2023-03-29 18:09:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
HISTORY OF THE SEARCH FOR SYSTEM
49
it is applied within the limits set by its defining conditions: the similitude
is, as far as the figure is a proof, exact. The problem of distinguishing the
literal from the poetic is not (as De sees it) that of distinguishing the
univocal from the equivocal word-failure to observe that the poem
may be literal on one level and poetic on another (that of proposition)
has vitiated much of De's otherwise perceptive criticism. In fact, the
figures of the early alamkārikas must be conceived as basic conditions to
poetic utterance-unavoidable mannerisms of the formulations we call
poetic; for the only alternative is to employ modes of thought and judg-
ment exactly (at least in intention): the only alternative to poetry is non-
poetry. The poet, by virtue of his decision to express himself poetically,
adopts the conditions of imagination-the figurative mode.
The interdependence of poetry and non-poetry cuts both ways. Just
as the principle of similitude is fundamental to certain logical judgements
as well as to poetry, so has the doctrine of metaphorical usage been put
to decidedly non-poetic tasks: the mīmāmsakas, for example, long before
the poeticians began to analyze poetry for its own sake, were using the
same basic tools in exegesis of the Veda. The Veda being eternal and
authorless obviously could not have had its origin in specific historical
events. The names which abound in the Upanişads were explained as
referring either to the continuers of the tradition, or, if that were not
possible, as concepts, taking the name as its "meaning": pravahana, "the
carrying onwards', etc. 122 Likewise, the statement "Trees sat at the sac-
rificial session", which would appear incompatible with the metaphysical
assumptions underlying the doctrine of eternality and infinity, is taken
figuratively as referring to the importance and universality of the sac-
rifice.123 Sankara adopts the mimämsaka techniques of metaphorical
analysis to render consonant the many Upanişadic passages which do
not favor his doctrine of the single, real ātman, that is, those which seem
pantheistic in tone.124
These speculations also suggest a historical relation between poetics
and ritualistic interpretation. It does not seem far-fetched that the origins
of Indian poetics evolved from such considerations. This would be con-
sistent both with the Indian traditions themselves (which group the alam-
kārikas with the mīmāmsakas and the grammarians) and with the nature
of the discipline. The mīmāmsaka point of view really differs very little
¹** Kumārila, Ślokavārtika on Mimāmsāsūtra, 1.1.27ff.
1 Mimämsäsūtra 1.1.32 with Śābarabhāşya. Cf. virodhābhāsa.
Vedānta sūtra with Samkarabhāşya 2.3.16,17; 2.1.14. Cf. nidarśană.
49
it is applied within the limits set by its defining conditions: the similitude
is, as far as the figure is a proof, exact. The problem of distinguishing the
literal from the poetic is not (as De sees it) that of distinguishing the
univocal from the equivocal word-failure to observe that the poem
may be literal on one level and poetic on another (that of proposition)
has vitiated much of De's otherwise perceptive criticism. In fact, the
figures of the early alamkārikas must be conceived as basic conditions to
poetic utterance-unavoidable mannerisms of the formulations we call
poetic; for the only alternative is to employ modes of thought and judg-
ment exactly (at least in intention): the only alternative to poetry is non-
poetry. The poet, by virtue of his decision to express himself poetically,
adopts the conditions of imagination-the figurative mode.
The interdependence of poetry and non-poetry cuts both ways. Just
as the principle of similitude is fundamental to certain logical judgements
as well as to poetry, so has the doctrine of metaphorical usage been put
to decidedly non-poetic tasks: the mīmāmsakas, for example, long before
the poeticians began to analyze poetry for its own sake, were using the
same basic tools in exegesis of the Veda. The Veda being eternal and
authorless obviously could not have had its origin in specific historical
events. The names which abound in the Upanişads were explained as
referring either to the continuers of the tradition, or, if that were not
possible, as concepts, taking the name as its "meaning": pravahana, "the
carrying onwards', etc. 122 Likewise, the statement "Trees sat at the sac-
rificial session", which would appear incompatible with the metaphysical
assumptions underlying the doctrine of eternality and infinity, is taken
figuratively as referring to the importance and universality of the sac-
rifice.123 Sankara adopts the mimämsaka techniques of metaphorical
analysis to render consonant the many Upanişadic passages which do
not favor his doctrine of the single, real ātman, that is, those which seem
pantheistic in tone.124
These speculations also suggest a historical relation between poetics
and ritualistic interpretation. It does not seem far-fetched that the origins
of Indian poetics evolved from such considerations. This would be con-
sistent both with the Indian traditions themselves (which group the alam-
kārikas with the mīmāmsakas and the grammarians) and with the nature
of the discipline. The mīmāmsaka point of view really differs very little
¹** Kumārila, Ślokavārtika on Mimāmsāsūtra, 1.1.27ff.
1 Mimämsäsūtra 1.1.32 with Śābarabhāşya. Cf. virodhābhāsa.
Vedānta sūtra with Samkarabhāşya 2.3.16,17; 2.1.14. Cf. nidarśană.