Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/007023/1

Page #1

Studies In Sanskrit
Sahitya-Sastra
V. M. Kulkarni M.A., Ph.D.
॥विस
BHOGILAL
FINDOLOGY
EHERCHA
ISTITUT
BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY
PATAN

Page #2

Studies in Sanskrit Sahitya-Śästra One important feature of the papers presented in this collection is that they mainly deal with topics which have not yet received adequate scholarly attention which they deserve. In these papers an attempt is made to elucidate certain obscure and doubtful points of poetics by a comparative and critical study, or to throw fresh light on certain other problems, or to bring to light certain facts for the first time. No history of Sanskrit literature or work on Sanskrit poetics deals critically and exhaustively with topics like Plagiarism, Poetic conventions, Poetic truth, Intonation (Kaku) Sandhis in the Sanskrit drama or Prakrit Verses in Alamkara works.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
V. M. Kulkarni, Director, B. L. Institute of Indology, Patan, formerly Professor of Sanskrit and Prakrit (Maharashtra Educational Service, Class I) and Director of Languages, Maharashtra State, has taught Sanskrit and Prakrit Literature, Sanskrit Poetics and Aesthetics for several years. Besides contributing critical articles and notes to Encyclopaedias in English and Marathi he has published over eighty papers and critical reviews in various research Journals of repute.
As an Editor he has to his credit:
(A)
(1) Spigārārṇavacandrika of Vijayavarni: A work dealing with Sanskrit poetics, critically edited on the basis of a very rare manuscript, published by Bharatiya Jnanapitha, Delhi.
(2) Jayadeva's
Gitagovinda with
hitherto unpublished commentary of King Mänänka, published by L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.

Page #3

B. L. Series No. 1
General Editor : V. M. Kulkarni
Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya-Sastra
(A Collection of Selected Papers relating to Sanskrit Poetics and Aesthetics)
by
V. M. Kulkarni M. A., Ph. D.
Director, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology, Patan
(Formerly Professor and Head of the Department of Sanskrit (and Prakrit), Elphinstone College, Bombay, and Director of Languages, Maharashtra State)
A
B. L. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY
PATAN
Institut
Indology

Page #4

Published by
V. M. Kulkarni
Director,
B. L. Institute of Indology, Patan
First Edition: 1983 Price Rs. 60-00
Can be had from
Saraswati Pustak Bhandar, 112, Hathikhana, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad-380001
Printed by
Saraswati Compose Work
5, Sterling Centre, Khanpur, Ahmedabad.

Page #5

In memory of
Shalini, my wife

Page #6

ज्ञान-क्रियाम्यां मोक्षः ।
तज्ज्ञानमेव न भवति
यस्मिन्नुदिते विभाति राग-गणः । तमसः कुतोऽस्ति शक्ति
दिनकर-किरणाग्रतः स्थातुम् ॥
रुचीनां वैचित्र्यादृजुकुटिलनानापथजुषां
नृणामेको गम्यस्त्वमसि पयसामर्णव इव ॥

Page #7

SETH BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND
Born: 9th April, 1883
Died: 7th December, 1979
MOTTO IN LIFE
'Simple living-High thinking'

Page #8


Page #9

Preface
The Institute has decided to bring out a series of books and monographs on different aspects of Indology. Our primary aim is to cover field which has not yet attracted the attention of scholars. We also propose to publish books on subjects in which a re-examination of some of the much-discussed subjects has become necessary.
I am happy to place in the hands of scholars, interested in Sanskrit Poetics and Aesthetics, my Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya-Sastra (A Collection of Selected Research Papers relating to Sanskrit Literary Criticism and Aesthetics). Of these, one paperKalpalatäviveka on Bhämaha's Kävyalamkāra (Ch. V. v 5-10) is being published here for the first time. The others have appeared, from time to time, in various journals and magazines-as acknowledged in 'First Publication towards the end of the book. One important feature of the papers presented in this collection is that they deal with topics which have not yet received adequate scholarly attention which they deserve. In these papers I have attempted to elucidate certain obscure and doubtful points of poetics by a comparative and critical study, or to throw fresh light on certain other problems, or to bring to light certain facts for the first time. I earnestly hope scholars working in the field would find these studies interesting and stimulating.
B. L. Institute of Indology Patan (North Gujarat) 31 December 1982
V. M. Kulkarni
Director

Page #10

Acknowledgements
It is a pleasant duty to thank those who have helped me in one way or the other with my work. I have no words to express adequately my indebtedness to Prof. R. B. Athavale who has in the course of stimulating discussions over the past several years, given me the benefit of his profound knowledge of Alamkāra-śästra.
I cannot express in words what I owe to the late Pandit Balacharya Khuperkar Shastri of Kolhapur, a very eminent and erudite Pandit, gifted with rare critical insight. I am deeply indebted to the late Professor K. V. Abhyankar, who was my guide for the Doctorate thesis and to my Professors, the Jlate Dr. A. N. Upadhye, and Dr. A. M. Ghatage for initiating me into the Prakrit studies and providing stimulus for doing serious research work. I wish to thank my old friends, Prof. C. N. Patel, Prof. V. V. Yardi, Dr. G. S. Bedagkar and Prof. R. B. Patankar-all Professors of English-for reading through the original type-scripts of my papers and making numerous corrections in the English text. I am however, entirely responsible for any short-comings and imperfections that there might be in the book.
I am grateful to the authorities of the Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology for their keen and active interest in my work and their willingness to bring out the present book as their first publication. I am obliged to my friend, Prof. Suresh J. Dave, for reading the proofs. I express my thanks to Shri Ashwin Shah, Proprietor, Saraswati Pustak Bhandar, Ahmedabad for the beautiful printing and get up.
I tender thanks to the authorities of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, the Indological Research Institute, Dwarka, the Chunilal Gandhi Vidyabhavan, Surat, the Gujarat College, Ahmedabad, the Anantacharya Indological Research Institute. Bombay and the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, who readily gave permission to include in the present book the papers first published in their Journals, etc...
I gratefully acknowledge that the two papers (1) The Problem of Patākāsthānaka and (2) Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses In Alamkāra Works, have been reprinted from the Journals of the University with the due permission of the University of Bombay and that the copyright of the papers Vests with the University.
V. M. Kulkarni B. L. Institute of Indology Kanasano Pado Patan (North Guiarat) 31st December 1982.

Page #11

CONTENTS
Page
Preface Acknowledgements
Abbreviations 1 Sanskrit Writers on Plagiarism 2 Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Conventions 3 The Treatment of Intonation (Kāku) In Sanskrit Poetics 4 Abhinavabhārati Text-Restored 5 Kalpalatāviveka on Abhinavabhārati
6 Abhinavabhārati CH, VII Recovered ? .7 The Conception of Sandhis In The Sanskrit Drama
8 The Problem of Patākāsthānaka 9 Bhāmaha on Grammar In Relation To Poetry 10 Kalpalatāviveka on Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra 11 Fresh Light On Bhämaha-Vivarana 12 Rati-Vilāpa, Devisambhogavarṇana And Alamkārikas 13 The Sources of Hemacandra's Kāvyānušāsana 14 Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses In Alamkāra Works 15 The Hari-vijaya of Sarvasena 16 The Jaina View of Aesthetic Experience
Appendix – Sanskrit Rhetoricians On Poetic Truth Addendum Index First Publication Errata
109 117
123 · 130 134 149 155 162
180

Page #12

ABBREVIATIONS
(Note: As the editions of all the major works, consulted in the course of these Studies, have already been mentioned in the foot-notes, no separate Bibliography is added.)
Abhi. Bha/A.Bh/Abh
Bhāmaha
BP
BV
Dandin/Dandi
Dhv
DR
Gnoli
GOS
H C/Hc
HV
KD
KANE
KAS/KS
Kavik
KLV
KM
KP
Locana
ND/N.D.
NL
N.S./NS
2 ឌ ៖
PR
RS
SD
SK
SP
Sr. Pra
Vāmana
Veni
VJ
VV
:
Abhinavabharat!, Abhinavagupta's commentary on Natyadastra, GOS ed., Baroda.
on the
: Kävyälaṁkāra
Bhavaprakadana of Saradatanaya
: Bhāmahavivaraṇa
: Kävyädarsa
: Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana.
: Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya
R. Gnoli, author of "the Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta"
: Gaekwad's Oriental Series.
Hemacandra/Hemacandra's Kävyānusāsana
: Hari-vijaya
: Kavyadarśa of Dandi
: P. V. Kane, author of "History of Sanskrit Poetics"
: Kävyänusāsana of Hemacandra
: Kavikanthäbharana
: Kalpalatäviveka (Anonymous)
: Kävyam!mämsä of Rajasekhara
: Kävyaprakāda of Mammata (Jhalkikar's ed., BORI, Pune).
: Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Dhvanyaloka
: Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra, (GOS ed., Baroda, 1959)
: Nataka-laksana-ratna-kola
: Natyaästra of Bharata (Baroda ed.)
: Prataparudrayaśobhüṣaṇa/Prataparudriya
:
Rasarnavasudhakara
: Sahityadarpana
: Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharana
: Srngaraprakasa (Mysore ed.).
Bhoja's Srngara-Prakasa (by Dr. V. Raghavan)
: Kāvyālaṁkāra-sūtra
: Venisamhāra
Vakrokti-Jivita
: Vyaktiviveka

Page #13

SANSKRIT WRITERS ON. PLAGIARISM
In the interpretation of the masterpieces of poets it is necessary for a proper appreciation of their services to poetic art to trace parallels in the general cast, framework, modes of expression, diction and style and the germ, the spirit and the sentiments and the like, whether arising from direct imitation, unconscious reminiscence or similarity of temper and creative genius. Such an investigation raises the important and interesting problem of plagiarism. What do we mean by plagiarism ? What does originality mean? Is it indeed possible for later poets to strike out a thought or to coin a phrase, which shall be purely original ? Is plagiarism altogether to be condemned ? Has it possibly any merit ? Can one steal from the writings of others at discretion ? When does literary theft become a crime ? Who can commit literary picking and stealing with impunity ? These and such other kindred questions crowd on one's mind when one begins to think of plagiarism. It is the object of this paper to search thoroughly the works of eminent Sanskrit Alamkārikas with a view to finding their answers to such questions, to point out the obligations, if any, of later Alamkārikas to their predecessors in this matter and incidentally to compare their views with those of some celebrated Western writers.
The dictionary meaning of the word 'plagiarism' is : "an appropriation or copying from the work of another, in literature or art, and the passing off of the same as original"; and of the word 'original : "that has served as pattern, of which copy has been made, not derivative or dependent, first-hand, not imitative, novel in character or style, inventive; creative". Keeping in mind these meanings of the two vital words one may set one's hand to task. The author of the Mahābhārata proudly declares :
धर्मे चार्थे च कामे च मोक्षे च भरतर्षभ । - यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यन्नेहास्ति न कुत्रचित् ॥
- Parvan XVIII ch. 5. v. 50 Perhaps, this verse-especially the second hemistich-was responsible for the oftquoted saying : wallogg I Han l'There is nothing in the world that is untouched by Vyāsa'. Lovers of Bāna are fond of saying 'tong Na Hal Exaggeration apart, the suggestion is : there is hardly anything great that can have escaped observation of former writers.
Vākpatirāja, the author of Gaudavaho-a Prakrit epic (A. D. 760-725), however. boldly says :
"The ancient poets committed mistakes owing to the times in which they lived, when there were no beaten paths for them to follow whereas now many poets are led in vain to attempt difficult tasks executed by their predecessors. Where, it is asked, is there anything, indeed, previously unseen in the regions travelled by

Page #14

Studies in
.
former poets ? But in truth the borders being excepted, everything is new to modern poets. The minds of ordinary poets wander greatly in search of a subject, whereas subjects come to the hearts of great poets without any effort on their part to find them. The province of poetry, although daily drawn on by great poets from the very beginning of the universe, remains even to date as unlimited as ever before".
Bāņa (C.A.D. 620) in his introductory verses to Harşacarita speaks of 'Kukavi's (bad poets, poetasters) Utpadaka-Kavis (poets of creative genius) and of the so-called poets that are merely plagiarists. He distinctly condemns the poetasters and plagiarists :
"Innumerable are the poets to be found in each house that can write only plain and matter of fact descriptions, like dogs (that are also numberless). By modifying phrases or the words of other poets and hiding the distinctive signs of authorship, a poet without being expressly declared to be so is revealed to be a thief -a plagiarist in the midst of the good".2
Among the Alamkārikas, Vāmana, the author of the Kāvyālamkārasutra (A. D. 800), is the first who classifies the subject-matter (Artha) in poetry and vaguely refers to plagiarism. His classification of Artha may be shown in a tabular form as follows:
अर्थः
अयोनिः
अन्यच्छायायोनिः
व्यक्तः
सूक्ष्मः
व्यक्तः
सूक्ष्मः
भाव्यः वासनीयः
भाव्यः
वासनीयः कालाणा पढम-कईहि भमियमपरिगहेसु मग्गेस । इहरा मईहिं हीरति दुक्कर के वि काणं पि ॥' कत्तो णाम णइटें सच्चं कइ-सेविएसु मग्गेसु । सीमंते उण मुक्कम्मि तम्मि सव्वं णवं चेअ॥. अस्थालोअण-तरला इअर-कईणं भमंति बुद्धीओ। अत्थ च्चेअ णिरार भौति हिमश्र कइंदाण ॥ आसंसार कइ-पुंगवेहि तद्दिअह-गहिअ-सारो वि । अज्ज वि अभिण्ण-मुद्दो व्व जअइ वाआ-परिप्फदो ||-Gaudavaho, v. 84-87 सन्ति श्वान इवासंख्या जातिभाजो गृहे गृहे । उत्पादका न बहवः कवयः शरभा इव ॥ अन्यवर्ण-परावृत्त्या बन्धचिहूननिगृहनैः ।। अनाख्यातः सतां मध्ये कविश्चौरो विभाव्यते ॥-vv 5-6 These verses yield different meanings also for which, see Kane's notes to Harşacarita, Chapter I.

Page #15

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
'Artha' in fcetiy may te original or cerivative. Both these varieties have each three subdivisions: 1) that which is easily intelligible, 2) that which is subtle but can be grasped after giving some thought to it and 3) that which is subtle and is understood only after very careful attention and deep thought. ..
As is clear from this exposition Vāmana simply vaguely touches the topic of plagiarism and leaves it there.
It is Anandavardhana, the author of the Dhvanyaloka (an epoch-making work in the history of Kāvya-śāstra, A.D. 850-875) who, in the interests of later poets sets forth a clear exposition of the topic of originality and literary theft. His views may briefly be summarised as follows:
The words of a later poet, even if they may correspond to his predecessor's, gain freshness and novelty when they are used to convey a suggested sense. The province of poetry is unlimited owing to the almost infinite varieties of the suggested sense in spite of the fact that hundreds of poets have composed works for centuries. Good poets can celebrate the events and episodes of the world in their poems, at their sweet will, making them to convey any of the divisions or sub-divisions of
dhvani'-suggested sense. The thoughts of old poets when made to glow with some suggested sense, appear new-like the trees in the spring. The subject-matter of poetry attains novelty also when the later poets employ suggestive words etc. A poet, who composes his poetry having regard to the suggestive sense and the suggestive words definitely imparts newness to his subject. For instance, the descriptions of battle etc. in the works like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata though frequent, appear very new. If one is gifted with creative genius, there would be no paucity of subjects in spite of the fact that there already exist numerous works of former poets.
The statement that there are infinite subjects of poetry if only we take into consideration the infinite varieties of dhvani is also equally true of the expressed sense. Objects, sentient and insentient are distinct in their very nature. In the context of time, place and their modifications they further present multifarious facets. The almost infinite facets being capable of poetic treatment can never be exhausted even if they are drawn on by countless poets, known for their mastery of language, to say nothing of the mediocre poets. 3. Th: editor of the Kávyamimāṁsā (Baroda edition) says in his notes that Vāmana 'discovered
that there are three distinct divisions of it' (p.220). Obviously the statement is incorrect. 4. Cf : 3917 P art dateret: Tilfa: 1
यथास्मै रोचते विश्व तथेदं परिवर्तते ॥ शगारी चेत् कविः काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत् । स एव वीतरागश्चेन्नीरसं सर्वमेव तत् ॥ भावानचेतनानपि चेतनवच्चेतनानचेतनवत् । antitela 70 la: 107 Elara ll - Dhvanyaloka III. 42-43 (p. 498)

Page #16

Studies in
Again, the striking modes of expression lend novelty to the subject-matter of poetry. To sum up :
The subject-matter of poetry, as it has infinite varieties can never be exhausted even though thousands and thousands of gifted poets might draw on them even as Praksti, from which the different worlds evolved in the past and will evolve in the future can never be exhausted. Even then literature is full of coincidences on account of similarities of poetic temper and creative genius among great poets. But a wise man should not detect plagiarism in such coincidences.
Now, this correspondence or resemblance between the works of two poets may be like that of 'bimba' and 'pratibimba' (prototype and copy, or a' thing and its image) an object and its picture or between two human beings.? Of these three kinds of matter a good poet should avoid the first (pratibimba-kalpa) as it is devoid of any originality either in word or thought (lit. its soul is the same and has no really different body). He should also aviod second (Alekhyaprakhya) for, though it has a different garb, it has little of originality (lit. though possessed of a different body, it is really speaking, devoid of a soul). He, however, should not avoid the third kind, viz., Tulyadehivat, for here though the subject-matter between the two works resembles, their style and diction are entirely different and charming; it is evident that resemblance between two living beings does not mean their identity.10
This much about the resemblance between the ideas of two poets. There is absolutely no harm if there is resemblance between the senses of a few words of the two poems. For even Vācaspati-the Lord of Speech-cannot create any new letters or words. If the same letters and words are repeated, they do not necessarily go against originality. Whatever is beautiful here, when it is represented in poetry, causes delight to the 'rasikas'. A good poet never invites censure by presenting in his poetry such a matter as bears correspondence to that of an old poet. Sarasvati herself favours a good poet, who never thinks of plagiarism, by revealing to him the desired artha and here lies the greatness of great poets. 5. 9198 HTUT HER Fa: 1
निबद्धा सा क्षयं नंति प्रकृतिर्जगतामिव ॥ 6. #91973 Harita al RA HÀ7814 |
नैकरूपतया सर्वे ते मन्तव्या विपश्चिता ।। 7. HET EFTER aga: yaratatata
आलेख्याकारवत् तुल्यदेहिवच्च शरीरिणाम् ।। 8. तत्र पूर्व प्रतिबिम्बकल्पं काव्यवस्तु परिहर्तव्यं सुमतिना । यतस्तदनन्यात्मतात्त्विकशरीरशून्यम् ॥
Dhvanyaloka IV. 10-12 and Vịtti on IV. 13 9. DGTFATHISE TEETHTATET TIRYTHI T HA #107 1-Dhvanyāloka (IV.3) Vštti. 10. तृतीयं तु विभिन्नकमनीयशरीरसद्भावे सति ससंवादमपि काव्यवस्तु न त्यक्तव्यं कविना । न हि शरीरी
Titta EStet cala eta 704 1-Dhvanyāloka (IV.13) Vrtti.

Page #17

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
Rājasekhara (First quarter of the tenth century A. D.) is the next writer, who treats of plagiarism in his Kävyamimāmsā, 'a brilliant miscellany on topics relating to Poetry'.11 His exposition of this topic may briefly be set forth as follows :
Plagiarism means an appropriation of the words and ideas from the work of another (and passing them off as his own). It is two-fold : i) that which should be avoided, and ii) that which should be adopted. Of the two kinds of plagiarism (viz., one of words and another of ideas) that of words alone is five-fold, arising from 1 a 'pada' (word, term) 2 a 'pada' (quarter of a stanza) 3 'ardha' (a hemistich) 4 "Vrita' (metre) and 5 'Prabandha' (a long continuous composition). 'Borrowing one word does not bring discredit to the later poet-this is the view of Rājasekhara's Acārya. Rājasekhara, however, holds that it is correct povided the word borrowed is not double-meaning. He then illustrates how a double-meaning word can be borrowed bodily or in part, by way of ‘yamaka' and so on. Then he raises an objection against the advice of borrowing from others saying "while all other thefts committed by a person pass away by lapse of time, literary theft endures even to sons and grandsons;12 but he cites his wife Avantisundari's excuses for plagiarism, whether in words or ideas. Thus the plagiary may say, 'I have a reputation, he has none; I enjoy a secure position, he is a climber; this is inappropriate in him, appropriate in me; his words are like a tonic (guļ ūci-a very useful medicinal plant) mine like 'wine' (Mşdvikā-a bunch of grapes), that is, our styles are different; he ignores specialities of dialect, I attend to them (or I choose a good language, say Sanskrit, for my composition, he has chosen Prakrit); no one knows that he is the author, the author lives a long way off; the book he wrote is obsolete; this is the work of a foreigner'.
Rajasekhara's Ācārya holds that the appropriation of more than three words, that are not double-meaning, (in sequence) is plagiarism. Rājšekhara disagrees with him on this point saying any striking expression of an earlier poet should not be borrowed by later poets. Even a pada or a quarter of a stanza containing words that can be readily identified as the composition of an earlier writer, should be considered as an example of plagiarism. His Acārya holds the view that if a quarter of an earlier stanza is borrowed by a later poet, with a view to conveying an
opposite idea, it should be called not plagiarism but adaptation. He, however, • clearly says such adaptations are nothing but plagiarism. Likewise borrowing of half
11. Chapters XI-XIII, both inclusive. 12. t#: srfagida Triaritafa
afa gag dag 1177 7 aftaifa il-p. 57
Rājasekhara merely quotes the excuses for plagiarism; normally, he, in such cases, either shows his approval or disapproval. May be, he does not here intend to offend his wife. Later on, however, he denounces it in words:
यत्तु परकीय स्वीयमिति प्रोक्तानामन्यतमेन कारणेन विलपन्ति, तन्न केवलं हरणम् , अपि तु दोषोदाहरणम् ।
-p. 61

Page #18

Studies in
the verse or of one quarter from one half and of another from the other half constitutes plagiarism. If a later poet adopts an earlier verse after changing a quarter, which serves to change the idea completely it is not adaptation but plagiarism of three quarters from a former poet. When, however, three quarters (having different meaning, i.e.) that are apparently unconnected are appropriately connected with one quarter of his by a later poet, we call that stanza original.13 If a later poet substitutes some words in a quarter of an earlier stanza keeping the rest in tact, it is surely plagiarism. This is also the case if the later poet introduces slight changes only in parts of words, keeping the rest as it is. If a later poet intèrprets a verse of a former poet in an altogether different way, it also is called plagiarism for the earlier poet has had in mind both the senses. If one claims on the basis of one or the other circumstance mentioned above that a particular stanza or poem is his own, though really it is not original then it is the worst kind of plagiarism. This applies to both a 'muktaka' (a detached stanza, the meaning of which is complete in itself ) and a prabandha (a literary work). If one gets works written for money and passes them off as his own, that too is nothing but plagiarism. It is better if one fails to win fame than to incur ignominy. 14 'Borrowing of 'uktis' (expressions) too is plagiarism'this is the view of his Acārya. 'Expressions that are, however, made to convery a different sense are not detected as borrowed but appreciated; if they are, on the contrary used in the same sense, they deserve to be condemned as the worst kind of plagiarism--this is the view of Rajasekhara.
Rājasekhara sums up the discussion thus : "there is no poet that is not a theif, no merchant that does not cheat, but he flourishes without reproach who knows how to hide his theft1o. One poet is a creator "Utpadaka', another an adapter 'Parivartaka', another a coverer up 'Acchādaka', another a collector 'Samvargaka'. He who here sees something new in word, sense, phrase and writes up something old may be accounted a great poet."
"In the poet's province there is hardly anything left untouched by ancient poets. A modern poet should, therefore, endeavour to better what the ancients have said”-this is the view of his Acārya. Vākpati, however, disagrecs with him16. Then he refers to some views of some people about a careful study of the early poetical works on the part of a poet. One view is that the great have similarities of poetic genius and temper and present identical thoughts!?; to avoid such coincidences or
13. This means a kind of Samasyäpürana. 14. मूल्यक्रयोऽपि हरणमेव । वरमप्राप्तियशसो न पुनर्दुर्यशः । 15. HIRUENT: a a afort: स नन्दति विना वाच्य यो जानाति निगुहितुम् ॥
Cf. This poet is that poet's plagiary
And he a third's till they all end in Homer'. Harpax in Albumazar. 16. His view is already mentioned above. Rājasekhara here translated his Prakrit verse No. 87.
into Sanskrit with a few unimportant changes. 17. RAHI RE fra 67: 1-this is after Anandavardhana.

Page #19

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
resemblances a poet should study the works of earlier poets. Rajasekhara disagress saying that one, possessed of a literary eye intuitively knows what is touched and what is not. Sarasvati makes words and senses flash on the mind of great poets even if they be asleep. An inferior poet although awake, is really blind to them. Great poets are blind in so far as other's poems are considered. As regards things unobserved by their predecessors they have a divine vision. What poets can see with their naked eye, even the three-eyed god Śiva or the thousand-eyed Indra, cannot see. In the mirror of the poet's intellect, the whole universe is, as it were, reflected. Words and their senses, of their own accord and with eagerness crowd on good poets. Poet's speech easily sees what Yogins, who have mastered the power of concentration, can see.
All this is true, however one may note that 'artha' (idea or matter) is threefold अवयोनिः 2 निहनुतयोनिः and 3 अयोनिः of these अन्ययोनि has two subdivisions, so too faga; af has no sub-division. Thus there are five divisions of artha. All these may be represented here in a tabular form:
अर्थ
प्रतिबिम्बकल्पः
अन्ययोनिः 1
7
आलेख्यप्ररूपः
निड्नुतयोनिः
अयोनिः
तुल्यदे हितुल्यः
परपुरप्रवेश सदृशः
Dependence upon the poems of great poets is seen in some cases in the form of 1. Pratibimbakalpa-"Where the sense is the same entirely, but the setting is in other experessions,
that poem, not fundamentally different; would be a sort of imaging".
2. Alekhyaprakhya-by way of 'copy-sketch':
"Through a moderate elaboration of particulars a subject appears as if different: such a poem is by experts in the matter termed a 'copy-sketch' !
3. Tulyadehitulya-by way of 'corporeal equivalence":
Where despite difference of matter identity is apprehended through extreme
resemblance,
That poem, similar by 'corporeal equivalence', even clever men compose."
4. Parapurapravesapratima (sadṛśa)-by way of 'foreign-city-entrance' :
Where there should be substantial identity, but the garnishing is widely divergent

Page #20

Studies in
- That poem, similar by 'foreign-city-entrance'-may be engage the thoughts of poets”-Even excellent poets adopt this mode. 1 8
Ayoni-artha is the matter which is not derived from the works of the former poets and is cntirely original. It is three fold : 1 Laukika 2 Alaukika and 3 Miśra.
The four kinds of 'artha' are further subdivided each into eight different classes. These thirty-two sub-divisions may be represented as follows:
18. 'And of these four the superiority is in ascending order'. -'Viveka' of Hemacandra.
Rājasekhara then defines five kinds of poets who compose poems on these and ‘ayoni-artha' respectively and are named,
1. Bhrämaka 2 Cumbaka 3 Karşaka 4 Drāvaka and 5 Cintamani.

Page #21

अर्थः
Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
प्रतिबिम्बकल्पः
आलेख्यप्रख्यः
तुल्यदेहितुल्यः
परपुरप्रवेशसदृशः
व्यत्यस्तकः
खण्डम् तेलबिन्दुः
नटनेपथ्यम्
छन्दोविनिमयः हेतुव्यत्ययः
सङक्रान्तकम्
सम्पुटः
समक्रमः विभूषणमोषः व्युत्क्रमः विशेषोक्तिः उत्तसः नवनेपथ्यम् एकपरिकार्यः प्रत्यापत्तिः
विषयपरिवर्तः द्वन्द्रविच्छित्तिः रत्नमाला सङ्ख्यालेखः चूलिका विधानापहारः माणिक्यपुञ्जः कन्दः
हुडयुद्धम्
प्रतिकञ्चुकम् वस्तुसंचारः
धातुवादः
सत्कारः
जीवञ्जीवकः
भावमुद्रा
तद्विरोधी(-धिनी)

Page #22

i0
Studies in
These thirty-two varieties are defined as follows:
1. Vyatyastakaḥ-In this variety the 'artha' is the same but there is an inversion of the natural order.
2. Khandam-Adopting, but partially, the same 'artha'.
3. Tailabi dub-Developing or enlarging the idea (of an earlier poet) given in brief. 4. Naṭanepathyam-Expressing the import of an earlier poem in a different language by means of translation.
5. Chandovinimayah-Expressing the same import in a different metre.
6. Hetuvyatyayah-Expressing the same 'artha' by reversing its cause.
7. Sankrantakam-Transferring what is mentioned by an earlier poet with reference to one thing to another thing in his poem by a later poet.
8. Samputab-Combining in a concise manner the import of two different stanzas belonging to earlier poets.
This eight-fold Pratibimbakalpa
'artha' must, at all costs, be avoided as it would ruin all chances of winning fame as a poet. For in poetry if the same matter is found in a different poem, it is not looked upon as different just as in ordinary life the reflection of one's body in a mirror is not regarded different from one's body. The eight sub-divisions of Alekhyaprakhya :
1. Samakramah-When a later poet transfers the description of a thing given by an earlier poet to another that is similar.20
2. Vibhstanamoşah-Reproducing the same description after stripping it off of its embellishments.
3. Vyutkramah-Inversion of the order in which a particular thing is described. 4. Visefoktib-Describing in detail what has been said in general.
5. Uttathsah-Adopting as the principal what was given as subsidiary..
6. Navanepathyam-Giving the same thing a new appearance by means of new style. 7. Ekaparikaryah When a later poet changes the object of description but adopts the same style, this variety arises.
8. Pratyapattiḥ-When a later poet describes the thing in its own state which was represented by an earlier poet as altered or changed.
Rajasekhara approves of this kind (Alekhyaprakhya) of borrowing and quotes in support of his view, a verse:
"The entire subject-matter (of poetry) when presented in a new garb of varied striking expressions gains a new look-appearance, like an actor whose appearance changes altogether on account of his new dress, mask, painting etc."
19. सोऽयं कवेरकवित्वदायी सर्वथा प्रतिबिम्बकल्पः परिहरणीयः ।
20 On a careful scrutiny we find that the varieties No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Alekhyaprakhya are not much different from Sankrantakai, Khandam, Vyatyastaka, Tailabindu and Națanepathyam varieties, respectively, of the Pratibimkalpa.
21 It deserves our notice that Anandavardhana denounces this kind of Alekhyaprakhya borrowing as it only shows the lack of originality on the part of the borrower.

Page #23

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
The sub-divisions of Tulyadehitulya are:
1. Visayaparivartah-When an idea, expressed by an earlier poet with reference to one object of description, is connected by a later poet with another object of description it gains new appearance. And it gives us this variety.
2. Dvandvavicchittik-When a later poet appropriates only one of the two aspects of a thing described by an earlier poet, we have this variety.
H
3. Ratnamālā-is that variety wherein the ideas of an earlier poet are interlaced or interwoven with new ones.
4. Samkhyollekhah-We get this variety when a later poet gives a description based on that of an earlier poet but with a striking difference in number.
5. Calika-After describing the idea of an earlier poet if the later poet adds some striking sense to it we have this variety. Culika, again, is two-fold: Samvadini (in correspondence with) or Visamvadini (not in correspondence with the original idea).
6. Vidhanapahāraḥ-Presenting a negative statement affirmatively.
7. Manikyapunjab-Arranging together ideas from different verses in a concise
manner.
8. Kandaḥ-Expressing the basic idea in its various aspects.
Surananda approves of this kind of borrowing (Tulyadehitulya) as it reveals some originality (lit. polish. Ullekha) on the part of borrowers. For Sarasvati in the case of the poet, polishes in a striking way any ordinary jewel of 'artha' and makes. it highly precious."
The sub-divisions of Parapurapraveśasadṛśa are :
1. Hudayuddham-Transmutation of an idea based on some reasoning, found in an earlier poem, supported by a counterbalanced reasoning.
2. Pratikañcukam2-Presenting the same matter which appears different on account of a different mode of expression.
3. Vastusancaraḥ-Substituting the standard(s) of comparison in the original by one's own.
4. Dhatuvadaḥ-Transmutation of a figure of word into a figure of sense. 5. Satkarah-Transforming the matter by elevation.
22 This Surananda belonged to the Yayavariya gotra to which Rajasekhara himself belonged. He was probably Rajasekhara's senior contemporary.
23 A similar thought is expressed in the Dhvanyaloka (1.6):
सरस्वती स्वादु तदर्थवस्तु निष्यन्दमाना महर्ता कवीनाम् । अलोक सामान्यमभिव्यनक्ति प्रतिस्फुरन्तं प्रतिभाविशेषम् ॥
24 Lit.
25 Lit. 26 Lit.
'ram-fight'..
a different dress'. Alchemy.

Page #24

Studies in
6. Jivahtvaka-When the first half of the stanza is alike but the latter half unlike (the original) we get this variety.
7. Bhavamudra-Incorporating in his poem by a later poet the import of earlier stanza(s.)
12
8. Tadvirodhini-When a later poet presents in his poem, matter which is opposed to that of an earlier poem, this variety arises.
"Thus in all, thirty-two ways of borrowing 'matter have been shown. The poetical skill lies, methinks, in the exact knowledge of the ways either to be given up or adopted from among these thirty-two. He, whose work reveals originality of matter or ideas stands first and foremost in the galaxy of poets."
Bhoja (A. D. 1000-1054) has to his credit, among other works, two voluminous works on Poetics: the Sarasvatikaṇṭhābharana and the Sṛngaraprakasa. It is, however, surprising that he almost leaves out the topic of plagiarism. In his Sarasvatikanthabharaṇa he treats of figures of word. One of these figures is called Pathiti. He gives his own definition and classification of this figure. He, however, gives its definition (and classification) according to others. 29 It runs as follows:
पदपादार्धभाषाणामन्यथाकरणेन यः ।
पाठः पूर्वोक्तसूक्तस्य पठिति तां प्रचक्षते । S.K.A.11 - 2.57
Its classification may be thus represented:
पठितिः
T प्रकृतितः
पदान्यथाकरणम् I
विभक्तितः
पादान्यथाकरणम्
अन्यथाकरणम्
भाषान्यथाकरणम्
एकपादान्यथाकरणम्
पादत्रयन्यिथाकरणम्
Bhoja illustrates these six varieties of Pathiti. His examples of some of these varieties (viz. vv. 84, 86-88, with slight changes) are bodily in agreement with those. given by Rajasekhara. He adds nothing to what Rajasekhara has already said in
this connection.
The Kavikanthabharaṇa of the polymath Kṣemendra (11th century) is a work aiming at the instruction of the aspiring poet in the devices of the craft. It touches. 27 Lit. Cakora bird 'वसन्ते चकोरस्य अक्षिणी रज्येते ।'
This poetic convention might be responsible for giving the name Jivañjivaka to this variety. 28 The Śrngaraprakāśa is not yet published, except three Prakasas (XXII-XXIV). In his studies in
Śṛngaraprakasa Dr. Raghvan mentions that Bhoja treats of these figures of word in Ch. X.
29 See pp. 195-197 (Ch. II), K. M. Series v. 94 (1934 edition).
This figure arises when an earlier sukta (stanza) is read after changing a word' or a quarter of it or 'a hemistich' or language.
30 See pp. 58-60 of his Kavyamimämsä.

Page #25

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
the issue of borrowing on a small or large scale and the legitimacy of doing so in the case of the epic and similar works. Kșemendra advises a would-be poet to cultivate a number of things, among which he includes 1. F T TH and 2. पुरातनवृत्तषु पदपरावृत्त्याभ्यास:31 and illustrates them. He opens Sandhi II of this treatise with the verse :
छायोपजीवी. पदकोपजीवी पादोपजीवी सकलोपजीवी ।
भवेदथ प्राप्तकवित्वजीवी स्वोन्मेषतो वा भुवनोपजीव्यः ।। The names given to poets may thus be explained :
int -One who borrows in the manner of a reflection of the original or one who imitates the general colour of a poet's, idea'.
96619519-One who borrows a word (or two). 9161951-One who borrows a verse-line.
site-One who borrows an entire poem. 97195167-He, who is taken by the whole world as a legitimate source, for example, the great poet Vyāsa.
Bilhana's Vikramānkadevacarita (before A. D. 1088) contains two fine verses · bearing on the topic of plagiarism :
साहित्यपाथोनिधिमन्थनोत्थं कर्णामृतं रक्षत हे कवीन्द्राः । यदस्य दैत्या इव लुण्ठनाय काव्याथ-चौराः प्रगुणीभवन्ति ।। गृहणन्तु सर्वे यदि वा यथेष्ट नास्ति क्षतिः कापि कवीश्वराणाम् ।
Tag gåg atau ala ali ga fery: 1| Canto 1. 11-12. i.e.
"Guard, O great poets, your nectar-like poetry, churned out of the ocean-like Literature, for demon-like plagiarists assemble in hundreds in order to steal it.”
"Or rather, let them all steal to their heart's content. This (literary) theft matters not to the great poets. The ocean, although robbed of its many ratnas ( jewels) by gods, remains even to date ratnākara (a mine of jewels).
Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana, with the Viveka by himself (A. D. 1088-1172) is 'destitute of originality.' In him "we find a placid borrowing from... Rājasekhara. .” His discussion on the theme of plagiarism clearly shows that he borrows almost word for word from Rājasekhara and Kșemendra. Pages 14-20 of his Viveka bear this statement out. With the exception of verses 42-43, 59-60 that are taken from Kavikanthābharaṇa and examples of Padasamasyā and Pādadvayasamasyā which he has added, the rest of this portion is borrowed from Rājasekhara's Kāyyamimāṁsā 32. 31. 37714at: canadgrefeuerråfågata 27141
श्लोकं परावृत्तिपदः पुराणं यथास्थितार्थ परिपूरयेच्च ॥ 32 A. B. Dhruva defends Hemacandra thus :
...“Hemacandra is accused of borrowing wholesale from Kavyamimāmsa...But an impartial study of his work would show that Hemacandra wants the Jains to know all that the Brāhmanas

Page #26

Studies in
The Kāvyānuśāsana 33 of Vāgbhata II (14th Century A. D.) together with the commentary Alankāratilaka by the author himself treats of this topic-plagiarism. The author, however, who largely borrows from the Kāvyamimāṁsā of Rājasekhara, the Kävyaprakāśa of Mammata, the Kāvyānuśāsana of Hemacandra and other works shows absolutely no originality in the discussion of plagiarism. He simply reproduces this portion from Rājasekhara and Kșemendra or perhaps from Hemacandra's work directly, who as has been already stated, draws on Rājasekhara and Kșemendra. He defines the modes of borrowing after his predecessors-with slight change in wording or consti uction. He, however, quotes examples selected from other works barring a few from his predecessors on this theme of plagiarism.
Subhāṣitaratnabhāņdāgāram contains one verse (whose source is not traced) on a plagiarist :
कविरनुहरति च्छायां पदमेकं पादमेकमध वा ।
TROEN 1899 HA11-P. 39 v. No. 12 i. e., "A poet imitates the general colour of a poet's idea, borrows a word or two, a verse-line or half of the verse of former poets. Our salutations (-said ironically) to him, who dares plagiarise a whole work."
The Vajjālagga34, a Prakrit anthology, has two verses in which a poet and a thief are compared :
कहकहवि रएइ पयं मग पुलएइ छेयमारुहइ । चोरो व्व कई अस्थं घेत्तण कहवि निव्वहइ ॥ सद्दावसद्दभीरू पए पए किं पि किं पि चिंततो।
GF Fela quale a 3479 the stica 11- VV. 22-23 This comparison between the poet and the thief, based on double- meaning words such as (word, step) ATC (style, way), F (T) (a kind of alliteration, a breach in the wall), 379 (idea, wealth) faiz (to carry out, complete the poem, extricate or maintain oneself), qe qe (at the end of each quarter of the stanza, at every step), REAU (a word, and an ungrammatical word; noise and censure) is striking indeed ! A Scrutiny of the Views of the Sanskrit Writers on Plagiarism:
It is a fact that a literary thief figures in prefaces to poetical works ‘seldom in comparison with the poet's more usual enemies, the Khala, or the hostile and the Piśuna, the envious man'. It is Bāna who distinctly condemns, perhaps for the first time, in the preface to his Harşacarita the poet-thief. This condemnation suggests that the plagiarist, in Bāņa's days, was a menace to good and great poets.
knew, and consequently he does not hesitate to reproduce the wisdom of his Brāhmana predecessor
while making substantial addition to the stores he has inherited." 33 Kävyamālā edition (vol. 43) Chapter 1 pp. 12-14. 34 It is a late work, of uncertain dato, dous not mention th: sources from which the writer has
culled the verses.

Page #27

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
15
Vakpati emphatically asserts that the province of poetry is unlimited, though for centuries hundreds of poets have been writing. Vämana merely speaks of the kinds. of 'matter that is primarily either original or borrowed, and illustrates the varieties. He leaves out the topic of plagiarism.
Anandavardhana very ably supports the views of Vakpati by advancing cogent and convincing arguments. Naturally he is not anxious for over-much borrowing." He concedes that there may be resemblances between the works of two inspired poets. He is the first Alankärika who classifies similarities that might exist between. two works on the basis of the relation of a thing and its image, an object and a picture thereof, and corporeal equivalence. He disapproves of those similarities on the first two relations on the ground that they betray lack of originality and poverty of thought on the part of the poet-thief. He, however, approves similarity such as exists between two men as charming.
It is Rajasekhara who devotes the greatest attention to this issue of literary theft which his predecessors either omit or less completely discuss. He defines the term borrowing' or plagiarism (harana), gives an elaborate classification of the different shades of borrowing, with reference respectively to borrowing of words and borrowing of matter or ideas and adds illustrations of all the varieties. He details five.varieties of borrowing of words and thirty-two varieties of borrowing of ideas. Vamana seems to have analysed 'matter' or 'ideas' in poetry for the first time. Anandavardhana improves on the classification of Vamana by a deeper analysis. Rajasekhara goes still deeper and gives a more scientific classification taking into. consideration small shades of differences. A few of these varieties overlap. The elaborate classification given by Rajasekhara would appear to justify the criticism that. "It is an essential defect of Indian Theory in all its aspects that it tends to divisions which are needless and confusing". It may be said here in defence of Indian theorists that 'Economy of phraseology is not the end' and 'it is no use saying that the finer shades of distinctions are instances of mere hairsplitting' when there actually exsit nicer aspects and shades of difference. Anandavardhana denounces borrowing in the manner of Pratibimbakalpa as well as Alekhya-prak ya. Rajasekhara, however, . denounces Pratibimbakalpa variety but approves of the Alekhyaprakhya sort of borrowing. He cites indeed, the excellent maxim that while other thefts pass away by lapse of time the literary theft endures even to sons and grandsons, but only to advance his wife Avantisundarls excuses for appropriation. Rajasekhara does not add any remark to show his approval or disapproval of Avantisundari's excuses for plagiarism. As already mentioned above, it appears, however, that he does not acquiesce in what his wife says. But it has to be admitted that Rajasekhara allows his appropriator more than a fair latitude. He gives us divergent views on the issue of literary theft, viz., those of his Acarya, his wife Avantisundari, Surananda, Anandavardhana (whom, however, he does not mention by nime) and others whom 35 See foot-note No. 12

Page #28

16
Studies in
he quotes under the phrase Ele: or 316 ! It must be said to the credit of Rājasekhara that he is the first Sanskrit theorist who treats of this subject of plagiarism in a more or less scientific manner in its various aspects.
Bhoja, the author of the two voluminous works in Alankāraśāstra almost leaves out this topic of plagiarism. His discussion of 'Pathiti' adds nothing new to what Rājasekhara has said.
Kşemendra merely gives a classification of poets who indulge in plagiarism and illustrates them. But he cannot be said to have made any contribution.
Bilhana is so generous of heart as to give complete latitude to plagiarists.
Hemacandra placidly borrows from Rājasekhara and Kșemendra and hardly says anything new on the subject.
Vägbhata (II) sums up, after Hemacandra, the doctrines about plagiarism set forth by earlier Alankārikas giving some new examples.
Critical Remarks According to the Alankārikas, creative genius (Pratibhā-imagination), culture (Vyutpatti) and practice (Abhyāsa-application) are essential to the making of a true poet. They demand from a poet a knowledge of many sciences such as grammar, metrics, politics, erotics, proficiency in many arts, acquaintance with existing poetry and such other things. Poetry-literature is, again, a traditional, social and developing art in which the new has to incorporate somehow and to imply the old. Necessarily the writers on poetics were compelled to give their thought to the issue of plagiarism. From the survey and scrutiny of their views on plagiarism it is clear that they have given some thought to the very interesting issue of plagiarism. In one sense it is true that "Vyāsa, Valmiki, ani Bāņu have said such a thing before". People always talk about originality; but what do they mean? As soon as we are born, the world begins to work upon us, and this goes on to the end. 'All men who have sense and feeling are being continually helped; they are taught by every person whom they meet and enriched by everything that falls in their way'. "A well cultivated mind is so to speak made up of all the minds of preceding ages; it is only one single mind which has been educated during all this time". In Lord Tennyson's noble words, we moderns are the heirs of all the ages'. It is almost impossible for any one who reads much, and reflects a good deal, to be able, on every occasion to determine whether a thought was another's or his own. “Those writers who lie on the watch for novelty can have little hope of greatness; for great things cannot have escaped former observation". To quote Whately "Those who are ambitious of originality, and aim at it, are necessarily led by others, since they seek to be different from them". According to another writer, “everything has been said better than we can put it ourselves." But it is equally true that the province of poetry is unlimited, though for centuries hundreds of poets have been writing. Anandavardhana establishes the truth of this statement with exquisite and masterly skill.

Page #29

"
Sanskrit Sahi yaśästra
The Sanskrit writers classify the cases of plagiarism according to the object appropriated, word, phrases, idea, use of metre, subject and so forth. This classification is, as far as it goes, all right. The basis of this classification is, however, purely external. The Alankarikas do not take into account deeper psychological principles for the classification "ranging from unconscious suggestion, positive and negative to habitual harpyism and careers which are one long appropriation clause"
"Alpha of the Plough" expresses some what similar ideas to those of Avantisundari when he writes:
17
You must be a big man to plagiarise with impunity. Shakespeare can take his "borrowed plumes" from whatever humble bird he likes....Burns can pick up a lilt in any chap-book and turn it to pure gold without a "by your leave". These gods are beyond the range of our pettifogging meums and tuums. Their pockets are so rich that a few coins that do not belong to them are no matter either way. But if you are a small man of exiguous talents and endeavour to eke out your poverty from the property of others you will discover that plagiarism is a capital offence..".
Sanskrit writers have anticipated clearly or vaguely the following ideas of Western writers :
"Borrowed thoughts, like borrowed money, only show the poverty of the borrower". A grass-blade of their (poets') own raising is worth a borrow-load of flowers from their neighbour's garden'. Borrowed garments never keep one warm.. Nor can one get smuggled goods safely into kingdom come. How lank and pitiful. does one of these gentry look, after posterity's customs officers have had the plucking of him". It is conceded that 'borrowing without beautifying is plagiarism'. But all plagiarism is not improper. If the later poet transmutes into his own precious. metal the less refined ore of other poets, it is no plagiarism. If you improve what you borrow or what you do still betters what is done you are not open to the charge of plagiarism. A later poet may find a model from his predecessor and then. proceed to write. "With a touch here and a touch there, now from memory, new from observation, borrowing here an epithet and there a phrase-adding, uptracting, heightening, modifying, substituting one metaphor for another, developing what is latent in suggestive imagery, laying under contribution the wide domain of existing literature he may toil on and produce his precious mosaic. He certainly cannot be accused of plagiarism." "Plucking of verbal flowers can hardly come within the scope of plagiarism. For that accusation to hold there must be some appropriation of ideas or at least of rhythm and form. Often the appropriation may be so transfigured as to rob it of any element of discredit."
If the borrowing illustrates the later poet's faultless taste, his nice artistic sense, his delicate. touch and his consummate literary skill, he cannot be accused of 36 It is to be remembered here that in most of the excuses which the Sanskrit theorist accepts, there is a good deal of human nature and that they have often prevailed in practice everywhere.
3

Page #30

18
Studies in
plagiarism. The charge of plagiarism is only valid where the borrowing is deliberate without creating new thought and new effects. Literature is full of coincidences, but they are not all plagiarisms. Some are due to similarity of creative genius..
'Colourable imitation' constitutes plagiarism. Taking a substantial part of the original work is literary theft. 'Substantial' does not refer to quantity alone but also to the importance of the part taken in relation to the whole a few lines may hold the real beauty of a poem and the taking of these lines would certainly amount to plagiarism...... Any fair dealing with a work for the purpose of private study, research,. criticism, review or newspaper summary' shall be above reproach.
They are silent regarding appropriation of thought in different Indian schools of thought. Probably they held that the thought is a common property of all of us, and the question of plagiarism does not arise there.
The Sanskrit theorist does not go far into the matter, naturally he fails to observe that if 'the apparent plagiarism is unintended or unconscious', it ceases to be plagiarism. 'Some minds are tenacious of good things and quite honestly forgetful of the source.' 'It is not strange that remembered ideas should often take advantage of the crowd of thought and smuggle themselves in as original.-Honest thinkers are always stealing unconsciously from each other.....Our minds are full of waifs and estrays which we think our own.....Innocent plagiarism turns up everywhere." Unconscious reminiscence is common to almost all poets.
If a poet makes what is ancient his own by his assimilative skill, we cannot damn him as a plagiarist. Even great poets have done that and there is no harm. in that.
In conclusion it may be stated here that though Sanskrit writers have, not given deep thought to this problem and have consequently failed to observe some subtle aspects of it yet it must be recorded that their contribution to this very interesting subject is sufficiently rich.
37 There is nothing in the works of Sanskrit writers that would correspond to such thoughts of the Western writers as are given in this paragraph, The Sanskrit writers and law-givers never discuss the legal aspect of plagiarism. If they were to give thought to this aspect they too would have possibly arrived at similar conclusions.

Page #31

SANSKRIT RHETORICIANS ON POETIC CONVENTIONS
The Sanskrit dictum 'Nirankuśāḥ Kavayaḥ' is not wholly true. Sanskrit writers on poetics rightly set down as faults such descriptions as are opposed to geography, seasons, fine arts, natural facts, Šāstras (to wit, Sānkhya, Vedānta, Saugata), Sruti, Smộti, and so on, in other words, descriptions which are entirely fantastic or nonsensical." To put it in modern language, the Sanskrit theorists are not disposed to grant license of scientific ignorance or wanton inaccuracy to the poet in his discription of objective reality (and subjective experience). They insist, on the contrary, that the poet's touch. of imagination and feeling upon the outer world should never misrepresent or distort it. Poetry that is wrought out at the expense of fact, truly deserves condemnation. They, however, willingly concede that this opposition to natural fact .etc., by virtue of the poetic skill, ceases to be a fault when it adds to poetic beauty or heightens a sentiment.2 Thus if a poet were to describe that a lover overpowered with pangs of separation from his love regards fire cooler than the lunar rays, it cannot be called a fault. As the rays of the moon torment a lover who is separated from his beloved, such description is termed as excellence. This discussion regarding poetic truth naturally leads one to expect from the theorists the treatment of the topic of poetic conventions. But curiously enough, all the theorists before
1. Cf. FILMASIDIFTINHTIE I
प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहीनं दुष्टं च नेष्यते ॥ Bhāmaha IV. 2
Daņdin repeats in his Kávyādarśa the line agres 1917... ... etc. According to Kane, · Dandirr is earlier than Bhāmaha. It is interesting to note that Svayambhudeva, the author of Paumacariu, an Apabhramsa epic, whose date falls between A.D. 677 and 960 refers to these two Alamkärikas as follows:
073 glas föres-97916 013 76-af-37016 | I. 3.8
The order in which the poet mentions the two Alamkārikas perhaps suggests that according to the poet, Bhāmaha was earlier than Dandin. For examples of the various Virodhas see
Daņdin III. v. 165-178. 2. faila: sistema framfara afaAIDISITI
Jott Januai Tureffet famed 11-Kāvyādarśa III. 179. For illustration of f ater See VV. 180-185.
3
The topic of Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Truth is dealt with in a separate paper.

Page #32

20
Studies in
Rājasekharal are silent on this topic. Many theorists who succeed him-some of them are well known, others are less known-treat of this subject in their works. I propose here to deal with this subject of Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Conventions in its various aspects.
Rājasekhara devotes three chapters (XIV-XVI) of his Kāvyamimāṁsā to poetic conventions. These chapters may be summarised as follows :
Poetic conventions are the things which poets describe in poetry even when those things are neither accepted as such by the sciences (śāstras) nor .found in every-day life (alaukika) but are merly sanctioned by tradition (paramparāyāta). According to the Acārya, describing such things is a fault and deserves to be avoided. Rājasekhara holds that it cannot be called a fault in as much as it helps poets in writing poetry. He then gives the genesis of poetic conventions : "Learned people of the old made a profound study of the Vedas with their thousand schools (sākhās), the six Vedāngas and the various sciences (such as Nyāya, Vaišeşika, Sankhya, Yoga, etc.), wandered from country to country, island to island, observed many things and set them forth in thier works.3 Representing these things as they were observed by the ancients although they are no longer so on account of change of times and places, is termed poetic convention. This word 'Kavisamaya' was made current by people who did not know its source but heeded its use only. Now some of these things have been, right from the beginning, known as poetic conventions, but some others have been started by cunning poets out of a desire for mutual publicity (or competitive spirit) or for their own selfish ends."4
Poetic convention is threefold : Relating to (1) celestial things, (2) terrestrial and (3) infernal things. Of these, poetic conventions about terrestrial things are of greater importance for the simple reason that their province is far wider. This variety of terrestrial things (bhauma) has four sub-varieties depending upon (1) Jāti (Sāmānyaclass). (2) Dravya (substance or particular things), (3) Guņa (quality) and (4) Kriya (action). Every one of these four sub-varieties has its own three sub-divisions : 1 That Rajasekhara himself believed that he was the first Alamkārika to deal with the topic of poetic conventions would be clear from his statement :
सोऽयं कवीनां समयः काव्ये सुप्त इव स्थितः ।
# agafATEHI2119 fe falfaa: Ch. XVI. 2 GOS Ed. Baroda, 1934. 3 Cf. FER TO : 1 atagan qand
Tat aat: FIFT: HET GEHI विभिन्ना एकशतमध्वर्युशाखाः सहस्त्रवर्मा सामवेद एकविंशतिधा बाहूच्य नवधावणो वेदो वाकोवाक्यमितिहासः
पुराणं वैद्यकमित्येतावाञ् शब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः ।—महाभाष्यम् , आह्निक I. 5 4 The original line reads : कश्चित्परस्परोपक्रमाथै स्वार्थाय धूत': प्रवर्तितः । The exact significance of
Pearl HT is not quite clear, The File possibly is to render oņe's poem more attractive by introducing novel ideas into it although they have had no basis in reality.

Page #33

Sanskrit Sahityaŝastra
(i) Asato nibandhanam (Describing things which are not actually found in certain places to be present at those places; (ii) Satopi anibandhanam (ignoring facts, not describing some things as existing even when they exist); and (iii) Niyamataḥ (artificial restrictions on the existence of things; restricting a thing to a particular place). The following table gives all these varieties at a glance:
T स्वय
(8) असतो निबन्धनम्
Gifa
I
(R) सतोऽप्यनिबन्धनम्
(४) असतो निबन्धनम्
(3)
नियमः
द्रव्य
सतोऽप्यनिबन्धनम्
कविसमय 1
भौम
1
(७)
aquat
निबन्धनम्
I
गुण
T
(<) सतोऽप्यनिबन्धनम्
(6)
नियमः
T
(१०) असतो निबन्धनम्
(९)
नियमः
(૨૬) सतोऽप्यनिबन्धनम्
पातालीय
क्रिया
21
(૨) नियमः
It may be noted that Rajasekhara's statement 'svargya' is like 'bhauma', and 'pātallya like 'bhauma' and 'svargya' indicates that the twelve sub-divisions of 'bhauma' are equally applicable in the case of 'svargya' and 'pätällya". He, however, does not attempt to illustrate them in due order as in the case of 'bhauma' varieties but satisfies himself by casually mentioning only a few examples.
These twelve varieties of 'Bhauma Kavisamaya' may be explained and illustrated as follows:
(1) Every river has, not necessarily lotuses in it. Every reservoir of water does not have swans. Every mountain does not have gold and jewels. But poetic convention allows poets to describe that lotuses exist in all rivers, swans in every reservoir or pond, and that every mountain has gold and jewels.
(2) Some things that actually exist in a particular place or at a particular time are supposed by poetic convention as not existing. For example, in spring Malati flowers are actually seen blooming; sandal trees do have flowers and fruit; Aśoka trees bear fruit; but poetic convention ignores these facts: the Mälat is denied the right to exist in spring; sandal trees are said to have neither flowers nor fruit; and Aśokas are denied fruit.

Page #34

Studies in
(3) Poetic convention puts artificial restrictions on the existence of things. For instance, though sharks are found in rivers as well as oceans, and pearls in many places, according to poetic convention, sharks exist only in the ocean and pearls only in the Tamraparni,
22
(4) A particular thing ('dravya'-substance) may not be existing in a particular form, yet poetic convention allows it to be so described. For example, darkness, which, in reality, can neither be handled, nor pierced by a needle is so described or moonlight which cannot be really carried in a jug is so described.
(5) A particular thing may be actually in existence but it is not described to exist
at a particular time. For example, moonlight exists in the dark half of the month as well as the bright half or darkness exists in the bright half of the month. Poetic convevtion, however, describes that moonlight exists in the bright fortnight (only) and darkness in the dark fortnight.
(6) A particular thing alone is said to possess a certain thing, e. g., Malaya mountain alone is the source of sandal trees, or the Himalayas alone are the source of birch trees.
The poetic convention under the miscellaneous section may thus be illustrated the sea of milk and the salt-ocean, though different, are looked. upon by poetic convention as identical; so too the ocean and the great ocean are regarded by poetic convention as identical.
(7) Although certain actions on the part of certain individuals or beings are not true to life, they are described as actually taking place. For example, the Cakravāka bird is described as parted at night from its mate; the Cakora is described to subsist on the moonbeams.
(8) Although certain actions are found in actual life, they are ignored by poetic conventions. For example, although blue lotuses bloom by day and Sephälikā flowers do fall during the day also, by poetic convention the blue lotuses are described as blooming at night and Sephaälikä flowers dropping down at night.
(9) Certain actions are restricted to particular seasons. For example, the cuckoo produces warbling notes in the Grisma season etc. It is, however, described by poetic convention to coo only in the spring. The peacocks cackle and dance in other seasons too, but by poetic convention they are described as cackling and dancing during the rains only.
(10) Although certain things do not possess any colour in fact, they are described by poetic convention to have colour. For instance, fame and laughter are, according to convention, white, infamy and sin dark, anger and love red.
1 There is a controversy regarding the nature of darkness. According to the Bhaṭṭa school of Mīmāmsakas, darkness is a dravya (substance). The Naiyayikas hold that it is merely the negation of light. The author of Sarvadarśanasangraha mentions two more views with respect to the nature of darkness.

Page #35

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
23
(11) Although certain things in life are seen to possess certain colours, these colours
are not, according to convention, described with reference to those things but some other colours are attributed to those things. For example, Kunda buds and the teeth of lovers are red, lotus buds green, and Priyangu flowers yellow; but in accordance with convention, Kunda and lotus buds are white and
Priyangu flowers dark. (12) Jewels, in general, are described in poetry as red, flowers white, and clouds dark.
It is also a convention when dark and blue colours or dark and green or dark and dark-blue or yellow and red or white and yellowish-red are identified. Poets describe eyes as possessing varied colours such as white, dark, dark-blue and variegated. This is permissible in poetry.
Now, poetic convention relating to celestial things is just like the one relating to terrestrial things. What deserves, in this matter, special mention is that with regard to the moon the hare and the deer are one, with regard to Cupid's banner, shark and fish are one; the moon born of Atri's eye and of the ocean are one; the moon on the head of Siva, though born long ago, is ever young; Cupid is both corporeal and non-corporeal; the twelve suns are identical; Nārāyaṇa Madhava are one; Dāmodara, Seșa and Kūrma are one; Lakşmi and wealth are one.
Poetic convention relating to infernal things is just like the one relating to terrestrial or celestial things. Here Nāga and Sarpa are one; Daitya, Dānava and Asura are one.
Thus many other varieties of the poetic conventions are possible. Rājasekhara concludes his treatment of this topic in these words :
"The topic of the poetic conventions which had remained unnoticed by early theorists has been treated here by me according to my own light.”
It deserves special notice that Rājasekhara, while treating of Kālavibhāga (Ch. XVIII), clearly shows his preference of poetic coventions to objective reality and lays down that the modern poets should follow the ancient poets in their descriptions of seasons, etc., even when these descriptions go against their own observation.
Ajitasena (latter part of the tenth century A. D.) reproduces in his Alankāracintamani2 most of the poetic conventions enumerated by Rajasekhara. He accepts Rājasekhara's threefold classification into 'Asato Nibandhanam', etc. He merely puts Rajasekhara's rules in verse form and adds only a few more conventions to the list, such as Ramā resides in a lotus as well as on a king's bosom. 1 TERRY : FATTH' sa 141902: I p. 99.
and देशेषु पदार्थानां ध्यत्यासो दृश्यते स्वरूपस्य ।
fa au Jaafagfa TAROT : 11 p. 111 2 Edited by Padmaraja Pandit in the Kavyāmbudhi (1893-1894).

Page #36

Studies in
Hemacandra (1088-1172 A. D.) while treating of this topic in his Kävyänusasana1 reproduces verbatim passages after passages from the Kavyamimas. He however. does not indicate his source.2
24
Hemacandra does not give a definition nor the origin of the poetic conventions. If Rajasekhara divides the poetic conventions first under the headings Jäti, Dravya", etc., and then further into Satopyanibandhanam, etc., Hemacandra reverses this order. He ignores Rajasekhara's classification of the poetic conventions into Svargya etc. He brings under the heading 'niyama' all the Svargya and the Pataliya and Prakırṇaka -dravya-samayas of Rajasekhara.
Arisimha and Amaracandra (middle of the thirteenth century) in their Kavyakalpalatavṛiti treat of this topic. They appear to have made use of the Alahkaracintamani (and the works of Hemacandra and Rajasekhara) in their treatment of the Kavisamaya. They add only a few more conventions to the list already known, eg., (i) the celestial Gangă contains water-elephants (ii) the moonlight can be caught in the folded hands (iii) the valour is red and hot.
Deveśvara (beginning of the 14th century) in his Kavikalpalata treats of this topic. He seems to have borrowed freely from the Kavyakalpalatavṛtti. He omits a few lines from his predecessor and changes only a word here or there."
Viśvanatha (1300-1384 A. D.) in his Sahityadarpana (ch. VII) enumerates only. some poetic conventions mentioned by his predecessors and adds a few new ones, e.g.
i) With the advent of the rainy season the swans migrate to the Manasa lake. (ii) The Aśoka blooms beneath the touch of the beloved's foot. (iii) The Bakula, when sprinkled over with the wine of their mouths, blossoms. (iv) The necklaces on the breast of youthful lovers along with their hearts burst from the flames of separation. (v) The God of love bears a flowery bow furnished with flowery shafts and strung with a string of bees. (vi) His arrows pierce the heart of the young and so does the glance of a lady.
1 Edited by R. C. Parikh and published by Shri Mahavira Jain Vidyalaya, Bombay.
2 He defends literary borrowing in the opening passage of his Pramāṇamimāmsā thus.......
अनादय एवैता विद्याः संक्षेपविस्तर विवक्षया नवनवी भवन्ति तत्तत्कर्तु कान्ते ।... This passage reminds us forcefully of Jayanta's (9th Century) passage in the Nyaymañjari.... "fenfa mala àrafm विद्याः प्रवृत्ताः संक्षेपविस्तरविवक्षया तु तांस्तांस्तत्र कर्तृनाचक्षते ।”
3 He adds the word 'adi' after Jati-dravya-guna-kriya. He, however, does not indicate what other poetic conventions were meant to be covered by the word Adi.
4 KSS ed, 1931.
5 Bibliotheca Indica, ed, by Pt. S. C. Sastri, Calcutta, 1918.
6 e. g; Kavya-I. 5, 100b, 101b, 102a, etc.
7 eg विकाशिता for स्मेरता
भूत्वग् for भूर्जन्
8 Nirnaya Sagara Ed., PP. 436-438

Page #37

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
Vägbhața (14th Cent.) in his Kāyyānuśāsanal (Ch. I) deals with the topic of poetic conventions. He largely borrows from the Kävyamīmāṁsā Kāvyānuśāsana. He merely mentions and illustrates the poetic conventions given by his predecessors. Some of his illustrations are the same as those found in the Kávyamīmāṁsā/ Kävyānušāsana. Some poetic conventions he illustrates with new examples drawn from the works of Rājasekhara and others.
Keshavamiśra (latter half of the 16th century) treats of this topic in his Alumkārasekhara?.
He seems to have largely drawn upon the Kävyakalpalatāvștti and the Kavikalpalatā for his treatment of the poetic conventions. He adds a few conventions to the old list : (i) There is a line of hair above the navel. (ii) There are three folds across the belly of a woman. (iii) Losing the beauty of bosom, though true to life, is not to be described. (iv) Men are to be described beginnig with head and gods with their feet.
Keśavamiśra details, under Kavisampradāya, the topics to be described such as the king, the queen, a town, a city, a river, etc. and the peculiar characteristics of every one of them (varṇaniya), the colours of various objects in nature (śuklādiniyama) and words that convey numerals from one to one thousand (samkhyāniyama).3 By including all these rules Keśavamiśra attempts to enlarge the sphere of poetic conventions. On scrutiny, however, one would find that many of these rules hardly deserve the style Kavisamaya. Keśavamiśra here confounds conventional poetry and poetic conventions. Poetry becomes conventional on account of set themes, phrases ready-at-hand standards of comparison like the lotus in describing the hands, the feet, faces, eyes, etc., sameness of ideas, stereotyped and hackneyed descriptions and use of poetic conventions. Rājasekhara's idea of poetic convention is cleary quite different.
Krsņakavi (later than 1600 A.D.) in his Mandāramarandacampū4 (Ch. 11) treats of the poetic conventions. He divides the poetic conventions under four heads :
Kavi-Samaya
Sato'piAsato'piNiyamena
Vikalpenaanibandhana nibandhana nibandhana
nibandhana Under the first three headings the author, generally speaking, repeats the rules of his predecessors. He is the first writer to give the fourth category. Under this new
1 Kavyamala Ed., 1894. 2 Kavyamala Ed., 1895. 3 Read Marisis 16-18 (PP. 57-58). 4 Kavyamala Ed. 1895.

Page #38

26
Studies in
category he includes such coventions as : (i) Fire may be described either as yellow or red (ii) Side-glances may be either white or dark (iii) The hare or the deer may be described to dwell on the moon, and a few others.
Critical Remarks : This survey of literature dealing with poetic conventions prominently brings out the following things : Early authorities like Bhāmaha and Daņdin are silent on this topic. Vāmana in his Kāvyālamkārasūtravștti treats of Kavyasamaya. He, however, uses the term to denote certain rules to be observed by, a poet with a view to avoiding faults relating to grammar, gender, merre and syntax. Rājasekhara is the first among all the rhetoricians to deal fully and satisfactorily with the poetic conventions. All the rhetoricians are very heavily indebted to him for their treatment of this topic. Rājasekhara's successors do not evince any interest regarding the precise nature and definition and the origin of Kavisamaya. They completely ignore Rājasekhara's classification of Kavisamayas into Svargya, Bhauma and Pātāliya, probably as superficial and trivial. They accept, however, his threefold classification based on the principle of Niyama being scientific. It is only Krsnakavi who gives fourfold classification of Kavisamaya. His fourth category under the heading Vikalpena nibandhana is the same as the one based on identity and given under Svargya and Pātāliya classification by Rājasekhara. Almost all the later Alamkārikas ignore Rājasekhra's classification based on Jāti, Dravya, Guna and Kriyā probably as scholastic. They hardly add anything new to what Rājasekhara has said on this topic. Their contribution, if at all it can be so called, lies in adding a few poetic conventions to the list given by Rājasekhara or in adding new illustrations. Keśavamiśra's attemmpt to widen the province of Kavisamaya by bringing under it the topics of "Varnaniya', 'Suklādiniyama' and Sankhyāniyama is not quite successful. As already remarked, he fails to distinguish between Poetic convention' and 'Conventional poetry
Keith remarks that Rājasekhara prosaically explains the poetic conventions as really due to observations made at different places and times from ours. His own view is that "the process of copying, of composing verses for practice in metre without much regard to sense, and the working up of commonplaces, resulted in a large number of poetic conventions being established, which the Kävyas repeat almost mechanically."3 This view of Keith does not adequately explain the origin ot all the conventions. Rājasekhara's explanation is highly ingenious. In putting forward his explanation Rājasekhara might have taken a hint from the well-known passage in the Mahābhāsya referred to above. Rajasekhara's explanation would not, however, satisfy a modern mind. It is rather difficult to investigate into the probable or possible origins of the various poetic conventions. An attempt, however, may be made here to trace the origin of a few of them. We must not forget that the ancient poets lived very close to Nature. They observed natural phenomena, behaviour of
1 Adhikarana V, Adhyâya 1, Kavyasamaya. 2 Hemacandra interprets the word niyama in two ways: (i) Restriction and (ii) Convention-usage 3 A History of Sanskrit Literature, P. 343.

Page #39

Sanskrit Sahityaśdstra
27
birds, etc. at first hand. Their observation coupled with their lively imagination and desire for finding symbols in Nature may have given rise to the conventions about Cakravāka, Cakora and Cātaka. Some of the conventions may have had their source in the principle of extension. Thus we find the convention 'Every mountain has gold and jewels. The restriction on the existence of things (e. g. 'pearls exist only in the Tāmraparņi'). may have been due to the fact that certain places were especially noted for certain things. The assigning of colours to certain things (e. g. fame and laughter are white) may have had its origin in human psychology. We like certain colours very much and dislike certain others. Things desirable were probably assingned good colours and bad things bad colours. Or, the whiteness of laughter may have had its origin in the brilliance of teeth and redness of anger may have been due to the effect of anger to be seen on one's face, tip of the nose and eyes, which turn red. Or, probably the colours of affection, anger, etc. were derived from the philosophical ideas : Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are associated respectively with whiteness, redness and darkness. Kāma and Krodha springing from Rajast are naturally red. Again, describing darkness as ‘süchibhedyh' is nothing but a highly figurative way of describing intense and pitchy darkness. Again, the dark spot on the moon may have appeared to one poet as a hare, to another as a deer; but as the same spot presents two different forms, the Saśānka and the Mrgalāñchana have been regarded as identical. Some conventions, such as "The Asoka blooms beneath the touch of the beloved's foot”, are entirely due to the poet's wild and romantic imagination. It is thus possible to trace the origins of various poetic conventions.
In no other literature the critics have taken note of and dealt fully with this topic of poetic conventions. It redounds to the glory and credit of Rājasekhara that he should have exahaustively dealt with this topic as far back as in the 10th century A. D.
1 Cf. 614 TT Tha gu (
F
EAqua: 1-Bhagavatgirå, III 37. a

Page #40

THE TREATMENT OF INTONATION (KAKU)
IN SANSKRIT POETICS अयं काकुकृतो लोके व्यवहारो न केवलम् ।
शास्त्रेष्वप्यस्य साम्राज्य काव्यस्याप्येष जीवितम् ।। It is in the fitness of things that Bharata, the author of Nātyaśāstra should devote considerable attention to the art of reading or reciting correctly or speaking, out the parts on the stage or mode of delivery which is of vital importance to actors in faithfully acting their roles and contributing to the creation of appropriate aesthetic emotions. With a view to bringing out the sense intended by the playwright or the poet, words must be clearly pronounced, properly punctuated with regard to the notes, accents and intonation. This is true of poetry in general but more true of plays. The actors must necessarily possess knowledge of and be fully trained in this art. Bharata treats of six păthya-guņas or dharmas : 1 svara 2 sthāna 3 varna 4 käku 5 alamkāra2 and 6 anga. In this paper we, however, confine ourselves to the nature and content of one pathyadharma only, viz., käku-intonation.
Nāțyaśāstra says : "There are two kinds of intonation, viz. one with expectancy,3 and another with no expectancy. These relate to the sentence. A sentence with does not completely express its intended meaning but creates a desire to know something unexpressed in words gives us the first variety called Sākānkså Käku, whereas a sentence which has completely expressed its meaning and does not raise any expectancy gives us the second variety called Nirākānkṣā Kāku.
Now, a sākānk şā kūku draws its notes (svaras) from the throat and the chest or lungs (kantha-uras) and begins with a low pitch and ends in a high pitch mandrāditārāntam* 1 Kävyamimāṁsā VII, p. 32 (Baroda Edition). 2 Th word alam āra is not used here in its usual sense of bhūsaņı but of parjāpii :
काकोरेवोपकार-संपादकाः परिपूर्णताया (धा)यिनोऽलङ्काराः, अलमिति पर्याप्त्यर्थः इह, न भूषणार्थः ।
-Abhinavabhārati, Vol. II., p. 386.. 3 Abhinavagupta rightly comments on ākānksā as :
वक्तृगता वाकाक्षा वाक्य उपचयते । सा च प्रकरणादिबलान्निश्चीयते । विशिष्टविषयत्वं चाकाङ्क्षायास्तत Ulaza -Abhinavabhārati, Vol. II, p. 391.
-Expectancy, really speking, is a property of a sentient being but is said to belong to a sentence in a secondary sense. This expectancy is understood from the coniexi, the character of th; speaker, etc.; so too, the paricular subjeci-matter of the expectancy. There is a lot of confusion in the printed texts about the definitions of säkänkșa and niräkänksa sentences. Natyaśāstra (XVII, pp. 391-92, G.O.S. ed.) describes these as 'taradimandräntar' and *mandräditārāntam' respectively. Abhinavagupta, however, says in his commentary :
vat sākānksam uktar tan mandropakramam tarasamäptikam pathaniyam iti/and. Etad-viparitā niräkänksā, tasyāḥ sirah-sthāna eva mandrahtārata pratişthānam (?) hyuttarottaräratvam adharādharamandratvam ca vakşyämah/
Hemacandra, who adopts these portions from Natyaśāstra and Abhinavabharati, unfortunately for us, wrongly uses the sam: expression 'mandra ditārantam' with reference to both säkänşa and niräkānkņa sentences. From Abhinavagupta's gloss it is clear that säkänksa sentence is mandräditäräntaim'; naturally, niräkānkşa sentence is 'tärādimandräntan'.

Page #41

Sanskrit Sahityašastra
29
and has not completed its accent (Varna) or alamkāra; and, nirākānkşā kāku from the head (siras) and which begins with a high pitch and ends in a low pitch and has its accent and alamkāra completed.”
Abhinavagupta's gloss on these two varieties of intonation may be read with profit : "In the niräkärkṣās käku the sentence means just what it says, implies not a bit more or less In the sākānkșä käku the meaning conveyed by the sentence is not limited to the one understood through convention but implies something more or less, and this is decided on the strength of pramāna. Of course, 'pramāņa', meant here, is the context, the character of the speaker or of the person addressed to, and so on.
Abhinavagupta further tells us that the äkänkşā raised relates to (i) the change in the meaning (arthäntara) or (ii) the additions of some particulars to the expressed maeaning (tadarthagata eva višeşaḥ) or (iii) the negation of the expressed meaning (tadarthābhāyaḥ). Abhinavagupta further illustrates this threefold subject-matter of kāku :
(i) yad? rāmeṇa kṛtam tadeva kurute droņātmajaḥ krodhanah.
In this sentence the intonation suggests the meaning that Aśvattāman would far outdo Paraśurāma in avenging himself, when the meaning, understood through convention is only : "The infuriated Asvatthäman will do exactly what Parasurāma had done in former times).”
(ii) "Sa (? yasya) dasakandharam"9.
In this verse the intonation understood in 'tadātmaja ihāngadah" suggests the additional meaning that Angada, the son of the famous Vāli possesses all the qualities expected of Vāli's son. 5 The passage as printed, is corrupt. I give it below as restored by me on Hemacandra's authority:
यादृशो वाक्यात् सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते तादृश एव यत्रान्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं निराकाङ्क्षम् । तद्विपरीतं साकाङ्क्षम् । यस्माद् वाक्याद् यादृशः सङ्केतबलेनाथः प्रतीवते, न तादृश एव किन्तु
न्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं साकाक्षम् ।। 6 The text as printed is corrupt, I quote it bellow as restored by me on the same authority :
• तत्राकाक्षा अर्थान्तर एव, तदर्थगत एव वा विशेषे, तदर्थाभावे वा । 7 Venisa ṁhāra III 33 d. 8 This intonation has escaped the attention of all commentators and annotators of Venisamhāra.
Abhinavagupta's gloss on this verses clearly points out the change of meaning on account of the intonation :
अत्र काकुः कृत इत्युदात्तकम्पितवर्णस्योच्चदीप्तालङ्कारस्य चासमाप्या अतोऽयधिकं कुरुत इति काकुप्रभावादर्थान्तरे गतिः । 9 Hemacandra's Kävyänusasana (p. 337) and Māņikyacandra's Sa mketa (p. 307, Mysore ed. p. 200, Poona, ed.) read 'yasya' in place of 'esa'; the full verse is :
स यस्य दशकन्धरं कृतवतोऽपि कक्षान्तरे गतः स्फुटमवन्ध्यतामधिपयोधि सान्ध्यो विधिः । तदात्मज इहाङ्गदः प्रहित एष सौमित्रिणा क्व स क्व स दशाननो ननु निवेद्यता राक्षसाः ।।

Page #42

30
Studies in
(iii) Swasthale bhavanti mayi jIvati dhārtarastrah
In this sentence Bhimasena gives the words the intonation of a question and emphatically denies" the possibilities of the Kauravas living in peace so long as he was alive.
Intonation occupies a pre-eminent position among the six pathyagunas or alamkāras. The other five alamkāras or gunas of Pathya add to the fullness of intonation. As already observed, in this context the word alamkara is not used in its usual and familiar sense of a figure of speech" but in an altogether new sense of pary@pari. Abhinavagupta's discussion as to how intonation yields a meaning different from the expressed one is worth noticing. This splendid passage1 must be read in the original. It may be rendered thus: An objector might well ask "How can intonation, setting aside the expressed meaning, convey a different meaning ?" This objection has been met by some thus: 'You must take into consideration the very nature of intonation. That intonation modifies or entirely changes the expressed meaning is a matter of 10 This is the fourth quarter in the stanza opening with laksagrhānanala etc. (Venisamhara I. 8 ) Hemacandra and Manikyacandra, no while adopting this quotation from Abhinavabhärati (Vol. II, p. 392); he gives in his context the "pratika" : 'nirvānavairadahanah" iti (Veni I. 7). The remark "atra bhavatii sa.... bhavanabhavamaha" which is quite relevant to the verse quoted in ·Abhinavabhāratī, has no relevency to the staza ‘nirvānavairadahanah....etc., as its last quhrter reads savastha bhavaniu kururajasutäḥsabhrtyäḥ
11 अत्र भवन्तीति साकाइया काकुर्भवनाभावमाह - भवन्तीति वचनोच्चारण वर्गेऽसंभावनां विदधदमात्रस्य निषेधामनो विषयं भवनलक्षणमर्पयति । [ न भवन्त्येवेत्यर्थः ॥ ]
-Abhinavabharati (Vol. II, p. 392) as restored by me on the authority of Hemecandra and Manikyacadra. Abhinavagupta beautifully brings out the suggested meaning of this verse :
स्वस्था इति भवन्ति इति, मवि जीवति इति धार्तराष्ट्रा इति च साकाङ्क्षदी सगद्र दतारप्रशननो दीपनचित्रिता काकुर संभागोऽसमर्थोऽत्यर्थमनुचितश्च व्यग्यमर्थ स्पृशन्ती तेनैवोपकृता सती क्रोधानुभावरूपतां व्यस्योपस्कृतस्य वाच्यस्यैवाधत्ते ।
—Locana on Dhvnyaloka III 38.
12 अयं क्रियते अनेन सः अलङ्कारः ।
13 अलमिति पर्याश्वर्थ रह न भूषणार्थः । Vide fn 2 supra
14 The passage, as printed, is corrupt. It is restored on the strength of Hemacandra and Manikyacndre as :
ननु श्रुतमर्थमनाहत्य कथं काकुरर्थान्तर प्रतिपादयेत् । तत्रोक्तमन्यैः वस्तुस्वभावोऽत्र द्रष्टव्यः न हिं दृष्टेऽनुपपन्नं नाम इति वयं तु ब्रूमः इह येयं प्रथमेन सविरस्पन्देन प्राणोल्लासनया वर्णादिविशेषरूपहीना वागू जन्यते सा नादरूपा सती हर्षोत्कादि (V-L--हर्षशोकादि) चित्तवृत्तिं विविनिषेधाद्यभिप्राये वा तत्कालिङ्गतया वा तादात्म्येन वा गमयतीति तावत् स्थितम् । तथा च प्राण्यन्तरस्य मृगसारमेयादेरपि नादमाकर्ण्य भयरोष - शोकादि प्रतिपद्यते, तदयं नादान्चितवृस्याद्यचगमोऽनुमानं तात्। ये खेते वर्णविशेषास्ते तन्नादरूपसामान्यात्मकवाक्तन्तुग्रन्थिमया इव प्राच्यप्रयत्नातिरिक्तनिमित्तान्तरापेक्षास्तत एवान्यत्राप्यभिप्रेतेऽन्यथापि प्रयोक्तुं शक्याः । अत दृष्टव्यभिचाराः । नादस्तु सत्युिद्भिन्नमुखरागपुलकस्थानीयो नान्यथा कर्तु पार्यत इत्यनन्यथासिद्धोऽन्यथासिद्ध शब्दार्थ बाधत एव वा यथोक्त - ' भीरु न मे भयम्' इति, अन्यप्रकारतां वा वाक्यार्थस्य विशेषणार्पणेन विधत्ते । — Abhinavabhārati, Vol. II, pp. 386-387.

Page #43

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
31
our immediate and direct experience. Whatever is immediately and directly known cannot be doubted".
"We (i.e., Abhinavagupta), however, would like to explain the phenomenon of intonation thus : "It is a fact that the first vibration (starting at the navel) of cognition which is nothing but the bubbling of vital energy produces speech, which is devoid of its distinguishing characteristics of syllables (i.e. parā vāņi) and which takes the form of sound and indicates either the feelings of joy or eagerness (or grief) or injunction or prohibition. This it does either by becoming the indicatory cause of its inferred things (such as joy, eagerness or grief,15 or injunction or prohibition) or (almost) by its oneness with those inferred things. So too, the feelings of fear, anger grief, etc., become known after hearing the sounds of deer or dog, etc.16 All this cognition of feelings from sound is inference in the first instance. But particular syllables which are, as it were, the combination of their component parts in the form of sound in general, depend for their cause upon the special effort of articulation different from those earlier ones for producing the primary sound (prāņollāsa).
Thus, as sound is at the basis of these syllables (forming a sentence) it becomes · possible to convey a meaning quite different from what is expressed in the sentence. And therefore it is that the syllables are found to express various meanings. Sound admits of no substitute (in unmistakably suggesting the feelings of joy, eagerness, etc.) just like the anubhāvas (consequenis of emotion) the horripilation on the body or the colour on the face; and its purpose cannot be served by anything else; and therefore, it is that sound nullifies the expressed meaning of words which can be conveyed by other means as, for instance, in the sentence "bhīru, na me bhayam"sound transforms its very character by suggesting a special meaning.
Rudrata17 is the first rhetorician who sets forth a Sabdālamkāra (a figure of word or sound) called kākuvakrokti. Anandavardhana, 18 however, treats of kāku as guņābhūtavyangya. Abhinavagupta emphatically asserts in his commentary on Dhvanyāloka III-38 that each and every passage where kaku is employed falls under gunibhūtavyangya : ..kākuyojanāyām sarvatra gunibhūtavyangyataiva. 15 ‘Face is an index to the mind'. It has been well said :
आकारेणैव चतुराः तर्कयन्ति परेङ्गितम् । *16 Cf. : "HETITIARO Seya fanfarroaa lazit:" A. Śakuntala II. 5. b. 17 Kävyalāmkāra II. 16 18 Dhvanyāloka III-38 (p. 477, KSS ed.) Māņikyacandra's gloss on Kávyaprakāśa IX. (p. 200 Poona edition of his Sainketa) specifically says: गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेद एवायम् । यदाह ध्वनिकारः
अर्थान्तरगतिः काका या चैषा परिदृश्यते ।
सा व्यग्यस्य गुणीभावे प्रकारमिममाश्रिता ॥ तन्मते काकुवक्रोक्तिर्नालङ्कारः । Abhinava zupta emphatically says : 15173140 Toituacigaaa |-- Locana, p. 480.

Page #44

32
Rajasekhara19 criticises Rudrața for laying down kaku-vakrokti as a figure of sound :
"abhiprāyavān pāṇhadharmaḥ kākuḥ sa katham alaṁkārt sydd !" iti Yayavartyaḥ...."kāku is a quality of recitation or reading-a modulation of voice, trying to bring out the meaning intended by the poet. It can never be designated as an alamkara"-says Rajasekhara.
He then classifies kāku, after Bharata, into two varieties. He defines these two varieties as
That which raises an expectancy about another sentence is sākānkṣā whereas that which comes into being with the stopping of the given sentence is nirākänkṣā. A sentence can become sakänkta with a particular kaku whereas with a different kaku it can become nirākänkṣa also. Sākākṣa kāku is threefold, being based upon akşepa (nisedha), praśna and vitarka, nirākāñkṣā kāku, too, is threefold, being based upon vidhi, uttara and nirṇaya. These divisions may be shown in a tabular form as :
1
Lākāñk şü
aksepagarbha prasnagarbha vitarka
garbha
Studies in
kāku
T
nirākänkşa
vidhirupā uttararupā nirṇayarūpā
(nişedhagarbha)
Rajasekhara illustrates these varieties with suitable examples and clarifies their interrelation with the remark that the three varieties of säkänkṣā kāku are necessarily and invariably related to the corresponding three varieties of nirakänksa kaku. To take one case, a sentence read or recited with a particular intonation suggests a meaning which is of the nature of akşepa (censure) or is negative in character, and is termed aktepagarbha or nisedharüpa kaku. If this very sentence is read or recited with a different intonation the meaning turns affirmative in character, and this variety. is called vidhirupā kāku.
Infinite, however are the varieties of kaku, says Rajasekhara, which are not thus interconnected. He then gives four stanzas with different kauks. The kākus understood in any of these stanzas, are without any definite relation between them as found in the first six varieties. He names these varieties as
(i) abhyupagama-anunayakaku
(ii) abhyanujñā-upahāsakāku
(iii) triyogakāku (where three käkus, not interrelated, are found)
(iv) caturyogakāku (where four kåkus, not interdependent, are found).
19 Kavyamimämsä VII, pp. 31-33 (Baroda edition).

Page #45

Sanskrit Sahityaśā stra
After setting forth these varieties of kaku with illustrations, Rajasekhara observes: "Intonation is generally found in the speeches of the lady-companions or the heroine. and her lady-companion". He then waxes eloquent over the supreme importance of Intonation. "Speech, as adopted by people like grammarians and Mimämsakas is straightforward and direct. But speech as used by poets and dramatists is quite different, owing to the importance they give to voice-modulations. Modulations of voice are used in our daily speech. They, of course, have a prominent place in the Vedas, but of poetry they are the very soul". In fact, (kaku) not only reveals unmis takably a meaning different from the expressed one but also one's skill in the representation of various moods to the sahrdayas or rasikas. Finally, he praises the poet and the reader or reciter who are able to use appropriate intonation in his poetry and recitation respectively.
Bhoja20 does not speak of Rudrata's kakuvakrokti but enlists kāku under another broad figure of word called pathiri. He adopts the classification and the definitions of the varieties of kaku and their illustrations from Rajasekhara. He derives hist threefold classification of kaku into (i) nyatapratibandha (ii) anlyata-pratibandha and (iii) apratibandha from Rajasekhara's statement: a fast fra: afia: ya:: He creates his third category (apratibandha) from Rajasekhara's statement: एवं त्रिचतुर काकुयोगोऽपि | Triyoga and caturyoga found in Rajasekhara are classified more systematically by Bhoja: ekaguna, dvi-guna, triguna and caturguṇ.1.21
Mammaţi agrees with Rudrata in considering this kaku-vakrokti as Jabdālamāra (a gure of word).22 He does not take note of Rajasekhara's criticism referred to above. He further agrees with Anandavardhana in considering kakväkipta as a variety of gumibhitavyangya.2 At one place he suggests that kaku does not necessarily imply the kakvakṣipta variety of gunbhātavyangya.
53
Ruyyaka (Rucaka) speaks of kakuvakrokti as an arthalamkara (figure of sense). Hemacandra following Rajasekhara, rejects kakuvakrokti as an as an alamkära. Like Anandavardhana, he takes it as a case of gubhitavyangya. He further adds in his work all useful information about kaku its etymology, its two varieties, its subjectmatter with illustrations and so on, adopting passages from Natjasastra (XVII), Abhinavabharatt and Locana (on Dhvanyaloka III, 38).
20 Sarasvati kṇṭhabharana II. 56: Śṛngaraprakāśa VII (Mysore edition, Vol. II. p. 240-242). Dr. Raghavan Bhoja's Sṛngaraprakāśa, p. 365.
21 Dr. Raghavan Bhoja's Sṛngaraprakāśa, pp. 687-688.
22 Kavyapra',asa IX. Kärikā I
23 Kavyaprak āśa V. Kärikä I.
24 Kavyaprakasa III. Kārikā I. The reader is referred to Mammaṭa's Vitti on the verse ṭailābhutāṁ dṛṣṭvā etc. (Veņi I):
न च वाच्यसिदयङ्गमत्र काकुरिति गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वं शङ्कथम् । प्रश्नमात्रेणापि काकोर्विश्रान्तेः ।
25 A'am carasarvasva (Kavyama'a ed. pp. 219-220).
26 Kävyāśāзanı (M.J.V. ed. pp. 333-337).
5

Page #46

34
Studies in
Vidyānätha27 follows Ruyyaka in describing käkuvakrokti as a figure of sense (arthālamkāra).
Viśvanātha, like Mammața describes kāku-vakrokti as a śabdálamkāra, 23 speaks of ārthi vyañjanā due to the speciality of kāku29 and of kūkvākşipta as a variety of gunibhūtavyangya 30 It is interesting, however, to note that the verse which Mammaţa cites as an example of käkuvakrokti is quoted by Visvanātha to illustrate ārthi vyañjanā. Kanesi defends Viśvanātha thus :
"There (in Kāyyaprakāśa IX) we have to understand that the heroine said that "he won't come' and that her friend interprets it as 'would he not come ?'.. In the verse as interpreted by Visvanātha in the text, the heroine utters the verse with the apparent meaning that he won't come, but by a change of voice she suggests herself the idea that he would surely come.” • Appaya32 Dikșita goes back to Ruyyaka in treating käkuvakrokti as an arthalamkāra.
These different views of different rhetoricians about the precise nature of kāku are, no doubt, contradictory and confusing. It is but proper to try to understand their possible reasoning behind these conflicting views. Kāku is a peculiar dhvani and dhvani is sabda. Possibly for this reason Rudraţı might have called käkuvakroti a figure of word or sound. Resorting to the test of śabda-pariviti-saha and Sabdapariviti-asaha, it is easily found that kākuvakrokti falls under arthālamkāras. Like some alamkāras such as samāsokti, paryāyokta. etc. kākuvak rokti, too constitutes gunibhūtavyangya, as it reveals a suggested meaning over and above the expressed one-and. this suggested meaning is very often secondary. In some cases where suggestion by kāku appears after the expressed meaning has been duly comprehended we have dhvani-kavya.
The illustrations cited for explaining the nature of kāku are all metrical. This should not mislead one into believing that kākus can be found in verse only. With a view to removing any such wrong notion Sridhara33 observes in the course of his commentary on Kāvya-prakāśa IX.I that this alamkāra can be found in both prose and poetry.
ayam alamkāramārgakramah padyavad gadye api drastavyaḥ31
27 Prataparudrayasobhūsaņa (p. 411). 23 Saityadarpaņa X. 9. 29 Sahitya darpana II. 16-17. 30 Sahityadarapaņa IV, 13. 31 Kane :-Sahityadarpaņa (Notes p. 84). 32 Kuvalayananda (Nirnaya Sagaj edition pp. 157-76). 33 The Kävyaprakāśa of Mammata (with the commentary of Sridhara Calcutta, (p. 291). 34 Sridhara quotes this definition in his commentary on Kävyaprakāśa (p. 52). The editor mentions
there (N. S. XVI) as its source. But this source is incorrect.

Page #47

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
35
It may be noted, in passing, that Bhatta Nārāyaṇa's Venisamhāra provides most of the illustrations of Kāku This play-wright is very fond of using kāku in his drama. No other play-wright has used this device so profusely and strikingly.
Although Bharata devotes considerable space to the exposition of kāku, nowhere does he define it. Amara35 defines kāku thus :
käkuh striyām vikāro yaḥ śokabhītyādibhir dhvanehKāku is a modulation of voice owing to sorrow, fear and such other feelings.
Bhoja quotes in his srngäraprakāśa36 the following definition of kāku without mentioning its source :
"Bhinnakanthadhvanir dhiraiḥ kākurityabhidhiyate" "Alteration of the sound in the throat is to be called a köku."
Viśvanātha approves of this definition in his Sāhit yadarpana (II). Jayaratha, the author of the commentary on Alamkāra-sarvasva37 gives the full quotation in the course of his gloss on vakrokti prefacing it with the explanation : : Kākuh dhvanivišeşaḥ He, too, does not mention the source of the definition :
vākyābḥidhe ( ? dhi) yamāne arthe yena anyaḥ prtipadyate. bhinnakanthadhvanir dhiraih sa käkuriti kathyate.
Abhinavagupta who attempts various etymological explanations of kāku in his Locana and Abhinavabhārati. The passage in Abhinavabhārat" is somewhat corrupt but it is possible to restore it with the help of Locana and Hemacandra's Kāyyā. nušāsana :
कक लौल्ये, लौलयं च साकाङ्क्षता इयता स्वरवैचित्र्य लक्ष्यते । ईषद् यतो वाच्यभूमिः संपद्यते सा काकुः, ईषदर्थे कुशब्दस्य कादेशः । काकुर्वा जिह्वा तद्व्यापारसंपाद्यत्वात् काकुः ।
The explanation in Locana39 is more lucid :
कक लौल्ये इत्यस्य धातोः काकुशब्दः । तत्र हि साकाङ्क्षनिराकाङ्क्षादिक्रमेण पठ्यमानोऽसौ शब्दः प्रकृतार्थातिरिक्तमपि वाञ्छतीति लौल्यमस्याभिधीयते । यदि वा ईषदर्थे कुशब्दस्तस्य कादेशः । तेन हृदयस्थवस्तुप्रतीतेरी
Hemacandra's passage giving three possible etymologies of kāku is only a combination of the three etymologies of kāku given by Abhinavagupta in the two passages cited above.
Instead of deriving the word kāku from Wkak some would like to derive it from Nkai to sound. Māņikyacandra,40 for instance, says: Kāyatyarthäntaramiti kākuh.
35 Amarakośa. sabdadi-varga śl. 12 p. 67. (Ed. with com. N. S. Press. 1944). 36 Syngāraprakāśa (ed. by Josyer, Mysore, 1955) Prakāśa VII. p. 240, 37 Alamkārasarvasva with Jayaraiha's Alamkāravimarśni (N. S. Edition, 1939, p. 220). 38 As corrected by Dr. Raghavan in his article, "Mor Corrections and Emendations To the Text of
the Abhinavabhārati." Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XXV. pp. 404-405). 39 Locana (on Dhvanyā!oka III.38) pp. 477-478. 40 Kavyaprakāśa-Samketa (Mysore edition p. 52)

Page #48

36
.
Studies in
It is evident from Bharata and Abhinavagupta that there are three different modes of reciting or reading a sentence (verse, or passage) (i) sämānya" (ii) säkänksa and (iii) ni räkānkșa.. Sämänya pāțhadharma is our normal, usual mode of reading. It is easy to understand and appreciate or recite a sentence with its expected modulations (sākānkśā kāku). To understand the difference between the two modes of reading or reciting the sāmänyą and the Nirkānkşa-we will have to approach a professional actor who has perfectly mastered various pathadharmas and who can actually demonstrate the difference by reciting or reading them according to the sămânya and Nirākānksa modes.
From this exhaustive and critical survey of the treatment of intonation in Sanskrit Poetics it is evident that Bharata, Rājasekhara and Abhinavagupta throw a flood of light on the nature of intonation. Bharata is the first rhetorician who treats, of intonation in details for the guidance of actors. Rājasekhara for the first time arrives at the classifications of intonation with suitable illustrations. Abhinavagupta's work is, no doubt, a commentary on Nātyaśāstra but his brilliant exposition of intonation, its nature, its etymology, its varieties and its subject matter is marked by freshness of approach and originality.
41 TACTED TFT fra 1927€ : कण्ठेन शमन कुर्यात् पाठ्ययोगेषु सर्वदा ॥
- Nātyaśāstra XVII.108. Abhinava gupta's gloss reads :
मन्द्रस्वरेण वा पाठमारभ्य क्रमेण तार गत्वा मध्येन परिसमाप्नुयादिति श्लोकार्थः । यदा हि न दीप्तेन क्रोबादिना नापि मन्द्ररूपेण शोकादिनाविष्टहृदयो भवति तदा क्रमेण वक्तव्यवस्तुविषयोत्साहविस्फारणात् तारान्त गच्छन्नुपसंहारे मध्य एव विश्राम्यतीत्यनवशिष्टस्यायं (? ० त्यविशिष्टस्यायं) सामान्येन पाठधर्मः ।
Abhinavabh ārati, Vol. II. p. 389.

Page #49

ABHINAVABHARATI TEXT-RESTORED
K. S. Ramaswami Sastri refers in his preface to the second revised edition of the Nāțyaśāstral to the efforts of many reputed scholars to improve the text of the Abhinavabhārati. It is to be regretted, however, he has not availed himself of the opportunity of fully utilizing the contributions of the eminent scholars referred to by him. In this connection one may point to Dr. Raghavan's brilliant reconstruction of the Santa Rasa Section and the corresponding text in the Abhinavabhāra:7
In the following pages I note some corrupt passages in the text of the Abhinavabhāraii and parallel passages from the Kävyānuśāsanaof Hemacandra (and the Natyadarpana of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra) which preserve the original readings very faithfully while adopting them from their source, adding necessary remarks wherever necessary.
(1) सुरतविषये सबन्धिग्रहणे । विग्रहं वा सन्धिना दूषयतीति विदूषकः विप्रलम्भनत्वे (कथा) विनोदने (नैः) . दूषयन्ति विस्मारयन्ति ।...विप्रलम्भसुहृद् इति विदूषकः ।
-NS. Ch. XXIV. 20-21, Vol. III. pp. 251-52. This highly important pasage from the Abhinavabhārati giving an explanation of the name Vidūşaka escaped the attention of the writers who have specially written on the Vidusaka probably because it is somewhat corrupt. This passage, however, it is easy to restore with the help of an almost identical passage found in the Natyadarpana. The relevant ND. passage is as follows :-एषां वियोगिनां विप्रलम्भशङ्गारवतामौचित्यानतिक्रमेण लिङ्ग्यादयो यथासंभवं सन्धि विग्रहेण, विग्रहं सन्धिना च विशेषेण दूषयन्ति विनाशयन्ति, विप्रलम्भं तु विनोददानेन विस्मारयन्तीति विदूषकाः ।
(2) वामभिनिवेशित्वमिति “सुलभावमानी हि मदनः” इति विघ्नः, तथाप्यभिलष्यमाण वस्तु प्राप्त चेत् कोऽभिलाषः, तेन प्राप्त प्राप्तमहारितमिव गत, गत प्राप्तमिवेत्येवम् । (दुर्लभत्वमित्यादि) पराक्रमेण [ विद्धि ] विष्णुरंय काम उत्तमतमां प्रीतिं प्रतिप्रतनोति न ात्र यायामिव (भयादिव ?) निवृत्तिः साध्या, अपि तु भौमात्मक सुख भोगस्त्वसति कामे तेन (केन ?) प्रत्युत संभवनीयः ।
-NS. XXII. 207. p. 206, 11. 1-6 . This passage is admittedly obscure. It, however, becommes crystai clear if we read the following passage from Hemacandra's Viveka which is adopted like many other passages from the Abhi-Bhā. 1 GOS No. XXXVI, Vol. I, 1956) (vide pp. 22-23) 2 Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1964 edition. 3 GOS No XLVIII, Revised Second Edition, 1964. 4 The Vidusaka : Theory and Practice (p. 44) J. T. Parikh. Vidusaka (p. 88;-G. K. Bhat. 5 p. 178 6 Vids the following remark of the editor on this passage : व्याख्येयमस्फुटा भ्रष्टपतिताक्षरत्वात् ।
Vol. III. p. 206, f. n. 1-3

Page #50

Studies in
वामाभिनिवेशित्वमिति । ( 41 ) 'सुलभावमानी हि मदनः' इति तद्विदः । तथा ह्यभिलष्यमाणं वस्तु प्राप्त चेत् कोऽभिलाषः । तेन प्राप्त प्राप्तमपहारितमिव गतं गतं प्राप्तमिवेत्येवं परम्पराक्रमेण वर्धिष्णुरयं कामः परमां प्रीतिं तनोति । न ह्यत्र कण्डूयामिव निवृत्तिः साध्या, अपि तु भोगात्मक सुखमिति रतिहेतुत्वाद् रतिः काम इत्यर्थः । — Kāvyānuśāsana of Hemacandra, p. 108, 11. 16-20. (3) परबचनमिति । परसन्धिवचन' स्वयमङ्गविकारैरभिनयेत् । ननु तत्पश्वचनमयुक्तः कथमभिनयेत् । आह आकाशे शून्ये यानि पुरुषकथितानि दृष्टानि यत्र शून्ये तेन वर्ण्यन्ते वा कश्चित्पश्यत्याकयति च तत्र च तद्वचनं स एवानुवदन् सामाजिकान् बोधयति । यथा “भो वाडव, अले किं ब्रवीदि इत्यादी.... -NS. Ch. XVIII. 109, Vol. II, p. 450, 11. 2-6,
,
38
This passage is nearly correct, nearly because in a few cases the readings are not correct. These readings could be corrected with the help of Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 442):
परवचनमिति । परसम्वन्धि वचन... दृष्टानि यत्र धन्ये तं न पश्यन्त्येकध... यथा रामाभ्युदये 'तापसः - ( आकाशे । ) भोः । वाद्वले क्वावकाशे रामभद्रस्तिष्ठति । किं ब्रवीषि ......
It may be noted that Dr. Raghavan notes the extract from the Viveka as follows: यथा रामान्युदये तापसः (आकाशे) भावाइले (१) का क्वावा राममस्तिष्ठते । किं व १... In the light of the readings in the Abhi-Bha, and the Viveka we must emend । the reading मात्राइले as भोः वाडव, " अंडे
'
(4) राजर्विवश्येत्यनेन प्रख्यातमपि यद्वस्तु ऋषितुल्यानां राज्ञां वंशेन साधुनोचितं नैतदुभयं निबन्धनीयमिति फलतः प्रतिषेधो दर्शितः ।
*****.
NS. XVIII. lo Abhi Bhà Vol. II. p. 412, 11. 1-2
Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 433) which freely uses the Abhi. Bha reads the underlined words as राज्ञां वंशे [न] साधु नोचित... It is clearly the reading required by the context.
(5) विपश्चितचैतदस्मद्गुरुभिः । अस्माभिश्चान्यत्र विन्तीह नातिनिग्यः कृतः ।
-NS. ch. VI, Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 336
The editor adds a foot-note to पत्र भगीताव्याख्यायाम् |
If the editor had given the precise reference it would have enabled the reader to verify it. It is, however, perfectly clear from Abhinava's Lozana commentary on the Divanyaloka that by 'अस्मद्गुरु' and अस्माभियाम्यत्र Abhinava means भट्टतीत and Abhinava's own commentary on महतौत's work काव्यकौतुक:
7 Here the reading is clearly wrong. The reading, as is clear from the Abhi. Bha. passage, ought to be (भो।) वाडव अले
8 Thir extract, drawn from the Ns. ed. (revised, p. 389 ) is quoted in 'Some Old Lost Rama Plays ' (at p. 13)
9 Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, edition (p. 443).
10 वाडव means a Brahmaṇa.

Page #51

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
39
आधिकारिकत्वेन तु शान्तो रसो न निबद्धव्य इति चन्द्रिकाकारः । तच्चेहास्माभिर्न पर्यालोचित, प्रसङ्गान्तरात् । मोक्षफलत्वेन चाय परमपुरुषार्थनिष्ठत्वात्सर्वरसेभ्य: प्रधानतमः । स चायमस्मदुपाध्यायभट्टतौतेन काव्यकौतुके, अस्माभिश्च तद्विवरणे बहुतरकृतनिर्णयार्व पक्षसिद्धान्त इत्यलं बहुना ।
-Locana; p. 394. (6) तादृश तु 'राग्यं ज्ञानस्यैव परा काष्ठा' । इति (व्यासभाष्य १.१६) भुजङ्गविभुनैव भगवताऽभ्यधायि ।
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I. p. 334. (7) यथाह पतञ्जलि:-"न हि चैत्र एकस्यां स्त्रियां रक्त इत्यन्यासु विरक्तः ।” (पातञ्जल. व्यास. भा. २-४) इत्यादि ।
These two passages contain quotations, as the editor points out, from the Vyāsabhāsya. Yet Abhinava attributes them to Patañjali (and following him Hemacandra too attributes the second quotation to Patañjili KS. p. 125. 11. 13-14). Does it mean Abhinavagupta (and Hemacandra) held the view that the Yogabhāşya is Svopajňa or simply they nod here ? The first quotation runs 'ज्ञानस्यैव पराकाष्ठा वराग्यम् ।' The text of the Abhinavabhārati should therefore be read as तादृशं तु वैराग्य 'ज्ञानस्यैव परा काष्ठा' । इति...
(8) देवकुले च गमनम् । तस्याद्भुतविभावो येन तत्रत्य सरसनिवेशादि न क्वचिद् दृष्टम् । सभा गृहविशेषः । विमानादीनि दिव्यरथः । माया रूपपरिवर्तनादिका । इन्द्रजाल मन्त्रद्रव्यवस्तुयुक्त्यादिना असम्भ. वद्वस्तुप्रदर्शनम् ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I. p. 329. 11. 7-10 to p. 330 1. 1 Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 119 last line to p. 120. 11. 1-3) presents better readings in place of the words in bold types in the passage above :.... सर:संनिवेशादि... दिव्यरथाः...मन्त्रद्रःपहस्तयुक्त्यादिना:..
(9) भये हि प्रदर्शिते गुरुविनीत जानाति । मृदुचेष्टिततया चाधमप्रकृतिमेनं गणयति । कृतकशङ्गारा (रात) वेश्योपदिष्टानां न काचित्पुरुषार्थसिद्धिः ।...यत्र तु राजा न कृतक परानुग्रहाय क्रोधविस्मयादीन् दर्शयति तत्र यभिचारितव तेषां न स्थायिता... ।
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I. p. 328, II. 6-9. Hema:andra's Kāryāruśāsana gives definitely superior readings :
विनीतं तं जानाति ।...मेन न गणयति । कृतकरत्यादेश्चोपदिष्टान्न ।......राजानः...विस्मयादि दर्शयन्ति...। • (10) आपद्यङ्गक (त्सङ्गति) निमग्नतां स्वल्पे सन्तोष मिथ्याज्ञानं चापास्य यस्तत्वनिश्चयः स एवोत्साहहेतुः प्रधानतया । रौद्रे तु तमःप्राधान्यादशास्त्रीयानुचितबन्धाद्यपीति मोहविस्मयप्राधान्यम् ।
__ -KS. p. 119
Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 325, 11-11-13 Someśvara's Sanketa (p. 52, 11. 26-28) reads :
रौद्रममता [ ?र्ष ] प्राधान्याद अनुचितयुद्धाद्यपि इति मोहविस्मयप्राधान्यम् । इह च पत्यङ्कनिमग्नतां स्वल्पसन्तोष चापास्य यसात्वनिश्चयरूपोऽस'मोहाधवसायः स एवोत्साहहेतुरिति भेदः ।
___Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 118, 11. 6-8) helps us to get at the correct original readings in the Abhi. Bhā. :

Page #52

Studies in
इह चापत्पङ्कनिमग्नतां स्वलसन्तोषं मिथ्याज्ञानं चापास्य यस्तत्त्वनिश्चयरूपोऽसंमोहाध्यवसायः स एव प्रधानतोत्साह हेतुः । रौद्रे तु ममताप्रावान्यादशास्त्रितानुचितयुद्धाद्यपीति मोहविस्मयप्राधान्यमिति विवेकः ।
40
(11) स्मित ( ) षत्तायाम् । हसितं ततो विशेषेण । ततोऽपि परस्य गतं समीपगतमन्यत् । अपहसितमति - शयेन चेत्युपसर्गभेदादर्थभेदः ।
— Abhi. Bhā Vol. I. p. 315. 11. 6-7. Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 115 ) contains this passage in the following form : स्मितस्य ईत्तायां व्यपगतायां हसितम्, ततो विशेषेण, ततोऽपि परस्य समीपं गतम्, अन्यदपहरत्य (१० हस्य ) हसितमतिशयेन (पा. भे. अन्यदपहसितमतिशयेन ) च इत्युपसर्ग मेदादेवार्थभेदः ।
Hemacandra's passage is certainly more satisfactory as it vividly brings out उपसर्गभेदादर्थभेदः
(12) पर हसन्तं दृष्ट्वा स्वयं विभावानपश्यन्नपि हसन लोके दृष्टः । तथा विभावादिदर्शनेऽपि गाम्भीर्यादनुदितासोऽपि । परकीयहासत्वलोकेन तत्क्षणं हासविशेषः सम्पद्यत एवेति स्वभावः । —Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I. p. 314, 11. 5-7 Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 114 ) presents much better text: ... गाम्भीर्यादनुदितहासोऽपि परकीयहासावलोकने तत्क्षणं हासविवशः संपद्यत एवेति ।
(13) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 208) reads: अत्र तु वृद्ध पशुब्यो ( पशवो १) वदन्ति -
मासपसूआ ...... (पणू ) मासगब्भिणी एकदिअहज्जर मुहे .. .... I
The editor adds a remark in the foolnot:
अर्णा चास्य गाथा कोक्कोकवचनस्य मूलं स्यात् ।
यथा-
रङ्गादिश्रान्तदेहा...... स्वल्यसाध्या रते स्यात् ॥
Now, this passage is left out by Hemacandra but the obscure and incomplete Gāthā is found in the Gāthāsaptasm (III. 59 ) :
...... वृद्धा वेश्यामाता आह-
मासपसूअं छम्मासगन्भिणिं एक्कदिअहजरिअ च । रंगत्तिणं च पिअं पुत्तअ कामतओ होहि ||
[ मासप्रसूतां नागर्भिणी मेकदिवसज्वरितां च । रङ्गोत्तीर्णा च प्रियां पुत्रक कामयमानो भव ॥ ] (14) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. III, 207 ) reads :
परिपाटियथा कल्पितानुपूर्वी अस्या एकेन भिन्नेन वारः अस्या द्वाभ्यामित्यादि । तदपवादमाह फलार्थ इति ऋताविति यावत् । नव इति नवत्वे प्रसत्रे वृत्ते चिरचिरहखिन्ना सुखायितं दुःखे तदीयबन्धुव्यापत्या दुःखिता आश्वासनीयेति । प्रमोद इति तदीयपुत्रोत्सवाद 'उत्सवो हिं माननीय' इत्युक्तम् । वासयति तत्र स्थाने रात्रमिति वासः । अत्र उचितः कामोपचारः फलार्थ इत्यस्य हेतोः सर्वापवादकत्व दर्शयितुं धर्मवृत्तिना राज्ञा परिचाय या दुर्भगा अपि सेव्या इति निरूपयितुमाह
-

Page #53

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
उचिते वासके स्त्रीणामृतुकालेऽपि वा नृपैः । प्रेष्याणामपि सर्वासां कार्य ( चैवोपसर्पणम् ) ॥ इति
आर्त वकालो हि भूयानपि फलतः (V. L. परतः ) परमिति भवति ।
The corrupt readings in this passage which are printed in bold type could very well be restored with the help of the corresponding passages in Hemacandra's KS (pp. 419-420) :
...... अस्या एकेन दिनेन वार:.... . नववे प्रसवे वृत्ते चिरचिरहखिन्नां सुखयितुम् । वासयन्ति तत्र स्थाने रात्रिमिति वासका राज्युचिताः कामोपचाराः । धर्मवृत्तिना राज्ञा परिपाट्या [ द्वेष्या ] दुर्भगापि सेव्येति च निरूपयितुमाह- उचिते वासके इति ।
(15) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 156) reads:
किं स्वन्तगतं वासनात्मतया वर्तमानं रसाख्यं भावं भावयन् सुययन् किं सर्वस्य नेत्याह कवेः सूक्ष्मसूक्ष्मा - नपि यो अर्थान् पश्यति तस्य सहृदयस्येत्यर्थः ।
Hemacandra (p. 423, 11. 16-17 ) correctly reads :
तत्रास्यायो विकारोऽन्तर्गतवासनात्मतया वर्तमानं रत्याख्यं भावं भावयन् सूचयन् भावः ।
[The full verse runs as follows :
भवतः ।
उचिते वासके स्त्रीणामृतुकालेऽपि वा बुधैः । द्वेष्याणामथवेष्टानां कर्तव्यमुपसर्पणम् ॥
आर्तवः कालो हि भूयानपि फलतः परिमितीभवति । ]
41
(16) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 62) reads:
तेनैकमपि सन्धङ्ग ं तत्रैव सन्धैौ द्वित्रिय कविम्... वे गी संहारे संकेड विद्रौ पुनः प्रदर्शित वीरौ द्रोद्दीपगौ
The N. D. (p. 102) reads :
... द्वित्रिर्वा...... संफेटवी रौद्ररसावुद्दीपयतः ।
The passage in the Abhi. Bha. is easy to correct in the light of the readings in the N. D.
(17) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol III, p. 62) reads:
इति वृत्ताविच्छोऽपि हि रसस्यैव पोषकः, अन्यथा विच्छेदे स्थाय्यादेस्त्रुटितत्वात् क्व रसवार्ता |
The N. D. (p., 102) reads:
सर्वसन्धीनां चाङ्गानीतिवृत्ताविच्छेदार्थमुपादीयन्ते इतिवृत्तस्याविच्छेदश्च रसपुष्ट्यर्थः ...... ।
The reading in the Abhi Bhā must, therefore, be corrected to इतिवृत्ता विच्छेदोऽपि ... (18) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol III, p. 61) reads:
ततश्च यद्यथा यद्यस्यानुपयोमि तदरोचकिनोरुचितदधिशर्करापयः प्रभृतिरसान्तरमध्ययोजितं — तेद् द्वारेणान्तःप्रविष्ट सत् षष्टिं व्याधिनिवृत्तिं च विधत्ते......
The context leads us to correct the reading given in bold types to : यस्यानुपयोगि.... तदरोचकिनो रुचितदधिशर्करा .. .. पुष्टि... ... विधत्ते.......

Page #54

Studies in
(19) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol III, p. 51) reads :
परस्परवचनवृत्तयोर्यस्यैवाधिकं (कर्म) सहायबुध्यादीनवलम्बयति स एव तमतिसंधातु वञ्चयितुं समर्थ इति तदिदं कर्माधिबलम् । __The N. D. (p. 79) correctly reads परस्परवञ्च ने प्रवृत्तयोः......अवलम्बयति is obviously wrong and we should read अवलम्बते.
(20) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. III, p. 49) reads :
रूप्यमानेन प्रत्यक्षाद्युपलभ्यमानेन रूपस्य व्यापकस्याविनाभाविनो गमनं ज्ञानमनुमान निश्चयात्मकत्वादृहः, उपायायुक्तेरन्यत्वात् ।
The N. D. (p. 74) reads : निश्चयरूपत्वादेव चोहरूपाया युक्तेर्भिद्यते ।
In view of the fact that Yukti is one of the 'añgas' of the Mukha-sandhi and also in view of the reading in the N. D. we should correct the underlined words in the passage from the Abhi. Bha. to:
निश्चयात्मकत्वादूहरूपाया युक्तेरन्यत्वात् । (21) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. III, p. 15) reads :
सचेतनानुसन्धाना पताका सिद्धिप्रधानस्योपकारिणी । एवं सुग्रीव-विभीषणप्रभृतिरपि रामादिनोपक्रियमाणे रामादेरामनश्चोपकाराय प्रभवमाने प्रसिद्धिप्राशस्त्ये सम्पादयतीति ।
The N. D. (p. 39) reads :
सा प्रसिद्धिप्राशस्त्यहेतुत्वात् पताकेर पताका । सुग्रीवबिभीषणादिहि रामादिनोपक्रियमाणो रामादेरात्मनश्चोपकाराय. भवन् रामादेः प्रसिद्धि प्राशस्त्यं च सम्पादयति ।
In the light of this passage the words underlined in the Abhi. Bhā. passage should be corrected to रामादिनोपक्रियमाणो and [प्र] भवन् .
(22) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 447) reads :
अपिशब्दोऽतिक्रमः । Hemacandra (p. 441) correctly reads अपिशब्दो भिन्नक्रमः | It is, however, possible to defend the reading अतिक्रम:.
(23) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. II, p. 444) reads :
व्यायोगस्तु डिमस्यैव शेषभूतो, दिव्यनायकाभावात् केवलमत्रोदात्तस्य राजादेः नायकता, अपि त्वमात्यसेनापतिप्रभृतेर्दीप्तरसस्य, अत एवाह प्रख्यातनायकेति उदात्तग्रहणमपाकर्तव्यमित्यर्थः।।
The drift of the passage clearly suggests that the original reading must have been राजादेन नायकता and Hemacandra's reading (p. 440) corroborates our guess. (24) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. II, p. 437) reads:
अत्र यत्र तावत्येव समापन्नं व्यङ्क इत्युक्तम् । अर्थत्रयं च कपटविद्रवशृङ्गाराः प्रत्येकं त्रिविधा...... । Hemacandra (p. 437) correctly reads : अर्थत्रयस्य तावत्येव समापना व्यङ्क इत्युक्तम् ।

Page #55

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
(25) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. II, p. 431 ) reads :
तथा दिव्याश्रयमिति यदनादेशाद् देवानां प्रयोज्यत्वं प्रसक्तं तदप्यनेन निषिद्धम् । नाटके देवानामिवेहापि राज्ञः प्रवेशे शङ्कमाने निराकरोति न राजसंभोग इति, यदि वा औत्पत्तिकत्वेऽपि न राजोचितसंभोगोत्प्रेक्षा विप्रादिषु करणीयेत्यनेन शिक्षयति, अत एव राजनियमः । उचितोऽन्तःपुरजनः कञ्चुकिप्रभृतिः तद्-व्यतिरिक्त बाह्यजनोऽत्र चेदासादिः प्रवेशकादौ कार्य इत्यर्थः ।
43
Hemacandra (pp. 435 - 436 ) preserves the correct readings :
..... यदतिदेशाद्... राज्ञः प्रवेशं शङ्कमानो... अत एव राजनि य उचितोऽन्तः पुरजनः .... (26) The Abhi Bhā. (p. 430 ) reads :
यदिति वस्तुभूतैः बृहत्कथादौ काव्यान्तरे वा प्रसिद्धैर्गुणैर्युक्तं,.. रित्यादिनायकफलवत्वमुक्तं तत्,.........
Now, Hemacandra (p. 435 ) reads :
यदिति यस्मादभूतै हत्कथादौ काव्यान्तरे वा प्रसिद्वैर्गुणैर्युक्तं, .. 'नानाविभूतिभिर्युतमृद्धिविलासादिभिः' (Hemacandra, p. 433 1 1 ) इत्यादिना यत्फलवत्वमुक्तं तत् .......
. 'नानाविभूतियुक्तमृद्धिविलासादिभि'
.......
If we refer to the text (NS XVIII. 46 ) we come to know that 'अभूतगुणयुक्तम्' is being explained by Abhinava in his commentary. Hemacandra's reading यस्मादभूतैः is, therefore, in conformity with the text.
Next, the line 'नानाविभूतिभिर्युतमृद्धिविलासादिभिः ।
(correctly preserved in Hemacandra's KS) and not - 'नानाविभूतियुक्तमृद्धिविलासादिभिः 'is a part of the text (NS XVIII. 11).
Abhinava's comment on this line (Abhi. Bhā Vol. III, p. 42 ) runs :
नानाविभूतिभिर्युतं धर्मार्थकाममोक्षविभवः फलभूतैर्विचित्ररूपैर्युक्तम् । तत्राप्यर्थकामौ सर्वजनाभिलषणीयाविति तबाहुल्य दर्शनीयमिति कथयति ऋद्धिविलासादिभिरिति ऋद्धिरर्थस्य राज्यादिसमृद्धि:, विलासेन कामो लक्ष्यते, आदिशब्दः प्रधानवाची, तत्प्रधानाभिः फलसंपत्तिभिः युक्तमित्यर्थः ।
In the light of this gloss of Abhinava it is crystal clear how Hemacandra's reading 'यत् फलवत्वमुक्तं तत्' preserves the original one.
(27) The Abhi Bhā. (Vol. II, pp. 429-430) reads :
वस्त्विति साध्यं फलं, शरीरमिति तदुपायं वस्त्वादिकं काव्याभिधेयमात्मशक्त्या प्रकुरुते यत्काव्येन तत्प्रकरणमिति बुधैर्ज्ञेयमिति संबन्धः । यत्र समुत्पाद्य ं न भवति तत्र योऽनुत्पाद्योंऽश न कुत्रस्थो ग्राह्य इति दर्शयितुमाह
Now Hemacandra (p. 434 ) reads :
वस्त्विति साध्यं फलम् । शरीरमिति तदुपायम्वस्त्वादिकं काव्याभिधेयमात्मशक्त्या प्रकुरुते यत्र काव्ये तत्प्रकरणमिति..............संबन्धः । यत्र न सर्वमुत्पाद्यं भवति तत्र योऽनुत्पाद्योऽश स कुत्रस्थो ग्राह्य इति दर्शयितुमाह ।
It is very easy to see how Hemacandra's readings are the correct ones. यत्र कविरात्मशक्त्या etc. is the text. It is, therefore, natural if Abhinava says in his gloss यत्र काव्ये यत्काव्येन is decidedly a bad reading. 'यत्र समुत्पाद्य' न भवति' etc. - this line yields no sense. Hemacandra's line, on the other hand, makes good sense.

Page #56

44
(28) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 427) reads:
ग्रहणं वा कार्य सनिबन्धनबन्धनमिति । यथा वासवदत्तानृत्तधारे (पारे ?)
Studies in
The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 425) reads:
यथा नृत्तपारे (V. L नृत्तवारे) |
The Nātyadarpana (p. 33 ) reads :
बन्ध इति परैर्ग्रहणम् । यथा वासवदत्तानृत्तवारे वत्सराजस्य ।
The original reading in the Abhi. Bha. must have been and possibly
it was the name of some lost 'uparupaka' or of some Act in a 'rupaka'.
(29) The Abhi Bhā. (Vol. II, pp. 412 - 413) reads :
तेन राज्ञा सर्व राज्यं ब्राह्मणेभ्यो दत्त्वा वानप्रस्थं गृहीतव्यमित्येवंप्रायं फलं नोपनिबन्धनीयम् । तत्फलमपि दृष्टसुखार्थी हि लोको बाहुल्येनेति तत्रास्य प्रतीतिर्विरसीभवेत् । गुणैरित्यप्रधानभूतानि चेष्टितानि हेयानि प्रतिनायकगतानि अपाय प्रधानानि तैर्युक्तम् ।
Hemacandra (p. 434 ) reads :
तेन राज्ञा...... गृहीतमित्येवंप्रायं फलं नोपनिबद्धव्यं धर्ममोक्षबहुलमिति । दृष्टसुखार्थी हि बाहुल्येन लोक इति तत्रास्य प्रतीतिर्विरसीभवेत् । गुणरिति । अप्रधानभूतानि यानि चेष्टितानि देयानि प्रतिनायकगतान्यपनयप्रधानानि तैर्युक्तम् ।
Someśvara (p. 213 ), too, reads in his Samketa :
..... वानप्रस्थं गृहीतमिति फल' नोपनिबद्धव्यम् । 'गुणैः' इति प्रतिनायकापनयन ( १ प्रतिनायकापनय )
प्रधानैः ।
(30) The Abhi Bhā. (Vol. II, p. 413) reads :
कौमुदीमहोत्सवादयो विलासाः सन्धिविग्रहादयो गुणा इति व्याख्यानं चाणक्य ( शास्त्र) परिचय वेदन
मात्रफलम्,.......
Hemacandra correctly reads (p. 434 ) :
...इति चाणक्यपरिचयावेदनमात्रफलम् ।
(31) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 412) reads:
यदि तु मुख्यत्वेनैव देवचरितं वर्ण्यते तत्तावद्विप्रलम्भकरुणाद् भुतभयान कर सोचितं चेन्निबध्यते तन्मानुषचरितमेव संपद्यते, प्रत्युत देवानामधियाधानं प्रसिद्धिविघातकम् । तत्र चोक्तो दोषः, विप्रलम्भाद्यभावे तु का त विचित्रता रञ्जनाया एतत्प्रमाणत्वात् ।
Dr. Raghavant corrects रञ्जनाया एतत्प्रमाणत्वात् to रञ्जनाया एतत्प्राणत्वात् । He leaves देवानामधियाधान as it is with the remark that it is corrupt. This passage is not drawn upon either by the KS or the ND. This context prompts us to correct the line as देवानामाध्यभिधानं प्रसिद्धि (or प्रतीति) विघातकम् ।
(32) The Abhi. Bhā. (Vol. II, p. 392) reads :
'स्वस्था भवन्ति मयि जीवति' इत्यत्र साकाङ्क्षाका कुर्भावनाभावमाह, वचनोच्चारणं त्वर्थे संभावनां विदधतावश्यनिषेधात्मनो विषयमर्पयति
1
Hemacandra (p. 337 ) reads this passage as follows :
1 Adyar Library Bullctin, Vol XVIII, Part 3 -4 (p. 208)

Page #57

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
1
अत्र भवन्तीति साकाङ्क्षा काकुर्भवनाभावमाह । भवन्विति । (? भवन्तीति) वचनोच्चारणं त्वर्थेऽसंभावनां विदधदभावस्य निषेधात्मनो विषय भवनलक्षणमर्पयति ( विषयम् अभवनलक्षणमर्पयति ) । न भवन्त्येवेत्यर्थः ।
45
(33) The Abhi. Bhā. (XVII. III, p. 391) reads in connection with the subject of Akānksā :
तत्राकाङ्क्षार्थान्त एवातदर्थगत एव वा विशेषे तदर्थाभावे वा ।
Hemacandra's KS (p. 336) reads:
विषयोऽपि त्रिविधोऽर्थान्तर, तदर्थगत एव विशेषः, तदर्थाभावे वा ।
In the light of this passage the Abhi. Bhā, passage must be thus corrected : तत्राकाङ्क्षा अर्थान्तर एव । तदर्थगत एव वा विशेषे । तदर्थाभावे वा ।
( 34 ) The definitions of Sākānksa and Nirākānksa vākyas in the Ahi Bhā (XVII. III, p. 391) read as follows :
. अनियुक्तार्थकं वाक्यमिति । यादृशो वाक्यात् सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते तादृश एव यत्र न्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं निराकाङ्क्षम्, तद्विपरीतं साकाङ्क्षम् ।
Hemacandra's KS (p. 336) reads :
यस्माद् वाक्याद् यादृशः सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते न तादृश एव किन्तु न्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षम् । तद्विपरीत निराकाङ्क्षम् । The Viveka adds तद्विपरीतमिति । यादृशो वाक्यात्सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते तादृश एव यत्रान्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणवलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तदिति ।
The text in the Abhi. Bha. needs correction if it is to yield the intended sense. Hemacandra's Viveka comes to our help by pointing to us that the required meaning is to be had by reading यत्रान्यूनाधिकः in place of यत्र न्यूनाधिकः.
(35) The Abhi Bhā (Vol. II, p. 386) reads :
तत एव काकुरूपत्वमेव अतिशायित्वे मुख्योपयोगात् । ... . काकोरेवोपकार संपादकाः परिपूर्णतायायिनोऽलङ्काराः, अलमिति पर्याप्त्यर्थः, इह न भूषणार्थः । अङ्गानि ... शोभादि कर्म च ... काकु रेवांय पञ्चभी रूपान्तरै पूर्णीक्रियते...स्वोचित चिज्जडस्वरूपार्थाभिमुख्येन नयनेनामिनयता नीयत इति काकुरेवात्र प्रधानम् ।
Hemacandra reproduces this passage in his Viveka (p. 334) but there the readings given in bold types are presented differently. Hemacandra's readings yield better sense and, therefore, are to be preferred :
.... अभिनयत्वे मुख्योपयोगात् । काकोरेव हि प्रकार संपादकाः परिपूर्णताधायिनोऽलङ्काराः । अलमिति पर्याप्त्यर्थ इह, न भूषणार्थः । अङ्गानि शोभादिकं च...... ... काकुरेव पञ्चभी रूपान्तरैः पूर्णी क्रियते । .... ...स्वोचितचिज्जडरूपार्थाभिमुख्यानयनेनाभिनयतादीयत इति काकुरेवात्र प्रधानमिति ।
( 36 ) तथा हि ग्लानोऽयमित्युक्ते कुत इति हेतुप्रनेन स्थायी तस्य सूच्यते । न तु राम उत्साह • शक्तिमानित्यत्र हेतुप्रश्नमाहुः ।
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 283, 11. 17-18.
From the context and the trend of the argument it is evident that the reading " हेतुप्रश्नेन स्थायी तस्य सूच्यते । ” is corrupt. Hemacandra preserves the correct reading as follows : - हेतुप्रश्नेनास्थायितास्य सूच्यते । – (p. 125, 1.20)

Page #58

46
Studies in
(37) तेन शृङ्गारस्येमौ भेदौ । गोत्वस्येव शाबलेयत्वबाहुलेयत्वे । अपि तु तद्दशाद्वयेऽप्यनुयायिनी या रतिरास्वादनात्मिका तस्याश्चास्वाद्यमानं रूप शृङ्गारः ।
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 303, 11. 5-6 The force of “अपि तु" is altogether lost if we accept the text as it is presented. From the context we understand that Abhinava is elucidating here "s “शृङ्गारस्यावस्थाभेदम्” and not “शृङ्गारभेदौ”. Hemacandra (p. 108, 11. 3–4) helps us in getting at the correct reading : तेन न शृङ्गारस्येमौ भेदौ गौत्वस्येव शाबलेयबाहुले यौ...... | The ND (p. 145) further confirms Hemacandra's reading : तेन शृङ्गारस्य मौ भेदौ ।
In the passage from the Abhi. Bha. under discussion we have the reading रतिरास्वादनात्मिका । The editor gives in the footnote the variant reading रतिरास्थाबन्धा (त्मिका) । That the original and correct reading must have been ( रति ) रास्थाबन्धात्मिका is as clear as day light from the Abhi Bhā itself. On the same page (Vol. I, p. 303, 11. 12-13) Abhinava's text has the expression 'सत्यमास्थावन्वात्मिकायां रतौ' and further on (Vol. I, p. 309 1.9)‘परस्परास्थाबन्धात्मकत्वे रतिरूपे स्थिते'. Hemacandra (p. 108, I. 4) supports this reading; 'या रतिरास्थाबन्धामिका' | ND (p. 145, 1. 15), too, reads आस्थाबन्धात्मक रतिप्रकर्ष ०
(38) जुगुप्सा स्थायिन्यपीह निषिद्धा न्यायसिद्धा स्थायिनामपि व्यभिचारित्वमनुज्ञापयति......इत्यादिनापि रूपकं मन्तव्यम् ।
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 306, 11. 11-14 . This passage is clearly incorrect. Hemacandra ( pp. 106-107, 11. 24-20) preserves the original correct readings : ... न्यायसिद्ध... इत्यादि न विरूपकं मन्तव्यम् ।
( 39 ) स्वप्ना ( सुप्ता ) न्तर्भूतोऽपि स्वप्नः प्राधान्यादुपात्तः ।
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 307, 1. 4. Now, the text of the Nātyaśāstra (Vol. I, p. 306, 1. 2) reads निद्रास्वप्न विबोध... The editor gives in the foot-note the reading निद्रासुप्तस्वप्न । That the original reading of the text of the Nātyaśāstra must have been' 'निद्रासुप्तस्वप्नविबोध' is a reasonable inference from Abhinava's gloss on it सुप्तान्तभूतोऽपि स्वप्नः प्राधान्यादुपात्तः । Hemacandra too enumerates, among the Vyabhicāri - bhāvas of Vipralambha, निद्रामुप्त... स्वप्न.
(40) सम्भोगेऽपि रतिश्रमकृतनिद्रादि यद्यप्यस्ति तथापि न रतौ तच्चित्रतामाधत्त । विप्रलम्भे तु तद्रति भावनापरस्परोऽत (नापरम् । अत ) एव निद्रादिबाहुल्यांपेक्षं चेत्थमभिधानम् ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, 11. 7-9. Hemacandra (p. 109, 11. 18-19 ) correctly reads : रतिश्रमकृतं निद्रादि... रतिविभावना (v. 1. रतिभावना) परम्परोदितमेवेति .... ।
(41) वयं तु ब्रूमः । तादृश्यां दशायां स्वजीवितनिन्दामिकायां तद्देहोपभोगसाररत्यात्मकावस्थाबन्धोप विच्छिद्यत एवेति सम्भव एव ।
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 307, 11. 11-12.

Page #59

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
The context requires ....रत्यात्मकास्थाबन्धोऽपि विच्छिद्यत एवेत्यसम्भव एव । This conjectural reading is supported by Hemacandra (p. 110, II. 25-26). (42) अत एव सुकविना वाक्यभेदेनापि मरणमाख्यातम् ।
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 307, 1. 18. The context requires the reading "मरण नाख्यातम्' । This conjectural reading has the support of Hemncandra (p. 110, 1.19).
(43) अन्ये त्याहुः मरणमिति न जीवितवियोग उच्यते । अपि तु चैतन्यावस्थेव प्राणत्यागकर्तृ तात्मिका । या सम्बन्धाधवसरगता मन्तव्या व्यभिचारिभावेनेति सुलभोदाहरणमेदिति ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, II, 20-22. Somesvara Bhatti's gloss or Marana runs as follows :-मरणमिति आदीर्व (? अदीर्घ)
. - Samketa on Kavyaprakāsa, IV, p. 54. Hemacandra who adapts this passage from Abhi. Bhā, helps us to get at the correct original reading : अथवा चैतन्यावस्यैव प्राणात्यागकर्तृतात्मिका पाशबन्धाद्यवसरगता मन्तव्या'...।
-p. 110, ll. 21-22. (44) एतदर्थमेव 'जस अहं तादेण दिण्णे' ति 'ईरिसस्स कगपूरदसणसे' ति (१) च ।
-Abhi. Bha. p. 311. _ In the fourth Parisista (p. 392) the editor identifies the first quotation जस्स अह तादेण दिण्णेत्ति as from प्रियदर्शिका २.८. This sentence occurs in the Ratnāvali (I. 23-24) as well :
(कह अअं सो राआ उदअणो) जस्स अहं तादेण दिण्णा ।
The second quotation which, like the first one, is orthographically inaccurate, probably is to be identified with the following sentence from the Ratnāvali (about 15 to 20 lines before the Gatha दुलहजणाणुराओ...II-1)
सुसङ्गता...ईरिसस्स कण्णारअणस्त अवस्स एव इरिसे वरे अहिलासेण होदव्यं । — (45) शमशान्तयोः पर्यायत्वं तु हासहास्याभ्यां व्याख्यातम् । सिद्धसाध्यते यद (तथा लौकिका) लौकिकत्वेन साधारणासाधारणतया च वैलक्षण्यं शमशान्तयोरपि सुलभमेव ।।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 335, 11 9-10 The words in bold types make no sense. The original and correct reading of Abhi. Bha. is preserved by Hemacandra who adapts this passage : न च शमशान्तयोः पर्यायत्वमाशङ्कनीयम् । हासहास्ययोरिव सिद्धसाध्यतया लौकिकालौकिकतया साधारणासाधारणतया च वैलक्षण्यात् ।
-KS p. 121, 11. 23-24. (46) प्रक्षयाश्च रत्यादयोऽत्रास्वाद्याः केवलम् । यथा विप्रलम्भे औत्सुक्यं...व्यभिचारिणोऽपि प्राधान्येनावभासन्ते तथा म जुगुप्सायाम् । सर्वथैव रागप्रतिपक्षत्वात् ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 337, 11. 11-15 Hemacandra's punctuation and readings are definitely to be preferred as they are easily intelligible and in conformity with the import of the whole discussion ;

Page #60

48
Studies in
प्रक्षयोन्मुखाश्च स्यादयोऽत्रावाद्यन्ते । केवलं यथा विप्रलम्भ औत्सुक्यं... व्यभिचारिणोऽपि प्राधान्येनावभासन्ते, तथा शान्ते जुगुप्साद्याः सर्वथैव रागप्रतिपक्षत्वात् ।
-Ks p. 122 11. 6-10. ( 47 ) तथा हि महावते नरकालादिवारणमसु (स्व) भार्यादिसम्मदादि विस्तारसंक्षेपादिकर्मकृतिर्हि जुगुप्साहेतुत्वेनैव । निज्ञाभ्यर्ण( घृताञ्जनेन च देवपुत्रमाद्युपदिष्टम् । । )
—Abhi. Bhā Vol. I, p. 337, 11. 16-18.
Unfortunately, Hemacandra does not adopt this passage. Dr. Raghavan, who presents the text of the Abhinavabharar on the Santa Rasa, as corrected by him, reads this passage as follows: तथा हि महामते कालादिवारणम् असुभार्वादिसमुदायादि विस्तार संक्षेपातिकर्णीकृतिर्हि धर्मे ? जुगुप्साहेतुत्वेनैव निजाभ्यञ्जनं च देवरात् पुत्रजन्मनि उपदिष्टम् । - "The Number of Rasas", p. 100. The readings निजाम्यञ्जन and पुत्रजन्मनि are highly superior to those presented by the Editor. The other reading अस्त्रभार्यादि - about which Dr. Raghavan remarks in a footnote (on the same page) "This bit both in M and G is very corrupt and suitable emendation was very difficult to be found"-however, deserves consideration. Could the original reading be अनुभार्यादिसम्बन्धादि विस्तार संक्षेपादिकर्मकृतिर्हि ?
(48) एव शान्तहृदयानां परोपकाराय शरीरसर्वस्वादिदानं न शान्तविरोधि ।
-Abhi. Bha, Vol. I, p. 338, 1. 3. In the text presented in corrected form, Dr. Raghavan too reads न शान्तविरोधि । Hemacandra, however, reads अन एवं शान्तहृदवानांन शास्त्रविरोधि ।
— Ks p. 122, 11. 17-18.
That 'न शास्त्रविरोधि must have been the original and correct reading becomes at once clear if we take into consideration the context. The citations quoted in support of the statement are obviously drawn from the शास्त्र. (Cf. 'आत्मानं यो गोपायेत्।' 'धर्मार्थकाममोक्षाणां......' and 'जलेऽग्नौ श्वभ्रे वा पतेत् । ) This leaves no shadow of doubt regarding the correctness of Hemacandra's reading 'न शास्त्रविरोधि'.
(49) तद्यथाकथञ्चित्याज्यं शरीर ं यदि परार्थ न त्यज्यते तत्किमित्र [न] सम्पादित ं भवति ।
— Abhi. Bha, Vol. I, p. 338, 11. 9-10. Hemacandra correctly reads this sentence तद्यथाकथविथ शरीर यदि परार्थ तस्यज्यते तस्किमिव न सम्यादित भवति ।
ގ
-KS p. 122, 1. 23;p. 123, 1. 3. The passage from Abhi. Bha. under discussion becomes quite intelligible and flawless if we drop "(न)” unnecessarily added by the Editor.
(50) युद्धेऽपि हि न शरीररूप स्वागाबोयमः ।
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 338, 1.12. Hemacandra probably preserves the original and correct reading when he adopts. this passage from the Abhi Bhā. युद्धेऽपि हि न वीरस्य देहत्यागावोचमः ।
-KS p. 123, 1. 5.

Page #61

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
49
(51) केवलं परार्थाभिसन्धिजाद्धर्मात्परोपकारात्मकफलत्वेनैवाभिसंहितात् पुनरपि देहस्य तदुचितस्यैव प्रादुर्भावो बोधिसत्वादीनाम् । तत्वज्ञानिनामपि विश्रान्तिलाभस्वभावौचित्यात् । यथा रामस्य वीरोऽङ्ग पितुराज्ञां पालयितुः ।
-Abhi. Bha. vol. I, p. 338, II. 19-21. Now this passage suffers from wrong punctuation and is also partly corrupt. Hemacandra presen's this text correctly when he adopts this passage from Abhi. Bhā. केपल परार्थाभिसंधिजाताद् धर्मा...वोधिसत्त्वादीनां तत्त्वज्ञानिनामपि । दृष्टश्चाऊष्वपि विश्रान्तिलाभः, स्वभावौचित्यात् । यथा रामस्य वीराङ्गे पितुराज्ञां परिपालयतः ।
-KS. p. 123, II. 12-14. (52) एथैव गन्धस्थायिकस्य लोल्परसस्य प्रत्याख्याने सरणिमन्तव्या । हासे वा रतौ वान्यत्र पर्यवसानात् ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 341, 11.9-10. Hemacandra adopts this passage as follows : तथा गर्धस्थायिकस्य लौल्यरसस्य हासे वा रतौ वान्यत्र वान्तर्भावो वाच्यः । एवं भक्तावपि वाच्यमिति ।-KS. p. 106, ll. 14-16. The ND (p. 145) reads : सम्भवन्ति बपरेऽपि यथा गर्द्धस्थायी लौल्यः...| The Dhatupatha, too, reads 'गृधु अभिकाहूक्षायाम् ।' The original reading must have been, therefore, the one preserved by Hemacandra गर्ध स्थायिकस्य and not गन्धस्थायिकस्य. ... (53) यद्यस्मान्नृपतीनां सम्बन्धि व्युत्पाद्यानां सामर्थ्यात् नृपतीनामेव नाटकं नाम तच्चेष्टितं प्रवीभावदायक भवति, तथा हृदयानुप्रवेशरञ्जनोल्लासनया हृदयं शरीर चोपायव्युत्पत्तिपरिघट्टितया चेष्टया नर्तयति नट नृतौ नृत्ते इत्युभयथा हि स्मरन्ति । तदिति तस्माद्धेतोः, नामास्य नाटकमिति ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol II, p. 413, 11. 7-10 ___From the context it is clear that we must read नट नतौ नृचे in place of नट नृतौ नृत्ते for Abhinavagupta speaks of both the senses प्रवीभाव and नर्तन (नर्त यति). The passage of similar import from Abhinavagupta, given infra as No. 56, may be read along with this.
(54) हास्यप्रधानवचनसम्बन्धशीलनादिना कुत्सितैः पुरुषैरत एव प्रहस्यमानैः सामर्थ्यात्तरेव भगवदादिभिर्युक्तम् ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. II, p. 448, 11. 1-2 - Hemacandra reads the words in bold type as हास्यप्रधानवचनसम्बद्ध शीलादिना.
-KS. p. 442, 1. 13. (55) नानाप्रकारावस्थाविशेषात्...सकलसामान्यपृथग्गतोपयोग्यस्तु लोकव्यवहारो...पृथग्जनव्युत्पत्तियोनिरूपकमिदं राजपुत्रादीनामपि शम्भलीवृत्तान्तो ज्ञेय एवावञ्चनार्थमिति संप्रयोज्य इत्यर्थः ।
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. ll, p. 450, 1. 13. Hemacandra thus reads this passage : नानाप्रकारावस्थाविशेषा......सकलसामान्यपृथग्जनोपयोग्यत्र ...पृथग्जनव्युत्पत्त्युपयोगिरूपकमिदम् । राजपुत्रादीनामपि...स प्रयोज्य इत्यर्थः ।
-KS. p. 443, 11. 8-12.

Page #62

50
Studies in
Here we find by comparison that Hemacandra preserves two readings ('पृथग्जनोपयोगि' and 'पृथग्जनव्युत्पत्युपयोगि) in their correct original form. His reading 'स प्रयोग' is corrupt for the original reading in the NS (XVIII-110) on which the present passage forms Abhinavagupta's gloss is 'धूर्तविवस' प्रयोज्यो... We, therefore, have to admit the reading 'संप्रयोज्य' found in the Abhi. Bhā. to be the correct one.
(56) ... नट नताविति नमनं स्वभावत्यागेन प्रह्वीभावलक्षणं ये वन्ये नट वृत्ताविति पठन्ति तन्मतेऽपीह
नमनम् ......
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. III, p. 80, 11. 6-7. It is more than probable that the original reading of Abhinavagupta must have been 'नट तृत्ताविति । '
This conjectural reading is supported by a parallel passage of Abhinavagupta. himself (quoted above as No. 52 ) and the Dhatupatha “नर वृत्तौ ।”
( 57 ) वस्तनिमित्तं रौद्रः । स चामर्थप्रधानः । ततो वीभत्सः इति यदुवीरेणाक्षितम् । — Abhi Bhā Vol. I, p. 267. Hemacandra, who with slight modifications adopts this passage from the Abhi. Bha., preserves the correct readings for they eminently suit the context : ततस्तन्निमित्तमर्थप्रधानो रौद्रः । ततः कामार्थ योधर्ममूल्यादर्भप्रभानो वीरः । तस्य भीताभयप्रदानसारस्वादनन्तर भवानकः । तद्विभावसाधारण्यसंभावनात् ततो बीभत्सः । इति यदुवीरेणाक्षिप्तम् ।
- KS (p. 106, 11. 6-8 )
(58) तथा हि-लानोऽयमित्युक्ते कुत इति हेतुप्रश्नेन स्थायी तस्य सून्यते ।
— Abhi Bhā Vol. I, p. 283. This sentence occurs in the course of discussion about the difference and. distinction between Sthayibhava (for instance, utsäha) and Vyabhicaribhava (for instance, gläni). The latter half of the sentence makes no sense. It needs to be corrected in accordance with Hemacandra's KS (p. 125, 11. 19-20)):
...... हेतुप्रश्नेना स्थायिताऽस्य सूच्यते ।
The following comment in Kalpalardviveka (KLV, p. 310, 1.4 ) Asthayira iti vyabhicarità lends support to this correction.
( 59 ) तु पूर्वतो विशेषमाह । अयमेव चाक्षेपः प्रकाशत्वात् संभाव्यते न वधिक इति । सा स्वस्यापि सन्न नोक्तः ।
—Abhi. Bhā Vol. I, p. 298. This passage is highly corrupt. It could however, be partially corrected with the help of the following comments from the KLV (p. 312, 11. 27-28)
पूर्वतः इति अद्भुतात् । अयमेव च इति । अयं चाक्षेपप्रकारश्चतुधैत्र सम्भाव्यत इति । योजना इति । शृङ्गारादि भवेद्वास्य इत्यनचैत्र चतुःप्रकाराक्षेपोक्त्या ।
(60) स्वप्ना (मुप्ता ) भूतोऽपि स्वप्नः प्राधान्यादुपात: ...... सिविणवण....
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 307.

Page #63

Sanskrit Sahityaśästra
This Prakrit verse is extremely corrupt and has been a despair of all translators and researchers so far. The verse is, indeed, corrupt beyond recognition. I venture to restore it by identifying it with the following gatha :
सिणिअखणमुत्तुलिआए पुणरुत्तदंसणमणाए ।
बालाए णिमीलिअलोभगाए दिवसो वि वोलीणो ॥ (स्वप्नक्षणमुप्तोत्थितायां पुनरुक्तदर्शनमनस्कायाः । बालायाः निमीलितलोचनायाः दिवसोऽपि व्युत्क्रान्तः ॥ )
This Prakrit gatha is cited by Bhoja in his Sxngāraprakasa (Ch. XXXI, p. 1103). The Chapter is called Pravasa carya (or Praväsopavartana). In one of the Kandas, called Susvapna-darśana-which has six varieties-we find this gatha cited to illustrate aparyaptarupo (manasa-pratyakşeṇa priyajanavalokab). The context in which the gatha is quoted by Bhoja is more or less identical with the one in the Abhi. Bha, where we find the gathā in hand.
51.
The almost identical context in the Abhi. Bha. and the SP is so very tempting and has led me to this identification.
(61) सौष्ठप्रमनुष्यणता । द्विजा दन्ताः । धीरमिति मन्थरं कृत्वा ईषयनिर्वाहः । विकसितैरिति । अथेति स्मितानन्तर सङ्क्रमणकाल इत्यर्थः ।
तदिति । स्मितमेव सङ्क्रान्त' सदेवरूपतामेतीत्यर्थः ।
-Abhi Bha. Vol. I, p. 315.
In this portion of the Abhi. Bha, we find Abhinava commenting on the N.S. VI. 54-55. The sentence Dhtramiti mantharath krIva satvanirvahab is intriguing. Again, the expression "Vikasitaih" (iti) from the text, as it stands in the commentary, remains unexplained. The following sentence occurring in the KLV (p. 314), however, solves the riddle : :
धीरम् इति मन्थरं कृत्वा ईत्व निवार्याह — विकसितैरिति ।
In a smile (smita) the cheeks are only a little expanded (Isadvikasitairgandaiḥ); in slight laughter (hasita) the cheeks are puffed out (Gaṇḍairvikasitaiḥ). So the comment "sarvam niväryäha vikasitairiti" becomes meaningful and appropriate.
(62) भेदनं परस्परमित्या ( रमैया ) दिवियोजनम् ।
The KLV (p. 315, 1. 1.) gives the correct reading: भेदनं परस्पर मित्रादिवियोजनम् ।
— Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 320.
(63) उग्रकर्मेति । उग्रायोग्यप्रधानानि यानि शिरः कर्तनादीनि तेषां या क्रिया अभिनीतिः सा आत्मा प्रधानं यस्येति ।
||
-Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 324. The word abhinitiḥ does not make good sense in the present context. Possibly it is a scribal error for apantib. The ND's definition of the Raudrarasa (p. 148) -
प्रहारास्त्य मात्सर्व द्रोहाधर्षापनीतिजः । रौद्रः.........

Page #64

52
Studies in
is in favour of this conjecture. Further on the ND (p. 149 ) explains : Anyāyo'panitih. The distinction it makes between the Vira and the Raudra also supports this conjectural reading :
वीररसे च युद्धादिभावेऽपि न रौद्रत्वम् उत्साहन्यायप्रधानात् । रौद्रे तु मोहाहङ्कारापन्यायप्राधान्यमित्यनयोर्न साङ्कर्यमिति ।
( 64 ) वीरस्य भीतावयव (भीताभय) प्रधानत्वाद् भयानकं लक्षयति । ...... स्वजनस्य यौ वधबन्धौ तयोर्दर्शनं प्रत्यक्षेण । श्रवणमागमेन । कथादि अतिक्रान्तयोरपि पुनरनुसन्धानेन स्मरणम् । Abhi. Bhā Vol. I, p. 326, The reading Bhitavayavapradhäänatvad is obviously a corruption of Bhitabhayapradänatvät. That the latter is a genuine reading is quite clear from the Abhi. Bhā. (p. 267 on NS. VI. 15) where we have तस्य ( वीरस्य) च भीताभयप्रदानसारत्वात् । तदनन्तर भयानकः । In identical context the KS (p. 106, 1. 7 ) too gives this very reading.
The KLV (p. 315, 1. 10) undoubtedly preserves the correct reading : कथा चिरातिक्रान्तयोरपि पुनरनुसन्धानेन स्मरणम् ।
( 65 ) भये हि प्रदर्शिते गुरुर्विनीत जानाति । ....यत्र तु राजा न कृतकं परानुग्रहाय क्रोधविस्मयादीन् दर्शयति तत्र व्यभिचारितैव तेषां न स्थायिता......
Abhi. Bhā Vol. 1, p. 328. This passage from the Abhi. Bha. does not yield a happy sense. The KS and the KLV render it quite intelligible :
भये हि प्रदर्शिते गुरुर्विनीतं तं जानाति । यत्र तु राजानः परानुग्रहाय ( कृतकं ) क्रोधविस्मयादि दर्शयन्ति तत्र व्यभिचारितैव तेषां न स्थायितेति ।
— Ks. p. 119, 11, 4-7 . यत्र तु इति । भयानके । परानुग्रहाय इति । परे हि तं राजगत क्रोधादिं दृष्ट्वा भीताः सन्तो मर्यादया वर्तन्त इति ।
—KLV, p. 315, 1. 14. (66) एवं काव्यार्थान् रसान् भावयन्ति कुर्वते । स्थायिव्यभिचारिकापेनैव ह्यास्वाद्योऽलौकिकार्थो निर्वर्तते । पूर्व हि स्थाय्यादिकमवगच्छन्ति ततः सर्वसाधारणतयाऽऽस्वादयन्ति । तेन पूर्वावगमगोचरीभूतः सन्नुत्तरभूमिकाभागिन आस्वाद्यस्य भावको निष्पादक उच्यते । तेन भाव करणे दर्शयति-वागङ्गेति । वागादयस्तत्कर्मसु वर्तन्ते । तेन वर्णनात्मना वाचिकेन संनिवेशवलनादीनाङ्गिकेनान्तर्बहिरात्मना सात्त्विकेन करणभूतेनोपेतान् सम्बद्धान् ।
करणं हि कर्मणि कर्तरि च यद्यपि संबध्यते तथापि (पी) हास्य प्राधान्यात् सम्बन्धदृशि करणत्वमेव दर्शयितु तृतीयादि ( यया) निर्दिश्यते वागङ्गमुखरागेणेति ।
Vol. I, Ch. VII, pp. 343-344 Now, the KLV (p. 308, 11. 11-12), when commenting on the line " Kāvyārthān bhāvayanti, iti tatkāvyārtho rasak from the Abhi Bhā (Vol. I, p. 278, 11. 19-20 ) has cleverly picked up the above passage from the Abhi. Bha. itself with a few changes. It preserves the correct readings of the words that are printed in bold type in the above passage :

Page #65

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
53
काव्यार्थान् इति । वागङ्गसत्वोपेतान् काव्यार्थान् भावयन्तीति भावा इति परिपूर्णभाष्यावाच्यम् । अस्यार्थः-पदार्थवाच्या(? क्या)थौ ' रसेष्वेव पर्थवस्यत इत्यसाधारण्यात् प्राधान्याच्च काव्यस्यार्था रसाः (।) अर्यन्ते प्राधान्येनेत्यर्थाः । नन्व(१ त्व)र्थ शब्दोऽभिधेयवाची । स्वशब्दानभिधेयत्वहि रसादीनां दर्शितमेव । एवं काव्यार्था रसास्तान् कुर्वते ये स्थायियभिचारिणस्ते भावाः ।...... निर्वय॑ते । ......मवगच्छति......आस्वादयति...... । केन भावयन्ति इति करणं दर्शयति । वागङ्ग इति । वागादयस्तत्कर्मसु वर्तन्ते तेन वर्णनाद्यात्मना वाचिकेन सन्निवेशवलनादिना...।
करणं हि कर्मणि कर्तरि च यद्यपि संबध्यते तथापीह भाव्पस्य (=रसस्य) प्राधान्यात् तत्संबद्ध
दर्शितमिति भावर्हि यः काव्यार्थो भाव्यते स एव रस इत्याह तद् इति । (67) यत्र त्वङ्के सर्वेषामङ्कानां योऽर्थो बीजलक्षणस्तस्य. अन्ये तु यत्राङ्के अन्याङ्कानां बीजलक्षणोऽर्थोऽव
संहारः समिलितत्वेन प्राप्तिर्भवति सोऽवताराङ्कः । तार्यते, तमङ्कावतारमामनन्ति । यथा रत्नावल्यां यथा रत्नावल्यां द्वितीयोऽङ्कः । तत्र हि 'ईरिसस्स द्वितीयोऽङ्कः । तत्र हि-ईदिसस्स कन्नगारयणस्स कण्णआजणस्स ईरिस एच वरे अहिलासेण होदव्व' ईदिसे ययेव वरे अहिलासेण भोदय । इत्यादि(ईदृशस्य कन्यकाजनस्येदृश एव वरे अभिलाषेण कोऽनुरागलक्षणः सर्वाङ्कानामर्थ इति । . भवितव्यम् ।) इत्यादि प्रकृतमेव सर्व वर्ण्यते ।
-ना. द. पृ. ३६ -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४१७ The reading 'Kannaä-jana' in the Abhi-Bhā is quite bald. The reading preserved by the ND is, aesthetically and poetically speaking, far superior. This very reading is to be found in the printed editions of the Ratnāvali. 68 · प्रकरणे नाटके चावश्थं प्रवेश कस्तस्यावश्यमुत्तम- नाटकादौ हि परिमितेनोपायेन बहुषु मुख्यावान्तर
प्रकृतिविषये उपदेशाय प्रवृत्तोऽपरिमितेनोपायेन कार्येषु नृपादीनां तत्सहायानां चामात्यादीनां भूयस्तरावान्तरकाये प्रत्युत्पत्तिबहुनां चामात्यादी- व्युत्पत्तिः क्रियते इत्यत्रैव प्रभूतावान्तरकार्यव्युत्पादकौ. नामपि स्वकार्यनिरूपणाय प्रवेशकः, अन्यत्र रूपके विष्कम्भकप्रवेशकौ, न व्यायोगादिषु एकाङ्केषु ताबदल्पपरिमितकार्योपदेशात् न तथा प्रवेशकोपयोग इति वृत्तत्वेनाल्पकार्यत्वात् । क्तिनिष्यामः ।
-ना. द. पृ. ३५ -अ. भा. २ पृ. ४२३-२४ • The passage from the ND is clearly based on the corresponding passage in the Abhi-Bhā. It is very lucid. The Abhi-Bhā passage, as it stands, is unintelligible. It, therefore, needs to be corrected in the light of the ND as follows :
। प्रवृत्तौ परिमितेनोपायेन भूयस्तरावान्तरकायें प्रत्युत्पत्ति (व्युत्पत्तिः ?) बहूनामपि चामात्यादीनामपि स्वकार्यनिरूपणाय प्रवेशकः । 69 यदि च प्रत्यक्षप्रयोज्यौं तत्र पञ्च कार्यपुरुषाः यदि वा सुष्टु कार्योपयोगीन्यल्पानि संख्यया पात्राणि यत्र
चत्वारः प्रकरीपताकादिरूपाः तेषां च परिवारस्वभावा- तत्रोत्कषेण दश, मध्यमगत्या अष्टौ. अपकर्षण स्तावन्त एवेति यदि प्रकर्षस्तदा दशाष्टौ वा रङ्गे चत्वारि पच वा पात्राणि । आधिक्ये तु पात्रप्रविष्टा भवन्ति । ततोऽधिकेषु त्वभिनयचतुष्टय सम्यग- सम्मर्दैनवाभिनयचतुष्टयं प्रेक्षकाणामविभावनीय विभावनीय स्यात्, देवयात्रापरिदृश्यमानजनसमाजवत् । स्यात् । प्रभूतपुरुषसाध्यं पर्वतोद्धरणादि न रङ्गे.
-अ. भा. २ पृ. ४२८ दर्शनीयमित्युक्तं भवति । -ना. द. पृ. ३२

Page #66

54
Studies in
Although the passage in the Abhi-Bhā needs no correction the corresponding passage from the ND is cited here with a view to pointing out how closely the ND follows the Abhi-Bhā and effects suitable changes where it deems fit to do so. 70 तथा च शृङ्गार-वीर-रौद्रैः स्त्रीरत्नपृथिवीलाभशत्रुक्षयाः नाटकं हि सर्वरसं केवलमेकोऽङ्गी, तदपरे गौणाः ।
करुणादिभिस्तन्निवृत्तिरितीयता क्रमेण लोकोत्तरासंभाव्य- अद्भुत एव रसोऽन्ते निर्वहणे यत्र । यतः शङ्गारमनोरथप्राप्तौ भवितव्यमद्भुतेन । असाधारणलाभो हि वीर-रौद्रः स्त्रीरत्नपृथ्वीलाभ-शत्रुक्षयसंपत्तिः । यदि फलत्वेन कल्प्यतेऽवश्य क्रियायाः किंचिदस्त्येव करुण-भयानक-बीभत्सस्तन्निवृत्तिरितीयता क्रमेण फलमात्रमिति किं तत्रोपायव्युत्पादनायत्तेनेत्यदभुतावसान- लोकोत्तरा संभाव्यफलप्राप्तौ भवितव्यमन्तेऽद्भुतेनेव । त्वमकार्य, केन व्युत्पाद्यजनस्पैवं बुद्धिर्जायते-'अहो दुष्क- अपि च नाटकस्यासाधारणवस्तुलाभः फलत्वेन रमप्युपायक्रमेण सिध्यति' इति, उपायेन वार्तितव्यमिति। यदि न कल्प्यते, तदानी क्रियायाः फलमात्र (न) ____ अ. भा. २. पृ. ४२९ किंचिदस्त्येवेति, किं तत्रोपायव्युत्पादनक्लेशेन ।
-ना. द. पृ. २९ If we compare these two corresponding passages it would seem that the ND passage is, of course, dropping the editor's emendation 'na'-which is absolutely uncalled for-quite intelligible. In the light of the ND we must correct the AbhiBhä. thus :
___ असाधारणलाभो हि यदि फलत्वेन न कल्प्यते...किं तत्रोपायव्युत्पादनक्लेशेनेत्यदभुतावसानत्वं कार्यम् । तेन...
One seels almost certain that the copyist must have left out 'na' owing to the influence of the immediately preceding 'na' in ‘phalatvena' and that he must have wrongly read 'vyut pādanāyattena' for the original 'vyut pādana-klesena.' 71 तत्र प्रकरणस्य सभेदस्य सलक्षणं नाम- आत्मशक्त्येति । इतिहासादिप्रसिद्धिं निरस्यति । वस्त्विति ।
निर्वचनं चाह-यत्र कविरात्मशक्त्येति । साध्यं फलम् । शरीरमिति तदुपायम् । [ नायकमिति साधयिवस्विति साध्यं फलं, शरीरमिति तदुपाय। तारम् । चकारः सर्वसमुच्चये । द्वितीयस्त्वसमग्रसमुच्चये । वस्त्वादिकं काव्याभिवेयमात्नशक्त्या प्रकुरुते । एवकारः समुच्चयाभावे उत्पत्तौ भवमौत्पत्तिक निर्मितम् यत्काव्येन तत् प्रकरणमिति वुधैर्जेयमिति तदयमर्थः-त्रितयमिति । यत्र कविकृतं द्वयमेकं च अन्यत्तु संबन्धः ।
पूर्वोपनिबद्ध तत् सर्व प्रकरणं भेदसप्तकमयम् (पा. मे. भेदअ. भा. २. पृ. ४२९-३० सप्तकम् )] वस्त्वादिकं काव्याभिधेयमात्मशक्त्या प्रकरते यत्र काव्ये तत् प्रकरणमिति वुधज्ञेयमिति संबन्धः ।।
-हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४३४ When commenting on the āryā “Saciva' etc., Abhinavagupta expressly says : अथास्य सप्तविधस्यापि प्रकरणस्य प्रत्येकं भेदत्रयं दर्शयितुमात्रियं पठति सचिवेत्यादि ।
अ. भा. २. पृ. ४३२ In the printed text of the Abhi-Bhā, however, we do not get any reference-let alone discussion,-to the seven types of Prakarana anywhere before this statement. In view of Hemacandra's text quoted above and his very close dependance on Abhinavagupta and his commentaries, Abhinavabhārati and Locana-from these two

Page #67

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
commentaries he adopts verbatim passages after passages-one feels almost certain that the above portion from the Kāvyānusāsana, put into brackets, originally was part of the text of the Abhinavabhärati but was left out by later copyists while making its copies; one may also venture to suggest here that 'Prakaraṇasya Sabhedasya' may have originally read as 'Prakaraṇasya Saptabhedasya.' 72 तथा च देवी चन्द्रगुप्ते वसन्तसेनामुद्दिश्य माधवस्योक्तिः
यथा विशाखदेवकृते देवीचन्द्रगुप्ते माधवसेनां समुद्दिश्य कुमारचन्द्रगुप्तस्योक्तिः
(माधवसेनामुद्दिश्य चन्द्रगुप्तस्योक्तिः ?)
अ. भा. २. पृ. ४३३ ना. द. पृ. १०४ The ND passage strongly supports the Editor's correction of the text of the Abhi-Bhā.
73 चत्वारोऽङ्काः यस्याः कस्याश्चिदवस्थायाः सरसोSवस्थासमावापः कार्य इति यावत् ।
55
74 अन्ये तु प्रत्यङ्कं नायक - प्रतिनायकौ तत्सहायौ चेति चतुराहुः, समुदायापेक्षया हि द्वादशेति ।
चत्वारोऽङ्का यस्याम् । कस्याश्चिदवस्थायाः सरसेऽवस्थान्तरे समावापः कर्तव्य इति यावत् ।
हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४३७
अ. भा. २. पृ. ४३५
On comparing the two corresponding passages it is easy to see that Hemacandra's text is quite easy to construe and that it must have been the original reading in the Abhi--Bhā.
अन्ये तु प्रत्यङ्कं नायक - प्रतिनायकौ तत्सहायौ चेति चतुर आहुः । समुदायापेक्षया हि द्वादशेति । - हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४३८
-अ. भा. २. पृ. ४३७ Hemacandra's reading 'catura āhuh' is 75 तावदङ्कपरिमाणशङ्कामतिदेशात् प्रत्यासच्या प्रसक्तां वारयितुमाह एकाङ्क एंवेति ।
अ. भा. २. पू. ४४४
The two words 'Sankā' and 'āsankā,' found in the Abhi - Bhā and the Kās, express nearly the same meaning. The presence of vā' in the Kās, however, makes the sense at once clear. Probably it must have been there in the original Abhi-Bhā. ननु कस्मादयं व्यायोग इत्याह-युद्ध नियुद्धेति । व्यायामे युद्ध नियुद्धप्राये युज्यन्ते पुरुषा यत्रेति व्यायोग इत्यर्थः । संवर्ष : शौर्यविद्याकुलधनरूपादिकृता स्पर्धा |
76 ननु कस्मादयं व्यायोग इत्याह युद्ध नियुद्धेति ।
व्यायामे युद्धप्राये नियुध्यन्ते पुरुषा यत्रेति व्यायोग इत्यर्थः । नियुद्धं बाहुयुद्धम्, संघर्षः शौर्य विद्या कुरूंपादिकृता स्पर्धा ।
अ. भा. २. पृ. ४०५
grammatically correct. तावदङ्कपरिमाणाशङ्कामतिदेशात् प्रत्यासत्त्या वा प्रसक्तां वारयितुमाह एकाङ्क एवेति ।
हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४४०
हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४४०-४१ नियुद्धं बाहुयुद्धम् - स्पर्धनं शौर्यविद्याकुल- धनरूपादि - कृतः संहर्षः (संघर्ष :) - विशेषेण आ समन्ताद् युज्यते कार्यार्थ संरभन्तेऽत्रेति व्यायोगः ।
- ना. द. पृ. १०९
By comparing these corresponding passages it would seem that the Kävyänuśāsana presents correctly Abhinavagupta's etymology of the word 'Vyayoga'. The copyists of the Kävyānusāsana seem to have left out the explanation 'niyuddham bahuyuddham,'

Page #68

Studies in
77 प्रख्यातवस्तुविषय इति प्रख्यात भारतादियुद्धे विषये प्रख्यातेति प्रख्याते भारतादियुद्धे विषये निमित्त सति
निमित्त सति यत्करुणबहुलं चेष्टित वर्ण्यते तत् यत्र करुणबहुल चेष्टित वर्ण्यते तत् प्रख्यातं स्त्रीपर्वख्यातं स्त्रीपर्ववृत्तान्तवत्, मा भूदित्यप्रख्यातग्रहणे- वृत्तान्तवदू भवतु मा वा भूदित्यप्रख्यातग्रहणेनोक्तम् । नोक्तम्...व्याकुला चेष्टा भूमिनिपातविवर्तिताद्याः... ...व्याकुलाश्चेष्टा भूमिनिपातविवर्तिताद्याः । उत्क्रमणीया सृष्टिर्जीवित प्राणा यासां ता उत्सष्टिकाः उत्क्रमणोन्मुखा सृष्टिर्जीवित प्राणा यासां ता शोचन्त्यः स्त्रियः ताभिरङ्कित इति तथोक्तः । उत्सृष्टिकाः शोचन्त्यः स्त्रियस्ताभिरङ्कित इति तथोक्तः । -अभा. २. पृ. ४४५-४६
-हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४४१ Hemacandra's readings suit the context all right and are grammatically correct. In giving the etymology of utststikänka the ND, too, uses the expression 'utkramanonmukhā' and not 'utkramanīyā. 78 कस्माद् भारतमिष्ट वर्षे धन्येषु देवविहितेषु । कस्माद् भारतमिष्ट वर्षे वन्येषु देशविहितेषु । -ना. शा. १८, ९८ (प्रथमार्धम् )
हेम. का. शा. पृ. १७६ अत्र प्रयोगे प्रतिवक्ति वर्षे वन्येष्विति देशत्वेन भोगभूमित्वेन विहितेष्वपीत्यर्थः ।
-अ. भा. २. पृ. ४४६ From the comments of Abhinavagupta it is evident that Abhinavagupta's reading was 'desa-vihitesu' and not 'deva-vihitesu. This reading desa-vihitesu' is supported by Hemacandra. 79 अपि शब्दोऽतिक्रमः, तथेति सामान्यलक्षणम् । अपि शब्दो भिन्नक्रमः । तथेति -सामान्यलक्षणम् । -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४४७
__ -हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४४१ The word 'atikramah' is extremely 'unusual'. The reading 'bhinnakramah', preserved by Hemacandra, appears to be the genuine reading. This expression is very often, met with in various commentaries on ornate poems, epics, etc. 80 लोकोपचारेति । वार्ता प्रसिद्धिर्यदि सा लोक- कोलीन जनवादः तत् ख्यातं प्रसिद्ध दम्भश्चात्मन्यतथ्य
यवहारसिद्धा भवति, यथा शाक्यानां स्त्रीसंपर्कः साधुत्वारोपणरूपः ख्यातोऽत्र विधेयः । यथा शाक्यानां प्रहसनीयो भवति, न चौर्यम् । एवंभावि- स्त्रीसंपर्को गर्हणीयो न चौर्यम् । एवं दम्भोऽपि । प्रसिद्ध एवोपहसनीयः ।। -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४४९
. -ना. द. पृ. ११३ From the context we find that Abhinavagupta is explaining here the Kārikā ‘lokopacāra' etc. After explaining 'lokopa āra-vārtā' we expect him to explain 'yas ca dambha-samyogah.' So the text of the Abhinavabhārati ought to read 'evam dambho'pi' in place of 'evambhāvi.' This proposed emendation finds support in the Natyadarpana passage cited above. 81 तत्र च प्रयोगप्रयुक्तिमाह-परवचनमिति । पर- तत्र च प्रयोगयुक्तिमाह-परवचनमिति परसम्बन्धि
सन्धिवचनं स्वयमङ्गविकाररभिनयेत् ।...आह- वचनं स्वयमाविकाररभिनयेत् । आह-आकाशे यानि आकाशे शून्ये यानि पुम्बकथितानि दृष्टानि यत्र पुरुषकथितानि दृष्टानि यत्र ह्यन्ये त न पश्यत्येकश्च शून्ये तेन वर्धन्ते वा कश्चित्पश्यत्याकर्णयति पश्यत्याकर्णयति च तत्र तद्वचनं स एवानुवदन्

Page #69

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
च तत्र च तद्ववचनं स एवानुवदन् सामाजिकान् सामाजिकान् बोधयति । बोधयति ।
हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४४२ -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४५० एको द्वितीयपात्ररहितः विटः...वेश्यादेः...चरित
व्योमोक्त्या रङ्गाप्रविष्टद्वितीयपात्रसम्बन्धिवचनानुवादेन वर्णयद्...अत्र भाणे ।
-ना. द. पृ. ११२ - The reading 'parasandhi-vacanam' in the Abhi-Bhā is clearly wrong. It ought to be 'Parasambandhi-vacanam' as attested by the Kās and the ND. The sentence yatra sūnye' etc. in the Abhi-Bhā is rather obscure and difficult to construe. Hemacandra's corresponding sentence is perfectly intelligible, and most probably it represents the original readings in the Abhi-Bhā. 82 हास्येनोपगतार्थेति प्रहेलिका परवितारणकारि परविप्रतारणकारि यदुत्तर हास्याय हास्यनिमित्तं
यदुत्तर, अत एव हास्ययुक्ता सा नालिका प्रणालिका निगूढार्थत्वाद् भवति सा नाली ब्याजरूपा प्रणालिका । व्याजेत्यर्थः । -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४५५
-ना. द. पृ. १२९ The reading ‘para-vitāraṇakāri' in the Abhi-Bhā is not at all a happy one. The ND preserves the correct reading 'para-vipratārņakāri' which perfectly agrees with the context. In view of the ND passage it is better to read 'pranālikā-vyāja' (ityarthah) as one expression. 83 यथा व्यसनिना राजपुत्रेण किं सुखमिति पृष्टे यथा वा व्यसनिना राजपुत्रेण किं सुखमिति पृष्टे तेनोत्तर दीयते
___ मन्त्रिपुत्रेणोच्यते_ -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४५६
-ना. द. पृ. १२७ 'Mantri'-putrena'-this word seems to have been left out by the copyists of the Abhi-Bhā.
It would be better to read, on the authority of the N.D., 'mantriputrena' in place of 'tena' in the Abhi-Bha. . 84 अधमप्रकृतेस्तु न नायकत्वमिति ध्रुवं प्रहसनभाणकादौ शङ्घकस्त्वधमप्रकृतेर्नायकत्वमनिच्छन् प्रहसनभाणादौ
किं ब्रूयात् हास्यादि-रसप्रधानत्वे ह्यधम एव हास्यरसप्रधाने विटादेर्नायकत्वं प्रतिपादयन् कथमुपादेयः - नायकः ।
स्यादिति । -अ. भा. २. पृ. ४५९
-ना. द. पृ. ११७ The words in bold type in the Abhi-Bhā make no sense. The corresponding passage in the ND is very clear. It directs us to emend the reading 'dhruvam to 'pratipādayan' or some other word conveying its import such as 'bruvan.' 85 प्रयुज्यते फल यैरुपायानुष्ठानः तेषामितिवृत्तवशादवश्य उपायानुष्ठानस्यावश्यकर्त व्यादिना व्यवधाने सति नायक
कर्तव्यतादिभिर्विच्छेदेऽपि सति यदनुसन्धानात्मक प्रतिनायकामात्यादीनां यदनुसन्धान ज्ञानमसौ प्रधाननायक-गत सन्धिद्रव्यज्ञान बिन्दुः, ज्ञानविचारणफललाभोपायत्वाद बिन्दुः । ज्ञानविचारणं फललाभोपायत्वात्...तेलबिन्दुवत् सर्वव्यापित्वाद् वा जले तैलबिन्दुरिव बिन्दुः ।

Page #70

Studies in
सर्वव्यापकत्वादपि विन्दुः । बीजच मुखसन्धेरेव आपलादिति बीजवत् समस्तेतिवृत्तव्यापकत्वमाह । केवलं प्रवात्मानमुन्मेषयति बिन्दुस्तदनन्तरमिति विशेषोऽ- बीजं मुखसन्धेरेव प्रभृति निबध्यते, बिन्दुस्तु नयोः, द्वे अपि तु समस्तेतिवृत्तव्यापके । तदनन्तरमिति । -अ. भा. ३. पृ. १३-१४
-ना. द. पृ. ४१ The readings in the Abhi-Bhā need to be corrected in the light of the ND passage cited above. The word 'Sandhi-dravya' is very obscure. . 86 अन्यस्मिन्नुपाये चिन्तिते सहसोपायान्तरप्राप्तिः यथा अन्यस्मिन्नुपाये चिन्तिते सहसोपायान्तरप्राप्तियथा
नागानन्दे जीमूतवाहनस्य शङ्खचूडाप्राप्तवश्य- नागानन्दे जीमूतवाहनस्य शङ्खचूडादप्राप्तवध्यपटस्य पटस्य कंचुकिना वासोयुगलार्पणम् ।
कंचुकिना वासोयुगलार्पणमिति । -अ. भा. ३. पृ. २०
-ना. द. पृ. ४० The incident is briefly summarised in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa thus :
यथा जीमूतवाहनस्य परार्थे आत्मानं ददतः शङ्खचूडेन न दत्त वध्यचिह्नम् तव्याकुलस्य कंचुकिनानीय मित्रावसुजनन्या प्रहित रक्तवासोयुगलम् यथावासोयुगमित्यादि ।
The reading in the ND is lucid. 87 यत्रोद्घाटनं सर्वत्रैव कथाभागसमूहे तत् प्रतिमुखम् , यत्रोद्घाटनं सर्व त्रैव कथाभागसमूहे स प्रतिमुखम् । प्रतिराभिमूख्येन यतोऽत्र वृत्तिः ।
प्रतिराभिमुख्ये । मुखस्याभिमुख्येन यतोऽत्र वृत्तिः । _ -अ. भा. ३. पृ. २५
-हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४५१ The etymology of the word 'pratimukha,' in fact, the whole passage in the Kas is adopted from the Abhi-Bhā. We must, therefore, add the words mukhasyābhimukhye between pratirābhimukhye and na which are left out by the copyist. 88 अवमर्श स्वप्राप्तेरेव प्रधानता प्राप्त्यशस्य च प्राप्तिरप्राप्तिरन्वेषणमित्येव भूताभिरवस्थाभिः पुनः न्यूनतेति विशेषः ।
पुनर्भवन्तीभिर्युक्तो गर्भसन्धि: । प्राप्तिसभवाख्यया-अ. भा. ३. पृ. २६ वस्थया युक्तत्वेन फलस्य गर्मीभावात् ।...... "अमर्श त प्राप्तेरेव प्रधानता, अप्राप्यंशस्य च इत्यादिना स्फुटमेव प्राप्तिरित्येवं गर्भः। अप्राप्यंशन्यूनता" इति पाठः स्यात् यतः गर्भसन्धावप्राप्त्यंशः श्वात्रावश्यंभावी । अन्यथा हि संभावनात्मा प्राप्तिप्रधान फलसंभावनात्मकत्वात् अन्यथा स फलनिश्च- संभवः कथं, निश्चय एव हि स्यात् । विमर्श त्वप्राप्तेयात्मक एव स्यादित्युक्त, तद्व्यतिरेकेऽवमर्श रेव प्रधानता, प्राप्यंशस्य च न्यूनतेति विशेषः । प्राप्तेरेव प्रधानता ।
-हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४५२-४५४ -अ. भा. ३. पृ. २६, संपादकीया टिप्पणी
The whole passage in Hemacandra's Kāś is an elaboration of what Abhinavagupta has said regarding garbha-sandhi. In expanding Abhinavagupta's explanation he has retained some of his original sentences as they were. A comparison of the two passages cited above shows that the printed text of the Abhi-Bhā and the last sentence in the passage from the Kāś completely agree (if we ignore the spelling Havamarsa' and 'vimarsa'). The whole discussion about the avamarsa or vimarsa sandhi in the Abhi-Bhā (and the Kāś of 'Hemacandra too) fully supports the printed text of the Abhi-Bhā and the Editor's proposed emendation is misconceived and uncalled for.

Page #71

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
89 अत्र व्याख्याने मुख्यमस्य सन्वेर्यद्रूप विदूर कारण - बीजस्योत्पत्युद्घाट - फलौन्मुख्यैरुद्भिन्नं भवनाभिमुखं
संपातात्मकत्वं नाम तदस्पृष्टमेव स्यात् ।
यत् साध्यं प्रधानफलं तद् - विघ्नात्मा प्रत्यूह हेतु संपातात्मा नियताप्तिचतुर्व्यवस्थापरिच्छिन्नः प्रधानवृत्तांशः... इति विघ्न हेतु संपातेऽपि प्रत्यासन्नवर्तिनि फले न निवर्तनीयमिति च व्युत्पादयितुमवश्यमेव सन्धौ विघ्नहेतवो निबन्धनीयाः ।
- अ. भा. ३. पृ. २८
59
- ना. द. पृ. ५०
From the passage in the ND it would seem that the original and correct reading in the Abhi Bhā was Vighnakārana (and not Vidūra-kārana-) sampātātmakatvam. 90 नानाविधैः सुखदुःखात्मकैः हास्यशोकक्रोधादिभि- नानाविधैः सुखदुःखात्मकै रतिहासशोकक्रोधादिभिर्भावैरुत्तराणां चमत्कारास्पद जातोत्कर्षाणां यत्
र्भावैरुत्तराणां चमत्कारास्पदत्वे जातोत्कर्षाणां यत् समानयनम् -
समानयनम् ।
अ. भा. ३. पृ. २९
- हेम. का. शा. पृ. ४५५
On the same page of the Abhi-Bhā about ten lines after the passage cited above we have :
यदा च सुखप्राप्तेः फलवत्त्वं तदा रतिहासादिबाहुल्यं प्रारम्भादीनां दुःखहानेस्तु फलवे क्रोधशोकादिदुःखात्मकभावाद् (? भाव - ) बाहुल्यम् -
It is, therefore, quite clear that Hemacandra's passage preserves the correct reading ‘रति -हास-शोक- क्रोधादिभिः '
91 इह च रतिग्रहणं पुमर्थोपयोगि रसगतस्थायिभावोपलक्षणं
तेन वीरप्रधानेषु रूपकेषु प्रतिमुख एव ह्यास्था रतिरूपेण उत्साहः सम्यविषया समीहा चेष्टा विलास इति मन्तव्यम् ।
य एव मुखे रस उपक्षिप्यते, तस्यैव स्थायी विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिभिः पोषणीयः । कामफले रूपके मुखसन्धावुपक्रान्तः शृङ्गारः प्रतिमुखे विलासेन स एव विस्तार्यते । विलासप्रकाशकान्येव चेतराण्यङ्गानि निबन्धनीयानि । वीरादिरसप्रधानेवर्थ फलेषु रूपेषु पुनरुत्साहादिसं पद्विषया (यो) स्त्रियोरी हा व्यापारो विलासः ।
- ना. द. पृ. ६२
In his Marathi translation of this Chapter Prof. Kangle observes that the words pratimukha eva hy astha ratirupena are not found in the MS of the Abhi-Bha and that they are absolutely out of place and that through inadvertance have crept in there from a line above [ कामफलेषु रूपकेषु प्रतिमुख एव ह्यास्थावत्वेन ( १ ह्या स्थाबन्धत्वेन ) रतिरूपेण भाव्यम् ]. Keeping this fact in view as well as the passage from the ND the text of the Abhi-Bha may be corrected as follows:
चेष्टा विलास इति मन्तव्यम् ।
वीरप्रधानेषु रूपकेषु उत्साह संपद्विषया समीहा 92 युक्तिस्तु नियतप्रतिपत्तिपर्यन्तेति विशेषः, रूपमिति चानियता आकृतिरुच्यते । तत्र विशेषप्रतिपत्तिरिहापि तथोपचाराद् व्यपदेशः ।
नानारूपाणामर्थानां संशयोऽनवधारणं रूपमिव रूपम् । अनियतो ह्याकारो रूपमुच्यते । मुखसन्ध्यङ्गाद् युक्तेः कृत्यविचाररूपत्वेन नियताकाराया अस्य भेदः ।
अ. भा. ३. पृ. ४८
-ना. द. पृ. ७३
-अ. भा. ३. पृ. ४२-४३

Page #72

60
Studies in
In view of the passage from the ND we may correct the Abhi-Bha as follows: युक्तिस्तु नियतप्रतिपत्तिपर्यन्तेति विशेषः । रूपमिति चानियता आकृतिरुच्यते । तत्र विशेषाप्रतिपत्तिरिहापि तथोपचाराद् व्यपदेशः ।
93 भावतच्चोपलब्धिस्तु क्रम इति । भावस्य भाव्यमानस्य वस्तुनो भावनातिशये सत्यूहं प्रति भावनादिबलात् स्यात् या परमार्थोपलब्धिः सा क्रमः । अ. भा. ३. पृ. ४९
क्रमो भावस्य निर्णयः । भावस्य पराभिप्रायस्याथवा भाव्यमानस्यार्थस्य प्रतिभादिवशान्निर्णयो यथावस्थितरूपनिश्चयः क्रमः ।
- ना. द. पृ. ७६
The words 'ahari prati bhāvanddi balat syle ya do not construe well. By compar. ing the above two passages we should corrrect the text of the Abhi-Bhā as follows: भावस्य भायमानस्य वस्तुनो भावनातिशये सति ऊह प्रतिभादिवात् या परमार्थोपलब्धिः सः क्रमः ।

Page #73

KALPALATĀVIVEKA ON ABHINAVABHARATI
The text of the Abhinavabhärati (A.Bh.), the commentary by Abhinavagupta on Bharata's Nāțyaśāstra (NS) is corrupt and, therefore, obscure in many places. The commentary on the Sixth Adhyāya, though better preserved, than the commentaries on other chapters, has still a great deal of obscurity on account of its corrupt readings. Many reputed scholars have tried their best to improve the commentary. The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta by R. Gnoli and Aesthetic Rapture by Masson and Patwardhan are two of the recent works which have tried to render considerable help in understanding the Rasādhyāya, Chapter VI of Bharata's NS and the A.Bh. on it. In a series of articles I made attempts to restore the text of over ninety passages of the A.Bh. mainly with the help of Hemacandra's Kāvyānusā sana and the Nātyadarpaņa of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra both of whom have made liberal use of the A.Bh. in their works.2 The Kalpalatā viveka (KLV) of an anonymous author has incorporated many long passages from the Dhvanyaloka (D.AI) the Locana commentary on it and the A.Bh. I have shown in a separate paper,3 entitled "Abhinavabhārati Ch. VII Recovered ?" how the KLV has preserved in toto a major portion of the A.Bh. on Ch. VII. In this paper I am attempting to restore the text of A.Bh., Ch. VI with the help of the KLV which offers comments on some of its difficult passages, and renders them intelligible, and incidentally, I would correct a few mis-readings in the KLV with the help of the A.Bh.
1 अन्यच्च स्थायिनां ये विभावादयोऽभिहितास्तरेव योगे स्थायिनः स्फीता भवेयू रसा स्युरित्यर्थः । अयोगे तु स्थायिन एवेति किं रसावस्थापरपर्यायायां स्फीतदशायां पुनर्विभावादिप्रतिपादनेन ।
-KLV p. 303, 11 13-15 The text of the A.Bh. which is commented here upon, reads : feetagenti gulnaefa (Vol. I. p. 272 1.14). The reading 'Sthita' makes no sense. The KLV reading 'Sphita' which directly yields the sense 'in its intensified state' is highly superior and, seems convincingly to be genuine. 2 saatat fat BRT THE
विवृद्धात्माप्यगाधोऽपि दुरन्तोऽपि महानपि । एतद्वाक्यं कृत्यारावणे रामेण स्वशोकस्याभिधायकमुक्त नाभिनयः ।
-KLV p. 304, 11. 17-19 . This passage confirms that the A.Bh. text cites only the second half of the verse. It further informs us that the verse expressing Rāma's sorrow is drawn from the
1 GOS No. XXXVI, Vol I, 1956 (vide pp. 22-23) 2 Vide Chapter No. 4 Supra. 3 Journal of The Oriental Institute Vol XX, No 3, March 1971

Page #74

62
Studies in
old Rāma-play Krtyārāvana (now lost). With reference to this verse R. Gnoli observes in a foot-note : untraced source (Text, p. 4), unidentified stanza" (Translation, p. 30). 3 शोकेन कृतः इति । अस्योत्तरमर्द्धम् ।
हृदयस्फुटनभयात (? 6) रोदितुमभ्यर्थ्य ते सचिवैः । इदं तापसवत्सराजे विनीतदेववाक्यमुदयनगतं शोकमभिदधाति नाभिनयः ।।
-KLV p. 304, 11. 17 -20 This passage corroborates the fact that the A.Bh. text cites only the first half of the verse. It further informs us that the verse, giving expression 'to Udayana's profound sorrow, and forming part of Vinitadeva's speech occurs in the play Tāpasavatsarāja. With reference to this verse R. Gnoli observes in a foot-note :
. ...This stanza, whose source I have not succeeded in identifying. (Text, p. 4). Unidentified stanza (Translation, p. 30).
In the printed text of the Tapasa vatsarăja we read :
(नेपथ्ये)
देव समाश्वसिहि समाश्वसिहि, समस्ससदु समस्समदु पिअवअस्सो ।
[समाश्वसतु समाश्वसतु प्रियवयस्यः । ] विनीतभद्रः-(श्रुत्वा दृष्ट्वा च सकरुणम् ) अये कथमागत एव देवः
श्रावितश्च, तथा ह्ययम्शोकेन कृतस्तम्भस्तथा स्थितो येन वर्धिताक्रन्दैः । हृदयस्फुटनभयात (रोदितु) मभ्यर्थितस्सचिवैः ॥ अतिकरुण च वर्तते तदितोऽपसृत्य कार्यशेष प्रतियोजयामि ।
-Act ll, p. 18 This stanza presents some variant readings : 1 श्रुत्वैष विधृतबाष्पः- Srigāraprakasa (Ch. XXXII)
as quoted by the editor of the play in a f. n. on p. 19
शोकेन कृतः स्तम्भः ; KLV p. 304, G.M. 2 -योऽनवस्थिताक्रन्दैः -G
-योऽवस्थिताक्रन्दैः ;-M
-येन वर्धिताक्रन्दैः -Hc (as noted by R. Gnoli, Text, p. 4) . 3 -मभ्यर्थ्यते सचिवैः '-Hc; KLV Gnoli's translation of the third pāda "(by his companions), who, filled with the fear that tears their hearts", however, altogether misses the point. The idea intended to be conveyed is the same as found in Bhavabhūti :
पूरोत्पीडे तडागस्य परीवाहः प्रतिक्रिया । शोकक्षोभे च हृदयं प्रलाप रेव धार्यते ॥
-Uttararāmacarita III-29

Page #75

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
[When a tank is flooded, an outlct is the only remedy (for preventing the banks from bursting). When agitated by sorrow the heart is sustained only by lamentation ] Rumaṇyān and Vasantaka (the Vidūşaka) the minister and the friend respectively of King Udayana, the Hero, plead with him to take heart and bear the loss of Vā savadattā, his beloved wife (who is believed to be dead). They are extremely worried to find him paralysed by sorrow and standing motionless. They are overpowered by the fear that the King's heart might break if he did not give outlet to his mastering grief. They, therefore, increase their own lamentations and implore the King to weep and thus unburden his mind of the overpowering grief. 4 तस्यैव इति । स्थायिन एव । अस्मिन् इति । अस्मिन् नटेऽयं स्थायी ।
-KLV, p. 305, 1.22 This forms a gloss on Jeta Pagerad affa74' Ra Ahlat afatulat: -A.Bh. Vol I. p. 275, 11. 12-13.
Gnoli, however, renders the phrase in a contrary way : "That man (is) in this feeling." P. 38
Following the KLV, we may translate it as : "In this (actor) is (being realized) this primary emotion." 5 तदनुकारेऽपि च इति । तच्छब्देन रतिः परामृश्यते । अभ्युपगमोऽयम् अनुकरणरूपत्वादेव च नामा
तर प्रवत त इति हि तत्रभवन्तः । ततश्च रत्यनुकारे कान्तवेषगत्यादयोऽप्यनुकार्याः । अनुकरणरूपत्वे च तेषां कृतानि नामान्तराणि यैस्ते व्यपदिश्यन्ते मुनिवचनेषु तावन्नोपलभ्यन्त इति भावः ।
-KLV p. 305, 11. 24-27 The text of the A.Bh., on which we have this comment, reads : तदनुकारेऽपि च क्व नामान्तर कान्तवेषगत्यनुकरणादौ ।
-P. 276, 11. 6-7 R. Gnoli translates this sentence thus :
And, if even that was a reproduction, then what would be the difference between it and the reproduction of the attire, the walk, etc., of the beloved ? He concedes in a foot-note : Text and Translation both doubtful.
p. 41. f.n. 4 R. Gnoli takes kva nämäntaram to mean kva nāma antaram whereas 'nämäntaram is, in this context, used to denote 'another name', 'a different name'. Abhinavagupta himself uses this term in precisely this sense twice on the very next page; केवलमुपायवैलक्षण्यान्नामान्तरं प्रतिपद्यतां दर्शनानुमितिश्रुत्युपमितिप्रतिभानादिनामान्तरवत् ।
A.Bh. p. 277, 11. 8-9 The KLV interprets the line : 'For argument's sake we grant your point of view, viz, 'The Erotic sentiment is an imitation (anukaraņa) of the permanent mental state called rati. Now in this imitation of rati the dress, the gait, etc., of the beloved become anukārya (things to be imitated). By virtue of their having the nature of anukarana they must have been given different names. But these so-called different

Page #76

64
names for the dress, the gait, etc., of the beloved are not to be found in the text of Bharata's NS. So your stand that Rasa is an imitation or reproduction ( anukara, Anukarana) of a sthāyibhāva such as rati, etc., has no basis. ”
This interpretation seems to be perfectly all right but for one inconvenient fact. It is true Barata does not give different names to the imitation of dress, the gait, the speech, etc., of the beloved, he, however, gives general name 21/4 बागङ्गालङ्कारैः शिष्टः प्रीतिप्रयोजितमधुरैः । इष्टजनस्यानुकृतिलला ज्ञेया प्रयोगः ॥
Abhinavagupta, however, has himself said in the present paragraph: कान्तवेषानुकारवद्धि न रामचेशिनुकारः ।
6 तन्त्र इति नाव्यतत्रम् |
Studies in
—NS XXII, 14
- Vol I p 276, 1.1.
KLV p. 306, 110
This comment comes in between प्रामाणिकजनश्च... किमाचक्ष्महे । ( = प्रामाणिको जनः ...... किमस्योच्यते A. Bh. Vol I, p. 276 1 17 and रसो न प्रतीयत इति ।
Hemacandra, however, reads:
The present text of the A.Bh., however, does not have the reading tantra in the present context; it reads :
यवत्यन्त नः प्रतीतिवैषम्यप्रसङ्गादि तत् कियदत्रोच्यताम् ।
यहन्यत्तत्प्रतीतिवैषम्पप्रसङ्गादि तत् कियदत्रोच्यताम् ।
- Vol I. p. 276, 11 17-18
-p. 96 1. 9
Possibly the KLV might have read यत्वन्यत्तन्त्रप्रतीतिवैषम्य.
7 Masson and Patwardhan observe :
"On p. 274 (A.Bh. I) Abhinava begins his views, but it is not clear when they end ...it is likely that this refers, not to Abhinavagupta, but a now lost commentary by Bhatta Tauta on the NS...."-Aesthetic Rapture. The following passage from the KLV is very eloquent on this point:
रसो न प्रतीयत इति । रसस्य प्रतीयमियक्ती मुख्यतया, उत्पत्तिश्चोपचारेण भट्टतोतस्याभिमता । एष एव च पक्षो यथोपाध्याय' शिष्या इत्याचार्यस्य [अभिनवगुप्तस्य] अनुमतोऽत एव च प्रतीत्यादिव्यतिरिक्तच संसारे को भोग इत्यादिना तत्र तत्र रसस्य प्रतीत्यादिकमाचार्यः स्वयं व्यवस्थापयिष्यतीति शङ्कुकादिमतनिरसनानन्तरमुपाध्यायमत न प्रदर्शितम् ।
-p. 306, 11. 10-14
According to the KLV, Abhinavagupta held the same views as those of Bhattatauta, his teacher. And that is why he does not separately set forth the view of Bhatta-tauta after mentioning the views of Sankuka and others. Unless we have a definite clue as to a now lost commentary by Bhatta-tauta on the NS, it is safer to presume that Abhinavagupta quotes Bit-taata's views and explanations of the NS

Page #77

Sanskrit Sahityas astra
from his memory or lecture-notes which he might have taken down when reading the text with him (Bhatta-tauta).
8 न चोरसाहादिमान् रामः स्मर्यतेऽननुभूतत्वादित्याह न च तत्त्वतः इति सरसता इति रसोपजनः । KLV, p. 306, 1. 21–22
In explaining the view of Bhatta-Nayaka and its criticism as presented in the A.Bh., (Vol I., pp. 276-77) the KLV very cleverly and rightly borrows sentences and phrases from an earlier version preserved by Abhinavagupta himself in his Locana (pp. 180-190).
The A.Bh. reads:
65
न च तद्वतो रामस्य स्मृतिः । अनुपलब्धत्वात् ।
-p. 276, l. 5 (from below) The KLV reads tattvataḥ; so too, Hemacandra reads tattvato (p. 96 1. 13). The reading 'tadvataḥ' however suits the context.
9 The A.Bh. (Vol I, p. 277, 11. 1-2) reads
'AAR. Masson and Patwardhan observe: The phrase Nibidanijamohasankaṭakāriņa on p. 277 of the A.Bh., Vol. I, is puzzling. Perhaps we must read Sankatanivṛttikariņā. "Gnoli accepts the reading of the Sankat atanivärṇakärinä but remarks Sankaṭakariņā. G. M. equally. possible. (Text, p. 10, F. n. 8.) He, however, does not explain how that reading would yield a satisfactory meaning, suited to the context. The fact that the correct reading must have been Sankatataniväraṇa (or nivriti) kāriņā is vouchsafed by Abhinavagupta's own text in the Locani where he reads:
भोगोऽपि न काव्यशब्देन कियते, अपि तु घनमोहान्प्रसङ्गसानिवृत्तिद्वारेण......।
10 रजनोवैचित्र्यानुविद्धसत्वमवनिर्वाचत्स्वभावनिर्वृतिविश्रान्तिलक्षणः ।
-p. 189.
KLV p. 307, II. 4-5
The text of Hc (p. 96 11. 22-23) and of the A.Bh. (p. 277 11. 3-4) too in the present context reals laksana. Dr. Raghavan's emendation (Bhoja's Sṛazaraprakása, p. 480) as 'Vilaksana', therefore, seems uncalled for.
11 रसः इति । रसः स्यान्न तृतीया गतिरिति संबन्धः ।
9
—KLV p. 307, 1. 20. The A.Bh. (Vol I, p. 277, 11. 9-10) reads: faz face Hc (p. 97, 18) too, reads for a drar fer: It is, therefore, clear that gatiḥ syät is the genuine reading and not gatirasyam, 12 गुणानाम् इति । सपरजस्तमसाम् ।
—KLV p. 307, 1. 24
This comment confirms the fact that 'gunanam' is the genuine reading and that He has added Sarvadi before it by way of elucidation and expansion.
13 संसर्गादिः इति ।
KLV p. 307 1. 24

Page #78

66
Studies in
From this prattka and the explanation that follows it would seem that the Kārikā : संसर्गादिया शास्त्र एकत्वात् फलयोगतः । वाक्यार्थस्तद्वदेवात्र शृङ्गारादी रसो मतः ॥
formed part of the text of the A.Bh. and stood just before the Karika Samvedanakhya (khyaya) etc. (as found on p. 277) bhidyasamyojana etc. ( Gnoli's text p. II). This inference is based on the fact that the KLV takes up immediately after the Pratika Samsargādib, tadvitayab iti as the next Prarika for explanation and this latter pranka forms part of the A. Bh. line अनुभवेन च तद्रिश्य इति मन्यम् which is a comment of Abhinavagupta on the word anubhava occuring in the Karika Bhavasamyojana, etc. 14 धिगनागमित्वम् इति ।
–KLV p. 308, 11. 4-5
The text of the A.Bh. (p. 278 1. 3), however, reads (a) dhigarågamitvam. The verse as it stands is highly obscure. Gnoli's translation (p. 51 ) of this verse is hardly satisfactory. Masson and Patawardhan frankly concede: "The first verse is corrupt. and we cannot derive any satisfactory sense from it." Elsewhere they suggest that it is impossible to interpret it when they say: "We give the verse for anybody who wishes to attempt an interpretation." The following passage from the KLV throws. fresh light on the text and the interpretation of this verse:
न त्वेवम् (? नन्वेवम्) इति । न त्वेको ( नन्वेको ) ऽन्यथा व्याचष्टेऽपरोऽन्यतरश्चान्यथेत्येवं रसतत्त्वमलब्वप्रतिष्ठ कथमास्तामिति निर्विण्णप्रायस्य जिज्ञासोः प्रश्नः । किं कुर्मः इति । निराम्नाये ना ( निराम्नायम् (आ) द्यागन रहस्य न कश्चितीति सजुगुप्तमाचार्य स्योक्तिः धिगनागमित्वम् इति । तथा ह्यनागमज्ञो लोलयप्रभृतिः स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिरुपचितो रस इत्यादिना प्रकारेण किं न दूषयति । सर्वमप्यसङ्गतार्थं प्ररूपयतीत्यर्थः ।
The reading 'dhiganagamitvam, found in the KLV, is highly superior and eminently suits the context. The reading (a)dhigatagamitvam hardly goes well with annayasiddhe in the first påda. With this reading the verse may tentatively be translated as follows :
The true nature of rasa (rasa-tattva) being well-established or being well-known through (Bharata's) tradition what is there new about it ? In the upward march of knowledge the disregard of (Bharata's) tradition deserves to be condemned. Do not people like Lolata vitiate this doctrine of rasa going against the evident and precious hetu (viz. tradition)? Certainly they do."
Abhinavagupta is fond of using this expression 'kimapurvametat'. In the Locana (p. 188 1.5) he says kimetadapūrvam. The statement of Abhinavagupta, which follows immediately after the introductory verses, supports this interpretation (what is new about it ?) :
उक्तमेव मुनिना न खपूर्व किञ्चित् । प्रतिपत्ति इति वाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिमात्रात् । 15 इतिवृत्त इति । इतिवृत्तम् इतिकर्तव्यतेत्यर्थः ।
KLV p. 308, 124

Page #79

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
.67
The text of A. Bh. (Vol. I. p. 278, 1. 3, from below) reads pratipattimātrādatitivra; in a foot-note the editor notes the variant readings : traditivra ditrivrt. The reading itivștta, found in the KLV, appears to be genuine, although its sense itikartavyatā appears to be very unusual. 16 त्रासकस्य इति मृगपोतकादेः । अपारमार्थिकत्वाद् इति । अत्र हेतुर्विशेषरूपत्वाभावादिति ।
-KLV p. 308, 11. 26-27 Gnoli's translation of this particular sentence appears to be incorrect when he says: ...."the actor, who (playing the role of the deer), frightens (the spectator) (trasaka.... showing to be afraid) is unreal (apāramārthika)”. Would it not be more correct to to construe 'trāsaka' (one who causes fear) with Dusyanta, who strikes terror in the heart of the deer ? 17 भावः इति शमनामा ।
-KLV p. 309, 1.2 (from below) The text of the A. Bh. (p. 282 1. 3) reads :
तत्त्वज्ञानजनितनिर्वेदप्रायो विभावो मोक्षोपाय इति । . Dr. Raghavan (p. 527 1.3) reconstructs the text as : : ... निवेदप्रायोऽपि भावो मोक्षोपाय इति । , 18 अशक्तौ तु इति अपरिचित इति चोभयप्रकारा भयसंवित् ।
-KLV, p. 310, 11. 2-3 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 282, 1.3, from below) reads
अशक्तौ च ततो भीरुः किञ्चिदार्जिजीषुरप्यनुचितवस्तु Dr. Raghavan notes the variant readings : . M अज्जिजीषुरपिचित D जिगीषुरपिजित ।
-(p. 527, f.n. 17) From these variant readings we could reasonably infer that the MS of the A.Bh., available to the author of the KLV must have had the reading : aparicita. ____19 लीयेत इति नश्येत् ।
-KLV, p. 312, 1. 11 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol. I, p. 295, 1. 12) reads :
तत्स्पशे" ह्यभिमानोऽस्या (स्य) विलीयत एव । ... Hc (p. 149 1:16) reads:
___ तत्स्पशे ह्यभिमानोऽस्य लीयेतैव ।
20 तदाभासतायाम् इति । मोक्षविभावाभासतायाम् । प्रहसन इति । प्रहसनरूपकेण हि राजपुत्रादीनां सर्वपुरुषार्थे घनौचित्यत्यागविषया व्युत्पत्तिराधीयत इत्यर्थः ।
-KLV, p. 312, 11, 12-14 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 296, 11. 8–9) reads : तदाभासतायां शान्ताभासो हास्य एव प्रहसनरूपस्य (रूपः ।) अनौ (स्वानौ) चित्यत्यागः सर्वपुरुषार्थेषु व्युत्पाद्यः Dr. Raghavan reconstructs the text as follows :

Page #80

Studies in
तदाभासतायां शान्ताभासो हास्य एव । प्रहसनरूपस्य अनौचित्यत्यागः सर्वपुरुषार्थेषु व्युत्पाद्यः।
-p. 529 The KLV passage attests the correctness of Dr. Raghavan's reconstructed text and makes it easily intelligible.
21 शान्तस्यापि इति विषयविपरिवृत्त्याऽन्तर्मुखतालाभेन सवरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्वादः केवलं वासनान्तरोपहित इति हि वक्ष्यते ।
-KLV, p. 313, 11, 1-2 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 339, II. 21-22) reads : .
तत्र सर्वरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्वादो न विषयेभ्यो विपरिवृत्त्या । तन्मुख्यतालाभात् । केवलं वासनान्तरोपहित इत्यस्य सर्वप्रकृतित्वाभिधानाय पूर्वमभिधानम् ।
Dr. Raghavan reconstructs this passage as follows :तत्र सबरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्त्रादः, विषयेभ्यो विपरिवृत्या । तन्मुख्यता लाभः केवलं वासनान्तरोपहित इति । अत्र सर्वप्रकृतित्वाभिवानाय पूर्वमभिधानम् ।
---The Number of Rasas (1967 ed.). p. 115. Masson and Patwardhan translate it thus :
In this connection, the aesthetic enjoyment of all rasąs is similar to that of śānta, because it (i.e. this aesthetic enjoyment) is turned away from actual sense object contact. (Because we are particularly concerned with one rasa, except that it is mixed with other latent mental impressions (Vāsanā). ? ___ In a foot-note they concede : 1. “We cannot arrive at a meaning for this sentence.” Yes, the sentence, as it stands, yields no satisfactory sense. But the text of the KLV helps us to restore the original reading; the key-word in the text of the KLV is antarmukhatālābhena (antarmukhatā meaning introspection). Keeping in view the text of the A.Bh. and the text as reconstructed by Dr. Raghavan we may now restore the original text :
तत्र सर्वरसानां शान्तप्राय एवास्वादो विषयेभ्यो विपरिवृत्त्याऽन्तर्मुखतालाभात्, केवल वासनान्तरोपहित इति ।
For this proposed restoration we find strong support in the A. Bh. itself. In this very section on śānta-rasa, when explaining the nature of the true relish of śānta Abhinavagupta uses the expression antarmukhāvasthäbhedena :
तत्त्वास्वादोऽस्य कीदृशः । उच्यते-उपरागदायिभिः उत्साहरत्यादिभिरुपरक्त यदात्मस्वरूप...निर्भासमानम् अन्तर्मुखावस्थाभेदेन लोकोत्तरानन्दानयनं [ ? लोकोत्तरानन्दघनं ] तथाविधहृदयं विधत्त इति ।
__ -A. Bh. pp. 340-341 This passage and the variant reading (tanmukhyatā) läbhät, found in the two MSS M and G and recorded by Dr. Raghavan (The Number of Rasas, p. 115, f.n. 2), leave absolutely no doubt as to the correctness of the proposed restoration of the text. 22 लीला इष्टस्यानुकृतिः।
-KLV, p. 313, 1. 17 This reading is quite significant compared to the tame and flat reading lila janasyānukstih found in the A, Bh. (Vol. I, p. 304, 11. 15-16). If the A. Bh. were to

Page #81

Sanskrit Sahityalāstra
read iṣṭajanasyānukṛtiḥ then it would have been a perfect reading for in the definition of Lilā (NS XXII. 14 ) itself Bharata says :
वागङ्गालङ्कारः शिष्टेः प्रीतिप्रयोजितैर्मधुरैः ।
इष्टजनस्यानुकृतिर्लीला शेवा प्रयोगज्ञः ॥
23 विप्रलम्भ इति । विप्रलम्भो विडम्बनं प्रसिद्धमिह तूपचारात्तदीय फलं विरहात्मकं गृह्यते । तेन हिं परस्पर' रतिमतोरन विडम्बनमस्ति । तेन विरहेण कृतः सुष्टुतमां पोषित इत्यर्थः ।
KLV, p. 313, 11. 26–28. This passage when compared to the A. Bh. (p. 308, II. 2-4) presents better readings. (They are shown in bold types in this passage.)
24 नन्वेकः स्थायीति का भूविता इत्याह- परमेदाश्र इति ।
–KLV p. 314 1. 11-12 This quotation supports the Editor's emendation of the readings काष्ठ to (कास्य) भूयिष्ठता (p. 31512 ).
25 चिकुष्ट इति विकुष्टः अवणकटुः । उपपात इति । उपपातः पुत्रादिमरणम् ।
—KLV, p. 314, || 17-18 The A. Bh., however, reads vikritam Sravanakata (p. 316, 1-2); and upaghato' gnyadimaranam (p. 318, 1. 5). The editor notes the variant reading : ma. bha. atrādikama (for agnyadima). This variant reading suggests that the reading found in the KLV ( putrādi) must have been the original reading in the MS of the A Bh. that was before the KLV.
26 ताडनं... भेदनं परस्पर मित्रादिवियोजनं भावे ण्यतौ प्रहरणा नाम समन्ताद्वरणम् सम्प्रहारेण रुधिराकर्षणमिति विग्रहः ।
(9
-KLV, p. 314 (last line), p. 315 (first two lines).
The reading in the A. Bh. (p. 320, last line): 'bhave nyadantau is incorrect. So too the reading of the KLV 'bhave nyatau'. The correct reading should be bhave lyuḍantau. 27 लोकोत्तरानन्दघनम् इति । एतदेकं हृदयस्य विशेषणम् ।
—KLV, p. 315, I. 23.
The text of the A. Bh. (p. 341, 1. 3) however reads : लोकोत्तरानन्दानय (न्दाय )नं तथाविधं हृदयं विधत इति । Dr. Raghavan reads:
लोकोत्तरानन्दानयनं तथाविधहृदयं विधत्त इति ।
-The Number of Rasas, p. 117 Apparently the reading, preserved in the KLV, seems to be the original one. Incidentally, I may note that the A. Bh. text helps us to correct the wrong readings found in the KLV. Some of them are pointed below:
1
KLV
तथा प्रति इति अस्येयमिति यो न संबन्धप्रतीत्युपादहेतवः [१]
- p. 305, 11. 21-22
A. Bh. ( Vol. 1)
अथ सामाजिकस्य तथा प्रतीतियोग्याः क्रियन्त इत्येतदेवानुसन्धानमुच्यते ...
-P. 275, 11. 11-12

Page #82

Studies in
In the light of the pertinent passage in the A. Bh. we ought to read the text of the KLV thus : ___तथाप्रतीति इति । अस्येयमिति येन संवन्धप्रतीत्युत्पादहेतवः (विभावाः) ।। KLV
___A. Bh. 2 नापि वास्तु इति तृतीयः पक्षः ।
तथाहि-अनुकरणरूपो रस इति. यदुच्यते तत्क
p. 305, 1. 23 (१) सामाजिकप्रतीत्याभिप्रायेण उत (२) नटाभिप्रायेण The third alternative refers to vastu- किंवा (३) वस्तुवृत्तविवेचकव्याख्यातृवुद्धिसमवलम्बनेन vsttavivecaka etc. and is taken up for यथाहुर्व्याख्यातारः खल्वेवं विवेचयन्ति इति । अथ consideration on p. 276 (11. 2-3). In (४) भरतमुनिवचनानुसारेण । the light of these two passages we must read the KLV text as
-A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 274, II. 1-4 "नापि वस्तु....” इति तृतीयः पक्षः । नापि वस्तुवृत्तानुसारेण तदनुकारत्वम् ।
-A. Bh. Vol. I. p. 276, 1.2 3 अस्यार्थः-पदार्थवाच्यार्थो....नन्वर्थशब्दोऽभि- तत्र च पदार्थवाक्यार्थी रसेष्वेव पर्यवस्यत...न धेयवाची ।
त्वर्थशब्दोऽभिधेयवाची । -P. 308, 11. 12-13
-A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 343, Il. 16-17 In view of the text in the A. Bh. we must correct the two words in the KLV text as vākyārthau and natvartha4 अलङ्कारः कटकादिः इष्टजनश्चैतव्यमुत्तमत्व- अलङ्कारः कटकादिः । इष्टजनः विदूषकादिः । एतसूचकम्।
दुभयमुत्तमत्वसूचकम् । -p. 313, II. 13-14
-A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 304, 1.9 We must underline the word işğajanaśca 5. The words vipriya, dehasya, āyāsanam
cf : A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 318, p. 319, abhighāta
(p. 314) p. 320. pātanam, pidanam chedanam bhedanam (p. 315 1. 1) must be underlined as
they are the Pratikas. 6 हस्त इति । हस्ताग्रयोरन्योन्यं निषेधः संघर्षणम् । . हस्ताग्रयोरन्योन्यनिष्पेषः सङ्घर्षणम् । -p.315, 11. 3-4
A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 321, 11. 3-4. We must correct the reading from nisedhah to nispesah as nispesa (mean. ing rubbing) suits the context.
In spite of a few such wrong readings, it must be admitted on all hands that the KLV is highly important, among other things, for a better understanding of the A. Bh. on the Rasādhyāya (and the Bhāyādhyāya).

Page #83

6
ABHINAVABHARATI CH. VII RECOVERED?
The commentary Abhinavabharat (A. Bh.) on the Natyalastra (NS) has been lost from fourth verse in Ch. VII to the end of Ch. VIII. The precise line from where the commentary has been lost is line 16 on page 347 (Vol. I) after the words ata eva-The editor has noted this in his footnote.2 Every student of Sanskrit poetics and aesthetics feels very much the loss of this portion, especially the one that concerns. the Bhavadhyaya (Ch. VII). In spite of vigorous efforts by scholars and researchers. no MS of the A. Bh. containing the missing portion could be found. In this paper I propose to prove beyond cavil that the portion of the Kalpalataviveka (KLV) from p. 286 1. 22 to p. 303 1. 3, dealing with the thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas of the NS is a straight quotation of the major portion of the original A. Bh. on the Bhavadhyaya. As such the major portion of the lost Ch. VII has been restored and scholars should be happy to welcome it.
The paragraph preceding the treatment of nirveda (KLV p. 286) probably explains. the commentary of Abhinavagupta on the NS VII. 4-5 defining v.bhava and anubhava respectively. The portion of the NS Ch. VII p. 348 to p. 356 just preceding "tatra nirvedo nama" and the portion which just follows the treatment of the thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas from p. 374 to the end of this chapter have been ignored in the KLV. This omission could be explained in two different ways:
1 GOS, Second Revised Edition, Vol. I, Baroda, 1956.
2 एतस्मात्प्रभृति नवमाध्यायपर्यन्तं व्याख्या नोपलब्धा ।
Dr. J. L. Masson and Prof. M. V. Patwardl an cbscive in their reccnt work, Santarata and Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics (1969):
"All of the seventh Chapter of the Abhinavabharati but the very beginning has been lost, which is a great misfortune, since Abhinava refers to it frequently. It must have been a large and important section of the A. Bh." (p. 120 f. n. 2).
3 L. D. Series No-17, Lalbhai Da'patbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandira, Ahmedabad-9, 1968.
4 One may reasonably surmise that the Kalpalata or the Pallava commentry on the Kalpalata must have quoted NS VII. 4-5 and used the A. Bh. on it for explaining the terms vibhāva and anubhava occurring in Bharata's rasa-sutra; and the author of the KLV is explaining here what is durbodha (Unintelligible) in the Pallava commentary (vide infra f. n. 5). This surmise is based on a few significant words in this paragraph of the KLV: Asrayah' (p. 286 1. 12) which occurs in NS VII. 7 and Vaga dyabhinayasahita (vibhavyante) (P. 286 II. 13-14) which occurs in the A. Bh. on it (p. 347 1.14) and 'Vaganzopangasamyuktaḥ' the V. L. for 'Sakkopangacamyuktaḥ) in NS VII. 5. I have not been able to trace the pratikas 'Pratitihetavaḥ' (p 286 1.13), Anubhavan (p 286 1. 16), and Yena (p. 236 1. 19), as they are most probably parts of the author's own comments in elucidubon of the Kilpilata text (now lost).

Page #84

72
(i) The author of the KLV says he would avoid repeating whatever has been. already said in the Pallava. So perhaps he is silent on these topics in the KLV.
(ii) The author of the KLV is most probably explaining here Bharata's famous rasa-sutra that might have been quoted in the Pallava in connection with the figure rasavat. For he explains the terms vibhāva, anubhava and vyabhicaribhava and then proceeds to comment on the different views of different commentators of the rasasutra as presented in the A. Bh. So there was no occasion for him to deal with these topics.
Hemacandra, the joint authors of the Nitya-darpana (ND) and the anonymous author of the KLV freely utilise the A. Bh. in writing their own works. A comparative study of their treatment of the thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas would, therefore help us in deciding whether the KLV preserves the original A. Bh. on this portion of Ch VII. With this aim in view I note below in tabular form the identical or nearly identical or corresponding passages between the KAS and the KLV and the ND and the KLV respectively :
Kavyanulásana of Hemacandra (अ) परस्मिन् यथा - समुद्रदत्तस्य नन्दयन्त्यामन्यानुरागशङ्का [ पुष्पदूषित के] दुर्योधनस्य वा भानुमत्याम् (वेणी २) । १. १३४
(आ) चिन्ता । सा च स्मृतेरन्या । ग्रसनाददनवत् खेलनाद् गमनवच्च । सा च वितर्कात ततो वा वितर्क इति वितर्कात् पृथग्भ
चिन्ता । १ १३८
(इ) अकार्यकरणशानादेर्बीडा...
... चापलम् अविमृश्य
- पृ. १३०
......
(ई)
यावत् । - पृ. १३४
(3) निद्रोद्भवश्विनेन निद्राया एवं गाढावस्था
सुप्तमित्याह । १ १३२
कार्य करणमिति
Studies in
Kalpalataviveka
अत एव यान्यगतत्वेन शङ्का यथा समुद्रदत्तस्य नन्दयन्त्यामन्यानुरागशङ्का । दुर्योधनस्य वा भानुमत्यां, सापीह शङ्कात्वेन परिगृहीते। १२८८ चिन्तानुस्मृतेरन्यैव ।...सर्वधातूनां ह्यर्थोऽन्योन्यतो भियत एव। तथा हि खेल गताविति यद्यपि पठवते तथापि सविलासगमनमेव विशिष्ट' खेलनमिति प्रसिद्ध खे खेलगामीत्यादौ । ग्रसनं च... विशिष्टम् अदन न तु अदनमात्रमेवमन्यत्रावधेयम् । पृ. २९२ As नाम अकार्यकरणात्मिका ज्ञानमुच्यते ।१ २९३ अविमृश्यपर्यालोच्य कार्य करणं चापलमिति यावत् |
। अकार्य करणशब्देन
पृ. २९४
निद्रासमुत्थमित्यनेन निद्राया एव गाढावस्था सुप्तमिति.... माह । १ २९८
1 Vide the opening verse of the KLV :
यत् पल्लवेन वितं दुर्योध' मन्दबुद्धिभिचापि ।
।
क्रियते कल्पलतायां तस्य विवेकोऽयमतिसुगमः ||
2 Second Revised edition, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1964.
3 That this incident to be portrayed in this play is vouchsafed by Abhinavabharati :
एतदेवाभिमन्यमानेन पुनदूषितकेऽशोक दत्तादिशब्दानेन समुद्रदत्तस्य शङ्का योपनिबद्धा सा न दोषाय निर्वहणातोपयोगिनी हि नन्दयन्ती निर्वासनं तस्याश्च गृहान्तरावस्था ।... न तेन ब्रह्मयशः स्वामियशः खण्डित ......! - अभिनवभारती (अध्याय १८) १.४३२

Page #85

Sanskrit Sähityaśāstra
73
)
ए
(ऊ) ... ...भूविकारमुखरागादीनामाच्छादनकारिणी ......तेषां भ्रविकारमुखरागादीनां संवरणमाच्छादनकारि
चित्तवृत्तिरवाहित्थमवहित्था वा । न बहिःस्थ यच्चित्तवृत्तिरूप तदवहित्थं न बहिःस्थ चित्त येनेति
चित्तं येनेति पृषोदरादित्वात् ।-पृ. १३३ निरुक्त पृषोदरादित्वाच्च रूपमित्याहुः ।-पृ. २९९ (ए) ...मृतेः प्रागवस्था मृतिः । साक्षान्मृतावनु- यदि वा व्याधीनां...भावनमनेन व्याधिना न मे निवर्तिभावाभावात् ।
तव्यमित्येव रूप चित्तं तदेव मरणमभिनीयमानमुच्यते । प्रागवस्थेति । म्रियमाणावस्थैव अनेन व्याधिना स एव हि प्राणानां त्यागः । तेन म्रियमाणावस्थेव... मे न निवर्तितव्यमित्येवविधचित्तवृत्तिरूपा ।- अनुभावादेरभावात् ।-पृ. ३०१ -पृ. १४३ सन्देहः किंस्विदित्युभयावलम्बी प्रत्ययः संशय- सन्देहः किञ्चिदि [? किंस्विदित्युभयावलम्बी प्रत्ययः रूपः । विमर्शो विशेषप्रतीत्याकाक्षात्मिका संशयरूपः । विमर्शो विशेषप्रतीत्याकाङ्क्षात्मिका इच्छा। इच्छा । बाधकप्रमाणेन पक्षान्तराभावप्रतीतिमात्र बांधकप्रमाणेन पक्षान्तराभावप्रतीतिमात्र विप्रत्ययः । विप्रतिपत्तिरित्याहुः । येभ्योऽनन्तरं भवितव्यता- विप्रतिपत्तिा । एभ्योऽनन्तरं भवितव्यताप्रत्ययस्वभाव प्रत्ययस्वभावः एकतरपक्षशथिल्यदायी पक्षान्तर एकतरपक्षशथिल्यदायी पक्षान्तरंतुल्यकक्ष्य[? क्ष ]-भावा[? पक्षान्तर] तुल्यकक्षभावाच्च्यावयन्नुन्मग्नताम- च्च्यावयन् उन्मग्नतामन्यस्य दर्शय स्तर्कः । स च न्यस्य दर्शयस्तर्कः । स च संशगात् पृथगेव । संशयात् पृथगेव संशयेन तत्त्वबुभुत्सादिरूपस्य विमर्शादेः सदेहेन तत्वबुभुत्सादिरूपस्य विमर्शादेः स्वीकारेऽपि कविशिक्षार्थ भक्त्वा निरूपणम् । अन्ये स्वीकारेऽपि कविशिक्षार्थ भङ्गया। भक्त्वा ] तु धर्मिणि सन्देहो धर्मे तु विमर्शो भ्रान्तिज्ञान निरूपणम् । अन्ये तु
विप्रत्यय इत्याहुः ।-पृ. ३०२ "धर्मिणि सदेहो धमे तु विमर्शो भ्रान्तिज्ञानं
ज्ञान विप्रतिपत्तिः", इत्याहुः ।-पृ. १४२ (ओ) तेनान्येषामत्रैवान्तर्भावः । तद् यथा- अन्येषां त्वत्रैवान्तर्भावः । तद् यथा दम्भस्यावहित्थे ।
दम्भस्यावहित्थे, उद्वेगस्य निर्वेदे, क्षुत्तृष्णादे- उद्वेगस्य निर्वेदे । क्षुत्तृष्णादे नौ । एवमन्यदप्यू
बनौ । एवमन्यदप्यूह्यम् । अन्ये त्याहुः । ह्यम् । अपरे तु मन्यन्ते कः खलु चित्तवृत्तीर्गणयितु -एतावत्स्वेव सहचारिषु अवस्थाविशेषेषु प्रयोगे समर्थः । गणने वा...शोच्य [? शाक्य] शिक्षितप्रदर्शितेषु स्थायी चर्वणायोग्यो भवति।-पृ. १२९ चित्तचत्तद्वयभेदेन वा...। तथा शतावत्स्वेव सहचारि
यवस्थाविशेषेषु प्रयोगे प्रदर्शितेषु स्थायी चर्वणायोग्यो भवति ।-पृ. ३०२-०३
The Nātyadarpana?
The Kalpalatāyiveka (अ) श्रनस्य व्यभिचारित्वेऽप्यन्यव्यभिचारिणं प्रति खेद इति श्रमो विवक्षितस्तेन भावो भावान्तरे विभाविभावत्वे न दोषः ।-पृ. १६४
वता प्रतिपद्यत एवेति दर्शितम् ।-पृ. २९१ (आ) ...सदृशदर्शनम् । आदिशब्दात् सदृशश्रवण- ...सदृशस्य दर्शनम् श्रवणं वा । चिन्ता प्रणिधानम् ।
चिन्तन-संस्कार-रात्रिपश्चाद्भागनिद्रोच्छेद-प्रणि- अभ्यासः पुनः पुनः परिशीलनम्......पृ. २९३ 1 The reading in makes no sense. Probably it is a scribal error for E. Vide f.n. 9 infra. 2 Revised Second Edition, Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1959.

Page #86

Studies in
धान-पुनःपुनःपरिशीलनपूर्व दर्शनपाटवादेविभावस्य ग्रहः ।-पृ. १६०
ज्ञान विवेकज्ञान बाहुश्रुत्य वा ।-पृ. १६० (ई) कार्याज्ञान नेत्राभ्यां पश्यतोऽपि श्रोत्राभ्यां शृण्वतो-
ऽपि चेदानीं किं कृत्यमित्यनिश्चयः । नेद वैकल्याचान्यस्वभावमित्यपस्मारमोहाभ्यां भिन्नम् ।
विज्ञान विवेकज्ञानं श्रुतविभवो बाहुश्रुत्यम्...। पृ. २९३ ......चक्षुामपि पश्यतः श्रोत्राभ्यामपि श्रृण्वत इति दर्शयन् मोहादस्याः स्वरूपान्तर' दर्शयति ।-पृ. २९६
(उ) सुप्त निद्राप्रकर्षोऽत्र... । प्रकर्षा गाढतमावस्था। ......निद्राया एव गाढावस्था सुप्तमिति दर्शयन्निद्राया
स्वप्नस्य तात्कालि कविषयज्ञानस्य आयित प्रतीति- विषयेभ्यः उपरिरसात्मकत्वं स्वरूपमाह-स्वप्नायितम् र्यतस्तत् स्वप्नायित प्रलपितम् ।-पृ. १६१ इति प्रलपनमिति लोके प्रसिद्ध स्वप्नादसाधारणतात्का
लिकविषयज्ञानाद्भिन्नमेव । स्वप्नस्य अयित प्रतीतिर्यतः
......।-पृ. २९८ (ऊ) आकारिणि स्वयभपकरणाभिलाषः प्रतीकारेच्छा, अमर्ष इति । प्रतिकरणेच्छारूयोऽयं क्रोधादन्य एव ।
परस्यापकाराभावेऽपि परानर्थ करणाभिप्रायरूपः क्रोध -. २९९ इत्यनयो दः ।-पृ. १६० धाष्टं यं प्रागल्भ्यम् ।... सर्वानुगतत्वख्यापणार्थ ...तेषां भ्रविकारमुखरागादीनां संवरणमाच्छादनकारि धाष्ट्रय प्रथममुपात्तम् । सभयादिरपि ह्यप्रगल्भो यच्चित वृत्तिरूप तदवहित्थं न बहिःस्थ चित्तं येनेति न शक्नोत्याकार सवरीतुम् । विक्रिया भ्र- निरुक्त पृषोदरादित्वाच्च रूपमित्याहुः । प्रगल्भो ह्याकार' विकार-मुखरागादिका, तस्या रोधः संवरणम् । संवरीतु जानातीति धार्ट यग्रहणम्...तेन धार्ट य रोधकारकत्वेनोपचाराचित्तविशेषोऽपि रोधः, न सर्व विभावेष्वस्यानुयायीति मन्तव्यम् ।-पृ. २९९ . बहिःस्था चित्तवृत्तिरिति पृषोदरादित्वादवहित्था ।
-पृ. १६४ (ऐ) चौर्यादिरूपाद् विभावाद् यद् राजादे धुण्य चौर्य मुपलक्षणमकार्याणां तन्निमित्तं गृहीते जने राजानिर्दयत्व तदौग्रयम् ।-पृ. १६२
दीनामग्रियं निर्दयत्वम् ।-पृ. २९९ (ओ) प्रतिभान मतिः... ... । नवनवोल्ले वशालिनी मतिरिति । अपूर्व प्रतिभानरूपा । ऊहापोहावन्वयव्यतिरेक
प्रज्ञा प्रतिभानम् ।...तर्को [ऊहापोहौ1 ] विधि- प्रत्ययौ विधिनिषेधविषयौ वा संभावना-प्रत्ययौ।-पृ. २९९ निषेधविषयौ संभावनाप्रत्ययान्वयव्यतिरेकप्रत्ययौ
वा ।-पृ. १६० (औ) प्राण निरोधरूप तु मरणं न नाटये प्रयोज्यमिति तेन म्रियमाणावस्थैव चित्तवृत्तिरूपेह विवक्षिता न तु
न तस्य विभावानुभावस्वरूपाणि प्रतिपाद्यन्त इति। मृतावस्था । तत्रानुभावादेरभावात् ।-पृ. ३०१
-पृ. १६१ (अ) चकितोद्वेगकारी चमत्कारः । अनर्थस भावनातः झटिति विधूननकारी चमत्कृतिस्वभावत्रासो भयात्
सत्वभ्रशो भयमित्यनयोर्भदः।-पृ. १६३ पूर्वापरविचारपूर्वकादन्य एव ।-पृ. ३०१-३०२ 1 The printed text leaves out this term. The context, however, demands that we must have this reading to make the sentence intelligible.

Page #87

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
75
These tables should lead us to the obvious inference that the authors of these works draw on a common source and to a further inference that their common source could not have been anything else than the A. Bh. on the Bhāyādhyāya (NS Ch. VII) which treats of the eight sthāyibhāvas, the thirtythree vyabhicāribhāvas, and the eight sāttvika-bhāyas. There is another fact, obvious to all, that the authors of the KAS. and the ND, do not reproduce the definitions of the forty-nine bhāvas, as they are found in the NS, but adapt them and that they do not fully borrow the comments in the A. Bh. on them but pick up only such phrases and significant lines from them as they think to be useful for a clear exposition. On the other hand, the author of the KLV reproduces verbatim the definitions of the thirty-three vyabhicāribhāvas in the same order as found in the NS and he also gives fuller comments which agree in parts with the corresponding lines in the KAS and the ND as shown above. From this fact we may therefore, draw a further inference that these fuller passages, presenting comments on thirty-three vyabhicāri-bhāvas, found in the KLV represent the original portion of the A. Bh, on the Bhāyādhyāya. That the author of the KLV borrows this whole section from the A. Bh. should not surprise us if we remembered that elsewhere too in his work he has borrowed long sections from the NS and the A. Bh. (Vide pp 33-40, and pp 101-104) and from the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana commentary of Abhinavagupta on it (vide pp 105-186).
This conclusion finds strong support in the similarity of language, style, diction and the method of exposition found in this portion and the rest of the A. Bh. It is generally true that such a similarity, especially when we speak of post-Pāṇini Sanskrit writers, is no safe or sure criterion of an author's identity. In the present case however, one could safely rely on this consideration. If this portion of the commentary from the KLV were to be printed as the A. Bh. on the Bhāyādhyāya no one would ever have dreamt of doubting its genuineness. So complete, so perfect is the similarity, even identity. The references in this portion to the views of Sriśankuka, Kecit,2 Ghanțuka: (? Ghanţaka), Tikākāra' Bhatta-tota, Kavikulacakravarti, Anye,? Cäņakyācārya, Apare, Tärkika, Sankhya and Socya (? Sākya) are such as could come only in the Abhinavabharati.
1 31197170...la sitzt : I gata i p. 295 2 Fast' farà fapicha | p. 296 3 latar, vafà fog#: ' p. 298 . 4 fan famatta fara sa toht: p. 300 5 Healaet...... I p. 300
377 Haalaa p. 302 6 एतदेव हि प्रतिजागरित कविकुलचक्रवर्तिना "तिष्ठेत् कोपवशात" (विक्रमोर्वशीय ४.२) इत्यादिना ।
p. 300 7 ad a ufafu write gir feratif unifama pasangang: 1 p. 302 8 तथा च-दैवमचिन्त्य पुरुषकारस्तु चिन्त्य इति वदन् चाणक्याचार्य स्तर्कपूर्वकमेव समस्त व्यवहारमाह ।
p. 302 9 अरे तु मन्यन्ते कः खलु चित्तवृत्तीगणयितु समर्थः । गणने वा तार्किकतर्कितात्मगुणनवकेन वा सांख्य

Page #88

76
Apart from these considerations, there is an unassailable piece of internal evidence which conclusively and decisively proves that this portion in the KLV preserves the major portion of the A. Bh. on the Bhāvādhyāya (NS Ch. VII) and it is this :
In the course of his discussion whether the nirveda is the sthayi of Santarasa Abhinavagupta says as follows:
यत्तु व्यभिचाख्यिाख्यानावसरे वक्ष्यते तच्चिर कालविभ्रमविप्रलब्धस्योपादेयत्वनिवृत्तये । यत् सम्यग्ज्ञानम् - यथा - 'वृथा दुग्धोऽनड्वांस्स्तनभरनता गौरिति पर
परिष्वक्तो षण्डो युवतिरिति लावण्यरहितः । कृता वैडूर्याशा विकचकिरणे काचशकले
मया मूढेन त्वां कृपणमगुणज्ञ प्रणमता ॥' इति
तन्निर्वेदस्य खेदरूपस्य भावत्वेन । एतच्च तत्रैव वक्ष्यामः | 1
Studies in
Now, this promised description of nirveda is found in this portion of the KLV :
निर्वेद इति दारिद्र्यव्याध्यादिकारणजन्यो रुदितनिःश्वसितादीनां कारणं मनोविकारो दुःखरूपो भावविशेषः । शेषेष्वप्येव ं विवृतिः । तत्रज्ञान चिर भ्रान्त्या गुणितहानोपादानादिप्रबन्धस्य भ्रमनिवृत्तौ सत्यां धिङ् मां वृथा भ्रान्तमिति निर्वेदं जनयति । यथा
वृथा दुग्धोऽनड्वान् स्तनभरनता गौरिति चिर
परिष्वक्तः शण्डो युवतिरिति लावण्यरहितः ।
कृता वैडूर्याशा विकचकिरणे काचशकले
मया मूढेन त्वां कृपणमगुणज्ञ प्रणमत (? ता ) || 2
On the strength of this evidence alone we could, without any hesitation what
संख्यातबुद्धिधर्माष्टकविपर्ययादिप्रत्ययचतुष्टयेन वा शोच्य [ ? शाक्य ] शिक्षितचित्तचेत्तद्वयभेदेन वा सर्वसंग्रहे किमियता । P. 302
In passing, it may be noted that the term
a scribal error for
in the present context makes no sense. This is which reading eminently suits the context. Abhinava elsewhere speaks of शाक्याचार्य (राहुल). Vide A. Bh. XXII p. 164.
1 A. Bh. Ch VI pp 334-335.
2 KLV, p. 287.
3 There are two more statements of Abhinavagupta promising to discuss the matter at length in his commentary on the Bhāvādhyāya :
(i) चित्र पुस्ताद्यपि च नाट्यस्यैवार्थ भागाभिष्यन्दो यथा सर्गबन्धादि शब्दभागाभिष्यन्दः । एतच्च योऽर्थो हृदयसंवादी' (ना. शा. ७-१० [१ ७-७ ] ) इत्यत्र वितत्य वक्ष्यामः ।
(-A. Bh. Ch VI, p. 291)

Page #89

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
17
soever, assert that the KLV (pp 286-303) preserves a major portion of the A. Bh. on the Bhāyādhyäya (NS Ch. VII) which is presumed by Indologists as lost.
(ii) यत्रापि व्यभिचारिणि व्यभिचार्यन्तर संभाव्यते......एतच्च 'यथा नरेन्द्र (नाट्यशास्त्र, ७-१० [१ ७-७ वृत्ति; पृ. ३४९]) इत्यत्र वक्ष्यामः ।
-A. Bh. Ch. VII, p. 345 The KLV, however does not treat of these two passages from the NS. Naturally, we cannot verify if the KLV has presented these promised discussions.
Again, in the A. Bh. on NS Ch. XXII pp. 152-153 Abhinavagupta states that the nature of sattva has been explained at great length in the Bhāvā dhyāya (and Rasādhyāya). This portion, dealing with sattva and sättvika-bhävas, however, Joes not find place in the KLV, probably it was dealt with in the Kalpalata-pallava. The discussion of this topic in the KAS (pp. 144-147) is possibly based on this portion in the A. Bh. on the Bhävādhyāya, now lost. This guess is hazarded on the strength of a few significant phrases common to the A. Bh. and the KAS. Compare for instance :
इह चित्तवृत्तिरेव संवेदनभूमौ संक्रान्ता देहमपि व्याप्नोति । सैव च सत्त्वमित्युच्यते । तत्र चाव्यक्त यत् सवित-प्राणभूमिद्वयानिपतित यत् सत्त्वं तत् भावाध्यायसंश्रयत्वेनैव विज्ञेयम् ।
A. Bh. III. 22 p. 152 संवेदनरूपात् प्रसृतं यत् सत्त्व तद् विचारितम् । अन्यत् तु देहधर्म त्वेनैव स्थित सात्त्विकम् ।
A. Bh. 22 p. 153 and ते (सात्त्विकभावाः) च प्राणभूमिप्रसृतरत्यादिसंवेदनवृत्तयो...... ।
KAS, p. 144

Page #90

THE CONCEPITION OF SANDHIS IN THE SANSKRIT DRAMA
To understand the conception of Sandhis in the Sanskrit drama it is necessary to know what is itivịtta, arthapraksti and avasthä.
Itivsttal is the subject matter or story of the play. It is called the body of the drama 2 while rasa, its soul. Itivștta is twofold : ādhikarika (main or principal) and prāsangika (subsidiary or incidental). The adhikärika is so called because it is connected with the attainment of the ends of the hero. The präsangika 'serves as a means towards the fruition of his aims, and incidentally attains some end of its own. It is twofold' : patākā (an episode) and prakari (a mere incident); patākāó is con
1 Itivịtta, kathā, vastu, and samvidhānaka are synonyms meaning a dramatic plot' or 'a dramatic story'.
2 sdt T 91277 T aftra&ant | NS. XIX. Ia.
3 79101 Arafata: ND. P. 55 and th: CAKAL TidaHfF1: | Abh. III. pp. 1-2
Pandey erroneously takes griffe: as a Gen. Tat-puruşa instead of a Bahuvrihi when he says.... "just as it is the soul, which is primarily responsible for the manifestation or appearance of the body, so it is the basic mental state to which the plot.... owes its being." P. 378.
According to the Indian theorists, as is clear from the metaphor used by them, the dramatic story is subservient to the production of the sentiment. They, however, demand of the dramatist that he should not make the plot too disconnected by an exuberance of sentiment nor should he overwhelm the sentiment with incidents and events. Dhananjava says for example,
न चातिरसतो वस्तु दूर विच्छिन्नतां नयेत् ।।
at a fanguinem Sat: || DR. III. 32 and Viśvanātha : 32 fatiala F E ECT: SD. VI. P. 314. On a closer thought it would seem that the itiyrtta is inseparably fused with rasa. 4 giana 9a16177
2118 | Avaloka p. 4. 5 The etymological interpretation of Patākā is given as follows :
gal FATTUATfa67789#ficaa | Avaloka p. 4. ... gaf gigtartede qala qa171 | ND. p. 43.
...haanallamaia1971F1717 9a1512547ftrafei allà Faraat: Abh. III. p. 15. ध्वजोपरिनिहितपताकेव पताका यथेयमेकदेशे स्थायिनी सकल सैन्य द्योतयति तथा चेयमपि नाटकैकदेशवर्तिनी
APA HASH 71272 | NL. p. 8. 6 The etymological explanation of prakari is given as follows :
gono agad atla qat | Abh. III, p. 46.. 97 4699aaeal 1 THİ 5 at 97€ | NL. p. 9.

Page #91

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
tinuous whereas prakarī6 of short duration. The definition of the prāsangika? given by the DR would lead us to believe that even the prakari has its 'svārtha' (own purpose). But the NS. emphatically states that it is ‘parārthāyaiva kevalam (meant to serve the purpose of the hero). The Abhi. and the ND. while distinguishing between the patākā and the prakarī, emphasize this aspect of the prakarī). According to them a patäkānāyaka is an ally of the hero helping towards the fruition of his aims but attaining some end of his own through the co-operation of the hero. A Prakarī, näyaka only helps the hero in some way.10 The NL. records as the view of some that patākā, in a broad sense, means the doings of the upanāyaka.11 These definitions of parākā excellently suit some cases, e.g., the account of Sugriva in Rāma-plays. In many cases, however, we notice a lot of confusion among the commentators as to what constitutes patākā in certain dramas. Visvanātha looks upon the doings of Bhima in the Veni, as patākā, the NL. regard's Karna-carita in the Veni. as patāka. The overthrow of Malayaketu in the Mudrārākşasa is considered by some as palākā. Bhima is looked upon, and rightly so, as the hero of the Veni, by many modern commentators. Karna and Malayaketu are no friends of the heroes in the two dramas--they actually side with their rivals. In such cases we have to extend the meaning of patākā so as to include the doings of the persons that even indirectly help the hero in attaining their goal.
The BP., however, says that the prāsangika is three-fold12 : 1 patākā, 2 prakarī and 3 patakästhānaka. Other authorities treat of patākasthānaka immediately after patākā with a remark like पताकाप्रसङ्गन पताकास्थानकं व्युत्पादयति । They do not call it a sub-division of the prāsangika, and rightly so. For a scrutiny of the definitions and examples of the varieties of the patākāsthānaka shows that it is nothing but a part of the adhikārika skilfully arranged so as to suit the particular context as well to foreshadow some important event connected with the main plot, whether immediate or distant.*
शोभायै वेदिकादीनां यथा पुष्पाक्षतादयः ।। as avacet qara gota | B. P. p. 202 7 gals" TIT FI F121 96 gaa: 1 p. 4. And patākā and prakari are but the sub-divisions of the prāsangika. 8 NS. XIX. 25. 9 उपकरणभूतो (हेतुः) द्विधा स्वार्थसिद्धियुतः परार्थसिद्धिपरः, परार्थसिद्धिपरश्च । पूर्वः पताका, अन्यः प्रकरीति ।
ND. pp. 41-42. 10 For example, the incident of Jațāyus in Rāma-plays. 11 अन्ये पताकेत्युपनायकचरितमेव स्थूलार्थमुपवर्णयन्ति ।...उपनायकेन नायकमुपकर्तु प्राधान्यमवलम्ब्य यत् क्रियते
1 9711 791 975 FEET 1999 atatafate raffia | NL, p. 9. 12 gifs fita AFI 9137 fa fari
qal#1995 911591764 17 | BP, p. 201. • We are overlooking the threefold classification of Itivytta into legendary, invented and mixed subjects, as it is not of importance to our purpose here.

Page #92

80
Studies in
Now, there are five artha-prakstis : 1 bija 2 bindu 3 patākā 4 prakar and 5 kārya. The bija (seed, germ) is the cause of the kärya (phala, fruition); it is at first indicated faintly, but it expands in various ways and ultimately ends in fruition.13 The bindu (prominent point, expansion, recollection of the motive force) helps the resumption of the main action of the play when it seems interrupted by some secondary incident". The patākā and the prakarī have already been explained. The Karya (sådhya, phala, parama-prayojana) of the action is one of the three ends of human existence-duty, material interest or love or two or all of these. It is the desired goal of the hero. With this in view the beginning is made. All the upāyas (resources) are concentrated for attainining it51.
These five artha-prakstis are interpreted by many theorists as the means of the final attainment of the ends of the hero16. This interpretation eminently agrees with the nature and definitions of the first four artha-prakrtis : The bija is called तद् (कार्य)हेतुः (DR.), कार्यस्य कारणम् (RS.), कार्यसाधकः and the bindu is called....अविच्छेदकारणम् (DR.,SD.); patākā is प्रधानस्य उपकारकं वृत्तम् and prakari is परार्थायव केवलम् (NS.). But is appears, at
13 स्तोकोद्दिष्टः कार्यसाधकः पुरस्तादनेकप्रकार विस्तारी हेतुविशेषः बीजवबीजम् ।-Avaloka, p. 5. 14 आनुषङ्गिककार्यान्तरेण प्रधानप्रयोजनस्य विच्छेदेऽपि संवृत्त कथायास्त्वविच्छेदहेतुः स बिन्दुः परिकीर्तितः ।
NL. pp. 7-8 उपायानुष्ठानस्यावश्यकर्तव्यादिना व्यवधाने सति नायक-प्रतिनायकामात्यादीनां यदनुसन्धानं ज्ञानमसौ.... बिन्दुः । ND p. 46.
अवान्तरार्थविच्छेदे बिन्दुरच्छेदकारणम । DR. p. 5; SD. p. 315 यथा रत्नावल्याम्-अवान्तरप्रयोजनानङ्गपूजापरिसमाप्तौ कथार्थविच्छेदे सति अनन्तरकार्य हेतुः। Avaloka, p. 5. यथा रत्नावल्याम्-अनगपूजापरिसमाप्ती कथार्थविच्छेदे सति...अवान्तरार्थ हेतुः । SD p 315.
अवान्तरार्थन (यमपटचरवृत्तान्तेन) विच्छिन्नस्यान्तरितस्य बीजस्य पुनः प्रवर्तनात् बिन्दुः ।-Dhundiraja (Telang's edition of Mudrāraksasa, p. 82).
The bija (or the prayojana) is thrown into background by some secondary incident. When that incident is over there seems an interruption of or break in the course of the drama. The bindu sets it (the course of the drama, dramatic action) into activity again by making the hero etc. recollect or remember the main driving force.
Various etymological explanations of the term bindu are given : : (1) बिन्दुजले तैलबिन्दुवत्प्रसारित्वात् । Avalok p.5 (2) बिन्दरिव विच्छिन्नायामपि धारायां यथा जलबिन्दुः पटलपर्यन्तेष्वन्तरान्तरालब्धनिजनिपातः पयसां पतन.
मभिव्यजयति तथायमित्यर्थः । NL. P 7. (3) जलबिन्दुर्यथा सिञ्चस्तरुमूलं फलाय हि । तथैवाय मुहुः क्षिप्तो विन्दुरित्यभिधीयते ॥ RS. p. 210. (15) अपेक्षित' तु यत् साध्यमारम्भो यन्निबन्धनः । ___समापन तु यसिद्धयै तत्कार्य मिति सम्मतम् ॥ SD p. 317.
(16) यत्रार्थ : फल तस्य प्रकृतय उपायाः फलहेतव इत्यर्थः ।...तदेतैः पञ्चभिरुपायैः पूर्णफल निष्पाद्यते । Abh. III p. 12 and फलस्य हेतवः पञ्च । फलस्य मुख्यसाध्यस्य हेतव उपायाः | ND. p. 11,

Page #93

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
first sight extraordinary that the kārya should be designated as a prayojana-siddhihetu, a means to the end when it (the kārya) is itself the end17. This contradiction would disappear if we do not lose sight of the fact that it is the main drive for the hero's action and as such a means to the end (Phalasya kāraṇatvaṁ cı icchädvārā). The SD, gives, however, slaying of Rāvaņa as an example of the kārya. Taking a clue from it one may say with the killing of Rāvana, Sitā's recovery is as good as achieved which is the fruition of the bija. Thus kārya may be taken as the event immediately antecedent to the final fruition (phalāgama).
The Abh. and the ND. interpret kārya to mean various resources physical and mental18. If this meaning is accepted there is absolutely no difficulty in looking upon Kārya as prayojana-siddhi-hetu. But this meaning of Kārya as per a actit' is rather unusual and even the Abh. and the ND., not to speak of other theorists, take the term Kārya to mean phala or sādhya in the treatment of avasthās and sandhyangas. 19
Some theorists, however, take the arthaprakriis to mean 'parts of the story or elements of the plot.' The RS. clearly says that the Itivșita is fivefold, and enumerates the bija etc., as the five divisions20. Bhoja, and Sāradātanaya too, look upon them
17 Faced with this difficulty, Prof. K. H. Dhruva in his edition of the Mudrārākşasa says : "
denotes the object of the play which is धर्म, अर्थ or काम: see DR. I. 16-कार्य त्रिवर्गः । It is to be distinguished from Fif meaning fruition which is one of the five phases ( 279 ) in which the object is successively presented to us concurrent with the five stages (37TEGI). There is, however, no evidence given to support such a view. In fact, the DR. defines the patākā and the prakari under Itivetta, then ( its phala-) kārya, then its sādhana-) the bija and the bindu and (remarking 'grat qa1FIET TH A T OTHETIK I (t) sets forth the five arthaprakytis in due order. From this it is evident that there is no reason to believe that of the
object of the play, is different from Ti, the 379fa. 18 Fot 2727 CT | Abh. III. p. 12.
29 at 1965 | ND. p. 47 and the aller on it. 19 a t 1991474 311a sfâ at5 FRITT 777 3778: | Abh. p. 55. . 3qatges 919f0i 1997 fa...347 TatactEnE9FTS FUT1121917 1978 | Abh. p. 57.
ATTET 491975 | ND. p. 52.
1 767454 ND. p. 105. 20 neatlaqa' facia: 45991 affalfaat RS III 76.
अर्थप्रकृतयः प्रयोजनसिद्धिहेतव इति केचित् । कथाशरीरकारणानीति भोजराजादयः । as quoted by Kumārasvāmin in his commentary on the PR. (p. 104).
अर्थ प्रकृतयः पञ्च कथाभेदस्य हेतवः । và 69/
T IEM đưa: [ft if I: || B, P. pp. 204–205.

Page #94

Studies in
as elements of the plot. The treatment of patākā and prakari at the hands of the authorities clearly shows that these two are nothing but divisions of the präsangika or anusangika plot. The bija, the bindu and the kärya are, then, obviously elements of the adhikarika plot. On a closer thought it would appear that there is no essential difference between the two interpretations. The whole itivrtta is the means to the end (Karya or Sadhya or Parama-Prayojana) kept before his mind's eye by the dramatist. Looked at objectively, the dramatic plot admits of these five divisions or elements.
82
The Five Karyavasthas
1 Arambha or prärambha (Beginning), 2 Yatna or prayatna (Effort), 3 Präptyāśā or präptisambhava (Possibility of attainment, Prospect of success), 4 Niyatapti or nityata phalapräpti (Certainty of Attainment or Success) and 5 phalagama or phala yoga (Attainment of the Result or the object of desire) are called the five stages in the development of the action.
Arambha is the desire to attain the end aimed at by the hero: Yatna is the determined effort to secure the end. Präptyäsä is the possibility of success having regard to the means at hand and the obstacles in the way of attainment. Niyatapti is the certainty of attainment, if only some specific obstacle can be overcome. Phalagama is the final attainment of the object of desire.
It is easy to see how each preceding stage leads on to the succeeding stage, These five avasthas occur in the order in which they are enumerated21. The names and the definitions of the five avasthās make it abundantly clear that the avasthas are primarily the mental states or attitudes of the hero with reference to the end aimed at (Karya, sädhya, prayojana, phala) by him22. It goes without saying that these mental states are followed by appropriate action or activity or movement both verbal and physical. Thus the five avasthas which are vitally connected with the hero represent a subjective analysis of the development of the main plot.
The Abh. mentions a view which regards the artha-prakṛtis as elements or parts of the story:
त्वाहुः
अन्ये लाहु: अर्थस्य समस्वरूपकवाच्यस्य प्रकृतयः प्रकरणान्यवक्वार्थखण्डा इत्यर्थप्रकृतयः | Abh. 111. p. 12. The NL. seems to support this view when it says: अस्य च नाटकस्य पञ्चार्थप्रकृतयो भवन्ति । नाटकीयवस्तुनः पूर्वोत्तस्य पञ्च प्रकृतयः स्वभावा भवन्ति। P. 6.
21 प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिणां हि प्रथममारम्भस्ततः प्रयत्नस्ततः सम्भावना ततो निश्चयस्ततः फलप्राप्तिरित्ययमेव क्रमः ।
ND. p. 49.
and सर्वस्यैव हि कार्यस्य प्रारम्यस्य फलार्थिभिः ।
एतास्वनुक्रमेणैव पञ्चावस्था भवन्ति हि ॥ Ns XIX, 14.
22 नेतुर्मुख्यफलं प्रति बीजाद्युपायान् प्रयोक्तुरवस्थाः प्रधानवृत्तविषये कायवाङ्मनसां व्यापाराः । ND. p. 49.

Page #95

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
These five avasthās are invariably present in the Nātaka, the most perfect of forms of drama (and the Prakarana and the Natikā), but in the Vyayoga etc., all these need not be present23. But obviously in any type of drama the first and the last must occur..
The Five Sandhis : Bharata does not give us a general definition of Sandhi (dramatic juncture) but proceeds to define each one of the five sandhis straight away. Later authorities define it as "the connection of part of the (dramatic) story linked together by their contribution towards the same end, each part having its own secondary end24. The DR., besides giving this definition, lays down that the five artha-prakstis joined to the five avasthās respectively give rise to the five sandhis beginning with Mukha (Opening) etc. This view is followed by the BP., the PR. and the RS. It is not unlikely that in enunciating this view the DR. had in mind the text of Bharata25 which lays down that like the five avasthās the five artha-prakstis should be used by a dramatist. The fact that the avasthās occur in the order of their enumeration and the use of the word ‘yathàvidhi' must have tempted the DR. to believe that the five arthaprakstis too, occur in the very order in which they are mentioned26. Naturally, he evolves the
23 प्रधाने वृत्त पञ्चानाम् (अवस्थानाम् ) अवश्यम्भावमाह...। नाटके नाटकलक्षणानुसारिषु प्रकरण-नाटिका
प्रकरणीषु चाय नियमः । तेन व्यायोगादौ यथालक्षण न्यूनावस्थत्वमपि न दोषाय । ND. p. 49. 24 अन्तरै कार्यसंवन्धः सन्धिः एकान्वये सति । DR. p. 6:
एकेन प्रयोजनेनान्वितानां कथांशानामवान्तरक प्रयोजनसम्बन्धः सन्धिः । Avaloka p. 6. तेनार्थावयवाः सन्धीयमानाः परस्परमब्रैश्च सन्धय इति समाख्या निरुक्ता तदेषां सामान्यलक्षणम् ।
Abh. III. p. 23. अर्थभागराशिः सन्धिरित्युक्त, तत्र सन्धीनां सम्बन्धनीयानि वृत्तानि संविधानखण्डानि...अङ्गानि | Abh. III. p. 31. सन्धिः परस्परं कथार्थानां संघटनम् । यथोक्त सन्धीयन्तेऽर्थाः परस्परमेभिरिति सन्धयः । NL. p. 20. ' एककार्यान्वितेष्वत्र कथांशेषु प्रयोगतः । ..
अवान्तरैककार्यस्य सम्बन्धः सन्धिरिष्यते ॥ BP. p. 207. 25 इतिवृत्त यथावस्थाः पञ्चारम्भादिकाः स्मृताः ।
अर्थ प्रकृतयः पञ्च तथा बीजादिका अपि ॥ बीजं बिन्दु: पताका च प्रकरी कार्यमेव च ।
अर्थप्रकृतयः पञ्च ज्ञात्वा योज्या यथाविधि ॥ NS. XIX, 19-20. 26_Even the Abh. says : ज्ञात्वा योज्या यथाविधि इति तासामौदेशिकोक्तिवदुपनिबन्धक्रमनियम इत्यर्थः ।
___III. p. 12. Here Abhinava appears to nod, for later on he emphatically states :न सर्वत्र प्रारम्भादिवत सर्वा अर्थप्रकृतयोऽपि । अपि तु यस्य नायकस्य येनार्थप्रकृतिविशेषेण प्रयोजनसंपत्तिरधिकाधिका तदेव प्रधानम् , अन्यत्तु भवदपि गुणभूतमसत्कल्पम् , यथा स्वपराक्रमबहुमानशालिनां पताकाप्रकर्ये विवक्षिते (? प्रकयौ अविवक्षिते) एव । बीज-बिन्दु-कार्याणि तु सर्वत्रानपायीनि । तत्रापि तु गुणप्रधानभावः | Abh. III. 16 on NS XIX 26-27.

Page #96

Studies in
doctrine that each sandhi rests on an avasthā and an artha-prakřti. This doctrine does not stand to reason, for as pointed out by the Abh. and the ND., the patākā or prakari, or both of them, are not indispensable elements in the Nataka if the hero is capable of attaining the object of desire without external help. Even in the absence of the patākā and the prakari we do find all the five sandhis in the drama. The definitions of the five sandhis as given by the NS. show that the five respective sandhis essentially rest on the five respective avasthās and the progressive development of the bija. The DR., too is aware of this fact when it says that patākā may or may not occur in the garbha sandhi27 and remains silent as to the place of prakari in the avamarśa or vimarśa. It would not, therefore, be proper to accuse the DR. of misrepresenting Bharata. Instead, in fariness to Dhanañjaya, his statement-which makes each sandhi essentially rest on one avasthā and one arthapraksti-may be looked upon as a description of mechanical or ideal perfection to be wished for rather than a strict doctrine or a rule to be adhered to.
As already said, the sandhis are the structural divisions of the drama which clearly and closely correspond with the avasthās in the hero's realization of his object of desire. The classification into the five avasthās and the five sandhis is intended to help the dramatist to achieve the unity of action or impression.28 The five sandhis are defined as follows:
That part of a play which contains the origination of the bija, the source of several incidents and sentiments, and corresponds with the prārambha avasthā (Beginning) is called Mukha29 (Opening).
The ND., which follows as a rule the Abh., says : 48111a0am 2171a1 fara capffor 52 galam:, H612102107 [ 9219197TUARIT E 92 gak af p. 47 and
Rhea faraFA: Aprilia al p. 41 27 ME...... 92141 FIIT al Fagfaatua:
Haas is wrong when he translates : (In it) there should be an Episode (patākā), or (else) there should not be Prospect of success (prāpti-sambhava--prāptyāśā). What the DR. means is this: In the garbha the patākā may or may not occur but the Prospect of success--the third avasthā shall occur. The BP. prescribes that in case the patākā does not occur in the garbha the playwright should employ the bija or the bindu in its place :
3700 pagt: File ciasty a mafaa | p. 210. 28 The author of Mudrārākşasa has this unity of impression or action in mind when he writes : ga for fanaa
S E Telang's ed. p. 265. Abhinava gives the etymological interpretation of Mukha as follows :111721fcarefa Hat | III. p. 23 NS. XIX. 39, SD. P. 320. For reasons of space the illustrations are not given here for which see the DR, the Abh, the SD. etc., and the sixty-four subdivisions of Sandhis, infra.
29

Page #97

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
85
As regards the pratimukha the theorists differ, According to the DR. (which the SD., the BP., the PR. and the RS. follow) that part of a play which represents the development of the bija in such a way as to be perceptible and imperceptible by turns is called pratimukha30 (Progression).
___Abhinava, whom the Ks, and the ND. follow, interprets the text of Bharatast to mean that the part of a play which represents total manifestation of the bija that is shown in the Mukha to be seen and then veiled, as it were, by some secondary incident, is called pratimukhasl.
That part of a play which represents a further stage in the development of the bija which the hero gains and loses by turns and which he frequently searches, everytime it is lost, is called garbha32 (Development).
The authorities differ regarding the definition and interpretation of the fourth sandhi avamarsa or vimarsa. Bharata's text33 is very knotty, defying as it does, a satisfactory
30 'लक्ष्यालक्ष्यतयो दस्तस्य प्रतिमुखं भवेत् ।
बिन्दुप्रयत्नानुगमादङ्गान्यस्य त्रयोदश ॥ DR. p. 11. .31 बीजस्योद्घाटनं यत्र दृष्टनष्टमिव क्वचित् ।
मुखन्यस्तस्य सर्वत्र तद्वै प्रतिमुख स्मृतम् || Ns. XIX, 40,
Abhinavaa notes in his commentary the views of other theorists, criticises them and gives his own. He interprets the text thus : बीजस्योद्घाटनं लावत् फलानुगुणो दशाविशेषः तद् दृष्टमपि विरोधिसनिधेष्टमिव पांसुना पिहितस्येव बीजस्याकुररूपमुद्घाटनम् ।... दृष्ट नष्टमिव कृत्वा तावन्मुखे न्यस्तं भूमाविव बीज, अमात्येन सागरिकाचेष्टितं वसन्तोत्सवकामदेवपूजादिना तिरोहितं नष्टमिव सागरिकाचेष्टितस्य हि बीजस्येव तदाच्छादकमप्युत्सवादिरूपं भूमिरिव प्रत्युद्बोधकम् । तस्य दृष्टनष्टतुल्यं कृत्वा न्यस्तस्य, अत एव कुङ्कुमवीजस्य यदुद्घाटनं तत्कल्प, यत्रोद्घाटन सर्वत्रैव कथाभागसमूहे तत्प्रतिमुखम् । IH. pp.24-25. Abhinava gives etymological explanation of glade as follows: प्रतिराभिमुख्येन यतोऽत्र वृत्तिः । पराङ्मुखता हि दृष्टनष्टकल्पनानिदर्शनम् । III. p. 25. and ND. : मुखस्याभिमुख्येन वर्तत इति प्रतिमुखम् । p.55.
In the word प्रतिमुख, 'प्रति' has the sense - favourable to'. 32 It is so called as it contains the fruit as it were within itself :
फलस्य गीकरणाद् गर्भ: SD. p, 320 प्राप्तिसम्भवाख्ययावस्थायुक्तत्वेन फलस्य गर्मीभावात | Abh. III. p. 25.
नाटकस्य मध्यत्वात् गर्भः । NL. p. 30. 33 गर्भनिभिन्नबीजार्थो विलोभनकृतोऽथवा ।
क्रोधव्यसनजो वापि स विमर्श इमि स्मृतः ॥ Ns. XIX. 42.

Page #98

Studies in
interpretation. Abhinava quotes different views as to the nature of avamarsa, He himself holds that vimarśa is 'sandehātmaka.' He argues that even after sambhāvanā (or possibility of attainment) samsaya is possible when some unforeseen obstacle appears in the way of achievement of the desired object. The hero reflects over the new situation and realizes that he can attain the end if he surmounts a specific difficulty. He takes courage in both the hands and does his best to surmount the obstacle. This obstacle may be caused by a curse or anger or selfishness or temptation.
86
The KS. literally borrows one of the passages quoted by the Abh, to explain Bharata's definition of vimrśa:
That part of a play where the blja about to fructify loses its progress and seems to return to its original state on account of interruption caused by the wrath of the opponent or selfishness of the rival or some calamity like a curse etc., is called vimarfa. The word vimaria is here taken to mean 'vighna', the bija as the bljaphala and artha as nivṛtti. The definition as given by the SD. is however, quite unambiguous:
That part of a play where the blja (lit., the principal means to the end) has developed further than in the garbha and faces some obstacle due to curse and such other reasons is called vimarśa.
The concluding part of a play where the incidents and events which occurred in the first four sandhis and which contained the bija and were distributed in due order are brought together to one end is called nirvahana".
In connection with the five sandhis Jagirdar remarks that Bharata has done. nothing great except coining some technical words. The five stages of development mentioned above (ie., the five sandhis) are just the five members of a syllogism in
34 See NS. III 42 and Abh. Pp. 26-28. The Avaloka paraphrases avamarśa as avamarśanam' paryalocanam-reflection.
35
KS. p, 454. The word artha has several meanings of which nivṛtti is one : अर्थोऽभिवेय वस्तु प्रयोजन निवृत्तिषु | Amara III.
36 Not nibarhana as suggested by Hall. For Nirvahana which means "carrying to the end', completion' is the proper word here instead of nibarhana which means destruction.
Dhruva, it may be noted in passing, names the five sandhis thus the initial division (mukha), the pro-initial division (pratimukha), the medial division (garbha), the dubious division (vimarśa) and the completive dlvision (nirvahana).
Pandey says that "These parts of the drama, following the analogy of the human body, have been called, as for as possible, by those very names, by which the parts of human body are called. The first part for instance is called Mukha, the second Pratimukha and the third Garbha." This is unconvincing since pratimukha is no part of human body, and there is no sequence in them which is to be found in the sandhis.

Page #99

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
87
Indian logic37. He tries to establish parallelism between them, which is faulty and unconvincing 38
The analysis of the dramatic plot into five sandhis is given by the theorists to facilitate the dramatist's task of plot.construction while that into five arthaprakrtis is simply an objective one irrespective of the dramatic structure. It will thus appear that Keith is not quite correct when he remarks : "the classification of elements of the plot (i.e. arthaprakstis) is perhaps superfluous beside the junctures (i.e sandhis)."39
All the five sandhis occur in a full-fledged drama (Nātaka, Prakarana and Nātikā). In the Dima and Samavakāra the juncture. vimarśa is omitted; in the Vyāyoga and the I hāmrga the garbha and vimarsa are omitted; in the Prahasana, the Vithyanka and the Bhāna, the pratimukha, the garbha and the vimarśa are omitted. But in any type of drama the first and the last sandhis are invariably present.
The patākā being a continuous, though incidental vștta, is credited with anu-sandhis which are to be less in number than the sandhis. The prakari being of a very short duration is to be without any sandhi40. Keith remarks that even the incident is permitted on one view to have incomplete junctures. He refers here to the text of the DR : असन्धि प्रकरौं न्यसेत् । Avaloka explains असन्धि as अपरिपूणेसन्धि, The ND. is explicit on this point and denies any sandhi or anusandhi to the prakari.
37 Drama in Sanskrit Literature, p. 119.
The author of the Mudrārākşasa, it may be pointed out here, successfully establishes in Act IV. 3, a comparison between a minister and a dramatist; and in Act V. 10 between a king and
a disputant.. 38 The sandhis number five, so too, the member of a syllogism; the last member of the syllogism
is called upasamhyti (or upasa mhāra). Here the parallelism ends. At the most one may extend it in the case of the first sandhi. But by no stretch of imagination can the pratimukha, garbha and the vimarsa be equated with hetu, drstānta and nigama. Then there is nothing in the nvāva
to correspond with the sixty-four sandhyangas. * 39 Sanskrit drama, p. 299.
Abhinava, in the course of his exposition of arthaprakytis, accepts the meaning of 'means to the end-phalahetus' and rejects the meaning of elements or parts of the plot. He advances the following grounds for rejecting the second meaning :
(अन्ये त्याहुः-अर्थस्य समस्तरूपकवाच्यस्य प्रकृतयः प्रकरणान्यवयवार्थखण्डा इत्यर्थप्रकृतयः-) एतच्च व्याख्यानं नातीव प्रकृतं पोषयति । सन्ध्यादीनामपि चार्थप्रकृतित्वमत्र व्याख्याने स्यात्, इतिवृत्तमेव च सम्दायरूपम् । अर्थ इति वृत्ते प्रकृतय इति वक्तव्येऽर्थग्रहणमतिरिक्तं स्यात्, इत्यवस्थाभिश्च तुल्यतावर्णनं वर्णन917' E la na III. p. 12.
Abhinava accepts the classification of arthaprakstis in the sense of 'Means to the End'. He rejects it in the sense of elements or parts of the plot'-as then the sandhis too will be artha
prakytis. What has been said above will obviate this difficulty. 40 पताकावृत्तस्य प्राधान्यनिबन्वेऽपि अनुसन्धिर्मुख्यवृत्तसन्ध्यनुगतः सन्धिर्भवति गौणः सन्धिरित्यर्थः ।...प्रकर्यास्तु
TAS ETETT T1 Frega ta alla | Pp. 48-49,

Page #100

Studies in
The five sandhis are further subdivided into sixty-four sandhyangas. Bharata lays down, among other things, that a dramatist should compose a drama having 64 sandhyangas. Some theorists take this rule literally and demand that every drama must have all these 64 angas; others, however, take a saner view and interpret it to mean that a dramatist should use only such of these angas as are essential to his purpose. The author of the RS. proudly declares that he has illustrated the sixty-four sandhyangas from the Bala-rāmāyaṇa. Dhuṇḍirāja, the learned commentator of the Mudrārākṣasa points out these from the play.
83
The Abh. and the ND. clearly say that 64 angas are possible but they need not necessarily be used in every drama. The Avaloka and following it, the ND and the SD. lay down that six, five, four and five angas of the first four sandhis respectively are pradhana or avaśyambhāvi. About the angas of the nirvahana he does not specify which of them are pradhana implying thereby that all of them are pradhana."
The Sixty-Four Sandhyangas (Sub-Divisions)
The dramaturgists lay down that the dramatist should select and, if necessary. modify the story of his play, to suit his hero or the ruling sentiment of the piece. After determining on the beginning and the end of the play he should divide the story into five parts (sandhis) which, in turn, he should split into sub-divisions (sandhyangas). The first sandhi admits of twelve subdivisions.
(1) Upaksepa is the sowing of the bija (seed, germ). In the Veni 1.8 Bhima emphatically denies the possibility of the Kauravas ever resting in peace as long as he is alive and thus suggests the train of events to be afterwards developed, and the governing sentiment, namely, the vira rasa, of the play,
(2) Parikara (Parikriya) is enlarging or amplifying the blja which is indicated. earlier. Bhíma hurls defiance at his brothers. They might bring about peace. He was firmly determined to break it as soon as it was effected (Veņi I. 10.) This strengthens the idea already suggested that war is inevitable.
41 चतुष्यष्टि कलामर्मवेदिना शिङ्गभूभुजा ।
लक्षिता च चतुष्टिवलरामायणे स्फुटम् || |11. 78.
III.
42 यनूपते चतुष्वष्टवङ्गसंयुतनिति तेन सम्भवमात्रमेवामुक्त' न तु नियमः | Abh. III. p. 37.
43 of विशेषानुदानात् सर्वाण्येतानि प्रधानानि ND. D. 104.
44 Excepting the PR., the RS. and Dhuṇḍirāja, the commentator of the Mudrārākṣasa, no other authority tries to illustrate these sixty-four angas from any one play. The illustrations are usually drawn from plays like the Ratnavali, the Veņi and other later plays. Presumably, the authors of these plays were under the strong influence of the rules of the dramatic science and consciously wrote their plays in conformity with these rules. That is why the commentators like Dhanika, Abhinava and the like cite passages from these plays as illustrations.

Page #101

Sanskrit Sahityasastra
(3) Parinyasa is describing very clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt the blja of the play that was indicated and enlarged before.45 Bhima asserts that he would surely break the thighs of Duryodhana and braid Draupadi's hair (Veni I. 21). Here Bhima unmistakably declares the ends aimed at by him.
89
(4) Vilobhana is the mentioning of good qualities (possessed by the hero or the heroine). Draupadi tells Bhima that nothing is impossible for him to accomplish when he is enraged and thus pays a handsome tribute to his heroic strength, and expresses confidence that in his war against the Kauravas he would certainly gain victory.
(5) Yukti is establishing the propriety of a particular course adopted to achieve the ends aimed at."Yaugandharāyaṇa has introduced Sagarika to the queen, merely to put her in the way of the King, that he may see and love her. The course of the drama is founded on the result which follows as anticipated by Yaugandharāyaṇa.
(6) Prapti (or prapaņa) is the attaining of happiness (either by the hero or heroine at a particular occurrence). Bhima is thus happy at Krapa's failure to settle the feud peacefully. Again, Draupadi is overjoyed to hear from Bhima that he is capable of fulfilling the vows of destroying the Kauravas etc. and that he would never be a party to any peace which Yudhisthira might effect (Veni Act I. 15).
(7) Samadhāna (samähiti-ND.) is the complete unfolding of the bija which earlier. was only hinted at. Veņi I. 24 unmistakably points out how the anger of Yudhisthira," the source of the destruction of the Kurus suppressed so long, is now violently stirred. and is working in all its fury against the Kurus.
(8) Vidhana is what causes both joy and sorrow. Bhima informs Draupadi of his intention to set out to slaughter the Kurus. She is naturally glad to hear this as Bhima would get an opportunity to avenge the insults heaped on her. At the same time. she is overcome with fear and nervousness as after all he was to participate in war and therefore, very naturally she bids him and Sahadeva, too, take care of their lives against the enemy.
45 These three sub-divisions should occur in the order of their enumeration. In the Veņi they do. It is, however, to be noted that prapti and yukti intervene parikara and parinyasa.
46 "Resolve (yukti) is the determination upon purposes."-Haas. Settling the issues is called Decision (Yukti)-Ghosh. 'It (yukti) means the connexion of purpose and result.'-Wilson.
47 The NL. defines prapti as a gunni en for: | p. 26. Ghosh favours this Jefinition when he translates the definition in the NS. as 'Summing up the purpose of the Opening (Mukha). Excepting the NL. all authorities read 'sukhārtha.' The illustration given by the NL. is the same as cited by the Avaloka and the SD.
48 The Abh. (III. pp. 30-40), the ND. (p. 62) and the SD. (p. 326) point out that the bija which was indicated before is here developed by relating it to the hero.
49 Yudhisthira is traditionally regarded as the hero of the Veni.
It may be noted here that the Avaloka cites this passage to illustrate Udbheda. It quotes Veni I. 21 to illustrate samadhana which is, however, cited by the Abh. and the SD. to illustrate parinyasa.
12

Page #102

90
Studies in
(9) Paribhāvanā : Words full of curiosity or wonder on finding something extraordinary constitute paribhāvanā. Draupadi, who is doubtful whether war would break out between the Pāņdavas and the Kurus hears the war-drum that was being beaten loudly and repeatedly. Naturally she is struck with wonder and asks Bhima why it was thus being beaten.
(10) Udbheda : According to the NS., the Abh., the ND. and SD., Udbheda is the sprouting of the bija.50 Bhima's declaration of his determination to kill all the Kurus and not to see Draupadi before doing it (Veņi I. 26) illustrates it.
According to the DR., it is the disclosing of something previously hidden, Sāgarikā thus learns through the words of the bards that it was not the god of love whom the queen worshipped but Udayana the king for whom she was destined as a bride. As already said, it cites Veņi I. 24 also as an illustration of Udbheda.
(11) Karana (Kārana--NL.) is the beginning made (by the hero or the heroine) to accomplish the object of his desire. Sahadeva and Bhima thus announce at the close of Veņi I that they are proceeding to fight a battle against the Kurus.
The ND. sets forth the view of some theorists that Karana is the allaying of calamities. It is brought about by benediction or the like. Draupadi's benediction to Bhima—“May bliss attend on you, as on Hari prepared for battle with the asuras" illustrates this.
(12) Bheda is the exit of the characters from the stage in pursuance of their respective ends, Bhima thus at the end of Veņi I. addresses Draupadi, asks her not to be anxious on their (i.e. his and Sahadeva's) account as they are experts in warfare, indicates their readiness to join war and leave the stage. This is how the Abh. and the ND. understand Bheda.
The DR. defines it as 'the heartening up and cites the closing portion of the Veni I. as an illustration. Here Bhima cheers up Draupadi, who is overcome with gloom, by pointing out that the Pāņdavas are well-versed in the art of war.
The SD. defines it as 'a breach of union'. It quotes Veņi (p. 9) where Bhima speaks of breaking his alliance with his brothers as an example.
The ND. mentions yet another view which regards Bheda as the political expedient of that name whereby the adversaries standing in the way of realizing the aims of the hero are estranged.
of the twelve subdivisions of this sandhi the following six must always be used : 1 Upaksepa 2 parikara 3 parinyāsa 4 yukti 5 udbheda and 6 samadhāna.
The mukha sandhi is well illustrated by Veņi I. where the bija is seen in Yudhisthira's readiness to declare war on the failure of Krsna's mission of peace. Bhima's
50 The Abh. (III. p. 41) and the ND. (p. 32) particularly note that Udbheda does not mean Udghātana, which is connected with the pratimukha sandhi.

Page #103

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
eagerness to fulfil his vow of breaking the thighs of Duryodhana and braid Draupadi's hair is prominently seen in the whole act.
91
The pratimukha sandhi comprehends thirteen sub-divisions :
(1) Vilasa52 is the desire for amorous pleasures. Sāgarika's soliloquy at the opening of the Act II (Ratnavali) finely illustrates this sub-division.
(2) Parisarpa (or Upasarpana-ND.) is the pursuing of the bija once seen and then lost. The passage from the Veņi (Act II. 2) where the chamberlain tells of the slaying of Bhisma (the bija of the Veņisamhära is here seen) and of young Abhimanyu (the bija is here lost) is an example.
(3) Vidhata is non-acceptance, at first, of anunaya (friendly persuasion). Sakuntala (Act III) asks Priyamvada, who, on behalf of Sakuntala, requests the king to requite Sakuntala's love "not to detain the royal sage, who is pining on account of his separation from the ladies of his harem."
The DR., however defines it as despondency or absence of pleasure due to unrequited love. Sagarika's throwing away the lotus-stalks etc., intended by her friend to be a source of relief in her love's torment, illustrates this sub-division.
(4) Tapana (torment) is the grim prospect of a danger (NS.). Tāpana is 'not finding any means to allay the despondency' (owing to the difficulty of attaining the object of desire-SD). The passage from the Ratnavali (Act II. 1) where Sagarika says; "My love is fixed on an object beyond my reach; I am overcome with a heavy sense of shame, my soul is enslaved by passion....then is not death the only alternative ?" illustrates this tapana.
The DR. reads sama instead of tapana and defines it as the despelling of despondency due to the difficulty of attaining the object of desire. The king's admiration of the beauty of Sagarika surpassed all her expectations which evoked her comment "O heart, cheer up! Even your desire could not go so far!" This constitutes sama.
(5) Narma consists in the use of banter. The conversation in the Ratnavali (Act II) where Susangată deliberately uses words in such a way as to apply to the king as well as to the picture-board is an example of Narma.
(6) Narmadyut is humorous speech with a view to covering one's weakness (the NS., the Abh., the ND.). The conversation between the King and the Viduşaka
51 This sandhi answers the description of the Mukha as given by the DR. Here we have the joining of the bija and the arambha.
52 Abhinava rightly points out that in a love play this vilasa is very appropriate but in a play based on the vira rasa (heroic sentiment) vilāsa, the dominant feeling of love, is to be taken to stand for Utsäha (the emotion of energy) by upalakṣaṇa.
53 The SD. spells it as vidhyta, the RS. as vidhūta. The ND. calls it dhūnana.
54 The ND. notes that narma and narmadyuti are to be used in love-plays (p. 76).

Page #104

Studies in
(Ratnavali Act II), where the latter styles gāthā as a Vedic hymn in his attempt to hide his ignorance and excites the King's laughter is an example of this sub-division.
92
The DR. defines it as the gratification caused by the humorous remark, and illustrates it by citing a passage from the Ratnavall (Act II) where Sagarika outwardly expresses her anger at Susañgata's remark that she does not give up her anger even when the king holds her by the hand.
(7) Pragayana is a series of questions and answers. This is best illustrated by the long passage in the Ratnavali (Act II) where the Viduṣaka and the king (Susangată and Sagarika as well) engage themselves in conversation starting with the Vidusaka's question as to what the verse (II. 7) is like, and ending with the stanza (II. 15) addressed to the garland of lotus-stalks. It considerably helps to advance the bija (here love) of the play.
The DR., the SD., and all later authorities read pragamana for pragayana. Their definitions, are however, essentially identical.
(8) Nirodha (v. 1., virodha) is obstructing the attainment of the desired object (by the hero or heroine). Vidusaka thus obstructs the union of the king and the heroine by his speech (Ratnävall II. 17 etc.) which is misunderstood by others.
(9) Paryupasana is propitiating an angry person. In the Ratnavali (Act II. 18) where the king tries to conciliate Vasavadatta who is offended at the sight of the picture-board (showing Sagarika and the king side by side) we have an illustration of this sub-division. The ND. calls it Santvana.
(10) Puspa is a hyperbolic statement (tending to enhance the bija of the play). The king's statement in the Ratnavali (Act II. 16) that Sagarika is Laksmi herself etc. illustrates this sub-division.
(11) Vajra is a cruel remark made to (Act 11) where Susangată pretends to be like the affair about Sagarika threatens the the queen is an illustration (Abh.). The DR. illustrates it by citing the passage in the Ratnavali (Act II) where the queen sarcastically asks the king whether the picture of Sagarika by the side of the king that was drawn on the board is the work of Vasantaka and adds that the sight of the board has given her head-ache.
one's face. The passage in the Ratnavali a partisan of the queen and hence not to king that she would disclose the affair to
55 This is the reading of the NS. Abhinava remarks: "AR
:
विचि क्लिष्ययत्नशब्देन शता (१) क्विना व्युत्पत्तिं कल्पयन्ति । प्रागयणम् इति अन्ये पठन्ति । प्राकू इति पूर्ववचनं ततोऽयनं प्राप्तिः यस्य उत्तरवचनस्य इति ॥ Abh. III. p. 45.
The ND., which normally follows the Abh., accepts the reading 'pragamana.'
56 The ND., calls it 'rodha', the BP. 'nirodha,' while all other authorities 'virodha'.
57 यथा हि प्रेमविकासि पुष्पं भवत्येवमत्रापि राज्ञ उत्तरोत्तरानुरागविशेषसूचकं वचो विकासमस्यानुरागस्य -Abh. III. 46.

Page #105

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
93
(12) Upanyāsa is a statement based on argument or reasoning (-the NS., the DR the Abh., the ND and RS.) The statement of the Vidüşaka that the borne-slave (Susangatā) is a great tattler and that everything is possible in her case and hence the king should please her by a reward (Ratnāyali Act II) illustrates it.
According to the SD., it is conciliation in order to remove the annoyance caused by some jest previously). The passage in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where Susangatā asks the king not to get panicky as she played only a joke (in threatening to report the affair to the queen) and cleverly suggests to him to appease Sāgarikā illustrates this anga.
Bhoja has omitted this anga altogether.58
(13) Varnasamhāra (or varnasamhțli-ND.) is coming together of the four castes such as the Brāhmaṇas, the Kşatriyas etc.59 The stanza in the Vira-carita (III. 5) illustrates it.
Abhinava interprets 'varna' as characters (pātras) and samhāra as drawing together,' 'close association.' He rejects the interpretation given above as meaningless. He illustrates this anga by an incident in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where the king, the Vidüşaka, Sāgarikā, and Susangatā meet together.
The NL., however, defines it as 'varṇita-arthasya tiraskāraḥ'. The editor, (NS. III. p. 47) paraphrases it as 'uktārthasya vişayāntara-prasaktyā pracchādanam. The NL., cites as an example the sentence in the Ratnāvali, where the Vidüşaka refers to Susangatā as a 'born--slave' and 'tattler' (and with a view to guarding the secret asks the hero to win her over by a reward).
The most important sub-divisions of this sandhi are: 1 Parisarpa 2 pragamana (praśama appears to be an error in view of the remarks of the ND. p. 69. SD. p. 351' and the PR. p. 110) 3 vajra 4 upanyāsa and 5 puspa.
In the Veņi the pratimukha sandhi is found to cover the second Act. The bija of the play, namely,' 'Krodha' (anger) is seen here fully developed in that the poet foreshadows that the son of Pāņdu would in a short time slay Suyodhana in battle together with his kinsmen, friends etc. (II. 6) and describes the efforts of Pāņdavas, particularly of Arjuna to slaughter Jayadratha (p. 53) and alludes to Bhima's vow to drink the blood from the heart of Duśśāsana and break the thighs of Duryodhana (II. 28). In this Act we find the love scene with Bhānumati which is a secondary incident. It appears to interrupt the course of the drama. The entrance of Jayadratha's mother (and Duśśalā) who describes the important events connected with the main
58 59
159 1a feat | Editor's note, NS. III. p. 46. This is how the DR., the SD., interpret this anga.

Page #106

94
Studies in
action such as Arjuna's vow to slay Jayadratha etc., sets the principal action in motion again. This is the binduco (what maintains the continuity of the main action).
The garbha sandhi has thirteen (or twelve according to some authorities) subdivisions :
(1) Abhūtāharana is a speech based on deceit. The Abh. illustrates this by the speech of the Vidūşaka in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where he tells the queen that the king drew his own picture on the board to refute his assertion that a man hardly draw his own picture. The SD. quotes the passage from the Veņi (Act III. 11) as its illustration : truthful Yudhisthira proclaims that Aśvatthāman has been slain, Drona supposes that his son has fallen, but what really has happened is the deith of an elephant so named. The DR. cites the passage from the Ratnávali (Act III) where Kāñcanamālā refers to the Vidūşaka's secret plot according to which Sāgarikā, disguised as Vāsavadattā is to meet the king. The ND. refers to the clever ruse used by the Vidūşaka (in the Mālavikā-) in securing the signet-ring from the queen.
(2) Märgal is speaking out the exact truth-a pointing out of one's real purpose. Abhinava illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act II) where the queen refuses to believe with Kāñcanamālā that it may be by accident that the figure drawn by the king resembles Sāgarikā and says that Kāñcanamālā does not understand Vidūsaka's prevarications. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III), where the Vidūşaka tells the king of his secret plot of bringing about his union with Sāgarikā about whose success he was quite certain.
(3) Rūpa is a statement embodying doubts regarding the true nature of samething, e.g. in the Kytyārāvana Rāma not recognising Jaţāyus doubts whether it was the mountain with its wings chopped off by Indra or Garuda smashed down by the lord of Asuras or it was Jațăyus who was lying dead62.
The DR. defines it as a remark embodying some hypothesis (vitarka). The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III. 9 etc.) where the king expresses his hope of being united to Sāgarikā, but finding that Vasantaka was tarrying doubts : "Can it be that the queen has come to know the whole plot ?"
60 This sandhi answers the description of the pratimukha as given by the DR. Here we have the combination of bindu and prayatna. 61 The ND. interprets it thus :
9A12E A 41 EZHA warga TT Araba arauf: 1......
and illustrates it by Mudrārākşasa III. 4-5. 62 This is how the ND. defines (and illustrates) rūpa following the NS. and the Abh. With this definition rūpa does not differ in any way from the Sasandeha alamkāra. The Abhi. illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act II. 20) which the Avaloka cites as an example of Paryupāsana.

Page #107

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
95
The NL. defines it as a logical argument or hypothesis having a striking sense and illustrates it by Ratnāvali III. 2 : The mind is, by its very nature, fickle, and thus it should be a difficult mark to hit. How does it happen then that god of love has pierced it with all his arrows at once ?" The SD., too, cites this stanza as an example63
(4) Udaharana (Udāhrii-ND) is an exaggerated statement. The Abh. and the ND. quote the above passage (Ratnāvali III. 2) as an illustration of this sub-division. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali where the Vidūşaka enthusiastically remarks that the news of his meeting with Sagarikā would delight the king more than the acquisition of the kingdom of Kausāmbi.
(5) Krama is a knowledge of the feelings of another (-NS., the Abh., the ND. and the SD.) Ratnāvali III. 4, where the king describes the helpless condition of Sāgarikā on account of the extreme uneasiness deep placed in the heart, is an exam
ple of it. The Avaloka illustrates it by Ratnāvali III. The Krama here consists in the · king's love for Sāgarikā having been known to Vāsavadattā.
• The DR. defines it as the acquisition of an object when it is being thought of : The passage in the Ratnāvali (III. 10 etc.) which speaks of the king's meeting with Sāgarikā, who has solely absorbed his mind, illustrates this Krama. It is to be noted that here it is not real attainment as he meets real Vāsavadatta in place of Sāgarikā disguised as Vāsavadattā. The example in the PR. is more appropriate. The king was thinking of the victory of Pratāparudra when news actually came to him, declaring his complete victory.
The NL. defines it as 'knowledge of the future and illustrates it by the speech of Krpa in the Veņi (III) where he says: “Asvatthāman if invested with supreme command would be able to destroy even the three worlds, not to speak of Yudhisthira's army."
(6) Sangraha is 'use of sweet conciliatory words and gifts. '64 It is taking some person on one's side, winning him over by the use of sweet words and gifts. The passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III) where the king gives a reward of his bracelet to the Vidüşaka who assişts him in the acquisition of his object of desire (Sāgarikā) illustrates this sub-division,
(7) Anuryāna (or anumā) is an inference (of the lingin, that which possesses the linga) from its characteristic sign (linga or hetu). The Abh, illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnāvali (Act III. 8) where the path is inferred by fragrance of flowers of
63 The ND., following the Abh., distinguishes between Yukti a subdivision of Mukha and this rüpa as follows:
ETAT 4941 Bfana JFTTT 197=tà I... yta: Faiaraqaa Aga#1191 377 HC: p. 83. 64 The ND. defines it as 'sāma-dānādih' and comments that sāma-dāna includes, by Upalakşaņa, bheda and daņda and a li includes dereit, mizic etc. (read pp. 82-83.).

Page #108

96
Studies in
the trees in the garden. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage (Act III. 15 etc.) where the king concludes that the death of Vasavadattā would follow from her great disappointment consequent upon his extreme love for Sāgarikā.
(8) Prārthana is invitation or request for love's enjoyment, rejoicing, and festivity (NS) Ratnāvali Act III. 11-where the king invites (the supposed) Sāgarikā to enjoy pleasures of love with him-illustrates this sub-division.
The ND, broadens the definition as 'bhāvayāca nam.' The NL. defines it as 'mere request, entreaty.' The ND. illustrates it citing a passage from the Raghuvilāsa where Rākşasa disguised as Hanūmat's father, requests Rāvana to forgive the various offences given by Hanāmat.
It is to be noted that the DR. does not recognise this sub-division found in the the NS. The SD. takes particular care to point out that he has included the subdivision prarthana so that those who exclude praśasti from the number of divisions of the nirvahaņa may still have the full complement of 64 sub-divisions. Otherwise the total number of angas would make 65.
(9) Akşipti65 is the revelation or unfolding of the bija (or germ of the plot) lying concealed in the garbha.66 Abhinava calls it revelation of the innermost passion or feeling on some pretext or the other. Thus the king reveals his heart before Väsavadattā (Ratnāvali Act III) all the time taking her to be Sāgarikā. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage from the Ratnāvali (Act III) where there is the revelation of the bija lying concealed in the garbha viz., the acquisition of Sāgarikā by the king solely depends on the queen's favour.
The PR. defines it as the adoption of means for the accomplishment of the end aimed at. "The object aimed at in the Pratāparudra play is the coronation of Prataparudra and the means to attain it is the propitiation of God Ganapati.
The ND. informs us that some drama turgists do not recognise this sub-division67
(0) Totaka68 (Trotaka-SD.) is a speech uttered in excitement due to anger, joy or the like. The Abh. cites as example a passage in the Ratnāvali where the Vidūsaka asks Sāgarikā to talk to the king and regale his ears with the sweet cadence of
65 Akşipta or Akşipti (NS.), Akşepa (-DR.), Utkşipta (-NL.), Kșipti (-SD.). 66 MATICHET paitafafaitza | NS. 9183191179fagre of EU 4129174 91972
: ND. p. 88. 67 The SD. defines it as B TT QC : falta: 7710 I. It cites, as an example, Veņi III. 14 where Kopa suggests the inner meaning that Aśvatthaman or daiva will bring about total destruction of the subjects. 68 annos quad all giant gafa lang afzalsa al
qara qat a J F | Abh. III. 51. The ND. follows the Abh. The DR appears to restrict it to an angry and violent speech,

Page #109

Sanskrit Sähityaśāstra
97
her words as his ears are grated with the harsh words of the ever-irate queen. The instance given by the Avaloka is “a scene from the Ratnāvali where Vāsavadattā having clearly perceived the king's attachment to Sāgarikā orders her maid-servant to bind Viduşaka and Sāgarikā in fetters and take them away."
(11) Adhibala (or at ibala-RS.) is a deception practised on others (with a view to accomplishing the object in hand). Thus in the Ratnāvali Väsavadattā outwits the king by disguising herself as Sāgarikā.
According to some theorists adhibala is the opposite of toțaka, but this view does not seem to be correct for then there would hardly be any distinction between it and paryupāsana.
(12) Udvega is fear arising from the king, an enemy or a robber. When the queen outwits the king and the Vidūşaka, the latter expresses fear caused by the queen's fury. Or, when Sāgarikā, is taken prisoner she is terribly afraid of the queen as is seen in her remark that she is not allowed even to die an honorable death (Ratnāyali Act III). These are instances of Udvega.
(13) Vidrava (Sambhrama) is apprehension caused by something dreadful or frightening. The Abh. illustrates it by the king's apprehension that Vasavadattā would put an end to her life because of his deep love for Sāgarikā (Ratnāvali Act III. 15) Others like Sankuka define vidrava as apprehension, fear and fright. Sankuka illustrates it by a passage from the Krtyārāvana (Act VI): From behind the curtain Mandodari cries 'help' 'help' !.... The Pratithāri reports to Rāvana that there is uproar in the harem. Rāyaṇa apprehends some trouble and asks the Pratihāri to find out what it is about." Here we notice 'apprehension' of Rāvana, fear and fright of the Pratihāri. The ND., too, quotes this example to illustrate vidrava.
The DR. defines sambhrama (=vidrava) as 'fear and trembling'. The ND. comments on it : The most important of these sub-divisions of the garbha, are : 1 abhūtāharana 2 Mārġa 3 toțaka 4 adhibala and aksepa. The rest are to be employed when possible.
The garbha sandhi extends over the Veni. Acts III and IV. Bhima's speech from behind the curtain wherein he declares his intention of slaughtering Duśśāsana who has fallen into his clutches and the speeches of Aśvatthāman that refer to Bhima's drinking of Duśśāsana's blood, and certain stanzas of Act IV that foreshadow the slaying of Duryodhana represent the prāptyāśā (Prospect of Success) which corresponds to the garbha sandhi. The quarrel between Aśvatthäman and Kaiņa helps the Pāņdavas in their victory over the Kurus. From that point of view this episode may be regarded as patākā69.
The Vimarśa (or Ava marśa) has thirteen sub-divisions :
69 See supra for the nature and definition of patākā. 13

Page #110

Studies in
(1) Apavida is 'the proclaiming of a fault or misdeed of another.' The ND. comprehends under it 'one's own censure.' The DR. illustrates this sub-division by a passage from the Ratnavali (Act IV) where we are informed of the misdeed of the queen in her harsh treatment of poor Sägarikā,
98
(2) Sampheta is altercation-exchange of angry violent words. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Veņi (VI. 10-11) which reports exchange of hot words between Bhima and Suyodhana. The SD. illustrates it by a passage in the Veņi (V. 30) where Duryodhana strongly condemns Bhima and his brothers.
(3) Drava (or Abhidrava or vidrava) is showing disrespect or insolence towards one's elders. Thus Yudhisthira shows disrespect to Balarama in Veņi (VI. 20), or Lava shows contempt for Rama in Uttara-Carita (V. 34).
(4) Sakti is placating one who is angry (-NS.) or the allaying of opposition. (to the accomplishment of the desired end by the hero-DR.). The Avaloka illustrates it by two instances, one from the Ratnavali (IV. 1) in which the king's speech shows that the anger of Vasavadatta standing in his way of the acquisition of Sagarika is pacified; and the other from the Uttara-Caritra (VI. 11), where Lava's opposition to Candraketu and his army is removed or allayed at the sight of Rama,
(5) Vyavasaya is acquisition of the means to accomplish one's undertaking. Thus, in the Ratnavali, the magician's entry on the stage helps Yaugandharāyaṇa in accomplishing his desired aims. The DR. defines it as 'mention of one's own power," and illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnävall (IV. 8-9) where the magician mentions his supernatural power and suggests that he would show the king Sagarika whom he so eagerly longed to see.
(6) Prasanga is mentioning (with reverence) one's elders. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act IV) where the declaring of Sagarika's parentage helps the attainment of the object of the king's desire.
The NL. defines it as 'giving expression to what really is aprastuta (the irrelevant). The ND. cites Veņi VI. 18, where Yudhisthira laments the (supposed) death of Bhima, as an illustration of prasanga in this sense.
(7) Dyuti is 'rebuking'. The DR. defines it as 'threatening and hurting the feelings of others'. Wilson freely renders it as 'provoking to combat,' The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage from the Veņi (Act VI. 6-9) where Bhima rebukes Suyodhana. and forces him to come out of the lake.
70 Abhinava paraphrases the definition as 'Virodhinaḥ Kupitasya samaḥ.' The DR. defines Śakti as virodha-samanam.' The ND. includes under Sakti complete destruction of one's enemy. It adds that some theorists recognise 'ajña' in place of Sakti and define it as 'giving an order when provoked to anger, without giving due thought to the matter in question' (see p. 100).
71 The NS. defines it as 'प्रतिज्ञाहेतुसम्भवः'. Abhinava explains it as प्रतिज्ञातस्याङ्गीकृतस्यार्थस्य हेतवो ये तेषां सम्भवः प्राप्तिः व्यवसायः । NS. III. 91, pp 54.

Page #111

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
99
(8) Kheda is lassitude (-fatigue) arising either from mental or physical activity. The SD. illustrates it by a well-known stanza occurring both in the Mālati-Madhava (IX. 12), and Uttara-Carita (III. 31) which vividly portrays Rāma's poignant sorrow at the loss of Sitā. The Abh. illustrates the physical fatigue by a passage from the Vikramorvasiyam (Act IV, p. 166) where Pururavas, tired on account of his wanderings in search of Urvasi says: “I am tired. So reposing on the bank of this mountainstream I shall enjoy the breeze from its waves" etc.
The DR. and its followers do not recognise Kheda as a sandhyanga.
(9) Pratişedha (or Nişedha) is obstruction to the attainment of one's desired end. The SD. quotes a passage from the Prabhāvati where Pradyumna is told by the Viduşaka that Prabhāvati, has been abducted by the lord of Asuras. This abduction of Prabhāvati is an obstruction in the way of Pradyumna's attaining Prabhāvati-the object of his desire. In place of pratiședha the ND. substitutes Samrambha. He defines it as 'śakti-kirtanam,' and comments : Samrambha is 'mention of one's own power in the conversation between two persons who are agitated.' He quotes Veņi V. 33–34 to illustrate it. He further says Samrambha is found even when there is mention of one's power by one who is not agitated,' and quotes Veņi VI. 6 as an instance of it.
The ND. distinguishes between Sampheța and Samrambha as follows : In the sampheta we have angry speech only, whereas in the samrambha mention of one's own power.' It is clear from the ND.'s treatment of Samrambha that it comprehends under this sub-division the two sub-divisions of the DR., namely virodhana and vyavasäya.
(10) Virodhana (Nirodhana or Virodha) : When some obstacle suddenly arises in the way of accomplishing the object of one's desire we have this sub-division. The SD. cites Veņi Act VI. 1 as an example : Here Yudhisthira expresses his fear that the rash declaration of Bhima (that he would kill Duryodhana that very day or would himself commit suicide) has imperilled the lives of all Pandavas at a time when complete victory over the Kurus was just within their reach.
From the definitions and illustrations of Pratiședha and Virodhana it is perfectly clear that there is hardly any real distinction between the two sub-divisions.
The DR. defines it as declaring one's own superior power by two persons when they are agitated-perturbed. It illustrates this sub-division by Veņi (Act V. 30–34) where Bhima and Duryodhana, who are highly excited, assert their own superior strength.
(11) Adāna : When fruition (attainment of thing desired) is in sight we have ādāna?2. It is according to the DR., 'a resume of the action.°73 Veņi VI. 37, where the total destruction of the enemy is recapitulated, illustrates it. 72 a157612197148 afala afzan | NS. XIX. 94a.
atasi atatuagg: | Abh. III. p. 55.
YET9Rt 2317412177 | ND. p. 103. 73 311315 ZIJÄTE: 1 - DR. K. P. Trivedi thus renders it 371919 consists in the collection of preparations for the accomplishment of the desired object." (--PR. Notes, p. 49).

Page #112

100
Studies in
(12) Chādana (or Sādana-NL.) is a statement or speech arising from 'disgrace and made for some purpose.74 Thus in the Ratnāvali (Act IV) Sāgarikā welcomes the breaking out of fire in the harem where she has been held captive as it would put an end to her sorrows. She means death caused by fire would put an end to her suffering and disgrace. In reality, however, union with the king brought about by that fire ends her sorrows.
The SD. defines it as putting up with humiliation etc. with a view to attaining the desired object and quotes Veņi V. 31 as an instance : Arjuna here appeals to Bhima not to mind the ravings of Duryodhana, whose hundred brothers are killed and who is unable to do the Pāņdavas any harm.
The DR. and its followers do not recognise Chādana as a sub-division.
The ND. states that some theorists recognise chalana in place of chādana. "The word chalana is interpreted by some dramaturgists as 'humiliation' (-this is a clear reference to the DR.) while by some others as 'sammoha' i.e. fainting." The abandoning of Sitā in the play Rāmābhyudaya illustrates chalana in the sense of 'humiliation'. Chalana in the sense of fainting is illustrated by a passage in the Veni Act VI. 15-16 where Rākşasa gives the false news of Bhima's death and as a result Yudhisthira faints away.
(13) Prarocanā is representing in advance that the desired end is accomplished, the actual accomplishment of the desired end being found in the nirvahaņa. It is illustrated by Veņi VI. 12 etc., where the braiding of Draupadi's hair and Yudhisthira's coronation are represented in advance as accomplished.
The Abh. notes that some dramaturgists call this anga Yukti. The ND. mentions a view that some define prarocanā 75 as 'a direction to honour persons with gifts etc.', and cites a passage from the Veņi (Act VI, pp. 153-54) where Yudhisthira orders Sahadeva through his attendant to employ clever spies etc., to whom rewards in the form of money and honour are promised, to trace Duryodhana who has disappeared on hearing of Bhima's vow.
The DR. and its followers (the BP., the PR., and the RS.) do not recognise the three angas : 1 Kheda 2 Pratişedha and 3 Chādana. In place of them these authorities substitute vidrava, vicalana and chalana.
Vidrava is 'slaying, taking prisoner and the like'. The description of the breaking out of fire in the harem, of the imprisonment of Sāgarikā and danger to her life (Ratnāvali, Act IV) illustrates this sub-division.
74 The ND. defines it as glä FFYASAH 1
and comments मन्युरपमानो येन मार्यते तत् छादनम् । p. 95. 75 The ND. informs that some recognise Yukti in place of Prarocană. Yukti is defined as
afer: This definition agrees with NS. XIX. 96a, which is possibly a later addition.

Page #113

Sanskrit Sahityalästra
Vicalana is 'bragging',-boasting of what is done by oneself. This is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act IV. 19) where Yaugandharāyaṇa proudly declares that he brought about the marriage of the king with Rätnävall, which in its turn, was to lead to the king's attainment of the sovereignty of the world. Chalana is already treated under Chadana.
101
It will be seen that the vidrava of the DR. is very much like the pratiṣedha as illustrated by the SD. and chalana like chadana. The most important divisions of the avamaria are: I apavada 2 sakti 3 vyavasaya 4 prarocanã and 5 ādāna. A careful scrutiny of the sub-divisions of the avamarsa shows that 'virodhana' creates a serious obstacle in the way of the hero's attaining the desired end, and this creates a doubt in the mind of the hero regarding the attainment of his desires. This obstacle however brings out the best in the hero and certainty of success is guaranteed (niyatäpti). The sub-divisions like vyavasaya, dyuti, śakti, prarocanã and ādāna bear out the truth of this statement.
The vimarsa or avarmasa extends over Veņi Act V and a considerable portion of Act VI (upto stanza No. 37). Act V informs us of Karna's death and that Asvatthäman, who seeks reconciliation, is received coldly by Duryodhana. Act VI informs us of Bhima's rash vow that he would kill Duryodhana that very day or himself commit suicide, and of the disappearance of Duryodhana. This imperils the lives of the Pandavas at a moment when victory was within reach. Thus Bhima's rash declaration and Duryodhana's disappearance form a serious obstacle in the way of the attainment of the ends aimed at. It, however, later informs us that Duryodhana is found and that Krsna sends message to Yudhisthira to commence festivities in expectation of Bhima's victory over Duryodhana. This represents 'certainty of success," which corresponds to the vimarka sandhi. Cārvāka, a Räkṣasa, deliberately gives Yudhisthira and Draupadi the false news of the death of Bhima. Out of grief they both resolve on death. For a moment all hope seems to have been lost but Bhima, with his body all covered with blood, appears on the scene and certainty of success is guaranteed.
Prakart, in the true sense, is not found in these two Acts, which constitute vimarsa. It has been already pointed out that prakar! is not an essential element of 'vimarsa". The Abh. (III. p. 15) illustrates the prakari by the doings of Kulapati in the Kṛtyarāvana and of Lord Vasudeva in the Veni. But Krsna's doings are not confined to this part only.
The Carvaka episode, strictly speaking, cannot be called prakar1. For, Cārvāka appears on the scene with the express intention of duping the Pandavas. The playwright introduces the character of Cārvāka towards the end of the play most probably with a view to creating the marvellous sentiment in accordance with the dictum : निर्वहणे कर्तव्यो निश्वं हि रसोऽद्भुतस्तज्ज्ञैः ॥ —NS XVIII. 945.
76 The ND. defines vicalana as boasting of oneself on account of valour, family, learning, beauty, good fortune and the like (p. 98).

Page #114

102
Studies in
The incident of Cārvāka may however, be regarded as a prakari in a very loose sense in as much as it serves to bring out the deep affection and love of Yudhisthira and Dravpadi for Bhima.
The nirvahaņa (or upasamhāra or samhāra) has thirteen (or fourteen) sub-divisions :
(1) Sandhz77 is the coming up again of the bija that was indicated in the mukha sandhi. Vasubhūti and Bābhravya seeing Sāgarikā who has been rescued from fire strongly believe that she must be the princess Ratnāvali. Thus what was stated in the Mukha sandhi about the bija is here repeated. Or, in the Veņi (Act VI) Bhima, with his hand smeared with Duryodhana's blood, and about to bind up Draupadi's locks asks her whether she remembers the vow he had taken that he would braid her hair only when the insult to her was avenged. Thus the braiding of Draupadi's hair, the bija of the play is again alluded to here.
(2) Nirodha (or vibodha) is seeking for the end aimed at. Thus Bhima in the Veni (Act VI) who has been embraced affectionately by Yudhisthira after the annihilation of the Kurus asks Yudhisthira to release him for a moment as he has yet to braid Draupadi's hair. Yudhisthira permits him to go so that poor Draupadi can bind up at last her locks. This sub-division is designated by the NL, as anuyoga.
(3) Grathana is referring to a purpose held in view throughout'. Thus Bhima reminds Draupadi that she had been forbidden by him to tie up her dishevelled hair, as he had vowed that he would himself do it for her, when he had slain those who had subjected her to the indignity of untying her braid of hair.
(4) Nirnaya is a narration of one's experience (with reference to the end or purpose). The speech of Bhima (Veņi Act VI. 39) which is addressed to doubting Yudhisthira illustrates this sub-division for Bhima here describes his triumphant success in slaying Duryodhana and annihilating the Kurus and the acquisition of sovereignty over the world.
(5) Paribhāşaņa is a speech censuring oneself by admitting one's fault. The speeches of Ratnāvali and Väsavadattā at the close of the play where they censure themselves for their own improper behaviour illustrates this sub-division.
The DR. and its followers define it as 'talking (of persons) with one another', Their illustrations are, however, of the same kind given above. It is, therefore, clear that ordinary conversation is not meant by these theorists.
(6) Dyuti is pacifying of anger, jealousy etc. The speech of Yaugandharāyana at the close of the Ratnāvali where he discloses his whole plot and pacifies Vāsavadattā's anger and jealousy towards Sagarikā and secures Sāgarikā for the king illustrates this sub-division.
The DR. and its followers substitute Křti in place of Dyuti and interpret it as (i) substantiation or confirmation of the result attained, or (ii) conciliation of each other (by the hero and the elder queen, who was earlier opposed to his acquisition 77. In place of Sandhi the NL, substitutes artha and defines it as garagena: 37ů: 1 p. 36.
(7)

Page #115

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
103
of Sāgarikā) on attaining the object of one's desire. Krti, in the first sense, is illustrated by Krsna's address to Yudhisthira where he says that Vyāsa, Vālmiki and others have arrived for his coronation (Veņi Act VI. 44) :-Kști, in the second sense, is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnāyali (Act IV) where on attaining Ratnāvali the King and Vāsavadattā try to conciliate each other.
The ND. mentions the view of some that Dyuti is 'persuasion of a person who is already under your control but is unwilling to act up to your advice'. It is illustrated by a passage in the Mudrārāksasa where Raksasa is persuaded to accept Ministership by Cānakya.
(7) Ānanda is 'the attainmeat of one's desire'. The King in the Ratnāvali is happy at the acquisition of Ratnāvali, and Draupadi at the braiding of her hair by Bhima.
(8) Samaya is end of all misery or misfortune. The union of Vāsavadattā and Ratnāvali as sisters at the end of the play puts an end to their sorrows and sufferings.
(9) Prasāda is waiting upon (the hero or heroine) with a view to conciliating the anger of the offended person. Yaugandharāyaṇa who did not till the last moment take the king into his confidence regarding his plot requests him to forgive him for what was done by him without informing him (the king). This speech of the minister illustrates prasāda. The ND. names this subdivision as Upāsti.
(10) Upagūhana is the experience of something wonderful. In the Rāmābhyudaya, Sitā repudiated by Rāma enters fire. The god of fire brings her out safe. At this all those present on the occasion are struck with wonder. This is Upagühana. The ND. calls it by the name parigūhana.
(11) Bhāṣaṇa is speech accompanied by sweet words (sāma), gift and the like (NS.). The ND. quotes a passage from the Mșccha katika, where Sarvilaka, at the instance of Aryaka, confers favours on Cārudatta, Vasantasenā etc., to illustrate this sub-division.
The Dr. defines it as 'the attainment of honour and the like,' and illustrates it by a passage from the Ratnāvali (Act IV. 21) where the King proudly refers to various achievements such as the acquisition of Sāgarikā and the like.
(12) Pūrvavākya is uttering words which were earlier used in the Mukhasandhi. The ND. illustrates it by a passage from the Mudrārākşasa (VII. 17) where Cāņakya says: "Let the bonds of all except those of horses ond elephants be untied, I only having made good my vow, will tie up my tuft of hair" as it contains words which he had earlier uttered in the Mukha.
Other theorists define it as the foreseeing of the object of one's deisire. Thus in the Ratnāvali Yaugandharāyana says to Vāsavadattā "Do as you please in the case of Sāgarikā, your sister". In this speech Väsavadattā foresees the Kārya, the union of the King and Sāgarikā.

Page #116

104
Studies in
(13) Kavyasamhāra is 'obtaining a boon' (by the hero etc.). When some very important character in a play says to the hero etc. "What further can I do for you? We have this sub-division. This anga invariably precedes the prasasti. With this anga, as the objects of one's desire are attained in this sub-division, the play proper comes to its end.
(14) Prasasti is a prayer for peace to the King and the country and other good things. Veņi VI. 46 illustrates it: "May people live the full span of man's life free from misery and illness..... May single-minded devotion to you prevail in the world, O Purusottama;....May the King be loving towards the world...."
With reference to the sub-divisions of the Nirvahana the ND. observes that all of them are very important as no specific rule is laid down regarding their compara tive importance. But it says, further on, in the course of the treatment of these subdivisions that (1) Sandhi, (2) Paribhāṣā, (3) Bhāṣaṇa, (4) Kävya-samhhära and (5) Prasasti must be employed in the concluding part of the play. It adds that excepting sandhi, nirodha, grathana, pürvabhāva, kävyasamhära and prasasti, the rest of the sub-divisions may be used, if need be, in other parts of the drama...
Usually, nirvahana covers a little portion only of the last Act in the drama. The Karya is embodied in the closing portion" and this final sandhi corresponds to phalagama stage of the action. The portion in the Vent beginning with the Chamberlain's identifying of Bhima (p. 192) to the end of the Act VI constitutes nirvahana. The karya in the persent case is the slaying of Duryodhana. This karya is embodied in Act VI. 37 where Bhima informs us that he has fulfilled his terrible vow (of slaying Duryodhana that very day). Vent VI. 42 comprises phalagama as the braiding of Draupadi's hair is shown here to be accomplished.
Observations on the Number, Names and Definitions of the Sandhyangas
It is easy to dismiss these subdivisions of the sandhis on the ground that to follow their description "would be to exhaust any patience except Hindu" or that "the definitions and the classifications are without substantial interest or value," The study of these sub-divisions, however, reveals the theorist's distinct power of subtle analysis of the variety of dramatic incidents (interpreted broadly enough to cover mental processes as well as external events) which the Sanskrit drama presents. The dramatic incidents enumerated as sixty-four, really speaking, 'have no limits except those of imagination and dramatic effect.' This is implied in the remark which the ND. makes: सर्वसन्धिष्वपि मतान्तराणि वृद्धोक्तत्वाद् भणितिभेदाद् वैचित्र्पस्य रज्जकत्याच प्रमाणान्येव अत एव सर्वसन्धिष्वप्यङ्गसरूपाकरणमुदाहरण द्रष्टव्यमिति । (P. 101).
78 साधनत्वाद्वि बीजस्य प्रथमं तदुपक्षिपेत् साध्यत्वादेव कार्यस्य सर्वान्ते तत्प्रयोजयेत् | अविच्छेदाय रचयेद्विन्दु ं मध्ये तयोरपि । – BP. p. 205,

Page #117

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
105
All the authorities agree that the number of the sub-divisions of the mukha, the pratimukha, the avamarsa and the nirvahana is 12, 13, 13 and 14 respectively. The NS., as interpreted by Abhinava, the NL., the ND., and the SD. give thirteen subdivisions of the garbha whereas the DR., the BP., the PR., and the RS. give twelve.
The total number of the sub-divisions according to the DR. and its followers is 64 which agrees with their total number given by the NS. The total number of the subdivisions as enumerated by Abhinava and his followers comes to 65. The DR. and its followers make the total sixty-four by omitting one sub-division of the garbha called prarthana. Abhinava and his followers arrive at the total sixty-four by excluding prasasti (the last sub-division of the nirvahana) which is of the nature of Benediction and like the nāndi cannot be regarded as a part of the dramatic story. This point of view stands to reason as with the thirteenth sub-division of the nirvahana named 'Kāvyasamhāra' the play proper comes to its end.
The names, definitions and interpretations of the angas, barring some exceptions, are essentially the same. The two angas Karana and bheda of the Mukha are variously interpreted. Vialūta, tāpana (sama is recognised instead of it by the DR.), narmadruti, upanyāsa, and varnasamhāra-these sub-divisions of the pratimukha are differently iníerpreted and illustrated by various theorists. The sub-division 'pragayaņa' of the sandhi is called 'pragamana' in the DR. The nature of the two is essentially the same. Rūpa, Krama, Ākşipti (Utk sipta, Aksepa) and Adhibala—these sub-divisions of the garbha are variously interpreted; Vidrava of the NS. is called Sambhrama by the DR., and prārthanā of the garbha is not recognised by the DR. Instead of Kheda, Pratişedha and of the avamaría in the NS., the DR. gives us drava, vicalana and chalana Chādana of the NS. and Chalana of the DR. are essentially the same as is clear from their definitions and interpretations. The remaining two of each group have nothing in common except that they belong to the same sandhi. Vyavasāya, prasanga, virodhana, chādana and prarocană of this avamarsa are differently treated by different theorists. The two angas nirodha and dyuti of the nirvahana given by the NS. are called vibodha (virodha) and křti by the DR. But their definitions and interpretations are nearly the same. The purvavākya (-NS) of the nirvahaņa is called pūrvabliāva by the DR. The interpretations of the Abh. and the DR. regarding it differ. Although some of the sub-divisions such as kheda (=srama), udvega, vitarka. vidrava (=sambhrama) are of the nature of transitory feelings, they are so described with a view to impiessing on the mind of the dramatist that they ought to be used, if the occasion demands, for developing particular rasas etc.79
79 cf. यद्यपि श्रमोदेगवितर्कलज्जाप्रभृतयो व्यभिचारिवगै पूर्वमुक्तास्तथाप्येते सत्यवसरेऽवश्यप्रयोज्याः प्रागुक्तप्रयोTHUG), 947.971671T 25aal 7021: | Abh. III. p. 55.
The ND. almost repeats this : 1 Alenaufnafuatiae fua, a9119 cafetyg: Haqiqats 287a sfa | p. 97.
The ND. observes, elsewhere, that the 'sandhyangas' should be regarded as of the nature of the dominant emotions, the determinants, the consequents and the transitory feelings : 3;&TU FOIE
191T417-71TT-Effor gf | p. 115 14

Page #118

106
Studies in
A scrutiny of the definitions of certain sub-divisions, e g., sangraha and bhāšana shows that they overlap.80 The same examples are cited by different authorities to illustrate different angas. This phenomenon can easily be explained if we remember that their definitions of those angas differ. The names and definitions of some angas which differ from the NS. are satisfactorily explained by the fact that various authorities had different versions of the NS. before them when they wrote. Most of these variant readings are noted in the foot-notes to the NS. Lastly, these sub-divisions, of the five sandhis appear to be derived by an analysis of plays with love or the heroic sentiment as the ruling motive, especially former. This is clear from the names and definitions of the sub-divisions in the pratimukha such as vilāsa, vidhūta, sama (or tāpana), narma and narmadyuti. It is, therefore, a case of misdirected ingenuity to say that all sub-divisions of the sandhis are present in the Mudrārāksasa which is wholly a play of political intrigue and in which the element of Srūgāra is totally absent.81
The use of the Sandhyangas
The NS. lays down that the angas should be so used as to be subservient to the rasa which the play seeks to develop.82 Angas are used with a view to maintaining the continuity of the plot which is essential to the development of rasa. They are of the nature of the dominant emotion etc. Some theorists assert that the angas should only be used in the sandhi to which they are assigned 83 but other authorities refuse to admit this view on the ground of the usage of the dramatists and the text
80 यद्यपि तदर्थेऽपि संग्रहाख्यमिदमङ्गमुक्त' तथाप्यत्र स्थानेऽवश्यं प्रयोक्तव्यतां ख्यापयितु पुनरुपादान शब्दाFator | Abh. III. p. 59.
Sampheta' and 'virodhana' as defined and illustrated by the DR. (and Avaloka) can hardly be distinguished.
81 Abhinava clearly adds that in a play based on the 'vira' sentiment 'vilāsa,' by 'upalaksana' stands for "utsäha. Narma' and 'narmadyuti' subdivisions are to be employed in plays with love as the principal sentiment as is rightly observed by the ND. (p. 76). So these angas as understood by the NS can not occur in plays like the Mudräraksasa.
82 XIX. 105-106. The author of the Dhvanyāloka must have had this text in mind when he sets forth his famous dictum :
सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षया ।।
774 gaffefaamd:3|| ||III. p. 329. He points out in his Vrtti that it is a fault in the Veņi that the dramatist Jrags in the love-scene with Bhānumati in Act II. The 'rasa' which is suggested in the Mukha should be developed by its dominant emotion etc., in the Pratimukha. In a drama with love as the dominant sentiment, it is to be developed by the angas like vilāsa. But in a play with the heroic sentiment as the governing one, the 'vilāsa anga' stands for the ‘utsāha' by 'upalaksaņa' (see ND. p. 70).
83 Read : ... da 3722islai PER T AZAAIEETTFTMATEST | Abh. III. p. 36. and 777 ESZT: (? Jah :) A ga gga TEATEEL SD. p. 352.

Page #119

Sanskrit Sähit yaśāstra
107
of Bharata.84 They hold that the angas need not be used in the sandhi to which they are assigned, nor need all of them be used. One anga may be repeated twice or thrice, if need be, but not more than thrice as too much repetition would make the play insipid. Thus 'sampheta' and 'vidrava' being repeated in the Veņi develop the heroic and the furious sentiments, whereas vilāsa when repeated in the Ratnāvali rouses the erotic sentiment. Certain angas by their very nature require to be used in the sandhi to which they are assigned and in the very order in which they are treated. Upakşepa, parikara, parinyāsa, for example, must be used in that very order in the Mukha. If one anga be capable of achieving the purpose of two or two angas are capable of achieving the purpose of three, the dramatist should use only one anga or two as the case may be. Thus a sandhi may have only four angas, others being merged in them. Amukha or prastāvanā is no part of the drama which really begins with its end. The angas should, therefore flow from the bija and lead up to the kārya. The hero or his rival should, as a rule, appear in them. The first three angas of the mukha, upakşepa etc., may, however, be advantageously represented by unimportant characters. The sixfold purpose of the sandhyangas
. The NS. and following it, later authorities declare the six-fold purpose of angas as follows : (1) to present the subject matter in such a way as to create the desired rasa, (2) to expand the plot, (3) to increase interest in the minds of spectators (or readers) regarding the plot, (4) to conceal what ought to be concealed, (5) to produce surprise while presenting a familiar story and (6) to disclose what ought to be disclosed as it contributes to the development of rasa.
The NS emphasizes the importance of the angas by analogy :
Just as a man without limbs cannot fight, even so, a drama without angas cannot be well enacted. A play though poor as regards its story attains merit when equipped with the angas as it then becomes suited to the stage. On the other hand, a play with a noble theme but devoid of angas proves unsuited to the stage and does not interest any rasika.
From what has been said above it would seem that Bharata discusses at length the topic of sandhis, and sandhyangas with a view to emphasizing the need for a closely-knit plot, in which each detail should be very necessary for the development of the plot and rasa. Bharata's analysis of sandhis and sandhyangas reveals that he was conscious of the principle of Aucitya essential to rasa which Kșemendra later
84 Abhinava stoutly refutes their view : see NS III. Pp. 36-37. He interprets the text of Bharata : 92 T Faeziaragi aice | thus : gla da tela realfardagi fa ETEfriga2149, aga 778712722athözz1a: III. p. 37.
Read NS XIX. 99-100 which lend support to this view.

Page #120

108
Studies in
ably develops. The authorities very well display their distinct power of logical analysis and practical acumen. They give considerable freedom to the dramatist in the making of his plot.85 It is not, therefore, quite correct to say that the later dramatists were bound, hand and foot, by the rigid dramatic rules.
85 They allow him freedom to invent the plot in a prakaraṇa and suitably modify stories from the Itihāsa etc. As Śsigāra and Vira rasas are univesally popular they show sound realism and practical wisdom in prescribing either of them as the principal rasa in the full-fledged drama.

Page #121

8
THE PROBLEM OF PATĀKĀSTHANAKA
The theory of Sanskrit drama recognises Patäkästhānaka as a prominent dramatic device. The Natyaśästra defines it and distinguishes its four kinds. But as is usual with it, it does not care to add illustrations and give the reader a clear idea as to the exact nature and scope of the several varieties. The later authorities on the science of drama often repeat the NS. or give definitions in their own words and add examples. Sometimes these authorities press into service the same examples to illustrate the several varieties. Modern commentators and dramatic critics quote one or the other authority or sometimes both and leave the reader confused. The object of this paper is to examine this problem of Patäkästhanaka in its various aspects. and elucidate its exact character, scope and purpose by undertaking a critical and comparative study of the relevant passages from available texts dealing with the theory of drama.
The NS. gives the general definition of Patākāsthanaka as follows:
When instead of the thing thought of or expected, another of the same character emerges in an accidental way, it is called Patākāsthānaka.
The definition as given by the NS. is not unambiguous. It presents so serious a difficulty as to thwart a satisfactory intepretation which precisely is the 'Cintita artha' and which the 'anya artha'? From the point of view of the spectators or the character concerned the 'Cintita artha' is the immediate 'prastuta' which is dramatically less significant than the 'anya artha' the foreshadowed event relating to the 'Prastuta-while from the point of the view of the playwright it is vice versa. A parallel from the Alamkara-sastra may here be cited. In Anyokti (Aprastuta-prasarisa) the 'aprastuta' merely serves the purpose of suggesting the 'prastuta' which is highly important to the poet and which he intends to present in a decorative garb. It is thus his 'Cintita artha', and the 'aprastuta' the 'anya artha.' From the definition. of the Patakästhānaka given by the DR. it would seem that Dhanamhjaya looks at the Patäkästhanaka from the playwright's point of view. Abhinava and others, as at rule, take 'Cintita artha' as the immediate prastuta. It is difficult to say what exactly. Bharata had in mind. It is, however, more convenient to understand them from the spectator's or the character's point of view.
The expression 'agantukena bhavena' is interpreted differently: Sahakaritvena (Abhinava), by an unexpected circumstance (Apte); Dhanamjaya uses the word agantubhava in defining the Patākāsthanaka whereas, Dhanika says, it means 'bhāvinah.' Sāradatanaya introduces in his definition the expressions agantubhävena' and 'bha vyarathasya vastunaḥ' thus implicitly suggesting that agantubhäva is not the same. as 'bhavin'. The ND. omits the phrase altogether. The phrase as used by Bharata. naturally yields the meaning in an accidental way'. The word 'tallingab' is explained

Page #122

110
by Abhinava as 'Karaṇatvadharmabhavapravṛttinimitta upayaḥ.' This linga (i.e. upaya or hetu) may be either Sadhaka (-Käraka) or Jñäpaka, productive or informative.
After setting forth the general definition the NS. distinguishes its four varieties:
When the aim (of the hero) is realised quite unexpectedly and is thus seen to be far superior to what was expected we have the first Patäkästhānaka.1 Abh., ND. and SD. employ the same example to illustrate this variety in Act III of the Ratnavali, when the hero (King Vatsa) hastens to save Vasavadatta, as he believes, from hanging herself, he finds to his great joy and surprise that he has rescued none other than Sagarika herself. It is easy to see that in this example there is no foreshadowing of an event but actual union of the hero and heroine and thus the hetu is sadhaka. R. illustrates this variety by citing a different passage from the Ratnävall, Act II2 where he finds an allusion to Vāsavadatta's imminent anger.
Raghavabhatta points out an example of the first Patäkästhanaka while commenting on Jivitasarvasva which apparently means 'the choicest treasures in his posse
1. Vidasaka-एसा खु अवरा देवी वासवदत्ता |
Studies in
( राजा सचकितं सागरिकाया हस्ते मुखति) वासवदत्तत्यनेनोपचारप्रयोगेण भाविनो
' इत्यत्रेयं पताकास्थानकम् ।'
वासवदत्ता कोपस्य सूचनात् सहसार्थसम्पत्तिरूपमिदमेकं
Instead of gunavaty upak arataḥ of the NS. we have gunavṛtty upacarataḥ in the BP (and R.), while gunavatyupacarataḥ in the SD. Gunavati and gunavṛtti may be looked upon as synonymous (—utkrsta) ‘Upacāratah' is explained as 'Paramaprītikāranāt'. This is rather an unusual meaning. The other reading is decidedly better and is supported by Abh., NL., and Adibharata.
Ghosh translates the couplet as follows:
"The sudden development of a novel meaning due to an indirect suggestion, is called the First Episode Indication." This is obviously not satisfactory. In connection with the interpretation of this variety read Abh :
यत्रोपकारकमपेक्ष्य गुणवती उत्कृष्टय अर्थस्य फलस्य सहसंवाचिन्तितोपनतत्वेन भवति सम्पत्तिः तत्प्रथममिति साध्यफलयोगात्प्रधानं पताकास्थानम् ।
2. The ND. remarks on the word सहसा in its definition : सहसेष्टार्थलाभश्च सहसे त्याकस्मिकत्वेन सभ्यानां चमत्कारहेतुत्वमाह ।
It rightly recognises the artistic value of surprise, as an element in sustaining interest. But in the example quoted the 'इष्टार्थलाभ' comes as a surprise-of course, a very pleasant one-to the hero, for the audience has a foreknowledge that the hero is going to rescue Sagarika disguised as Vasavadattā. 3. Śākuntala, Kale's edition, p. 30 : अत्र जीवित सर्वस्वशब्देन । विषयनिगरणाच्छकुन्तलाया उक्तेः
पताकास्थानकमनेनोक्तम् । तल्लक्षणमादिभरते 'सहसैवार्थसंपत्तिर्नायकस्योपकारिका । पताकास्थानकं संधौ प्रथमे तन्मत्तम्' इति ।
That the first Patäkästhanaka should occur in the first Sandhi is the view of Adibharata, which is, however, not correct for which see infra,

Page #123

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
111
ssion' but secondarily and pointedly refers to Sakuntalā. Here there is a foreshadowing of the union of the hero and the heroine. Besides the example quoted from the Ratnāvali Act III, Abh. mentions an instance from the Nāgānanda. This is also quoted by the NL., and the ND. The hero is determined to save Sankhacüda by offering himself as a victim but he needs a pair of red garments which are the symbol of the victim. Sankhacūda refuses point blank to hand over his symbol, but the Kañcukin offers him red garments sent by Mitrāvasu's mother which serve his purpose admirably. Thus in the first instance there is the accomplishment of one ‘prayojana' instead of another, in the second of one 'upāya' instead of another. The NS. defines the second Patākāsthānaka as a hyperbolical statement, in verse (employed for rhetorical embellishment), which is applicable in two ways.
The NL. and the SD. illustrate this variety with Veņi 1. 7. The apparent meaning here is a pious wish for the good of the Kauravas, but the suggested meaning conveys the idea of the death of the Kauravas and party. These two meanings are due to double-meaning words like “rakta,' 'vigraha' etc. This example, however, can not be legitimately accepted as illustrating this variety as it leaves no distinguishing feature between this and the fourth variety.5a The R. quotes the famous passage (....fra: 391ga:) from the Uttararāmacarita as an example of this variety but obviously this is wrong. The example given by the Abh., which is also quoted by the ND., is the most appropriate : In the Rāmābhyudaya, Act III, Sugriva has the following message for Sitā : "Why waste words on this ? Rāma will very shortly, O Queen, bring you back even if you are kept on the other shore of the ocean." Here the hyperbolic words "aitsta ga: ffala' prove fully applicable in the case of Sitā. Rāghavabhatta points out that the suggestive sentence uttered from behind the curtain "चक्कवाअवहुए आमंतेहि सहअर । उवहिआ रअणी ।" is an example of the second Patakasthānaka. This sentence is clearly Aprastutaprašamā (Anyokti): It bids the female Cakravāka say farewell to her spouse, a command whose application to the case of the King and Sakuntalā is immediately appreciated by the audience.
The third variety of Patākāsthānaka is thus defined : When a character is in doubt as to whether a particular matter relating to the plot would occur or not and when this doubt is removed by a reply of another character given in a different context, which proves applicable in two ways, we have the third Patākāsthānaka.
4. The ND. gives one more example from the Nalaviläsa of this type where instead of one 'pra yojana there is secured another 'prayojana' : The King who is ready to prevent the fight between Vidusaka and Käpalika comes to possess the portrait of Damayanti.
5. This definition is found quoted by the NL., the BP. and the R. The SD. reads a T IG ACRTHF1974 This, however, does not materially affect the definition. The word Ślista in this definition means 'fittingly applicable in two ways', and 'Sātisaya' hyperbolic (Cf. Atisayokti).
Sa. See infra. 6. This is admittedly a free rendering. Ghosh translates :
That which suggests with courtesy the object of a play in subtle manner and in the form of a dialogue, is called the Third Episode Indication,

Page #124

112
Studies in
The NL., quotes as an example of this variety a dialogue between Khanditā and Nāyaka.? The Abh. and the ND. quote the well-known passage from the Mudrārākṣasa, Act I, which presages the capture of Rākșasa while apparently conversing about 'Sandesagrahana.' The BP. gives this example to illustrate the tulya-samvidhana' variety. The SD. and the R., however, cite the famous passage from Veņi. Act II. 24 etc. which is ominous as it foreshadows the breaking of 'Duryodhana's thighs'.
Now, the sD. gives this passage from the Veni, as an example of Ganda, the eighth element of Vithi. This is indeed extraordinary! It means either that Viśvanātha nods here or that there is no distinction between the third Patākāsthānka and the Ganda. If there were no such distincion between the two Viśvai ātha should have clearly stated it. The Abh. makes the following distinction between them : the third Patākāsthānaka serves to accomplish the desired object. For example, it helps Cāņakya to know definitely that the wicked Rākşasa would be captured and thus, the final aim would be achieved. The Ganda does not serve such a purpose. Again, the import of the Ganda is always ominous. The authors of the ND. hold after Abhinava that the import of the Ganda is always ominous and support this interpretation by an etymological explanation :
...तद् दुष्टार्थगर्भत्वाद् दुष्टशोणितगर्भगण्ड इव गण्डः । They cite, after the DR., the well-known passage from the Uttaracarita. Act I, foreshadowing 'Sita-viraha' as an example of the Ganda. A careful scrutiny of the definitions of the third Patākāsthānaka and the Gandao would indicate another point of distinction. In the Ganda there in an element of abruptness. In both the examples
The passage from Abh. which is adopted by the SD. runs as follows: लीनमस्फुटरूपं उत्क्षिप्यमाणमर्थजातं, श्लिष्टेन सम्बन्धयोग्येनाभिप्रायान्तर-प्रयुक्तेनापि प्रत्युत्तरेणोपेतं सद्यत्र,
सविनयं विशेषेण नयनेन विशेषनिश्चयप्राप्त्या सहितं संपद्यते तत् तृतीयं पताकास्थानकम् । 7. The original reads :
कान्ते नाथ कुतोऽस्मि किं प्रियतमे दूरं ममैतद्चो जातं तेऽद्य किमन्यनाम विहितं यन्नेक्षितं जन्मनि । व्यक्तं ब्रूहि कृतं त्वयैव सभयासङ्गो दोषोऽथवा
यस्तस्यास्तु पतामि ते चरणयोः स्वस्त्यस्तु ते सुप्यतामिति ॥ The word 'Sabhaya' is slista :
i. चौरिकया नायकेन सह व्यवहरमाणा ii. परिषदा. ___8. ....इदं च प्रकृतसाध्योपयोगाङ्गि(? ङ्ग)त्वात् पताकास्थानीयमिति वीथ्यङ्गाद् गण्डादस्य भेदः । “ऊरुयुग्म च भग्न" तद्धि प्रत्युत दुर्योधननाशादाश यश्च दुष्टः । कस्तस्योपयोगः, पाण्डवानुसारेण तु भवतु । इदं पताकास्थानकं भिन्नविषयत्वं कृत ह्येतद्रूप न क्षतिमावहति । 9. गण्डः प्रस्तुतसंवन्धि भिन्नार्थ सहसोदितम् । DR. III. 18.
गण्डोऽकस्माद यदन्यार्थ प्रस्तुतानगतं वचः | ND. P. 137.

Page #125

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
113
of 'विरहः उपस्थितः' and 'ऊरुयुग्मं भग्नम्' the characters enter on the stage and abruptly remark '39ff4a:' and 71-774. In the passage from the Mudrārākşasa the character (Siddhārthaka) is already on the stage and his words 37657 Deat' get connected as a reply to the question agitating Cāņakya's mind.10
Rāghavabhatta points out Sakuntala IV. 3 as an example of the third Patākāsthānaka. No doubt, it is an excellent example of Patākāsthānaka but it cannot be taken as illustrating the third Patākāsthānaka as it does not satisfy the requirements of its definition. It would fall under the second variety.
The NS. defines the fourth Patākästhānaka as a statement, in verse (for purposes of rhetorical embellishment), which is paronomastic, is fittingly applicable in two ways and which also contains some suggestion relating to the future ‘prastuta' (the subject-matter or plot).
The stanza --Uddāmotkalikā etc.-quoted by the DR. as an example of Patākāsthānaka of the 'Tulya-višeşana species illustrates this Patākāsthānaka. The BP., the SD. and the R. quote this example. Here King Vatsa playfully suggests by using double entendre that his earnest gaze on the creeper, which has borne blossoms out of season, may cause jealousy in the queen. In the sequel the King's ardent gaze at Sāgarikā provokes Vāsavadattā's anger.
The NL. quotes a very fine example of this Patākāsthānaka from the Jānakirāghava. The stanza is full of paronomastic words. It is addressed by Rāma to Sitā. The stanza presages by a double entendre the Abduction of Sitā by Rāvana.11 The Abh. and the ND. quote Ratnāvali, Act I. 23 and the following speech of Sāgarikā as an example of this.12 The King's bard announcing the evening time employs paronomastic words and favours the action of the play enabling Sāgarikā to know that her ‘Kusumāyudha was none other than king Udayana himself whose bride she was intended to be by her father. 10. Ratnāvali Act. II. 4. It is worth noticing that the Abh. remarks :
उद्दामोत्कलिकां इति तु नोदाहरण, द्वयर्थताप्रतिपत्तावपि हि नात्रार्थन सहकारिता कुत्रचिदाचरिता । तस्मादेतद्वीथ्यङ्गस्य व्याहारस्यैवोदाहरणं युक्तम् ॥
Kane in his History of Sanskrit Poetics (p. 237) writes: "The age and its commentary Breton were probably composed before 37f7799 wrote the 37f777 hrat.” From this passage, however, we may safely conclude that Abhinava had the DR. in mind while making the pertinent remark and that the DR. with its Avaloka was definitely composed before Abhinava wrote the Abhinavathārati. 11. 19: atai alati
लङ्कासमृद्धिमापन्न: क्रीडारण्ये सपुष्पकः ।
कच्चिल्लोहितपत्रस्त्वामशोकोऽसौ हरिष्यतीति ।। where a means (i) the capital of Rāvana, (ii) branches.
7677 (i) Rāvana's celestial chariot, (ii) flowers and
qe (i) Rāvana's sword (or car), (ii) leaves. 12. The DR gives this to illustrate 'Bindu' (Germ.).
15

Page #126

114
Studies in
As has been already said, the second and the fourth Patākasthānakas as illustrated by the SD. can hardly be distinguished from each other.13 Both the examples are marked by double entendre. Orthodox commentators14 would, however, defend the distinction saying that the fourth Patākāsthānaka presages 'pradhāņārtha-višeşa' while the second 'apradhāṇārtha.' But this defence collapses in the face of Viśvanātha's clear remark : 377 partai FraTRITIGT Iqarta atstufa cara anafaqat सत्यां द्वितीय पताकास्थानकम् । The distinction between the two species would stand only if the expressions ‘sātiśayam and ślistam are interpreted in accordance with the Abh. and the ND.
Later authorities excepting Dhanamjaya recognise after the NS. four varieties of Patākāsthānaka. The DR. defines Patākāsthānaka as an indication, by the mention of something extraneous, of a future event relating to the 'prastuta' (the subjectmatter, plot of the drama). It is characterised by equivocation of situation or by equivocation of phrase. The Avaloka names the species thus : the Patākāsthānaka by Anyokti (=Aprastutapraśamsā) and the Patākāsthānaka by Samāsokti. He illustrates the first species by quoting Ratnāvali III. 6 where the description of the behaviour of the sun towards the Kamalini is extraneous and suggests the behaviour of the hero towards the heroine.
As already observed, he gives 'Uddāmotakalikām etc., as an example of the second species. This treatment of the DR. deserves special attention. He unambiguously states that Patākāsthānaka foreshadows an event relating to the 'prastuta' whether immediate or distant. Bharata's fourth Patākāsthānaka is, undoubtedly, of the Tulyavišeşana (or Samāsokti) variety. Bharata's first three varieties would be convered by the Tulya-samvidhāna variety of the DR. The BP. and the R., expressly declare that the first three Patākāsthānakas are Tulya-samvidhānātmaka.15 No doubt the first variety is Tulyasaṁvidhāna but there is hardly any indication of a future event.
Dhanamjaya's distinction between Patākāsthānaka based on Tulyasamvidhāna and Tulya-višeşaņa is all right as far as it goes but in practice these are at times found in combination. For example, the stanza quoted by Dhanika as an example of Tulya-samvidhāna variety does contain paronomastic words.
13. The ND. for some inexplicable reason gives Bharata's 4th Patākāsthānaka as the third and Bharata's 3rd as the fourth ! 14. 7 917 "97: ajakaista” ratif fedt198147791aF-
3 Afaziafafa 1774, qalarर्थान्तराक्षेपी इत्यनेन प्रधानार्थविशेषसूचने चतुर्थ पताकास्थानकम् ; अप्रधानार्थसूचने तु द्वितीयमिति ग्रन्थकृतवाभिप्रायत्वात् ।
- Haridāsa. 15. 371fafenau geta h yaa !
age I H ope quanTaR || B.P. p. 203. and एतद्विधा तुल्यसंविधानं तुल्यविशेषणम् ।
TELO FATFR File legati a PE II R.

Page #127

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
115
The BP., it would appear, widens the scope of Patākāsthānaka when it includes in its definition the suggestion of past as well as future events.16 It is implicit that the past event which has not been represented on the stage is to be suggested. Thus the song of Hamsapadikā at the opening of the Vth Act (Sakuntala) suggests that Dusyanta has forgotten Sakuntalā.
Bharata lays down that the four Patākāsthānakas could be used to advantage in a play.17 The NL. speaks of them as 'Kāvyālankārahetu' and 'sobhā-hetu' and prescribes that they are to be used in the first four Sandhis only (excluding the fifth Nirvahana). The DR. simply says that a playwright ought to employ Patākāsthānakas in the Acts.18 The Abh. refers to and refutes the view that the four Patākāsthānakas are to be used in the first four Sandhis respectively. 19 The ND. calls it an 'alankaraņa' of Nātya and Kāvya and says no Rūpaka should be composed without them. The SD. prescribes that the Patākāsthānaka should be used judiciously. It says that sometimes they are propitious and sometimes ominous. They may occur in any Sandhi. He refers to the view that they occur in the four Sandhis beginning with Mukha respectively and adds how others do not accept it on the ground that they being highly useful may be used in any part of the play.
The Abh. rightly says that there is no logic behind the argument that the four Patākāsthānakas should be used in the first four Sandhis. Theoretically there is nothing against using Patākāsthānaka in the last Sandhi, yet out of practical consideration the NL. restricts their uses to the first four Sandhis for when the play is coming to its conclusion there is hardly any scope for Patākāsthānaka coming to allude to a future event.
This study of the Patākāsthānaka avers as follows: (i) it is a dramatic device employed to delight the gallery, (ii) generally speaking, it foreshadows some event whether near at hand or distant, (iii) it is, broadly speaking, distinguished into two species-one based on an equivocal situation and another on equivocal speech; in practice, however, the two are at times found in combination. (iv) The four Patā. kāsthānakas as defined by the NS. are to be distinguished thus : in the first Patākāsthānaka an ambiguous situation may result in bringing about the aim of the 16. Bidanima i pezia 79 TDI
, 377119921919 qatf159776 I aa 1-B.P p. 202. 17. aqtarT9K 722
NS. XIX. 36a. Here the word Patākā clearly stands for the Patākāsthānaka. A part of the name stands for the whole in accordance with the maxim 15 TEU 14AISEMITI
Patākāsthānaka is quite distinct from Patākā. Patākā corresponds to the sub-plot in English drama. Patakästhanaka is a particular point or situation in dramatic action which indicates the future event relating to the Prastuta.
18. 9a1219571925...... DR. Ill. 37.
19. The NS. III. p. 20 para 2 and p. 22 para 3. This probably is the author of Adibharata who has already been quoted above.

Page #128

116
Studies in
hero, in the second the hyperbolical statement perfectly applicable to the 'prastuta', happening in future, in the third the equivocation is conveyed in the response of the actor whose words apply not only to the immediate matter in hand but also presage the future; this Patākāsthānaka and Ganda, (the 8th Vithyanga) have much in common, but the latter is to be distinguished from the former on the ground of their respective import. The Ganda, true to its name, presages disaster while this Patākāsthānaka is propitious as it contributes towards the realization of the aim of the hero. The fourth Patākāsthānaka is characterised by paronomastic words.
This study would show that the element in dramatic design called dramatic irony by dramatic critics of the West was known to Sanskrit playwrights and was duly taken into consideration by Sanskrit dramatic critics of antiquity. It is not suggested that the Sanskrit playwrights have used the Irony of Situation or incident and Verbal Irony as copiously and variously and also as effectively as the English playwrights have done. The truth of the maxim 'Coming events cast their shadows before' is a matter of experience. In consonance with this truth every serious event, in Sanskrit plays, generally casts its shadow beforehand. The Ganda and some varieties of Patākasthānakas correspond to what is called Prophetic anticipation. Sometimes we have veiled hints or vague foreshdowings of coming things.20 The Patākāsthānakas (and Ganda too) to be artistically satisfactory must never be so mechanical as to appear unnatural. It would be evident to any careful reader of Sanskrit plays that the Sanskrit playwrights have skilfully devised the different Patākāsthānakas.
20. For example 7417: F43110T TË ARTIT |-Mfcchakațika Act 1
and पापं कर्म च यत्परैरपि कृतं तत्तस्य संभाव्यते ।-Mrcchakatika Act 1. 36d. In these lines we have an inkling of what is to come!

Page #129

BHĀMAHA ON GRAMMAR IN RELATION TO POETRY :
न स शब्दो न तद्वाच्यं न स न्यायो न सा कला । जायते यन्न काव्याङ्गमहो भारो महान्कवेः ॥
-Bhāmaha. V. 4 It is gencrally believed that Logic and Grammar need have no place in the province of Poetics. Dandin, one of the earliest and eminent rhetoricians, ignores the claim of Grammar by not treating of it and expressly brushes aside the claim of Logic in his well-known couplet :
प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहानिर्दोषो न वेत्यसौ । विचारः कर्कशः प्रायस्तेनालीढेन किं फलम् ।।
-Kāvyādarśa III. 127 It is taken for granted that a prospective poet has already mastered Grammar before taking to poetry. Rudrata? clearly mentions that a poet must equip himself with a thorough knowledge of grammar before attempting 'Sleşa'. Hemacandra, too, makes a pointed reference that in the course of study Sabdānuśāsana (grammar) precedes Kāvyānuśāsana (poetics). It would, therefore, seem that the treatment of grammar as that of logic would be altogether superfluous and uncalled for in a work of poetics.
The view that grammar has absolutely no place in poetics is, however, proved to be not quite correct by the practice of a few rhetoricians who treat of grammar in their works. Bharata (Nāțyaśāstra, XIV), Bhāmaha (Kāvyālamkāra, VI), Vāmana (Kavyalamkārastravștti, Adhikarana V), Rajasekhara (Kavyamimāṁsā, VI), Abhinavagupta (Abhinavabhārati on the Natyaśāstra, XIV) and Bhoja (Sșngāraprakāśa, Chapters I to VIII) treat of grammar. It is in the fitness of things that the rhetoricians highly prize the study of Sabdānuśāsana as Sabda (with its Artha) forms the very foundation of poetry. It goes without saying that the Sabda must be grammatically correct. It is, however, not enough for a poet that the word is grammatically
1. Kāvyālamkāra, V. 35. 2. Kāvyānuśāsana, 1. 2. and the Vrtti thereon. 3. Cf.
सर्वथा पदमप्येकं न निगाद्यमवद्यवत् । विलक्ष्मणा हि काव्येन दुःसुतेनेव निन्द्यते ॥ and
-- Bhámaha I. 11 पदमेकं वर साधु नार्वाचीननिबन्धनम् । वैपरीत्याद्विपर्यासं कीर्तेरपि करोति तत् ॥
-Bhāmaha VI. 61. Could one understand in the second half of the verse a sly reference to Dhamakirti ?

Page #130

118
Studies in
correct. It must be striking, charming and beautiful. In other words, it must have an aesthetic appeal. Grammar gives us various alternative forms of words and different words to convey the same sense. Out of these words and forms some are suited to poetry and some are not. Bhāmaha examines grammar in relation to poetry with the express aim of pointing out what words can be properly used or not used by poets who delight in Vakrokti (striking expression) :
वक्रवाचां कवीनां ये प्रयोग प्रति साधवः । प्रयोक्तुं ये न युक्ताश्च तद्विवेकोऽयमुच्यते ॥
-Bhāmaha VI. 23. He is, however, perfectly aware that it is impossible for any one to inquire from this point of view into the whole of Pāṇini's grammar :
सालातुरीयमतमेतदनुक्रमेण को वक्ष्यतीति विरतोऽहमतो विचारात् ।
-Bhāmaha VI. 62. ab. He, therefore, shows, merely the direction by his brief inquiry into Pāṇini's grammar.
In the course of his inquiry Bhāmaha sets forth some aesthetic considerations as regards the use or non-use of particular types of words by poets. He warns prospective poets not to use that word which is not in usage 'aprayukta') and therefore creates confusion in the reader's mind, e.g., 'hanti' (han, to kill, and to walk in the sense of 'gati". He should not employ unintelligible (durbodha) words like 'śrautra' (in the sense of 'śrotriya'), nor harsh words ('apeśala') like 'dusta's, nor vulgar words ('grāmya') like 'piņdiśūra', nor meaningless words ('apārthaka') like 'ditha'. He
4. The following synoptic contents of Bhämaha's Section on Sabdaśuddhi ("Purity of words")
clearly shows that only a part of this section inquires into Pāņini's rules of grammar from an aesthetic point of view :vv 1-3 : a fine Paramparitarūpaka of the ocean of grammar. vy 5-6 : stress on the importance of the study of grammar. vv 7-13 : investigation of the nature of the 'word'; denunciation of SPHOTAVĀDA, vv 14-22 : Critical examination of the meaning of the word; and refutation of APOHAVĀDA. v 23 : the aim of Bhāmaha (stated above) in writing the Section-Sabda-Suddhi. vv 24–30 : aesthetic considerations regarding the use or non-use df words by poets. vv 31-61 : an examination of some rules of Pāņini's grammar giving words which possess an
aesthetic appeal. wy 62-63 : praise of Pāņini's system of grammar. v 64 : conclusion.
vy 65-66 : Summing up of the contents of the whole work. 5. Rudrața VI. 5 and Mammața VII. v. 144 take it as an example of the flaw 'Asamartha'.
Namisadhu, however, aptly remarks : H aalag refsla Erta 31a Tarias 29: 6. qera : corresponds to Mammat's Śrtikațu doşa (VII. 141).

Page #131

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
119
should not use words whose meaning is not well-known ('apratita') (e.g, 'hanti') nor words whose correctness could be justified with difficulty by resorting to some vague Jñāpaka (e.g., dhyāti' for dhyāyati). He should not use words simply because persons of authority have used them, nor words which are correct according to systems of grammar other than that of Pāṇini, nor words which are found in the Vedas (on the strength of the statement of the Mahābhāșya : 92147 Fah Tafa 1) He should not employ a compound in which a word ending in the-t; affix is combined with another word that would be in the genitive (when the compound is dissolved) by merely relying on the usage of the siçțas (eminent authors or learned persons) or on the Nyāsakāra or on the indication from a word or words in a sūtra, as when the word vstrahantā (for vỉtrahā) is employed. Nor should one form a compound with a word ending in the termination aka (and a word that would be in the genitive when the compound is dissolved, e.g., tadgamakaḥ for tasya gamakaḥ)." He should not use words got at by 'yogavibhāga'. He should not use harsh phonetic combinations, e.g., 'etacchyāmam (etat+śyāmam). Barring the word paddhati, he should not use such words as contain a cognate form with hakāra. Nor should he employ such words as produce too much of okāra, e.g., gato, yāto, hato.
Now let us review Bhāmaha's rules regarding the types of words a poet should employ in his work :
He should employ words that have been sanctioned by usage (kramāgata), are pleasing to hear (śrutisukha), and are pregnant with meaning (arthya). The beauty of consonants (vyañjanacārutā) truly excels all figures (of sound and sense)." He should use words, as a rule, sanctioned by Vārtikas or Istis. In the case of mộj he should employ the form with vỉddhi (märjanti and not mrjanti), although both forms are available. In the case of Sarūpaseșa compounds he should employ only forms that are got by the rule 'Pumān striyā, e.g., forms such as 'Varunau', 'Indrau,' 'Bhavau'
7. These verses point to Bhāmaha's great reverence for Pänini. Verse 63. c, infra, is eloquent
of this reverence : 1997 and half 110 He would, as a rule, respect the authority of the Vārtikakāra and the Mahābhāşyakāra. Cf
VI. 29. abc and IV. 22. 8. This rule probably provided Mammața a hint to lay down the Doşa called Upahatalupta
visarga (cf KP VII. v. 210). Kuntaka's Vakroktijivita (especially, Unmeşa I. 19 and Unmeņa II. 1-7) devotes considerable space to Varņa-Vinyasa -vakratva. In a way, it forms a fine exposition of Bhämaha's Vyanjanacārutā, which is a very comprehensive term and can cover Sabdālamkāras like different types of Anuprāsa and of Yamaka, Sabdaguņas like śrutipeśala and the three Vrttis (Paruşā, Upanāgarikā and Grāmyā) of Udbhata. In the Abhinavabhārati we read : (NS. XVI, p 339). aga7Jf79IFTI CERTOS (37.-38) gena i 34 kaa qof tasya1:' (Dhvanyāloka III 3d, 4d) | F lat e qa qof: Fatorita fapiraatia रेफककारादय इव परुषवृत्तिपूर्वकाः, अन्ये तु निर्वापयन्ती बोपनागरिकोचिताः । लोकगोवर एवायमर्थः Fasi....1

Page #132

120
Studies in
and the like10. In the sense of 'Patunācaste' and of ‘Kșsam Karoti' he should use the forms 'Pațayati and Karśayati. He should employ adverbial compounds which end in short 'a' when two forms are possible; and such adverbial compounds as are in the ablative case. In cases where forms in the Instrumental or the Locative case are possible he should employ a form which has been the subject of an elision.
From among the adverbs given under the group Tiştha dgu he should employ words referring to time. From among the Dvigu compounds, he should employ those that are of the feminine gender:1. Out of the group Bhrśādi, he should employ all such forms as have their final consonants elided. When he has to employ words form-. ed by the affix 'Kvip', he should use only such forms as are in the Instrumental or Genitive case. He should follow this rule even where a word ends in as'12 Eminent writers allow in the masculine and feminine genders the use of words ending in the affix 'kvasu' even in poetry provided that the beauty (of expression) is not marred. The employment of 'nic' contributes to great beauty in poetry. Words ending in the termination ‘ņini' in the sense of Tācchilya are beautiful in all the three genders. He should employ words ending in the affix 'Lyut' in the sense of 'agent, doer'. He should use such forms as Lāksika, Raucanika and Māhārajana and Akşıka and Šāstrika also; so also Sarva and Sarvīya, Patimā (and not Pațutā, or Pațutva), Laghima (and not Laghutā or Laghutva). He should use words preferably ending in the affix Iyasun (rather than in tarap). He should use the affixes dvayasac and daghnac (and not mātrac) to denote measure. He should use words such as Jyotsnā, Tamisrā and the like in the context of matup affix. He should prefer the forms phalinah, barhinah. He should use forms with the affix 'inih' especially mekhalin, mālin and māyin. He should preferably use forms like dadhati, roditi, svapiti and present participles like dadhat, bibhrat.
10. According to Vāmana, however, such forms are grammatically incorrect (vide : Vāmana V. 2.
1. and the Vrtti thereon). There is no doubt that his remark: vaa l. val. gal 291122:
G : gerir: is directed against Bhāmaha's rule (VI. 32.). 11. Bhämaha indicates his preference for words in the feminine gender : quit. qua: gafa:
31af, Fiki, 391871, azazi, zát. It is possible that Kuntaka took a hint from Bhāmaha in regard to the sweetness inherent in the feminine gender and composed his Kārika in praise of 'Strilinga' :
सति लिङ्गान्तरे यत्र स्त्रीलिङ्गञ्च प्रयुज्यते ।
THAT FEAFTA alla dgrze 11 Kuntaka II. 22 Abhinava, also, makes a statement which is in agreement with Kuntaka's : 'att ar' alisa इत्यत्र तटशब्दस्य पुस्त्वनपुसकत्वे अनादृत्य स्त्रीत्वमेवाश्रित सहृदयैः 'स्त्रीति नामापि मधुर' इति कृत्वा।
-Locana on Dhvanyāloka III. 15, p. 359. 12. With referance to this observation of Bhāmaha, Naganatha Sastry rightly observes that
"Bhāmaha had a fine ear is clear.'

Page #133

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
121
CRITICAL REMARKS :
This study of Bhāmaha's approach to "Grammar in relation to Poetry" shows that he lays particular stress on the following considerations in regard to the use of words in poetry : (i) The words must be correct according to the system of grammar of Pāņini
(Kātyāyana and Patañjali). (ii) They must not be unintelligible but such as are sanctioned by usage. (iii) They must not be harsh, but pleasing to hear. (iv) They must not be vulgar (but refined). (v) They must not be meaningless but pregnant with meaning, and (vi) They must be such as are imbued with the beauty of consonants.
It further reveals his ardent love for grammatical purity, his keen aesthetic sense and his fascination for the enchanting beauty of consonants. It makes clear also the fact that his rules refer to poetry of love (in union and in separation) only and not to poetry as a whole. • Bharata treats of grammar not for its own sake but because it subserves the purpose of Rasa. Bhāmaha must have taken a hint from Bharata in dealing with grammar in relation to poetry. We do not have any other pre-Bhāmaha work dealing with this topic. It is not, therefore, possible to judge to what extent Bhāmaha is indebted, if at all, to his predecessors or is original in his treatment of this fascinating topic. Of his successors, Vāmana deals with it from one point of view only and that is of grammatical correctness. Abhinava illustrates the strikingness of ten kinds of words by suitable examples and counter-examples while commenting on the fourteenth chapter of the Natyaśāstra. 13 Anandavardhanał4, Kuntaka15, and Ksemendra16 treat of this topic of Sabdavaicitrya in a slightly different context. Bhāmaha's inquiry into the 'Purity of words' is incomplete as it has reference to the poetry of the softer emotions only and does not take note of the needs of the stronger and more verile experiences of life. Taking cues from Bhāmaha later rhetoricians scientifically worked out the Vyañjana-cărută in different contexts of the 'Rasadis' and presented us with the results of their researches, viz., the three dictions-Vaidarbhi, Gauļi and Pāñcāli with their characteristic vyañjanas. 13. G.O.S. ed. Vol. II. Pp 224-234. The text of the Abhinavabharati is corrupt. Read also Dr.
Raghavan's article on "Writers quoted in the Abhinavabharati" JOR, Madras, Vol. VI part III, pp. 218-222). It is interesting to note that the reconstructed verse (on p. 219) does not agr:with the printed text of Abhinavabhārati in the G.O.S. ed. For it leaves out 'Agama' expressly mentioned on p. 225 of the Abhinavabharati and adds 'Hita', to make the ten kinds of words. The verse as reconstructed by Ramakrishna Kavi (p. 224, fcot note) suits
the printed text of Abhinavabhārati all right. 14. Dhavanyāloka III. 16. 15. Vakroktijivita II. 16. Arsityavicārasarcā, Kärikās 19-26.
16

Page #134

122
Studies in
According to Dr. Raghavan, Logic and Grammar formed part of the Alamkärasastra in the pre-Bhamaha times". Dr. G. T. Deshpande advances the theory that Bhamaha devoted, for the first time, a section each to Logic of Poetry and Grammar of Poetry with a view to raising the status of Poetics and bringing it on par with the Science of Logic and of Grammar18. In view of the fact that the Natyaśāstra deals with grammar and that Bhamaha himself refers to the view of some Alamkarikas who regarded 'Sausabdya' as the real embellishment of expression or speech and that Bhamaha's Section on Sabda-buddhi is nothing but a treatment of Sausabdya (possibly with greater emphasis on Vyanjanacaruta) one feels inclined to agree with Dr. Raghavan's view that Grammar formed part of Poetics in pre-Bhamaha times.
17. Vide Dr. Raghavan Sṛngaraprakāśa, Vol. I: Part II, pp. 387-89. or Madras, 1963 edn. p. 257. Dr. Raghavan classifies 'Sauśabdya' as a Sabdalamkara along with Anupräsa and Yamaka. Instead of regarding it as an Alamkara like Anuprāsa and Yamaka, it would be more correct to take it as an embellishment of the whole poem or composition.
18. Dr. G. T. Deshpande : Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra (in Marathi) pp. 71-80,

Page #135

10
KALPALATAVIVEKA ON BHAMAHA'S KAVYALAMKARA
(Chapter V. vv 5-10)
These six verses of Bhamaha have baffled modern scholars, Pandits and commentators as regards their true import. A perusal of the English translation and Notes by P. V. Naganatha Sastry and the Sanskrit commentary Udydna of D.T. Tatacharya would subsantitate the above statement. Naganatha Sastry's attempt at a lucid exposition of Bhamaha's text is no doubt admirable and the Udyāna commentary of Tatacharya goes a long way towards a better and more correct understanding and exposition of Bhamaha's difficult text. What Dr. P.V. Kane, however, wrote regarding the editions of Bhamaha's work holds good even today. He says: "Unfortunately all these printed editions are unsatisfactory. The mss material is meagre and the editions do not explain many knotty points, nor do they bring together all the various readings in Bhamaha's text as quoted in many works and the explanations of his verses by numerous writers from the days of Udbhata, the Dhvanyaloka and Locana onwards. A scholarly edition of Bhamaha's work is a great desideratum." In the present paper I confine myself to Bhamaha's apology for his treatment. of logic in his work on poetics and to a discussion and interpretation of the six kärikäs from his Nydya-nirnaya (V. 5-10) dealing with the two pramaṇas-pratyakşa and anumana-with special reference to Kalpalataviveka, which was unfortunately not available to the pioneering scholars and Pandits who have taken great pains to interpret Bhamaha's work.
One expects that a work on poetics should confine itself to an exposition and elucidation of the principles of literary criticism. Barring a few exceptions the works. on Sanskrit poetics do not dwell upon an exposition of even the ten types of drama, which are regarded as the best among literary compositions or natya, in general, which is described as the most charming among kavyas. It would therefore seem extraordinary that an ancient Alamkarika like Bhamaha should have thought fit to treat of Logic and Grammar in his treatise. One would have expected of Bhamaha to treat of the faults like Pratijna-hina, Hetuhina and Drṣṭanta-hina at the end of the Chapter IV wherein the rest of the doșas listed together are treated of. He has gone out of the way in treating of the Buddhist logic and its refutation and of logic in relation to poetry in a separate independent chapter. Anticipating such criticism Bhamaha offers an apology in the first four opening verses:
1. Kävyalamkara of Bhamaha, Edited with English Translation and Notes by P. V. Naganatha Sastry, Tanjore Second Edition, by Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, Varanasi, Patana, 1970. 2. Bhamaha's Kävyälaṁkära with Udyana Vritti, by D. T. Tatacharya Tiruvadi, 1934.
3. The Sahityadarpana of Viśvanatha Paricchedas I, II, X Arthalankaras with Exhaustive Notes and the History of Sanskrit Poetics, by P. V. Kane, Third edition, 1951.
4. Kalpalataviveka by an anonymous author. ed. by M. L. Nagar and Harishankar Sastry, with an English Introduction by Prof. P. R. Vora, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad 9, 1968.

Page #136

124
Studies in
"I describe the faults pratijña-hina, hetu-hina, etc. I briefly describe them in accordance with Logic with a view to giving simply an idea of them. Generally the slow witted or unintelligent shy away from idstras because of their difficulty. In order to persuade them to study the sastras, I present here a small collection of the logical topics. Granting that logic subserves poetry one might pertinently ask "When the stream of poetry is all-embracing and is not partial to one or the other school why Bhamaha prefers the Buddhist logic for his treatment of the subject?" Bhamaha answers this criticism thus: Indeed we aim at giving a mere direction or indication and not an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject of logic, variously treated by the various schools of thought. If the entire field of logic were to be covered it would lead to prolixity and voluminousness. We therefore restrict ourselves to giving a mere direction in regard to pramaņas, etc. People take to the study of Sastras if presented in poetic garb. Persons (children) who have first tasted honey. take in, without much difficulty, bitter medicine. Although it is widely believed that the subject-matter of the sastras and poetry widely differs the sage Bharata has rightly declared: "There is no word, no meaning, no logic, no art that does not subserve poetry. Oh, what a heavy burden the poet carries !"
This defence, this justification for including the treatment of Logic in his work on poetics is, as far as it goes, all right. But logically it is not very sound. For by the same logic (viz, since Logic subserves poetry he has included its discussion in his work on poetics) he should have also treated of fine arts, such as, dance, drama, music, painting, sculpture and architecture in his Kavyalamkära since they too subserve the cause of poetry.
Dr. V. Raghavan advocates the view that Logic and Grammar formed part of Pre-Bhamaha Alamkara works. Once I was inclined to hold this view. But on reconsideration I feel that if Logic and Grammar had formed part of Pre-Bham ha works there was no need for Bhamaha to preface his apology before commencing the treatment of Logic. Dr. G.T. Deshpande would like us to believe with him that Bhamaha for the first time treated of these two important sastras in his Kavyalamkara with a view to placing alamkara-iästra on the same footing as of these two important astras as poetry was denounced and looked down upon with contempt and ridicule by orthodox Pandits in his days. This view seems to be plausible.
Now we take up the second part of the present paper, viz, the interpretation of the six Kärikäs (Nyaya-nirnaya, vv 5-10):
5. One feels tempted to interpret the compound word-'hetu-nyaya-lavoccayah' to mean a collection of (topics relating to logic from) the hetu-lava (-Hetu-bindu) and Nyaya-lava (-Nyayabindu). Such an assertion on the part of Bhamaha would mean he is later than Dharmakirti. The second half of V. No. 28 is said to be an attack against Dharmakirti who holds that the enunciation of Pratijna is not quite essential and that it can be dispensed with. The second half of V. 61 also is looked upon by some as containing a sly reference to (Dharma)-Kirti.
6. Vide Bhoja's Śrngaraprakasa by Dr. V. Raghavan, 1963 edn. p. 257, p. 723, etc. 7. Vide "Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra" (IN Marathi)

Page #137

Sanskrit Sahityakastra
V 5. सत्त्वादयः प्रमाणाभ्यां प्रत्यक्षमनुमा च ते ।
असाधारण- सामान्य विषयत्वं तयोः किल ॥
125
i) Naganatha Sastry translates the first quarter as follows: By Pramanas arise the ideas of Existence, etc. (p. 90)
ii) Tatacharya comments on the quarter thus:
प्रमाणाभ्यां सत्वादयः द्रव्य - गुणादयः पदार्थाः सिद्ध्यन्ति । मानाधीना हि मेयसिद्धिः । सत्त्वमिति वैयाकरणसंप्रदाय - वासनया द्रव्ये | पदार्थानां सत्यासस्यतुच्छत्यादीनि वा सत्वादय इत्युक्तानि ।
iii) The reading 'sattvädayah' deserves consideration. Bhamaha himself uses the word 'Sandha' further on in the same chapter twice:
सन्धादि साधनं सिद्ध्यै ( ? v. 32. C )
and सन्धाऽभ्युपगमाद्विना (v. 45. b)
Now, the Kalpalatāviveka (KLV) reads: 'Sandhadayab' in place of 'Sattvädayaḥ". This reading perfectly suits the context as would be seen from the following passage in KLV:
सन्धादय इति । प्रमाणमुला इति । तथाहि अग्निमान् पर्वत इति प्रतिज्ञायां निश्चीयते । अग्निसंबन्धस्तु तस्यानुमानात् प्रतीयत इति प्रतिशायाः प्रत्यक्षानुमानमूलाम् । रणानामनन्तरोदितेन न्यायेन प्रत्यक्षानुमानमूल्यादेतदुक्तम् । प्रतिशा हेतु दृष्टान्ताः प्रमाणमूला
पर्वतस्तावत् प्रत्यक्षेण ...... प्रतिशा हेतूदाह
इति । -
(p. 46 11, 1-16)
So with the indisputably genuine reading supplied by KLV, we may translate the verse as follows:
Pratijnä, etc., are established-proved to be correct (or otherwise) by means of the two proofs: the two proofs are Perception and Inference. The object (or sphere or area of operation) of Perception is asadharaṇa (Višesa Svalaksana) while samanya forms the object of Inference.
=
The word 'adayah' in 'sandhädayah' obviously stands for Hetu and Drifânta as shown by KLV in the passage cited above.
The use of the word 'kila' suggests, according to Tatacharya, that the doctrine. of 'Pramana-vyavastha is not acceptable to Bhamaha (Kilety anangikäre 1). "According to the Buddhist view there are two different sources of knowledge: 1 Perception and 2 Inference. These two sources of knowledge have settled and clear limits (Pramanavyavastha), the one never acting in the sphere of the other. The opposite theory of the realists (the Vaiseṣikas and the Naiyayikas) receives the name of a mixture duplication theory (pramāņa-samplava), since according to that theory every object can be cognised in both ways either directly in sense-perception or indirectly in an inference. In other words, according to the Buddhist view, what is cognised by the senses is never subject to cognition by inference and what is cognised by inference can never be subject to cognition by the senses. Thus Sva-laksana (asadharana, višesa, kṣaṇa, paramartha-sat) or the only real object, the extreme particular, the thing in itself, is the province of perception, and samanya (class, species, genus, universal)

Page #138

126
is the province of Inference. According to the realists (the Vaiśesikas and the Naiyayikas), every object can be cognised in both ways either directly, e.g., when a fire is present in the ken and cognised by the sense of sight, it is a case of sense perception. When the same fire is beyond the ken and its existence is, cognised only indirectly through the preception of its product, the smoke, through its mark, it is cognised indirectly by inference."
6. प्रत्यक्ष कल्पनापोढ ततोऽर्थादिति केचन ।
कल्पनां नामजात्यादियोजनां प्रतिजानते ॥
Studies in
Naganatha Sastry emends the words 'tato rthat' to 'Sato rthlt' and in support of the emendation he says in his Notes: ........ Thus in the definition of Pratyakşa of the Bauddhas the epithet given is " Abhrāntam". This means devoid of illusion'. What is devoid of illusion is what is real, i.e., Sadartha. So I have corrected the printed text from 'tato rthat' into 'sato rthat'. This emendation appears justifiable also from the use of the word 'sadarthalambanam in the verse following'. (pp 91-92).
The emendation however is absolutely uncalled for. In this verse Bhāmaha presents two definitions of Pratyakṣa: one given by Dinnagas and the other by Vasubandhu. The KLV (p 47, 11 15-16) unambiguously and clearly says that the second definition is given by Vasubandhu :
वैभाषिकमतानुसार वसुबन्धूतलक्षणं प्रत्यक्षस्य दर्शयितुमाह ततोऽर्थादिति ।
Elsewhere (p 51 11 18-21) it informs us:
वसुबन्धवेऽपि मार्गे इति वैभाषिकमत इत्यर्थः । तदेवं वैभाषिकसौत्रान्तिक- योगाचार माध्यमिक दर्शनेषु प्रत्यक्षलक्षणस्यानुपपत्तिरुक्ता वैभाषिकदर्शने " ततोऽर्थादिति केचन" इति प्रत्यक्ष-लक्षणम् शिष्टेषु च दर्शनेषु "प्रत्यक्ष कल्पनापोढम् इति तदुभयं निराकृतम् ।
So we may translate the Kärikä as it is: According to some (Dinnaga and others) Perception is devoid of "Kalpana"; according to some others (Vasubandhu and his followers ) Perception arises from that 'artha' (ripa etc., colour etc., which alone is real). Kalpana' they maintain, means attributing of qualifications such as name, class (jäti), etc. In his Pramāṇa-samuccaya (1.3) Dinnaga thus defines Perception:
प्रत्यक्ष कल्पनापोढ नामजात्याद्यसंयुतम् ।
The Vrtti elucidates the definition as follows:
यत्र ज्ञाने कल्पना नास्ति तत् प्रत्यक्षम् । अथ कल्पना च कीदृशी चेदाह - नामजात्यादियोजना । यदृच्छाशब्देषु नाम्ना विशिष्टोऽर्थ उच्यते द्वित्य इति । जाति शब्देषु जात्या गौरयमिति । गुण-शब्देषु गुणेन शुक्ल इति । क्रिया-शब्देषु क्रियया पाचक इति । द्रव्य-शब्देषु द्रव्येण दण्डी विषाणीति । अत्र संबन्धविशिष्टस्येति केचित् । अन्ये स्पर्धशून्यैः शब्दरेव विशिष्टोऽर्थ इति ।
According to Dinnāga Kalpana yojana or samaropa) is five-fold 1 name 2 class 3 quality 4 action and 5 dravya (substance or a single thing or person). These may be illustrated as follows:
8. Dinnāga : Pramāna Samuccaya ( I. 3), Mysore University Publication, Mysore, 1930. 9. Vasubandhu : Vādavidhi

Page #139

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
127
(1) This is dittha (Mr. So and So); (2) this is a cow or a buil; (3) this is white; (4) this is moving (calah), and (5) this is the possessor of a stick (dandi).
According to Patañjali "There is a four-fold currency of words as instanced in Cow or Bull, White, Moving, Dittha" :
गौः शुक्लश्चलो डित्थ इति "चतुष्टयी शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिः ।" इति महाभाष्यकारः । The KLV (p.47) comments on 'tato rthāt' as follows :
ततो व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद् इति । व्यपदेशनिमित्तं रजत-विज्ञानस्य रजतम् । तेन हि तद् रजत-विज्ञान व्यपदिश्यते रजतस्येदं विज्ञानमिति । ततश्च व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद् रजताद् यद् रजत-विज्ञानमुत्पन्न तत्प्रत्यक्षम् । यस्य तु रजतविज्ञानस्य न व्यपदेशनिमित्ताद रजतादुत्पादोऽपि तु शुक्तिकातस्तस्य न प्रत्यक्षता । V 7. FAR: SALIFT faraa a aa
जात्याद्यपोहे वृत्तिः क्व क्व विशेषः कुतश्च सः ॥
Here, Bhämaha takes up the definition of perception, given by Dinnāga, for criticism and refutation, “So much or of such measure is indeed the wrong attribution" (Imputing name, etc., to a real thing (or object) is verily wrong attribution). and the perception has as its subject ‘a real', 'reality'. If from the reality, jāti, class, etc., are excluded where could the perception operate ? (What remains of that reality on which the perception could operate ?) And where is the višeşa (-svalaksana) ? And how could you distinguish one svalaksana, say 'a ghata' from another, say'a pata'? (We cannot account for the distinction between the two when both are vijñānas pure and simple.)" Here we have the refutation of the Sautrāntikas, who accept 'višeşa' or 'svalak saņa' as an external existent (sat) from the point of view of the Yogācāra School (or the Vijñānavād ins). V 8. aga 791 faci al giai
अवस्तुकं चेद् वितथं प्रत्यक्ष तत्ववृत्ति हि ॥ Naganatha Sastry (p 92. v-8) reads 'na' in place of 'ca' in the first quarter. Tatacharya's text agrees with that of the Banaras edition.
Naganatha Sastry understands by 'Sā' the vyakti whereas Tatacharya understands it to mean "Jāti". These explanations are hardly convincing. Tatacharya might find support for his interpretation in the phrase "Jātyādyapohe" which occurs in the immediately preceding verse (No 7). As the discussion centres round the proof 'perception and its subject (viş aya) asādņāraņı (=višeşa=svalakşaņa) there does not seem to be any scope for establishing the existence or non-existence of jāti'. The text as it stands is indeed confounding. When we are faced with this obseure line the KLV comes to our help. It reads the line (p 49 L 20) as follows : ___ तदपोहे च तथाता शिष्टा सा बुद्ध [बुद्धि-गोचरः ।
Instead of emending 'buldha' to 'buddhi' as done by the Editors, if we emend it to 'buddhya', the line becomes intelligible ;

Page #140

128
"With the exclusion of 'jäti', etc., from the 'ripa', etc., (the object of cognition) there remains only 'tathata' (the true reality) and that reality does not become the object of cognition (buddhyagocarab jñānagocarab)."
Studies in
The second half of this verse may be translated as follows: "Now, if this reality be only vijñāna pure and simple, devoid of the perceiver (grähaka vijñānaamia) and the perceived object (grahya vijnana-amsa), then it is futile (vitarhäm= asaram) or worthless for direct perception (pratyakşam) operates on what is real (a real object)."
It is equally possible to interpret 'avastukam' as 'nirvastukam"-"ünyameva idam sarvam" i.e. 'void' or better still nissrabhavam' (without any nature, qualities). Even if 'avastukam' is thus interpreted, in accordance with the Sünyavada of the Madhyamikas, the same refutation (vitatham, pratyakşam tattvavṛnti hi) holds good, V 9. ग्राह्यग्राहक भेदेन विज्ञानांश मतो यदि ।
विज्ञान - मंत्र ( १ मात्र ) सादवाद विशेषोऽस्य विपना ॥
-
This verse may be translated as follows :
"If you say that perception/knowledge (vijñāna) is made up of two parts, viz., the apprehending or cognising part (grāhaka amsa) and the apprehended or cognised part (grahya amia) then, as these two parts, according to you (vijñānavādin), are alike as vijñāna (pure and simple), you will have to admit that your višesa (or svalakṣaṇa) is simply unreal (or that the difference between them will simply be conceptual)."
V 10 अर्थादेवेति रूपादेस्तत एवेति नान्यतः |
अन्यथा पटविज्ञानमन्येन व्यपदिश्यते ॥
The first half of this verse elucidates here the definition of perception formulated by Vasubandhu (when he was an adherent of the Vaibhāṣika school) in his tract called Vada-vidhi. This definition 'Tato rthat has been already stated in verse No. 6 above. The verse may be translated as follows :
"Sence-preception is that knowledge which is produced by the (pure) object itself", the colour, etc. ('tato' 'rthat utpannam jhanam); by this emphasis of "itself" the ultimately real object, (the mere efficiency of a point-instant); is meant" and not from any other object (resembling it, say, for instance, the knowledge of silver from conchshell). It is certainly a fault (wrong) that the knowledge of the subject, say ghata, (a jar) which is gained through rupa, etc., (colour, etc.) should be designated by another name (say, ghața jñāna).
The remarks of TH Stcherbatsky are very apposite on this definition: "Vasubandhu apparently had produced two definitions. The first is the one he inserted in his Vädavidhi. It states that sense-perception is that cognition which is produced from the object itself. By this emphasis of "itself" the ultimately real object, the mere efficiency of a point-instant, is meant..
10. I am indebted to Pandit Dalsukh D. Malvania for this emendation.

Page #141

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
129
.
(This
This definition has been severely criticised by Dignāga, since it too closely resembles the first part of the definition of the realists, "Produced from a contact between object and sense-organ", and is apt to be misinterpreted in a realistic sense. In a subsequent Vāda-Vidhāna Vasubandhu probably corrected his definition and made it consonant with the one of Dignāga, but since the work is lost, we cannot know it exactly" 11
In conclusion, we may note that the KLV throws a flood of light on the tough verses dealing with Logic and Epistemology.
From the comments of the Kalpalatăviveka Bhāmaha's "Pramāņa-vimarsa"-treatment of pramānis (Means of acquiring certain knowledge, proofs) we get the following definite information :
i) Three schools of the Buddhists viz, the Sautrāntikas, the Yogācāra (-Vijñānavāda) and the Mādhyamika (Sūnyavāda), accept the following definition of Pratyakașa :
9789981917# (Cf p. 47, 11 14-15, and p. 51, 11 20-21) (This definition occurs in Dinnāga's Pramānasamuccaya I.3)
ii) The remaining school of the Buddhists, viz, the Vaibhāșikas, accepts the following definition of Pratyaksa :
gaisufa (la Faa) (Cf p 47,11 15-16 and p.51, 1. 20) This definition is formulated by Vasubandhu.
iii) Both these definitions of Pratyakşa are criticised and refuted by Bhāmaha. (Cf p. 51, 11 20-21)
iv) Bhāmaha's criticism and refutation of the definition of Pratyakşa as given by Dinnāga, rests on the authority of Kaņāda and the like who lay down that savikalpa pratyaka is a valid source of knowledge. (Cf p. 50, 11 5-6)
v) Bhāmaha's treatment of the three members and not five members as in Nyāya-Vaiseșika school) of a syllogism indicates that in this regard he agrees with
nāga, the Buddhist Logician. The three members of the syllogism are pratijña, hetu and drstānta. They are accepted by him as authoritative and he quietly ignores the remaining two members (Upanaya and Vigamana) of the five membered syllogism of the Nyāya-Vaiseșikas and indirectly rejects their claim to be authoritative. (Cf p. 46, 11 16-18)
vi) Although Dharmakirti dispenses with the use of pratijñā and speaks of only two-membered syllogism, Bhāmaha speaks of the three members of the syllogism in accodance with Dinnāga. (Cf p. 46, 11 19-22)
11. Vide : Buddhist Logic, Vol. I pp 174-175. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that there is no real difference between the meanings of the two titles - Vāda-Vidhi and Vādavidhāna. Could they point to one and the same text ?
17

Page #142

11
FRESH LIGHT ON BHAMAHA-VIVARANA
Till recently Udbhata's commentary on the Kavyālamkāra of Bhāmaha, generally known as Bhämaha-vivarana (BV) was presumed to have been lost beyond recovery. In 1962, however, Gnoli published some fragments from this commentary. Gnoli's identification of his publication with BV. was doubted by Dr. Raghavan.? In his paper on Punaruktavadābhāsa: Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy came to the conclusion that the published fragments do represent the genuine Bhāmaha-vivarana of Udbhata himself.
The study of Kalpalatāviveka* (KLV), however, throws some interesting light, on this controversy, and goes a long way in support of Gnoli's claims. Numerous passages of the commentary published by Gnoli are, beyond any shadow of doubt, the source of numerous passages in KLV. They shed abundant light on some of the obscure, ambiguous and knotty verses in chapter V (Nyāyanirnaya) of Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra. It borrows most of the passages from BV when treating of dosas. A good many of its pratikas, referring to Bhāmaha's text, present variant readings from the printed texts. Some of them are convincingly genuine readings. The text of BV bristles with uncertain and doubtful readings; it is often mutilated as syllables, words, phrases and occasionally sentences are partly or entirely lost. I quote below about a dozen passages from KLV which throw light on and render the corresponding passages from BV intelligible.
(1) Fr. 16 (a) 11 2-8 : These lines which treat of anyārtha dosa (Bhāmaha I. 40) could be restored with the help of the following passage from KLV5 :
ननु चैवं शब्दहीनेऽस्यान्तर्भावः । विषयान्तरप्रयोगेऽप्यपशब्दो भवति न केवलं लोपागमवर्णविकारादीनामयथाकरणे । तथा च
"अस्वगोण्यादयः शब्दाः साधवो विषयान्तरे" [वाक्यपदीय १.१४९] इति तेन विपूर्वो हरतिः पादविक्षेपे प्रसिद्धसम्बन्धः, अस्य च परिमोषप्रयुक्तावपशब्दतव । अपशब्दस्य च स्वप्नेऽप्यप्रयोगादनित्यदोषमध्येऽस्य पाठो न 893 60718 -....Jqafastar a: 1 ....... efter stà !"317 3qanfa:" [Ilona 19-8-80) la तत्त्वम् । विदत्तशब्दे तु न दृश्यते तत्वमिति विशब्दस्यात्र निपातत्वमिति सिद्धम् । विहृत च इति विजहरिति । विहरणं च तत् पादविक्षेपलक्षणायां क्रीडायां प्रसिद्धम् न स्वपहरण इत्यर्थः । प्रसिद्धार्थः इति प्रसिद्धोऽर्थः पादविक्षेपलक्षणादिः।
(2)Fr. 19 II 5-8 : The commentator, when commenting on Bhāmaha II. 8 treats of the figure Punaruktābhāsa and distinguishes it from Yamaka and Lāļānuprāsa. The following extract from KLV is based on these lines of BV : 1) Udbhata's commentary on the Kāvyālarnkāra of Bhāmaha, Roma, Istituto Italiano per II
Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1962. 2) Presidential Address, The Twenty-first All India Oriental Conference, Srinagar, October, 1961 3) Punaruktavadābhāsa and Genuineness of the published Fragments from Udbhata's Bhämaha
vivarana, The Journal of the Karnatak University VIII. 1964. 4) L. D. Series No. 17, Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandira, Ahmedabad-9. 5) Vide p 7 11 17-28 6) Read in this connection Prof. Krishnamoorthy's paper, mentioned in f. n. 3; supra.

Page #143

131
Sanskrit Sahityalástra
"
अयमभिप्रायः । सरूपाणां स्वरम्यञ्जनसमुदायानां विन्यासे पुनरुक्ता भासतेव संगच्छते को नुम्मत्तः पुनरुक्त' ब्रूयादिति । तत्र चार्थाभेदेऽपि तात्पर्यभेदश्चेत्तदा लायेयोऽनुप्रासः उतार्थभेदस्ततो यमकालङ्कार इति कुतः पुनरुक्तदोषप्रसङ्गः, कथं च लायनुप्रास पर्यनुयोग इति । पुनरुक्ताभावतापि शब्दसारूप्ये कवनानात्वयोः शब्दसारूप्याभावेऽपि अर्थकृयामासे भवतीति त्रिविधा भवान्तरभेदापेक्षया तु बहुप्रभेदा वक्ष्यते। अत एव च पुनरुक्ताभासेषु लाटीयोऽनुप्रासः तदपवादद्वारेण च यमकालङ्कारश्च भवतीत्येतदेव वक्तुं न्याय्यमित्यर्थः । - १. १८६ पं. २४पृ. १८७ पं. ४.
( 3 ) Fr. 27 a ll 3-4 : In the context of Bhāmaha II. 43 the commentator endea avours to show that the upama-dosa called Hinata, is, really speaking, no defect at all. The following passage from KLV which is, no doubt, adopted from BV makes these lines intelligible to a great extent
'हीनता' इति... अत्र विकल्पयम् । उपमानोपमेययोर्ययोः सामरस्येन साधम्र्म्यं तयोरेवोपमेति वा । उपमेये वा यानि पदानि तान्युपमानोपमेयविशेषणभूतानि साधर्म्यवाचीनि कर्तव्यानि । तत्रार्थ पक्षमधिकृत्याह सर्व सर्वेण [ भाम्ह २.४३] इति । ......... न च पक्षान्तरमस्तीति न हीनतालक्षणो दोष इत्यर्थः ।
१२४५, पं. २५ ४ २४६. ९ Gnoli has correctly hit on the right reading vikalpadvaya in his fn 2 (p. 25). (4) Fr. 39 (b) ll 6-7 : Gnoli discusses this passage in his Introduction (p. XXXVI paragraph no. d) where he mentions this Fragment twice as fr. no 27, which is clearly an error. The topic, discussed here, is about the figure blesa (that is slista). A perusal of this entire fragment produces a strong impression that the commentator has introduced here a discussion of the famous doctrine 'Arthabhedena tavat sabda bhidyante'. For restoring these lines the following passages from (Hemacandra's) Karyant Sasana and Kalpalaraviveka should prove useful अश्यक्यग्रहणं लोकप्रतीतितुल्यत्वपरिग्रहार्थम् । तेन दन्योचोष्ठयवकारवकारादिवर्णभेदे लघुप्रयत्नतरालघुप्रयत्नतरकृते च भेदे....... यमकबन्धो न विरुध्यते । p. 299 11. 14 17. And, अयमाशयः ।... वाक्यान्तरप्रतिभा वा [V. L. वाक्यार्थान्तरप्रतिभा वा ] इति । अलङ्कारान्तरपर्यवसायित्वेनालङ्कारान्तरप्रत्याशया संगृहीताप्युपक्रमावस्थायामलङ्कारान्तरस्याप्रतीतेर्वाक्यार्थान्तर प्रतिभा पृथगुपदर्शिता । p. 258 11 3-7
The two lines of the fragment when restored would read as: यत्र तु शब्दानामत्यन्तसरूपाणामपि दन्स्योष्ठलघुप्रयत्नतरकृतो भेदोऽस्ति तत्र वाक्यार्थान्तरप्रतिभा । तथालङ्कारान्तरे वाक्यान्तरे वा प्रतिभोषयते ।
(5) Fr. 45 (b) Il 5-6 : The commentator intends this passage to serve as an introduction to Bhamaha V. 2. In a corresponding passage from KLV we have all the words of this fragment in tact, which fact clearly indicates that the author of KLV has adopted the passage from BV. The passage runs as follows:
ननु किमिति सुगतसिद्धान्तप्रमाणयोरेव विचारणम् । सर्वसिद्धान्तानुवर्त नपरो हि काव्यप्रवाहस्तेन कः पक्षपातो बौद्धसिद्धान्त' प्रतीत्याह-प्रायेण [ Bhāmaha V. 2]
- पृ. ४५, पं. ८-९
7) In the Sanketa commentary of Manikyacandra on Kavyaprakāśa we have almost an identical passage in the same context. Probably they haveadopeted the quotation from a common source and this source was possibly the Bhamahavivarana.

Page #144

Studies in
(6) Fr. 47 (a) The text of this fragment is, on the whole, quite intelligible. This fragment may, however, be read with profit along with KLV (pp. 57-59). A few _expressions and lines of this Fr, however, need correction :
132
12 : शब्दाभिव्यक्ति XX X should be read as शब्दाभिव्यक्तिवादिनं प्रति अन्यतरसिद्ध 1 3 should be read as साचयितुमिष्टो यो धर्मस्तदनुगमने यः सदृशः पक्षः स सपक्षः । तत्र च यः सन् स हेतुरित्यर्थः ।
15 सामान्यमिह संवृतिसद्धि नाभिप्रेतम् this line should be corrected in the light of सामान्यमिह संवृतिबुद्धिरभिप्रेता " ।
10
1. 8 should be read as त च दर्शवितुमाह-इति द्ववेकानुगतिव्यावृत्ती लक्ष्म-साधुता | V.25 इति सा पूर्वोक्तया भङ्गया" x [
.
(7) Fr. 50. (a ) ll 2-3 : This passage is easy to restore with the help of the following passage from KLV :
'सो अज्ञानो दोष:' इति । असिद्धत्वमित्यर्थः । ततो हि साध्यस्य ज्ञानं नास्ति । इमे दोषाः इति । इत्थमेव समासो युक्तः । ये पुनरज्ञानं च संशयज्ञानं च विपर्ययश्चेति समस्य तान् कुर्वन्तीत्यज्ञान संशयज्ञान विपर्ययकृत इति व्याचक्षते तेषामज्ञानस्य ज्ञानप्रागभावस्यानुत्पाद्यमानत्वात् तत्करणविरोधः 12 |
( 8 ) Fr. 50 (a) 16: The following passage from KLV 12 throws some light on this line :
ननृपमानमेवास्त्विति । उपमाने खलु विम्बप्रतिबिम्बोपन्यासो दृष्टः । चन्द्र व मुखपत्र मुखस्य विम्वता, चन्द्रस्य तु तत्प्रतिविम्वत्वम् । दृष्टान्तेऽपि च "तनुरिय' क्व विलोचनहारिणी "त्यादी विम्बप्रतिविम्वभावो विद्यते तत् कथमुपमायामन्तर्भावोऽस्य न स्यादित्यर्थः ।
(9) Fr. 50 (a) 17 The following line from KLV14 should help us in restoring this line :
उपमानोपमेयभावविवक्षा साम्यमिवादिप्रयोगश्च... |
When restored it would read साम्यमिवादिप्रयोगश्च । 'तदृष्टान्ते नास्ति' इति नोपमायामन्तर्भावो Sस्याशङ्कनीयः ।
(10) Fr. 50 (a) 18 : The following passage from KLVI throws some light on this line : न चैवंविधं लक्षणं "तनुरिय व विलोचनहारिणी" इत्यादी दृष्टान्ते विद्यते । तनुतापसयोर्यथाक्रम' नवमालिकाकुशगुणाभ्यां सहोपमानोपमेयभावस्याशाब्दत्वात् ।
"तनुरियं.......
The line "aft......" forms a quarter of a stanza; possibly the stanza occurs in the poem HayagrIyavadha, now lost 16
8. Vide KLV p. 57 1. 18.
9. Vide KLV p. 57 II. 21-22.
10. Vide KLV p. 57 1. 22 12. Vide p. 70 11. 4-7. 13. Vide p. 70118-11. 14. Vide p. 71 1. 1.
15. F70 11. 18-19.
16. This surmise is based on the context supplied by KLV (p. 78 11.5-13) : On a festive occasion Hayagriva sends his son to bring Narakasura with him. He goes to his capital but learns from the subjects of Narakasura's death at Krina's hands, and his daughter's departure to forest on account of her bereavement. He then proceeds to meet her in the forest with a view to offering condolences to her; seeing her practising austerities he is struck with love and points out the great disparity between her tender youthful body fit for love's joy and her hard penance.
11. vide KLV p. 58 II. 23–24.

Page #145

Sanskrit Sähityaśāstra
133
(11) F. 50 (a) ॥ 3-5 : These lines are easy to restore with the help of the following passage from KLV17 : किं पुनः कारणं साध्यसाधनोपन्यास उपमाने न क्रियते । मुखमिन्दुरिवेत्यत्रति । एतदुक्त भवति । उपमाने कुत्सितः साध्यसाधनोपन्यासः सहृदयहृदयहरणभ्रंशप्रसङ्गात् । यद्यव क्रियते मुखमिदमाहूलादकर कान्तिविशेषातिशययोगादिन्दुरिवेति तदा क्लिष्ट' काव्य स्यात् । यथेदं वक्ष्यमाणमुदाहरणम् । एतदेव दर्शयति-तदाह इति ।
These numerous passages, which have their source in Udbhata's Commentary on The Kävyālamkāra of Bhāmaha clearly suggest that Bhāmahavivarana itself must have been ready at hand for the author of KLV 18.
Finally, I refer to one passage from KLV which unambiguously corroborates this inference. The author of KLV (pp 70-71) comments at length on Bhāmaha V. 56. In this comment we read : "तदुक्तम्
इवादेरप्रतीतापि शब्दसंस्कारतः क्वचित् ।।
उपमा गम्यतेऽन्यत्र केवलार्थनिबन्धना ॥ इति । यत्त्वत्र विवरणकृता उपमानोपमेयभावविवक्षा साम्यमिवादिप्रयोगश्चेति त्रितयमुद्घोषित तद् बाहुल्याभिप्रायेण न तु लक्षणतया ।......"
Now, the quotation "iväderapratītāpi" etc. is found introduced in his Laghuvștti (p 29, Banhatti's edition) by Pratihārendurāja with the words 'tadāhuh". The author of KLV identifies this quotation as originating from vivaraṇaksi, i. e. Udbhaga, the author of (Bhämaha-) Vivarana and thus indicating that he must have had Bhämahavi varaņa in front of him.
KAMA
But there is one serious difficulty .
making such a surmise. And it is the metre in which the two verses
1. वयसि etc. p. 78) are composed. The quarter, however, unmistakalYTEVENT .. . of Kalidasa (Kumārasam.
bhava, canto v. 4). 17. p. 71 11.9-12. 18. So it was to Hemacandra who quotes st-ne passages from-terror a contrary view, however,
vide Kane's History of Sanskrit Poetics (p. 127, 1951 ed). ..

Page #146

12
RATI-VILAPA,
DEVISAMBHOGAVARNANA AND ALAMKARIKAS
Kālidāsa is pre-eminently a poet of the sentiments of eroticism and pathos. The fourth and the eighth cantos of Kumarasambhava deal with the lament of Rati and the love-making of Siva and Parvati, who are regarded as the parents of the world. The present paper confines itself to a discussion of these topics with special reference to the comments on and criticism against Kalidasa's poetic art by some of the top-ranking writers on poetics and an examination of their criticism. We first take up Rativilāpa for consideration and then the Devi - ( Parvati ) sambhoga-varnana..
(i) Rati - Vilapa
It is just proper that a poet should write mainly with a view to portraying rasa (sentiment). The story or plot is only a means towards that end. There are many pitfalls against which a poet must guard himself if he aims at successfully portraying the intended rasa in his literary work. One of these pitfalls is :
परिपोषं गतस्यापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम् ।
(ret स्याद्विरोधाय वृत्त्यनौचित्यमेव ॥)
Anandavardhana comments on this line as follows :
पुनश्चायमन्यो रसभङ्गहेतुरवधारणीयो यत्परिपोषं गतस्यापि रसस्य पौनःपुन्येन दीपनम् । उपभुक्तो हि रसः स्वसामग्री लब्धपरिपोषः पुनः पुनः परामृश्यमाणः परिम्लान कुसुमकल्पः कल्पते | 2
Anandavardhana means to say: "Repeated feeding of a sentiment, although it has been fully developed, causes an impediment to that sentiment. A sentiment, which has been fully developed by a description of its appropriate vibhāvas, anubhavas and vyabhicari-bhavas and is duly relished appears like a faded flower if it is overfed again and again (by further description of the bhavas).
He however does not add any concrete instance to illustrate his view. Abhinavagupta, his famous commentator, however, refers to Rativilāpa 3
"In Rati's Lament Kalidasa has in and again over-elaborated the sentiment of pathos which has alre been ful developed"
ननु कालिदासः परिपोषं गतस्यापि करुणस्य रतिविलासेषु (? - विलापेषु) पौनःपुन्येन दीपनमकार्षीत् तत् कोऽयं रसविरोधिना परिहारनिर्दग्ध इत्याशड्वयाह-पूर्व इति । न हि वसिष्ठादिभिः कथञ्चिद् यदि स्मृतिमार्गस्त्यक्तस्तद्वद्वयमपि तथा त्यजामः । अचिन्त्य हेतुकत्वादुपरिचरितानाम् (? अचिन्त्य हेतुकत्वाद् मुनिचरितानाम् ) इति भावः |
1. Dhvanyaloka. III. 19
2. Ibid III. 19 Vṛtti p. 364
3-4. Locana on Dhvany aloka III. 19 (pp. 364-65)

Page #147

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
135
Mammaţa calls this impediment 'Díptiḥ punaḥ punah' and adds "As an example of this 'repeated feeding (or over-elaboration)' we have 'Rati's Lament' in Kumārasambhava.
Jhalkikar comments on this statement as follows :
रतिविलापे । रतिविलापप्रस्तावे । अत्र 'मोहपरायणा सती' ( स०१ श्लो०) इत्यादिना दीपितोऽपि (दीप्तिमानीतोऽपि) करुणः 'अथ सा पुनरेव विह्वला' (४ स० २६ श्लो०) इत्यादिना पुनर्दीपित: (दीप्ति नीतः) अथ च वसन्तदर्शनेन विच्छिन्नः पुनरपि 'तमवेक्ष्य रुरोद सा भृशम्' (४० स० २६ श्लो०) इत्यादिना उद्दीपित इति बोध्यम् । अत्रैकस्यैव पुनः पुनरास्वादः सहृदयानां वैरस्थायेति दूधकतावीजम् । तदुक्तं प्रदीपोद्योतयो: "उपभुक्तो हि पुनरुपभुज्यमानः उपभुत कुसुमपरिमल इव सहृदयानामास्वादापकर्षकः” इति । तथा चाह तृतीयोद्योते ध्वनिकारः “परिपाक गतस्यापि पौन:पुन्येन दीपनम् परस्य स्याद्विरोधाय" इति । परस्य श्रोतुः विरोधाय वैरस्यायेति तदर्थः ।
These comments throw more light on the statement of Dhva iyāloka by referring to the particular passages in Rativilāpa. How far these comments correctly interpret the intention of Anandavardhana we shall consider later.
Hemacandra's exposition of this rasa-dosa is very interesting and illuminating. In the body of the text he reproduces the relevant statement from Dhvanyāloka and in his own commentary (called Viveka, p. 170) he elucidates :
पुनःपुनः परामृश्यमान इति । तथा हि विभावानुभावसामग्री परिघटितशरीरस्यापि रसयितृ-रसन-योग्यस्य रसस्य पुनःपुनरान्दोलनं मालतीकुसुमपरिमर्दनवदननुगुणमेव । धाराप्राले हि रते तदाविमान तत्परवशानामुक्तिरल्पीयत्येव । तथा च तस्यां दशावां महाकवीनामे को द्विमा वा इटोका निर्यान्ति । आ एव तापतवस्तराजे धाराप्रातः करुगरसः (१ धाराप्राप्तकरुणरसः) सर्वाल्यो द्वितीयोऽङ्कः कविना निबद्धः ।
Hemacandra's disciples, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, the authors of Nät yadarpaņa (p. 155), more or less say the same thing : __ अत्युक्तिरिति धाराधिरूढस्यापि रसस्य नैरन्तर्येण पुनःपुनरुद्दीप्तिर्दोषो यथा कुमारसंभवे रतिप्रलापेषु । लब्धपरिपोषो हि रसः पुनः पुनः परामृश्यमानो मालतीमाल्य मिव म्लायति । अत एव प्रकर्षप्राप्तरसविशिष्टानां कवीनामल्पीयानेव वाग्विलास इति । • From these two passages it is evident that Hemacandra and his disciples hold that when over-whelmed by emotion (of sorrow) men or women utter only a few words. And for describing the condition of such persons great poets devote at the most two or three stanzas. They imply that the description of "Rati's Lament" in Kumārasambhava, spread over the first thirty-eight verses, is simply repetitive overelaboration of the sentiment of pathos.
In actual life it is quite probable, even natural if the profound and tragic shock of the sudden death of her beloved husband would make a woman swoon. On regaining consciousness she might either be struck dumb with intense sorrow or she might
5. Kāvyaprakāśa, with Bālabodhini, p. 440.

Page #148

136
Studies in
even roll on the ground and wail aloud beating her bosom. In depicting the deep sorrow of the first type of woman a poet may well utter one or two verses. It is, however, a different story with the second type of woman. Rati belongs to the second category. It is therefore quite natural for a poet to depict the sorrow of a loving wife at the sudden, tragic death of her husband on the basis of his mental identification with the psycho-physical condition of such a woman. By this sympathetic identification the poet visualises mentally the memorable moments spent by Rati in the company of the beloved husband, love's quarrels and the unforgettable incidents associated with him crowding in her mind at that tragic moment, coolly contemplates over them and finally portrays them in literature. Looked at from this perspective one would not find fault with Kālidāsa for giving a full expression to what passed in the mind of the bereaved woman who has lost her all-in-al! in the world. An analysis of the Rati-vilāpa, given below, would clearly show that there is no overdoing in Rati's Lament. Kālidāsa portrays a brilliant and touchingly pathetic picture of the lament of Rati, a loving wife, for her dead husband. Towards the end of the third Canto Kālidāsa effectively describes the tragic shock received by Rati.
तीव्राभिषङ्गप्रभवेण वृत्तिं मोहन संस्तम्भयतेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
अज्ञातभर्तृव्यसना मुहूर्त कृतोपकारेव रतिर्बभूव ॥
"The bitterness of the blow cast Rati into a swoon which dulled her senses and for the moment with true kindness robbed her of awareness of the peril (that is, death) of her husband."
The fourth canto thus opens :
अथ मोहपरायणा सती विवशा कामवधूर्विबोधिता । विधिना प्रतिपादयिष्यता नववैधव्यमसह्यवेदनम् ।।'
"Then Rati (lit, the wife of Kāma) who was not mistress of herself (insensible), being overpowered by the swoon was awakened by Fate wishing to make her experience her fresh widowhood full of unberable agony."
Finding her husband reduced to ashes Rati laments piteously :
अथ सा पुनरेव विह्वला वसुधालिङ्गनधूसरस्तनी । विललाप विकीर्णमूर्धजा समदुःखामिव कुर्वती स्थलीम् ॥
"She then, again, overpowered with grief, wailed aloud with her breasts dusty owing to rolling on the ground, with her hair all dishevelled, making the whole forest-site as it were share her grief."
There is perfect simplicity of passionate longing in Rati's address to the dead Kāma :
Incidentally, the usually accepted readings in Dhvanyaloka are 'paripoşam' and 'rasasya! The editor's f. n. (on p. 440) TEET' ya a it geis erroneous.
From the context in Dhvanyāloka it would be evident that flacasya' is the correct seadirg. 6. Kumāra III. 73. 7. Kumāra IV. 1 8. Kumāra IV. 4

Page #149

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
137
कृतवानसि विप्रियं न मे प्रतिकूल न च ते मया कृतम् । किमकारणमेव दर्शन विलपन्त्यै रतये न दीयते ॥10
"You have never displeased me, nor have I ever acted contrary to your wishes; why then without cause, do you hide yourself from your weeping Rati?”
Possibly you remember the punishment I inflicted on you in private and therefore are angry with me !
स्मरसि स्मर मेखलागुणैरुत गोत्रस्खलितेषु बन्धनम् ।
च्युतकेसरदूषितेक्षणान्यवतंसोत्पलताडनानि वा ॥"
“Or do you remember, O Kāma my binding you with the strings of my girdle whenever I was addressed by you, with the names of other ladies uppermost in your mind or the strokes with the lotuses used as ear-ornaments, in which your eyes were soiled by the pollen-dust dropping from them?"
Now I know your compliments to me formerly that my image was enshrined in your heart were all empty :
हृदये वससीति मत्प्रियं यदवोचस्तदवैमि कैतवम् ।
उपचारपदं न चेदिदं त्वमनङ्गः कथमक्षता रतिः ॥12
"I (now) know that your words - you dwell in my heart'-so very agreeable to me, were false; if these words were not an empty compliment, how is it that you have become bodiless while Rati is unhurt or safe ?"
Without you, wine, intoxicating young damsels, the moon, the mango-blossom, the swarm of bees, the cuckoo would all become useless. Sweet memories of love's enjoyment in the company of Kāma crowd into her mind and she is extremely restless :
शिरसा प्रणिपत्य याचितान्युपगूढानि सवेपथूनि च । ___ सुरतानि च तानि ते रहः स्मर संस्मृत्य न शान्तिरस्ति मे ॥
"Remembering the (close) embraces accompanied by tremor and solicited by bowing down the head and those (never to be forgotten) love's dalliances, there is no peace for me, O Smara (Kāma).”
"I bear on my person the vernal decoration of flowers arranged by yourself but that handsome form of yours is not to be seen. I pray, come back and complete the half-finished colouring of my left foot. I shall follow you in death by self-immolation before heavenly nymphs allure you away. But the stigma that Rati continued to live even for a while when bereft of Kāma, will stick to me for ever. It is not possible for me to do your last decoration as your body has also gone along with your life. I remember the happy times I passed in the company of yourself and Vasanta :
10. Kumāra IV-7, quoted by Alamkārikas as an instance of the fault : 'bhagna-prakramatā'. 11. Kumāra IV-8. 12. Kumāra IV-9. 13. Kumāra IV-17.
18

Page #150

138
ऋजुतां नयतः स्मरामि ते शरमुत्सङ्गनिषण्णधन्वनः । मधुना सह सस्मितां कथां नयनोपान्तविलोकितं च तत् ॥ | 24
Studies in
"I remember your merry talk with Vasanta and your casting a side-glance at me, as you were straightening the arrow, with the bow on your lap."
But where is Madhu (i.e., Vasanta) your bosom friend? Is he also, like you, reduced to ashes by Siva whose anger is dreadful? I hope not.
At that moment Vasanta made his appearance to console her. On seeing him she again wailed aloud :
तमवेक्ष्य रुरोद सा भृशं स्तनसंबाधमुरो जघान च । a
स्वजनस्य हि दुःखमग्रतो विवृतद्वारमिवोपजायते ||15
"On seeing him she wailed bitterly and beat her bosom violently causing pain to the breasts. Grief breaks out as if opening its flood-gates in the presence of one's own people."
Rati bids Vasanta heap the pyre so that she may follow Käma in death. This is the bounden duty of every pativrard (faithful wife) :
शशिना सह याति कौमुदी सह मेघेन तडित प्रलीयते ।
प्रमदाः पतिवर्त्मगा इति प्रतिपन्नं हि विचेतनैरपि || 20
"The moon-light goes with the moon and the lightning vanishes with the cloud; that ladies follow the path of their husbands, is thus admitted even by inanimate or lifeless things."
Besmearing her breasts with Kama's ashes Rati will place her body on fire as on a bed of fresh leaves. She asks Vasanta to make the fire burn quickly with the help of the Southern wind to enable her to join her husband at the earliest. After her death, only one handful of libation should be offered to herself and Kama who would share it in heaven. She asks Vasanta to offer mango-blossoms-which were so dear to Kama-as a funeral offering.
From this detailed summary of 'Rati's Lament' it is clear that the opening verse simply states how Rati, who was cast into a faint by the sudden blow of her husband's death, regains her consciousness. The fourth verse ('Atha så punareva vihvalä", etc.) vividly depicts the anubhavas of the sentiment of pathos Rati's overpowering grief (at finding Kama, her beloved husband, reduced to ashes), her rolling about on the ground with her breasts dusty, her hair all dishevelled and her wailing aloud. These reactions on the part of Rati are perfectly natural. Further on, when Vasanta (Spring), Kama's bosom friend, presents himself before the distressed Rati for consoling her she begins to weep still more bitterly beating her bosom all the while and her (pent up) grief flows forth with all its force (at Vasanta's sight). This reaction of Rati is also perfectly natural. Kalidasa's observation:
14. Kumāra IV-23.
15. Kumāra IV-26. 16. Kumāra IV-33.

Page #151

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
139
स्वजनस्य हि दुःखमग्रतो विवृतद्वारमिवोपजायते । is universally true and fully justifies Rati's reaction. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for one to agree with Bālabodhinikāra, the learned commentator of Kävyaprakāśa when he says that these three verses overfeed or over-elaborate the sentiment of pathos. What Abhinavagupta, Mammaţa, Hemacandra and others mean to say is that the passage as a whole errs in over-elaboration of the sentiment of pathos. It is difficult for one to agree with thesc writers on poetics on this point. On the contrary, Kālidāsa has devoted just that much space as is necessary for an effective portrayal of such a truly tragic calamity and its terrific impact on the person concerned. As has already been pointed out above Kālidāsa by his imaginative identification with Rati's mental mood or state beautifully depicts the sweet memories of Rati's past happiness enjoyed in the company of Kāma who is no more, love's quarrels and other unforgettable incidents associated with him. There is therefore no over-elaboration or repetition. In a different context Abhinavagupta makes a very perceptive remark :
- रतिप्रलापेषु च शृङ्गार एव करुणस्य जीवितं 'हृदये वससी' त्याधुक्तिषु ।"
• If we study and analyse all the brilliant passages depicting the sentiment of pathos from the works of great poets including Vyāsa and Vālmiki we would find strong support for this statement of Abhinavagupta (cited from Abhinavabhārati). In the passage of Rarivilāpa we find full support for it. In Raguvassa (Canto VIII) we have the counter part of Rati-Vilāpa in Ajaviläpa. Many ideas are common to these two passages. Their detailed comparision we reserve for another occasion.
Finally, it is rather difficult to assert one way or the other whether Anandavardhana intended the Rati-Vilāpa as an example of the poetic blemish paunaḥpunyena dipanan. Perhaps not. Possibly he had in mind the third act of Uttararāmacarita of Bhavabhūti. There we have repeated intensification of Rāma's ceaseless grief for Sitā and there Rāma is represented as fainting away again and again.
17. Abhinavabhārati on Nätyaśāstra, VI-39.
This statement reminds one of a passage from Dhvanyaloka where Anandavardhana says that Soka (grief) is heightened by memories of past happiness enjoyed in thc company of the lost person and then cites the famous stanza "Ayam sa rasanotkarşi, etc., :
अथवा वाक्यार्थीभूतस्यापि कस्यचित् करुणरसविषयस्य ताशेन शुङ्गारवस्तुना भङ्गिविशेषाश्रयेण संयोजनं रसपरिपोषायैव जायते । यतः प्रकृति-मधुराः पदार्थाः शोचनीयतां प्राप्ताः प्रागवस्थाभाविभिः संस्मर्यमाणैर्विलासैरधिकतर शोकावेशमुपजनofa l Te
अयं स रसनोत्कर्षी पीनस्तनविमर्दनः । ATT Freaegaff ofeffaa'wa: T: 11 (HETHTTa, situar, 28-80)
-Dhvanyāloka III pp 376-377.

Page #152

140
Studies in
(ii) Devi-sambhoga-varnanam
(Kālidāsa and Obscenity)
The 8th canto of Kumarasambhava describes the joys of the wedded pair of Siva and Parvati who are regarded in mythology as the parents of the world. In many MSS the poem ends with the 7th canto and some believe that the remaining 10 cantos are not the work of Kālidāsa. It is, however, generally believed that the 8th canto is not spurious but the work of Kālidāsa himself. The grounds' for this belief are :
It seems certainly to have been known to Bhāravi, Kumāradāsa, Māgha, Ratnākara, Sriharsa and others who have imitated this splendid canto in their epics. As early a writer as Anandavardhana (9th century A. D.) regarded the 8th canto of Kumārasambhava as a genuine part of that epic.
(ii) Numerous quotations from it occur in standard works on Alamkāra-śāstra. (iii) In poetic skill, language and style it is in no way inferior to Kālidāsa's work.
(iv) The celebrated commentator Mallinātha comments on it, as also Dakşiņāvarta Arunagiri and Nārāyaṇa. Considering the arguments put forward by the advocates of the two views scholars are now convinced of the genuine character of the 8th canto.
The contents of the 8th canto may briefly be summarised as follows: the first eleven verses describe Pārvati's timid shyness, love's nervousness befitting a mugdha nāyikā; v 12 informs that Pārvati's mother was pleased to find that Pārvati was Siva's favourite, vv13–14 describe Pārvati as a madhyā nāyikā (the partly experienced Nāyikā, full of the love of youth) and vv 15-20 describe her as a pragalbhā nāyikā (the fully experienced and bold Nāyikā frantically in love). V 21 and onwards inform us how Siva takes leave of Himālaya and wanders with Pārvati over many regions including among them the mountains Meru, Kailasa, Mandara and Malaya and the celestial Gangā and the Nandana garden. Finally he goes to the mountain Gandhamādana in the evening. He describes to Pārvati the beauty of sunset first and then that of the moon-rise. Siva and Pārvati then drink the wine, brought to them by the presiding deity of the forest on the mountain Gandhamädana, and spend the whole night in amorous sports. Siva makes that place his abode and lives there enjoying the company of his beloved Pārvali without break or hindrance. With this statement the canto closes.
Regarding the 8th canto Anandavardhana, the author of the epoch-making work Dhvanyaloka, makes some interesting and important observations :
कथमचारुत्वं तारशे विषये सहृदयानां नावभातीति चेत् कविशक्तितिरोहितत्वातू । द्विविधो हि दोषः- कवेरव्युत्पत्तिकृतोऽशक्तिकृतश्च । तत्राव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्तितिरस्कृत1 Kirāta VII-IX, Jānaki III, Sisu VII-X, Haravijaya XVII-XX, Naişadha VII, XVI,XVIII-XX.
Vide Dhvanyāloka III, pp 316-17 the passage concerned is cited on the next page

Page #153

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
___141
त्वात् कदाचिन्न लक्ष्यते । यस्त्वशक्तिकृतो दोषः स झटिति प्रतीयते.......तथा हि महाकवीनामप्युत्तमदेवताविषयप्रसिद्धसंभोगशृङ्गारबन्धनाधनौचित्यं शक्तितिरस्कृतत्वात् ग्राम्यत्वेन न प्रतिभासते । यथा कुमारसंभवे देवीसंभोगवर्णनम् ।
“How is it that in such cases the sensitive readers do not find the subject-matter devoid of literary beauty ? It is because the 'fault' is hidden from view due to the poet's genius. There are two kinds of faults (1) one due to the lack of vyutpatti (sense of proportion and propriety resulting from the poet's learning and observation of life) and (2) the other due to the absence of genius. Now, the fault that is due to a lack of vyut patti can sometimes escape notice as it will be hidden from view by grace of the poet's inborn genius. But a fault due to lack of genius immediately obtrudes itself on the attention of the sensitive reader. . . . . . . . .For instance, great poets can describe the well-known sexual love, among the very highest gods and goddesses, and although such descriptions are improper, nevertheless, due to the saving power of their genius they do not strike us as vulgar. An example is the description of the love-making of Pārvati and Siva in Kumāra-sambhava:
तस्मादभिनेयार्थेऽनभिनेयाथै वा काव्ये यदुत्तमप्रकृते राजादेरुत्तमप्रकृतिभिर्नायिकाभिः सह ग्राम्यसंभोगवर्णनं तत् पित्रोः संभोगवर्णनमिव सुतरामसभ्यम् । तथैवोत्तमदेवतादिविषयम् । ......यत्त्वेवंविधे विषये महाकवीनामप्यसमीक्ष्यकारिता लक्ष्ये दृश्यते स दोष एव । स तु शक्तितिरस्कृतत्वात्तेषां न लक्ष्यत इत्युक्तमेव ।
"Hence the truth is that both in plays and poems any description of vulgar, sexual love in respect of kings etc., with heroines of high character would be extremely vulgar or obscene like the description of the sexual love of one's own parents. The same is true also of its description in respect of gods and goddesses who are high characters. ......While it is true that in these matters even mahākavi's (great poets like Kālidāsa) have erred and shown indiscretion still their fault is not noticed as it is covered by their genius as we have already mentioned."
Abhinavagupta in the course of his commentary on the first passage says :
'आस्वादयितृणां यः चमत्काराविघातस्तदेव रससर्वस्वमास्वादायत्तत्वात् । उत्तमदेवतासंभोगपरामर्शे च पितृसंभोग इव लज्जातङ्कादिना कश्चमत्कारावकाश इत्यर्थः । शक्तितिरस्कृतत्वाद् इति । संभोगोऽपि ह्यसौ वर्णितस्तथा प्रतिभानवता कधिना यथा तत्रैव विश्रान्तं हृदयं पौर्वापर्यपरामर्श कर्तु न ददाति । यथा निर्व्याज-पराक्रमस्य पुरुषस्याविषयेऽपि युध्यमानस्य तावत्तस्मिन्नवसरे साधुवादो वितीर्यते न तु पौर्वापर्यपरामर्श तथात्रापीति भावः ।।
"The absence of any impediment to the realisation of aesthetic relish by the sensitive readers is the all-in-all of a rasa. For rasa entirely depends on relish by the sensitive reader. The cognition of the sexual love of the gods and goddesses of high character produces shame, disquietitude and such other feelings as the cognition
2. Dhvanyaloka III, pp 316-17 (Banaras edition with Bālapriyā commentary) 3. Ibid, pp 332-333 4. Locana (pp 317-318)

Page #154

142
Studies in
of the sexual love of one's own parents might do. A great poet gifted with extraordinary genius describes the sexual love in such a unique way that the reader is completely engrossed in relishing the pleasure of that wonderful description and it gives no time or leaves no scope to the reader to consider whether that description is proper or improper. As in the case of a born brave warrior, who though fighting for an unjust cause wins applause from the spectators by his heroic fighting; these very spectators however on due consideration of the causes leading to the fight and on realising that the fight is for an unjust cause do not applaud that brave warrior. It is exactly the case here too."
In his Kävyaprakāśa Mammaţa clearly lays down :
तत्र रतिहासशोकादभुतानि अदिव्योत्तमप्रकृतिवत् दिव्येष्वपि । किन्तु रतिः संभोगशङ्गाररूपा उत्तमदेवताविषया न वर्णनीया । तद्वर्णनं हि पित्रोः संभोगवर्णनमिवात्यन्तमनुforan 10
"--But it is not right to describe rati (love) of the type of sexual love in respect of gods and goddesses who are high characters. In fact, such a description would be extremely improper as that of the sexual love of one's own parents,"
Kşemendra who analyses the improprieties which hinder the aesthetic enjoyment and illustrates them by quoting verses from various poets displays in many cases a good deal of insight in his criticism. He takes Kālidāsa to task, against the authority of Anandavardhana, for the vulgarity of the 8th canto. He quotes the following verse from this canto and adds his own comments :
ऊरुमूलनखमार्गराजिभिस्तत्क्षणं हृतविलोचनो हरः । वाससः प्रशिथिलस्य संयमं कुर्वतीं प्रियतमामवारयत् ॥
-अत्र अम्बिकासंभोगवर्णने पामर-नारी-समुचित-निर्लज्जसज्ज(?)नख-राजि-विराजितोरुमूलहृतविलोचनत्वं त्रिलोचनस्य भगवतस्त्रिजगद्गुरोर्यदुक्तं तेनानौचित्यमेव परं प्रबन्धार्थः पुष्णाति ।
"His eyes being charmed at that moment by the series of nail-marks at the root of her thighs, Siva prevented his beloved as she was tying up her garment which had got loose (or was cast aside by the wind)."
. "Here when dealing with the delights of love between the wedded pair of siva and Pārvati, Kālidāsa describes that Lord Siva, who is universally venerated, is captivated by the sight of the series of nail-marks (implanted by him during love's dalliance on the previous night). Such a description might be proper in the case of ordinary (mortal) men and women but certainly not in the case of Siva and Parvati who are revered as parents of the whole world. It is therefore improper on the part of the poet to describe the amours of Siva and Pārvati the way he has done: because of such description the whole 'prabandha' (canto) has become highly improperobscene.
5. Kavyaprakāsı VII (p 443, Jhalakikar's edition) 6. Kumārasambhava VIII-87 7. Aucityavicāra-carca

Page #155

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
143
Finally, that Panditarāja Jagannātha also, the author of Rasagangādhara and the last great alamkārika, held an identical view, becomes absolutely clear from his criticism of Jayadeva in respect of Gitagovinda (in which the amours of Rādha and Krsna are described quite frankly).
यत्र हृदयानां रसोदबोधः प्रमाणसिद्धस्तत्रैव साधारणीकरणस्य कल्पनात् । अन्यथा स्वमातृविषयकस्वपितृरतिवर्णनेऽपि सहृदयस्य रसोदबोधापत्तेः । जयदेवादिभिस्तु गीतगोविन्दादि-प्रबन्धेषु सकलसहृदय-संमतोऽयं समयो मदोन्मत्तमतङ्गजैरिव भिन्न इति न तन्निदर्शनेनेदानींतनेन तथा वर्णयितुं सांप्रतम् ।
With due deference to the almost unanimous view of the topmost älankärikas about obscenity one may submit that in appreciating a literary work we should judge it purely as a work of art. As Kālidāsa is himself a great devotee of Lord Siva it is simply unthinkable that he means any disrespect to Siva and Pārvali whom he pays homage in the opening verse of Raghuvamsa in these words:
वागर्थाविव संपृक्तौ वागर्थप्रतिपत्तये ।
जगतः पितरौ वन्दे पार्वती-परमेश्वरौ ।।
“I bow down to Pārvati and Parameśvara (Siva, lit. the Supreme Lord), the world's parents, who like word and meaning are united, that I may attain right knowledge of word and meaning."
Further we may not be wrong in holding that Kālidāsa as a poet felt that it was ‘his duty to suggest rather than to say outright : The love of the Yaksa and Yakşa-patni in Meghadūta is thus a symbol of human love. So too in Kumārasambhava the marriage and the love of Siva and Pārvati serve as prototype for human marriage and human love. Once we accept this suggestion the objection raised by the ālamkärikas loses its force and the vivid description of the amour of the two deities at once becomes a source of great beauty and charm.
Since Kālidāsa is unquestionably a great devotee of Lord Siva, it is unthinkable that any thought of blasphemy or of treating the story of Siva and Pārvati impiously might have ever crossed his mind when describing the amorous sports of Siva and Pārvati. He must have been fully conscious that unless he invests the poem about Siva, Pārvati and the Birth of Kumāra with human emotions and interest it would lose much of iis beauty and appeal to his sensitive readers and that is why he must have drawn the pen-pictures of Menā, Himālaya, Pārvati, Siva, Rati and Kāma after humanizing them by attributing to them human emotions and weaknesses.
Further, this description is neither out of the context, nor opposed to the context, nor added somehow to humour his sensitive readers. The preceding description of the mutual love between Siva and Pārvati (Canto V), of the due consent of Pārvati's parents to their marriage (Canto VI) and of their wedding (Canto VII) naturally and inevitably lead to the Devisambhoga-varṇana'. (Canto VIII). That the wedding should
8. Rasagangādhara, N. S. edition, Bombay, 1939. (p. 64)

Page #156

144
Studies in
culminate in the consummation of their marriage (by sexual intercourse) is only proper and reasonable. What is wrong, therefore, if a highly gifted poet like Kalidasa describes their amour very artistically and poetically ?
If now, the argument is advanced that sädhäraṇtkaraṇa (depersonalisation, generalisation or universalisation) is impossible in the case of gods and goddesses like Siva and Päivati in respect of rati, then it should be equally impossible in respect of other emotions like utsaha,, vismaya, and so on. Accepting this position would mean that the life of gods (deva-carita) should altogether be eschewed by the poet when composing poems or plays-a position not acceptable even to Abhinavagupta. For he says:
रामादिचरितं तु न सर्वस्य हृदयसंवादीति महत्साहसम् । चित्रवासनाविशिष्टत्वाच्चेतसः । यदाह – “तासामनादित्वम् आशिषो नित्यत्वात्। जाति-देश- कालव्यवहितानामप्यानन्तर्य स्मृतिसंस्कारयोरेकरूपत्वात्"" ।
"To say that the life of Räma, etc. (describing extra-ordinary deeds, such as building a bridge across the ocean, etc.,) does not appeal to one and all is very inconsiderate-being very rash. For everyone's mind is characterised by a variety of vāsanās. For Patanjali says: "Vāsanās are without beginning, because desire is eternal". "Although separated by birth, place and time nonetheless there is a correspondence between smṛti and samskara". In other words, although several births intervene, vdasands still produce instinctive reactions to external situations".
Thus if sadharanikarana is possible in respect of heroic deeds, it should be equally. possible in respect of love as well. If it be argued that it is not possible in this particular case of Siva and Pärvati, the father and mother of the world, we have already replied that they represent man and wife.
One would perfectly agree with the critics if they were to say that the Canto is highly erotic. But what is erotic is not necessarily obscene; and we must never mix up aesthetics with ethics. In the realm of literature and its appreciation we must be solely guided by aesthetics and we must refuse to be impressed by extraneous considerations of morality and immorality and its effect or impact on society. As literary. critics our duty ends when we appreciate the beauty of the literary creation and experience aesthetic rapture. To censor passages from books on grounds of morality or their evil influence on society is the job of law-courts. Viewed in this light the Devt-sambhoga-varṇana as portrayed by Kalidasa, gifted with divine creative imagination, would not appear improper and obscene.
Anandavardhana's approach to poetry or literature in general is two-fold: aesthetic and ethical. From the aesthetic point of view he passes the judgment that the breach of decorum in the poet's description of the sexual love between Siva and Parvati is covered up or concealed by the poet's genius. His view that there is a breach of decorum in such a description is based on an ethical approach to literature. The
9. Locana (Banaras edition with Balapriya commentary) pp.187-88

Page #157

Sanskrit Sahityaśästra
idea of breach of propriety however strikes the mind of the reader only subsequently and not while reading the description, as is made clear by Abhinavagupta in the context of 'rasābhāsa' :
औचित्येन प्रवृत्तौ चित्तवृत्तेरास्वाद्यत्वे स्थायिन्या रसो, व्यभिचारिण्या भाषः, अनौ चित्येन तदाभासः रावणस्येव सीतायां रतेः । यद्यपि तत्र हास्यरसरूपतैष, 'शुङ्गाराद्धि भवेद्वास्यः' इति वचनात् । तथापि पाश्चात्येयं सामाजिकानां स्थितिः, तन्मयीभवनदशायां तु रतेरेषास्वाद्यतेति शृङ्गारतैव भाति पौर्वापर्यविवेकावधीरणेन.......
-Locana pp. 78-79.
Since the notions of propriety and impropriety differ in different times and climes one should not give them undue importance in judging a work of art. Anandavardhana's aesthetic approach to poetry seems to have been ignored completely by later writers on poetics who emphatically denounce the Devisamboga-varṇana and are not prepared to accept his view that the fault is concealed by the poet's genius and artistic description.
145
Although adverse criticism is levelled against the 8th Canto by some of the alatkarikas as stated above it is greatly popular with them. Compared with any other canto of Kumarasambhava the quotations from its 8th Canto are the largest-numbering about 40 or so. The honour of quoting the largest number of verses from this Canto goes to Bhoja who quotes five verses in Sarasvarkanthabharaṇa and twenty-three verses in Sehgüraprakaia. Among others, Vāmana, Kuntaka, Ksemendra, Dhanika, Ruyyaka, and Hemacandra quote from this Canto to illustrate points of poetics. We may now take up some of these verses quoted by them and see for ourselves how very beautiful they are.
Dhanika in his commentary, called Avaloka, on Dhananjaya's Dasarupaka cites the following verse as an example of mugdha näyikā:
-व्याहृता प्रतिषचो न संदधे गन्तुमैच्छदवलम्बितांशुका ।
सेवते स्म शयनं पराङ्मुखी सा तथापि रतये पिनाकिनः || "
"Addressed she did not reply; when he held her garment she wished to free herself and go away; with her face averted (turned aside) she slept on the bed; yet nonetheless did she delight Siva." The timid shyness of the newly wedded bride and her lover's ruses (tricks) are deftly, delicately and delightfully drawn in this exceedingly beautiful verse.
Here is a very lovely verse which expresses rather less but suggests much more. Kuntaka, Bhoja and Hemacandra cite it in the context of Vrida:
दर्पणे च परिभोगदर्शिनी, पृष्ठतः प्रणयिनो निषेदुषः ।
ree fareng बिम्बमात्मनः कानि कानि न चकार लब्जया ||
10 Kumāra VIII 2
11 Kumāra VIII 11
19

Page #158

146
Studies in
"Observing in a mirror the outward marks of love's enjoyment (on her person) and at the same time seeing behind her own image that of her lover seated behind, what reactions did Pārvati not show out of her timid shyness ?”
Kuntaka quotes it to illustrate a variety of samyệtivakratā (beauty of concealment) by the use of pronouns. In this variety a very tender subject does not allow of any elaborate description of its actions or gestures but shines uniquely by the device of concealment. In this marvellous verse the poet uses the expression "kāni käni" to suggest the unique excellence of Pārvati's reactions. These reacrions are so varied and beyond words for the sudden awareness of her lover's presence when she was observing in the mirror the tooth-bites, nail-marks, etc., inflicted on her person by her lover in the course of love-sports, embarasses her greatly and adds to her timid shyness and nervousness. She bent her head, closed her eyes and did a number of other things to hide her sense of shyness and shame.
Incidentally, another verse illustrating the bashfulness of the inexperienced heroine, Pārvati, may be considered :
शूलिनः करतलद्वयेन सा संनिरुध्य नयने हृतांशुका । तस्य पश्यति ललाटलोचने मोघयत्नविधुरा रहस्यभूत् ॥12
"In private, with her garment taken off, she closed Siva's two eyes with her two palms; but, as his third eye on the forehead continued looking at her unclothed beauty, she had her efforts failed and she became absolutely helpless."
In this verse Kālidāsa beautifully portrays Pārvati's bashfulness and her feeble or vain efforts to prevent Siva from observing her nude beauty.
The poet of a Prākrit gātha depicts Pārvati facing a similar situation. He however shows how Pārvati (with cleverness natural to women) overcomes the embarassing, situation; the gäthä runs as follows:
TE-af-f67-f3i UT-ET-GE3--0T37UT-ETCH रुहस्स तइअ-णअणं पव्वइ-परिचुंबिअं जअइ ॥3 [ifa-afe-ea-faca--
f t-76-777-TUTTET I रुद्रस्य तृतीय-नयनं पार्वती-परिचुम्बितं जयति ॥]
"When Siva divests her of her garment during amorous sport, Pārvati (instinctively) closes Siva's pair of eyes with her two tender palms (and simultaneously) kisses his third eye (on the forehead) which really triumphs.”
The import of the gåtha is : Although in the present gäthä, the third eye is to be closed in common with the other two eyes and although as eye it is equal to the other two eyes, the third eye (of Lord Siva) alone is victorious in so far as it is closed with a kiss of Pārvati. The verb 'Jayati' (triumphs) in the gātha has a striking beauty which can be felt by sensitive readers : 'Blessed or fortunate indeed is the third eye as it was honoured with Pārvati's kiss and therefore is far superior to the other two eyes.
12 Kumāra VIII 7 13 Gāthā-sapta-sati V 75

Page #159

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
--147
Now, here is another lovely verse from the 8th Canto wherein Siva describes to Pārvati the young rays of the rising moon :
शक्यमोषधिपतेर्नवोदयाः कर्णपूररचनाकृते तव । अप्रगल्भ-यव-सूचि-कोमलाश्छेत्तुमग्रनखसंपुटैः कराः ।।
"It is possible to cut with the curved tips of the nails the young rays of the newly rising moon which are as soft as tender barley sprouts which might serve you as ear-ornaments".
In the Kävyālamkārasūtravịtti Vāmana quotes this verse in connection with a grammatical point, namely, the impersonal use of the word 'sakyam' (Karah cchettum sakyam) even when it differs in gender and number from the noun it qualifies. It is Kuntaka, however, who cites it in his Vakrokti-Jivita and brings out its unique poetic charm in his comments which deserve to be quoted in full :
अत्र रसपरिस्पन्दसौन्दर्यातिशयः समुभासते । तथा च नूतनोदयानां दर्शितसौकुमार्याणां. शशाङ्ककिरणानामन्यादृशः कोऽप्यतिशयः संप्रति समुज्जम्भते, येनात्यर्थकपोलकर्णालकसंपर्कश्लाघनीयां कर्णपूररचनाविच्छित्तिमहतीति पार्वतीपतिः प्रियायाः प्रतिपादयस्तद्वदनेन्दुसौन्दर्यदर्शनेन तत्कालोदितशशाङ्ककरावलोकनेन च रसोच्च (? च्छ) लितचित्तवृत्तिः प्रतीयते ।।5
Here the charm of the rising sentiment shines exquisitely. The rays of the rising moon in all their freshness and delicateness are wonderfully invested with extra-ordinary beauty. The Lord of Parvati (Siva) informs his beloved (Parvati) that the moonrays thereby deserve to serve as ear-ornaments and enjoy the rare privilege of contact with her lovely cheeks, ears, and curly hair. This description suggests how Siva is over-whelmed by love at the sight of Pārvati's lovely moon-face and the tender rays of the rising moon simultaneously.
Here is another verse of supreme beauty which is often quoted by Vamana, Kuntaka, Bhoja, Ruyyaka and Hemacandra in their Alamkara works ::... . • अगुलिभिरिव केशसंचय संनिगृह्यतिमिरं मरीचिभिः। ..... .
कुइमलीकृतसरोजलोचनं चुम्बतीव रजनीमुखं शशी ॥16
"Having collected darkness with his rays like a mass of hair with fingers the moon is, as it were, kissing the mouth (face) of the night wherein the lotus-eyes have been closed."
Vāmana cites it as an example of Utprekşåvayava.17 Kuntaka quotes it as an instance of Rasavad alamkāra with Upamārūpaka and Sleșa and adds that the utpreksā contained in the line 'Cumbativa rajani-mukham sasi' should here be regarded as
14 Kumara VIII. 62 15 Vakrokti-Jivita III. 34, v no. 125 p. 194 16 Kumara VIII 63. 17 Kavyālamkarasatras (under IV. 3.32)

Page #160

148
Studies in
the major figure of speech (viz., rasavadalamkāra).18 Bhoja cites it to show that the so-called 'utprekşāvayava' figure is not different from utprekşā.19 Ruyyaka cites it as an example of angāngi-bhāyasankara' of the figures ‘upamā', 'śleşamülā atiśayokti' and 'utprekşa'.20 Hemacandra quotes it to illustrate :
fataheit: A ET-aty TETTTTTTGL Fut : 121
The behaviour of a hero and his heroine is attributed to Candramas-the moon and his beloved Niśā (Night). Siva by this description suggests his own keen desire to kiss Pārvati.
In this Canto Kālidāsa describes according to the principles of the Kāma-śästra the amour of Siva and Pārvati and cleverly suggests to his intelligent readers that the amorous sports of the divine pair would in course of time lead to the Birth of Kumāra (Kumāra-Sambhava). The different pictures of Pārvali as mugdha and madhya and pragalbhā näyikå are very charming, so too Siva's description of the sunset, the night-fall and the moon-rise is very charming.
This canto may well be described as 'Sastra-Kavya' as it concerns itself with love and the art of love and presents the principles of erotics in a very attractive and poetic garb.
Finally Dharma (Duty) Artha (Wealth) and Käma (Love) are the three recognised aims of human life, and all the three are equally important. Naturally, the delights of married life have an important place in our life : There is nothing abhorrent to taste if they are beautifully, poetically and appropriately portrayed in literature. On the contrary such descriptions are a great source of beauty and have aesthetic appeal to sensitive readers. It would, therefore, be only apt to regard this Canto to be a crowning and glorious achievement of Kālidāsa's poetic art.
I would like to conclude this paper with the following verse of Mallinātha, who pays a very handsome tribute to Kālidāsa for his 'dhvani-gabhira kävya (poetry pregnant with rich suggestion) :
कालिदासगिरां सारं कालिदासः सरस्वती । चतुर्मुखोऽथवा साक्षाद् विदुर्नान्ये तु मावृशाः ॥
18 Vakrokti-Jivita, III 16v. 69. 19 Sarasvatīkaņķhābharaṇa NS ed. p. 468 20 Almkārasarvasva, NS ed. p. 248. 21 Kavyānušāsana (p. 148)

Page #161

13
THE SOURCES OF HEMACANDRA'S KĀVYĀNUŚĀSANA
Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana is a very fine text-book on Alamkāra-śāstra. It is remarkable for its free use of the illustrious Alamkāra works that preceded it, as well as for its wealth of illustrations. It is admittedly a lucid compendium of the subject of poetics as developed by previous writers, most prominent of them being Bharata, Dandi, Vāmana, Rudraga, Rājasekhara (KM), Kuntaka, Abhinavagupta (Abh. and Locana), Dhanañjaya-Dhanika, Mahimabhafta, Bhoja (SK and ŚP), Kșemendra, Mammata and Rucaka or Ruyyaka (Samketa). The following table would give the reader a very good idea of the principal sources utilized by Hemacandra in the preparation of his Kāvyānušāsana :
.-Abhyasa
Subject Kävyānušāsana'
'Principal Source Sources Kävyaprayojana
Ch. I (pp. 3-6) KP I. pp. 6-10; RS p. 1;
Locana I pp. 40-41 Kávyakāraņa
(pp 7–33) - Pratibhā
-pp. 5–6
KM IV. pp. 12–13 -Vyutpatti
-pp. 7-13
Vāmana. 1-3; KM VIII (pp.35-41)
and Kavik-V. (pp. 17-20) pp. 13-14
Vāmana 1-3 ---Sikşá - Kavisamaya
pp. 14-33
KM-XI-XIV -Sabdārtha-harana Kāvya-svarūpa
pp. 33-42
KP. I. p. 13, p. 263, pp. 462-465, pp. 470-472 Dhv. and Locana
pp. 223-234 Sabdartha-svarūpa
pp. 42-87
Dhy. and Locana pp. 74, 78, 137139, 167-169, 255-257, 271-276,
351-356
(pp. 47–57) SP. VII (pp. 245-250) In his Sr. Pra. (p. 708) Dr. Raghayan observes :
"Not only the Gāthās and Sanskrt verses given as illustrations by Bhoja, but Bhoja's comments thereon are also reproduced completely by Hemacandra in his Kāvyānusāsana.... These six conditions (Abhinaya, Apadeśa, etc.,) and their illustrations are reproduced from the Sr. Pra.”
pp. 65-66
KP. V. (pp. 223-256) Rasalakşaņa
Ch. II (pp. 88-105)
pp. 88-89 KP. IV-pp. 91-95 -pp. 89-105 Abh.-(Vol. I) pp. 272-287

Page #162

150
Studies in
Rasabhedas
(pp. 106–124) Abh. (Vol. I) pp. 267, 304,
306-307, 314, 315, 324–326, 328, 329 330, 333-339.
Dhv. and Locana pp. 391–394 Sthāyibhāvas
pp. 124–126 NS. VII and Abh. (Vol. I)
pp. 282–283 : Vyabhicāri-bhāvas
pp. 126-144 NS. VII and SK (V) and DR.
(IV) with Avaloka Sättvikabhāvas
pp. 144-147
NS. VII and SK. (V) Rasābhāsa and Bhāvābhāsa pp. 147-150
Abh. (Vol. I) pp. 295–296; SK. (V) Kāvyabhedas
pp. 150–158 Dhv. and Locana (II) pp. 261,
263-264, 282-283, 495 KP. V
vv. 120 etc. Dosa-Vivecana
Ch. III (pp. 159-273) - Doşalaksana
(pp. 159-161) CP. Dhv. and Locana (pp. 80
83) KP. VII. w. 321, 327, 330 -Rasādi-dosas
(pp. 161-168) Dhv. III (pp. 365-401) and
KP. VII (pp. 450-460)
DR. IV (p. 91) and Avaloka - Rasadosas
(pp. 169-199) Dhv. III (pp. 361-364)
Locana (pp. 342, 344) :
KP. VII. 60-62 (pp. 433-445) (pp. 173-176) KM. (pp. 42–44), NS XVIII.98-99 (pp. 179–198) KM. XVII & XVIII
(pp. 89-112) - Pada-dosas
(pp. 199–201) SK I. 93 VV 126-127
KP. VII. V. 202 - Vākyadoșas
(pp. 201-226) Vāmana II. ii, SK. I,
VV. II. KP. VII and X... -Ubhayadosas (pp. 226–261) Vāmana II. i, Dhv. (II) &
Locana
VV. II; KP. VII Artha-dosas
(pp. 261–273) Vāmana. II. ii; SK I
VV. II; KP. VII Dr. Raghavan's remarks on Hemcandra's treatment of Doșas are very apposite : “.... Chapter III of Hemacandra's Kāvāj, uśāsana is almost identical with chapter VII of Mammata's Kāvyaprakāśa. The number, nature and the illustrations of all the flaws are the same in the two books. In Hemacandra's own commentary on his work, Hemacandra has given additional matter drawn from Anandavardhana and Mahimabhafta under the heads of Rasadosas, Avimpsta-vidheya and Prakrama and Krama Bhangas.” (Sp. Pra. p. 246)

Page #163

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
151
Guņavivecana
Ch. IV (pp. 274-294) Mainly based on NS.
XVII, KD; Vāmana;
and KP. (VIII) Dr. Raghavan's observations on Hemacandra's treatment of Guņas are very pertinent: "On Guņas Hemacandra is a follower of Anandavardhana and he draws upon Mammata and probably from Rājasekhara also... As regards the three Guņas, Hemacandra considers that Mādhurya is of the highest degree in Vipralambha, a little less in Karuna and still less in Sānta. T7EUTSag agri | “This is one of the views recorded later by Jagannātha...” .
Hemacandra's treatment of Guņas is noteworthy for his "reference to strange views on Guņas". One view holds that Ojas, Prasāda, Madhurya, Sāmya and Audārya are the five Guņas (in the sense of Pāgha-dharmas). The other view is these five Guņas belong to certain metres. Hemacandra criticises both.
Subject
Kävyānuśasana'
'Principal Source/Sources'
Sabdālamkāra-varṇana
Ch. V (pp. 295–338)
-pp. 298-314
Mainly based on the NS. XVII, KD, Rudrata, Deviśataka with Kayyafa's commentary; SK II and the KP (VIII, X) IX Rudrata, Devisataka, Kayyata's commentary, KD, Bhāravi Rudrata (IV, V) and Deviếataka, Kayyafa's commentary NS XVII & Abh. (Vol. II) (pp. 385-392)
-pp. 314-332
-pp. 333–337
Arthālamkāra-Varnana
Ch VI (pp. 339–405)
Mainly based on the works of Udbhata, Rudrata, Kuntaka, Mammata and to some extent on the SK and Locana
Nāyakādi-Varnana
· Ch VII (pp. 406-431)
Mainly based on the NS XXII and the Abh. (Vol. III) DR (II) and Avaloka and a few verses from SK.
PrabandhātmakaKävyabheda
Ch VIII (pp. 432-466) -pp. 432–455
Mainly based on the NS XVIII and the Abh. and SP (XI) Kävyakautuka, the NS XXIII and Abh. (on NS IV. 268) ŚP XI (pp. 469-480)
---pp. 455-466

Page #164

152
Studies in
"The treatment of Sravya-Kāvya in the VIIIth Chapter of the Kāvyānuśāsana is completely a reproduction of the section on Gunas and Alamkāras of Prabandha as a whole and the definitions with examples of the types of Sravya-Kavya given by Bhoja in Chapters XI and XII of the Sr. Pra." (Dr. Raghavan, Sr. Pra. p. 709). It is not clear why Dr Raghavan mentions Chapter XII as Hemacandra's source for his treatment of Sravyakāvya. Chapter XIL “is devoted to the study of the structure and technique of drama" and has very little to do with Sravya-Kāvya. The reader is referred to Sr. Pra. pp. 403-404 where Dr. Raghavan critically examines and appreciates Hemacandra's treatment of Sravya-Kävya.
p. 1
p. 40 p. 8
p. 74
p. 70
(Hemacandra and Rucaka : Note : Only a few identical passages are indicated below to prove Hemiacandra's
indebtedness to Rucaka or Ruyyaka) : Hemacandra
Rucaka p. 5 (11 1-3) p. 77 (11 11-13, 1 22)
p. 31 p. 154 (11 19-23) p. 155 (1 12) p. 178 (1 18)
p. 52 p. 225 (11 27-28) . p. 231 (11 6-8, 11 16-18)
p. 46 p. 238 (11 22–25)
p. 47 p. 274 (1 7) 275 (1 8)
pp. 204–205 p. 376 (11 9-11) p. 388 (1 20)
p. 69 p. 389 (11 2-6)
It is rarely that Hemacandra mentions his sources by name;1 but on many occasions when he happens to adopt even very long passages in either prose or verse from his predecessors' works, he does not care to indicate their sources. A few long passages in the Viveka, although not found in any of the source-books mentioned above, do not appear, by virtue of their language and style, to be Hemacandra's. In many places we come across the expression 'Vayam tu brūmah or similar ones, which lead us to believe that the views prefaced with these expressions are Hema
1. For instance,....iti Srimānabhinavaguptācāryaḥ (p. 103). 2. In regard to Hemacandra's source, the KM., it is sometimes argued that "The reason of not
mentioning the name of Rajasekhara here might be that, in the view of Hemacandra, Rajasekhara also might have taken this matter from some other author." This argument in defence of Hemacandra, if accepted as valid, would lead to disastrous conclusions. For by this reasoning all those excerpts from Mahimabhatta, Abhinavagupta, Kayyața and others would have to be considered as not their own-a conclusion which, on the very face of it, is absurd.
For instance, p. 155 (1.24)—156 (11 10-24); pp. 164 (1 24) 166. 4. For example, p. 110 (1. 24), p. 183 (1. 22), p. 217 (1, 23), p. 337 (1. 13). 5. To wit : p. 176 (II. 20-21), p. 178 (I. 14), p. 220 (last line).
p. 63

Page #165

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
153
candra's own, but the fact is that in many cases at least, Hemacandra only repeats his masters' views faithfully in their own words. There are scores and scores of passages, some of them pretty long, common to Someśvara's Samketa and Hemacandra's KS. R.C. Parikho holds that Hemacandra borrows these passages from Someśvara. I have shown in my paper published in the Bulletin of the Chunilal Gandhi Vidyabhavan, Surat (1961-62) that probably the borrowing is the other way.In view of the uncertainty of the mutual relation between Hem acandra and Someśvara it will only be right to leave out Someśvara's Samketa while considering the present problem. Parikh® and Dhruva consider Hemacandra's KS to be unique in that it brings for the first time, Poetics and Dramatics within the compass of a single work. The work of Hemacandra, however, is not the first of its kind. Hemacandra takes the lead from Bhoja's SP which treats of both Poetics and Dramatics. 10 The method of noting the sources of the illustrative verses and quotations in the KS adopted by the editor of the SMJV edition, although unexceptionable, is apt to lead one to believe that Hemacandra has drawn them directly from original sources but it is evident that in most cases Hemacandra has drawn them indirectly through the sources utilized by him in writing the KS.
It is clear from what has been said above that Hemacandra's work does not constitute an original contribution to the subject. It is, however, not quite correct to describe the Kāvyānuśāsana as a compilation exhibiting hardly any originality as Kane11 does or to charge Hemacandra of plagiarism as Del2 does. Instead of briefly summarising or paraphrasing or describing in his own language the theories and doctrines of his predecessors too illustrious to be mentioned by name, if Hemacandra preferred to present them in their original form we need not find fault with him. Besides we cannot forget the fact that his writing was of a scientific nature and in scientific books such quotations are justified. We will only be betraying poverty of our imagination and scant respect for Hemacandra's intelligence if we were to insinuate that Hemacandra pretended that all the passages and excerpts which he quoted would pass as his own. The truth of the matter is that Hemacandra regards the
6. Kāvyaprakāśa (Part II), Rajasthāna Purātana Granthamālā, No. 47, Jodhpur. 7. In addition to the arguments set forth in my paper in favour of my thesis the following one
may be stated : the treatment of Sravya type of literature in the KS (and Someśvara's Samketa) is clearly based on Bhoja's SP (XI. pp. 469-480). The SP, however, does not mention Sakalakathā. Since Hemacandra adds its definition and example (the Samarādityakathā, a Jaina work) and Somesvara omits this example, it is reasonable to hold that Someśvara bor
rows not directly from Bhoja but from Hemacandra. 8. Introduction to Kāvyānuśäsana (p. CCC XXV) 9. Foreword to Kāvyānuśāsana (p. 10) 10. Bhoja's Śrngāraprakāśa by V. Raghavan : Detailed Notice of the Contents (Ch. V) 11. History of Sanskrit Poetics (1961 ed.), pp. 288-89.
12. Studies in the History of Sanskrit poetics Vol. I (P. 203) 20 .

Page #166

154
Studies in
Hemacandra
masterpieces of his predecessors as the property of the entire world. is a man of 'pratibha' but his 'pratibha' is more of the 'bhavayitri' and less of the 'Karayitri' type. His capacity to select choicest excerpts from his authorities and to organize them into a homogeneous and organic whole is supreme. Moreover, Hemacandra shows independence of thought and judgment in good many places, refusing to follow blindly his acknowledged authorities. To wit, he rejects, and on logical grounds too, three of the six Kavyaprayojanas given by Mammata (pp. 5-6); he differs with Mukulabhatta and Mammata for he holds that Lakṣaṇā is based on Prayojana alone and not on Rudhi or Prayojana (p. 46). He differs with Mammata (p. 146) as he rejects Ubhayasaktimula-dhvani' (p. 68). He rightly rejects the threefold classification of 'artha' into svaṭaḥ sambhavi, Kaviprauḍhoktimätraniṣpanna-sarirah and Kavinibaddhavaktṛpraudhoktimätraniṣpannasarirab as found in the Dhv. (pp. 72-73) and the KP. (IV. 39-40). Hemacandra criticises Dhanika for describing Jimutavahana as Dhirodätta (vide KS p. 123 II 19-21 and DR II. p. 37). If Mammata speaks of the eight kinds of Madhyama-kävya, Hemacandra holds that there are only three kinds of it (pp. 152-157). He seems to be hitting at Mammata when he remarks: "Etena nirvedasyamangalaprayatve' pi...tat pratikṣiptam" (p. 121 II. 9-10). He differs with Mammața when he remarks "Ayam bhavaḥ-Yathānyaiḥ pratikülavarnalakṣano Dosa uktaḥ..tasya (p. 290 II. 19-20). His treatment of the topic of Gunas (Ch. IV) is indeed remarkable, for its presentation and style invariably reminds us of Rajasekhara's KM. Although Hemacandra takes his cue from Kuntaka and his reasoning in reducing the number of Arthälamkäras is not always satisfactory nor convincing, the fact remains that his treatment of this topic is, to a good extent, novel. In a few places we find him compiling passages from different sources skilfully into one organic whole-adding his own remarks in between. In this connection we may point to Viveka pp. 203-4, (I. 13-30) where he combines passages from the Vyaktiviveka and the Vakroktijivita, or Viveka p. 362 (I. 10 to p. 364) where he combines the vṛtti of the Dhv. and Locana adding his own remarks in between..
It would, therefore, seem that the criticism against Hemacandra's KS is not fair. It would be more correct to describe the KS as a good text-book lucidly setting forth various topics of Alamkärasästra in the very words of the masters and serving as a good introduction to the study of the well known authorities.14
13. Vide Hemacandra's remarks at the opening of his Pramaņamimamsa; he unambiguously and emphatically states; Anadaya evaita vidyaḥ samkṣepa-vistara-vivakṣaya navanavibhavanti, tattatkartykäśca ucyante." It is interesting to note that even this statement of Hemacandra is based on Jayanta's Nyayamañjari (p. 1 and 5)
14. The reader is referred to Shivaprasad Bhattacharya's Faper Hemacardia ard the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists"in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, Vol. XXIII 1957 No. 1

Page #167

14
SOME ASPECTS OF PRAKRIT VERSES IN ALAMKARA WORKS
Mention of Prakrit Literature in Alahkara Works
Bhamaha speaks of three literatures: Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhramsa. Dandi speaks of four by adding Miśra to Bhamaha's list. Rudrața alludes to six: 1. Prakrit, 2. Sanskrit, 3. Magadhi, 4. Paisaci, 5. Suraseni (-Sauraseni) and 6. Apabhramsa. Rudrata quotes some of his own Prakrit verses in his Kavyalamkära. It is Anandavardhana who, for the first time sets the tradition of freely quoting Prakrit verses. He quotes some 45, a few of his own composition and others from well-known works, to illustrate various types of Dhvani, Alamkäras, etc. Abhinavagupta, his celebrated commentator follows his lead in his Locana. Dhanika, the well-known commentator of Dasar paką quotes some 26 Prakrit verses in his Avaloka. The distinction of quoting hundreds of Prakrit verses, in his Sarasvartkanthabharaṇa and Sṛngaraprakāka, however, goes to Bhoja. The first work contains over 350 Prakrit verses; and the second work over 1650 Prakrit verses. Among other reputed Alamkarikas, we find Kuntaka, Mahimabhatta. Mammata, Ruyyaka, and his commentator, Jayaratha, Hemacandra, Sobhakara and Viśvanatha quote 15, 28, 64, 15, 38, 80, 163, and 23 Prakrit verses respectively. Some of these are reproduced from Dhvanyaloka and Locana. A large. number of verses cited by Bhoja in his two treatises are repetitions.
No Separate Work on Prakrit poetics
The Prakrit citations in such a large number in Sanskrit works on poetics calls for an explanation which is not far to seek. Notwithstanding the difference in language
1. Kavyalamkara I. 16.
2. Kavyadarśa 1.32.
3. Kavyalamkara II. 11-12.
4. Kavyalamkara IV. 11-15, 17-21.
5. Dhvanyaloka.
6. Bhoja's classification of Prakrit and Apabhra mśa languages is unique. It may be shown in a tabular form as follows :
Sahaja
11 Sanskrit-Sama
Uttama
|2 Desya
Prakrit
Lakṣita
| 3 Mähäräṣṭra
14 Saurasena
Apabhramsa
Madhyama
1 Avantya
Latiya (etc.)
Abhira Gaurjara (etc.) Kāśmira All these varieties are duly illustrated.
| 5 Paiśāca
Ślista
16 Magadha
Kanistha I
Paurastya (etc.)

Page #168

156
Studies in
the Alamkārikas made no difference between Sanskrit and Prakrit literatures. They appreciated both. Some of them wrote in both. The norms laid down in their works were equally applicable to both and, indeed, till recently to literatures even in our modern languages. Even a scholar like Hemacandra, who has to his credit books on Prakrit grammar and prosody did not feel the necessity of preparing a treatise on Prakrit poetics. The fact, however, remains that the Sanskrit critical thought took little or no note of some of the interesting and peculiar aspects of the vast and varied Prakrit literature. The Alamkārikas, generally speaking, contented themselves merely with quoting Prakrit passages for illustrative purposes or alluding to certain works for illustrating types of composition. Corrupt Text :
The Prakrit text of many verses, is, in many places, corrupt or shows small or big gaps and in some cases it is so hopelessly corrupt that it becomes unintelligibie. In many cases the exact context from which they are drawn is not known and consequently they remain obscure. As the Prakrit text is carelessly transcribed in the Manuscripts, it falls to the editors of these works to present these Prakrit verses as correctly as possible, by tracing them to their sources or by referring to other works on Alamkāra, Grammar or Prosody wherever they are quoted. One must concede, however, that in spite of the best of efforts on the part of editors some verses still remain obscure, as their sources are irretrievably lost and they are not cited elsewhere. Dr. Weber has edited about 35 Gāthās from the works on Sanskrit poetics and incorporated them, by way of an Appendix., in his critical edition of Gāthāsaptašati : Ubet dap Sapta Satakam des Hala. Dr. AM. Ghatage has corrected some six Prakrit verses in the footnotes to his article on Māhārāsţii Language and Literature. Dr. A. N. Upadhye has corrected one very obscure Apabhramśa verse from Dhanika's Avaloka on Dasarūpaka which correction is incorporated by T. Venkatacharya in his paper entitled 'An Appraisal of the Hindi Daśarūpaka' in Journal, University of Gauhati XI : Arts. A considerable number of Prakrit verses I could correct by tracing them to their sources or through comparisons. A few of them are referred to here.
The passage "Apape......anurāo" in Sạngāraprakāśa Vol. I, p. 120 has been considered very corrupt. The significant, word 'Aņurāo' and the word 'Āśyāsaka' following this passage in the text led me to seek the source of these two verses in Setubandha and I succeeded in tracing the two verses as Setubandha IX. 1 and IX. 96 respectively.
The passage “Devaditi luņāhi.....gumariphellaparanya" (?) in Locana on Dhvanyāloka I. 16 has been considered extremely corrupt and absolutely unintelligible. The commentator "Bālapriyākāra” confesses his inability to rostore the original passage. I came across a corresponding passage in Abhinavabhūraii (Vol. 1, Ch. VI, p. 305) which reads "Vardhate" luņāhi..... Landhā". This too is absolutely corrupt. Parisistam 11to the Volume (p. 383) notes : Dhvanyālokalocanasya tālapatradarse. ....

Page #169

Sanskrit Sahityasastra
"Paluddisi..dolvapaitthä (?)" This, too, proved of little use in tracing the original verse. Someśvara's Sanketa on Kavyaprakasa (II-14, p. 24) quotes part of the rele vant passage from Locana wherein the Apabhramhsa verse occurs and correctly presents one half of the verse: "Lavanņujjilangu ghari dhollu paittha." The whole verse, however, is for the first time cited correctly in Kalpa-latäviveka (p. 123, 11 26-27) as follows:
Divadi tellu nähi palu drammi gamitṭhā | Lavanņujjalangu ghari Dhollu paitha
[Sanskrit Chāyā:
Dipake tailath nästi palam dramam gaveşitam | Lavanyojjvalängo grhe priyatamaḥ pravistab
]
One more passage from Locana may be cited here in this connection. Locana (p. 176) reads :
"Osuru Sumthi....tena u"
The text of the first quarter of this Apabhramsa verse is obviously corrupt. Kalpalataviveka (p. 127, 1.17) records the pratika of this verse as "Usurusumbhiyãe." Desināmamālā explains "Usumbhiyam tatha Usurusumbhiyam ruddhagalamh codanamh." In the light of these two relevant and useful suggestions the verse could be restored
as:
Usurusumbhiyãe muhu cumbiu jena | Amiarasaghontaņu padijānju teņa |
157
[Sanskrit Chāyā:
Ruddhagalam rudatyāḥ mukham cumbitam yena | Amṛtarasaghotanam parijñātam tena ]
A part of the Chaya given by the commentator, viz., 'Irsyaśṛusobhitaya' is inaccurate.
Lost Prakrit Works
My efforts to trace the Prakrit verses to their sources have met with considerable success. Some verses still remain untraced. This is mainly due to the loss of some source books, like Sarvasena's Harivijaya, Ravaṇavijaya, Anandavardhana's Vişamabāṇalilā, Vākpati's Maahumathavijaya, Caturmukha's Abdhimathana, Maricavadha, etc. Available Prakrit Sources
Dr. Raghavan observes in his Magnum opus (Bhoja's Srngaraprakāśa, p. 822): "Almost all the Gathas of the Saptasatt seem to be quoted by him and a considerable number of the Gathas of the Lilavati also seem to be quoted in the Śr Pra."
7. Dr. A.M. Ghatge: Mahārāṣṭri Language and Literature (pp. 19:71) in the Journal of the University of Bombay, Vol. IV (Part 6), May-1936.
Dr. V. Raghavan Bhoja's Sṛngaraprak asa, (pp. 818-825).
I intend to bring out "Prakrit Verses in Alamkara Literature: A Critical Edition" in the near future.

Page #170

158
Studies in
Gathasaptasatt is immensely popular with the Alamkarikas as most of them from Anandavardhana onwards quote it. Bhoja amongst them all quotes it profusely. But his statement that "a considerable number of the Gathas of the Lilavat also seem to be quoted in the Sr. Pra." does not stand scrutiny. We find only a few gathās cited from Lilavatt by way of illustrations. Next in popularity stands Pravarasena's Setubandha, also styled Ravanavaho. Among other works drawn on are: Vajjalagga, Galḍavaho, Karpuramañjarī, and Balarāmāyaṇa. A few stray verses are cited which are the composition of Dhanika, Bhaffendurāja," and Abhinavagupta. It is difficult to say whether these verses are Muktakas or cited from some Prakrit works which are now lost.
Principal theme and Governing sentiments
Some of the verses contain maxims and popular sayings; some, especially from Setubandha deal with nature and heroism. A majority of them, however, deal with love and the contents of these verses are highly erotic. This preference for the theme of love and the sentiment of eroticism should be easy to understand on psychological grounds Lovell is the most dominant of all feelings, and is easily within the experience of one and all. The erotic12 sentiment is the most charming of all sentiments and because of its tremendous popularity is regarded the prince of all sentiments. Anandavardhana was fully conversant with human psychology, so well expressed by
Bhamaha -
Svādukavyatasonmiśram Sastranapyupayuñjate |
Prathamaliḍhamadhavaḥ pibanti katu bheṣajam ||
He, therefore, almost laid it down as a theory14 that with a view to winning the attention of people or investing the work with charm, other Rasas, although opposed to the erotic sentiment, should be touched up with it-for it has the power to delight the minds of one and all. Unless instruction in Sastras is alloyed with erotic sentiment, it does not become appealing to popular taste.
8. Avaloka, p. 52, p. 54,
9. Locana, p. 499.
10. Locana p. 535.
11. तंत्र कामस्य सफल जातिमुलभत यात्यन्तपरिचितरखेन सर्वान् प्रति हृद्यता ।
Abhinavabharati, Vol. I, p. 267.
. भावान्तरेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यो रतिभावः प्रकृष्यते ।
12. शृङ्गाररसो हि संसारिणां नियमेनानुभवविषयत्वात् सर्वर सेभ्यः कमनीयतया प्रधानभूतः ।
14. विनेयानुन्मुखीकर्तुं काव्यशोभार्थमेव वा । तद्विरुद्धरसस्पर्शस्तदङ्गानां न दुष्यति ॥
Srigaraprakasa XIII, p. 565.
--Dhvanyaloka III, p. 397.
13. Cf. the famous Guḍajihvika-nyaya-The maxim of the tongue (smeared) with treacle'.
-Dhvanyaloka, III. 30.

Page #171

Sanskrit Sähityaśāstra
159
He quotes an example where the Sānta sentiment which is predominant is touched up by the sentiment of Sțngära though the two are, obviously, not complimentary to each other.15 Keeping in mind this aspect of human psychology Anandavardhana chose to illustrate the various points in Alamkāra Šāstra with the help of erotic examples; and his lead is enthusiastically followed by later Ālamkārikas. Are Prakrit Verses Obscene ?
In some quarters it is alleged that the Alamkārikas cite Prakrit verses, which are full of obscenity and which glorify illicit love, as illustrations because the obscenity remains hidden under the garb of the Prakrit language. This allegation deserves consideration. In the classical period there was no compartmentalisation or bifurcation of studies into Sanskrit and Prakrit. The long standing practice of writing dramas in Sanskrit and Prakrit will easily bear this statement out. Again, men like Anandavardhana could write both in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Eminent Sanskrit writers like Dandi Bāņa, Kuntaka have paid ungrudgingly and unreservedly handsome tributes to Sātavāhana and Pravarasena for their Prakrit works. This fact corroborates the statement that there was integration of Sanskrit and Prakrit Studies. Naturally, the Alamkārikas appreciated first-rate Prakrit works and freely drew upon them for illustrations in their Alamkāra works. It is, therefore, nothing but an insult to these Ālamkārikas to allege that they quoted Prakrit verses with an ulterior motive.
Now let us examine the charge of obscenity against the Prakrit verses. Traditionally, poetry has been condemned on three grounds (i) it is full of lies (ii) it offers wrong advice and encourages immorality and (iii) it is full of obscenity. These objections have been refuted by Rājasekhara in his Kāvyamimāṁsā16. His defence of obscenity in literature is, however, not very convincing. To say “Because the Vedas and the Sāstras contain obscene matter one should not take exception to obscenity in literature" is not at all logical.
The Ālankārikas have defined in their works what constitutes the fault of obscenity. .Use of words which give rise to feelings of shame, of disgust or convey the sense of inauspiciousness-such words are taboo in cultured and polite society-is condemned by them as obscene. They have, with their sharp intellect, recorded and denounced as obscene even particular combination of letters giving rise to words meaning the names of the private parts of the human body. So there is no question of defending obscenity.
These Prakrit verses fall into two groups : Those which are highly erotic and those which portray illicit or clandestine or adulterous love. We must clearly distinguish between the erotic and the obscene. The writings of great poets, both Sanskrit
15. HON HARAT TAT: HET I frat: 1 ..किन्तु मत्ताङ्गनापाङ्गभङ्गलोलं हि जीवितम् ।।
-Dhvanyaloka III. 30-31. 16. Kāvyamimāṁsā (GOS edition, 1934) Ch. VI, pp. 24-28.

Page #172

160
Studies in
and Prakrit, are highly erotic and artistic. To brand them obscene, as impatient critics of Prakrit verses do, would mean putting these great works out of the reach of the sensitive Sahşdayas. We must not be carried away by highly erotic descriptions and mistake the highly erotic for the obscene.
Indian tradition treats the joys of love and the relations between the two sexes in a frank manner. The explanation for the citing of the second group of verses could be given as follows : “17The height of pure love is said to exist in relations with other men's wives or unmarried girls." Naturally, poets, Sanskrit, as well as Prakrit, composed verses portraying 'Caurya-rata' and the Alamkārikas quoted such verses as specimens of Dhvanıkāvya refusing to be impressed by considerations of morality. This explanation may be rest i ted in modern language in a slightly different way thus :
Sanskrit Ālamkārikas show a very sensitive understanding of the aesthetics. Their approach to it is strictly a-moral. What they object to is not immorality but whatever is bad in aesthetic taste. To their minds eroticism was not bad in taste; aesthetically it was most appealing to them.
It seems in later years aesthetics and ethics came to be confused and what was purely aesthetic came to be condemned as unethical. However, it must be said to the credit of the Alamkārikas that their analytical minds made a subtle distinction, between the good and the bad taste and between the aesthetic and the ethic. We must not forget the fact that they were primarly the students of language and as 17. (i) सुलभामवमन्यते दुर्लभामाकाङ्क्षत इति प्रायोवादः ।
-Kamasutra 5.1.40. (ii) यद्वामाभिनिवेशित्वं यतश्च विनिवार्यते । दुर्लभत्वं यतो नार्याः कामिनः सा परा रतिः ॥
- Nāțyaśāstra XXII. 207. (iii) तत् खलु सुरतं सुरतं कृच्छ्रप्राप्यं यदन्यनारीषु ।
-Kuttanimata, v. 812, cd. (iv) परस्त्रीगमनोपायः कविभिर्नोपदिश्यते ।
सुन्दर' किंतु काव्याङ्गमेतत्तन निदर्श्यते ॥ . वामता दुर्लभवं च स्त्रीणां या च निवारणा । तदेव पञ्चबाणस्य मन्ये परममायुधम् ॥
-Rudrata : Srigāratilaka II. 29-30. (v) यत्र निषेधविशेषः सुदुर्लभत्वं च यन्मृगाक्षीणाम् । ___तत्रैव नागराणां निर्भरमासज्यते हृदयम् ।
-Visnugupta Samhita. (vi) शुद्धस्नेहनिबन्धा परवधूः पुण्यैः परैः प्राप्यते ।
--Subhāṣitāvali (vii) स्वदारादौ हि धर्मस्याप्यनुप्रवेशेन केवलस्यैव कामस्य फलहेतुभावो न स्यात् ।
-Natya-darpapa

Page #173

Sanskrit Sahityasastra
161
such concentrated on the study of the language patterns in poetry; they seem to have highly disciplined minds. When they quote an erotic verse as an illustration of a certain point in poetics they dwell precisely on that aspect of the verse. It is interesting to note that their minds do not care to notice the sensations such verses might produce in ethical contexts.
Finally, we must not lose sight of the great truth so beautifully expressed by 18 Dhanamjaya :
"There is nothing in this world a poetic mind cannot appreciate-may it be beautiful or disgusting, great or mean, terrifying or pleasing, incomprehensible or perverse (? obvious) real or fictitious”.
In other words, life in all its aspects has a place in literature. It is for the poet to present it in a beautiful form.
18. i guHTEETH fta
मुग्रं प्रसादि गहनं विकृतं (? विवृत) च वस्तु । यद्वाप्यवस्तु कविभावकभाव्यमानं तन्नास्ति यन्न रसभावमुपैति लोके ॥
. . -Dasar Upaka IV. 85,

Page #174

15 THE HARI-VIJAYA OF SARVASENA
Anandavardhana and Bhoja quote from a number of Prakrit works, some of which are now lost. Harivijaya is one of them. In his Srågäraprakāśa (SP) Bhoja mentions in one breath three Prakrit mahākāvyas : Rāvana-vijaya (RV), Harivijaya (HV) and Setubandha (SB), composed in āśvāsakas in the skandhaka metre. Of these three works, SB is completely available but the other two appear to be completely lost. It is indeed a pity we have only one verse from RV preserved to us in the form of a quotation in SP. We are a little more fortunate to have at least twentytwo verses which we can definitely ascribe to HV on the strength of their contents and/or on the basis of clear references by Anandavardhana and Bhoja. There are many more verses in SP and quite a few in Sarasvatikanthäbharana (SK) which are in Māhāsāstri Prakrit and are composed in the skandhaka metre. As they are not found in SB, they may have been drawn from RV or HV, most probably from HV, the model of SB. In the present paper first we treat of such verses as can be ascribed to HV and then list the verses which are probably drawn from it.
The author of RV is unknown and we know next to nothing regarding his age. Pravarasena composed his SB in the first half of the fifth century A.D. Sarvasena composed, it is surmised, his HV about a hundred years earlier than SB. Eminent Sanskrit Alamkārikas, viz., Anandavardhana and Kuntaka speak appreciatively of Sarvasena's HV.3
In the course of his discussion and exposition of the salient features of a Mahākávya, Bhoja in his SP and following him, Hemacandra in his Käyyānuśäsana (KS) give us the following information about HV : 1. Kavi-prašamsā yathā Rāvaņa-vijaye
सअलं चेअणिबंधं दोहि पएहिं कलुस पसण्णं च ठिअं। जाणंति कईण कई सुद्ध-सहावेहि लोअणेहि व हिम॥ [सकलमेव निबन्धं द्वाभ्यां पदाभ्यां कलुषं प्रसन्नश्च स्थितम् ।
जानन्ति कवीनां कवयः शुद्ध-स्वभावाभ्यां लोचनाभ्यामिव हृदयम् ॥] 2. "Dandin mentions the Harivijaya in a mutilated verse at the beginning of his Avantisundari,
and refers to Sarvasena as a king, probably identical with Sarvasena, the founder of the younger branch of the Vākātakas. If so, the Harivijaya was composed in the first half of the fourth century A.D., about a hundred years earlier than the Setubandha."-Pravarasena's
Setubandha. Tr. by Handique, p. 50. 3. i) Anandavardhana observes in his Dhvanyaloka (III. 11-12, pp. 335-36):
इतिवृत्तवशायाता कथञ्चिद्रसाननुगुणां स्थितिं त्यक्त्वा पुनरुत्प्रेक्ष्याप्यन्तराभीष्टरसोचित-कथोन्नयो विधेयः-यथा कालिदासप्रबन्धेषु । यथा च सर्वसेनविरचिते हरिविजये ।
Abhinavagupta thus explains in his Locana (p. 335) : ...हरिविजये कान्तानुनयनाङ्गत्वेन पारिजातहरणादिनिरूपितमितिहासेम्वदृष्टमपि ।

Page #175

Sanskrit Sahityaśästra
}63
It was 'alyasaka-bandha.' Its prevailing metre was skandhaka, (and "galitakas' were employed at the end of the aśvāsakas). It was marked by the word 'utsdha' in the last verse of each divasaka. It contained descriptions of city (nagara), mountain (hild), seasons (arad-vasanta-grismavarṣādi), the sunset (arkastamayavarpanam mentioned by Hemacandra but through oversight dropped in the printed Mysore edition of SP), the hero, his vehicle-Garutmat [vähana-varṇanam yatha Harsacarita-KadambariHarivijaya-Ravanavijayadau hastyāśva-garutmat-puspakādi-varṇanādi (? ni)], his duta (Satyakab? Satyakiḥ), his (Nayaka's, Hari's) march (Prayanam..abhimatärtha-siddhaye yatha Visnob (Hareh-Krsnasya) pärijätaharaṇāya Harivijaye), the rise of the Lero in the form of the conquest of the enemy who himself surrenders [abhyudayah-arivijayab-taduparatya (? tad (satru-) upanatya ], drink-party (madhupānamgosthigrhe..yatha Harivijaye) and the removal of Satyabhama's jealous anger by effort [by Hari by winning from Indra the Pärijäta tree and planting it in front of Satyabhama's palace-mānāpagamo dvidha-prayatnikab naimittikaśca. Prayatniko Harivijaye Satyabhāmāyāḥ. It may be noted here that the printed text of SP reads "mänäpagamo yatha rämätañkänniśä'cāriņām (?) Setubandhe." It needs to be corrected to "Manapagamo dvidhä-prayatnikaḥ naimittikaśca | Prayatniko Harivijaye Satyabhamayah Naimittiko Rämällankänisäcärinam Setubandhe cf. Hemacandra's KS, p 459.
Bhoja draws verses copiously from HV to illustrate various points of poetics in. the course of his writing SK and SP. His citations in SK contain at least eight verses which definitely belong to HV and we find Bhoja citing verses from HV when wri ting his SP on not less than forty occasions. Of course, some of these verses common to SK and some other verses are just repetitions. In all, there are at least twenty-two different verses which can be ascribed to HV on the basis of internal evidence and/or on the basis of clear references by Sanskrit writers on poetics. The
are
ii) In his Vakroktijivita (De's Edn., p. 71) Kuntaka ranks Sarvasena along with Kalidasa for his graceful style of composition:
एवं सहज सौकुमार्य सुभगानि कालिदास - सर्वसेनादीनां काव्यानि दृश्यन्ते तत्र सुकुमारस्वरूपं चणीयम् ।
iii) The very fact that Bhoja cites scores of verses from Sarvasena's HV to illustrate various points of poetics is eloquent of his high appreciation of Sarvasena's work. Her acandra, ro cutt, criticises Sarvasena for introducing in his epic an irrelevant description of the ccean as a superfluous or useless excrescence :
अङ्गस्याप्रधानस्यातिविस्तरेण वर्णनं....तथा हि हरिविजये ईर्ष्याकुपित सत्यभामानुनयन-प्रवृत्तस्य हरेः पारिजातहरण-व्यापारेणोपक्रान्त- विप्रलम्भस्य वर्णनप्रस्तावे गल्तिकनिबन्धन- रसिकतया कविना समुद्रवणनमन्तरा गडुस्थानीयं विस्तृतम् Ksp. 171
It however deserves notice that he, following Bhoja, mentions it along with great Sanskrit and Prakrit epics several times in the course of his exposition of the definition of a mat äkävya.
4. In his paper "Mahārāṣṭri Language and Literature" (Journal of the University of Bombay, IV. 6, May 1936) Dr. A.M. Ghatage observes: "In all we have some ten or eleven verses from the work (HV)". In his work Bhoja's Śrngaraprakasa (p. 825) Dr. Raghavan remarks: "In Bhoja's S.K.A. four gathas qucted are identifiable as from the Harivijaya, pp. 567, 583 ard' two on p. 588. Numerous must be the quotations of an anonymous nature from it found in the Sr. Pra."

Page #176

164
Studies in
text of a very large number of these verses is pretty corrupt. An earnest attempt is made here in this paper to restore these verses and present them along with their Sanskrit Chāyā to facilitate understanding. 1) Asyaiva Kavipraudhoktimatra-nispanna-sarirasyārtha-saktyudbhave prabhede pada-prakāśakatā yathā Harivijaye -
चू कुरावसं छण-पसर-महग्घ-मणहर-सुरामो। अपणामि पि गहि कुसुम-सरेण महुमासलच्छीऍ मुहं ॥ [चूताङ्कुरावतंसं क्षण-प्रसर-महार्घ-मनोहर-सुरामोदम् ।। असमर्पितमपि गृहीतं कुसुमशरेण मधुमास-लक्ष्म्या मुखम् ॥]
Dhvanyaloka III, p. 298 2) Udbhedesu vyakto yathaMantesi mahumaha-panaam...... (SK p. 550, v. 235) मंतेसि (? मण्णेसि) महुमहपण संदाणेसि तिअसेस पाअव-रअणं ।
ओजसु (? ओ जह) मुद्धसहावं संभावेसु सुरणाह जाअव-लो ॥ [मन्त्रयसे (१ मन्यसे) मधुमथ-प्रणयं संदानयसि त्रिदशेश पादपरत्नम् ।
त्यज (१ ओ जहिहि) मुग्ध-स्वभावं संभाषय सुरनाथ यादव-लोकम् ।।] This verse speaks of Madhumatha (=Hari), 'padaparatna (=the heavenly Pārijata tree), 'tridasesa' and 'Suranatha' (=Indra) and the 'Yadava-loka'. Bhoja's Vrtti on this verse runs as follows :
Atra māyāvino mahendrasyābhiprayaḥ satyakena vyaktamevodbhinna iti vyakto’yamudbhedah |
, . , . That Satyaka played the role of a dúta in HV we come to know from Bhoja's statement in SP :
.. Dūtas tridhā nissepārthaḥ parimitārthaḥ śāşanaharasca Tatra nissșțārtho yatha udyegaparvani vasudevah Harivijaye vā Satyakab |-SP XI p. 475.
In view of these facts we can assert that the present verse belonged to HV. ___ Incidentally, it may be noted that Jagaddhara, the commentator of SK (Ch. IV), takes Satyaka to be Indra's charioteer. Following him, Dr. Ghatage refers to Satyaka as Indra's charioteer in his paper "Maharastri Language And Literature". It is, however, incorrect to take Satyaka as Indra's charioteer. Matali is the name of Indra's charioteer. Satyaka (according to Bhoja)' or Sātyaki (according to Hemacandra) was
5. The following verse, which is in the skandhaka metre, and describes the advent of spring and which is not found in SB is most probably drawn by the Dhvanikāra from HV.
सज्जेइ सुरहिमासो ण तां पणामेइ (पा. भे. ण दाव अप्पेइ) जुअइ-जण-लक्ख-सहे । अहिणव-सहआर-मुहे णव-पल्लव-पत्तले अणंगस्स सरे । [सज्जयति सुरभि-मासो न तावदर्पयति युवति-जन-लक्ष्य-सहान् । अभिनव-सहकार-मुखान्नव-पल्लव-पत्रलाननङ्गस्य शरान् ॥]
Dhvanyāloka II. 24-25.

Page #177

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
165
Krsna's charioteer. Krsna, in accordance with the science of politics, must have first sent his dūta to Indra to persuade him to hand over peacefully the heavenly Pārijāta tree to Krsna and secure his friendship. ___Further it may be noted that Bhoja cites this verse in his SP (Vol. III p. 725) to illustrate 'caturatābhimānaḥ.' There it opens with the words : "Bahumaņņasi hari-panaam." 3) Bhāva pradhāno (rasālamkāra-sankarah) yathā
The Damsana-suhae. ..... (Vol. II, p. 458) तीए दंसण-सुहए पणअ-क्खलण-जणिओ मुहम्मि मणहरे । रोसो वि हरइ हिअ मअपंको व्व मअलंछणम्मि णिसण्णो ॥ [तस्या दर्शन-सुभगे प्रणय-स्खलन-जनितो मुखे मनोहरे ।
रोषोऽपि हरति हृदयं मद-पङ्क इव मृगलाञ्छने निषण्णः ॥] This verse is further on (p. 1007) cited by Bhoja to illustrate ‘mānānubandha eva vaividhyam'. It is also cited in SK (p. 724 v. 485) to illustrate 'ratāvupamāyāḥ sankarah'. The comment on this verse given here and in SK is almost identical. It refers to Hari (the speaker of this verse), Rukmiņi, Satyabhāmā and Pārijāta -mañjari and thus helps us to identify that it is drawn from HV. 4) [Samānesu manadānādyamarsanamirsya |] Tasya anubandho yathā- .
Kuvia a Saccahāmā . .... (Vol. II, p. 585) .
कुविआ अ सच्चहामा समे वि वहुआण णवर माण-क्खलणे । पाअडिअ-हिअअ-सारो पेम्मासंघसरिसो पअद्रह मण्णू ॥ [कुपिता च सत्यभामा समेऽपि वधूनां केवलं मान-स्खलने ।
प्रकटित-हृदय-सारः प्रेमाशंसा-सदृशः प्रवर्तते मन्युः ।।] This verse is further on cited at pp. 773, 812, 860, 991 and 1172. It is also cited in SK (p. 647 v. 263) with the introductory remark 'prema mimite yathā'. In the Vrtti on this verse Bhoja says....."Karanabhutenaivatmani Rukminyam ca priyapremnaḥ parimāņam Satyabhämā pratyāyayati....". So we can safely infer that this verse belongs to HV. 5) Dhiroddhata-dhrsta-madhyamo yatha
Sira (? Sura)-kusumehi kalusiarn ......(Vol. III, p. 603)
सुर-कुसुमेहि कलुसि जइ तेहिं चिअ पुणो पसाएमि तुमं । तो पेम्मस्स किसोअरि अवराहस्स अ ण मे खमं होइ कअं ॥ [सुर-कुसुमैः कलुषितां यदि तेरेव पुनः प्रसादयामि त्वाम् ।
तदा प्रेम्णः कृशोदरि, अपराधस्य च न मे क्षमं भवति कृतम् ॥] This verse is cited by Bhoja in his SK (p. 655 v. 287) with the introductory remark : “Tatraiva prema-pramāņārthānvayo yathā.” SK reads the fourth quarter slightly differently : “Avarāhassa a na me kaam aņurūam” (Sk. chāyā : Aparādhasya ca na me krtamanurupam").

Page #178

166
Studies in
Bhoja's comment on this verse in SK runs as follows :
"Atra Rukminyāḥ surakusuma-mañjari dattā mama tu suratarureva preyasā pratipannastadahamasyāḥ sahasraguņatvena priyatameti Satyabhāmā svapremāņam mimite”.
As the nāyikā, Rukmini, the pratināyikā Satyabhāmā, and the 'surataru' (the heavently Pärijāta tree) are clearly mentioned in this gloss we ascribe the present verse to HV. 6) Desa-kālāvabodhanābhimano yathā
Tam tiasa-kusumadamam.....(Vol. III, p 748) तं तिअस-कुसुम-दामं हरिणा णिम्महिअ-सुरहि-गंधामोअं। अप्पणइ पि दूमिअ-पणइणि-हिअएण रुप्पिणीअ विइण्णं ॥ [तत् त्रिदश-कुसुम-दाम हरिणा निर्गत-सुरभि-गन्धामोदम् ।
आत्मीयमपि दून (संतापित)-प्रणयिनी-हृदयेन रुक्मिण्यै वितीर्णम् ॥] __Bhoja quotes this verse on p. 812 to illustrate Jyesthavisayah prakāsānuragah' and further on (p. 1024) to illustrate vipriyakaranam', one of the 'manotpatti-kāranas.'. ___He also cites this verse in his SK (p. 678 v. 351) to illustrate 'Pratinayika'. The mention of Hari, Rukmini, offended beloved (Satyabhāmā), and 'tridaśa-kusumadama' in the verse leads us to infer that it is drawn from HV. Further, the statement that Hari by offering the garland of celestial flowers to Rukmini offended his beloved (Satyabhämä) perfectly agrees with the statement of Hari in the verse 'sura-kusumehi kalusiam' etc., given above and thus strengthens our inference. 7) Mahārambhatābhimano yathā
Aira anemi tuham......(Vol. III, p. 748)
अइरा आणेमि तुहं अमआसअ-लोल-भमर-लघिअ-कुसुमं । तिअस-गअ-दाण-सीहर-तुसार-तण्णाअ-पल्लवं सग्ग-दुमं ॥
अचिरादानयामि तवामृतास्वाद-लोल-भ्रमर-लङ्घित-कुसुमम् ।
त्रिदश-गज-दान-शीकर-तुषाराति-पल्लवं स्वर्गद्रुमम् ॥] Bhoja cited this verse again (Vol. IV, p. 1009) to illustrate "dānaprakāreșvatisandhānam'.
Here we find Hari promising his beloved (Satyabhāmā) to get her the celestial tree (Pārijāta). That the epic HV contained this episode we gather from the following remark of Abhinavagupta: "Harivijaye kāntānunayanāngatvena pārijātaharaṇādi nirupitamitihasesvadrstamapi |" (Locana on DHV III. 11). With a view to appeasing Satyabhāmā who was full of jealous anger because of his gift of celestial flowers to Rukmini, Hari makes this promise to her. ___ 8) Pratinayikāsudatta (nayika) yathā
Anjapulaübbheo .....(Vol. III, p. 773.)
आणिअपुलउब्भेओ सवत्ति-पणअ-परिधूसरम्मि वि गुरुए । पिअदंसणे पवड्ढइ मण्णुट्टाणे वि रुप्पिणीए पहरिसो ।

Page #179

Sanskrit Sahityaŝästra
[आनीत पुलको भेदः सपत्नी प्रणय-परिधूसरेऽपि गुरुके । प्रिय दर्शने प्रवर्धते मन्यु-स्थानेऽपि रुक्मिण्याः प्रहर्षः ।।]
This verse is further on (Vol. IV. p. 1220) cited by Bhoja to illustrate. 'SandarSanath' (=priyavalokanam). It is also cited in SK (p. 673 v. 330) to illustrate "janmāntara-satiskārajanitah sahajo (rāgah). As the verse is in the skandhaka metre and as it speaks of Rukmini and her sapatni (Satyabhama) and priya (Hari), we may reasonably conclude that it is drawn from HV.
9 ) [Pratināyikāsu] uddhatā yathā—
Kuvia a saccabhāmā..... (Vol. III, p 773) This verse has been already presented. Vide No. 4 supra. 10) [Atha prakāśānurāgah ...] jyestha-vişayo yathā— Tam tiasa-kusuma-dāmaṁ..... (Vol. III, p. 812) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 6 supra. M) [Atha prakasānuragah) kanisthāvisayo yatha
Kuviā a saccahāmā.... ( Vol. III, p. 812 ) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 12) Tasya (dhira-madhyäyä) eva sambhoge
(anubhava-sampad ) yatha
To se rubbhanta ccia..... (Vol. III, p. 840)
167
तो से रुष्यंत चिअ हिअअ-विअंभंत दरिस - बेडच्छलिआ । पाअपडिअस्त हरिणो पडिआ पुडी वाह- सलिल- त्थेषा ॥ [ततस्तस्या रुध्यमाना एव हृदय-विजृम्भमाण- हर्षवेगोच्छलिताः । पाद - पतितस्य हरेः पतिताः पृष्ठे वाष्प-सलिल-बिन्दवः ||]
This verse is cited further on (p. 1C41 ) to illustrate 'Punarbhāva', one of the Manopalantis and still further on (1209) Priyotthapana'. The verse describes the various anubhavas of Satyabhāmā when Hari fell prostrate at her feet with a view to appeasing her anger.
13) Mimite paricchinatti pramānamasäviti manah | yatha
Kuviā a saccabhāmā.... ( Vol. III, p. 860)
This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 14) Priyādisu vyāja- nindotprāso yathā—
Sa kusumehi guruià.... (Vol. IV, p. 990)
This verse, especially its second half, is quite corrupt. It is further on (p. 1212) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'upalambhaḥ'. There too it is found to be corrupt and it shows a few gaps in its first half. The verse may tentatively be corrected as follows:
सा कुसुमेहि गुरुहआ मह वि कओ सुहअ दंसणेण पसाओ ।
कह अ ण पसाअ - सहो लग्गउ पिआ - हिअअस्स अ इमस्स तुज्झ ॥ [सा कुसुमैर्गुरुकृता ममापि कृतस्सुभग दर्शनेन प्रसादः ।
कथश्च न प्रसाद - शब्दो लगतु प्रिया - हृदयस्य चास्य तब ॥ ]

Page #180

168
Studies in
Although no names of the hero, heroine or rival heroine are mentioned in this verse we are perfectly justified in understanding that it is Satyabhāmā, the rival heroine, who addresses these words of artful praise to Hari who has honoured Rukmiņi, the heroine, with celestial flowers and has gone to see her (empty-handed !). We find support for this interpretation in Bhoja's SK (p. 655 v. 287). Vide No. 5 supra. 15) Anubhayāpekso manyur mantra-yutam yathā
Kuvià a saccabhāmā ..... (Vol. IV. p. 991) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 16) Tatraiva vişayavyāvșttir yathā
Samvaddhia-santosā ..... (Vol. IV. p. 1006)
Hersfeer-ratet gja-maya-af0c7ET-FESTI विउणिअ-मण-संतावा जाआ सविसेस-दूसहा ससि-किरणा ॥ [stafa Hatar: porte -fur-572-afsar:
fayfora-HTERATAT Frar afaitag:het: Tfa-facut: ll] As the verse mentions 'Kaustubha-maņi' and as it is composed in the skandhaka metre we may not be wrong in inferring that it belonged to HV. 17) Tatraiva (=mānānubandha eva) vaividhyam yathā
Tie daṁsavanaamha (?)..... (Vol. IV. p. 1007) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 3 supra. 18) Mānāpanayane Sama-dāna-bheda-danda-yogā māna-bhangopāyāḥ'....
Tatra sāma-prakāreşu.... praņāmo yathāTo ia piāņuvattaña .... (Vol. IV. p. 1009) at 537 ET-378-HITO-AS FE37-f8373110, ATAE ESTI I . . संभाविअ च्चिअ हिओ हरिणा पाअपडणम्मि तीऍ अमरिसो ॥ . तित इति सुर-तरु-कारण-मुकुलित-हृदयायाः सावशेष-लघुकः ।
संभावित एव हृतो हरिणा पाद-पतने तस्या अमर्षः ॥] 1 v. 1. Pjāņuvattaņa (Sk : priyānuvartana)
This verse is further on (p. 1041) cited to illustrate ‘unmūlanam', one of the ‘mānopaśāntis' and still further on (p. 1209) to illustrate 'pranipätah'. Since the verse mentions Hari and his ‘pāda-patana' to appease the anger of his beloved (Satyabhāmā) caused by 'sura-taru (=Pārijāta-)' [mañjari offered to Rukmiņi] we can confidently assert that it is drawn from HV. 19) Dāna-prakāreșvatisandhānam yathā
--jana---namituham--(Vol. IV, p. 1009) Although we find that the text of the present verse is incomplete and somewhat corrupt we have no difficulty in identifying it with the verse 'airā āņemi tuham, etc. Vide No. 7 supra. 20) Athāto mānotpatti-kāranāni... Teşu vipriyakaranam yathā
Tam tiasa-kusuma-dānim (?) ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1024)

Page #181

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
169
This verse, no doubt, is corrupt but it is easily identified to be the same as "Tam tiasa-kusuma-dāmam” etc. Vide No. 6 supra. 21) Atha mānopaśāntayaḥ | .... Téşu vipakşabhibhavo yathā
Dho (? Tho) osaranta-rosam ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1040) This verse is further on (p. 1211) cited by Bhoja to illustrate ‘mukhaprasādah.' At both these places it is found to be somewhat corrupt. It is, also cited by Bhoja in his SK (p. 727 v. 491) to illustrate Jātiḥ (vidhimukhena). There it is presented almost in its correct form :
थोओसरंतरोसं थोअत्थोअ-परिवड्ढमाण-पहरिसं । FIT 31 TTETTE (? TAIS) JET-TA137-FET to 11 [स्तोकापसरद्रोषं स्तोक-स्तोक-परिवर्धमान-प्रहर्षम् ।
arafa T T-9417? gt-qa-) TATTFITA-FTTH TETT A 11] Bhoja's comment on this verse in SK specifically mentions Satyabhāmā and her jealous anger which yields place to joy (when appeased by Hiri). We can, therefore, safely ascribe this verse in the skandhaka metre to HV. 22) Atha mānopaśāntayah .... Teșu calanam yathā
Aha agano tti (?)..... (Vol. IV, p. 1040) The verse is a bit corrupt and metrically defective (as printed here). This very verse is further on (p. 1219) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'priyāgama-vārtā”. There it is presented in its correct form :
अह आगओ त्ति णवरिअ अच्चासण्णो वि सच्चभामार हरी । परिअगमुह च्चिअ सुओ वाहजलंतरिअ-लोअगाएँ ण दिट्ठो ॥ [अथागत इति सहसात्यासन्नोऽपि सत्यभामया हरिः ।
परिजनमुखादेव श्रुतो बाष्पजलान्तरित-लोचनया न दृष्टः ॥] As the verse mentions the names of Hari and Satyabhāmā and is in the skandhaka metre we may confidently assert that it is drawn from HV. 23) (Atha mānopaśāntayaḥ | .... Teșu) unmūlanam yathā
Lolaa-sura-aru-kāraṇa ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1041) This verse, though somewhat corrupt, is easily identified to be the same as "To ia sura-aru-kāraņa", etc., which has been already dealt with. Vide No. 18 supra. 24) [Atha mānopaśāntayaḥ | ..... teşu) punarbhāvo yathā
Tose kubbhantam cchia .... (Vol. IV p. 1041) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 12 supra. 25) [Atha mānānubhāva-saukhyāni Teşu....) vipakşābhibhavo yathā
..... sadūmiasavatti .... (Vol. IV, p. 1046) This verse, though it shows gaps and is corrupt, is easily identified to be the same verse as "Tie savisesa-dūmia' etc., cited further on (p. 1224) to illustrate 'śộngāravệddhih'. The verse is cited also in SK (p. 678 y. 350) to illustrate 'Kathā. vyāpini nāyikā' ; 22

Page #182

170
तीऍ सविसेस - दूमिअ-सवत्ति - हिअआऍ णिव्वलंत - सिणेहं । पिअ - गरुइआए णिमिअं सोहग्ग-गुणाण अग्गभूमीऍ पअं || [ तया सविशेष-दून ( = संतापित ) - सपत्नी- हृदयया स्पष्टीभूत-स्नेहम् ।
प्रिय - गुरुकृतया ( गौरवितया ) न्यस्तं सौभाग्य-गुणानामग्रभूम्यां पदम् ॥ ]
Studies in
The context is of 'vipakṣābhibhava'. The verse speaks of the nayikā (Rukmiņi) as 'dumia-savatti-hiaa' and 'piya (=Hari-) garuia'; and we know from SK (p. 678 v. 350) that the present verse illustrates 'Kathāvyāpini nayika' and the succeeding verse (p. 678 v. 351) prati-nāyikā' where we have a reference to Hari, Rukmini, and the pranayinf offended by Hari (that is Satyabhāmā) by his gift of 'tridaśa-kusumadama'; we may therefore reasonably draw the inference that the present verse is drawn from HV.
26) [Atha mānānubhāva-saukhyāni | Tesu] lābha-viśeso yathāDāratthavia-sura-dumam – (Vol. IV, p. 1047) दार- विअ - सुर-दुमं तं चिअ सग्ग-कुसुमोवआरग्घविअं । अण्णं च सच्चविज्जइ परिओस परित्त परिक्षण तीऍ घरं ॥ [ द्वार- स्थापित- सुर- द्रुभं तदेव स्वर्ग-कुसुमोपचाराधितम् । अन्यच्च दृश्यते परितोष-परीत परिजनं तस्या गृहम् ॥ ]
This verse is further on (p. 1221) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'parijanapramodah'. As there is the mention of the celestial tree (Pārijāta) planted in front of her (Satyabhama's) mansion we may safely take that the verse is drawn from HV.
27 ) [ Daivārthāpannesu] .... upanāgaro yathā—
Aha dittha-vikkamammi.... ( Vol. IV, p. 1058 (a)
अह दिट्ठ- विक्कमम्मि वि सिणेह सच्चवि [ अ ] गरुअ - विणिवाअ - हआ । चिंतेइ सच्चभामा सुरअरु लंभट्ठिए गअम्मि महुमहे ||
[ अथ दृष्ट-विक्रमेऽपि स्नेह - दर्शित- गुरु ( क ) - विनिपात भया । चिन्तयति सत्यभामा सुरतरु - लाभार्थिनि ( = लाभार्थ ) गते मधुमथे ॥ ]
As the verse speaks of Satyabhāmā (worrying about Hari's safety), Madhumatha's (Hari's) departure for 'sura- taru' (Pārijāta) we may reasonably say that it is drawn from HV.
28) [Evam katha-sarira-vyapikā nāyikā....] tat-pratiyogini pratināyikā yathāKuviā a saccabhāmā.... ( Vol. IV, p. 1172)
This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra.
29) Pāda-patanam pranipātah | Yatha
To ia sura-aru-kāraṇa....(Vol. IV, p. 1209)
This verse is the same as verse No. 18 supra-of course ignoring the corrupt readings.
30) Pāda-patanam pranipātah | Yatha
Tle hiaānucintia....(Vol. IV, p. 1209 )

Page #183

Sanskrit Såhityasastra
171
तीए हिअआणुचिंतिअ-मणोरहब्भहिअ-संगम-सुहागू हरी । हसिरो वि दोहि कोहि पडिरुब्भंत-मउडो गओ च्चिअ चलणे ॥ [तस्या हृदयानुचिन्तित-मनोरथाभ्यधिक-सङ्गम-सुखाय हरिः ।
हसनशीलोऽपि द्वाभ्यां कराभ्यां प्रतिरुध्यमान-मुकुटो गत एव चरणयोः ॥] Since the verse mentions Hari falling prostrate at the feet of his beloved (Satyabhāmā) we may infer that it is drawn from HV.
31) Priya-pranāma-vigamana-hetavah priyotthapanani | Yatha- . .
___To se rubbhanta cchia (?).... (Vol. IV, p. 1209) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 32) Mukhasya mānakāluşyāpagamo mukha-prasādaḥ | Yathā
Thovosaranta-rosam....(Vol. IV, p. 1211) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 21 supra. 33) Vyalikodghattanamupālambhah | Yatha
Sa kusumehi guru.... (Vol. IV, p. 1212) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 14 supra. 34) [Tatra ratiprakarsa-nimittābhilaşaniyālinganādyavāpti-hetavaḥ priyāgamana
vārtā priyasakhi-vākyādayaḥ sambhoga-sabdavācyā bhavanti.... ] Teșu priyāgamodghoṣaṇam priyāgamavārtā | Yathā
Aha agao tti navaria .... (Vol. IV, p. 1219) This verse has been already treated of. Vide No. 22 supra. 35) Kāmiturāgamanam priyābhyāgamaḥ | Yathā
Ua java sa kilammai..... (Vol. IV, p. 1220) उअ जाप सा किलम्मइ अप्पकअ-विरह-वित्थरंताणुसआ । ता पत्तो जह इच्छा तह णिव्वत्तिअ-मणोरहो महुमहणो ॥ [ पश्य यावत्सा क्लाम्यति आत्मकृत-विरह-विस्तीर्यमाणानुशया ।
तावत्प्राप्तो यथेच्छा तथा निर्वर्तित-मनोरथो मधुमथनः ॥] In this verse there is a clear mention of Madhumathana (=Hari) who returns to his home-town accomplishing the desired object (=Pārijāta tree, in the present case) and to his beloved (Satyabhāmā) who regrets the separation caused by her own self (by forcing Hari to invade Indra in his heaven). So this verse undoubtedly belongs to HV. 36) Priyavalokanam sandarsah (? sandarsanam) | Yatha
Aniavalaubbheo....(Vol. IV, p. 1220) This verse has been already treated of. Vide No. 8 supra. 37) Sakhyadi-sampadah parijana-pramodab | Yatha
Dara-tthavia-sura-dumam....(Vol. IV, p. 1221) This verse is the same as the verse No. 27 supra. 38) Sneha.irekah prema-pustih ] Yatha
Nimmahia-kusuma-parimala....(Vol. IV, p. 1222)

Page #184

172
Studies in
णिम्महिअ-कुसुम-परिमल-हिअ-हिअआए वि महुअरावलि-चडुला । पढमं पिअम्मि दिट्ठी पच्छा तीए सुरपाअवम्मि णिसण्णा ॥
[ निर्गत कुसुम-परिमल-हृत-हृदयाया अपि मधुकरावलिचटुला । . प्रथमं प्रिये दृष्टिः पश्चात्तस्याः सुरपादपे निषण्णा ॥] As the verse mentions 'sura-pādapa' (Parijata) we may not be wrong in saying that it is drawn from HV. 39) Snehatirekah prema-pustih | Yatha
To se piammi rasia....(Vol. IV, p. 1223) तो से पिअम्मि रसिआ ता दुम-रअणम्मि च्चिअ उप्पल-सुहआ । परिओस-रसुव्वेल्ला अणुराअ-अंदोलिआ णिसम्मइ दिट्ठी ॥ [ततस्तस्याः प्रिये रसिता तत्तो द्रमरत्न एवोत्पलसुभगा।
परितोष-रसोच्छलितानुरागान्दोलिता निषीदति दृष्टिः ॥ ] As the verse mentions 'druma--ratna' (Pārijāta) we may not be wrong in suggesting that it is drawn from HV. 40-41) Rati-prakarsodayah srigāra-vrddhih | Yatha
Ua nia-pāavaraane....(Vol. IV, p. 1224) उअ णिअ-पाअव-रअणे इअ अणुराअ-पिसुणं पिअम्मि भणंते । । सविसेस-लद्ध-पसरो आढत्तो ती पसरिउ परिओसो ॥ [पश्य निज-पादप-रत्न इत्यनुराग-पिशुनं प्रिये भणति ।
सविशेष-लब्धप्रसर आरब्धस्तस्याः प्रसतु परितोषः ॥] As this verse mentions 'padapa-ratna' (Parijata) we may not be wrong in saying that it is probably drawn from HV.
तीए सविसेस-दूमिअ-सवत्ति-हिअआए...... This verse has been already treated of. Vide No. 25 supra. Note : Sahianahaddhāhimuham (?) - (p. 951)
I had first thought that this verse might have been drawn from HV. But in fact it is cited from Setu. That the text of this verse (which is quite corrupt in its first half) is a corrupt version of Setubandha X. 74 would be clear beyond any doubt or dispute if we keep the text of these verses side by side :
सहिअणहद्धाहिमुहं धारइअ विसेस वि अक्खिविऊण । जुअईहि पडिणिउत्तो अवबोइज्जइ ससंभमं दूइजणो ॥ ..
-SP, p. 951 and, सहिअण-हत्थाहि मुहं दर-रइअ-विसेस समक्खेतूण। जुअई हि वलिअ-विसमं अप्पाहिज्जइ ससंभमं दूइ-जणो ॥ .
-Setu X-74, A comparison of these two texts brings out a few variants. The text may be restored in the light of Setux-74 as follows :
सहिअणहत्थाहि मुहं दर-रइअ-विसेस वि अक्खिविऊण । जुअईहि पडिणिउत्तो अवघोहिज्जइ (पा. भे. अप्पाहिज्जइ) ससंभमं दूइ-जणो ॥

Page #185

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
[ सखीजन-हस्ताद् मुखं दर- रचित - विशेषकमपि आक्षिप्य ।
युवतिभिः प्रतिनिवृत्तोऽवबोध्यते (पा. भे. संदिश्यते) ससंभ्रमं दूतीजनः ॥ ]
Over and above these verses in the skandhaka metre which definitely belong to HV, there are not less than twenty-five verses in the skandhaka metre that are cited by Bhoja in his SP as illustrations. It is not unlikely that they all are drawn from HV.
SB, which is modelled on HV, treats in Canto X of the sunset, the nightfall, moonrise, a pair of Cakravāka birds separated from each other, the amorous activities of the nayikās, aided by their messenger girls, their maiden friends, their mana (sulky wrath) in its various aspects. There are many verses over and above those discussed above which are in Mahārāștri Prakrit and are composed in the skandhaka metre and treat of these and similar topics. They are not found in SB. As Bhoja has freely drawn on HV to illustrate the points of poetics as shown above, we may not be wrong in holding that these verses which reveal identity of ideas, phrases, turns of expression, diction, style and metre are also drawn from HV. Some of these verses are quite corrupt and obscure. Leaving out these verses, I reproduce below others with necessary corrections and adding Sanskrit chāyā.
1) Vikrtaivopameyasyotkarsāpattyā yathāRattuppala-dala- sohā--- ( SK p. 438)
रतुप्पल-दल-सोहा तीऍ वि चसअम्मि सुरहि वारुणि भरिए । अ-बेहि मणहरा पडिमा पडिएहि लोअणेहि लहुइआ ॥ [ रक्तोत्पल-दल- शोभा तस्या अपि चषके सुरभि वारुणीभृते । मद-ताम्राभ्यां मनोहरा प्रतिमा-पतिताभ्यां लोचनाभ्यां लघुकृता ॥ ] 2 ) Drstānta parikaro yathā
173
Majjha—tthia-dharaniharam-- ( SK p. 510) मज्झट्ठिअ धरणिहरं झिज्जइ अ समुद्दमंडलं उब्वेलं । रइ-रह-वेअ-विअलिअं पडिअ विअ उक्कडक्ख-कोडिं चक्कं ॥ [ मध्य-स्थित-धरणिधरं क्षीयते च समुद्रमण्डलमुद्वेलम् । रवि-रथ-वेग - विगलितं पतितमिवोत्कटाक्षकोटि चक्रम् ॥ ] 3) Arthakšto rūpake (parikaro) yathā
Viade gaana-samudde--(SK p. 521)
farडे गण-समुद्दे दिअसे सूरेण मंदरेण व महिए । णीइ मइख्ष संझा तिस्सा मग्गेण अमअकलसो व्व ससी ॥ [ विकटे गगन समुद्रे दिवसे सूर्येण मन्दरेणेव मथिते । निर्याति मदिरेष संध्या तस्या मार्गेणामृतकलश इव शशी ॥ ] 4) Ubhayakrtaśca virodha-slese (parikaro ) yathā
Raiamunālāharano—— (SK p. 521 )
रइअ - मुणालाहरणो णलिण-दल- स्थइअ - पीवर-त्थण- अलसो । वह पिअसंगमम्मि वि मअणाअप्पप्पसाहणं जुअईजणो || [ रचित- मृणालाभरणो नलिन-दल-स्थगित - पीवर-स्तन- कलशः । वहति प्रिय संगमेऽपि मदनाकल्प - प्रसाधनं युवति-जनः ॥ ]

Page #186

174
Studies in
5) Ekasyātiśayādhikye atiśāyi (samsthānānurāgah) yathāDitthā kuviāņuņaā--(SP. Vol. III, p. 794) दिदा कुआणुणआ पिआ सहस्स-जण-पेल्लणं पि विसहि। जस्स णिसण्णाएँ उरे सिरीए पेम्मेण लहुइओ अप्पाणो । [दृष्टा कुपितानुनया प्रिया सहस्रजन-पीडनमपि विसोढम् ।
यस्य निषण्णयोरसि श्रिया प्रेम्णा लघूकृत आत्मा ॥] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 671) to illustrate "premaprakāre vipriyadibhirapyavināśaniyo nityah”. ... 6) [Naimittikānuragah].... jyautsno yathā
Anunaa-suham na pattam ..... (Vol. III, p. 798) This verse is incomplete and corrupt. It is further on (p. 1039) cited by Bhoja to illustrate candrodaya, ore of the twelve causes of mana-bhanga. There too the text is corrupt. The verse may be restored as follows :
अणुणअ-सुहं ण पत्तं पिआहि दइएसु खिज्जइ अघि ण चलणो ।
ओसारिअम्मि पढमं दूईए व्व दोसिणीए माण-ग्गहणे ॥ [ अनुनय-सुखं न प्राप्तं प्रियाभिर्दयितेषु खिद्यतेऽपि न चरण: ।
अपसारिते प्रथम दूत्येव ज्योत्स्नया मानग्रहणे ॥] . 7) Athamisameva bhedascatur-vimsatirmāna-bheda-jataya ucyante | .... Tesu
.... vallabhādau vai (paritya) hetuh kopo.... yathā vaPatthanti maana-pasara .... (Vol. IV, p. 990)
पदठंति मअण-पसर-प्पसाअ-समुहा विलासिणी-समल्लावा । तीए उण तस्स दीरइ रोस-पराहुत्त-जंपिएहि वि हिअ ।। [ पठ्यन्ते मदन-प्रसर-प्रसाद-संमुखा विलासिनी-समुल्लापाः ।
तया पुनस्तस्य दीर्यते रोष-पराङ्मुख-जल्पितैरपि हृदयम् ॥] . 8) Mano drsi yathā
Kisa imesu bahuso . . . . (Vol. IV, p. 1011) कीस अ इमेसु बहुसो विसम पंत-तलिणंजण-च्छवि-कलुसा । दीहाधंगेसु तुज्झ परिवड्डंति णअणेसु वाहुप्पीडा ।। [ कस्माच्चानयोबहुशो विषमप्रान्त-तलिनाञ्जन-च्छवि-कलुषाः ।
दीर्घापाङ्गयोस्तव परिवर्धन्ते नयनयोर्बाष्पोत्पीडाः ॥] 9) Māno vaktre yathā
Kisa maliāvaamsam.... (Vol. IV, p. 1011) This verse is cited by Bhoja on two more occasions, once (p. 1027) to illustrate 'prasadhana-grahana' and again (p. 1207) to illustrate 'priyābhyupapattih'. The text of this verse is corrupt at all the three places. It may, tentatively, be restored as follows:
कीस मलिआधअंसं वअण्ण-णीसास-पण्हुआहरराअं । वअणं वहसि किसोअरि कर-संकामिअ-कओल-पत्तालेक्ख ॥ .

Page #187

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
[ कस्माद् मलिनावतंसं वदन- निःश्वास प्रस्नुताधर- रागम् । वदनं वहसि कृशोदरि कर-संक्रामित कपोल - पत्रालेख्यम् ॥ ]
10 ) Priyāyāh pravrtti-dusanamupālambhah | ... ... Teșu prakṛtistho yathaAkkhandie vi paṇae ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1013)
This verse is earlier (p. 1208) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'Skhalitagopana'. The second half is corrupt at both the places. The verse may be restored as follows : अक्खंडिए वि पणए अकअम्मि वि विप्पिए अकज्जे वि मज्झ । जाओ चिअ वणिज्जं तुह रोसम्मि दइए णिमित्तं पि पिअं || [ अखण्डितेऽपि प्रणयेऽकृतेऽपि विप्रियेsकार्येऽपि मम । जातमेव वचनीयं तव रोषे दयिते निमित्तमपि प्रियम् ॥ ] 11) Atha mānoddipanānitesu vipaksa-sannidhir yathā— Sarisa-padivakkha-purao.....(Vol. IV, p. 1028)
सरिस पडिवक्ख- पुरओ हिअअम्मि अउव्व माण-भंग - कलुसिए । सम- सुह- दुक्खम्मि जणे विरिक्कसेसो वि से ण माइ अमरितो || [ सदृश-प्रतिपक्षपुरतो हृदयेऽपूर्व-मान-भङ्ग-कलुषिते । सम-सुख-दुःखे जने विभक्तशेषोऽपि तस्या न मात्यमर्षः ॥ ]
12) Atha mānoddipanāni ...... | Tesu sakhi-vailaksyam yathā— Gotta-kkhaliammi pie .... (Vol. IV, p. 1028) गोत्तक्खलिअम्मि पिए मण्णे पाअडिअ-सहि- णिवेसिअ णअणं । आऊरमाणबाहं कीऍ वि णिव्वोलिआ हरं णीससिअं || [ गोत्र - स्खलिते प्रिये मन्ये प्रकटित-सखी- निवेशित- नयनम् । • आपूर्यमाण- बाष्पं कयापि मलिनाधरं निःश्वसितम् ॥ ]
13) Atha māna-bhanga - kāranāni | ... Tesu mado yathaKheppanti appane ccia (?) .... (Vol. IV, p. 1038) घेप्यंति अप्पण चिचअ कआवराहा वि कामिणीहि पिअअमा । किं इअ सिक्खावंतो अवरज्झई वि पिअं करेइ महुमओ || [ गृह्यन्त आत्मनैव कृतापराधा अपि कामिनीभिः प्रियतमाः । किमिति शिक्षयन्नपराध्यत्यपि प्रियं करोति मधुमदः ॥ ]
14-15) Atha mānopaśama-laksanāni | ..... Tesu nayana- nimilanam yathā— Daiāloa-paatta....(Vol. IV, p. 1041)
i)
दइआलोअ -पअत्ता अतोच्छीण पसरत- बाह-विअलिआ । मउलइ अंबुअ-पसरा तीसे दंसण सुहं ण पावइ दिठ्ठी || [दयितालोक - प्रवृत्ता अन्तोऽक्ष्णोः प्रसरद्वाष्प - विकलिता । मुकुलयति अम्बुज- प्रसरा तस्या दर्शन-सुखं न प्राप्नोति दृष्टिः ॥ ]
ii) Mukha-prasādo yathā—
175
Aloie ccia pie... (Vol. IV, p. 1041)

Page #188

176
Studies in
आलोइए च्चिअ पिए ठविओ तीए मअणेण मोहण-सुहओ। कुसुम-धणुम्मि वि बाणो वलइअ-विष्भम-गुणे मुहम्मि पहरिसो ॥ [ आलोकित एव प्रिये स्थापितस्तस्यान मोहन-सुखदः सुभगः ।
कुसुम-धनुष्यपि बाणो वलयित-विभ्रम-गुणे मुखे प्रहर्षः ॥] 16) Nāyikā yathā
Avauhia-puvva-dise (? dise)......(Vol. IV, p. 1174)
अवऊहिअ-पुव्वदिसे समअं जोण्हाएँ सेविअ-पओस-मुहें । माइ ण झिज्जउ रअणी अवर-दिसाहुत्त-पत्थिअम्मि मिअंके । [अवगृहित पूर्वदिशे समकं ज्योत्स्नया सेवित-प्रदोष-मुखे ।
मातः ( सखि ) न क्षीयतां रजनी, अपर-दिशाभिमुख-प्रस्थिते मृगाङ्के ॥] This verse is cited in SK (p. 679) to illustrate ‘ubha yābhāsa. . 17) Pratināyikā yathāDüra-padibaddha-rāe....(Vol. IV, p. 1174)
दूर-पडिबद्धराए अवऊहंतम्मि दिणअरे अवर-दिसं । असहंति व्व किलिम्मइ पिअअम-पच्चक्ख-दूसणं दिणलच्छी॥ . [ दूर-प्रतिबद्धरागेऽवगृहमाने दिनकरेऽपरदिशम् ।
असहमानेव क्लाम्यति प्रियतम-प्रत्यक्ष-दूषणं दिनलक्ष्मीः ॥1 This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 453) to illustrate Samadhi (niradbheda variety). 18) Upa-nayikā yatha- . Oratta-pankaa-muhim....(Vol. IV, p. 1175)
ओरत्त-पंकअ-मुहिं वम्मह-णडि व सलिल-सअण-णिसणं ।
अल्लिअइ तीर-णलिणि वाआएँ गमेइ सहअरिं चक्काओ ।। [उपरक्त-पङ्कज-मुखीं मन्मथ-नटितामिव (अथवा, खेदितामिव) सलिलशयन-निषण्णाम् ।
आलिङ्गति तीर-नलिनी वाचा गमयति सहचरी चक्रवाकः ॥] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK to illustrate 'tiryagābhāsaḥ'. 19-20) Nisa-prathama-yama-karma pradosikam | Yatha
Sajjijjai uvaaro....(Vol. IV, p. 1186) i) सज्जिज्जइ उवआरो अहो रइ वि पुणो रइज्जइ सअणं ।
संहरिअ वाणि-अत्था (?) अप्पाहिअ-पत्थिआ वि रुब्भइ दूई ॥ [सज्जी क्रियते उपचारः, अहो रचितमपि पुना रच्यते शयनम ।
संस्मृत्य वाण्यर्थान् (?) संदिष्ट-प्रस्थितापि रुध्यते दूती ॥] ii) अंजेइ लोअणाई बंधइ रसणं रएइ तिलआलेक्ख ।
जाओ होंत-समागम-सुहेक्क-रसिओ वि वाउलो जुअइ-जणो ॥ [ अनक्ति लोचने बध्नाति रशनां रचयति तिलकालेख्यम् ।
जातो भविष्यत्समागमसुखैकरसिकोऽपि व्याकुलो युवति-जनः ॥] 21) Pratyüşa-kāla-karma prābhātika m | Yathā
Tavaa (? Tava a) raani-vahue....(Vol. IV, p. 1187)

Page #189

Sanskrit Sähityaśāstra
177 ताप अ रअणि-वहूए परिअदृतीए मलिअ-तारा-कुसुमो । जाओ परिमल-पिसुणो उअ णच्चतो व्व पाअडो पच्चूसो ॥ [तावच्च रजनी-वध्वां परिवर्तमानायां मृदित-तारा-कुसुमः ।
जातः परिमल-पिशुनः पश्य नृत्यन्निव प्रकटः प्रत्यूषः ॥] 22) Sambhogārtham satira-pratikarma prasadhanam | Yatha
Dinnatanuanjanai--(Vol. IV, p. 1198) i) दिण्णतणुअंजणाई जुअइजणस्स दर-रत्ततंबोटाई ।
आसण्ण-रइ-सुहाई अहिवासिज्जंति वम्महेण मुहाई ॥ [दत्त-तनुकाञ्जनानि युवति-जनस्येषद्रक्तताम्रौष्ठानि ।
आसन्न-रति-सुखानि अधिवास्यन्ते मन्मथेन मुखानि ॥] ii) परिउंबणेण अहरो अग्घर हिअअ-हरिसेण णअणच्छाआ ।
सोहं कुणइ पिओ च्चिअ विरएड् मुहा पसाहणं जुअइजणो ॥ - [परिचुम्बनेनाधरोऽर्घति हृदय-हर्षेण नयनच्छाया ।
शोभां करोति प्रिय एव विरचयति मुधा प्रसाधनं युवतिजनः ॥] 23) Māna--hānau niśvasitāni māna-niśvasitāni | Yathā___ Tie vialanta-dhiram--(Vol. IV, p. 1210) i) तीए विअलंत-धीरं अब्भुळंतीए खण-पहोलिर-बाहं ।
दूरोसरंत-सरणं दूर-अर-वलग्ग-वेअणं णीससि ॥ [तया विगलद्वैर्यमभ्युत्तिष्ठन्त्या क्षण-प्रघूर्णनशील-बाष्पम् ।
दूरापसरत्स्मरणं दूरतरावलग्न-वेदनं निःश्वसितम् ॥] Bhoja cites this verse on two more occasions; once to illustrate 'skhalanam' (p. 1041) and again to illustrate 'priyoparodhah' (p. 1213). _____ii) मणसिणीए अहिणव-मइरामोअ-पडिवद्ध-धम्मह-पसरं ।
दइअ-जण-दिण्ण-णअणं विअलिअ-धीर-लहुअं चिरं णीससि ॥ [ मनस्विन्याभिनव-मदिरामोद-प्रतिबद्ध-मन्मथ-प्रसरम् ।
दयित-जन दत्त-नयनं विगलित-धैर्य-लघुकं चिरं निःश्वसितम् ॥] 24) Manasalyoddharanamavajina-bhramsah | Yatha
Harisa-viasamta-vaanam--(Vol. IV, p. 1212) i) हरिस-विअसंत-वअणं कवोल-अल-संगलंत-पुलउब्भेअं।
अ-पसाहिपि जा पसाहिअब्भहिअ-मणहरं ती मुहं । [हर्ष-विकसद्वदनं कपोल-तल-संकलत्पुलकोदभेदम् ।
अप्रसाधितमपि जातं प्रसाधिताभ्यधिक-मनोहरं तस्या मुखम् ॥] ii) णिम्मविअ-संधि-अम्मा ताव अ दूरपडिबद्ध-वम्मह-पसरा । .. गरु सुरउच्छाहं दाऊण सहि व्व जामिणी तीए गआ ॥
[निर्मापित-सन्धिकर्मा तावच्च दूर-प्रतिबद्ध-मन्मथ-प्रसरा। गुरुकं सुरतोत्साहं दत्त्वा सखीव यामिनी तस्या गता ॥]
-23

Page #190

178
Studies in
25) Manapagamad vrida-yogo lajjāgamaḥ | YathaThoärudha-mahu-maa--(Vol. IV, p. 1215) थोआरूढमहुआ खण-पम्हद्वाव राह- दिण्णुल्लावा । हसिऊण संठविज़ह पिपण संभरिअ लज्जिआ कावि पिआ ॥ [ स्तोकारूढ मधु-मदा क्षण प्रस्मृतापराध-दत्तोल्लापा । हसित्वा संस्थाप्यते प्रियेण संस्मृतलज्जिता कापि प्रिया ॥ ] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 670) to illustrate 'madhupānam". 26) Sakhyādi-sampadaḥ parijana-pramodaḥ | Yatha
Vasa (?) thiammi soha-(Vol. IV, p. 1221)
वासट्टिअम्मि सोहा परिओस पसाहिआणणाएँ मणहरो । अप्पुटु-सोअ-विमलो सहि-सत्थो ती दप्यणम्मि विदिट्ठी ॥ [ वास स्थिते शोभा परितोष प्रसाधिताननया मनोहरः । अस्पृष्ट-शोक-विमलः सखीसार्थस्तया दर्पणेऽपि दृष्टः ॥ ]
Leaving out of consideration these uncertain verses and confining ourselves to the verses which definitely belong to HV we gather from their contents the following. information :
Hari is the hero of this epic. Rukmini is the senior (jyestha) and exalted (udättä) heroine (näyikā). Satyabhämä is the junior (kanistha) and haughty (uddhata) rival heroine (pratinäyikä). Hari offers a garland of fragrant flowers of the celestial Pārijāta tree to Rukmini. This arouses the jealous anger of Satyabhämä. Her face, marked with anger, looked beautiful like the moon, marked with its dark spot, and delighted Hari. In order to soften her anger Hari decides to fall prostrate at her feet. Clasping his own crown with both the hands he throws himself down prostrate. Tears of joy fall from her eyes, in spite of her best efforts to check them, on his back. He then promises her to get her the Pärijäta tree itself from Indra's garden. He sets out on his march against Indra seated on his vehicle (Garuda). Now Satyabhama, although perfectly confident of Hari's valour, feels great concern about his safety on account of her deep and abiding love for him.
Hari, in accordance with the rules of state-craft, sends first Satyaka (-Satyaki) his own charioteer as an envoy to Indra. He advises Indra to accept Hari's hand of friendship and honour the Yadavas by gifting away the celestial Pärijäta tree. Indra, however, does not pay any heed to his advice. Then a fight takes place between the two. Hari forces ultimately Indra to surrender himself to him and wins the cherished Pärijäta tree from him. Hari, the victorious, returns home with the Pärijäta tree. Satyabhama's heart is captivated by the sweet fragrance of the Pärijäta flowers, yet her gaze first rests on Hari and then only on the Pärijäta tree. Hari plants the tree in the garden in front of Satyabhämä's residence and thus succeeds in removing her sulky wrath. She infers from this gift that Hari's love for her is a thousand times more intense than for Rukmini whom he presented only a garland of the flowers of this tree. Rukmini has every reason to be angry with Hari for his partiality towards her co-wife but at his sight, joy and not anger pervades her heart.

Page #191

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
179
It is this episode of Hari's conquest of (Indra and his) Pārijāta tree which accounts for the title Harivijaya of the present epic. The statement of the Dhvanikära that if in a story adopted from a well-known source, the poet is faced with situations conflicting with the intended aesthetic emotion (rasa), he should leave out those situations, inventing in their place even imaginary ones, in conformity with the intended (rasa)-as done by Sarvasena in Harivijaya, and Abhinavagupta's comment on it in his Locana indicate that the main story of the epic was something different and the conquest of the Pārijāta tree from Indra's custody formed only one episode in it. The available citations from HV do not throw any light on the principal story but from the references of Bhoja and Hemacandra we may conjecture that it was mainly descriptive and not narrative. As regards its extent, we might further hazard a guess that it contained as many Aśyāsakas as are found in SB which is modelled on it. . From the citations we find that HV was composed in a graceful style. Its language and style are, compared to SB, more easy and less involved.
Like Pravarasena, Sarvasena too shows the use of long compounds and poetic figures of speech. Kuntaka's praise for his graceful style and Dhvanikāra's compliment for imaginative handling of the Pārijāta episode and Bhoja's appreciation of his work (by profusely quoting from it) Sarvasena very well deserves.
Rāvana-vijaya and Hari- vijaya are both composed in the skandhaka metre and Vākpati's Madhumatha-vijaya is composed in the Gathā metre. This series of poems of conquest is no longer extant. It is indeed an irreparable loss to the students of Mahārāştri language and literature.?
6. Vākpati himself has referred to this work in his Gaudavaho. He suggests that it was composed in robust or flowery language. Abhinavagupta (Locana p. 346, Banares edition, 1940) cites a verse from this work. For its correct text vide KS (p. 79). It is in the găthā metre. From Vākpati's statement we learn that he considered his earlier work as superior to Gaūdavaho :
महमह-विअअ-पउत्ता वाआ कह णाम मउलउ इमम्मि ।
पढम-कुसुमाहि तलिणं पच्छा-कुसुमं वणलआण । [मधुमथ-विजय प्रयुक्ता वाकू कथं नाम मुकुलयत्वस्मिन् ।
9945eniafcsi q en JASA1914 11 ] -v. 69 7. I gratefully ackowledge my thanks to Prof. M.V. Patwardhan and Dr. H. C. Bhayani for going through the restored verses and for suggesting improved readings in some cases.

Page #192

16
THE JAINA VIEW OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE
NVCE
It is indeed absurd to speak of a Science such as Aesthetics as Hindu or Buddhist or Jaina. A careful examination of the views of different writers about rasa, however, reveals that they are influenced by their own schools of thought or darśanas. The view of Bhatta Lollata, which is classed as one of the production (utpatti) of rasa, is regarded as that of the Mimāṁsā school; and the vicw of Srisankuka which interprets the manifestation of rasa as a process of inference (anumiti) is regarded as that of the Naiyāyika school. Bhatta Nāyaka's view of rasa, termed as bhuktivāda, shows influence both of the Sāṁkhya and the Mimāṁsā darśanas. Finally, Abhinavagupta's exposition of the theory of rasa is deeply influenced by the Vedänta school of thought.
In view of these facts it would be interesting to examine the Jaina authors' writings on rasa and see whether they reveal any influence of Jaina school of thought.
The Jaina text, the Anuyogadvārasūtra, which claims to be old (before third century A.D. ?) contains a Prakrit passage on nine Kävya rasas. It is not easy to decide whether this passage is taken from an early independent Prakrit text on Alamkāra-śāstra or whether it is composed by the author himself keeping in view Sanskrit texts on dramaturgy or poetics. No such early Prakrit work on poetics is so far known.It is not unlikely that the author himself added this passage. It is, however, noteworthy that the usual order of rasas is not followed here. The list notes the rasas in the following order:
1. vira 2. fțngāra 3. adbhuta 4. raudra 5. vridanaka 6. bibhat sa 7. hāsa 8. karuna and 9. praśānta. The definitions and the verses illustrating these nine rasas are such as are not to be met with in the treatises on the science of dramaturgy or poetics. It deserves notice that bhayānaka is not included in the list. In its place we have yridanaka (with vidā or lajjā as its sthāyibhava). The commentator informs us that bhayānaka is included under raudra. Further, it is vira, and not śrngāra that is given the pride of place. This change appears significant.
As the author belongs to Jaina monastic order we can well appreciate this change of emphasis. The inclusion of praśānta rasa in the list tends to suggest a much later date for this text, at least for this portion of the text. Again, it is to be noted that this passage does not indicate at all whether the author considered some of these rasas as pleasurable and some others painful or whether all rasas are pleasurable.
From amongst the Jaina writers on Alamkāra-śāstra proper Vägbhata I, Ācārya Hemacandra, Maladhāji Narendraprabha, Vāgbhaga (II) and Vijayavarņi, who wrote Vägbhaļālamkāra (1st half of 12th century A.D.), Kavyanuśäsana (1st half of 12th
1. Nandisuttam and the Anuogaddäräim, Jaina-Agama series No. 1, Sri Mahāvira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1968, pp. 121-124.

Page #193

Sanskrit Sāhityaśāstra
181
century A.D.), Alamkara-mahodadhi, (Ist half of 13th century A.D.), Kävyānuśāsana, (14th century A.D.) and Sțngārārņava-candrikā (last quarter of the 13th century A.D. ?) respectively, have nothing new to say about rasa. They follow, as a rule, the standard works on poetics. Acārya Hemacandra expressly states that he bases his view of rasa upon that of Abhinavagupta. The credit of presenting graphically and vigorously the view that all rasas are not pleasurable but some alone are pleasurable and some painful, goes to Rāmacandra and Guņacandra, the joint Jaina authors of the Natyadarpana (latter half of the 12th century A.D.). They were pupils of Ācārya Hemacandra, the author of Kävyänuśäsana. They, however, do not agree with their master, for whom they have great reverence, as to the nature of rasa and set forth cogently their own view which may be termed as sukha-duḥkhātmaväda as opposed to Kevalânandavāda according to which all rasas are always pleasurable. According to the Natya-darpanas 1. śựngāra 2. häsya 3. vira 4. adbhuta and 5. śānta are pleasurable whereas 1. karuna 2. raudra 3. bibhatsa and 4. bhayānaka are painful. They say : the view that all rasas are pleasurable goes against experience. The karuna, raudra, etc., when presented on the stage or in poetry cause indescribable pain to the spectators or sensitive readers. They experience Camat kära, only at the end of rasāsvāda due to the poet's and actors' power and skill of presentation. Persons (like Abhinavagupta) duped-carried away by this camatkāra, regard the karuna, raudra, etc. as pleasurable although in reality they are painful. Attracted by this aesthetic experience of grief etc., spectators feel like going to plays in which karuna is present. Poets and playwrights compose poems and plays which consist in pleasure and pain in accordance with this worldly life itself which consists in both pleasure and pain. Witnessing of tragic events on the stage never produces pleasure. If the representation of tragic events be pleasurable then the representation itself will have to be called misrepresentation.
The Natyadarpana holds that the sthāyibhāva itself, when developed by vibhāvas and vyabhicäribhāyas, and manifested by anubhāvas is to be called rasa. This view of the nature of rasa is identical with the utpattivāda or puști-väda of Lollata (and Dandi), and most probably with Bharata's own view of rasa as found in the Natyaśāstra. For Bharata explicitly says: Sthayibhāväńsca rasat vam upaneşyāmah |
-NS, Vol. I, Ch. VI, p. 299 and sthàyyeva tu raso bhavet
-NS, Vol. I, Ch. VI. p. 379 2 साधारणीभावना च विभावादिभिरिति श्रीमानभिनवगुप्ताचार्यः । एतन्मतमेव चास्माभिरुपजीवितमिति ।
-Kävyānuśāsana (p. 103) (Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya,
Bombay edition) 3 तत्रेष्टविभावादिप्रथितस्वरूपसंपत्तयः शृङ्गार-हास्य-वीराद्भुत-शान्ताः पञ्च सुखात्मानोऽपरे पुनरनिष्टविभावायुपनीतात्मानः करुणरौद्र-बीभत्स-भयानकाश्चत्वारो दुःखारमानः । यत् पुनः सर्वरसानां सुखात्मकत्वमुच्यते, तत् hafta ( ? la ) aaa !
-P. 141 (GOS, Baroda, 1959 edition)

Page #194

182
Studies in
Further, Bharata's description of a sensitive spectator corroborates this above. statement: "A true spectator at a drama is he who, when the character is happy becomes himself happy, when the character is in sorrow is himself in sorrow, and when the character is depressed becomes himself depressed."4
Thus it would seem that the authors of the ND, in contrast to their own revered Acarya Hemacandra who follows Abhinavagupta, word for word, as regards the nature of rasa, regard, following Bharata, Lollata, Dandi, etc., rasa as laukika and therefore, sukhaduḥkhärmaka. Here we may note, in passing, that the authors of the ND do not subscribe to the misrānanda-vāda of rasa alluded to in their work by Dhanika and Jagannatha, when they speak of its being sukha-duḥkhātmaka! They clearly state that five rasas are sukhātmaka and four, duḥkhätmaka. Regarding the location of rasa they differ with Lollata. They hold that rasa is present in the hero. (say, Rama, Duşyanta, etc.), in the spectator, and some times in the actor also.
From amongst the Jaina commentators on poetics a few deserve notice here. Namisādhu (1069 A.D.), the able commentator of Rudrata's Kavyalaṁkāra looks upon rasas as innate gunas, like saundarya, of kavya; and asserts that there is not a single state of mind which when intensified or fully developed does not become rasa. Bharata speaks of eight or nine rasas only as they appeal to the sensitive readers or spectators and are abundantly found in literature."
Manikyacandra's Samketa (1160 A.D.), Kavyaprakasa-Khandana of Siddhicandragani (1587-1666 A D.) and Saradipika of Gunaratnagani (17th century A,D.) are the commentaries on Mammata's famous Kavyaprakäia. Of these commentators, Siddhicandragani deserves special mention here. He very probably gives his own view under the guise of "iti navinah" or "navinds tu".
4 यस्तुष्टे तुष्टिमायाति शोके शोफमुपैति च ।
देम्वे दीनत्वमभ्येति स नाट्ये प्रेक्षकः स्मृतः ||
-Natyaśāstra (Ch. XXVII)
— किन्तु तादृश एवासावानन्दः सुखदुःखात्मको यथा प्रहरणादिषु संभोगावस्थायां कुमिते स्त्रीणाम् । अन्यश्च लौकिकात करुणात् काव्यकरुणः ।
-Avaloka commentary on the Dasarupaka (Ch. IV. p. 98) NS edition Bombay (1941) 5 अथ यथाइलाद इस दुःखमपि प्रमाणसिद्धं तदा प्रतिबन्धकत्वं न कल्पनीयम् ।
स्वस्वकारणवशाच्चोभयमपि भविष्यति । अथ तत्र कवीनां कर्तुं सहृदयानां च श्रोतुं कथं प्रवृत्तिः । अनिष्टसाधनत्वेन निष्टत्तेरुचितत्वाद् इति चेत् ।
इष्टस्याधिक्यादनिष्टस्य च न्यूनत्वाच्चन्दनद्रवलेपनादाविव प्रवृत्तेरुपपत्तेः ।
-Rasagangadhara (p. 31), Kavyamälä edition, (1939) According to Lollața rasa is primarily present in the hero and only secondarily in the actor who imitates or represents him.
6 अयमाशयो ग्रन्थकारस्य यदुत नास्ति सा कापि चित्तवृत्तिर्या परिपोषं गता न रसीभवति ।
भरतेन सहृदयावर्ज करवात् प्राचुर्यात् संज्ञां चाश्रित्याष्टौ नव वा रसा उक्ता इति ।
-Tippani on Kāvyālaṁkāra,
Kävyamālā edition (1909)

Page #195

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
183
According to him, the aesthetic pleasure or rapture is just like ordinary pleasures of sense, that arise, for instance, from pressing plump breasts of a beautiful young lady or from applying cool sandal paste to our bodies. Rasa is thus laukika and not alaukika. Rasa, by its very nature, being pleasurable he holds that there are only four rasas : 1. śrngära 2. vīra 3. häsya and 4. adbhuta. He rejects the claim of karuna, raudra, bibhatsa, and bhayānaka to the title of rasa." The whole discussion of this topic is marked by originality, logical reasoning and freshness of outlook and deserves to be read in the original. Siddhicandragani goes a step, and a very big step indeed, further than Rāmacandra and Guņacandra in holding that there are four rasas only. The description of Aja-vilāpa, or of śänta or of bhayātiśaya is aimed at showing the intensity of love towards Indumati, his beloved wife, or complete detachment or world-weariness of mumuksus or the tenderness or softness of a particular individual, respectively. In fact, however, poets undertake to describe such incidents, events or situations only to demonstrate their own descriptive power or the richness of their own imaginative faculty.
This survey would show that there is nothing peculiarly Jaina about their view of the nature of rasa. Along with other writers on poetics they take rasas to be laukika or alaukika, sukha-duhkhātmaka or sukhātmaka only. A “Moderner" like Siddhicandragani disregards tradition and holds that there are four rasas only. It is, however, very surprising, if not shocking, that none of these Jaina authors and commentators takes cognizance of the "nava-kavva-rasā pannatta" passage found in their sacred text, viz., the Anuyogadvāra sūtra.
7. Abhinavagupta explicitly says that some of the 'sthāyibhāva's are 'sukha-svabhāva' (of the nature of happiness, i.e. pleasurable) while some others are duḥkha-svarūpa' (of the nature of unhappiness, i.e. painful) : ETAAEFE ai gatty1TH ...... Alla razasutajai I :98921
-Abhinavabhārati on NS I. 119, pp. 43-44 Siddhicandragani holds that rasa is simply laukika.' Naturally, he recognises the four 'rasa's based on 'rati,' hasa' utsäha' and 'vismaya' and rejects the claim of 'raudra,' 'bhayanaka' etc. to the title of 'rasa' Abhinavagupta, who firmly subscribes to the view that "rasas' are 'alaukika,' regards even ‘raudra,' 'bhayānaka,' etc., as 'sukha-svabhāva' or 'sukha-pradhāna.' .
8. Kāvyaprakāśakhandana (p. 16 and pp. 21-22), Singhi Jaina series, Vol. 40, Bombay, 1953,

Page #196


Page #197

Appendix
SANSKRIT RHETORICIANS ON POETIC TRUTH.
Some pedants denounce poetry for a variety of reasons. Rajasekhara2 states by way of Parvapaksa three important arguments condemning poetry. Generally speaking, he mentions the names of the authorities from whom he quotes, whether with approval or without. In the present case, however, he merely states their objections against poetry but does not mention them by name. This fact probably would suggest that the objections have come down to him by tradition and have been advanced from very early times. They are as follows:
(1) poetry is full of lies, (2) poetry tenders wrong advice and encourages immorality, and (3) poetry is full of obscene matter. This paper confines itself to a study of the question raised by the first argument or objection against poetry namely, truth in poetry or poetic truth as conceived by the Sanskrit Rhetoricians. Before proceeding further it is necessary to state the prima facie views a little more clearly. The critic of poetry holds that poetry is false because it does not deal with things as they are in themselves. It, more often than not, misrepresents the outer world. The images in poetry are phantoms far removed from, reality. It contains highly fanciful, hyperbolic and often irrational accounts or descriptions. It often credits inanimate objects, birds, etc., with human attributes, which on the very face of it is false. It presses into service a number of poetic conventions which are obviously not in correspondence with, reality. It, many a time, distorts or twists history or mythology in borrowing incidents or legends for poetic treatment. In its craze for exaggeration it at times throws logic to the winds. In short, poetry disregards scientific, historical and even logical truth; and therefore, deserves
condemnation.
How Sanskrit rhetoricians (especially Bhāmaha and Rajasekhara) meet this criticism will be clear from what follows:
* The paper which is referred to in foot-note no. 3 on p. 19 supra, and which first appeared in Vikāsa, The Gujarat College Magazine, Ahmedabad, March 1960. (pp 60-68), is, for the sake of easy reference, reprinted here, with a few changes, as an Appendix.
1. Cf the oft-repeated lines
A 1,
and also the frequently quoted line, ("One should avoid the useless prattle that is poetry.")
2. Kavyamimämsä, GOS, Baroda, edition (1934), ch. VI, pp. 24-28.
3. असत्यार्थाभिघायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् | P. 24.
4. असदुपदेशकत्वात्तर्हि नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् । P. 26.
5. असभ्यार्थाभिधायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यं काव्यम् । - P. 27.

Page #198

186
Bhamaha" deserves glowing tributes for a lucid exposition of this topic of poetic truth in his Kavyalamkara. His treatment of the defects of poetry, Ayuktimat, Asambhava and Asādṛśya10 Desa-kala-kala-loka-nyāya-âgama-virodhi". and Pratijna-hetu-drstanta-hina12 throws light on this topic. He condemns the poets who attribute a role of messenger to inanimate objects and beings naturally devoid of the power of speech such as a cloud, the wind, the moon, a bee or a dove, a ruddy goose, a parrot and the like. He makes an exception, however, that a person maddened by longing may be represented as sending a message that way. In the course of his treatment of the Upama dosas he wisely observes:
13
(i) सर्वे सर्वेण सारूप्यं नास्ति भावस्य कस्यचित् । यथोपपत्ति कृतिभिरुपमासु प्रयुज्यते ॥ II. 43.
(ii) यस्यातिशयवानर्थः कथं सोऽसंभवो मतः ।
इष्ट चातिशया चमुपमोक्षयोर्यथा ॥ II. 50.
Bhamaha denounces the poet's description as faulty when it is spoilt by its unveracity as regards Deia (country, mountain, forest, etc.), Kala (time. day, night, seasons, etc.), Kala (fine arts like music and dancing), Loka (behaviour of plants and beings, the movable and immovable), Nydya (the science of Politics and Practical Life) and Agama (Civil and Religious Law and rules of behaviour). He gives illustrations of each one of these poetical defects. From this treatment of these defects it is very clear that Bhamaha does not grant licence of scientific ignorance or wanton inaccuracy of detail to the poet. He devotes almost the whole of Chapter V to a consideration of the logical errors called Pratijñā-hetu-drganta-hina." If a proposition in a poem is found, on examination, to be vitiated by logical flaw, it has got to be denounced as faulty. For detecting logical errors in others and avoiding them in one's own poetry the knowledge of logic is very essential. Further, a Sastra-Kavi is at liberty to use Pratijna (logical proposition to be proved). Hetu
6. Works on dramaturgy such as Bharata's Natyaśastra which lay down rules for the playwright (and the producer) to enable him to compose a play answering the description 'Avasthānukṛti' are, though important, excluded in this study due to the limits of this paper.
7. Ed. by D. T. Tatacharya, Tiruvadi, 1934.
8. I. 42-44. 9. II, 47-51. 10. 63-64. 11. IV. 29-50 12. V. 1-60
13. This is a clear reference to Kalidasa's Meghadūta. Bhamaha lived after Kalidasa; made an exception in favour of the Meghadūta, Kalidasa's masterpiece, and criticised other Duta-poems, which must have been its servile imitations. To argue the other way as some scholars have already done, does not appear convincing. Many poems of the Duta literature must have been before Bhamaha's mind when he wrote this passage.
14. Chaper V (Kavya-Nyaya-Nirnaya) is indeed unique for its treatment of logical science and of the logic of poetry or poetic truth in the whole range of works on poetics. His treatment of logical science has bearing on his relation to Dignaga and Dharma-Kirti. As this paper concerns itself with poetic truth, Bhamaha's treatment of logic is skipped over here.

Page #199

187
(mark, Middle term) and Dşstānta (Example), if and when necessary. The fact, however, remains that the Logic of Poetry (Kāvya-Nyāya) embracing Perception and Inference in poetry (Kavya-Pratyaksa and Anumäna) is one thing and the science of Logic (Nyāya) quite another : 7 317 APTATTHIETTIfra: 1-V. 336. The one (Kävya) is rooted in the world of phenomena, while the other (Agamas) aims at exact or scientific truth. Bhāmaha illustrates the truth of his statement thus : The sky resembles a sword (in its blue colour); the sound is heard from a long distance; the water of the river stream is ever the same; and the huge flames are wonderfully steady 115 These form examples of Lokāśraya Kávya. But Sāstras tell us that ether has no colour, that sound is a special quality of Akāśa (ether), has its place in the outer part of the ear; and that the water of the stream changes every moment, and that the flames of fire are ever changing.
Bhāmaha then turns to Pratijña.16 In logic it means the 'thesis' or 'proposition' to be proved; speaking of Pakşa17 (a place or subject which is possessed of an attribute or property that is doubtful or controversial). In poetry, however, it means 'a promise' or a vow to be carried out.18 Again this Pratijñā, as contradistinguished from the Pratijñā in logic, is fourfold, having reference to Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Kopa. He illustrates these varieties of Pratijñā and defective (fallacious) Pratijñās with suitable examples from the two Arsa epics, viz., Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa.19 In poetry, says Bhāmaha, we have an implied Pratijña?' as well. 15. V. 34b is rather faulty. The Kavyamimāṁsā IX, line 18 (p. 44) runs this:
" तदेव वारि सिन्धूनां महत्स्येमार्चिषामिति ।" The reading HERUHT appears to be incorrect for FHF is masculine. The K. S. S. (61) reads sea aisla... The reading वापि is obviously corrupt. The correct line must have been : तदेव वारि सिन्धूनामहो FAAT HET : | Even with this correction the difficulty of interpretation is not over ! Some take Helfra: to mean big flames whereas some others interpret it to mean 'the heavenly lights such as the moon and the stars.' Rājasekbara's comment on the passage (p. 44 pp. 20-24) appears to favour the latter interpretion. But Rajasekhara's support too collapses when we begin to interpret v. 34c : aratat 741 5671747 arada | If we accept Tatacharya's emendation aricia
for a lfa 91-which is certainly a corrupt reading, and his interpretation of this line that
etat RIA aaafa illustrates 871A1 FEfrai' (in v-33b, above) then we have no alternative but to take hifaq: to mean huge flames. 16. V. 35-46. 17. farciecho shit gafasiqui
TIETO AT: sfatraftata 11-V. 12." 18. E f ni afasi afarata | v. 35a. 19. Vide Bhamaha's Kavyalamkāra, V. 36-44. 20 V. 45 contains its definition, V. 46 its illustration.

Page #200

188
He then takes up Hetu for treatment. He states that as in Logic, here in poetry too, the Hetu (mark) possesses three distinctive characteristics;21 Kevalänvaya and Kevala-Vyatireka Hetu are enough to prove the existence of Artha (a thing-an object) in poetry. [All the Avayavas (component parts) of a Pararthänumāna are not required in poetry.] He illustrates the Kavya-Hetu as follows:
"Since the warbling of female ospreys is heard and the fragrance of lotuses smelt, there must be a lake younder, near the forest-region." In this case, the Hetu proves the existence of a lake by Paramparasambhandha. In logic, too, one infers the existence of a fiery region (below) perceiving a column of smoke high up in the sky. In poetry the Hetu is found (often) in the same case (Vibhakti) as that of the Sadhya and the Artha (to be proved) is known even in the absence of Anvaya or Vyatireka. He illustrates this point thus:
दीप्रदीपा निशा जज्ञे व्यपवृत्तदिवाकरा ।
हेतुः प्रदीप्रदीपत्वमपत्ती खेरिह ||
Here, the Sadhya is the advent of night; and the Hetu is the brilliantly burning lamps due to sunset.22
Kavyahetu, like the Hetu in Logic, becomes fallacious on account of ignorance, doubtful knowledge and error. He gives illustrations of these three fallacious Kavya-hetus as follows:
(i) "These Kasas29 attract our heart on account of the fragrance of their flowers" The Hetu is invalid for Käsa flowers do not have fragrance.
(ii) "From the fact of their being near the water, they are obviously Sarari
birds. The Hetu here is doubtful as it might as well prove the existence of some other birds like the (Indian) cranes.
(iii) That bird must be a Cakora as it possesses eyes with white corners. This Hetu is erroneous (Viparyayakṛt) as there are Cakoras that possess eyes with red corners.
In the treatment of Drstanta, he defines the term as follows: "It is the pointing out of a counterpart of the subject of description."24 He also mentions a 21. V. 21-25 define and describe the nature of a good or valid Hetu and Hetvābhāsa. 22. Tatacharya, however, interprets: यतो दीप्रदीपा भतो व्यपवृत्तदिवाकरा निशा जशे । इह साध्यधर्म : वेरपवृत्तिः । साध्यधर्मिणी निशा । P. 123,
23. काशानि काशास्यतृणकुसुमानि ।
-Mallinatha on Raghu IV. 17
24. Udbhata, who is the first rhetorician to define the figure Drstanta, must have taken clue from this definition :
Cr. उक्तस्वार्थस्य दृष्टान्तः प्रतिविम्बनिदर्शनम् - Bhāmaha V. 55.
and इष्टस्यार्थस्य विस्पष्टप्रतिबिम्बनिदर्शनम् ।
यथैवादिपदः शून्यं बुधे शन्त उभ्यते || Udbhata VI. 75.

Page #201

189
variety thereof called "Suddha-Drstänta" in which by the mere mention of the Drstanta word, the Sädhya and the Sadhana are suggested. And both these varieties are illustrated.
In brief, Bhamaha holds that Pratyaksa in poetry is in accordance with human experience the aspect of things as they present themselves to us, while the Sastras deal with scientific truth. He points out the similarities and differences between the Pratija, Hetu and Drstanta of logic and those in poetry. He points out that rigid logical form in respect of the Pratijña, Hetu, etc., is not desirable in poetry.
Dandin also treats of the defect 'Deśādi-virodhi'. He, however, summarily rejects the defect 'Pratijña-Hetu-Dṛṣṭanta-hina' as an insipid inquiry.25 He points out how the defects in one context turn out to be merits in others.26 Later writers like Vamana, Rudrața, Mammata, Hemacandra and others follow Bhämaha and Dandin in condemning these defects as betraying the poet's ignorance. These defects. are classified by Mammata as Prasiddhi-viruddha and Vidya-viruddha. He includes Lokaprasiddhiviruddha and Kaviprasiddhiviruddha under the first category. The Alamkarikas lay accent on the 'Alaukika' nature of the poet's creation;27 they look upon it as the very life of poetry. They take it for granted that poetry is for Rasikas, Sahrdayas only. They, therefore, do not think it necessary to deal with the question of poetic truth. After Bhämaha it is Rajasekhara who treats of this topic in his brilliant work called Kävya-Mimämsä." He emphatically declares that 'nothing is untrue in poetry. Highly exaggerated statements about the praiseworthy (men or subject) are found in no doubt; but such statements are found not only poetry but also in the Vedas, the Sastras and the Loka. (So you cannot condemn them as untrue. If you do so, you will have to condemn the Vedas and the Sastras 25. प्रतिशाहेतुरान्तहानिर्दोषो न वेल्यसौ ।
विचारः कर्कशः प्रायस्तेनालीटेन किं फलम् ॥-Kavyādarśa III. 127.
26. विरोधः सफलोऽप्येव कदाचित्कविकौशल्यत ।
उत्क्रम्यं दोषगणनां गुणनीय विगाहते | Kavyadarsa III. 179,
27. Cf. the opening verse, for example, of Mammata's Kavya-Prakasa.
28. Cf. भरतिषेषु कवित्वनिवेदनं शिरसि मा लिख मा लिख मा लिला । and सवासनानां सभ्यानां रसस्यास्वादनं भवेत् । निर्वासनस्तु राजान्त: फाइकु ज्याक्मसंनिभाः ॥
-Dharmadatta, as quoted in Sahitya-Darpana III, 9a. 29. Chapter VI, pp. 24-26, Chapter IX, pp. 44-46.
30. नासत्यं नाम किचन कन्ये वस्तु स्तुत्यैश्वर्थवादः ।
स न पर कविकर्मणि श्रुतौ च शास्त्रे च लोके च IP. 25.
Dr. Raghavan interprets it somewhat differently: "..That in Poetry there is no question of things being true or untrue, Satya and Asatya. It is all one Arthavāda. ...Even in Veda, Sastra and Loka, cases of Arthavada are cases of Poetry."-Bhoja's Sṛgära Prakasa, Vol. I, Part I, p. 131

Page #202

190
and the Loka as well.) He then actually quotes passages from the Aitareya/Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Mahābhāṣya and a popular verse that contain Arthavada.
In the course of his exposition of the topic Arthavyapti (scope of the subjectmatter of Poetry) he quotes the view of Udbhata. "Artha is two-fold: Vicaritasustha (scientifically accurate) and Avicăritaramaniya (charming but not scientifically true). Of these two, the sciences deal with the former and Poetry with the latter."81
Anandavardhana states very clearly that questions of truth and falsity simply do not apply to poetry (or creative literature in general):
"In the province of poetry where we perceive suggested elements, (the questions of logical) truth and falsity are meaningless. Such being the case, to examine (creative literature) through the (well-known) valid means of knowledge would lead to ridicule."82
Earlier he discusses at length the question of propriety and impropriety in relation to sanghațand and declares :
"Except for impropriety there is no other cause of harming rasa. The greatest secret about rasa is conformity to well-known canons of propriety."
From these passages it would seem that Anandavardhana believed in the autonomy of literature.
Rajasekhara clearly elucidates the distinction between scientific and poetic truth. "Poetic truth is founded on 'appearance' (Pratibhasa) and scientific truth, on the object reality. If appearance were the real nature of things, then the orbs of the Isun and the moon which appear to measure twelve angulas (angulama finger's 31. The editor of the Kavya-Mimämsä observes: "Yayavariya does not agree with the view of Audbhatas because they hold that the Kavyas only describe unreal aspects of things, and this means that the Kavyas are useless. He holds, therefore, that the authors of both Sastras and Kavyas describe objects as observed by them."-p. 188. This view, requires consideration. Udbhata's Bhamaha-vivarana, from which the quotation must have been picked up is unfortunately lost. It is reasonable, however, to believe that Udbhața must have written the passage while setting forth Bhamaha's Kavya-nyaya. (One of the three examples of Avicaritaramaniya, given by Rajasekhara, is drawn from Bhamaha, V. 34b.) Rajasekhara does not add a remark like "": after giving the view of Udbhața. Further, Rajasekhara himself supports Udbhata in his comment when he says: yatara' It may be stated here that one feels that a verse, illustrating "Sastra-nibandhopayogi yatha-pratibhasa vastu-svarüpa," is missing from this passage, for the example etc., is of Poetry and not of Sastra. 32. काव्य-विषये च व्यम्य प्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यत्वनिरूपणस्याप्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षोपहासाचैव
संपद्यते ।
33 अनौचित्याहते नान्यदसभङ्गस्य कारणम् । प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा ॥
-Dhvany loka III, p. 455
-Dhvanyaloka III, p. 330

Page #203

191
in the pot be the nature
and therefot while indifferet
breadth) could not have been of the measure of the globe of the earth as described in the Puräņas and Agamas." Further on, he records the view of Pālyakirti : "Whatever be the nature of a thing, its charm depends on the nature (and mood) of the particular speaker; and therefore one and the same thing may appear charming to one, tormenting to another while indifferent to a third one.34
He then quotes the opinion of his wife Avantisundari, who says : “There is no such thing as fixed nature of things, so far as poetry is concerned; for the poet's artistic mind conceives of things in all sorts of ways." She supports her view with a quotation : "the scientific nature of a thing does not matter much to the poet. He makes a thing good or bad by his imaginative faculty and poetic expression. Praising the moon he calls her 'the nectar-rayed' denouncing, a Doşākara85 (a mine of defcts and not the lord of the night). Rajasekhara agrees with both of them.
He deals with still another aspect of truth, namely, Kavisamaya (poetic conventions).34 His treatment is exhaustive and marked by originality. In one context he emphatically asserts :
TER , faar: 44111 (P. 99) In another context he declares : देशेषु पदार्थानां व्यत्यासो दृश्यते स्वरूपस्य ।
Ta 791 aefterfaqethe TATUA: 11 (P. 111)
To conclude : Sanskrit rhetoricians, especially Bhämaha and Rājasekhara ably meet the criticism against poetry on the score of its being false. They are fully aware of the distinction between scientific truth and poetic truth. They also know that the sciences are concerned with the former and poetry, with the latter. One cannot look for scientific truth in poetry unless it be a Sāstra-Kāvya. In the name of poetic truth they do not grant licence of scientific ignorance or inaccuracy of detail to the poets. Lastly, the very wide principle of Aucitya, 37 enunciated by the Sanskrit rhetoricians, embraces all the aspects of poetic truth such as, emotional and imaginative truth, poetic conventions and the law of probability. 34. Ch. IX, p. 46, II. 8-14. 35. Ch. IX, p. 46, II. 50-20. 36. For a treatment of the topic see my paper "Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Conventions,"
pp 19-27 supra. 37. For a lucid exposition of Aucitya see Dr. Raghavan's paper in "Some Concepts of tho Alamkāra
Šāstra, pp. 194-257

Page #204

Addendum
P. 1 : Sanskrit Writers on Plagiarism : Almost simultaneously with the publication
of this paper in the Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, the paper, Plagiarism-Its Varieties And Limits by C. R. Devadhar, was published in the
Annals (B. O. R. Institute) Vol. XXXV, Poona, 1955. P. 7,L.2 : In the course of his commentary on Sarasvatikanthabharana II. 39, thec om(from below) mentator Ratnesvara speaks of five kinds of derivative poems : 1. Prakrti
parināma 2 Parapurapravesa 3 Khandasamghātya 4 Calikā and 5 Parimala. He explains and illustrates all these five kinds of derivative poems. He explains and illustrates 'Parapurapravesa' kind of poem as follows : भाषामात्रभिन्नः परपुरप्रवेशः । यथादेवाधिपो वा भुजगाधिपो वा घराधिपो वा यदि हैहयः स्याम् । संदर्शनं ते गुणकीर्तन ते सेवाञ्जलिं ते तदहं विदध्याम् ॥ यथा चसविमो अणज्जुणमिमं अमहिंदमवासुइंच अप्पाणं । सेवंजलि-दंसण-गुण-कहासु तुह जो ण पज्जत्तो ॥ [शपामहे अनर्जुनमिमम् अमहेन्द्रम् अवासुकिं चात्मानम् । सेवाअलि-दर्शन-गुणकथासु तव यो न पर्याप्तः ॥] अत्र भाषामात्रं भिन्नमिति परपुरप्रवेशनामायं योनिजकाव्यभेदः ।
-सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणम् (पृ. १६३), काव्यमाला ९४, १९३४ In the above passage the first verse is in Sanskrit whereas the second one, in
(Maharashri)Prakrit. But the idea expressed in both the verses is the same. P. 18 : In the context-that the thought is a common property of all of us-the two
passages, one from Jayanta's Nyayamalijari and the other from Hemacandra's.
Pramānamimamsa, cited in foot-note no. 2 on p. 24 infra, are apposite. P. 19 : The paper, with a few changes, is now included, as an Appendix, in these f. n.no.3 Studies. PP. 78-108 : 'The Conception of Sandhis In the Sanskrit Drama' mainly deals with
the theory. Its application by the Sanskrit playwrights in actual practice needs to be examined by a close and truly critical study of some of the Sanskrit
plays and their Sanskrit commentaries. PP.117-122 : The topic of 'grammar in relation to poetry' is intimately connected with
aesthetics. A study of Sanskrit Grammar and Aesthetics-embracing the views
of literary critics (alamkärikas)-by the present writer will soon appear. P. 154, 11 1-4 : In this context the observations of J. L. Masson and M. V. Patwar
dhan deserve our notice :

Page #205

193
"It is of course true that finally the sahrdaya, the intelligent and responsive reader, is the final criterion. But generally, sahrdayas tend to agree amongst themselves to an astonishing degree. One has only to look at the interpretations of poems advanced in Sanskrit commentaries. They are usually very similar to one another. (This is surely why plagiarism in such matters was never considered to be a serious matter. Witness Hemacandra, who uses Abhinava's explanations of innumerable stanzas. He is not "cheating", he is "agreeing."). When a modern commentary like the Balapriya follows Uttungodaya's Kaumudt on the Locana, Ramasaraka is not being lazy or dishonest. This simply points to shared values in Sanskrit literary criticism." -Santarasa And Abhinavagupta's
Philosophy of Aesthetics, Introduction, pp, IV-V, f.n. 2, BOR Institute, Poona, 1969 PP 162-179 The rest of the verses in skandhaka metre, which are not covered in this paper, are being studied and will soon appear in the form of a separate paper.
Appendix In regard to the topic dealt with here it would be very interesting and instructive to compare Aristotle's reply to Plato's charge of unreality levelled against creative literature: "The pictures of life given by creative literature are not unreal in the sense of being inconsistent with the facts of life; but that their truth is of a different order from the truth of science. .... The business of the poet is to tell, not what has happened, but what could happen, and what is possible, either from its probability, or from its necessary connection with what has gone before....the difference (between the historian and the poet) lies in this fact, that the one tells what has happened and the other what could happen. And therefore poetry has a wider truth....; for poetry deals rather with the universal, history with the particular." -Judgment in Literature (pp 24-25) by W. Basil Worsfold, London, 1917
Appendix pp186-192-: With the thought of Rajasekhara-that kavya (poetry) is founded on appearance (pratibhasanibandhanam), which is only a paraphrase of Bhamaha's thought that poetry is rooted in the world of phenomena (tarra lokairayam kavyam") compare what Wordsworth says in the Essay Supplementary to the Preface to Lyrical Ballads: "The appropriate business of poetry..., her appropriate employment, her privilege and her duty, is to treat of things not as they are, but as they appear; not as they exist in themselves, but as they seem to exist to the senses and to the passions."

Page #206

Index WORKS AND AUTHORS
SANSKRIT
Page
34 157
Note : References are to page numbers, with n after a number indicating that it is found in the foot-notes.
Page Ajitasena
Avaloka 80n, 86, 87, 88, 89n, 94n, Anuyogadvārasūtra 180, 183
95, 96, 98, 106, 113n, 114, 145, Anye
75
150, 155, 156, 158, 182n Apare
75 Acārya
5, 15 Appaya Dikṣita
Adibharata
110n, 115n Abdhimathana
Anandavardhana -3, 6n, 10n, 15, Abhinava, Abhinavagupta 28n, 29,
16, 31, 33, 121, 134, 135, 139, 29n, 30, 30n, 31, 310, 35, 36n,
139n, 140, 142, 144, 145, 150, 38, 39, 43, 46, 49, 50. 51, 54,
151, 155, 157, 158, 159, 162, 162n 55, 56, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66,
Uttaracarita 262, 98, 99, 111, 71, 71n, 75, 76, 76, 77n, 84n,
Uttararāmacarita S139 85, 85n, 87n, 88n, 91n, 92n, 93,
Udbhaga 119n, 123, 125, 130, 94, 96, 98, 105, 106, 107n,
130n, 151 109, 110, 113n, 117, 120, 121,
Udyāna
123, 123n 134, 139, 144, 145, 149, 152n,
Aucityavicāracarcă 121n, 142n 155, 158 162n, 166, 179, 179n,
Kanāda
129 181, 182, 183n
Kayyata
151, 152n Abhinavabhārati 28n, 30n, 33, 35,
Karpūramañjart
158 35n, 36, 37, 39, 48, 54, 56,
Kalpalată
: 7in 61, 71, 71n, 72n, 75, 113n, 117,
Kalpalatā-pallava
77n 119n, 121n, 139, 139n, 141, 156,
Kalaplatāviveka. 50, 61, 72, 73, 158n, 183n
123, 123n, 129, 130, 131, 157 Amara, Amarakośa 35, 35n
Kavikanthābharana
12, 13 Amaracandra
Kavikulacakravartin Arisimha
Kātyāyana
121 Alamkāracintamani
23, 24
Kādambari Alamkāratilaka
14 Kāmasūtra
160n Alamkāramahodadhi
181
Kālidāsa 133n, 134, 136, 138-144, Alamkāravimarsini
35n
146, 148, 1631 Alaskārasekhara
Kavyakalpalat ävstti .
24 Alamkārasarvasva 33n, 35, 35n, 148n
Kavyakautuka
38, 151 Avantisundari 5, 15, 17, 162n.
Kāvyādarśa
17, 155n
75
24
163
25

Page #207

Kavyaprakaka 14, 31n, 33n, 34, 34n, 35n, 131n, 135n. 139, 142, 142n, 150, 153n. 157, 182, 183n Kavyamimässä 5, 12n, 13, 13n, 14, 20, 24, 25, 32n, 117, 159, 159n Kävyänuiasana 14, 24, 25, 29, 33n,
35, 38, 39, 55, 61, 72, 117, 131, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 153n, 180, 181, 181n Kavyalathkara 31n, 117, 117n, 123n, 124, 130, 130n, 155, 155n, 182 Kavyalamkarasutra Kavyalamkarasutra-vṛtti 26, 117,
2
{
147
Kiräta
140n
Kuttan mata
160n
Kuntaka 119n, 120n, 121, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154, 155, 159, 162, 163n, 179
SKumāra
146, 147, Kumarasambhava 133n, 134, 135, 136n, 137n, 140, 141, 142n, 143, 145, 145, 148
Kumāradāsa
Kumārasyämin
Kuvalayananda
140
Kecit
75 25, 26
Kesavamiśra
Kṛtydrävaṇa
62, 94, 97, 101
Kṛṣṇakavi
25
Kṣemendra 12, 13, 14, 16, 107, 121, 142, 145, 149 Gauḍavaho
Ghantuka (? Ghantaka)
Caturmukha
8in
34n
1, 2, 158, 179n
Gathasaptasat
146n, 156, 158
Gitagovinda
143
Gunacandra 37, 61, 135, 181, 183
Gunaratnagani
182
Caṇakyācārya
SJag innatha
Jagannatha Panditarāja
75
157
75
143, 182
195
Jayadeva
Jayanta
Jayaratha
Jānaki
143
24n, 154n
35, 35, 155
140n
113
135
Tärkika
75
Tippant (on Kavyalaṁkāra)
182n 75
Tikäkära
Dandin, Dandi 19n, 26, 117, 149, 155, 159, 162, 181, 182 Dasarupa, Dasarupaka 113n, 145, 155, 156, 161n, 182n
Dignaga, Dinnaga 126, 126n, 127, 129 Deviŝataka
151
Devesvara
Janakiharana
Jhalakikar
24
Desinamamālā
157
Dhanamjaya 78n, 84, 109, 114, 145, 147, 149, 161
Dhanika 88n, 145, 149, 154, 155,
156, 158, 182
SDharmakirti
117, 124n
(Dharma-) Kirti Dharupatha Dhundirāja
49, 50
88, 88n
Dhvanikara
164, 179
Dhvanyaloka 3, 30n, 31, 31n, 33, 35n, 38, 61, 75, 106n, 119n, 120n, 121n, 123, 134n, 135, 136n, 139n, 140, 140n, 141n, 155, 155n, 156, 158n, 159n, 162n, 164n Namisādhu 118n, 182 Narendraprabha (Maladhāri) 180 Nalavilåsa
111n
Nāgānanda
111
Nafakalak şaṇaratnakoda
58
Natyadarpana 37, 44, 56, 61, 72, 73, 135, 160, 181
Natyakastra 3, 28, 28, 33, 36, 37,
46, 61, 71, 109, 117, 121, 122, 139n, 160n, 181, 182n
Nayaka, Bhatta
65

Page #208

196
19n
99
Naişadha
140n Nyāyamañjari
24n, 154n Nyāsakāra
119 Patañjali
121, 127, 139 Pallava
71n, 72 Paumacariu Pāṇini 118, 118, 119, 119n, 121 Pratāparudra (play)
96 Pratāparudrayasobhūşana 34n Prabhāyatt Pramanamimāṁsā 24n, 154n Pramänasamuccaya 126, 126, 129 Pravarasena 158, 159, 162, 179 Bhagavadgita
27n, 38 Bhatta Tauta
38, 64, 75 Bhaga Nārāyaṇa
35 Bhattacharya Shivaprasad 154n Bhattendurāja
158 Bharata 28, 32, 35, 36, 61, 64, 66, 69, 7in, 83, 84, 85, 107, 109, 114, 114n, 115, 117, 121, 124, 149, 181, 182 Bhavabhūti
139 Bhāmaha 19n, 26, 117, 117n, 118,
118n, 119, 119n, 120n, 121, 122, 123, 123n, 124, 124n, 125, 126,
127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 155, 158 Bhāmahavivarana 130, 130n, 131,
131n, 133 Bhäravi
140 Bharatiya-Sähitya-Šāstra (In Mara
thi) 122n, 124n Bhāvādhyāya 70, 71, 75, 76, 77,
.
157
99
Bālabodhinikāra
139 Balarāmāyana
88, 158 Bilhana
13, 16 Madhumathavijaya 157, 179 Mandāramarandacampu
25 Mammata 14, 33, 33n, 34, 34n,
118n, 119n, 135, 139, 142, 149–
151, 154-155, 182 Mahābhārata
1, 3 Mahābhārata (in Devanagari) 139p Mahābhāşya
26, 119, 20n Mahābhāșyam Mahābhāşyakāra . 119n Mahimabhafta 149, 150, 155 Māgha
140 Māņikyacandra 29n, 30n, 31n, 35,
131, 182 Maricavadha Mälari-Madhava Malavika(gnimitra)
94 Mukulabhafta
154 Mudrårákşasa 79, 80, 81n, 84n,
88, 88n, 94n, 103, 106, 112,
113 Meghadūta Mịcchakatika
103, 116 Yogabhāşya Raghuvarsa
139, 143 Raghuvilasa
96, 113 Ratnākara
140 Ratnāyalı 47, 53, 88n, 91-94, 94n,
95-98, 100-103, 107, 110, 111,
113, 113n, 114 Rasagangadhara 143, 143n, 182n Rasādhyāya
70, 77n Rāghavabhatta 110, 111, 113 Rājasekhara 5, 5n, 6, 6, 7, 8n,
10, lin, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 20n, 21, 23-27, 32, 33, 36, 117,
149, 151, 154, 159 Rāmacandra 37, 61, 135, 181, 183
143
.
39
77n
Bhoja 12, 12, 16, 33, 35, 51, 81,
93, 117, 145, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 153n, 155, 155, 158, 162, 163, 163n, 164-170, 173–
179 Bāņa
14, 16, 159 Bālapriyākāra
156 Balabodhini
135

Page #209

197
155
75
181
Rämābhyudaya 100, 103, 111 Rāmāyana Rāvanavaho
158 Rävanavijaya 157, 162n, 163, 179 Rahula
76n Rudrata 31-34, 117, 118n, 149,
151, 155, 160n, 182 Ruyyaka (Rucaka) 33, 34, 145,
147, 148, 149, 152, 155 Lilāyati
157, 158 Locana 30, 33, 35, 35n, 38, 39,
54, 65, 66, 75, 120n, 123, 134n, 141n, 144n, 145, 149-151, 154,
155-157, 158n, 162n, 179n SLolata (in Devanagari)66, 180-182, Lollata
182n Vakroktijtvita 119n, 121n, 147, 147n,
148n, 154, 158, 163n Vajjālagga
14 Vasubandhu 126, 126, 128, 129 Vākpatirāja 1, 6, 15, 157, 179, 179n Väkpati s Vágbhata (1)
180 Vägbhata (II)
14, 16, 25 Vägbhatalamkāra
180 Vädavidhāna
129, 129n Vādavidhi
126, 128, 129n Vāmana 2, 15, 26, 117, 120n, 121, • 145, 147, 149, 150, 151 Vārtikakāra
119n Valmiki
16, 139 Vikramånkadeyacarita
13 Vikramorvašīyam
99, 112 Vijayavarņi Vidyānātha
34 Vivaranakrd
133 Viveka 8n, 13, 37-40, 45, 154 Viśvanātha 24, 34, 35, 78n, 79,
112, 114, 123n, 155 Vişamabānalila
157 Vişnugupta-saṁhitā
160n
SVeni samhāra
29n, 30n, Veni
79, 88, 88n, Š 89n, 93, 94, 96n, 97-102, 104,
106, 107, 111, 112 Vyaktiviveka
154 Vyāsa
1, 13, 16, 139 Vyasabhasya
39 Sankuka 2
} 64, 75, 97, 180 Srisankukas Sakuntala
110, 115 Sākyācārya (in Devānagari) 76n Sāradātanaya
81 Si่น
140n Sobhākara Socya (? Sākya) Spigåratilaka
160n Syngāraprakasa 12, 12n, 35, 35n,
51, 117, 122n, 124n, 145, 153,
155, 156, 158n Spigårarnavacandrikā Sridhara
34, 34n Śrimānabhinavaguptācāryaḥ 152 Sriharsa Sanketa 29n, 31n, 35n, 39, 131n,
149, 153, 153n, 157, 182 Saptaśatt
157 Samarādityakatha
153n Sarasvatikanthäbharaṇa 12, 33n,
145, 148n, 153n, 155, 162 Sarvadarśanasangraha Sarvasena 157, 162, 162n, 163n,
179 Sānkhya Sātavāhana
159 Såradipika
182 Sahityadarpana 24, 34n, 35, 123n Siddhicandragaņi 182, 183, 183n Subhăşitaratnabhändägäram 14 Subhăşitāvali
160n Surānanda
11, 11n, 15
140
75
180

Page #210

198
Setubandha 7156, 158, 162, 162n Setu S163, 172 Someśvara 39, 44, 47, 154, 153n,
157 Svayambhudeva
19n Haravijaya
140n Haridāsa
114 Harivijaya 157, 162, 162n, 163,
163n, 166, 179
Harşacarita
2, 2n, 14, 163 Hemacandra (Acārya) 8n, 13, 13n,
14, 16, 24, 26, 28n, 29n, 30n, 33, 35, 37-50, 54-58, 61, 64, 65, 72, 117, 131, 133n, 135, 139, 145, 147-152, 152n, 153, 153n, 154, 154, 155, 156, 163, 163n, 179-182
ENGLISH
261
" Alp Apprairüpak
Aesthetic Rapture (by
J. L. Masson and M. V.
Patwardhan) Albumzar A History of Sanskrit
Literature (by Keith) "Alpha of the Plough" 17 An Appraisal of the Hindi 156
Dasarūpaka (a paper by T. Venkatacharya) in Journal of the University of
Gauhati XI Bhat, G. K.,
37n Bhayani, H. C., Dr.
-179 Bhoja's Syngdra-Prakāśa 65,
124n, 153n, 157, 157n Buddhist Logic, Vol. I 129n Burns De
153 Deshpande, G. T., Dr, 122n, 124 Dhruva
Haas
84n, 89n Handique
162n Harpax (in Albumzar)
6n "Hemacandra and the Eleventh 154n
Century Kashmir Poeticists" (a paper in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta,
Vol. XXIII 1957 No 1) History of Sanskrit Poetics 153n
(by Kane), 1961 ed.
„ „ 1951 ed. 113n, 133n Skane
2n, 34, 34n, 113n, Kane, P. V. Dr. 123, 123n, 133n,
153 Kangle, Prof.
59 Keith SKrishnamoorthy K., Dr. : 130
Krishnamoorthy, Prof. 130n Maharastri Language and 157n,
Literature (a paper pub. 163n, in Journal of the
164 University of Bombay,
Vol. IV (Part 6) May, 1936) Malvania, Dalsukh D., Pandit 128n Masson (and Patwardhan) 64-66, Masson, J. L., Dr.
68, Patwardhan, M. V., Prof. 7in Nagar, M. L.
123n Nandisuttam and the
180n Aņuogaddardim
87
17
Dhruva, A. B. § Dhruva, K. H. Prof.}
Dhruva
139, 153 81n, 86n
Drama in Sanskrit Literature 87n SGhatage, A. M. Dr. 156, 157n, Ghatage, Dr.
163n, 164 Ghosh
89n, 110n, 1lln Gnoli ? 62, 63, 65-67, Gnoli, R. 3
130, 131

Page #211

199
37n
123n
128
16
Pandey
86n Parikh, J. T. Parikh, R. C.
153 SPatwardhan
64-66 Patwardhan, M. V., Prof, 68, 71n
179n Prakrit Verses in Alamkāra 157n
Literature : A Critical
Edition Pravarasena's Setubandha 162n
Translated by K. K.
Handique Presidential Address
13Cn (by Dr. Raghavan), The Twenty-first All India Oriental Conference
Srinagar, October, 1961 Punaruktavadābhāsa and 130
Genuineness of the Published Fragments From Udbhata's 'Bhämaha-vivarana (a paper by Dr. K.
Krishnamoorthy) SRaghavan, Dr. 12n, 33n, 35n, Raghavan, V., Dr. 37, 38, 44, 48,
65, 67–69, 121n, 122, 122n, 124, 124n, 130, 149-152, 153n,
157, 157n, 163n Ramakrishna Kavi
121n Sastri, Ramaswami K. S.
Sastry, Naganatha 120n, 123 Sastry, Naganatha P. V.S 123n,
125-127 Sastry Harishankar Sanskrit Drama
87n Śäntarasa And Abhinavagupta's 71n
Philosophy of Aesthetics Shakespeare
17 Some Old Lost Rama Plays 38n Stcherbatsky, TH : Studies in the History of 153n
Sanskrit Poetics (by De) Tatacharya, D. T. 123, 123n,
125, 127 Tennyson, Lord The Vidūşaka : Theory and 37n
Practice (by J. T. Parikh) Trivedi, K. P., Dr.
99n Ubet das sapta satakam des Hala
(ed. by Dr. Weber) 156 Udbhata's Commentary On The
Kayyālamkāra of Bhämaha
(ed. by Gnoli) 130n, 133 Upadhye, A. N., Dr . 156 Venkatacharya T.
156 Vidūşaka (by G: K. Bhat) 37n Vora, P. R., Prof.
123n Weber, Dr. :
156 Whately
16 Wilson
89n Writers quoted in the Abhinaya
bhāratz (a paper by Dr. Raghavan), JOR, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III
121n
imentary namaha 133
37

Page #212

FIRST PUBLICATION
Sanskrit Writers on Plagiarism :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. III No. 4, June 1954; and Vol. IV No.
1, September 1954 Sanskrit Rhetoricians on Poetic Conventions :
Bulletin, No. 6 and 7, Chunilal Gandhi vidyābhavan, Surat, 1960 The Treatment of Intonation (Käku) in Sanskrit Poetics : .
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XVI No. 1, September 1966 Abhinavabhārati Text-Restored :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XIII No. 2, December 1963 Vol. XIII No. 4, June 1964 Vol. XIV No. 1, September 1964 Vol. XIV No. 3-4 March
June, 1975 Vol. XV No. 2, December 1975 Kalpalatäviveka on Abhinayabhārait :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda Vol. XXI No. 4 June 1972 Abhinavabhārati Ch. VII Recovered ? :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XX No. 3 March 1971 The Conception of Sandhis In The Sanskrit Drama :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. V No. 4, June 1956 The Problem of Patākasthānaka :
Journal, University of Bombay, Vol. XXIV, Part 2, September 1955 Bhåmaha on Grammar in Relation to Poetry :
Sarada Pitha Pradipa. Indological Research Institute, Dwaraka, November 1962 Kalpalatāviveka on Bhämaha's Kavyalankara :
(Chapter V. v 5-10) Fresh Light on Bhämaha-Vivarana :
Sambodhi, Vol. No. 1, April 1972., L. D. Institute of Indology, Abmedabad-9 Rati-Vilāpa, Devisambhogavarnana and Alankärikas :
Anantacharya Indological Research Institute Series No. IV, Papers of I Seminar on Sanskrit Literature (pp 21-44), G. D. Somani School Building, Cuffe Parade,
Bombay-400 005 The Sources of Hemacandra's Kävyänušāsana :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XIV, No. 2, December 1964 Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses in Alankära Works :
Journal, University of Bombay, Vol. XXXVIII No. 74 October 1969 The Harivijaya of Sarvasena :
Annals, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Diamond Jubilee Volume),
Pune, 1977-78 The Jain view of Aesthetic Experience :
Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda. Vol. XXIV, Nos. 1 & 2, SeptemberDecember 1974

Page #213

ERRATA
Line 11
18
Read provided convey may engage construction now clearly Kavisamaya origin of ancient Bhagavad-gita which does
37.
nod
f. n.
13 f. n. (no. 10, L. 2) f. n. (no. 10, L. 5) f. n. (no. 14, L. 2)
23 f. n. (no. 25) f. n. (no. 38, L. 1)
14
relevancy Māņikyacandra kākus Kāvyamālā More Corrections passage outlet Bharata more correct to construe prakari Avaloka the commentators Vidhūta ह्ययं दोषः । Mammata's śrutikațu
118
f. n. (no. 1) f. n. (no. 44)
16 f. n. (no. 5, L. 2) f. n. (no. 6) f. n. (no. 9, L. 2 from below)
118 119
123 124
f. n. (10.7)
129
132
24
लोकगोचर substantiate Bhāratiya Sahitya Šāstra, (pp. 71-80) kalpalatāviveka on तदृष्टान्ते तथैवोत्तम restore Madhumathavijaya these mahakāvya
141 156 157
17 4 (from below) 5 (from below)
22 f. 1. (iii, Last line)
163
163

Page #214


Page #215

(3) An Anthology of Jain Texts (Sahityaratnakośe Jain Sangrahah) published by Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi.
(4) Ācārya Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana (with Alamkāra-Cūdāmaņi and Viveka): Second revised edition in collaboration with Prof. R. C. Parikh).
(5) Some Aspects of the Rasa Theory: A Collection of Research Papers, read at the Rasa Seminar organised by the Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology at Patan (North Gujarat)(in press).
He has contributed:
(B) (1) A Critical Introduction (dealing with the origin and development of the story of Rāma in Jain Literature-in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhraí a languages) to Pauma-Cariya of Vimala Sūri-published by Prakrit Text Society, Varanasi.
(2) A Critical Introduction, Critical Notes and several useful appendices to MallikāMakaranda, a brilliant Prakaraņa form of play by Rāmacandra, a renowned disciple of Acārya Hemacandra.
He has to his credit:
(C) (1) Studies in Sanskrit Sāhitya-Šāstra: A Collection of Selected papers relating to Sanskrit Poetics and Aesthetics, published by Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology, Patan (North Gujarat).
(2) Prakrit Verses in Sanskrit Works on Poetics-A Critical Edition (dealing with over 2800 Prakrit citations and their Sanskrit Cchāyā and a Critical Introduction--in press).

Page #216
_