15 Bhamaha and Indian Poetics
Saswati Saha
Contents
About the chapter ?
In this module we will learn about Bhamaha, a scholar of Sanskrit poetics of presumably of the 7th century and contribution to Indian Poetics. This module will discuss Bhamaha as a major proponent of the the alamkara school who considered the kavyasharira comprising of the sabda and artha more important. This module will discuss his work Kavyalamkara and will try to outline the structure of the Kavyaalamkara in some detail. It will also take up the concept of dosa, guna, riti and rasa in Bhamaha’s work one by one and see how he included or excludes them in his work and his logic behind doing so. Lastly, this module will discuss briefly Udbhata’s commentary on Bhamaha and the major criticisms of Bhamaha that arose among the later scholars on Indian Poetics.
I. Introduction: Who is Bhamaha?
Bhamaha was a scholar presumably of the 7th Century who dealt with Sanskrit poetics. Scholars studying Bhamaha’s work have not been able to arrive at any definite conclusion about his dates. S.K. De, in his history of Indian poetics places Bhamaha at the end of the 7th century and beginning of the 8th century. (De, 49-50). He is believed to have composed the Sanskrit Kavyalamkara and was a contemporary of Dandin. Not much is known about him although he is considered to be the earliest critic to systemize poetic criticism. There were works written before Bhamaha on the subject of poetics whom Bhamaha refers to. Bhamaha shows great respect for his predecessors in his work, acknowledging their body of work. This trend of considering him one of the earliest critics developed with Udbhata’s commentary on Bhamaha’s work. In fact Udbhata even copied some definitions from Bhamaha and do not hesitate to repeat the language verbatim. Apart from his Kavyalamkara, according to P.V. Naganatha Sastry, a commentary on Vararuci’s Prakrta Sutras called Prakrta-Prakasa is also attributed to Bhamaha. (Naganatha Sastry, ix) P.V. Kane refers to a work on metrics by Bhamaha, but he doubts if the entire work can be attributed to one and the same person.
Bhamaha’s Kavyalamkara is a part of that discipline of Sanskrit poetics that started out of “the practical object of analysing poetic embellishments of speech with a view to prescribe definite rules of composition”. (De, 8) Bhamaha’s love for alamkara is proven by the statement where he writes, “Its (kavya’s) adornment like Rupaka and others is propounded by others in several ways. Even the charming face of a damsel does not shine stripped of ornaments.”This tradition received a great impetus from the practice of the grammarians of ancient India who formed the basis of developing an enquiry into the form of language. Bhamaha acknowledges the importance of the oldest and soundest science of ancient India and devotes an entire chapter to the question of grammatical correctness giving due importance to the views of Panini which he thought triumphed all.
The science of poetics was a well-established discipline by the end of the sixth century. Thus there were scholars and philosophers before Bhamaha who were already investigating the rhetorical rules. Bhamaha himself mentions Medhavin and Rama Sarman whose work was known as Acyutottara, Sakha Vardhana and his two works Raja- Mitra and Ratna Harana and cites from their works. (Naganatha Sastry, xvii) But in many a matter of controversy Bhamaha reached his own conclusion as Naganatha points out “expresses his dissent in decisive language though the authorities he differs from, are venerable, from their accepted eminence.” Naganatha also discusses how Bhamaha discards the idea of a “collection” apart from the objects composing it. In verse 12 he repudiates the Sphota Theory of Grammarians although they were “backed with one hundred oaths”. But his respect for the grammarians is immense.
Bhamaha seems to attach a lot of importance to Kavya. In verse three of the first parichheda he ridicules knowledge of Sastras in one who is not a poet. In verse four he denies the value of eloquence if it should not be associated with the power of poetic expression. In verse nine he alludes to the necessity of various kinds of equipment to those that are engaged in composing Kavya. The concluding verse of parichheda one contains instructions for the stringing together of words to produce a charming result. (Naganatha Sastry, x) In spite of attaching so much importance to poetry, no poetical work by him has been found. The Kavyalamkara is a work on criticism in which he could only afford to compose condensed illustrations to the figures of speech he defined.
II. The Structure of Kavyalamkarai
Bhamaha’s Kavyalamkara is divided into six paricchedas or chapters. It comprises 396 verses, and two verses at the end of the sixth chapter, which briefly describe the number of verses on each of the five topics. In the first verse, Bhamaha mentioned his work as Kavyalankara.
The first pariccheda comprises 69 verses. After the invocation of Sarva, he states the purpose of poetry, defines kayva and describes the qualifications of a good poet. This chapter deals with the body of poetry, that is comprised of words and meanings. According to him Kavya can be both Gadya (prose) or Padya (verse). The material may either be Sanskrit, Prakrit or a dialect. It may deal with fact, fiction, arts or science. It may be divided into poems (proper), dramas, auto-biographies, narratives or miscellaneous compositions. He differentiates between Katha (story) and Akhyayika (biography), refers to the Vaidarbhi and Gaudi style and remarks that the distinctions drawn between the two styles by some are meaningless. Some defects of composition such as Nyayarth and Klisth are also mentioned in this chapter.
Pariccheda 2 opens with the statement that poems have two important characteristics: Softness and power. In the second chapter he mentions three gunas of poems, namely prasada, madhurya and ojah are discussed. It is here that he begins the treatment of the alamkaras which continues and ends in the third parichheda. The alamkaras defined by him are Anupras, Yamak, Rupak, Deepak, Upama, prativastupama, Aksep, Arthantarnyas, Byatirek, Bibhawna, Samasokti, Atishayokti, Yathsankha, Utpreksha, Swabhabokti, Preyas, Rasvat, Urjaswi, Paryayokta, Samahita, Udatta, Klistha, Vishesokti, Virodha, Tulyayogita, Aprastutprashansha, Vyajstuti, Nidarshana, Upamarupak, Upameyopama, Sahokti, Parivritti, Sasandeha, Ananwaya, Utprekshavayava, Sansristi, Bhavika, Ashih. Bhamaha does not provide Hetu, Suksama and Lesh the status of alamkara as there is no Vakrokti (twist in expression) in them. Bhamaha thinks that there can be no alamkara without vakrokti since this is the factor that differentiates between the language of poetry and the language of ordinary life. Poetical language aims at being striking and arresting. It is Vakrokti that provides poetry with the strikingness of both language and thought. According to Bhamaha strikingness of meaning is at the root of all poetic figures. Although some scholars before Bhamaha considered Varta and Swabhabokti as alamkara but Bhamaha thinks that such matter of fact statements comprise of words that are only news and as such cannot be called Kavya.
Pariccheda 3 is a continuation of the discussion of the alamkaras. Thus Bhamaha accepted three Sabdalankaras, thirty-two arthalankaras and four more alamkaras have been mentioned but discarded.
In Pariccheda 4 he concentrates on eleven kinds of doshas (blemishes) in kavya. He defines and illustrates the first ten of them. Of the eleven doshas, Virodhi has six sub-divisions and Hina has three subdivisions.
In pariccheda 5 he defines and illustrates the doshas he mentions in the previous chapters. P.V. Kane states that “he defines and illustrates the eleventh dosha which arises from a faculty pratigya, hetu or dristanta, the treatment being based upon a discussion of such Nyaya-Vaisesika topics as the number and definitions of pramanas, definitions of pratigya and its varities, of hetu and its varieties or drishtanta etc.” (Kane, 83)
In pariccheda 6, Bhanaha provides some hints to poets for securing grammatical purity in poetry. According to Naganatha this chapter “is devoted to directions as to the selection of proper words among many grammatical forms based apparently on considerations of euphony.” Euphony is the exact opposite of cacophony or srutikastam which he deals with in pariccheda 1, verse 53. His main attempt in this chapter is that of securing melody in poetry.
III. The Concept of Rasa in Bhamaha
Although Bhamaha did not ignore Rasa altogether, it finds no prominence in his work. According to Naganatha, he included it among the alamkaras. (Naganatha, xv) According to Bhamaha, vyangyartha or the suggested sense, which is at the root of Rasa, is implicit in Vakrokti. For him Vakrokti is not Alamkara but it is that evasive and ambiguous expression which can express something extraordinary and has the potential to provide rasa. Bhamaha regards Vakrokti as the core of all poetic works which should exist in all types of Kavya as Samanya lakshana. It is Vakrokti that makes kavya different from svabhavokti, or the matter of fact statements. It is that adornment of poetry that imparts aesthetic beauty to its expression. He talks about Vakrokti in connection with Atishayokti or hyperbole, a form of alamkara that exemplifies the nature of poetry and make it rise above everyday speech. He mentions that Mahakavya embodies different rasas. He also seems to acknowledge the presence of rasa in the akhyayika because it deals with the separation of the lovers. But interestingly Bhamaha recognises the association of rasa as the jivita (life) of kavya. Rasa as the soul of poetry is a much later development propounded by the school led by Anandavardana.ii
IV. The Concept of Guna and Riti in Bhamaha
Bhamaha does not seem to attach much importance to the elements of Guna and Riti as according to him the alamkaras under the general name Vakrokti constitute the essence of poetry.iii Bhamaha, in his second chapter of his Kavyalamkara, discusses three entities, ie., Madhurya, Ojas and Prasada which were considered as Gunas by both Bharata and other pre-dhvani writers. But Bhamaha does not treat them in connection with what other scholars called Riti, or the ones which he himself called Kavya, i.e., Gaudiya and Vaidharbha. This means that he did not consider that particular gunas constitute the characteristics of particular classes of kavyas but is of the opinion that these three entities should be present in good kavya generally. P.C. Lahiri, in his work Concepts of Riti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetics, suggets that, “The most important factor in terms of which he is inclines to judge poetic beauty is a striking mode of speech together with a cleverness of ideas which forms the character of his Vakrokti, the fundamental principle of all Alamkaras in his theory of poetry. And if that is existing in the Gaudiya poetry, he has no objection to accept it in preference to the Vaidharba. In his opinion, that type of Vaidarbha, which although clear, smooth and soft, is neither rich in ideas nor possessed of Vakrokti does not deserve any high amount of estimation simply on account of its being agreeable to the ear. On the other hand, even the Gaudiya (which Bhamaha’s predecessors presumable seemed to disparage) is regarded by him as the better class of poetry if it is endowed with Alamkara, is free from vulgarity and inconsistency and possesses proper and mature ideas.”
According to Bhamaha, some critics of poetics use long compounds in Ojas whereas those who want to achieve Madhurya (sweetness) and Prasada (lucidity) do not use many compound words. Madhurya should be pleasing to the ear and free from long compounds and Prasada should be clear to all, even to women and children.
Bhamaha’s treatment of Guna is very brief and since he belongs to the Alamkara school, it implies that to Bhamaha the element of alamkara and guna is contiguous to each other and co-extensive. In fact Guna is also a specific kind of alamakara and there are no specific criteria to distinguish it from the later. Lahiri quotes S.P. Bhattacharya in his book who remarks that “the gunas are appreciated inasmuch as they form a plank of the alamkaras and as such they do not form the veritable crucial test of poetry as they have done, being the essential constituents of the all important Riti, in the works of the propounders of the Riti school.”
V. The Concept of Dosa in Bhamaha
Bhamaha seems to have borrowed the names of the faults and substance from Bharata’s work but the way he illustrates and elaborates on them, he takes the concept much beyond the way it was conceived by his predecessors. What is interesting in Bhamahas concept of Dosa is that he does not completely reject them as the negative impact on poetry marring its aesthetic beauty altogether. He thinks that under special circumstances they enhance the poetic effect also. Bhamaha’s list of dosas speaks of faults in poetic composition which “arise from improper use of usual words or collection of words forming a clause or sentence and also improper and unmusical sounds.” (Jha, 26) He does not classify or make any fundamental divisions of the faults and all phonetic, verbal, material faults and also faults of individual words and flaws of sentences are all clubbed together. Since Bhamaha concentrates on Kavyasharira, he does not speak of dosas other than those pertaining to sabda and artha. Many critics of poetics like Rudrata speak of rasadosa but Bhamaha’s theory has no such concept. The first and the fourth paricchedas mention ten dosas each. In the second pariccheda he deals with upama dosas and in the fifth pariccheda he discusses logical fallacies.
Bechan Jha in his book Concept of Poetic Blemishes in Sanskrit Poetics gives a detailed description of the types of dosas listed by Bhamaha. The following section will list the number of dosas according to Jha’s descriptioniv:
1. The first ten dosas listed by Bhamaha includes:
- a) Neyartha or the dosa of far-fetchedness: It is a fault when the proper meaning does not follow from the logical order of words, but has to be forcibly dragged out by clever persons according to their own desire without any basis on the laws of language.
- b) Klista or the dosa of the obstruction of the sense: It is a defect in which the comprehension of intended meaning is remote and the composition is laboured.
- c) Anyartha or the dosa of the disappearance of the sense: It is a defect where the accepted meaning of a word is absent.
- d) Avacaka or the dosa of inexpressiveness: here the meaning and the expression seems so disconnected that the readers do not find the expression intelligible.
- e) Gudha sabdabhidhana or the dosa of hidden meaning: This defect results from the loss of beauty in poetry due to the use of difficult expression with a hidden meaning.
- f) Ayuktimat or the dosa of improper use of messenger in poetry. Here Bhamaha objects the use of creature with no speech to be messengers in poetry as this does not fit reason. But he declares that such employment is justified if poets of outstanding genius use such device.
- g) Srutidusta or the offensive to the ear: This is a fault that occurs in poetry when a word conveying good sense also reminds the readers of another vulgar meaning associated with the word. This makes the poetry repulsive for the hearer.
- h) Arthadusta or the dosa of implicit indecency: It is a fault that occurs when a statement uttered gives also an idea of improper significance.
- i) Kalpanadusta or the dosa of difficult conception: This fault arises when a combination of two words separately conveying good meaning suggests something indecent as a result of the combination.
- j) Srutikasta or the dosa which results from unmelodious or harshness of sound: Bhamaha thinks that people with sensitive hearing might not like harsh words. Some words are gramya which do not cater to the refined society of people and therefore creates a jarring effect to their sense of hearing.
2. The second list of ten dosas of Bhamaha:
- a) Apartha or the absence of collective meaning: It is a fault that results from combining of words that are unconnected and fails to make sense as a whole.
- b) Vyartha or the dosa resulting from conflicting statements: This is a fault which occurs when the subsequent statements contradicts the previous one.
- c) Ekartha or the dosa of tautology: It is a fault of repetition where statements convey the same meaning as has already been stated before.
- d) Sasamsaya or the dosa of ambiguity: Since sentences are meant to provide a definite meaning, any speech that produces a doubt or a confusion which arises from the recognition of properties common to many objects with no differentiating quality is considered a dosa.
- e) Apakrama or the dosa resulting from the reversal of the order of statements: This is a fault that occurs when the syntactical regularity is missing in the statements. This might create confusion in the minds of the readers.
- f) Sabdahina or the dosa of being ungrammatical: It is a major defect that occurs when the words used in a poetical work does not conform to the rules prescribed by Panini and Katyayana.
- g) Yatibhrasta or the fault of deviation from the rules of metrical pause: It happens when the rules of metrical caesura has been ignored.
- h) Bhinnavrtta or the metrical defect: This blemish occurs when the use of long or short vowel is in the wrong place.
- i) Visandhi or the dosa of disjunction of necessary euphonic combination.
- j) Desa–kaala– kalaa–nyaya–Agama–Virodhi: Bhamaha takes them one by one. Desa virodhi implies inconsistency with regard to a place. This dosa judges the geographical knowledge of the poet. If objects, tress or creatures described in a body of poetry does not belong to the place in which they are placed then it is a defect according to Bhamaha.
Kaala virodhi is a defect where the statement is inconsistent with the season. Kalaa virodhi decribes the inconsistency with regard to craft of poetry. If a statement violates the rules governing the art and craft then the defect is called kalaa virodhi.
Loka virodhi inconsistency results when a body of poetry makes a statement that does not correspond to the order of the natural world thereby making the poetry appear unreal.
Any statement in poetry that does not correspond to the sastras that deal with the three end of life, viz. Dharma, Artha and Kama is called nyayavirodhi. Any description that contradicts the scriptures is called agamavirodhi.
III. The Seven faults of Simile:
- a) Hinata: It is the deficiency in the standard of comparison. It is a defect that makes a body of kavya repulsive for its readers taste.
- b) Asambhave: It is the fault that results from the impossibility of comparison.
- c) Lingabheda: It is a fault that occurs when there is a disparity of the gender of the object compared.
- d) Vacobheda: It is fault that happens when there is a diversity of number in simile and the upamana and upameya differ in number.
- e) Viparyaya: It is a fault that occurs when there is a dissimilarity between the object compared with that of the object compared with. The dissimilarity may be due to the inferiority or superiority of either of the objects.
- f) Upamanadhikatya: This is the fault of the redundancy of comparison.
- g) Asadrsata: It is the fault of dissimilarity which occurs when there is no resemblance between the upameya and upamana.
VI. Udbhata’s Commentary on Bhamaha
Although Bhamaha text was discovered very recently, his work seemed to have considerable influence on the rhetoricians and scholars who succeeded him. The earliest direct citation of Bhamaha is found in two passages on Anandavardhana’s vrtti on the Dhvanyaloka. S.K De mentions that “the next interesting reference occurs in the commentary of Priharenduraja, who informs that his author Udbhata composed a work, presumably a commentary, on Bhamaha, which is described here as Bhamaha-vivarana. This is confirmed by Abhinavagupta and Hemchandra; while Ruyyaka cites the commentary generally as bhamahiya udbhata-laksana and Samudrabandha described it as kavyalankara-vivrti.”
Udbhata’s independent work Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha can also be regarded as a major commentary on Bhamaha’s work because here too he utilises the latter’s work for establishing his notion of alamkara. Some scholars are of the opinion that Udbhata’s work is nothing but definitions and illustrations of Bhamaha’s alamkara. It was recovered in fragmentary form and published by Gnoli. The list of alamkaras that Udbhata uses follows that of Bhamaha. Udbhata’s work became so popular that it almost overshadowed the source from which he derives inspiration. One of the reasons for which scholars think that Udbhata’s work became more popular is that Udbhata only concerned himself with alamkara without deviating his argument into the discussion of guna or dosa as Bhamaha does. Edwin Gerow in his Indian Poetics points out that “Udbhata achieves distinction as an uncompromising representative of the view that alamkara is the central issue of the kavya poetic.” He also suggests that, “Udbhata, on the basis of his extant work,… appears to have been the most uncompromising alamkarika and at the same time the least theoretical: for him there is no subject of study other than the figures in their concrete differentiability.”
Udbhata takes some of Bhamaha’s definition like that of aksepa, vibhavana, atisayokti, kathasamkhya, utpreksha paryatokta, apahnuti, virodha, aprastut-prasamsa sahokti, sasamdeha and ananyaya almost verbatim. The poetic figues are also enumerated in the same order as that of Bhamaha. But he omits some of Bhamaha’s alamkaras like yamaka, upama-rupaka, utpreksavayava and adds some himself which are not defined by Bhamaha like punar uktavad-abhasa, kavyalinga, drstanta and samkara. Bhamaha mentions three kinds of slesa while Udbhata mentions only two kinds and the basis of classification is also different. Udbhata also mentions three Vrittis, on which his classification of Anuprasa proceeds. This is also absent in Bhamaha.
VII. Criticism of Bhamaha’s theory in Kavyalamkara
Bhamaha who essentially belongs to the alamkara school focuses on the embellishments and figures of speech in the body of the poetry. Indian critics of poetics have pondered on the Atman (soul) of the Kavya. Therefore, the literary efforts mostly included reaching and understanding this atman, or the enigmatic essence that resides within the body of the Kavya. Kavyasya atma or the soul of the poetry is the true vision of the poet which elevates him to a state of creative excitement. This vision or perception could be achieved by delving into the depths of the innermost core of the Kavya, or the soul. The concept of the atma characterizes it as the antaryamin or the in-dweller, Prana or the life-breath, Jivita or the life, Chetana or the consciousness. Therefore a clear distinction is being made between the body or the Kavyasarira and the soul or the Kavyaatma.v But Bhamaha, concentrating on kavyasarira does not concentrate on the soul of poetry. For him it is only the sabda (word) and the artha (meaning) which comprises the body of poetry. Dr. Keith remarks on Bhamaha that, “he has, however, no clear marking line between qualities and figures” (Keith, 382) which is a comment on the fact that the followers of the alamkara school put gunas at par with the figures by conceiving them without any invariable relation with rasas. Moreover, the concept of artha as we find in Bhamaha is also criticised by the later schools because artha was also examined in terms of its external and internal forms. The outer meaning dominates the poetry through its narration whereas the inner meaning of poetry is embodied in its suggestive, figurative or expressions evoking visions. It seems that Bhamaha does not make any such distinction in artha and therefore does not give much importance to the atma.
Bhamaha treats Guna in a very casual and half hearted way although there was an extensive discourse on guna and riti before him. His description of Madhurya as a guna that should be pleasing to the ear and free of long compounds has been rejected by Anandavardana and Abhinavagupta because this definition according to them does not specifically apply to Madhurya only. Even ojas are compositions which are agreeable to the readers and have equal appeal. His less interest in this area leaves an extensive field for the theorists of Riti school to act on them.(Lahiri, 53-54)
VIII. Conclusion
Therefore in this module we have learnt about how Bhamaha stresses on the body of poetry which comprises of sabda and artha. We have also learnt about the concept of vakrokti and how it is this very element that puts poetry above everyday conversation. We have also discussed the concepts of dosa, guna and riti in Bhamaha’s work and discussed the major criticism that were raised against him.
We have seen that Bhamaha provides a treatment of the faults of poetical composition on a logical basis. He gives logic a very important position even in poetry. He acknowledges the fact that the work of a poet is a very arduous one. He has to take into account not just words and aesthetics but also logic and meaning. Therefore Bhamaha’s poet is not divorced from reality. For him the source of knowledge and the object of knowledge has a strong connection with logic and reality. Poetry is based on empirical truth and must therefore cater to the understanding of the reader based on his everyday experience. Choice of word is also very important for Bhamaha as improper choice of words can create confusion and doubt. He supports the use of a single word in place of ambiguous expression. A poetry which is difficult to understand is charmless according to Bhamaha even if it may voice a beautiful sentiment. A word and a meaning which is above the everyday commonplace use and has a vakrokti or a twist in it can invest poetry with a beauty and charm. These kinds of words provide poetry with embellishments. Bhamaha discourages the use of any such words which are contradictory and unintelligible. He warns against use of any superfluous words that might confound the readers. Thus Bhamaha stresses on the understanding of the reader and usage of such words and grammar that makes a body of poetry believable and real.
| you can view video on Bhamaha and Indian Poetics | |
IX Reference
- De, Sushil Kumar. History of Sanskrit Poetics. Calcutta: Firma K. L Mukhopadhyay, 1960.
- Gerow, Edwin. A History of Indian Literature: Indian Poetics. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.
- Jha, Bechan. Concept of Poetic Blemishes in Sanskrit Poetics. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1965.
- Kane, P.V. History of Sanskrit Poetics. Delhi: Mohitlal Banarasidass Pvt Ltd, 1961.
- Lahiri, P.C. Concepts of Riti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetics in their Historical Development. Dacca: The University of Dacca, 1937.
- Sastry, P.V. Naganatha. Kavyalankara of Bhamaha. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt Ltd, 1991.