88. BHAMAHA 85

BHAMAHA 85

B. Dhruva thought that Bhamaha was a Buddhist in spite of his diatribe against Apohavada and in spite of the fact that nothing peculiarly Buddhistic is found in the body of his work. He relies upon the example of Hemacandra, who in his Kāvyānuśāsana makes use only of Brahmaņic Literature. But the analogy does not go far enough. Hemacandra in his work leaves no doubt about his religion by putting in the forefront in the Mangalacarana a reference to the founder of Jainism 'सर्वभाषापरिणतां जॅनों वाचमुपास्महे'. It is possible that Bhamaha lived at a time when Gautama, the Buddha, had come to be rega- rded as an ayatara and wrote a HRararu verse which has two meanings, one applicable to fira and the other to Buddha. He was probably a Hindu steeped in all the ancient Sanskrit culture but with an admiration for Buddha's noble life and therefore indulged in a double-meaning opening verse and also probably he had learnt Buddhist logic that was very much esteemed from the 5th to the 8th century. In IV. 49 (भूभृतां पीतसो- मानां न्याय्ये वर्त्मनि तिष्ठताम) he exemplifies what description given by a poet would be आगमबिरोधि. सोम was to be drunk by ब्राह्मयs alone but if a poet spoke of kings that always followed the right as drinkers of Soma that would be aganist what the Veda and Dharmasastras teach. This shows that #ng was steeped in the ancient Vedic traditions. Most of his examples refer to Brahma- nical gods and heroes. He frequently alludes to the chara- cters and incidents of the रामायण and महाभारत. For example, III.7 (कर्ष, पार्थ, शल्य), III. 11) उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाक्यानुरोधकः। विह्यायो- पवनं राज्यं यथावनमुपागमत्' II), III. 5 (अद या मम गोविन्द' &c. to be quoted below), II. 41 (यदुप्रवीर and शारङ्ग), II. 55 (युगादौ भगवान् ब्रह्मा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः), III, 24 (शम्भु and कुसुमायुध), III. 32 (राम: सप्ताभिनत् तालान् गिरिं क्रौञचं भगूत्तमः), IV. 21,(रथाङ्शले बिभ्रायौ पातां वः शम्भुशार्ङ्ियौ), V. 39 (भीम and रुधिरपान), V. 41-43 (प्रतिश्ाs of दुर्योधन, युधिष्ठिर and भीष्म), V. 44. (meeting of परशुराम and राम), V.37 (हनूमान and सीता). Bhamaha was in a way a modest man. At the end of the 4th ufto after pointing out the faults to be avoided in poetry he says 'न दूषखायायमुदाहतो विधिन चाभिमानेन किमु प्रतीयते। कृतात्मनां तत्वदृशां च मादृशो जनोमिसन्धि क इवावभोत्स्यते ।' (IV.50). But he was sometimes bitterly sarcastic; vide I. 31, IV. 45. He derived help from his predecessors, one of whom, Medhavin, he names. He briefly summarises the sum of literary criticism that existed before him and says that in enumerating the figures