{"id":119,"date":"2019-05-29T10:52:48","date_gmt":"2019-05-29T10:52:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/engp11.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=119"},"modified":"2019-05-29T11:16:40","modified_gmt":"2019-05-29T11:16:40","slug":"bhamaha-and-indian-poetics","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/engp11\/chapter\/bhamaha-and-indian-poetics\/","title":{"rendered":"Bhamaha and Indian Poetics"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

<\/div>\r\n
I. Introduction: Who is Bhamaha?<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
II. The Structure of Kavyalamkara<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
III. The Concept of Rasa in Bhamaha<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
IV.\u00a0 The Concept of Guna and Riti in Bhamaha<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
V. The Concept of Dosa in Bhamaha<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
VI. Udbhata\u2019s Commentary on Bhamaha<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
VII. Criticism of Bhamaha\u2019s Theory in Kavyalamkara<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
VIII. Conclusion<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
IX. Reference<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

About the chapter ?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

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<\/em> comprising of the sabda<\/em> and artha<\/em> more important. This module will discuss his work Kavyalamkara<\/em> and will try to outline the structure of the Kavyaalamkara<\/em> in some detail. It will also take up the concept of dosa<\/em>, guna<\/em>, riti<\/em> and rasa<\/em> in Bhamaha\u2019s 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\u2019s commentary on Bhamaha and the major criticisms of Bhamaha that arose among the later scholars on Indian Poetics.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0 Introduction: Who is Bhamaha?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bhamaha was a scholar presumably of the 7th Century who dealt with Sanskrit poetics. Scholars studying Bhamaha\u2019s 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<\/em> 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\u2019s commentary on Bhamaha\u2019s work. In fact Udbhata even copied some definitions from Bhamaha and do not hesitate to repeat the language verbatim. Apart from his Kavyalamkara<\/em>, according to P.V. Naganatha Sastry, a commentary on Vararuci\u2019s Prakrta Sutras called Prakrta-Prakasa<\/em> 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.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bhamaha\u2019s Kavyalamkara is a part of that discipline of Sanskrit poetics that started out of \u201cthe practical object of analysing poetic embellishments of speech with a view to prescribe definite rules of composition\u201d. (De, 8) Bhamaha\u2019s love for alamkara is proven by the statement where he writes, \u201cIts (kavya\u2019s) adornment like Rupaka and others is propounded by others in several ways. Even the charming face of a damsel does not shine\u00a0stripped of ornaments.\u201dThis 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

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<\/em>, Sakha Vardhana and his two works Raja- Mitra<\/em> and Ratna Harana <\/em>and cites from their works. (Naganatha Sastry, xvii) But in many a matter of controversy Bhamaha reached his own conclusion as Naganatha points out \u201cexpresses his dissent in decisive language though the authorities he differs from, are venerable, from their accepted eminence.\u201d Naganatha also discusses how Bhamaha discards the idea of a \u201ccollection\u201d apart from the objects composing it. In verse 12 he repudiates the Sphota<\/em> Theory of Grammarians although they were \u201cbacked with one hundred oaths\u201d. But his respect for the grammarians is immense.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bhamaha seems to attach a lot of importance to Kavya<\/em>. In verse three of the first parichheda <\/em>he ridicules knowledge of Sastras <\/em>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<\/em>. The concluding verse of parichheda<\/em> 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<\/em> is a work on criticism in which he could only afford to compose condensed illustrations to the figures of speech he defined.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

II. The Structure of Kavyalamkara<\/em><\/strong>i<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara<\/em> is divided into six pariccheda<\/em>s 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<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

The first pariccheda<\/em> comprises 69 verses. After the invocation of Sarva<\/em>, he states the purpose of poetry, defines kayva<\/em> 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<\/em> (prose) or Padya<\/em> (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<\/em> (story) and Akhyayika<\/em> (biography), refers to the Vaidarbhi<\/em> and Gaudi <\/em>style and remarks that the distinctions drawn between the two styles by some are meaningless. Some defects of composition such as Nyayarth<\/em> and Klisth<\/em> are also mentioned in this chapter.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Pariccheda <\/em>2 opens with the statement that poems have two important characteristics: Softness and power. In the second chapter he mentions three guna<\/em>s of poems, namely prasada<\/em>, madhurya<\/em> and ojah<\/em> are discussed. It is here that he begins the treatment of the alamkaras<\/em> which continues and ends in the third parichheda<\/em>. The alamkaras<\/em> defined by him are Anupras, Yamak, Rupak, Deepak, Upama, prativastupama, Aksep, Arthantarnyas,<\/em> 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<\/em>. Bhamaha does not provide Hetu<\/em>, Suksama<\/em> and Lesh<\/em> the status of alamkara<\/em> as there is no Vakrokti<\/em> (twist in expression) in them. Bhamaha thinks that there can be no alamkara<\/em> without vakrokti<\/em> 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<\/em> 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<\/em> and Swabhabokti<\/em> as alamkara<\/em> but Bhamaha thinks that such matter of fact statements comprise of words that are only news and as such cannot be called Kavya<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Pariccheda <\/em>3 is a continuation of the discussion of the alamkaras<\/em>. Thus Bhamaha accepted three Sabdalankaras<\/em>, thirty-two arthalankaras<\/em> and four more alamkaras<\/em> have been mentioned but discarded.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

In Pariccheda<\/em> 4 he concentrates on eleven kinds of doshas<\/em> (blemishes) in kavya<\/em>. He defines and illustrates the first ten of them. Of the eleven doshas<\/em>, Virodhi<\/em> has six sub-divisions and Hina<\/em> has three subdivisions.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In pariccheda<\/em> 5 he defines and illustrates the doshas<\/em> he mentions in the previous chapters. P.V. Kane states that \u201che defines and illustrates the eleventh dosha<\/em> which arises from a faculty pratigya<\/em>, hetu<\/em> or dristanta<\/em>, the treatment being based upon a discussion of such Nyaya-Vaisesika<\/em> topics as the number and definitions of pramanas<\/em>, definitions of pratigya <\/em>and its varities, of hetu <\/em>and its varieties or drishtanta <\/em>etc.\u201d (Kane, 83)<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In pariccheda<\/em> 6, Bhanaha provides some hints to poets for securing grammatical purity in poetry. According to Naganatha this chapter \u201cis devoted to directions as to the selection of proper words among many grammatical forms based apparently on considerations of euphony.\u201d Euphony is the exact opposite of cacophony or srutikastam<\/em> which he deals with in pariccheda<\/em> 1, verse 53. His main attempt in this chapter is that of securing melody in poetry.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

III. The Concept of Rasa<\/em> in Bhamaha<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Although Bhamaha did not ignore Rasa<\/em> altogether, it finds no prominence in his work. According to Naganatha, he included it among the alamkaras<\/em>. (Naganatha, xv) According to Bhamaha, vyangyartha<\/em> or the suggested sense, which is at the root of Rasa<\/em>, is implicit in Vakrokti<\/em>. For him Vakrokti <\/em>is not Alamkara <\/em>but it is that evasive and ambiguous expression which can express something extraordinary and has the potential to provide rasa<\/em>. Bhamaha regards Vakrokti<\/em> as the core of all poetic works which should exist in all types of Kavya<\/em> as Samanya lakshana<\/em>. It is Vakrokti <\/em>that makes kavya <\/em>different from svabhavokti<\/em>, or the matter of fact statements. It is that adornment of poetry that imparts aesthetic beauty to its expression. He talks about Vakrokti<\/em> in connection with Atishayokti<\/em> or hyperbole, a form of alamkara <\/em>that exemplifies the nature of poetry and make it rise above everyday speech. He mentions that Mahakavya<\/em> embodies different rasas<\/em>. He also seems to acknowledge the presence of rasa in the akhyayika<\/em> because it deals with the separation of the lovers. But interestingly Bhamaha recognises the association of rasa<\/em> as the jivita<\/em> (life) of kavya<\/em>. Rasa<\/em> as the soul of poetry is a much later development propounded by the school led by Anandavardana.ii<\/p>\r\n \r\n

IV. The Concept of Guna<\/em> and Riti<\/em> in Bhamaha<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Bhamaha does not seem to attach much importance to the elements of Guna<\/em> and Riti<\/em> as according to him the alamkaras<\/em> under the general name Vakrokti<\/em> constitute the essence of poetry.iii Bhamaha, in his second chapter of his Kavyalamkara<\/em>, discusses three entities, ie., Madhurya<\/em>, Ojas <\/em>and Prasada <\/em>which were considered as Gunas <\/em>by both Bharata and other pre-dhvani<\/em> writers. But Bhamaha does not treat them in connection with what other scholars called Riti<\/em>, or the ones which he himself called Kavya<\/em>, i.e., Gaudiya<\/em> and Vaidharbha<\/em>. This means that he did not consider that particular gunas<\/em> constitute the characteristics of particular classes of kavyas<\/em> but is of the opinion that these three entities should be present in good kavya <\/em>generally. P.C. Lahiri, in his work Concepts of Riti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetics<\/em>, suggets that, \u201cThe 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<\/em>, the fundamental principle of all Alamkaras<\/em> in his theory of poetry. And if that is existing in the Gaudiya<\/em> poetry, he has no objection to accept it in preference to the Vaidharba<\/em>. In his opinion, that type of Vaidarbha<\/em>, which although clear, smooth and soft, is neither rich in ideas nor possessed of Vakrokti<\/em> 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 <\/em>(which Bhamaha\u2019s predecessors presumable seemed to disparage) is regarded by him as the better class of poetry if it is endowed with Alamkara<\/em>, is free from vulgarity and inconsistency and possesses proper and mature ideas.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

According to Bhamaha, some critics of poetics use long compounds in Ojas<\/em> whereas those who want to achieve Madhurya<\/em> (sweetness) and Prasada<\/em> (lucidity) do not use many compound words. Madhurya<\/em> should be pleasing to the ear and free from long compounds and Prasada<\/em> should be clear to all, even to women and children.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bhamaha\u2019s treatment of Guna<\/em> is very brief and since he belongs to the Alamkara<\/em> school, it implies that to Bhamaha the element of alamkara<\/em> and guna<\/em> is contiguous to each other and co-extensive. In fact Guna<\/em> is also a specific kind of alamakara<\/em> and there are no specific criteria to distinguish it from the later. Lahiri quotes S.P. Bhattacharya in his book who remarks that \u201cthe gunas<\/em> are appreciated inasmuch as they form a plank of the alamkaras<\/em> 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<\/em>, in the works of the propounders of the Riti<\/em> school.\u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

V. The Concept of Dosa<\/em> in Bhamaha<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Bhamaha seems to have borrowed the names of the faults and substance from Bharata\u2019s 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<\/em> 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\u2019s list of dosas<\/em> speaks of faults in poetic composition which \u201carise from improper use of usual words or collection of words forming a clause or sentence and also improper and unmusical sounds.\u201d (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<\/em>, he does not speak of dosas <\/em>other than those pertaining to sabda <\/em>and artha<\/em>. Many critics of poetics like Rudrata speak of rasadosa<\/em> but Bhamaha\u2019s theory has no such concept. The first and the fourth paricchedas<\/em> mention ten dosas<\/em> each. In the second pariccheda <\/em>he deals with upama dosas <\/em>and in the fifth pariccheda <\/em>he discusses logical fallacies.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Bechan Jha in his book Concept of Poetic Blemishes in Sanskrit Poetics<\/em> gives a detailed description of the types of dosas<\/em> listed by Bhamaha. The following section will list the number of dosas<\/em> according to Jha\u2019s descriptioniv:<\/p>\r\n \r\n

1. The first ten <\/span>dosas<\/em> listed by Bhamaha includes:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n