Kalplata Vivek

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

Page 74

65 (v) (P. 44, 1. 23) Vatsa thought that the elephant was under the influence of rut. Thus nothing is objectionable in the Vasavadatta lambhaka of the Bihatkatha, (vi) Agama.virodhi (p. 45, 1. 6)": Whatever offends against Agama i.e. scriptures, is Agama-virodhi, Bbamaha explains this dosa thus: agamo dharma. sastrani loka-sima ca tat-kyta / tad-virodhi tadacara-vyatikramanato 1/2 Agama means scriptures, and the limit or bounds of general behaviour laid down by them. Whatever transgresses this limit is Agama-virodhi hence faulty (dusta). The ill.3 of this dosa is not traceable in Viveka. 4 (vii to x) (p. 45, 1. 9) In the beginning of the fifth chapter of his Kavyalamkara, Bhainaba offers an apology for the inclusion of the discussion of topics on Logic and Epistemology in a work dealing with rhetorics. Generally unintellegent people are afraid of studying Sastras as they are difficult to understand. This discussion of topics on Logic is, therefore, calculated to slowly and sweetly introduce them 1. Viveka probably suggests (p. 42, 1. 11) that Bhamaha rather wanted to justify the leather-elephant incident'-than criticise it. It interprets (B. K. L. IV. 51 ) : " g izat fare: etc. / " quoted fully in Viveka (p. 43, 1. 13), accordingly, so as to apply it to the Nyaya-virodhi-dosa only. But this verse coming at the end of the treatment of dosas as it does, is applicable to all the dosas treated in the chapter wherein the illustrations are based on works of earlier poets. So it applies to Agamavirodhi-dosa also which follows Nyaya-virodhi as well as to certain other dosas which precede the latter in the matter of treatment. Prof, Tatacharya rightly interprets it thus, and he does not restrict it to the Nyaya-virodhi-dosa alone; for Agama-virodhi precedes this last verse. It need not be thought that this verse' &c came immediately after the treatment of Nyaya-virodhi in the Viveka-kara's text of B. K. L. for Viveka also points out that it is the last verse, vide Tagama ETT 378217angari (p. 42, 1. 12). It is suggested in the Udyanavrtti that the reading tata is not proper. ("fa salaista 9771 HAFT8"-Udyana-Vrtti on B KL.IV.5).) Viveka also has the same reading and interprets ' n' as 'fahre in the same way as Prof. Tatacharya does. B. K, L. IV. 48. 3. vide B, K, L, IV. 49-50. Kalpalata did not illustrate this dosa or at least did not quote Bhamahas ill. of this dosa (for detailed discussion on this ill. vide Udyanavrtti on B. K. L. IV. 49-50), probably because it offends against a Brahmanical Sastraic text. Viveka remarks that whatever offends against the Dharma-sastra in which one believes is Agama-virodhi for him (p. 45, 1. 7). This suggests that the illustration given by Bhamaha (at B. K, L, IV. 49-50) was not acceptable to the author of Kalpalata, who was in all probability a Jain. D 7.