Chapter 6 - Conclusion

Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti can be regarded as one of the earliest systematic works on Sanskrit Poetics. Vāmana is firm in his scheme of Poetics and has tried to unveil the answers to the fundamental questions of Sanskrit Poetics. He is the first rhetorician to use the word ‘atman’ to denote the basic essence of poetry. He is also the pioneer of introducing the ‘sūtra-vṛtti’ style in the composition of treatise on Sanskrit Poetics.

The doctrines furnished by Vāmana are in many respects unique and valuable. Though being a propounder of ‘rīti’ school Vāmana has put forth an interesting and elaborate discussion of poetic figures. His first ‘sūtra’ also puts emphasis on the emphatic role of poetic figures in poetry^[1] . He clearly differentiates the ‘guṇas’ and the ‘alaṃkāras’ for the first time. The differentiations between ‘guṇas’ as ‘nityadhramas’ or essential qualities of poetry and ‘alaṃkāras’ as being ‘anityadharmas’ or provisional enhancing qualities of poetry has influenced majority of his followers.

Vāmana is probably also the first great rhetorician of the illustrious and famous Kashmirian school of Rhetoric. He is followed by Udbhaṭā, Ruyyaka, Rudraṭa, Ānandavardhana, Mammaṭa and many other memorable rhetoricians of the school. Ānandavardhana, who is considered to be the doyen of the school as well as Sanskrit Poetics, has expressed his reverence towards Vāmana and his doctrine^[2] . This clearly shows Vāmana’s influence on the development of Sanskrit Poetics. Vāmana is the first rhetorician to dev ote a separate chapter of his work on the technicalities of composing poetry. Thus, he can be considered as initiator in recognising the importance of ‘kavi-śikṣā’ in composing poetry. Later on separate works on ‘kavi-śikṣā’ like Kavikalpalatā etc were composed. Again, Vāmana is the first rhetorician to put focus on the grammatical aspect of poetry. This not only shows his profound knowledge in Sanskrit grammar but also recognises the deep relation between grammar and rhetoric.

Vāmana’s scheme of poetic figures, as mentioned earlier, is also quite unique. Dealing with the smallest number of poetic figures among the ancient rhetoricians he has tried to define poetic figures with a refreshing outlook. He selects comparison or ‘upamā’ as the root of all poetic figures and tries to define figures on the basis of similarity. Thus, some of his definitions are entirely different from those furnished by his predecessors. He also excludes popular figures like paryāyokta, rasavat, preyas, urjasvin etc as according to him they are devoid of the essence of comparison.

In our present work we have tried our level best to point out Vāmana’s contribution to Sanskrit Poetics in connection with his treatment of poetic figures. It is clear that Vāmana, who comes after Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin in the field of Sanskrit Poetics, has deliberately or unintentionally formed a bridge between the doctrines of his two famous predecessors. His theory of ‘guṇatmaka rītivāda’ can have its root in Daṇḍin’s ‘guṇavāda’ while his great emphasis on the role of poetic figures in poetry certainly resonances the idea of Bhāmaha in this regard. But in the general treatment of poetic figures Vāmana seems to follow a trend or influence yet unknown to us. The origin of his theory regarding the poetic figures is an area of further research and investigation.

We hope that our present research work will provide a connected history of each poetic figure treated by Vāmana and help the readers to sketch out the development of these figures in the course of Sanskrit Poetics. We have tried to put forth the doctrines of both Vāmana’s predecessors and his followers to evaluate Vāmana’s contribution in the overall development of poetic figures. We have also gone through in details the commentary ‘Kāmadhenu’ of Gopendra Tripurahara on Vāmana’s work and with its help tried to analyse Vāmana’s definitions and illustrations of different poetic figures. In some cases we have compared Vāmana’s views on specific figures with the f amous and popular views of Western rhetoricians in respect of those figures. Our present study, we hope, will throw a new light on Vāmana’s treatment of poetic figures and help in determining his true place and value in the history of Sanskrit Poetics.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

kāvyaṃ grāhyaṃ alaṃkārāt
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 1.1.1.

[2]:

asphuṭasphuritaṃ kāvyatattvametadyathoditam/
aśknuvadbhirvyākartuṃ rītayaḥ saṃpravartitāḥ//
  —Dhvanyāloka (of Ānandavardhana) 3.43.