Acharya's rIti

श्री गुरुभ्यो नमः

श्रीमदानन्दतीर्थभगवत्पादाचार्यगुरुभ्यो नमः हरिः ॐ

In MBTN 9th chapter, Shrimad Anandatirtha Bhagavatpadacharya mentions 3 literary tools, whose knowledge is mandatory to arrive at the meanings of Vedas and other scriptures:

त्रिभाषां यो न जानाति रीतिनां शतमेव च |

व्यत्यासादीन् सप्तभेदान् वेदाद्यर्थं तथा वदेत् |

स याति निरयं घोरं अन्यथाज्ञानसंभवम् ||

Without knowing the 3 types of Bhashas, the 100 riiti-s and the 7 bhedas (like vyatyaasa), whoever tells the meanings of Vedas etc. will obtain the terrible hell that is the consequence of wrong knowledge.

Tribhaasha = 3 types of bhAShA. Here 'bhAShA' does not mean a language but a certain kind of communication. A tenet is communicated directly (samAdhi) or through guhya (encoded) or as per another darshana (doctrine). Acharya himself has explained these in MBTN and in Bhagavata-tatparya. In fact, in Bhagavata-tatparya, while explaining the 'vichitra-bhAShA-vitatAM' (as an adjective of veda), he mentions 81 bhASha-types (based on 4 levels of granularity of these three types of bhAShA).

The Alankara text, Kaavyaadarsha, mentions 4 bhashas : sanskrit, praakrita, apabhramsha and mishra (mixed). They are different languages (i.e. different sets of words, sometimes similar), though Prakrit etc are said to be derived from Samskrita. The 3 bhAShas mentioned by Acharya and in Bhagavata 11th skandha (11.21.40: विचित्रभाषाविततां छन्दोभिश्चतुरुत्तरैः) are different from the ones mentioned in Alankara granthas because the former are all in 'samskrita' - which is one of the bhAShas mentioned in latter. More importantly, the characteristics of these bhAShas i.e. guhya etc. are also different.

The 7 bhedas are seven types of narration. Acharya has mentioned these in the same context i.e. 9th chapter in MBTN and explained their usage (like puruSha vyatyasa) in other texts. Additional details on the 7 bhedas are available in a fragment of a लक्षण ग्रन्थ*.

But what about the 100 Riti-s? The commentators on MBTN, esp Shri Vadiraja tirtha, mention a few. The term riiti however is mentioned in the texts related to Alankaara.

Kaavyaadarsha mentions 6 predominant types of rIti - also called marga. The 6 are vaidarbhI, gauDii, Paanchaali, avantikA, laaTiyaa, maagadhI. However, among these only vaidarbhI and gauDI are only clearly distinct; the other 4 largely overlap. Mammata's Kavyaprakasha mentions 3 of these. VaidarbhI rIti employs softer vowels, while gauDi rIti uses harder vowels. The names - Vaidarbhi and Gaudi are derived from the regions where their usage is predominant - south of Vindhyas, starting with Vidarbha using VaidarbhI, while the eastern parts using Gaudi.

These rItis of Alankara shaastra have no bearing on the meaning imparted, but only on alliteration (prAsa). On the other hand, the riitis mentioned by Acharya have a bearing on the meaning. So we can say that these are different.

Shri Vadiraja tirtha's illuminating commentary, which is referred to by another commentator Shri Varadaraaja, on this MBTN verse mentions vaidarbhI rIti, gauDI-riiti and other rItis like the Veda using a unique word to indicate that it is not composed by anybody, not completing a sandhi etc. He refers to few grammatical "variances" as being indicative of some meaning. He does not say further on the Vaidarbhi and Gaudi ritis. However and despite having the same nomenclature and characteristics, they seem to be different from the ones mentioned in Alankara shaastra.

The general public perception is that Shrimad Acharya has not given any details on these Ritis. But that is not right. He has mentioned one Riti - called Aantarii Riti - in his Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya 11th skandha 3rd adhyaaya.

बहूनां सहनिर्देश एकया अभिधययैव तु |

तयैव अभिधया तेषां परामृश्य एकमुच्यते |

तां एतां आन्तरीं रीतिं विदुः शब्दविदो जनाः ||

"Consider a word with multiple meanings. In the same text, that word is used in one place to refer to many of those meanings, but in a subsequent usage, only one referent is meant. Such a usage is called AntarI rIti" (or Antaranga rIti, as one commentator puts it).

The Bhagavata verse where Acharya's commentary mentions this rIti, is a good case for an illustration. The context is about the usage of the word mAyA.

Though most non-dvaitins, esp the advaitins associate only one sense, that of falsity (like in ‘mAyAmRga’), the texts indicate more meanings. The nighanTu 3.9 (and thereby Yaska) counts mAyA among the synonyms of Prajnaa - knowledge / wisdom. Shvetashvatara mentions Prakriti as a referrent of the word mAyA. The Rik 'indro mAyAbhiH pururUpa Iyate' indicates Maya to be something that can be plural, and some sort of mysterious powers. The words 'devamAyA' or ‘AtmamAyA’ also indicate a meaning of innate prowess / competence, and as something that is under a Being's control. Thus only the uninformed insist on the sense of falsity being the only meaning of the word ‘mAyA’. Acharya's works give more meanings: ichchhA (wish), shakti (prowess), Lakshmi’s name and at places, Vishnu himself.

In the current context

1. King Nimi asks the sages to tell about Bhagavan’s Maya.

2. The sage Antariksha briefly tells the process of Creation and Pralaya, and ends with a narration that Vishnu-mAyA, the trivarNA, is responsible for Creation etc.

3. King Nimi then asks them to explain the method by which he can cross over this Ishvara mAyA.

4. Another sage, Prabuddha explains the process by which Vishnu-mAyA can be overcome.

Vishnu-mAyA in general refers to both Vishnu’s will and Prakriti. Antariksha refers to both as trivarNA and responsible for Creation etc. Prakriti is called trivarNA because the 3 guNas are colored white, red and black. Since Vishnu’s will chooses (varaNa) the 3 guNas to manifest, it is referred as trivarNA.

But in Nimi’s subsequent question on crossing the mAyA and in Prabuddha’s answer, mAyA refers only to Prakriti. Prakriti can be crossed over. Vishnu’s will is the mAyA that helps us to cross.

Thus in the first usage, both referents of mAyA word are meant. In the latter usage, only one is referred. This method of narration is called AntarI-rIti (or Antaranga rIti). In this case,

In regular usage, even if the word has multiple meanings, only that which fits the context is considered. For example, the word saindhavam in ‘saindhavam aanaya’ refers to salt, if used during meals, and refers to a horse, if used during travel. But in vedic texts, all non-conflicting referents are meant.

Another good example for this AntarI rItiH is in Gita 13.20. The verse says both Purusha and Prakriti are beginningless. Here, the Purusha refers to both Jiva and Paramatma. However, in the next verse which says Purusha is subject to sukha and duHkha, the Purusha refers to jIva only. And in 13.23 (bhoktA maheshvaraH.. puruShaH paraH), the Purusha refers to only Paramatma. Shri Raghavendra swami points this example in his commentary bhAvadIpa on AnandamayAdhikaraNa and in his commentary on Sri Vyasatirtha’s Tatparya chandrikA.

As usual, Shrimad Anandatirtha Bhagavatpadacharya's rIti (method) shows us the way in understanding scriptures.

श्री मध्वेशकृष्णार्पणमस्तु |

p.s. MBTN published by Shri V.Prabhanjanacharya has this fragment.