4: Content of the work (Kāvyālaṃkārasūtra-vṛtti)

The Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) consists of five adhikaraṇas or chapters. They are—

1. Śārīra,
2. Doṣadarśana,
3. Guṇavivecaṇa,
4. Ālaṃkārika and
5. Prāyogika.

These chapters are further divided into twelve (12) sub-chapters mentioned as adhyāyas. It is interesting to note that older sutra writers have put forth adhyāyasas the main and first division of their works and have placed adhikaraṇas there-under. But Vāmana reverses the conventional order and gives adhikaraṇas more importance than adhyāyas.

The important issues related to Poetics are dealt in these five adhikaraṇas of Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti of (Vāmana) The prominent topics discussed in these adhikaraṇas are—

1) Śārīra adhikarana:

The first chapter of the KLSV, named ‘Śārīra’, provides Vāmana’s view -point about the basic fundamental and general concepts of Poetics. The chapter also holds great importance in the field of Sanskrit Poetics as in it the famous Rīti-theory reaches its sublime conclusion.

The ‘Śārīra’ adhikaraṇa is divided into three adhāyas. It deals with the body of poetry and the concept of alaṃkāra both in general and particular form. The first adhyāya consists of five sūtras. In the very first sūtra of KLSV

Vāmana opines that poetry becomes acceptable only when it has been properly embellished—

kāvyaṃ grāhyamlaṃkārāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana)  1.1.1.

In the vṛtti he furnishes a definition of poetry in which he gives supreme emphasis on the essential presence of quality and embellishment in the body of poetry (i.e. word and meaning both)—

kāvyaśabdo'yaṃ guṇālaṃkārasaṃskṛtayoḥ śabdārthayorvartate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti of (Vāmana) 1.1.1.

After presenting this primary definition Vāmana further asserts that in secondary sense (‘bhakti’ or ‘lakṣaṇā’) poetry represents only word and its meaning both—

bhaktyātu śabdārthamātravacano'tra gṛhyate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti of (Vāmana) 1.1.1.

In the second sūtra Vāmana puts forth the ‘sāmānya lakṣaṇa’ of alaṃkāra—

saundaryamlaṃkāraḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti of (Vāmana) 1.1.2.

Embellishment is anything which provides the poetry with beauty and charm. In the secondary instrumental sense the term alaṃkāra is applied to traditional poetic figures like upamā etc. A poet can inflict this beauty or charm in his creation by avoiding defects and adopting the qualities of poetic composition.

A well-composed poetry yields both perceptible and imperceptible results for its composer^[1] .An accomplished poet feels immediate pleasure after composing his master-piece and he also receives fame as an imperceptible result. This fame ultimately leads to Heaven lasting till eternity^[2] .

The second adhāya comprises of twenty-two (22) sūtras and it throws light upon the division of poets and their qualities, persons suitable for receiving instructions about poetry, the soul of poetry, the concept of rīti and different types of rīti, the superiority of ‘vaidarbhī’ rīti etc.Vāmana clearly divides poets into two categories in accordance to their intellect. The first type is called ‘arocakī’ which etymologically means one who is discontent in every matter. The other type is called ‘satṛnābhyavahārī’ which etymologically means one who feeds on everything including grass. In his vṛtti, Vāmana points out that these two words used to describe the categories of poets are only figurative. The primary meanings of these two words are intellectual and non-intellectual respectively^[3] . Vāmana also opines that the former of these two types of poets can be taught or trained as they are possessed by the power of discrimination. On the contrary the latter type of poets cannot be taught or trained as they are naturally devoid of discriminating intellectual power. The knowledge of poetics can only be fruitful for those who have intellect and are fruitless for the nonintelligent persons.

Vāmana proceeds next to his famous theory of diction. He clearly asserts that diction is the very soul of poetry. He adds that diction consists of the particular arrangement of words in a certain composition. Again the particularity of the arrangement of words is created by their inherit quality^[4] . Vāmana classifies poeti c diction into three heads—vaidarbhī, gauḍīyā and pāñcālī. The vaidarbhīrīti according to Vāmana is superior to other two dictions as it consists of all the conventional qualities of style. Vāmana emphasises and establishes this view with the help of an example verse quoted from the 2nd act of the famous Sanskrit drama ‘Abhijñāna-śakuntala’^[5] . He also defines and exemplifies gauḍīyā and pāñcālīrīti.

The ‘gauḍīyārīti’ comprises of qualities like floridity (ojaḥ [ojas]) and brilliancy (kānti). It deals with long compound and harsh-sounding words. The ‘pāñcālīrīti’, on the other hand, is endowed with the qualities of sweetness (mādhurya) and softness (sukumāratā) and it is devoid of long compounds and harsh-sounding words. This rīti has a close resemblance with the style of composition of the purāṇas. It is clear from the definitions of the ‘gauḍīyā’ and the ‘pāncālī' rīti that they have only a few poetic qualities whereas the ‘vaidarbhīrīti’ is blessed with all the qualities of style. So Vāmana advises aspiring poets to master the art of composing poetry in ‘vaidarbhī’ diction^[6] . Some rhetoricians have emphasised on the practise of the ‘gauḍīyārīti’ and ‘pāñcālīrīti’ in order to enhance the poetic skill of aspiring poets which eventually help them to compose in ‘vaidarbhīrīti’. But Vāmana has strongly objected to their views. He asserts that the proper use of ‘vaidarbhīrīti’ cannot be perfected by practising the other two dictions, just like a weaver who practises weaving with jute cannot attain the expertise in weaving silk. The ‘vaidarbhīrīti’ can turn a less excellent subject-matter into appreciable and pleasurable one for the connoisseur of poetic art.

2) Doṣadarsana adhikaraṇa:

It consists of two adhyāyas. The first adhyāya contains 19 (nineteen) sūtras and it throws light upon the narrow defects or flaws of a poetic composition. Vāmana clearly defines doṣas as the opposite of guṇas (qualities). The defects of poetry can be identified by means of implication. A separate treatment of the doṣas, according to Vāmana, is only done for the sake of clearness^[7] . The defects or flaws of poetry can be divided into four broad categories–(a) defects of words, (b) defects of meaning, (c) defects of sentence, (d) defects of the meaning of sentences. The first adhyāya of the ‘Doṣadarśana’ adhikaraṇa deals with the first two types of defects.

The defects of word in a poetic composition can be of five types—

1. Grammatically incorrect (duṣṭa),
2. Unmelodious (kaṣṭa),
3. A word which is used by the common people but not used by the learned treaties (grāmya),
4. A word which is only used in learned treaties and not by the common people (apratīta),
5. A word added only for filling up gaps in a poetic sentence (anarthaka).

Vāmana cites five types of defects regarding the meaning of a poetic composition—

1. A word used in a sense entirely different from its accepted denotation (anyārtha),
2. A word used in a fanciful sense and can be understood only by assumption (neyārtha),
3. A word used in a sense which is difficult to comprehend as it is not its popular meaning (gūḍhārtha),
4. A word used in a sense which is vulgar or indecent (aślīla),
5. A word used in a sense that does not relate to it directly and can be only connected to it in a very remote or indirect manner (kliṣṭa).

The last two defects of meaning mentioned by Vāmana can pertain to sentences also^[8] .

The second adhyāya of the ‘Doṣadarśana’ adhikaraṇa comprises of twenty-four (24) sūtras. It points out the possible defects of a poetic sentence.

Faulty poetic sentences can be of three types—

1. Sentences which do not fulfil the features of the poetic metre in which it is composed (bhinnavṛtta).
2. Sentences with misplaced hiatus making it unmelodious and unpleasant (yatibhraṣṭa).
3. Sentences with ‘virūpapadasandhi’ or inappropriate joining of words causing cacophony (visandhi).

The defects in the meanings of sentences in a poetic composition can be of seven types—

1. A sentence in which one word contradicts the following word or vice versa is called a contradictory sentence (vyartha).
2. The sentence in which a word expresses the same meaning already expressed by another word present in the same sentence is called superfluous (ekārtha).
3. A sentence in which the words create doubts in the mind is called doubtful (sandigdha).
4. A sentence where the word signifies something which is purely illusory is called non-useful (aprayukta).
5. A sentence in which the idea expressed or the relationship between the subjects and the predicates is not in proper order is called non-chronological (apakrama).
6. A sentence which expresses ideas contrary to place, time and nature or opposite to popular or common perceptions (lokaviruddha).
7. A sentence which expresses ideas contrary to the established branches of learning (vidyāviruddha).

3) Guṇavivecana adhikaraṇa:

This adhikaraṇa comprises of two adyāyas. The first adhyāya of twenty-eight (28) sūtras and the second adhyāya consists of fifteen (15) sūtras. According to Vāmana a defect in poetry is identical with the absence of qualities in it. It is also necessary in this regard to strictly differentiate between the qualities and the embellishments or figures of speech present in poetry.

Vāmana promptly states that qualities are the essential characteristics of a poem that constitute the beauty or the charm of poetry. On the other hand, the embellishment or figures of speech can only enhance the beauty or charm of the poetry which is already produced by the qualities. The qualities are the permanent source of charm in poetry whereas the alaṃkāras provide it with some external beautification. Vāmana also elaborates his view with the help of two ‘paramparāślokas’^[9] .

Vāmana opines that the qualities are permanent features in poetry because without them poetic charm cannot be accomplished—

pūrve guṇānityāḥ/ tairvinākāvyaśobhānupapatteḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti of (Vāmana) 3.1.3.

This view clearly points out the evanescence of the figures of speech in poetry as they serve as mere temporary embellishments for it.

Vāmana has divided guṇas into two different categories—śabda-guṇas and artha-guṇas. The names of these guṇas are:

1. ojaḥ [ojas] (floridity),
2. prasāda (simplicity),
3. śleṣa (coalescence of words),
4. samāta (uniformity),
5. samādhi (symmetry),
6. mādhurya (sweetness),
7. saukumārya (elegance),
8. udāratā (excellence),
9. arthavyakti (lucidity) and kānti (brilliancy)^[10] .

These ten guṇas are treated as both śabda-guṇa and artha-guṇa. Vāmana has looked at each guṇa from two different points of view—one in regard to its verbal excellence and the other regarding to its ideal excellence.

He has put forth sharp distinction between the guṇas in their śabda and artha forms respectively. Such as—

i) The śabda-guṇa ‘ojaḥ’ consists in the compactness or ornateness of wordstructure whereas the artha-guṇa ‘ojaḥ’ consists in the boldness or maturity of conception.(‘gāḍhabandhatvamojaḥ’ and ‘arthasya prauḍhirojah’ )

ii) The śabda-guṇa ‘prasāda’ consists in the laxity of word-structure whereas the artha-guṇa ‘prasāda’ consists in the clearness of meaning. (‘śaithilyaṃ prasādaḥ’ [śaithilya; prasāda] and ‘arthavaimalyaṃ prasādaḥ’ [arthavaimalya; prasāda])

iii) The śabda-guṇa ‘śleṣa’ consists of coalescence of words resulting in smoothness whereas the artha-guṇa ‘śleṣa’ consists of coalescence of many ideas. (‘masṛṇatvaṃ śleṣaḥ’ [masṛṇatva; śleṣa] and ‘ghaṭanāśleṣaḥ’ [ghaṭanāśleṣa])

iv) The śabda-guṇa ‘samatā’ is the homogeneity of diction or manner of poetic construction whereas the artha-guṇa ‘samatā’ is the non-relinquishment of the proper sequence of ideas. (‘mārgābhedaḥ samatā’ [mārgābheda] and ‘avaiṣamyaṃ samatā’ [avaiṣamya])

v) The śabda-guṇa ‘samādhi’ consists of the orderly sequence of ascent and descent, i.e., the heightening effect of word-structure toned down by the softening effect of word-structure and vice-versa, whereas the artha-guṇa ‘samādhi’ consists of the concentrated state of the mind which can quickly grasp the original meaning intended by the poet. (‘ārohāvakramaḥ samādhiḥ’ [ārohāvakrama; samādhi] and ‘arthadṛṣṭiḥ samādhiḥ’ [arthadṛṣṭi; samādhi])

vi) The śabda-guṇa mādhurya is created by the distinctness of words due to the absence of long compound whereas the artha-guṇa mādhurya originates from the impressive utterance of the word creating special poetic charm. (‘pṛthakpadatvaṃ mādhuryaṃ’ [pṛthakpadatva; mādhurya] and ‘uktivaicitryaṃ mādhuryaṃ’ [uktivaicitrya; mādhurya])

vii) The śabda-guṇa saukumārya arises from the non-harshness of composition whereas the artha-guṇa saukumārya is created by getting rid of the harshness of meaning. (‘ajaraṭhatvaṃ saukumāryaṃ’ [ajaraṭhatva; saukumārya] and ‘apāruṣyaṃ saukumāryaṃ’ [apāruṣya; saukumārya])

viii) The śabda-guṇa udāratā is created where the liveliness of the poetic composition generates a peculiar dancing-like swing in the words whereas the artha-guṇa udāratā is a kind of delicacy of poetic composition generated by the absence of vulgarity. (‘vikaṭatvamudāratā’ and ‘agrāmyatvamudāratā’)

ix) The śabda-guṇa arthavyakti is the explicitness of the words used in a poetic composition which makes it easily comprehensible whereas the artha-guṇa arthavyakti is the explicitness of ideas which lead to the manifestation of the nature of things. (‘arthavyaktihetutvamarthavyaktiḥ’ and ‘vastusvabhāvasphuṭatvamarthavyaktiḥ’)

x) The śabda-guṇa kānti is created by the richness of words used in poetic composition whereas the artha-guṇa kānti originates from the prominence of rasas in poetic compositions. (‘aujjvalyaṃ kāntiḥ’ [aujjvalya; kānti] and ‘dīptarasatvaṃ kāntiḥ’ [dīptarasatva; kānti])

The characteristic features of these śabda-guṇas and artha-guṇas mentioned by Vāmana are considerably different from his predecessors. Vāmana is the pioneer of the definite classification of guṇas into śabda and artha division but it is also worth-mentioning that the theory of the two-fold classification of guṇas existed before Vāmana as Vāmana has often quoted from unknown sources in support of his guṇa doctrine. In Vāmana this two -fold classification of guṇas got a systematic treatment. Vāmana has cleared away some of the vagueness surrounding some of the definitions of individual guṇas by his predecessors. But Vāmana’s two -fold division of guṇas is not above criticism. Later rhetoricians like Mammaṭā, Hemacandra, Maṇikyacandra, Jagannatha etc have criticised some of the definitions of guṇa furnished by Vāmana. Mammaṭa assumes that this multiplication of individual guṇas into two-folds and their pedantic differentiation is somewhat needless and the three main literary qualities that enhance the ‘Rasa-realisation’ of a poetic composition are ojaḥ, prasāda and mādhurya respectively. But it has to be said that Vāmana’s theory regarding the d ivision of guṇas and their individual characteristics though being open to criticism is a firm step towards a wholesome interpretation of the various literary excellences present in a poetic composition.

4) Ālaṃkārika adhikaraṇa:

The Ālaṃkārika adhikaraṇa consists of three chapters. The first chapter contains ten (10) sūtras and it deals with the study of two principal śabdālaṃkāras—yamaka (recurrence) and anuprāsa (alliteration). The second chapter consists of twenty-one (21) sūtras and it deals with the basic arthālaṃkāra upamā (simile) and its broad divisions. The third and the last chapter contains thirty-three (33) sūtras and it throws light upon twenty-nine (29) arthālaṃkāras with apt illustrations.

5) Prāyogika adhikaraṇa:

The Prāyogika adhikaraṇa consists of two (2) chapters. The first chapter contains seventeen (17) sūtras and it deals with poetical conventions. In this chapter Vāmana gives practical suggestions to aspiring poets about the basic ideas of poetic composition. Vāmana illustrates these suggestions with suitable example-verses. The second chapter consists of ninety-one (91) sūtras and it deals with the purity of words used in poetic composition. Vāmana has tried to put forth the grammatically correct forms of words to be used in poetry. He has tried to solve controversies regarding the use of some words in Sanskrit poetry and has also attempted to justify some of the controversial use of words by famous Sanskrit poets (such as the use of the word ‘indravāhana’ by Māgha in ‘Śiśupālavadha’ canto-I).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

kāvyaṃ sad dṛṣṭādṛṣṭārthaṃ prītikīrtihetutvāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.1.5.

Also—

kāvayaṃ sat cāru dṛṣṭaprayojanam, prītihetutvāt, adṛṣṭaprayojanaṃ kīrtihetutvāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.1.5. (vṛtti).

[2]:

kīrtisvargaphalamahurāsaṃsāraṃ vipaścitaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.1.5. (vṛtti).

[3]:

arocakinaḥ satṛṇābhyavahāriṇaśca kavayaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.2.1.

Also—

arocaki satṛṇābhyavahāri śabdau gauṇārthau /
ko'sāvarthaḥ? vivekitvamavivekitvaṃ ceti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.2.1. (vṛtti).

[4]:

rītirātmākāvyasya/ viśiṣṭāpadaracanārītiḥ/ viśeṣo guṇātmā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.2.6-8.

[5]:

gāhantāṃ mahiṣānipānasalilaṃ śṛṅgairmuhustāḍitaṃ
chāyābaddhakadambakaṃ mṛgakulaṃ romanthamabhyasatu/
visrabdhaṃ kurutāṃ varāhavitatirmustākṣatiṃ palvale
viśrāntiṃ labhatāmidaṃ ca śithilajyābandhamasmaddhanuḥ//
  —Abhijñānaśakuntala (of Kālidāsa) 2.6.

[6]:

tāsāṃ pūrvāgrāhyāguṇasākalyāt/ na punaritare stokaguṇatvāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.2.14-15.

[7]:

kāvyaśarīre sthāpite kāvyasaundaryākṣepahetavastyāgāya doṣāvijñātavyā
iti doṣ adarśana nāmādhikaraṇamārabhyate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 2.1.1.

[8]:

antyābhyāṃ vākyaṃ vyākhyātam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 2.1.22.

Also—

aślīlaṃ kliṣṭaṃ cetyanntye pade/
tābhyāṃ vākyaṃ vyākhyātam/
tadapyaślīlaṃ kliṣṭaṃ ca bhavati/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 2.1.22. (vṛtti).

[9]:

yuvateriva rūpamaṅgaṃ kāvyaṃ svadate śabdaguṇaṃ tadapyatīva/
vihitapraṇayaṃ nirantarābhiḥ sadalaṅkāravikalpakalpanābhiḥ//
yadi bhavati vacaścyutaṃ guṇebhyo vapuriva yauvanabandhyamaṅganāyāḥ/
api janadayitāni durbhagatvaṃ niyatamalaṅkaraṇāni saṃśrayante//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 3.1.2. (vṛtti).

[10]:

ojaḥprasādaśleṣasamatāsamādhimādhuryasaukumāryodāratārthavyaktikāntayo bandhaguṇaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 3.1.4.