Chapter 4 - The history of Bhavika in Sanskrit poetics

BHAMAHA says at the end of his Alankaras: bhavikatvamiti prahuh prabandhavisayam gunam | pratyaksa iva drsyante yatrartha bhutabhavinah || citrodattadbhutarthatvam kathayah svabhi (or vinitata | sabdanakulata ceti tasya hetum pracaksate || III. 52-53. Bhamaha here speaks of a concept which he calls a Guna, not of Vakya, but of the Prabandha as a whole. As it has been treated of at the end of Alankaras, we have to suppose that Bhamaha considered this also as an Alankara, with this difference, that while the rest were restricted to a Vakya, this was pervasive of a whole part of a poetic composition or of the whole composition itself. As a matter of fact, Bhamaha calls this Bhavikatva an Alamkara in the beginning of the third chapter : bhavikatvam ca nijaguralankaram sumedhasah | III. 4. That Bhamaha considered this Bhavikatva described as a Prabandha guna as an Alankara is confirmed by the words of the Jayamangala on Bhatti also: bhavikatvamalankarah prabandhavisaya uktah | What is this Bhavikatva? Bhamaha defines this as the quality which pertains to that part of a composition where the

> ideas of the past and the future presented by the poet are so vivid as to look like belonging to the present. The term 'Prabandha' may be rendered here as 'that part of the poem on the force of the word 'yatra' and on the basis of the Jayamangala which points out only one canto in illustration of this Bhavikatva. But it seems that Bhavikatva is really a quality of prime necessity which all great and good poetry should, from beginning to end, possess. The poet is like the Rsi who brings through the power of his vision the past and future into the present. avidyabijavidhvamsadayamarsena caksusa | kalau bhutabhavisyantau vartamanamavivisat || Anargharaghava, II. 34. As one reads the poem, it should begin to live before his eyes : that is, it should appear before the mind's eye of the reader that the story is happening in his very presence. It is this 'pratyaksayamanatva' which the Arsa-Sahrdayas who listened to the inaugural recitation of Valmiki's epic said that the Adikavya possessed: ciranirvrttamapyetat pratyaksamiva darsitam | I. 4. 17. ' Such a reality' called forth by 'imagination' seems to be called by some word derived from bhava: bhava itself or bhavana or bhavika or bhavita, or udbhavana. In this connection it should be pointed out here that the twelfth anga of the Lasya is called bhava and bhavita and that it is defined as an imaginary vision', in which, having seen her lover in a dream, the beloved supposes him to be present with her and begins to give expression to consequent emotions: uktapratyukta bhavam ( ve ) ca lasyangani vidurbudhah | Ch. XX, sl. 139. Kasi Edition

drstra svapne priyam yatra madananalatapita | karoti 119 sifa fafauna unang ad vifaagzad 11 sl. 152. ibid Abhinava, who does not accept more than ten Lasyangas, refers to others who proposed two more Lasyangas and here, he gives the Bhavita as Bhavika. anye citrapadam bhavikam cetyangadvayamahuh, pathanti ca etc. p. 510, vol. II, Abhi. Bha. Madras MS. In the Bha. Pra., Saradatanaya also gives it as Bhavika. To return to Bhamaha,-the means to achieve this Bhavikatva are mentioned by Bhamaha in the second verse. They are three citrodat tadbhutarthatvam, kathayah svabhi (or vi) nitata, and sabdanakulata. Of these three, it seems the second should be taken first. There does not seem to be any reference to drama or Abhinaya here, in the expression ' Kathayah Svabhinitata.' There is a reading 'svavinitata' which the Jayamangala supports. It simply means that the story should progress very smoothly and with gripping interest, there being no hitch, no vagueness and nothing mystifying. Then comes the first means which applies to the ideas with which the story is worked out; the Arthas should be striking and exalted enough to capture the imagination. Then comes the third means, which refers to the verbal expression which should not be 'involved' or such as to prevent a quick grasp of the ideas or the story.' 'In the Samanyabhinaya chapter (24 th, Kasi Edition), Bharata refers to two kinds of drama and its presentation (Prayoga),Abhyantara and Bahya. In the definition of the Abhyantara Natya prayoga, we find ideas similar to those by which Bhamaha defines Bhavikatva. suvibhaktakathalapam anisturamanakulam | yadidrsam bhavennatayam jneyamabhyantaram tu tat || S 1. 71.

Bhatti, as interpreted by the Jayamangala, considered that primarily poetry must have Prasada; hence, when after illustrating grammar he comes to the illustration of poetics, he calls the section Prasanna kanda. Next to Prasada are the Alankaras; then comes Madhurya guna illustrated by a descrip tion of dawn; next appears a canto, the 12 th, which is said to illustrate Bhavikatva. The Jayamangala here says that Bhavikatva is an Alamkara mentioned as pertaining to a whole composition and not to a sentence; and it results from the ideas being 'wonderful' and so on. It then quotes Bhamaha's two verses on Bhavikatva and concludes that in that canto of Mantranirnaya, deliberation in Ravana's court, Bhavikatva must be held to have been illustrated. bhavikatvamalankarah prabandhavisaya uktah | naikadesikam ( prabandhavisaya ukto naikadesikah 1) tasya citradayo'rthah pravrttihetavah | tatha coktam (the two verses of Bhamaha quoted above) iti | tatsarvam mantra- nirnayaprabandhe drastavyamiti darsayannaha || To begin with, this canto has 5 verses addressed to Vibhisana by his mother, sls. 2-6. These five verses are said to illustrate Udattarthatva. In the discussion and counsel that follow, one must look for the other features, kathayah svavinitata, sabdanakulata and citradbhutarthatva . Says the Jayamangala : (p. 307, N. S. edn.) iyata prabandhena udattarthabhidhanadudattarthatvamuktam | ita uttaram prahastaravana vibhisanamatamahakumbhakarnadinam vacanaprabandhesu citradbhutarthatvam drastavyam | svavinitata subodhata sabdanakulata cetyetadubhayam kathayameva mantranirnayakhyayam drastavyam ||

The Jayamangala says here only one definite thing that the svavinitata of katha means 'subodhata', easy understandability of the story. Beyond this, we are not able to know what exactly in this canto answer to the conditions Udattartha, Citrartha, Adbhutartha, Kathayah svavinitata, and Sabdanakulata; nor are we able to see how in this particular canto, things of past and future are made to appear as present ones. It is needless to add that Mallinatha is of less help here. Dandin also, like Bhamaha, calls Bhavikatva or Bhavika, a Prabandha guna. He has three verses on it, at the end of his Alamkaras and in these verses, there are ideas not found in Bhamaha. bhavikam ta ( katva ) miti prahuh prabandhavisayam gunam | (1) bhavah kaverabhiprayah kavyesvasya vyavasthitih or $1acanfafz, ustua: || ( 2 ) parasparopakaritvam sarvesam vastuparvanam | ( 4 ) || visesananam vyarthanamakriya ( 3 ) sthanavarnana (3) (4) (5) vyaktiruktikramabaladgambhirasyapi vastunah | viaruafk¿ gafufa azifam faz: 11 If we leave the initial agreement in calling it a Prabandha guna, we find that there is nothing of what Bhamaha said in Dandin's description of the Bhavika. Perhaps, the fifth idea, the clear appearance of even a deep lying idea by the force or the sequence of the expression, contains a faint echo of Bhamaha's idea of past and future being as alive as present, pratyaksa iva drsyante yatrartha bhutabhavinah | All the other ideas in Dandin numbering four turn on the derivation of Bhavikatva from Bhava, so clearly stated in idea number one. The several

parts or sections of a composition being mutually helpful, avoidance of the needless details, descriptions only at places proper for them-all these are ideas of Aucitya, common in later days but striking in an early writer. All these ideas of Aucitya, flow out of the idea of the poet (kavibhava) and Dr. De finds here as Ananda would say) of the asthetical problem of poetry being the expression of the poet's mind, with which, he adds, western poetics is so much concerned and Sanskrit poetics so little.' But what Dandin actually meant by Kaviabhipraya can only be conjectured; and the commentators are of little help. It is however clear that Bhavikatva was in vogue among critics in the pre-Bhamaha days and that when we come to Bhamaha and Dandin, already guess-work had started. Dandin's Bhavika as Kavi-abhipraya, the mutual helpfulness of parts etc., died with him. No later writer revived it. For the later writers, the Bhavika was what Bhamaha gave them through Udbhata. Ubdhata made it a definite Alamkara casting of the adjunct, Prabandha guna. He defines it towards the close of the sixth varga, in a single verse : gegen ga qaraf zaja yaufaa: 1 atyadbhutah syattadvacamanakulyena bhavikam || Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha Bhavikatva has now definitely become bhavika. Udbhata felt that in the expression, Citrodattadbhutartha, there is much redundance; he satisfied himself with a single qualification of artha, Atyadbhuta. He left off Bhamaha's second condition, 'kathayah svabhinitata." Perhaps honesty is responsible for Udbhata's omission of this I un-understandable bit. See his Intro. to Vakrotijivita of Kuntaka, p. xx, Skr. Poetics, II, p. 63, f.n., and Pathak Com. Vol., p. 355.

$ HISTORY OF BHAVIKA 123 Sabdanakulata' recurs here as 'vacam anakulya.' The main definition of Bhavika given by Bhamaha, the present-like appearance of the past, and future, is retained by Udbhata. Pratiharenduraja occupies an important place in the history of Bhavika. At his hands the concept reached its widest interpretation. While commenting on Udbhata, he quotes and explains Bhamaha's two verses on Bhavikatva; and Dandin's explanation-bhavah kaveh abhiprayah-is also found absorbed in Pratiharenduraja's imaginative exposition of Bhavika. Vacam anakulya' in Udbhata and 'Sabdanakulata in Bhamaha are interpreted by him as the quick delivery of the meaning, a quality of the words allied to Prasada and Arthavyakti; Prasada and Arthavyakti are to be included here in this Bhavika and not vice versa, as Ruyyaka adds. tatra vacamanakulata vyastasambandharahitalokaprasiddhasabdopanibandhanat jhagityarthapratitikarita | Pratiharendu, p. 79. [ napyayam sabdanakulatvahetukat jhagityarthasamarpanat prasadakhyoh Ruyyaka, Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka] Pratiharenduraja makes Bhavika the very essence of Rasarealisation. It has been pointed out by Ananda (Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, II, xi, p. 82) that Prasada is pre-eminently necessary for rasa-realisation. The second condition kathayah svabhinitata is directly related by Pratiharenduraja to Rasa-realisation by interpreting svabhinitata' as referring to the clear presentation (abhinaya) of the Rasas. 6 svabhinitatetyabhinayadidvarena srngaradirasasamvalitatvam caturvargopayasya uktam | p. 80. I 'Edition Banhatti, 1925.

The other condition of Artha being Citra, Udatta and and Adbhuta is emphasised by Pratiharendu as a feature of Artha corresponding to the feature of Sabda called Sabda anakulata. yatha catra sabdagatamanakulatvamanantaroktena prakarena hetuh, tatha arthagatamapi citrodattarthopanibandhahetukamatyadbhutatvam drastavyam | p. 80. Ideas should be exalted, expression transparent and emotion graphically presented. When these are there, the Sahrdaya's mind realises completely the poet's mind mirrored in his poetry. Thus Pratiharenduraja touches Dandin's bhavah kaveraviprayah and Bhatta Nayaka's bhavanavyapara . It appears Pratiharenduraja's idea of Bhavika has affinities with the concept of Imagination, lying at the basis of not only poetic creation but also of the critic's aesthetic re-creation of poetry in his enjoyment of it. Pratiharenduraja actually says that Bhavika refers both to the poet and to the Sahrdaya between whom a circuit of experience is completed. bhavah -- jhagityarthapratitikarita | tasyam hi satyam kaveh sambandhi yo asayah srrmgaradirasasamvalitacaturvargopayabhuta visistarthollekhi sa kavineva sahrdayaih srotrbhih svabhiprayabhedena tattatkavyapratibimbitarupa- tatha saksatkriyate | srotrnamapi hi tathavidhasvacchasabdanubhavadravitanta- ratmanam sahrdayanam svabhiprayapratimudra tatra samkramati | atah kaveryo - 'savabhiprayah tadgocarikrta bhuta bhavino'pi padarthastatra sahrdayaih srotrbhih svabhiprayabhedena pratyaksa iva drsyante | tadevamevamvidha hetu nibandhanam kavi srotrbhavadvitayasammi (mi ) lanatmakam bhavikam drasta- vyam | ata eva catra kavisambandhinau bhavasya srotrbhavabhedadhyavasitasya

purassphuradrupasya vidyamanatvad bhavikavyapadesah | bhavo'sminvidyata iti bhavikam | tadahuh- | sollasi kaveratma svacche sabdarthadarpana | #iyafaigaqie afafara ghaa || sampitasvacchasavdarthadravitabhyantarastatah | enai aarya: gfe agaif qvi ana || . || pp. 79-80. Udbhata's illustration is a verse in which reference is made to a damsel having had (bhuta) collyrium in her eye, and to her future (bhavi) wearing of ornaments! Pratiharendu no doubt offers some comments on the illustration but what a far cry from the great concept of aesthetics that Bhavika is to him and to what is said to be illustrated in this verse! 1 Mammata takes his idea of Bhavika from Udbhata, but in his definition, he omits two ideas: first, the qualification of things by the attribute atyadbhutah and second, the means, vacam Manmata's illustration is much the same as Udbhata's: the lover says that he can see that there was collyrium in the lady's eyes and he can imagine also how she will look when she is adorned with ornaments! It is however not the mention in so many ideas and words of the past and future that is meant by Bhamaha when he says that Bhavika is the quality which makes the past and future event so vivid as to appear like happening before our very eyes. But through Udbhata, and Mammata also, a great concept of aesthetics fell to the place of a narrow rhetorical figure of a Vakya. , Bhava alamkara in Rudrata has nothing to do with the Bhavika of this chapter, which is absent in Rudrata.

When Bhavika was reduced to this state, trouble arose and writers had to show that it did not overlap two others, viz., Svabhavokti on one side and Rasokti on the other. Mammata's commentator, Vidyacakravarttin, explains why Mammata omitted from his definition of the Bhavika the statement of the means, Sabdanakulya: When things of the past and future are visualised, there are two possibilities: The things by themselves may possess a power and beauty whereby their mere mention may make them look like being actually present before us; or this quality of their becoming vivid enough to appear like things of the present may be wrought in them through the extraordinary gifts of expression in the poet, 'sabdanakulya' etc. To Bhamaha and Udbhata, only the latter cases were Bhavika; for to become an Alamkara, a poet's powers must have added something.' Mammata however thinks that both cases are Bhavika; though it is true that for an Alamkara there has to be something wrought by the poet, we have 'Svabhavokti' where the beauty is more or less siddha'; even so, a presentation of such past and future things as possess an innate beauty and power is also a case of 'Bhavikalankara'; otherwise, we will have to commit the flaw of logical gaurava by creating a new name for this variety. Ruyyaka, in his Alankara Sarvasva, first follows the older writers, but in the end quotes and reconciles Mammata to the older position, by accepting two varieties of Bhavika. Vidyacakravarttin here takes Visvanatha to task for not understanding Ruyyaka properly and this has been set forth by me at some length in a note in the Annals This statement of Bhamaha's and Udbhata's view of Bhavika by Vidyacakravarttin does not seem to be wholly correct; for, by the adjuncts citrodattadbhutarthatva and atyadbhutah ( bhavah ), both Bhamaha and Udbhata mean that the things, by themselves also, must have something striking and gripping. 1 6

of the BORI., vol. XIV, pp. 251 - 2, 254. It is needless to quote Vidyacakravarttin's text here. (T.S.S. edn. of the K. Pra., pt. II, 346-7 ) ., It was seen in Pratiharenduraja's exposition of the Bhavika how this concept became, at his hands, the very soul of Rasa-realisation and how, on reading it, our minds went to Bhatta Nayaka's Bhavana, and the concept of Imagination. See Ruyyaka : -- kavigato bhava asayah srotari pratibimbatvenastiti bhavo bhavana punah punascetasi vinivesanam, so'nastiti | - kevalam vastupratyaksatve pratipattuh samagrayapayujyate | sa ca loka- yatrayam caksuradindriyasvabhava | yoginamatindriyarthadarsane bhavanarupa | kavyarthavidam ca bhavanasvabhavaiva | sa ca bhavana vastugatatyadbhutatvaprayukta, atyadbhutanam vastunamadarapratyayena hrdi sandharyamanatvat | Pp. 221-223. T.S.S. Edition Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka which Bhatta Gopala reproduces thus in his gloss on the K. pra.- bhavasca bhavana punah punascetasi vinivesanamadarapratyayena hrdaye dharyamanatvam yatra yoginamiva kavyavedinamabhiyogah | p. 347. T.S.S. Edition II. This relates Bhava or Bhavana more definitely to the reader also, even as Pratiharenduraja did. To begin with, Ruyyaka also defined (in the Sutra) Bhavika as simply as Mammata, as the 'Pratyaksayamanatva' of 'bhuta' and 'bhavi', without mention of the means Sabdanakulata. But, in the Vrtti, he mentioned the ' Adbhutatva' of the ' Artha ' and the ' Anakulata' of the ' sabda' Ruyyaka

then points out that this Bhavika cannot be mistaken for or included in Bhrantiman, Atisayokti, Pratiyamana Utpreksa, Kavyalinga, Rasavan and Svabhavokti. Among these, we shall concern ourselves only with Ruyyaka's distinction of Bhavika from the last two, Rasavadalankara and Svabhavokti.' The gloss on Udbhata published as Tilaka's in the [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] points out how the Bhavika would collide with Svabhavokti and Rasavadalamkara. bhutabhavisabdasya paroksatvopalaksane paroksanam purahsphuradrupatva hetutva- miti vyakhyane svabhavoktih | sahrdayahrdaya pravesaksamatvamiti vyakhyayam rasavadadyalankaratapattih | p. 51, [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] Edition Svabhavokti and Rasavad (i.e., Rasokti as Bhoja would say) are easily distinguished. They are both direct and graphic presentation, the former of objects and the latter of emotions. The former creates a Vastu-samvada in our mind ; it rouses a mental image. The latter creates a Cittavrtti-samvada, an emotional image. na ca hrdayasamvadamatrena svabhavoktirasavadalankarayorabhedah | vastu- samvadarupatvat svabhavokteh, cittavrttisamadhirupatvacca rasavadalankarasya | Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka Ruyyaka, N. S. Edition with Jayaratha's gloss, p. 181. hrdayasamvado hi vastucittavrttigatatvena dvividhah | tatra svabhavoktau vastusamvadah pradarsitah | Jayaratha's Vimarsini on the Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka, p.181. From Mammata as explained by Vidyacakravarttin, we understand that the difference between Bhavika and Svabhavokti is firstly, in point of time, i.e., things in Bhavika 1 See the closing section of the previous chapter on Svabhavokti. Ruyyaka shows how Bhavika differs from Prasada guna also.

are either past or future; and secondly, in the restricted scope of Svabhavokti, which can describe only an object's own natural form and action, (Svakriyarupa varnana ). But Ruyyaka says that Bhavika differs from both Rasavad and Svabhavokti in being an objective realisation in which the reader sees a thing as a yogin (bhinna sarvajna) sees the past and future; in Svabhavokti and Rasokti, the limiting contextual references get sunk; subject-object duality merges and not only is there a generalised or universalised experience (Sadharanikrta) with reference to the characters presented in the poem or drama, but there is also, for the time, a loss or forgetting of the individuality of the reader or the spectator. napyayam parisphuradrupataya sacamatkarapratipatte rasavadalamkarah | ratyadi - cittavrttinam tadanusaktataya vibhavadinamapi sadharanyena hrdayasamvaditaya paramadvaitajnanivat pratitau tasya bhavat | iha tu tatasthyena bhutabhavinam sphutataya bhinnasarvajnavat pratiteh | napiyam suksma- vastusvabhavavarnanat svabhavoktih | tasyam laukikavastugatasuksmadharmavarnane sadharanyena hrdayasamvadasambhavat | iha lokattaranam vastunam sphutataya tatasthyena ca pratiteh | p. 224, Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka, T.S.S. Edition " Ruyyaka adds another difference between Bhavika and Svabhavokti in the former, only a miraculous (adbhuta and lokottara : see his illustration munirjayati etc.) incident figures, whereas in the latter any ordinary idea. But this difference he casts off at once by saying that there may be cases of vivid realisation of even ordinary things of this world, but then it would be a Bhavika with an element of Svabhavokti. Surely Ruyyaka does not mean that alone: in such a case makes 9

up the Bhavika and the Vastu being laukika makes up the Svabhavokti.¹ kvacittu laukikanamapi vastunam sphutatvena pratitau bhavikasvabha amal: amaa: en pp. 224-5 Ruyyaka, Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka, T.S.S. Edition So, the main difference by which Ruyyaka would distinguish Bhavika from Svabhavokti and Rasavad is that in the two latter cases, the Pratiti is Sadharana. But this again is a thin prop, to be given up. What kind of realisation in poetry can there be without Sadharanikarana? This universalisation has to come about, even in the case of Bhavika. Ruyyaka no doubt knows this but he adds, that when this Sadharanikarana floods the heart of the reader, the Bhavika becomes Rasavad. sphutapratipattyuttarakalam tu sadharanyapratitau sphutapratipattinimittaka auttarakaliko rasavadalankarah syat | p. 224, Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka, T.S.S. Edition Edn. 2 'As Samudrabandha mistakes in his gloss, pp. 224-5, T.S.S. (a) Manikyacandra adopts Ruyyaka's distinction of Bhavika from Svabhavokti and Rasavad. See p. 408. Mysore Edition of the K. Pra. (b) Hemacandra says that Bhavika is either Svabhavokti or some feature pertaining purely to drama; that if it is pointed out to be present in Muktakas, it is not found to be delectable! p. 293, K. A. Vya. (c) Since Bhavika is said to present pictures separated by time, the Candraloka adds a kin-alamkara called Bhavikacchavi for presentation of things separated by space. desatmaviprakrstasya darsanam bhavikacchavih | tvam vasan hrdaye tasyah saksatpuspesuriksyase || V. 114. (d) For the connection Bhavika bears to the clear presentation and realisation of rasa, see the following verse of Sri Harsa in his Naisadhiya carita: srutimadhupadatragvaidagdhivibhavitabhavika- sphutara sabhrsabhyakta vaitalikairjagire girah || XIX, 1.