________________
880
SAHẠDAYĀLOKA One thing is clear that it is a form of dramatic spectacle with beauty of song, music and costumes added to it.
True, śāradātanaya also quotes from Bhoja (pp. 388, BP.). But perhaps Dr. Rāghavan is again off the track when he says that Săradātanava quotes it under 'wrong leading of rāsaka'. (pp. 550) Actually even in Agrawal's edition also this portion is printed under the title “rāsaka". But we feel that these verses, which start with Bhoja's definition of prasthāna and move on to describe other varieties of uparūpakas, follow actually the completion of the definition of rāsaka. ... “so'yam mato rāsakah”. - Perhaps in the ms. of BP. some copyist must have added the title "rāsakam” after this, through mistake. Actually verses or portions; 37-46 as read on pp. 388, 389 of BP. are given as definitions of various art-forms and after these are over, other art-forms such as Ullopyaka etc. are described. So, perhaps they are wrongly read here through a scribe's mistake. There is no logic in reading Bhoja's definitions in between. Or, perhaps the scribe concerned must be copying Bhoja's Sr. Pra. also simultaneously and through genuine error he copied this portion from Bhoja or Abhinavagupta as the case may be. This portion is totally out of context and need not be taken as one intended by Sāradātanaya and also from his pen. Actually these verses, excepting the two for kāvya, are all from the Abhinavabhārati (pp. 181, Vol. II. N.S. G.O.S.), describing the view of the 'cirantanas'. Surely these verses are mis-read here and misplaced here and the editors of the BP. should have seen to this. These could have been either dropped as scribal mistake or read at the end of BP.'s treatment of uparūpakas.
The NLRK. has the following (pp. 299, ibid) :
atha kāvyam. khanda-māna, mātrā, dvipadī, bhagnatālā”di-vibhūşitam, catur vȚtti yuktam, śrngāra-hāsya-pradhānam garbhávamarśa-sandhi-sünyam ekánkam. yathā utkanthita-madhavam.
Though the NLRK. has not talked about the various characters, it is clear from the illustration cited, viz. ulkanthita-mādhavam, that the hero is of the lalitodātta type. The S.D. (VI. 284) defines "Kāvya' as -
"kavyām ārabhatīhīnam ekánkam hāsya-samkulam, khanda-mātrā-dvipadikābhagnatālair alamkrtam.”
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
