Studies in Jain Literature

SR No.: 001868
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 114
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Story
File Size: 14 MB

Page 185

NANDISUTTAM AND ANUOGADDARAM 167 out that the list of nine rasas in the Anuyogadvara-sutra substitutes vridanaka in place of the bhayanaka in the traditional list. Here it may further be pointed out that the Anuyogadvarasutra gives the pride of place to the vira and not to the srngara rasa as found in almost all the Sanskrit texts dealing with poetics. The explanation for this change by the author probably lies in the fact that the present work deals with the highest end, of human life, viz., moksa, and that it is attainable through heroic efforts in conquering the internal enemies (such as kama, krodha, etc). 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. Still further it may be pointed out here that the Anuyogadvara-sutra (3rd century A. D.) is the first among the available texts that speak of santarasa. It is, indeed, extraordinary that none of the Jain writers on dramaturgy/poetics cares to take note of these significant changes in their treatment of the topic of rasa. Incidentally, we may refer here to a few errors / misprints, although they are very minor, that have crept in through inadvertence : on p. 26, 1.12 (from below) we should read 'We' for 'l' as the Introduction is contributed by the three editors. On p. 35.1.11 (from below) we should read destroys for destroy. On p. 49, 1.4 we should read refuted and on the same page (L. 12) Sthavira). On p. 50, L. 16 we should read papat for patat. On p. 59, I. 10 we should read partially. On p. 71 f. n. 59a the Kanagasattari is referred to as 'this Sanskrit work. Strictly speaking, it is not erroneous. But the Prakrit title is apt to mislead. On p. 92, 1.12 (from below) we should read ucyante. In the English translation of the Gujarati Introduction (p. 107) Vaibesikam is given as the Sanskrit equivalent of vesiyam. It ought to have been Vaisikam. The appendices at the end meticulously record all the words in the texts as well as the footnotes. But rare omissions could be detected. For instance, mugundassa (p. 63, 1. 17) is not included in the Appendix (p. 415). Further, the Sanskrit meanings of a few words given in the Appendices hardly add to our knowledge. 'sastra-visesa', 'vrati-visesa', 'sutra-bheda', 'silpi-visesa', dhanya-mana-visesa', 'kalamana-visesa', etc., are some such instances. The reviewer ventures to suggest that a critical edition of an agama text should invariably be accompanied by its Sanskrit commentary. For even to an advanced student of Prakrit the glossary of Prakrit words along with their Sanskrit meanings would not prove quite useful. In its absence an English translation or translation in Hindi or any other Modern Indian Language with detailed notes is an absolute must for the understanding of the text. Another suggestion the reviewer would like to make : There should be