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. ||vis BHOGILAL FINDOLOGY EHERCHA ISTITUT BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY PATAN

Page #2
Studies in Sanskrit Sahitya-Sastra 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) Spigararnavacandrika 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 (2) Jayadeva's Gitagovinda with hitherto unpublished commentary of King Mananka, published by L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.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
jJAna-kriyAmyAM mokSaH / tajjJAnameva na bhavati yasminnudite vibhAti rAga-gaNaH / tamasaH kuto'sti zakti dinakara-kiraNAgrataH sthAtum // rucInAM vaicitryAdRjukuTilanAnApathajuSAM nRNAmeko gamyastvamasi payasAmarNava iva //

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 paperKalpalataviveka on Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara (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 Alamkara-sastra. 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 Patakasthanaka and (2) Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses In Alamkara 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 (Kaku) In Sanskrit Poetics 4 Abhinavabharati Text-Restored 5 Kalpalataviveka on Abhinavabharati 6 Abhinavabharati CH, VII Recovered ? .7 The Conception of Sandhis In The Sanskrit Drama 8 The Problem of Patakasthanaka 9 Bhamaha on Grammar In Relation To Poetry 10 Kalpalataviveka on Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara 11 Fresh Light On Bhamaha-Vivarana 12 Rati-Vilapa, Devisambhogavarnana And Alamkarikas 13 The Sources of Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana 14 Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses In Alamkara 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 Bhamaha 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 d : PR RS SD SK SP Sr. Pra Vamana Veni VJ VV : Abhinavabharat!, Abhinavagupta's commentary on Natyadastra, GOS ed., Baroda. on the : Kavyalamkara Bhavaprakadana of Saradatanaya : Bhamahavivarana : Kavyadarsa : Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana. : Dasarupaka of Dhananjaya R. Gnoli, author of "the Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta" : Gaekwad's Oriental Series. Hemacandra/Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana : Hari-vijaya : Kavyadarsa of Dandi : P. V. Kane, author of "History of Sanskrit Poetics" : Kavyanusasana of Hemacandra : Kavikanthabharana : Kalpalataviveka (Anonymous) : Kavyam!mamsa of Rajasekhara : Kavyaprakada 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 : Natyaastra of Bharata (Baroda ed.) : Prataparudrayasobhusana/Prataparudriya : Rasarnavasudhakara : Sahityadarpana : Sarasvatikanthabharana : Srngaraprakasa (Mysore ed.). Bhoja's Srngara-Prakasa (by Dr. V. Raghavan) : Kavyalamkara-sutra : Venisamhara 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 Alamkarikas with a view to finding their answers to such questions, to point out the obligations, if any, of later Alamkarikas 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 Mahabharata proudly declares : dharme cArthe ca kAme ca mokSe ca bharatarSabha / - yadihAsti tadanyatra yannehAsti na kutracit // - 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 Vyasa'. Lovers of Bana 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. Vakpatiraja, 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". Bana (C.A.D. 620) in his introductory verses to Harsacarita 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 Alamkarikas, Vamana, the author of the Kavyalamkarasutra (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: arthaH ayoniH anyacchAyAyoniH vyaktaH sUkSmaH vyaktaH sUkSmaH bhAvyaH vAsanIyaH bhAvyaH vAsanIyaH kAlANA paDhama-kaIhi bhamiyamaparigahesu maggesa / iharA maIhiM hIrati dukkara ke vi kANaM pi // ' katto NAma NaiTeM saccaM kai-seviesu maggesu / sImaMte uNa mukkammi tammi savvaM NavaM cea||. asthAloaNa-taralA iara-kaINaM bhamaMti buddhiio| attha ccea NirAra bhauti himazra kaiMdANa // AsaMsAra kai-puMgavehi taddiaha-gahia-sAro vi / ajja vi abhiNNa-muddo vva jaai vAA-paripphado ||-Gaudavaho, v. 84-87 santi zvAna ivAsaMkhyA jAtibhAjo gRhe gRhe / utpAdakA na bahavaH kavayaH zarabhA iva // anyavarNa-parAvRttyA bandhacihUnanigRhanaiH / / anAkhyAtaH satAM madhye kavizcauro vibhAvyate // -vv 5-6 These verses yield different meanings also for which, see Kane's notes to Harsacarita, Chapter I.

Page #15
Sanskrit Sahityasastra '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 Vamana 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 Kavya-sastra, 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 Ramayana and the Mahabharata 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 Kavyamimamsa (Baroda edition) says in his notes that Vamana 'discovered that there are three distinct divisions of it' (p.220). Obviously the statement is incorrect. 4. Cf : 3917 P art dateret: Tilfa: 1 yathAsmai rocate vizva tathedaM parivartate // zagArI cet kaviH kAvye jAtaM rasamayaM jagat / sa eva vItarAgazcennIrasaM sarvameva tat // bhAvAnacetanAnapi cetanavaccetanAnacetanavat / 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 Vacaspati-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 nibaddhA sA kSayaM naMti prakRtirjagatAmiva // 6. #91973 Harita al RA HA7814 | naikarUpatayA sarve te mantavyA vipazcitA / / 7. HET EFTER aga: yaratatata AlekhyAkAravat tulyadehivacca zarIriNAm / / 8. tatra pUrva pratibimbakalpaM kAvyavastu parihartavyaM sumatinA / yatastadananyAtmatAttvikazarIrazUnyam // Dhvanyaloka IV. 10-12 and Vitti on IV. 13 9. DGTFATHISE TEETHTATET TIRYTHI T HA #107 1-Dhvanyaloka (IV.3) Vstti. 10. tRtIyaM tu vibhinnakamanIyazarIrasadbhAve sati sasaMvAdamapi kAvyavastu na tyaktavyaM kavinA / na hi zarIrI Titta EStet cala eta 704 1-Dhvanyaloka (IV.13) Vrtti.

Page #17
Sanskrit Sahityasastra Rajasekhara (First quarter of the tenth century A. D.) is the next writer, who treats of plagiarism in his Kavyamimamsa, '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 Rajasekhara's Acarya. Rajasekhara, 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 (gul uci-a very useful medicinal plant) mine like 'wine' (Msdvika-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 Acarya holds that the appropriation of more than three words, that are not double-meaning, (in sequence) is plagiarism. Rajsekhara 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 Acarya 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 Rajasekhara 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: yattu parakIya svIyamiti proktAnAmanyatamena kAraNena vilapanti, tanna kevalaM haraNam , api tu doSodAharaNam / -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 interprets 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 Acarya. '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. Rajasekhara 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 'Acchadaka', 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 Acarya. Vakpati, 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 Samasyapurana. 14. mUlyakrayo'pi haraNameva / varamaprAptiyazaso na punarduryazaH / 15. HIRUENT: a a afort: sa nandati vinA vAcya yo jAnAti niguhitum // 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. Rajasekhara 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 Sahityasastra 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 Siva 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 avayoniH 2 nihanutayoniH and 3 ayoniH of these anyayoni 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: artha pratibimbakalpaH anyayoniH 1 7 AlekhyaprarUpaH niDnutayoniH ayoniH tulyade hitulyaH parapurapraveza sadRzaH 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 (sadrsa)-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 Misra. 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. Rajasekhara then defines five kinds of poets who compose poems on these and 'ayoni-artha' respectively and are named, 1. Bhramaka 2 Cumbaka 3 Karsaka 4 Dravaka and 5 Cintamani.

Page #21
arthaH Sanskrit Sahityasastra pratibimbakalpaH AlekhyaprakhyaH tulyadehitulyaH parapurapravezasadRzaH vyatyastakaH khaNDam telabinduH naTanepathyam chandovinimayaH hetuvyatyayaH saGakrAntakam sampuTaH samakramaH vibhUSaNamoSaH vyutkramaH vizeSoktiH uttasaH navanepathyam ekaparikAryaH pratyApattiH viSayaparivartaH dvandravicchittiH ratnamAlA saGkhyAlekhaH cUlikA vidhAnApahAraH mANikyapuJjaH kandaH huDayuddham pratikaJcukam vastusaMcAraH dhAtuvAdaH satkAraH jIvaJjIvakaH bhAvamudrA tadvirodhI(-dhinI)

Page #22
i0 Studies in These thirty-two varieties are defined as follows: 1. Vyatyastakah-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. Natanepathyam-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. Vibhstanamosah-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. Pratyapattih-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. so'yaM kaverakavitvadAyI sarvathA pratibimbakalpaH pariharaNIyaH / 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 Natanepathyam 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 Sahityasastra 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. Ratnamala-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. Vidhanapaharah-Presenting a negative statement affirmatively. 7. Manikyapunjab-Arranging together ideas from different verses in a concise manner. 8. Kandah-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 Parapurapravesasadrsa are : 1. Hudayuddham-Transmutation of an idea based on some reasoning, found in an earlier poem, supported by a counterbalanced reasoning. 2. Pratikancukam2-Presenting the same matter which appears different on account of a different mode of expression. 3. Vastusancarah-Substituting the standard(s) of comparison in the original by one's own. 4. Dhatuvadah-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): sarasvatI svAdu tadarthavastu niSyandamAnA mahartA kavInAm / aloka sAmAnyamabhivyanakti pratisphurantaM pratibhAvizeSam // 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 Sarasvatikanthabharana and the Srngaraprakasa. It is, however, surprising that he almost leaves out the topic of plagiarism. In his Sarasvatikanthabharana 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: padapAdArdhabhASANAmanyathAkaraNena yaH / pAThaH pUrvoktasUktasya paThiti tAM pracakSate / S.K.A.11 - 2.57 Its classification may be thus represented: paThitiH T prakRtitaH padAnyathAkaraNam I vibhaktitaH pAdAnyathAkaraNam anyathAkaraNam bhASAnyathAkaraNam ekapAdAnyathAkaraNam pAdatrayanyithAkaraNam 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 Kavikanthabharana of the polymath Ksemendra (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 'vasante cakorasya akSiNI rajyete / ' This poetic convention might be responsible for giving the name Jivanjivaka to this variety. 28 The Srngaraprakasa is not yet published, except three Prakasas (XXII-XXIV). In his studies in Srngaraprakasa 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 Kavyamimamsa.

Page #25
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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. Ksemendra advises a would-be poet to cultivate a number of things, among which he includes 1. F T TH and 2. purAtanavRttaSu padaparAvRttyAbhyAsa:31 and illustrates them. He opens Sandhi II of this treatise with the verse : chAyopajIvI. padakopajIvI pAdopajIvI sakalopajIvI / bhavedatha prAptakavitvajIvI svonmeSato vA bhuvanopajIvyaH / / 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 Vyasa. Bilhana's Vikramankadevacarita (before A. D. 1088) contains two fine verses * bearing on the topic of plagiarism : sAhityapAthonidhimanthanotthaM karNAmRtaM rakSata he kavIndrAH / yadasya daityA iva luNThanAya kAvyAtha-caurAH praguNIbhavanti / / gRhaNantu sarve yadi vA yatheSTa nAsti kSatiH kApi kavIzvarANAm / Tag gag 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 ratnakara (a mine of jewels). Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana, with the Viveka by himself (A. D. 1088-1172) is 'destitute of originality.' In him "we find a placid borrowing from... Rajasekhara. ." His discussion on the theme of plagiarism clearly shows that he borrows almost word for word from Rajasekhara and Ksemendra. Pages 14-20 of his Viveka bear this statement out. With the exception of verses 42-43, 59-60 that are taken from Kavikanthabharana and examples of Padasamasya and Padadvayasamasya which he has added, the rest of this portion is borrowed from Rajasekhara's Kayyamimamsa 32. 31. 37714at: canadgrefeuerrafagata 27141 zlokaM parAvRttipadaH purANaM yathAsthitArtha paripUrayecca // 32 A. B. Dhruva defends Hemacandra thus : ..."Hemacandra is accused of borrowing wholesale from Kavyamimamsa...But an impartial study of his work would show that Hemacandra wants the Jains to know all that the Brahmanas

Page #26
Studies in The Kavyanusasana 33 of Vagbhata II (14th Century A. D.) together with the commentary Alankaratilaka by the author himself treats of this topic-plagiarism. The author, however, who largely borrows from the Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara, the Kavyaprakasa of Mammata, the Kavyanusasana of Hemacandra and other works shows absolutely no originality in the discussion of plagiarism. He simply reproduces this portion from Rajasekhara and Ksemendra or perhaps from Hemacandra's work directly, who as has been already stated, draws on Rajasekhara and Ksemendra. 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. Subhasitaratnabhandagaram contains one verse (whose source is not traced) on a plagiarist : kaviranuharati cchAyAM padamekaM pAdamekamadha vA / 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 Vajjalagga34, a Prakrit anthology, has two verses in which a poet and a thief are compared : kahakahavi raei payaM maga pulaei cheyamAruhai / coro vva kaI asthaM ghettaNa kahavi nivvahai // saddAvasaddabhIrU pae pae kiM pi kiM pi ciNtto| 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 Pisuna, the envious man'. It is Bana who distinctly condemns, perhaps for the first time, in the preface to his Harsacarita the poet-thief. This condemnation suggests that the plagiarist, in Bana's days, was a menace to good and great poets. knew, and consequently he does not hesitate to reproduce the wisdom of his Brahmana predecessor while making substantial addition to the stores he has inherited." 33 Kavyamala 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 Sahityasastra 15 Vakpati emphatically asserts that the province of poetry is unlimited, though for centuries hundreds of poets have been writing. Vamana 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 Alankarika 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 Rajasekhara 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 Alankarasastra almost leaves out this topic of plagiarism. His discussion of 'Pathiti' adds nothing new to what Rajasekhara has said. Ksemendra 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 Rajasekhara and Ksemendra and hardly says anything new on the subject. Vagbhata (II) sums up, after Hemacandra, the doctrines about plagiarism set forth by earlier Alankarikas giving some new examples. Critical Remarks According to the Alankarikas, creative genius (Pratibha-imagination), culture (Vyutpatti) and practice (Abhyasa-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 "Vyasa, Valmiki, ani Banu 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 yasastra 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 'Nirankusah Kavayah' 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, Sastras (to wit, Sankhya, Vedanta, Saugata), Sruti, Smoti, 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 pratijJAhetudRSTAntahInaM duSTaM ca neSyate // Bhamaha IV. 2 Dandin repeats in his Kavyadarsa the line agres 1917... ... etc. According to Kane, * Dandirr is earlier than Bhamaha. 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 Alamkarikas as follows: 073 glas fores-97916 013 76-af-37016 | I. 3.8 The order in which the poet mentions the two Alamkarikas perhaps suggests that according to the poet, Bhamaha was earlier than Dandin. For examples of the various Virodhas see Dandin III. v. 165-178. 2. faila: sistema framfara afaAIDISITI Jott Januai Tureffet famed 11-Kavyadarsa 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 Rajasekharal 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. Rajasekhara devotes three chapters (XIV-XVI) of his Kavyamimamsa 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 (sastras) nor .found in every-day life (alaukika) but are merly sanctioned by tradition (paramparayata). According to the Acarya, describing such things is a fault and deserves to be avoided. Rajasekhara 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 (sakhas), the six Vedangas and the various sciences (such as Nyaya, Vaisesika, 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) Jati (Samanyaclass). (2) Dravya (substance or particular things), (3) Guna (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 Alamkarika to deal with the topic of poetic conventions would be clear from his statement : so'yaM kavInAM samayaH kAvye supta iva sthitaH / # agafATEHI2119 fe falfaa: Ch. XVI. 2 GOS Ed. Baroda, 1934. 3 Cf. FER TO : 1 atagan qand Tat aat: FIFT: HET GEHI vibhinnA ekazatamadhvaryuzAkhAH sahastravarmA sAmaveda ekaviMzatidhA bAhUcya navadhAvaNo vedo vAkovAkyamitihAsaH purANaM vaidyakamityetAvAJ zabdasya prayogaviSayaH |--mhaabhaassym , Ahnika I. 5 4 The original line reads : kazcitparasparopakramAthai svArthAya dhUta': pravartitaH / The exact significance of Pearl HT is not quite clear, The File possibly is to render one's poem more attractive by introducing novel ideas into it although they have had no basis in reality.

Page #33
Sanskrit Sahityasastra (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) Niyamatah (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 svaya (8) asato nibandhanam Gifa I (R) sato'pyanibandhanam (4) asato nibandhanam (3) niyamaH dravya sato'pyanibandhanam kavisamaya 1 bhauma 1 (7) aquat nibandhanam I guNa T (<) sato'pyanibandhanam (6) niyamaH T (10) asato nibandhanam (9) niyamaH (26) sato'pyanibandhanam pAtAlIya kriyA 21 (2) niyamaH It may be noted that Rajasekhara's statement 'svargya' is like 'bhauma', and 'patallya like 'bhauma' and 'svargya' indicates that the twelve sub-divisions of 'bhauma' are equally applicable in the case of 'svargya' and 'patallya". 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; Asoka trees bear fruit; but poetic convention ignores these facts: the Malat is denied the right to exist in spring; sandal trees are said to have neither flowers nor fruit; and Asokas 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 Cakravaka 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 Sephalika flowers do fall during the day also, by poetic convention the blue lotuses are described as blooming at night and Sephaalika 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 Bhatta school of Mimamsakas, darkness is a dravya (substance). The Naiyayikas hold that it is merely the negation of light. The author of Sarvadarsanasangraha mentions two more views with respect to the nature of darkness.

Page #35
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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; Narayana Madhava are one; Damodara, Sesa and Kurma are one; Laksmi and wealth are one. Poetic convention relating to infernal things is just like the one relating to terrestrial or celestial things. Here Naga and Sarpa are one; Daitya, Danava and Asura are one. Thus many other varieties of the poetic conventions are possible. Rajasekhara 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 Rajasekhara, while treating of Kalavibhaga (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 Alankaracintamani2 most of the poetic conventions enumerated by Rajasekhara. He accepts Rajasekhara'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 Rama resides in a lotus as well as on a king's bosom. 1 TERRY : FATTH' sa 141902: I p. 99. and dezeSu padArthAnAM dhyatyAso dRzyate svarUpasya / fa au Jaafagfa TAROT : 11 p. 111 2 Edited by Padmaraja Pandit in the Kavyambudhi (1893-1894).

Page #36
Studies in Hemacandra (1088-1172 A. D.) while treating of this topic in his Kavyanusasana1 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 Jati, 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 Prakirnaka -dravya-samayas of Rajasekhara. Arisimha and Amaracandra (middle of the thirteenth century) in their Kavyakalpalatavriti 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 Ganga contains water-elephants (ii) the moonlight can be caught in the folded hands (iii) the valour is red and hot. Devesvara (beginning of the 14th century) in his Kavikalpalata treats of this topic. He seems to have borrowed freely from the Kavyakalpalatavrtti. He omits a few lines from his predecessor and changes only a word here or there." Visvanatha (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 Asoka 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 Pramanamimamsa thus....... anAdaya evaitA vidyAH saMkSepavistara vivakSayA navanavI bhavanti tattatkartu kAnte / ... This passage reminds us forcefully of Jayanta's (9th Century) passage in the Nyaymanjari.... "fenfa mala arafm vidyAH pravRttAH saMkSepavistaravivakSayA tu tAMstAMstatra kartRnAcakSate / " 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 vikAzitA for smeratA bhUtvag for bhUrjan 8 Nirnaya Sagara Ed., PP. 436-438

Page #37
Sanskrit Sahityasastra Vagbhata (14th Cent.) in his Kayyanusasanal (Ch. I) deals with the topic of poetic conventions. He largely borrows from the Kavyamimamsa Kavyanusasana. He merely mentions and illustrates the poetic conventions given by his predecessors. Some of his illustrations are the same as those found in the Kavyamimamsa/ Kavyanusasana. Some poetic conventions he illustrates with new examples drawn from the works of Rajasekhara and others. Keshavamisra (latter half of the 16th century) treats of this topic in his Alumkarasekhara?. He seems to have largely drawn upon the Kavyakalpalatavstti and the Kavikalpalata 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. Kesavamisra details, under Kavisampradaya, 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 (varnaniya), the colours of various objects in nature (sukladiniyama) and words that convey numerals from one to one thousand (samkhyaniyama).3 By including all these rules Kesavamisra attempts to enlarge the sphere of poetic conventions. On scrutiny, however, one would find that many of these rules hardly deserve the style Kavisamaya. Kesavamisra 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. Rajasekhara's idea of poetic convention is cleary quite different. Krsnakavi (later than 1600 A.D.) in his Mandaramarandacampu4 (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 Bhamaha and Dandin are silent on this topic. Vamana in his Kavyalamkarasutravstti 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. Rajasekhara 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. Rajasekhara's successors do not evince any interest regarding the precise nature and definition and the origin of Kavisamaya. They completely ignore Rajasekhara's classification of Kavisamayas into Svargya, Bhauma and Pataliya, 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 Pataliya classification by Rajasekhara. Almost all the later Alamkarikas ignore Rajasekhra's classification based on Jati, Dravya, Guna and Kriya probably as scholastic. They hardly add anything new to what Rajasekhara 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 Rajasekhara or in adding new illustrations. Kesavamisra's attemmpt to widen the province of Kavisamaya by bringing under it the topics of "Varnaniya', 'Sukladiniyama' and Sankhyaniyama is not quite successful. As already remarked, he fails to distinguish between Poetic convention' and 'Conventional poetry Keith remarks that Rajasekhara 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 Kavyas repeat almost mechanically."3 This view of Keith does not adequately explain the origin ot all the conventions. Rajasekhara's explanation is highly ingenious. In putting forward his explanation Rajasekhara might have taken a hint from the well-known passage in the Mahabhasya 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, Adhyaya 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 Sahityasdstra 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 Cakravaka, Cakora and Cataka. 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 Tamraparni'). 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. Kama and Krodha springing from Rajast are naturally red. Again, describing darkness as 'suchibhedyh' 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 Sasanka and the Mrgalanchana 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 Rajasekhara 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-Bhagavatgira, III 37. a

Page #40
THE TREATMENT OF INTONATION (KAKU) IN SANSKRIT POETICS ayaM kAkukRto loke vyavahAro na kevalam / zAstreSvapyasya sAmrAjya kAvyasyApyeSa jIvitam / / It is in the fitness of things that Bharata, the author of Natyasastra 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 pathya-gunas or dharmas : 1 svara 2 sthana 3 varna 4 kaku 5 alamkara2 and 6 anga. In this paper we, however, confine ourselves to the nature and content of one pathyadharma only, viz., kaku-intonation. Natyasastra 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 Sakanksa Kaku, whereas a sentence which has completely expressed its meaning and does not raise any expectancy gives us the second variety called Nirakanksa Kaku. Now, a sakank sa kuku 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 mandraditarantam* 1 Kavyamimamsa VII, p. 32 (Baroda Edition). 2 Th word alam ara is not used here in its usual sense of bhusani but of parjapii : kAkorevopakAra-saMpAdakAH paripUrNatAyA (dhA)yino'laGkArAH, alamiti paryAptyarthaH iha, na bhUSaNArthaH / -Abhinavabharati, Vol. II., p. 386.. 3 Abhinavagupta rightly comments on akanksa as : vaktRgatA vAkAkSA vAkya upacayate / sA ca prakaraNAdibalAnnizcIyate / viziSTaviSayatvaM cAkAGkSAyAstata Ulaza -Abhinavabharati, 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 sakanksa and nirakanksa sentences. Natyasastra (XVII, pp. 391-92, G.O.S. ed.) describes these as 'taradimandrantar' and *mandraditarantam' respectively. Abhinavagupta, however, says in his commentary : vat sakanksam uktar tan mandropakramam tarasamaptikam pathaniyam iti/and. Etad-viparita nirakanksa, tasyah sirah-sthana eva mandrahtarata pratisthanam (?) hyuttarottararatvam adharadharamandratvam ca vaksyamah/ Hemacandra, who adopts these portions from Natyasastra and Abhinavabharati, unfortunately for us, wrongly uses the sam: expression 'mandra ditarantam' with reference to both sakansa and nirakankna sentences. From Abhinavagupta's gloss it is clear that sakanksa sentence is mandraditarantaim'; naturally, nirakanksa sentence is 'taradimandrantan'.

Page #41
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 29 and has not completed its accent (Varna) or alamkara; and, nirakanksa kaku from the head (siras) and which begins with a high pitch and ends in a low pitch and has its accent and alamkara completed." Abhinavagupta's gloss on these two varieties of intonation may be read with profit : "In the nirakarksas kaku the sentence means just what it says, implies not a bit more or less In the sakanksa kaku 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 pramana. Of course, 'pramana', 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 akanksa raised relates to (i) the change in the meaning (arthantara) or (ii) the additions of some particulars to the expressed maeaning (tadarthagata eva visesah) or (iii) the negation of the expressed meaning (tadarthabhayah). Abhinavagupta further illustrates this threefold subject-matter of kaku : (i) yad? ramena krtam tadeva kurute dronatmajah krodhanah. In this sentence the intonation suggests the meaning that Asvattaman would far outdo Parasurama in avenging himself, when the meaning, understood through convention is only : "The infuriated Asvatthaman will do exactly what Parasurama had done in former times)." (ii) "Sa (? yasya) dasakandharam"9. In this verse the intonation understood in 'tadatmaja ihangadah" suggests the additional meaning that Angada, the son of the famous Vali possesses all the qualities expected of Vali's son. 5 The passage as printed, is corrupt. I give it below as restored by me on Hemacandra's authority: yAdRzo vAkyAt saGketabalenArthaH pratIyate tAdRza eva yatrAnyUnAdhikaH pramANabalena nirNayayogyastadvAkyaM nirAkAGkSam / tadviparItaM sAkAGkSam / yasmAd vAkyAd yAdRzaH saGketabalenAthaH pratIvate, na tAdRza eva kintu nyUnAdhikaH pramANabalena nirNayayogyastadvAkyaM sAkAkSam / / 6 The text as printed is corrupt, I quote it bellow as restored by me on the same authority : * tatrAkAkSA arthAntara eva, tadarthagata eva vA vizeSe, tadarthAbhAve vA / 7 Venisa mhara III 33 d. 8 This intonation has escaped the attention of all commentators and annotators of Venisamhara. Abhinavagupta's gloss on this verses clearly points out the change of meaning on account of the intonation : atra kAkuH kRta ityudAttakampitavarNasyoccadIptAlaGkArasya cAsamApyA ato'yadhikaM kuruta iti kAkuprabhAvAdarthAntare gatiH / 9 Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana (p. 337) and Manikyacandra's Sa mketa (p. 307, Mysore ed. p. 200, Poona, ed.) read 'yasya' in place of 'esa'; the full verse is : sa yasya dazakandharaM kRtavato'pi kakSAntare gataH sphuTamavandhyatAmadhipayodhi sAndhyo vidhiH / tadAtmaja ihAGgadaH prahita eSa saumitriNA kva sa kva sa dazAnano nanu nivedyatA rAkSasAH / /

Page #42
30 Studies in (iii) Swasthale bhavanti mayi jIvati dhartarastrah 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 alamkaras. The other five alamkaras 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 laksagrhananala etc. (Venisamhara I. 8 ) Hemacandra and Manikyacandra, no while adopting this quotation from Abhinavabharati (Vol. II, p. 392); he gives in his context the "pratika" : 'nirvanavairadahanah" iti (Veni I. 7). The remark "atra bhavatii sa.... bhavanabhavamaha" which is quite relevant to the verse quoted in *Abhinavabharati, has no relevency to the staza 'nirvanavairadahanah....etc., as its last quhrter reads savastha bhavaniu kururajasutahsabhrtyah 11 atra bhavantIti sAkAiyA kAkurbhavanAbhAvamAha - bhavantIti vacanoccAraNa varge'saMbhAvanAM vidadhadamAtrasya niSedhAmano viSayaM bhavanalakSaNamarpayati / [ na bhavantyevetyarthaH // ] -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 : svasthA iti bhavanti iti, mavi jIvati iti dhArtarASTrA iti ca sAkAGkSadI sagadra datAraprazanano dIpanacitritA kAkura saMbhAgo'samartho'tyarthamanucitazca vyagyamartha spRzantI tenaivopakRtA satI krodhAnubhAvarUpatAM vyasyopaskRtasya vAcyasyaivAdhatte / --Locana on Dhvnyaloka III 38. 12 ayaM kriyate anena saH alaGkAraH / 13 alamiti paryAzvartha raha na bhUSaNArthaH / Vide fn 2 supra 14 The passage, as printed, is corrupt. It is restored on the strength of Hemacandra and Manikyacndre as : nanu zrutamarthamanAhatya kathaM kAkurarthAntara pratipAdayet / tatroktamanyaiH vastusvabhAvo'tra draSTavyaH na hiM dRSTe'nupapannaM nAma iti vayaM tu brUmaH iha yeyaM prathamena saviraspandena prANollAsanayA varNAdivizeSarUpahInA vAgU janyate sA nAdarUpA satI harSotkAdi (V-L--harSazokAdi) cittavRttiM viviniSedhAdyabhiprAye vA tatkAliGgatayA vA tAdAtmyena vA gamayatIti tAvat sthitam / tathA ca prANyantarasya mRgasArameyAderapi nAdamAkarNya bhayaroSa - zokAdi pratipadyate, tadayaM nAdAncitavRsyAdyacagamo'numAnaM taat| ye khete varNavizeSAste tannAdarUpasAmAnyAtmakavAktantugranthimayA iva prAcyaprayatnAtiriktanimittAntarApekSAstata evAnyatrApyabhiprete'nyathApi prayoktuM zakyAH / ata dRSTavyabhicArAH / nAdastu satyuidbhinnamukharAgapulakasthAnIyo nAnyathA kartu pAryata ityananyathAsiddho'nyathAsiddha zabdArtha bAdhata eva vA yathokta - ' bhIru na me bhayam' iti, anyaprakAratAM vA vAkyArthasya vizeSaNArpaNena vidhatte / -- Abhinavabharati, Vol. II, pp. 386-387.

Page #43
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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. para vani) 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 (pranollasa). 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 anubhavas (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 "bhiru, na me bhayam"sound transforms its very character by suggesting a special meaning. Rudrata17 is the first rhetorician who sets forth a Sabdalamkara (a figure of word or sound) called kakuvakrokti. Anandavardhana, 18 however, treats of kaku as gunabhutavyangya. Abhinavagupta emphatically asserts in his commentary on Dhvanyaloka III-38 that each and every passage where kaku is employed falls under gunibhutavyangya : ..kakuyojanayam sarvatra gunibhutavyangyataiva. 15 'Face is an index to the mind'. It has been well said : AkAreNaiva caturAH tarkayanti pareGgitam / *16 Cf. : "HETITIARO Seya fanfarroaa lazit:" A. Sakuntala II. 5. b. 17 Kavyalamkara II. 16 18 Dhvanyaloka III-38 (p. 477, KSS ed.) Manikyacandra's gloss on Kavyaprakasa IX. (p. 200 Poona edition of his Sainketa) specifically says: guNIbhUtavyaGgayabheda evAyam / yadAha dhvanikAraH arthAntaragatiH kAkA yA caiSA paridRzyate / sA vyagyasya guNIbhAve prakAramimamAzritA // tanmate kAkuvakroktirnAlaGkAraH / Abhinava zupta emphatically says : 15173140 Toituacigaaa |-- Locana, p. 480.

Page #44
32 Rajasekhara19 criticises Rudrata for laying down kaku-vakrokti as a figure of sound : "abhiprayavan panhadharmah kakuh sa katham alamkart sydd !" iti Yayavartyah...."kaku 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 kaku, after Bharata, into two varieties. He defines these two varieties as That which raises an expectancy about another sentence is sakanksa whereas that which comes into being with the stopping of the given sentence is nirakanksa. A sentence can become sakankta with a particular kaku whereas with a different kaku it can become nirakanksa also. Sakaksa kaku is threefold, being based upon aksepa (nisedha), prasna and vitarka, nirakanksa kaku, too, is threefold, being based upon vidhi, uttara and nirnaya. These divisions may be shown in a tabular form as : 1 Lakank su aksepagarbha prasnagarbha vitarka garbha Studies in kaku T nirakanksa vidhirupa uttararupa nirnayarupa (nisedhagarbha) Rajasekhara illustrates these varieties with suitable examples and clarifies their interrelation with the remark that the three varieties of sakanksa kaku are necessarily and invariably related to the corresponding three varieties of nirakanksa kaku. To take one case, a sentence read or recited with a particular intonation suggests a meaning which is of the nature of aksepa (censure) or is negative in character, and is termed aktepagarbha or nisedharupa kaku. If this very sentence is read or recited with a different intonation the meaning turns affirmative in character, and this variety. is called vidhirupa kaku. Infinite, however are the varieties of kaku, says Rajasekhara, which are not thus interconnected. He then gives four stanzas with different kauks. The kakus 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) abhyanujna-upahasakaku (iii) triyogakaku (where three kakus, not interrelated, are found) (iv) caturyogakaku (where four kakus, not interdependent, are found). 19 Kavyamimamsa VII, pp. 31-33 (Baroda edition).

Page #45
Sanskrit Sahityasa 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 Mimamsakas 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 kaku 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: evaM tricatura kAkuyogo'pi | Triyoga and caturyoga found in Rajasekhara are classified more systematically by Bhoja: ekaguna, dvi-guna, triguna and caturgun.1.21 Mammati agrees with Rudrata in considering this kaku-vakrokti as Jabdalamara (a gure of word).22 He does not take note of Rajasekhara's criticism referred to above. He further agrees with Anandavardhana in considering kakvakipta as a variety of gumibhitavyangya.2 At one place he suggests that kaku does not necessarily imply the kakvaksipta variety of gunbhatavyangya. 53 Ruyyaka (Rucaka) speaks of kakuvakrokti as an arthalamkara (figure of sense). Hemacandra following Rajasekhara, rejects kakuvakrokti as an as an alamkara. 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 knthabharana II. 56: Srngaraprakasa VII (Mysore edition, Vol. II. p. 240-242). Dr. Raghavan Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa, p. 365. 21 Dr. Raghavan Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa, pp. 687-688. 22 Kavyapra',asa IX. Karika I 23 Kavyaprak asa V. Karika I. 24 Kavyaprakasa III. Karika I. The reader is referred to Mammata's Vitti on the verse tailabhutam drstva etc. (Veni I): na ca vAcyasidayaGgamatra kAkuriti guNIbhUtavyaGgyatvaM zaGkatham / praznamAtreNApi kAkorvizrAnteH / 25 A'am carasarvasva (Kavyama'a ed. pp. 219-220). 26 Kavyasazani (M.J.V. ed. pp. 333-337). 5

Page #46
34 Studies in Vidyanatha27 follows Ruyyaka in describing kakuvakrokti as a figure of sense (arthalamkara). Visvanatha, like Mammata describes kaku-vakrokti as a sabdalamkara, 23 speaks of arthi vyanjana due to the speciality of kaku29 and of kukvaksipta as a variety of gunibhutavyangya 30 It is interesting, however, to note that the verse which Mammata cites as an example of kakuvakrokti is quoted by Visvanatha to illustrate arthi vyanjana. Kanesi defends Visvanatha thus : "There (in Kayyaprakasa 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 Visvanatha 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 Diksita goes back to Ruyyaka in treating kakuvakrokti as an arthalamkara. These different views of different rhetoricians about the precise nature of kaku are, no doubt, contradictory and confusing. It is but proper to try to understand their possible reasoning behind these conflicting views. Kaku is a peculiar dhvani and dhvani is sabda. Possibly for this reason Rudrati might have called kakuvakroti a figure of word or sound. Resorting to the test of sabda-pariviti-saha and Sabdapariviti-asaha, it is easily found that kakuvakrokti falls under arthalamkaras. Like some alamkaras such as samasokti, paryayokta. etc. kakuvak rokti, too constitutes gunibhutavyangya, 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 kaku appears after the expressed meaning has been duly comprehended we have dhvani-kavya. The illustrations cited for explaining the nature of kaku are all metrical. This should not mislead one into believing that kakus can be found in verse only. With a view to removing any such wrong notion Sridhara33 observes in the course of his commentary on Kavya-prakasa IX.I that this alamkara can be found in both prose and poetry. ayam alamkaramargakramah padyavad gadye api drastavyah31 27 Prataparudrayasobhusana (p. 411). 23 Saityadarpana X. 9. 29 Sahitya darpana II. 16-17. 30 Sahityadarapana IV, 13. 31 Kane :-Sahityadarpana (Notes p. 84). 32 Kuvalayananda (Nirnaya Sagaj edition pp. 157-76). 33 The Kavyaprakasa of Mammata (with the commentary of Sridhara Calcutta, (p. 291). 34 Sridhara quotes this definition in his commentary on Kavyaprakasa (p. 52). The editor mentions there (N. S. XVI) as its source. But this source is incorrect.

Page #47
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 35 It may be noted, in passing, that Bhatta Narayana's Venisamhara provides most of the illustrations of Kaku This play-wright is very fond of using kaku in his drama. No other play-wright has used this device so profusely and strikingly. Although Bharata devotes considerable space to the exposition of kaku, nowhere does he define it. Amara35 defines kaku thus : kakuh striyam vikaro yah sokabhityadibhir dhvanehKaku is a modulation of voice owing to sorrow, fear and such other feelings. Bhoja quotes in his srngaraprakasa36 the following definition of kaku without mentioning its source : "Bhinnakanthadhvanir dhiraih kakurityabhidhiyate" "Alteration of the sound in the throat is to be called a koku." Visvanatha approves of this definition in his Sahit yadarpana (II). Jayaratha, the author of the commentary on Alamkara-sarvasva37 gives the full quotation in the course of his gloss on vakrokti prefacing it with the explanation : : Kakuh dhvanivisesah He, too, does not mention the source of the definition : vakyabhidhe ( ? dhi) yamane arthe yena anyah prtipadyate. bhinnakanthadhvanir dhiraih sa kakuriti kathyate. Abhinavagupta who attempts various etymological explanations of kaku in his Locana and Abhinavabharati. The passage in Abhinavabharat" is somewhat corrupt but it is possible to restore it with the help of Locana and Hemacandra's Kayya. nusasana : kaka laulye, laulayaM ca sAkAGkSatA iyatA svaravaicitrya lakSyate / ISad yato vAcyabhUmiH saMpadyate sA kAkuH, ISadarthe kuzabdasya kAdezaH / kAkurvA jihvA tadvyApArasaMpAdyatvAt kAkuH / The explanation in Locana39 is more lucid : kaka laulye ityasya dhAtoH kAkuzabdaH / tatra hi sAkAGkSanirAkAGkSAdikrameNa paThyamAno'sau zabdaH prakRtArthAtiriktamapi vAJchatIti laulyamasyAbhidhIyate / yadi vA ISadarthe kuzabdastasya kAdezaH / tena hRdayasthavastupratIterI Hemacandra's passage giving three possible etymologies of kaku is only a combination of the three etymologies of kaku given by Abhinavagupta in the two passages cited above. Instead of deriving the word kaku from Wkak some would like to derive it from Nkai to sound. Manikyacandra,40 for instance, says: Kayatyarthantaramiti kakuh. 35 Amarakosa. sabdadi-varga sl. 12 p. 67. (Ed. with com. N. S. Press. 1944). 36 Syngaraprakasa (ed. by Josyer, Mysore, 1955) Prakasa VII. p. 240, 37 Alamkarasarvasva with Jayaraiha's Alamkaravimarsni (N. S. Edition, 1939, p. 220). 38 As corrected by Dr. Raghavan in his article, "Mor Corrections and Emendations To the Text of the Abhinavabharati." Adyar Library Bulletin, Vol. XXV. pp. 404-405). 39 Locana (on Dhvanya!oka III.38) pp. 477-478. 40 Kavyaprakasa-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) samanya" (ii) sakanksa and (iii) ni rakanksa.. Samanya pathadharma is our normal, usual mode of reading. It is easy to understand and appreciate or recite a sentence with its expected modulations (sakanksa kaku). To understand the difference between the two modes of reading or reciting the samanya and the Nirkanksa-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 samanya and Nirakanksa modes. From this exhaustive and critical survey of the treatment of intonation in Sanskrit Poetics it is evident that Bharata, Rajasekhara 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. Rajasekhara for the first time arrives at the classifications of intonation with suitable illustrations. Abhinavagupta's work is, no doubt, a commentary on Natyasastra 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 1927EUR : kaNThena zamana kuryAt pAThyayogeSu sarvadA // - Natyasastra XVII.108. Abhinava gupta's gloss reads : mandrasvareNa vA pAThamArabhya krameNa tAra gatvA madhyena parisamApnuyAditi zlokArthaH / yadA hi na dIptena krobAdinA nApi mandrarUpeNa zokAdinAviSTahRdayo bhavati tadA krameNa vaktavyavastuviSayotsAhavisphAraNAt tArAnta gacchannupasaMhAre madhya eva vizrAmyatItyanavaziSTasyAyaM (? 0 tyaviziSTasyAyaM) sAmAnyena pAThadharmaH / Abhinavabh arati, Vol. II. p. 389.

Page #49
ABHINAVABHARATI TEXT-RESTORED K. S. Ramaswami Sastri refers in his preface to the second revised edition of the Natyasastral to the efforts of many reputed scholars to improve the text of the Abhinavabharati. 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 Abhinavabhara:7 In the following pages I note some corrupt passages in the text of the Abhinavabharaii and parallel passages from the Kavyanusasanaof Hemacandra (and the Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra) which preserve the original readings very faithfully while adopting them from their source, adding necessary remarks wherever necessary. (1) surataviSaye sabandhigrahaNe / vigrahaM vA sandhinA dUSayatIti vidUSakaH vipralambhanatve (kathA) vinodane (naiH) . dUSayanti vismArayanti |...viprlmbhsuhRd iti vidUSakaH / -NS. Ch. XXIV. 20-21, Vol. III. pp. 251-52. This highly important pasage from the Abhinavabharati giving an explanation of the name Vidusaka 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 :-eSAM viyoginAM vipralambhazaGgAravatAmaucityAnatikrameNa liGgyAdayo yathAsaMbhavaM sandhi vigraheNa, vigrahaM sandhinA ca vizeSeNa dUSayanti vinAzayanti, vipralambhaM tu vinodadAnena vismArayantIti vidUSakAH / (2) vAmabhinivezitvamiti "sulabhAvamAnI hi madanaH" iti vighnaH, tathApyabhilaSyamANa vastu prApta cet ko'bhilASaH, tena prApta prAptamahAritamiva gata, gata prAptamivetyevam / (durlabhatvamityAdi) parAkrameNa [ viddhi ] viSNuraMya kAma uttamatamAM prItiM pratipratanoti na Atra yAyAmiva (bhayAdiva ?) nivRttiH sAdhyA, api tu bhaumAtmaka sukha bhogastvasati kAme tena (kena ?) pratyuta saMbhavanIyaH / -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-Bha. 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 : vyAkhyeyamasphuTA bhraSTapatitAkSaratvAt / Vol. III. p. 206, f. n. 1-3

Page #50
Studies in vAmAbhinivezitvamiti / ( 41 ) 'sulabhAvamAnI hi madanaH' iti tadvidaH / tathA hyabhilaSyamANaM vastu prApta cet ko'bhilASaH / tena prApta prAptamapahAritamiva gataM gataM prAptamivetyevaM paramparAkrameNa vardhiSNurayaM kAmaH paramAM prItiM tanoti / na hyatra kaNDUyAmiva nivRttiH sAdhyA, api tu bhogAtmaka sukhamiti ratihetutvAd ratiH kAma ityarthaH / -- Kavyanusasana of Hemacandra, p. 108, 11. 16-20. (3) parabacanamiti / parasandhivacana' svayamaGgavikArairabhinayet / nanu tatpazvacanamayuktaH kathamabhinayet / Aha AkAze zUnye yAni puruSakathitAni dRSTAni yatra zUnye tena varNyante vA kazcitpazyatyAkayati ca tatra ca tadvacanaM sa evAnuvadan sAmAjikAn bodhayati / yathA "bho vADava, ale kiM bravIdi ityAdI.... -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): paravacanamiti / parasamvandhi vacana... dRSTAni yatra dhanye taM na pazyantyekadha... yathA rAmAbhyudaye 'tApasaH - ( AkAze / ) bhoH / vAdvale kvAvakAze rAmabhadrastiSThati / kiM bravISi ...... It may be noted that Dr. Raghavan notes the extract from the Viveka as follows: yathA rAmAnyudaye tApasaH (AkAze) bhAvAile (1) kA kvAvA rAmamastiSThate / kiM va 1... In the light of the readings in the Abhi-Bha, and the Viveka we must emend / the reading mAtrAile as bhoH vADava, " aMDe ' (4) rAjarvivazyetyanena prakhyAtamapi yadvastu RSitulyAnAM rAjJAM vaMzena sAdhunocitaM naitadubhayaM nibandhanIyamiti phalataH pratiSedho darzitaH / *****. NS. XVIII. lo Abhi Bha Vol. II. p. 412, 11. 1-2 Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 433) which freely uses the Abhi. Bha reads the underlined words as rAjJAM vaMze [na] sAdhu nocita... It is clearly the reading required by the context. (5) vipazcitacaitadasmadgurubhiH / asmAbhizcAnyatra vintIha nAtinigyaH kRtaH / -NS. ch. VI, Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 336 The editor adds a foot-note to patra bhagItAvyAkhyAyAm | 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 'asmadguru' and asmAbhiyAmyatra Abhinava means bhaTTatIta and Abhinava's own commentary on mahatauta's work kAvyakautuka: 7 Here the reading is clearly wrong. The reading, as is clear from the Abhi. Bha. passage, ought to be (bho|) vADava ale 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 vADava means a Brahmana.

Page #51
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 39 AdhikArikatvena tu zAnto raso na nibaddhavya iti candrikAkAraH / taccehAsmAbhirna paryAlocita, prasaGgAntarAt / mokSaphalatvena cAya paramapuruSArthaniSThatvAtsarvarasebhya: pradhAnatamaH / sa cAyamasmadupAdhyAyabhaTTatautena kAvyakautuke, asmAbhizca tadvivaraNe bahutarakRtanirNayArva pakSasiddhAnta ityalaM bahunA / -Locana; p. 394. (6) tAdRza tu 'rAgyaM jJAnasyaiva parA kASThA' / iti (vyAsabhASya 1.16) bhujaGgavibhunaiva bhagavatA'bhyadhAyi / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I. p. 334. (7) yathAha pataJjali:-"na hi caitra ekasyAM striyAM rakta ityanyAsu viraktaH / " (pAtaJjala. vyAsa. bhA. 2-4) ityAdi / These two passages contain quotations, as the editor points out, from the Vyasabhasya. Yet Abhinava attributes them to Patanjali (and following him Hemacandra too attributes the second quotation to Patanjili KS. p. 125. 11. 13-14). Does it mean Abhinavagupta (and Hemacandra) held the view that the Yogabhasya is Svopajna or simply they nod here ? The first quotation runs 'jJAnasyaiva parAkASThA varAgyam / ' The text of the Abhinavabharati should therefore be read as tAdRzaM tu vairAgya 'jJAnasyaiva parA kASThA' / iti... (8) devakule ca gamanam / tasyAdbhutavibhAvo yena tatratya sarasanivezAdi na kvacid dRSTam / sabhA gRhavizeSaH / vimAnAdIni divyarathaH / mAyA rUpaparivartanAdikA / indrajAla mantradravyavastuyuktyAdinA asambha. vadvastupradarzanam / -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 :.... sara:saMnivezAdi... divyarathAH...mantradraHpahastayuktyAdinA:.. (9) bhaye hi pradarzite guruvinIta jAnAti / mRduceSTitatayA cAdhamaprakRtimenaM gaNayati / kRtakazaGgArA (rAta) vezyopadiSTAnAM na kAcitpuruSArthasiddhiH |...ytr tu rAjA na kRtaka parAnugrahAya krodhavismayAdIn darzayati tatra yabhicAritava teSAM na sthAyitA... / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I. p. 328, II. 6-9. Hema:andra's Karyarusasana gives definitely superior readings : vinItaM taM jAnAti |...men na gaNayati / kRtakaratyAdezcopadiSTAnna |......raajaanH...vismyaadi drshynti...| * (10) ApadyaGgaka (tsaGgati) nimagnatAM svalpe santoSa mithyAjJAnaM cApAsya yastatvanizcayaH sa evotsAhahetuH pradhAnatayA / raudre tu tamaHprAdhAnyAdazAstrIyAnucitabandhAdyapIti mohavismayaprAdhAnyam / __ -KS. p. 119 Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 325, 11-11-13 Somesvara's Sanketa (p. 52, 11. 26-28) reads : raudramamatA [ ?rSa ] prAdhAnyAda anucitayuddhAdyapi iti mohavismayaprAdhAnyam / iha ca patyaGkanimagnatAM svalpasantoSa cApAsya yasAtvanizcayarUpo'sa'mohAdhavasAyaH sa evotsAhaheturiti bhedaH / ___Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 118, 11. 6-8) helps us to get at the correct original readings in the Abhi. Bha. :

Page #52
Studies in iha cApatpaGkanimagnatAM svalasantoSaM mithyAjJAnaM cApAsya yastattvanizcayarUpo'saMmohAdhyavasAyaH sa eva pradhAnatotsAha hetuH / raudre tu mamatAprAvAnyAdazAstritAnucitayuddhAdyapIti mohavismayaprAdhAnyamiti vivekaH / 40 (11) smita ( ) SattAyAm / hasitaM tato vizeSeNa / tato'pi parasya gataM samIpagatamanyat / apahasitamati - zayena cetyupasargabhedAdarthabhedaH / -- Abhi. Bha Vol. I. p. 315. 11. 6-7. Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 115 ) contains this passage in the following form : smitasya IttAyAM vyapagatAyAM hasitam, tato vizeSeNa, tato'pi parasya samIpaM gatam, anyadapaharatya (10 hasya ) hasitamatizayena (pA. bhe. anyadapahasitamatizayena ) ca ityupasarga medAdevArthabhedaH / Hemacandra's passage is certainly more satisfactory as it vividly brings out upasargabhedAdarthabhedaH (12) para hasantaM dRSTvA svayaM vibhAvAnapazyannapi hasana loke dRSTaH / tathA vibhAvAdidarzane'pi gAmbhIryAdanuditAso'pi / parakIyahAsatvalokena tatkSaNaM hAsavizeSaH sampadyata eveti svabhAvaH / --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I. p. 314, 11. 5-7 Hemacandra's Viveka (p. 114 ) presents much better text: ... gAmbhIryAdanuditahAso'pi parakIyahAsAvalokane tatkSaNaM hAsavivazaH saMpadyata eveti / (13) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 208) reads: atra tu vRddha pazubyo ( pazavo 1) vadanti - mAsapasUA ...... (paNU ) mAsagabbhiNI ekadiahajjara muhe .. .... I The editor adds a remark in the foolnot: arNA cAsya gAthA kokkokavacanasya mUlaM syAt / yathA- raGgAdizrAntadehA...... svalyasAdhyA rate syAt // Now, this passage is left out by Hemacandra but the obscure and incomplete Gatha is found in the Gathasaptasm (III. 59 ) : ...... vRddhA vezyAmAtA Aha- mAsapasUaM chammAsaganbhiNiM ekkadiahajaria ca / raMgattiNaM ca piaM puttaa kAmatao hohi || [ mAsaprasUtAM nAgarbhiNI mekadivasajvaritAM ca / raGgottIrNA ca priyAM putraka kAmayamAno bhava // ] (14) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, 207 ) reads : paripATiyathA kalpitAnupUrvI asyA ekena bhinnena vAraH asyA dvAbhyAmityAdi / tadapavAdamAha phalArtha iti RtAviti yAvat / nava iti navatve prasatre vRtte ciracirahakhinnA sukhAyitaM duHkhe tadIyabandhuvyApatyA duHkhitA AzvAsanIyeti / pramoda iti tadIyaputrotsavAda 'utsavo hiM mAnanIya' ityuktam / vAsayati tatra sthAne rAtramiti vAsaH / atra ucitaH kAmopacAraH phalArtha ityasya hetoH sarvApavAdakatva darzayituM dharmavRttinA rAjJA paricAya yA durbhagA api sevyA iti nirUpayitumAha -

Page #53
Sanskrit Sahityasastra ucite vAsake strINAmRtukAle'pi vA nRpaiH / preSyANAmapi sarvAsAM kArya ( caivopasarpaNam ) // iti Arta vakAlo hi bhUyAnapi phalataH (V. L. parataH ) paramiti bhavati / 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) : ...... asyA ekena dinena vAra:.... . navave prasave vRtte ciracirahakhinnAM sukhayitum / vAsayanti tatra sthAne rAtrimiti vAsakA rAjyucitAH kAmopacArAH / dharmavRttinA rAjJA paripATyA [ dveSyA ] durbhagApi sevyeti ca nirUpayitumAha- ucite vAsake iti / (15) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 156) reads: kiM svantagataM vAsanAtmatayA vartamAnaM rasAkhyaM bhAvaM bhAvayan suyayan kiM sarvasya netyAha kaveH sUkSmasUkSmA - napi yo arthAn pazyati tasya sahRdayasyetyarthaH / Hemacandra (p. 423, 11. 16-17 ) correctly reads : tatrAsyAyo vikAro'ntargatavAsanAtmatayA vartamAnaM ratyAkhyaM bhAvaM bhAvayan sUcayan bhAvaH / [The full verse runs as follows : bhavataH / ucite vAsake strINAmRtukAle'pi vA budhaiH / dveSyANAmathaveSTAnAM kartavyamupasarpaNam // ArtavaH kAlo hi bhUyAnapi phalataH parimitIbhavati / ] 41 (16) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 62) reads: tenaikamapi sandhaGga N tatraiva sandhaiau dvitriya kavim... ve gI saMhAre saMkeDa vidrau punaH pradarzita vIrau droddIpagau The N. D. (p. 102) reads : ... dvitrirvA...... saMpheTavI raudrarasAvuddIpayataH / 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: iti vRttAviccho'pi hi rasasyaiva poSakaH, anyathA vicchede sthAyyAdestruTitatvAt kva rasavArtA | The N. D. (p., 102) reads: sarvasandhInAM cAGgAnItivRttAvicchedArthamupAdIyante itivRttasyAvicchedazca rasapuSTyarthaH ...... / The reading in the Abhi Bha must, therefore, be corrected to itivRttA vicchedo'pi ... (18) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol III, p. 61) reads: tatazca yadyathA yadyasyAnupayomi tadarocakinorucitadadhizarkarApayaH prabhRtirasAntaramadhyayojitaM -- ted dvAreNAntaHpraviSTa sat SaSTiM vyAdhinivRttiM ca vidhatte...... The context leads us to correct the reading given in bold types to : yasyAnupayogi.... tadarocakino rucitadadhizarkarA .. .. puSTi... ... vidhatte.......

Page #54
Studies in (19) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol III, p. 51) reads : parasparavacanavRttayoryasyaivAdhikaM (karma) sahAyabudhyAdInavalambayati sa eva tamatisaMdhAtu vaJcayituM samartha iti tadidaM karmAdhibalam / __The N. D. (p. 79) correctly reads parasparavaJca ne pravRttayoH......avalambayati is obviously wrong and we should read avalambate. (20) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 49) reads : rUpyamAnena pratyakSAdyupalabhyamAnena rUpasya vyApakasyAvinAbhAvino gamanaM jJAnamanumAna nizcayAtmakatvAdRhaH, upAyAyukteranyatvAt / The N. D. (p. 74) reads : nizcayarUpatvAdeva coharUpAyA yukterbhidyate / In view of the fact that Yukti is one of the 'angas' 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: nizcayAtmakatvAdUharUpAyA yukteranyatvAt / (21) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. III, p. 15) reads : sacetanAnusandhAnA patAkA siddhipradhAnasyopakAriNI / evaM sugrIva-vibhISaNaprabhRtirapi rAmAdinopakriyamANe rAmAderAmanazcopakArAya prabhavamAne prasiddhiprAzastye sampAdayatIti / The N. D. (p. 39) reads : sA prasiddhiprAzastyahetutvAt patAkera patAkA / sugrIvabibhISaNAdihi rAmAdinopakriyamANo rAmAderAtmanazcopakArAya. bhavan rAmAdeH prasiddhi prAzastyaM ca sampAdayati / In the light of this passage the words underlined in the Abhi. Bha. passage should be corrected to rAmAdinopakriyamANo and [pra] bhavan . (22) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 447) reads : apizabdo'tikramaH / Hemacandra (p. 441) correctly reads apizabdo bhinnakramaH | It is, however, possible to defend the reading atikrama:. (23) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 444) reads : vyAyogastu Dimasyaiva zeSabhUto, divyanAyakAbhAvAt kevalamatrodAttasya rAjAdeH nAyakatA, api tvamAtyasenApatiprabhRterdIptarasasya, ata evAha prakhyAtanAyaketi udaattgrhnnmpaakrtvymityrthH|| The drift of the passage clearly suggests that the original reading must have been rAjAdena nAyakatA and Hemacandra's reading (p. 440) corroborates our guess. (24) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 437) reads: atra yatra tAvatyeva samApannaM vyaGka ityuktam / arthatrayaM ca kapaTavidravazRGgArAH pratyekaM trividhA...... / Hemacandra (p. 437) correctly reads : arthatrayasya tAvatyeva samApanA vyaGka ityuktam /

Page #55
Sanskrit Sahityasastra (25) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 431 ) reads : tathA divyAzrayamiti yadanAdezAd devAnAM prayojyatvaM prasaktaM tadapyanena niSiddham / nATake devAnAmivehApi rAjJaH praveze zaGkamAne nirAkaroti na rAjasaMbhoga iti, yadi vA autpattikatve'pi na rAjocitasaMbhogotprekSA viprAdiSu karaNIyetyanena zikSayati, ata eva rAjaniyamaH / ucito'ntaHpurajanaH kaJcukiprabhRtiH tad-vyatirikta bAhyajano'tra cedAsAdiH pravezakAdau kArya ityarthaH / 43 Hemacandra (pp. 435 - 436 ) preserves the correct readings : ..... yadatidezAd... rAjJaH pravezaM zaGkamAno... ata eva rAjani ya ucito'ntaH purajanaH .... (26) The Abhi Bha. (p. 430 ) reads : yaditi vastubhUtaiH bRhatkathAdau kAvyAntare vA prasiddhairguNairyuktaM,.. rityAdinAyakaphalavatvamuktaM tat,......... Now, Hemacandra (p. 435 ) reads : yaditi yasmAdabhUtai hatkathAdau kAvyAntare vA prasidvairguNairyuktaM, .. 'nAnAvibhUtibhiryutamRddhivilAsAdibhiH' (Hemacandra, p. 433 1 1 ) ityAdinA yatphalavatvamuktaM tat ....... . 'nAnAvibhUtiyuktamRddhivilAsAdibhi' ....... If we refer to the text (NS XVIII. 46 ) we come to know that 'abhUtaguNayuktam' is being explained by Abhinava in his commentary. Hemacandra's reading yasmAdabhUtaiH is, therefore, in conformity with the text. Next, the line 'nAnAvibhUtibhiryutamRddhivilAsAdibhiH / (correctly preserved in Hemacandra's KS) and not - 'nAnAvibhUtiyuktamRddhivilAsAdibhiH 'is a part of the text (NS XVIII. 11). Abhinava's comment on this line (Abhi. Bha Vol. III, p. 42 ) runs : nAnAvibhUtibhiryutaM dharmArthakAmamokSavibhavaH phalabhUtairvicitrarUpairyuktam / tatrApyarthakAmau sarvajanAbhilaSaNIyAviti tabAhulya darzanIyamiti kathayati RddhivilAsAdibhiriti Rddhirarthasya rAjyAdisamRddhi:, vilAsena kAmo lakSyate, AdizabdaH pradhAnavAcI, tatpradhAnAbhiH phalasaMpattibhiH yuktamityarthaH / In the light of this gloss of Abhinava it is crystal clear how Hemacandra's reading 'yat phalavatvamuktaM tat' preserves the original one. (27) The Abhi Bha. (Vol. II, pp. 429-430) reads : vastviti sAdhyaM phalaM, zarIramiti tadupAyaM vastvAdikaM kAvyAbhidheyamAtmazaktyA prakurute yatkAvyena tatprakaraNamiti budhairjJeyamiti saMbandhaH / yatra samutpAdya N na bhavati tatra yo'nutpAdyoM'za na kutrastho grAhya iti darzayitumAha Now Hemacandra (p. 434 ) reads : vastviti sAdhyaM phalam / zarIramiti tadupAyamvastvAdikaM kAvyAbhidheyamAtmazaktyA prakurute yatra kAvye tatprakaraNamiti..............saMbandhaH / yatra na sarvamutpAdyaM bhavati tatra yo'nutpAdyo'za sa kutrastho grAhya iti darzayitumAha / It is very easy to see how Hemacandra's readings are the correct ones. yatra kavirAtmazaktyA etc. is the text. It is, therefore, natural if Abhinava says in his gloss yatra kAvye yatkAvyena is decidedly a bad reading. 'yatra samutpAdya' na bhavati' 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: grahaNaM vA kArya sanibandhanabandhanamiti / yathA vAsavadattAnRttadhAre (pAre ?) Studies in The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 425) reads: yathA nRttapAre (V. L nRttavAre) | The Natyadarpana (p. 33 ) reads : bandha iti parairgrahaNam / yathA vAsavadattAnRttavAre vatsarAjasya / 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 Bha. (Vol. II, pp. 412 - 413) reads : tena rAjJA sarva rAjyaM brAhmaNebhyo dattvA vAnaprasthaM gRhItavyamityevaMprAyaM phalaM nopanibandhanIyam / tatphalamapi dRSTasukhArthI hi loko bAhulyeneti tatrAsya pratItirvirasIbhavet / guNairityapradhAnabhUtAni ceSTitAni heyAni pratinAyakagatAni apAya pradhAnAni tairyuktam / Hemacandra (p. 434 ) reads : tena rAjJA...... gRhItamityevaMprAyaM phalaM nopanibaddhavyaM dharmamokSabahulamiti / dRSTasukhArthI hi bAhulyena loka iti tatrAsya pratItirvirasIbhavet / guNariti / apradhAnabhUtAni yAni ceSTitAni deyAni pratinAyakagatAnyapanayapradhAnAni tairyuktam / Somesvara (p. 213 ), too, reads in his Samketa : ..... vAnaprasthaM gRhItamiti phala' nopanibaddhavyam / 'guNaiH' iti pratinAyakApanayana ( 1 pratinAyakApanaya ) pradhAnaiH / (30) The Abhi Bha. (Vol. II, p. 413) reads : kaumudImahotsavAdayo vilAsAH sandhivigrahAdayo guNA iti vyAkhyAnaM cANakya ( zAstra) paricaya vedana mAtraphalam,....... Hemacandra correctly reads (p. 434 ) : ...iti cANakyaparicayAvedanamAtraphalam / (31) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 412) reads: yadi tu mukhyatvenaiva devacaritaM varNyate tattAvadvipralambhakaruNAd bhutabhayAna kara socitaM cennibadhyate tanmAnuSacaritameva saMpadyate, pratyuta devAnAmadhiyAdhAnaM prasiddhivighAtakam / tatra cokto doSaH, vipralambhAdyabhAve tu kA ta vicitratA raJjanAyA etatpramANatvAt / Dr. Raghavant corrects raJjanAyA etatpramANatvAt to raJjanAyA etatprANatvAt / He leaves devAnAmadhiyAdhAna 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 devAnAmAdhyabhidhAnaM prasiddhi (or pratIti) vighAtakam / (32) The Abhi. Bha. (Vol. II, p. 392) reads : 'svasthA bhavanti mayi jIvati' ityatra sAkAGkSAkA kurbhAvanAbhAvamAha, vacanoccAraNaM tvarthe saMbhAvanAM vidadhatAvazyaniSedhAtmano viSayamarpayati 1 Hemacandra (p. 337 ) reads this passage as follows : 1 Adyar Library Bullctin, Vol XVIII, Part 3 -4 (p. 208)

Page #57
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 1 atra bhavantIti sAkAGkSA kAkurbhavanAbhAvamAha / bhavanviti / (? bhavantIti) vacanoccAraNaM tvarthe'saMbhAvanAM vidadhadabhAvasya niSedhAtmano viSaya bhavanalakSaNamarpayati ( viSayam abhavanalakSaNamarpayati ) / na bhavantyevetyarthaH / 45 (33) The Abhi. Bha. (XVII. III, p. 391) reads in connection with the subject of Akanksa : tatrAkAGkSArthAnta evAtadarthagata eva vA vizeSe tadarthAbhAve vA / Hemacandra's KS (p. 336) reads: viSayo'pi trividho'rthAntara, tadarthagata eva vizeSaH, tadarthAbhAve vA / In the light of this passage the Abhi. Bha, passage must be thus corrected : tatrAkAGkSA arthAntara eva / tadarthagata eva vA vizeSe / tadarthAbhAve vA / ( 34 ) The definitions of Sakanksa and Nirakanksa vakyas in the Ahi Bha (XVII. III, p. 391) read as follows : . aniyuktArthakaM vAkyamiti / yAdRzo vAkyAt saGketabalenArthaH pratIyate tAdRza eva yatra nyUnAdhikaH pramANabalena nirNayayogyastadvAkyaM nirAkAGkSam, tadviparItaM sAkAGkSam / Hemacandra's KS (p. 336) reads : yasmAd vAkyAd yAdRzaH saGketabalenArthaH pratIyate na tAdRza eva kintu nyUnAdhikaH pramANabalena nirNayayogyastadvAkyaM sAkAGkSam / tadviparIta nirAkAGkSam / The Viveka adds tadviparItamiti / yAdRzo vAkyAtsaGketabalenArthaH pratIyate tAdRza eva yatrAnyUnAdhikaH pramANavalena nirNayayogyastaditi / 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 yatrAnyUnAdhikaH in place of yatra nyUnAdhikaH. (35) The Abhi Bha (Vol. II, p. 386) reads : tata eva kAkurUpatvameva atizAyitve mukhyopayogAt / ... . kAkorevopakAra saMpAdakAH paripUrNatAyAyino'laGkArAH, alamiti paryAptyarthaH, iha na bhUSaNArthaH / aGgAni ... zobhAdi karma ca ... kAku revAMya paJcabhI rUpAntarai pUrNIkriyate...svocita cijjaDasvarUpArthAbhimukhyena nayanenAminayatA nIyata iti kAkurevAtra pradhAnam / 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 : .... abhinayatve mukhyopayogAt / kAkoreva hi prakAra saMpAdakAH paripUrNatAdhAyino'laGkArAH / alamiti paryAptyartha iha, na bhUSaNArthaH / aGgAni zobhAdikaM ca...... ... kAkureva paJcabhI rUpAntaraiH pUrNI kriyate / .... ...svocitacijjaDarUpArthAbhimukhyAnayanenAbhinayatAdIyata iti kAkurevAtra pradhAnamiti / ( 36 ) tathA hi glAno'yamityukte kuta iti hetupranena sthAyI tasya sUcyate / na tu rAma utsAha * zaktimAnityatra hetupraznamAhuH / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 283, 11. 17-18. From the context and the trend of the argument it is evident that the reading " hetupraznena sthAyI tasya sUcyate / " is corrupt. Hemacandra preserves the correct reading as follows : - hetupraznenAsthAyitAsya sUcyate / - (p. 125, 1.20)

Page #58
46 Studies in (37) tena zRGgArasyemau bhedau / gotvasyeva zAbaleyatvabAhuleyatve / api tu taddazAdvaye'pyanuyAyinI yA ratirAsvAdanAtmikA tasyAzcAsvAdyamAnaM rUpa zRGgAraH / --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 303, 11. 5-6 The force of "api tu" is altogether lost if we accept the text as it is presented. From the context we understand that Abhinava is elucidating here "s "zRGgArasyAvasthAbhedam" and not "zRGgArabhedau". Hemacandra (p. 108, 11. 3-4) helps us in getting at the correct reading : tena na zRGgArasyemau bhedau gautvasyeva zAbaleyabAhule yau...... | The ND (p. 145) further confirms Hemacandra's reading : tena zRGgArasya mau bhedau / In the passage from the Abhi. Bha. under discussion we have the reading ratirAsvAdanAtmikA / The editor gives in the footnote the variant reading ratirAsthAbandhA (tmikA) / That the original and correct reading must have been ( rati ) rAsthAbandhAtmikA is as clear as day light from the Abhi Bha itself. On the same page (Vol. I, p. 303, 11. 12-13) Abhinava's text has the expression 'satyamAsthAvanvAtmikAyAM ratau' and further on (Vol. I, p. 309 1.9)'parasparAsthAbandhAtmakatve ratirUpe sthite'. Hemacandra (p. 108, I. 4) supports this reading; 'yA ratirAsthAbandhAmikA' | ND (p. 145, 1. 15), too, reads AsthAbandhAtmaka ratiprakarSa 0 (38) jugupsA sthAyinyapIha niSiddhA nyAyasiddhA sthAyinAmapi vyabhicAritvamanujJApayati......ityAdinApi rUpakaM mantavyam / --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 306, 11. 11-14 . This passage is clearly incorrect. Hemacandra ( pp. 106-107, 11. 24-20) preserves the original correct readings : ... nyAyasiddha... ityAdi na virUpakaM mantavyam / ( 39 ) svapnA ( suptA ) ntarbhUto'pi svapnaH prAdhAnyAdupAttaH / --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, 1. 4. Now, the text of the Natyasastra (Vol. I, p. 306, 1. 2) reads nidrAsvapna vibodha... The editor gives in the foot-note the reading nidrAsuptasvapna / That the original reading of the text of the Natyasastra must have been' 'nidrAsuptasvapnavibodha' is a reasonable inference from Abhinava's gloss on it suptAntabhUto'pi svapnaH prAdhAnyAdupAttaH / Hemacandra too enumerates, among the Vyabhicari - bhavas of Vipralambha, nidrAmupta... svapna. (40) sambhoge'pi ratizramakRtanidrAdi yadyapyasti tathApi na ratau taccitratAmAdhatta / vipralambhe tu tadrati bhAvanAparasparo'ta (nAparam / ata ) eva nidrAdibAhulyAMpekSaM cetthamabhidhAnam / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, 11. 7-9. Hemacandra (p. 109, 11. 18-19 ) correctly reads : ratizramakRtaM nidrAdi... rativibhAvanA (v. 1. ratibhAvanA) paramparoditameveti .... / (41) vayaM tu brUmaH / tAdRzyAM dazAyAM svajIvitanindAmikAyAM taddehopabhogasAraratyAtmakAvasthAbandhopa vicchidyata eveti sambhava eva / --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, 11. 11-12.

Page #59
Sanskrit Sahityasastra The context requires ....ratyAtmakAsthAbandho'pi vicchidyata evetyasambhava eva / This conjectural reading is supported by Hemacandra (p. 110, II. 25-26). (42) ata eva sukavinA vAkyabhedenApi maraNamAkhyAtam / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, 1. 18. The context requires the reading "maraNa nAkhyAtam' / This conjectural reading has the support of Hemncandra (p. 110, 1.19). (43) anye tyAhuH maraNamiti na jIvitaviyoga ucyate / api tu caitanyAvastheva prANatyAgakartR tAtmikA / yA sambandhAdhavasaragatA mantavyA vyabhicAribhAveneti sulabhodAharaNamediti / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307, II, 20-22. Somesvara Bhatti's gloss or Marana runs as follows :-maraNamiti AdIrva (? adIrgha) . - Samketa on Kavyaprakasa, IV, p. 54. Hemacandra who adapts this passage from Abhi. Bha, helps us to get at the correct original reading : athavA caitanyAvasyaiva prANAtyAgakartRtAtmikA pAzabandhAdyavasaragatA mntvyaa'...| -p. 110, ll. 21-22. (44) etadarthameva 'jasa ahaM tAdeNa diNNe' ti 'Irisassa kagapUradasaNase' ti (1) ca / -Abhi. Bha. p. 311. _ In the fourth Parisista (p. 392) the editor identifies the first quotation jassa aha tAdeNa diNNetti as from priyadarzikA 2.8. This sentence occurs in the Ratnavali (I. 23-24) as well : (kaha aaM so rAA udaaNo) jassa ahaM tAdeNa diNNA / The second quotation which, like the first one, is orthographically inaccurate, probably is to be identified with the following sentence from the Ratnavali (about 15 to 20 lines before the Gatha dulahajaNANurAo...II-1) susaGgatA...Irisassa kaNNAraaNasta avassa eva irise vare ahilAseNa hodavyaM / -- (45) zamazAntayoH paryAyatvaM tu hAsahAsyAbhyAM vyAkhyAtam / siddhasAdhyate yada (tathA laukikA) laukikatvena sAdhAraNAsAdhAraNatayA ca vailakSaNyaM zamazAntayorapi sulabhameva / / -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 : na ca zamazAntayoH paryAyatvamAzaGkanIyam / hAsahAsyayoriva siddhasAdhyatayA laukikAlaukikatayA sAdhAraNAsAdhAraNatayA ca vailakSaNyAt / -KS p. 121, 11. 23-24. (46) prakSayAzca ratyAdayo'trAsvAdyAH kevalam / yathA vipralambhe autsukyaM...vyabhicAriNo'pi prAdhAnyenAvabhAsante tathA ma jugupsAyAm / sarvathaiva rAgapratipakSatvAt / -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 prakSayonmukhAzca syAdayo'trAvAdyante / kevalaM yathA vipralambha autsukyaM... vyabhicAriNo'pi prAdhAnyenAvabhAsante, tathA zAnte jugupsAdyAH sarvathaiva rAgapratipakSatvAt / -Ks p. 122 11. 6-10. ( 47 ) tathA hi mahAvate narakAlAdivAraNamasu (sva) bhAryAdisammadAdi vistArasaMkSepAdikarmakRtirhi jugupsAhetutvenaiva / nijJAbhyarNa( ghRtAJjanena ca devaputramAdyupadiSTam / / ) --Abhi. Bha 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: tathA hi mahAmate kAlAdivAraNam asubhArvAdisamudAyAdi vistAra saMkSepAtikarNIkRtirhi dharme ? jugupsAhetutvenaiva nijAbhyaJjanaM ca devarAt putrajanmani upadiSTam / - "The Number of Rasas", p. 100. The readings nijAmyaJjana and putrajanmani are highly superior to those presented by the Editor. The other reading astrabhAryAdi - 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 anubhAryAdisambandhAdi vistAra saMkSepAdikarmakRtirhi ? (48) eva zAntahRdayAnAM paropakArAya zarIrasarvasvAdidAnaM na zAntavirodhi / -Abhi. Bha, Vol. I, p. 338, 1. 3. In the text presented in corrected form, Dr. Raghavan too reads na zAntavirodhi / Hemacandra, however, reads ana evaM zAntahRdavAnAMna zAstravirodhi / -- Ks p. 122, 11. 17-18. That 'na zAstravirodhi 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 zAstra. (Cf. 'AtmAnaM yo gopaayet|' 'dharmArthakAmamokSANAM......' and 'jale'gnau zvabhre vA patet / ) This leaves no shadow of doubt regarding the correctness of Hemacandra's reading 'na zAstravirodhi'. (49) tadyathAkathaJcityAjyaM zarIra N yadi parArtha na tyajyate tatkimitra [na] sampAdita N bhavati / -- Abhi. Bha, Vol. I, p. 338, 11. 9-10. Hemacandra correctly reads this sentence tadyathAkathavitha zarIra yadi parArtha tasyajyate taskimiva na samyAdita bhavati / g -KS p. 122, 1. 23;p. 123, 1. 3. The passage from Abhi. Bha. under discussion becomes quite intelligible and flawless if we drop "(na)" unnecessarily added by the Editor. (50) yuddhe'pi hi na zarIrarUpa svAgAboyamaH / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 338, 1.12. Hemacandra probably preserves the original and correct reading when he adopts. this passage from the Abhi Bha. yuddhe'pi hi na vIrasya dehatyAgAvocamaH / -KS p. 123, 1. 5.

Page #61
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 49 (51) kevalaM parArthAbhisandhijAddharmAtparopakArAtmakaphalatvenaivAbhisaMhitAt punarapi dehasya taducitasyaiva prAdurbhAvo bodhisatvAdInAm / tatvajJAninAmapi vizrAntilAbhasvabhAvaucityAt / yathA rAmasya vIro'Gga piturAjJAM pAlayituH / -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. Bha. kepala parArthAbhisaMdhijAtAd dharmA...vodhisattvAdInAM tattvajJAninAmapi / dRSTazcAUSvapi vizrAntilAbhaH, svabhAvaucityAt / yathA rAmasya vIrAGge piturAjJAM paripAlayataH / -KS. p. 123, II. 12-14. (52) ethaiva gandhasthAyikasya lolparasasya pratyAkhyAne saraNimantavyA / hAse vA ratau vAnyatra paryavasAnAt / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 341, 11.9-10. Hemacandra adopts this passage as follows : tathA gardhasthAyikasya laulyarasasya hAse vA ratau vAnyatra vAntarbhAvo vAcyaH / evaM bhaktAvapi vAcyamiti / -KS. p. 106, ll. 14-16. The ND (p. 145) reads : sambhavanti bapare'pi yathA garddhasthAyI laulyaH...| The Dhatupatha, too, reads 'gRdhu abhikAhUkSAyAm / ' The original reading must have been, therefore, the one preserved by Hemacandra gardha sthAyikasya and not gandhasthAyikasya. ... (53) yadyasmAnnRpatInAM sambandhi vyutpAdyAnAM sAmarthyAt nRpatInAmeva nATakaM nAma tacceSTitaM pravIbhAvadAyaka bhavati, tathA hRdayAnupravezaraJjanollAsanayA hRdayaM zarIra copAyavyutpattiparighaTTitayA ceSTayA nartayati naTa nRtau nRtte ityubhayathA hi smaranti / taditi tasmAddhetoH, nAmAsya nATakamiti / -Abhi. Bha. Vol II, p. 413, 11. 7-10 ___From the context it is clear that we must read naTa natau nRce in place of naTa nRtau nRtte for Abhinavagupta speaks of both the senses pravIbhAva and nartana (narta yati). The passage of similar import from Abhinavagupta, given infra as No. 56, may be read along with this. (54) hAsyapradhAnavacanasambandhazIlanAdinA kutsitaiH puruSairata eva prahasyamAnaiH sAmarthyAttareva bhagavadAdibhiryuktam / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. II, p. 448, 11. 1-2 - Hemacandra reads the words in bold type as hAsyapradhAnavacanasambaddha zIlAdinA. -KS. p. 442, 1. 13. (55) nAnAprakArAvasthAvizeSAt...sakalasAmAnyapRthaggatopayogyastu lokavyavahAro...pRthagjanavyutpattiyonirUpakamidaM rAjaputrAdInAmapi zambhalIvRttAnto jJeya evAvaJcanArthamiti saMprayojya ityarthaH / -Abhi. Bha. Vol. ll, p. 450, 1. 13. Hemacandra thus reads this passage : nAnAprakArAvasthAvizeSA......sakalasAmAnyapRthagjanopayogyatra ...pRthagjanavyutpattyupayogirUpakamidam / rAjaputrAdInAmapi...sa prayojya ityarthaH / -KS. p. 443, 11. 8-12.

Page #62
50 Studies in Here we find by comparison that Hemacandra preserves two readings ('pRthagjanopayogi' and 'pRthagjanavyutpatyupayogi) in their correct original form. His reading 'sa prayoga' is corrupt for the original reading in the NS (XVIII-110) on which the present passage forms Abhinavagupta's gloss is 'dhUrtavivasa' prayojyo... We, therefore, have to admit the reading 'saMprayojya' found in the Abhi. Bha. to be the correct one. (56) ... naTa natAviti namanaM svabhAvatyAgena prahvIbhAvalakSaNaM ye vanye naTa vRttAviti paThanti tanmate'pIha namanam ...... -Abhi. Bha. Vol. III, p. 80, 11. 6-7. It is more than probable that the original reading of Abhinavagupta must have been 'naTa tRttAviti / ' This conjectural reading is supported by a parallel passage of Abhinavagupta. himself (quoted above as No. 52 ) and the Dhatupatha "nara vRttau / " ( 57 ) vastanimittaM raudraH / sa cAmarthapradhAnaH / tato vIbhatsaH iti yaduvIreNAkSitam / -- Abhi Bha 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 : tatastannimittamarthapradhAno raudraH / tataH kAmArtha yodharmamUlyAdarbhaprabhAno vIraH / tasya bhItAbhayapradAnasArasvAdanantara bhavAnakaH / tadvibhAvasAdhAraNyasaMbhAvanAt tato bIbhatsaH / iti yaduvIreNAkSiptam / - KS (p. 106, 11. 6-8 ) (58) tathA hi-lAno'yamityukte kuta iti hetupraznena sthAyI tasya sUnyate / -- Abhi Bha Vol. I, p. 283. This sentence occurs in the course of discussion about the difference and. distinction between Sthayibhava (for instance, utsaha) and Vyabhicaribhava (for instance, glani). 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)): ...... hetupraznenA sthAyitA'sya sUcyate / The following comment in Kalpalardviveka (KLV, p. 310, 1.4 ) Asthayira iti vyabhicarita lends support to this correction. ( 59 ) tu pUrvato vizeSamAha / ayameva cAkSepaH prakAzatvAt saMbhAvyate na vadhika iti / sA svasyApi sanna noktaH / --Abhi. Bha 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) pUrvataH iti adbhutAt / ayameva ca iti / ayaM cAkSepaprakArazcatudhaitra sambhAvyata iti / yojanA iti / zRGgArAdi bhavedvAsya ityanacaitra catuHprakArAkSepoktyA / (60) svapnA (muptA ) bhUto'pi svapnaH prAdhAnyAdupAta: ...... siviNavaNa.... --Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 307.

Page #63
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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 : siNiakhaNamuttuliAe puNaruttadaMsaNamaNAe / bAlAe NimIlialobhagAe divaso vi volINo // (svapnakSaNamuptotthitAyAM punaruktadarzanamanaskAyAH / bAlAyAH nimIlitalocanAyAH divaso'pi vyutkrAntaH // ) This Prakrit gatha is cited by Bhoja in his Sxngaraprakasa (Ch. XXXI, p. 1103). The Chapter is called Pravasa carya (or Pravasopavartana). In one of the Kandas, called Susvapna-darsana-which has six varieties-we find this gatha cited to illustrate aparyaptarupo (manasa-pratyaksena 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 gatha 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) sauSThapramanuSyaNatA / dvijA dantAH / dhIramiti mantharaM kRtvA ISayanirvAhaH / vikasitairiti / atheti smitAnantara saGkramaNakAla ityarthaH / taditi / smitameva saGkrAnta' sadevarUpatAmetItyarthaH / -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 : : dhIram iti mantharaM kRtvA Itva nivAryAha -- vikasitairiti / In a smile (smita) the cheeks are only a little expanded (Isadvikasitairgandaih); in slight laughter (hasita) the cheeks are puffed out (Gandairvikasitaih). So the comment "sarvam nivaryaha vikasitairiti" becomes meaningful and appropriate. (62) bhedanaM parasparamityA ( ramaiyA ) diviyojanam / The KLV (p. 315, 1. 1.) gives the correct reading: bhedanaM paraspara mitrAdiviyojanam / -- Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 320. (63) ugrakarmeti / ugrAyogyapradhAnAni yAni ziraH kartanAdIni teSAM yA kriyA abhinItiH sA AtmA pradhAnaM yasyeti / || -Abhi. Bha. Vol. I, p. 324. The word abhinitih 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) - prahArAstya mAtsarva drohAdharSApanItijaH / raudraH.........

Page #64
52 Studies in is in favour of this conjecture. Further on the ND (p. 149 ) explains : Anyayo'panitih. The distinction it makes between the Vira and the Raudra also supports this conjectural reading : vIrarase ca yuddhAdibhAve'pi na raudratvam utsAhanyAyapradhAnAt / raudre tu mohAhaGkArApanyAyaprAdhAnyamityanayorna sAGkaryamiti / ( 64 ) vIrasya bhItAvayava (bhItAbhaya) pradhAnatvAd bhayAnakaM lakSayati / ...... svajanasya yau vadhabandhau tayordarzanaM pratyakSeNa / zravaNamAgamena / kathAdi atikrAntayorapi punaranusandhAnena smaraNam / Abhi. Bha Vol. I, p. 326, The reading Bhitavayavapradhaanatvad is obviously a corruption of Bhitabhayapradanatvat. That the latter is a genuine reading is quite clear from the Abhi. Bha. (p. 267 on NS. VI. 15) where we have tasya ( vIrasya) ca bhItAbhayapradAnasAratvAt / tadanantara bhayAnakaH / 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 : kathA cirAtikrAntayorapi punaranusandhAnena smaraNam / ( 65 ) bhaye hi pradarzite gururvinIta jAnAti / ....yatra tu rAjA na kRtakaM parAnugrahAya krodhavismayAdIn darzayati tatra vyabhicAritaiva teSAM na sthAyitA...... Abhi. Bha 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 : bhaye hi pradarzite gururvinItaM taM jAnAti / yatra tu rAjAnaH parAnugrahAya ( kRtakaM ) krodhavismayAdi darzayanti tatra vyabhicAritaiva teSAM na sthAyiteti / -- Ks. p. 119, 11, 4-7 . yatra tu iti / bhayAnake / parAnugrahAya iti / pare hi taM rAjagata krodhAdiM dRSTvA bhItAH santo maryAdayA vartanta iti / --KLV, p. 315, 1. 14. (66) evaM kAvyArthAn rasAn bhAvayanti kurvate / sthAyivyabhicArikApenaiva hyAsvAdyo'laukikArtho nirvartate / pUrva hi sthAyyAdikamavagacchanti tataH sarvasAdhAraNatayA''svAdayanti / tena pUrvAvagamagocarIbhUtaH sannuttarabhUmikAbhAgina AsvAdyasya bhAvako niSpAdaka ucyate / tena bhAva karaNe darzayati-vAgaGgeti / vAgAdayastatkarmasu vartante / tena varNanAtmanA vAcikena saMnivezavalanAdInAGgikenAntarbahirAtmanA sAttvikena karaNabhUtenopetAn sambaddhAn / karaNaM hi karmaNi kartari ca yadyapi saMbadhyate tathApi (pI) hAsya prAdhAnyAt sambandhadRzi karaNatvameva darzayitu tRtIyAdi ( yayA) nirdizyate vAgaGgamukharAgeNeti / Vol. I, Ch. VII, pp. 343-344 Now, the KLV (p. 308, 11. 11-12), when commenting on the line " Kavyarthan bhavayanti, iti tatkavyartho rasak from the Abhi Bha (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 Sahityasastra 53 kAvyArthAn iti / vAgaGgasatvopetAn kAvyArthAn bhAvayantIti bhAvA iti paripUrNabhASyAvAcyam / asyArthaH-padArthavAcyA(? kyA)thau ' raseSveva parthavasyata ityasAdhAraNyAt prAdhAnyAcca kAvyasyArthA rasAH ( / ) aryante prAdhAnyenetyarthAH / nanva(1 tva)rtha zabdo'bhidheyavAcI / svazabdAnabhidheyatvahi rasAdInAM darzitameva / evaM kAvyArthA rasAstAn kurvate ye sthAyiyabhicAriNaste bhAvAH / ...... nirvaya'te / ......mavagacchati......AsvAdayati...... / kena bhAvayanti iti karaNaM darzayati / vAgaGga iti / vAgAdayastatkarmasu vartante tena varNanAdyAtmanA vAcikena snniveshvlnaadinaa...| karaNaM hi karmaNi kartari ca yadyapi saMbadhyate tathApIha bhAvpasya (=rasasya) prAdhAnyAt tatsaMbaddha darzitamiti bhAvarhi yaH kAvyArtho bhAvyate sa eva rasa ityAha tad iti / (67) yatra tvaGke sarveSAmaGkAnAM yo'rtho bIjalakSaNastasya. anye tu yatrAGke anyAGkAnAM bIjalakSaNo'rtho'va saMhAraH samilitatvena prAptirbhavati so'vatArAGkaH / tAryate, tamaGkAvatAramAmananti / yathA ratnAvalyAM yathA ratnAvalyAM dvitIyo'GkaH / tatra hi 'Irisassa dvitIyo'GkaH / tatra hi-Idisassa kannagArayaNassa kaNNaAjaNassa Irisa eca vare ahilAseNa hodavva' Idise yayeva vare ahilAseNa bhodaya / ityAdi(IdRzasya kanyakAjanasyedRza eva vare abhilASeNa ko'nurAgalakSaNaH sarvAGkAnAmartha iti / . bhavitavyam / ) ityAdi prakRtameva sarva varNyate / -nA. da. pR. 36 -a. bhA. 2. pR. 417 The reading 'Kannaa-jana' in the Abhi-Bha 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 Ratnavali. 68 * prakaraNe nATake cAvazthaM praveza kastasyAvazyamuttama- nATakAdau hi parimitenopAyena bahuSu mukhyAvAntara prakRtiviSaye upadezAya pravRtto'parimitenopAyena kAryeSu nRpAdInAM tatsahAyAnAM cAmAtyAdInAM bhUyastarAvAntarakAye pratyutpattibahunAM cAmAtyAdI- vyutpattiH kriyate ityatraiva prabhUtAvAntarakAryavyutpAdakau. nAmapi svakAryanirUpaNAya pravezakaH, anyatra rUpake viSkambhakapravezakau, na vyAyogAdiSu ekAGkeSu tAbadalpaparimitakAryopadezAt na tathA pravezakopayoga iti vRttatvenAlpakAryatvAt / ktiniSyAmaH / -nA. da. pR. 35 -a. bhA. 2 pR. 423-24 * The passage from the ND is clearly based on the corresponding passage in the Abhi-Bha. It is very lucid. The Abhi-Bha passage, as it stands, is unintelligible. It, therefore, needs to be corrected in the light of the ND as follows : / pravRttau parimitenopAyena bhUyastarAvAntarakAyeM pratyutpatti (vyutpattiH ?) bahUnAmapi cAmAtyAdInAmapi svakAryanirUpaNAya pravezakaH / 69 yadi ca pratyakSaprayojyauM tatra paJca kAryapuruSAH yadi vA suSTu kAryopayogInyalpAni saMkhyayA pAtrANi yatra catvAraH prakarIpatAkAdirUpAH teSAM ca parivArasvabhAvA- tatrotkaSeNa daza, madhyamagatyA aSTau. apakarSaNa stAvanta eveti yadi prakarSastadA dazASTau vA raGge catvAri paca vA pAtrANi / Adhikye tu pAtrapraviSTA bhavanti / tato'dhikeSu tvabhinayacatuSTaya samyaga- sammardainavAbhinayacatuSTayaM prekSakANAmavibhAvanIya vibhAvanIya syAt, devayAtrAparidRzyamAnajanasamAjavat / syAt / prabhUtapuruSasAdhyaM parvatoddharaNAdi na raGge. -a. bhA. 2 pR. 428 darzanIyamityuktaM bhavati / -nA. da. pR. 32

Page #66
54 Studies in Although the passage in the Abhi-Bha 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-Bha and effects suitable changes where it deems fit to do so. 70 tathA ca zRGgAra-vIra-raudraiH strIratnapRthivIlAbhazatrukSayAH nATakaM hi sarvarasaM kevalameko'GgI, tadapare gauNAH / karuNAdibhistannivRttiritIyatA krameNa lokottarAsaMbhAvya- adbhuta eva raso'nte nirvahaNe yatra / yataH zaGgAramanorathaprAptau bhavitavyamadbhutena / asAdhAraNalAbho hi vIra-raudraH strIratnapRthvIlAbha-zatrukSayasaMpattiH / yadi phalatvena kalpyate'vazya kriyAyAH kiMcidastyeva karuNa-bhayAnaka-bIbhatsastannivRttiritIyatA krameNa phalamAtramiti kiM tatropAyavyutpAdanAyattenetyadabhutAvasAna- lokottarA saMbhAvyaphalaprAptau bhavitavyamante'dbhuteneva / tvamakArya, kena vyutpAdyajanaspaivaM buddhirjAyate-'aho duSka- api ca nATakasyAsAdhAraNavastulAbhaH phalatvena ramapyupAyakrameNa sidhyati' iti, upAyena vaartitvymiti| yadi na kalpyate, tadAnI kriyAyAH phalamAtra (na) ____ a. bhA. 2. pR. 429 kiMcidastyeveti, kiM tatropAyavyutpAdanaklezena / -nA. da. pR. 29 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 AbhiBha. thus : ___ asAdhAraNalAbho hi yadi phalatvena na kalpyate...kiM tatropAyavyutpAdanaklezenetyadabhutAvasAnatvaM kAryam / tena... 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 padanayattena' for the original 'vyut padana-klesena.' 71 tatra prakaraNasya sabhedasya salakSaNaM nAma- Atmazaktyeti / itihAsAdiprasiddhiM nirasyati / vastviti / nirvacanaM cAha-yatra kavirAtmazaktyeti / sAdhyaM phalam / zarIramiti tadupAyam / [ nAyakamiti sAdhayivasviti sAdhyaM phalaM, zarIramiti tdupaay| tAram / cakAraH sarvasamuccaye / dvitIyastvasamagrasamuccaye / vastvAdikaM kAvyAbhiveyamAtnazaktyA prakurute / evakAraH samuccayAbhAve utpattau bhavamautpattika nirmitam yatkAvyena tat prakaraNamiti vudhairjeyamiti tadayamarthaH-tritayamiti / yatra kavikRtaM dvayamekaM ca anyattu saMbandhaH / pUrvopanibaddha tat sarva prakaraNaM bhedasaptakamayam (pA. me. bhedaa. bhA. 2. pR. 429-30 saptakam )] vastvAdikaM kAvyAbhidheyamAtmazaktyA prakarate yatra kAvye tat prakaraNamiti vudhajJeyamiti saMbandhaH / / -hema. kA. zA. pR. 434 When commenting on the arya "Saciva' etc., Abhinavagupta expressly says : athAsya saptavidhasyApi prakaraNasya pratyekaM bhedatrayaM darzayitumAtriyaM paThati sacivetyAdi / a. bhA. 2. pR. 432 In the printed text of the Abhi-Bha, 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, Abhinavabharati and Locana-from these two

Page #67
Sanskrit Sahityasastra commentaries he adopts verbatim passages after passages-one feels almost certain that the above portion from the Kavyanusasana, put into brackets, originally was part of the text of the Abhinavabharati but was left out by later copyists while making its copies; one may also venture to suggest here that 'Prakaranasya Sabhedasya' may have originally read as 'Prakaranasya Saptabhedasya.' 72 tathA ca devI candragupte vasantasenAmuddizya mAdhavasyoktiH yathA vizAkhadevakRte devIcandragupte mAdhavasenAM samuddizya kumAracandraguptasyoktiH (mAdhavasenAmuddizya candraguptasyoktiH ?) a. bhA. 2. pR. 433 nA. da. pR. 104 The ND passage strongly supports the Editor's correction of the text of the Abhi-Bha. 73 catvAro'GkAH yasyAH kasyAzcidavasthAyAH sarasoSvasthAsamAvApaH kArya iti yAvat / 55 74 anye tu pratyaGkaM nAyaka - pratinAyakau tatsahAyau ceti caturAhuH, samudAyApekSayA hi dvAdazeti / catvAro'GkA yasyAm / kasyAzcidavasthAyAH sarase'vasthAntare samAvApaH kartavya iti yAvat / hema. kA. zA. pR. 437 a. bhA. 2. pR. 435 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--Bha. anye tu pratyaGkaM nAyaka - pratinAyakau tatsahAyau ceti catura AhuH / samudAyApekSayA hi dvAdazeti / - hema. kA. zA. pR. 438 -a. bhA. 2. pR. 437 Hemacandra's reading 'catura ahuh' is 75 tAvadaGkaparimANazaGkAmatidezAt pratyAsacyA prasaktAM vArayitumAha ekAGka eMveti / a. bhA. 2. pU. 444 The two words 'Sanka' and 'asanka,' found in the Abhi - Bha and the Kas, express nearly the same meaning. The presence of va' in the Kas, however, makes the sense at once clear. Probably it must have been there in the original Abhi-Bha. nanu kasmAdayaM vyAyoga ityAha-yuddha niyuddheti / vyAyAme yuddha niyuddhaprAye yujyante puruSA yatreti vyAyoga ityarthaH / saMvarSa : zauryavidyAkuladhanarUpAdikRtA spardhA | 76 nanu kasmAdayaM vyAyoga ityAha yuddha niyuddheti / vyAyAme yuddhaprAye niyudhyante puruSA yatreti vyAyoga ityarthaH / niyuddhaM bAhuyuddham, saMgharSaH zaurya vidyA kurUMpAdikRtA spardhA / a. bhA. 2. pR. 405 grammatically correct. tAvadaGkaparimANAzaGkAmatidezAt pratyAsattyA vA prasaktAM vArayitumAha ekAGka eveti / hema. kA. zA. pR. 440 hema. kA. zA. pR. 440-41 niyuddhaM bAhuyuddham - spardhanaM zauryavidyAkula- dhanarUpAdi - kRtaH saMharSaH (saMgharSa :) - vizeSeNa A samantAd yujyate kAryArtha saMrabhante'treti vyAyogaH / - nA. da. pR. 109 By comparing these corresponding passages it would seem that the Kavyanusasana presents correctly Abhinavagupta's etymology of the word 'Vyayoga'. The copyists of the Kavyanusasana seem to have left out the explanation 'niyuddham bahuyuddham,'

Page #68
Studies in 77 prakhyAtavastuviSaya iti prakhyAta bhAratAdiyuddhe viSaye prakhyAteti prakhyAte bhAratAdiyuddhe viSaye nimitta sati nimitta sati yatkaruNabahulaM ceSTita varNyate tat yatra karuNabahula ceSTita varNyate tat prakhyAtaM strIparvakhyAtaM strIparvavRttAntavat, mA bhUdityaprakhyAtagrahaNe- vRttAntavadU bhavatu mA vA bhUdityaprakhyAtagrahaNenoktam / noktam...vyAkulA ceSTA bhUminipAtavivartitAdyAH... ...vyAkulAzceSTA bhUminipAtavivartitAdyAH / utkramaNIyA sRSTirjIvita prANA yAsAM tA utsaSTikAH utkramaNonmukhA sRSTirjIvita prANA yAsAM tA zocantyaH striyaH tAbhiraGkita iti tathoktaH / utsRSTikAH zocantyaH striyastAbhiraGkita iti tathoktaH / -abhA. 2. pR. 445-46 -hema. kA. zA. pR. 441 Hemacandra's readings suit the context all right and are grammatically correct. In giving the etymology of utststikanka the ND, too, uses the expression 'utkramanonmukha' and not 'utkramaniya. 78 kasmAd bhAratamiSTa varSe dhanyeSu devavihiteSu / kasmAd bhAratamiSTa varSe vanyeSu dezavihiteSu / -nA. zA. 18, 98 (prathamArdham ) hema. kA. zA. pR. 176 atra prayoge prativakti varSe vanyeSviti dezatvena bhogabhUmitvena vihiteSvapItyarthaH / -a. bhA. 2. pR. 446 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 api zabdo'tikramaH, tatheti sAmAnyalakSaNam / api zabdo bhinnakramaH / tatheti -sAmAnyalakSaNam / -a. bhA. 2. pR. 447 __ -hema. kA. zA. pR. 441 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 lokopacAreti / vArtA prasiddhiryadi sA loka- kolIna janavAdaH tat khyAtaM prasiddha dambhazcAtmanyatathya yavahArasiddhA bhavati, yathA zAkyAnAM strIsaMparkaH sAdhutvAropaNarUpaH khyAto'tra vidheyaH / yathA zAkyAnAM prahasanIyo bhavati, na cauryam / evaMbhAvi- strIsaMparko garhaNIyo na cauryam / evaM dambho'pi / prasiddha evopahasanIyaH / / -a. bhA. 2. pR. 449 . -nA. da. pR. 113 From the context we find that Abhinavagupta is explaining here the Karika 'lokopacara' etc. After explaining 'lokopa ara-varta' we expect him to explain 'yas ca dambha-samyogah.' So the text of the Abhinavabharati ought to read 'evam dambho'pi' in place of 'evambhavi.' This proposed emendation finds support in the Natyadarpana passage cited above. 81 tatra ca prayogaprayuktimAha-paravacanamiti / para- tatra ca prayogayuktimAha-paravacanamiti parasambandhi sandhivacanaM svayamaGgavikArarabhinayet |...aah- vacanaM svayamAvikArarabhinayet / Aha-AkAze yAni AkAze zUnye yAni pumbakathitAni dRSTAni yatra puruSakathitAni dRSTAni yatra hyanye ta na pazyatyekazca zUnye tena vardhante vA kazcitpazyatyAkarNayati pazyatyAkarNayati ca tatra tadvacanaM sa evAnuvadan

Page #69
Sanskrit Sahityasastra ca tatra ca tadvavacanaM sa evAnuvadan sAmAjikAn sAmAjikAn bodhayati / bodhayati / hema. kA. zA. pR. 442 -a. bhA. 2. pR. 450 eko dvitIyapAtrarahitaH viTaH...vezyAdeH...carita vyomoktyA raGgApraviSTadvitIyapAtrasambandhivacanAnuvAdena varNayad...atra bhANe / -nA. da. pR. 112 - The reading 'parasandhi-vacanam' in the Abhi-Bha is clearly wrong. It ought to be 'Parasambandhi-vacanam' as attested by the Kas and the ND. The sentence yatra sunye' etc. in the Abhi-Bha 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-Bha. 82 hAsyenopagatArtheti prahelikA paravitAraNakAri paravipratAraNakAri yaduttara hAsyAya hAsyanimittaM yaduttara, ata eva hAsyayuktA sA nAlikA praNAlikA nigUDhArthatvAd bhavati sA nAlI byAjarUpA praNAlikA / vyAjetyarthaH / -a. bhA. 2. pR. 455 -nA. da. pR. 129 The reading 'para-vitaranakari' in the Abhi-Bha is not at all a happy one. The ND preserves the correct reading 'para-vipratarnakari' which perfectly agrees with the context. In view of the ND passage it is better to read 'pranalika-vyaja' (ityarthah) as one expression. 83 yathA vyasaninA rAjaputreNa kiM sukhamiti pRSTe yathA vA vyasaninA rAjaputreNa kiM sukhamiti pRSTe tenottara dIyate ___ mantriputreNocyate_ -a. bhA. 2. pR. 456 -nA. da. pR. 127 'Mantri'-putrena'-this word seems to have been left out by the copyists of the Abhi-Bha. It would be better to read, on the authority of the N.D., 'mantriputrena' in place of 'tena' in the Abhi-Bha. . 84 adhamaprakRtestu na nAyakatvamiti dhruvaM prahasanabhANakAdau zaGghakastvadhamaprakRternAyakatvamanicchan prahasanabhANAdau kiM brUyAt hAsyAdi-rasapradhAnatve hyadhama eva hAsyarasapradhAne viTAdernAyakatvaM pratipAdayan kathamupAdeyaH - nAyakaH / syAditi / -a. bhA. 2. pR. 459 -nA. da. pR. 117 The words in bold type in the Abhi-Bha make no sense. The corresponding passage in the ND is very clear. It directs us to emend the reading 'dhruvam to 'pratipadayan' or some other word conveying its import such as 'bruvan.' 85 prayujyate phala yairupAyAnuSThAnaH teSAmitivRttavazAdavazya upAyAnuSThAnasyAvazyakarta vyAdinA vyavadhAne sati nAyaka kartavyatAdibhirvicchede'pi sati yadanusandhAnAtmaka pratinAyakAmAtyAdInAM yadanusandhAna jJAnamasau pradhAnanAyaka-gata sandhidravyajJAna binduH, jJAnavicAraNaphalalAbhopAyatvAda binduH / jJAnavicAraNaM phalalAbhopAyatvAt...telabinduvat sarvavyApitvAd vA jale tailabinduriva binduH /

Page #70
Studies in sarvavyApakatvAdapi vinduH / bIjaca mukhasandhereva ApalAditi bIjavat samastetivRttavyApakatvamAha / kevalaM pravAtmAnamunmeSayati bindustadanantaramiti vizeSo'- bIjaM mukhasandhereva prabhRti nibadhyate, bindustu nayoH, dve api tu samastetivRttavyApake / tadanantaramiti / -a. bhA. 3. pR. 13-14 -nA. da. pR. 41 The readings in the Abhi-Bha need to be corrected in the light of the ND passage cited above. The word 'Sandhi-dravya' is very obscure. . 86 anyasminnupAye cintite sahasopAyAntaraprAptiH yathA anyasminnupAye cintite sahasopAyAntaraprAptiyathA nAgAnande jImUtavAhanasya zaGkhacUDAprAptavazya- nAgAnande jImUtavAhanasya zaGkhacUDAdaprAptavadhyapaTasya paTasya kaMcukinA vAsoyugalArpaNam / kaMcukinA vAsoyugalArpaNamiti / -a. bhA. 3. pR. 20 -nA. da. pR. 40 The incident is briefly summarised in the Nataka-laksana-ratna-kosa thus : yathA jImUtavAhanasya parArthe AtmAnaM dadataH zaGkhacUDena na datta vadhyacihnam tavyAkulasya kaMcukinAnIya mitrAvasujananyA prahita raktavAsoyugalam yathAvAsoyugamityAdi / The reading in the ND is lucid. 87 yatrodghATanaM sarvatraiva kathAbhAgasamUhe tat pratimukham , yatrodghATanaM sarva traiva kathAbhAgasamUhe sa pratimukham / pratirAbhimUkhyena yato'tra vRttiH / pratirAbhimukhye / mukhasyAbhimukhyena yato'tra vRttiH / _ -a. bhA. 3. pR. 25 -hema. kA. zA. pR. 451 The etymology of the word 'pratimukha,' in fact, the whole passage in the Kas is adopted from the Abhi-Bha. We must, therefore, add the words mukhasyabhimukhye between pratirabhimukhye and na which are left out by the copyist. 88 avamarza svaprAptereva pradhAnatA prAptyazasya ca prAptiraprAptiranveSaNamityeva bhUtAbhiravasthAbhiH punaH nyUnateti vizeSaH / punarbhavantIbhiryukto garbhasandhi: / prAptisabhavAkhyayA-a. bhA. 3. pR. 26 vasthayA yuktatvena phalasya garmIbhAvAt / ...... "amarza ta prAptereva pradhAnatA, aprApyaMzasya ca ityAdinA sphuTameva prAptirityevaM grbhH| aprApyaMzanyUnatA" iti pAThaH syAt yataH garbhasandhAvaprAptyaMzaH zvAtrAvazyaMbhAvI / anyathA hi saMbhAvanAtmA prAptipradhAna phalasaMbhAvanAtmakatvAt anyathA sa phalanizca- saMbhavaH kathaM, nizcaya eva hi syAt / vimarza tvaprApteyAtmaka eva syAdityukta, tadvyatireke'vamarza reva pradhAnatA, prApyaMzasya ca nyUnateti vizeSaH / prAptereva pradhAnatA / -hema. kA. zA. pR. 452-454 -a. bhA. 3. pR. 26, saMpAdakIyA TippaNI The whole passage in Hemacandra's Kas 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-Bha and the last sentence in the passage from the Kas completely agree (if we ignore the spelling Havamarsa' and 'vimarsa'). The whole discussion about the avamarsa or vimarsa sandhi in the Abhi-Bha (and the Kas of 'Hemacandra too) fully supports the printed text of the Abhi-Bha and the Editor's proposed emendation is misconceived and uncalled for.

Page #71
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 89 atra vyAkhyAne mukhyamasya sanveryadrUpa vidUra kAraNa - bIjasyotpatyudghATa - phalaunmukhyairudbhinnaM bhavanAbhimukhaM saMpAtAtmakatvaM nAma tadaspRSTameva syAt / yat sAdhyaM pradhAnaphalaM tad - vighnAtmA pratyUha hetu saMpAtAtmA niyatApticaturvyavasthAparicchinnaH pradhAnavRttAMzaH... iti vighna hetu saMpAte'pi pratyAsannavartini phale na nivartanIyamiti ca vyutpAdayitumavazyameva sandhau vighnahetavo nibandhanIyAH / - a. bhA. 3. pR. 28 59 - nA. da. pR. 50 From the passage in the ND it would seem that the original and correct reading in the Abhi Bha was Vighnakarana (and not Vidura-karana-) sampatatmakatvam. 90 nAnAvidhaiH sukhaduHkhAtmakaiH hAsyazokakrodhAdibhi- nAnAvidhaiH sukhaduHkhAtmakai ratihAsazokakrodhAdibhirbhAvairuttarANAM camatkArAspada jAtotkarSANAM yat rbhAvairuttarANAM camatkArAspadatve jAtotkarSANAM yat samAnayanam - samAnayanam / a. bhA. 3. pR. 29 - hema. kA. zA. pR. 455 On the same page of the Abhi-Bha about ten lines after the passage cited above we have : yadA ca sukhaprApteH phalavattvaM tadA ratihAsAdibAhulyaM prArambhAdInAM duHkhahAnestu phalave krodhazokAdiduHkhAtmakabhAvAd (? bhAva - ) bAhulyam - It is, therefore, quite clear that Hemacandra's passage preserves the correct reading 'rati -hAsa-zoka- krodhAdibhiH ' 91 iha ca ratigrahaNaM pumarthopayogi rasagatasthAyibhAvopalakSaNaM tena vIrapradhAneSu rUpakeSu pratimukha eva hyAsthA ratirUpeNa utsAhaH samyaviSayA samIhA ceSTA vilAsa iti mantavyam / ya eva mukhe rasa upakSipyate, tasyaiva sthAyI vibhAvAnubhAvavyabhicAribhiH poSaNIyaH / kAmaphale rUpake mukhasandhAvupakrAntaH zRGgAraH pratimukhe vilAsena sa eva vistAryate / vilAsaprakAzakAnyeva cetarANyaGgAni nibandhanIyAni / vIrAdirasapradhAnevartha phaleSu rUpeSu punarutsAhAdisaM padviSayA (yo) striyorI hA vyApAro vilAsaH / - nA. da. pR. 62 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 [ kAmaphaleSu rUpakeSu pratimukha eva hyAsthAvatvena ( 1 hyA sthAbandhatvena ) ratirUpeNa bhAvyam ]. Keeping this fact in view as well as the passage from the ND the text of the Abhi-Bha may be corrected as follows: ceSTA vilAsa iti mantavyam / vIrapradhAneSu rUpakeSu utsAha saMpadviSayA samIhA 92 yuktistu niyatapratipattiparyanteti vizeSaH, rUpamiti cAniyatA AkRtirucyate / tatra vizeSapratipattirihApi tathopacArAd vyapadezaH / nAnArUpANAmarthAnAM saMzayo'navadhAraNaM rUpamiva rUpam / aniyato hyAkAro rUpamucyate / mukhasandhyaGgAd yukteH kRtyavicArarUpatvena niyatAkArAyA asya bhedaH / a. bhA. 3. pR. 48 -nA. da. pR. 73 -a. bhA. 3. pR. 42-43

Page #72
60 Studies in In view of the passage from the ND we may correct the Abhi-Bha as follows: yuktistu niyatapratipattiparyanteti vizeSaH / rUpamiti cAniyatA AkRtirucyate / tatra vizeSApratipattirihApi tathopacArAd vyapadezaH / 93 bhAvataccopalabdhistu krama iti / bhAvasya bhAvyamAnasya vastuno bhAvanAtizaye satyUhaM prati bhAvanAdibalAt syAt yA paramArthopalabdhiH sA kramaH / a. bhA. 3. pR. 49 kramo bhAvasya nirNayaH / bhAvasya parAbhiprAyasyAthavA bhAvyamAnasyArthasya pratibhAdivazAnnirNayo yathAvasthitarUpanizcayaH kramaH / - nA. da. pR. 76 The words 'ahari prati bhavanddi balat syle ya do not construe well. By compar. ing the above two passages we should corrrect the text of the Abhi-Bha as follows: bhAvasya bhAyamAnasya vastuno bhAvanAtizaye sati Uha pratibhAdivAt yA paramArthopalabdhiH saH kramaH /

Page #73
KALPALATAVIVEKA ON ABHINAVABHARATI The text of the Abhinavabharati (A.Bh.), the commentary by Abhinavagupta on Bharata's Natyasastra (NS) is corrupt and, therefore, obscure in many places. The commentary on the Sixth Adhyaya, 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 Rasadhyaya, 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 Kavyanusa sana and the Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra both of whom have made liberal use of the A.Bh. in their works.2 The Kalpalata 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 "Abhinavabharati 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 anyacca sthAyinAM ye vibhAvAdayo'bhihitAstareva yoge sthAyinaH sphItA bhaveyU rasA syurityarthaH / ayoge tu sthAyina eveti kiM rasAvasthAparaparyAyAyAM sphItadazAyAM punarvibhAvAdipratipAdanena / -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 vivRddhAtmApyagAdho'pi duranto'pi mahAnapi / etadvAkyaM kRtyArAvaNe rAmeNa svazokasyAbhidhAyakamukta nAbhinayaH / -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 Rama'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 Rama-play Krtyaravana (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 zokena kRtaH iti / asyottaramarddham / hRdayasphuTanabhayAta (? 6) roditumabhyarthya te sacivaiH / idaM tApasavatsarAje vinItadevavAkyamudayanagataM zokamabhidadhAti nAbhinayaH / / -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 Tapasavatsaraja. 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 vatsaraja we read : (nepathye) deva samAzvasihi samAzvasihi, samassasadu samassamadu piavaasso / [samAzvasatu samAzvasatu priyavayasyaH / ] vinItabhadraH-(zrutvA dRSTvA ca sakaruNam ) aye kathamAgata eva devaH zrAvitazca, tathA hyayamzokena kRtastambhastathA sthito yena vardhitAkrandaiH / hRdayasphuTanabhayAta (roditu) mabhyarthitassacivaiH // atikaruNa ca vartate tadito'pasRtya kAryazeSa pratiyojayAmi / -Act ll, p. 18 This stanza presents some variant readings : 1 zrutvaiSa vidhRtabASpaH- Srigaraprakasa (Ch. XXXII) as quoted by the editor of the play in a f. n. on p. 19 zokena kRtaH stambhaH ; KLV p. 304, G.M. 2 -yo'navasthitAkrandaiH -G -yo'vasthitAkrandaiH ;-M -yena vardhitAkrandaiH -Hc (as noted by R. Gnoli, Text, p. 4) . 3 -mabhyarthyate sacivaiH '-Hc; KLV Gnoli's translation of the third pada "(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 Bhavabhuti : pUrotpIDe taDAgasya parIvAhaH pratikriyA / zokakSobhe ca hRdayaM pralApa reva dhAryate // -Uttararamacarita III-29

Page #75
Sanskrit Sahityasastra [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 ] Rumanyan and Vasantaka (the Vidusaka) the minister and the friend respectively of King Udayana, the Hero, plead with him to take heart and bear the loss of Va savadatta, 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 tasyaiva iti / sthAyina eva / asmin iti / asmin naTe'yaM sthAyI / -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 tadanukAre'pi ca iti / tacchabdena ratiH parAmRzyate / abhyupagamo'yam anukaraNarUpatvAdeva ca nAmA tara pravata ta iti hi tatrabhavantaH / tatazca ratyanukAre kAntaveSagatyAdayo'pyanukAryAH / anukaraNarUpatve ca teSAM kRtAni nAmAntarANi yaiste vyapadizyante munivacaneSu tAvannopalabhyanta iti bhAvaH / -KLV p. 305, 11. 24-27 The text of the A.Bh., on which we have this comment, reads : tadanukAre'pi ca kva nAmAntara kAntaveSagatyanukaraNAdau / -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 namantaram to mean kva nama antaram whereas 'namantaram 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; kevalamupAyavailakSaNyAnnAmAntaraM pratipadyatAM darzanAnumitizrutyupamitipratibhAnAdinAmAntaravat / 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 (anukarana) of the permanent mental state called rati. Now in this imitation of rati the dress, the gait, etc., of the beloved become anukarya (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 sthayibhava 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 bAgaGgAlaGkAraiH ziSTaH prItiprayojitamadhuraiH / iSTajanasyAnukRtilalA jJeyA prayogaH // Abhinavagupta, however, has himself said in the present paragraph: kAntaveSAnukAravaddhi na rAmacezinukAraH / 6 tantra iti nAvyatatram | Studies in --NS XXII, 14 - Vol I p 276, 1.1. KLV p. 306, 110 This comment comes in between prAmANikajanazca... kimAcakSmahe / ( = prAmANiko janaH ...... kimasyocyate A. Bh. Vol I, p. 276 1 17 and raso na pratIyata iti / Hemacandra, however, reads: The present text of the A.Bh., however, does not have the reading tantra in the present context; it reads : yavatyanta naH pratItivaiSamyaprasaGgAdi tat kiyadatrocyatAm / yahanyattatpratItivaiSampaprasaGgAdi tat kiyadatrocyatAm / - Vol I. p. 276, 11 17-18 -p. 96 1. 9 Possibly the KLV might have read yatvanyattantrapratItivaiSamya. 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: raso na pratIyata iti / rasasya pratIyamiyaktI mukhyatayA, utpattizcopacAreNa bhaTTatotasyAbhimatA / eSa eva ca pakSo yathopAdhyAya' ziSyA ityAcAryasya [abhinavaguptasya] anumato'ta eva ca pratItyAdivyatiriktaca saMsAre ko bhoga ityAdinA tatra tatra rasasya pratItyAdikamAcAryaH svayaM vyavasthApayiSyatIti zaGkukAdimatanirasanAnantaramupAdhyAyamata na pradarzitam / -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 na corasAhAdimAn rAmaH smaryate'nanubhUtatvAdityAha na ca tattvataH iti sarasatA iti rasopajanaH / 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 na ca tadvato rAmasya smRtiH / anupalabdhatvAt / -p. 276, l. 5 (from below) The KLV reads tattvatah; so too, Hemacandra reads tattvato (p. 96 1. 13). The reading 'tadvatah' however suits the context. 9 The A.Bh. (Vol I, p. 277, 11. 1-2) reads 'AAR. Masson and Patwardhan observe: The phrase Nibidanijamohasankatakarina on p. 277 of the A.Bh., Vol. I, is puzzling. Perhaps we must read Sankatanivrttikarina. "Gnoli accepts the reading of the Sankat atanivarnakarina but remarks Sankatakarina. 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 Sankatatanivarana (or nivriti) karina is vouchsafed by Abhinavagupta's own text in the Locani where he reads: bhogo'pi na kAvyazabdena kiyate, api tu ghnmohaanprsnggsaanivRttidvaarenn......| 10 rajanovaicitryAnuviddhasatvamavanirvAcatsvabhAvanirvRtivizrAntilakSaNaH / -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 Srazaraprakasa, p. 480) as 'Vilaksana', therefore, seems uncalled for. 11 rasaH iti / rasaH syAnna tRtIyA gatiriti saMbandhaH / 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 gatih syat is the genuine reading and not gatirasyam, 12 guNAnAm iti / saparajastamasAm / --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 saMsargAdiH iti / KLV p. 307 1. 24

Page #78
66 Studies in From this prattka and the explanation that follows it would seem that the Karika : saMsargAdiyA zAstra ekatvAt phalayogataH / vAkyArthastadvadevAtra zRGgArAdI raso mataH // 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 Samsargadib, tadvitayab iti as the next Prarika for explanation and this latter pranka forms part of the A. Bh. line anubhavena ca tadrizya iti manyam which is a comment of Abhinavagupta on the word anubhava occuring in the Karika Bhavasamyojana, etc. 14 dhiganAgamitvam iti / -KLV p. 308, 11. 4-5 The text of the A.Bh. (p. 278 1. 3), however, reads (a) dhigaragamitvam. 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: na tvevam (? nanvevam) iti / na tveko ( nanveko ) 'nyathA vyAcaSTe'paro'nyatarazcAnyathetyevaM rasatattvamalabvapratiSTha kathamAstAmiti nirviNNaprAyasya jijJAsoH praznaH / kiM kurmaH iti / nirAmnAye nA ( nirAmnAyam (A) dyAgana rahasya na kazcitIti sajuguptamAcArya syoktiH dhiganAgamitvam iti / tathA hyanAgamajJo lolayaprabhRtiH sthAyyeva vibhAvAnubhAvAdibhirupacito rasa ityAdinA prakAreNa kiM na dUSayati / sarvamapyasaGgatArthaM prarUpayatItyarthaH / 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 pada. 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 kimetadapurvam. The statement of Abhinavagupta, which follows immediately after the introductory verses, supports this interpretation (what is new about it ?) : uktameva muninA na khapUrva kiJcit / pratipatti iti vAkyArthapratipattimAtrAt / 15 itivRtta iti / itivRttam itikartavyatetyarthaH / KLV p. 308, 124

Page #79
Sanskrit Sahityasastra .67 The text of A. Bh. (Vol. I. p. 278, 1. 3, from below) reads pratipattimatradatitivra; in a foot-note the editor notes the variant readings : traditivra ditrivrt. The reading itivstta, found in the KLV, appears to be genuine, although its sense itikartavyata appears to be very unusual. 16 trAsakasya iti mRgapotakAdeH / apAramArthikatvAd iti / atra heturvizeSarUpatvAbhAvAditi / -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 (aparamarthika)". Would it not be more correct to to construe 'trasaka' (one who causes fear) with Dusyanta, who strikes terror in the heart of the deer ? 17 bhAvaH iti zamanAmA / -KLV p. 309, 1.2 (from below) The text of the A. Bh. (p. 282 1. 3) reads : tattvajJAnajanitanirvedaprAyo vibhAvo mokSopAya iti / . Dr. Raghavan (p. 527 1.3) reconstructs the text as : : ... nivedaprAyo'pi bhAvo mokSopAya iti / , 18 azaktau tu iti aparicita iti cobhayaprakArA bhayasaMvit / -KLV, p. 310, 11. 2-3 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 282, 1.3, from below) reads azaktau ca tato bhIruH kiJcidArjijISurapyanucitavastu Dr. Raghavan notes the variant readings : . M ajjijISurapicita D jigISurapijita / -(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 lIyeta iti nazyet / -KLV, p. 312, 1. 11 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol. I, p. 295, 1. 12) reads : tatspaze" hyabhimAno'syA (sya) vilIyata eva / ... Hc (p. 149 1:16) reads: ___ tatspaze hyabhimAno'sya lIyetaiva / 20 tadAbhAsatAyAm iti / mokSavibhAvAbhAsatAyAm / prahasana iti / prahasanarUpakeNa hi rAjaputrAdInAM sarvapuruSArthe ghanaucityatyAgaviSayA vyutpattirAdhIyata ityarthaH / -KLV, p. 312, 11, 12-14 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 296, 11. 8-9) reads : tadAbhAsatAyAM zAntAbhAso hAsya eva prahasanarUpasya (rUpaH / ) anau (svAnau) cityatyAgaH sarvapuruSArtheSu vyutpAdyaH Dr. Raghavan reconstructs the text as follows :

Page #80
Studies in tadAbhAsatAyAM zAntAbhAso hAsya eva / prahasanarUpasya anaucityatyAgaH sarvapuruSArtheSu vyutpaadyH| -p. 529 The KLV passage attests the correctness of Dr. Raghavan's reconstructed text and makes it easily intelligible. 21 zAntasyApi iti viSayaviparivRttyA'ntarmukhatAlAbhena savarasAnAM zAntaprAya evAsvAdaH kevalaM vAsanAntaropahita iti hi vakSyate / -KLV, p. 313, 11, 1-2 The text of the A. Bh. (Vol I, p. 339, II. 21-22) reads : . tatra sarvarasAnAM zAntaprAya evAsvAdo na viSayebhyo viparivRttyA / tanmukhyatAlAbhAt / kevalaM vAsanAntaropahita ityasya sarvaprakRtitvAbhidhAnAya pUrvamabhidhAnam / Dr. Raghavan reconstructs this passage as follows :tatra sabarasAnAM zAntaprAya evAstrAdaH, viSayebhyo viparivRtyA / tanmukhyatA lAbhaH kevalaM vAsanAntaropahita iti / atra sarvaprakRtitvAbhivAnAya pUrvamabhidhAnam / ---The Number of Rasas (1967 ed.). p. 115. Masson and Patwardhan translate it thus : In this connection, the aesthetic enjoyment of all rasas is similar to that of santa, 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 (Vasana). ? ___ 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 antarmukhatalabhena (antarmukhata 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 : tatra sarvarasAnAM zAntaprAya evAsvAdo viSayebhyo viparivRttyA'ntarmukhatAlAbhAt, kevala vAsanAntaropahita iti / For this proposed restoration we find strong support in the A. Bh. itself. In this very section on santa-rasa, when explaining the nature of the true relish of santa Abhinavagupta uses the expression antarmukhavasthabhedena : tattvAsvAdo'sya kIdRzaH / ucyate-uparAgadAyibhiH utsAharatyAdibhiruparakta yadAtmasvarUpa...nirbhAsamAnam antarmukhAvasthAbhedena lokottarAnandAnayanaM [ ? lokottarAnandaghanaM ] tathAvidhahRdayaM vidhatta iti / __ -A. Bh. pp. 340-341 This passage and the variant reading (tanmukhyata) labhat, 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 lIlA issttsyaanukRtiH| -KLV, p. 313, 1. 17 This reading is quite significant compared to the tame and flat reading lila janasyanukstih found in the A, Bh. (Vol. I, p. 304, 11. 15-16). If the A. Bh. were to

Page #81
Sanskrit Sahityalastra read istajanasyanukrtih then it would have been a perfect reading for in the definition of Lila (NS XXII. 14 ) itself Bharata says : vAgaGgAlaGkAraH ziSTeH prItiprayojitairmadhuraiH / iSTajanasyAnukRtirlIlA zevA prayogajJaH // 23 vipralambha iti / vipralambho viDambanaM prasiddhamiha tUpacArAttadIya phalaM virahAtmakaM gRhyate / tena hiM paraspara' ratimatorana viDambanamasti / tena viraheNa kRtaH suSTutamAM poSita ityarthaH / 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 nanvekaH sthAyIti kA bhUvitA ityAha- paramedAzra iti / -KLV p. 314 1. 11-12 This quotation supports the Editor's emendation of the readings kASTha to (kAsya) bhUyiSThatA (p. 31512 ). 25 cikuSTa iti vikuSTaH avaNakaTuH / upapAta iti / upapAtaH putrAdimaraNam / --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. atradikama (for agnyadima). This variant reading suggests that the reading found in the KLV ( putradi) must have been the original reading in the MS of the A Bh. that was before the KLV. 26 tADanaM... bhedanaM paraspara mitrAdiviyojanaM bhAve Nyatau praharaNA nAma samantAdvaraNam samprahAreNa rudhirAkarSaNamiti vigrahaH / (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 lyudantau. 27 lokottarAnandaghanam iti / etadekaM hRdayasya vizeSaNam / --KLV, p. 315, I. 23. The text of the A. Bh. (p. 341, 1. 3) however reads : lokottarAnandAnaya (ndAya )naM tathAvidhaM hRdayaM vidhata iti / Dr. Raghavan reads: lokottarAnandAnayanaM tathAvidhahRdayaM vidhatta iti / -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 tathA prati iti asyeyamiti yo na saMbandhapratItyupAdahetavaH [1] - p. 305, 11. 21-22 A. Bh. ( Vol. 1) atha sAmAjikasya tathA pratItiyogyAH kriyanta ityetadevAnusandhAnamucyate ... -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 : ___tathApratIti iti / asyeyamiti yena saMvandhapratItyutpAdahetavaH (vibhAvAH) / / KLV ___A. Bh. 2 nApi vAstu iti tRtIyaH pakSaH / tathAhi-anukaraNarUpo rasa iti. yaducyate tatka p. 305, 1. 23 (1) sAmAjikapratItyAbhiprAyeNa uta (2) naTAbhiprAyeNa The third alternative refers to vastu- kiMvA (3) vastuvRttavivecakavyAkhyAtRvuddhisamavalambanena vsttavivecaka etc. and is taken up for yathAhurvyAkhyAtAraH khalvevaM vivecayanti iti / atha consideration on p. 276 (11. 2-3). In (4) bharatamunivacanAnusAreNa / the light of these two passages we must read the KLV text as -A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 274, II. 1-4 "nApi vastu...." iti tRtIyaH pakSaH / nApi vastuvRttAnusAreNa tadanukAratvam / -A. Bh. Vol. I. p. 276, 1.2 3 asyArthaH-padArthavAcyArtho....nanvarthazabdo'bhi- tatra ca padArthavAkyArthI raseSveva paryavasyata...na dheyavAcI / tvarthazabdo'bhidheyavAcI / -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 vakyarthau and natvartha4 alaGkAraH kaTakAdiH iSTajanazcaitavyamuttamatva- alaGkAraH kaTakAdiH / iSTajanaH vidUSakAdiH / etsuuckm| dubhayamuttamatvasUcakam / -p. 313, II. 13-14 -A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 304, 1.9 We must underline the word isgajanasca 5. The words vipriya, dehasya, ayasanam cf : A. Bh. Vol. I, p. 318, p. 319, abhighata (p. 314) p. 320. patanam, pidanam chedanam bhedanam (p. 315 1. 1) must be underlined as they are the Pratikas. 6 hasta iti / hastAgrayoranyonyaM niSedhaH saMgharSaNam / . hastAgrayoranyonyaniSpeSaH saGgharSaNam / -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 Rasadhyaya (and the Bhayadhyaya).

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 etasmAtprabhRti navamAdhyAyaparyantaM vyAkhyA nopalabdhA / 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 vibhava 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 'Vaganzopangasamyuktah' the V. L. for 'Sakkopangacamyuktah) in NS VII. 5. I have not been able to trace the pratikas 'Pratitihetavah' (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 vibhava, 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 : Kavyanulasana of Hemacandra (a) parasmin yathA - samudradattasya nandayantyAmanyAnurAgazaGkA [ puSpadUSita ke] duryodhanasya vA bhAnumatyAm (veNI 2) / 1. 134 (A) cintA / sA ca smRteranyA / grasanAdadanavat khelanAd gamanavacca / sA ca vitarkAta tato vA vitarka iti vitarkAt pRthagbha cintA / 1 138 (i) akAryakaraNazAnAderbIDA... ... cApalam avimRzya - pR. 130 ...... (I) yAvat / - pR. 134 (3) nidrodbhavazvinena nidrAyA evaM gADhAvasthA suptamityAha / 1 132 kArya karaNamiti Studies in Kalpalataviveka ata eva yAnyagatatvena zaGkA yathA samudradattasya nandayantyAmanyAnurAgazaGkA / duryodhanasya vA bhAnumatyAM, sApIha zaGkAtvena prigRhiite| 1288 cintAnusmRteranyaiva |...srvdhaatuunaaN hyartho'nyonyato bhiyata ev| tathA hi khela gatAviti yadyapi paThavate tathApi savilAsagamanameva viziSTa' khelanamiti prasiddha khe khelagAmItyAdau / grasanaM ca... viziSTam adana na tu adanamAtramevamanyatrAvadheyam / pR. 292 As nAma akAryakaraNAtmikA jJAnamucyate / 1 293 avimRzyaparyAlocya kArya karaNaM cApalamiti yAvat | / akArya karaNazabdena pR. 294 nidrAsamutthamityanena nidrAyA eva gADhAvasthA suptamiti.... mAha / 1 298 1 Vide the opening verse of the KLV : yat pallavena vitaM duryodha' mandabuddhibhicApi / / kriyate kalpalatAyAM tasya viveko'yamatisugamaH || 2 Second Revised edition, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1964. 3 That this incident to be portrayed in this play is vouchsafed by Abhinavabharati : etadevAbhimanyamAnena punadUSitake'zoka dattAdizabdAnena samudradattasya zaGkA yopanibaddhA sA na doSAya nirvahaNAtopayoginI hi nandayantI nirvAsanaM tasyAzca gRhAntarAvasthA / ... na tena brahmayazaH svAmiyazaH khaNDita ......! - abhinavabhAratI (adhyAya 18) 1.432

Page #85
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 73 ) e (U) ... ...bhUvikAramukharAgAdInAmAcchAdanakAriNI ......teSAM bhravikAramukharAgAdInAM saMvaraNamAcchAdanakAri cittavRttiravAhitthamavahitthA vA / na bahiHstha yaccittavRttirUpa tadavahitthaM na bahiHstha citta yeneti cittaM yeneti pRSodarAditvAt |-pR. 133 nirukta pRSodarAditvAcca rUpamityAhuH |-pR. 299 (e) ...mRteH prAgavasthA mRtiH / sAkSAnmRtAvanu- yadi vA vyAdhInAM...bhAvanamanena vyAdhinA na me nivartibhAvAbhAvAt / tavyamityeva rUpa cittaM tadeva maraNamabhinIyamAnamucyate / prAgavastheti / mriyamANAvasthaiva anena vyAdhinA sa eva hi prANAnAM tyAgaH / tena mriyamANAvastheva... me na nivartitavyamityevavidhacittavRttirUpA / - anubhAvAderabhAvAt |-pR. 301 -pR. 143 sandehaH kiMsvidityubhayAvalambI pratyayaH saMzaya- sandehaH kiJcidi [? kiMsvidityubhayAvalambI pratyayaH rUpaH / vimarzo vizeSapratItyAkAkSAtmikA saMzayarUpaH / vimarzo vizeSapratItyAkAGkSAtmikA icchaa| icchA / bAdhakapramANena pakSAntarAbhAvapratItimAtra bAMdhakapramANena pakSAntarAbhAvapratItimAtra vipratyayaH / vipratipattirityAhuH / yebhyo'nantaraM bhavitavyatA- vipratipattiA / ebhyo'nantaraM bhavitavyatApratyayasvabhAva pratyayasvabhAvaH ekatarapakSazathilyadAyI pakSAntara ekatarapakSazathilyadAyI pakSAntaraMtulyakakSya[? kSa ]-bhAvA[? pakSAntara] tulyakakSabhAvAccyAvayannunmagnatAma- ccyAvayan unmagnatAmanyasya darzaya starkaH / sa ca nyasya darzayastarkaH / sa ca saMzagAt pRthageva / saMzayAt pRthageva saMzayena tattvabubhutsAdirUpasya vimarzAdeH sadehena tatvabubhutsAdirUpasya vimarzAdeH svIkAre'pi kavizikSArtha bhaktvA nirUpaNam / anye svIkAre'pi kavizikSArtha bhnggyaa| bhaktvA ] tu dharmiNi sandeho dharme tu vimarzo bhrAntijJAna nirUpaNam / anye tu vipratyaya ityAhuH |-pR. 302 "dharmiNi sadeho dhame tu vimarzo bhrAntijJAnaM jJAna vipratipattiH", ityAhuH |-pR. 142 (o) tenAnyeSAmatraivAntarbhAvaH / tad yathA- anyeSAM tvatraivAntarbhAvaH / tad yathA dambhasyAvahitthe / dambhasyAvahitthe, udvegasya nirvede, kSuttRSNAde- udvegasya nirvede / kSuttRSNAde nau / evamanyadapyU banau / evamanyadapyUhyam / anye tyAhuH / hyam / apare tu manyante kaH khalu cittavRttIrgaNayitu -etAvatsveva sahacAriSu avasthAvizeSeSu prayoge samarthaH / gaNane vA...zocya [? zAkya] zikSitapradarziteSu sthAyI carvaNAyogyo bhvti|-pR. 129 cittacattadvayabhedena vaa...| tathA zatAvatsveva sahacAri yavasthAvizeSeSu prayoge pradarziteSu sthAyI carvaNAyogyo bhavati |-pR. 302-03 The Natyadarpana? The Kalpalatayiveka (a) zranasya vyabhicAritve'pyanyavyabhicAriNaM prati kheda iti zramo vivakSitastena bhAvo bhAvAntare vibhAvibhAvatve na doSaH |-pR. 164 vatA pratipadyata eveti darzitam |-pR. 291 (A) ...sadRzadarzanam / AdizabdAt sadRzazravaNa- ...sadRzasya darzanam zravaNaM vA / cintA praNidhAnam / cintana-saMskAra-rAtripazcAdbhAganidroccheda-praNi- abhyAsaH punaH punaH parizIlanam......pR. 293 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 dhAna-punaHpunaHparizIlanapUrva darzanapATavAdevibhAvasya grahaH |-pR. 160 jJAna vivekajJAna bAhuzrutya vA |-pR. 160 (I) kAryAjJAna netrAbhyAM pazyato'pi zrotrAbhyAM zRNvato- 'pi cedAnIM kiM kRtyamityanizcayaH / neda vaikalyAcAnyasvabhAvamityapasmAramohAbhyAM bhinnam / vijJAna vivekajJAnaM zrutavibhavo baahushrutym...| pR. 293 ......cakSuAmapi pazyataH zrotrAbhyAmapi zrRNvata iti darzayan mohAdasyAH svarUpAntara' darzayati |-pR. 296 (u) supta nidrAprakarSo'tra... / prakarSA gaaddhtmaavsthaa| ......nidrAyA eva gADhAvasthA suptamiti darzayannidrAyA svapnasya tAtkAli kaviSayajJAnasya Ayita pratIti- viSayebhyaH uparirasAtmakatvaM svarUpamAha-svapnAyitam ryatastat svapnAyita pralapitam |-pR. 161 iti pralapanamiti loke prasiddha svapnAdasAdhAraNatAtkA likaviSayajJAnAdbhinnameva / svapnasya ayita pratItiryataH ......|-pR. 298 (U) AkAriNi svayabhapakaraNAbhilASaH pratIkArecchA, amarSa iti / pratikaraNecchArUyo'yaM krodhAdanya eva / parasyApakArAbhAve'pi parAnartha karaNAbhiprAyarUpaH krodha -. 299 ityanayo daH |-pR. 160 dhASTaM yaM prAgalbhyam / ... sarvAnugatatvakhyApaNArtha ...teSAM bhravikAramukharAgAdInAM saMvaraNamAcchAdanakAri dhASTraya prathamamupAttam / sabhayAdirapi hyapragalbho yaccita vRttirUpa tadavahitthaM na bahiHstha cittaM yeneti na zaknotyAkAra savarItum / vikriyA bhra- nirukta pRSodarAditvAcca rUpamityAhuH / pragalbho hyAkAra' vikAra-mukharAgAdikA, tasyA rodhaH saMvaraNam / saMvarItu jAnAtIti dhArTa yagrahaNam...tena dhArTa ya rodhakArakatvenopacArAcittavizeSo'pi rodhaH, na sarva vibhAveSvasyAnuyAyIti mantavyam |-pR. 299 . bahiHsthA cittavRttiriti pRSodarAditvAdavahitthA / -pR. 164 (ai) cauryAdirUpAd vibhAvAd yad rAjAde dhuNya caurya mupalakSaNamakAryANAM tannimittaM gRhIte jane rAjAnirdayatva tadaugrayam |-pR. 162 dInAmagriyaM nirdayatvam |-pR. 299 (o) pratibhAna matiH... ... / navanavolle vazAlinI matiriti / apUrva pratibhAnarUpA / UhApohAvanvayavyatireka prajJA pratibhAnam |...trko [UhApohau1 ] vidhi- pratyayau vidhiniSedhaviSayau vA sNbhaavnaa-prtyyau|-pR. 299 niSedhaviSayau saMbhAvanApratyayAnvayavyatirekapratyayau vA |-pR. 160 (au) prANa nirodharUpa tu maraNaM na nATaye prayojyamiti tena mriyamANAvasthaiva cittavRttirUpeha vivakSitA na tu na tasya vibhAvAnubhAvasvarUpANi pratipAdyanta iti| mRtAvasthA / tatrAnubhAvAderabhAvAt |-pR. 301 -pR. 161 (a) cakitodvegakArI camatkAraH / anarthasa bhAvanAtaH jhaTiti vidhUnanakArI camatkRtisvabhAvatrAso bhayAt satvabhrazo bhymitynyorbhdH|-pR. 163 pUrvAparavicArapUrvakAdanya eva |-pR. 301-302 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 Sahityasastra 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 Bhayadhyaya (NS Ch. VII) which treats of the eight sthayibhavas, the thirtythree vyabhicaribhavas, and the eight sattvika-bhayas. 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 bhavas, 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 vyabhicaribhavas 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 vyabhicari-bhavas, found in the KLV represent the original portion of the A. Bh, on the Bhayadhyaya. 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-Panini 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 Bhayadhyaya 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 Srisankuka, Kecit,2 Ghantuka: (? Ghantaka), Tikakara' Bhatta-tota, Kavikulacakravarti, Anye,? Canakyacarya, Apare, Tarkika, Sankhya and Socya (? Sakya) are such as could come only in the Abhinavabharati. 1 31197170...la sitzt : I gata i p. 295 2 Fast' fara fapicha | p. 296 3 latar, vafa fog#: ' p. 298 . 4 fan famatta fara sa toht: p. 300 5 Healaet...... I p. 300 377 Haalaa p. 302 6 etadeva hi pratijAgarita kavikulacakravartinA "tiSThet kopavazAta" (vikramorvazIya 4.2) ityAdinA / p. 300 7 ad a ufafu write gir feratif unifama pasangang: 1 p. 302 8 tathA ca-daivamacintya puruSakArastu cintya iti vadan cANakyAcArya starkapUrvakameva samasta vyavahAramAha / p. 302 9 are tu manyante kaH khalu cittavRttIgaNayitu samarthaH / gaNane vA tArkikatarkitAtmaguNanavakena vA sAMkhya

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 Bhavadhyaya (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: yattu vyabhicAkhyiAkhyAnAvasare vakSyate taccira kAlavibhramavipralabdhasyopAdeyatvanivRttaye / yat samyagjJAnam - yathA - 'vRthA dugdho'naDvAMsstanabharanatA gauriti para pariSvakto SaNDo yuvatiriti lAvaNyarahitaH / kRtA vaiDUryAzA vikacakiraNe kAcazakale mayA mUDhena tvAM kRpaNamaguNajJa praNamatA // ' iti tannirvedasya khedarUpasya bhAvatvena / etacca tatraiva vakSyAmaH | 1 Studies in Now, this promised description of nirveda is found in this portion of the KLV : nirveda iti dAridryavyAdhyAdikAraNajanyo ruditaniHzvasitAdInAM kAraNaM manovikAro duHkharUpo bhAvavizeSaH / zeSeSvapyeva N vivRtiH / tatrajJAna cira bhrAntyA guNitahAnopAdAnAdiprabandhasya bhramanivRttau satyAM dhiG mAM vRthA bhrAntamiti nirvedaM janayati / yathA vRthA dugdho'naDvAn stanabharanatA gauriti cira pariSvaktaH zaNDo yuvatiriti lAvaNyarahitaH / kRtA vaiDUryAzA vikacakiraNe kAcazakale mayA mUDhena tvAM kRpaNamaguNajJa praNamata (? tA ) || 2 On the strength of this evidence alone we could, without any hesitation what saMkhyAtabuddhidharmASTakaviparyayAdipratyayacatuSTayena vA zocya [ ? zAkya ] zikSitacittacettadvayabhedena vA sarvasaMgrahe kimiyatA / 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 zAkyAcArya (rAhula). 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 Bhavadhyaya : (i) citra pustAdyapi ca nATyasyaivArtha bhAgAbhiSyando yathA sargabandhAdi zabdabhAgAbhiSyandaH / etacca yo'rtho hRdayasaMvAdI' (nA. zA. 7-10 [1 7-7 ] ) ityatra vitatya vakSyAmaH / (-A. Bh. Ch VI, p. 291)

Page #89
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 17 soever, assert that the KLV (pp 286-303) preserves a major portion of the A. Bh. on the Bhayadhyaya (NS Ch. VII) which is presumed by Indologists as lost. (ii) yatrApi vyabhicAriNi vyabhicAryantara saMbhAvyate......etacca 'yathA narendra (nATyazAstra, 7-10 [1 7-7 vRtti; pR. 349]) ityatra vakSyAmaH / -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 Bhava dhyaya (and Rasadhyaya). This portion, dealing with sattva and sattvika-bhavas, 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 Bhavadhyaya, 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 : iha cittavRttireva saMvedanabhUmau saMkrAntA dehamapi vyApnoti / saiva ca sattvamityucyate / tatra cAvyakta yat savita-prANabhUmidvayAnipatita yat sattvaM tat bhAvAdhyAyasaMzrayatvenaiva vijJeyam / A. Bh. III. 22 p. 152 saMvedanarUpAt prasRtaM yat sattva tad vicAritam / anyat tu dehadharma tvenaiva sthita sAttvikam / A. Bh. 22 p. 153 and te (sAttvikabhAvAH) ca prANabhUmiprasRtaratyAdisaMvedanavRttayo...... / 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 itivitta, arthapraksti and avastha. Itivsttal is the subject matter or story of the play. It is called the body of the drama 2 while rasa, its soul. Itivstta is twofold : adhikarika (main or principal) and prasangika (subsidiary or incidental). The adhikarika is so called because it is connected with the attainment of the ends of the hero. The prasangika 'serves as a means towards the fruition of his aims, and incidentally attains some end of its own. It is twofold' : pataka (an episode) and prakari (a mere incident); patakao is con 1 Itivitta, katha, vastu, and samvidhanaka 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-purusa 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, na cAtirasato vastu dUra vicchinnatAM nayet / / at a fanguinem Sat: || DR. III. 32 and Visvanatha : 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 Pataka is given as follows : gal FATTUATfa67789#ficaa | Avaloka p. 4. ... gaf gigtartede qala qa171 | ND. p. 43. ...haanallamaia1971F1717 9a1512547ftrafei alla Faraat: Abh. III. p. 15. dhvajoparinihitapatAkeva patAkA yatheyamekadeze sthAyinI sakala sainya dyotayati tathA ceyamapi nATakaikadezavartinI 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 THI 5 at 97EUR | NL. p. 9.

Page #91
Sanskrit Sahityasastra tinuous whereas prakari6 of short duration. The definition of the prasangika? given by the DR would lead us to believe that even the prakari has its 'svartha' (own purpose). But the NS. emphatically states that it is 'pararthayaiva kevalam (meant to serve the purpose of the hero). The Abhi. and the ND. while distinguishing between the pataka and the prakari, emphasize this aspect of the prakari). According to them a patakanayaka 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 Prakari, nayaka only helps the hero in some way.10 The NL. records as the view of some that pataka, in a broad sense, means the doings of the upanayaka.11 These definitions of paraka excellently suit some cases, e.g., the account of Sugriva in Rama-plays. In many cases, however, we notice a lot of confusion among the commentators as to what constitutes pataka in certain dramas. Visvanatha looks upon the doings of Bhima in the Veni, as pataka, the NL. regard's Karna-carita in the Veni. as pataka. The overthrow of Malayaketu in the Mudraraksasa is considered by some as palaka. 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 pataka 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 prasangika is three-fold12 : 1 pataka, 2 prakari and 3 patakasthanaka. Other authorities treat of patakasthanaka immediately after pataka with a remark like patAkAprasaGgana patAkAsthAnakaM vyutpAdayati / They do not call it a sub-division of the prasangika, and rightly so. For a scrutiny of the definitions and examples of the varieties of the patakasthanaka shows that it is nothing but a part of the adhikarika 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.* zobhAyai vedikAdInAM yathA puSpAkSatAdayaH / / as avacet qara gota | B. P. p. 202 7 gals" TIT FI F121 96 gaa: 1 p. 4. And pataka and prakari are but the sub-divisions of the prasangika. 8 NS. XIX. 25. 9 upakaraNabhUto (hetuH) dvidhA svArthasiddhiyutaH parArthasiddhiparaH, parArthasiddhiparazca / pUrvaH patAkA, anyaH prakarIti / ND. pp. 41-42. 10 For example, the incident of Jatayus in Rama-plays. 11 anye patAketyupanAyakacaritameva sthUlArthamupavarNayanti |...upnaayken nAyakamupakartu prAdhAnyamavalambya yat kriyate 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 pataka 4 prakar and 5 karya. The bija (seed, germ) is the cause of the karya (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 pataka and the prakari have already been explained. The Karya (sadhya, 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 upayas (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 tad (kArya)hetuH (DR.), kAryasya kAraNam (RS.), kAryasAdhakaH and the bindu is called....avicchedakAraNam (DR.,SD.); pataka is pradhAnasya upakArakaM vRttam and prakari is parArthAyava kevalam (NS.). But is appears, at 13 stokoddiSTaH kAryasAdhakaH purastAdanekaprakAra vistArI hetuvizeSaH bIjavabIjam / -Avaloka, p. 5. 14 AnuSaGgikakAryAntareNa pradhAnaprayojanasya vicchede'pi saMvRtta kathAyAstvavicchedahetuH sa binduH parikIrtitaH / NL. pp. 7-8 upAyAnuSThAnasyAvazyakartavyAdinA vyavadhAne sati nAyaka-pratinAyakAmAtyAdInAM yadanusandhAnaM jJAnamasau.... binduH / ND p. 46. avAntarArthavicchede binduracchedakAraNama / DR. p. 5; SD. p. 315 yathA ratnAvalyAm-avAntaraprayojanAnaGgapUjAparisamAptau kathArthavicchede sati anantarakArya hetuH| Avaloka, p. 5. yathA ratnAvalyAm-anagapUjAparisamAptI kathArthavicchede sati...avAntarArtha hetuH / SD p 315. avAntarArthana (yamapaTacaravRttAntena) vicchinnasyAntaritasya bIjasya punaH pravartanAt binduH / -Dhundiraja (Telang's edition of Mudraraksasa, 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) bindujale tailabinduvatprasAritvAt / Avalok p.5 (2) bindariva vicchinnAyAmapi dhArAyAM yathA jalabinduH paTalaparyanteSvantarAntarAlabdhanijanipAtaH payasAM patana. mabhivyajayati tathAyamityarthaH / NL. P 7. (3) jalabinduryathA siJcastarumUlaM phalAya hi / tathaivAya muhuH kSipto vindurityabhidhIyate // RS. p. 210. (15) apekSita' tu yat sAdhyamArambho yannibandhanaH / ___samApana tu yasiddhayai tatkArya miti sammatam // SD p. 317. (16) yatrArtha : phala tasya prakRtaya upAyAH phalahetava ityarthaH |...tdetaiH paJcabhirupAyaiH pUrNaphala niSpAdyate / Abh. III p. 12 and phalasya hetavaH paJca / phalasya mukhyasAdhyasya hetava upAyAH | ND. p. 11,

Page #93
Sanskrit Sahityasastra first sight extraordinary that the karya should be designated as a prayojana-siddhihetu, a means to the end when it (the karya) 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 karanatvam ci icchadvara). The SD, gives, however, slaying of Ravana as an example of the karya. Taking a clue from it one may say with the killing of Ravana, Sita's recovery is as good as achieved which is the fruition of the bija. Thus karya may be taken as the event immediately antecedent to the final fruition (phalagama). The Abh. and the ND. interpret karya to mean various resources physical and mental18. If this meaning is accepted there is absolutely no difficulty in looking upon Karya as prayojana-siddhi-hetu. But this meaning of Karya as per a actit' is rather unusual and even the Abh. and the ND., not to speak of other theorists, take the term Karya to mean phala or sadhya in the treatment of avasthas 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 Itivsita is fivefold, and enumerates the bija etc., as the five divisions20. Bhoja, and Saradatanaya too, look upon them 17 Faced with this difficulty, Prof. K. H. Dhruva in his edition of the Mudraraksasa says : " denotes the object of the play which is dharma, artha or kAma: see DR. I. 16-kArya trivargaH / 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 pataka and the prakari under Itivetta, then ( its phala-) karya, then its sadhana-) 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 sfa 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. arthaprakRtayaH prayojanasiddhihetava iti kecit / kathAzarIrakAraNAnIti bhojarAjAdayaH / as quoted by Kumarasvamin in his commentary on the PR. (p. 104). artha prakRtayaH paJca kathAbhedasya hetavaH / va 69/ T IEM dua: [ft if I: || B, P. pp. 204-205.

Page #94
Studies in as elements of the plot. The treatment of pataka and prakari at the hands of the authorities clearly shows that these two are nothing but divisions of the prasangika or anusangika plot. The bija, the bindu and the karya 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 prarambha (Beginning), 2 Yatna or prayatna (Effort), 3 Praptyasa or praptisambhava (Possibility of attainment, Prospect of success), 4 Niyatapti or nityata phalaprapti (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. Praptyasa 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 avasthas 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, sadhya, 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-prakrtis as elements or parts of the story: tvAhuH anye lAhu: arthasya samasvarUpakavAcyasya prakRtayaH prakaraNAnyavakvArthakhaNDA ityarthaprakRtayaH | Abh. 111. p. 12. The NL. seems to support this view when it says: asya ca nATakasya paJcArthaprakRtayo bhavanti / nATakIyavastunaH pUrvottasya paJca prakRtayaH svabhAvA bhvnti| P. 6. 21 prekSApUrvakAriNAM hi prathamamArambhastataH prayatnastataH sambhAvanA tato nizcayastataH phalaprAptirityayameva kramaH / ND. p. 49. and sarvasyaiva hi kAryasya prAramyasya phalArthibhiH / etAsvanukrameNaiva paJcAvasthA bhavanti hi // Ns XIX, 14. 22 neturmukhyaphalaM prati bIjAdyupAyAn prayokturavasthAH pradhAnavRttaviSaye kAyavAGmanasAM vyApArAH / ND. p. 49.

Page #95
Sanskrit Sahityasastra These five avasthas are invariably present in the Nataka, the most perfect of forms of drama (and the Prakarana and the Natika), 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 avasthas 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 avasthas the five artha-prakstis should be used by a dramatist. The fact that the avasthas occur in the order of their enumeration and the use of the word 'yathavidhi' 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 pradhAne vRtta paJcAnAm (avasthAnAm ) avshymbhaavmaah...| nATake nATakalakSaNAnusAriSu prakaraNa-nATikA prakaraNISu cAya niyamaH / tena vyAyogAdau yathAlakSaNa nyUnAvasthatvamapi na doSAya / ND. p. 49. 24 antarai kAryasaMvandhaH sandhiH ekAnvaye sati / DR. p. 6: ekena prayojanenAnvitAnAM kathAMzAnAmavAntaraka prayojanasambandhaH sandhiH / Avaloka p. 6. tenArthAvayavAH sandhIyamAnAH parasparamabraizca sandhaya iti samAkhyA niruktA tadeSAM sAmAnyalakSaNam / Abh. III. p. 23. arthabhAgarAziH sandhirityukta, tatra sandhInAM sambandhanIyAni vRttAni saMvidhAnakhaNDAni...aGgAni | Abh. III. p. 31. sandhiH parasparaM kathArthAnAM saMghaTanam / yathokta sandhIyante'rthAH parasparamebhiriti sandhayaH / NL. p. 20. ' ekakAryAnviteSvatra kathAMzeSu prayogataH / .. avAntaraikakAryasya sambandhaH sandhiriSyate // BP. p. 207. 25 itivRtta yathAvasthAH paJcArambhAdikAH smRtAH / artha prakRtayaH paJca tathA bIjAdikA api // bIjaM bindu: patAkA ca prakarI kAryameva ca / arthaprakRtayaH paJca jJAtvA yojyA yathAvidhi // NS. XIX, 19-20. 26_Even the Abh. says : jJAtvA yojyA yathAvidhi iti tAsAmaudezikoktivadupanibandhakramaniyama ityarthaH / ___III. p. 12. Here Abhinava appears to nod, for later on he emphatically states :na sarvatra prArambhAdivata sarvA arthaprakRtayo'pi / api tu yasya nAyakasya yenArthaprakRtivizeSeNa prayojanasaMpattiradhikAdhikA tadeva pradhAnam , anyattu bhavadapi guNabhUtamasatkalpam , yathA svaparAkramabahumAnazAlinAM patAkAprakarye vivakSite (? prakayau avivakSite) eva / bIja-bindu-kAryANi tu sarvatrAnapAyIni / tatrApi tu guNapradhAnabhAvaH | Abh. III. 16 on NS XIX 26-27.

Page #96
Studies in doctrine that each sandhi rests on an avastha and an artha-prakrti. This doctrine does not stand to reason, for as pointed out by the Abh. and the ND., the pataka 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 pataka 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 avasthas and the progressive development of the bija. The DR., too is aware of this fact when it says that pataka may or may not occur in the garbha sandhi27 and remains silent as to the place of prakari in the avamarsa or vimarsa. It would not, therefore, be proper to accuse the DR. of misrepresenting Bharata. Instead, in fariness to Dhananjaya, his statement-which makes each sandhi essentially rest on one avastha 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 avasthas in the hero's realization of his object of desire. The classification into the five avasthas 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 prarambha avastha (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 (pataka), or (else) there should not be Prospect of success (prapti-sambhava--praptyasa). What the DR. means is this: In the garbha the pataka may or may not occur but the Prospect of success--the third avastha shall occur. The BP. prescribes that in case the pataka 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 Mudraraksasa 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 Sahityasastra 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 'lakSyAlakSyatayo dastasya pratimukhaM bhavet / binduprayatnAnugamAdaGgAnyasya trayodaza // DR. p. 11. .31 bIjasyodghATanaM yatra dRSTanaSTamiva kvacit / mukhanyastasya sarvatra tadvai pratimukha smRtam || Ns. XIX, 40, Abhinavaa notes in his commentary the views of other theorists, criticises them and gives his own. He interprets the text thus : bIjasyodghATanaM lAvat phalAnuguNo dazAvizeSaH tad dRSTamapi virodhisanidheSTamiva pAMsunA pihitasyeva bIjasyAkurarUpamudghATanam / ... dRSTa naSTamiva kRtvA tAvanmukhe nyastaM bhUmAviva bIja, amAtyena sAgarikAceSTitaM vasantotsavakAmadevapUjAdinA tirohitaM naSTamiva sAgarikAceSTitasya hi bIjasyeva tadAcchAdakamapyutsavAdirUpaM bhUmiriva pratyudbodhakam / tasya dRSTanaSTatulyaM kRtvA nyastasya, ata eva kuGkumavIjasya yadudghATanaM tatkalpa, yatrodghATana sarvatraiva kathAbhAgasamUhe tatpratimukham / IH. pp.24-25. Abhinava gives etymological explanation of glade as follows: pratirAbhimukhyena yato'tra vRttiH / parAGmukhatA hi dRSTanaSTakalpanAnidarzanam / III. p. 25. and ND. : mukhasyAbhimukhyena vartata iti pratimukham / p.55. In the word pratimukha, 'prati' has the sense - favourable to'. 32 It is so called as it contains the fruit as it were within itself : phalasya gIkaraNAd garbha: SD. p, 320 prAptisambhavAkhyayAvasthAyuktatvena phalasya garmIbhAvAta | Abh. III. p. 25. nATakasya madhyatvAt garbhaH / NL. p. 30. 33 garbhanibhinnabIjArtho vilobhanakRto'thavA / krodhavyasanajo vApi sa vimarza imi smRtaH // Ns. XIX. 42.

Page #98
Studies in interpretation. Abhinava quotes different views as to the nature of avamarsa, He himself holds that vimarsa is 'sandehatmaka.' He argues that even after sambhavana (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 vimrsa: 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 nivrtti. 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 vimarsa. 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 avamarsa as avamarsanam' paryalocanam-reflection. 35 KS. p, 454. The word artha has several meanings of which nivrtti is one : artho'bhiveya vastu prayojana nivRttiSu | 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 (vimarsa) 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 Sahityasastra 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 (Nataka, Prakarana and Natika). In the Dima and Samavakara the juncture. vimarsa is omitted; in the Vyayoga and the I hamrga the garbha and vimarsa are omitted; in the Prahasana, the Vithyanka and the Bhana, the pratimukha, the garbha and the vimarsa are omitted. But in any type of drama the first and the last sandhis are invariably present. The pataka being a continuous, though incidental vstta, 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 : asandhi prakarauM nyaset / Avaloka explains asandhi as aparipUNesandhi, 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 Mudraraksasa, 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 mhara). 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, drstanta and nigama. Then there is nothing in the nvava 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 : (anye tyAhuH-arthasya samastarUpakavAcyasya prakRtayaH prakaraNAnyavayavArthakhaNDA ityarthaprakRtayaH-) etacca vyAkhyAnaM nAtIva prakRtaM poSayati / sandhyAdInAmapi cArthaprakRtitvamatra vyAkhyAne syAt, itivRttameva ca samdAyarUpam / artha iti vRtte prakRtaya iti vaktavye'rthagrahaNamatiriktaM syAt, ityavasthAbhizca tulyatAvarNanaM varNana917' 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 patAkAvRttasya prAdhAnyanibanve'pi anusandhirmukhyavRttasandhyanugataH sandhirbhavati gauNaH sandhirityarthaH |...prkryaastu 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-ramayana. Dhundiraja, the learned commentator of the Mudraraksasa 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 avasyambhavi. 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. Bhima hurls defiance at his brothers. They might bring about peace. He was firmly determined to break it as soon as it was effected (Veni I. 10.) This strengthens the idea already suggested that war is inevitable. 41 catuSyaSTi kalAmarmavedinA ziGgabhUbhujA / lakSitA ca catuSTivalarAmAyaNe sphuTam || |11. 78. III. 42 yanUpate catuSvaSTavaGgasaMyutaniti tena sambhavamAtramevAmukta' na tu niyamaH | Abh. III. p. 37. 43 of vizeSAnudAnAt sarvANyetAni pradhAnAni ND. D. 104. 44 Excepting the PR., the RS. and Dhundiraja, the commentator of the Mudraraksasa, 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 Veni 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."Yaugandharayana 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 Yaugandharayana. (6) Prapti (or prapana) 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) Samadhana (samahiti-ND.) is the complete unfolding of the bija which earlier. was only hinted at. Veni 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 Veni 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 'sukhartha.' 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) Paribhavana : Words full of curiosity or wonder on finding something extraordinary constitute paribhavana. Draupadi, who is doubtful whether war would break out between the Pandavas 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 (Veni I. 26) illustrates it. According to the DR., it is the disclosing of something previously hidden, Sagarika 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 Veni I. 24 also as an illustration of Udbheda. (11) Karana (Karana--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 Veni 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 Veni 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 Pandavas are well-versed in the art of war. The SD. defines it as 'a breach of union'. It quotes Veni (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 parinyasa 4 yukti 5 udbheda and 6 samadhana. The mukha sandhi is well illustrated by Veni 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 Udghatana, which is connected with the pratimukha sandhi.

Page #103
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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. Sagarika'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 Veni (Act II. 2) where the chamberlain tells of the slaying of Bhisma (the bija of the Venisamhara 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.). Tapana 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 Susangata 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 Vidusaka 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) vilasa, the dominant feeling of love, is to be taken to stand for Utsaha (the emotion of energy) by upalaksana. 53 The SD. spells it as vidhyta, the RS. as vidhuta. The ND. calls it dhunana. 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 gatha 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 Susangata'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 Vidusaka and the king (Susangata 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 (Ratnavall 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 Susangata 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 : vici kliSyayatnazabdena zatA (1) kvinA vyutpattiM kalpayanti / prAgayaNam iti anye paThanti / prAkU iti pUrvavacanaM tato'yanaM prAptiH yasya uttaravacanasya iti // 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 yathA hi premavikAsi puSpaM bhavatyevamatrApi rAjJa uttarottarAnurAgavizeSasUcakaM vaco vikAsamasyAnurAgasya -Abh. III. 46.

Page #105
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 93 (12) Upanyasa is a statement based on argument or reasoning (-the NS., the DR the Abh., the ND and RS.) The statement of the Vidusaka that the borne-slave (Susangata) is a great tattler and that everything is possible in her case and hence the king should please her by a reward (Ratnayali 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 Ratnavali (Act II) where Susangata 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 Sagarika illustrates this anga. Bhoja has omitted this anga altogether.58 (13) Varnasamhara (or varnasamhtli-ND.) is coming together of the four castes such as the Brahmanas, the Ksatriyas etc.59 The stanza in the Vira-carita (III. 5) illustrates it. Abhinava interprets 'varna' as characters (patras) and samhara as drawing together,' 'close association.' He rejects the interpretation given above as meaningless. He illustrates this anga by an incident in the Ratnavali (Act II) where the king, the Vidusaka, Sagarika, and Susangata meet together. The NL., however, defines it as 'varnita-arthasya tiraskarah'. The editor, (NS. III. p. 47) paraphrases it as 'uktarthasya visayantara-prasaktya pracchadanam. The NL., cites as an example the sentence in the Ratnavali, where the Vidusaka refers to Susangata 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 (prasama 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 upanyasa and 5 puspa. In the Veni 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 Pandu would in a short time slay Suyodhana in battle together with his kinsmen, friends etc. (II. 6) and describes the efforts of Pandavas, particularly of Arjuna to slaughter Jayadratha (p. 53) and alludes to Bhima's vow to drink the blood from the heart of Dussasana and break the thighs of Duryodhana (II. 28). In this Act we find the love scene with Bhanumati which is a secondary incident. It appears to interrupt the course of the drama. The entrance of Jayadratha's mother (and Dussala) 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) Abhutaharana is a speech based on deceit. The Abh. illustrates this by the speech of the Vidusaka in the Ratnavali (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 Veni (Act III. 11) as its illustration : truthful Yudhisthira proclaims that Asvatthaman 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 Ratnavali (Act III) where Kancanamala refers to the Vidusaka's secret plot according to which Sagarika, disguised as Vasavadatta is to meet the king. The ND. refers to the clever ruse used by the Vidusaka (in the Malavika-) in securing the signet-ring from the queen. (2) Margal is speaking out the exact truth-a pointing out of one's real purpose. Abhinava illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act II) where the queen refuses to believe with Kancanamala that it may be by accident that the figure drawn by the king resembles Sagarika and says that Kancanamala does not understand Vidusaka's prevarications. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act III), where the Vidusaka tells the king of his secret plot of bringing about his union with Sagarika about whose success he was quite certain. (3) Rupa is a statement embodying doubts regarding the true nature of samething, e.g. in the Kytyaravana Rama not recognising Jatayus 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 Jatayus who was lying dead62. The DR. defines it as a remark embodying some hypothesis (vitarka). The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act III. 9 etc.) where the king expresses his hope of being united to Sagarika, 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 Mudraraksasa III. 4-5. 62 This is how the ND. defines (and illustrates) rupa following the NS. and the Abh. With this definition rupa does not differ in any way from the Sasandeha alamkara. The Abhi. illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act II. 20) which the Avaloka cites as an example of Paryupasana.

Page #107
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 95 The NL. defines it as a logical argument or hypothesis having a striking sense and illustrates it by Ratnavali 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 (Udahrii-ND) is an exaggerated statement. The Abh. and the ND. quote the above passage (Ratnavali III. 2) as an illustration of this sub-division. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavali where the Vidusaka enthusiastically remarks that the news of his meeting with Sagarika would delight the king more than the acquisition of the kingdom of Kausambi. (5) Krama is a knowledge of the feelings of another (-NS., the Abh., the ND. and the SD.) Ratnavali III. 4, where the king describes the helpless condition of Sagarika on account of the extreme uneasiness deep placed in the heart, is an exam ple of it. The Avaloka illustrates it by Ratnavali III. The Krama here consists in the * king's love for Sagarika having been known to Vasavadatta. * The DR. defines it as the acquisition of an object when it is being thought of : The passage in the Ratnavali (III. 10 etc.) which speaks of the king's meeting with Sagarika, 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 Vasavadatta in place of Sagarika disguised as Vasavadatta. The example in the PR. is more appropriate. The king was thinking of the victory of Prataparudra 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 Veni (III) where he says: "Asvatthaman 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 Ratnavali (Act III) where the king gives a reward of his bracelet to the Vidusaka who assists him in the acquisition of his object of desire (Sagarika) illustrates this sub-division, (7) Anuryana (or anuma) 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 Ratnavali (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 rupa as follows: ETAT 4941 Bfana JFTTT 197=ta I... yta: Faiaraqaa Aga#1191 377 HC: p. 83. 64 The ND. defines it as 'sama-danadih' and comments that sama-dana includes, by Upalaksana, bheda and danda 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 Vasavadatta would follow from her great disappointment consequent upon his extreme love for Sagarika. (8) Prarthana is invitation or request for love's enjoyment, rejoicing, and festivity (NS) Ratnavali Act III. 11-where the king invites (the supposed) Sagarika to enjoy pleasures of love with him-illustrates this sub-division. The ND, broadens the definition as 'bhavayaca nam.' The NL. defines it as 'mere request, entreaty.' The ND. illustrates it citing a passage from the Raghuvilasa where Raksasa disguised as Hanumat's father, requests Ravana to forgive the various offences given by Hanamat. 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 prasasti from the number of divisions of the nirvahana may still have the full complement of 64 sub-divisions. Otherwise the total number of angas would make 65. (9) Aksipti65 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 Vasavadatta (Ratnavali Act III) all the time taking her to be Sagarika. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage from the Ratnavali (Act III) where there is the revelation of the bija lying concealed in the garbha viz., the acquisition of Sagarika 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 Prataparudra 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 Ratnavali where the Vidusaka asks Sagarika to talk to the king and regale his ears with the sweet cadence of 65 Aksipta or Aksipti (NS.), Aksepa (-DR.), Utksipta (-NL.), Ksipti (-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, Veni III. 14 where Kopa suggests the inner meaning that Asvatthaman 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 Sahityasastra 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 Ratnavali where Vasavadatta having clearly perceived the king's attachment to Sagarika orders her maid-servant to bind Vidusaka and Sagarika 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 Ratnavali Vasavadatta outwits the king by disguising herself as Sagarika. According to some theorists adhibala is the opposite of totaka, but this view does not seem to be correct for then there would hardly be any distinction between it and paryupasana. (12) Udvega is fear arising from the king, an enemy or a robber. When the queen outwits the king and the Vidusaka, the latter expresses fear caused by the queen's fury. Or, when Sagarika, 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 (Ratnayali 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 Vasavadatta would put an end to her life because of his deep love for Sagarika (Ratnavali Act III. 15) Others like Sankuka define vidrava as apprehension, fear and fright. Sankuka illustrates it by a passage from the Krtyaravana (Act VI): From behind the curtain Mandodari cries 'help' 'help' !.... The Pratithari reports to Ravana that there is uproar in the harem. Rayana apprehends some trouble and asks the Pratihari to find out what it is about." Here we notice 'apprehension' of Ravana, fear and fright of the Pratihari. 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 abhutaharana 2 Marga 3 totaka 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 Dussasana who has fallen into his clutches and the speeches of Asvatthaman that refer to Bhima's drinking of Dussasana's blood, and certain stanzas of Act IV that foreshadow the slaying of Duryodhana represent the praptyasa (Prospect of Success) which corresponds to the garbha sandhi. The quarrel between Asvatthaman and Kaina helps the Pandavas in their victory over the Kurus. From that point of view this episode may be regarded as pataka69. The Vimarsa (or Ava marsa) has thirteen sub-divisions : 69 See supra for the nature and definition of pataka. 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 Sagarika, 98 (2) Sampheta is altercation-exchange of angry violent words. The Avaloka illustrates it by a passage in the Veni (VI. 10-11) which reports exchange of hot words between Bhima and Suyodhana. The SD. illustrates it by a passage in the Veni (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 Veni (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 Yaugandharayana in accomplishing his desired aims. The DR. defines it as 'mention of one's own power," and illustrates it by a passage in the Ratnavall (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 Veni 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 Veni (Act VI. 6-9) where Bhima rebukes Suyodhana. and forces him to come out of the lake. 70 Abhinava paraphrases the definition as 'Virodhinah Kupitasya samah.' The DR. defines Sakti as virodha-samanam.' The ND. includes under Sakti complete destruction of one's enemy. It adds that some theorists recognise 'ajna' 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 'pratijJAhetusambhavaH'. Abhinava explains it as pratijJAtasyAGgIkRtasyArthasya hetavo ye teSAM sambhavaH prAptiH vyavasAyaH / NS. III. 91, pp 54.

Page #111
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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 Malati-Madhava (IX. 12), and Uttara-Carita (III. 31) which vividly portrays Rama's poignant sorrow at the loss of Sita. 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) Pratisedha (or Nisedha) is obstruction to the attainment of one's desired end. The SD. quotes a passage from the Prabhavati where Pradyumna is told by the Vidusaka that Prabhavati, has been abducted by the lord of Asuras. This abduction of Prabhavati is an obstruction in the way of Pradyumna's attaining Prabhavati-the object of his desire. In place of pratisedha the ND. substitutes Samrambha. He defines it as 'sakti-kirtanam,' and comments : Samrambha is 'mention of one's own power in the conversation between two persons who are agitated.' He quotes Veni 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 Veni VI. 6 as an instance of it. The ND. distinguishes between Sampheta 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 vyavasaya. (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 Veni 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 Pratisedha 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 Veni (Act V. 30-34) where Bhima and Duryodhana, who are highly excited, assert their own superior strength. (11) Adana : When fruition (attainment of thing desired) is in sight we have adana?2. It is according to the DR., 'a resume of the action.deg73 Veni 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 ZIJATE: 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) Chadana (or Sadana-NL.) is a statement or speech arising from 'disgrace and made for some purpose.74 Thus in the Ratnavali (Act IV) Sagarika 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 Veni 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 Pandavas any harm. The DR. and its followers do not recognise Chadana as a sub-division. The ND. states that some theorists recognise chalana in place of chadana. "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 Sita in the play Ramabhyudaya 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 Raksasa gives the false news of Bhima's death and as a result Yudhisthira faints away. (13) Prarocana is representing in advance that the desired end is accomplished, the actual accomplishment of the desired end being found in the nirvahana. It is illustrated by Veni 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 prarocana 75 as 'a direction to honour persons with gifts etc.', and cites a passage from the Veni (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 Pratisedha and 3 Chadana. 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 Sagarika and danger to her life (Ratnavali, Act IV) illustrates this sub-division. 74 The ND. defines it as gla FFYASAH 1 and comments manyurapamAno yena mAryate tat chAdanam / p. 95. 75 The ND. informs that some recognise Yukti in place of Prarocana. Yukti is defined as afer: This definition agrees with NS. XIX. 96a, which is possibly a later addition.

Page #113
Sanskrit Sahityalastra Vicalana is 'bragging',-boasting of what is done by oneself. This is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnavali (Act IV. 19) where Yaugandharayana proudly declares that he brought about the marriage of the king with Ratnavall, 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 pratisedha as illustrated by the SD. and chalana like chadana. The most important divisions of the avamaria are: I apavada 2 sakti 3 vyavasaya 4 prarocana and 5 adana. 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 (niyatapti). The sub-divisions like vyavasaya, dyuti, sakti, prarocana and adana bear out the truth of this statement. The vimarsa or avarmasa extends over Veni Act V and a considerable portion of Act VI (upto stanza No. 37). Act V informs us of Karna's death and that Asvatthaman, 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. Carvaka, a Raksasa, 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 Krtyaravana 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, Carvaka appears on the scene with the express intention of duping the Pandavas. The playwright introduces the character of Carvaka towards the end of the play most probably with a view to creating the marvellous sentiment in accordance with the dictum : nirvahaNe kartavyo nizvaM hi raso'dbhutastajjJaiH // --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 Carvaka 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 nirvahana (or upasamhara or samhara) has thirteen (or fourteen) sub-divisions : (1) Sandhz77 is the coming up again of the bija that was indicated in the mukha sandhi. Vasubhuti and Babhravya seeing Sagarika who has been rescued from fire strongly believe that she must be the princess Ratnavali. Thus what was stated in the Mukha sandhi about the bija is here repeated. Or, in the Veni (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 (Veni 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) Paribhasana is a speech censuring oneself by admitting one's fault. The speeches of Ratnavali and Vasavadatta 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 Yaugandharayana at the close of the Ratnavali where he discloses his whole plot and pacifies Vasavadatta's anger and jealousy towards Sagarika and secures Sagarika for the king illustrates this sub-division. The DR. and its followers substitute Krti 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: 37u: 1 p. 36. (7)

Page #115
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 103 of Sagarika) 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 Vyasa, Valmiki and others have arrived for his coronation (Veni Act VI. 44) :-Ksti, in the second sense, is illustrated by a passage in the Ratnayali (Act IV) where on attaining Ratnavali the King and Vasavadatta 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 Mudraraksasa where Raksasa is persuaded to accept Ministership by Canakya. (7) Ananda is 'the attainmeat of one's desire'. The King in the Ratnavali is happy at the acquisition of Ratnavali, and Draupadi at the braiding of her hair by Bhima. (8) Samaya is end of all misery or misfortune. The union of Vasavadatta and Ratnavali as sisters at the end of the play puts an end to their sorrows and sufferings. (9) Prasada is waiting upon (the hero or heroine) with a view to conciliating the anger of the offended person. Yaugandharayana 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 prasada. The ND. names this subdivision as Upasti. (10) Upaguhana is the experience of something wonderful. In the Ramabhyudaya, Sita repudiated by Rama enters fire. The god of fire brings her out safe. At this all those present on the occasion are struck with wonder. This is Upaguhana. The ND. calls it by the name pariguhana. (11) Bhasana is speech accompanied by sweet words (sama), gift and the like (NS.). The ND. quotes a passage from the Msccha katika, where Sarvilaka, at the instance of Aryaka, confers favours on Carudatta, Vasantasena 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 Ratnavali (Act IV. 21) where the King proudly refers to various achievements such as the acquisition of Sagarika and the like. (12) Purvavakya is uttering words which were earlier used in the Mukhasandhi. The ND. illustrates it by a passage from the Mudraraksasa (VII. 17) where Canakya 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 Ratnavali Yaugandharayana says to Vasavadatta "Do as you please in the case of Sagarika, your sister". In this speech Vasavadatta foresees the Karya, the union of the King and Sagarika.

Page #116
104 Studies in (13) Kavyasamhara 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. Veni 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) Paribhasa, (3) Bhasana, (4) Kavya-samhhara and (5) Prasasti must be employed in the concluding part of the play. It adds that excepting sandhi, nirodha, grathana, purvabhava, kavyasamhara 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: sarvasandhiSvapi matAntarANi vRddhoktatvAd bhaNitibhedAd vaicitrpasya rajjakatyAca pramANAnyeva ata eva sarvasandhiSvapyaGgasarUpAkaraNamudAharaNa draSTavyamiti / (P. 101). 78 sAdhanatvAdvi bIjasya prathamaM tadupakSipet sAdhyatvAdeva kAryasya sarvAnte tatprayojayet | avicchedAya racayedvindu N madhye tayorapi / - BP. p. 205,

Page #117
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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 nandi 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 'Kavyasamhara' 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. Vialuta, tapana (sama is recognised instead of it by the DR.), narmadruti, upanyasa, and varnasamhara-these sub-divisions of the pratimukha are differently inierpreted and illustrated by various theorists. The sub-division 'pragayana' of the sandhi is called 'pragamana' in the DR. The nature of the two is essentially the same. Rupa, Krama, Aksipti (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 prarthana of the garbha is not recognised by the DR. Instead of Kheda, Pratisedha and of the avamaria in the NS., the DR. gives us drava, vicalana and chalana Chadana 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. Vyavasaya, prasanga, virodhana, chadana and prarocana 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 krti by the DR. But their definitions and interpretations are nearly the same. The purvavakya (-NS) of the nirvahana is called purvabliava 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. yadyapi zramodegavitarkalajjAprabhRtayo vyabhicArivagai pUrvamuktAstathApyete satyavasare'vazyaprayojyAH prAguktaprayoTHUG), 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 bhasana 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 vilasa, vidhuta, sama (or tapana), narma and narmadyuti. It is, therefore, a case of misdirected ingenuity to say that all sub-divisions of the sandhis are present in the Mudraraksasa which is wholly a play of political intrigue and in which the element of Srugara 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 yadyapi tadarthe'pi saMgrahAkhyamidamaGgamukta' tathApyatra sthAne'vazyaM prayoktavyatAM khyApayitu punarupAdAna zabdAFator | 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 'vilasa,' by 'upalaksana' stands for "utsaha. 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 Mudraraksasa. 82 XIX. 105-106. The author of the Dhvanyaloka must have had this text in mind when he sets forth his famous dictum : sandhisandhyaGgaghaTanaM rasAbhivyaktyapekSayA / / 774 gaffefaamd:3|| ||III. p. 329. He points out in his Vrtti that it is a fault in the Veni that the dramatist Jrags in the love-scene with Bhanumati 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 vilasa. But in a play with the heroic sentiment as the governing one, the 'vilasa anga' stands for the 'utsaha' by 'upalaksana' (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 Sahit yasastra 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 Veni develop the heroic and the furious sentiments, whereas vilasa when repeated in the Ratnavali 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. Upaksepa, parikara, parinyasa, 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 prastavana 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 karya. The hero or his rival should, as a rule, appear in them. The first three angas of the mukha, upaksepa 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 Ksemendra 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 778712722athozz1a: 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 prakarana and suitably modify stories from the Itihasa etc. As Ssigara 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 PATAKASTHANAKA The theory of Sanskrit drama recognises Patakasthanaka as a prominent dramatic device. The Natyasastra 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 Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka as follows: When instead of the thing thought of or expected, another of the same character emerges in an accidental way, it is called Patakasthanaka. 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 Patakasthanaka given by the DR. it would seem that Dhanamhjaya looks at the Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka whereas, Dhanika says, it means 'bhavinah.' Saradatanaya introduces in his definition the expressions agantubhavena' and 'bha vyarathasya vastunah' thus implicitly suggesting that agantubhava 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 'Karanatvadharmabhavapravrttinimitta upayah.' This linga (i.e. upaya or hetu) may be either Sadhaka (-Karaka) or Jnapaka, 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 Patakasthanaka.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 Ratnavall, Act II2 where he finds an allusion to Vasavadatta's imminent anger. Raghavabhatta points out an example of the first Patakasthanaka while commenting on Jivitasarvasva which apparently means 'the choicest treasures in his posse 1. Vidasaka-esA khu avarA devI vAsavadattA | Studies in ( rAjA sacakitaM sAgarikAyA haste mukhati) vAsavadattatyanenopacAraprayogeNa bhAvino ' ityatreyaM patAkAsthAnakam / ' vAsavadattA kopasya sUcanAt sahasArthasampattirUpamidamekaM Instead of gunavaty upak aratah of the NS. we have gunavrtty upacaratah in the BP (and R.), while gunavatyupacaratah in the SD. Gunavati and gunavrtti may be looked upon as synonymous (--utkrsta) 'Upacaratah' is explained as 'Paramapritikaranat'. 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 : yatropakArakamapekSya guNavatI utkRSTaya arthasya phalasya sahasaMvAcintitopanatatvena bhavati sampattiH tatprathamamiti sAdhyaphalayogAtpradhAnaM patAkAsthAnam / 2. The ND. remarks on the word sahasA in its definition : sahaseSTArthalAbhazca sahase tyAkasmikatvena sabhyAnAM camatkArahetutvamAha / It rightly recognises the artistic value of surprise, as an element in sustaining interest. But in the example quoted the 'iSTArthalAbha' 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 Vasavadatta. 3. Sakuntala, Kale's edition, p. 30 : atra jIvita sarvasvazabdena / viSayanigaraNAcchakuntalAyA ukteH patAkAsthAnakamanenoktam / tallakSaNamAdibharate 'sahasaivArthasaMpattirnAyakasyopakArikA / patAkAsthAnakaM saMdhau prathame tanmattam' iti / That the first Patakasthanaka should occur in the first Sandhi is the view of Adibharata, which is, however, not correct for which see infra,

Page #123
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 111 ssion' but secondarily and pointedly refers to Sakuntala. Here there is a foreshadowing of the union of the hero and the heroine. Besides the example quoted from the Ratnavali Act III, Abh. mentions an instance from the Nagananda. This is also quoted by the NL., and the ND. The hero is determined to save Sankhacuda by offering himself as a victim but he needs a pair of red garments which are the symbol of the victim. Sankhacuda refuses point blank to hand over his symbol, but the Kancukin offers him red garments sent by Mitravasu'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 'upaya' instead of another. The NS. defines the second Patakasthanaka 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 Veni 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 Uttararamacarita 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 Ramabhyudaya, Act III, Sugriva has the following message for Sita : "Why waste words on this ? Rama 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 Sita. Raghavabhatta points out that the suggestive sentence uttered from behind the curtain "cakkavAavahue AmaMtehi sahaara / uvahiA raaNI / " is an example of the second Patakasthanaka. This sentence is clearly Aprastutaprasama (Anyokti): It bids the female Cakravaka say farewell to her spouse, a command whose application to the case of the King and Sakuntala is immediately appreciated by the audience. The third variety of Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka. 4. The ND. gives one more example from the Nalavilasa 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 Kapalika 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 Slista in this definition means 'fittingly applicable in two ways', and 'Satisaya' 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 Khandita and Nayaka.? The Abh. and the ND. quote the well-known passage from the Mudraraksasa, Act I, which presages the capture of Raksasa 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 Veni. 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 Visvanatha nods here or that there is no distinction between the third Patakasthanka and the Ganda. If there were no such distincion between the two Visvai atha should have clearly stated it. The Abh. makes the following distinction between them : the third Patakasthanaka serves to accomplish the desired object. For example, it helps Canakya to know definitely that the wicked Raksasa 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 : ...tad duSTArthagarbhatvAd duSTazoNitagarbhagaNDa iva gaNDaH / 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 Patakasthanaka 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: lInamasphuTarUpaM utkSipyamANamarthajAtaM, zliSTena sambandhayogyenAbhiprAyAntara-prayuktenApi pratyuttareNopetaM sadyatra, savinayaM vizeSeNa nayanena vizeSanizcayaprAptyA sahitaM saMpadyate tat tRtIyaM patAkAsthAnakam / 7. The original reads : kAnte nAtha kuto'smi kiM priyatame dUraM mamaitadco jAtaM te'dya kimanyanAma vihitaM yannekSitaM janmani / vyaktaM brUhi kRtaM tvayaiva sabhayAsaGgo doSo'thavA yastasyAstu patAmi te caraNayoH svastyastu te supyatAmiti // The word 'Sabhaya' is slista : i. caurikayA nAyakena saha vyavaharamANA ii. pariSadA. ___8. ....idaM ca prakRtasAdhyopayogAGgi(? Gga)tvAt patAkAsthAnIyamiti vIthyaGgAd gaNDAdasya bhedaH / "Uruyugma ca bhagna" taddhi pratyuta duryodhananAzAdAza yazca duSTaH / kastasyopayogaH, pANDavAnusAreNa tu bhavatu / idaM patAkAsthAnakaM bhinnaviSayatvaM kRta hyetadrUpa na kSatimAvahati / 9. gaNDaH prastutasaMvandhi bhinnArtha sahasoditam / DR. III. 18. gaNDo'kasmAda yadanyArtha prastutAnagataM vacaH | ND. P. 137.

Page #125
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 113 of 'virahaH upasthitaH' and 'UruyugmaM bhagnam' the characters enter on the stage and abruptly remark '39ff4a:' and 71-774. In the passage from the Mudraraksasa the character (Siddharthaka) is already on the stage and his words 37657 Deat' get connected as a reply to the question agitating Canakya's mind.10 Raghavabhatta points out Sakuntala IV. 3 as an example of the third Patakasthanaka. No doubt, it is an excellent example of Patakasthanaka but it cannot be taken as illustrating the third Patakasthanaka as it does not satisfy the requirements of its definition. It would fall under the second variety. The NS. defines the fourth Patakasthanaka 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 --Uddamotkalika etc.-quoted by the DR. as an example of Patakasthanaka of the 'Tulya-visesana species illustrates this Patakasthanaka. 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 Sagarika provokes Vasavadatta's anger. The NL. quotes a very fine example of this Patakasthanaka from the Janakiraghava. The stanza is full of paronomastic words. It is addressed by Rama to Sita. The stanza presages by a double entendre the Abduction of Sita by Ravana.11 The Abh. and the ND. quote Ratnavali, Act I. 23 and the following speech of Sagarika 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 Sagarika to know that her 'Kusumayudha was none other than king Udayana himself whose bride she was intended to be by her father. 10. Ratnavali Act. II. 4. It is worth noticing that the Abh. remarks : uddAmotkalikAM iti tu nodAharaNa, dvayarthatApratipattAvapi hi nAtrArthana sahakAritA kutracidAcaritA / tasmAdetadvIthyaGgasya vyAhArasyaivodAharaNaM yuktam // 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 Abhinavatharati. 11. 19: atai alati laGkAsamRddhimApanna: krIDAraNye sapuSpakaH / kaccillohitapatrastvAmazoko'sau hariSyatIti / / where a means (i) the capital of Ravana, (ii) branches. 7677 (i) Ravana's celestial chariot, (ii) flowers and qe (i) Ravana'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 Patakasthanakas 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 Patakasthanaka presages 'pradhanartha-visesa' while the second 'apradhanartha.' But this defence collapses in the face of Visvanatha's clear remark : 377 partai FraTRITIGT Iqarta atstufa cara anafaqat satyAM dvitIya patAkAsthAnakam / The distinction between the two species would stand only if the expressions 'satisayam and slistam are interpreted in accordance with the Abh. and the ND. Later authorities excepting Dhanamjaya recognise after the NS. four varieties of Patakasthanaka. The DR. defines Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka by Anyokti (=Aprastutaprasamsa) and the Patakasthanaka by Samasokti. He illustrates the first species by quoting Ratnavali 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 'Uddamotakalikam etc., as an example of the second species. This treatment of the DR. deserves special attention. He unambiguously states that Patakasthanaka foreshadows an event relating to the 'prastuta' whether immediate or distant. Bharata's fourth Patakasthanaka is, undoubtedly, of the Tulyavisesana (or Samasokti) variety. Bharata's first three varieties would be convered by the Tulya-samvidhana variety of the DR. The BP. and the R., expressly declare that the first three Patakasthanakas are Tulya-samvidhanatmaka.15 No doubt the first variety is Tulyasamvidhana but there is hardly any indication of a future event. Dhanamjaya's distinction between Patakasthanaka based on Tulyasamvidhana and Tulya-visesana 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-samvidhana variety does contain paronomastic words. 13. The ND. for some inexplicable reason gives Bharata's 4th Patakasthanaka as the third and Bharata's 3rd as the fourth ! 14. 7 917 "97: ajakaista" ratif fedt198147791aF- 3 Afaziafafa 1774, qalarrthAntarAkSepI ityanena pradhAnArthavizeSasUcane caturtha patAkAsthAnakam ; apradhAnArthasUcane tu dvitIyamiti granthakRtavAbhiprAyatvAt / - Haridasa. 15. 371fafenau geta h yaa ! age I H ope quanTaR || B.P. p. 203. and etadvidhA tulyasaMvidhAnaM tulyavizeSaNam / TELO FATFR File legati a PE II R.

Page #127
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 115 The BP., it would appear, widens the scope of Patakasthanaka 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 Hamsapadika at the opening of the Vth Act (Sakuntala) suggests that Dusyanta has forgotten Sakuntala. Bharata lays down that the four Patakasthanakas could be used to advantage in a play.17 The NL. speaks of them as 'Kavyalankarahetu' and 'sobha-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 Patakasthanakas in the Acts.18 The Abh. refers to and refutes the view that the four Patakasthanakas are to be used in the first four Sandhis respectively. 19 The ND. calls it an 'alankarana' of Natya and Kavya and says no Rupaka should be composed without them. The SD. prescribes that the Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanakas should be used in the first four Sandhis. Theoretically there is nothing against using Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka coming to allude to a future event. This study of the Patakasthanaka 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 Pata. kasthanakas as defined by the NS. are to be distinguished thus : in the first Patakasthanaka 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 Pataka clearly stands for the Patakasthanaka. A part of the name stands for the whole in accordance with the maxim 15 TEU 14AISEMITI Patakasthanaka is quite distinct from Pataka. Pataka corresponds to the sub-plot in English drama. Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanaka is propitious as it contributes towards the realization of the aim of the hero. The fourth Patakasthanaka 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 Patakasthanakas correspond to what is called Prophetic anticipation. Sometimes we have veiled hints or vague foreshdowings of coming things.20 The Patakasthanakas (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 Patakasthanakas. 20. For example 7417: F43110T TE ARTIT |-Mfcchakatika Act 1 and pApaM karma ca yatparairapi kRtaM tattasya saMbhAvyate / -Mrcchakatika Act 1. 36d. In these lines we have an inkling of what is to come!

Page #129
BHAMAHA ON GRAMMAR IN RELATION TO POETRY : na sa zabdo na tadvAcyaM na sa nyAyo na sA kalA / jAyate yanna kAvyAGgamaho bhAro mahAnkaveH // -Bhamaha. 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 : pratijJAhetudRSTAntahAnirdoSo na vetyasau / vicAraH karkazaH prAyastenAlIDhena kiM phalam / / -Kavyadarsa 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 'Slesa'. Hemacandra, too, makes a pointed reference that in the course of study Sabdanusasana (grammar) precedes Kavyanusasana (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 (Natyasastra, XIV), Bhamaha (Kavyalamkara, VI), Vamana (Kavyalamkarastravstti, Adhikarana V), Rajasekhara (Kavyamimamsa, VI), Abhinavagupta (Abhinavabharati on the Natyasastra, XIV) and Bhoja (Ssngaraprakasa, Chapters I to VIII) treat of grammar. It is in the fitness of things that the rhetoricians highly prize the study of Sabdanusasana 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. Kavyalamkara, V. 35. 2. Kavyanusasana, 1. 2. and the Vrtti thereon. 3. Cf. sarvathA padamapyekaM na nigAdyamavadyavat / vilakSmaNA hi kAvyena duHsuteneva nindyate // and -- Bhamaha I. 11 padamekaM vara sAdhu nArvAcInanibandhanam / vaiparItyAdviparyAsaM kIrterapi karoti tat // -Bhamaha 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. Bhamaha 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) : vakravAcAM kavInAM ye prayoga prati sAdhavaH / prayoktuM ye na yuktAzca tadviveko'yamucyate // -Bhamaha 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 Panini's grammar : sAlAturIyamatametadanukrameNa ko vakSyatIti virato'hamato vicArAt / -Bhamaha VI. 62. ab. He, therefore, shows, merely the direction by his brief inquiry into Panini's grammar. In the course of his inquiry Bhamaha 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 'srautra' (in the sense of 'srotriya'), nor harsh words ('apesala') like 'dusta's, nor vulgar words ('gramya') like 'pindisura', nor meaningless words ('aparthaka') like 'ditha'. He 4. The following synoptic contents of Bhamaha's Section on Sabdasuddhi ("Purity of words") clearly shows that only a part of this section inquires into Panini's rules of grammar from an aesthetic point of view :vv 1-3 : a fine Paramparitarupaka 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 SPHOTAVADA, vv 14-22 : Critical examination of the meaning of the word; and refutation of APOHAVADA. v 23 : the aim of Bhamaha (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 Panini's grammar giving words which possess an aesthetic appeal. wy 62-63 : praise of Panini's system of grammar. v 64 : conclusion. vy 65-66 : Summing up of the contents of the whole work. 5. Rudrata VI. 5 and Mammata 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 Srtikatu dosa (VII. 141).

Page #131
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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 Jnapaka (e.g., dhyati' for dhyayati). 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 Panini, nor words which are found in the Vedas (on the strength of the statement of the Mahabhasya : 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 sictas (eminent authors or learned persons) or on the Nyasakara or on the indication from a word or words in a sutra, as when the word vstrahanta (for vitraha) 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., tadgamakah for tasya gamakah)." He should not use words got at by 'yogavibhaga'. He should not use harsh phonetic combinations, e.g., 'etacchyamam (etat+syamam). Barring the word paddhati, he should not use such words as contain a cognate form with hakara. Nor should he employ such words as produce too much of okara, e.g., gato, yato, hato. Now let us review Bhamaha's rules regarding the types of words a poet should employ in his work : He should employ words that have been sanctioned by usage (kramagata), are pleasing to hear (srutisukha), and are pregnant with meaning (arthya). The beauty of consonants (vyanjanacaruta) truly excels all figures (of sound and sense)." He should use words, as a rule, sanctioned by Vartikas or Istis. In the case of moj he should employ the form with viddhi (marjanti and not mrjanti), although both forms are available. In the case of Sarupasesa compounds he should employ only forms that are got by the rule 'Puman striya, e.g., forms such as 'Varunau', 'Indrau,' 'Bhavau' 7. These verses point to Bhamaha's great reverence for Panini. Verse 63. c, infra, is eloquent of this reverence : 1997 and half 110 He would, as a rule, respect the authority of the Vartikakara and the Mahabhasyakara. Cf VI. 29. abc and IV. 22. 8. This rule probably provided Mammata a hint to lay down the Dosa called Upahatalupta visarga (cf KP VII. v. 210). Kuntaka's Vakroktijivita (especially, Unmesa I. 19 and Unmena II. 1-7) devotes considerable space to Varna-Vinyasa -vakratva. In a way, it forms a fine exposition of Bhamaha's Vyanjanacaruta, which is a very comprehensive term and can cover Sabdalamkaras like different types of Anuprasa and of Yamaka, Sabdagunas like srutipesala and the three Vrttis (Parusa, Upanagarika and Gramya) of Udbhata. In the Abhinavabharati we read : (NS. XVI, p 339). aga7Jf79IFTI CERTOS (37.-38) gena i 34 kaa qof tasya1:' (Dhvanyaloka III 3d, 4d) | F lat e qa qof: Fatorita fapiraatia rephakakArAdaya iva paruSavRttipUrvakAH, anye tu nirvApayantI bopanAgarikocitAH / lokagovara evAyamarthaH Fasi....1

Page #132
120 Studies in and the like10. In the sense of 'Patunacaste' and of 'Kssam Karoti' he should use the forms 'Patayati and Karsayati. 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 Tistha 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 Bhrsadi, 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 'nini' in the sense of Tacchilya 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 Laksika, Raucanika and Maharajana and Aksika and Sastrika also; so also Sarva and Sarviya, Patima (and not Patuta, or Patutva), Laghima (and not Laghuta 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 matrac) to denote measure. He should use words such as Jyotsna, Tamisra 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, malin and mayin. He should preferably use forms like dadhati, roditi, svapiti and present participles like dadhat, bibhrat. 10. According to Vamana, however, such forms are grammatically incorrect (vide : Vamana V. 2. 1. and the Vrtti thereon). There is no doubt that his remark: vaa l. val. gal 291122: G : gerir: is directed against Bhamaha's rule (VI. 32.). 11. Bhamaha indicates his preference for words in the feminine gender : quit. qua: gafa: 31af, Fiki, 391871, azazi, zat. It is possible that Kuntaka took a hint from Bhamaha in regard to the sweetness inherent in the feminine gender and composed his Karika in praise of 'Strilinga' : sati liGgAntare yatra strIliGgaJca prayujyate / THAT FEAFTA alla dgrze 11 Kuntaka II. 22 Abhinava, also, makes a statement which is in agreement with Kuntaka's : 'att ar' alisa ityatra taTazabdasya pustvanapusakatve anAdRtya strItvamevAzrita sahRdayaiH 'strIti nAmApi madhura' iti kRtvaa| -Locana on Dhvanyaloka III. 15, p. 359. 12. With referance to this observation of Bhamaha, Naganatha Sastry rightly observes that "Bhamaha had a fine ear is clear.'

Page #133
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 121 CRITICAL REMARKS : This study of Bhamaha'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 Panini (Katyayana and Patanjali). (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. Bhamaha must have taken a hint from Bharata in dealing with grammar in relation to poetry. We do not have any other pre-Bhamaha work dealing with this topic. It is not, therefore, possible to judge to what extent Bhamaha is indebted, if at all, to his predecessors or is original in his treatment of this fascinating topic. Of his successors, Vamana 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 Natyasastra. 13 Anandavardhanal4, Kuntaka15, and Ksemendra16 treat of this topic of Sabdavaicitrya in a slightly different context. Bhamaha'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 Bhamaha later rhetoricians scientifically worked out the Vyanjana-caruta in different contexts of the 'Rasadis' and presented us with the results of their researches, viz., the three dictions-Vaidarbhi, Gauli and Pancali with their characteristic vyanjanas. 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 Abhinavabharati 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 Abhinavabharati all right. 14. Dhavanyaloka III. 16. 15. Vakroktijivita II. 16. Arsityavicarasarca, Karikas 19-26. 16

Page #134
122 Studies in According to Dr. Raghavan, Logic and Grammar formed part of the Alamkarasastra 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 Natyasastra 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 Srngaraprakasa, Vol. I: Part II, pp. 387-89. or Madras, 1963 edn. p. 257. Dr. Raghavan classifies 'Sausabdya' as a Sabdalamkara along with Anuprasa and Yamaka. Instead of regarding it as an Alamkara like Anuprasa 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 Udyana 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 karikas from his Nydya-nirnaya (V. 5-10) dealing with the two pramanas-pratyaksa 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 Drstanta-hina at the end of the Chapter IV wherein the rest of the dosas 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. Kavyalamkara 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 Kavyalamkara with Udyana Vritti, by D. T. Tatacharya Tiruvadi, 1934. 3. The Sahityadarpana of Visvanatha 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 pratijna-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 pramanas, 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 Kavyalamkara 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-iastra 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 Karikas (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 Srngaraprakasa by Dr. V. Raghavan, 1963 edn. p. 257, p. 723, etc. 7. Vide "Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra" (IN Marathi)

Page #137
Sanskrit Sahityakastra V 5. sattvAdayaH pramANAbhyAM pratyakSamanumA ca te / asAdhAraNa- sAmAnya viSayatvaM tayoH kila // 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: pramANAbhyAM satvAdayaH dravya - guNAdayaH padArthAH siddhyanti / mAnAdhInA hi meyasiddhiH / sattvamiti vaiyAkaraNasaMpradAya - vAsanayA dravye | padArthAnAM satyAsasyatucchatyAdIni vA satvAdaya ityuktAni / iii) The reading 'sattvadayah' deserves consideration. Bhamaha himself uses the word 'Sandha' further on in the same chapter twice: sandhAdi sAdhanaM siddhyai ( ? v. 32. C ) and sandhA'bhyupagamAdvinA (v. 45. b) Now, the Kalpalataviveka (KLV) reads: 'Sandhadayab' in place of 'Sattvadayah". This reading perfectly suits the context as would be seen from the following passage in KLV: sandhAdaya iti / pramANamulA iti / tathAhi agnimAn parvata iti pratijJAyAM nizcIyate / agnisaMbandhastu tasyAnumAnAt pratIyata iti pratizAyAH pratyakSAnumAnamUlAm / raNAnAmanantaroditena nyAyena pratyakSAnumAnamUlyAdetaduktam / pratizA hetu dRSTAntAH pramANamUlA parvatastAvat pratyakSeNa ...... pratizA hetUdAha iti / - (p. 46 11, 1-16) So with the indisputably genuine reading supplied by KLV, we may translate the verse as follows: Pratijna, 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 asadharana (Visesa Svalaksana) while samanya forms the object of Inference. = The word 'adayah' in 'sandhadayah' obviously stands for Hetu and Drifanta 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 anangikare 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 Vaisesikas and the Naiyayikas) receives the name of a mixture duplication theory (pramana-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, visesa, ksana, 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 Vaisesikas 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. pratyakSa kalpanApoDha tato'rthAditi kecana / kalpanAM nAmajAtyAdiyojanAM pratijAnate // 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 Pratyaksa of the Bauddhas the epithet given is " Abhrantam". 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 Bhamaha presents two definitions of Pratyaksa: 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 : vaibhASikamatAnusAra vasubandhUtalakSaNaM pratyakSasya darzayitumAha tato'rthAditi / Elsewhere (p 51 11 18-21) it informs us: vasubandhave'pi mArge iti vaibhASikamata ityarthaH / tadevaM vaibhASikasautrAntika- yogAcAra mAdhyamika darzaneSu pratyakSalakSaNasyAnupapattiruktA vaibhASikadarzane " tato'rthAditi kecana" iti pratyakSa-lakSaNam ziSTeSu ca darzaneSu "pratyakSa kalpanApoDham iti tadubhayaM nirAkRtam / So we may translate the Karika 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 (jati), etc. In his Pramana-samuccaya (1.3) Dinnaga thus defines Perception: pratyakSa kalpanApoDha nAmajAtyAdyasaMyutam / The Vrtti elucidates the definition as follows: yatra jJAne kalpanA nAsti tat pratyakSam / atha kalpanA ca kIdRzI cedAha - nAmajAtyAdiyojanA / yadRcchAzabdeSu nAmnA viziSTo'rtha ucyate dvitya iti / jAti zabdeSu jAtyA gaurayamiti / guNa-zabdeSu guNena zukla iti / kriyA-zabdeSu kriyayA pAcaka iti / dravya-zabdeSu dravyeNa daNDI viSANIti / atra saMbandhaviziSTasyeti kecit / anye spardhazUnyaiH zabdareva viziSTo'rtha iti / According to Dinnaga 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. Dinnaga : Pramana Samuccaya ( I. 3), Mysore University Publication, Mysore, 1930. 9. Vasubandhu : Vadavidhi

Page #139
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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 Patanjali "There is a four-fold currency of words as instanced in Cow or Bull, White, Moving, Dittha" : gauH zuklazcalo Dittha iti "catuSTayI zabdAnAM pravRttiH / " iti mahAbhASyakAraH / The KLV (p.47) comments on 'tato rthat' as follows : tato vyapadezanimittAd iti / vyapadezanimittaM rajata-vijJAnasya rajatam / tena hi tad rajata-vijJAna vyapadizyate rajatasyedaM vijJAnamiti / tatazca vyapadezanimittAd rajatAd yad rajata-vijJAnamutpanna tatpratyakSam / yasya tu rajatavijJAnasya na vyapadezanimittAda rajatAdutpAdo'pi tu zuktikAtastasya na pratyakSatA / V 7. FAR: SALIFT faraa a aa jAtyAdyapohe vRttiH kva kva vizeSaH kutazca saH // Here, Bhamaha takes up the definition of perception, given by Dinnaga, 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, jati, class, etc., are excluded where could the perception operate ? (What remains of that reality on which the perception could operate ?) And where is the visesa (-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 vijnanas pure and simple.)" Here we have the refutation of the Sautrantikas, who accept 'visesa' or 'svalak sana' as an external existent (sat) from the point of view of the Yogacara School (or the Vijnanavad ins). V 8. aga 791 faci al giai avastukaM ced vitathaM pratyakSa tatvavRtti hi // 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 'Sa' the vyakti whereas Tatacharya understands it to mean "Jati". These explanations are hardly convincing. Tatacharya might find support for his interpretation in the phrase "Jatyadyapohe" which occurs in the immediately preceding verse (No 7). As the discussion centres round the proof 'perception and its subject (vis aya) asadnarani (=visesa=svalaksana) there does not seem to be any scope for establishing the existence or non-existence of jati'. 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 : ___ tadapohe ca tathAtA ziSTA sA buddha [buddhi-gocaraH / 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 'jati', 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 jnanagocarab)." Studies in The second half of this verse may be translated as follows: "Now, if this reality be only vijnana pure and simple, devoid of the perceiver (grahaka vijnanaamia) and the perceived object (grahya vijnana-amsa), then it is futile (vitarham= asaram) or worthless for direct perception (pratyaksam) operates on what is real (a real object)." It is equally possible to interpret 'avastukam' as 'nirvastukam"-"unyameva idam sarvam" i.e. 'void' or better still nissrabhavam' (without any nature, qualities). Even if 'avastukam' is thus interpreted, in accordance with the Sunyavada of the Madhyamikas, the same refutation (vitatham, pratyaksam tattvavrnti hi) holds good, V 9. grAhyagrAhaka bhedena vijJAnAMza mato yadi / vijJAna - maMtra ( 1 mAtra ) sAdavAda vizeSo'sya vipanA // - This verse may be translated as follows : "If you say that perception/knowledge (vijnana) is made up of two parts, viz., the apprehending or cognising part (grahaka amsa) and the apprehended or cognised part (grahya amia) then, as these two parts, according to you (vijnanavadin), are alike as vijnana (pure and simple), you will have to admit that your visesa (or svalaksana) is simply unreal (or that the difference between them will simply be conceptual)." V 10 arthAdeveti rUpAdestata eveti nAnyataH | anyathA paTavijJAnamanyena vyapadizyate // The first half of this verse elucidates here the definition of perception formulated by Vasubandhu (when he was an adherent of the Vaibhasika 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, ghata jnana). 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 Vadavidhi. 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 Sahityasastra 129 . (This This definition has been severely criticised by Dignaga, 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 Vada-Vidhana Vasubandhu probably corrected his definition and made it consonant with the one of Dignaga, 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 Kalpalataviveka Bhamaha's "Pramana-vimarsa"-treatment of pramanis (Means of acquiring certain knowledge, proofs) we get the following definite information : i) Three schools of the Buddhists viz, the Sautrantikas, the Yogacara (-Vijnanavada) and the Madhyamika (Sunyavada), accept the following definition of Pratyakasa : 9789981917# (Cf p. 47, 11 14-15, and p. 51, 11 20-21) (This definition occurs in Dinnaga's Pramanasamuccaya I.3) ii) The remaining school of the Buddhists, viz, the Vaibhasikas, 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 Pratyaksa are criticised and refuted by Bhamaha. (Cf p. 51, 11 20-21) iv) Bhamaha's criticism and refutation of the definition of Pratyaksa as given by Dinnaga, rests on the authority of Kanada and the like who lay down that savikalpa pratyaka is a valid source of knowledge. (Cf p. 50, 11 5-6) v) Bhamaha's treatment of the three members and not five members as in Nyaya-Vaisesika school) of a syllogism indicates that in this regard he agrees with naga, the Buddhist Logician. The three members of the syllogism are pratijna, hetu and drstanta. 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 Nyaya-Vaisesikas and indirectly rejects their claim to be authoritative. (Cf p. 46, 11 16-18) vi) Although Dharmakirti dispenses with the use of pratijna and speaks of only two-membered syllogism, Bhamaha speaks of the three members of the syllogism in accodance with Dinnaga. (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 - Vada-Vidhi and Vadavidhana. 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 Kavyalamkara of Bhamaha, generally known as Bhamaha-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 Punaruktavadabhasa: Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy came to the conclusion that the published fragments do represent the genuine Bhamaha-vivarana of Udbhata himself. The study of Kalpalataviveka* (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 (Nyayanirnaya) of Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara. It borrows most of the passages from BV when treating of dosas. A good many of its pratikas, referring to Bhamaha'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 anyartha dosa (Bhamaha I. 40) could be restored with the help of the following passage from KLV5 : nanu caivaM zabdahIne'syAntarbhAvaH / viSayAntaraprayoge'pyapazabdo bhavati na kevalaM lopAgamavarNavikArAdInAmayathAkaraNe / tathA ca "asvagoNyAdayaH zabdAH sAdhavo viSayAntare" [vAkyapadIya 1.149] iti tena vipUrvo haratiH pAdavikSepe prasiddhasambandhaH, asya ca parimoSaprayuktAvapazabdatava / apazabdasya ca svapne'pyaprayogAdanityadoSamadhye'sya pATho na 893 60718 -....Jqafastar a: 1 ....... efter sta !"317 3qanfa:" [Ilona 19-8-80) la tattvam / vidattazabde tu na dRzyate tatvamiti vizabdasyAtra nipAtatvamiti siddham / vihRta ca iti vijahariti / viharaNaM ca tat pAdavikSepalakSaNAyAM krIDAyAM prasiddham na svapaharaNa ityarthaH / prasiddhArthaH iti prasiddho'rthaH paadviksseplkssnnaadiH| (2)Fr. 19 II 5-8 : The commentator, when commenting on Bhamaha II. 8 treats of the figure Punaruktabhasa and distinguishes it from Yamaka and Lalanuprasa. The following extract from KLV is based on these lines of BV : 1) Udbhata's commentary on the Kavyalarnkara of Bhamaha, Roma, Istituto Italiano per II Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1962. 2) Presidential Address, The Twenty-first All India Oriental Conference, Srinagar, October, 1961 3) Punaruktavadabhasa and Genuineness of the published Fragments from Udbhata's Bhamaha 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 Sahityalastra " ayamabhiprAyaH / sarUpANAM svaramyaJjanasamudAyAnAM vinyAse punaruktA bhAsateva saMgacchate ko nummattaH punarukta' brUyAditi / tatra cArthAbhede'pi tAtparyabhedazcettadA lAyeyo'nuprAsaH utArthabhedastato yamakAlaGkAra iti kutaH punaruktadoSaprasaGgaH, kathaM ca lAyanuprAsa paryanuyoga iti / punaruktAbhAvatApi zabdasArUpye kavanAnAtvayoH zabdasArUpyAbhAve'pi arthakRyAmAse bhavatIti trividhA bhavAntarabhedApekSayA tu bahuprabhedA vkssyte| ata eva ca punaruktAbhAseSu lATIyo'nuprAsaH tadapavAdadvAreNa ca yamakAlaGkArazca bhavatItyetadeva vaktuM nyAyyamityarthaH / - 1. 186 paM. 24pR. 187 paM. 4. ( 3 ) Fr. 27 a ll 3-4 : In the context of Bhamaha 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 'hInatA' iti... atra vikalpayam / upamAnopameyayoryayoH sAmarasyena sAdhamrmyaM tayorevopameti vA / upameye vA yAni padAni tAnyupamAnopameyavizeSaNabhUtAni sAdharmyavAcIni kartavyAni / tatrArtha pakSamadhikRtyAha sarva sarveNa [ bhAmha 2.43] iti / ......... na ca pakSAntaramastIti na hInatAlakSaNo doSa ityarthaH / 1245, paM. 25 4 246. 9 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 azyakyagrahaNaM lokapratItitulyatvaparigrahArtham / tena danyocoSThayavakAravakArAdivarNabhede laghuprayatnatarAlaghuprayatnatarakRte ca bhede....... yamakabandho na virudhyate / p. 299 11. 14 17. And, ayamAzayaH / ... vAkyAntarapratibhA vA [V. L. vAkyArthAntarapratibhA vA ] iti / alaGkArAntaraparyavasAyitvenAlaGkArAntarapratyAzayA saMgRhItApyupakramAvasthAyAmalaGkArAntarasyApratItervAkyArthAntara pratibhA pRthagupadarzitA / p. 258 11 3-7 The two lines of the fragment when restored would read as: yatra tu zabdAnAmatyantasarUpANAmapi dansyoSThalaghuprayatnatarakRto bhedo'sti tatra vAkyArthAntarapratibhA / tathAlaGkArAntare vAkyAntare vA pratibhoSayate / (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: nanu kimiti sugatasiddhAntapramANayoreva vicAraNam / sarvasiddhAntAnuvarta naparo hi kAvyapravAhastena kaH pakSapAto bauddhasiddhAnta' pratItyAha-prAyeNa [ Bhamaha V. 2] - pR. 45, paM. 8-9 7) In the Sanketa commentary of Manikyacandra on Kavyaprakasa 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 : zabdAbhivyakti XX X should be read as zabdAbhivyaktivAdinaM prati anyatarasiddha 1 3 should be read as sAcayitumiSTo yo dharmastadanugamane yaH sadRzaH pakSaH sa sapakSaH / tatra ca yaH san sa heturityarthaH / 15 sAmAnyamiha saMvRtisaddhi nAbhipretam this line should be corrected in the light of sAmAnyamiha saMvRtibuddhirabhipretA " / 10 1. 8 should be read as ta ca darzavitumAha-iti dvavekAnugativyAvRttI lakSma-sAdhutA | V.25 iti sA pUrvoktayA bhaGgayA" x [ . (7) Fr. 50. (a ) ll 2-3 : This passage is easy to restore with the help of the following passage from KLV : 'so ajJAno doSa:' iti / asiddhatvamityarthaH / tato hi sAdhyasya jJAnaM nAsti / ime doSAH iti / itthameva samAso yuktaH / ye punarajJAnaM ca saMzayajJAnaM ca viparyayazceti samasya tAn kurvantItyajJAna saMzayajJAna viparyayakRta iti vyAcakSate teSAmajJAnasya jJAnaprAgabhAvasyAnutpAdyamAnatvAt tatkaraNavirodhaH 12 | ( 8 ) Fr. 50 (a) 16: The following passage from KLV 12 throws some light on this line : nanRpamAnamevAstviti / upamAne khalu vimbapratibimbopanyAso dRSTaH / candra va mukhapatra mukhasya vimvatA, candrasya tu tatprativimvatvam / dRSTAnte'pi ca "tanuriya' kva vilocanahAriNI "tyAdI vimbaprativimvabhAvo vidyate tat kathamupamAyAmantarbhAvo'sya na syAdityarthaH / (9) Fr. 50 (a) 17 The following line from KLV14 should help us in restoring this line : upamAnopameyabhAvavivakSA sAmyamivAdiprayogazca... | When restored it would read sAmyamivAdiprayogazca / 'tadRSTAnte nAsti' iti nopamAyAmantarbhAvo SsyAzaGkanIyaH / (10) Fr. 50 (a) 18 : The following passage from KLVI throws some light on this line : na caivaMvidhaM lakSaNaM "tanuriya va vilocanahAriNI" ityAdI dRSTAnte vidyate / tanutApasayoryathAkrama' navamAlikAkuzaguNAbhyAM sahopamAnopameyabhAvasyAzAbdatvAt / "tanuriyaM....... 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 Sahityasastra 133 (11) F. 50 (a) // 3-5 : These lines are easy to restore with the help of the following passage from KLV17 : kiM punaH kAraNaM sAdhyasAdhanopanyAsa upamAne na kriyate / mukhamindurivetyatrati / etadukta bhavati / upamAne kutsitaH sAdhyasAdhanopanyAsaH sahRdayahRdayaharaNabhraMzaprasaGgAt / yadyava kriyate mukhamidamAhUlAdakara kAntivizeSAtizayayogAdinduriveti tadA kliSTa' kAvya syAt / yathedaM vakSyamANamudAharaNam / etadeva darzayati-tadAha iti / These numerous passages, which have their source in Udbhata's Commentary on The Kavyalamkara of Bhamaha clearly suggest that Bhamahavivarana 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 Bhamaha V. 56. In this comment we read : "taduktam ivAderapratItApi zabdasaMskArataH kvacit / / upamA gamyate'nyatra kevalArthanibandhanA // iti / yattvatra vivaraNakRtA upamAnopameyabhAvavivakSA sAmyamivAdiprayogazceti tritayamudghoSita tad bAhulyAbhiprAyeNa na tu lakSaNatayA / ......" Now, the quotation "ivaderapratitapi" etc. is found introduced in his Laghuvstti (p 29, Banhatti's edition) by Pratiharenduraja with the words 'tadahuh". The author of KLV identifies this quotation as originating from vivaranaksi, i. e. Udbhaga, the author of (Bhamaha-) Vivarana and thus indicating that he must have had Bhamahavi varana 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. vayasi etc. p. 78) are composed. The quarter, however, unmistakalYTEVENT .. . of Kalidasa (Kumarasam. 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 Kalidasa 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 Rativilapa 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 : paripoSaM gatasyApi paunaHpunyena dIpanam / (ret syAdvirodhAya vRttyanaucityameva // ) Anandavardhana comments on this line as follows : punazcAyamanyo rasabhaGgaheturavadhAraNIyo yatparipoSaM gatasyApi rasasya paunaHpunyena dIpanam / upabhukto hi rasaH svasAmagrI labdhaparipoSaH punaH punaH parAmRzyamANaH parimlAna kusumakalpaH kalpate | 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 vibhavas, 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 Rativilapa 3 "In Rati's Lament Kalidasa has in and again over-elaborated the sentiment of pathos which has alre been ful developed" nanu kAlidAsaH paripoSaM gatasyApi karuNasya rativilAseSu (? - vilApeSu) paunaHpunyena dIpanamakArSIt tat ko'yaM rasavirodhinA parihAranirdagdha ityAzaDvayAha-pUrva iti / na hi vasiSThAdibhiH kathaJcid yadi smRtimArgastyaktastadvadvayamapi tathA tyajAmaH / acintya hetukatvAduparicaritAnAm (? acintya hetukatvAd municaritAnAm ) iti bhAvaH | 1. Dhvanyaloka. III. 19 2. Ibid III. 19 Vrtti p. 364 3-4. Locana on Dhvany aloka III. 19 (pp. 364-65)

Page #147
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 135 Mammata calls this impediment 'Diptih punah punah' and adds "As an example of this 'repeated feeding (or over-elaboration)' we have 'Rati's Lament' in Kumarasambhava. Jhalkikar comments on this statement as follows : rativilApe / rativilApaprastAve / atra 'mohaparAyaNA satI' ( sa01 zlo0) ityAdinA dIpito'pi (dIptimAnIto'pi) karuNaH 'atha sA punareva vihvalA' (4 sa0 26 zlo0) ityAdinA punardIpita: (dIpti nItaH) atha ca vasantadarzanena vicchinnaH punarapi 'tamavekSya ruroda sA bhRzam' (40 sa0 26 zlo0) ityAdinA uddIpita iti bodhyam / atraikasyaiva punaH punarAsvAdaH sahRdayAnAM vairasthAyeti dUdhakatAvIjam / taduktaM pradIpodyotayo: "upabhukto hi punarupabhujyamAnaH upabhuta kusumaparimala iva sahRdayAnAmAsvAdApakarSakaH" iti / tathA cAha tRtIyodyote dhvanikAraH "paripAka gatasyApi pauna:punyena dIpanam parasya syAdvirodhAya" iti / parasya zrotuH virodhAya vairasyAyeti tadarthaH / These comments throw more light on the statement of Dhva iyaloka by referring to the particular passages in Rativilapa. 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 Dhvanyaloka and in his own commentary (called Viveka, p. 170) he elucidates : punaHpunaH parAmRzyamAna iti / tathA hi vibhAvAnubhAvasAmagrI parighaTitazarIrasyApi rasayitR-rasana-yogyasya rasasya punaHpunarAndolanaM mAlatIkusumaparimardanavadananuguNameva / dhArAprAle hi rate tadAvimAna tatparavazAnAmuktiralpIyatyeva / tathA ca tasyAM dazAvAM mahAkavInAme ko dvimA vA iTokA niryAnti / A eva tApatavastarAje dhArAprAtaH karugarasaH (1 dhArAprAptakaruNarasaH) sarvAlyo dvitIyo'GkaH kavinA nibaddhaH / Hemacandra's disciples, Ramacandra and Gunacandra, the authors of Nat yadarpana (p. 155), more or less say the same thing : __ atyuktiriti dhArAdhirUDhasyApi rasasya nairantaryeNa punaHpunaruddIptirdoSo yathA kumArasaMbhave ratipralApeSu / labdhaparipoSo hi rasaH punaH punaH parAmRzyamAno mAlatImAlya miva mlAyati / ata eva prakarSaprAptarasaviziSTAnAM kavInAmalpIyAneva vAgvilAsa iti / * 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 Kumarasambhava, 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. Kavyaprakasa, with Balabodhini, 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 Kalidasa 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-vilapa, given below, would clearly show that there is no overdoing in Rati's Lament. Kalidasa 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 Kalidasa effectively describes the tragic shock received by Rati. tIvrAbhiSaGgaprabhaveNa vRttiM mohana saMstambhayatendriyANAm / ajJAtabhartRvyasanA muhUrta kRtopakAreva ratirbabhUva // "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 : atha mohaparAyaNA satI vivazA kAmavadhUrvibodhitA / vidhinA pratipAdayiSyatA navavaidhavyamasahyavedanam / / ' "Then Rati (lit, the wife of Kama) 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 : atha sA punareva vihvalA vasudhAliGganadhUsarastanI / vilalApa vikIrNamUrdhajA samaduHkhAmiva kurvatI sthalIm // "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 Kama : Incidentally, the usually accepted readings in Dhvanyaloka are 'pariposam' and 'rasasya! The editor's f. n. (on p. 440) TEET' ya a it geis erroneous. From the context in Dhvanyaloka it would be evident that flacasya' is the correct seadirg. 6. Kumara III. 73. 7. Kumara IV. 1 8. Kumara IV. 4

Page #149
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 137 kRtavAnasi vipriyaM na me pratikUla na ca te mayA kRtam / kimakAraNameva darzana vilapantyai rataye na dIyate // 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 ! smarasi smara mekhalAguNairuta gotraskhaliteSu bandhanam / cyutakesaradUSitekSaNAnyavataMsotpalatADanAni vA // " "Or do you remember, O Kama 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 : hRdaye vasasIti matpriyaM yadavocastadavaimi kaitavam / upacArapadaM na cedidaM tvamanaGgaH kathamakSatA ratiH // 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 Kama crowd into her mind and she is extremely restless : zirasA praNipatya yAcitAnyupagUDhAni savepathUni ca / ___ suratAni ca tAni te rahaH smara saMsmRtya na zAntirasti me // "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 (Kama)." "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 Kama, 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. Kumara IV-7, quoted by Alamkarikas as an instance of the fault : 'bhagna-prakramata'. 11. Kumara IV-8. 12. Kumara IV-9. 13. Kumara IV-17. 18

Page #150
138 RjutAM nayataH smarAmi te zaramutsaGganiSaNNadhanvanaH / madhunA saha sasmitAM kathAM nayanopAntavilokitaM ca tat // | 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 : tamavekSya ruroda sA bhRzaM stanasaMbAdhamuro jaghAna ca / a svajanasya hi duHkhamagrato vivRtadvAramivopajAyate ||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 Kama in death. This is the bounden duty of every pativrard (faithful wife) : zazinA saha yAti kaumudI saha meghena taDita pralIyate / pramadAH pativartmagA iti pratipannaM hi vicetanairapi || 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 sa punareva vihvala", 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. Kumara IV-23. 15. Kumara IV-26. 16. Kumara IV-33.

Page #151
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 139 svajanasya hi duHkhamagrato vivRtadvAramivopajAyate / is universally true and fully justifies Rati's reaction. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for one to agree with Balabodhinikara, the learned commentator of Kavyaprakasa when he says that these three verses overfeed or over-elaborate the sentiment of pathos. What Abhinavagupta, Mammata, 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, Kalidasa 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 Kalidasa 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 Kama 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 : - ratipralApeSu ca zRGgAra eva karuNasya jIvitaM 'hRdaye vasasI' tyAdhuktiSu / " * If we study and analyse all the brilliant passages depicting the sentiment of pathos from the works of great poets including Vyasa and Valmiki we would find strong support for this statement of Abhinavagupta (cited from Abhinavabharati). In the passage of Rarivilapa we find full support for it. In Raguvassa (Canto VIII) we have the counter part of Rati-Vilapa in Ajavilapa. 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-Vilapa as an example of the poetic blemish paunahpunyena dipanan. Perhaps not. Possibly he had in mind the third act of Uttararamacarita of Bhavabhuti. There we have repeated intensification of Rama's ceaseless grief for Sita and there Rama is represented as fainting away again and again. 17. Abhinavabharati on Natyasastra, 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 rasanotkarsi, etc., : athavA vAkyArthIbhUtasyApi kasyacit karuNarasaviSayasya tAzena zuGgAravastunA bhaGgivizeSAzrayeNa saMyojanaM rasaparipoSAyaiva jAyate / yataH prakRti-madhurAH padArthAH zocanIyatAM prAptAH prAgavasthAbhAvibhiH saMsmaryamANairvilAsairadhikatara zokAvezamupajanaofa l Te ayaM sa rasanotkarSI pInastanavimardanaH / ATT Freaegaff ofeffaa'wa: T: 11 (HETHTTa, situar, 28-80) -Dhvanyaloka III pp 376-377.

Page #152
140 Studies in (ii) Devi-sambhoga-varnanam (Kalidasa 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 Kalidasa. It is, however, generally believed that the 8th canto is not spurious but the work of Kalidasa himself. The grounds' for this belief are : It seems certainly to have been known to Bharavi, Kumaradasa, Magha, Ratnakara, 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 Kumarasambhava as a genuine part of that epic. (ii) Numerous quotations from it occur in standard works on Alamkara-sastra. (iii) In poetic skill, language and style it is in no way inferior to Kalidasa's work. (iv) The celebrated commentator Mallinatha comments on it, as also Daksinavarta Arunagiri and Narayana. 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 Parvati's timid shyness, love's nervousness befitting a mugdha nayika; v 12 informs that Parvati's mother was pleased to find that Parvati was Siva's favourite, vv13-14 describe Parvati as a madhya nayika (the partly experienced Nayika, full of the love of youth) and vv 15-20 describe her as a pragalbha nayika (the fully experienced and bold Nayika frantically in love). V 21 and onwards inform us how Siva takes leave of Himalaya and wanders with Parvati over many regions including among them the mountains Meru, Kailasa, Mandara and Malaya and the celestial Ganga and the Nandana garden. Finally he goes to the mountain Gandhamadana in the evening. He describes to Parvati the beauty of sunset first and then that of the moon-rise. Siva and Parvati then drink the wine, brought to them by the presiding deity of the forest on the mountain Gandhamadana, and spend the whole night in amorous sports. Siva makes that place his abode and lives there enjoying the company of his beloved Parvali 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 : kathamacArutvaM tAraze viSaye sahRdayAnAM nAvabhAtIti cet kavizaktitirohitatvAtU / dvividho hi doSaH- kaveravyutpattikRto'zaktikRtazca / tatrAvyutpattikRto doSaH zaktitiraskRta1 Kirata VII-IX, Janaki III, Sisu VII-X, Haravijaya XVII-XX, Naisadha VII, XVI,XVIII-XX. Vide Dhvanyaloka III, pp 316-17 the passage concerned is cited on the next page

Page #153
Sanskrit Sahityasastra ___141 tvAt kadAcinna lakSyate / yastvazaktikRto doSaH sa jhaTiti pratIyate.......tathA hi mahAkavInAmapyuttamadevatAviSayaprasiddhasaMbhogazRGgArabandhanAdhanaucityaM zaktitiraskRtatvAt grAmyatvena na pratibhAsate / yathA kumArasaMbhave devIsaMbhogavarNanam / "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 Parvati and Siva in Kumara-sambhava: tasmAdabhineyArthe'nabhineyAthai vA kAvye yaduttamaprakRte rAjAderuttamaprakRtibhirnAyikAbhiH saha grAmyasaMbhogavarNanaM tat pitroH saMbhogavarNanamiva sutarAmasabhyam / tathaivottamadevatAdiviSayam / ......yattvevaMvidhe viSaye mahAkavInAmapyasamIkSyakAritA lakSye dRzyate sa doSa eva / sa tu zaktitiraskRtatvAtteSAM na lakSyata ityuktameva / "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 mahakavi's (great poets like Kalidasa) 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 : 'AsvAdayitRNAM yaH camatkArAvighAtastadeva rasasarvasvamAsvAdAyattatvAt / uttamadevatAsaMbhogaparAmarze ca pitRsaMbhoga iva lajjAtaGkAdinA kazcamatkArAvakAza ityarthaH / zaktitiraskRtatvAd iti / saMbhogo'pi hyasau varNitastathA pratibhAnavatA kadhinA yathA tatraiva vizrAntaM hRdayaM paurvAparyaparAmarza kartu na dadAti / yathA nirvyAja-parAkramasya puruSasyAviSaye'pi yudhyamAnasya tAvattasminnavasare sAdhuvAdo vitIryate na tu paurvAparyaparAmarza tathAtrApIti bhAvaH / / "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 Balapriya 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 Kavyaprakasa Mammata clearly lays down : tatra ratihAsazokAdabhutAni adivyottamaprakRtivat divyeSvapi / kintu ratiH saMbhogazaGgArarUpA uttamadevatAviSayA na varNanIyA / tadvarNanaM hi pitroH saMbhogavarNanamivAtyantamanuforan 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," Ksemendra 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 Kalidasa 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 : UrumUlanakhamArgarAjibhistatkSaNaM hRtavilocano haraH / vAsasaH prazithilasya saMyamaM kurvatIM priyatamAmavArayat // -atra ambikAsaMbhogavarNane pAmara-nArI-samucita-nirlajjasajja(?)nakha-rAji-virAjitorumUlahRtavilocanatvaM trilocanasya bhagavatastrijagadguroryaduktaM tenAnaucityameva paraM prabandhArthaH puSNAti / "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 Parvati, Kalidasa 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 Parvati the way he has done: because of such description the whole 'prabandha' (canto) has become highly improperobscene. 5. Kavyaprakasi VII (p 443, Jhalakikar's edition) 6. Kumarasambhava VIII-87 7. Aucityavicara-carca

Page #155
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 143 Finally, that Panditaraja Jagannatha also, the author of Rasagangadhara and the last great alamkarika, held an identical view, becomes absolutely clear from his criticism of Jayadeva in respect of Gitagovinda (in which the amours of Radha and Krsna are described quite frankly). yatra hRdayAnAM rasodabodhaH pramANasiddhastatraiva sAdhAraNIkaraNasya kalpanAt / anyathA svamAtRviSayakasvapitRrativarNane'pi sahRdayasya rasodabodhApatteH / jayadevAdibhistu gItagovindAdi-prabandheSu sakalasahRdaya-saMmato'yaM samayo madonmattamataGgajairiva bhinna iti na tannidarzanenedAnIMtanena tathA varNayituM sAMpratam / With due deference to the almost unanimous view of the topmost alankarikas about obscenity one may submit that in appreciating a literary work we should judge it purely as a work of art. As Kalidasa is himself a great devotee of Lord Siva it is simply unthinkable that he means any disrespect to Siva and Parvali whom he pays homage in the opening verse of Raghuvamsa in these words: vAgarthAviva saMpRktau vAgarthapratipattaye / jagataH pitarau vande pArvatI-paramezvarau / / "I bow down to Parvati and Paramesvara (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 Kalidasa as a poet felt that it was 'his duty to suggest rather than to say outright : The love of the Yaksa and Yaksa-patni in Meghaduta is thus a symbol of human love. So too in Kumarasambhava the marriage and the love of Siva and Parvati serve as prototype for human marriage and human love. Once we accept this suggestion the objection raised by the alamkarikas 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 Kalidasa is unquestionably a great devotee of Lord Siva, it is unthinkable that any thought of blasphemy or of treating the story of Siva and Parvati impiously might have ever crossed his mind when describing the amorous sports of Siva and Parvati. He must have been fully conscious that unless he invests the poem about Siva, Parvati and the Birth of Kumara 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 Mena, Himalaya, Parvati, Siva, Rati and Kama 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 Parvati (Canto V), of the due consent of Parvati's parents to their marriage (Canto VI) and of their wedding (Canto VII) naturally and inevitably lead to the Devisambhoga-varnana'. (Canto VIII). That the wedding should 8. Rasagangadhara, 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 sadharantkarana (depersonalisation, generalisation or universalisation) is impossible in the case of gods and goddesses like Siva and Paivati 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: rAmAdicaritaM tu na sarvasya hRdayasaMvAdIti mahatsAhasam / citravAsanAviziSTatvAccetasaH / yadAha - "tAsAmanAditvam AziSo nitytvaat| jAti-deza- kAlavyavahitAnAmapyAnantarya smRtisaMskArayorekarUpatvAt"" / "To say that the life of Rama, 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 vasanas. For Patanjali says: "Vasanas are without beginning, because desire is eternal". "Although separated by birth, place and time nonetheless there is a correspondence between smrti 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 Parvati, 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-varnana 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 Sahityasastra 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 'rasabhasa' : aucityena pravRttau cittavRtterAsvAdyatve sthAyinyA raso, vyabhicAriNyA bhASaH, anau cityena tadAbhAsaH rAvaNasyeva sItAyAM rateH / yadyapi tatra hAsyarasarUpataiSa, 'zuGgArAddhi bhavedvAsyaH' iti vacanAt / tathApi pAzcAtyeyaM sAmAjikAnAM sthitiH, tanmayIbhavanadazAyAM tu ratereSAsvAdyateti zRGgArataiva bhAti paurvAparyavivekAvadhIraNena....... -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-varnana 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 Sarasvarkanthabharana and twenty-three verses in Sehguraprakaia. Among others, Vamana, 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 nayika: -vyAhRtA pratiSaco na saMdadhe gantumaicchadavalambitAMzukA / sevate sma zayanaM parAGmukhI sA tathApi rataye pinAkinaH || " "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: darpaNe ca paribhogadarzinI, pRSThataH praNayino niSeduSaH / ree fareng bimbamAtmanaH kAni kAni na cakAra labjayA || 10 Kumara VIII 2 11 Kumara 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 Parvati not show out of her timid shyness ?" Kuntaka quotes it to illustrate a variety of samyetivakrata (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 "kani kani" to suggest the unique excellence of Parvati'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, Parvati, may be considered : zUlinaH karataladvayena sA saMnirudhya nayane hRtAMzukA / tasya pazyati lalATalocane moghayatnavidhurA rahasyabhUt // 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 Kalidasa beautifully portrays Parvati's bashfulness and her feeble or vain efforts to prevent Siva from observing her nude beauty. The poet of a Prakrit gatha depicts Parvati facing a similar situation. He however shows how Parvati (with cleverness natural to women) overcomes the embarassing, situation; the gatha runs as follows: TE-af-f67-f3i UT-ET-GE3--0T37UT-ETCH ruhassa taia-NaaNaM pavvai-paricuMbiaM jaai // 3 [ifa-afe-ea-faca-- f t-76-777-TUTTET I rudrasya tRtIya-nayanaM pArvatI-paricumbitaM jayati // ] "When Siva divests her of her garment during amorous sport, Parvati (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 gatha is : Although in the present gatha, 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 Parvati. The verb 'Jayati' (triumphs) in the gatha has a striking beauty which can be felt by sensitive readers : 'Blessed or fortunate indeed is the third eye as it was honoured with Parvati's kiss and therefore is far superior to the other two eyes. 12 Kumara VIII 7 13 Gatha-sapta-sati V 75

Page #159
Sanskrit Sahityasastra --147 Now, here is another lovely verse from the 8th Canto wherein Siva describes to Parvati the young rays of the rising moon : zakyamoSadhipaternavodayAH karNapUraracanAkRte tava / apragalbha-yava-sUci-komalAzchettumagranakhasaMpuTaiH karAH / / "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 Kavyalamkarasutravitti Vamana 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 : atra rasaparispandasaundaryAtizayaH samubhAsate / tathA ca nUtanodayAnAM darzitasaukumAryANAM. zazAGkakiraNAnAmanyAdRzaH ko'pyatizayaH saMprati samujjambhate, yenAtyarthakapolakarNAlakasaMparkazlAghanIyAM karNapUraracanAvicchittimahatIti pArvatIpatiH priyAyAH pratipAdayastadvadanendusaundaryadarzanena tatkAloditazazAGkakarAvalokanena ca rasocca (? ccha) litacittavRttiH pratIyate / / 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 Parvati'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 ::... . * agulibhiriva kezasaMcaya saMnigRhyatimiraM mriicibhiH| ..... . kuimalIkRtasarojalocanaM cumbatIva rajanImukhaM zazI // 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." Vamana cites it as an example of Utpreksavayava.17 Kuntaka quotes it as an instance of Rasavad alamkara with Upamarupaka and Slesa and adds that the utpreksa 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 Kavyalamkarasatras (under IV. 3.32)

Page #160
148 Studies in the major figure of speech (viz., rasavadalamkara).18 Bhoja cites it to show that the so-called 'utpreksavayava' figure is not different from utpreksa.19 Ruyyaka cites it as an example of angangi-bhayasankara' of the figures 'upama', 'slesamula atisayokti' and 'utpreksa'.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 Nisa (Night). Siva by this description suggests his own keen desire to kiss Parvati. In this Canto Kalidasa describes according to the principles of the Kama-sastra the amour of Siva and Parvati 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 Kumara (Kumara-Sambhava). The different pictures of Parvali as mugdha and madhya and pragalbha nayika 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 Kama (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 Kalidasa's poetic art. I would like to conclude this paper with the following verse of Mallinatha, who pays a very handsome tribute to Kalidasa for his 'dhvani-gabhira kavya (poetry pregnant with rich suggestion) : kAlidAsagirAM sAraM kAlidAsaH sarasvatI / caturmukho'thavA sAkSAd vidurnAnye tu mAvRzAH // 18 Vakrokti-Jivita, III 16v. 69. 19 Sarasvatikankhabharana NS ed. p. 468 20 Almkarasarvasva, NS ed. p. 248. 21 Kavyanusasana (p. 148)

Page #161
13 THE SOURCES OF HEMACANDRA'S KAVYANUSASANA Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana is a very fine text-book on Alamkara-sastra. It is remarkable for its free use of the illustrious Alamkara 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, Vamana, Rudraga, Rajasekhara (KM), Kuntaka, Abhinavagupta (Abh. and Locana), Dhananjaya-Dhanika, Mahimabhafta, Bhoja (SK and SP), Ksemendra, 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 Kavyanusasana : .-Abhyasa Subject Kavyanusasana' 'Principal Source Sources Kavyaprayojana Ch. I (pp. 3-6) KP I. pp. 6-10; RS p. 1; Locana I pp. 40-41 Kavyakarana (pp 7-33) - Pratibha -pp. 5-6 KM IV. pp. 12-13 -Vyutpatti -pp. 7-13 Vamana. 1-3; KM VIII (pp.35-41) and Kavik-V. (pp. 17-20) pp. 13-14 Vamana 1-3 ---Siksa - Kavisamaya pp. 14-33 KM-XI-XIV -Sabdartha-harana Kavya-svarupa pp. 33-42 KP. I. p. 13, p. 263, pp. 462-465, pp. 470-472 Dhv. and Locana pp. 223-234 Sabdartha-svarupa 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 Gathas and Sanskrt verses given as illustrations by Bhoja, but Bhoja's comments thereon are also reproduced completely by Hemacandra in his Kavyanusasana.... These six conditions (Abhinaya, Apadesa, etc.,) and their illustrations are reproduced from the Sr. Pra." pp. 65-66 KP. V. (pp. 223-256) Rasalaksana 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 Sthayibhavas pp. 124-126 NS. VII and Abh. (Vol. I) pp. 282-283 : Vyabhicari-bhavas pp. 126-144 NS. VII and SK (V) and DR. (IV) with Avaloka Sattvikabhavas pp. 144-147 NS. VII and SK. (V) Rasabhasa and Bhavabhasa pp. 147-150 Abh. (Vol. I) pp. 295-296; SK. (V) Kavyabhedas 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) - Dosalaksana (pp. 159-161) CP. Dhv. and Locana (pp. 80 83) KP. VII. w. 321, 327, 330 -Rasadi-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 - Vakyadosas (pp. 201-226) Vamana II. ii, SK. I, VV. II. KP. VII and X... -Ubhayadosas (pp. 226-261) Vamana II. i, Dhv. (II) & Locana VV. II; KP. VII Artha-dosas (pp. 261-273) Vamana. II. ii; SK I VV. II; KP. VII Dr. Raghavan's remarks on Hemcandra's treatment of Dosas are very apposite : ".... Chapter III of Hemacandra's Kavaj, usasana is almost identical with chapter VII of Mammata's Kavyaprakasa. 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 Sahityasastra 151 Gunavivecana Ch. IV (pp. 274-294) Mainly based on NS. XVII, KD; Vamana; and KP. (VIII) Dr. Raghavan's observations on Hemacandra's treatment of Gunas are very pertinent: "On Gunas Hemacandra is a follower of Anandavardhana and he draws upon Mammata and probably from Rajasekhara also... As regards the three Gunas, Hemacandra considers that Madhurya is of the highest degree in Vipralambha, a little less in Karuna and still less in Santa. T7EUTSag agri | "This is one of the views recorded later by Jagannatha..." . Hemacandra's treatment of Gunas is noteworthy for his "reference to strange views on Gunas". One view holds that Ojas, Prasada, Madhurya, Samya and Audarya are the five Gunas (in the sense of Pagha-dharmas). The other view is these five Gunas belong to certain metres. Hemacandra criticises both. Subject Kavyanusasana' 'Principal Source/Sources' Sabdalamkara-varnana Ch. V (pp. 295-338) -pp. 298-314 Mainly based on the NS. XVII, KD, Rudrata, Devisataka with Kayyafa's commentary; SK II and the KP (VIII, X) IX Rudrata, Devisataka, Kayyata's commentary, KD, Bharavi Rudrata (IV, V) and Devieataka, Kayyafa's commentary NS XVII & Abh. (Vol. II) (pp. 385-392) -pp. 314-332 -pp. 333-337 Arthalamkara-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 Nayakadi-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. PrabandhatmakaKavyabheda Ch VIII (pp. 432-466) -pp. 432-455 Mainly based on the NS XVIII and the Abh. and SP (XI) Kavyakautuka, the NS XXIII and Abh. (on NS IV. 268) SP XI (pp. 469-480) ---pp. 455-466

Page #164
152 Studies in "The treatment of Sravya-Kavya in the VIIIth Chapter of the Kavyanusasana is completely a reproduction of the section on Gunas and Alamkaras 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 Sravyakavya. Chapter XIL "is devoted to the study of the structure and technique of drama" and has very little to do with Sravya-Kavya. The reader is referred to Sr. Pra. pp. 403-404 where Dr. Raghavan critically examines and appreciates Hemacandra's treatment of Sravya-Kavya. 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 brumah or similar ones, which lead us to believe that the views prefaced with these expressions are Hema 1. For instance,....iti Srimanabhinavaguptacaryah (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, Kayyata 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 Sahityasastra 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 Somesvara's Samketa and Hemacandra's KS. R.C. Parikho holds that Hemacandra borrows these passages from Somesvara. 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 Somesvara it will only be right to leave out Somesvara's Samketa while considering the present problem. Parikh(r) 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 Kavyanusasana 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. Kavyaprakasa (Part II), Rajasthana Puratana Granthamala, 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 Somesvara's Samketa) is clearly based on Bhoja's SP (XI. pp. 469-480). The SP, however, does not mention Sakalakatha. Since Hemacandra adds its definition and example (the Samaradityakatha, a Jaina work) and Somesvara omits this example, it is reasonable to hold that Somesvara bor rows not directly from Bhoja but from Hemacandra. 8. Introduction to Kavyanusasana (p. CCC XXV) 9. Foreword to Kavyanusasana (p. 10) 10. Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa 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 Laksana 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 svatah sambhavi, Kavipraudhoktimatranispanna-sarirah and Kavinibaddhavaktrpraudhoktimatranispannasarirab as found in the Dhv. (pp. 72-73) and the KP. (IV. 39-40). Hemacandra criticises Dhanika for describing Jimutavahana as Dhirodatta (vide KS p. 123 II 19-21 and DR II. p. 37). If Mammata speaks of the eight kinds of Madhyama-kavya, 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 pratiksiptam" (p. 121 II. 9-10). He differs with Mammata when he remarks "Ayam bhavah-Yathanyaih pratikulavarnalaksano Dosa uktah..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 Arthalamkaras 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 vrtti 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 Alamkarasastra 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 Pramanamimamsa; he unambiguously and emphatically states; Anadaya evaita vidyah samksepa-vistara-vivaksaya navanavibhavanti, tattatkartykasca ucyante." It is interesting to note that even this statement of Hemacandra is based on Jayanta's Nyayamanjari (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 Misra to Bhamaha's list. Rudrata 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 Kavyalamkara. 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, Alamkaras, etc. Abhinavagupta, his celebrated commentator follows his lead in his Locana. Dhanika, the well-known commentator of Dasar paka quotes some 26 Prakrit verses in his Avaloka. The distinction of quoting hundreds of Prakrit verses, in his Sarasvartkanthabharana and Srngaraprakaka, 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 Visvanatha 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. Kavyadarsa 1.32. 3. Kavyalamkara II. 11-12. 4. Kavyalamkara IV. 11-15, 17-21. 5. Dhvanyaloka. 6. Bhoja's classification of Prakrit and Apabhra msa languages is unique. It may be shown in a tabular form as follows : Sahaja 11 Sanskrit-Sama Uttama |2 Desya Prakrit Laksita | 3 Maharastra 14 Saurasena Apabhramsa Madhyama 1 Avantya Latiya (etc.) Abhira Gaurjara (etc.) Kasmira All these varieties are duly illustrated. | 5 Paisaca Slista 16 Magadha Kanistha I Paurastya (etc.)

Page #168
156 Studies in the Alamkarikas 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 Alamkarikas, 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 Alamkara, 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 Gathas from the works on Sanskrit poetics and incorporated them, by way of an Appendix., in his critical edition of Gathasaptasati : Ubet dap Sapta Satakam des Hala. Dr. AM. Ghatage has corrected some six Prakrit verses in the footnotes to his article on Maharastii Language and Literature. Dr. A. N. Upadhye has corrected one very obscure Apabhramsa verse from Dhanika's Avaloka on Dasarupaka which correction is incorporated by T. Venkatacharya in his paper entitled 'An Appraisal of the Hindi Dasarupaka' 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......anurao" in Sangaraprakasa Vol. I, p. 120 has been considered very corrupt. The significant, word 'Anurao' and the word 'Asyasaka' 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 lunahi.....gumariphellaparanya" (?) in Locana on Dhvanyaloka I. 16 has been considered extremely corrupt and absolutely unintelligible. The commentator "Balapriyakara" confesses his inability to rostore the original passage. I came across a corresponding passage in Abhinavabhuraii (Vol. 1, Ch. VI, p. 305) which reads "Vardhate" lunahi..... Landha". This too is absolutely corrupt. Parisistam 11to the Volume (p. 383) notes : Dhvanyalokalocanasya talapatradarse. ....

Page #169
Sanskrit Sahityasastra "Paluddisi..dolvapaittha (?)" This, too, proved of little use in tracing the original verse. Somesvara'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: "Lavannujjilangu ghari dhollu paittha." The whole verse, however, is for the first time cited correctly in Kalpa-lataviveka (p. 123, 11 26-27) as follows: Divadi tellu nahi palu drammi gamittha | Lavannujjalangu ghari Dhollu paitha [Sanskrit Chaya: Dipake tailath nasti palam dramam gavesitam | Lavanyojjvalango grhe priyatamah 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 "Usurusumbhiyae." Desinamamala explains "Usumbhiyam tatha Usurusumbhiyam ruddhagalamh codanamh." In the light of these two relevant and useful suggestions the verse could be restored as: Usurusumbhiyae muhu cumbiu jena | Amiarasaghontanu padijanju tena | 157 [Sanskrit Chaya: Ruddhagalam rudatyah mukham cumbitam yena | Amrtarasaghotanam parijnatam tena ] A part of the Chaya given by the commentator, viz., 'Irsyasrusobhitaya' 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, Ravanavijaya, Anandavardhana's Visamabanalila, Vakpati's Maahumathavijaya, Caturmukha's Abdhimathana, Maricavadha, etc. Available Prakrit Sources Dr. Raghavan observes in his Magnum opus (Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa, 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 Sr Pra." 7. Dr. A.M. Ghatge: Maharastri 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 Srngaraprak 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 gathas cited from Lilavatt by way of illustrations. Next in popularity stands Pravarasena's Setubandha, also styled Ravanavaho. Among other works drawn on are: Vajjalagga, Galdavaho, Karpuramanjari, and Balaramayana. A few stray verses are cited which are the composition of Dhanika, Bhaffenduraja," 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 - Svadukavyatasonmisram Sastranapyupayunjate | Prathamalidhamadhavah pibanti katu bhesajam || 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. taMtra kAmasya saphala jAtimulabhata yAtyantaparicitarakhena sarvAn prati hRdyatA / Abhinavabharati, Vol. I, p. 267. . bhAvAntarebhyaH sarvebhyo ratibhAvaH prakRSyate / 12. zRGgAraraso hi saMsAriNAM niyamenAnubhavaviSayatvAt sarvara sebhyaH kamanIyatayA pradhAnabhUtaH / 14. vineyAnunmukhIkartuM kAvyazobhArthameva vA / tadviruddharasasparzastadaGgAnAM na duSyati // Srigaraprakasa XIII, p. 565. --Dhvanyaloka III, p. 397. 13. Cf. the famous Gudajihvika-nyaya-The maxim of the tongue (smeared) with treacle'. -Dhvanyaloka, III. 30.

Page #171
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 159 He quotes an example where the Santa sentiment which is predominant is touched up by the sentiment of Stngara 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 Alamkara Sastra with the help of erotic examples; and his lead is enthusiastically followed by later Alamkarikas. Are Prakrit Verses Obscene ? In some quarters it is alleged that the Alamkarikas 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 Bana, Kuntaka have paid ungrudgingly and unreservedly handsome tributes to Satavahana and Pravarasena for their Prakrit works. This fact corroborates the statement that there was integration of Sanskrit and Prakrit Studies. Naturally, the Alamkarikas appreciated first-rate Prakrit works and freely drew upon them for illustrations in their Alamkara works. It is, therefore, nothing but an insult to these Alamkarikas 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 Rajasekhara in his Kavyamimamsa16. His defence of obscenity in literature is, however, not very convincing. To say "Because the Vedas and the Sastras contain obscene matter one should not take exception to obscenity in literature" is not at all logical. The Alankarikas 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 ..kintu mattAGganApAGgabhaGgalolaM hi jIvitam / / -Dhvanyaloka III. 30-31. 16. Kavyamimamsa (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 Sahsdayas. 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 Alamkarikas quoted such verses as specimens of Dhvanikavya 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 Alamkarikas 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 Alamkarikas 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) sulabhAmavamanyate durlabhAmAkAGkSata iti prAyovAdaH / -Kamasutra 5.1.40. (ii) yadvAmAbhinivezitvaM yatazca vinivAryate / durlabhatvaM yato nAryAH kAminaH sA parA ratiH // - Natyasastra XXII. 207. (iii) tat khalu surataM surataM kRcchraprApyaM yadanyanArISu / -Kuttanimata, v. 812, cd. (iv) parastrIgamanopAyaH kavibhirnopadizyate / sundara' kiMtu kAvyAGgametattana nidarzyate // . vAmatA durlabhavaM ca strINAM yA ca nivAraNA / tadeva paJcabANasya manye paramamAyudham // -Rudrata : Srigaratilaka II. 29-30. (v) yatra niSedhavizeSaH sudurlabhatvaM ca yanmRgAkSINAm / ___tatraiva nAgarANAM nirbharamAsajyate hRdayam / -Visnugupta Samhita. (vi) zuddhasnehanibandhA paravadhUH puNyaiH paraiH prApyate / --Subhasitavali (vii) svadArAdau hi dharmasyApyanupravezena kevalasyaiva kAmasya phalahetubhAvo na syAt / -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 mugraM prasAdi gahanaM vikRtaM (? vivRta) ca vastu / yadvApyavastu kavibhAvakabhAvyamAnaM tannAsti yanna rasabhAvamupaiti loke // . . -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 Sragaraprakasa (SP) Bhoja mentions in one breath three Prakrit mahakavyas : Ravana-vijaya (RV), Harivijaya (HV) and Setubandha (SB), composed in asvasakas 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 Sarasvatikanthabharana (SK) which are in Mahasastri 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 Alamkarikas, 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 Mahakavya, Bhoja in his SP and following him, Hemacandra in his Kayyanusasana (KS) give us the following information about HV : 1. Kavi-prasamsa yatha Ravana-vijaye saalaM ceaNibaMdhaM dohi paehiM kalusa pasaNNaM ca tthiaN| jANaMti kaINa kaI suddha-sahAvehi loaNehi va him|| [sakalameva nibandhaM dvAbhyAM padAbhyAM kaluSaM prasannazca sthitam / jAnanti kavInAM kavayaH zuddha-svabhAvAbhyAM locanAbhyAmiva hRdayam // ] 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 Vakatakas. 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): itivRttavazAyAtA kathaJcidrasAnanuguNAM sthitiM tyaktvA punarutprekSyApyantarAbhISTarasocita-kathonnayo vidheyaH-yathA kAlidAsaprabandheSu / yathA ca sarvasenaviracite harivijaye / Abhinavagupta thus explains in his Locana (p. 335) : ...harivijaye kAntAnunayanAGgatvena pArijAtaharaNAdinirUpitamitihAsemvadRSTamapi /

Page #175
Sanskrit Sahityasastra }63 It was 'alyasaka-bandha.' Its prevailing metre was skandhaka, (and "galitakas' were employed at the end of the asvasakas). 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-grismavarsadi), the sunset (arkastamayavarpanam mentioned by Hemacandra but through oversight dropped in the printed Mysore edition of SP), the hero, his vehicle-Garutmat [vahana-varnanam yatha Harsacarita-KadambariHarivijaya-Ravanavijayadau hastyasva-garutmat-puspakadi-varnanadi (? ni)], his duta (Satyakab? Satyakih), his (Nayaka's, Hari's) march (Prayanam..abhimatartha-siddhaye yatha Visnob (Hareh-Krsnasya) parijataharanaya 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 (madhupanamgosthigrhe..yatha Harivijaye) and the removal of Satyabhama's jealous anger by effort [by Hari by winning from Indra the Parijata tree and planting it in front of Satyabhama's palace-manapagamo dvidha-prayatnikab naimittikasca. Prayatniko Harivijaye Satyabhamayah. It may be noted here that the printed text of SP reads "manapagamo yatha ramatankannisa'carinam (?) Setubandhe." It needs to be corrected to "Manapagamo dvidha-prayatnikah naimittikasca | Prayatniko Harivijaye Satyabhamayah Naimittiko Ramallankanisacarinam 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: evaM sahaja saukumArya subhagAni kAlidAsa - sarvasenAdInAM kAvyAni dRzyante tatra sukumArasvarUpaM caNIyam / 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 : aGgasyApradhAnasyAtivistareNa varNanaM....tathA hi harivijaye IrSyAkupita satyabhAmAnunayana-pravRttasya hareH pArijAtaharaNa-vyApAreNopakrAnta- vipralambhasya varNanaprastAve galtikanibandhana- rasikatayA kavinA samudravaNanamantarA gaDusthAnIyaM vistRtam 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 akavya. 4. In his paper "Maharastri 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 Srngaraprakasa (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 Chaya to facilitate understanding. 1) Asyaiva Kavipraudhoktimatra-nispanna-sarirasyartha-saktyudbhave prabhede pada-prakasakata yatha Harivijaye - cU kurAvasaM chnn-psr-mhggh-mnnhr-suraamo| apaNAmi pi gahi kusuma-sareNa mahumAsalacchIeN muhaM // [cUtAGkurAvataMsaM kSaNa-prasara-mahArgha-manohara-surAmodam / / asamarpitamapi gRhItaM kusumazareNa madhumAsa-lakSmyA mukham // ] Dhvanyaloka III, p. 298 2) Udbhedesu vyakto yathaMantesi mahumaha-panaam...... (SK p. 550, v. 235) maMtesi (? maNNesi) mahumahapaNa saMdANesi tiasesa pAava-raaNaM / ojasu (? o jaha) muddhasahAvaM saMbhAvesu suraNAha jAava-lo // [mantrayase (1 manyase) madhumatha-praNayaM saMdAnayasi tridazeza pAdaparatnam / tyaja (1 o jahihi) mugdha-svabhAvaM saMbhASaya suranAtha yAdava-lokam / / ] This verse speaks of Madhumatha (=Hari), 'padaparatna (=the heavenly Parijata tree), 'tridasesa' and 'Suranatha' (=Indra) and the 'Yadava-loka'. Bhoja's Vrtti on this verse runs as follows : Atra mayavino mahendrasyabhiprayah satyakena vyaktamevodbhinna iti vyakto'yamudbhedah | , . , . That Satyaka played the role of a duta in HV we come to know from Bhoja's statement in SP : .. Dutas tridha nisseparthah parimitarthah sasanaharasca Tatra nissstartho yatha udyegaparvani vasudevah Harivijaye va 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 Satyaki (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 Dhvanikara from HV. sajjei surahimAso Na tAM paNAmei (pA. bhe. Na dAva appei) juai-jaNa-lakkha-sahe / ahiNava-sahaAra-muhe Nava-pallava-pattale aNaMgassa sare / [sajjayati surabhi-mAso na tAvadarpayati yuvati-jana-lakSya-sahAn / abhinava-sahakAra-mukhAnnava-pallava-patralAnanaGgasya zarAn // ] Dhvanyaloka II. 24-25.

Page #177
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 165 Krsna's charioteer. Krsna, in accordance with the science of politics, must have first sent his duta to Indra to persuade him to hand over peacefully the heavenly Parijata 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 'caturatabhimanah.' There it opens with the words : "Bahumannasi hari-panaam." 3) Bhava pradhano (rasalamkara-sankarah) yatha The Damsana-suhae. ..... (Vol. II, p. 458) tIe daMsaNa-suhae paNaa-kkhalaNa-jaNio muhammi maNahare / roso vi harai hia maapaMko vva maalaMchaNammi NisaNNo // [tasyA darzana-subhage praNaya-skhalana-janito mukhe manohare / roSo'pi harati hRdayaM mada-paGka iva mRgalAJchane niSaNNaH // ] This verse is further on (p. 1007) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'mananubandha eva vaividhyam'. It is also cited in SK (p. 724 v. 485) to illustrate 'ratavupamayah sankarah'. The comment on this verse given here and in SK is almost identical. It refers to Hari (the speaker of this verse), Rukmini, Satyabhama and Parijata -manjari and thus helps us to identify that it is drawn from HV. 4) [Samanesu manadanadyamarsanamirsya |] Tasya anubandho yatha- . Kuvia a Saccahama . .... (Vol. II, p. 585) . kuviA a saccahAmA same vi vahuANa Navara mANa-kkhalaNe / pAaDia-hiaa-sAro pemmAsaMghasariso paadraha maNNU // [kupitA ca satyabhAmA same'pi vadhUnAM kevalaM mAna-skhalane / prakaTita-hRdaya-sAraH premAzaMsA-sadRzaH pravartate manyuH / / ] 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 yatha'. In the Vrtti on this verse Bhoja says....."Karanabhutenaivatmani Rukminyam ca priyapremnah parimanam Satyabhama pratyayayati....". So we can safely infer that this verse belongs to HV. 5) Dhiroddhata-dhrsta-madhyamo yatha Sira (? Sura)-kusumehi kalusiarn ......(Vol. III, p. 603) sura-kusumehi kalusi jai tehiM cia puNo pasAemi tumaM / to pemmassa kisoari avarAhassa a Na me khamaM hoi kaaM // [sura-kusumaiH kaluSitAM yadi tereva punaH prasAdayAmi tvAm / tadA premNaH kRzodari, aparAdhasya ca na me kSamaM bhavati kRtam // ] This verse is cited by Bhoja in his SK (p. 655 v. 287) with the introductory remark : "Tatraiva prema-pramanarthanvayo yatha." SK reads the fourth quarter slightly differently : "Avarahassa a na me kaam anuruam" (Sk. chaya : Aparadhasya ca na me krtamanurupam").

Page #178
166 Studies in Bhoja's comment on this verse in SK runs as follows : "Atra Rukminyah surakusuma-manjari datta mama tu suratarureva preyasa pratipannastadahamasyah sahasragunatvena priyatameti Satyabhama svapremanam mimite". As the nayika, Rukmini, the pratinayika Satyabhama, and the 'surataru' (the heavently Parijata tree) are clearly mentioned in this gloss we ascribe the present verse to HV. 6) Desa-kalavabodhanabhimano yatha Tam tiasa-kusumadamam.....(Vol. III, p 748) taM tiasa-kusuma-dAmaM hariNA nnimmhia-surhi-gNdhaamoaN| appaNai pi dUmia-paNaiNi-hiaeNa ruppiNIa viiNNaM // [tat tridaza-kusuma-dAma hariNA nirgata-surabhi-gandhAmodam / AtmIyamapi dUna (saMtApita)-praNayinI-hRdayena rukmiNyai vitIrNam // ] __Bhoja quotes this verse on p. 812 to illustrate Jyesthavisayah prakasanuragah' and further on (p. 1024) to illustrate vipriyakaranam', one of the 'manotpatti-karanas.'. ___He also cites this verse in his SK (p. 678 v. 351) to illustrate 'Pratinayika'. The mention of Hari, Rukmini, offended beloved (Satyabhama), and 'tridasa-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 (Satyabhama) perfectly agrees with the statement of Hari in the verse 'sura-kusumehi kalusiam' etc., given above and thus strengthens our inference. 7) Maharambhatabhimano yatha Aira anemi tuham......(Vol. III, p. 748) airA ANemi tuhaM amaAsaa-lola-bhamara-laghia-kusumaM / tiasa-gaa-dANa-sIhara-tusAra-taNNAa-pallavaM sagga-dumaM // acirAdAnayAmi tavAmRtAsvAda-lola-bhramara-laGghita-kusumam / tridaza-gaja-dAna-zIkara-tuSArAti-pallavaM svargadrumam // ] Bhoja cited this verse again (Vol. IV, p. 1009) to illustrate "danaprakaresvatisandhanam'. Here we find Hari promising his beloved (Satyabhama) to get her the celestial tree (Parijata). That the epic HV contained this episode we gather from the following remark of Abhinavagupta: "Harivijaye kantanunayanangatvena parijataharanadi nirupitamitihasesvadrstamapi |" (Locana on DHV III. 11). With a view to appeasing Satyabhama who was full of jealous anger because of his gift of celestial flowers to Rukmini, Hari makes this promise to her. ___ 8) Pratinayikasudatta (nayika) yatha Anjapulaubbheo .....(Vol. III, p. 773.) ANiapulaubbheo savatti-paNaa-paridhUsarammi vi gurue / piadaMsaNe pavaDDhai maNNuTTANe vi ruppiNIe pahariso /

Page #179
Sanskrit Sahityasastra [AnIta pulako bhedaH sapatnI praNaya-paridhUsare'pi guruke / priya darzane pravardhate manyu-sthAne'pi rukmiNyAH praharSaH / / ] 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 "janmantara-satiskarajanitah sahajo (ragah). 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 ) [Pratinayikasu] uddhata yatha-- Kuvia a saccabhama..... (Vol. III, p 773) This verse has been already presented. Vide No. 4 supra. 10) [Atha prakasanuragah ...] jyestha-visayo yatha-- Tam tiasa-kusuma-damam..... (Vol. III, p. 812) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 6 supra. M) [Atha prakasanuragah) kanisthavisayo yatha Kuvia a saccahama.... ( Vol. III, p. 812 ) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 12) Tasya (dhira-madhyaya) eva sambhoge (anubhava-sampad ) yatha To se rubbhanta ccia..... (Vol. III, p. 840) 167 to se ruSyaMta cia hiaa-viaMbhaMta darisa - beDacchaliA / pAapaDiasta hariNo paDiA puDI vAha- salila- ttheSA // [tatastasyA rudhyamAnA eva hRdaya-vijRmbhamANa- harSavegocchalitAH / pAda - patitasya hareH patitAH pRSThe vASpa-salila-bindavaH ||] This verse is cited further on (p. 1C41 ) to illustrate 'Punarbhava', one of the Manopalantis and still further on (1209) Priyotthapana'. The verse describes the various anubhavas of Satyabhama when Hari fell prostrate at her feet with a view to appeasing her anger. 13) Mimite paricchinatti pramanamasaviti manah | yatha Kuvia a saccabhama.... ( Vol. III, p. 860) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 14) Priyadisu vyaja- nindotpraso yatha-- Sa kusumehi guruia.... (Vol. IV, p. 990) This verse, especially its second half, is quite corrupt. It is further on (p. 1212) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'upalambhah'. 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: sA kusumehi guruhaA maha vi kao suhaa daMsaNeNa pasAo / kaha a Na pasAa - saho laggau piA - hiaassa a imassa tujjha // [sA kusumairgurukRtA mamApi kRtassubhaga darzanena prasAdaH / kathazca na prasAda - zabdo lagatu priyA - hRdayasya cAsya taba // ]

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 Satyabhama, the rival heroine, who addresses these words of artful praise to Hari who has honoured Rukmini, 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) Anubhayapekso manyur mantra-yutam yatha Kuvia a saccabhama ..... (Vol. IV. p. 991) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 16) Tatraiva visayavyavsttir yatha Samvaddhia-santosa ..... (Vol. IV. p. 1006) Hersfeer-ratet gja-maya-af0c7ET-FESTI viuNia-maNa-saMtAvA jAA savisesa-dUsahA sasi-kiraNA // [stafa Hatar: porte -fur-572-afsar: fayfora-HTERATAT Frar afaitag:het: Tfa-facut: ll] As the verse mentions 'Kaustubha-mani' and as it is composed in the skandhaka metre we may not be wrong in inferring that it belonged to HV. 17) Tatraiva (=mananubandha eva) vaividhyam yatha Tie damsavanaamha (?)..... (Vol. IV. p. 1007) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 3 supra. 18) Manapanayane Sama-dana-bheda-danda-yoga mana-bhangopayah'.... Tatra sama-prakaresu.... pranamo yathaTo ia pianuvattana .... (Vol. IV. p. 1009) at 537 ET-378-HITO-AS FE37-f8373110, ATAE ESTI I . . saMbhAvia ccia hio hariNA pAapaDaNammi tIeN amariso // . tita iti sura-taru-kAraNa-mukulita-hRdayAyAH sAvazeSa-laghukaH / saMbhAvita eva hRto hariNA pAda-patane tasyA amarSaH // ] 1 v. 1. Pjanuvattana (Sk : priyanuvartana) This verse is further on (p. 1041) cited to illustrate 'unmulanam', one of the 'manopasantis' and still further on (p. 1209) to illustrate 'pranipatah'. Since the verse mentions Hari and his 'pada-patana' to appease the anger of his beloved (Satyabhama) caused by 'sura-taru (=Parijata-)' [manjari offered to Rukmini] we can confidently assert that it is drawn from HV. 19) Dana-prakaresvatisandhanam yatha --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 'aira anemi tuham, etc. Vide No. 7 supra. 20) Athato manotpatti-karanani... Tesu vipriyakaranam yatha Tam tiasa-kusuma-danim (?) ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1024)

Page #181
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 169 This verse, no doubt, is corrupt but it is easily identified to be the same as "Tam tiasa-kusuma-damam" etc. Vide No. 6 supra. 21) Atha manopasantayah | .... Tesu vipaksabhibhavo yatha Dho (? Tho) osaranta-rosam ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1040) This verse is further on (p. 1211) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'mukhaprasadah.' 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 Jatih (vidhimukhena). There it is presented almost in its correct form : thoosaraMtarosaM thoatthoa-parivaDDhamANa-paharisaM / FIT 31 TTETTE (? TAIS) JET-TA137-FET to 11 [stokApasaradroSaM stoka-stoka-parivardhamAna-praharSam / arafa T T-9417? gt-qa-) TATTFITA-FTTH TETT A 11] Bhoja's comment on this verse in SK specifically mentions Satyabhama 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 manopasantayah .... Tesu calanam yatha 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 'priyagama-varta". There it is presented in its correct form : aha Agao tti Navaria accAsaNNo vi saccabhAmAra harI / pariagamuha ccia suo vAhajalaMtaria-loagAe~ Na diTTho // [athAgata iti sahasAtyAsanno'pi satyabhAmayA hariH / parijanamukhAdeva zruto bASpajalAntarita-locanayA na dRSTaH // ] As the verse mentions the names of Hari and Satyabhama and is in the skandhaka metre we may confidently assert that it is drawn from HV. 23) (Atha manopasantayah | .... Tesu) unmulanam yatha Lolaa-sura-aru-karana ..... (Vol. IV, p. 1041) This verse, though somewhat corrupt, is easily identified to be the same as "To ia sura-aru-karana", etc., which has been already dealt with. Vide No. 18 supra. 24) [Atha manopasantayah | ..... tesu) punarbhavo yatha Tose kubbhantam cchia .... (Vol. IV p. 1041) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 12 supra. 25) [Atha mananubhava-saukhyani Tesu....) vipaksabhibhavo yatha ..... sadumiasavatti .... (Vol. IV, p. 1046) This verse, though it shows gaps and is corrupt, is easily identified to be the same verse as "Tie savisesa-dumia' etc., cited further on (p. 1224) to illustrate 'songaraveddhih'. The verse is cited also in SK (p. 678 y. 350) to illustrate 'Katha. vyapini nayika' ; 22

Page #182
170 tIeN savisesa - dUmia-savatti - hiaAeN NivvalaMta - siNehaM / pia - garuiAe NimiaM sohagga-guNANa aggabhUmIeN paaM || [ tayA savizeSa-dUna ( = saMtApita ) - sapatnI- hRdayayA spaSTIbhUta-sneham / priya - gurukRtayA ( gauravitayA ) nyastaM saubhAgya-guNAnAmagrabhUmyAM padam // ] Studies in The context is of 'vipaksabhibhava'. The verse speaks of the nayika (Rukmini) as 'dumia-savatti-hiaa' and 'piya (=Hari-) garuia'; and we know from SK (p. 678 v. 350) that the present verse illustrates 'Kathavyapini nayika' and the succeeding verse (p. 678 v. 351) prati-nayika' where we have a reference to Hari, Rukmini, and the pranayinf offended by Hari (that is Satyabhama) by his gift of 'tridasa-kusumadama'; we may therefore reasonably draw the inference that the present verse is drawn from HV. 26) [Atha mananubhava-saukhyani | Tesu] labha-viseso yathaDaratthavia-sura-dumam - (Vol. IV, p. 1047) dAra- via - sura-dumaM taM cia sagga-kusumovaAragghaviaM / aNNaM ca saccavijjai pariosa paritta parikSaNa tIeN gharaM // [ dvAra- sthApita- sura- drubhaM tadeva svarga-kusumopacArAdhitam / anyacca dRzyate paritoSa-parIta parijanaM tasyA gRham // ] This verse is further on (p. 1221) cited by Bhoja to illustrate 'parijanapramodah'. As there is the mention of the celestial tree (Parijata) planted in front of her (Satyabhama's) mansion we may safely take that the verse is drawn from HV. 27 ) [ Daivarthapannesu] .... upanagaro yatha-- Aha dittha-vikkamammi.... ( Vol. IV, p. 1058 (a) aha diTTha- vikkamammi vi siNeha saccavi [ a ] garua - viNivAa - haA / ciMtei saccabhAmA suraaru laMbhaTThie gaammi mahumahe || [ atha dRSTa-vikrame'pi sneha - darzita- guru ( ka ) - vinipAta bhayA / cintayati satyabhAmA surataru - lAbhArthini ( = lAbhArtha ) gate madhumathe // ] As the verse speaks of Satyabhama (worrying about Hari's safety), Madhumatha's (Hari's) departure for 'sura- taru' (Parijata) we may reasonably say that it is drawn from HV. 28) [Evam katha-sarira-vyapika nayika....] tat-pratiyogini pratinayika yathaKuvia a saccabhama.... ( Vol. IV, p. 1172) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 4 supra. 29) Pada-patanam pranipatah | Yatha To ia sura-aru-karana....(Vol. IV, p. 1209) This verse is the same as verse No. 18 supra-of course ignoring the corrupt readings. 30) Pada-patanam pranipatah | Yatha Tle hiaanucintia....(Vol. IV, p. 1209 )

Page #183
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 171 tIe hiaANuciMtia-maNorahabbhahia-saMgama-suhAgU harI / hasiro vi dohi kohi paDirubbhaMta-mauDo gao ccia calaNe // [tasyA hRdayAnucintita-manorathAbhyadhika-saGgama-sukhAya hariH / hasanazIlo'pi dvAbhyAM karAbhyAM pratirudhyamAna-mukuTo gata eva caraNayoH // ] Since the verse mentions Hari falling prostrate at the feet of his beloved (Satyabhama) we may infer that it is drawn from HV. 31) Priya-pranama-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 manakalusyapagamo mukha-prasadah | Yatha Thovosaranta-rosam....(Vol. IV, p. 1211) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 21 supra. 33) Vyalikodghattanamupalambhah | Yatha Sa kusumehi guru.... (Vol. IV, p. 1212) This verse has been already dealt with. Vide No. 14 supra. 34) [Tatra ratiprakarsa-nimittabhilasaniyalinganadyavapti-hetavah priyagamana varta priyasakhi-vakyadayah sambhoga-sabdavacya bhavanti.... ] Tesu priyagamodghosanam priyagamavarta | Yatha Aha agao tti navaria .... (Vol. IV, p. 1219) This verse has been already treated of. Vide No. 22 supra. 35) Kamituragamanam priyabhyagamah | Yatha Ua java sa kilammai..... (Vol. IV, p. 1220) ua jApa sA kilammai appakaa-viraha-vittharaMtANusaA / tA patto jaha icchA taha Nivvattia-maNoraho mahumahaNo // [ pazya yAvatsA klAmyati AtmakRta-viraha-vistIryamANAnuzayA / tAvatprApto yathecchA tathA nirvartita-manoratho madhumathanaH // ] In this verse there is a clear mention of Madhumathana (=Hari) who returns to his home-town accomplishing the desired object (=Parijata tree, in the present case) and to his beloved (Satyabhama) 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 Nimmahia-kusuma-parimala-hia-hiaAe vi mahuarAvali-caDulA / paDhamaM piammi diTThI pacchA tIe surapAavammi NisaNNA // [ nirgata kusuma-parimala-hRta-hRdayAyA api madhukarAvalicaTulA / . prathamaM priye dRSTiH pazcAttasyAH surapAdape niSaNNA // ] As the verse mentions 'sura-padapa' (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) to se piammi rasiA tA duma-raaNammi ccia uppala-suhaA / pariosa-rasuvvellA aNurAa-aMdoliA Nisammai diTThI // [tatastasyAH priye rasitA tatto dramaratna evotplsubhgaa| paritoSa-rasocchalitAnurAgAndolitA niSIdati dRSTiH // ] As the verse mentions 'druma--ratna' (Parijata) we may not be wrong in suggesting that it is drawn from HV. 40-41) Rati-prakarsodayah srigara-vrddhih | Yatha Ua nia-paavaraane....(Vol. IV, p. 1224) ua Nia-pAava-raaNe ia aNurAa-pisuNaM piammi bhaNaMte / / savisesa-laddha-pasaro ADhatto tI pasariu parioso // [pazya nija-pAdapa-ratna ityanurAga-pizunaM priye bhaNati / savizeSa-labdhaprasara ArabdhastasyAH prasatu paritoSaH // ] As this verse mentions 'padapa-ratna' (Parijata) we may not be wrong in saying that it is probably drawn from HV. tIe savisesa-dUmia-savatti-hiaAe...... This verse has been already treated of. Vide No. 25 supra. Note : Sahianahaddhahimuham (?) - (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 : sahiaNahaddhAhimuhaM dhAraia visesa vi akkhiviUNa / juaIhi paDiNiutto avaboijjai sasaMbhamaM dUijaNo // .. -SP, p. 951 and, sahiaNa-hatthAhi muhaM dara-raia-visesa smkkhetuunn| juaI hi valia-visamaM appAhijjai sasaMbhamaM dUi-jaNo // . -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 : sahiaNahatthAhi muhaM dara-raia-visesa vi akkhiviUNa / juaIhi paDiNiutto avaghohijjai (pA. bhe. appAhijjai) sasaMbhamaM dUi-jaNo //

Page #185
Sanskrit Sahityasastra [ sakhIjana-hastAd mukhaM dara- racita - vizeSakamapi AkSipya / yuvatibhiH pratinivRtto'vabodhyate (pA. bhe. saMdizyate) sasaMbhramaM dUtIjanaH // ] 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 Cakravaka birds separated from each other, the amorous activities of the nayikas, 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 Maharastri 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 chaya. 1) Vikrtaivopameyasyotkarsapattya yathaRattuppala-dala- soha--- ( SK p. 438) ratuppala-dala-sohA tIeN vi casaammi surahi vAruNi bharie / a-behi maNaharA paDimA paDiehi loaNehi lahuiA // [ raktotpala-dala- zobhA tasyA api caSake surabhi vAruNIbhRte / mada-tAmrAbhyAM manoharA pratimA-patitAbhyAM locanAbhyAM laghukRtA // ] 2 ) Drstanta parikaro yatha 173 Majjha--tthia-dharaniharam-- ( SK p. 510) majjhaTThia dharaNiharaM jhijjai a samuddamaMDalaM ubvelaM / rai-raha-vea-vialiaM paDia via ukkaDakkha-koDiM cakkaM // [ madhya-sthita-dharaNidharaM kSIyate ca samudramaNDalamudvelam / ravi-ratha-vega - vigalitaM patitamivotkaTAkSakoTi cakram // ] 3) Arthaksto rupake (parikaro) yatha Viade gaana-samudde--(SK p. 521) farDe gaNa-samudde diase sUreNa maMdareNa va mahie / NIi maikhSa saMjhA tissA maggeNa amaakalaso vva sasI // [ vikaTe gagana samudre divase sUryeNa mandareNeva mathite / niryAti madireSa saMdhyA tasyA mArgeNAmRtakalaza iva zazI // ] 4) Ubhayakrtasca virodha-slese (parikaro ) yatha Raiamunalaharano---- (SK p. 521 ) raia - muNAlAharaNo NaliNa-dala- sthaia - pIvara-tthaNa- alaso / vaha piasaMgamammi vi maaNAappappasAhaNaM juaIjaNo || [ racita- mRNAlAbharaNo nalina-dala-sthagita - pIvara-stana- kalazaH / vahati priya saMgame'pi madanAkalpa - prasAdhanaM yuvati-janaH // ]

Page #186
174 Studies in 5) Ekasyatisayadhikye atisayi (samsthananuragah) yathaDittha kuvianunaa--(SP. Vol. III, p. 794) didA kuANuNaA piA sahassa-jaNa-pellaNaM pi vishi| jassa NisaNNAe~ ure sirIe pemmeNa lahuio appANo / [dRSTA kupitAnunayA priyA sahasrajana-pIDanamapi visoDham / yasya niSaNNayorasi zriyA premNA laghUkRta AtmA // ] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 671) to illustrate "premaprakare vipriyadibhirapyavinasaniyo nityah". ... 6) [Naimittikanuragah].... jyautsno yatha 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 : aNuNaa-suhaM Na pattaM piAhi daiesu khijjai aghi Na calaNo / osAriammi paDhamaM dUIe vva dosiNIe mANa-ggahaNe // [ anunaya-sukhaM na prAptaM priyAbhirdayiteSu khidyate'pi na caraNa: / apasArite prathama dUtyeva jyotsnayA mAnagrahaNe // ] . 7) Athamisameva bhedascatur-vimsatirmana-bheda-jataya ucyante | .... Tesu .... vallabhadau vai (paritya) hetuh kopo.... yatha vaPatthanti maana-pasara .... (Vol. IV, p. 990) padaThaMti maaNa-pasara-ppasAa-samuhA vilAsiNI-samallAvA / tIe uNa tassa dIrai rosa-parAhutta-jaMpiehi vi hia / / [ paThyante madana-prasara-prasAda-saMmukhA vilAsinI-samullApAH / tayA punastasya dIryate roSa-parAGmukha-jalpitairapi hRdayam // ] . 8) Mano drsi yatha Kisa imesu bahuso . . . . (Vol. IV, p. 1011) kIsa a imesu bahuso visama paMta-taliNaMjaNa-cchavi-kalusA / dIhAdhaMgesu tujjha parivaDDaMti NaaNesu vAhuppIDA / / [ kasmAccAnayobahuzo viSamaprAnta-talinAJjana-cchavi-kaluSAH / dIrghApAGgayostava parivardhante nayanayorbASpotpIDAH // ] 9) Mano vaktre yatha Kisa maliavaamsam.... (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 'priyabhyupapattih'. The text of this verse is corrupt at all the three places. It may, tentatively, be restored as follows: kIsa maliAdhaaMsaM vaaNNa-NIsAsa-paNhuAhararAaM / vaaNaM vahasi kisoari kara-saMkAmia-kaola-pattAlekkha // .

Page #187
Sanskrit Sahityasastra [ kasmAd malinAvataMsaM vadana- niHzvAsa prasnutAdhara- rAgam / vadanaM vahasi kRzodari kara-saMkrAmita kapola - patrAlekhyam // ] 10 ) Priyayah pravrtti-dusanamupalambhah | ... ... Tesu prakrtistho yathaAkkhandie vi panae ..... (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 : akkhaMDie vi paNae akaammi vi vippie akajje vi majjha / jAo cia vaNijjaM tuha rosammi daie NimittaM pi piaM || [ akhaNDite'pi praNaye'kRte'pi vipriyeskArye'pi mama / jAtameva vacanIyaM tava roSe dayite nimittamapi priyam // ] 11) Atha manoddipananitesu vipaksa-sannidhir yatha-- Sarisa-padivakkha-purao.....(Vol. IV, p. 1028) sarisa paDivakkha- purao hiaammi auvva mANa-bhaMga - kalusie / sama- suha- dukkhammi jaNe virikkaseso vi se Na mAi amarito || [ sadRza-pratipakSapurato hRdaye'pUrva-mAna-bhaGga-kaluSite / sama-sukha-duHkhe jane vibhaktazeSo'pi tasyA na mAtyamarSaH // ] 12) Atha manoddipanani ...... | Tesu sakhi-vailaksyam yatha-- Gotta-kkhaliammi pie .... (Vol. IV, p. 1028) gottakkhaliammi pie maNNe pAaDia-sahi- Nivesia NaaNaM / AUramANabAhaM kIeN vi NivvoliA haraM NIsasiaM || [ gotra - skhalite priye manye prakaTita-sakhI- nivezita- nayanam / * ApUryamANa- bASpaM kayApi malinAdharaM niHzvasitam // ] 13) Atha mana-bhanga - karanani | ... Tesu mado yathaKheppanti appane ccia (?) .... (Vol. IV, p. 1038) ghepyaMti appaNa cicaa kaAvarAhA vi kAmiNIhi piaamA / kiM ia sikkhAvaMto avarajjhaI vi piaM karei mahumao || [ gRhyanta Atmanaiva kRtAparAdhA api kAminIbhiH priyatamAH / kimiti zikSayannaparAdhyatyapi priyaM karoti madhumadaH // ] 14-15) Atha manopasama-laksanani | ..... Tesu nayana- nimilanam yatha-- Daialoa-paatta....(Vol. IV, p. 1041) i) daiAloa -paattA atocchINa pasarata- bAha-vialiA / maulai aMbua-pasarA tIse daMsaNa suhaM Na pAvai diThThI || [dayitAloka - pravRttA anto'kSNoH prasaradvASpa - vikalitA / mukulayati ambuja- prasarA tasyA darzana-sukhaM na prApnoti dRSTiH // ] ii) Mukha-prasado yatha-- 175 Aloie ccia pie... (Vol. IV, p. 1041)

Page #188
176 Studies in Aloie ccia pie Thavio tIe maaNeNa mohnn-suho| kusuma-dhaNummi vi bANo valaia-viSbhama-guNe muhammi pahariso // [ Alokita eva priye sthApitastasyAna mohana-sukhadaH subhagaH / kusuma-dhanuSyapi bANo valayita-vibhrama-guNe mukhe praharSaH // ] 16) Nayika yatha Avauhia-puvva-dise (? dise)......(Vol. IV, p. 1174) avaUhia-puvvadise samaaM joNhAe~ sevia-paosa-muheM / mAi Na jhijjau raaNI avara-disAhutta-patthiammi miaMke / [avagRhita pUrvadize samakaM jyotsnayA sevita-pradoSa-mukhe / mAtaH ( sakhi ) na kSIyatAM rajanI, apara-dizAbhimukha-prasthite mRgAGke // ] This verse is cited in SK (p. 679) to illustrate 'ubha yabhasa. . 17) Pratinayika yathaDura-padibaddha-rae....(Vol. IV, p. 1174) dUra-paDibaddharAe avaUhaMtammi diNaare avara-disaM / asahaMti vva kilimmai piaama-paccakkha-dUsaNaM dinnlcchii|| . [ dUra-pratibaddharAge'vagRhamAne dinakare'paradizam / asahamAneva klAmyati priyatama-pratyakSa-dUSaNaM dinalakSmIH // 1 This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 453) to illustrate Samadhi (niradbheda variety). 18) Upa-nayika yatha- . Oratta-pankaa-muhim....(Vol. IV, p. 1175) oratta-paMkaa-muhiM vammaha-NaDi va salila-saaNa-NisaNaM / alliai tIra-NaliNi vAAe~ gamei sahaariM cakkAo / / [uparakta-paGkaja-mukhIM manmatha-naTitAmiva (athavA, kheditAmiva) salilazayana-niSaNNAm / AliGgati tIra-nalinI vAcA gamayati sahacarI cakravAkaH // ] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK to illustrate 'tiryagabhasah'. 19-20) Nisa-prathama-yama-karma pradosikam | Yatha Sajjijjai uvaaro....(Vol. IV, p. 1186) i) sajjijjai uvaAro aho rai vi puNo raijjai saaNaM / saMharia vANi-atthA (?) appAhia-patthiA vi rubbhai dUI // [sajjI kriyate upacAraH, aho racitamapi punA racyate zayanama / saMsmRtya vANyarthAn (?) saMdiSTa-prasthitApi rudhyate dUtI // ] ii) aMjei loaNAI baMdhai rasaNaM raei tilaAlekkha / jAo hoMta-samAgama-suhekka-rasio vi vAulo juai-jaNo // [ anakti locane badhnAti razanAM racayati tilakAlekhyam / jAto bhaviSyatsamAgamasukhaikarasiko'pi vyAkulo yuvati-janaH // ] 21) Pratyusa-kala-karma prabhatika m | Yatha Tavaa (? Tava a) raani-vahue....(Vol. IV, p. 1187)

Page #189
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 177 tApa a raaNi-vahUe pariadRtIe malia-tArA-kusumo / jAo parimala-pisuNo ua Naccato vva pAaDo paccUso // [tAvacca rajanI-vadhvAM parivartamAnAyAM mRdita-tArA-kusumaH / jAtaH parimala-pizunaH pazya nRtyanniva prakaTaH pratyUSaH // ] 22) Sambhogartham satira-pratikarma prasadhanam | Yatha Dinnatanuanjanai--(Vol. IV, p. 1198) i) diNNataNuaMjaNAI juaijaNassa dara-rattataMboTAI / AsaNNa-rai-suhAI ahivAsijjaMti vammaheNa muhAI // [datta-tanukAJjanAni yuvati-janasyeSadraktatAmrauSThAni / Asanna-rati-sukhAni adhivAsyante manmathena mukhAni // ] ii) pariuMbaNeNa aharo agghara hiaa-hariseNa NaaNacchAA / sohaM kuNai pio ccia viraeD muhA pasAhaNaM juaijaNo // - [paricumbanenAdharo'rghati hRdaya-harSeNa nayanacchAyA / zobhAM karoti priya eva viracayati mudhA prasAdhanaM yuvatijanaH // ] 23) Mana--hanau nisvasitani mana-nisvasitani | Yatha___ Tie vialanta-dhiram--(Vol. IV, p. 1210) i) tIe vialaMta-dhIraM abbhuLaMtIe khaNa-paholira-bAhaM / dUrosaraMta-saraNaM dUra-ara-valagga-veaNaM NIsasi // [tayA vigaladvairyamabhyuttiSThantyA kSaNa-praghUrNanazIla-bASpam / dUrApasaratsmaraNaM dUratarAvalagna-vedanaM niHzvasitam // ] Bhoja cites this verse on two more occasions; once to illustrate 'skhalanam' (p. 1041) and again to illustrate 'priyoparodhah' (p. 1213). _____ii) maNasiNIe ahiNava-mairAmoa-paDivaddha-dhammaha-pasaraM / daia-jaNa-diNNa-NaaNaM vialia-dhIra-lahuaM ciraM NIsasi // [ manasvinyAbhinava-madirAmoda-pratibaddha-manmatha-prasaram / dayita-jana datta-nayanaM vigalita-dhairya-laghukaM ciraM niHzvasitam // ] 24) Manasalyoddharanamavajina-bhramsah | Yatha Harisa-viasamta-vaanam--(Vol. IV, p. 1212) i) harisa-viasaMta-vaaNaM kvol-al-sNglNt-pulubbheaN| a-pasAhipi jA pasAhiabbhahia-maNaharaM tI muhaM / [harSa-vikasadvadanaM kapola-tala-saMkalatpulakodabhedam / aprasAdhitamapi jAtaM prasAdhitAbhyadhika-manoharaM tasyA mukham // ] ii) Nimmavia-saMdhi-ammA tAva a dUrapaDibaddha-vammaha-pasarA / .. garu suraucchAhaM dAUNa sahi vva jAmiNI tIe gaA // [nirmApita-sandhikarmA tAvacca duur-prtibddh-mnmth-prsraa| gurukaM suratotsAhaM dattvA sakhIva yAminI tasyA gatA // ] -23

Page #190
178 Studies in 25) Manapagamad vrida-yogo lajjagamah | YathaThoarudha-mahu-maa--(Vol. IV, p. 1215) thoArUDhamahuA khaNa-pamhadvAva rAha- diNNullAvA / hasiUNa saMThaviz2aha pipaNa saMbharia lajjiA kAvi piA // [ stokArUDha madhu-madA kSaNa prasmRtAparAdha-dattollApA / hasitvA saMsthApyate priyeNa saMsmRtalajjitA kApi priyA // ] This verse is cited by Bhoja in SK (p. 670) to illustrate 'madhupanam". 26) Sakhyadi-sampadah parijana-pramodah | Yatha Vasa (?) thiammi soha-(Vol. IV, p. 1221) vAsaTTiammi sohA pariosa pasAhiANaNAe~ maNaharo / appuTu-soa-vimalo sahi-sattho tI dapyaNammi vidiTThI // [ vAsa sthite zobhA paritoSa prasAdhitAnanayA manoharaH / aspRSTa-zoka-vimalaH sakhIsArthastayA darpaNe'pi dRSTaH // ] 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 (udatta) heroine (nayika). Satyabhama is the junior (kanistha) and haughty (uddhata) rival heroine (pratinayika). Hari offers a garland of fragrant flowers of the celestial Parijata tree to Rukmini. This arouses the jealous anger of Satyabhama. 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 Parijata 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 Parijata 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 Parijata tree from him. Hari, the victorious, returns home with the Parijata tree. Satyabhama's heart is captivated by the sweet fragrance of the Parijata flowers, yet her gaze first rests on Hari and then only on the Parijata tree. Hari plants the tree in the garden in front of Satyabhama'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 Sahityasastra 179 It is this episode of Hari's conquest of (Indra and his) Parijata tree which accounts for the title Harivijaya of the present epic. The statement of the Dhvanikara 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 Parijata 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 Asyasakas 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 Dhvanikara's compliment for imaginative handling of the Parijata episode and Bhoja's appreciation of his work (by profusely quoting from it) Sarvasena very well deserves. Ravana-vijaya and Hari- vijaya are both composed in the skandhaka metre and Vakpati's Madhumatha-vijaya is composed in the Gatha metre. This series of poems of conquest is no longer extant. It is indeed an irreparable loss to the students of Maharastri language and literature.? 6. Vakpati 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 gatha metre. From Vakpati's statement we learn that he considered his earlier work as superior to Gaudavaho : mahamaha-viaa-pauttA vAA kaha NAma maulau imammi / paDhama-kusumAhi taliNaM pacchA-kusumaM vaNalaANa / [madhumatha-vijaya prayuktA vAkU kathaM nAma mukulayatvasmin / 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 darsanas. The view of Bhatta Lollata, which is classed as one of the production (utpatti) of rasa, is regarded as that of the Mimamsa school; and the vicw of Srisankuka which interprets the manifestation of rasa as a process of inference (anumiti) is regarded as that of the Naiyayika school. Bhatta Nayaka's view of rasa, termed as bhuktivada, shows influence both of the Samkhya and the Mimamsa darsanas. Finally, Abhinavagupta's exposition of the theory of rasa is deeply influenced by the Vedanta 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 Anuyogadvarasutra, which claims to be old (before third century A.D. ?) contains a Prakrit passage on nine Kavya rasas. It is not easy to decide whether this passage is taken from an early independent Prakrit text on Alamkara-sastra 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. ftngara 3. adbhuta 4. raudra 5. vridanaka 6. bibhat sa 7. hasa 8. karuna and 9. prasanta. 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 bhayanaka is not included in the list. In its place we have yridanaka (with vida or lajja as its sthayibhava). The commentator informs us that bhayanaka is included under raudra. Further, it is vira, and not srngara 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 prasanta 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 Alamkara-sastra proper Vagbhata I, Acarya Hemacandra, Maladhaji Narendraprabha, Vagbhaga (II) and Vijayavarni, who wrote Vagbhalalamkara (1st half of 12th century A.D.), Kavyanusasana (1st half of 12th 1. Nandisuttam and the Anuogaddaraim, Jaina-Agama series No. 1, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1968, pp. 121-124.

Page #193
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 181 century A.D.), Alamkara-mahodadhi, (Ist half of 13th century A.D.), Kavyanusasana, (14th century A.D.) and Stngararnava-candrika (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. Acarya 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 Ramacandra and Gunacandra, the joint Jaina authors of the Natyadarpana (latter half of the 12th century A.D.). They were pupils of Acarya Hemacandra, the author of Kavyanusasana. 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-duhkhatmavada as opposed to Kevalanandavada according to which all rasas are always pleasurable. According to the Natya-darpanas 1. sungara 2. hasya 3. vira 4. adbhuta and 5. santa are pleasurable whereas 1. karuna 2. raudra 3. bibhatsa and 4. bhayanaka 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 kara, only at the end of rasasvada due to the poet's and actors' power and skill of presentation. Persons (like Abhinavagupta) duped-carried away by this camatkara, 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 sthayibhava itself, when developed by vibhavas and vyabhicaribhayas, and manifested by anubhavas is to be called rasa. This view of the nature of rasa is identical with the utpattivada or pusti-vada of Lollata (and Dandi), and most probably with Bharata's own view of rasa as found in the Natyasastra. For Bharata explicitly says: Sthayibhavansca rasat vam upanesyamah | -NS, Vol. I, Ch. VI, p. 299 and sthayyeva tu raso bhavet -NS, Vol. I, Ch. VI. p. 379 2 sAdhAraNIbhAvanA ca vibhAvAdibhiriti zrImAnabhinavaguptAcAryaH / etanmatameva cAsmAbhirupajIvitamiti / -Kavyanusasana (p. 103) (Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay edition) 3 tatreSTavibhAvAdiprathitasvarUpasaMpattayaH zRGgAra-hAsya-vIrAdbhuta-zAntAH paJca sukhAtmAno'pare punaraniSTavibhAvAyupanItAtmAnaH karuNaraudra-bIbhatsa-bhayAnakAzcatvAro duHkhAramAnaH / yat punaH sarvarasAnAM sukhAtmakatvamucyate, tat 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, sukhaduhkharmaka. Here we may note, in passing, that the authors of the ND do not subscribe to the misrananda-vada of rasa alluded to in their work by Dhanika and Jagannatha, when they speak of its being sukha-duhkhatmaka! They clearly state that five rasas are sukhatmaka and four, duhkhatmaka. Regarding the location of rasa they differ with Lollata. They hold that rasa is present in the hero. (say, Rama, Dusyanta, etc.), in the spectator, and some times in the actor also. From amongst the Jaina commentators on poetics a few deserve notice here. Namisadhu (1069 A.D.), the able commentator of Rudrata's Kavyalamkara 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 Kavyaprakaia. 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 yastuSTe tuSTimAyAti zoke zophamupaiti ca / demve dInatvamabhyeti sa nATye prekSakaH smRtaH || -Natyasastra (Ch. XXVII) -- kintu tAdRza evAsAvAnandaH sukhaduHkhAtmako yathA praharaNAdiSu saMbhogAvasthAyAM kumite strINAm / anyazca laukikAta karuNAt kAvyakaruNaH / -Avaloka commentary on the Dasarupaka (Ch. IV. p. 98) NS edition Bombay (1941) 5 atha yathAilAda isa duHkhamapi pramANasiddhaM tadA pratibandhakatvaM na kalpanIyam / svasvakAraNavazAccobhayamapi bhaviSyati / atha tatra kavInAM kartuM sahRdayAnAM ca zrotuM kathaM pravRttiH / aniSTasAdhanatvena niSTatterucitatvAd iti cet / iSTasyAdhikyAdaniSTasya ca nyUnatvAccandanadravalepanAdAviva pravRtterupapatteH / -Rasagangadhara (p. 31), Kavyamala edition, (1939) According to Lollata rasa is primarily present in the hero and only secondarily in the actor who imitates or represents him. 6 ayamAzayo granthakArasya yaduta nAsti sA kApi cittavRttiryA paripoSaM gatA na rasIbhavati / bharatena sahRdayAvarja karavAt prAcuryAt saMjJAM cAzrityASTau nava vA rasA uktA iti / -Tippani on Kavyalamkara, Kavyamala edition (1909)

Page #195
Sanskrit Sahityasastra 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. srngara 2. vira 3. hasya and 4. adbhuta. He rejects the claim of karuna, raudra, bibhatsa, and bhayanaka 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 Ramacandra and Gunacandra in holding that there are four rasas only. The description of Aja-vilapa, or of santa or of bhayatisaya 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-duhkhatmaka or sukhatmaka 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-rasa pannatta" passage found in their sacred text, viz., the Anuyogadvara sutra. 7. Abhinavagupta explicitly says that some of the 'sthayibhava's are 'sukha-svabhava' (of the nature of happiness, i.e. pleasurable) while some others are duhkha-svarupa' (of the nature of unhappiness, i.e. painful) : ETAAEFE ai gatty1TH ...... Alla razasutajai I :98921 -Abhinavabharati 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' utsaha' 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,' 'bhayanaka,' etc., as 'sukha-svabhava' or 'sukha-pradhana.' . 8. Kavyaprakasakhandana (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 Bhamaha 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 Vikasa, 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. Kavyamimamsa, GOS, Baroda, edition (1934), ch. VI, pp. 24-28. 3. asatyArthAbhighAyitvAnnopadeSTavyaM kAvyam | P. 24. 4. asadupadezakatvAttarhi nopadeSTavyaM kAvyam / P. 26. 5. asabhyArthAbhidhAyitvAnnopadeSTavyaM kAvyam / - 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 Asadrsya10 Desa-kala-kala-loka-nyaya-agama-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) sarve sarveNa sArUpyaM nAsti bhAvasya kasyacit / yathopapatti kRtibhirupamAsu prayujyate // II. 43. (ii) yasyAtizayavAnarthaH kathaM so'saMbhavo mataH / iSTa cAtizayA camupamokSayoryathA // 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 Pratijna-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 Natyasastra which lay down rules for the playwright (and the producer) to enable him to compose a play answering the description 'Avasthanukrti' 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 Meghaduta. Bhamaha lived after Kalidasa; made an exception in favour of the Meghaduta, 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 Dsstanta (Example), if and when necessary. The fact, however, remains that the Logic of Poetry (Kavya-Nyaya) embracing Perception and Inference in poetry (Kavya-Pratyaksa and Anumana) is one thing and the science of Logic (Nyaya) quite another : 7 317 APTATTHIETTIfra: 1-V. 336. The one (Kavya) is rooted in the world of phenomena, while the other (Agamas) aims at exact or scientific truth. Bhamaha 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 Lokasraya Kavya. But Sastras tell us that ether has no colour, that sound is a special quality of Akasa (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. Bhamaha then turns to Pratijna.16 In logic it means the 'thesis' or 'proposition' to be proved; speaking of Paksa17 (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 Pratijna, as contradistinguished from the Pratijna in logic, is fourfold, having reference to Dharma, Artha, Kama and Kopa. He illustrates these varieties of Pratijna and defective (fallacious) Pratijnas with suitable examples from the two Arsa epics, viz., Mahabharata and Ramayana.19 In poetry, says Bhamaha, we have an implied Pratijna?' as well. 15. V. 34b is rather faulty. The Kavyamimamsa IX, line 18 (p. 44) runs this: " tadeva vAri sindhUnAM mahatsyemArciSAmiti / " The reading HERUHT appears to be incorrect for FHF is masculine. The K. S. S. (61) reads sea aisla... The reading vApi is obviously corrupt. The correct line must have been : tadeva vAri sindhUnAmaho 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.' Rajasekbara'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 Kavyalamkara, 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 Kevalanvaya 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 Pararthanumana 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: dIpradIpA nizA jajJe vyapavRttadivAkarA / hetuH pradIpradIpatvamapattI kheriha || 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 Kasa 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 (Viparyayakrt) 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 Hetvabhasa. 22. Tatacharya, however, interprets: yato dIpradIpA bhato vyapavRttadivAkarA nizA jaze / iha sAdhyadharma : verapavRttiH / sAdhyadharmiNI nizA / P. 123, 23. kAzAni kAzAsyatRNakusumAni / -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. uktasvArthasya dRSTAntaH prativimbanidarzanam - Bhamaha V. 55. and iSTasyArthasya vispaSTapratibimbanidarzanam / yathaivAdipadaH zUnyaM budhe zanta ubhyate || Udbhata VI. 75.

Page #201
189 variety thereof called "Suddha-Drstanta" in which by the mere mention of the Drstanta word, the Sadhya 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 Pratijna, Hetu, etc., is not desirable in poetry. Dandin also treats of the defect 'Desadi-virodhi'. He, however, summarily rejects the defect 'Pratijna-Hetu-Drstanta-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, Rudrata, Mammata, Hemacandra and others follow Bhamaha 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 Bhamaha it is Rajasekhara who treats of this topic in his brilliant work called Kavya-Mimamsa." 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. pratizAheturAntahAnirdoSo na velyasau / vicAraH karkazaH prAyastenAlITena kiM phalam // -Kavyadarsa III. 127. 26. virodhaH saphalo'pyeva kadAcitkavikauzalyata / utkramyaM doSagaNanAM guNanIya vigAhate | Kavyadarsa III. 179, 27. Cf. the opening verse, for example, of Mammata's Kavya-Prakasa. 28. Cf. bharatiSeSu kavitvanivedanaM zirasi mA likha mA likha mA lilA / and savAsanAnAM sabhyAnAM rasasyAsvAdanaM bhavet / nirvAsanastu rAjAnta: phAiku jyAkmasaMnibhAH // -Dharmadatta, as quoted in Sahitya-Darpana III, 9a. 29. Chapter VI, pp. 24-26, Chapter IX, pp. 44-46. 30. nAsatyaM nAma kicana kanye vastu stutyaizvarthavAdaH / sa na para kavikarmaNi zrutau ca zAstre ca loke ca 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 Arthavada. ...Even in Veda, Sastra and Loka, cases of Arthavada are cases of Poetry."-Bhoja's Srgara Prakasa, Vol. I, Part I, p. 131

Page #202
190 and the Loka as well.) He then actually quotes passages from the Aitareya/Satapatha Brahmana, the Mahabhasya 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 Avicaritaramaniya (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 sanghatand 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-Mimamsa 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 Udbhata 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 Udbhata. 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-svarupa," is missing from this passage, for the example etc., is of Poetry and not of Sastra. 32. kAvya-viSaye ca vyamya pratItInAM satyAsatyatvanirUpaNasyAprayojakatvameveti tatra pramANAntaravyApAraparIkSopahAsAcaiva saMpadyate / 33 anaucityAhate nAnyadasabhaGgasya kAraNam / prasiddhaucityabandhastu rasasyopaniSatparA // -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 Puranas and Agamas." Further on, he records the view of Palyakirti : "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 Dosakara85 (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 : dezeSu padArthAnAM vyatyAso dRzyate svarUpasya / Ta 791 aefterfaqethe TATUA: 11 (P. 111) To conclude : Sanskrit rhetoricians, especially Bhamaha and Rajasekhara 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 Sastra-Kavya. 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 Alamkara Sastra, 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 parinama 2 Parapurapravesa 3 Khandasamghatya 4 Calika and 5 Parimala. He explains and illustrates all these five kinds of derivative poems. He explains and illustrates 'Parapurapravesa' kind of poem as follows : bhASAmAtrabhinnaH parapurapravezaH / yathAdevAdhipo vA bhujagAdhipo vA gharAdhipo vA yadi haihayaH syAm / saMdarzanaM te guNakIrtana te sevAJjaliM te tadahaM vidadhyAm // yathA casavimo aNajjuNamimaM amahiMdamavAsuiMca appANaM / sevaMjali-daMsaNa-guNa-kahAsu tuha jo Na pajjatto // [zapAmahe anarjunamimam amahendram avAsukiM cAtmAnam / sevAali-darzana-guNakathAsu tava yo na paryAptaH // ] atra bhASAmAtraM bhinnamiti parapurapravezanAmAyaM yonijakAvyabhedaH / -sarasvatIkaNThAbharaNam (pR. 163), kAvyamAlA 94, 1934 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. Pramanamimamsa, 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 (alamkarikas)-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, Anuyogadvarasutra 180, 183 95, 96, 98, 106, 113n, 114, 145, Anye 75 150, 155, 156, 158, 182n Apare 75 Acarya 5, 15 Appaya Diksita 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, Uttararamacarita 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, Udyana 123, 123n 134, 139, 144, 145, 149, 152n, Aucityavicaracarca 121n, 142n 155, 158 162n, 166, 179, 179n, Kanada 129 181, 182, 183n Kayyata 151, 152n Abhinavabharati 28n, 30n, 33, 35, Karpuramanjart 158 35n, 36, 37, 39, 48, 54, 56, Kalpalata : 7in 61, 71, 71n, 72n, 75, 113n, 117, Kalpalata-pallava 77n 119n, 121n, 139, 139n, 141, 156, Kalaplataviveka. 50, 61, 72, 73, 158n, 183n 123, 123n, 129, 130, 131, 157 Amara, Amarakosa 35, 35n Kavikanthabharana 12, 13 Amaracandra Kavikulacakravartin Arisimha Katyayana 121 Alamkaracintamani 23, 24 Kadambari Alamkaratilaka 14 Kamasutra 160n Alamkaramahodadhi 181 Kalidasa 133n, 134, 136, 138-144, Alamkaravimarsini 35n 146, 148, 1631 Alaskarasekhara Kavyakalpalat avstti . 24 Alamkarasarvasva 33n, 35, 35n, 148n Kavyakautuka 38, 151 Avantisundari 5, 15, 17, 162n. Kavyadarsa 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 Kavyamimassa 5, 12n, 13, 13n, 14, 20, 24, 25, 32n, 117, 159, 159n Kavyanuiasana 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-vrtti 26, 117, 2 { 147 Kirata 140n Kuttan mata 160n Kuntaka 119n, 120n, 121, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154, 155, 159, 162, 163n, 179 SKumara 146, 147, Kumarasambhava 133n, 134, 135, 136n, 137n, 140, 141, 142n, 143, 145, 145, 148 Kumaradasa Kumarasyamin Kuvalayananda 140 Kecit 75 25, 26 Kesavamisra Krtydravana 62, 94, 97, 101 Krsnakavi 25 Ksemendra 12, 13, 14, 16, 107, 121, 142, 145, 149 Gaudavaho Ghantuka (? Ghantaka) Caturmukha 8in 34n 1, 2, 158, 179n Gathasaptasat 146n, 156, 158 Gitagovinda 143 Gunacandra 37, 61, 135, 181, 183 Gunaratnagani 182 Canakyacarya SJag innatha Jagannatha Panditaraja 75 157 75 143, 182 195 Jayadeva Jayanta Jayaratha Janaki 143 24n, 154n 35, 35, 155 140n 113 135 Tarkika 75 Tippant (on Kavyalamkara) 182n 75 Tikakara 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 Devisataka 151 Devesvara Janakiharana Jhalakikar 24 Desinamamala 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 Dhundiraja 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 Namisadhu 118n, 182 Narendraprabha (Maladhari) 180 Nalavilasa 111n Nagananda 111 Nafakalak sanaratnakoda 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 Naisadha 140n Nyayamanjari 24n, 154n Nyasakara 119 Patanjali 121, 127, 139 Pallava 71n, 72 Paumacariu Panini 118, 118, 119, 119n, 121 Prataparudra (play) 96 Prataparudrayasobhusana 34n Prabhayatt Pramanamimamsa 24n, 154n Pramanasamuccaya 126, 126, 129 Pravarasena 158, 159, 162, 179 Bhagavadgita 27n, 38 Bhatta Tauta 38, 64, 75 Bhaga Narayana 35 Bhattacharya Shivaprasad 154n Bhattenduraja 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 Bhavabhuti 139 Bhamaha 19n, 26, 117, 117n, 118, 118n, 119, 119n, 120n, 121, 122, 123, 123n, 124, 124n, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 155, 158 Bhamahavivarana 130, 130n, 131, 131n, 133 Bharavi 140 Bharatiya-Sahitya-Sastra (In Mara thi) 122n, 124n Bhavadhyaya 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, . 157 99 Balabodhinikara 139 Balaramayana 88, 158 Bilhana 13, 16 Madhumathavijaya 157, 179 Mandaramarandacampu 25 Mammata 14, 33, 33n, 34, 34n, 118n, 119n, 135, 139, 142, 149- 151, 154-155, 182 Mahabharata 1, 3 Mahabharata (in Devanagari) 139p Mahabhasya 26, 119, 20n Mahabhasyam Mahabhasyakara . 119n Mahimabhafta 149, 150, 155 Magha 140 Manikyacandra 29n, 30n, 31n, 35, 131, 182 Maricavadha Malari-Madhava Malavika(gnimitra) 94 Mukulabhafta 154 Mudraraksasa 79, 80, 81n, 84n, 88, 88n, 94n, 103, 106, 112, 113 Meghaduta Micchakatika 103, 116 Yogabhasya Raghuvarsa 139, 143 Raghuvilasa 96, 113 Ratnakara 140 Ratnayali 47, 53, 88n, 91-94, 94n, 95-98, 100-103, 107, 110, 111, 113, 113n, 114 Rasagangadhara 143, 143n, 182n Rasadhyaya 70, 77n Raghavabhatta 110, 111, 113 Rajasekhara 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 Ramacandra 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 Bana 14, 16, 159 Balapriyakara 156 Balabodhini 135

Page #209
197 155 75 181 Ramabhyudaya 100, 103, 111 Ramayana Ravanavaho 158 Ravanavijaya 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 Lilayati 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 Vajjalagga 14 Vasubandhu 126, 126, 128, 129 Vakpatiraja 1, 6, 15, 157, 179, 179n Vakpati s Vagbhata (1) 180 Vagbhata (II) 14, 16, 25 Vagbhatalamkara 180 Vadavidhana 129, 129n Vadavidhi 126, 128, 129n Vamana 2, 15, 26, 117, 120n, 121, * 145, 147, 149, 150, 151 Vartikakara 119n Valmiki 16, 139 Vikramankadeyacarita 13 Vikramorvasiyam 99, 112 Vijayavarni Vidyanatha 34 Vivaranakrd 133 Viveka 8n, 13, 37-40, 45, 154 Visvanatha 24, 34, 35, 78n, 79, 112, 114, 123n, 155 Visamabanalila 157 Visnugupta-samhita 160n SVeni samhara 29n, 30n, Veni 79, 88, 88n, S 89n, 93, 94, 96n, 97-102, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112 Vyaktiviveka 154 Vyasa 1, 13, 16, 139 Vyasabhasya 39 Sankuka 2 } 64, 75, 97, 180 Srisankukas Sakuntala 110, 115 Sakyacarya (in Devanagari) 76n Saradatanaya 81 Sin 140n Sobhakara Socya (? Sakya) Spigaratilaka 160n Syngaraprakasa 12, 12n, 35, 35n, 51, 117, 122n, 124n, 145, 153, 155, 156, 158n Spigararnavacandrika Sridhara 34, 34n Srimanabhinavaguptacaryah 152 Sriharsa Sanketa 29n, 31n, 35n, 39, 131n, 149, 153, 153n, 157, 182 Saptasatt 157 Samaradityakatha 153n Sarasvatikanthabharana 12, 33n, 145, 148n, 153n, 155, 162 Sarvadarsanasangraha Sarvasena 157, 162, 162n, 163n, 179 Sankhya Satavahana 159 Saradipika 182 Sahityadarpana 24, 34n, 35, 123n Siddhicandragani 182, 183, 183n Subhasitaratnabhandagaram 14 Subhasitavali 160n Surananda 11, 11n, 15 140 75 180

Page #210
198 Setubandha 7156, 158, 162, 162n Setu S163, 172 Somesvara 39, 44, 47, 154, 153n, 157 Svayambhudeva 19n Haravijaya 140n Haridasa 114 Harivijaya 157, 162, 162n, 163, 163n, 166, 179 Harsacarita 2, 2n, 14, 163 Hemacandra (Acarya) 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 Apprairupak 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 Dasarupaka (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-Prakasa 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 Anuogaddardim 87 17 Dhruva, A. B. SS 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 Alamkara 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 Punaruktavadabhasa and 130 Genuineness of the Published Fragments From Udbhata's 'Bhamaha-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 Santarasa 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 Vidusaka : 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 Kayyalamkara of Bhamaha (ed. by Gnoli) 130n, 133 Upadhye, A. N., Dr . 156 Venkatacharya T. 156 Vidusaka (by G: K. Bhat) 37n Vora, P. R., Prof. 123n Weber, Dr. : 156 Whately 16 Wilson 89n Writers quoted in the Abhinaya bharatz (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 vidyabhavan, Surat, 1960 The Treatment of Intonation (Kaku) in Sanskrit Poetics : . Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XVI No. 1, September 1966 Abhinavabharati 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 Kalpalataviveka on Abhinayabharait : Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda Vol. XXI No. 4 June 1972 Abhinavabharati 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 Patakasthanaka : Journal, University of Bombay, Vol. XXIV, Part 2, September 1955 Bhamaha on Grammar in Relation to Poetry : Sarada Pitha Pradipa. Indological Research Institute, Dwaraka, November 1962 Kalpalataviveka on Bhamaha's Kavyalankara : (Chapter V. v 5-10) Fresh Light on Bhamaha-Vivarana : Sambodhi, Vol. No. 1, April 1972., L. D. Institute of Indology, Abmedabad-9 Rati-Vilapa, Devisambhogavarnana and Alankarikas : 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 Kavyanusasana : Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XIV, No. 2, December 1964 Some Aspects of Prakrit Verses in Alankara 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 Manikyacandra kakus Kavyamala More Corrections passage outlet Bharata more correct to construe prakari Avaloka the commentators Vidhuta hyayaM doSaH / Mammata's srutikatu 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 lokagocara substantiate Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra, (pp. 71-80) kalpalataviveka on tadRSTAnte tathaivottama restore Madhumathavijaya these mahakavya 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 (Sahityaratnakose Jain Sangrahah) published by Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi. (4) Acarya Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana (with Alamkara-Cudamani 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 Rama in Jain Literature-in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhrai a languages) to Pauma-Cariya of Vimala Suri-published by Prakrit Text Society, Varanasi. (2) A Critical Introduction, Critical Notes and several useful appendices to MallikaMakaranda, a brilliant Prakarana form of play by Ramacandra, a renowned disciple of Acarya Hemacandra. He has to his credit: (C) (1) Studies in Sanskrit Sahitya-Sastra: 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 Cchaya and a Critical Introduction--in press).

Page #216
_