________________
1744
SAHRDAYĀLOKA nature and purpose, all culled from the same context in Bharata (Kaśī Edn. Ch. XXI. 52-58). The text of Bharata itself gives the sandhyanga-s as 64 and it is this number of 64 that is responsible for Bhoja making up a regular set of three other '64-s'. The definitions of all these 64, of each in a single line in an Anustubh, is taken from Bharatal and all the illustrations are either from the Ratnāvalī or from the Venīsamhāra, most often, the angas are illustrated from both these dramas.
[foot-note 1, on pp. 593, Raghavan, reads as - “Regarding the total number of Sandhyanga-s, there is a discrepancy to which Dr. J. K. Balbir, drew my attention, viz. that though Bharata mentions the Sandhyanga-s as sixty-four, he actually enumerates and defines sixty-five. The Abhinavabhārati notes this and say
(p. 526, Vol. II. Madras MS. - that Prarocană of the Vimarsa sandhi or the very last, 'prasasti of the Nirvahana, is left out by writers to solve this difficulty. The Daśa-rūpaka leaves out 'Prarthanā' from the Garbha, and the Natyadarpana notes the view that some consider 'Prarthana' from the Garbha, and the Natyadarpana notes the view that some consider 'Prarthana' as a later introduction (p. 85). The Sahityadarpana also refers (VI. 98-99) to those who leave out either prārthanā or Praśasti. Bhoja in his Śr. Pra, keeps all of these, but omits 'upanyāsa' of the Pratimukha. (Vol. II. p. 502).] [It may be noted that in the list quoted above by us from Josyer, there is no space for 'upanyāsa', in the pratimukha-sandhi, having 12 limbs. 'Upanyāsa' in the name of ‘upaksepa' figures in Mukha in the NS., and Bhoja called it ‘āksepa' in the enumeration and then 'Upaksepa' while giving definition and illustration. We do not know what text was before Dr. Raghavan. Again, we are surprised to read that Dr. Raghavan required some Dr. Balbir's help to know about the discrepancy. Had he looked into the A.bh., it would have been clear without the help of any assistant.].
Dr. Raghavan continues : "The Sandhyanga-s are very well explained by Abhinavagupta in his commentary on the NS. and to an extent, in his Locana on the Dhvanyāloka also. It has been pointed out in my contribution on Laksana, how Bharata takes the text of drama as kāvya, poetic expression, and how this significant expression kāvya means that the Lakşaņas, Gunas, Alamkāras, and Sandhyanga-s belong as much to Śravyakāvya also. While speaking of the sandhyang-s also, Bharata uses the word kāvya at a number of places -
“anga-hīnam yathā kāvyam
na prayoga-kşamam bhavet.” (XXI. 55) "kāvyam yad api hīnártham, uddātam api yat kāvyam.” (XXI. 56, 57, etc.)
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
