Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 94

90
'THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[April, 1912.
The conclusion, that we can safely draw from the passages cited above, is that the Ajivakas were well-kuown to the Jaina authors of the later Chilukya and Yadava periods as a sect of Buddhist Bhikshus who lived solely or chiefly on käinji.
[All references to Âjivakas have been culled together in my paper on this sect (Jour. Bomb. As. Soc., Vol. XXI, pp. 403-5). The Jainas have no dont called them to be a sect of the Buddhist Bhikshus, as Professor Pathak has conclusively shown us. But the Buddhists also appear in their turn to bave shown them to be Nirgrantbas, for the latter have actually been once called Âjivakas in the Divyávadana (Cowel and Neil, p. 427). The truth of the matter is that they were neither Buddhists nor Jainas eren in much later times, but formed a distinct sect; and consequently Professor Hultzsch is not correct in taking Ajivakas mentioned in some of the South Indian Inscriptions to be Jainas (Vol. 1, pp. 88, 89, 92 and 108).-D.R.B.]
BHAMAHA AND DANDI. BY R. NARASIMHACHAR; M. A., M. R.A. s., BANGALORE. It may not be generally known that I was the first to give publicity to the discovery of Bhimaba's work on Rhetoric known as Kavyálankára. In the introduction to my edition of Någavarmu's Kavy dvalókanam, a Kannada work on poetics composed by a Jaina author in the middle of the 12th century, which was published in 1903, I wrote as follows! :
"We shall next proceed to consider the Sanskrit writers on poeties whom Någavarma took as his authorities in writing the Kdoyával kanan. In verse 961 he supplies us with the important information that in writing his work he followed in the footsteps of Vamann, Radrata, Bhamaha and Dandi........... Next to him [Bharata) in point of time comes Blámaha, whose priority to Dandi is proved by the latter criticising his views in the first chapter of the Kavyadaria. He is one of the greatest authorities on poetics, his views being quoted by almost all the subsequent writers of note on the subject. His work has not, however, been hitherto discovered, though Sanskrit scholars have made every effort to trace out a copy of it. In fact, Dr. Bühler believed that the work was lost, and other orientalists have also been under the same impression. In these circumstances, it will no doubt be welcome news to students of Sanskrit literature that Professor Rangacharya, M. A., of the Madras Presidency Co lege, has had the good fortane to come upon a manuscript of this valuable and long-sought-for work. At my request he was so lnd as to lend me the manuscript for a few days, and I take this opportunity to thank him heartily for his kindness and courtesy. The manuscript contains some mistakes and there are also a few gaps here and there. In the opening verse the author calls the work Kávydlankdra. It is a short treatise consisting of about four hundred verses, mostly in the Anushtubh metre, and is divided into six parichchhêdas or chapters, the subjects treated of being-kinds of composition and their peculiarities, rhetorical ornaments, faults in composition, and some points in logio and grammar, a knowledge of which is indispensable for correct composition. The only information that the work gives about the author is that he was the son of Rakrils-Gömin. According to Dr. Bühler, he was a Kashmirian. The work bears no dato, but the author probably belongs to tue early part of the 6th century."
Since the above was written, several scholars have given cxpression to their views about Bhimaha and his work. Mr. M. T. Narasimhiengar? has mentioned some points which, he thinks, "clearly establish his contention that Blámahe should be placed after Dandin." Messrs. Kaned and Pathak have expressed the opinion that Mr. M. T. Narasimhiengar has conclusively proved that 1 Pp. 19-21,
-
Jour. & As. Soo., 1905, p. 585 . Zhd. 1908, p. 545.
Jour. Bob. As. Soo.. I , p. 19.