THE PHILOSOPHY OF RITI
DR.
P. MADHAVA SARMA, M. A. (Hons.), Ph. D.
Reader,
Department of Telugu,
Acharya
Vamana who lived during the latter half of the 8th
century A. D., was one of the most brilliant thinkers whose contribution to Indian
literary criticism was unique and of lasting value. His philosophy-oriented
investigation into the constitution and nature of
a Kavya revealed certain strikingly new facts and
factors. His analysis of a Kavya and treatment of its
elements were highly imaginative and refreshingly original.
Vamana’s Kavyalankara
Sutra rises much above the routine treatises on
the science of poetics, and justly claims to be regarded as the
first attempt at evolving a philosophy of literary aesthetics. His
contemplative mind regarded the Kavya as living human
being, a charming young lady, and penetrated deeper and deeper into it until it
could catch a glimpse of its Soul. Unlike his predecessors and most of his
successors he presented his findings in the form of Sutras following the
tradition of the Darsanas which sought to discover
the Soul of things–the ultimate principle of the Universe.
He
was the first poetician who perceived clearly and
stated categorically that the differentia of a Kavya
as a literary species was Beauty. He was also the first to make
a distinction between the natural beauty and artificial beauty of a Kavya, and to trace the two forms of beauty
to distinctly different causes. Again it was he that suggested for the first
time that a Kavya had two bodies–the gross and the
subtle–the Sabda Sarira
and the Artha Sarira.
Moreover, Vamana was the first critic to discover,
define and designate the Soul of a Kavya.
He
opened his treatise with the famous dictum:
Kaavyam
graahya malankaaraat; Soundarya malankaarah
A
Kavya becomes agreeable on account of Alankara and Alankara means
Beauty. At the very outset Vamana struck a
brilliantly original note by drawing a sharp distinction between Alankara as Beauty and Alankara
as a figure of speech. Regarding the relation between Beauty and figures of
speech, his views were at variance with those of his predecessors. Dandin maintained:
Kaavya
sobhaakaraan dharmaan
Alankaaraan Prachakshate
The
factors that produced the Beauty of a Kavya were Alankaras. Vamana disagreed with Dandin and explained that Gunas
produced the beauty of Kavya and that the Alankaras only brightened it.
Kaavya
sobhaayaah kartaaro dharmaah gunaah; Tadatisayaheetavas-tvalankaaraah
It
is here that Vamana introduced the idea of two kinds
of beauty–the natural beauty which proceeded from the Gunas and the artificial beauty caused by the Alankaras. Vamana denoted natural
beauty as Sobha and its heightened form as Soundarya.
Sobha, Kanti,
Deepti, Madhurya, Sukumarata, etc., were mentioned by Bharata
as the natural graces–Sahajalankaras–of a youthful
lady. The Gunas, Madhurya,
etc., which are constitutional to the Kavya should be
regarded as its natural graces of Sahajalankaras. Alankaras like Yamaka, Upama, etc., are external and artificial and can at best be
structural to the Kavya. Hence Vamana
stated that the Gunas were compulsory to the Kavya while the Alankaras were
optional. This view influenced the later poeticians
so profoundly that the Alankaras gradually came to be
relegated to a subordinate position in the scheme of a Kavya.
Earlier
writers on poetics were not clear as to where the Gunas
belonged and what their function was. Taking Dandin’s
metaphorical statement that the Gunas were the Pranas of the Vaidarbhi marga, Vamana assumed that they
should belong to the Atman of the Kavya and that
their function should be to manifest the Beauty aspect of the Soul. Since the Gunas made their appearance in the texture of the Kavya Sarira, Vamana thought it necessary to examine the texture very
carefully. His microscopic examination revealed something very important, which
his predecessors missed.
According to Bhamaba Sabda and Artha
together constitued the Kavya.
Resorting to a metaphor, Dandin stated that a
collection of Padas conveying the desired Artha formed the Sarira
of a Kavya. Vamana
split the Pada into its components–Sabda and Artha,
the gross and subtle materials of the Pada.
This led him to the conclusion that the Kavya had
two bodies–the gross body consisting of Sabda
enclosing the subtle body consisting of Artha.
While the Sabda formed the physical
body the Artha provided the psychical
body. The two bodies may be identified with the Sthula
and Sukshma Sariras
of the Darsanas. This discovery prompted Vamana to explain the nature and function of the Gunas with reference to the two bodies of the Kavya. At this stage we may hazard a conjecture that Vamana assumed the presence of a third body–the Karana Sarira or
the Soul vitally functioning within the Sukshma
Sarira.
Though
Vawana treated the Gunas
separately with reference to Sabdas and Arthas, he did not consider them as inherent to Sabdas or Arthas. He expressly
stated that the Gunas pertained to the Bandha.
Ojah prasaada slesha samata samaadhi maadhurya soukumaarya
udaarata
arthavyakti kantayo bandhagunaah
The
Gunas pertained to the Sahdabandhas
and the Arthabandhas. A particular Guna appeared in a
particular Bandha or organization of the material,
and disappeared the moment the organization was disturbed. The appearance and
disappearance of the Gunas led him to assume the
existence of a permanent source from which they evolved and into which they
involved. The Gunas have their potential being in
this permanent source which Vamana regarded as the
Atman of the Kavya and called it ‘Riti.’
Hence the thesis “Riti is the Soul of a Kavya.”
Riti roatmaa Kaavyasya Sareerasyeva
Riti is to the Kavya what Atman is to the Sarira.
It is necessary here to study the etymology of the terms Atman and Riti in order to realise the
significance of Vamana’s conception of the Soul of a Kavya. The word Atman is believed to have been derived from
the root ‘At’ meaning to move constantly or from the root ‘An’ meaning to live,
or perhaps from both. The term Riti is derived from
the root ‘Ri’ meaning to move. The identity of Riti with Atman becomes complete when we take Dandin’s metaphor of Gunas as Pranas. Just as the Atman is the Karana
Sarira of a person, Riti
is the Karana Sarira
of a Kavya. The natural beauty or Sobha of a Kavya depends on the Gunas of its Soul which is Riti.
Having installed Riti as the Soul
of the Kavya Vamana set out
to explain his conception of Riti.
Visishta
padarachanaa Ritih; Visishta gunaatma
An
excellent organisation of the Padas is Riti and the excellences are of the nature of Gunas. The statement is to be taken with great care. Riti should not be taken to be identical with Padarachana. Padarachana is the
structure of the body while Riti is the
Soul inhabiting it, and the two should not be confused. Visishta
Padarachana is Vyanjaka and
Riti is Vyangya. That is to
say that, through the
medium of Visishta Padarachana
the Gunas become manifest and reveal the presence of Riti, the Atman.
Out
of Riti arise the Gunas,
the Pranas or directional forces round which the
subtle and gross materials organize themselves. Since Riti, like the Atman, is a having and moving principle, it
imparts life and movement to the subtle and gross bodies of the Kavya. Thus Riti determines the
character of a Kavya as the Atman determines the
character of an individual.
Corresponding
to the two bodies of the Kavya Vamana
conceived of two Ritis–the Sadba
Riti and the Artha Riti–which are but reflections of the vital principle, the
Soul of the Kavya. It is by virtue of the reflection
of the Soul in them that the Sabda Sarira and Artha Sarira become lively, and each acquires a loveliness of
its own resulting in the natural beauty or Sobha of
the Kavya. As Vamana
employed the term, Sobha is nothing but the
manifested form of Riti.
‘Paka’ is another term introduced by Vamana
to denote Sobha in its aspect of relishability.
When the Gunas, arising out of Riti,
appear in the texture of the subtle and gross bodies and blend into a single
property, the Kavya attains Paka
or maturity. It is this Paka that the Sahridaya enjoys.
Udayati
hi sa
taadrik kvaapi vaidarbha reetou sahridaya hridayaanaam
ranjakah
koopi paakah.
The
expression Koopi Paakah
suggests that like Riti and Sobha
this Paka also is an inexplicable entity. As a
natural corollary to the existence of two bodies and two sets of Gunas, Vamana envisaged two Pakas–the Sabda Paka and the Artha Paka. Kavya Paka
is the result of a perfect blending of these two kinds of Pakas
and affords the highest relish to the Sahridaya.
The
appeal of a Kavya depends on the maturity of its
Soul–Riti. The Vaidarbhi Riti, abounding in all the Gunas
in their full development, was regarded as the ideal Riti
as it was found, unlike the other Ritis, to satisfy
the literary taste of the nation as a whole. A Kavya enrouled by the Vaidarbhi Riti was found to possess maximum beauty and maturity. Vamana likened such a Kavya to a
charming young lady. He thus completed the anthropomorphic anology
of the Kavya and conveyed to posterity a finished and
polished metaphor.
Yuvetee riva rupa manga kaavyan
swadatee suddhagunam.
The
concept of Riti is Vamana’s
greatest contribution to literary theory. He coined the term Riti to denote the soul of a Kavya.
His preference for the term Riti to its apparent
synonym Gati is significant. Gati
indicates a movement which can be perceived, analysed
and explained. Riti, on the contrary, defies all
analysis and lends itself to nothing but direct experience. In Riti the parts are not discernible as they are lost in the
whole which is a Unity–a Form. This Form is Beauty or Sobha
which accounts for the lovability of the Kavya. It is
the maturity or Paka which accounts for the relishabillty of the Kavya. It
may be noted here that the English equivalent of Riti
is Rhythm and not Style as most critics believe. ‘Rhythm’ is derived from the
Greek root Rheo to move or flow and
provides an exact equivalent to Riti etymologically
and semantically.
The
Riti
Asphuta
sphuritam kaavya
Tatva
metad yathoditam
Asaknuvadbhir
vyaakartum
Reetayah
sampravartitaah
If,
as Anandavardhana said, Vamana
failed to grasp Dhwani clearly, Anandavardhana
may be said to have failed to appreciate the significance of Riti fully. While Dhwani is the essense of the meaning of a Kavya,
Riti is the essence of its very being. A Kavya cannot exist without Riti,
while it can without Dhwani. Thus one can argue that Riti has greater claims over Dhwani
to be the soul of the Kavya.
Nothing
can be a more eloquent testimony to the genius of Vamana
than Rajasekhara’s references to the votaries of the Riti school as ‘Vamaniyas.’ One may say that as long as there are Vamaniyas the Riti school continues to be a living literary trend reminding us
of its founder, Vamana.