________________
236
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBER, 1912.
"अत एकहाले" त्यत्र [ काशिका VI, 4, 126] वृत्तौ जगणतुः जगणुरिति प्रत्युदाहणसमर्थनार्थमनित्य'चन्ता क्षुरात्य इति न्यासकारेणाभिधानात् .
Madh-dhd., Benares Ed., p. 311. From the last instance it is clear that the term Nydsakdra, used by itself and without any prefix, always denotes the Buddhist commentator of the Kasika.
Bhamaha, who attacks this Buddhist commentator, must be assigned to the eighth century. Ia the following verses, Bhámaha attacks the Káryddarsa. I quote from Mr. Trivedi's text : यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कश्चिन्महात्मभिः । निन्दाप्रशंसाचिख्यासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते ॥ सामान्यगुणनिर्देशात् त्रयमभ्युदितं मनु | मालोपमादिः सर्वोपि न क्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा ॥
Bhamaha's Alanikúra II, 37 and 38.
Translation.
Some great authors have divided उपमा into three kinds on the basis of निन्दा, प्रशंसा and आचिख्यासr, such as निन्दोपमा, प्रशंसोपमा, and आचिख्यासोपमा. Our criticism is that the three kinds may well form one group under सामान्यगुण and that the prolixity of मालोपमा and other varieties, far from being good, is useless.
The expression
passage:
is very important. It is often used by Sankaracharya. Anandajñana says that it introduces a refutation of an opponent's view set forth in the preceding सस्मात्प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रप्रमाणकं प्रसाभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति । अत्राभिधीयते न । कर्मत्रह्मविद्याफलयोर्वैलक्षण्यात् ।
परमतनिरासं प्रतिजानीते नेति
The author criticized by अचियासोपमा, मालोपमा and them. Who is this author ?
Sariraka-Phashya
Anandajñāna, Anandaśrama Ed., Vol. I, p. 55. Bhámaha, in the verses quoted above, recognizes निन्दोपमा, प्रशंसोपमother varieties of उपमा so numerous that Bhamaha is heartily sick of We read :
पद्मं बहुरजचन्द्रः क्षयी ताभ्यां तवाननम् । समानमपि सोत्सेकमिति निन्दोपमा स्मृता ॥
ब्रह्मणोप्युद्भवः पद्मश्चन्द्रः शम्भुशिरोधृतः । सीतापते ॥
चन्द्रेण त्वन्मुखं तुल्यमित्याचिख्यासु मे मनः । सगुणी वास्तु दोषों वेत्याचिख्यासोपमां विदुः ॥
पूण्यातप इवान्हीव पूषा व्योम्नीव वासरः । विक्रमस्त्वय्यधालक्ष्मीमिति मालोपमा मता ॥
Kavyadarsa II, 30.
Idem. II, 31,
Idem. II, 32.
Idem. II, 49.
In addition to these four kinds Dandin enumerates twenty-nine other varieties, which, in the opinion of Bhâmaha, are perfectly useless. As regards the first three cited above, it is suggested that this is a distinction without a difference, as all the three can be grouped into one class under सामान्यगुण. The justice of Bhāmaha's criticism will be at once admitted if we reflect that these numerous varieties are not recognised by Sanskrit writers on Alamkára, who succeeded Bbamaha. Nor can it be urged against this view, that Dandin copied these thirty-three varieties from some previous author, since such a presumption is rebutted by the fact that Nripatunga has admitted most of these upamas into his Kavirdjamárga II, 59-85.
54 Nripatniga and the authorship of the Kavirajamarga," Jour Bomb. As Soc., Vol. XXII, p. 81f.
