________________
"Dasarūpaka-Vicăra"
1707 the five artha-prakstis should be used by a dramatist. The NS. XIX. 19-20 has -
“itivịtte yathā’vasthāḥ pañca”rambhikāh smrtäh artha-prakṣtayaḥ pañca tathā bījā”dikā api. bījam binduḥ patākā ca prakarī kāryam eva ca, artha-prakstayaḥ pañca
jñātvā yojyā yathā-vidhi.” Dr. Kulkarni feels that when Bharata said that as in case of avasthās, the arthaprakrti-s are also to be used, accordingly, the DR. thought that they are to be employed together. This meaning of Yathāvidhi' must have entered the mind of Dhananjava. which was a cross misunderstanding. The faithful followers as Sāradātanava and Singabhūpāla followed the suit. But Abhinavagupta has never said such a thing. He has simply stated (pp. 31, A.bh. III) that - "artha-bhāga-rāśiḥ sandhir ity uktam, tatra sandhīnām sambandhanīyāni vrttāni samvidhāna-khandāni... angam." The definitions, of course the general definitions in the DR. as seen above, and in the BP. and NLRK. also do not reveal this. The BP. (p. 207) observes :
eka-kāryā’nviteșv atra kathāmseșu prayogataḥ, avántaraika-kāryasya
sambandhaḥ sandhir işyate. The NLRK. (p. 20) has - "sandhiḥ parasparam kathāmśānām samghatanam. yathoktam sandhīyante arthāḥ parasparam ebhiḥ iti sandhayaḥ.”
As noted above by us Dr. Kulkarni also suggests that the fact that avasthas occur in the order of their enumeration and the use of the word "yathā-vidhi” must have tempted the DR. to believe that the five arthaprakstis too, occur in the very order in which they are mentioned. The note no. 26, (pp. 83), given by Dr. Kulkarni tries to explain Abhinavagupta's position in this respect. The A.bh. says (Vol. III. p. 12) :
"jñātva yojyā yathā-vidhi iti tāsām auddeśikokrivad upanibandha-kramaniyama ityarthah." We feel that the A.bh. by “tāsām" seems to refer to the artha-prakstis and recommends that these occur in the order shown by Bharata. But this reference
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
