________________ KALPALATAVIVEKA ON BHAMAHA'S KAVYALAMKARA 263 Drstanta-hina at the end of Chapter IV wherein the rest of the dosas listed together are treated of. He has gone out of the way in treating of the Buddhist logic and its refutation and of logic in relation to poetry in a separate independent chapter. Anticipating such criticism Bhamaha offers an apology in the first opening verses : . "I describe the faults pratijna-hina, hetu-hina, etc. I briefly describe them in accordance with Logic with a view to giving simply an idea of them. Generally the slow-witted or unintelligent shy away from sastras because of their difficulty. In order to persuade them to study the sastras, I present here a small collection of the logical topics.5 Granting that logic subserves poetry one might pertinently ask : "When the stream of poetry is all-embracing and is not partial to one or the other school why Bhamaha prefers the Buddhist logic for his treatment of the subject ?" Bhamaha answers this criticism thus : Indeed we aim at giving a mere direction or indication and not an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject of logic, variously treated by the various schools of thought. If the entire field of logic were to be covered it would lead to prolixity and voluminousness. We therefore restrict ourselves to giving a mere direction in regard to pramanas, etc. People take to the study of sastras if presented in poetic garb. Persons (children) who have first tasted honey take in, without much diffculty, bitter medicine. Although it is widely believed that the subjectmatter of the sastras and poetry widely differs the sage Bharata has rightly declared : "There is no work, no meaning, no logic, no art that does not subserve poetry. Oh, what a heavy burden the poet carries !" This defence, this justification for including the treatment of Logic in his work on poetics is, as far as it goes, all right. But logically it is not very sound, For by the same logic (viz., since Logic subserves poetry he has included its discussion in his work on poetics) he should have also treated of fine arts, such as, dance, drama, music, painting, sculpture and architecture in his Kavyalamkara since they too subserve the cause of poetry. Dr. V. Raghavan advocates the view that Logic and Grammar formed part of Pre-Bhamaha Alamkara works, Once I was inclined to hold this view. But on reconsideration I feel that if Logic and Grammar had formed part of PreBhamaha works there was no need for Bhamaha to preface his apology before commencing the treatment of Logic. Dr. G. T. Deshpande? would like us to believe with him that Bhamaha for the first time treated of these two important sastras in his Kavyalamkara with a view to placing alamkarasastra on the same footing as of these two important sastras as poetry was denounced and looked www.jainelibrary.org Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only