2023-03-29 18:09:34 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
31
use of long compounds) is essential, whereas a simile, let us say, could or
could not be used, depending on other considerations. That this is not
how the guṇa/rīti theory was originally intended has been adequately
shown.65 One of the points this introduction will make is that the dhvani
theory should not be used as a basis for interpreting doctrines that pre-
ceeded it.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
Let us put aside for a moment the controversial problem of soul and
body and consider the functional relation, implied in the early alamkāra
texts, of the gunas to the figures. It is usually held that Daṇḍin, who alone
of the figurationists devotes considerable attention to the gunas as a
poetic category, conceived the two terms to be fundamentally identical
--the gunas being figures put to a specific use, that of distinguishing the
two styles of poetry (by being present in one or the other marga only),
the figures as such being common to both styles. This idea rests on a
reading of Dandin 2.3 which appears to me to be capable of another
interpretation; the topic is "alamkāra": "kāš cin märgavibhāgārtham
uktāḥ prāg apy alamkriyāḥ । sādhāraṇam alamkārajātam adya pradarśyate".
De translates: "For the purpose of classifying the margas, some alamkāras
have been already spoken of (by me in the previous chapter); now are
shown those alamkāras which are common (to both the mārgas)."**
Now, are the figures already spoken of' as classifying or separating
the mārgas, in fact the gunas? Or are they simply figures which Daṇḍin
has incidentally employed in his illustrations of the various gunas
(particularly samadhi, which has been defined as the se of metaphorical
expressions in 1.93)? The very common figures, alliteration and pun,
have, for instance, been illustrated several times in that discussion.
Alliteration, in fact, is treated by Daṇḍin only in the section on madhura
guna. The phrase that Dandin uses ("uktāḥ präg api") does not compel
us to identify the gunas and the alamkāras; to do so makes for a number
of exegetical problems: Daṇḍin treats the two categories quite distinctly,
and never confuses the terms. As usual, discussions of the supposed
identity of guna and alamkāra have involved only terminological quibbles
and have not included the broader question of the use of the terms as
critical categories in relation to poetry. From this angle, it is clear that
67
85 One other puzzling aspect of Vamana's theory is shown in this contrast with the
dhvani: the gunas are not for Vamana contextually appropriate or essential at all;
in the best poetry, all ten must be present. They are, as he says, "nityaḥ", "invariably
present. The notion of a 'virtue", as potentiality manifested in certain circumstances
(as courage), is hard to square with such absolutism.
HSP, II, p. 83.
*7 Kävyādarśa 1.52-61.
use of long compounds) is essential, whereas a simile, let us say, could or
could not be used, depending on other considerations. That this is not
how the guṇa/rīti theory was originally intended has been adequately
shown.65 One of the points this introduction will make is that the dhvani
theory should not be used as a basis for interpreting doctrines that pre-
ceeded it.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
Let us put aside for a moment the controversial problem of soul and
body and consider the functional relation, implied in the early alamkāra
texts, of the gunas to the figures. It is usually held that Daṇḍin, who alone
of the figurationists devotes considerable attention to the gunas as a
poetic category, conceived the two terms to be fundamentally identical
--the gunas being figures put to a specific use, that of distinguishing the
two styles of poetry (by being present in one or the other marga only),
the figures as such being common to both styles. This idea rests on a
reading of Dandin 2.3 which appears to me to be capable of another
interpretation; the topic is "alamkāra": "kāš cin märgavibhāgārtham
uktāḥ prāg apy alamkriyāḥ । sādhāraṇam alamkārajātam adya pradarśyate".
De translates: "For the purpose of classifying the margas, some alamkāras
have been already spoken of (by me in the previous chapter); now are
shown those alamkāras which are common (to both the mārgas)."**
Now, are the figures already spoken of' as classifying or separating
the mārgas, in fact the gunas? Or are they simply figures which Daṇḍin
has incidentally employed in his illustrations of the various gunas
(particularly samadhi, which has been defined as the se of metaphorical
expressions in 1.93)? The very common figures, alliteration and pun,
have, for instance, been illustrated several times in that discussion.
Alliteration, in fact, is treated by Daṇḍin only in the section on madhura
guna. The phrase that Dandin uses ("uktāḥ präg api") does not compel
us to identify the gunas and the alamkāras; to do so makes for a number
of exegetical problems: Daṇḍin treats the two categories quite distinctly,
and never confuses the terms. As usual, discussions of the supposed
identity of guna and alamkāra have involved only terminological quibbles
and have not included the broader question of the use of the terms as
critical categories in relation to poetry. From this angle, it is clear that
67
85 One other puzzling aspect of Vamana's theory is shown in this contrast with the
dhvani: the gunas are not for Vamana contextually appropriate or essential at all;
in the best poetry, all ten must be present. They are, as he says, "nityaḥ", "invariably
present. The notion of a 'virtue", as potentiality manifested in certain circumstances
(as courage), is hard to square with such absolutism.
HSP, II, p. 83.
*7 Kävyādarśa 1.52-61.