8: Definition of Vakrokti Alaṃkāra

There have been varied opinions regarding the nature of the figure vakrokti. Majority of the later rhetoricians consider it to be a śabdālaṃkāra. Vāmana, Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara and Vidyānātha consider it to be an arthālaṃkāra. Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin have given inordinate importance to it while Kuntaka goes even further to recognise it as the base of a separate school of Sanskrit Poetics.

Bhoja (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 2.131-132.) regards it as a variety of the verbal figure vākovākya and furnishes two sub-varieties of it—

1. nirvyūḍhā and
2. anirvyūḍhā.

Bhāmaha, in several occasions, has glorified vakrokti or vakratā as a vital constituent of poetry. He (Kāvyālaṃkāra 1.34.) states that in vaidarbhī style of composition vakrokti or cleverness of statement is absolutely essential. He considers vakrokti as an ornament of poetic speech^[1] and probably denies the status of svabhāvokti or ordinary matter-of-fact statement as a mode of decorative speech in poetry^[2] .

His most famous quote involving vakrokti comes in connection with his treatment of atiśayokti—

saiṣāsarvaiva vakroktiranayārtho vibhāvyate/
yatno'syāṃ kavinākāryaḥ ko'laṃkāro'nayāvinā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.85.

—Here the term vakrokti is used to mean atiśayokti.

Abhinavagupta, in his famous commentary ‘Locana’ on Dhvanyāloka, explains this view of Bhāmaha as—

yātiśayoktirlakṣitāsaiva sarvāvakroktiralaṃkāraprakāraḥ sarvaḥ/
  —Dhvanyāloka Locana (of Abhinavagupta) 3.37. p-259-260.

He says that vakratā or crookedness can be in words and in meanings. This vakratā is created by describing things in a manner which transcends the ordinary worldly method and thus it gains the status of an alaṃkāra or figure of speech. All alaṃkāras deviate or excel from the ordinary common speech and so this vakrokti or atiśayokti is the fundamental essence of poetic charm.

Daṇḍin recognises vakrokti as one of the two primary classes of literary composition—

bhinnaṃ dvidhāsvabhāvoktirvakroktiśceti vāṅmayam/
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.363.

According to him, vakrokti is a general term for any rhetorical device which deviates from the normal matter of fact description or svabhāvokti and enriches the poetic speech. The same idea can be traced in Bhāmaha’s doctrine^[3] .

Kuntaka has given vakrokti supreme status in poetry on his way of establishing vakrokti as a separate school of Sanskrit Poetics. He regards that vakrokti is the ‘jīvita’ or life of poetry. He rejects svabhāvokti as an alaṃkāra or embellishment of poetry as he considers svabhāvokti as the very literary structure of a poetic composition. Nobody can climb the shoulder of oneself.

Likewise svabhāvokti cannot embellish itself by its own^[4] . He divides vakratā into six varieties—

1. varṇavinyāsavakratā,
2. padapūrvārdhavakratā,
3. pratayavakratā,
4. vākyavakratā,
5. prakaraṇavakratā and
6. prabandhavakratā.

All these varieties have several sub-varieties. He includes all figures of speech in the broad sphere of vakratā.

Vāmana furnishes a peculiar definition of vakrokti—

sādṛśyāllakṣaṇāvakroktiḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8.

—If the ‘lakṣaṇā’ or indication of things is based upon similarity, the figure thus formed is called vakrokti.

Lakṣaṇā has been admitted by Sanskrit rhetoricians as a secondary or indirect power (śakti or vṛtti) of words. If the primary power of words ‘abhidhā’ gets hindered in any way (i.e. if the listener fails to comprehend the direct meaning of the words uttered), the proper meaning of the words can be understood by means of ‘lakṣaṇā’. According to Vāmana, lakṣaṇā can have many bases^[5] .

The Kāmadhenu commentator states that a lakṣaṇā is possible in five different ways—

abhidheyena sambandhāt sādṛśyāt samavāyataḥ vaiparītyāt kriyāyogāllakṣaṇā pañcadhāmatāḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8.

He also furnishes respective examples in this regard. They are—

dvirephaḥ bhramaraḥ (abhidheyena sambandhāt),
siṃho maṇavakaḥ (sādṛśyāt),
gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ (samavāyataḥ),
vṛhaspatirayaṃ mūrkhaḥ (vaiparītyāt),
mahati samare śatrughnastvam (kriyāyogāt).

Out of these five bases of lakṣaṇā only the lakṣaṇā based on sādṛśya or similarity configures vakrokti. The commentator also puts forth the basic difference between the figures rūpaka and vakrokti. According to him, in rūpaka there is a super-imposition of the fact (upamāna) where it is absent whereas in vakrokti there is an extreme state of superimposition where the upamāna swallows up the upameya completely^[6] . This observation is quite interesting as it proves that the concept of vakrokti of Vāmana is similar to the concept of the figure atiśayokti furnished by later rhetoricians.

Vāmana illustrates the figure vakrokti with several examples. They are—

i) unmimīla kamalaṃ sarasīnāṃ kairavaṃ ca na mimīla muhūrtāt/

—In the lake, the lotus bloomed while the lily drooped.

The opening and the closing are the qualities or actions related to the eye.

But here they indicate through similarity the blooming of the lotuses and the fading up of the lilies respectively—

atra netradharmāvunmīlananimīlane sādṛśyadvikāsasaṅkocau lakṣ ayataḥ /
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8. vṛtti.

ii) iha ca nirantaranavamukulapulakitāharati mādhavīhṛdayam/
madayati ca kesarāṇāṃ pariṇatamadhugandhiniḥśvasitam//

—Herein the mādhavī creeper with its fresh blooming bud is captivating the heart and the breath of the honey-like fragrance of its pollens (or of the kesara trees) is stimulating.

Here the act of breathing indicates the exhalation of sweet fragrance—

atra ca niḥśvasitamiti parimalanirgamaṃ lakṣayati/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8. vṛtti.

iii) saṃsthānena sphuratu subhagaḥ svārciṣācumbatu dyām/

—May you become beautiful with your body and rise like a flame to kiss the heavens.

Here the act of kissing indicates touching.

iv) ālasyamāliṅgati gātramasyāḥ/

—Laziness embraces her body.

Here embracing indicates taking possession of.

v) parimlānacchāyāmanuvadati dṛṣṭiḥ kamalinīm/

—The glance follows the drooped lotus.

Here the act of following indicates imitating.

vi) pratyuṣeṣu sphuṭitakamalāmodamaitrīkaṣāyaḥ/

—In the mornings the pungent (wind) is the companion of the fragrance of the blooming lotus.

Here companionship indicates association or co-existence.

vii) ūrudvandvaṃ taruṇakadalīkāṇḍasabrahmacāri/

—The two thighs are the class-fellows of the stem of the banana-tree.

Here the word ‘sabrahmacāri’ indicates similarity in shape.

Vāmana stat es that the secret of a successful lakṣaṇā lies in the promptness with which the actual sense is comprehended by the connoisseur—

lakṣanāyāṃ ca jhaṭityarthapratipattikṣamatvaṃ rahasyamācakṣata iti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8. vṛtti.

Vāmana also holds th at the lakṣaṇā which is not based on similarity cannot constitute the figure vakrokti.

He illustrates this observation as—

jaraṭhakamalakandacchedagaurairmayūkhaiḥ/

—With the beams white like the slices of the full-grown lotus stem.

Here the word ‘cchedaḥ’ [=cheda?] indicates the substance to which it belongs by means of proximity and not similarity. It is the substance (the lotus stem) that possesses whiteness^[7] . Thus this is not an example of the figure vakrokti.

Later rhetoricians starting from Rudraṭa (2.14-17.) and then followed by Mammaṭa (9.103.), Hemacandra (5.7.), Vāgbhaṭa I (VKL. 4.14.), Vāgbhaṭa II (Kāvyānuśāsana Chapter-IV, p-49.), Viśvanātha (10.9.), etc. have all limited the scope of the figure and categorized vakrokti as a śabdālaṃkāra or a figure based on words. Ruyyaka (Alaṃkārasarvasva p-175.), Vidyādhara (Ekāvalī 8.71.) and Vidyānātha (Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa Chapter-VIII, p-410.) consider it as an arthālaṃkāra. Jayadeva (5.111.) and Appayya Dīkṣīta (KUV. 159.) also seem to do the same. All these rhetoricians consider vakrokti as a statement made by someone which is comprehended differently by the listener because of paronomasia (śleṣa) or because of peculiar intonation (kāku). According to Ruyyaka and Vidyādhara vakrokti is closely related to the figure vyājokti as both the figures contain a pretense of speech. In vyājokti there is a false or pretended reason for the speech whereas in vakrokti the speech is understood otherwise because of its utterance with a peculiar intonation or because it contains words with double-meanings. Ruyyaka gives an interesting observation that the word vakrokti itself signifies embellishment in general. But the figure called vakrokti is restricted to a specific figure of speech only^[8] . This indicates the gradual development of the concept of vakrokti in Sanskrit Poetics.

From the doctrines of Sanskrit rhetoricians the following basic features of the figure vakrokti can be sketched out—

i) Vakrokti is basically crooked speech. It is a clever statement put forth by the poet which deviates from common ordinary speech.

ii) Ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin have considered vakrokti as a vital constituent of poetry. It renders charm to a poetic composition as it enriches the poetic speech.

iii) Kuntaka goes further in developing this ancient concept of vakrokti and he regards vakrokti as the very life of poetry. His theory has created a new school of Sanskrit Poetics known as the vakrokti school.

iv) Later rhetoricians have limited the scope of vakrokti and they consider it to be only a specific variety of śabdālaṃkāra or arthālaṃkāra. They all commonly agree that the vakrokti is a statement which is understood differently from its original meaning because of paronomasia or peculiar intonation involved in it.

Vāmana represents the ancient school in regard to the concept of vakrokti. He considers the figure as an arthālaṃkāra based on indication initiated by similarity. The use of the word ‘lakṣaṇā’ in his definition of the figure is quite unique and it puts him in the class of ‘bhāktavādin’ or ‘lakṣaṇāntarbhāvavādin’, the reference to whom has been made by Ānandavardhana. It appears that like Bhāmaha, Vāmana has also referred to vakrokti as similar to the atiśayokti advocated by later rhetoricians and he was unaware of the specific and limited concept of the figure which developed later on.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

vakrābhidheyaśabdoktiriṣṭāvācāmalaṅkṛtiḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 1.36.

[2]:

svabhāvoktiralaṅkāra iti kecit pracakṣate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.93.

[3]:

yuktaṃ vakrasvabhāvoktyāsarvamevaitadiṣyate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 1.30.

[4]:

śarīraṃ cedalaṃkāraḥ kimalaṃkurute'param/
ātmaiva nātmanaḥ skandhaṃ kvacidapyadhirohati//
  —Vakrokti-jīvita (of Kuntaka) 1.13.

[5]:

bahūni hi nibandhanāni lakṣaṇāyām/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8. vṛtti.

[6]:

atasmiṃstattvādhyāropo rūpakam / viṣayanigaraṇena sādhyavasāna-lakṣaṇāyāvakroktiriti vivekaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8.

[7]:

atra cchedaḥ sāmīpyād dravyaṃ lakṣayati / tasyaiva gauratvopapatteḥ /
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.8. vṛtti.

[8]:

vakroktiśabdaścālaṃkārasāmānyavacano' pīhālaṃkāraviśeṣe saṃjñitaḥ /
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-177.