4. Abhinavagupta’s own view of Laksana

The main thread of his view must be caught in the bewildering text on this concept in various places in this chapter. He points out even at the outset that these views cannot stand to be logical when we consider the 36 Laksanas themselves one by one in the light of these views; for, to a certain extent, the views have been purely speculative, spinning round the word Laksana having its counterpart in the Samudrikalaksana of the human body, without relating themselves to the nature of the individual Laksanas. So Abhinavagupta makes a convenient suggestion that the 10 views cannot be exclusively and separately followed. etesu paksesu anyatamagrahe visesanani na samgacchante spastena patha | p. 381. One comprehensive and definite view must be made out of the cloud of these several Paksas. Abhinava adopts shades of each view and gives his own definite idea of Laksana, which itself takes conclusive shape only as he proceeds further and further. Here and there Abhinava cannot help pushing new wine into old bottles in his difficult task. One line of thought he has definitely rejected and that is, the association of Laksana with Nataka only and taking it as something like Sandhyangakas. He refutes this view in this chapter and elsewhere also while dealing with the Vithyangas. He says there- nanvesam ( vithyanganam ) uktivaicitryarupatvam alamkaradibhyah ko bheda iti | cet laksana [ m

na caitadvyatiriktamesam samanyalaksanamasti | tatra keciduktalaksanadi- visesarupatvamevaisam pratipannah | vivecakastu tadvyatiriktanyevaitanityahuh | pp. 481-2. In this same context Abhinava thus indicates the difference of Laksana and Alankara on the one hand and the Angas on the other: laksanalamkaradinam noktiniyatam rupamiti visesah | p. 482. Having thus rejected the view that Laksanas are identical with Sandhyangakas, as also the fourth and fifth views, he combines the various ideas of the other line of thought and says that Laksana is Kavyasarira itself. It is said to be the Abhidhavyapara itself as a whole. Commenting on the verse- sattrimsadetani hi laksanani proktani vai bhusanasammitani | kavyesu bhavarthagatani tajjnaih samyakprayojyani yatharasam tu || in the text, Abhinavagupta says that the poetic expression itself as a whole, written in accordance with the Rasa, is called Laksana. Laksana is nothing but the Abhidhavyapara of the poet's language intended to evoke Rasa. yatharasam ye bhavah vibhavanubhavavyabhicarinastesam yo'rthah sthayi- bhavarasikaranatmakam prayojanantaram gatani praptani | yadabhidhavyaparopa- samkranta udyanadayo'rthah tatra savisesa (vi ) bhavadibhavam pratipadyante tani laksananiti samanyalaksanam | ata eva kavye samyak prayojyaniti visayastesamuktah | p. 383. This Laksana or the beautiful language or the poet's Abhidha itself is what distinguishes Kavya from other

utterances. And here, as is usual with him wherever he agrees, Abhinava quotes Bhatta Nayaka, who emphasises Abhidha, or the poet's Vyapara in choosing the beautiful mode of expression as the characteristic of Kavya, which is different from Sastra or Purana. In Sastra, Sabda predominates. It is enough in Purana if the story, the Artha, is somehow said. But in Kavya one looks to the delectable way in which things are put. Thus in Kavya, the Vyapara is important while word and idea are subordinate. bhattanayake (na ) pi (a) ta eva abhidhavyaparapradhanam kavyami- • • • tyuktam | sabdapradhanyamasritya tatra sastram prthagviduh | arthatattve tu yuktena vadantah sthanametayoh || (arthe tattvena yukte tu vadantyakhyanametayoh ) dvayorgunatve vyaparapradhanye kavyagirbhavet | p. 383. Abhinava quotes Bhamaha also here to show that Kavyasarira is distinguished from other utterances by the peculiarity of its expression, by its vakrokti . saysLater also he bandho, gumphah, phanitih, vakroktih, kavivyapara iti hi paryayat laksanam tvalamkarasunyamapi na nirarthakam | p. 405. • • tatra cittavrttyatmakam rasam laksayan tadvasocitavibhavadi [ca]sampadakah trividho'bhidhavyaparo laksanasabdenocyate ityesam samanyalaksanam | evam kimcidabhidhiyamanam kenacidrupena rasocitena vibhavadirupena tameva padarthakramam laksayan laksanam | 2 p. 382.

CONCepts of aLANKARA SASTRA Immediately after quoting the above given verses from Bhatta Nayaka he says- bhamahenapi -- ' saisa sarvaiva vakroktiranayartho vibhavyate ' ityadi | tena paramarthe vyapara eva laksanam | In another place he says- sarvo vibhavadyucito nirvarnyamanah kavyalaksanatvena sucitah | p. 399. If Laksana should be thus taken as equal to poetic expression, the natural consequence is that Laksanas are not 36 only but as many as the poetic expressions. This Abhinava grants and says that Bharata only indicated a few, 36 of such possible Laksanas. He adds that it is because of this that, according to another view, Bharata gives another set of Laksanas with definitions. Abhinava here refers to the Anustubh and Upajati recensions, takes both of them as given by Bharata, but says, that he follows the list handed down from his own teacher.' sattrimsaditi ca ca nanyadi ( nanyani ) varanaparam | kavihrdaya- varttinam priyanam (abhiprayanam pari (apari ) samkhyeyatvat | · tatha ca matantarena bharatamunireva anyathapyuddesalaksanena ca nama- ntarairapi laksanantarairapi ca vyavaharam karoti | tata eva pustakesu bhedo drsyate | tam ca darsayisyamah | pari (thi ) toddesakramastu asmadupadhyayaparamparagatah | 1 p. 384. But this is an after-thought which Abhinava got up as evidence for his view of infinity of Laksanas. It is also a passing thought, for instead of, consistently with this, explaining the two sets with different illustrations, he tries with great difficulty to show the identity of many of the Laksanas of the Anustubh list with those of the other, which he mainly follows.

It also follows, if Laksana is Kavyasarira it has further adornment with Alankaras. So says Abhinava- evam kavivyaparabalad yadarthajatam laukikat svabhavat vidyamanam tadeva laksanamityuktam | tatra (sya ) sarirakalpasya alamkara adhuna vaktavyah | p. 404. kavye tavallaksanam sariram, tasya upamadayah trayo'rthabhagah | p. 404. Laksana is Kavya itself while Alankara is extraneous ornament, Prthaksiddha, Vastvantara. evamarthasyapi yadrasabhivyaktihetutvam so'rthagunah | yastu vastvantaram vadanasyeva candrah, so'lamkarah | yastu trividho'pyabhidhavyaparah sa laksananam visayah | p. 382. Thus Abhinavagupta adopts the first view, the third view and the seventh view, in generally stating his conception of Laksana. In interpreting particular Laksanas and their definitions given by Bharata, Abhinava adopts the other views related to these views. Thus in explaining the first Laksana called Bhusana or Vibhusana he adopts the sixth view. Bharata defines Bhusana thus- alamkarairgunaiscaiva bahubhih samalamkrtam | bhusanairiva vinyastaistadbhusanamiti smrtam || Abhinava says here that Bhusana is the proper use of Alankaras and Gunas in accordance with the Rasa, with an eye to rasaucitya . In pointing out what this Rasa aucitya is and how Alankaras should be introduced in accordance with it, he quotes Anandavardhana's Karikas in the Dhvanyaloka,

20 Some concepts of aLANKARA SASTRA II Uddyota, on Alamkara-samiksa-faqe acqrcaa aifgcaa nangitvena etc. and refers to his own Locana thereon. Then Abhinava adopts the seventh view often in dealing with the definitions of particular Laksanas and in suitably illustrating them. The illustrative verses he cites for a Laksana happen to exhibit an Alankara also. Abhinava notes that fact and says that the beauty of the verse is due, not to the Alankara but only to the Laksana. He shows how there is no '' by Alankaras. Commenting on his illustration for the second Laksana called he says- atra arthasya alamkaraghatanaprayasamanda (nta ) renaiva sundaratvam laksana- krtameva | p. 386. This non-alankaric beauty in this case is due to the Laksana, Aksara sanghata, which Abhinava takes as Padaaucitya, the suggestive appropriateness of Padas, Namapadas and Sambodhana padas. Having said this, Abhinava finds himself hard put to distinguish this Laksana of the Sabhiprayatva of Padas from what Bharata has given as the Guna called Ojas; he then advances the explanation that behind Gunas like Ojas, there is a Kavi-vyapara responsible for the beauty meant by those Gunas and it is that Vyapara which is Laksana; and that instances of Laksanas cannot be had without being mixed up with Alamkaras and Gunas. etesam ca laksananam sankirnatvena laksyam drsyate | p. 386. The natural grace of a verse even in the absence of Alamkara as in the verses of Amaruka is due to Laksana. This is the view he often adopts. He illustrates the third Laksana called sobha by the verse in the Sakuntala - ' medaschedakrsodaram laghu bhavatyutthanayogyam vapuh ' etc. and makes the comment that there

is no Alankara in the verse but yet there is beauty in it and that it is due to the Laksana called Sobha. na catra alamkarah kasciditi kavivyaparena (vyaparah ) yah sabdartha - vyaparadeva arthaghatanatma, tatkrtam hrdyam laksanarthameva ( ? ) | asobhano'pyamuna nayena sobhata iti sobheyamukta | p. 387. That the very Abhidhavyapara of the poet is Laksana is clinched by Abhinava in his exposition of the fourth Laksana called Abhimana, by reading that Laksana in the end as Abhidhana. athabhimanah kavina alankara (?) upamanopameyabhavasya " • • kathancidapyasvikarat kevalam vakturabhimatam iti abhidhanakhyam laksanam ' | p. 387. He adopts the eighth view, which is his own teacher's, in his exposition of the Laksana called places. Explaining the Laksana called tion which involves Slesa Alankara, he says- ata eva tat ( ? ) sleso'tra pradhanam • . • • and in other in his illustra- gunakirtanam nama laksanam upamaslesanugrahitve (na) sthiti (tam ) | laksanani hi alamkarada (na) pi citrayanti | tadeva aga (gra ) eva vaksyamah | p. 388. Here he adopts the eighth view only slightly. He says that the Laksana called Gunakirtana helps Upama and Slesa and that Laksanas beautify even Alamkaras. He clearly adopts this eighth view that the further elaboration of 1 Regarding the verse defining this Laksana, Abhinava notes both the variants 'Dharyamana' and ' Varyamana.' "

manifold Alankaras is the result of their interaction with the Laksanas, in a further passage under the ninth Laksana, Gunanuvada. atha gunanuvadah | palita dyaurivendrena tvaya rajan vasundhara | · yatha nanu upameyamalamkarah ? ki tata ( kim tatah ? ) uktam hyalamkaranam vaicitryam laksanakrtameva | eta eva siksitairapi dandiprabhrtibhih ye nirupitah upamabhedah, tatra yo bhedakom'sah acikhyasasamsra (sa) yanirnayadirarthah sa tadrk prthagalamkarataya ganitah | ganane'pi va samsrstisamkarapattih | arthamatram taditi cet tarhi tadeva laksanam | yatha hi rajatamavibhajya vicarya - manah itthamavatisthate mukutadyalamkarah sauryadigunavyudhoraskatvadilaksanasamu- dayah | raja alamkaryasca gunavamsca laksaniyasca | tatha kavyamapi | tena gunalamkaratiriktah sarve laksanamiti mantavyam | P.. 390-1. Whatever beauty in a Kavya is not due to either Guna or Alamkara is due to Laksana. If so, will it not be that all Kavya is Laksana ? Yes, says Abhinavagupta. nanvevam sarvatra laksanayogah ? ka akseparthah : priyameva hyasmakamadah | ? p. 391. Thus in this passage Abhinava combines his teacher's view, i.e. the eighth with the seventh, reconciles both by making them as parts of a bigger and more comprehensive view of his. Abhinava opines that Laksana is sometimes natural grace and sometimes it adds beauty to Alankara also. Thus he considers it to be more important than Alamkara.

ata eva purva ' kavyabandhastu kartavyah satatrimsallaksananvitah ' iti laksananyeva hi pradhanam, tatprasamgena graha ( guna ) lamkara (ra ) iti | tatparya - visesalaksana (laksanavisesatatparya ) vyakhyane caitat sphutayisyamah | p. 382-3. In the explanation of the sixth Laksana, Protsahana, Abhinava again adopts his teacher's view and points out how this Laksana adds Vaicitrya to Aupamya and Aprastutaprasamsa. Under the tenth, Atisaya, he says that it is this Atisaya Laksana that makes the Atisayokti Alankara. The 'Kavivyapara' view recurs under Ksama, the twenty-eighth ; as the very ' Kavya sarira', the same view recurs under Anuvrtti, the thirty-first and Yukti, the thirtythird. Thus Laksanas are important because they are elaborately enumerated at first, they are the very Kavyasarira,' or the Kavivyapara or Abhidha of the poet, they are elements of natural beauty even in the absence of Alamkaras, they are the factors that multiply the three Alamkaras into many, and they beautify sometimes even Alamkaras. Through the first Laksana Abhinava forces the idea that 1 It is this idea of Laksana as the Kavyasarira itself that Abhinava holds at the end of his commentary on the previous chapter, while commenting on the text, 'kavyabandhastu kartavyah sattrim- sallaksananvitah ', which introduces the topic of Laksana in the next chapter. Abhinava here works out a metaphor with a beautiful house, the metre being the ground, Laksana, the building of the house itself, Alankaras and Gunas, the paintings etc. yatha prasadakotyadike (?) kartavye prathamam bhumih, tadvat kavye nirmatavye bhumi- kalpah chandovidhih, ksetraparigrahavrttasamasrayamityadiviracanasthaniyam laksanayojanam, citra- karmapratimamalamkaragunanivesanam, evambhutavacikabhinayasvarupam caturdasadibhih sadu bhiradhyayairucyate | ' p. 377. •

Laksana is also a principle of land under the last, he speaks of Aucitya as the purpose of Laksana paramaucityakhyapanam prayojanam | p. 403. If Laksana should be so elastic or so comprehensive, we would have not 36 of them only, but an infinite number of them. Quite so replies Abhinavagupta. The Laksanas are alamkara - anugrahaka and in their combinations with each Alankara, they produce many varieties. In combining among themselves also they breed numberless varieties. Thus infinite are the varieties of beautiful expression in kavya. Abhinava says under the thirty-first, Anuvrtti : aprastutaprasamsatve'pi hi yadaprastutasya sariravaicitryam tallaksanakrtameva | laksanam hi sariramityuktam | . • " tatono (teno ) pamanasarirasya upameyasarirasya upameyasarirasya va vaicitrya (yam ) laksananameva vyaparam (rah ) ityevamupamarupakadipakanam trayanamalamkaratvena vaksyamananam pratyekam satatrimsallaksanayogata laksananamapi ca ekadvitryadya- vantaravibhagabhedadana (ntyam ) kena ganayitum sakyam, idanim satasahasrani vaicitryanam sahrdayairutpreksyantam | p. 401. In this passage Abhinava gives a new and clever idea. An Upama is an Alankara. It is expressed and has its Sarira. That Sarira itself has to be beautiful. The beauty of the very expression of Simile or other Alankaras is Laksana. In his Dhvanyaloka locana, Abhinava has pointed out that Alankaras have to be beautiful and that expressions like 'gauriva gavayah ' do not become Alankara because of the absence of a basic beauty which is necessary. This basic beauty he ascribes to Laksana in the Abhinava Bharati in his exposition of the Upama Alankara.

kavyabandhesu kavyalaksanesu ' satsviti anena gauriva gavaya iti nayamalankara iti darsitam | p. 405.