2023-03-29 18:09:39 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
He does, however, in discussing the poetic genre anibaddha (isolated
verses not bound together by any continuing theme or story), admit the
desirability of both vakrokti and svabhāvokti.
43
99
Daṇḍin, though he shows less hesitation about the figure, which he
treats in some detail, does appear to distinguish svabhāvokti more from
vakrokti generically." 100 But vakrokti represents poetry by synechdoche
and thus doubt is cast on the poetic status of "natural description".
Kuntaka, drawing the conclusions of this discussion, rules out svabhāvokti
as a figure.101
101
Of modern commentators, V. Rāghavan accepts the distinction be-
tween the two concepts: "Indeed, there are cases which do not show any
determinable and definable deviation, cases which we call 'natural descrip-
tion"",102 but he appears to be of the opinion that deviation is a function
of word (sabda) alone, "and it is because jāti concerns itself directly
with the thing as it is, without any great sabda vaicitrya, that Bhoja
counts jāti as an arthālamkāra and that, the first."103 It does not follow
that because a figure lacks sabdatvam it becomes of necessity an artha-
lamkāra: Rāghavan avoids the issue posed by Bhāmaha. Vakrokti is a
function of both word and sense. Svabhāvokti is a problem not because
it fails to show the verbal peculiarities of poetic speech, but precisely
because it appears not to involve those of sense either: "maviparitam
nirupamam anatiśayam aśleşam".
De is unable to elucidate the contradiction implied by the figure
svabhāvokti. Seeking in every author notions of
essence, De,
not inconsistently, discovers it in Bhāmaha's and Dandin's vakrokti:
"It seems, therefore, that Bhämaha regards vakrokti not as an alamkāra
but as a characteristic mode of expression which underlies all alamkāras
and which thus forms an essential element of Poetry itself, whose meaning
can be manifested by vakrokti alone."1
"104 Even if this is so, neither Bhā-
Misread by De (Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, p. xvii) as referring to all poetry, not
simply to anibaddha. Bhāmaha, Kävyālamıkāra, 1.30: "anibaddham punar gāthāśloka-
mātrādi, tat punaḥ । yuktam vakrasvabhāvoktyä..." D. T. Tatacharya comments on
this last: "tad anibaddham punaḥ । vakroktyā svabhāvoktyä ca yuktam eva bhavati".
100 Kavyādarśa, 2.362. "Bhinnam dvidhā svabhāvoktir vakrotiś ceti vāñmayam", "the
expressive product is divided twofold: svabhāvokti and vakrokti".
102
P. 92.
103
Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, 1.11ff. Cf. De, SPSA, p. 24.
"History of Svabhāvokti in Sanskrit Poetics", Some Problems of Alankāra Šāstra,
Ibid., p. 95. Not only Bhoja, but Dandin himself: "jätis cety ādyā sālamkṛtir
yathā...", "Jāti is the first figure.... N.B. jäti 'genus' is a term also used for the figure
svabhāvokti.
104 Vakroktijivita, ed. De, p. xviii.
He does, however, in discussing the poetic genre anibaddha (isolated
verses not bound together by any continuing theme or story), admit the
desirability of both vakrokti and svabhāvokti.
43
99
Daṇḍin, though he shows less hesitation about the figure, which he
treats in some detail, does appear to distinguish svabhāvokti more from
vakrokti generically." 100 But vakrokti represents poetry by synechdoche
and thus doubt is cast on the poetic status of "natural description".
Kuntaka, drawing the conclusions of this discussion, rules out svabhāvokti
as a figure.101
101
Of modern commentators, V. Rāghavan accepts the distinction be-
tween the two concepts: "Indeed, there are cases which do not show any
determinable and definable deviation, cases which we call 'natural descrip-
tion"",102 but he appears to be of the opinion that deviation is a function
of word (sabda) alone, "and it is because jāti concerns itself directly
with the thing as it is, without any great sabda vaicitrya, that Bhoja
counts jāti as an arthālamkāra and that, the first."103 It does not follow
that because a figure lacks sabdatvam it becomes of necessity an artha-
lamkāra: Rāghavan avoids the issue posed by Bhāmaha. Vakrokti is a
function of both word and sense. Svabhāvokti is a problem not because
it fails to show the verbal peculiarities of poetic speech, but precisely
because it appears not to involve those of sense either: "maviparitam
nirupamam anatiśayam aśleşam".
De is unable to elucidate the contradiction implied by the figure
svabhāvokti. Seeking in every author notions of
essence, De,
not inconsistently, discovers it in Bhāmaha's and Dandin's vakrokti:
"It seems, therefore, that Bhämaha regards vakrokti not as an alamkāra
but as a characteristic mode of expression which underlies all alamkāras
and which thus forms an essential element of Poetry itself, whose meaning
can be manifested by vakrokti alone."1
"104 Even if this is so, neither Bhā-
Misread by De (Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, p. xvii) as referring to all poetry, not
simply to anibaddha. Bhāmaha, Kävyālamıkāra, 1.30: "anibaddham punar gāthāśloka-
mātrādi, tat punaḥ । yuktam vakrasvabhāvoktyä..." D. T. Tatacharya comments on
this last: "tad anibaddham punaḥ । vakroktyā svabhāvoktyä ca yuktam eva bhavati".
100 Kavyādarśa, 2.362. "Bhinnam dvidhā svabhāvoktir vakrotiś ceti vāñmayam", "the
expressive product is divided twofold: svabhāvokti and vakrokti".
102
P. 92.
103
Kuntaka, Vakroktijivita, 1.11ff. Cf. De, SPSA, p. 24.
"History of Svabhāvokti in Sanskrit Poetics", Some Problems of Alankāra Šāstra,
Ibid., p. 95. Not only Bhoja, but Dandin himself: "jätis cety ādyā sālamkṛtir
yathā...", "Jāti is the first figure.... N.B. jäti 'genus' is a term also used for the figure
svabhāvokti.
104 Vakroktijivita, ed. De, p. xviii.