Gyanpramodika

SR No.: 001591
Original Sutra Author: Gyanpramod Gani
Author: R S Betai, Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 274
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 11 MB

Page 154

ज्ञानप्रमोदिकावृत्तिः
(d) Commentary by Jivananda Vidyasagara.
The author does not give any title to this commentary. But it is a learned, original commentary by a scholar of repute. We have consulted it in its fourth edition in which the tīkā is revised by his two illustrious scholar-sons. He must naturally have read atleast some of the vșttis, in ms. form in his days, yet, his own tikā is absollutely original both in content and style. The following traits of the ţikā should be noted : (1) The author, in case of most of the Karikas, gives the prose-order first and
then critically analyses each in full details. He gives optional explanations of word as also part of or fult Kārikās as and when necessary. He also gives now and then an explanation in brief of the purpose of the Karikās. At places he
gives the purport of the Karika at the end. (2) He makes free use of parallel quotations from most of the reputed writers on
Sanskrit poetics from Bhāmaha to Jagannatha. He quotes Visvanatha and Jaganoatba in particular. He also gives so many parallel illustrations from the vast
ocean of Sanskrit poetry. (3) The author at places quotes grammatical sutras from Paņini, unlike Jpānapra
modagani who quotes profusely from Hemacandca. Vidyasāgara quotes profusely from Kosas of Amara, Vigva, Medinikoşa etc. He also makes use of his knowledge of Nyāya and other sästras at a few places. All this shows that he does not make any conscious exhibition of his knowledge and scholarship; he is
very discriminative. Every quotation is a must and for enlightenment. (4) His explanation, exposition and analysis of all Alankāras is precise exact and
full, though we rarely comu across comparison and contrast of one Alankāra with another as in Joãnapramodagaņi. He does not explaio, as the latter does, the absence of so many figures of sease in Vägbhafa. In his treatment of Alankāras again, he does not attain the scholastic heights and depths of our Vettikara. At a few places in his comments, be brings the definition and illustration together. But in this also, he is not uniform.
The author is, at places, bold in his views which he gives at length. This happeas particularly in his treatment of Dosas, as in 2.6, 2.11, 2.16, 2.25 etc. as also in his treatment of Rasa, as in 6.2, 6.5, 6,8, 6,9, 6.14, 6,18. 6.20 etc. In his treatment of these two topics, be elaborates on Vagbhața and fills up the gaps that he finds in him. Actually, the tika is particularly remarkable in these two topics.
He makes six Paricchedas out of five, by making the fifth from the last 3 Karikās in the 4th dealing ia Riti, However, he does not explain why he does this, nor does he give his authority for doing so.