Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (Study)
by Debabrata Barai | 2014 | 105,667 words
This page relates ‘Riti theory and position of the Kavyamimamsa� 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).
Part 3 - īپ theory and position of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā
After the ṃk School further developmental school is īپ School, propounded by the Āⲹ 峾Բ, who was flourished with new doctrine about poetry that is:
�īپrātmā 屹ⲹsya �
- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ of 峾Բ: I/ 2/ 6
Means:
�īپ (poetic diction) is the soul of poetry.�
However 峾Բ’s ancestor rhetoricians 峾 and ٲṇḍ do not gives any definition or sing about īپ (poetic diction), but they both are also deliberated about it. In the first time history of Sanskrit poetics Āⲹ 峾Բ in his Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ gives the sufficient light on īپ (poetic diction) and define it by saying:
�śṣṭ貹岹 īپ� �
- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ of 峾Բ: I/ 2/ 7
Means:
�īپ (poetic diction) is a special arrangement of words.�
This special arrangement again is a definite combination of different ṇa is fixed excellences of composition by says:
�viśeṣo guṇātmā �
- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ of 峾Բ: I/ 2/ 8
In this way 峾Բs treatment about special arrangement of words, where oja, 岹 and ܰⲹ etc. various ṇa are through up the endowed with 屹ⲹ (poetry) or the other ways we can say that the special arrangement of words with combination of ṇa is īپ (poetic diction) of the 屹ⲹ (poetry).
Then Āⲹ 峾Բ in his Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ lay down the two commencements about the difference of ҳṇa and ṃks.
First he says:
�屹ⲹśDzyā: kartāro : ṇāḥ ٲ岹پśⲹٲٱṅk� �
- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-ṛtپ of 峾Բ: III/1-2
Means:
“Those elements produces poetic beauty are ṇa and this �屹ⲹśDzyā� kartāro� guṇa are the very special than ṃk�
Where ṇa are the place in 屹ⲹ-śDz and there ṃk only increasing this 屹ⲹ-śDz in 屹ⲹ (poetry). In this causes ācārya 峾Բ do not accepted the priority of ṃk in 屹ⲹ (poetry) and established the importance of ṇa, which is the ascertaining the īپ School in the history of Sanskrit poetics.
According to ٳԾ첹 ĀԲԻ岹Բ, appropriate composition of words is the īپ (poetic diction). In any sentences terms of the process in terms of status or to ṅgٲ. However 峾Բ’s composition of word (pada ) and ĀԲԻ岹Բ’s (pada-ṅgٲ) frequencies of word is not difference to each other. The refractory nature of the īپ is described ĀԲԻ岹Բ accomplish but 峾Բ’s self-described īپ (poetic diction) is dwarf feasible.
Vakroktijīvitakāra Āⲹ Kuntaka, gives the importance of poet’s inner practice and established īپ as the kavi-prasthana-hetu. In this view, proper concept of different īپ’s is the criteria for justifying the poet’s nature.
ᲹᲹ realized for the īپ as:
�vaidarbhādikṛta panthā kāvye mārge iti smṛta|
rīṅgatāviti dhātossā vyutpatyā īپrucyate || �- Sarasvatīkaṇṭhāvaraṇa of Bhoja:
Means:
�īپ is etymologically consisting with �gatyārthaka � rīṅ� ( ring) ٳ.�
There īپ is the way of poetry. So different poet’s poetic composition are different types of īپ.
In the Kāvyaprakāśa of Ѳṭa posits īپ and ṛtپ as a similar thing and described the 貹岵첹, ʳܰṣa and Komala ṛtپ. Then he lastly realized those three ṛtپs are the same as 峾Բ’s Vaidarbhi, Ҳḍiⲹ and ñī īپ by saying:
�evāstistre vṛttayo vāmanādīnā� mate 岹ī ḍ� pāñcālākhyā rītaye � �
And says, ṛtپ and īپ are:
�ṛtپrniyataṇagato rasaviṣayo ��.
Therefore վśٳ also gives the importance of �pada-ṅgٲ� with Ѳṭa’s �ṇa-ⲹ� as:
�padasaṅghaṭanā īپraṅgasaṃsthā viśeṣavat upakatrī rasādīnām �
- ٲⲹ岹貹ṇa of վśٳ: 9/ 1
In the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, 屹īⲹ Ჹś declared Suṇanāvaha as the founder of īپ treatise by saying:
�īپnirṇaya� suṇanābha : �
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Ჹś: Ch-I, Pp- 1
Though, the īپ-nirnaya 첹ṇa of Kāvyamīmāṃsā is unavailable to us at present times but we can think that Ჹś must be composed in this 첹ṇa.
Because he one says in the kavi-rahasya 첹ṇa that:
�ṛtپīپsvarupa� yathāvasara� vakṣyāma: �
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Ჹś: Ch-III, Pp- 8
And,
�īپyastu tistrastāstu ܰ |�
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Ჹś: Ch-III, Pp- 10
Means:
�ṛtپ’s and īپ’s will be dealt with in details later. And also īپ’s are of three kinds.�
They will be described later. Āⲹ 峾Բ also refers three ṛtپs i.e. Vaidarbi, Ҳḍiⲹ and ñ ī . C.f.
�sā tredhā 岹ī ḍīyā pāñī ceti || �
- KLS of 峾Բ: I/ 2/ 9
Means: īپ is three kinds: ղ岹ī, Ҳܻīⲹ and ñ ī. However, Ჹś does not mentions 岵ī īپ anywhere in his Kāvyamīmāṃsā but in the first śǰ첹 of his Saṭṭaka ūñᲹī says about it:
In ʰṛt:
�岹� bhodu sarassaī a kaiṇo ṇaṃdaṃtu vāsāiṇo
aṇṇāṇa� vi para� paaṭṭadu varā vāṇ� chaillapiā |
dzī taha māahī phu radu ṇo sā ki ca paṃcāliā
rodīo vilihaṃtu kabbaku salā joṇhā� caorā via || �- ūñᲹī of Ჹś: 1/1
In Sanskrit meaning:
�� bhavatu sarasvatyā kavayo nandantu vyāsādaya
anyeṣāmapi para� pravartatā� varā vāṇ� vidagdhapriyā |
岹ī tathā māgadhī sphu radu na sā kiñca ñ
īپkā vilihantu 屹ⲹku śalā jyotsnā� cakorā iva || �
In this śǰ첹 we can see that another new īپ �dzī� , which he has referred. Thus it seems that Ჹś’s mentioned 岵ī and � dzī� R īپ in the ūñᲹī are the same as the Ҳḍiⲹ and ղ岹ī īپ, which is described in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā Out of this, in the tenth act of his 峾ⲹṇa, he incidentally refers the another new īپ, Maithālī.
That is also seems as alternate as Ҳḍiⲹ īپ. C.f.
�laṅke ndrānuja eṣaimathili yohaya� kavandha� puro
vārā� bhartari śailaseturapara� proto yathā rājate |
nidrāloratitundilasya khalate� chovasya ghoṇāsṛjāmoghenāsya
bhayaspṛśohapi nibhṛta� svarvāsino hāsitā� || �- 峾ⲹṇa of Ჹś: Ch-X/21
In this way Ჹś approved the three īپ’s i.e. ղ岹ī, Ҳḍiⲹ and ñ ī, if he recognized most of them about three īپ’s so he must be described on such things in his poetical work Kāvyamīmāṃsā
Further, we can seems that Āⲹ 峾, ٲṇḍ, ܻṭa and ĀԲԻ岹Բ etc. all the previous rhetoricians� of Ჹś gives importance of īپ mostly in their own works but they all are silence about the origin and development about it. There we see Ჹś discusses about the genesis and developmental concepts of īپ by a mythological account of 屹ⲹܰṣa� in the third chapter of his Kāvyamīmāṃsā in the description of journey of Sahitya--ū for the searching 屹ⲹܰṣa� in the different places all over country with adaptation various sorts of dress and dramatic devices than visible the origin of various types of īپ’s, ṛtپ’s and ṛt’s in poetic world.
Ჹś accepted that the (compound) with Գܱś is the major theory of īپ. The earlier Āⲹ ٲṇḍ and 峾Բ also ascertain that ҳṇa as the major element of īپ. Then the ܻṭa recognized (compound) only major on īپ but the Dhvanikara ĀԲԻ岹Բ accepted all the ܰⲹ, ʰ岹 and Ojas these three ṇa are the inner and (compound) as the outer elements of īپ. However Ჹś not only posits and Գܱś as the major element of īپ but also imaginated the main elements of all the three īپs.