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 354

336 STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE immensely in restoring the corrupt and hence obscure text of Abhinavabharati (about which the first editor, Ramakrishna Kavi remarked : "...even if Abhinavagupta descended from Heaven and saw the Mss. he would not easily restore his original reading") 17 and Locana, the two unique commentaries on Bharata's Natyasastra and Anandavardhana's Dhvanyaloka respectively by Abhinavagupta, the greatest authority in Sanskrit literary criticism and aesthetics. These works are the sources of many aesthetic ideas, concepts and famous comparisons of later alamkara literature. They preserve important passages and sections from authoritative works on alamkara which are now irretrievably lost. The commentaries of Jain authors utilise earlier works and elucidate the text and help us a good deal to understand better the original works on alamkara that they comment upon. Most noteworthy works which belong to the above categories are Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana, Natyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Kalpalataviveka of Ambaprasada (?), Namisadhu's Tippana (commentary) on Rudrata's Kavyalamkara, Manikyacandra's commentary Samketa on Kavyaprakasa and Gunaratnagani's Saradipika, another commentary on Kavyaprakasa. Though Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana does not constitute an original contribution to the subject it is not quite correct to describe it as a compilation exhibiting hardly any originality as Kanel does or to charge Hemacandra of plagiarism as Del' does or to label it as 'siksa-grantha' as De, again, does. Instead of briefly summarising or paraphrasing or describing in his own words the theories and doctrines of his great 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 sastriya (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 sections which he quoted would pass as his own. The truth of the matter is that Hemacandra regards the masterpieces of his worthy predecessors as the property of the entire world. He is a man of pratibha (creative imagination) but his pratibha is more of bhavayitri (appreciative) and less of the karayitri (creative) type. His capacity to select choicest passages from his authorities and to organise them into a homogeneous and organic whole is supreme. Moreover, Hemacandra shows independence of thought and judgement in good many places, refusing to follow blindly his acknowledged authorities. Hemacandra adopts the entire long section or Abhinavabharati on the famous rasasutra of Bharata. He also adopts explanations of Bharata's