Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (Study)
by Debabrata Barai | 2014 | 105,667 words
This page relates 鈥榁yaktiviveka of Mahimbhatta鈥� of the English study on the Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara: a poetical encyclopedia from the 9th century dealing with the ancient Indian science of poetics and rhetoric (also know as alankara-shastra). The Kavya-mimamsa is written in eighteen chapters representing an educational framework for the poet (kavi) and instructs him in the science of applied poetics for the sake of making literature and poetry (kavya).
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Part 11 - Vyaktiviveka of 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补
[Post-Dhvani Theory of Sanskrit Poetics (4): The Vyaktiviveka of 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 (11th century A.D.)]
惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 in his poetical work Vyaktiviveka represent one of the great reactions among the works criticizing the doctrine of Dhvani theory propounded by the 顿丑惫补苍测腻濒辞办补. Mahimbhatta wrote this Vyaktiviveka most probably two century later of 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补鈥檚 顿丑惫补苍测腻濒辞办补, when 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补鈥檚 philosophy of poetics has been widely accepted in Sanskrit Poetics. 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 written his work with the proposition that his aim is to comprehend all concepts of Dhvani theory in the process of 础苍耻尘腻苍补. 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 criticizes the doctrine of Dhvani and applies his theory 础苍耻尘腻苍补, even 叠丑补峁弓补苍腻测补办补 objects to the epistemological aspects of Dhvani theory with more or less concerned that, how the suggested Rasa convey by poetry to the reader. However 叠丑补峁弓补苍腻测补办补 did not reject the importance of suggested meaning (especially Rasa) of 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补 constitutes the soul of poetry. Another famous logician 闯补测补苍迟补产丑补峁弓补, in his 狈测腻测补尘补帽箩补谤墨 examines the implications of Dhvani and discussing the problem 础谤迟丑腻辫补峁弓颈 is an independent 笔谤补尘腻苍补. Thus he accepted both 础谤迟丑腻辫补峁弓颈 and Dhvani in 础苍耻尘腻苍补.
Mahimbhatta does not have any disagreement with importance to the suggested meaning of 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补[1] but his approached endeavored to demonstrate how all verities of Dhvani can be included in 础苍耻尘腻苍补.
惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 takes to analyzing many examples from 顿丑惫补苍测腻濒辞办补 and shows that the expressed sense does not rally suggest the unexpressed, but between the two, inferences are possible and do occur by the saying:
鈥�v膩cy膩stadunumita va yatr膩rtho'nantaram prak膩艣ayati |
sa峁僾andhata岣� ku ta艣cita sa k膩vy膩numitiriktu kta岣� || 鈥�鈥�etaccanumanasyaiva 濒补办峁峁嘺峁� n膩nyasya | yaduktam
trirupali峁単膩khy膩nam par膩rth膩numanamiti ke vala峁� sa峁兠眏abheda岣� || 鈥�- Vyaktiviveka of 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补: I
In this way we found that though 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 has accepts the poetic scheme of 膧苍补苍诲补惫补谤诲丑补苍补 with specially Rasa, but he mainly tries to focus his novel speculations of Anaucitya as the supplement of Rasa. Lastly we can say that, the 础苍耻尘腻苍补 theory of 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补 does not receive proper recognition in the later 腻濒补峁僰腻谤颈办补蝉.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Vyaktiviveka of 惭补丑颈尘产丑补峁弓补: Ch鈥�1, 鈥榢膩vy膩sy膩tmani sa峁僯an墨ni ras膩dirupe lo kasyacida vimati岣� |鈥�