________________
INTRODUCTION
93
onusa the various fifth chapterreads thus:
Let us examine Hemacandra's remarks in question. Having dealt with the Apabhraíśa' metres in general in the fifth Chapter of his Chandonusa sana, Hemacandra devotes the next two chapters to the treatment of the various metres used in constructing the Ap. epic. The opening Sutra of the fifth chapter defines the Dhruvā or Ghattā. That Sūtra with its commentary reads thus:
Sandhyādau Kadavakānte ca dhruvam syād iti Dhruvā
Dhruvakam Ghattā vā. Com. Kadavaka-samūhātmakah Sandhis tasyādau, caturbhih Paddhadikādyais chandobhih Kadavakam, tasyānte dhruvam niścitam syād iti Dhruvā, Dhruvakar, Ghattā veti samjñāntaram.
Here in the commentary first the term Sandhi is defined. It is followed by the definition of the term Kadavaka. In this the word caturbhih can be taken as applying to Paddhadikādyaiḥ, or alternatively Paddhadikādyaiḥ and caturbhiḥ both can be taken as qualifying chandobhiḥ. Jacobi and Alsdorf have understood the definition in the first sense and hence they take it to mean that a Kadavaka is composed in any one of those four metres, one of which is the Paddhadikā. In other words according to these eminent scholars the above-quoted definition of the Kadavaka lays down that only four (Paddhadikā and some other three) metres are to be employed in composing a Kadavaka. Thus the purpose of the statement caturbhiḥ etc. is, they think, to prescribe which metres are to be used in a Kadavaka. This interpretation of the sentence in question makes Alsdorf, inspite of some dificulties, to set up the Paddhadikā, Adillā, Pādākulaka and a Pāranaka-like metre as the four principal metres of the Ap. epic.
There are, however, several prima facie considerations which go against such an interpretation of the words in Ch. In explaining the other terms Sandhi and Dhruvā, Hemacandra has given particulars that are peculiar from the point of view of structure or position and there is no reference to metrical form. Thus Sandhi is defined as made up of a group of Kadavakas, and Dhruvā as that which appears without fail at the end of a Kadavaka. Accordingly it would lead us to expect that the explanation of Kadavaka also would concern itself with pointing out something that is peculiar to its structure or position and not to its metrical form. Moreover it would be rather strange that in such an important point Hemcandra considered the cryptic mention Paddhadikádyaiḥ sufficient. The ground of familiarity can hardly account for such brevity, because the other terms Sandhi and Kadavaka were far more familiar and yet they have been expressly defined.
It is from two other works on Ap. prosody that these first considerations get a decisive support in favour of the alternative interpretation, suggested above, according to which the expressions caturbhiḥ and Paddhadikidyaiḥ both qualify Chandobhih and the whole definition means that a Kadavaka is made up of four stanzas of the Paddhadikā or other such metres. The Svayambhücchandas, which, as we have already seen, served as a source for Ch. has the following lines on the structure of the Ap. epic.
Paddhadiā punu je-i karenti, te soda(la)ha-mattau Pau dharenti vihi Paahim jamau te nimmaanti, Kadavaa(u) ațshahim
jamaahim raanti/
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
