Paper no. 109 assignment

Paper no.109 Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics

Topic: Brief Introduction to Major Literary Theory (Indian Poetics)

Name:Pandya Mayuri

Roll no.14

Enroll no.4069206420210023

Email id: pandyamayuri0610@gmail.com

Batch:2021 to 2023

Submitted to: S.B.Gardi Department of English MKBU.

 Brief Introduction to Major Literary Theory (Indian Poetics)

Indian poetics theory :

Poetry has been a very precious possession of the mankind from a very primitive period. Poetical production, obviously led to the development of a literary taste and the origin of the science of the Poetics". In poetics we are concerned with the effects of poetry in the mind of the man of literary taste and as such we are to examine certain mental states. The merits of a poetical work is determined by this science on the basis of this mental states. It will be observed that the man of literary taste may very in temperament and the assessment of the merits and the nature of appeal of a certain poetical work may not be the same incase of all the readers. Poetics in so far as it has the states of mind as the subject of study falls at par with introspective psychology the claim of which to be called a science is very insecure in contrast with modern psychology. Thus, poetics is useful insofar as it embodies certain broad generalizations on the nature of poetry and suggests some precisely proven means and techniques for  the production of better poetry.

The Alankara Theory

 The theory of a/ankara seems to have influenced poetic com:positions in Sanskrit. Even the earliest Mahakavyas, as those of Asvaghosa seem to have followed some of the dicta incorporated in the teachings of the a/ankara theorists.1 What ever poetic theories came to be vogue, in actual practice poets seem I~ have had the alankara theory always in mind. Though the theory of alankaras was the oldest in literary speculation, and was superseded by theories of rasa and dhvani. Yet a/ankara was a subject dealt with even by · 3 writers of comparatively recent times. For example, Mammata and Visvanatha, though they were followers of the rasa-dhvani theory, have devoted considerable space to a/ankaras. This would convey an idea of the extent of the influence that the a/ankara school exerted on poetry as well as on the theory of poetry. Bhamaha, the author of Kavya/amkara was the first exponent of this school. After him came Udbhata and Rudrata. Dandin who is accepted to be an adherent of the gunariti school by consensus of opinion also devotes considerable space to the treatment of alankaras. So much so that his importance as an authority on alankara theory is of no mean magnitude.2 Many later th13orists, if they were attempting to cover the field of poetry comprehensively, always included a treatment of a/ankaras also. To mention a few, one may cite Bhoja's Sringara Prakash, Hemcandra's Kavyanusasana and Kesavamisra's A/ankara Sekhara alongwith Mammatta's Kavya Prakash and Visvanatha's Sahityadarpana already mentioned. Apart from these, many treaties have been complied dealing exclusively with alankaras, and one need mention only a few such as A/amkarasavasva of Ruyyaka and Alamkarakaustubh of Visvesvara, in addition to Kuvalayananda of Appayya Diksita already mentioned Bhatti (of Bhattikavya fame) can also be reckoned as an exponent of the a/ankara school though he was a poet. Bhattikavya the purpose of which was to narrate a story in verse and to supply examples for rules of grammar and poetics had devoted considerable attention to the entire set of alankaras in vogue at the time. The meaning of the term 'a/ankara' underwent several changes within the course of time. At first it was a generic term for ordinary figures of speech and of sound such as Upama rupaka, Yamaka etc. i.e. what we designate by the term 'a/ankara' today. By the time of Dandin, the term had acquired a more extensive meaning and had come to designate any factor that produces poetic beauty (Kavyasobha} under this wide concept, everything that brought about poetic appeal (Kavyagunas) could be introduced. Then in next stage, Vamana  use the term synonymous with entire beauty in poetry, i.e. Sundarya.4. Th1s gave the term a still wider connotation. Along With This change of meaning the theory of a/ankara also developed. But the term lost all its wider significance and came to mean a generic term for the two types of figures, viz. arthalankaras and sahrlalankaras. The supporters of the a/ankara school thought of poetry as having a body {kavyasarira) which required to be ornamented. This Kavyasarira on one hand and the set of poetic figures on the other, were two main separate real existence of poetry. The body consisted of a group of words which was not devoid of an agreeable idea.S Hence, the body constituted of two basis elements - (1) sound (sabda) and (2) sense (artha). According to Bhamaha, what constituted Kavya was the combination of these two elements.6 But, this Kavyasarira of poetry never shines without proper ornaments in the form of poetic figures and hence they are essential. Just as the face of a dansel though beautiful, lacks luster if unadorned, so is poetry.? The employment of alanakaras is the characteristic feature of poetry, the factor that converts the matter of fact, prosaic speech into poetic speech, and the criterion for judging its worth. While ordlnctry speech is straight and lacks ornamentation, poetry is marked by a striking turn of expression.Apart from the treatment of figures, the a/ankara theory also devoted attention to the incorporation of poetic qualities (gunadhana) and the exclusion of flaws poetry (dosadana) as expedients that contribute to produce appeal. Hence the whole a/ankara theory is primarily concerned with the formal embellishment of the external aspect of Kavya.B In the hands of later exponents, the a/ankara school deteriorated into an insipid science of mere enumeration of poetic figures. They indulged in the multiplication of alankaras on the grounds of grammatical and hair splitting logical differences, and the theory reduced itself into rigid formal rhetorics. On the whole the a/ankara theory focussed attention solely on the figure as a decorative, thus dwelling upon the formal aspect of poetry at the cost of the content aspect. Obviously, such a discipline would not be competent enough as a critique of poetry and hence the quest was always present for better solutions.9 

Vakrokti Theory :

Kuntaka is the originator of the Vakrokti school of Sanskrit literary theory. He came after Anandvardhan of the 9th century and before Abhinavagupta of the 10th century. His time was the time of high merit of Indian poetics. Dhananjaya and Rajashekhara were his contemporary theorists. The theorists who appeared in the time of Kuntaka contributed a lot to what is considered as modern theories of literature and language. In this context, Ganesh Devy says that Vakrorkti and the Alamkara are two Indian schools which are very close to two Western schools of thought, formalism and new criticism. Ganesh Devy commented, “Vakrokti is a theory of poetry which perceives poetry essentially as terms of the language of its expression. It sees the poetic language as a language of metaphor and suggestive communication”. Hence, Kuntaka’s contribution in poetic thought is not only the matter of poetry or literature but it is about understanding the language, language of poetry and its difference with the language of the common. Kuntaka’s opinions on the language of poetry and overall his study on language makes his position many steps further to the future. He is considered as one of the early language theorists in India. Kuntaka and Vakrokti-Jivitam Anjalika Mukhopadhyay informs in her Bangla translation of Kuntaka’s Vakrokti-Jivitam that, the manuscript of Kuntaka’s Vakrokti-Jivitam was appeared as final version with the initiative and immense work done by Sushil Kumar Dey in 1922. This manuscript was found to be incomplete in four chapters. Some scholars assume this book has its fifth chapter also but it is not proved yet. Scholars assume that Kuntak was a Kashmiri, because some hints were found in this regard. It is also assumed that Kunataka was alive in the time between Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. He appeared before Mahimbhatta, as Mahimbhatta mentioned about him in different Slokas. If Mahimbhatta came in between 1020-1060 then Kuntaka was there in between 1000-1030. Kuntaka never mentioned Abhinavagupta and Abhinavagupta also never mentioned about Kuntaka; though he talked about Vakrokti. It means either they were contemporary to each other or Kuntaka came after Abhinavagupta. Mahimbhatta, Hemachandra and Bhoja told that Kuntaka was the author of the Karika and Britti of his Vakrokti-Jivitam, though some scholars have doubt on this because the style of language found in the Karika and the Britti is completely different. 

Kuntaka explains the idea of Sahitya in his Vakrokti-Jivitam. He said, Sahityamanayo Shobha Salitang Prati kapyasou Anyunyatiriktatwamanoharinyabasthiti Kuntaka’s above said statement means that the mode of union is literature. When the word and the meaning exists together and united with each other but do not lose their own identity, characteristics but their union is so heavenly, so spiritual that do not cross the limits of each other’s boundary then they together create the beauty and that beauty is Sahitya (literature). As word and meaning meet with each other in a heavenly mode, there is no need for additional claims of Alamkara or ornament in literature. Hence, Kuntaka did not feel there was any need for Alamkara as a necessary component of literature.

Kuntaka after Bhatrihari, is the most brilliant and rare talent who contributed enormously on the discourse of language study and also on the discourse of poetic language or literary language. In his understanding vakrokti is the vaidagdhyam bhangi or it is deviated or alternative to the speech act of the common people. With his study of poetic language he suggested the how of the birth of beauty. He is that genius in Indian poetics who extends himself from language study to aesthetics to adaptation theory, to translation theory. What we deal with now can be rooted in Kuntaka’s work also. The different types of Vakrokti that he classified are methods of criticism of literature also. It is actually literary discourse proposed by him. He suggested a complete structure of literary study. But not only limited into that he was concerned about the reader’s response, though it is the major concern of all the Sanskrit rhetoricians. Vakrokti is Kavi-Kushalata, art and talent of the poet and poet’s creativity is termed as “Kavi-vyaparavakrata, or art in the poetic process and this is the primary condition of a successful poetry” and therefore rasanubhuti comes into the mind of Sahridaya or the readers (Rao, Sreenivas;). Kuntaka has balanced between the poet’s role and reader’s role in appreciation of poetry. The point of view of the poet and the reader’s accomplishment both are necessary for the emergence of rasanubhuti, according to Kuntaka. 

Riti Theory :

Acharya Vamana who lived during the latter half of the 8th century A. D., was one of the most brilliant thinkers whose contribution to Indian literary criticism was unique and of lasting value. His philosophy-oriented investigation into the constitution and nature of a Kavya revealed certain strikingly new facts and factors. His analysis of a Kavya and treatment of its elements were highly imaginative and refreshingly original. Vamana’s Kavyalankara Sutra rises much above the routine treatises on the science of poetics, and justly claims to be regarded as the first attempt at evolving a philosophy of literary aesthetics. His contemplative mind regarded the Kavya as living human being, a charming young lady, and penetrated deeper and deeper into it until it could catch a glimpse of its Soul. Unlike his predecessors and most of his successors he presented his findings in the form of Sutras following the tradition of the Darsanas which sought to discover the Soul of things–the ultimate principle of the Universe. He was the first poetician who perceived clearly and stated categorically that the differentia of a Kavya as a literary species was Beauty. He was also the first to make a distinction between the natural beauty and artificial beauty of a Kavya, and to trace the two forms of beauty to distinctly different causes. Again it was he that suggested for the first time that a Kavya had two bodies–the gross and the subtle–the Sabda Sarira and the Artha Sarira. Moreover, Vamana was the first critic to discover, define and designate the Soul of a Kavya. He opened his treatise with the famous dictum: Kaavyam graahya malankaaraat; Soundarya malankaarah A Kavya becomes agreeable on account of Alankara and Alankara means Beauty. At the very outset Vamana struck a brilliantly original note by drawing a sharp distinction between Alankara as Beauty and Alankara as a figure of speech. Regarding the relation between Beauty and figures of speech, his views were at variance with those of his predecessors. Dandin maintained: Kaavya sobhaakaraan dharmaan Alankaaraan Prachakshate The factors that produced the Beauty of a Kavya were Alankaras. Vamana disagreed with Dandin and explained that Gunas produced the beauty of Kavya and that the Alankaras only brightened it. Kaavya sobhaayaah kartaaro dharmaah gunaah; Tadatisayaheetavas-tvalankaaraah It is here that Vamana introduced the idea of two kinds of beauty–the natural beauty which proceeded from the Gunas and the artificial beauty caused by the Alankaras. Vamana denoted natural beauty as Sobha and its heightened form as Soundarya. Sobha, Kanti, Deepti, Madhurya, Sukumarata, etc., were mentioned by Bharata as the natural graces–Sahajalankaras–of a youthful lady. The Gunas, Madhurya, etc., which are constitutional to the Kavya should be regarded as its natural graces of Sahajalankaras. Alankaras like Yamaka,Upama, etc., are external and artificial and can at best be structural to the Kavya. Hence Vamana stated that the Gunas were compulsory to the Kavya while the Alankaras were optional. This view influenced the later poeticians so profoundly that the Alankaras gradually came to be relegated to a subordinate position in the scheme of a Kavya. Earlier writers on poetics were not clear as to where the Gunas belonged and what their function was. Taking Dandin’s metaphorical statement that the Gunas were the Pranas of the Vaidarbhi marga, Vamana assumed that they should belong to the Atman of the Kavya and that their function should be to manifest the Beauty aspect of the Soul. Since the Gunas made their appearance in the texture of the Kavya Sarira, Vamana thought it necessary to examine the texture very carefully. His microscopic examination revealed something very important, which his predecessors missed. According to Bhamaba Sabda and Artha together constituted the Kavya. Resorting to a metaphor, Dandin stated that a collection of Padas conveying the desired Artha formed the Sarira of a Kavya. Vamana split the Pada into its components–Sabda and Artha, the gross and subtle materials of the Pada. This led him to the conclusion that the Kavya had two bodies–the gross body consisting of Sabda enclosing the subtle body consisting of Artha. While the Sabda formed the physical body, the Artha provided the physical body. The two bodies may be identified with theSthula and Sukshma Sariras of the Darsanas. This discovery prompted Vamana to explain the nature and function of the Gunas with reference to the two bodies of the Kavya. At this stage we may hazard a conjecture that Vamana assumed the presence of a third body–the Karana Sarira or the Soul vitally functioning within the Sukshma Sarira.

Auchitya Theory :

According to the rules of propriety one of the aims of poetry is to improve the 

life of the common man to show what to do and what not to do , and to help men achieve the goals of life not by common persuasion or resorting to undesirable action, but by a change in the very attitude of mind. Thus literature becomes a means of moral culture, giving proper guidance to individuals and the society, for these are universally accepted facts. In the prologue to „Peter Bell” Wordsworth says:There was a time when all mankind Did Listen with faith sincere;To tuneful tongues in mystery versed Then poets fearlessly rehearsed The wonders of a wild careerIn the writing of poetry, propriety may be likened to the performance of an orchestra. The note of all the singers and the Instruments give out a diversely unified musical Rasa. In poetry, letters, words, sentences, themes, combinations of characters and arrangements of figures of speech harmonize to create a unified piece with all the Rasa‟s intact. Therefore, the study of propriety is based on the assumption that if Rasa was the life of poetry, propriety became the life of Rasa.(arc journal )The concept of auchitya was the Sanskrit alamkarikas' way of explaining this balance and harmony of the components of poetry among themselves and in their relation to its ultimate goal.( ambedkar University) 

A poem is a collection of words used to describe ideas or emotions in a vivid and imaginative style. The Auchitya can be described as the alphabet used to do that.Meaning of Auchitya Auchitya is a Hindi word taken from Sanskrit. It means justification, propriety, decency.

Propriety can be defined in this context as the details or rules of behavior conventionally considered to be correct. Or that which is correct, appropriate, and fitting. The word Auchitya also contains the Hindi word “Uchit” which in English means “appropriate”.Father of Auchitya theory: Kshemendra He introduced Auchitya in his book AuchutiyaVicharCharcha. Kshemendra was born in the present day Kashmir. He is one of the best Sanskrit poets of the 11th century. Kshemendra was the pupil of the famous philosopher and poet Abhinavgupta.

(2947 WORDS)

Works Cited

Dickinson, Emily. “Open University Certificate in Indian Poetics.” Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, https://baou.edu.in/assets/pdf/CIP_02_slm.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2022.

“Indian Aesthetic Theories.” Gargi College, https://gargicollege.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/08-chapter-2.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2022.

“Paper: 11; Module No: 12: E Text (A) Personal Details: Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee Unive.” e-PG Pathshala, https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000013EN/P001455/M019978/ET/1519810361Paper11,Module12,EText.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2022.

“RITI - vamana Acharya Vamana who lived during the latter half of the 8th century AD, was one of the most brilliant thinkers w.” UrbanPro, https://p.urbanpro.com/tv-prod/documents%2Fnull-Riti.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2022.