Indological Studies

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: Parshva Prakashan

Page 17

Paryāyabandha and Sanghata
This would make the Paryāyabandha and the Samghāta as one and the same type. And the same conclusion would follow from Ratnaśrijñāna's definition of the Samghāta, which is as follows :
nänā-bhittayo bhinna-kriyāḥ svatantrāh ślokāh kośavat sthäpitäh kośaḥ. Ekåp bhittis prāvrdādikai varnayitu samudāyena pravriļā bhinnakriyāh ślokāh Sanghātah.
(Kāvgalakşaña, 1 13, commentary)
This means that the Kośa is a treasury of self-contained verses syntactically independent and pertaining to various themes, while the Samghāta is a group of verses syntactically independent but purporting to describe one single theme like the rainy season.
Accordingly one would suspect that what was called Saṁghāta earlier came to be called Paryāyabandha later. But in the definition of the Samghāta given by Bhoja at another place one additional detail occurs :
eka-praghattake yas tv eka-ksto bhavati sūkti-samudāyah samghātaḥ sa nigaditah Vịndāvana-Meghadūtādi.
(Raghavan, op. cit., p. 808)
This means that Samghāta is a group of self-contained verses pertaining to a single theme and of single authorship, like the Vīndāvana and the Meghadüta.
Hemacandra seems to have made a clever use of this for providing separate niches for the Samghāta and the Paryāyabandha types. According to him Paryā is a group of Muktakas pertaining to the same theme, and this definition he takes to be substantially the same as given by Abhinavagupta, which also he reproduces. Further be defines Kośa as consisting of a number of Paryās. And as for the Samghāta, he reproduces Bhoja's definition.11 Thus the distinction between the Samghāta and the Paryāyabandha world rest solely on the fact of authorship : if the work is an