Part 3.13 - Justification of suitability and utility of Kāvya (poetry):

In this part Rājaśekhara has elaborately discusses the matter of kāvya-carcā

(poetic-study) and kāvya-racanā (poetic compositions) are proper or not. Thus, he record all the arguments adduced by his ancient authorities who are favour or against the view of above matter. There are no any usefulness and suitability for poetic composition, in this view also be seems both Indian and western countries from ancient times.

There is a famous Greek philosopher Ploto says:

“All poetical imitations are ruinous ….. The tragic poet is an imitator and therefore, like all other imitators he is thrice removed from the truth ….. All these poetical individuals are only imitators; they copy images of virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach ….. The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of the true existence; he knows appearance only …… therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reasoning.”^[1]

In eastern countries there are three types of arguments have advanced in this relation by those who wanted to denounce the merits of and to state the disadvantages in the study of the kāvyas (poetry). Firstly, kāvya (poetry) should not be taught to any one because they contain several untrue statements; secondly, kāvyas (poetry) encourage immoral practices and thirdly, kāvyas (poetry) gives the teaching on indecent practices.

C.f.

(i)  ‘asatyārthābhidhāyitvānnopadeṣṭavyaṃ kāvyam’ ityeke |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 24

(ii) ‘asadupadeśakatvāttarhi nopadeṣṭavyaṃ kāvyam’ ityapare |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 26

(iii) ‘asabhyārthābhidhāyitvānnopadeṣṭavyaṃ kāvyam" iti ca kecit |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

To highlight in those above three views on anti-poetical thoughts, RS cited several examples from the various types of evidences. Further, he refutes all these hostile views on the matter of kāvya (poetry). Rājaśekhara was the first ālaṃkārikas, who howned about those types of injudicious view and proves that, the study of kāvya (poetry) is irreproachable in every way because kāvya’s (poetry) have constitutes by special merits.

To the kāvya-virodhi view (anti-poetical thoughts) we can seems in the Ṛgveda –Bhāṣyopkramanikā [Bhāṣyopakramanikā?] says:

“yadyapyasyau kāvyanāṭakaṃ śṛṇoti tathāpi nirarthakameva
  tacchravanaṃ tena sukṛtamārgañjānābhāvāt |”

- Ṛg Veda: Bhāṣyopkramanikā [Bhāṣyopakramanikā?].

Means:

“There are no any importances to composing or reading the kāvya (poetry) and nāataka (drama), because it is not an act of piety and it does not gives the virtuous way to gaining virtue.”

There Rājaśekhara also gives the two śloka for the examples of impossible matter.

C.f.

“stemaḥ stoko'pi nāṅge śvasitamavikalaṃ cakṣuṣāṃ saiva vṛttiḥ
  madhyekṣīrābdhi magnāḥ sphu ṭamatha ca vayaṃ ko'yamīdṛkprakāraḥ |
itthaṃ dighvittirodhakṣatavisaratayā māṃsalaistvadyaśobhiḥ
  stokāvasthānadusthaistrijagati dhavale vismayante mṛgākṣyaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 25

Means:

“Dear king! Your fame first spread to the four directions of this earth. When it rebounded from the walls like directions, it collected in abundance and entered the ocean but its body did not get wet, its breath did not stop and nor did its eyes close. After whitening the ocean and because of lack of space it started brightening the sky. In this way, your fame has brightened all the three worlds and this is a matter of amazement for maidens.”

And another is:

“bhraśyadbhūbhugnabhogīścaraphaṇapavanādhmātapātālatāluḥ(mūlaḥ)
  truṭ yannānāgirīndravaliśikharakharāsphālalolāmburāśiḥ |
udyannīrandhradhūlīvidhurasuravadhūmucyamānopaśalyaḥ
  kalyodyogasya yasya tribhuvanadamanaḥ sainyasammarda āsīt |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 25

Means:

“The velour of the king’s soldiers has caused an upheaval in all the three worlds. The weight of the colossal army has pressed the earth down which has resulted in the bursting open of the hoods of the Śeṣanāga. When the Śeṣanāga gave out a hot and angry hiss, it heated up the upper crust of pātāla (nether world). On the earth, a number of high mountains broke off and fell into the ocean due to the fierce action of the army. This inundated the oceans. When the heavy dust raised by the army reached the heaven the celestial damsels left the borders of Heaven and in fright took refuge in mansions. Thus the king’s soldiers have resulted in the destruction of the three worlds.”

However, those types of descriptions are unwilling for this realistic world but in the kāvya-jagata (poetic world) they are very much adorable. Because those types of two examples given instances of atiśayokti-alaṃkāra (hyperbole), which are believed by some ālaṃkārikas main elements of kāvya (poetry).

Then Rājaśekhara go ahead to prevent of those types of hostile views and says:

“nāsatyaṃ nāma kiñcana kāvye yastu stutyeṣvarthavādaḥ ( ? ) |
sa ma paraṃ kavikarmaṇi śrutau ca śāstre ca loke ca || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 24

Means:

“It is not a fact that kāvya (poetry) can remain free of atiśayokti or of improbable descriptions. The descriptions pertaining to people or to things in kāvya (poetry) which employ atiśayokti need not be untrue or improbable. There are also similar matter have been identified in the Vedas; Śāstras and Loka (world).”

Then he indicated to the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, where it is connected to a late about Hariscandra and his son Rohit.

There, Lord Indra not wanting Rohit to go home gave the advice to him as:

“puṣpiṇyau tarato jaṅghe bhūṣṇurātmā phalegrahiḥ |
śore 'sya sarve pāpmānaḥ śrameṇa prapathe hatāḥ || ”

- Aitareya Brāhmana: Śunasepakhāna-VII/15/2
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 25
- Śatapathabrahmana-XV/19

Means:

“O mendican! When you walking in the forest your leys develop like flower and his body strengthens and gets the fruit of good health. There all his sing are washed way, because as he travels he comes across a number of pilgrimage place.”

In this Ṛk, where Lord Indra advises Rohita (son of Hariscandra) is in eulogy of the wanderer. Because it is not possible to legs develops like flower and body get the fruit of good health. It is known as ‘arthavāda’ or ‘praśaṃsārthavāda’.

There are another Śāstriya example is:

“āpaḥ pravitraṃ prathamaṃ pṛthivyāmapāṃ pavitraṃ paramaṃ ca mantrāḥ |
teṣāṃ ca sāmargyajuṣāṃ pavitraṃ maharṣayo vyākaraṇaṃ nirāhuḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 25

Means:

“In this world, purest thing is water, there purer than even that is Mantra. Out of these mantras, the Ṛg, Yaju and Sāma mantras are the purest but sages declare Vyākaraṇa-Śāstra (science of grammar) to be even purer than the mantras of the Trayī.”

And,

“yastu prayuṅkte ku śamo viśeṣe śabdānyathāvadvyavahārakāle |
so'nantamāpnoti jayaṃ paratra vāgyogavidduṣyati cāpaśabdeḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 25 and
- Mahābhaṣya (paspasahanika)

Means:

“If a wise man can possesses the knowledge of Vyākaraṇa (science of grammar) and uses the correct word at the correct place, has a command over language, achieves glory in the next world and the one who knows the language but uses incorrect forms of words, thus he corrupts himself and falls into hell.”

Here, the first śloka is also another ‘arthavāda’ or ‘praśaṃsārthavāda’, where praises grammar superior than Vedas. Because it seems that, if it does not under the matter of ‘arthavāda’ or ‘praśaṃsārthavāda’ thus it contained some untrue statements.

The second one śloka cited by in this work, which is collected from the Mahābhaṣya of Patañjali for the slowing the utility of studying Vyākaraṇa (science of grammar). It is also the matter of ‘arthavāda’ or ‘praśaṃsārthavāda’. Because, how can it possible to probe that, if anyone speaks grammatically correct thus he enjoys success in the next world and if anyone’s speech with ungrammatical thus he can go contaminated or polluted or hell.

However, the commentator Kaiyaṭa things that the authorship of this śloka to Kātyāyaṇa and says:

“kātyāyanopanivandhabhrājākhyaślokamadhyapaṭhitasya tvasya śrutiranagrāhikāsti |
‘ekaḥ śavdaḥ samyag ñjātaḥ suṣṭha prayuktaḥ svarge loke kāmadhugbhavati’ iti |”

- Vārtika of Kattyana
- Quoted in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya: Ch- 1/16

The second anti-poetic views are, kāvya (poetry) always propagate fals beliefs and thus it should be abandoned. Thus Rājaśekhara incorporated a śloka (verse)^[2].

C.f.

“vayaṃ vālye ḍimbhāstaruṇimani yūnaḥ pariṇatāvapīcchāmo vṛddhānpariṇayavidhestu sthitiriyam |
tvayā''rabadhaṃ janma kṣapayitumamārgeṇa kimidaṃ na no gotra putri kvacidapi satīlāñchanamabhūt || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 26

Means:

“When the daughter of a prostitute pledges to live her life with one man, thus his Veṣyā (sex-worker) mother advices her as: ‘My dear daughter, the marriage ties in our community of Veṣyā (sex-worker) state that one should love young boys in adolescence, young men in youth and old men in one’s old-age–this is the Veṣyā-dharma (code of conduct for sex-worker). You are thinking of choosing the wrong path. Our community has never faced such an appellation before’.”

In this śloka (verse) the profession of Veṣyā (sex-worker) being glorified in age against accepted societal norms and the sanctity of marriage vows is being questioned, thus this kind of marriage should be abandoned. However it seems that in this śloka (stanza) gives us irrelevant advice but their inner significance is other. Their main objective is to watchful the persons on the Veṣyā (sex-worker) character.

In the concluding part of pāradārikādhikaraṇa of Vātsāyana’s Kāmasūtra also gives the similar explanation when describing the immoral practices.

C.f.

“saṃdṛśya śāstrato yogān pāradārikalakṣitān |
na yāti chalanāṃ kaścid svadārān prati śāstravid ||
pākṣikatvāt prayogānāmapāyānāñca darśanāt |
dharmārthayośca vailomyānnācare t pāradārikam ||
tadetaddāraguptyarthamāravdhaṃ śreyase nṛṇām |
prajānāṃ dūṣaṇāyaiva na viñjeyo'yaṃ vidhiḥ || ”

- KVS [Kāmasūtra] of Vātsāyaṇa: Ch-V/6/2/50-52

The third anti-poetics view is–

‘asabhyārthābhidhāyitvānnopadeṣṭavyaṃ kāvyam’ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means:

“Kāvya (poetry) contain indecent meaning, which bring out uncivilized under ones. Thus kāvya (poetry) should be avoided.”

There also given an example for support this view.

C.f.

“prasarpanpragrīvairbhṛtabhuvanaku kṣirjhaṇajhaṇākarālaḥ prāgalbhyaṃ vadati taruṇīnāṃ praṇayiṣu |
vilāsavyatyāsājjaghanaphalakāsphālanaghanasphu ṭacchedotsiktaḥ kalakanakakāñcīkalakalaḥ ||”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means:

“In the act of love making there is witnessed a reversal of roles. The women intoxicated with passion are pinning down the husbands when the sound produced by the golden girdle due to the movement of their limbs spreads out and covers the entire sky. This boldness of wives seems to be an indicator of their shamelessness.”

And another śloka (verse) is:

“nityaṃ tvayi pracuracitrakapatrabhaṅgītāṭaṅkatāḍanavipāṇḍu ragaṇalekhāḥ |
snihyantu ratnaraśanāraṇanābhirāmakāmārtinatanitambataṭāstaruṇyaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means:

“When the wives reverse their role during love making the long ear ornaments dangling from their ears rub against their cheeks thus reddening them and the gems studded girdle at the wrist dances and makes a lot of pleasure sound.”

Here, in these both ślokas (verses) one can witness indecent connotations and such types of kāvya (poetry) should be avoided on this matter.

Replied with this view’s, Rājaśekhara says that in a kāvya (poetry) those of description should be uses, because:

“prakramāpanno nibandhanīya evāyamartha iti yāyāvarīyaḥ |
tadidaṃ śrutau śāstro copalabhyate |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means: 

“kavi (poet) can be uses these types of descriptions depending on the context. There we see similar kinds of meaning can be traced to the Vedas and Śāstras also.”

Thus he cited different descriptions from Ṛgveda Veda and Yajurveda. Firstly, he says the story of Yajurveda as:

“yonirudukhalaṃ śiśnaṃ muśalaṃ mithunemevaitat prajananaṃ kriyate”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 28

Means:

“A boiling vessel like the uterus and the pestle like male organ of regeneration are together called mithun (copulation). This union is the causes of regeneration.”

And the Ṛgveda Vedic Yam-Yami saṃbada mantra is:

“upopa me parāmṛśamā me dabhraṇi manyathāḥ |
sarvā'hamasmi romaśā gandhārīṇāmivāvikā || ”

- Ṛg Veda: 2/1/11/7
- Nirukta of Yāṣka: Ch-III/4/3
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 28

Means:

“The daughters of Bṛhaspati, Romsa [Romaśā?] invite her husband for union. Came and embrace me. Don’t underestimate the size of pores on my body. I have pores all over my body. I am Romsa  [Romaśā?] (shaggy) just like the sheep of Gāndhara-deśa.

There Rājaśekhara also incorporated an examples from Śāstra where has been given the description of vulgarity.

C.f.

“yasyāḥ prasannadhavalaṃ cakṣuḥ paryantapakṣmalam |
navīnatopamaṃ tasyā bhavati smaramandiram || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 28

Means:

“A women, who has brightness, white eyes with ling eyelashes also possesses a soft female organ like fresh butter.”

In this Śāstric description also full of indecent. So there Rājaśekhara point is that, if the context demands thus such types of śloka’s also be included in Vedas and various Śāstras. In this way we can say that, if kāvya-carcā (poetic study) is to be stop for the causes of false beliefs, indecent makings and wrong advices thus there must be stopped the study of Vedas and Śāstra’s. Hense, the Vedas and the Śāstra’s also describes those types of matter.

Therefore, Rājaśekhara also throws a contradiction for the anti-poetic doctrine by saying:

“kiñca kaviracanāyattā lokayātrā |
sā ca niḥśreyasamūlam” iti maharṣayaḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means,

“The nature of society is the import of kavi’s (poet’s) words. The worldly actions propagated by the poet are always beneficial for the human race.”

Thus, Rājaśekhara gives an example for the importance of kāvya.

C.f.

“kāvyamayyo giro yāvaccaranti viśadā bhuvi |
tāvatsārakhataṃ sthānaṃ kavirāsādya modate”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Means:

“The kavi (poets) for their pure poetic speech spreads on this earth; the kavi (poet) will always have a place in Sārasvata loka and remaining happy.”

There Rājaśekhara also has given another two śloka i.e.

“śrīmanti rāñjāṃ caritāni yāni prabhutvalīlāśca sudhāśināṃ yāḥ |
ye ca prabhāvāstapasāmṛṣīṇāṃ tāḥ satkavibhyaḥ śrutayaḥ prasūtāḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

And,

“khyātā narādhipatayaḥ kavisaṃmiśreṇa rājāśrayeṇa ca gatāḥ kavayaḥ prasiddhim |
rāñjā satpo'sti na kaveḥ paramopakārī rāñjo na cāsti kavinā sadṛśaḥ sahāyaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Which are describes the power of kavi (poets) speech. Only poets’ speech can able to do alaukika (other-worldly) effects. Thus, the sārasvata-mārga (path of poetic creation) which has first founded by sage Vālmīki and sage Vyāsadeva, who are opens out a path which can have no fault.

Their work can able to influent everyone so Rājaśekhara says:

“valmīkajanmā sa kaviḥ purāṇaḥ kaviśvaraḥ satyavatīsutaśca |
yasya praṇetā tadihānavadyaṃ sārasvataṃ vartma na kasya vandyam ? || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-VI, Pp- 27

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

B, Jowelts. Eng. Translation of Ploto’s “Republic”, Book-X

[2]:

This verse is attributed to Vijjaka in the Saduktikarṇāmṛta and it is also recorded in the Subhāsitābhāndāgāra under the heading of ‘asatīcarita’. The reading in the third pāda also is found there as ‘anenaikapatinā’. Which is better fitter than the reading ‘amārgeṇa kimidam’ found in the text.

—See, Dalal-Pp-167