________________
36
SAHṚDAYALOKA
definition of poetry also includes, or refers, to the device of beauty called 'alamkara', deemed as 'external to poetry', by people of smooth intelligence and sensitivity. That poetic muse manitests itself only in a particular form is a dream cherished by innocent souls. Actually all newer and newer forms of poetry, drama or any creative writing is welcome to these alamkarikas and their all-encompassing theory of rasa'nubhuti or art-experience is loving enough and broad enough to welcome the same in its carassing close embrace. In reality, whatever moves a man of taste is poetry; and it can take a form of a figure of speech also, and also that of beautiful suggestion or dhvani. Vamana, in comparision to his predecessors, has also discussed the nature of meaning - 'artha-tattva' - to a greater detail and this we will pick up in due course.
Udbhața: Udbhata has not attempted to float a definition of poetry but with some other reference in mind, scholars are inclined to view him as closer to Bhamaha and think that Udbata's concept of poetry was identical with that of Bhamaha and that perhaps he also called poetry to be, '(a charming) coming together of word and sense.' Udbhața also wrote, now not available, "Bhamahavivarana i.e. commentary on 'Bhāmaha's Kāvyā'lamkāra, a portion from which is quoted by no less an authority than the great Abhinavagupta in his famous 'Locana' commentary on Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka. So, it is safe to surmise that Unbhata's concept of poetry was identical with that of Bhamaha. This conclusion derives strength from another observation, perhaps also from Udbhata's Bhamahavivarana, as quoted by Mammața in his Kavya-prakāśa, that Udbhata laughs at Vamana's distinction of 'guna' or 'poetic excellence' and 'alamkara' or a 'figure of speech' under the pretext that the former is interior to poetry and therefore 'nityadharma' or essential characteristic of poetry, and the latter being external are accidental to poetry and therefore only 'anitya' or 'impermanent'. Mammata has not accepted this observation and has gone for its refutation also. We have also observed that if Vamana calls 'alamkara' as 'anitya' or 'impermanent', it is only in the sense of a figure of speech, a device which may or may not be resorted to by a poet. But in itself, i.e. as 'saundarya' or poetic beauty itself, alamkāra is as essential to poetry as any other device could be, even in Vamana's estimation. No wonder if Udbhata laughs at a purist point of view concerning poetic charm. It may also be noted that Udbhata was also open to poetic beauty as manifested through emotive stuff such as rasa or sentiment, bhāva or feeling and all their newer and newer forms of manifestation. This we will pick up later. But by and large Udbhata also is a kavya'lamkāra-vādin' in the wider sense of the term.
Jain Education International
*
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org