Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (Study)
by Debabrata Barai | 2014 | 105,667 words
This page relates ‘Kavyaprakasha of Mammata’ 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 14 - Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa
[Post-Dhvani Theory of Sanskrit Poetics (7): The Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa (end of 11th century A.D.)]
Mammaṭa’s far-famed poetical work Kāvyaprakāśa occupies a unique place in the history of Sanskrit poetics.
“It occupies the same position in Alaṃkāra literature as the Śarīrakabhāṣya in Vedānta or the Mahābhāṣya in Grammar”[1].
The uniqueness of Mammaṭa’s Kāvyaprakāśa is that, this classical work is following from different direction, different trends and current of thought in previous Sanskrit poetics. It took a unified form running into a clear and main stream. Where different theories of poetry supported different schools in their different expositions and prominence to establishment in poetic expression i.e. rasa school recognizing rasa as the soul of kāvya (poetry), Alaṃkāra school accepted Alaṃkāra as the importance in kāvya, Rīti school considered Rīti as the most important element in poetry, Dhvani school admitted the relative importance of all these elements and advocated the novel theory of Dhvani in harmonized and rationalized synthetic system but Mammaṭa follows the Dhvani concepts and brought out it into perfection.
However,
“he not only followed the theory of Dhvani but also helped to a great deal in establishing the authority of the Kāśmirian School headed by Ānandavardhana.”[2]
Here it is clear that Ānandavardhana accepted the importance of rasa in kāvya (poetry) and betrays his adherence to the ancient theories in his definition:
“tadadoṣau śavdārthau saguṇāvaṇalaṃkṛtī punaḥ kvāpi |”
- Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa: I/ 3
Means:
“poetry with Śabda and Artha and mentions Guṇa, dosa and Alaṃkāra but he accepts the truth of rasa and dhvani theories.”
However, Mammaṭa follows his predecessors’ Ānandavardhana, but he does not mention the name of Dhvani in the definition of kāvya (poetry). Then the Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaṇa criticizes each and every word of his definition. In the most cases these arguments are fastidious and pedantic and they have been meeting with by Mammaṭa’s commentators.[3]
Then this definition of poetry, Mammaṭa discusses the function of śabda and artha and accepting the superiority of dhvani. He classifies poetry into three classes i.e. Dhvani kāvya, Gunībhūta-vyañ gya kāvya and Citra kāvya. C.f.
“śavdacitraṃ vācyacitramavyaṅgaṃ tvavaraṃ smṛtam || ”
- Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammata: I/ 5
About the matter of rasa theory, Mammaṭa examine different interpretations from Lollaṭa, Śaṅkuka and Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka then he rejecting them on the ground of inadequacy with accepts the Abhinavagupta’s Vyaktivada theory. Therefore Mammaṭa’s treatments of Guṇas are related to sabda and artha opposite view from the Vāmana.
He defines Guṇas as the property of rasa:
“ye rasasyāṅgino dharmaḥ sūryodaya evatmanaḥ |
utkarṣahetavaste syuracalasthitayo guṇaḥ || ”- Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa: VIII/ 66
Then he concludes his concepts on Guṇa by the saying:
“ata eva mādhuryodayo rasadharma samucitairvanāvyañjate na tu varṇāmatrasṛyaḥ |”
- Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammata: VIII
He following the Ānandavardhana and recognizes three Guṇas not ten Guṇas which is admitted by other rhetoricians. To him some of these ten can be included under these three and others can be reduced to mere negative of certain defects and as such, they are three in number. In the matter of alaṃākras, Mammaṭa considered the same view and says that, their position in poetry is justified by their relation to rasa. So Alaṃkāras embellish indirectly, through word and sense, the underlying soul of sentiment. If there is no rasa, the poetic figures become a mere turn of charming expression. Lastly we can say ‘In a word, Mammaṭa produced a master-piece of a textbook, which people badly needed and it came to receive so much appreciation that it became the fashion to write similar textbooks in the period that followed.[4]
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
Sarma, N. N. Panditrāja Jagannātha: The Renowned Sanskrit Poet of medieval India. Mittal Publication, New Delhi: 1994, Pp - 56
[3]:
De S. K.. Problems of Sanskrit Poetics, Firma KLM, 1959, Pp-120