Paper 109: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics

 Paper No: 109 - Abhinavagupta - The Literary Critic and Commentator

This blog is part of assignment of Paper 109: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics

Topic:  Abhinavagupta - The Literary Critic and Commentator

Table of Contents: 

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract 

Keywords

Abhinavagupta’s Contribution to Sanskrit Poetics: A Critical Commentary on Dhvanyāloka

The Critical and Exegetical Significance of the Locana

Aesthetic Theory and Literary Philosophy

Originality and Critical Method

Abhinavagupta’s Unique Commentary Style

The Influence of Predecessors and Critics on Dhvani Theory

A Critical Academic Explanation of the Theory of Dhvani and its Controversies in Classical Indian Poetics

Personal Information: -

Name: - Manasi Joshi

Batch: - M.A. Sem 2 (2024-2026)

E-mail Address: -mansijoshi202@gmail.com

Roll Number: - 15

Assignment Details: -

Topic: Abhinavagupta - The Literary Critic and Commentator

Paper & subject code: - Paper 109: Abhinavagupta - The Literary Critic and Commentator

Submitted to: - Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar

Date of Submission: - April 17,2025

Abstract:

This article presents a comprehensive assessment of Abhinavagupta's contributions as a literary critic and commentator within the context of Sanskrit poetics and Indian aesthetic theory. Focusing on his interpretations of Rasa theory, particularly through his commentary on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka and Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, the study highlights Abhinavagupta’s intellectual depth and his integration of Kashmir Shaivism into literary analysis. The article emphasizes how Abhinavagupta refined earlier theories, making them philosophically rich and universally applicable. It also examines his role in shaping classical Indian aesthetics by offering original insights that extend beyond mere commentary, positioning him as a central figure in Indian literary tradition.

Keywords:

Abhinavagupta, Literary Criticism, Rasa Theory, Dhvanyāloka, Nāṭyaśāstra, Kashmir Shaivism, Sanskrit Poetics, Aesthetic Theory, Commentary Tradition, Indian Philosophy

Introduction

Abhinavagupta, a towering figure in Indian aesthetics and philosophy, holds a distinguished place in the history of literary criticism. Renowned as a philosopher, poet, and theologian, he is especially celebrated for his commentaries on the Nāṭyaśāstra and Dhvanyāloka, where he presents a refined and comprehensive theory of rasa (aesthetic experience). In the article “Abhinavagupta: The Literary Critic and Commentator (An Assessment)”, J. Tilakasiri offers a detailed evaluation of Abhinavagupta’s contributions to literary thought. The study explores his intellectual depth, his ability to synthesize diverse schools of thought, and his lasting influence on Indian poetics. Tilakasiri's assessment highlights how Abhinavagupta transcended mere commentary to become an original thinker, shaping the foundations of Indian literary theory.

About Topic

Abhinavagupta’s Contribution to Sanskrit Poetics: A Critical Commentary on Dhvanyāloka

Abhinavagupta’s Locana, a commentary on Ānandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka, represents a landmark in Sanskrit literary criticism. While Dhvanyāloka is acknowledged as the first systematic treatise on Sanskrit poetic theory—introducing the revolutionary concept of dhvani (suggestion) as the soul of poetry—the Locana serves not merely as an exegetical supplement, but as an independent and authoritative critical work in its own right.

The Critical and Exegetical Significance of the Locana

The Locana performs a dual function. On the one hand, it clarifies ambiguities in the original text of the Dhvanyāloka, assisting readers in interpreting complex references and resolving textual difficulties. On the other hand, it transcends the role of commentary by articulating original arguments and advancing the theoretical framework introduced by Ānandavardhana. In numerous instances, Abhinavagupta diverges from passive explanation and offers rigorous philosophical justifications and literary exemplifications for the theory of dhvani.

Aesthetic Theory and Literary Philosophy

Abhinavagupta’s distinctive contribution lies in his philosophical grounding of aesthetic experience (rasa) and poetic suggestion. He engages deeply with various schools of thought, particularly the logicians and metaphysicians, who challenge the legitimacy of aesthetic discourse. His response is not merely defensive but constructive: he presents aesthetic theory as an autonomous discipline rooted in a specific mode of cognition that is distinct from logical reasoning or doctrinal exposition.

Originality and Critical Method

In the latter sections of the Locana, Abhinavagupta frequently introduces his own citations and interpretations, thereby extending the boundaries of dhvani theory. He offers detailed analyses that illuminate Ānandavardhana’s often terse or elliptical statements. This tendency reflects not only his comprehensive grasp of the poetic tradition but also his commitment to refining and elaborating its theoretical underpinnings. As such, the Locana assumes the form of an original critical treatise embedded within a commentary.

Abhinavagupta’s Unique Commentary Style

Abhinavagupta’s style of commentary writing is far from ordinary. Though it may seem difficult to define a unique style in traditional commentaries like the Locana, his work clearly stands out. His deep learning, command of language, and wide-ranging knowledge reflect a sophisticated approach to interpretation and explanation. Abhinavagupta goes beyond the typical style of commentators; he blends clarity with philosophical depth. He uses a structured method: first stating a proposition, then exploring the original meaning, countering objections in a debate-like manner, and finally arriving at a conclusion. This approach shows his strength in logical reasoning and his flair for argumentative writing. Unlike many commentators who fall into the trap of using heavy, pedantic language, Abhinavagupta avoids excessive jargon and keeps his language as clear as possible within the complexity of his subject. Covering disciplines like philosophy, logic, and linguistics, his style remains methodical and precise. A good example of his clarity is his analysis of the dhvani theory in which he presents a logical sequence of arguments, carefully explaining each point. His style is both polemical and persuasive, showing that for him, commentary writing is not just about explanation, but also about engaging in philosophical debate.

The Influence of Predecessors and Critics on Dhvani Theory

Anandavardhana’s Dhvanyāloka, particularly as elaborated in the first and second Udyotas, demonstrates the intricate relationship between poetic theory and literary criticism. He draws upon, and responds to, the ideas of earlier critics such as Dandin, Bhamaha, Udbhata, and Vamana—collectively referred to as the alankārika tradition—who, though foundational in rhetorical analysis, failed to fully acknowledge the concept of dhvani (suggestion). Anandavardhana’s use of terms like prasiddhaprakāraṇa indicates his engagement with established doctrines, while his division of dhvani reflects a departure from the reductive notion that meaning is limited to direct denotation. Abhinavagupta, in his Locana commentary, expands upon Anandavardhana’s arguments, especially countering critics like Bhattanāyaka, and offers further literary illustrations, making his analysis a model of refined Sanskrit literary criticism. This mutual interplay of theory and critique not only strengthens the framework of dhvani but also elevates the act of interpretation into a nuanced and dialogic process.

A Critical Academic Explanation of the Theory of Dhvani and its Controversies in Classical Indian Poetics

The theory of Dhvani (suggestion) stands as a pivotal development in Indian aesthetics, marking a striking moment of confrontation between two major critical schools: the pro-Dhvani camp, which upheld the innovative insights of Anandavardhana, and the anti-Dhvani camp, which leaned on traditional frameworks of poetic evaluation. The emergence of Dhvani theory initiated a wave of intellectual turbulence within Indian literary theory, revealing deep-seated tensions.

The Rasa school, rooted in Bharata’s Natyashastra, had already provided a powerful interpretative tool that focused on the evocation of aesthetic experience (rasa). This theory posed a strong challenge to the Alankarikas, who emphasized rhetorical ornaments (alamkaras), yet it did not provide a comprehensive explanation for the subtle emotional and contextual implications conveyed through poetry, which the Dhvani theory attempted to address. While rasa was widely accepted, the concept of dhvani—meaning, suggestion or resonance—remained enigmatic, especially to the traditionalists. These traditional critics preferred the age-old criteria for literary evaluation and were reluctant to accept a new principle that could undermine their conventions.

After Anandavardhana formulated the theory of Dhvani in his seminal work Dhvanyaloka, a period of intense critical activity ensued. During this phase, dhvani and other related theories were subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Some critics rejected the theory outright, while others sought to accommodate or incorporate it within existing critical frameworks. This period can be described as one of theoretical fermentation, where ideas clashed, evolved, and occasionally found synthesis.

Within this intellectual climate, Locana, the celebrated commentary by Abhinavagupta on Dhvanyaloka, emerges as a systematic and reflective response to the various criticisms directed at the theory of dhvani. The Locana is not just a commentary; it is an interpretive enterprise aimed at resolving the numerous objections and misinterpretations raised by philosophical, grammatical, and logical schools. Abhinavagupta carefully assesses how these disciplines perceived the function of language and its role in conveying poetic meaning.

One of the key challenges Abhinavagupta addresses is the reconciliation of divergent and even diametrically opposed perspectives within Indian systems of logic and philosophy. His aim was to provide adequate evidentiary support to establish dhvani as a valid and essential criterion in the evaluation of poetry. This task was formidable, yet Abhinavagupta approached it with scholarly rigor and a mature attitude uncommon among ordinary commentators. His method demonstrates a profound grasp of poetics, epistemology, and linguistics.

In Locana, Abhinavagupta provides essential background knowledge by outlining the positions of the Nyaya, Mimamsa, and Vyakarana (grammar) schools regarding the functions of language. He pays particular attention to the Nyaya and Mimamsa theories of knowledge, as they are crucial for understanding how meaning is generated in language. These schools also explore the function of tatparya-shakti—the power of intended meaning—which precedes laksana (secondary or metaphorical meaning) and abhidha (literal meaning).

Abhinavagupta contrasts the views of the Naiyayikas and the Bhatta Mimamsakas, who maintain that verbal knowledge arises from yogyata (semantic compatibility), sannikarsa (contact with the senses), and akanksa (expectancy). They assert that the comprehension of meaning depends on a relational awareness among the individual word meanings within a sentence. This view contrasts sharply with the Prabhakara Mimamsakas, who argue that sentence meaning arises holistically, not from individual word meanings. According to them, it is only within a complete sentence that words attain meaning, producing knowledge of the mutual relationship (anvitabhidhanavada) between these meanings.

Abhinavagupta accepts abhidha and laksana as the first two functions of words but introduces vyanjana (suggestion) as a third, independent function—thereby refining and defending the theory of dhvani. While partially acknowledging the Bhatta theory that words produce meaning like firewood used in cooking (i.e., a mechanical process), he outright rejects the Prabhakara claim that abhidha alone is sufficient. The Prabhakaras attribute an extensive and flexible capacity to words, comparing them to an arrow that can hit multiple targets with one shot—indicating that words, by their literal meanings alone, can convey complex ideas.

Abhinavagupta also identifies the Mimamsakas as the very critics referred to by Anandavardhana, those who questioned the necessity of positing a new function of vyanjana. They argued that abhidha alone sufficed to convey the sentence's purport. In response, Abhinavagupta groups together the Bhatta, Prabhakara, and Vyakarana schools inasmuch as they all agree that comprehension of individual word meanings (padarthapratiti) leads to understanding the sentence meaning (vakyarthapratiti).

Abhinavagupta explains that the Bhatta view aligns with a utilitarian view of language, while the Prabhakaras see in abhidha a far-reaching semantic potential. In contrast, grammarians like Bhartṛhari assert that the understanding of meaning through words is something intuitive (sphota), setting them apart from Prabhakaras, who regard this knowledge as empirically real.

The Locana also takes into account the views of the Buddhists and Sankhya philosophers, especially in terms of comparing their perspectives on the nature and function of language. Abhinavagupta references criticisms found in Dhvanyaloka, particularly those directed at the Mimamsa theory, which posits that the relationship between word and meaning is both eternal and natural. He counters that if this premise were accepted, one would be forced to posit an adventitious semantic property (autpattika dharma) inherent in words but independent of denotation—a problematic claim, especially when explaining the difference between ordinary human speech and shruti (revealed, divine speech).

In this context, Abhinavagupta presents a refined model of meaning, suggesting that vyanjana (suggestion) is essential for capturing the full emotive and aesthetic power of poetic language. He challenges the reductionist views of rival schools and re-establishes dhvani as not merely a theoretical construct but as a necessary criterion for appreciating the richness of poetic expression.

Conclusion

Abhinavagupta’s Locana serves as both a defense and an elaboration of the dhvani theory. It methodically addresses and critiques the objections raised by various philosophical and linguistic schools. His commentary successfully integrates metaphysical, epistemological, and grammatical insights to uphold dhvani as central to poetic meaning, thereby influencing centuries of Indian aesthetic thought.

Reference 

Tilakasiri, J. “ABHINAVAGUPTA — The Literary Critic and Commentator (An Assessment).” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 47, no. 1/4, 1966, pp. 1–10. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41694198. Accessed 10 Apr. 2025.