This blog is in response to a thinking activity given by our professor Dilip Baradhttps://blog.dilipbarad.com/2022/02/indian-poetics.html this is the link you can go there and see more detail about this task. In this Blog I am going to write about my understanding of Indian Poetics.
Our Department of English, MKBU and our HOD Dr. Dilip Barad sir arranged an Expert Lecture. Expert was Dr. Vinod Joshi sir. We have lectures from 5-01-2023 to 13-01-2023. We Invited Students from the Department of Gujarati.
Here, I am going to write about my understanding of different schools and their Thinker and their books where they mention about this topic.
RASA
I am participating in Teacher's day and I chose the topic 'Rasa Theory'. Here is my Video based on this theory.
-The study of Aesthetics deals with the realization of beauty in art its relish or enjoyment, and the awareness of joy that accompanies an experience of beauty.
-The rasa is accomplished as a result of the conjunction of Vibhava, Anubhav and Vyabhicharibhav. Bharat Muni was the first exponent of this school. According to him rasa is the essential of poetry. He talks about what makes a good drama. When Bharata Muni was writing at that time Novels were not available, people either wrote drama or poems.
He gave rasa theory in the book "Natya Shastra". Rasa Means taste or flavor or relish but metaphorically it means the emotional experience of beauty in poetry and Drama. Rasa is Juice or essence. For example, 'Abhigna Shakuntala'. He talks about artistic Juice or artistic pleasure. We get entertainment from Drama. It evokes rasa or joy in us. Rasa is derived from the union of different Bhava(Emotion/Mood).
-There are Four(4) Bhavas which result in rasa.
1.Sthayi Bhavas(Permanent or dominant moods)
2.Vyabhichari Bhavas(Temporary Emotion)
3.Vibhava Bhavas(Situations which are responsible, to bring out Sthayi bhavas they are stimuli. They are the causes which lead to Sthai Bhava.)
4.Anubhava(Effect seen upon the Character after the emotion arises)
-According to Rigveda there are six types of rasa but, later in Natyashastra we get a description of eight types of rasa. Each rasa has its own presiding which maybe a god or goddess and a specific Colour to indicate each of the rasa.
-8 Major kinds of Sthaibhavas (Permanent or dominant moods)
1. Rati(Love)
2.Hasya(Laughter)
3.Rudra(Fury, Extreme Anger)
4.Karuna(Compassions)
5.Bibhatsa(Disgusting)
6.Bhayanak(Horror)
7.Vira(Heroic mood)
8.Adhbhuta(Wonder)
9.Shanta(Peace or Tranquillity)
-Sthai Bhavas are the basis of rasa and are supreme among all the Bhavas.
*What is Anubhava?
-It is the effect seen upon the character after the emotions have been developed. It makes the spectators feel or experience the effect of Abhinaya by means of words and gestures. They are the emotional experienced by the characters.
For Example: Perspiration, change of Colour etc.
*What is Vibhava?
-They are situation which is responsible to bring out Sthaibhavas. There are two aspects:
1.Alambana
2.Udipana
- In the mind of the person to which the sthayi bhava begin as Alambana Vibhava. The spring season the moon lit night the soft breezes and the fragrance of flowers are the Udipana. Vibhava are stimuli or Situations which are responsible to bring out Sthaibhavas, it means what provoked you to feel sad about something.
Vibhava are stimuli or situations which are responsible to bring out Sthaibhavas, it means what provoked you to feel sad about something.
*What is Vyabhicari Bhavas?
Transitory/ Temporary, Mental states.
- They strike the mind in a feeling in the course of experiencing a permanent mood. They are 33 in number.
For Example: Passiveness(Nirveda), Weakness(Glani), Indolence(Alas), Depression(Dainya), Anxiety(Chinta), Despair(Visada).
-They spring out of the principal emotions and ultimately merge into it.
-So Indian Aesthetics is primarily concerned with the art forms like poetry, music and architecture however sculpture and painting are also studied under aesthetic theories.
VAKROKTI
This theory was developed by Kuntaka. Text in which he developed this theory was "Vakrokti Jivika". Vakrokti means a roundabout way of expressing not straight forward or indirect way. When you say a thing in a very different Manner.
Saying a word in indirect manner. poetry is marked with a roundabout turn of expression. How you can present the same idea in a very different manner. According to S.K.De. it is a kind of Heightened expression. Kuntaka defined it as the vital essence of poetry. It is important to poetic expression.
According to him inadequate expression and expression devoid of ideal are of no use. He calls a beautiful expression without a beautiful idea is dead. Vakrokti means a certain striking or charming mode of expression. To Kuntaka Vakrokti the only embellishment possible to the word and its meaning and all poetic figures are different manifestations of Vakrokti.
Kuntaka classifies Vakrokti into six(6) Levels of expression in poetry.
1. Phonetic Figurativeness
2. Lexical Figurativeness
3. Grammatical Figurativeness
4. Sentential Figurativeness
5.Contextual/Episodic Figurativeness
6. Compositional Figurativeness
What is "Vakrokti"?
In its general sense Kuntaka calls it,
"Vakroktireva vaidgdhyam bhangi bhaniti ruchyate"
By Vaidgahyam he means a skill of poetic composition of an able poet, Bhangi he means miraculous or beautiful, Bhaniti he means descriptive style. The two words central to his definition are Vichitra means...
a)Different from general meaning as found in the Shastra.
b)Statement different from common usage of word meaning.
c)Different from usage of word in general use.
and Prisidha: that means style used in customary practice and treatise. What is imperative for this miraculous and elegance is poetic dexterity, The poetic dexterity is nourished and developed in form of inherited or inborn faculty or instinct. Vakrokti presuppose genius on part of the, which is capable of pleasing sensitive hearts. Kuntaka further says:
"Sabdartho sahitau vakrakaviyaparshalini"
It is striking mode of speech from and transcending the ordinary everyday mode of speaking about a thing; it is speech that charm by the skill of the poet. He ridicules those who regard 'Svabhavokti' as an Alamkara and says that when in a so-called 'Svabhavokti' other figurers occur; there will always be 'Sankar'. Thus by Vakrokti he means peculiarity capable of producing extraordinary charm. That is another poetician of sanskriti Rajsekhar rightly stated..
"Neither is the ideas the point, nor the mere word, but the manner of expressing that idea in word is the thing that makes for poetry"
or else where he(Rajsekhar) remarked that...
"Things describes in poetry do not delight us and that it is poetic expression only which delight or disturbs us."
Having thus started his position in general terms, Kuntak proceeds to analyze various kinds of Vkrata or Ukti-Vaichitrya which are six in numbers and may be subdivided further.
All Poetry is or less oblique, there is no direct poetry."
-E.M.W.Tillyard.
Indeed, Kuntak belongs to that group of the author who having flourished after Anandvardhana's time, do not deny the concept of Dhvani, but try to explain it in term of already recognized ideas. Like Mahimnabhatt who attempts to settle the process of suggestion by the technical logical process of inference, kuntak lived in the interval between Anandvardhana who first championed the dhvani theory and mammate whose classical text book raised the theory to almost authority. Like mahimnabhatt again, Kuntak, as a follower of Bhamaha, Uudbhata and the Alamkara school, started a vigorous but short lived reactionary movement which wanted to go back to the old position in a somewhat original way by an attempt to reconcile new ideas with the old. In this lies the historical importance of kuntak's work.
ALAMKARA
Alamkara refers to “the figures of speech”- The word Alamkara stands for a thing of beauty. The rhetoricians deal with the alamkaras in detail and the poet use them profusely in their works. Alamkara has an ancient origin. The alamkara is the earliest and most sustained school which studies literary language and assumes that the focus of literariness is in the figure of speech in the mode of expression in the grammatical accuracy and pleasantness of sound. This does not mean that meaning is ignored. In fact structural taxonomies of different figures of speech are models of how meaning is cognized and how it is to be extracted from the text.
The theory of a/ankara seems to have influenced poetic com:positions in Sanskrit. Even the earliest Mahakavyas, as those of Asvaghosa seem to have followed some of the dicta incorporated in the teachings of the a/ankara theorists.1 What ever poetic theories came to be vogue, in actual practice poets seem I~ have had the alankara theory always in mind. Though the theory of alankaras was the oldest in literary speculation, and was superceeded by theories of rasa and dhvani. Yet a/ankara was a subject dealt with even by · 3 writers of comparatively recent times. For example, Mammata and Visvanatha, though they were followers of the rasa-dhavani theory, have devoted considerable space to a/ankaras. This would convey an idea of the extent of the influence that the a/ankara school exerted on poetry as well as on the theory of poetry.
The meaning of the term 'a/ankara' underwent several changes within the course of time. At first it was a generic term for ordinary figures of speech and of sound such as Upama rupaka, Yamaka etc. i.e. what we designate by the term 'a/ankara' today. By the time of Dandin, the term had acquireq a more extensive meaning and had come to designate any factor that produces poetic beauty (Kavyasobha} under this wide concept, everything that brought about poetic appeal (Kavyagunas) could be introduced. Then in next stage, Vamanause the term synonymous with entire beauty in poetry, i.e. Sundarya.4. Th1s gave the term a still wider connotation. Alongwith thischange of meaning the theory of a/ankara also developed. But the term lost all its wider significance and came to mean a generic term for the two types of figures, viz. arthalankaras and sahrlalankaras.
DHVANI
The theory of dhvani which came into limelight in the 9th century A.D. through its great exponent Anandavardhana dominated Indian poetics from the 9th to 12th century. Aestheticians of poetry were compelled to wake up from their dogmatic slumber and revise their notions about the older concepts of alamkara, guna and riti in the light of the theory of dhvani. They were compelled to recognise the fact that there could be live factors in poetry only in so far as they shed the feature of conventionality and shared in the feature of dhvanana which is integral to poetic inagination. As Bhjattatanta pointed out it alone can catch the infinite nuances of feeling and express it in ever new forms. Though earlier aestheticians of poetry like Vamana recognised that imagination is the main spring of poetry, they thought that alamkaras were the only expressive forms of imagination. An aesthetician like Bhamaha clearly recognised that some alamkaras were vyanga and as Dr. Krishnamurthy following Jagannatha Pandit points out, though Bhamaha did not use the word dhvani, he was clearly aware of Gunibhuta Vyanga. But what Vamana and Bhamaha did not clearly see was that the oblique turns of expression which all good poetry has is not limited to the thirty six alankaras.
Every part of speech and such small factors like even case endings and particles can at the touch of imagination, became pregnant with poetic meaning. This is a great discovery of Ananda and western poetics had to wa1t to make that discovery until the present century. Aestheticians of poetry subsequent to Ananda could no longer afford to be blind to this important discovery.
The theory of Dhvani was expounded as the most significant principles in literary criticism by the new school of critics headed by Anandavardhana. The Great Acarya Abhinava Gupta wrote an elaborate and authoritative commentary on the Dhvanya/oka where in he has explained all the implications involved in the theory with the aid of copious illustrations culled out from the whole range of Sanskrit literature and criticism. The masterly treatment of the subject by Anandvardhana combined with the authoritative Interpretation of it by Abhinavagupta was able to over come all opposition of theory by rival school and to elicit universal admiration and acceptance of it by later theorists.
To sum the estimate of Anandvardhana and his work Dr.K. Krishnamoorthy says :
Unlike the ancient writers on Sanskrit rhetoric who aimed at nothing more than the provision of elaborate systems of device, with ample, divisions and subd:Jisions capable of mechanical applications. Anandavardhana enunciated the i J broad general principles of poetry based on an insight into the psychology of hur.:Jn nature. Instead of viewing literature, as mere verbal artistry, mere meretriculusous glitter or glamour of expression and imagery, Anandvardhana I strikingly demonstrated that emotive and suggestive significance lsthe very soul I:, of poetry. By thoroughly explaining the linquistic and logical implications of the I! theory of Ohvani, he tried to secure for it the high place_of_h_onour in the eyes.of appreciators and thinkers alike. By properly defining the scope of Dhvani in relation to earlier concepts he was able to settle the precise importance of each in lierature.And he brought to bear up on hiswork, all the qualifications essential for a great literary critic. No wonder that his Dhvanyaloka came to be looked upon as the final authority in all literary matters by the subsequent writers on Sanskrit poetics. A striking original work it combines the merit of fullness with that of conciseness. It sums up and explains all the previous spectulations on the subject and 1-,ecomes in its turn the startingpoint of a number of brillaint text books on poetics. It is a great land-mark in the history of Sanskrit poetics dividing the whole raw·9 of criticism into two schools- the old and the new. It marks the terminations of the old school of criticism and heralds the birth of a modern school, modern in style, in theory and in approach.
GUNA-S AND DOSA-S
Dandin is considered as the founder of Guna Theory. His Kavyadarsa is the first authentic work dealing with Gunas in connection with the Riti otherwise known as Marga. Dandin says that whatever enhances the poetic beauty is its Alankara and in this view gunas are not different from Alankarasiii . Dandin admits the ten Gunas accepted by Bharatha. According to him there are two types of poetic composition – Marga viz. Vaidharbha and Goudiya. Between the two Vaidarbhamarga is perfect with all the ten Gunas while Gaudiya is characterised by two Gunas, Ojas and Kanthi. Just after the enumeration of ten Gunas, Dandin declares the soul of Vaidarbha marga is ten Gunas. It is because of that Dandin, though a follower of Riti and Alankara School is taken as the founder of Guna School.
RITI
Acharya Vamana who lived during the latter half of the 8th century A. D., was one of the most brilliant thinkers whose contribution to Indian literary criticism was unique and of lasting value. His philosophy-oriented investigation into the constitution and nature of a Kavya revealed certain strikingly new facts and factors. His analysis of a Kavya and treatment of its elements were highly imaginative and refreshingly original. Vamana’s Kavyalankara Sutra rises much above the routine treatises on the science of poetics, and justly claims to be regarded as the first attempt at evolving a philosophy of literary aesthetics. His contemplative mind regarded the Kavya as living human being, a charming young lady, and penetrated deeper and deeper into it until it could catch a glimpse of its Soul. Unlike his predecessors and most of his successors he presented his findings in the form of Sutras following the tradition of the Darsanas which sought to discover the Soul of things–the ultimate principle of the Universe.
He opened his treatise with the famous dictum: Kaavyam graahya malankaaraat; Soundarya malankaarah A Kavya becomes agreeable on account of Alankara and Alankara means Beauty. At the very outset Vamana struck a brilliantly original note by drawing a sharp distinction between Alankara as Beauty and Alankara as a figure of speech. Regarding the relation between Beauty and figures of speech, his views were at variance with those of his predecessors.
The factors that produced the Beauty of a Kavya were Alankaras. Vamana disagreed with Dandin and explained that Gunas produced the beauty of Kavya and that the Alankaras only brightened it.
It is here that Vamana introduced the idea of two kinds of beauty–the natural beauty which proceeded from the Gunas and the artificial beauty caused by the Alankaras. Vamana denoted natural beauty as Sobha and its heightened form as Soundarya.
he Riti school of Vamana appears to have enjoyed un-rivalled popularity for over a century. It is remarkable that it should have continued to enjoy almost the same amount of favour with the poets and lovers of poetry even after the rise of a formidable rival like the Dhwani school. The great Anandavardhana himself was compelled to pay a tribute to the concept of Riti and through it to its father, Vamana.
If, as Anandavardhana said, Vamana failed to grasp Dhwani clearly, Anandavardhana may be said to have failed to appreciate the significance of Riti fully. While Dhwani is the essense of the meaning of a Kavya, Riti is the essence of its very being. A Kavya cannot exist without Riti, while it can without Dhwani. Thus one can argue that Riti has greater claims over Dhwani to be the soul of the Kavya.
AUCHITYA
The principal of aucitya (appropriateness) had been indirectly reckoned with from the time of the earliest writers on the theory of poetry in Sanskrit. Bharata, the earliest known critic has been dealt at length on appropriateness in the way of speaking, modulation of voice, musical tunes, dress and make up all suiting to the Rasa and Bhava. Thus propriety or appropriatneness has been recognised as the secret of success of a dramatic performance or a poetic creation.
In the hands of Bhamaha, Dandin and Rudrata, the theory of aucitya flourished. In the treatment of alamkaras the term was used several time by Rudrata. Anandvardhana gave very high place to Aucitya: Kuntaka too gave important place to it ultimately, it was Ksemendra who lightend this concept to its extreme. He considered aucitya to be the jivita (life) of poetry. In his valuable treatise Aucityavicaracars: Ksemendra elaborated the view expressed in Dhavanyaloka. Ksemendra explains the terms Aucitya in the following way: that which is suited to a certain thing is called proper, ucita, the abstract notition of which is 'Aucitya', propriety, Between angin and anga, propriety is perfect harmony. This is the reason why Ksemendra considered it is the secret of poetic appeal. He says: ucitam prahuracaryah sadrsam kilayasya yat ucitasya ca yo bhavastadaucityam pracaksyato. "Aucitya is the condition of being proper when one thing befit another, or when things suit each other well and match perfectly, they may be said to be proper or appropriate. Such matching or fitting quality is aucitya. 1 Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion between the whole and the parts, between the chief and the subsidiary. This perfection is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of its formulation as a theory explaining the srcret of poetic appeal, Aucitya is stated to be the jivita, life-breath, bf poetry.
This Aucitya proportion and harmony on one side and appropriateness and adaption on the other, cannot be understood by itself but pre-supposes that to which all other things are harmonious and appropriate, viz. Rasa, the 'soul' of poetry.2 The principal of propriety is a vast and is appliable to various parts of Kavyangas (parts of poetry). They area: (word) Pada, Vakya (sentence) Prabhandhartha (meaning of composition) guna (excellences) alamkarana (figure of speech), rasa (rasa), Kriya (verb) Karaka (syntax) Linga (gender) vacana (number) visesaha (adjective) upasarga (prefix) Nipata (indiclinable), Kala (tense). desa (locality) Kula (family), vrtta (choice), tattva (truth) sattva (force), abhipraya(purpose), svabhava (reality), Sarasangra!Ja (winding up of sense). pratJblla (creative genius). avastha (stage), vicara (thought) nama (nomenclature). and as is benediction).
In his text Aucityavicaracharacha he has given detailed explanation of all these aspects of aucitya. The appropriateness and inappropriatness of each of the above mentioned aspect are explained. In his analysis he not only criticises the eminent writers but also bring inlight in own faults, which shows his sense of aesthetic judgement.
"The aim of poetry (or of any art for that matter) is communication - communication of feelings and experience. On the terminology of sanskrit literary criticism, this is rasa nispatti- evocation of rasa the process whereby the sahradhya blissfully lives though the sentiments and moods of the poet's Ji experience, presented through his creative abiity. Rasa is conveyed through the medium of suggestion (dhvani) and that alone; a task at which a grosser medium I like verbal expression invariable fails. Figures of speech, dictions, turns of expression, sound patterns, imagery are but accossories, whose employment with due concession to appropriateness (aucitya) would serve as conveyors of dhvani. More over, the rasa manifesting elements (vibhavas,etc.) discharge their:functions only when appropriately employed. Thus, within the bounds of rasa, dhvani and aucitya, the entire theory of aesthetics in sanskrit is comprehend"d.
Now the question arises weather aucitya should be considered as a separate school. As it has already been mentioned Ksemendra considered aucitya to be the jivita of poetry. With the same basis he says that all the components (a/ankara, raga, riti, dhvani and vakrokti) should be used appropriately then only the real essence of poetry is been brought.
No comments:
Post a Comment