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 215

SOURCES OF HEMACANDRA'S KAVYANUSASANA 197 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 Kanell does or to charge Hemacandra of plagiarism as De 12 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 masterpieces of his predecessors as the property of the entire world 13. Hemacandra 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, Kavipraudhoktimatranispannasarirah and 'Kavinibaddhavaktrpraudhoktimatranispannasarirah', 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.