Name- Sumra Jitendra V.
SEM – 2
Roll No - 17
Three literary terms
Alamkara is a figure of speech. Alamkara earliest and most sustained school; it studies literary language and assumes that the focus of literariness is the figures of speech. In the mode of figurative expression, in the grammatical accuracy and pleasantness of sound. This does not mean that meaning is ignored. In fact structural taxonomies of different figures of speech are models of how meaning is cognized and how it is to be extracted from the text.
Bhamaha talks of the pleasure of multiplicity of meaning inherent in certain ‘Alamakara’ such as ‘Arthantaranyasa’, ‘Vibhavma’, and ‘Samasokti’. Bhamaha is the first ‘Alamkara’ poetician.
Bhamaha describes 35 figures of speech in ‘kavyamkara’. Others who continued the tradition are Dandin, Udbhata, Rudrata and Vamana. Finally in ‘Anandavarahana’, Alamkra was sought to be integrated with Dhavni and Rasa.
Alamkara is the dharma of poetry and not a mere embellishment. The categories of ‘Alamkara’ have been classified by different poetic into different kinds of systems. For example, Rudrata divides all Alamkara into two types those based on phonetic form and those based on meaning and then further sub classification of these leads to a total of sixty –eight Alamkara. Bhoja did not provide a fresh classification but added the third category – Ubhayalankara- to the two major types of Rudrata. Ruyyaka classified Alamkara into seven classes on the basis of how meaning is constituted.
 Lokanyaya [popular logic]
 Gudhartha pratiti [Inferences of meaning]
 Kavyanyaya [Logic of poetry]
 Viridha [opposition]
 Sadrasya [Similarly]
 Tarkanyaya [Reasoning, logic]
 Srnkhalabadha [Chain-bound]
And A Mammata described sixty-one figures of speech and groups them into seven types.
(1) Vyatiraeka (dissimilitude)
(2) Aprastuta Prasnsa ( indirect description)
(4) Rupaka ( Metaphor)
(5) Upama ( Simile)
(6) Dipaka ( Stringed Figure)
Like these the number of Alamkaras identified increased from bharata’s original four to sixty one distinguished by Mammata. This taxonomy is not mere ingenuity. It represents global and local taxonomies, a refined analysis and classification of what ultimately are modes of perfection. The different classificatory system can be seen to be based on the following perameters.
(1) Grammer ( samasokti)
(2) Value of figures
(3) Objects with which compared(Upamana)
(5) Symantic basis, such as a similarity.
(6) Objects compared(Upmeye)
(7) Coherence with known facts or otherwise(Sangati)
Dhvani is also a most important theory in Rasa theory. Dhavni theory is created by Anandavardhana, and he considers suggestion, the indirectly evoked meaning as the characteristic property of literary discourses. An s articulated in Dhvanyaloka, dhavni becomes an all embrocating principle that explains the structure and functions of the other major elements of literature.
All the literary theorists in the tradition found the combination of rasa and dhavni theories both adequate and sufficient to analyze the constitution of meaning in literature. In Dhvanyaloka, Anandavardhana has presented a structural analysis of indirect lliterary meaning.
Anandavardhana has classified different kinds of suggestion and defined them by identifying the nature of suggestion in each. Anandavardhana is uses the term dhavni to designate the universe of suggestion. He is openly indebted to Bhartruhari’s spota theory and he acknowledge in Dhvanayalokya. Where as Krishna notes that he has chosen the term dhavni following the definite use of that term by the grammarians to denote.
(1) The sound structure of words (sabda)
(2) The semantic aspects of sabda, the vyanjakas of suggestions and
(3) “The revealed or suggested meaning as such and the process of suggestion involved.”
Dhavni 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.
Dhvani is the method, the means for achieving or evoking Rasa, which is the effect of suggestion.  Auchitya:
Ksemendra made ‘Auchitya’ the defines Auchitya as the property of an expression being an exact and appropriate analogue of the expressed. The theory of property or appropriateness claims that in all aspect of literary composition. There is the possibility of a perfect, the, most appropriate choice of subject, of ideas, of words, of devices as such, it has affinities with Longinus’s theory of the sublime.
The concept of propriety with reference to custom, subject, characters and sentiment recourse in almost all theorists and is often discussed in association with figures of speech, guan, dosa and rites.
Anandavardhana relates this principle specifically to rasa. It has been used for propriety in delineating bhavas according to character and in the choice of margas.
According to the speaker, content and type of literary composition areas, locations or sites of literary compositions where the concept of Auchitya is pertinent.