Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

SR No.: 007023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 216
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 197

Appendix
SANSKRIT RHETORICIANS ON POETIC TRUTH.
Some pedants denounce poetry for a variety of reasons. Rajasekhara2 states by way of Parvapaksa three important arguments condemning poetry. Generally speaking, he mentions the names of the authorities from whom he quotes, whether with approval or without. In the present case, however, he merely states their objections against poetry but does not mention them by name. This fact probably would suggest that the objections have come down to him by tradition and have been advanced from very early times. They are as follows:
(1) poetry is full of lies, (2) poetry tenders wrong advice and encourages immorality, and (3) poetry is full of obscene matter. This paper confines itself to a study of the question raised by the first argument or objection against poetry namely, truth in poetry or poetic truth as conceived by the Sanskrit Rhetoricians. Before proceeding further it is necessary to state the prima facie views a little more clearly. The critic of poetry holds that poetry is false because it does not deal with things as they are in themselves. It, more often than not, misrepresents the outer world. The images in poetry are phantoms far removed from, reality. It contains highly fanciful, hyperbolic and often irrational accounts or descriptions. It often credits inanimate objects, birds, etc., with human attributes, which on the very face of it is false. It presses into service a number of poetic conventions which are obviously not in correspondence with, reality. It, many a time, distorts or twists history or mythology in borrowing incidents or legends for poetic treatment. In its craze for exaggeration it at times throws logic to the winds. In short, poetry disregards scientific, historical and even logical truth; and therefore, deserves
condemnation.
How Sanskrit rhetoricians (especially Bhāmaha and Rajasekhara) meet this criticism will be clear from what follows:
* The paper which is referred to in foot-note no. 3 on p. 19 supra, and which first appeared in Vikāsa, The Gujarat College Magazine, Ahmedabad, March 1960. (pp 60-68), is, for the sake of easy reference, reprinted here, with a few changes, as an Appendix.
1. Cf the oft-repeated lines
A 1,
and also the frequently quoted line, ("One should avoid the useless prattle that is poetry.")
2. Kavyamimämsä, GOS, Baroda, edition (1934), ch. VI, pp. 24-28.
3. असत्यार्थाभिघायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् | P. 24.
4. असदुपदेशकत्वात्तर्हि नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् । P. 26.
5. असभ्यार्थाभिधायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् । - P. 27.