Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (Study)
by Debabrata Barai | 2014 | 105,667 words
This page relates ‘Vyaktiviveka of Mahimbhatta’ of the English study on the Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara: a poetical encyclopedia from the 9th century dealing with the ancient Indian science of poetics and rhetoric (also know as alankara-shastra). The Kavya-mimamsa is written in eighteen chapters representing an educational framework for the poet (kavi) and instructs him in the science of applied poetics for the sake of making literature and poetry (kavya).
Part 11 - Vyaktiviveka of Mahimbhaṭṭa
[Post-Dhvani Theory of Sanskrit Poetics (4): The Vyaktiviveka of Mahimbhaṭṭa (11th century A.D.)]
Mahimbhaṭṭa in his poetical work Vyaktiviveka represent one of the great reactions among the works criticizing the doctrine of Dhvani theory propounded by the Dhvanyāloka. Mahimbhatta wrote this Vyaktiviveka most probably two century later of Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka, when Ānandavardhana’s philosophy of poetics has been widely accepted in Sanskrit Poetics. Mahimbhaṭṭa written his work with the proposition that his aim is to comprehend all concepts of Dhvani theory in the process of Anumāna. Mahimbhaṭṭa criticizes the doctrine of Dhvani and applies his theory Anumāna, even Bhaṭṭanāyaka objects to the epistemological aspects of Dhvani theory with more or less concerned that, how the suggested Rasa convey by poetry to the reader. However Bhaṭṭanāyaka did not reject the importance of suggested meaning (especially Rasa) of Ānandavardhana constitutes the soul of poetry. Another famous logician Jayantabhaṭṭa, in his Nyāyamañjarī examines the implications of Dhvani and discussing the problem Arthāpaṭṭi is an independent Pramāna. Thus he accepted both Arthāpaṭṭi and Dhvani in Anumāna.
Mahimbhatta does not have any disagreement with importance to the suggested meaning of Ānandavardhana[1] but his approached endeavored to demonstrate how all verities of Dhvani can be included in Anumāna.
Mahimbhaṭṭa takes to analyzing many examples from Dhvanyāloka and shows that the expressed sense does not rally suggest the unexpressed, but between the two, inferences are possible and do occur by the saying:
“vācyāstadunumita va yatrārtho'nantaram prakāśayati |
saṃvandhataḥ ku taścita sa kāvyānumitiriktu ktaḥ || ”“etaccanumanasyaiva lakṣaṇaṃ nānyasya | yaduktam
trirupaliṅgākhyānam parārthānumanamiti ke valaṃ saṃñjabhedaḥ || ”- Vyaktiviveka of Mahimbhaṭṭa: I
In this way we found that though Mahimbhaṭṭa has accepts the poetic scheme of Ānandavardhana with specially Rasa, but he mainly tries to focus his novel speculations of Anaucitya as the supplement of Rasa. Lastly we can say that, the Anumāna theory of Mahimbhaṭṭa does not receive proper recognition in the later ālaṃkārikas.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Vyaktiviveka of Mahimbhaṭṭa: Ch–1, ‘kāvyāsyātmani saṃjanīni rasādirupe lo kasyacida vimatiḥ |’