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 294

ABHINAVABHARATI CH. VII RECOVERED The commentary Abhinavabharati (A. Bh.) on the Natyasastra (NS) has been lost from the fourth verse in Ch. VII to the end of Ch. VIII. The precise line from where the commentary has been lost is line 16 on page 347 (Vol. I) after the words ata eva. The editor has noted this in his footnote?. Every student of Sanskrit poetics and aesthetics feels very much the loss of this portion, especially the one that concerns the Bhavadhyaya (Ch. VII). In spite of vigorous efforts by scholars and researchers no MS of the A. Bh. containing the missing portion could be found. In this paper I propose to prove beyond cavil that the portion of the Kalpalataviveka? (KLV) from p. 286 1. 22 to p. 303 1. 3, dealing with the thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas of the NS is a straight quotation of the major portion of the original A. Bh. on the Bhavadhyaya. As such the major portion of the lost Ch. VII has been restored and scholars should be happy to welcome it. The paragraph preceding the treatment of nirveda (KLV p. 286) probably explains the commentary of Abhinavagupta on the NS VII. 4-5 defining vibhava and anubhava respectively. The portion of the NS Ch. VII p. 348 to p. 356 just preceding "tatra nirvedo nama" and the portion which just follows the treatment of the thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas from p. 374 to the end of this chapter have been ignored in the KLV. This omission could be explained in two different ways : (i) The author of the KLV says he would avoid repeating whatever has been already said in the Pallava". So perhaps he is silent on these topics in the KLV. (ii) The author of the KLV is most probably explaining here Bharata's famous rasasutra that might have been quoted in the Pallava in connection with the figure rasavat. For he explains the terms vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicaribhava and then proceeds to comment on the different views of different commentators of the rasasutra as presented in the A.Bh. So there was no occasion for him to deal with these topics.