________________
xxiv
सवृत्तिकः कविदर्पणः
[INTRODUCTION and illustration of Vitāna at JD. 5.5 and of Citrapadā at JD. 6.3, in an identical metrical form (anyad ato hi vitānam; citrapadapi ca bhau gau). Against this Halāyudha on Chandassūtra 5.8 remarks : -'Since the whitedressed one (the “vetāmbara author Jayadeva) has said : Vitāna is any metre other than these, (and then again) Citrapadā too contains two Bhaganas and two long letters, this latter is without any purpose as it were (since it is included in the former which has the same metrical formula)'. Jayakirti's defence of Jayadeva is probably due to the fact that both of them were Jains.17 But if it is a defence, it is very lame and the real explanation of Jayadeva's definition of Vitāna seems to be that this word was intended by him, like his predecessor and model Pingala, to be applicable to all Varņa Vșttas whether Sama, Ardhasama or Vişama,17a which were not of the Samānikā or the Pramāņikā type. This meaning of the word Vitāna as it seems to have been understood by Pingala and Jayadeva. was, however, forgotten and given up at the time of Kedāra, Jayakīrti and Hemacandra, all of whom treat Vitāna as a proper name, along with the names Samānikā and Pramānikā. They mention all the three names among the metres of the Anustubh class and understand by the term Vitāna any other Sama Vștta of the Anustubh class which is different from Samānikā and Pramāņikā and which they have not defined. In this they have followed Halāyudha, who in his commentary on Chandassūtra 5.8 has clearly
17. See Jayadāman, Introduction p. 33. 17a. The word anuştubhi occurring in Jayadeva's definition of the Samāni is, how
ever, puzzling. Jayadeva was probably prompted to use it here, in view of the immediately following Vaktra group of the Vişama Vsttas, to which the word anuştubh is really applicable. In Pingala's Chandassūtra, the word anuştubh occurs at the right place, though it is dragged backwards by Halāyudha. On the other hand, if the word is taken, as it is, in the definition of Samānī and also of Pramāņi and Vitāna, as is done by Jayadeva's commentator Harşața, the term Vitāna would yet apply to all the different Vaktras, which are Visama (in respect of the order of the short and the long letters, if not in respect of their number) and defined in Sūtras 6 to 15 of the fifth chapter, as also to those others which are Sama and defined in Sutras 3 to 5 in the sixth chapter, since all these are different from the Samāni and the Pramāņi in point of their la-ga-krama. Thus the term Vitāna cannot be taken as a proper name of one particular metre, but must be regarded only as a class name of several metres and so is not open to Halāyudha's criticism. At the same time it should be noted that Samānikā and Pramānikā are essentially Vrttas of the Sama type and if they are restricted to one particular class like the Anuştubh, they would become mere proper names of particular metres and not class names, as they are evidently intended to be, of, more metres than one. Further, as proper names, their right place would be in the sixth chapter along with the other metres like the Citrapadā, and there is no reason why this threefold division should be given here. It would, therefore, be correct to understand all the three terms as class names only and probably intended to be applicable to all the Varna Vșttas by Pingala and Jayadeva.
