Text 8.12

ननु “ओजः प्रसादो माधुर्यम् अर्थ-व्यक्तिर् उदारता, शेषः समाधिः समता स्यात् कान्तिः सुकुमारता” इत्य् अन्यत्र दश-गुणा निरूप्यन्ते इह तु त्रयस् ते न पुनर् दशेति. कथम् इति चेद् अत्राह,

nanu “ojaḥ prasādo mādhuryam artha-vyaktir udāratā, śeṣaḥ samādhiḥ samatā syāt kāntiḥ sukumāratā” ity anyatra daśa-guṇā nirūpyante iha tu trayas te na punar daśeti. katham iti ced atrāha,

In case someone says: “Ten guṇas have been described elsewhere: ojas (harsh phonetic combinations, especially by placing a conjunct consonant after a vowel),^[1] prasāda (relaxed structure, i.e. the use of both single words and long compounds, without a sequence), mādhurya (charm, i.e. no compounding), artha-vyakti (clear manifestation of the meaning), udāratā (sprightliness), śleṣa (coalescence of words), samādhi (crescendo and decrescendo, i.e. single words and long compounds, in sequence), samatā (sameness of style), kānti (elegance), and sukumāratā (softness), but here the guṇas are three, not ten,” he states:

kecid antar-bhavanty eṣu doṣa-tyāgāt pare śritāḥ |
anye bhajanti doṣatvaṃ kutracin na tato daśa ||8.72||

kecit—some; antar-bhavanti—are included; eṣu—in these three; doṣa-tyāgāt—because of rejecting a fault; pare—others; śritāḥ—employed; anye—others; bhajanti—have; doṣatvam—faultiness; kutracit—sometimes; na—not; tataḥ—therefore; daśa—ten.

Some of the ten guṇas are included in the three, some others are simply the absence of a fault, and some others sometimes partake of faultiness, therefore the guṇas are not ten.

tathā hi sandhi-sauṣṭavāt padānām aikapadyeneva bhāsanaṃ śleṣaḥ, ārohāvaroha-kramātmā samādhiḥ, vikaṭa-bandhatva-vapur udāratā. ojo-miśrita-śaithilya-rūpaḥ prasādaś caujasy antar-bhavati. yatra jhaṭity artha-pratīti-hetutvaṃ sārtha-vyaktiḥ prasāde, pṛthak-padatva-rūpaṃ mādhuryaṃ tu sākṣād eva gṛhītaṃ tat-sūtre’vṛtti-padopādānāt. āpāruṣya-rūpaṃ saukumāryam aujjvalya-rūpā kāntiś ca kaṣṭatva-grāmatvayor duṣṭatayā parityāgāt svīkṛte. yatra mitho visadṛśayoḥ sahoktau vaiṣamyam iṣṭam, tatra mārgābhedātmā samatā doṣa eva, tad-anyathā guṇaḥ.

The explanation is as follows: Śleṣa (coalescence of words), which is the fact that the words appear to be one long compound owing to the excellence of the phonetic combinations; samādhi (crescendo and decrescendo), whose nature is a heightening effect and a lowering effect; udāratā (sprightliness), which is a body of a formidable literary construction; and prasāda which is the form of śaithilya (the words are spaced out, and short compounds are allowed) mixed with ojas (harsh phonetic combinations, and long compounds), are included in our ojas (vigor).^[2]

Artha-vyakti (clear manifestation of the meaning), the quality in the form of being the immediate cause of the perception of the meaning, is included in our prasāda (clarity). Mādhurya (charm, i.e. no compounding), which is the fact that the words are mutually separate (they are not compounded, and there is no phonetic combination), is included as is in our mādhurya (sweetness), because in our definitional sūtra of mādhurya one characteristic is that there is no compound (8.21).

Saukumārya (softness), consisting in the absence of harsh sounds, and kānti (elegance), which is the form of a resplendence, were listed only because they are the negations of the literary faults called kaṣṭatvam (i.e. kaṣṭa-visandhi, harsh phonetic combination^[3]) (7.56) and grāmyatvam (vulgarity) respectively (7.14; 7.34).

When a differenciation is required between two dissimilar topics in the same verse, then samatā (sameness of style), which consists in not diverging from the style of the construction, is faulty. If the style would differ in such a situation, then samatā would be a quality.

Commentary:

The names of these ten guṇas originate from Bharata Muni.^[4] However, Mammaṭa paraphrases Vāmana’s definitions. Vāmana doubled the qualities by classifying them in two categories: śabda-guṇa (quality of the sound or of the words) and artha-guṇa (quality of the meaning). The names are the same yet the definitions differ. Mammaṭa discusses Vāmana’s artha-guṇas in text 8.14.

Vāmana is not at fault for saying that some qualities are qualities simply by virtue of being the absence of a fault, because he followed Bharata Muni’s statement that a literary quality is the opposite of a literary fault.^[5] Vāmana even defined a fault as the opposite of a quality: guṇa-viparyayātmāno doṣāḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 2.1.1). Moreover, Vāmana would say that a composition is sweet simply because it has sweet or soft phonemes, even though there is no rasa. Similarly, he would use hard phonemes simply in conformity with the nature of the literal meanings, without considering the rasa. Still, in his commentary on Nāṭya-śāstra, Abhinavagupta explained and exemplified Vāmana’s guṇas (Abhinava-bhāratī, chapter sixteen).

Vāmana’s ojas in included in Mammaṭa’s ojas. Moreover, the guṇa called śleṣa (coalescence, i.e. the words seem to form one block) is the ancestor of sa-bhaṅga-śleṣa (the double meaning is achieved by separating the letters in a different way) (9.35), a subvariety of the ornament of sound called śleṣa (literal double meaning). Further, Vāmana’s abovementioned udāratā-guṇa (sprightliness) is the origin of the purposeful usage of ojas guṇa in the scope of śṛṅgāra-rasa. This is an exception to the rule that phonemes of ojas should not occur in the context of a rasa which belongs to mādhurya. Vāmana defines udāratā as an occurrence where the words seem to dance.^[6]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

gāḍha-bandhatvam ojaḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 3.1.5); saṃyoga-para-hrasva-prācurya-rūpaṃ gāḍhatvam ojaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 58).

[2]:

In regard to Vāmana’s guṇas, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha points out that both prasāda and samādhi involve a dense structure of words and a relaxed structure of words. The difference is that in prasāda those two are used out of sequence, whereas in samādhi they are sequential. Moreover, he says that only their aspect of dense structure applies to our ojas therefore their aspect of relaxed structure is classed either in our mādhurya (sweetness) or in our prasāda (clarity): na ca śleṣodāratayoḥ sarvāṃśe gāḍha-bandhātmanor aṃśenaujo-vyañjaka-ghaṭanāntar-bhāvo’stu, prasāda-samādhyos tu gāḍha-śithilātmanor aṃśenaujo-vyañjakāntar-bhāve’py aṃśāntareṇa kutrāntar-bhāva iti vācyam, mādhuryābhivyañjake prasādābhivyañjake veti suvacatvāt. […] evaṃ ca sarvatra vyañjake vyaṅgya-śabda-prayogo bhāktaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM pp. 62-63).

[3]:

In this context Viśvanātha Kavirāja uses the word duḥśravyam instead of Mammaṭa’s kaṣṭatvam (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 8.12). Duḥśravyam corresponds to śruti-kaṭu (hard on the ears).

[4]:

śleṣaḥ prasādaḥ samatā-samādhir mādhuryam ojaḥ pada-saukumāryam | arthasya ca vyaktir udāratā ca kāntiś ca kāvyasya guṇā daśaite || (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.97)

[5]:

ete doṣās tu vijñeyāḥ sūribhir nāṭakāśrayāḥ, guṇā viparyayād eṣāṃ mādhuryaudāryalakṣaṇāḥ (Nāṭya-śāstra 16.96);eṣāṃ viparyayād guṇā bhavanti, etad-doṣa-vighāta eva guṇo bhavatīty arthaḥ (Abhinava-bhāratī 16).

[6]:

bandhasya vikaṭatvaṃ yad asāv udāratā, yasmin sati nṛtyantīva padānīti janasya varṇa-bhāvanā bhavati tad vikaṭatvam. līlāyamānatvam ity arthaḥ (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 3.1.23 vṛtti); yathā, “sva-caraṇa-viniviṣṭair nūpurair nartakīnāṃ jhaṇiti raṇitam āsīt tatra citraṃ kalaṃ ca” na punaḥ “caraṇa-kamala-lagnair nūpurair nartakīnāṃ raṇitam āsīn mañju citraṃ ca tatra” (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sūtra 3.1.23 vṛtti). Jagannātha comments: na hy atraujaso vaipulyena pratibhānam asti. “viniviṣṭair nūpurair narta” ity atra sann apy ojaso lavo na camatkārī. nāpi tatra nṛtyat-prāyatvaṃ varṇānām anubhavanti sahṛdayāḥ. aṃśāntare tu mādhuryam eva (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 58).