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 10.148 [Bhāvika]
30. Bhāvika
प्रत्यक्षा इव यद् भावाः क्रियन्ते भूत-भाविनः |
तद् भाविकम् ॥ १०.११४abc ॥
pratyakṣā iva yad bhāvāḥ kriyante bhūta-bhāvinaḥ |
tad bhāvikam ||10.114abc||
pratyakṣāḥ—directly perceivable; iva—as if; yat—if (yat = yadi); bhāvāḥ—things; kriyante—are made; bhūta—past; bhāvinaḥ—future; tat—that (or then: tat = tadā); bhāvikam—the ornament called bhāvika.
When a past thing or a future thing is depicted as if it were directly perceivable, that is bhāvika (seemingly present occurrence).
bhūtāś ca bhāvinaś ca padārthāś cet sākṣād iva varṇyante tadā bhāvikam.
The word bhūta-bhāvinaḥ is a dvandva compound: If things, past or future, are described as if they were present, that is bhāvika.
Commentary:
Mammaṭa explains the derivation: bhāvaḥ kaver abhiprāyo’trāstīti bhāvikam, “Bhāvika is so called because bhāva, the poet’s intention, exists in it” (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.114 vṛtti).[1] This idea is taken from Daṇḍī. However, the bhāvika of Daṇḍī was simply that a prabandha (a short story, one chapter, etc.) is imbued with bhāva (emotion).[2] The bhāvika of the ancients was a concept that was only in the scope of a prabandha. For instance, the commentators on Bhaṭṭi-kāvya explain that the twelfth chapter therein illustrates bhāvika.[3] Bhāmaha kept Daṇḍī’s definition and added a new interpretation.[4] Udbhaṭa kept Bhāmaha’s new interpretation and eliminated Daṇḍī’s explanation.[5] Mammaṭa followed Udbhaṭa.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Etymologically, the possessive suffix in[i] is added after the word bhāva to make the nominal base bhāvin, and then the suffix ka is added without changing the meaning. However, Viśveśvara Paṇḍita uses the suffix ika, a replacement of mat[up]. He says the derivation is “It has the poet’s intention” because Patañjali says the suffix ṭhan (a code word for ika) cannot be used in the locative case: bhāvaḥ kaver abhiprāyo’sty asyeti viṣayatvākhya-sambandha-para-ṣaṣṭhīsamarthāt matv-arthe ṭhan. yat tu asminn iti vigraha-pradarśanam, tan na, “saptamyāṃ ca na tau smṛtau” [Mahābhāṣya 5.2.115] iti bhāṣya-kārokteḥ (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha, Kāvya-mālā edition p. 335).
[2]:
bhāvikatvam iti prāhuḥ prabandha-viṣayaṃ guṇam | bhāvaḥ kaver abhiprāyaḥ kāvyeṣv ā-siddhi saṃsthitaḥ || (Kāvyādarśa 2.364)
[3]:
“It should be borne in mind that the figure bhāvika is spoken of as prabandha-viṣaya (having the whole work for its province, and not a verse) by Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha. Bhaṭṭi, in his Bhaṭṭi-kāvya (canto 12), follows the same view, acc. to commentators. According to them, the figure permeates the whole composition and not a single verse. It is for this reason that Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha do not give an example of bhāvika.” (Kane, P.V. (1995), The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, p. 308)
[4]:
bhāvikatvam iti prāhuḥ prabandha-viṣayaṃ guṇam |
pratyakṣā iva yatrārthā dṛśyante bhūta-bhāvinaḥ || (Bhāmahālaṅkāra 3.53)