Jain Journal 1990 01

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

Page 27

JAIN JOURNAL
rasa-sūtra. Next to the Rasādhyāya of Nātyaśāstra, the Bhāvādhyāya is all important. The commentary Abhinavabhārati on it has been lost. Every student of Sanskrit poetics and aesthetics feels very much the loss of this portion. As late as 1969 A.D. Dr. J. L. Masson and Prof. M. V. Patwardhan observe in their recent work, śāntarasa and Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Aesthetics, "All of the seventh chapter of the Abhinavabharati but the very beginning has been lost, which is a great misfortune, since Abhinava refers to it frequently. It must have been a large and important section of the A.Bh." (p. 120 f.n.2). In my paper "Abhinavabharati Ch. VII Recovered ?” I have shown decisively how the portion of the Kalpalatā viveka from p. 2861 22 to p. 3031 3, dealing with the thirty-three vyabhicāri-bhāvas of the Națyaśāstra is a straight quotation of the major portion of the original Abhinavabhārati on the Bhāvādhyāya 21 Kalpalatā viveka of Ambaprasada, Nāțyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra and Kāvyānušāsana of Hemacandra have been of great use in recovering the original readings of Abhinavabhārati and Locana as well. Again, Hemacandra's treatment of guņas is noteworthy : "On gunas Hemacandra is a follower of Anandavardhana and he draws upon Mammata and probably from Rajasekhara also......As regards the three gunas, Hemacandra considers that mädhurya is of the highest degree in vipralambha, a little less in karuna and still less in sānta....... This is one of the views recorded later by Jagannatha." It is noteworthy for “his reference to strange views on guņas". One view holds that ojas, prasada, mādhurya, samya and audārya are the five guņas (in the sense of the pāthadharmas). The other view is these five gunas belong to certain metres. Hemacandra criticises both. What is remarkable is his reference to strange views on guņas which are not mentioned elsewhere by any Alamkarika. Hemacandra's Kavyānuśāsana and Ambaprasada's Kalpalatāviveka shed abundant light on the vexed problem whether Gnoli's claim that his publication, Udbhata's Commentary on the Kāvyalaṁkāra of Bhāmaha,22 really represents some fragments of the “lost" Bhamaha-Vivarana. These two texts contain passages which support Gnoli's identification.
Again, Kalpalatāviveka lucidly explains the six verses of Bhamaha (Kavyālamkara V.5-10) which have baffled modern scholars, pandits and commentators alike. In a paper Kalpalata viveka on Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara (Chapter V. 5-10)"23 I have shown how Kalpalatāviveka
21 Journal, Oriental Institute, Baroda, Vol. XX No. 3, March, 1971. 23 Roma, Institute Italiano per II, Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1962. 23 Published in my Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya-Sastra, B.L. Institute of Indology,
Patan, pp. 123-129.