________________
124
Studies in
"I describe the faults pratijña-hina, hetu-hina, etc. I briefly describe them in accordance with Logic with a view to giving simply an idea of them. Generally the slow witted or unintelligent shy away from idstras because of their difficulty. In order to persuade them to study the sastras, I present here a small collection of the logical topics. Granting that logic subserves poetry one might pertinently ask "When the stream of poetry is all-embracing and is not partial to one or the other school why Bhamaha prefers the Buddhist logic for his treatment of the subject?" Bhamaha answers this criticism thus: Indeed we aim at giving a mere direction or indication and not an exhaustive treatment of the whole subject of logic, variously treated by the various schools of thought. If the entire field of logic were to be covered it would lead to prolixity and voluminousness. We therefore restrict ourselves to giving a mere direction in regard to pramaņas, etc. People take to the study of Sastras if presented in poetic garb. Persons (children) who have first tasted honey. take in, without much difficulty, bitter medicine. Although it is widely believed that the subject-matter of the sastras and poetry widely differs the sage Bharata has rightly declared: "There is no word, no meaning, no logic, no art that does not subserve poetry. Oh, what a heavy burden the poet carries !"
This defence, this justification for including the treatment of Logic in his work on poetics is, as far as it goes, all right. But logically it is not very sound. For by the same logic (viz, since Logic subserves poetry he has included its discussion in his work on poetics) he should have also treated of fine arts, such as, dance, drama, music, painting, sculpture and architecture in his Kavyalamkära since they too subserve the cause of poetry.
Dr. V. Raghavan advocates the view that Logic and Grammar formed part of Pre-Bhamaha Alamkara works. Once I was inclined to hold this view. But on reconsideration I feel that if Logic and Grammar had formed part of Pre-Bham ha works there was no need for Bhamaha to preface his apology before commencing the treatment of Logic. Dr. G.T. Deshpande would like us to believe with him that Bhamaha for the first time treated of these two important sastras in his Kavyalamkara with a view to placing alamkara-iästra on the same footing as of these two important astras as poetry was denounced and looked down upon with contempt and ridicule by orthodox Pandits in his days. This view seems to be plausible.
Now we take up the second part of the present paper, viz, the interpretation of the six Kärikäs (Nyaya-nirnaya, vv 5-10):
5. One feels tempted to interpret the compound word-'hetu-nyaya-lavoccayah' to mean a collection of (topics relating to logic from) the hetu-lava (-Hetu-bindu) and Nyaya-lava (-Nyayabindu). Such an assertion on the part of Bhamaha would mean he is later than Dharmakirti. The second half of V. No. 28 is said to be an attack against Dharmakirti who holds that the enunciation of Pratijna is not quite essential and that it can be dispensed with. The second half of V. 61 also is looked upon by some as containing a sly reference to (Dharma)-Kirti.
6. Vide Bhoja's Śrngaraprakasa by Dr. V. Raghavan, 1963 edn. p. 257, p. 723, etc. 7. Vide "Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra" (IN Marathi)
