Kalplata Vivek

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

Page 24

15 Authorship of Viveka : We have more than once hinted at the analogous characters of Hemacandra's Vivekal and Kalpalata-viveka. One may be tempted to carry this analogy to its logical conclusion and to assert that just as Kavyanusasanaviveka is written by Hemacandra, i. e. to say by the autbor of the original work and its auto-commentary, so also Kalpalata-viveka was written by the author of Kalpalata. This may appear a fortiori justifiable because Kalpalataviveka does not have a separate mangala verse of its own and also because both these works are contemporaneous. Yet such a conclusion would be faulty; for it appears that the author of Kalpalata and Pallava is not the author of Viveka, for the following reasons : (i) Viveka is not mentioned by Devasuri, even though it discusses the verse suryacandramasau &c.'? in brief. (ii) The introductory verse implies that Viveka is not an integral part of Kalpalata, for it offers an apology for its very composition not merely there but also in the first of the two verses at the colophon of the work. The note on this latter verse also suggests that Viveka is an additional commentary or elucidation ( vivarana ) yet it should not be considered redundant as it contributes to the easy understanding of the work. Similarly the metaphor in the last verse at the colophon of the work points out that Viveka is not an organic part of Kalpalata But it bears the same relation to the original as a bannerstaff to the temple 3 whereon it is hoisted. (iii) The method of explaining words from the original also suggests that Viveka is not a sub-auto-commentary, in this it stands in vivid contrast with Hemacandra's Viveka. This suggests that Viveka bad a separate author. While dealing with Arstimad dosa Kalpalata borrows from Bhoja's S. K. . Bhojas enumerates the varieties of this dosa in a particular order 1. P. 8 also fn. 2 (P. 8). 2. Quoted in extenso on P. 2. 3. These verses etc. are quoted on P. 8, fn. 2. 4. cf. P. 51, 1. 3: P. 252, 1. 14; P. 263, 1. 4; P. 268, 1. 17; P. 274, 1. 5 and so on. 5. The remarks of Viveka are: 37791HE TOITETTATO FAT I P. 24. 1. 10. This has been pointed out later in the survey of the contents. In Bhoja's S.K., the order is : fafanu, garefaqja, agafaque (these are spegera type ), (vide S. K. I 33 : T a fragacea e fa: 1 378f4a17: : 9197 गुणविपर्ययः 1). In the treatment in the following Karika Bhoja takes अप्रसन्न or प्रसादविपर्यय first, अर्थव्यक्तिविपर्यय next and ग्राम्य or कान्तिविपर्यय the last, Thus there is an unwarranted change in the order, which has heen called into question by Viveka at P. 42, 1, 19.