Chapter 3 - The history of Svabhavokti in Sanskrit poetics

jatimiva alankrtinam adhikamudbhasamanam | -Dhanapala's Tilakamanjari, p. 130. IT is a proper emphasis on both the content, Emotion and Thought, and the form, the Poetic Expression,' that is contained in the dictum of the Sanskrit critics that poetry is Ukti pradhana or Abhidha pradhana. As Tauta says in the well-known passage quoted by Hemacandra (K.A., p. 316), one may have the vision, Darsana, and be only a seer, Rsi, but he becomes a poet, Kavi, only when he renders that vision into beautiful language, Varnana. The poetic expression is, generally speaking, heightened or made striking by an out-ofthe-way-ness, which is called Vakrokti or Alankara. This figurative strikingness is pervasive of the whole range of the form and helps to detect poetry. When the figurative deviation from the ordinary mode of speaking is scrutinized, it is found that, in some cases, the deviation is more than in other cases. Indeed, there are cases which do not show any determinable and definable deviation, cases which we call ' natural description'. Such 'natural description', when it is of an" emotional situation is called a case of Rasa, or Rasa-ukti according to Bhoja; and when it is of anything else or of an 1 Says Oscar Wilde in his Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 159: * For, canons of good society are, or should be, the same as canons of art. Form is absolutely essential to it.

object of Nature, it is called Svabhavokti. To a survey of the history of this concept, Svabhavokti, is this chapter devoted. We first catch sight of Svabhavokti in the introductory verses in Bana's Harsacarita : navo sthom jatiragramya sleso'klistah sphuto rasah | vikataksarabandhasca krtsnamekatra durlabham || Jati is the old name of Svabhavokti. Bana says that Jati or Svabhavokti must not be Gramya, ordinary, vulgar, insipid or stale. Jati is the statement of things as they are. That is what the ordinary speaker and writer make; poverty of poetic power, absence of a wizard-force with words, a sense of bare necessity, parsimony in expression, a sense of sufficiency, an anxiety to state the bare truth with absolute fidelity to factsthese produce a kind of expression which is a bare statement of things as they are. Ordinary talk, legal expressions, and scientific writings are examples. These two, ordinary bald talk and the technical jargon of science, Laukika and Sastriya expressions, are both excluded from the scope of Jati. Jati is a poet's statement of the natural state of things. Bana say that Jati has to be Agramya.' 1 Hence does Vidyanatha qualifies Svabhavokti by the word Caru : svabhavoktirasau caru yathavadvastuvarnanam | And Kumarasvamin explains that Caru means Agramya: only a beautiful statement of things as they are, is Svabhavokti : yatra caru samyagagramyam | ata evedam gramyam nalankarah ityuktam dosaprakarane | • • | Prataparudriya-yasobhusana of Vidyanatha Bala m. Edition, p. 297. This Carutva and Agramyata are involved in the very conception of the Svabhavokti Alamkara and hence, Kuntaka's fear that the cart-driver's talk also will become Svabhavokti is unfounded. svabhavayuktameva sarvatha abhidheyapadavimavataratiti sakatikavakyanamapi salankarata smalfa, zamayacda 1 Vakrotijivita of Kuntaka I, p. 24.

How this natural description' came to be called Jati is a question worth investigating. Perhaps Jati refers to its origin from the root 'Jan' and means the presence or presentation of things as they arise or are. Or Jati refers to the general characteristics that go to mark out a thing or a class of things." Objects like trees, birds and deer are described, delineating graphically the attributes and actions of their class. This would form a description of Jati and perhaps this was the earliest variety of natural description to be recognized and christened, among Alamkaras. As a matter of fact, we find Dandin giving four classes of Svabhavokti,-Jati, Dravya, Guna and Kriya. It is reasonable to believe that the first and earliest variety, Jati, was extended as name to the rest also. Says Dandin: svabhavoktisca jatiscetyadya salankrtiryatha | II. 8. jati - kriyagunadravya-svabhavakhyanamidrsam || II. 13. And he illustrates Jati-svabhavokti by a description of the classattributes of the species of birds called parrots : sundairatamrakutilaih paksairharitakomalaih | trivarnarajibhih kanthaih ete majugirah sukah || II. 9. We miss the word Jati in Bhamaha but not the concept of 'natural description'. In the introductory paragraph, it was pointed out that the proper cloak of poetic idea is a stricking form, emphatic by virtue of its heightened nature; but that within its realm, there are varying degrees of strikingCompare the discussion in Sastras about Jati as a Padartha, along with Vyakti and Akrti. The view that 'Jati' is Padartha was held by Vajapyayana and also by the Mimamsakas. •

ness and deviations from the normal mode of expression; and that, comparatively speaking, there are cases in which such deviation is least and which, as a consequence, are called Svabhava-ukti, 'natural expression'.' Now, Bhamaha proceeded with his treatment of poetry thus: Flaws must be avoided in expression and though a flawless piece by itself may be lovely, because of its natural beauty, yet embellishments. beautify it, as ornaments beautify even the naturally lovely face of a woman. rupakadiralankarah tasyanyairbahudhoditah | na kantamapi nirbhusam vibhati vanitamukham || I. 13. When Bhamaha says thus that a lovely face does not shine without ornaments, he seems to contradict himself. The conclusion we can draw from this verse is that though Bhamaha emphasizes ornament very much, he is aware of a beauty which is natural to a piece of poetry, and which is not born of ornament. This ornament or Alankara is a certain striking deviation in expression for Bhamaha. When no such striking deviation is recognizable, the expression is no Alankara. This is clear when Bhamaha refutes Hetu, Suksma and Lesa as Alankaras, since, according to him, the expression as a whole in these cases does not show any Vakrokti. hetuh suksmo'tha lesasca nalankarataya matah | samudayabhidhanasya vakroktyanabhidhanatah || II. 86. 'Rudrata made such an analysis of figures and his first class of Alankaras forming the Vastava group involves the least figurative Vaicitrya. Of the many in this group, the Vastava figure par excellence, as Namisadhu specially points out, is Jati. And it is because Jati concerns itself directly with the thing as it is, without any great sabda vaicitrya, that Bhoja counts Jati as an Arthalankara and that, the first.

If this Vakratva is not to be found, the expression is mere 'news', mere information-giving; it is Varta. Following the above quoted verse, Bhamaha says: gato'stamarko bhatinduh yanti vasaya paksinah | ityevamadi kim kavyam ? vartamenam pracaksate || II. 87. The first line here is an instance of an utterance which as a whole, Samudaya abhidhana, is bereft of any Vakrokti; and this is what is called Varta, news. Thus as against poetry, there is set this Varta, which may be insipid Loka Varta or technical Sastra Varta. Varta, however, differs from Jati or Svabhavokti; for Varta is, to adopt Bana's language, Gramya Jatih. Thus, we have ordinary expression which is Varta ; then natural poetic expression called Jati or Svabhavokti and then Vakrokti. If these meanings are not settled thus, there will arise a loose use of Varta or Jati. Dandin uses the word Svabhavokti or Jati loosely when he says: sastresvasyaiva samrajyam ; he refers here to Varta only. Similarly Varta also has been loosely used as a synonym of Jati. Just after Atisayokti, Yathasamkhya and Utpreksa, we find Bhatti illustrating a figure called Varta, by a verse describing the mountain Mahendra. varta -- visadharanilaye nivistamulam sikharasataih parimrstadevalokam | ghanavipulanitambapuritasam phalakusumacitavrksaramyakunjam || X. 45. This shows that Varta is meant as a synonym of Jati or Svabhavokti and that in the pre-Bhamaha literature, Svabhavokti was recognized by some, some called it Svabhavokti, others Jati and still others Varta. Bhatti must be taken to call it

Varta. The Visnudharmottara, in its small section on Alankara, calls it Varta : yathasvarupakathanam varteti parikirtitam | In Bhamaha, we find Varta used separately from Svabhavokti ; he restricts Varta to non-poetic utterances in which there is no Vakrokti. Dandin does not mention the word Varta, (amidst Alankaras) but uses the words Jati and Svabhavokti as synonyms. The Jayamangala' on Bhatti has an original explanation to offer on Varta, not found elsewhere. It says: varteti tattvarthakathanat | sa visista nirvisista ca | tatra ya purva sa svabhavoktirudita, yatheyameva | tathacoktam- svabhavoktiralankarah iti kecitpracaksate | arthasya tadavasthye ca svabhavo'bhihito yatha || nirvisista varta namalankarah | yathoktam- (Bhamaha, II, 93.) gato'stamarko bhatinduh yanti vasaya paksinah | ityevamadikam kavyam vartanam pracaksate || iti Under X, 46, Natyasastra of Bharata Edition In Bhatti, the word Svabhavokti is absent. There is only Varta, which is illustrated by a natural description of I a There is a good amount of difference between the Jayamangala and Mallinatha's gloss on Bhatti on the question, which Alamkara is illustrated in which verse by Bhatti atha laksmana etc. X. 42 or 43 is an illustration of Svabhavokti for Mallinatha and of Atisayokti ( what a difference !) for the Jayamangala. If the Jayamangala sees Varta in X. 45 or 46, Mallinatha sees Atisayokti there. the case of some verses, Mallinatha does not point out any figure. And this difference between the commentators on Bhatti does not seem to have been pointed out by scholars. 7 In

mountain. From this we concluded that Bhatti must be understood to hold according to writers whom Bhamaha did not follow, that Varta was synonymous with Jati and Svabhavokti. But the Jayamangala is a close follower of Bhamaha whose text alone it quotes. It explains Bhatti by Bhamaha and naturally there is some difficulty. The Jayamangala starts with two definite ideas: (1) that Bhamaha accepts an Alankara called Svabhavokti and (2) that the verse on Varta is a verse on an Alamkara called Varta, with an illustration in the first line. Hence, the Jayamangala reads the verse on Varta differently: ityevamadikam kavyam vartanam pracaksate | for ityevamadi kim kavyam vartamenam pracaksate | | Having started with these two ideas, the Jayamangala has to indicate the difference between Varta and Svabhavokti. It says ingeniously that there is one major Alankara called Varta which is the stating of things in strict accordance to their natural state and that it has two subdivisions, Visista and Nirvisista. The Visista Varta is called Svabhavokti and the Nirvisista varta is simply Varta. Bhatti's verse is an illustration of the former. From the Jayamangala's remarks, we see that by 'Visista', it means the description of one particular object with its attributes, and by 'Nirvisista', the description of a composite view of Nature; the former is illustrated by Bhatti's description of Mt. Mahendra with its attributes, and · the latter by 'gato'stamarkah etc. " ¹Dr. S. K. De says (Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, I, p. 53) that Bhatti does not recognize Svabhavokti. We do not know that, for as Dr. De himself points out (p. 52), the Jayamangala is the guide to know what Bhatti recognized and illustrated. According to

But Bhamaha kept Varta and Svabhavokti separate. The latter, he refers to as an Alankara and illustrates. The former, he refers to with derision, as a name for insipid detailing of some facts, for expressions devoid of striking deviation. Closely following, as it does, his rejection of Hetu, Suksma and Lesa which do not show any Vakratva, the verse does not seem to yield itself to the different reading and consequent different meaning which the Jayamangala gives it. That the verse mentioning Hetu, Suksma and Lesa and the next verse speaking of ' etc.' as mere Varta, go together is proved by a reference to Dandin where Bhamaha, II, 86-87 are taken together. Dandin, in the Hetucakra, speaks of ': etc.' as Jnapaka Hetu Alamkara and considers it as 'Uttamabhusana' as if to spite him who referred to Hetu together with Suksma and Lesa as no Alankara at all. ' Thus I am of opinion that the word Varta in Bhamaha is no name of an Alankara. Dr. De is of opinion that there is an Alankara called Varta which Bhamaha mentions and rejects in the passage discussed above. On p. 36 of Vol. II of his Poetics, he says that in the second stage of the development of Alamkaras was added 'a seventh figure Varta which is referred to by Dandin in I. 85 but which is not accepted by Bhamaha'. On p. 109, ibid., he says: 'With Bhamaha, he (Dandin) alludes to Varta (I. 85) which is illustrated by Bhatti, but which disappears from later poetics, being included perhaps in the scope of Svabhavokti. Mr. P. V. Kane also opines that in the passage discussed above, an Alankara called Mallinatha, X, 42 (or 43) etc. is Bhatti's illustration of Svabhavokti; and in X, 45 (or 46) where the Jayamangala sees Varta, Mallinatha sees Atisayokti ! I From this we have to infer that some predecessor of Bhamaha whom Bhamaha criticises but whom Dandin follows, gave the instance : etc. and held it as an Alankara called Hetu.

Varta is rejected by Bhamaha. Such a view does not seem to be tenable. The Jayamangala which speaks of a Vartalamkara has a curious reading for the second line of Bhamaha's verse. This reading itself does not agree with the context in Bhamaha. If Bhamaha is refuting an Alamkara of some predecessor called Varta in that verse, the verse must have been written otherwise. As it is, it must be taken as closely connected with the previous verse refuting Hetu, Suksma and Lesa and must be taken to give an instance of an Abhidhana samudaya', an expression as a whole, which has no Vakrokti (Vakroktyanabhidhana); and hence a case of no Kavya (ityevamadi kim kavyam ? ) but only a bald communication of facts (vartamenam pracaksate ). It is clear that in Bhamaha, Varta is not used as the name of an Alamkara. Nor has Varta the Alamkara anything to do with the word Varta in Dandin, I. 85, but of which more in the section on Dandin. $ Soon, finishing a few Alankaras, Bhamaha comes to Svabhavokti: svabhavoktiralankara iti kecitpracaksate | arthasya tadavasthatvam svabhavo'bhihito yatha || akrosannahvayannanyan adhavanmandalai rudan (or rnudan ) | ga varayati dandena gopah sasyavatarinih || II. 93-94. m There is a discussion among scholars on the question: Did Bhamaha accept Svabhavokti as an Alankara ? Some say that the somewhat indifferent reference to it in the words ' kecitpracaksate ' shows that Bhamaha did not accept it as an Alankara. As regards Bhamaha's attitude towards Svabhavokti, one Purvapaksa is completely ruled out namely that it is not mentioned by him. Bhamaha mentions, defines and

illustrates it. In this respect, it resembles Asis, III, 55-56. To begin with, that Bhamaha defines and illustrates Svabhavokti is some proof of his acceptance of it as a figure. The figures which Bhamaha does not accept are not referred to by him in such terms. If he does not accept a figure, he says ABHIMAN AA: | Witness the case of Hetu, Suksma and Lesa. The words ' iti kecitpracaksate ' is no argument for taking that Bhamaha did not accept Svabhavokti. Many Alankaras are introduced in these terms. These words cannot serve as an argument even for the view that Svabhavokti has a dubious existence in Bhamaha. Dr. De sometimes speaks of Svabhavokti as having a dubious existence in Bhamaha though in Vol. II of his Poetics and in his Introduction to his edition of the Vakrokti jivita, he views that Bhamaha does not accept this figure. Dr. A. Sankaran opines in his Theories of Rasa and Dhvani (p. 22) that Bhamaha does not accept this figure. Mr. D. T. Tatacharya Siromani examines these views and replies to them in his M.O.L. Essay on the Definition of Poetry, published in the J.O.R., Madras. Udbhata and Kuntaka considered Bhamaha as accepting Svabhavokti. Udbhata has enumerated and defined Svabhavokti in the same order and place as in Bhamaha. The 'ancients', cirantanas, who figure in Kuntaka's Purvapaksa as accepting Svabhavokti, include Bhamaha. Bhoja who digests completely Bhamaha, Dandin and Rudrata gives Bhamaha's illustration of Svabhavokti in his treatment of that figure which shows that, according to Bhoja, Bhamaha accepted that figure. If Kuntaka had the slightest hint that Bhamaha did not accept this figure, he would have reinforced his critique against Svabhavokti with a reference to Bhamaha's text to that effect. On p. 61 of Vol. II of his Poetics, Dr. De says: 'When words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance,

as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no special charm or strikingness. Such Svabhavokti or "natural" mode of speech to which Dandin is so partial but which he also distinguishes from Vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhamaha and Kuntaka, who refuse to acknowledge it as a poetic figure at all." One cannot point out any passage in Bhamaha which refutes Svabhavokti and it is wrong to club Bhamaha with Kuntaka who elaborately argues against Svabhavokti, as can be seen in a further section. And there is nothing like partiality for Svabhavokti in Dandin. If one views Bhamaha as being inimical to this figure, he imagines Dandin to be overfond of it. Nor is the attribute: applied by Dandin to Svabhavokti a sign of his partiality for it. The attribute only means that in the field of poetic expression where Vakrokti rises gradually, Svabhavokti stands first or at the bottom involving least Vakrata; it is the starting point; the ground for Vakrokti to come into further play. Mr. Tatacharya has, it seems, committed an excess while trying to prove that Bhamaha accepted Svabhavokti. He says that when Bhamaha said- yuktam vakrasvabhavoktya sarvamevaitadipyate | I. 39. he meant like Dandin to divide poetic expression into two realms, Vakrokti and Svabhavokti; and Mr. Tatacharya puts a forced interpretation on 'Vakrasvabhavoktya' which does not mean vakroktya and svabhavoktya but means only vakrasvarupa- 34, the word Svabhava here meaning of the nature of'. Consequently Mr. Tatacharya views that Bhamaha also, like Dandin, classified Vanmaya into two classes, Svabhavokti and Vakrokti. Mr. Tatacharya says: 'As is shown above, in Bhamaha's view, all the Alankaras other than the one

Svabhavokti, are governed by the Vakrokti principle.' This is Dandin's view,' not Bhamaha's. To Bhamaha, the absence of Vakrata or Vakrokti eliminates an expression from the fold of Alankara; it will not be Svabhavokti but Varta,-not like akosannahvayan etc. but like gato'stamarkah etc. For Bhamaha Vakrokti is Alankara, and Svabhavokti also which has got its own degree of Vakrata marking it off from mere Varta is comprised in Vakrokti. Dandin examined the realm of poetic speech with greater scrutiny and said that since in Svabhavokti, the Vakrata is least, let it stand apart. And even to this Dandin, the expression of Rasa, Rasa-ukti, is still part of Vakrokti, and Bhoja therefore analyzed poetic expression into three parts, Svabhavokti, Rasokti and Vakrokti. Just as Bana said that a Jati should be Agramya, Dandin says that it should bring before our eyes the picture vividly. nanavastham padarthanam rupam saksad vivrnvati | II. 8. ' pratyaksamiva darsayanti | 11. says Tarunavacaspati, while the Hrdayamgama which says 'saksadavyajena vivrnvati ' emphasizes that no artificial aid of a figurative flourish shall be used here. As previously indicated, Dandin gives four classes of Svabhavokti-Jati, Kriya, Guna and Dravya, II. 13. Bhoja (Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja, III, 6-8) multiplies the classes, Svarupa, Samsthana, Avasthana, Vesa, Vyapara etc.; child, maiden, animal; time, place etc.,-elaborations borrowed by him from Rudrata." K.A., II, 362. Madras Edition , "The anonymous gloss on the Kavyadarsa in the Natyasastra of Bharata Edition has a strange comment on in Dandin's definition of the Svabhavokti. It says that, according to some who base themselves on this condition of 'Nanavastha', only a description of an object in several states or of several objects in several states, constitutes a Svabhavokti, and not the description of an object in a single state! This too literal an interpretation of Dandin is not justifiable.

What about Varta in Dandin? It is not found in the context of Svabhavokti nor anywhere in Ch. II. We find it in Ch. I in Dandin's treatment of the Guna called Kanti, I, 85-87. kantam sarvajagatkantam laukikarthanatikramat | tacca vartabhidhanesu varnanasvapi drsyate || Kanti has a certain amount of kinship with Svabhavokti, since in both, there is no perceptible stepping out of the normal mode of saying, Laukikartha-anatikrama. Such Kanti, Dandin says, is found in Vartabhidhana and Varnana and illustrates Vartabhidhana with the following verse: grhani nama tanyeva taporasirbhavadrsah | sambhavayati yanyevam pavanaih padapamsubhih || 1. 86. The Gaudi style which would not be content with this expression with Kanti, would say : devadhisnyamivaradhyam etc. This Varta is a sweet complement or word of welcome or enquiry on the occasion of the arrival of a worthy guest. It is thus clear that Varta here is not any Alankara, nor the Alamkara which the Jayamangala says Batti is illustrating. Such is the view of the commentators and later writers also, none of whom sees reference to any Alankara in the Varta here. " varta nama anyonyakathanam " says the Hrdayanigama Hema- • candra, while reviewing the old Gunas in his gloss on his own K. Anusasana, refers to Dandin's Kanti in Varta and Varnana , and interprets Varta as a 'complement " tatra upacaravacanam varta | prasamsavacanam varnana | " p. 200, K. A. Singabhupala also says that Varta is a welfare-enquiry : varta nama kusalaprasnapurvika sankatha | |

p. 67, T.S.S. Edition Ratnesvara's gloss on Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja, I, p. 114 : 'anamaye priyalape varta varta ca kirtyate | " Rudrata classifies the Arthalankaras into four classes, Vastava, Aupamya, Atisaya and Slesa. All the three here except the first involve an embellishment by a simile or an exaggeration or a play on the words. a play on the words. In Vastava, we have the bare idea as it is, untwisted, Aviparita ; but even as Bana said ' Agramya', Rudrata says, 'Pustartha'. Apusta, the bald statement, comes under the Dosas. 6 vastavamiti tajjneyam kriyate vastusvarupakathanam yat | pustartham aviparitam nirupamam anatisayam aslesam || I K. A. VIII, 10, Namisadhu : pustarthagrahanam apustarthanivrttyartham | tena- gorapatyam balivardah trnanyatti mukhena sah | 6 mutram muncati sisna apanena tu gomayam || asya vastavatvam na bhavati | To this class of Vastava figures, Rudrata assigns Sahokti, Samuccaya, Jati, Yathasamkhya, Bhava, Paryaya, Visama, Anumana, Dipaka, Parikara, Parivrtti, Parisamkhya, Hetu, Karanamala, Vyatireka, Anyonya, Uttara, Sara, Suksma, Lesa, Avasara, Milita and Ekavali. Of these Jati is Vastava par excellence. In VII. 30-31, Rudrata speaks of the several varieties of Jati, Form, Pose etc., and subjects for Jati like children, maidens etc., as already mentioned. There is one 1 Cf. Jivananda Vidyasagar's gloss on the Kavyadarsa : " varta anamayapriyalapah | ' anamayapriyalapah vrttih varta ca kathyate ' iti vacanat | " Here is mentioned another meaning also of Varta as ' itihasavarnana ' which is not satisfactory. But none has taken Dandin's Varta. here as the name of Alamkara.

point in Namisadhu's gloss on Jati in Rudrata which is worth noting. He says that whereas Vastava means only a statement of a thing as it is, Jati implies a vivid picture that can create an experience, an Anubhava, of the thing in the mind. jatistu anubhavam janayati | yatra parastham svarupam varnyamanameva anu- bhavamivatiti sthitam | This is the significance of the qualification to Jati which writers add, Agramya, Caru, Pusta and so on. Udbhata recognizes Svabhavokti and gives it with a -definition and illustration in the third Varga: fmurai zogata Zainiai facruaq | kriyayam sampravrttasya hevakanam nibandhanam | kasyacinmrgadimbhadeh svabhavoktirudahrta || ksanam nastardhavalitah srngenagre ksanam nudan | lolikaroti pranayad imamesa mrgarbhakah || III. 8. 9. What must be noted in Udbhata's treatment of Svabhavokti is his unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhavokti to the Hevaka, eagerness or fondness, in their respective activities of young ones of animals and the like. Neither to one class of beings like young ones of animals nor to one aspect only viz., action, Kriya, can Svabhavokti be restricted. The commentary on Udbhata's Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha published in the ·[Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] as Tilaka's, definitely says that a description of the nature of things as such is not Svabhavokti but only the 'Hevaka' of Balamrga and the like in their activities: 1977- pravrttasya balamrgadeh samucita he vakanibandhanam svabhavoktih | na tu svabhavamatra But, fortunately, Pratiharenduraja liberally interprets Hevaka and enlarges the scope of this figure to its normal extent. Bhoja's treatment of Svabhavokti has something noteworthy, both in his Sarasvatikanthabharana (Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja) and

the Srngara Prakasa (Sr. Pra.). The Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja says in III. 4-5: nanavasthasu jayante yani rupani vastunah | svebhyah svebhyo nisargebhyah tani jatim pracaksate || arthavyakteriyam bhedam iyata pratipadyate | jayamanapri (nami ) 'yam vakti rupam sa sarvakalikam || Characteristics which are born in things in their several states and which, by nature, pertain to them form the subject of Jati. By the second qualification that the characteristics shall pertain to the things by nature, - 'svebhyah svebhyo nisargebhyah 'Bhoja, as explained by Ratnesvara, excludes external associations like reminiscences, reflections etc., on seeing the objects. ' The first qualification is fully explained in the second verse from which we learn that it is intended to keep distinct the Alankara Svabhavokti and the Guna Arthavyakti. This This question takes us to Vamana's Arthaguna Arthavyakti in the definition of which Vamana uses the word Vastusvabhava and whose two illustrations are simply two cases of Svabhavokti. (K.A. SU. III. ii. 13). vastusvabhava sphutatvamarthavyaktih | vastunam bhavanam svabhavasya sphutatvam yat, asau arthavyaktih | It is clear from this that either Arthavyakti or Svabhavokti does not obviate the need for the other; nor is there any need to point out how the two do not overlap. It is rather illogical to distinguish two things of two different classes, one a Guna and another an Alamkara. This Arthavyakti of Vamana is a quality pertaining to the ' For this correct reading, see Bhatta Gopala's gloss on the Kavyaprakasa T.S.S. Edition " nanvevam ' ya ete yajvanah + + vilasati mrdesa bhagavati ' ityadavapi jatitvam · syadata aha-- svebhyah svebhya iti | svabhavabhutanityarthah | Ratnes/vara.

Alankara called Svabhavokti, and to other kinds of expressions also. Still Bhoja tries to show us the difference between Arthavyakti and Svabhavokti. He says that in Arthavyakti only those aspects of an object are presented which form its permanent distinguishing attributes, Sarvakalikam rupam, whereas in Svabhavokti those aspects which are manifest as a result of a particular mood or situation, Avasthasu jayamanam rupam, are presented. This latter is, as contrasted with the Sarvakalika svarupa, an Agantuka svarupa. Says Ratnesvara : ' vastusvarupollekhanartha (rtha ) vyaktih arthagunesu ukta | tatra sarvakalikam rupam upajanapayantaralavyapakamityarthah | atra tu jayamanamagantukanimittam samava- dhanaprabhavam vyabhicaritamityarthah ' | This is an unnecessary distinction which brings in its train an unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhavokti to 'special states'. Bhoja here resembles those who dragged down the Prabandha Guna Bhavika to the state of Vakyalamkara and then began propounding its difference from Svabhavokti." The Agnipurana which draws upon Bhoja to a great extent,³ borrows this classification of the nature of a thing into Sarvakalika and Agantuka or Jayamana. The Agnipurana I Mammata rightly realises Arthavyakti to be a quality preeminently necessary for all good poetry and gives its scope as embracing not only Svabhavokti but cases of Rasadhvani etc. also. See Ch. 8, p. 187. T.S.S. Edition of the Kavyaprakasa. When Hemacandra says that Vamana's Arthavyakti guna is needless, because it is nothing but the Alankara named Jati, he is not making a proper criticism. ( anfaatoriuser sfa p. 199). Cf. Bhatta Gopala- vamanamaryadaya tu arthavyaktya svabhavoktyapalapah | p. 187, T.S.S. Edition 2 See also Ch. on Bhoja and Svabhavokti in my Ph. D. Thesis on Bhoja's Sr. Pra. Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 139-144. 3 For other ideas in the Agnipurana taken from Bhoja, see the present writer's Riti and Guna in the Agnipurana in the IHQ.. Vol. X, pp. 767-779.

calls Svabhavokti by the name Svarupalankara. (Ch. 344). svarupamatha sadrsyam utpreksatisayavapi | It defines the figure thus : svabhava eva bhavanam svarupamabhidhiyate | faauugh afa fafadi agalean || samsiddhikam nijam naimittikamagantukam tatha | From its stopping with this and saying no more, we have to conclude that the Agnipurana would have Svabhavokti in both cases unlike Bhoja who would have Arthavyakti in the former case. Besides reproducing what he said in the Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja on Svabhavokti or Jati, Bhoja gives an additional idea in his Sr. Prakasa. As indicated once previously, he carries out to its scientific length the classification in Dandin of poetic expression into Svabhavokti and Vakrokti. He separates the Rasas from Vakrokti's fold and constitutes them into the third class called Rasokti. While doing so, he defines each of these three as expression dominated respectively by Guna, Upama and other Alankaras, and Rasa. " "tatra upamadyalankarapradhanye vakroktih | so'pi gunapradhanye svabha aifm: | fauiaiguiasyfuaikusing cafasyal calfaktfa | " Sr. Pa., Madras MS., Vol. II, ch. xi, p. 372. This is just hinted in the fifth ch. of the Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja where Bhoja says: vakroktisca rasoktisca svabhavoktisca vanmayam | sarvasu grahinim tasu rasoktim pratijanate || V. 8. The idea in defining in the Sr. Pra. Svabhavokti as expression dominated by the Gunas is that when there is none of the figures beginning with Upama, the only thing the expression possesses is the Gunas. This has been explained at length in my thesis on Bhoja's Sr. Pra., Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 143-4.

Bahurupamisra accepts this three-fold classification of poetic expression in his commentary on the Dasarupaka which I have reviewed in detail in J.O.R., Vol. VIII, p. 325. The anonymous Sahityamimamsa, now edited in a very unsatisfactory manner in the T.S.S. (No. 114), is a work based on Bhoja's Sr. Pra. which it reproduces extensively. It gives Bhoja's classification of Kavya-ukti into these three classes of Svabhava, Vakra and Rasa Uktis; only it calls Svabhavokti, Rjukti (p. 99). It reproduces also the Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja verse on the difference between Svabhavokti and Arthavyakti. In connection with Mammata's treatment of Svabhavokti, the only interesting point to which attention can be drawn is Vidyacakravarttin's rather incorrect understanding and consequent needless criticism of the Sandhivigrahika i.e., Visvanatha, a point which I have set forth at some length in a note in the Annals of the B.O.R.I., Vol. XIV, pp. 251 and 254. In the history of the concept of Svabhavokti, the names of Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta stand out prominently. The former denies that it is an Alamkara and the latter comes out with an eloquent defence of it as an Alamkara. Kuntaka must be put down as a follower of Bhamaha with this difference that while for Bhamaha, Svabhavokti is comprehended as a variety of Alamkara in Vakrokti, for Kuntaka, Svabhavokti is not to be called an Alankara or a species of Vakrokti because it is the very nature of the idea which forms the material for the further employment of Vakrokti. That is, Kuntaka considers Svabhavokti as the Alankarya, i.e., the Kavya Sarira and if it is itself called Alankara, it will be an impossible case of Alankara decorating itself, as impossible as one mounting one's own shoulders. Kuntaka is not behind anybody in his appreciation of verses of unembellished grace,

but in all those cases he would say that the subject or idea itself, the Vastu, has an innate Saundarya or Vakrata. Cases which are Svabhavokti for others would be cases of Vastu vakrata for Kuntaka.' But Vastu which has Vakrata is different from ordinary Vastu devoid of Vakrata, as in ordinary talk. Does not this distinguishing Vakrata which separates Loka vastu and Kavya vastu amount to Alamkara ? It may not be so much Vicchitti as is found in other species of Vakrokti but yet it is some Vicchitti and as such is Alankara; and it does not pertain ordinarily to all instances; only poets are able to say things with that Vastu vakrata. And Vakrata is Vakrokti. To this Kuntaka would reply that as far as poetry is concerned, only such Vastu as has beauty is relevant; the bald Vastu is out of the scope of the discussion. But, if on the score of this Vakrata, one would call a Svabhavakhyana as Svabhavokti Alankara, Kuntaka would seem to yield a little that there is after all only a dispute in names. yadi va prastutaucityamahatmyanmukhyataya bhavasvabhavah satisaya- tvena varnyamanah svamahimna bhusanantarasahisnuh svayameva sobhatisayasali- tvat alankaryo'pi alankaranamityabhidhiyate, ' tadayamasmakina eva paksah | " V. J., p. 139. In the second Vimarsa of his Vyaktiviveka, Mahimabhatta speaks of five flaws the last of which is Vacya-avacana under which he treats of a closely related flaw, Avacya-vacana, 'As Valmiki also would say (while describing Sita): 'agar Ayesha'. Sundara. 17. 25. Some other minor objections are also pointed out by Kuntaka.. He asks that if Vastusvabhava itself is Alamkara, what then shall an Alamkara adorn and adds that if Vastusvabhava itself is one Alankara, every case of another Alamkara will be a case of Sankara or Samsrsti (Vakrotijivita of Kuntaka, pp. 24-25).

the putting in of what ought not to be put in. Attributes which do not add to the significance or words which do not heighten or aspects of things which are commonplace and are devoid of any charm-these if expressed form the flaw of Avacya-vacana. Sometimes when a poet nods, when lesser writers have got to fill in parts of the metrical line, such things get in. These Mahima calls Apratibhodbhava', born of a mind lacking Imagination and Inspiration. These are the dust' that must be swept out of poetry, ' Avakara' as Mahima calls them. xu yatsvarupanuvadaikaphalam phalgu visesanam | apratyaksayamanartham smrtamapratibhodbhavam || tadavacyamiti jneyam vacanam tasya dusanam | tad vrttapuranayaiva na kavitvaya kalpate || II. p. 107. V. V. T.S.S. Edition This topic directly leads Mahimabhatta to an examination of Svabhavokti Alankara. When a poet describes a thing as it is he must not present us with the well-known and commonplace aspects of things, a description of which does not make the picture live before our eyes, apratyaksayamanartha . Thus a case of Svabhavokti is most liable to the flaw of Avacya-vacana described in the terms svarupanuvadaikaphala, phalgu and apratyaksayamanartha . Hence did Bana qualify Jati by Agramyatva and Rudrata by Pustarthatva. One must be a poet of imagination and inspiration to write a real Svabhavokti with power to live before 1 'A bald statement comes under an Arthadosa called Apusta, Niralamkara and so on. vastumatranuvadastu puranaikaphalo matah | arthadosassa dosah srapusta iti giyate || Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta, p. 109. See also Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana of Bhoja, pp. 30, 37 and 38 and Ratnesvara's com. there.

our mind's eye. In I. 12, p. 23, Kuntaka said that nothing can be talked of without reference to its Svabhava or nature, and that there can be no case of expression devoid of Svabhavadelineation; for no object is conceivable without its nature and attributes. svabhavavyatirekena vaktumeva na yujyate | vastu tadrahitam yasman nirupakhyam prasajyate || V. J. I, 12. A statement of this unavoidable Svabhava cannot be an AlanWith reference to this Mahima says: kara. katham tarhi svabhavokteralankaratvamipyate | na hi svabhavamatroktau visesah kascananayoh || ucyate vastunastavad dvairupyamiha vidyate | tatraikamatra (sya )' samanyam yadvikalpaikagocarah || sa eva sarvasabdanam visayah parikirtitah | ata evabhidheyam te sya ( dhya ' ) malam bodhayantyalam || visistamasya yadrupam tat pratyaksasya gocarah | sa eva satkavigiram gocarah pratibhabhuvam || yatah --- rasanugunasabdarthacintastimitacetasah | I ksanam svarupasparsottha (or cintottha ) prajnaiva pratibha kaveh || sa hi caksurbhagavatah trtiyamiti giyate | yena saksatkarotyesa bhavamstraikalyavartinah || 6 This correct reading is found in the different readings ' given at the end of the T.S.S. Edition of the Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta, and is found also in Hemacandra who reproduces these verses on p. 275 of his K.A. Vya. 7 See Hemacandra for the correct word 'Dhyamala', meaning impure, tainted '. 8

ityadi pratibhatattvamasmabhirupapaditam | sastre tattvoktikosakhye iti neha prapancitam || artha (asya ) ' svabhavasyoktirya salankarataya mata | yatah saksadivabhanti tatrarthah pratibharpitah || p. 108. samanyastu svabhavo yah so'nyalankara ( so'nalankara ) ' gocarah | glistamarthamalankartumanyatha ko hi saknuyat || vastumatranuvadastu puranaikaphalo matah | 'arthadosassa dosajnairapusta iti giyate || p. 109, Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta T.S.S. Edition The commentary on the V. V. does not extend to this section but the following extracts will serve to show how Hemacandra and Manikyacandra understood the above verses of Mahimabhatta : kavipratibhaya nirvikalpaka pratyaksakalpaya visayikrta vastusvabhava yatropavarnyante sa jatervisayah | evam ca - ' alankarakrtam yesam svabhavoktiralankrtih | alankaryataya tesam kimanyadavasisyate || ' ( Kuntaka) iti yatkaiscitpratipaditam tannirastameva | vastuno hi samanya- svabhavo laukiko'rtho'lankaryah | kavipratibhasamrambha visesa visayastu lokotta- 1 rartho'lankaranamiti | tatha caha - ( quotation of the above verses from | Mahima)'. Hemacandra, p. 275, com. - 2 1 See Hemacandra. ' Hemacandra also reads incorrectly 'Anyalankara. ' 3 This half is missing in the T.S.S. Edition and is supplied here from Hemacandra.

| HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTI 115 iha vastusvabhavavarnanamatram nalankarah | tattve sarva kavyamalankarah syat | tasmat samanyasvabhavo laukiko'rtho'lankaryah | kavipratibhago- carasya tu ata eva tannimittasya svabhavasya uktih alankarah | p. 403, Mysore Edition Manikyacandra's gloss on the K. Prakasa. It is accepted by logicians that in one's apprehension of an object there are really two kinds of awareness, one of the object itself as such and another of the object as possessing a name and as belonging to a class. Perception is thus indeterminate and determinate, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka. Somewhat similar to this, there are the two apprehensions of an object by a poet endowed with penetrating imagination and by an ordinary man. The latter sees what is but the common nature, Samanyarupa, of an object; the expression which he uses in communicating about that object communicates only the ordinary nature of the object. But the imaginative eye of the poet which is like a Yogin's vision or a divine third eye, sees a special aspect of the thing, not with reference to its common nature, but details whose presentation reveal a wondrous picture of it. If we understand Mahimabhatta's Samanya and Visesa Svabhavas in such a general manner, his verses do not offer any problem for interpretation. The commonplace Svabhava of thing will be the scientific facts about an object, its attributes as pertaining to a class; a bald statement of these as in jala: etc. would not constitute Svabhavokti Alamkara; this ordinary nature of the thing is the fact available in the world and forms the material for the play of the poet's imagination and fancy; it is the Alankarya. The striking and special aspect of the thing, its Visista Svabhava, which the poet's eye alone sees and his imagination alone embodies in words of poetry, is the object of

Svabhavokti Alankarana. In as much as this Visista Svabhava is not 'Siddha', but is 'Sadhyamana' through the play of the poet's Pratibha, it is Alankara. The drab matter of fact Svabhava is out of the scope of any Alankara. Hence did the previous writers also insist on Jati being Agramya, Pusta,] Caru and so on. Ruyyaka calls this Suksma svabhava and Vidyadhara, Uccais svabhava. Kuntaka would, however, reply that he is still unanswered; for, to him, it is the Visista svabhava that forms the Kavya sarira and the other Svabhava is out of account in a discussion in poetics. anutkrstadharmayuktasya varnaniyasya alankaranamapyasamucita bhittibhagolli - khitalekhyavan na sobhatisayakaritamavahati | yasmadatyantaramaniya- svabhavikadharmayuktam varnaniyavastu parigrahaniyam | V. J. III, p. 135. Artha in Kavya is, by necessity, Sundara: 44: AIGHTF 9 F 9 zZyzzT: | I. 6, Vakrotijivita of Kuntaka The Visista Svabhava varnana is a case of the Vastu itself having the requisite Vakrata. But to others, as has already been said, this Vakrata which is surely a result of the poet's power and is not something existing there already, is reason enough to call the case an Alamkara. Ruyyaka has something special to contribute to the study of Svabhavokti. He has touched an aspect of the question not dealt with by others. It is his distinction of Svabhavokti from Bhavika. It is, however, a question which cannot be gone into fully except after a survey of the history of the. concept of Bhavika from the beginning and for this reason is reserved for the next chapter. 'Cf. Apusta dosa and Niralankara dosa (in cases where the Samanya Svabhava is given) in the Dosa prakarana of the books.