Reviews Of Diffeent Books

SR No.: 269555
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar
Total Pages: 7
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 4

146
REVIEWS
edition, we read: etac ca sva-lakṣaṇa-vyakhyānävasare vyaktim äyäsyati. "This (namely, that a literary work describes one thing and imparts, through it, another message or instruction) will become clear when the specific definition [of prabandha-vakrata] is explained.' It should be an editor's responsibility to ascertain whether the expectancy created by this remark is satisfied and in which exact part of the work it is satisfied. The same applies to 'back-references' or references to the contents of the preceding part of the work. Except in a rare case like the one on p. 27, lines 7-8, K does not follow the lead provided by Kuntaka's internal references to determine the completeness of the available VJ.
An unfortunate consequence of this lack of rigour in studying the work being edited is seen on p. 153. There K reconstructs a karika as follows: na preyas tad-viruddhaḥ syad aprey (o 'sav alamkṛtiḥ) alamkarantare syātām anyatrādarśanad api // This reconstruction is faulty, since quarter 'b' does not agree with the following vṛtti and does not add anything significant or contextually appropriate to the karika. Moreover, the reconstruction is entirely unnecessary. On p. 241, in making a 'back-reference' to his discussion of preyas, Kuntaka writes: na preyaso, viruddhaḥ syad, 16 alamkäräntare sati/samsṛṣṭi-samkarau syātām, anyatradarsanad api//. This is obviously the missing karika from p. 153, as even a glance at the vṛtti on pp. 153-56 would establish. If K had taken the trouble of referring back to Kuntaka's discussion of preyas, he would have realised the futility of reconstruction.
It is not unreasonable to expect that a good editor should ask questions of his material and especially try to explain anything that looks unintelligible or peculiar. I do not get the impression that K has carried out this questioning consistently or pressed hard enough for answers. In fact, I see in him a distinct tendency to be satisfied with an approximate, general understanding of the text. His translation proceeds as if there are no problems of interpretation. He (p. XII) gives the result of his editorial activity with the words "very few misreadings of a serious nature remained," while I find problematic expressions on practically every page of his edited text of the third and fourth unmesa and literally scores of passages in which his translation fails to solve my difficulties. Although the general absence of kärikäs from the manuscript portions covering unmejas 3 and 4 is peculiar, he makes no attempt to state this fact clearly or to account for it.17 The Sanskrit renderings of Prakrit verses which he incorporates are almost entirely confined to those which De gives in his edition. 18
It should be clear from the preceding remarks that K's edition of the VJ, while useful as making the preserved text available in its entirety and as registering occasional improvements over De's edition (e.g., De's fn. 7 on p. ii is corrected by K on p. XIII; see also my note 18), is far from being definitive or reliable. A rigorously executed new edition of Kuntaka's remarkably original work is certainly needed; without it and without an explicit discussion of textual problems with it as the basis, no real progress in Kuntaka studies is possible.
The other important part of K's book is translation. Sometimes it is literal (as it should be in the case of a sastra text, as an accompaniment of a 'critical' text and as a tool to stimulate finer research), and sometimes free, aiming more at literary effect than at faithfulness to the original. The readings it presupposes are not always the ones available in the text constituted by K. Although the text bristles with problematic passages, it runs as if there are no problems. There is no indication of uncertainty, no attempt to alert the reader, and no explanatory notes for some of the world's subtlest thoughts. Of course, even in such a translation something useful is always to be found, for it is quite likely that what 'stumps' a reader like me has lent its secrets to K. However, the situation cannot certainly be described as ideal. Consider, for example, the following sample (pp. 214, 504): tad-višesanatvad eva samase 'smin nilotpalaSabdasya purva-nipataḥ saptami-visesane bahu-vrihav iti. "In a compound word like 'dark lily', the adjectival quality is required to come first because it is adjectival only. Or the adjective will relate itself to the possessor in the locative case if it should be a possessive compound." There is no recognition in the translation of the fact that saptami-visesane bahu-vrihau is quoted from Panini (2.2.35), or that there is nothing corresponding to "Or" in the original. K clearly does not distinguish between fabda and quality, or visesana 'qualifier, adjective' and the quality or
REVIEWS
147
property which a videpana signifies. I suppose, if one were to translate texts in this manner, one could translate a number of them in one life-time.
This review has been largely negative. The intention behind it was not to magnify K's failures, but to ensure that his work does not lull the specialists of Sanskrit poetics into a feeling of complacency. Kuntaka's insightful and delightful work needs to be edited and translated again. What K has achieved is not sufficient. I hope I have not been unfair in recording the real refinement he has brought to Kuntaka studies.
I would like to conclude this review with a positive contribution. Since K does not provide a comprehensive account of the material known to be available for editing the VJ, it would be useful to gather in one place the information I have been able to cull about VJ manuscripts, transcripts and editions. It may save a future editor some hours of work.
MANUSCRIPTS AND TRANSCRIPTS
J1: Ms. noticed in Catalogue of MSS in Jaina Bhandars at Jesalmere, compiled by C. D. Dalal (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, no. XXI, pp. 62, 25) and published in 1923, contains the first two unmejas and about one-third of the third unmesa, according to De (1961:viii) whose statement is based on the transcript (J2) supplied to him. To be precise, this ms. ends with the phrase atha vå rasasya samarayo rasena samfrayo yas tasmd [d] appearing in the vṛtti of karika 3.11, De 1961:160, K p. 147. According to Punya-vijayaji (1972:139), it now carries the number 328 in the palm-leaf mss. collection of the Jain bhandar established at Jaisalmer by Jina-bhadra-sūri of Kharatara-gaccha. The physical details given by Punya-vijayaji are: leaves 300, measurement 12 x 1.19 He estimates that the ms. was written in the first half of the 14th century of the Vikrama samvat. 20
J2: A certified transcript of J1 obtained for the Dacca University in 1926 and made available to De. The transcript was made possible by the efforts of the Dacca University authorities and the Resident of Western Rajputana States (De 1961 :viii). It is cited as "Ms. B" by De in the footnotes of his edition. Apparently, it was returned to Jaisalmer, although De does not state so. cf. K. 1977: Preface; notes 5 and 10 here. It is deposited as no. 379 in pothi 30 of paper manuscripts at the same location as J1. Punya-vijayaji (1972:217) records that it has 44 leaves measuring 11 III x 5 (see note 19) and containing 14 lines each. The last detail is confirmed by the two photographs printed by K at the beginning of his edition. The date fecorded in this transcript is samvat 1984 ( 1926 A.D.) according to Punya-vijayaji, which piece of information agrees with the fact that De's transcript was obtained in 1926 (cf. De 1961:vil). A photocopy of this text-source is probably in the possession of K.
J3: No. 327 of the palm-leaf mss. collection in Jina-bhadra-süri's bhandar in the Fort area of Jaisalmer (Le., available at the same location as J1). Described by Punya-vijayaji (1972:138) as having 234 leaves ineasuring 16 11 x 2 (which, I suspect, is a misprint for 21 meaning 24"; see note 19) and as probably belonging to the 13th century of the Vikrama samvat (see note 20a). Photocopy supplied to and probably still in the possession of K (cf. Preface). Facsimiles before the Introduction in K's edition. Of the 25 facsimiles (nos. 4-28), covering 128 pages and fragments of pages, very few can be actually read. They are not correlated with the printed text and the criterion behind their selection has not been stated. However, it is obvious from the facsimiles as well as Punya-vijayaji's remark in Gujarati (prati akhi bhangi ga-eli ane atijirna che) that the ms. is fragmented and extremely worn out. The exact portion of the VJ available in it is not known, although one can be certain that it extends beyond what is found in J1 and J2, since K explicitly states so and uses it to edit the later parts of the third and fourth unmeras.
M1: Ms. from which the transcript in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, was prepared. It has not been determined if this ms. is still surviving. Its notice (indirectly through that of M2?), as De (1961 iv) says, appeared about 1920 in the Report of the Working