________________
154
Studies in
Hemacandra
masterpieces of his predecessors as the property of the entire world. is a man of 'pratibha' but his 'pratibha' is more of the 'bhavayitri' and less of the 'Karayitri' type. His capacity to select choicest excerpts from his authorities and to organize them into a homogeneous and organic whole is supreme. Moreover, Hemacandra shows independence of thought and judgment in good many places, refusing to follow blindly his acknowledged authorities. To wit, he rejects, and on logical grounds too, three of the six Kavyaprayojanas given by Mammata (pp. 5-6); he differs with Mukulabhatta and Mammata for he holds that Lakṣaṇā is based on Prayojana alone and not on Rudhi or Prayojana (p. 46). He differs with Mammata (p. 146) as he rejects Ubhayasaktimula-dhvani' (p. 68). He rightly rejects the threefold classification of 'artha' into svaṭaḥ sambhavi, Kaviprauḍhoktimätraniṣpanna-sarirah and Kavinibaddhavaktṛpraudhoktimätraniṣpannasarirab as found in the Dhv. (pp. 72-73) and the KP. (IV. 39-40). Hemacandra criticises Dhanika for describing Jimutavahana as Dhirodätta (vide KS p. 123 II 19-21 and DR II. p. 37). If Mammata speaks of the eight kinds of Madhyama-kävya, Hemacandra holds that there are only three kinds of it (pp. 152-157). He seems to be hitting at Mammata when he remarks: "Etena nirvedasyamangalaprayatve' pi...tat pratikṣiptam" (p. 121 II. 9-10). He differs with Mammața when he remarks "Ayam bhavaḥ-Yathānyaiḥ pratikülavarnalakṣano Dosa uktaḥ..tasya (p. 290 II. 19-20). His treatment of the topic of Gunas (Ch. IV) is indeed remarkable, for its presentation and style invariably reminds us of Rajasekhara's KM. Although Hemacandra takes his cue from Kuntaka and his reasoning in reducing the number of Arthälamkäras is not always satisfactory nor convincing, the fact remains that his treatment of this topic is, to a good extent, novel. In a few places we find him compiling passages from different sources skilfully into one organic whole-adding his own remarks in between. In this connection we may point to Viveka pp. 203-4, (I. 13-30) where he combines passages from the Vyaktiviveka and the Vakroktijivita, or Viveka p. 362 (I. 10 to p. 364) where he combines the vṛtti of the Dhv. and Locana adding his own remarks in between..
It would, therefore, seem that the criticism against Hemacandra's KS is not fair. It would be more correct to describe the KS as a good text-book lucidly setting forth various topics of Alamkärasästra in the very words of the masters and serving as a good introduction to the study of the well known authorities.14
13. Vide Hemacandra's remarks at the opening of his Pramaņamimamsa; he unambiguously and emphatically states; Anadaya evaita vidyaḥ samkṣepa-vistara-vivakṣaya navanavibhavanti, tattatkartykäśca ucyante." It is interesting to note that even this statement of Hemacandra is based on Jayanta's Nyayamañjari (p. 1 and 5)
14. The reader is referred to Shivaprasad Bhattacharya's Faper Hemacardia ard the Eleventh Century Kashmir Poeticists"in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, Vol. XXIII 1957 No. 1
