Kavya-Alankara-Vivrti _ Sreenivasarao's Blogs

8/15/2019 Kavya-Alankara-Vivrti _ Sreenivasarao's Blogs

1/10

sreenivasarao's blogs

THIS WORDPRESS.COM SITE IS THE BEE'S KNEES

Tag Archives: Kavya-alankara-vivrti

Kavya and Indian Poetics – Part Eight

24 AUGContinued from Part Seven (hps://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/19/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-seven/)

[I could not arrange the topics in a sequential order (krama). You may take these as randomcollection of discussions; and, read it for whatever it is worth. Thank you.]

Udbhata and Vamana

The scholars of the early period of Indian Poetics, somehow, seem to come in pairs. It waBhamaha and Dandin followed by Udbhata and Vamana; and then came Anandavardhana anAbhinavagupta.

Udbhata and Vamana were both said to be in the service of King Jayapida of Kashmir (Ca. 776807 AD). Udbhata followed Bhamaha while Vamana followed Dandin. They developed upoand expounded the distinctive features of Dandin and Bhamaha; as also upon the differencethat separate the two.

Udbhata is said to have wrien a commentary titled Bhamaha-vivarana (also called Kavyalankara-vivrti), on Bhamaha’s Kavyalamkara. It is believed that he also wrote a commentaron Bharata’s Natyashastra. Both the works are now not available. He is also cr edited (by somwith a Kavya: Kumarasambhava. What has come down to us is his Kavya-alamkara-sarsamgraha (a synopsis of the essence of Kavya Alamkara) clarifying the position of Alamkarprinciples that govern the Kavya.

And, Vamana in his Kavya-alamkara–sutra –Vrii expanded on the concept of Gunas dealt iDandin’s work; and, at the same time, he underplayed the importance of Alamkaras. Vamanawork, unlike that of his predecessors, is in the Sutra format interspersed by couplets oaphorisms (Karika). Because of that, his work marks a phase in the history of Sanskrit Poet

https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/19/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-seven/https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/24/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-eight/https://sreenivasaraos.com/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/19/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-seven/https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/24/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-eight/https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/24/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-eight/https://sreenivasaraos.com/


2/10

literature. The illustrations he provides are chosen from the works of the previous authors. commentary on Kavya-alamkara–sutra –Vrii titled Kavi-priya is also credited by some sourceto Vamana

Though Udbhata and Vamana were contemporaries, and were both employed in same RoyaCourt, each does not mention the other by name while criticizing the other’s views.

Their predecessors – Bhamaha and Dandin – generally dealt with Alamkara as figurativ

speech; Udbhata and Vamana, however, treat Alamkara as a poetic principle; and, talk in termof its theories. Thus, in different ways, Udbhata and Vamana represent the initial efforts torganize the concept of poetic diction under theoretical principles. Both authors, howevecontinued the major thrust of the Alamkara or Alamkara–oriented tradition of speculation.

^*^*^

Udbhata

Udbhata’s Bhamaha-vivarana, which is an explanation or commentary on Bhamaha

avyalankara is said to have dealt mainly with Alamkara. In his explanations, he generallfollowed Bhamaha and his definitions of certain Poetic principles. The Alamkaras that Udbhattalks about in his Kavya-alamkara-sara-sangraha are almost the same as those mentioned bBhamaha in his Kavyalankara. Udbhata’s work gained great fame; almost overshadowing thoriginal work of Bhamaha, perhaps because he remained focused on Alamkara and did nodeviate into discussions on Guna / Dosha (grammatical purity) or such other elements of Kavy

He expanded on the forms of Alamkara mentioned by Bhamaha. For instance; Bhamahmentioned one kind of Atishayokti ( hyperbole) while Udbhata distinguishes four varieties of iSimilarly, in place of Bhamaha’s two forms of Anuprasa (Alliteration) , Udbhata describes fou

He adds Drastanta (illustration) and Kavya-lingana (poetical reasoning- where the sense of sentence or of a word is represented as a cause of something of which it becomes an aributto the forms of Alamkara-s mentioned by Bhamaha. While dealing with the varietiof Anuprasa, Udbhata recognises three different Vris or modes of expression. His classificatioof Alliterations into three classes was based on the ‘aural-effects’: primary alliterations classeas elegant (upa-nagarika); ordinary ( gramya), and harsh ( parashu).

Udbhata also brought into his work the element of analysis of the principles involved in thconcepts. He explains the grammatical basis for different forms Upama (Similes). Here, hillustrates the forms of resemblance as qualified by different suffixes like – vat, -kyac,

kalpap etc. He also differs from Bhamaha on some minor points.

[ As regards the grammatical basis for the concept of Upama (similes), it may be mentionethat a general theory of comparison was in existence even before the time of the Kavyas. Thgrammarian Panini (Asthadhyayi 2.1.55.6; 2.3.72; 3.1.10) uses the four elements of comparisonthe subject of comparison (upameya or upamita); the thing with which it is compare(upamana); the property of similarity (samanya, or samanadharma); and the grammaticindicator of comparison (samanya-vacana or dyotaka). These were perhaps basic or generconcepts; but, not full-blown rhetorical theories of poetics.


3/10


4/10

The Kavyalankara-sutra-vri is divided into five Divisions or topics ( Adhikarana), each owhich consist two or three chapters (adhyaya). There are in all twelve Adhyayas. The fir

dhikarana (having three chapters: Prayojana pariksha; Adhikari chinta; and Kavya-kanti) deawith the need or prayojana of Kavya ; characterises the nature of those who are fit for studyinAlamkaras, and declares that style is the soul of poetry. The second Adhikarana (having twchapters: Pada Dosha and Vakya Dosha) is about the defects of words, sentences, propositionand their meanings. The third Adhikarana ( having two chapters : Guna-alamkara- vivechan

and Sabda–Guna nirupana) discusses the aspects of Gunas ; and , the fourth Adhikaranahaving three chapters : Sabda-Alankarika vichara ; Upamani nirupana ; and , Upama prapanchirupana) deals with Yamaka , Anuprasa, Upama and such other Alamkaras. The fi

Adhikarana (having two chapters: Kavya samaya ; and Sabda shodhana) is devoted to poeticconventions, observance of the rules of sandhi, necessity of grammatical purity and the likThe last chapter also deals with the purity of words.

ust as Udbhata followed Bhamaha, Vamana followed Dandin. But, unlike Udbhata, whfocused on a single principle for inquiry (Alamkara), Vamana aempted to find a way ocovering under a single organized whole the various principles that had been discussed by h

predecessor Dandin. He brings into his work an analytic interest to the study of poetraempting to offer rational explanations of the principles involved in the subject. Further, hintroduces fresh concepts and ideas into the theory of Poetics.

Guna and Alamkara

Though Vamana elaborated upon the ideas put forward by Dandin, he does markedly diffefrom Dandin on several issues. For instance; Dandin uses the term Alamkara in the sense oembellishment or ornamentation that decorates the body of Kavya. Alamkara in Dandinwork is not the principle but Soundaryam, beauty of the expression or figurative speech

Vamana, on the other hand, generalizes Alamkara as a theoretical principle. Further, thougVamana uses some of the older names of Alamkaras, such as, visesokti, rupaka, or aksepa, hgives entirely different meanings. And in all he describes thirty-three Alamkaras.

Vamana opens his work with the famous quote pithily catching his view of Kavyaavyam graahyam alankaaraat; Soundaryam alankaarah – A Kavya becomes agreeable o

account of Alamkara; and, Alamkara means Beauty. Thereaer, he outlines the notions of meror Guna and Alamkara ; and, links Alamkara with Guna in a Kavya.

Earlier, Bhamaha had said that Kavya is made out of words and meaning (Sabda Artha sahitaavyam) . Perhaps, Bhamaha himself was aware of the limitations of his definition; and

therefore he added on to it the element of beauty by way of elegant figures of speech. Vamanhowever, differed from Bhamaha; and said that Kavya is an organic whole composed oelements where Guna (quality or poetic excellence) and Alamkara (the principle of beauty) aralso vital to it. Thus, Kavya has two dimensions: the substance (Vastu) of which it’s mad(words and meaning); and the value of beauty for which it is made (Guna and Alamkara). Thmerit of Vamana’s theory lies in coordinating this principle with other elements of Kavya.

Vamana says: the special features that create beauty (shobha) of Kavya are the Gunas (Kavyshobhayah kartaro dharmah Gunah). And, those elements that enhance or brighten that beautare the Alamkaras (Taditasya–hetavastu Alamkarah). Of the two, the former (Guna) is highl


5/10

essential (nitya) for a Kavya (Purve niyatah). According to him there can be no Kavya withouGuna. Thus, Vamana assigns greater importance to the notion of Guna or stylistic element opoetic excellence; and, Alamkara comes next. In the process, Vamana aempted to clarify thdistinction between Guna and Alamkara.

Though Vamana retained the ten Gunas enumerated by Dandin (1. Ojas: vigour or brilliance olong compounds; 2. Prasada: clarity and lucidity; 3. Shlesha: well knit composition skilfullemploying many shades of meanings; 4. Samata: evenness of sound within a lin5. Samadhi: ambivalence through the use of metaphors; 6. Madhurya: sweetness in threfinement of expression; 7. Sukamarata: so and delicate; 8. Udaratva: exaltation or livelines9. Arthavyakti: directness avoiding obscure words, pun etc; and, 10. Kanti: glow or luminouelegant turns of phrases or grace), he modified their names, and also increased the number oGunas to twenty. He also explained the Gunas in his own manner.

While retaining the ten traditional Gunas, Vamana created two sets of the same ten Gunaunder two broad heads: Sabda-Gunas (qualities relating to words) and Artha-gunas (qualitierelating to sense or meaning). These two classifications are sometimes referred to as the subt( Artha Sarira) and gross (Sabda Sarira) bodies of Kavya. That again harks back to the two basconcerns of the Sanskrit Poetics -Sabda and Artha – the word and its meaning; the first is abouhow the word is treated in the text, and the other is about the shades or the layers of meaninthat the word is capable of revealing. Both, Sabda and Artha brighten the beauty (Kavyshobha) and enhance the quality of Kavya. And, the distinctions of the two groups as markeby Vamana helped to clear some of the vagueness in the definition of Guna as offered bBharata and Dandin.

Vamana aempts to explain each Guna in terms of both Sabda and Artha. For example, Prasad(clarity and lucidity) as a Sabda-Guna, according to him, means readability (saithilya) of th

text; and, as Artha-guna it means propriety (auchitya) of sense.Generally, Vamana treats Guna-Dosha as relative concepts. Along with excellent Gunas thshine brilliantly, there could be some whose luster has dimmed and do not fit well into thcontext. At the same time, there could be defects (Dosha) which cannot boast of any redeeminfeature; but yet, somehow, turn into merits because the context desperately needs sucexpressions.

As Dandin says, collyrium (a kind of dark eye shadow) is not a thing of beauty in itself; yet, endows glamour and luster to the sparkling eyes of a beautiful woman.

Elsewhere, it is mentioned that Nir-doshatva or faultlessness is itself a Guna. Thus Gunas anDoshas are not absolute entities. Their merits or defects are relative; and, each, in its turenhances or diminishes the beauty of the composition depending on the context in which it placed.

Rasa

As regards Rasa, Vamana accords it a comparatively a higher position than his predecessor didHe abandoned the approach of Bhamaha and Dandin who treated Rasa as a subsidiary elemen(Rasavat ) of the verse. Instead, he treated Rasa as an aspect of Guna which is considere


6/10

essential to Kavya. And, within the Guna, he assigned Rasa the virtue of of Kanti (glow obrightness) and classified it under Artha Guna. Vamana did not however accord an independenstatus to Rasa.

The later Schools criticized Vamana for treating ‘unfairly’. They pointed out that Vamana errein failing to recognize the merit of Rasa which is the ultimate poetic experience. It was arguethat Rasa should have been accorded an independent status , if not the prime status.

Riti

Dandin had earlier highlighted two styles (Marga) of presenting a Kavya: Vaidarbhi and Gaudeach having its special characteristics. To that, Vamana added Panchali. (And, much lateRudrata added Lati as the fourth Riti, while Raja Bhoja in his Srngaraprakasa added Avantikand Magadhi as other styles.) All these names perhaps suggest styles that were characteristic tthose geographical regions. According to Vamana, only the Vaidarbhi Marga, which happroves, has all the twenty Gunas – sweet as the notes of the lute. According to Vamana, thGaudiya is marked by Ojas (vigour) and Kanti (grace) , but it lacks Madhurya (sweetness) anSaukumarya ( delicacy) plagued by long winding compounds and bombastic words. An

Panchali, he says, while it has Madhurya and Saukumarya, it is devoid of Ojas and Kanti. Hremarks that the difference between Vaidarbhi and other modes (Gaudi, Panchali etc) analogous to differences between silken thread and jute fiber (I.2.11-18).

As said, Dandin had named certain literary styles as Marga-s (say, Vaidarbhi and GaudiyMarga). Vamana not only modified the concept of style, but also renamed Marga as Riti – stylor diction. Riti, according to him, is a particular mode or organization of verbal structure this different from common usage – Visista pada-racana – having the excellences of Gunas. Hin fact, calls this structure or arrangement of words as Viseso Gunatma (1.2.8) – a combination ovarious Gunas. Thus, though he inherited the idea of Marga from Dandin, Vamana integrateit with the notion of Guna, the poetic excellences. And, his idea of Riti brought into its folother modes of analysis and poetic principles, particularly Alamkara, to create a holistic view opoetry. Vamana is revered as the originator and exponent of the Riti School.

Riti is not just diction or style; and it could mean rhythm as well. Prof.SK De ( in his Sanskroetics) explains : it should be observed that the term Riti is hardly equivalent to the Englis

word style, by which it is oen rendered, but in which there is always a distinct subjectivvaluation. … Riti is not, like the style, the expression of poetic individuality as is generallunderstood by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation of its beauty calleforth by a harmonious combination of more or less fixed ‘literary excellences (Gunas)’.

Riti represents for Vamana the collection of Gunas in harmony with faultless ( A-doshauAlamkara-s that produce Soundaryam (or Shobha) of Kavya. Paka (maturity) is another termthat Vamana introduced to denote Shobha or the natural beauty of the thing described. It this Paka, the inexplicable delight that the Sahrudaya enjoys.

(Udayati hi sa taadrik kvaapi vaidarbha reetou sahridaya hridayaanaa ranjakah koopi paakah.)


7/10

The language and its structural form lead us to the inner core of poetry. And, when thalanguage becomes style (Riti), it absorbs into itself all the other constituent elements of poetrIt allows them, as also the poetic vision, to shine through it.

Vamana , therefore, accorded Riti a very high position by designating Riti as the Soul of Kavy– Ritr Atma kavyasya Sareerasyeva (I.2.6) – Riti is to the Kavya what Atman is to the Sarir(body). Here, it is explained that in his definition of Riti, Pada-rachana represents thstructure or the body while Riti is its inner essence. Through this medium of Visist Padarachana the Gunas become manifest and reveal the presence of Riti, the Atman.

As Riti, according to Vamana, is the essence (soul) of Kavya, so the Gunas are the essentielements of the Riti. The explanation offered by Vamana meant that the verbal structure havincertain Gunas is the body of Kavya, while its essence, Riti, is the soul of Kavya. Thus, Vamanindependently introduced the concept of Atman (soul) into the Kavya composition. The earliescholars had not discussed or visualized the ‘soul’ (Atman) of Kavya. The later authors followethe lead provided by Vamana and started visualizing Kavya and talking about it in terms of thbody (Sarira) and soul (Atman) of poetry.

With the heightened position of Riti as the essence of Kavya, the Alamkara had to take secondary place. The Alamkara, the decorative ornamentation of the verbal structure or thcharm of expressions came to be looked upon as the external features that beautif(saundaryam alankarah) the body of Kavya – kavyam grahyam alankarat . Thus, it is quifeasible for a good Kavya to subsist without Alankaras, which are extraneous elements; but nowithout Riti its very soul. Thus, a clear distinction emerges between Guna /Riti the poetexcellence which is the soul and the Alamkara the ornamentation which is the body of Kavya.

Literally interpreted, this doctrine means: the Alamkara-s are just imposed on the body Kavya which is already ‘ensouled’ by Guna-s the poetic excellences or qualities. That is; thbody and soul are distinct. The soul is not perceptible to the senses or to the onlookers. But, thsoul resides in the body; and reveals itself through body and lends the body its life and purpose to exist.

Whatever be the views adopted / accepted or rejected by the later scholars, it was Vamana whfirst brought into discussion the concept of soul and tried to make a distinction between thbody (structure) and soul (essence) of poetry. He also aempted to define Kavya with referencto specific verbal structures possessing certain specific virtues (such as beauty, Soundaryam oShobha) that hold within its bosom the essence of Kavya; and that essence, according tVamana is Riti. As he explains, Riti is the flowing together of all the essential elements of Kavy– :

inati gacchati asyam guna iti riyate ksaraty asyam vanmaddhu-dhareti va ritih ( Vamana KSS ).

Thus, Vamana is the first Alamkara writer (Alamkarika) to bring a sense of balance into hiSchool. Till his advent, the Alamkara School was engrossed with elegant expressions of poetbeauty; and, they seem to have missed the aspect of the inner essence of Kavya. Vamanbrought into discussion the aesthetic effect as something other than an appreciation of allurinword-play. He also makes the process of understanding the purpose or the intentions of thpoet himself as central to poetic appreciation. If the poet and the reader, in harmon


8/10

commonly share the poetic delight that would be the greatest fulfillment of the Kavya. Hthus broadens his inquiry by bringing together the poet and the reader, and also by includinthe proper effect of poetry seen as a coordinated outcome or flowering of all the elements poetry. With his concepts of Riti and Guna we move almost close to the essence of poetry.

^*^*^

Vamana’s mode of thought – forging a dualism between the soul and the body of Kavy

between the qualities of the soul and the ornaments of the body – paved way for the advent oa theory in the ninth century, which since then has dominated Sanskrit poetics and literarcriticism: the theory of suggestion (Dhvani). The Dhvani School propagated bAnandavardhana retains the distinction between the body and soul of Kavya. But, here the souis Dhvani, the suggestive power of poetry, and not Riti the diction.

With the emergence of later Schools, the concept of Riti came under aack. The theory of Risuffered a setback , as the proponents of the Dhvani School asserted that the heart of all arforms – drama, poetry, music or art- is one and the same – the aesthetic experience of thSahrudaya – the cultured reader or listener.

The Dhvani School argued that although Vamana said that Riti is the soul of poetry, it does nogo into the inner depths of Kavya. Riti, at best, is an arrangement of words and meaningcharacterized by various Gunas. A particular Guna might be appropriate in a specific contexThe verbal compositions could be tight knit and high flowing in a given context; but, a simpllucid narration might be appropriate in another situation. One may admire grandeur in onsituation; and simplicity in another. It is the context that decides appropriateness of style. This an essential aspect of any Kavya. The Riti School, somehow, seemed to have missed thpoint.

It is true, they said, that Alamkara – the figures of speech, and Riti – the distinctive verbcompositions , do lend a charm to Kavya. But, that represents the body of Kavya while iessence or soul is Rasa. And, the essential objective of Kavya is Rasa, the experience of thSahrudaya – the cultured reader or listener. It is for the delight the Sahrudaya that Kavya created. They also pointed out that the Riti School seemed to have missed the involvement othe reader in the process of poetic experience. And, that perhaps is the reason, they said, whthe advocates of Riti could not assign Rasa its due place in poetics

The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana expanded on the object ( phala) of poetry; and, how it achieved (vyapara). The Rasa, it said, is the ultimate enjoyment by the reader; such enjoymen

is the object of poetry. According to Anandavardhana, Rasa is not made; but, it is revealed; anits revelation is best when done through Dhvani, the power of suggestion. And, that is whwords and meanings must be transformed to suggestions (Dhvani) of Rasa.

There was however some respite to the Riti School. Despite the overwhelming importancaccorded to suggestion and to the suggestion of Rasa, the Dhvani School could not ignore threlevance of expression (Riti). It was pointed out by other critiques that a worthy poet whcarefully seeks the suggested sense (Dhvani) has necessarily to rely on apt words in order tcovey the suggestion.


9/10

It was also pointed out that suggestion (Dhvani) can hardly be evoked by mere mention of name or a term. It needs a certain environment. The sense of ‘suggestion’ has to arise out of thcontextual factors backed by appropriate descriptions. These include the literary meaning aalso the suggestive possibilities of the expression such as: the sound echoing the sense, rhythmimagery and symbols. All these devices are to be used for helping to evoke the right responsin the mind and the heart of the reader. Such environment for evoking Dhvani , it was pointeout, is nothing but Riti. Thus , it is only through Riti that the language acquires a limitle

suggestive power. Eventually Dhavni, however lauded, which aims to evoke emotionresponse or enjoyment of the listener or the reader (Rasa) has inevitably to depend on Riti foits manifestation.

As regards Alamkara, they said, it might belong to body of Kavya, but to a gied poet it comespontaneously without much effort; and, that does help the suggestion of Rasa. As Vamansaid, Kavya springs (Kavya bĳa) from poets creative genius ( pratibha). It is the beautiful minthat gives birth to beautiful expressions; and beautiful expressions bring forth beautifusuggestions. And, all suggestions need not be poetic.

The doctrine of Riti, despite its limitations, is truly a major contribution to the study of literarcompositions. During the recent times it aracted much aention as it was recognized that ththeory of Riti has close affinities with modern day stylistic studies of literature.

(hps://ssubbanna.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/divider.jp

Continued i

Next Pa

Sources and References

Glimpses of Indian Poetics by Satya Deva Caudharī

Indian Poetics (Bharathiya Kavya Mimamse) by Dr. T N Sreekantaiyya

Sahityashastra, the Indian Poetics by Dr. Ganesh Tryambak Deshpande

istory of Indian Literature by Maurice Winternitz, Moriz Winternitz

History of Classical Poetry: Sanskrit, Pali , Prakrit by Siegfried Lienhard

iterary Cultures in History by Sheldon Pollock

The Philosophy of the Grammarians, Volume 5 By Harold G. Coward

Comparative Study of the Indian Poetics and the Western Poetics by Mohit Kumar Ray

history of Indian literature. Vol. 5, Scientific and technical …, Volume 5 by Edwin Gerow

https://ssubbanna.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/divider.jpg


10/10

Leave a commentPosted by sreenivasaraos on August 24, 2015 in Kavya, Sanskrit

Tags: Alamkara, Artha , Bhamaha, Dandin, Dhvani, Guna, Indian Poetics, Kavya , Kavya-alamkara-sarasamgraha , Kavya-alamkara–sutra –Vrii, Kavya-alankara-vivrti , Kavyasya Atma, Rasa, Riti, Sabda,Suggestion, Udbhata , Vamana

Blog at WordPress.com. The Choco Theme.

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)
https://sreenivasaraos.com/comments/feed/https://sreenivasaraos.com/feed/rss/https://wordpress.com/themes/choco/https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_bloghttps://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/vamana/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/udbhata/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/suggestion/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/sabda/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/riti/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/rasa/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/kavyasya-atma/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/kavya-alankara-vivrti/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/kavya-alamkara-sutra-vritti/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/kavya-alamkara-sara-samgraha/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/kavya/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/indian-poetics/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/guna/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/dhvani/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/dandin/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/bhamaha/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/artha/https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/alamkara/https://sreenivasaraos.com/category/sanskrit/https://sreenivasaraos.com/category/kavya/https://sreenivasaraos.com/author/sreenivasaraos/https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/08/24/kavya-and-indian-poetics-part-eight/#respond

Documents

Kavya-Alankara-Vivrti _ Sreenivasarao's Blogs