Text 7.115

ख्याते'र्थे निर्हेतोर् अदुष्टतानुकरणे तु सर्वेषाम् |
वक्त्राद्य्-अउचित्य-वशाद् दोषो'पि गुणः क्वचित् क्वचिन् नोभौ ||7।59||

khyāte'rthe nirhetor aduṣṭatānukaraṇe tu sarveṣām |
vaktrādy-aucitya-vaśād doṣo'pi guṇaḥ kvacit kvacin nobhau ||7.59||

The fault called nirhetu (devoid of an explanation) is not a fault when the meaning is well-known. Moreover, a so-called fault is not a fault when the context is imitation (a reiteration of the statement of another). In addition, owing to the suitability of the speaker and so on, sometimes even a fault is a quality, and sometimes a so-called fault is neither a fault nor a quality.

khyātatvād eva jhaṭity arthāvagatau hetur yatra nāpekṣyate tatra nirhetur artho na duṣṭaḥ. yathā, vaśa-vartī harir yāsāṃ tāḥ stuve gopa-subhruvaḥ. atra harer vaśī-kṛtau nirhetukā bhaktir eva hetuḥ. sā ca tāsāṃ prasiddher noktā.

A meaning without an explanation (nirhetu) (7.92) is not faulty when the cause for the immediate understanding of the meaning is not required since it is well-known. For instance: “I extol the beautiful gopīs. Hari is under their control.” Here, only nirhetu-bhakti (unconditional devotional service) is the reason Hari is under their control, and that is not stated because it is well known in their case.

Commentary:

Now, before the section on rasa-doṣas (literary faults in a rasa) (7.137), Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, following Mammaṭa, mentions instances where a seeming fault is not a fault. In general, poetical rhetoricians divide the literary faults in two categories: nitya (the fault is always a fault) and anitya (the fault is not always a fault). In Bhoja’s system, there are twenty-four guṇas of sound and twenty-four guṇas of meaning, and in addition he invented a third broad category of literary quality (guṇa), called vaiśeṣika (special): It is a literary fault that has become a literary quality (according to the context).^[1]

Thus in this chapter, the term guṇa (literary quality) has the sense of literary embellishment. It is the counterpart of doṣa (literary fault), whereas in the next chapter, the guṇas (literary qualities) are mādhurya (sweetness), ojas (vigor), and prasāda (satisfaction derived from an ease of understanding). For centuries, poetical rhetoricians tried to pin down and categorize the sense of “literary embellishment”. Vāmana reiterated Daṇḍī’s ideology: kāvya-śobhāyāḥ kartāro dharmā guṇāḥ, tad-atiśaya-hetavas tv alaṅkārāḥ, “The attributes that make the resplendence of the poetry are the guṇas. However, the causes of the eminence of the resplendence of the poetry are the ornaments”” (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 3.1.1-2). Kavikarṇapūra says the statement is redundant because the guṇas, the alaṅkāras, and so on, constitute poetry.^[2] Although Abhinavagupta cites Vāmana with an implicit approval (Locana 3.30), Mammaṭa, and Viśvanātha after him, narrowed down Vāmana’s twenty guṇas to three: This is the topic of the next chapter. Vāmana expounded ten guṇas of sound and ten guṇas of meaning. Further, Viśvanātha Kavirāja says that the term “literary embellishment” refers to the guṇas, the alaṅkāras, and the rītis.^[3] A literary embellishment that is not one of those three is simply classed as ukti-vaicitrya (poetic expression),^[4] called ukti-guṇa (the quality of poetic expression) by Bhoja and Vidyānātha.^[5]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

tri-vidhāś ca guṇāḥ kāvye bhavanti kavi-sammatāḥ |
bāhyāś cābhyantarāś caiva ye ca vaiśeṣikā iti ||
bāhyāḥ śabda-guṇās teṣu cāntarās tv artha-saṃśrayāḥ |
vaiśeṣikās tu te nūnaṃ doṣatve’pi hi ye guṇāḥ || (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 1.60-61)

[2]:

yad uktam anyaiḥ “kartāraḥ kāvya-śobhāyā dharmā eva guṇaḥ smṛtāḥ, alaṅkārāstadutkarṣa hetavaḥ syur iti kramaḥ” iti, tad api nātilalitam, yataḥ khalu guṇālaṅkārādimad-vāṅnirmiti-viśeṣasyaiva kāvyatvāṅgīkāre na gunālaṅkārādibhyo’nyaḥ kāvya-nāmā padārtho’sti, nāpi kāvyād anye gunālaṅkārāḥ, ke kasya śobhāyāḥ kartāro bhaviṣyantaḥ (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 6.4).

[3]:

utkarṣa-dā guṇāḥ proktā guṇālaṅkāra-rītayaḥ || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 1.3). Mammaṭa equates the rītis (Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī, Pāñcālī) (specific phonemes with a specific type of compounding) with the subvarieties of his vṛtti anuprāsa (9.12), which is in the scope of the guṇas.

[4]:

For example: rasasya paripanthitvān nālaṅkāraḥ prahelikā || ukti-vaicitrya-mātraṃ sā cyuta-dattākṣarādikā || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.13-14)

[5]:

uktir nāma yadi svārtho bhaṅgyā bhavyo’bhidhīyate (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 1.88); vidagdha-bhaṇitir yā syād uktiṃ tāṃ kavayo viduḥ (Pratāparudra-yaśo-bhūṣaṇam 6.4).