Part 4.4 - Types of Kāvyārtha (poetic theme)

Drauhiṇi’s opinion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme):

To ancient rhetorician Drauhiṇi, Kāvyārtha (poetic theme) is three type i.e.

1. Divya (Divine),
2. Divyamānuṣa (Divine mundane), and
3. Mānuṣa (Mundane) [= Manuṣya or Mṛtyaloka ?].

Here it is noticeable that ācārya Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka says about those three types in the connection of Aucitya (Propriety).

Rājaśekhara’s opinion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme):

But Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara doesn’t agree with his and he also added another four with them and it comes up in seven types:

“saptadhā” iti yāyāvarīyaḥ | pātālīyo, martyapātālīyo, divyapātālīya, divyamarttyapātālīyaśca |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara thinks that, ‘meaning of poetry’ is seven types. They are:

• (1-3) Drauhiṇī’s three types of meaning and with
• (4) Pātālīya (nether-worldly),
• (5) Mṛtya-pātālīya (of this world and nether-worldly),
• (6) Divya-pātālīya (celestial and nether worldly) and
• (7) Divya-mṛtya-pātālīya (celestial, of this world and nether worldly).

The imaginative power of the poets comes from all the aspects and incidents of this world and the whole universe, thus Rājaśekhara may be through the reference to the sources of divine and subterranean worlds to enlarge the scope of poetic themes. Then he illustrated all the seven types of poetic theme with suitable examples.

(1) Divya:

Divya (celestial) is which that basis in celestial characters and situations. Thus-

“smṛtvā yannijavāravāsagatayā vīṇāsamaṃ tumburorudgītaṃ nalūkabarasya virahādutkañculaṃ rambhayā |
tenairāvaṇakarṇacāpalamuṣā śakro'pinidrāṃ jahadbhūyaḥ kārita eva hāsini śacīvakte dṛśāṃ sambhramam || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

Here all the characters in this śloka are drowning from the celestial world. Therefore it is an example of Divya meaning.

(2) Divyamānuṣa:

There, Divya-mānuṣa (celestial and mortal meaning) again four sub-types. i.e.

“divyamānuṣastu caturddhā | divyasya martyāgamane, martyasya ca divyabhāva iti dvitīyaḥ | divyetivṛttaparikalpanayā tṛtīyaḥ | prabhāvāvirbhūtadivyarupatayā caturthaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

Those are:

1. A celestial being coming in the world and a mortal being going to Heaven,
2. A celestial being transformed into a mortal being after being born on this earth and a mortal transformed into celestial after his death,
3. The divine imagining of a mortal being and
4. Though mortal but have the ability to produce divine energy due to an innate power.

If a celestial being coming in the world and a mortal being going to Haven is Divyasya-mṛtya-gamana and Mṛtya-svarga-gamana.

The example of Divyasya-mṛtya-gamana is:

“śriyaḥ patiḥ śrīmati śāsituṃ jagajjagannivāso vasudevasadmani |
vasandadarśāvatarantamambarāddhiraṇyagarbhāṅgabhuvaṃ muniṃ hariḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

And the example of Mṛtya-svarga-gamana is:

“pāṇḍornandana nandanaṃ vanamidaṃ saṅkalpajaiḥ sīdhubhiḥ
  klṛptāpānakake li kalpatarulu dvandvaiḥ sudhālehinām |
apyatronduśilālapavālavalayaṃ santānakānāṃ tale
  jyotsnāsaṅgaladacchanirjharajalairyatnaṃ vinā pūryate || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

If a celestial being transformed into a mortal being after being born on this earth and a mortal transformed into celestial after his death is Divya-Mṛtya-bhāva and Mṛtya-divya-bhāva.

The example is Divya-mṛtya-bhāva is:

“iti vikasati tasminnanvavāyaṃ yadūnāṃ samajani vasudevo devakī yatkalatram |
kimaparamatha tasyātṣoḍaśastrīsahasrapraṇihitaparirambhaḥ padmanābho babhūva || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 42

And the example of Mṛtya-divya-bhava is:

“ākāśayānataṭakoṭikṛtaikapādāstaddhemadamaṇḍayugalānyavalambya hapteḥ |
kautūhalāttava taraṅgavighaṭṭitāni paśyanti devi manujāḥ svakalevarāṇi || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43

Therefore, Divyate-vṛtta-parikalpana is the divine imagining of a mortal being and the example is:

“jyotsnāpūraprasaraviśade saikate'sminsarayvā vādadyatūṃ cirataramabhūtsiddhayūnoḥ kayościt |
eko brūte prathamanihataṃ kaiṭabhaṃ kaṃ samanyaḥ sa tvaṃ tattvaṃ kathaya bhavatā ko hatastatra pūrvam || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43

Then, the Prabhavavirbhūta-divyarūpa is the mortal yet with the ability to produce divine energy due to an innate power.

The example of it’s:

“mā gāḥ pātālamurvi sphu rasi kimaparaṃ pāṭh yamānaḥ kudaitya
  trailokyaṃ pādapītaprathima nahi bale pūrayasyūnamaṅghraḥ |
ityutsvapnāyamāne bhuvanabhṛti śiśāvaṅkasupte yaśodā
  pāyāccakrāṅkapādapraṇatipulakitasmeragaṇḍasthalā vaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43

(3) [Mānuṣa]—Manuṣya or Mṛtyaloka:

The example of Manuṣya or Mṛtyaloka is:

“vadhūḥ śvaśrūsthāne vyavaparanti putraḥ pitṛpade pade rikte rikte vinihitapadārthāntaramiti |
nadīstrotonyāyādakalitavivekakramadhanaṃ na ca pratyāvṛttiḥ pravahati jagatpūrṇamatha ca || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43

It is the four types of meaning which are accepted both Drauhiṇī and Rājaśekhara. Then he gives an example of his own individual another three types of meaning.

(4) Pātālīya:

The example of Pātālīya (nether-world) is:

“karkoṭaḥ koṭikṛtvaḥ praṇamati puratastakṣake dehi cakṣuḥ
  sajjaḥ sevāñjaliste kapilaku likayoḥ stauti ca svastikastvām |
padmaḥ sadmaiṣa bhakte ravalagati puraḥ kambalo'yaṃ balo'yaṃ
  sotsarpaḥ sarparājo vrajatu nijagṛhaṃ preṣyatāṃ śaṅkhapālaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43

(5) Mṛtya-pātālīya:

The example of Mṛtyapātālīya (nether-worldly) is:

“ārdrāvale vraja na vetsyapakarṇa karṇaṃ dviḥ sandadhāti na śaraṃ haraśiṣyaśiṣyaḥ |
tatsāmprataṃ samiti haśya ku tūhalena martyaiḥ śairarapi kirīṭikirīṭamātham || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 43-

Here both Karṇa and a serpent have been described as an instance of Mṛtyapātālīya meaning. However, some also believe the different types of Mṛtya-pātālīya are similar to the Divya-manuṣa-divyapātālīya but according to Rājaśekhara:

“ihāpi pūrvavatsamastamiśrabhedānugamaḥ |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 44

(6) Divya-pātālīya:

The example of Divya-pātālīya is:

“sa pātu vo yasya śikhāśmakarṇikaṃ svadehanālaṃ phanaṇapatrasañcayam |
vibhāti jihvāyugalolake saraṃ pinākinaḥ karṇabhujaṅgapaṅkajam || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 44

In this description is of the celestial Lord Śiva and the nether-worldly Snake, thus depicting the Divya-pātālīya meaning.

(7)  Divyamṛtya-pātālīya:

The last type of Divya-Mṛtya-pātālīya example is:

“ āstīko'sti muniḥ sma vismayakṛtaḥ pārīkṣitīyānmakhāttrātā
  takṣakalakṣmaṇaḥ phaṇābhṛtāṃ vaṃśasya śakrasya ca |
udvellanmalayādricandanalatāsvāndolanaprakrame
  yasyādyapi savibhramaṃ phaṇivadhūvṛndairyaśo gīyate || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 44

Kāvyārtho; Muktaka-kāvya; Prabandha-kāvya; Siddha; Citra; Kathotta; Samvidhanakabhu; Ākhyanakāvya; Siddha; Citra; Kathotta; Samvidhanakabhu; Ākhyanakāvya.

Udbhaṭa’s opinion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme):

Ācārya Udbhaṭa thinks that, the sources of meaning of poetic exposition by kavi (poet) with his are unlimited and vast but they are divided into two types-

1. Vicāritā-sustha and
2. Avicārita-ramaṇīya.

C.f.

“so'yamitthaṅkāramullikhyopajīvyamāno niḥsīmā'rthasārthaḥ sampadyate |”

“astu nāma niḥsīmā'rthasārthaḥ | kintu dvirūpa evāsau vicāritasustho'vicāritaramaṇīyaśca [ iti ] | tayoḥ pūrvamāśritāni śāstrāṇi taduttaraṃ kāvyāni” ityaudbhaṭāḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 44

The Vicāritasustha is the healthy established thought on the basis of matured reasons and the Avicāritaramaṇīya is the one based though not on philosophical reasoning’s but on the charmless of poetic imagination. The Vicāritasustha is the subject matter of Śāstric literature and the Avicāritaramaṇīya is connected with the matter of classical poetry.

Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara says, it is correct that the poets of both kāvya and śāstra absorbs concepts from the universe and use these with his verbal expression in a description of poetry. It is like the colour of the sky and the river as a source of heats, which are not natural or real but are apparent. However, the apparent and the natural are not present naturally in a thing. If appearances were real than the solar-systems of the sun and the moon appear to be only equal to twelve fingers, could not be equal to or larger than the earth which has been described by the Puranas.

In the same way, one should think about the other satellites, mountains and rivers also.

C.f.

“na svarupanibandhanamidaṃ rūpamākāśasya saritsalilādervā kintu pratibhāsanibandhanam | na ca pratibhāsastādātmyona vastunvavatiṣṭhate | yadi tathā syātsūryācandramasormaṇḍale dṛṣṭ yā paricchidyamānadvāśāṅku lapramāṇe purāṇādyagamaniveditadharāvalayamātre na staḥ” iti yāyāvarīyaḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 44

Here, it is not that the natural disposition of a thing to be manifested apparently and in naturally, one should describe a thing according to one’s perception.

Aparājīti’s opinion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme):

Aparājīti (Aparājita’s son Bhaṭṭalollaṭa) says that, though the source of meaning may be wide and comprehensive but it also remains necessary to include poetic meanings rather than mere context.

C.f.

“astu nāma niḥsīmā'rthasārthaḥ | kintu rasavata eva nibandho yukto na nīrasasya” ityāparājitiḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

Thus he says that, water-sporting, gathering of flowers, dusk, rise of the moon when described should not be overdone and should not be in opposition to the context and the poetic state of mind being evoked. The poets describes rivers, mountains, oceans, cities, houses, elephants and carriage etc. and all these are indicate his own creative faculty.

However some scholars do not approve with it.

C.f.

“majjanapuṣpāvacayanasandhyācandrodayādivākyamiha |
sarasamapi nātibahulaṃ prakṛtarasānanvitaṃ racayet |
yastu saridadrisāgarapuraturathādivarṇane yatnaḥ |
kaviśaktikhyātiphalo vitatadhiyāṃ no mataḥ sa iha || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

Rājaśekhara also agree with him and supporting the view of Aparājiti by saying:

“asti cānubhūyamāno rasasyānuguṇo viguṇaścārthaḥ,
kāvye tu kavivacanāni rasayanti virasayanti ca nārthāḥ |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 45

However it is true that there are some meanings which are favorable to a particular rasa (aesthetic state of mind) and others are unfavorable to it. It is also fact that in a poetic compositions the poet’s sentences add to or detract from the aesthetic effect of the entire creation, because a poet with his pratibhā (innate faculty) can transform even mundane and common place things into aesthetic wonders and those who lack of pratibhā (innate faculty) may diminish the aesthetic meaning and reduce its worth.

In a description of poetic theme of separation in love, an aesthetic sense is needed but a bad poet makes it insipid. If there is a substance lacks of aesthetic charm, thus the voice of bad poet should carry the aesthetic sensibility-which is an undebatable principle.

C.f.

“ku kavirvipralambhe'pi rasavattāṃ nirasyati |
astu vastuṣu mā vā bhūtkavivāci rasaḥ sthitaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 46

Pālyakīrti’s opinion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme):

There Pālyakīrti (a Jain ācārya) says that, whatever is the poetic theme appearance, the aesthetic sense dependent on the nature of a poet. There a contented person may worship something and an indifferent poet may on different occasions and at the same time the neutral/ mediocre poet may be contemplative about it.

“yathā tathā vā'stu vastuno rūpaṃ, vṛktaprakṛtiviśeṣāyattā tu rasavattā |
tathā ca yamarthaṃ raktaḥ stauti taṃ virakto vinindati |
madhyasthastu tatrodāste” iti pālyakīrtiḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 46

Because the neutral kavi think that:

“yeṣāṃ vallabhayā samaṃ kṣaṇamiva sphārā kṣapā kṣīyate teṣāṃ śītataraḥ śaśī virahiṇāmulke va santāpakṛt |
asmākaṃ na tu vallabhā na virahastenobhayabhraṃśināmindu rājati darpaṇākṛtirayaṃ noṣṇo na vā śītalaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 46

For the person who spends the long nights with his beloveds, the entire night seems to last for a moment and for him the moon is a thing of intense coolness. There the separated lovers the same moon is like hot burning embers. But the person who have not beloved and no pangs of separation is a neutral person.

Avantīsundarī’s opnion on Kāvyārtha (poetic theme)

Then Rājaśekhara says the view of his learned scholar wife Avantīsundarī that, in a poetic composition the nature of things is not bound or restricted; it is indefinite.

A poet with his poetic power can able to present the same thing in different way to different context in poetry.

C.f.

“vidagdhabhaṇitibhaṅginivedyaṃ vastuno rupaṃ na niyatasvabhāvam” ityavantisundarī | “vastusvabhāvo'tra kaveratantraṃ guṇāguṇāvuktivaśena kāvye | stuvannibadhnātyamṛtāṃśuminduṃ nindaṃstu doṣākaramāha dhūrtaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-IX, Pp- 46

In poetic composition the nature of a thing is not certain. The poets’ words develop certain excellences or faults. Who wish to worship the moon call it as amṛtāṃśu and the rogues one wish to find fault the moon call it as doṣakāra (with a mark). Rājaśekhara here acceptes both of the concepts of Pālyakīrti and Avantīsundarī. “ubhayamupapannam”|
196