Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara (Study)

by Debabrata Barai | 2014 | 105,667 words

This page relates ‘Originality and Plagiarism’ 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).

In a poetic creation originality of ideas is the touchstone of poetic genius of a poet. There are various poet’s they are composing their works on the same theme of earlier work’s and other’s are bound to catch some different fresh ideas. However, every poet is sure to display some original concepts of his own ideas in poetic creation, even when he is borrowing the concepts or theme from another works or sources.

Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka said that:

na hi vācaspatināpyakṣarāṇi padāni vā kāni ścidapūrvāṇi ghaṭayituṃ śakyante |”

- Dhvanyāloka of Ānandavardhana: Ch-IV/15

Means:

“Even the legendary master of speech Bṛhaspati is not in a position to use letters, phrases and words denovo.”

He himself is to use the same oldest pattern of words and phrases, but this fact does not extenuate literary merit of the piece accomplished by this Bṛhaspati.

Panditarāja Jagannātha, the author of Rasagaṅgādhara says that, every poet cannot coin new words for himself.

C.f.

kāvyaṃ mayātra nihitaṃ na parasya kiñcit |
kiṃ sevyate sumanasāṃ manasāpi gandhaḥ, kasturikā jananaśaktibhṛtā mṛgeṇa || ”

- Rasagaṅgādhara of Jagannātha: into verse- 6

But we can see that, Yāyāvarīya Rājaśekhara rightly deals Haraṇa (plagiarism) into two different level i.e. Śabdaharaṇa and Arthaharaṇa. He cannot insist upon absolute originality in the process of Śabdaharaṇas, he does for Arthaharaṇa. He also well aware that apūrvapadaghatana is not to be expected from every kavi (poet). He does expect some originality of the Kavi (poet), who is using words or Śabda from some other sources. Because he believes that even while borrowing words and expression from another poet there is ample scope for a poet to supply flashes of originality.

Rājaśekhara defines appropriation or plagiarism is:

paraprayuktayoḥ śabdārthayorūpanibandho haraṇam |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

Means:

“The using of Śabda (word) and Artha (meaning) from the works of another and passing them off as his own concept is known as appropriation or plagiarism.”

Rājaśekhara think that the problem of appropriation or plagiarism has two main streams i.e.

  1. Parityājya (one that should be hided) and
  2. Anugrāhya (other should be added).

To understand his concepts about appropriation or plagiarism he also quotes a verse from ancient works, which can helpful to us.

C.f.

puṃsaḥ kālātipātena cauryamanyadviśīryati |
api putreṣu pautreṣu vāckauryaṃ ca na śīryati || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

While all the other thefts committed by a person pass away the lapse of time, there literary theft endures even to sons and grandsons.”

Here it seems that during his time the impact of poetical theft will remain continue forever. But he doesn’t believe that all types of poetical theft or appropriations are censurable. To him appropriation of words without double meaning may be considered admirable.

Rājaśekhara is mainly devised appropriation of words arising in the five ways:

tayoḥ śabdaharaṇameva tāvatpañcadhā padataḥ, pādataḥ, arddhataḥ, vṛttataḥ, prabandhataśca [ iti ] |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

Means:

Śabdaharaṇa is arising from pada (word), pāda (quarter of a stanza), ardha (in half line or a stanza), vṛtta (metre) and prabandha (a context).”

However his predecessors think that borrowing a word will never be a discredit to the poets, but Rājaśekhara’s opinion that appropriation of a single word is under a crime if it have not double meaning. Then he gives an example this type of appropriation occurs in many ways in literary world.

He firstly gives an example of the appropriation of a double meaning word by another word of double meaning.

C.f.

dūrākṛṣṭaśilīmukhavyatikarānno kiṃ kirātānimānārādvyāvṛtapītalohitamukhānkiṃ vā palāśānapi |
pānthāḥ ke sariṇaṃ na paśyata puro'pyenaṃ vasantaṃ vane mūḍhā rakṣata jīvitāni śaraṇaṃ yāta priyāṃ devatām || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also, “mā gāḥ pāntha priyāṃ tyaktvā dūrākṛṣṭaśilīmukham |
sthitaṃ panthānamāvṛtya kiṃ kirātaṃ na paśyasi || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In these examples the words ‘śilīmukham’ and ‘kirāta’ have two meaning and borrowed in the second ślokas. The ‘śilīmukha’ means both the ‘arrow’ and ‘bee’; ‘kirāta’ means both the ‘demon’ and ‘kiṃśuka tree’. So this is an example of plagiarism or appropriation.

Appropriation of a word of double meaning in the same sense by a part of the paranomastic word is:

nāścaryaṃ yadanāryāptāvastaprītirayaṃ mayi |
māṃsopayogaṃ ku rvīta kathaṃ kṣudrahito janaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also,

kopānmānini kiṃ sphu ratyatitarāṃ śobhādharaste'dharaḥ
  kiṃ vā cumbanakāraṇāddayita no vāyorvikārādayam
|
tasmātsubhru sugandhimāhitarasaṃ snigdhaṃ bhajasvādarānmugdhe
  māṃsarasaṃ bruvanniti tayā gāḍhaṃ samāliṅgitaḥ
|| ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In those two ślokas the word ‘māṃsopayoga’ with double meaning is partly appropriated by the poet in the second śloka and it is added a new word ‘sarasa’. Here the both ‘māṃsopayoga’ and ‘māṃsarasa’ are identical and come up with two meaning and here we can found an example of Haraṇa (appropriation).

Then the Haraṇa or appropriation of a ‘śliṣṭapadayamaka’, Rājaśekhara gives an examples i.e.

halamapārapayonidhivistṛtaṃ praharatā halinā samarāṅgaṇe |
nijayaśaśca śaśāṅkakalāmalaṃ niravadhīritamāku lamāsuram || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

And also,

dalayatā viśikhairbalamunmadaṃ niravadhīritamāku lamāsuram |
daśasu dikṣu ca tena yaśaḥ sitaṃ niravadhīritamāku lamāsuram || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 56

In those śloka the word ‘niravadhīritam’ have two meaning i.e.repelled’ and ‘ultimate spreading’. These two meaning are expressed to (i) the army of the Asuras and (ii) the fame of Baladeva. There the other two words ‘ākula’ and ‘āsura’ also with double meanings are appropriated in the second śloka, which forms an example of ‘yamaka’ in the same sense. So here it is an example of appropriation.

The appropriation of a paranomastic word or double meaning in the form of a questionnaire is illustrated by Rājaśekhara.

C.f.

yasyāṃ bhujaṅgavargaḥ karṇāyatekṣaṇaṃ kāminīvadanaṃ ca |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

kiṃ karoti kiyatkālaṃ veśyāveśmaniṃ kāmukaḥ |
kidṛśaṃ vadanaṃ vīkṣya tasyā karṇāyatekṣaṇam || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Here the word ‘karṇāyatekṣaṇam’ is ‘śliṣṭa’ bears two meaning i.e. (i) the crowd of paramours is behaving for the moment in the same manner as Karṇa and, (ii) the face of the lady with long eyes extended up to her ears. The same word is ‘karṇāyatekṣaṇam’ is appropriated or borrowed in the second another śloka to supply an answer to the certain three questions put forth in the same śloka. In this way here we can found an example of appropriation of word with double meaning by the questionnaire.

After that, appropriation of Yamaka by a Yamaka alaṃkāra is also a haraṇa or plagiarism of words. C.f.

varadāya namo haraye patati jano yaṃ smarannapi na moharaye |
bahuśaścakranda hatā manasi ditiryenaidatyacakraṃ dahatā || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

cakraṃ dahatāraṃ cakranda hatāram |
khaṅgena tavājau rājannarinārī || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

In those two śloka’s, the word ‘cakraṃ dahatāra’ of first śloka is appropriated in the second śloka by the way of ‘Yamaka’ word of ‘cakraṃ dahatāraṃ’.

In this time Rājaśekhara has gives opinions of Avantīsundarī and a Ācārya. Avantīsundarī there lays down the certain excuses for appropriation.

C.f.

ayamaprasiddhaḥ prasiddhimānaham, ayamapratiṣṭhaḥ pratiṣṭhāvānaham, aprakrāntamidamasya
saṃvidhānakaṃ prakrāntaṃ mama, guḍūcīvaca'noyaṃ mṛdvīkāvacano'ham,
anādṛtabhāṣāviśoṣo'yamahamādṛtabhāṣāviśeṣaḥ, praśāntañjātakṛmidaṃ, deśāntaritakarttakṛmidam,
uccha(tsa) nnanibandhanamūlamidaṃ, melocchitakopanibandhanamūlamidamityevamādibhiḥ
kāraṇaiḥ śavdaharaṇe'rthaharaṇe vābhirameta” ityavantisundarī
|”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

“I am a celebrated poet, he has none; I enjoy a secure position and established myself, he is climber; this is inappropriate in him, appropriate to me; his words like a tonic, mine like wine; he is foreign author and ignores specialties of dialects, I attend to them; he is unknown author, but I lives a long way off; the book he wrote is obsolete, but my work of a foreigner.”

Here Avantīsundarī think that, one is justified in the amusement of appropriation and when there are reasons like the above said. In the Baroda edition of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā, C. D. Dalal think that[1], it is to the justification of a superior poet rewriting an inferior one’s writing and the view of K. Krishnamoorthy is, it is the justification of superiors poets rewriting an inferior one’s writing in order to confer the latter a stature which would never have attained otherwise by itself. It is only a description of one giving more than he receives.[2]

After that, Rājaśekhara cited the view of a Ācārya that is:

tibhyaḥ padebhyaḥ prabhṛti tvaśliṣṭebhyo haraṇam” ityācāryāḥ |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

Means:

“Appropriation of three words or less, which has not double meaning, is not appropriation”

This is illustrated and supported by the śloka’s Subhasitavalī as:

sa pātu vo yasya jaṭākalāpe sthitaḥ śaśāṅkaḥ sphu ṭahāragauraḥ |
nīlotpalānāmiva nālapuñje nidrāyamāṇaḥ śaradīva haṃsaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

And also,

sa pātu vo yasya hatāvaśeṣāstattulyavarṇāñjanarañjiteṣu |
lāvaṇyayukte ṣvapi vitrasanti daityāḥ svakāntānayanotpaleṣu || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 57

In these two ślokas, the words ‘sa pātu vo yasya’ occur in the same order. Though

these words are aśliṣṭa, and the appropriation here considered as an example of borrowing by others. But Rājaśekhara disagrees with these views of ācārya. To whom, the composition where the poet’s pratibhā (genius) is evident should not be appropriated. A word used in an inventive way in an earlier poem, should not be borrowed by later poets. Even a quarter of a śloka consisting of two or three words that can be clearly identified as that of an earlier śloka will be considered as an example of plagiarism.

There Rājaśekhara also says similarity in words or group of words in two different versions is not at all a flow.

C.f.

na” iti yāyāvarīyaḥ | ullekhavānpadasandarbhaḥ pariharaṇīyaḥ pratyabhiñjāyātaḥ pādohapi | tasyāpi sāmyena kiñcana duṣṭaṃ syāt |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Then he gives an example to from Kirātārjuniya to support for the same is given as:

ityuktavānuktiviśeṣaramyaṃ rāmānujanmā virarāma mānī |
saṅkhiptamāptāvasaraṃ ca vākyaṃ sevāvidhiñjaiḥ purataḥ prabhūṇām || ”

- Kiratarjuniyam of Bharavi: Ch-III/ 10
- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

ityuktavānuktiviśeṣaramyaṃ manaḥ samādhāya jayopapattau |
udāracetā giramityudārāṃ dvaipāyanenābhidadhe nare ndraḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Here the second śloka borrows ‘ityuktavānuktiviśeṣaramyaṃ’ but it cannot be called appropriation because there is no any evidence of the poet’s pratibhā (genius). So it is not under the considered of plagiarism.

There after, Rājaśekhara gives an example for the appropriation of words in a peculiar inventive expression as:

namaḥ saṃsāranirvāṇaviṣāmṛtavidhāyine |
saptalokormibhaṅgāya śaṅkarakṣīrasindhave || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

prasaradvindunādāya śuddhāmṛtamayātmane |
namo'nantaprakāśāya śaṅkarakṣīrasindhave || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

In the two ślokas quoted above, known as rūpaka applied to both ‘śaṅkara’ (śiva) and ‘kṣīrasindhava’ which have several adjective each with two meanings. This is distinctive use of pratibhā (genius) due to the innate faculty of a poet. So, if only one word ‘śaṅkarakṣīrasindhave’ is borrowed in the second śloka. Hence it is an instance of plagiarism.

Here ācārya hold that, if a quarter of an earlier śloka (stanza) is borrowed by a later kavi (poet), with a view to conveying an opposite idea, it should not be called appropriation. It is actually adoption.

C.f.

pāda evānyathātvakaraṇakāraṇaṃ na haraṇam, api tu svīkaraṇam” ityācāryāḥ |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

But Rājaśekhara strongly rejects this view and clearly says that, such adaptations without acknowledgment also are to be avoided.

To illustrated in this view given an examples as:

tyāgādhikāḥ svargamupāśrayante tyāgena hīnā narakaṃ vrajanti |
na tyāgināṃ kiñcidasādhyamasti tyāgo hi yravavyasanāni hanti ||”[3]

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

And also,

tyāgo hi sarvavyāsanāni hantītyalīkametadbhuvi sampratītam |
jātāni sarvavyasanāni tasyāstyāgena me mugdhavilocanāyāḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 58

Here it has been acknowledged in the second śloka that ‘sacrifice alleviates suffering’ is spoken by someone. Rājaśekhara comments that is acceptance and not appropriation. There concreteness of Rājaśekhara’s view is seen here by sufficient reasons.

Because he think that such unacknowledged appropriation are plagiarism and exemplifies it by the śloka as;

pādaste naravara dakṣiṇe samudre pādo'nyo himavati hemūkaṭalagne |
āktāmatyalaghu mahītalaṃ tvayītthaṃ bhūpālāḥ praṇatimapāsya kinnu ku ryuḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also,

itthaṃ te vidhṛtapadadvayasya rājannāścaryaṃ kathamiva sīvanī na bhinnā || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

Here the first half is adopted as such in the second śloka and the second half is changed. In this type of appropriation is a plagiarism by means of hemistiches.

In this way Rājaśekhara also gives an example of Vyastardhaprayoga (dispersed pāda appropriation) as:

tattāvadeva śaśinaḥ sphu ritaṃ mahīyo yāvanna tigmarucimaṇḍalamabhyudeti |
abhyudgete sakaladhāmanidhau tu tasminnindoḥ sitābhraśakalasya ca ko viśeṣaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also,

tattāvadeva śaśinaḥ sphu ritaṃ mahīyo yāvanna tigmarucimaṇḍalamabhyudeti |
tābhiḥ punarvihasitānanapaṅkajābhirindoḥ sitābhraśakalasya ca ko viśeṣaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

In this above śloka’s the first and fourth pada is appropriated in the second śloka, which is also considered as one kind of plagiarism.

Sometimes a writer may borrow the same śloka of his ancient writer just only changes one pāda (sentence).

C.f.

araṇye nirjane rātrāvanyarveśmani sāhase |
nyāsāpṛhavane caiva divyā sambhavati kriyā || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also the same without last one pāda is:

tanvaṅgī yadi labhyata divyā sambhavati kriyā |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

In this example except the third pāda all the other pādas are appropriated from earlier works. So this is also one types of plagiarism.

Then Rājaśekhara says about the striking contrast of plagiarisms. Here he gives one peculiar case, which he considers as original even though there are found promiscuous borrowing. If a poet appropriate a śloka from his ancient author after changing a quarter, which is completely under the plagiarism. And also if a śloka have unconnected sense is changed by way of one pāda, thus it is not under plagiarism and it is original.

It is just seem a problematic and gives an example as:

kimiha kimapi dṛṣṭaṃ sthānamasti śrutaṃ vā vrajati dinakaro'yaṃ yatra nāstaṃ kadācit |
bhramati vihagasārthānitthamāpṛcchamāno rajanivirahabhītaścaktavāko varākaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

And also:

jayati sitavilolavyālayañjopavītī ghanakapilajaṭāntarbhrāntagaṅgājalaughaḥ |
aviditamṛgacihnāmindulekhāṃ dadhānaḥ pariṇataśatikaṇṭhaśyāmaraṇṭhaḥ pinākī || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also:

ku mudavanamapaśri śrīmadambhojakhaṇḍaṃ tyajati madamulukaḥ prītimāṃścakravākaḥ |
udayamahimaraśmiryāti śītāṃśurastaṃ hṛtavidhilalitānāṃ hī vicitro vipākaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 59

And also:

kimiha kimipi dṛṣṭaṃ sthānamasti śrutaṃ vā ghanakapilajaṭāntarbhrāntagaṅgājalaughaḥ |
nivasati sa pinākī yatra yāyāṃ tadasmin halavidhilalitānāṃ hī vicitro vipākaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

In the above ślokas, the fourth is composed by taking each pāda from the previous three ślokas and by incorporating one pāda of his son. Rājaśekhara think that it is not a plagiarism, but it is the power of poetic creativity or pratibhā of a kavi (poet).

If kavi (poet) taking a few words in a quarter of a śloka from his former poet and using them, thus it cannot be acceptance, it also known as plagiarism.

C.f.

yā vyāpāravatī rasān rasayituṃ kāratkavīnāṃ navā
  dṛṣṭiryā pariniṣṭhitārthaviṣayonmeṣā caivapaścitī
|
te dve apyavalambya viśvamaniśaṃ nirvarṇayanto vayaṃ
  śrāntāṃ naiva ca labdhamabdhiśayana tvadbhaktitulyaṃ sukham
|| ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

And another example:

śrāntāṃ naiva ca labdhamutpaladṛśāṃ premṇaḥ samānaṃ sukham || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

To slight change in a part of a word remembered not acceptance, it is an appropriation. i.e.

asakalahasitatvātkṣālitānīva kāntyā muku litanayanatvādvcaktakarṇotpalāni |
pibati madhusugandhīnyāmamāmi priyāṇāṃ tvayi vinihitabhāraḥ ku ntalīnāmadhīśaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 60

The same śloka is appropriated by another later poet by quit modifying the parts of in second half.

C.f.

pibatu madhusugandhīnyāmamāmi priyāṇāṃ
mayi vinihitabhāraḥ ku ntalīnāmadhīśaḥ
|| ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

There the third line of first śloka is taken a word ‘pibati’ from ‘pibatu’ and instead of ‘tvayi’ from ‘mayi’ . This type of alteration is under the plagiarism.

Then taking an entire line from a śloka but using it in a different context is not appropriation or acceptance. C.f.

subhru tvaṃ ku pitetyapāstamaśanaṃ tvaktvā kathā yoṣitāṃ
  dūrādeva mayojjhitāḥ surabhayaḥ stragdāma(ggandha)dhūpādayaḥ
|
kopaṃ rāgiṇi muñca mayyavanate dṛṣṭe prasīdādhunā
  sadyastvadvirahādbhivanti dayite sarvā mamandhā diśaḥ
|| ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

In this śloka is to appease the angry beloved. Yet if the word ‘dṛṣṭe’ is taken as an address thus this śloka becomes an appeasement of an angry glance and the word ‘subhru’ will become of the glance.

After that, if a later kavi (poet) interprets a śloka of a former kavi (poet) in an altogether different way and claims on the basis of one or the other of the circumstance that a particular śloka is his own. It is not only the case of appropriation but it is a fault of the highest order. This is applicable for both muktaka and prabandha. However, if anyone gets work written for money and passes it off as his own, which is nothing but appropriation.

It is always better if one fails to win fame than to incur ignominy. Thus said:

yattu parakīyaṃ svīyamiti proktānāmanyatamena kāraṇena vilapanti, tanna ke valaṃ haraṇam, api tu doṣodāharaṇam | muktakaprabandhaviṣayaṃ tat| mūlyaktayo'pi haraṇameva| varamaprāptiryaśaso na punarduryaśaḥ|”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

Ācāryasays, borrowing of Ukti’s (epigrammatic expression) is an appropriation: “tadvaduktiharaṇam ityācāryāḥ| ” i.e.

ūrudvandvaṃ sarasakadalīkāṇḍasabrahmacāri|”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

And also:

ūrudvayaṃ kadalakandalayoḥ savaṃśaṃ śroṇiḥ śilāphalakasodarasanniveśā|
vakṣaḥ stanadvitayatāḍitaku mbhaśobhaṃ sabrahmacāri śaśinaśca mukhaṃ mṛgākṣyāḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

About on this Rājaśekhara says:

uktayo hyarthāntarasaṅkrāntā na pratyabhiñjāyante, svadante ca;
tadarthāstu haraṇādapi haraṇaṃ syuḥ” iti yāyāvarīyaḥ|

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61

Means:

“If the expression of other kavi (poets) are used to convey a different sense from the earlier poet, thus it is acceptable, but whereas if they are used in the same sense, thus it deserve to be condemned type of plagiarism.”

Then Rājaśekhara says for the detection and attain appreciation by one’s own inventiveness is the secret procurement of poesy for a kavi (poet).

C.f.

nāstecauraḥ kavijano nāstyacauro vaṇigjanaḥ |
sa nandati vinā vācyaṃ yo jānāti nigūhitum ||
utpādakaḥ kaviḥ kaścitkaścicca parivarttakaḥ |
ācchādakasthā cānyastathā saṃvargako'paraḥ |
śabdārthotkiṣu yaḥ paśyediha kiñcana nūtanam |
ullikhetkiñcana prācyaṃ manyatāṃ sa mahākaviḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XI, Pp- 61-62

There is no poet who is not a borrower, no merchant who does not cheat but the one who knows the method how to hide his theft flourishes. But the kavi (poet) who comprehends some novel in a word, phrase or an idea and has the pratibhā (innate faculty) to use the suggestive power of words to create can be called Mahākavi or great poet. The critical approaches of śabda-haraṇas, Rājaśekhara appreciates the adoption of words used in earlier works by later authors wherever it enriches the beauty of his poesy and endures originality to his work. By this Rājaśekhara’s novel concepts of appropriation many poets might have been benefited.

In the twelve chapters of Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṃsā has bead described in (arthaharaṇa or appropriation of meaning). However plagiarism is a injurious technique or method in poetic creation adopted by certain poets. It is not only on words but also on ideas and themes also. Most of the Indian ancient ālaṃkarikas and poets were of its consequences and they are always tried to give their best to educate to poets to get rid of such evil practice. In this part of Rājaśekhara’s Kāvyamīmāṃsā has been described on various aspects of Arthaharaṇa or appropriation of meaning or idea and theme. There in the beginning Rājaśekhara quotes the view of ancient ācārya that every poet should be well aware about the necessity of the careful study of the earlier ancient works.

Because there is hardly anything left untouched by them, it opens a new path and it would be refine them.

C.f.

purāṇakavikṣuṇṇe vartmani durāpamṛspaṣṭaṃ, tataśca tadeva saṃskarttu prayateta ” iti ācāryā |

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

But Vākpatirāja, the author of Gaudavaho kāvya does not agree about this matter. He thinks:

āsaṃsāramudāraiḥ kavibhiḥ pratidinagṛhītasāro'pi|
adyāpyabhinnamudro vibhāti vācāṃ parispandaḥ || ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

Means:

“The subject matter of kāvya (poetry) remains un-exhausted and the speech is endless and everlasting. There have been innumerable poetic geniuses. Who have dipped into its vast reservoir since the beginning of creation but this endless source continues to flow on endlessly.”

To obtain this rare capacity one should Endeavour a close study of the ancient and modern poets. Some critic think that, with a close critical study and observation of composition of other poets one can get idea to express similar thoughts in different forms or own poetic-composition. The mind of eminent poets is sometimes identical and they used to deal identical matter.

Here it is remarkable that the śloka of Vākpatirāja has been sanskritized by Rājaśekhara with few changes. But Rājaśekhara opposed this concept and says that, the poet by his poetic eye, through dedication looks into the seen and unseen, meaningful and meaningless with the grace of Lord Sarasvatī (Goddess of words).

C.f.

sārasvataṃ cakṣuravāṅmanasagocareṇa praṇidhānena dṛṣṭamadṛṣṭaṃ cārthajātaṃ svayaṃ vibhajati |”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XII, Pp- 62

Through the grace of Lord Sarasvatī, the whole universe is reflected in the mind of the poet. It has the power if a poet asleep thus he can shows words and ideas to great poet. Word and ideas automatically come to them and they thought of seeing them first by the poet’s divine vision. What poets can see with their naked eye even the three-eyed Lord Siva or the thousand-eyed Lord Indra cannot see.

Poet’s speech easily sees what yogīns, who have mastered the power of concentration can see.

C.f.

suptasyāpi mahākaveḥ śabdārthau sarasvatī darśayati| taditarasya tatra jāgrato'pyandhaṃ cakṣuḥ|
anyadṛṣṭacare hyarthe mahākavayo jātyāndhāḥ| tadviparīte tu divyadṛśaḥ |
na tat tryakṣaḥ sahastrākṣo vā yaccarmacakṣuṣo'pi kavayaḥ paśyanti |
matidarpaṇe kavīnāṃ viśvaṃ pratiphalati| kathaṃ nu vayaṃ dṛśyāmaha iti
mahātmanāmahaṃpūrvikayaiva śabdārthāḥ puro dhāvanti | yatsiddhapraṇidhānā yoginaḥ paśyanti,
tatra vācā vicaranti kavayaḥ ityanantā mahākaviṣu sū(visū)ktayaḥ [ iti ] ”

- Kāvyamīmāṃsā of Rājaśekhara: Ch-XII, Pp- 62-63

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Kāvyamīmāṃsā, Ed. By. C.D. Dalal and Pt. R. A. Sastry: Baroda, 1916, Pp-211

[2]:

K. Krishnamoorthy, studies in Indian Aesthetics and Criticism, Mysore. 1979, Pp-181

[3]:

Attributed to Śūdraka in the Subhāsitāvalī but it cannot be traced to his Mṛcchakatika

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: