Chapter 7 - The History of Aucitya in Sanskrit poetics

One of the noteworthy points in the Sanskrit systems of literary criticism is that, in an inquiry into a comprehensive philosophy of the literary art, they do not separate poetry and drama, nor prose and verse. Bharata, in his Natya Sastra, has defined Drama as Imitation of the three worlds or representation of the actions of men of various nature: trailokyanukrtih or dhirodattadyavasthanukrtih ( N. SI, 107, 113, 120 etc. Vide also Dasarupaka I, 7). Consequently Bharata has perfected a system of ideas of Loka Dharmi³, which term means 'the ways of the world' or to put it short Nature', and stands to denote the realistic elements in Bharata's Stage." In the concept of Prakyti, Bharata studies the various kinds of men, minds, and natures found in the worlds. In the concept of Pravrtti he has studied the provincial, racial, and national characteristics in dressing and other activities. He has elaborately dealt with Aharya-abhinaya, dress and make-up, which, he says, must be appropriate to the Rasa and Bhava. 1 etadvibhusanam narya akesadanakhadapi | yathabhavarasavastham vijnayaivam prayojayet || N. S'. XXIII, 42. See my article on Loka Dharmi (Realism) and Natya Dharmi (Conventions and Idealism) of Bharata's Stage in the JOR, Madras, Vol. VII.

He has devoted separate sections to a consideration of the most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to the emotions (XIX, ¶¶n:), of the Svaras suitable for each mood and of the musical tunes, Jatyamsakas, appropriate to the varying Rasa and Bhava (XXIX, 1-4). These remarks apply to the artists of the stage and theatre, the actors, the conductor and others. Regarding the work of the poetdramatist, Bharata has analysed the text of the drama and has pointed out how the verbal qualities of sweetness, harshness etc., and the flights of fancies expressed in the form of figures of speech have to be appropriate to that Bhava or Rasa which is portrayed (XVII, 108-123). Thus at the end of the treatment of each topic, Bharata has an important section called Rasa-prayoga', where he points out what suits what. ' So much so that Bharata, observes that, in judging drama, the ground of reference for success of the art is the world. He emphasises that one has to know the infinite variety of human nature Prakyti and Sila, on which is Natya or drama based. nanasilah prakrtayah sile natacam pratisthitam | The 'Pramana' of Natya is finally only the world. A theorist can give a few indications and the rest can be learnt only from the world. lokasiddham bhavet siddham natyam lokasvabhavajam | tasmannatyaprayoge tu pramanam loka isyate || yani sastrani ye dharmah yani silpani yah kriyah | lokadharmapravrttani tani natyam prakirtitam ||

na hi sakyam hi lokasya sthavarasya carasya ca | sastrena nirnayam kartum bhavacestavidhim prati || nanasilah prakrtayah sile natyam pratisthitam | tasmallokah pramanam hi kartavyam natyayoktrbhih || N. S., XXVI, 113-119. Amifa a qui anfa Migunaifa ara | N. S., XXIV, 214. (end of the chapter on dress and make-up). Nature or the three worlds or Prakrti or Sila-all these can finally be referred to by the single word Rasa which is the 'Soul' of poetry. Drama is the representation of moods, Bhava-anukirtana, as Bharata puts it. Out of these moods flow everything-the actions, the character, the dress, the nature of one's speech etc. Thus to this factor, which is at the root of all these things, viz., Rasa, have these things again to be referred for finding out whether in representing them, there is propriety or appropriateness. Things cannot be estimated by themselves separately and labelled as good or bad, appealing or otherwise. That is, Gunatva and Dosatva do not inherently pertain to anything eternally but anything, according to the situation. where it occurs, is either suitable or not; and in this suitability or otherwise lies Gunatva or Dosatva. What Bharata says of ornaments and decoration in the make-up of the characters is true of all other parts of the art of representation by the poet and the production of the drama on the stage by the actors. Bharata lays down that if a thing does not agree or is not proper in a certain place with reference to Rasa, it is the . greatest literary flaw. Improper placing, like placing a necklace at the foot and an anklet round the neck, can only produce laughter.

adesajo hi vesastu na sobham janayisyati | mekhalorasi bandhe ca hasyayaivopajayate || N. S, XXIII, 69. It is a serious breach of propriety for a writer to describe a forlorn lady suffering from separation from her lord (i.e., one in Pravasa Vipralambha) as having her body fully decked with jewels. In the realm of artistic expression the same rule holds good. A poet commits the greatest crime against Rasa if he introduces a cartload of ornaments of a verbal character in places where Rasa has to be effectively portrayed and where the absence of any figure is itself the perfection of art. The proper placing of things in such a manner as to suit Rasa and the avoiding of things not suitable form the essence of artistic expression. This is propriety, Aucitya. An anklet adds no beauty as an ornament but an anklet as an ornament for the ankle is helpful to beautify one. We can thus see how this doctrine of appropriateness, propriety and adaptation-all comprehended in the one word Aucitya, is directly derivable from Bharata. Just put by the side of the verse of Bharata abovequoted, the verse illustrative of the theory of Aucitya given by Ksemendra in his Aucityavicaracarca, in which work the doctrine of Aucitya had the complete elaboration into a system of criticism, and see : adesajo hi vesastu na sobham janayisyati | mekhalorasi bandhe ca hasyayaivopajayate || Bharata, XXIII, 69. kanthe mekhalaya, nitambaphalake tarena harena va panau nupurabandhanena carane keyurapasena va | sauryena pranate, ripau karunaya, nayanti ke hasyatam aucityena vima rucim pratanute nalamkrtirno gunah || Ksemendra's Aucityavicaracarca of Ksemendra

198 . SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA SAASTRA Thus the first work in the history of Sanskrit Poetics contains implicitly as much of this theory of Aucitya of the Sanskrit Alankara Sastra, as of the other theory of poetry, Rasa, explicitly, even though emphasis on both these-Aucitya and Rasa was again systematically laid only as late as the ninth. tenth and eleventh centuries. Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion between the whole and the parts, between chief and the subsidiary, between the Angin and the Angas. This perfection is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of its formulation as a theory explaining the secret of poetic appeal, Auchitya is stated to be the 'Jivita', life-breath, of poetry. This Aucitya, which is proportion and harmony on one side and appropriateness and adaptation on the other, cannot be understood by itself but presupposes that to which all other things are harmonious and appropriate. Surely there has to be harmony and appropriateness in every part and between one part and another; but everything as a whole has to be pronounced proper and appropriate or otherwise by a reference to what constitutes the 'Soul'-Atman of poetry viz., Rasa. Thus Bharata speaks of the Rasa-prayoga of Pravrtti, Vrtti, Guna, Alamkara, Aharyabhinaya, Pathyaguna, Svara and Jatyamsa. In later terminology, this Rasaprayoga is Rasaaucitya. But Aucitya is only implicitly contained in Bharata. It was only rather late that Poetics got itself again wedded and identified with Bharata's Dramaturgy and took its stand scientifically on the two pedestals of Rasa and Aucitya, which it had forgotten for a time, as we shall now see in the following account of the history of the concept of Aucitya after Bharata. The next glimpse we have of Aucitya is in Magha, who, in his poem, has made some side-remarks which shoot their rays into the darkness of the early Magha

: history of Poetics. In canto ii of Magha's Sisupalavadha, we have a verse on the policy best suited for the king, which, through comparison, drags in the topic of Gunas in Kavyas or dramas. tejah ksama va naikantam kalajnasya mahipateh | naikamojah prasado va rasabhavavidah kaveh || S'. V. II, 83. The king has to achieve his purpose with an eye on expediency. Time and circumstance are the pre-eminently deciding factors of his policy. There is no inherent good in either power or forbearance and peace by themselves but all goodness of a policy consists in its effectiveness, in using that which is suited to the time. Prowess is waste and will even ruin the cause where it is needlessly flaunted. Forbearance cannot help the king when he has to succeed by putting up a thick fight. Thus, adaptation is the only policy good for the king. The case is similar to that of a poet with whom the main concern is Rasa and Bhava and an understanding of their subtle nature. In portraying his characters and their actions and in describing them, it will not do if the poet sticks to one quality throughout, say Prasada or Ojas. When the Vira, Adbhuta and Raudra Rasas appear, he has to adopt the Guna Ojas to suit the vigour, energy and blaze (Dipti) of those Rasas and when the key of emotion is lowered and quiet emotinal effects have to be produced, the requisite quality for the poet is Prasada. Thus, not Gunas by themselves, but that Guna which is proper and appropriate-Ucita-is helpful to Rasa. This is Guna-aucitya. Aucitya is here Adaptation. Magha, as a poet, had this clear insight into Bharata's ideas of Rasa and Gunas appropriate to each Rasa. Bhoja considers such appropriateness in expression between the emotion and the stylistic quality as a Prabandha-guna,

i.e., one of the good features of good poetry. He calls it rasanurupasandarbhatvam '. He means the same thing as what Magha says in the above-given verse, which also Bhoja quotes. rasanurupasandarbhatvamityanena ratiprakarse komalah, utsahaprakarse praudhah, krodhaprakarse kathorah, sokaprakarse mrduh, vismayaprakarse tu sphutasabdasandarbhom viracaniya iti upadisan 'naikamojah prasado va rasabhavavidah kaveh ' (Magha, S'. V. II, 83.) | Srngara Prakasa, Madras MS. Vol. II, p. 432. In the above-given verse of Magha we have an early 'Sirodaya' of the doctrine of Gunas as the Dharmas of Rasa, the Soul of Kavya, which is one of the special contributions of Anandavardhana. In later terminology, Magha is here speaking of varnasamghatana - aucitya, appropriateness of letters and collocation, or simply gunaucitya . It is again in respect of Gunas that we have a faint glimpse of the idea of Aucitya implied in certain Bhamaha and Dandin parts of the treatises of Bhamaha and Dandin. Magha says that Gunas must change and be appropriate to the Rasa and the Bhava of the situation. Ojas or Prasada wrongly placed is a literary flaw, directly hindering Rasa. Thus the breach of Aucitya gives rise to flaws. In one way, the greatest Guna or excellence of poetry is only Aucitya and it comprehends all other Gunas; and the greatest Dosa or flaw comprehending other flaws is Anaucitya.' Thus when 1 ' (a) Sarvesvara, in his Sahityasara, (p. 20, Madras MS.) gives seven Vakyartha dosas, and among these Aucitya bhanga is considered as the first. (6) Cf. also Municandra's commentary on Dharmabindu (Agamodaya Samiti series, p. 11 a): aucityamekamekatra gunanam rasirekatah | faqraa gurama: ailfacaufaffia: 11

the Riti is not suited to the Rasa, we can say that there is Riti-anaucitya and a Dosa called Aritimat. But the Gaudi Riti which may not suit Srngara cannot be condemned altogether as eternally unsuited to all poetry. The Gaudi Riti can effectively suggest Vira, Adbhuta, and Raudra Rasas and in the cases of these three, the Vaidarbhi suited to Srngara may be'anucita'. There may be harsh sounds and heavy, long and swollen utterances in a highly worked-up emotion of the kind of Raudra ; the harsh sounds which suggest the Rasa in this case must be avoided by the poet in Srngara Rasa which is suggested by sweet assonances and delicate sound effects. Therefore it is that the Dosas, given as such in separate sections by Bhamaha and Dandin, are, to use a word which came into currency only after Anandavardhana, Anitya. That is, in certain circumstances Dosas cease to be so; there are no fixed Gunas or Dosas; what is Guna in one case is Dosa in another and vice versa. In chapter I, Bhamaha deals with certain Dosas in the last section beginning with sl. 37. After defining and illustrating them he says that these flaws cease to be so sometimes and really give beauty to expression. sannivesavisesattu duruktamapi sobhate | nilam palasamabaddhamantarale khajamiva || kincidasrayasaundaryad dhatte sobhamasadhvapi | kantavilocananyastam malimasamivanjanam || anayanyadapi jneyam disa yuktamasadhvapi | yatha tadvadasadhiyah sadhiyasca prayojayet ||

The principle behind these observations is Aucitya, adaptation. Again, in chapter IV, Bhamaha speaks of such flaws in poetry as Lokavirodha. The flaw of Lokavirodha, which is going against nature, is nothing but the non-observance of the Aucitya of Prakrti etc. Here, he also points out that redundance, Punarukti, which is generally a flaw in expression, turns out to be an effective way of expression in fear, sorrow, jealousy, joy and wonder. bhayasokabhyasuyasu harsavismayayorapi | yathaha gaccha gaccheti punaruktam na tat viduh || IV, 14. There is also the saying ' priye nasti punaruktam | ' Dandin treats of Each and every It is in the same section on Dosas that the principle of Auchitya is implied in Dandin's work also. Dosas in the fourth chapter of his work. Dosa is given with a qualification that in certain circumstances it ceases to be Dosa and turns out to be a Guna. Thus Apartha, the first flaw, is generally a Dosa but it is the most proper means of successfully portraying a madman's raving, a child's sweet prattle or the speech of a sick man. samudayarthasunyam yat tadaparthamitisyate | unmattamattabalanamukteranyatra dusyati || IV. 5. • idamasvasthacittanama bhidhanamaninditam | IV. 7. Speaking of the flaw of Viruddhartha or Vyartha, Dandin says that there is such a state of mind also in which even contradictory speech is the natural mode of expression and hence, in those places, the flaw becomes an excellence.

asti kacidavastha sa sabhisangasya cetasah | awai vazfukai fazgraff great || IV. 10. Punarukta, as has been pointed out by Bhamaha also, is no flaw but is an effective way of expressing compassion or any stress of emotion which needs repetition. Samsaya or the use of doubtful or ambiguous words may generally be a flaw but when such words are wilfully used, as is often needed in the world, they are perfect Gunas. Thus Dandin shows exceptions Vyabhicara-to all the Dosas. He is fully aware, that in the realm of poetry, a certain thing is not Dosa by its very nature but that it is so because of circumstance, a change of which makes it a Guna. He thus finally concludes: virodharasakalo'pyesa kadacitkavikausalat | utkramya dosagananam gunavithim vigahate || IV. 5-7. Bhoja developed the same idea by constituting under the head 'Guna' a peculiar class of Gunas called the Vaisesika Gunas. These are the flaws above noticed which Bhamaha and Dandin considered as excellences sometimes. (Vide the Sarasvatikanthabharana, chapter I. Sls. 89-156, pp. 78-119).' Bhoja calls them also Dosagunas. As a matter of fact, all Gunas and Dosas are 'Vaisesika'. 'It all depends', says the discerning critic in literature as one says in this complex. world. The fact of Dosas becoming Gunas recorded by Bhamaha and Dandin means, if it means or implies anything, the doctrine of Aucitya as the only ruling principle holding good in the realm of poetry for ever. It is because of this that, in Poetics, Dosas are called Anitya. It is only a clearer 'I have spoken of these at length in the chapter on the History. of Gunas in my book on the Srngara Prakasa.

statement of what Dandin has said in the Dosa-section that we have in Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who say: srutidustadayo dosa anitya ye ca sucitah | dhvanyatmanyeva srngare te heya ityudiritah || Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana II, 12. napi gunebhyo vyatiriktam dosatvam | bibhatsahasyaraudradau tvesam (srutidustadinam ) asmabhirupagamat srngaradau ca varjanad anityatvam aufaadafa 419: | Locana. The principle by virtue of which 'harsh sounds'-Srutidusta which form a Dosa to be avoided in Srngara become themselves a Guna highly suggestive of Raudra etc., is Adaptation or Aucitya. (Vide also Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana III, 3-4). In the first half of the 8 th century, King Yasovarman of Kanauj, patron of Bhavabhuti, wrote his Yasovarman, author of the drama Ramabhyudaya, whose prologue has some interest to the student of the history of Poetics for a verse in it on certain concepts drama Ra mabhyudaya. connected with theoretical literary criticism. That veritable mine of quotations, the stupendous Srngara Prakasa of king Bhoja, quotes that verse. Bhoja considers a number of Alankaras of Prabandha, i.e., good features of a poem or a drama as a whole. One of these Prabandhalamkaras is given by bim as 'excellence of build-afaan ginec¶¶-which means, according to him, that the minor 'descriptions' in a Mahakavya must be so set in the framework of the story that they do not appear irrelevant or overdone. This is Aucitya in its aspect of proportion, harmony and strict artistic relevancy of all details from the point of view of Rasa. Bhoja means that this applies to drama also as his quotation from Yasovarman shows.

taduktam tesveva nagararnavavarnanadinam sannivesaprasastyam alankara iti | aucityam vacasam prakrtyanugatam, sarvatra patrocita , pustih svavasare rasasya ca kathamarge na catikramah | suddhih prastuta samvidhanakavidhau, praudhisca sabdarthayoh vidvadbhih paribhavyatamavahitaih, etavadevastu nah || Sr. Pra. Mad. MS. Vol. II, p. 411. This is the earliest instance so far known of the occurrence of the word Aucitya. Yasovarman here refers to a number of good features which a good drama should have. First among them are Aucitya of expression, i.e., speech written according to the nature and level or rank of the characters and Aucitya 8 1 That this is a verse in Yasovarman's Ramabhyudaya is known from the Locana on the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana III, p. 148. Anandavardhana quotes from the second line of the above verse, the bit kathamarge na catikramah ' Explaining the phrase yaduktam which introduces this quotation, Abhinavagupta says: ' yaduktamiti | ramabhyudaye yasovarmana | ' There should be a full-stop in the text here and the words sthitamiti yatha sayyam in the Locana do not form any quotation, as the N. S. edn. suggests by clubbing them together with and by giving them with quotation marks. The correct text should be sthitimiti, kathasayyam | sthitimiti is a Pratika and refers to the word Sthiti in Anandavardhana's Vrtti 'zfazaamarai gufazanagyui feufa tyaktva etc. This word Sthiti is interpreted by Abhinavagupta as the course of the story 'kathasayya '. That it is a verse from the prologue can easily be known; for such verses can figure nowhere else. Mark the similarity of this verse to the verse ' yadvedadhyayanam etc. ' in the prologue to the Malatimadhava of Bhavabhuti who wrote in Yasovarman's court. Also note in the III line the Guna mentioned by Yasovarman sabdarthayoh ' which Bhavabhuti also mentions. 'yatpraudhatvamudarata ca vacasam '. This seems to have developed into the Praudhi forming the Arthaguna Ojas in Vamana, III. ii. 2. a

of Rasa, i.e., delineation of characters in their proper moods. with an eye to developing the Rasa in the proper place. These to comprise the external and internal Aucitya or Aucitya of expression and Aucitya of the content, i.e., the Rasa. On this point Yasovarman has emphasised only what Bharata had laid down as regards Prakrti and Sila. The second mentioned Aucitya of Rasa, its appropriateness to the Patra, the character and its development in the proper place (1) cityam, pustih svavasare rasasya ) are elaborated into many rules of gfe: Rasaucitya by Rudrata and Anandavardhana as we shall see in a further section. It is this all-round Aucitya called by Bhoja an Alankara and Sannivesaprasastyam that Lollata also emphasises. Lollata wants every part of the Mahakavya to be Rasavat. All these are various ways of putting the idea of the Aucitya of Rasa, the 'Soul' of poetry, without basing oneself on which, none can talk of Aucitya intelligibly. Lollata In practice, as can be seen from the numerous and large Mahakavyas, which are entitled to that name. because of their bulk at least, all notions of propriety had become unknown to poets. The several limbs overdeveloped themselves separately, like elephantiac leg, and the Kavya as a whole was an outrage on harmony and Aucitya. This Lollata severely criticised, perhaps in his commentary on the Natya Sastra. To this aspect of Aucitya viz., proportion and strict relevancy of every detail, Lollata drew attention. In the gap between Dandin and Rudrata, two or three stray verses of Lollata quoted by Rajasekhara, Hemacandra and Namisadhu give us a flash in the dark and we see how, stage by stage, the concept of propriety or Aucitya was developing. These three verses of Lollata emphasise Rasaucitya, Auchitya of parts to the chief element called Rasa i.e., the aspect ealled

proportion. Ornaments hide beauty if they are not structural or organic; similarly 'descriptions' have to logically emerge out of the story and the complex course of its Rasa as a necessity. Descriptive cantos should not stand out like outhouses and isolated places for the poet's mind to indulge at length in excess. This is true of the drama as much as of the epic poem. In a drama, the sub - plots, the Pataka and the Prakari and the Sandhyangas should not be considered by themselves as having any virtue but should be seen to be relevant to Rasa. This Anandavardhana emphasises, as we shall see. As regards the Mahakavya, Lollata [Aparajiti, ie, son of Aparajita'] says according to Rajasekhara : " pha astu nama nissima arthasarthah ; kintu rasavata eva nibandho yuktah, na tu nirasasya ' iti aparajitih | yadaha majjanapuspavacayanasandhyacandrodayadivakyamiha | sarasamapi natibahulam prakrtarasananvitam racayet || yastu saridadrisagarapuraturagarathadivarnane yatnah | kavisaktikhyatiphalah vitatadhiyam no matassa iha || [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] I, ix, p. 49. The second verse in the above quotation, along with its following verse, is quoted by Hemacandra with the mention of the name Lollata. The additional verse quoted by him criticises the poets for setting apart cantos for such feats as Yamaka, Cakrabandha etc., in a Mahakavya, they being very inappropriate and uttterly unhelpful to the emotional idea of the epic poem. 1 Vide my paper on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 169.

tatha ca lollatah yastu saridadrisagaranagaturagapuradivarnane yatnah | kavisaktikhyatiphalo hfarifeuifana faaafqui ai na: qazay || prabandhesu yamakanulomataditaracakradibhido'tirasavirodhinyah | abhimanamatrametad gaddurikadipravaho va || iti || K. A. Ch. V, p. 215. Namisadhu, on Rudrata III. 59, quotes the additional verse quoted by Hemacandra and emphasises with its authority the principle of Aucitya. Thus proportion and harmony form an aspect of Aucitya which is propriety, adaptation, and other points of appropriateness. From the point of view of the perfect agreement between the parts and the chief element of Rasa, from the point of view of this proportion and harmony, I think, Aucitya can be rendered in English into another word also viz., 'Sympathy', which as a word in art-criticism means 'mutual conformity of parts'. Rudrata From Dandin we had to come to Lollata before we could again catch sight of Aucitya as a principle underlying many literary dicta. This means that we have to come almost to the time of Anandavardhana whom Rudrata must have slightly preceded. Up to the time of Rudrata the concept was developing unconsciously without a name. The name Aucitya was not given to the idea by any writer of poetic theory, and one more useful word was not thus added to the critical vocabulary of the Sahrdaya. But the word Aucitya must have slowly dawned in the circles of Sahrdayas and we first see that word used in theoretical literature only in Rudrata's Kavyalamkara, a work which has not yet left the primitive Alankara-stage

of criticism but has however embodied into itself a good deal of the concept of Rasa, which alone, according to it, made poetry that interesting and charming thing it is-Sarasa. The word Aucitya occurs often in Anandavardhana's work and Rudrata is only the first writer to mention it in theoretical literature. For, earlier, in the first half of the eighth century, King Yasovarman of Kanauj uses the word Aucitya with much theoretical significance, in much the same significance as the word is used with in later times, in the prologue of his lost drama, Ramabhyudaya, as we have noticed above. Thus the three stages to be noticed in the appearance of the name Aucitya is its mention by Yasovarman, treatment of it to a small extent in Rudrata and to a large extent in Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka. Rudrata just preceded Anandavardhana or was an early contemporary of his. He was perhaps writing in Sankuka's time. Some ideas given in the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana are already seen in Rudrata's work. Many of the Rasa dosas mentioned by Anandavardhana under Rasaucitya in Uddyota iii are found in Rudrata's K. A. What we must note here at present is that though Rudrata treats of Alankaras so largely and though his work is yet one of the old period in which works are called Kavya-Alankara, he has realised the importance of Rasa to suit which Alankaras exist. If Alankaras are otherwise, they have little meaning. That is what Anandavardhana develops in a section on Alamkarasamiksa in Uddyota ii. The idea that Rasa and Rasaucitya control Alamkara is already * seen in Rudrata, who, as said above, is the first writer of Poetics to mention the word Aucitya. After dealing with some Sabdalankaras like Yamakas which are a siren to the easily tempted poets, Rudrata says, by way of closing the chapter, that these figures must be introduced after bestowing due thought on propriety, Aucitya, with reference to the main 14

theme. Even the Anuprasas have to be now cast away and now taken and must be sparsely used with much advantage. They must not be thickly overlaid upon the theme through the whole length of it. etah prayatnadadhigamya samyag aucityamalocya tatharthasamstham | misrah kavindrairaghanalpadirghah karya muhuscaiva grhitamuktah || K. A. II, 32. This is Aucitya of Alankara which Anandavardhana elaborates in Uddyota ii of his work. It is this idea in the last line of Rudrata's verse quoted above - 'grhitamuktah ' that Anandavardhana has formulated into the rule - ' kale ca grahana- tyagau ' - ( II. 19) taking and throwing away according to the circumstances, as regards the use of figures. 2 The word Auchitya again occurs at the end of the next chapter in Rudrata's work where again Rudrata points out the danger of Yamaka etc. He says that they must be approached only by him who knows Aucitya. Namisadhu perfectly understands the full implication of Rudrata's strictures on Yamaka etc., and quotes on this subject of Aucitya the verse of Lollata which we considered in a previous section. Rudrata says: iti yamakamasesam samyagalocayadbhih sukavibhirabhiyuktaih vastu ca aucityavidbhih | K. A. III, p. 36. tatha ca vastu visayabhagamalocayadbhih | yatha kasmin rase kartavyam, ka va na kartavyam | yamaka slesacitrani hi sarase kavye kriyamanani rasakhandanam kuryuh | visesatastu srngarakarunayoh | kaveh kilaitani saktimatram posayanti, na rasavattam | yaduktam ' yamakanuloma + gaddarikadi- pravaho va (Lollata) ||

aucityam yamakadividhanasthanasthanadikam | tadanu caucityavijnananantaram viracaniyam | Namisadhu. Besides the mention of the word Aucitya and the presence of the idea of Alankaraucitya in the two places above referred to, Rudrata speaks of the adaptation-aspect of Aucitya also implicitly like Dandin while dealing with Dosas, which, in certain cases, become Gunas. (Vide chap. vi, Sl. 8). Under the Dosa called Gramya, Rudrata speaks of propriety in addressing persons of differing ranks which Bharata deals with at length as a part of Prakrtyaucitya. Explaining another variety of the Dosa called Gramya, viz., the Asabhya in VI. 21-24, Rudrata says that there are certain words which are inappropriate Anucita-but which in certain special cases become very appropriate-Ucita. a auifad q¿ 'anucitabhavam tathavidham He again uses the idea of 'Ucitanucita' in the next variety of Gramya. He then points out like Dandin how all Dosas, Punarukta etc., become Gunas elsewhere. (VI, 29-39). Finally, Rudrata says that almost all kinds of flaws. become excellences when occasion needs the 'imitation '_ Anukarana-of those flaws. That is, the poet and the dramatist have to depict an infinite variety of men and nature in diverse and complex circumstances. When a madman has to be represented, his nonsense has to be 'imitated' and it is itself sense for the artist here. This was pointed out also at the beginning of this paper while showing how Bharata's N.S'. implies the adaptation aspect of Aucitya. Says Rudrata : ' anukaranabhavama vikalamasamarthadi svarupato gacchan | a vafa gekaleh fauciafsuqui a || V, 47.

As an instance of all flaws becoming excellences, Namisadhu says that in describing a bad speaker committing mistakes of pronunciation, grammar etc., art makes Gunas of all those mistakes. Aucitya or adaptation transforms Dosas into Gunas. He cites an instance of the funny description of the illiterate husband of the poetess Vikatanitamba who is unable to pronounce properly. yatha vikatanitambayah patimanukurvana sakhi praha- kale masam sasye masam vadati sakasam yasca sakasam | uste lumpati ram va sam va tasmai datta vikatanitamba || ityadi | Following Rudrata, Bhoja says in the beginning of his treatment of those Dosas which become Gunas : padadyasritadosanam ye canukaranadisu | yurajyau fazi Isa ¿lgyon: Egar: || S. K. A. 1, 89. This point is realised by the American critic J. E. Spingarn who writes as follows as if explaining the principle of Aucitya, by which Dosas become Gunas as a result of circumstances like 'imitation'. Mr. Spingarn says, in an essay on the Seven Arts and the Seven Confusions, that in poetry and drama Dosatva and Gunatva are not absolutely fixed abstractly and that they are always relative. He remarks: 'It is inconceivable that a modern thinker should still adhere to the abstract tests of good expression, when it is obvious that we can only tell whether it is good or bad when we see it in its natural context. any word artistically bad in itself? Is not "ain't" an excellent expression when placed in the mouth of an illiterate character in a play or story?' In Rudrata's words, Spingarn Is

says that a Gramya word becomes most appropriate in a case of Anukarana-'imitation'. Therefore in expression, in the world of thought, in the realm of action and feeling, and in the region of ideas, that which is proper in the context, that which is useful to the Rasa, and that which has mutual harmony with the other parts, is the best and most beautiful. In chapter XI, Rudrata again speaks of flaws of thought and emotion, Arthadosas and Rasadosas, where under 'Gramya', he mentions Anaucitya or inappropriateness in doings, in port, in dress and in speech with reference to country, family, caste, culture, wealth, age and position. The need for the Aucitya in these is emphasised by Bharata. Rudrata says: gramyatvamanaucityam vyavaharaka ravesavacananam | desakulajatividyavittavayassthanapatresu || XI, 9. All these Dosas are again shown to become Gunas in Sls. 18-23. We can illustrate this principle of Aucitya everywhere. Ordinarily Nyunopama or comparing to an inferior object and Adhikopama or comparing to a superior object are flaws of Upama or the figure of Simile but these two are the very secret of success when a poet wants to satirise a person. Nyunopama and Adhikopama are freely employed in comic and satiric writings where they become very 'Ucita'. The idea of Aucitya and that word itself also explicitly occur often in the Dhvanyaloka, besides being Anandavardhana implied in many places. As a matter of fact, Ksemendra, the systematic exponent of Auchitya as the 'Life' of poetry, took his inspiration only from Anandavardhana. Anandavardhana has laid down that the 'Soul' of poetry is Rasa or Rasadhvani.

kavyasyatma sa evarthah tatha cadikaveh pura | krauncadvandvaviyogotthah sokah slokatvamagatah || 1, 5. That Dhvani is the only artistic process by which Rasa, the Atman', is portrayed by the poet and is got at by the Sahrdaya and that everywhere things appeal most by being deftly concealed and suggested by suppression in a fabric of symbology, are the reasons why Anandavardhana posits Dhvani as the 'Atman' of poetry. That really Rasa or Rasadhvani is the 'Atman', he expressly admits even in the first Uddyota (vide p. 28). The most essential thing in Rasa is Aucitya. That Vastu or ideas and Alankara or the artistic expression couched in figure and style are only the outer garment of Rasa, that they are subordinate and serviceable only to Rasa, and that they have meaning only as such, is the way in which Anandavardhana speaks of the Auchitya of Vastu and Alamkara to Rasa. Firstly, Alankara by itself has no virtue. It has to be relevant, helpful to develop Rasa and never an overgrowth hindering or making hideous the poem. The term Alankara itself has meaning only then. rasabhavaditatparyamasritya vinivesanam | alankrtinam sarvasamalankaratvasadhanam || III, 6. The topic of Aucitya of Alamkara giving the rules which alone secure the appropriate employing of Alankara is dealt with by Anandavardhana in Ud. II, Sls. 15-20, pp. 85.93. He first takes up the Sabdalankaras and condemns the Yamakas written at a stretch in such tender situations like Vipralambha. The rationale of Anandavardhana's principles is this: whatever the poet writes must be suggestive of Rasa and everything has to be tested good or bad, relevant or irrelevant,

beautiful or ugly, by applying this strict logic of their capacity to suggest or hinder Rasa. The main refrain of Anandavardhana here is that Alankara should be structural, organically emerging as the only way of expressing an emotion and it must never be a cold and deliberate effort at decoration, necessitating the forgetting of Rasa and the taking of a special effort. rasaksiptataya yasya bandhah sakyakriyo bhavet | aprthagyatnanirvartyah so'lamkaro dhvanau matah || II, 17. On p. 88, in Karikas 19-20, he gives the poet five practical ways of using Alamkara to advantage.' On this section is based the section on Alankaraucitya in Ksemendra's Aucityavicaracarca. 6 Similarly Anandavardhana relates Guna to Rasa of which Guna is the Dharma' and points out Auchitya of Guna. The quality of Madhurya is inherent in Syngara, Vipralambha and Karuna, whereas Raudra is attended by the quality of Dipti, by a blazing up of the hearts. Accordingly words and collocation used in the two different cases must be such as to agree with the mood and the atmosphere of the Guna and its Rasa or such as to suggest the Guna and the Rasa. Thus sweet sound effects, the soft letters with nasal conjunct consonants, suggest and promote the realisation of the more tender and sweeter emotional moods whereas harsh combinations which jar in the above instances instil vigour and become very appropriate to or highly suggestive of the wild Rasa of Raudra. This proper use of letters is Varna-aucitya; Anandavardhana will say that there is Varnadhvani in these instances; and a third will call it Varnavakrata. Collocation suggestive of 1 See above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alankara.

Rasa or appropriate to Rasa is a case of Dhvani from Sanghatana or Aucitya of Sanghatana. Both these instances of Aucitya of Varna and Sanghatana coming under Gunaucitya are treated of by Anandavardhana in Ud. III. yastvalaksyakramavyangayo dhvanirvarnapadadisu | vakye samghatanayam ca sa prabandhe'pi dipyate || III, 2. Wherever there is suggestiveness of Rasa in the expression, be it the element of sound and letter, separate words, collocation, portions of the theme (Prakarana) or even the work as a whole, there we have the Aucitya of those elements to Rasa which is the main thing. This is the relation between Dhvani and Aucitya. This is the relation between Dhvani and Vakrata or Vakrokti, as Abhinavagupta points out in his commentary on chap. XV of the Natyasastra.' Anandavardhana says of Varnas: sau sarephasamyogau dhakarascapi bhuyasa | fadfua: z: gait aa auf zuzga: 11 srngare tena varna rasacyutah virodhinah ta eva tu nivesyante bibhatsadau rase yada | dal a ¿lquzua an quif: Tazga: || 11 I, 3-4, Sounds must be appropriate-Ucita-enough to suggest the Rasa. This is the Aucitya called Appropriateness, the test of this Aucitya being the harmony between the expressed sounds and the suggested Rasa, the power of the former, the vehicle I Vide my article on the Writers quoted in the Abhinava. bharati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221; also my note on Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Laksana in the Indian Culture, Vol. III, part. IV, p. 756. Abhinavagupta reconciles here Dhvani, Vakrata and general Vaicitrya. We can reconcile Aucitya also to these.

and the means, in suggesting the latter, the end. The same sounds helpful, suggestive or appropriate in one case need not always be so. They are inappropriate to other cases where other suggestive means of expression are required. Similarly what is useless in one case becomes useful in another and this is the Aucitya called Adaptation. Then Anandavardhana speaks of another kind of Gunaucitya called the Sanghatanaucitya. gonanfera fagzal ungafala syafa an 1 tisthanti madhuryadin vyanakti | caitafauo eg: Bilfari qazan: || 11 I, 6. Visayaucitya is dealt with in III, 7 and Rasaucitya regarding Sanghatana in III, 9. This topic of Sanghatana as having its intelligibility in suggesting the qualities of Madhurya and Ojas which in turn bring in their emotions, Vipralambha and Raudra, and as being finally controlled by the Aucitya of Rasa, together with three other minor principles of Aucitya of Vakta, (the character), Vacya (the subject) and Visaya, } (the nature or form of artistic expression like the classification into drama, epic poem, campu, prose etc.)-is the special contribution of Anandavardhana for which he thus takes credit : iti kavyarthaviveko yo'yam cetascamatkrtividhayi | suribhiranusrtasarairasmadupajno na vismaryah || III, p. 144. Visayaucitya is pointed out by Bharata himself. The dramatic form as such enforces certain conditions and principles of Aucitya on the poet. Anandavardhana says that in a drama, the supreme concern of the poet shall be only Rasa. He shall never think of Alamkara etc. In drama especially, long compounds should be avoided.

evam ca dirghasamasa samghatana " " " mabhinivesah sobhate, visesato'bhineyarthe kavye tasyam natyanta- " - 1 Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, p. 139. All things impeding the quick realisation of Rasa must be avoided. According to Bharata, this additional Auchitya must be observed as regards drama in particular: the words used must be simple, well-known and easy to be understood, delicate and sweet to hear. Harsh words and grammarisms like Yanglugantas, Cekridita etc., in a drama are like anchorites with Kamandalus in a courtesan's room. They are 'Anucita ' in drama. | cekriditah sabdastu kavyabandha bhavanti ye | vesya iva na sobhante kamandaludharairdvijaih || mrdusabdam sukhartham ca kavih kuryattu natakam | N. S'. XXI, 131-2. (See also XVII, 121-3.) tasmadgambhirarthah sabda ye lokavedasamsiddhah | sarvajanena grahyah samyojya natake vidhivat || N. S. XXVII, 46. The section on Prabandhadhvani deals with the very substance of a poem or drama and here one has to see that everything observes the principles of Aucitya and justifies itself by suggesting, as best as it can, the Rasa. A story has to be built as the expression of a Rasa. If a story already available is handled, changes suitable to the Rasa must be made wherever the old story is not helpful to bring out the Rasa. If there are too many incidents, only those that are most expressive of the emotion must be chosen. This is Prabandhadhvani and Prabandhaucitya as also Prakaranadhvani

and Prakaranaucitya to adopt the two-fold classification of Kuntaka. Bhoja would call this appropriate change in the story as Prabandhadosahana and Kuntaka as Prakaranavakrata. Appropriateness of which suggestiveness is the touchstone is meant by all these writers. Says Anandavardhana : vibhavabhavanubhavasancaryaucityacarunah | vidhih kathasarirasya vrttasyotpreksitasya va || itivrttavasayatam tyaktvananugunam sthitim | utpreksyo'pyantarabhistarasocitakathonnayah || sandhisandhyangaghatanam rasabhivyaktyapeksaya | na tu kevalasastrarthasthitisampadanecchaya || uddipanaprasamane yathavasaramantara | rasasyarabdhavisrantarenusandhanamanginah || alankrtinam saktavapyanurupyena yojanam | prabandhasya rasadinam vyanjakatve nibandhanam || III, 10-14. The Angas or subsidiary themes and accessory emotional interests have to be developed only up to the extent proper to them and their Angin, i.e., the chief theme and its Rasa. Thus the episodes, the Patakas and Prakaris, in a drama, or the 'descriptions' in a Mahakavya have to observe the rule of Aucitya which is proportional harmony. They must not make one forget the main thread and sidetrack him for a sojourn into grounds foreign in purpose to the main theme. That is why Lollata condemns the descriptive digressions in the Mahakavyas and emphasises thereby the same principle of the Aucitya of proportion by demanding that everything must be Rasavat '. When this rule is not observed, faults are committed. By the transgression of the principles laid

down by Anandavardhana in the above-given verses and in other places also, Hemacandra, who follows Anandavardhana and of whose system he is a clear exponent, points out that the following literary flaws are committed: 1. angasya apradhanasya ativistarena varnanam - yatha hayagrivavadhe hayagrivasya | yatha va vipralambhasrngare nayakasya kasyacid varnayitumupakrante kaveh yamakadyalankaranibandhara sikataya samudradeh | K. Anu III, p. 121. In Harivijaya, when the delicate sentiment of Vipralambha has to be delineated, the poet has succumbed to the temptation of an overdone description of the beach and the sea. Such irrelevancies can be characterised as so many swellings on the face of a Kavya. Hemacandra does not spare even the major poets while considering this aspect of Aucitya. He criticises both the prose works of Bana and the Kavyas like Sisupalavadha for their 'Gadus'. 2. anginah pradhanasya ananusandhanam . Hemacandra remarks that though the drama has to be varied in interest and many other emotions have to be introduced as subsidiary features, the poet must not concentrate on the subsidiary Angas and lose sight of the Angin which must be taken up and brought to the forefront wherever necessary. The main thread must never be lost sight of; for as Hemacandra says: anusandhirhi sarvasvam sahrdayatayah | 3. Irrelevant description or introduction of events, incidents or ideas that have nothing to do with the Rasa is a great mistake. It is 'anangasya rasanupakarasya varnanam | '. These are the principles of Aucitya which secure proportion and harmony. (See also Mammata, K. Pra. VII, 13-14.)

The fourth Dosa mentioned by Hemacandra is Prakrtivyatyaya, breach of Prakrtyaucitya of which Bharata has spoken at length and which we referred to in the opening section where we held that in this concept of Prakrti, Bharata implicitly laid down the doctrine of Aucitya also. All these Dosas are derived from Anandavardhana's Vrtti on his own Karikas on Prabandhadhvani which we have quoted above. In this section Anandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vibhava, Anubhava and Sancarin, all of which can be included in the one idea of Bhavaucitya which resolves into a question. of Prakrtyaucitya. Aucitya is very often met with in this section in the III. Ud. of the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana It is in this section that Anandavardhana formulates that memorable verse which is the greatest exposition of the concept of Aucitya and its place in poetry. He says here: Nothing hinders Rasa as Anaucitya or impropriety; Auchitya is the great secret of Rasa. anaucityahate - nanyad rasabhangasya karanam | | prasiddhaucityabandhastu rasasyopanisatpara || III, 15. Bharata himself recognises how each part and incident in the drama has to refer to Rasa and how, otherwise, it has no right to exist. It is only natural, for Bharata is the writer who lays the greatest emphasis on Rasa to which everything else is subservient. Anandavardhana observes that, simply because Bharata has laid down a certain number of emotional points or incidents as Sandhyangas, one must not try to see that he introduces everything mentioned by Bharata. Whatever is introduced must be on the score of its suggestiveness of Rasa and not on the score of loyalty to text. sandhisandhyangaghatanam rasabhivyaktyapeksaya | na tu kevalasastrarthasthitisampadanecchaya || III, 12. Dhva. a.

Bharata himself says so finally, after giving all the Sandhyangas and Anandavardhana only restates the following of Bharata: sarvangani kadacittu dvitriyogena ( go na ) va punah | akan hidakui a asurazifa afag || 8 N. S. XXI, 107. Bharata emphasises discretion: jnatva karyamavastham ca ' ; this suitability or writing according to the needs of the context is only the sense of Aucitya in a poet. Anandavardhana then goes to other kinds of Aucitya or rather points out how, not only the working out of a plot, not only the expression of an idea in figure, but even the words and the synonyms, the case, inflection, voice etc., have to be suggestive of Rasa. That is, a poet should explore all possibilities of suggesting the vast realm of emotion-as many possibilities as his poor medium called language can afford. If a jingle can aid him, he seizes it; if a use in the passive voice is more effective than one in the active, he prefers it; if Atmanepada suggests more, that has to be exploited. Thus every bit of the medium called language from sound, word, position of a word in a sentence etc., has to be thoroughly exploited and capital use made out of it by the poet. All these ideas revolve round Aucitya. If Sup, Ting, Karaka etc., are suggestive, they are 'ucita', appropriate. suptinvacanasambandhaih tatha karakasaktibhih | krttaddhitasamasaisca dyotyo'laksyakramah kacit || From this part of Anandavardhana's work is derived Ksemendra's Aucitya of Kriya, Karaka, Linga, Vacana etc. Similarly there is the Aucitya of Pada, of a word, of a name or

synonym. This is the Padadhvani of Anandavardhana, found in the beginning of Ud. III. The 'suggestive word' or the proper word' of Anandavardhana and Ksemendra is like the 'inevitable word, or the strong word' mentioned by some English writers. 5 Of Aucitya of Vrtti and Riti also, Anandavardhana speaks in the third Uddyota which is devoted to the exploration of all possible suggestive means in the medium of language, the Vyanjaka. yadi va vrttinam bharataprasiddhanam kaisikyadinam kavyalamkarantara- prasiddhanam upanagarikadyanam va yadanaucityam avisaye nibandhanam tadapih | Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana, III, p. 163. Aucitya regarding Rasa itself, how the main Rasa has to be delineated, how the Anga-rasas are to be made to develop the main, what Rasas are mutually incompatible, how a Rasa like Srngara must not be so over developed as to cloy, or Karuna which, when again and again developed, makes the heart fade' 'fade' (Mlana)-these are dealt with by Anandavardhana in the III Ud. In this respect also, the pitfalls which may be called Rasadosas, are already mentioned to some extent in Rudrata. Yasovarman himself mentions svavasare pustih fe: ' nourishing of the Rasa at the proper time'. Rudrata gives a Dosa called Virasa which is the introduction or the flowing in of an irrelevant or contradictory sentiment into the current of the main Rasa. In this Virasa is included the Dosa of Viruddha rasa samavesa of Anandavardhana. (See Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana III, 2, pp. 164-170). Rudrata illustrates this Virasa by a case of a very inappropriate mingling of Karuna and Srngara. Another kind of Virasa according to Rudrata is the fault of overdevelopment of even the proper Rasa.

CONCepts of aLANKARA SASTRA anyasya yah prasange rasasya nipated rasah kramopetah | viraso'sau sa ca sakyah samyak jnatum prabandhebhyah || yassavasaro spi raso nirantaram niyate prabandhesu | atimahatim vrddhimasau tathaiva vairasyamayati || K. A, XI, 12-14. The latter is anandavardhana's Atidipti or punah punardiptih . These flaws of Rasa resulting from lack of Rasaucitya are mentioned in the Srngaratilaka also: virasam pratyanikam ca dussandhanarasam tatha | nirasam patradustam ca kavyam sadbhirna sasyate || III, 20-22. Virasa is explained by Rudrabhatta as Viruddha rasa, inappropriate or incompatible emotion and Nirasa as the intermittent or excessive portrayal of one Rasa - nirantaram ekasya vrddhih Anandavardhana puts these ideas of Rasaucitya relating to the handling of the Rasas themselves thus: prabandhe muktake vapi rasadin bandhumicchata | yatnah karyassumatina parihare virodhinam || virodhirasasambandhivibhavadiparigrahah | vistarenanvitasyapi vastuno'nyasya varnanam || akanda eva vicchittih akande ca prakasanam | pariposam gatasyapi paunahpunyena dipanam || rasasya syad virodhaya vrcyanaucityameva ca | 111, 17-19. The last mentioned Vrttyanaucitya resulting in Rasanaucitya is an error in taste in respect of thought in the development of character and in the portrayal of actions and incidents

. which is called by Rudrabhatta as Patradusta. This is also taken by Anandavardhana as the improper atmosphere- kaisikyadivrttyanaucityam A mellow temper cannot suit a bois terous scene of dust-raising conflict in Raudra; a bloody and tumultuous chaos goes ill with the sweetness and quite pleasantness of love or the tenderness and delicacy of Vipralambha and Karuna. Of this Vrttyaucitya Anandavardhana again says: rasadyanugunatvena vyavaharo'rthasabdayoh | infazuma sem ya gani fafaan: Far: 11 III, 33. Thus Anandavardhana has shown how, in his own phraseology, Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa-q; how in the fashioning of every part of the expression which is the body or the symbolic vehicle of Rasa or 'the empirical technique as Abercrombie would call it, the only ruling principle of the poet is an all-round, all-comprehensive Aucitya, with reference to which alone, the choice of words, of cases, of metre, the collocation, style, Gunas, Alankaras-in fact every means of suggestion from the trifling jingle to the greatest, is intelligible. This Aucitya of word and thought, Vacya vacaka, with refernce to Rasa is the greatest rule in poetry. To attend to it and write according to it is the chief duty of the poet. azurai arasiai a qalfaca sana | rasadivisayenaitat karma mukhyam mahakaveh || III, 32. Between this verse on one side and with the verse-- anaucityahate nanyad rasabhangasya karanam | prasiddhaucityabandhastu rasasyopanisatpara || occurring in the same section in a similar context, on the other side, the whole theory of Auchitya is completely stated. 15

Rajasekhara and his wife, Avantisundari If Time had spared to us the whole of Rajasekhara's Kavya mimamsa, we would have had a larger knowledge of Rajasekhara's ideas on Aucitya. Even in the first chapter of Kavirahasya that has come to us, Rajasekhara mentions Aucitya in the fifth section called Kavyapakakalpa. He first takes up poetic culture and learning and opines that all poetic culture is only the discrimination of the proper and the improper-Ucita and Anucita. ucitanucitaviveko vyutpattih iti yayavariyah | p. 16, [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. There is also an oft-quoted Sanskrit verse which gives this same idea regarding the larger art of man's behaviour in the world. grand am afund zeraza) aci fafaifu | srutvapi as | yo desakalakaryavyapeksaya panditah sa puman || Rajasekhara's wife also lays great emphasis on Aucitya; for she says that Paka, ripeness or maturity of poetic power, is the securing of expression,-ideas, words, conceptions, fancies etc., which is proper and appropriate to Rasa. tasmad rasocitasabdarthasuktinibandhanah pakah | p. 20, [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] The idea of Aucitya as adaptation, the idea that in poetry there is no fixed rule determining Guna and Dosa and that things are good or bad only on the ground of appropriateness or inappropriateness and that, according to circumstance, even a Dosa may become a Guna-is also very well realised by Rajasekhara who says at the end of the chapter Kavirahasya-

Poetics 227 na ca vyutkramadoso'sti kaverarthapathasprsah | tatha katha kapi bhaved vyutkramo bhusanam yatha || anusandhanasunyasya bhusanam dusanayate | savadhanasya ca kaveh dusanam bhusanayate || t p. 112. [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] The careful poet who has his eye on Aucitya employs even the so-called flaws and makes them excellences whereas the careless writer abuses even the Gunas and spoils his expression by the absence of the sense of Aucitya. 2 The place of Abhinavagupta in the history of Aucitya is important. As the author of the Locana he lucidly expounds and elaborates the ideas of Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta who, as we have seen above, is the greatest name in the history of Aucitya. On the other side, Abhinavagupta is the teacher in Poetics of Ksemendra who is the systematiser of Aucitya. It is clear from Anandavardhana's treatment of Aucitya in Ud. III, that Aucitya naturally emerges out of the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani and that the three cannot be separated. Abhinavagupta takes his stand on this triple aspect of the 'life' of poetry-Rasa first, then Dhvani and then Aucitya. He says: ucitasabdena rasavisaya maucityam bhavatiti darsayan rasadhvaneh jivitatvam sucayati | p. 13. Aucitya presupposes something to which a thing is 'ucita' and that to which everything else is finally to be estimated as *ucita' is Rasa which is the 'soul' of poetry. 1 ' Jayamangalacarya's Kavisiksa (Peterson's I Report, Last list, App. I, pp. 78-9 ) says : yanyeva dusananyahustani syurbhusananyapi | 2 Vide Brhatkathamanjari, chap. xix, 36, 37 and Bharatamanjari, last chap. 7, 8.

On the subject of Alankaraucitya about which Anandavardhana speaks so much in Ud. II, Abhinavagupta says that the greatest Aucitya of Alankara is that the term has any meaning at all only when there is the ' Alankarya', the 'soul '. Otherwise, it is like decorating the dead body. Decoration of a living body also is Anaucitya in certain cases; ornaments on the body of a recluse who has renounced life appear ridiculous anucita. Thus figures of speech without Rasa and figures of speech in places which do not need them are bad. | tatha hyacetanam savasariram kundaladyupetamapi na bhati | alankarya- syabhavat | yatisariram katakadiyuktam hasyavaham bhavati, hasyavaham bhavati, alankaryasya- naucityat | p. 75. Locana. He thus explains Rasaucitya, i.e., the Aucitya of Bhavas, Vibhavas, etc., on p. 147. vibhavadyaucityena hi vina ka rasavatta kaveriti | tasmadvi- bhavadyaucityameva rasavattaprayojakam nanyaditi bhavah | The idea of Aucitya, like that of Vakrokti, was current as a very frequently used term in the critical circles of Kashmirian Alamkarikas for a long time. Vakrokti rose out of Alamkara, Aucitya in the wake of Rasa and Dhvani. Aucitya must have become more current after Anandavardhana who has spoken of it so much and who has said that its presence and absence makes and unmakes Rasa and poetry. It was so much in use that, by the time of Abhinavagupta, it must have been heading towards systematisation, even as the concept of Vakrokti, which, as old as Bhamaha, was given so much life in the critical circles that it enlarged itself and through Kuntaka built itself into a system. Aucitya also had assumed proportions and was in search of a writer for systematisation. The

critics were speaking of Aucitya as the essence of poetry very often, more often than Rasa even. Says Abhinavagupta in two places criticising these critics: 'One cannot be indiscreetly using the word Aucitya by itself; Aucitya is ununderstandable without something else to which things are "ucita" -appropriate. Aucitya is a relation and that to which things are or should be in that relation must first be grasped. That is Rasa, nothing less and nothing else.' Abhinavagupta first proves that there is no meaning in Aucitya without Rasa. ucitasabdena rasavisayamaucityam bhavatiti darsayan rasadhvaneh jivitatvam sucayati | tadabhave hi kimapeksayedamaucityam nama sarvatra udghosyata iti bhavah | p. 13. He again proves that Aucitya presupposes Rasa, and Dhvani also. aucityavati (atisayoktih ) jivitamiti cet, aucitya- nibandhanam rasabhavadi mukta nanyat kincidastiti tadevantarbhasi mukhyam jivitamityabhyupagantavyam, na tu sa | etena yadahuh kecit, 'aucitya - | - ghatitasundarasabdarthamaye kavye kimanyena dhvanina atmabhutena kalpitena ' iti svavacanameva dhvanisadbhavamyupagamasaksibhutam amanyamanah pratyuktah | p. 208. Locana. These two passages clearly show that critics there were who were speaking of Aucitya as the only thing enough to explain poetry, which according to them, was beautiful words and ideas set in perfect harmony-Aucitya. These critics had omitted the word Rasa from their vocabulary and dispensed with Dhvani. Abhinavagupta criticises these poor critics who do not understand the implication of what they say. Aucitya implies, presupposes and means 'suggestion of Rasa - rasadhvani i.e., the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani. ,

Abhinavagupta thus takes his stand on the tripod of Rasa, Dhvani and Auchitya . Rasa is the 'Atman' of poetry and the fact is that it is so only through the process of Dhvani. Again Rasa is or can be so only through Aucitya. Thus these three are very intimately and inseparably associated together. Aucitya is as inseparably associated with Dhvani as with Rasa. If an Alankara is said to suit, to be 'ucita' to, a Bhava, it means that the Alankara effectively suggests that Bhava; if there is said to be Gunaucitya, it means the Rasa there is suggested by the Guna. A word, a gender, a mere exclamation-these are said to be 'ucita', and how? The test of Aucitya, its proof, is the suggestion of Rasa. Another point which Abhinavagupta pointed out was that the breach of Aucitya resulted in 'Abhasata.' A Kavya which does not have Aucitya is Kavyabhasa, not poetry but semblance of poetry. Improper Alamkara is Alankarabhasa. If there is Aucitya we have Rasa and sentiment; if there is Anaucitya due to absence of Prakrtyaucitya etc., we have Rasabhasa and sentimentality. aucityena pravrttau cittavrtteh asvadyatve sthayinya rasah vyabhi - carinya bhavah | anaucityena tadabhasah, ravanasya sitayamiva rateh | ' Neither in his smaller Sarasvatikanthabharana nor in his bigger Srngaraprakasa has Bhoja any special subject under a separate head called Aucitya. But the concept of Aucitya is not altogether absent 1 Bhoja The Rasakalika (Madras MS. R. 2241, pp. 43-4), after giving the several conditions causing Rasa-abhasa viz., ha agun, fast- tirya- mlecchagataragah, yosito bahusaktih, concludes that Anaucitya in fine is the basis of Rasabhasa : upalaksanam caitat -- aucityanaucitya eva rasa-abhasa nibandhane | yathahuh 'anaucityahate nanyat etc. '

POETICs 231 from his two works. It is found in more than one place as a basic idea underlying many principles. Long before the concept of Aucitya dawned upon the literary circle, it was accepted in grammar as one of the conditions that determine the meaning of a word in a context, when the word has more than one meaning. The Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari says: $ vakyat prakaranad arthad aucityad desakalatah | sabdarthah pravibhajyante na rupadeva kevalat || II, 315. ' Other writers call these 'Sabdarthapravibhajakas', Aucitya .etc., as Anavacchinna sabdartha visesa smrti hetus'. This sense-determinant of Aucitya, Bhoja mentions twice in his Srngaraprakasa, first while explaining various kinds of Vivaksa or intention in chapter seven and then in a similar context in chapter twenty-five. In chapter xi, Bhoja calls his magnum opus, the Sxngaraprakasa by the name Sahityaprakasa and says that, among other things, Auchitya is inculcated therein (p. 430, vol. II, Mad. MS.). etasmin srngaraprakase suprakasameva asesasastrarthasampadupanisadam akhilakalakavya - aucitya - kalpanarahasyanam ca sanniveso drsyate | Bhoja realises that Aucitya is a vast and elastic principle and that it pertains to every part of the art of poetic expression. We first sight Aucitya in Bhoja in his section on Dosas where he speaks of a Pada dosa called Apada, which means that a poet must use the vocabulary suited to the character 1 Cf. The Brhaddevata, II, 120, p. 55, Bib. Ind. edn.- arthatprakaranat limgad sraucityad desakalatah | mantresvarthavivekah syad itaresviti ca sthitih || -

labni who is speaking. A vulgar and a rustic character does not employ the same words as a refined city-bred man. The appropriate vocabulary is one of the chief conditions that call up the correct atmosphere. Inappropriate vocabulary which is a breach of Aucitya is the Dosa called Apada. See S. K. A. I, 23, pp. 19-20. Bhoja's Vakyarthadosa called Virasa, which is borrowed by him from Rudrata, emphasises a principle of Rasa-aucitya. (See S. K. A. I, 50, p. 35.) Ratnesvara, commentator on the S. K. A., quotes here Anandavardhana's verse on Aucitya and Anaucity- etc., and adds that the three following Upama dosas also are various instances of Anaucitya. Thirdly, the Dosa called Viruddha (S. K. A. I, 54-57), Loka virodha, Kala virodha etc., is also based on Aucitya. These are only more definite and particularised names for varieties of Anaucitya of Vastu or Artha. In the sub-class of Anumana viruddha, Bhoja has a variety called Aucitya viruddha (see p. 40. S. K. A) and illustrates it by a case of an incorrect and inappropriate description of a low ordinary man, a Pamara, as wearing refined silk-dress. Fourthly, a similar instance of Anaucitya of Artha-kalpana is mentioned by Bhoja in connection with his Sabdaguna Bhavika. (S. K. A., (S. K. A., p. 58.) Here is an instance of the larger Aucitya of Adaptation, which makes Gunas of flaws. Besides this, there is a whole section of Vaisesika gunas at the end of chapter I where it is shown that as a result of circumstance, special context and Auchitya , all the Dosas may cease to be so and may even become Gunas (S. K. A., pp. 74- 120, see esp. p. 118).' atra stritvad aucityavirodhe'pi tatsamayocitatvad gunatvam | S. K. A. p. 118. 1 See also above pp. 202-3 and 211-2.

Aucitya figures to some extent in Bhoja's Alamkarasection also. Bhoja opens his list of Sabdalamkaras with the elaboration of the idea of the choice of the appropriate language, Bhasaucitya, which, he says, is an ornament or Alamkara called Jati. Certain subjects are well expressed in Sanskrit ; certain in Prakrt or Apabhramsa. There is also the appropriateness of country or province (Desa) and rank and culture of character (Patra,-uttama; male, female etc.) which decides the language. Bhoja and Ratnesvara point out all these Aucityas which are seen already in the eighteenth chapter of Bharata's N.S'. called Bhasavidhana. Bhoja him- *self uses the word Aucitya here and Ratnesvara clearly explains the Aucitya involved in this Jati Sabdalamkana.' In chapter xi, Bhoja gives a Prabandha-ubhaya-guna, a comprehensive excellence of the Sabda and Artha of the whole work, called "language according to the character", lz&quiqcak . patranurupabhasatvam What is this Anurupya except Aucitya? This Prabandhabhasaucitya is only the extension of the Vakyalamkara called Jati (p. 432, vol. ii, Sr. Pra. Mad. MS.). The second Sabdalamkara of Bhoja is also a principle of Aucitya. It is called Gati; it is the choice of the proper poetic form, verse (padya), prose (gadya), or mixed style (campu) and the choice of the proper metres suggestive of Rasa in the padya-class; this last is only another name for Vrttaucitya. In explaining this Gati, Bhoja himself bases his Alankara on Aucitya of Artha which he mentions twice here. (see S. K. A. II, 18 and 21.) padyam gadyam ca misram ca kavyam yat sa gatih smrta | arthaucityadibhih sapi vagalankara isyate || II, 18. 'I have spoken of these at greater length in the chapter on Bhoja and Aucitya in my book on Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa. (Vol. I, pp. 191-195.)

In chapter xi again Bhoja speaks of this, the ' proper metre', as the Prabandha-ubhaya-guna called 'metre according to idea ' - arthanurupacchandastvam . 66 arthanurupacchandastvam ityanena srmgare drutavilambitadayah, vire vasantatilakadayah, karune vaitaliyadayah, raudre sragdharadayah, sarvatra sardula - vikriditadayah nibandhaniya ityupadisati | " p. 432, vol. II. Sr Pra. Mad. MS. 6 Bhoja speaks here of yet another similar principle of Aucitya, that again as a Prabandha-ubhaya-guna, called Rasa anurupa sandarbhatva'. See above, p. 200. All these Aucityas, Bhoja does not fail to relate to Rasa ; for he takes these principles of Aucitya as Dosa-hana, as Guna and as Alamkara and all these three are, according to his statement, the means to secure the eternal presence of Rasa, Rasa-aviyoga. Lastly Bhoja speaks of Anaucitya in the very story as available in the original source. He says that the poet must leave off those Dosas or Anaucityas in the source which hinder Rasa and conceive the plot in a new manner. Bhoja calls this Prabandha-dosa-hana and Anaucitya-parihara. (See above, p. 218-9). Says Bhoja : " tatra ( prabandhe ) dosahanam anaucityadipariharena yatha maya kaikeyi- dasarathabhyam ramah pravasitah na matapitrbhyam iti nirdosadasarathe ( raja- sekharasya balaramayane ) " | p. 410. Vol. II. Sr. Pra. Mad. MS. In his S. K. A. Bhoja has the above-quoted passage on p. 642 and he has also this Karika : vakyavacca prabandhesu rasalankarasankaran | nivesayantyanaucityapariharena surayah || v. 126, p. 418. Compare Anandavardhana III. 11 and Kuntaka IV, p. 224.

Kuntaka naturally speaks much of Aucitya which, we are given to understand by the Locana, was a term widely current in circles of Sahrdayas of that time. Kuntaka Kuntaka was a younger contemporary of Abhinavagupta: or wrote immediately after him. The word denoting the essence of poetry at that time seems to be 'Jivita'. For we find the Locana itself rendering the 'Atman' of Anandavardhana as 'Jivita' twice. Kuntaka uses the same word 'Jivita' to praise his Vakrokti and soon Ksemendra is to use the same to signify the place of Aucitya. The two main facts recognised by Kuntaka in poetry are the utterance and its embellishment or its strikingness called Alamkara or Vakrokti. Besides these, he recognises certain general concepts which go to define his notion of poetry. Notable among these is the idea of Sahitya. Along with Sahitya, Kuntaka mentions two Sadharana Gunas' called Aucitya and Saubhagya. These general excellences pertaining to all styles of poetry are to be distinguished from the Asadharana Gunas', special qualities, which go to distinguish styles into the graceful (sukumara), the striking (victra), and the middling (madhyama). The Sadharana Gunas, Aucitya and Saubhagya, are of greater importance. 66 " ' evam pratyekam pratiniyatagunagramaramaniyam margatritayam vyakhyaya sadharanagunasvarupavyakhyanarthamaha - || " p. 72. V. J. - || The first of these two Sadharana Gunas, Aucitya, is thus defined in two verses: anjasena svabhavasya mahatvam yena posyate prakarena tadaucityam ucitakhyanajivitam || yatra vaktuh pramaturva vacyam sobhatisayina | acchadyate svabhavena tadapyaucityamucyate || V. J. I, 53-54.. ||

Both kinds of Aucitya are for heightening the power of expression, for developing the idea undertaken to be described. They are very general and comprehensive, referring to all aspects. Kuntaka describes Aucitya generally as -proper expression. Vide pp. 72-74. V. J. A Kuntaka grasps the supreme importance of Rasa and character, i.e., Prakrti or, as Kuntaka often says, Svabhava. He accepts the Aucitya pertaining to these which has been spoken of by Bharata and Anandavardhana. Other items of Auchitya also are shown by Kuntaka, and everywhere, he points out that all Aucitya is to develop the idea or Rasa. Firstly, defining the speciality of Sabda and Artha in Kavya, Kuntaka points out the 'Paramarthya' of these two. His Sabdaparamarthya is only the Aucitya or Dhvani of Pada or Paryaya and his Arthaparamarthya is nothing but Arthaucitya. His Arthaparamarthya comprises cases of the propriety of minor fancies Pratibhaucitya. Explaining a case of the absence of this Arthaparamarthya, Kuntaka remarks that the fancy of the poet is contrary to the greatness of the character of Sita and Rama. This is a case of a breach off. The test of this Aucitya is, according to Kuntaka, Rasa. " atra asakrt pratiksanam kiyadadya gantavyamityabhidhanalaksanah pari- spandah na svabhavamahattamunmilayati, na ca rasapariposangatam pratipadyate | yasmat sitayah sahajena kenapyaucityena gantumadhyavasitayah saukumarya- devamvidham vastu hrdaye parisphuradapi vacanamarohatiti sahrdayaih sambhavayitum na paryate | " | p. 21. On page 28, mentioning the qualities in poetry which should vie with each other, i.e., while explaining Sahitya, Kuntaka refers to Vrttyaucitya. This is either the Aucitya

of the Kaisiki and other Vrttis or of the Vrttis Upanagarika etc. The latter is the Aucitya of Riti, Sanghatana, Guna or Varna and Kuntaka calls it Varnavakrata, which he deals with at the beginning of Unmesa ii. This is a case of VarnaSanghatana-dhvani of Anandavardhana or Gunaucitya of Ksemendra. Kuntaka says that letters or sounds must be appropriate to the context and that certain letters unsuited to certain situations may help the idea and Rasa of other situations. 66 vargantayoginah sparsah dviruktah talanadayah | sistasca radisamyuktah prastutaucityasobhinah || VJ. II. 2. " te ca kidrsah --- prastutaucityasobhinah | prastutam varnyamanam vastu, tasya yadaucityamucitabhavah, tena sobhante ye, te tathoktah | na punah varna- savarnyavyasanitamatrena upanibaddhah prastutaucitya mlana (ni ) karinah | prastu- taucityasobhitvat kutracitparusarasaprastave tadrsaneva abhyanujanati | " p. 80.' Following the principles of Alankaraucitya pointed out by Anandavardhana, Kuntaka speaks further of this Varnavakrata, under which come Sabdalankaras like Anuprasa and Yamaka, ' Vide above p. 216, Anandavardhana, III, 3-4 sasau sarephasamyogau etc. It is of this Aucitya of Varna that Pope speaks of in his Essay on Criticism : 'Tis not enough no harshness gives offence, The sound must seem an echo of the sense. Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blows, And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows; But when loud surges lash the sounding shore The hoarse rough verse should like a torrent roar. Hear how Timotheus 'varied Lays surprise, And bid alternate Passions fall and rise.'

that Anuprasas must not be written at a stretch and that the repeated letters must often be changed. natinirbandhavihita napyapesalabhusita | purvavrttaparityaganutanavarttanojjvala || II, 4. The first principle of all Alankaraucita is that figures must easily come of themselves, without the poet taking special effort for them. Says Kuntaka in the Vrtti on the above Karika. | nirbandhasabdo'tra vyasanitayam vartate | tena atinirbandhe punah- punaravartanavyasanitaya na vihita, aprayatnaviracitetyarthah | vyasanitaya 'prayatnaviracane hi vastutociraparihaneh vacyavacakayoh parasparaspardhitva- laksanasahityavirahah paryavasyati | p. 84. Here Kuntaka speaks of what Anandavardhana has said that Rasa is lost when special effort is taken to build a structure of alliteration. rasaksiptataya yasya bandhah sakyakriyo bhavet | aprthagyannanirvartyah so'lankaro dhvanau matah || Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana II, 17. rasam bandhumadhyavasitasya kaveh yo'lankarastam vasanamatyuhya yatna- ntaramasthitasya nispadyate sa na rasangamiti | p. 86. In the second line of the Karika, Kuntaka has said what Anandavardhana has put in another form that the same sound effect should not be continued to a great length. srngarasyangino yatnadekarupanubandhanat | sarvesveva prabhedesu nanuprasah prakasakah || II, 15.

ekarupatvanubandhanam tyaktva vicitranuprasah anubadhyamano na dosaya | Locana, p. 85. See Kuntaka's Vrtti also on p. 84. Kuntaka adds another point of Aucitya, namely that cacophony should be avoided. Concatenation of very unpleasant sounds like sighraghrananghri etc., are not to be written at all. Ksemendra quotes such verses of a poet of hundred and more works in his Kavikanthabharana and condemns them as devoid of even a drop of Camatkara. These sounds by nature, says Abhinavagupta in his Abhinava bharati, torture our ears, while there are other sounds that seem to pour nectar into our ears. anyairapyuktam (anandavardhanacaryaih ) 'tena varna rasacyutah (Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana III) ityadi | svabhavato hi kecana varnah santapayantiva | anye tu nirvapayantiva upanagarikocitah ; lokagocara evayamarthah || p. 415, vol. III, Abhi. bha. Mad. MS. Of Yamakaucitya pointed out by Rudrata and by Anandavardhana Kuntaka speaks thus: aucityayuktam adyadiniyatasthanasobhi yat | yamakam nama || II, 6-7. aucityam vastunah svabhavotkarsah, tena yuktam samanvitam | yatra yamakopanibandhanavyasanitvenapyaucityamapariglanamityarthah || The few and rare cases of 'Rasavad Yamakas' are called by Kuntaka "samarpakani yamakani " p. 87. The suggestive Pratyaya of Anandavardhana is Pratyayavakrata, having Aucitya to the context, according to Kuntaka. This is a case of Pratyayaucitya, the propriety of the definite Pratyaya or its effectiveness in suggesting the idea or emotion.

prastutaucityavicchittim svamahimna vikasayan | pratyayah padamadhye 'nyamullasayati vakratam || II, 17. kim kurvan ? prastutasya varnyamanasya vastuno yadaucityam ucita- bhavah tasya vicchittimupasobham vikasayan samullasayan - | Here are given two instances of very proper, striking and suggestive use of the present participle : velladbalaka ghanah and stritkatakse drsau | Lingadhvani or Lingavakrata or Lingaucitya is described on pp. 114-115; II, 23. visistam yojyate lingam anyasmin sambhavatyapi | yatra vicchittaye sanya vacyaucityanusaratah || II, 23. kasmatkaranat vacyaucityanusaratah | vacyasya varnyamanasya vastuno daucityam • " • padarthaucitya manusrtyetyarthah | Kuntaka thus often speaks of this Aucitya of every element to the idea (Vastu ) or emotion (Rasa). He calls it Prastutaucitya or Svabhavaucitya or Vastvaucitya. He speaks of it again while describing the fivefold Kriyavaicitryavakratva, II, 25, p. 227. A case of Tense-Aucitya is mentioned by Kuntaka in II, 26. It is to promote the Aucitya of the idea to the Rasa that the poet adopts the kalavaicitryavakrata . Upagrahaucitya is dealt with also by Kuntaka. The poet chooses one of the twoAtmanepada and Parasmaipada-on the score of Aucitya. padayorubhayorekam aucityad viniyujyate | sobhayai yatra jalpanti tamupagrahavakratam || Unmesa III thus describes Prakrtyaucitya which Kuntaka calls the Svabhavaucitya of various beings and things.

POetics bhavanamaparimlana svabhavaucityasundara | aaanai azlai a uazu fafadi waY || svajatyucita hevakasamullekhojjvalam param || III, 5-7. 241 Of Vyavaharaucitya or Lokavrttaucitya, which idea is the basis of Bharata's Natya, Kuntaka speaks in III, 9, p.. .155. Thus we see how largely the idea of Aucitya looms in Kuntaka. As a matter of fact, in almost all cases of Kuntaka's Vakrata, the test or proof of the strikingness or charm is this Aucitya of the various elements with reference to the Vastu or Rasa the depicting of which is the work of the poet. Vakrokti is only another name for Aucitya! For Kuntaka says of Pada-aucitya that it is Pada-vakrata. tatra padasya tavadaucityam bahuvidhabhedabhinno vakrabhavah | 1 V. J. p. 76. As more than once pointed out already, many of the instances of Anandavardhana's Dhvani, Abhinavagupta's Vaicitrya mentioned in the Abhinavabharati, Kuntaka's Vakrata and Ksemendra's Aucitya are identical. Many items of Vakrata mentioned by Kuntaka are seen in the Abhinavabharati as cases of Vaicitrya, with exactly the same or similar illustrations and Abhinavagupta says that the same idea is called Suptingdhvani by Anandavardhana and Subadivakrata by others.' There is bound to be this close relation between Aucitya, Dhvani and Vakrata. Criticising Kuntaka's definition of poetry as Sabda and Artha set in Vakrokti, Mahimabhatta says in V. V., Vimarasa I : The "out-of-the-way-ness of poetic word and idea as 6 1 " See my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharati, Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VI. pp. 219-22. 16

distinguished from those of Sastra and Loka must either be the Aucitya, so very essential to Rasa which is the "Atman " of poetry or be the Dhvani of Anandavardhana. If therefore the new Vakokti is only Aucitya (which as a matter of fact figures largely in Kuntaka's treatment of his subject), nothing new is said. If this is denied, the only other possibility is that Vakrokti is nothing but a new name for Dhvani which really seems to be the fact. For the same varieties and the same instances as given by Anandavardhana are given by Kuntaka." yatpunah ' sabdarthau sahitau ityadina sastradiprasiddhasabdarthopanibandhavyatireki yadvaicitryam tanmatralaksanam vakratvam nama kavyasya jivitamiti sahrdayamaninah kecidacaksate, tadapyasamicinam | yatah prasiddhopanibandhanavyatirekitvamidam sabdarthayoraucityamatraparyavasayi syat, prasiddhabhidheyarthavyatireki pratiyamanabhivyaktiparam va syat | prasiddha prasthanatirekinah sabdarthopanibandhanavaicitryamya prakarantarasambhavat | dvitiyapaksaparigrahe punah dhvane- revedam laksanamanaya bhangayabhihitam bhavati, abhinnatvat vastunah | ata eva casya ta eva prabhedah tanyeva udaharanani tairupadarsitani | Mahimabhatta V. V. I, p. 28. Mahimabhatta wrote in the same age, just after Abhinavagupta and Kuntaka. Mahima accepts Rasa as supreme and also the Aucitya pertaining to Rasa, Bhava and Prakrti. He could not escape the idea of Aucitya which was in its season then. As his criticism of Kuntaka's definition of poetry by Vakrokti shows, critics of his time were aware of only two things as specially distinguishing the poetic utterance from the ordinary or Sastraic one, viz., Auchitya and Dhvani. Of these two, there is no need to specially

Poetics 243 speak of the former because Mahima considers it as the supreme necessity in so far as Kavya is accepted as utterance ensouled by Rasa. That is, according to Mahima, there can be no opposition to Aucitya. It is only with Dhvani that he fights. : yatah prasiddhopanibandhanavyatirekitvamidam sabdarthayoh aucityamatra- paryavasayi syata prasiddhabhidheyarthavyatira ki pratiyamanabhivyaktiparam va syat | prasiddha prasthanatirekinah sabdarthopanibandhanavaicitryasya prakarantara- sambhavat | tatra adyastavata paksah na sankaniya eva | tasya kavyasvarupa- nirupanasamarthyasiddhasya prthagupadanavaiyarthyat | vibhavadyupanibandha eva hi kavivyaparah naparah | te ca yathasastram upanibadhyamanah rasabhivyakteh nibandhanabhavam bhajante, nanyatha | rasatmakam ca kavyamiti kutastatra anau- cityasamsparsah sambhavyate yannirasartham kavyalaksanamacaksiran vicaksanammanyah | V. V. I, p. 28. On the point of Rasa and the Auchitya of every element of expression to this Rasa, Mahima is completely in agreement with Anandavardhana. Anandavardhana says that if there is one word which is Nirasa, devoid of Rasa, it is the greatest literary flaw, the Apasabda. Similarly all flaws are comprised in one common flaw, viz., hindrance to the realisation of Rasa. All Dosas are hindrances to Rasa and Mahima calls them by the common name Anaucitya. He quotes Anandavardhana's memorable Karika on this subject. kathancidva bhinnakramatayapi abhimatarthasambandhopakalpane prastutartha- pratiteh vinnitatvat tannibandhano rasasvado'pi vinitah syat, sabda- dosanam anaucityopagamat tasya ca rasabhangahetutvat | yadahuh ,

anaucityahate nanyad rasabhangasya karanam | prasiddhaucityabandhastu rasasyopanisatpara || V. V. I, p. 31. Certain ideas get certain writers as their brilliant exponents. Thus Sahitya gets Kuntaka as its first great exponent. To Mahima falls the share of expounding two ideas, Svabhavokti and Dosas. The most important part of Mahima's work is chapter II of his V. V., devoted to a study of five important. flaws of expression, on which the classic Kavya Prakasa, the model for later compilations, draws for its own Dosaprakarana to a great extent. These five flaws, and all others also, are only the many varieties of Anaucitya which means hindrance to Rasapratiti. For Aucitya of Rasa and Prakrti is the greatest Guna, most essential for Kavya. The absence of this Aucitya is the greatest Dosa within which every other Dosa is included. Aucitya and Anaucitya pertain to the content, i.e., Rasa and Artha or Vastu, as well as to the outer garment of the Rasa and Vastu, viz., the expression-Sabda. The former is Abhyantara or Antaranga- internal, while the latter is Bahirangaexternal. Even the unsuggestive or inappropriate metre is an Anaucitya, one belonging to the latter category. Among Sabdanaucityas, Mahima says that five are to be specially noted; they are five Dosas named Vidheyavimarsa, Prakramabheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vacyavacana. iha khalu dvividhamanaucityamuktam, arthavisayam sabdavisayam ceti | tatra vibhavanubhavavyabhicarinam ayathayatham rasesu yo viniyogah tanmatra- laksanamekam antarangam adyairavoktamiti neha pratanyate | aparam punah bahiranga bahuprakaram sambhavati ! tadyatha vidheyavimarsah prakramabhedah, kramabhedah, paunaruktyam, vacyavacanam ceti | duhsravatvamapi vrttasya sabdanaucityameva, ,

tasyapyanuprasadevi rasanugunyena pravrtteristatvat | 245 . . . . . etasya (anaucityasya ) vivaksitarasadipratitivighnavidhayitvam nama samanya- ta ete vidheyavimarsadayo dosa ityu- laksanam | " = | II. V. V. p. 37. Ksemendra Ksemendra was the pupil of Acarya Abhinavagupta in poetics. Ksemendra first wrote a work on Poetics called Kavikarnikawhich is unfortunately lost to us. Perhaps in it he dealt with Rasa and Dhyani. Our sense of its loss is keen because, in his critical writings spared to us we find many a touch of originality. Ksemendra's Kavikanthabharana and Suvrttatilaka have only slight and subsidiary interest for us. It is his Aucityavicaracarca we are concerned here with, a small work which yet belongs to the class of 'Prasthana-works' like those of Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Anandavardhana, Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta. As is plain from the above-gone survey of the concept of Aucitya, Ksemendra is not the author of Aucitya, but, as in the case of Vakrokti and Kuntaka, Ksemendra made Aucitya into a system, elaborating that concept and applying it to all parts of the Kavya. Ksemendra only worked out Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in whose system he had his being. Abhinavagupta criticised those critics who glibly talked of Aucitya without reference to Rasa and Dhvani which alone render Aucitya intelligible. Just as Kuntaka's Vakrokti proceeds only after accepting Rasa as supreme and accepts also Dhvani, so also Ksemendra's Aucitya. Ksemendra first posits Rasa as the soul of poetry, as the thing whose presence makes Kavya; Aucitya is its life-' Jivita'. The term 'Jivita', as can be seen from the two quotations given above, was used 1 Vide Au. V. C., [Kavyamala, N. S. Press, Bombay] Gucchaka 1, p. 115. Sl. 2.

by Abhinavagupta to denote Rasadhvani with Aucitya. Thus Abhinavagupta used both the words 'Atman' and 'Jivita' as interchangeable and as meaning generally the essenceBut Ksemendra made a subtle distinction between Soul and Life, Rasa the Atman and Aucitya the Life.' These two metaphorical names and the relation between them in metaphysical speculations point to the fact of the intimate relation between Rasa and Aucitya and of how both come into existence together. Ksemendra's attitude to Rasa is thus plainly stated even in the opening: aucityasya camatkarakarinascarucarvane | rasajivitabhutasya vivaram kurute'buna || SI. 3. It is to explain Rasa, by which Kavya is already explained, that Ksemendra offers Aucitya. Aucitya is the very life of Rasa, the soul of poetry and this is the natural view of Aucitya in the texts of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. In a verse or in a Kavya, Aucitya gives Camatkara, Aucitya which is the life of Rasa. Rasa is the thing to which Aucitya is the greatest relation in which other things exist. He again says: aucityam rasasiddhasya sthiram kavyasya jivitam | Sl. 5. rasena srngaradina siddhasya prasiddhasya kavyasya dhatuvadarasasiddha- syaiva tajjivitam sthiramityarthah | P. 115. 1 Jayamangalacarya's Kavisiksa (Peterson's I Report, Last list, App. I, pp. 78-9) calls Aucitya the Jivita' of poetry. aucityam sladhyate tatra kavitajivitopamam | Fayeagalaza: Ha eg: alfamaag 11 Cf. also the Sahityamimamsa ([Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] 114, p. 154): zzz egoitzi syadaucityam kavyajivitam |

We had observed before that Auchitya is as unintelligible without Dhvani as without Rasa. As a matter of fact it had its greatest exposition at the hands of Anandavardhana only as a supplementary idea in the system of Rasadhvani; for, to Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the Soul (Atman) of poetry is 'aucityavadrasadhvanih ' and the three are inseparable. But such an explicit mention and acceptance of Dhvani, as of Rasa, are not found in the Au. V. C. But Dhvani is all throughout implied. We had said that the test and proof of Auchitya is Dhvani, the suggestion of Rasa or idea. Showing the propriety of Pada (which is a case of Padadhvani with Anandavardhana), i.e., Padaucitya in a verse, Ksemendra says that Aucitya in that word pleases us because that word in particular suggests the state of separation and the consequent suffering, i.e., the Vipralambha Rasa: 'H 311- gayah ' iti padam paramamaucityam pusnati | Similarly in all instances of all kinds of Aucitya, Ksemendra must have sufficiently and clearly based his explanations of Aucitya scientifically on the principle of Dhvani. For, it is from Anandavardhana that the concept of Aucitya took new life. In most cases, Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya are merely the more specific names for the Camatkara in a certain point. In his commentary on chapter XV, the opening chapter of the Vacikabhinaya section of the Natyasastra, Abhinavagupta uses another word for this Camatkara, viz., Vaicitrya, strikingness or beauty or charm. Bharata gives ten grammatical divisions of words and Abhinavagupta says that everything in poetry, gender, number, name, case etc., has to be ' vicitra ', wonderful or striking. Having explained the Vaicitrya of all elements of language in poetry, Abhinavagupta reconciles to this Vaicitrya of his the Dhvani of Sup, Ting, Vacana etc., of Anandavardhana (Ud. III) and the Vakrata of Sup. etc., of others

(Anye) meaning Kuntaka or those of whose ideas Kuntaka is the systematic exponent.' To these can be reconciled Ksemendra's Aucitya of Pada, Kriya, Karaka, Linga, Vacana, Upasarga, Nipata etc. Again Suptingdhvani, Subadivakrata, Subadivaicitrya or Subadyaucitya is the same as some of the ten different kinds of Camatkara, Camatkara in Sabda, in Artha etc., given by Ksemendra in the third section of his Kavikanthabharana. As a matter of fact there is nothing new in Ksemendra's Aucitya of Pada etc., except appreciation under a different name of the same points mentioned by Anandavardhana in Uddyota III of his work under the heads of Dhvani of Pada, Sup. etc., forming the numerous parts of the Vyanjaka. The Au. V. C. is vastly indebted to the third chapter of the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana On the subject of Rasaucitya alone, while explaining Viruddha rasa samavesa, combining of two contradictory sentiments, Ksemendra quotes Anandavardhana's verse on the subject. (p. 134. Au. V. C.) Except for this one quotation, it must be stated that in this tract of his which only works out Anandavardhana's ideas, Ksemendra has not paid adequate homage to Anandavardhana. He grows eloquent on Aucitya in the opening but strangely does not even quote the famous verse of anandavardhana, anaucityadrte nanyat etc. Ksemendra has elaborated and pointed out some more principles of Aucitya in the wider sphere of thought-Artha. and Arthasandarbha. Most of the things in this class like Aucityas of Desa, Kala, Vrata, Tattva, Sattva, Svabhava, Sarasangraha and Avastha are comprehended in Prakrtyaucitya and in the absence of the flaw of Loka-agama-virodha, Vide p. 367, Vol. II, chap. xiv. Abhi. Bha. Mad. MS. Vide also my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhi. Bha. in the Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221. See also above, this same chapter on this point. ]

which is pointed out by all writers from Bhamaha and Dandin, which is part of Aucitya, and can be said to be generally included in Prakrtyaucitya itself which is as old as Bharata or can be separately called as Lokasvabhauaucitya. The Pratibhaucitya given by Ksemendra concerns with the minor 'fancies' and not with poetic imagination or genius as a whole. Similarly innumerable items of Aucitya can be elaborated and so does Ksemendra say in the end : 'anyesu kavyangesu anayaiva disa svayamaucityam utpreksaniyam | tadudaharananyanantyat na pradarsitanityalamati p. 60. As for instance, the propriety of metre, Vrttaucitya, is an interesting study. Bharata has spoken of it in his chapters on Vrttas and Dhruvas, xvi and xxxii. Abhinavagupta quotes in his Abhi. Bha. Katyayana, an old writer on metres, on the appropriateness of certain metres to certain subjects, moods and situations. virasya bhujadandanam varnane samgdhara bhavet | etc. Ksemendra reserves this subject for special treatment in his Suvrttatilaka. (Vinyasa iii. Sls. 7-16). kavye rasanusarena varnananugunena ca | zafa gayanai fafaziii faumfaa || vrttaratnavali kamada asthane vinivesita | kathayatyajnatameva mekhaleva gale krta || etc. Ksemendra then goes to explain with illustrations what situations and subjects should be depicted in what metres. Though there is bound to be a large amount of subjectivism 1 Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 223, my article on Writers Quoted in the Abi. Bharati.

and impressionism in this study, though, even as regards the question of relation of Ragas and Rasas in music, in this enquiry also, it may be that one same metre has many emotional significances, there is some truth in some principles of Vrttaucitya like the association of long metres like Sragdhara with descriptions of war, Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas and the use of Anustubhs for narration, brief summing up and pointed speech. The concept of Aucitya was born as a supplement to Rasa and Dhvani and is so developed by Ksemendra, though it must be stated that the latter, Dhvani, is not specifically spoken of by him. From the verses in the beginning which state the doctrine of Aucitya in general, it is plain, that like Rasa and Dhvani, Aucitya came in as a severe criticism of a merely physical or materialistic' or a jeweller's philosophy of poetry which made much only of Alamkaras and Gunas. This is true not of the critical literature of Ksemendra's time; for Rasa had been established firmly as the soul of poetry in poetics and the discussion yet going on was only on the process of the realisation of that Rasa, whether it was Dhvani, Anumana, Bhavana and Bhoga or Tatparya and so on. But it is true of literary practice, of what the poets themselves were doing. Ksemendra's Aucitya is another and final criticism of Alankaras. kavyasyalamalankaraih kim mithyaganitagunah | yasya jivitamaucityam vicintyapi na drsyate || alankarastvalankarah guna eva gunassada | aucityam rasasiddhasya sthiram kavyasya jivitam || Sls. 4-5. ucitasthanavinyasadalankrtiralankrtih | einfarenzzyan faci yakaa yon yon: || S'1. 6.

alankrtirucitasthanavinyasadalankartum ksama bhavati, anyatha tvalankrtivyapadesameva na labhate | tadvadaucityadaparicyuta gunah gunatama - sadayanti, anyatha punaraguna eva | p. 116. An illustrative verse (which elaborates, as pointed out at the beginning of this paper, a verse on the same subject in Bharata) is also cited by Ksemendra: kanthe mekhalaya . nitambaphalake tarana harena va panau nupurabandhanena carane keyurapasena va | , sauryena pranane ripau karunaya, nayanti ke hasyatam aucityena vina ruci pratanute nalankrtirno gunah || Bharata xxiii. 64 : adesajo hi vesastu na sobham janayisyati | melorasi ca hasyayaivopayate || Bharata says this in respect of music also where the alamkaras of music must be utilized only according to Rasa. ebhiralankartavya gitirvarnavirodhena | sthane calankaram kuryat na hyurasi kancikam badhyeta || N. S'. xxxix, 73-4, p. 335-6 Kasi edn. Thus well has it been said by Anandavardhana that Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa and Anaucitya, the greatest enemy. The section on Poetics in the Agni purana contains little by way of any development of the concept of Aucitya; but it is The Agni purana also noticed here because it shows some ingenious and original reshuffling of concepts and gives this concept of Auchitya as an Alankara of both Sabda and Artha, an Ubhayalamkara. 345/2 and 5.

prasastih kantiraucityam samksepo yavadarthata | abhivyaktiriti vyaktam sadbhedastasya jayati || yatha vastu tatha ritih ya (ta) tha vrttih ta ( ya ) tha rasah | urjasvimrdu sandarbhadaucityamupajayate || Riti in accordance with theme and Vrtti in accordance with Rasa ; expression, forceful or soft (as occasion demands) thus is Aucitya engendered." The unpublished Rasarnavalankara (Mad. MS.) of Prakasavarsa is somewhat important. It is another work which speaks of Aucitya as a whole as an Alamkara, Prakasavarsa but differs from the Agni purana in holding it as a Sabdalankara. slesascitram tathaucityam prasnottaraprahelika | sabdalankrtayah spastamastadasa manisibhih || p. 16. Mad. MS. Some valuable ideas on Aucitya are also given by Prakasavarsa. He defines Aucitya as the spirit of mutual help. between sound and sense, between word and idea, Sabda and Artha, and as an element which makes poetry great. He adds that to Sahrdayas, Anaucitya is the greatest offence. upakaryopakaratvam yatra sabdarthayorbhavet | utkarsadhayakam 1: ( prajnaih ) aucityam tatprakirtitam || . anaucityat kimanyo'sti tiraskarassacetasam ||

Prakasavarsa gives a new twofold classification of Aucitya but does not explain the varieties further. He says that others have said enough on this subject.' Anaucitya and Hasya There is one more point to be considered before closing this account of Aucitya. Bharata has said that Hasya Rasa or the sentiment of laughter is produced by Anukrti and Abhasa. It has been pointed out above that Abhinavagupta remarks in his Locana that Anaucitya is at the root of Abhasa, as in the case of the Srngarabhasa of Ravana for Sita. We can only laugh at it. So it is that Laulya, which is proposed as a Rasa by some, is made by Abhinavagupta an accessory in Hasya Rasa.³ In the Abhinava bharati on the text of Bharata which explains the origin of Hasya Rasa, Abhinavagupta discusses what constitutes the basis of the comic and points out that Anaucitya is at the root of the comic.* Aucitya is Rasa and Anaucitya is The illustrative verse quoted by Rasabhasa and Hasya Rasa. Ksemendra gives a series of Anaucitya and concludes algifta ke hasyatam '. Surely one with a girdle round the neck and a necklace at the foot will be laughed at. So it is that Bharata also says: mekhalorasi bandhe ca hasyayaivopajayate | xxiii, 69. This takes us to another aspect of poetry and of Aucitya. In poetry of Rasa, Aucitya is the very life, Jivita; but in 1 Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VIII. Part account of Prakasavarsa and his work. for an * N. S'. VI, p. 296 [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. 3 Vide p. 342, Abhi. Bha., [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. * Pp. 296-297. Abhi. Bha.. [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. A study of mine on the Comic Element in Skr. Literature (on the theory of Hasya and its treatment by poets) will be published

comic writing, the very life of its Rasa, i.e., Rasabhasa or Hasya Rasa, is Anaucitya. Anauchitya is the secret of comic writing. We can well say: carvanaucityamevaika hasyasyopanisatpara | anaucityam rasabhasakavyasya sthirajivitam || It is only with various forms of Anaucitya that Hasya can be developed; all Dosas of speech and thought occur in Sakara and we have already pointed out above how Nyunopama and Adhikopama are the secrets of satire and parody. Inappropriateness is at the root of all varieties of the ridiculous and the laughable, and this has been shown by Abhinavagupta in his Abhi. Bha.: anaucityapravrttikrtameva hi hasyavibhavatvam | p. 297. [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. Thus Anaucitya is the Aucitya in Hasya Rasa. This Aucitya is that aspect called 'adaptation' by virtue of which, flaws become excellences, by change of circumstances. The incoherent and the inappropriate themselves become appropriate. Just as Srutidusta, a flaw in Srngara, is a great Guna in Raudra and this adaptation is one Aucitya, so also Anaucitya which spoils all Rasas, and is the greatest Rasadosa, is the greatest Rasaguna in Hasya. This is of course said of the fundamental basis, the root cause, Vibhava, of Hasya Rasa and of those conditions of inappropriateness, oddities and ludicrousness which are the stuff of which Hasya is made. And in the delineation of this Anaucitya itself producing Hasya, in expression and in all other parts, principles of internal Aucitya have to be observed. There are two old verses on this subject of how Anaucitya becomes Aucitya,

of how Dosas become Gunas and of how adaptation and appropriateness are the only rule. samanyasundarinam vibhramamavahatya vinaya eva | dhuma eva prajvalitanam madhuro bhavati surabhidarunam || (Chaya of a Prakrt Gatha). anyada bhusanam pumsah ksama lajjeva yositam | parakramah paribhave vaiyatyam suratesviva || Magha. S'. V. II, 44. It is all some kind of relativity in the realm of poetry. There is no absolute Guna and Dosa but only Ucita and Anucita; and the poet takes up even Anaucitya to make Aucitya out of it. The poet's attitude is as free and open in this respect as in respect of the question of morality in poetry. It is this Auchitya which Robert Bridges speaks of in his essay on Poetic Diction under the name 'Keeping ', a concept borrowed from Painting and which he describes as the * harmonising of medium. The following line of his explains his idea further: 'But in Aesthetic no Property is absurd if it is in keeping'. Bridges speaks here of absurdity (Dosa) ceasing to be so and becoming a Guna (Vaisesika) because of Aucitya (keeping). Conclusion Three doctrines form the great and noteworthy contributions of Sanskrit Alamkara Literature to the world's literature on Literary Criticism. They are Rasa, Dhvani and Aucitya. Aucitya is a very large principle within whose orbit comes everything else. The Aucitya-rule of criticism is obeyed by all others, including Rasa. 'A survey and review of Western Literary Criticism from Aristotle to Abercrombie from the point of view of Skr. Alamkara Sastra has been made by me in a separate study.

Mahamahopadhyaya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar puts the whole evolution of Skr. Poetics from Alamkara to Auchitya in a Karika and illustrates it with a graph. Within the big circle of Ksemendra's Aucitya, there are three viewpoints in the shape of a triangle. The topmost point of the triangle is the undisputed Rasa of Bharata, which Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta accept as the 'Soul' of poetry and which critics of Dhvani like Bhatta Nayaka and Mahimabhatta and other theorists like Kuntaka accept. Lower down, the two points of the triangle are the two prominent theories, opposed to each other, regarding the process of realising Rasa, viz., the Dhvani of Anandavardhana and the Anumiti of Mahimabhatta. Anumiti is mentioned only as upalaksana' and it stands for other anti-dhvani theories also, like the Bhavana and Bhoga of Bhatta Nayaka, Tatparya etc. Within this triangle is a smaller circle named after the Vakrokti of Kuntaka. This circle again contains a triangle within it, the topmost point of which is Vamana's Riti, a concept decidedly superior to and more comprehensive than the two lower points called Guna and Alankara of Dandin and Bhamaha. Beginning with Alankara, the theories get superior or more comprehensive one by one. The Alankara-guna-riti modes of criticism deal with diction and style in the lower sense of the terms and are classed under one bigger current of the study of form culminating in the comprehensive Vakrokti-circle of Kuntaka, which is also an approach to poetry from the formal side. The next, the bigger triangle begins the current of the study of the content, of the inner essence of poetry, viz., Rasa and the process, the technique by which the poet delineates it and the Sahrdaya gets it. All these are comprehended in the outermost circle of Aucitya which pertains to Rasa and everything else in

Kavya. All the other theories only run at the back of Aucitya which leads the van. If there is a harmony or a beauty as such, innate in every part of a great poetry, it is this Auciti. The Karika and the graph explained above are given below : " aucitimanudhavanti sarve dhvanirasonnayah | gunalankrtiritinam nayascanrjuvanmayah || " aucityam vakroktih rasah ritih gunah alankrtih dhvanih anumitih Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastriar