Personal Information
Name:- Unnati Baroliya
Batch:- M.A. Sem 2 (2023-2025)
Enrollment Number:- 5108230002
E-mail Address:- unnatibaroliya@gmail.com
Roll Number:- 26
Assignment Details
Topic:-: "Classification of Literary Theories in Indian Poetics"
Paper & subject code:- 109: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics
Submitted to:- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar
Date of Submission:- April 26, 2024
Abstract
The classification of literary theories in Indian tradition revolves around various aspects central to literary compositions. These theories include language principles such as alankara (figurativeness) and
vakrokti (deviation), style and compositional value theories like guna/dosa (excellence, faults), riti (mode of expression), and aucitya (propriety), as well as concepts like dhvani (verbal symbolism) and rasa (aesthetic experience). Each theory offers a unique perspective on how meaning is constructed in literature, emphasizing elements such as emotional effects, figurative language, stylistic values, and propriety. Major theorists like Bharata, Anandavardhana, and Ksemendra have significantly contributed to these theories, enriching the understanding of literary aesthetics and composition.
Keywords
Major Literary theories, Rasa, Alamkara, Riti, Dhavni, Vakrokti, Guna/dosa, Auchitya.
Classification of Literary Theories:
It is possible to classify the literary theories on the basis of what aspect of literary compositions central to them. Accordingly, we have theory of:
(1) Language, namely, alapkāra (principle of figurativeness) and vakrokti (principle of deviation).
(2) Style and compositional value, namely, guna/dosa (excel- lence, faults), riti (mode of expression), and aucitya (propriety).
(3) Verbal symbolism, namely, dhvani.
(4) Aesthetic experience, namely, rasa
(5) Narrative, namely, manavakya, as inferable from Bhoja's Singaraprakasa and categories of Panini's grammar.
(6) Discourse analysis, namely, yuktis. For example- Kanțilya's thirty-two units of composition in Arthasastra . It is an analysis of the thought structure of a composition, constitution of a text in terms of the nature of propositions. Indian theorists do not explicitly discuss this. But one can consolidate ide as available in different sources.
(7) Comprehensive analysis (as constructed in Kavya- mimamsa). Rajasekhara has proposed a composite model based on the insights of different theories.
Brief Introduction to Major Literary Theories
We have noted that Indian literary theories carry out a sustained analysis of how meaning is constituted in language, of forms and devices, of HOW. Beauty is assumed to consist in alamkaratva, the craft or rhetoric of composition. We shall now briefly describe the major theories.
Rasa
The rasa theory originates with Bharata in Natyasastra. It claims that the object or meaning that is sought to be conveyed in literary compositions is in the nature of an emotional effect of diverse hu- man experience on man's mind and heart. It is possible, Bharata demonstrates, to enumerate the whole range of emotions, or states of being born of experience, and to analyse the structure of those emotions in terms of cause, physical correlate (effect) and their effect on man's being. The theory thus becomes in effect a theory of literary experience which is strongly rooted in the empirical human reality.
LITERARY THEORY
hensive analysis of its sources, nature and its categories. Subse- quently, the theory found major commentators in Dhanika- Dhananjaya who re-examined Bharata's typology of drama and added to it a typology of uparupakas, subplays, plays within plays, and one-act plays. It is Abhinavagupta, however, who enriched the theory by elucidating its philosophic foundations and by analysing in depth the aesthetic dimension of the theory in terms of the na- ture, cognition and effect of literary experience.
Alamkara
The earliest and most sustained school, it studies literary language and assumes that the locus of literariness is in the figures of speech, in the mode of figurative expression, in the grammatical accuracy and pleasantness of sound (euphony). This does not mean that meaning is ignored. In fact, structural taxonomies of different figures of speech are models of how meaning is cognised and how it is to be extracted from the text. Bhāmaha (Kavyalam- kara) talks of the pleasure of multiplicity of meaning inherent in certain alamkaras such as asthantara nyasa, vibhavana and samasokti.
Bhāmaha is the first alamkarika poetician. In chapters 2 and 3 of Kavyalamkara, he describes 35 figures of speech. Others who con- tinued the tradition are Dandin, Udbhata, Rudrata and Vamana. Finally, in Anandavardhana, alamkara was sought to be integrated with dhvani and rasa. There is a form of suggestion (dhvani) which is evoked by figures of speech and which thus contributes to aes- thetic experience (rasa).
The question is is a figure of speech external to poetry (an orna- ment) or is it an integral part of conceptualisation and of the way the poet visualises? Metaphor, for example, relates to imaginative.
perception: "see how the moonlight sleeps on the bank." Is it the perception itself? Or, is it just one method of representing the per- ception? For Ruyyaka (Alamkarasarvasva), it may be noted, alam- kara is the dharma of poetry and not a mere embellishment.
The categories of alamkara have been classified by different poeticians into different kinds of systems. For example, Rudrata divides all alamkaras into two types-those based on phonetic form (sabdalamkara) and those based on meaning (arthalamkara) and then further subdivides each into five and four subtypes respec- tively.
Further subclassification of these leads to a total of sixty-eight alamkaras.
Bhoja did not provide a fresh classification but added the third category-ubhayalamkara to the two major types of Rudrata. Ruyyaka classified alamkāras into seven classes on the basis of their content (meaning), on the basis of how meaning is consti- tuted:
(1) sadrsya (similarity),
(2) virodha (opposition),
(3) srnkhalabadha chain-bound),
(4) tarka nyaya (reasoning, logic),
(5) lokanyaya (popular logic),
(6) kavyanyaya (logic of poetry), and
(7) gudhartha pratiti (inference of meaning).
Mammata enumerates sixty-one figures and groups them into seven types:
(1) upama (simile),
(2) rupaka (metaphor),
(3) aprastuta prasamsa (indirect description),
(4) dipaka (stringed figures),
(5) vyatireka (dissimilitude),
(6) virodha (contradiction), and
(7) samuccaya (concatenation).
In this way, the number of alamkaras identified increased from Bharata's original four to sixty-one distinguished by Mammata. This taxonomy is not mere ingenuity; it represents global and local taxonomies, a refined analysis and classification of what ultimately are modes of perception. The different classificatory systems can be seen to be based on the following parameters:
(1) objects compared (upameya),
(2) objects with which compared (upamana),
(3) value of figures,
(4) semantic basis, such as similarity,
(5) grammar (viz., samasokti),
(6) coherence with known facts or otherwise (sangati), and
(7) syntax.
Riti
Stylistic value
Diction/style
Riti is a theory of language of literature. Though it is described for the first time in Bharata's Natyasastra itself under the rubric of vrtti, it is Vamana who developed it into a theory, as the theory of visista padaracana riti formation of or arrangement of marked inflected constructions is riti (Kavyalamkarasutra).
Two other words used for iti are marga and vrtti. Later Ananda- vardhana (ninth century A.D.) distinguished these styles on the ba- sis of the use of particular kinds of compounds. Dandin uses the term marga and talks of two margas. Mammata designates the dif- ferent modes as vrttis.
We now present here the different categories of riti identified by different theorists:
#.Theorist
Dandin (Kavyadarsa)
Vamana (Kavyalamkarasutra)
Kuntaka (Vakroktijivita)
#.Categories
Vaidarbhi, gaudiya,
Vaidarbhi, gaudiya,
pancali
Sukumara, vicitra, madhyama (margas)
Ritis correlate with (1) themes, (2) effect on the hearers/view- ers, and (3) sentiment. Bharata (Natyasastra) has all the three in mind in his discus- sion of vrttis: (1) kaisiki (for srngara), (2) bharati (for all rasas), (3) sattavati (for vira), (4) arbhatti (for raudra and bibhatsa). Viswanatha considers proper organisation of language as riti words and phrases have to be properly selected and organised in poetry and this is necessary for rasas and bhavas. Ritis (styles) are defined by gunas (excellences) as well. Riti may be called 'diction', particu- Jarly when guna/dosa become part of the discussion. But riti is much more than just diction. Basi- cally it is a theory that handles the psychophonetic fitness of lan- guage for speakers, themes and sentiments, and therefore be- comes a study of craftsmanship and psychology of speech.
Dhvani
Next only to the rasa theory in importance, the dhvani theory of Anandavardhana considers suggestion, the indirectly evoked mean- ing, as the characteristic property of literary discourse, the deter- minant that separates it from other rational discourses. As articu- Jated in Dhvanyāloka, dhvani becomes an all embracing principle that explains the structure and function of the other major elements of literature the aesthetic effect (rasa), the figural mode and devices (alamkara), the stylistic values (riti) and excellences and defects (guna-dosa). All the subsequent literary theorists in the tradition found the combination of rasa and dhvani theories both adequate and sufficient to analyse the constitution of meaning in literature. In Dhvanyaloka, Anandavardhana has presented a struc- tural analysis of indirect literary meaning. He has classified different kinds of suggestion and defined them by identifying the nature of suggestion in each. In Todorov's view, Anandavardhana "was perhaps the greatest of all theorists of textual symbolism". The significance of Anandavardhana's typology of verbal sug- gestion needs to be set out clearly. If we are able to explain how indirect meanings arise systematically, we are able to claim that all potential Anandavardhana is openly indebted to Bhartrhari's sphota theory and he acknowledges it in Dhvanyaloka, where, as Krishna- moorthy has explained, Anandavardhana notes that he has chosen the term dhvani following the definite use of that term by the grammarians to denote (1) the sound structure of words (sabda), (2) the semantic aspect of sabda, the vyanjakas or suggesters, and (3) "the revealed or suggested meaning as such and the process of suggestion involved". Dhvani theory is a theory of meaning, of symbolism, and this principle leads to the poetry of suggestion being accepted as the highest kind of poetry.
Anandavardhana proposes three levels of meaning, viz., abhidha, laksana, vyanjana. This is Anandavardhana's contribution, to add the third level-rather, to split the indirectly expressed meaning into two. For the Rgveda also makes a distinction between the literal meaning and the inner significance-"He sees, but sees not. one hears, but hears not". Besides literal meaning, there is socio-cultural meaning dependent on the contexts and emotions. meanings are inherent in the text-all that the reader does is to exploit this system of verbal symbolism to construct a particular meaning. No doubt the text constitutes itself in each in- stance of reading-but this constitution is based in a finite system. Anandavardhana uses the term dhvani to designate the universe of suggestion-kavyasya atma dhvani.
well as indicatory signs respectively. This vyanjana, the tertiary meaning, may be communicated by words, sentences, discourse, contextual factors, intonation, gestures and even sounds. Another term used for vyangyartha, suggested meaning, is pratiyanartha:
The meanings of sentences are determined according to the situa- tion, word meaning, propriety... form .. Meaning depends on connection, separation, opposition, context, indication, the presence of another word...Anandavardhana integrates rasa theory with his dhvani theory. Dhvani is the method, the means, for achieving or evoking rasa, which is the effect of suggestion.
Rasa is that constant aesthetic pleasure in all literature-its di- visions are based on the sthayibhavas which evoke the rasas, states of mind. The rasa is a state or condition produced in the spectator, a single feeling, and a pleasurable one. It is generated by the inter- action of sthayibhava (relatively permanent emotional moods), vibhava (substrate or 'awakeners' of the emotions and the exciting causes and the contextual factors), anubhava (external manifesta- tions of the emotion) and vyabhicari bhavas (the ancillary or acces- sory emotions). Bharata's rasasutra vibhavanu- bhava vyabhicari samyogada rasanispatti has been interpreted differ- ently from the points of view of (1) who is the substratum of rasa, (2) how it is generated, and (3) how it is experienced. Thus, it is argued that rasa exists in the hero/heroine (Lollata). Further, it is suggested that the experience of rasa is a matter of inference (Sankuka). It is Bhattanāyaka who clearly asserted that rasa is experienced by the spectator, that it is the spectator's aes- thetic experience, that the enjoyment of rasa is a subjective expe- rience. Bhattanayaka also distinguishes poetic language from ordi- nary language-the poetic language besides abhidha, primary meaning, has two other functions, viz., (1) bhavakatva, universal- isation, or stripping vibhava and sthayibhava of individual and per- sonal aspects, is the abstraction of the emotion, by the spectator, from its immediate location and context, and (2) bhojakatva, 'tast- ing' or experiencing the emotion in one's self-consuming for one- self the emotion represented in the performance/text.
Abhinavagupta continues in the tradition of Bhattanayaka in treating rasa experience as a cognitive process, but substituted for his bhavakatva and bhojakatva the power of vyanjana or dhvani (sug- gestion) in the context of the concepts of prakasa, light, and vimarsa, consciousness. The three stages in the realisation of rasa in litera- ture, accordingly, are
(1) cognition of the formal, intellectual elements of the poem, means to the second stage,
(2) idealisation of things in poetry or drama by the power of magination in the reader/spectator,
(3) intensification of the inexpressible effective (emotional) condition of the reader/spectator.
mally, in the fourth stage, when the intellectual, the imaginative and the emotional responses blend into one predominant senti- nent, and making a simultaneous appeal awaken the sthayibhava of he reader/spectator, the relish of rasa is manifested as a unity in he heart leaving no trace of the constituent elements that is why asa-dhvani is called asamlaksayakrama vyangya, i.e., suggested sense with imperceptible stages.
The dhvani theory of meaning came in for criticism at the hands nyaya and mimamsa thinkers. The opponents said that (1) dhvani nonexistent, (2) dhvani is a product of inference and is to be acluded under laksana, (3) dhvaniis something beyond the realm words. Mahimabhatta (Vyaktiviveka) is the most well-known ritic of this theory. But dhvani is not laksana it can be evoked by in idea, a figure of speech or even emotion. Even in the absence of aksana, the word Ganga can suggest purity and sanctity.
The goal is development of rasa mere suggestion does not nake poetry, for example, the use of "He is a villager" to suggest is nonurban manners. Anandavardhana stresses the importance taking the whole poem so that the overtones of the suggested ense are fully grasped. Isolated instances acquire full meaning in be context of the whole composition.
Vakrokti
krokti is also a theory of language of literature. It claims that the aracteristic property of literary language is its 'markedness'. "It eviates in identifiable ways from ordinary language in its form and its constitution of meaning.
Kuntaka made vakrokti a full-fledged theory of literariness. His finition of vakrokti is-"both words and meanings marked by ar- tic turn of speech". Vakrokti literally means Araukti, deviant or marked expression, and can also mean spe- af denotation. It may be properly translated as 'markedness'. otaka classifies vakrokti into six heads: in syllables, or their arrangements, (2) in the base substan- es, (3) in inflected forms of substantives, (4) in sentences, in- iding figures of speech, (5) in topics or sections, and (6) in the tole composition. These cover the entire range of literary compo- on. What is the place of marga (riti) and guna in vakrokti? Kuntaka s this question and says that the object of composition deter- mes the marga (mode). The three margas, styles, sukumara.
Guna/Dosa
This theory examines literary compositions in terms of qualities (guna) and defects (dosa), both of form and meaning. From Bharata downwards every theorist has, more or less, concerned himself with this aspect of compositions. But it is Dandin and, subsequently, Udbhata who make guna/dosa the primary features, the locus of literariness.
Bhamaha, who was also a logician (naiyayika), concerns himself only with defects. In two chapters (Kavyalamkara), he enumerates and discusses the general defects of expression and form and the defects springing from failure of logical thinking. Vamana (Kavyalamkarasutra) also concerns himself with ideal qualities of literary compositions and the short- comings. But for Vamana, the defects, dosa, are restricted to the figures of speech.
Dandin takes a more wholistic view and assimilates the concepts of rasa and riti in his conception of guna and doșa. In this sense, in Dandin, guna and doșa are primary attributes of literary composi- tions. He discusses various qualities as attributes of riti and riti for him is a method of expressing and evoking rasa, states of being. In the third chapter he discusses (1) logical failures, (2) linguistic failures, (3) failures of accu- rate reference to facts of life and world (loka), and (4) failure in communicating the described meanings. Dandin, with a remark- able insight, then adds that through sheer originality and poetic power, any of these defects may be transformed into an excellence.
After Dandin, Udbhata tried to correlate guna/dosa with both alamkara (figures of speech) and riti (linguistic styles) and claimed that excellences and defects are not independent features which can be distinguished in isolation-in fact, guna and doșa are prop- erties of figural composition.
The guna/dosa concept always remained an important compo- nent of literary theory but it did not acquire the status of a major literary theory that could account for all the aspects of literary composition.
Aucitya
The theory of propriety or appropriateness claims that in all as- pects of literary composition, there is the possibility of a perfect, the most appropriate choice of subject, of ideas, of words, of devices. As such, it has affinities with Longinus's theory of the sublime (On the Sublime). The concept of propriety with reference to custom, subject, character and sentiment recurs in almost all theorists and is often discussed in association with figures of speech, guna/dosa and ritis. Anandavardhana relates this principle specifically to rasa. It has been used for pro- priety in delineating bhavas according to characters, and in the choice of margas (for example, in the use of compounds, etc.) ac- cording to the speaker, content and type of literary composition. Kşemendra made aucitya the central element of literariness. He defines aucitya as the property of an expression (signifier) being an exact and appropriate analogue of the expressed (signified) (see Aucityavicaracarca, verse 6).
Ksemendra enumerates the areas, locations or sites of literary compositions where the concept of aucitya is pertinent:
(1) pada (phrase)
(2) vakya (sentence)
(3) prabandhartha (meaning in whole composition)
(4) guna (excellences, qualities)
(5) alamkara (poetic figure)
(6) rasa (state of being)
(7) karaka (case-ending)
(8) kriya (verb)
(9) linga (gender or marking)
(10) vacana (number)
(11) visesana (qualification)
(12) upasarga (prefix)
(13) nipata (redundancies)
(14) kala (time, tense)
(15) desa (country)
(16) kula (family)
(17) vrata (custom)
(18) tattva (truth)
(19) sattva (inherent self)
(20) abhipraya (motive)
(21) svabhava (nature)
(22) sara samgraha (essential properties)
(23) pratibha (innate ability)
(24) avastha (state)
(25) vicara (thought)
(26) nama (name)
(27) asirvada (blessings).
These are the limbs or constituents of a literary composition, ac- cording to Ksemendra, and belong to different levels or domains- of language, of ideas, of creativity, of encyclopaedic information, of poetic devices, of grammar.
Like guna/dosa, aucitya also did not prevail as an independent literary theory, but remained with every subsequent theorist an im- portant principle. Ksemendra's contribution is in constituting this principle clearly and definitely.
It may be noted that Ksemendra's discussion of the principle of aucityais from the point of view of both the writer and the reader and is articulated in its given cultural and philosophical context.
Conclusion
The diverse array of literary theories in the Indian tradition provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing and appreciating literature. From the emotional resonance of rasa to the intricate structures of alankara and vakrokti, these theories offer insights into the craft and psychology of literary expression. While each theory focuses on different aspects of composition, they are interconnected, forming a holistic approach to understanding literature's aesthetic and communicative power. As successive theorists build upon and refine these theories, they continue to shape the discourse on literary analysis and appreciation, ensuring the enduring relevance of Indian literary aesthetics.
References
Barad, Dilip. “Dilip Barad | Teacher Blog: Indian Poetics.” Dilip Barad's Blog, 18 February 2022, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2022/02/indian-poetics.html. Accessed 5 May 2024.
Levi, Louise Landes. “Rasa (aesthetics).” Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasa_%28aesthetics%29. Accessed 5 May 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment