Part 3 - Rīti theory and position of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā

After the Alaṃkāra School further developmental school is Rīti School, propounded by the Ācārya Vāmana, who was flourished with new doctrine about poetry that is:

“rītirātmā kāvyasya |”

- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti of Vāmana: I/ 2/ 6

Means:

“Rīti (poetic diction) is the soul of poetry.”

However Vāmana’s ancestor rhetoricians Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin do not gives any definition or sing about Rīti (poetic diction), but they both are also deliberated about it. In the first time history of Sanskrit poetics Ācārya Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti gives the sufficient light on Rīti (poetic diction) and define it by saying:

“viśiṣṭhāpadaracanā rītiḥ |”

- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti of Vāmana: I/ 2/ 7

Means:

“Rīti (poetic diction) is a special arrangement of words.”

This special arrangement again is a definite combination of different guṇas is fixed excellences of composition by says:

“viśeṣo guṇātmā |”

- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti of Vāmana: I/ 2/ 8

In this way Vāmanas treatment about special arrangement of words, where oja, prasāda and mādhurya etc. various guṇas are through up the endowed with kāvya (poetry) or the other ways we can say that the special arrangement of words with combination of guṇa is Rīti (poetic diction) of the kāvya (poetry).

Then Ācārya Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti lay down the two commencements about the difference of Guṇa and Alaṃkāras.

First he says:

“kāvyaśobhāyā: kartāro dharmā: guṇāḥ tadatiśayahetavastvalaṅkārāḥ |”

- Kāvyālaṃkārasūṭra-vṛtti of Vāmana: III/1-2

Means:

“Those elements produces poetic beauty are guṇas and this ‘kāvyaśobhāyāḥ kartāro’ guṇas are the very special than alaṃkāras”

Where guṇas are the place in kāvya-śobhā and there alaṃkāra only increasing this kāvya-śobhā in kāvya (poetry). In this causes ācārya Vāmana do not accepted the priority of alaṃkāras in kāvya (poetry) and established the importance of guṇas, which is the ascertaining the Rīti School in the history of Sanskrit poetics.

According to Dhvanikārika Ānandavardhana, appropriate composition of words is the Rīti (poetic diction). In any sentences terms of the process in terms of status or to saṅghatanā. However Vāmana’s composition of word (pada rachanā) and Ānandavardhana’s (pada-saṅghatanā) frequencies of word is not difference to each other. The refractory nature of the Rīti is described Ānandavardhana accomplish but Vāmana’s self-described Rīti (poetic diction) is dwarf feasible.

Vakroktijīvitakāra Ācārya Kuntaka, gives the importance of poet’s inner practice and established Rīti as the kavi-prasthana-hetu. In this view, proper concept of different Rīti’s is the criteria for justifying the poet’s nature.

Bhojarāja realized for the Rīti as:

“vaidarbhādikṛta panthā kāvye mārge iti smṛta|
rīṅgatāviti dhātossā vyutpatyā rītirucyate || ”

- Sarasvatīkaṇṭhāvaraṇa of Bhoja:

Means:

“Rīti is etymologically consisting with ‘gatyārthaka √ rīṅ’ ( ring) dhātu.”

There Rīti is the way of poetry. So different poet’s poetic composition are different types of Rīti.

In the Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammaṭa posits Rīti and Vṛtti as a similar thing and described the Upanāgarika, Puruṣa and Komala vṛtti. Then he lastly realized those three vṛttis are the same as Vāmana’s Vaidarbhi, Gauḍiya and Pāñcālī Rīti by saying:

“evāstistre vṛttayo vāmanādīnāṃ mate vaidarbhī gauḍī pāñcālākhyā rītaye matāḥ |”

And says, vṛtti and rīti are:

‘vṛttirniyatavarṇagato rasaviṣayo vyāpāraḥ’.

Therefore Viśvanātha also gives the importance of ‘pada-saṅghatanā’ with Mammaṭa’s ‘varṇa-vyapāra’ as:

“padasaṅghaṭanā rītiraṅgasaṃsthā viśeṣavat upakatrī rasādīnām |”

- Sāhityadarpaṇa of Viśvanātha: 9/ 1

In the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara declared Suvarṇanāvaha as the founder of Rīti treatise by saying:

“rītinirṇayaṃ suvarṇanābha : |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-I, Pp- 1

Though, the Rīti-nirnaya adhikaraṇa of Kāvyamīmāṃsā is unavailable to us at present times but we can think that Rājaśekhara must be composed in this adhikaraṇa.

Because he one says in the kavi-rahasya adhikaraṇa that:

“vṛttirītisvarupaṃ yathāvasaraṃ vakṣyāma: |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-III, Pp- 8

And,

“rītiyastu tistrastāstu purastāt ||”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-III, Pp- 10

Means:

“Vṛtti’s and Rīti’s will be dealt with in details later. And also Rīti’s are of three kinds.”

They will be described later. Ācārya Vāmana also refers three vṛttis i.e. Vaidarbi, Gauḍiya and Pāñ cālī . C.f.

“sā tredhā vaidarbhī gauḍīyā pāñcālī ceti || ”

- KLS of Vāmana: I/ 2/ 9

Means: rīti is three kinds: Vaidarbhī, Gaudīya and Pāñ calī. However, Rājaśekhara does not mentions Māgadhī Rīti anywhere in his Kāvyamīmāṃsā but in the first śloka of his Saṭṭaka Karpūramañjarī says about it:

In Prākṛt:

“bhaddaṃ bhodu sarassaī a kaiṇo ṇaṃdaṃtu vāsāiṇo
  aṇṇāṇaṃ vi paraṃ paaṭṭadu varā vāṇī chaillapiā |
vacchomī taha māahī phu radu ṇo sā ki ca paṃcāliā
  rodīo vilihaṃtu kabbaku salā joṇhāṃ caorā via || ”

- Karpūramañjarī of Rājaśekhara: 1/1

In Sanskrit meaning:

“bhadraṃ bhavatu sarasvatyā kavayo nandantu vyāsādaya
  anyeṣāmapi paraṃ pravartatāṃ varā vāṇī vidagdhapriyā |
vaidarbhī tathā māgadhī sphu radu na sā kiñca pāñcālikā
  rītikā vilihantu kāvyaku śalā jyotsnāṃ cakorā iva || ”

In this śloka we can see that another new Rīti ‘vacchomī’ , which he has referred. Thus it seems that Rājaśekhara’s mentioned Māgadhī and ‘ vacchomī’ R īti in the Karpūramañjarī are the same as the Gauḍiya and Vaidarbhī Rīti, which is described in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā Out of this, in the tenth act of his Bālarāmāyaṇa, he incidentally refers the another new Rīti, Maithālī.

That is also seems as alternate as Gauḍiya Rīti. C.f.

“laṅke ndrānuja eṣaimathili mahān yohayaṃ kavandhaḥ puro
  vārāṃ bhartari śailaseturaparaḥ proto yathā rājate |
nidrāloratitundilasya khalateḥ chovasya ghoṇāsṛjāmoghenāsya
  bhayaspṛśohapi nibhṛtaṃ svarvāsino hāsitāḥ || ”

- Bālarāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara: Ch-X/21

In this way Rājaśekhara approved the three Rīti’s i.e. Vaidarbhī, Gauḍiya and Pāñ cālī, if he recognized most of them about three Rīti’s so he must be described on such things in his poetical work Kāvyamīmāṃsā

Further, we can seems that Ācārya Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana etc. all the previous rhetoricians’ of Rājaśekhara gives importance of Rīti mostly in their own works but they all are silence about the origin and development about it. There we see Rājaśekhara discusses about the genesis and developmental concepts of Rīti by a mythological account of Kāvyapuruṣaḥ in the third chapter of his Kāvyamīmāṃsā in the description of journey of Sahitya-vidyā-vadhū for the searching Kāvyapuruṣaḥ in the different places all over country with adaptation various sorts of dress and dramatic devices than visible the origin of various types of Rīti’s, vṛtti’s and pravṛtt’s in poetic world.

Rājaśekhara accepted that the Samāsa (compound) with Anuprāśa is the major theory of Rīti. The earlier Ācārya Daṇḍin and Vāmana also ascertain that Guṇa as the major element of Rīti. Then the Rudraṭa recognized Samāsa (compound) only major on Rīti but the Dhvanikara Ānandavardhana accepted all the Mādhurya, Prasāda and Ojas these three guṇas are the inner and Samāsa (compound) as the outer elements of Rīti. However Rājaśekhara not only posits Samāsa and Anuprāśa as the major element of Rīti but also imaginated the main elements of all the three Rītis.