has an indecent sense as well as a normal sense. Similarly, Acāryabhāsa has two senses : a pseudo teacher and a teacher named Bhāsa. The word Virecaka causes disgust and Yābha, an obscene word, causes shame. In the same way, the verse (211) following this, yields the indecorous words Sepa, etc., by Visandhi, which reminds of Vriņā, etc.; hence they are all instances of Aslila. Propriety is the Magic Wand
In the verse 212, we have harshness of Sandhi. Hemachandra however notes that if such harsh words, difficult to pronounce, are used deliverately to imitate the words of a child, a woman or a fool, there is no blemish. Thus propriety of the speaker etc. removes the fault. In fact when such words are used in mimicry or jokes or in elocution etc., they become an excellent quality and cease to be faults.
(2) Hemachandra defines the second blemish of a sentence by saying that Nyūnapadatva is a fault which occurs when
311

Page #337

words that are quite necessary to the context are dropped. For example, in the verse quoted from Venisamhāra (1. 11), the word Asmabhiḥ is necessary in the second line and the word Ittham is required in the beginning of the fourth line, but both are not mentioned. Consequently the fault of deficient words occurs here. Much in the same way, in the next verse (213) from the Vikramorvasiyam (IV. 29), the word Aparādhalavam is wrongly used; for, it means 'what little offence', which is absurd. Here, to suit the context, an additional 'Api' is required; hence there occurs the fault of Nyūnapa - datva. Similarly in verse 214, the method of using the forms of the pronoun Idam continued in the first three lines is abandoned in the fourth line, thus, giving rise to deficiency of words. In the same way, in the next Prakrit verse (214), the Upameyas, as against the Upamānas, are not mentioned actually and hence the blemish of deficient words occurs here. However, at times, the dropping of some words renders the stanza more charming than when they are used. In other words, the blemish turns into a Guņa, as, e.g., in Verse 216, cited from the Amarušataka (40). In this verse, a woman in the course of a sexual act, addresses her lover with supreme joy, and in her excitement, utters broken sentences. But, these broken words add to the beauty of the poem. Neutralization of Dosas
Sometimes the omission of necessary words is neither a fault nor any merit. In the verse from Kālidaas's play called 'Vikramorvasiyam', from 'Tişthet.... to Prabhāvapihita', there is one sentence. After that, with a view to make the sense clear "Naitat yatah' or some such words ought to follow, but they are not used; still, the sense can be ealisy inferred. Therefore, the omission of necessary words in this case is neither a Guņa nor a Dosa. 111
The Viveka Commentary comments on the expression. *Avasyavācyasya' in the definition of Nyünapada. Here the expression means that the dropped or omitted words or deficient
312

Page #338

words are quite important and necessary for the context. Significantly, Hemachandra observes here that there is no fault if a sense which needs to be expressed but is implied or suggested by an invariable association or through propriety, is not expressed at all; as, e.g., in the verse no. 332, 'Asti' is understood. In the next verse (333), too, the verb is suggested through propriety. Similarly, in the verse (334), the subject words Anala etc. are suggested by propriety.
In view of this, the non-expression of the sense should not be separately mentioned as a fault. Some writers assert that for the sake of the comprehension of a thing consisting of the thing and its attributes, the word denotative of it or a synonym thereof or a pronoun should necessarily be used and if it is not used then it constitutes the fault of deficient words, as e.g., in Dvayam gatam.... etc. (Kumarasambhava V. 71). In this verse, the word Kapalin referring to the person and the thing is (1) denotative of the thing only (2) or the censure-worthiness arising through its contact with Kapala, or (3) both these points of view prevail.
On the first view, for the sake of particular apprehension, the holder of the Kapala should also be included in the denotation, so that his censure-worthiness can be suggested. On the second view, to apprehend the substratum of the Kapala, the substantive needs to be mentioned either by the same word or by a synonyn or by a pronoun, so that its intended sense is conveyed.
This quotation is from Mahimbhatta's Vyaktiviveka (11.70 etc.), where it is called Vacyāvacanadoṣa. It is explained thus: "Now he takes up the fifth Dosa in order. In the term Vācyavacana, the negative prefix 'A' conveyes two senses: (1) nonmention of that which must be mentioned, and (2) the mention of that which ought not be mentioned. The clarifies this point, by stating that the blemish occurs when a thing is -expressed by its own term when it is possible and also necessary to use a pronoun to express it. In the verse "Dvayam gatam...

313

Page #339

etc.", is the word Kapalin expressive of Lord śiva (Dharmin) and his attribute (Dharma) of being possessed of a Kapala ? Is it donatative of both ? Or, of the substantive, Lord Siva, alone? Or of the attribute (of being possessed of Kapāla) which is fit to be censured due to its contact with the word Kapāla ? Thus these three points of view arise. In the first view, it is necessary to admit one more use of the word 'Kapālin' for the comprehension of the attribute so that censure can be suggested. According to the second view, for the proper comprehension of the substratum of the attribute, by the same word or by means of a pronoun, the substantive must be mentioned, as e.g., in the verse 'Kuryāṁ harsyāpi pinakapāņer etc.' by Kālidāsa, the word Hara is used as a synonym of Pinakapāņi. Hence the third view is untenable here. For the same word, without repetition, cannot convey several senses. Hence here there is the poetic blemish of Vācyāvacana.
Although difference of sense implies difference of words, yet the repeated occurrence produces similarity only. Since there is only an illusion of identity underlying this repetition. Hence it is advisable to convey the sense separately. And this sense should necessarily be expressed either by a synonym or a pronoun in place of the term for the thing to be described, (See Vyaktiviveka II. 71-72).112
(3) The third Vākyadoşa is 371987€ or a redundant word.. A redundant word is a word, the meaning of which is not intended as instanced in the verse 217. Here the word Āksti in the expression Sphatikākşti is redundant because the purpose of comparison is well served by the word Sphatika (Marvellous is that man who is clean like crystal etc.). The meaning of Akşti is 'conjunction of parts' which cannot be at all cannected with the sense of the sentence; and even if any other sense of it such as 'nature' etc., be connected with the sense of the sentence, somehow or other, still even that sense is not intended here, the purpose of comparison being served without: it. It may be mentioned here that a word may be redundant
314

Page #340

not only in a compound, but also when there is no compound. In the verse (218), cited from the Nāgānanda (IV. 15), the word 'Tat' is redundant; in verse no. 219, several words are redundant; in the line from the Meghadoota (Pūrvamegha), the termination 'Vat' is redundant, for the Bahuvrihi Compound serves the purpose of Vat. In the verse 221, a quotation from the Kumārasambhava (V. 16), the termination 'in' is redundant; for, in the last two cases, a Bahuvrihi Compound would as well serve the purpose. As for example, verses 222, 223 and 224 reveal redundancy of Taddhitas. When Taddhita comes as a necessay thing, in spite of the compound already used, there is no blemish.
(4) Repeated word also constitutes a Vākyadoşa, being the fourth Vākyadoșa. Hemachandra, following Mammața, illustrates it with the same verse (235). Here the world 'Lila' is needlessly repeated and so it constitutes the poetic blemish called 'Uktapada', a Vākyadoșa. In this connection Vāmana's authority is cited (KASV. 5-1-1).
Thus the 'Uktapada' Vākyadoşa occurs when the same word is repeated in the self-same verse; because, such a repetition shows the poet's lack of mastery over the expression. In the above verse, the poet should have used a synonym of 'Lila' in the last line with a view to avoiding this blemish. Uktapada Excused in Alliteration
But, as Hemachandra gives a proviso, this reprtition is permitted in the figure of speech pertaining to word called Lāțānuprāsa or Alliteration. Thus, for instance, the word Pūrvāśā is employed twice but in a different connection, and hence it does not amount to a blemish; on the contrary, it becomes a Guņa. Uktapada No Dosa in Dhvani
Again, sometimes in the Sabdaśaktimuladhvani, especially in the Arthäntarasamkramita variety of it, the repetition of one and the same word does not result in a Doşa at all, as
315

Page #341

illustrated in the well-known gatha (237). Here the word Kamalani is repeated, and, on the strength of Suggestion, the second word Kamala has a vastly different sense and so the repetition produces no blemish. The repeated word 'Kamalani' means "fully expanded beautiful lotuses".
Besides, when the repetition of a word is done in order to re-state a thing already stated once, it is not only justified but is also quite necessary. Thus, in verse (238), the words 'Vinaya', 'Guṇaprakarṣa', etc., are justifiably and repeated without constituting a poetic blemish.
necessarily
(5) The next poetic blemish occurring in a sentence is Asthānapada, a Vakyadoṣa, containing misplaced words. Every word has to be used in its proper place, lest it should convey an absurd sense. Hemachandra explains this fault by a verse (f... etc., V. 239) from the Kiratarjuniya (VIII. 37), cited by Mammata in the same connection. "The lover knitted the garland... etc.". Here, the words 'nobody gave up the garland' ought to be arranged thus: 'A certain woman did not throw away the garland'. In other word, the word Na is misplaced before kacid, as न काचिद विजौ implies that not someone but all discarded the garland. Here Hemachandra's gloss agrees with that of Mammata. However, Hemachandra gives several more examples of the Asthanapada Vakyadoṣa. Thus in the well-known verse (...) from the Kumarasambhavam of Kalidas (V. 71) "Both of you have become objects of pity etc.", "Tvam ca", i.e., 'and you also" is the sense desired and, therefore, 'ca' should have come after 'tvam'. Hemachandra elaborates on this verse in the viveka commentary (p. 210). He observes that the word ca indicates Samuccaya or inclusiveness and should be used immediately after that object with which the inclusion is intended. Similarly the word ga: is also used immediately after the object to be excluded. It results in the poetic blemish of Asthānapada Vākyadoṣa if 'Punah' is used elsewhere. For example, in the verse (340)
316

Page #342

cited in the viveka, the word Punah should have been used after the word Tena, as Hemachandra aptly observes.
Again in the verse (241) 'Śaktiḥ ... etc.', 'Itthari procyeva" instead of 'Procyevettham' should be the correct arrangement. The next verse (242) (Your sword (beloved) has embraced the enemies and is polluted by untouchables (elephants).., etc.) contains the figure Vyājastuti, because herein, though the king. is apparently censured, yet he is inwardly praised. In this verse, says Hemachandra, 'Iti Sriniyogat' should have been the correct way to arrange the fourth line so as to avoid the fault of Asthānapada.
On tbe use of the Enclitic
On this word sra, Hemachandra elaborates in the viveka. commentary (p. 211) by reproducing the Samgrahaślokas (33-35 ) from the second Chapter of Mahimbhatt's Vyaktiviveka to which source he is considerably indebted in this chapter (111) of the Kāvyānusaana. The point made in these smi#s, which recapitulate the preceding exposition, is : "The enclitic Iti marks off the statement intended in a sentence. Hence nothing other than the statement of the nature of the thing should be placed before this 'Iti'. Just as the attribute resides in the possessor of that attribute and so finds mention after it, so also words like Iti, etc. impart their limiting (enclitic) function or attribute to the word after which they come. Thus Iti etc. (indeclinables) should be used in the proper place. Because, if this propriety of order is not observed, then, the marking off of the things so intended will not be done, and some other unexpected object will be marked off; and, this will lead to absurdity of sense. Indeclinables like ittham, Evam, etc., should be treated like other enclitics of the same type. Indeclinables. like 'ca' etc. pinpoint the sense of that word after which they occur; otherwise, confusion of sense results. (If it is urged that this delimiting of the functions of Iti etc. is due to Aucitya or propriety, then we say this is pointless because this function
317

Page #343

arises from propriety itself. Propriety is the essence of poetry. Hemachandra critically observes at the end that Akramatva, in this manner, should not be reckoned a separate blemish; since it is included in the Vakyadoṣa called 'Asthānapada'. Hence Akramadoṣa113 is not treated of.
The gloss reproduces a verse (243) from the Raghuvamsa (XVI. 13) which illustrates the use of the word Tad without the corresponding relative term 'Yad' violating the rule: "There is an invariable relation between Yad and Tad". Hence, according to Hemachandra, the fault of Asthanasthapada occurs 114 here.
Correlation of 'Yad' and 'Tad'
Mammata has discussed the question of the necessity of using Yad and Tad in a related manner in the Seventh Chapter (Dosa-chapter) of the Kavyaprakāśa under the Dosa called Avimṛṣṭavidheyaṁśa. According to the rule, there is an invariable correlation between the relative Yat (who or which) and the personal pronoun Tat (he or it). This invariable correlation between Yat and Tat is of two kinds : Expressed and Understood. Where both Yat and Tat are mentioned, the correlation is said to be Expressed; where one or even both are not stated, the correlation is said to be Understood. In the latter case, the expectation is fulfilled through Implication and hence there is no fault. Mammata has given instances of both the expressed correlation and the understood correlation. In the latter case, (a) the relative pronoun may be understood as in the following three cases: (1) when the pronoun Tat refers to one, that is the subject of discourse (Prakṛanta) (e.g. in Katarye Kevala etc., Saḥ refers to king Atithi who is the subject of discourse), (2) when Tat refers to one that is well-known (prasiddha) Dvayṁ gatam etc. (Here Sā refers to the digit of the Moon which is well-known), (3) when Tat refers to a thing that is known by one's self (Anubhūtārtha) as in Utkampini etc. (Here Te refers to the eyes of Vasavadatta whose beauty has already been experienced by Vatsaraja). In
as in

318

Page #344

these three instances, it is not necessary that Yat should be mentioned. The required meaning is got at through Implication (i.e.) without Yat. or (b) when the personal pronoun is understood when the relative Yat is used in the latter clause, the personal pronoun Tat need not be expressed, but may be understood, in the former by the context; it is therefore, not necessary to state Tat in the former clause; for, it may be obtained by implication. However, if Yat is used in the former clause, then the expectation, raised by it, will not be fulfilled, unless Tat is stated in the latter clause; and (c) when both the correlates are understood from the context as in Bhavābhuti's well-known verse : Ye nāma etc. : "This effort is for him who be born - etc." Mammața's View On Correlation
It may be noted that it is not right, according to Mammața, to explain that when Tat refers to something that is well-known, etc., it does not require Yat, either expressed or understood. For, it is not based on the reading of such works as the Vvaktiviveka etc. and also because it is not favoured by our author himself who says that 'Tat does not requires the express use of Yat', but he does not say that Tat is not required. Thus in the example Tanoti yo'sau etc. the relative Yah remains expectant owing to the absence of an express mention of the personal pronoun Tat and the impossibility of Implication,
in verse no. 244, which means : "The ears take the trouble of carrying the ear-rings, but the ear-rings adorn the cheeks, not the ears." According to the poetic convention : Närdhe Kiñcidasamāptam vākyam, i.e., no sentence should be left unfinished after the half of a verse, "Śravaņānām" piaced in the second line, ought to have been placed in the first half of the verse. In this connection, Hemachandra observes in the Viveka that by virtue of this statement, contained in the gloss, Ardhantaraikavācakatvam is not mentioned by him as a separate sentence-fault. However, Mammața has mentioned it.
319

Page #345

It is a fault of isolating a word in a distinct half (as in the verse 244 here, e.g., the word Sravaņānām placed in the distinct, second line) which occurs when an important word, signifying a reason etc., is isolated from the half to which it belongs, and is placed in the other half. This fault is not Sarkirņatva, because the word does not fall in another sentence, but is simply placed in the other half of the sentence. This fault consists in the absence of expectancy which constitutes a fault. According to some, this fault may also occur when a word belonging to the second half, is placed in the first half. 115
in the next Gathā (245), the hair of the woman, who has just finished her bath, is fancied to be weeping, by means of drops of water, as if with the fear of being tied up. In this verse, there are two Utprekşās, but the main Utprekşā is connected with the word 'Rudanti'. Hence the word Iva, showing the Utpreksā, should be placed next to Rudanti, and not with Bandhasya, as is done here. Hence there occurs the fault of Asthānapadtva. Here, our author quotes a couplet to support
V. The couplet or Kārikā states: "When there are many Utpreksās, the word indicative of the Utpreksā should with that Utpreksā which is the most important." This Kārika is from Vyaktiviveka 11 (110).
(6) The blemish of diminishing excellence called Patatprakarsa occurs where the excellence of either a figure or a composition is gradually diminished as explained in the verse "kah kaḥ kutra ... etc." (246). This fault appears when the style offends against uniformity and propriety. For instance, in the present verse (246), the excellence of the sense is increasing, since the elephant is more terrible than the bear, and so on with the buffalo and the lion; and yet the excellence of words consisting in alliteration (Anuprāsa) and harsh sounds is gradually falling off. However, when the excellence diminishes according as the sentiment falls off, as in the next verse (247), i.e., in the fourth line, there is no fault. In fact, in this particular verse, the diminishing excellence, we are told by
320

Page #346

Hemachandra, becomes a Guņa or merit. Here the first three lines contain a challenge by Parasurama and are full of the heroic sentiment and as such the style of composition abounds in compounds. But in the fourth line, the poet avoids, quite appropriately, a compound (though it was due in its proper course); for, the line in question contains a reverential reference to Lord Siva and as such the style is soft, not harsh. Hence this fall of excellence is not a Doșa; but it is a merit.
(7) Samāptapunarāttatva or Resumption of the concluded, is a blemish that occurs, as the very name indicates, when a sentence that is concluded is again taken up by some words, that qualify it, contrary to our expectation. The word that resumes the statement or the sentence may be connected with it (1) as an adjective or an adjectival phrase, or (2) as an adjectival clause. In the second case, Samāptapunarāttatva is no fault, as Mammata puts it. This kind is illustrated in the verse (247), explained above, where the word Yena shows that the clause is adjectival to the first sentence which is principal. The illustration given by Hemachandra is verse no. 248. Here, in the first three lines, the poet says that it is impossible to describe the different qualities of the King Viracūņāmani, the foremost of heroes. Having completed the statement thus, the poet once again states the same thing in another way, and as such, the fourth line appears like a superfluous tail attached to the main statement which, as Hemachandra observes, does not strike us as charming, and hence it is a blemish. But where the statement is not supplemented, but a new clause is composed, there is no fault as shown above in connection with the verse 247.
(8) Avisargatvam is a blemish when the disappearance of Visarga is carried to excess as in the verse 249 in which several Visargas are changed into U or O. To make this a sentence-fault, it is necessary that more than one Visarga should be blunted. The Upahata referred to by Upahatau in the definition is the change of the Visarga to U. Mammața
321
21

Page #347

"where many
calls it Upahata-visargatva, and it is that
visargas are consecutively changed to 'u'". Another fault of Visarga is dropping of the Visarga called "Lupta-visarga". This fault creeps in where many visargas are dropped. The fault in both Upahata and Luptavisargatva arises due to the dissatisfaction produced in the reader by the harshness, i.e, looseness of the composition. Therefore, it is permanent. However, the presence of many Visargas is also a blemish.
(9) Hatavṛttatva or a metre condemned is a fault. 116 When a verse is composed in a faulty manner and does not scrupulously observe the rules of metre and of the proper stops in the metre and when the last syllable of every line is not in harmony with the Rasa which it contains. In short, Hemachandra mentions five varieties of Hatavṛttatva: (1) When there is a violation of the definition of a metre; (2) When there is a break in the ceasura; (3) Although the definition of the metre is followed, yet it sounds harsh to the ear; (4) When a verse ends in a short syllable; and (5) When it is inconsistent with the sentiment in a verse. Actually, however, we may look upon a Condemned Metre as nothing but a harsh metre including under it all the five varieties of the fault. This is because the general feature of harshness to the hearer is found to run through all of them.
Since Hemachandra has written a whole work on Prosody, he refers us to that work for further details regarding metrical rules and conception, and gives only instances of Hatavṛttatvadoșa. The single-line quotation (250) illustrates the Vaitāliya metre in which the second foot offends against the rules of the metre by giving six short syllables in succession. And, in the next two quotations (251 & 252), the rule regarding ceasura is broken. In another illustration (253), the metre is Hariņi, in which the first caesura in every line is at the end of the sixth syllable. Here, however, the letter Hā at which there is a causura, is dependent upon another word, i.e., Anyat, being joined to it, and thus breaks the causura. Thus it is harsh here.117

322

Page #348

(10) The fault of Sankirņatva or Confusion consists in the insertion into a sentence of words belonging to a distinct sentence. In other words, there is a confusion of sense because the words of two or more sentences are mixed up together. For instance in the Prakrit verse (256), Hemachandra points out in the gloss the proper order of the sentences.
However, when sentences come in a string, as in smart dialogues, there is no fault of Sankirņatva as in the famous verse (257) cited here.
This fault thus consist in a delayed or even an undesirable apprehension of meaning. The word "Vākya' in "Vākyāntara', used in the definition of this Doşa, serves to point out that here a simple sentence is meant, not a complex or a compound one. The difference between Klişta and Sankirna is that, while in the former, absence of proper meaning is due to the position of words in one and the same sentence, in the latter, confusion prevails due to the mixing up of words in distinct sentences.
(11) Garbhitatva or Use of a parenthesis occurs when in one sentence another sentence is inserted parenthetically. Thus a distinct sentence is wholly inserted in a (1) principal sentence or (2) between two clauses of the principal sentence. The verse (258) 974#TT etc. illustrates the first kind wherein the sentence "Vadāmi... etc." inserted parenthetically thrusts itself un-necessarily in the main sentence 'Parapakara ... etc.'. The same verse is cited by Mammața and Udyotakāra observes that the inserted sentence is capable of yielding a meaning, but in Sankirņatva it is not so. In fact, in Saňkīrṇatva, some words only of one sentence are inserted into another; but in Garbhitatva, one whole sentence is inserted. However, the essence of the fault (want of proximity) is the same in both. When use of Parenthesis becomes a Guņa
Nevertheless, when the speaker is in a flurry of some emotion, such insertions add grace to the style. Thus, for
323

Page #349

instance, in the verse (259): ["The whole world was conquered by Parsurama; (while describing his exploits we are thrilled with wonder) and it was given to the Brahmins. This wonderful story started with him and died with him."] "Vadanta evak comes in the main flow of the sentence - but as it shows a great excitement on the part of the speaker due to Vira and Adbhuta, no fauit of "Garbhitatva' is involved here. On the contrary, Hemachandra asserts, it terminates in a merit (0 ).
(12) When uniformity or harmony is broken, there occurs the fault of Bhagnaprakramatva. Thus, this fault consists in violation of Uniformity or Harmony. It may be noted that the word Prakrama, according to the commentary Prabhā, does not mean commencement but it simply means uniformity of the subject - whether the beginning of the subject is violated by its end or the end by its beginning, does not matter. However, as a rule, one should begin a statement with a particular word or a word in perfect harmony with it; for, the introduction of a strange word jars on our ears and as such the fau Bhagnaprakrama, as Mammața and Hemachandra call it, occurs, as e.g., in the one-line quotation (260), we have the words Ukta and Pratyabhāşata. According to Hemachandra, there is no harmony or uniformity between these two words and as such there is the fault of violation of harmony. However, if Pratyavocata were usedi n place of Pratyabhāşata, it would go well with Ukta. The word Tadvisrstah in the next verse (261), cited from the Kumārasambhava (VI. 94) is faulty and should be replaced by Anena vișrstah. The word #FIT: in the next verse (262), cited from the Kirātārjuniya (VII. 32), used in the genitive, constitutes violation of harmony of the instrumental case which shows the reason of the Pandava brothers not being grieved at Arjuna's departure for penance. So also the word Gajājinasya in the genitive case breaks the uniformity; for, the word Bhasmaiva is used in the nominative case, and Kapālam agrees with it in the verse (263) from the Kumārasambhava (VII. 32). Hemachandra recommends that the expression should be reworded (using the nominative) to suit the contextual
324

Page #350

፡
harmony. Again, in verse 264, quoted in the Vyakti Viveka (II) from the Sisupalavadha (V. 28), the idea is that the army used and enjoyed the waters of the mountain-rivers in a variety of ways and thus removed the stigma of the rivers that they were not enjoyed. Here the verbs are used harmoniously unti! the trend is broken, making it faulty due to violation of form. If the compound word is broken, the harmony will be restored and the blemish removed. As said above, Hemachandra is indebted to Mahimabhaṭṭa in this Chapter both in the body of the Kavyanuśāsan text-specially the gloss, and in the reference material reproduced in the Viveka. The Vyaktiviveka has been drawn upon at several places here. In particular, he has taken over this present verse FJ: etc.' (264) quoted in the Vyaktiviveka (1) along with Mahimabhatta's views by saying that in connection with this verse, some people allege that since herein by the verbs Nejana etc., the harmony of time which was started by Snana etc. is violated, there is here Prakramabheda in relation to Time as well. Hemachandra obviously hints here at Mahimabhatta's position because the present verse is actually given by Mahimabhatta to illustrate Kalaviseṣaprakramabheda. 1 18 Against this view, Hemachandra holds that since here no specific time is intended by the poet, this Dosa should not be alleged to be present. To say this, he reproduces Mahimabhatta's own comments (V.V., II. p. 302). The Viveka passage (p. 217 ff.) thus represents verbatim the comments of Mahimabhatta who had anticipated the objection referred to above. The passage states: "Alternatively, this fault of violation of Uniformity of time should not be reckoned as a fault at all. For, Uniformity of Time arises from the intention of the author which is itself uncertain." As Patanjali says in the Bhāṣya, "What is popularly considered as Perfect or which is known to the people as an object of the distant past, if the user (of that form) is able to see it or if it is fit to be seen by the user, then that Perfect tense is not intended and in such a case, the imperfect or Lan is used, as e.g., in 'Jayanta conquered the creatures', etc. Besides, whether it is

325

Page #351

beyond seeing or is unfit to see, there may be absence of intention, as e.g., in the statement 'an unmarried girl does not have a waist.' Now, Ajayat means that which was done in the remote past, and yet because it is worth seeing, it is not considered as remote, and as such the perfect (Parokṣa) past is not employed here. Again in 'Anudara Kanya', the girls has a belly, but it is so slender so that she is called a giril having no belly. Mahimabhatta, therefore, says in a Sangrahaśloka : "When a sense is dependent on intention for its presence or absence, the wise do not take into account the fault of violation of the harmony of time" (VV. II. 30).
The next illustration of Bhagnaprakratva (verse 265) is from the Kirātārjunīya (III. 40), and it has been quoted by Mahimabhaṭṭa, Mammata and by our author too. It appears that Mammata is also indebted to Mahimabhatta in respect of ideas and illustrative verses on Dosas just as Hemachandra is beholden to Mahimabhatta. The idea in the verse is "Success favours those who strive hard for fame or happiness or to surpass othres." In this verse, there is no uniformity of affix (the infinitive termination), as the trend of the verse to use infinitives is broken, causing disharmony of form; hence this fault. To get over this fault, Hemachandra recommends the words Sukhamihitum va as proper. Mammata, however, briefly, states that here we have disharmony of a termination, and then recommends the same taxtual change which Hemachandra has suggested. Incidentally, this verse occurs in the Vyaktiviveka (II. p. 293) and Mahimabhaṭṭa comments that here we have the fault of Prakramabheda coupled with another fault in the form of an improper use of the option-denoting word Va in the sense of Ca which is connective. But he holds over the discussion of this second fault and deals with the fault due to disharmony of an affix (Tumun) and recommends that the proper text should be 'Yasodhigantum ... vā'. In the Viveka Commentary, therefore, Hemachandra reproduces a passage of the Vyaktiviveka which in part precedes the present verse and also follows it in the source.

326

Page #352

Hemachandra's quotation in the Viveka (p. 218) begins with the comment that in the above expression 'Sukham... etc.' the use of Va cannot be said to be improper, being suggestive of an option between two equal options - as such, the objection is refuted.
Mahimabhatta has quoted the verse (Viveka, V. 343) from the Raghuvamsa (VIII. 85) to illustrate Pratyayaprakramabheda. In the next verse (Viveka, 344), Mahimabhaṭṭa observes that the poet has started the trend of mentioning the imperative forms and despite the change in the trend, the development of the idea goes on unhampered, because the use of imperatives was not done away with. Hence here there is no Pratyayabheda.
In the next verse (K.A.S., gloss, V. 266) the poet starts with the word Udanvat (the sea), but in the next sentence again mentions the sea by the word Apam nidhiḥ. This is a fault. Mahimabhatta recommends a change which means: The earth is limited (bounded) by the sea and the sea is a hundred yojanas in expanse. This would ensure that the sea which is the subject of the verb 'child' would become an expressed and principal predicate and the fault befalling the compound word would be removed. Hemachandra has cited this last comment of the Vyaktiviveka gloss in the viveka and reproduced the next two verses (345-6). His instance (V. no. 267, gloss) of using synonyms in the same context explains Mahima's Upasargaprakramabheda. The verse No. 270 illustrates Mahima's Sabdaprakramabheda. Verse 273, 274, etc., illustrate this blemish in different figures. But verse 275 has a child as the speaker; hence there is no Doṣa here. Viveka (p. 220) contains a Vyaktiviveka passage which is interesting (V.V. p. 320 etc.). This is the way in which the violation of uniformity is explained. Ananvita is Hemachandra's last (13th) blemish of a sentence. It consists in absence or incompatibility of connection which terminates in absurdity of meaning or superfluity of sense (vide K.A.S. Gloss, p. 222).

327

Page #353

The Eight Ubhayadoṣas
Next Hemachandra takes up the eight blemishes pertainnig both to Word as well as Sentence. These are (III. 6): (1) Unconventional Usage or Aprayuktatvam; (2) Indecorous (in three ways) or Aslilatvam;
(3) Incapable of giving sense or Asamarthatvam;
(4) Having an improper significance or Anucitarthatvam; (5) Unpleasant to the ear or Śrutikaṭutva;
(6) Obscure in meaning or Kliṣṭatva;
(7) Having the predicative factor not discriminated or Avimṛṣṭavidheyamśam; and,
(8) Of repugnant implication or
when occurring in a compound).
A Comparative Study of Ubhayadosas
Viruddhabuddhikrt (only
Now, Hemachandra's Aprayukta is called by the same name by Mammata and Bhoja. Rudrata regards this fault as a sense-fault, and calls it Apratitam. Our author's Aslilatvam (threefold) is Bhoja's Gramyam - Asabhyartham Aslilatvam and it is manifold. Mammata, however, calls it by the same name. Vāmana has two more divisions under Aslila, in addition to those of Mammata. According to him Aslila is a padarthadoṣa. Bhoja makes Aslila a sub-division of Gramya and makes Amangala and Ghṛṇavat coordinate with it. Asamarthatva here is the same in Mammata, Rudrata and Viśvanatha, but Vagbhata calls it Aprasiddha (e.g. Hanti). Hemachandra's Anucitartha is common to Mammata and Viśvanatha. The Śrutikatu of Mammata and Hemachandra is Vamana's and Bhoja's Kasta and Śrutikaṭu of Vagbhata but Paruşa and Duḥśrava of Vidyanatha (P.R.Y.B.) and Viśvanatha respectively. Hemachandra's Klista is the Kliṣṭa of Vamana's Padarthadosa Klista, Bhoja's and Vidyadhara's Apuṣṭārtha and Klistadosa and Klista of Viśvanatha. Vägbhaṭa calls it Asammita. Hemachandra's Avimṛṣṭavidheyamsa is the namesake of Mammata's as well as of Viśvanatha's same Dosa.

328

Page #354

Hemachandra's Viruddhabuddhikrt is Mammața's Viruddhamatikrt but Vāgbhata's Vyāhatārtha, Bhoja's Viruddha and Rudrata's Viparītakalpana. In point of fact all these are word-faults only. Hemachandra's Treatment of Ubhayadosas
in dealing with these eight Ubhayadosas, Hemachandra derives help from and substantially draws upon the works of Rudrața, Mahimabhatta and Mammața. Hemachandra explains his unconventional or unemployed faulty word as one not sanctioned by poetic tradition, though it is well-known among the masses alone (i.e., Grāmya or Vulgar) or in the śāstras alone. In view of this, the defects of Apratīta, Asamartha and Nihatārtha in Mammața's sixteen Padadosas do not need separate mention, being included in Aprayukta itself. However, Asamartha is retained by Hemachandra as an Ubhayadosa (of Pada and Vākya). Mammața (K.P. VII. 51) gives sixteen Padadosas and then debars three viz., ungrammaticalness, incapable and uselessness from the field of Padadosa, retaining thirteen as Vākyadosas. The distinction of Pada-Vākyadoşa is justified on the ground that where the defect lies in a single word in the sentence, it is regarded as occurring in the word, while, where it occurs in more than one word, it is taken as occurring in the sentence.
Incidentally Hemachandra cites Rudrata's verse (VI. 27) to express the view that slang words should not be used as Desya words are not amenable to etymological explanations and are regional in character. But Aprayuktatva is a fault common to Word and Sense both in Mammața and Hemachandra. The fault consists in delayed apprehension of the principal sense (Mukhyārthahati).
'Aslilatva' or indecency causes the manifestation of shame, disgust or inauspiciousness. There are many subdivisions of these three. Hemachandra draws on Mammața here. As this fault consists in the apprehension of a sense that diminishes the enjoyment of the Rasa or in causing dissatisfaction to
329

Page #355

the reader due to suggestion of such a sense, it is no blemish of Jugupsā in certain Rasas (śānta, for instance) where 'renunciation' is the aim. Similarly, Vriņā is no blemish in Love.
'Asamarthatva' is an interesting blemish. It means partially powerless word or sentence. This represents the principle of Ambiguity in English Literature as a poetic and stylistic device. But, as William Empson warns us (Seven Types of Ambiguity, p. 235) : "An ambiguity .... is not satisfying in itself, nor is it considered a device on its own, a thing to be attempted; it must in each case arise from, and be justified by, the peculiar requirements of the situation." Otherwise ambiguity degenerates into obscurity and dubiety.1 19 But not when it is deliberate and suggestive. And when it results in Vyājastuti, it is a Guņa.
Hemachandra follows a different authority in regard to Asamarthatva which consists in a (1) lack of expressiveness (Mammața's Avācaka); (2) fanciful sense, and (3) doubtfulness or ambiguity and incapacity to convey the intended sense. It pertains to word and sentence. Thus Mammata's Asamartha, Avācaka, Prasiddhiha ta and Sandigdha are included here under Asamartha. Hemachandra adopts verses and comments from Mammața and also takes over passages from Vyaktiviveka in his Viveka. The long passage (V.V. p. 440) by Mahimā explains the Avācyavacanadosa which Hemachandra modifies slightly. This passage deals with verbal and semantic statements in a subtle, analytical way. Mahimabhatta's Conception of Doșas
It may be noted that in the second chapter of Vyaktiviveka, Mahimabhatta first explains Doșa in terms of impropriety and then sub-divides Doşa into Internal (Rasadoşa) and External (Word and Sense faults). He gives a fivefold classification to this external inappropriateness or poetic blemish : Vidheyāvimarsa, Prakramabheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vacyāvacana. While the internal blemishes relate directly to Rasa as explained by the Dhvanyaloka, the enternal blemishes
330

Page #356

are detrimental to Rasa through the via media of Vacya (i.e., Artha), working through Sabda. Thus the external doṣas are indirect and mediate. Thus Mahimabhatta, a critic of the Dhvani theory, "admits unhesitatingly Anandavardhana's doctrine of Anaucitya (incongruity) but proceeds to analyse the concept scientifically". Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy observes that this classification of Dosas was for the first time enunciated by Mahimabhatta. They are as much logical as literary defects. 120
Hemachandra reproduces Mahimabhatta's arguments on and off (e.g. V.V. II. p. 231 etc.; pp. 378, 388-9; also pp. 431-32, etc., as well as his Samgrahaślokas 73-77 etc.) in his Viveka at several places to elaborate on the different Dosas of language and meaning and benefits from Mahimabhaṭṭa's superb analytical acumen. In connection with citations of Mahimabhaṭṭa's views, Hemachandra adds critical comments and shows that Dosas are interconnected, overlapping and inclusive in many places.
In this connection we may draw the reader's attention to Hemachandra's method of drawing upon and connecting Mahimabhaṭṭa's views of Avacyavacanadoṣa with regard to Avaśyavācya (VV. 383 & 335). It is also noteworthy that even Mammaţa has benefitted from Mahimabhaṭṭa's intensive deliberations on Dosas. And it is no exaggeration to state that Mahima's detailed discussion of well-known verses from Kālidāsa and others are quite thought-provoking and remarkable for their incisiveness and thoroughness (Vide 'Viveka',
pp. 203-4).
Anucitarthatva consists in improper signification and is a permanent fault and this fault corresponds to Hinopamā. It arises from a breach of propriety and Mammata's illustrations under Upamadoṣas etc. are taken over by Hemachandra. Bhamaha (II. 54 & 55) also deals with this aspect of Upama. While accepting Mammata's views here, Hemachandra adds the proviso that this is not a blemish

331

Page #357

when the incompatibility of two things compared leads to a deliberate censure. This fault occurs in a word as well as a
sentence.
Cacophony is a well-known word-fault. It consists of such harsh letters or syllables as manifest the excellence called Ojas and depress the principal sense. Such words are faulty only in case of a Rasa that is possessed of Madhurya; since in the Heroic etc., they heighten the sentiment. It is not a blemish when a grammarian is a speaker, when there is imitation of another. Mammaṭa's Pratikūlavarṇatva is a sentence fault occurring in Rasa-poems. Hemachandra illustrates cacophony in a sentence and states (VII. 59) that "owing to the propriety of the speaker etc., even a blemish becomes excellence in certain cases, and in others, it is neither the one nor the other". We can see to what extent Mammaṭa's codification of Dosa holds away over later writers like Hemachandra, Viśvanatha and others. These later authors not only accept Mammata's views and comments but also his illustrative verses. In this connection, one realises the truth of Dr. V. Raghavan's remarks:
"Hemachandra's treatment of Dosas in Chapter III..... is almost a reproduction of Mammaṭa's Chapter on Doṣas. Hemachandra accepts all the Rasadosas; most of Mammata's Pada-dosas and Vakyadosas are accepted..... All the Arthadoṣas.....are also accepted... .The number, nature and illustrations of all the flaws are the same. In (his) own commentary on his work, Hemachan dra has given additional matter drawn from Anandavardhana and Mahimabhaṭṭa under the heads of Rasadoṣas, Avimṛṣṭavidheya and Prakrama and Krama Bhangas."
(Bhojas Ś'r. Pr., p. 246)
Similar views are also expressed by Shri Trilokanath Jha in his paper in the Journal of Bihar Research Society, Vol. XLIII (1-2) in connection with Hemachandra's
indebtedness
to Mahimabhaṭṭa.

332
.....

Page #358

Hemachandra's Kliştatva occurs when there is a delay in apprehending the sense of a verse or a sentence owing to its fauity Syntax or its clumsy construction and results in obscurity of meaning. He adapts Mammața's words. Mammața had provided (K.P. VII. 51) that the blemishes of the Obscure, the Prominent non-mention of the Predicate or of the Apodotic or of the Emphatic and the Repugnant Implication or Suggestion occur in a comound only.
However, when the words remain separate, the blemish belongs to a sentence. Thus the blemish arising from the want of juxtaposition is a sentence-fault only. It may be noted that Obscurity is no fault when the adjectives are peculiar to certain persons such a Rāvana, Siva, etc., or in Enigma or Paranomasia, etc., when a delayed apprehension is desirable. And in the case of a drunkard etc., it is even an excellence.
Avimrstavidheyāņģatva or the blemish of Non-discriminated in predicate occurs where the predicative part is not principally stated, as Hemachandra puts it. This blemish pertains to a word and a sentence. This blemish is one of the most prominent blemishes, and it has attracted much attention of the theorists. According to Mr. Mitra, the translator of the Sahityadarpaņa, the Sanskrit word 'Vidheya' "is not restricted to the sense of predicate' but is used also in the signification of a word that gratifies the expectation raised by a previous word, as also in the sense of one on which a stress is laid". For this reason, Mr. Mitra has coined the adjective Apodotic from the Greek word Apodosis which, in Greek, means the completive part of a sentence, which gratifies the expectation raised by the Protasis or the introductory part. Now, the prominence of the predicate implies its capability of being apprehended as the predicate and it has that capability when it is expressed after the subject, and is not subordinate to it. Thus this blemish extends to the verses Nyakkāro etc., and Kṣaṇamappa etc., because in the former, the required prominence is absent and in the latter, an express nagation
333

Page #359

is not mentioned. Thus both the parts of the definition, i.e., the adverb Pradhānyena (prominently) and the verb Anirdiṣṭaḥ (not expressed) have got their proprieties. In a sentence, the subject and the predicate are the two principal parts, and to be known as such, both must be stated separately. Hemachandra adduces instances where this rule is violated, giving rise to the fault of prominent non-mention of the predicate. And, in the Viveka Commentary (p. 243), he deals with the aspect of Negation (Nised ha) with the help of a Vyaktiviveka passage (VV. II, opening passage). This discussion is comparable to Mammata's discussion of the negative compound (Vide K.P. VII. V. 162), which stresses that the negation should be predicated, i.e., emphasised. Mammata points to the famous stanza from the Vikramorvaśīyam (IV. 7) where this is done - and rightly. For, as the quotation (no. 73) in Viveka states, "When the affirmation is not principal, but the denial is so, the latter is termed an Express Negation or Prasajya Pratiṣedha in the case of which the negative associates with the word that qualifies the verb as in Na dṛptaniśacaraḥ (and not Adṛptaniśācaraḥ)". But, in the given examples Amukta or Anuktavan, the denial has not the appearance of an Emphatic Negation (i.e., it is not Na mukta or Na uktavān), being reduced to an unprominent condition in the Tatpurușa compound (Amukta or Anuktavān), and hence, faring like what is called a "Privation" or Paryudāsa. Thus, "when the affirmation is chiefly intended, and not the denial, it is to be recognized as that case of denial, which is called Paryudāsa, where the negative is compounded with another word, as in Jugopatmanam (Raghu. I. 21)". In this verse, there is no poetic blemish since the adjectives Atrastaḥ, Anaturaḥ, etc., go with the subject and are not predicates and as such they do not need prominent non-mention.
Two Types of Negation
Thus, there are two kinds of Negation (1) Prasajya pratisedha in which the negation, instead of the affirmation, is

334

Page #360

emphatic, and (2) Paryudāsa, where affirmation is more prominent than negation. Besides, on the basis of the general principle that if a word enters into a compound, it cannot be emphasised, it is laid down that when negation is not compounded it is Prasajyapratişedha and when it is compounded, it is Paryudāsa, However, Vāmana allows compounding in Prasajya pratiședha and hence it cannot be said to be admitted on all hands that whenever Nañ is compounded, it must be Paryudāsa. Hemachandra thinks that the negation in Anuktavān should be emphatic because it is a negation called prasajyapratişedha and so he states that the negative compound in Anuktavān is improper because the negative here is called Paryudāsa (compounded) and it gets connected with the verb. Besides, he adds, by reproducing an argument from the Vyaktiviveka, connected with the verse Samrambhah Karikita... etc. (V.353 in our text, cited to illustrate Avimțstavidheyāṁsadosa in a sentence, p. 245) with the comments (p. 196), that it is not proper to resort to Paryudāsa here because it will prevent the sense from being comprehended or the sense will not fit in. This discussion proceeds apace and forms an interesting intellectual exercise in the Vyaktiviveka (11) (vide Viveka, Qs. 76-77) the discussion regarding the propriety of construction in relation to Uddeśya and Vidheya so as to avoid the Vācyāvacanadoşa comes to an end (vide V.V.11. 94-95; also pp. 431-32) thus :
"The predicate should not be stated without stating the subject; for nothing, nowhere can stand stable unless it has found a substratum. This mutual relation of subject and predicate is of the nature of Rūpya-rūpaka; so, in it, the mention of predicate is never proper before a subject." (vide K.A.S., pp. 244-245). Hemachandra goes on to cite the view-point of patañjali, the author of the Mahābhāşya, who has detected the blemish of prominent non-mention of the predicate in Pānini's, sūtra "Vưddhirādaic" because the order of Anuvadya or Uddesya and Vidheya is reversed here. But he defends this reversal on the ground that it signifies an auspicious beginning.
335

Page #361

In view of the definition of Pramāņa as given in Pramāņavārtika I. 31 ("Pramāņa or Proof is unobstructed or uncontradicted knowledge"), in poetry also the same methodology is recommended; as e.g., in the verse lyam gehe laksmi... etc. (U.R.C. 1.38).
Hemachandra adopts the verse Trak tāravi nivasanam (to emphasize the above points) and the verse (No. 353) Saṁrambhah karikitamegha....etc. from the Vyaktiviveka (the last mentioned verse explains the same blemish in a sentence). However, the words Yo'sau in the fourth line (in verse 353), give rise to a discussion on another aspect of the same fault. Here the use of Yad without Tad is a blemish) for. Yad must be followed by Tad and between the two, Tad is very important and hence it should not be dropped. The discussion on this point is quite exhaustive as presented in the gloss. (K.A.S., pp. 245-247). Mammața states that (1) The personal pronoun Tad, when it refers to an object (a) that is under discussion (b) well-known or (c) known by experience, does not require the use of Yad (K.P. VII, gloss); (2) If the pronoun Yad is used correlatedly in a sentence that follows, it does not require, because of its potency, the use of Tat correlated to the sentence that precedes; because herein Yad implies Tad; (3) But the pronoun Yat, used in the beginning, does not fulfil its expectancy without the use of Tat in a latter sentence; (4) When both are mentioned, nothing is wanting; (5) In some cases, both may be implied; as e.g. in Ye nama kecid etc.; (6) Tat and Adas juxtaposed with Yat, signify well-knownness. (Veņi. 1.13); (7) The use of Yat twice, with tat used once, implies all the objects singly, This lead is followed by Visvanatha also.
Compound Words
While discussing Mahimabhatta's illustrative verse on, Ambikakesari, Hemachandra reproduces an expository passage in the Viveka (pp. 247-258) which runs into 12 pages. This.
336

Page #362

relates to the rule that the pronoun Yat used in the beginning does not fulfil its expectancy without the use of Tat (gloss p. 247, v. 358 ff). This discussion is connected with Mahimabhatta's exposition of the compounding of words under the third type of Vidheyāvimarsa (V.V.II). Hemachandra thus introduces the question of use of words in compounds that leads to the blemish of Avimțstavidheyaṁśa. Mammața has also touched on this aspect under the compound words Aryānuja and Tātakalatra, where the words Ārya and Tāta are improperly subordinated in the compounds. Hemachandra, therefore, hits on presenting the traditional ideas on this question by means of the Vyaktiviveka passage referred to above. Mammața already mentions that of his sixteen Padadosas, the last three of obscurity, prominent non-mention of the predicate and repugnant suggestion are possible only in a compound. However, it is a sentence-fault when the words are separated. Instances of Samāsas are also cited wherr this fault occurs. Mahimabhatta's View on Compounds Summarised
In the verse (353) #17: FEITETSETATE 217... etc.', Mahimabhatta's attention is first engaged by the negation in the word
#699r. In Asamrabdhavān, negation is prominent, not assertion. So compounding is not proper; for this is a case of Prasajyapratiședha. This is the first kind of Vidheyāvimarsadoşa. The second type of this dosa occurs in the same verse as the correlation of Yad and Tad is jeopardised (only Yad, without Tad, occurs herein and mere Yad refers to a known fact; as such, it does not convey any new meaning. Hence it is the sphere of Anuvādya). The long Vyaktiviveka passage cited by Hemachandra refers to the third type of Vidheyāvimarśadoşa in the same verse. Mahimā introduces the topic of Samāsa by observing that "in the word Ambikäkesari, the genitive compound does not fit in well; for it is faulty. Now, generally, all compound words (except Dvandva or pairs) are made up of adjectives and substantives; for, otherwise, they
337
22

Page #363

will not be capable of giving 'sense'. This relation takes two forms according as the qualifier and the qualified are in the same case or in different cases. The first relation characterises the Karmadharaya compound. But where, in a compound, two or more words qualify a third (uncompounded) word, it is a fit case of the Adjectival Compound (Bahuvrihi). Besides, when, in a compound, either a numeral word occurs or a negation occurs, then a Dvigu or a negative compound comes into being. When many case-relations operate, they typify the Tatpurusa but where an indeclinable dominates, there, the Avyayibhava
Occurs.
"Thus, although a compound consists of an adjective and a substantive, yet when the adjective promotes the beauty of its substratum, i.e., the substantive and as such becomes dominant enough to occupy the position of an Emphatic (predicate) term and at the same time when the substantive is merely reduced to the status of a subject term, being subordinated to the predicate term, one should avoid the compounding of the two words. For, in the case where the two words are compounded, there the dominantness and the subordinateness respectively of the adjective and the substantive will cease to exist. As for opposition between the subordinateness and principalness as co-existing, this is not a meterial argument. As for the outcome, the outcome of the predicated thing or intended sense is the unique, charming sense of a sentence known to a few connoisseurs and is a subject peculiar to the Genius of the poet only." This view is illustrated with examples of the different compounds by Mahima. On and off, Mahima offers thought-provoking comments on the verbal and semantic as well as logical aspects of this topic. Mahima particularly emphasises the fact that the emphasis that is experienced in the quaifying words (i.e., Predicates) is possible when these case-terminations are retained; hence when these cases are obliterated, the emphasis due to a predicate is not apprehended. And for this reason,

338

Page #364

not only is there subordination through words in the adjective but there is also subordination in point of sense; for, they ascribe their attributes, known through other means of proof, to the substantive and thus increase the latter's charm. And by this we apprehend the prominence of the subject (i.e., Substantive) in virtue of the words and also the sense. For these substantives only serve as subjects. As, in a compound, there Occurs the disappearance of a case-termination, the apprehension of promotion or demotion does not take place. Consequently, Rasa, which depends on the promotion etc. of the Sense, cannot be realised and thus the poem whose soul is Rasa suffers from the blemish of Vidheyavimarśa. Hemachandra omits paragraphs in between and goes on to cover several aspects of the matter in hand. The upshot, however, is that anything emphasised by the poet must not be, as a rule, compounded with another. There is no rule that the other word must be a substantive only. It can be anything else.
However, the three Antaraślokas (V.V. II. 18-20) cited in the Viveka (Qs. 82-83 p. 258) which follow the explanation of the linguistic beauty of the well-known verse Nyakkāro etc. ( an acknowledged example of the Vidheyavimarśa blemish), also answer the question-"Is it always a blemish to compound words?" in the negative and state :
"But the employment of a compound is considered praiseworthy in Rasas like Vira etc. (except in Santa, Śṛngāra and Karuna) since such a mode of expression suggests the Rasas in question. For, Samāsas, Metres, the Vrttis (like Kaiśiki, Upanagarika etc.) and Kāku are the suggestors of Rasa as they have the Vācikabhinaya as their Atma or are included in Vacikabhinaya. And compounding should be done only half-way in a verse - not more; not in a substained way so as to pervade the four lines; otherwise it becomes like prose, which being non-metrical, is deficient in delineating the Rasas." The role of a predicate implies predominance or emphasis; for, there cannot be dissociation (Vyabhicāra) between

339

Page #365

Pradhanya and Vidheyatva. They always go hand in hand. Hence prominent non-mention of this important factor in a sentence is also a blemish.
The eighth and the last poetic blemish occurring both in a word and a sentence is Viruddhabuddhikṛt or one that causes repugnant suggestion or Implication. This also occurs when the compound is resolved in another way, as e.g.. the word Akäryamitra, i.e., (1) an unselfish friend (2) 'a friend in evil'. The second sense is repugnant to the first sense, which is intended. However, the first method involves a Lakṣaṇā and SO the second sense is more readily apprehended. Secondly, this blemish occurs when two nouns. are so compounded as to form a third noun, which by custom, has a sense, opposed to that sense which is yielded by the two nouns; as e.g., Galagraha. Several other varieties are also illustrated where a sense repugnant to the intended sense is suggested. Hence it is no blemish if the repugnant sense is intended. In a sentence, a number of ambiguous words lead to this fault. But when this ambiguity is deliberate, blemish occurs.
no
Arthadoṣas Explained
Hemachandra enumerates twenty blemishes pertaining to Sense. The blemish of Kaṣṭatva or obscurity of sense arises out of clumsiness of construction (Verse 370; K.P. VII, V. 268). Apuṣṭārthatva or Superfluity and Irrelevance is instanced when a sense which is not at all pertinent to the subject in hand is thrust in a verse. However, irrelevance is also understood by Mammata as implying inconsistency or tautology. So irrelevance or superfluity yield two types of this fault and reflect on the poet's deficient powers. In Slesa or paronomasia etc., where a display of figures of word such as alliteration etc. is the is no blemish principal point, there of this kind, viz. Apuṣṭārthatva.
The other blemishes of Sense, with self-explanatory and tell-tale names, are Vyahatatva (Contradictoriness), Gramyatva

340

Page #366

or Avaidagdhya (An unpoetic or rustic, vulgar sense), Aslilatva (Indecorousness), Sākānkşatva (Incompleteness), Sandigdhatva (Dubiousness or Ambiguity), Akramatva (Absence or Impropriety of order), Punaruktam (Tautology), Bhinnasahacaratva (Dissimilarity), Viruddhavyangyatvam or Prakāśitaviruddhatva of Mammața (suggesting a sense opposed to the intended sense), Prasiddhiviruddhatva (Opposition of the suggested sense to usage and is the same as the previous one having repugnant or inconsistent sense), Vidyāviruddhatva (Opposition to sciences), Tyaktapunarāttatva (Resumption of the concluded), Saniyamaparivịtatva (Improper Non-limitation), Aniyamaparivị. tatva (Improper limitation), Visesa and Aviseșaparivịtatva (Improper non-specification and improper specification), Vidheyāyuktatva (Improper predication) and Anuvādāyuktatva (Improper attribution). Exceptions or Apavādas
After exhaustively explaining the different kinds of blemishes, both verbal and ideal, Hemachandra proceeds to deal with the exceptions to these blemishes in the last three Sutras of the third chapter (Ill. 8-10). He provides that all blemishes cease to be blemishes where there is Imitation. Again, if the speaker, etc., are proper, no blemish arises. Thus the force of the character of the Speaker Hearer, Suggestion, Subject-matter, Context, etc., nullify and neutralise the blemish or turn it into a merit (vide K.A.S.III 9-10). However, Hemachandra does not duplicate his effort here since he has already dealt with Exceptions under the different Doșas. A Critical Reviews of Hemachandra's Treatment of Doșas
This marks the end of Hemachandra's treatment of the poetic blemishes in so far as they relate to Rasa, sabda and Artha. Looking back on the third chapter of the Kavyānušāsana, we find that the treatment of Doşa is theoretically consistent from the standpoint of Dhvani-Kāvya and exhaustive from the point of view of Mammața's codification which has taken into
341

Page #367

account the contributions to the conception of Doșa in its different aspects of Bhamaha, Daṇḍin, Vamana, Rudrața, Anandavardhana and Mahimabhaṭṭa. While defining, classifying and illustrating Dosas, Hemachandra has borne in mind the important literary principle of Aucitya which is the governing principle of the Rasadhvani and as such he has tried to bring all Dosas into an effective relationship with Rasa in terms of which he has defined the doctrine of Dosa. On the other hand, Hemachandra adopts Vamana's classification of Doṣas into Padadosas, Padarthadoṣas and Vakyadoṣas and Vākyarthadoṣas as modified by Mammața and benefits from Rudrata's treatment also. He draws upon Mahimabhaṭṭa's treatment of Dosas in ample measure - especially in his Viveka, and as adapted by Mammata with illustrations. But, in the main, Hemachandra follows Mammata in theory and practice, especially his codification of the Rasadoṣas in relation to the principle of Anaucitya. In view of this, Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's remarks are not wide of mark: "Almost all the later writers slavishly follow Mammața in their treatment (of Dosas)." (Essays in Sk. Criticism, p. 166; vide also Dr. V. Raghavan, Bhojas Śr. Pr. pp. 242-46 & 248).
It will be seen that in our exposition of Hemachandra's treatment of Poetic Blemishes we have taken care to 'trace the influence of earlier authors' views on Hemachandra's concept and treatment of Dosas and, as for Hemachandra's indebtedness to Mahimabhatta, we have shown from place to place how Hemachandra utilizes ideas and expressions from the Vyaktiviveka (II) of Mahimabhaṭṭa to fortify his exposition of the various types of Doṣas as also to enrich his discussions of the illustrative verses. It may be mentioned that in an exhaustive study of Hemachandra's indebtedness to Mahimabhatta's Vyaktiviveka, published in the Journal of Bihar Research Society, Vol. XLIII, parts 1 and 2, Shri Triloknath Jha, has also provided a detailed chart of the passages of the Vyaktiviveka skillfuly utilized by Hemachandra in his work.

342

Page #368

THE POETIC EXCELLENCES OR THE GUNAS
Hemachandra has defined poetry as Word and Sense possessed of Guņas or poetic excellences, and clearly laid down that the excellences are the causes of the heightening of the Rasa and hence primarily they are the attributes of the Rasa or Sentiment, and it is only figuratively or indirectly that they are said to belong to the words and the senses as these latter help the suggestion of the Rasa. He also has demonstrated by the method of positive and negative concomittance that Guņas and Doșas reside in the Rasa only and not in Words or Senses. Hemachandra's Stand on the Guņas
While dealing with Doşa, Guņa, Alamkāra and other poetic elements, Hemachandra clearly takes his stand on the Literary theory which regards Rasa or Rasadhvani as the soul of poetry. For, once you acknowledge the supreme importance of Rasa in poetry, you find it relatively simple to show the precise position of other poetical concepts such as Guņa, Doșa, Vịtti, Riti, Sanghatana, etc., in a poem. It was Ānandavardhana, who, in his Dhvanyāloka, for the first time, interpreted the different concepts of Doşa, Guņa, Alamkāra, etc., in their relation to Rasa. And, so far as the concept of Guņa is concerned, he recognised only three Guņas - Madhurya, Ojas and Prasāda, as against some ten Gunas or Literary excellences of his predecessors (Dhv. Āl 11.6, 11.8, etc.).
343

Page #369

Mammata's Definition of Guņas
Mammața, who follows in the footsteps of Anandavardhana, defines Guņas as those attributes of the Rasa, that are like the heroism of the soul, that cause its exaltation and have an unceasing existence121 ( 77afgaz: !.
in the gloss that follows this kārika (K.P. VIII. 66 ff.), Mammața, elaborates on this : “ Just as heroism etc, belong to the soul only, and not to the form, so also sweetness or Mādhurya etc. belong to the Rasa only, not to the letters. But, sometimes, on seeing the tall figure which is appropriate to heroism, the usage - His form alone is heroic'- prevails and in others, even when someone is not brave, he is called brave only on the basis of his large physical frame or body, whereas in certain other cases even a brave man is called not brave only because of his short form. Just as such usages prevail amongst people who do not know for sure, similarly the use of Mādhurya etc. being prevalent (figuratively) for soft letters suggestive of tender Rasas (like Srngāra etc.), those who are devoid of the knowledge that excellences extend as far as Rasas, use Madhurya or sweetness etc., for the letters suggestive of Rasas which are tender and the like and speak of untenderness of these letters which in fact help the tender Rasa etc. Therefore, the sweetness etc. are attributes of the Rasas which are manifested through the choice words (Varņas) and these do not depend simply on the letters. We shall presently illustrate how these letters become suggestive of the Rasas." Gunas and Alamkāras Distinguished
Having thus explained the concept of Guņa in its relation to Rasa, Mammața turns to the discussion of the distinction between the concepts of Guņa and Alaskāra. So in the next Kārika (K.P.VIII.67), he tries to determine the general character of Alamkāra in its relation to Rasa :
उपकुर्वन्ति तं सन्तं1 2 2 येऽङ्गद्वारेण जातुचित् । हारादिवदलङ्कारास्तेऽनुप्रासोपमादयः ॥
344

Page #370

.e., Those (elements) that help occasionally Rasa, where it exists, through its parts, are the figures (such as) alliteration, simile and others like the necklace etc.
In the gloss that follows, Mammata remarks: The Alamkaras help the principal Rasa when it exists through exaltation of the parts in the form of expressive words and their meanings. But when Rasa is not present, these Alaṁkāras tend to become merely a fanciful expression. And, in some cases, the Alamkäras do not help the Rasa which exists.
This is the difference between the poetic excellences or Gunas and the poetic embellishments or Alamkaras, points out Mammata. And adds that the contention of Udbhața (in Bhāmahavivarana) to the effect that, though in empirical terms the qualities such as bravery etc. subsist by inherence () but ornaments such as necklace etc. subsist by conjunction (), yet in poetry, excellences like Ojas (floridity) etc. and embellishments like Anuprāsa etc. (Alliteration) both subsist by inherence (a) only; and so any distinction between Guṇa and Alaṁkāra is blind traditionalism of the ignorant people, is wrong. 123
Again, what Vamana says "Excellences are attributes which produce the poetic beauty, but the embellishments heighten it" - is equally untenable. For, the question is: Is poetry regarded as such due to the presence of all the excellences or due to a few of them? If due to (the presence of) all, then, how the Gauḍi and the Pañcali dictions or styles, which do not possess all the excellences, constitute the soul of Poetry? (For, Vamana defines Riti to be the soul of Poetry.) If due to a few, then examples like "ece: etc." will be called poetry when the excellences Ojas etc. are
present. But, in examples like स्वर्गप्राप्तिरनेनैव देहेन etc. ",
Viseṣokti and Vyatireka are responsible for the appellation of poetry in the absence of (your, i.e., Vamana's) excellences. For, this last verse, though bereft of letters suggestive of

345
t

Page #371

sweetness and floridity is out of context and perspicuity is absent, contains figures, which are supposed to heighten the poetic beauty, produced by excellences which are absent, is a case of good poetry.
Three Guṇas only
So, there are three excellences only, viz., Sweetness, 124 Floridity and Perspicuity, and not ten.
In the foregoing discussion of the theory of Guna, it becomes clear that the Dhvani-theorists have a different or novel outlook. on Poetic Beauty. For, while the predecessors of Anandavardhana, in the field of poetics, treated of the concepts of Riti and Guna as a means of external embellishments of poetry and "even when Vamana calls Riti the atmā or essence of poetry, he means by it only external beauty of objective representation realised by means of certain standard excellences"125, the Dhvani-theorists considered Rasadhvani to be the soul of poetry, and hence, in their opinion, other poetic elements stand subordinate to it. Anandavardhana puts this quite effectively in the following Karika (Dhvanyaloka II. 4):
वाच्यवाचकचारुत्व हेतूनां विविधात्मनाम् । रसादिपरता यत्र स ध्वनेर्विषयो मतः ॥
Thus, the charmingness or otherwise of the Gunas, Alamkäras or Dosas is judged, by the protagonists of the Rasadhvani theory, not on their own account but in terms of the part they play toward the realisation of Rasa.
Hence Mammata discusses the concept of Guna in relation to the promotional role it plays in ths awakening of Rasa. He interprets the poetic concept of excellences of composition in a new sense, following in the foot-steps of Anandavardhana, and brings them into an effective relation with the underlying' sentiment in a literary work, as "qualities which serve to heighten its charm." Dr. S. K. De puts this matter in a proper

346

Page #372

perspective : The verbal form of a work cannot be said to possess the qualities of energy or sweetness (except by way of analogy), unless we mean by it that the underlying sentiment is vigorous or sweet. The Guņas, therefore, are related to the Rasa, as virtues like heroism are related to the soul of a man. The verbal form, the mere sound, produces the excellences only as a means or instrument; the real cause is the Rasa, even as the soul is the true cause of virtues like heroism in a man. The same consideration applies also to the case of poetic figures (Alamkāras), and their place in poetry is justified by their relation to Rasa. They are compared to ornaments on a man's body; and as such, they adorn words and meanings which constitute the body' of poetry. They thus serve to embellish indirectly (through sound and sense ) the underlying soul of sentiment, but not invariably. If the Rasa is absent, they produce mere variety of expression. It should also be noted that the Gunas are accepted, after Anandavardhana, as three in number, and it is maintained that combinations of particular letters signify particular Guņas, so that the three Vșttis of Udbhata (and roughly the three Ritis of Vāmana) are equalised to the three Guņas defined by him. 1 2 6
Mammața categorically asserts that Guņas are three only and that it is not necessary to accept the ten Guņas of Vāmana. He, therefore, makes his three Guņas comprehensive enough to include in them the ten Guņas postulated by the earlier authorities. Thus, when we critically consider the ten Gunas, we find that some of them can very well be subsumed under Mammața's three comprehensive excellences; some constitute mere absence of blemishes while others are sometimes positive blemishes. Thus, Mammața's Ojas comprehends Vāmana's śleşa, Samādhi and Udāratā; Vāmana's Arthavyakti is merely an aspect of Prasāda; Vāmana's Samatā, consisting of a certain uniformity of diction, is often a fault; while Saukumārya and Kānti, defined as freedom from harshness
347

Page #373

(or inauspiciousness) and vulgarity, are simply the reverse of the defects Śruti-kaşta and Grāmyatva. Dr. S. K. Dey1 27 remarks:
"These consideration simplify the classification of the Guņas, and put a limit to their useless multiplication or differentiation (witness, e.g., Bhoja's elaborate scheme of 24 Guņas). Mammața, therefore, thinks that the distinction between Sabda-guna and Artha-guņa is meaningless, for the latter need not be separately considered. The mental activity involved in the enjoyment of Rasa is made to justify only three (and not ten) Guņas which are thus brought into effective relation with the principal sentiment of a composition. Thus, the Ojas is supposed to cause a brilliant expansion (Vistāra) of the mind and resides in the moods of heroism, horror and fury; the Prasāda, proper to all the moods, is taken as the cause of a quick apprehension of the sense, extending over the mind at once (Vyāpti or Vikāsa), like a stream of water over a cloth, or like fire among dry fuel (cf. Bharata VII. 7); while Madhurya, residing normally in the erotic mood of lovein-union, but also appropriate to and residing successively in degrees in pathos, love-in-separation and calm, is regarded as causing a softening or melting of the heart (Druti). The three conditions of the mind, viz., expanding, pervading and melting, which accompany the poetic sentiments are thus made the basis of the three Guņas."1 2 8 Hemachandra's Theoretical Affiliations
In view of Hemachandra's thoretical affiliation with the Dhvani-theorists, whose scheme of poetics he adopts and follows scrupulously, it is natural for him to accept the three comprehensive excellences of poetry, viz., Madhurya, Ojas and Prasada, as postulated, defined and explained by Ānandavardhana and Mammata. 1 29
In his well-known study of Bhoja's śțngāraprakāša, Dr. V. Raghavan observes : "On Guņas, Hemachandra is a follower of Anandavardhana and he draws upon Mammața and probably from Rajasekhara, as we have suggested above. 1 30 He
348

Page #374

establishes the Rasāśrayatva of Guņas through Anvaya and Vyatireka.131 This argument of his is worked out of a verse and the Vștti thereon in Anandavardhana and out of Abhinavagupta's Locana on them. Closing his discussion on Guņa in Udyota II, pp. 82-3, Anandavardhana says :
Śrutiduștādayo doşā anityā ye ca sūcitāḥ 1 Dhvanyātmanyeva śộngāre te heyā ityudahstaḥ 11
Anityā dosāśca ye śrutidustādayah Sūcitāh. Te'pi na vācyārthamatre na ca vyangye śộngāre, śộngāravyatirekini vā dhvaneranātmabhāve. Kim tarhi dhvanyātmanyeva śțngāre angitaya vyangye te heyā ityuļāhstaḥ. Anyathā hi teşāmanitya-doșataiva na syāt (Dhv. Al.II).
"Bibhatsahāsyaraudrādau tveşām asmābhirupagamāt Sșngārādau tu varjanad anityatvam samarthitameveti bhāvah"
(Locana, p. 53) There are some faults like Śruti-duşta and Aślila, which are not as such Dosas. They are Dosas only in Sủngāra and such other Rasas. Sruti-duşta in Bibhatsa and Raudra, and Aslila in Śộngārābhāsa and Hāsya are Guņas. They are thus Anityadosas. Their Anityatva and Doşatva are related to the particular Rasa in which they are Dosa and in which they are not. Therefore, the Rasas decide their character and the avoidance of them is prescribed only with reference to the Atman or Rasa. This argument is utilised by Anandavardhana to show the existence of Rasa-dhvani as Ātman. He proves that the Ātman is a necessity if the terms Guņa and Alamkāra are to be rendered intelligible, if the name Rasavadalamkāra is to become sensible, and finally if Śruti-duşta and other Dosas are to be held as Anitya-dosas. This Hemachandra utilises and develops into an argument1 3 2 to prove that Guņas pertain to Rasa : "Guņas are like Dosas and exist in the same place. Doșas are in Rasas and not in sabda or Artha. If the Doşa called Kasta should be in sabda, then that Pada which is Kasta will eternally be Duşta. So also a Pada will have to be eternally Aślila. The real fact is that these Doșas are Guņas
349

Page #375

in Bibhatsa and Häsya. So the Dosas are Anitya, Doșas not by themselves but with reference to the Rasa of the context. Hence, that whose presence or absence make them Doşa or Guņa is their Aśraya."1 3 3 Hemachandra on the Distinction between Guņas and Alamkāras
Hemachandra's views on Gunas and Alamkāras are also recorded in his Viveka Vyākhyā (p. 33) under Sūtra 11, Chapter 1, which provides an exposition of his words "Niralamkārayorapi" in the gloss on his defination of poetry. Here, he states :
"Anena kavye guņānāmavasyambhavamāha.
Tathähi-analaṁkstamapi guṇavadvacah svadate; alamkştamapi nirguņam na svadate."
Again, under Sūtra 1, 13, wherein he defines Alaskāras or poetic embellishments, the gloss mentions that the figures of speech pertain to words and meanings which constitute the body of Kāvya whose soul is Rasa and help the Rasa, if it exists, and sometimes do not help it, though it exists. But when Rasa is absent, they render themselves as mere fanciful expressions, but the Viveka Commentary characteristically draws a clear-cut distinction between poetic excellences on the one hand and poetic embellishments on the other, albeit in relation to Rasa, the supreme aesthetic principle. The Viveka (p. 34) states :
"Ye tvangini rase bhavanti te guņāh. Eşa eva guņālamkāravivekah. Etavatā sauryādisadşaśā guņāḥ keyuraditulya alamkāra iti vivekam uktvā samyogasamavāyabhyām šauryādināmasti bhedah. Tha tūbhayeşām samavāyena sthitirityabhidhāya tasmad gaddarikāpravāhena guņālaukārabheda iti Bhāmahavivarane yad Bhattodbhattobhyadhāt, tannirastam. Tathahi - kavitāraḥ sandarbheşvalaskārān vyavasyanti nyasyanti ca, na guṇah. Na cālamkstināmapod-dhārāhārābhyām vākyam dusyati pușyati vā."
350

Page #376

Thus. Hemachandra emphatically states that between Guņa and Alamkāra, the former is more important since there can be Kavyas without Alamkāras but not without Guņas, and that removal or addition of an alamkāra, whether of word or sense, cannot detract from or add to the charm of a true poetic expression. Concepts of Conjunction and Inherence
Hemachandra also puts forward the view that Alamkāras exist through Samyogasambandha, and Guņas through Samavāya-sambandha, with Rasa; and, consequently, our author vehemently criticizes Udbhata's contention, as found in this Bhāmahavivaraṇa, that both Guņas and Alamkāras exist in a Kāvya through Samavāya.
And, so far as Vamana's differentiation of Gunas and Alamkāras, as given in the first two Sūtras of the first Adhyāya of the third Adhikarana of his Kavyālamkārasūtras with Vrtti (Kavyaśobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmā guņāḥ, tadatiśayahetavastvalamkārāh), is concerned, Hemachandra refutes Vāmana's contention by showing how verses which have Vamana's several Guņas present in them (Viveka, p. 26, VV. 130 and 131) fail to attain Kavyatva and verses which do not have a single Guņa as defined by Vāmana may be a Kāvya, just by virtue of a single figure called Utprekşā (V.131).
It may be noted here that Mammața has already disposed of all these points. Hemachandra's Exposition of the Three Guņas and Rejection of the Ten Guņas
Having dealt with the general nature of the concept of Guna and its relation to Rasa (K.A.S. I. 12), Hemachandra takes up the treatment of the individual Guņas in Chapter four in greater detail.
Interestingly, Hemachandra's exposition of the number and nature of the individual Guņa involves a double aspect since, while in the body of the text of the Kāvyānuśāsana which
351

.

Page #377

consists of the Sutras (numbering seven in all) as well as the gloss we get the definitions and illustrations of the three comprehensive Gunas, viz., Madhurya, Ojas and Prasāda, accepted by the Dhvani-theorists, in keeping with the theory that Gunas are Rasadharmas, in the Viveka Vyakhya or auto sub-commentary, we get a thorough disposal as also a complete refutation of the theories of Guna as propounded by Bharata,. Daṇḍin and Vamana who maintained that Gunas are ten. Incidentally, the name of Mangala, poet and literary theorist, also occurs in the course of the discussion of the ten traditional Guņas.
Gunas are Three only; Neither Ten Nor Five
As we open the fourth chapter of the Kāvyānuśāsana, we find that Hemachandra mentions at the outset, in the first Sūtra, the three Guņas, viz., Madhurya, Ojas and Prasada, and explains in the gloss that the Gunas are three and neither ten nor five. Here we must note that the three Gunas that Hemachandra accepts are the three comprehensive Gunas recognised as Rasadharmas by Anandavardhana and Mammaṭa and also by Hemachandra, as mentioned above. Hence, Hemachandra is reluctant to accept the ten Gunas which were Racanadharmas or characteristics of style or the five Gunas which are Pathadharmas. To make his position clear at once, Hemachandra categorically declares that there are neither ten Gunas as held by older theoreticians like Bharata, Daṇḍin and Vamana nor five as held by others.
In order to remove any doubt that may persist in the mind of the reader, Hemachandra gives three grounds for not accepting the older theories of Guna. He says that the reasons for regarding the Gunas as three only are that (1) the definitions of the older Gunas overlap and (often) vary, (2) the ten Gunas of Bharata, Dandin and Vamana can very well be included under the three comprehensive Gunas to be stated in due course, and that (3) some of these Gunas are recognised to be the absence of Dosas. 1 3 4

352

Page #378

Hemachandra also stresses the point made earlier that these (new) Gunas or poetic excellences in reality belong to the Rasas and only secondarily to the word and sense in which they are embodied. This means, we should not expect Hemachandra to fall in with the view that Gunas are ten and that they are either independent elements or are constituents of any style of composition, i.e., Marga or Riti, because the one fact common to all the early theories of Guna was that they treated of the concept of Guna as a means of external embellishment of poetry. This is what is called as Vācyavācaka-cārutvahetu by the Dhvanikāra (II. 4). Since Hemachandra follows the Dhvani theorists, he considers Rasadhvani to be the most prominent factor in poetry; hence he considers the other poetic elements as subserving the Rasa. He, therefore, maintains that Gunas concern directly the inner nature of poetry while the Alamkaras constitute such factors as are more or less external. As we know, Vamana has quoted a pair of verses where the Guņas were likened to the youth or the natural grace of a lady and the Alamkaras to the artificial ornaments of her body. This analogy of human virtues and ornaments is the most common sense interpretation of the terms Guna and Alaṁkāra and which, as P. C. Lahiri (Concepts of Riti and Guna p. 201) remarks, "partially struck the earlier theorists". "But", says P. C. Lahiri, "they brought in this analogy 135 simply to demonstrate the essentiality of the element Guna in poetry, and they failed to explain the elements in relation to the underlying sentiment of a poem which, however, they totally ignored."
But, for the protagonists of the Rasadhvani theory of Literature, the Gunas belong to and are properties of Rasa. The Gunas belong to the Angi-artha but the Alamkaras are related to the Sabda and Artha (angāśritāḥ), as Anandavardhana clearly states in Dhvanyaloka II. 6. We have taken note of this fundamental conception of Guṇa and Alaṁkāra, as fully explained by Hemachandra, while dealing with the Samanya Lakṣaṇa of the Gunas. We, therefore, pass on to understand
23

353

Page #379

fully the Viseṣa Lakṣaṇas of the Gunas or individual Guna so as to realise its position and function in poetry.
Hemachandra's general definition of the Guna has presented to us the poetic excellence in its broad character, viz., that it belongs to Rasa; but, to form a definite idea about the nature of the element, we need some further light in the form of the Viseṣa Lakṣaṇa. Now, since Hemachandra has defined and discussed Nine Rasas, the question arises: Does a particular Guna belong to all the Rasas or only to some of them? And, in what sense can it be said to belong to the Rasas ?
Hemachandra sets about replying to these questions in the course of his discussion in the body of the text. The method of treatment adopted here is (a) to define each of the three Gunas first, and then (b) to show its relation to the particular Rasas and then (c) to lay down the characteristic conditions of that Guna with illustrations and counterillustrations.
Thus in Sutras 2, 3 and 4 of chapter four, our author deals with the excellence called Madhurya or Sweetness or Delectability. Madhurya is that quality which causes the heart of a reader to melt. Now Mammața uses the words "Ahladakatvam madhuryam śṛngare drutikaraṇam". So Hemachandra's words 'Drutihetur madhuryam śṛngare' represent Mammata's definition verbatim sans the single expression Ahladakatvam which is an explanatory term for Madhurya. Otherwise Mammața and Hemachandra agree in holding that Delectability or Madhurya (is sweetness which) causes melting (of the heart) in the Erotic sentiment. In other words, Madhuryaguna is predominantly found in a poem containing the Sṛngararasa (i.e., Sambhogaśṛngāra). Like Mammata, who adds in the gloss that the word Druti (melting) means, as if, the heart is dissolving, Hemachandra also uses the words Ardrata (used by Anandavardhana and explained by Abhinavagupta) and 'Galitatvam iva' to explain the word Druti in the Sutra (IV. 2). The gloss mentions that Madhurya is also the quality of Rasas
354

Page #380

such as Hasya, Adbhuta and others that are helpful to this Sambhogaśṛngāra. But, Madhurya is seen in an intense form in the Santa, Karuna and Vipralambhaśṛngāra (IV. 3). Why? Because it causes intense melting in these last three Rasas. The characteristic conditions of Madhurya or the suggestors of it are mentioned in the next Sūtra (IV. 4).
1.
2.
3. Short forms of Ra and Na or R and Na with short vowels may be used.
As far as possible, compounds should not come in (Asamāsaḥ).
On the whole, the style should be delicate or soft (Mṛduracanã ca).
4.
In Madhurya, letters with the nasals belonging to their respective classes should come. In other words, consonants of the five classes (i.e., from Ka to Ma) should come.
But no letters of the Ta class should come in (zaf: ).
5.
'Incidentally, Hemachandra refers to Bhamaha's definition of Madhurya (B.K.A. II. 3) wherein Bhamaha mentions Śravyatva or sound-harmony as the requisite characteristic of Madhurya. Hemachandra, however, controverts Bhamaha's view by remarking that sound-harmony is not a differentia of Madhurya as it is common to Ojas and Prasada. 136 Only causing the heart to melt (Ardrata) is the hall-mark of Madhurya which differentiates it from the other Gunas 137 (Viveka, p. 289).
Again, referring to the use of the term 'Srngara' in the second Sūtra (IV. 2) where he defines Madhurya, the Viveka clarifies that although Śṛngara means both Sambhoga and Vipralambha types, yet, since Vipralambha is separately mentioned later on, the term Śrngara is used here in the narrower sense of love-in-union, on the analogy of Gobalivarda or the cow and the ox (Viveka p. 289).
Further, in regard to the use of the words Hasyadbhutadayo rasa angani, the Viveka explains that though it is true that Ojas is there to cause Vikāsa or expansion of the heart in

355

Page #381

Hasya and Adbhuta, yet since Hasya and Adbhuta are subsidiary to the sentiment of love, only intense Madhurya is experienced in it.
Next, Hemachandra defines Ojas. Ojas or Floridity is an excellence in a poem that inflames the heart of a reader. It is found in the sentiments of Vira, Bibhatsa and Raudra in an ascending order of intensity. Mammata defines Ojas or floridity (K.P. VIII. 69-70) by saying that "Ojas, which causesexpansion of heart through excitability (Diptatva), subsists in the Heroic sentiment. It rises in the Disgustful (Bibhatsa) and the Furious (Raudra) Sentiments in due order."
In the gloss, Hemachandra explains Dipti as Ujjvalatā (brightness) or the Expansion of the heart. He clarifies that the word Kramena (in due order) in the definition of Ojas implies that the intensity of Ojas is found in Bibhatsa more than in the Vira, and still more in Raudra, and also in Adbhuta, the subsidiary Rasa of the three rasas, viz., Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa. Mammata states in his gloss that Ojas is present in a greater degree in Bibhatsa than in the Vira, and in a still greater degree in the Raudrarasa.
The well-known conditions of Ojas are stated. The example cited to illustrate Ojas is the same in Mammata and Hemachandra (428), and provides an excellent instance of Ojas.
As a counter-illustration of Ojas, Hemachandra cites the verse (429) from the Venisaṁhara (III. 33) wherein "the main Rasa is Raudra, but the style is so tame, being void of compounds and hard words, that the Ojas which was needed to develop this Raudrarasa is entirely marred in its effect."
"Prasada" is the third Guna to be defined and illustrated. It is to be found in all the Rasas for it consists in felicity of expression which attracts the hearts of the readers and makes them understand the poem quite easily. Prasada, therefore, is compared to (1) a fire in dry fuel and (2) to transparent water which pervades a pure piece of cloth; for, like these two things,. Prasada occupies the heart of a reader immediately and makes.

356

Page #382

the sense perfectly clear, it is present in all the Rasas, and it cause Vikāsa or pervasion of the heart at once.
Vịttis and Ritis in Relation to Guņas
In the gloss that follows, Hemachandra significantly remarks : "And these letters (Vaļņāh) that suggest the three Guņas, viz., Mādhurya, Ojas and Prasāda, are sometimes termed as Vșttis called Upanagarikā, Paruşā and Komalā, which correspond to the three Gunas. However, some other rhetoricians term them as Riti's or styles. Mammața says (K.P. IX. 80-81) :
"The letters suggesting the excellence called Madhurya are termed as the Upanāgarikā-vștti; the letters that suggest Ojas, come to be called by the name of Paruşāvștti, and Komalā (or Gramyā) Vrtti corresponds to the rest of the letters (that suggest Prasāda-guna). These same three Vịtti's, viz., Upanāgarikā etc., correspond to the three styles of compositions called Rītis such as Vaidarbhi and the rest."
Incidentally, earlier, while commenting on the counter-illustration of the Mädhurya-guna (V. 426), Hemachandra had said in the gloss that the letters (of the T-class in the verse under consideration) were unfavourable or detrimental to the dominant sentiment of Sțngara. Taking the word 'Varnāh' (letters) in the gloss, Hemachandra further elucidated it in the Viveka Vyākhyā by saying that letters include the compounds and style also. Besides, when letters, compounds, diction, etc., are mentioned or defined, the terms Vịtti's and Riti's also get mentioned and defined ipso facto, For, the Vrtti's and the Rīti's are not different in nature from the letters words, etc. 1 3 8
Hemachandra, thus disposes of the long-standing controversy regarding the distinctness of the concepts of Vștti's, Riti's, etc., among older rhetericians who preceded the Dhvani-theorists.
357

Page #383

But critically speaking, it is quite clear from the lines quoted from the Kavyaprakāśa (IX. 80-81) by Hemachandra in support of his views expressed in the gloss (p. 292) that Hemachandra's immediate authority and source of information is Mammața. And, it was Mammața who codified the scattered but significant teachings of the Dhvani-theorists so as to bring the different concepts of Sanskrit poetics such as Guņa, Dosa, Lakşaņa, Vịtti, Riti, etc., into an effective relationship with the supremely important poetic principles of Rasa and Dhvani.
Concepts of Riti and Vịtti in the Pre-Dhvani and PostDhvani Periods
In the different stages of its development, the concept of Riti is associated with (a) regional or geographical modes of literary criticism, (b) a stereotyped and standardised manner of expression or diction or style of composition, and lastly (c) with the character of the poet.
Rīti in speech is a literary manner and it corresponds to Bharata's Pravịtti in manners. Bāna is the first classical author who refers to certain literary characteristics peculiar to certain geographical regions. He thus mentions four different traits of composition : (1) Over-using Double Entendré, (2) Plain Ideas, (3) Imaginative Conceits, and (4) Bombastic Diction.
From a theoretical point of view, Vaidarbhi and Gauļi represent the two earliest styles. While Bhāmaha was not keen to distinguish the two styles sharply, Dandin declared the Vaidarbhamārg to be the best style. It was so, because of the presence in it of ten Guņas which constitute its life. And, in the opinion of Dandin, the reverses of these ten Guņas, are seen in the Gaudi which is thus bad poetry.
Though Dandin talks of Guņas, his Guņas are not sharply differentiated from Alam käras. 139 Besides the word 'Viparyaya' in Dandin lends itself to many interpretations, and the distrinction between Vaidarbhi and Gaudi styles hinges on the
358

Page #384

correct meaning of this term 'Viparyaya'. For, "some Gunas are given by Danḍin himself as excellences of both Margas."140
Riti is shown by Dr. V. Raghavan to correspond to the term 'style' in English as against Dr. S. K. De (SK Poetics-II, p. 115) who maintains that 'Riti' is not equivalent to 'style'. This 'Riti' is associated with Gunas, and is based on Gunas. Dr. V. Raghavan says that "though Bhamaha does not definitely give in so many words the relation of Guna and Riti, we can clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Riti as based on Guna.. When we analyse Daṇḍin, we see that not only Gunas, but Alaṁkāras also go to distinguish the Ritis."141
As for Dandin's Gunas, Dr. Raghavan notes: "Thus, an examination of Danḍin shows that the Margas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features which pertain to collocation alone. The Gunas mean much more than what they seem to."142
It is in Vamana that we have a declaration to the effect that Riti is the soul of poetry. And this Riti is constituted by the Gunas - both of word and sense. Dr. Raghavan observes : "These comprehend poetic expression in all aspects.... Thus these so-called Gunas comprehend Bandhaguṇas, Alaṁkāras and Rasas. ... Vāmana defined his Gunas in such a way as to enable us to take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry.... To the two Riti's, Vaidarbhi and Gauḍi, Vāmana first added a third, the Pañcāli. The Gaudi in Vamana is not the bad style in Dandin. It is a good style. ... The Pancali is the Vaidarbhi devoid of Ojas and Kanti. "143
Vamana's partiality, however, is for the Vaidarbhi style of poetry; for he asks poets to practice and achieve that style (KASV 1.2.14-18).
Incidentally, the ideas of styles or Riti's have always been associated with qualities such as sweetness, force, vigour, clarity, etc. This led to the practice of Riti's by all poets of all places and its geographical overtones got lost. As a result,

359

Page #385

the theme or the propriety of the poetic sense came to regulate the nature of Rīti. Thus arose the concept of Vịtti.
Dr. V. Raghavan writes : "The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto (i.e., to a poem) have their own quality of sweetness, vigour, etc. These were studied by Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vịtti. The Vștti was applied from Drama to Poetry. Kaišiki is the Vrtti of Sệngāra and Ārabhiți of Raudra, Vira and Bhayānaka and Bibhatsa Rasas. To this Vrtti, the Riti came to be related. The sweetness and delicateness associated with the Vaidarbhi made it possible to link it to the Kaišiki Vrtti and the śrngara Rasa. Sșngāra, Kaišiki Vștti and the Vaidarbhi Riti went together always. The Gaudi easily linked itself to Arabhati Vịtti and Rasas like Raudra. The Pāñcāli and the Lāțiyā occupy middling positions. ... Thus the emotional situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence Bhoja treats of Ritis and Vrttis under Anubhāva. The Vrtti differs from Riti intimately connected with Rasa and its ideas. To the Rasa, Riti was related more on the basis of verbal expression, the Sabdasamghațanā. In this stage, the Guņas, Māhurya etc., which were still the constituents of Riti, become mere Sabdasanghațanādharmas."144 Anandavardhana on Vịtti and Riti
But when we come to Anandavardhana's Dhvanyāloka, we find that Vịtti is stated to be an expression appropriate to Rasa. The expression of Artha is the Vrtti of Kaisiki etc.; the expression of sabda is the Vștti of Upanāgarikā etc. These sabda-Vịtti's, Upanāgarikā, etc., are the Riti's. In Dhvanyaloka III. 33 and in the gloss thereon, Anandavardhana states this quite explicitly. Anandavardhana distinguishes Vịtti's on the basis of Śabda and Artha in Dhvanyāloka 111.47 ff. Abhinava considers both the Vittis as Rasocitavyavahāra and, holds that while Kaišikyādi all four are Arthavșttis, the sabdavșttis are three, viz., Upanāgarika etc.
360

Page #386

But what about Riti in Anandavardhana's scheme? While Anandavardhana holds Riti as dependent on Guņa like the Vșttis, Upanāgarikā, etc., strictly speaking there is no room for Rīti in either Ānandavardhana's scheme or in Abhinavagupta's. Although Riti can be Rasocitaśabdavyavahāra, yet that role is assigned to the Vittis, Upanāgarikā, etc., which now means not varieties of Anuprāsa, but the use of words suitable to Rasa. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that Mammata gives an equation of the three Ritis with the three Vșttis. For Mammața, Vịtti (Anuprāsa) is the arrangement of letters suitable to Rasa.
Finally, Mammata observes that it is these three Vștti's that are called the Vaidarbhi Riti, the Gaudi Riti and the Pāñcāļi Rīti according to some. Hemachandra's Stand on Ritis
It is clear that Hemachandra almost entirely follows Mammața in this regard. And like Māņikyachandra, he would say : "Etena ritayo vịttyātmakā ityarthah."
It may be pointed out that Hemachandra, while he quotes and completely follows Mammața here, does not treat of these three Vșiti's, which are the same three Rīti's, in the Sabdalamkāra Section (Adhyāya V) but, with a slight improvement, treats of them in this (Guņa) Chapter, as Dr. V. Raghavan rightly points out ('Some Concepts etc.', p. 188). Therefore he does not consider them (three Vșttis) as Anuprāsa Jāti's but merely as three kinds of Varna Sanghatanā.
After noticing the treatment of Vịtti's and Rīti's in Bhoja and Jagannātha, Dr. V. Raghavan observes: "Fortunately these Vșttis disappear in later literature. Even the old Vịtti's, Upanāgarikā, etc., pass into obscurity and Hemachandra is perhaps the last to mention them. Later writers completely forget the names Upanāgarikā etc. as Vstti's standing for such use of words as are suggestive of Rasa."1 4 5
361

Page #387

Concept of Compatibility : Departure Sanctioned
from
Rules
in the last Sutra of the fourth chapter (IV.9), Hemachandra, like Mammața (K, P. VIII), sanctions a change in the fixed nature of composition in accordance with its suitability to the nature of (1) the speaker, (2) the subject-matter and (3) the type of work or discourse. He says : "Sometimes composition and so forth become otherwise owing to the propriety of the speaker and the like. Speaker etc. means the person who speaks, the nature of the subject-matter dealt with or the composition and 'so forth', means the composition, the metre and the letters (Kāvyānuśāsan IV. 9).
In a short comment in the Viveka Tikā (p. 292), Hemachandra observes that if the subject matter here were suggestive of wrath etc., then the bombastic diction etc. would fit in here; nor again is this piece not to be represented so that it would permit deviation of composition etc. In fact this piece is a representational type. Hence, composition and diction such as bombastic etc. would be appropriate in sentiments like Raudra etc. For this reason, the sanction for a change in the arrangement of letters etc. springs from the propriety of the speaker etc. 146
Now, one may wonder why the soft and delicate words are: not employed in the portrayal of Sțngära in an Akhyāyikā type of composition, as mentioned by Hemachandra in his gloss just discussed. Hemachandra clarifies this statement in the Viveka by saying that since Akhyāyikā and Kathā are both prose romance works or Gadyakāvyas, and since prose is by definition forceful in style, using altogether soft words is an impossible proposition. 147
So far as his gloss relating to the avoidance of long compounds in dramas is concerned, the Viveka elucidates the point that the objection is not only with regard to the avoidance of long compounds in plays where Karuņa and Vipralambha
362

Page #388

Śrngāra Rasas are portrayed (where it is understandable) but even in regard to plays having Raudra Rasa. One may wonder why. He says : If Rasa is principal, then all hindrances and opposition to it must ruthlessly be removed. And a long compound is one such (hindrance). For, employment of compounds in numerous ways may perhaps deter the process of Rasa development; hence excessive zeal for use of compounds is not proper - especially in a dramatic poem. That too in plays having Karuna and Vipralambha Sệngāra Rasas. For, these are delicate and as such the words and senses become slow in yielding the poetic sentiment when even a slight lack of clarity occurs.
Again, when some other Rasa like Raudra etc. is to be portrayed, then a medium compound does not hurt; or where there is a Dhiroddhatanāyaka, a long compound does not hurt. Owing to the propriety of the subject-matter to the Rasa invariably associated with its inclusion, such a medium or long compound should not be altogether avoided.
Besides, the Guna called Prasāda pervades all the Rasas. and contexts. It is already stated that it is common to all the Rasas. And, even the absence of compounds, if it is destitute of Prasāda, it by itself cannot suggest Karuņa and Vipralambha Śrgāra Rasa. But when Prasāda is not abandoned, even a medium compound suggests the Rasa. Hence Prasāda must be a guiding factor (i.e., it must be employed). By virtue of this, in a verse (455) like Venisamhāra (Ill. 32). ("Yo yaḥ Sastram bibharti .. etc.") only Prasada obtains; neither Madhurya Guņa nor Ojas is available, due to the absence of a Samāsa. Still there is no dearth of charmingness since the intended Rasa is manifested here.
in another (last) paragraph in the Viveka (p. 294), Hemachandra supplies additional information regarding the propriety of diction, letters, compounds, etc., in literary compositions such as Muktakas, Sandanitakas, Prabhandhagata
363

Page #389

Muktakas, Paryāyabandhas, etc. Further, in cases of Raudra Rasa, when the Samghatana consists of long compounds, one should 'avoid Vștti's such as Paruşā and Grāmya. But in Parikathā, no holds are barred. In the Khandakathā and Sakalakathā types of compositions (well-known in Praksta), owing to plenty of Kulakas, there is no harm in using long compounds. As for proper meters, Rasa is the criterion of propriety. In a Sargabandha composition, where Rasa dominates, the standard of propriety is Rasa. Otherwise, chaos. Between the two Mārgas (or styles ?), those who compose Mahākavyas, should be intent on Rasa at all times. Hemachandra's Refutation of the Older Theories of Guņa
While introducing his concept of the threefold Guna in the body of the text of the fourth chapter, Hemachandra remarks in the gloss that there are only three Gunas, and there are neither ten Guņas as the older theorists believed nor five Guņas as others think. To justify this rejection of the two older theories - one, holding that there are ten Guņas, and another that there are five Guņas - he provides three logical grounds. Thus, according to Hemachandra, (1) as the definitions are overlapping and various; (2) since the so-called ten Guņas can be included under the three Gunas to be defined here; and, (3) because several of these Guņas have been recognised as absence of blemishes, the Guņas are not ten or five, but only three.
After this brief and businesslike clarification regarding his concept of the number and nature of the Guna in the body of the text, Hemachandra goes on to give the definitions of his three Gunas and their illustrations. However, he takes up the detailed elucidation of this matter-of-fact assertion in the Viveka Commentary and therein devotes nearly fifteen pages (pp. 274-288) to the thread-bare discussion of the tenfold as well as the fivefold classification of the Guņas, only to refute these older theories and set at rest the controversy about the number of Guņas, once and for all.
364

Page #390

Dr. Raghavan's Critical Review :
Dr. V. Raghavan has attempted a critical resume of this portion and offered comments in his survey of the concept of Guna in a historical perspective. He writes : "In Chapter IV of his Kāvyānušāsana, Hemachandra deals with Guņas. He follows Anandavardhana and accepts only three Guņas, and these, as Rasadharmas. He briefly states in his Vịtti that Guņas are not five or ten but only three. He takes up this bit of his Vịtti and elaborately states in his commentary the ten Guņas of Śabda and Artha according to Bharata, Dandin and Vāmana. Mangala's view is also referred to in the course of his discussion. The style of the passage here resembles that of Rājasekhara in his Kāvyamimāṁsā. Firstly Bharata's view is given with the words 'Iti Bharath'. Then others' refutations follow. The results are summarised then and there. The names of the several authors on Guna are referred to then and there, Iti Vāmaniyāḥ'- and so on 14 8
"Coming now to the commentary of Hemachandra on his own text, we have already referred to the discussion about the ten Gunas in it which, we suggested, Hemachandra took from Rājasekhara. In these discussions, sometimes Dandin is presented as refuting Vāmana. It is anachronistic but the whole discussion contains Pūrvapaksas and Khandnas fashioned in an imaginative manner. None of the ancients refuted definitely others' views on Gunas. Mangala is first cited as criticising Bharata's idea of Ojas. But Mangala's idea of Ojas is not given, and Dandin is next referred to as refuting Bharata's Mangala and Vāmana are next quoted as refuting Dandin's idea of Ojas. From here we may take it that Mangala took Ojas as Gāəhatva, like Vāmana. Mangala is no more quoted. The names occurring in the rest of the text are only Vāmana, Dandin and Bharata. To the author's criticisms of one another, the text adds its own criticism. The line of criticism seen in Mammața is followed. Certain things are shown to be no Guņa at all, being Vaicitrya or Vaidagdhya of a very general nature; certain others as Alamkāras etc., and certain others are dismissed as absence of flaws.
365

Page #391

"The value of this part of Hemachandra's Commentary is enhanced by his reference to strange views on Guņas which we do not find referred to anywhere else. We shall now notice these views."149 Five Guņas as Patha-dharmas
"On page 200, after a critical scrutiny of the ten old Guņas, Hemachandra says:
"Ojaḥprasādamadhurimāṇaḥ sāmyaudārye ca pancetyapare."
Even earlier, he referred to the view of five Guņas. This view holds Ojas, Prasāda, Madhurya, Sāmya and Audārya as the five Guņas. And these are curiously held by their advocates not as Guņas in the sense in which we have been talking of Guņa still now, but as Pātha-dharmas. Hemachandra thoroughly pooh-poohs this theory. The advocates of this theory hold that 'non-stop reading is Ojas; reading with stops here and there is Prasāda; reading with rise and fall, perhaps in a sing-song manner, is Madhurya; clear and perfect reading with proper pronunciation (Sthāna) is Audārya; and reading in neither too low nor too high a pitch is Sāmya. The Guņas as Pātha-dharmas may refer to the actors' speaking of the text in dramas and we saw above under Bharata how the definition of some Guņas in Bharata might be taken to refer to speaking and acting also.150
Five Guņas as Metrical Qualities
"Another interesting view then given by Hemachandra is that some consider these five Guņas given above as belonging to certain metres : Ojas in Sragdharā, etc., Prasāda in Indravajra, Upendravajrā, etc.; Madhurya in Mandakrantā etc.; Samatā in śārdūlavikriạita etc.; and Audarya in the Visama Vrtta's. Hemachandra criticises this view also as of those who have not seen much poetry; for, he shows cases where these metrical associations are Vyabhicarita.
366

Page #392

Chandovišeşaniveśya gunasampattiriti kecit I So'yamanavagahitaprayogānāṁ vibhāga-kramah 11
pp. 200-2011 5 1 In the section on Vamana, we have referred to the views of those who considered Guņas as Pātha-dharmas and to Samadhi in Vamana as a Guņa of the metre. 15 2
After this illuminating critical analysis of the Viveka text on Guņas by Dr. Raghavan, we now turn to the text itself with a view to attempt a short summary of the refutation of the ten Guņas of Bharata, Dandin and Vamana. A Critical Summary of the Viveka Passage on the Disposal of the Ten Gunas
On page 274, of the Kavyānušāsana, under Sūtra 1, Chapter IV, Hemachandra's Viveka commentary begins by stating that the Guņas are three only, viz., Madhurya, Ojas and Prasāda, and that they primarily pertain to the Rasas as pointed out earlier while describing their general nature ( 1. 12 ). Hence, when some theorists posit these other excellences as residing in the sabda and the Artha, it is not proper.
With these words, Vāmana's list of the ten Guņas (KASV. 3.1.4.) is introduced anonymously. These Guņas are Ojas. Prasāda, śleşa, Samatā, Samadhi, Madhurya, Saukumārya, Udaratā, Arthavyakti and Kanti. These are called the ten qualities of the Bandha or style of composition.
(1) Then, first of all, Bharata's definition of Ojas is paraphrased or summarized. It is based on Verse 106, Chapter XVI of the Nātyaśāstra (G.O. S. Edn.), and it means that Ojas is the endowment of grandeur by the poet to a subject which is in itself inconspicuous or low by means of the powers of words and senses.
This Ojas is illustrated by a verse (402) which describes lowly creatures like jackals, birds, dogs, insects, etc., that hover around a dead body, and the poet eulogizes the ability of the corpse to oblige all creatures.
367

Page #393

Thus, according to Bharata, Ojas is achieved by śabdartha-- sampatti. Rich expression or the exaltation of ordinary things. is the Ojas of Bharata. This quality, undoubtedly, transform s. lowly things into lovely noble objects.
But Mangala, a poet and a renowned literary critic, interposes here and objects (and Hemachandra nods in agreement) to the above definition of Ojas (given by Bharata). He raises the point that if Ojas, as you say, is the endowment of grandeur to lowly things by the richness of language, then the reverse device of poets in belittling conspicuous and noble subjects should be deemed to be the opposite of Ojas or brilliance in poetry. To explain this point, he cites a verse (403) from the Vairāgyaśataka (29) of Bhartrhari in which the mythical mount Meru, described as a mass of solid gold, is. decried by the poet as useless for both the poor and the rich alike. Incidentally, the poet tries to bring out suggestively the useless lives of the ungenerous rich.
This verse does not lack in Ojas, in Managla's view, just because it does not satisfy Bharata's definition of Ojas.
This discussion pertains to one of the two verses of Bharata on Ojas. The Banares edition contains this verse as well as another, alternate, definition of Ojas by Bharata. The other verse defines Ojas as the collocation abounding in Samāsas. a conception of Ojas which has persisted in Poetics. 153
Interestingly, Dandin's views on Ojas are quoted (p. 275) at this stage. Dandin's point is that the above defined Ojas cannot be a Guņa because poets have three ways of describing things : (1) Making small things exalted, (2) Making great things small, and (3) Describing things as they are. Therefore, Oias is abundance of compounds (KĀ. 1. 80 : 3113: FATALITETTA etc.) This Ojas is generally an ornament of prose, but even in poetry the Gaudas welcome it. The former Ojas is found in prose romance works such as Akhyāyikā etc., but the second type of Ojas is found in the verse (404) cited here
368

Page #394

which abounds in long compounds and is full of compact words. But, since Danḍin brackets Ojas exclusively with the Gaudiya Riti or Marga (Dandin has two Margas: Vaidarbha and Gauḍa), naturally Vamana, the chief protagonists of the Guna-cum-Riti doctrine, as also Mangala, strongly object. They argue that, as Ojas is accepted by the Riti School to be commonly shared by the three styles (Vaidarbhi, Gaudi and Pancali), it is illogical to relate Ojas to Gaudi only.
They, therefore, propose that Ojas is compactness (of style of composition). In his Kāvyālaṁkāra Sūtras (3. 1. 5.), Vāmana defines Ojas as 'Gaḍhabandhatvamojaḥ' and comments : 'Bandhasya gaḍhatvaṁ yat Ojaḥ.'
The author of the text (Viveka), thereupon, dismisses Vamana's definition of Ojas, and remarks: "Please look for some other cause of Ojas; do not insist on Gaḍhatva; for that in fact is detrimental to Ojas. Hence Gaḍhatva is not Ojas."
Now, since Vamana's ten Gunas are both Sabdagunas and Arthagunas, there are twenty Gunas with the same names (VKAS. 3-1-4 and 3-2-1). So, the author of the text presents Vamana's views (VKAS. 3-2-2) on Ojas as an excellence of sense : 'Ojas is the maturity of expression or genius as regards sense.'
Thus Ojas is Arthaprauḍhi. This Prauḍhi itself is of five kinds (VKAS. 3. 2. 2-3) (1) Padarthe Vakyavacanam (2) Vākyarthe padabhidhā (3) Vyasa (4) Samāsa, and (5) Sabhiprayatva. These five imply (1) The use of a sentence when a word would suffice (e.g. instead of saying 'the moon', the poet says 'the light emanating from the eye of Atri'), (2) The use of a word in place of a sentence (e.g. saying 'she twinkles' instead of 'she is not divine, but a mortal woman'), (3) Amplification of ideas (e.g. relation of Sorrow and Joy instanced in a full verse), (4) Samāsa is shortening contracting the sense of many sentences in a sentence, and (5) Sabhiprāyatva or poetic emphasis (e.g. in Keśapāśe Sukeśyāḥ, there is the emphasis or 'Sabhiprayatva' on 'Sukeśyaḥ').
or
24

369

Page #395

Hemachandra, however, looks upon Vamana's fivefold Arthaprauḍhi (Ojas) as a mere fanciful expression or strikingness of sense and criticises it. The Sabhiprayatva variety of the Ojas of Sense is not a Guna, but merely the absence of the blemish called Apuṣṭārthatva. Besides, to affirm intention in regard to sense is a folly. If it is of the speaker and hearer, then it cannot be an Arthaguna. If it consists in implying another idea, then it is the same as the intention of the speaker arising due to the poet's power; for, it does not arise if not presented poetically. Hence, Prauḍhi is in fact of the Speaker only you may freely affirm it of the sense; enough of it.
So
(2) Prasada is defined by Bharata as that Guna by which, even without being told, the sense of the word is clear because of the fact that the idea comes out even before the words come out (or the idea is expressed in easy words: Sukhasabdarthayogat). Both the Kasi Edition and the K. M. Edn. Sukhsabdartha' to imply quick and easy comprehension.
But the followers of Vamana dub the illustrative verse (407) as an expression of substantives promoted by adjectives. So, Prasada is looseness (Saithilya) (VKAS 3. 1. 6).
Now the question is how this Prasāda can be a Guna since it means looseness of composition or style which is the reverse of Ojas (or Gaḍhabandhatva); so, it is a Dosa.
use
Vamana replies that this Saithilya by itself is a Dosa, but it is called the Guna 'Prasada' because of its association or co-existence (Samplava) with Ojas.
How can there be admixture of two opposite qualities, i.e., Saithilya and Gaḍhatva? Well, knowlebgeable critics like jewellers say that it is clearly experienced that these contrary qualities of Gaḍhatva and Saithilya exist together. It is also said: "Just as in Tragedies the co-existence of Sorrow and Joy is a matter of experience for connoisseurs, even so association of Ojas and Prasada is felt to be true in actual experience."

370

Page #396

The author of our text, now, remarks that this is a futile instance and the futility of the instance destroys the thing sought to be explained. To explain :
"In a tragic play, the spectator is first pained by pathos and subsequently, owing to the expertise of the representation by characters etc., is delighted. But, in regard to Ojas and Prasāda, they are required to be experienced at once. And, to tell you the truth, all Rasas result in delight and so in happiness; so, your example does not fit in here.
So Prasāda (in our view) is the cause of Vikāsa."
As for Vāmana's Arthaguņa Prasāda, it is described as Arthavaimalyam, i.e., Plainness of Sense. It is explained as words capable of giving up sense at once. In other words, straightforward expression is Prasāda of Artha. (This Prasāda is similar to Arthavyakti - both of Sabda and Artha. It resembles Bharata's Samatā also - just sufficient words is Prasāda. Useless words represent the Viparyaya of Prasāda.) Now, says Hemachandra, this Guna having sufficient words is achieved by avoiding the blemish of Adhikapadatva; so it is a negative of a Dosa, not a Guņa.
(3) śleșa, according to Bharata, is the quality of expressions, apparently looking plain but revealing a world of ideas. Bharata's verses on this Guna are two, belonging to the two recensions. The first is "Vicāragahanaṁ sphutam caiva svabhāvatah (V.I. Vicārya grahanam vșttyā)', and the second is 'Ipsitenārthajātena. ...etc.' This Guņa is defined as related to Padas and Artha. The second verse 'Ipsitenartha jāten ...etc.' describes ślesa as the harmony of sound and sense, of word and idea. Hemachandra's version is illustrated by a verse from the Kumārasambhavam (5. 24) which contains a description of the first drops of rain falling on Pārvati - a pen-picture which harbours a minute description of the beauty of Pārvati's form.
Hemachandra's version is of the first verse and his criticism is that this is Vyavahāravaidagdhya, and not any Sandarbhadharma.
371

Page #397

Now followers of Vamana say that the true nature of Gunas consists in Racanã-rūpatā (poetic 'form' or style or diction of a composition). Hence Śleṣa is Masṛṇatva (Viveka, p. 278). It is explained as : "Where several words appear as though they are one" (VKAS 3.1.11). The first verse of the Kumarasambhavam (1.1) is a fit illustration of this Ślesa (409). Incidentally, Vamana's Arthaśleṣa (Ghatana Śleṣaḥ) is not mentioned here. This Ghaṭanā is Krama, Kautilya, Anulbaṇatva and Upapattiyoga. Krama is orderly description, Kautilya occurs in Catus, Vakrokti's, etc. (love-expressions), Anulbaṇatva has affinity with Dandin's Kanti and Saukumārya of Artha or Lokasima-anatikramaṇa, and Upapatti is explained as 'poetic devices', 154
But Daṇḍin intercedes to say that in Ślesa, the letters are not loose (Asithilam 'sliṣṭam') and the letters are not of smallbreath-value (Alpapraṇa). The illustrative verse has a
compact style.
Therefore, the author of the text says: "This is a kind of Ojas only. Or it is an instance of a Gauda text incognito; so it should be disregarded. For, the Gauḍas find looseness agreeable (K.Ā. I. 43-44). Anuprasadhiya Gauḍaistadiṣṭam bandhagauravāt. So there is contradiction here. (Here Dandin follows Vamana's views.)
As for Ghaṭanaśleṣa, the verse 'Dṛṣṭvaikā sanasamsthite etc.', from Amru, illustrates it.
But our author dismisses the Arthaśleṣa altogether by saying that this verse is nothing but a strikingness born of plot-construction, not a Guna. For, Ghaṭana by definition is "Aghaṭamānasyeva väkyärthasya buddhicāturyena ghatanam iti" a clever execution of an improbable idea indeed.
(4) Sama is a Guna that involves a principle of Aucitya in the use of Alamkaras and Gunas themselves. They must mutually beautify each other and suit each other. It is a very comprehensive Guna. This version is based on the verse "Anyonyasadṛśam yatra tatha hyanonyabhuṣaṇam / Alaṁkārā

372

Page #398

Guņāścaiva, .. etc." (Nātyaśāstra C.S. XVII. 100). But the other recension of Bharata's verse describes Samatā as an even collocation not too full of soft, simple, words or words without much meaning or words difficult to understand. Only the needed words should be used, avoiding superfluity; but clarity is necessary. "Nāticūrņapadairyukta ... etc." (Nātyaśāstra XVI. 101).
Dandin objects by saying, "How can Alamkāras and Guņas beautify each other when their substrata differ ?" Besides, Śleșa, Yamaka and Citra generally function devoid of Guņas. Even Anuprāsa is frequently used thus. So, Samam is evenness of composition (K.Ā. I. 47). This evenness is soft, hard and medium in composition as it arises from the sequence of Praudha, Mrdu and Madhya letters. Thus, Samatā is even collocation and has three varieties : all-soft, all-harsh (Sphuţa or Praudha) and/or soft and harsh mixed.
But Vāmana criticises this concept of Samatā as not different from the Vịttis. He, therefore, states that Samatā consists in not giving up until the end the specific Ritis with which the composition has begun. This holds in the case of Muktakas as well as Prabandhas (VKAS 3.1.12-13). Thus Samatā is Mārga-abheda or Uniformity of style. Three verses are given to illustrate each of the three styles kept up uniformly. The author of the text remarks that those critics who should know better about the art of composition do not at all times consider Samatā as striking. In fact, in the example (Verse 419 from the Hanumannāțaka VII. 44), giving up of the soft style is actually a Guņa. Hence Samatā is no Guņa.
As for Samatā as an Arthaguņa, it is defined by Vāmana as avoidance of (the Doşa) Vişamatā (Avaişamyam Samatā) (VKAS. 3.2.5). It is explained as absence of the Doşa called Prakramabhanga or Prakramabheda. Sometimes, however, the Prakrama may be breached. So Prakramabheda is Vaişayam and Avaisamyam.
Thus, it is absence of Doșa, not a Guņa.
373

Page #399

(5) Samadhi is defined by Bharata (in neither of the two recensions) as transference of characteristics. Dandin defines it as the application of the characteristic of one object to other objects without offending word-usage : e.g. "Kumudāni nimilanti kamalānyunmilanti ca".
But followers of Vāmana term it as a variety of Atiśayokti and lay down that "Rise and Fall (of the line in a verse) is Samadhi" (3.1.13). These correspond to Ojas (Gadhabandhatva) and Prasāda (saithilya) respectively. Vāmana objects to this; for, here there is a mingling of Ojas and Prasāda like the two streams of two rivers. Thus Samadhi is an independent Guna. 1 5 5
Here, too, Dandin follows Vāmana and criticises his Samadhi' as a fluctuation of the high and the low. So Samadhi is application of the characteristics of one to another (K.A. 1.93).
The author of our text says that if this metaphorical Vịtti is called Guņa, what then is wrong with Yogavịtti ?
Vāmana's Arthaguņa Samādhi is Arthadşsti (VKAS 3.2.6). It is explained in the gloss (VKAS 3.2 8-10). in short, Vāmana's Artha Samādhi is no Guņa of Arthasandarbha. It is a Guņa of the poet and his Pratibhā. It goes with the equipment of a poet (VKAS 1.3.16-20). Again, the idea of originality and imitation is also inherent in these Sūtras.
(6.) Madhurya of Bharata is the quality which does not make a sweet thing stale or cloy, however much it may be repeatedly heard. The Vāmaniyas say (VKAS 3.1.20): Madhurya is
prthakpadatvam' or "words standing separate". It consists in freedom from long compounds. Bhāmaha says that writers who favour Madhurya do not compound their words.
Incidentally, Vāmana's followers sarcastically remark that Bharata's definition of Mādhurya amounts to saying that it is like words of the beloved which may be full of lack-lustre expressions.
Here Dandin is represented as saying that the view of Vāmana in regard to Madhurya that "it is words standing
374

Page #400

separate" is contrary to experience. For, we do experience Madhurya or sweetness in compounds as well. (Even Ānandavardhana points out that there is Mādhurya in compounds). So, according to Dandin (K.Ā. 1.51) "Madhura is Rasavat" i.e., Sweetness is flavour (in words as well as the existence of flavour in the sentiment expressed; because of that quality the wise are intoxicated as bees with honey). 1 5 6
This Rasa is twofold : either in speech (aria) or idea (ITA). Of this twofold Rasa, Rasa in speech is achieved through alliteration of letters and syllables. But Anuprāsa is an Alamkāra. So, how can it be a Guņa ? And, Vasturasa i.e. Rasa in idea, consists in absence of vulgar sense. For, vulgarity of sense arises from uncultured meaning in a composition; as, for example, in verse 428 ( E ITTÄISEE etc. ).
However, the author of our text says that this is only an absence of Doșa, not a Guņa. And this also serves to refute Vamana's Arthsaguņa Madhurya, defined as Uktivaicitrya or strikingness of expression. For, the Uktivaicitrya is a quality of poetry in general.
Therfore, Mādhurya is pleasure (caused by fluidity of heart). This view is of the Dhvani theorists.
(7) Sukumāratā of Bharata is defined in two parts which can be related to śabda and Artha. For Madhurya and Saukumārya there are no two recensions in Bharata.
In the verse (Nātyaśāstra XVI.104 or 105) of Bharata, it is said that words must coalesce closely and must be easy to pronounce. Sukhaśabdatā may also mean the use of words. easy for Abhinaya. And Sukumāra-artha means delineation of fine and delicate ideas
But in connection with the illustration given for Vāmana's Sukumaratā (Raghu. 2.55), our author cites criticism of Bharata's Sukumārata and Vāmana's definitions to the effect that this Sukumārata is nothing but the absence of harshness or cacephony in expression. In short, it is absence of śrutikațutvadoņa.
375

Page #401

And So, it is a kind of Madhurya. For Vamana also agrees with Bharata in saying that Saukumārya (a Sabdaguṇa) is merely agreeable words or diction (Sukhaśabdameva).
Vamana's Arthaguna Saukumārya is absence of Parusya (VKAS 3.2.11). It is a mark of refinement in expression. Refined speakers avoid blunt language but use polished expressions to convey the same sense.
But our author, who altogether avoids quoting Danḍin here, attacks Vamana's definition and example of Artha-saukumārya, and brands it as the absence of the Amangala variety of the Aślilatvadoṣa which consists of avoiding blunt and inauspicious expressions. So, in the verse (431), instead of saying 'was killed' or 'murdered', the poet uses a refined expression "Nito'tyantapravasatām". He adds: "If your Artha-saukumārya is a special expression, let it be included under the figure Paryayokta" (Vide Kavyaprakāśa X. 115).
(8) The Udara Guna is defined by Bharata almost in terms of the later Udattālaṁkāra. The definition seems to be more of Artha than of Sabda. Thus, in the version adopted by Hemachandra, Udara is the quality consisting in the particular meanings, in varied forms, conveyed beautifully (Natyaśästra GOS XVI. 110). In another recension, it is exaltedness where there are super-human sentiments (Divyabhava), varied feelings and erotic and marvellous moods (Sṛngāra and Adbhuta Rasas).
The followers of Vamana point out that the Guna of Udara or Udatta is not different from Ullekha.
So, Udarată is Vikaṭatva wherein words, as though, dance. It is a Sabda Guna (VKAS 3.1.22). Here Vamana infuses poetry into his conception of Gunas - here, as elsewhere, he speaks of the dance of words, the brilliance of words, the rise and fall of verse, all these are really poetic notions of Guna. But our author flatly refuses to accommodate this Guna in his new scheme, and remarks that this is not a Guna, but it is

376

Page #402

influence of Anuprāsa which is slightly non-soft (lşad amassṇaḥ anuprāsaprabhavah). It is but a variety of Ojas.
As for Vāmana's Arthaguna Udaratā, it is defined as "absence of unpolished utterance". It is Daņdin's Agrāmyatā Mādhurya. This is only an absence of Doșa, not a Guņa.
(9) in Arthavyakti, according to Hemachandra's Anuvāda, which follows neither of the two verses of Bharata, the sense or objects appear real though not real or substantial in actual fact.
According to Bharata (N.S.C.S.S. XVII. 105), Arthavyakti is clear Abhinaya of ideas and objects or perspicuity of sense, When Abhinaya is going on, even before the actors' actual Prayoga, the spectator grasps the coming idea by virtue of mental union with the theme. The other verse (NS XV. 106) means explicitness of description of the nature of things as they appear in the world by means of well-known predicates.
But this quality of Arthavyakti (i.e., clarity of Abhinaya) is not different from Prasāda. This view is ascribed to Vāmana and his followers. Hence, where the thing is grasped before the expression, it is Arthavyakti.
But Dandin points out that this is Prasāda only presented in another garb. But Arthavyakti (KĀ, I. 73) is absence of implicitness (i.e., it is explicitness of sense); thus, if the ocean is to be described as red, its cause must be stated. If it is not stated, then there will be Neyatā.
But our author rejects this Arthavyakti as absence of the Doşa of Aneyatā. How can it be a Guņa ? For, if all the Doșas, which are many, are treated as Guņas in reverse, then there will be a hundred Guņas !
Vāmana's Arthaguņa Arthavyakti (VKAS 3.2.13) is the pictorial quality in a word-picture. It is a composite picture painted by a poet, where the different things making the spicture are distinct and clear.
377

Page #403

But such sphuţatva is present in the Svabhāvokti (Jāti). figure too. So it is an Alamkāra, not a Guņa, says our author. He cites a couplet (126) which says : "The speech of poets presents delightfully and graphically pleasant ideas and forms".
( 10 ) Bharata's Kānti is pleasing to the ear and the mind. The two recensions identically present this idea. It leans towards Mādhurya, its definition includes Prasāda. Kanti produces repose of heart when it is heard. Vāmana's Novel Conceptions
Critics like Vāmana realise that this Guņa (Kānti) isidentical with Madhurya. So, they propose Aujjvalya as Kānti (VKAS, 3.1.25) or ‘Brilliance of Words'.
It may be pointed out that Dance of Words (Udaratā) and Brilliance of Words (Kānti, śabdaguņa) are entirely new conceptions of Guņas stated by Vāmana. The absence of Aujjvalya makes language faded, so the critics say. Vamana's Śabdaguņa Kānti is borrowed from Painting. It is described as Aujjvalya : "The faded and dull appearance of old pictures, quî TAI, is what results when verses have no Kanti. Only poetic language can achieve Kanti."
But Dandin says in a "tongue in cheek" manner that since Ojas has Aujjvalya, it will be Kānti ! So, Kānti is conformity to general usage (Lokasimā-antatikramana) i.e., absence of the unnatural, the grotesque seen in dialogues (Vārtās), laudatory speeches (Varņaņās), etc., e.g. “Gșhāņi nāma tänyeva ... etc." But crossing accepted usage is lack of Kanti - both in Vārta and Varnanā. 157
But Vāmana says, it is Atiśayokti and not another Guņa.
Vāmana's Arthaguņa Kānti is Diptarasatvam (VKAS. 3.2.14). Vāmana mentions Rasa here; so Vamana takes Rasa as a Guņa, unlike Bhāmaha and Dandin who called it Alamkāra. (Rasavad). Dr. Raghavan notes : "There is an advance in considering Rasa as Artha-guņa, for Vāmana considers Guņa as superior to Alamkāra and as inseparably related with
378

Page #404

Kavya."158 Note that Diptarasatva means prominence of sentiment. 1 5 9
Our author caustically comments : "Rasas like Raudra etc. are fiery, others like Srngāra etc., its reverses; so, the portrayal of śộngāra etc. will be AKANTÍ, as per your definition !"
Or, better still, Kānti is included in our treatment of Rasas and Dhvani. Conclusive Rejection of Ten Guņas
Thus, Hemachandra proves that the ten Guņas of Bharata, Dandin and Vāmana are (1) overlapping and confusing in definition, (2) included in our Guņas (three), and (3) some are mere negation of Dosas. We may note here that Mammața has actually shown this very effectively in Kavyaprakāśa VIII. 72 and in the gloss that follows it. So, neither ten śabdaguņas nor Arthaguņas stick. All Guņas are Rasaguņas - even letters, compounds, diction, etc, are Rasavyañjaka.
As for Pathagunas, we may note that Bharata has devoted a separate section to a consideration of the most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to the emotions (Pāthyagunāh). And Vāmana also refers to Pāthaguņas.
379

Page #405

6
THE POETIC EMBELLISHMENT
The Concept of Poetic Embellishment
Hemachandra devotes two chapters (K.A.S. V-VI) to the treatment of the poetic embellishments. Looking back, we find that in his definition of poetry (1. 11), our author has mentioned the poetic embellishments - both of the word and the sense as belonging to the body poetic. He has also determined the general nature of these embellishments so as to bring them into an effective relationship with Rasa in subsequent discussions. And following Ānandavardhana and Mammata, Hemachandra has clarified that the poetic embellishments or Alaṁkāras dwell in the body poetic (Angāśritā alamkārāḥ : 1. 13) and help the Rasa through the word and the sense, if Rasa exists; if Rasa does not exist, they simply serve poetry as 'turns of speech'. Secondly, in order that they help the development of Rasa (and that is the raison' d'etre of their presence in a poem), according to Hemachandra, the Alamkāras should be employed with great discrimination and judgement. To put it more simply, the Alaskāras should be always ancillary to the Rasa, helping the readers to enjoy the Rasa in full. They should never try to ride roughshod over the emotional element in a poem (I. 14). They should be employed according to the context and the poet should exercise the utmost care in choosing and using, or even rejecting sometimes, the poetic embellishments. That is where the skill of the poet is tested. Normally,
380

Page #406

therefore, the Alamkāras should not be pressed too far, and if pressed, they should culminate in the promotion of Rasa, 160 in neglecting this golden advice, the poet degenerates into follies. Finally, Hemachandra has differentiated Alamkāras from the Guņas on the ground that while the former are like ornaments with which the body is decked and which, for that reason, decorate the soul indirectly, the latter are intrinsic and inherent to the emotional context of a poem. None the less, these poetic embellishments are as much a part of the poetic medium as any other element in poetry. Aesthetic Considerations
This is so far as the General nature of the Alamkāras is. concerned. But it is absolutely necessary to know what the poetic and aesthetic considerations are that underlie the conception and employment of poetic adornments before a theorist deals with the individual figures of speech. Dr. K. Krishnamurty observes : "In the first place, it is never possible to appreciate the definitions of particular figures in the absence of a general notion of Alamkāras. Secondly, it is not at all possible to exhaust all the individual figures in any scheme of rhetoric, since they are innumerable. Just as the modes of human speech are infinite, the figures of speech in poetry too are infinite, based as they are on human speech."161 The Distinction between sabdālaṁkāra and Arthālamkāra
The external framework of poetry consists of Word and Sense, often called Kāvyasarira on the analogy of human body, and Alamkāras or poetic figures make this body poetic charming by certain expressive devices. And without stating directly, Bhāmaha implies his acceptance of the figures of word and sense i.e., Śabdalamkāra and Arthālamkāra in 'Sabdābhidheyālamkārabhedād' (1. 15) i.e., we accept the distinction of Śabdālamkāra and Arthālamkāra (though others hesitate to do so). Dandin also agrees with this view by saying (1.10) 'Śariram tāvadişțārthavyavaccinnā padāvali'; for here he emphasizes
381

Page #407

meaning as much as word. On the question of the need of the poetic embellishment, Bhamaha categorically states: 'Na kāntamapi nirbhūṣaṁ vibhāti vanitānanam' (I. 13) i.e., A damsel's face, though beautiful, does not shine, if it be devoid of ornaments.
Sabdacitra and Arthacitra
Interestingly, Mammata quotes three verses (l. 13, 14 and 15) from Bhamaha's work in the opening portion of Chapter VI of the Kavyaprakāśa where he explains that the division of Kavyas into Sabdacitra and Arthacitra is not intended to be mutually exclusive. There are many cases where both occur. In fact, in almost all cases, by some minute scrutiny the presence of both (Sabda-Artha-citras) may be proved. In such cases, Mammata lays down the useful guide-line that the author's intention is our guide in determining whether the passage should be considered as coming under Sabdalamkara or Arthalaṁkāra. And the author's intention is revealed by his dependence upon either Sabda or Artha for the beauty of the verse. For both Sabda and Artha lead to Camatkṛti and Mammața clinches the issue by quoting Bhamaha's verses; for, in the verses quoted from Bhamaha, a final reply is given to those who regard only Rūpaka etc., i.e., fs, as ornaments and not alliteration etc., i.e., Ts. The reply is: "We, however, accept both the varieties of Alamkaras, that of Sabda as much as that of Artha". By the by, Bhamaha gives equal prominence to Sabda and Artha in poetry, as his definition of poetry
clearly shows (I. 16). For him, Word and Meaning taken together constitute Kävya. 162
Hemachandra's Exposition of the Poetic Embellishments based on Word and Sense
Hemachandra classifies Alamkaras into two classes, 163 those of Sabda and those of Artha and refuses to recognize those Alaṁkāras that are based on both Sabda and Artha called Sabdarthalaṁkāras or Ubhayalaṁkaras in poetics. Since

382

Page #408

Sabdaśobhā precedes Arthaśobha in the poetic medium (i.e., ideas find expression through words), our author first defines and illustrates the six figures of speech based on Sabda. These six verbal figures are Anuprāsa, Yamaka, Citra, Śleṣa Vakrokti and Punaruktābhāsa (or Punaruktavadābhāsa). Mammata, however, defines seven main verbal figures, viz. : (1) Vakrokti (two types), (2) Anuprāsa (two types) which includes the three styles of composition called Vṛttis viz. Upanāgarikā, Paruṣā and Komala (originally treated of by Udbhata) 1 164 corresponding to the three well-known Ritis, Vaidarbhi etc., (3) Laṭanuprāsa (or Sabdanuprāsa or trope) of five kinds, (4) Yamaka or Chime (5) Śleṣa or Pun (Eightfold) (6) Citra (or Pictorial and Verbal Play) and (7) Punaruktavadābhāsa in a word and in a wordcum-sense. Rudrața deals with Sabdalaṁkāras in his "Kavyalamkara". He enumerates, defines and exhaustively illustrates five verbal figures. They are Vakrokti, Anuprāsa, Yamaka, Śleṣa and Citra. Bhoja classifies Alamkaras into those of Sabda, Artha and both, and gives 24 Sabdalaṁkaras of which Ślesa, Yamaka, Anuprāsa and Citra of various kinds are already known to us.
Six Verbal Figures of Hemachandra
Hemachandra begins by explaining the old Sabdalaṁkāra Anuprāsa (K.A.S.V. 1). Anuprāsa is defined by Bhamaha as "Sarupavarṇavinyasam" and as "Varṇasamyam" by Mammaṭa implying thereby a similarity of letters. Hemachandra, like Udbhata, recognizes that Varṇa should be replaced by Vyanjana, for there is no charm in mere similarity of vowels. Mammața also clarifies in his gloss (K.P. IX. 79) that even when the vowels are dissimilar, the sameness of consonants constitutes the similarity of letters. Hemachandra, like Mammața, also emphasizes that the allitration should heighten the effect of a Rasa i.e., it should be favourable to the sentiment (Rasadyanugata). Mammata, following Udbhata, relates his Anuprāsa to Cheka and Vṛtti and defines Vṛtti (or style) as the function of the particular letters which helps the suggestion
383

Page #409

of sentiment (IX. 79b). While Cheka is defined as the repetition of the several consonants only once, the Vșttyanuprāsa is the repetition of even the one consonant more than once. Interestingly, Hemachandra includes all these sub-types of Mammaţa under his comprehensive Anuprāsa. He believes that there is no strikingness in repeating, one consonant but once. Hence, it follows that the repetition of one letter should be more frequent, but that of a group of letters may be once or more frequent.
Normally, Anuprāsa is devided into Chekānuprāsa, Vșttyanuprāsa and Lāțānuprāsa. While there is a regulation as to the number (two or more) of letters in Chekānuprāsa, there is no Niyama as such in the Vșttyanuprāsa except that it should be favourable to Rasa-development. The Vrttyanuprāsa or Anuprāsa-jāti, which according to Mammața consists of one or several consonants repeated twice or several times, includes under it the three Vșttis or styles called Upanagarika, Puruşā and Komala, In fact, Udbhața explicitly states : "The separate grouping of similar consonants in the three styles of composition (suiting the different Rasas) the poets always call Alliteration or Anuprāsa, 165 This means that one must understand the three Vittis (styles) first; for Anuprāsa, which is inherent in them will be understood easily from them.166
But as Hemachandra has correlated these three styles with the three Guņas in chapter four he omits this topic here altogether, while Mammața gives a detailed treatment of these three Výttis along with the figure Allitration. Mammața's effort is to reorganize the different concepts of poetics so as to bring them in relation to Rasa. Hence he stresses that Vrtis mean the function of the particular letters which help the suggestion of Rasa. Hemachandra, too, relates them to Rasa through the three Guņas in his own way - of course in confirmity with the teachings of Ānandavardhana. 167
384

Page #410

Lātanuprāsa is but a variety of Anuprāsa according to Hemachandra. It is a sabdānuarāsa and involves repetition of words and is a favourite of the people of the Lāța country (modern South Gujarat). Udbhata defines it as the repetition, owing to the difference of purpose, of the same words, as stems or forms or both, yielding different meanings, though their form and their original meaning is the same. It has five varieties. Mammatta explicitly states (K. P. IX. 81) that Lāțānuprāsa is Šābda (verbal), when the difference lies only in the import of words. Lāțānuprāsa thus is alliteration of the words (as different from that of single consonants), identical in form and sense but differing in import or application (Tātparya). It is popular in the Lātadesa. Others (like Vāmana) call it "Padanuprāsa". Vāmana deals with only two figures of word: Yamaka and Anuprāsa, in that order (VKAS 4.1). And he defines Anuprāsa as that similarity of letters which is different from Yamaka. The reason why he defines Anuprāsa in terms of Yamaka is not far to seek. For, Yamaka, in Vāmana's Language, is the repetition of words or letters, having multiple (more than one) sense, with regulation of place. However, only word can have multiple sense, not letters. And repetition of words having the same sense cannot come within the purview of Yamaka. Repetition of letters, then, will be the repetition of incomplete words or parts of words, which cannot have signification. Thus we have Pāda Yamaka. But Padanuprāsa is implied in Vāmana's gloss on 4-1-8.
To return to Hemachandra's treatment of Lāțānuprāsa, we notice that the words and their senses are the same but the connection is different. These words may be a noun or any other part of speech and may be repeated once or many times. This is a very straightforward way to explain the Lātānuprāsa and it is no wonder that this variety of Anuprāsa should be popular among the people of Lāța (Gujarāta). Mammata's Lāțānuprāsa comprises five sub-types (IX.82), 168
Yamaka is the second Sabdalamkāra treated of by Hemachandra (V.3). He defines Yamaka as the repetition in
385
25

Page #411

the same order of a letter or letters (consonants with vowels), having different meanings, either very closely or at close intervals. Rudrața defines Yamaka as a repetition of such Varṇas as are (1) similar in sound (2) similar in order but (3) distinct in meaning (K.A.III). Thus, both Rudrata and Hemachandra hold Yamaka to be the repetition of similar syllables, vowels and consonants together, in the same order, but with distinct senses. Mammața speaks of Yamaka (as the repetition of (a group of) letters in the same order with a different meaning when there is a meaning, in identical terms (K.P.IX.83). We can very well appreciate Hemachandra's emphasis on Śrutyaikya and Kramaikya as well as Satyartha and Anyartha because he wants to stress these four things viz. the similarity of sounds and order as also of sensibility and difference of meaning to distinguish Yamaka from other figures of word.
•
This Yamaka is found in one foot rhyming with another and even in one part of a foot rhyming with another part of the same foot. In fact, Hemachandra illustrates all possible varieties of Yamaka in the text and the Viveka commentary. And after giving practicable numerical varieties, our anthor states that Yamaka can be of innumerable types !
YAMAKA: A Literary Excess
But before he concludes the discussion on Yamaka, Hemachandra observes that, critically speaking, all these varieties of Yamaka serve only to show off the powers of versification possessed by a poet and do not serve to promote any of the four goals of life and, therefore, they are regarded as impediments or intumescence (Kavyagaḍu) of poetry which obstruct the enjoyment of a Rasa.
"A poem is composed" continues stimulate tenderminded persons on to understanding Yamaka, which causes enjoyment and is wholly artificial and an appendage ( पृथग्यत्न निर्वत्य ),

386
Hemachandra, "to
the goal of life. But obstruction to Rasa

Page #412

is not easy (i.e., is a strain on the mind). And, in fact, descriptions of rivers, hills, oceans etc. are themselves impediments to the enjoyment of Rasa, then what to speak of these ##S, jarring poetry ?" in this mater, we should heed the advice of Ananavardhana (Ddy. Āl.11.77) who stresses the aesthetic norm that figurs should come in naturally and effortlessly a poem. To substantiate his attack on Yamaka, Hemachandra quotes in the gloss two verses of Lollața. Here Lollața decries the poetic practice of outlandish extravaganza in the form of descriptions of rivers etc. and of over-indulgence in verbal jugglary and poetic acrobatics such as Yamaka, Chitrakāvyas etc. It is only parading one's power or is a sort of blind imitation of the old tradition.
Thus Hemachandra roundly condemns the practice of classical poets to over-indulge in excesses of Yamaka and Citrakāvya and derives authority from Lollața's two coupletes and Anandavardhana's words of sanity (K.A.S. p. 307). However, in the same breath, he defines the tigre Citra next (K.A.S.V.S). Citra is a verbal figure. Citra is primarily the name given to the Adhama-kāvya in which the poet is in no mind to develop a Rasa or Bhāva which has no power of suggesting the Vyangya sense and which, therefore, depends for beauty on the charm of words or sense. Such a Kavya is, in the words of Anandavardhana, devoid of Rasa or suggestion, but looks like a copy of the real Kāvya, being a composition depending on kevalavācyavācakavaicitrya. It is a mere Alamkārambandha and therefore a Citrakavya.
The verbal figure Citra arises when the letters of a poem can be arranged in the form of a lotus, sword etc. Citra can be a Bandhacitra, Akāracitra, Gaticitra or Sthānacitra. Bhoja deals with this figure in the second chapter of the Sarasvatikanthābharaṇa. Bandhacitra includes arrangement of letters in the form of a plough, a pestle, a drum, Gomūtrikā, a bow, a wheel, etc, as does Ākāracitra. It is called Citra also because it causes surprise by its peculiar arrangement of letters. Thus
387

Page #413

by making the word Citra signify 'wonder', the figures like Gatapratyāgata, Ardhabhrama, Sarvatobhadra, Dhenu and other classes of Gaticitra can be included under Citra. There are other types of Citra also.
The verbal acrobatics of the Citra Alamkara certainly obstructs the relish of Rasa as a protuberance of a sugarcane prevents its juice from being tasted. 169
Hemachandra provides examples to illustrate poems having all long vowels, letters of the same class, Gatapraty a gata, Murajabandha as also poems called Cyutacitrakavya, Guḍhaci-. trakāvya etc. But, in the final analysis, all these verses are acrobatic feats in the domain of poetry and they hardly represent good or high class poetry. Hemachandra has cut short the matter in the text but culled many examples of the remaining varieties and presented them in the Viveka commentary.
The fourth Sabdalaṁkāra to be considered by Hemachandra. is Ślesa. It arises when two parallel ideas are expressed by the same sentence - almost every word yields a different meaning and so words have either to be split up in order to yield a different meaning or they stand as they are and yield different meanings. It has many varieties according as the pun is on a syllable, a word or a gender.
Can Abhangaśleṣa be regarded as an Arthālaṁkāra ?
Hemachandra first explains Pun in which words need to be split into two or more parts in order to arrive at the double meaning (Sabhangaśleṣa) and then he goes on to discuss the other kind of Sieṣa viz. Abhangaślesa, in which no wordsplitting is necessary, and in which the words as they stand are interpreted in two ways. The question that arises here is whether Abhangaśleṣa can or cannot be regarded as an instance of Arthalaṁkāra.
Hemachandra says: "No; for, if, for the word Udaya (in Verse 490), we substitute the word Śaktyupa caya or Giri, the

388

Page #414

Ślesa disappears at once. This shows that the figure is entirely dependent on words and thus it is a word-figure and not a sense-figure. This test is carried out on the maxim : "Śabdasattve alamkārah sabdāsattve na alamkarah". This is the method of Anvaya and Vyatireka, adopted by Mammața. Udbhata uses the test of Sabdaparivșttisahatva or SabdapariVịtti-asahatva, which means the same thing. Hemachandra, too, uses this test in the case of xy.
Another point of theoretical significance and practical utility arises when in a verse both Upamā and Ślesa occur. In such a case, Hemachandra says, preference should be given to Upamā; for rigidity as regards difference is not proper. In fact even a verbal resemblance may give rise to Upamā.170 The Province of Slesa
"What then is the province of ślesa ?" - one may ask. Hemachandra replies that instances of pure unmixed Sleşa are many (e.g. V. 490). But, where two figures (Ślesa with another figure) come together and where Sleşa is not fully developed, the other figure must be given predominance in the poem. In a verse, for instance, Siesa may give rise to Virodha and ultimately Virodha gains prominence. Consequently, the figure in the verse will be virodha and not slesa. In the verse
Anurāgavati sandhyā etc. there is slesa, but it does not become strong and, in fact, gives way to Samāsokti. Hence, in this verse, the only figure is Samāsokti (not ślesa). This last verse (533) is discussed in the Viveka-ţikā (p. 329). He cites other instances (VV. 534, 535, 536 and 537) where either some other Arthālamkāra predominates or the Samkara Alamkāra stands out but not śleşa. Bhāṣāšlesa
When a verse appears to be written with the same words in two or more languages with no difference in meaning, it is called Bhāṣāśleșa. It is of fifty seven types. Earlier, on page 325, Hemachandra referred to Bhāsāntara-bhangaślesa in the
389

Page #415

gloss and elaborated on it in the Viveka, drawing upon Rudrața and others in point of theory and illustrations. Here he refers to this Bhāşāślesa with a view to distinguish between the two sorts of Bhāṣāślesa. While the earlier variety yields two different meanings from the same words of two different languages e.g. Sanskrit and Māgadhi (cf. Rudrata's K.A. 4.12), the present one (Sū. 7), i.e. two or more languages but the same words, has only one meaning (e.g. Mālatimādhava VI. 10; Rudrața 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21 etc.). Here a funny instance in which the same meaning (Arthaikya) with the same words is common to six languages is given (K.A.S., gloss, V. 497) from the Devīšataka (74). What is Vakrokti ?
Vakrokti is the next Śabdālaskāra treated of by Hemachandra (V. 8). The definition implies that this is the Vakrokti dealt with and popularized by Rudrata. Even the example is from Rudrata's work (K.A. 2.15). This figure occurs "when a person interprets (or misinterprets on purpose) the words of another person in order to nonplus him." This figure is obviously based on śleșa (of both Sabhanga and Abhanga types).
It should be noted that Vakrokti means poetic speech and Alamkāra in general as well as a kind of poetic figure of this name (as here) involving clever dialogue turning on ordinary and word-split (Abhanga and Sabhanga Ślesa) puns. We do not meet with Vakrokti as an individual figure in Bhāmaha or Dandin, both of whom use the word Vakrokti for 'striking speech' or Alamkāra in general. But Danļin connects Śleșa with Vakrokti. But, it is only Rudrața who treats of Vakrokti as an individual Sabdālamkāra (K.A. 2.14, 2.16) and not as poetic speech or Alamkāra in general. Rudrata's Vakrokti is a dialogue involving intonation cleverly employed to change the meaning and another variety of the same employs word-split pun. Thus Rudrața has slesavakrokti and Kākuvakrokti. But Rajasekhara criticises Kākuvakrokti. Ratnakara's Vakrokti-Pancāśikā (a poem)
390

Page #416

contains Vakrokti involving Sabhangaśleşa, one of the varieties of Rudrata, which Hemachandra has adopted here. When we come to Mammața, we find that he defines Vakrokti in the very first Sūtrā (K.P. IX. 78) of his sabdālaṁkära chapter. Here it is Equivoque through Pun (śleşa) or Intonation (Kāku). Hence Mammața accepts Rudrața completely; for his twofold Vakrokti is based on Sabhangaślesa and Kāku. Kākuvakrokti Rejected by Hemachandra
So far as Hemachandra's Vakrokti is concerned, we find that he refuses to accept Kāku as a variety of Vakrokti. He follows yāyāvara (Rājasekhara) who criticises Kāku as a mere Pāthadharma and so does not admit it as a variety of poetic embellishment and Hemachandra quotes Rājasekhara (K.M. VII) in the gloss (p. 333). Thus Hemachandra is not only firmly against admitting Kākuvakrokti, but being a follower of Anandavardhana; he includes Kāku under Gunibhūtavyangya and accepts only Subhangaśleşavakrokti as a sabdālaṁkāra.
It may be noted that Mammața has added Abhangaślesa also to what Rudraga has, and, on this point, Hemachandra follows Mammața.171 Hemachandra correlates the discussion of Kākuvakrokti with what Anandavardhana has said about Kāku being a variety of Subordinate Suggestion (Dhv. Al. II. 39) and reproduces in the Viveka (pp. 333-336) long passages from the Nātyaśāstra to prove this.
All the same, Hemachandra divides Kāku into two types : Sākānkșa and Nirākānksa. He also defines and illustrates these two types. Dr. V. M. Kulkarni offers a detailed critical study of the concept of Kaku in Sanskrit Poetics in his 'Studies in Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra' (pp. 28-36). He traces the various ideas associated with Kāku in the history of poetics and brings together the opinions of Bharata, Rudrata, Rājasekhara, Abhinavagupta, Bhoja, Mammața, Hemachandra, Ruyyaka, Vidyānāth, Visvana tha and others on Kāku. Bhoja, however, makes a major type of Śabdālamkāra called Vakovākya by taking the element of dialogue from the concept of Vakrokti.
391

Page #417

The last śabdālamkāra in Hemachandra's list of six word-figures is Punaruktābhāsa. It occurs when two words, exactly similar in form but only apparently similar in meaning, come together. These two words appearing like synonyms have, in fact, entirely different meanings. In the instance cited (1.501 ) from the Devisataka of Anandavardhana, the words Bhāsi and Virājase, Dvisām and Ariņām, Senām and Vāhinim, Udakam and Payaḥ, apparently mean the same thing but in reality mean entirely different things. Mammața defines it (IX 86 ) as semblance of repetition which involves oneness and sameness in diverse forms. The golss states that the appearance, on the face of it, of one and the same meaning in words of diverse forms, with or without meaning, is Punaruktavadābhāsa. It subsists in a word and also in both the word and sense. Udbhața's Punaruktābhāsa
Udbhata begins his work (KASS) with the discussion of the figure Punaruktavadābhāsa or Punaraktābhāsa and he is believed to be the first author to treat this figure which is both a Sabdalamkāra and an Arthālaskāra. The test that is applied in distinguishing a Śabdālaskāra from an Arthālaskāra is its Parivșttisahatva or Parivịttyasahatva. If an Alamkāra is solely dependent on the form of words so that the Alamkāra is lost if the words are substituted by other synonymous words, then the Alamkāra is a Sabdalāmkāra and when such substitution of synonyms does not destroy the Alamkāra, then it is an Arthālaikära. Mammata gives this test in K.P. IX and X. Mammața, therefore, considers Punaraktavadābhāsa both a Sabdālamkāra and Ubhayalamkāra. As Sabdālaṁkara it is either Sabhangaśabdanistha or Abhangaśabdanistha. In Vidyadhara's Ekāvali, this figure is called Arthalāmkāra, like in Ruyyaka's work, because the sense is repeated, as it were. And though it is an Arthālamkāra it is treated at the head of Śabdālaṁkāras because the author wants to show that the opposite of the poetic defect Prarūdha, which arises only when there is repetition of sense, is an ornament.
392

Page #418

Twentynine Arthalamkāras or Embellishments Based on
Sense
After defining and illustrating Sabdalaṁkāras in Chapter Five, Hemachandra takes up the treatment of twentynine Arthalaṁkāras or figures of sense in Chapter Six. These figures are called Arthalaṁkāras because their beauty (Vicchitti or Vaicitrya) depends on the Artha or the sense of the Kavya.
Rationale of Treatment
Hemachandra enumerates the twentynine individual poetic figures of sense in the Viveka commentary. These are Upamā, Utprekṣā, Rūpaka, Nidarśanā, Dipaka, Anyokti, Paryāyokta, Atiśayokti, Akṣepa, Virodha, Sahokti, Samāsokti, Jati, Vyājastuti, Ślesa,Vyatireka, Arthantaranyasa, Sasandeha, Apahnuti, Parivrtti, Anumana, Smrti, Bhranti, Visama, Sama, Samuccaya, Parisankhya, Kāraṇamala and Samkara. While defining, discussing and illustrating these Arthalaṁkāras in the sixth chapter, Hemachandra's special attention is directed towards reducing the number of these figures from about sixty of his predecessors like Mammata and others who also based their aesthetics on the Rasa-dhvani theory of literature. It was a remarkable thing to do for any theorist at a time when the tendency was to invent new figures and thus swell the rank of the total number of the Alamkaras. It is natural, therefore, that students of Sanskrit Poetics should want to know the rationale of Hemachandra's treatment in this chapter not only in regard to the reduction of the number of figures accepted for treatment but also in respect of the theoretical viewpoint or influence behind this reduction.
Hemachandra's Critical Outlook
Now, for one thing, in the course of his treatment and criticism of the various poetic figures, Hemachandra himself advances plausible arguments for the inclusion or exclusion of several figures and shows how certain figures, though looking apparently different from each other, have a common

393

Page #419

element of beauty or a common governing principle which would justify their amalgamation into one figure, notwithstanding the fact that they were all treated as independent and separate figures by Mammaţa and others. This critical outlook. of Hemachandra towards the very basis of classification of the figure of his predecessors is, naturally, reflected in the reduced number of the Alamkāras here. And Hemachandra has, from time to time, supplied explanations as to why several separate Alamkaras are brought together to form one figure. The Individual Figures Discussed
This becomes clear when we analyse the criticism of the various figures. Hemachandra begins by defining Upamā or Simile, 172 along the same lines as Mammața, but with the addition of the word Hidyam i.e., delightful or charming or poetically striking. This delightful similarity distinguishes the poetic similarity from any mundane comparison which is based on existence or epistemological grounds and which, therefore, is no similarity at all; for the prosaic and drab comparisons met with in the practical world are no match for a delightful simiiarity struck between two separate objects. Hemachandra significantly remarks in the gloss (VI. 1. ff) that the quality of Hrdyatva or delightfulness is a common characteristic of all the poetic figures. This, then, is the rationale of Hemachandra's classification and treatment of the poetic figures. Now this adjective Hrdya, added by Hemachandra to Mammața's definition of Upamā, can be traced to Udbhata's definition of the same figure in which the word Cetohāri qualifies the term Sādharmya. 173 Thus Upamā is that charming similarity, existing between Upamāna and Upameya which are expressed by words and whose Pravrttinimittas viz. Desa, Kāla, Jāti, Guņa, Kriyā, etc. are mutually different from each other. While Bhāmaha speaks of Sāmya, Udbhata speaks of Sadharmya. But Mammața improves on both and gives a pithy and accurate definition by inserting the word to which accounts for Desa, Kāla etc, and implies the object as well as the standard of
394

Page #420

comparison. For the distinguishing features of Upamā are distinctions of Upameya and Upamana and Sadharmya or similarity. It is pertinent to note that the words Samya, Sādṛśya and Sadharmya are understood sometimes as Dharma or Sambandha. Most of the Alamkarikas following grammarians take it as Sambandha or relation, which is brought out by the common property found in both Upameya and Upamāna also referred to as Anuyogi and Pratiyogi (though inadequately). This Sadharmya is not possible between a cause and its effect, but is only possible between an Upameya and Upamāna.
In the gloss as well as the Viveka commentary, Hemachandra points out that even though the same words may stand both for the Upameya and the Upamana, there can be Upamā on the supposition that the Upamana has extraordinary qualities (Asadhāraṇatā). In fact such is the supposition that underlies an Ananvaya figure (Viveka pp. 339-40).
Thus Ananvaya is included under Upama quite justifiably. 174
So far as divisions of Upama are concerned, Hemachandra brings Alamkaras like Upameyopamā, Ananvaya, Malopamā, Rasanopamā, all based on simile (Upamāmūlaka) under Upamā and carves out an independent path for himself. He has thus deviated from Rudrata, Mammata and others who had attempted elaborate schemes of divisions of Upama and other figures. All varieties of Upama are included under Pure Simile by Hemachandra thus including Samastaviṣaya, Ekadeśaviṣayā, Utpadyopamā and other varieties such as Kalpitopamā. To explain the rationale of this unusual contraction of the varieties of Upama, Hemachandra explains the ground or aesthetic criterion of this contraction in the gloss (p. 348). "These and such other minor varieties of simile, if defined and illustrated exhaustively, would unnecessarily increase the bulk of the work. So there is no separate treatment of these varieties, viz. Ananvaya, Mālopamā, etc.", observes Hemachandra. This attitude of Hemachandra also explains why he did not

395

Page #421

indulge in hairsplitting discussions and unnecessary devisions of Upamā but attempted only those broad divisions such as Pūrnā and Luptă with their limited varieties. Mammața, on the other hand, divides and sub-divides Upamā. However, Hemachandra explains typical varieties with significant examples both in the text as well as in the Viveka commentary (pp. 341-347).
According to Hemachandra, Utpreksā is fancying some unreal or imaginary characteristic in a thing which is the subject matter. These characteristics may be Guņa or Kriyā; but at times an absence of these may be conceived or the qualities of another thing may be conceived to be our own. The Guņotprekşā is instanced in verse 531 which describes Lord Mahāvira's noble qualities. These qualities may also be fancied to be absent. Similarly Kriyā may be present or absent. Aesthetic Criterion of Utpreksā
Unlike Mammața, Hemachandra does not mention any varieties of Utprekşā, since, in his view, they do not add much to the beauty of the figure in poetry. Mammața's Utprekşā is based on identity, not difference. But Hemachandra's instances (VV. 532 and 533) show that he recognizes both identity and difference. He also observes, and rightly, that even when Tadyogotpreksana is admitted, we should always remember that it should be favourable to the Rasa and that any fancy should be extra-mundane or extra-ordinary and striking; for mere drab fancy does not amount to any poetic beauty. Thus the fancy should be transcendent at all times (Viveka p. 348). By the by, just as there is Dharmyutprekşā (Mukham candram manye), so also there is Dharmotprekşā i.e., of identity and difference (Bheda-abheda).
in Rūpaka (VI. 5) two separate things are identified with each other. Etymologically Rūpaka brings about identity (Ekarūpatāṁ nayati). The idea of Sādrsya or similarity is stressed here. Again when both Upameya and Upamāna are
396

Page #422

stated, then it is the Upameya that assumes one-ness with the Upamāna and not the other way around. This naturally excludes examples like Ayurgratam which rest on causal relations and not likeness.
Hemachandra observes that total identity (absence of any Bheda) of the Upameya and Upamāna leads to Atisayokti (VI.10).
In the first kind of Atisayokti, with a view to describing the object of comparison in a picturesque way, the poet resorts to exaggeration (i.e., obliteration of difference) and deliberately conceals the real difference between two objects. But in the second kind of Atiśayokti difference is shown where there is really identification.
Thus Hemachandra connects Rūpaka and Atiśayokti on the principle of identification. 175
Nidarśanā of Hemachandra (VI. 6), defined as an illustration (Dṛṣṭanta) that serves to corroborate the matter in hand, which may be general or particular, is comprehensive enough to comprehend within itself not only Nidarśanā but also Dṛṣṭānta, Prativastūpamā and Arthāntaranyāsa (which is separately defined). Hemachandra, however, defends his views by citing a quotation (151) which defines Nidarśana as involving 'the corroboration of a general or particular statement by (only) a particular one' and in Arthantaranyasa as "containing a corroboration of a particular proposal by a General one." This is the distinction that we should bear in mind, according to the viveka-tikā (p. 353). Hence Arthantaranyasa, logically belonging here, is treated of separately on the basis of a very thin difference.
Mammata's Nidarśana (K.P. X.97) is an unlikely connection (between objects) which leads to the idea of similarity. But his Nidarśana or illustration is exemplification only. It may be noted that Mammata's instance of Prativastūpamā is cited here (v. 550) under Nidarśana. And Hemachandra takes up this matter in the Viveka commentary (p. 354) for further discussion. He points out that it is not proper to treat

397

Page #423

Prativastupamā and the two types of Nidarśanā separately; for they are taken care of by our definition of Nidarśanā. Not only that, even Drstānta of Mammața 176 comes under our Nidarśanā. Hemachandra speaks of Nidarśanā by common attributes as also by opposite attributes.
Dipaka (VI. 6) occurs where Praksta and Aprakrta are mentioned together by one characteristic, which acts like a lamp (197). Here the fact that so many subjects come together by means of one common characteristic causes charm or strikingness. Hemachandra's interpretation of the definition extends to Mammața's Tulyayogitā which involves a string of Prakrta things (K.P. X. 104) and Hemachandra cites here Mammața's illustrative verse (559). Mammața's Dipaka (X. 103) is not different from Hemachandra's, since the gloss of Hemachandra is nothing but a paraphrase of Mammața's gloss.
Hemachandra includes Tulyayogitā as well as Anyonya under Dipaka. So far as Kārakadipaka (admitted by Mammața) is concerned, Hemachandra cites a verse (560) with many Kriyās connected with a single Kāraka or subject; but Hemachandra does not admit it as a variety of Dipaka and dismisses it is a naturalistic pen-picture (Jāti) only. In regard to the verb Gurukikriyate in the verse 555, there is a controversy. As a verb it performs a necessary function but it cannot be an Alamkāra, says the opponent. Hemachandra replies that the common verb is not the point of beauty in this figure, but the fact that so many subjects are connected by a one verb or quality creates the charm here. Again there is an element of Upamā in Dipaka but it is not so pronounced as in Upamā and that constitutes the difference between the two figures.
Anyokti of Hemachandra (VI. 8) corresponds to Aprastataprašamsā of Mammata and has five varieties (Pāncadhã-K.P. X. 98-99). It consists in the suggestion of the relevant by a statement of the irrelevant and is widely used in the Sanskrit literature. Hemachandra distinguishes it from Nidarśanã and
398

Page #424

Arthāntaranyasa as well as from Vyajastuti and Sabdaśaktim ūladhvani.
The main difference between Paryāyokta (VI. 9) and Anyokti, according to our author, is that in the former the suggested sense is expressed picturesquely but in the latter it is not expressed but implied. Atiśayokti (VI. 10) has been already referred to in connection with the treatment of Rūpaka. It also covers Mammața's Visesa. Hemachandra's Āksepa (VI. 11) consists in abruptly cutting the statement short with a view to conveying something more. It also involves denial which is apparent. The verse cited is from Bhāmaha (11.69).
Virodha (V1.12) is apparent contradiction of things, qualities, activities and proper nouns. So Vyāghāta treated by others is set aside. Virodha covers Vibhāvanā and Višesokti, two separate figures. It includes Asangati, Vişama and Adhika of Mammața.
Hemachandra also considers figures like Sahokti (VI. 13), Samāsokti (VI. 14), Jāti (VI. 15), Vyājastuti (VI. 16), śleşa (VI. 17), Vyātireka (VI. 18), Arthāntaranyāsa, Apahnuti, Parivștti, 177 Anumāna178 as also Smộti, Bhranti, Vişama, Sama, Samuccaya, Parisaskhyā, Kāraṇamālā and Sankara (VI. 31). When we critically look at these figures we find that Hemachandra's treatment of Sahokti, Samāsokti, Jāti or Svabhāvokti, Vyajastuti, Vyatireka, etc. follows the path beaten by Mammața. Hemachandra conforms to the guidelines provided by Mammața, though, now and then, he adopts expressions and instances from Rudrata and others. In fact, the influence of Rudrata, Mammața and others is quite evident in this chapter.
Hemachandra's main aim seems to be to comprehend minor figures under the major varieties sanctioned by earlier authorities, He thus tries to squeeze the figures Ekāvali, Nidarśanā and Viseșa under Atiśayokti. Prof. R. B. Athavale criticises Hemachandra's tendency to include other figures under some of the well known figures by hook or by crook ! (K.A.S. Vol. dl. p. 209).
399

Page #425

Hemachandra's Āksepa comprehends Pratipa and his Virodha takes care of several figures (above). His Sahokti has nothing special about it. Under Samāsokti, Hemachandra raises a discussion of mixture of Samāsokti and Ślesa. Hemachandra's. views are clear here. He says that since Samāsokti subsists on ślesa there is no question of mixture but there is only Samāsokti based on Ślesa. His definition of Jāti, otherwise called Svabhāvokti, made famous by Dandin (K.A. II. 8) who considers it as a mark of difference of the twofold literature (K.A. III. 363), has nothing special about it - in fact it is a lack-lustre, routine definition. 179 His Vyājastuti, Vyatireka of eight kinds, Arthantaranyāsa, Sasandeha and others figures follow a beaten path. We cannot understand why the figure Anumāna is included here when several more poetic figures are dropped. His Viparyaya and Smriti are none-too-new or charming for that matter. His Vişama and Sama do not strike any new beauty.180 His Parisamkhyā includes Sāra. This is clear from the illustrative verse taken over from Rudrata (VII. 97) who adduces it as an instance of Sāra (Vil. 96) and the other verse explains his Parisarkayā of the Aprsta variety (vv. 656, 657). Kāraṇamālā involves Hetu but Hemachandra denies it a place as a poetic figure as it lacks beauty and merely mentions a pair of cause and effect, 181 Thus Hemachandra's list of the figures of speech based on word and sense comes to an end.
The last Sūtrā of the Chapter (VI. 31) defines the Sankarālamkāra or the coming together of two or more figures in the same verse. This happens (1) when, two figures occur in the same verse, though independently, (2) when, sometimes one figure gives rise to another figure and thus becomes a means (Anga) of another figure (Angin), (3) when, sometimes there is doubt as regards the existence of a particular figure in a verse, for the words can be interpreted in favour of two or more figures, and lastly, (4) when, in the case of the Ekapadasamkara, two figures occur in a word or a compound. Hemachandra gives several instances to explain these four varieties of Sankara. 182
400

Page #426

The Criterion to Decide Alamkāras
A poem is made up of word and sense and both these are indispensable to it. Now, we need a criterion to decide whether a particular figure is a sabdālamkāra or an Arthālamkāra; for in every figure, both the word and the sense are invariably present. This point assumes considerable theoretical importance in works on Poetics.
Hemachandra answers by saying that not only in the case of figures but even in the case of Doșas and Guņas this difficulty arises. In all such cases, the only criterion is to use the method of Anvaya and Vyatireka. This is the method advocated by Mammața (K.P. IX & X) in the context of the figure Slesa (K.P. IX 85) based on Sabda (i.e., the Abhangaślesa). The issue at stake here is how Sleşa can be regarded as a verbal figure, when Udohata and others have classified it with Arthālamkāras ? Mammața replies by pointing out the principle or criterion of Anvaya and Vyatireka, i.e., the test of co-presence and co-absence, for deciding whether a Doșa, Guņa or Alamkāra depends on Śabda or Artha on the basis of their presence or absence. In K.P. X.141 (gloss) Mammața reiterates the above principle and points out that no other principle holds the ground. Hence, a figure is classified as pertaining to that word or sense whose presence and absence it follows. Mammața also alludes to the principle of Aśrayāsrayibhāva (accepted by Ruyyaka) and says that even here Anvaya-Vyatireka will have to be resorted to. 1 8 3 A Critical and Comparative Review
It is interesting as well as instructive to compare Hemachandra's treatment of the poetic embellishments with that of the earlier authors like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Rudrața, Bhoja and Kuntaka and to note to what extent Hemachandra is influenced by the earlier writers' theory and practice so far as the definitions and illustrations of the various Alamkāras are concerned.
401
26

Page #427

A scrutiny of the Kavyanušāsana text as well as the Viveka commentary clearly shows that among the earlier authorities in the field of Poetics, authors like Bhāmaha, Udbhata and Rudrața as well as Kuntaka, besides Ānandavardhana, Mahimabhatta and Abhinavagupta and Mammața, have been drawn upon by Hemachandra while treating of the topic of Alamkāra. He has cited the views of Bhāmaha, Rudrața and Anandavardhan as well as Kuntaka and Mammta and drawn illustrations from several earlier works. He has also cited Daņdin and borrowed examples.
Kuntaka's Novel Conception of Alamkāra
Even a cursory perusal of the Vakroktijivita unmistakably shows that Kuntaka's approach to Alamkāras is marked by novelty and freshness. He is against hackneyed methaphors like Mukhachandra etc. He hopes that men of taste will support him. He is against sub-divisions without differentiation and significantly remarks that merely citing a new example does not justify a new type of figure.
Kuntaka's radical outlook on such a vital poetic element as Alamkāra could not fail to affect the swelling numbers of technical figures and resulted in the reduction of individual figures. Hemachandra's effort to reduce the number of individual figures considerably had the theoretical support of Kuntaka's novel exposition of the idea of beauty in poetry.
Kuntaka reorganizes the entire gamut of poetical concepts in terms of his Vakrokti, which by its nature is opposed to Svabhāvokti and as such he presents a revolutionary concept of the beauty of the poetic embellishments. Consequently, he redefines the traditional Alamkāras in terms of poetic beauty alone, and rejects technical notions of the rhetorical devices called Alamkāras. He rejects Udbhata's conception of Dipaka and discusses afresh the beauty of metaphorical expression which consists in a special flash of Kavipratibhā or poetic genius. Kuntaka is an advocate of Sarasa and Ullekha
402

Page #428

Alamkāras headed by Rūpaka. It is such poetic embellishments that impart aesthetic appeal to poetry. Dr. S. K. De's Review of Hemachandra's Method
Dr. S. K. De reviews Hemachandra's treatment of the individual poetic figures in Chapters five and six of the Kavyanuśãsana and remarks: "Hemachandra's treatment of poetic figures, however, is somewhat peculiar. He speaks of six Sabdalamkāras, viz. Anuprāsa, Yamaka, Citra, Vakrokti and Punaruktavadābhāsa. The Arthalamkāras are much reduced in number and limited to twentynine. ... He includes Samsșşti under Samkara, and treats Ananvaya and Upameyopamā as varieties of Upamā. The Aprastutaprasamsā similarly goes under Anyokti. All figures like Rasavat, Preyas, Urjasvin and Samāhita that have a touch of Rasa and Bhāva are omitted as being comprehended (so also Mammața thinks) in the class of poetry called Gunibhūtavyangya. Hemachandra does not deal with Parikara, Yathāsamkhya, Bhāvika, Udatta, Āśih and Pratyanika for reasons explained by himself at pp. 292-4. Hemachandra, however, defines some figures somewhat broadly so as to include other recognized figures in them, e.g. his Dipaka includes Tulyayogitā, his Parāvștti would contain the Paryāya and Parivștti of Mammața, his Nidarśanā would comprehend Prativastūpamā, Drstānta and Nidarśanā of other writers."184
403

Page #429

DRAMATIS PERSONAE Treatment of the Characteristics of the Hero and the Heroine
General Introduction
The subject of dramatis personae or the characters is intimately connected with the theory of drama. The author of the Desarūpaka, a well known work of Dramaturgy, lays down (1. 11) that Dramas are classified according to Plot, Hero and Sentiment.
Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, the earliest extant treatise on dramaturgy as well as poetics, is also the earliest known. work on the subject of dramatis parsonae i.e., the Hero, the Heroine and the other characters. Hence it is clear that the important types of characters and their classification can be traced to the Nātyaśāstra. However, the scheme of classification: followed in the Nātyasāstra has undergone a great deal of change in the works of later authorities.
Bharata treats of Nayaka as the principal character of a drama, and not as Alambana-vibhāva of the Srngārarasa. This is clear from the fact that Bharata deals with the subject of Nāyaka-Nāyikā-bheda, not in the sixth and the seventh chapters, which deal with Rasa ard Bhāva, but in the concluding chapters which deal with the different characters of a drama.. Consequently, the fourfold division of the Hero into Dhiroddhata,
404

Page #430

Dhiralalita, Dhirodatta and Dhiraprasanta taken over in succeeding works, as it is given in the Natyaśāstra has little to do with the Hero of the erotic emotion. Again, Bharata's fivefold division of the man, based on his behaviour towards the women, is a division of Purusa and not that of the Hero. And even the list of general and popular classification into Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama, as given by Bharata, is, in fact, concerned with man and woman. 185
The anonymous author of the Agnipuraṇa, a work of doubtful authenticity and date, makes certain innovations of considerable significance in the conceptual outlook on the subject of the hero and the heroine of a Sanskrit play. In this work we find that (1) the subject has been brought topically under the Śrngārarasa, thus bringing it under the discussion of the Heros and the Heroines as the Alambanavibhāvas of the erotic sentiment. (2) There is a new fourfold classification of the Hero into Anukula, Dakṣina, Śatha and Dhṛṣṭa, with clear affiliation with the subject of erotics, and for which reason, it is adopted in later works down to our own times. This new orientation given to the subject of the Hero and the Heroine results in a double conception of the Hero, firstly as Dhiroddätta etc. and again as Anuküla etc., in later theory in total disregard of Bharata's original conception of the Hero of a drama, and not the Alambanavibhāva of the Sṛngararasa.
Rudrața and Rudrabhaṭṭa 'wisely' eliminate the classification of the Hero into Dhirodatta etc. and retain the only other classification into Anuküla etc. Further, Rudrata defines these last four types viz. Anukula etc. and Rudrabhatta defines as well as illustrates them. 186 Referring to the sixteen qualities of the hero, mentioned in Rudrata's Kavyalaṁkāra XII. 7-8, Namisādhu observes that, as the erotic sentiment is dependent on the hero, his qualities are detailed.
The next important theorist, the most authoritative writer Dramaturgy after Bharata, who exercised considerable influence on later works on Dramaturgy including the present
on

405

Page #431

chapter of our work which is almost entirely based on the Dasarūpaka, is Dhananjaya. His work, the Dasarūpaka, synthesizes "the two main classifications of the Hero; for, he says, each of the four types of the Hero (Dhiralaita etc.) as an Alambanavibhāva of the śrgararasa is again of four kinds viz. Anukūla, Daksina, etc. 187 He has also mentioned the Pratināyaka or the opponent of the Hero. The threefold classification of the Hero into Jyestha, Madhyama and Adhama (Higher, Middle and Lower has been attributed by him also to the Hero alongwith all the other characters. It should be understood that the Dasarūpaka is primarily a work on dramaturgy and not on the erotics. This is why the śộngāra Nāyakatva here is only a phase of the life of the general Hero of the play and therefore has no claim to any independent treatment in his work. 1 8 8
Bhoja has as many as six bases for the classification of the Hero. To the divisions of the Nayaka into (1) Uttama etc. on the basis of his qualities; into (2) Dhirodatta etc. on the basis of his general characteristics; and into (3) Anukula etc. on the basis of his relations with Heroine, Bhoja adds the classifications of the Hero (4) into Nāyaka, Pratinayaka, Upanāyaka and Anunāyaka on the basis of his relative position and importance in a plot, (5) into Sättvika, Rājas and Tāmas, according to his nature and (6) into Asādhārana and Sadhārana, strangely, according as he has one or more wives. It may be remembered here that Bhoja associates each of the four main types of the Hero, viz. Dhiroddhata etc. with one of the four types of the Sțngāra which he has divided into four types viz. Dharmasrngāra, Arthasțngāra, Kamaśrngära and Mokşaśșrgāra. Thus the Hero of Dharmaśộngāra is Dhirodātta, that of Arthaśrngāra, Dhiroddhata, that of Kāma, Dhiralalita and of Moksa. Dhirapraśānta. 189 Hemachandra's Classification
On Hemachandra's classification of the Nāyaka and the Nāyikā, Dr. Rakesh Gupta remarks: "Hemachandra in his Kāvyānuśāsana has repeated Rudrața's principal scheme of
406

Page #432

classification into sixteen types. But while taking up the other eightfold classification, he says, unlike Rudrabhatta and Dhananjaya, that it is applicable only to the Svakiya. Parakiyā, according to him, can be of only three types: Virahotkanthita, Abhisarika and Vipralabdha. With regard to the courtesan he does not speak of this classification at all.190 The topic is concluded with the mention of the Pratināyikā or the rival wife."
Thus Hemachandra's treatment of Nayaka-Nayika-Bheda is based on the scheme of classification adopted by Rudrata as well as on the outlook and the method of presentation adopted in the Dasarūpaka of Dhananjaya who is indebted to the Śṛngāratilaka, 191 In fact, Dhananjaya "reproduces in toto the three classifications of the Sṛngar. Tilaka with all possible brevity and conciseness, giving only short definitions and omitting illustrations and other details."192
The Daśarupaka discusses the characteristics of the Hero and the Heroine and the dramatis personae of all types, in the second Prakāśa. We have already noted that Vastu, Neta and Rasa form the basis of classification of a dramatic composition. And since the topic of the Vastu or subject matter has been dealt with in the first Prakasa of the Daśarupaka, Dhananjaya takes up for treatment the topic of the Neta or Nāyakabheda in the second Prakasa to be followed by the theory of Rasa.
Hemachandra's Treatment of Nayaka-Nayika-Bheda
At the outset Hemachandra briefly explains the reason why this chapter on the characteristics of the Hero and other characters is included in this work. He says that in view of the fact that Kavya or Literary compositions contain the Hero and other characters, it is proposed to describe their characteristics.
Both men and women fall into three natural types : Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. The Uttama type is possessed

407

Page #433

of virtues only. The Madhyama type possesses many good qualities with a few defects. But the Adhama type is all defects. The servants of the Hero such as Vița, Ceti, Vidūşaka etc. are of the Adhama type.
The Hero (Nayaka), belonging to the Uttama or Madhyama type, is defined (VI. 1) as one who is possessed of all the good qualities or virtues and who pervades the entire composition. The word Nayaka is explained as the chief person or principal character around whom all the events in a composition revolve and who enjoys the fruit or the consumation of the poem. 1 9 3 Thus the Hero enjoys the most exalted position in a drama or a poem and his personality towers over the personalities of the other dramatis persone. The following observations of Dr. N. S. Shastri admirably sum up the importance of the Hero in a Kāvy - be it a play or a poem :
"..... Whatever the sentiment or the motive of the play be, there is always a principal action or the de'nouement therein. Whosoever is to enjoy the benefit of all efforts or in whose interest are all movements directed is the person who reaps the real harvest. The motif or the resultant benefit is called the fruit (Phala) and the enjoyment of the Phala is called the Adhikāra. 194 One who has the Adhikāra is, no doubt, the Adhikärin and it is he who becomes virtually the principal character in a drama. He is called the Netā, Nāyaka or the hero, because the entire dramatic action culminates ultimately into his benefit. He, in fact, becomes the substratum of all actions and is the basic or the pendent factor (Alambana) of the principal sentiment in a show; and thus ranks foremost for consideration. 195
Hemachandra defines the personal traits, qualities and merits of the Nayaka or Netā in terms of two couplets quoted from the Dasarūpaka (2. 1-2) which state that “the Hero should be well-bred, charming, liberal, clever, affable, popular, upright, eloquent, of exalted lineage, resolute and young; endowed with intelligence, energy, memory, wisdom, (skill in
408

Page #434

the) arts, and pride, heroic, mighty, vigorous, familiar with the codes, and a just observer of laws."196
This list of Gunas is intended to make the Hero 'समग्रगुणः ', as Hemachandra has characterised him in the gloss on VII. 1. There, Hemachandra states that the Hero should be possessed of all good virtues, the qualities and traits of personality which make him fit to be the leader (Neta) of a play and the other physical qualities (Sattvikaguņas) of his will be enumerated next. It will be noted that Dhananjaya includes the quality of Sastric vision in the list of the essential qualification of a hero. Viśvanatha (S. D. III. 20) sums up the qualities required of a Nayaka thus: "Munificent, clever, high-born, handsome, youthful, enthusiastic, prompt, devoted to people, powerful and tactful is the nature of a hero."
The Natyadarpaṇa, however, is extremely brief : "The Hero is one who achieves the fruit and does not suffer calamities." 197
The Eight Sattvika Gunas of the Hero
Such a Hero is possessed of eight physical (Sattvika) qualities. It should be noted here that the author of the Dasarūpaka takes up these qualities for description after it has dealt with the first and the second classifications of the Hero198 (11.3,6) and the other subsidiary male characters (11.8 and 9). He enumerates the eight physical qualities in 1.10 and describes and illustrates each of these in the subsequent portion.
It is thus obvious that Hemachandra has altered the order of the topics a little bit. However, the eight "physical qualities" of Hemachandra are the same as those of Dhananjaya. They are Sobha, Vilasa, Madhurya, Gambhirya, Sthairya, Tejas, Lalita and Audarya. Dhananjaya characterises these "Paurusaḥ gunaḥ" or "manly qualities" which spring from "'one's nature".
as

409

Page #435

These qualities are called 'Sattvajaḥ' because they are born of Sattva which means a bodily change. But, as in most cases, physical change is due to a mental change, so these qualities are both mental as well as physical. However, since the change is noticeable in the body, they are stated to be predominantly physical.
As remarked above, the eight qualities enumerated by Hemachandra are literally met with in the Daśarupaka (II.10). Not only that, even the explanations of these eight qualities as given by Hemachandra (VII.3-10) tally with those given by Dhananjaya (II.11-14). It is a safe bet, therefore, that we keep in view Dhananjaya's conception of these individual qualities while trying to understand Hemachandra's text on the Sattvagunas. It may be noted that irrespective of the type to which the hero belongs, he has certain general characteristics as his personal merits and these are the eight Sattvika characteristics, termed as manly qualities 'based on nature', mentioned by Bharata and adopted by all succeeding authors without any change in their conception. This point has been noted above.
Hemachandra adds explanatory comments which not only bring out the essence of the definition but also shed light on the examples. It may be noted that some of these qualities derive their sense from the general qualities of the hero mentitioned earlier i.e., Neta vinito etc. (D.R. 2.1-2).
The Types of the Hero
According to Hemachandra, Dhiroddhata, Dhiralalita, Dhiraśänta and Dhiroddhata are the four types of the Hero in general (VII.11). But, when the poem treats of love, then the Hero is again of four types. That is to say, in Śṛngārarasa, the hero is either Daksina or Dhṛṣṭa or Aunkula or Śatha in all the four general types of the hero. Each type of the Hero in Dhirodatta etc., therefore, becomes fourfold and, with the fourfold division of each of these heroes, in matters of love, the number of types of the Hero is sixteen. defines each of these types (K.A.S. VII.12-19).
Hemachandra

410

Page #436

Overlapping of Types Possible
Now, as a rule, the Gods, as heroes, are of the Dhirodatta type; kings are of the type of Dhiralalita, commanders and ministers are of the Dhiroddhata type; and Brahmins and merchants are of the Dhirapraśānta type. This rule is of course not hard and fast. For, Rāma, although a king, is a Dhirodātta type. Whereas Mādhava in the Mālatimādhava play, though a son of a minister, is of the Dhiralalita type.
This is why Hemachandra quotes Bharata's two Kārikās (N.S. 34.18-19 C.S.S.; N.S. 24.18-19 G.O.S.) which lay down only a general rule that there may be an overlapping of types. The viveka commentary has one passage (the only passage in this chapter) which takes up the discussion of a theoretical point.
Hemachandra quotes the Nātyaśāstrā passage ( 24.18-19 G.O.S.) which means that the Gods are to be considered Dhiroddhata, the kings, Dhiralalita, the Senāpati and the ministers, Dhirodatta and Brahmins and merchants are to be thought of as Dhirapraśānta. This is the first fourfold division of the Hero.
The viveka passage (mentioned above) elaborates the idea of the Nātyaśāstrā passage first and then reproduces an argument from the Avaloka of Dhanika on D. R. 11.5 and 11.6 (Dhanika's whole passage is quoted with some variations ).
The Interchangeability or Otherwise of Types of Heroes
The passage in question raises an important point as to whether the four types of the Hero described above are (1) interchangeable or (2) fixed or not. Now, here we should remember that the question relates to the first classification of the Heroes. But it may be asked as regards the second classification of the Hero as lovers. The argument can be summarised as under :
411

Page #437

"The term Dhiroddhata denotes states or stages characterised by qualities mentioned with them and are like the stages of a cow : a calf, a bull, and a great bull; they are not fixed generically; If that were the case, the various opposing stages being depicted in great works of master poets would be incongruent. For Jāti is fixed. Take for example the work of Bhavabhūti, viz, the play Mahāviracarita. Herein the selfsame Paraśurāma is depicted as Dhiroddhata, Dhirodatta and also as Dhiraśānta. And still no one can find fault with this variegated depiction of the different stages or states of Parašurāma. For, in the case of a person (a minor character) who is not a hero of the poem or drama, his qualities etc. are not rigidly fixed. (In other words his type of character can be changed). On the other hand, in the case of Rama and others, who happen to be the Hero in a poem or drama, there can be no change throughout the play or poem. Thus, when Rāma, who is by definition the Dhirodātta Hero, kills Valin by trick, he is suddenly changed to a Dhiroddhat type of a hero. This is not desirable and should be avoided.
However, in the case of the four types of the Hero as a lover, viz. Daksina, Dhrsta, Anukula and Satha, the types may change - whether main or minor."199
This is an important issue which Dhanika has settled once and for all. Hemachandra has quoted it almost verbatim in his commentary in the same context. The Hero as a Lover
Hemachandra has already introduced the second classification of the Hero as a lover in his gloss on VII.11. He takes up the four aspects of the Hero's role in the erotic sentiment. Dhanajñaya (D.R.11.6) states : "When the Hero has been captivated by another woman, he may be gallant or clever (Dakşiņa), deceitful (satha ) or shameless (Dhrsta ) towards his previous love." But if the hero has only one lady-love he is faithful or Anukūla. These four types Hemachandra defines and illustrates on the same lines as found in the Dasarūpaka.
412

Page #438

The Opponent of the Hero: Pratināyaka
A character who is an adversary of the hero or one who is the declared foe of the hero is called the Pratinayaka or villain. The Hero is always a Dhira character, possessed of excellent virtues; the villain, on the other hand, is always considered as avaricious, vicious, cunning, sinful and voluptuous as a person, who, at the same time, is possessed of great strength and resources.
Hemachandra describes the Pratinayaka exactly as Dhanañjaya does (D.R. 11.9), though he replaces the word Ripu with Pratinayaka, quite appropriately. This advarsary of the Hero, called Pratinayaka, is avaricious, Dhiroddhata (vehement), stubborn, criminal and vicious, e.g. Ravana is the Pratinayaka of Rama and Duryodhana is the Pratinayaka of Yudhisthira. The Characteristics of the Heroine
The Heroine is the other very important character in a Kavya who naturally occupies a very prominent place in a love-play. The proper portrayal of the character of the Heroine requires excellent dramatic or poetic skill on the part of the poet; for such a portrayal ensures the ultimate success of the work of art. Sanskrit writers on Dramaturgy and Rasa have developed the subject of Nayikābheda extensively as well as intensively, particularly with regard to the delineation of Rasa, especially the Śṛngārarasa.
In connection with the portrayal of a heroine's love, S. K. De writes:
"Love sways women's heart no less than it sways man's; but its effect differs in different types of men and the ways of wooing and love differ accordingly. The science of Poetics and Erotic take a delight in classifying these different types and analysing the varied effects of love on them. Thus we have arrangements into divisions and sub-divisions, according to rank, character, circumstances and the like, of all conceivable types of the hero, the heroine, their assistants and adjuncts, as

413
Dr.

Page #439

well as of the different shades of their feeling and gestures; and the sentiment of love is defined, analysed and classified industriously in all its finite moods and situations. The procedure, no doubt, possessed an attraction for mediacre scholastic minds, but it also throws a great deal of light on the practice of the later poets who often follow these prescriptions faithfully. In his character as a lover, the hero is classified, for instance, into the faithful (Anukūla) who confines himself to one, the gallant (Dakşiņa) whose attention is distributed equally among the many, the sly (Šatha) and the saucy (Dhūrta). ......... But the hero may also be high spirited, naughty, sportive or serene, according to his temperament in the same way, the heroine, in relation to the hero, may be his wife (Svīyā) or belong to another (Parakiyā) or be common to all (sämānyā). The sviyā is subdivided again into the adolescent and artless (Mugdha), the youthful (Madhyā) and the mature and audacious (Pragalbhā); or, in other words, into the inexperienced, the partly experienced, and the fully experienced. Of these the adolescent and artless heroine is the greatest favourite with the poets, who delight in depicting with a graceful touch the first dawn of love in her simple heart. Kālidās gives a fine description of the charms of adolescence in his picture of the girl Pārvati budding into womanhood; but the artless emotion of the adolescent heroine are best described by Amaru. ... Later theorists introduce greater fineness into the analysis by subdividing each of these heroines again, according to her temper, into the self-possessed, the not selfpossessed and the partly self-possessed; or, according to the rank, higher or lower, each holds in the affection of the hero. The Parikiyā or another man's wife, who is theoretically rejected in orthodox Poetics as a heroine, but who, according to other Sāstras is the highest type of the heroine, is twofold, according as she is maiden or married; while the Sāmānyā heroine, who is sometimes extolled and sometimes deprecated, is only of one kind, the Vesyā or the courtesan. The sixteen types of heroine thus obtained are further arranged according to the
414

Page #440

eightfold diversity of her condition or situation in relation to her lover, into eight more different types; viz. the heroine who has her lover under absolute control (Svādhinapatikā), the heroine disappointed in her assignation through misadventure or involuntary absence of the love (Utkā); the heroine in full dress expectant of her lover (Vāsakasajjā), the heroine deceived (Vipralabdha), the heroine separated by a quarrel (Kalahāntaritā), the heroine outraged by signs of unfaithfulness in the lover (Khanditā), the heroine who ventures out to meet her lover (Abhisarikā) and lastly, the heroine pininga way for the absence of the lover who has gone abroad (Prositapatikā). Of the last, the typical example is the Yakşa's wife in the Meghadūta; but
ne studies of the other types are to be found scattered in innumerable verses in the Anthologies."200
Hemachandra, like Dhananjaya (D. R. II. 15) divides the Heroine into three types : (1) Svakiyā, (2) Parakiyā and (3) Sāmānyā. The word Tadguṇā in the definition shows that she has the hero's qualities. The Svīyā or Svakīyā is the hero's wife and possesses good character, uprightness, bashfulness, homeliness etc. This Sviyā may be (i) inexperienced (Mugdhā), (ii) partly experienced (Madhyā) and (iii) experienced (Praudhā or Pragalbhā). According to Hemachandra, this distinction is due to difference of age and self-consciousness (Vayah and Kausala). 201
Hemachandra illustrates the Mugdhā, the Madhyā and the Pragalbhā types in the twofold aspect of each i.e., in respect of age and experience. So we have 1 (a) Vayasa Mugdha (b) Kausalena Mugdhā, 2 (a) Vayasā Madhyā (b) Kausalena Madhyā, 3 (a) Vayasā Pragalbhā (Praudha ?) (b) Kausalena Praudhā.
Now, in so far as the expression of their anger towards their lover is concerned, the Madhyā and the Praudhā types fall into three sub-types each. Thus we have : 1 (a) Dhirāmadhyā (b) Dhiradhirāmadhyā and (c) Adhirāmadhyā. Similarly, we get : 2 (a) Dhira Prauṇhā (b) Dhiradhira Prauṇhā and (c) Adhira
415

Page #441

Prauḍha. But the Mugdha is so young and inexperienced that she does not know how to express her anger; she only knows how to weep. Therefore, she is of one type only.
The Madhya as well as the Prauḍha can be of six types. as seen above. Both again are either Jyeṣṭhā or Kaniṣṭhā i.e., Senior or Junior in point of enjoying the husband's favours. Thus there are twelve varieties of the Sviya, Madhya and Prauḍha types. Add to it the one type of Mugdha. And we have thirteen varieties of the Svakiya type.
The Concept of Parakiyā
The Parakiya may be another's wife or a maiden (VII. 28). But she is not helpful in a principal Rasa (as per orthodox poetic theorists), hence, Hemachandra says, her divisions etc. are not given in a detailed manner here. Again, the word Udha (married) is a sign of identification. For, even a keep is called Parastri. 202 But so far as the Kanya (Parakiya) is concerned, she, being under the control of her father etc., is called Anyastri (another's woman), though unmarried. Dhanika remarks that she may either be unobtainable from her father, or she may be obtainable. In either case she is in another's. custody (or, may be, one is afraid of one's wife) so the love affair with a Kanya is always a clendestine one, as Madhava's love for Malati and Vatsaraja's love for Sagarika. Of course, the poet is free to depict her love either in a principal Rasa or in a subsidiary Rasa. 20 3
e.g.
Ganika is the Samanya Nayikā (VII. 29), 204 Hemachandra explains the word Gaṇikā by means of a rather fanciful derivation of the word: "Kalaprāgalbhyadhaurtyabhyam gaṇayati kalayati Gaṇikā." That is to say: "A woman who attracts (Gaṇayati-Kalayati) men by her proficiency in fine arts (Kalaprāgalbhya) and by her cunning. Ganika is, more naturally or properly, 'a woman common to a Gaṇa or a congregation or a mass of people.' For, anybody can approach her and buy her love. Samanya is explained as common to all, whether a good man or a bad man, a refined man or an

416

Page #442

idiot. A Gaņikā's love is synthetic or artificial, based on feigned affection, intent on monetary profit. She is, in short, out to earn money by pleasing the customer. 205
Hemachandra mentions (VII. 30) 206 the eight states (Astau Avasthās) of a Nāyika's love towards her husband. But it will be seen that all these eight states are possible only in the case of a wife; when a woman is not a wife, but another's woman or merely an unmarried giri, all these states are not possible; only the last three (viz. Virahotkanthita, Vipralabhā or Abhisarikā) are possible.
These peculiar eight states of the Nāyikās (Svā and Parā) are duly explained by our author.
Dhananjay (D.R. 11.28) remarks that "the heroines of the last six types (i.e., all except the Svadhinapatikā and Vāsakasajjā) are characterized by reflection, sighing, weeping, change in colour, weakness and absence of ornaments; (but) those of the first two varieties (i e., Svādhinapatikā and Vāsakasajjā), by playfulness, radiance, and joy." The Avaloka points out that the heroine connected with another (Parastri), wether maiden or wife, cannot be of all these varieties. For instance, Mālavikā should not be regarded as Khandita.
Now each of the varieties mentioned so far may be either Uttama, Madhyama or Adhama (D.R.11.45 refers to this threefold classification of all characters viz. Nayaka, Nāyikā, etc). We thus get, by successive multiplication, the total of 384 types of Heroines. 20 7
It may be noted that Hemachandra reproduces the commentary of Dhanika (D.R.JI. 28 ff.) Verbatim under K.A.S. VII.31 where he states that Parastri type of the heroine can have only three of the eight states, Svadhinapatikā, etc.
This is the force of tradition - stereo-typed divisions, stereo-typed restrictions, stereo-typed conventions, which make even Hemachandra, a thinker of no mean order, to follow Dhananjaya, and Dhanika without a question. And this is a
417
27

Page #443

subject - that of Nayaka-Nāyikā-Bheda - where Dhananjaya is a greater authority than Hemachandra. Even Hemachandra realizes this – that is evident at every step in this chapter. Of course, Rudrața and Rudrabhatta also cast their influence on our author, may be, through the Dasarū paka. Hemachandra is a Follower of Bharata
Hemachandra's exposition of the twenty Sättvika Alamkāras (Natural Graces) of the Heroine, reminds us of the twenty graces mentioned by Bharata. Bharata classifies them under three heads : Angaja or Physical, Ayatnaja or Involuntary and Syabhāvaja or Dispositional. Hava, Bhāva and Hela are Angaja; Sobhā, Kānti, Dipti, Madhurya, Pragalbhatā, Andārya and Dhairya are Ayatnaja; and Lilā, Vilāsa, Vicchitti, Vibhrama, Kilakiñcita, Mottāyita, Kuttamita, Bibboka, Lalita and Vihịta are Svabhāvaja. All these are defined by Dhananjaya in his Daśarūpaka (11.30-41). And Hemachahdra is a follower of Bharata, as he himself declares at the end of this chapter (Asmābhir Bharatamatānusāribhir etc. p. 431). Nāyaka-Nāyikā-Bheda : A Highly Conventionalized Subject208
Dr. S. K. De's remarks are interesting.
The subject of the classification of the Hero and the Heroine is a highly conventionalized one in Sanskrit Literature, both creative and critical. It is intimately connected with the drama in general and Sțngārarasa in particular. In the classical period of Sanskrit Literature love-poetry bloomed in its fullness which brought in its wake an overflow of amourous descriptions which followed conventional patterns. The Kāmasutrā had a contribution to make in this field. The science of Erotics had indeed a profound influence on the theory and practice of poetry of this period. As it deals with the art and practice of love, it has sections on the ways and means of winning and keeping a lover, courtship and signs of love, on marriage, and conduct of married life, and on the practical psychology of
418

Page #444

the emotion of love, Poetics, in its treatment of love came under the influence of Erotics. 209
But when freshness and originality dwindle, convention reigns supreme. During the middle ages the theorists and poets tried to surprise us, instead of please and delight us, by highly conventionalized and stereotyped, though minutely worked out, details of description and illustration of the modes in which the Nāyikās express their erotic feelings. No wonder then that artificiality of scholastic formalism marks both the theory and practice of love-poetry. Thus convention becomes the rule rather than the exception. This is true of the Nāyaka-Nāyikā-Bheda also since though these attempts indicate considerable power of analysis is more of the form than of spirit, based on what we should consider accidents rather than essentials, 210
419

Page #445

TYPES OF LITERARY
OR
COMPOSITIONS FORMS OF LITERATURE
In chapter e'ght of his work, Hemachandra divides literature(Kavya) into Prekṣya and Sravya types or forms. Of these two types, Preksya is that which can be witnessed and Sravya is. that which can be heard while read by oneself. Under Preksya come all the varieties of a drama. While under Sravya can be subsumed all varieties of a poem which is enjoyed as it is read.. Bhaṭṭa Tauta's Lofty Conception of Poetry
Poetry, whether dramatic or poetic, is the creation of a poet. Bhatta Tauta, the preceptor of Abhinavagupta and the author of the lost masterpiece of Sanskrit Poetics, the Kavyakautuka, describes the poet as both a seer and a depictor of human emotions; for poetry is both Darśana or profound intuition, insight or vision and Varṇana or apt desiction or portrayal of that vision. Thus, a poet is a seer, a Rṣi inasmuch as, with his divine vision, he fathoms the very secrets. and the peculiar characteristics of all kinds of things. It is because of his power of seeing the essence of things that the poet is called a Kavi, another type of Rṣi. But the poet not only perceives or conceives, he also executes. Thus he is a master of depiction and narration. In fact, the etymology of Kavi is from the root 'Kavṛ' which means to describe, to portray. A poet, therefore, describes things with supreme skill and absorbing interest. Thus Darśana and Varṇana, these two

8
420

Page #446

qualities, constitute the characteristics of a poet. The first poet Valmiki was both a seer and a master of description. He naturally was a real poet. For, true poetry depends on the poet's ability to give a proper form and shape to his lofty vision.
The Preksya literary form is again twofold: (1) Pathya and (2) Geya.
The Pathya types of representational (i.e., dramatic) poetry consist of (1) Naṭaka, (2) Prakaraṇa, (3) Nātikā, (4) Samavakāra, (5) Thamṛga, (6) Dima, (7) Vyayoga, (8) Utsṛṣṭikanka, (9) Prahasana, (10) Shaṇa, (11) Vithi, (12) Saṭṭaka etc. It is well known that the first eleven types of dramatic compositions or forms are enumerated and defined by Bharata in his Natyaśastra. But though the twelfth variety, Saṭṭaka, represented by Rajasekhara's Karpuramañjarī is outside Bharata's list, yet it is included here because it satisfies all the tests of the Pathya kind of poetry. Hemachandra remarks that dramatic forms from Naṭaka upto Vithi are Vakyarthābhinayasvabhāva (वाक्यार्थाभिनयस्वभाव ).
Hemachandra's Twelve Rūpakas
Hemachandra thus gives twelve Rūpakas and not the traditional ten types of major plays i.e, Daśarupakas. These twelve types of Preksya forms should now be defined by Hemachandra. But Hemachandra quotes Bharata's Karikas which define the first eleven types of dramas. Thus Hemachandra quotes (47) Bharata's Karikas to define the Nataka, the Prakarana, the Naṭika, the Samavakara, the Thamṛga, the Dima, the Vyayoga, the Utsṛṣṭikanka, the Prahasana, the Bhāṇa and the Vithi. But, to define the Saṭṭaka he quotes Bhoja's words (Sr. Pr. XI, p. 466). Bharata begins by announcing that
he will describe the tenfold division of plays (Daśarūpavikalpanam) together with names, functions and modes of production. He includes Naṭaka, Prakarana etc. but excludes Nāțika which Hemachandra has included here. Abhinavagupta

421

Page #447

observes that old writers on the subject of drama like Kohala mention additional types of plays such as Saṭṭaka, Toṭaka and Rāsaka. Bhoja ignores the Totaka and recognizes only twelve kinds of the play including the Nātikā mentioned elsewhere in the Natyaśāstrā. But, according to his plan, Bharata only defines his well-known ten Rūpakas.
The Saṭṭaka
The definition of the twelfth variety of the drama is quoted from the eleventh chapter of Bhoja's Śṛngāraprakāśa. According to this definition, Saṭṭaka is a variety similar to Nātikā. It is devoid of a Viskambhaka or a Praveśaka. The language of a Saṭṭaka drama is one throughout. It is written either (neither) in Sanskrit or in Prakṛta (generally in Prakṛta). The reading of the verse in regard to language has given rise to different interpretations. 211
Other varieries of the drama, such as Toṭaka and others, are mentioned by Kohala and other writers on dramaturgy, but Hemachandra merely alludes to them in the one-line gloss (p. 445).
The Twelve Types of Musical Compositions
After defining the twelve types of Major Rūpakas, Hemachandra enumerates twelve varieties of Geya Rūpakas or Musical Compositions. They are (1) Dombika, (2) Bhāṇa, (3) Prasthāna, (4) Śingaka, (5) Bhāṇikā, (6) Preraṇa, (7) Rāmākrīḍa, (8) Hallisaka, (9) Rāsaka, (10) Gosthi, (11) Srigadita, (12) Ragakāvya and others.
In regard to the differentia of the Geyakavya or Geyarūpaka, Hemachandra remarks that they are Padarthabhinayasvābhāva (पादार्थाभिनयस्वभाव ) and have been propounded by the ancient theorists. This explanation enables him to adopt the definitions of these Geya varieties from the Abhinavabhārati where several Anustubha verses are cited by Abhinava to define Dombika and other Geya Rūpakas.

422

Page #448

Basis of Classification of Geya Rūpakas
In the meanwhile, Hemachandra has introduced a basis of classification of the Geya varieties in the Viveka commentary. He says that the Geya compositions are threefold (1) Soft (Masṛṇa) (2) Wild or Boisterous or Tempestuous (Uddhata) and (3) Mixed in character (Miśra).
Basing our understanding of the Geya compositions on the nine Anustubha verses (59-67) quoted from Abhinavabharati and the two Arya verses from the Śṛngaraprakāśa of Bhoja (68-69), besides the last Anustubha verse (70), we may state the conceptions of the twelve Geyarūpakas.
(1) Dombika is a soft composition which delights the minds of kings with songs or speech pregnant with secret love-affairs.
(2) In Bhāna, the female dancer or the musician describes the terrific incidents in the lives of Varaha, Nrsimha and such other incarnations of God.
(3) In Prasthana the singer or dancer
(a girl) disguises herself as one of the animals such as an elephant, a lion etc. and imitates their gait or mode of walking.
(4) In Singaka the actor or the actress plays the part of a heroine who, in the presence of her female friends, imitates the wild behaviours of her lover. The behaviour of the rogue (in love-matter) or a Dhurta may also be described in it.
(5) In Bhāṇika we find the frolics of a child and the imitation of the fights of hogs, lions and others.
(6) The Prerana type of Geya composition is accompanied by Prahelika (i.e., dialogues solving riddles) and is full of humour.
(7) Rāmākriḍa describes the season.

423

Page #449

(8) Hallisaka contains circular dances. The dance consists
in a male member standing in the midst of ladies like Lord Krisna in the midst of Gopis. The dances are conducted by a host of ladies and are performed with the accompaniment of music and timing.
(9) A Rāsaka is played or staged by many dancing girls to the accompaniment of variegated timing and rythms and consists of upto sixtyfour pairs - one pair consisting of a man and a woman - or couples. It is soft as well as Boisterous. This definition is from the Sr. Pr. of Bhoja. (10) In Gosthi the incidents of the life of Lord Krisna - his exploits such as the killing of the demon Rista and others are shown.
(11) In Śrīgadita, high-class ladies sing and praise the merits of their husbands, or sometimes they remonstrate with their husbands. This is also from the Śr. Pr. of Bhoja. called (12) The last variety of the Geya composition is Ragakāvya in the list of such compositions (vide K.A.S. VIII.4). But the verse cited (Q.No.70) defines a Kavya (?) by stating that this type of a Geya composition has a well-arranged plot, full of various sentiments and it is beautified by the employment of different rhythms as well as by different musical Ragas.
These are the regular, twelve kinds of Geya compositions which are marked by song, dance and music and are full of sentiments.
It may be noted that Hemachandra has used the word Adi at the end of the list of these Geya compositions. This Adi or et cetera refers to the other kinds of the Geya-kavya such as Sampa (or Samya according to Bhamaha, Daṇḍin and Bhoja, (S.P. XI, p. 468), Chalita, Dvipada and others. However, Hemachandra, instead of explaining these varieties, refers us to the works of Brahma, Bharata, Kohala and other ancient authors on Dramaturgy and Poetics.

424

Page #450

The Sravya Kāvya and Its Varieties
After briefly outlining the varieties of the Prekşya Kavya, Hemachandra now turns to the treatment of the five main types of the Sravya Kavya. These tive varieties are (1) Mahākāvya, (2) Ākhyāyikā, (3) Kathā, (4) Campū and (5) Anibadha.
Thus the Sravyakāvya comprises all the varieties or forms of poetic compositions which are to be distinguished from the dramatic compositions included under the prekşya Literature.
Of the five literary forms which are to be heard when read, the first and the foremost form of poetic composition is the Mahākāvya.2 1 2 1. The Mahākāvya as a Literary Form
Hemachandra defines the Mahākāvya as a verse--form, composed in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa or Grāmyabhāsā, with divisions of the chapters or cantos called Sarga, Aśvāsa, Sandhi, Avaskandha and Kabandha in the different languages. The end of the canto -- by whatever name it may be called and in any language - is marked by a change of metre and it possesses joints (Sandhis). It is rendered attractive by the beauty of word and sense. Thus - (1) The Mahākavya is generally in a verse form i.e., it is a
metrical composition mostly. (2) It is written in Sanskrit, Prakrit and other languages
including the Apabhramśa and the folk languages. (3) It has well arranged chapters (Sargas) with a change of
the metre at the end of each canto.
(4) It is beautified by the five Sandhis viz. Mukhasandhi,
Pratimukhasandhi, Garbhasandhi, Vimarsasandhi and Nirvahanasandhi which are an indispensable factor cf a Mahakāvya.
(5) It has charming words with charming sense.
425

Page #451

The Five Sandhis
Since the five Sandhis are peculiar to a drama, and have been defined by Bharata in his Natyaśästra (XIX.39-43), Hemachandra quotes five Karikas of Bharata to define them. These are the well known Mukhasandhi, Pratimukhasandhi, Garbhasandhi, Vimarśasandhi and Nirvahanasandhi. These five Sandhis, when properly harmonised and co-ordinated with different factors such as Bija, Bindu etc. and Arambha, Yatna, Praptyāśā etc., ensure the systematic begining, development and end of the story.
Beauties of Form and Content
As for Sabdavaicitrya, Arthavaicitrya and Ubhayavaicitryā, or beauty of expression, meaning and of both, Hemachandra notes down several characteristics of the Mahākāvya - both pertaining to form and content - which have become bye-words in Sanskrit Lterary Criticism. And these passages have been taken over by Hemachandra from Bhoja's Śṛngaraprakāśa as Dr. V. Raghavan has shown.213
In connection with the beauty of expression and the manner of presentation, we should note the following points :
(1) The poet should not be too short.
(2) The style should not be harmonious blending of all parts.
(3) It should not be too lengthy nor should the cantos be loosely connected, i.e., they should not be unconnected. In other words, the development of the theme should be smooth and logical and the flow of the narration should sustain interest.
uneven; it should present a
(4) Blessings, salutations and mention of the subject matter should mark its beginning. Again, the aim of the story, the object of the composition, the eulogy of the poet, of good people and the censure of evil-minded people may also find a mention in the introductory portion.

426

Page #452

(5) It may contain tricks of words, conundrums, pictorial
figures etc. (6) It may sometimes have some special words, names of the
author etc. at the end of the canto or the poem.
As for beauty of content or meaning, the following points are mentioned :
(1) The four goals of life are securable through the poem.
So it should have at least one of these as its aim. (2) It has a hero who has sterling qualities of character. (3) It depicts Rasas and Bhavas. (4) It should suggest good actions and prohibit bad ones
and should contain poetic justice. (5) A new poet should know how the different factors of
style etc. should match with the subject or Rasa and
how a balanced poem is written. (6) It contains descriptions of seasons, cities, rivers, wars,
expeditions etc. (7) It also describes sun-rise, sunset, moon-rise etc. (8) It should give delightful pen-pictures of the Heroes,
Heroines, the princes etc. (9) It shold have accounts of political happenings and of
wars etc. (10) It should have description of excursions, water-sports,
drinking bouts, wooing, mating etc.
in regard to beauty of both form and meaning, the following points emerge : (1) The style must be Komala, i.e., full of soft words, if the
poet describes love and so on. (2) The metre should be conducive to Rasa. According to
Sanskrit critics, certain metres suit certain sentiments.
427

Page #453

(3) The poem should be able to win the hearts of the people of all types - Samastalokarañjakatva. This and many of the above points arise from the principle of propriety or Aucityā.
(4) It is to have expressions adorned by good figures of speech or Alamkaras.
(5) The sense of propriety in regard to place, time, movement, characters in the story etc. must be scrupulously
observed.
(6) It may have other minor incidental stories introduced. (7) It should resort to the two styles of composition or Margadvaya (of Daṇḍin).
Varieties of the Mahakāvya
Hemachandra also cites examples of Mahākāvya compositions in Sanskrit, where it is called Sargabandha, e.g. Hayagrivavadha etc.; in Prakrit, called Asvasakabandha, being divided into cantos called Aśvasakas, e.g. Setubandha etc.; in Apabhransabhāṣa, called Sandhibandha, being divided into cantos called Sandhis, eg. Abdhimanthana; and in folk Aprabramsabhaṣā or rustic tongues or dialects, called Avaskandhabandha, being divided into cantos called Avaskandha, e.g. Bhimakāvya etc. Definition of Mahākāvya: Not too Rigid
Explaining the significance of the word 'Prayah' in the definition of the Mahäkävya, Hemachandra remarks that there is no harm in calling the cantos of a Sanskrit Mahākāvya as Aśvāsaka, as, for instance, it is found in Hariprabodha and others. Again, Prayaḥ also allows the use of one and only one metre throughout the poem. Without any change, in long poems such as Ravaṇavijaya, Harivijaya and Setubandha.
2. The Akhyāyikā Form
The second type of the
Sravyakavya is the Akhyāyika. It is an autobiographical work of some outstanding personality who is, of course, the hero of the story. It is narrated by the

428

Page #454

hero. There is a sprinkling of some verses in Vaktra and Aparavaktrā metres, suggesting coming events. The word for every chapter is Ucchvāsa. It is composed in Sanskrit and is in prose, though a few verses, occasionally introductory, do not hurt the form of Akhyāyikā. The Harṣacarita of Bāņa is the well known example of Akhyāyikā form.
3. The Katha Form
The third type of the Sravyakavya is the Katha, sometimes likened to the modern Novel. It is written either in prose or verse and may be composed in Sanskrit or Prakrit or any and every language (Sarvabhāṣā).
The hero in the Katha form of literature is of the Dhirasanta type, noble-hearted and happy-go-lucky-type, going easy in life. The Kadambari of Baṇabhatta is the best example of the Katha form and it is in prose. But the Lilavati, a Katha, is written in verse.
The Katha, written in all languages, whether Sanskrit, Prakrit, Magadhi, Śūraseni, Pisaci or Apabhramsa, is a Katha, a story, a flow of narrative, hence, easy to define. Hemachandra mentions a few varieties of the Katha.
An Upakhyana is a short story introduced in the course of a big story with the object of giving some moral to the readers. But the same Upakhyāna when narrated by one person with an accompaniment of music and gestures is called an Akhyāna. The Govindakhyāna is an example of this form.
A Nidarśana, on the other hand, is a form of story, narrated with a view to preach or instruct by means of the lives of animals, birds or low persons. The famous book of moral stories, the Pañcatantra of Viṣṇusarman and the Kuṭṭanimata of Damodaragupta are the well-know examples of a Nidarśana.
In a Pravahlikä kind of story there is a dialogue or conversation between two persons who narrate the story through the dialogue, partly in Prakrit, as, e.g. Cetaka etc.

429

Page #455

• Manthallikā, is a story in either the Mahārāştri Prakrit or the Paisāci dialect and its subject matter concerns insignificant, lowly subjects. It is also a Manthallika in which a Purohita, a minister or an ascetic is rediculed for not carrying to completion an undertaking. Gorocana and Anangavati are the two tales to illustrate this variety.
The Parikatha is a peculiar kind of story in which various incidents are narrated in a variety of ways. The Sudraka story is the instance in point.
A Khandakathā, like the Indumati, consists in the narration of a part of a well known story, either from the middle or from the portion at the end.
A Sakalakathā is a complete story with all its various incidents narrated in extenso till a de'nouement is reached. The Samarādityakatha is an example of Sakalakathā. Hemachandra explains it as 'Caritam' (Viveka p. 465). When out of a well known story the life of one person is related it is called an Upakatha.
The Brhatkathā relates the lives of many persons, contains marvellous incidents and has chapters which are named Lambhas. Hemachandra concludes this discussion of the Kathā form in prose or verse by making it clear that the definitions of all these (minor) varieties of stories are not attempted because these are types of the main variety or literary form called Kathā. 4. The Campū Form
Campū is another main type of the śravya Kavya. It is a well known type of literary composition which is written partly in prose and partly in verse. As a rule, it is composed in Sanskrit. The author, at times, introduces his own name or the names of other persons in a Campū. Its chapters are called Ucchvāsas. The Vāsavadatta and the Damayanti are the examples of a Campū.
430

Page #456

5. The Anibaddha Composition or Form
Sanskrit literature abounds in many lovely, stray verses. These single verses which are unconnected are subsumed under the fifth type of Śravya Kavya viz. Anibaddha. Hemachandra defines the Anibaddha Kavya as Muktakas and others (VII. 10).
The Anibaddha type of literary form includes Muktakas, Sandānitaka, Višeşaka, Kaläpaka, Paryā, Kośa etc. When a verse is complete in itself and is independent of any other verse or idea, it is called a Muktaka. Amaru's Muktakas oozing sentiments are well known. His one hundred stanzas on love in its many facets are excellent in point of poetic charm and beauty.
When two such verses form a group, it is a Sandānitaka. Three such verses make a Visesak. A Group of four verses forms Kalapakas. A Group of five or more verses upto fourteen forms a Kulaka. These may be in any and every language but in verse form.
When a number of such stray verses is introduced in a big poem it is called Paryā. Generally in a Mahākāvya such Paryās are found copiously in the portrayal of seasons, sunrise, night, etc.
When there is a collection of one's stray verses it is Kośa. Even the collection of the stray verses of others is called Koša; for instance, the Gāthasaptas'ati of Hala is a Kośa.
Other types of stray verses are Samghāta and Samhitā. These are collections of a single poet. When the subjects are varied, it is a Samhita. Thus the class of Anibaddha is endless. This sense is conveyed by the word Ādi in the list (VII1.9).
Lastly, Hemachandra points out an important rule that the five Sandhis, the beauty of style and matter, as mentioned in connection with the Mahākāvya are equally applicable to Akhyāyika, Campū and other forms of literature.
431

Page #457

A Critical Review of Hemachandra's Treatment of Literary Forms
Unity of Purpose
Hemachandra first classifies Kavya or literary compositions into Preksya or Dramatic and Sravya or Poetic. He brings out the distinction between the two main branches or classes of literature by stating that the Preksya or the Dramatic class of the literary works is Abhineya or is to be acted out or staged, while the poetic literature called Sravya Kavya is Śravya or to be heard or read. But Rasa is common to both Kavya and Drama and it is to evoke it that poets compose poery or drama. Kavya and Drama are only two forms to evoke the same Rasa. Thus all literature is one when looked at from the point of view of aesthetic relish.
Compositions: Justification of
How does one justify the classification of literature into Drama and Poetry? Well, though the aesthetic relish or the Rasa to be evoked is one, yet the methods of achieving this are different in Poetry and Drama. "In poetry, the poet describes the attendent emotional circumstances which rouse the Rasa, and in drama, actors present the same in person." The following verse sums up the difference neatly:
Dramatic and Poetic
Distinction
"Anubhavavibhāvānāṁ varṇanā kāvyamuchate; Teṣameva prayogastu natyam gitadiranjitam."
Thus Abhineyata and Anabhineyata or the method of representation and that of description mark off the Drsya and Śravya Kavya. And this is the essential ground of differentiation. Otherwise both the stageable play and the readable poem are Kavya, the poet's work, which the quotation from Bhaṭṭatota so highly values and prizes. Bhoja also maintains that a poet who composes a play is greater than the actor who enacts it (Kavineva bahumanyāmahe).

432

Page #458

Twofold Dramatic Composition: Criterion of Division
The Preksya compositions are significantly classified into two broad types: (1) The Vakyarthabhinayasvabhāva 214 compositions, called Daśarupaka or Dramas and (2) The Padarthābhinayasvabhāva Geya Rūpakas. It may be noted that while the expression Vākyarthābhinaya refers to Rasa (i.e., the nature or essence of a Rupaka is to evoke Rasa; hence Rūpaka is termed Raśāśraya. cf D.R. 1.7): "Daśadhaiva Rasaśrayam" i.e., it (the Rūpaka) is tenfold and is based on sentiments, the other expression Padarthabhinaya refers to the pantomimic nature of the Geya Rūpakas. The word Padarthabhinaya is used by Dhananjaya in connection with Nṛtya or Dance or Pantomine and this term is translated by Haas as 'a representation of any object' (D.R. II. 9). Further, Dhanañjaya makes it clear that while Natya or Rupaka is Rasāśraya, Nṛtya or dance is Bhāvāśraya i.e., based on the (emotional) states and it is auxiliary and helpful to the Natya. The Prataparudriya also says that these two, Nṛtta and Nṛtya, are Natyāngas (3.2). It would, therefore, appear that the Geyarūpakas of Hemachandra are connected with the Nṛtya, type of Pantomine as defined in the Daśarupaka. However, the interrelation of the three concepts of Natya, Nrtya and Nṛtta is an interesting subject.215 Bharata's work deals with three kinds of stage presentation: the Tandava, the Lasya, both of which are dances, and a class of dramas called Dasarūpaka.
Hemachandra Follows Bharata
Hemachandra follows the Natyaśāstra of Bharata completely. For, he reproduces the relevant Kārikās from the Natyaśāstra to define and explain not only the Daśarupakas but also Nāṭikā, which is a separate, eleventh rūpaka according to Hemachandra. Bharata speaks of "ten dramas" in Chapter XX of the Natyaśastra. But defines eleven varieties he deals with Nātika after the Nataka and the Prakarṇa. Abhinavagupta says that the Natikā is included in the concept of Dasarupaka since
28

433

Page #459

it is only a derivative form, being based on the Naṭaka and the Prakarṇa.
Kohala Codified the Derivative Types of Drama
It seems Kohala, the next great writer after Bharata so far as the subject of Dramaturgy is concerned codified these derivative types of Drama (N.S. 36.65 C.S.S.). Thus while in Bharata we get the ten Rūpakas and the Naṭikā, in Kohala the minor varieties, the new types of dramas and dramatic representations received a systematic treatment. Vātsyāyana mentions some of the Uparūpakas (such as Hallisaka and Natyarāsaka) in his Kamasutra.
Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Abhinavagupta
But it is Abhinavagupta who deals with the minor stage shows for the first time (Abh. Bh. Chap. IV). Abhinavagupta quotes verses (Anuṣṭubhas) defining some Uparūpakas with the words "Taduktam cirantanaiḥ". We find these verses with the same remark in the Kāvyānuśāsana also, under the list of the twelve Geya Rūpakas (VIII. 4). In Bhāmaha (I. 24) there is a reference to the Naṭaka as well as to the Dvipadi, Samya, Rāsaka and Skandhaka (a dance), the last four being intended for Abhinaya and it is said by Bhamaha that these latter varieties are extensively explained by others: 'Uktonyaistasya vistaraḥ.' Dandin (K.A.1. 39) also mentions Lasya, Chalika, Samya etc. as meant to be seen, Prekṣartha.
Dhananjaya and Dhanika
As mentioned earlier, the Dasarūpaka of Dhananjaya distinguishes Nāṭya which is, Rasāsvaya, from Nṛtya, which is, Bhāvāśraya, saying that the former is (i.e., the Rūpaka class) is Vākyarthābhinaya and the latter (i.e., the Nṛtya class) is Padarthabhinaya. The Avaloka confirms this distinction on the same grounds. Dhananjaya's and Dhanika's explanations of the concepts of Natya and Nrtya means that the scope of the Nrtya class is smaller than that of the Rupaka class.
434

Page #460

on
Dr. Raghavan deals with this subject in his paper Daśarūpaka as also in his thesis on Bhoja's Śṛngāraprakāśa (Chap. XX). He puts the whole matter in a proper perspective thus: "Daśarūpaka considers Tatparya as the Sakti by which Rasa is understood and that the Rasa so understood is similar to Vākyārtha, the sense of the sentence as a whole which is got at through the meanings of its word-units, the Padarthas to which Vibhāvas are likened (D.R. IV p. 120). Therefore, the Tātparyavādin, and mainly the Daśarupaka and the Avaloka on it, are responsible for introducing this new nomenclature and terminology to distinguish the major and the minor dramatic varieties. Vākyarthabhinaya and Padarthabhinaya are not phrases born in the Kashmirian traditions represented by
Abhinavagupta". 216
Hemachandra Distinguishes two Kinds of Stage
Performances
Hemachandra adopts these two expressions found in the Daśarūpaka and Avaloka 217 to effectively distinguish the two kinds of stage performances, the Rūpaka and the Geya Rūpakas exactly as Bhoja does. 218 But, unlike Dhanañjaya, Hemachandra, lika Bhoja, adds, in a straightforward manner, to the ten Rūpakas, two more, the Națika and the Saṭṭaka, and mentions the Rasāśraya varieties as twelve. Dr. Raghavan applauds this step of Bhoja and says: "Surely these two are also Rasāśraya and deserve to be separately mentioned as drama proper, being much more perfect as drama than the nonologue Bhāṇa included in the Natya or Rupaka or Rasaśraya class."219
Nāṭikā and Saṭṭaka Differentiated
As for Nātikā, Bharata (N.S. XX 60-63 C.S.S.) holds that it is derived from Nataka and Prakarṇa and Dhananjaya (D.R. II) follows him; for he holds the Nāṭikā as Saṁkirṇa ('cross-bred'), born of the Nataka and the Prakarṇa. Our author, Hemachandra, so completely follows Bharata that he

435

Page #461

quotes the definitions of Bharata, without saying a word about the first eleven types of Rūpakas. Hemachandra's twelfth Rūpaka, Sattaka is derived from Bhoja.220 But in some other works the additional types are given as Nātikā and Prakaraņi. Abhinava considers Nātikā, Toțaka, Rāsaka, Prakaraņikā etc. as sub-species. or Aväntaraprapanca of the Dasarūpaka. But it is obvious that Nātikā leaned more towards the Nāțaka, while Prakaraṇikā towards the Prakarņa. "And Bhoja's śr. Pr. is the first work we now have from which we get the definition of Sattaka," as Dr. Raghavan concludes. Abhinava mentions the Sattaka. and gives the Karpūramañjari, in Prakrit, as an example, saying "Śrngārarase sātiśayopayogini Prākṣtabhāṣā iti Satsakah karpūramañjaryākhyāḥ rājusekhareņa tanmātrā eva nibaddhāh.' Rājasekhara himself says in the prologue of the play that. Sattaka is similar in all respects to the Nātikā but is devoid. of Pravesaka and Viskambhaka.
Hemachandra Avoids the Controversy
Hemachandra reproduce's Bhoja's Āryā on Sattaka with the reading 'Aprākstasamskặtayā', which goes against the prevalent notion that the sațţaka is entirely in Prakrit. It may be taken to mean that the Sattaka was neither in Sanskrit nor in the (literary) Prakṣta. However, Dr. Raghavan smends it to "Aprākṣta-(prākṣtayā) saṁskrtaya". But Sattaka itself is called sattaya in Prakrit and the form Sāļaka also occurs. Besides, the Matyadarpaņa gives it as Sāțaka while Vādijanghāla calls. it Sattikā. Hemachandra does not enter into the controversy but quotes Bhoja's Āryā here and observes in the Viveka. (p. 445) that like in a Nātikā, in the Sattaka too, the lovetheme is invented.
Thus, it is possible to state that Hemachandra, like the Dasarūpakakāra, the Avalokakāra and Bhoja, classified dramatic performances into those depicting a complete theme and a complete Rasa with other subsidiary Rasas and those depicting, only a Bhāva of a Rasa.2 21.
436

Page #462

Pā;hya and Geya Rūpakas
Hemachandra calls this class of minor shows as 'Geya Rūpakas' and adds by way of comments in the Viveka commentary that the performance of a Geyakavya is either (1) soft or (2) boisterous or (3) mixed (soft and boisterous) Masrna, Uddhata or Misra. Further, in another passage in the Viveka Vyākhyā (p. 447) a question is raised as to the distinction between a Pāthya Rupaka and a Geya Rūpaka. To clarify this issue, we get a line which specifically speaks of Gitāśrayatva' and 'Vādyādeḥ prayogah', which two characteristics highlight, the two essentia! aspects of Song and Music in a Geyakāvya.
Emotional Fragments
And song and music agree with the nature of the Uparūpakas or dance-ballets which, as Dhananjaya says, are emotional fragments i.e., forms which are Bhävāśraya. But as the passage in the Viveka says, some forms have speech, song, instrumental music and dance and some resemble the Nștta, which is only Tālalayasraya (D.R.I. 9). And the ancient Indian drama "as envisaged by Bharata is of the nature of a dance-drama, with music and dance movements, it is the Uparūpaka class of performances that is so far excellence; for in them music and dance predominate, most of them are merely dances accompanied by songs, interpreting through Abhinaya or gesture, the emotional contents of the song."2 2 2
The Uparūpakas in the Nātyadarpana
The authors of the Nāțyadarpaņa, a work on dramaturgy by Hemachandra's two pupils, Ramachandra and Guņachandra, speak of thirteen other Rūpakas, besides the twelve main Rūpakas dealt with by them. These are Sattaka (written in one language, not in mixed Sanskrit and Prakrit), Śrigadita, Durmilita, Prasthāna, Gosthi, Hallisaka, Nartanaka, Prekșanaka,
437

Page #463

Rāsaka, Natyarāsaka, Kavya, Bhāṇa or Bhāṇaka and Bhāṇikā, It may be noted that these other types of Rupakas 2 2 3 are relegated to the commentary i.e., not defined in the main text by the authors of the Natyadarpana because, as they say, they are not so interesting and that they are not mentioned by the "Vrddhas" (N.D., G.O.S., p. 198).
Dr. K. H. Trivedi has studied the Natyadarpaṇa critically (L.D. Series No. 9). He remarks, "the N.D. recognizes only thirteen out of the eighteen subordinate types later known as Uparūpakas. The N.D. and the K.S. as well, call them other types of drama the N. D. ..... differentiates them from Rūpakas on the basis of the place of Rasa which predominates in the latter. In the Uparupakas Rasa has a subordinate place. It is the element of music and dance that prevails here in most cases ..... the B. P. calls the varieties of dance (Nṛtyabhedah)" (pp. 204-205).
the
The Number of Uparūpakas Varies with Different Authors
It may be noted that the number of these So called Uparūpakas varies with different writers at different times. As for the number of these Uparupakas, some instances can be stated. Abhinavagupta mentions nine types. Dhanika mentions seven of them. Bhoja has twelve varieties. Hemachandra enumerates twelve but uses the word Adi at the end of the list. So his list is not hard and fast. Also, Hemachandra has three more Śrīgudita, Kavya and Gostḥi added to the list of Abhinava. He has adopted Abhinava's verses which define the nine shows. The other two definitions are found in the Śṛngaraprakāśa of Bhoja. And the last one is said to be from Kohala, quoted by Abhinava and it purports to be the definition of the Ragakāvya. The Sahityadarpaṇa is the first to call these shows as Uparūpakas and mentions eighteen varieties. But the largest number, twenty, is given in the Bhavaprakāśa of Saradātanaya. Thus one thing is clear that the minor dramatic

438

Page #464

compositions did not start with Bharata. Perhaps Kohala found them in the popular tradition and codified them. Even the Daśarūpaka does not treat of them. This may be due to the fact that the minor Rūpakas were like dence-ballets and Rasa did not predominate their themes, but dance and music prevailed. Hemachandra thus distinguishes Pathya Rūpakas from the Geya Rūpakas. Dhanika and Sārdātanaya call it as Nṛtyabhedas. Perhaps they preeceded the regular Rūpaka. However, though some of these so-called Uparūpakas are in the form of dance (e.g. Rāsaka, Hallikaka etc.), yet some other forms like the Prakaraṇika etc. are as good as Nātikā, Saṭṭaka and even the other major Rūpakas. So Hemachandra's use of the word Rupaka for these Geya varieties is justified.
It is said that Nataka is the source of all dramatic compositions. Thus all types of shows, both major and minor, draw upon the Naṭaka and follow the model of the Nāṭaka. Dr. S. N. Shastri writes: "Thus they (all shows) follow to a large extent the model of a Nataka in respect of the scheme of plot, the use of language, the poetic artifices, the dramatic etiquette and conventions which become responsible for their make-up on the whole. If the model of the pattern becomes known, all other types which follow the pattern in general become easily intelligible. For this reason Bharata and other canonists have dealt with the scheme of Naṭaka at length". 224
Parikatha, Khaṇḍakatha and Sakalakathā
These three types or forms of story are inter-related. They narrate stories expounding one of the four Puruṣarthas or all of them. Parikatha gives many anecdotes to expound a Puruṣārtha; the Khaṇḍakatha is very much smaller in scope; the Sakalakatha is bigger in scope than the Parikatha.
The Parikatha is a narrative in Sanskrit or Prakrit while the Khanḍakatha and the Sakalakatha are narratives, small and big, always in Prakrit and verse. The main thing common to

439

Page #465

all the three of them is that in them the narration of the story is stressed, and not so much the Rasa. Language as a Basis of Classification
While speaking of the Muktaka etc., Anandavardhana makes language the classifying condition. Thus, the Muktaka etc. upto Kulaka can be in any language; Parikathā is in Sanskrit; Khandankatha and Sakalakathā are in Prakrit; the Sargabandha (Mahākāvya) is in Sanskrit; Rūpaka and Uparupaka are in all languages, i e., Mišra. Akhyāyikā and Katha both are in Sanskrit.
According to Anandavardhana, the Akhyāyikā and the Kathā are generally in prose, so far as the medium goes. Anandavardhana bases another typification on Rasa and Narration of the story. Now, Anandavardhana's remark that in Parikathā, the interest is in the story only, also applies to the Khandakathā and the Sakalakathā. The Sargabandha may be Rasa-tātparya or Kathā-tātparya.
Bhoja also describes the non-dramatic literary forms or Srvya -kāvya-bhedas. Among its twentyfour varieties are mentioned : Akhyāyika, Upākhyāna, Nidarśana, Pravahlikā, Manthalika Manikulyā, Kathā, Khandakathā, Upakathā, Brhatkathā, Campū, Parvabandha, Kāņdabandha, Sargabandha, Āśvāsakabandha, Sandhibandha, Avaskandhabandha, Kävyaśāstra, Sastrakāvya, Kosa, Sanghāta, Samhita and Sahityaprakāsa (Sr. Pr. XII). The underlined forms are new. Hemachandra's View-point on Kathā and Akhyāyikā
Dr. V. Raghavan observes : "Hemachandra follows Bhāmaha and Bhoja on Akhyāyikā (p. 388), but makes this ingenious suggestion that the hero in an Ākhyāyikā is a Dhiroddhata and in a Kathā, a Dhiraśānta. This is due to his own deduction from Bhāmaha's remark that in an Akhyāyika, the hero relates his own story; but in a Kathā someone else does; for, how can a noble man, Abhijāta, be conceived as waimiy singing of his own doings ? From Bhāmaha's line
440

Page #466

(1. 29).... Hemachandra draws out his distinction of the heroes of these two as Dhiroddhata and Dhirasanta respectively."2 2 5
Hemachandra's gloss on sätra 7 (VIII. 7) echoes the above ideas (p. 462). He also adopts Dandin's words (K.Ā.I. 23) 'Apādaḥ Padasantāno Gadyam' to give a precise and acknowledged definition of prose. The expression means : "A group of words without metrical feet is called Prose". This prose is divided into two classes : Akhyāyikā and Kathā. According to Dandin there is no fault to describe one's own virtues when one is speaking of actual facts : "Svaguņāviskriyādoso nātra bhūtārthaśamsinal" (I. 24). Dandin's attitude, thus, turns out to be a complete refutation of Bhamaha on the point (K.A. 1.23 to 1.30).
Hemachandra cites Harşacarita and others as the examples of an Akhyāyikā and his definition agrees with the Harşacarita. Hemachandra's Kathā shares this feature in common with the Akhyāyikā in this that the Hero does not describe the story. But the hero is Dhiraśānta. Again, the Kathā can be both in prose and verse "I qej ar HIT ,24T.” This is an important feature of the Kathā. While the Akhyāyikā has to be in Sanskrit and in prose, the Kathā may be in any language and in prose or verse. Hemachandra's distinction is thus noteworthy (VIII. 7 and 8).
Varieties of the Kathā Form
Another noteworthy point is that Hemachandra subsumes all other varieties of the Kathā such as the Ākhyāna, Nidarśana, Pravahlikā, Manthallikā, Manikulyā, Khandakathā, Sakalakathā, Upakathā and the Brhatkathā under kathā itself. His remark that all these are subtypes of the Kathā and so no separate definitions of these are attempted. This reveals his forthright attitude on this subject. We are tempted to contrast Hemachandra's limited varieties with the 24 varities of Bhoja. We have two main prose types and ten subtypes of Kathā besides Kathā. Thus prose
441

Page #467

varieties are twelve in Hemachandra's opinion (VIII. 8 ff). He follows Bhoja in general.226
Hemachandra's Noteworthy Definition of a Mahākāvya
Hemachandra's Mahākāvya is noteworthy in the sense that it is not restricted to the Sanskrit language only, but extends to the Prakrit Language with all its dialects and also covers the folk-languages or dialects. He also considers the Pañcasandhis or five joints or junctures as the indespensable features of a Mahākāvya. In all other respects his Mahākāvya resembles the traditional Mahākāvya.
In the gloss on VIII. 8, Hemachandra mentions the many features that go to make a Mahākävya. These are the same features that we find in Dandin's Kavyadarśa (I. 15-19) and which Dr. Raghavan states are completely borrowed by Bhoja (S.P., p. 627). Bhoja calls it a Sargabandha like the Heyagrivavadha of Bhartṛmentha. Hemachandra mentions several characteristics under Sabdavaicitrya, Arthavaicitrya and Ubhayavaicitrya. All These are found mentioned in Dandin (1.14, 18 etc.).
In his work on Bhoja's Śrngaraprakāśa, 227 Dr. V. Raghavana has shown how Hemachandra is indebted to Bhoja in several respects and contexts. One of such contexts is the discussion of the Sravya-kavya. In this connection Dr. Raghavan
writes:
"The treatment of Sravyakavya in the VIIIth Chapter of the Kavyanuśāsana, pp. 330-341,228 to the end of the work is completely a reproduction of the section on Gunas and Alaṁkāras of Prabandha as a whole and the definitions with examples of the types of Sravyakavya given by Bhoja in Chapters XI and XII of the Sr. pr. (Vol. II) Especially, the various elements of Sabdavaicitrya, Arthavai citrya and Ubhayavaicitryā given by Hemachandra on pp. 334-341 are Bhoja's Gunas and Alaṁkāras of Sabda. Artha and both with reference

442
.....

Page #468

to the Prabandha as a whole. The commentary of Hemachandra here is, again, nothing but a reproduction from the śr. Pra. The rare and lost works quoted here, the definitions of various types of Kavyas found here are all from the śr. Pra." (P. 709). Hemachandra's Method of Combination
Bhoja also gives Prabandhālaṁkāras in three sets. 229 The passage in question is quoted by Hemachandra. This includes Hemachandra's definition of a Mahākāvya (VI11.6) as well as the gloss concerning sabdavaicitrya, Arthavaicitrya and Ubhayavaicitrya (pp. 455-60). The interesting thing to be noted here is that under each head of Sabda, Artha and both, Hemachandra has combined the Prabandhaguņas with the Prabandhālamkāras quoted from Bhoja. Thus under Sabdavaicitrya he mentions the first four Guņas and then states the Alamkāras. Similarly under Arthavaicitrya he mentions five Guņas and then Alamkāras. Finally under Ubhayavaicitrya he cites four Guņas and then the Alainkāras. This is followed by the names of some rare works. Just as he has combined the text on Gunas and Alamkāras of the work as a whole, Hemachandra has mixed up the explanations of these in his Viveka Vyākhyā also. Hemachandra's presentation is really very ingenious and remarkable for that reason.230
Dr. Raghavan has critically studied Bhoja's text on these threefold Prabandhaguņas and the threefold Prabandhālaikāras. We would like to summarize his explanation below for easy reference, for it has a bearing on Hemachandra's text under review. Dr. Raghavan's Explanation of the Prabandhaguņas and the Prabandhālamkāras
Bhoja takes Guna with śabda and Artha in a Prabandha as a whole. What are the Guņas of Prabandha ? It is the proper composition of the various types of works or forms of literature.
443

Page #469

The Gunas are thus the features which go to make up the best poem. It is almost a statement of the criticism of the work as a whole. Sabdagunas are the physical or formal features. Arthaguņas pertain to the content and the theme. The Ubhayagunas embrace both of the Sabdaguņas two deal with size. The Mahākāvya must be sufficiently long (Asamkṣiptagranthatvam). But the Sargas should not be tediously long (Anativistirṇasargatva). Aviṣamabandhatva is explained as causing delight to the reader's mind. Hemachandra omits Aśravyavṛttatva, But the Ubhayaguṇa Arthānurūpachhandastvam takes care of it. The metre should be suggestive of the Rasa. Bhoja's Ślistasandhitva is slightly modified by Hemachandra who has Parasparasambaddhasargaditvam i.e., the cantos must run into each other and fit in. The Arthagunas emphasize the essence of the Mahākāvya, the hero, his greatness, development of Rasa and the philosophical purpose of poetry viz. fourfold end of life. The epic is heroic, has one dominant Rasa with all sentiments helping it. The fourth Arthaguna deals with the social advice or the moral of a poem or the poetic justice. The last Arthaguna viz. Susutrasaṁndhanakatva refers to wellknitness of the work as a whole. Thus it is a general guna.
The Ubhayagunas relate to both sabda and Artha. The relate Sabda and Artha with each other and lay emphasis on certain principles of harmony and appropriateness, Aucityā. Thus Rasanurūpasandarbhatva means perfect harmony of words and ideas with Rasa. This implies propriety of Vṛtti and Riti. Hemachandra omits Pātrānurupabhāvatva because it relates to a drama. We have explained the propriety of metre. The guna of Samastalokarañjakatva refer to Ananda, the primary aim of Art, which is aesthetic bliss. The last Sudalaṁkāravākyatva means that mere gunas are not enough, but Alamkaras are equally essential in a Kavya. This takes us to the topic of the Prabandhalaṁkāras.
It will be seen that the novel name under which the above gunas are given, does not alter the fact that they are features

444

Page #470

of a Mahākāvya given by Dandin (K.Ā.1.14-19). And the rest of the verses of Dandin on Mahākāvya (K.A.1.20-22) contain features included here as Prabandhalamkāras. 231
Hemachandra Indebtedness to Bhoja
Dr. Raghavan says: "Hemachandra takes as much as he can from Bhoja and gives them in his own way. He is a faithful follower of Abhinavagupta and of the Prasthana inaugurated by Anandavardhana, and cannot follow Bhoja who calls everything Alamkāra. So he casts off Bhoja's classification of those into Guņas and Alaskāras, calls them neither Guņas nor Alamkāras but simply Vaicitryā. But he accepts Bhoja's classification of these into those of Sabda, Artha and those of both. This certainly simplifies Bhoja's scheme of division of the features into Guņa and Alamkāra, which division was however good in as much as the class of Gunas was constituted of the more importnt, features, more vitally related to the nature of Mahakāvya than the other class of Alamkāras. But, this attitude of his, Hemachandra forgets towards the end while explaining the Ubhayavaicitrya called Sabdalamkāravākyatvam in his commentary here, he reproduces Bhoja completely and holds these feature as Guns and Alamkāras."2 3 2
Hemachandra slightly modifies Bhoja in certain places and slightly adds to Bhoja's list in some places. Thus the Śabdālamkara of Bhoja called Bhinnavșttasargāntatva is separate by Hemachandra, dropped from the Vaicitrya list and included as a major feature in the definition of a Mahākāvya itself, along with Sabdārthavaicitrya. Anativistirņasargāditva is elaborated by Hemachandra into Anativistirņa - parasparasambaddhasargātitva. In Mangalacaraṇa, only three types are stated but the new types of Bhoja are dropped. Again Śravyavrttatram omitted and the five Sandhis are excuded from the Ubhayālamkāra list but inserted in the definition of the Mahākāvya itself, at the outset. In commenting on them, Hemachandra reproduces Bhoja fully
445

Page #471

Bhoja explains all the Alaṁkāras of the Prabandha one by one. The first Sabdalamkara refers to the begining of the Kavya. The second, elaborated by Hemachandra, refers to the details of the poet and his work, the purpose of the work, etc. The next Sabdalaṁkara refers to change of metres at the end of a Sarga. It is dropped by Hemachandra. The next feature of Sabda or form is use of word-figures and tricks in entire Sargas. The next one is the marking of the last verse of each canto with some favourite word. Such words or marks may contain one's favourite idea or name or auspicious word or benediction. The Arthalaṁkāras are based on Dandin's description of the Mahakavya (K.A. 1. 16-17).
Daṇḍin uses the expression 'Susandhibhiḥ' (I. 18) and Bhoja takes it as a Guna but Hemachandra includes it (Satsandhi) in the definition. It means the close relation between one canto and another. However Daṇḍin does not refer explicitly to Sandhis in a drama, whereas Hemachandra quotes the Natyaśāstra Kārikās on the dramatic junctions called Mukhasandhi etc. (see ante). Bhamaha says the Mahākāvya has five Sandhis (1. 20). Thus Bhoja (and Hemachandra) follows Bhāmaha. This becomes clear when Bhoja explains Mantrādāta etc. in terms of the Artha Puruṣārtha (Bhāmaha I. 21). Hemachandra omits the dramatic features. About Deśakālapātrāceṣṭā etc. it can be said that it distinguishes the Mahākāvya on account of the former's vast range of action, time, character etc. Hemachandra omits Dvisandhāna.
In K.A. I. 21-22 Daṇḍin lays down that "to describe the hero first and then the defeat of the hero's foes by the superior qualities of the hero is a method naturally nice. Also, to describe the heredity, valour, learning and other attainments of the hero's rival at first and then to describe the hero's excellence by the defeat of his foe this method too appeals to us. He uses the word "Marga" for these two methods. Thus Dandin gives two methods (Mārgadvaya) of bringing out

446
-

Page #472

the glory of the Hero. Bhoja (and Hemachandra) follows Dandin. These two Mārgas are referred to in the last Ubhayālamkāra 'Mārgadvayānuvartanam' Bhoja discusses the theme of the Mahakavya as the depicting of the fall of the Pratināyaka and of the prosperity of the Nāyaka.
Bhoja remarks, following Dandin (1. 20), that not all of these features of sabda, Artha and of both need to be introduces everywhere : "Even if a few of the said elements are lacking, poetry does not depreciate in level, provided the excellence of those that have been adopted pleases the scholars .....K.A.I. 20".2 3 3
447

Page #473

HEMACHANDRA'S THEORY OF LITERATURE
Differentia of Literature
It is quite significant that at the very outset of his work. Hemachandra should touch upon the differentia of Literature. While pointing out the interconnection between his Sabdanuśāsana and Kavyānušāsana, our author mentions that, while the former work discusses 'Correct Speech', the latter work treats of the 'Poetic aspect of language' in its correct form. Here we cannot fail to notice that this distinction between the correct speech or the language of ordinary parlance as well as of the scientific treatises and the poetic speech (Kaver Bhārati) is aesthetically very important. Linguistic Dualism
To begin with, Hemachandra's 'Correct Speech' represents that aspect of language which possesses formal completeness and relates to the connection between vocabulary and perception. This is the language that serves the purpose of social communication quite well. And it thus becomes a fit medium of concepts about things and its vocables acquire the capacity to denote a number of things and ideas. This is the literal or denotative aspect of languages which helps the scientist to communicate or express his idea of the world. There is another aspect of this 'correct speech' which, when it represents different modes of thought, acquires a metaphoric character.
448

Page #474

And, in the words of I. A. Richards, "thinking is radically metaphoric. ... To think of anything is to take it as of a sort and that 'as' brings in ...... the analogy, the parallel, the metaphoric grapple by which alone the mind takes hold", 234
There have always been theorists - literary critics, linguists, psychologists and philosophers alike - who insist that language is not primarily an instrument for the communication of thought or for the expression of belief, and they have tried to put forward a more adequate semiotic. Like Edward Sapir, these theorists emphasize "the expressive as against the referential aspect or function of language". Ogdan and Richard put forward a theory of linguistic dualism' under two general headings of meanings: (1) The scientific, descriptive, representative, referential, denotative and cognitive meaning or use, and (2) The emotive, expressive, non-cognitive etc. kind of meaning or use. And the Poetic, Ethical, Metaphysical and Religious utterances are included under the emotive or second type of use of language. 235 For, it is well-known that in a linguistic utterance, one has to supply imaginatively some appropriate context, and tone of voice in which it might occur. This is more pronounced in poetry because great poets may and do reveal to their readers information which words do not carry as per their dictionary meanings. This happens by virtue of the poets' dexterity in the use of language and their ability to exploit their medium to the maximum extent. As a result, poetic utterances act not as symbols, but as signals; they are not signs, nor do they mean in the way in which the word Rain is a sign of, or means, rain, but rather in the way in which dark clouds are signs of, or mean, rain, or a frown is a sign of concentration or disapproval. 236 On any view, linguistic utterance has always a purpose, use, point, function or intention, and its having this purpose is not part of what it says. And this accounts for the distinction between 'meaning' in the sense of conceptual content and 'meaning" in the sense of purpose or point.
29

449

Page #475

Hemachandra's theoretical affiliations with the Dhvani theory are not in question. He is a follower of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta so far as the central principle of poetics is concerned. And according to these authorities, the purpose of a linguistic utterance cannot be accounted for either by the denotative power of language, which accounts for the primary conceptual content, or by the secondary power or the secondary conceptual content as Mammața makes it clear (Kavyaprakāśa II. 18 f. & 23). This purpose is always suggested and it is the Meaning of Meaning which characterises poetry,
Hemachandra is an aesthetician of the New School and hence he realises that, though the poet uses formally correct language as the medium of poetic expression, still the poet's purpose in using that language is not to denote, or even to indicate, but to suggest sentiments. And this differentiates the poetic speech from the other linguistic utterances which are utilitarian in character. This is, as Paul Valery asserts, "the poetical language in which words are no longer the words of daily, practical use. They associate no more according to the same attractions; they are charged with two values simultaneously engaged and of equivalent importance; their sound and their instantaneous paychic effect. ..... The purpose of poetry is not at all to communicate to someone a finite notion - for which prose should suffice...... wholly other is the function of poetry. While a unique meaning is asked of prose, here it is the unique form which ordains and survives. in a poem, therefore, sense must not prevail over form. ... A beautiful verse indefinitely rises from its ashes; it becomes again..... harmonic cause of itself".237
E. H. Gombrich admirably sums up this aspect of Art: "... Communication need not come into this process at all. ... substitution may precede portrayal, and creation communication ... a new frame of reference is created ..."2 38
450

Page #476

Art is a Matter of Attitude, A Frame of Reference
This "frame of reference" is brought about by the poetic use of language in Literature. That is to say, in poetry, "We may... be putting before our hearers some feeling or attitude of ours, but we do so by expressing it and not by talking about it...,"239 This is the differentiating mark of the Aesthetic experience according to Abhinavagupta. And, Hemachandra completely follows Abhinavagupta's theory of Rasāsvāda. In Ānandavardhana's new aesthetics, the referential function of the words and the meanings is subordinate to its aesthetic function. Mammața (K. P. 2 ff.) categorically states that in poetry, Word and Sense become subsidiary owing to its being concentrated on such processes as are subservient to particular sentiments. This distinguishes poetic creation from Vedic injunctions and Epic exhortations or didactic narratives. in Dhvanyāloka 1.13, Anandavardhana himself lays down that in a Dhvani composition, the expressed sense as well as the expressive words both subordinate themselves so as to suggest that sweet and beautiful idea - which abounds in the works of great poets.240 And Hemachandra does not lag behind in this matter. As a matter of fact, his discussion of the aspect of poetic delight in Kavyānušāsan 1.3 and his lucid exposition of it in the gloss that follows as well as his apt quotations from the Kāvyakautuka of Tauta as also from Bhattānayaka's work provide ample and unmistakable proof of his theoretical sirength and equipment.
The Poetic Purpose
Hemachandra's emphasis on the delightful character of the aesthetic enjoyment is entirely in keeping with his faith in the doctrine of Rasadhvani. For, "the arts - all of them - have as their essential common characteristic a suitability for being observed in the 'aesthetic attitude and thus a suitability for yielding 'aesthetic pleasure'. 241 Hemachandra clearly endorses the view that in the ultimate analysis "aesthetic pleasure" is
451

Page #477

the sine qua non of poetry, the other two aims, glory and advice, being ancillary. For, beautiful things are those which are apprehended with pleasure : 'A thing of beauty is a joy for ever'. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya quotes Longinus to say that our souls are somehow naturally exalted by the true sublime; and, as if rearing or prancing, are filled with joy and exaltation.2 4 2 The Longinian doctrine of Transport, too, requires the poet so. to speak in his verse that he may teach, that he may delight, and last but not least, that he may move, Hemachandra's view on Art Experience finds an adequate echo in these words of Victor M. Hamm:
"The products of fine arts are primarily intended for the delight of perception and contemplation which they elicit, and. if they provide this, they do their work." 2 4 3 The Aesthetic Experience
On 'aesthetic experience', Hemachandra completely subscribes to Abhinavagupta's interpretation of Bharata's famous dictum on Rasa in terms of the Rasadhvani doctrine of Ānanda-. vardhana, setting aside the views of Lollata, Srišankuka and Bhattanāyaka and others. But Hemachandra is especially fondi of Bhatta Tauta's profound observations on the Art, Philosophy and Nature of the poetic process. But it is in Abhinavagupta's writings that Hemachandra finds the culmination of the true. theory of Art. P. Pañcāpageśa śāstri aptly brings out this feel-- ing of success on the part of Sanskrit aestheticians in his preface to his well known classic 'The Philosophy of Aesthetic Pleasure' 2 4 4
"Basing their discussions on Bharata's Nātyaśāstra and confining their activities to the explanation of his Rasasūtra.. those great men sought a true and correct explanation of the experience called "Kāvyarasāsvāda' or the enjoyment of aesthe-- tic pleasure. Some stumbled; some halted; others caught a shadow on the way and declared it substance; and some went: right to the soul of the affair and were in a position to cry out 'Eureka' !"
452

Page #478

The Role of a Sahrdaya
Ānandavardhana extols the role of the Sahrdaya, the connoisseur or the responsive critic, who is described as that person who has by a process of incessant application to standard poetical works so enlarged his mind that he can easily identify himself with the particular aspect of the person or the thing described and merge his individuality in the universal element of the poem, or the universal element in him in the individual element of the poem. And it is in the context of this responsive reader that Ānandavardhana proceeds to point out the nature of the pleasure that the critic realises. This delight is of the nature of aesthetic enjoyment, and as such those only are real Kavyas which are capable of suggestively bringing about this aesthetic delight. 2 4 5 The Grounds of Poetry
Hemachandra follows Anandavardhana as interpreted by Abhinavagupta completely. Anandavardhana makes this aesthetic delight the chief criterion of poetic creation and connects it with the concept of Pratibhā or poetic imagination. This Pratibhā or poetic genius is none other than that quality which enables the poet to create 'a thing of beauty'. It is a capacity that gives to 'airy nothings a form and shape'. In Dhvanyaloka 1.6, Anandavardhana declares that the goddess of learning herself yields that real essence of suggestion and manifests the extraordinary and sparkling genius of the great poets, who among a host of poets, are only two or three, or five or six, like Kālidāsa etc. Just as the delight referred to above belongs to both the poet and the connoisseur so also does the Pratibhā belong to both (described as the creative and the appreciative aspects of Pratibhā by Rājasekhara).
According to Prof. Gopinath Kaviraj, the word Pratibhā, which literally means a flash of light or revelation, is usually found in literature in the sense of wisdon characterised by immediacy and freshness. 246 In Hemachandra's poetics, poetic
453

Page #479

delight and Pratibhā are undoubtedly intimately connected as his quotation from Bhatta Tauta (1.3 ff) establishes. He makes Pratibha the sole cause of poetry (I. 4) and admits the ultimate supremacy of the poet's imagination. Tauta's celebrated definition of Pratibhā, relied on by Hemachandra, admirably sums up "the creative aspect of Imagination - its power to conceive ever-new thoughts and images and to express them in living word":247 While Mammaţa employes the word Śakti and toes the line of Vāmana almost verbatim, 24 8 Hemachandra takes the word Pratibhā directly from Abhinavagupta but explains Pratibhā in terms of the Jain Philosophy so far as the antenatal capacity (vide Vamana 1-3-16 ff) of Pratibhā is concerned.
Pratibhā Explained in terms of Jain Philosophy
Discussing Prajižā and Pratibhā, Prof. Gopinath Kaviraj observes that in Jain philosophy, Kevalajñāna and Darśana are the synonyms of Pratibhā, Prajñā, etc. of the other systems and adds that "according to Jain Philosophy Omniscience or the possession of the factulty of Absolute Knowledge and Supreme vision is an eternal property (being also the Essence) of the Soul, which it has apparently lost or allowed to be obscured under the influence of a beginningless series of Karmas, hence known as a veil of knowledge or vision. By means of spiritual culture, this veil may be withdrawn - and the soul will regain its lost knowledge until at last - it will become once more Omniscient - being established in its Pure and Eternal Essence". 249
Hemachandra's explanation of the concept of Pratibha in terms of Jain philosophy constitutes his contribution to Indian poetics. Not only this. His purpose here seems to stress the necessity of poetic culture also. This is clear from the fact that it is with the aid of spiritual culture that the veil clouding our innate vision can be withdrawn and this implies that though Pratibhā is the sole cause of poetry, a modicum of poetic
454

Page #480

culture is called for in any poetic activity. Hence, Hemachandra's treatment of Vyutpatti and Abhyasas as aids to Kavyakarana is apt. T. N. Sreekantaiya notes that "Pratibha is ever the only direct source of poetry Vyutpatti and Abhyasa contribute but indirectly to the creation of Poetry by regulating and refining the working of the poet's Pratibha. Hemachandra has made the best pronouncement on this question...."250
It is interesting to note that since the days of Homer, the idea of poetic genius or imagination has characterised the Western Poetics in different garbs and under different names. Beginning with the theory of divine dispensation, we come to the Longiniun Sublime and his term "transport" or Ekstasis. The question there was: 'Are poets born or made?' In other words, 'Natural gifts or studied art ?' And both the poet's genius as well as his acquired art were included in the 'Sources of elevation', viz., conceptions, passions, figures, diction and composition. 251 But poetic imagination receives a shot in the arm with Coleridge's elaborate exposition of it and the Romantic poetry is its best illustration. The Education of a Poet
Hemachandra admits that poets can and do benefit from a knowledge of the ways of the world and from the different Sastras as well as from constant practice in poetic composition under expert guidance. In saying this, he is not breaking any new ground because Mammata had already dealt with these aspects of poetic training or poetic culture. 25 2 Hemachandra's credit lies in elaborating on Vyutpatti and Abhyasa by bringing together relevant ideas from Rajasekhara, Kṣemendra and others, and in providing rich illustrative material on these topics. The Poetic Studio
Learning and Practice are cognate concepts as they both refine the poetic talent. It is a course in poetic training (Kaviśikṣā) to be undergone by a would-be-poet so as to master the theoretical and practical aspects of the poet's craft. F. W. Thomas studies the interesting topic of The Making of

455

Page #481

the Sanskrit Poet2 53 and notes that “This distinction of natural genius from culture. ... reappears in most of the rhetoricians. ... It is, however, the 'Jain writers who let us participate most particularly in the secrets of the poetic studio. ... (and) Hemachandra gives the fullest directions."
Plagiarism
Hemachandra treats of Shadow-dependence in one of the four ways; dependence in one, two or three lines; dependence in sayings; verse-filling and word-replacing; practice with meaningful words and so on. These points are in line with Rājasekhara's points as adopted by Hemachandra. Rājasekhara in his turn had Ānandavardhana's points before him. As F. W. Thomas remarks, "This extract brings us close to the subject of plagiarism, the penumbra of literary craft." F. W. Thomas analyses the causes and nature of literary borrowing and concludes : "Our Indian theorist does not go far into the matter....he allows his appropriator a fair latitude. ...in most of the excuses he accepts, there is a good deal of human nature, and that they have often prevailed in practice outside of India." 2 5 4
Dr. V. M. Kulkarni reviews Indian views on Plagiarism and credits Ānandavardhana with giving a clear exposition of the topic of originality and literary theft, Vāmana having provided the first vague reference in his classification of Artha. But Samvada in Anandavardhana becomes Harana in Rājasekhara and Hemachandra has adopted important aspects of the former's views on Plagiarism. The highlight of Rajasekhara's treatment is that it covers almost all aspects of the problem and pronounces bold opinions on them.2 5 5
Kşemendra, the Kashmirian polymath, also treats of borrowing on a small or large scale in his Kaviśikṣā manual, and justifies it in the case of certain literary genres. He advises a would-be-poet to cultivate a number of things and among these he includes Vākyarthasunyavșttābhyāsa and
456

Page #482

Purātanavrtteşu padaparāvșttyabhyāsaḥ and gives illustrations of this practice. Hemachandra benefits from this. kşemendra also names poets as Chāyopajivi, Padakopajivi, Pädopajivi, Sakalopajivi and Bhuvanopajívya (i.e., one who is a source to all poets, viz., Vedavyasa).
On Hemachandra's contribution, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni has this to say: "We find a placid borrowing from... Rājasekhara... and kşemendra. ... With the exception of verses 42-43, 59-60 that are taken from Kavikanthabharaṇa, and examples of Padasamasyā and Pādasamasyā which he has added, the rest of this portion is borrowed from Rājasekhara's K. M."256
Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy reviews Rājasekhara's treatment of borrowing in word and idea and objects to the use of the term plagiarism in this connection, but suggests the term 'misappropriation' for the twofold 37779cfa Artha. He remarks that "Rājasekhara's originality consists only in adding a fourth variety, viz., Parapurapraveśasadrsa to Ananda's three and a third division of Artha.... to Vāmana's two, to accommodate both the approved forms of Harana or Skrvāda, This is not misappropriation or plagiarism, but an original recreation which is creditable to any poet." 257
Dr. Krishnamoorthy finds Hemachandra's indication of the general background of thought underlying the treatment of sabdārthaharana helpful. This consists in treating this topic under siksā as Chāyādyupajivana along with Kavisamayas. Harana thus occupied a prominent place in the syllabus of Kaviśikṣā in the times of Rajasekhara. Hemachandra adopts the latter's sub-divisions under his Chāyā. The illustrations are the same. Thus Rājasekhara may be regarded as the first codifier of the practical courses of training offered traditionally to Sanskrit poets in ancient times. 2 5 8 Poetic Conventions
We have been discussing "the wedding of wit and learning", i.e., of the inventive or imaginative faculty and the
457

Page #483

faculty of learning and practising. The rhetotico-poetical tradition contains an armory of flashing devices. In an age of literary self-consciousness and rhetorical stereotyping, the conventions, which appear 'flat conventions' today, represented "the language of a highly civilised and sophisticated past... manifesting itself in literary and social conventions or fixities" in poetry. The aspect of poetic practice meant "cleverness in weaving metaphors and other poetic figures, at the trick of producing a double meaning, at manipulating complicated schemes of alliteration and rhyming, at following up quick composition, at making complete verses out of broken lines and sentences, and similar ingenious practices."
Manuals of Kaviśikṣa give a list of Kavisamayas or poetic conventions but the Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara "mixes up the topics of Kaviśikṣa with those of Poetics proper." Dr. Suryakanta opines that Rajasekhara's treatment is not scientific, though it is thoughtful and exhaustive. 259
In Defence of Literary Conventions
Dr. V.M.Kulkarni connects the question of poetic convention with that of poetic flaw. Thus propriety and fidelity to poetic truth justify certain modes of expression and typical poetic conventions which find a legitimate place in Poetics. 260 On Hemachandra's contribution, Dr. Kulkarni writes: "While treating of this topic in his Kavyanuśāsana, (Hemachandra) reproduces verbatim passages after passages from the Kavyamimamsa. He, however, does not indicate his source. .. Hemachandra does not give a definition nor the origin of the poetic conventions. Hemachandra reverses Rajasekhara's order, ignores his classification of the poetic conventions into Svargya etc. He brings under the heading 'Niyama' all the Svargya and the Pataliya and Prakirṇaka-dravya-samayas of Rajasekhara. 261 But the impact of Rajasekhara's and Hemachandra's works is evident in all later discussions of this topic.
...
On the traditions and conventions of Sanskrit poets, F. W. Thomas' defence is noteworthy: "They were carefully

458

Page #484

schooled; they practiced assiduously, like Stevenson. They appealed to an instructed audience; and they were competitive. Hence we must not judge from a modern point of view their adherence to old themes, their conventionality in ideas and expressions...... undoubtedly they made ample use of their notebooks and collectanea.... This is the poetical convention (Sangati) which naturally was the stock-in-trade of the poor poet (Kukavi), who belonged only to the genus; when the great. ..... or creative .....poet makes use of such things we must think of his audience which knew them very well and concentrated its attention upon the new turns given to them. .....His work is, as he says, 'a special free creation from the laws of destiny' (K.P, 1,1); and so it is not life'; but...... literature." 26 2 Belles-Lettres
While defining Kavya, Hemachandra steers clear of all controversies and compartments of the earlier "schools' and 'theories' and mentions Word, Sense, Dosa, Guņa and Alamkāra in his definition in a spirit of synthesis and accommodation. Obviously, here he follows the lead provided by Mammata, who did much not only to fix the new principle of Dhvani in poetry, but also to work up and rationalise into a synthetic and comprehensive system the already accumulated ideas, elaborated by previous thinkers but flowing through different channels in the respective systems of Bhāmaha, Vāmana and the post-Bharata dramatic Rasa-writers and put them in the convenient and concise form of systematic text-book.263 Visvanatha subjects Mammața's definition of poetry to severe criticism because it is considered by him as a half-hearted attempt to appease earlier conservative views on poetry and also because it fails to include Rasa or Dhvani in it more openly as the most important poetic principle. This criticism applies to Hemachandra's definition with equal force. However, Hemachandra devotes the immediately succeeding Sūtras (1.12 etc.) to clarify his pro-Dhvani stand and brings Doşa,
459

Page #485

Guna and Alamkara into an effective relationship with Rasadhvani and follows it up with elaborate accounts of Dhvani (1.19 etc.) and Rasa (II) as well as of Dosa (III), Guņa (IV) and Alaṁkāra (V-VI). For this reason, Viśvanatha's criticism of Mammata's definition of Kavya loses much sharpness in regard to Hemachandra's definition. However, from a technical point of view, the charges of such a definition being negative, too narrow or inconsistent and incomplete apply, more or less equally, to Hemachandra's Kavyalakṣaṇa. But, in practical terms, we can say with Dr. P. V. Kane that this definition "has the great merit of being simple and easily understood. . . . Everyone is familiar with the terms Dosa, Guna and Alaṁkāra. By using them, Mammata conveys a tolerably clear and accurate idea of the character of poetry'.264
The Body Poetic
Hemachandra mentions four kinds of words and correspondingly four kinds of senses in place of the threefold division espoused by Mammața, Viśvanatha and others. Mammaṭa classifies Gauni as a sub-division of Lakṣaṇa. Hemachandra's deviation, however, need not surprise us or detain us here because we have dealt with this earlier on. Prof. R. B. Athavale, however, criticises Hemachandra's division of Lakṣaṇā and opines that nothing much is achieved by separating Gauņi, 265
Hemachandra is businesslike in his treatment of the 'expressed sense'. He is unwilling to pursue any longer the discussion of the fourfold activity of the denotative word as it is not directly related to poetics. He, however, sticks to the Grammarian's view of Sanketa. While he follows Mammaṇa closely on Lakṣaṇā and Vyañjana, he altogether drops the purport-sense from the body of the text, though he discusses it in his Viveka. But Hemachandra takes the palm when he rejects Rūḍha Lakṣaṇā in favour of Prayojanavati Lakṣaṇa and maintains that all instances of the former are instances of primary meaning (Vacyartha). This is very true. For, as Paul Henle explains, a metaphor requires a clash of terms and

460

Page #486

when this 'clash' disappears, a new literary sense is born. "When metaphors become trite, they become powerless and literal". Thus "metaphors" like 'hood of a car' (where 'hood' originally was a metaphor) tend to vanish ...... by becoming literal...."2 6 6 "These are the frozen metaphors of which Lāvanya is a good example. ... ... The later tradition calls this Nirūdha Laksaņā but Abhinava is surely correct.... to regard such words as Anurāgā ....as examples of VivaksitaVācya, and not Tiraskrtavācya" (cf. Locana, pp. 147, 462).267 And the raison d'être of Metaphor is to "free the poet from the necessity of referring via conventions of reference", as Winifred Nowottny so ably puts. 268 Hence, so far as faded metaphors are concerned, Hemachandra is quite definite that we should take all such instances as Kušala etc. in the normal sense (Mukhyārtha) only.269 Thus words like Kusala, Dvirepha. etc. typify Abhidhā, and not Laksaņā. The Aesthetic Meaning
Any durable and cogent theory of aesthetic meaning must "free poetry from the sterner preprogatives and the heavy responsibilities which the didactic view of communication confers upon it. All utilitarian views of linguistic expression stand repudiated by a true theory of aesthetic meaning and artistic expression. It effects a dissociation of the feeling and responding side of human consciousness from the side of knowing and rational valuing. There (are) two emotive directions in which the dissociation could work - towards the inspirations. of the author of poetry and toward the responses of his audience". 270
The distinguishing feature of the aesthetic meaning is the unique alliance of the creative and the appreciative faculties. In fact, in Ānandavardhana's poetics, ably elaborated by Abhinavagupta, "the only criterion for judging on literary matters was the gift of a sound literary taste, or a responsive heart. The concomittance of poetic genius and critical taste is the unique achievement of the theory of poetic suggestion"
461

Page #487

"A new philosophy of Beauty", observes Dr. K. Krishnamoorthi, "may be said to have dawned with the re-interpretation of Rasa, from the standpoint of the Spectator's response. This is common to the different new interpretations propounded by Bhattanāyaka, Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. ....The new significance given to the ancient term Rasa ..... makes it a term which corresponds very much to what we mean today by the term 'aesthetic experience'. It can be found in the contemplative moment of the spectator, ... Its nature is nothing but unalloyed joy, a joy latent in every soul, but patent by the impact of art. In one word, it is 'transcendental', Alaukika".271
Dr. K. Krishnamoorthi has ably shown that the thesis of the Dhvani theorists is that 'Dhvani' is the quintessence of poetry; and 'Rasa' is the quintessence of 'Dhvani'. Dhvani is an exclusively poetic feature concerned with exploiting the 'beauty of every element in the medium of language like Alamkāra, Guna and Riti to serve the ultimate artistic end of Rasa. In other words, Dhvani is the whole poetic process itself. All the elements of Vācyavācaka charm contribute to and culminate in the supremacy of the Vyangya effect, viz., Rasa. Thus we get real Dhvani. 2 7 2
Hemachandra bases his aesthetics on these sound principles as enunciated by Anandavardhana and expounded by Abhinavagupta. In fact, he quotes Abhinavagupta's passages on Rasa-Experience and allied topics to demonstrate his unflinching fidelity to Abhinavagupta's aesthetics. Prof. S. P. Bhattachary observes that "in Chapter 1, the author's guides are the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana. He has occasionally utilised the Kavyaprakāśa, especially in the treatment of the Vșttis, though Hemachandra chooses to differ from Mammata here and there. ... His efforts for being exhaustive in his treatment are evidenced in his taking the cue from Ānandavardhana's specifications of four varieties of Vastudhvani, followed in toto by almost all the later writers and amplifying them to thrice their number with apt illustrations in Prakrit."'2 73
462

Page #488

And so far as the Vyanjanā process is concerned, "our author has faithfully followed Anandavardhana and Mammața, and advanced the stock arguments used by these two authors" to justify the postulation of this novel power of language. "Though in the body of the text Hemachandra does not discuss at length the significance and the necessity of the Dhyani Sense, in his Viveka, he brings together all the views for and against Dhvani and closely follows Mammața. In fact here the whole of Viveka is a faithful copy of the major portion of Kāvyaprakāśa, fifth Ullasa.”2 74 But the fact that Hemachandra "did not often abide by the principle of Parivșitti-sahatvāsahatva, an innovation, though a logical view, noted in the K. P., is evident from his following earlier writers (and Rucaka has done the same thing in his sanketa on the K.P.) in not including the Ubhayaśaktimüla there defined as a third variety of Vyangya Kavyas." 275 Hemachandra also discards Mammata's threefold division of the Arthasakti mūlavyangya (Svataḥ-sambhavi etc.) on the plea that even a natural sense does not appear charming without the magnificient utterance of a poet. Thus Hemachandra is quite clear about the aesthetic fact that Kavipraudhokti is essential for the creation of a charming poem (Kāvyānuśāsan I. 24 ff). He frankly says (Viveka p. 74) that dividing on such flimsy grounds, without a vital poetic principle, serves to mislead pupils only. In view of the acceptance of the divisions of the Arthasaktimüla by the stalwarts of the Dhvani school,276 Hemachandra's bold rejection on aesthetic grounds deserves special mention.
Hemachandra subsumes Rasādi Dhvani under Arthasaktimūlavyangya (1. 25). His scheme of dividing Dhvani is less elaborate than that of Mammața. It appears, he accepts Anandavardhana's lead, who indicates the broadest distinction and avoids permutations and combinations (cf. Dhvanyaloka 111. 45-46).277 Hemachandra's reason for rejection of the drift sense is that it is connected with Abhidhā or the direct sense. This also shows his high priority for poetic suggestion.
463

Page #489

First Class Poetry
Hemachandra amalgamates Rasa with Dhvani in the best tradition of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta and stresses that Rasādi is always suggested by Vibhāvādi. When these Rasādi, being principally suggested, occupy the predominant position in poetry, they constitute the soul of poetry - Kavyātmā. Such a Kavya is called First Class Poetry. Hemachandra's rationale of the classification of poetry into Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama remains identical with that of Mam mata, but he attempts this only after completely explaining the Rasaprinciple (11. 56 etc.). The Dynamics of the Aesthetic Process
"Greatness in Literature is not the product of style, or structure, or appropriateness of language. It is not even ensured' by a lofty concept. Rather it springs from the harmonious combination whereby diverse faculties unite to produce one common good."278 Hemachandra acknowledges that Rasadhvani provides the keynote of the aesthetic unity of the whole work 279 and subscribes to Bhatta Tauta's emphasis on prior vision and the subsequent objectification in the aesthetic process - the Kavikarma, For, the continued, unremitting activity of the poetic consciousness underlies all formal and technical excellence of a poem. It is the Kavivyāpāra that makes both sound and sense, expression and idea, subservient to itself, the basic reality in poetry. In Abhinavagupta's words' Creativity is "consciousness capable of original invention, its distinguishing characteristic being the capacity to create poetry, possessed of relishable feeling, clarity and beauty." Hence, Poetic Blemishes, Excellences and Embellishments have been treated of by Hemachandra in consonance with the standpoint of Rasadhavani alone. And the principle of Propriety 2 80 plays. an important role in the determination of the relative position of Dosa. Guna and Aiamkāra in Hemachandra's Poetics.
464

Page #490

CONCLUSION:
A Critical Review of Hemachandra's Achievement
It has indeed been a very rewarding experience going through the three-layered text of the remarkable theoretical work on Sahityaśāstra by Hemachandra. We mean the Kāvyānuśāsana, of course. Though the theoretical, critical and illustrative material provided by Hemachandra in this single volume on Sanskrit poetics and dramaturgy is extremely extensive in range and the presentation at three different levels that of the Sutras, that of the Commentary or gloss and that of the Viveka Vyakhyā - is challenging to our powers of comprehension and correlation, yet our enthusiasm to overcome the hurdles of extent and complexity of treatment is sustained- nay, enhanced by the logical, graded, organized and systematic method of treatment adopted by the author. As it is, the title of the work suggests that it is a scientific manual of poetics meant to present a systematic body of knowledge not only on Kavya but also on Nataka and on other topics, types and forms of literature. It is in view of this nature of the work that we find herein treated almost all topics and herein represented almost all shades of opinion on poetics uptill that day. To name only the most salient aspects of Poetics, Hemachandra has either fully discussed or mentioned in passing the differentia of literary language; the ends of poetry; the ground and the aids of poetry; the
1
30

465
10

Page #491

poetic trainings; the poetic conventions; the nature and divisions of poetry; theories of four types of words and senses; the drift power and the drift sense; the varieties and instances of Dhvani; the rules regarding the governance of the relation of Dosa, Guna and Alamkara with Rasa; employment or rejection of Alamkara in actual practice; Rasa, Bhāva, Rasābhāsa, Bhāvābhāsa, Bhavaśanti, Bhavodaya, Bhāvaśabalatā, etc.; the entire Rasa-theory with its apparatus and schools of interpretation; the nature and types of Dosas in theory and practice; the number of Gunas and their nature and function in poetry; the poetic blemishes of Word (Six) and of Sense (29); the Nayaka-Nayika-Bheda and its allied aspects and the different types of Literary 'forms' or Compositions, the rationale of their distinction, their aims, grounds, nature and examples. It may be stated that the method of treatment is So comprehensive that while discussing and explaining the abovementioned topics, a great deal of interesting as also critical material is presented with ample illustrative literature which not only provides tremendous intellectual stimulus to the student but also sharpens his awareness of the long tradition and of the many facets of the science of poetics and dramaturgy at the time Hemachandra came on the scene. It also refines his poetic, aesthetic and critical sensitivity.
The Pros and Cons
Much has been said about Hemachandra's lack of originality. 281 Well known scholars like Dr. S. K. De, Dr. P. V. Kane, Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Dr. V. Raghavan, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni and others have pointed out this aspect and tried to show the sources of Hemachandra's moral and material inspiration in writing the present work. On the other hand, scholars like Acarya A. B. Dhruva, Prof. R. C. Parikh 282 and B. P. Bhattacharya 2 8 3 have not only defended Hemachandra's attitude of 'I take what is good for me from whichever source I can', but they have also tried to explain the rationale of such an attitude and to

466

Page #492

justify this in terms of the actual good it has done to the present work.
There is no doubt that Hemachandra had before him the entire tradition of Sanskrit Dramaturgy and Poetics, and he had the benefit of a hindsight while writing this present work. And he has utilized earlier works without hesitation or moral compunction. But this he has done with a view to make his work a comprehensive, representative and reliable text-book on Alamkaraśāstra as recognized by the new school of Dhvani theorists. Keeping in view this aim, Hemachandracary has freely utilized the works of Bharata, Dandin, Vamana, Rudrata, Rajasekhara (K.M.), Kuntaka, Abhinavagupta, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Mahimabhatta, Bhoja, Kṣemendra, Mammata and Rucaka (or Ruyyaka i.e., the author of the Sanketaṭikā). And the impact of such a versatile and extensive reference material is there for everyone to see. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya recognizes this fact, after a critical study of five chapters of Hemachandra's work "as those directly associated with citations from the eleventh century Kashmir writers". Let me quote him : Hemachandra's Perspective
"In the department of poetics, where as an early Nibandha writer he (Hemachandra) made his name, constructive work had given place to systematizing and coordination by the end of the tenth century and it had become the fashion to formulate, elucidate or tabulate whatever was taught by great masters By the end of the eleventh century, the epochmaking Kavyaprakāśa appeared. It was nothing but a terse and compact treatise, incorporating whatever its author thought noteworthy in the field of poetics from the view point of a practical and inquisitive student. It has explored the labours of Anandavardhana and of his expositor, the philosopherpoeticist Abhinavaqupta, the two great masters whose teachings and examples have been marked, presented and recorded almost in every page of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana
.....

467

Page #493

(Viveka, P. 66). Hemachandra, who used the K.P. liberally, however, did not forget to present what is worth noting in the writings of other Kashmir writers like Kuntaka, Mahimabhatta, Bhatta Tauta, the illustrious Alamkāra teacher of Abhinava, and Rājanaka Tilaka, who might have been a younger contemporary of Mammața, and the Great Bhoja, also of the eleventh century, of another land and of a different line of thought..... works which ..... have served to heighten the interest which Hemachandra took in them..... One prominent feature of the K.A... (is that) each chapter of the work has as its source one or more writers as authority. The K.A. is thus in a sense like a treatise, where different chapters are written by different authors who are acknowledged masters on the subject."2 84
Hemachandra is held to have derived help from his "uptodate MSS collection" which included Rājānaka Tilak's (i.e. of Rucaka's father and teacher's) work. He is also shown to have drawn upon the Sanketa Commentary of Rucaka on the K.P.285 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya notes that though the Viveka on the K.A. came by way of supplement, a few additions to the original work in the Vștti portion were made still later on as was the habit of the author in course of revision work (e.g., p. 292, pp. 31-34, pp. 258-263, N.S.E.). "The K.A.'s direct citations, except in the case of the illustrations and their connecting statements in his treatment of the Vrttis (Sense-functions) in Chap. I, of his citations from the Nātyaśāstra. .,.. in Chap. VIII and of three extracts from the Abhinavabhāratı (Vol. 1-2nd Ed. p. 341, pp. 282-83; Vol. VII (C/o Vol. II) pp. 152-53) in his Vịtti, are all found in the Viveka, which professediy is a supplement. 2 86 A Comprehensive Approach
Hemachandra uses prose for his Sūtras or Kärikās like Vāmana and is very terse and businesslike in his Vștti, but elaborate in his citations. His illustrations, in which he tries to be comprehensive, are from Kāvyas. His efforts for being
468

Page #494

exhaustive have been pointed out in the preceding pages. He amplifies Anandavardhana's specifications of four varieties of Vastudhvani to thrice their number with apt illustrations in Prakrit. He follows the age-old practice of giving stock examples quite scrupulously but, being conscious of the practical nature of poetics, adds here and there examples which serve to widen the student's range of study. He avoids unnecessary and irrelevant elaboration in the gloss (e.g. the Padaprakāśyatva of Bhāvādi etc,, gloss. p. 87). But he does not hesitate to add often supplementary matter in the Viveka when it is needed for the advanced student. His zeal for clarification ('Bhama dhammia', for instance, is fully explained) makes him quote profusely (Vide under Sutras 1.8, 1.10, 1.16 ff, 1.24 ff, II.1, II.17 ff, 1.3 ff, etc.)
The Sources of Hemachandra's Work
Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya has shown in detail and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni has graphically tabulated the different authorities and sources of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana. Thus in chapter I, we can see the influence of the Kavyaprakāśa and the author is guided by the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana in the dominance of the Vyañjanā view. Hemachandra has occasionally utilized the K. P., especially in the treatment of the Vṛttis, though he strikes a different note from Mammata here and there (on Gauņi, Kavipraudḥokti, Divisions of the Madhyama-Kavya, Kākuvakrokti, etc.). In this connection, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni remarks, "Hemachandra shows independence of thought and judgement in good many places, refusing to follow blindly his acknowledged authorities. To wit, he rejects.... three of the six Kavyaprayojanas given by Mammata (pp. 5-6); he differs with Mukulabhatta and Mammata for he holds that Lakṣaṇā is based on Prayojana alone.... He rightly rejects the threefold classification of Artha into Svataḥ Sambhavi etc.... as found in the Dhv. (pp. 72-73) and the K. P. (IV. 39-40). Hemachandra criticises Dhanika for describing Jimütavahana as Dhirodatta (vide KS p. 123 II. 19-21 and DR II. p. 37). If Mammața speaks

469

Page #495

of the eight kinds of Madayama-Kavya. Hemachandra holds that there are only three kinds of it (pp. 152-157) ..."287
In the second chapter, he draws upon the N.S. (VI-VII) and the Abhinavabhārati as also Locana and Bhoja's views (ref. to an account of the intermingling of Bhavas and of Rasābhāsa). The divisions of Kavya on the basis of Vyañjanā, as we have it in the K.P. marks the end of the chapter. The illustrations, over and above those based on the Dhvanyaloka, the Locana and the Abhinavab hārati are picked up from the Dasarupāvaloka, the Śrngāratilaka and from both of Bhoja's works on the Sastra, especially the Saravastikanthābharaṇa. And the Viveka draws upon the Locana and the Abh. bh. for the exposition of verses (Abh. bh. Vol. 1 pp. 286, 303-307; Locana pp. 80-81, 110, 67, 75, etc.), while the author takes his stand on Abhinava's acceptance of the nine Rasas and has three long passages from the Abhinavabhāratí on his topic, one of which discusses the Sättvikabhāvas as emanating from the transformation of the human body in the elemental aspect. The. Abh, bh. extract in the Viveka on Rasa-experience is sometimes fuller, more direct and better connected as in the case of the interpretation of Sankuka. It is noteworthy that his estimate of KarunaVipralambha as a variety of Karuņa Rasa is fundamentally different from that of the Nāt. śāş. and the Sarasvatikanthābharana but agrees with the view of the Dasarūpaka.2 8 8
Hemachandra's Dosa-doctrine is in keeping with the Rasadhvani doctrine and as such his inspiration on Rasadosas also lies in the Dhv. Al. and Locana; still his dependence on Mammața and his source-author Mahimabhatta is evident in Chapter 111 which deals with Dosas. "Mahimabhatta's hand is writ large on this portion, as is indicated by the long excerpts running over page after page in the Viveka. Sometimes the wording in the Viveka is delusive, but there is no difficulty in finding out the source."2 8 9
We have noted Dr. Raghavans views on the treatment of Gunas by Hemachandra. Dr. V. M. Kulkarni observes that his
470

Page #496

treatment of the topic of Guņas (Ch. IV) is indeed remarkable, for its presentation and style invariably remind us of Rājasekhara's K.M.290 We have endeavoured to study Hemachandra's treatment of Guņas at two levels as fully as possible, and tried to view it in the background of Anandavardhana's conception of and Mammata's treatment of the poetic excellence.
So far as Hemachandra's treatment of six figures of word is concerned, it is shown to be based on the N.S. XVII, KD, Rudrata, SK II, KP (VIII, X) IX, Abh. Vol. II (pp. 385-392) and Devisataka with Kayyata's commentary, whereas the treatment of twentynine figures of sense "is mainly based on the works of Udbhața, Rudrața, Kuntaka, Mammața, and to some extent on the SK and Locana".291 "Although Hemachandra takes his cue from Kuntaka and his reasoning in reducing the number of Arthālaskāras is not always satisfactory nor convincing, the fact remains that his treatment of this topic is, to a good extent, novel, 292 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya opines that "the Arthalamkāra section .... is the weakest portion in the K.A., as is also the case in the K.P. Hemachandra's efforts to reduce their number-67 in Rudrata's K.A. and 61 in the K.P. but 29 in the K.A. which have been provoked by Kuntaka's attitude in the V.J., towards particular Alamkāras -- are at the root of this, which is something unusual in him. Besides Udbhata and Rudrata (and his commentator Namisādhu), the acknowledged authorities on the subject in the old school, he has requisitioned the help of the V.J. and very likely the Udbhața-Viveka of Rājānaka Tilaka ...... Hemachandra's apparent half-hearted compliance with the theory of Parivịttisahatvāsahatva. ..... a point discussed and dismissed by Rājānaka Tilaka ..... and the rejection of (the extra Śabdālaskāras and) a few Arthālamkāras sponsored by Bhoja in the S.K. are significant. Of equal, if not greater, importance is his incorporation of Mahimabhatta's cogent observations in relation to Svabhāvokti (V.V. pp. 390-91 :
471

Page #497

"Ucyate
pratibharpitaḥ").
His indication in the Viveka of Arthantaranyasa is essentially different from what Nidarśana and Anyokti (The nomenclature is after Rudrata, K.A. VIII. 74 and the treatment after the V.J. which calls it with the old name Aprastutaprasamsa) as defined by him reminds one of the confusion apt to be created by the treatment of that figure in the Kavyadarsa of Dandin (e.g. II. 173)", 293
...
On the question of traits of characters dealt with by Hemachandra in Chapter VII, we have attempted a fairly comprehensive review of that chapter, keeping in view his dependence on the N.S. XII and the Abh. Vol. III as well as the D.R. (11) and Avaloka and the SK (for a few verses), 294 It may be noted that although Bharata's analysis is indicatory, yet it is "more detailed, more varied and more comprehensive of the different aspects of character, conduct and condition than what is found preserved or developed in later works of dramaturgy, poetics or erotics", as Dr. Raghavan remarks, 295 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's Comments on Literary Forms in the Kavyānuśāsana.
"The other way of dividing Kavyas based on their form, which is as old as Dandin, is found in the last chapter (VIII) of the Kavyanuśāsana, as it is also in the Kāvyālaṁkāra of Rudrata. The source-book for the whole chapter in all its details is the Śṛngāraprakāśa (Chapter XI), following which we have a mention of twelve major Dṛśya Kavyas and eleven minor ones (with one of them left out and two given a different name). The Nat. Šās., or to be more precise, the Abh.bh., among Kashmir works is used in the text and in the Viveka, on the Dṛśyakavyas generally and the Geya (and Raga-Kavyas), which are treated more fully by his pupil Ramachandra in his Natyadarpaṇa. The Viveka practically on this point is nothing but excerpts from the Abh.bh. Ramachandra's fancy for twelve Rūpakas as opposed to the time-honoured numbering of Bharata is to be traced to Hemachandra's treatment. Amongst noted Alamkara-Nibandha writers, Hemachandra is the first to include

472

Page #498

dramaturgy in his purview though his accounts, even including that in the Viveka, are only scrappy.... Hemachandra's citation in this chapter from Bhaṭṭa Tauta, who had a pronounced leaning towards Dṛśyakāvyas, brings into relief the thinness of the veil separating Dṛśya .. from Sravya Kāvyas, a point hinted at by earlier authorities including Vamana. His affiliation to the Kashmir line of thought is apparent in his echoing the view of Anandavardhana on the place of lyrics in literature" (Dhv. Al. III). 296
Evaluation
Hemachandra's dependence on and indebtedness to different prominent authorities in regard to different aspects of Sanskrit Literary Theory confirms the inevitable impact of great works of theory on later Nibandhas and speaks volumes about the weight of tradition in technical and scientific theoretical works. It is, therefore, not fair to dismiss the Kavyānuśāsana as an unoriginal work. For, "was, for the matter of that, any of the Alaṁkāra Nibandha writers, including the great Mammaṭa, original in the strict sense of the term ?", asks Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya. In view of this, it is not quite correct to describe the Kavyanusāsana as a compilation lacking in originality of a result of plagiarism. In fact, it redounds to the credit of the author of our work that he never loses sight of his theoretical affiliations and supports his stand by means of origins citations from his illustrious predecessors too wellknown to be specified by name. Besides, we should not forget that Hemachandra was writing a scientific work on Poetics and Dramaturgy and as such his citations and assimilations are there on purpose and are quite justified. And Hemachandra has made appropriate use of the masters' works which he considered as universal sources for authoritative writings on the subject of poetics. We should therefore assess the worth of the present work on the basis of Hemachandra's marvellous power of organization of his material as well as his genius for assimilaand selection of relevant thoughts, and
examples
tion

473

Page #499

passages to corroborate his views so as to make his work as authentic, reliable and durable as possible. It was to prepare "a good text-book lucidly setting forth various topics of Alamkāraśāstra in the very words of the masters and serving as a good introduction to the study of the well known authorities that Hemachandra wrote the Kavyānušāsana, and not to lay claim to any unique originality.297 And after going through the whole work, at three levels, it can be said with confidence that the Kāvyānušāsana represents a remarkable attempt at presenting a wide range of poetical topics in terms of the Rasadhvani doctrine. Thus, in the field of poetics, Hemachandra's. work, as a scholar and a teacher, "is far more important than of those who put forward extracts from different authors or commentators and heap them up in a loose disorderly fashion. In a country where much of its valuable heritage has faced the risk of being irretrievably lost, the services of such writers can hardly be overestimated."2 98
471

Page #500

A SYNOPTIC VIEW OF THE LIFE AND WORKS OF HEMACHANDRA
Thanks to the efforts of scholars like Dr. G. Buhler, Prof. R. C. Parikh and others, a connected account of Hemachandracārya's early life is not a matter of mystery or conjecture. Accordingly, Hemachandra was born in 1088 or 1089 A. D. in Dhandhuka near Ahmedabad in a Modha family. He was called Cangadeva in his childhood. He was initiated in Jainism by the famous Jain monk Devachandrasuri, under whom he mastered many branches of Indian Learning or "crossed the ocean of learning." His fascination for the "land of learning" (Kashmir) indicates the deep infiiuence of Kashmirian Scholars' work on his Sastric predilections and is suggestive of the fact that "some of Hemachandra's teachers might have been Kashmirian Panditas." This explains his adherence to the doctrines of poetics developed in Kashmir by such authorities as Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Mammata. For, Kashmir, from early times and particularly in this period, has been the land that furnished the material groundwork and gave the signal io start for investigations by writers all over the country. 290 It stands to reason, therefore, that the life of Hemachandra, who grew to be a man of extensive and extraordinary learning, should have "something to do with Kashmir in matters of learning."

475
11

Page #501

This fits in well with the statement of the Prabhavakacarita that Hemachandra studied in the next twelve years after ordination "Logic and Dialectics as well as Grammar and Poetics and that he mastered these subjects at once on accont of the power of his intelligence which shone clear and pure as light."300 The underlined expression incidentally tallies with Hem achandra's definition of natural genius (K.A.S. 1.5). And Hemachandra's later scholarly attainments show that the statement of the Prabhavakacarita as to his capacities is right and that he must have indeed possessed more than ordinary power of intellect. 301
Hemachandra's term of apprenticeship came to a close in V. S. 1166 (or 1110 A.D.) as he was then ordained as a Sūri or Acarya, an independent exponent of the Holy Scripture and a successor of his teacher."302 Thus we find that he acquired the name Hemachandrachārya as per the custom of the Jain ascetics, at the age of twentyone.
Hemachandra's acquaintance and friendship with two of Gujarat's most illustrious Kings, Siddharaja Jaisimha and his successor Kumarapala, provides a glorious chapter as much in the history of Gujarat as in the history of Sanskrit Literature. Leaving aside questions of how and why and when Hemachandra came into close contact with these two kings, we would do well to focus our attention on the literary outcome of this contact. And in these terms Hemachandra's achievement is stupendous by any standard.
To begin with, it was at Siddharaja's instance that Hemachandra composed his magnum opus, the Siddhahema grammatical treatise. This was the first great technical work in his Anuśāsana series. It was fittingly called 'The Sabdanuśāsana' and the title 'Siddhahemachandra' was given to it to commemorate his deep respect for and love towards the King Siddharaja who was a great lover of belles-lettres. Siddharāja entrusted Hemachandra with the preparation of a new grammar

476

Page #502

as he had an earnest desire to have great works written in his kingdom and country as it was done in Malavā and as he thought that Hemachandra, who had a thorough knowledge of Sanskrit literature and the Brahmanical sciences as well as proficiency in the poetic art, ''was worthy of becoming the Bhoja of Gujarat", 3 0 3
Prof. Buhler hits the nail on the head when he maintains that "the success of his grammar appears to have induced Hemachandra to extend further the scope of his work and to write a number of handbooks which should give the students of Sanskrit composition -- and more particularly of the poetics - complete guidance to correct and eloquent expression. This endeavour led to the compilation of a number of lexica and text-books of rhetorics and metrics as well as of a formal artistic poem which contains the history of the Caulukys kings and princes meant for illustrating the grammatical rules". 3 0 4
Prof. Buhler holds (p. 36) that after his appointment as the Court-Pandit about V.S. 1194, Hemachandra undertook the task of writing complete series of manuals for the worldly science and specially for Sanskrit composition. Of these, the Grammar and its appendices with the commentary, perhaps also both of the Sanskrit Lexics and the first fourteen cantos of the Dvyāśraya were completed befor Jaisimha's death. After V.S. 1199, he appears to have pursued his plan further without worrying about the loss of his position in the court, and worked tirelessly as a private scholar. The first work belonging to this period is his Mannual of Poetics. 305 This is the Kavyānusāsana which we have studied, criticaliy, comparatively and comprehensively, in the preceding pages. Hemachandra's Works
Hemachandra's literary output is so extensive in volume and varied in subject-matter that tradition credits him with the authorship of innumerable works. But Hemachandra himself refers to his main works in the colophon to the T.S.P.C.
477

Page #503

According to this information, the main works of Hemachandra are the following :: (1) The sabdanušāsana, the Grammar with appendices and
Commentary, (2) The Dvyāśrayakāvya, (3) The Kāvyānuśāsana, (4) The Yogaśāstra, (5) The Chando'nuśãsana, (6) The Nāmasamgrah, i.e., The Abhidhānacintāmani, Dešinā
mamāla and other lexicons; and, (7) The T.S.P.C.
To these, we should add : (8) The Vitarāgastutis, (9) The Dvātrimģikās; and, (10) The Pramāņmaimāṁsā.
We have shown above the interconnection of the Anušāsana series and Prof. Buhler, Prof. A. B. Dhruva and Prof. R. C. Parikh have maintained that Hemachandra aimed at treating of "all that the Brahmaņas knew". Prof. Jacobi observes that "Hemachandra has very extensive and at the same time accurate knowledge of many branches of Hindu and Jain learning combined with great literary skill, and an easy style. His streagth lies in encyclopaedical work rather than in original research but the enormous mass of varied information which he gathered from original sources, mostly lost to us, makes his works an inestimable mine for philological and historical research" (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.VI, p. 591). Hemachandra's Poetic Works
Prof. R. C, Parikh justifiably states that "Hemachandra's śāstric works engage so much of our attention that we härdly think of his poetical works, but, a careful study of his Poetic works reveals him to be a poet of no mean order. His two
478

Page #504

Dvyāśrayas, his illustrative verses in the Rāyaṇāvali (or the Dešināmamālā) and the Chandoñuśāsana, the T.S.P.C. and the devotional hymns, throw a flood of light on his poetic faculty".300
Dr. S. P. Narang 307 is right when he sums up that "Hemachandra was an erudite Jain monk who not only digested and reproduced numerous branches of Sanskrit learning but also wrote new technical treatises and lucid poetry. Due to his multifarious productivity in language and literature, he was extolled with the epithet 'Omniscient of the Kali Age' (Kalikālasarvajña). His works comprise dictionaries, philosophical treatises, Sanskrit literery criticism, grammar, original poetry and commentaries." Dr. Narang provides an interesting analytical outline of Hemachandra's Dvyāśrayakavya and also refers to the several works ascribed to him (pp. 6-14) to which we refer the inquisitive reader. Learning was Hemachandra's first love, so much so that "even during the period of his greatest power, when his friendship with Kumārapāla claimed much of him, Hemachandra remained true to his literary aspirations. Besides the Yogaśāstra... and an exhaustive commentary thereon, he wrote between V. S. 1216 and 1229, the Trişaştis'alākāpuruşacarita, the life of sixty three best men."308 Thoug essentially a religious work, this work reveals "genuine poetic qualities of description, emotion and story-telling and proves Hemachandra to be a Mahākavi."'3 0 9
479

Page #505

Page #506

NOTES AND REFERENCES
Prelude
1 "Hemachandra and the Eleventh Century Kashmir
Poeticists" in JOAS (Vol. XXIII, No. 1, 1957) p. 117. 2 Dr. P. V. Kane, History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 289. 3 Prof. R. C. Parikh, Introduction (p. 62) to K. A. S. (2nd
Ed. 1964). 4 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Ibid, p. 117. 5 Ibid, p. 117. 6 Vide, Ibid, p. 117. 7 Ibid, p. 129 & fin. 50.
Chapter One 1 Vāmana introduces his name as well as the title of his
treatise through his benedictory verse (1.1). He too begins with 'Pranamya', as does Bhāmaha (1.1). The Kāmadhenu commentary mentions four objectives of a benedictory verse: (1) Observation of the ancient tradition, (2) Unobstructed completion of the work through propitiation of the deities, (3) Unhindered reception of the work by the readers, and (4) Introduction of the subject-matter and
481
31

Page #507

the aims of the work. Interestingly, Kamadhenu adds that the mentioning of the name of the authors ensures glory and publicity.
2 Vāgbhata (secondus) glorifies the Ardhamāgadhi speech
in almost identical terms (vide The Kavyānušāsana, V.1; N.S. Ed. 1915). The 'Speech of the Jinas' is also propitiated by the authors of the N.D. (1.1). Mammața's benedictory verse characteristically glorifies the poet's
Muse and none else (K.P. I., V.1). 3 cf. "Mangalaṁ cābhidheyam ca
Sambandhas'ca Prayojanaṁ 1 Catväri kathaniyāni
Šāstrasya dhuri dhimata" 11
4 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya notes that "Grammar went hand
in hand with rhetoric and poetics. ... so much so that it was in and through them that speech has... spread its triumphs over thoughts and things". Vide "The Psychological Basis of Alamkāra Litt. etc.," in Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Vol. II(2), 1925, p. 661. Thus, Bhāmaha mentions (1.9) Grammar as the essential of poetry (Also seel,10 & V.4). Dandin (1.6) states that speech employed aright is a desire-yielding cow. But employed amiss, it betrays the degradation of its employer. Vākyapadiya (1.13) underlines the same idea. For the words 'Sadhu' & 'Asādhu', Vide, Väkyapadiya 1.25, 27, 29. Dandin (1.3-4) also stresses the same point. Vide also "Indian Poetic Tradition" for the esoteric and aesthetic significance of Sādhu Vāk (Introduction, pp.11-12.)
However, later theorists like Mammața take this aspect of the 'correct speech' for granted. For grammatical and syntactical correctness is essential fort he mastery of the medium. See Vamana's K. A. S. (1.3.4.) for a further explicit statement on this point.
482

Page #508

5
This topic is connected with the nature and cause of Kāvya which is dealt with in a separate sutra (1.3). But since the word Kavya in 1.2 needs explanation, it is explained in terms of Tauta's quotation. This quotation is connected with Tauta's theory of the Imagination - which theory was reverentially accepted by Abhinavagupta in his Locana and which became canonical in later works. This poetic imagination "is that gift of mind by whose aid one can visualise myriad new things anew. It is by virtue of this gift alone that one deserves the title of a poet. His poetry abounds in imaginative description." Tauta's views on the office of the poet are also quoted by Hemachandra on p. 432 (Chapter-VIII, quote-46). Tauta's aesthetic philosophy goes to the very heart of the poetic art. Vide Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's, observations in "Studies in Indian Poetics" ("Three Lost Masterpieces of Alamkāraśāstra'') : "Some of his (Bhatta Tota's) dicta as thoes concerning the relative place of Pratibhā (originality). ... and information (Vyutpatti) in affording the clue to poetic inspiration; .... concerning the mechanical or formative function (Vibhāvavyāpāra) coming to the aid of creative impulse or poetic intuition (Darśana) through description (Varṇana) are well known and form instructive and refreshing reading."
6 Hemachandra's gloss here in unmistakably an echo of
Mammața's gloss on K.P.I. 2 of. Bhämaha (1. 2) and Rudrata (1. 4-12). Dhananjaya redicules the idea that "from dramas, which distil joy, the gain is knowledge only, as in the case of history and the like; for it is a case of turning your face away from what is delightful !" (D.R.I. 6). Also read the Avaloka on this verse: FaithTACENT Targt fre4791 424
7
This didactic aim of poetry is, in fact, extra-literary. But since Moralists put forward the stock argument -
483

Page #509

'काव्यालापांश्च वर्जयेत्', it is imperative that poeticists must convincingly establish the acceptability of Kāvya. In K.A.S. (1. 1. 1-2) Vamana makes an important point which serves as a reply to the moralists. Mammata reply (K.P. I. 1) seems to lie in showing the uniqueness and superiority of the poetic creation. Bhamaha (V. 3) points out that being delightfu land indirectly instructive Kavya has a greater appeal. This is Mammata's and Hemachandra's view also. Abhinava is followed by both.
8 "Sarasvatyāstattvaṁ kavisahṛdayākhyaṁ vijayate", Locana, opening verse (p. 1).
9 From here the discussion of the subject of The Making of A True Poet starts.
The question of the interplay of various factors in. the creative process has engaged the attention of Literary theorists and Art critics through the ages but it has defied elearer explanation. The main reason for this is that it is impossible to attemp an objective analysis of the inner workings of a creative mind. The problem is also complicated by the social and cultural values. associated with the role of a poet. Difference of opinion. regarding the origin of creativity also hampers clearer exposition. Hence, inspite of researches by specialists. and theorizing by critics and philosphers, the eternal. question still remains: "Are poets born or made ?"
Theorists like Bhamaha (I. 5), Daṇḍin (I. 103), Vāmana (1.3. 16 and gloss), Rudrața (1. 14), Mammata (1.3) and others try to answer this question in their respective works. Hemachandra insists that Pratibha is the sine qua non of poetic creation. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy (Essays in Sk. Litt. Criticism, p. 174) gives credit to Vamana for describing Pratibha in an acceptable way. Rudrata distinguishes Sahaja and Utpadya varieties of Prtibha or Poetic Imagination.

484

Page #510

10 Vide IV K.A.S. III. 3 off. See Chap. IV Infra. 11 cf. Bhāmaha VI. 24 : alat qysia etc. 12 VKASV. 1.3-5-6, 7-11 etc. Vāmana gives greater details,
Vide Dr. S. K. De, HSP-II, p. 43. 13 Rājasekhara describes śāstra as growing like a big river
(K.M. II). 14 Dr. S. K. De denies Kaviśikṣā a place under general
Poetics. HSP-11 (Chapter-X), p. 287. 15 Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, "Sanskrit Writers on Plagiansm" in
"Studies in Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra", pp. 2-3. (p. 54) Also See F. W. Thomas' paper on 'The Making of a Sanskrit Poet' in Sir R. G. Bhandarkara Comm. Vol.. BORI, 1917.
16 Anandavardhana deals with Samväda or coincidences in
poems by different great authors (Dhv. Al. IV. 11). He warns that all such coincidences should not be regarded as identical (involving plagiarism).
17 Quoted by Dr. P. V. Kane from the Alamkārasekhara,
p. 20 (Nir. Ed.).
18 Vide Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya on "Three Lost Master
pieces of Alaskāraśāstra" in "Studies in Indian Poetics", pp. 29, 32 etc. He laments the loss of Udbhata's Bhāmahavivarana and underlines the position of the three lost works as feeder-streams to later writers (p. 29).
Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy ("Studies in Indian Aesthetics and Criticism', p. 33) discusses the recovery of Udbhata's work in his article "Fragments from Udbhata's
Bhāmahavivarana". 19 Dhv. Al. 11. 19 ff. Infusing poetry with suggestion, its
soul, and following faithfully the specified ways in which
485

Page #511

the gallaxy of figures like metaphor etc. can be harmonized with Rasa-development - such aspects can never be overemphasized.
Chapter Two 20 Vide 'Indian Theories of Meaning' by Dr. K. K. Raja
pp. 253-54. 21 Ibid p. 19. Dr. K. K. Raja writes : "The essential nature
of a word lies in its significative power (Sabda : Śaktam padam)"; Vide pp. 19-24 for a critical review of the diff.
theories on the primary signification. 22 Vide K.P. 11. 8, gloss. 23 'Sanketo gļhyate jātau guņadravyakriyāşu ca'. 24 K.P. II. 8 ff. 25 Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja clearly explains the nature of the
metaphoric usage in Indian Theories of Meaning',
Chap. 6, p. 231 etc. 26 'Gunanimittä Vrttirgauņīvșttih' or 'Guņebhya āgatā gauņi.'
27 Gautama applies the term Upacara to this secondary
function of words. Vide 'Indian Theories of Meaning', pp. 233-234. The motive element is greatly emphasized by the Literary Critics.
28 Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja writes : "According to Kumārilabhatta
and other Mimāṁsakas Gauņi and Lakşaņā are two separate functions of words; but other schools of thought, who also accept this distinction, consider them as two varieties of the secondary power of words, and they use the term Laksaņā to cover both, the former being called Gauni Laksaņā or Upacāra and the latter śuddha
(pure) Lakşaņā." (Emphasis added) Ibid, p. 240. 29 Ibid, p. 240 (see f.n. 28, above).
486

Page #512

30
Vide Dr. V. Raghavan's Bhoja's Śr. Pr. pp.18, 88, 92. Bhoja includes Mukhyā, Gauņi and Lakşaņā under Abhidha or Vịtti. Bhoja's Gauņi is twofold.
31 Mammața clearly states in K.P. II. 9 (gloss) that "this
twofold (indication) is pure as it is not mixed with Upacara (i.e. fancied identification based on resemblance). Vide Indian Theories of Meaning', p. 241 for a lucid
exposition. Also cf. K.P. 11. 12 ff. 32/33 Mammata devotes a separtes Sūtra (K. P. II. 6) to
Tātparyārtha. Vide Dr. K. K. Raja, Ibid, p. 151.
34 Ānandavardhana uses the term Sahşdaya. Abhinava
defines this term in his Locana (p. 38). And in the same work (p. 68) he reiterates that in poetic enjoyment the connoisseur's active participation is a must. Bhatta Tauta supports this joint effort of the poet and the reader (Locana, p. 92).
35
V. J. 1. 8. Kuntaka says : "The meaning' is that which is signified and the 'word' is that which signifies. This is so well known that it needs no elaboration. But in the province of poetry their true nature is as follows (1.9). cf. Dhv. Al. 1.3 For 'Prasiddha' cf. Dhv. Al. 1.3.
36
Vide K.P.11. 12 ff. In the twofold qualitative indication, cognition of identity despite difference in substratum and the cognition of complete identity (respectively) is the purpose. But in the two varieties of pure indication the capability of bringing about the result in a way distinct from others and without fail is the purpose.
37
"Irony" is explained as "a peculiar mode of thought and expression in which the meaning of the speaker is contrary to the literal sense. It is a form of covert sarcasm, mockery, a satire, perhaps the most crushing
487

Page #513

40
41
and irresistible figure of rhetoric." The Encyclopaedia American, Vol. 15, p. 390.
38 Vide 'Indian Theories of Meaning', p. 258 (re: Lakṣaṇā and Arthapatti).
42
For fuller discussion of Kaku or Intonation, read Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's paper on "The Treatment of Intonation (Kāku) in SK. Poetics" in his 'Studies in Sanskrit Sahitya'sastra', Chapter III, pp. 28-36.
39 Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, Introduction (p. 28) to 'Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka.' Prof. Hiriyanna considers the theory of Dhvani wide enough to cover all forms of Art. Vide Art Experience, (1954), p. 71.
Dr. Krishnamoorthy, Ibid, pp. 25-26.
43
Hemachandra rejects it as a figure and takes it as a case of subordinate suggestion but provides all useful information about Kāku. Vide Ibid pp. 33 & 35.
Abhinava explains that here there is neither prohibition of going nor another Vidhi to redress another prohibition. cf. Malatimadhava III. 3.
K.P. III. 23 etc. Here Mammata underlines that in the suggestiveness of the meaning, there is cooperation of the word. He stressess in the gloss that a sense which is known from any other means of proof is never suggestive. This is an important characteristic of Dhvani.
Hemachandra notes that Prakarana is Asabda whereas Artha is Sabdavān. Hence the former is non-verbal but the latter is verbal or mentioned in so many words.
44
Auciti is a restrictive factor of the sense of a homonym. It is a contextual factor with several others and a key to Ambiguity and Equivocation cf. V.P. II. 316.
Also see The Indian Theories of Meaning. pp. 48-56.

488

Page #514

45 On Kāku ref. to K. M. (VII). It is a modulation of voice
and the soul of poetry according to Rajasekhara. It helps reveal a meaning not expressed and is related to the process of suggestion.
Vide Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's views on Kāku, "Studies in S. K. Sahityaśāstra", pp. 38-36. 46 Vide f.n. 45 above. cf. "In considering utterances, it
must be constantly remembered that they occur in a context, with a certain intonation, and that this context and intonation are essential to their analysis and interpretation." Paul Henle, Language, Toyught and
Culture', p. 123. 47 Vide Dhvanyaloka (II), p. 74 (B. P. Bhattacharya's ed.). 48/49 Svataḥsambhavi is a subdivision of the Arthasakti mūla
vyangya. Abhinava admirably brings out the suggestion
in the verse 140 cited in Viveka. 50 Abhinava says that śābdivyañjanā is due to double
entendre' (e.g. Goparāga) but Ārthi is due to context
(Prakarana). 51 Gloss on Dhv. Al. 1.23. 52 B. P. Bhattacharya's ed. of Dhvanyaloka (!), pp. 109-110. 53 cf. Dhv. Al. 11.28 for the difference between an expressed
and a suggested poetic figure. 54 Cited in the Dhv. Al. under 11.27 where the reading is
Virānām (Vide Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's ed., p. 92) Here it
is an example of Upamādhvani. 55 Viveka, p. 74. 56 Cited in the K.P.X (v. 407) as also in the Locana. 57 Vide Ekavali III. 1 (with Taralā) K. P. T. 's ed. 58 Vide, Taralā on EK. III. 1
489

Page #515

59 Abhinavagupta on Dhv. Āl. 1.1 declares that Rasadhvani
is relishable through the poetic process only and that is the real Dhvani; that indeed is the soul of a poem. This is never expressed by its own terms; nor can it be evidenced in the worldly affairs.
Vide K. Ram Pisharoti's summary of the Locana, The Dhvanyaloka, pp. 283-88, Indian Thought, 1917. 60 Vide Dr. Krishnamoorthy, The Dhvanyaloka and Its
Critics, p.110, f.n. 9. Also read Notes to Dhv. Al 1.9 (p.309).
Chapter Three 61 cf. Dr. S. K. De: "... the solution depending upon the
explanation of the two much discussed terms 'Samyoga' and 'Nişpatti' in Bharata's original dictum. ..." - 'Some
Problems of Sanskrit Poetics', p.193. 62 Vide K. M. Varma's "Seven Words In Bharata : What
do they signify ?" Orient Longman, Bombay etc., 1958.
63 R. Gnoli observes : “The Nātyaśāstra is a work of
deep psychological insight." Introduction to 'The Aesthetic
Experience According to Abhinavagupta'. p. XIV. 64 i. e. the Sahrdaya of Anandavardhana. 65 Hemachandra, in fact, omits some portion and in other
respects rewrites the text but retains the main thrust of Abhinava's thesis. We get the full meaning of Abhinava's view if we read Mam mata's text with our author's gloss - which method is employed here.
66
Vide K.A.S. p. 104 (gloss), v. 93-95 and Viveka, pp. 104-105
A. Sankaran explains some of these verses in his
"Some Aspects of Sanskrit Literary Criticism" pp. 75-76 etc.
490

Page #516

67 J. L. Masson and M. V. Patawardhan's studies provide
an in-depth discussion of Abhinavagupta's Aesthetics. 68 K.A.S. II. ff.
69 Vide 'Aesthetic Rapture' Vol. I, p. 54 (N.S. VI) "Now
the Rasa called Vira has only noble people for its characters....."
70 Vibhāva iti kasmāducyate etc.' N.S. VIII. 3 ff. But in
Chapter VI extensive details of Alambanavibhāvas are
given. This is the sense of the present reference. 71 Cf. The Dasarūpa, Hass, p. 132. 72 Vide A. Sankaran, Ibid, p. 99. 73 In both the verses, the word śoka occurs. Hence it is
not Rasabhūta but Vācyabhūta. 74 Vide R. Gnoli, The Aesthetic Exp. etc., p. 31, f.n. 7. 75 Based on a wrong interpretation of N.S. VI. 46 according
to Abhinava. According to this school of Indian philosophy, the external objects are a menifestation of Praksti which consists of pleasure, pain and stupor; so the objects also consist of pleasure, pain, etc.
76
Cf. Hemachandra's definition of poetry in K. A. S. 1. 11. It is a 'classical' defnition in view of Bhattanayaka's theory of Rasa
Cf. Abhinava's comments on Dhv. Al. 11.4 Also read S. D. III 2-3 on Aesthetic Experience. According to Visvanatha, Sattva is nothing but the mind or inner sense (Manah) devoid of any contact with Rajas or Tamas. Mammața uses 'Sattvo drekaprakāśa' (K.P. IV. p. 68). Vide Gnoli, Ibid, p. 48, f.n. 1, for the association of the aesthetic with the mystical experience.
78
491

Page #517

79 Vide Ibid, Appendix ili, p. 113. In his Locana on Dhy.
Al. II. 4, Abhinavagupta reviews Bhațțanāyaka's position. 80 See further, p. 220, "So it is settled that Rasa is the aim
of the poem." 81 Gnoi, Ibid, p. 51, f.n. 1. 82 Viveka, p. 97, last two lines and continued on p. 98, first
para-upto the end of the quotation no. 37. In between, Hema chandra has omitted a few lines. Even Quote-35 is absent in the Abh. bh. portion in Gnoli's text (p. 11). Hemachandra also omits "Āmnayasiddhaḥ. ....etc."
-" the three well known verse. (See Gnoli, Ibid, p. 12). 83 Viveka, p. 98, Quote-37. 84 This consciousness or Pratipatti lies in passing from the
original to another. It is termed propulsion, order or command (Vidhi or Niyoga) in Mimāṁsā. The followers of Prabhakara use विधि/नियोग, but the disciples of Kumarila prefer Bhāvana.
This shift of sense is explained by means of the three verses (p. 98, Quote-37) cited here from some work on Poetics (may be the Hțdayadarpana of Bhattanāyaka,
a lost work). 85 Ekaghana means 'dense', 'compact', 'uniform' etc. and
implies, 'non-interference of obstacles (facas ). Vide,
Gnoli, Ibid, p. 59. 86 Vide, Gnoli, Ibid, p. 59, f.n.4.
87 The significant term Nāțyadharmi (N.S. V1.25, XIII. 70 ff)
refers to all the theatrical paraphernaliascenery, costumes,
traditional conventions, etc. 88 The styles or Vșttis are four : Kaišiki, Sāttvati, Ārabhati
and Bharāti (Vide D. R. Hass, p. 74). The Pravșttis or
492

Page #518

local usages are also four: Dākṣiṇātyā, Āvanti, Auạramāgadhi and Pāñcāli. These very from country to country and add local colour.
89 Abhinava observes in his Locan on Dhv. Al. I. 5 ff. : "Rasa
is simply the tasting of the mental movement, corresponding, for instance, to the Vibhāvas and the Anubhāvas of the mental state of sorrow (Šoka). The expression that the Sthāyins become Rasa arises, solely, by correspondence (Aucitya). For a gist of the Locana text vide K. Rama Pisaroti, The Dhvanyaloka with Locana in English,
Indian Thought, 1917. pp. 361-363. 90 The Viveka (p. 109) points out that ladies and gents
(Vibhāvas) and seasons, garlands etc. (Vibhāvas) are completely found in plays like the Ratnāvali etc. The Vibhāvas in both these aspects must be considered as of śrngara as a whole. This is as it should be, for, otherwise there will not be one Rasa, due to difference of Vibhāvas. In Muktaka, however, we have to imagine the Vibhāvas.
91 Vide, Viveka (p. 114) under "Sankrāntyeti". 92 Abh. bh. Vol. I, p. 321.
93
Ibid, p. 321.
94 Dr. S. K. De doubts if Bharata accepted śānta as a
Rasa at all as the text in question is far from genuine. Abhinava's words also imply that Rasas are generally eight, but some add a ninth. Vide "Some Problems of Sanskrit Poetics", p. 139.
Also read Dr. V. Raghavan, 'The Number of Rasas', Chap. I. 95 Abhinavabharati regards, rather curiously, Nirveda as the
Uddipanavibhāva with Tattvanjñaña as the Sthāyin.
493

Page #519

96 "prefent are graficha FTTCThEArfaT:
. व्यापारप्रविलयरूपस्याभिनयायोगात् ।”
THE falgaa
-
97 Dr. S. K. De puts the views of Dhananjaya and Dhanika
on Sānta in a proper perspective when he remarks that "Dhananjaya himself would object to śānta only in the Nātya. ... but he would permit it in the Kāvya. . . But..... Dhanika would not allow Śänta even in poetry." Read further for Dhanika's reasons, Dr. De's "Some Problems of S. K. Poetics" p. 142.
98
The Viveka (p. 126) explains it as 'the most permanent among all permanent moods" as it underlies all Sthāyins and is Sthāyin by nature; for it does not need causes to arouse it like Rati etc.
99 Hemachandra takes up Tattvajñāna (Viveka, p. 139) for
elucidation. Following Abhinava, he states that Tattvajñāna or knowledge of truth here is Samyagjñāna which causes Nirveda to be born; but this Tattvajñana does not mean Ātmajñāna; for the latter is the Sthāyin of Santa. This Nirveda is not capable of causing Puruşārthasiddhi or of becoming a Sthāying like Utsaha, Rati, etc., (i.e. capable to colour others) or like Hāsya, etc; but depends on another Sthāyin. Hence it is only a Vyabhicärin.
100
Vide Viveka (p. 144) under "Prāṇabhūmiti'. It may be noted here that while elucidating the Rasasūtra, Hemachandra follows Abhinavagupta, (but) in his treatment of the allied aspects of Rasa theory he is influenced by Bharata, Anandavardhana, Dhananjaya, Dhanika and Bhoja. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya hints at this (Vide "Hemachandra and the Eleventh Cent. Kashmir Poeticists', pp. 120-21, f.n. 12-15). Prof. Bhattacharya refers to Bhoja's views being adumbrated by Hemachandra on Rasābhāsa and adoption of the Nine-rasa view of Abhinava with three long extracts from the Abh. bh. "one of which discusses the
494

Page #520

Sättvikabhāvas, as emanating from the transformation of the human body in the elemental aspect."
101
On Hemachandra's Sättvikabhāvas, P. Pañcāpagesa Šāstri (Philosophy of Aesthetic Pleasure, pp. 41-42) gives a cogent explanation wherein he state that Bharata explains Sättvikabhavas in the primary sense of "those conditions of the mind that give birth to the external signs such as stupefaction, perspiration and horripilation". Thus the external signs are only the Anubhavas of the conditions of the mind. Even Glāni and śrama (accessories) seem to denote not the mental conditions but the external expressions of them. So we have to understand by Sättvikabhāvas the conditions of mind and stambha, Sveda, Romāñca as their external signs. Hemachandra elaborates Bharata's explanation a little further and brings out the meaning of the passage of Bharata (N.S. VII. 93). This is Hemachandra's contribution.
102 Vide Ekavali (K.P.T.'s ed.) p. 106 (Text); Notes; pp. 445-46
where S.K. V. 20 is quoted and S. D. is referred to. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya (Ibid, f.n. 40) states that Bhoja's view is adumbrated by Hemachandra on Rasābhāsa.
Vide, Dr. Raghavan, 'Introduction to Indian Poetics', p. 110. Kşemendra covers Rasābhāsa etc. in Aucityavicaracarca (1. 16) under Rasaucitya.
Cf. De (HSP-11), p. 279 Visvanatha (S.D. III. 263-66) elaborately summarizes some other cases. Vide, The Sahityadarpana (I, II, X) by P.V. Kane, Notes, p. 29, for Visvanatha's concept of Rasābhāsa,
Shri S. P. Bharadwaj thinks that Bhamaha and Dandin imply acceptance of Rasābhāsa and believes that this concept evolved earlier. He finally holds that the concept
495.

Page #521

arose in the commentaries on The Nātyaśāstra. Vide : "The Exponent of Ābhāsa concept in Rasa Theory" in Festschrift Charudev Shastri, 1974.
In an excellent review of the concept of Rasābhāsa (Studies in Indian Poetics, pp. 91-100), Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya blames Mammața for being 'terse and concise at the expense of precision' in his definition of Rasābhāsa. His failure to explain what Anaucitya means causes confusion and leads to two sets of views : Anaucitya in the sense of (1) non-applicability of the definition of the Rasa concerned or (2) as partial application thereof. Hemachandra follows the second line but supplements it with another idea derived from "a tradition different from that usually associated with Bharata. ... There is no Rasa but Rasābhāsa in connection with animal's (Tiryakşu) is a view of this line of thought which has been subjected to adverse criticism" (Vide Ekavali, B.S.S. Ed. p. 106 for this criticism. But vide Rasārņavasudhākara (p. 268), a stray advocate of the tradition represented by Bhoja, for a counter-attack. Udbhata uses Anaucityapravṛtta and Abhāsa.... known to Mammata (Vide Ibid, pp. 91-92, 94-97). Dr. Krishnamoorthy commends Bhoja's clarification, which Hemachandra heeds. (Essays etc., pp. 114-136) Hemachandra treats of Rasābhāsa in two Sūtras (II. 54 and 55) and is more explicit on Anaucitya. He proves to be a good follower of Ānandavardhana. (Vide K.A.S. pp. 16, 18, 65, 102, 149, 199 etc.)
Finally, J. L. Masson and M. V. Patawardhan refer to the curious fact that "the important concept of Ābhāsa is not dealt with" in the N. S. and lament Bharata's oversight in distinguishing genuine situations from spurious ones. They criticise many of later discussions as they "smack of too much theorizing". Vide 'Aesthetic Rapture' Vol. I, p. 42.
496

Page #522

103 Dr. H. R. Misra observes: "This synthesis (of Abhinava),
...admits that the Abhāsa of all other Rasas except the Hasya (its Ābhāsa also) are nothing but cases of the Hāsyarasa. ....". The Theory of Rasa in Sanskrit Drama,
p. 388. 104 Prof. A. B. Gajendragadkar opines that "All instances
of Rasavadalamkāra would, according to Mammața, be cases of Dhvani and Gunibhūtvyangya. Thus 'Ayam sa rašanotkarşı. ...' is Dhvani viewed as śộngāra". Vide Notes on K.P. II.
For the definition of Rasavadalamkāra in the Dhvani theory, Vide Dhv. ĀI. II 4 ff. Also vide Dr. S. K. De, HSP. II, 192-93 & f.n. 18.
Chapter Four 105 K.P. VII 49. On the different concept of Doșa, vide,
'Outline of Sanskrit Poetics', p. 41. 106 Vide Prof. D. T. Chandorkara's Ed. of the K.P., Chap. VII
(Poona, 1983), p. 5 (Notes). 107 Besides Ânandavardhana whose views on Dosa in the
Dhvanyaloka are not only followed by Mammața but also codified for the first time in his Kāvyaprakāśa, in consonance with the theory of Rasadhvani.
108 Autsukya or Eagerness is the Sañcāribhāva mentioned
here by name. Now, had it been suggested by gestures like flurry etc., its naming would have been redundant, But since the word Autsukya is needed here, its mention by name does not offend too much.
109 Hemachandra observes in the gloss (p. 170. v. 200 ff)
that to try to heighten a Rasa after it has reached the climax is as disgusting an attempt as the attempt to smell a faded flower with a renewed passion. cf. Dhv. Al. III, 19.
497
32

Page #523

110
111
112
Hemachandra quotes Anandavardhana's famous dictum on Aucitya here: "Anaucityādṛte nanyad etc." (Dhv. Al. III) to drive home the point that appropriateness of characterisation, speech, dress, time, physical conditions should be observed. The fact that Hemachandra concludes his discussion of the Rasadosas by quoting this memorable Kārikā (a sangraha śloka), clearly shows that Hemachandra abides by the teachings of the master, i.e. Anandavardhana in whose opinion, Aucitya or propriety is the most fundamental principle governing the delineation of Rasa in poetry. Now, the corollary of this is that when Rasabhanga (i.e., the Kavyartha) or hindrance to the progress of Rasa takes place, the principle of propriety is compromised. In other words, Doṣas which mar the sentiment of a poem spring from lack of Aucitya or Anaucitya. Thus Anaucitya, as Anandavardhana and Mahimab hatta (and even Kuntaka) state, is the greatest Dosa in a poem. Therefore, the deterrents of Rasa are called Rasadoṣas. And this is what Mammata also says. Hemachandra more clearly states that Dosas are those that detract from or mar the Rasa.
Mammata's Kārikā (K.P. VII. 54) contains a Dosa called 'Anabhihitavācyam' i.e. omitting necessary or Dyotaka words. This explains Hemachandra's Avaśyavācyam etc. in Viveka (pp. 202-4) which is based on Vyaktiviveka II. In the Sahityadar paṇa, we have 'Vacyasya anabhidhānam' which is Nyunapadatva in a way according to Hemachandra. The difference is that in Nyūnapada, the deficiency relates to Vacakapadas, whereas in Vacyānabhidhana, it relates to Dyotakapadas like Api etc.; since 'Upasargāṇāṁ vācakatvaṁ nasti kevalaṁ dyotakatvam'.
113 Viveka, p. 211.
114 The dictum is 'Yattadornityasambandhaḥ'. The Viveka comments on this under Tadeti (p. 211).

498

Page #524

115 Vide K. P. VII, Prof. Chandorkara's Ed. p. 82 (Footnote). 116 Mahimabhaṭṭa believes, quite originally, that the harshness of a metre is also an impropriety or Duṣaṇa of the Word (Sabda-anaucitya) because it serves the cause of the Rasa, very much like the figures of words such as alliteration etc. However, its harshness does not depend on the word alone and as such it is not discussed along with Vidheyamarśa etc. (Vide V.V. II., p. 181, R. P. Dvivedi's Ed.) Mahimabhatta thus considers Metre as a Sabdalaṁkāra and clarifies this later in these words: "Ata eva Yamakānuprāsayoriva Vṛttasyāpi śabdālaṁkāratvam upagatamasmābhiḥ." For a discussion of this topic, vide Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's interesting article: "A Novel View of Mahimabhatta: On the place of Metre in Poetry"-Essays in Sanskrit Literary Criticism, pp. 137-144. Hemachandra's treatment of this fault is, therefore, quite in keeping with the best tradition of Anandavardhana, Mahimabhaṭṭa and Mammata.
117
Hemachandra gives some more illustrative verses (254-255). In 255, we find that the metre is Dodhaka, a light jolly dancing metre always used to describe things in a lighter vein. But the verse describes lamentations. The metre, therefore, is unsuited to the pathetic sentiment. Hence the blemish of Hatavṛttatva; for Dodhaka suggests a comic tone.
Generally Mandakranta, Puspitagra, etc., suit the Pathetic; Pṛthvi, Sragdhara, etc., suit the Erotic; Śārdūlavikrīḍita, Sikhariņi, etc., suit the Heroic; and Dodhaka suits the Comic.
It will be of interest to note here that the second chapter of Kṣemendra's Suvṛttatilaka discusses the excellences and blemishes of metres in general. Kṣemendra also lays down their special usage by dividing poetry into four types on the basis of matter ond form and

499

Page #525

stresses propriety of metres. This work is important: from a literary view point also. Hemachandra's work on metres is the Chando'nušāsana. It follows the traditional scheme and contains only the definitions of metres; it does not give examples. Vide, Dr. Suryakant, Kșemendra Studies, pp. 78-88. Vide V.V. II, p. 301, Mahimabhatta gives alternate verse to remove the fault. On Vivek page 216, Hemachandra reproduces a passage from the V.V. (p. 288), under Pratyavocata etc., though he drops some expressions and verses in between. The point at issue in this present para is that the fault of Prakramabheda is akin to Vidheyāmarsa but as a fault it depends more on difference of manner of treatment rather than on non-predication. It involves propriety of Word, e.g., in Tālājāyanti etc. An unbroken harmony of start and end is good for poetry. Any breach ot that harmony is indeed a fault. The quotation from
Vāmana (5-1-1) does not apply here. 119 Vide S. C. Sen Gupta's "Towards A Thery of the
Imagination" pp. 152-53. 120 The Doctrine of Dosas in Sanskrit Poetics in "Essays in
Sanskrit Criticism" pp. 163-64.
Chapter Five :
121 Kavyapradipa explains Acalasthitayah and gives three
characteristics of Guņa. Vide K. P. P. (Nir. Ed.), p. 274. (K. P. VIII. 1 ff).
122 'Santamiti etc.' is explained ably by K. P. P., p. 275 (K. P.
VIII. 2 ff).
123 Kāvyapradipa also disposes of Udbhata's views on the
distinction between Guņas and Alaskarās, p. 278 (K. P. VIII 2 ff).
500

Page #526

Bhoja follows Vāmana and quotes him on the nature of Guņa and Alamkāra. Vide Dr. V. Raghavan's Bhoja's Śr. Pr. 353. Also read pp. 300-301. Vāmana holds that Guņas are properties creating charm in poetry, whereas figures are the causes of the excess of charm and quotes
Yuvateriva etc. and Yadi bhavati etc. (3. 1. 1-2). 124 cf E. kāvali vv. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, p. 147 K.P.T.'s Ed. 125 Dr. P. C. Lahiri, Concepts of Riti and Guna, p. 198.
126 Dr. S. K. De, HSP-II, p. 219. 127 Ibid, p. 220, f.n. 3.
128 Dr. De points out that this exposition of Mammața follows
and expands Dhv. Al. II. 8-11 and observes : "But it is possible that the original hint of associating these effects on the mental condition of the reader with three Guņas was supplied by Bhattanāyaka (Locana p. 68 ) who speaks of the enjoyment (Bhoga) of Rasa as being characterized by the mental conditions of expanding
.... pervading ... and melting...." HSP. p. 220. 129 Dr. V. Raghavan holds that Mammața's work is the
earliest we have now, which worked out the theory of Guņas formulated by Anandavardhana, by refuting other Guņas and by dismissing them, some as Alamkāras etc., and some as the reverses of Dosas. Mammața follows Ānandavardhana and Abhinava completely and refutes Udbhața and Vamana on Guņa and defines the three
Guņas. Vide Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 343. 130 Ibid. pp. 336-7. 131 Kavyānušāsana 1. 12 ff. 132 lbid, 1. 12 ff, p. 34. 133 Bh. Sr. Pr., pp. 337-8.
501

Page #527

134 Mammața's three grounds (K.P. VIII. 72) may be compared
with Hemachandra's three grounds : (1) Lakşaņa-vyabhicāra
(2) Antarbhāva (3) Doșābhāvatva. 135 (A) Yuvateriva etc. Vāmana's, and
(B) Yadi bhavati etc. VKAS 31. 2 ff.
Bhoja quotes these verses and adds a third of his own to these to emphasize the view that it is only when the body poetic has already the beauty of the Guņas that it can be beautified by the addition of Alaikāra. Vide
Dr. Raghavan's 'Bhoja's śr. Pr.,' p. 301. 136 Cf. Dhv. Al. II. 7 (gloss) and Locana thereon. 137 Ānandavardhana's word Ārdratā (Dhv. Al. 11.6 f and 11. 8)
is explained by Abhinava (Locana p. 207) as Softening of the heart and removal of properties such as anger,
fierceness, etc. 138 Vide Viveka, p. 290. 139 Dr. V. Raghavan, 'Some Concepts of Alaskāraśāstra',
p. 139. Also read 'Bhoja's Śr. Pr.' pp. 291-92-93, for
first differentiation between Guna and Alamkāra in Dandin. 140 'Some Concepts of Alamkāraśāstra', p. 139. 141 Ibid, p. 141. 142 Ibid, p. 143. 143 Ibid, p. 144. 144 lbid, p. 146. 145 Ibid, p. 190 (cf. Rudrata 11.9 ff).
146 Dhv. Al. III. 6 also endorses this 'change in the fixed
nature of composition'. N.B.: Samghatanā is under discussion here. Viśvanātha also (S.D. IX. 5) follows this lead. So Hemachandra is in good company,
502

Page #528

147 Mammața (K. P. VIII. 77) is more specific when he comm
ents on the same verse to point out the departure
(from rules) in respect of diction, compounds and letters. 148 Bhoja's S. p. p. 336. 149 Ibid, p. 338. 150 lbid, p. 339. 151 i.e. pp. 287–288 in the K. A. S. MJV 2nd ed. used here. 152 Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 339. 153 Vide Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's paper : 'Mangala a Neglected
Name in SK Poetics' included in “Studies in Indian
Aesthetics and Criticism", pp. 109-120. 154 Vide Bhoja's S.P. pp. 265-270 (on Guna).
Also vide, C. R. Devadhara's paper on The Arthaguņa Ślesa in 'A Volume of Studies in Indology presented to Dr. P. V. Kane' (1941) pp. 147-154.
Prof. Devadhara says Bhoja, Mammața, Hemachandra, Visvanātha (S.D. VIII. 6), Jagannātha and Commentators hold that Arthaslesa is cleverness in the combination of ingenious incidents. Thus śleşa is a feature of plotconstruction. This is referred to as Ghataņāśleşa. Vāmana
refers to sudraka's work as abounding in this device. 155 Samadhi is slackness and closeness of style, so arranged
as not to cause disgust. It consists in the ascent and descend of Caesura (Yati). (Vide Vāmana's Vștti quoted
in K.P.P. p. 331). 156 "The verbal and ideal forms of 'sweetness' have been
called Vāg-rasa and Vastu-rasa respectively." - Dr. D. K. Gupta, 'A Critical Study of Dandin', p. 151.
On Dandin's Madhurya, read Dr. V. Raghavan, Bhoja's S.P., p. 274.
503

Page #529

157 Vārtā is Upacāravacana and Varnana is Prašamsāvacana.
Vide Dr. D. K. Gupta, Ibid, pp. 158–159. 158 Bhoja's S. P., p. 289. 159 Vāmana talks of Rasa in connection with his Kanti. If
Bhāmaha and Dandin held Rasa as Alankāra, Vāmana termed it a Guņa, i.e., the Arthaguņa Kanti.
Chapter Six 160 Cf. Dhv. Al. II. 18. 161 Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy, The Dhvanyaloka and its Critics,
p. 151. 162 Bhämaha again refers to the twofoldness of poetic figures (V. 66).
Dr. V. Raghavan notes thess two sets of Bhāmaha (Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 378). 163 While Mammata bases this classification on Anvayāvya
tireka, Ruyyaka adopts Āśraya-āśrayibhāva as the basis.
Vide, Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 380 etc. 164 Vide, KASS (N.S. Ed.), pp. 5-7. 165 lbid, p. 7. 166 Mr. Banahatti regards Anuprāsa and the Vșttis as a new
feature of Udbhata's work. The Vșttis do not exist in Bhāmaha's work. Mammata's treatment of Anuprāsa is very similar to Udbhata's. Vide KASS B.S.S. ed., BORI,
2nd ed. 1982, Notes, p. 12. 167 Dandin treats Anuprāsa under Mädhuryaguņa as its verbal
aspect corresponds to Vịttyanuprāsa. See D. K. Gupta,
ibid, p. 236. 168 The word Tātparya in the definition of Laļānuprāsa is
explained by Pradipakarā as 39724h. The difference between
504

Page #530

Laţānuprāsa and Ananvaya lies in this that while in the former s'abdārthapaunaruktya only is aimed at, in the latter case the same words occur on the maxim : "Sabdabhedad arthabhedaḥ.",
The Laţānuprāsa is fivefold according as a whole Pada is repeated or a Pada, Prātipadic etc. are repeated. 169 For the rule is that no figure of speech should mar a
Rasa. Cf. Bhoja's def. of Citra in S. K. (II. 358-9). 170 Vide K. A.S.p. 329, "Tathahi - yathā etc." The point is
that we should not hold that when a figure is based on the resemblance of Guņa and Kriyā, it is Upamā; and when there is only verbal resemblance, it is slesa. The truth is that even a verbal resemblance may give rise to Upamā.
171 Vide Bhoja's śr. Pr., pp. 127-128.
172 Pradipakāra provides the rationale for treating Upamā first
(p. 308 N. S.). It lies at the root of many figures of sense.
Vide V.S. Sowani's article on "A History and Significance of Upamā" in Annals of the Bhandarkar Inst. Vol. I (2), pp. 87-98 (1919-20).
Cf. Dr. R. S. Betai's critical analysis and forthright observations in his paper "Treatment of Alamkāras in The Kāryānuśāsana of Hemachandra", published in JOGRS XII No. 4/88, 1960, pp. 355-56.
173 Vide KASS, p. 18 (N. S. Ed.)
174 Hemachandra wants to include Ananvaya in Upamā; hence
he drops the word 'Bhede' found in Mammața's def, of Upamā. But he is aware of the finer distinctions involved here.
505

Page #531

175 Cf. K. P. X. 93 and X-100-101 for Rūpaka and Atiśayokti
(their connection and distinction). 176 Mammața's def. of Prativastūpamā (K.P. X. 101) excludes
Nidarśanā and Dşşțāñta. 177 Hemachandra combines Paryāya and Parivịtti. Prof. R. B.
Athavale indicts him for doing so. (K. A. S., Vol. II,
p. 224). 178 Vide Dr. R. S. Betais paper (f. n. 175) 179 Dandin sets out the supremacy of Svabhāvokti in
Literature. Hemachandra uses Dandin's phraseology (VI. 15). Mammața stresses action or form inherent in one's nature (Sp. a child etc.). For Bhamaha (11. 93) it is natural description. But Kuntaka (V. I. 1.11-15) opposes it tooth and nail. (vide Dr. S. K. De HSP. Vol. II, p. 187.) Hemachandra refutes Kuntaka's views in the Viveka Commentary under "Jāti' and derives support from
Mahimabhatta's views on Poetic imagination. (Viveka, p. 380) 180 Hemachandra's Smrti, Bhrāntimān and Visama are
interconnected (VI. 24-26) and Samadhi and Samuccaya
combine to form one figure i.e. Samuccaya. 181 Hence Kāvyaling is also dropped (Viveka, p. 397). 182 Samkara and Samspsti represent the combination of
figures. While in the former, the combined figures are not discernible, in the latter they are. The former is a chemical mixture like milk and water, but the latter, is separable mixture like rice and sesamum. Mammața gives
Three but Hemachandra gives four varieties of Samsrsti. 183 Dr. Raghavan traces the beginnings of the two theories
or doctrines of differentiation between figures of word and sense to Rājanaka Tilaka's commentary on Udbhata's KASS. Mammața derived his method (K. P. IX under Śleşa) from it. Tilaka's son Ruyyaka developed his
506

Page #532

Āśrayāšrayibhāva doctrines from the same source. Vide Bhoja's Sr., Pr. p. 380. Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya pinpoints instances of Hemachandra's indebtedness to Rājanaka Tilaka's Udbhaça-Viveka ('Hemachandra and the Eleventh
Century etc.', p. 123; also f.n. 26b.) 184 HSP-II, p. 243, f.n. 2.
Chapter Seven 185 Vide, "Studies In Nāyaka-Nāyikābhed" by Dr. Rakesagupta,
1967, pp. 37-38. 186 Vide, Rudrata K.A. XII. 9-12 and śrrgāratilaka (S.T.)
1. 23–28. 187 Dr. Rakesagupta, Ibid, p. 39. 188 Ibid, p. 39. 189 Ibid, p. 41. 190 Ibid, p. 41 and K.A.S.VII. 31 (gloss), p. 421. 191 Vide, 'Studies in Nayaka-Nāyika-Bheda', pp. 56 and 60. 192 Ibid, p. 56. Also see S.T. I. 117-131 and D.R. II. 193 "Nayati vyāpnoti iti výttam phalam ca iti nāyakah" - K.A.S.,
p. 406. 194 D.R, 1.12 : "Adhikaraḥ phalaswāmyam adhikāri ca
tatprabhuh." 195 The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, pp. 203-4. 196 D. R., Hass, p. 40 (Tr.). 197 Cf. 'The Rasārņavasudhākara of “ingabhūpāla', 1. 61-62. 198 Into (1) Dhiroddhata etc. and (2) Anuküla etc. 199 K. A.S., p. 411; D.R. II. 10 (Avaloka). Cf. Hass, p. 42
(D.R. 1.6).
507

Page #533

200 Treatment of Love in Sanskrit Literature' by Dr. S. K. De,
p. 48 etc. 201 K.A.S. VII. 23 ff. 202 "Avaruddhāpi parastrītyucyate." 203 D. R. (II. 20, 21) says : "Nanyodhā'ngirase kvacit."
But love for a maiden may be employed at will, in connection with the principal or the subordinate sentiments. Cf. Dhanika's remarks (D.R. II. 28 ff) which
Hemachandra paraphrases. 204 R. II. 21 gives the same idea in almost the same terms. 205 Cf. D.R.II.23 with Avaloka. 206 Cf. D.R.II. 22-23a with Avaloka. 207 According to Hass, the D.R. admits but 128 varieties.
Vide The Dasarūpa, p. 58 (Notes). 208 Vide Dr. S. K. De, Treatment of Love in S. K. Litt., p. 19.
Vide also N, N. Bhattacharya's “History of Indian Erotic
Literature", Chap. VII, pp. 47-49, 56-57. 209 Dr. S. K. De, Ibid, p. 52. 210 Dr. S. K. De, Ibid.
Chapter Eight 211 Vide Dr. V. Raghavan, Bhoja's śr. Pr., pp. 540-41, etc. 212 A. K. Warder (Indian Kavya Litt., Chap. VI) critically
reviews the Mahākāvya 'form'. 213 Bhoja's śr. Pr. pp. 402-3. Dr. Raghavan explicitly
states (p. 709): "Especially, the various elements of Sabdavaicitrya, Arthavaicitrya and Ubhayavaicitrya given by Hemachandra on pp. 334-341 are Bhoja's Guņas and Alamkāras of Sabda, Artha and both with reference to the
508

Page #534

Prabandha as a whole. The commentary of Hemachandra
here, is, again nothing but a reproduction from the śr. Pr." 214 The term Vākyarthabhinaya' is intimately connected with
Dhananjaya's theory of Rasa. Vide D. R. IV. 215 On the meaning of these three technical terms of Drama
and Dance viz. Nātya, Nộtya and Nịtta, read K. M. Varma's study of these concepts in his monograph "Nātya, Nștta
and Nộtya : Their Meaning and Relation". 216 Vide Bhoja's Śr. Pr., p.5 36. 217 Vide D. R. with Avaloka and Laghuţikā (Ed. T.
Venkatacarya) pp. 7-10 (1. 7-9a). Also read Ibid, Intro. pp.
XXXII-XXXV. 218 Bhoja's Śr. Pr. p. 538. 219 Ibid, p. 538
220 Dr. Raghavan (ibid, p. 540-41) writes : "Of Sattaka, there
is no mention at all in Dhananjaya. Bhoja's position is ....... there is surely a variety similar to Nātikā. .... It is called Sațțaka and it differs from the Nātikā only in as much as it has no Viskambhaka and Pravesaka, and is throughout in only one language..... Sārdātanaya adds the Totaka to the Nātikā and the Sattaka as types derived
from the Nāțaka and Prakarana....." 221 Cf. Bhoja's words quoted by Dr. V. Raghavan :
"Vākyārthābhinayo'yam prakirtito nāțakadibhedena Dvādaśavidhapadārthabhinayamatha yathāsthitam vakşye 1?"
Bhoja's Śr. Pr., p. 544. 222 Bhoja's Śr. Pr., p. 546. 223 Hemachandra also describes them as "Rūpakam". It is
the Sahityadarpaņa of Viśvanātha that employs the term "Uparūpaka" for these minor shows, for the first time. Cf. S. D. (VI.3-6).
509

Page #535

224 'The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama', p. 30. 225 Dr. Gupta critically reviews Dandin's views on Kathā etc.
Vide 'A Critical study of Dandin', pp. 124-126. 226 Hemachandra's varieties include Bhoja's Akhyāyikā,
Nidarśana, Pravahlika, Manthullika, Manikulya, Kathā, Parikathā, Khandakatha, Upakathā, Bșhat-kathā and Akhyāna. Hemachandra also adopts tne Sakalakathā of Ānandavardhana, He mentions the Upakhyāna variety in
the commentary (p. 463). Vide, Bhoja's Śr. Pr., p. 619 etc. 227 pp. 708-709. 228 i.e. pp. 449-466 of the revised edition (1964). 229 Bhoja's Śr. Pr., p. 312 230 Vide Hemachandra's gloss (pp. 455-460) and the Viveka
Vyakhyā (pp. 455-460) which represent the passages in
question. 231 Bhoja's śr. Pr., p. 315. 232 lbid, pp. 403-404. cf. K.A.S. p. 460 (Gloss and the Viveka). 233 Bhoja's śr. Pr., pp. 404-405.
Chapter Nine 234 Quoted in 'Language, Thought and Culture', p. 32. 235 Ibid, pp. 121-22,
236 Ibid, p. 132. 237 Quoted in French by R. Gnoli (The Aesthetic Experience
According to Abhinavagupta, (Intro.). Tr. fr. the French by Achille Forler, Director, Alliance Francaise, Ahmedabad (1984).
238 "Meditations on A Hobby Horse etc. pp. 5 & 11.
510

Page #536

239 Paul Henley, “Language, Thought and Culture", p. 148. 240 Vide A. Sankaran, Some Aspects of Litt. Criticism in
S. K., p. 68. 241 Paul Henley, Ibid, p. 231. 242 Vide 'Psychological basis of Alamkāra Litt.' in 'Sir
Asutosh Mookerji Silver Jubilee Volume', Calcutta
University Publication, 111(2), 1925. 243 'The Pattern of Criticism', Milwaukee (1953), p. 28. 244 Published by Annamalai University, Annamalainagar, 1940
(with a foreword by M. M. S. Kuppuswami Sastri). 245 Vide K. Ram Pisharoti's 'The Dhvanyāloka' (with Locana) puablished in Indian Thought, 1917, pp. 287–288.
Also cf. "Poetic or artistic delight, which is its fruit par excellence, is of the order of Brahmāsvāda, but differs from its fruit in being temporary". Dr. V. Raghavan,
Aspects of Indian Poetics, p. 15. 246 "The Doctrine of Pratibhā in Ind. Philo.', Annals of the
Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. V. (1-11), 1923-24, pp. 1-2. 247 T. N. Sreekantaiyn, " 'Imagination' in indian Poetic etc.",
1980, p. 13. 248 Vide Dr. S. K. De, HSP (I-1) pp. 41-42 for a concise,
historical review of the concept of Pratibhā. 249 'The Doctrine of Pratibhā in Indian Philosophy', Ibid,
Vol. II, pp. 126-128. 250 "Imagination" in Indian Poetics etc.', p. 21. Vide also
Dr. K. Krishnamoorthi, "Essays in Sk. Criticism"pp. 187–198. 251 Wimsatt & Brooks, Litt. Criticism, pp. 6, 99, 100-1. 252 Vide Dr. S. K. De, HSP (1-11), pp. 42-44.
511

Page #537

Sr. R. G. Bhandarkar Commemorative Volume BORI, Poona, 1917 pp. 375-386.
254 lbid, p. 386.
255
256 Ibid, p. 17.
257
Studies in Ind. Aestetics & Criticism, p. 179. Rājasekhara classifies Haraṇa into avoidable and acceptable. Vide, Ibid, p. 184.
258 lbid, p. 184.
259
Vide Kṣemendra Studies by Dr. Suryakanta, Poona-2, 1954, pp. 50-62. Vide also Dr. S. K. De HSP (II) p. 37, f.n.5 and pp. 292-298 for a general idea of Kaviśikṣa and the literature on it.
253
260
Studies in Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra, 1983, pp. 1-18.
Vide, 'Studies in Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra', pp. 20-23; 24, 26-27. Dr. Kulkarni's essay 'Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Conventions' is a brilliant, critical exposition of the topic. Vide, Ibid, Chap. 2.
261 lbid, p. 24.
262 Sir R. G. Bhandarkar Vol. BORI, Poona, 1917.
267
263 Vide Dr. S. K. De, HSP (11) pp. 322-25. Also see Dr. K.. Krishnamoorthy, The Dhvanyaloka and its Critics, Chap. VIII, p. 297.
264 The Sahityadarpaṇa, Notes, p. 15.
265 Vide K.A.S., Vol. II, Notes, pp. 32, 33, 38, etc.
266 "Language Thought and Culture", pp. 187, 195.
Aesthetic Rapture, Vol. II, p. 18.
268 The Language Poets Use, p. 69. On Metaphor, see 'Literary Criticism', pp. 69-70, 643-4.

512

Page #538

269 Cf. Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, Indian Theories of Meaning,
p. 264. Also see Dr. P. V. Kane's Notes to S.D. Il. 270 Literary Criticism, p. 284; also p. 294. 271 'Studies in Ind. Aesthetics and Criticism', p. 124. Also see
p. 127.
272 Ibid, pp. 165-167. Also vide 'The Indian Theories of
Meaning', pp. 278-9 & f.n. 2. 273 Hemachandra and the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists,
pp. 119-120. 274 Vide, Prof. R. B. Athavale, K.A.S., Vol. II, Notes,
pp. 41-42; 50-67. 275 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Hemachandra and the Eleventh
Cent. K. Poeticists, pp. 119-120. 276 Vide Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy's article on Praudhokti in
"Studies in Ind. Aesthetics etc. pp. 185-86. 277 Vide 'The Dhvanyāloka and Its Critics', pp. 187-8. 278 N. C. Starr, The Dynamics of Literature, Columbia University,
New York, 1945. 279 Vide, The Indian Poetic Tradition, p. 22. 280 Vide Kşemendra Studies, pp. 76-77; Dr. S. K. De HSP-II,
pp. 80, 282. As a criterion of taste, Aucitya is related
with Sahrdayatva or Criticism (Ibid p. 285). Chapter Ten 281 Vide Dr. S. K. De HSP-II, Chap. VIII, pp. 243-4. Vol. 1, p. 203.
Dr. P. V. Kane, HSP (1961 Ed.) pp. 288-89. For a summary of B. P. Bhattacharya's defence of Hemachandra's Kavyānušāsana and Dr. Kane's review thereof, vide ibid, pp. 288-89 with the footnotos.
513
33

Page #539

For Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's opinion, read "The Sources of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana" (Chap. 13) in 'Studies In Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra', p. 153.
283
For Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's remarks vide his paper "Hemachandra and the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists" in JOAS, 1957, p. 128.
Also see Shri Trilokanath Jha's paper on Hemachandra's Indebtedness to Mahimabhaṭṭa's Vyaktiviveka in respect of Dosas.
Mr. Jha offers a critical and comparative review of the second Vimarśa of the Vyaktiviveka and the third Adhyaya of the Kavyanusasana in its threefold textual aspects and draws candid conclusions in regard to 'Hemachandra's method of adoption (vide ibid pp. 26-28, 31-33). Thus he notes that Hemachandra substitutes Avimṛṣṭavidheyaṁśatva for Mahima's Vidheyavimarśa; Bhagnaprakramatva for Prakramabheda; Asthānapadatva for Kramabheda; Adhikapadatva or Adhikya for Paunaruktya; Nyunapadatva for Vacyāvacana and Avacaka for Vacyāvacana. However, Hemachandra does not follow the terminology with strict uniformity. Mr. Jha's paper is a good example of sincere investigation. It was published in JOBRS, Vol. XLIII, (1-11).
282 Vide Prof. A. B. Dhruva's Foreword (p. 10) and Prof. R. C. Parikh's Introduction to K.A.S. Vol. II, Part-I, pp. CCCXIIICCCXPVII; Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Ibid, pp. 128-129.
A Summary of B. P.
Bhattacharya's views is given by Dr. P. V. Kane in his HSP., pp. 288-289 (f.n.1).
284 Vide Dr. V. M. Kulkarni's paper on The Sources of Hemachandra's K.A.S., Studies in SK. Sah. Sastra, p. 152.
285 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Hemachandra etc., p. 118.

514

Page #540

286 Vide Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's "Hemachandra and the
Eleventh Cent. etc.", pp. 120-21. 287 'Studies in Sk. Sāhityaśāstra', p. 154. 288 Ibid, p. 122. 289 'Studies in Sk. Sahityaśāstra, p. 154. 290 Ibid, p. 151. 291 Ibid, p. 154. 292 Hemachandra and the Eleventh Cent, etc., pp. 123–25. 293 'Studies in Sk. Sāhityśāstra', p. 151. 294 Ibid 295 "Śrrgāramañjari of Saint Akbar Shah', Introduction, p. 15. 296 Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya, Ibid, pp. 121-22. 297 Vide, Dr. V. M. Kulkarni, Studies in Sk. Sahityasāstra,
pp. 153-54. 298 S. P. Bhattacharya, Ibid, p. 129. Chapter Eleven 299 Vide Prof. R. C. Parikh's Introduction to the K.A.S. (2nd
Revised Ed.), pp. 32–40; Hemachandra's Dvyāšraya Kavya, S. P. Narang, pp. 1-2.
Also vide Prof. S. P. Bhattacharya's article "Hemachandra and the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists". 300 Vide, Buhler's 'Life of Hemachandra', p. 9. 301 Ibid, pp. 9-10. 302 Ibid, p. 11. 303 Ibid, pp. 11-13. 304 Ibid, p. 18. 305 Ibid, p. 36. 306 Introduction to K.A.S., p. 68. 307 Hemachandra's Dvyāśraya, etc., pp. 6-14. 308 Buhler, Ibid, p. 48. 309 Prof. R. C. Parikh, Intro., Ibid, p. 70.
515

Page #541

BIBLIOGRAPHY
| Original Sanskrit Texts
Alamkarasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Vimarsini (2nd edition) Dr. R. P. Dwivedi, 1979
Bhamaha's Kāvyālamkāra Ed. P. V. Naganath Shastry Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi (2nd ed.), 1970 Bhavaprakāśanam of śārdātanaya Ed. Dr. Madan Mohan Agrawal (2nd ed. 1983) Chowkhamba Surabharati Granthamala, Varanasi The Candrāloka of Piyūṣavarşa Jayadeva with the Comm. of Vidyānātha Pāyagunda Ed. M. G. Bakre, The Gujarati Printing Press, 1914 Dandin's Kāvyādarśa with the Comm. of P. C. Tarkavāgiša Kumudaranjana Ray, Calcutta, 1956
Dandin's Kāvyādarśa with the Comm. of Jivānanda Vidyāsāgara Ed. V. Narayana Iyer, Madras, 1952
Kavyādarśa of Daņdin, Belvalkar S. K. Oriental Book Supplying Agency, Poona, 1924 The Kāvyādarśa of Dandin Ed. Rangacharya Raddi Shastri, BORI, Poona, 1938
516

Page #542

Kavyādarśa of Dandin (Text in full with Eng. Tr. and Notes on 1-il) C. Sankara Rama Sastri & S. Visvanath Third Ed., Madras, 1963 The Dasarūpa of Dhananjaya, Ed. Tr. George C. O. Hass, Motilal Banarasidass, 1962 The Dasarūpaka of Dhananjaya with Avaloka and Laghuţikā Ed. T. Venkatacarya, Adyar, Madras, 1969 Deveśvara's Kavikalpalatā with his own Tika Bibliothica Indica, Calcutta, śakābda 1834 Dhvanyaloka with Locana with Bālapriya and Divyāñjanā Ed. Pattabhirama Shastri, Kashi Sanskrit Series No. 135, 1940 Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana by Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy Karnataka University, Dharwad, 1974 Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana (Text etc.), Udyota 1 (2nd ed.) 1965 and Udyota 11 (First ed.) 1957 B. P. Bhattacharya Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta The Ekāvali of Vidyadhara with Tarala Ed. K. P. Trivedi, First Ed., B.S.S., 1903 Kalpalatāviveka Ed. M. L. Nagar and H. Shastry L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1968 Kavyalamkārasūtrāņi with Vịtti of Vāmana N. S. Press, Bombay, 1953 (4th ed.) Kavyalamkārasūtravștti with Kamadhenu Ed. N. N. Kulkarni, Poona, 1927 (Vāmana's) Kavyälamkārasūtrāņi with Kāmdhenu of Gopendra Tripurahara Ed. R. G. Bhatta (Benares Sanskrit Series), 1908
517

Page #543

Kavyalamkarasarasang raha of Udbhata Ed. N. D. Banahatti
B.S.S., BORI, Poona, 2nd Ed., 1982
Kavyapradipa of Govinda Thakkura, Kavyamala (24), (Reprint, 1982)
Kavyaprakāśa with Sanketa of Manikyacandra Govt. Oriental Library Series 160, Mysore, 1922
Kavyaprakāśa of Mammața with Balabodhini of Pt. Vamanacharya Jhalakikar, Sixth Ed., Poona, 1950.
Kavyaprakas'a or The Poetic Light Vol. I and
Vol. II (Text, Transl. and Two Comms.)
Dr. R. C. Dwivedi, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1970
The Kavyaprakāśa Ullasa VII (Text with Notes) Prof. D. N. Chandorkar, Poona, 1941
The Kavyaprakāśa Mammaṭa
S. S. Sukhthankar, Bombay, 1941.
The Kavyaprakāśa of Mammața (I-II-III-X) A. B. Gajendragadkar, Bombay, 1939
Kavyaprakāśa with Someśvara's Sanketa Vol. I (Text) & Vol. II (Introduction, etc.) Ed. Prof. R. C. Parikh
Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, Jodhpur, 1959
Kavyamimānsa of Rajasekhara
G.O.S. No. 1, 1934
Kavyaśāstra Section of the Agnipurāṇa
R. V. Sastri
Delhi University Publication, Delhi, 1969
The Kavyanusāsana of Hemachandra with his Gloss Ed. Pt. Śivadatta and K. P. Parab Revised by W. L. Sastri Panasikara 2nd Ed., Kavyamālā
70, Bombay, 1934

518

Page #544

Kāvyānuśāsana of Ācārya Hemachandra Vol. 1 (Text), Vol. Il (Introduction - Notes) Prof. R. C. Parikh and Prof. R. B. Athavale, First Ed. 1938 with a Foreword by Dr. A. B, Dhruva Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay
Kavyānušāsana with Alamkaracūņāmaņi and Viveka of Ācārya Hemachandra with two Annonymous Tippaņas Second Revised Edition Prof. R. C. Parikh and Dr. V. M. Kulkarni Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1964
Kāvyānuāšsana - Avacūri of Pt. Sušilavijayagani Botad (Saurashtra), V. S. 2013
Kāvyānuśāsana Chap. I, Vol.l. (A Sanskrit Commentary Prakāśa') by Shri Vijayalāvanyasūri Botad (Saurashtra), V, S. 2012
The Kāvyānušāsana of Vagbhața (Secondus) with gloss, Kavyamala No. 43, N.S.P., 1915 (2nd ed.)
Kşemendra's - 1. Aucityavicāracarcā K.M. I, 1886 2. Kavikanthābharana K.M. IV 2nd Ed. 3. Suvșttatilakam K.M. II, 1932
Mahāraja Bhojarāja's śrrgāraprakāśa (Vols. 1-11) Ed. G. R. Josyer, Mysore, 1969 Mammața's Kavyaprakāśa with Tr. (Complete) M.M. Dr. Sir Ganganath Jha Bhartiya Vidya Prakasana, Varanasi-1, 1967 Mammața's Śabdavyāpāravicāra (with Hindi Comm.) Dr. R. P. Dwivedi Chowkhamba Vidya Bhavana, Varanasi, 1974
519

Page #545

Natyadarpaṇa of Ramacandra & Guṇacandra (with their own commentary)
Ed. G. K. Shrigondeker and Pt. L. B. Gandhi O. I. Baroda, 2nd Ed. (G.O.S. XLVIII)
Natyaśāstra with Abh. Bha. (G.O.S.) Vol. 1956, 1980
Vol.II
Vol.III 1956
and Vol. IV (28-37) (1964)
The Prataparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa of Vidyanatha with Ratnapaṇa Ed. K. P. Trivedi, B.S.S., 1909
Rasagangadhara of Jangannatha (I-II-III)
Pr. Sri Madanamohana Jha
The Chowkhambha Vidyabhavana, Vārāṇasi 1969
Rasagangadhara (1-11)
Prof. R. B. Athavale (Guj. Ed.) University Book Production Board
Ahmedabad, 1974
Rudrata's Kavyālaṁkāra with Namisadhu's Commentary N. S. Pr. (2nd Ed.), Bombay, 1928
Rudrata's Kavyālaṁkāra
Dr. Satyadeva Chawdhari Vasudeva Prakasana, Delhi, 1965 Rudrabhatta's Sṛngaratilaka (K.M. III)
Sarasvatikaṇṭhabharaṇam of Bhojadeva
(with Pt. Sri Ratneswara's Comm. on I-III
and Sri Jivanandavidyasagara's Comm. on IV-V) Calcutta, 2nd Ed., 1894
Sarasvatikaṇṭhabharaṇa with Ratnadarpaṇavyākhyā, Vol.l Dr. Kamesvaranath Miśra, Chowkhamba Orientalia, 1970
Sahityadarpaṇa (1, 11, X)
M. M. P. V. Kane
Motilal Banarasidass, 1965

520

Page #546

Sahityadarpana of Visvanātha Kaviraja with Vivștti Ed. by Durgaprasada Dvivedi Meherchand Lachhmandas Delhi, 1982 singabhūpāla's Rasārņavasudhakara by Dr. R. P. Dwivedi Sagar University, 1960 Śrrgāramānjari of Saint Akbar Shah Ed. Dr. V. Raghvan (with Introduction in English) Archelogical Department Publication, Hydrabad, 1951 Vāgbhatālamkāra of Vāgbhata (Primus) K. M. No.48, N.S. Pr., Bombay, 1916 and With Simhadevagani's Comm. First Ed., N.S.P., Bombay, 1895 Vākyapadiya (1-11) of Bhartrhari (Studies In The Vākyapadiya Vol. 1) K. Raghavan Pillai Motilal Banarasidass, 1971 Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka Ed. Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy (with Tr. & Introduction) Karnataka University, 1977 Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka Ed. Dr. S. K. De (with Introduction etc.) Firma K. L. M. (3rd Ed.) 1961
11. Critical Works In English
Dr. G. K. Bhatt
Dr. Biswanath Bhattacharya
Tragedy and Sanskrit Drama Popular, Bombay, 1974 A History of Rūpaka in the Alamkāraśāstra (Foreword by Dr. T. S. Nandi) Chawkhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, 1982.
521

Page #547

N. N. Bhattacharya
History of Indian Erotic Literature. Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1975
Prof. Sivaprasada Bhattacharya (S. P. Bhattacharya) Dr. George Buhler
Studies In Indian Poetics, Firma K. L. M. 1981
The Life of Hemachandrācārya (Tr. fr. the German by Dr. Manilal Patel) Sentiniketan, 1933
Krishna Chaitanya
Sanskrit Poetics (A critical and Comparative Study) Asia Publishing House, 1965
Tarapad Chakrabarti
Indian Aesthetics & Science of Language, Calcutta, 1971
P. C. Chatterji
Fundamental Questions in Aesthetics, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Simla, 1968
Dr. Siddheswar Chattopadhyay Nāțaka-Lakşaņa-Ratna-Koša
Calcutta, 1974
Dr. S. N. Dasagupta (and Dr. S. K. De)
Dr. Ş. K. De
A History of Sanskrit Literature (Classical Period) Vol. I. University of Calcutta 1947 1. History of Sanskrit Poetics
(Combined Ed.) Firma
K. L. M. 1960 2. Some Problems of Sanskrit
Poetics Firma K. L. M., 1959
522

Page #548

William Empson
Dr. S. D. Giyani
Reniero Gnoli
P. K. Gode
Dr. V. K. Gokak (Presented to)
E. H. Gombrich
Dr. Manamohan Gosh
Dr. D. K. Gupta

523
3. Ancient Indian Erotics and Erotic Literature
Firma K. L. M., 1959
4.
Sanskrit Poetics Study of Aesthetics University of California Press, 1963
as
Seven Types of Ambiguity Third Ed., London, 1953
Agnipuraṇa-Study, Chowkhambha Publ., 1964.
The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies Vol. LXII, 1968
Studies In Indian Literary History, Vol. I,
Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1953
Indian Response To Poetry in English
Macmillan, 1970
a
Meditations On A Hobby
Horse and other essays on the theory of Art (3rd ed.) Phaidon, 1978
The Natyaśāstra, Eng. Tr. Notes, Introduction, I-XXVII Calcatta, 1950

A Critical Study of Daṇḍin and his works, Meherchand Lachmandas, Delhi, 1970

Page #549

Dr. Rakeśagugta
S. C. Sen Gupta
Victor M. Hamm
1. Psychological Studies in
Rasa, Aligarh, First Ed.,
1950 2. Studies In Nāyaka-Nāyika
Bheda (D. Litt. Thesis),
1967 Towards A Theory of The Imagination, Oxford University Press, 1959 The Pattern of Criticism Milwaukee, U.S.A., 1953 Language, Thought and Culture The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1959 2nd Ed. 1. Sanskrit Studies, Mysore,
1954 2. Art Experience, Mysore,
1954
Paul Henle (With others)
M. Hiriyanna
Pramod Kale
Dr. P. V. Kane
A. B. Keith
The Theatric Universe (A Study of the Nātyaśāstra) Popular, Bombay, 1874 History of Sanskrit Poetics Motilal Banarasidass, 1971 1. A History of Sanskrit
Literature, Oxford University Press, First Ed. 1920
(Reprint, 1956) 2. The Sanskrit Drama
Oxford University Press (First Pub. 1924, Reprint 1954, 1959).
524

Page #550

M. Krishnamacariar
Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy
History of Classical Sanskrit Literature Madras, 1937 1. The Dhvanyaloka and its
Critics (2nd ed.) Delhi, 1982. Essays in Sanskrit Criticism (2nd ed.), 1974 Karnataka University,
Dharward 3. Studies In Indian Aesthe
tics & Criticism, Mysore, 1979
Dr. V. M. Kulkarni
P. C. Lahiri
Studies in Sanskrit Sahityasastra, B. L. Institute of Indology, Patan, 1983. Concepts of Riti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetic New Delhi, 1974 The Types of Sanskrit Drama Karachi, 1936 The Theory of The Sandhis and The Sandhyangas, Ajanta, 1978.
D. R. Mankad
Dr. T. G. Mainkar
J. L. Masson and M. V. Patawardhan
1. Aesthetic Rapture (I. II)
Deccan College, Poona,
1970. 2. śāntarasa and Abhinava
gupta's Philosophy of
Aesthetics, Poona, 1969. The Language of Poetry London, 1970
Robert Millar & lan Currie
525

Page #551

Dr. H. R. Misra
The Theory of Rasa in Sanskrit Drama Vindhyachal Prakasan, Bhopal, 1964 The Mirror of Composition (Tr. of the Sahityadarpana) Motilal Banarasidass, 1956
Pramoda Das Mitra (& Dr. L. R. Ballantyne)
Dr. Ramaranjana Mukherji
J. Middleton Murry
Dr. T. S. Nandi
1. Literary Criticism in
Ancient India, Calcutta,
1968 2. Imagery in Poetry-an Indian
Approach, Clacutta, 1972. The Problem of Style (Six Lectures), Oxford University Press, London, 1976 1. The Origin and Develop
ment of the Theory of Rasa and Dhvani in Sanskrit Poetics Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad, 1973. 2. Dhvanyālokalocana
(Guj. Ed.) Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad, 1973. The Language Poets Use University of London, London, 1965 Hemachandra's Dvyās'rayakāvya-A Literary and Cultural Study, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1972
Winifred Nowottny
Dr. Satya Pal Narang (S. P. NARANG)
526

Page #552

Dr. K. C. Pandey
Comparative Aesthetics Vol. (Indian Aesthetics), Banaras, 1950
Dr. V. Raghavan
i
1. Bhoja's śțngāraprakāśa
Punarvasu, Madras, 1963. 2. Some Concepts of The
Alamkāraśāstra, The
Adyar Library, Adyar, 1942 3. An Introduction To Indian
Poetics (with Prof. Nagen
dra), Macmillan, 1970 4. The number of Rasas, The
Adyar Library and Research Centre (3rd Ed.), Adyar, 1975.
Dr. K. Kunjuni Raja
Indian Theories of Meaning The Adyar Lib. and Research Centre (Vol,19), Madras, 1963
Dr. P. Sri Ramachandrudu
The Contribution of Panditarāja Jagannath to Sanskrit Poetics Vol.I, Nirajana Publishers, Delhi,1983
Krishna Rayan
Suggestion and Statement in Poetry University of London, 1972 Kşemendra Studies Oriental Book Agency Poona, 1954
Dr. Suryakanta
Dr. T. N. Sreekantaiya
'Imagination' in Indian Poetics and other Literary Studies Mysore, 1980
527

Page #553

Dr. A. Sankaran
Gaurinath Sastri
Prof. A. C. Shastri
Mukund Madhav Sharma
Dr. S. N. Shastri
N. C. Starr
Eva Schaper
P. Pañcapageśa Śāstri
Dr. G. H. Taralekar

528
Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit or The Theories of Rasa and Dhvani, 2nd Ed., Madras, 1973
A Study in the dialectics of Sphota (Revised New Ed.). Motilal Banarasidass, 1980
Studies in Sanskrit Aesthetics P. Gosh & Co., Calcutta, 1952
The Dhvani Theory in Sanskrit Poetics,
The Chowkhamba Studies, Vol. LXIII, 1968
Sanskrit
The Laws and Practice of Sanskrit Drama, Vol.l The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies, Vol.XIV, 1961
The Dynamics of literature,. Columbia University Press,
1945
Prelude To Aesthetics, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1968
The Philosophy of Aesthetic Pleasure (Annamalai
University SK. Series No. 6) Annamalai University,
Annamalaai Nagar, 1940
Studies in the Natyaśastra, Motilal Banarasidass, 1975

Page #554

Dr. K. H, Trivedi
The Nātyadarpaņa of :: :: Ramacandra and GunacandraA critical Study, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad-9, 1966
Stephen Ullman
Meaning and Style Oxford, 1973
Paul Valery
Aesthetics Vol. XIII (Introduced by Herbert Read) Ed. Jackson Mathew, Aoutledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1964.
K. M. Varma
1. Seven Words In Bharata : :.. What Do They Signify
Orient Longmans, 1958 2. Nātya, Nștta and Nștya -
Their Meaning and Relation, . Orient Longmans, 1957
Dr. G. Vijayavardhana
Outlines of Sanskrit Poetics, Chowkhamba Sk. Studies (LXXVI), 1970
A. K. Warder
Indian Kāvya Literature Vol. I Motilal Banaraşidass, 1974
Y. S. Walimbe
Abhinavagupta on Indian Aesthetics, Ajanta, 1980
Henry Wells
The Classical Drama of India, Asia Publishing House, 1963 Theory of Literature, Panguin, (Third Ed.), 1968.
Rene Welleck & Austin Warren
528,
34

Page #555

William K. Wimsatt, Jr. & Cleanth Brooks
Literary Criticism - A Short History,
Yale University, Ind. Ed., 1964
1
A Volume of Studies in Indology Presented to Prof. P. V. Kane (or Festschrift Prof. P. V. Kane) 1941
Aspects of Indian Poetics, Publications Division, Ministry of Education, Government of India, 1969
III. Special Volumes
2 Baladeva Upadhyaya Felicitation Volume, 1983 Ed. G. C. Tripathi, Allahabad-2
3 Charudev Shastri Felicitation Volume 13, Delhi, 1974
4 Prof. M. Hiriyanna Commemoration Volume, Mysore, 1952
5 Recent Studies in Sanskrit and Indology being Prof. Jagannath Agrawal Felicitation Volume Ed. D. K. Gupta 1982
8
6
Sir R. G. Bhandarkar Commemorative Essays, BORI, Poona, 1917.
7
Sir Asutosh Mookerjee Silver Jubilee Volume-III (2) 1925

Umeshamishra Commemoration Volume, 1970 Ganganath Jha Research Institute, Allahabad-2
530

Page #556

IV. Names of Articles & Journals
1 "Hemachandra
Poeticists"
And The Eleventh Century Kashmir
by Prof. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya (S. P. Bhattacharya) in Journal of the Asiatic Society,
Letters and Science, Vol. XXIII,
No. 1, 1957 pp. 117-129.
2 "An English Translation of Dhvanyaloka with a Summary of Locana in English"
5
by K. Rama Pisharoti of Ernakulam College
in 'Indian Thought', Vols 9-10, 1917.
3 "A History And Significance of Upama" by V. S. Sowani in 'Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute" 1919-20 Vol.l (2), pp. 87-90.
4 Principal Gopinath Kaviraja's Article
"The Doctrine of Pratibha in Indian Philosophy"
in 'Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, 1923-24, Vol.V (1-11).
"Treatment of Alamkaras in the Kavyanuśāsana of Hemachandra" by Dr. Rameschandra S. Betai in the "Journal of the Gujarat Research Society" Vol. XXII No. 4/88, 1960, Khar, Bombay.

531

Page #557

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I sincerely thank the following philanthrophists and trusts for extending token financial support by way of Thesis Publication Grant:
Doshi Bros., Mahim, Bombay-400 016; Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kanjur Marg, Bombay-400 078; Samir Diamonds, Bombay-4; Sevantilal Kantilal Trust, Bombay-4; Sheth Vadilal Sarabhai Derasar Trust, Bombay-400 004; Dr. Bhanuben Mahendra Nanavati Public Charitable Trust, Sunflower Hospital, Bombay-400 056; Shreshthi Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi, Ahmedabad-380 002; Shri Arunodaya Foundation, Ahmedabad; Parshvanath Corporation, Ahmedabad -14; Tejpal Vastupal Jain Charity Trust, Kalikund, Dholka (Gujarat).
I am also obliged to the following Jain Libraries and Shvetamber Murtipujak Jain Associations of Ahmedabad for their co-operation by way of advance orders for a few copies, inspired by the words of Learned Acharyas Shri Rajayashasūriji, Acharya Shri Devendrasagarasūriji, Acharya Shri Vijaya Bhadrankarsūriji, Acharya Shri Padmasagarsūriji and Acharya Shri Vijay Ramasūriji :
Acharya Nitisurishvaraji Pustakalaya, Acharya Surendrasurishvra Jain Tatravajnana Shala, Dharnidhar Derasar, Labdhinagar Chaturmasa Samiti and the Svetamber Murtipujaka Jain Sanghs of Navarangpura, Pankaj Society, Shanti Nagar, Usmanpura, Sabarmati, Ambawadi, Keshavanagar, Jhaveri Park, Jain Nagar, Lavanya Society and Agamodharak Gnanashala, P. B. Charitable Trust, Paramanand S. M. Jain Sangh, Pandit Virvijay Jain Upashraya, Shri Godiji Parshavanath Trust (Naroda), etc.
532

Page #558
DO Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary cong