Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology

Page 87

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
75
These tables should lead us to the obvious inference that the authors of these works draw on a common source and to a further inference that their common source could not have been anything else than the A. Bh. on the Bhāyādhyāya (NS Ch. VII) which treats of the eight sthāyibhāvas, the thirtythree vyabhicāribhāvas, and the eight sāttvika-bhāyas. There is another fact, obvious to all, that the authors of the KAS. and the ND, do not reproduce the definitions of the forty-nine bhāvas, as they are found in the NS, but adapt them and that they do not fully borrow the comments in the A. Bh. on them but pick up only such phrases and significant lines from them as they think to be useful for a clear exposition. On the other hand, the author of the KLV reproduces verbatim the definitions of the thirty-three vyabhicāribhāvas in the same order as found in the NS and he also gives fuller comments which agree in parts with the corresponding lines in the KAS and the ND as shown above. From this fact we may therefore, draw a further inference that these fuller passages, presenting comments on thirty-three vyabhicāri-bhāvas, found in the KLV represent the original portion of the A. Bh, on the Bhāyādhyāya. That the author of the KLV borrows this whole section from the A. Bh. should not surprise us if we remembered that elsewhere too in his work he has borrowed long sections from the NS and the A. Bh. (Vide pp 33-40, and pp 101-104) and from the Dhvanyaloka and the Locana commentary of Abhinavagupta on it (vide pp 105-186).
This conclusion finds strong support in the similarity of language, style, diction and the method of exposition found in this portion and the rest of the A. Bh. It is generally true that such a similarity, especially when we speak of post-Pāṇini Sanskrit writers, is no safe or sure criterion of an author's identity. In the present case however, one could safely rely on this consideration. If this portion of the commentary from the KLV were to be printed as the A. Bh. on the Bhāyādhyāya no one would ever have dreamt of doubting its genuineness. So complete, so perfect is the similarity, even identity. The references in this portion to the views of Sriśankuka, Kecit,2 Ghanțuka: (? Ghanţaka), Tikākāra' Bhatta-tota, Kavikulacakravarti, Anye,? Cäņakyācārya, Apare, Tärkika, Sankhya and Socya (? Sākya) are such as could come only in the Abhinavabharati.
1 31197170...la sitzt : I gata i p. 295 2 Fast' farà fapicha | p. 296 3 latar, vafà fog#: ' p. 298 . 4 fan famatta fara sa toht: p. 300 5 Healaet...... I p. 300
377 Haalaa p. 302 6 एतदेव हि प्रतिजागरित कविकुलचक्रवर्तिना "तिष्ठेत् कोपवशात" (विक्रमोर्वशीय ४.२) इत्यादिना ।
p. 300 7 ad a ufafu write gir feratif unifama pasangang: 1 p. 302 8 तथा च-दैवमचिन्त्य पुरुषकारस्तु चिन्त्य इति वदन् चाणक्याचार्य स्तर्कपूर्वकमेव समस्त व्यवहारमाह ।
p. 302 9 अरे तु मन्यन्ते कः खलु चित्तवृत्तीगणयितु समर्थः । गणने वा तार्किकतर्कितात्मगुणनवकेन वा सांख्य