365bet娱乐

V Bharata's own view of Laksana as far as it can be made Before out from his text alone, must be taken up only lastly. that we shall see what views of Laksana are contained in the Abhinava Bharati. Abhinavagupta gives a number of confused views held by others and at the end of these he numbers them as ten. But actually, on first reading, we get only eight views. The text here is very corrupt and perhaps lost also here and there. These following ten views (dasapaksi) can be made out of this portion of the Abhinava Bharati. Pp. 379-381. Vol. II. Mad. MS. i. Laksana is different from Guna which is inherent in Rasa, the soul of poetry. As belonging to the body of poetry, Laksana is on a par with Alamkara with this difference: It is not separate from the body (i.e.) it is not Alamkara is separate from the body. prthasiddhatvadalankarah | sariranistameva yatpadam prthasiddham ( yadaprthasiddham ) tallaksanam | Laksana is the body itself and as such is further adorned with Alankaras. Just as we take the metaphor of necklace or anklet when we talk of Alankara

so also we have to take the metaphor of the Laksana of the body, such as the Samudrika-laksanas, when we speak of the Kavyalaksana. This Laksana is twofold-natural, Siddharupa, such as the quality of having broad eyes, and artificial, Sadhyarupa, such as the occasional grace while adopting a beautiful gait. In this view, Laksanas are features in the personality of the chief character of the story. -- tallaksanam yena sarirasya saundaryam jayate | tacca siddharupam sadhyarupam ca, yatha syameti madamantharagaminiti ca | etadeva laksanam ; taccalamkriyate | tadetallaksanam dviti, yatha syama visalaksi, mattamatangagaminiti ca | p. 379. tatra prathamapakse varnaniyapradhana bhutadhikarapurusagataguna vibhaga eva kavye paryavasiyate | p. 380. ii. Some others think that situations or points in the plot of the drama or the Sandhyangakas are called Laksana. Just as the Samudrika-laksanas like Pasa and Dhvaja indicate the greatness and the beauty of a Mahapurusa, so also these Laksanas which are so many points in the development of the plot beautifying the story; as beautifiers of the text, they are called Laksanas; but the same are called Sandhyangas as developers of the plot, and Vrttyangas as promoters of Rasa. anye manyante - itivrttakhandalakanyeva sandhyangakani laksananiti ca vyapadisyante | nimittabhedatpurva parasambandhena bijopaksipte'rthe nirvahanaparyante parasparasandhayakatvena sandhyangataya vyapadesah, rasavisesopayogitaya vrttyanga- vacoyuktih, kavyagatakhyatiprasastyopayogitaya mahapurusagatapasadhvajapada- rekhadivallaksanasabdavacyata | taduktam tatraiva

some concepts of ALANKARA SASTRA laksananyeva bijarthakrama nirvaha [ya] kani cet | pratisandhitadangani phalasiddhyupapattitah || iti | p. 380. iii. Some differentiate Gunas, Alamkaras and Laksanas not by the asrayasrayibhava adopted by those who hold the first view, but by defining three different activities on the part of the poet's faculty in introducing the Gunas, Alankaras and Laksanas in a Kavya. The poet's imagination has three activities, Vyaparas, and three corresponding vibrations, Parispandas. In the very first vibration the poet's genius. conceives the Rasa and its Guna, say Srngara and its Guna, Madhurya. The second vibration which is also called Varnana, effects the introduction of Alankara. The third activity chooses the words and ideas. The effect of this third activity is the actual body of poetry, the Kavyasarira, suggesting the presence of the ten Gunas, Slesa etc. That beauty of the Kavyasarira which is the effect of this third activity and which is not covered by the beauty effected by an Alankara is what is called Laksana. [ta]: ete (ke ) pam tu darsanam - kaveh yah pratibhatma prathamaparispanda [ ta ]: tadvyaparabalopanatesu (tah ) gunah | pratibhavata eva hi rasabhivyajnjana - samarthyamadhuryadih upanibandhana (madhuryadyupanibandhana ) samarthya, na samanya- kaveh | anena sabdena idam vastu varnayamityevambhutavarnanaparaparyaya dvitiya- vyaparasampadyastvalamkarah | sabdah (dan ) sabdah (dan ) amibhih sabdairarthanamibhirarthaih samghatayamityevamatmakastu yastrtiyah kaveh parispandah tadadhinatmalabhadih sabdarthatmaka kavyasarirasamsritani vaksyamanaslesadigunadasakasamabhivyanjana- vyaparani sabdarthopasamskarakalpani kriyarupaniti | yaduktam tatraiva .

kavye'pyasti tatha kascit snigdhah sparso'rthasabdayoh | yah slesadigunavyaktidaksasyallaksanam sthitih (?) || atra pakse kavivyaparabhedad gunalamkaralaksanavibhagah | p. 380. This view seems to be like the first in making Laksana the Kavyasarira. This view further seems to formulate two sets of Gunas, one, the three Gunas madhurya, ojas, and prasada, which are said to inhere in Rasa as Rasadharmas and the other, the ten Gunas of the words, slesa etc. The suggesting of these and the effecting of a fine texture or appearance, Snigdha sparsa, in Sabda and Artha, forming the body of Kavya, is said to be Laksana by those who hold this view. iv. The fourth view, instead of restricting the Laksanas to Vakyas or points in the plot, lifts them to the position of prabandhadharma s - characteristics of different kinds of poems. As for instance, some poems are characterised by the speciality of having profuse adornment of Gunas and Alankaras. Such poems are called by the first Laksana called Bhusana, which Bharata defines as the ample use of Gunas and Alankaras. alamkarairgunaiscaiva bahubhih samalamkrtam | bhusanairiva citrarthaistadbhusanamiti smrtam || | XVII. 6. The example given here for such poem, i.e. a Bhusana prabandha, is Meghaduta! tatha hi - kincit prabandhajatam gunalamkaranikara pradhanam, yatha meghadutakhyam, tadvibhusanam | evamanyadapiti praba (ndha ) dharma laksanani | p. 381

v. We are unable to have much light as regards the fifth view on which we have only a brief remark. It says- kecittu bruvate - kaverabhiprayaviseso laksanam, iti | p. 381. vi. Certain others are said to view Laksana as the proper use of Gunas and Alamkaras, i.e. in accordance with the principle of Rasa-aucitya. itare punarmanyante - yathasthananivesanam yat gunalamkaram yadunam (radinam ) tallaksanam | p. 381. vii. The seventh view has affinities with the first and third views. It takes its stand on the fact that Laksana, like Alankara, belongs to the body of Kavya and secondly, like Alankara, it is a beautifying factor. The beautiful Kavyasarira itself is held as Laksana. Such beauty as is inherent in Kavyas like the Amarusataka, even in the absence of Alankaras or what may be called natural beauty, is the proper scope for the concept of Laksana. pare tvabhasante - alamkaradinirapeksenaiva (ksayaiva ) nisargasundaro yo- 'bhinayavisesah kavyesu, amarukaslokesvapi (sviva ), tatsaundaryaheturyo dharmah sa laksyah (laksanam ) sa eva carthah kavyavisesarupo laksanam | p. 381. viii. The eighth view has been made out with great difficulty for the text here is very brief. This view differentiates Laksana on this score: Bharata has given only three Alankaras, Upama, Dipaka and Rupaka. These three become infinite with manifold species. The means of their multiplication is the interaction of these three Alankaras with the 36 Laksanas. The text available is this- upamadipakarupakanamanantyad bhedamahuh | P. 381.

This view is more elaborately found in a further context on the basis of which we may reconstruct this text thus- upamadipakarupakanam anantyaprayojakatvad bhedamahuh | In discussing the difference between Alankara and Laksana, in the Alankara section, Abhinava gives the same view more elaborately and as his own teacher's, i.e. Bhatta Tauta's. Upama becomes by adding to it the prasamsopama Laksana called gunanuvada ; it becomes atisayokti if the Laksana atisaya is added to it and so on. This view of Tauta is very clever and though it does not correctly define Laksana and its nature, yet indicates how it is an easy transition from Laksana to Alamkara. upadhyayamatam tu - laksanabalada alamkaranam vaicitryamagacchati | tathapi (hi ) gunanuvadananamna laksanena yogat prasamsopama | atisaya- namno'tisayoktih | manorathakhyena aprastutaprasamsa | mithyadhyavasayena apahnutih | [a] siddhaya tulyayogitetyavamanyadutpreksyam | p. 404. ix. The ninth view is obscure since, here again, the text is meagre. . sabdena arthena citratvam laksanamityanye | p. 381. Abhinava later uses this view also and explains it as the beautification of Sabda by Sabda, of Sabda by Artha, of Artha by Sabda and of Artha by Artha. In effect this view also comes to be the same as the third view, Laksana being held to be such beauty of the body of poetry as is present even in the absence of any Alankara. x. The tenth and the last view, as Abhinava himself points out, does not differ from the second view very much.

Just as in the Mimamsa Sastra the different subject heads are distinguished by the Laksanas, prasanga, bagha, atidesa etc., so also in Kavya, particular points in the story go by the name Bhusana, Aksarasanghata and other Laksanas. This view thus, except for the illustration from the Mimamsa, is not different from the second Paksa which holds Laksanas to be ' itivrttakhandalaka 's or 'sandhyangaka 's. VI Now as regards the authors of these ten views (dashapakshi)--We have no evidence to definitely affirm where these views are to be found or who held them. Abhinava does not give the name of the theorists here, as he gives in his discussion on Rasa-realisation. It is not likely that these ten are purely imaginary Paksas. In the course of the exposition of the second and the third view, Abhinava twice quotes Anustubh verses with the words. The third view takes its stand on Vyaparabheda. From what the Anustubhs look and the association of Vyapara with Bhatta Nayaka we may conjecture that some of these views are expounded in Bhatta Nayaka's Hrdayadarpana. We also know of the Mimamsa predilections of Bhatta Nayaka. So it is likely that the tenth view also is contained in his work. We can also make out the author of the eighth view definitely as Abhinavagupta's own teacher, Bhatta Tauta, whose work, the Kavyakautuka, must have dealt with the called at some length. VII Taking this Dasapaksi-the 10 views given above,--the ideas more commonly associated with Laksana are these- 1. Laksana belongs to the body of Kavya.

. It is a beautifying element. 13 3. As such, its difference from Alankara consists in this that it is more comprehensive, is not a separate entity like the ornament, Alamkara, but is Aprthaksiddha, i.e., is the Kavyasarira itself. 4. By itself, it gives grace to the Kavya while Alankara is added to it for extra-beauty. This is one group of ideas, taking inspiration from the metaphor of Samudrika-laksana. Another line of thought is not to bring Laksana at all in relation to Kavya in general nor to take it, like Alankara, as a beautifying. factor, but to associate it only with drama and the several situations in the development of its plot. Abhinava and his teacher took Laksana in accordance with the first group of ideas, considering Laksana to be 'Kavya-sobhakara-dharma," a beautifying element pertaining to the body of Kavya in general. The other line of thought represented by Paksas nos. 2 and 10, considering Laksana to be like Sandhyangakas, which Abhinava does not accept, is the view that has however survived in some works. The works on dramaturgy alone (a few of them) treat of it and these take Laksanas to be features of drama like the Sandhyangakas. The curious and purely speculative views, the connection of which with Bharata's own view we do not see at all, are views no. 4, which takes them to be characteristics which classify the Kavyas into 36 kinds and no. 5 which takes Laksana to be the poet's f露rafada. The main view which considers Laksana, like Alankara, as a beautifying element, but pervading the whole of the body of the Kavya, died with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Alankara, with which, even at its birth Laksana has an overlapping of functions, swallows it up. Even Raghavabhatta who takes Laksana to be separate from Sandhyangas, swearing

by Abhinavagupta's great pains to explain them at length different from Sandhyangas etc., takes them only as Natakadharmas and not as Kavyadharmas in general. Bhoja, Saradatanaya, Singabhupala and Visvanatha accept their difference from Sandhyangas, but mention them only in Nataka and never as being related comprehensively to poetic expression itself. The Candraloka is the only Alankara work which treats of Laksana as a feature like Alankara, of. The second line of thought which connects Laksanas Laksanas with Sandhyangas was first unconscious of its suicidal suggestion. Dasarupaka rejects them on the score that they have no individuality and can be included in Alankaras or Bhavas. Visvanatha realises this and says that though the 36 Laksanas can be included in Sandhyangas etc., they must be shown to be separately existent in a drama for the reason that Bharata has treated of them separately. But many works on dramaturgy do not treat of the Laksana at all. The reason is plain. The Dasarupaka shows us how the Laksanapaddhati perished. The Laksanas lacked individuality and most of them showed themselves to be some Alankaras or Bhavas or some Sandhyangakas. But it may be observed that the authors on dramaturgy who have shown an extraordinary genius for classification and elaboration of Angas on a stupendous scale might have followed the logic of the inclusion of Laksana in other concepts and saved us their lists of minor Sandhyangakas, most of which can be shown to be not different at all from some Alamkara or Bhava. The same criticism applies also to the lovers of Alankaras who have made a list of more than a hundred of them. As for instance the Visadana and the Ullasa, Alankaras in the Kuvalayananda, are cases. of Bhavas.