Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 118

Definition and Scope of Poetry
93
important, they refused to lay down clearly. He has also mentioned the preference for 'rasa', which is also noticed in Kuntaka, Mahimā, Bhoja or say, in all of his predecessors. Viśvanātha does not accept Anandavardhana's ruling that 'the soul of poetry is dhvani', for he accepts only rasa-dhvani as the soul of poetry. Visvanatha carries a false apprehension that if all the dhvani i.e. dhvani in its three-fold varieties - is accepted as the soul of poetry than by the acceptance of vastu-dhvani we will be allowing even trivial poetry in 'prahelikā' or riddles as genuine poetry. But it is exactly here that Viśvanātha blunders, because under vastu-dhvani and alamkāra dhvani Anandavardhana had left space for all intellectual poetry, or, say poetry such as seen in absurd theatre or absurd poetry, and also all flight of fancy to be covered under alamkāra-dhvani. In his wide scheme of dhvani Anandavardhana has place for any form of suggesters beginning with a letter or a part of a word to a whole composition, or any other that a newer poet may imagine or advocate in his poetry. All this is welcome under three-fold dhvani and for Anandavardhana, precisely to accomodate for any newer and newer form of literature under the banner of dhvani, only rasa-dhvani alone, which is normally understood as suggestion of emotive stuff only, does not, make for great poetry. Actually rasanubhūti is kalā'nubhūti is ānandánubhūti, or art-experience, which transcends not only vastudhvani or thereby even absurd theatre, but also alamkāradhvani or highest flight of fancy and imagination and also the so called rasabhāvā"di-dhvani or emotive stuff. The dhvani theory aims at a rasa-experience which is catholic in its nature and covers up newer and newer forms of literary art such as absurd poetry or absurd theatre, problem plays, social satires, and what not - that have appeared in modern literature and may vet appear in future poetry of centuries to come. So, vastu-dhvani is not mere prahelikā or riddle-poetry, for in it there is no delight for the men of taste - i.e. "sahrdaya-ślāghyatva". On the contrary we will go to observe that by keeping the doors open only to rasa-bhāvā"di-oriented poetry, actually Visvanātha has narrowed the scope of poetry and has also promoted the cause of sentimental verse under the guise of 'rasā”tmaka kāvya'. We will dwell upon this later. Jagannātha also discusses this point.
But for the present, we will consider only the aggressive aspect of Viśvanātha's criticism which does not spare Mammata also. He, following the lead of his predecessors, especially Candidāsa, the author of Dipikā, and others as suggested by us earlier, denounces vehemently Mammața's definition of poetry. This approach can be compared with the negative and non-fruitful approach of Mahimā with regard to Anandavardhana.