Kalplata Vivek

SR No.: 032756
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Murari Lal Nagar, Harishankar Shastry
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 550
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 15 MB

Page 23

Vytli on Dhvani karikas, Induraja's Laghuvytti on U. K. L. S., Abhinava's Locana, Bhoja's Vilti on S. K , Mammata's Vytti on K. P. and Hemacandra's Alamkaracudamani. (iii) There is a reference in Viveka which appears to suggest that over and above the Karikas and their explanations, Kalpalata contained illustrations. Viveka remarks : " And this will be illustrated (nidarsayisyate) in Kalpalata itself (eva ) in (the treatment of) Yamakas.". If this is a reference to illustrations it is possible that Kalpalata contained illustrations. These were borrowed from earlier works, and are the general stock-in-trade found in Sanskrit Poetics, which is freely availed of by almost all the later writers on the subject. From the above data we can surmise that Kalpalata contained Karikas, each Karika being followed by brief discussion on it and tbe latter was followed by apt illustrations. Such a conjecture may be correct in view of the fact that the author of Kalpalata was highly influenced by Bhoja's S. K. and it is possible that his work was largely modelled upon the same pattern. As neither Kalpalata nor Pallava is recovered it is not possible to say categorically whether Viveka explains Kalpalata or Pallava at a particular place. Despite this we have above ventured to reconstruct Kal palata. This is completely hypothetical and like several hypotheses it may be confirmed or contradicted by later and better research. Next in sequence, both chronologically and constructionally, comes Pallava, which is a gloss on Kalpalata, hence the discussion of its structural nature is out of question. It obviously follows Kalpalata. It is possible that like Kalpalata and Viveka, Kalpa pallava also contained much that was borrowed Last comes Viveka. It obviously follows the original and its first commentary and its structure is like that of any other commentary in Sanskrit literature. It picks up a few words from the original and perhaps from Pallava also and tries to explain, interpret and at times illustrate them. Sometimes it indulges in lengthy discussions on certain topics which are often borrowed. 1. may #93HT T fashfhoga ( Viveka P. 25, 1. 6) 2. It is possible to interpret the word 'facetowa' as will be treated'. But look. ing to the context it seems that it may be interpreted as above. If not it may be that Kalpalata might not have any illustrations at all, yet to us it does not seem so.