Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

SR No.: 007023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 216
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 62

50
Studies in
Here we find by comparison that Hemacandra preserves two readings ('पृथग्जनोपयोगि' and 'पृथग्जनव्युत्पत्युपयोगि) in their correct original form. His reading 'स प्रयोग' is corrupt for the original reading in the NS (XVIII-110) on which the present passage forms Abhinavagupta's gloss is 'धूर्तविवस' प्रयोज्यो... We, therefore, have to admit the reading 'संप्रयोज्य' found in the Abhi. Bhā. to be the correct one.
(56) ... नट नताविति नमनं स्वभावत्यागेन प्रह्वीभावलक्षणं ये वन्ये नट वृत्ताविति पठन्ति तन्मतेऽपीह
नमनम् ......
-Abhi. Bha. Vol. III, p. 80, 11. 6-7. It is more than probable that the original reading of Abhinavagupta must have been 'नट तृत्ताविति । '
This conjectural reading is supported by a parallel passage of Abhinavagupta. himself (quoted above as No. 52 ) and the Dhatupatha “नर वृत्तौ ।”
( 57 ) वस्तनिमित्तं रौद्रः । स चामर्थप्रधानः । ततो वीभत्सः इति यदुवीरेणाक्षितम् । — Abhi Bhā Vol. I, p. 267. Hemacandra, who with slight modifications adopts this passage from the Abhi. Bha., preserves the correct readings for they eminently suit the context : ततस्तन्निमित्तमर्थप्रधानो रौद्रः । ततः कामार्थ योधर्ममूल्यादर्भप्रभानो वीरः । तस्य भीताभयप्रदानसारस्वादनन्तर भवानकः । तद्विभावसाधारण्यसंभावनात् ततो बीभत्सः । इति यदुवीरेणाक्षिप्तम् ।
- KS (p. 106, 11. 6-8 )
(58) तथा हि-लानोऽयमित्युक्ते कुत इति हेतुप्रश्नेन स्थायी तस्य सून्यते ।
— Abhi Bhā Vol. I, p. 283. This sentence occurs in the course of discussion about the difference and. distinction between Sthayibhava (for instance, utsäha) and Vyabhicaribhava (for instance, gläni). The latter half of the sentence makes no sense. It needs to be corrected in accordance with Hemacandra's KS (p. 125, 11. 19-20)):
...... हेतुप्रश्नेना स्थायिताऽस्य सूच्यते ।
The following comment in Kalpalardviveka (KLV, p. 310, 1.4 ) Asthayira iti vyabhicarità lends support to this correction.
( 59 ) तु पूर्वतो विशेषमाह । अयमेव चाक्षेपः प्रकाशत्वात् संभाव्यते न वधिक इति । सा स्वस्यापि सन्न नोक्तः ।
—Abhi. Bhā Vol. I, p. 298. This passage is highly corrupt. It could however, be partially corrected with the help of the following comments from the KLV (p. 312, 11. 27-28)
पूर्वतः इति अद्भुतात् । अयमेव च इति । अयं चाक्षेपप्रकारश्चतुधैत्र सम्भाव्यत इति । योजना इति । शृङ्गारादि भवेद्वास्य इत्यनचैत्र चतुःप्रकाराक्षेपोक्त्या ।
(60) स्वप्ना (मुप्ता ) भूतोऽपि स्वप्नः प्राधान्यादुपात: ...... सिविणवण....
—Abhi. Bhā. Vol. I, p. 307.