To the Early Veda Literature (326). Krishnamoorthy Notes That The

Chapter 1 The Theory of dhwani

pratiyamanarh punaranyadeva vastvasti va(li�u mahakavinarh

yattatpras,ddhavayavatiriktaril v1bhati lava(,yamivanganasu

(In the words of first-rate poets it shines supeme and towers above the beauty of the striking external constituents even as charm in ladies)

---- Anandavardhana : Dhvanya/oka 1.4

The recorded history of Sanskrit literature begins with the Veda. The vedic age has been marked by K. Krishnamoorthy, who has translated the canonical texts of Sanskrit, as c. 2000 to 800 B. C (Devy 317). P. V. Kane, an acclaimed

Sanskrit historian, too, traces the beginnings of poetic efforts in Sanskrit literature to the early veda literature (326). Krishnamoorthy notes that the traditional name for this religious literature is chandas or 'pleasing meter' and that the poets (kavi ) of the veda period were also seers (rsi). Words like kavya, alank_rtiand rasa, devoid of any significance as literary critical terms, were widely used (Devy 317-

8).The hymns in veda use simple figures of speech like comparisons and repetitions of sounds and words as in abhrateva pumsa eti pratichi gartarugiva sanaye dhananam I jayeva patya usati suvasa u�a hasreva niri(lTte apsaJ:7

(f?gveda I. 124. 7). Kane says that the verse contains four upama (similes) (326).

During the next period (c. 800 - 200 B.C), the established science of grammar

( vyakara(la) and etymology (nirukta) guided the study of poetics. Kapil Kapoor,

Professor of English, JNU, notes the antiquity of literary theory in India. "A ninth century B.C text of interpretation (Yaska's Nirukta) is

concerned with the problem of meaning in vedic hymns (poetry), its

symbolism and examines in one of its sections the structure of two

major figures of speech - simile and metaphor. Par:iini's A$/adhyayi

(seventh century B.C) refers to 'literature' as the fourth category of

discourse in a five-fold classification and talks of the underlying

principle of sadrsyata, similarity, in similes and metaphors (x-xi).

Any course of study of poetics followed the analytical pursuit of verbal formalism

before it emerged as a theoretic discipline of aesttietics. Sanskrit poetics evolved out of analyzing and classifying the rhetorical figures of expression and prescribed rules like the grammatical laws. These formulations were given the name, the science of embellishment (ala(lkarasastra). During the period of the epics, Ramaya(la and Mahabharata, beautiful poetic expressions amounting to figures of sound and sense were used with advantage. ValmTI

Ramaya(la (' Balaka(l9a 11.18) sokartasya prav,rto me sloko bhavatu nanyatha

"That which proceeded from one who was overpowered by pathos shall be nothing but poetry or rhythmic expression" gave a lead to the growth of Sanskrit literary criticism (Sankaran 8). Bharata improved upon this observation of ValmTIart of histrionics Na,tyasastra (c. 2 BC and

AD 3) - a foundation work on which all subsequent theories of art were structured. Through his oft-quoted maxim 'vibhavanubhavavyabhicarisamyogat

rasani$patti/j, Bharata gave the secondary rule of the theory of rasa (emotion).

its fold all the other warring schools of thought. It gained popularity as it had a solution for the clash of opinions in other canons. Moreover, it placed each canon in its rightful perspective. Anandavardhana (c. 850), author of Dhvanyaloka, is the backbone of the dhwani school. In 1000 AD, Kuntaka who wrote

Vakroktf;Tvita, expounding and systematically developing Bhamaha's mention of

vakrokti, inaugurated .the vakrokti school. Vakrata is a charming turn of expression differing from everyday casual speech, resulting in vaicitrya

(strikingness) ( vakroktireva vaidagdhyabhailgibha(litiruchyate) (I. 10-1 ). Another rival school to dhvani was the anumana school whose chief exponent is

MahimabhaHa (c. 1020 - 1100 AD) who wrote Vyaktiviveka. Anumana, according to him, is inference or ratiocination, and 'suggestion' is only a variety of inference

( vacastadanumito va yatrartho arthantararh prakasayat� (22). The eighth school of thought is that of aucitya (appropriateness) with Kl?emendra (c. 1050) who wrote Aucityavicaracarca as its staunch advocate. Aucitya is explained as "the property of an expression (signifier) being an exact and appropriate analogue of the expressed (signified)" (Kapoor 27). It is ucitarh prahuracarya!J sadrsarh kila yasya yat ucitasya ca yo bhavastadaucityarhpracak$afe (verse 7).The breach of propriety causes anaucitya in any of the theoretical canons. All these various schools of thought began to decline, and ultimately merged into the dominant dhwani school of criticism which could synthesize the different canons as pointing to rasanubhava. Anandavardhana, through his Dhvanyaloka, and

Abhinavagupta (c. 980 - 1020 AD), author of the Locana, a commentary on 17

Dhvanyaloka, established irrevocably the supremacy of the dhwani school of

thought, which has not been substantially challenged so far.

Anandavardhana, philosopher, aesthetician and a contemporary of King

Ayantivarman of Kashmir (c. 855-883 AD), systematized the divergent views on

poetics in his path-breaking work called Dhvanya/oka. Having written poems like

Visamaba(lalila, Arjunacaritarfl, Devisatakarfl, philosophical works like

Tattvalokarfl, Muktaka and poems in prak_rtdialects, Anandavardhana uses them

as illustrations in his remarkable work Dhvanyaloka. The uniqueness of this

poetic genius is the impeccable scholarship embodied in Dhvanya/oka, by which

he could undermine all rival efforts of other scholars. "His original insights and

illuminating observations paved the way for an age of systematization [. . .]"

(Devy, 319). The rasa theory, which had been undergoing a process of filtration,

attained the supreme place while the other canons lent support to it. He

illustrates this through a simple comparison to the relationship across parts of

body, body as whole, and the soul. The text offers valuable guidelines for

evaluation of a literary work. It is built in the form of questions and answers reflecting the collective wisdom of the ancients, at times approving and at times contradicting. The work is an illuminating book on practical analysis, following the semantic approach. The text rests on a new function of language other than the direct, referential and the indirect, metaphorical functions. This third and unique use of language is called suggestion. It also holds high the ninth rasa 'santa among the other rasa, and aucitya, which renders a poetic creation errorless. In 18 this radical work Anandavardhana "reviewed, interpreted and synthesized" the earlier theories (Kapoor 13). He follows the sastra method of piJrvapak�a siddhanta in expounding his thesis of dhwani in poetry. The opposing views on dhwani are brought under three major heads in the initial karikaitself. They are abhavavada (non-existence of dhwan�, antarbhavavada or bhavakatvavada

( dhwaniis something logically implied), and anirvacaniyatavada( dhwani essence is indefinable). The work is divided into four uddyota (flashes) or chapters. The fourth and final chapter points to the special and the specific uses of dhwani

(suggestion). "The plan adopted by Anandavardhana in his treatment of dhwani is very well brought out by Abhinavagupta in his Locana' (13). The initial chapter provides a general exposition ( samanyalak$a(la) of dhwani. The key definition is contained in karika 13 (yatrarthassabdo va tamarthamupasarjanik_rtasvarthau I vyanktal:, kavyavise�al:, sa dhwaniriti suribhil:, kathital:,). "While all the preceding

Karikas lead up to it, the succeeding one follows from it. But the specific treatment ( vise�alak$a(la) of the types of dhwani in poetry is to be found only in the following chapters, from the point of view of vyangya (suggestion) in the second chapter and from the point of view of vyaiijaka (suggesters) in the third chapter. Even with all this, if one were to say that dhwani is 'indescribable', it would be nothing more than a pointless criticism (Krishnamoorthy 340).

Anandavardhana formulated the dhwani theory as a revolt against the prescriptive, normative approach of the traditionalists. Instead of a mechanical identification of certain conventional, normative features or categories, he derived

25 to show that the true function and purpose of poetry is vyangya which may take the form of rasa etc. and to show that if the poet regards mere narration of events as his principal function, he is liable to commit serious breaches of good taste."

(199).

The term 'dhwanl' has its origin in the Sanskrit word implying 'sound',

'echo', 'reverberation' and 'indistinct articulation'. It is a theory of 'suggestiveness' where implied or suggested sense (pratiyamana) is more striking than expressed sense ( vacya). Anandavardhana defines dhwani (suggested content) as the soul of poetry (kavyasyatma dhwanil}) (1.1. 3). To be more explicit, the realized inner meaning ( dhwan� originates from the outer meaning but is above the logical meaning or meanings of the text. It conveys delight to the sahrdaya (1.2. 7). Two definitions on dhwani highlighting two different aspects are noteworthy.

Krishnamoorthy defines dhwani in its wider sense. "Dhwani is an exclusively poetic feature concerned with exploiting the beauty of every element in the medium of language like alankara, gu(laand ritito serve the ultimate artistic end of rasa (xxxi). Kapil Kapoor defines dhwanifrom the perspective of delivering the sense. "Dhwani 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"

(21 ). Sankaran points to the five different senses of the word 'dhwani: Dhwani can be ( 1) the suggestive words ( vacakasabda which is a vyanjaka), (2) the suggestive sense ( vacyartha which is a vyanjaka), (3) the suggested sense

( vyarigyartha), (4) the third significative function or capacity of words ( vyanjana 26

vyapara) called suggestion, and (5) the document or composition of that literary art where all these four elements are found. Dhwaniis that specimen of poetic art in which the literal meaning reveals the suggested meaning and remains subservientto it. In the context of Indian Aesthetics, dhwanibeing a poetic device to manifest rasa, it must be borne in mind that rasa itself is the evoked response, while bhava is the stimulating expression, as on the part of an actor. For instance, soka is a bhava, and the resultant rasa is karuna. Rasa is realized through the function of vyailgya in poetry. Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta are clear about the idea of vyafijana. They differentiate it from abhidha

(denotation), tatparya (import), /ak$a(la (indication), pratyak$B (perception), anumana (inference) and smara(la (reminiscence). Rasa and dhwanitogether is thus the resonance that vibrates in the mind of the sahrdaya, enabling him to interpret and relish poetic experience. Anand Amaladass, co-editor of Hindu

Christian Studies Bulletin, Institute of Philosophy and Culture, prefers to use

'evocation' for the term 'suggestion', as the translation would include the emotional factor involved in the functioning of dhwani (79). K. R. Srinivasa

Iyengar, reputed English scholar, in his essay "Indian Poetics and Western

Aesthetics: Some Reflections" selects an array of terms like 'undertones',

'internal resonance', 'coils of significance' to represent rasa and concludes saying that dhwani 'refuses to be cribbed, cabined, contained within a verbal formula' (Kushwaha ed. 1 ). But Krishnamoorthy sticks to the term 'suggestion', which is accepted by most scholars like Rayan and Kapoor. "Dhwaniis the name 27

of the whole poetic process itself which, for want of a better equivalent in English,

is usually rendered as 'suggestion"' (xxxi).

Dhwanican be revealed through artha(sense), which has two dimensions

or levels, viz., vacyartha (expressed or explicit sense) and pratiyamanartha

(suggested or implicit sense). To make clear the relation and position of both the

senses, Anandavardhana brings in an analogy of the charm of women in relation

to their external adornment. The expressed sense ( vacya) may consist of figures

of speech much like the ornaments of ladies which are external and can be perceived by our senses, while the suggested sense is that imperceptible beauty of women which is inherent and can be known only intuitively and instinctively.

Just as natural beauty is way ahead of artificial fittings, vyarigyartha (suggested) is above vacyartha (expressed). But Anandavardhana formulates the nature and status of suggested meaning ( vyarigyartha) in relation to two other tiers of meaning, viz., expressed meaning ( vacyartha) and metaphorical meaning

(laksyartha). Thus in the dhwanitheory the chief function of language pertains to the three levels of signification, viz., abhidha (primary sense) and !ak$BIJB

(secondary sense) and vyafljana (suggested sense). When the primary meaning is incompatible with the context, the secondary meaning is approached. Meaning becomes clear in this metaphorical level. This does not satisfy a discerning reader who steps further to discover the exact intention of the poet, which reveals to him the hidden third level of suggested sense. At the level of abhidha, the meaning is definite and fixed and can be perceived through the senses. Dhwani

Anandavardhana. Another interesting feature is that vacyavastu ( expressed idea)

is invariably present in all poetry. Alarikara (poetic figure) results from a

combination of vacyavastu (expressed idea) and vacya/ailkara (expressed

figure). Rasavadalailkara(rasa as a poetic figure) is revealed when vyarigyarasa

subserves vacyarasa (expressed emotions). When rasa is neither primarily nor secondarily suggested, but is conveyed directly or indirectly, it would cease to be

rasa or alailkara or even vyarigyavastu. gu(libhutavyailgya (second-rate suggestion) occurs when vyarigyavastu (suggested idea), vyarigya/ailkara

(suggested figure) and vyarigyarasa (suggested emotion) subserve vacyavastu and vacyalailkara. In Kavyaprakasa, Mammata expounds eight possibilities of poetry that tend to be gu(libhutavyarigya 0/. 1-2). It is on the basis of "the suggested sense being obvious, abstruse, subordinate to another factor, of doubtful importance, of insufficient importance, not beautiful or brought about by intonation" (Seturaman 302). The· reverse of rasavadalailkara, where the vyailgyacombinations dominate the vacya combinations, forms the highest kind of dhwanipoetry. Dhwaniexists only if it is totally exclusive and most prominent. vastudhwani and alarikaradhwanican never be captivating without the presence of rasa. Anandavardhana in Dhvanya/oka irrefutably establishes the supremacy of rasadhwani. The invocatory verse marks the beginning of the v_rtti.

Abhinavagupta points out that this verse suggests all the three types of dhwani, viz., vastu, a/ailkara, and rasa. Possibly there is also a veiled hint here of the

counting lotus petals might be as much due to her girlish pranks as to her /ajja

(shyness). But when the expressed meaning awakens an aesthetic emotion like

rasa and bhava, the sequence between the expressed and suggested senses is not discernible. The sequence is present, but not noticeable as in satapatcapatrasatabhedanyaya. This analogy explains that the time sequence for comprehension of the rasa is as short as the piercing of a hundred lotus petals placed one above the other with a needle. Thus it is called asarfl/ak$yakramavyailgya. Rama's yearning for STta, which has been aggravated by the impending rainy season, suggests imperceptibly the rasa in a matter of seconds. "He, whom you followed [ ...] I That very beloved [ ...] I Lives indeed with a heart of adamant, I Even when he is parted from you, I And even though he sees the quarters I Darkened by the new rain-clouds" (111.14. 117). The vibhavadisuggest the rasa and occupy the principal position in the verse.

Sarfllak$yakramavyailgya has two divisions, viz., sabdasaktimtJ/a and atthasaktimtJ/a. They are also described as anusvanopama or anura(lananJpa

(like resonance) (Krishnamoorthy 357). SabdasaktimtJ/adhwani employs homonymous words. There is a manifestation of alailkaraalso, in addition to the meanings denoted by the homonymous words. In atthasaktimtJ/adhwani, the expressed meaning due to its suggestive power reveals the suggested sense. Its divisions are svatassarflbhavi (expressions involving inherently suggestive situation), kaviproudhoktini$pannasarira (expressions rendered deliberately) and kavinibaddhavaktrproudhoktini$pannasarira (expressions suggestive of another 33

meaning put through the mouth of a character designated by the poet) (11.24. 86).

Unlike asarhlak$yakramavyangya, where there is an immediate perception of suggestion of sentiment in arthasaktimu/adhwani, suggestion is effected by the contextual factors and the social and cultural background. Sabda and artha jointly participate in the process of dhwani (ubhayasaktimuladhwan4, in its triple vyangya possibilities ( vastu, alankara, rasa). Both can be vyaiijaka. Vyaiijaka, the conveyors or indicators of suggestion, are subdivided into padaprakasya

(revealed by a word) and vakyaprakasya (revealed by the whole sentence).

When sabda or artha is vyaiijaka of vastu and alankara, two levels of comprehension of meaning can be distinguished, viz., the primary vacya and the evoked vyangya. Both the categories of vivak$ifanyaparavacya are suited to the content of a verse or a whole poem.

In order to impress on the minds of connoisseurs as well as laymen the beauty of a poem, Sanskrit critics frequently resorted to using metaphors. Lack of sufficient terms and difficulties in explaining the intricacies and nuances of complex relationships could be overcome, particularly in the dhwani context with regard to expressed ( vacya) and suggested ( vyarigya) meanings, using metaphors. Anandavardhana has used a horde of metaphors sealing all holes of criticism against his theory. He succeeds in precisely setting the positions of vacya and vyarigya components. Anand Amaladass has chalked out four key metaphors, naming them from Dhvanyaloka, viz., (1) kavyasyatma dhwanil}

(2&5) (body-soul metaphor), (2) lava(lyarh ivanganasu (6, 19, 224&10) (like the

moving, and if the literary kind should be the drama, the Sangha/ana to be employed in all these cases, is [. . .] the one that is free from compounds

(asamasa)" (Sankaran 94). Two other styles are medium-sized compounds

(madhyama samasa) and long compounds (dirgha samasa). Anandavardhana says: asamasa samasena madhyamena ca bht.J?itaI tatha dirghasamaseti triclha

sangha/anodita (111.5. 118). A poet cannot randomly choose any texture because these compounds can be ambiguous and can impede our comprehension of the sense of the poem. For karu!Ja (pity) and vipralarilbha (love-in-separation), two delicate and alluring sentiments, the style absolutely essential is that without compound. For raudrarasa (furious sentiment), the compound preferable is medium or long compounds with condition of preserving the texture of prasada.

In all these cases, the rule of aucitya (decorum or propriety) is to be followed.

Sailgha/ana primarily has reference to the usage of samasa (compounds) only with a view to achieving artistic effect. Anandavardhana's views on rili (style) indicate the subordinate position of rlti with reference to rasa (sentiments).

Qualities are verbal but not like verbal figures like alliteration, which have no sense. "Qualities are attributes of words which do not possess a constant texture" (111.5. 122). Alailkara, gu!Ja and riti rest on the common principle of aucitya (the theory of propriety and decorum). In a composition the style (rit� is grounded in qualities (gu!Ja), both of which in turn suggest sentiments (rasa). All the various schools converge into the dhwani theory as conceived by

Anandavardhana. 41

"The dhwanitheory is only an extension of the rasa theory. It took over the idea of rasa into the field of poetry", observes Kane (387). Iyengar, in the essay

"Indian Poetics and Western Aesthetics: Some Reflections" comments: "In the appreciation of literature, rasa or communicated sensibility is the deciding factor; and dhwani or the richness of the undertones is the soul of poetry" (Khuswaha ed. 21 ). As Kunjunni Raja observes, "the former stresses the method of treatment, whereas the latter deals with the ultimate effect" (Seturaman 288). In

Sanskrit, the etymological studies show the evolution of the term, from a drink to the level of divinity referring to parabrahma. Initially it meant 'water', 'milk' and somarasa Uuice). It then meant 'taste' and then 'essence'. The mystics referred to God as the essence (satta) as in raso vai sah ( Taitariyopanishad II. 7). But in poetry the term 'rasa has been variously interpreted before it attained the present status. "The ancient Indian critics defined the essence of poetry as rasa and by that word they meant a concentrated taste, a spiritual essence of emotion, an essential aesthesis, the soul's pleasure in the pure and perfect sources of feeling" (Seturaman 412). Bharata compares rasa to the root of a tree and this analogy was later explicated by Abhinavagupta in Abhinavabharati

(Na/yasastra VI. 38). Anandavardhana considers rasadhwani the supreme form of suggestion and holds the view that rasa is realized through suggestion.

Lollata, a mimarhsaka, Sankuka, a naiyayika, Bhattanayaka and Abhinavagupta have dealt with the various aspects of rasa. Hiriyanna refers to 'rasa as 'art experience' in his work of the same title, while Krishna Rayan refers to it as a

sentiment without delay. Anandavardhana states two further situations where he

sets forth steps to overcome the discrepancy between two conflicting sentiments.

The opposition could be removed either by placing them with two different

characters or by bringing a third neutral rasa to soften their impact of difference

(111.25-6. 181). Anandavardhana uses his most favoured illustration of the

Sivastotra (glorification of Lord Siva) from Amarusataka: "Let the fire of Siva's

shaft bum down I our sins[ ...]" (II, 45). There is a mixture of pathos and love in

the verse, both subordinated to the chiefly intended deification of Siva. Rayan

says that the richest effect in poetry is wrought from the juxtaposition or

alternation, the opposition or union, of different rasa (Statement and Suggestion

in Poetry49). Anandavardhana notes that in poetry rasa can be principal when it becomes rasadhwani or can be subsidiary, functioning merely as a figure of

speech when it becomes rasavada/ailkara. Long compounds delay the process

of evoking rasa, by causing ambiguous or erroneous interpretation on the part of

the reader. Lack of sentiment (nirasatva) need not result as a consequence of

the absence of rasavada/ailkara. In these cases rasadhwani as well may be

present. srutidu�/a is the flaw instanced in words that bring indecent association.

Rasa can be evoked by the whole poem and its aspects such as sound, letter, word, sentence, sense, figures of speech, qualities, style, rhythm, language, imagery, action and character. Towards the end of Dhvanya/oka,

Anandavardhana notes that the objects, whether they are of different place, time and so on, need be assimilated by sentiments in accordance to the law of 46

propriety (IV.8-9. 293). He comments on plagiarism, admitting that "there are bound to be plenty of coincidence amongst great minds"(IV.11. 293).

Abhinavagupta states more clearly the process of the rasa experience resolving all disputes like "whose rasa are we realizing", "what are the different emotions that are the sources of literary appeal or effect", "can they be definitely ascertained and classified", "how is pathetic emotion a pleasurable experience" and "how can the barriers to the realization be overcome" (Sankaran 111 ). He made use of nine emotional activities called sthayin (permanent emotions) sprung from vasana (universal psychic dispositions) in human nature that lie inert within a man except when a stimulus activates them for a while. The nine sthayin are rati(sexual emotion), hasa (laughter or amusement}, soka (grief or distress), krodha (anger), utsaha (energy}, bhaya (fear), jugupsa (disgust), vismaya

(wonder}, sama (subsidence) (Rayan Statement and Suggestion in Poetry 36).

The poetic material gets transformed into the structural pattern of form and content, called causes ( vibhava), effects (anubhava) and accessory emotions

( vyabhicari bhava). Bharata had earlier depicted the process of rasa realization using the specific combinations of these three elements: vibhavanubhavavyabhicarisarilyogadrasani$pattil} (Na_tyasastra VI). Vibhavaare the external contextual factors that cause the awakening or arousal of emotion represented in art. They appear in the form of heroes, heroines, the setting and atmosphere, like seasons, leisurely gardens and the night sky. anubhava are the physical manifestations or outward indications i.e., the effectof the emotion in the

appreciation comprises three interrelated stages. Firstly, the mind of the responsive reader becomes attuned to the emotional situation developed through the objective correlatives (hrdayasamvada). Secondly, there is a complete absorption in delineating the aesthetic emotion ( tanmayibhava) and lastly, this absorption transcends self-consciousness into an enjoyment or bliss

(rasanubhava). An illustration for this can be borrowed from Kalidasa's

Kumarasambhava (111): harastu kincitpariv_rttadhairyascandrodayarambha ivamburasi I umamukhe bimbabha/adharo�te vyaparayamasa vi/ocanani.

"Manmatha, in order to get Parvati married to Lord Siva so that the

son born of them may kill Tarakasura who was a menace to the

gods, went to the abode of the Lord with the spring season to excite

his love for Parvati, and when she bowed in front of the Lord he

discharged his arrow of Sammohana on the Lord. Then the Lord

Siva too, losing a little of his calmness, just like the ocean at the

fresh rising of the moon, directed his eyes towards Parvati's face

with its lower lip ruddy like the bimba fruit. Here Parvati who has

attained her youth is attending on Lord Siva out of her love for him.

Lord Siva who naturally returns the love of others now concentrates

his attention on her who is before him. Thus there is reciprocal love

or Sthayibhava, Rati and the Alambanavibhavas. The effects of his

love are his loss of his usual courage and calmness and his gazing

at the beautiful face of Parvati. These Vibhavas and Anubhavas 49

immediately suggest to us the Vyabhicaribhavas eagerness,

excitement, unsteadiness and joy which lead to the suggestion of

the Rasa, Spigara" (Sankaran 84).

This sloka is referred to in Dhvanyaloka to illustrate

asaril/ak?yakramavyailgyadhwani (11.22. 85). The end of rasa is alaukika

(transcendental) and visranti (repose). It is freedom from all obstacles, achieving

a pleasure that is variedly termed as camatkara, sarilvitti, nirvesa, rasana,

asvadana, bhoga, samapti, /aya and visranti.

The fourth udyota consists mostly of instructions to the motivated readers

and aspiring poets. Rasa originates from the poet's pratibha (imagination) due to

rasavesa (evocation of rasa) but it becomes an objective, impersonal, and

universalized representation. Vibhava lose their personal context and become impersonal, arousing the inherent sthayibhava, The communication of these representations is not direct but suggested. The principle of propriety or aucitya deems that only the principal sentiment (ailgirasa) is held as a foil to the

subsidiary sentiments (ailgarasa). The poetic process consists of composition, comprehension and criticism. The composition is that of the poet, the

comprehension is by the reader (sahrdaya), and the criticism consists of

kavyasvada (enjoyment of the poem). The poet must use discretion in applying figurative language throughout the poem. He can turn the insignificant world into

an alive and significant realm. Anandavardhana refers to the poet as 'poet

creator' (kavi vedhas) (IV.5. 277). A poet will have no scarcity of themes when he 50 realises the scope of sentiments, their semblance and their cessation, wt1ich is created by an infinite variety of stimuli and responses and passing moods. The poet's experience of rasa, as is illustrated using Valmikls sorrow aroused from the vision of the lamenting bird, moves him to such an extent making him believe soka!J slokatvamagatal:, (IV.5. 275 & Ramayal}a 1.i). His kavya is an idealized version of this soka (sorrow) as its predominant sentiment. In Dhvanyaloka,

Anandavardhana mentions, "In the boundless realm of poetry the poet alone is the creator [ ...]"; apare kavyasarflsare kavi rekal:, prajapatil:, (111. 42). If the poet is devoid of emotion, the world too will be devoid of sentiment.A good poet will freely design even insentient objects to act as sentient ones and sentient objects to act as insentient ones" (IV.1. 251).

Anandavardhana has set pointers for the refined critics ( sahrdaya) too. He asks the question: what constitutes a refined critic? (kiril idaril sahrdayatvaril nama) and replies that it is the sensitivity to rasa (rasajflataiva sahrdayatvaril). It is the skill to appreciate rasa in literature (rasabhavadimaya kavyasvanJpa parijflanaipul}yaril) (111.16, 159). Anand Amaladass has noted the descriptive terms for sahrdaya, scattered all over Dhvanya/oka. They are silri, budha, kavyarthatattvavid, sacetas, vyutpannasacetas and kavyatattvarthadarsi. He comments that these terms are not used in the sense of 'learned' or 'erudite' scholars, but in the sense of 'perceptive critics' (112). The word sahrdaya has been used earlier not only by Vamana but also by Udbha1a in his Bhamahavi. vara(Ja. Abhinavagupta supplies a definition for sahrdaya in his Locana. "The 51

word sahrdaya denotes persons who are capable of identifying with the subject matter, as the mirror of their hearts has been polished by the constant study and practice of poetry, and who respond to it sympathetically in their own hearts": ye�arfJ kavyanusT!anabhyasavasad visadibhute manomukure va,naniya tanmayibhavanayogyata te svahrdayasarfJvadabhajalJ sahrdaya!J (Ingalls 70).

Krishnamoorthy notes that Anandavardhana does not use the technical terms of

Indian aesthetics, viz. tanmayibhavaand hrdayasarfJvada. But "one can have no doubt that he did subscribe to a theory of 'like-heartedness', between the poet and the responsive reader" (306-7). Anyone with a keen sense of imagination, aesthetic sensibility and sharp intuition, able to visualize beyond the superficial

(the expressed meaning or statement) can be a rasika (one who indulges in delight) while a layman with the basic faculty of reading and writing can understand the expressed fact. But the layman gaining experience after long practice or exposure and constant study of the best in literature can train himself to become a connoisseur of rasa literature. 'It is a born talent as well as cultivated taste" (Amaladass 113). The sahrdaya (similar-minded person) establishes empathy with the poet through the emotive content of the poem. A sensitive reader might find impropriety (anaucitya) distasteful in a poem. A conventional formula, however improbable, might be accepted. So

Anandavardhana emphasizes the point that conformity to the proven tradition of decorum stands well against the test of time. Aucitya is what upholds conformity with the values of a society. A sahrdaya is so well equipped with pratibha (imagination) that he perceives much more than what the poet intended. The evoked dhwani (suggestion) is relative to the pra!Jbha (imagination) of the sahrdaya (reader). Sahrdayatvarflis thus "the capability of the qualified reader to experience the significance at the deeper level, through what is seen and heard on the surface level. [ ...] In other words, the sahrdaya perceives ''what is going on" through ''what is happening [ ...]" (Amaladass 118).

The third udyota of Dhvanyaloka discusses one of the key aspects of the dhwani theory, viz., the vyafijaka mentioned variously as suggesters, evokers, manifesters and conveyors. They are the conveying agents or the pointers of direction leading to suggestion. Anandavardhana defines a vyanjaka:

"Suggestiveness is the same as the communication of what is suggested

( vyangyaprakasanarfl hi vyafijakatvarfl) (111.33. 213). It reveals itself while revealing another. The qualification of a vyafijaka is its vyafijakatvam (signifying capacity). It is here that the metaphorical illustration of gha_tapradipanyayacan be applied. The evoker is the dipa (light) which reveals the gha_ta (pot) or suggested object. If what is revealed by evocation is tangible or denotable, it is either vastudhwanior alankaradhwani. If it is experienceable, then it is rasadhwani. The vyafijakatva or power of suggester dwells on all different aspects of a work. The evocators are case terminations (supvise$a), conjugational terminations

(tinvise$a), number ( vacana), word (pada), gender (linga), relation (sambandha), accidence (karaka), primary affixes (k_rfJ, secondary affixes (taddhita), compounds (samasa), intonation (kaklf), musical sounds (gitasabda), gestures 51

(ce�_ta), pronouns (sarvanama), prepositions (upasarga), indeclinable conjunctions (nipata), tenses (ka/a), sentence ( vacya), structure (sarigha_tana), imagery (alarikara), causes ( vibhava), effects (anubhava), passing moods of plot

( vyabhicari bhava) and in fact the whole work (prabandha), which have the potential to suggest dhwani of the three varieties viz., vastu, a/arikara and rasa

(111.2&16, 115&147). Vastu and alarikara in the vacya stage can evoke suggestion in the hearts of sensitive critics. Similarly, the textures and the qualities are equally proficient in suggesting sentiments. What governs their activity is the rule of decorum. All these could lend charm to the poem. If a poem contains the vacya aspect alone, the only charm that resides in the poem will be that of prasadagw:,a (lucidity). Charm resides in vacya only in a poem of prasadagw:,a (lucidity). Charm without even vacya element lies in the mere alliteration of sounds. The various suggesters stimulate the mind of the reader to react or recognize. A constant appraisal of these evocators brings to the reader the habit of identifying charm due to evocation in words even in other contexts by association. Anandavardhana is keen to emphasize the evocative capability of music and gestures, which he mentions frequently in Dhvanya/oka (198, 206,

216, & 222).

Based on the power of vacya (expressed) and vyarigya (suggested), dhwani has been graded. The criteria to judge a work is formulated on the basis of the fact that the aesthetic beauty of a work varies in direct proportion to the degree of prominence of suggestion over statement. The dhwanikavya (first rate 54

poetry or the poetry of suggestion) includes all those works which focus on the delineation of sentiments. It includes those works where the vacya (statement) is apradhana (unimportant) and only vyailgya (suggestion) is relevant. It also includes poetry of the nature where the principally suggested content is a sentiment or at least an idea or poetic figure. Gu!Jibhutavyailgyakavya (second rate poetry or poetry of subordinate suggestion) can be identified as the one in which the vacya (statement) outshines the vyailgya (suggested), though the latter exists along with the former. If what has been already suggested is expressed again by another word or if a work appears charming due to the adorning of beautiful words, critics can ascertain that it is the second manifestation of suggestion. Subordinate suggestion has a wide range of application when it appears in connection with suggested sense. Often they merge and it is difficult to recognize them as separate unless one looks intensely for the primary purport of the poem, viz., sentiment. Amaladass has illustrated the point clearly: "Even in the Mahabharata the total result is that it is dhwanikavya, but the narrative sections, the descriptions of different places and events which are necessary to build up the whole kavya, can be of the gu(libhuta type and they are surely charming when looked at from the total perspective of rasa' (87). Anandavardhana does not consider gu(libhuta as something inferior that should be avoided. He appeals to the sahrdaya that gu(libhutavyailgyakavya is very much used by first-rate poets as a beautiful avenue or an alternative to good poetry (111.36, 233). Citrakavya (representational poetry or third-rate poetry) 55 is that kind of poetry where there is no evocation or suggestion at all. The loveliness of this type of poetry rests in the strikingness of expressions and meaning. It can be used as an aid to those beginners who attempt a study of poetry. Mammata in the first u!lasa of Kavyaprakasa categorizes the three types of kavya(poetry) as uttama(high), madhyama (middle) and adhama (low).

Resume

"Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta are the first critics in India. to give sample specimen of practical literary criticism" (De 92). The dhwani theory is a scientific study of sound and sense. The classification is done with psychological insight. The theory proves that it is possible to appreciate poetry belonging to different contexts and different periods, using the blueprint of old canonical texts.

The theory has been developed into a systematized aesthetic critical tool with suggestion at its centre. Various schools of approach have been elucidated, strengthened and assigned proper function. Anandavardhana illustrates that the canons of the different schools are complementary and establishes their internal relationships. Linked elements like grammatical structure, plot and its narrative, imagery, different genres, rhyme and rhythm, levels of meaning, theme and content, aesthetic appeal and the creative process, adhere as spokes to the wheel. The theory is broad and versatile in outlook and could not be refuted by any argument. It is double-edged as it explains the facts of poetic process both for the creative poet and for the appreciative critic. It substantiates the fact that themes never become monotonous or repetitive as long as there exist an infinite

central meaning of poetry has nothing to do with laborious learning and that it

can be grasped only by the few sahrdaya gifted with taste. The concept of

rasadhwani integrates two important aspects, viz., literary experience

(rasanubhut�- and literary language (alarikaraand dhwam). "Anandavardhana [ ..

.] for the first time gave in his aesthetic theory of dhwani [... ] an equal status to

drama and poetry, and [ ...] blazed the trail for applied or practical criticism of not

only select literary pieces but also whole works". He makes an aesthetic

approach "and he represents the dividing line between old (pracina) and new

(navya) poetics" (Devy ed. 319). Anandavardhana coins new critical terms and

helps a connoisseur trained in the dialectics of dhwani to evaluate poetry. He

declares that the ways of expression are infinite. The theory attempts to strengthen the understanding of literature, direct the ways of appreciation, and provide criteria for literary evaluation. The greatest credit of this theory is that when the modern criterion of evaluation is applied to the dhwani theory and the western theories of meaning, there are many aspects in both theories that share similarities. By bringing the broad-based theory of poetry into focus,

Anandavardhana could stand the test of time.

Later critics have found areas of disagreement and disapproval. The major fault, according to them, is that the theory is formalistic in approach. It lays too much stress on sentimental poetry, differentiating it from descriptive and ornamental, with the result that it confuses form as essence. Its concern is essentially with ways of generating and apprehending meaning. Another point of

should characterize the highest aesthetic experience, and it is precisely this religious view, narrowing art, literature and criticism to a Hindu value system, that most disqualifies the theory as a contemporary critical instrument" (Absent

Authority 189-90). The theory loses itself in the whirlpool of complex delineation of the expressed and the unexpressed, the delineation of the various categories of dhwani and the narrow boundaries of first-rate and second-rate poetry.

Krishna Rayan in 'The Case for an Indian Poetic Based on the Dhvani Theory' comments that "lest the concern with emotion should breed a barren aestheticism, the theory has to be corrected by throwing sufficient emphasis on the importance of a moral vision of a serious concern with life" (49). The theory that has enlightened the age in which it evolved could be an eye-opener to the modern theoreticians, if it is studied earnestly and then modified and renewed.

The dhwani concept evidences that Indian aesthetic theory is a highly developed one, perhaps far ahead of the assumptions of contemporary as well as modern theories.