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 274

256 STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE Srngaraprakasa, p. 480) as vilaksana', therefore, seems uncalled for. 11. रसः इति / रसः स्यान्न तृतीया गतिरिति संबन्धः / --KLV p. 307, 1. 20. The A.Bh (Vol I, p. 277, 11. 9-10) reads : रस इति न तृतीया गतिरस्याम् / Hema (p. 97, 1. 8) too, reads : रस इति न तृतीया गतिः स्यात् / It is, therefore, clear that gatih syat is the genuine reading and not gatirasyam. 12. गुणानाम् इति / सत्त्वरजस्तमसाम् / . -~-KLV p. 307, 1. 24 This comment confirms the fact 'gunanam' is the genuine reading and that Hema) has added sattvadi before it by way of elucidation and expansion. 13. संसर्गादिः इति / ___-KLV p. 307 1. 24 From this pratika and the explanation that follows it would seem that the karika : संसर्गादिर्यथा शास्त्र एकत्वात् फलयोगतः / वाक्यार्थस्तद्वदेवात्र शृङ्गारादी रसो मतः // formed part of the text of the A.Bh and stood just before the karika Samalanakhya (khyaya) etc. (as found on p. 277) bhavasamyojana etc. (Gnoli's text p. 11). This inference is based on the fact that the KLV takes up immediately after the Pratika Samsargadih tadvisayah iti as the next Pratika for explanation and this latter pratika forms part of the A. Bh. line अनुभवेन च तद्विषय इति मन्तव्यम् / which is a comment of Abhinavagupta on the word anubhava occurring in the karika Bhavasamyojana, etc. 14. धिगनागमित्वम् इति / -KLV p. 308, 11. 4-5 The text of the A. Bh. (p. 278, 1.3), however, reads(a) dhigatagamitvam. 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 : न त्वेवम् (? नन्वेवम्) इति / न त्वेको (नन्वेको)ऽन्यथा व्याचष्टेऽपरोऽन्यथेतरश्चान्यथेत्येवं रसतत्त्वमलब्धप्रतिष्ठं कथमास्तामिति निविण्णप्रायस्य जिज्ञासोः प्रश्नः / कि कर्मः इति / निराम्नायं ना (? निराम्नायम् आ)द्यागमरहस्यं न कश्चिद्वत्तीति सजुगुप्समाचार्यस्योक्ति: धिगनागमित्वम् इति / तथा ह्यनागमज्ञो लोलटप्रभृतिः स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिरुपचितो रस इत्यादिना प्रकारेण किं न दूषयति / सर्वमप्यसङ्गतार्थ प्ररूपयतीत्यर्थः /