Jain Journal 1990 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 26

JANUARY, 1990
89
alamkāra that they comment upon. Most noteworthy works which belong to the above categories are Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana, Nātyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Kalpalatāviveka of Ambaprasada (?), Namisadhu's Tippana (commentary) on Rudrata's Kävyālamkāra, Manikyacandra's commentary Saṁketa on Kävyaprakāśa and Gunaratnagani's Sāradipikā, another commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa.
Though Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana does not constitute an original contribution to the subject it is not quite correct to describe it as a compilation exhibiting hardly any originality as Kane18 does or to charge Hemacandra of plagiarism as Dell does or to label it as 'siksagrantha' as De, again, does. Instead of briefly summarising or paraphrasing or describing in his own words the theories and doctrines of his great predecessors too illustrious to be mentioned by name, if Hemacandra preferred to present them in their original form we need not find fault with him. Besides we cannot forget the fact that his writing was of a śāstriya(scientific) nature and in scientific books such quotations are justified. We will only be betraying poverty of our imagination and scant respect for Hemacandra's intelligence if we were to insinuate that Hemacandra pretended that all the passages and sections which he quoted would pass as his own. The truth of the matter is that Hemacandra regards the masterpieces of his worthy predecessors as the property of the entire world. He is a man of pratibha (creative imagination) but his pratibha is more of the bhāvayitri (appreciative) and less of the kārayitri (creative) type. His capacity to select choicest passages from his authorities and to organise them into a homogeneous and organic whole is supreme. Moreover, Hemacandra shows independence of thought and judgement in good many places, refusing to follow blindly his acknowledged authorities.
Hemacandra adopts the entire long section of Abhinavabharati on the famous rasa-sūtra of Bharata. He also adopts explanations of Bharata's Dasarūpakādhyāya from Abhinavabhārati. He also freely incorporates passages after passages from his authorities as shown in my paper "The Sources of Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana". 20 If the sections and explanations from Abhinavabhārati were not preserved in tact by incorporating them in his Kavyānusāsana, it would have been next to impossible to restore the corrupt text of Abhinavabhārati on the key
18 History of Sanskrit Poetics, 1961, pp. 288-89. 18 Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, p. 203. 29 Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XIV, No. 2, December, 1964.