Sahitya-kaumudi by Baladeva Vidyabhushana
by Gaurapada Dāsa | 2015 | 234,703 words
Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Sahitya-kaumudi covers all aspects of poetical theory except the topic of dramaturgy. All the definitions of poetical concepts are taken from Mammata’s Kavya-prakasha, the most authoritative work on Sanskrit poetical rhetoric. Baladeva Vidyabhushana added the eleventh chapter, where he expounds additional ornaments from Visv...
Text 8.11
ननु रस-धर्माश् चेद् गुणास् तर्हि रस-गुणाव् इत्य् उक्तिः कथं तत्राह,
nanu rasa-dharmāś ced guṇās tarhi rasa-guṇāv ity uktiḥ kathaṃ tatrāha,
Someone might wonder: “If the guṇas are qualities of the rasas, why is there talk of both rasa and guṇa?” In that regard he says:
guṇa-vṛttyā punas teṣāṃ vṛttiḥ śabdārthayor matā ||8.71cd||
guṇa-vṛttyā—by qualitative figurative usage; punaḥ—again; teṣām—of them (the guṇas); vṛttiḥ—the function (modus operandi); śabda-arthayoḥ—of word and sense; matā—is considered.
By qualitative figurative usage, the guṇas are said to exist in sounds and in meanings.
guṇānāṃ śabdārtha-vṛttitvam upacārād eva, śauryādīnām iva deha-vṛttitvam.
It is only by metaphorical usage that the guṇas are functions of sound and meaning, like bravery and other qualities are figuratively said to be bodily functions.
Commentary:
Thus if phonemes expressive of either mādhurya-guṇa or ojas guṇa occur without a rasa, nevertheless there is no guṇa in the technical sense. Therefore the term “sweet phoneme” is relative, and so is the term “hard phoneme.” Ultimately, a guṇa is a specific form of relishment related to a rasa. The construction of mādhurya-guṇa, for instance, is only a catalyst that serves to bring out the real mādhuryaguṇa of the rasa. The relishment of a rasa is concomitant with the relishment of its distinct quality. Therefore, since even the construction of mādhurya-guṇa by itself (without a rasa) does not automatically cause the relishment of a corresponding rasa, Mammaṭa says the term “sweet phoneme” is figurative.
Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha disagrees with Mammaṭa by saying that there is no figurative usage in this regard.[1] Jagannātha’s opinion makes sense because later Mammaṭa states that the construction of ojas guṇa, etc., can be suitably used even when there is no corresponding rasa (8.27-30). Therefore it is a matter of predominance. For instance, with regard to ojas guṇa (vigor): (1) The hard phonemes have vigor in a primary way when they bring out the force of the corresponding rasa,[2] (2) They have vigor when they merely reflect the nature of the literal meanings, and (3) They are figuratively called hard when they are used without a specific purpose.
Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha summarizes the current section: guṇānāṃ caiṣāṃ druti-dīpti-vikāsākhyās tisraś citta-vṛttayaḥ krameṇa prayojyāḥ, tat-tad-guṇa-viśiṣṭa-rasa-carvaṇā-janyā iti yāvat, “The three mental functions called druti (melting), dīpti (blazing) and vikāsa (opening of the mind) are impelled by the respective guṇas. This means those mental states are generated from the relishment of the rasa characterized by the corresponding guṇa (in the mind)” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 54). In light of this, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa says prasāda-guṇa (satisfaction) inherently has some ojas (vigor, force).[3] Bharata Muni’s verse illustrates that (Commentary 8.10). In addition, the above term vikāsa applied to prasāda is similar to the word vistṛti (expansion) used in the context of ojas (8.9).
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
tathā ca, śabdārthayor api mādhuryāder īdṛśasya sattvād upacāro naiva kalpyaḥ iti tu mādṛśāḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 55).
[2]:
In this matter, Abhinavagupta uses the term mukhyatayā (in a primary way): te ca pratipattrāsvāda-mayā mukhyatayā tata āsvādye upacaritā rase tatas tad-vyañjakayoḥ śabdārthayor iti tātparyam (Locana 2.10); dīptiḥ pratipattur hṛdaye vikāsa-vistāra-prajjvalana-svabhāvā. sā ca mukhyatayā ojaś-śabda-vācyā. tad-āsvāda-mayā raudrādyāḥ (Locana 2.9).