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 200

182 STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE तमर्थमवलम्बन्ते येऽङ्गिनं ते गुणाः स्मृताः / 37sil starosti Hotell stoechlicca! --Kavanusasana, p. 34 For the present discussion we leave out the sabdalamkaras like anuprasa, yamaka etc. and turn to Hemacandra's treatment of arthalamkaras. If Bharata speaks of four alamkaras, Mammata 61, Ruyyaka 75, Appayya Diksita defines and illustrates 125 alamkaras. The increase in number is easy to understand for, as we have already seen, they are the several striking modes of expressing ideas and their number could be infinite-ananta. Simultaneously with this tendency to increase the number of alamkaras there was the counter-tendency to reduce their number by rejecting the status of alamkaras to some alleged alamkaras. Bhamaha is the first alamkarika to deny this status to the alleged figure varta (Reportage) and the three figures Hetu, Suksma and Lesa. Incidentally, it may be noted that Dandi calls them "Vacamuttamabhusanam". But neither of them advances any reasons, either against or in favour of them. The real credit for reducing the number of alamkaras by critically examining their nature goes to Kuntaka. By this examination he rejects about twenty alamkaras. He judges them by three criteria-principles-standards : 1. alamkarantaratva or bhusanantarabhava, 2. sobha-sunyata and 3. alamkaryataya vibhusyatva. Hemacandra defines and illustrates twenty-nine arthalamkaras and rejects a very large number of alamkaras defined by his illustrious predecessors. The late lamented Prof. R. B. Athavale, a top-ranking alamkarika of the old Bombay State, in his Gujarati edition of Kavyanusasana (Adhyaya I, VI Arthalamkaras), (Balagovinda Prakashana, Ahmedabad, 1959) discusses this topic at length, It is not necessary to cover the same ground again here. But two points need to be briefly mentioned. Prof. Athavale in the relevant discussion does not refer to Hemacandra's indebtedness to Kuntaka's Vakroktijivita. Naturally enough, he could not have done it for the obvious reason that the full text of the work was not then available. The other point, however, needs some explanation. It is true that Prof. Athavale finds fault with Hemacandra for rejecting a good many well defined and illustrated alamkaras of his reputed predecessors. Now, we must not lose sight of the fact that the various alaskarikas right from Bhamaha to Jagannatha differ among themselves regarding the nature of certain alamkaras and whether they should be accepted or rejected. The reason behind this divergence of views is not far to seek. For the very concept of charm or beauty eludes a clear-cut and precise definition. Further, it is next to impossible to lay down precise quantum of charm for