Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 2

SR No.: 522602
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: G C Chaudhary
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur
Publication Year: 1974
Total Pages: 342
Language: English, Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 45

36
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 2
spite of the generic similarity. The poetry that is simply an imitation is lifeless. A good poet does not reproduce the Ideas already expressd in poetry but he transmutes them with the touch of his imagination. His creation, therefore, is to its source as one individnals of the same genus to another. It develops a pleasing novelty which justifies its emergence. When nothing new is created the re-expression of the expressed Idea is not only unwarranted but also liable to censure.
Rajasekhara treats plagiarism under two heads:-(I) that which pertains to words and (II) that which pertains to Ideas, though this division is superficial and untenable.
He quotes the opinion of former critics that borrowing of a single word does not involve any blame and adds by way of amendment 'except where the word is a double-intender': use of a double-intender is an individual creation, therefore its appropriation by another poet is plagiarism. He rejects the opinion of the critics that lifting a set of three simple (aślişta) words is plagiarism and goes to the extent of exonerating the lifting of even a whole foot unless it involves appropari. ating some significant expression that contains some singular achievement of the predecessor's creative imagination.
When an Idea or expression is borrowed and given a quite opposite slant bordering on parody this should not be censured as plagiarism. But Rajasekhara holds a different view, though in other analogous cases he exonerates the borrower. It is hard to find out the logic behind this line of demacration which strikes a modern mind as inore or less arbitrary. One opinon is pitted against another without a convincing argument.
Contrary to the verdict of Ācāryas, Rājasekhara holds that plagiarism is involved in the following case:--
त्यागाधिकाः स्वर्गमुपाश्रयन्ते त्यागेनहीना नरकं व्रजन्ति । न त्यागिनाम् किञ्चिदसाध्यमस्ति त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्ति ।।
and त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्ती त्यलीकमेतद्भवि सम्प्रतीतम् । जातानि सर्वव्यसनानि तस्या
स्त्यागेन में मुग्धविलोचनायाः ।। Here the poet of the latter has simply adopted one line from the former and has thereupon independently exercised his creative imagi. pation. The line adapted provides him with an objective co-relative.