Kavya Prakasha Khandana

SR No.: 002506
Original Sutra Author: Siddharshi Gani
Author: Rasiklal C Parikh
Publisher: Singhi Jain Shastra Shiksha Pith Mumbai
Publication Year: 1953
Total Pages: 148
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 8 MB

Page 27

KAVYAPRAKĀŠAKHANDANA
Thiş Brhattikā is not yet discovered and so we can not say anything. about the relation of K. P, K. to it-whether K. P. K. is a work culled from it or a separate work.
It will be seen from the numbers given to the Mülakārikās that S. has left out several of them and that readings of some differ considerably from those of the published texts of K. P. These variations have been noted in the foot-notes (e. g. pp. 7, 8 etc ). The verse giving the definition of Doşa (p.33 ) seems to be from a different work, He has, at some places, changed the order of Kārikās also, e. g. p.1l. The Vịtti on the Kārikās is dealt with only in parts.
At a few places the text seems to be in a disordered condition, vide, for example, pp. 78-79. As all the Mss, however, present the the text in this form I have not thought it proper to emend it. Criticism of K. P.
S. describes his method of refutation in the very beginning of his work in the words angare 1679 RTCUSAHRAOI (21. 9. . g. 7). He first explains and then refutes. For example, be deals with the first Kārikā megahgacfent etc. thus: facet negat ATHEIR PRACTS: 1 अत एवोक्तम्
अपारे काव्यसंसारे कविरेकः प्रजापतिः ।
यथाऽस्मै रोचते विश्वं तथैव परिवर्तते ॥ इति (का. प्र. खं. ३) This is anuvāda or exposition. Then follows cirticism thus: 3phat a साधुः। काव्येऽपि नियमस्य सत्त्वात् । शद्धे छन्दःप्रभृतिषु तथा च तत्तद्रसविशेषे तत्तद्गीतिविशेषे तत्तत्प्रबन्धे razta a AAAHT ATAT ( 71. 9. T. 8).
This method, however, of first exposition and then criticism is not strictly adhered to. For example-riè effhai Cho farishi mai H1979 Fiate ifa gas:THETH *Thala 1 (F1T. . 2).
S. assures us that he is not criticizing without proper reasons. He even defends Mammața against improper interpretation or unfair criticism. For example while explaining the verse 7: THRET: # Ta Pa R: he says 3 T 791447774#TTAISO staya sa arata I I ga Pe at:' aa garADETE 1; and then lays down the dictum pour latestTRT ArhiffTTARTEFATTI ( FT. 7. .).
Counting major points and minor details I find that abere are more than sixty items that S. has tried to refute. I will touch here only a few major problems. .
Criticizing the first Kārikā, S. rejects the views that the creation of the poet is not regulated by laws, that it is all joy, that it is independent of any other thing, and that Rasas are rine.