________________
798
SAHRDAYĀLOKA prefer composition of single verses or minor type only; for he observes : “nā’nibaddham cakāsti ekatejaḥ paramāņur iva" (I. iii. 29) - Like a single spark, a minor composition does not shine forth. He gives a verse in support, which reads as -
"a-sankalita-rūpāņām kāvyānām nā'sti cārutā, na pratyekam prakāśante
taijasāḥ paramāņavaḥ.” i.e. Poetry of minor forms is not charming. Individual sparks (from fire) do not shine forth (brilliantly).
But Vāmana has preference for certain types even when major compositions (= nibaddha kāvya) are presented. He observes : (I. iii. 30).
"sandarbheșu daśarūpakam śreyaḥ.”
i.e. - even in major compositions the ten types of rūpakas i.e. drama etc. - are the best. He says:
sandarbheșu prabandheșu daśarūpakam nāțakā”di śreyaḥ. Here 'śreyaḥ' means "atiśayena prasiddham”.
If it is asked why this preference for nāțaka and the like, then the answer is (I. iii. 31)
“tadd hi citram citra-patavad-višesa-sākalyāt.” - i.e. as the daśa-rupaka is associated with special features, it is like a picture of many colours. The commentary explains that :
"višeşāņām bhāsābhedā"di-rūpāņām kathā”khyāyikā”dinām mahākāvyabhedānām asmād eva vastu-vinyāsa-kalpanam iti prakārántareņā'pi śreyatvam asya pratipādayitum āha -
tato'nyabheda-klrptih - I. iii. 32 This argument of Vāmana is not convincing as we cannot imagine that other forms of descriptive literature originated from drama - "daśa-rūpakasya eva hi idam sarvam vilasitam." Vāmana holds that citing definitions of kathā, ākhyāyikā, and mahākāvya will not prove to be iteresting and so he cancels the same. It has to be collected from other sources. But at the same time he does not exert even to define daśa-rūpaka which according to him is the source of all other literary art-forms, both prose and verse, major and minor types including.
ta
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org