Understanding Alankara in Sanskrit Poetics

Hello everyone, in this lecture we are going to familiarize ourselves with the theory of Alankara. The theory of Alankara is one of the earliest theories in Sanskrit Poetics. We can say that Sanskrit Literary Theory was inaugurated with the theory of Alankara. Alankara being an important constituent of poetry, the word Alankara Shastra in course of time came to represent literary theory itself. In this lecture, I would like to give you only a conceptual overview of the idea of Alankara. In other words, we will not get into the definitions of individual Alankaras, rather we will only see how the idea of Alankara functioned in general in poetics. There are two reasons for this crucial decision. First of all, the definitions of individual Alankaras never remained static in poetics. It kept changing with new theoreticians redefining them in their works. Secondly, the time constraint of 8 weeks also limits my engagement with the theory of Alankara to only a conceptual discussion of this field. Now, let us begin with our discussion. What is an Alankara? An approximate translation of the word Alankara would be figures of speech or rhetoric. It is interesting to note that the term Alankara was used in Sanskrit poetics in two senses. First, as a specific term to signify what was conventionally regarded as figures of speech and secondly, to denote anything that adds beauty to the poem. The word Alankara etymologically means that which creates beauty. It is derived from the Sanskrit root Kri meaning to do with the prefix Alam which means to decorate, to adorn etc. The idea of Alankara as an ornament implies that there is something to be ornamented. It would be logical to assume then that the thing to be ornamented is the body of the poem. Bimal Krishna Marthilal is of the view that we can identify two main theories of Alankara in Sanskrit Kavya. One which considers Alankara as the special external embellishment such as Supama, Rupaka etc. to the body of the poem. And the other which considers it as everything that adds beauty to a poem. While the idea of ornamentation is relevant to the first theory, the second theory would consider Alankara to be beauty itself. Vamana has used it in these two senses in his Kavyalankara Sutravurthy. In Kavya Alankara Sutravruthi, Vamana says, Kavyaam graahiam alankara. Poetry appears to be attractive to us because of figure of speech. Here, he uses the word alankara to refer to the idea of figure of speech. Later, he says, saundaryam alankara. Here, he uses the word alankara to mean beauty in general. Alankaras are usually divided into two, Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras. Shabda Alankara includes all those figures of speech that add to the auditory effect like alliteration, assonance, consonance or pun etc. Artha Alankara is anything that enhances the meaning of a word like simile or metaphor. in languages makes it difficult for us to draw exact parallels between figures of speech in Sanskrit and English, but there are similarities like the devices of Upama and Simili or Anuprasa and then alliteration. Hello. is the name closely associated with the Alankara school. Bharata was the first literary theoretician to define and illustrate Alankaras. For Bharata, Alankaras are four in number namely Upama, Deepaka, Roopaka and Yamaka. Dramaturgy was the primary concern of Bharata in Nattisastra and so he did not analyze the idea of Alankara in great detail. Other writers before Bhamaha had often briefly talked about the idea of figures of speech in passing reference. A few examples in this respect include a chapter on Alankara in Vishnudharmottara Purana which is of unknown authorship and Phattikavya. also known as Ravana Vatha by Bhatti. Vishnu Dharmothara Purana contains some thousand verses on the topics of Natishastra and Alankara. Chapters 14, 15 and 16 are particularly important as far as Alankara is concerned. While chapter 14 lists and defines figures of speech in Kavya, chapter 15 distinguishes Kavya from Itihasa and chapter 17 speaks of Rupakas and their 12 varieties. Phattikavya, a poem in 22 cantos was composed primarily for illustrating the rules of Sanskrit grammar. It is divided into four sections. The fourth chapter named Prasanna Kanda is very important from the perspective of Alankara. It deals with poetics and illustrates 39 Alankaras. The order in which Alankaras are arranged is the same as their order in Bhamahas Kavyalankara, although Patti deviates in a few cases from Bhamaha. Another major work. that deals with Alankara in passing is Agni Purana. Chapters 328 to 47 of Agni Purana deals with figures of speech such as Yamaka, Chitra, Upama, Rupaka, Sahokti, Arthandarinyasa, Uttapraksha, Adishya, Vibhavana, Virotha and Hedu. In Sanskrit literary theory, Pamaha can be considered the first literary theoretician to systematically deal with the question of Alankara. He implicitly accepted that Alankara constitutes the very nature of poetry. We know almost nothing about Pamaha other than the fact that he could have been a Buddhist and a contemporary of Dandin. Bhamah's magnum opus is Kavyalangara. In Kavyalangara, Bhamah primarily focused on the various categories of Alankaras or figures of speech to understand the very nature of poetic language. Other than Kavyalangara, he is supposed to have written Prakrit Manorama, a commentary on Varadviji's Prakrit work. Bhamaha is often considered the founding father of Sanskrit poetics and the fact that later theoreticians like Anandavarthana and Abhinava Gupta caught him with respect is evidence enough of his stature in the field. The following are the 39 Alankaras mentioned by Bhamaha and these Alankaras include Anuprasa, Yamaka, Roopaka, Deepaka, Pradivastu Upama, Aksheba, Arthandaranyasa, Vyatireka, Vibhavana, Samasokti, Adishayokti, Yathasamkhya, Utpreksha, Preyas, Rasavat. urjasvi prayokta samahita udata slishta apaknudi visheshakti virodha tulya yogyata aprastuda aprastuda prasamsa vyajastudi nidarsana Upama roopaka, upameyopama, sahokti, parivrtti, ananyaya, sasandheha, uttrakshavayava, samsrishti, bhavika, ashis, swabhavokti, dhamaha, mentions 39 alankaras. But it should be noted that if we include the subdivisions of the Alankaras, then it will come to around 49. We will see that the number of Alankaras increasing in the works of later writing. For example, Pauja in his Saraswati Kandabharana enumerates 72 Alankaras. He divides the Alankaras into Shabda Alankaras, Artha Alankaras and Ubbaya Alankaras. In each category he mentions some 24 Alankaras. Mamata in Kavya Prakasha mentions some 67 Alankaras. In Sahitya Darbhana, Vishwanatha counts 77 Artha Alankaras and 7 Shabda Alankaras. For Riyaga, the number of Alankaras is 80. Jayadeva in Chandraloka mentions 100 Alankaras. In Appaiya Dixitha's Kuvalayananda, the number of Alankaras finally reaches 150. This ever increasing number of Alankaras shows simultaneously the growth of poetry as well as that of poetics. One can undoubtedly say that, Bhamah's observations about the idea of Alankara became the foundation for other literary theoreticians to build their theories on Alankara further. The most important observation of Bhamah vis-a-vis the theory of Alankara was that, the soul of Alankara, all the Alankaras is the quality called Vakrata or the figurative deviation from the ordinary expression. He says that the Alankara called Atishyakti or hyperbole and the quality of Akrata or figurative deviation from mundane expressions are the same. According to Bhamaha, Adi Shriyakti is the treatment of an object or idea in such a way that it appears strikingly new to the readers. In other words, in the figure of speech called Adi Shriyakti, an object or entity transcends our familiar equations of perceiving it. Many scholars have brought this peculiar nature of Adi Shriyakti to our notice. According to Dandin, AdiShyokti is that great Alankara where signification or vivaksha moves beyond the borders of common perception. According to Uttara, AdiShyokti is a statement which surpasses the common perception of people. Uttara divided AdiShyokti into four varieties. Imposition of sameness where there is difference in reality. Imagining difference where there is really no difference, describing some imaginary thing which is really impossible and the reversion of course and effect to show quickness of effect. In all these varieties of Adi Shriyokti, the ultimate aim is to shatter the reader's common perception about an object or idea. According to Bhamaha, Adi Shyokti is identical with Vakrokti or deviant utterance. And all poets should take special care to master this art of deviant utterance. In Kavyalankara, Bhamaha says, this Adi Shyokti is nothing but Vakrokti. All meanings appear new by this. Poets should be assiduous in cultivating it. Where is an Alankara without this? Dhamma says that ordinary expressions which reproduce the dominant way we perceive entities without any figurative deviation or vakrata should not be considered an alankara. And the matter of fact expressions bereft of vakrata are mere varta or report not kavya. Dhamma observes that Expressions such as the sun has set, the moon shines, the birds are winging back to their nests do not turn out to be a poem. He asks what kind of poetry is this? This is called Varta. The following is an example of Adi Shriyokti which Dhamma sites in Kavyalangara. If the loose skin of water drops down like the slough of serpents, then it will become the white garments on the limbs of ladies spotting on in the water. In this example, Dhamma gives us a deviant and the hitherto unfamiliar equation of perceiving water. The dominant conception about water is that it is a colorless, odorless liquid which forms water bodies such as river, ocean, pond and so on. By considering water as a white garb on the limbs of ladies playing in the water, Bhamaha is altering the dominant conception about water. Matilal observes that in Bhamaha's slightly loose terminology. Vakrokti is equal to Adishyokti, Adishyokti is equal to Alankara. Holding Vakarokti in high esteem, Bhamaha is reluctant to consider Swabhavokti or the act of presenting something in the way it is commonly perceived as an Alankara. While describing the five kinds of Kavya, Bhamaha reiterates that Kavya in any form becomes commendable only if it is characterized by deviant utterance. For him, a composition which is clear, smooth and elegant but devoid of deviant utterance will be mere music not Kavya. Bhamaha does not give the status of Alankara to figures of speech such as Hedu, Sukshma and Lesha citing the reason that they do not have the quality of Adishyopi in them. The observation of Bhamaha was later accepted by Anandavardhana. in his Thuanyaloka. Ananda expresses his agreement with the view of Bhamaha by verbatim reproducing the words of Bhamaha in Kavyalankara. Apinava Gupta further agrees with the observation of Bhamaha in his Lojana on Anandavarthana's Thuanyaloka. Apinava says that which has been defined as hyperbole is the whole of figure of speech that is Every sort of figure of speech for Bhamaha has said, an unusual or striking form of word or meaning, vakroti, is considered an ornament, alankrti, of poetic utterance. For the bent, vakra, form of a word or of a meaning, is its presentation in an unusual or striking form. And this constitutes the ornament of a figure of speech. Hyperbole is precisely the property of being unusual or striking. Hence, hyperbole is a common property of all figures of speech. Thus, it is by this hyperbole that a meaning which has been worn out by everyone's use of it can be given new variety and interest. In Vakrottiji Vita, Kundaka also repeats the same observation. For him, Adishyapti, which is the very life force of all ornaments of Kavya, is present in all sorts of Vakrata. He calls adhishyakti sarva alankara jividam. The term adhishyakti in this context should not be understood in its limited sense as an individual alankara, but in its broader sense as an experience of surprise. The term adhishyakti in Sanskrit is composed of two words adhishea and ukti meaning respectively surprise and speech. So, the term atishyokti in its etymological sense means any linguistic expression which causes surprise in the reader or spectator. It is not surprising that Kuntaka who espoused Vakrokti should agree that the essence of poetry is Alankara or ornamentalist speech which differs from ordinary use of language. According to Kuntaka, Swabhavokthi or the presentation of an idea or entity in the way they are popularly presented or perceived in the society is not an Alankara at all. According to Kuntaka, what makes a linguistic composition a Kavya or literary artifact is always the presence of Alankara. And the only Alankara or ornament that can adorn a poem is Vakrokti. What Kuntaka means by this statement is that Vakrokti is the essence of all Alankaras and there is no Alankara without it. Kuntaka says these two sound and sense which constitute a poem are Alankaryas, things that are to be decorated. They are to be embellished by some Alankaras. What should function as the ornament of these two? It is none other than deviant utterance or vakrokti. Vakrokti is that signification which is different from the popular usage. This is what I am driving at. In Kavya, both sound and sense have separate existence. We are not adorning them with different alankaras. What serves as their ornament is their presentation. in a deviant manner only this can cause beauty in poetry considering figurative deviation or As the vital component of Kavya, Kundaka says that Swabhavakti or the presentation of an idea or entity in the way they are popularly presented or perceived in the society does not have any space within the ambit of Kavya. Kundaka presents his opponent's view that Swabhavakti is an Alankara to systematically refute it. Here is an opponent's view. It has been stated by you, that is Kuntaka, that Vakarokti is the only Alankara and nothing other than Vakarokti is an Alankara. Why do you say so? The ancient Alankarikas or literary theoreticians have clearly stated that there is an Alankara called Swapavokti. This figure of speech is very charming. To refute this observation, I, that is Kuntaka, say so. Those Alankarikas who say that Swabhavakti is an Alankara are undoubtedly immature. What is Swabhavakti? It is the act of stating the nature of objects in the way they exist in the world. If that is an Alankara, then what can be used to decorate it to become the body of Kavya? We have seen that Swabhavakti is the act of reproducing ideas. and entities in the way they are dominantly perceived and presented in the world. The primary problem underpinning Swabhavati is that it always goads the creative writers to verbatim reproduce an already existing familiar pattern of perception, thereby leaving little space for the author to be creative and original. As opposed to simply recreating what is generally considered the identity of an entity or a thing or a subhava. Kundaka is concerned with the creative transformation of the existing structures and he never aims to reproduce the known and the familiar. Kundaka opines that the task of a poet is to portray the world differently through vakrtha or deviation from what is familiar as supposed to confining to the familiar equations of perception. or Svabhava. He clarifies his stand further. This is the gist of what I have said. The objects that poets describe are not newly created on earth. Poets impart ordinary objects, a sublime and non-ordinary form. They are elevated to such a rare position where they appeal to the hearts of the responsive readers or Sahradaya. Thus, poets transform ordinary entities into a non-ordinary and rare state. In this way, the objects that are described transcend the habitual way they have so far been perceived and they shine forth as if they are absolutely new entities and ultimately steal our hearts. This is why poets are called creators. As it is stated by Anandavarthana, in the endless world of poetry, poet is the only lord. The whole world transforms at his will. In Kuntaka's poetic theory, if a statement wants to attain the status of an Alankara and consequently that of a Kavya, it should always be characterized by Vakrada. While Swabhavati is a habitual act of representing an object in the same way it has been dominantly conceived and never aims to explore the hitherto unseen facets of an entity. Vakrotti is a creative act that aims to transcend the habitual structures of perception. We can undoubtedly say that Kundaka is an important figure in the history of Alankara theory. S.K. Dey's observation about the contribution of Kundaka is absolutely not worthy in this context. According to Dey, Alankara system established by Bhamaha was given a new turn by Kuntaka. In fact, Vakarokthi system of Kuntaka may properly be regarded as an offshoot of the older Alamkara system. In spite of the obviously extreme nature of his central theory and his somewhat quiet nomenclature, his work is of great value as presenting a unique system or rather systematizing the Alamkara theory of earlier writers. In a refreshing original way, Kuntaka clarified and vindicated his position by pointing out that The correct term for the figure is not just Alamkara, the ornament or figure of speech, but it is Kavyalankara, the poetic figure. Therefore, Vakratva, Vaichitya, which is a peculiar turn of expression, depending on Kavivyapara, differentiates a poetic figure. This is the significant original contribution of Kuntaka to Sanskrit poetics. He says this, in his history of Sanskrit Poetics. But, this emphasis on Adi Shriyokti was not shared by all critics. Dandin, who is the second most influential exponent of Alankara school, particularly disagreed with Bhamaha's observation that Varta or report cannot serve as an ornament of poetry. Dandin employed the term Swabhavokti to designate what Bhamaha calls Varta. According to Dandin, Swabhavakti is a figure of speech. This is in fact the first Alankara he deals with in his Kavya Darsha. He maintained that Swabhavakti which is also found abundantly in Shastras is well appreciated by Kineshas of art as an Alankara. At this juncture, I would also like to point out that in Bhamaha's theory, the idea of Rasa was also relegated to the position of a figure of speech. We will see this concept in detail when we discuss the theory of Rasa in the following classes. Although the idea of Rasa was an important point of discussion in Natya Shastra and was well known to literary critics from Dhamaha onwards, none of the literary theoreticians or Alankarikas and Luthpada considered it to be a criterion for literariness. or an independent category. For them, rasa was clearly subordinate to a larger discourse on figures. It did not constitute the heart of the literariness. Bhamaha subsumes the idea of rasa under three verbal expressions of emotions, such as rasavat or rasaliden expression, prayaha or affectionate utterance, and urjasvin or haughty declaration. Like Bhamaha before him, Dantin also reserved no special category for rasa other than that of figuration. In Dandin's Kavya Darsha, the idea of Rasa is used in two different senses. First, as a general term for any deviant linguistic expression and secondly, as a technical term for various instances of affective expressions such as Rasavat, Prayaha and Urjasvene. In Utpada's critical corpus also, the idea of rasa largely remained as a figure of speech. By adding quiescent or samahita to the already existing categories of prayaha, the affectionate utterance, rasavat, the rasa-led in utterance and urjasvin, the haughty speech, Utpada increased the number of rasa-related figures from three to four. He also mentions the components. conducive for the production of rasa namely vibhava or foundational factor, anubhava or stimulant factor, viphijari bhava or transitory emotion, stai bhava or stable emotion and swashabda or proper name. For all these literary theoreticians the idea of Rasa is precisely a figure of speech. It is with Anandavarthana's Dhwanyaloka that the idea of Rasa makes its way to literary criticism as a prominent constituent of literariness. According to Anandavarthana, among all the three varieties of Dhwani, it is just this meaning, that is Rasa Dhwani, that is the soul of poetry. For Bhamaha, It is the presence of Alankaras or figures of speech that beautifies language and makes it literary as supposed to ordinary. He defined Kavya as a combination of Shabda and Artha. Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras collectively generate poetic beauty or litterness in Kavya. It is significant to note that there were two major views regarding the body of Kavya in Sanskrit Poetics. The first view was that Kavya was solely a product of Artha or signification and second that Kavya was constituted exclusively by Shabda or signifier. Bhamah talked about these two camps at Kavya. great length in his Kavyalankara. According to Bhamaha, the first camp argued that Vibhavas etc. which produce rasa in Kavya dependent upon Artha. Therefore, Alankaras that relate to Artha or sense are the cause of poetic beauty. Reproducing the argument of this camp, Bhamaha says some Alamkariyas vehemently maintain that only Rupaka etc. constitute Kavya's ornaments because a damsel's face though beautiful does not shine if it should be devoid of ornaments. Here the expression Alankara denotes Artha Alankaras. The second camp on the other hand claimed that only figures of speech pertaining to sound constitute poetic beauty. Some people are of the opinion that figures of speech like Rupaka. are external. They maintain that the proper disposition of nouns and verbs constitute the real ornaments of speech. The argument of this school is that the beauty of a poem lies primarily in the ornaments of sound. Bhamaha, who wished to strike a balance between these two views, maintained that poetry is the combination of both word and meaning. Poetry is the combination of both sound and sense, Shabda Arthau, Sahidau, Kavya. He was also the first literary theoretician to distinguish between Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras. Though literary theoreticians invented new linguistic components and considered them to be the soul of Kavya, Alankara continued to occupy an important role in Kavya Shastra. For instance, Vamana, despite his predilection for the idea of guna, maintained that a poem without alankara will not appeal to the minds of readers. According to him, while gunas make a poem charming, alankara adds to poetic beauty. According to Kundaka, there is no poetry without figures of speech. Hemachandra listed alankara as an important constituent of poetry along with shabda, artha and guna. For Vagbhata too, Kavya is a linguistic composition marked by the presence of shabda, artha, gunas and finally alankaras. In Chandra Loka, Jayadeva opined that Kavya is that special expression characterized by the absence of doshas and the presence of Alankara along with other poetic devices Vidyanatha in Pratap Arudhriya so Kavya as that kind of or prose and padya or poetry which is adorned by guna, alankara, shabda and artha and is bereft of doshas. At this juncture it is important to mention the debate between Jayadeva and Mamata on the question of whether alankara is an important constituent for Kavya. Jaideva criticized Mamata for making Alankara only an optional element in Kavya. Mamata observed that this that is Kavya is the composition of word and meaning without false qualities and sometimes without figures of speech. Criticizing Mammada's stance, Jayadeva asked, why does not that great scholar who considers a composition without Alankara as a Kavya, opine that the fire is bereft of heat. Anandavarthana's Thuanyaloka marked a turning point in this extended discussion of figures of speech and rhetoric. For the first time in the history of Kavya Shastra, critical attention shifted from figures of speech and tropes to aesthetic emotion or rasa. This does not mean that Alankara lost its importance completely. Alankara, as opposed to being the central concern of theoretical engagement or analysis, was relegated to the position of a subsidiary. yet important category. Ananda's observation bears testimony to it. According to Ananda, Alankaras function like ornaments on a person's body, while Gunas are like qualities such as courage. According to Anandavarthana, Alankaras are countless in number. He is of the view that if carefully used, Alankaras can greatly art to the beauty of rasas. Ananda observed that the employment of figure of speech in poetry should appear natural and spontaneous. It should be in conjunction with the rasa it aims to arouse. Any use of alankaras by foos can only destroy the beauty of a poem. Only a figure which naturally occurs to the author during his or her preoccupation with rasa can befit the poem. His discussion of Alankara in Thuanyaloka is primarily in connection with the aesthetic emotion of the erotic or Shungara Rasa. Ananda points out that Shabda Alankaras or figures of speech pertaining to sound such as Yamaka can in fact mar the beauty of Sringararasa. Yamaka where phonetically identical duplicates are repeated demands conscious effort on the part of the author which might result in deviating his or her attention away from the main aim of evocation of rasa. Another further says agree. great poem can produce with a single effort some matters that contain Rasa together with figures of speech. But for composing Yamakas and the like, he must make a separate effort even if he is well able to compose them. Therefore, these figures cannot play a part subordinate to Rasa. Despite occupying a central position in the discussion of poetics, Alankara often came with what appears to be a statutory warning not to employ it to excess. Anandavarthana repeatedly emphasized the need to subordinate Alankaras to the Rasa that they should help in producing. Anandavarthana exhorted poets to exercise some Miksha or discrimination in the use of Alankaras and formulated the following principles to be adhered to and followed by with respect to Alankara. The first one goes like this, Alankara must be ancillary or Angapoda. They must never become main or prathana or angin. The main theme shall always be kept in view and figures in consequence must be taken and thrown away in accordance with the requirements of the main idea. They must not be too much elaborated or overworked. Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take care to give them, on the whole, the position of Anga only.

In this lecture, I would like to give you only a conceptual overview of the idea of Alankara. In other words, we will not get into the definitions of individual Alankaras, rather we will only see how the idea of Alankara functioned in general in poetics. There are two reasons for this crucial decision. First of all, the definitions of individual Alankaras never remained static in poetics. It kept changing with new theoreticians redefining them in their works.

Secondly, the time constraint of 8 weeks also limits my engagement with the theory of Alankara to only a conceptual discussion of this field. Now, let us begin with our discussion. What is an Alankara?

An approximate translation of the word Alankara would be figures of speech or rhetoric. It is interesting to note that the term Alankara was used in Sanskrit poetics in two senses. First, as a specific term to signify what was conventionally regarded as figures of speech and secondly, to denote anything that adds beauty to the poem.

The word Alankara etymologically means that which creates beauty. It is derived from the Sanskrit root Kri meaning to do with the prefix Alam which means to decorate, to adorn etc. The idea of Alankara as an ornament implies that there is something to be ornamented.

It would be logical to assume then that the thing to be ornamented is the body of the poem. Bimal Krishna Marthilal is of the view that we can identify two main theories of Alankara in Sanskrit Kavya. One which considers Alankara as the special external embellishment such as Supama, Rupaka etc. to the body of the poem.

And the other which considers it as everything that adds beauty to a poem. While the idea of ornamentation is relevant to the first theory, the second theory would consider Alankara to be beauty itself. Vamana has used it in these two senses in his Kavyalankara Sutravurthy.

In Kavya Alankara Sutravruthi, Vamana says, Kavyaam graahiam alankara. Poetry appears to be attractive to us because of figure of speech. Here, he uses the word alankara to refer to the idea of figure of speech.

Later, he says, saundaryam alankara. Here, he uses the word alankara to mean beauty in general. Alankaras are usually divided into two, Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras. Shabda Alankara includes all those figures of speech that add to the auditory effect like alliteration, assonance, consonance or pun etc. Artha Alankara is anything that enhances the meaning of a word like simile or metaphor.

in languages makes it difficult for us to draw exact parallels between figures of speech in Sanskrit and English, but there are similarities like the devices of Upama and Simili or Anuprasa and then alliteration. Hello. is the name closely associated with the Alankara school.

Bharata was the first literary theoretician to define and illustrate Alankaras. For Bharata, Alankaras are four in number namely Upama, Deepaka, Roopaka and Yamaka. Dramaturgy was the primary concern of Bharata in Nattisastra and so he did not analyze the idea of Alankara in great detail.

Other writers before Bhamaha had often briefly talked about the idea of figures of speech in passing reference. A few examples in this respect include a chapter on Alankara in Vishnudharmottara Purana which is of unknown authorship and Phattikavya. also known as Ravana Vatha by Bhatti.

Vishnu Dharmothara Purana contains some thousand verses on the topics of Natishastra and Alankara. Chapters 14, 15 and 16 are particularly important as far as Alankara is concerned. While chapter 14 lists and defines figures of speech in Kavya, chapter 15 distinguishes Kavya from Itihasa and chapter 17 speaks of Rupakas and their 12 varieties. Phattikavya, a poem in 22 cantos was composed primarily for illustrating the rules of Sanskrit grammar.

It is divided into four sections. The fourth chapter named Prasanna Kanda is very important from the perspective of Alankara. It deals with poetics and illustrates 39 Alankaras. The order in which Alankaras are arranged is the same as their order in Bhamahas Kavyalankara, although Patti deviates in a few cases from Bhamaha.

Another major work. that deals with Alankara in passing is Agni Purana. Chapters 328 to 47 of Agni Purana deals with figures of speech such as Yamaka, Chitra, Upama, Rupaka, Sahokti, Arthandarinyasa, Uttapraksha, Adishya, Vibhavana, Virotha and Hedu.

In Sanskrit literary theory, Pamaha can be considered the first literary theoretician to systematically deal with the question of Alankara. He implicitly accepted that Alankara constitutes the very nature of poetry. We know almost nothing about Pamaha other than the fact that he could have been a Buddhist and a contemporary of Dandin.

Bhamah's magnum opus is Kavyalangara. In Kavyalangara, Bhamah primarily focused on the various categories of Alankaras or figures of speech to understand the very nature of poetic language. Other than Kavyalangara, he is supposed to have written Prakrit Manorama, a commentary on Varadviji's Prakrit work. Bhamaha is often considered the founding father of Sanskrit poetics and the fact that later theoreticians like Anandavarthana and Abhinava Gupta caught him with respect is evidence enough of his stature in the field.

The following are the 39 Alankaras mentioned by Bhamaha and these Alankaras include Anuprasa, Yamaka, Roopaka, Deepaka, Pradivastu Upama, Aksheba, Arthandaranyasa, Vyatireka, Vibhavana, Samasokti, Adishayokti, Yathasamkhya, Utpreksha, Preyas, Rasavat. urjasvi prayokta samahita udata slishta apaknudi visheshakti virodha tulya yogyata aprastuda aprastuda prasamsa vyajastudi nidarsana Upama roopaka, upameyopama, sahokti, parivrtti, ananyaya, sasandheha, uttrakshavayava, samsrishti, bhavika, ashis, swabhavokti, dhamaha, mentions 39 alankaras. But it should be noted that if we include the subdivisions of the Alankaras, then it will come to around 49. We will see that the number of Alankaras increasing in the works of later writing.

For example, Pauja in his Saraswati Kandabharana enumerates 72 Alankaras. He divides the Alankaras into Shabda Alankaras, Artha Alankaras and Ubbaya Alankaras. In each category he mentions some 24 Alankaras. Mamata in Kavya Prakasha mentions some 67 Alankaras.

In Sahitya Darbhana, Vishwanatha counts 77 Artha Alankaras and 7 Shabda Alankaras. For Riyaga, the number of Alankaras is 80. Jayadeva in Chandraloka mentions 100 Alankaras. In Appaiya Dixitha's Kuvalayananda, the number of Alankaras finally reaches 150. This ever increasing number of Alankaras shows simultaneously the growth of poetry as well as that of poetics. One can undoubtedly say that, Bhamah's observations about the idea of Alankara became the foundation for other literary theoreticians to build their theories on Alankara further. The most important observation of Bhamah vis-a-vis the theory of Alankara was that, the soul of Alankara, all the Alankaras is the quality called Vakrata or the figurative deviation from the ordinary expression.

He says that the Alankara called Atishyakti or hyperbole and the quality of Akrata or figurative deviation from mundane expressions are the same. According to Bhamaha, Adi Shriyakti is the treatment of an object or idea in such a way that it appears strikingly new to the readers. In other words, in the figure of speech called Adi Shriyakti, an object or entity transcends our familiar equations of perceiving it. Many scholars have brought this peculiar nature of Adi Shriyakti to our notice. According to Dandin, AdiShyokti is that great Alankara where signification or vivaksha moves beyond the borders of common perception.

According to Uttara, AdiShyokti is a statement which surpasses the common perception of people. Uttara divided AdiShyokti into four varieties. Imposition of sameness where there is difference in reality.

Imagining difference where there is really no difference, describing some imaginary thing which is really impossible and the reversion of course and effect to show quickness of effect. In all these varieties of Adi Shriyokti, the ultimate aim is to shatter the reader's common perception about an object or idea. According to Bhamaha, Adi Shyokti is identical with Vakrokti or deviant utterance.

And all poets should take special care to master this art of deviant utterance. In Kavyalankara, Bhamaha says, this Adi Shyokti is nothing but Vakrokti. All meanings appear new by this. Poets should be assiduous in cultivating it.

Where is an Alankara without this? Dhamma says that ordinary expressions which reproduce the dominant way we perceive entities without any figurative deviation or vakrata should not be considered an alankara. And the matter of fact expressions bereft of vakrata are mere varta or report not kavya.

Dhamma observes that Expressions such as the sun has set, the moon shines, the birds are winging back to their nests do not turn out to be a poem. He asks what kind of poetry is this? This is called Varta. The following is an example of Adi Shriyokti which Dhamma sites in Kavyalangara. If the loose skin of water drops down like the slough of serpents, then it will become the white garments on the limbs of ladies spotting on in the water.

In this example, Dhamma gives us a deviant and the hitherto unfamiliar equation of perceiving water. The dominant conception about water is that it is a colorless, odorless liquid which forms water bodies such as river, ocean, pond and so on. By considering water as a white garb on the limbs of ladies playing in the water, Bhamaha is altering the dominant conception about water.

Matilal observes that in Bhamaha's slightly loose terminology. Vakrokti is equal to Adishyokti, Adishyokti is equal to Alankara. Holding Vakarokti in high esteem, Bhamaha is reluctant to consider Swabhavokti or the act of presenting something in the way it is commonly perceived as an Alankara.

While describing the five kinds of Kavya, Bhamaha reiterates that Kavya in any form becomes commendable only if it is characterized by deviant utterance. For him, a composition which is clear, smooth and elegant but devoid of deviant utterance will be mere music not Kavya. Bhamaha does not give the status of Alankara to figures of speech such as Hedu, Sukshma and Lesha citing the reason that they do not have the quality of Adishyopi in them. The observation of Bhamaha was later accepted by Anandavardhana. in his Thuanyaloka.

Ananda expresses his agreement with the view of Bhamaha by verbatim reproducing the words of Bhamaha in Kavyalankara. Apinava Gupta further agrees with the observation of Bhamaha in his Lojana on Anandavarthana's Thuanyaloka. Apinava says that which has been defined as hyperbole is the whole of figure of speech that is Every sort of figure of speech for Bhamaha has said, an unusual or striking form of word or meaning, vakroti, is considered an ornament, alankrti, of poetic utterance.

For the bent, vakra, form of a word or of a meaning, is its presentation in an unusual or striking form. And this constitutes the ornament of a figure of speech. Hyperbole is precisely the property of being unusual or striking.

Hence, hyperbole is a common property of all figures of speech. Thus, it is by this hyperbole that a meaning which has been worn out by everyone's use of it can be given new variety and interest. In Vakrottiji Vita, Kundaka also repeats the same observation.

For him, Adishyapti, which is the very life force of all ornaments of Kavya, is present in all sorts of Vakrata. He calls adhishyakti sarva alankara jividam. The term adhishyakti in this context should not be understood in its limited sense as an individual alankara, but in its broader sense as an experience of surprise.

The term adhishyakti in Sanskrit is composed of two words adhishea and ukti meaning respectively surprise and speech. So, the term atishyokti in its etymological sense means any linguistic expression which causes surprise in the reader or spectator. It is not surprising that Kuntaka who espoused Vakrokti should agree that the essence of poetry is Alankara or ornamentalist speech which differs from ordinary use of language.

According to Kuntaka, Swabhavokthi or the presentation of an idea or entity in the way they are popularly presented or perceived in the society is not an Alankara at all. According to Kuntaka, what makes a linguistic composition a Kavya or literary artifact is always the presence of Alankara. And the only Alankara or ornament that can adorn a poem is Vakrokti. What Kuntaka means by this statement is that Vakrokti is the essence of all Alankaras and there is no Alankara without it. Kuntaka says these two sound and sense which constitute a poem are Alankaryas, things that are to be decorated.

They are to be embellished by some Alankaras. What should function as the ornament of these two? It is none other than deviant utterance or vakrokti. Vakrokti is that signification which is different from the popular usage. This is what I am driving at.

In Kavya, both sound and sense have separate existence. We are not adorning them with different alankaras. What serves as their ornament is their presentation. in a deviant manner only this can cause beauty in poetry considering figurative deviation or As the vital component of Kavya, Kundaka says that Swabhavakti or the presentation of an idea or entity in the way they are popularly presented or perceived in the society does not have any space within the ambit of Kavya.

Kundaka presents his opponent's view that Swabhavakti is an Alankara to systematically refute it. Here is an opponent's view. It has been stated by you, that is Kuntaka, that Vakarokti is the only Alankara and nothing other than Vakarokti is an Alankara. Why do you say so?

The ancient Alankarikas or literary theoreticians have clearly stated that there is an Alankara called Swapavokti. This figure of speech is very charming. To refute this observation, I, that is Kuntaka, say so. Those Alankarikas who say that Swabhavakti is an Alankara are undoubtedly immature. What is Swabhavakti?

It is the act of stating the nature of objects in the way they exist in the world. If that is an Alankara, then what can be used to decorate it to become the body of Kavya? We have seen that Swabhavakti is the act of reproducing ideas.

and entities in the way they are dominantly perceived and presented in the world. The primary problem underpinning Swabhavati is that it always goads the creative writers to verbatim reproduce an already existing familiar pattern of perception, thereby leaving little space for the author to be creative and original. As opposed to simply recreating what is generally considered the identity of an entity or a thing or a subhava.

Kundaka is concerned with the creative transformation of the existing structures and he never aims to reproduce the known and the familiar. Kundaka opines that the task of a poet is to portray the world differently through vakrtha or deviation from what is familiar as supposed to confining to the familiar equations of perception. or Svabhava.

He clarifies his stand further. This is the gist of what I have said. The objects that poets describe are not newly created on earth.

Poets impart ordinary objects, a sublime and non-ordinary form. They are elevated to such a rare position where they appeal to the hearts of the responsive readers or Sahradaya. Thus, poets transform ordinary entities into a non-ordinary and rare state. In this way, the objects that are described transcend the habitual way they have so far been perceived and they shine forth as if they are absolutely new entities and ultimately steal our hearts. This is why poets are called creators.

As it is stated by Anandavarthana, in the endless world of poetry, poet is the only lord. The whole world transforms at his will. In Kuntaka's poetic theory, if a statement wants to attain the status of an Alankara and consequently that of a Kavya, it should always be characterized by Vakrada. While Swabhavati is a habitual act of representing an object in the same way it has been dominantly conceived and never aims to explore the hitherto unseen facets of an entity.

Vakrotti is a creative act that aims to transcend the habitual structures of perception. We can undoubtedly say that Kundaka is an important figure in the history of Alankara theory. S.K.

Dey's observation about the contribution of Kundaka is absolutely not worthy in this context. According to Dey, Alankara system established by Bhamaha was given a new turn by Kuntaka. In fact, Vakarokthi system of Kuntaka may properly be regarded as an offshoot of the older Alamkara system. In spite of the obviously extreme nature of his central theory and his somewhat quiet nomenclature, his work is of great value as presenting a unique system or rather systematizing the Alamkara theory of earlier writers. In a refreshing original way, Kuntaka clarified and vindicated his position by pointing out that The correct term for the figure is not just Alamkara, the ornament or figure of speech, but it is Kavyalankara, the poetic figure.

Therefore, Vakratva, Vaichitya, which is a peculiar turn of expression, depending on Kavivyapara, differentiates a poetic figure. This is the significant original contribution of Kuntaka to Sanskrit poetics. He says this, in his history of Sanskrit Poetics. But, this emphasis on Adi Shriyokti was not shared by all critics.

Dandin, who is the second most influential exponent of Alankara school, particularly disagreed with Bhamaha's observation that Varta or report cannot serve as an ornament of poetry. Dandin employed the term Swabhavokti to designate what Bhamaha calls Varta. According to Dandin, Swabhavakti is a figure of speech. This is in fact the first Alankara he deals with in his Kavya Darsha.

He maintained that Swabhavakti which is also found abundantly in Shastras is well appreciated by Kineshas of art as an Alankara. At this juncture, I would also like to point out that in Bhamaha's theory, the idea of Rasa was also relegated to the position of a figure of speech. We will see this concept in detail when we discuss the theory of Rasa in the following classes. Although the idea of Rasa was an important point of discussion in Natya Shastra and was well known to literary critics from Dhamaha onwards, none of the literary theoreticians or Alankarikas and Luthpada considered it to be a criterion for literariness. or an independent category.

For them, rasa was clearly subordinate to a larger discourse on figures. It did not constitute the heart of the literariness. Bhamaha subsumes the idea of rasa under three verbal expressions of emotions, such as rasavat or rasaliden expression, prayaha or affectionate utterance, and urjasvin or haughty declaration.

Like Bhamaha before him, Dantin also reserved no special category for rasa other than that of figuration. In Dandin's Kavya Darsha, the idea of Rasa is used in two different senses. First, as a general term for any deviant linguistic expression and secondly, as a technical term for various instances of affective expressions such as Rasavat, Prayaha and Urjasvene.

In Utpada's critical corpus also, the idea of rasa largely remained as a figure of speech. By adding quiescent or samahita to the already existing categories of prayaha, the affectionate utterance, rasavat, the rasa-led in utterance and urjasvin, the haughty speech, Utpada increased the number of rasa-related figures from three to four. He also mentions the components.

conducive for the production of rasa namely vibhava or foundational factor, anubhava or stimulant factor, viphijari bhava or transitory emotion, stai bhava or stable emotion and swashabda or proper name. For all these literary theoreticians the idea of Rasa is precisely a figure of speech. It is with Anandavarthana's Dhwanyaloka that the idea of Rasa makes its way to literary criticism as a prominent constituent of literariness.

According to Anandavarthana, among all the three varieties of Dhwani, it is just this meaning, that is Rasa Dhwani, that is the soul of poetry. For Bhamaha, It is the presence of Alankaras or figures of speech that beautifies language and makes it literary as supposed to ordinary. He defined Kavya as a combination of Shabda and Artha. Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras collectively generate poetic beauty or litterness in Kavya.

It is significant to note that there were two major views regarding the body of Kavya in Sanskrit Poetics. The first view was that Kavya was solely a product of Artha or signification and second that Kavya was constituted exclusively by Shabda or signifier. Bhamah talked about these two camps at Kavya.

great length in his Kavyalankara. According to Bhamaha, the first camp argued that Vibhavas etc. which produce rasa in Kavya dependent upon Artha. Therefore, Alankaras that relate to Artha or sense are the cause of poetic beauty.

Reproducing the argument of this camp, Bhamaha says some Alamkariyas vehemently maintain that only Rupaka etc. constitute Kavya's ornaments because a damsel's face though beautiful does not shine if it should be devoid of ornaments. Here the expression Alankara denotes Artha Alankaras. The second camp on the other hand claimed that only figures of speech pertaining to sound constitute poetic beauty. Some people are of the opinion that figures of speech like Rupaka. are external.

They maintain that the proper disposition of nouns and verbs constitute the real ornaments of speech. The argument of this school is that the beauty of a poem lies primarily in the ornaments of sound. Bhamaha, who wished to strike a balance between these two views, maintained that poetry is the combination of both word and meaning. Poetry is the combination of both sound and sense, Shabda Arthau, Sahidau, Kavya.

He was also the first literary theoretician to distinguish between Shabda Alankaras and Artha Alankaras. Though literary theoreticians invented new linguistic components and considered them to be the soul of Kavya, Alankara continued to occupy an important role in Kavya Shastra. For instance, Vamana, despite his predilection for the idea of guna, maintained that a poem without alankara will not appeal to the minds of readers.

According to him, while gunas make a poem charming, alankara adds to poetic beauty. According to Kundaka, there is no poetry without figures of speech. Hemachandra listed alankara as an important constituent of poetry along with shabda, artha and guna.

For Vagbhata too, Kavya is a linguistic composition marked by the presence of shabda, artha, gunas and finally alankaras. In Chandra Loka, Jayadeva opined that Kavya is that special expression characterized by the absence of doshas and the presence of Alankara along with other poetic devices Vidyanatha in Pratap Arudhriya so Kavya as that kind of or prose and padya or poetry which is adorned by guna, alankara, shabda and artha and is bereft of doshas. At this juncture it is important to mention the debate between Jayadeva and Mamata on the question of whether alankara is an important constituent for Kavya. Jaideva criticized Mamata for making Alankara only an optional element in Kavya.

Mamata observed that this that is Kavya is the composition of word and meaning without false qualities and sometimes without figures of speech. Criticizing Mammada's stance, Jayadeva asked, why does not that great scholar who considers a composition without Alankara as a Kavya, opine that the fire is bereft of heat. Anandavarthana's Thuanyaloka marked a turning point in this extended discussion of figures of speech and rhetoric. For the first time in the history of Kavya Shastra, critical attention shifted from figures of speech and tropes to aesthetic emotion or rasa.

This does not mean that Alankara lost its importance completely. Alankara, as opposed to being the central concern of theoretical engagement or analysis, was relegated to the position of a subsidiary. yet important category. Ananda's observation bears testimony to it. According to Ananda, Alankaras function like ornaments on a person's body, while Gunas are like qualities such as courage.

According to Anandavarthana, Alankaras are countless in number. He is of the view that if carefully used, Alankaras can greatly art to the beauty of rasas. Ananda observed that the employment of figure of speech in poetry should appear natural and spontaneous. It should be in conjunction with the rasa it aims to arouse. Any use of alankaras by foos can only destroy the beauty of a poem.

Only a figure which naturally occurs to the author during his or her preoccupation with rasa can befit the poem. His discussion of Alankara in Thuanyaloka is primarily in connection with the aesthetic emotion of the erotic or Shungara Rasa. Ananda points out that Shabda Alankaras or figures of speech pertaining to sound such as Yamaka can in fact mar the beauty of Sringararasa. Yamaka where phonetically identical duplicates are repeated demands conscious effort on the part of the author which might result in deviating his or her attention away from the main aim of evocation of rasa. Another further says agree.

great poem can produce with a single effort some matters that contain Rasa together with figures of speech. But for composing Yamakas and the like, he must make a separate effort even if he is well able to compose them. Therefore, these figures cannot play a part subordinate to Rasa. Despite occupying a central position in the discussion of poetics, Alankara often came with what appears to be a statutory warning not to employ it to excess. Anandavarthana repeatedly emphasized the need to subordinate Alankaras to the Rasa that they should help in producing.

Anandavarthana exhorted poets to exercise some Miksha or discrimination in the use of Alankaras and formulated the following principles to be adhered to and followed by with respect to Alankara. The first one goes like this, Alankara must be ancillary or Angapoda. They must never become main or prathana or angin. The main theme shall always be kept in view and figures in consequence must be taken and thrown away in accordance with the requirements of the main idea. They must not be too much elaborated or overworked.

Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take care to give them, on the whole, the position of Anga only.

Transcript for:Understanding Alankara in Sanskrit Poetics

Transcript for:
Understanding Alankara in Sanskrit Poetics