Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

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

Page 99

Sanskrit Sahityaśāstra
87
Indian logic37. He tries to establish parallelism between them, which is faulty and unconvincing 38
The analysis of the dramatic plot into five sandhis is given by the theorists to facilitate the dramatist's task of plot.construction while that into five arthaprakrtis is simply an objective one irrespective of the dramatic structure. It will thus appear that Keith is not quite correct when he remarks : "the classification of elements of the plot (i.e. arthaprakstis) is perhaps superfluous beside the junctures (i.e sandhis)."39
All the five sandhis occur in a full-fledged drama (Nātaka, Prakarana and Nātikā). In the Dima and Samavakāra the juncture. vimarśa is omitted; in the Vyāyoga and the I hāmrga the garbha and vimarsa are omitted; in the Prahasana, the Vithyanka and the Bhāna, the pratimukha, the garbha and the vimarśa are omitted. But in any type of drama the first and the last sandhis are invariably present.
The patākā being a continuous, though incidental vștta, is credited with anu-sandhis which are to be less in number than the sandhis. The prakari being of a very short duration is to be without any sandhi40. Keith remarks that even the incident is permitted on one view to have incomplete junctures. He refers here to the text of the DR : असन्धि प्रकरौं न्यसेत् । Avaloka explains असन्धि as अपरिपूणेसन्धि, The ND. is explicit on this point and denies any sandhi or anusandhi to the prakari.
37 Drama in Sanskrit Literature, p. 119.
The author of the Mudrārākşasa, it may be pointed out here, successfully establishes in Act IV. 3, a comparison between a minister and a dramatist; and in Act V. 10 between a king and
a disputant.. 38 The sandhis number five, so too, the member of a syllogism; the last member of the syllogism
is called upasamhyti (or upasa mhāra). Here the parallelism ends. At the most one may extend it in the case of the first sandhi. But by no stretch of imagination can the pratimukha, garbha and the vimarsa be equated with hetu, drstānta and nigama. Then there is nothing in the nvāva
to correspond with the sixty-four sandhyangas. * 39 Sanskrit drama, p. 299.
Abhinava, in the course of his exposition of arthaprakytis, accepts the meaning of 'means to the end-phalahetus' and rejects the meaning of elements or parts of the plot. He advances the following grounds for rejecting the second meaning :
(अन्ये त्याहुः-अर्थस्य समस्तरूपकवाच्यस्य प्रकृतयः प्रकरणान्यवयवार्थखण्डा इत्यर्थप्रकृतयः-) एतच्च व्याख्यानं नातीव प्रकृतं पोषयति । सन्ध्यादीनामपि चार्थप्रकृतित्वमत्र व्याख्याने स्यात्, इतिवृत्तमेव च सम्दायरूपम् । अर्थ इति वृत्ते प्रकृतय इति वक्तव्येऽर्थग्रहणमतिरिक्तं स्यात्, इत्यवस्थाभिश्च तुल्यतावर्णनं वर्णन917' E la na III. p. 12.
Abhinava accepts the classification of arthaprakstis in the sense of 'Means to the End'. He rejects it in the sense of elements or parts of the plot'-as then the sandhis too will be artha
prakytis. What has been said above will obviate this difficulty. 40 पताकावृत्तस्य प्राधान्यनिबन्वेऽपि अनुसन्धिर्मुख्यवृत्तसन्ध्यनुगतः सन्धिर्भवति गौणः सन्धिरित्यर्थः ।...प्रकर्यास्तु
TAS ETETT T1 Frega ta alla | Pp. 48-49,