________________
आलिखितः कुमारेण सुविभक्तोज्ज्वलेन वर्णकर्मणाऽलक्ष्यमाणगुलिकाब्रजैरनुरूपया सूक्ष्मरेखया प्रकटदर्शनेन निम्नोन्नतविभागेन विशुद्धया वर्तनया उचितेन भूषणकलापेन अभिनवस्नेहोत्सुकत्वेन परस्परं हास्योत्फुल्लबद्धष्टिरारूढमत्वेन लडिनोचितनिवेशो (लक्षितोचितनिवेशो) विद्याधरसङ्घाटक इति ।।
The pigments were properly mixel and the colours appropriately differentiated in various shades (suvibhakta) and were bright (ujjvala, or showed proper high lights), the brushes (gulikā-vraja) were extremely fine (almost imperceptible) with which were drawn extremely fine lines; the relievo was shown (heights and depths properly differentiated and suggested clearly), the vartanā or shading and modelling was visuddha, i. e., faultless; the element of ornamentation (bhūşana) was appropriatly introduced, and the element of joy and affection towards each other (bhāva) properly executed. Siddharşi, another Jaina monk from Western India, who composed his allegorical story of Upamitibhava prapancakathā in c. early 10th century A. D., almost uses the same words in a passage recently quoted by Sivarammurti in his South Indian Paintings.
The painting was drawn on a pattika. The two painters of the portrait of Rat. nāvati were asked by Gunacandra to study and criticize the Citra-pattikā of Vidyadharayugala, executed by himself (Gunacandra). The technical term used for art-criticism is mirtipana (cf. niruvena tubbhe sayameveti and nireviya Cittamaibhusanehim. (Ibid., p.615).
The nirūpaņa of the Citra-pattıkā, done by these artists is noteworthy: ea! अपूर्वैषा चित्रकर्मविच्छित्तिः कथयतीव निजभावं स्फुटवचनैः। चित्रकर्मणि देव! दुष्करं भावाराधनम्। प्रशंसन्ति इदमेवात्राचार्याः अभिनवस्नेहोत्सुकेनापि परस्परं हास्योत्फुल्लदृष्टित्वं तथाऽऽरूढप्रेमत्वेनापि च लचि(क्षि)तोचितनिवेशकं चात्राकथितमपि देव! चित्रशास्त्रे पठ्यते, यथा विना चरितादिना अधिकारेण यथाकथचित् किल यादशभावयुक्तं चित्रकर्म निष्पद्यते तादृशभावसंपत्तिर्नियमेन चित्रकारिणः। ततो देव! आसन्नो देवस्य प्रियदर्शनेन ईडशो भाव इति x x x (Ibid, p. 615).
It is likely that here we have a quotation from a lost Citraśāstra, in 'vină caritādinā... ... Citrakārinah'. It is important to note here that success in suggesting the bhāvas in painting was regarded as a great accomplishment of artist. We must note that the expression Citrakarmavicchittih, is possibly used here in the sense of both proper arrangement (composition) and colouring with suitable pigments.
I am not repeating here the evidence from Tilakamanjarī, Udayasundari-Kahā etc. already discussed by Sivarammurti. But I should like to quote here an interesting reference to a Citraśālā (Hall of Paintings) attached to the Jaina shrine called Kumāravihāra (now not extant) at Pāțan built by Kumārapāl, some time in the third quarter of the twelth century. Rāmacandra sūri, the famous author of Natyadarpana and several plays, etc., who was a contemporary of Kumārapāla, gives a poetic description of this Citraśālā which had paintings of vyālas, elephants, monkeys, camels, chariots, lives of divinities, scenes of several nātyas, and of the battles between gods and demons.21
21.Cf.
व्यालैर्बालान्गजेन्द्रः कपिकरभरथैम्यिसाथाँश्चरित्रैः श्रद्धालून्देवतानां नृपतिमृगदृशो वासवान्तःपुरीभिः। नानानाट्यैटौघान्मरुदसुरभवैः रंगरैर्वीरवर्गान् एकाकिन्येव लोकास्तरलयति मुहुर्यत्र चित्रस्य संसत् ।।११०॥
-Kumāravihārašataka, published by Atmananda Jaina Sabha, Bhavnagar.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
