Kavya and Indian Poetics

sreenivasaraos.
com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part One

sreenivasaraos
[I could not arrange the topics in a sequential order (krama) . You may take these as random
collection of discussions; and, read it for whatever it is worth. Thank you.]
Kavya Shastra
The Indian Poetics over the centuries was known by different names at different stages of its
development. Valmiki in his Epic, Ramayana, refers to Poetics as Kriya-kalpa (kriya-kalpa
vidashcha kavyavido janan– Uttara Kanda.93.7). Lalitavistara Sutra a Buddhist text believed to
belong to the first or second century explains the term Kriya–kalpa as the rules for creating
poetic works ( Kavya-karana-vidhi ) ; and says that the term means Kavya-alamkara , the
poetics (kriya–kalpa iti kavya-karana-vidhi kavya-alamkara ithyarthaha . Vatsayana (Ca. second
century) in his famous Kama sutra , while enumerating the fourteen types of arts (Kala) that a
cultured urbane person (Nagarika) should cultivates , also uses the term Kavya-kriya-kalpa to
denote the Poetics (Kama sutra.1.3.16). The poet Dandin (6th-7th century) in his Kavyadarsha, a
handbook of classical Sanskrit Poetics, calls Poetics as Kriyavidhi, the rules of poetry (Vacham
vichitra-marganam nibbandha kavyalamkara ith arthaha).
But, by the time of Bhamaha (Ca.6-7th century) the term Alamkara or Alamkara shastra was in
wide use. It was believed that Alamkara the figurative speech or ornamentation was the
principle virtue that lent Kavya its grace and brilliance (Kavya-shobha-karaan dharman
alamkaran prachakshte). The titles of the books, of his period and thereafter , on Poetics ,
therefore, were centered upon the term Alamkara , such as: Kavyalamkara (by Bhamaha; Ca.6-
7th century); Kavya-alamkara-sara- Samgraha ( by Udbhata – 8th century); Kavya-alamkara-
sutra-vritti ( by Vamana 8th century -) and Kavya-alamkara ( by Rudrata – c. 9th-century ) .
The tendency to describe Poetics in terms of Alamkara went on for a considerable period of time.
Though Alamkara was the general name for Poetics, the term Alamkara also referred to one of
the principles of Poetics as also to the specific expressions of figures of speech like Anuprasa,
Upama etc. And the concepts of Rasa, Guna, and Riti were also brought under the overall ambit
of Alamkara principle.
Rajashekhara ( 9th -10th century) the poet and scholar treated Poetics as a Shastra; and , he
named Poetics as Sahitya Vidya . And the poets who followed Rajasekhara began to describe
Poetics as Sahitya. For instance; Vishwanatha named his book on Poetics as Sahitya-darpana;
Ruyyaka titled his book as sahitya-mimamsa; and, Bhojaraja called Poetics as Kavya shastra.
[Sahitya generally represents the notion of literature – everything preserved in writing, or even
in speech; but, here, practically it was a synonym for Kavya. (Perhaps Vangmaya – things made
of language) could be a better term) ]
Thus, over the long period, from time to time, the Shastra of Poetics had been called as Kriya-
kalpa; Kavya-karana-vidhi; Kavya-kriya-kalpa; Kriya-vidhi; Alamkara Shastra; Sahitya Vidya
and Kavya shastra.
The terms Kriya–kalpa, Kavya–vidhi etc went out of use quite early. And, the scope of the term
Alamkara, since the time of Anandavardhana (Ca.10th century) got restricted to one of the
elements of poetry , which is the ornamentation and figures of speech like Anuprasa , Upama etc
, and, it was scarcely used in its wider sense of poetics.
The term Sahitya which etymologically means to put together in the sense of composition ,
coordination , balance , concord and contact , in recent times, is used to cover all forms of
literature (vangmaya) .It covers even Grammar, philosophy, logic, etymology, technical subjects
like medicine , Law etc; apart from prose, poetry drama etc.
Therefore, the scholars generally opine that for Poetics, the term Kavya shastra seems more
suited ( though some employed the grandiose term Kavya Mimamsa) ; particularly since the term
Kavya includes prose, poetry, Drama and all other forms of creative writings. Besides, the suffix
Shastra (Sahsanath shasanam) signifies the theory of practice as also the practice of theory.
Further, the term Kavya Shastra sounds better than Kriya, Kapla, and Vidhi etc. And, Kavya
Shastra was therefore used by writers like Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Rudrata, Rajasekhara
and others to denote Poetics. Since the Indian Poetics began to take a systemic form during the
times of Bhamaha and Dandin, attempting to expound the essence of Kavya, its aesthetics and
style and lucidity of composition etc, we may as well adopt their nomenclatures. That is one
view. And, there are other views too.
***
According to Dr. G.T. Deshpande (Bharathiya Sahityashastra, The Indian Poetics), the Indian
Poetics developed in stages over a period of about two thousand years. During these long
centuries the Indian Poetics attained maturity. He enumerates six stages of development:
Kriyakalpa (around 2nd century BCE); Kavyalakshana (from Bharata up to 6th century AD);
Kavya-alankara (600 AD to 850 AD); Sahitya (say from 850 to 1100 AD); and, Sahitya-paddathi
(1100 AD – 1650 AD).
Bharata’s Natyashastra, he says, represents the first stage of Indian poetics (Kriyakalpa) where
the diverse elements of arts, literature, music, dance, stage management and cosmetics combined
harmoniously to successfully produce an enjoyable play- Drshya-kavya.
During the next (second) stage (Kavyalakshana) the poetics grew independent of the theatre. The
discussions during this period were mostly regarding the general nature of Kavya. This period is
marked by the works of Bhamaha and Dandin, say up to 600 AD.
In the third stage (Kavya-alankara) stretching from Bhamaha and Dandin up to Rudrata, say
from 600 AD to 850 AD, the concepts of Alankara (embellishments) Gunas (characteristics) and
Rasa gained a little more clarity. The characteristic beauty (Saundaryam or Shobha) associate
with poetry and the means of creating highly enjoyable poetry came into discussion.
The fourth stage (Sahitya) was the period of analysis and understanding the basic concepts of
literature and Grammar. This was the period from Mammata to Anandavardhana (say from 850
to 1100 AD). The questions raised, basically, were: ‘What is truly Sahitya (literature)?’ ’Does it
merely mean a combination of words and meanings? Or, is there anything more to it?’; ‘What
are the special features of poetry?’ Do the words in the poetry convey the same meaning as
anywhere else?’ ; and .,’ How is the meaning (Artha) of poetry conveyed?’ etc. It is in this
period, the poetics (Kavya) became independent of the earlier concepts of Alamkara, Dvani etc.
And, the sixth stage (Sahitya-paddathi) was the methodical study of the poetry n all its aspects
during the period from 1100 AD – 1650 AD, say ending with Jagannatha Pandita.
Main concerns – Sabda and Artha

One of the problems that engaged attention of the Grammarians and the philosophers alike was
the subtle relation between the linguistic element (Sabda) and its meaning (Artha). Sabda can
roughly be understood as word, a sound, a meaningful unit of speech. Patanjali explained the
term Sabda as that which when articulated gives out the meaning or intent the of the
speaker. And, Mandana Misra, in his Sphotasiddhi said: Sabda is the cause that produces the
intended meaning.
According to Bhartrhari (4th or 5th century) “There is no cognition without the operation of
words. All knowledge is illumined through words’’. In Bhartrhari’s scheme of things, the
problem of meaning is basic. It is through the meaning conveyed by the words that knowledge is
experienced.” “It is only the thought as expressed in words that can be understood,
communicated and criticized. A language grows with the thought; or rather the thought grows
with language. In the ultimate analysis they might even be identical.”
Two main concerns of the Sanskrit Poetics seemed to be: the word, and its meaning. The first one
concerns how the word is treated in the text; and, mainly how it is formally used. It could be the
elaborate embellishments (Alamkara) artistically arranged to enhance the beauty of the
presentation; or it could be the elegance of the diction or even oblique ways of twisting. The other
is about the shades or the layers of meaning that the word is capable of revealing. Generally, it
was about the ways (vyapara) of achieving the objectives (phala) of the poet and his poetry.
The late-tenth-century philosopher and literary theorist Abhinavagupta felt that Kavya is not
just about meaning, it is something more than that ; and, he put it directly: “It is not the mere
capacity for producing meaning as such that enables a text to be called Kavya. And that is why
we never apply that term to everyday discourse or the Veda.”
Raja Bhoja (1011–1055) in his Srngaraprakasha says, that of the things made of language
(Vangmaya) Kavya is one species. The elements that make the language are the words and
meanings. And, Word and meaning well composed (sahitau) constitute Kavya. . Thus Kavya is a
composition ( unity , sahitya) of word and meaning.
Then he goes on to say: What, however, does the word “word” signify? It is that through which,
when articulated, meaning is understood, and it is of twelve sorts, starting with base and affix
and ending with sentence, section, and whole work. “Meaning” is what a word gives us to
understand, and it is of twelve sorts, starting with action and tense and ending with word-
meaning and sentence-meaning. And last, “composition” signifies the connection of word and
meaning, and it, too, is of twelve sorts, starting with denotation and implication and ending with
avoidance of faults, employment of expression-forms (guna), connection with factors of beauty
(alañkara), and presence of rasa.
King Somesvara III (around 1130) of the Kalyana Chalukya dynasty in his Manasollasa, an
encyclopedic work, says: Words make up the body of a literary text, meaning is its life-breath,
tropes its external form, emotional states and feelings its movements, meter its gait, and the
knowledge of language its vital spot. It is in these that the beauty of the deity of literature
consists.
The scholars of Poetics, of course, need to be concerned with the beauty and elegance of
expression; but, at the same time they also need to be exercised over the sense that such
arrangements of words would produce. The Poetic-scholars realized that neither logic (Nyaya)
nor Grammar (Vyakarana) would provide them with right answers. The position, simply put, is:
poetry in any of its forms does need words; and the arrangements of those words, however clever
or elegant, do have to convey a sense or meaning. The poetic beauty does not solely dependent on
the strict order of words or other conventions. It in fact goes beyond regulated regimens. It is
only the right or judicious combination of the two – Sabda and Artha- that produces relishing
aesthetic expressions and suggestive poetry. The ultimate merit of a Kavya is in its enjoyment
(Rasa) by the Sahrudaya the reader endowed with culture and taste.
Now, regarding words: according to Indian Poetics, a word has three functions: it signifies or
denotes (abhida); it indicates (lakshana); and it suggests (vyanjana). The meaning that is
comprehended immediately after the word is uttered is its primary meaning (mukhya-artha). The
meaning thus conveyed and its relation to the next word and its own meaning is a mutual relation
of the signifier and the signified (vachya-vachaka). The power that creates the relation among
words is Abhida-vyapara, the power of denotation or sense. The suggestive power of the word is
through Vyanjana-artha.
The meaning of a word or a sentence that is directly grasped in the usual manner is Vakyartha
(denotation or literal sense); and, the power of the language which conveys such meaning is
called Abidha-vritti (designating function). The term Sabdabodha ‘verbal comprehension’ or
‘verbal cognition’ is also used at times. It is intended to denote meaning of a sentence as
understood by the listener.
In certain cases where a particular word is not capable of conveying the desired sense, another
power which modifies that word to produce the fitting or suitable meaning is called Lakshana-
vritti (indicative function).
The primary sense Vakyartha is the natural (Svabhavokti) and is the easily comprehended sense
of the word. When the perception of the primary sense is obstructed, the word conveys the sense
other than the primary sense; but, the two meanings (somehow) seem related. Thus, the
secondary sense (lakshana) could even be called an unnatural meaning (Vakrokti) of the word.
For instance; when the word Purusha is uttered, one immediately understands it as a reference to
a male member of the human race. It is the primary sense of the word. It might refer to an
individual or to a generic attribute. In any case; the word Purusha and its meaning are related. It
is a signified–signifier relationship; one pointing towards the other. This relationship is termed
Abhida. However, in the world we live, we do not always use a word only in its primary sense.
Many times, the word in its primary sense may not be adequate. Then, we attempt to attribute a
sense to the word that is different or distinct from the primary sense. This would be secondary
sense – lakshanika or lakshyartha – of that word. The word in its secondary sense is called
lakshana. The relationship between the secondary sense and the word is described as lakshya-
lakshya sambandha
Such process of superimposition (aropita) is called lakshana or indication. The three: the
obstruction caused due to incompatibility of primary sense; the connection between the primary
and the secondary sense; and, the convention (rudi) – are all interrelated. Here, there ought to be
some justification for switching over to the un-natural meaning of the word; and, it should be
generally acceptable (or should have gained currency in the common usage).
The indication (lakshana) is thus of two types: one, sanctioned by usage (rudi-lakshana) ; and ,
the other , where the speaker uses it for a specific or a specialized purpose (prayojanavato
lakshana).
As regards the Grammarians’ point of view, of the three functions of the word, the secondary or
the indicative Lakshana-vritti is the most important and popular. Three conditions for Lakshana
are generally accepted by all schools of Grammar. The first is the incompatibility or
inconsistency of the primary meaning in the context, which produces a break in the flow of
thought, forcing the listener to think in order to understand what the speaker would really have
meant by the uncommon usage and why he has used the word in an irregular way. The
inconsistency can either be the impossibility of associating the normal meaning with the other
word meanings of the sentence or be the normal meaning’s unsuitability in the context.
The second condition is some kind of relation between the primary (normal) meaning of the term
and its meaning as intended by the speaker in a given context. This relation can be one of
proximity to the alternate ( contrary) meaning or one of similarity or of common quality. The
latter type is called Gauni Lakshana which the Mimamsakas treat as an independent function
called Gauni. According to Mimamsakas, the real Lakshana is only of the first type, a relation of
proximity with contrariety (oppositeness).
The third condition is either acceptance by common usage or a special purpose intended for
introducing the Lakshana. All faded metaphors (nirudha lakshana) fall into the former category,
and metaphorical usages, especially by the poets, fall into the latter.
[The Great Grammarian Panini, however, did not accept Lakshana as a separate function in
language. He did not consider the incompatibility etc on which the Lakshana was based by other
Grammarians as quite relevant from the point of view of Grammar. The sentences such as:’ He
is an ass’ and ‘He is a boy ‘are both correct grammatically. Panini’s Grammar provides some
popular examples of Lakshana; like ‘the village on the river’ (gangayam ghosah) by considering
proximity as one of the meanings of the locative case. Similarly, Panini does not mention or
provide for the condition of yogyata or consistency, which is considered by the later
Grammarians as essential for unity of sentence. The expression Agnina sinchati (He sprinkles
with fire) is grammatically correct, though from the semantic point of view it may not be quite
proper, because sprinkling can be done only with liquid and not with fire.]
It does not mean that some words are merely vachaka and certain others are only Lakshya, and
so on. The use of words, their role and the intended effect are context sensitive. The same word
could be employed in any number of ways; each performing its role its own context. All the
shades of meaning are necessary and relevant in poetry; but, each in its own context.
Similarly, Riti, as put forward by Vamana, is an arrangement of words and meanings

characterized by various Gunas. A particular Guna might be appropriate in a particular context.
The verbal compositions could be tight knit and high flowing in a given context; but , a simple ,
lucid narration might be appropriate in an another situation. One may admire grandeur in one
situation; and simplicity in another. It is the context that decides appropriateness of style.
Rajasekhara, therefore, says: A sentence is an arrangement of words which embodies the

content that the speaker wishes to convey (pada-nama-abidhita-arthagrathanakarah sandarbhah
vakyam – Kavyamimamasa (22) of Rajasekhara).
For instance; take the word Mother. The word in its primary sense is woman who has given birth
to a child. In the specific context when one says ‘Kausalya is the mother of Rama’ you are
referring to a specific person. And one says ‘necessity is the mother of invention’, one is not
referring to a physical mother but to suggest the sense of ‘origin’. Here, the primary sense of the
term does not work. Similarly, when the Saint Ramaprasad calls out to Devi in anguish as
Mother, it suggests the intensity of his devotion and the depth of his longing for her love and
protection. Devi is not the physical mother but a projection of the universal Mother principle as a
specific mother deity. The vibrations of the suggested meaning of the word are indeed truly
powerful.
Then, there is the most interesting and much debated Vyanjana-artha which is the suggested
sense or the essence of the word. This is founded in the principle that the meaning of word is not
limited to its literal sense; the word has the power to reach far beyond the obvious. In poetry, the
word acquires another power Vyanjana-vritti the suggestive function. It is the power which
activates the potential hidden in the word. And, the word acquires a new glow. Through the
suggestive function of the word, a new meaning emerges, transcending the obvious literal sense,
far more beautiful and sensitive.
The word which connotes the suggested sense (through the suggestive function Vyanjana –vritti)
is named Vyanjaka. The relationship between the suggestive word and the suggested meaning
(Vyanjana-artha) is described as vyangya-vyanjaka sambandha.
The suggestive word, the suggested meaning, the power of suggestion; and their mutual
relationship are virtually the lifeblood of Indian poetics. In fact, this is what that distinguishes
poetry from other forms of literature.
The suggested sense Vyanjana-artha, which, though not explicit, becomes the object of awareness
is regarded the essence of poetry. The Dhvani School put forward by Anandavardhana, brought
focus on the potential power of the word in a Kavya. Here, the word (Sabda) together with its
literal sense (Vakyartha ) is said to form the body of Kavya , it is its cloak . But, the essence of
poetry is elsewhere; it is not directly visible; and, that essence is the suggested sense of the word
(Vyanjana-artha).
It other words: it is not the direct literal and obvious meaning that is explicit in poetry, but it is
the suggested, indirect and emotive meaning that matters. Hence, though the words of a Kavya
and their the literal sense must be given their due importance , they are but a medium for
emotive and indirect meaning flash forth . In good poetry, this suggested meaning dominates
over the words and their literal meaning. As Anandavardhana put it: The latter are compared to
a woman’s body and the former to her grace and beauty which is a subtler manifestation and a
more profound meaning of the womanhood.
The primary meaning can be understood by all. But, the suggested meaning is understood only
by those who are gifted with some imagination and a sort of intuition. Here, the mere knowledge
of the word alone is not enough to understand and enjoy the poetic import or the essence of the
Kavya. It needs intuition or Prathibha. Mammatacharya calls Prathibha as – nava-navaonvesha-
shalini prajna – the ever inventive and resourceful intellect. Prathibha is also called, at times, as
Vasana. Only those endowed with Prathibha can truly enjoy the essence and beauty of Kavya.
That is why, it is remarked, the Grammarians (unlike the goodhearted cultured reader the
Sahrudaya) cannot truly appreciate and enjoy the Rasa of good poetry. They are incapable of
looking beyond what appears obvious.
Anandavardhana, therefore, says that such suggested sense is not apprehended (na vidyate) by
mere knowledge of Grammar (Sabda-artha-shasana-jnana) and dictionary. It is apprehended
only (Vidyate, kevalam) by those who know how to recognize the essence of poetic meaning
(Kavya-artha-tattva-jnana) – Dhv.1.7
It is said; in the highest class of Kavya, the denoted meaning (Vakyartha ) and the denoting
meaning (Lakshyartha) is subservient to revealing the suggested sense word (Vyanjana-artha);
and , it is called Dhvani by the scholars – Dhv.1.13
The suggested sense of the word designated as Dhvani (resonance or tone or suggestion) is
regarded Anandavardhana as the soul of Kavya: Kavyasya Atma Dhvanih.
[The concept of Dhvani was said to be inspired by the ancient doctrine of Sphota. The term
Sphota signifies: bursting; opening; expansion; disclosure; the eternal and imperceptible
element of sound and words; and , is the real vehicle of the idea which bursts or flashes on the
mind when a sound is uttered.
Nagesha Bhatta identifies Vedic Sage Sphotayana, mentioned by Panini in one of his rules, as the
originator of Sphota theory. Bhartrhari, however, states that Audumbarayana (mentioned by
Yaska) had put forth views similar to the Sphota concept. In any case, the original idea of Sphota
seems to go back to the Vedic age when Vak or speech was considered to be a manifestation of
the all – pervading Brahman , and Pranava (Aum) was regarded as the primordial speech sound
from which all forms of Vak were supposed to have evolved.
It was Bhartrhari (around 485 AD) in his great work Vakyapadiya (all about sentence and word)
elaborated and established the Sphota doctrine in the realm of Grammar and in Philosophy.
According to Bhartrhari, the perfect perception is that in which there is identity between the
object (namely, the Sphota) and the form of its cognition (namely, words or the letters of sounds)
. This special kind of perception is held to be function of mind, rather than of the external senses.
This is a major subject; and deserves to be discussed separately.]

But, when one begins to talk of words (Sabda), naturally, it leads to Grammar (Vyakarana),
which concerns itself with the arrangement of words into sentences. It does not account for the
pattern of meanings. The poetry on the other hand is not much concerned with the arrangement
of words. But, it does strive to convey a meaning.
In the case of poetry, the arrangement of words (Sabda or pada) is logical but not necessarily
grammatical. That is because; the poetic beauty does not solely dependent on the strict order of
words or other conventions. It in fact goes beyond regulated regimens. The unique virtue of
poetry is that it provides space for experimentation, and to introduce hitherto unknown or
unusual terms and expressions regardless of their grammatical correctness. And at the same time
, it was recognized that the poetic beauty does not merely depend on ornate figures of speech or
on the twisted or unusual expressions ; but , it is primarily in the intrinsic merit of the poetry
itself.
The combination of words or arrangement of words expressing the idea or the content which the
poet intends to convey at a ‘single stroke’ is the sentence (Vakya) in the poetry. A sentence is
defined by Rajasekhara as an arrangement of words which embodies the content that the
speaker wishes to convey (pada-nama-abidhita-arthagrathanakarah sandarbhah vakyam –
Kavyamimamasa (22) of Rajasekhara). The meaning of a sentence expresses a complete idea.
The sentence in poetry is called Vachana (Vakyam vachanam vyavaharanti – Kavyamimamsa). In
poetry the terms Vakya, Vachana and Ukti are synonymous. A characteristic turn of expression
attains the status of poetry (Ukti-visesah kavyam).
[Among the ancient Grammarians, neither Panini nor Gautama defined the sentence. Katyayana
was perhaps the first to define a sentence. He called it ekatin, that which has one finite verb.
Panini, however, seems to have held that a sentence can have many more than one finite
verb. Later Grammarians also seemed to accept Panini’s view. But, from Katyayana’s point of
view such a sentence may be considered as a complex sentence made up of two or more sentences,
but fundamentally forming one single sentence.]
The relation between Grammar and poetry is interesting. Poetry, in the Indian traditions, is
often called vyakaranasya puccham – the tail piece or the appendix of Grammar. The Grammar
determines the correctness of the words and their arrangement within a sentence. The poetry is
however more concerned with the appropriateness and mutual relations among the words. The
poetry, as far as possible, follows Grammar. But , when it find the rules of Grammar too
constrained or suffocating , it switches over to other means of expressions that are more
appropriate or conducive to its natural flow; or , it invents its own means. At times, when those
inventive expressions of poetic suggestions are so charming and become so popular, they walk
into Grammar per se; and, the Grammar must necessarily accept poetic inventions (svikara
avashyakah).
Continued in
Part Two
Sources and References
Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī
Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

Sahityashastra, the Indian Poetics by Dr. Ganesh Tryambak Deshpande
History of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz
A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard
Literary Cultures in History by Sheldon Pollock
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Two

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part One
[I could not arrange the topics in a sequential order (krama) . You may take these as random
Kavya – Rise and Decline
Kavya
Kavya literally means the creation of a Kavi, which term derived from ‘kru-varne’ denotes one
who describes; and, it is generally taken to mean a poet. The term Kavi in the Vedic context,
however, meant a Rishi, a Drastara (seer) who through his intuition envisions (Darshana) the true
nature of entities and their varied states of being (vicitra-bhava-dharmamsa-tattva-prakhya).
Later, according to Yaska, the great Etymologist, the term Kavi came to denote,
comprehensively, all those who express themselves through their intuitional (artistic) creations
.The creative expression could be through words, color, sculpture, sound, or any other form, so
long it flows out of intuition (prathibha) and manifests in an enjoyable form, to the benefit of all
beings. Kavitva (poetry) thus , basically , encompasses in itself all forms of art expressions.
In the later times, the scope of the term Kavi was narrowed down to mean an author who creates
Kavya. Here also it was said that one cannot be a Kavi unless one has the faculty to envision
(Darshana) and to see that which is beyond the obvious, lifting the veil of the apparent (Drasta).
Kavya in the sense of poetry during the time of Natyashastra (first or second century BCE) was
just an ingredient of Drama.
During the time of Natyashastra, Drama enjoyed the preeminent position; and was respected as
being the highest form of art expression. All faculties, right from architecture, stage craft,
painting, costumes, makeup and even poetry, music, dance etc were treated as the elements that
contribute to a credible dramatic performance. It was only much later that each of these arts
developed into independent disciplines gaining more depth and spread.
In the later times, a complete turnaround came about; and, Drama was classified as one of the
forms of Kavya. And, even here, for some period of time, Drama was treated as the most
delightful form of Kavya – Kavyeshu Natakan ramyam. Perhaps this followed a sort of gradation
of poetic experience. It was said; that to include Prose under Kavya sounds good as a rhetorical
principle. But, the restrictions of Chhandas, rhyme etc do limit the scope as also the appeal of
the prose-Kavyas. And, for similar reasons , just as the metrical Kavya has advantage over
prose, so the ‘recited poem’ and Drama have an advantage over metrical Kavya , as they both
enjoy the benefit of the musical effects of the sounds that enhance the beauty of presentation,
and hence the pleasure of the listener . The Drama scores over the ‘recited poem’ because it has
power to bring in the embellishment of spectacular the visual effects; hence, Kavyeshu Natakam
ramyam.
But, with the decline of Drama, the Dramaturgy became stagnant after Bharata till about 13 th or
14th century, that is until scholars such as Dhanajaya, Sagaranandi, Ramachandra-Gunachadra
and Simhabhupa came to its rescue by writing treaties. Among these, Dhananjaya’s Dasa Rupaka
is an outstanding work.
Mammaṭācārya (11th century) explained that Kavya meant poetry, prose , drama, music as
also dance i.e. all those forms of art which delight and touch the inner most chord of human
sensitivity . That was before; dance and music again branched out.
Kavya is very often translated as poetry. This is rather imprecise, because in Kavya both poetry
(Padya) and prose (Gadya) are employed. The two – Padya and Gadya – are also used in Drama ,
Champu Kavya , as also in technical texts and treatises.
Ideally, Kavya has no restriction of languages or its forms .Kavya need not always have to be in
Sanskrit. It could as well be in Prakrit any other group of regional languages, including
Sinhalese, Javanese. As Sheldon Pollock says , the languages of the Kavya termed such as
Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa or whatever , all refer to social and linguistic characteristics and
not to particular people or places; and , least of all the structure and internsic merit of the work.
Prakrit
In fact, the early phase of the Kavya was dominated by Prakrit which was spread across many
regions of India. It is only towards the end of the first century or the beginning of the second
century that the Sanskrit Kavya began to flower in earnestness.
To say a few word about Prakrit, the term is said to be derived from Prakrut, meaning natural
(or the original as opposed to Vikrti, the modified) . Another explanation says that Prakrit is the
common name given various dialects which sprang up in the early times in India from the
corruption of Sanskrit (Prakritih , tatra –bhavam tata agatam va Prakritam– Hemachandra 13th
century).In any case, Prakrit was the language of the common people ; spoken by the social and
cultural groups, other than the elite. The earliest known Prakrit Grammar is Prakrita Prakasa
ascribed to Vararuchi (first century).
Prakrit is a comprehensive term covering a group of regional languages and dialects. In

Vararuchi’s Grammar, only four varieties of Prakrit are mentioned: Maharastri, Paisachi,
Magadhi and Suraseni. The later Grammarians expanded the list. Prakrit, thus, would include
what is now known as Pali (language of the Tripitakas); Magadhi (language of Magadha) and
Ardha-Magadhi (language of the Jain texts); Sauraseni (language of the Matura region) ; Lati(
language of Lata the southern region of Gujarat ) ; Gaudi ( language of Eastern India and
Bengal) and Maharstri (earlier form Marathi) etc. Because of the lack of strict rules governing
these languages they were more relaxed in their nature; and, rather experimental in their usage.
Prakrit was also the language employed in the early centuries of literacy (c. 250 BCE – 250 AD.)
for public inscriptions and Prashasti (praise-poems), until it was displaced, rather dramatically
and permanently, by Sanskrit.
Then there were Paisachi and Apabhramsa two other forms of Prakrit. Paisachi, as A K Warder
explains, was a dialect which appears to have been current, say between fourth century BCE and
first century AD, in the region lying between Avanti (Ujjain) and the Godavari basin. Two other
versions indicate different loource : cations: one mentions the sub-Himalayan region, from
Kashmir valley to Nepal/ Tibet; and, the other mentions Kekeya, the region on the east banks of
the Indus River. According to A K Warder; linguistically and historically, Paisachi, Pali and the
language of the Magadha-inscriptions form a closely related group representing what may be
called early Prakrit that was current between 4 th century BCE and second century BCE; early
Magadhi also belonged to this group.
The nouns and verbs in Prakrit forms ( Suraseni, Apabramsa, Magadhi, Ardha-Magadhi and
Maharastri) follow that of Sanskrit , with local variations. For instance ; see the various forms of
Sanskrit Putra ( son ) and Prakrit Putta :
(Source: :Prakrit / by George Abraham Grierson (1911)
http://www.payer.de/quellenkunde/quellen036.htm )
From the fragments of Paisachi of the Brhadkatha and those from works of Vararuchi the
Grammarian (Ca.1st century) that have survived, it appears, Paisachi resembled what came to be
known as Pali, though distinct in minor details. It is said; the Paisachi went into decline mainly
because the Shatavahana emperor (around first century BCE and first century AD) totally
despised it, calling it low or vulgar Prakrit.
By about the first century, the Prakrit – the intermediate or unclassified – was replaced in speech
by a sort of vernacular (Desi) called Apabhramsa. Historically it is treated as the later form of
Prakrit; but, rather as a corrupted form of Prakrit. And again, there were several forms of
Apabhramsa; and, the major form of it was the one spoken in the Sindhu region, hence known as
Saindhava. Some regard Apabhramsa as the early phase of modern Indo-Aryan languages. Most
of the texts in Apabhramsa belonging to the first millennium (say, up to 1000 AD) are lost. But
some fragments or illustrations of Apabhramsa lyrics have survived , for instance , in the
anthology ( muktaka or kosa) of the Prakrit lyrics of Satavahana ; in the act Four of Kalidasa’s
drama Vikramorvasiya ( early fourth century) ; in Puspadanta’s Mahapurana (mid tenth
century) ; in Raja Bhoja’s Srñgaraprakasa ( eleventh century) ; and in Chalukya King
Someswara’s Manasollasa ( twelfth century) . Many of these citations are ,in fact , erotic stanzas
of a sort familiar to the Prakrit tradition. And they strive to create a rural , homely and amorous
ambience.
As Prakrit gained strength, it branched into independent languages; and, accumulated greater
expressive power. At the same time, Sanskrit began to decline steadily and losing its fluidity.
The period spanning between Bharata of Natyashastra (say second century BCE) and the fourth
century AD, could be said to be the period of Prakrit, in all its forms. Not only was Prakrit used
for the Edicts and the Prasastis (praise-poems), but it was also used in writing poetical and prose
Kavyas. The inscriptions of Asoka (304–232 BCE) were in simple regional and sub-regional
languages; and, not in ornate Kavya style. The inscriptions of Asoka show the existence of at
least three dialects, the Eastern dialect of the capital which perhaps was the official lingua franca
of the Empire, the North-western and the Western dialects. And much before Asoka, the
Buddhist cannon (Tripitaka) and the Jataka tales were written in Prakrit forms, the then spoken
language of the people.
In the period after Asoka, a number of Prakrit forms came to fore. Here, we find the old Ardha-
magadhi, old Sauraseni and the Magadhi, besides Paisachi which perhaps was the language of
the Vindhya region. There is an abundance of poetic works composed in Prakrit during the
period of Satavahanas (say from 230 BCE to 220 AD). It seems that even during the period
between Second century BCE and the First century AD, Prakrit was the language of the Royal
Courts. The poetry of this period is represented by the Anthology Gatha-sattasai (the seven
hundred songs) attributed to King Haala of the Satavahana dynasty (c. third century) ; and by
the Brhad-katha of Gunadya (in Paisachi).
Rise of Kavya
The Arthashastra ( dated somewhere between 150 BCE – 120 CE) which reflects the conditions
obtaining in the Royal Courts of its time mentions a host of Court employees such as : Sutas,
Puranikas, Magadhas ( those who herald ) , Kusilavas ( chroniclers, bards and singers) . There is
even the mention of monthly honorariums granted to teachers and pupils (Acharyah Vidyavantas
cha). But, strangely, there is no mention of a court poet. And, among the literary works
mentioned in Arthashastra there is no mention, anywhere, of Kavya. Further, no Kavya of note
belonging to the period between the 2nd century B.C. and the early 2nd century A.D. has come
down to us.
It is perhaps towards the end of this period that the Kavyas seemed to develop. Buddhacharita,
the Kavya of Asvaghosa (Ca. First century); the plays of Bhasa (First or Second century) belong
to what could be called as the pre-classic period of early ornate Kavya period. These are perhaps
the earliest known Kavya-poets of eminence. And, Kavya as ornate court poetry perhaps
blossomed in the courts of western Ksatrapas (35–405) who ruled over the western and central
part of India; and, during the reign of Kushanas, particularly in the Second century AD. But, the
dates of the works of this period cannot be ascertained with any certainty.
The later Sanskrit writers tried to bring in the informal flavor of Prakrit into their works. (And,
another reason could be that the Sanskrit authors too had to come to terms with the changes
taking place within the society they lived.) Some major writers such as, Kalidasa, Bhavabhuthi,
Dandin, Vishakhadutta and Banabhatta made some of their local characters speak in Prakrit,
just to usher a sense of reality into their dialogues. Dandin went a step further by grafting a
theory of Riti, by legitimizing the Prakrit influence on Sanskrit. Writers like Rajashekara,
Hemachandra, and Jayadeva, though scholars of Sanskrit coined fresh Prakrit terms and
phrases for expressing new ideas. Thus, whatever may have been their original regional
specificity, by the time of Bhamaha and Dandin ( 6-7th century) both the literary Prakrit and
Apabhramsa were no longer treated as tied to a particular place; but , were regarded as
varieties of languages in their own right.
Therefore, Anandavardhana (Ca. 850) while drafting a new theory of Kavya made use of
materials that had not been previously subjected to critical scrutiny. And, among such material
were the Prakrit songs (gatha) from perhaps the second or third century. It is said; the informal
and sensitive Prakrit lyrics helped Anandavardhana to appreciate how the meaning of the work
as a whole resides in an emotional content (Rasa); and, how that can be effectively communicated
only through suggestion (Dhvani).
And, Kshemendra (mid eleventh century), also from Kashmir, advises the aspiring poets of talent
to “listen to the songs and lyrics and rasa-laden poems in local languages . . . to go to popular
gatherings and learn local languages,”
For a short period, there was a practice among the writers to compose Kavyas both in Sanskrit
and in Prakrit. For instance; Rajasekhara the author of Kavyamimsa, composed one play wholly
in Prakrit; Visvanatha (first half of the fourteenth century), a literary theorist, wrote one Prakrit
Kavya besides his Sanskrit works; ; and Anandavardhana, in addition to a courtly epic in
Sanskrit, wrote a text in Prakrit “for the education of poets” , most likely a textbook on aesthetic
suggestion. Muñja, king of the Paramaras who was Raja Bhoja’s uncle (Ca. 996), appears to be
the only Sanskrit poet who produced a serious body of verse in Apabhramsa as well as in
Sanskrit (both only fragmentarily preserved).
Although the number of Prakrit Kavyas tapered out, popular tales, songs and verses set in
simple, natural and delightful styles continued to be composed in good numbers. For instance;
Kouhala (Ca.800), in his delightful Maharastri romance Lilavali, pictures a conversation between
a youth and his Love. She goads hi to narrate a tale. The helpless young man pleads his
ignorance: “Ah, my love, you will make me look ridiculous for my lack of learning in the arts of
language. Far from telling a great tale, I should in fact keep silent.” She responds, “Oh , come my
beloved , tell me any story in clear Prakrit that I can understand. Why do we have care for rules
and heavy words? So tell me a tale in Prakrit, easy to understand which simple women love to
hear. .”
In the biography of Yasovarman of Kanyakubja (Ca. 725) the poet defends the virtues of Prakrit,
saying: “From time immemorial in Prakrit alone, that one could combine new content and
mellow form. . . . All words enter into Prakrit and emerge out of it, as all waters enter and
emerge from the sea”. And, he laments “…. many men no longer understand [Prakrit’s] different
virtues; great poets [in Prakrit] should just scorn or mock or pity them, but feel no pain
themselves.”
The golden age of Kavya
The golden age of ornate court Kavya was the stretch of about 125 years (from 330-455) during
the reign of the Gupta dynasty (approximately between 350 and 550 AD). This was also the age of
Kalidasa (say, between 375 and 413 AD) – , acknowledged as the greatest of poets. The other
great poets and scholars said to belong to this golden age of the Gupta Era are: Matrgupta;
Mentha or Hastipaka; Amaru. They were later followed by other distinguished poet–scholars
like Bhartrihari (450-510); Varahamihira (505-587); Bhatti (about 600 AD); and, Bharavi (Ca.6 th
century) .
Then there was the Emperor Harsavardhana of Thanesar and Kanauj who ruled from 606 to 647
AD. And, Banabhatta his Court poet immortalized his patron in his historical romance
Harshacharita. And, Magha (Ca. 7th century) a poet in the Court of King Varmalata of Sharmila
(Gujarat/Rajasthan) created undoubtedly one of the most complex and beautiful poetic works,
the Shishupala-vadha. He was followed by Bhavabuthi the playwright and poet in the court of
the King Yashovarman of Kanauj (Ca.750 AD).
Around the seventh century the convention was invented (and quickly adopted everywhere) of
prefacing a literary work with a eulogy of poets past (kaviprasamsa). Bana, author of the
Harsacarita (c. 640), the first Sanskrit literary biography that takes a contemporary as its
subject, seems to have been the first to use it. This is not to say that earlier writers never refer or
allude to predecessors. In a well-known passage in the prologue to Kalidasa’s drama
Malavikagnimitra, an actor complains to the director, “How can you ignore the work of the great
poets—men like Dhavaka, Saumilla, Kaviratna— and present the work of a contemporary poet
like Kalidasa?” to which the director famously replies, “Not every work of literature is good just
because it is old, or bad just because it is new.”
Such kaviprasamsa-s, apart from paying homage and expressing ones appreciation of the past-
poets appreciation served other purposes as well. To start with, it was a way of familiarizing the
past Masters, even those who have faded out of peoples’ memory. It was also indicative of the
author’s affiliation to a linage (parampara) of his predecessors. For instance; Bana’s praise-
poems or Eulogy (kaviprasamsa) offers a broad view the main varieties of Kavya that were
current during his time, the foremost representations among each of those varieties and the
author he appreciated most. Bana’s tributes to his elders include :in the class of the tale (katha)
in Sanskrit prose (or Prakrit or Apabhramsa verse) was the Sanskrit work Vasavadatta of
Subandhu (c. 600); in the prose biography (akhyayika) it was the lost Prakrit work of
Adhyaraja; in the Sanskrit court-epic (mahakavya) it was , of course, Kalidasa; and, in the class
of Prakrit court-epic (skandhaka) it was Pravarasena; in the Sanskrit, Prakrit, or Apabhramsa
lyric or anthology of lyrics (muktaka and kosa)it was the Prakrit collection of Satavahana; and ,
the drama (nataka) it was indeed Bhasa (300?).
And, amidst the conspicuous absence of any sort of Literary Criticism in the early periods of
Kavya, such kaviprasamsa-s , as of Bana , provide a glimpse or a window-view into the standards
that the authors adopted to form literary judgment over their predecessors works. It was also
indicative of the values and merits that the writer himself cherished to look for in a Kavya. And,
yet the criteria for selection the work were not clearly stated. Some of those virtues could
perhaps be: the beauty , elegance , charm of the language; command over the language that
splendidly brought out just the right meaning that author intended ; lucid and sparkling
expressions and phrases; the emotive content; vivid descriptions that graphically captured the
locale as also the mood of the situation; the delight(Rasa) that it provides to the reader; and, the
ways that the Kavya benefits the reader (Kavya-prayojana).
Having said that let me also mention that such kaviprasamsa served only a limited purpose. It
was, at best , an appreciation; not an appraisal of the literary merits of the Kavya or its elements
such as the plot, characterization, or voice (Dhvani ) etc. It did not also give even a clue to the
chronology of the authors or the works.
With the passing of those wonderfully well gifted, creative, brilliant poet-scholars, the golden age
of classical age of Kavya may be considered to have come to an end.
Rise of Sanskrit
The rise of Sanskrit as a medium of Kavya and other forms of literary works, and the fall of
Prakrit are in some way related.
With the establishment of mighty Empires that stretched from Afghanistan in the West to the far
ends of the East, the power and influence of Indian Empire, its culture, art, philosophy and
literatures spread across to the lands beyond the Himalayas and across the seas. The religious
scholars, particularly the Buddhists from China, Tibet and Far East travelled across many
regions of India to study and to gather texts to be later translated into their own
languages. Their medium of study was invariably Sanskrit, which was written and spoken by
most Indian scholars, in almost the same manner. In a way of speaking, Sanskrit was India’s
language up to about the tenth century. It was in Sanskrit that Indian scholars discussed with the
visiting scholars; and, it was also the language of its international diplomacy.
From the second century, and increasingly thereafter, Sanskrit came to be used for public texts,
including the quite remarkable Kavya-like poems in praise of kingly lineages (Vamshavali). Prior
to that , for about four centuries , say from 250 BCE it was only the Prakrit that was used for
inscriptions, whether for issuing a royal proclamation, glorifying martial deeds, commemorating
a Vedic sacrifice, or granting land to Brahman communities.
Similarly, the early Buddhist Canon containing the discourses delivered by the Buddha and
other Buddhist texts say up to first or second century of the Common Era were in Pali, a form of
Prakrit. Likewise, the religious texts of the Jains were composed mostly in Ardha –Magadhi,
also a form of Prakrit. These and others, in general, began to adopt Sanskrit for both scriptural
and literary purposes.
Later, after the second century AD, large number Buddhist scriptures came to be written in
Sanskrit (although the Buddha had insisted that his teachings be in the language spoken the
common people). And, thereafter it became a practice to compose texts in Sanskrit. By about the
Middle Ages, considerable numbers of eminent Buddhist scholars who wrote their religious or
secular texts in Sanskrit had gained renown. Just to name a few: Dharmakirti (c. 650);
Ratnasrijñana (900); Dharmadasa (1000?), Jñananasrimitra (1000) and Vidyakara (1100).
The Jains who earlier composed their texts in a form of Prakrit also switched over to Sanskrit.
For instance, take the case of Jains in Karnataka who created great Sanskrit poetic works like
Adipurana of Jinasena , the Champu Kavyas ( mix of poetry and prose) of Somadevasuri and
Prince Yasotilaka. At the same time , they wrote new work in Kannada (Pampa’s courtly epics of
the mid-ninth century) and Apabhramsa (Puspadanta’s Mahapurana of 970).
The reasons that prompted the writers, even those writers on philosophy and religion, were
many; but, mostly they were related to the changed circumstances and the eminent position that
Sanskrit had secured, by then, not only in India’s neighboring countries but also in the far off
lands. Sanskrit had extended far beyond the Sub Continent, into Central Asia and as far as the
islands of Southeast Asia.
At the same time, neither Prakrit nor Apabhramsa, nor any of the regional-language literature,
could command such wide readership or audience. They were in no position to compete with
Sanskrit, internationally. Although works of great merit were produced in these languages, they
could not reach the readers beyond the limits of their vernacular world. They were hardly known
in the outside world.
The Sanskrit works, on the other hand, enjoyed readership even outside India. For instance; the
works of the great Buddhist Sanskrit poets, such as, Asvaghosa (second century) and Matrceta
(not later than 300), were read not only in Northern India but also in much of Central Asia. In
Qizil and Sorcuq (in today’s Xinjiang region of China), manuscript fragments were found
bearing portions of A4vagho3a’s dramas and his two courtly epics, Saundarananda and
Buddhacarita.
Such wide range of circulation was possible not merely because of the influence that Buddhism
commanded in those countries, but by the universal acceptance of Sanskrit language and
recognition of its aesthetic power and beauty. The non-religious Sanskrit poetry spread as far as
up to Southeast Asia, where by the ninth or tenth century at the latest, literati in Khmer country
were studying masterpieces such as the Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa; the Harsacarita , the early-
seventh-century prose of the great writer Bana; and , the Suryasataka of the latter’s
contemporary, Mayura.
Therefore, any writer of merit – whether religious or secular, aspiring for wider readership,
more serious attention and greater fame, naturally opted to write in Sanskrit. And, his Sanskrit
work had a better chance of acquiring an almost global readership and following among erudite,
aesthetic Sahrudaya –s.
Therefore, the desire to reach out to a larger audience and to acquire recognition from the
worthy peers , seems to have prompted aspiring writers to compose in Sanskrit . Such works
covered a wide range of subjects – from Grammar, Chhandas, Alamkara, and poetic conventions
to study of character, narratives, plots, and the organization of elements that create the
emotional impact of a work – such as Rasa etc.
Decline of Kavya
Though Sanskrit in some for or other lingers on in today’s India, what is undeniable is that it’s
vital signs have grown very weak.
The reasons for the rapid decline of Kavya are many; and, some of them are complement each
other. Perhaps the most telling blow was the political instability and virtual anarchy in North
India following the invasion of Muslim forces starting from the tenth or the eleventh century.
The Royal Courts and the systems that supported the growth of Kavya were totally destroyed;
and were never revived. The Kavya and its creators were truly orphaned.
And, even when the Sanskrit poets secured patronage in some Courts, their Kavya became
inward looking and dispirited, having lost connection with the society at large. Virtually all the
Court poetry was about caritas (poetic chronicles) , vijayas (battles fought and won ) , or
abhyudayas (accounts of success), detailing this campaign and that military victory. The poets, as
paid employees of the Court, were duty bound to praise their Masters.
Sheldon Pollock in his very well researched and presented work Sanskrit Literary Culture from
the Inside Out , examines the state of Kavya in the later times with particular reference to the
Courts at Kashmir , Vijayanagar and Varanasi. I will try to summarize his views, briefly.
Sanskrit literary culture in Kashmir, commenced by about the sixth century; and by the middle
of the twelfth century it reached its zenith, with more innovative literature being written than
perhaps anywhere else in the region. By the end of the twelfth century the orderly life in urban
Kashmir suffered near total dissolution. And, after the establishment of Turkic rule in Kashmir,
around 1420, the literary culture was totally shattered. No Kashmiri Sanskrit literature was ever
again created or was it circulated outside the valley, as it used to do. Many of its important
literary works have survived only through recopying in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries;
but, virtually all of those originate from the twelfth century or earlier.
As regards Vijayanagar (1340–1565) in Karnataka, though the Literature, in general, did enjoy
Royal patronage, the energy of Sanskrit Kavya slowly depleted. In Vijayanagara, Sanskrit was
not dying rapidly as it did in Kashmir. Sanskrit learning in fact continued during the long
existence of the empire, and after. But, the spirit of the Kavya was somehow lost. Vijayanagara’s
Sanskrit literature, as Sheldon Pollock says, presented a picture of an exhausted literary culture.
It seemed as though the Court culture insulated the poets from the simple pleasure and pains of
the ordinary day-to-day life of common people. Their poetry was mostly about singing the glory
of their Royal patrons. Such Sanskrit poetry was socially irrelevant; but was supported by Court
as sort of state enterprise.
Of the Sanskrit literary works of the Vijayanagara times, with rare exception, not a single one is
recognized as great, and continued to be read after it was written. Most of its Kavyas were did
not circulate to any extent beyond its region; nor did they attract serious commentaries, nor
included in a credible anthology.
In contrast, the literature in regional languages – Kannada and Telugu- flourished during these
times. For instance; . Kumaravyasa’s Kannada Bharata (c. 1450) not only circulated widely in
manuscript form but also continues to be recited all over the Kannada-speaking world, as the
Sanskrit Mahabharata itself had been recited all over India a thousand years earlier.
The Maratha court of Tanjavuru in the early eighteenth century was an active cultural centre in
the South. Its Sanskrit scholarship as also that in regional languages was indeed of a high order.
But, the Sanskrit literary production, while prominent, appears to have remained wholly internal
to the palace. Not a single Sanskrit literary work of the period transcended its moment in time.
In the south as in the north, Sanskrit writers had ceased to make literature that made history.
The Kavya of these later times seemed have been drained of vitality. There seemed to be neither
enterprise nor enthusiasm. What was strange is that the authors of Court-epics did not show
much zeal to invent fresh themes. Most found it adequate to re-narrate the familiar myths and
legends in their own characteristic styles.
As Sheldon Pollack puts it : Sanskrit literature ended when it became a practice of repetition
and not renewal, when the writers themselves no longer evinced commitment to a central value of
the tradition and a feature that defined literature itself: the ability to make literary newness, “the
capacity,” as a great Kashmiri writer put it, “to continually re-imagine the world.”
Literary criticism
The practical literary criticism of the type that we are familiar with today, discussing and
analyzing issues such as the plot, catheterization, style of presentation, poetic content, its
freshness , arrangement of chapters, the validity of the work etc did not for some reason develop
in the Kavya tradition. The references to to earlier works would either to praise them very highly
(Kavai-prashamsa) or to condemn it outright. the sense of balance in their approach somehow
seemed to be lacking.
Question of the sense of History
Then there is the question of the sense of History. It is not that the ancient Indian authors did not
have taste for history; but, they did not seem to cultivate taste to chronicle the historical events
and facts objectively. Although Bhamaha (early seventh century) drew a distinction between
historical and fictional genres (akhyayika and katha), such distinction was hardly ever
maintained. In the Indian tradition, the historical writing was usually a branch of Kavya. For
instance, the Rajatarangini by Kalhana (Ca.1150) which chronicles the Royal linage of Kashmir
is regarded by some as History. But Kalhana himself explicitly identifies his work as a Kavya,
and he affiliates it with literature by frequently citing earlier poems that had achieved the
synthesis of literature with History. Moreover, the work was regarded as literature by his
contemporaries.
What is surprising is that Anandavardhana (Ca. 850) counseled poets to alter any received
historical account that conflicted with the emotional impact they sought to achieve. Thus,
according to him, one can and should change fact to suit the dominant Rasa of the work.
The problem appeared to be that Chronology was malleable and was horribly mixed up. And,
the events were not sequenced in the order they occurred. The other was the woeful lack of the
critical approach. The ancient authors did not seem to cultivate taste for criticism of the
historical truths.
The reason for such flexible approach could be that the author would invariably be serving as a
Court poet, who was asked by his patron to write the about the glory of his (patron’s)
predecessors. In the circumstances, the Poet would not go into analysis of the circumstances,
critically examine historical facts; but, was duty bound to praise his patron and his ancestors.
And, while writing the ‘History ’(itivritta of heroes of the Nayaka), the poet would also try to
exhibit his poetical skills in extolling his subjects by treating them as heroes (Nayaka). He would
also try to entertain and instruct as a Poet, teach morals and generalize the course of human
destiny.
Some examples of the works of this genre are Banabhatta’s Harshacharita (7th century) about the
life and times of King Harshavadhana ; Vakpathi’s Prakrit work Gavdavaha ( 8th century) about
King Yashovardhana of Kanauj; and, Bilhana’s Vikramankadevacharita (12th century) woven
around the dynasty of Chalukya kings , and specially about his patron Vikramaditya VI.
Bilhana, in particular, rewarded his patron by mixing mythology with the chronicles of the
Chalukya dynasty. He makes an epic out of a historical theme. He commences with the allusion
to gods who out of benevolence create the Chalukya dynasty in order to ensure and maintain
safety of the world.
Continued in Part Three ->
I gratefully acknowledge these and other wonderfully well researched works of great merit
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Three
sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Two
[I could not arrange the topics in a sequential order (krama). You may take these as random
Classifications of the Kavya
Kavya has been classified in incredibly number of ways.
Agnipurana classifies Vangmaya (everything that is expressed in words, i.e. literature) in several
ways: Dhvani, Varna, Pada and Vakya (Ag. pu. 327.1); and. into Shastra, Itihasa and Kavya
(Ag.pu.327.2). And, Vangmaya was again classified into Shastra (Veda, Purana and even Epics)
and Kavya. Shastra has again been classified into Apaurusheya and Paurusheya.
(a) Shravya and Drshya
But, in the literary traditions, even from the very early period, Kavya was classified in several
different ways. The usual means were (a) by language; (b) by whether it was poetry or prose or a
mixture of both; and (c) by the literary form.
And, to start with, Kavya was said to be either oral – Shravya (one that is listened to) or Drshya
or Prekshya (one that is seen, visual comprehension). This was the primary differentiation.
Here, Drshya generally stands for Drama (Nataka) and Dance-drama (Geya-nataka) the visual
comprehension of a theatrical performance; and, the Shravya covers the entire range of lyrical
and epic poetry in general. And some times, in a narrow sense, the Shravya is itself known as
Kavya. That might be because; in the ancient times the Epics were narrated or recited before a
gathering of ardent listeners. And, individual poems or their stanzas, in most cases, gained
popularity among the common people who enjoyed listening to them. The boundaries between
the oral and written poetry was never clear. Yet, the oral traditions seemed to have a strong
influence over written versions. And, in fact, even during the medieval times the written texts
were corrected with reference to its oral version.
[However, as the classical poetry grew more complex and more elaborately structured, it became
rather difficult to rely only on the oral rendering. Reading or studying a text gradually replaced
listening as the commonest means of enjoying Kavya.]
But, the distinction of – Shravya and Prekshya– is not strictly observed. For instance; Drama
(Nataka) is at once a Kavya- prose and poetry- that can be read (Shravya) and that be witnessed
(Drshya) on the stage. Drama is, in fact, regarded as the most enjoyable of all the forms of Kavya
(Kavyeshu naatakam ramyam).
Another is the Chitra-Kavya, where the words of the poetry are woven into figures and diagrams
(Chiyrabandha) , that can be seen and read is at once a Shravya and Prekshya.
[For more on Chitrkavya: please check here :
https://sreenivasaraos.com/2012/10/10/chitrakavya-chitrabandha/]
Coming back to Drama, the Drshya Kavya, it again was classified into two classes: Major
(Rupaka) and Minor (Upa-Rupaka). Abhinavagupta explains Rupam as that which is seen by the
eyes and the works containing such matter is Rupani or Rupaka. Dhanika while commenting on
Dhanajyaya’s Dasarupakam explains that the terms Natyam, Rupam and Rupakam can be
treated as synonymous.
Vishvanatha in his Sahityadarpana gives a list of these to varieties:
Major (Rupaka): (1) Nataka ( e.g. Abhijnana-Shakuntalam of Kalidasa); (2) Prakarana (e.g.
Malathi-Madhava of Bhavabhuthi);(3) Bhana (e.g. Karpuracharita of Vatsaraja); (4) Vyayoga
(e.g. Madhyama-Vyyoga of Bhasa); (5) Samavakara (e.g. Samudra-manthana of Vatsaraja); (6)
Dima (Tripuradaha of Vatsaraja); (7) Ihamrga ( e.g. Rukminiharana of Vatsaraja); Anka or
Utsrstikanta (e.g. Sharmista-Yayathi) ; (9) Vithi (e.g. Malavika) and (10) Prahasana (Mattavilasa
of Mahendravarman).
[Dhananjaya’s Dasarupakam lists a slightly different ten forms]
The Minor types of Drama (Upa-Rupaka) are : (1) Natika (e.g. Ratnavali of Sri Harsha); (2)
Trotaka (e.g. Vikramorvasiya of Kalidasa);(3) Ghosti (e.g. Raivatamadanika);
(4)Natyarasaka(e.g.Vilasavathi );(6) Prasthana (e.g. Srngaratilaka); (7)Ullapya ( e.g.
Devimahadeva); (8) Kavya (e.g. Yadavodaya);(9) Prenkhana (e.g. Valivadha); (10) Rasaka (e.g.
Menakahita); (11) Samlapaka (e.g. Mayakapalika); (12) Srigadita (e.g. Kridarasatala); (13)
Silpaka (e.g. Kanakavathi-madhava); (14) Vilasika ; (15) Durmallika (e.g. Bindumathi); (16)
Prakaranika; (17) Hallisa (e.g. Keliraivataka); and (18) Bhanika (e.g. Kamadatta).
(b) Padya – Gadya – Champu
There is another classification based in the form in which a work is composed: works written in
Padas (metrical poetry, padya); Gadya (prose); and Misra or Champu (in various mixed forms,
partly in verse and partly in prose). And, in Drama too the dialogues in prose are interspersed by
lyrical songs.
Earlier, from Bhamaha (Ca.7th century) to Rudrata (Ca. 9th century), literature was classified
either as poetry or as prose. The poetry was ‘nibaddha-mukta’ (unfettered) and prose as ‘sarga-
bandha’ (structured into divisions or Cantos).
Works in Prose, generally, narrated romantic tales, prose romances etc. Such prose Kavya is
categorized as (i) Katha, a narration in the form of story, fiction (e.g. Kadambari of Banabhatta;
Dasakumara-Charita of Dandin, and Vasvadatta of Subandhu); and as (ii) Akhyayika, almost a
non-fiction, historical narrative recounting the deed of Kings and heroes of old (e.g.
Harshacharita of Banabhatta).
A distinction between historical and fictional genres (Akhyayika and Katha) was drawn as early
as Bhamaha (seventh century), who contrasts Katha (imaginary tales) narratives with Akhyayika
“that celebrate the real events of gods and others”. These traditional categories often overlap
each other. Historical facts were often treated as malleable material that could be molded in any
manner to suit the desired impact of the text. Such supposedly historical narratives generally
dealt with the contemporary Kings and their ancestors composed under Royal patronage; and,
such Courtly works were meant, mainly, to please the patrons.
Katha is again of two types: complete story (Sakala katha) or a description of an episode (Eka-
desa-varnana) called Knanda Katha. Here again, Katha was made into two other classes: those
based on invented or fictional themes (Utpadya or Kalpita); and, those based on themes derived
from well-known sources such as history (Itihasa) and legends (Purana).
The most well known among the Katha (stories) or fictional narrations themes (Utpadya or
Kalpita) are the Brhat-katha of Guṇaḍya originally in Paisachi (a form of Prakrit) retold in
Sanskrit by Somadeva (11th century) as Katha-saritsagara; the collection of moral tales or fables
Pancha-tantra and Hitopadesa; and, the collection of highly entertaining stories or tales include
the Vetala-pancaviṃsatika, Sukasaptati and Siṃhāsana-dvatrim-sātika.
Then there is the Kādambarī of Banabhatta ( 7th century) which describes the affairs of two sets
of lovers through a series of incarnations, in which they are constantly harassed by a cruel fate.
Another fine example of tales is the eminently readable Dasa-kumara-carita by Daṇḍin (6th-7th
centuries), in which, within the framework of a boxing story, the picaresque adventures of ten
disinherited princes are described in prose.
The third genre Champu, with alternate narrations of prose and verse allows the poet greater
ease or felicity of expression. It affords the poet ample opportunities to display not only his
erudition but also his command over prose as also over the verse form.
The Champu was usually a full-fledged composition of epic proportions. The Champu used
metrical and non-metrical language with more or less equal prominence. The prose too was
ornate and almost lyrical.
A narrative mixed in prose and verse has many examples. Sanskrit Drama too was a mixture
prose and verse. Among the literary works there are many well known Champu Kavyas; for
example: Nalachampu of Trivikrama, and Ramayana Champu, Bhojachampu and
Bhagavatachampu by Abhinava Kalidasa. The Prabandha or the prose in ornate style is also
interspersed with verses.
The Jain writers used Champu for religious texts, while the Bengal Vaishnava School wrote
Champu Kavyas relating to Krishna. The Bhoja-prabandha of Ballalasens (16th century) narrates
stories of King Bhoja. The Jain Prabandhas are semi-historical works; a curious mix of legends
and anecdotes.
A subject treated in prose romance was also, sometimes, rendered in Champu form. For
instance; the Vasavadatta of Subandhu a work in prose was rendered in Champu as
Vasavadatta Champu.
The Champu and Prabandhas forms of literature appear to have been popular in South India,
even during the later times. The Champu form of narration continued to grow with religious and
biographical themes. For instance; the political affairs of contemporary Deccan and Karnataka
as well as Anglo-French conflicts form the theme of Anandaranga-champu of Shrinavasa. And,
there was the Devashankara’s Purohit’s Alamkara-manjusha, which praises the achievements of
Peshwa Madhav Rao I.
The longer compositions, be it Prose or Verse or the mixed Champu, all share a few common
features. They all treat a unified theme and develop it in all its fullness, spread over chapters or
junctures (Sandhi) or stages in the development of the theme, following a proper sequence of
events. In that sense, they resemble a Drama.
(c) Sanskrit –Prakrit -Misra
At later times, another type of classification was brought in by scholars such as Bhamaha (6th –
7th century) who classified all poetry as (i) Sanskrit; (ii) Prakrit ( local or regional languages
commonly spoken) or (iii) Apabramsha (dialects prevalent before the rise of the modern
languages ) . Dandin (6th -7th century), added one more category: Misra, a work written in a
mixture of languages.
In the 8th-9th century, Rajasekhara, in his Kavya-mimamsa, a work devoted to literary theory,
notes three important features of Indian literature: (i) It is composed in many languages
including dialects and the speech of small communities; (ii) while having a distinct Indian
character, it has immense regional variety of forms and themes; and (iii) it is worldly and
concerns the travails of ordinary human life.
In his invocation to Lord Shiva, from whom Kavya is believed to have originated, Rajasekhara
compares the various aspects of Kavya to the different organs of Shiva (Shivaroopa). Following
his interpretation if one compares Shiva to a Kavya Purusha, i.e. to a human form, one could say
that Sabda (words) and Artha (meaning) constitute body (trunk) of the Kavya Purusha . Of the
languages, Sanskrit is his face; Prakrit his arms; Apabhramsa his waist; and, Paisachi his feet.
The mixed (Misra) languages are his chest. Kavya Purusha, just as Shiva, is sweet, graceful; is
having composure (Sama) pleasant nature (prasanna), melody (madhura) as also vigor (Ojas)
and liberal (Udara) . His voice is noble. Rasa is his soul (Atma) ; and, Vritha its hair. His verbal
quirks are dialogues (questions and repartees, riddles (Prahelikas) and Samasya (problems).
Kavya Purusha is decorated with alliterations (Anuprāsa) and similes, Upama (sabda, artha,
Alamkaras)- (Rājaśekhara, Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Chapter 3)
Rajasekhara also says that a poet has to learn to compose Kavya in Sanskrit as also in Prakrit.
His Prakrit composition has to be according to his own outlook, taste and talent. But, he should
pay particular attention to the Vachya-Vachaka relation of Sabda and Artha. And, while
handling more than one language, assigning meanings (Artha) has to be done with great care;
and the poetry that flows from such careful process would stand any test.
Drama, even in its earliest times, had been multi lingual, written in a mixture of languages. Here,
the rural and certain other characters spoke not in chaste Sanskrit but in their own Prakrit or
Apabhramsa dialects. Among the Kavyas, an early example of the use of Apabramsha is
the Vikramorvashiyam of Kalidasa, when Pururavas asks the animals in the forest about his
beloved who had disappeared. Compositions in Apabhramsa continued (particularly in the Sindh
region – Saindhava) until Vikram Samvat 1700 (about 1643 AD), when Bhagavatidasa
wrote Migankaleha Chariu.
Even much earlier to that, in Natyashastra (around second century BCE) the Dhruva songs sung
by women were generally in Prakrit. Natyashastra also discusses the features of the Dhruva
songs composed in regional dialects ; and , in that context mentions seven known
dialects (Desha-bhasha) of its time : Māgadhī, Āvantī, Prācyā, Śaurasenī, Ardha-
māgadhī, Bāhlikā and Dākṣiṇātyā (NŚ 5.17-48).
Śaurasenī was the language spoken around the region of Surasena (Mathura area). And, in the
play the female characters, Vidūṣaka (jester), children, astrologers and others around the
Queens’ court spoke in Śaurasenī. It was assigned a comparatively higher position among the
Prakrit dialects.
In comparison, Magadhi , the dialect of the Magadha region in the East , was spoken in the play
by lesser characters such as servants, washer -men, fishermen, , barbers ,doorkeepers , black-
smiths, hunters and by the duṣṭa (wicked) . Even otherwise, the people of Magadha as such were
not regarded highly and were projected in poor light.
In some versions, there is a mention of Mahārāṣṭrī also. It was a language spoken around the
river Godavari and according to linguists; it is an older form of Marāṭhī. In some plays, the
leading-lady and her friends speak in Śaurasenī, but sing in Mahārāṣṭrī.
It is said; in the earliest times the Sanskrit as a spoken language had at least three distinct
dialects: Udichya (North West), Madhyadesya (Mid region) and Prachya (East). It is believed that
the Classical Sanskrit, as refined by Panini, was based primarily in Udichya and Madhyadesya
dialects.
The forms of Prakrit such as Magadhi, Ardha Magadhi and Apabhramsa were dominant in the
East, up to the beginning of the 4th century AD. Most of the literary works during the early
period were in Prakrit. Apabhramsa was of considerable importance till about 150 BCE. The
earliest reference to Apabhramsa is found in Mahabhashya of Patanjali. It appears that
Apabhramsa was not the name of any particular language but was used to denote all deviations
from the normal Sanskrit.
It was only by about the second century AD more and more works, including those of
Buddhists and Jains, came to be written in Sanskrit.
Following that period, some regional languages (Desi Bhasha) became vehicles of the living
thought and emotions of the people. The literary activities in these languages picked up . And,
lyrical poetry was composed in a mixture of languages- Sanskrit and Regional. There were of
course number of great Kavyas in regional languages like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, and
Malayalam and others. Here too the Poetic traditions of the Sanskrit language were closely
followed.
(d) Literary and the non-literary works
Kavya, the poetic way of expression is employed both by the literary and the non-literary
works. The non-literary works though in poetic form are not regarded as Kavya per se. For
instance; presentation of Astronomy in Varahamihira’s Brahmasamhita; or of Algebra in
Bhakara’s Leelavathi contain many verses, beautiful descriptions of nature and of poetic merit
that they almost are Kavya. Similarly, Suryapandita’s work on Astronomy (Bhaskarabhushana)
has beautiful verses praying to Sun god. There are also numbers of philosophical works
elucidated in poetry.
Sanskrit Poetics endorses the role of Kavya as a vehicle for imparting instructions. While the
earlier theoreticians – Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana- count the renown or fame (Kirti) won the
poem and enjoyment (Priti) of the reader among aims of the Kavya, the later poets include
instructions (Upadesha) as n additional aim. They also say that unlike scriptures (Prabhu
samhita), the Kavya instructs in a gentle and persuasive voice, just as the sweet whispering of the
beloved in to ones ears (Kantha-samhita).
At the same time, it would be incorrect to count educational or instructive poetry, religious
hymns or narrative literature as Kavya. That is to say, it is not the mere outer form that decides
the poetic merit of Kavya.
And, Kavya need not also always have to deal with learned matters. In fact, too much learning
will affect the appeal of a poem. It might turn preachy. There are therefore short poems or
couplets that in a capsule form impart moral codes (Niti), wisdom and erotic (Sringara). The
most well known poems of this genre are Bhartrhari’s sets of stanzas on Sringara and Vairagya.
Kshemendra (11th century) makes a distinction between Kavya and Shastra, that is, between the
purely poetic works and the subject oriented works that are in poetic form. And, he also
mentions of works that fall in the intermediate zone: Shastra-kavya – poetry that is also technical;
and, Kavya-shastra – a technical work that is also poetry.
This distinction, some regard, as useful, because a certain technical work may also provide good
poetry while imparting knowledge. But, at the same time, a Kavya might also be sung as a stotra
(e.g. Gitagovinda of Jayadeva).
Basically, Shastra is informative in its character and the style is textual; Kavya, on the other
hand, is complex in its structure, employing a language of its own, embellished with artistic
metaphors, similes and unusual expressions.
In order to allow his text not only to convey information but also to convey it in an artistic
manner, the author-poet uses complex structures. But yet, the natural language is the foundation
of the poetry. Although the words used in Kavya and in the non-literary Shastra works are the
same they do not evoke the same joy or other emotions.
The poetry, on the other hand, creates for itself a language which has a character of its own (Riti,
marga). It might depart from the ordinary day-to-day common usage. With that the poem aims
at a definite stylistic effect (vishista). The poet arranges his building-bricks in a manner that is
different from that of a non-literary work.
The poet assembles his material in a non-standard fashion; and as Vamana points out the
creative process involve using a word-order (pada-charana) in peculiar or specialized (Visista)
ways that possess certain characteristics (Kavya-alamkara). Vamana puts forth the view that that
the special characteristics (Visesha) of a Kavya are mainly derived from the fact that the poet
deliberately attempts to create a fresh or ingenious style of depiction with his unique expressions.
The poetic language wears a clock or a veil, so to say.
Vamana and others lay much emphasis on the style (Riti or Marga); and, regard it as the most
essential virtue of a Kavya. But, such views are not generally accepted, because Riti is but one
among the ten traditionally recognized essential elements of a Kavya; and style is not everything
that one looks for in a Kavya.
(e) Mahakavya – Laghukavya

The other major division of lyrical poetry was to categorize Kavya into: (i) Mahakavya, long
poems structured into chapters, following all the prescribed regulations of classical poetry; and,
(ii) Laghu-kavya, shorter poems or poetry of the minor form.
Bhamaha and Vamana describe these forms as Nibaddha (cohesive poetry) and A-nibaddha (non-
cohesive poetry). Nibaddha which is equated with Mahakavya includes both the long poems (in
verse, prose or a mixture of the two) as also Drama. A-nibaddha equated with Laghu-kavya
covers all kinds of short poems say of one or two stanzas.
Mahakavya is the elaborate court epic kavya in classic style narrating a noble story element
(kathavastu) of sublime characters spread over several cantos (Sarga-bandha ) adorned with
eighteen types of descriptions (asta-dasha-varnana), with well chosen forms (guna) of expression,
syntax, and graces of rasa and beauty (alankara) and endowed with eloquent imagination; and ,
at the same time, satisfying all the norms and principles (kavya-lakshana) prescribed for a
Maha-kavya by the Kavya -shastra texts . Apart from these, it must promote and further the
cause of the Dharma.
The Laghukavya comprises within it several: Muktaka – single stanza poem; Yugala -two stanza
poem; Sandanitaka (or Vishesaka) = three stanza poem; Kapalaka = Four stanza poem; Kulaka
– five to fifteen stanza poem; Samghata = series of stanzas; Kosha (treasure) – collection of
stanzas; and Khanda-kavya- short poetic work.
Dandin in his Kavyadarsa gives an elaborate definition of Mahakavya, the summit of Kavya
genre:
The composition in Cantos (Sargabandha) begins with a benediction (Mangala), or a salutation or

an indication of the plot. It is based on a traditional narrative, or on a true event from one or the
other sources. It deals with the fruits of the four aims of life (chatur-vidha phala Purushartha). Its
hero is skillful and noble (Dhirodatta). Adorned (Alamkara) with eighteen (ahsta-dasha varnana)
types of descriptions including that of cities (nagara) , oceans(sagara) , mountains (shaila) ,
seasons (vasantadi ritu), the raising of the sun and moon(chandra-surya udaya –asthamana),
,playing in pleasure-parks (vana vihara ), (udyana), and in water (jala krida) , drinking parties
and the delights of love-making(madyapana surata), weddings (vivaha), , the separation of
lovers(viraha), , discussions with the wise (vipralamba) , , the birth of a son (putrodaya) , state-
craft (raja-mantra),gambling or sending messengers (dyuta), wars (yuddha), campaigns (jaitra-
yatra), and accomplishments of the hero (nayaka abyudaya); not too condensed; pervaded with
Rasa ( aesthetic mood) and Bhava ( basic emotion) ; with Cantos that are not overly diffuse , in
meters that are pleasing to hear, with proper junctures , and ending with different meters ( that
is, meters different from the main or the carrying meter of the Canto) ; such a Kavya pleasing to
the world and well ornamented (Sadalamkriti) will last until the end of creation. Even if it lacks
some of these features, a Kavya does not become bad, if the perfection of the things that are
present delights the connoisseurs (Sahrudaya).”
The ultimate test of a classic poet is Mahakavya, presented as a splendid unity of descriptive and
narrative delight. Its long narrative has to be structured into Cantos (Sargabandha) rendering
the theme in sequential junctures (Samdhi). The earliest surviving Kavya is Buddhacarita by
Ashvaghosa (first century). Some of the renowned Mahakavya-are: Raghuvaṃśa and
Kumārasambhava by Kalidasa; Kirātārjunīya by Bharavi; Śiśupāla-vadha by Māgha; Naiśadha-
carita by Sri-Harṣa; and, Bhaṭṭikāvya, by Bhaṭṭi.
Unlike the prose narrative (Katha and Akhyayika) and the mixed genre of Champu or Drama, the
Makakavya is a poem composed entirely of quatrain-like Kavya stanzas. The Kavya poet
arranges his or her in variety of elaborate meters, usually keeping the single ‘carrying’ meter up
to the end of the Canto.
The characteristics of a Mahakavya may generally be treated as falling under two broad heads:
essential and non-essential or formal. The essential characteristics are based on three
constituents of Kavya: plot (Vastu or Itivrtta), the hero (Netr or Nayaka) and the main emotional
content that it aims to portray (Bhava).
The plot must not be entirely fictitious; but must have a base in history or in Purana. The hero
must be accomplished person of very high linage, a very noble person (Dhirodatta). The
delineations of various sentiments and emotions are the third characteristic.
The non-essential characteristics are many; and, they generally apply to the techniques of
narration and descriptions. A list of such characteristics includes that the number of Sarga
should not exceed thirty but should not be less than eight. The number of verses should not be
less than thirty but should not exceed two hundred. The last two or three verses of a Canto
should be composed in a different meter or meters.
These characteristics are not essential. They may or may not be present in a Kavya.(e.g. The
Haravijaya has more than fifty Cantos; some Cantos of Naisadhiyacharita contains more than two
hundred verses; and the first Canto of the Bhattikavya has only twenty-seven verses).
Among the Laghukavya-s, a comparatively more detailed form is Khanda Kavya, which takes an
independent position between Laghukavya and Mahakavya.
Kavya consisting one Section (Khanda) is called Khanda Kavya. It is different from a series of
stanzas (Samghata). Khanda can employ themes much more freely and it usually narrates a
story; or it might sometimes provide a background to the narrative. The classic examples of
Khandakavya are: Kalidasa’s Meghadutam having about just over one hundred stanzas and
Bilhana’s Chauri-surata-panchasika (fifty stanzas concerning secret enjoyment of love-act).
The other forms of Laghukavya generally comprise : Muktaka – single stanza poem; Yugmaka (
also called Yugma, Yugala or Yugalaka) – two-stanza poem; Sandanitaka ( or Visesaka) – three
stanza poem; Kapalaka – four –stanza poem; Kulaka – five to fifteen stanza poem; Samghata –
series of stanzas; and, Kosha – collection of stanzas
In Yugmaka, the pair, two stanzas are closely linked by both syntax and content. Both the
Mukataka and Yugmaka show a clear tendency to be constructed on one sentence –one –stanza
principle.
If the number of stanzas exceeds two Sandanitaka ( the chain) , Kapalaka ( the group) or Kulaka
(the multitude) are the terms used , in a narrow sense, are the names given to poems of three ,
four or four or five to fifteen stanzas respectively.
Samghata (the junction) is a sort of longer poetry all written in the same meter, dealing with one
single theme through the whole series of stanzas: a mountain , a season, a wedding , a battle etc.
The Kosha (treasure) on the other hand is longer and heterogeneous. These perhaps could be
called Anthologies; and these form an important category in Sanskrit and Prakrit literature.
They are collections of Muktakas selected from various sources, arranged as per a theme or in a
random fashion.
The single stray verse (Mutaka) containing a single line of thought, emotion or expression or
description or a summary is very often used in all types of Kavyas. It is either used at
commencement of the Kavya either as benediction (Mangala) or to pay homage to the earlier
Masters of the tradition or to summarize the theme that is going to be presented or the mood of
the Kavya itself . These single stanza poems could be compared to Indian miniatures; both
present selected fields of animate and inanimate reality typical of the art in question.
The single unit of two or more stanzas in the same meter or in alternate meter (Paryaya Bandha)
(f) Dvani – Guna – Chitra

Anandavardhana (Ca. 850 AD) in his Dhvanyaloka chose a different type of classification. He
graded the Kavya into three classes (a) Dvani-kaya (the poetry that suggests) as the true Kavya,
the best (Uttama), where Dvani the unspoken suggestive element is dominant; (b) the second,
Gunibhuta-vamgmaya-kavya (well endowed descriptive poetry, as the middle (Madhyama) where
Dvani is secondary to Alamkara, and serves as a decoration for the spoken or expressed
meaning; and (c) and Chitrakavya (poetry that structured into various patterns or drawings) as
the least (Adhama) which depends entirely on verbal play for its elegance and elaboration, and
where Dvani the suggestive power of poetry is absent.
Anandavardhana believed that all good poetry has two modes of expression – one that is
expressed by words embellished by Alamkara ; and the other that is implied or concealed – what
is inferred by the listener or the reader And , in the implied one – the Dvani – lies the soul of the
poetry.
Anandavardhana regarded Dvani –the suggestive power of the Kavya as its highest virtue. The
Alamkara, figurative ornamental language, according to him, came next. In both these types of
Kavya, there is a close association between the word and its sound, and between speech (vak) and
meaning (artha). The word is that which when articulated gives out meaning; and meaning is
what a word gives us to understand. Therefore, in these two types of Kavya there is a unity or
composition (sahitya) of word (sabda-lankara) and its meaning (artha-lankara).
Then, Anandavardhana expanded on the object (phala) of poetry and how it is achieved
(vyapara). The Rasa, he said, is the ultimate enjoyment by the reader; such enjoyment is the
object of poetry. According to him, Rasa is not made; but, it is revealed; and its revelation is best
when done through Dvani. And, that is why words and meanings must be transformed to
suggestions (Dvani) of Rasa.
Anandavardhana’s classification is generally accepted and has come to stay. But, what has
changed is the types of discussions around it. The later discussions are more pointed and specific.
Let’s talk about the concepts of Sphota, Dvani and Rasa in the next segment.
Continued in
The Next Part
I gratefully acknowledge these and other wonderfully well researched works of great merit

ALL Pictures are from Internet
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Four

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Three
Dhvani – Rasa Dhvani
Poetry is basically a verbal icon or verbal structure; as such there cannot be any poetry without
words. Therefore, any discussion on poetry necessarily involves discussion on words. The poetry
also invokes emotional response; and, that is followed by the understanding of it’s emotive
language and the appreciation by the reader of the true import of the poet. These are all highly
essential to enjoy the poetry. Thus, the success of a good Kavya fundamentally involves three
aspects: the poet’s creative inspiration (Prathibha) ; its form by way of the words and meaning
, i.e. body of the Kavya ; and , the aesthetic effect it has upon the reader (Rasa) .
The ultimate object of Kavya is Rasa, the aesthetic delight. As Taittiriya Upanishad remarks in
another context: rasam hi evaayam labhvaanandi bhavati- on experiencing Rasa one becomes
truly blissful.
Let’s, therefore, briefly talk about words, meanings and Rasa.
As mentioned earlier in the series, a word has three functions: it signifies or denotes (abhida); it
indicates (lakshana); and it suggests (vyanjana). The meaning that is comprehended immediately
after the word is uttered is its primary meaning (mukhya-artha). The meaning thus conveyed and
its relation to the next word and its own meaning is a mutual relation of the signifier and the
signified (vachya-vachaka). The power that creates the relation among words is Abhida-vyapara,
the power of denotation or sense. The suggestive power of the word is through Vyanjana-artha.
Of these, the Vyanjana-artha which is the suggested sense or the essence of the word is most
interesting and is much debated. This is based in the principle that the meaning of word is not
limited to its literal sense; the word has the power to reach far beyond the obvious. In poetry, the
word acquires another power Vyanjana-vritti the suggestive function. It is the power which
activates the potential hidden in the word. And, the word acquires a new glow. Through the
suggestive function of the word; a new meaning or plurality of meanings emerges transcending
the obvious literal sense, far more beautiful and sensitive.
The suggestive word, the suggested meaning, the power of suggestion; and their mutual
relationship are virtually the lifeblood of Indian poetics. In fact, this is what that distinguishes
poetry from other forms of literature.
The suggested sense Vyanjana-artha, which (though not explicit) becomes the object of awareness
is regarded the essence of poetry. The Dhvani School put forward by Anandavardhana (Ca. 850
AD) through his Dhvanyaloka (also called Kavyaloka and Sahridayaloka), brought focus on the
potential power of the word in a Kavya. Here, the word (Sabda) together with its literal
sense (Vakyartha) is said to form the body of Kavya, it is its cloak. But, the essence of poetry is
elsewhere; it is not directly visible; and, that essence is the suggested sense of the word
(Vyanjana-artha).
It other words: it is not the direct literal and obvious meaning that is explicit in poetry, but it is
the suggested, indirect (paroksha-artha) and emotive meaning that matters. It does not mean that
words and primary meanings are unimportant. What is suggested here is that: though the
words of a Kavya and their literal sense must be given their due importance, they are but a
medium for emotive and indirect meaning to flash forth. In good poetry, this suggested meaning
dominates over the words and their literal meaning. As Anandavardhana puts it, the latter are
compared to a woman’s body and the former to her grace and beauty which is a subtler
manifestation and a more profound meaning of the womanhood.
The primary meaning can be understood by all. But, the suggested meaning is understood only
by those who are gifted with some imagination and a sort of intuition. Here, the mere knowledge
of the word alone is not enough to understand and enjoy the poetic import or the essence of the
Kavya. It needs intuition or Prathibha. Mammatacharya calls Prathibha as – nava-navaonvesha-
shalini prajna – the ever inventive and resourceful intellect. Prathibha is also called, at times, as
Vasana. Only those endowed with Prathibha can truly enjoy the essence and beauty of Kavya.
That is why, it is remarked, that the Grammarians (unlike the goodhearted cultured reader the
Sahrudaya) cannot truly appreciate and enjoy the Rasa of good poetry. They are incapable of
looking beyond what appears obvious.
Anandavardhana, therefore, says that such suggested sense is not apprehended (na vidyate) by
mere knowledge of Grammar (Sabda-artha-shasana-jnana) and dictionary. It is apprehended
only (Vidyate, kevalam) by those who know how to recognize the essence of poetic meaning
(Kavya-artha-tattva-jnana) – Dhv.1.7
It is said; in the highest class of Kavya, the denoted meaning (Vakyartha ) and the denoting
meaning (Lakshyartha) is subservient to revealing the suggested sense word (Vyanjana-artha);
and , it is called Dhvani by the scholars – Dhv.1.13
The suggested sense of the word designated as Dhvani (resonance or tone or suggestion) is
regarded Anandavardhana as the soul of Kavya: Kavyasya Atma Dhvanih.
Mammata (Kavyaprakasa 1.4-5) seems to suggest that Anandavardhana graded the entire body
of Kavya into three classes (some dispute Mammata’s statement and point out that
Anandavardhana did not say any such thing ) : (a) Dhvani-kaya (the poetry that suggests) as the
true Kavya, the best (Uttama), where Dhvani the unspoken suggestive element is dominant; (b)
the second, Gunibhuta-vamgmaya-kavya (well endowed descriptive poetry, as the middle
(Madhyama) where Dhvani is secondary to Alamkara, and serves as a decoration for the spoken
or expressed meaning; and (c) and Chitrakavya (poetry that structured into various patterns or
drawings) as the least (Adhama) which depends entirely on verbal play for its elegance and
elaboration, and where Dhvani the suggestive power of poetry is absent.
[Anandavardhana (9th century) and his theory of Dhvani mark the beginning of a new-phase
(Navina) in Indian Poetics. The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana marks a departure from the
old ways of understanding Kavya. It makes an attempt to study Poetics from aesthetic point of
view, assimilating all the essentials of various other schools. By giving prominence to Rasa, he
lends a new explanation to all the problems of Poetics. According to that, Alamkara, Riti and
Guna have their importance only in the context of Dhvani the suggestion which is the soul of
Kavya.
The older School (Prachina) – of Bhamaha, Dandin Vamana and others – that belonged to about
the 7th century dealt with natural or human situation idealized by the poet for its own sake. The
attention of the Prachina School was focused on ornamented figures of speech (Alamkara) and
the beauty (sobha, carutva) of the expression or on the ‘body’ of poetry. Their Rasa theory
generally was based in dramatic art .Therefore it did not come under Poetic proper.
The Navina School pointed out that the reader should not stop at the expression but should go
further into the meaning that is suggested, or hinted, by it. This suggested sense is the essence of
Kavya. It differs from the expressed and the indicated sense. The Navina School laid more
importance on the emotional content (Bhava) of the Kavya. But, here, the emotive element was
not directly expressed in words (Vachya) ; but , had to be grasped by the reader indirectly
(Parokshya ) through suggestions. Yet, through the description of the situation the reader
understands the emotion and derives that exalted delight, Rasa.
Anandavardhana, in his Dhvanyaloka he says that Vynjaartha (the un-expressed or the suggested
meaning) is Dhvani. It is the essence of poetry. It sheds light on the function of suggestion in
poetry. It is Vyanjana (revealing) and Dhvanana (echoing) or gamana (implication) or pratyayana
(acquainting) of poetry which is superior to Vachya (expressed meaning)
Here, the words (Sabda), explicit mean (Vakyartha) the body (Sarira) of the Kavya. The subtle,
suggested essence of the Kavya that resides within and is extracted with delight by the cultured
reader (Sahrudaya) is the Dhavni.
The Dhvani theory introduced a new wave of thought in Indian Poetics. According to this school
the Kavya that suggests Rasa is excellent. In Kavya, they said, neither Alamkara nor Rasa but
Dhvani which suggest Rasa, the poetic sentiment, is the essence, the soul ( Kavyasya-atma sa eva
arthaa Dhv.1.5).
While stating that Dhvani is superior, Navina also establishes the status of Rasa. In this scheme
the relative positions of Rasa, Guna, Alamkara and Dosa get fixed. It gives due credit to poet’s
imagination and his sense of propriety.
Though Dhvani was regarded the soul of poetry, the Navina did not lose sight of Rasa. It divided
Dhvani into three kinds – Vastu (matter), Alamkara (figures of speech) and Rasa (emotion) .
Thus the evolution of the Navina School marks a transition from the ‘outer’ element to the
‘inner’ one, in regard to the method, the content and appreciation of the Kavya. The criteria,
here, is not whether the expression sounds beautiful; but, whether its qualities (Guna) are
adequate (Auchitya) to lead the reader to the inner core of the poetry. ]
It is said; the concept of Dhvani was inspired by the ancient doctrine of Sphota, that which
flashes or bursts forth the meaning. The term Sphota signifies: bursting; opening; expansion;
disclosure; the eternal and imperceptible element of sound and words; and, is the real vehicle of
the idea which bursts or flashes on the mind when a sound is uttered.
Nagesha Bhatta (author of Manjusha and Shpota-vada) identifies Sage Sphotayana, mentioned by
Panini in one of his rule, as the originator of the Sphota concept. Bharthrhari quotes Yaska as
mentioning that another ancient authority, the sage Audumbarayana together with Varttaksa
held views similar to the Sphota theory. Yaska had mentioned (Nirukta: 1-2) about a theory
suggested by Audumbarayana that a sentence or an utterance is primary and is a whole, an
indivisible unit of language. Audumbarayana, it appears, had also mentioned that the four-fold
classification of words into : noun, verb, upasarga and nipata does not hold good. And therefore,
Bharthrhari claimed that the views of these ancients support his own theory –Sphota-vada.
[But, Yaska himself had not agreed with Audumbarayana; and, had went to talk about Bhava –
the being and becoming of verbs from their roots’ and about their transformations (Vikara) .]
In any case, the original idea of Sphota seems to go back to the Vedic age when Vak or speech
was considered to be a manifestation of the all – pervading Brahman , and Pranava (Aum) was
regarded as the primordial speech sound from which all forms of Vak were supposed to have
evolved. Perhaps, this claim provided the model upon which the Vyakarana philosophers based
their concept of Sphota. Indeed Sphota is often identified with Pranava.
It was Bhartrhari (around 485 AD) in his great work Vakyapadiya (all about sentence and word)
elaborated and established the Sphota doctrine in the realm of Grammar and in Philosophy.
According to Bhartrhari, the perfect perception is that in which there is identity between the
object (namely, the Sphota) and the form of its cognition (namely, words or the letters of sounds).
This special kind of perception is held to be function of mind, rather than of the external senses.
Abhinavagupta (10th -11th century) who wrote a great commentary, titled Dhvanya-Lochana or
Lochana, on Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka, explains the concept of Dhavni in two ways:
as Sabda Shakthi moola based in the sound of the expression ; and as Artha-Shakthi rnoola
based in the implied meaning of the expression. He says, Dhvani, in poetics, is so termed because
it sounds, rings, or reverberates (Dhvanat iti Dhvani); and, in the second, he says Dhvanyate iti
Dhvani that meaning which is implied is Dhvani. The second, suggesting the implied meaning is
the more appropriate one. Thus, the faculty of indicating something which it is not is the
distinguishing character of Dhvani. In other words, in a verbal expression abhidha and lakshana
form the body; and, Vyanjana or Dhvani is in the nature of its contents. Dhvani is the essence or
soul of poetry.
While expanding on the concept of Dhvani, Anandavardhana did not confine himself to the
words and sentences, but went on to include all contextual factors such as: the tone and gestures,
the sound effect produced, the rhythm, the metere as well as the literal sense.
But at the same time, Anandavardhana did not get involved in the comprehensive linguistic
phenomenon, the Vyanjana and its suggestive power. Similarly, he did not venture into the
philosophical and grammatical world of Sphota as Bhartrhari did. Anandavardhana confined
his attention to the poetic language and to the suggestion of meanings of aesthetic value. His
theory of Dhvani, to put it simply, is Vyanjana or suggestion as applied to poetry. In the process,
Anandavardhana chose to align his theory of Dhvani with Rasa as initially outlined by Bharata.
It is these two concepts – Dhvani and Rasa – that are the building blocks of Anandavardhana’s
theory of Poetics.
According to Anandavardhana, the element of Rasa has to reside in the poet, in his creation
Kavya and in the reader, the enjoyer. The poet has to be inspired, charged with emotion to create
a poetry that comes alive with suggestions (Dhvani). The poet is the first reader of his Kavya; and
the first one to experience Rasa from its Dhvani sensitivities. For instance, Adi Kavi Valmiki was
so intensely hurt and saddened by the wailing of curlew bird whose mate was shot down by a
hunter in the woods, that his grief (Shoka) poured out into a verse (Shloka) filled with pathos that
became the Rasa of Ramayana.
Anandavardhana maintained that experience of Rasa comes through the unravelling of the
suggested sense (Dhavani). It is through Dhvani that Rasa arises (Rasa-dhavani). The experience
of the poetic beauty (Rasa) though elusive, by which the reader is delighted, comes through the
understanding heart.
Thus, the principle of Dhvani is the most important of the Kavya dharma, understanding Kavya.
And, the Rasa experience derived from its inner essence is the ultimate aim of Kavya. Hence, the
epithet Kavyasya Atma Dhvani resonates with Kavyasya Atma Rasah.
Although it decaled that the soul of Kavya is verily the Rasa, the Dhvani School did not abandon
the concepts of the earlier (Prachina) Schools : Alamkara, Riti and Auchitya etc . It assimilated
within it all their essences. It said; the Gunas really qualify the Rasa; hence a Kavya should
employ Gunas that are relevant to its dominant Rasa. As regards the Alamkaras that decorate
the body of Kavya with beauteous and sparkling expressions and render it more attractive, they
do nourish the Rasa. Thus, The Dhvani School accorded each element of Kavya its appropriate
position.
And then there is the element or principle of Auchitya (propriety). Be it Alamkara or Guna, it
would be beautiful and relishing only so long it is appropriate from the point of view of Rasa
. And, they would be rejected if they are not appropriate to the main Rasa (Angirasa) of the
Kavya. In the same vein, what is normally considered a Dosha (flaw) might turn into Guna
(virtue) when it is appropriate to the Rasa. That again means, the beauty or the delight of a
Kavya resides in its experience, Rasa.
Dhvani principle can be said, briefly, in statements: Rasa (aesthetic experience) is the soul of
poetry; the mode in which the body of the poetry reveals it is Dhvani (suggestion); and, the
harmonious accordance of the body and the soul is Auchitya (propriety) . Rasa, Dhvani and
Auchitya are the Prastha traya, the three fundamental principles of Kavya Shastra.
As I understand it ; the basic position of Anandavardhana is that an emotion cannot be evoked in

a reader by mere mention of a name or a term and its bare description. It has to be suggested by
describing the situation and the contextual factors. These include the literary meaning as also the
suggestive possibilities of the expression such as: the sound echoing the sense, rhythm, imagery
and symbols. According to Anandavardhana, all these devices are to be used for helping to evoke
the right response in the mind and the heart of the reader. With that, the same utterance may
convey different suggestions to different people depending upon their level of understanding and
receptivity. He thus brought the emotional response or enjoyment of the listener or the reader
(Rasa) within the ambit of ‘meaning’. Thus, language acquires a limitless suggestive power. The
object of such power is to provide unalloyed pleasure (Ananda) to the reader by evoking the
Rasa.
Anandavardhana introduced a sort of new norm into Kavya. He said there should be one
predominant Rasa (which he called Angirasa) in a Kavya which includes Drama, Epic, lyric etc.
According to him, in a Kavya, all other Rasas that are either mutually conflicting or
supportive should be subordinate to its Angirasa. But, Bharata who was mainly concerned with
the successful productions of Drama that has to please varieties of people with different or
varied tastes, did not seem to considered it from that angle. And, therefore, Bharata, though he
stressed on the structural unity of the plot did not, perhaps, consider it necessary for a Drama (as
a whole) to portray a particular single Rasa of its own. In a Drama, each character would evoke a
rasa that is peculiar to it.
The later writers of Kavya had adopted the idea of a predominant Rasa for the work as a whole.
And, therefore, Anandavardhana stated that even the construction of a plot must be made in
such a way that there is scope for highlighting a chosen predominant Rasa. According to him,
events and descriptions, figures of speech etc not directly relevant to the development of the
theme and its main Rasa should be avoided in a good Kavya.
Another point stressed by Anandavardhana is that the imaginative sensibility necessary for
proper appreciation of a Kavya can be acquired only by close study of classical works and by
constant practice of response to works of art. According to him, the most important element in
the import of a Kavya is the emotion (Rasa) suggested; and that can be appreciated and enjoyed
by persons of refined sensibilities (Sahrudaya). What is important is the harmony between the
heart and mind of the reader and that of the poet (Sakhayah sakyani janate: Rig-Veda 10.71.2).
Anandavardhana remarks that not all scholars, Grammarians and logicians get to fully
appreciate and enjoy a Kavya. Only those who rise above the confines of rules, petty prejudices
and individual fixations can truly appreciate the poet’s point of view. Poetic beauty is
apprehended by only those (Vidyate, kevalam) who know how to recognize the essence of poetic
meaning (Kavya-artha-tattva-jnana) – Dhv.1.7
Abhinavagupta, in his Lochana, explains the literary sensitivity (Sahrudayatva) as the faculty of
entering into the heart of the poet. He says that the more a person is attuned to aesthetic
impressions from literature by constant exposure to literary works, the more mirror- like
becomes his heart. The constant relishing (charvana) of poetry refines his sensibility to an extent
that suggestions (Dhvani) ignite in his heart the aesthetic experience. Such, aesthetic
delight (Rasa) has no end outside of itself.
Anandavardhana exalts the poetic-freedom of a creative writer which, according to him,

transcends the powers of nature. He says in the world (Samsara) of poetry the Poet rules
supreme, the whole world transforms according to his wishes. As Abhinavagupta explained, good
poet through his intuitive power (Prathibha) can bring to life even the inanimate.
In the later times, the unalloyed aesthetic pleasure (Ananda) that a reader derives from the
Kavya by evoking its Rasa was compared by Bhattanayaka (10th century) to Absolute Bliss
(Brahmananda); and placed it even above Yogic experience. Abhinavagupta (11th century)
however moderated Bhattanayaka’s claim by explaining that Yogic experience is Absolute and
beyond subject-object relation. And, aesthetic experience, he said, gives bliss for short periods;
and, therefore cannot be considered supreme, though it is superior to worldly pleasures. This
explanation was in line with Anandavardhana’s own views.
Ananadavardhana classifies Dhvani in various ways.The scheme of his classification is detailed

and complicated; there are in fact as many as fifty-one varieties of Dhvani. One can, at best,
attempt to give only the brief outlines of a few of it here.
Broadly, the Dhvani is classified in three ways:
1. According to the ways the suggested meaning is related to the literal or the
prima facie meaning. This is divided into two types:
A (i), the first type where the literal sense is not intended or not meant (avivaksita – vacya)
This is again subdivided into two:
: – the type where the literal sense is completely set aside (atyantatiraskita-vacya);
: – and, the type where the literal meaning is shifted or deflected (arthantarasamkramita – va-
cya);
A (ii) The second type where the literal sense is in fact intended, but it sub-serves the implied
sense (vivaksitanyapara – vacya);
1. the second type according to the element in the text which effects the
suggestion of Dhvani;
2.
3. and, the third principle of classification is based on the nature of Dhvani per
se. Here,the suggested meaning may be of three kinds.
C(i) :- It may be a thing (Vastu Dhvani), some rare fact or idea or an event or occurrence is
implied.
C (ii) : – It may be some Alankaara or figure of speech that is suggested (Alamkara Dhvani) .
C (iii): – The third type of Dhvani is the most important type of Dhvani. It is called Rasa –
Dhvani where in Rasa or flavour or emotion or mood or sentiment of poetry is evoked. Rasa is
an ideal and impersonalised form of joy. Rasa can only be suggested but not described.
Both Vastu Dhvani and Alamkara Dhvani can be expressed by direct meaning (Vacyaartha) or
by suggestion (Vyangyanartha). But the third variety of implicit sense of Rasa Dhvani cannot be
expressed through the direct meaning of words, nor in words commonly used in day-to-day life
(loka vyavahaara).
The Rasa Dhvani, the most important type of Dhvani, consists in suggesting Bhava, the feelings
or sentiments. In Rasa Dhvani, emotion is conveyed through Vyanjaka, suggestion. Rasa is the
subject of Vyanjaka, as differentiated from Abhidha and Lakshana. .
Anandavardhana regarded Rasa Dhvani as the principal one. Abhinavagupta accepted that; and
expanded on the concept by adding an explanation to it. He added the Pratiiyamana or implied
sense which is two-fold : one is Loukika or the one that we use in ordinary life; and the other is
Kavya vyapara gocara or one which is used only in poetry.
The Loukika Dhvani in poetry is again two-fold: the one that suggests Vastu or some matter
(Vastu Dhvani); and, the other which suggests a figure of speech (Alamkara Dhvani) .
In Abhinavagupta’s classification, the Vastu Dhavani and Alamkara Dhavani are merely parts of
poetry; but, are superior to direct designation. The real essence of poetry is , of course, the Rasa
Dhavani.
Abhinavagupta differed from Anandavardhana over the issues of the emotion of the poet.
Anandavardhana viewed the melting of experience in the poet and out flowing of this empathy as
inspired poetic form solidified in words. Abhinavagupta, however, explained it as the generalized
state of creative medium, where the poet is an impersonal observer expressing human experience
in poetry, as an intermediary.
Ananadavardhana classification is generally accepted and has come to stay. But, what has
changed is the types of discussions around it. The later discussions are more pointed and specific.
Many scholars did not entirely agree with Anandavardhana’s exposition of Dhvani. Those who
criticized his views include: Bhattanayaka, Kuntaka, Mahimabhatta, Dhananjaya, Bhoja,
Rajasekhra, Vishwanatha and few others. The questions raised were : If Guna and Alamkara are
left out , what else isthere to lend beauty to Kavya? If it is argued that Guna and Alamkara are
different from Dhvani , how can they be said to produce beauty? Many seemed to accept Dhvani
; but as a secondary function. Mammata carried forward the argument that Rasa is the
principle substance and the object of poetry. He stated vakyatha Rasatmakarth kavyam
establishing the correlation between Rasa and poetry; and pushing down the Dhvani.
Bhattanayaka pointed out that Rasa can be experienced, but not suggested. Mahimabhatta
included all types of Dhvani under the head Anumana, the inference, since Dhvani has no
independent or cognizable existence
But , Ananadavardhana, Abhinavagupta , Mammata and others stoutly defended the Dhvani
and Rasa Dhvani ; and successfully deflected most of the criticisms.
Continued in
The Next Part
The Philosophy of the Grammarians, Volume 5 By Harold G. Coward
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Five

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Four
Language of Kavya
Poetry is often concerned with the day-to-day experiences and speaks in the common language.
But, when those words and expressions walk into poetry, they acquire a totally different nature.
The common words (prasiddha) are transformed into suggestive expressions that are less known
outside of poetry (a-prasiddha). This is akin to the movements in classical dance where a simple
thing such as walking as in common life (loka dharmi) is transformed into idioms of dance
expressions (natya dharmi). Similarly, in poetry, If the common language is understood by all
(loka dharmi), the poetic expressions are relished by Sahrdaya, the cultured ones (kavya dharmi).
As regards the distinctions between language of poetry and the language of everyday, the earliest
modes of such distinctions were of course the meter (chhandas), enlivening of the text with
innovative and decorative phrases (Alamkara) along with detailed descriptions of the emotions as
also of the surroundings. Kavya also makes abundant use of metaphors; the repetition of
conventional patterns and images; and, of long winding unusual expressions. And, naturally,
such poetry does not yield itself at the first glance or reading. It needs to be savored slowly in
small measures, over and over again.
The technique of poetry makes use of different devices in various ways. But, to ensure that poetry
retains its own natural language-flow, usually, it avoids use of banal words. In order to just
avoid the over-used words, the poets often try being innovative and create words, phrases and
expressions that are striking and rather unusual. The various forms of metaphors and similes
thus created leads to a broadening of the perspective and produces a multiple view of the subject
in an artistic manner. Not only the poets reveal familiar subjects in a new light, but they also
reveal truths that hitherto were not quite obvious. They also unfold relationships and beauties
that are either not present in ordinary life or else remain unrecognized.
***
Kuntaka (10th century) in his Vakrokti-jivita finds Bhamaha’s definition of Kavya – Sabdarthau
sahitau Kavyam– ‘Poetry is composed of word and meaning together’ – rather inadequate.
Kuntaka remarks: the mere fact that word and meaning exist together cannot be the defining
characteristic of poetic expression; for it is what characterizes all linguistic expressions whether
be it prose, poetry or whatever; no linguistic expression is possible without it.
Therefore, Kuntaka observes, the language of poetry is a special kind of Sahitya – Visistam evah
sahityam abhipretam. Its uniqueness consists in the fact that the word and the meaning have
equal importance: – Anyu-nana-atiriktatva. They ‘vie with each other’ – paraspara sparsparditva;
they are united like two intimate friends – suhrudva iva samgatau; and, they delight in the
beauty of each other – parasparasya sobhaya bhavataha.
The relation between words in Kavya is indeed unique . Their harmony resides in the creative
genius (pratibha) of the poet ; and, is realized in an inspired poetic instant (tat-kalo-
likhita) while on the sublime road of poetry (alaukika kavya-marge) i.e. of poetic activity (kavi-
karma-vartmani) . Such inspired poetry enchants the minds of the sensitive readers or listeners
(chetana-chamatkarita, sahrudaya-ahladakarita). Although several other words might possibly
be available for expressing a single idea, the expression chosen by a gifted poet is exceptional
and irreplaceable- sabdo vivakshit-arthai-kava-vacahako ‘nyesu satsv api.
Kuntaka illustrates how there is accord not only between the words and their meanings, but also
between the words themselves; and between the meanings themselves – in fact, among all the
constituent elements poetry. He gives examples from the works of great poets such as Magha
and Bhavabhuti.
Kuntaka shows how such accord results in the musical quality of poetry. He remarks; like
music, poetry is that which, by virtue of the beauty of tits expressions, its composition, fills the
hearts of the connoisseurs with delight instantly, even when its meaning has not been pondered:
aparyalocite ‘py arthe bandha-saundarya-sampada / gitavad dhrdayahliidarh tadvidam vidadhati yat

//
***
Poetry is a more liberated form of expression as compared to prose. One cannot easily define
poetry. Poetry discards the rigidity, the disciplines and the correctness of the structure
prescribed by the grammar. Poetry enjoys the voluptuous malleability and freedom with words
and sounds; it bends and twists them in any number of ways. Its concern is not so much with the
correctness of form than with the sensitivity, refinement and brevity in expression of a range of
thoughts, feelings and human emotions of joy, sorrow, grief, hope, despair, anger and fulfilment.
Poetry can be subtle and suggestive. The imagery that poetry evokes can hardly be captured in
words. What is unsaid in poetry is more evocative than the explicit.
Grammar (Vyakarana) concerns itself with the arrangement of words into sentences. It does not,
however, account for the pattern of meanings. The poetry on the other hand is much concerned
with the arrangement of words. But, it does strive to convey a meaning. The poetic beauty does
not solely dependent on the strict order of words or other conventions. It in fact goes beyond
regulated regimens.
Poetry, in the Indian traditions, is often called ‘vyakaranasya puccham’ – the tail piece or the
appendix of Grammar. The Grammar determines the correctness of the words and their
arrangement within a sentence. The poetry is however more concerned with the appropriateness
and mutual relations among the words. The poetry, as far as possible, follows Grammar. But ,
when it find the rules of Grammar too constrained or suffocating , it switches over to other
means of expressions that are more appropriate or conducive to its natural flow; or , it invents its
own means. At times, when those inventive expressions of poetic suggestions are so charming and
become so popular, they walk into Grammar per se. Scholars like Nagesha Bhatta say that
Grammarians must necessarily accept (svikara avashyakah) the power of suggestion (Dhvani) –
vyakarananamapi etat svikara avashyakah).
Thus, Poetry has the power to set us free from the limited confines of our own set rules. Poetry
represents the world as a man chooses to see it. Poetry is Truth, but not necessarily reality.
Poetry is a search for syllables to express an unknown. It is direct and universal. It appeals to the
heart. It finds its echo in another heart. Poetry is the heart talking through the mind.
***
The complex web of words and meanings capable of being transformed into aesthetic experience
is said to have certain characteristic features. These are said to be Gunas and Alamkaras. These
– words and meanings; Alamkara; Gunas; and, Rasa – though seem separable are in fact fused
into the structure of the poetry. Poetics accounts for the nature of these features and their inter-
relations
That is to say that poetry creates for itself a language which has a character of its own (Riti,
Marga). It might, if it so chooses, depart from the ordinary day-to-day common usage. With that
the poem aims at a definite stylistic effect (vishista). The poet arranges his material or the
building-bricks in a non-standard fashion, in a manner that is different from the ordinary usage.
As Vamana points out, it is the creative process that involves using word-order (pada-charana) in
peculiar or specialized (Visista) ways that possess certain characteristics (Kavya-alamkara).
Vamana puts forth the view that such special characteristics (Visesha) of a Kavya are mainly
derived from the fact that the poet deliberately attempts to create a fresh or ingenious style of
depiction with his unique expressions. The poetic language wears a clock or a veil, so to say.
This unique virtue of poetry provides space for experimentation. For instance; Bhamaha
indulged in vakrokti, a twisted way of expressing a thing; Dandin brought in Samdhi-guna; and
Udbhata introduced the secondary expressions (amukhya-vyapara). Such hitherto unknown or
unusual terms necessarily called for explanations or indication (lakshana) in order to be
understood.
In the process, Vamana and others lay much emphasis on the style (Riti or Marga); and, regard it
as the most essential virtue of a Kavya. But, such views are not generally accepted, because Riti is
but one among the ten traditionally recognized essential elements of a Kavya; and Riti(style ) is
not everything that one looks for in a Kavya.
This has reference to the mistaken notion that Kavya is all about high-flown language. For
instance; Bhatti takes pride in stating that his poems would not be intelligible to people who are
not scholars. This wrong perspective arose probably from the fact that the grammatical and
lexicographical sciences as well as the philosophical discipline had attained a high water-mark of
respect with the learned people who alone could be the judges of poetry. It had also something to
do with the vain culture of Court-poetry where the rival poets threw challenges at each other in
the form of abstruse verses. The failure to solve the puzzle-like verses invariably ended in
humiliation.
This high-brow and twisted view of poetic language however, was not universal. Bhamaha urged
that kavya should be written in such a manner as to be intelligible even to those who have no
learning or general education. Later, Vamana who examined the whole issue said that the poetic
beauty does not exist merely in twisted or unusual expressions; but, in the intrinsic merit (guna)
of the poetry itself. Then he said, the ultimate object of good poetry in rasa, the enjoyment.
Thus, the general view is that in order to enable his text not only to convey but also to dress its
narration in an artistic manner , the poet might reasonably use complex expressions
and structures. But yet, he should not lose sight of the fact that the natural language is the
foundation of good poetry.
The popularity of Ramayana among the common people is the standing testimony to this truth.
In spite of the high regard for finer poetry, Indians have always considered the simpler Epic of
Ramayana as an ideal Kavya.
***
The poetic way of expression is employed both by the literary and the non-literary works. The
non-literary works though in poetic form are not regarded as Kavya per se. For instance;
presentation of Astronomy in Varahamihira’s Brahmasamhita; or of Algebra in Bhaskara’s
Leelavathi contain many verses, beautiful descriptions of nature and of poetic merit that they
almost are Kavya. Similarly, Suryapandita’s work on Astronomy (Bhaskarabhushana) has
beautiful verses praying to Sun god. There are also numbers of philosophical works elucidated
in poetry.
Even in the non-technical works, the materials of Shastra and Itihasa very often overlap. The
materials of Shastra can appear in itihasa, as they frequently do in the Mahabharata or in a
kavya. Similarly, the materials of Itihasa can appear in kavya, as in the Harshacharita of
Banabhatta. And, many masters of systematic thought across the religious and philosophical
spectrum wrote kavya, often very un-philosophical kavya.
Sanskrit Poetics approves role of Kavya as a vehicle for imparting instructions. But, Kavya need
not always deal with learned matters. In fact, too much learning will affect the appeal of a poem.
It might turn preachy. There are therefore short poems or couplets that in a capsule form impart
moral codes (Niti), wisdom and erotic (Sringara). The most well known poems of this genre are
Bhartrhari’s sets of stanzas on Sringara and Vairagya.
Although the words used in Kavya and in the non-lterary Shastra works are the same they do not
evoke the same joy or other emotions
Kshemendra makes a distinction between Kavya and Shastra; that is between the purely poetic
works and other subject oriented works that are in poetic form. And he also mentions of works
that fall in the intermediate zone: Shastra-kavya – poetry that is also technical; and, Kavya-
shastra – a technical work that is also poetry.
Basically, Shastra is informative in its character and its style is textual; Kavya, on the other
hand, is complex in its structure, employing a language of its own, embellished with artistic
metaphors, similes and unusual expressions.
The non-literary work might use, within reasonable bounds, flowery or artistic language or aim
at achieving a definite stylistic effect (vishista).But; it would be a mistake if it gets its priorities
wrong. It should be more focused on its primary objective which is imparting information,
instructions and knowledge, than on seemingly artistic flourish of its language. That would be, as
they say, counting the trees but loosing the woods, which is laying premium on minor detail but
missing the big picture.
***
Raja Bhoja (1011–1055) states: another way by distinguishing kavya from ordinary language is
in terms of directness. Ordinary language is the direct language of Shastra and everyday life;
kavya, in contrast, is the indirect language abounding in descriptions, but, its statements do not
prescribe action. Its way of saying is indirect , indirection (Vakrokti) — an unique manner of
expression. . Raja Bhoja says: Do not read kavya the way you read Shastra, Purana, or the
Vedas; do not be concerned (except insofar as it is a source of pleasure) about a breach between
what is said and what is really meant; about its relation with an actual world; and about
information or injunction. And do not expect the language of the kavya to be like ordinary
language; its purposes are different.
According to Bhoja, all kinds of texts—science, narratives of things, including Shastra and
Purana, have the capacity to teach us something by prescribing (Vidhi) or prohibiting action
(Nishedha) of some sort. Bhoja calls this the educative function. But, Kavya neither prescribes
nor prohibits any sort of action; nor does it quote the past authorities in support of its
suggestions. It does not expressly enjoin or define appropriate action. Its relevance resides
precisely in its own utterances (Ukti). The Shastra and the Vedas act like a master in
commanding (Prabhu Samhita) ; the texts of the wise sages are like a counseling by a friend in
(Mitra Samhita) ;and, kavya’s Ukti ( utterences) are like sweet whisperings of the beloved
(Kanta Samhita) . Kavya’s ways are endearing and more persuasive.
***
The Veda is set apart from the domain of Kavya, for various reasons. The Vedas impart
instructions in regard to true knowledge and right action (Dharmavidhi). Imparting knowledge
and instructions are its primary functions; and the question of language, however meticulous, is
secondary. The role of language in Veda does not seem to be as crucial as it is in a Kavya. At the
same time, Kavya too instructs, in its own way; but without commanding the reader to act in a
certain manner.
The Vedas are believed to be intuitive perceptions (Darshana) as envisioned by the seers (Rishi).
They are direct; and, its authors transmit their vision, in its pristine purity, perfectly, by
expressing exactly what they mean. However, in the kavya, as in everyday life, we often employ
metaphorical language, which may give out multiple meanings. But no such divergence occurs
between verbal intention and the Truth as depicted in the texts of the Rishis. .
Elements of kavya are doubtless present in the Veda itself (Sruti) as also in the Smruti (Vedic
texts remembered), in the narratives of the events that occurred in the past (itihasa), and in
ancient lore (purana). But such poetic elements are incidental to the principal objects of those
texts; and, therefore are not of prime importance to their traditional readers or listeners.
There are also other difference between the Vedic poetry and Kavya. The language of the Vedas
is different from the classic Sanskrit of the post-Panini era. The imagery and poetic vocabulary
too are different. For instance; you do not find in the Samhitas descriptions of young ,
beautiful adorable girls through pet idioms that became common in the Kavya works : moon-
like or lotus-like face; fleeting eyes of a gazelle; narrow waist; gait like that of a swan etc. There
are also no poetic conventions or symbolisms in the Samhita that speak in terms of: a Chakora
bird which is nourished by moon beams; a Chataka bird which feeds on rain-drops; or,
Chakravaka which is ever faithful and pining for its partner.
The two ideas seem to be present here: (i) what makes kavya different from everything else has
essentially to do with language itself; (ii) and, accordingly, literary analysis must center on
language. These are two presuppositions that span the entire history of kavya theory and
profoundly influenced its production.
A K Warder, in his Indian Kavya Literature (vol. One) explains the distinctions between the
literary and non-literary works, particularly those on philosophical subjects. And, the dictions he
mentions can very well cover the technical works:
“Kavya is distinguished from philosophy and most scriptures, in that it is centered in man. As
compared with philosophy, which may also be humanist in outlook, Kavya is an art form,
presenting its truths and its comments through images and individual characters. The humanism
of Kavya differs from that of the critical and analytical schools of philosophy in its endless riches
of concrete details, which aims to present by examples the infinite variety of particular times,
places, persons situations and actions. Its subject matter is human experiences of life,
accumulated over thousands of years, an epic of humanity which is not available to us in any
other form. This experience is presented in terms of human emotions: the reactions of the people
to situations in life’’.
Continued in
Next Part
References and Sources
Indian Kavya Literature (vol. One) by A K Warder
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Six

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Five
Can Kavya be defined?
It is said; Adi Kavi Valmiki after pronouncing his first (Adi) Sloka cried out in amazement; what
is this that is uttered by me (Kim idam vyahtham maya …!). His exclamation – Kim idam – what is
this? – is a perpetual question in Kavya-shastra and, has prompted endless debates over the
centuries.
What, then, is this wonderful thing called Kavya?
Many have tried to explain what Kavya is?
The following explanations of Kavya , as put forward by various scholars, is quite interesting:
: – Saba- arthau -sahitau Kavyam – Poetry is word and meaning (Bhamaha, Kavyalankara 1.6);
: – Nanu Sabda-arthau Kavyam – Poetry is word and meaning (Rudrata, Kavyalamkara 2.1);
:- Tad adosau Sabda-arthau sagunya alamkriti punah kvapti – this poetry is word and meaning ,
without blemishes, adorned with excellences , sometimes without the Alamkaras, figurative
expressions.(Mammata , Kavyaprakasa 1.4);
:- Adosau sagunau sa-alamkarau cha sabda-arthau Kavyam – Poetry is word and meaning ,
without blemishes, furnished with excellences and Alamkara figures of speech ( Hemachandra ,
Kavyanushasana 1) ;
:- Sadhu-sabda-artha-samdarbham guna-alamkara-bhushitam , sphuta- itirara- sopetam

Kavyam kurvita kirtaye – Let the poet ,with the object of gaining fame, compose Kavya
intertwining word and meaning , and decorated with excellences and figures (Alamkara) and
other poetic sentiments in a clear style (Vagbhata , Vagbhata-alamkara 1.2);
: – Sabda-arthau- nirdoshou sagunau prayah alamkarau Kavyam – Poetry is word and meaning;
without faults, furnished with excellences and – often – with Alamkara, figurative speech
(Vagbhata, Vagbhata-alamkara 1; and Kuntaka, Vakroktivijaya 1.7);]
***
In addition, Kuntaka came up with a detailed explanation. According to him, the word (Sabda)
alone is not the body of poetry, but it is the happy fusion of word and sound which stands for ‘the
body’ : Sabdartyha sahitau kavyam. Kuntaka says the word (Sabda) and sense (Artha) , blended
like two friends, creating each other, make Kavya delightful
Sama-sarva gunau santau sahhrudaveva sangathi I parasparasya shobhayai sabdartau bhavato

thatha II
Further, Kuntaka says that the Real word is that which is chosen out of a number of possible
synonyms and expresses the desired sense most aptly. And, the real sense is that which by its
own alluring nature causes pleasure in the mind of the Sahrudaya (person of taste and culture)
Sabdau vivaksitartha kavachakautheyshu sathvapi I arthah sahrudaya ahladkari sva spanda

sundarah II V.J.1.9
The togetherness of the word and sense is nothing but a captivating state which creates in the
mind of the reader or the listener poetic delight which is exactly what is desired by the poet
himself, neither less nor more
Sahitya manayo shobha shalitam prati kashyasau I Atyunna na athiriktha manoharinya vasthithihi
II V.J.1.17
***
Then again, the scholars of the later period attempted to come up with a technical ‘Definition’ of
Kavya , in place of ‘explanations’. When the Poetic scholars set out to define Kavya, they set for
themselves certain norms, parameters and ground rules. And, also decided to keep out the
Drama (which they considered it as Agama-antara, a different tradition) out of the purview of
Kavya, for the limited purpose of arring at a definition; and, similarly, the non-literary forms of
Kavya were also kept aside.
According to the rules so framed: any definition of Kavya should be free from three kinds of
flaws (Dosha): it should not be too terse, covering too little (A-vyapti); it should not be too
verbose, saying more than what is needed (Ati-vyapti); and , it should nor be improbable or
incompetent (A-samartha). Therefore, any definition of Kavya had to be brief, precise and easy
to understand; it should be definite without shadow of alternatives; and, should, as far as
possible, be free from technical terms that need further explanations.
But, Kavya, I reckon, cannot of course be defined with precision; or be presented in a capsule as
a well knit, and packed accurate pellet of information.
Each generation of Poet-Scholars, right from Bhamaha to Jagannatha Pandita tried to define
Kavya. They, at best, tried to draw its clear picture. Their attempts could be termed as
explanations, circumscribed by their understanding, rather than as definitions.
The explanations offered by those scholars, nevertheless, help us to gain some insight into the
nature and role of elements of poetry; and their mutual relationships. All those scholars base
their explanations in certain technical terms and elements (Kavya-agama) each having its own
connotation: Sabda, Artha, Rasa, Alamkara, Riti, Dhvani, Vakrokti, Dosha, and, Dhvani.
Bhamaha (6th century) said: ‘Kavya is where the Sabda (word) and Artha (its meaning) are
harmoniously combined – Sabda-Artha sahitau Kavyam .But, that was not regarded by many as
an ideal explanation, since it does not specifically pertain to Kavya; and can be extended to cover
even non-literary or technical works.
Bhamaha then extended his explanation to bring in the element of Alamkara; and, said: Kavya is
the happy fusion of Sabda words and Artha which expresses Alamkaras relating to them –
Sabda-abhideya-alamkara-bhedadhistam dvayam tu nah I Sabda-Artha sahitau Kavyam (KA.1.15).
It was not clear whether Bhamaha meant Alamkara as the poetic principle or as the ornamental
figures of speech. Further, the term Alamkara itself needs to be explained. Hence, this definition
was not considered ideal.
Dandin says the body of Kavya is a group of sounds which indicates the desired or the happy aim
intended by the poet – Sariram tavad ista-artha vyvachinna padavali (KA 1.10b). Here, the term
ista-artha the desired effect or the desired import of the poet is rather too vague; and needs to be
explained. Further, Dandin seemed to be defining the body of the Kavya rather than the Kavya
itself. And, Padavali – the group of words – by itself and not accompanied by sense is not of great
merit.
Vamana said Kavya is the union of sound and sense which is free from poetic flaws and is
adorned with Gunas (excellence) and Alamkaras (ornamentation or figures of speech). Here, it
was pointed out that the poetic excellence (Gunas) might be an essential aspect of a Kavya; but,
the same cannot be said about Alamkara, the figure of speech.
Then again, Vamana said; the essence of Kavya is Riti (Ritir Atma Kavyasya). Riti represents for
Vamana the particular structure of sounds (Vishista-pada-rachana Ritihi) combined with poetic
excellence (Vishesho Gunatma). According to Vamana, Riti is the going or the flowing together of
the elements of a poem – Rinati gacchati asyam guna iti riyate ksaraty asyam vanmaddhu-dhareti
va ritih (Vamana KSS). But, Vamana’s definition involves technical terms that need to be
commented upon offering explanations. Hence, it is not an ideal one.
Anandavardhana‘s definition of Kavya involves two statements: Sabda-Artha sariram tavath

vakyam; and, Dhvanir Atma Kavyasa – the body of poetry is the combination of words and
sounds; and; Dhavni, the suggestive power is the soul of the poetry. Anandavardhana talks in
terms of the body and soul of the Kavya. And he also refers to the internal beauty of a
meaningful construction of words in the Kavya. But, Dhvani is a highly technical term, needing
much explanation. This definition again was not treated as an ideal one.
Kuntaka defined Kavya on the basis of Vakrokti, a concept which he himself put
forward. According to him, Kavya is the union of sound, sense and arranged in a composition
which consists Vakrokti (oblique expressions of the poet), delighting its sensible reader or listener
– (Sabda-Artha sahitau vakra Kavi vakya vyapara shalini I bandhe vyavasthitau Kavya tat ahlada
karini VJ 1.7). Kuntaka also said that the word and sense, blended like two friends, creating
each other, make Kavya delightful – Sama-sarva gunau santau sahhrudaveva sangathi I
parasparasya shobhayai sabdartau bhavato thatha II . These definitions too are not acceptable
because Vakrokti, like Alamkara, Riti and Dhvani is again a technical term.
According to Mammata, Kavya is that which is constructed by word and sentence which are (a)
faultless (A-doshau) , (b) possessed of excellence (Sugunau) , and (c) in which rarely a distinct
figure of speech (Alamkriti) may be absent. This definition was attacked by many, pointing out
that it is impossible to compose a Kavya without a single blemish; and not a single Kavya would
satisfy Mammata’s requirement. Further, it was remarked that the adjective Alamkriti doesn’t
seem to be quite appropriate as it merely enhances the quality of a Kavya, but is not an essential
aspect of Kavya. And, Mammata has employed number of technical terms like : Dosha, Guna,
and Alamkara , which again need to be explained ; and , it also includes an alternate view like
‘Alamkriti punah kvapi. Thus Mammata’s definition was also rejected.
Vishwanatha briefly defined Kavya as Vakyam rasathmakam Kavyam – Kavya is sentences whose
essence is Rasa. But, here, Rasa is a technical term which has multiple explanations. And, many
said Kavya cannot merely be sentences or collection of words; there has to a happy fusion of
word (Sabda) and sense (Artha). Hence, this definition also fell short.
Jagannatha Pandita defined Kavya as: Ramaniya-artha prathipadakah sabdam kavyam ; poetry is
the combination of words that provides delight. Here, Ramaniyata denotes not only poetic delight
Rasa, pertaining to the main variety of Dhvani-kavya, but also to all the ingredients of Kavya like
Vastu-Dhvani Kavya; Alamkara-Dhvani –Kavya, Guni-bhutha –vyangmaya-kavya; Riti; Guna,
Alamkara, Vakrokti etc.
This definition covering all aspects of poetics covers a wider field than Rasa which is limited to
certain criteria. Moreover, the word Ramaniyata is not a technical term, but it covers all the
essentials of a Kavya.
Jagannatha Pandita’s definition of Kavya as : Ramaniya-artha prathipadakah sabdam , seems

almost nearer to the ideal.
But, I reckon, Kavya is best left un-defined, not put into a straightjacket. Leaving it to the
delight and enterprise of each reader or listener to work out his own levels of appreciation,
derive the sense he sees as the best and enjoy the experience of Kavya in his own way seems to be
better approach.
Cause of poetry (Kavya hetu)
According to Rajasekhara , the poet is endowed with Karayitri Prathibha the creative genius
while the reader or listener is to have Bhavayitri Prathibha the faculty for appreciation of good
poetry; obviously, the poet posses both the faculties.
The Kavi Prathibha the creative intuition is the essential without which no creative art is possible.
The scholars have tried to present other factors that might be responsible for outflow of poetry
(Kavya hethu).
Dandin mentions three causes of poetry: Naisargika Prathibha natural or inborn genius;
Nirmala-shastra –jnana clear understanding of the Shastras; Amanda Abhiyoga ceaseless
application and honing ones faculties.
Rudrata and Kuntaka also mention three causes: Shakthi, the inborn intellectual brilliance;
Utpatti, the accomplished knowledge of the texts and literary works; and, Abhyasa, constant
practice of composing poetic works.
Vamana says three causes of poetry are: Loka, knowledge of the worldly matters, norms of
behavior; Vidya. learning of various disciplines; and Prakirna , miscellaneous , that is six causes
: Lakshajnata , study of the texts; Abhiyoga, practice ;Vrddha seva , instructions from the learned
experienced persons; Avekshana, the use of appropriate words
avoiding blemishes; Prathibhana, the inborn poetic genius ; and Avadhana, concentration or
single pointed devotion to learning and composing.
Mammata puts forth the following as the three causes of poetry, while doing so he included the
causes mentioned by Vamana: inborn intuitive power; proficiency in worldly conduct as also the
study of scriptures and standard literary works; and, practice of composing poetic works
through the help of some persons proficient in this art.
In the ‘causes of poetry’ (Kavya hethu) mentioned above, while Utpatti and Abhyasa stand for the
constant learning-effort and refinements that polish the poetry , the terms Shakthi or
Prathibha, is explained in various ways.
According to Rudrata, Shakthi or Prathibha is that essential factor through which the poet
spontaneously presents any subject matter that haunts him or occupies his mind, using
appropriate expressions. This explanation seems to lay more stress on the external form of
poetry. Therefore, Bhatta-tauta brought in the most essential internal factor ‘ He explained
Prathibha , in his often quoted words, as the genius of the intellect which creates new and
innovative modes of expressions in art poetry – Nava-navonvesha –shalini prajna prathibha
mathah.
Vamana said, Prathibha is the seed for creating Kavya : Kavitva-bijam prathibhanam (K.S.13.6)
Kuntaka and Mammata tried to explain the very basis of the Prathibha. Kuntaka said: the
faculty of creating a poetic work is an unique intellectual power, which gains maturity due to the
inborn and acquired impressions (Samskara paripaka prouda prathibha) gathered in poet’s life-
time.
Mammata, adding, said: Shakthi is the intellectual power that could be said to be a sort of a
mass of impressions serving as a seed for sprouting of poetic work: Shakthih kavitva bija-rupah
samskara vishesha (Kavyaprakasa 1.3)
Both these scholars suggest that Prathibha or Shakthi is essentially an inborn talent or genius;
and, it cannot be acquired artificially or by mere hard work.
Hemachandra also accepts Prathibha as the prime cause of poetry; but says, that such essential
inborn poetic gift should be refined and honed or chiseled by intellectual application (Utpatti)
and constant practice (Abhyasa) .
The other factors that go into creation of a good Kavya include Utpatti and Abhyasa. Utpatti
stands for detailed study of literarily works and scriptures as also for knowledge of worldly
matters. Through it, the natural (Sahaja) or inborn Prathibha gets refined, precise and capable
of understanding the essentials of poetry as also of life. And, Abhyasa is constant practice of
writing and creating poetry.
The general view appears to be that Prathibha is the most essential factor for creation of Kavya
(Kavya hetu) but it needs to be refined and polished by Utpatti and Abhyasa.
Then there is also the question whether the cause of poetry (Kavya hetu) could be the same as the
fruits of benefits of poetry (Kavya prayojana) , such as achieving riches or fame or poetic
pleasure etc. The opinion, in general, appears to be negative. The reason adduced is that , the
Kavya hetu the cause of poetry is prior to composition of poetry, while Kavya prayojana , the
fruits of poetry come after the Kavya is composed and read by others. But, at times, the fruits of
a Kavya may act as an incentive and spur the poet to compose more and better poetry.
The purpose of Kavya

While the earlier theorists on poetics – Bhamaha , Dandin and Vamana- state that the objectives
of poetry are the renown (Kirti) won by the poem and its poet; and , enjoyment (Priti) enjoyed by
the readers or the listeners of the poetry. The later sets of critics add instructions (upadesha) as
one of the other virtues of a good poetry.
While composing poetry, a poet experiences aesthetic pleasure as a poet. And, after that, while
reading or witnessing his own composition he feels aesthetic delight as a Shrudaya. But, in a
situation when he does not feel aesthetic pleasure due to some reason, he is neither a poet nor a
reader, but an ordinary person.
The purpose of Kavya is to communicate, and to communicate effectively. The ultimate aim of
poetry is to provide a sort of aesthetic rupture – Rasanubhava. Its said; Sadah parnivrtutti, the
unalloyed joy is the foremost purpose of poetry . The suggestions offered in a persuasive manner,
the kantha samhitopadesha comes only next.
These experiences are related both to the poet and to the Sahrudaya, the reader or spectator ,
either directly or indirectly.
Continued
In
Next Part
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Seven

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Six

Indian poetics – Kavya Shastra
It is customary to begin the history of Indian poetics with Natyashastra. Out of its thirty six
chapters, two chapters deal with Rasa-bhava (Ch 6 & 7) and Alamkara-guna (Ch 16). The other
chapters touch upon related topics, such as: plot (Ch 19), genre (Ch 18, 20), meter (Ch 15). By
and large, the text relates to dramaturgy in its practical applications. The aspects of Poetics that
appear in the text , of course, are not directly related to Kavya. In Natyashastra, the nature of
poetry as outlined in it is incidental to the discussions on Drama; and, it does not have an
independent status.
The Indian poetics effectively takes off from Kavya-alamkara of Bhamaha (6th century) and
Kavyadasha of Dandin (7th century). There seems to be no trace of Kavya-s during the long
centuries between Bharatha and Bhamaha. There are also no texts available on Kavya-shastra
belonging to the period between the Natyashastra of Bharata and Bhamaha (6th century).
Perhaps they were lost even as early as 6th century. The early phase of Indian Poetics, the Kavya-
shastra, is represented by three Scholars Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana.
The intervening period, perhaps, belonged to Prakrit. Not only was Prakrit used for the Edicts
and the Prasastis, but it was also used in writing poetical and prose Kavyas. The inscriptions of
Asoka (304–232 BCE) were in simple regional and sub-regional languages; and, not in ornate
Kavya style. The inscriptions of Asoka show the existence of at least three dialects, the Eastern
dialect of the capital which perhaps was the official lingua franca of the Empire, the North-
western and the Western dialects.
By about the sixth or the Seventh century the principles of Poetics that Bharata talked about in
his Natyashastra (first or second century BCE) had changed a great deal. Bharata had introduced
the concept of Rasa in the context of Drama He described Rasa in terms of taste or relish, as that
which is relished (Rasayatiti Rasah) ; and , regarded it as an essential aspect of a Dramatic
performance. He said that no sense proceeds without Rasa (Na hi rasadrte kaschid- arthah
pravartate).He did not, however, put forward any theories about the Rasa concept. He did not
also elaborate much on Alamkaras, the figures of speech which he mentioned as four: Upama,
Dipaka, Rupaka and Yamaka. Later writers increased it vastly. Rajanaka Ruyyaka named as
many as 82 Alamkaras.
As the concepts of Rasa and Alamkara were transferred to the region of Kavya, several questions
were raised: why do we read any poetry? Why do we love to witness a Drama? What is it that
we truly enjoy in them? What makes poetry distinctive as a form and what distinguishes good
poetry from the bad? And so on. Ultimately, the answer could be that we love to read or listen to
a poem, or see a Drama because doing so gives us pleasure; and, that pleasure is par excellence,
unique in itself and cannot be explicitly defined or expressed in words.
But, unfolding of the Indian poetics or the study of the aesthetics of poetry came about in stages.
Generally speaking, the development of Sanskrit literary theory is remarkably tardy.
The Organized thinking about Kavya seems to have originated with the aim of providing the
rules by which an aspiring writer could produce good Kavya.
***
Kavya–agama, the elements of Poetics
The Indian aesthetics takes a start from Natyashastra, winding its course through the
presentations of Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana, and later gains vastness in writings of
Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Vishwanatha and Jagannatha Pandita.
These scholars are, generally, classified as originators of ideas; compilers and commentators.
Among the scholars over the centuries, Bharatha, Bhamaha, Vamana , Anandavardhana and
Kuntala could be called originators of poetic principles or elements. The compilers were:
Mammata, Vishwanatha and Jagannatha. And among the commentators; Udbhata, Bhattaloa,
Srismukha, Bhattanaya, Bhattatauta and Abhinavagupta are prominent.
Of the three scholars of the older School of Poetics – Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana – Bhamaha
(6th century) son of Rakrilagomin is the oldest of the three; and, is held in esteem by the later
scholars.
Books on Poetics have been written in three forms: in verse, in Sutra-form and in Karika.
Verses: Bharatha, Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Rudrata, Dhananjaya, Vagbhata I , Jayadeva ,

Appayya Dikshita and others
Sutra vritti: The principles and concepts are written in concise Sutra form. the explanations are
followed in the commentary. Initially, Vamana and Ruyyaka adopted this form. Some others in
the later times almost followed it: Vagbhatta II , Bhanumisra , Jagannatha et al.
Karika: In crisp verses or couplets. Anandavardhana, Kuntaka, Mammata, Hemachandra,

Vishwanatha and others adopted Karika form. Their basic statements are in Karika , while their
explanations are in prose.
Before we talk about the stages in the development of Indian Poetics let me mention, at the
outset, the elements of Poetics in a summary form. Later we shall go through each stage or each
School in fair detail.
The elements of Poetics or Kavya-agama are said to be ten: (1) Kavya-svarupa (nature of poetry);
causes of poetry, definition of poetry, various classes of poetry and purpose of poetry; (2) Sabda-
Shakthi, the significance of words and their power; (3) Dhvani-kavya , the poetry suggestive
power is supreme ; (4) Gunibhuta-Vangmaya-kavya , the poetry where
suggested (Dhvani) meaning is secondary to the primary sense; (5) Rasa: emotive content;
(6) Guna: excellence of poetic expression ; (7) Riti ; style of poetry or diction; (8) Alamkara :
figurative beauty of poetic expressions ;(9) Dosha ; blemishes in poetic expressions that need to
be avoided; and , (10) Natya-vidhana the dramatic effect or dramaturgy. At times, the Nayaka-
nayika-bheda the classification of the types of heroes and heroines is also mentioned; but it could
be clubbed either under Rasa or Natya-vidhana.
Of these, we have already, earlier in the series, familiarized ourselves with the elements such as
the causes, the definition, various classes as also the purposes of Kavya. We have also talked
about Sabda (word) and Artha (Meaning) as also the concepts of Dhvani and Rasa. We shall in
the following paragraphs talk about the other elements of Kavya such as Alamkara, Guna/
Dosha, Riti, Dhvani , Vakrokti Auchitya, etc.
Then again, the whole of Poetics broadly developed into eight Schools: Rasa, Alamkara, Riti,
Guna/Dosha, Vakrokti, Svabhavokti, Auchitya and Dhvani. We shall briefly talk about these
elements a little later.
Although the concepts of Rasa and Alamkara could be traced back to more ancient periods, it
was Bharata who applied those concepts to the theory and practice of Drama. In a similar
manner, the notions of Riti and Guna were adopted into Bharata’s ideas of Guna and Dosha. He
implied, although not explicitly, that the style must be appropriate with the matter presented and
with the prevailing mood of a particular situation.
Bharata’s notions of Guna (merit), Dosha (defect), Riti (style) or Vakrokti (oblique poetry or
deviations) , Savabhavokti (natural statements) , Auchitya ( propriety) etc. were fully developed
by the later scholars such as Bhamaha, Dandin , Vamana and Kuntaka , although with slightly
varied interpretations of the ideas suggested by Bharata.
Over the centuries , though many schools (sampradaya) developed in the field of Indian poetics ,
each was not opposed to the others. Each Sampradaya propagated its own pet ways of poetry at
the same time making use of the expressions of other schools as well. For instance : Bharata
spoke , in particular , about Rasa; Bhamaha of Alamkara; Vamana of Riti; Anandavardhana of
Dhvani; Kuntaka of Vakrokti; and Kshemendra of Auchitya (relevance). The later poets saw all
of those as varied expressions of poetry that are not in conflict with each other. But , three things
– Rasa , Guna and Alamkara – are accepted universally by poets of all schools.
But, let me give here an abstract in the words of Prof. Mohit Kumar Ray ( as given in his A
Comparative Study of the Indian Poetics and the Western Poetics )
To sum up; all theorists agree that the language of poetry is different from the language of prose.
They also agree that sound and sense are the two main elements of poetry; and that poetry is
born when they are blended harmoniously together. The speculations about how this blending
can be brought about leading to different schools _ Alamkara, Riti, Svabhavokti, Dhvani,
Vakrokti etc
But, neither Alamkara nor Riti nor Vakrokti etc by itself, individually, accounts for poesies of a
poem. An Alamkara cannot be super-added. It must be integral to the poem. Similarly, a
particular style, all by itself, cannot make a Kavya. It must be in keeping with the cultural level
of the poet and the reader as also with the nature of the thought-content of the poem. There are
various factors that go to determine the style.
Again, a deviation or stating a thing an oblique way cannot make a Kavya. What is stated should
be in harmony with the predominant passion or Rasa of the work.
In other words, the production of Rasa demands the use of all or some of the elements of the
poetics depending upon the appropriateness or the nature of the idea envisioned in the Kavya;
because, a Kavya is an organic unity. We must have suggestion, we may have elegant figures of
speech or deviation also ; we may even have an attractive unique style and so on . But all these
elements must be integrated into the matrix of the Kavya.
What is poetry if it does not produce Rasa or give the reader an experience of aesthetic delight?
***
The Indian Poetics
Rasa
Of the various poetic Schools, chronologically, Rasa is taken as the oldest because it is discussed
in Natyashastra, where, Rasa meant more as the emotional element of the theme or the plot than
as the experience of the spectator. Bharata also talked about Gunas and Dosha that one must
bear in mind while scripting and enacting the play. Bharata, at times, also talks about Rasa
leading to aesthetic relish. But, his concept of Rasa was mainly in the context of the Drama. That
concept was later enlarged and adopted into Kavya as well.
In the context of the Kavya, though Rasa is all pervasive, it has been enumerated separately,
because Rasa, which came to be understood as the ultimate aesthetic delight experienced by the
reader/listener/spectator, is regarded as the touch-stone of any creative art. Rasa has, therefore,
been discussed in several layers independently as also in relation to other aspects of poetic beauty
: the number of Rasa, each type of Rasa, nature of aesthetic pleasure of each of type Rasa,
importance of Rasa, its association with other Kavya-agamas and so on. Some accepted Rasa as
Alamkara (Rasavath), while others regarded it as the soul or spirit of any literary work.
Both in Drama and in Kavya, Rasa is not a mere means but is the desired end or objective that is
enjoyed by the Sahrudaya, the cultured spectator or the reader. In the later texts, the process of
appreciation of Rasa became far more significant than the creation of Rasa. The poet-scholars
like Bhamaha and his follower took to Rasa very enthusiastically. Later, Anandavardhana
entwined the concept of Dhvani (suggestion) with Rasa.
Indian Aesthetics considers that among the various poetic theories (Kavya-agama), Rasa is of
prime importance in Kavya. And, very involved discussions go into ways and processes
of producing Rasa, the ultimate aesthetic experience that delights the Sahrudya, the
connoisseurs of Kavya.
Again, what is poetry if it does not produce Rasa or give the reader an experience of aesthetic
delight?
Rasa is therefore regarded as the cardinal principle of Indian aesthetics. The theory of Rasa
(Rasa Siddhanta) is discussed in almost all the works on Alamkara Shastra in one way or the
other. The importance of the Rasa is highlighted in Alamkara Shastra, by calling it the Atman
(the soul), Angin (the principle element), Pradhana-Pratipadya ( main substance to be conveyed),
Svarupadhyaka ( that which makes a Kavya), and Alamkara( ornamentation) etc.
Alamkara
The Alamkara School is said to have its origins in the works of Bhamaha and Dandin. It appears
the two scholars were not separated much either in time or in location; and yet it is hard to
ascertain whether they were contemporaries. But, they seemed to have lived during a common
period (6th or 7th century) or the time-interval between the two was not much. But, it is difficult
to say with certainty who was the elder of the two, although it is assumed that Bhamaha was
earlier. Generally, it is believed that Bhamaha lived around the late sixth century while Dandin
lived in the early seventh century.
It could be said that the early history of Sanskrit poetics started with the theory of Alamkara
that was developed into a system by Bhamaha and later by Dandin. It is however fair to
recognize that their elaborations were based in the summary treatment of poetics in the 16 th
chapter of Natyashastra. The merit of the contributions of Bhamaha and Dandin rests in the fact
that they began serious discussion on Poetics as an independent investigation into the virtues of
the diction, the language and Alamkara (embellishments) of Kavya; and, in their attempt to
separate Kavya from Drama and explore its virtues.
[In their discussions, the term Alamkara stands for both the figurative speech and the Poetic
principle (Alamkara), depending on the context. That is to say; in their works, the connotation of
Alamkara as a principle of embellishment was rather fluid. Though Alamkara was the general
name for Poetics, Alamkara also meant the figures of speech like Anuprasa, Upama etc. And the
concepts of Rasa, Guna, Riti were also brought under the umbrella of Alamkara. ]
Bhamaha’s Kavyaalamkara and Dandin’s Kavyadarsha are remarkably similar in their points of
view, content and purpose. Both try to define the Mahakavya or the Sargabandha. Their
methods focus on the qualities of language (Sabda) and the meaning (Artha) of poetic utterances.
Again, the format of their works is also similar. They often quote one another or appeal to a
common source of reference or tradition. There are similarities as also distinctions between the
views held by the two. At many places it seems one is criticizing the other without however
naming. It is as though a dialogue had developed between the two authors. The major thrust of
both the works pursues a discussion on the distinctive qualities (Guna) of Alamkara and
debilitating distractions (Dosha) of poetic expressions.
Both the authors discuss the blemish or Dosha – the category that had come to represent the
inverse of Alamkara, such as Jati, Kriya, Guna and Dravya. They held the view that just as
certain Gunas or merits enhance the poetic effects, so also certain blemishes- both explicit and
implied- destroy the poetic excellence. .
But, they also pointedly disagree on certain issues. For instance; Dandin appears to reject
Bhamaha’s views on the differences between the narrative forms of Katha and Akhyayika
(1.23.5) ; and he also seems to argue against Bhamaha’s views that poetry must have Vakrokti .
Bhamaha gives prominence to Alamkara, though he considered Rasa as an important element.
According to him, all types of Kavya-s should have Vakrokti (oblique expressions) – as Samanya
lakshana, Atishayokti (hyperbole) expressions transcending common usage of the of words
(Svabhavokti) . It is only through these , he said, the ordinary is transformed to
extraordinary. Dandin differed from Bhamaha. He did not agree with the idea that there is no
Alamkara without Vakrokti and that Savbhavokti, natural expressions, has no importance in
Kavya. He said, the Alamkara, the figurative expressions could be of two kinds – Svabhavokti
and Vakrokti; and the former takes the priority (Adya.Alamkrith).
[Vakrokti has no equivalent in the western literary criticism. Vakrokti could be referred to as
‘oblique or indirect’ reference. It could also mean irony / ambiguity/ gesture/paradox / tension
or all of them put together.]
Bhamaha did not speak much about the aspect of Guna. He briefly touched upon Madhurya
(sweetness) , Ojas (vigor) and Prasada (lucidity) ; and , he did not even name them specifically as
Guna-s. Dandin, on the other hand, devoted almost the entire of the first chapter of his
Kavyadarsa to the exposition of two modes of poetic expressions, which for some reason named
them as : Vaidarbhi and Gaudi .He seemed to favor the former –Vaidarbhi. According to
Dandin, the ten Gunas are the life of the Vaidarbhi mode of expression – Slesha, Prasada,
Samata, Madhurya, Sukumaratva, Arthavyaki, Udaratva, Ojas, Kanti and Samadhi.
Both – Bhamaha and Dandin- seemed to be concerned with Kavya-sarira or the body of poetry.
Both recognized that Kavya is essentially about language; and that language is caught in a rather
small compass. They seemed to argue that Kavya, however extensive, is knit together by its
building-blocks – individual verses. Thus, the stanza is the basic unit of composition (Varna-vrtta
metrics). And, every stanza has to strive towards perfection. They held that for achieving such
perfection, it is essential that there should be a happy confluence of Sabda (word) and Artha
(meaning) that produces a beauteous form (body) – Kavya-sarira – Sabda-Artha-sahitau-
Kavyam- They also said that Alamkara, the poetic figures of speech, are essential ingredients of
this harmony.
***
During the period of Bhamaha and Dandin, the plot of the Kavya was seen as its body. That,
somehow, seemed to suggest that what is said is not as important as to how it is said. The artistic
expressions – ornate language, polished phrases seemed to be the prime issue. Therefore, the
forms of Alamkara such as rhetorical figures of speech, comparisons, rhythms and such others
gained more prominence.
In other words, they believed that Kavya is a verbal composition conveying a definite sense. It
must be presented in a charming manner, decorated with choosiest rhetorical devices or figures
of speech – Sabda-alamkara and Artha-alamkara.
The fundamental idea appeared to be that every notion can be expressed in infinite number of
forms. Mastering the language means being able to use the largest possible number of
variations. Kuntaka in his Vakrokti- jivita (Ca. 10th century) says the : the Real word is that
which is chosen out of a number of possible synonyms and that which is capable
of expressing the desired sense most aptly. And the real sense is that which by its alluring
nature ,delights the mind of the Sahrudaya ( person of taste and culture)
Sabdau vivaksitartha kavachakautheyshu sathvapi I arthah sahrudaya ahladkari sva spanda

sundarah II V.J.1.9
In the process, distinctions are made between figures of sound (Sabda-alamkara) and the figures
of sense (Artha-alamkara). In the Sabda-alamkara many and varied options of paraphrasing are
used. Here, the option to express something in an obvious, simple and clear manner i.e. to say
exactly what one means, is avoided. Such plain statements are considered Gramya (rustic) in
contrast to urbane and refined (Nagarika) expressions. For instance; Bhamaha gives prominence
to Alamkara, though he considered Rasa as important element. According to him, all types of
Kavya-s should have Vakrokti (oblique expressions) , Atishayokti (hyperbole) expressions
transcending common usage of the of words (Svabhavokti) . It is only through these the ordinary
is transformed to extraordinary.
Thus, the concept of Alamkara denotes that which transforms ordinary speech into an
extraordinary poetic expression (Sabartha sahitya). The term Alamkara stands for embellishment
itself as well as the means for embellishment.
As the Alamkara concept began to develop into a system there appeared endless divisions and
sub-divisions of these Alamkaras. In the later poetics, Alamkara is almost exclusively restricted
to its denotation of poetic figures as a means of embellishment.
During the later periods of Indian Poetics, the Alamkara School was subjected to criticism. It
was said that the Alamkara School was all about poetic beauty; and, it seems to have missed the
aspect of the inner essence of Kavya. the later Schools , therefore, considered Alamkara as a
secondary virtue . They declared that Poetry can exist without Alamkara and still be a good
poetry.
Although the concept of Alamkara was played down in the later periods, its utility was always
acknowledged as the Vishesha or quality of Sabda and Artha.
***
Both – Bhamaha and Dandin- agree on the central place accorded, in Kavya, to Alamkara,
figurative speech. Both held that the mode of figurative expression (Alamkara), diction (Riti) ,
grammatical correctness (Auchitya) , and sweetness of the sounds (Madhurya) constitute poetry.
Both deal extensively with Artha-alamkara that gives forth striking modes of meaningful
expressions. Dandin, however, gives far more space to the discussion on those figures of speech
that are defined as phonetic features (Sabda-alamkara) e.g. rhyme (Yamaka) than does Bhamaha.
This distinction is basic in all subsequent Alamkara related discussions. Their differences on this
point do not lie chiefly in the kind or quality of Alamkara; but seems more to do with function of
the organization and presentation of the materials.
Let’s take a look at each of their works.
***
Bhamaha
Bhamaha’s work, called Kavyalankara or Bhamahalankara consists of six Paricchedas or

chapters and about 400 verses. They deal mainly with the objectives, definition and classification
of Kavya, as also with the Kavya-agama the elements of the Kavya , such as, Riti ( diction), Guna
( merits) Dosha ( blemishes ) , Auchitya (Grammatical correctness of words used in Kavya ) and
mainly with the Alamkara the figurative expressions .
The object of Kavya, according to Bhamaha, is chiefly twofold, viz. acquisition of fame on the
part of the poet and delight for the reader.
While defining Kavya, Bhamaha says – sabdarthau sahitau kavyam; word and sense together
constitute Kavya. This definition obviously focuses on the external element or the body of Kavya.
His explanation implied that word and sense in a Kavya must be free from
blemishes (nirdosa) and should be embellished with poetic ornamentation (salankara).
Bhamaha lays great stress on Alamkara, the figurative ornamentation. In his opinion, a literary
composition, however laudable, does not become attractive if it is devoid of Alamkara,
embellishments. Alamkara, according to him, is indispensable for a composition to merit the
designation of Kavya. Bhamaha is, therefore, regarded as the earliest exponent, if not the
founder, of the Alamkara school of Sanskrit Poetics.
Bhamaha divides his Alamkara in four groups that are represented as layers of traditional
development (Anyair udartha). They are similar to those four mentioned by Bharata (Upama =
comparison; Rupaka = metaphorical identification; Dipaka = illuminating by several parallel
phrases being each completed by a single un-repeated word; and, Yamaka = word-play by
various cycles of repetition). In addition there is the alliteration (Anuprasa). Bhamaha in this
context mentions one Medhavin who perhaps was an ancient scholar who wrote on the Alamkara
theory. The four groups that Bhamaha mentioned perhaps represent earlier attempts to compile
Alamkara Shastra.
Bhamaha also talked about the other elements of Kavya such as Vakrokti and Riti, however,
without much stress. And, he treated both these as supplements to Alamkara, the principal
element of the Kavya. Bhamaha regarded Vakrokti as the charm of expression that aids
Alamkara. He did not attach much importance to Riti or mode of composition; because, in his
opinion, the distinction between the Vaidarbhi and the Gaudi Riti is of no consequence. He
however, introduces the notion of Sausabdya, the grammatical appropriateness in poetry- which
relates to the question of style .in general, rather than to any theory of poetics. His rejection of
the usefulness of the Riti and the Marga analysis of poetry perhaps accounts for his
comparatively lighter treatment of the Gunas of which he mentions only Madhurya,
Ojas and Prasada.
Bhamaha, in fact, rejects the Guna approach as being ‘not-trustworthy’. He is a thorough

Alamkarika. His concern is with the form of poetry; and, not so much with its variations. He is
also believed to have held the view that Gunas are three (and not ten) ; and, are nothing but
varieties of alliterations.
As regards Rasa, Bhamaha again links it to Alamkara. He treats Rasa as an aspect of Alamkara,
Rasavat (lit. that which possesses Rasa). According to him, the suggested
sense (vyangyartha), which is at the root of Rasa, is implicit in the vakrokti. Bhamaha did not
however elaborate on the concept of Vakrokti. He meant Vakrokti as an expression which is
neither simple nor clear-cut; but, as one which has curvature (vakra). He took it as afundamental
priciple of poetic expression .[ It is not clear whether or not Bhamaha regarded Vakrokti as
Alamkara] Vakrokti is explained as an expressive power, a capacity of language to suggest
indirect meaning along with the literal meaning. This is in contrast to svabhavokti, the matter-of-
fact statements. Vakrokti articulates the distinction between conventional language and the poetic
language. Vakrokti is regarded as the essential core of all poetic works as also of the evaluation
and appreciation of art in general. Thus, vakrokti is a poetic device used to express something
extraordinary and has the inherent potential to provide the aesthetic experience of Rasa.
Thus the seeds of Vakrokti, Riti, Rasa and Dhvani which gained greater importance in the later
periods can be found in Bhamaha’s work.
However, the critics of Bhamaha point out that Alamkara-s of Bhamaha are nothing but external
elements; and that he seemed to have bypassed the innermost element the Atman (soul) of poetry.
Dandin
Dandin’s Kavyadarsa (7th century) is a very influential text. And , it covers a wide range of
subjects concerning the Kavya , such as : the choice of language, and its relation to the subject
matter; the components or the elements of Kavya : the story (kathavastu) ; the types of
descriptions and narrations that should go into Mahakavya also known as Sargabandha (Kavya
, spread over several Cantos); the ways (Marga) of Kavya, regional styles characterized by the
presence or absence of the expression-forms (Guna); various features of syntax and semantics;
factors of Alamkara- the figurative beauty of expressions; and the Alamkara-s of sound (Sabda)
and sense (Artha).
Dandin in his Kavyadarsha said every poem needs a body and Alamkara. By body he meant set of
meaningful words in a sentence to bring out the desired intent and effect. Such words could be
set either in poem (Padya) , prose (Gadya) or mixture (Misra) form. In his work, he talks mainly
about Alamkara-s that lend beauty and glitter to the Kavya- Sabda-alamkara and Artha-
alamkara. The first covers natural descriptions, similes (Upama) of 32 kinds, metaphors
(Rupaka) , various types of Yamaka (poetic rhymes) that juggle with syllables and consonants .
Among the Artha-alamkara is Akshepa that is to say concealed or roguish expressions, such as
hyperbole (Atishayokti) , pun or verbal play producing more than one meaning (Slesha) , twisted
expressions (Vakrokti).
Dandin is, generally, accused of attaching more importance to the elegance of the form and to
erudition than to creative faculty.
Dandin, like Bhamaha, belongs to what came to be known as Alamkara School. But, his
emphasis is more on Sabda-alamkara, the ornaments of sound (Sabda), which is not prominent in
Bhamaha. The bulk of the third Pariccheda of his Kavyadarsa is devoted to an exhaustive
treatment of Chitrakavya ( which later came to be labeled as Adhama – inferior- Kavya ) and
its elements of rhyming ( Yamaka) , visual poetry (matra and Chitra) and puzzles (Prahelika).
With regard to Rasa, Dandin pays more importance to it than did Bhamaha. While dealing with
Rasa-vada-alamkara, the theory of Alamkara combined with Rasa, he illustrates each Rasa
separately. Dandin pays greater attention to Sabda-almkara than does Bhamaha. Dandin says :
thanks to the words alone the affairs of men progress ( Vachanam eva prasadena lokayatra
pravartate – Kavyadarsha
Dandin also gives importance to alliteration (Anuprasa), which he discusses under Madhurya
Guna, the sweetness or the alluring qualities of language. Alliterations and rhyming (Yamaka)
were not ignored by Bhamaha (they were, in fact, his first two types of Alamkara); but, treated
lightly. In comparison, are accorded full treatment in Dandin‘s work.
Bahamas, as said earlier, mentions just four types of Alamkara-s such as: Upama, Rupaka,
Dipaka and, Yamaka. He does not, however, go much into their details. Dandin, on the other
hand, while accepting the same figures as Bhamaha, explores the variations provided by each
figure internally. He notices thirty-two types of similes (Upama) as also various other forms of
Rupaka (Metaphors), etc. This effort to look at Alamkaras in terms of ‘sound-effects’ than as
theoretical principles was rejected by subsequent authors.
One of the criticisms leveled against Dandin is that he uses the term Alamkara in the limited
sense of embellishment rather than as a theory or principle of Poetics. He defines Kavya in terms
of its special features: Kavyam grahyam Alamkarat. Alamkara here is not the principle but
Soundaryam, beauty of the expression.
Dandin devotes a section of the first chapter or Pariccheda, to the ten Gunas or qualities
mentioned by Bharata. Dandin said the Gunas that make beautiful are called Alamkara; and, he
included the Gunas dear to him under Alamkara. (Kavya shobha karan dharman alamkaran
pracakshate- KD 11.11)
But Dandin qualified his statement by remarking that Guna is an Alamkara belonging to the
Vaidarbhi-Marga exclusively. Thus, it appears, in his view, Guna forms the essence or the
essential condition of what he considers to be the best poetic diction. The importance of Gunas
lies in their positive features. The contrary of a particular Guna marks another kind of poetry.
Thus Ojas vigor (use of long compounds) marks the Gaudiya Marga; and, its absence marks the
Vaidarbhi Marga.
It should be mentioned; Dandin elaborates a theory of two modes (Marga) or kinds of poetic
diction or styles to which he assigns geographical names Vaidarbhi and Gauda. He mentions that
excellences (Guna, like sweetness or lucidity) form their essence. But, such classification later
became a dead issue as it was not logical; and many are not sure if such regional styles did really
exist in practice. Only Vamana took it up later; but, diluted it.
Dandin also mentions Vakrokti; but, he does not treat it as essential to Alamkara.
Chapter five of Kavyadarsa is an inquiry into poetic defects (Dosha) that spring from logical
fallacies. It is based in the view that there is a limit to the poet’s power to set aside universal laws
of reasonable discourse .The poet does not wish to speak nonsense; his ultimate declaration
should be as rational and as reasonable as that of any other person . Poetry does not therefore lie
in the poet’s intention as such, but the unusual means he adopts to convey his meaning. This line
of argument puts poetry properly on both sides of what is logical and what is illogical.
***
The older School (Prachina) – of Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana and others – dealt with natural or
human situation idealized by the poet for its own sake. The attention of the Prachina School was
focused on ornamented figures of speech (Alamkara) and the beauty (sobha, carutva) of the
expression or on the ‘body’ of poetry.
The Navina School represented by Anandavardhana (9th century) and his theory of Dhvani
mark the beginning of a new-phase (Navina) in Indian Poetics. It pointed out that the reader
should not stop at the expression but should go further into the meaning that is suggested, or
hinted, by it. The Navina School laid more importance on the emotional content (Bhava) of the
Kavya. But, here, the emotive element was not directly expressed in words (Vachya) ; but , had to
be grasped by the reader indirectly (Parokshya ) through suggestions. Yet, through the
description of the situation the reader understands the emotion and derives that exalted delight,
Rasa.
Here, the words (Sabda), explicit mean (Vakyartha) the body (Sarira) of the Kavya. The subtle,
suggested essence of the Kavya that resides within and is extracted with delight by the cultured
reader (Sahrudaya) is the Dhavni.
Thus the evolution of the Navina School marks a transition from the ‘outer’ element to the
‘inner’ one, in regard to the method, the content and appreciation of the Kavya. The criteria,
here, is not whether the expression sounds beautiful; but, whether its qualities (Guna) are
adequate (Auchitya) to lead the reader to the inner core of the poetry.
Lets talk about these and other elements of Kavya in the subsequent issues.
Continued in
The Next Part

A Comparative Study of the Indian Poetics and the Western Poetics by Mohit Kumar Ray
A history of Indian literature. Vol. 5, Scientific and technical …, Volume 5 by Edwin Gerow
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Eight

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Seven
Udbhata and Vamana
The scholars of the early period of Indian Poetics, somehow, seem to come in pairs. It was
Bhamaha and Dandin followed by Udbhata and Vamana; and then came Anandavardhana and
Abhinavagupta.
Udbhata and Vamana were both said to be in the service of King Jayapida of Kashmir (Ca. 776-
807 AD). Udbhata followed Bhamaha while Vamana followed Dandin. They developed upon and
expounded the distinctive features of Dandin and Bhamaha; as also upon the differences that
separate the two.
Udbhata is said to have written a commentary titled Bhamaha-vivarana (also called Kavya-
alankara-vivrti), on Bhamaha’s Kavyalamkara. It is believed that he also wrote a commentary on
Bharata’s Natyashastra. Both the works are now not available. He is also credited (by some) with
a Kavya: Kumarasambhava. What has come down to us is his Kavya-alamkara-sara- samgraha (a
synopsis of the essence of Kavya Alamkara) clarifying the position of Alamkara principles that
govern the Kavya.
And, Vamana in his Kavya-alamkara–sutra –Vritti expanded on the concept of Gunas dealt in
Dandin’s work; and, at the same time, he underplayed the importance of Alamkaras. Vamana’s
work, unlike that of his predecessors, is in the Sutra format interspersed by couplets or
aphorisms (Karika). Because of that, his work marks a phase in the history of Sanskrit Poetic
literature. The illustrations he provides are chosen from the works of the previous authors. A
commentary on Kavya-alamkara–sutra –Vritti titled Kavi-priya is also credited by some sources to
Vamana
Though Udbhata and Vamana were contemporaries, and were both employed in same Royal
Court, each does not mention the other by name while criticizing the other’s views.
Their predecessors – Bhamaha and Dandin – generally dealt with Alamkara as figurative speech;
Udbhata and Vamana, however, treat Alamkara as a poetic principle; and, talk in terms of its
theories. Thus, in different ways, Udbhata and Vamana represent the initial efforts to organize
the concept of poetic diction under theoretical principles. Both authors, however, continued the
major thrust of the Alamkara or Alamkara–oriented tradition of speculation.
^*^*^
Udbhata
Udbhata’s Bhamaha-vivarana, which is an explanation or commentary on Bhamaha’s

Kavyalankara is said to have dealt mainly with Alamkara. In his explanations, he generally
followed Bhamaha and his definitions of certain Poetic principles. The Alamkaras that Udbhata
talks about in his Kavya-alamkara-sara-sangraha are almost the same as those mentioned by
Bhamaha in his Kavyalankara. Udbhata’s work gained great fame; almost overshadowing the
original work of Bhamaha, perhaps because he remained focused on Alamkara and did not
deviate into discussions on Guna / Dosha (grammatical purity) or such other elements of Kavya.
He expanded on the forms of Alamkara mentioned by Bhamaha. For instance; Bhamaha

mentioned one kind of Atishayokti (hyperbole) while Udbhata distinguishes four varieties of it.
Similarly, in place of Bhamaha’s two forms of Anuprasa (Alliteration), Udbhata describes four.
He adds Drastanta (illustration) and Kavya-lingana (poetical reasoning- where the sense of a
sentence or of a word is represented as a cause of something of which it becomes an attribute) to
the forms of Alamkara-s mentioned by Bhamaha. While dealing with the varieties of Anuprasa,
Udbhata recognises three different Vrttis or modes of expression. His classification of
Alliterations into three classes was based on the ‘aural-effects’: primary alliterations classed as
elegant (upa-nagarika); ordinary (gramya), and harsh (parashu).
Udbhata also brought into his work the element of analysis of the principles involved in the
concepts. He explains the grammatical basis for different forms Upama (Similes). Here, he
illustrates the forms of resemblance as qualified by different suffixes like – vat, -kyac, -kalpap etc.
He also differs from Bhamaha on some minor points.
[ As regards the grammatical basis for the concept of Upama (similes), it may be mentioned that
a general theory of comparison was in existence even before the time of the Kavyas. The
grammarian Panini (Asthadhyayi 2.1.55.6; 2.3.72; 3.1.10) uses the four elements of comparison:
the subject of comparison (upameya or upamita); the thing with which it is compared (upamana);
the property of similarity (samanya, or samanadharma); and the grammatical indicator of
comparison (samanya-vacana or dyotaka). These were perhaps basic or general concepts; but, not
full-blown rhetorical theories of poetics.
The technical terms used for describing the process involved in bringing out comparisons in a
Kavya, also seemed have links with poetics in Yaska’s Nirukta. Yaska (Nirukta 3.13) discusses an
idea about upama or simile, which he attributes to Gargya: upamāyad atat tat sadrśam, ‘Not that,
but like that’ – the illustration provided merely suggests some aspects of resemblance to
properties in the subject; but it is not identical to the subject.
That is to say that similes and allegory do perform useful functions in a Kavya; but, they have
their limitations. It is another way of suggesting that an allegory is untidy or incomplete in that
there is always a residue of meaning that cannot be taken up by an allegorical Interpretation.
Yaska and Panini were perhaps concerned with semantic properties of language. Panini used
these terms to explain grammatical constructions that create similarities, such as compounds,
suffixes, and so on. But, Yaska seemed to be focused on the question whether the subject of
comparison (upameya) is greater or less than its compared (upamana).
In both cases, however, there is a sense of commonality (sadharana –dharma) that bridges the
subject (Upameya) and the object picked up for comparison (Upama); and, the necessity of
balancing both the meanings in the comparison, explicitly or otherwise.
And during the later periods of the Kavya, comparisons were not tied down or limited to mere
terms or expression, but were extended and stretched over to sentences and even to chapters.]
Udbhata’s contribution to the theory of Rasa (Rasa-vada) is more significant. He improved upon
the elements of Rasa enumerated by in Natyashastra. In his Kavya-alamkara-sara-samgraha while
discussing Rasa-vada-alamkara, the principles of Rasa in conjunction with the theories of
Alamkara, he included the Shanta Rasa (tranquilty) to the eight Rasa-s mentioned by Bharata.
Later, Abhinavagupta elaborated on the theories of Rasa and accepted Shanta, suggested by
Udbhata, as the primary or the fundamental Rasa from which all Rasa-s arise into which all
Rasa-s subside.
The seeds of the Alankara doctrine as in Bhamaha’s work thus flower in Kavya-alamkara-sara-
samgraha of Udbhata. The notion of Rasa is, comparatively, more developed in Udbhata’s
work than in that of his predecessor. It was Udbhata who brought out a clear distinction as also
the relation between Rasa and Bhava. According to him, Bhava is a particular state of mind or
emotion; Anubhava (that which follows Bhava) is the external manifestation or expression of that
Bhava; and, Rasa is the aesthetic delight or experience caused by Anubhava.
^*^*^
Vamana
Vamana is held in high esteem among the major scholars in the early Indian Poetics.
His Kavyalankara-sutra-vrtti is a very significant work that comes up with original ideas and
concepts. It is regarded as the earliest attempt at evolving a philosophy of literary aesthetics.
The Kavyalankara-sutra-vrtti is divided into five Divisions or topics (Adhikarana), each of which
consist two or three chapters (adhyaya). There are in all twelve Adhyayas. The first Adhikarana
(having three chapters: Prayojana pariksha; Adhikari chinta; and Kavya-kanti) deals with the
need or prayojana of Kavya ; characterises the nature of those who are fit for studying
Alamkaras, and declares that style is the soul of poetry. The second Adhikarana (having two
chapters: Pada Dosha and Vakya Dosha) is about the defects of words, sentences, propositions
and their meanings. The third Adhikarana ( having two chapters : Guna-alamkara- vivechana;
and Sabda–Guna nirupana) discusses the aspects of Gunas ; and , the fourth Adhikarana (
having three chapters : Sabda-Alankarika vichara ; Upamani nirupana ; and , Upama prapancha
nirupana) deals with Yamaka , Anuprasa, Upama and such other Alamkaras. The fifth
Adhikarana (having two chapters: Kavya samaya; and Sabda shodhana) is devoted to poetical
conventions, observance of the rules of sandhi, necessity of grammatical purity and the like. The
last chapter also deals with the purity of words.
Just as Udbhata followed Bhamaha, Vamana followed Dandin. But, unlike Udbhata, who focused
on a single principle for inquiry (Alamkara), Vamana attempted to find a way of covering under
a single organized whole the various principles that had been discussed by his predecessor
Dandin. He brings into his work an analytic interest to the study of poetry attempting to offer
rational explanations of the principles involved in the subject. Further, he introduces fresh
concepts and ideas into the theory of Poetics.
Guna and Alamkara
Though Vamana elaborated upon the ideas put forward by Dandin, he does markedly differ
from Dandin on several issues. For instance; Dandin uses the term Alamkara in the sense of
embellishment or ornamentation that decorates the body of Kavya. Alamkara in Dandin’s work
is not the principle but Soundaryam, beauty of the expression or figurative speech. Vamana, on
the other hand, generalizes Alamkara as a theoretical principle. Further, though Vamana uses
some of the older names of Alamkaras, such as, visesokti, rupaka, or aksepa, he gives entirely
different meanings. And in all he describes thirty-three Alamkaras.
Vamana opens his work with the famous quote pithily catching his view of Kavya:
Kaavyam graahyam alankaaraat; Soundaryam alankaarah – A Kavya becomes agreeable on
account of Alamkara; and, Alamkara means Beauty. Thereafter, he outlines the notions of merit
or Guna and Alamkara; and, links Alamkara with Guna in a Kavya.
Earlier, Bhamaha had said that Kavya is made out of words and meaning (Sabda Artha sahitau
Kavyam) . Perhaps, Bhamaha himself was aware of the limitations of his definition; and,
therefore he added on to it the element of beauty by way of elegant figures of speech. Vamana,
however, differed from Bhamaha; and said that Kavya is an organic whole composed of elements
where Guna (quality or poetic excellence) and Alamkara (the principle of beauty) are also vital to
it. Thus, Kavya has two dimensions: the substance (Vastu) of which it’s made (words and
meaning); and the value of beauty for which it is made (Guna and Alamkara). The merit of
Vamana’s theory lies in coordinating this principle with other elements of Kavya.
Vamana says: the special features that create beauty (shobha) of Kavya are the Gunas (Kavya-
shobhayah kartaro dharmah Gunah). And, those elements that enhance or brighten that beauty
are the Alamkaras (Taditasya–hetavastu Alamkarah). Of the two, the former (Guna) is highly
essential (nitya) for a Kavya (Purve niyatah). According to him there can be no Kavya without
Guna. Thus, Vamana assigns greater importance to the notion of Guna or stylistic element or
poetic excellence; and, Alamkara comes next. In the process, Vamana attempted to clarify the
distinction between Guna and Alamkara.
Though Vamana retained the ten Gunas enumerated by Dandin (1. Ojas: vigour or brilliance of
long compounds; 2. Prasada: clarity and lucidity; 3. Shlesha: well knit composition skilfully
employing many shades of meanings; 4. Samata: evenness of sound within a line;
5. Samadhi: ambivalence through the use of metaphors; 6. Madhurya: sweetness in the
refinement of expression; 7. Sukamarata: soft and delicate; 8. Udaratva: exaltation or liveliness;
9. Arthavyakti: directness avoiding obscure words, pun etc; and, 10. Kanti: glow or luminous
elegant turns of phrases or grace), he modified their names, and also increased the number of
Gunas to twenty. He also explained the Gunas in his own manner.
While retaining the ten traditional Gunas, Vamana created two sets of the same ten Gunas
under two broad heads: Sabda-Gunas (qualities relating to words) and Artha-gunas (qualities
relating to sense or meaning). These two classifications are sometimes referred to as the subtle
(Artha Sarira) and gross (Sabda Sarira) bodies of Kavya. That again harks back to the two basic
concerns of the Sanskrit Poetics -Sabda and Artha – the word and its meaning; the first is about
how the word is treated in the text, and the other is about the shades or the layers of meaning
that the word is capable of revealing. Both, Sabda and Artha brighten the beauty (Kavya shobha)
and enhance the quality of Kavya. And, the distinctions of the two groups as marked by Vamana
helped to clear some of the vagueness in the definition of Guna as offered by Bharata and
Dandin.
Vamana attempts to explain each Guna in terms of both Sabda and Artha. For example, Prasada
(clarity and lucidity) as a Sabda-Guna, according to him, means readability (saithilya) of the text;
and, as Artha-guna it means propriety (auchitya) of sense.
Generally, Vamana treats Guna-Dosha as relative concepts. Along with excellent Gunas that
shine brilliantly, there could be some whose luster has dimmed and do not fit well into the
context. At the same time, there could be defects (Dosha) which cannot boast of any redeeming
feature; but yet, somehow, turn into merits because the context desperately needs such
expressions.
As Dandin says, collyrium (a kind of dark eye shadow) is not a thing of beauty in itself; yet, it
endows glamour and luster to the sparkling eyes of a beautiful woman.
Elsewhere, it is mentioned that Nir-doshatva or faultlessness is itself a Guna. Thus Gunas and
Doshas are not absolute entities. Their merits or defects are relative; and, each, in its turn,
enhances or diminishes the beauty of the composition depending on the context in which it is
placed.
Rasa
As regards Rasa, Vamana accords it a comparatively a higher position than his predecessor did.
He abandoned the approach of Bhamaha and Dandin who treated Rasa as a subsidiary element
(Rasavat) of the verse. Instead, he treated Rasa as an aspect of Guna which is considered essential
to Kavya. And, within the Guna, he assigned Rasa the virtue of of Kanti (glow or brightness) and
classified it under Artha Guna. Vamana did not however accord an independent status to Rasa.
The later Schools criticized Vamana for treating ‘unfairly’. They pointed out that Vamana erred
in failing to recognize the merit of Rasa which is the ultimate poetic experience. It was argued
that Rasa should have been accorded an independent status , if not the prime status.
Riti
Dandin had earlier highlighted two styles (Marga) of presenting a Kavya: Vaidarbhi and Gaudi,
each having its special characteristics. To that, Vamana added Panchali. (And, much later,
Rudrata added Lati as the fourth Riti, while Raja Bhoja in his Srngaraprakasa added Avantika
and Magadhi as other styles.) All these names perhaps suggest styles that were characteristic to
those geographical regions. According to Vamana, only the Vaidarbhi Marga, which he
approves, has all the twenty Gunas – sweet as the notes of the lute. According to Vamana, the
Gaudiya is marked by Ojas (vigour) and Kanti (grace) , but it lacks Madhurya (sweetness) and
Saukumarya ( delicacy) plagued by long winding compounds and bombastic words. And,
Panchali, he says, while it has Madhurya and Saukumarya, it is devoid of Ojas and Kanti. He
remarks that the difference between Vaidarbhi and other modes (Gaudi, Panchali etc) is
analogous to differences between silken thread and jute fiber (I.2.11-18).
As said, Dandin had named certain literary styles as Marga-s (say, Vaidarbhi and Gaudiya
Marga). Vamana not only modified the concept of style, but also renamed Marga as Riti – style
or diction. Riti, according to him, is a particular mode or organization of verbal structure that is
different from common usage – Visista pada-racana – having the excellences of Gunas. He, in
fact, calls this structure or arrangement of words as Viseso Gunatma (1.2.8) – a combination of
various Gunas. Thus, though he inherited the idea of Marga from Dandin, Vamana integrated it
with the notion of Guna, the poetic excellences. And, his idea of Riti brought into its fold other
modes of analysis and poetic principles, particularly Alamkara, to create a holistic view of
poetry. Vamana is revered as the originator and exponent of the Riti School.
Riti is not just diction or style; and it could mean rhythm as well. Prof.SK De ( in his Sanskrit
Poetics) explains : it should be observed that the term Riti is hardly equivalent to the English
word style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is always a distinct subjective
valuation. … Riti is not, like the style, the expression of poetic individuality as is generally
understood by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation of its beauty called
forth by a harmonious combination of more or less fixed ‘literary excellences (Gunas)’.
Riti represents for Vamana the collection of Gunas in harmony with faultless (A-doshau)
Alamkara-s that produce Soundaryam (or Shobha) of Kavya. Paka (maturity) is another term
that Vamana introduced to denote Shobha or the natural beauty of the thing described. It is
this Paka, the inexplicable delight that the Sahrudaya enjoys.
(Udayati hi sa taadrik kvaapi vaidarbha reetou sahridaya hridayaanaam ranjakah koopi paaka
h.)
The language and its structural form lead us to the inner core of poetry. And, when that
language becomes style (Riti), it absorbs into itself all the other constituent elements of poetry. It
allows them, as also the poetic vision, to shine through it.
Vamana , therefore, accorded Riti a very high position by designating Riti as the Soul of Kavya –
Ritr Atma kavyasya Sareerasyeva (I.2.6) – Riti is to the Kavya what Atman is to the Sarira (body).
Here, it is explained that in his definition of Riti, Pada-rachana represents the structure or the
body while Riti is its inner essence. Through this medium of
Visista Padarachana the Gunas become manifest and reveal the presence of Riti, the Atman.
As Riti, according to Vamana, is the essence (soul) of Kavya, so the Gunas are the essential
elements of the Riti. The explanation offered by Vamana meant that the verbal structure having
certain Gunas is the body of Kavya, while its essence, Riti, is the soul of Kavya. Thus, Vamana
independently introduced the concept of Atman (soul) into the Kavya composition. The earlier
scholars had not discussed or visualized the ‘soul’ (Atman) of Kavya. The later authors followed
the lead provided by Vamana and started visualizing Kavya and talking about it in terms of the
body (Sarira) and soul (Atman) of poetry.
With the heightened position of Riti as the essence of Kavya, the Alamkara had to take a
secondary place. The Alamkara, the decorative ornamentation of the verbal structure or the
charm of expressions came to be looked upon as the external features that beautify (saundaryam
alankarah) the body of Kavya – kavyam grahyam alankarat. Thus, it is quite feasible for a good
Kavya to subsist without Alankaras, which are extraneous elements; but not without Riti its very
soul. Thus, a clear distinction emerges between Guna /Riti the poetic excellence which is the soul
and the Alamkara the ornamentation which is the body of Kavya.
Literally interpreted, this doctrine means: the Alamkara-s are just imposed on the body of
Kavya which is already ‘ensouled’ by Guna-s the poetic excellences or qualities. That is; the
body and soul are distinct. The soul is not perceptible to the senses or to the onlookers. But, the
soul resides in the body; and reveals itself through body and lends the body its life and a purpose
to exist.
Whatever be the views adopted / accepted or rejected by the later scholars, it was Vamana who
first brought into discussion the concept of soul and tried to make a distinction between the body
(structure) and soul (essence) of poetry. He also attempted to define Kavya with reference to
specific verbal structures possessing certain specific virtues (such as beauty, Soundaryam or
Shobha) that hold within its bosom the essence of Kavya; and that essence, according to Vamana
is Riti. As he explains, Riti is the flowing together of all the essential elements of Kavya – :
Rinati gacchati asyam guna iti riyate ksaraty asyam vanmaddhu-dhareti va ritih (Vamana KSS).
Thus, Vamana is the first Alamkara writer (Alamkarika) to bring a sense of balance into his
School. Till his advent, the Alamkara School was engrossed with elegant expressions of poetic
beauty; and, they seem to have missed the aspect of the inner essence of Kavya. Vamana brought
into discussion the aesthetic effect as something other than an appreciation of alluring word-
play. He also makes the process of understanding the purpose or the intentions of the poet
himself as central to poetic appreciation. If the poet and the reader, in harmony, commonly share
the poetic delight that would be the greatest fulfillment of the Kavya. He thus broadens his
inquiry by bringing together the poet and the reader, and also by including the proper effect of
poetry seen as a coordinated outcome or flowering of all the elements of poetry. With his
concepts of Riti and Guna we move almost close to the essence of poetry.
^*^*^
Vamana’s mode of thought – forging a dualism between the soul and the body of Kavya, between
the qualities of the soul and the ornaments of the body – paved way for the advent of a theory in
the ninth century, which since then has dominated Sanskrit poetics and literary criticism: the
theory of suggestion (Dhvani). The Dhvani School propagated by Anandavardhana retains the
distinction between the body and soul of Kavya. But, here the soul is Dhvani, the suggestive
power of poetry, and not Riti the diction.
With the emergence of later Schools, the concept of Riti came under attack. The theory of Riti
suffered a setback , as the proponents of the Dhvani School asserted that the heart of all art-
forms – drama, poetry, music or art- is one and the same – the aesthetic experience of the
Sahrudaya – the cultured reader or listener.
The Dhvani School argued that although Vamana said that Riti is the soul of poetry, it does not
go into the inner depths of Kavya. Riti, at best, is an arrangement of words and meanings
characterized by various Gunas. A particular Guna might be appropriate in a specific context.
The verbal compositions could be tight knit and high flowing in a given context; but, a simple,
lucid narration might be appropriate in another situation. One may admire grandeur in one
situation; and simplicity in another. It is the context that decides appropriateness of style. This is
an essential aspect of any Kavya. The Riti School, somehow, seemed to have missed this point.
It is true, they said, that Alamkara – the figures of speech, and Riti – the distinctive verbal
compositions , do lend a charm to Kavya. But, that represents the body of Kavya while its
essence or soul is Rasa. And, the essential objective of Kavya is Rasa, the experience of the
Sahrudaya – the cultured reader or listener. It is for the delight the Sahrudaya that Kavya is
created. They also pointed out that the Riti School seemed to have missed the involvement of the
reader in the process of poetic experience. And, that perhaps is the reason, they said, why the
advocates of Riti could not assign Rasa its due place in poetics
The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana expanded on the object (phala) of poetry; and, how it is
achieved (vyapara). The Rasa, it said, is the ultimate enjoyment by the reader; such enjoyment is
the object of poetry. According to Anandavardhana, Rasa is not made; but, it is revealed; and its
revelation is best when done through Dhvani, the power of suggestion. And, that is why words
and meanings must be transformed to suggestions (Dhvani) of Rasa.
There was however some respite to the Riti School. Despite the overwhelming importance
accorded to suggestion and to the suggestion of Rasa, the Dhvani School could not ignore the
relevance of expression (Riti). It was pointed out by other critiques that a worthy poet who
carefully seeks the suggested sense (Dhvani) has necessarily to rely on apt words in order to
covey the suggestion.
It was also pointed out that suggestion (Dhvani) can hardly be evoked by mere mention of a
name or a term. It needs a certain environment. The sense of ‘suggestion’ has to arise out of the
contextual factors backed by appropriate descriptions. These include the literary meaning as also
the suggestive possibilities of the expression such as: the sound echoing the sense, rhythm,
imagery and symbols. All these devices are to be used for helping to evoke the right response in
the mind and the heart of the reader. Such environment for evoking Dhvani , it was pointed out,
is nothing but Riti. Thus , it is only through Riti that the language acquires a limitless suggestive
power. Eventually Dhavni, however lauded, which aims to evoke emotional response or
enjoyment of the listener or the reader (Rasa) has inevitably to depend on Riti for its
manifestation.
As regards Alamkara, they said, it might belong to body of Kavya, but to a gifted poet it comes
spontaneously without much effort; and, that does help the suggestion of Rasa. As Vamana said,
Kavya springs (Kavya bija) from poets creative genius (pratibha). It is the beautiful mind that
gives birth to beautiful expressions; and beautiful expressions bring forth beautiful suggestions.
And, all suggestions need not be poetic.
The doctrine of Riti, despite its limitations, is truly a major contribution to the study of literary
compositions. During the recent times it attracted much attention as it was recognized that the
theory of Riti has close affinities with modern day stylistic studies of literature.
Continued in
Next Part

A Comparative Study of the Indian Poetics and the Western Poetics by Mohit Kumar Ray
A history of Indian literature. Vol. 5, Scientific and technical …, Volume 5 by Edwin Gerow
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Nine

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Eight
Vakrokti
After the Riti School of Poetics propagated by Vamana, we should have, in the chronological
order, dealt with the Dhvani elaborated by Anandavardhana. Since we have already talked about
Dhvani, Rasa and Rasa Dhvani in the earlier installments of the series (Part four) , let’s move on to
Vakrokti.
Abstract
The concept of Vakrokti has been running like a thread in the Indian Poetics from its very early
times (6th-7th centuries); but was vaguely discussed as one of the secondary aspects by all the
Schools of Kavya Shastra. It was however developed into a full-fledged theory of Poetics by the
great Scholar Rajanaka Kuntaka of Kashmir who is said to have lived during the period between
the middle of the tenth century and the middle of the eleventh century. He definitely was later
than Anandavardhana (820–890 A D) the author of Dhvanyaloka, a landmark work that
establishes the doctrine of Dhvani, the aesthetic suggestion. Kuntaka was perhaps a younger
contemporary of the great Abhinavagupta (Ca. 950 – 1020 AD) or a contemporary who perhaps
was relatively unknown or one who was yet to be adequately recognized by the Poetic scholars.
Although Abhinavagupta in his Lochana (or formally, Dhvanyālokalocana – Illustration of
Dhvanyāloka) refers to various views related to Vakrokti (atha sa kavya-jivitatvena vivaksita etc),
he does not mention Kuntaka or the Vakroktijivita-kara by name.
However, in the later periods, Kuntaka came to be honored as one of the original thinkers in the
field of Indian Poetics; and, his Vakrokti-jivita is recognized as a brilliant work that brings
critical insight into investigation of Poetic elements. He is lauded for his systematic analyses of
the principles of Poetics and their implications. His Vakrokti-jivita establishes the Vakrokti
School which attempts to define Kavya in terms of its distinctive (vakra) expressions that are
characteristic to poetry and to the essential principle of poetry itself (Alamkara – samanya –
lakshana). His concept of Vakrokti brings within its comprehensive scope all known kinds of
imaginative , innovative turns (ukti-vaichitrya) and modes of suggestive indirect
(vakra) expressions (bhaniti-prakara) that are unique to poetry (away from the banal words)
created by the skill ( vaidagdhya or kavi-kaushala) of a poet gifted with inborn genius (prathibha).
Kuntaka explains Vakrokti as the artistic turn of speech (vaidagdhyam bhangi) or the deviated or
distinct from the common mode of speech. Vakratva is primarily used in the sense of poetic
beauty. It is striking, and is marked by the peculiar turn imparted by the creative imagination of
the poet. It stands for charming, attractive and suggestive utterances that characterize poetry.
The notion of Vakrata (deviation) covers both the word (Sabda) and meaning (Artha). The ways
of Vakrokti are, indeed, countless. Vakrokti is the index of a poet’s virtuosity–kavi kaushala.
Kuntaka describes the creativity of a poet as Vakra-kavi–vyapara or Kavi–vyapara–vakratva (art
in the poetic process). This according to Kuntaka is the primary source of poetry; and, has the
potential to create aesthetic eligance that brings joy to the cultured reader with refined taste
(Sahrudaya).
While Anandavardhana emphasized the object and delight of poetry from readers’ point of view,
Kuntaka brought a sense of balance into poetic appreciation by highlighting the poet’s own point
of view. He attempted to outline the poetic process (Kavi vyapara), the genius-at work (kavi –
karma) , and the mysterious process of how the Kavya takes shape in the poet’s mind and
emerges as a thing of great beauty. .
Another important aspect of Kuntaka’s work is the holistic view it takes of the Kavya. According
to Kuntaka, the words, their meanings, the poet and the reader are all integrated into a
fabulously rewarding poetic experience; one cannot be artificially separated from the other.
The concept of Vakrokti, as elaborated by Kuntaka, is unique to Indian poetics. The western
literary criticism has no notion that is either equivalent or that corresponds to it.
^*^*^
Vakra
The term Vakrokti is composed of Vakra + Ukti, where the latter (Ukti) derived from Vac-
paribhashane can easily be taken to mean a poetic expression, a clever speech or a pithy
statement. It is however the former component (Vakra) of the term Vakrokti, evoking
diverse shades of meanings and suggestions, that is widely discussed and interpreted in various
manners.
In the classic Sanskrit poetry, the word Vakra has often been used in the sense of a ‘curvilinear
nature’ (vakratva) of an object or an expression that suggests or evokes a sense of delicate beauty.
For instance, the great poet Kalidasa in his Kumarasambhava (3.29) uses the term Balendu-
vakrani to describe the palasa flower buds that are curved (vakrani) like the just emerging
crescent moon (Balendu). Here, Vakra implies the loveliness of the curve that enhances the grace
and elegance of the palasa buds and of the crescent moon.
[Interestingly, Kuntaka also employs the phrase Balendu-sundara –samsthana-yuktatvam, itaratra

rudyadi vaichitram (2.35) – like the delicate beauty of crescent moon – to explain the terms that
are commonly associated with Vakrata.]
There is also a term Vakra-smita which suggests the gentle mischievous smile that plays
tantalizingly at the curve of the lips (Vakrosthika).
The curly hairs coiled into lovely rings hanging down a handsome forehead are compared to the
gentle curves of a river flowing placidly (Urmimat) along the plains. The loveliness is not just in
the curve (vakratva) but it is more in the images of grace and beauty it evokes.
Similarly, a poetic expression that is uncommon, indirect, evasive and deviant or curved (vakra)
does not become attractive unless it brings forth a sense of delight and beauty that gladdens the
heart of the reader (sahrudaya). It is only then an indirect expression could be termed as
Vakrokti.
Elsewhere, Bana Bhatta in his Kadambari terms the Vakra or crooked way of speech as Parihasa-
jalpita, the good humored banter or leg-pulling
Otherwise, the Dictionary meaning of Vakrokti is variously: oblique, evasive, crooked, bent,
curved, curling, indirect, roundabout, cruel, retrograde, dishonest etc
^*^*^
Vakrokti
In the Schools of Indian Poetics, Bhamaha (Ca.7 th century) was perhaps the earliest to
mention Vakrokti, as a concept. And, down the centuries discussions related to Vakrokti were
carried out by Dandin, Vamana, Rudrata, Kuntaka, Abhinavagupta and Raja Bhoja among
others. But, there is a marked divergence in their understanding of the concept, in their
treatment and in their presentations as well.
For instance; the early scholars of Poetics – Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana – treat Vakrokti to
imply modes of expressions which evoke or reveal the beauty that is inherent in the structure of
words (Sabda-almkara).
Bhamaha regards Vakrokti not as an Alamkara, but as a characteristic mode of expression

which underlies all Alamkaras; and, as that which is fundamental to Kavya.
Dandin distinguishes Vakrokti from Svabhavokti – the natural way of narration- and assigns
priority to the latter.
Later , Rudrata treats Vakrokti as a mere play of words or pretended speech in which a word or
a sentence meant by the poet in one sense is understood by the reader in quite another sense,
either because it is uttered with a peculiar intonation (kaku) which changes the meaning , or
because the words carry more than one meaning (slesha).
Vamana differs from Rudrata and treats Vakrokti as an aspect of Artha-alamkara where the
indicated sense (lakshana) is brought out or amplified by taking help of similarities (sadrushya).
Thus, Vakrokti, in his view, is basically a metaphor (Sadrushya –laksnana- Vakroktihi).
Thus, while Bhamaha and Dandin use the term in an extended sense; Rudrata and Vamana limit
its relevance to a particular figure of speech, be it Sabda-alamkara or Artha-alamkara.
It was Kuntaka who fully developed a unique theory of Poetics based upon Bhamaha’s
explanation of Vakrokti as the distinguishing characteristic of all Alamkaras (Alamkara-
samanya-lakshana). He expanded the concept to denote selection of words and phrases, as also
turning of ideas that are peculiar to poetry. He tries to keep the matter-of-fact, day-to-day speech
away from the language of poetry.
Let’s take a look at their views in a little more detail.
^*^*^
Bhamaha
Bhamaha treats Rasa as an aspect of Alamkara, Rasavat (lit. that which possesses Rasa).
According to him, the suggested sense (vyangyartha), which is at the root of Rasa, is implicit in
the vakrokti. However, Bhamaha did not elaborate on the concept of Vakrokti; he did not define
Vakrokti; and, he did not also regard Vakrokti as Alamkara. He did not also consider Vakrokti
as a synonym for Alamkara. He meant Vakrokti as an expression which is neither simple nor
clear-cut; but, as one which is evasive or rather ambiguous (vakra). Vakrokti , according to him,
is a poetic device used to express something extraordinary and has the potential to provide the
aesthetic experience of Rasa.
Bhamaha was the champion of the Alamkara School; and, regarded Alamkara as the most
essential element of poetry. He implicitly argued that Alamkara exemplifies the nature of poetry,
which is characterized by the composition of speech (Sabda) and its meaning (Artha) in an
‘oblique’ (vakra) manner. It is not only what you say but also how you say it that matters.
Though Bhamaha did not explicitly define Vakrokti, he spoke about it in connection with
Atishayokti (hyperbole), a form of Alamkara which he explains as one that excels , that which is
distinct from ordinary speech , and that which transcends common usage of the of words
(Lokathi-krantha-gochara vachah). It is only through these, he said, the ordinary is transformed
to extraordinary. This might be taken as his indirect way of explaining Vakrokti.
[Kuntaka appreciates Bhamaha’s views on Atishayokti one of the essential elements of

Alamkara; and , he takes it as supporting his concept of Vakrokti ( Vakrokti –vaichitrya or
Vichitra-marga). He says both the modes- Atishayokti and Vakrokti– represent departure from
conventional usage (prasiddha-vyatirekitva). ]
Thus, Bhamaha’s Vakrokti is a striking expressive power (a quality of all Alamkaras), a capacity
of language to suggest indirect meaning along with the literal meaning. It is the mode of
expression that gives rise to Alamkara. He took Vakrokti as a fundamental principle of all modes
of Alamkaras imparting beauty to their expressions (Vacham vakratha-sabdoktir-alamkaraya
kalpate). He wonders and questions: What is poetic beauty – Alamkara- without Vakrokti (Ko
alamkaraanya vina?)
Vakrokti contrasts with Svabhavokti, the matter-of-fact statements, the common ways of
speech. Bhamaha underplays the role Svabhavokti in poetry. He argues that it is the Vakrokti
which articulates the distinction between the languages of poetry from the conventional forms of
speech – (yuktam vakra-svbhavokthya sarvamevai tadishyate – Kayalamkara: 1, 30).
Bhamaha states that Vakrokti is an essential element of poetry. Bhamaha regards Vakrokti as
the core of all poetic works, as also of the evaluation and appreciation of art in general.
According to him, all types of Kavya-s should have Vakrokti as Samanya lakshana. It is through
Vakrokti the meaning of the poetry flashes forth; and, therefore, Vakrokti must adorn all forms
of poetry like epics, Drama etc.
^*^*^
Dandin
Both – Bhamaha and Dandin – agree on the central place accorded, in Kavya, to
Alamkara which lends beauty (Kavya-shobha-kara-dharma). Both hold that the mode of
figurative expression (Alamkara), diction (Riti), grammatical correctness (Auchitya), and
sweetness of the sounds (Madhurya) constitute poetry. Both deal extensively with Artha-
alamkara that gives forth amazingly rich meaningful expressions.
Dandin, however, differed from Bhamaha on certain issues. He gave far more space to the
discussion on those figures of speech that are defined as phonetic features (Sabda-alamkara) e.g.
rhyme (Yamaka) than does Bhamaha.
[This distinction is basic to all subsequent Alamkara related discussions. Their differences on this
point do not lie chiefly in the kind or quality of Alamkara; but seems more to do with function of
the organization and presentation of the materials.]
Dandin did not also agree with the idea that there is no Alamkara without Vakrokti. And he also
did not agree with the statement that Savbhavokti, natural expressions, has no importance in
Kavya. He said, the Alamkara, the figurative expressions could be of two kinds – Svabhavokti
and Vakrokti; and that the former takes the priority (Adya.Alamkrith).
In fact, Dandin divides Kavya into two speech patterns: Svabhavokti and all the rest (collectively
called Vakrokti), thus restricting the significance of Vakrokti. He says Svabhavokti cannot be
ignored in a Kavya. Dandin defines and illustrates three types of Svabhavokti and argues that
Svabhavokti could very well be treated as an Alamkara. He rejects the idea that Svabhavokti
does not constitute Alamkara.
Dandin points out that the natural way of explaining – ‘telling as it is’ – Svabhavokti, is one of
most essential modes of expression in all types of texts including philosophical or scientific
treatise. And, Svabhavokti is a very highly desirable (ipsita) virtue (guna) in the Kavya also; and
could be employed effectively , depending on the context.
^*^*^
Kuntaka
Kuntaka prefaces his work Vakrokti –jivita with a pithy statement of objective. Here, he mentions
that the purpose of his writing the book was to establish the idea of vaichitrya which has the
potential to reveal an extraordinary, out-of-the-world (lokottara) charm inherent in poetry
(lokottara–chamatkara-kari-vaichitra-siddhaye). He agrees there might be many commonly used
words (Svabhavokti) that could possibly convey a certain sense. But, he argues, it is only
the meaning-laden poetic expression alive and throbbing with charm (Alamkara), in its own
peculiar (Vakra) style (Riti) that can suggest (Dhvani) the true import of a poet gifted with
genius (prathibha) and bring joy to the heart of a sensitive reader (Sahrudaya) . It is a delightful
poetic experience in which the poet and the reader are equal partners. This, in a way, could be
said to sum up the nature of Vakrokti in Kavya. And, these ideas form the core of Kuntaka’s
theory of Poetics.
In his work, the phrases such as Vakratva, Vakra-bhava etc become synonymous with Vaichtrya
(striking or charming presentation). Kuntaka explains that Vakratva or Vaichtrya consist unusual
expressions which are different from the commonly accepted mode of speech, such as the ones we
find in Shastras and other texts. Vakratva is thus a deviation from the matter-of-fact manner of
narration or from the one that is generally used in day-to-day transactions. Vakratva or Vakrokti
is employed to achieve a remarkable, extraordinary (lokottara) effect that enhances the quality
and attractiveness of a Kavya.
The Vakrata created by the Kavi-vyapara is classified into six categories as it appears in the
arrangement of the letters (Varna vinyasa), in the parts of the word (Pada), in a sentence (Vakya),
in a specific topic (Prakarana) or in the whole composition (Prabandha). These six elements
together cover all the elegance of Sabda and Artha lamkaras; the precision of grammatical
affixes, termination etc ; the diction of the Riti; Gunas- the desirable virtues and merits of
poetry; the element of Rasa , the joy of reading poetry . According to Kuntaka, it is this six-fold
Vakrokti that distinguishes poetry from other types of narrations; and, in turn , these hold the
vital essence of a Kavya.
^*^*^
Kuntaka refers to the conventional definition of Kavya which states that the friendly coexistence
of words and meaning is indeed Kavya (Sabda-artha sahitau Kavyam). But, he qualifies that
statement by saying that such alliance of word and meaning must have some special, remarkable
or outstanding qualities which he calls Vakratva or Vaichitrya. Kuntaka says: Poetry is
composition where the word and meaning are harmoniously organized into a structure by the
operation of Vakrokti, providing delight to the reader. According to Kuntaka , Vakrokti is the
essence of poetic speech (Kavyokti); the very life (Jivita) of poetry; the title of his work itself
indicates this.
Kuntaka describes Vakrokti as Vaidagdhya-bhangi-bhaniti suggesting that Vakrokti is a ‘clever

or knowing’ mode of expression (bhaniti) characterized by peculiar turn (bhangi or Vaichiti)
brought forth by the skill of the poet (Vaidagdhya or Kavi-kaushala).
Thus , it seems that Kuntaka’s concept of Vakrokti is something that brings within its
comprehensive scope all known kinds of imaginative , innovative terns (ukti-vaichitrya) and
modes of suggestive indirect (vakra) expressions (bhaniti-prakara) that are unique to poetry
(away from the banal words) created by the skill ( vaidagdhya or kavi-kaushala) of a poet gifted
with genius (prathibha).
^*^*^
Kuntaka also attempts to bring under the umbrella of Vakrokti the other elements of Poetics
(Kavya-agama).
Kuntaka says that Vakrokti governs all the Alamkaras ; and he takes Alamkara to mean
abhidana-prakara-visesha. He asserts that Alamkaras cannot be externally or artificially added
on to poetry; the poetic speech by itself is an Alamkara. And, in fact, he describes, the
Alamkaras as Vakya-vakratva. According to him, what are called as Alamkaras are nothing but
different facets or aspects of Vakrokti.
Similarly, in regard to Rasa, he accepts the importance of Rasa; but, regards it as a particular
way of realizing Vakratva in a Kavya.
In a like manner, Kuntaka accepts the concept of Dhvani, the power of suggestion; and, its
importance, in a Kavya. But, he does not consider it as an independent element of Poetics (Kavya-
agama). He does not also regard Dhvani as ‘the soul of the poetry’ (Kavyasaya Atma). Kuntaka
treats Dhvani as a particular form of Vakrokti by naming it as Upachara-vakrata, the suggestion
based upon indication.
^*^*^
Kuntaka takes care to mention that Vakra or Vaichitra does not mean wild, eccentric or
outlandish expressions that might disturb or annoy the reader. He asserts that the inventive
expressions and phrases that a skillful poet creates out of his imagination should be pleasing,
cultured and merited to delight the reader in a healthy way (tadvid-ahlada-kari).
Kuntaka says it would be incorrect to presume that all Kavyas are appreciated by all types of
people for a single reason. Different types of Kavyas holds different types of appeal to different
sorts of people for whole sets of different reasons. Over generalization is indeed simplistic. As he
puts it; there could be a hundred and one reasons for the appeal of different Kavya-s to readers
of different tastes.
Kuntaka therefore does not totally reject the Svabhava or the common way describing emotions,
events and objects. Kuntaka holds that vastu–svabhava has its own simple, natural beauty; and,
Svabhavokti is ornamented (Alamkarya) in its own fashion. He brings Svabhavokti under the
scope of a special kind of Vakya-vakrata in which the svabhava (character) of the subject matter –
whether be it sahaja (natural) or aharya (artificial or made-up) – could be described in an elegant
way (sukumara –marga).
In the Sukumara-marga the poet’s natural eloquence finds abundant scope (Satisaya) to bring
out the sweetness (Madhurya), clarity (Prasada), loveliness (Lavanya) and fluency or smoothness
(Abhijata).
Kuntaka mentions two other two other styles: Vaichitrya and Madhyama. The Vaichitrya –marga
dominated by peculiar types of Alamkaras is regarded a rather difficult style demanding more
skill and maturity of treatment. The Madhyama –marga is the style that stands midway between
the Vaichitrya and Sukumara Margas combining the good features of the other two styles
(Ubhayatmaka).
^*^*^
In that context, Kuntaka emphasizes that what is essential in a Kavya is the genius of the poet to
transform – through his skill, imagination and creativity- that which t is ordinary into something
extraordinary; and, present it as a wonderful object of great beauty bringing joy to the heart of
the reader. He believed that the poet’s genius cannot be categorized (kimapi or kopi). The true
poetic genius is ever resourceful rejuvenating itself all the time (nava-navonmesha shalini
prathibha).
Kuntaka illustrates the phenomenon of transforming the mundane into something out of the
ordinary (lokottara) by comparing the task of the poet (kavi vyapara) in creating his poetry with
that of the painter in the creation of his Art. Just as the poet works with words in their
innumerable forms, so also the artist paints a picture using various materials, lines, colors, tones
and shades etc (vākya-vakratā – 111.4).
Kuntaka extends the analogy by saying that none of the materials that a painter employs is an
object of beauty per se. For instance; the canvass, chalk, paint etc are all commonplace, drab
things. The painter uses all those different items; and none of that is elegant. It is his genius that
creates matchless beauty out of such ordinary things. Further, a painter conceives a picture in his
mind and gives it a substance on the canvass by use of variety of strokes, different colors,
varying shades etc. Though he paints the picture stroke by stroke, part by part he visualizes the
image in his entirety. The viewer too, rightly, takes in, absorbs the picture and its spirit as a
whole, as an integral experience.
Similarly when we perceive a piece of cloth our cognition is of the cloth as whole; and it is quite
distinct from the particular threads and colors involved.
The poetic process (Kavya karma) too is similar. The poet uses different means, rhetoric and
other qualities of word and meaning, style (Riti); but, the beauty does not reside in any one of
them singly. The real loveliness beauty and is created by the magic touch of the poet’s own
genius. Art is what gives form and beauty to matter. Kuntaka’s approach to Poetics was that of
an artist. Further, the Kavya, just as a painting, is much more than the sum of its parts.
Dr. K . Krishnamurthy explains this phenomenon in the scholarly fashion :Vakrokti is not just
an out of the way expression or a poetic turn; it is the masterly art underlying every element of
poetry and involving effortless and spontaneous transformation of prosaic raw materials into
things of consummate beauty (New Bearings of Indian Literary Theory and Criticism).
^*^*^
It is said that Kuntaka ‘s views on the poetic process and on the integral nature of Kavya were
inspired by the holistic theory of Bhartrhari (Ca.5 th century) put forward in his remarkable work
Vakyapadiya. In his doctrine of Sphota , Bhartrhari explaining the relations that exist between
the word (pada) and the sentence (Vakya) argues that a sentence is an unbreakable whole , the
meaning of which flashes forth only after it is completely uttered (Vakya-sphota). The words are
but a part of the whole; and have no independent existence; and, are understood only in the
context of a completed sentence. Thus, Bhartrhari asserted that the whole is real while parts are
not, for they are constructs or abstracted bits. The natural home of a word is the sentence in
which it occurs.
Kuntaka, at places, does refer to the arguments of Bhartrhari. He believed that a poem is an all-
comprising thing of beauty; an organic entity. One cannot truly separate the ornament
(Alamkara) from that which is adorned (Alamkarya); the joy of creation from the enjoyment of
poetry. Thus, the words, their meanings, the Alamkara (ornament), the Alamkarya (that which is
ornamented), the poet and the reader are all integrated into a fabulously rewarding poetic
experience. The beauty consists in their wholeness; endearingly delighting in each other’s
elegance. One cannot artificially separate them. Kuntaka, therefore, is often described as a holist.
^*^*^
Kuntaka was aware of the theory about the suggestive power of poetry (Dhvani) that was
introduced by Ānandavardhana. But, Anandavardhana’s emphasis was on the enjoyment (Rasa)
that a reader derives by unraveling the poet’s intention through its suggestive power (Dhvani).
One could argue that Anandavardhana’s doctrine is loaded rather heavily on one side. It is the
reader who is suggestible. His theory does not seem to put premium on poetic genius and the
mysterious process of creating poetic beauty.
Kuntaka seeks to take a perspective view of things. He does appreciate the the ‘reader’s-side’ of
the picture; why and how they enjoy poetry; and the importance of their experience or
enjoyment of poetry. He does recognize that the joy it brings to the hearts is indeed the object of
poetry.
At the same time, Kuntaka intended to present a balanced or an alternate view of the picture. He
looked at poetry from the poet’s own point of view. He attempted to outline the poetic process
(Kavi vyapara) – how the Kavya takes shape in the poet’s imagination and emerges as a thing of
beauty. He forcefully proposed: that instead of merely looking for poetic words and expressions
that suggest meanings and evoke emotions of love, etc., in the readers, one can could very well,
also, appreciate and take delight in the wonderful poetic-genius-at work (kavi – karma) which
creates poetic expressions of matchless beauty suggesting evocative poetic meanings that lovingly
bind into each other like ardent lovers. The beauty of poetry cannot be compartmentalized; it is
integral to poetry; and, resides in the harmony of its wholeness.
^*^*^
The importance of Kuntaka’s work lies in that it brings a fresh perspective to the appreciation of
Kavya. In several places he refuses to follow conventional explanations. His style of writing is
lucid, precise and yet vigorous. It is marked by elegance and sensitivity. Whatever be the
reactions to the rather strange sounding name he assigns to his theory of Poetics, one has to
appreciate his brilliance, literary acumen and critical insight he brings into investigation of
Poetic virtues. He systematically analyses the principles of Poetics and their implications. His
concept of Vakrata is doubtless an important contribution to the body of Poetics (Kavya Shastra).
What Kuntaka did was to extend and systematize the Alamkara theories of Bhamaha and
Udbhata, and provide it with fresh interpretations. Though he respected the views of the Old
Masters he did not take them in as a whole without questioning . He brought his own priorities,
judgments and interpretations. His Vakrokti lends a new but unexpected dimension to the theory
of Alamkara. His theory Vakrokti is unique, as it attempts to bring under its fold all the essential
principles of Poetics.
It is rather unfortunate that the later Sanskrit Poetic tradition did not accord Kuntaka and his
doctrine the attention and importance they deserved. It was perhaps the emotional appeal of
Dhvani and the overwhelming influence exerted by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta that
sidelined Kuntaka’s concept of Vakrokti and its implications. Kuntaka’s was a lone voice. His
isolation could also be because by then the Poetics was taken over by philosophers who dealt with
the philosophy of Grammar and Grammar of philosophy. The aspects of suggestive expressions,
poetic genius and the process of creating poetry were not further developed by orthodox writers.
Continued in
Next Part
1. Vakrokti Jivita of Rajanaka Kuntaka: Edited and commented by Prof. Susil Kumar De
2. Sanskrit Poetics as a Study of Aesthetics by Prof. Susil Kumar De
3. The Concept of Vakrokti in Sanskrit Poetics: a Reappraisal by Suryanarayana Hegde
4. Vakrokti and Dhvani Controversies about Theory of Poetry in Indian Tradition by Bimal
Krishna Matilal
5. 5. A Comparative Study of the Indian Poetics and the Western Poetics by Mohit Kumar Ray
sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Ten

6. sreenivasaraos
7. Continued from Part Nine
8. [I could not arrange the topics in a sequential order (krama). You may take these as
random collection of discussions; and, read it for whatever it is worth. Thank you.]
9. Kavyasya Atma – the Soul of Poetry
10. Another line of speculation that is unique to Indian Poetics is to muse about the soul
(Atman) of Poetry. Every literary endeavour was regarded a relentless quest to grasp or
realize the enigmatic essence that inhabits the Kavya body.
11. As Prof Vinayak Krishna Gokak explains in his An Integral View of Poetry: an India
Perspective: Poetry in its manifestation resembles the series of descending arches in a
cave. It is dim lit, leaving behind the garish light of the day, as we walk into it. And as we
begin to feel our way, we detect another passage, leading to yet another. But, we do know
that there is light at the other end. And, when we have passed through the archways, we
stand face-to-face with the ultimate mystery itself. This seems to the inner core, the
essence and the fulfillment of poetry. It is the Darshana, perception, of Reality
12. Then he goes on to say: When we say the poet is inspired, we mean that he had a glimpse
of Reality, its luminous perception. It is this perception that elevated him into a state of
creative excitement. … Such vision is the intuitive perception. It reveals the many-
splendored reality that is clouded by the apparent. It is the integral experience in which the
intuitive and instinctive responses are in harmony.
13. But, this intuitive perception in poetry is rarely experienced in its pristine purity. It is
colored, to an extent, by the attitudes, the experiences and the expressions of the poet.
The attitude seeps into the structure of words, phrases, rhythms that give form to
poetry. The attitude forms the general framework of the poetic experience.
14. The soul of the Kavya is truly the poet’s vision (Darshana) without which its other
constituents cannot come together.
15. Thus, the inquiry into the appeal of the Poetry was meant to suggest a sort of a probe
delving deep into the depths of Kavya to seize its essence. It was an exploration to reach
into the innermost core of the Kavya. The term used to denote that core or the
fundamental element or the principle which defines the very essence of Kavya was Atma,
the soul. In the context of Kavya, the concept of Atma, inspired by Indian Philosophy,
was adopted to characterize it as the in-dweller (Antaryamin), its life-breath (Prana), its
life (Jivita) , consciousness (Chetana) ; and to differentiate it from the exterior or the
body (Sarira) formed out of the words. That is to say; while structure provided by the
words is the physical aspect of Kavya, at its heart is the aesthetic sensitivity that is very
subtle and indeterminate.
16. In the Indian Poetics, the term Atma stands for that most elusive factor which is the
highly essential, extensive factor illumining the internal beauty of Kavya. Though one
can talk about it endlessly, one cannot precisely define it. One could even say, it is like a
child trying to clasp the moonbeams with its little palms. It is akin to consciousness that
energizes all living beings (Chaitanya-atma). Its presence can be felt and experienced;
but one cannot see its form; and, one cannot also define it in technical terms
17. ^*^*^
18. Traditionally, the Kavya was defined by Bhamaha as Sabda-Artha sahitau Kavyam
(KA.1.15) – the combination or a complex of words and their meanings. His explanation
also implied that word and sense in a Kavya must be free from
blemishes (nirdosa) . Bhamaha then extended his explanation to bring in the element of
Alamkara; and, said: Kavya is the happy fusion of Sabda and Artha which expresses
Alamkaras relating to them
19. – Sabda-abhideya-alamkara-bhedadhistam dvayam tu nah I Sabda-Artha sahitau Kavyam
(KA.1.15).
20. Dandin also said the body of Kavya is a group of sounds which indicates the desired
effect or the desired import of the poet
21. – Sariram tavad ista-artha vyvachinna padavali (KA 1.10b).
22. But, the later Schools pointed out that Bhamaha and Dandin seemed to be talking about
the body of Kavya, but not about the Kavya itself. And, their definition of Kavya is
centred on the external element or the body of Kavya; but, it misses the spirit or the soul
of the Kavya. The basic idea, here, was that Kavya is much more than a collection of
words; it is about the vision of the poet and the aesthetic delight it presents to the reader.
23. It was argued that if the structure of words (Pada-rachana or Padavali) could be taken as
the body (Sarira) of the Kavya, then it is separate or different from its soul (Atma) which
is its inner–being. Further, Padavali – the group of words – by itself and not
accompanied by sense is not of great merit.
24. Thus, a clear distinction was sought to be made between the body and the spirit or the
soul which resides within it. And from here, there began a quest for the soul of Kavya
(Kavyasya Atma).
25. As regards the meaning (Artha) conveyed by words in the Poetry, it was also examined in
terms of its external and internal forms. It was said; the language and its structural form
lead us to meaning in its dual forms. Thought in poetry manifests itself in two ways: as the
outer and the inner meaning. The Outer meaning dominates poetry through its narration.
Yet, it permits inner meaning to come into its own through its narrative patterns or poetic
excellence. The Outer meaning plays somewhat semi transparent role in poetry. It achieves
its fulfillment when it becomes fully transparent revealing what lies beneath it.
26. The inner meaning of poetry is embodied in it’s suggestive, figurative or expressions
evoking Visions. It reveals the moods, the attitudes and the vision of the poet expressed
with the aid of imagery and rhythm. “Such vision is the intuitive perception. It reveals the
many-splendored reality that is clouded by the apparent”.
27. ^*^*^
28. It was perhaps Vamana the author of Kavyalankara-sutra-vrtti who initiated the
speculation about the Atman or the soul of poetry. He declared – Ritir Atma kavyasya –
(Riti is the soul of Poetry). Vamana’s pithy epithet soon became trendy; and, ignited the
imagination of the champions of other Schools of poetics. Each one re-coined Vamana’s
phrase by inserting into it (in place of Riti) that Kavya-guna (poetic virtue) which in its
view was the fundamental virtue or the soul of poetry.
29. For instance; Anandavardhana said Dhvani is the Atma of Kavya; Visvanatha said Rasa
is the Atma of Kavya; while Kuntaka asserted that Vakrokti as the Jivita – the life of
Kavya. Besides, Rajasekhara (9th century) who visualized literature, as a whole, in a
symbolic human form (Kavya Purusha) treated Rasa as its soul (Atma).
30. **
31. Although Vamana was the first to use the term Atma explicitly, the notions of the spirit
or the inner-being of Kavya were mentioned by the earlier scholars too, though rather
vaguely. They generally talked in terms Prana (life-breath) or Chetana (consciousness)
and such other vital factors in the absence of which the body ceases to function or ceases
to live.
32. [ But, those epithets, somehow, seemed to suggest something that is essential, but not
quite inevitable.]
33. For instance; Dandin had earlier used the term Prana (life-breath) of the body of poetry
which he said was the Padavali (string of words or phrases) – Sariram tavad istartha
vyavachhina padavali (KA-1.10). He also used Prana in the sense of vital force or vital
factor (say for instance: iti vadarbhi –margasya pranah).
34. Udbhata who generally followed Dandin, in his Alamkara-samgraha, a synopsis of
Alamkara, stated that Rasa was the essence or the soul of Kavya.
35. While Dandin and his followers focused on Sabda Alamkara, Vamana (Ca.8th century)
raised questions about the true nature of Kavya; and said Ritiratma Kavyasya – the soul
of the poetry abides in its style – excellence of diction.
36. Anandavardhana said: all good poetry has two modes of expression – one that is
expressed by words embellished by Alamkara; and the other that is implied or concealed
– what is inferred by the listener or the reader. And , this implied one or the suggested
sense, designated as Dhvani (resonance or tone or suggestion) , is indeed the soul of
Kavya: Kavyasya Atma Dhvanih.
37. A little later than Anandavardhana, Kuntaka (early tenth century) said that indirect or
deflected speech (Vakrokti) – figurative speech depending upon wit, turns , twists and
word-play is the soul of Kavya. He said that such poetry showcases the inventive genius
of the poet at work (Kavi-karman).
38. [The complex web of words (Sabda) and meanings (Artha) capable of being transformed
into aesthetic experience (Rasa) is said to have certain characteristic features. These are
said to be Gunas and Alamkara-s. These – words and meanings; Alamkara; Gunas; and,
Rasa – though seem separable are in fact fused into the structure of the poetry. Poetics
accounts for the nature of these features and their inter-relations
39. All theories, one way or the other, are interrelated; and, illumine each other. The
various aspects of Kavya starting from making of poetry (kavya-kriya-dharma) up to the
critique of poetry (kavya-mimamsa) and how human mind perceives and reacts to it, was
the main concern for each theory. ]
40. ^*^*^
41. Alamkara
42. Alamkara denotes an extraordinary turn given to an ordinary expression; which makes
ordinary speech into poetic speech (Sabartha sahitya) ; and , which indicates the entire
range of rhetorical ornaments as a means of poetic expression. In other words,
Alamkara connotes the underlying principle of embellishment itself as also the means for
embellishment.
43. According to Bhamaha, Dandin and Udbhata the essential element of Kavya was in
Alamkara. The Alamkara School did not say explicitly that Alamkara is the soul of
Poetry. Yet, they regarded Alamkara as the very important element of Kavya. They said
just as the ornaments enhance the charm of a beautiful woman so do the Alamkaras to
Kavya: shobha-karan dharman alamkaran prakshate (KA -2.1). The Alamkara School, in
general, regarded all those elements that contribute towards or that enhance the beauty
and brilliance of Kavya as Alamkaras. Accordingly, the merits of Guna, Rasa, and
Dhvani as also the various figures of speech were all clubbed under the general principle
of Alamkara.
44. Though Vamana advocates Riti, he also states that Alamkara (Soundarya-alamkara)
enhances the beauty of Kavya. Vamana said Kavya is the union of sound and sense
which is free from poetic flaws (Dosha) and is adorned with Gunas (excellence) and
Alamkaras (ornamentation or figures of speech).
45. According to Mammata, Alamkara though is a very important aspect of Kavya is not
absolutely essential. He said; Kavya is that which is constructed by word and sentence
which are (a) faultless (A-doshau) (b) possessed of excellence (Sugunau) , and (c) in
which rarely a distinct figure of speech (Alamkriti) may be absent.
46. Riti
47. Vamana called the first section (Adhikarana) of his work as Sarira-adhikaranam –
reflexions on the body of Kavya. After discussing the components of the Kavya-body,
Vamana looks into those aspects that cannot be reduced to physical elements. For
Vamana, that formless, indeterminate essence of Kavya is Riti.
48. Then, Vamana said; the essence of Kavya is Riti (Ritir Atma Kavyasya); just as every
body has Atma, so does every Kavya its Riti. And, Riti is the very mode or the act of
being Kavya. Thus for Vamana, while Riti is the essence of Kavya, the Gunas are the
essential elements of the Riti. The explanation offered by Vamana meant that the verbal
structure having certain Gunas is the body of Kavya, while its essence (soul) is, Riti.
49. Riti represents for Vamana the particular structure of sounds (Vishista-pada-rachana
Ritihi) combined with poetic excellence (Vishesho Gunatma) . According to Vamana, Riti
is the going or the flowing together of the elements of a poem
50. – Rinati gacchati asyam guna iti riyate ksaraty asyam vanmaddhu-dhareti va ritih (Vamana
KSS).
51. The language and its structural form lead us to the inner core of poetry. And, when that
language becomes style (Riti), it absorbs into itself all the other constituent elements of
poetry. It allows them, as also the poetic vision, to shine through it.
52. Vamana, therefore, accorded Riti a very high position by designating Riti as the Soul of
Kavya –Ritr Atma kavyasya Sareerasyeva (I.2.6) – Riti is to the Kavya what Atman is to
the Sarira (body). Here, it is explained that in his definition of Riti, Pada-
rachana represents the structure or the body while Riti is its inner essence. Through
this medium of Visista Padarachana the Gunas become manifest and reveal the presence
of Riti, the Atman.
53. Auchitya
54. Kshemendra – wrote a critical work Auchitya-alamkara or Auchitya-vicharachara
(critical research on proprieties in poetry), and a practical handbook for poets Kavi-
katnta-abharana (ornamental necklace for poets) – calls Auchitya the appropriateness or
that which makes right sense in the given context as the very life-breath of Rasa –
Rasajivi-bhootasya. He said Auchitya is the very life of Kavya (Kavyasya jivitam) that is
endowed with Rasa (Aucityam rasa siddhasya sthiram kavyasya jivitam).
55. According to Kshemendra, all components of Kavya perform their function ideally only
when they are applied appropriately and treated properly. “When one thing befits
another or matches perfectly, it is said to be appropriate, Auchitya”:
56. (Aucityam prahuracarya sadrasham kila; Aucitasya ka vo bhava stadaucityam pracaksate).
57. It said; be it Alamkara or Guna, it will be beautiful and relishing if it is appropriate
from the point of view of Rasa; and, they would be rejected if they are in- appropriate.
And, what is normally considered a Dosha (flaw) might well turn into Guna (virtue)
when it is appropriate to the Rasa
58. But, many are hesitant to accept Auchitya as the Atma of the Kavya. They point out that
Auchitya by its very nature is something that attempts to bring refinement into to text;
but, it is not an independent factor. And, it does not also form the essence of Kavya.
Auchitya is also not a recognized School of Poetics.
59. Vakrokti
60. Kuntaka defined Kavya on the basis of Vakrokti, a concept which he developed over
the idea earlier mentioned by Bhamaha and others. According to him, Kavya is the
union of sound, sense and arranged in a composition which consists Vakrokti (oblique
expressions of the poet), delighting its sensible reader or listener –
61. (Sabda-Artha sahitau vakra Kavi vakya vyapara shalini I bandhe vyavasthitau Kavya tat
ahlada karini: VJ 1.7).
62. Kuntaka also said that the word and sense, blended like two friends, pleasing each
other, make Kavya delightful –
63. Sama-sarva gunau santau sahhrudaveva sangathi I parasparasya shobhayai sabdartau
bhavato thatha II .
64. Kuntaka, declared Vakrokti as jivitam or soul of poetry. By vakrokti, he meant the
artistic turn of speech (vaidagdhyam bhangi) or the deviated from or distinct from the
common mode of speech. Vakratva is primarily used in the sense of poetic beauty. It is
striking, and is marked by the peculiar turn imparted by the creative imagination of the
poet. It stands for charming, attractive and suggestive utterances that characterize
poetry. The notion of Vakrata (deviation) covers both the word (Sabda) and meaning
(Artha). The ways of Vakrokti are, indeed, countless.
65. Vakrokti is the index of a poet’s virtuosity–kavi kaushala. Kuntaka describes the
creativity of a poet as Vakra-kavi–vyapara or Kavi–vyapara–vakratva (art in the poetic
process). This according to Kuntaka is the primary source of poetry; and, has the
potential to create aesthetic elegance that brings joy to the cultured reader with refined
taste (Sahrudaya).
66. According to Kuntaka, Vakrokti is the essence of poetic speech (Kavyokti); the very life
(Jivita) of poetry; the title of his work itself indicates this.
67. Rasa
68. Rasa (the poetic delight) though it is generally regarded as the object of Kavya providing
joy to the reader rather than as the means or an element of Kavya , is treated by some
as the very essence of Kavya.
69. Yet; Indian Aesthetics considers that among the various poetic theories (Kavya-agama),
Rasa is of prime importance in Kavya. And, very involved discussions go into ways and
processes of producing Rasa, the ultimate aesthetic experience that delights the
Sahrudya, the connoisseurs of Kavya.
70. The Rasa was described as the state that arises out of the emotion evoked by a poem
through suggestive means, through the depiction of appropriate characters and
situations and through rhetorical devices. The production of Rasa or aesthetic delight
was therefore regarded the highest mark of poetry. It was said – The life breath (Prana)
of Kavya is Rasa.
71. Further, Poetry itself came to be understood as an extraordinary kind of delightful
experience called Rasa. It was exclaimed: Again, what is poetry if it does not produce
Rasa or give the reader an experience of aesthetic delight?
72. Rasa is thus regarded as the cardinal principle of Indian aesthetics. The theory of Rasa
(Rasa Siddhanta) and its importance is discussed in almost all the works on Alamkara
Shastra in one way or the other. The importance of the Rasa is highlighted by calling it
the Atman (the soul), Angin (the principle element), Pradhana-Pratipadya (main
substance to be conveyed), Svarupadhyaka (that which makes a Kavya), and Alamkara
(ornamentation) etc.
73. Mammata carrying forward the argument that Rasa is the principle substance and the
object of poetry, stated ‘vakyatha rasatmakarth kavyam’, establishing the correlation
between Rasa and poetry.
74. Vishwanatha defined Kavya as Vakyam rasathmakam Kavyam – Kavya is sentences
whose essence is Rasa.
75. Jagannatha Pandita defined Kavya as: Ramaniya-artha prathipadakah sabdam kavyam ;
poetry is the combination of words that provides delight (Rasa) . Here, Ramaniyata
denotes not only poetic delight Rasa, pertaining to the main variety of Dhvani-kavya, but
also to all the ingredients of Kavya like Vastu-Dhvani Kavya; Alamkara-Dhvani –Kavya,
Guni-bhutha –vyangmaya-kavya; Riti; Guna, Alamkara, Vakrokti etc.
76. **
77. [While talking about Rasa, we may take a look at the discussions on Bhakthi Rasa.
78. Natyashastra mentions eight Rasas (not nine). These Rasas were basically related to dramatic
performance; and Bhakthi was not one of those. Thereafter, Udbhata (9th century) introduced
Shantha Rasa. After prolonged debates spread over several texts across two centuries Shantha
was accepted as an addition to the original eight.
79. But, it was Abhinavagupta (11th century) who established Shantha Rasa as the Sthayi-bhava
the basic and the abiding or the enduring Rasa form which all Rasas emerge and into which
they all recede. His stand was: one cannot be perpetually angry or ferocious or sad or exited or
erotic, at all the time. These eight other Rasas are the passing waves of emotions, the colors of
life. But, Shantha, tranquility, is the essential nature of man; and it is its disturbance or its
variations that give rise to shades of other emotions. And, when each of that passes over, it
again subsides in the Shantha Rasa that ever prevails.
80. During the times of by Abhinavagupta and Dhanajaya, Bhakthi and Priti were referred to as
Bhavas (dispositions or attitudes); but, not as Rasas. Even the later scholars like Dandin,
Bhanudatta and Jagannatha Pandita continued to treat Bhakthi as a Bhava.
81. [Later, each system of Philosophy or of Poetics (Kavya-shastra) applied its own norms to
interpret the Rasa-doctrine (Rasa Siddantha) ; and in due course several Rasa theories came
up. Many other sentiments, such as Sneha, Vatsalya; or states of mind (say even Karpanya –
wretchedness) were reckoned as Rasa. With that, Rasas were as many as you one could
identify or craft (not just nine).]
82. It was however the Gaudiya School of Vaishnavas that treated Bhakthi as a Rasa. Rupa
Goswami in his Bhakthi-Rasa-amrita–Sindhu; and the Advatin Madhusudana Sarasvathi in his
Bhagavad-Bhakthi Rasayana asserted that Bhakthi is indeed the very fundamental Rasa. Just
as Abhinavagupta treated Shantha as the Sthayi Rasa, the Vaishnava Scholars treated Bhakthi
as the Sthayi, the most important and the abiding Rasa.
83. Their texts described twelve forms of Bhakthi Rasas – nine of the original and three new ones.
Instead of calling each Rasa by its original name, they inserted Bhakthi element into each,
such as: Shantha-Bhakthi-Rasa, Vira-Bhakthi-Rasa, Karuna-Bhakthi-Rasa and so on. They
tried to establish that Bhakthi was not one among the many Rasas; but, it was the fundamental
Rasa, the other Rasa being only the varied forms of it. The devotee may assume any attitude
of devotion like a child, mother, master, Guru or even an intimate fiend. It was said “Bhakthi
encompasses all the Nava-rasas”.
84. Bhakthi, they said, is the Sthayi (abiding) Rasa; and it is the original form of Parama-Prema
(highest form of Love) as described in Narada Bhakthi Sutra. What constitutes this Love is its
essence of Maduhrya (sweetness) and Ujjvalata (radiance).
85. Although, an element of individualized love is involved in Bhakthi, it is not confined to
worship of a chosen deity (ista Devatha). The Vedanta Schools treat Bhakthi as a companion
of Jnana in pursuit of the Brahman. They hold that Bhakthi guides both the Nirguna and the
Saguna traditions. Just as Ananda is the ultimate bliss transcending the subject-object
limitation, Bhakthi in its pristine form is free from the limitations of ‘ego centric predicament’
of mind. And, both are not to be treated as mere Rasas.
86. Bhakthi is that total pure unconditional love, accepting everything in absolute faith
(Prapatthi).
87. Now, all Schools generally agree that Bhakthi should not be confined to theistic pursuits
alone; it pervades and motivates all aspects human persuasions including studies, arts and
literature. In the field of art, it would be better if the plethora of Rasa-theories is set aside;
because, the purpose of Art, the practice of Bhakthi and the goal of Moksha are intertwined.
88. Therefore, it is said, it is not appropriate (an-auchitya) to narrow down Bhakthi to a mere
Rasa which is only a partial aspect. Bhakthi is much larger; and it is prime mover of all
meaningful pursuits in life.]
89. ^*^*^*^
90. Dhvani and Rasa-Dhvani
91. With the rise of the Dhvani School, the elements of Rasa and Dhvani gained prominence,
and superseded the earlier notions of poetry. And, all poetry was defined and classified
in terms of these two elements.
92. Anandavardhana said: all good poetry has two modes of expression – one that is
expressed by words embellished by Alamkara; and the other that is implied or concealed
– what is inferred by the listener or the reader.
93. The suggested or the implied sense of the word designated as Dhvani (resonance or tone
or suggestion) through its suggestive power brings forth proper Rasa.
Abhinavagupta qualified it by saying: Dhvani is not any and every sort of suggestion,
but only that sort which yields Rasa or the characteristic aesthetics delight.
94. For Anandavardhana, Dhvani (lit. The sounding-resonance) is the enigmatic alterity
(otherness) of the Kavya-body- Sarirasye va Atma ….Kavyatmeti vyavasthitam (as the
body has Atma, so does Dhvani resides as Atma in the Kavya)
95. Anandavardhana regarded Dhvani– the suggestive power of the Kavya, as its highest
virtue. The Alamkara, figurative ornamental language, according to him, came next. In
both these types of Kavya-agama, there is a close association between the word and its
sound, and between speech (vak) and meaning (artha). The word is that which when
articulated gives out meaning; and meaning is what a word gives us to understand.
Therefore, in these two types of Kavya there is a unity or composition (sahitya) of word
(sabda-lankara) and its meaning (artha-lankara).
96. Anandavardhana‘s definition of Kavya involves two statements: Sabda-Artha sariram
tavath vakyam; and, Dhvanir Atma Kavyasa – the body of poetry is the combination of
words and sounds; and; Dhavni, the suggestive power is the soul of the poetry. Here,
Anandavardhana talks about poetry in terms of the body (Sabda–artha sariram tavath
vakyam) and soul of the Kavya (Dhvanir atma Kavyasa). And he also refers to the internal
beauty of a meaningful construction of words in the Kavya. And, he declares Dhvani as
the Atma, the soul of poetry.
97. The Dhvani theory introduced a new wave of thought into the Indian Poetics. According
to this school, the Kavya that suggests Rasa is excellent. In Kavya, it said, neither
Alamkara nor Rasa but Dhvani which suggest Rasa, the poetic sentiment, is the essence,
the soul (Kavyasya-atma sa eva arthaa Dhv.1.5).
98. Anandavardhana maintained that experience of Rasa comes through the unravelling of
the suggested sense (Dhvani). It is through Dhvani that Rasa arises (Rasa-dhavani). The
experience of the poetic beauty (Rasa) though elusive, by which the reader is delighted,
comes through the understanding heart.
99. Then, Anandavardhana expanded on the object (phala) of poetry and how it is achieved
(vyapara). The Rasa which is the object of poetry, he said, is not made; but, it is
revealed. And, that is why words and meanings must be transformed to suggestions of
Rasa (Rasa Dhvani).
100. The Rasa Dhvani, the most important type of Dhvani, consists in suggesting Bhava, the
feelings or sentiments. In Rasa Dhvani, emotion is conveyed through Vyanjaka,
suggestion. Rasa is the subject of Vyanjaka, as differentiated from
Abhidha and Lakshana.
101. Anandavardhana in some instances considers Rasa as the Angi (soul) of poetry. Its Anga-
s (elements) such as Alamkara, Guna and Riti seem to be dependent on this Angi.
102. Thus, the principle of Rasa Dhvani is the most significant of the Kavya dharma,
understanding Kavya. And, the Rasa experience derived from its inner essence is the
ultimate aim of Kavya. Hence, the epithet Kavyasya Atma Dhvani resonates
with Kavyasya Atma Rasah.
103. Anandavardhana regarded Rasa-Dhvani as the principal or the ideal concept in
appreciation of poetry. He said that such suggested sense is not apprehended (na vidyate)
by mere knowledge of Grammar (Sabda-artha-shasana-jnana) and dictionary. It is
apprehended only (Vidyate, kevalam) by those who know how to recognize the essence of
poetic meaning (Kavya-artha-tattva-jnana) – Dhv.1.7
104. Abhinavagupta accepted that; and expanded on the concept by adding an explanation to
it. He said, the Pratiiyamana or implied sense which is two-fold: one is Loukika or the
one that we use in ordinary life; and the other is Kavya vyapara gocara or one which is
used only in poetry.
105. He also termed the latter type of Rasa-Dhvani as Aloukika, the out-of–the world
experience. It is an experience that is shared by the poet and the reader (Sahrudaya). In
that, the reader, somehow, touches the very core of his being. And, that Aloukika is
subjective ultimate aesthetic experience (ananda); and, it is not a logical construct. As
Abhinavagupta says, it is a wondrous flower; and, its mystery cannot really be
unraveled.
106. One can hardly disagree with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Kavyasya-Atma, the soul of
Poetry is indeed a sublime concept; and, one can take delight is exploring layers and
layers of its variations. Yet, it seems, one can, at best, only become aware of its presence,
amorphously; but, not pin point it. Kavyasya-Atma, is perhaps best enjoyed when it is left
undefined.
Happiness is such a fragile thing!! Very thought of it disturbs it.
Continued
in the
Next Part
An Integral View of Poetry: an India Perspective by Prof Vinayak Krishna Gokak
Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Dr. Satya Deva Caudharī

sreenivasaraos.com
Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Eleven

sreenivasaraos
Continued from Part Ten
The Court Poet
So far in the series we have talked about Poetry (Kavya) and the Poetics (Kavya Shastra), let us
round up the discussion with a few words about the Poet (Kavi) himself.
Poetry in India, of course, is very ancient; and has been in vogue even from the Vedic times. In
the context of Rig Veda, Kavi refers to one who through his intuitional perception (prathibha),
sees the unseen (kavihi-krantha-darshano- bhavathi) and gives expression to his vision
(Darshana), spontaneously, through words. He is the wise Seer. It was said: one cannot be a Kavi
unless one is a Rishi (naan rishir kuruthe kavyam). However, not all Rishis are Kavi-s. A Kavi is a
class by himself.
But, the Kavi, the Poet, we are referring to in the series and here is not the Vedic Kavi. He is far
different from the Vedic Kavi in almost every aspect; and, is vastly removed from him in space,
time, environment, attitude, objective etc. And, his poetry is neither a Rik nor a mantra; but, is a
cultivated art ornate with brilliance and flashing elegance.
The Sanskrit poet who creates Kavya is neither a Rishi nor a seer; but, he is very much a person
of the world who has taken up writing as a profession to earn his living. He usually sprang from
a class that possessed considerable cultural refinement. And, Sanskrit being the language of the
academia and the medium of his work, he was well versed in handling it.
He is urbane, educated and is usually employed in the service of a King. Apart from writing
classy poetry, his other main concern is to please and entertain his patron. He is very much a
part of the inner circle of the Court; and, is surrounded by other poets and scholars who
invariable are his close rivals in grabbing the King’s attention and favors.
During those times, a Great King would usually have in his service a number of poet-scholars
who vied with each other to keep the King happy and pleased. Their main task was to entertain
the King. Apart from such Court poets, there were a large number of wandering bards
who sang for the common people. They walked through towns and villages singing songs of love
and war. Of course, their recitations were not classy or of the standard of the court poet-singers.
As Vatsayana (in his Kama sutra) describes, the Court poet, generally: is an educated suave
gentleman of leisure having refined taste and versatility; fairly well-off; lives in urban
surroundings (Naagara or Nagarika); loves to dress well (bit of a dandy, indeed- smearing
himself with sandal paste, fragranting his dress with Agaru smoke fumes, and wearing flowers);
appreciates art, music and good food; and, loves his drink in the occasional company of friends
and courtesans.
A Court poet, sometimes, is also portrayed as rather vain, nursing a king-sized ego; and,
desperately yearning to be recognized and honored as the best amongst all the poets in the Royal
Court.
Thus, his attitudes find expressions in various ways – outwardly or otherwise. The dress, polished
manners and cosmetics all seemed to matter. But, more importantly, it seemed necessary to
have a sound educational foundation, idioms of social etiquette , and a devotion to classical
literature (Sahitya) , music (Samgita) and other fine arts ( lalita kala). Though his Poetry was
developed in the court, its background was in the society at large.
***
The Poet
Rajasekhara an eminent scholar, critic and poet, was the Court poet of the Gurjara – Prathihara
King Mahendrapala (Ca.880 to 920 AD) who ruled over Magadha. In his Kavyamimamsa, which
is virtually an Handbook guiding aspiring poets, Rajasekhara outlines the desirable or the
recommended environment, life-style, daily routine, dispositions etc for a poet, as also the
training and preparations that go to make a good poet.
Sanskrit Kavya, in middle and the later periods, grew under the patronage of Royal courts. And,
sometime the King himself would be an accomplished scholar or a renowned poet.
According to Rajasekhara, many of the poets depended on the patronage of local rulers and
kings. Among them, the more eminent ones were honored as Court-poets (Asthana Kavi). Those
who performed brilliantly were rewarded richly and endeared themselves to the king. There was,
therefore, a fierce rivalry among the poets in the King’s court to perform better the next poet
and to be the king’s favorite.
A successful poet would usually be a good speaker with a clear voice; understand the language of
gestures and movements of the body; and familiar with other languages as well.
An archetypical picture of a poet that Rajasekhara presents is very interesting. The Kavi, here,
usually, lives in upper middle class society that is culturally sensitive. His house is kept clean and
comfortable for living. He moves from places – changing his residence – about three times in an
year, according to the seasons. His country residence has private resting places, surrounded by
antelopes, peacocks and birds such as doves, Chakora, Krauncha and such other. The poet
usually has a lover (apart from his wedded wife) to whom he addresses his love lyrics.
As regards the daily life of the poet, Rajasekhara mentions the Kavi would usually be a
householder following a regulated way of life such as worshipping at the beginning of each day,
followed by study of works on poetics or other subjects or works of other poets. All these
activities are, however, preparatory; they stimulate his innate power of creativity and
imagination (prathibha). His creative work proper (Kavya-kriya) takes part in the second part of
the day.
Towards the afternoon, after lunch, he joins his other poet-friends (Kavi-ghosti) where they
indulge in verse-riddle games structured around question-answers (Prashna-uttata). Sometimes,
the poet discusses with close friends the work he is presently engaged with.
In the evening, the poet spends time socializing with women and other friends, listening to music
are going to the theatre. The second and the third parts of the night are relaxation, pleasure and
sleep.
Of course, not all poets followed a similar routine; each had his own priorities. Yet; they all
seemed to be hard-working; valuing peace, quiet and right working conditions.
There were also those who chose to write in their leisure when moved or inspired. They were, as
Rajasekhara calls them, occasional poets (data-vasara). Among them was a class who wrote only
on occasions (prayojanika) to celebrate certain events.
Rajasekhara also mentions of those poets who were totally devoted to their poetic work. They
invariably shut themselves from daylight (asuryamupasya), dwelling in caves or remote private
homes away from sundry noises and other disturbances
As regards the poet’s writing materials and other tools, Rajasekhara mentions that the writing
materials are almost always within the reach of the poet; and, are contained in a box. The
contents of the box were generally: a slate and chalk; a stand for brushes and ink-wells; dried
palm leaves (tadapatra) or birch bark (bhurjapatra); and an iron stylus (Kantaka). The common
writing materials were palm leaves on which letters were sketched with metal stylus. The
alternate writing surface was the birch bark cut into broad strips.
***
What does it take to make one a good poet
There is an extended debate interspersed across the theories of Indian Poetics speculating on
what does it take to make one a good poet.
Dandin mentions the requisites of a good poet as: Naisargika Prathibha natural or inborn genius;
Nirmala-shastra – jnana clear understanding of the Shastras; Amanda Abhiyoga ceaseless
application and honing ones faculties.
Bhatta-tauta explained Prathibha as the genius of the intellect which creates new and
innovative modes of expressions in art poetry – Nava-navonvesha –shalini prajna prathibha
mathah
Rudrata and Kuntaka add to that Utpatti, the accomplished knowledge of the texts and literary
works; and, Abhyasa, constant practice of composing poetic works.
According to Vamana, Utpatti includes in itself awareness of worldly matters (Loka-jnana); study
of various disciplines (Vidya) ; and , miscellaneous information (Prakirna).
Vamana also mentions: Vrddha seva – instructions from the learned experienced
persons; Avekshana– the use of appropriate words avoiding blemishes by through study of
Grammar; and ; Avadhana – concentration or single pointed devotion to learning and composing
as other the other areas of study and learning.
Thus, to sum up, most seem to agree that the natural inborn genius is the seed out of which
poetry sprouts (Kavitva-bijam prathibhanam – Vamana. K.S.13.6); and that talent needs to be
nurtured and developed through training Utpatti (detailed study of Grammar, the literarily
works and scriptures as also of knowledge of worldly matters) ; and Abhyasa , Abhiyoga,
Prayatna (constant practice of composing poetry) .
An aspiring poet gifted with natural talent would do well to sincerely follow the prescribed
regimen either on his own or , better still, under the guidance of a well-informed teacher who
himself is a poet or a learned scholar.
**
The great scholar Abhinavagupta (Ca.950-1020 AD) in his Lochana (a commentary on

Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyaloka) says that Prathibha the intuition might be essential for creation
of good poetry. But, that flash of flourish alone is not sufficient. Abhinavagupta explains
that Prathibha is inspirational in nature; and, it does not last long; and it also, by itself
or automatically, does not transform into a work of art or poetry. There definitely is a need of
medium obeying objective laws (which he calls unmeelana –shakthi) which sustains, harnesses
and gives form and substance to those fleeting moments of inspiration. Apart from that, the
aspiring poet has to study hard, broaden his intellect, hone his skills and practice his craft
diligently. It is only then, he says, a poetic work can bring forth refined, lively and forceful
expressions that delight all.
**
Kavi-shiksha
Rajasekhara, just prior to Abhinavagupta, had also emphasized the importance of training and
preparation in the making of a poet. He treats the subject in a little more detail.
He mentions that the cultivator of Sanskrit poetry, variously known as Kavi, Budha or Vidwan,
is not born as poet; nor is he self taught. Any one gifted with talent (Prathibha) to create poetry
and determined to become a poet should be prepared for detailed education (Utpatti) spread
over long years of hard work (abhiyoga, prayatna), study (Abhyasa) with ceaseless dedication
(Shraddha) . He should have the strength of mind not to be enticed away from his chosen path;
and should pursue the study of Kavya in all its forms and layers with single-pointed (Ekagra)
devotion.
Rajasekhara remarks there is no merit in becoming a half-baked poet. If one is truly sincere to
his intention, then one should strive to become a professional poet. He should make that as his
life- ambition, the ultimate goal in his life; and, should be prepared to make whatever sacrifices it
demands.
The ardent learner is advised to seek guidance from a professional, learned teacher (Upadhyaya)
and study under him the basic subjects of phonetics such as Vyakarana (Grammar) , Nirukta
(Etymology) , Kosha (lexicon) , Alamkara (ornamentation) and Chhandas ( poetic meters) along
with standard works on Kavya Shastra (Poetics). Apart from studying these subjects
individually, they should be studied with special reference to works of Kavya that have been
written according to the formats and disciplines prescribed in texts of Kavya Shastra.
The study of the works of the Master would help the student to gain wholesome appreciation of
the poetic process, the techniques of various forms of poetry and their components, such as meter
(Chhandas), grammar (Vyakarana) , embellishments (Alamkara) etc. He should try out the
principles he learnt by applying them to practice-poems (Abhyasa kriti) to be crafted as a part of
his learning process.
The training included exercises to improve the student’s literary and the non-literary
vocabulary, use of right words, picking the apt terms among the various synonyms; developing
metrical skill; finding the most appropriate expression for each attribute, the most suitable
simile, etc; and, creating verbal structure according to syntax within the rhythmic framework.
The preparation and the training would also include gaining familiarity with various branches of
learning, such as: art (Kala), music (samgita), erotic’s (kamasastra), logic (nyaya), state craft
(arthasastra) as also of the natural world of mountains, oceans, trees , birds and animals etc . He
could also gain an understanding of sciences, astronomy, gemology etc. And, of course,
familiarity with such important sources of literary material as the Epics Ramayana and
Mahabharata as well as with the Puranas was also essential
The object of such elaborate training was to ensure that the student learnt to work at his text in a
deliberate manner respecting the host of rules and norms that govern Kavya; and also to ensure
that his poetic compositions grow out of a clear thought process based on a free but carefully
made choice of all the elements. Far more important was the organization and co-ordination of
these elements to give the composition the quality of a work of art.
Thus, at the end, very little would separate the connoisseur and critic from the writer of kavya.
Banabhatta
While on the subject of ‘The Poet’, I cannot resist talking about the redoubtable Banabhatta.
Let’s dwell on his for a while.
The Sanskrit poets are generally reticent when it comes to their personal details. Some might
perhaps give out frugal particulars such as the names of their parents, their Gotra and the village
they came from. Beyond that, hardly any information that might throw light on the cultural and
social life of their period is given out. Sometimes, even the simple task of ascertaining their
period, by itself, becomes a minor exercise.
A notable exception to such general practice was Banabhatta, a versatile scholar and poet, a
contemporary and a close associate of King Harsha Vardhana of Thaneshvar and Kanuj, who
ruled over North India from 606 to 647 A D. Banabhatta’s fame rests on his remarkable
romantic prose work Kadambari, perhaps the world’s first Novel; and on Harshacharita a
glorified biography of his friend and patron King Harsha Vardhana. Banabhatta, sadly, passed
away before he could complete his magnum opus Kadambari woven into complicated, interrelated
plots involving two sets of lovers passing through labyrinth of births and re-re-births. It was
later completed by his son Bhushanabhatta.
Banabhatta gives glimpses of his early life and youth in the introductory verses of his Kadambari
and in the first two Ucchavasas of the Harshacharita. And, in the third Ucchavasa of
Harshacharita he describes how he came to write that work.
His story is truly amazing.
Banabhatta mentions that he was born to Chitrabhanu and Rajadevi of Bhojaka Brahmin
family, which was rich in wealth and in learning, belonging to Vatsyayana Gotra. They lived in
the village of Pritikuta on the banks of Hiranyabahu (the Sona River) which raises in the
Vindhya hills and flows through the Dandaka forest. The scholars opine that the ancestral home
of Banabhatta was in the region of Madhya Pradesh from where the Sona river rises . From here
Banabhatta, later , went to the court of Kung Harshavardhana in Kanyakubja (Kanuj) in Uttar
Pradesh.
Bana lost his mother Rajyadevi at a tender age. He was brought up by his father Chitrabhanu
who was learned in scriptures and in literature. Chitrabhanu played a large part in moulding
him; and, remained a great influence even in the later years But, sadly, Bana lost his father
while he was just about fourteen years of age. He felt his father’s absence very deeply and missed
him sorely.
The death of his father left the clueless young Bana just stepping into adolescence rather
rudderless. He came into wealth and money with none to guide him. After recovering from
anguish and sorrow, he found life rather hollow and boring; grew more and more impatient by
each day; and got into irregular life of nasty habits. Bana went totally astray indulging in
carefree, reckless, restless life in the company of a most weird bunch of friends.
His motley crowd of friends, medley of varied talents, came from an amazing assortment of
backgrounds , various classes of life and professions. Bana, in fact, names about forty-four of his
friends, some them of dubious character. His friends circle included poets, singers, actors, story
tellers, physicians, jugglers, goldsmiths, potters, Jain monks, Buddhist nuns, shampooers,
gamblers, snake doctors and so on. There were also many women in the group.
For instance , he mentions that among his friends , Candasena and Matrsena were born out of a
Brahmin father and a Sudra mother; Isana, Rudra, Venibhadra and Narayana were poets;
Bharata was a composer of songs; Govinda was a writer; Susivana was a panegyrist (an orator
who delivers eulogies or panegyrics); Mayuraka was a snake-charmer ; Viravarman was a
painter; Kumaradatta was a varnisher; Jimuta was a drummer; Somila , Grahaditya were
singers; Jayasena was a story teller; Madhukara and Paravata were pipers; Darduraka and
Tandavika were dance teachers; Sikkhadaka was an actor; Chandaka was a physician;
Akhandalaka and Bhlmaka were dice players (gamblers); Viradeva was a Jain monk; and
Cakoraka was a juggler and Karalakesa was a magician ; and Vakaragoha was a snake doctor
(Visha vaidya) so on.
There were also many women among his friends. Among them : Mayuraka was the daughter of
a forest-man; Anangavana and Suchivana were born in family of Prakrit poets; Chandaka was
the seller of betel leaves; Sudrati was an artist; another Chandaka was a physician ; Karangika
was an independent artisan; Keralika was massage girl; Haramika was a dancing girl;
Karangika, the maid of honor ; and, Sumati and Cakravakika were Buddhist nuns.
After the excitement the of the fling at wild and reckless living wore off, Bana set out to take a
look at the world; and took along with him a colourful bunch of his friends and his two half
brothers. He aimlessly wandered across many countries, in an irresponsible manner.
The good outcome of his travels was that during the sojourn , he studiously attended a number
of assemblies (gosthl) of poets and connoisseurs; and, other scholarly circles (mandala). As he
said: he paid visits to Royal courts; submitted his respects to ‘the Schools of the wise’; attended
‘assemblies of able men deep in priceless discussions’; and, ‘plunged into circles of clever men
endowed with profound natural wisdom’.
Bana gained a great deal of experience during these febrile years of wandering. That gave him a
direct experience of life outside of his closed circle. That helped him gain an insight into life, its
nature and an understanding of the many-sided world filled with men and women of various
manners of behavior. His travel experiences widened his horizons and also ignited the poetic
genius latent in him.
Bana returned home a much more mature, wiser and determined.
On his return, he was surprised to see his home taken over by host of his relatives; most whom
sporting long brown hair like wisps of fire had their forehead besmeared with ashes. Worse still,
the house filled with smoke emanating from Homa kunda (fire-altar) was echoing with Vedic
chants. The smoke of the clarified butter had darkened the foliage of trees. The back yard of the
house marked by hoofs of cows was filled with remains of Kusa grass, pieces of wood and cow
dung. The whole ground was rendered brown by the sacrificial offerings.
Inside the house, the floor was littered with puffed rice, nivara paddy rice cakes, mats made of
dark deer skins; branches of fig leaves were hanging by the pegs on the wall. At many places, the
soma-juice was oozing out of the hollows in the wood. The children with little tufts were running
around the house; and , some sat on different sides of the altar watching , curiously, what was
going on.
That was rather too much for Bana to take in. He, definitely, was very uncomfortable with the
scene as also by those who filled it.
Bana then promptly went back to his country house in the mango grove outside of the village. His
friends were overjoyed with his return, clasped him to their hearts; and, celebrated the joyous
reunion by drinking, dancing and singing all night. As Bana said, the reunion with his long last
childhood friends was like the joy of the highest release (moksha).
Bana, thereafter, spent some of the most enjoyable days of his life amidst his friends.
One summer afternoon while Bana was lazing under the shadow of a mango tree, a messenger
delivered him a letter from Krishna the brother of King Harshavardhana. In that, Krishna urged
Bana to posthaste call on the King who was camping at Manitara. Accordingly, Bana promptly
set out meet the mighty ruler. He travelled two days and one night and reached Manitara on the
third day; and sought audience with the King. And, that meeting with the King changed the
course of Bana’s life, in a very healthy way.
The King, who had heard of the wayward ways of the spoilt youth, was rather reluctant to talk to
him. He even tried to reproach the young Brahman for wasting his wealth, heath and youth; and,
smearing the fair name of his family.
But, as they conversed, the atmosphere cleared ; the two came to like each other and, became
sort of friends. And, in time Banabhatta won the high regard of the Emperor who became his
patron.
It seems, Bana spent some considerable time with King Harshavardhana.
When Bana later revisited his Prithikuta one autumn, he was besieged by his friends who lustily
cheering , demanded accounts of King Harsha, his stay in the Capital and other interesting
experiences he had.
To comply with their wishes, Bana tells us, he began to write the great biography of Emperor
Harshavardhana. That was how Harshacharita came to be written. Harshacharita narrates
Harsha’s rise to power and glory; and ends with his conquest of the world. The work is a
sophisticated, erudite display of Banabhatta’s descriptive and poetic genius.
Later on, Banabhatta married and led a happy married life. He settled down in the Court of
King Harshavardhana as his poet and confidant,
What rescued Bana from the abyss of depravation were his poetic genius and the moderating
influence of his patron King.
Banabhatta’s regret was that he could not complete his Kadambari an intricate work spread over
a large canvas. His son Bhushanabhatta, who by then had grown up, did complete the third and
the last part of Kadambari’s elaborate structure.
Bhushnabhatta wrote:
I bow in reverence to my father,
Master of speech.
This story was his creation,
A task beyond other men’s reaches.
The world honoured his noble spirit in every home.
Through him I, propelled by
Merit, gained this life.
When my father ascended to heaven
The flow of his story
Along with his voice
Was checked on earth.
I , considering the unfinished work to be
A sorrow to the good,
Again set it in motion-
But out of no pride in my poetic skill.
(Translation of Prof. Gwendolyn Layne, University of Chicago)
A history of Sanskrit literature – Classical period – Vol. I – by Prof. S. N. Dasgupta
Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Prof. Satya Deva Caudharī
Indian Kāvya Literature: The bold style (Śaktibhadra to Dhanapāla) By Anthony Kennedy Warder
Kadambari – translated by Prof. Gwendolyn Layne

http://members.aceweb.com/gwenlayne/Kadambari.intro.pdf
Banabhatta – His Life and Literature by S V Dixit

Kavya and Indian Poetics

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kavya and Indian Poetics

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

sreenivasaraos.

Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part One

Main concerns – Sabda and Artha

Similarly, Riti, as put forward by Vamana, is an arrangement of words and meanings

Rajasekhara, therefore, says: A sentence is an arrangement of words which embodies the

This is a major subject; and deserves to be discussed separately.]

Sources and References

Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī

Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

History of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz

A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard

Literary Cultures in History by Sheldon Pollock

Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Two

Continued from Part One

Kavya – Rise and Decline

Prakrit is a comprehensive term covering a group of regional languages and dialects. In

(Source: :Prakrit / by George Abraham Grierson (1911)

The golden age of Kavya

Question of the sense of History

Continued in Part Three ->

Sources and References

Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī

Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

Sahityashastra, the Indian Poetics by Dr. Ganesh Tryambak Deshpande

History of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz

A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard

Literary Cultures in History by Sheldon Pollock

Continued from Part Two

Classifications of the Kavya

Kavya has been classified in incredibly number of ways.

(a) Shravya and Drshya

[For more on Chitrkavya: please check here :

Vishvanatha in his Sahityadarpana gives a list of these to varieties:

[Dhananjaya’s Dasarupakam lists a slightly different ten forms]

(b) Padya – Gadya – Champu

(c) Sanskrit –Prakrit -Misra

(d) Literary and the non-literary works

(e) Mahakavya – Laghukavya

The composition in Cantos (Sargabandha) begins with a benediction (Mangala), or a salutation or

(f) Dvani – Guna – Chitra

The Next Part

Sources and References

Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī

Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

Sahityashastra, the Indian Poetics by Dr. Ganesh Tryambak Deshpande

History of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz

A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard

Literary Cultures in History by Sheldon Pollock

Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Four

Continued from Part Three

Dhvani – Rasa Dhvani

Let’s, therefore, briefly talk about words, meanings and Rasa.

As I understand it ; the basic position of Anandavardhana is that an emotion cannot be evoked in

Anandavardhana exalts the poetic-freedom of a creative writer which, according to him,

Ananadavardhana classifies Dhvani in various ways.The scheme of his classification is detailed

Broadly, the Dhvani is classified in three ways:

This is again subdivided into two:

Sources and References

Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī

Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

Sahityashastra, the Indian Poetics by Dr. Ganesh Tryambak Deshpande

History of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz

A History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard