Kalplata Vivek

Author(s): Murari Lal Nagar, Harishankar Shastry
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 20

this Kalpa pallava did dilate on certain topics. Certain references in the text of Viveka suggest that Pallava discussed, if occasionally, certain topics at length: for instance, it treated Gramyadosa at considerable length. Yet the fact that a supplementary commentary was necessary indicates that on the whole Pallava must have been terse rather than copious. Scope of Viveka : Viveka is secondary in nature. It is a sub-commentary on Kalpalata and as its name suggests it is expected to be critical and discerning in its approach. It purports to supplement Pallava by elucidating and explaining all those topics which remained incomprehensible inspite of the latter. Thus its scope is conditioned on the one hand by the scope of the original which it seeks to critically explain, and on the other by its bid merely to supplement Pallava and not to reiterate anything that was discussed in the latter. We may perhaps say that Viveka has successfully achieved both these aims, first by explaining whatever was passed over by Pallava and secondly by restricting itself to that and consciously forbearing from making repetitions. In spite of such a self-imposed limitation Viveka has sought to widen its horizon by incorporating within itself detailed discussions on several topics of Poetics like Dhvani, Prastaras, Bhavas, and so on. In doing so the author has not hesitated in bodily importing long passages from the works of Ananda vardhana, Bhattenduraja, Abhinayagupta", Mahimabbatta, Namisadhu and so on. Structural nature of Kalpalata : In the absence of the original Kalpalata it is quite difficult, even 1. faecat aa ga graang ... ! (Viveka P. 9, 1. 22 ) also +9989 a fait Teta (ibid P. I, 1.11 ) 2. FEAT & fafaced ta farz &c. (ibid P. 9, 1. 22 ). It does not dilate on the Mangala verse of Kalpalata, but refers us to Kalpalata & Pallava (P. 1, 1. 11) It does not deal with gefur as it is dealt with in 187 (P. 253, 1. 5) 3. Prastara of metres properly belongs to Prosody. Here it is borrowed from Bhoja's S. K., which does not give in detail the several calculations. 4. The sub-section on Rasa-dosas in the first section ( P. 78 to 90 ) and the major portion ( P. 105 to 186 ) of the third section of Viveka are borrowed wholly from Dhvanyaloka and Locana on it. 5. Abhinava's commentary on Natyasastra has also been drawn upon by Viveka ( P. 304 f. ). Natyasastra also is drawn upon. Similarly Viveka draws upon Hemacandra's Kavyanusasana Viveka. We have tried, wherever possible, to trace the sources, which please see in the survey of the contents of Viveka. 6.