________________
'Classification of Poetry' (Criticism Oriented)
1039 added as a fifth variety of poetry viz. adhamádhama : But J. does not accept this. Such type of poetry as illustrated in say, ekākşarī śloka, or verse having only one letter all through the poem, or in ardhāvrtti yamaka, or padma-bandha or such other varieties, is no poetry at all, for the general definition of poetry framed by J., such as · "ramaniya-artha-pratipādaka-śabdah kāvyam” is violated here. Eventhough ancient great poets (such as Bhāravi and Māgha, and some others) who followed ancient traditions which they inherited, did write such poetry, but J. has not respected the tradition, following of course the basic fact of 'ramanīyaartha' being very much there as indispensable for real poetry.
J. also criticises M. and some others when he observes that some people do not accept the four-fold classification as given by him and give only a three-fold classification. But for these critics, observes J., both sabda-citra and artha-citra are supposed to be without any suggested sense - "sabda-citram vācya-citram avyangyam tv avaram smrtam”. But J. feels that both of these should not be clubbed together as 'we do observe in citra-kāvyas the position of superior or inferior quality. J. puts a question as to which man of taste worth his salt, will place at the same level the two illustrations such as - "vinirgatam mānadam ātma-mandirāt", and "svacchandocchalad." etc. ? And, asks J., when there is a marked difference observed between these two, if one were to place them in the same class, then why should we unnecessarily press for the separateness of dhvani and gunibhūta- - vyangya which have a slight difference between them ? J. concludes that in illustrations of poetry, where we find both the charm of word and sense together, there one has to decide about their major or minor position and take decision about their class, and name them accordingly. But where the two types of charm are absolutely equal, it has to be taken as 'madhyama' type of poetry.
J. further classifies dhvani as follows : (pp. 64, R.G., Edn. Athavale, ibid) - "tatra dhvaner uttamottamasya a-samkhya-bhedasya api sāmānyataḥ ke'pi bhedāḥ nirūpyante : dvividho dhvanih, abhidhāmūlo laksanāmülas' ca. tatra adyas trividhaḥ rasa-vastv-alamkāra-dhvanibhedāt. rasa-dhvanir ity-alaksya-kramópa lakṣaṇāt rasa-bhāva-tadābhāsa-bhāvaśānti-bhāvodaya-bhāvasamdhi-bhāvaśabalatvānām grahaham 1. dvitīyaśca dvividhah, ar vācyo'tyanta-tirasketa-vācyaś ca. evam pañcā”tmake dhvanau parama-ramanīyatayā rasadhvanes tadātmā rasas tāvad abhidhīyate."
Thus J. does not go further beyond the basic types of dhvani as enumerated by Ā. But he goes like M., a step further also in quoting various theories regarding the rasa-nispatti-prakriyā, as done by M., following of course Abhinavagupta.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
