·FIRST EDITION OCTOHER 1959
Firma K L Mukhopadhyay Publishers
6/1A Bascharan Aksur Lanc Caleutta 12
Rs 15 00
Fruted by JC Sarkbel et be Calcista i ental Tress
Private Lid 9 Papchadan Ghose Lanc Calcutta 9

·N MEMORIAM Professor HERMANN JACOBI

·This volume contains a selection of monographs and
articles of the distunguished author published in various
otcntal journals They deal with some problw or theory
of Sanskrit Porties and bave a bearing on the study of Sans
krut literature We also reprint bere the editia princeps
Abhinavagupta's Kavyaloka bacana iv, 25 well as of a part
of his Abbioava bharat w or Bharata s Rosa sutra
of
Calcula
1October 1959
The Publishers

·CONTENTS 54 61 65 80 The Problem of Poet c Express on Bhímaha s Views on Guna A Note on the Gaudi Riti The Akhyay ka and the Katha in Classical Sanskrit The Dhyankara and Apandavardhana "Anandavardhana on Samghatana The Raşarnavalathkara of Prakaśavarşa Mammatas Kavya prakasa Mala tu purvavat The Santa rasa 19 the Natya sastra and Daša zupaka Bhanudatta 95 108 131 139 144 148 The Curtain to Ancient Ipd an Theatre The Problem of Bharata and Ads Bharata The Theory of Rasa The Text of Kavyaloka locana 34 I56 177 236 ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 1 One of the fundamental problems of Sanskrit Poetics as indeed of all Poetics is the problem of the content and ex pression of Poetry From the beginniøg of the disciplme this is recognised and the parts of Language namely the Sabda and Artha word and sense of technically the Vacaka and Vācya the expressor and the expressed had already been distinguished by grammatical and philosophical speculation as the medium of linguistic expression The essential element of all literature as of all language therefore 15 sand to consist of the material of word and sense and the earliest definitions of Poetry naturally start in terms of Sabda and Artha So long as Puelry is a kind of expression conveyed through the medium of language this is inevitable Accordingly Bhamaha defines Poetry as sabdarthau sahtar katjan which is followed by Rudrata s niore general state ment sabdarthan havzam while Dandin describes the body of Poetry asztartha vyavacchina padavals and Vamada speaks of usita pada racana as ats essence Thus the Sabda and Artha urted together and not in themselves constitute Poetry and all later writers more or less accept this post 11on of the Sabitya of unity of Sabda and Artha as the starting point The term Sahitya inspires that Sabda and Artha are insparable and go together Kuataka descnbes this Salutya as Anyuda anatıcıktatva ar Paraspara spardhi, 1 Lectures del yered by invitat on at the Univers ty of Borobay 10 1943 The approach is from the standpoint of modern Aesthetic, and therefore it id ferent from that of my sa skrt Poel of which $cs only a descr pave historical treatment First prited o ex Ind an Art quary Ir nos 13-Vuch of the matter of this monograph the tops being overlapp ng is taken over from the author, Sonsh?! Portes as a study of destlerc #bch was delivered as lectures at Annamalai University in December 1935 and printed in the Dara Un vers rv Stud (s vol This last monograph, thert fote is not reprinted in this Yolume ·Z SOHE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS but Kahdusa conveys it more beautifully by his well known comparison of Poutry to Ardhanistara la ulich Parvati is Vac or Sabda and Parameswara is Artha That the poets and not only the theorists were an are of this idea is also clear from Maghas declaration that the discerning poct pays equat regard to Sabda and Artha in the well known line Sabdurthan salimu na daan 1. apek sac This concept of the Sahilya of Sabda and Artha from which sferature itsell came to take the designation of Sahitya is not now but it had a grammatical origin IL means the general grammatical and local relation between word and sense in all Inguistic expression and did nos at first connote any special poetic relalion between the tho We ktory that llc Sanskrit Grammar Sanskrit Poetics started as an empinacal and normative discipline and since from the very beginning Poetics accepted the authorwy of the older science of Grammar to which it was closely related the grammatical speculations on speech in general not only prompted its speculations on poetic speech but also influ cnced its method and outlook It is no wonder therefore that both Bhamaha and Vaman? two of the earliest formu lators of pou sic theory devote whole sections of their works to the quesuon of grammatical correctness and the gram marcal analys s of word and sense came to possess an im portant place in thetorical speculation AS set forth by the grantrians the Sabdartha or Vacuka Vacya sa ibandha was taken to comprehend the consideration of the structure and variety of the Vacaka of the syntactic import of a succes son of Vacakas in a Vācya and of the logicality of the cipessed Wea 39 other words Pada Valya and Pramana arc comprchended in all expression and constated the original mcading of Salıttya But it is also perceived that when touch grammatical correctness or logical consistency characterses speech a general this is not enough for poelic speech What thert is Stutya from the standpoint of Poetics It is true that ·THE PRORLEIT OF POETIC EXPRESSION 3 Bhamaha's debnition sabdarthan sahtau karyam implies that neither Sabda por Arth: alone is Poetry but both must be united together la Poetry there is no question of the superiority of the one or the other nt of the one being Bahya and the other Abhyantara or as Bhartrhari puts it of the Artha being the Viacta of ſabda Bat mere Sahitya of Sabda and Artha is nör Poctry, it is a grammatical fact common to all speech to the utterances of ordinary life of Sastra of Akhyana as well as of Poetry It is therefore realised that this Sabitya of Poetry must be of a special kind so that the special charm of poetic speech which distin guisbes it from ordinary speech can be properly explained It cannot be trussed that Sabda and Artha in their unity bring about a special beauty in Poctry which is not found elsewhere Poetry is not merely linguistic expression but beautiful expression In other words it came to be recog nised that the Sahitya of Śabda and Arthur La Poetry must have a Višesa or speciality Hence Vámana speaks of Visista pada racana and Kuntaka declares more clearly that eram eva saluty ani nohrpretam whule Samudrabandhan summarising the vicws of different schools of Poctics emphale that the 12$ilan fabdurhat kutjani The question of deciding what this Visega is and how it is realised thus becomes the main problem of Poetics Some thicorists approach the probl m from the stand point of outward expression and declare the Viſesa to be the Dharma of Sabda and Artha which could be anglysed into categories of Laksana Alatukara or Guna Some dire deep er into the content and maintain that it is the poets procu Beat way the work of bus poetic magination the Kavi vyapara which is the Višesa whether it takes the form of Ukt: Bhanitt Phoga or Vyanjana But it is admitted on all hands that the Sahitya wbich by its isega makes orde. Tiary Sabdartha mto poetec sabdartha is noi the sum totat of grammarical and logical relation but indicates a certain Iss the stagical quality pochc rclation between the two IS ·4 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS pertaining to words and ideas sproging from the imagina live power of the poet which makes ordinary utterance with its Pada Vakya and Pramana into the charmning utterance of Poetry The Sahitya therefore us a certain charming commensurateness between content and expression and be comcs synonymous with Poetry Exactly when and how the term Schulys came to be employed for Poetry in this technical sense we do not know but the coticept is acknowledeed from the very beginning We find however that it is no longer a grammatical but a petical concert in Rajasekhara who mentions Sāhitya and Shitya vidya as Poetry and Poetics although Rajaseh hara in his allegoricat description does not bring out the thico- Twical implications of the idea Among the theonsts the credi of divesting sahitya for the first time of its starting gram matical associations and defining at clearly as a poctic quality impared by the imagination of the poet belongs to Kuntaka The earler speculsions on the subject are vague and insuficient but several tentative approaches appear to have been made One of the earliest was through the idea of Souza to which Bana sefers and for which the Agni ptrar a Cytats esploy the teses. Muda wa simar RA top 'The Sayya is described as the rcpose of word ard sense in their mutual favourableness the the repose of the body in bod The idea of Suh tya is also recognised in what is called the Maith or mutual friendship of vertial and ideal elements of Poetry which 15 apparently a variation of Lähdusa $ more perfect conjugal metaphor The theory how cvet es not elaborated but only fechly and incoherently voiced here are there and it 13 also strange that the ſayya 19 sometimes taken as a mers verbal excellence bot at the same to 18 rightly as sts upon what is called soovita hilly of words and ideas as the foundation of poclc er pression The older 57$$ on Pala mentioned by Vamang appear to make a similar approach but greater uncertainty and confusion peezal "The term Pala meaning Iterally ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 5 nipeness or matunity is employed by Vamana with reference to the delightful effect of what by calls Sabda paka or maturity of words resulting from what he considers to be the best mode of dictiop samely the Vaidarbhi Ritz H* describes Sabda paka as that alta ding which the excellence of a word quickens and an wh ch the voreal appears as real This description would lead one to believe that Vamana s Sabda paka is nothieg more than mer“ verbal proficiency (Sabda vyutpatu) in which setse some later writers would I ke to take the terin But Vamana further explains that the Sabda pika occurs when the words are so chosen that they cannot bear an exchange of synonym It is clear that 1hs View males Paka almost identical in its connotation with Sayya We find therefore that some later writers for mulate Sabdia puka as the perfect fitness of word and its schsc but in conformity with the prevailing view about the essentiality of Rasa they speak rather vaguely of Antha paka or maturity of sease of various kinds brought about by the diferent taste of different sentiments Raja śckhara 9 palic compilation of carlier viows on the subject 1S interest:ag and deserves refetence as illustrating how undecided aesthetic Ideas were and how inconstant the use of aesthetic terminology The passage runs thus The Acaryas ask what is Paka? Mangala gays 11 19 maturity (Parnama) What again 15 maturity? 25k the Acaryas Mangala Teplies it is the skill in the use of noua and verbs Hence it is verbal excellence (Sausabdya) The Påka is fixedress 10 the application of words say the Acaryas It is said [by Varpaca 1 3 157 "The msertion and deletion of words occur so long as there is uncertainty in the mind when the ſixty of words is established the compostion is successful So the followers of Vamana say The Puka as the aversio of words to alteration by means of synonyms Therefore it is said [by Vamana loc c] The specialsts on the propriety of words have called tozat Sohda paka in w ch the words abandon the capab bity of being exchanged (by ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC E PRESSION 1 less, the whole discussion furnishes interesting evidence of early tentative attempt to explain the essential character of poetic expression This brings us to the first systematic approach to tbc problem made by the so-called Alatukara School of Bhimakt. Udbhata and Rudrata from which starts the earliest koowa formulation of a definite theory of poetic expression Although as a theory of expression the Alavikārīka view was subsequently discarded for its insufficiency, the concept of Alabkira parested and stelty cepowledged throughout the history of Sanskrit PoeticsIt therefore, important to consider and wederstand clearly the concept of Alaulam in Its various aspects as the video or specially of the Sabda and Arth:

·8 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS mous with the term Alamlar. As a collective designation, doubtless denotes the poetic figures as such but it also connotes a deviating strikingness of expression which anderles all 10dividual portic figures and forms their distinguish 10g characteristic It is thus the fundamental principle of figurative expression, but since Bhamalia regards the figurative expression to be the only proper espression of Poetry the Vakrokit becomes the distinguishing characteristic of chic exprcsson and the cascotial principle of Poetry itself Bhamaha does not define Vakroktı which term Bike the term Alanlara was perhaps alrcady traditionally established but in speak ing of it in connection with the figure Atsajokti Itc perhaps plies 18 it the lokaltkruntu gocwant aah which te expressly mentions as a characteristic of Aliśayolt: As cxplained by Ablunavagupta and developed by Kuntaka the qualification xathajy implies a heightened form of expression a certain magazine quality which constitutes a poetic figure and as such distnguishes poetic speech frou the matter of fact speech of everyday life All poetic cupression involves some kind of expressional deviation which constitutes its charm Bhamaha s Vakroht signifies this expressional deviation proper to Poetry. but since examinine the wholc field of pocuc expression Bhamaha finds the Alainkara or poetic figure omnipresent in it as a means of realising this deviation his Vakrokti becowes the essential principle of an Alduhusa and necessarily of Poetry itself Alhaugh Danden uses the term Valrot only once in 3 significant passage as a collecte des enation of indivi dual Alamdaras or poetic figures and thus far agrees with Bhimaha he does not yet apply it to the essential poctic quality underlying an individual poetic figure or indindgat Ali'lkan On the other hand he appls the term Alau him itself genetically to the attribute apparently of word and senschach produces beauty in Poetry the fuvya sobhalars Dharma of Sabda and Artha Even thoush he does not delinc them havys sobha or postic tauty he agrees #ith ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 9 Bhāmaha that the entire Vanmaya or poetic speech 18 comprehended by Vakrolt or -figurative expression. with the only exception of the first or primary figure the so called Svablīvoktı or natural description The reservation made with regard to Syabhavokti is not found in Bhāmala It cannot be said that, like Kuntaha, Bhamaba entirely rejects it. he mentions it with the guarded remark th lecit pracaksate In so far as natural description mvolves strikingness of er pression, it would be admissible but Bhimaha would not then consider it separately it would be included at the scope of hes Valroka as figurative erpression Although Dandin would employ the term Alashkara 15 the essential poetic attribute of Šabda and Artha and the beautifying principle of poetic expression, he would not take the individual Alamkāras of poetic tieurs as the sole or essendal means of the beautifying principle He elaborates a theory of two modes (Erga) or hands of poetic diction which he calls respectively Vadarbia and Gauda and finds that the so called excellences or Gunas (ske swectness or lucidity) form their essence Dandin therefore employs the generic term Alatukāra meaning poetic embellishment to designate both the excellences or Günas on the one hand and the specific pocuc figures on the other commonly known as Alazkaras and admitted as such by Bhamaha The concept of Guna is not new having been mentioned by Bharata but it is considered in a new context, it is, however, 1 Kuntaka rejects the figure Svatharoit on the grouad that at consists of mere unadorned description of physcal objects Dat the poetic intution of a physical fact even funadorned being not the same as a coatter of fact statement or description Dandin aad others riglely take it onto account We have shown elses here (in the article entitled Bhamahas Viens on Guna) that both Bhimaba and Dandır betray an uneasiness over the character of the figure Bhavika and do got know whether to classify it as Ouna or Alazhkára They vaguely realise that it involves an aesthetic fact which concern the sustaineư intuition of the poet and find it d fficult to pack it within their limited and formal scheme of Guna and Alarnkára ·10 SOVE PRODLEVS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Beither properly defined, nor its relation to the old concept of Alaukāta exactly determined Dandia only tells us that the Guna is an Alů kära belonging to the Vaidarbha Mārgi exclusively, while the poetic figure is an Alankara which is common to both the Märgas "Thus, it appears that the Guna in his oploron, forms the csscnce or essential condition of what he considers to be the best poetic diction, but the sa called Alau hura or poetic figure, on which the Aladkára School of Bhamaha laid exclusive stress 13 nol the special characterissic of any specific diction, for it may Teside in all kinds of diction Every Guna, according 10 Dandın, is an Alaikara, but he states now here that every specific Alarikatra is a Guna Vamana further develops the rather indefinne deas of Dandin regarding Alankara and Guna He follows Dandin s taking the term Alaukāra both in 11$ denotation and connotation, but he draws a more rigid line of distinction between Guna and Alaulāra He states at the outset that Poetry is acceptable on account of Alaikira and he is carcful to explain that the ters Alashora should be taken here not in the specific sense of poetic figure, but in the general sense of poelic beauty He, therefore lays down sententiously that Alau Lára is beauty (saundarjan dua harah) He also explains that the term Alanlara or embellishment is primarily synonymous with the act of enbelleshing but in the secondary Instrumental sense it is applied to that which embellishes or the means of embellishment in all this he is evidently developing Danchin's teaching, and like Dandin, but more clearly. he docs not make the presence of poetec figures like simile and metaphor, an essential condition or requisite, as he does with respect to the presence of Gunas The Guna is defined as an essential characteristic of Riti, which terni Vamani employs for Dandin's Mārga The Rite being in his opinion, the essence of Posky, the Gosas are these characteristics which create the beauty of poetry, hava sobhanh dortāro dharmah a function which is assigned by Dançın to both ·THE PROBLEM OF POCTIC EXPRESSION il the Gunas and the so-called Alankaras ar poetic figures The Alaukāras i his opinion are such means of embellish meat as serve to heighten the beauty thus created by the Gunas tud-at saya-hetavah The Guna therefore being ibe sine qua non of poetic expression is described as Nitya implyog that the Alaukara is Amtya the Guna Is the Dharma of Riti which is the soul (Alman) of Poetry while the Alankára is apparently the Dharma of Sabda and Artha which constitute its body In other words the Alamkara without the Guga cannot by itself produce the beauty of Poetry which the Guna can do without the Alati hara Although Vamana declares at the outset that the term Poetry applies to such word and sense as are beautified by Guna and Alamhara (kavya sabdo vam gunalamkriayoh sabdarthayor vartate) yet the Guna which is rigidly differentiated from Alau.kara is taken as the essence of poetic expression in his system Although like Bhamaha od Dando Vamada acknow Jedges the omnipresence and utility of Alauskara as a means of pcefic expression he yet elaborates after Dandin a theory of Rita Guva to explain the Visesa of Sabdarth: sahitya He defines Reti as Viſiera pada racana or particular arrangement of words and explains the Visesa or particulanty of arrangement as consisting of the Guna realised in varying degrees in various kinds of Rsts Whether the idea of Riti like that of Pravril of Bharata was evolved from geographi cal association and named Vardarbh: Gaudi and Papcali accordırgly but was afterwards standardised with reference to the subject it is clear that in Vămana s system it as synonymous with the Isterary mode displayed in various distinguishable types of poetic diction real sed by the Unification of certain well defined excellences such as tless and lucidity which are called Guna The Alaikaras on the other hand kke simile and metaphor are no doubt means of poetc cxpression but they are merely striking turns of word and sense which have a tubeidary value ·12 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS From thus brief review of the growth of the fundamental concepts of Alamin and Guna-Riti, it is clear that both the Alanlärg and Ril Schools start with Sabda and Artha. word and sease and find their Sihtiya lo consist of the pocute Visesa of Alaukāra and Gurta Riti resztectively as the essential Dharma of Sabda and Artha While these early theories nghtly call attention to a coctain extraordinary quality in the relation of word and sense in poctic cepression which distinguishes it from ordtaary ctpression their adequacy from the aesthetic point of view 15 evident Thetr scute analysis of outward form and technique, with which they mainly concern themselves, is admurable, but they forget that the explanation of mere verbal and ideational arrangement 13 not suficient for explasaing the fact of poetic espressios Mere enumeration of categorses of thetorical embellishment of of so-called literary eteellences do not adegsately explain as to why they embellish or wby they are excellent. As the Dhvani theorists rightly criticise these caclier views do not correlate outward poetic expression to the inner content of poctry. nor do they as Kuntaka rightly points out, correlate poetsc expression to the adividualsty of the poet to the Kaya svabhava It is true that the Alatúkāra School employs th: tesat Alaukårs to cognate the fundamental characteristic or ptuaciple of the beauty of greuc expression but actual theory and practice it is applied to the objective beauty of poetic form realised by certain decoratie derres Lsown as poetic figures The poetic expression, this view chely figurative or thetorical expression Even z Bhimaha speaks of Valrokti as an essential principle of pocloc et ress. ton he does not define it por does he claborate the idea in all its impucaton, while his successors Udbbata and Rudrata Tever mention the term nor discuss the principle The attempts of these exponents of the Alaikära School are limited to a systematre classification of poetic expression into fixed Thetorical categories and from this formal treatment their S ·THIE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 13 works have the general appearance of technical manuals comprising a collection of definitions, illustrations and empical canons elaborated for the benefit of the aspiring poet Poetry is regarded, more or less, as a mechanical senes of verbal devices, in which a descable sense must prevail, and which must be diversfied by means of certain tricks of phrasing which consist of the so called poetic figures and to which the name Alaukāra is restricted These theorists approach the fact of expression or embellishment as a positive or accomplished fact, just in the same way as a scientist approaches a physical fact, to be prethodically collected in their greatest possible variety andlyse with acute scholastic acumen, and grouped in fixed classes and types in other words, they devote their effort chiefly to the working of the rules and means formules and categories of external production to an ¢tact system and thus practical or pedagogic outlook must have received a great impetus from the baghly developed analytic enquiry aslo the forms of langizge made by the formative grammatisns Like the grammarian and the scientist, who label and classify ever new series of facts the Sanskrit Alaikārıka preteading to find universals calculates the particular specses of expression from the criginal four ornaments of Bharata to one hundred and twenty five of Appayya Dilsa, but considering the inexhaustibility of individual poetic expressions they may be easily renened to an infimte number while the uoversals of 1 formal analysis are of doubtfu) theoretic valve fur explaining the principle of con. crete individual expression atself The aesthetic asuthiciency of rhetorical categories was however very speedily perceived but the theories which were advanced against nicre Thetone did not entirely seject * the contrary, 2 reserve was made reg: ng its utility and its principles were catelully preserved When Vamana declared the essence of poetic expression to be the Riti by which he meant nothing but a specific aitangenkrit of words character ised by the so-called "qualites" or Gunas be did not ·14 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS advance the speculatiot much funher 107 did his predecessor Dandin to whom Poetry was pothing more than a series of words determined by a desired sense Bath agree that the svords should have a Vyavacchinna Vašista or particular arrangement but this Veera cons sts not cnly of a special disposition (Rite) but also of ornamentation (Alatukira) Dandın gives indeed an etiended interpretation of the term fornament applying it to any fun which lends "beauty ($obl.) 10 poetry and racluding in its scope the figuralne devices as well as modes or grades of arrangement of word and sense Vamana substantially agrees with this view when he defines ornament as beauty itself but with regard to the means of realising this beauty he draws a sharp distinction betwe-n particularities of arrangement and the mere figures of poetic speech as esscotial and accidental means respectuely Il must however be made clear that the term beauty Sobha of Saundarya which is taken as the test of poetic er pression is not clearly defined There is no exposition of als character even if its means are described and deta ted But It appears to have no other far fetched meamng than that of the logical external effect realised by a carefully worked out adjustment of word and sense which alords damagic flaus by adopting permanly the so-called literary qual ties and secondarily the rhetorical figures for heightening the effect thus produced Whatever afterpt later theongs like Kuntala mght have made to place the concept on a better westhetic fooung or in whatever sense later writers mght have employed it, there can be no doubt that the tesa! Rain Dandin and Vamana sigo fed nothing more for less than a specific arrabeement of word and sense a mere combinat on in vary ing degrecs essentially of clearly defined qualites tule petsp cu ty or smoothness and inc dentally of equally clearly defined thetorical figures uke smil metaphor It has 10 reference to the organ expressive activity of the poetic intu tiga wh ch Kuntaka calls havi vyapa12 not 1$ it made equ valent in this sense to the Western concept of 'style as.

·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION the expression of poetic individuality The Riti as understood by these early theorists is capable of techncal formulation, and as such the so called library qualities of simplicity "Vivacity and so forth become only genetic or specific cate gories for 'abelling particular aspects of the aesthetic activity they do not explain the true character of the activity itself The so-called Riti and its constituent lerary qualities properly designate the different degrees in the development free or less free of the expressive activity and are thus aspects of successful or less successful expression When completely successful we have the expression iscil The so called Dogas or flaws designate embarrassed activity ending in failure and are thus aspects of unsuccessful expression from the aesthetic point of view this success or failure of expression may also be termed beauty or ugliness But the beautiful as the perfect expression docs not possess degrecs if ugliness docs completo ugliness as complete negation altogether ceases to be ugly for it loses its contradiction and is no longer an aesthetic fact The consideration of expression itself therefore is important rather than a scholastic definition and classification of its different degrees of success or failure of freedom or bondige The distinction again which the Reti theorists draw between Guna and Alat kara lacks a propar aesthetic foundation They find that both impatt beauty to poetry that is both are parts or means of perfect expression Some ke Dandan said that ilxre was little difference between the two as means of producing beruty the one being a generic and the other a specific term Sapie said that they differed but slightly the Guna being the Dharma of the collocation of word and sense as a whole and Alankara of Sabda and Artha Thc view was also proposed at the Guna was sobba heru and Nitya while the Alawkarz was useful extra beauty śobhatrsayahetu and Antty All these theorists realised only this that both Guna and Alatukara imparied bcauty but they did not understand the ystal question as to what in Poetry Jad they impart beauty They failed to perceive that Guna and Alautara 10 what ·16 SOVE PROHLENS OF SANSKRIT POETICS ever scose they are used are only relate terms and that they imply a Gumm and Assislarsa Vamana, no doubt. stumbled upon something more than Guna and Alaikära, upon what he calls Rill, but Anandarardhana nightly points out, the Ritu theorists thereby only dimly perceived the real nature of the essence of Peetry which cannot be the mere obxective beauty realised by Ritr-Gura and Alaudine The dystinction agasa, between literary qualities and rhetorical ornaments as essentral and non essenen may be of some use un logical or rormatne analysis but not in aesthenc realisation, for, given a particular expression the qualities are as much integral parts of it as ligures of speech The expression should be taken not as a mechanic but as an organic whole 151 relation to the poctic 19611106 As cach individual expression automatically selects its own appropcrate qualities and Ornaments I cannot be definstely lad down that a particular expression sbould possess this and should not possess that If expression is expression, it is successful, there cannot be any question of intermediate degrees of success in aesthetic estimate Kuntala thercione nightly criticascs that there con be no classification of Rot into good bad or indifferent types Nor can qualities or omaments be categorically attached, Sincc such expicSSIOA is not a fixed and gcneric but a yaniable and individual fact Kuntaka therefore nightly says that the concepts of Riti Guna and Alanlara can only be ſusubied if they are related to the Kavi Marman or Kavisvabhava, to the imagination or individuality of particulas poets Toc poctic expression is capable of sufinte ditersity in accordance with the infinite diversity of poetic individuality Dardio wisely declares that speech is diversified 18 its gulafarious mode of expression and adouts the impossibility of Jabelling and classifying all modes of poetic expression with fixed and uaalterable characterisucs, but wasntasong that the sub vaneties are incalculable he destingusshes two broad or culieme types, namely, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi While his suc. cessor Vamara proposes three types adding Päicah 15 loter- ·THE PROBLEV OR POETIC EXPRESSION 17 mediate, and recommending the Vaidarbhi as containing all the literary qualities. subsequent Willers aud Lāli, Avantika, Magadh, and so forth But the attempt to exhaust and s ereotype the entre poetical cutput within the clearcut bounds of ready made nodes and fixed qualities on the basis of more or less formal analysis like the simlar attempt of the Alankara School to classify an) label the entire poetic expression into fixed rhetorical categories, is sure to prove unconvincing as the theoretic basis of poetic cypression Neither Dandin's nor Våmani's differentiation of individual Rates and Gunas, therefore is found as the criticism of Manmata and others shows exhaustive and consistent These varieties of Rits, with their constituent Gunas, are really instances of complete and incomplete expression erected into definne universal types, probably as the names imply) on the basis of empirical observation of localised usages But, as Kuntaka shows the Ritz cannot be a Desa dhatma as localised usage nor a Vastu Sharma as an inherent attribute of word and sense but a Dharma of Kays svabhava oy the character of the poet, derending upon the nature of his poetic intuition, upos hus Sakti (poetic power) Vyutpatti (culture) and Abhyasa (practice) In the sense the Ras becomes synonymous with the manner of individual poets and not with prescribed or Bauersalised modes or grades, and all aspects of expression can be comprehended in it But since the manner of expression varies with various pocts it is of Infinite kind It can be classified under broad types but the definition and classification are susceptible to infinite but unprofitable, multiplication JI From what we have said x 18 clear that by drawing attention for the first time to the aspects of poetic activity indicated by the qualities or Gunas The Rite theorists way be it orded as kanzas gabe step further than the mere 2 ·18 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSI.RO POETICS Alanlarlas but the speculation 1 115 haiting formalisi touches only the fange of the aesthetic problem By their very attempt at systematisation the Alailatikas recognised the existence of certain facts of poetic expression namely, its so-called embellishment or extraordinatıness as aesthetic facts, the Rit theorists went further and bcucsed that these facts are reducible to a definite priciple, but both of them failed to realise that this principle is not an external category but a category of the spirit I should have been clearly understood that every single expressive fact stands by itself as the result of a particular poeic minion under a particular stamulus Such facts may be gouped genetically by the inductive process but the continuous variation of individual poetic expression results in an irreducible variety of expressive facts Each poct has bis own mode of expression characteris. tic of kas particular intuition 19 & particular case, and with sach dulcreptation the classification of 'modes', like the classification of ornaments', sauld be endless without reaching any define theoretic placiple of expression The Dhuan theorists who came into prominence in the next stage consequently declared that the true character of Poetry was 10perfectly understood by those who took cognisance only of word and sense (Dm Analoha 7), but, curiously enough their own theory finds its origin in the contentional manner in the analysis of language and its mcasing The solucice of the grammatico logical concept of the Sahitya of Sabda end Artha was still acknowledged and the pen theory of Dhani was started on the analogy of the older theory of Sphoça Ābandavardbapa speaks of his Ovo system as being foupded on the authority of the grammarians to show be pays ap clegant tribute as the first 19d oremost theorists prathame 3d amso) From stammarians and logicians, the Dhvan theorists acknowledged the functions of Denotation (Abhidh) and Indication (Lelaat ot Kards the farmer giraz us the lateral scase, and the latter on the incompatibility of the literal scose a ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 19 This purpose of further secondary but allied sepse But this was not all They went further than the grammarians and logicians by contending that this did not exhaust the entire significance ot Poetry They pushed the analysis to the positing of another function of word and sense agather characteristic of poetic expression namely Suggestion (Vyanjana) which gives a deeper ser sc rcvcr directly expressed but depending upon the poets particular purpose 10 employing the word 10 its obviously denoted or indicated sense Prayojana being always unexpressed can be arrived at only by the process of suggestion but it constitutes the essential charm or peculiarity of poetic expression Here for the first time the poet s purpose is brought into the coosideration of the product of the poets mind and an unexpressed scuse (Dhvani) is acknowledged beyond what is d rectly expressed but we shall see presently the analysis is still empirical and concerns itself w th the form rather than with the essence The Dhvani School in its analysis of the essentials of Poetry found that the content of a good poem may be generally distinguished 2010 iwo parts The one is tbat wbicha Sabda and its denoted or indicated Artha give us that which is expressed in so many words whether directly expicit or metaphorically implicit the other 19 not expressed but suggested spring og from what is thus cxpressed or adicated The unexpressed or suggested part is not somethrog vague but it is distinctly Inked up with the expressed It is man fested by a peculiar power of suggestion called Vyadjana tahercnt ia vord and sense and is set forth as a fact of aesthetic experience and distinguished from the concept of mere Vacya or denoted sense of poetry To the grammarians and learned writers it perhaps seemed paradoxical to state that the very essence of Poetry was that wbich was not even expressed On the other band some form of Symbolical speech in which wisdom demands that one should express oneself more in hifts and suggestions than in actual words was always in vogue and the poets had been more or less ·20 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS partial to the method of speaking is melaphor or wrapping up their deas in transparent symbol or allegory But suggestive poetry, according to the new theorists, is something more than the merely metaphorical or figurative on which the Alamera and the Rate Schools placed so much emphasis The metaphorical or allegoric however veiled, :s still in a sense expressed and must be taken as such, but the suggested 10 Poctry is always vaexpressed and us, therefore, a source of proper charm or strikingness by its very capacity of cone cealment, which, bowever, is not conccaluent in the sense in which an enigma 1$ The Divanı School thus postolates that the unexpressed or expressible us tbe very 'soul' or essence of all good Poetry : It is called into being by a particular function of suggestion coherent in word and sense. while such means of expression as the Gunas and Alamkaras of earlier schools are bere means or attributes which receive Ibert justification for employment as such from this under content of poetry The inper content of Poetry is undoubtedly a fact of aesthetic experience, bereg the poetic setustos itself, but to distinguish of bzſuzcate the contept and expression as two separate, though totimately connected entities, is formal analysis and not aesthetic experience The new theorists, no doubt clearly perceive that the consideration of the orgamental fitting out of words or of the literary qualities of structure are not enough to solve the problem of poetic expression They clearly demonstrate that the so called orgamcnts or qualities bave no absolute value but depend upon the character of the particular sitterance In recognising all this they sailed very closely along the coast but they hardly succeeded in making an effective landing The theory rendered srcat service by rightly cmphasisiog that the ateral sease alone was not sufficient but that it should lead to the deeper poetic purpose embodied is the suggested sense of Poetry But the analysis still concerned itself with ibe szellective rather than the solutive aspect of poetic ex ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 21 pression, with the coderstanding of its ideas only as empirical facts The unexpressed 10 this case bas do reference to the individual poetic latuition, but is universalısed as mode of thought, and being bound up by definite links with Oxud and mechapical symbols of the expressed, it becomes as much a fixed and mechanical symbol as any rhetorical or qualita. tive category It 13 DO wonder, therefore, that the attempt resolved itself into the same empirical and normative metbod of elaborately distinguishing and classifying hundreds of varieties of the unexpressed, and even when the unexpressed was generically grouped into an unexpressed after, UDCXpressed ornament or an unexpressed sentiment, corresponding to the old mecbanical grouping of descriptive, ornamental or sentimental composition, the speculation only labelled and pigeon holed certain genetic or specific aspects of the poctic fuoction without exhausting or explaining the function It 18 not enough to say that the unexpressed is the essence of Poetry or analyse sato groups the varieties of unexpressed mcaning, for Poctry in Icality 15 expression, which contains In itself wbat is obviously expressed, as well as what is implicitly suggested In acsthetic experience, as opposed to the merely logical analysis, it is impossible to separate the unexpressed and the expressed, for both of them together make up the being of poctic expression The poet's purpose" which embodies the upexpressed, is undoubtedly important, but it is not meant by these theorists to be co-cxtcosive with poetic intuitivity, which is sich in unified images rather than in disintegrated thought or DeSDAG 10 ts power of 1atuitive expression rather than in Picsepilog fbss or that conccpt or idea The expression is the scinality of the intention, the so-called expressed and unexpressed forming at adussoluble constituents vodistinguishable in tlic organic whole It is true that Sanskrit theory recognises that in order to be poctical, language should be geoerically semantic, but it for. gets that the language of Poetry must be talen as the Sanguage of poetic intuition and not of logical satelligence, as en ·22 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS aesthetic and not an intellective fact The scholastic bipart ton belween the Unexpressed and the expressed therefore, 1$ uscful in grammatico logical analysis, but if bardly helps us in understapdeg the significance of Poetry The whole constitutes Poetry and got a part, it avails ua little in extcroally analysing what it its internal unity cannot be analysed. there is no exteriority and interiority in poetic expression which is one and indivisible The attitude finds a parallel in one of the disastrous errors of modern philosophy, zamely, the Cartesian mistake of regarding body and mind as separate substances from which all the insufliciencies and perplexities of the muad body problem'flow and render clear thinking of the subject difficult The poets purpose in poety again is unnecessarily and narrowly acgregated from the word and its meaning when the poetic purpose 10 its true sense us the wosd and the meaning thesiselves 10 thens unity Thrs as the real meaning of the Sabutya of Sabda sod Arba in poetic expression It should be admitted that by the unexpressed is pre eminently intended the poctical and Dot the logical or ethical meaniag but the poetic intuition knows of no dualism between word and its meaning between atself and its expression for the content hcrc is form and form is content In attempting to combat the science of word and sense the new theory appears to have preserved the same tradition JD a fresh garb pasmuch as it starts with the samo pre occupation with word and sense with tbe same pre supposition that a word of its sense 13 a natural mechanical fact or symbol which can in the manner of a scientific fact be grouped in class s types or categories The Divani theorists houever did an important service by dirceling attention to an aspect of Poetry which had so far been imperfectly understood or eptirely ignored 10 Sanskrit poctic theory Hitherto speculation bad been busy with the consideration of poetical ornament or structure, and It was thought enough of by these means certain definite ideas were expressed in a deboite manner But it was caused ·24 SOHE PROBLEVS OF SANSKRIT POETICS impression (Vasanā), being derved from actual cxpessence of lite or from inherited 105110cts On reading a poem which describes a similar emotion, this Islept emotion is suggested by ibe depicted factors, which, being generalised or imper. sonalised. cease to be called ordinary causes but become cxtraordinary causes in Poetry The ordiary causes, therefore, being generalised or impersonalised by the suggestive power of word and sense, do not refer to particularities, Rima or Sttà is no longer Rāma of Sttā as an individual lover or his beloved, but is presented as the lover or hiss beloved 16 general In the same way, the emotion suggested, which 18 the source of the relish is also generalised, the love of Rāma or Sutā being presented as love in general, and in this generalised form it is possible for the reader to relish the emotion, even though it is not his owa inasmucb 35 the impression is alseady latest in his mind The emotion (Bhasa) 18 generali scd and rclished as a sentiment (Rasa) also in the sense that st refers not to any particular reader but to readers 10 general The particular individual while relishing it as a reader, does not throk that it is his own persoal emotion, eodd yet it is relished as such nor does te think that it can be relished by him alone but by all persous of similar sensibility It is also bof the personal emotion of the poet, for it 18 divested of all personal interest and presented in an impersonalised form The natural cmotion. whether of the poet or of the hero, becomes a poetic sentiment, and the natural causes become poctic causes The relishpartales, no doubt, of the nature of cognition, it 18 nevertheless diferent from the ordinary forms of the process taasmuch as it involves BD imaginative or poctic process of idealisation, which has the power of starting the latent cootional impressions of the reader's mind into a relisbable condition of cojoyment The resulting relish, therefore cannot be identified with the constituent factors, for at the time of relish the factors are not expertenced separately, but the whole appears as Rasa, wbich 13 tbus simple ·26 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT IOLTICS 11 is very similar to but not the sapre as, the statt of true cplightenment which comes only 10 the knower who, no longer on the empirical plane, transcends completely and permagently the sphere of pleasure and pain As such, this state of Jesthetic delectation is not capable of proof because its cogailion 15 10 feparable from 11$ existence, or, in other words it is identical with the experience of itselt The only propf of its existence as its relish itself by the man of Aesthetic sensibility. the Rasiha or Sahrdaya, the ideal connoisseur of Poetry, to whom alone 115 vauchsafed The reader must reproduce in himself what the poct bas produced It is clear that the theory demsods the existeace of the aesthetic intuition, or capacity of cnjoyment of what it calls poetic bliss, and the presupposition of latent impressions 18 only an aspect ol this demand Those who do not possess this intuition can never relish this spiritual slate There is plenty of people in this world who do not appreciate Poetry. and the scorists are merciless in their safire on doll $1313 marians and mere dialecticians, who are incapable of attaid. Ing the acathetic attitude It is the Rastka or Sabrdaya alone. sko by his own sition can idenify himself with the potuition of poetic creation (taomayibhavana yogyala) and thereby obtain its true relish (Rasa) It must be undecstood that although the word cash' or 'taste' tendets the word Rasa literally, it does not imply, apart from the reader's reproduction of the poets production any conscious ethical valuation good or bad taste It implies at experience similar to what we understand when we speal of relishing or raslog food but this realistic description must not at the same time drag at down to the level of natural pleasure because by its aloofaess and sercoily it is lifted into a personal impersonal blissful state of mind The word Stimmuog' used by Jacobi may give us the nearest Approacb but the Rasa is not a mere highly pitched natural feeling or mood but indicates pute intuition which is distict from an empirical feelias ·perience of natural feelings and from all Talural experiences of life as souething A Jauk ka 3$ sonicthing impersonal Klars that the quest on of the so called qualities THE PROBLEM OF I OETIC EXPRESSIOV 17 It is clear that however blissful the aesthetic enjoycept as conceived by tbese theorists may be it must be distin gursbed from the enjoyment of natural feelings and the theory does not fall to the mistake of aestbetic hedonist which sees no difference between the pleasure of Poetry and that of casy digestion No doubt the coavestional class cation of gesers and specific feelings is accepted but they are given as constitusing the material or stimulus of Poetry They may forra the substratum (Stbay: bbava) or concom part (Vyabhicari bhava) of the poetic sentiment (Rasa) but they are not identical with it Just as 16 the unity of spirit one canpot talk of cause and cffect so in the unity of Rasa the separate natural feelings say of love grief or borror which may form its constituents are never experienced but the whole appears as a single and indivisible aesthetic sente ment of bliss from which every trace of the copstiluent empirical pleasure or pain is obliterated In other words love grief or horror is no longer experienced as love brief or horror in their distarbog poignancy but as pure aesthetic sentiment of blissful relish evoked by the ideal sed poetic creation This fact is borne out by the common esperience that after keeply feeling grief in a play on the stage the Spectator says I have enjoyed it He may shed tears but Viſvanatha explains clearly that tears constitute do proof that pain is felt for the fears that are shed hy the spectator are pot those of pan but those of sentiment which causes a melting of the mind as a result of the nature of the parti calar aesthet c enjoyment Hence in a devotee as Jagannatha obscrves tears arise on the contemplation of the dety when the rel gious feeling 15 raised to a serene state of similar enjoy meat The lotu tive bliss ar sing from idealsed poetic creations hould therefore be destioguished from the ex dissaterested or superpormal ·SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS sad ornaments Guras ad Alamlaras which loomed so largo in previous theories must be reizs d from this standpoint. The previous speculatiod recognised that both Gana and Alamkara imparted beauty to Poetry but $IDC they went to decpcr than Sabda and Artha pressed ord and sens they could not answer the vital question as to what za poctry they imparted beauty The idablity atost from the Dot realisits tbat Guna and Alamdara are relative terms and that they must be claicd to a Gonin agd Alambarya The analogy is maintained that Poetry like a man has tuo separable constituents body and soul The Veesa 12caka the form of poetry the expressed word and sense boneser wmportant, constitutes its body or Śanra Oi som- soul Atman 19 Poetry Vamada bad a dim idea for te stumbled upou something more than Guna and Alamlara upon what be calls Rite But the Dhrani theorists point out that the Riu is still regarded as Vacya yacala Carutia betu or means of external embellishment of word and sease and the ess Dce of Ritu beunk according to Vamana a certain nordamely standardis a collocation of the Gungs it becomes a redundant concept Some idea of Rasa was still there from the time of Bharats but Bbámaha and Dandia would regard it ze aspect of Alamkasa Vamana as that ot Guna the form of Poetry being alone considered inportant Dat the Dhyan ttoor sts found that bebied the Vacys sacala the Sarıra of Poetry the most important thiog is the saritia bcbied what is d rectly or figuratively express d by word and sense the most essential thing in Poetry is what is unexpressed but distinctly sugocsted This in their opio. S tot Ape2 05 $ar a body but the Anein Satirip Atmon or soul of Poetry What is tu*erested as Anglo may take the form of a Distter (Vastu) or that of a poetic (Alanlara most cases it is a s ptiment (Rasa) sbich btcomes the most important suggested Adoin This being clearly formulated that Pootty must have an Adgla e Guns and Alasul arya in order to bave Gona and but 18 ·which have the power of suggesting the quality of sweetness (Nadourya) of parliculas Rasas, are not by themselves speet, THE PROBLEY OF POETIC EXPRESSION 29 Alamkāra, the problems of differentiatios of Guna and Alaukāra came, as a matter of course, to be solved So long as the sanca of outward form of Poetry alone is accepted and everything recognised as its beautifying element, there can be no tangiblc difference between Guna and Alonkara as frutful coacepts 1. on the other baad. tbe poetic sentiment involved In the composition is accepted as the Aiman or essence, distinct from the Satırın, ibere can be this differentiation that the Gunas like the qualities of a mans soul, pertama 10 the Angin named Rasa, and the Alamkāras like ornaments on a man's body, to the Aiga called Vacya-văcaka Both the Guna and Alankara are, thus interpreted H & Dew sense, and justified by being brougbt in effective relation with the underlyseg sentiment 12 a composition The were verbal or structural form of a work cannos, except by way of analogy. be said to possess the qualities, say, of sweetness or energy, unless we mean by at that the underlying sentiment 18 sweet and vigorous The Gunas, as they make up the verbal form. are aspects or attributes, the real cause us Rasa, even as the soul of a man and not his body, is the true cause of virtues like heroism Pressing the analogy further, it is held that the Alamkaras or poetic figures adorn words and meanings which consutute the body of Poetry, although through word und sepse thicy may embellish the underlyicg soul of sestment indirectly, but not 18A Cably Whçec there is no Basa, they result 19 mere charmingness of expression It is clear that These considerations simplify the classification and useless multiplication of Gunas and Alanlāras, and the Ratis, being a combination of specific Gunas, 15 Do losges pecessary as a separate concept Although secondartly the Gunas concern Sabda and Artha (just as Alatskåras primarily concern them). the Gugus, and not Alarkatas, are taken primarily as the Dharwas or atributes of Rasa Words and ideas, for instance, but in relation to the Rasa we call them steet Tbe mental ·30 SOVE TROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS activity in alved in the enjoyment of Rasa is the sole criterion of a particular Gena; and in this scast only three Gunas are justified. The Mädhutya or sweetpess is supposed to consist of a melting (Druti) of the mind, appropriate 10 the erotic and palbclic sentiments; the Ojas or energy is a form of brilliant expansion (Vistara) of the mind, suitable to the sentiments of heroism, borror and fury; shile the Prasāda or perspicuity. proper to all sentiments, is an aspect of pervasion of the mind (Vyapti), secessary for quick apprehcusion. The Gunas, as attributes of Rasas, are thus Citta-vytis; and the three conditions of the mind, namely, meiting. expanding and pervading, which accompany the relevant poctic sentiment, are made the basis of only three pertinent Gugas. The Dhvani theorists undoubtedly mark an advance in cxplaining that the so-called Gunas or qualities of composition are not mere tricks of sound and sense but should be considered in vital relation to the upderlying poctic scalimeo The consideration of structure as such, therefore, is not necessary, and the distioction beta con qualities of sound apd sense is, from this standpoint, meaningless. The activity of the spirit involved in aesthetic enjoyment can alone justify them. In all this the Dhvani-theorists show themsches conversant with the true nature of poetic expression. But Since poetic espression nous of Bo dualism between word and scuse, just as there is no real daalisu bet een body and soul, it is meaningless, from the aesthetic point of view, to draw an absolute distinction between the so-called quality and 0:22 nent. The poetic jatuitija zatomatically chooses its CAPTC55100, which is only the externalisation of the spiritual actauity, and shich is, therefore, dot a mechanically fixed fact but a part and parcel of that activity. The differentiation of the vanons means of externalisation es qualities or oroimets Day bayc an eseful of practical alus, and a doctrine of technique may be evolued, but since poetic espression is a variable and individual facl with individual poets, 80 fxed laws of means and ends can be laid down for universal appl- ·THE PROBLEM OP POHIC EXPRESSION 3Y cation we say that a poet has a new techmque, we really mean to imply that the new techoique is the poem itsell A vital poctic intuition cannot have a prescribed technique of expression, for the simple reison that is an sotuitson of which the cxpression is the actualmy, it is not a volitional effort about which alone we speak of meats and ends, nor is it an intellectual concept which can be logically or universally formulated As the poelic intuition differs in each poet, according to his psychic organism and the pature of the stimuli acting upon it, there is bound to be endless kunds of express tos which are adsyidual and concrete, which have thesr own standards, spheres and means in each case and which cannot Iepeat theroselves It does not, for wastapce, help us to un derstand Kalidasa's poetry by merely understanding that it fulfils the prescribed requirements of 'qualities' or 'ornantcats' or even of arrangements of words with a view to suggest this or that sense, for his poetry is not what it us by its mere conformity to these formal requirements The techo que of the poet is lus poetic conception itself, it may express itsell in an ornate or simple manner, sweetly or harshty, expressively or suggestively, as is suitable to itself It may be a failure or a success, but there can be, tbeorctically speaking, no qucstion of standardised means. of good, bad or indifferent techogue what is appropriate to itself is its own technique Even the ordinary man never believes 10 the manufacturing of ready made poetry No technique can be universalised and tuc enumeration of techpical means can never be exhausted by formal treatment It may serve the practical purpose of supplying information about means, materials or groups of stimuls, or even the logical purpose of exposition but it possesses no theoretic value for the understanding of the Etusc of poetic The Dhyana sheorists were pof unaware of all this, although following older rhetorical consention they did not bring out all its Aesthetic implications Anaadsvardhsda himself decisres that the ways of poetic exp1255ion are infinite fanană la vug ·32 SOVE PROBLEVS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS nikalpaht) but he does not fully realise that soce there is no cad of poetic individuations it is funile to distinguish or cla borate rhetorical and qualitative categories Ele 13 however, right when he says that only the broad rule can be laid dono that whether they are qualities or ornements they must follow the import of the poetic intuition wh ch in bus theory 13 the aestbelic sentiment of Rasa intcoded by the port and if it 13 ncccssary to accept the older conventional" categories of thetorical figures and literary qualities the oply rule that should govern their employment is their appropriateness to the particular Rasa Amandovardh33s thesclore Jays down very clearly that there is no other circumstance which leads to the violation of the Rasa than appropriateness and ibat the supreme secret of Rasa consists 1a observing the rules of Appropriateness for each poetic intuition there exists its appropriate expression and the theory of Propriety or Aucitya alope should explaio and justify it This in general puthpe ys the theory of Dhyani and Rasa finally reached by Sanskrit Po tics The chief value of its contribution lics in its recogoition already foreshadowed by Bhatta Nayaka of the poetic sentiment as a fact of internal aesthetic experience and at its process of deatisation from a natural feeling (Bhava) to a poctic emotion (Rasa) In this the theorists undoubtedly approach the very core of the aesthetic problem and solve the question of Sabdactha sahitya in a novel way But unfortunately the starting limutations still remain and prevent a proper development of mere rheto- *IC 1010 Aesthetic Decause of these limitations it cannot be maintained that they have said the last word on the subject or said it clearly and consistently, but they have certainly dealt with some of its fundamental aspects very ably A right exposition is given indeed of the aesthetic enjoymer resulting from the idcalised crcation of Poetry and incidentally of the general natuce of poetic idealisation but the question is still approached from the standpoint of the reader of critic the Samajika or Sabrdaya and the problem of poetic intention ·34 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS series of verbal rules and modes to goyera infinite cases of particular and variable poetic expression ; for each creative fact is an individual ocurrence which must be judged by itsell The process of idealisation is also not fully and properly explained; it becomes a kind of abstract cnjoyment of abstract symbols by ignoring the concreteness of poetic intuition and creation. The idealisation is not mere generalisation : even when he has ap intuitive image of it. the poet ucvce leaves the concretc. His Rims of Sită, however idcalised, is not a TDCTC abstraction, and the poetic sentiment, however serene, is never divested of its warmth, colour and vivid reality. Again, the theory maintains that feelings slope can be raised to the state of aestbetic relish by the idealising capacity of poctry, but there is no adequate reason why the poetic intui. tion of a descriptive matter, os even of a more ornamental idca, cannot become an aesthetic fact or Rasa. Just as the experience of Iceling as feeling is not sesthetic intuition, so is also not the perception of matter or idea as such; they are osty cases of the practical or logical forms of mental activity. But as soon as maere matter or idea, like more feeling, becomes a part of thc poctic intuction, it becomes a form of its spiri. tual activity, an aesthetic fact, capable of being equally well Tclished. It is not enough 10 say that a matter or ornament may be suggested : it is necessary to recognise that matter or idea can in poetic crcation stand on the same footing as the fecling, on which alone stress need not laid. Ja capagising sentimental poctry and distinguishing it from the descriptive or the ornamental, the Sanskrit theory falls back upon the old error of confusing the form with the essence, Nevertheless, 10 spite of its imperfections, the theory of Rasa is a highly important contribution to poctic speculation. It Indicates that the Sanskrit theorists were certainly at are of the aesthetic problem, he though they did not tackle it consistently in its entirely, contepting thepusclıcs, as they did. by treating if only in some of its aspects.

·36 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS It was Kuntaka wbo, for the first time, divested the con cept of Sahitya of its mere grammatical associations of Pada, Vakya and Tätparya, and defined it as a definite poetic quality or relation, brought about by the poetic imagination. the Kavi pratibhā or Kav vyšpára The Sāhitya is pot, in thus sense present either in the Sastra or in the ordinary utterances of the world, but is seen in Poetry only, it is not the mere union of the expressor and the cxprcssed, the Vācaka and the Vācy, but the union has a special beauty in Poetry : and the determinalion of this speciality is the prob lem of Paetics Kuntaka, therefore, holds that śabda and Artha noited together or equipoised is Poetry (drar sammilitou katyam) It is meaningless to emphasise either Sabda or Artha, (na sabdass auva ramanizata 11$i$tasya hevalassa kāvjatvam, napy arthasa) to call one Abhyantara and the other Bahya (diajor aps pran tilam ava tailam, Ind vid ullada Ların ari artate, na punar ehosmin). but what is more important is that a special kind of Sāhitya is meant kni mi yıfıstam eva sākuyam abhipretam), by which meto language blooms 1010 Poetry This Varastya, in his opinion, is displayed 19 a composition (Bandha) characterised by Vakra Kaxi-vyāpara And causing Tad-vid-aklada Tbe Vallıştya therefore, consists of an extraordinary deviation from the conmon mode of speech, and this extraordinariness depends upon an imaginative turn of words and ideas, which he calls Valratva. Bhangi-bhanit Vascitrya, or Vicchitli, which causes a higher and unworldly pleasure (Ahlada) or pleasing charm (Camaikāra) to those who appreciate Poctry (Tad y.d) He further explains that this Vakratva vaišistya or Bhanıtı varsiştya rests upon the conception (Pratibha) of the poet or on his skill (Kaušala) or on an act of imagination on his part which Imed Kavi-vyárira or Kavalarman huntata analyses and classifics all poetic expression from this point of vicw, but what is important to note is that be prats a clcar emphasis on the imaginative power of the poet, and considers ut to be the source of the characteristic charm of ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 37 poetic expression He refuses therefore to accept the orthodox spiring up of poetic expression into exterior or loterior, CODsidering poetic expression as one and indivisible Whether the Sahitya of Sabda and Artha be the Višeşa of the outward garb of the inner content, of the sasia of Vácya vācaka of the Atman of Rasa-dhvani, it is the poet s peculiar way, the work of his imagination, the Kavı vyāpāra which makes the particular poetic expression what it is, that is the Visesa In his analysis of poetic expression Kuntaka attempts to develop further the idea of Vakrokti vaguely present in Bbāmaha, and systematises the views of those who laid stress op the so called Alarikara or poctic figure as the essential feature of Poetry, but in the course of his investigation he appears to have indicated, if not fully developed, certain poetic priociples which go beyond the sphere of formal ana. lysis By Vakrokti, which Kuptaka considers to be cssential in poetic expression he apparently thinks of figurative forms of speech for wbich he often uses the phrase as a collective name, but to reality (bus is eat the entire sugallicusvce of the Term meant by him Poetry to him is cmbellished sound and scnse, thc embellishment being chiefly (but pot exclusively) the figurative device IDOWD 45 Alankara in the narrow sense. and as this is the only ornament possible and essential he tepudiates the views of those who disregard sgurative ex. pression as accidental or non essential But here he does not stop He uses the term Alankara also in the larger sense of poctic beauty, not only as the fundamental pripcigle of figurative expressi93. but also of all poetic expression generally To this he gives ibe name of Vakroko, and comprehending under it all forms of poetic expression, he attempts a fresh interpretation of the problem by re thuokiog and te arranging under thts conception the accepted ideas of Rita Guna Rasa Obvads asd Alankara All this may still be formal analysis but in his conception of Vakroktı, Kualaka shows himself cognisant of the aesthetic Problem He well understood that art could not he the ·39 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS medium of philosophical or scientific concepts, and lasisted upon a clear distioction between Śãsura and Kavya, between intellective and imaginative work, by statiog that words and ideas of the Kavya dider from those of the Šāstra. He also maintaios rightly that expression being the most important thing in Poetry, the poetic speech is an extraordinary deviation from the ordinary mode of common speech, thereby distinguishing artistic expression from the merely naturalistic This catraordinatiness depends on a certain imaginative furn to words and ideas, which he calls Bhangi-bhaniti, peculiar to poetic expression and abhorrent of matter-of-fact expression, and which in his system goes by the name of Vakratva or Viccbitti. He also cxplains that this Vakratva, for which another name is Vaicitya or strikingness, 35 the charm of expression of the Vidagdha, the literary map of taste, who taust be distinguished from the Vidvat, the more scholar; and it is his pleasure (tad-vid-āblida) which is the supreme test of Poetry, as something which is not Laukika He fur. ther lays down that this expression depends, as we have seen. upon the intuition of the pact (Pratibhā), or in his skill (Kausala), or on an act of imagination on his part, which is termed Kavi-vyāpāra or Kavi-karman, but which, being indebnable, is not defined or explained. It is obvious that Kuntaka is one of the few theorists who put a clear emphasis on the imagssative power of the poet and consider it to be the bQUICC of the characteristic charm of poetic expression. Hc regards embellished speech as Poetry, but holds that the source of this embellishment, even it it consists of poetic figures merely, is the poctic imagida. 1100, He, therefore, draws a distinction between what may be called a speech-figure, on the one hand, and ibe sn-called poetic figure, on the other. In formal scheme of Poetry they may correspond; but in a poetic figure, because it is poetic, Kuotaka discovers a specific difereafia, which consists of a peculiar or deviating fura of expression (Vakratya), Tosulting in a characteristic strikingness (Vaicitrya ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 39 or Vicchitts) and depending on the imaginative activity of the poet (Kavi pratıbba nirvastitatva) The so called poetic figures of orthodox Poetics are admissible only when they possc33 this peculiar charm of poctic imagination and expres. 8100 the word charm apparently meaning nothing but that which gives it its poetic peculiarity Kuotaka therefore holds that embellishments do not belong to poetry that is to say they are not added externally but that poetry is embel lished speech itselt the particular embellishment depending on the poetic imagigation Kuntala thus supplies a deficiency in the teaching of the Dhvani theorists who ignored all embellishments unconnect ed with the suggested sense as mere Vag vikalpa ar Ulti Paciteya To them the ornamental expression of poetry was detachable external and non essential addition but Kuntaka gives a new joterpretation of such Ukti vaiciirya and justifies the poetic Ornaments as such If they are a part of poetic cxpression they have a night to be considered for they form thereby the expression itsell If the poetic imagination justifies them as a source of beauty the question of their connexion with the suggested sense or of their essentrality or non essentiality need not ar 15€ they being themselves essential In Kuntaka s view therefore poetry is always embellished expression as distinguished from plain and matter of fact expression of sciences and scriptures and embellishment in the geperal sense 18 always a characteristic of poetic cxpres$100 The embellishment comprebends 10 its specific sense the whole domain of chctorical figures (which Kuntaka includes in the particular provoce of Yakya vakrata) if they are justified by the poelic imagination and become poetic figures thereby It may also 10clude the qualities (Guna Riti) were matter (Vastu) of the so called ubex presscd (Dhvadi) olading the suggested sentiment (Rasa) it as form or malcrial they become a part of the poctic ima gination and expression The skull of the poet cap and does exhibit various forms of Vokrokt 10 the arrangement of ·40 SOVE PRODLEYS OF SANSKRIT POETICS letters, in the base or termination of words, in the words themselves, th their gender, number and synonym, in their scose, 10 & scotcace, : & particular topic or in the compost uion as a whole, and all these pecessarily comprehend what earlier theories elaborated as Guna RH, Alaslara, Dhyan! and Rasa Thus. Kuotaka gives an extended interpretalion to Bhimaha & Valcokti, by which Kustaka conpotes and denotes the same thing, namely, the extraordinary form of imaginAlive expression He makes Bhamaba's somewhat inchoate suggestion of heightened speech more definite by Telerring 11 to the poetic Imagination It is, therefore, anaccurate to suppose that Kuntaba accepts Derely figurative expression as the denotation of Vakrokts for ho brings within ils comprehensive scope all known kinds of imaginative poetic expression The inaccuracy ariscs from the apparent cmpb254 which Kuntaka puts on figurative expression but in reality his Vektokti means much more than that It is a pity that Kuntaka's explanation of poclic expression was never seriously soficed nos fully developed by crthodor writers Had it not beeo so it might have been possible to arrive ultimately at a clear idea of the nature of poctie crtation an aspect of Sanskrit Pocties which has been Ignored by Sanshsst iheorists But later THCS even if they Aeglect Kuntoka's work into uomcrited oblivion appear to have accepted directly or implicitly, his idea of a pocfic figure and applied bis test of poetic imagination to their own analysis of sadusidual thetorical figures We have seen that though Kvolaka regards the so called poelic figures as particular forms of speech (Abhidhi prokára voścsa) he would yet fod some specific dulcicotia in them which would make them admissible pamely, Vakralya of Vaicitrya, which is a peculiar curs of expression (Bbaugi bhapu) depending on an act of imagination on the part of the poct (Kavi yupira) The elements therefore which go to make up the being of a roetic figure of tather convert a speech figure into a pocuc figure are Vasc lrya o Vicchitt-tiścşu and Kavi prabbi ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 41 Biryartitalya In other words, Kuntaka maintains that a form or mode of expression becomes a poetic figure or Alapkāra sf the fertile imagination of the poet lesds a peculiar charm to it. This analysis is accepted by Ruyyaka, and, following him, by most waiters of later times Ruyyaka, for instance, does not elaborate a doctrine but implicitly takes the charm brought about by the productive imagination of the poet (Kavi pratibhā) to be the criteriod of a poetic figurc Thus, he thiuks a form of expression lavolving the logical Anumāna would not prima facie constitute the figure Anumāna, it should involve a poetical, and not merely logical, Apumāna Similarly, the doubt involved to the figure Samdeba should be pot an ordinary doubt but a poetic doubt Hence, Mammaga lays down sententiously that the poetic figure is strikingness itselt (varcitryam alamkārah) In thesc and similar cases, the question is not one of a mere form of speech, in which nothing is given but the bare thought, it must be the expression of the poetic imagination Jayaratha who comments on Buyyaka's work, cites the autborny of Kuntaka in this respect, and informs us that it is not possible to define this poetic chara (Vicchitta os Vaicitrya), saasmuch 15 it is of 18(3te varsely, being deptical with the play of individual poetic imagination which is infinite in scope, the hofpite individuation of thc poctic imagination having been already admitted by Apandavardhana as well as by Kuntaka Jagannātba, therefore, delines it generally by saying that this charm is nothing but the poetic imagination with reference to the power of poetic production Io the same way. Kuplaka acknowledges the concepts of Marga add Guna, but finds fault with the empirical classifica tion and nomenclature of Rates and Guas adopted by the R111-theorists He attempts to teinte pret the theory of Rita from the point of view of poetic powes He objects to the Damag and differentiating of Ritis after different localitics, for one would then be forced to adott infinite number of Ritus as there 18 ap infinite number of countries in his ·4 SOVIC PROBLEMS OF SANSARIT POLTILS opinion a particular Ritz caonot be established as a Desa dharma for it does not depend upon regional characiers tics or opon special customs of a particular place but upon the pochic power (šalti) culture (Vyutpatti) And practice (Abhyasa) of a particular group of pocts which can never conform to mere geographical distribution He objects also the classıūcation of Rulis uato good bad and middling on the ground that the proper diction can be only one gamely the best to matter of whatever type at 15 Xuntaka belie.cs that if different kinds of Rius arc 10 be admited as havs prasthana bheda then the character of the poct the Kavi syabhava alone should furnish the criterion of their distinc lion He admits that this Kayi svabhava is infinite but generally speaking he thinks that there can be threc mann types in one class of poets el er natural poctic power onds an unhappered scope while in others the art is chiefly decorative and factitious These may be taken as the two extreme modes of composition which he calls Sukunura and Vicitra Marga respectively but there may still be a third class of poets who would like to steer a middle course and favour a mixed style called Madhyama Marga kuntala therefore admits the Ruts to a distinct place in bus system but adopts a dileccat basis of classilication and nomenclature 10 accordance with his fundamental dea of Kavi vyapara or Kavi pratibha Here for the first time the Rsts is brought ia direct sclation with the poetic sodsvsdvalily and is understood distictly as is expression it is taken as poetic style in the scpsc in which it ss uodesstood by Westero criticism Kuntake is fully aware that style is desther debidable nor classifiable being snauc 10 variety and subtle in difference According to the particular poetic intuition in a particular case but his object on mentiomng these three cases is perhaps to indicate certain broad types of poetic temperament. We stall revert to this question presently but it is clear that by taking the poetic 100gination to consideration Kuntata was able tor the first time to assert bowever imperfectly ·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION 43 that the question of personality is of the vimost importance 10 any theory of Poetry It will be seen that these speculations are of the bighest value in calling attention to the creative imagination which has been so far practically neglected by Sanskrit Poencs but which Kuataka may be said to have discovered for the first time If the Dhayni theorists explained the poetic intuition in the Samajika with respect to the aesthetic enjoyment of poetic cteatrons be left out of consideration the question of poetic intuition with reference to the poet hituselt lo other words they considered the readers power of reproduction but not the poets power of production Kuntaka for the first ime posed the question by maintaining that we should on the coatraty start with the creative imagination of chic port himself of which the poetic expression or creation 19 the actuality Kuntaka had resolutely pursued his 10 vestiga trons further on the line he could bave formulated a proper aesthetic study but he still shows himself a victim of rhetoric in a different form The scholastic tedency was almost universal and proved a difficult batter to the under standing of the truc nature of the problem This was so in Kunlaka because while he discovered the importance of the poetic imagination he could cot have the credit of developing its implication for the entre aesthetic question be applied it chiefly to the analysis and class fication of figntative and cognate expression He had an inkling of the truth for instance when he spoke of poetic speech as a kind of express 10n other than that represented by scientific or popular speech In making the distraction he spoke indeed of the poctic imagination but he could not clearly see that 1035 much as the intellective and the 15tuitive were both aspects of spiritual activity the distinctio absolute at depended simply on the nature of the poetic Intuition There is no absolute distopction agai aesthetically between the simple sod the crate for both may equally become kiods of poetic expression or better Dot ·48 SOVC PRODLCHS Or SANSKRIT POLTICS that is to say, not the haphazard unity of decis kinds of personality but the intensic vauty of the work as the syathetic espression of one poetic personality, It is not surprising. therefore, that we scarch in 1a9n for A clear discussion ol the character and function of the poctic imaginano in the whole range of Sunskrit Poclics Esen though Kuntaka recognises it, his Kavi karmas limiti itsell mainly to a normative analysis of empirical canons, and males hes Poctis ultimately assume a verbal and formal character, 10 which his fundamental idca is lost Plus Vakrolli degener ales mio a kind of Kav: praudboxt of later wilers. No doubt. most writers solcmaly afficat the accessity of Pratibhā or poctic imagination, but Pralibháin there theories themselves docs not assume any important role, nor is its character or function cicarly determined This imperfect understanding is also shown by what the Sanskrit theorists often say about culture (Vyutipatti) and practice (Abhyasa) in relation to the poctic magination (Pratibhā! It is true that the fact of proctic ropre scotation is preceded by various kinds of powledge, which. like feelings or physical facts, act as stimulus or material As adventitious aids to the externalisation of poctic luitton, they base a relative value, and a cultural backgrovod is involved so all good poetry la so far as this is acknowledged, the Sanskrit theorists justly remark that culture and practice should assist annate poetic power But, protestog their beliet in the poetic imagination they sometimes go further and speak of making a poet into a poei" Rudrafa for instance, expresses the opinion that poctic power us not only snborn but also capable of attainment It Is, therefore, prescribed that the pact should be an expert in a long list of arts and sciences and make bimself proficient in various kinds of poetical CRECISCS This dewaad 13 conformity with the Stamned atmosphere in which Sanskrit Poetry at one tine came to flourish and which riade Pressos assume a scholastic character In actual practice, no doubt, the gifted posts aspect to untrammelled utterance, but the general tendency in an epoch ·50 SOVC PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS an undoubted acsthetic acumen by always cmphasising that the poetic activity in its essence is independent of intellectualt ty utility and morality Although they do not discuss the question they tacitly distinguish the poetic activity from the intellectual or tht practical and glyc cyidence of a strong common sense by never confusing a poetic with a scientific or didactic work the Kīvya with the Sastra or the Nitt It is curious indeed that these theorists expend a great deal of abstract and intellectualust erudition on a cold and monoto nously calated rhetoric, and yet they enjoy poctry as poetry and hardly ever think of the moral end of the intellectual gain It is clearly indicated that poetry is not a mass of popularised truth nor a man estation of empirical pleasure and pain fram the cthical point of view but that it conveys a state of the mind in its intuitive purity which can be reproduced in an idealised fatal in the reader s mind In Saaskrif therefore there oever developed an intellectualist Poclics which valued Poetry for the knowledge it brought and regarded it as a semi science, nor was there a practicest Poeties which emphasised Such practical forms of buwan activity as have an utilitatian hedonistic or moralistic end 10 view But the fadlure to explain and justify poetic expression purely by the poetic imagination is seen in the vacillation and uncer tainty of the various attempts to discover a rigid definition of poetry We have seen that the earlier writers wisely leave the question alone contenting themselves with the bare mention of Sabda and Artba as the ingredients Following them the later writers take the Sabdartha Suhitya in unbroken tradition as essential requisite of poetry, but tbey attempt ta qualify it by the equmeration of certain standardised characteristics of Vibesas as Alankāta Guna Riti, Dhvani Rasa But they could not entirely divest the Sabdartha sahitya of its grammatical and logical associations and erect it into a purely postic concept They forget all about the poetic imagination and concern themselves more or less with a normative analysis and classification of general formulas ·THE PROBLEM OF POETTC EXPRESSION 51 38461 and categories in order to explain what is an individualised occurrence with each poet The failure to understand that the poetic latuition differs in different pocts 19 different circumstances led them to make a vain effort to find one universal definition of Poetry one abstract and savariable formula for what admits of infoste individual and concreto variations to determine logically what in its essence 19 non Logical to immobilise the mobile by throwing a bridle an the neck of Pegasus Both the approach and the method are not correct The theorists devote themselves with great zeal to collect analyse and classify methodically after the manner of natural sciences a series of single facis soto general principles such an empirical atutude admits indeed aesthetic occurrences but nourishes a delusion that like facts of natural sciences they can bc grouped formally 10to classes and types in the course of their investigation the theorists amass calculate and measure the greatest possible var ety of such acsthetic facts formulate laws means modes and models but as they progress they always discover new facts which require fresh adjustment In this they fail to realise that as each expression is unique and indivisible that artistic facts 12 tbeir unified concreteness cannot Irke physi cal facts be mechanically divided and subdivided. por can they like intellectual facts he logicaly comprehended by abs tract universals Such an attitude reduces Poetics to the rapk of a formal discipline Like Logic and most of its picous perplexities acise from this outlook The theorists unfortucately forget that a work of art is AD 10union bas intuition is individuality and that individuality never repeats itself nor conforms to a prescribed mould They believe thus not in udity but in the duality of magidation and expression thereby splitting up what is organic fato parts. They hardly recognise that word and sense as symbols Dre inseparable from poetic intuition and as such they are not cxcu and a echanical but mobile and elusive Poetry should be takca as a living discourse among diyersely cx ·$2 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS pressive organisms and not as an embalmed collection of dead abstractions capable of scientific dissection Good sense hae ala ays refused to accept a normative formulation of poetic expression No one cxcept a poor speaker or Serssbier speaks or Brites by rules and no one believes that it 19 possible to lay down such rules of speaking or writing well For the real poet as for the real spcalce there is hardly any arroury of ready made acapons, he forces bus own weapons to fight his 08 a particular battles If these investigations of Sanskrit theorists are meant to explain the principle which lies at the root of Poctry they can never do so completely and successfully by merely analysing and classifying aesthetic facts and categories with out taking into account the poctic imagination which makes them what they are Let it not be supposed that we mish to deny of minimise the usefulness of such analy813 and classification from the scientific or scholastic point of view what we want to stress is that they fail to establish their claim to cxplain the intuitive activity involied in poetic creation As logical concepts of natural lacts, they are admissible and are of practical valoc but they hardly have importance for aesthetic explanation They are Iskc labels to a thung rather than the thing itself in the true scose the elaboration of such series of laws is a negation of art itsel! By their universality they begale its accidentality by their abstraction is empiricily by these mechanst ils organic character Thus Sanskrit Pocties Attempting to solve the riddic of Poetry did hardly solve it but delighted itself with the pleasure of abstract thought and facmal calculation Nevertheless these abertations and insubciencies are at the same time attempts to reach the truth and in the midst of unlifted shadows one does ofted perceive a running thread of silver lining. Even if the Sanskrit theorists could not because of intal handicap arrive at the final goal they still had a clear glimpse of it. Lilc the mystery of Gods creation the mystery of the poets creation is unfathom

·THE PROBLEM OF POETIC EXPRESSION
able, and struck with wonder and adoration, one can
only say
Lancer skreyam e flable serveret
sphurarian ordresu podega Reveland
paladar argah splufa rompe vekeriyar
parasya tapum bkavedeljama poplay

·BHXMAHA'S VIEWYS ON GUNA Otell early wnters on Sanskrit Poetics Bhamgha appears to be the most puzzling in the attitude lie adopts towards the Guna doctrine The only passage in which he employs the term guna is that 10 which he defines led Trivedi in 52 53)' the poctic figure Bhavika as bhasthar, am ih prahuh probandha wasay am limam prasjaksa na drsjante yarartha bhnia bhaina Citrodattodbhutarthah am latlayah sabhınıfata Sabdanakulala ceti tasya hetum pracaksatel These verses come practically at the end of the chapter on the classification and definition of poetic figures (havsalarii larus) and prima facie the Bhavika coming 10 this context, should be taken as such Dandis also follons (ed Rangacarya 11 363 65)* the same procedure regarding the treatment of the Bhavika repeats the first line of the above definition amplifying it still further in his own way and agrees with Bhamaha in designating the Bhavika as a prabandha visaya suna Udbhata follows Bhamaba generally in this respect (ed Baobaits 6 p 79)" and defines it almost in the same way, but be appears to regard it wore or less as a specific poctic figure and omits the qualification hathas al syabhınıfata as well as the designation prabandha yaşa) a guna These definitions are obviously meant to be wider than that of a simple poetic figure in the course of which the Bhavika is 1 The reference is same in the kashi Sanskrit Scrits edition tot 10 the edition of Naganatba Sastry (with Eos Trs, Tapfore 1927) it is u $3 54 2 364-66 in both the Bombay Sanstat Series edition and the tdi uon of Premacandra Tarkayagiša (Calcuta 1881) 3 p 73 i Nubaya Sagara Picss edition (Bombay 1915) 4 We are not concerned bec with latçc definitions of the Ekaula at a definite poclac figure ·BHĀMARAS VIEWS ON GUNA 35 dealt with by these writers It is a characteristic wh ch is said to belong to and pervade the whole composition (prabandha vyapto gunah as Tarunavacaspati puts it) and it docs not (as a poctic figure would apparently do) restrict itself to a part of a composition re it is not eka deska as Jayamangala on Bhattº xu 1 explarps itIt is thus difficult to regard it as the elements of the definitions themselves also shew as a limited figure of speech, it should not only be pada 2018 or vakya gata but also like rosa of later writers prabandha gata in spite of a certain novelty or obscunty of the conception it is clear that the theorists were reluctant of uneasy about treating it as an ordinary poetic figure and therefore defined it in somewhat wider terms at the conclusion of their treatment of such figures The theory appears also to be reflected in practice If we are to accept the assurances of the commentators (Jayamangala and Malliostha) the whole of canto xu of the Bhalu kavya should be taken as an illustration of the Bhaviks as a prabandha gund It is remark able also that the Bhavsla is not mentioned by Vamana as a poetic figure nor is it included by him in his elaborate scherae of Genus Dandia also would not include it in the list of his ten marga gala Gupas or in their wparyayas The position 18 somewbat puzzling The clue is furnished by the probable supposition that the Bhavika like the Syabhavokti involves the implication of an aesthetic factor to which it must bave been difficult to assigne place in a clear cut scheme of Gunas and Alafakaras The Bhavika is defined by Bhamaba generally as a vivid representation of past and future objects as if they are directly perceptible to the eye the vividness of the represeptation depending on the conditions that the theme must have a picturesque strange The word prahuh in the definitons of Chimaha and Danda say ind cate that she # **s probably tradtionat and will accepled imp! tily without much duscussion 2 See my Sansir ? Pocial Dofa ·56 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS and exalted significance and therefore capable of being chactcd well and that the words employed must have a consistency Dandins definition' is more circumstantial, but it is more illuminating The Bhavika is said to consist in the mutual favourablcoess of all the parts of 'scriptive matter, in the non employment of redundant or useless quali fications to describing things in their proper places and In so arrangeag the expression that the intended depth of the theme comes out clearly These arc matters of detail, but the most important point sa Dandis s definition which brings out the essential conception is the statement that the Bhavila 15 so called because it is bhāsayarla and that the ofena is thic intention or rather the urward conception of the poct (harcr abluprayak) which controls the details and resides in the poem as a whole, and not merely in its isolated parts Thes bhava should not be taken as the technical emotional element which Pratıhace duraja commenting on Bhansaba's phrase svabhinitata would apparently read into it by the noterpreta tron śrngara samveltataNo such sigpificance is supported by the recognised commentators (Tarunavacaspati, Hirdayani. 1 bhavkarvam ! prahuh prabandha veşayari gunom 1 bl dvak korey abh pooh lovesy asiddhz sabaharah 1 parasparopoldneva k saredi vasta parrandm1 visesanans h vanil onam air) & sthāno-crnonat! vyakuruh krama balad gambarasyāpt astungh bhavayatlamidarla Sarvan !il tod bl awke i duh!! The variant read ag ta the second lsnc is Lavyeşyasya 1 yavasth rh 10 the Madras edition for karyery asiddhi saruhah la the first line tad bhavikam ! prahuh (Caled and bar lah tam itt praful (Madras cd ) 2 It is probably in view of such musconceived interprctauos that Bhoja at a much later time includes the Bhavika among his twenty Tour $abda-ganas (75) as the conduct of a scoicace according to its underly zog emotion of sentiment (olavero ayah a definitioa which bas been cop ed by Vidyanatha 10 hts scheme of 24 Gunas wodelled on that of Bhoja) although bis Ariba-guna ubay ka es sable pruyokat ima 10 Darrov seose (189 ·BHAMAHAS VIEWS ON GUNA 59 the other hand the yicw relcrred to by Bhamaha is implied in the tradition which Rudrata's Riti and the Dhvanikara s Samghatana follow in later times The only plausible inference that can be made from this is that Dhamaha was probably aware of some theories which approve of Mădhurya Ojas and Prasada je poetic composition (10 what character it is not clear but presumably as Gunas of the expopepts of the Rit theory) chiefly on the basis of the desirability of long compounds but either he was indifferent to their literary value or did not bipk it worth whild to treat them as distinct or separate elements of poetic expression It is remarkable indeed that Bhamana does not think 11 necessary to connect as the Rate theorists have synce done the Gunas with Rin which term itself (or the term Marga which Dandır employs) is never used by his and which con ception even if it was known to his does pot appear to have been seriously entertained Nor like Bharata does he view the Madhurya ctc as indepeodeat Kavya gunas Blamaba refers indeed in another context (1 31 35) to Vaidarbha and Gaudiya Kavyas (and not expressly to Ritis of those names familiacısed by Dandid and Vamapa) in which some theorists of his time have apparently discovered differences of manner and treatment but from his remark it is clear that he himself would not pay much attention to the alleged differences 11 Bhamaha was aware of some theory of Riti or its classification he d d not apparently subscribe to it por did be təink at necessary to attach as much importance to it in his treatment of Poctics as Dand o did This is an attitude which is intell: gible in view of his belonging to a diferent tradition of thought which emphasised the nicesi and importance of ihose embellishments of poetic speech which are koown as alonkards AS a ollary from this ut follows that although Bhamaha was anate of some characteristics of poetic express Lon such as Madburya Ojas and Prasada which were defined and related as construcat crcellences of Rut by the Ritz theofists and regarded by them as essential elements of poetry ·A NOTE ON THE GAUDI RIU 63 betrayed disapproval they bad still to take the mode of the Gaudas into account presumably because it had attained a commcndable position and found favour in an equal degrec with a class of writers and readers It seems there fore, that even long before Banabhafa and Dandin the Gaudas exhibited a distinctive literary diction of their own,' which side by side with the widely accepted Vaidarbhi had an established tradition incapable of being completely ignored Just es Beagal strove politically in these centuries against the constant agression of Magadha Thaneshwar and Kashmy 10 maintaja its independence it attempted in the literary sphere to withstand the domination of the almost Universally accepted Vardarbha mode of expression and succeeded in establishing its originality These references are important so literary history because they supply undeniable evidence that by the 7th and 8th centuries there must have grown up 10 Bengal a Sanskrit culture which attained such importance as necessitated the recognition of its characteristic method of expression Apart from the lucubrations of Bhamaha and Dandin Vamana 1 In lle absence of proper data il is impossible to determine when the dist nction between Vaidarbha and Gauda modes was first recogni sed H Jacobi (Mal arasiri pp av 1) suggests that the sunpler Vardarbha style was a reaction agarast the older and more elaborate Gaud3 style and came into existence probably in the 3rd century AD It is possible to argue on the contrary that the Gauda style whtch asserts itself more and more in the later Kavya was itself a symbol of furluer development exhibitrag a tendency towards greater elaboration Rath the standpoints ignore the potsibul ty of the two styles developing tuncurrently as rival modes The controversy of the theloncians makes it probable that both the Rinis developed side by side and entered into a competition for mastery-Bharata za hrs Nedstra (ed Grosset tv 26) speaks of four dramatic modes or Pravſtus viz Avantı Pancala madhyam. Dátşı atya and Oura pugadh the last of which is expressly stated to have been employed in the eastern provroces including Atga Vanga Paundra and Nepala (X Y 4347) Ibere belog no special Gaudí Praviti ·THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA IN CLASSICAL SANSKRIT The distinction made between the akhyayıkā and the kacha by writers of Sanskrit Poetics is well known Wo proposc 10 this paper to consider how far the prescriptions of the rhetoricians apply to the few existing specimens of the ākhyāykā and the katha by Subandhu and Banabhatta, and what light, if any, they throw on the development of these species of prosc composition in Classical Sanskrit The oldest writer os Poetics who deals with the matter appears to be Bhāmaha, who draws a tiged distinction between the ökhyāyıkā and the katha Bhāmaha lays down (1 259) that the akhyāykā is a literary composition (1) wbich 19 written in prosc in words pleasiog to the ear (fravya) and agreeable to the matter intended (pralriānukala). (2) but which may contain metrical pieces in vaktra and aparavaktra metre, the object of these verses betog to give a timely indica tion of future happenings is the story. (3) which should have an exalted substance (udattārlia) with some characteristics supplied by the poet's smagioation as a special mark,' and 1 Tac ccader seed scarcely be refunded that the Sanskrit theorists deine poetry so as to include any literary work of the imagination, and absolutely refuse to make thyming or verse an essential 2 The lezt teads (ed Trivedi, BSS liv, 1901) vaktrani cāparavahtram ca kale bhavyartha Samsı ca Sankara quoting this verse 10 has commentary on the Harsa-canta (on / 10), reads kanye kavyar tha Sarnica 3 The readag, which is apparently corrupt, u: haver abhipraga krtath kathangih karfod arkad "parked by certain narration created by the intention of the poet' Premscandra, quating this half verse in his commentary on the Xapyödarfa, cada karar obhipraya karar ankargir ankua kotha, introducing a grave variant and connecting it with the kotha But it is not intelligible how he connects the next line in Bhd. mana (kenya harana etc) with the akhyayika From the text as it stands ta Bhamaha both these lines should nghtly go with the uk hyayiko, and not with the katha and for this we have the authority of the text of the Agri-puring which appropriates one of these lines ·66 SOHE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS having for its theme the abduction of a girl (kanya hardna). a fight (samgrama) a separation (vipralambha) and the (final) triuruph (udaya), apparently of the bero. (4) 10 wbich an account of his own deeds is givea by the hero himself, and (5) in which the story is divided into several pauses called yechua sas: in the latha on the other band there are so vakara or aparavaktra verses no division into ucch, asas and the story should not be narrated by the hero but by some one else It may be written in Sanskrit or in Apabbratisa which indicates by implication that the ahhyayıha should always be composed 10 Saosirit Dandin appears to criticize and reject all these fine distinc. Lions which in his opinion are not essential but more or less formal requirements Ic states that some people would 1 spam akhydale rasym nayakena sva-cestitam where the bord PHA CONDex on tih svo-cesita may ind cale "actual h story of facts of experence as opposed to savested fchion Tu s should be coad with Damaha s prohib ton of self revelat on by the hero in the karna In the laua Bhimaba po otedly says what noble man daunts hi on Mer is? It may be asked 10 tbs connexion how 15 it that Bhimaha allows the hero to Darrate hos exploits in the akhala to which this object on also apparently apples? To obviate this seeming Inconsistency we should suppose that since ao the all ydyika what 19 narrated consists more or less of faca ol actual experience the hero who it the barthton) choot be suspected of self boasting but since the kell 11 more or leys an inte story thus ant of ranity should not be allowed the hero and therefore some other pxrsoa should be the narritor 2 The word ucckyasa (It breathing out ind cates pause for breath and so it camc (or a chapter which consulates the pause for the narrator who cannot be supposed to tell the story in one breath" but should recount it in an easy mannt sth necessary pauses ) The i ngunitic lorms Bccord ng to Bhamaha for literary com rosions are Sanskrit Prakrit and Arahbromia (116) but it is not clear whal Bhimiha mest by the last lerm Dagda Sixes a definito con notation to this term as the language of the 26 Tras and others in the Advya but in the sait to a name apri cu 10 all Languages other than Sanchet (36) ·THE ÄKHYÁYIKA AND THE KATHA 67 distinguish between the ākhyā), kā and the kathā by maintain ing that in tht for me the narrator is the bero himsell, 17 the latter the bero or some one else (nāyakena carena vā vácyā). on the ground that the discovery of one s own merit 10 not a lault 19 one who is ooly stating what is true (bhūtārtha. Salist) Dandin disagrees with this opinion, and holds that the fact that the hero or some other person is the narrator is not a real ground of distinction, and it is not strictly observed in current poetical usage (aniyamo drsjah), for sometimes in the akhyāyika the narrator is found to be some person other than the hero. Secondly, Dandin urges that the cmployment of specific metres like the vaktra and aparavakrra peed not be rigorously binding in an athyayıkā, for they may like ärzā and other metres) incidentally occur 19 the kathā Thirdly, the desigaation uccisvāsa is sometimes found indeed applied to the divisions of an akhyayika like the term Tambhaka in the case of the katha , but nothing can be con cluded from this Fourthly, themes like the abduction of a gerl, fight, separation, or triumph are not special characteris tics of these prose compositions, for they are also found 10 the sarga bandha mahākavya? Fifthly, special marks dhe to the inventive power of the poet need not be a fault else- 1 As in the Harsa carita as Taruna vacaspati in his commentary points out 2 Dandia is here intentionally misunderstanding Bhimaba No doubt these themes are found in the makakayya but Bhamaba probably means that wbile these tbings are subordinate in other species of poetic composition they should be prominent in the akkiayika 3 This special' markakna or anka) is interpreted by commen tatars old and new (Taruna vācaspati and Premacandra) as signifying the trick of using special words (like øn at the end of Magba s poems, laksinr in Bharayi onuraga in Prayaraseas, etc) to indicate the end of a canto (bandhavina) But perhaps this fcroark of Dandin connects itaclith Bhamaha's screark that the akhyayika may sometimes bear the marks of the poet's inventive power (kaver abhupaya katauh kathanach koted ankato). and refers to the invented episodes of parts to the matter of fact akhyāyika ·8 SOVC PROBLEMS OP SANSKRIT POETICS where (1e in a kathā) for there is no limit as to the means which a poct may adopt for the attainment of his purpose And lastly Dandin expressiy says that the hatha may be composed ja all languages as well as in Sanskrit for the wonderful story of the Byhat katha is said to be written in the bhula bhusa We are not concerned here with the much discussed ques tion whether these remarks of Dandia ere directly levelled (as they probably are) against Bhamaha in particular but we should note that while Bhimaha makes a sharp distinction between the two species Dandin does not admit this distinc tion, and considering the admittedly a posterior nature of these carlier works op Aladikara it is not improbable that their respective conclusions were based upon the observance of current poetical usage which they ansiyse and in which an explanation of this divergence of vies should bo sought Let us now turn therefore to Bana's Marsa cartta and his Kadambari which are respectively designated by the author himself as an akhiastku and a lathu and see how far the teachings of these two carlsest theorists arc sllustrated by these two typical works or whether their conclusions were based upon some other prototypes The Harsa-carsta begins with tsenty introductory stanzas 10 the sloke or anustubh metre concluding this preliminary part with a verse 19 jagafi These verses contain an obesanco (namosiriya) to Vyasa and to the deities Šiva and Parvati and dwell upon pocta and poetry generally ocidentally praising great poets and poems of the past After bricily stating the merits of an akhydyrka (1120) the author praises king Harsa de 0110n to whom supplies the motie of bis literary composi tion notwithstanding the existence of great works and authors in the world Is thich kim De plus iht Pasar Train show hlmxił conversaat wth the legendary account of the orig of this work ·THE AKHYAYIKA AND THE KATHA 9 After this comes the prose story of which etght uchrasas remain That the chapters were entitled ucсhvasas by the Author is indicated by the obvious put in $l 10 With the exception of the first every ucсhyasa begins with a pair of staozas which give an indication of what is to follow The metres of these verses arc fauly uniform consisting generally of arya with the siogle erception of a stanza in the sloka. metre in Ucchvasa 111 In the prose part we have a detailed account of the poets family extending from the first to the thud Vechyasa bis youth otroduction to the court and manner of his reception there his return to his native country and relation of the story of king Harşa to bis relatives Thus the main story begins with the third Ucchvasa and continues to the eighth where 11 breaks off It may be noted that the prose parrative contatos some verses in diferent metres of which one of NSP 1918 p 125) is expressly stated to be in the vaktra metre wbile four (pp 18 78 125 159) are sim larly stated to be in the apara waktra metre The other verses conta ned in the prose Darrative are in vasanta mlaka (11 p 54) Sardula vikridita (11 p 69) Ara (1 86 I p 140 v p 185) sragdhara (t.1 p 93) and sloka (v 153) the last two Ucchvasas containing Do Verscs at all Before taking up the Kadambari wc may bricfly indicate the nature of the other (and perhaps earlier) kust a 19 Sacskrit viz Subandhu s Vasavadatta wlach 15 apparently referred to by Bana himself in his Harşa carila This work begins with twelve introductory stanzas in arzā with an obeisance to Sarasvati Krsna and Siva some prarse of good pocts and a statement of Subapdbu s authorship The prose story 19 immateria) for our purpose but it may be noted here that we do not get this form of the story of Vasavadatta elsewhere the particulars of it be ng probably due to the inventive genius of the poet There is no interruption or pause in the narrative and pc dIVISIOD into chapters for ·70 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS are there altra or aparai aktra verses alibovgh some metrical pieces in arya filharini sordula virudita and Sragdhara occur thrice The tenor of the story 15 KOIC or less peaceful love being the prevailing sentiment, and there is no sai igrama or hanyu harana (23 in Bhamaba's almashu) unless Vasavadatla s being carried away to the Vindhya mountains be coastrued as an instance of the last theme The Kudambri The story of which is too well known to require recapitulation here is similar inform but perhaps Iess complicated in plot The prosc narrative which is continuous is introduced by some verses 10 vamsastha which contain an obeisanec to Brahma Sıva and the authors guru Phatsu some remarks on the effects of good poctry and an Lacoust of the author & race and family The tenor of the story as similarly peaceful with love as the prevailing scott ment and is not based upon any known Ilthasa the main plot being probably an invention of the poet Taking the Harsa-carta as a typical SUIVIVIDE specimen of the earlier alhajtha (its date being the first half of the scventh century) we had at opce that while it conforms in some points to the requirements prescribed by Bhamaha 1cannot yet be taken to typify exactly the allisayha described by hio The work is written in agrecable prose with verse adjuncts but the salira and apara voktra verses contained in it are merely topical and do not fulfil the re quirement that they should indicate the tenor of the plot this work besøg done by the pairs of verses (generally in urya) prefixed at the beginning of each chapter The story is odccd udattarti a being the history of a great log and 15 regularly divided into ucchrases but it does not touch the themes of hanja i arana etc, and it is difficult to see what special mark of the poet s inventive gcoius it bears 10asmuch as 16 professes to be the actual life bestory of a royal per sonage narrated by an eye witness But the most important point to bote in this connexion is that it does not conform in ·THB AKHYAYIKA AND THE MATH/ 71 the essential characteristic lad down by Dhadaba that the narrator must be the hero bimself Taking these facts into consideration it will not be wrong to draw the conclusion that the prototype of Bhamaha's akhyayıla was probably not the Harsa canta of Bana but some other work which has not come down to us from Bhamalas treatment we may however, conclude that in spite of some controversy in his time on this point two kinds of prose narratives respectively knows as the aklısurka and the katha existed which could be differentiated from each other on very important points Apart from merely formal requirements Bhamaha s analysis makes it clear that the akhyayıku in his time was more or less a work of the pature of an autobiography where the narrator is the hero bimself who Tecites the facts of bus own experience and who (as interpre ted by Dandın) cannot thercfore bc accused of self-boasting unworthy in a noble personage Bbamaha xdeed allows some scope for poetic invention and introduction of interest ing themes to prevent its being a bare recital of facts but the prevailing tendency to matters of fact is eniphasized by Bhamaha as the distinguishing mark of the akhyayika as contrasted with the Katha Bhagaba s description of the katha on the other hand is purely negative (excepting his injunction as to the language to be employed) but it appears by implication that the kathi as distinguished from the akayihil was more or less of the nature of a fiction an un interrupted story or narrative where the narrator should be some person other than the hero With respect to subordinate ponts viz the presence of sakira and apara salira verses and division into ricchs asas Dandın certainly evinces & great deal of common sense is rejecting these formal requirements as essential features But they do not appear to be altogellier immaterial and the animus with which the earlier theorists entes into the controversy can be understood if we consider that some of these formal differences find an explanation in the respective differences in the gencral character of these lao ·SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS species The real 5sue involved in the akh tha however is not whether the name of the chapter should be ucсhasa or whether the kind of metre employed should always bc raktra and apara valtra but the fact that it 13 essential that the akhyayika should be divided into well defined pauses or chapters while the Katha should be continuous narrative and that certain verses (possibly inserted at the beginning of each chapter) should foreshadow the tenor of the chapter following The pauscs in the allisayiku as already pointed out were necessary because the hero who is himself the barrator should be allowed to recount his story in su easy manner wbile the appearance of the indicative Verscs is excluded in the katha by the fact of its being an uninterrupted narrative The semblance of reality which the appearance of the hero as the parrator adds to the whayha is similarly out of place in the latha where the poet of some other person should be allowed to weave out the narrative This was 10 general the conception of these two species of prose composition in the time of Bhamaha Tbc ahhara was more or less a serious composition dealing generally wrth facts of actual experience with an autobiographical or semi historical mterest winle the hathu was essentially a fictitious narra tivc-which may sometimes (as Dandin contends) possess an autobiographical form but whose interest chiefly resides in its invention The chitay ka decimed 10 later times and did not keep strictly to the characteristics detailed above but the katha although it was well defined (after Bana s works) in Rudiata was less touched by changes in form and substance even from Subandbu s time! 1 A, he deio ton of the kailadd cot undergo much water al change 10 the course of 19 h 4101y Bacaba s somewhat general characteriza ton Kappl cable to Subandhu & Vaso adatta as well as to Bana sadam bar but it 19 Poss ble that the latter was not the prototype contemplated by him just as the Harza ca wes sol the prototype of b s akhyala Th s would corroborate the date of Bhamala as a younger contemporary of Dharmakuti (as conjectured by Jacoba in Sb der Preus Alau XXIV ·14 SOWE PRORT.EMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS When we come to the Agni purana which more or less un critically copies the dicts of Dangın and other authors we find however the influence of Bana's works reacting upon the theorists and making them change their definitions 10 stutt the new conditions According to the Agnt pirana we have in the ahhyayıka (1) a praise of the author & family (karte 1amfa prasamsa) in prose (2) themes the abduction of a girl fighting separation and other untoward incidents (vipattayah) 13) division into ucсhvasas (4) presence of curnoka* or of 1 aktra and apara vahtra verses (5) a brilliant diction cxemplifying the excellence of ritis and spilts In the latba on the other hand (1) there is the praise of the poets family in verse (2) there may be an episode or another story (harhantaram) introducing the main story (nullyasyarıla vataruya) (3) we have pauses of pariechedas but somctimes there may be divisions called lambloka (4) caterspndi verses may be introduced in cach gar bhaThis is practically the conventional enumeration but with a marked difference the most important point being the hartr vamsa prašamsu and the use of the hathaniara which are omitted in the discussion of carlict writers but which are admitted here and more pointedly 1o Rudrata) probably through the pluence of Danas works Rudrafa differs very noticeably from the older writers in fig treatment and it may be generally said that he has accepted and generalized the characteristics of Bana a tha works in to volversal rulcs governing the composition of the 1 Th spo ni regard ng the nature of the Alatikica section of the Ogni pututa is bot ced in Sanskrit Poetics c led above pp 1094 2 Vamana defines (1 3 235) cürna (one of the subd vs ons of prosed et on) #9 ana dla la la padam (del cale words and no long com pounds) that lapraja de ng the reverse 3 Read the ed và tambahan k ac for blaved valombakah Avacit in the printed text 4 The Agn puring speaks ol kan le lasha parlat a and Larha na for wh ch ace Locane p 141 (which adds sakola karla), and Hema candra who dcl ncs various other sub-Specics (pp 319-40) ·THE AKHYAYIKĀ AND THE KATHA 75 katha and the almayıka respectively According to him, we have in the katha (1) an introductory namaskru 10 verse lo the devas and gurus and a statement of the authors family and the motive of his authorship, (2) the prose narrative, written in Sanskrit (or in verse in other languages) in light alliterative words the plot including pura varnana etc (as in the case of the utpadja kavya xvi 3) (3) a hathantara at the beginwing, which is immediately connected with the main story. (4) a theme consisting of the winning of a girl (kanja labha) which being the masa issue, the sentiment of love is developed fully in it (viny asia sakala srngara) In the akhyayıla on the other hand (1) we have the nanaskra to devas and gurus in versc together with an acıdeptal praise of older poets a confession of the poet's owo inability and a statement of his motive in writing notwithstanding these drawbacks which motive may spring from the poet's devotion to a particular kiog his addiction to the praisc of other people s merits or from some other special causes. (2) the story should he written in the manner of a katha bur emphasis is put on the injunction that an account of the poet hinself and his family must be contained in 1f, written in prose and not in verse, (3) there are divisions to ucchrāsas aud two arya verses should occur at the beginning of each chapter excepting the first." It will be seen at once that these characteristics detailed by Rudrafa apply fully and strictly to the cases of Dana s two works Rudrata along with the author of the Agni purana gives interesting remarks concerning the introductory stanzas all the peculiarities of which are molely observed in the Some matters of delal are added it on the occasion of a dount concerning a past 10cident or an incident not pripessed by the speaker (parolsd) or concerning a present or future obxect be poet in order to dispel the doubt should let someone life in the presence of the doubling person ODC or Iwo of the poctic figures anyokn semisola or leo and the metres employed in these cases should be dryd opara 1 oktra puspuidgrd or according to circumstances circs like the molt ·THE AKRYAYIKA AND THE KATHA 77 nient, and this throws into relief the general character of Sanskrit prose katlā as an juvented love story, which appro. aches the nature of romantic fiction Anandavardhana, who deals with prose composition only topically (p 141) in connexion with his discussion of sanghatana (condition of compounds in diction), appears to recogoize this point He says that in the latha we have the same kind of diction as in the akhyāyılā, but in the former the rules relating to Rasa should be observed (1118) implying thereby this peculiarity of the delineation of Rasa (especially Śrngāra) as its principal concern To Abhigavagupta, on the other hand, who accepts the older convention, the two species are interesting only from the point of view of form, the akhyāyıkā, in his opinion, being characterized by ucchrāsas and schtra apararakira verses, and the katha being entirely devoid of these Hemacandra (p 338) follows the same convention, but admits Dandin's criticism (as do most later authors) regarding the parrator and the linguistic form, and pointedly quotes the Harsa carita and the Kadambart as typical instances He agrees with Rudrata however that the kathā may be wholly in verse, citing an unkown Lilāvasi as an example Vidyādhara does not deal with the question at all, and to Vidyāpātba the kathā is unknown The latter speaks of gudya and padya kävya citing the Kadambart and the Raghu yamsa as instances, while the defipition of the ākhyāyikā 15 attempted, as in the case of Abhinavagupta's definition, mainly from the formal point of View Visvanātha, the latest weiter who devotcs some atten. tion to this question, merely puts Rudrata's generalization in a precise form, and his treatment shows that the older distips 1100$ were already forgotten, and the new types evolved on the basis of Bāna s works had firmly established themselves But like Rudrata, Visvapātha emphasizes sarasa rastu as the substance of the katha, although he is silent with regard to the question of the subject matter of the akhyāyika Thus we can destinguish two or three well defined stages 13 the growth of the katha and the akhyayıkā in classical Sanskrit ·78 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS The earliest forms of these as we have scen are poticed by Bhamaha, and their characteristics may be summarized tbus Alināsika (1) The subject matter gives facts of actaal experience, (2) The narrator is the hero himself, (3) The story is divided into chapters called techynsas confang indicative vaktra and apara vaktra verses . (4) Scope may be allowed to peetic invention and the themes may embrace subjects like abduction of a girl fighting separation, and Goal triumph . (5) It should be written 2 Sanskrit Katha (1) The subject matter is probably an invented story (2) The narrator is same one other than the hero, (3) There 13 na divis108 1oto ucchi asas no valtra or apara saktra verses . (4) It may be written in Sanskrit or in Apabhramsa These characteristics do not apply strictly to Bana's two works which bowever begin to influence the theorists & little later, and we find a destructive criticism of these finc distractions as early as Dandin The new alhajika and katha wtuch arose in later times and which find themselves modified from the older types partly on the model of Bana s two works are distinctly quthorized by Rudrata who generalizes the characteristics of Bana's two works into rules of universal application The characteristics may be given thes Akhyuyku (1) The subject matter gives facts of actus1 experience (2) The narrator need not be the hero himself (3) It is divided into chapters called uccinvasas which should (excepting the first) open with two stanzas preferably in arsa ladicating the tooor of the chapter 1 question (4) it possesses a metrical introduction of a literary character Katha (1) The subject matter is a story generally a love story for the most part invented by the poet, (2) The narra tor should be some person ather than the hero who miy sometimes take that role (3) There is no division 100 chapters (4) It sbould have a literaty melrical ptroduction ·THE XKHYAYIKA AND THE LATHA Thus practically stercolypes the two species in Sanskrit literature and as a natural result of this Exung of the cheras terstics the akhyayıka and the kata declined to such an extent that most later theorists do not thick it necessary to dilate upon the question 850S 11 pt3 194 ·THE DHVANIKÄRA AND ANANDAVARDHANA Anındavardhana has been assigned by_Bühler and Jacobi to the middle of the ninth century, on the strength of Rūja. tarangire 31, which makes him one of the ornaments of the court of Avantivatman (A D 855 84). The statements of Kalhana, no doubt, must be accepted with caution, but it is unlikely, as we shall see from several other considerations, that the tradition to Kashmir, thus embodied in the Raja tarangiri, regarding a famous author, should have maintained a false or unfounded account We are pretty certain of the time of Abhinavagupta Anandavardhanas commentator. for, as he himsell siares, his commentary on thc Issara praha blujna was written 10 AD 1014-15, while his Kranja stotra was composed in AD 991 This would certainly place hum towards the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh century. Now, from Abhinayagupta's remarks at the end of his Locana commentary on Uddyolag i and ull of the Dhanja loka, it appears that the study of this famous sorl was trad: tional in his family, and that his commentary was composed led Nirway Sagar Press,p 60), as a rejoinder to another, named Candrıla written by one of his predecessors in the same gotra (candela karacs tu paskutant !ty-alarit para sarfiyat! sala mudena pahuna 185, H) alarit nija purvaja sagotrach sakant vadend, p 123, etc), and four times in his coramen Cary (PP 123, 174, 185, 215) be discusses or controverts the views of this earlier commentator, who is specifically referred to as Candrila-kars at pp 178 and 185' This would certain- This Candrika is also referred to us a punnid verse at the begian mg of Mahimabhatta syoktrinekali 9 dies are ertmany oth gohane shabitant anah pade pode sulabham rabitasena yat pronta prataša harf candrikady odwrone on which the commentator, probably Ruyyaka remarks candrika iyotsna dvas: vicarna-gramiho pi (ed NSP p 1) ·THE DHVANIKĀRA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 81 ly allow some gencrations to lie between Acandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, and would negative completely Peschel's contention that in three passages Abhinavagupta speaks of Ādandavardhana as one of his teachers. These passages occur at pp 37, 183, and 214 of the printed text, and a perusal of them with reference to their context will convince anyone that the honorific word guru in the text may cuther rcfer to Ādandavardhana, not literally but figuratively, as poranparaguru, whose work was held in esteem in his family (cf Jacobi, WZKM 1v. pp 237-8), or (which is more likely) the reference is to one or other of Abhinavagupta's teachers, such as Bhatia Tauta, Lakşmanagupta, or Bhaftendurāja, who are spoken of pretty oftco in this commentacy, as well as in his Tantyaloka and his commentaries on the the Nātya- Sastra and the Parātriska Again, Kayyafa states that he wrote his commentary on Anandavardhana's Devi-falaka (ed Kavyamalā, Gucchaka ix) in about AD 977, so that by the end of the tenth century Anandavardhana was well enough established in fame to have two such learned commentators It may also be pointed out that Rajasekhara, who lived about AD 880 920, mentions and cites Ānandavardhana by name in his Kāvya mimāsā (p. 16), and thus should certainly clear up any doubt as to the authenticity of the date assigned by Kalbana and accepted by Bubler and Jacobi Several works have been ascribed to Ābandavardbapa, but what immicdiately concerns us is the cclcbrated work on Poetics known as Dhyanyaloka (also called Kavyaloka or Sahrdayaloka), of which or a part of which, be is reputed to be the author This work may oc divided into two parts, VIZ (1) Kärkās, consisting of verses and treating of dhyani, and (2) the Vrta or exposition, gencrally in prose with illustrative verses, of the Kārlkās Now the question bas been raised whether the Kurtla and the Vrata are of the same authorship or abould be attributed to different apsborg Abhinavagupta and after him several writers on Poctics carefully distinguish between the Karikatāra and the 6 ·82 SOMB PROBLESIS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Vſttikara implying thereby that the former is a diferent and older writer In several places in his commentary be seems to oppose distinctly the Vrttikara and the Karikakara and to refer to them respectively as such viz) Samucidasth prakajana-diarena paramesvora sammukham karon vlakarah (p 1) Nanu dhvort si arupom bruma u prahnaya vacy pratıyamanaknyau drau bhedau arthassa iti vyallıyabhudhane ku samgatih kartuya y ufankya sangatım kartum avataran kami karoti (p 12) Ata eva mula kanku saksut tan ruralaranårtha na śruyare vrtlikti tu mrakstam api promeja sankhya puranaya kanjhena 1at pokşam anudya nitakaroni ( 59) Dvifoddyote karikakaro vantara vibhagam visesa laksanam cavidadhad anuvada mulhena mula vibhagam dinidham sucitavan Tadasaj anusarena iu vitriirid atraivoddyote mula vibhagam avocat sa ca dvividha int (PP 59 60) Vrlikarah samgatım uddyolas)a kurvana #pakramate evam aty adi Prakasta i masa hikarena saten bhavah Na caitan masoktams apstu kariharablesprayena ity aha tatres (p 69) Ama palsam dus atvena hrdi mdhaj abhiplatvat sa pakşams purvait darajati upitiharah (p 71) Korikapy abhipraza dvayenaiva yoj;a Na kesalani pra thamabkıpraye prathama karikariha-drsfantabhiprayena na Whyeyam erant vrih grantho pi yopyah (p 78 Vrmkāro valssamana harıkabhlprayam darśayann aha (p 85) Prakrunta prakur dyayopasanul ärant trijd prakara stica nant cathenaiva sarnena haromity asaj ena sadharanam aya tarana padanı praksipati yukri {p 104) Uktam eva dhani svarupam tadabhasa viveka hetulaya karikakaro nuvadarity abhiprayena yinkrd upaskaram dadar (p 122) Yas ir vyucasje vyarg) unum vast valamkata rasanam mu Wena i sa evani prespavyah clat tavat ir bhedarvam na karı ·THE DHVANKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 83 käkarena krtam vyttikūrena tu darfitam Na ca idanin vih kāro bheda prakatanam karoti, etc ( 123) Kārkākārena pūrvari vyatıreka ukiah, Na ca sarvatha na hartavyo'pi tu bibhaisādau kartavya eveti pašcād envayah Vyttukarena tvanvas a pūrvako vyatıreha ni Sailīm anusartun anvayah pūrvam upatrah (pp 130 1) Darsisam evet: kartkalarenere bhūta pralyayah (p 138} Yadyapy arthanania matre hetur vtakārenokias tathāpı kori käkorena nokta if (on wy 3, ed S K De reprinted below), etc All these passsages are important, especially the last four 10 which Abhinavagupta tries to reconcile tbe conflicting views expressed by the Kankákara and the Vrttikara It is to be noted that Abhinava generally applies the epithet Granthakrt to the author of the Vitte aad Müla granthakrt to the author of the Kārkā (eg p 135). An exceptional weight attaches to the testimony of Abhinavagupta, whose opinion asumes a special importance when we consider that he did not live very far apart from Anandavardhada himself, and that in his family, the study of Dhvanyaloka was handed down as a kind of traditional heritage It, however, the commos authorship of the Kārska uad the Vrtu be posited. then one would expect to bad complete agreement of option between the two On the other hand, It seems that the system as given 10 its bare outline by the Kartkakära 10 bis CODCISE verses bas been considerably ex panded, revised, and modified by the Vrttikära, and many problems not discussed or even hinted at by the former are elaborately treated of by the latter in one place. for 10 stance (p 123), Abhinavagupta clearly points out that the classification of dhyan according to vastu, alamkara, and rasadt is not expressly taught 10 any Kárikā although after the manner of all faithful commentators he attempt in his own way to reconcite this inconsistency Indeed, it would seem that Anandavardhapa attempted to build up & morc or less complete system of Poetics upon the loosely joined 1dcas and materials supplied by the Kaukas and his success was so ·84 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS marvellous that in course of time the Karikakars roceded to the background completely oversbadowed by the more im portant figure of his formidable expounder and people cousi dered as the Dhvanikata not the author of the few memorial verses but the commentator Anandavardhana himself who for the first time fixed the theory in its present form It may also be pointed out that the term Dhvanikara caine gradually to be used in the genetic sense of the creator of the Dhvan: theory and therefore indiscriminately applied by later writers to Anandavardhana who though pot himself the founder of the theory came to receive that credit for liaving first victoriously introduced the system 10 the struggle of the schools It is aot surprising, therefore that in the verse ascribed to Rajasekhara in Jehiana g Sukti muktavali Anandavardhana is regarded as the founder of the Dhyadi theory Similarly Samudrabandba (commentary on the Alamkara Sudra p 4) passing 10 review the five schools of Poetics before Ruyyaka mentions Anandavardhana as the founder of the fifth or last Dhvani school This would also explain the two groups of apparently puzzling citations from the Dhvanyaloka met with in the works of later writers in which they either confuse or identify anandavardhana with the Dhvandkara On the one hand we have several Karikas cited under the name of Anandavardhana while on the other several passages which occur in the Vrtti are given under the name of the Dhvanılara This confusion Was so complete in later writers that even in the laller part of the eleventh Century Mahimabhatta who professed to demolish the new 1 See for instance Kzemendra Audrya y cara-carcca p 134= Dhvansulola il 24 Hemacandra Alankara.cuda man p 25 = Valla thadeva s bhastavat po 157=Dhvanyaloka 1 4 Gorinda Thak kura Adrya pred pa p 16=DI vanyaloka p 22 Vifyagātba Sahitya darpana ed Rocr p 108=DT anzáleks p 130 Jayaratha Afanikera 19=Dit arduia p 11 catarasym n Ratnapona P 64-Dhyanyaloka u 3 etc ·THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 83 + theory by his fierce onslaught in the Vyakti rivela, quotes from the Kārkā and the Výtti todiscriminately under the generic appellation of the Dhyanıkára. In the same way Ksemendra, in the last quarter of the eleventh century, and Hemacandra, in the brst quarter of the twelith, make Ananda vardhana responsible for Kärikäs 10 24 and 4 respectively while still later writers like Govinda, Visvanatha end Kunārasvamin regard Ābandavardhana bimself as the Dhvanıkāra, 1a whom the Kārıkā as well as the Vitt is attri buted. Mammafa, generally a careful wrifer, distinguishes Anandavardhana from the writer of the Kinkas, wbom hc styles Dhvanikära or Dhyadikt (pp 213 and 214, 3rd ed Bomb Sans Series 1917), but in one place (p 445) he apparently falls into confusion and ascribes to the Dhyan kära a verse which probably belongs to the Vittt If the Dhvadikāra, the supposed author of the Kārkā, is thus distinguished from Adandavardhana, the author of the Vrit, the question naturally arises--who was this Dhvanıkāra, and what date should be assigned to him? It is clear from Abhtpavagupta's remarks that the Kärkäkära was an older writer although his name or date is nowbere given either by Abhinavagupta or Anandavardhana It seems likely that cven in the pinth and the teath centuries his papic was already for Colico, although tradition of bis authorskup still remained Jacob, in the learned introduction to his translation of the Din ang aloka and following him. Harichand Sastri in bus L'Art Poélique de l'Inde, pose the question scry obly, with out, however, furnishing e precise solution Sovani's hypothesis (JRAS, 1910 pp 164-7) that the name of the unknown Karikákira was Sah daya on the ground that one of the alternative names of the work itself is Sahrdasalola and that the use the words sah daya ond lausahdaja at the end of chapter in of the Dhanyaloha and in the begiD- Ding of Abhinavagupta's commentary is sigoificantly corro. borstue, is hardly ConvocIDE for it is sell Inown, as Ilarichard poists out, that the word sah daya fit a man ·86 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS with a heart) is used 10 poumerable places in Alankara literature as in the yerses in question to desigoate a man of taste a judge of literaty beauty & Condoisseur of Rasa Anandavardhana himself discusses sahçdazana at some leogth 10 hus Výtta (P 160) and Abbigavagupta arrives at a concise definition of a sahrdaya thus (p 11) yesam hayzanufilana bhyasa vasud visadibhute marto mukure varſani a tanmat bhavana yogyata le hrdaya samyddabhājah sahsdayah a deli nition which became so much standardized that Hemacaudra does not scruple to copy it literally in bis Alamkara cudamani (3) Similarly Mawasata begins his Kavya prakasa (Bomb cd p 10) with a reference to hav apd sahrdaya who are thus distinguished by Vidzādhara in his Ekavali (p 21) hav, ant kurtum vidant vindata a luvya vidal kavayah sahrdazaś ca vettı yendasyor Avrtiya grahanal paris phuratah prahȚki ślegasya mahimnubhidhiyante and both Mammata and Viſvanatha declare that the sahrdaya alone can have a true perception of Rasa in poetry It 15 needless to multiply sastances to establish a point which is pretty familiar to cvery student of Alankara literature but they would go to disprove witbout any doubt Sovani s conjecture that with sahrda) a we attive at the name of the unknown writer of the Katikas The fact is that we have as yet bardly any material to decide the question tically But it seems likely that the Dhvanikara was a much older water than Ananda vardhana for even 10 Abhinavagupta s time hus actual name seems to bave been forgotten It us quite possible as Abbt navagupta seems to imply and Jacobi tries to make out that this unknown Dbvaaskara was a contemporary of Manoratha who is placed by Kalhana's Ruja turargim (iv 496 and 671) in the reigo of Jayapıda and his successor Lajitapıda se jo the fust part of the ninth century (about A D 780 823) but there are dititculties which seriously stand in the way of our arriving at a definite decision on this point While discussing the various theories which decy the existence of Dhyaal Aandavardhana ·THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 07 quotes a verse anonymously with the remark fatha canyena krta evalna slokah upon which Abhinayagupta in his gloss remarks ratha canyena ito granthakrt samana kala bhavına Manoratha namna kavina Now if we suppose that by grunthakri Abhinavagupta means Adapdavardbana then Manoratha who is thus made a contemporary of the latter lives in the last part of the ninth century ne much later than the date assigned to him by Kalbana presuming of course that both the Manorathas are identical persons If on the other hand we suppose that granthakri refers as Jacobi coojectures to the ancnymous Divan kara we are confronted with the fresh difficulty tbat by the term granthakȚt Abhinaya gupta iavariably means Adandavardhana (pp 12 37 90 etc) To remove this difficulty we must suppose either (1) that Kalhana is wrong as Peschel argues in assigning Manoratha to the reigo of Jayapıda and Lalitapıda (2) that the two Manaratbas were not identical persons or (3) that Abh nava gupta himself has confused the Karikakara with the Vrttikara As there are no definite means of deciding any age of these equally plausible propositions and as the acceptance of the one of the other of these would lcad to widely different results the question cappot be regarded as satisfactorily settled and the attempt to make the original Dhvanikara a contemporary of the Maporatha of Kalhaņa does not seem to be at all plausible It would seem, on the other hand that the Karikas date back to a much earlier time than the first quarter of the ninth century in which the Dhvanikara is placed by Jacobi as a contemporary of Manoratha The allusion to Mazoratha and the apparent d screpancy in Kalbana s statement Peed not trouble us oor need we challenge the of berwise trustworthy testimony of Abhinavagupta for it is qu te reasonable to suppose that the Manoratha under discussion is perhaps a poet who was Abhinavagupta says contemporadcous with Adandavardhana and therefore quite a different person from the well known Manoratha of Kalbaga This is perhaps & ·88 SOVE PROBLEMS Or SANSKRIT POETICS much simpler ciplagation than straining the word granthalt to mean the karıkakara in the face of Abhinavagupta's own distinct adicalion to the contrary and in this way we are not affected in the least by Kalhana s Manoratha with whom we have nothing to do it on the other hand we place the Dhvanikara in the time of Kalhana's Magoratho, this would only leave a bare margin of two generations between the Katika kata and the Vittikara But a careful study of the Divan, aloha would show that a longer time must indeed have clapsed between the author and the commentator in order to make room for a period of scholastic cxposition of the former of which undoubted traces are preserved to us in the few memorial verses-parihara slokas (pp 34 130 137 147 163) sa igraha slokas (pp 37 223) saraksepa ślokas (pp 44 74 243)--10corporated by Apondavardhana na hus Viita which therefore is not likely to be the first of its kind these fiokas ace a sort of cocapitulation stanzas which are adduced by the Vittekara from uokpown sources sonetimes so explain the meaning of the Kaukas but more often to amoldy and supple ment them A samksepa ślola as its 22me implies 13 A versc which sums up and utters a theory 12 a condensed and crystallized form A parihara sloka 19tbus explained by Abhinavagupta (p 34) par kararthas höritärshasyadhukara pora kartum flokah perkara-slokal and referring to two sai igraha slohos he remarks ( 223) Clort sola dvajena sa igraharrham abh dhasa bahu pralaran a prodašilam Aarila paphati Aghip in a father long digression (pp 81 ) Apandavardhana sepudiates Other explanations of Dhyani implying the cby that alsсady bcforc bis tunc such attempica cxplications had found champions whose opinions be thought worth relatiog The space of one or two gcbcrations as conjectured by between the onginal concerter of tho theory and its first great expounder beleça als Grst dogmatic formulation and its deeply thought out cxhaustive and classical cxposition hardly sudices to make these intermediata controvernal activities appear intelligible The assumption ·THE DHVANIKARA AND ANANDAVARDHANA 89 commends itself, therefore, that a longer period must have intervened to allow the theory to struggle through divergent opinions and establish itself authoritatively, so that in Āuandavardhana's time it could alrcady look back upon a long past during which people had obviously progressed in the way of explaising it and had succeeded in brisging it, through various degrees of opposition and support to a position of consider able authority And a century later, in Abhinavagupta's time, even the name of the Dhvanikāra appears to have been lost, although the tradition of his authorship of the Karikās-- tradicon which in the next century almost disapreared still lingered If Ādandavardhaua gave the final authoritative shape to the Dhvan theory (only the details of which were worked out by Abhinavagupta and others) the anonymous Dhvanılāra. who must have lived at least a century before his Vrttıkāra. was not its absolute creator This is made clear by the first Kārskā, which tells us that the theory was already taught by carlier thinkers, and that there existed even at that time at least three divergent views about the nature of Dhvani kävyasyātmā dhvanır ifi budhair jah samāmnāta.pārvas tasyābhāvart jagadur apare bhāktam ahus tam anye! kecid vücant sthulam avisaye tartram tichs tadijan tena brumah sahrdaya-manah pritae lat-syarūpamil Anandavardhana explains somāmnāta pārvah 10 this verse as para parayā yah samamnatah, and if we are to take Abbi navagupta's gloss on parasparā wo understand that the theory came down in unbroken tradition, if not explained in paticular books (avicchinnena pravāhena tair erad uliam, inapi wśrsja. puslakesu vrecanād ityabhiprāyah, p 2) This implies without Joubt that the scho cxisted from a scry carly time, and some unknown writer in the dim past gathered together, summed up, and fixed the theory in a form which obtained considerable literary esteem fos his work and the honoured but somewhat vaguc appellation of the Dhranılan for himse!! But ·90 SOTIE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS hus Dams and fame 11 COUrse of time was eclipsed in their turn by those of his great Vputikara who succeeded in estab lishing the theory for all time and to whow posterity began to ascribe got altogether undeservedly all the honours of big predecessor so that one of the latest writers on Alamkara Kuwirasvamin (Ramnagana p 288) glorifies him with the curious but significant epithet---Dhvanyacarya DSOS) 1920 tror a more recent d scusalon of the question in all lu upects sc phase II story o! Samut Post s (prefixed to his ed of the Sa Vigelarpana) 3rd Ed. Bombay 1951 pp 134-90 ·ANANDAVARDHANA'S TREATMENT OF SAMGHATANA The term Sanghatanā is not defined, but we are told that Sanghatana is of three kinds, namely, Asamāsā, Madhyamasamāsa and Dirgha samāsā It is thus a kind of collocation of words, depending on the absence of presence, in varying degree, of compounded forms It thus corresponds tougbly to Rudrata's idea of Riti' Older writers like Udbbata (as implied by Abhinavagupta) are said to have held that while Aladikāras belong to Sabd3 and Artba themselves, the Guras pertain to Sabdārtba samghatapā, the former being of the Avayava and the latter of the Avayavio As Anandavardhana takes great pains to show that this view is not correct, it is clear that the concept of Sarhgbafanã was already conventionally established, even if there was perhaps no systematic thinking or exposition of it. Anandavardhana establishes that the real Asraya of Guna is Rasa, and not Sabdārtha, por Sabdártha sabgbatanā If Gunas are sometimes spoken of in relation to Sabda, this xs dose only through Upacara, just like talking of heroism existing in a hero's physical frame What then is the relation of Sanghatapā to Guna, and 10 what way can the Sadighafanā be said to suggest Rasa? If Rasa is the Niyāmaka of Guna, what then is the Niyāmaka of Sadgbafana?' These are some of the problems which Anandavardhana discusses Some writers hold that Sathgbafana and Guna are not different, while others hold that they arc different. The latter set of writers, agajo, differ among ibemselves, some say that Guna is the Aśraya of Sanghatadā, and others like Udbhaja) think that Sathgbatana is the Aśraya of Guna Considering these views, Ārandavardhana points out that if Gena and Sarhghafană are taken to be identical, or :( Guna is said to de ·92 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS pead on Sadaghatana as its Aśraya there is the danger that like Salighafana which is Aniyala vişaya the Guna will also become Aniyata vişaya But we know that the Guna being forms of Citta vette (of Drut Vistara and Vikūšal have theu deforte scope (Visaya) in relation to particular sentiments or Rasas e Madhurya in Spagūra and Karuna Ojas in Raudra and Adbhuta The Sanghataba on the other hand being dependent on merc compounding of words or Samsa cannot be said to have any defined scopo, as for instapce It cannot be said that Dirgha samara occurs only in Raudra it may occur also sa Śrgăra similarly Asamasa Sathgbatana is not restricted to śugura bat it is found also 19 Raudra Heace Sarighafa0d 19 Apiyata vişaya but Guna 18 not so the Rasa is the Niyamata of Guna but it is not the Niyumaka af Sarighaçana The Gyna and Sanghajana therefore are not identical nor is the Sarfighatada the Aśraya of Guna It may be objected that if Gunas are Sabdašraya even through Upacara they are also Saugbatanaśraya sibcc there is hardly any Sabda which is not in the form of collocation 1 c Asamghatta It is tephed that this is not necessary consequence Eves Asarhghafita šabda or mere Varna cao through Upacara be the source of Guna Thc Saraghataga 18 Aayata and indefinite things cannot be the Aśraya of Guna By Upacara therefore it may be said that Guna is Šabdaśraya but Bever Sarbghatarasraya (which is Anitya Sabdaratha collocation) even by Upacara The critic may object that Sangbafana s pot always Api yata for even if it is admitted that no particular Sasugbatana is found in Srngara there is a Niyama with regard 10 Ojas Dasmuch as Asanasa Sanghajada is nol su table 10 Ojas The reply to this is that the notion that Ojas involves Digha samása is only a trad tional error and that there is Ojas in such verses of Bhatta Narayana as yo yah ſasiram even though there is no Direba samas3 The Ojas Guns depends on the Dipti of the mind which can be brought about with ·ANANDAVARDHANA ON SAMGHATANA 93 equal effect by Asamāsa and Dugha samāsa, and it does not depend upon merc Sabdārtba collocation. Thc Guņa primarily belongs to Rasa, which is its Aśraya : but since words and their collocation can also suggest Rasa, the Sanghafanā can also do so, provided it takes the acconpanying Guna as thc Aśraya (mūdhuryudin sunān asrutya rasän vyanka) The Sanghajanā, therefore, 18 Gunasraya, it varies with the Gunas, It suggests the Guna, and through them the Rasas to which the Gunas pertain, From the point of view of Rasa, therefore, there is Niyama only as regards the Guna For at alone Rasa is Nayaraka From the standpoint of Rasa, Samghafanā has no Niyama, 1 e the Rasa is not a Nayāmaga of Sathghatana, since the rulc that certain kinds of Sarighajapā concern certain Rasas is often violated But since Sanghatană can also bc Rasa vyañjaka, what is the layama which controls it? It cannot be that Samhghasarā bas absolutely no Niyama Its Nıyama, we are told is the more comprehensive Aucitya of the context, the Aucitya of Vaktr, Vācya, Vışaya etc, which determines the suitability of Samāsa vittu in particular cases But since these circumstances also constitute the Niyama of Rasa and. through it. of Guna, there appears to be some confusion of thought on this issue Anandavardhana appears to throk that the same comprehensive, even if somewhat vague, Niyāmaka of Aucftya appears to regulate both Rasa (and consequently Guna) and Samghafadā It is clear that if Guna is accepted as explained by Ananda. vardhana in relation to Rasa, the Sangbatapā is, more or less, a superfuous concept, the Samasa yžtta belog a constituent of the Guña in their variety Hus concern is perhaps not to set forth a theory of Samghatana, but to show that the views of earlier writers on the older concept of Sangbatanā is not jusli fable, and if it is to be accepted at all, it must oc recognised tbat it is dependent on the Gupa. and admissible only as such, its only Niyāmaka being the law of propriety of the context Later writers, therefore, who generally follow the scheme of ·95 SOMB PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Poetics standardised by Anandavardhana, almost ignore Salighafana as such Mammaja makes coly a passing referrace to Sarlighafanā is the same strain, in his chapter ou Guna, Višvanātha brings in Sartighapana in his somewhat peculiar Exposition of Rst (poda samghajana ritih pitch sarighajana wlesalyut) which last concept was considered redundant by Anandavardhana but in which Vašvabatha following Rudraja, makes Samast výtli, 2 sene qua nor Vidyapitha, however, who belongs to the acw school and whose approach to poctry is quite different rather tacritically accepts Udbbafa's view expressed in the dictum sanghatana dharmak gerndh' New Indian Antiquary * 1944 1 See Disanydloka tu 61-64 ·THE RASĀRNAVĀLAMKĀRA OF PRAKĀŠAVARSA Students of Sanskrit Alaikära sastra are indebted to Pandit v. Venkatarama Sharma of the University of Madras for publishing in the lHQ. vol v, PP 173! the text of Prakāśavarşa's Rasarnaya along with an extensive account of the work in English During a week's stay in Madras 1D 1924 1 had an opportunity of examining an imperfect manuscriptcopy of the work in the Goveroment Ortental Manuscript Library (which Pandit Venkatarama appears also to bave utilised), but, as I could not devote much time to it, my examination was pecessarily cursory, and the brief account which I gave of it in BSOS, 1v, pt 2 P 283 was not only locomplete but incorrect in one particular 18 tbe description of the work Paodit Venkatarama has now published the text, as well as a fairly full account, from two manuscripts. and I must thank him for the correction he has made of my error , but I still find from a careful study of the published text that I was not mistaken 11 regarding this work as a comparatively late composition belonging to a period probably later than that of Bhoja The Madras MS gives the work of Prakāśavarsa in five chapters, the first four of which deal with Guna, Dosa and Alamkāra, and the last (incomplete) with Rasa Venkatarama Sharma claims that the Rasarnava is "the earliest work on Poetics after the Natyaveda" of Bharata, and that Prakasavatsa must have iourished before Bhāmaha and Dandip and after Bānabbaffa, ne, between 650 AC and 750 AC" But it appears. however, that the learned Pandit is entirely on the wrong track in his views about Prakásavarsa's relation to Bbāmaba and Dandın Apart from the very elaborate treatment of Guna, Dosa and Alamkara wbich one can bardly expect in such a presumably early work, there is a distract reference in it to Dhyan, and 10 most of his debditions and apparently ·96 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS novel classifications Pralása varşa appears to follow yery closely the school of opcion which is represented in Sanskrit Poctics by the work of Bhoja If Pandit Venkatarama had closed his Bhamaha and Dandın and opened his Sarasvart kanthabharana he would haec at once found out the source of most of Prakasavatga 8 Information and would have seen that like Bhoja Prakaſavarşa does not hesitate to appropriating and copying verses from Dandin and Bhamaha A procedure which appears to have misled his editor I have already attempted to shew in my Sanskrit Poetics 11 pp 261f that Bhoja like the author of the Alankara section of the Agni purana follows a tradition of thought and speculation which is different in many respects from that of the carlier cstablished writers on Poetics although his work is essenhally an eclectic compilation which conforms to the teachings of no particular orthodox school but gathers ils material from all sources The importance given 10 Rasa 10 conformity with the general standpoint of the carlier Rasa and Dhvani schools (19 spite of a somewhat elaborate treatment of Guns Dosa and Alarihara which are not directly correlated to Rasa) as well as the presence of verses culled from different older writers (especially Dandın and Dhamaha) need not surprise is 3 such a work Pralašavarşas Rasarnaya is marked by the same features and he shows the same reverence to Dandia and Bhamala whose works supplied to him as to Bhoja a large number of unacknowledged quotations and ideas The very fact that be refers to and quotes from a Bhauaba or a Mahabhamaha (although these quotations are not to be found 10 Bhamaha s koown work) precludes us apart from cecry other consideralion from placing Prakasavarga before Bhagaba Coming to the subject matter of the work itself doe can see at once that there is a close agreement in the definitions and classifications of Guna Dosa and Alankara between Bhojas Sarasvati kanthobharana and Prakasavarşa's Rasar nova No doubt Prakaśavarşa here and there adds to or ·THE RASARNAVĀLAMKĀRA 97 rejects & Guna or an Alankara frotu the enumeration of Bhoja Thus of the 24 Sabda gunas mentioned by Bhoja Prakasawarsa accepts 22, leaving aside Gats and Praudhi mentioned by Bhoja and to the 24 Arthalamkaras of Bboja Pratasavarşa adds four more Apart from such legitimate additions and modifications the Gunas Doşus and Alamkaras in PrakaSavarşa are paned defined classified 10 the same way and mentioned almost in the same order (but for exegencies of metre) as in Bhoja But the agreement is more than that The definitions and classifications are mostly copied verbally by Prakaśavarşa from Bhoja Some of the classifications and definitions are peculiar to Bhoja mentioned by him for the first time and some are mentioned by no other rhetoricians All these are also copied by Prakasavarsa It would be futile therefore 10 compare Prakasavarga's treatment with those of Bhamaha and Dandia and it 18 not surprising that Pandit Venkatarama has found more polots of confusing divergence than agreement in such a procedure As the Sarasvati kanthabharana is a well known Rod easily available text, it is not necessary to cite here all the points of agreement occurring throughout Prakasavarsa s Rasarnava wherever the topics dealt with are common to the two works But a few typical instances may be adduced here in support of the statements made above The general scheme and classification of Gunas and Dosas are almost identical in Bhoja and Prakasayarsa and the same ideas and termino logy are employed throughout the division of Doşas ipto three classes (as relating to puda vakya and vāk jurtha) abcb is accepted by both is indeed much older but whale Bhoja for the sake of a certain symmetry and uniformity of treat ment cnumcratcs sixteen Do respectively of pada valya vahyartha Prakasavarşa accepts from them only fourteen pada dosas fourteen (but really fifteen) vukya dosas and six teen vakyartha dosas using meatly the same nom delaldte and almost identical definit ons We give them here in ·98 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS chatu yat) parallel columns so that the striking agreements as well as the slight diferences will be clear at a glance Bhoja Pralatalassa 1 Pada dopas (16 in number) | Pada dosas (14 in number, slightly different order) asadha (Sabda Sastra virud. asadhu (Sabda sastra virud dham yat) aprayukta (kavibhir 13 aprayukta (na prsyuktari prayuktam yar) havsodrais yat) kasa (padan sruter asu kaşta (Sravana durbhagam) khada.) Apartbala (pada pūrona anarthaka (pada pūrana matrartham) mjtraib yat) anyartha (rudhi cyutan To this really corresponds padam yat) Pky's asamantha See below) Apustartha (yat tu tuccha apuşturtba (vacya tucchabhidhcyari syai) taya Llistam) Asamartha (asachgatat asamartha (yad baddhan padan yat) Tuohı vartma vyatikra mīt)---- Bboja's any. Urtha aparatita (prasiddham apratita (fastra eva pra- Sastra eva yat) yuktadı yat) klota (durc yasyartha klista (pasarspasyene care sathvittih) thasya sucalam) gūdbartha (aprasiddhar guchartha (aprasiddhartha tham prayogam) sathbaddham) neyartha (sva sadiketa ntyärtha (svayant kalpita prakiptartham) sadiketam) sandigdha (na yat padani sasamsaya (yattarthantara niscayakrt) saibandhan) 1 The references are to the Kavyamala edition (Nir Sag Press Bombay 1925) of Bhojas Sarasvat kanthablaranbut A Dorooab's edit on (Calcutta 1884) has also been consulted 2 The read ng actually is Sastras yaitam yad (with Jacunae) ·THE RASARNAYALAMKARA 99 ber) Bhoja Prakasayarsa vip2rita (viruddhartha prakalpapam) aprayojaka (avićeşa vidha aprayojaka (vivaksita pra yakam) meyasya popakari) desya (avyutpattimat desya (deśa rudhr gatam padam) padam) gramya-(a) aslila or gramya-(a) asabhya (b) asabliya tha (b) amarga amangala and (c) ghệna la and (c) ghmavat 3 kara 3 kinds kinds The agreements are no less close and striking in the case of valja-dosas 2 Vulya dosas (16 in num 2 Vaksa dosas (14 in numi ber but really 15 stighly different order) Sabda hioa (apasabdavat) sabda hina (bh na bbasa padaviddham) krama bhrasta (arthah krama bhrasta (sabdarina sabdo va yatra na vyutkrano yatra) kramah)' visanidbi (visambito virupo visamudhi (viruddha samdhi va yatra samdh h) Dihsambil punarukt mat (padan pa pupauktimat (tadrk pada darthas cabhindau yatra) padarthanam nibandbe) vyaktna (mitho yasmin vyakirna (aceka pada vibbaktidan asamgath) santana vyahata smrti bhih padair yojana yatra) sunkuma (vakyantara samkirna (vakyantara pada miśram) padonmiśram) apada (vibhinna prakrt stha di pada yukt) I Th , 3 the read ag of A Boroosh s text the Kavgamula edt on reads a 11 al tubdo pa yoira tatkran ak ·100 SOME PROBLEBIS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS Blioja Prakuści ora vakya garbhita (vakyantara (vakya ) garbhita (vakya sagarbham yat) otara sagarbham yal) bheaga liiga (yalcopama bhinna lága {alingatrad bhinna linga) upamanopameyayoh) bhinna vacana(yad bhinga bhonna vacanna (yasmin vacanopamam vacana vaişamyam upa magopameyayoh) nyunupama (nyunam upa nyunorama (nyugat upa mana visuşanash) maya višeşanah) adhikopama (adhikam yat adhikopama (uścsanadhik punas tach salt aupamyam) bhagra chanda (sac chan bhinna vrtta (chando lak dobhagavad vacah) şana hupam) 2 kinds bhagna yati (asthade vira tad varna yatı bhedena bir yasya) dvidba 2 Sarita (kraya pada vib? Abanja (kriya viralufam Dani yat) valyam) a ritimat (gunapam drśyate Sleşadı guna bipam-10 yatra sleşadıdan vidar Minds in the same yay Yayah) 9 kinds accord as in Bhoja but sama ing as each dosa is dhi gana :5 Jocluded a viparyaya of each of the corresponding 9 gupas with the ex ception of samadhi Those who are not yet convinced by these instances will find the scheme and classification of vakyartha dosas even more strikingly close 3 Vakzartha dosas (36 10 3 Valyartha dosas (16 in number) number) aparth (samudayartha aparth (satudayartha Sunyati yad vacah) sunyam yat) vyartha (Safartham yote vyactha (yad aprayogaham' yac ca syan nisprayoja yac ca gatartham) ka) 1 Tac text reads presojanan ·38461 THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 101 Bhoja Prakasavisa ekārtha (uktyabbignartbam) ekārtha (uktyabhippār tham sasashisaya (sandsgobār. 325ansaya yatrărte yasya tham) na niscayah) apakrama (vākyam yat tu apakrama (pa urvaparya. krama bhrastam) viparyayah) khinga (jātyadyaktīvanır. kunna tatyādyuktivadir. vyūdhan) Yyüdham) atimätra (yat sarva lokāti atimātra (lokālita vārtho tártham) yah) parusa (yat tu krúrārtham parusa (ati krūas tu vākyatyartham) arthah) Virasa (aprastuta rasani vitasa (aprūkſta rasam) yat) biopama (hrcarft yatro. hinopama (binadı yatropu pamānam syat) mānam syāt) adhikopams (tad eva yasadhikopania (yatropama. mion adhikam) nam adhikam) asadrsopama (yat tv atuly. visadesopana (atulyan opamādam) upamānam cet) aprasiddhopams (aprasid aprasiddhopama (aprasid dhopaminali yat) dhopamāpati cct) niralatkāra (yad ala Isralankara (alamkāra kara-hipam) vivargitam) aslila (aslılartha-pratiti kt) aslila (yad asabhyartha sambaddham) viruddha-3 kinds (a) pra. viruddha-3 kinds (a) pratyak sa viruddha (b) tyakşa viruddha (b) Qaumina-vuddha and aoudiana viruddha and (c)āgama virudha each (c) agama.viruddha, of which again is op cach of which again trec kind3-9 kinds ts of three kinds, as in in all Dhoja-9 kinds in all 1 The reading ukrabhur ndriham is obviously a muslection 1 Phụ t acute pr ·102 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS It may be urged that most of these Dosas and their descriptions will be met with in other writers and that in the definition and arrangement of Doşas which are more of less standardised the verbal or other agreements need not be talen as absolute proofs of borrowing But when we come to the treatment of Gunas the case is more convincing. It is well known that in spite of the ofluence of Dandin and his school as well as of the tradition of opioion followed jo the Alatilata section of the Agni purana Bhcja adopts a fermino logy and schemc of Gunas which are peculiar to himself and which differ sa many points from those of his known prede but here also Prakaśavarsu follows biai pretty closely To the orthodox ten Gunas of Sabda and Artha respectively of Vamana viz. slesa prasuda muddurya samata saukumuya Anil A waktı ojas lantı udurala and samadh: (which are however, sometimes decaed slightly difc rently by later writers who accept them) Bhoję adds aury 130 udattara presas susabdata sauksinya gantbl irya sar ihsepa uistara sammitana bharlanta rit ulit gate and prau ! tbus cnumcrating 24 Gunas in all which unique arrangement gises us perhaps the largest number mentioned by any author Prakaśavarsa accepts the nomenclature and dcbnition of the first 22 almost verbally omittog gate and proud {tom his list cessors BI OG Prahusayarsa Sabda guras (22 in number) Sabda gurus (24 in sum ber) flesa (su Slışta padata) prasada (prasiddhartha padatvam) $amata (yan modu pras phutonmisra Yarba bas dha vidhi prati va şamyena bhananam) sicşa (yatra bandho u sau si stan) prasada (pras ddbartha pada nyasah) samat(bandho urdu spb uform sra varna Janmi na satikarah) a ·THE RASARNAVALANKARA 103 Bhoja Praläsavarra mādburya (ya pýthak-pada nidhurya (arthocita-vaco tū vākye) bandbah) sukumārata (anışthurāk. sukumăratā (akațhoräkşara sara-prāyam) -nyāsah) artha-vyaktı (yatra sailipūr artha vyakti (saihpurna na-vākyatvam) vākyata) käntı (yad ujjvalatvan ban kāati (bandhasyojsvalata)' dhasya) audārya (vikatakyara-ban audārya (bandha-vaikat dbatvam) yam) udāttata (släghyair višeşa udāttatā (släghyair visesa nair yogah) naif yuktam) ojas (samāsa-bhūyastyam) ojas (samāsa bhūyastvam) auritya (gādba bandhatā) auritya (bandha gādhat vam) preyas (priyatarākhyāna tha preyas (preyastha-padacatüktau) vinyāsah) susabdatā (vyutpattıh sup suśabdalā (ya subantatinām yā) tinantanám vyutpattih) samadhi (anya dharmā sa müdhi (anya-darpasya nārh yad apyalrādhuro bbaved anyatra ropapanam) nam) sauksmya (antah samhjalpa sauksmya (sabdänām antah rũratvach sablãnằm) satbyalpa zupatā) gmbhirya (dhyanımattā) gambburya (dhyadımalla) vistara (vyāsenoktih) vistura (vyastam) sathksepa (sanāsepabbi $ 3şcpa (abbidhānam dhängth) samasena) sammitatva (yāvadartha sam mutatva (yavadartha padatvan) padats am) bhav atva (bhavato vāk bhāvikatya (bhāvābhivya ya vittır ya) ñjalvāpi) gati (krama yah syad arohāvarohayoh) 1 The text bas lacunse here ·104 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Aitva Dhoja Pralatan arsa citi (uşakramasya aitva fiti (upakramasya hah) hah) uktı (VI$1$a bbanıtır ya ulti (arthantarcnal cartha syat) sya bhananat) praudki (ukteh praudhah paripakah) It is not necessary to dilate on this point further and men lion the Artha gunas which betray similar parallelism Pra kašavarsa s discussion as to how Dosas sometimes become Gunas which follows this topic closely copies from Bhoja Indeed the borrowing goes on practically throughout the whole work It is a pity that the Rasa chapters which give the name to the back are incomplete in Prakaśavarşa s pub lished text if we had the whole of it we would perbaps have seen the same influence not only of the somewhat unque Rasa chapters of Bhoja's Sarasvati kont) ab) arang but also probably of bis much larger and more cxtensive Srrrgara pralusa com jag to the treatment of the Alashkaras one finds that Bhojas classification of figures as baina abhyantara and bahyabhan iara is also accepted in order to preserve a certain unlor mity and synimetry of trcalment (which 3s also noticeable in his classification of Gunas and Dosas) Bhoja weptions six kinds each of riti vrt cluya mudra ukti blanıtı gumpliana Sayje apd pahiti which are included in the treatment of Sabdalathkaras Most of these are admitted and dealt with in the same way by Prakaśavarşa but as in the case of Gunas and Dosas he is electic with regard to the number he accepts 10 many cases omitting one or two kinds from the enumera tion of Bhoja Of the six Ritis of Bhoja Prakaśavarşa accepts five omitting Magadhi to the four orthodox Vrttis Bboja adds two more but Prakaśavarşa megtias s only five of the six Linds respectively of mudru chau and Blanıt again (which 1 The text has lacupar here sbich 15 suppled by the editor as Yanara ·106 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS reproduced by Prakāśavarşa! Again, Bhoja admits the philosophical idea of upamāna (as a means of knowlcdgc) in a poctic figure of that name and distinguishes it as a figure from the more well known upama* This is a treatment peculiar to himself and is accepted by no writer on Poetics (so far as we know) expect Appayya Diksita in his kmalaya nanda The figure upamūna as conceived and defined by Bhoja is also to be found in Prakāśavarşa Thus wholesale similarity of phrascology and ideas occurring throughout in the two works (cven in the matter of peculiar schemes and treatment of characteristic points) cannot indeed be explained as accidental coincidences, ar were repetition of standardised technicalities It may be contended. however that what is said abovc does not necessarily prove that Prakāśavarşa has actually borrowed from Dhoja for it is possible to hold that Dhoja might have modelled his bigger compilation upon the smaller manual of Pralašavarsa or that both of them belonging to the game tradition of thought probably drew upon the same source All this may be argued, but it cannot be maintained that Prakasavarşa 19 a very early Writer earlier even than Bhamabi and Dandin The supposition however of Bhoja's borrowing from Prakasavarşa appears to be very uplikely Wbile Bboja s work displays a systematic and elaborate treatment (in spite of its peculiar theoretic standpoint) reinforced by abundant wcalth of illustrations which Sifts it much above an average compilation Prakaſavarşa's work is nothing more than a short compilation of definitions and classifications The Rasurnara has the appearance of having been a practical manual or text book, and as such it 15 not unlikely that it was compiled chiefly by wholesale 1 The definition 13 also copied by Vidyanatha who is one of the few writers who follow Bboja's elaborate classification of Guras although Vidyanatha accepts Dhyam as essential 2 See Sanskrit Poenosi P 14 ·THE RASARNAVALAMKARA 107 appropriations from Bboja s standard work with just a few pieces of supplementary information called from other sources In whichever way the question of borrowing be decided it is clear however that Prakastvaraşa like Dhoja belonged to a tradition of Opinion which is distinct from that of the established schools, and of which the earliest known example 18 to be found in the Alamkára section of the Agn! purana The date of this section at least of the Purana cannot be fixed too early Since it is not undnarc of somc thcory of Dhyanı it is perhaps later but aot much later than the Dhvan, aloka and probably belorgs 10 the latter half of the 9th century AD Prakasavarsa must at any rate be later than this date He must also have been later than Apandavardhana who establ shed the Dhvat theory 3 the struggle of the schools for Prelasavarga I ke Bhoja is aware of the concept of Dhvani and includes it as we have already seen in the Sabda guna gumbira The very elaborate treatment of Guna and Dosa would by itself place him later than Dandin and thamaha upon whose scheme this treatment attempts in its own way to improve while the treatment of the Alathkatas in the same way supports and confirms this conclusion The statements therefore that Prakasavarşa s Ra årnava 18 the cari cst work on Poetics after the Nalyaveda and that he must have flourished before Bhamaba and Dand a appear to be Misconceived and uncritical Nevertheless the work is interesting and inportant as representing lle Bhojas work from which it presumably draws its material a peculiar line of speculat on different in Some respects from accepted 11ews of the established schools of Sanshtit Poetics As such 15 publication has been well desened Ind'an i sioniul tau ceris 1999 ·MAMMATA S KAVYA PRAKAŠA The Kaysa pralasa of Mammaga is one of the classic works on Sanskrit Poetics and Rhetoric which has always maintained a great authority and popularity throughout India. There is perhaps no other technical work in Sanskrit which has been so much commented upon and so often edited The number of commentaries so far discovered comes up to more than sixty and they count as their authors not only independent wnters on Poetics like Ruyyaka and Visvanatha but also authors having other literary interests like the Nasyayıla Jagadis3 tbc grammarian Nagosa the Smarta and Mimamsaha hamalakara the Jama Manikyacandra the Vaisnavı Baladeva and the Tantrika Golulanatha The reason for this great popularity lies in the fact that Mammata is the Grst and foremost as well as the most typical writer of the new school of Poetics the Navyas, and b s far famed work occupies a ungue position in the history of Sanskrit Alamkara 1 terature it is neither a very extensive nor a strikingly original work but in only one bandred and forty three Kaulas and about six bundred and twenty illustrations it traverses the whole field of Sanskrit Poetics (with the exception of Dramaturgy) and combining as it does the merit of fulness with that of conciseness of sums up aud explains in the succect form of a br Slant text book almost all the previous speculations in the subject be Coming 10 its turn the starting point of endless text bools and exegetic works The history of Sanskrit Alamkara covers a period of more 11 an a thousand years but it is marked by several well defined stages The dım beginnings of tbe discipline like the dim beginnings of most other braches of Ind an speculation are hidden from us until we enter upon the first historic stage of its formulat on 10 2 more or less self conscious form in the works of Bhirati and Bhauaha Bharata s well lown Nafa śāstra is pracipally concerned with dramaturgy music - ·MAMMATA S KAVYA PRAKASA 109 and allied topics and deals with Poetics 10 so far as it applies to the theme in hand, but 19 Bhadanas havzalanikara we find for the first time an exclusive treatment of Poetics proper and a more or less systematic scheme of the subject which undoubtedly betoken a preceding period perhaps of several centurtes of unknown beginnings All that we can surmuse of the unkown period consists of glimpses of rhetorical spe culations such as we find in Bharata in the recorded opinions or stray references to pre Bhamaha writers like Medhavn or in such schemcs of Alankara as was presumably utilised by the earlier Kavya poets in general and by Bhatti in particular This period begins with ibe enumeration and definition of only four prefic figures ten Gunus ten Dosas and thirty sız Kavya laksanas mentioned by Bharats but it ends with the ela borate baracterization of thuty eight independent poctic figures 10 Bhatt: But what is important 10 pole in this period is Bharora s more or less standard cxposition of dramaturgy and incidentally of Rasa which aesthetic clement however is considered not particularly in relation to poetry and poetics but in connexion with drama and dramaturgy Tlus is followed by a comparatively bricf but exceedingly important period of great fertility and creative genus begm ning with Bhamaba and coding with Anandavardhana in which we find most of the fundamental problems and concepts of Sanskrit Poetics discussed and seltled in their general out lines This fruitful and creative stage which covers more than two centuries and includes some of the great names in the history of the discipline gave rise to four distinct schools of opinion represented respectively by the Alankara RIS Rasi and Dhvani systems We have on the onc hand Bhamaha Udbhala and Rudrapa devoting themsches to the consideration of those decorative devices of poetic expression which are Anoun as kavzulamkaras or poetic figures and conlining themselves chiely to a somewhat caterna) art or theory of epibellishment from which she d scipline stse taics sts game and its original tradtion Dando and Vamana on ·110 SOVE PROBLEMS OT SAVSKRIT POETICS the other hand emphasise in poetry the objective beauty of representation realised by means of what they call Marga or Rili (roughly poetic diction') wluch consists of a harmonious combination of certain f xed literary cxcellences of sound and sense nown as Gunas Both these systems which respectively bring into prominence the elements of Almlara and Riti 19 poetry content themselves with the somewhat mechanical working out of the outward form of poetic expression, the advantages of which were considered sufficient for poctry) They point out the blemishes to be avoided and the excellences to be attained and describe elaborately the poetical embellish ments or devices of literary expression which enhance its beauty so much so that the whole discipline came to receive the significant designation of Alatihara Sastra or the dis ciplinc of poctical cmbellishment Side by side with those early writers however, we have the commentators on Bharata like Lollafa Śanskuka and Dhatsa Nayaka who were bringing into prominence thic aesthetic importance of Rasa the consideralion of thc poctic feelings and sentiments which should regulate the outward cxpression of poetry, Their exposition however concerned the dramatic art and their theories did not yet comc properly within the sphere of Poetics which was entirely dominated by the systems of Alanlāra and Ritt but we find them gradually influencing poeticians of riyal persuasion who betray them selves more and more alive 10 the significance of Rasa in pocity The bearings of this clement honeyer an poetry were not fully realised until the Dhyanikara and Anandavar dhana came into the field and worked it up into their new system of Dhvani Those new theorists headed by Anandavardhani maintain that no system of Poctics like no system of Dramaturgy can ignore the moods (ccliage and sentiments as essential factors of poetry and must therclorc lind an important place for Rasa in 41 scheme What was altcady established in the drama was taken ovet and systematically applied to poetry ·MAMMATA'S KAVYA PRAKASA 111 profoundly modifying as it did the entire conception of Kārya)Thc Rasa came to be considered as the essence of poetry, and in order to harmonise it in the poetic theory the new school evolved a theory of suggeston or Vyañjana as the means of its expression. At the same time not fully satisfied with the working up of the concept of Rasa into their system the new theorists devoted themselves to a re examination of tbe already accuntulated ideas of Alaskara and Ritt with a view to correlate them to the new theory of Dhyani and Rasa and thus by synthesis evolve a comprehensive scheme of poetics The Dhvani school its analysis of the essentials of poetry, found that the content of a good poem may bc genç Tally distinguished into two parts The one is that which is expressed and includes what is given in so many words whether directly explicit or metaphorically implicit, the other is not expressed but suggested springing immediately from that which 13 cxpresscd The unexpressed or suggested port which 18 not something vaguc but as distinctly liked up with the expressed and which is manifested by a peculiar power of suggestion (vyañjana) inherent in word and sense is taken to be the essence of poetry, To grammarians and learned writers it perhaps seemed paradoxical to state that the very essence of poctry was that which was not even expressed On the other hand, some form of symbolical speech in which wisdom demands that one should express Oveself more in hints and suggestions than in actual words was always in vogue and the poets bad been more or less partial to the method of speaking in metaphor or wrapping up their ideas in trans parent allegory But suggestive poetry according to the new theorists is something different from the merely metaphorical which Var had already amply recognised and on which the Alalukara and the Ruta systems had placed so much em phasis The metaphorical or the allegoric however veiled is still in a sense expressed and must be taken as such, but (the sogested is always unexpressed and is therefore a source ·112 SOWE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS of the proper charm of poctry by its very capacity of conccal ment The Dhvani school postulates that the unexpressed or inexpressible which is the soul of all good poctry is called into besog by a particular function of svagestion abcreatin words and their meanings, But the unexpresscd manifested by the suggestive power of sound and sense may be on unexpressed matter of fact (vastu) or an unexpressed imaginative mood (alamkara) but in most cases it is an emotional state which is directly inex pressible "The Dhvani school therefore took up the poctic feelings and sentiments (blava and rasa) as an element of the unexpressed and thus tried to harmonise the concept of Rasa with the theory of Dhyam Anandavardhana distinctly says in one place (Uhs an aloka p 163) tbat bis object is not mere ly to establish Dhram but also to barmonise it with Rasa altcady recognised in dramatic theory by Bharata and others It was realised that poetry was not as Dangın thought the mere clothing of agreeable ideas in agreeable words feelings end sentiments also play an important part in it But the feelings and sentiments are in themselves joexpressible We can givē a came to them but naming a feeling or sentiment is not equivalent to manifesting it At best therefore we can suggest at what the poet cat directly express or com mun cate is not the feeling itself but the ground of the feeling or its excitant and attendant circumstances with the help however of these expressed elements which must be general ised and conceived not in a personal (laulika) but in an impersonal (alaukska) form the poet can awaken in us through their inherent suggestive power a particular impersonal condition of the mind in wh ch the relish of the natural feel ng is possible as a poetic sentiment It is true that the poet cannot cousc the samc feeling as for instance Rana whom he describes felt but by the suggestive power of the express ed circumstances of Rama bis conduct and bis associate the poct can call up a reflection of it and evole in the readers mind a s m lar mental condition in which the reader idenifies ·114 SOVE PRODLCMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS scope the predominant implicit factor. The outward expression being important as a maps of pointing to this implicit significance The analysis is comprehensive enough to include in its descriptive, ornamental as well as emotional poetry, but it is also perceived, if not directly stated that the emotional mood which the poct succeeds in suggesting to the seader's mind in the form of that delectable subjective condition of imperso nalised enjoyment which is called Rusi, is of the highest importance in poetry ) In a complete schere to doubt, the 1 asta dhiant and the alamlara dhuani. tacitly recognised by older writers and practised by the poets, must also be sustified and tbe Dhvant school could not at least from the standpoint of theoretic consistcocy, definitely make the suggestion of Rasa the exclusive cod of poetry But the central question to which attention is devoted by the school is as to how A composition should help the Rasa to expression, for it 18 repeatedly land down that peither mere embellishment nor mere narrative but the suggestion of poetic sentiment should be the guiding principle of the poet in his composition of word and sepsc In other words the school practically, if not theoretically, recognises that the Rasa should be the centre of gravity towards which everything else in a poem vastu riti, guna dosa and clamharamshould move, and stress coming to be laid upon the underlying poetic sentiment, the suggestion of Rass came in prevail over other kinds of sug gestion The Davaoskāra and Anandavardhasa, no doubt, wisely refrained from going into the extreme position of such later writers as Visvanatha who regard the suggestron of the emotional wood to be the exclusive end of poetry cven to the extent of ignoring the imaginative and the realistic, but the attitude of the Dhvani school towards the importance of Rasa tends practically towards such a proposition and pro bably inspires the later theorists to a further developmeot of the theory out of uself into the inevitable extreme thesis that the Rasa alocc in the essence of poctry One of the triumphs of the new school was indeed the admission of the old idea .

·116 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS exponents of older traditions who appear to have been un touched by the implications of the Dhvan Theory and stood apart in many respects from the school of Anandavardhana Able as they cre, these attempts languished for want of support, 'ond the more or less complete scheme of Poetics outlined in the Dangelola wbich wanted to harmonise and bring into a denite focus the scattered ideas of previous speculation, was worked out in detail by Mammata and his follor ers and was ultimately standardised as the Gnally dombant scheme, The success of Mammata's work was indeed so complete that the authority of the Dhvani school came to be unquestionably accepted by most later writers and the systems which cmerged after Mammata could no longer be strictly regarded as entirely independent systems (It will be seen from Khat is said above that the divergent currents of thoughts and tendencies in Sanskrit Poctics flowing in different directions through many centuries ultimately ran into one clear and dominant stream in tho classical work of Mammaja , In the progress of the discipline the Alamkara school proposed to copfinc itself to a theory of dmbellishment of expression consistently with what was probably the onginal tradition of the Sastra, while the Rili school laid stress on the objective beauty of expression rcalısed by means of diction which consisted of a harmonious combination of certain fixed Inetary Excellences The Rasa school however storting with the consideration of the drama was responsible for introducing into poetic theory the subiective element of Rasa tegesented by feelings and sentiments The Dhvani school headed by Anondavardhina admitted the underlying Truth of all these doctrines but elaborated a peculiar theory or suggestion in poetry, including the suggestion of Rasz to which all other pochic factors were correlated It will be seen that a relative emphasis was 12d by cach of these schools on tfic different elements of Alaniara Rits (including Guna and Doşa) Rasa and Dhvanı ·MAMMATAS LAVYA PRAKASA 117 respectively, and the currents of speculation thus flowed in different directions It was however realised in the end that all these gleams of thought should be gathered into a focus and all these currents should be made to flow wło cze stream Indeed one of the obvious objects of Anandavardhana s work was not only to define and establish the concept of Dhvani in poetry but also to work up and tatronalise into a synthetic and comprehensive system these accumulated ideas of bus great predecessors) A final and authontativc shape was given to Apandavardhana s work by Mampata who gathered up the results and uttered them in the convenient and concise torn of a systematic text books) The work was however dešined to be more than a mere text book It came to dominate the thoughts of generations of theorists and cclipscd by its thorough and systematic exposition even the masterly work of Acandavardhana on which it was chiefly based) No doubt Jagannatha one of the latest but not the least important writers on Poetics speaks of the Dhvanikara and Apandavardhana as the alamkarika saram vyavasthapaka inasmuch as the tentative efforts of earlier thinkers and the accumulated stock of recogaised ideas are brought to ether and rationally adjusted in their work 10 a more or less complete system but it was due greatly to the inquence of Mammata tfal this alamhura-sarana was finally standardised and raised to almost exclusive auſbority. The period which followed is necessarily a stage of scholastc elaboration with regard to matters of general theory or ube main problems the majority of the post dhwam writers who accept the final determination of Mapmata as almost canonical find nothing that is new to set forth they consequently fall back upon matters of detail which helped to satisfy their growing scholastic bent for five distinctions and endless analysis Here and there we come indeed across a Icw writers who do not catorcly sacrifice independent tbspkins and sometimes we find a few isolated and straggl og followers of the older school but most of the writers who come after ·118 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS Mammaja display indeed great scholastic acumen but hardly any remarkable originality or crcatiye genius 11 15 also the age of numberless commentators and commentators on commentators who busied themselyes tuh the hardly inspir tog task of explanation cxpansion or restriction of the already established rules and formulas We have also the rise of a number of popular writers and text book makers who wanted to codify the discipline or simplify it for general enlightenment the lowest stage being reached when we come to numerous manuals and school books of comparatively recept times 'It is important however to note that even accepting in the main the gcncral position of the Dhvani theorists some of the writers of the acw school headed by Mammaja gre yet not entirely free from the influence of older schools In spite of his adbercace and support of the Dhyani theory Mamatata bumsell could not for costance explicitly state kavy szalma ditsanur in (that the soul of poctry is Dbyami) and lie betrays a willing Dess to include compositions devoid of Dhyanı within the meaning of the term kavya He accepts after Apandavar dhana the great importance of Rasa in poctry put his well known de Gotion of poetry iad a-dosau sabdartlau sasunda vanalamkrri punah krapl( pociry consists in word and sense devoid of defects and possessing the excellences and sometimes devoid also of poetic figures follows the time honoured custom of starting with Sabda and Artha and men tioning the Guna Doşa and Alanlara without however explicitly including Rasa as well as Dhvans. In the same way Ruyyala follows Udbhata and Kuntaka cxtcasively in the principle as well as tbe detailed analys s of poetic figures a question which was left untouched by the Dhyadi kara and Anandavardhana who had either dismissed the poehcf gures as mercag vilaipas or considered them only as heightening the charm of the unexpressed in poetry Visva batba agano la declaring that poetry consists of a scotcoce of wb ch the soul is Rasa betrays the unmistakable influence of the Rasa school and maintains the entrent position ·MAMMATAS KAVYA PRAKASA 119 regarding the exclusive essentiality of Rasa dhvani which was practically meant but wisely left usaid by the authors of the Dhyanyaloka Even one of the latest and most thoughtful writers of this group Jagannatha revives in a Dcw form the old definition of poetry given by Dandin This reactionary teodency 13 interesting as indicating that these post Uhvati writers were not unconscious of the importance of earlier views and it cannot be said that even though they accept the authority of the Dhvanyaloka they are yet enterely content with its clear cut scheme Rightly or wrongly they attempt to bring back old deas in the elaboration of the new, and it is difficult for this reason to take these writers in a lump and affiliate them directly to the Dhvani school It is better therefore to call them post dhvani wuiters who naturally recognise the new concept of Dhvanı but who cannot be regarded as out and out supporters of all the details of the theory 115 also remarkable that most of these writers attempt to arrive at a precise defort n of poetry a task which was left alone by the Dhvapıkara but in doing so they probably meant to find out a comprehensive formula which would cover the old ideas as well as the new although it must bu said that they succeed less often than they involve themselves 10 hopeless theoretical inconsistencies It is not surprising therefore that from the purely thcare trcal point of view Macamata s definition of poetry was subjected to much criticism although bis critics were writers whosc own definitions were not colicly abovc such criticism. Visvanatha for jostarce, undoubtedly takes Mammata s work as the basis (upaj vya) ol fats own but begins his Sahitya darpannt with a vigorous attack on Mammalas definition He points out in the first place that the Gunas being merely properties of Rasa sbould not have been logically acladed in the definttion of essen tials wbich omils even a mention of the essential Dhvadt and Rasa In the same way no mention even negative ·120 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS should have beco made of the Doşas in the definition He holds that st faultless composizionS alone are to be called poetry then some of tbe best poems will have to be given up inasmuch as it is almost impossible to Leen clear of blemishes Nor can it be said that faults mar only those particular words or their meanings in which Ibey occur for if they are faults at all bearing relation to the under lylog sentiment in the composition they must mar the whole poem Lastly he maintains that no reference cven if negatic to poetic @gures ought to have been made in the definition as they are admittedly non essential Jagannathas.criticism. is more fundamental although he agrees with Vaśyanaiba 25 to the impropriety of including a reference to Guna Dosa Mod Alarlılara in the definition He objects that a word and its sense arc not what is dcnotcd by poetry, for the Bniversal experience that a poem may appeal without its mcaping belog understood shows clearly that a parti cular lind of Subda klose constitutes poetry Artha being secondary If It is said that the essence of poetry 1.cs in its capability of awakening a scntipçat (Rasa) and toas much as a word and its sease possess this capability both constitute poctry then it may be replied that according to thu too wide view musical tones and theatrical gestures will have to be called poetry ? Some of these and other arguments appear no doubt fastidious and pedantic Bud have been met with equal ingenuity by the commentators and supporters of Mammata but the whole controversy indicates not only the futility of actuag at a precise logical definition of poetry but also the difficulty of combining all the conventional elements in such a dcfiption The authors of the Dhanyaloka probably realised this and carcfully avoided the task for they content the musclves with describing its general nature and its divisions Ra omission on which Mahimabhatta diculcs bim by saying Ainu ca kavyosya siarūpat vyuipa Jayillaruri marimond Jollal sapom a sümnendwa 011 ·MAMMATAS KĀVYA PRALASA 121 But from what we have said above it will be clear that the apparent inconsistencies of Maminata s definition which are to be explained by a reference to the vicws of older schools are loteresting from the historical pomnt of view They indi cate the lurkiag regard which Mammats belonging as he does to the new school possesses for the views of such older theo rists as Vamana No doubt Manimata severely criticises and rejects Vamana s theory and classification of Ritu but the mention of Gona Doşu and Alamkára in the deligation apparently indicates that he would like to take them after Vamana as properties of Sabda and Artha and Dot of Rasa which is omitted from the definition At the same time be defines the Guna and Dosa as well as the Alankara later on in terms of their relation to Resa a procedure which is hardly justifiable if the essentiality of Rasa is not declared 10 the definition On the other hand if it is maintained the that Rasa is too well know and established a fact in poetry to require explicit mention then the prominence of threefold suggestion and the division of poetry on its basis becomes inexplicable The fact that Mammața accepts the Citra kavya (which develops no Rasa or Dhvan.) grudgingly adm tted by Anandavardhans and rejected by Visvanatha also indicates probably his unconscious leadings to the views of the Alarikara school which were in coolict with bis theoretical acceptance of the Dhvant doctripe in regard to the essentiality of Dhvani and Rasa, (There can be no doubt however that in spite of such a consistent attempts to incorporate the old stock of ideas Mammaja compcehends bolli Dhvani and Rasa 10 his scheme by implication as well as by express treatment Following up h15 definition Mammata begins with the discussion of the functions of Sabda artha incidenta establishing the function of suggestion (vyanjana) and the superiority of the suggested sense (vyangya artha or dhvan) and divides poetry into three classes VIZ Dhvani Gunbhuta vyangya and Cutra un relation to the suggested sense This leads him to enumcrale and exemplify ·1.2 SORIE PRORLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS the various subdivisions of the three classes of poetry and in th s connexion dilate upon the nature and theory of Rasa wbich is included in the scope of what is called the sugges tion of imperceptible process (asan laksza krazya vyangja) In this context he examines and rejects the views of Lollati ſaukula and Bhatta Nayaka all of whom are said to bave commented on Bharata s theory of Rasa and accepts the vyaktı vāda wh ch he ascribes to Abbinavagupta the great commentator on Anandavardhana s work as well as on Bharata s Narya sastra Meption is made of the aght orthodox dramatic Rasas but the ninth the santa er he Quiet istic sentiment is added apparently as relevant to poetry even 11 inadmussible tu the drama Mammata then proceeds to discuss the Guns and t1 e Dosa not in relation d rectly to Šabda or Artha as his le finition would imply but in relation to the'r subserviency or otherwise to the awakening of Rasa dhvani The Gunas As excellences of composition are interpreted not atter Vamana but after Anandavardbapa in a new sepse and are broug! info clicctive relation with the underlyig sentiment in a work as qualities which serve to awaken and heighten its charm The verbal form of a work the expressed Sabda and Artha cannot be sad to posses the qual ty of energy or sweetness unlesy wc mcan by it that the underlying scotiment is vigorous or sweet The Gunas therefore may be taken as properties of Sabda and Artha only in a secondary scnsc (upucara) bat thcy are in realty intimately related to Rosa even as virtues I ke berais do not res de in the body but in the soul of man The verbal for the picre sound and sense produces the excellences only as a means or instrument the real cause is thc Rasa just as the soul is the truc cause of virtues I ke heroism in a man The same consideration applics also but more strongly to the case of the so-called poctic figures (f7v) ular ik ros) and ther place 10 poetry should be just1bcd only by the relation to Rasa They are I kesed to ornaments on a mans body 33 cmbell shments they adorn words and ·HIAMMATA'S KAVYA PRAKASA 123 meanings which constitute the 'body' of poetry. They thus serve to embellish induectly, through word and scosc, the underlying 'soul of scafimcnt, but they do pot do this 10. yariably. If there is no Rasa they resolve 1910 mete strikingness of expression (uklı vaiciya)but even sometimes when the Rasa is existing they do not help 11 In other words, 1115 maintained that the poetic figures can exist without the Rasa 10 the form of charming turns of expression, and even when ibe Rasa is present, they are not invariably necessary. It should also be noted that Mammata accepts, after Anandavardhava, only three Gunas and maintains that combination of particular letters sigmfies particular Gonas Thus, the three Ritis of Vamana are resolved into three Gunas defined by bimself, and the letters whose particular arrangements produce these three Gunas beipg almost tbc same as those given by Udbbaja respectively for his tbree Veitis (viz. Upanágarılā Patuși and Komalā). Udbhata s three Vſtts are roughly approximated to his own three Gunas In this connexion Mammata demopstrates with some care that its not necessary to accept the sets of tcu Sabda gunas and ten Artha-gunas of Vāmana, but that it is cnough of we postulate three comprehensive literary excellences. viz. Ojas (energy), Psasāda (lucidity and Madhurya (sweetness) It 19 shown by a critical examination of Vāmada's Gonas that some of them can very well be included in the thrco deltaed aborc that some discharge the same functions as the recognised poetic figures that some constitute mere absence of defects wbile others are sometimes positive defects Thus. Vāmaga's slesa, Samadhi and Udărată are comprehended by Manmata's Ojas, Vananas Arthavyalti is ao aspect of Mammata's Prasīda but it corresponds also to the Svabhz oktı Alattkära of Dandın. Vamana's Samata, consisting of a certain unco!ormity of diction. 19 sometimes a fault, while Yamana's Saukumirya and Kanti defined respecti cly as freedom from horsbass (or in auspiciousness) and sugarily is simply the rescise of such S ·SOVE PROBLEMS OP SANSKRIT POETICS defects as Sruti kasta and Sruti duşta These considcrations simplify the classification of the Gunas and put a limit to their endless multiplication or differentiation such as one finds for instance : Bhoja's claborate scheme 24 Gunas Mammata therefore thinks that the distinction betu cen Sabda guna and Artha guna is meaningless and the old differentiation resling on a more adjusto cot of sound and sense should be superseded As the Guna is an invariable property of the Rasa She mental condition involved 10 the relish of a sentiment should alone justify all classification of Gunas Sach a position warrants the acceptance of only three (and not two sets of ten Gunas) which acc brought into latimate relation to the principal sentudent of a composition Thus the Ojas is supposed to cause a brilliant ctpansion (vastara) of the mind and resides in the sentiments of heroism horror and fury, the Madhurya, residing normally in the crotic sentiment of love-10 union but also appropriate 10 and residing 10 successive degree in pathos calm and love in separation 19 regarded as causing a softening of the heart while the Prasada proper to all the poetic senti rachts is taken as the cause of a quick apprehension of the scose extending over the mind at once (vyapti or shasa) lc a streant of water over a cloth or lite fire on dry fuel The three conditions of the mind viz expanding pervading and melting which accompany the dillerent poetic sentiments arc thus made the basis of the brec Gunas. and cycn if these mental states are somelimes mixed up and Icad to other mcntal conditions thesc latter calects are too many and too complex to be taken ps the basis of further multiplication of fresh Gunas This caposition of Mammaja follows and cxpands Dijunsaloka : 811. but it is possible that thic original hent association of these three mental conditions with the three Gunas was supplied by Bhatta Muyala who speaks of the enjoyment of Rasa as being characterised by the mental states of expansion (stara) pervasion (wikasa) and mehing (drums) Viſvanatha substantially agrees with (druti) ·MAMMATAS KAVYA PRAKASA 125 thus view of Mamgata but he objects that the Ojas etc are not the causes of but identical with the process of cxpansion ctc In his discussion of the defects (Dosas) of poetry Mammata admits defects of words of sentences of meaning as well as of Rasa But he prefaces this chapter of his work by the statement that s ncc Rasa is the principal thing in poetry the defects of Rasas are the principal defects The Rasa however depends upon the expressed word scntencc and meaniog the defects of these are also in reality defects of the Rasa In other words tie Dosa Bike the Guns should be considered in poetry mainly in relation to the underlying sentiment Although the poetic figures are are not in Manmata s opinion always necessary to poetry he yet rounds off his treatise with an elaborate analysis and illustration of figures of sound and senso (includig a I mited number of figures which are both of sound and sense) enumerating as many as sixty seven independent poetic figures Here he accepts implicitly Kuntaka s prisciple of analysis of the poetic figures and applies it for the most part to the detailed cxamination of individual Ggurcs a procedure which is followed also by Ruyyaka Visvanatha Appayya Diks 13 and Jagannatha This topic was Icft untouched by the authrs of the Dhiant) aloka but the principle which Kuntaha enunciated in h s able apalysis of poetic expression gained ground in later times and Mammata tacitly acknou ledges that the clients which go to make up the being of a poctic figure consist of a peculiar turn of charming express calicu Vaicurya or Vicchitti yisesa and the peculiar conception of the poet which brings salo cxistence the peculiar charol (kaut pratibha ninahitalya) From this brief and rapid summary of the rincipal topics of Mammafis work it still be seen that 115 Falu consists not in its original ty but in the orderly concise and clear discuss jon of the main issues of Sansirit Poet cs and his deinition as well as his general treatment attempts to cover almost all the מטו ·126 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS field of thought traversed by his predecessors He quotes more than six hundred yerses from various pocts lo illustratc huis doctrines, and shows himself familiar with the sorhs of almost all the distinguished writers on Poetics who preceded him The great popularity and authority which the Kü ya-pralūsa has always enjoyed and which is indicated by the large nuni ber of commentaries on it, most be explained as due not in any creative genius or remarkablc novelty of treatncnt, but to the systematic and lucid (albeit obscurities due to extreme brevity of exposition, necessitating commentaries) working out of the already recognised stock of ideas in the light of the new scheme put forward in the Dhvanyaloka Although exact dates cannot be determined it is possible to fix approximately the period of time in which Mammala flourished The lower limit may be fixed with reference to two commentaries on the Kavya praksa The Samkera comwentary of Manikyacandra who belonged to the Kotika gana Vajrabalha, Rajagacha of Guzerat, is expressly dated 10 Sativat 1216 = circa 1159 AD The exact date of the other commentary, also called Samkela by Ruyyaka is not known but we can ascetain from other sources that Ruyyaka probably fourished in the second and third quarters of the 12th century AD Mammata therefore cannot be placed later than the middle of the 12th century The upper litt is morc difficult to settle But the nearest predecessor whom Mammata quotes is the Kashmirian Abhinavagupta who must have been still living in 1015 AD, as this date is borne by bis Brhane Vitti on the flyara prat; abhipa Mammaja also quotes from the Nasa seliasunka carila of Padmagupla Parimala, a protégé of the kings of Dhara first of Muñja Vakpatıraja and then of his successor Sandhuraja at whose direction the poem appears to been writen within the first decade of the 11th century In an illustrative versc (on the Ggure Udatta In chapter x) Mammata also refers to the liberality of Bhoja to learned med This Bhoja is identiged with the well known Paramara king Bhoja of Dhura the son and successor of 60 ·MAMMATA S KAVYA PRAKASA 127 dhuraja and nephew of Muaja Vakpatıraja as well as the reputed author of Sarasvat: kanfhabharana It is curIQUS however that in spite of his extensive references to his pre decessors Mammaja does not appear to refer to this well known work on Sanskri Poetics but this omission may have been due to the fact that Bhoja pad no allegiance to the Kashnician school of Anandavardhana If, however the verse in question refers to Dboja of Dhara who himself bad literary predilections and was a patron of learned men then it would indicate that Mampata could not have flourished earlier than Bhoja Bhoja could not have rulcd beyond 1055 AD From all these cons derations we can roughly placc Mammaga za the period between the tiddle of the 11th and the middle of the 12th century AD Allowing two generations to intervene between hm and his commentator Ruyyaka we can approximately assign Mammajas activity to the last quarter of the lith and the commencement of the 1241 century Mammata s name itself and his crtic Rajapaka as well as Kashmirian tradition ind cate that he probably belonged to Kashmir A very late commentator Bhimasena in bis Sudhasupara or Subodhin commentary (date in Samvat 1779= 1722 23 AD) on the Kavya prakasa informs us that Mammata was the son of Jayyata and had two brothers Kayyaja and Uvvata of whom Uyvata is takes to be the well know commentator on Vedic works But this story is doubtful as Uvvata himself tells us that his father s name was Vajrata and not Jayyaft The story relied upon by Hall and Weber that Mammata was the maternal uncle of the author of the Naisadha may sim larly be relegated to the region of fantastic fabies which often gather round famous names Kavya Prakasa bas the appearance of a compact trea tise which is carefully plagged and systemaucally worked out but the unity has been called in question and enough evidence has been brought forward to show that Karika and Vetto of perly the wbile yok uniret congesed by Mannati bu ·128 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS a small portion of the last chapter probably left incomplete by him was completed by another author whose name is given as Alaka Alata or Aliata It is not necessary for us to enter here into the details of the question of the joint authorship of the Kavya prakasa but it is now generally accepted on the indicalians given by some of Mammata s commentators as well as by some manuscripts of his work that Mammata composed the Raija pralaša up to the treatment of the gure Partkara ( 32), but the rest consisting of a small portion of the concluding chapter was composed by the author mentioned above That the fact of joint authorship 15 skilfully concealed is supposed to have ben alluded to in the concluding verse given in socie manuscripts which apparently says that this way of the learned men different yet anpearing identical 18 not strange for here the only cause is a properly constructed plan of combination' It is possible to explain this stato ment as meaning that the work claims the credit of having skilfully removed by its systematic plan all conflict of opinions held by different authors on Poetics but most commentators early as well as late agree 10 finding here a ust implying that the work left incomplete by Mammaja was completed by some other person and that traces of joint authorship are cleverly obliterated This view is distinctly capressed by an early commentator like Rayyaka who him self a Kashmirian and living at a period not very remote from Mammala must have been recording a well Inown tradition and in this view he is followed by Jayanta Bhatia Somcśvara Narahars Sarasvatitiba Kamalakara Ananda Jajnesvara and other early as well as late commentators while some manuscripts of the han aprakasa record the tradition in the colophon by mentioning the names of Mammata and Alsta as joint authors Rijunaka Ananda also a Kashmi nan commentator is however more explicit und quotes a tradtional verse wh ch records Mammaţa's authorship up la the tanic of Parkaca Alarikara (x 32) and attributes the rest lo Alaia Allaf1 or Alaka ·MALMATAS KAVYA PRAKASA 129 This statement about the dual authorsbip of the Kavya prahas receives confirmation from an independent source but the reference would indicate that Allata had a hand not only to the 10th as the above tradition makes out but also in the 7th chapter of the work which deals with the topic of Dosa For this chapter on Dosa ninaya is cited by Arjunavarnadeva who foucished in the first guaster of the 13th century In his commentary on the Amaru sotaka with a distinct attribution of this chapter to Mammata and Alaka or Alata Arjugavarman s remark whilo quoting the Yerse prasade vartasvu from Kuvju prakusa vii 14 is clear enough Jathodahrtant dosa menaje mamnafalakabhyant and it is not possible to take it as implying a general rcference to the fact of joint authorship without particularly meaning collaboration of any specsal chapter This has lcd some scholars to find traces of collaboration of Allaja 10 other parts of the work also but the question still awaits a thorough and careful examination Some Sate Besyal commentators among whow Mahesvara Nyayalankara is one would impute the authorship of the Karika (here called Sutra) portion of the Kavya pralata ta Bharata and the prose Vitti alone to Mam mata while Bharata bimself is sard to have drawn upon the Alamhara section of the Agni purana While the last assertion about the Agm purana has do foundation 10 fact and is apparently prompted by the amiable but un historical imagination of later writers which delights 1 exalting the antiquity and authority of Puranas general the suggestion of Bharata s authorship of the Karikas is too unauthentic and fanciful to be accepted Apart frog the fact that the evidence of the text itself goes directly against such a supposition Mimmaja's authorship of the Karikas in gederal has been declared by Hemacandra on the first quarter of the t2th century and has beco accepted by a series of unportant authors The source of this tradition is probably the great leveyttice pand to the sage Bharata but : [2] y ·130 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS may also be duc to the fact that Mammuta humselt has made considerable use of Bharala s dicta as he has also drawn extensively upon Bhimaha Vamana Udbhata Rudrata and the Dhrany, loka even 10 thic cxtcnt of sometimes dircctly approprialing or paraphrasing well known passages or illustrative verses That the work of Mammata was studied cxtensively in Bengal is indicated not only by the popular prinled commen tary of Maheśvara Nyayılanthara Bhaftacarya but also by a large number of commentaries witten by well known writers of Bengal which have not yet been printed Among Bengal commentators one may mention the names of Jagadesa Tarkapancanana Bhattacurya (Rahasya prahuta) Gndadhara Cakravarlın Bhattacarya (ka) Jayaramı Nyayapancana (Tilaka or Jayaram) Devanatha Tarkapouca nana (Kovsa kaumudi) Ramanatha Vidyavacaspati (Rahasja pralašiha) und Srikrsna śarman (Rasa praiasa) the last of whom describes Nyayalamkara author of the Adarsa (1 e Mahesvara Nyayalamkara) as his Guru Baladeva Vidyabbusana the well knowa writer oa Bengal Vaisnavism also wrote a commentary on the Kapsa prakasa entitled Sahitya kaumadı but bc belonged to Orissa and wrote under the patronage of Gajapatı Prataparudra of Orissa And yet Mabesvara Nyayalamkara laments कायप्रकाशस्य कृता गृहे गृहे टोका तयाप्येष नथैव दुर्गम । The Kavya prakasa has not been so often printed in Bengal as it has been in other provinces of India where it is perhaps much more calcasively studied for in Bengal Visva naiba s Sahitya darpana appears to be a more popular text book But it certainly descryes wider circulation and study in Bengal not only as a brilliant text book but also as one of the most remarkable classic works on Sanskrit Poetics Calcuita Sansk Series No VI 1936 ·'MALA TU PURVAVAT" In an article with the above heading (which is itself a quotation from Mammata's Kavya prakāsa x 8b) in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute,' Mo Divekar attempts to throw doubt on the interpretaton of most commentalors of Mammata that the word pūrvavat in this Káriká refers to mulopamā which, though not mentioned before in any of the Kārılās, is dealt with in the Vrtti on x 4b The interpretatian referred to is of some smportance It implies that the figure mālā rūpala follows the rule laid down for the figure mālopamā but since mālopamā is not taught in any of the previdos Kārıkās and is explained only in Vilti on a previous occaston, the reference apparently indicates that the Karikā und the Yrtti of the Kavya praſāsa must be taken en bloc as the work of one and the same author. The passage, therefore, has been taken as supporting the tradition of the identity of the Kärikäkāra and the Vrtokāra of the Kavyaprakasa Mr Divekar, however, thinks that the word prirvavat does not refer to målopamā which is not to be found in immediate context nor in any preceding Kārikā, but to the sānga-nıranga bheda mentioned in the very line of which the quotation forms a part The doubt tased us legitimate, and the suggestion is ideed striking, but there are dificulties 10 accepting the solution proposed by Mr Divekar of the whole problem Mammata is dealing in the context with rūpeke and its classification, and it is necessary to consider his treatment in some detail 10 order to understand the bearing of the passage in question Dclipag tupaka in x 7a Mammata 1 Vol. vi, pt. 1 (1928), p Sof ? See S K. De, Sárskest Poetes, I p. 166 ·MALA TU PORVAVAT 133 etc on praya in the illustration of mala giyen in the text The classification discussed may then be tabulated as follows tupaka sänga Diranga samasta vastu ckadesa suddha mala Visaya vivarti Now, from wbat has been said above it is clear that mala rupuka can 10 its nature be only miranga. for flere the successive superimpositions on one object have pot the rela tion of principal and subordinate metaphorscal representa trons As explained by Nagoji Bhatta in his Uddyota com mentary elavisaya nama padartharopa supaivan malarvam paraspara sapeksatva virahac ca nirangalvam at tad arthah' Now such serial representation of ose upameya with succes sive upamanas may take the form cather of a simile (upama) or of a metaphor (rupaka) according as there is bheua or abheda between the properties of the upameya and the mpamanas . but the two figures are essentially of the same nature in having successive representations (10 the one case under similitude in the other under mctaphoncal superio postton) of one upameya in connection with successive npamanas This is what Mammata wants apparently to 1 It is conceivable that there may be succe551Ve superimpositions on successive objects standing in the sciation of priocipal and suborda nate thus in this casc cach metaphor can be taken separately and be considered as such 2 Ed Chandorkar 1915 Ulāsa p 34 Smilarly Cakravartin quoted by Vámanicasya (Kavya pred 1917 D 5991 Xys fa (=mala) ca n rarga-rupa rupyamananami angaag blóra wwahāt commeating on the example of mala rupala given by Mammata Manikyacandra (ed Anandasrama p 234) says afra pryd repa eka evaropa-visayo mukad jonga s vind darasanyadya rupila 111 pirangan ·134 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS indicate by the word paravat in the Kārki viz that thic malu rupala which is one of the sub-divisions of nianse. rûpala is of the same type as the mūlopama! In other words the term pürasai, considered in this light, implies that, as there is 10 mulopamū a connection through siaulitude. of one upamesa with successive upamanas, 5010 mala rūpala there is a metaphorical superimposition of successive upa mūnas on one upameya And yet Mammals is not presum ably justified in rcftring 10 mālopama shich he has not defined in any previous Kārka The malopama, however, is dealt with in the Viti on x 46 The conclusion, therefore is forced that Mammaja is referring to his own Vrto where he has olready dealt with mulopamī, unless the word püryan at can be shown to refer to something else in the same or in some previous Karika Let us row sec that other soterpretation Mr. Divchar has to offer for the much discussed word pinaat In the light of what is said above, we should translate the Tipe in question as follows Thes (twofold division 15 called) sanga or cotic, but the ruranga of partless metaphor is single also serial (thich is ) as before (le, as in the case of 1 This is made clear by the Val on the passage which says malo pomayam wa ckasmin behara Eropuáh abere mulopamosan haus clearly a commentary on the word pun avas ltus tot correct 10 STESUME that the Vstukira Ederally quotes the words of the landskars when be gives the meanings 10 the opti" for One Deed or go far but merely point out that the Vrtu on sangam ctor paraphrases every word of tbc Katika without repeating the orig108) nords 2 Io tbc abscgct of better terms, I borrow the terms caure and partless from Chandorkar's rendering of the tett 3 See Pradipa ed NSP 1912, p 329 It 16 noteworthy that the Pradipatart whom Mr Diretar quotes as his authority on this poiat explains the Kariki in question as referring to malopema by be word puyayat yasharkatze bohupantāna-joge malopama ratharkatranela dharmarope mala mpakom its orthal On this Vodynaatha remarks tad se sutra ypt krtor ekasse jhapalem malopan) ak sütruntaktaya aveva kathanat ·MALA TU PORVAVAT 133 sersal smile) Mi Divekar however translates the line somewhat differently This is sanga an unmixed (r1 paka) is however miranga but mala rupaka is similar to the former He infers from this that the word punta which tic translates as former refers to the division of sanga and nuranga (and sot presumably to malopamay He adds we trad late as given above mala rupaka will have to be considered as sanga implying thereby that purvd or former 10 thus passage refers to sanga This 13 no doubt a novel interpce tation but it is untenable for it will be clear from the exposition given by us above that the molu Turaka in 118 very nature cannot be considered as sanga Mr Divekar quotes the opinion of the Pradipahara in support No doubt the Pradipakara apparently takes this View for comment ing on this passage hc states atha sangasyaiva va citryan caram aha--mula (u purvaval It appears however that the words atha songarya must be taken as a misteadıog which 13 commented upon by Vaidyanatha Tatsat and Nagoji Bhajta Vaidyanatha appears to read instead at asungasya (for all a sangasya) and understands a sanga 48 fuddha adding perva sabdenopumu parumarsah Nagol: goes further and dscusses the reading thus kvacit iu n rangasya veti pifi al chay saya naru padarskeropa rupatvan enālassa paraspara supehşa vural accaras garvam ih tad art) ah ayam era jarah papiah IIc would tberefore togard murai gosya which he finds in some manuscripts to be the proper reading Vamanscurya in his learned edition of Aarsa prahusu (3rd ed 1917 p 599) Agrees with this view and remarks rūpat n rangam darśayatı-malu vit ala evuluh pruncalı- Hipangassana alcun antaram mila All{i iti pradipe 14 alla sūncassansa varcit antaram ala mälu lu pingat Hyultam tad upapaitis iudd) ole #ngopbhajjar ) at: akashamcit Ariete tatrava draffavjet) alom asora grani) a urcarena Tt cannot be determined whether this is slip on the part of Pradipatura otherwise a very careful and discerning witter ot a mere misreading (as Migonis remarks would ind cstc) ·136 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT TOETICS which subsequently crept 10 It is clear towcicr that the reading sanga of the Pradipakara has not escaped the notice of commentators on the text and should be considered as incorrect, and nothing is goiced by relying on a doubtful text. It may also be pointed out that all subsequent writers on Poetics who have taken Mammaţa more or less as authorita tive have agreed in regarding mala rupaka as nironga at miravayava and never as sanga or savayava This appears to be the view of Ruyyaku (ed Ni Sae p 36 Yıdyadhara (1 213) Vidyanatha (ed Bom Sansk Scr p 374) Visvanatha (ed Durgaprasada 1915 P 495) and Jagannatha (ed Nir Saç p 233) Thc difficulty about regarding mala as sanga was probably present before Me Divekar s mind for he adds If we how ever translate This is sange and mala rupaka is as before mala rupaha will be giranga It must be confessed that this proposed alternative translation is far from clear but since purvavat appears to be translated by as before it may be concluded that Mr Divekar means to imply that parimat in th s case does not refer to sunga (as in the other translation he has given) but to manga so that mala rupala as he says should be classified as niranga Having regard to the classification proposed by Mammata and his followers this cxplanations is certainly not open to serious objection but the dificulty in accepting this translation apart from its vagueness is that it would make the word put al redundant in the harıka as it stands If it were Mammata & zotention only to say that mala like fuddha is muranga I would have been enough for him to state rurangam fui fuddham mala ca There would be no need of adding purvarar after the word mala of the purpose was only to refer thereby to niranga wbich immediately precedes it in context Even if it were supposed that the word punavat is necessary for refer ting poiatedly to tranga as distinguished from sunga occur T:15 the samt lyde thc Itim would not be happy for in that case applied to 13o successively mentioned things in the same ·138 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS bering composed by himself he was justified in making such a reference At any rate, whatever may be the explanation of this procedure adopted by Mammata, one cannot ta the absence of any better interpretation of this passage, lind any reason for not accepting the interpretation given by Mammata's sonumerable commentators. Annals of tle BORI x 192 ·THE SANTA RASA IN THE NATYA SASTRA AND THE DASA RUPAKA It is extremely doubtful if the santa as rasa is at all accept ed by Bharata for the genuineness of the portion of the text of the Narya sastra in which the mention of sania as a rasa occurs is certainly not beyond question In all the four editions of Bharata s work (Grosset Kavya male Kashi and Gaekwad) the enumeration of only eight Rasas excluding the path sunta occurs at the outset of ch vi and elaborate treatment of these ergbt Rasas with their corres ponding sthayins yıbhavas etc their colour and deity follows It may be noted that Kalidasa (Vikram 11 8) credits Bharata with the mention of eight (and not toe) Rasas It is only in the Gaekwad edition that the text on santa occurs at the end of ch vi and speaks of santa as the ninth rasa This additional text on santa 15 commented upon by Abhi navagupta and appears to have been known to Bhafta Nayaka Abbioava makes an elaborate attempt to meet the objections against śünia and establish it as a Rasa He gives instances of Bharata s awareness of sunta but his arguments are based oot upon Bharata s mention of it but upon his stlence and are meant to explaia why Bharata does not expressly speak of it as a Rasa In spite of the importance of sania to which so much attention is devoted the 10 sertion of the fanta text at the end of the chapter on Rasa 13 in itself suspicious even if this may not be put forward as a conclusive argument Abhinava himself however admits that this is the reading oot of all but of those who read that there are anne rasas (ye punar naia rasu iti paphann tannate p 333) implying that the Rasas arc generally counted as eight but some old MSS (cirantana pusta kesu) add a doth Elsewhere compenting upon Bharata s enumeration of eight Rasas and their correspondiog sthuylus ·140 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS (p 267) Abhinava rcmarks that the opponents of santa read eight (santapalapinas tu asjarite pafhants) and that some read vismaya samak (10 the text of sthajın) for vismayas cen On the other hand Abhioav3 adduces passages like kvacic chomah wbuh indicate that Bharata had some knowledge of sama or santa but it is also clear that the instances quoted only show Bharata s recogaition of fanta as an element and they do not m-a0 Bharat s acceptance of fanta as a Rasa sama 18 not mentioned by him as one of the forty nine blavos Abhigava himself draws attention to the fact that Bharata's definition of the drama emphasises that it is kridanala prakhya and vinoda sanana and should therefore depict worldly matters from ibis point of view santa is apradhana and not the leading motif Again Bharata gives laya sora guna alamkara ypa etc of the eight Rasas only in several sections of his work but fanta is not mentioned in this connexion Ilc gives also musical jalyangas suggestive of several Rasas but here also fanta is not mentioned (ch xxix 1-4) Abhinava gotes that those who admit tanta read si accha as its colour and the Buddha as its deity Bot Dhanika states distractly that Bharata did bot characterisc sunta as a Rasa by mention ng itsubhat as etc As a matter of fact except what is stated in the interpolated text on the fama at the end of ch vi Dharata docs not mention the aspects of Santa and its attendant conditions A further argument may be added Regarding the admis sion of Santa there has been no uniformity or opinion while ils sthayi bhasa has been enumerated divergently Abbınava refers to various vicws which show that all are not agreed that suna is tis sthayın Among different stlayas proposed we baye san a-cutarski prašama samyag mana moda prvisesa cutattt !! stikla diri usaha figupsa rass any of the remaining stl ayns or all the cight sthasins together 1 The non admission of Santa and the positing of various kinds of sthayin for perhaps radicate that Bharata whose authority 13 highly respected could not have definitely promulgated ·THE SANTA RASA 141 santa rasa or its sthayın and the divergence arose from the absence of his express authority in this matter It is noteworthy that Abhinava (Tocana ed NSP p 176) romarks that it is Bharata's pon mention of the sthayın of Santa which leads Anandayardhana to formulate trsna ksaya as its sthāym The objections against fanta are thus summarised but not discussed b the Daša rupala (1) Some say that there is no Saniu rasa because Bharata has not ment oped its vibhava etc and therefore has not characterised it as he has done in the case of other Rasas (2) Some entirely deny its de facto existence (vastitas tasyabhalan varnasant:) because in their opinion men are eternally incapable of exterminating raga and dvesa (anad: hula pravalıayata ruga dveşayot ucchertum asak yatvar) (3) Some would include santa rasa intra and bi bhalsa apparently taking utsaha and jugupsa as its sihuyin respectively (4) The real nature of fama which is the total absence of all feeling and activity povolves a state of in action (samasta vyapura vilaya rupa) which cannot be re presented on the stage the devclopment of Santa, therefore 13 inadmissible in the drama (puştir natasya nafyesre) The Nāganande which is regarded by some as a fanta play is plainly not so because (a) the end here is not sama but lordship over the Vidyadbaras and (b) the attachment to Malayavatı being antagonistic to the feelog of non attack ment essential in Santa both cannot inhere in the same alambana pamely Jimutavahana the conclusion therefore is that the war e dayu vira) and srngara are the Rasas in this play Dhananjaya himself would object to santa only in the Natya which requires tbc delineation of the Rasa through tts Anubhavas etc but he would permit it in the Kavya because described But his what cannot be acted can at least commentator Dhanika would not allow santa cycn in poetry There can be in h s opinion no such sthay: bl ana as fama or mrveda for the development of that stale (1f it is possible ut all to destroy all feelings of love or hatred) would tend to ·142 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS the absence of all feeling and action such a state is the very negation of the possibility of allirming anything about it and any description of it would be an inadequate descrip tion in worldly terms of what is unworldly Dhanika would regard Jimutavahana as an adatta and not as a šta nasaha To the objection that Jimutavahanı is depicted not as a con quering hero (181$) but as devoid of such a mental state he replies i at an laltsa as an excelling eminence of thic mind is not lacking in Jimutavahana gisuta or heroism need not be only of one variety of warlıke attainment one may con quer self and excel in daya di arma or faga Juorutavahana may not be a yeddi a ura but he is a day, y sa Here the main Rasa being vira and not $ nta be is certainly an udana muyala and Srngara being pot acompatible with via the cpisode of Malayavali 19 justifable Vašvapall a also takes Jimutavahada to be a dayu sird but very ingeniously he attempts to establish that santa can be a Rasa because in that state the soul is about to be cmancipated (yukta visulta dafa) and is not completely detached so that the presence af feeling and activity would not be incompatible while strihn is not entirely absent what is absent 19 the worldly sukla The attainment of sama in his opinion does not imply cessation from all activity It is held therefore that the objections to the santa rasa are not all valid A sunta play is bound to appeal 10 persons of devout mind just in the same way as Srrtgara and vara plays appeal to men of different attitude It is bound to be uncommon but that does not disprove that it is capable of being depicted and relished while it is not true to say that men are eternally slaves to ruga and dveşa There has been a copiouous stream of literature which depicts sana as a Rasa The non mention by Bharata is at best a technical and trifling objection The objection that santa can be easily 10cluded in ra and bibliaisa is msconceived The fanta may involve utsal a or energy for spiritual attaisent 15 pot without effort but the two terms are not co extensive Thure ·THE SANTA RASA 143 way be daya utsaka dharma hisaha and so forth but fania comprehends many kinds of afsaha and is much more than micre utsaha The data vira and dharma vira are as Abhi saya points out really two aspects of sunta which covers a much wider ficld Thc santa includes dazu and dharma but is not included or exhausted by them in the same way, jugupså may be an accessory of śdnia bus sunta is not entirely fagkpsatmala Siddha bharan Hoshiarpur 1950 1 The ent te quest on is discussed fully by V Kaghayan in the Numder y're fuiya 14 ·BHĀNUDATTA AUTHOR OF THE RASA MANJARI In my Sanskrit l'oelics ir 249 a tentative approximation was made of the date of Bhanudatta author of Rasa mañanı, Rasa farangani Gira garrasa Kuniura bhārgaida and other works to the period between the period between the 12th and the middle of the 14th century but it was indicated that the data was not beyond doubt One passage however, of the Rasa manları which was overlooked seerus to throw Iresh light on the question and enables us to fix Bhanudana's date with a somewhat greater precision In one of the illustrative verses of the Rosa manjan which excmplifies the Saltvila Gunas' there is a description of sucli Gunas in a young girl at the sight of onc Nijuma dharanipala * As the name of some other better known Aings of antiquity might as well have served the purpose of the poet the mention of the Nizam in this verse is curious and cannot be dismissed casily as insignificant I would not be improper to assume that here we have in the usual manner of Sanskrit poets an indirect compliment paid to a reigning sovereign whose patronage the poet probably enjoyed If we can decide wha thes Nizam was our enquiry will be narrowed down to 1 considerable extent As a commentary on Rasa manjar called Rasa manjar vikusa by Gopala (alias Vopadeva) son of Nrsimha is expressly dated in 1572 AD' it is clear that by the words 1 Called Sattyika BhZy&s by other sites 2 Ed Denarcs Skt Sere9 (1904) stana 121 p 232. Thicle in question runs thus far han roja-pathe numadharanipalo sam alokitah 3 The verse wbich gives the date of composition is this quoted by Stein (Jammu Caralogue Extracts p 273) fenova .W rand) dho-dhorec) gove groet manfaryas tu ukäsa esa facuta bhayat sardid praselt - ·BHÄNUDATTA 145 iljuma dhardripala, the poet cannot refer to kings of the modern Nizam dynasty which dates from the comparatively recept time of Nizam ul mulk Asal Khan A probable clue to this problem is formshed by Ananta Pandita anth r of the Vyang artira kaumudi commentary (1636 AD) on Rasa mañars who explains the phrasc id question 23 mijamakhyo devagiri rajah If this joterpretation is accepted then the Nizam referred to would be a king of Devagtr, whose name was Nizan It is well known that Ahmad Nizam Shah obtained possession of Daulatabad (Devagırı) some time between 1499 and 1507 AD and founded the Nizam Shah dynasty of Dokkan which continued in power 1.ll 1637 AD: The name Devagiri however, was changed to Daulatabad as early as 1339 AD when Mohammad Ion Tughlaq removed his capital from Delhi to that place: The reference by Bhanudatta therefore seems to adicato a date at the end of the 15th and begioning of the 16th century for the Rasa majjar Stein interprete yuga randhra veda-dhaan as 1484 with a query but it really gives as 1494 (23 corrected by Stena mself at p 421) He thinks however that the Samvat era u used so that tbe date of composition of the commentary would be 1438 A D Dut Sridbar Bhandarkar (Report of Second Tour 1904-6 p 36) » probably night an bold og that the Saka CTA 25 used in wb ch case the date of the commentary would be 1572 AD See Sansir Poet as I pp 251 52 1 Although Ananta Pand ta 19 a fairly late writer belong ng to the 17th century bus pative place was near Abroadoagar (see Sanskri Poates 1 P 251) and its probable that bas anterpretation was based upon some current tradtion for the older Nizam dynasty was all but ex Loct 10 his time That the explanat un is not a faceful Oncs Licated by the fact that Ananti himself gives immediately afterwards another (and th $ time as obviously fanciful) interpretation of the passage apply ng it Stukena yad sa nijak olmlyan oman prapnon niyamah $4 casau dharan palah duisaha-dángrad, y darakotved th: bhavah cradrah Srikra ty arthall 2 DNBg Fer shta a 2008 3 Briggs op 1 419 10 ·146 SOME PROBLEMS or SANSKRIT POETICS Ils somewhat surprising that Bhanudalta who describes Videha as his native place and represents the river Ganges flowing through his country' should eulogise a prince of Dekkan It is possible that at some time or other of his career he might have come to the South This would perhaps cxplain the fact of Bhanudatta's having more southern commentators than northern The lorslectron ndarbhablauch for videhabhach in some manuscripts of Rasa manjani indicates probably some tradition which connected him with Vidarbha although this was not his native place B N Bhattacharya refers to a tradition among Bihar Pandits that Bhanudafta s father wrote a work called Rasaraina dipela', and that his grand father śarlikara who wrote a commentary on sulharsa's Khandana khanda Ahadja (cd Pandır xni 672) Bourished about 1405 AD Although the dale of Bhanudatta s grandfather does not seriously conflict with the date of Bhanudatta proposed by us the tradition does not agree with Bhanudatta's genealogy as given by himself in bis humara bhargaviya" which tells us that the name of his grandfather was Mahadeva and not Sarikora In thuis genealogical account mention 15 made of one Sureśvara son of Ratnešvara who was an ancestor of Bhanudatta separated by six generations from himself and who wrote a Sarirala bhasya vurttika We need not identify with Eggeling this Suresvara with the famous Surcśvara who was 1 disciple of Sarkaracarya for this would 1 debo say a sidel abuh sura saris hallola kırı teh stanza 138 p 247 2 Sanskri Poel Cs 1 P 249 fa 2 3 Journal of the Dept of Lettres Cal Unit 1x 1923 p 163 4 Thus 13 pral the work cited by Bhanudatta in hs Rasa forang mi(ed Granthamåla on 31 ed Renaud p 44 13" The re marks on this work at p 745 of Sanskrit Peer CS BOF requ re correct on 5 Sanskr Poet os 1 p 243 6 fud a Offce Car of Senshri MSS v p 1540 where the genea los cal verscs are quoted in fult ·BHĀNUDATTA 147 unwarrantably push back the date of Bhanudaſta to a lime which would he inconsistent with other data furbished by his works As to the identity of Bhanudatta with the poet Dhanukara Har Datta Sarma' relies chiefly on the ascription of large number of Bhanudalta s verses to Bhanukara by some late Anthologies By far the largest number of Bhanudalta's verses are found assigned to Bhanukara in a compilation entitled Padya recana by Lakşmana Bhatta Alkolakara, but for this work its editors themselves (cd Kavyamala 86) would put claim a higher antiguity than a hundred years (between 1625 aod 1650) Of the other Anthologies the Rasika Jivana belongs to the 17th century, and the Subhasıta haravalı as P K Gode has shewn' 10 the end of the 17th century One would require more substantial evidence than the notori ously careless and confused attributions in modern compila tions of uncertain value 1 In Annals of BORI tv 1936 pp 243 58 See also on this quest on GV Devasthalt in New in Art qudry vi 1244 PP 111 17 TB Chaudhuri Muslm Patronage to Sanskric Learn ng Csicutta 1942 pp 2 32 1 See P K Gode in IOR Madras Xv 1940 pp 184 93 on the date of this anthology 3 In ABDA! 29 1935 pp 263-91 ·THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE A great deal of controversy has centred round the word Yavanika which signifies the curtain employed in ancient Indian theatre The object of this paper is not reopen the entire question but certain assumptions made since the time of Windisch Weber and Wilson appear to have received currency without much justif cation and a critical examination of certain relevant facts has therefore become necessary It is now generally admitted that the word Yavanıla can not be taken as an argument for proving Greek influence on the Indian stage or drama The word is taken to be a deriva tive from Yavana meaning Ionian the Greeks with whom Indians came into contact But since the word was not con fined to what was Grock alone and siace thero is po proof that the Greek mime had any use for the curtain it has been suggested that the word refers not to the curtain but to the material of the curtain for which the practice of using foreign cloth possibly Persian tapestry brought to India by Greck merchants is presumed But if should be clearly understood that there is no evidence to support this presumption even though it has been repeated 10 all recent text books on the subject The attempt again to remove this difficulty and derive the word Yavadika from the root yu (Jungti apoi anaya tt) is too ingenious to be seriously considered But it is important to note in this connexion that the word Yayanika as such is rarely recognised by old Indian lexicograpbers 1 1 Sten Konow Ind scle Drama (Bal and Le pz . 1920) P 4 A Berniedale Keth Sanskr i Drama (Oxford 1924) pp 51 359 M Watero tz Gesc! shte der id schen Literatur (Le pz & 1922) 1 PP 175 76 2TMTs path Commentary on Damodaragupta s K han maſa p 359 ·THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE is not included as a synonym of the curtain by Amara, Sasvata, Hemacapdra, Halāyudba, Yadava-prakāsa or Keśava In the second chapter of Bharata's Napa śāstra, where the construction of the stage is detailed, neither the word Yayanıkā nor any description of it occurs, but it is apparent. ly known, as it occurs later in 5 11-12 in the description of the elements of the pūrva ranga etāni ca bahir gitāny antar-yavanıkā gatash/ praz oktrbhth prayopyāni tantri bhanda krtāni tul! tataś ca sarva kutapaır yuktaryanyan: kārayet! vighalya vai yayanıkārt nryu pūthya-kriuni call This is the text given by the more recent Benares edition (1929) which does not notice any variant reading. but it should be noted that the older Bombay edition (1894) records the variant Javanika in both places, while the edition of Grossct (1898) reads Javanıkā in both places, only one of its manuscripts having the form Yavanika This variation of reading raises an important pornt, for the word Jayanıkā (and not Yavanıkā} occurs regularly in the lexicoase & of Amara (2 6 120 Halayudha (2 154) aud Keśava (p. 53, 61 300) as the name of a curtain, but not necessarily of the theatre curtain The commentators on Amara, rightly or wrongly, derive the word from the verbal root ju thus Kşırasvamın javanie syam juvanzha Sarvananda jar anam vego'sya astiti javanika Bhanuji Daksita javaty asyam. juh santo dhawuh gatau vege ca, lyu. Spārthe kan ted Batuknath Sarma and Baladev Upadhyay Kasbt Skt Series Benares 1929 The later works ve Dramaturgy (Dasarüpaka Nitya darpana etc ) do not throw aay fight on the question 2 ed Nurday Sagar Press Bombay 1894 3 Parts and Lyoo, 1898 4 Abhidhana ratna-mdia, ed Th Aufrecht, London 1861 5 Kolpadru kofa, ed Gackwad. Oriental Serves Raroda 1978 ·150 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS Similarly Hemacandra in his Abhidhiana-cintaman) (2 344) includes Javans as synonym for cortain and cxplains in the commentary jan ante sjam avant The word seems to bu old and occurs in the sense of theatre curtain in the lları yaifa 1 prek sagaranil rejur Javamhälscpaih sapals ia lhe nagal and in the Bhagar ata Purana (1 819) miya javanicucchannam ana dhoksajan avsajam) na lahsynse me the drśa najo natya dharo yarha!! Although the form Javanika is thus authenticated the etymology of the commentators is considered too fanciful and brushed aside by modern scholars who assume that the word Javanika is nothing but a Prakrilic form of the word Yava Duka' But it is clear that this assumption proceeds with the acceptance of the Yavanika lodian equation and thereby really begs the question There is yet a third form Yamadika which does not appear to have received any serious consideration Through the indgence chiefly of the Yavacıla Ionian theory this form has been summarily dismissed by Bohtlingk and Roth as a scribal muistake for Yavaoika and by Sten Lonow as mercly sccondary but it is recognised independently by Indian lexicographers and found in some manuscripts of Sanskrit plays and poems Thus Maheśvara: commenting on the passage quoted from Amara above (2 6 120) gives for the curtain the synonyms pratisiru javanika yamunka uraskaran (a fact wbich is noted in the modern Sabda kalpadruma). Bhanuji Dikşita cxplains further zamanuka in ta puthast samayan yana "paranc lyn and Sarvananda similarly notes dryfer uparatır ai ach 1 Ed Bombay 2 29 7 ed Calcutta 46-48 Io later Kavya the word occurs in $cupala adl a vy 54 Hara jaya al 38 ctc 2 But contrary P scheln Got ng sche gelerle anze gert 1891 D354-The Des nafta malag ves both ja an d (4 t) and ja ani (225) in the sense of screen hut oby ously these are der vatives respect rely of Sanskrtalon ka and ja oni 3 Agon Bombay cd 1896 ·THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN TILATRE 151 va yamantha Hemacandra in the passage quoted above commenting on the word favant adds yamanı ity opt la tbe absence of critical editions of Sanskrit plays and poems the editors of which usually adopt the form yavanıla' the cyt dence therefrom is uncertaia bat a few 10portant occurrences of the form yamanila may be noted here 10 Hillebrandt's critical edition of the Midra raksasa the reading accepted in two places in the stage direction is yamanila although the usual variants yavanila and javaniha ore also poted p 192,17 tatah pravisatı yamanı hayrta faruro mukhamatra disyaś canak yah p 193 1 11 Jur unikam apanıyopasriya In Megba prabhacarya's Dharmubhyudayaone of the stage directions occurs as yamanıkantarad yatı veşa dhari putrakas tatra sthupaniyah p 15 (no v I noted) In a verse of Bharirharı Sataka given in P von Boblen's edition (no 51)' and re produced in Bohtlingk's Indische Spruche (no 77915 the word preferred is javaruka jarê firnuir angair naga iva vall mandıra tanur narah sanzsarante visan yama dhari yavanılam but both von Bohlen and Bahtlingk conscientiously record the variae lectiones namely yainanıka and pavantha 1 The printed text (ed Trivandru » Skt Series 1914 17) evidently wrongly reads yavanskat 2 As jd Svapra vasava-dalia Acl y after sl 16 pafyamas tavad rupa Sodrsyam samko pyatüm yuvunika u Prur nuut the end of Act ut after $1 21 kañcukiyo yavan kastaronar karot Also Malavihaga in tra vi 18/19 As no variants are usually recorded it is not clear whether the editors of plays and poems proceed strictly on manuscript evidence or on a precuceived bas regarding greater desirability of the Yavanika fordi 3 Breslau 1912 KH Dhruva s edit on reads jayan ka which is translated as a fine coat of mail 4 Ed Jana Atropaganda Grantha-mali Scrics no 61 Bbavnagar 1918 5 Berlin 1833 The verse is ssing in Tetang sed t on (Bombay Skt Series Bombay 1893) 6 St Petersberg 1863 65 (ta 3 vols ) ·132 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS It is clear therefore that Yamamlá is as much a recogni sed form of the word for curtain as Jayanıtá and perhaps More than Yavanski If we accept the etymology proposed by commentators on Icticons the form Jayanıkā makes some sense boscvcr fanciful, while Yavanika derives its validity only from the rather far (ctobed explanation that it referred to the foreign material of the cloth The form Yomanila, on the other hand, perhaps males a better and morc natural sense. It is obviously derived from the root jam (1 1009). "to stop or restrain'. signifying a covering or curtain, and it would not bc unjustifiable to suggest that it was perbaps the original form, which is almost lost or replaced by the other two forms Yavanska and Jayanıkā That it is not a fictious derivative of lexicographers is clear from the fact that the word yamanı from which it is directly derived appears 10 be old, belog traccablc as far back as the Vāļusanez: Samhita (14 22) As thc Ranga pizha or stage appears to have had no wings' (as in modern theatre) the question of drop-curtain does not arise The curtain was presumably meant (there having been no scenes) to screen of the Nepathya grha or tining room which was behind the Ranga pitha or stage The cxact location of the curtais however is not given in the Nata fästra nor ia later dramaturgic works Wilson was of opinion that curtains were suspended transiersely so as to divide the stage into diferent portions open equally 10 the audience but screening one set of actors from the other" But this theory of transverse cutiain as Keith has already 1 Untess the two Mattaväranis whose function is obscure on the two sides of the Radga pubab acted as such, but this is very unl Lely Sec Maptad (Hindu Theatre in IHO viu 1932 pp 485 494 95) do 13 loc sed to believe that there were no Wings oor was there any dropcurtais tp ancest Indian stage The Malhaváranis ATC probably enta blatures 10 the form of elepbant wub up lifted trucks 2 The passage from Stapna sésava dania quoted abone un p 151 foot-pote 2 cannot be urged in support for the word yo antka there can be explained simply as a screen or verl which hides Vasavadatta from the king The first Act of Mfrechakaria again is not a relevant instance ·THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 153 pointed out lacks corroboration 3 The same remark applies to the conjecture of Monier Williams (Sakuntala, p 4) that the curtain was "suspended across the stage. answering the purposes of scenes, behind which was the space called Nepathya" We have only the authority of Abbinavagupta who, in his commentary on the Natya sastra! locates the curtain between the Ranga pıtha and the Ranga sirsa (ratra yavanika rongapitia tacchuşuyor madhye, p 212) But there is some difficulty in accepting this location The Ranga sirsa as its pame imples, was presumably the place at the bead or extreme end of the Ranga pitha ne between the Radga rotha and Nepathya grha Its usc is thus explained by Abhinavagupta tat pătranām vifruntyai agacchasan ca guptas rangassa sobhāydi ranga-strah karyam (p 63) But since the musicians are also allowed to sit there, it has been vrged that there is no point in making them sit behind the curtain, along with actors tired or about to enter , for the curtain in the position suggested would screen them off frou the Rango.pitha Evco allowing that the orchestra may be screened of there is Do point in making tired or entering actors sit there when the returiog room is just immediately behind This might have been the case in Abhinayagupta's time, but so the original plan of the theatre given in the second chapter of the Nora fastra, 1bc curtain appears to bave had no place there, and its absence is perhaps 1a conformity with the original practice of musicians sitting openly in the Ranga str$3 in the face of these difficulties it 15 not possible 10 determine exactly th: position of the curtain, but it is not unlikely that its employ ment was meant (as Narya sastra, Bombay cd 12 23. Benares cd 33 23, indicates) lo screen od the way of entrance of the actors from the laring room to the stage But siace thc Nepathya gha u alloned to hanc two doors for . for here obviously we have to imagine it shifting ones which ale place in Cärudatta , house and in the street outside and such omstid scencbifting is common cnough in Sacsint plays IEJ Gacknad Orkatal Scho Baroda 1926 ·154 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS entrance of aclors (háryan diara-dvajant catra nepathyasplakasza tul)' apparently into the Ranga-sirşa and thence to the Ranga pitha it has been sometimes presumed that there must have been two curtains covering the two doors But if Abhinavgupta s view is accepted, the curtam, suspended across between the Radga pitha and Ranga sirsa would have screened off the entire stagc from the Nepathya grha with 115 two doors, thus forbidding the necessity of any presumption of two curtains for th: two doors There is again no ground for assuming that the curtain was parted in the middle, or that the actors cntered through the parting drawn asıdc At least, no such description or reference is found 10 dramaturgic texts The curtain appears to have been simply tossed aside when actors entered Even in the case of burried abrupt or violent entrance the position of the curtain, whether between the Radya puha and Radga suça or between the Ranga fırsa and thc Nepathya grba, would not binder it The stage direction for burried entrance apari ksepena prantsant would, therefore stmply mean "enters without a toss of the curtain Some of the commentators however explain the phrase differently Quoting Halayudha, who gives Apatı As a synonym of Patı or Javanıkā (apati kundapafalt sjal pratısırä jara zuka 2 154). Raghavabhalla (on salurala 11 and vi) cxplanos arası ksepenetz trasharant traskurencly orthal Katyavema's explanation is similar harsa fokudi sorbhranta Jukrasja ngjasja praiesah pajak sepena krnate This inter pretation would imply that normally the entrance of actors was cffected by drawing aside the curtain but in the case of hurried entrance the curtain was tossed aside But samhara Appears to agree with our view when he says apart Asepena | Atrasrdaga firça from the cnntext Bharata Ndrya-fastra Henares ed 70 Abhinavagepta explains tp 68) detra-drajam ca 144ga Sırast nepathya gata patra-pracoyo The position of the doors rather obscurcly giveD 11 discuski by Vaskad at pp 489-90 ·THE CURTAIN IN ANCIENT INDIAN THEATRE 155 alasmad ily alhah pați kşepo na kartaya arta raja pra vesayoh !!! bharatah (we have not been able to trace this quotation in the present text of Bharala) "That tie curtain was tossed aside when actors entered is ardicaled by thic following passage from Bharata s daya sastra (cd Dombay 12 23 ed Benares 13 23) Jatha marga rasopelan prakritiam pravešane di rivayum sampravytiazar i paze canapalarsited/ karyah praveśah putranan narartha rasa sa blastly Tlc 4539ge from Damodaragupta s Kupjani mata cited by Mandad (p 494) need not go against this view de toss ng of the curtain being indicated equally by the words äl.septa apaharşıta or apanile Bohtlingh (Sakt ntola e Bonn 1842) has a long note after the conventators on this stage disco tion (Act Iv p 46 p 208) but this was willen lang before definite knowledge of ancient Indian stare was available Mundi Conm Vol pr 1 (D! dryi V dyd ux 1945) ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA The recently published English translation of Bharata's Napa-sästral by Manomoban Ghosh, as well as P. V. Kane's Icyised History of Sanskrit Poctics prcfixed to his new edition of the Sahitya darpana reopens some important questions about the text, one of which is the much discussed problem of Bharata and Adi Bharata As early as 1912, P. R Bhandarkar first pointed out that "Raghavabhatja mentions a work called Ādı Bharata" and that "MS with the name cxists in the Mysore Oriertal Library" An actual examination of the MS in 1932 by PK Gode, however, revealed thc fact that the work which the Mysore MS contained was nothing more than the Naryn. Šāstra of Bharata itself This is what P K Gode gives as the result of his cxamination The MS is described in the Catalogue of the Mysore Oriental Library (1894) as follows 590 श्रादिभरतम् श्रीभरताचार्यप्रणीतम (474) T5% 5094941 With the kindness of the Curator of the Mysore Oriental Library I was able to get on loan the so called MS of the ide Bharata tallying outwardly with the description of the catalogue given above On actual examination. however, this work in Andhra characters turned out 10 be a regular MS of the Narya sastra in an incomplete condition, only 15 chaplers being estant in this copy with a lollo of matter from the 6th chapter Gode further notes that the colophon to the first, as well I Bibliotheca Indrca Calcutta 1981 Third edilien, Bombay, 1951 3 Indrar Antiquary, ah p 158 4 ADORI, Xul, pp 92-93 ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 197 as the last 15th chapter, rightly gives the name of the work as Bharatiya Natya sastra The evidence of this MS, there fore, becomes useless a establishing the existence of an independent work of the name of Ād. Bharata But in 1970. Manomohan Ghosh' collected and discussed the quotations from Adi Bharala as well as from Bharata, found in Raghavabiatta's commentary Artha dyoranıhu on Kalidasa's Abimana sakunala? He gives nineteen quota tions from Adi Bharata. of which, however as many as twelve are traceable in the present text of Bharata s Narya Sastra Of the remaining seven guotations four are, in Ghosh's opinion, uptraceable and three have parallels in at Of mine quotations from Bharata seves are shown to be directly traceable Raghavabbayfa appears to have been fauly widely acquain ted with works and authors on Alamkāra, Natya and Samgita" Besides Bharata and Ādi Bharata, be quotes (ed NSP) for instance, from Bhamaha (p 10) Kāvyadarsa (p 19,68), Udbhala (p 110). Vāmava (p 3, etc), Dhvankāra (p 11, 110), Maluma bhatta (p 44, 67), Sarasvatrhanthabharana (p 19.98) Bhoja (p 73 199) Rajanaka Mampata (p 85), Rajapaka Rucaka (p 38, 161, 193), Rucaka (p 179) Abhinava bhārati (p 6 20) Dašarūpaka (p 6 8 50, 33, 84 110, 146 189 195, 204. 225 226, 230), Dhanika (p 8 20, 51, 64, 113). Matrgupta or Mātrguptacārya (all verse quotasions p 7,8 9,13 15.20 57, 62, 74 110, 126, 151, 154, 156, 199, 230) Natya darpana (p 6) Nagya pradipa (p 6), Natya locana (p 7), Bhava prakā sika ( 7. 9.168) Rasarnaya sudbakara (p 114 17:), Sudha 1 HQ 1930 pp 75-80 2 Our references are to the 8th edition Norway Sagar Press Bombay 190. 3 Gbosh appears to have overlooked ono quolation from Adu Bharata on p 168 which deals with Niyatapti This makes the tots! number of Ragbayabhatta's quotations (enty 4 liis citations from grammatical lexical polical and dramaabc WLW.Whet ·158 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS hara (p 8, 13, 15 33, 35, 58, 69, 73 75 84. 113. 163. 188, 254), Sariigita sarvasva (p 6). Sanigita sudhanidhi (p 242), Samugula ratnakara (p 191, 209, 229) Nagara sarvasva (p 50). and Ratt-vilāsa (p 76) Raghavabhaga's date is not known but since the latest work he quotes is the Rasárnaya-sudhākara of Siniga bhupala, he could not have flourished before 1330 AD By following a different line of investigation P K Gode arrives at a more precise date of Raghavabhatta in the . Jast quarter of the 15th century (1475 1550 AD) This is a fairly late date, and since a very large number of his quotations from Adi Bharata are directly traceable in Bharata's Narya sastra, his testimony cannot be taken as conclusive But at the same time it is clear that whatever may have been its character, some text or author under the name of Ādi. Bharata was known to bit, as distinguished from Bharata from whose Napsa sastra also be makes iodependent citations The only other work which purports to give us a portion at least of an Adi-Bharala' is contained in a curious MS, cxisting in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute and entered on its Catalogue under the title Natya sarvasva dipika An account of this MS was given by DR Mankad', but since he was unable to come to a definite conclusion and since 1 Calcutta Onental Journal to 1936 pp 177-84 Raghavabhalta wa Maharastra Brihman whose falher Pythvidhara Bhaita migrated to Benares before 1450 A D He was also the author of the Padartha darsa commentary on the Tantric work, Sarada tlaka (cd hashi Sanskrit Series 1934) 2 slamkrishna ayu(cd Adina Justra GOS 1. P S of the preface) states that he possesses a fragment of a work called Sad3duva bharata which according to hom may be the Adı Bharata But he gives no account of tt for does he appear to have consulted the Mysore and 'oona MSS Similarly he speaks of a Viddha Dharata in 12000 granthay Journal of Andhra HRS IN D 23) Dul thcsc statements are not authenticated 1 Descriptive Carologare of Manuscripts in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute xl (Alaskan, Sathgita and Natya) 1936 4 ABORI il 173 ·THE PRONLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 159 it has a bearing on the Adı Bharata problem we give bere a detased study of the MS which is necessary for understand ing the value of its testimony The MS obtained on loan through the courtesy of the Curator of the Bhandarkar Institute consists of 61 foltos size 10 x8 written in clear and bold Devanagari characters on caunliy made paper with marginal borders suled in double red lines having generally 10 to 11 lines to a page The general appearance of the MS 15 not old Other notable characteristics of the MS are folios 1 5 contain a list of contents in three columns separated by double red lines and read at the end इति सक्तप्रकरण सपूर्ण foho 6 begins the text with the Mangala verce श्रीनाथवावपतिमुराधिप fata, folos 12 13 and 14 are numbered twice but the re peated folios contain different inatter folio 14 which abruptly breaks off without completing the matter in hand is left three fourths blank thereafter the repeated folio 12a blank the repeated folio 120 begins the text again with trourt HT And another Mangala verse विष्णु लोकगुरु प्रपाम्य शिरमा, folios 26 29 and 44 are not numbered folio 49b breaks off abruptly without completing the matter and leaves one fourth of space blank folio 476 is blank after folio 47a ends with fa 75E UT ATT folio 4BA begins with Angabbinaya folhe 57b crds with श्रीरामाय नम सीतालक्ष्मणभरतरानुनहनुमसमेतभी TUR , leaving the page raif blank the last folio 61a ends with इति श्ररास्त( )दस्तप्रकरण ममाप्त ॥ श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ॥ धीरस्तु ॥ leaving three fourths of the page blank 61b ss blank and bordered with flowery design It will be clear even from this brief description that the MS is neither continuous nor complcic But what is no noticed in the Catalogue as sell as by Mankad is that it is a composite MS written at least by two different hands la this respect it oprears to consist of different units or frag ments of 10x1 for tht Srst hand appears on follor 1 14 (cndo!

·160 SOWE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS Samayaya skandha) 26 (beginning of Purvaranga) -47 and 58 61 the second hand is d stinctly seen on folios 15 25 (end of Adhy 6) and 48 57 At the outset there is a curious list of contents (folios 15) prefixed to the work and called Samleta pralarana We shall see that in the beginning of the text itself there is a similar account of the contents and the section is called Samketa dhyaya The lists give a total of 5 Shardhas 32 Adhyayas and 221 Prakaranas covering the entire work They are enumerated thus Samavaya sLandha Adhyaya 6 Prakarana 54 Siksa skandha Adhyasa 6 Prakarana 69 Bhava nirupana skandha Adhyaya 11 Prakarana 53 Ullasa skandha Adhyaya 6 Pralarana 34 Varseska skandba Adhyaya 3 Praharana 11 5 Skandhas Adhyaya 32 Prakarana 221 The prefixed list of coplents (folios 1 5) ends with the words THC or margio probably secunda manu] CUTI अस्य प्रथस्य नाम नाट्यसर्वखदीपि We shall see that so far as the text 13 available the contents as detailed here do pot actually conform to the matter respectively dealt with in the work atself As the pagination and handwriting are conti TUOUS 16 cannot be said 15 at this prefized list was compiled and added later on But it is curious that it contains words like Pralaranalu (=Prakarananı) Dęsts bhedalu (-Drst) bhedah) Str: sthanakalu (=Stt sthanakanı) etc where the Telugu plural affix I. undoubtedly indicates its Andhra Origin After this comes the text of the work itself which com mences os folio 62 but the MS is corrupt and incorrect throughout It begins thus [fafio 6IJ श्रीनाथनापतिसुराधिपसेपिनाधि सिधूरभासुरतनुगिरिजासहाय ।

·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 161 कोटीरशेखरविधु करुणारसाब्धि मा पालयेत्सरशिवः प्रियशाकरस्थ ॥ एपा ग्रन्थकर्तुस्सोपासितदेवताध्यानानुरूमा नान्दीति नरपति () केषा- चिनान्या पदनियमो नाभ्यु(प)गत । आशीनमस्किया वस्तुनिर्देशो वापि तन्मुखम् (Dandin 114) इति प्रामाण्यात् । तत आशीर्वादनान्दी करोति- भ्ररयद्विश्वभराणि भ्रमितभुवनभृत्कुम्भिकुम्भीनसानि बुट्यत्ताराणि रिखद्वरणिधरशिर थेणिशीर्यद्रसन्ति । दिकीर्णोदन्वतोये द्रवद्रमस्वमूवकचश्चद्वियन्ति व्यस तु म्यापदस्क () त्रिपुरविजयिनस्ताण्डवाडम्मराणि ॥ एषा आशीर्वादरूपा नान्दी। श्रन प्रारम्भग्रन्धार्थव सूचित । सय नमस्कारनान्दी च करोति- मानिक भुवन यस्य वाचिक सर्ववाहमयम् । हार्य चन्द्रवारादि तनमस्सासिक शिवम् ॥ एव नमस्कारनान्द्यामपि धारब्धग्रन्थार्थजातकच (1) भवति । अनन्तर वस्तु निर्देशप्राधान्यो नान्दीमाह- ब्रह्मा तालधरो हरिस्तु पटहो वीणाधरा भारती घशास्सी शशिभास्करी श्रुविरता धौरवमेते स्थिता । नदी भृतिरिटी मृदङ्गलतितो गेयो गुनिस्तुम्बुर श्शभुतकराम्बुजो विजयते नाट्य सदैव मजे ॥ Etalia 6b) एव शिवस्य नाट्यसामाजिकनिरूपरणादयतहासप्रकटनीय- वस्तुनिर्देश दिनक्षित वाभवत् । इद नाट्यमह सदा भजे इत्सव निरन्तरा भ्यायाप्रत्यक्षानुभन इति भाव । एव तिमि श्रोत्रिविधनान्दी सूचय- निमिपरिसमाप्त्यर्थ विघ्नेश्वर स्तौति- विनध्वा तनिवारणकतरणिविमाटवीहव्यवाट विनोसनागिरिप्रभेदनपनिर्विनाधिकम्मोद्भव । विनायौघपनयनएदपवनी विभपञ्चाननी विनव्यालकुलप्रमत्तगहडो विघ्नेश्वर पातु न ॥ After another Namaskriya to Bbumi devi, we have prelim: nary remarks on the subject matter of the work (fol10 6b) 11 ·162 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS एवं' नमस्तस्य ततः शहारम्भ समानोत् । श्रादी भरतशब्दार्थस्वरूप विषयोति- भकारो भावसंयुक्तो रेपो रागाश्रितोस हि। तकारतालसहितसादरत उच्यते ॥ Ifolio 7a] तो भाव इति वृतं राग इति गीतं ताल इति वाय तम्माप्तीर्यक्षिकं भरत इति व्यत्तरात्मशब्दस्य भावः। खरूपमाह- गीतं विष्णुस्वादप' तु पायं ब्रह्मात्मक तथा । नृतं शिवात्मकं प्रोड वढो भम्या प्रयोजयेत् ।। एवं लिमूर्तिखरूपत्वाद्वेदस्वरूपं च तदिति विरणवानो- जात पायो ऋग्वेदायपोऽभिनयस्तथा । सामवेदाद्भवेद् गान' मृत्तमायणातवम् ॥ एवं नृतगीताधागिनयताला: देवतावेदखरूपत्वाच्छाम्रप्रामाण्यरहितकरणादोपः सभवतीलाह- श्रुतिर्माता पिता गोतं वाद्य चैव मुतो भवेत् । तालसादोदरस्तस्य कललं रसपद्धतिः॥ एतत्कटुम्य कथित नाव्यम्य पुरुपस हि। एकेन हीन' न्यून' स्यात्प्रयोक्का दोषभाग्भवेत् ॥ In this way. after elaborate sastra prasarasā, the work refers to the mythical origin of the Šāstra, and proceeds to give some information about its own purpose and its author (folio 7b): तदेवदागम वच्मि तोके भरतसंज्ञकम् । आदौ महानट, शभुक्तवान्ब्रह्मणे स्वयम् ॥ नाव्यवेद' ददौ साङ्गं भरताय चतुर्मुसः । ततो धीमान्भरदमुनि कृतवान् शानमुत्तमम् ।। गाना स्वेनैव लोशना हितोपकरणाय । तस्मालोके भरतमिति' प्रसिद्धमभवकिल ॥ तच्छुत्वा भरवं शास्त्र गन्धर्वाप्सरसा गणाः । ततश्च गौवार्या सर्वे भरत प्रशाशसिरे ।। 1 The Pada is metrically defective (hypermetrics ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 161 ततो मुनि शामिततकराव गैलादिर बोइलदत्तिलादि । इत्यादिराझूतलवासिनां च राज्ञा जनानामुपयोज्यमेतत् ॥ तदान शिथिलीभूत जनैचित्तप्रमादिभि । पुनरधारयाम्यद्य प्रनया दैवलब्धया ।। स शास्त्रोद्धारक इत्याशङ्कय नारायण शुद्धशिवश्रीरामानन्दयोगिराट प्रभुदीरस्यागी विद्याभोगी द्रो गुरुदयो हि पोडशैतानि नामैकमेक्स्यैव भविष्यति (folia 8a) इति अन्यकर्तुर्भविष्य च रहस्य (०)। इदानी प्रस्तुतोपयोग मनुसरमाह-- वैद्यप्पमन्त्रितनय कोकिलाम्बाउनुभव । नारायणा सिद्धशिवयोगिराजो विराजते ।। वरकोटि कतपूडियशजो प्रभवेता ज्ञा(अ)सकलमुक्लीवत्सगोत्र क्वीद्र । भरतमखिलमापस्तम्बसून पवित्र स्फुरतरमकरोस योगिनारायणार्य । देवरस नामेसकरो'नाव्यसर्वखदीपिका । सग्रहीतुस्तस्य कवेरारम्भस्मूच्यते तत ।। वैद्याइय खगुरुनाथमह प्रणम्य सम्पद निधाय हृदि साम्बशिवाडि पद्यम् । सस्नुस देवमुनिपूर्वकवि मुदामु व्याक्तुमादिभरत स्फुटमारभामि ॥ This rather long quotation from the beginning of the work 15 given not only because it will give some idea of its mode of composition which consists of verse karika and running prose commentary but also because it furnishes ar formation about the author or authors and the purpose of tbe work It would appear that the MS contains the text of what is called the Adi Bharata along with its commentary called Natya sarvasva d pika The author of the Adi Bharata appears to be Nara 1 As the metre is Mal ni the tead ng Tas nuggested 2 MS नामेति करो ·164 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS yana or Narbyanatya, also called Rāmipanda Siddhasıya Jogurēja, who was the son of the minister Vaidyappa and his wife Kokulamba, and belonged to the Varakofikalapüdı family of the Vatsa gatra The name of the author of the commocalary is not given, but he bows to his preceptor, named Vaidya, before he commences his cxposition of the Adı. Bharata which is apparently a late work of South Indian origin As no other MS of the so called Ādı Bharata is available we will have to examine the subject matter of the work itself. as presented by our MS, and God out, if possible. () whether our MS contains the entire Adi Bharata, along with its commentary, or gives only a part of it, and () whether the MS contains a continuous and słogle work, or fragments of differ. ent works, Og folsos 8a.lla we have a general synopsis of topics dealt with in the work in the order of Skandhas Adhyayas and Prakacanas The section is called Samketadhyāya Although less detailed, it corresponds generally to the prefatory list of contents(hereafter called Contents) given on folios 1-5. of which we bave spoken above, It is entirely in Anuştubh of Sloka metre, with no prose commentary A verse towards the end (folio 105) says that all this was taught by Siva himself उदिष्टेनेवमेतावच्छभुनवोपशिक्षितम् । and then summarises the extent of the work thus (folio (Ob) सर्वाणि भरते मामोद्देशप्रकरणानि तु । तत्रैवविदिशत द्वात्रिंशाभ्यायसप्ठ्यकम् । सोकाना पसहस्राणि पत्र कन्या विनिर्मिता ॥ 1 Abhinavagupta Bbāralı cd GOS p 8) Ilform us that Sadasiva like Braha is sometimes spoken of by some teachers who were foremost among Nistikas (náslate-dhuryopadhyayah) as one of the expounders of the Natya Stra' Saredatanaya also refers to Sad diva (f! 152) Apparently Abbinavagupla conuders stich Sad5fiva Bharata to be heretical!

·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 165 समपायखत शिक्षा साधो भापनिरूपणम् । उल्हासो वैशेषिक इति स्वधानामेष निर्णय ॥ एतत्प्रकरणानां च क्रमादेकैकश स्फुटम् । सर्वेषा पूर्वशास्त्रोक्त तरण परिकी र्यते ॥ This enumeration corresponds with that given in the pre liplinary Contents namely that the work contains 5 SLandhas called respectively Samavaya Siksa Bhava nirupana Ullasa and Vašeşıka 32 Adbyayas and 221 Prakaranas in 6 000 Slokas Then we have an interesting passage in which different traditions of the Sastra as well as the scope and character of the present work are mentioned (tolio 106) भरता बहुधा सति मान्दिसारखतादय । रोषा प्रमाणमादिश्च भरतस्स उमापति । अतएवादिभरतपरार नटन स्मृतम् ॥ नाटकास्तु कयामाया दशहपकमज्ञका । शैलूषसूतधाराय पुत्तिाप्रतिमादिभि । बेपभापाविकारादिकल्पनाभिवहूकता । तसादुदस्य नृतस्य प्रमाण न भवति ते ।। नटन नाटिकाना च तेषा कारगामेव हि । तमानाव्यस्य शुद्धान शाससिद्ध प्रवक्ष्यति ।। The purport of this passage seems to be that there are various Bharata Sastras of which the authority as well as the original 1s that Bharata who is Umapati (1 e Śiva) Hence dancing is known as the mode of Adı Bharata Tbe Natakas called Daſarupakas which consist mostly of words and are Yanously represented by actors etc are not the standard for pure dancing (Nitta) which is indeed the source of both Natakas aod Natikas Hence this work speaks according to the Sastra of the unmixed element of the Natya (napicly Nrtta) In other words Nrtta is believed to be the proper 1 The Padas bypermetro 2. We are taking the word Najana he e as coa valent to Nitta below wh ch is essent ally tála layas da accord ag to Dhagan aya ·166 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS subject matter of the present work, and the varieties of Natatas, known as Dasarūpakas, have no place in it. This statement is indeed borne out by the Contents (op folios 1-5) where no Rūpala prakāra, for any mäler directly bearing on it, is found, this is also confirmed, as we shall sce, by the topics actually dealt with in the rest of the present work available in our MS This, however, raises a dificulty The ayowed object of the Adı Dharaia damely, that its treatment is entirely confined to NȚtta, docs not appear to be consistent with bat is rcvcaled in the text of the adi Bborata as it was known to Raghavabhaga Most of Rāghavabbajja's quotations, which are to be traced also in the present text of Bharata's Nāpya sastra, dcal with the topic of Ripaka, rather than with that of Nitta For instance, the quotation on p 6f deals with construction of the stage. Sibäpala and Sutradhata, on p 15,69 with elements of the plot Bija Brodu etc, on p 23 with Upakscp3 on p 69. 115 with Prayatna and Garbba samdhi, on p 15,21 witblatguage to be employed in case of different characters, op p 40 with Patakā stbânaha, on p 168 wuh Niyataptı, on p 248 with Nirvahana sardhi I would appear, therefore, that the text of the Adı Bharata known to Raghavabhalts, which in its subject malter greatly overlaps the present text of Bharata's Napa Sastra was probably not the same text as the Adi- Bharata found in our MS, which is devoted exclusively to Nrtta, and not to Natya There 13, bowser, a passage of four lincs 10 one of Raghavabhatta's quotations from his ādi Bharata which almost literally agrees with a passage of four Fines (folio 13a lines 35) in our tert of the Adı Dbarata It speaks of the characteristics of a Sabhya thus Raghavabhatta's quotation (p 9) मध्यस्था सादधानाच बाम्पिनो न्यायवेदिन । तुटितातटिताभिशा विनयानन्धरा । गर्वा रसभावशास्त्रीय वितयकोविदा । सद्भावनिषेदारपतुरा मत्परच्छिदा।

·168 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS continues up to folio 14b, bot breaks of abruptly leaving the rest of the page blank On the corner of the right hand wargin of folto 146 we have (probably secunda manu) the caption नाट्यसर्वख Thereafter the folhos are numbered over again as 12 13. and 14, of which folio 12a is left blank, but the subject matter of the repeated folios is not the same The repeated folio 12b begins afresh with श्रीगणेशाय नम and another Man. gala verse as follows विष्णु लोकगुरु प्रणम्य शिरसा परमार्गरादर्शक वीग्रिीतिकर जनस्य लघुना फालेन कामप्रदम् । सेव्य समतिभिर्ध तालुतपदन्यासातलोकतय तालाना क्थयामि लक्षणमह पूर्वोकशासक्रमात ॥ Only on this verse there is prose Anvayattba but thic Karikaform in Apustubh or Sloka mctre continues thereafter, and ends on the repeated folio 14b with the colophoa इति श्रादि भरतशास्त्रे समवायस्कन्धे नाट्यसवैखदीपिकाया सभोदारादिपरेण्यान्ताराप्रकरण नाम द्वितीयोऽध्याय ॥ श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।। श्रीराम ॥ The marginal caption Tourist occurs again (apparently secunda mann) on the repeated folo 13b, but it should be noted that with the exception of three lines of Anyayartha on the Mangala verse mentioned above the text is not accompanied to these folos by any runding prose comncptary The text continues 16 Agustubh mette, without any com mentary up to tolio 18a and ends with the colophon इति धीमदादिभरते ममदायस्कन्धे नान्यसर्वस्वदीपिकाया भाचार्यनगदि मार्दशि- कान्त नवप्रकरण नाम तृतीयोऽध्याय ॥ The next fourth chapter deals generally with the topic of Tala 1 Atussubh metre (without any commentary), but it is not clear where it ends, for no colophons found The colophon to the fifth chapter occurs on folio 23a as follows इत्य रचितोऽन भरते महापञ्चमस्त्वान्ध्रवची ऽप्यविहितो युधेनाथ अध्यायरो न्वेद (6) पदस्सटीको है राज (१) नारायण सिदशिवयोगिनाघेन सममन्दयपदेन रम्य हि इति पचमार्ग || Parts of this colophop which is faithfully transcribed here, 15 ngt intelligt ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 169 ble, but Gode conjectures that it was written by the scribe who transcribed the original work in Andhra characters (audhra vacah) ato the present Devasāgasi copy The Dext sixth chapter, which begias on folio 23a 1a Aausțubh metre (witbout any commentary) ends on folio 25 with the following colophon नारायण सिद्धशिवरामान दयोगिराज- विरचिते आदिभरते नाख्यानां नाय्यानसाममशदि हस्तादिदेवतान्त सप्तप्रकरण निरूपण' नाम षप्तोऽयाय ॥ श्रीरामार्पणमस्तु । श्री ॥ It is notable that the Natya sarvasva dipika u pot mentioned in this as well as in the previous colophos to the fath chapter Here ends the first Samavaya skandha The next seventh chapter begins on the unnumbered folio 26a with the topic of Purva ranga in the same manner in Apustubh or Sloka metre and without any prose commentary and ends on the undum bered folto 28a with the following colopbon sfarzetta Port EFFOqF7F5T9T ESTE TIETETTUAT- निरूपण नाम सप्तमोऽध्याय - The next eighth chapter begess on the unnumbered folto 28a with the topic of Natya sharura similarly in Apustubb metre and without any commentary and ends on folio 32b witb this colophon sfer feed fxterno स्कन्ध नाम्पसर्वस्वदीपिकाया माध्यमेदप्रकरण नाम अष्टमोऽध्याय ॥ Here ends the šiksa skandha of which only two out of six chapters are given here After this the next folio 33 should have taken up the topics detailed in the Contents under the rest of the Siksa skandba or under Bhava nirupana skandha. but the topic actually dealt with does not cor respond It deals in Apustubh metre and without any commentary with 23 Lasyangas of which only 15 are defined and the folo 336 abruptly breaks off without completing the topic IC 18 Dot know whether all this should come under 1bc remaining portion of the second Siksa skapdha or usder The third Bhava pirupana skandha for the Contepts mention a variety of topics for the Siksa skandha and give 12 Hasta 1 Catalogue p 454 ·176 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS dyadaša pranah 30 Asanyuta hastah and 16 Samyata hastah as the subject matter of the first Adbyaya of the Bhava Dirupana skandha A fresb text appears to begin from folio 34b (folio 341 bieg lett blank) with the repetition of the Mangala verse विश्णु लोक्गुरु प्रणम्य शिरसा (see abovop 168) No colophon occurs hereafter up to the end of the MS As tbt settesSIYC colophons up to this point show there is a kind of bomogeneity of the text up to thc cighth chapter or up to the sccond chapter of the second Siksa skandha re from folios I to 32b and perhaps it continues a little till the text breaks off with folio 33 As far as the work thesc foltos contain goes it 13 more or less orderly and coherent But it should be noted that there is the intrusion of a Mangalaverse on folio 125 and what is more remarkable is that there 15 an almost complete absence of any commentary from folio 7a the text consisting almost entirely of Katika verses 10 Anustubh or Slola metre With reference to this portion of the text to refore the question arises that if the Adı Bharata is the origioal and the Natya sarvasva dipika is its commen tary the Karika verses may be allowed to coastatute the text of the original but where is the systematc commentary thercon? Curiously coough the Contents profess to index the Natya sarvasva digula and say at the end 2014 Theref97, but mention is made at the same time that (marx sec hand] *TUTETI I take notice of the marginal caption A12Ft appearing iwice on the repeated folios we should be inclined to take the Lantās as belonging to ao unknown Natya sarvasva of wbich the Natya sarvasva dipila is apparently the commentary Rut the dificulty is that the colophons to different Adhyayas say quite clearly इति आदिम नाव्यमर्यस्वदीपिकायां, the name Natya sarvasva alonc acver appeartog except in two doubl. ful captiong written probably by a different hand Or perhaps It is possible that the Ad: Bharata sell was called Masya sarvasva But there is hardly any trace of the commentary ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADS BHARATA 171 on these Adbyāyas throughout As no other copy of the text of the Adi-Bharata is available, the points raised cannot be finally determined: but we can state with some confidence that although the extent of the commentary and its exact relation to the text are uncertain, the text from folios 1 to 32b is at least one homogeneous whole. Turning to the text which follows on 346, we find that it commcaces afresh with RUTIN and the Mangala-verse Fang atra' kurz fcat repeated front folio 12a, with just a slight verbal variation The subject matter of what follows Is Tāla, in accordance with the last Pada of this Mangala. verse: ताताना कपयामि तक्षणमह पूर्वोक्शनकमात् । According to the Contents on folio 4a, the Tālas come under the heading Tála-vidhāna 10 the 7th Adbyaya (saplamādbyāyc tāla-vidbāge) vader the Bbāva-airūpana-skandha The Talas are also mentioned on foltos 14a and 18b But it should be noted that there are considerable differences between the topics enumerated in the Contents and those actually dealt with in the folios followiog 34a With Icference to thc Tālas these ſalios discuss Six Sihāgas (folio 35b), and then proceed to Tāla-prana mentioned thus as ten 10 number कालो मार्ग क्रियानि प्रहो जाति कला लय । यति प्रस्वारकश्वेति तालपाणा दश सता." Accordingly, the treatment of Kala-lakşana follows (folios 355-36a), $ix Mārgas are mennoned and defined (folio 36b), the total number of Mārga prakāras being givet as twelve Wc havc thcc tbe treatment of Kriya (folio 36b), Aoga (folio 36b), Graha (folio 37a), Jati (folios 37a 37b), Kală (folio 375) Laya (fulo 38a), Yatı (folio 38a) and 38b) These elements are given respectively as 8, 5, 4, 4,3,3,3 and 410 number. but it should be noted that the Contents (folio 4.) enumerate them respectively as 16, 6, 6, 5, 3, 4 6 and 4 The next dhe 328) evanesztes 101 Talze up thex Guru ·174 SOME PROBLEVS or SANSKRIT POETICS not entirely tally The MS ends fa 498 (516) SITU समाप्त ।। श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्त। धौरस्त॥ There is no final colo phon to the work It is clear from what is said above that these supplemen tary folios 44 to 6) contain fragments of threc or four unrelat ed texts on diverse topics one of which is actually a repro duction of a part of the Citradhyaya of Pharala s Narya sastra and the others have topics which are similar to its corresponding topics While the preceding folios give Iegular colophons to cach Adhyâya and Skandha these fragments are desord of them and do not appear to contain a single work From citations one fragment at least cannot be assigned to an early date From all this 11 13 reasonable to conclude that these fragments are hardly related to the fairly continuous text contained in the preceding foltos 1 33 and cannot be regarded as forming a copliquetros The foregoing description and discussion would point to the following conclusion (1) Raghavabhatta probably had some text called Ads Bharata before him which he distinguishes from that of Bharata But most of the quoted passages from his Adı Bharata are directly traceable in the printed text of Bharata or have parallels in it From his quotations it also appears that his Adı Bharata did not exclude the vacious topics of Natya of Dasarupala But snce the Adı Bharsta contained in our MS professes as well as aclually deals mainly with Netta and Sadigite and directly excludes topics proper 10 Natya or Dasarupala it cannot be taken as identical with Raghavabhaſta s text only one short passage of four lmes quoted by him being directly traceable 10 our MS (2) The text of the Adı Bharata presented by our MS professes to be a fairly extensive work consisting of 5 Skandhas 32 Adhyayas and 221 Prakaranas an ·THE PROBLEN OF DHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 175 60 siolas It was probably a late work of South Indian origin declared to have been composed by Nārāyana or Nārāyanārya, also called Ramānanda Siddhasuva-yogirāja. (3) It was chrefy a work on Nitta or Nrtya, as distin guished from Natya, contained no matter peculiar 10 works on Dasarūpaka, and probably followed a different tradition which is said to have origipated from Umāpati or Siva bimself If we accept Abhi navagupta's testimony, this tradition was regarded as ron-orthodox in his time Of course it knows Bharata as an exponent of the Natya sastra AI though some matters inevitably overlap, the preseat Adi-Bharata does not appear to have any direct Telation with the text of Bharata (4) Whatever may be its jatriosiC valuc, the text of Adi-Blarata presented by our MS appears to be contained in folios 1 to 33, but it is locomplete It gives eight chapters and ends with only two chapters (out of 81x) of the second Siksa skandha (out of the five declared Skandhas) It cannot be determined af the text is gives t extenso of sely is synopsis bere, but the text up to the post it goes is fastly orderly and coherent even it is often corrupt and 10correct (5) There are occasional prose comments especially at the beginning of this text which is written mostly 10 Anustubh or štoka Karika but there 15 po regular runding commentary The name of the work Adı Bharata, appears connected. In the colophons and also in the preliminary remarks with Natya sarvasva dipika which last appears to be the name of the commentary The name Natya sarvasva dipikä itselt would suggest the exsstence of a work called Natya sarvasva on wbich it might have commented It is sot clear if such a work existed or if the Ādt Bharata itselt went by the name Natya sanyasya ·172 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS lagbu nirnaya is spoken of on folios 39a 406 Then comes (folio 42b) the treatment of Sadikira tala (which ends on folio 43a with the remark FIERTAS Daganfarrent), and of Sladinah Guru laghu nirnayah (folio 43a) This is followed by the topics of Aştavıdha nayika (which should come according to Contents under Bhava nirupana shandba Adhy 3) and Dašavıdha-cumbana (which does not occur in the Contents) Here folio 43b ends abruptly without a colophon It is to be noted that this portion of the text from foltos 34b to 436 is watten generally in the form of Apustubh Karika but there are occasional short comments an prose and Occasional citations of authoritative works There are references to or quotations from the following works Samgita ratnakara (foljo 34b arstidufeyrt Pata FTT, folio 36a FEITAT), Sarhgitarnava tálakala vilasa (folio 34b) Samgıtarnava (folio 36a) Sargıta vidyaviqoda (folos 366 37a) Sangita cudananı (falto 37a) Tala kala vila sa (folio 37a) Sarligita mun darpana (folio 37a) Catura sabha Vilasa (folio 37a) Sarasvati kanthábharana (folio 38a) and Kohala mala (43a) Of these works of the Sariigita ratnakara be the well known work of the same name by Sarngadeya its date would be between 1210 and 1247 AD while if the Satugita mani darpana be the work of the same name by Catura Damodara son of Lakşmıdhara then it may be assigned to the second half of the 19th century It seems therefore that this portion of the text on our MS cannot be assigned to a datc earlier than the 16th century It will be scen from this brief description that although Souc of the topics dealt with would come partially under the Bhava nirūpana skandha (as deta led 10 the Contentc) the portion of the MS from folio 34b to fol o 436 which is marked by no distinguishing colophon is of a different 1 Kohalas lost work appears to have iafuenced the redactors of thuvas uz Satta Set S. X St Sanskru Foere: 1 p 23 TV Kanc jattoduction to steaed tion of Sahhadarpona (p 24) ·THE PROBLEM OF BHARATA AND ADI BHARATA 173 character and can hardly be regarded as forming an organic part or a legstmate continuation of the so called Adi Bharata text preceding it. It is perhaps a fragment from some other work on Nrtta or Saingita dealing generally as it does with the technicalities of Tala The same remark applies to the remainder of the text given 10 our MS from the uonumbered folio 44 up to the end on folio 61 This part of the text has a fresh beginning (folio 44a) with strongera a followed by a Mangala verse 10 Ganapatu namely विनध्वा तनिवारणक्तरणिविप्नाटवीहव्यवाट wbach bappens to be the fifth Mangala verse cccurring at the com mencement on folio 6 (see p 161 above) of the so called Adı Bharata The text which follows is written in Anusţubb Karika verse with hardly any commentary accompanying it Starting with the topic of Hasta lakşaņa (folio 44a) it proceeds to deal briefly with Ranga devata pujana (folios 446-456) Natya sala laksana and Sabbapati namaskara (folws 462 46b) and closes up with Hasta dvadaśa prapa (466-47a) which last topic the Contents include under Adhyâya 1 of the Bhava nitupana skandba Here the fragment ends and folio 47b is left blank After this from folio 489 to folio 51a we have a reproduc tion of the topic of Citrabhinaya of the prescot text of Bharata s Nutyo-sastra (ed Nirnay Sagar Press ch 25 ed Kashi Sanskrit Series ch26) but some of verses of the priated text of Bharata (eg verses 74 73a 85 131 of the NSP edition) are missing here The colophon eods (folio 51a) significantly with इति भारतीयोहरिताभिनय समाप्त ॥ From folios Sin to $7b pre have a description in Anuştubh metre (without commentary) of Hasta mostly of Asaryota wh ch follows but it is not ideot cal with that of Bharata The folo 370 three fourtbs of wbich is left blank closes with श्रीरामाय नम सीतालक्ष्मणभरतशन महनुमत्समेतश्रीरामाय नम After this folos 58 to 61 deal with the Viniyoga of Asamyula Haste wh ch follows Bharata genera}ly but does ·176 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS The author of the somewhat meagre commentary does not record has pame but he meations his preceptor Vaidya by name (6) An examination of the remaining folios 34 to 61 of our MS shows that they do not form a continuation of the work contained in folios 1-33 They present diverse disjointed fragments of text, ce of which is a direct reproduction from Bharata, while the others, having som passages corresponding to those of Bharata are presumably derned from some unknown source These, therefore, do not posses9 any value for our present coquiry. (7) The distinction between Dharata and Ad: Dharata 29 P V Kane tightly obscrvcs is made by comparatively late writers It should be remembered that the word Bharata came to scan an actor or dancer, and in course of tirde Bharata or Bharata. Sāstra came to signify works on Natya, Nrtya and allied topics It is possible, therefore, that to dis tinguish such late amorphous compilations from the older text of the sage Dharata. qualifying adjectives Iike Ādi or Viddbal came into existence, on the apalogy of the epithel Viddha applied in Nıtı sastra to Víddha Canakya or as P V Kade points out on the analogy of the epithets Vidha or Brhat applied to Viddha Manu or Dibad Vışau in Smyta literature They might have derived material from different sources, but they were, as these compilations themselves show nothing more than mere manuals to which were given such titles of a vague but high sounding character Without further material bus 13 all that can be concluded about Adi Bharata and its relation to the text of Bharata Our Heritage (Journal of the Research Dept. Calcutta Sarikat College) vol 1953 Saradatanaya (1175 1250 AD) hus Dhava prakafana refers to Bharata Vrdoba as well as to Bharata ·THE THEORY OF RASA IN SANSKRIT POETICS The theory of Rasa fikc the theory of Dhyant with which tt 18 intimately connected forms one of the most important aesthetic foundations of Sanskrit Poetics From its first appearance in tbe dramatic theory of Bharata down to its esta blishment as the soul of Poetry 10 the work of Visvanatha there has been a steady working out of the idea into a funda mental aesthetic conception and it is worth while to study the gradual unfolding of the idea through its fairly long course of history The dogma of Rasa apart from any theory thereon was naturally known to the old writers on Poetics but in the beginning it was taken into account only in connexion with the drama and its importance as one of the essential factors of poetic theory was not properly understood This importance was probably for the first time ably set forth by the Kash micran Anandavardbana in the ninth century and subsequently claborated wath such mastery by furs commentator Abbupayagupta that it became thenceforth as accepted fact in Sanskrit Poetics never ta be set aside by rival systems and improved only na detail by later speculations) But it can be easily shown that some theory of Rasa however undeveloped or even a Rasa School particularly 10 connexion with the drama was in existence long before the time of Ananda vardhana although the bearings of this theory on poetry in contradistinction to drama were seldom discuss ed The toportance of this dramaturgic Rasa School must bave beep somcwhat overshadowed by the dominance of the Alamkara and the Ritz Schools in the sphere of poetic theory but its comparative antigunly going back 10 a period even anterior to Bharata is undoabled) Dramaturgy however appears at first to bave formed a study by itself and cren among later writers only Vidyapatha and Viſvanatha thinkit 12 ·THE THEORY OF RASA 19 pent of the Rasa tlieocy wbuch Bharata, if Rajasekhara is cigkt. must bave borrowed and worked up into his own system That the Rasa theory was older than Bharata is apparent from the fact that Bharata himsell cites in chs vi and vil several Slokas in the Arya as well as in the Apustubh metres in support of his own statements, and in one place, he distinctly quotes two Arya Slokas from a chapter of an unknown work relating to the discussion of Rasa, It may be mentioned, however, that Kesava Misra, a comparatively recept writer of the 16th century speaks of one sutrakura bhagavun sauddhodanı, who according to him was one of the first 10 formulate the view that Rasa is the essence of poetry Nothing is known of this mysterious Sauddhodati apparently a Buddhistic writer except that Keśava Mišra op his own acknowledg ment, is following this old master, wbose views, as recorded 10 the Alankara Sekhara, do not seem however, to deviate 3 any material way from those of Mammata With Bharata on the other hand wc arrive at a distinctly definite landmark Long before the Dhwani School led by Car Cal 1276 11 59 206) on muske hestrionic art erotics gratimar and Tantra The writer on crotics s cited as Nandīšvara in Panca sayako (Bik Car 533 Peterson 1 110) who is supposed by Aufrecht to be the same as Nandas quoted by Vatxrayaca (18) but the Dails Nandakelvara is GLYCR En Rural asya (Oxf Cas 218a Schmidt Ind Dronik 1911 pp 46 59) See Schma dis remarks ibid 47 The work on bastriotic art atinbuted to Nanditesvara » called Abhinaya darpond (ed Manomohan Ghosb Calcutta Sansk Series 1934 En trs A K Coomapasardy and Daggirala Gopal Krishnayya with introd and Mustrations Nex york 1936) A Pork on music called Nandile vara mare taladhyayain Weber 1729 5ce also Madras Cat Ini 13006-8 where ention is made of Bharatūriava supposed to be a condensed rersion appareatly after Dharata of the work of Nagdikešvara by Sumal treat ing of dramatic gestures and salas Ses SK De Sansk i poemes i p 3 footnote 1 orărye rasa vicara mukhe ed Kāryam P 67 1 Ala kara-sekhara po 2,20 cte ·180 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS was Agapdavardhana and Abhinavagupta, dominant Bharata's views on Rasa seem to have been discussed in some detail with the result divergent theorie9 came to prevail under the names of Bhajta Lollața sabłuka Bhajja Nayaka and others all of whom appear 10 have been commeatalors on Bharata s Nofya sastral and 10 have therefore taken Bharata as their starting point As their discussion however, chielly related as we have stated above to the dramatic Art and as there existed side by side the riyal theories of the more 1 The view of all these writers whose works are now lost are knows from the exposit on of Abhinavasupla (followed by other writers • Mamoata Hewacandra Vidyadhara etc) who also cites some less known commentators such as Rahula or kabala and Bhatta Yantra This practically coincides with the enumeration of the different com mentators on Dharata by Sirugadeva as the source of his work (13th century set into to Anandasrama cd tion of the text) with the excep tion of the name of Udbbata mentioned by the latter i 1 19) It is curious that Udbbaja actually quotes (14 4) the first half of Bburata vi 19 enumerating the eight Rasas only making enough verbal change in the latter portion of the verse to admit sola as the finth Rasa in the category Rahula cted by Sarugadeya as one of his authorities (11 17) while Loltara and Sankuka belong to all probabil ty to the 8th and the 9th centuries Bbalta Nayaka does not appear to be very distant chronologically frasi Abhinava who is the oldest writes to quote baas and probably belongs to tbc cod of the Sth or the beginning of the 10th century a date which makes it likely that he identical 88 Peterson suggested (atro Sebhas p50) with the Bhatta Nayaka who is me troged by Kalbana (v 159) as baving Hourshed in the reign of Sashkara varman son of Avantsamaa of Kasbmit (sce RAS 1891 p 2%) Suudsram Sra in his Natya-prad parul of Cal ll 347) as well as Raghavabhatta spests of a commentary on Bharata by Matrguptäcarya who is also mentioned by Saregadeva as one of h s authorities ( 1 17) If this Matrgupta is the same person mentioned by Kalbapa (u 125 252) as hwng oder Hansa Vuktamadrya and referred to by Yasudeva on Karpu manjari (Aufrecht Car Cat , 448) as a writer on Alath then he must have been one of the carl est commentatory on tbe present day text of Bharata But th s View about the date of Algupta is YETY doubtful These points have bete d scussed in detail 10 Sanskri Pornes (vol ? 241) wh ch scd also ou questions of chronology om tcd as rule in th s art cle ·THE THEORY OF R454 181 1ofuential Alankara and Rith Schools who never realized its aesthetic importance the Rasa theory and its exponents never seem to have come into prominence until the adca was taken up by the Dhvani School and worked into its system In the meantime the dramaturgic Rasa School succeeded to a certain extent in reactiog upon and offencing the rival schools who were apparently forced to acknowledge Rasa and accord it even a subsidiary place in their general theory of Alakara or Ritt This will be evident from a reference to the standpoints of Bbamaha and Dandın the (wo earliest known writers on Poetics whose works bave survived Without going into details we may state that to Bhagraha the most important element is poetry ss Vakrokti whicb is appareatly identified with Atsayoktı and which probably means a kind of herghten cd expression which is the underlying principle of all poetic figures or Alashkaras Bhamaha does not seem possess a very clear notion of the fuaction of Rasa in poetry the only direct reference to it occurring in the definition of the figure rasavat which in his opinion should manifest the Rasas clearly, Rass is thus apparently included 10 the sphere of a particular Alamtāra and given a very subordinate place in bus system Commenting bowever on Bhamaha s central Verse on vakroha: II 85 sdışa sarvarva vakroktır andartlo bharjare Abhinavagupta attempts to read 1080 it his own idea of Rasa and Interprets vibhavyate in the technical scase as pramadodyanadr vibhapalat muyate višeşena ca bhavyate rasamayıkrıyata ? la orber words he takes Bbamaha to nicap that by Vakrokti the sense of poetry 38 rendered to a suitable factor of the Rasa so that by using the word vibhavyale with the meaning given to it by Abbinaya Bhamaba apparently implies that ut rasayad darf ta-speste ga ad nesen : Locand p 208 6 ·182 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Rasa as well as Alathkara originates in Vakroktı The scholastic speculation with regard to the origin and function of Rasa does not appear, bowever, to have started in Bhamaha's fue, and Bhāmaba, in common with Dandio, never uses the technical terms wbhāva, anubhūya etc. So familiar to later theorists On the other hand, Bbamaha s opinton scems to be that Rasa need not be invariably present 1 poetry, what must be present is Vakroktı) La v 3, 10 doubl. Phámaha spealsa of fāvsa rasa as mitigaliog the rigour of the Sastra, a sentiment which is endorsed by Rudrata' and wbich probably sospired the dictum of later writers that the Sistra is prabhu samma, while the Kavya is kanta sanumitaIt is probable that the phrase kāvyd-rasa is used here in the gencral untechnical sense of the Davour of poetry,' but if we read, withi Abhinavagupta, a technical mcaping onto 1at only shows that the cather authors were satisfied with assigning only this picasing and extraneous fuaction to Rasa The same remarks with regard to the recognition of Rast apply more or less to Dandın, but Dandın seems to be moro alıve to its importance tbon Bhamaha Like Bbāmaha Dandin allows Rasa to be tocluded in the poetic figures aod therefore assigns 10 it only a minor place in his system It may be contended that Dandin guies greater prompeace to Rasa by including it in one of the essential qualities (guna) of Jiction (ru), viz. in muda, wbich is defined as the $ 30 36 65-6, Y. 23 2 sudu kaya rajonnufra Sustrai apy upasure! prathamar dha-madhi al pidana kau bhesalom!! 3 x 1 2 4 Abhinaya uses the termos prubhu sama ind intra ter (Locana 1) bich is followed by Mammata (Kuya-pred Bombay Supsk Ser 1917 p 9) Later kriters destroguish (Elas oh rp 135) between the Vedas which are prabhu striimate the Itth.132 ct which art mira-tommia and the kávya which 16 Iania somniita 5 Locane P 182 ·THE THEORY OF RASS 133 establishment of Rasa in the word and in the object!. But from 1 292 11 appears that Dandin means by madhurya guna mere absence of vulgarity (agrāmyasa) and does not contemplate the inclusion of Rasa as such. This is zaade clear by 164 where agrāmya artha is said to be rasāvaha, as well as by the updaangama commentary on this point: mädhurya gune pradaršitak sabdarthwyor agrămyataja jāto raso vākyasya bhavali, alankāralajā nirdijai rasuvattvam asra. rasāyattam (p. 167), the last part of this passage callug attention to the fact that the only cascs, where the eglat Rasas are admitted by Dandia and which we shall discuss presently, occur in connection with his inclusion of thus clement la poetic figures like rasayar. The mudhurya guna, according to Dandu, may appcat sa two aspects, in so far as it creates vág-ruşu and pustu-rusa (1 51), the former consisting of alliteration of similar sounds (Śrutyanuprāsa) and the latter denoting abscoce of vulgarily (agrāmsara) Thus Hemacandra rightly explains Rasa in Dandia's mädhurya according 23 it resides in Vac or vastu, 10 this way Srett varnanuprasabhyarn ag rusah, agrumyablıdheyatā fu vastu rasah (p 198) The Rasa in madhurya, therefore, has a distinct techocal connotation different from that impartou to it by the exponents of the Rasa School A similar use of the term, which, however, Dandia does not caplam, as he does 11 this particular case, is to be foupd 18 EL 149 (or rv 26 in the Madras edition) wherс the phrase guram rasah should be interpreted, as it is done by Taronavacaspati, as sadhu vam ! Váci vaslutty or rara sthrah SI 2 See ! 51 67 Also Manutyacadra P 189 3 The modern commentators are sometimes musicd by best w ideas of Rasa and interpret Daigin in that light. For instance Promacandra commenting on Dandins exposition of the lanya-farina 101 10. Dotes laws anaal seria o dimnblautasya rapida syo pa sya daha thuto asraya ce although Dandin bumself nowhere speaks of the suggestion of Rass as the 'soul of poctry The same remark ·184 SOHE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS At the samc time it cannot be affirmed ibat Dandin was cotirely ignorant of the idea of Rasa for he declares that poetic figures to which he attaches great importance as an element of poetry codow the sense with Rosa (1 62) although here as elsewhere tlc artha rasa has a distinct reference to agrumjata from the context Again a Matakavya in his opinion should invariably possess rasa and blava (118) A clearer rod cation is given by big treatment of the figures rasa at presas and urjasven (1: 275 92) where he betrays an undoubted acquaintance with the existence of the eight recognised Rasas all of which he coumcraics by their respecluye names and four of which (vsz fps gara gandra wira haru a) he alustrates as clements of the poetic Egutes under discussion If we are to accept Abhinavagupta 3 interpretation Dandins conception of Rasa like that of Lollata 15 what may be described as objective or in olber words Dand n believes in the causal development of Ras through the Excitants (vibha as) and Ensuants (anublāras) Without making a deboite statement on this point-lor Dandins somcwbat meagic indication hardly justifics us in doing so we may however affirm that Dandın apparently speaks of Rasa as being developed as an effcct from a temporary (eg rals or hrodha) to a permanent mood (eg frugara of raudra) and the way in wb ch be deals with the question Iends colour to Abhupayagupta s interpretation or at least indicates that Dandin was probably aware of some such theory For speaking of the figure rusavar which according to him possesses the characteristic of manifesting the Kasas he gives an example of the manifestation of frugara in such a figure with the remark rat h brngarafat gatur pa bahulya sogena (1 281) Similarly with reference to the development of raudra from krodha be says tty aruky a apples to the moders commentary to the ed of Dandin in Bombay Sanskrit Se las ? Se Pharald H T (lx of it at Guns deiowi reprod ced partially by Herracandra p 57 comm ·THE THEORY OF RASA 185 parām kojant krodho raudrātmatāın gatah (1 283) But the Rosa in these figures is, of course, subordinate to the expressed figure itself (plashkararayā smyfam, 1 287). of which it serves as a means of embellishment It seems, therefore, that Dandin was to some extent cognisant of rasa, bhāva etc, but he could not give them a place in his system except as an embellishment of the language or of the scosc. and this somewhat objective view of Rasa was apparently Tesponsible for the subordinato position assigned to at in 1bc Aladkåra and the Rite Schools Although Vámapa makes a great advance on Dandin's system in other respects. he does not seem to have gone further than his predecessor in the treatment of Rasa He emphasises, no doubt, the necessity of distinguishing between those characteristics (guna) which are essential (nitya) and those (olankāra) which are secondary fanity) on poetry, and marks an improvement op Bhámaha and Dandia, who include Rasa only in the poetic figures, by including it in the essential characteristics, for he defines the artha-guna känt as that essential excellence of sepse "in which rasa 13 spicuously present" (dipta rasatvam ul. 2 15) In this respect Vāprapa in a way anticipates the importaucc which Rasa assumed in later scbools, but it must be admitted that although Vămana jacludes Rasa 10 the essentials of poetry, be had no clear idea of its aesthetic sigo ficance except as an accessory element, just in the same way as he had no clear notion of the 'suggested sense except as a similar accessary element za a particular figure (1v, 3 8! Udbhaja. a follower of Bhagaba and a contemporary of Vámára, adberes in lbe pain to be views of his predecessors and treats Rasa as a subsidiary element un poetry, inclu. diog it like Bhāmaba in figures like rasayut, but in ORC passage,' curiously enough be apparently desigpates Rass as the 'soul' of poetry, without, however, sctung up ao 1 rasedyadhusha kávy am ſivad rupalaya yatan/ kalhydre iad rasadinih kavyutnatrag aasthamil con- ·186 SOVIE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS atsthetic system on its basis This verse OCCDIS 18 1 17 18 the text of Udbhaça's work published by Col Jacob 10 JRAS, 1897, p 847, but the verse appears to be a little out of place in the context in which it occurs, and in the text published by the Nirnay Sagar Press it is wanting, although given as a quotation with a tad ahuh in the accompanying commentary of Pratibarenduraja (p 77). Hermann Jacobus supposition therefore, based on Jacob's text that Udbhata was the first writer 10 consider the question as to what constitutes the soul of poetry, and to regard Rasa as such does not appear to be at all plausible Even if the verse in question be Udbhaja's it should be taken as one of lus obuter dicta which docs pot ut in well with his system as a whole alihough PratıbStendutaja would probably fpd a place for it by reading into Udbhaga as he does, bis own views about Rasa It ss true that Udbhata betrays a closer acquaintance with the Rasa theory 10 some form or other and its tochou calities using terms like vibhava sthayin soncarn (1Y 4) and anubhava (av 2) and ecumerating after Bharata v 15 the eight orthodor Rasas with the addition of a dintii sunts In the category, but all this is taken into account as an embellishment of the expressed figure or lo other words Rasa es pot considered for its own sake but because it helps to cmphasisc and constitute the charm of the particular figure Hence Pratsbarendutaja remarks that the question as to the nature of rasa and bhara and how far they may stand 28 3 merc kuvyalanı kura or as the very soul' of poetry, is not discussed partly for fear of prolixity and partly because it is not relevan: Ed hävyamalr p 50 Not much capital ou be made out of this article, Prof Jacob adoutted that his contention as no longer enable 1 Ed Kävyamala p 30 Not much capital can be made out of the fact, referred to in p 180 footnote above, that sirigadeya men trons Udbbata as one of the commentators on Bharata If it were uue ! Odly shows that Udbhata was COCA Cisant With Bharatas ·THE THEORI OF RASA 187 Rudrata on the other hand seems to be the earleest water who explicitly includes & treatment of Rasa as a sepa fate topic devoting four chapters to the discussion of Rasa and its adjunct subject of the bero and heroine (nayaka nayika) It is not clear, however, what theoretical singaficance he attaches to Rasa , for although at the beginning of his work he praises pocts who have won eterpal laple by composing poetry enlivened by Rasa he dovotes a comparatively small part of his work to its treatment and is entirely silent with regard to the theoretical aspect of the question Out of the sixteen chapters into which his work is divided only two chapters deal directly with Rash not theoretically but descrip tively while the rest is taken up with the details of the poetic figures (alamkaras), on which apparcotly be puts greater em phasis Spcaking of the accessity of making a poem sorasa he says fxu that to those who enjoy the Rasas but fight shy of the dry Str45 zastruclios in the caruri argas is easier to imi part through the medium of delectable writing, and is seems in his opinion, to be the chief motive for inspiring the sense of poetry with Rasa Rudraja in his theoretical attitude has no affinity with ibe Rasa School but rather with the Alamkara School and we have the testimony of Ruyyaka and Jayaratha to ibis effect Ruyyaka says that Rudraja lard special stress on alamkara in which he comprised the three kinds of suggestion including the suggestion of Rasa (rasa ibcory as his citation of a balf line from Bbarata and use of technical Terms like ribhava etc would indicale It does not prove that he belonged to the school of Bharata Co the other hand evidence is Dot wantog that Udbbata belonged to the Alabakura School (Ruy yoka P 7) and was a follower of Phomaha ybose defin trons of many poetic figures (es raavat of Sayokt: sasa del Sanok! apal << utpreko yatha sa kha aprastura prasama paryayokra aksepa wbhavana vuodha and blasika) he faithfully cop es and on whose text he also appears to base written 2 1 1 grana (Prat hefendi p 13 Lorona TP 10 40 159 Hesacandra 17 Ruyyaka p 183 Samudrabandha Pp 89 90) 1 Ed Karyamala P S Samudrabandha agrees with this ·188 SOWE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS lool upon dhani) and that in the figure rasavat and the like the rasa and bhava implica arc taken as elements which only heightca the charm of the expressed dea Nami sadbu Rodrata s commentator however explaining Rudrata xu 2 states in the usual metaphorical language that in the opinion of his author sabda and artha constitute the body of poetry slic poetic figures take the place of artificial ornaments while rasa resembles natural qualities like beauty prowess etc (rosas tu saundarsadaya asa sahaja gunall) This interpretation only shows that like Vanana Rudrata was a stop 10 advance of Bhamaba and Dandio inasmuch as he would regard Rasa as a natural quality which is not extraneous but slands in 10U male relation to poetry but there is nothing anywhere in Rudrata which will support this claborate description espe cially as Rudrata can scicely be supposed poet c figures which are of utmost importance in his view of poetry as merc artificial Disaments of expression The older writers on Poetics therefore before the advent of the Dhvani School contented themselves with the working out of the outward form of expression and bardly troubled themselves with the question of an ulterior aestbet c principle the soul (utman) of poetry por do they identify as some Pater writers do this soul with the subtle psychological factor known as rass. Vamapa no doubt offers to solve te question by declaring (126) that the Riti which has been usually but inadequately translated as style d ction is 1h s soul but in Vamana $ view the Ritijs pot the expres son of poctc individuality but the objectic beauty of representation called forth by the upllication of certain more or Icss fixed cxcellenccs know as geras or by adjustmest of word and sense The older writers therefore lay the greatest emphasis on the poetic bgures or ala nkaras as Ruyyaka (p 7) testifics or on nil or diction in the objective sense and although coguisant of that aesthetic delectable Dess which should be present in all poetry and which 10 Sanskrit goes by the name of R252 they could not yet har ·THE THEORY Or RAS 4 189 monise it well into their tocory of externals, and treated it more or less as an embellishment of the language by including 11 in certain poetic figures or by allowing it to form an element of the excellences of diction The Rasa could come into their system only through this backdoor as it were It is partly for this reason that thc Dhyapıkara (mu 52) condemos carlier theories as crude and insufficient for the purpose of explaining the nature of poetry and expounds bis own aesthe tic doctrine in wbich Dhyan especially Rasa dhyadi plays such an important part The Dhvanikara however in his exposition of rasa dhvani seems to have been greatly influenced by the dramaturgic Rasa School (Sharaza declared that the business of the drama was to evolve one or more of the eight Rosas and there fore a more or less elaborate psychology of human sentiments had been analysed in the service of the dramatic art Bharata s ideas on these psychological processes and on Rasa which is the foal internal experience consistog in the con sciousuess of a certain objective condition of the ego were elaborated by his commentators and followers tiibe Dhva nikara followed by Acandavardhana and Abhinavagupta came into the field From the earlier drana and dramatic theory therefore the idea of Rasa was taken over to poetry sad poetic theory and as the transition from the naive to the sentimental poetry was accomplished the Ibeorists went a step farther and erected Rasa into one of its essential aestbe tic foundatiocs Anandavardhana is quite explicit of this point when he says etac ca rasadi toparsena kavya mbondhonant bharatudávape suprasddhom eva (p 181 In other words what was already well established in the drama by Bbarata and others abus found its way zato poetry profoundly modifying as it did, the entire conception of Kavya lo the same way Abhinayagupta commenting on the concluding port on of the prose passage just before Bharata v 33 says notyd samudaya rupud rasah nata 2 resah kasje pi nana jamana era rosah dan arthah Similarly Rodrabha ja states at ·190 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS the beginning of his work (1 5) that Bharata and others have already discussed Rasa 10 connexion with the drame, while his own object is to apply it to the case of poetry It must be noted, however, that although all later theorists tale Bharata as their starting point, and build up their own thcores round his authoritative, if somewhat mcogre, text, Bharata himscit, like most old masters, 19 very simple on his statemeats, and the subject does not appear to have been yet brought into the realm of scholastic speculation Bharata's work is encyclopaedic in scope but his primary theme is the drama and his conception of poetry dramatic, a vies which perhaps inspired Vamana's partiality towards dramatic composition expressed in 1 3 30-32 and which is concisely put by Abhinavagupta by saying hãyyor jāvad dataruputma. kam end In such a composition Rasa, according to Bharata. should be predommant, for he says that the duet of sense which arises from Rasa appeals to the heart and pervades the body, like fire lighting up dry pieces of wood Without Rasa there can be no sease of poctry' Although Bharata does not so much into technicalities he seems to be of option that the abhayas and Anubhavas which, according to later theory, consutute the esseatial factors, call forth Rasa, but he is not clear as to what this process of evolution exactly is He cxplains bhava the basis of Rasa generally as that which brings into existence the sense of poetry through the three kinds of representation, viz. through words, gestures and Interpol feelings This bhāvu when permanent and not transfory, reaches the state of Rasa through the factors KDOWD as stbhala and anubhana* A bhuva is explained thus. 1 nr 7 2 na ni rasad ye kassid arthah prararlare ed. Grossct P87 amata 62. 3 vag-orga sastopekin Lūvy other Bhavay omrin bhasch op citu P100 op t p 69 4shaina 110 bhava tisalim dan op cit P 102 op cr P 70 10tabhrómabhusa nabian samy ogod rasa perth OF et 87 op dit. P 62.

·THE TIIEORY OF RASA 191 vibhāva it hasmad jacyale, vibhavo nama viña narihah, vibhavyante'nens vāg anga-sativăbhinayā uyato vibhāvah' The word vibftūva is used, therefore, to imply knowledge or understanding and may be explained generally as ibat which makes the three kinds of representation capable of being sensed Ic the same way, tbe anubhāra us explained as that which follows upon and males the three kinds of representation actually seased. The third element of Rasa, the vyabhicërr bhāvel consists of accessory facts which belp and strengthen it and is etymologically described as wabhi aty etās pasargau cara garau dlūtuh As to what relatos these factors bear to Rasa and how this state of relish is brought about, Bharata simply lays down : vibhāvānubhava-vyabhicânı sariyogad rasa-risparth, a formula which, in spite of bis owo expladation, 13 so ambiguous with respect to the exact significance of the coatral terms saryoga and nıspart that a great deal of controversy has gathered round its interpretation As each commentator has tried to explain it in bis own way, it has givea rise, as we shall presently see, to a number of theories Bharata's own explapaſion, faf can be called as cxplanation, is that just as a beverage is accomplished through various scasoped articles and herbs, so the permanent mood, the sihaya-bhāva, reinforced (apagara) by various bhayasattain The state of rasa . and it is so called because its essence CODsists in its taste or relish (rasa ih koh padārthah, wc) ale on Rast I op cit, pp 1001 op out P 69 2 anubhavam kasmid whate yod on anuhasaran haar thithungpannor väg-engasaitwa kulam abhinayam u op a P101 op CP69 3 Bharata deals with laksana dlanillara dosa and gene under acha abbanana treated to ch XIX to xx and these are the made subordinate to Rasa All these elements are considered as far as they for dramate embellishments, but faltards disappear in later works being included cather under ofankara Dandia 366 21 Dašarupoła cu Hall jy 78} or under gana and annara (Vasvanatha I p 332, cd Durgo prasada) * Ed Grosset 83 td Kavyama. 62 ·197 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POFTICS anad atvat) He also explains that the sthazı bhara is the basis of Rasa because it attains as it were mastery or sovereignty among the forty nine different bhāvas (viz. eight sthay bhivas eight sathika bhalas and thirty three vyabhu cari bhavas mentioned by him in vii od 6 add v 16 f) which naturally test upon it as being presumably the principal theme of the composition in question Nothing definite can be concluded from all this cxcept that is Bharata s opinion the sthay: bhava is the basis of Rasa, while the vibhava anubhava and vabhicarın contribute to its final realisation But this cxplanation by its very am biguity or vagucacss taxed the ingenuity of the commentators its general tocad anticipating theories like the utparti vada of Lollata and the anumita ada of Sankuka while special tech micalstics (used probably 16 Ap uptechnical sense by Bharala himself) 3.ke vyanjuta and samanya suna yoga occurring in the text suggesting or lending support to specialised doctrines like the vyaktı yada of Abbinavagupta or the bhukti vada of Bhara Nayaka The geocral foundations of the cory however, semain as fixed by Bharata It is practically admitted ob all hands that the Rasa 15 realised when a permanent mood or stay bhava 19 hrought to a relishable condilion through the three elements viz the vibhara the anubhava and the vyabhicari bhava Of these the first two are the more importapt the vyabhacerin being only concomitant or accessory Bharata s explanations of these terms are rendered with greater precision by his follon ers By strayi bhasa in poetry and droma ase meant certain more or less permanent conditions of the mind such as love grief anger or fear This permanent mood constituting the principal theme of composi 1 atrala Had anyonyirtha-sari skrair ibla in blava 1) Antar clonoya cafard bha allt samanya guna sogenabh iPadyartre for katham dan m sta no ESG bha lasatyam apnu are care bahwi! ayat di : Imrbl ful sthly no plated Grosse pp 102 ed Kivyamala, p 70 ·THE THEORY OF RASA 193 tion and running throagh all other moods like the thread of a garland cannot be overcome by thosc akin to it or those opposed to it but can only be reinforced Those elements which respectively excite follow and strengthen (if we nay use these expressions) the sthay bhava are in poctry and drama known as vibhava anubhala and vjabhıcare bhara' although in the ordrosty would they may be pown as mundane cause and effect (laukika karana and karja) Devord of technicalnes a vibhana may be taken as that which makes the permanent mood capable of being sensed an anubhava as that which makes it sensed while a vyabhicari (also called sanicarı) hhava as that which acts as an aurrary or gives an impetus to it in the case of Love as a permanent nood the stock examples given of wbhasa are women and the Seasons of anubhava glance and embsace of woblucuria the transient subordinate feelings of joy and anxiety Now Bharata says that the Rasa is realised through a certain correlation of these elements with the shoyi bhava or permanent mood The question therefore arises to which Bharata himself gives no definite solution Viz what ibus process of realisation actually consists in and what relat on do these elements bear to Rasa un this process the solution depending upon the explanat on of the 1wo much discussed Terms anyoga and nispain in Bharata 3 Original dictum cited above Bhatta Lollata appears to be one of the carliest commenta tots of Bharata to offer an explanation But excepting the brief review of his opinion D Abhinavaguptas con puculary 1 Ballantyne renders these te us convenien ly i not very ade quately as the Excitant the Ensuant and the Accessory rospect vely a nomenclature bb 3 accepted by Gang na h 3h o he transla ton of Kavya prok sa R Jacob however (ZOMG 1902 P 394 f) uses the terms Factor Effect and Context 2 The extracts given helow are taken from a transept publ shed herew th of the Tr vantrum Palace MS receved through the knd offices of Gangarah Jba Lollata s vews are rev ewed after Ab 12 ·194 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS op Bharata which is copied more or less by all subsequent writers from Mammaja and reproduced almost literally but anonymously by Hemicandra Lollata 15 tank nosed to us and his work is apparently lost Very little can be gathered from this summary exposition by ad adverse critic but it appears that Lollaja took the yıbliaia as the direct cause (Karana) of Rasa which is therefore as effect (anu karya or arpadya) and the word nisparti of Bharata 15 explained as utpath or pusta! The Rass found in characters like Rama is attributed to the actor who imitates the character in form dress and action and thus charms the spectatorMammata and his followers agree with ths interpretation of Lollafa by Abhinava but they make it more clear by saying that the permanent mood or the sthayin is directly connected with the hero mukhyaya riya=suhsat sambandhena) but it is recognised as existing in the actor through a clever imitation of the original character, ebus imitation being apparently the source of the charm (camarkera helu to the spectator The locus of the Rasa therefore is supposed to be in the hero but it is not clear how it : apparently transferred to the actor and how the spectator is charmed by a feeling which docs not exist 10 bima Govinda therefore tightly comments on this view of Day, in Mammata ir eu Bom Sansk Ser., 87 Hemacandrap 57 Mall natha on Vidyadhara P 85 Govinda Kavyamala p 63 Hernacandra practically reproduces Abhinayaguptas very words 1 arra blanja lollara prabhslayas lavad eya a VyacakNyul Viha vad bhth santyogo rtl ar 31 ásinas talo rasan spart It Torra wbl avas eta putek si hoy, elm adga uipatia danom an bha af can rasa Ja vydatra y vaks ta fesant rasa karanah ena ganananar, anar opin blu inam eva etc Abh og Bh Z shayyeva vablavan bhevad bh ? upacito rosa sthan beratranupacitah Sa cobhayo pyamukarje nukariary ap (caranasaridhanu balad . cirantanenin ca) ant paksah Abbon Blt 3 ramadhvanz karye ad ru pazinusardianes narice pt pret Yamano rasah Mammata loc ct where the term prar yamunalt is nterpreted by Gov nda az arap amanah (nate la culya palana sestdiaravali aropyamanah just al lurtân cumatlara hetuh p 63) ·THE THEORY OF RASA 195 Lollatx tad apesalan samtakesu tad-abhave falra camaskaranubhava varadhat, na ca tajnandnt eva camarlera hetul lauk ka frigurūdı dartarenapi camatkara prasangat (p 63) The rival school of Sankuka we are sold by Abhinava gupta and following him by Hemacandra bungs forward Ingenrous objections into the technicalities of which we need not enter here! The later westers? however demur to this cause and effect theory on more philosophical grounds A elect they argue may exist when its efficient cause is des troyed, but as the fife of Rasa is circunscribed by con tact with the vibhavas (vbhavads parantaría fissavadhi) at disappcars when the latter disappear a fact which goes to prove that the Rasa must not be taken as an ordinary mun dane (laukika) effect! A5010 the cause and the clicct cannot 1 Saikuka for fastaoce ministrs that Bharata apparently uses the terms rasa and attrapin synonymously for the latter mentions De samnc ut with respect to a particular stkaya and is correspons dmg rasa and hence if they are ident calibere is no quest on of one bensg produced from abe vehet Nofing cau be gained by me plying that in its vadcycloped state 1 » sthly n but in the developed slate is reso for such a supposit on will involve an annud mult al cation (ananajuporni) of the stages of share and its corpspond ing rasa If it is sad that is briest stage of development it 11 rasa thea how can wc tagginc slated fferent varieties of hatryarasa (Bharala y $2) or the ten dffercut stages of fragora (Dharata ai 154 75) ? Besides the prionty of skila in cateor to raia 1 got always vouchsafcd by expericace great sorrow felt ut its intens ty af she begang $ 20 ks to sobside fruste but grow SCORIST (see Feinscandra pr 57-3) 2 Among the earlier authors Dandona » alizad; noted areas to have been in acticed by Lollata s theory which is ent rely do aard led in falet umes. Th Jocs not argue the priority of Lollata 10 Dund for the theory in which the nituence of missats oproient, macht lave obtained in the school's bcfore Loflaša first brought into promicace 39 Manatha da Edral $1 kbiryare shared sa sibha asile N rawnu tai prasarlgah - a caspalautstaryas Aprakaran simalaya faul ka praminasamyatran see also pp 934 Gound 7 69 Hbf1L pardmertarra Branch oh yad naimisisk rendi, eks.

·196 SOME PRODLEMS OF SANSKRIT POITICS be contemporaneous if Rasa is supposed to be an elect its relish cannot be as it actually is contemporaneous with 1hc appearance of the bhabos Hence Visvanatha remarks that of Rasa us an effect having for 1l cause the perception of the bha as then at the time of the relish of Rosa the 1 lbhan as would not be perceived for we do not led the simultaneous perception of a cause and its efect The perception of the touch (t the sandal wood ungueat and the perception of the pleasure produced thereby cannot take place simultancously however rapid the one may succeed the other Sankuka therefore the next commentator on Bharata rejecting this theory contends that the Rasa is not produced as an effect but inferred the permanent mood us inferred to exsst zu the actor-1hough not actually existing in himby means of the wibhavas etc cleverly exhibited by him in his actiog so as to produce an illusion of identity with the fcclings of the hero and the mood thus inferred being sen sed by the spectator through its exquisite beauty adds to itself a pecuhar charm and thus develops into a relishable condition called Rase The realisation of Rasa therefore is simply a process of logical inferepce the nispatii of Bharata bciog explained as anumiti and the vibhuva stands to Rasa 10 the relation of anuntapaka or gamala to anumapya or samya But the mood itself though inferred in this way from the relation of the major and middle terms (l» ga balatal) 18 yet cognised as different from the objects of orduary in ference being inferred as it were by force of its exquisite charm as something to be rclished on account of its connexion with the vibhuvas etc which though artificial are not recog 1 CLLD 86 ed Durgiprasada 2 ale nanu de o p Hemacanda p 58 3 ramudyabheda-bha ena nete tap olaftar ca by dhah arluulah Mall na ha B3 ar sardo ya balad Asa ya vena s Ady nam Ohjan meja a laksana Gov nda p 5 pract cally paraphras ng Mammafa p 30 4 ·THE THEORY OF RASA 197 oised as such! This cogitron or knowledge is character sed as based on what is called citra-turaga-nyāya. (viz the analogy by which a horse 10 a picture is called a horse), and should be differentiated from the true ( he is Rāma'), the false ('he is Rāma' with a following negation he is bot Rāma'), the dovbiful ( be may or may not de Rāma) kpowledge, as well as from the knowledge al scolarity ('he is like Rima") This theory, however, bas been discredited by later schools because, as Govinda concisely sums up the objections, 11 disregards the well recoguised fact that the inference of a thog can dever produce the same charm as its direct CONDI tion. It has been pointed out that the Rasa is not capable of being cognised by the ordinary means of arriving at koow. Iedgc, for the feeling of Ráma, tie tieco represcated on the stage, being past, cannot be cognised by the organs of sense bclonging to the present time and the present place The anumāna theory is discussed elaborately in connex100 with the theory of 'suggestion', comag topically within the provace of the suggestion of Rass (rasa dhuni), by later adherents of the Dhvani School and the general argument 1 karana-karya sahabbhul kirimar api tatia nobis cominch Mammate ly, also Hernacandra p 58 2. Mammaga iord Hegracanda expanding Abhinaya a exposition on this point puis ut in this way no cotra portala a suhilt prank panth map ayam cha rama te na cap on such wapi ramol soda na vmami na capa fal sad sam ili Amtu saniyen inithya sumedad südriya pralinbhyo włalşanas citra-tur) adı nyårena sah sukhe rumah Adva) ans de produtor asu ip 59) 1 etał apy chidayagrulu yerah pratyakşam eva jwanon sa-camar karam nanumityadır in loka prasidhen avadhayanyutha halpane mana Haveh, p 65 Jad api rasasamanyai nibhidhasa; 1 tad api samasya ruler sluta Platsannuhulawleša varitamana kalendriya somriek ar salyaad prandblu pruyera Vidyadhara p 94 S The anumang theory ayer appears to have reised liberal recognition in the hands of later thecrisis Malumabbatta suthor of the Vynku wyela was the only known writer who put forward a similar theory, for trying to prove in opposition to the accepted Dhvan theory that the so called ahians including an that can be arrived at by the ordinary process of logical inference he professed hem self to be an onorat rodin an is idea of Raso We do not possess cnouch đzza 10 deqide what rela11o1 t any Mahima bors to his pro decessor Sankuka We have the testimony indeed of a very late (AD 4 ·198 SOYC PROBLCVS or SANSKRIT POLTICS by kluch it is sought to be discarded 1s that me ibides cannot lic taken as the middlc term in proving the stayin. because the vibhaias do not stand in the same relation to the 1700) and pot usually careful writer, Rimicirana who commented on the Sthliya-daroma that Mahima was is stality fallouer of Shruta Zanfulamatanun lyindi ali sekalarddindo maranh düjayati, cd Durs prasida p 243 d. Roer, r 121 note), bu! Mahima himself who throughout takes pride in his origint typmits all relarence direct or Indirect to hit prsuccessor It is probante however that the theory developed by Mahima su rol originated by him Anandavardhaca Ninasalt cluten at some length ( 201 ) * similar theory which tried to establish that the cognition of the unexpressed is nothing more than the cognitron of the obicct of a logical conclusion that the relation of the wefastor and the super is that of the silogistic waste and max 77% Mahimabhalta: theory bean I tilo resemblance to that of Sankuta for the former proceeds on a qualc d fferent finc Although accenting the new concert of this and he difers from Ananda In hold ng that it can be real s hy coming and that therefore there it no need to clanish & scrarile function of a njand And by a process of elstorsle des tructive criticism he attempts to make the defnition of Jhoni con form to what he calle Aduydum has the racer by which annther case as revealed by the expressed scnte (cya) or by a sense inferred met ma ennectedly from it in 1.) He argues that the existence of a frame or sequence however impercentak (asan laksa tunnette doned between the suggested elements adna rafiu alam fara or 210) And the expressed (Maya) (as is cose of rata) and this only shows that the (ua nes espresent and unexpressed Wicya and aga are equential and lessig such hear the relaton chr of premise and conclusion ( m1! Hence arrha je merely # ground of inference which is very wide ints score (mahalaya) and not a fapaka Again as fabuli csbausti itself after expressing its literal es primary sensee even the seconda sense (lak ortla) has admittedly to the inferred not from itseti hut from the latter how can it he supposed to be numa and convey a deeper sense? Dut such words through their expressed sense can well become a HOTTE of mertnet fanmipaka) pp 27 1 There is no room here to cortsxder thus theory in detail tror take into account the different object an urged against it's Ofer-suhtlely (xe Mammala v Ruyaka ed Kivyamáli nr 123 Vedyadhara Vilvanacha. v) Mahima had no, fomurs in later literature na 31 1 ·THE THEORY OR RASA 199 sträyın as the middle term (sādhana) does to the major term (sādhya), but are simply its suggestor (vyañjaka) The vibhāvas, therefore, are neither the efficient cause (karaka hetu) nor the logical cause (jñápaka-hetu) of Rasa. as held respectively by Lollata and ſaibuka lo both these theories the difficulty remains, namely that if Rasa is an objective entity, produced or inferred, how can it bring about a subjective feeliog of relish in the audieace in whom these factors are presumably absent? If, on the other hand, at 15 supposed that it exists in the audience also, the question still remains as to how the particular feelings of a particular bero. like Rāma who is different or superior to the spectator in self, can be relished or realised as his own by the spectator. These objections are ably set forth by Bhaſta Nāyaka, as interpreted by Abhinava in his Locana (pp 67-8), raso yadı para-gastaya pariyate, iarhi fasihyam eva sya! Na ca svagataiverta rāmadi cartamayāt kavyād asan pralrate Sua gatalvena ca pratilau svālmani rasayoipattır evābhupagand syāt, sä сayukta sāmänlānām praty avibhāvarvat Kantātvarı sādharanan väsanä vikasa hefur vibhāvanayant prayojahoris ile cet, devatā-varnanādau tad api katham? Na ca sva kantasmaranan madhye santved yale Aloka sumūnyonan ca ramadinan ye samudra serut bandhadayo vibhavas te kalliari sadhoranyar bhajeyah? Hence Bharta Nayaka attempts to refute these earlier theories (as well as those of the new Dhva, School who later on found a champion in Abbinavagupta), and sets up a peculiar theory of aesthetic enjoyment (thoga) He sigues that (1) Rasa cagnot be produced as ao cficct, because the causes, namely, the blāras, being non-rcalıtıcs, capot bring about real effects, (2) at cannot be referred, because the character, Kina, not really beleg before the audicace, bis feeling does not exist, and what does pot etist cannot be inferred (na ca totivata ramasya smſter, anupalabdhanat). Besides, how is it possible for the ordinary reader or spectator to identify himself with the extraordinary virtues of a pero ·THE THEORY OF RASA 201 Samkhya philosophers which is borrowed by these theorists, from the prominence of the attabute of gooddess saltya) in a man asd differing from what is known as worldly happiness It is destroguished from the two kinds of knowledge anubhava apd smarana , and consisting of the qualities of melting, pervading and expanding the mind it is compared to the indescribable bliss of divine contemplation According 10 Bhatta Nayaka, therefore, thc Rasa consists in the sthayı bhava or the permanent mood experienced in a generalised form in poetry and drama through the powers of abhidha and bhavalatya and enjoyed by a blissful process known as bhoga till it is raised to a state of pleasurable relish, which s pot worldly (alasıkıka) and which is akso to the philosophic meditation of Brahma It will be noticed that all these different theories about Rasa though applıcd to drama and poetry, arc at the same time tinged with the doctrines of the various schools of Indian Philosophy Lollata appears to be a Mimamsaka, Sadkuka a Nayayska. wbile Bhafta Nayaka seems to follow the Sankhya doctrine But what is more noticeable is that in Dhafta Nayaka we mark a transition from what may be called the objective to the subjective view of Rass and an oder standing that the whole phaonickou should be cuplajged in turns of inward experience if we may judge from the some what elaborate criticism levelled against this theory it seems to have produced a greater impression and undoubtedly pared the way for the later theory of Abhinavagupta to whom really belongs tbe credit of claborating the new aesthetic system of 1 Sarvodreka palafanandamaja somund 1:from satath ina bhpgenn bhupare Mammaga cxplained by Govinda as bhogaf ca sana guno drek prolatore ja anandas tot sarupananyalar bond ja sisar nard po laukifa suck drubhavai laksanak its saatkoza s dll Entänu sdrenia Inn !, P 65 2 raso nubi aye-smyndt at fadesa dride wstara yıkäsulmana para brahmanada saudaena bhogena Abh on Eh Bra Ite (@ rose tasya bhogah yo nublava smarana prauspatbkyo wlaksana e a druta StartS-73% ที่นี้ para tratamiada-sonak Cocom 68 ·200 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS like Rama? To solve these difficulties, Bhatta Nāyala. as interpreted by Abbinaya and others, maintains that the Rasa is cojoyed 18 CONDCTION with the vibhāras through the relation of the enjoyer and the enjoyed (bhojala und bhopa) This school postulates three different functions of a word, samely, abhidia (already admitted by Muārusakas and grammarians), bharakona and bloyalana Abhidha, how ever, is not Derotation merely, but is given an extended meaning so to include laksanā or Indication in its scope thus embracing the two functions already analysed by pre. vious speculation Blavakala which, 25 Abhinavagupta suggests, 18 derived appareally from Bharata's geacral defin: tion of bhara is described as the power of generalisation wluch makes the vibayas, as well as the stlay: bliuva sensed in their general character without any reference to their speciSc properties' Fot sastance, the bharo Sula, us Uoderstood through this power not as a particular individual but in the general character of a woman and the silicybhale cę Rama's love towards hçr, is falch as love in general without any refereuce to the agent or the object By the third function of bhojalana, the siluin is enjoyed in tbus general form, accompanied by the ubha, as, sensed also in a gcocral foron and this enjoyment is described as a process of delectation similar to the eplighteped, self-sufficicot aod blissful Laowledge arising, in the language of the 1 abhdhapi laksanalla, Locand P68 dirabhidha nirantarasantarardha nishatvena dvedha Govoda p 66 2 ml gradi sadhuranikarang niaga abhidharo duenarischa bhavakani a 13 aparend bhotzamonah Abb on Bh fac catrod Pharaka A fish mumo ) kevyeya ted vbha, edinom sadharonan a pedanach ham Locana loc cit bilgi akartam ddharagikerarantendo wjo parena bhavadayah si au ro sodharani tij onte Gorunda p 66 3 sad) Granikarandi certad esa ja sutade vitesanat hamuradi famaryno pasiutih Gorinda lor cat 4 sad! aramlana ubNunod kena bhalala napirene nafod! Bardiya panihörena sadharanatayangsand namaneh slay: Maltratha &S ·THE THEORY ON RAS 201 which amana had already amply recognised and on which the Alontara add the Rin Schools had pot so much cophasis The metaphorical or the allegoric bsweser veiled it may be is sult in a sepsc expressed and must be taken as such but the suggestine (1}ang)a) is always uncapressed and is there forc a source of greater charm through its capacity of concealment, for this concealment in which consists the essence of art is in scalily no concealment at all the new acsthetic school claims a particular (unction of suggestion oprerisining 10 words and their scnscs whereby the uncartes scd or the arcxprcssiblc is called into being or to speak with hans bereby poctry becomcs in tapTCS3100 of the Acsihetic idea Mow the unexpressed through the suggestive power of word or idea may be an unexpressed thought or malter (vastu) or an unexpressed figure of speech (alonkara) but in most cascs at 15 a wood or fcclios (rasa) which is directly incxpres siblc The Dhyana School thescorc tool up she woods and reclings as an clement of the crexpressed and tried to harmonise the idea of Rasa with the theory of Davasi I was realised that poetry was not as Dandin thought the merc clothing at agreeable ideas in agreeable language the Ieetings and moods play an important part in it But the {cclings and moods ta themselves are inexpressible We can grc a name to them but nammg a mood or feeling is not cqunalent to expressing or de cloping at At bost therefore *¢ can suggest What the port con duccily txpress or describe are the vibles as ctc but with the help of these cxpressed clement which must be generalised and conceived not as they appear in the mundane world but as they may be imagined : & poetie world the poet can awaken ia us through the power of suggestion inherent words or ideas 3 particu lar alaukika cond tion of the soul in which the rel sh of the ftching 13 possible t is true that the poet cangot rouse the same mood or feeling as the person les Rama) whom he describes felt in times past but he can call up a reflection of ·20 SOVE PROBLEMS or SANSKRIT POETICS the Dhvanikira and Anaodavardhana from his cxtensive literary and philosophical studies as well as from his interest in the works of Bharata and bus followers, Abhinava seems to have realised that no system of Pocties, like no system of Dramaturgy, can cyer completely ignore the feclings, moods and sentiments and must find an important place for Rasa the manifestation of which is as much the business of poetry as of the drama The insufliciencies of the earlier theories on Rasa are obvious but it was a happy idea to claborate the theory in such a way as not only to supply these deficiencies but also to fit at weil into the dhani theory formulated by the new school It is aot Dccessary for us to enter foto the details of the dhan theory, it will sollice here to indicalc pcecrally how the idea of Rasa was worked up lato al The Dhvani School in its analysis of the essentials of pocity, found that the contents of a good poere may be gencrally distinguished 1910 two parts The one is that which is expressed and includes what is given in so many words, the other content is not expressed but must be added to it by the imagination of reader or the listener The upexpressed or the suggested part, which is distinctly liked up sith the expressed and which is developed by a peculiar process of suggestion (vyanjand) as taken to be the 'soul' or escoce of poetry To the gragmasians and learned writers it seemed paradou.cat to state that the very essence of a poem is that which is not even expressed On the other hand some form of symbolical speech in which wisdom deprands that one should cxpress oncself more in bints and suggestions than in actual words was always in sogue, and the poets bad been more or less partial 10 the method of speaking a metaphor or wrapping up their ideas 18 transparent allegories But the suggestive poetry is something different from the merely metaphorical 1 There is some difference m the goneral theoret cal positions of Anandavardhana and Abhinava gupta ubich will be noted in its proper place later ·THE THEORY OF RAS4 703 which Vamana had already amply recognised and on which the Alankara and the Rate Schools had put so much emphasis The metaphorical or the allegoric howcyer veiled it may be is still 10 a sense expressed and must be taken as such but the suggestive (vyangya) is always upexpressed and is therefore & source of greater charm through its capacity of concealment for this concealment in which consists the essence of art is in teality to concealment at all The new aesthetic school clains a particular luaction of suggestion appertaining to words and their seoses whereby the unexpres sed or the inexpressible is called into being or to speak with Kant whereby poetry becomes an expression of the aesthetic idea Now the unexpressed through the suggestive power of word or idea may be an unexpressed thought or matter (vastu) or an uaexpressed ligure of speech (alamkara) but in most cases it is a mood or feeling (reso) which is directly inexpres sible The Dhvani School therefore took up the moods and feelings as ao element of the loexpressed and tried to harmonise the idea of Rass with the theory of Dhvani It was realised that poctry was not as Dandıq thought the mere clothing of agreeable ideas in agreeable language the feelings and moods play an inportant part 10 11 But the feelings and moods in themselves are inexpressible We can give a name to them but naming a mood or feeling is not equivalent to expressing or developing it At best therefore we can suggest it What the poet can d rectly express or describe are the vibhavas ctc but with the help of these expressed clement which must be gencralised and conceived not as they appear in the mundane world but as they may be imagined in a poetic world the post can awaken in us through the power of suggest herent words ideas particu Jar alaukika cond tion of the soul in which the relish of the feeling is poss ble It is true that the poet capnot rouse the same mood or feeling as the person (eg Rama) wbom he describes felt 10 times past but he can call up a reflection of ·201 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS it which 18 similar in some respects, and this condition of enjoyment ja the readers soul is thc rclish of rasa which can be brought into consciousDCSS by the power of suggestion inherent in words and their sepse Here comes in the new colour given to the Rasa theory by the exponents of the Dhvani School They interpret Bharata's much discussed dictum to nean that Rasa is suggested by the union of the permanent mood with the ubhaves through the relation of the suggested (vsangsa) and the suggestor (wyanjala) and that the nispart of Bharata should mean abha yakıt Commenting on Bhatti Nayaka & theory Abhinavagupta points out that there is no need as aberc is no authority' for assuming the two powers of bhavalana and bhogikarana for they are implicitly recluded in the idea of rasa vyaulana and its ultimate asiado Bharata s dictum havyarihan bhdvasaniita bhanah (v cd Grosset p 100) implies bha ahotsa to be an inherent capacity of all bhavas as the cause of existence ibu di karane dharul ubu) or diffusion (vs aplyartham ibid) of the sense of pactry the sense indicating the principal scnsc consisting of the relish of RasaHence the sthay tn together with the abhicanın being bh as themselves bring into existence through this inherent power the extraordinary relishablc sense of poetry cognised in a seacral form (saria sadharanataja asudasan) In this way the stayin or crcn the Kavya itself may be regarded generally as the bhai aka or ruspadoka of Rasa and this so-called blavakanta according to Abhinava cons sta la nothing more than a suitable use of guna and ala nhura for the ultimate purpose of awakening Rasa through the suggestive power of word and sense Thus disposing Icf ejadda vyapura-d aya kalpane pra anabl a at Govinda P 65 2 tur/ a I y aha kavyarti a bha ayant i to kavgart) o hasah aga hdv) aszarda rasa) art) yande pradl a nye ets a llah Abb Bbc Hemacandra P 62 3 bha akave ap JAMKC ta s ndiai Lara pa grata mulant ·THE THEORY OF RASA 205 of the power of bhāvakana, Abhinava turns to the other powes assumed as bloga or bhogikardna by Bhatta Nayaka He remarks that beyond the pralite or perception of rasa, he 15 not aware of any other process called bhoga If it is relish or enjoyment, it is already admitted ; and nothing is gained by giving at a new name, just as nothing is gained by arriving at the sawe idea by the use of different terms like darfana, anumite fruti, upamt: or prabhāna according only to the distinction of the means employed Hence bhoga is pothing more than the perception of Rasa. consisting of its essence of relish based on permanent moods Ire rau etc But it must not be supposed to rest there, for although it is admitted that wherever there is Rasa there is no doubt its perception, consisting in its enjoyment, yet since the patare of saltva and other guras, envolved in such cajoyment is diversified, according as they are principal or subordinate and is there fore in itself 1nfinite and incomprehensible, the relish of Rasa is not to be measured by the micre supposition of three Tunctions. The bhoga supposed by Bhatta Nayaka therefore consists essentially in the asvada of Rasa possible by the suggestive power of poetry, sad falling naturally within its domain it need not be taken as a separate function asmab kuwalya vakyan Na ca kavye fabdinam kenalanam bhfvakarram na kesalanam arthanam dvayos tu bhavalavam asmabhur uktam jasmad vyanjakan akhyena vyāpurena gumaloni kärasetyalı karayer kartavgataya kavyan bhd akam rason thavayan Locana p 70 1 prafityadi vyatınktas (a samsan ka bhoga if #7 vidmah rasan moet spy prahi partir ela feralam upaya varlatsyasyon namantarani prasipnd, atan darsanamumut Sury-upanih proibi anadı namantarasat (Hemacandra p 61) 2 athocyafe pran nsya hogikaranam tacco ratsada Daruparit fad astu Tathagi na tavan matram rávanta as rasas (avaria exa rasāsmanah prafiiayo bhogikaran Syabha ah sausadı gunanan can 841g! vaistryam anantam atai pyam ih da trieveneyarra (bid loc cit) 3 bhogikorake vya paraf a levyutmakayasa vijayo dhivananat maiyu alaukite drus vastara wisatmartt bhoge kartavye lokortaro dhvanana vyapard el a murdhabarşıkrah Locana p 70 ·106 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSAIT MOETICS This pratiti of Rosa, Abhinaya maintains, is nothing morc than its abhi salti ot manifestation by the power of SUFECS flon tesulting in an extraordinary state of relish, known as rasana astāda or coriand What 15 minifested is not the Rasa itself, but its relish, nof the mood itself but its rcllcc tion in the form of a subjective condition of acsthetic enjoyment in the reader This tastc or relish partalcs no doubt, of the nature of cognition, it is nevertheless different from the ordinary or laukia lorms of the process, because its means, the viblaas are not to be taken as ordinary or lauklla causes. Although Rass requires these factors for 1 rasant ca bndha tuua kir lu ball Tattare so lanchhya vilal for and mp3 114 ubhandinn laukilalalalandi (op cila D6C) Thut will make it clear why Rasas Ithe larwna bibhansa of Bhayamala which took pay, disgust or hosros be termed kan ta hich enjoyment is essential The relish of Rasa is supposed to he an extraord nary bless not to be likened to ordinary rain or pleasure And the mind is 30 entirely lost in it that even when the schliment of grief or horror sclished in such > state rein Tever felt and oven when it felt it is pleasurable pain. The fact is forme out by the common experience that when gref us represented the a pectator or the reader says I have caused 11. ilence Vikram tha Temarks til 67 and pued Durgaprasad1 P 78) that those very thmes which are called causes of pain in the world (like banishment of Sia in the forest) when consigned lo poetry and dramatic re. presentation process the right lo he called in consequence of their assuming such a function autika ubilas etc. and from them only pleasure cogues, as it does from bites Rod the ike in amorous dalliance It also maintained (bed 11 8) that feart constitute no proof that anything but pleasure I fell in pocty for the cars which RTD shed by the reader er not those of pain but those of sentiment Jagannathas remarks in the connexion are interesting llc says tp 26) that the shedding of tears and the like are due to the nature of the superience of the particular piensure and not to pain Sience a devotec ears anse on listening to A description of the deity in this case there is not the slightest feeling of pain Such is the power of the eutraordinary fonction of poetry that even unpleasant things like sorrow generate alaulila pleasure and thes Pleasant sesthelic rel th should be distingu shed from the ciper ence realned by other ord mary mens.

·THIE THEORY OF RASA 207 its manifestation and cannot exist without them, it cannot yet be regarded as an ordinary elcct, and the cause and effect theory is inapplicable; for in the transcendental sphere of poetry, it is said, the connexion between cause and effect gives place to a imaginative system of relations, which has the power of stirting the reader's soul into Rasa The resulting Rasa cannot be identified with its constituent vibhav as, for the latter are not experienced separately, but the whole appear as Rasa, which is thus simple and indivisible, and at the time of relish nothing else but Rasa is raised to our CONSCIOUsness The writers on poetics are fond of explaining this phenomenon under the analogy of a beverage, which, though made up of black pepper, candied sugar, camphor and other ingredients gives us a different taste from that of its constituents The result, therefore, is an iodissoluble unity of taste from which every trace of the constituent elements 18 obliterated Abhinavagupta gocs a step further also 10 maiotasoing that the sthāyın or the permanent mood, inferred from its louhıla causes (eg woman garden, etc ) remains in the bearts of the appreciating audience in the subtie form of latent impressions. On reading a poem or witnessing a drama this permanent mood, remaining in the form of latent impressions (vasana), is suggested by the depicted vibhāvas etc, which cease to be called laukika causes but go by the name of vibhavas etc, in poetry and drama," and which are taken in theic general form without specific connexions explained by Mammata as samar kanem vasarat mataya sth roh on which Govinda comments sam uwlanan saksmatayartah sthirah and Maltınātha adds samoji arani svanubhava fanta vesanalmalaya 110 explaining väsana as samskara 2 laukika karanatvad: bhupom atzkretau esulaukika vibhavada vyapadela bhablak Abh an Bh karanatvadı pantharend wbhavanad! vyapurayonivad alaukka vbhavadi sabda vya ghara! Mammata cx plained by Vidyadhara as foke iu karana karya sukakeriny cabhd/ yanre, na vibhuvanuluva vybkicerinal p 92 3 Sadharanyena pralda ., Mammata ·203 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS The nubhav as, therefore, are generalised in the minds of the reader and do not refer to particularities Dot through the power of bhāvalatvi, as supposed by Bhatfa Nayaka but generally through the suggestive power of word and sense and specifically through a skilful use of guna and alamkara 1a poetry, and clever representation to the drama In the same way, the sthāyi bhāva or the permanent mood which is the source of the Rasa, 45 also generalised, because the germ of it is already existent in the reader s soul in the form of impressions, and this together with the beauty of the gcncralised representation of the vibhavas etc, removes all temporal and spatial limitations * The mood is generalised also in the sense that it refers not to any particular reader but to readers in general so that although it is relished by a particular individual, yet at the time of rclishang it, he does At thok that it is relished by him alone but by all persons of poetic sensibility. This relish is known as Rasa in poetry and drama 1 The sthusia 18 called hecause though the feeling itsell the 31 feelings 15 essentially transient its impresaron in the form of asana or . Sa ishare more or less permanent being called up when the Rasa 15 cognised CE Prabl ap 61 anrah Larana prasnu rupasy a raryudar asu vinarier saniskaraimana ca kola sthayitod ad tasa pratiti kolam anusarndhande ca sthayan am But the sthayin itself is not Ilasa caust be wake wssa aud ubka doli melaka and thus Diade relishable (cananopayogi) Gorida p62. The ollimale relish of Rasa is free from all contact either of the wbhai as or of the stayin 2 muhura pratsirpakadına tasan nafa buddhir acciady die gadla prakrana santhi sarisharac vo laisa balad chamurlap na fara ramadh ruframari cara erabita a desa Lala pant) igah Ahh as cited by Hemacandra r66 3 mamute nibhayadayah alam tia rasasyadaya cauti a si adlananali + Athya pramar-gatasi ena sthrio di sud hargnopāya hatar tarlala Meciula-parim ta prania bhas a resonmifata sedanfard sds parla tanya parimta blenz pramitra sadhuranyena Sefara trabaho DJ gocarkrah Mammala ·THE THEORY OF RASA 209 To state it brickly and without any technicality, there is in the mind a latcat impression of feelings which we once went through and this as coused wien we read a poem which des. cribes similar tbags By umversal sympathy we become part and parcel of the same fecling and imagine ourselves in that condition 7 Thus the feeling is raised to a state of relish, call cd Rasu in which lies the essence of poetic enjoyment It will be noticed that these theorists presuppose latest impression of experience (vasana) and universal sympathy (sedharanya or sādharanikarana) Those who have never experienced the feeling of love for instance, and have therefore no impression of experience left ta them as well as those who have no sence of community of human feelings can never relish Rasa in poetry The vasand we are told 15 patural (svābhaviki or naisargıkı) but it may be acquired by study and experience The writers on Poetics, therefore, are merciless in their satire on dull grammarians and old Mimamsakas to whom guch relish of Rasu is dedued and they declare unanimously that rasika eva rastisyude yogyah. As Rasa is not an objective entity which can reside in the hero or the actor it is realised, as Dhananjaya puts it fiy 36) by the reader s own capacity of coroyment Thus a degree of culture and aesthetic instinct 15 demanded in the critic, thc raSiha or sah daya, wbo is the adlıkarın dignified with the appellation of promālr compati ble with this subtle and extraordinary conception of poetry As Abbigavagupta puts it adhukarı calra vunala pranbhanasali hrdayah , and elsewhere (Locand p 11) he describes such a sahrdaya as yesam kavyanufifanabhyasa vajad wsadibhute manomukure varnanıya tanmayıbhavana yogyată le hrdaya samvada-bhajah sahrdayuh pe It may also be pointed out that this subtle conception of Rasa makes it difficult to express the notion properly in Western critical terminology word beca trapslated ety pologically by the terms Savour' relish' 'gustation 'taste' "Geschmack' or 'saveur', but none of these renderings seems to be adequate The simpler word 'mood' or the term Stum 14 ·210 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS mung* used by Jacobi, may be the nearest approach to it, but the concept has hardly any analogy in European critical theo ries. Most of the terms employed have ideational associations of their own, and are therefore not strictly applicable. For ins. tance, the word 'taste' or 'relish,' though literally correct. must not be understood to imply aesthetic or moral judgment, 'good or bad taste,' but must be taken to indicate an idea similar to what we mean when we speak of tasting food, At the same time, this rcalistic description must not lead us to drag it down to the level of a bodily pleasure ; for this artistic plcasure is given as almost equivalent to the pbilosophic bliss, known as ūnanda being liſted above worldly joy. This peculiar condition of the ego, the Rasa, is realised through the characteristic function of vyanjanā or suggestion in poetry. The idea is claborated by later theorists, who take pains to show that it does not come under the province of abhidha (dcuotation), por of tātparya (import), nor of laksanā (indication), nor of pratyaksa (perception), nor of anumana (inference), nor of smarana (reminiscence), admitted by philo sophers and grammarians. Into these technicalities which properly come under the discussion of the vyalījanů rytti. we Deed not eater ; but it may be noted that Abhinava describes this abhivyakti, which is taken as synonymous with carana," as vita-vighna-pratti or cognition rendered free from obstacles. Following lun, Jagapatba notes in this connexion : vyaktis ca bhagnāyaraņā cit, zatírā hi śorāvādină pihito dipas tant. nivsftau sannikitan padārthūn prakafayati, svayari ca prokāšate. evam ārma.caitanyari vibhāvādi-savivalisän ratyādin. Similarly carvan is described by the author of the Prabha as vibhāvādisamähälambane na ratyavacchinna cailangabhivyaktiś carvanů. så ca bhagnuvaranā cit. The cognition of Rasa, therefore, is a distinct realisation freed from an doubts and obstacles by means of the vibhāvas etc., which are accordingly designated 1 vsakit carraneti paryayah, Govinda, P. 62 ·THE THEORY OF RASA 211 as vighnūpasūraka! It is variously described as camatkāra. nirvesa (awakeniog of poctic charm), rasanā (relish) asvāda (taste), bhoga (frostion) samāpath (accomplishment), laya (fusion) and vibranti (repose)" The essence of Rasa, therefore, consists 10 its asvada or carvanā (carusamanaika pranah) which is alaukika, being incompassable by the ordinary processes of knowledge It is a sclish 1n which the Rosa alonc apart from its constituent clements, 13 raised to consciousness, and it is therefore, des cribed as a relish in which the contemplation of any other thing but Rasa itself 19 lost (vigalita vedyāntara) or which is free from the contact of aught else perceived (vedyantarasparsa sunya), like the state of mind lost in the philosophic contemplation of Brahma It is not capable of proof designation and cannot be made Laowa, becausc its perception is basepacable from its existrace, or in other words, it is Ideatical with the knowledge of itsell' The only proof of the Existence of Rasa is its relish itself by the sahrdaya. It is therefore sakala sahrdaya hrdaya samvedana saksika or in the words of Mammata sakpla sahrdaya sai ādabhāja pramatra gocarikrrah Although it is a very intimate relish comatk ära 1$ supposed to constitute its life breath This camalhura, which has been compared to the 'wonder spirit' of modern critics is described by Visvanatha as a kind of expanding of the mind of which another name is 'wonder' (camalkaros cifra vistard rupo vismayāpara paryuyah) implying that the marvellous always underlics the Rasa (tac camatkāra säratve sarvatrapy adbhuto rasah under 111 3) Jagannātha, however, 1 See Hemacandra p 63 sarvatha rdfanatmaka ay ghna pranti gruhyo bhara eva rasak ratra veghaapasaraka vibhava prablayah where the vighnarare enumerated as seven so number and discussed in detail 2 loke sakula vyhra y nariruka naslevuur eva camatkaan ryetarasanäsvadona bhosa-samapaita laya višrantyadi Sabdar Abhidhiyate Hemicandra loc cit following Abhinava 3 Visvanitha u 20 4 Tbud i 26 ·212 SOUC PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS completes the idea by corrcluling this camarlara with the Maicima ot nechtal of the Alaikara School who mcan by it a special charm duc to an act of imagination on the part of the poet (hari karma or koi pratibha) underlying and consti tuting the essence of all poetic figures! The camathura therefore which is the essence of all poctic Ogutes is also the CSSCOCC of Rasa and has been delincd' as a fact of our consciousness (ankblava saksika) consisting of extraordinary pleasure (alankanlada) u hich depends on a concept formed by continued contemplation of itself The last step in this idea was taken by the attempt of bringing Poetry to the level of Religion by likening this aesthetic enjoyment to the ecstatic bliss of divine contempla tion (brahmdsvada) Visvanatha sums up the idea brielly thus The Rasa arising from the cxaltation of satta (purity) indivisible selt manifested made up of joy and thought in their id ntry free from the contact of nugbt else perceived akin to the realisation of Brahms the life whereof is super muodane wonder is enjoyed by those competent in insepara bleness (or the object from the realisation thered) and as it were in its own shape' It follows from this that the pramars to whom alone this bliss 15 vouchsafcd is like a sogin or devotee wha deserves this preference through his accumulated merits punts avantah pramenyanti yogivad rasa samiatim) This in its general outfiges is the Rasa theory as finally Exed by the Dhvani School and a later writers from Dhananjaya to Jaganatha accept this new interpretation and attempt to work it out in detail Thug an endeavour was made not only to explain the concept of Rasa in terms of to ward experience but also to absorb this idea of ecsthetic delectation into the new theory of Dhani and make it appl: I See Jacob Leber Degr it und Wesen der poetschen Feren in GN 1908 where th 3 concept on of an alanlara is cipla ned See also Introd to the Valrokl) sa ed S K De 2 Ra a gangadhard p 4 ed Bombay 1916 3 Sul padargang 1 2 3 ed Durgaprosidi p 1 1 ·THE THEORY OF RASA 213 cablo to poetry and the Rasa School properly so called began to merge from this time onwards into the dominant Dhvani School Even Mauimabhatja who attempted to demolish the Dhyam ihtory was forced to acknowledge Rasa and declare that on this point there is no difference of opinion between himself and the Dhyankara', the only diference existing with regard to the function par excellence which should be operative in poetry But the Dhvani School and its followers consider Rasa as an element of the uocxpressed oply, and though their theory which puts a great emphasis on rasa-dhvani practically leads to such a conclusion, both the Dlivanıkara and Anandavardhana are yet careful not to erect it into the very soul of poetry From the tbeoretical standpoint at least they could not give exclusive preference to rasa dhyanı however important it may be, for a their complete scheme of Poetics the unexpressed may also take the form of vastu divant and alanthara dhvani and the centre of gravity in a poem may lie in its matter or in its poetic figure as well as its Rasa Abhinavagupla however appears to have attached little weight to these theoretical considera tions and brusboog them aside he boldly brings forward the essentiality of Rasa declaring that there can be no pocery with out Rasa (na hi facchunyam kavyam kinıcıd astia) because all poetry lives through rasa (rasendiva sarvam }ivar Lavyarn) Ho attempts however to reconcile the theoretical discrepancy by saying that although admittedly the unexpressed may also take the form of a vastu or 91 alarkare these two kinds of suggestion' resolve themselves ultimately sato the suggestion of Rasa which is in fact the essence of poetry Tlus opinion apparently led Visvsgatba to push the theory to its logical limit and formulate bis somewhat cxtrcmc ycw that the Rasa alone constitutes the essence of poetry (13) But the 1 kavyas) drmani rand rupe na kasacid mah p 22 2 Locand p65 3 rasa eve vastuia dimd rahvalamkerastrau ta sar diku rasan proti parya asye e p 23 ·214 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS considerations which led the founders of the Dhvani theory to leave this VICH wisely anslated, could not be easily pat out of the way. and Jagannatha objects on this very ground The definition of poctry giyen by Visvanathhe says, cannot be accepted, because thereby poetry .. which the central charm lies in the matter or 10 the poetic Egure (e & m professedly descriptive and ornamental poetry) would be entirely excluded and such an exclu sion is not warranted either by theory or by the practice of great poets Visvanātha anticipates this objection by saying that in these cases there is a semblance of Rasa (rasablasa) and the verse given in Dinamaloka p 20 as an instance of vastu dhvani 19 in bus opinion, admissiblc because there is a touch of Rasa (rasa sparsa) and not because mcrc vyangya vastu can constitute the essence of poetry Jagannatha replies that nothing is gained by this clumsy subterfuge of an Indirect reference to Rasa because such a reference may also be construed sa phrases like the cow moyes' or 'lhe decr leaps' This cannot be taken as a criterion because thereby any and every content of poetry would be reduced to the position of a vibhava anublurra or vyabhicuri bhava of the Rasa Jagannatha himself onc of the latest writers on the subject, therefore trics 10 solve the dificulty by studiously avoiding all meation of Rasa 10 bis definition of poetry, al though in theory he, like Visvanatha adheres in the main to the views of the Dhvani School Jagannatha mentions as many as eight different theories about Rasa (p 28), but the existence of so many conflicting views as well as the fact ibat Rasa cannot be talen as the essence of all poetry, makes bim Jefiuc poetry as ramanizarsha prati padakah sabdah inasmuch as all theorists agrec that Rasa, which cannot Adifested without an accompanying state of joy conveys a peculiar ramaniyatu essential to poetry. It will be noticed there. 1 Sce on ths point Sulltya darpana pp 16 f 290 Rasa gangu di ara ap 78 of also Govinda Pradipa ed Kiyyemāla 1912, !! 2 intha a nána játſzublik semasīblur and tupalaya asilo p ·THE THEORY OF RASA 215 fore, that recognition was refused to any attempt, like that of Visvanātha, to develop the theory further out of itself; and the views of the Dhvan School, as represented later by Mammafa, became in spite of many attempts at improvement in derat), a kind of canonical code for all future time. In spite of this unquestioned dominance of the Dhvani School, which amply recognised Rasa but regarded it as one of the phases of the unexpressed in poetry, one class of weiters still adhered to Rasa as the only element worth considering in poetry, although they never thcoretically discussed the position like Visvapātba, and built up a system on its basis of all the Rasas, however, as śrngāra or love forms the absorbing tbeme of Sanskrit poetry and drama 10 general, and as thus particular poetic mood possesses an almost universal appeal, these writers naturally work out the śpngära in all its detail, and we have in consequence a body of erotico-rhetorical tccatises, of wbich the earliest and the most remarkable is Rudrabbatta's Songāra nlaha, one of whose arowed objects (15) is to apply the idea of Rasa, already discussed in Connexion with the drama by Bharata and others, to the case of poctry. Following upon this we have Bhoja's Sungāra.prakāša, cited by Vidyadhara (p.98) and Kumārasyāmın (. 221). wlich deals with the subject in the usual claborate cyclopaedic manner of its author, with profuse illustrations of every phase of the sentiment, un no less than twenty chapters. After this come innumerable works of a similar pature, which take Rasa, especially singära, as their principal theme, and which were composed with the apparcot object of guiding the poct 10 the composition of erotic pieces so popular and profuse in Sanskrit poetry of these the Bjāya prakasa of Sáradātapaya. which produces the substance of most of the chapters of manusibah paramahladaunabhari saya pratiyantanah prapace'ın raso ramantyalam ayahafiti nippadam, p 29 1 AMS of this work has been acquired by the Madras Govt Oricotal MSS Librasy, and V Raghavan has giYCA extensive account, based on this MS, of this work in bis Bhoja s friguru Prokasa yol ) (10 2 pls ), Bombay 1940 ·216 SOMC PROOLEYS OF SANSARIT POLTICS Bhoja's work and the Rasumda of StogabhUpala as well as the two well known works of Bhanudatta the Rasa munlari and Rasa farangint descric mention Nonc ol these special 15ed trcalises however add anything of speculative interest to a topic already thrashed out to its extreme, and as they belong properly to the province of Erotics rather than l'oetics a treatment of therd must be sought clscwberc The simple Idea elaborated more or less in all these works' is that the fundamental Rasa 13 sgara, which is consequently treated in detail with regard to 145 vibhayas ctc This brings in topu cally the extensive discussion of Nayaka and Nayika and their various conditions and emotions acting as a foctor of the Rasa Into these claboralc definitions distinctions and classi Ecations of the amatory sentiment with its varying cmohona! moods and situations which these works industriously discuss and which always possessed an attraction to mediaeval scholastic minds we need not enter here in the discussion of geacral principles These theorists delight in arranging into divisions and subdivisions according to rank character circumstances and the like all conccivable types of 1bc hero the heroine and their adjunct3 together with the different shades of gestures graces feelings moods and emotions in conformity to the tradition which had already obtained in the sphere of Dramaturgy We cannot refuse to recognise the subtle power of analysis and insight wbich these essays indicate and although much of it is marked by scholastic 1 Th $ is clear from the attitude of Bhoja in bis Spgåra prakasa reported by Vidyadhara and Kumarastam o both of whom po at out that Bhoja accepts only opc Rasa thc Crot c (ruja fa frigöram ekam eva frrgåra prolaft rasant uraricala a Ekasar r 98 prgora eka eva rasa + Syngaraprakasa Larch Räraapana p 221) Although Bhoja mcauions as many as ten Rasas tus Sar van koní abharang he appears to devote almost etelus ve ailent on to frågåra in bus treatment in the same way Rudrabhasta declares Spriguro na ako rosal 20 and Bhanudatta appears to take it for granted that sprigata occup es an tonoured place among all the Rasas (ratra rases) 4488cosyahlark ! Ivend ed Bepatcs p 21) ·THE THEORY OF RASA 217 formalism there is an unmistakule attempt to do justice to facts not only as they appear to experience but to the obser vation of general poetic usage In the elaborate working out of the general thesis that the Rasa is evolved on the basis on onc or other of what they call the permanent mental poods with the help of various emotional adjuncts, the writers on Poeties have proceeded a long way in the careful analysis of poetic emotions, the psychology of which bears an inumate relation to their theory and in itsell deserves separate study A new turn was given to the theory by Rūpa Gosvamin's Vivala nilamant which brings erotico religious ideas to bear upon the general theme of Rasa It attempts to deal with Rasa in terms of thc Vaişnava idea of ujjvala or madhura rasa by which is meant the singara rasa the term uvala being apparently suggested by Bharata's description of that Rasa: The madhura rasa, however is represented pot in its secular aspect but primarily as a pbase of bhakn rasa (madhurakhyo bhaku rasah 3). for the Varnava theology admits five Rasas as forming roughly the fivc degrecs or aspects of the realisation of Bhaktı or faith, viz sania (tran quillity), dusya (also called prur servitude or bumility) sakhya (also called preyas friendship or equality) vatsalya (parental affection) and madhurya (sweetness) The last also called the ujjvala rasa being the principal is termed bhahn rasa raf' and constitutes as such, the subject maller of the present treatise The krsna rati or the love of Krsna forms the sthay: bhaya of this Rasa and the recipient here is not the literary sahrdaya but the bhakra 1 yar kmal loke face mediryam situelam darsanhu va su chragarenopamiyete ed Grosset pp 89-90 2 1 7 explaiged by lva Gosvamin as Jūnla pri preyo droly Oljpala namaçu mukhyefu sa erojjyota para paryayo bhakti rasinam rasa madhurdlhyo rasah ed Kavyama p 3 ·218 SOYC PRODLENS OF SANSKRIT POLTICS the faithful This sthūyi bhara low madhura rall which is the source of this particular Rasa us defined in terms of love of hana", and the nature of the Mayola and Nayaka is defined to the same manner and their fcctings and emotions illustrated by cxamples adduced from pocms dealing with the love stories ol Kršna and Radh5 The work is therefore essentially A Vaişpaya religious trcadisc presented in a literary garb taking hrşnı as the ideal licto with the caution howeser that what is truc of Krzna as the hero docs not apply to the ordinary secular hero (1 18 20) On APPENDIX We give in the following pages the relevant text of Ablunavaguptas commentary Bharata chi with reference to his famous Sotra on Rasa referred to in this monograph The passage gives a learned summary of the various theories on Rasa obtaining in Abhinava s time Most of it has been as we have noticed appropriated by Ilemacandra in his commentary on his own manususaha (p 576) Manuscripts of Abhinava s commentary are by no mcans plentilui aad sa far (wo copies are known to be th cx stoc one of which 13 DON ua the Trivandrum Palacc Library and the other in thc Gorcrnment Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras Our text 15 based on a Devanagari transcrip! procured for us by Mm Ganguruth Jha presumably from the Trusodrum MS The text oflered here being based on such imperfect material is indeed deficient and unsatisfactory in many places bat it is bha I ddy a 1d bi aklanām önt a fra ondd bhill esa hrane roti sihdyi b) avo bhakt cted by ) va Gosvăn nr 4 2 madharak hasă roler laktarem colroma ha cr mrgoltyds ca sa ! blogasya: Karanam madhurapa a parydza prigarakl yad id tal it! ibid loc cu 771

·THE THEORY OF Rudd
999
s
poklebend to this beatae form out olacon derelice de
tapeter We have soledare candlesticos de

·220 SOME PROBLEMS or SANSKRIT POLTICS एतन्नेति श्रीशडक । विभावाद्ययोगे स्थायिनो लिहाभानावगत्यनुपपत्ते भावाना पूर्वमनियताप्रसद्वात् , स्थितदशायां लक्षणान्तरवैयया॑न् मन्दता- तममाध्यस्थ्याद्यानन्त्यापत्ते , हासरसे घोढात्वाभावप्राप्त्रे , कामाषस्थामु दशखप्तख्यरसभावादिप्रसङ्गात् , शोकस्य प्रथमतीमत्व वालात्तु मान्यदर्शनम् , क्रोधोत्माइरतीनाममपत्थैर्य सेवाविपर्यये हासदर्शन मिति विपर्ययस्य दृश्यमानत्वाच । तस्मानुिभिर्विभापाख्य कार्य चानुभावात्ममि सहचारिस्पैश्च व्यभिचारिभि प्रयत्नार्जिवतया कृतिमैरपि तथानभिमन्यमानेरनुका स्थत्वेन लिजयलन प्रतीय- मान स्थायी भाको मुख्यरामादिगतस्थाप्यनुकरणरूपत्वादेव च नामान्तरेण न्यपदियो रस । विभावा हि काव्यवलादनुसया , अनुभावा शिक्षा, न्यभिचारिण कृतिमनिजानुभागार्जनवलात् । स्थायी तु काम्यालादपि नानुमधेय । रति शोक इलादयो हि शब्दा रत्यादिकमभिधेयीकुर्वन्त्यमि यानत्वेन, न तु वाचिकाभिनयरूपतयावगमयन्ति । न हि वागेव चाचिरम, अपि तु तया नितम् , औरिपाशिकम्। तेन–'वाडवेनेव जलधि शोक क्रोधेन पोयते' इति । तथा-'शोरेन कृतस्तम्भतथा स्थितौ यो- ऽनवस्थितारदै" इत्येवमादौ न शोकोऽभिनेयोऽपि त्वभिधेय । 'भाति पतितो लिखन्या इत्यनेन तु वाक्येन स्वार्थमभिदधता उदयनगत सुखारमा रति- स्थायिभावोऽभिनीयते, न रुप्यते । अदममनशक्तियभिनयन वाचकत्वा. दन्या। अतएव स्थायिपद सूत्रे भित्रविमतिकमपि नोपात्तम् । तेन रति- खिक्रियमाणा रझार इति तदारमत्व तत्मभवत्व च युतम् । अर्थक्रियापि मिम्यामानादृष्टा । न चास नर्तक एव मुसोति प्रतिपति , नाप्ययमेव राम - 6 भाशमान 7 'विशामायणायोपि दुरोपि मवाना इबस्त्र पूर्ण पत्र। 8 पत पूर्वाधमतर पपचरे वरितमेव मदीयते, ससा तब "य- स्टमयारादितमन्वयात सचिव इत्युपश्यते । 9 भादि पतितो हिवरवावस्खा राम्याम्मुधोकरकोच । स्वदोतम दून करतहसम्पादेष मै माधि ददि भएर तिमेोष शोक। 10 मधोइदि पदासापाय।

·THE THEORY OF RASA 241 । इति। न चाप्यय न सुखीति, न चापि तत्सरश इति। किंतु य मुखी रामोऽमाययमिति प्रतीतिरस्तीति। तदाइ- प्रतिभातिन संदेहो न तत्व न विपर्यय । धीरसावयमित्यस्ति नासाकेवायमित्यपि ॥ विरुद्ध द्धिराभेदादविवेचितगमन । युक्तया पर्यनुयुज्येत स्फुरननुभव क्या ॥ इति । तदिदमप्यन्तसारपशून्य विमर्दक्षममि युपाघ्याय" तथा हि-अनुकरणरूपो ररा इति यदुच्यते तन् कि सामाजिकप्रतालभि प्रायेणोत नटाभिप्रायेण । कि पा वस्तुपत्तविपेचक्रव्याख्या बुद्धिसमवलम्यनेन । यथाहाख्यातार खस्वेव विवेवयन्तीति । अथ भरतमुनिवचनानुसारेण तनाद्य पक्षोऽसनत । किचिद्धि प्रमाणेनोपलब्ध तदनुकरणगिति शक्य बहुम् । यथा -~-एवमसौ सुरों पिरतीति मुरापानानुकरणत्वेन पयपान प्रत्यक्षापत्तोकित प्रति भाति । इह च नटगत कि तदुपतब्ध सदनुकरणतया भातौति चिन्त्यम् । तच्छ- रीर तनिष्ठ प्रतिशीर्षकादि रोमाशगददिकादि भुजाक्षेपवलनप्रति घ क्षेप कटाक्षादिक चन रतेचित्तातिरूपतयानुकारत्वेन कस्यचित प्रतिगाति । जडत्वेन भिन्नेन्द्रियमायत्वेन भित्राधिकरणत्वेन च ततोऽतिवलक्षण्यात् । मुल्यामुख्या वलोकने च तदनुकरणप्रतिभासो न च रामगता रतिमुपलब्धपूर्विण केचित् । एतेन रामानकारी नट इत्यपि निरस्त प्रवाद । अथ नटगता वित्ततिरेव प्रतिपना सती रत्सनुकार रहार इत्युच्यते तत्रापि किमात्मकत्वेन सा प्रतीयत इति चिन्त्यम् । ननु प्रमदादिभि कारण कटाक्षादिभि कार्यभ्रतादिभिश्च सहचारिभिलिङ्गभूतैर्या लौकिको कार्यरूपा कारण रूपा सहचारिरूपा च चित्ततति प्रतीतियोग्या, तदारमत्वेन सा नटचित्तात्ति प्रतिगाति । इन्व नहि रसाकारेणैव मा प्रतिपन्नेति दूरे रखनुकरणवादाची- युक्ति । 11 भती' चिमचन्द्र ।

·THE THEORY OF RASA कृत , स उत्तरत सावमो चयिष्यते । तम्मात्मामाजिप्रतीत्यनुसारेण स्थाय्यनुकरण रस इत्यसत् । न थापि नटस्यत्ध प्रतिपत्ति राम तचित्तात्ति वानुवरोमीति । सदृशकरण हि वावदनुरणमनुपलब्धतीनां न शक्यं वर्तुम् । श्रय पचात्वरणमनुकरण' तोकेऽप्यनुकरणात्मिकेति प्रसहा। अथ न नियतस्य कस्यचिदरारोऽपि तूप्तमप्रकृते शोकमनुकरोति, तर्हि पेनेति चिन्त्यम् । न तावच्छोवन, तस्य तदमावात् । न चापादादिना शोषम्यानुकार , तलक्षण्यादित्युतम्। इयत्तु स्यादुतमाहतेये शोवानुभावास्खाननुकरोमीति । ततापि कस्योत्तमारते ? यस्य कस्यचिदि पेट , मोऽपि विशिष्टता विना कथ' खुदावारोपयितु शक्य । य एवं रोदितीति चेत् , सामापि मप्ये नटस्यानु- प्रविष्ट इति गतितोऽनुकार्यानुक भेद । किच, नट शिक्षावशाल्पविभाव- मरणाचित्ताप्तिमापारणीभायेन हृदयसवादात् रेवलमनुभावान् प्रदर्शयन् काव्यसमुचिताइप्रमृत्युपगंस्कारेण पटोएत इत्येतावन्मासेऽस्य प्रतीतिर्न त्यनुशार चेदयते । कान्तवेषानुवारवद्धि न राम" चेष्टितस्सानुकार । एतय प्रपमाघ्यायेऽपि दर्शितमम्माभि । नापि यस्तुवतानुसारेण तदनुसारत्वम् , अनुसंयमानस्य यस्लातत्यानुपपते । यद्य वस्तुत्त नरयिष्याम । न च मुनियनमेव विषमति कचित् स्थाग्यनुकरण रस इति । नापि लिझमनाय" मुनेरुपलभ्यते । प्रयुत वगानतालांचिश्यकासाहोपजीवन निपणादिविपर्पये लिमिति संभ्यताध्यायान्ते विवनियाम'। मतदीपानुशामिलापस्थापि रायगमनिकमिति सदनुकारेऽपि "नामान्तर बान्तरेपणत्यनारदो। ययोच्यते-पीईरितालादिमि मयुग्यमान एव गौरियादि, उन यभिध्याय गान इत्यर्थोऽभिप्रेतादात् । न मितादिभि पारमार्थिको गीरिति ·SOME PRODLEMS ar SANSKRIT POCTICS व्यज्यते प्रदीपादिभिरिव"। कि तु सरगरा सगृहविशेषो निम्त्यते । वएप हि सिन्दूरादयो गवावयवरा निवेशसदरीन सनिशविरोषणावस्थिता गोसागिति प्रतिभासस्य विषय , विगावादिसमूहो रविमरशताप्रतिप्राय । नग्मादावा. कण रग इत्यसत् । येन सभ्यभायि-गुमदु सजननशक्ति युक्ता विश्यसामग्री पानव माध्यशा मुखदु खस्वमायो रस , तस्यां च रामम्यो दलस्थानीया विभाया सरकारता , अनुभावव्यभिचारिण स्थायिनस्तु तमामप्रीजन्या श्रान्तरा मुरादु राखगावा इति, तेन स्थायिभावानुरमत्वगित्यादावुपचार "गोकुता प्रन्यविरोध स्वयमेर घुध्यमानेन दूषणाविष्करणमीळत् प्रामाणिको जन परिरचित इति किमस्योच्यते । यस्लत्यात न प्रतीतिवैषम्यप्राङ्गादि तरिक यदसोच्यताम् । भटनायकरलाह-रमो न प्रतीयते, नोपयवे, नाभिव्यज्यते। स्वगतस्पेन हि प्रतीती करणे दु सिल सात् । नप सा प्रवीतियुका सीतादेरविभान- त्यात, खकान्तास्मृत्यसवेदनात., देवतादी न माधारणीकरणयोग्यत्वात्, समुद्रलहनादेरगाभारण्यात् । न न तस्यतो रामस स्मृति , अनुपलब्धत्वात् । नच शब्दाशुमागादिभ्यस्तरप्रतीती लोकस्य सरसता प्रयुक्ता प्रलबादिव । नायक्युगलकावभासे हि प्रयुत लनाजुगुप्यास्पृहादिखोचित्तचिताय तरोदयम- व्यप्रत्याभाष"वमथापि स्यात् तन। प्रतीतिरनुभवस्मत्यादिश्पा रमस्य गुहा । उत्पत्तावपि तुत्यमैतपणम् । शक्तिरूपत्वेन पूर्व स्थितस्य पश्चादभिव्यकी विपयाजावारतम्पापतिः। खगतत्वपरगतल्यादि व विद्विकल्प्पम् । इस्सा काव्ये दोषाभावगुणालकारमयत्पतक्षणेन, माव्ये धतुर्विधाभिनयापैण, निविद्ध- निजमोहसका निवारणकारिणा विभावादिसाधारणीकरणात्मनाभिधाचो द्वितीय नाशैन भावकत्वव्यापारेण भाव्यगानो रसोऽनुभवस्मृत्लादिविलक्षणेन, रजस्तमो- A 18 प्रतिवादिभि इक्षि दुर पाट । 19 'शापिभावान् रसत्तमुपनद्याप दादाइपचार' इति श्रमचन्द्ररत पाठ। 20 व्यपतयाकामरसत्वमयापि रवि मंदिग्धपाटोमूदानके।

·THE THEORY OF RASA 225 शुपचियालातिविकामविस्तारलक्षणेन, सत्दोदेकप्रकाशानन्दमयनिज- सविद्विधान्तिलक्षणेन परब्राम्बादमविधेन भोगेन पर भुज्यत इति ।" तख पूर्वपक्षोऽय भालोलटपकान युपयमादेव नाभ्युपगत इति तदूपणमनु- स्थानोपणलगेच । प्रतीलादिन्यतिरिक्तश्च सयारे को भोग इति नविन । रसेनेति चे, साप्यत प्रतिपत्तिरेव । केपलमुपायवेलक्षण्यानामान्तर प्रतिपद्यता दर्शनानुमितिश्रुत्युपमितिप्रतिभानादिनामान्तरवत् । निष्पादनाभिव्यक्तिद्वया- नभ्युपगमे च नित्यो वासद्वा रस इति न तृतीया गति स्यात् । न चाप्रतीत वस्त्वस्ति व्यवहारे योग्यम् । अयोच्यते प्रतीतिरिति रसस्स भोगीकरणम्, तब रलादिखस्पम् , वदतु। तथापि न ताव मातम् । यावन्तो हि रसास्वावन्त एप रमनारमन प्रतीतयो भोगीपरणखभावा । गुणाना चाहानिचिन्य- मनम्तमप्यमिति का बित्येनेयता । भावनाभान्य एपोऽपि द्वारादिगणो मत इति। यत्काव्येन भाव्यन्ते रमा इत्युच्यते तत्र विमादादिशनितचर्यणा- त्माखादरूपप्रत्य यगोचरतापादनभेव यदि मावन तदभ्युपगम्यत एव । यतलम् - सवेदनाख्यन्यगया परसवितिगोचर। प्रास्वादनात्मानुभावो रस काभ्यार्थ उध्यते ॥ इति, वन व्यज्यमानतया व्यङ्गयो लक्ष्यते । अनुमवेत च द्विपम इति मन्तव्यम्। नन्वेव कथ रसतत्त्वम् । माता मि कुर्म । मानायसिद्धे किमपूर्वमेतत् राचिद्विकासेऽधिगतागमित्वम् । 21 काटयालोकलोचन (२०-६८) स्वभाख्यान दृशत । 22 अभिया भावना पाया रोगीकतमेव च। अरिधावामा यात भन्दाकाठी तय. भावनाभाय एषोऽपिशृङ्गारादियो यत । तद्रो गीतक्षेप व्याप्यते मिडिभार॥ इति श्मचरत अनारकलशोकायम । 15 ·226 SOUC PROBLEMS OS SANSARIT POETICS एवं सपमानामाईन दलन कि दूयिता न सोक उप्यायमारला यदर्थतन पी पश्यति धान्तिमयदयन्ता। भल टदार्य परिकलितानां विषयोपानररंपराणाम् ॥ चित्र निरालम्बनमेव मन्ये प्रमेयासाप्रमावतारम् । तन्मार्गनामे सति सैनुबन्ध- पुरप्रतिष्टादिम विस्मयाय ॥ तम्मात्मतामत्रम दूषितानि मवानि ताम्मर तु शोषितानि । पूर्वप्रतिष्ठापितयोजनाम मुलपविशालमामनन्ति । त ध्यताम्-परिशुद्धतस्वमुष्टमेव मुनिना, न त्व हिचिन्। मया बाह-- काम्याधी भावयन्तीति ठत् काम्याधों रम | यथा हि-"राहीरासते वाममी प्रादाद” ( 1 ) इत्यादी भर्थिवादिलनिवस्याधिकारिण प्रदिपतिर्मानादिति- वृत्यरोगितात्" प्रथमप्रस्तदनन्तरमधिश्वोपातालतिरकारेणेव भास्ने। प्रददायीत्यादिपा सकमणादिसभावा। या दर्शन प्रति भावादिवियुयोगादि- भाषाभिळवता प्रतिपत्तिस्वयंव काव्यात्मकादपि राब्दादधिकारिणोऽधिकाति प्रतिपसि । अधिकारी चात विमलप्रतिभानशालिहृदय । तस्य च 'प्रोवा. महाभिरामम्" इति, 'उमापि नीलालक इति, 'हरत विचित्" इत्यादि वाक्येभ्यो वाक्याप्रतीवेरनन्तर मानमी साहातारास्मिा अपहस्तिततत- द्वाक्योपातकालादिविमापा तावातोतिरूपनायते। तस्याध यो मृगपोतसाहित 23 प्रतिपतिमादित' इवादि महासाप्रम दश्च । 24 अभिडानान्त 25 मारभवे ॥ 26 तत्र ·THE THEORY OF RASA 227 भांति तस्य पिरोपरूपत्वाभावाद्रीत" इति प्राहक्म्यापारमार्थिकत्वाद्वयमेव पर देशकालाधनालिङ्गितम् । ततएव भीतोड़ भीतोऽय शत्रुर्बयस्यो मध्यम्यो सादिप्रत्ययेभ्यो दु ससुखादिकृतहानादिबुझ्यन्तरोदयनियमवत्तया विनवहुलेभ्यो विलक्षण निविघ्नप्रदीतिप्राय साक्षादिव हृदये निधीयमान चक्षुषोरिव विपरिवर्त मान गयानको रस । तथाविधं हि भये नात्मा तिरस्कृतो निविरोपत उल्लिखित । एवं परोऽपि । ततएव न परिमितमेव साधारण्यमपि तु विततम् । व्याप्तिाह इन धूमाग्न्योर्भयकम्पयोरेच था। दस साक्षात्कारायमाणत्यपोपिका नगादि सामग्नी। यस्या वस्तुसता काव्यापिताना च देशकालप्रमानादीनां नियमहेतू नामन्योन्यसबन्धवलादत्यन्तमपसरणे रा एव च साधारणीभाव मुतरा पुष्यति । अतएव सर्वसामाजिकानामेशधनतव प्रतिपत्ते सुतरा रसपरिपोपाय सर्वपामनादि रासनाचितौकृतोतसा वासनासवादात् । सा पाविना सविचमत्कार । तजोऽपि कम्पपुलकोलसनादिविकार धमत्कार.. यथा अज्ज विहरी चमकर बहकह बि ए मदरेण कलिमाद । चदकतारदलसच्छभाइ लच्छीई अगाइ॥ तथा हि-स चातृप्तिव्यतिरेकेणाच्छिनो भोगावेश इत्युच्यते । भुबानस्याद्भुत भोगमन्दाविष्टस्य च मन सरण चमत्कार इति। सच साक्षात्कारस्वभावो मानसाम्यवसायो वा सकल्पो वा स्तृतिर्वा तथारयेन स्फुरन्नस्तु । यदाह रम्याणि वीक्ष्य मधुरांश्च निशम्य शब्दान् पर्युत्युको भवति यत्सुसितोऽपि वनु । तसे तसा स्मरवि नूनमवोधपूर्व भावस्थितानि जननान्तरसौहदानि । इत्यादि सर्वथा सावदेषा प्रदीतिरावादात्मा, यस्यां रतिरेव माति। अतएव विशेषान्तरानुपहितलात सा रणनीया सतो न लौविकीति, न मिथ्या, नानि- 27 विशेषरुपमाद रति पटापादपटक पाठ । 28 भित्रानयन्ती 11101 'भाशिराषि इति प्रसिक पाउ ।

·228 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POCTICS तम विमाप- । यांच्या, न लौकिकन्या, न तदारोपादस्पा। तथैव चौपचयावस्थान देशाप- नियन्त्रणात्, अनुकारोऽप्यनुभावानुगामितवा करणाद, विषयसामग्यमपि भवतु विज्ञानवादावलम्बनात् । सर्वथा रसनात्मायोतविप्रपतीतिग्राह्यो भाव एव रमः । सारका विनावप्रभृतयः। तथा हि लीके गालविप्नविनिर्मुशा संवित्तिरेव चमत्कारनिवेशरसनान्यादनभौगसमापत्तिलयविधान्लादिशब्दरभियते । विणा- थास्सो प्रतिपत्तावयोग्यता गंभायनाविरहो नाम, स्वगतत्वपरगतत्वनियमेन देश- कालविशेषावेशः, निजगुणादिविवशीभावः, प्रतीत्युपायवैवल्यम् , स्पुटत्याभावः, अप्रधानचा, संशययोगध । व्याहि-संयमसंभाषयमानः संवें गंपिद निवेश- यितुं न शक्नोति। का तस विश्रान्तिरिति प्रथमो पिमः। पदपारणे हृदयसंवादोऽलोकसामान्ययस्तुविषयः। भलोकसामान्येषु चरिते असण्डित- प्रसिदिजनिजगाढारुढप्रत्ययप्रसरकारितम्यातरामादिनामधेयपरिवहः । अतएव नि सामान्योत्कऽपि देशव्युत्पत्तिप्रयोजने नाटकादी प्रख्यातरस्तुविषयत्वादि- नियमेन निरूपयिष्यते। न तु मदानादायेतच सावसर एव च्याम इत्यास्ता तावत् । म्नगतानां च मुखदुःरासंविदामास्वादे यथासंभप तदपगमभीरतया या तत्परिरक्षाव्यप्रतया वा तत्सदोजिजीपया वा तदिहासया पा तासचिस्या- पयिपया वा तद्गोपनेच्छया वा प्रकारान्तरेण वा संवेदनान्तरसमुद्गम एव परमो चिन्नः । “परगतस्वनियममाजामपि मुखदुःपाना संवेदने नियमेन स्वात्मनि सुखदुःसमोइमाभ्यस्थादिसंविदन्तरोद्गमनसंभावनादवरयंभावी दिनः । तदपा- करणे "कार्यो नातिप्रसंगोऽ"लादिना पूर्वरनानिहतेन प्रस्तावनालोक्नेन च यो नटरूपताधिगमन्तपुर सरः प्रतिशीर्षकजिना तापच्छादनाप्रकारोऽभ्युपायः, श्रलो- विकभाषादिभेदलासाहरगपीठमण्डपगतकक्षादिपरिपहनाट्यधर्मसहितः । तस्मिन् हि तस्यैवाता एतस्यैव च मुखदुःखं चेति न भवति, प्रतीतिस्वरूपस्य निहवाद- पान्तरस चारोपितस्य प्रतिभासंविद्विधान्दिकल्पेन खरूपे विश्रान्लभायात् । मत्यम् , बदीयापनिबमान एव पर्यनमानाद । याहि-मासीनपाम्यपुष्प- ·THE TIILORY OF RASA 229 गण्डिरादि लोके न दृशम् । न च दन किचिरस्थचित्समाव्यत्वादिति म एव सदा मुनिना साधारणीभावसिद्धासर्वखोपयोगित्वेन परिकरबन्म समाधित इति वनव स्पुटीभविष्यतीति तदिह तावनोग्नमनीयम् । शत स एप खपरनियरावया विनापसरणारो च्यारयात । निजमुखादिविवशाभूतश्च कथं वस्त्वन्तर सविद विधामयेदिति तत्प्रत्यूह- व्यपोहनाय प्रतिपदार्थनिष्ठ साधारण्यमहिना सालभोग्यत्वसहिष्णुभि शब्दादिविषयमयी भिरादोद्यगान विचित्रमगडपपदविदग्यरिणादिभिरपरअन समा भितम् । येनाहृदयोऽपि हृदयवैमल्यापया सहृदयीकियते । ऊक्त हि-दृश्य श्रव्य चंति। कि च-प्रतीत्युपायानामभावे कथ प्रतीति स्फुटयतीति वत्तारिशब्दलिझराभवेऽपि न प्रतीतिर्विश्राम्यति, स्फुटप्रतीतिस्पप्रत्यक्षोचित प्रत्ययसाकाट्तत्वात्। यथाहु.-सर्दा चय प्रमिति प्रत्यक्षपरा' इति । समाक्षात्कृते पागमानुमानशतरपि अनन्यथाभावस्य खसंवेदनात् । अतात चकादौ माक्षात्कारान्तरेणव बलवता तदवधारणादिति लौकिकस्तावदय क्रम । तस्मात्तदुभयविनविधावेऽभिनयबोधयमित्तिप्रवृत्युपस्कृता समभिपिच्यन्ते। अभिनयन हि सशब्दलिजन्यापारविसदशमेव प्रत्यक्षव्यापारकल्पमिति निश्चेप्याम । अप्राधने च वस्तुनि कस्य सविद्वियाम्यति तस्यैव प्रत्ययस्य प्रधानान्तर प्रत्खनुधावत खारमनि अनिधाम्यत्वात् । श्रतोप्रधानल जडे विभावानु- भाववर्ग व्यभिचारिनिचये च सविदात्मकेऽपि नियमेन नान्यमुसप्रेलिणि" सभवतीति तदतिरिक्त स्थाय्येव । तथा र चर्वणापात तत पुरुषार्थनिहर काचित् मपिद इति प्रधानम् । तद्यथा-शि कामवदनुपशिधानिछा, क्रोधस्तत्वाधानेवनिए कामधर्मपर्यवसितोऽप्युत्साह , समस्तधर्मादिपर्य वसितखलज्ञाननितनिदप्रायविभावो मोदोपाग इति तावदेषा प्राधान्यम् । यद्यपि चैपामप्यन्योन्य गुणभावोऽलि तथापि तत्तप्रधाने रूपके तत्तप्रधान सभवतीति रूपकभेदपर्यायेण सर्वेपा प्राधान्यमेषा लक्ष्यते। अदामागादिनिविष्ट- 29 भरतनाट्यमान 14. पहपके । ४३-४८ साहिवाणे १२ 30 माध्यमुपसधि इति पाठो मूलपस्तके ।

·230 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS दशा स्पेस्मिन्नपि स्पके पृथर प्राधान्यम् । तव सर्वेऽमी सुसप्रधानाः, समविणरुपत्यकथनम्य प्रसशस्यानन्दसारावात् । वाह-एकघनशोषमविचर्षणेऽपि लोके बीलोयम्य हृदयविधान्तिरत- रायशून्यविभान्तिशरीरलादविधान्तिस्पवैव दुराम्। तत एव कापिलई रासस यावश्यमेव प्राणत्वेनोक्ष रजोति यद्भिरिलानन्दरूपता सर्वरसानाम् । किं तूपरपकविषयवशापामपि क्टु वि नास्ति स्पों धीरस्य । स हिरा- सहिष्णुतादियाय एव । एव' रखादीना प्राधान्यम् । हासादीनों तु सातिशमं सकतलोरमुलभविभावतयोपरजपत्वमिति प्राधान्यम् । अतएवा- नुत्तमप्रकृतिषु हासादयो याहुरन भयन्ति । पामरमाय सर्वोऽपि हाति शोचति परनिन्दामाद्रियते, स्वल्पमुभाषितत्वेन च सर्पत विस्मयते। रत्यापन- तया तु पुमर्योपयोगित्वमपि स्थादेषाम् । एतद्गुणप्रधानभावकृत एव च दरारूप. कादिभेद इति यक्ष्याम । स्थायित्व' चैतावतामेव । जात एव हि जन्तुरिय- सोभि सविद्भिः परीतो भवति । तथा हि-“दुःखसश्लेपविद्धपी मुग्या- खादनसादर" इति न्यायेन सर्वो रिरसया व्याप्त । स्वात्मन्युफ्र्पमानितया परगुपहसन्मभीवियोगसतरावदेता घोपपरवशोश तया च ततो भीर . निविजिगीपुरपि जितवलुपियरे मुरमात्मकतयाकान्तः, विचिदनभौष्टतयाभि- मन्यमानस्तत्तत्स्वतन्यदर्शनसमुदितविस्मय विविध जिहासुरेष शायते"। न खेतथिरारतिवासनाशून्य प्राणी भवति । वेवल क्स्यचित्काचिदधिका चित्त- त्ति काचिदूना, पलचिदुचितविषयनियन्त्रिता कम्यचिदन्यथा । सवानिदेय पुम?पयोगिनीत्युपदेरया। सद्विभागकृतोत्तमप्रकृत्यादिव्यवहार । ये पुनरमी ग्लानिराशाप्रमतयश्चित्तत्तिविशेषास्ते समुचित विभावामावा- जगन्मध्येऽपि न भवन्त्येव । तथा हि-रसायनमुपयुक्तवतो मुनेर्लान्यातस्य- 31 'सामन्युस्मानितथा समुहसदि। उत्कर्षापायदा घोचति । पपाय प्रवि अध्यति । अपायरेतुपरिधान सम्साहने । विनिराहायति । विचियुक्त पाभिमन्ययानो मुम्मो। ततच परस्परिवाद हारिलायरे । किषिविहान वैरायापमं मरते व ऐपचन्द्रेनोपन्यस्त्रमा )।

·THE THEORY OF RASA 231 श्रमप्रभृतयो नोत्तिष्ठन्ति । यस्यापि था भवन्ति विमाक्वलातस्यापि हेतुप्रक्षये क्षीयमाणा सत्कारशेषा तावनावश्यमनुबभ्रन्ति । उत्साहादयालु सपादित स्वस्तव्यतया प्रलीनऋया अपि सस्रोपतों नातिवर्तन्ते, पर्वव्यान्तरविषय- शोत्माहादेरखण्डनात् । यथा पालि -"न हि चत एक्स्या स्त्रियां रहा इलन्यामु विरक" लादि । रास्मारस्थायिस्पचित्ततिम्लस्यूता एपामी व्यभिचारिण। खारमानमुदयास्त्रमयवैचित्र्यातमहनधर्माण प्रतिलभमाना रहनीलादिसूतस्यूतविरतभावो-पतम्भन मभावितभोसहस्रगर्भसटिक्काचात्र- पद्मरागमरस्तमहानोलादिमयगोलकादिवत्तस्मिन् सूत्रे सवारवैचित्र्यमभिनिवेश यन्तोऽपि तत्सूत्रकृतमुपकारसदर्भ विभ्रतः खय च विचित्रार्थस्थायिसूत्र विचित्र- यन्तोऽन्तरान्तरा शुद्धमपि स्थायिसूव प्रतिभासावकाशमुपनयन्तोऽपि पूर्वा- परव्यभिचारिरमच्छायाशलिमानमवश्यमानयन्त प्रतिभासन्त इति व्यभि चारिण उच्यन्ते। तथा हिलानोऽसमित्युक्त कुत इति हेतुप्रने स्थायि- तास्य सूच्यते, न तु राम उत्साइराहिम्मानित्यत हेतुप्रश्नमाहु । अतएवं विभावास्नोबोधका सन्त खरूपोपरप्रकल्प विदधाना रत्युत्माहादेरचितानु- चितत्वमानमावहन्ति । न तु तदभावे सर्वथर ते निरुपाख्या , वासनात्मना सर्वजन्तूना तन्मयरयेनोहापात् । व्यभिचारिणां तु स्वविभावाभाषे नामापि नास्तीति वितनिष्यते तद्यथायोग व्याख्यावसरे । एवमप्रधानत्वनिरास स्थायिनिरुपणाय स्थायिभावाद्रसवमित्यनया मामान्यलक्षणशेपभूतया विशेष तक्षणनिष्ठया च कृतं । तत्रानुभावाना विभावाना व्यभिचारिणा च पृथक् स्थायिनियमो नास्ति, बाप्पादेरानन्दातिरोगादिजलदर्शनात् , व्याघ्रादेश्च कोधभयादिहेतुत्वात् , भ्रम चिन्तादेकत्साहभयाद्यनेक्सहचात्वावलोकनात् । सामग्री वा तुम व्यभि चारिणी। तथा हि-बन्धुविनाशौ यत्र विभाव परिदेविताश्रुपातादिस्त्वनु- मावश्चिन्तादन्यादिश्च व्यमिवारी, सोऽवश्य शोक एवेत्यैव सशयोदये शतात्मक- विनशमनाय सयोग उपात्त । तत्र लोकव्यवहारे कार्यकारणसहचारात्मकलिङ्ग- दर्शने स्थाय्यात्मपरचित्तस्यनुमानाभ्यासपाटवादधुना तरेवोधानकटाक्षादिभि- .

·232 SOHC PROBLEMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS लौकिका कारणत्वादिभुवमतिकान्तर्षिभावनानुभावनागमुपासकायप्राणररा एया- लोविन विभाषादित्यपदेशभाभि प्राच्यकारणादिस्परास्तारोपजावनात्यापनाय पिभाषादिनामधेयस्यपदैत्यर्भावाध्यायेऽपि वक्ष्यमाणसापपभेदैगुणप्रधानतापर्या- येण सामाजिकधियि सम्पग्योग संवधर्मकायू यासादितवद्भिरताकिनिविन- मवेदनात्मकचर्वणागोचरतो नीतोऽश्चमाक्सारो न तु गिद्धसभावलालालिक एव, न तु रवणातिरिहकालावलम्बी स्थायिविलक्षण एव एम । ननु शगुलादिमिरभ्यधीयत-स्थाग्यो विभावादिप्रत्ययारभ्यमाण वाइस उच्यत इति। एव हि लौक्तिऽपिकिन रस । असतोऽपि हि या रगनायता स्यात्तव वस्तुसतः वयं न भविष्यति । हैन स्थायिमतातिरनुमितिरूपप्राप्ता न ररा । अतएव सूने स्थायिग्रहण न कृतम् । तप्रयुत शल्यभूत स्यात् । पेवतमीचित्यादेवमुच्यते-स्थायी रसीभूत इति । बोधिस्य तु तत्स्थायिमतत्येन कारणादितया प्रसिद्धानामधुना चवणोपयोगितया विभावत्वादिलम्बनात् । तथा हि-लौक्किचितात्यनुमाने का रमता। तेनालीरिकनमकारात्मा रसाखाद सत्यनुमानतोकिनससवेदन विलपण एव। तथा हिलाविस्नानु मानेन सस्कृत प्रमदादिर्न ताटस्म्येन प्रतिपद्यते, अपि तु हृदयावादात्मक्महदय- रवबलात्पूाँभविष्यसाम्बादाहुरीभावेनानुमानस्मृलादियोपानयारमेव तमयी गावोचितचर्वणामाएतया। न च सा चषणा प्राधाना तराव, येनाधुना स्मृति स्यात् । न चान लीक्किप्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणव्यापार | कि चालीरिक- विभावादिसयोगबलोपनतयेय चरणा। सा च प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमोपमानादि- लीवित प्रमाइजनिठात्याययोधतस्तथा योगिप्रसज्ञानितपरमवित्तिज्ञानात् सक्ल वैषयिकोपरागशु यशुद्धपरयोगिगतसाग देकरसनानुभवाच विशिष्यते । एतासा यथायोगमनादिविना वरोदयाताटल्यास्फुटत्व विषयावेशपैवश्य च सौन्दर्थ- विरहात्। घन तु खात्मरुपतत्व नियमासमवाल्यानुप्रवेशात्परगतत्पनियमा- भावात्तद्विभावा दिसाधारण्यसप्रवुद्धोचितनिजरत्यादिवासनावेगवशाच न विना- तरादीनां सभव इत्यवोपाम वहुश । श्रतएव विभादादयो न निष्पत्तिहेतवो रसस, तद्वोधापगमेऽपि रससंभवात् । नापि क्षप्तिहेनवो येत प्रमाणमध्ये पतेयु , ·THE THEORY OF RASA 233 सिद्धस्स कम्यचिप्रमेयभूतस्य रसस्थाभावात् । कि तहातद्विभावादय इति, अलौकिक एवाय चरणोपयोगी विभावादिव्यवहार । क्वान्यसेत्थ दृष्टमिति चेटूपणमेतदस्सा कमलौकिकत्वरािद्धे । पानकरसाखादोऽपि वि गुडमरियादिषु इष्ट इति समानमेतत् । गन्वेष रसोऽप्रमेय स्यात्, एव युक्त भवितुमर्हति । रस्सतैरप्राणो यसौ न प्रमेयादिस्वभाव । तहि सूत्रे निष्पत्तिरिवि कथम् । नेय रसस, अपितु तद्विषयरमनाया । तनिष्पत्या तु यदि तदेहायत्तत्रीवितस्य रसस्य निष्पत्ति- रुयते तेन न कश्चिदत दोष । साच रसनान प्रमाणल्यापारोवारक व्यापार | सय तु नाप्रामाणिकी खसवेदनसिद्धत्वात्। रसना बोधरूपैव कि तु योधान्तरेभ्यो विलक्षणंद, उपायाना विभादादीना लौक्तिलक्षण्यात् । तेन विभावादिसयोगादसना यतो निष्पद्यते तवस्तथाविधरसनागोचरो लोक्किी- तरोऽया रस इति तात्पर्य सूत्रस्य । अयमन सचेप-मुकुटप्रतिशीर्घकादिना तावनटबुदिराच्याद्यते। गादप्राकनसबित्यस्ताराच काव्यवलादानीयमानापि न तल रामपीविनाम्यति । श्रराएकोमयदेशवारायाग । रोमाचादयध भूयमा रतिप्रवीतिकारितया दृष्टाततापि लोस्राि देशकालानियमेत रति गमयन्ति । यस्या खात्मापि तद्वासनावत्वादप्रविष्ट । अतएव न तटस्थतया रखवगम । न च नियतकारणतया, येनार्जनाभिपनादिसभावना । न च नियतपराग गतया, गेन दुसद्वेषायुदय । वेन माघारणीभूता सतानहत्तरेक्स्या एव वा सविदो गोचरीभूता रति श्रद्वार । साधारणोगावना विभावादिभिरिति ।" तल विभावप्राधान्य । यथा]- वेलीकन्दलितस्प विभ्रममथो र्य वपुस्ते सो भशीमङ्गुरकामकार्मुशमिद व नर्मकर्मक्रम । श्रापातेऽपि विकारकारणामहो वकाम्युज मासव सत्य मुन्दरि वेधसत्रिजगतीसार त्वमेका कृति 32 इति श्रीमानभिनग्गुप्तापाय एतमतमेवाभाभिकपजीवित वैदितव्यम ति निशानन्तरम। रेपचरम्य टोकायामुद्धति (६६) समाना। 33 हेमचरकाम्याईधामने (प)।

·234 SOYE PROBLEYS OF SANSKRIT POETICS अन्न व विभावकत सौन्दर्य प्राधान्येन भाति । तदागतरन वेलाविनम- भरनर्मवचौमहिना नाभाववर्गा भशिकमविकारादिशब्दबलाय व्यभिचारिवर्ग प्रतिमातीत्यत एवं नास्फुरत्याशात रसास्वादम झकारे विधेया । মান্নাঘায যথা-গভয়াৱাবাহুবিষশষ্য भावसपादनद्विजराजस्पेदुराजस्व यद्वियम्य विलोक्तेिषु बहुशो निस्थेमना लोचने पदालाणि दरिददि प्रतिदिन लनान्जिनीनालगन् । दुर्वाकाराढविडम्यश्च निविडो यत्पाण्डिमा गएडयो कृष्णे यूनि सोचना पनितास्वर स्थिति ॥" अन विनम्येति बहुरा इति प्रतिदिनमिति य पदसमर्पिता प्यभियारिख, कृष्ण इति पदापितम्य विभावो गुणवन प्रतिभासते। विधातिलक्षणतम्भविलोकन- वैचित्र्यगामतानववारतम्यपुलवपर्यप्रतिस्त्वनुगावराय । व्यभिचारिणां तु प्राधान्य यद्विभावानुभावप्राधान्यक्त तत्राय यथा-- मद्दाकम लुगक्य भात्तमातमधिमा तमुचितु पातरा शारादिनी जही। अन्तला जलमधोरलोचना लोचनप्रतिशरीरलादितम् ॥ इत्यत्त सुकुमारप्रमदानभूषणभूतस्य व्यभिचारिवस वितरतामशवादे प्राधान्यम् । तद्विभावाना प्राधान्यात् सौदर्याविशयकृतादातमित्यापितातु भावस्तु तदनुयायी। एव द्वयप्राधान्य चोदाहार्यम् । किं नु समप्राधान्य एव रसावादस्योकप । तच प्रबध एव भवति, वस्तुवस्तु दरारुपक एन । यदाह दामन स दर्भेषु दरारूपक धेय तदि चित्र चितपद्विशेषसारल्यार" 34 सोकोय भन्दुरावल ध्वन्यालोफयोचनेम्वहारत । 35 हेमचन्द्रकाप्यानपानहो (प (९) नामरहियो लोक उदारत । 76 सायात कारमृ ।।१३०१ ·THE THEORY OF RASA 235 इति। उपसमर्पणाय तु प्रबधे भाषावेरप्राचीचित्यादिवपनात् । तदुप जीवनेन मुहके। तथा च तम सहृदया पूर्वापरसुचित परिसस्य इंगत वक्तास्मिनवसर इयादि बहुतर पोठव थाप विदधते । तेन ते कायाभ्यास प्राकृनपुण्यादिनुपतादिति सहृदया, तेषा परिमितविमावायुन्मीलनऽपि परिस्फुट एव सावालापन शव्यार्थ पुरति । अतएव तेषां वाव्यमेव प्रतीत्युत्पत्तिकृत् अनपेक्षिवनाव्यमपि। तेषां तु नाट्य 'निपतिता स्फुरिता शशिरमय इति न्यायेन मुबां निर्मलीकरणम्। अदयानां च तदेव नेमल्याथायि भन्न पतिता गीतवाद्ययरिणकादयो न व्यसनिताये पर्यवस्या व नाम्योपलक्षणाद । तह व नदो ध्यायिनामिद इद ध्यानपदम् न हि उसाय मेय सिदूरमयो वासुदेव सारणीयप्रतिपत्ति अपि तु तदुपायद्वारेणातिरकुटी भूतसरूपगोचरो देवताविशेषो प्यायिना पन्तकृत् । तदमटप्रक्रिया नाट्योपन्न विवातिस्फुटाभ्यवसामविपषितो नियनदेशरासायपृन्तन र पसमिति विधिस्थानीयोऽर्था व्युपत्ति वितरति । Se Amaia Mookerjee Comm Vel (O tenudlid) 1922 ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV Thc notice in the recent Descriptive Catalogue of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library Madras of two manuscripts (A and B) 10 Devanagari character of Abhinava. Gupta 3 commentary on the fourth Vidyota of the Dhyonyaloka or Kavyaloka first drew attention to this m155108 chapter of the well known work the existence of which was brilliantly conjectured long ago by Prof Jacobi* An application was made for a loan of these MSS through the India Office is 1920. but as the rules of the Library did not allow 1 Madras 1918 Yol xxl pp 86667, nos 12893-4 2 The full title of this work (commonly known as Locana) as given in the different MSS Es Ka yaloka locana or Dhvanyaloka locana Abbioava bumself in the present text calls the original Kavyalola The Ananda ardhana lanzalaritkara komadhenu fika entered by Aufrecht (149) as Abhinayagupta : commentary on the Dhvanyaloka involves a twotold error due perbags to Oppenis inaccurate entry Io the first place the term Anandan ardi anda 13 an incorrect designation in the second place by Layalamkara Lamadhenu pida 13 probably meant the commegtary of the sacoc bam (cd Benares Sansk Series 1908 Srivantvilása Press 1909) on Vinapa's Kasz dlankara by Gopendra Tippa Bhopala mixed up through a confusion with the Locana commeptary of Abhinava 3 The Kavyamala (ed Nur Sag Press Bombay 1911) print only the first three uddy oras of the Locona mbich were the only ones koos to Dubler (nas/mer Report PP 66 and Yu) Other MSS Burnell, Tanjore Ca! 551 Kcılboro Central Prov Rep 100 also Lists of Mss Durdlased In 7869 78 20 Oppert 26923 2996 5513 Bhandarker, Rep 1887-91 593 India Orce Cor 1008 Steio fammu Cat 62, Kastpath kuate Lahore Rep 8 Most of bese MISS are described as complete but it cannot be determined wbether they include the fourth uddyola 4 2DMG 1902 p 404 footnote 1 In addition to the argumcats adduced therein it may be potated out that Abhinava at p 12.11 19-20 (ed. Kavyamála) prom ses to dilate upon a certain point at the end of his wort (gronthate saksamah) a promise o bich he bears out towards the end of the prevent fett ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 237 such a loan and as a rotograph transcript was impossible the present water had to be content with certified copies forwarded by the Curator of the Library through the kindness and courte sy of FW Thomas of the lodia Ofice Library On return to India another attempt was made to obtain a loan of the MSS through the Calcutta University but as there was so chance of Success in this direction Sir Asutosh Mookerjee to whom the dificulties were submitted very kindly directed Pandit Acanta Kışa Sastri to make fresh copies personally His efforts happily resulted in the discovery of a fresh manuscript in the possession of his friend Pandit S. Ramanath Sastri of the Madras Oriental MSS Library with which sloo (C) the present text is collated Although still deficient 11 many places on which probably a sight of the original MSS might have thrown some ligit ibe present writer ventures to publish the text in its present form not only out of consideration of 118 importance but also with the hope of drawing to it the attention of interested scholars who may have access to other MSS and can thereby help to determide some of the difficult es left unsolved here Apart from the inherent interest of the present text as supplying the missing part of the learned commcalary of this champion of the Dhvani School there are several points to which attention may be drawn bere As in the other parts of his commentary. Abhinava appears to distinguish here between the Karikakara and the Vittskara of the original text by directly opposing them a fact which furtber supports Jacobis contention that the author of the Karika the so calleu Dāvankara was diffcrent from Apardavardhana fbe author of the prose Yrtti Abbipava uses the term viti grantha 10 coatradistinction lo the Kar ka and in one place 1 Pg 1 12 59 60 71 78 104 123 130-1 0 2 Frst suggested by Buhler Kasin Rep p 63 See ZDMG loc CI 403 F and S K Dc on the Dtvan kära and Ananda ardhana 10 the Burter n of the School of Den of sada o 19 pp 19 ·238 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS especially, points out that the question as to the source of the endless variety of Artha imparted to poetry is mentioned by the Vrttikara although not touched upoa by the Karikákara Towards the end of the present text, Abhinava gives his own reading of some of the Karikas, and bis remarks apparently show that the Vrttiara in several places reads the Kanlās by splitting them up (khandikatza paflutā-a procedure which is not likely if we suppose a common authorship of the Karika and the Vštt There are two guthă verses ra the present text (Dhaavihala and Caiana" onc of which is ascribed to Abhinaya himself in one of the MSS," the sense and construction of which do not seen very clear from the obviously corrupt fext The first verse is baffling and obscure as to sense and metre in all the MSS The next verse is clearer and its chasā may be put tentatively thus Thyagi jana-kara paramparā samcarana saya nilisaha sarirāh. Arthāh krpana.grhasthuh surthud 1 yastah sravanttia "Riches, enfeebled of body through decay caused by passing to and fro through a succession of hands of bouotsful folk melt away, as it were separated from their compray and lodging ta poor men's houses This reading, which was first suggested through a discussion of this point with Dr Barnett, may not be faultless and is perhaps capable of being improved upon, but in the main it may be accepted in the absence of anything better, and there is nothing 10 11 incompatible with the context The difficulty lies in the two words savants and saftliāvartha The emeodation asanla is very natural and temptrog, but it is supporled by pone of the MSS while svasthavasihah, lastead of sarthad 13 astak is attractive although svastitas asthah>sottavattha. In this congexion attention may be drawn to two Desi verses in the original text at Ø 240 i 6-7 and p 243 Totalarea a frantoinette afsst AXI 2 Two other verses are cited as Abhinava s own la tbc present tout ·THE TEXT OF LAVYALOKA LOCANA IY 239 21 2 which are udiatelligible as they stand but skich may now be recoustructed in the fight of the interesting chajas given by Abhinava Pischell gives the latter śloka somewhat differently thus Mahu mahu tri bisanantaaho vijja kulu jamassa To w ha deu Janaddanol gourhoi manassut It is interesting to note that Abhinave in his gloss on this verse calls Apabhremsa Saindhava bhasa thus confirming the modern tradition that Apabhratarsa originated in Sindhu desa! Another point of interest is the mention by Abhinava of a work called Tattvaloka by Anandavardhana i which the latter is said to have discussed 10 detail the relation betreen sastra naya and havya naza This work yet remais to be recovered In one of the concludmg verses as in the invocatory Sloka at the beginning of the Grst Uddyoto Abhinava men tions the name of bis upadhyaya Bhaftendusaja but here he couples this name with that of another teacher of his called Ści siddhicela who is not mentioned elsewhere in any of his kuowa works from Siddhuela he probably learnt philoso phy The reference to asmad upadhyasa Bhattenduraja occurs also at pp 25 43 116 207 223 of the printed text of the Dhanyulala and in one place (160) hc 15 adorned with the grandiloquent epithet vidvat hari suhrdaya cakravartint which together with the fact that in the present text Abhinava apparently indicates that he learnt Kavya from this teacher will go to support the con jecture that this Bhattendutaja was probably a poet and critic held in high esteem by bis great pupil Although chronology does not stand 10 the way there is hardly any definite means to decide whether Abbinava s teacher Bhatten duraja was identical with Pratibarendataja the commentator also cted to 1 Ma er en tur kennis dulpabhramsa 45 Jacobi Sand & nara P XX 2 Sce Jacob foeco ·343 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS of Udbhata! From Abhinava's commentary on the Bhaga Yadgira' we learn that Bhatjenda was the son of śrubh@trija and grandson of Saucuka of the Katyayana gorra , but Pratie harendurāja s genealogy is unknown The only facts known about the latter is that he was a native of Koskana and a pupil of Mukula,' probably the same Mukula who was the son of Bhatta Kallata and autbor of Abhidha urfti marrka* and who is placed by Buhler on the authority of Raja tarangm v 66 in the reign of Avantivarmap Two plausible Teasons. however, will lead one to the opinion that the two Indurājas were probably different persons To begin with Bhattenduraja appears essentially as a poet who wrote as Abbigava's own quotations show, in Sanskrit 28 well as 10 Prakrit and wbose verses supplied a ready source of poetic illustrations in his pupil s work probably inspired by himself Had he been lile Pratıharenduraja, a writer on Poetics as well as a poct bis views would very likely have been cited and discussed in the usual course by Abhinaya It is also remarkable that Abhinava cites his teacher always as Bhattcoduraja and ocyet as Pratharcodurāja although Bhatta and Pratibara being mere tides need not make any difference The conjecture is not uplikely that Abhinava's teacher may have been the poct Bhattenduraja who is quoted under the same designation in Kseniendras two works Ancitya-y.cara and Suiſta tilaka' as well as in the poetical anthologies' of 1 As Peterson (Subhot p 11) seems to suggest 2 Bubler op tis pp 65 80 and ctly 3 Karjala kard sara laghta perl (ed Kavyamála) pp 1 $6. 4 Ed Kavyamala p 21 It us curious that tb s treatise wluch deals with the grand coalico rhetorical question of the funct ons of word and 13 SCRE 13 Dt cited at all by Abbraxa 5 Op caf pp 66 73 sce Pischel Sr göratilaka P 12 6 Under 32 20 31 7 Under 1 34 29 30 The scese pasarile sola pivum asct bed to Jeduraja in the Paddl art of Siragadhara (DD 1052) quoted anonymously ta ce by panda ardhana (rp 53 118) a fact hcb however, if not decisive bÇCEVIC ·THE TEXT OF LAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 241 Sarngadhara Vallabhadeva and Jalbana The commentator Pratihuteaduraja on the other hand was never known for his poetical pretensions and was chiefly a writer on Poctics who obviously belonged to the older Alarikata School and did not as Abhinava did believe in the newly established doctrine of dhvani with which however he appears to be fully conversant Referring to this new theory Pratharendu following the views of the ancient writers of the Alankara and the Ritt Schools states in one place that what is know as Dhvant and taken to be the soul of Poetry by some thinkers 18 vcluded by his author Udbhaya in the treatment of some of the Alankáras under discussion and therefore need not be separately considered. The standpoints of Prald harendutaja and Abhinava in the realm of Poetics are 80 divergent-in fact they belong to totally different schools of opinion--that it is difficult to admit any spiritual relationship between the two for the former was in no way a subscriber to the teachings of the Dhyani School of which Abhioava was a recognised advocate Jacobi has already negatived Puschels contention that 10 three passages (PP 37 183 214) Abbmat speaks of Anandavardhana himself as one of his gurus or upadhyayas It is more likely that the reference is to one or other of Abhinava s many preceptors mentioned in bus Locana as well Abh nava s commentary 3 stent as to the autborsh p of tb $ verse and the same verse occurs in Bhallata Sa aka 56 and is aser bed to another poct Yasas n the Subha laval no 947 The verse as atributed to Välpato in Sadukt Karrampia It 19 cited anonymously in Hem acandra Com o 257 Jayaratha p 108 1मनु मय काम्ये सायदयानादिन प्रधानभूतम्य सन्ट्यापारास्टेवन সতীয়মানঘাষ বন্ধ ঘােম্বিশ্বামিখ জাঙ্গীবিত ferret är forta 31751 17tfofto Rafte opp med 67 37981txauli (02 C1 p 79) 2 WZKM 19 pp 237-8 and ZDMG loc ct p 404 footnote 2 3 Sragara iflaka p 2 16 ·242 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS as in his numerous treatises on Kashmir Saniaism One of these is Bhalta Tauta cited at p 178 on whose work called Kavya kaulala Abhinava had as he himself tells us written a Vivarana beforc hc wrote his Locand Nothing is known of this Bhatta Tauta (also Bhajţa Tota), but it appears that Abhinava s commentary on Bharata was written at the 105 fance of this teacher who is reverently cited thereid just as his Locana was probably inspired by Dhaftenduraja The hava kouluke is also referred to in the Vyaktivieha vyakhyana ( 13). and Hemacandra' quotes thrce verses from Bhatta Tauta while in his own commentary on the same work he reproduces after Abhinava's commentary on Bharata Totas opinion in connexion with the theory of Rasa Other reference to asmad upadhyaya Bhatta Tauts i Locana occurs at p 29 Kgemendra sd hi3 Aucuya vifara attributes to bum a verse (prajna nava na 10') which is given anonymously in Hemacandra p 3 Tauta 28 also cited by Candidasa in his Dipika commentary on Mammata Sometimes Abhinava refers to his numerous preceptors geacrally as asmad guravah in his Locana (p 30) however as well as in his Pratyabhaina ymersint Laghuvitsa Ablunava refers to Vipala as his parama guru the cacher of his teacher This Utpala son of Udayakara 18 well known in the history of Kashair Sauvaism as the author of the Isvara pratyabhima on which Abhinaya wrote, besides the Laghu vit referred to above & Brhafi Vitti and is assigned by Buhler to the first half of the 10th century it is interest ing to note that while commenting on the word pratyabhijna occurring en Dhvanalola i 8 Abhinava discusses this term and refers to what is said on this point by Uipala (3ad uktam 1 Karyanusasana p 336 2 Alai Aara-cuada nani p 59 3 Bubler Op cl dclx 4 Op Cropp 79.80 Also Bhandarkar Rep 18834 PP 76 Erschng Ind a fee Car i p 835 Chattehy Koshi Saiva PP 19-40 ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IY asmalparama gurubkih frimad utpala-pudah p 30) From what Abhinaya bimself says in his numerous works on Kash mir Sauvaisat we can indicate the line of spiritual succession (guril paraniparu) thus Somaganda+Utpala-Lakşmana gupta-Abhinavagupta Somjoanda being probably a pupil of Vasugupta the earliest founder of the Pratyabhtjna Sastrn In the concluding portion of hu l'araminfila wiyarunn Abhinava gives us an interesting personal and genealogical account in which he tells us that he was the son of Kaśmıraka Cukhala' and grandson of Varahagupta and had a brother named Manorathagupta That Abhinava was ſaiva is abundantly shown here as elsewhere in the lovocatory and concluding verscs of the present text It may be noted in this connexion that at the end of each Uddyota Abhinava invokes the different manifestations (vevarta) of Vac In the first it is pratibha in the second pasyanti in the third madhyama and in the fourth Uddyota he simply speaks of the fourth manifestation (turya sakn) implying thereby presumably varkhari These manifestations however, are usually enumerated as three and not four although different writers differ as to the particular deme attached to individual manifestations 10 succession Thus Ruyyaka speaks of Vac as frividha vigraha (p I) which both Jayaraiba and Samudra baguba explaid as constituting in succession posyante (para or vimarsa rupa) madhyama and vaikhan This agrees subs tantially with Abbinava s entmeration with the exception of pranbhu which is probably Vac itself and not one of its Vrvarias The date of Abhinavagupta which forms e central land mark 10 Alamkara literature 18 easily settled from his relation to Utpala and Anandavardhana as well as from the indica tions given by himself in some of bis works His Krama 1 Bubler : MS has kosm raka v culela (p dr) as well as cuthalu (p clyu)

·244
SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS
stotra was written in AD 991 His Bhairava stotra is dated
AD 993' and bis Brhari Vyiti on Vipala's Pratyabupa
bears the date of AD 101S' Wc may, therefore place
Abhinayagupta with great certainly towards the last quarter
of the 10th century, and he certainly lived into the first quarter
of the 11th
Journal of the Dept of Leiders (Arts) Cal Dny 1922
1 Intro to Di anyatola ed Kivyomsta p 2 footnote
2 Bublet op! plus
3 Bünter bid p die also p HD

·TEXT
श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तोन्मीलित
काव्यालोकलोचनम्
चतुर्थ ज्योत
प्रत्यपञ्चकनिर्वाहयोगेऽपि परमेश्वर।
नान्योपकरणापेक्षो यया ता नौमि शाङ्करीम् ॥
उदयोतसगति विवक्षुत्तिकार' पाह-पयमिति । प्रयो
जनान्तरमिति यद्यपि 'सहृदयमन प्रीतये' (12313)
इत्यनेन प्रयोजन प्रागेवोक्कम् , तृतीयोहयोतावधौ च सकाव्य कर्तु
ज्ञातु वा ' (1 46 P 231 1 6)इति तदेवेपत्' स्फुटीकृतम्
तथापि स्फुटतरीकर्तुमिदानों यक्ष । यत सुस्पष्टरुप वेन विज्ञायते
P234
1
NB „The references are to pages and lines of the
text in the Karyamila ed ion N. Sag Press 1911
(no 2500
Breads two verses belote this wluch really belong
to the end of Chap 11 (sec p 233 R 32 25) ###
कायाची प्रथा मौतार धनिभदान पान्। इदानी होपन
को ताोग विभाति । परविताना मैदानो स्पट तापनि
पापिनीन। निकोरप्रिपा इन्द प्रथया परमेशरीमा
. धोतावर प्रचमित प्रतिकार-A सीतसर्गात
विपति शिवार-C
3 एतदीपन-Acusरति

·246 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS P234 Kirtal hariki 2 अतोऽस्मनिरूपिता सष्टनिस्मणम यथैव प्रतिभातीति भयो जनान्तरमित्युतम् । अथवा पूर्वोक्लयो प्रयोजनयोरन्तर विरो पोऽभिधीयते। कैन विशेषेण सत्काव्यकरणमस्य प्रयोजन केन व सत्काव्याश्योध' इति विशेषो निरूप्यो। तर सत्कान्यकरणे कथमस्य व्यापार इति पूर्व वक्रव्यम् । निष्पादितस्य शेयत्वादिति । तदुच्यते-घनेर्य इति । ननु धनिभेदासतिभानामानन्समिति व्यधिकरणमे तदित्यभिप्रावणाशहते-फथमिति । महोत्तरम-अतो होति। आसतां तावदर ' प्रकारा, एवेनाप्येव भवतीसपि-शब्दार्ध । एतदुक भवतिवर्णनीयवस्तु निष्ट प्रशाविशेष प्रतिमान दर वर्णनीयस्य पारिमियादाद्यकविनव स्पृष्टनारगर्वस्य तद्विषय प्रतिभान तजातोयमेव स्वाद । ततश्च काच्य मपि तच्चातीयमिति" ध्रष्ट इदानी कविप्रवाह उक्तिवैचित्र्येण तु स एवार्था निरवधयो मद तौति तद्विपया प्रतिभानामानन्स मुपपत्रमिति । ननु प्रतिभानन्त्यस्य किं फलमिति निर्गतु याणी नवत्यमायातीत्युक्तम् । तेन वाणीनां कागवाक्याना" तानन· वस्यमामावि, तच प्रतिभानम्त्ये सयुपपद्यते, वचार्थानन्त्ये", तब ध्वनिप्रसादादिवित तल प्रथममत्यन्वतिरस्कृतवाच्यान्तरमाह--- , पतोसानिपिवार-3 Om ued inA 3 Omitted in A ad B 4 मत्वायपूरलोच-- 5 Omitted to A and B 6 व्यषिकामभेदी-A, विकर-B 1 तदिति--A 8 भासत तोबा-8 विषयहरप्रतिभाग--8 10 तमामौरीति- 11 प्रियोग -A 12 काथराहाम-3 पानरम-C,राब-A ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 247 P234 दूरेण सवन्ध, स्मितमिति । मुग्ध-मधुर-विभव-सरस-विसलयित-परिमल- स्पर्शनान्मसन्ततिरस्कृतानि तैरनाहतसौन्दर्यसर्वजनशल्लभ्यातीगा- प्रसरलसतापप्रशमनतर्पकत्वसौकुमार्यसार्वकालिकतन्सस्कारानुरक्तित्व- यनाभिलपणीय संगत्वानि वन्यमानानि यानि स्मितादे प्रसिद्धस्मार्थस्य स्थविरकविवेघो विहितधर्मव्यतिरेकेण धर्मान्तर- पासता यावत् क्रियते तावत्तदपूर्वमेव समद्यत इति सर्वत तन्मन्तव्यम् । अस्येति "अपूर्वत्वमेव [प्रति] भासत" इति सर्वदेवाय नवस्वमिति सगतिः। द्वितीय प्रथम- शब्दोऽर्थन्तरेऽनपा करणीयस्वप्रधानलसाधारणत्वादिव्यद्गपर्मा- न्टरे सक्रान्त सा व्यनक्ति। एव सिह-शब्दोऽपि वीरत्वान- पेतत्वविस्मयनीयलादी न्यायधर्मान्तरे सक्रान्त स्वार्थ प्वनति । एक प्रथमस्य द्वी भेदाघुदाहस द्वितीयस्यायुदाहर्तुमासूत्रपति-~ विवक्षितेति । निद्राया कैतती कृतकमुष्ठ इत्यर्थ । बदने विन्यस्य पक्तमिति बदनस्पर्शजभेव' तादहिव्य मुस्र स्यनु न पारगतीति अतएच प्रियस्यैति । चधूनचोहा। बोधवारोन प्रियतमयोधमन" निरुद्धो हठात्" प्रवर्तमान प्रवर्तमानोऽपि कथाचित क्षणमात धृतधुम्यनाभित्तायो यवा"। अतएवाभोगेन' P 235 । 5 •ga-B The textreads परिकर वतीय- 3 पिकविश्वयो?-A, हाजिरवैधौ-B 4 बारपावता-B 6 Omred sa 4,5 C, but in the text 7 भारतीया-A and B 8 Abbinava apparently accepts here the reading of in the text , बदनानी- २० विश्वप्ररोरेन- " -A 12 बयो- ३ घनए भोगन-B ·248 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS P235 पुन पुनर्निद्राविचारनिनियापि लोल' कला स्थिता। न तु सर्वथैव चुम्बनान् निवर्तितु शक्रोतीयथ । एवभूता एया यदि मया परिसुम्यते तद्वितज्ञा चिमुसा भवेदिति तस्यापि प्रियस्य परिखम्बनविषये निरारम्भस्य हृदय साकाक्षमतिपत्ति नामेति । साकाक्षा साभिलापा प्रतिपनि स्थितिर्यस्य ताश रुहरूहिकाकर्थित न तु मनोरथसपत्ति चरितार्य यद्यपि हृदयम् , क्नुि रते परसरजीवितरार्वखाभिमानरूपाया परिनिते. केनबिंदप्यगुभानालन्धायगाहनाया पार गतमिति परिपूर्णभूत एक बार इस । द्वितीयश्लोकेन तु परिचुम्बन सपन्नम् । लनाखराब्देनोशा तेनापि च सा परिचुम्बितेति यद्यपि पोपित एप Zार , तथापि प्रथमोके परस्परामिलापप्रसरनिरोधपरपरा पर्यवसानासमवेन या रतिकका सोभयोरपि एक्सपचितयनु प्रवेशमाचक्षाणा रति"मुतरी पोषयति । एव मौत भेदचतुष्टयमदात्यालक्ष्यक्रममेदेष्वति"देशमुखेन सर्वापभेद विश्यमतिदेश परोति युक्तगनपेगि"। अनुसतव्य इति उदाइर्तव्य इसर्थ । यथोचमिति तस्याहाना प्रौदा ये प्रमेदा खगताच ये। तेपामानन्समन्योन्यसब धपरिकल्पनम्" । (1 13281) Karaj 2 1 निवापि चाहनियापि-A मोक्ष-A मियनया विडो-B सुचन-A 4 भये-Aand B 5माति- 6 परिनिहतो-B पनिड-C पार पार गपिति-B परागसिमिति-A 8 मिति: 9 भोग- रति- । भेदाभेम्पति-A and B 13 The text reads feutart. 13 The text reads-परिक्सवे ID ·THE TEXT OR AYYALOXA LOCANA JY 249 P236 इत्यत प्रतिपादियम् । तदिति व-शब्दोऽपि-राब्दस्या निकम । एतदपि प्रतिपादितम् "भायानचेतनानपि चेता पञ्चतनामवेतनवत्" (122,! 9) इत्यत्र । अतथा स्थितानपि तथासंस्थितानिवेति' इव-शन्देन एक्टरविश्रान्ति योगाभापादेव मुतरी विचितरूपानित्सर्थ । हृदय इति प्रधानतमे समसभावकनकनिम्पस्थान इत्यर्भ । निवेशयति यस्य यस्य हृदयमस्ति तस तस्यानलक्या तत तत स्थापयतोत्सर्थ । अतएव से प्रसिधाभ्योऽन्य एवेलपविरोषा सपयते। हृदयनिविष्टा एव च तथा भवन्ति नान्ययेलयं । सा जयति परिच्छिन शक्तिभ्य प्रजापतिभ्योऽणुकोण वर्तते । तत्प्रमादादेव कवि गोवरो वर्णनीयार्थो विकटो नि सीमा सपद्यते । प्रतिभाना वाणीनो चानन्त्य ध्वनिकतमिति' यदनिमुक्त तदेव कारिक्या । भहला निरूप्यत इत्याह-उपपादयितुमिति । उपपल्या निस्पयितुमित्यर्थ । यद्यप्यर्थान समाने हेतुति- कारेपोतस्तथापि बारिकासारेण नोक इति माय । यदि या उच्यते सग्रहलोकोऽयमिति भाव, श्रतएवास्य लौरस्य धृतिमन्थे व्याख्यान न कृतम् । दृष्टपूना इति। यहि' प्रत्यक्षादिभि प्रमाणे प्राकनेश कविमिरित्युभश्या नेयम् । काय्य मधुमास स्थानीयम्। स्पृहां लबामिति रागयतामुकलिका इनि पशब्दस्पृष्ठेऽय" का हयता। एतानि चोदाहरणानि वितस P236 Karika4 1 पदोय- . मयिवाणियामितिकिया- ३ पर्यनीधो-A 4 वामगावयनिक हमिति-B 5 The text reads अपि 6 रागरसाहकनिकामिति ष मन्द स्पट-B, रामवतात कलिकामन्दसिधै-A ·250 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT 1 OETICS P237 Karika 5 , पूर्वगेच व्याख्यातानीति p 102, 106) किं पुनरकया। सत्यपि मानकविस्पृष्टत्वे नूतनत्व भवत्येवैतत्प्रकारानुग्रहादित्ये- तावति तात्पर्य हि वृत्तियन्यस्याधिक नान्यत् । करिणीवैषम्यकरो मम पुत्र एक्न काण्डेन विनिपातनसमर्थ । हतस्तुपया तथा कृतो यथा काण्डकरण्डक वहति ।। इत्युत्तान' एवायमर्थ । गाथार्थस्थानालीढतैवेति सबन्ध । अत्यन्त महणेन निरपेनभावतया विप्रलम्भाशहां परिहरति । तृप्तीना परस्परक्षय, पाण्डवानामपि महापथके शेनानुचिता विपत्ति, कृपाम्यापि व्याधाद्विध्वस इति सवैस्यापि' विरसा घसानमिति । मुख्यतयेति यद्यपि 'धर्मे चाय व कामे च मोचे च' इत्युक्त तथापि चत्वारक्षकारा एपमाहु-यद्यपि धमार्थकामाना सर्वस्व ताहट नास्ति' यदत न विद्यते तथापि पर्यन्तविरसत्वमवावलोक्यताम् । मोक्षे तु यदूप तस्य सारता व विधार्यतामिति । यथा ययेति लोकतान्तरमाण पनेन सपायमान धर्मार्थ कामात्सायनलक्षण वस्तु भूतवयाभिमतमपि येन येनार्जनरक्षणक्षयादिना प्रकारेणा'सारवत्तुच्छेद्रनालादि- द्विपति प्रत्युत विपरीत मपद्यते । श्रास्ता तस्य स्वरूप चितेत्यर्थ । तेन तेन प्रकारेणात लोक्यन्त विरागो जायत इत्यनेन तत्वज्ञानीय निर्वेद शान्तरसम्वामिन सूचयता तस्यैव P238 I इस्युका -Aand B 2 पा खनादौनापति-B 3 Dounts अपि 4 धर्म धाय च कामे च मोचे परवम | यदिशालिन्या पदासिन तत् कपित। 5 समन्ता दुमनास्ति-B 6 पासमाधामी- TAGRAS प्रकारे 8 खपिन-A समारते- १ ताना-A ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA SV 251 239 सर्वेतरासारत्वप्रतिपादनेश प्रापान्यमुहम्। जनु झारवीरादि- धमकारोऽपि तत्र भावोत्याशङ्कशाह-पारमार्थिकेति ।भोगामि निवेशिना लोक्वासनाविष्टानामा भूतेऽपि ररो तथाभिमानो यथा शरीरे प्रमालाभिमान प्रमातु गायतनमानेऽपि। केयले प्विति परमेश्वरमथपकरणेषु तु न दोष इलार्थ । विभूतिपु रागिणो गुणेषु च निविशधियो मा भूतेति समन्ध । अन इत्यनुक्रमरायनन्तर यो भारते प्रन्थस्तोत्यर्थ । ननु बसुदेवापय बासुदेव इयुच्यते, न परमेश्वर परमात्मा महादेव इत्याशङ्कयाह -वासुदेवसज्ञाभिधेयत्वेनेति। बहूना जमनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मा प्रपद्यते । वासुदेव सर्वम्' (Jhagavadgita vil_19) इसादौ अनि रूपमैतत्सहाभियमिति निति लापर्णम् । निर्णीतश्चेति शन्दा' हि नित्या एवं सन्तोऽनन्तर काकतालीय वशात् तथा सकेतिता इत्युक्त ऋष्यन्धकवृष्णिदुरुभ्यश्चत्यन्त ( Pansar v ! 114)। शास्त्रनय इति तताखादयोगा भावे पुरपार्थ इत्ययमेव ध्यपदेश सौदर, चमत्कारयोगे तु रस व्यपदेश इति भाव । एतन्त्र ग्रन्थकारेण तत्त्वालोके विवत्योहम् । इह त्यस न मुख्योऽअसर इति नामाभितशितम् । सुतरामे वेति यदुक्त तत हेतुमाह-प्रसिद्धिश्वेति। च शब्दो समादर्थे, यत इय तौरिकी प्रसिद्धि । अनादितो भगवदामादीनामयमेवा" P239 1 लोकवामिना पिटानाम-BAreads at instead of ar - गुणे-A 3 वासुदेव ममत न सबम्-B 4 अधि-Band C 5 निसात-A 6 पदो-A which reads एव after this 7 पुषणेवयं दत अयमेव-A पुरुषेषायत इत्ययमेर- 8 भगवासप्रतीनाशयमेशसमन्दाभि--Bandc ·252 SOBIE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS खशब्दाभिधाने आशय । भयथा हि कियाकारकसयन्धादी नारायण नमस्कृत्येत्यादि शब्दार्यनिरूपणे च तथाविध एष रास्य भगवत श्राशय इत्यह किं प्रमाणमिति भाष । विग्यविद्ध- द्रहणेन काव्यन्ये शास्त्रनय इति भानुशतम्। “रसादिमय एतस्मिन् कवि स्यादवधानवान् (v 5,P 237 114) इति यदुक तदेव प्रसन्नादागतभारतसद धनिरूपणान तरमुपसहरति -तस्मात् स्थितमिति । अत इति यत एव स्थितमत एवेदमपि यलये' हरयते तदुपपनम् , अन्यथा तदनुपपन्नमेव'। नच तदनुपपन धावेन प्रती , तस्सातदेव कारण रसानुगुणार्थ स्वमेवेत्याशय । अरकारान्तरेति अन्तर-शब्दो विशेषवाची । यदि वा दित्सिते उदाहरणे रसबदलपारस्य विद्यमानसात तर ऐसयालकारा तरशब्द । ननु मस्यकन्छपदर्शनात्प्रतीयमान यदेक चुलके जलनिधिसनिघान ततो मुनर्माहात्म्यप्रतिपत्तिरिति न रसानुगुणेनार्थेन वाया पोपितेयाराध्याह-अन्न हीति । गन्वेव प्रतीयमान जलनिधिदर्शनमेवाद्भुतानुगुण भतिजति रसानुगुणोऽन' वाच्योऽहत्यस्सिम शेक्यमिवमुदाहरणमाशमाह-क्षुत होति । पुन पुनवर्णननिरूपणादिना यत् पिष्टपिष्टत्वादति निर्मिनस्वरूप मित्यर्थ । बहुतरलक्ष्यव्यापक चैतदिति दर्शयति'-न चेत्या दिना । रयाया तुलापन काक्तातीयेन" प्रतिला साम्मुत्येन P240 Omitted in B बासतम- 3 माता-Aand B 4 सदुपपा- 5 तदनुपपाराम-1 6 साहायग-Aan1B 7 एपोप- 8 पिटवादि-A 9 Onited 1-A 10 =175970. Heruacandra Dekk 15

·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV
213
P240
स पाश्वाऽद्यापि मुमग तस्या येनास्यतिकान्त।। रसपतीतिरिति
परस्परहेनुकद्वारप्रतीति । अस्थार्थस्य रसानुगुणत्व व्यतिरेक
द्वारेण दृढयति-सा स्वामित्यादिना) “चर्य सगुणीभूत
न्यायस्याध्या प्रदर्शित" इयुयोवारम्भ र श्रोत (14 P
33415) तस बनेरध्वना कवीना प्रतिभागुशोऽन तो भव
तीत्येप मागो ध्याख्यात इत्युपसहरति-तदेवमिलादिना ।
सगुणीभूतन्यापस्त्यमु भाग प्याचष्टे --गुणीभूसेत्यादिना ।
लिममेदो बस्त्वलकाररसारममा यो व्यहास यापेक्षा वाच्य
गुणीमावस्तस्येत्यर्थ 1 तत सर्वे ये पनिभेदास्तेश गुणोभावा
दानन्यमिति वदाह-अतिविस्तरेति । खयमिति तन यातुना
व्यक्षेपन गुणीभूतेन नवत्वम् , सत्यपि पुराणार्थस्पर्शे । यथा मर्मत्र
भसविहरकणे वल्लभसरणागवाण अत्याण।
खगमेतण पिणादिरणा विस्मामकले ति जतमिणम् ॥ (३)
खमनलरसमान ससौदि' श्रीदार्यशक्षण वतु पन्यमान
वाच्योपस्कारक भवत्व ददानि सत्यपि पुराण विस्एप्टेऽथे।
तभा दि पुराणो गाथा
.
यनान्यायविकान्त.-A
2 Oateed ja A
3 ममी-
4 Abhinava apparently accepts the reading of an!
ty tn the text
5 The text tesda afatietto
6 Omitted in A
7 Breadi, अपरिहाणे विपक्षमापार स्थाय।
पनवा पिणवाभिम विभावक परिषम! Creats
freuet and there in the second 1 Both corrept

·254 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS P240 चाइमणकपरपरसचारणराश्रयीसहसरीरा। अत्मा किरणपरत्या रात्थावस्था मवन्तीव ॥ () अलकारेण व्यायन वाच्योपस्कारेण नवत्वम् , यया ममैत्र यस तमत्तालिपरपरोपमा पथास्तवासन दिल रागवृद्धयः । श्मशानभूभागपरायमासुरा कश तदेतेन मनो विरक्षाये ।। अताक्षेपेण' विभावनया दा' वन्यमानाभ्या वाच्यमुपस्कृत मिति' नवरवम् , गयपि पुराणार्थयोगित्वे । नथा' पुराए और शुत्तृष्णाकाममात्ममरणाच महद्भयम् । पर्षतानि विवर्धनने वार्ध के विदुषामपि ।। इति । व्यनधन" रसेन" गुणीभूतेन वाच्योपस्कारेण नवलम् , " यथा ममैव जरा नेय मूभि ध्रुवमयममी पाराभुनम कुधान्ध " फुत्तारै स्पटगरल"पेने प्रश्रिति । I एयरपरपरसधारिपचीसहमरोग। पर्या कि चाचा मधावया सन्तो-A पारपरंपरसधारनपणी महसौरा। पायो विश्वपरयो मौका सबरवीर--BC reads stay in the second line वाग्योपकार-B ३ सये-A •पासमा- 5 ममा'-A, पना-B 6 अब पाक्षेमेष-Banic 7 Omitted 1 B 8 सुपरकचमिशि-B 9 This sentence and the following yeric omited in A 1 से-C 11 This line is omitted in A पापा--B 14 तरह.-B ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 255 P240 Kinta 6 देन' सपश्यत्यय व मुरिसर्तमन्यहृदय शिवोपाय नै हुन् वद बत सुधौर खलु जन ॥ श्रमातेन पन्नेथन बाल्यमुपस्तर शान्तरसप्रविपत्माला' भारुभवहीति नवावम् , सत्यप्यस्मिन् पुराणोके जराजीर्णशरीरेऽम्मिन् वैराग्य यत्न जायते । तनूयन हृदये मृत्यु ढ नास्तीति निश्चय ॥ सत्खपीत्यादि शारिकागा उपस्कार। बीन् पादान सप्टान मत्वा दुर्य पाद व्याख्यात पठति यदीति' । विद्यमानो दसी प्रतिभागुरा उकनोत्या भूयान्भवति, नवत्यन्तासन पेयर्थ । तस्मिन्निति धनन्तीभूते प्रतिभागुणे। न किंचिदेवेति सर्व हि पुराणकरिने स्थगिति किमिदानी वण्र्य यव क्वेवर्णना व्यापार स्यात् । ननु यद्यपि वर्ण्यमपूर्व' नास्ति तथाप्युझि परिपाकाम्फ घानाथपरपर्यायवन्भच्छाया का नया भविष्यति यनि रेशने भ्यन्तराणा सरम्भ इत्याशश्याह बन्धछायापोति। अर्थस्य" गुणोमूत याय प्रधानभूतय्याय" छ। नेदीय इति निकटतरम् , हृदयानुप्रवेशो न भवतीत्यर्थ । अब हेतुमाह- एव सतीति । चतुरत्व समासमघटना। मधुरत्वमपाप्यम् । तथाविधानामिति अपूर्वबन्धपच्छायायुकानामपि । परोप निषदा निवन्धने परकृतकाम्यव्यवहार एवं स्मादिलसाय 2 देतान्- सुपरकतात- 3 समाल्यापाग-1 4 मेन-A and B 5 उपकार - C15 Dot ayarlable after this 6 सिपादान--A 7 यदिहि- यरि-A 8ष पुष-A 6TRA and B 10 पाया Omstred s B प्रोन--- 14 परोपनिरवाय-BA amply reads परोपनियन्दने 15 स्वादिधमाए-8 ·256 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Kirikan P241 व स्येति । पूर्वलमाश्रयणीयम् । वदनी कान्यं तस्य भाव काव्यत्वम् । न त्वयं भावप्रत्ययान्ताद्भावप्रत्यय इति शहितव्यम् । प्रतिपादयितुमिति प्रसनादिति शेषः । यदि का वाच्यं तावद्विविधन्यद्योपयो गि, नदेव चेदनन्तम् , तद्वलादेव व्यङ्गयानन्य भक्तीसोनाभिप्रायखेदं प्रकृतमेवोच्यते-शुद्ध- व्यायविषयो गो व्यापारस्तस्पर्श विनाप्यानन्य स्वरूपमात्रेणेव । पधातु तथा स्वरूपेणानन्त' सब्यङ्गय ध्यनकोति भावः। नतु सर्वधा तत व्यय नास्तीति भन्दच्यम्, काम- भूसतपामावे याभ्यव्यवहारहाने । तथा' चोदाहरणेषु रस बने सद्भावो'स्त्येव । आदि-प्रहण व्याचष्टे-खालक्षपया - च्चेति स्वरूपादेवेत्यर्थ , यथा रुपस्पर्शयोस्तीन कावस्थयोरेकद्रव्य- निष्ठयोरेककालयो। न च देश घटतेऽवधि च ते दृश्यन्ते कथमपि पुनरूका । ये विनमाः प्रियाणामर्धा वा सुकविवाणीनाम् । पकाराभ्यामविविलय सूयते। कथमपीति प्रयलेन विचार्य माण पौनलय न लभ्यमिति यावत् । पियाणामिति बहुबलभी हि सुभगो राधावल्लभप्रायस्ताखाः कामिनी परिभोग- मुमगमुपभुशानोऽपि न विभ्रमपौनसाय पश्यति । तदा तदेव प्रियात्वमुच्यते यदाह' 2 4 सदा-B . सपा-B तक स्पन-8 3 सपेवामन्तर-8 5 सम्भवी-86 माहसिया-A and R7 yि-B & •पोमदापति दम पर प्रियात्वमुमन पदानसभा fofa 1741-B, a confusion with the lines which follow 9 B omits doc to the above confusion, the sentence Itoदा बदाम ·THE TEXT OF NAVYÁLOKA LOCANA JV इति । P242 चले चणे यरवठामुपैति तदेव स्पं रमणीयताया । (Magha in 17) प्रियाणामिति बाससार प्रवदूपोऽया कारताना विसम विशेष म भवनव एव दृश्यते । म य अस्चियनादि- वदन्यत शिक्षित , येर सत्साश्यानरहा गच्छेत् । अपि दुनिसर्गाद्यिमानमदनादुरविकासमात तदिति नवनायम् । तपरकीयशिदानपेनिजपविभागुपनिष्यन्दपूत काय्यार्थ इति भाव । तापदिति उत्तरकाल व्यापतर्शनेन विनितां पर भजतां नाम ठावदिति तु स्वभाव सा विचित्रतेति दावच्छन्द स्थाभिप्राय । तनिमित्तानां चेति माल्यादीनां स्वानुभूत परानुभूतानां यत्सामान्य वदेव विशेषान्तररहित तन्मान तस्या- भ्रषेण । न हि तरिति कविभि । एतचात्य तासभावनार्य मुक्तम् । प्रत्यक्षदर्शनेऽपि शब्द" सकेतित प्राहुर्व्यवहाराय स स्मृत' तदा खलपण नास्ति सकेतस्तेन तक्षनरी इत्यादियुक्किम सामान्यमेव स्पृश्यते। फिमित्यसंवैधमानार्थ पीनरलप' का प्रामाणिक रहीकार्यमिति भाव । तमेव प्रकटयति-न चेदिति । उक्तिहति" पर्णयमाततेव ययुक्ति" विशेषवपर्यायान्तर विकलतर्योपनिवधे"ऽपीनरुपक्वधाभिमानो न P243 । मारपीपोय- विषम-A 3 Omitted in A 4 वापति-A 5 titted in A 6 पदा-Aand B 7 व्यवहारासमस्पत-A 8 गई तस्तव में वैवमानमर्षपौमित्यर्थ -A 10 Omtted WA 11 पाकरशिक-A 12 शशिभौति-A } बम्पमित 14 निबन्धपि पचौरकाका-A 17 ·298 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS भवति तस्माद्विशिष्टवाव्यप्रतिपादकतवीतविशेष इति भाव । ग्राह्यविशेषेति' ग्राम प्रलदादिप्रमागयों विशेषस्तस्य यो मेद । नायम -पदानां तावत् सामान्य दानति वापोहे' वा यव कुवारि वस्तुनि समय, किमनेन वादातरण। वाक्याद्विप' प्रतीयत इति कस्यास वादिनो विमति । अन्निताभिधागउद्विपर्ययसर्मभेदप्रतिपादिवाक्मार्थपक्षेषु सर्यत विशेषस्थाप्रसास्येयवादुहिवैचित्र्य चन पर्यायत्वमात कृत मित्युक्तम् । भन्यतु यत्तरप्रसुतास्माक पदसायकमित्याह-कि चेति। पुनरिति भूय इत्यर्थ । उपमान निम प्रतिम च्चत्तप्रतिविम्वप्रतिच्छायागुल्यम राभासादिमिर्विचिताभिविभि' विचितीभरत्येव । वस्तुत एवासामुक्कोनाम"वविश्यस्य विद्यमानत्वानियन भान-योगादि निभ-शब्दखदाकावरया प्रतिम शब्द इत्येव सर्वन वाच्यम्" । मेवल" यौगिक (काव्य टोका 'परिशीलनदीराम्यादेषु पर्याय श्रम इति भाव । एवमर्था नन्य 'मलंकारानन्य च गणितिवचिश्याद्भवति । प्रयथापि च तत्वतो मवतीति दर्शयति-मणितियति। प्रतिनियवाया भाषाया गोचो वाच्यो योऽर्य"तत्व यविभ्य तप्रिय धन" P243 The terr teads The 3वाचोरा-A 4 रममय--B 5 पायाभु विमष दस पो भेद-86 मादिनोऽपि पति-B 7 •मतिमा--- 8 भात- १ निकट:- 10 पियामिलिभि-A ॥ एता बोला- मयपान--8 13 पाषा- 14 ह वा-B-A 16बायाम्लिा-B 17 एपषपनिगम-A 18 पौरपदो-AB Emts atauce Bri and ress गाहो 19 विपश्यामिमि-Aand B 15 योगि-A ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 259 निमित यस्य । अलकाराणा काल्यार्थानां चानन्य । तत्कर्मभूत' भणितिवैचित्र्यं क भूतमापादयतीति सबन्ध । कर्मणो विशेषश प्लेन हेतुर्दर्शित । मम मम इति मणतो व्रजति कालो जनस् । तथापि न देवो जनार्दनी गोचरो भवति मनमो मधुमथन ॥ इति। योऽनवरत भएति तस्य कयन देवो मनोगोचरो भवतीति विरोधातकारच्छाया सन्धवमापाया मह मइ इत्यनया भणित्या समुन्मेपिता । प्रवस्थादिविभिन्नाना वाच्यानां विनिरन्धनम् । भू मैव दृश्यते लक्ष्ये ततु माति रसाश्रयात्॥ इति कारिका'। अन्यस्तु प्रन्यो मध्योपस्कार । पादत्रयस्यार्थमनूदा चतुपादार्थोऽपूर्वतयाभिधीयते-तस्वित्यादि । शनीनामित्यन्तत कारिकयोमध्योपस्कार । द्वितीयकारिकायास्तरीय पाद व्याचष्टे-यया होति । सयादास्त्विति' कारिकाया अर्धम् , नैकरूपतेति द्वितीयम् । Kamta so-11 किमिय रामाशेत्यभिप्रायेणाशयरी कयामिति चेदिति । सवादों" ह्यन्यसाय तथुन प्रतिविम्वन्द । भालेख्याकारयतुल्यदेविय शरीरिणाम् ॥ Kärika 12 P243-44 Karika 8 P244 बाग्मध-B 3 अलग- 4 सजिवन्धम-8 5वश्व-B6 भारती-A 7 Onnitted by B The Kinke reads differently in the 8 Ablugava's reading of the text here is interesting B us cotropt bere and reads arutęferta 57fanfic मषि पहले काटिपेक्षिति 10 पायो- " ·260 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS Kárika 13 P,245 इत्यनया कारिकया। एषा खण्डीकृत्य वृत्ती पठिता। शरीरिणामित्ययं च शब्दः प्रतिवाक्यं द्रष्टव्य इति दर्शितम् । शरीरिण इति पूर्वमेव प्रतिलघसरूपतया प्रधानभूतस्येत्यर्थः । तत्र पूर्वमनन्याम तुच्छात्म तदनन्तरम् । तृतीय तु प्रसिद्धात्म नान्यगाभ्यं त्यजेत्कविः ॥ इति कारिका। अनन्य पुर्वोपनियक्षकाव्यादारमा सभावो यस्य तदनन्यात्म'। येन रूपेण भाति तत्प्राक् विस्पृष्टमैव'। यथा स्वेन रूपेण प्रतिविम्ब माति तेन रूपेण विम्बमैव । तत्वयं तु रातोशमिलाइ-तात्विकशरीरशून्यमिति । किनिदपूर्वगुत्प्रेरितम्, प्रतिविम्यमप्येवमेव । एवं प्रथम प्रकार भ्याध्याय द्वितीय व्याचघटे तदन्तरं दिति । द्वितीयमित्यर्थ । अन्येन साम्यं यस तत्तथा। तुच्छात्मेति अनुकारे कार्य- बुद्धिरेव चित्रपुस्तकादाविप न तु सिन्दूरादिबुद्धिः स्फुरति । सापि न चावायेति भावः । एतदेधेति तृतीयस्य रूपस्य न त्याग्यत्वम् । भारमनोऽन्यस्य सद्गावै पूर्वस्थित्यनुयाय्यपि । पस्तु भातितरां प्रसा'शशिच्छायमिवाननम् ।। इनि फारिका पत्ती खण्डीकृत्य पठितर । चित्पुस्तकेषु कारिका भरिडता एव हस्यन्ते। मात्मन इसस्य शब्दस पूर्वपठिता- भ्यामेव तत्त्वस्य सारभूतस्येवि पदाभ्यामों निरूपितः । Karika14 रोरिणामिति पय-D, मरीरिणामिब-A पदोप-B 3 सिसामना भयाव-हितामा नाच- 4 वदनन्यामा-Aand D 5 वयमेर- 6 भवपासा- 7 The teamreads शान्य 8Tixtencथाः ·THE TEXT OF KAVYALOKA LOCANA IV 261 Kanka15 ससवादानामिति' पाठ, सवादानामिति' तु पाठे वाक्यार्थ रूपाणा समुदायाना' ये सवादास्तेपामिति । वैयधिारण्येन सङ्गतिर्वस्तु राम्देन । एको द्वौ वा तयो वा चतुरादयो वा पदानामी ! तानि विवि अक्षराणि पदानि च तान्येवेति तेन रूपेण युक्तानि, मनागन्यरूपतामनागतानोसर्व । एवमनरादिरचौवेति धात भाग भ्याख्याय दार्थन्तिके योजयति-तथैवेति । एलेपादि विषयानि(नी)वि श्लेषादिसभावानि(नीत्यर्थ । सद्वृत्ततेजस्त्रि गुणद्विजातयो हि शब्दा' पूर्वपूर्व रपि कविसहस श्लेष छायया निवभ्यन्ते। निबद्धाच चन्द्रादयशोपमानावैन। तथैव पदार्थरूपाणीत्यच नापूर्वाणि घटयितु शक्यन्त इत्यादि विरुध्यन्तीबत माकन वाक्यमनुसधनीया । लोकस्येति न्याचष्टे-सहृदयानामिति । चमत्ततिरिति पाखाप्रपानसुद्धिरित्यर्थं । अभ्युजिहीत इति व्याचष्टे- उत्पद्यते उदयतीरयर्थ । बुद्धरेवाकार' दर्शयति-फुरणेय फाविदिति। यदपि तदपि रम्य यत्र लोकस्य किचित् स्फुरितमिदमितीय बुद्धिरभ्युजिहोते । Karks 16 P245 Kiria16 1 संप्रदायापामिति- पादानामिति-A - परमादानापिति-A, सरादानामिति-B 3 Abhinava apparently accepts the reading of in the text 4 सावरलह-B 5 Repeated byA 6 The text reads शेषादिममामि Areads यानि after 7 नादमोह-A 8 पाट्यापमानले न--A 10 Omitted by B ܢܐth १ गुराडार ·262 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS P246 अनुगतमपि पूर्वच्छायया बस्तु तारक सुकविरुपनियभनिन्यता नैव याति। इति कारिका खण्डोकृत्य पठिता। स्वविषय इति खय तात्कालिकत्वेन स्फुरित इत्यर्थ । परस्सादानेच्छेत्यादि द्विताय रलोका पूर्वापस्कारेण सह फति। परसादानेच्छाविरतमनसो वस्तु मुडवे हति तृतीय पाए। कुत सल्वपूर्वमानयामीत्याशयेन निरुद्योग Kaciti 17 परोपनिषद्दवस्तूपजोदर्श वा सादित्याशश्याह-सरस्वत्यैवेति । कारिकायां मुरारिति जावावेकायनमित्यभिप्रायण म्याचष्टे- सुकवीनामिति । एतदेव स्पष्टयति-प्राक्तनेत्यादिना तेषा मित्य तेन । माविर्भावगवीति सुजतात्यर्ध । इतीति कारिका- तातिनिरूपणेने त्यर्थ । Concluding अशिया रसाश्रयेण उपिता ये गुणातकाराखत 'शोमा या ता विर्भात काव्यम् । उद्यानमप्यनिष्टो यो रस सेकादिकृतस्तदा अगस्तकृतो यो गुणाना सौकुमार्यायावस्वसौगन्ध्यप्रस्तोनामनकार पर्याप्तताकारण वेन २ था शोभा व विभर्ति । यस्मादिति' काव्यादुपानात् । सर्व समोहितमिति व्युत्पत्तिकीर्तिप्रताप लक्षणमित्यर्थ । एतच सय पूरमेव निठलोक्तमिति श्लोकार्ध मात व्याख्यातम् । सुतिभिरिति ये कष्टोपदेशेन विनापि - verscs 1 किया नियका The tatrendsोपवाति J The text reads मतिमाकोमा 4 विश्वदार-A 5 सतो-A, BFerrupt and reads खनेजा . 6 प्रभादिति 7 faB, which drops this live from here to the end oriनि ।

·THE TEXT OR MM ALONALOCANA EV 263 P246 वयाविध पसमाजहित्य । अपिलसीपपानीति बसित दुखसोचाप्यादि समोच्य उस पानि' एकायतन शायर्य । सर्वपा प्रिय सर्वथा च हित दुर्त जनयतीति' भाव । यियुपोधानं न दन मुस्तीचा स्वमोटियोमादीनाभेद समीहि तापादनानिमित्तम् । विबुधाय झाय्यतत्वविद । दर्शित इति स्थित..' एव सन् प्रकाशित , प्रकाशितस्य दियथ भोग्यत्वम् । कन्यतरणा' उपमान यस्य तारमदिमा यस्येति पहुयादियों भोलि । मर्नसमाहितप्राप्तिदि काव्यादेकायता'। एतदोह विस्वरत। - सस्तकाव्यवासनयवाम चिर प्रमुप्त- पम्पं मन सुपरिसधियां यदासीत् । पद्माकरोत्सइपयोदयलामदेवोर् इति सामाभिधेयामोजनोपयहार । इह बाहुल्येन लोको लोक- প্রতিমন্তন্যয়বহীন মন্ত্রী বানার নাম अषणशात् प्रसिदान्यदोयसमाधारक विव"विद्वत्वादिसम्बर न भवति । सपा हि-गई हरिगद कृतम् , यस्यायमौदार्य महिमा" पसारमाधान एवं विपसारो दृश्यने उपाय शोर- SceLocapa P12 119-20 1.नाविधा पियाज-A,Bamituthosline 3 जामाताहि-A 4 पम-8 5 णिनि-B 6.करपा-A 7 कावदिशागपा-A 8 और-A The certrsds परकायतत्वविश्य परितः 9 प्रमिता-hend B 10 समागरकवि-A ॥ यथायमेतामरिना-A 12 पसरचिन शान-B ·262 SOVE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS P746 अनुगवमपि पूर्वच्यापया बस्तु साहक मुकविरुप निबधग्निन्यता मैव याति' । इति कारिका मण्डीकृत्य परिठा। सविषय इवि सम चारकासिवयेन स्कुरित इव । परसादानेच्छेन्यादि द्वितीय रलोकार्य पूर्वापासारेका राष्ट्र पति। परसादानेच्याविरतमनसो परतु मुख्य हति तृतीय पाद। कुत रायपूर्वमानवामीत्याशयेन नियोग Karaka 17 परोपनिबद्धवस्तुपजोवो वा स्मादित्याशयाह--सरस्वत्यैवेति । कारिकायां सुकवेरिति आतावेकवचनमित्यभिप्रायय व्यानष्टे- सुकवीगामिनि एनस सध्यति-माक्तनेत्यादिना तेषा मित्यन्तेन । मानिर्माखदाति सुजतात्या । इतीति कारिका- तत्तिनिरूपाने त्यर्थ । प्रक्रिया रसाध्येण रचिता ये गुणातगारामत'शोमा या ता विर्मात काव्यम् । उद्यानमप्यक्कियो यो रस सैकादिकृतस्तदा प्रयताकृतो यो गुणानां सौकुमार्यदायावत्लसौगन्प्याप्रमृतीनागलकार पर्याप्तताकारण तेन व या शोभा ता विर्भात । यस्मादिति' काव्यादुद्यानात् । सर्य समीहितमिति युएत्तितीतिप्रताप लक्षणमित्यर्थ । एटर मा समेव पिसत्योतमिति शोकार्ध मात्र व्याख्यातम् । सुरतिमिरिति' ये कष्टोपदेशेन विनापि Conclud ng verscs । मिस नियका --A 2 The text teada arrita 3 The text reads Enfantsitat 4 निकाद्वारे-A s A, B is corrupt and Teads 91T 6 पत्रादिदि मृतिक B, which drops this ise from here to the rod of ofte ·264 SOHE PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS प्रयन्य, तसादारणायमिति लोक प्रार्तमानो पते। लोण्यापरय प्रथनीय । प्रत' शामोदित प्रयोजनसंपतये तदनप्राह्मधोतृभाप्रवनानपाद् प्रयकारा सनामनिवन्धन पूर्वति । वदभिप्रायेणा-यानन्दवर्धन इति । प्रथित शब्द नेवदेव प्रथितं यत्तदेव नामभव पाविमिति परोति । तन्मा' रमर्यविजृम्भित नाम गणनीयम् । नि प्रेयसप्रयोजनादेव हि धुतात् योऽपि रागापो' यदि निर्यात किमेतावता प्रयोजन मप्यम्यहमेव स्यात् । तग्मादपिना प्रायई नाम प्रथितमिति' सिमम् । शुटीकतावेचिश्यवदि अमरदायिनीम् । नुयाँ शक्किमह वदे प्रत्यार्थनिदर्शनीम् ॥ मानन्दवर्धनविवेकविकासिकाच्या लोकार्पतवघटनादनुमेयमारम् । यौन्मिपरमालगद्विपयप्रकाशि व्यापार्यताभिनवगुप्तदिलोचन वत् ।। भीसिमिचेल'चरणाजपरागपूतो मो दुराजप्रतिसस्कृतबुद्धिलेरा'। काव्यप्रमाणपदवैदिगुस्प्रबन्ध सेवारसो व्यरचयद दनिरस्तुतिम् ॥ : Om td by B 3 वान्--- 5 प्रयोगा- 7 श्रीमचिमिडि- . बाघोषित- 4कोरिमाध-A 6 मातिपिति-A 8 निम्-A

·INDEX OF VERSCS AND CITATIONS
267
सुतप्पाकाममारसय 254
चाइयणमपरपर' 354
जरानीर्णशरीरेऽस्मिन् 255
जरा नेप भूमि भूष (Abhinayas) 354
तम्यान प्रदा ये (u 3, P.3) 248
धर्म वा च कामे च (cuced an Sarasvaa kracha adu 155) 250
ध्वनेर्य सगुणीभूत' (ov 1,23241 253
PITTU TAFT (Mahābharata) 252
पहना जमनाम ते (Bh -Gitan 19) 251
भअविहलरबरो (Abhuravas) 253
भावानचेतनानपि (p 212,119) 249
रमादमय एतस्मिन् (v 5.2 237) 25
वसन्तमत्तालिपरपरो (Abhinara's) 54
वस्तुत शिवमये हदि 16,
शब्द सकेतित प्राहु 257
श्रीसिस्विनचरणाज' 25,
मचनात्वविरसी 265
सत्काव्य कर्तु वा ज्ञातु ( 46,431) 245
सहृदयमन प्रीतये (1,P 3) 245
स्टोकृतार्थवैचिता 265
The Kārkās and the Sanskrit cbayas of Prakert vetses
in ch iv Ciged and discussed in the course of the com
mentary, are not Indexed liere

·266 SOME PROBLEMS OF SANSKRIT POETICS INDEX OF PROPER NAMES ETC. (The references are lo poges) अनुक्मणी 251 अभिनवगुप्त 264 आनन्नवर्धन 264 काव्यालोक 264 कारिका 255. 259. 260, 262 कारिका कार 249 महरि 263 भन्दुराज 164 भारत or भारतमन्य 251,252 मधुमपन 259 महामाद्देभर माहेभर 65 राधावलभ 256 लोचन 264 यमुदेद, यासुदेव 250 पतिकार 245,249 वृत्ति का इतिवन्ध 149,150, 160, 262 बुरु 251 कृषा-50 माथा 250,253 अन्धकार 151,264 जनार्दन 259 ज्योवियोम 61 तावालोक (अानन्दवर्धनात) 251 पाराइव 250 पुषिण 150 ज्यास 250 श्रीसिद्धिचेल 264 सेन्धवभाषा 359 INDEX OF VERSES AND CITATIONS (Thereferences are to pages) अानन्दवर्धनकि कविकामि' 264 सध्यपणिरुषम्मच (Panint in. 1. 14) 251 स्पचकनि 245 सक्षणे यादवां (Magha 1,47) 257 ·INDEX OF VERSES AND CITATIONS 267 सुतणावाममारसर्य 254 पाइएकरपरंपर* 154 जराजीर्णशरीरेऽस्मिन् 155 जरा नेये मूभि भ प (Abhinavia's) 254 वम्यामानां प्रोदा ये 1.13, p. 83) 248 धर्मे वा च कामे व (cceel in Sarasvati-krathiad in. 155) 250 ध्वनेयः मगुणीभूत (Y. I, P. 324) 253 नारायणं नमसस (NMahabharata) 252 यहूना अन्मनामन्त्रे (Bh-Gita vs. 19) 251 मप्रविहलरहऐ (Abhinava's) 253 भायानचेतनानपि (p. 229)49 शादिमय एतस्मिन् (w. 5, p. 237) 250 वमन्तमत्तालिपरंपरों (Abhinava's} 54 वस्तुतः शिवमय हदि 365 पनि विटं प्राहुः 257 श्रीसिद्धिचेनचरणाज' 265 सवनाविरसी 265 सन्काम्यं कर्तुमासातुं (1.46, p. 431 ) 245 सहदयमन प्रीतये ( 1, P. 3}45 सुटीकृतार्यवैवित्रं 265 The Kärikäs and the Sanskrit cbäyās of Praktit vettes 10 ch, 1, cited and discussed in the course of the commcatary, are not indexed here.