3.8 (f): Compositional figurativeness or prabandha-vakratā

[Full title: A brief sketch of the contents of Vakroktijīvita, (8): Six divisions of Vakratā, (f): Compositional figurativeness or prabandha-vakratā]

The fourth unmeṣa of Vakroktijīvita has a detail description about contextual and compositional figurativeness. The text ends incompletely after the explanation of the different kinds of compositional figurativeness. This figurativeness is mainly divided in to seven types. Kuntaka suggests this figurativeness for beautifying the dramas, mahakāvyas, ākhyāyikās etc.

The first variety of compositional figurativeness occurs when a poet constructs a plot of his own taken from a well-known source changing the sentiment of the new plot according to his wish. For example the dominant sentiment of Mahābhārata is tranquility or śānta. Veṇīsaṃhāra contains a plot taken by Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa from Mahābhārata and the playwright applied the heroic sentiment or vīra to this new play instead of śānta. Apart from Mahābhārata, Veṇīsaṃhāra ends with the victory of pāṇḍava’s, after facing all of their difficulties. This novel application of sentiment makes this play delightful to the readers.

In the second variety, a hero primarily achieves a single goal and then incidentally he also attains many other equally important goals. For example in Nāgānanda, the ideal one Jīmūtavāhana offers his own body and saves a serpent named Śaṅkhacūda from Garuḍa. Through this Jīmūtavāhana not only saves a single serpent but also the whole race of serpent. Moreover he happened to meet his parents and wife and also attains the kingship of Vidhyādhara kingdom.

In another type of compositional figurativeness an unimportant incident disturbs the normal flow of the main story and then gradually it reveals that which will becomes helpful in the completion of the main story without disturbing the rasa of the main plot. For example in Śiśupālavadha, Māgha beautifully expresses the confusing state of mind of Kṛṣṇa because it is his duty to kill Śiśupāla, who is the extreme source of evil. At the same time Kṛṣṇa was invited by Yudhiṣṭira for attending rājasūya sacrifice. In the beginning of this mahākavyā after having the perplexing state of mind, Kṛṣṇa decides to attend the rājasūya sacrifice of Yudhiṣṭira. Here the readers may think that the plot is deviating from its primary function that is to kill Śiśupāla. Māgha solves this dilemma by making Kṛṣṇa’s decision to participate in the rājasūya sacrifice, wherein Śiśupāla will also be present. Such confused state of mind of Kṛṣṇa is not depicted in any source book and the ultimate success and victory of Yudhiṣṭira will undoubtedly please the spectators. Kuntaka never hesitates to appreciate the skill of Māgha because he creates such situation for making his kāvya more attractive.

In another variety of compositional figurativeness a poet tries to avoid all unpleasant things of original source which comes afterwards and depicts a story brilliantly by only explaining the victory and prosperity of a hero. A poet can start his work by explaining the whole story of the main source but he should conclude his work only by explaining the overall victory and prosperity of the hero, because the poetic purpose is to depict the hero as an ideal one and explains achievement in an interesting manner to delight the readers. For example, in Kirātārjunīya, Bhāravi brilliantly explains the victory of Arjuna against Śiva after explaining the greatness of Yudhiṣṭira avoiding all other unimportant things of Mahābhārata like Bhīṣma’s defeat by Arjuna with Śikhaṇḍin in his front and the cutting down of Karṇa’s head when he was uplifting the chariot immersed in the mud etc. Kuntaka appreciates the skill of Bhāravi because from among the numerous heroes like Kṛṣṇa, Yudhiṣṭira, Karṇa, Bhīma etc. Bhāravi takes upon Arjuna alone as the hero in his Kirātārjunīya and developed it in an interesting manner by avoiding all unpleasant things to avoid a negative impression about the ideal character for making the story more attractive.

Selection of the proper title of a work is also a variety of this figurativeness. Kuntaka says that a poet should never concentrate only on the themes of a work but also on the title of a work. He also says that the title should never be a mere name which directly indicates the story of a particular work like Hayagrīvavadha, Śiśupālavadha, Pāṇḍavābhyudaya, Rāmacarita etc. But it should create curiosity and reflect the essence of that work. Kuntaka cites Abhijñānaśākuntala, Mudrārākṣasa, Kṛtyārāvaṇa, Puṣpadūṣitaka, Pratimāniruddha etc. as examples. In these works the readers may feel that the title is not suitable to this theme until the important thread of this work which signifies the title is revealed. This really delights the spectators and they appreciate the poet because proper naming of a work itself signifies the creative talent of a poet.

In another variety, the great poets compose different literary works based on an identical theme. Each one must have distinctness from others because of their artistic skill. In Sanskrit there are numerous works written based on the epics like Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata. As an example of the works written based on Rāmāyaṇa are Udāttarāghava, Vīracarita, Bālarāmāyaṇa, Māyāpuṣpaka, Kṛtyārāvaṇa etc. Undoubtedly all these works depict different sentiments and all the incidents described in them possess unique charm in spite of being taken from the same source. This reveals the creative genius of the authors of these works.

Kuntaka ends his text by explaining the last variety of compositional figurativeness. The great poets impart instructions in a unique style. Depiction of insoluble victory of Cāṇakya in Mudrārākṣasa and the new plan made by Yaugandharāyaṇa in Tāpasavatsarāja for preservation of their kingdom are the beautiful and apt instances taken by Kuntaka for this variety.

Kuntaka’s Vakroktijīvita deserves a unique position in Sanskrit poetics with its originality and charming ideas. Kuntaka comes to the field of literary theory after Ānandavardhana, who is considered as a trend setter in Sanskrit poetics with his epoch making work Dhvanyāloka. Similarity of the division of dhvani like varṇadhvani, padadhvani etc. with the divisions of vakratās like varṇavinyāsavakratā, padapūrvārdhavakratā etc. may develop a feeling that vakrokti is a mere repetition of dhvani theory of Ānanadavardhana. But Kuntaka was not ready to follow his predecessors. He always stood aloof from them and established his theory of vakrokti in a unique manner. He is incomparable in his aesthetic sensibility. It is also interesting to note from his text Vakroktijīvita that Kuntaka is not only a great rhetorician but also an eminent scholar in Sanskrit literature, because he has given numerous examples from various literary works to substantiate his arguments. No other rhetorician tries to evaluate a text entirely as done by Kuntaka. One exception to this is Ānandavardhana, who tried to establish the dominant sentient of Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata respectively as karuṇa and śānta in his text Dhvanyāloka. But Ānandavardhana does not try to analyse classical Sanskrit poems, dramas etc. Kuntaka is the lone literary critic, who tries to assess most of the literary genres in classical Sanskrit. He also tries to explain how an example is suitable for a particular context. The compositional figurativeness itself reveals that Kuntaka tries to evaluate the Sanskrit literary text very keenly and completely. Moreover he also suggests some possible alternation to particular contexts without considering the stature of its author. Most importantly, he never loses sight of the theoretical implications of his poetic philosophy when analyzing contemporary poetry. These things make Kuntaka unique in the history of Sanskrit poetics.