________________
Definition and Scope of Poetry
99 blemishes are seen in it. He says that the observations of the predecessors can not be accepted for those who hold that if it is understood that the mention of pratiyogi • (i.e. a-kāvya or absence of poetry) is for the understanding that poetry can be caused by absence of poetic blemish only, it is not proper, because in that case the apprehension viz. “this poetry is free from blemishes" will not arise, and instead, only an apprehension that, "this is no poetry et al”, will follow. Because in that case a poetry with no faults only will be called poetry for only there the invariable concomittance of “yatra yatra dosā'bhāvatvam tatra tatra kāvyarvam” will be applicable. But this sort of vyāpti is not accepted as a hetu of kāvyatva. As a body with deformities does not cease to be body, in the same way poetry with poetic blemishes does not cease to be poetry. Thus Keśava seems to follow the original source, so far as available documents are concerned, the school of critics such as Candidāsa the commentator of Mammata and Viśvanātha and the rest who are angry with Mammata and others who include 'adosau' or absence of poetic blemish as an attribute of poetic word and meaning, in the definition of poetry.
Keśava then quotes the definitions given by his predecessors. He quotes Mammata first and leaves it without comment. It should be noted that Kesava does not seem to revel in the refutation of others as is done by Viśvanātha. He quotes 'apare' - saying, (Ist Marici) : "rasa-pratipatti-dvārā sukha-visesa-sādhanam vākyam kāvyam !” (pp. 3) i.e. "Poetry is that sentence which through the apprehension of rasa, becomes the instrument of a special (form of) happiness." Who these 'a-pare' are is not known but this comes closer to Viśvanātha. Then Keśava observes - "kecit tu padāvali kävyam” i.e. for some, 'a string of words' is poetry. These people, he observes, do not include the attributes viz. ‘nir-dosa' and 'guna-vat' etc., because of the contingency of there being innumerable) poetic blemishes which defy counting. They hold that it is not pertinent to hold that only for a clear understanding of poetry which is the creation of absense of blemishes, we should cultivate the knowledge of blemishes ( na ca dosábhāva-ghatitakávyarva-jñānártham eva pratiyogi-parigananam - pp. 3. Alamkāra śekhara, (A. śe.), Edn. N.S., Bombay, '26). (objector) Because, in the absence of understanding of poetic blemishes), there will not be such cognition as, 'this poetry is having blamishes', and it will be only a proper observation that 'this is no poetry at all. (So, the objector again suggests that the knowledge of poetic blemishes is essential). To this the siddhāntin says that this objection represents only a 'hervā”bhāsa' i.e. false reasoning. Real ‘hetu' is having qualities of 'vyāpti-višișța-tva' i.e. - having concomittance and it resides in the 'paksa' i.e. substratum. The objector cannot say
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
