1. Prataparudriya, A Critical Study Of The Prataparudriya Ramavarapu Sarat Babu

A

critical

study

of

THE

PRATĀPARUDRĪYA

Dr.

Rāmāvarapu

Śarat

Bābu

M.A.

(Skt),

M.A.

(Tel),

M.A.

(Phil),

Ph.D.,

Diploma

in

Theatre

Arts

SONTY PUBLICATIONS

KNOWLEDGE IS TRUTH OF LIFE

A Publication

of

SONTY RENAISSANCE

INTERNATIONAL

(SRI) FOUNDATION

3042 CARMEL DRIVE

FLOSS MOOR IL. 60422, U.S.A

&

SUSARLA INTERNATIONAL

TRUST ACADEMY

(SITA)

48-9-16, DWARAKANAGAR

VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016, A.P. INDIA

Printed at :

SPAA OFFSET COLOUR PRINTS

Visakhapatnam - 530 016, A.P., INDIA

© : 91 - 0891 - 547600,

Fax : 91 - 0891 - 547190

Telex : 0495 - 504 SPAA IN (Press)

Dedicated

to

the

wonderful

couple

Dr.

Sriram

Sonti

&

Mrs.

Sarada

Purna

With

best

of

regards

and

friendly

thoughts

CONTENTS

Page No

Prefatory Note

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Introductory

1

Chapter I

Nāyaka Prakaraṇa

7

Chapter II

Kāvya Prakaraṇa

15

Chapter III

Nāṭaka Prakaraṇa

37

Chapter IV

Rasa Prkaraṇa

68

Chapter V

Doṣa Prakaraṇa

112

Chapter VI

Guṇa Prakaraṇa

135

Chapter VII

Śabdālaṅkāra Prakaraṇa

141

Chapter VIII

Arthālaṅkāra Prakaraṇa

148

Chapter IX

Miśrālaṅkāra Prakaraṇa

195

Vidyānātha as a Poet

197

Conclusion

205

Footnotes

206

Bibliography

237

ABBREVIATIONS

Ac.SS : SAHITYASARA of Achutaraya

A.K. : AMARAKOSA of Amarasimha

Al.San. : ALANKARASANGRAHA of Amrtanandayogin

Al.Sar : ALANKARASARVASVA of Ruyyaka

A.P. : AGNIPURANA of Vedavyasa

A.P.Y : ANDHRA PRATAPARUDRYA

YASOBHUSANAMU of Rangacharya, C

A.S. : ALANKARASEKHARA of Kesavamisra

Asta : ASTADHYAYI of Panini

B.P. : BHAVAPRAKASA of Saradatanaya

Bh.Kav. : KAVYALANKARA of Bhamaha

C.C. : CAMATKARACHANDRIKA of Visvesvara

C.L. : CHANDRALOKA of Jayadeva

D.R. : DASARUPAKA of Dhananjaya

Dhva : DHVANYALOKA of Anandavardhana

Eka. : EKAVALI of Vidhayadara

Hem. Kav. : KAVYANUSASANA of Hemachandra

Kad : KADAMBARI of Bana

K.D : KAVYADARSA of Dandin

K.M. : KAVYAMIMAMSA of Rajasekhara

Ka.P. : KAVYENDUPRAKASA of Kamaraja Diksita

K.P . : KAVYAPRAKASA of Mammata

Ka. Su. : KAVYALANKARASUTRAVRTI of Vamana

Kira. : KIRATARJUNYA of Bharavi

L.S.D. : LAWS & PRACTICE OF SANSKRIT DRAMA of Surendranath Sastri

N.D.

: NATYADARPANA of Ramacandra &

Gunacandra

N.L.R.

: NATAKALAKSANARATNAKOSA of

Sagaranandin

N.S.

: NATYASASTRA of Bharata

N.Y.

: NANJARAJAYASOBHUSANA of Abhinava

Kalidasa

P.R.

: PRATAPARUDRIYA of Vidyanatha

Raghu.

: RAGHUVAMSA of Kalidasa

R.A.

: RASARNAVALANKARA of Prakasavarsa

R.G.

: RASAGANGADHARA of Jagannatha

R.M.

: RASAMANJARI of Bhanudatta

R.S.

: RASARNAVASUDHAKARA of

Singabhupala

Rud. Kav.

: KAVYALANKARA of Rudrata

S.D.

: SAHITYADARPANA of Visvanatha

SKA.

: SARASVATIKANTHABHARANA of Bhoja

Smg.

: SATAKATRAYADI SUBHASITA

SANGRAHA of Bhartrhari

S.S.

: SAHITYASARA of Sarvesvara

S.T.

: SRNGARATILAKA of Rudrata

T.S.

: TARKASANGRAHA of Annambhatta

Ud. Kav.

: KAVYALANKARASANGRAHA of Udbhata

Vag. Al.

: VAGBHATALANKARA of Vagbhata

Vag. Kav.

: KAVYANUSASANA of Vagbhata

Vikra.

: VIKRAMORVASIYA of Kalidasa

V.V.

: VRTTIVARTIKA of Appayadiksita

Vs.

: VENISAMHARA of Bhattanarayana

Vy.V.

: VYAKTIVIVEKA of Mahimabhatta

PREFATORY NOTE

The theories relating to the literary criticism are more or less well established by the time of Vidyanatha. Though various theroies on Poetics are well discussed by diffierent authors, they are not brought out in a single compendium before Vidyanatha. Though Mammata's Kavyaprakasa has gone a long way in that direction, it does not speak anything of Drsyakavya, the most powerful and attractive type of Poetry. In this context, it is Vidyanatha who realised the need of bringing all the elements of Kavya in a single compendium with all the appropriate and attractive illustrations to cater to the demands of a lay student of literary criticism. It is to be noted that Vidyanatha is very much aware of his own limitations in the preparation of such a text. That is why he categorically mentions the reason, at the very outset, for taking up such a task.

As late Dr. V. Raghavan rightly observes, the Prataparudriya can be considered as a work of derivative nature and it is evident that Vidyanatha belongs to the Rasadhvani school of thought. He has studied all the works of his predecessors and defined various concepts of Alankarasastra with his own illustrative poems eulogising his patron, king Prataparudra. The idea of giving one's own illustrations is a novel one, and as such, the Prataparudriya may be considered as pioneer work. It may be said in this connection that this type of writing has its beginning in Vidyanatha and got its perfection at the hands of Jagannatha, who almost gave decisive conclusions to different concepts in Alankarasastra. The idea of writing such a work can be traced to the Ravanavadha of Bhatti. Though there is immense influence of works like the Kavyaprakasa, Dasarupaka, Rasakalika, Sarasvatikanthabharana and Alankarasarvasva on the Prataparudriya in its theory part, Vidyanatha in his turn inspired his successors to a great extent. The Camatkaracandrika of Visvesvara, the Sahityaratnakara of Dharmasurin, the Alankarasudhanidhi of Sayanacarya, the Alankaramanjusa of Devasankarapurohita, the Nanjarajayasobhana of Narasimha (Abhinavakalidasa), the

Raghunathabhupaliya of Krshnayajvan, the Godavarmayasobhusana of Arunagiri, the Alankaracintamani of Ajitasena and the Ekavali of Vidyadhara stand as monumental testimonies to this fact.

The Prataparudriya is evidently a Prakaranagrantha for Alankarasastra which is being studied almost from the time of its composition. Though the original contribution of Vidyanatha is not much, the popularity of the Prataparudriya can not be under estimated as it served to be one of the conspectus of text books under reference.

In this context it is worthwhile to mention the introductory remarks of Mr. Filliozat in his French translation of the Prataparudriya.

"Son ouvrage comporte bien peu des speculations esthetiques qui avaient anime autrefois le Sastra. Ainsi se presente-t-il comme une sorte de lexique des termes techniques de poetique et de dramaturgie"

• LE PRATAPARUDRIYA" by Pierre Sylvain FILLIOZAT p.v.

Which says that the work (The Prataparudriya) contains very few of the aesthetic speculations which generally occupy such an important part in the Sastras and what it presents is more of lexicon of the technical terms of Poetry and dramaturgy.

The Prataparudriya is also quoted by no less than the prince of commentators, Mallinatha, though not by name. Apart from Mallinatha it is said that Ramacandrabudhendra cites this text again and again in the Tikas on Campuramayana and the three Satakas of Bhartrhari. Again to quote Filliozat -

"Il fut particulierement connue de Mallinatha, constamment cite par un autre commentateur dorigine telugu, Ramacandrabudhendra, autour de tika sur le Campuramayana les trois centuries de Bhartrhari ....."

• LE PRATAPARUDRIYA" by Pierre Sylvain FILLIOZAT p.v.

||

The Prataparudriya is also quoted in the Alankarakaustubha of Visvesvarapandita who defends the stand of Vidyanatha against the criticism of Appayyadikshita.

The Prataparudriya has nine chapters. It consists of Karikas, Vrtti and Udaharana slokas. The total Karikas in the text are three hundred and thirty and the illustrative verses are five hundred, out of which some twenty five verses are repeated once and occasionally twice. The fact that there are sixty two Prakrt verses testifies to the scholarship of Vidyanatha and his ease at composing the verses even in Prakrt.

Though Vidyanatha is at his best in composing the verses with a high imagery note it is a matter of regret that this point of perfection which he has kept in other chapters has not been touched in the Drama part written to illustrate the former theory part. Viewed either from the aesthetic aspect of Indian school or from the stand of action, conflict and suspense of Western school, the drama composed by Vidyanatha falls short of the expected standards. His drama entitled "Prataparudra Rajyabhiseka" though consists of five acts the scope of action, suspense and conflict are totally absent in it. It runs more or less in a reported way of incidents by the supporting characters. For instance, there is neither the characters of Nayika or Pratinayaka in the drama. The greatness of Prataparudra is rather narrated by others. Viewed from the canons of drama, this is a serious draw back of the play, for, the spectator is at a loss to witness the greatness of the hero of the drama directly. This is the reason for its unpopularity as a separate drama though the verses given for illustration are otherwise poetically perfect. No doubt they appeal the reader in their theoretical aspect but from the theatrical point of view, they fail to get the admiration of spectators.

Thus the work of Vidyanatha though certain aberrations are present here and there, on the whole makes a very good treatise for the beginners in view of its perspecuity and brevity of the contents.

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped me either directly or indirectly in producing this thesis.

I am extremely grateful to late Kalaprapurna Dr. Viswanatha Satyanarayana, M.A., D.Litt., recipient of prestigious Jnanapith Award, at whose feet I first studied the text. He was responsible to inculcate literary taste in me even at my teen age.

I can hardly pay back my debt of gratitude to Mrs. Saradapurna Sonti, a former student of mine, a constant flow of inspiration in completing my thesis. Again it is she who evinced a keen interest in publishing this work. Her 'niryaja sraddha' and 'Manasvita' has enabled the work to see the light of the day so soon.

I am indebted to late Professor V. Raghavan who has encouraged me to work on this topic and gave me his valuable suggestions to frame the format of this thesis.

I am greatly indebted to Professor P. Sriramamurti under whose able guidance and supervision I was able to complete this thesis. He is the person who has initiated this topic. But for his constant inspiration the present work would have not been completed in this satisfactory manner. Similarly, I am very thankful to late Dr. V. Subba Rao, former Emeritus Professor of Sanskrit, who has kindly accepted to be my Joint Director and encouraged me in many ways inquiring often about the progress in my work.

I express my profound gratitude to Dr. G. Parthasaradhy Rao, Reader and former Head of Sanskrit Department of this University for his incessant inspiration and kind help extended to me right from the beginning to the finishing stages of this work. As he taught me this text at the post-graduate level, I always depended on him for every clarification in my study. Words fail to adequately thank him.

IV

It is my pleasant duty to express my thankfulness to Professor

J. Prabhakara Sastry and Sri A. Someswara Sarma, Retired Reader,

Department of Sanskrit who have helped me in many a way by their

elderly advice and their most valuable clarifications on some of the

crucial points on the text. My elderly and learned friend Sri K.A

Krishnamacharyulu, former Reader, Department of Sanskrit deserves

my heart felt thanks for his generous gesture in lending me his paper-

manuscript of 'Ratnasana' commentary on 'The Prataparudriya'.

I am extremely grateful to Professor K. Kunjunni Raja, Director,

Adayar Library and Research Institute, for focusing my attention to

some of the important points of the study from time to time.

I will be failing in my duty if I do not thank the Rashtriya Sanskrit

Sansthan for their generous scholarship in the beginning of my

Research.

My sincere thanks are due to Mr. Phillips. B. Wagoner, fulbright

scholar, Wisconsin University, U.S.A. who was studying some Sanskrit

and Telugu texts with me, for his kind explanation of the French

translation of the Prataparudriya by Pierre - Sylvain FILLOZAT.

My wife Mrs. Vijayalakshmi has always tried to keep me away

from the exacting cares of the house hold inspite of her busy schedule

of conducting the Music Classes. My daughter Mrs. Madhuri Devi, a

Veena artiste and my son Mr. Ravindra Tejasvi, a post graduate

student of Sanskrit and a Mridangam artiste, have always looked after

my personal comforts. To all the three members of my home I certainly

owe my supreme gratification.

Dr. RAMAVARAPU SARAT BABU

VISAKHAPATNAM

17th August, 1994.

v

INTRODUCTORY

In the history of literary criticism in Sanskrit, Ānandavardhana marks an epoch by enunciating the Dhvani theory. He tried also to accommodate the earlier views on Poetry and to give them a place in criticism in the light of his theory. Among his followers, Abhinavagupta and Mammata are the two great authors who defended his position and established the Dhvani theory meeting all its adversaries. While Abhinavagupta accomplished it by writing commentaries on the Nāṭyaśāstra and the Dhvanyāloka, the two great classics of Rasa and Dhvani theories respectively, Mammata wrote an independent treatise on poetics presenting a comprehensive theory of literary criticism mainly based on the views of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Thus, the Kāvyaprakāśa occupies a unique place in Sanskrit criticism. All other works that followed the Kāvyaprakasa bear a clear imprint thereof now and then displaying originality at places.

Vidyānatha's patron was king Prataparudra who ruled the Kakatīya kingdom during the period 1290-1326 A.D. His capital was Warangal which is about 50 Kilometers from Hyderabad, the present capital of Andhra Pradesh. There are no counter arguments for the above date though different historians assign the date with a variation of few years to the above. Vidyānātha was supposed to be the court poet of Pratāparudra. There is absolutely no other work in his name, yet some traditional scholars opine that Vidyānātha is no other person than Agastyapandita, the author of Nalakirtikaumudi, Krsnacarita and Bālabhārata. They observe that Vidyanatha might have been the designation he held. But scholars like Dr. A.K. Warder and T. Venkatacarya did not favour this supposition.

A critical study of the text also affirms the above date. In the Prologue of the text, Vidyanatha quotes a number of authors. Ruyyaka was the latest author quoted by Vidyānātha who can be placed during 1135-1145 A.D. So one can deduce that he is later than 1145 A.D.

1

It is very evident that the famous commentator Mallinātha uses many a passage from Pratāparudrīya though he did not acknowledge him by name. Mallinātha may safely be placed during 1422-1466 A.D. With this much of internal evidence and relying upon the reports of the research carried out so far pertaining to the date of Pratāparudra, one need not have any hesitation to say that Vidyānātha flourished some time between 1275 and 1325 A.D.

There are two commentaries available on the text - one is Ratnāpana of Kumarasvamisomapithin and the other being Ratnaśāṇa written by Chilakamarri Tirumalacarya. The latter is not yet published completely, though we find the commentary on the first two chapters in K.P. Trivedi's edition of Pratāparudrīya. Kumarāsvamin was the son of Mallināthasūri who is regarded as the prince of the commentators and who flourished in the times of Praudhadevarāya II, of Vijayanagar during 1419-46 A.D. So one can safely assign in the 15th Century to Kumārasvāmin. It is evident that Tirumalacarya is posterior to Kumarasvamin from his own writings. Tirumalācārya paid high tributes to the masterly commentary of Kumaravamin and said that his commentary is mainly meant for the beginners 1. Tirumalācārya belongs to the 18th Century.

Among the followers of Mammata, Vidyānātha and Vidyadhāra stand apart in that they have started a new type of Alankāra treatises called popularly the Yaśobhusana type. It may be said that Vidyanatha's Pratāparudrīya has come to enjoy greater popularity, especially in the South. Vidyānātha has modelled his work after the Kāvyaprakāśa. But he followed a novel way of providing suitable illustrations to his theoretical concepts. He composed verses and even a small drama himself afresh by way of illustration. He defended his method in the following way : Vidyanatha considered an Alankara treatise as a separate and independent Prabandha which requires as a unity of its own even in the subject matter of the illustrations furnished therein. Hence he talks of the Nayaka to be chosen in all the illustrations

uniterally, the entire body of illustrations forming a single Kāvya as it were. He claims that such an attempt was not made earlier :

‘Tunyaslokasya caritamudāharanamarhati I na kascit tadr̥śah purvaiḥ prabandhabharavikr̥taḥ II’

He compares it also to the Rāmāyanā and the Mahabharata where great epic heroes like Rāma are described. Incidentally he is paying his tributes to his patron Prātaparudra whom he considers as an ideal ruler and a great man. He says that a treatise on poetics has come to serve its full purpose, now in that it has been able to project the glory of Prātaparudra an ideal king who is made the main subject matter of his illustrations :

‘Cirena caritārtho ’bhūt kāvyālankārasaṅgrahāḥ I Prātaparudradevasya kīrtiryena prakāśyate II’

He says further that the description of such a hero brings name and fame to the writer and his work as well.

Vidyānātha holds that the main purpose of Poetry is to teach the Purusarthas - the four ends of life namely Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Moksa. It is to be accomplished through the description of an ideal man. Kumarasvamin observes that infact the concepts of Rasa etc., acquire a new polish when they are described in respect of an ideal hero. Such gems of concepts polished with the touch stone of the choice of the hero are given in the Prātaparudrīya.

Vidyānātha emphasises the importance of the choice of a proper hero for imparting the right instruction through poetry. He refers to the prohibitive sentence - ‘Kāvyālāpāmiśca varjayet’. He considers that the sentence refers to such poem which do not have an ideal hero for its suject matter and thus fail to impart proper instruction. He goes to the extent of saying that the Śāstrā literature too gains its popularity as it establishes the existence of Isvara, as the supreme hero enacting the universal drama of creation.

'Tathā vaisesikadeh isvarapratisthapakataya jagatpujyata'

The Mahābhārata also becomes an extraordinary epic since it describes the great deeds of the personalities like Srikrṣna. It is said that the Upanisads indeed excel all other literature because they speak of and establish the existence of the Almighty God. Even the Pūrvamīmāṃsāśastra which speaks of Dharma becomes praise-worthy as Dharma forms the main characteristic feature of an ideal man.

He then furnishes a good number of Slokas from various authors in support of his position. Except in the case of Dandin all the rest of the quotations are not to be traced in their works. This may be due to the fact that the versions of the texts consulted by Vidyanatha in this connection are different from those that have come down to us.

In course of his discussion he gives a three fold division of literature - Prabhusammita, Mitrasammita and Kantasammita. The purpose of all the literature is the same, viz., teaching the four ends of life. They should help the reader in choosing the right and avoiding the wrong. The Vedic literature accomplishes this task through its injunctions found in the Brāhmanas. They are like the rules of law made by the king. Hence such a literature is called Prabhusammita. The Purāṇas narrating stories of past kings teach us like friends through the examples of their lives. Hence they are called Mitrasammitas. But the Kāvya literature scores over them in its appeal. It makes one realise his duties telling him suggestively and pleasingly as a beloved wife advises her consort. Hence it is called Kantasammita. He gives a good stanza eulogising such poetic literature :

'Yadvedāt prabhusammitadadigatam sabdapradhanacchiram Yaccharthapravanāt puranavacanādistam suhrtsammitāt Kantasammitayā yaya sarasatamāpadya kāvyasriya Kartārye kutukī budho viracitastasyai sprham kurmahe' 5

Concluding the discussion he quotes from the Kavyaprakasa

4

where pleasure and instruction are equally emphasised as the purpose

of Poetry6. In this connection other incidental benefits accruing to both

the poet and the reader are also mentioned.

Kumārasvāmin discusses the issue of the purpose of Poetry. He

purports to say that the purpose of poetry is manifold. Pleasure too is

derived both by the poet and the reader. He remarks that at the time

of deriving pleasure from one's own work the poet acts as a Suhrdaya

'Niruttikāle kavirāpi sahrdaya eva' 7.

The teaching of the four ends of life is also accomplished side by

side. But the principal purpose that is served by Poetry is transcendental

aesthetic pleasure in itself. This is indeed the secret of Poetic appeal.

Otherwise Poetry cannot be said to be pleasing as the beloved

(Kantasammitta). In support of his position he quotes the Locana :

'Caturvarga vyutpatterapica ānanda eva

pāryantikam் mukhyam் phalam' 8

It can be said that this introductory portion of the work is an

important contribution of Vidyānāthā to literary criticism in Sanskrit.

Though the classification of the definition of the Nayakas and Nāyikās

are found elsewhere in the Alankāra works, the importance of choice

of an ideal Nāyaka for the piece of literature is not so much stressed

or elaborately discussed in them.

The Pratāparudrīya is an eclictictreatise bringing in the several

concepts of literary criticism. Thus Alankāraśāstrasarvasva - all that

forms the subject matter of Alankārasastra finds a place there. The

concepts of Rasa, Guna, Alankara, Rīti and Vrtti have all been dealt

with. The concepts like Paka and Śayyā are also discussed. Rasa is

considered to be the principal concept.

In this connection Kumārasvāmin explains the popular name

'Alankārasāstra' for the science of literary criticism in Sanskrit. Alankara is one of the concepts. Yet the discipline is called Alankārasāstra. The designation can be justified by the maxim of 'Cchatrin' since Alankaras received greater attention in the works of literary criticism the discipline itself came to be called Alankārasāstra - the science of Alankaras '. It could be explained also with reference to the signification of the term Alankara given by Vamana.

'Saundaryamalañkārah'

Alankāra is literary beauty. The science dealing with the different factors contributing to literary beauty came to be known as Alankārasāstra.

Keeping in view the practice of the writers Vidyānātha offers his salutations to Bhamāha who is considered as the earliest author of Alankarasastra. Although Bharata in his Natyasasstra speaks of certain factors like Rasa, Alankara, Guna, Dosa etc., that stand common to both the varieties of Poetry - Drsya and Sravya, Natyasasstra is generally held in high esteem as a treatise on dance and drama whereas Bhamaha's Kāvyalankāra is considered as the first treatise on Alankarasastra.

Vidyānātha divides his text Prataparudriya into nine Prakaranas, viz., Nayaka, Kavya, Nataka, Rasa, Dosa, Guna, Sabdālankāra, Arthālankāra and Atisayālankāra Prakaranas. Now let us examine his first Prakarana, i.e., Nayakaprakarana in which the nature, types and attributes of the Nāyaka as well as Nāyikā and their associates are described.

CHAPTER - I

NĀYAKA PRAKARAṆA

The etymological meaning of the word 'Nāyaka', according to Kumārasvāmin is 'Nayati prāpnoti, vṛttam phalam ceti nāyakah' 1.

One who leads the action of the story and attains its fruit is called a Nāyaka. Vidyānātha at the outset, says that Mahākulinatā (Exalted lineage), Auijivalyam (Beautiful appearance), Mahābhāgyam (Prosperity), Udāratā (Magnanimity), Tejasvitā (Resplendence), Vaidagdhyam (Dexterity), Dhārmikatva (Dutifulness) Mahāmahimatva (Divinity), Pāṇḍitya (Scholarship) etc., are some of the qualities 2 that go to make a person the hero of a Kāvya.

It is to be noted that the qualities like lineage and appearance are acquired by birth where as the qualities like nobility and scholarship are to be cultivated.

The qualities of a hero are enumerated differently by different scholars. Rudraṭa in his Kāvyālankāra enumerates these qualities as sixteen 3 whereas the Śṛṅgāratilaka speaks of twelve 4.

Out of the sixteen qualities enunciated by Rudraṭa, only four viz., Kulinatā, Sampatti, Ujjivalaveśa and Daksatā can be correlated with the qualities mentioned by Vidyānātha, i.e.,Mahākulinatā,Mahābhagya, Aujjivalya and Vaidagdhya respectively though the terms differ.

According to Bhoja the qualities of the hero are twelve 5. Hemacandra on the other hand speaks of eight 6 whereas in the Vāgbhaṭālaṅkāra we find nine 7.

Again in Vāgbhaṭa's Kāvyānuśāsana we have as many as twenty seven covetable accomplishments of a hero 8. Keśavamiśra in his Alaṅkārasekhara mentions eight 9 qualities while Dhananjaya in his Daśarūpaka shows us twenty two 10.

Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpana gives them as twelve but he adds eight more under the head of Sāttvikagunas 11. In Rasārṇavasudhākara Siṅgabhūpāl explains fifteen characteristics 12 whereas Sarveśvara in his Sāhityasārc confines himself to eight 13. Amṛtānandayogin also considers them as eight. 14 Śrīkṛṣṇakavi adds profundity of character, sympathetic

temperament, sense of emulation and purity to the qualities of a hero that are generally accepted 15. Gunacandra achieves still greater brevity in speaking that a hero is one who possesses the prominent virtues, neither vicious nor befallen in calamities, though he speaks of eight Sāttvikaguṇas 16.

The heroes are again enumerated as four types as Udātta, Uddhata, Lalita and Śānta with the prefix of 'Dhīra', from the viewpoint of stamina which is endorsed by all the Ālañkārikas except Acyutarāya who has not considered Uddhata type in his Sāhityasāra. 'Tredhā netā prakīrtitah' 17. Lastly heroes are treated as four types namely Anukūla, Daksina, Satha, and Dhrṣṭa.

Nāyaka in general is said to possess these qualities : to be known for his fame and valour, to be interested in the three human ends, viz., Dharma, Artha and Kāma; and capable of being equipped with all good qualities. Vidyānātha says that it has already been mentioned that the divisions of Nāyakas are Dhīrodātta, Dhīroddhata, Dhīralalita and Dhīraśānta by earlier writers. Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra mentions that only gods are Dhīroddhatas whereas the kings should be considered as Dhīralalitas, ministers and commanders are Dhīrodāttas while Brahmins and merchants are Dhīraśāntas 18. But this division is only broad based. Though Bharata prescribes such a rule, it seems to have been observed more in its violation. In this connection Kumārasvāmin observes that the number of Nāyakas that may occur in the context of Śṛṅgāra is forty eight 19, basing upon the innate nature of the Nāyakas, the relationship they hold with the Nāyikās and their cultural status. It is also suggested that this division applies for the sentiments of Vīra, Raudra, Śṛṅgāra and Sānta. Speaking of Dhīraśānta Vidyānātha says :

'Dhīraśāntah prasannātmā dhīraśānto dvijādikah' 20

Commenting upon this definition, Kumārasvāmin suggests that

ministers and businessmen could be taken by the word 'Ādi', which is in agreement with the definition of Bharata. He also quotes :

'Sāmānyagunayuktastu dhīrasānto dvijāдика iti kecit' 21

By the word 'Kecit' the authors of Dasarūpaka and Sahityadarpana are intended. Vidyānātha also gives the characteristics of the supporters or assistants of the Nāyaka. They are of four types, viz., Pīthamarda (Attender), Viṭa (Parasite), Ceṭa (a friend) and Vidūṣaka (Jester). We can takeSugrīva in Rāmāyaṇa as Pīthamarda, Śekharaka in Nāgānanda as a Viṭa. Ceṭa is a shrewd person in bringing about the union of the hero and the heroine where as Vidūṣaka is a court jester mainly intended to create fun. After defining the qualities of the hero and his supporters, Vidyānātha enunciates the Nāyikās as eight types, viz., Svādhīnapatikā, Vāsakasajjikā, Virahotkaṇṭhitā, Vipralabdhā, Khaṇḍitā, Kalahāntaritā, Proṣitabhartrkā and Abhisārikā.

The general characteristics of Nāyaka have been earlier enunciated. Vidyānātha has not mentioned any such characteristics in the case of a Nāyikā. Here it may be inferred that those which have been prescribed in the case of a Nāyakā apply even in the case of Nāyikā 22. So we do not find Vidyānathā mentioning the general characteristics of a Nāyikā.

Bharata is the first of the available writers to speak of different types of Nāvikās. The latter treatises such as Rudrata's Kāvyalankāra, Dhananjaya's Daśarūpaka, Śāradātanaya's Bhāvaprakāśa, Viśvanātha's Sāhityadarpana and Bhānudatta's Rasamañjari have simply followed the concept of Bharata regarding the different varieties of Nāyikās.

Some of the Ālaṅkārikas treat the eight varieties as specific types of the heroines though authors like Vāgbhaṭa expressly state that these eight are states of women.23 This seems to be more acceptable because these states may occur in a woman's life at different stages

though not all. So we can conclude that these stages of life may possibly be experienced by woman in general and there is no hard and fast rule that everybody should pass through all these stages.

Bhojarāja says about Nāyikā, Pratināyikā, Upanāyikā and the Anunāyikās.24 Further divisions have also been given as follows :

According to qualities : Uttamā, Madhyamā and Adhamā

According to age and talent: Mugdhā, Madhyamā and Pragalbhā

According to chivalry : Dhīrā and Adhīrā; and

According to Parigraha : Svīyā and Anyadiyā.

In the Sarasvatī kanthābharana they are considered as of 32 types.25 Viśvanātha enumerates the types of heroines as 384 and further states that the number may still exeeed.26

However, Vidyānātha does not go into such de.ails but restricts himself, by giving the eight varieties of Nāyikās de? ending upon their nature and three varieties, Mugdhā, Madhyā and Prauḍhā on the basis of their age and talent of her amatorial activities.

Out of the eight types of Śṛṅgāranāyikās the firs* variety is Svādhīnapatikā. The woman who is constantly coaxed by her beloved is designated as Svādhīnapatikā. Bharata's exp lanation is that the Nāyaka is captivated by Nāyikā by her amorous pleasuræs and stays by her side 27. Dhananjaya follows suit 28. Though there is no variance in concept, the definition of Vidyānātha is more piuîn, when he says :

'Priyopalālitā nityam Svādhīnapatikā matā' 29

The definition of Viśvanātha and others, however, show verbo difference only, spirit being the same 30.

10

While explaining the term Vāsakasajjikā Kumārasvāmin in his commentary makes two different observations. According to one, Vāsaka means the place of abode. According to the other it means the appointed day. He, however, observes that Vidyānātha follows the second one. When we closely study the definition and illustration given by Vidyānātha for Vāsakasajjikā one fails to appreciate the remark of Kumārasvāmin that Vidyānātha follows the second interpretation, for, both of these interpretations can be accommodated in the definition given by Vidyānātha. The second variety is named as Vāsakasajjikā, who decorates herself as well as the bed room on the day of the appointment of her darling. While the definitions of Bharata, Dhananjaya and Viśvanātha speak of the lady decorating herself, 31 the definitions of Rudrata, Śāradātanaya, Bhānudatta and Vidyānātha fall in a line in saying that she decorates herself as well as the bedroom. 32 Dhanika, the commentator on Daśarūpaka also agrees with them. 33

Vidyānātha defines the third variety, Virahotkanthitā as follows : 'Cirayatyadhikam kānte virahotkanthitonmanāḥ' 34

The woman who is distressed by the delay of her darling is described as Virahotkanthitā. Bharata attributes the cause 'engagements' for the delay on the part of Nāyaka 35. Dhananjaya while following suit, ascribes the quality of blemishlessness to Nāyaka also, perhaps to gain the sympathy of the spectator and as such the definition of Dhananjaya is more explanatory than that of Vidyānātha in view of the attribute employed in his definition, viz., 'Avalike' 36.

Coming to the fourth variety, Vipralabdhā, Vidyānātha defines a woman as Vipralabdhā who is deceived by her lover who promises to meet her at an appointed place37. Bharata opines that she is the lady whose lover does not turn up for some cause inspite of the tryst or the message through a female messenger 38. Dhananjaya observes

11

that Nāyikā takes the absence of Nāyaka as an insult 39. Though the

spirit is the same in the definitions of Dhananjaya and Vidyānātha, a

slight difference can be traced in their concepts depending upon their

words Vañcitā and Atimānitā. Thus the name gains greater propriety

in the definition of Vidyānātha than in that of Dhananjaya. In the

footsteps of Bharata, Rudrata is also not clear whether the Nāyikā feels

insulted or not 40.

The fifth variety is Khanditā. According to Vidyānātha Khanditā

is one who is angry by the sight of the signs which signify that her lover

has spent the previous night with some other woman 41. Bharata does

not give us any special feature of this type as distinguished from that

of Virahotkanthitā 42. It is not evident even in Rudrata 43. Dhananjaya,

however, brings sharp contrast between Virahotkanthitā and Khanditā.

He speaks of Khanditā as one who is jealous towards the Pratināyikā 44

while Vidyānātha simply observes that she is angry with Nāyaka 45.

The sixth type is Kalahāntaritā. According to Vidyānātha

Kalahāntaritā is a type of heroine who first insults her lover on account

of her anger and repents afterwards 46. There is a marked difference

in the concept of Kalahāntaritā as conceived by Bharata on the one

hand and the later writers on the other 47. While Bharata does not

speak of repentance on the part of the Nāyikā, later writers mention

it.

The Proṣitabhartṛkā is the seventh type. The Nāyikā who is

dejected when her lover leaves for some other place comes under this

type. However, there is no marked difference in the concept of this type

among the Ālaṅkārikas 48.

The Abhisārikā comes under the last and the eighth variety. While

dealing with this type Vidyānātha states that the lady who is prepared

to go for her lover, having been afflicted by amorous desires is

designated as Abhisārikā 49. Bharata observes that she is a lady, who

out of love and infatuation, sends forth a messenger in order that she may cause the Nāyaka come to her 50. Later writers headed by Dhananjaya appear to opine that a lady who by herself goes to the dwelling of her darling for dalliance comes to be categorised as Abhisārikā 51. Śaradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśa, however, literally follows what has been said by Bharata in this connection 52. According to Dhananjaya, either the lady who goes to her lover or who makes him to come to her - both should be designated as Abhisārikās 53. It is to be noted that in both the cases the initiative comes from the lady in love.

Kumārasvāmin explaining the definition of Vidyānātha 'Kāntābhisararodyuktā smarārta sabhisarikā' says:

'Kāntasya karmanah karturvā 'bhisarane udyuktā' 54

which interpretation results in conveying both the kinds of Ābhisārikās shown by Dhananjaya. He takes the support of Dhananjaya in this connection. Viśvanātha goes into further details and describes Ābhisārikā under three types according to their social status, viz., a family woman, a concubine and a servant maid 55. Bhānudatta categorises three types based on the time factor. According to him Jyotsnābhisārikā is one who goes for her lover in moonlit nights. Tamisrābhisārikā is one who goes to her lover in darkness. The third, who seeks for her lover in day time is known as Divasābhisārikā 56.

Śāradātanayā further classifies these eight types into three kinds as Uttamā, Madhyamā and Adhama 57. Bhānudatta adds one more variety to the generally accepted eight varieties by name Prosyatpatikā, thus making the total nine. He defines it as :

'Deśāntaranisćitagamane preyasi prosyatpatikā'pi navamī nāyikā bhavitumarhati'58

If according to Bhānudatta the heroine whose hero proposes to

leave in future for a foreign land is to be considered as the ninth variety,

then there is the contingency of a tenth variety coming into picture in

the case of the heroine whose hero is presently to leave for another

country. Such classification on flimsy grounds like these is, however, to

be discouraged as there is no special charm coming in as a consequence

of such classification.

Vidyānātha observes that other varieties like Padminī etc., can be

known from the Kāmaśāstra 59 as they are not very important in the

discussion of literary criticism. He follows the proper order and

propriety in discussing and devoting a special chapter for the definitions

of the heroes and the heroines and their illustrations of their different

characteristics which is in consonance with his theory that the prestige

and popularity of a particular composition depends upon the hero

described in it.

CHAPTER II

KĀVYA PRAKARANA

Vidyānātha deals with different factors of Poetry in Kāvya Prakarana. At the outset he defines Poetry as an assemblage of sound and sense, bereft of blemishes and endowed with excellences and poetic figures 1. As regards the definition of Poetry, Vidyānātha considers that both sound and sense constitute Poetry. Evidently he is following Mammata here. This definition, however, is later criticised by Jagannātha, the celebrated authority on Poetics, purely on the lines of logic. In this connection, it is necessary to keep in view that Vidyānātha's scheme in wirting this work is simply to introduce the principles of literary criticism to the reader, but not to enter into a debate in detail and delve deep into the intricacies.

Dandin states that even a small blemish hampers the beauty of Poetry just as a single mark of leprosy spoils the beauty of person 2. Perhaps this view of Dandin would have prompted Mammata and Vidyānātha to employ the epithet Adosau in the definition of Poetry. But this epithet Adosau meets with the serious objection of Jagannātha, for it is evident that even Poetry which is considered as belonging to the finest variety is not free from blemishes. For instance, the verse "Nyakkāro 'hyayameva" etc. 3 is considered as a fitting illustration for Dhvanikāvya by cultured critics, despite the fact that there is the defect 'Avimṛśavidheyamśa' in it. The universal usage "Duṣṭam Kāvyam" comes to be set aside if the definition of Poetry as given by Mammata and Vidyānātha is adhered to.

Vidyānātha then observes that Poetry is threefold, Gadya, Pādya, and Campū. It appears that Vidyānātha is of the view that Dramas can come under the third type, i.e., Campūkāvya. However, the proper classification would be to treat Poetry first under two varieties, Śravya and Drśya. Under the Śravya type of Poetry; these three varieties, Gadya, Padya and Campū deserve mention.

Summing up the concepts of earlier writers regarding the different elements of Poetry, Vidyānātha composes four Kārikas beginning with "Śabdārthau" etc. He opines that the sound and sense constitute the body of Poetry whereas the suggested sense is its very life. The figures like Simile are like the ornaments to a person. The Śleṣa (Coaloscence) etc., are the qualities as the valour etc., in the case of a man. The styles or Rītis are just like the nature that glorify the soul. The modes of diction or Vṛttis are like the artificial manners that enhance the beauty of an individual. Mutual agreeability in the setting of words is called Śayyā in poetry and it is like the bed on which one likes to rest himself. The Pāka or fruition helps relishing the sentiment in different ways. Thus we see the wisdom of the author in bringing out the whole Sāmagri or the elements of Poetry on the analogy of their worldly counterparts.

It is a known fact that a word has three functions, viz., Abhidhā (Denotative), Lakṣaṇā (Secondary) and Vyañjanā (Suggestive). Of these the function that enables a word to give its direct meaning (Vācya) is Abhidhā and the function by virtue of which the meaning of a word is extended {Lakṣya} is Lakṣaṇā. Where a third sense different from Vācya and Lakṣya emerges there we have to postulate a new function Vyañjana which rhetoracans only accept. Vidyānātha denies the possibility of a fourth function called Tātparya which has been accepted by the followers of the Bhāṭṭa school of Mimamsa. He, however, includes this function under Vyañjana itself.

Abhidhā is of two kinds, viz., Rūghipūrvikā and Yogapūrvikā. In Rūḍhipūrvikā the meaning of the components in a particular word get eclipsed and a different meaning which has nothing to do with the meaning of the components becomes prominent by current usage. Kumārasvāmin illustrates it by the example of 'Aśvakarna'5. There are actually two components in the word 'Aśvakarṇa' - 'Aśva' and Karṇa'. The word 'Aśva' means 'a horse' and 'Karṇa' means 'an ear'. Thus we have the meaning of the 'Ear of the horse' as its surface meaning. But 'Aśvakarṇa' is a famous herb. As the meaning of a particular herb by that name is so popular, one understands it as that particular herb as

soon as he hears the word 'Aśvakarna'. It is evident that the usage of

this kind are numerous in any language. Vidyānātha illustrates this in

a verse composed by him :

'Tapoviseṣaih prathitaih prajānām

śubhaiścaritrajagatīmahiṣyaḥ I

Bhagyaiḥ prabhūtairbhuvanasya cāsya

bibharti rājyam varavīrarudraḥ' II 6

All the words in the above verse have Rūdhyaṛtha (established

meaning) having no reference to the Yaugikārtha (etymological

sense). In the word 'Prajānām' though there is a meaning for the

components also according to the dictum "Rūdhiryogamapaharati"

one has to take the word 'Prajā' in the sense of people only and not

in the sense of whatever is profusely born.

The power of words in conveying the meaning based upon the

meanings of its components is called Yogapūrvikābhidhā. In this

verse7 the words 'Rājñī', 'Vasumatī' and 'Ratnagarbhā' give the sense

conveyed by their components.

Coming to Lakṣaṇā, Vidyānātha explains it as follows : If the

expressed sense conveyed by the primary function is incongruent then

we have to take resort to a secondary function called Lakṣaṇā in order

to remove that incongruity. However, it may be questioned here as to

the propriety of Lakṣaṇā being a word Śabdavyāpāraḥ (function). The

following may be given as an explanation. A particular word which

is employed in a particular context becomes ineffective after giving the

denotative sense by the oft quoted dictum 'Sakṛduccāritassabdaḥ

sakṛdevārtham gamayati'. So it does not have the capacity of

conveying some other sense. Such being the case how far it is proper

to designate Lakṣaṇā as a Śabdavyāpāra? Here it has to be said that

though Lakṣaṇā is essentially a function related to the sense it is

attributed to the word in order to cross over the above said difficulty.

The relationships that are primarily responsible for Lakṣaṇā are said differently by the different scholars. Bhartrhari says that these relationships are five fold as Sambandha, Sādrsya, Samavāya, Vaiparitya and Kriyāsamyoga.8 In Nyāyadarśana they are enumerated as ten, viz., Sāhacarya, Sthāna, Tādarthya, Vṛtta, Māna, Dhāraṇa, Sāmīpya, Yoga, Sādhana and Ādhipatya.9 Nāgeśabhaṭṭa in his Parmalaghumañjuṣā10 gives them as five, viz., Tātasthya, Taddharmya, Tatsāmīpya, Tatsāhacarya and Tādarthya.

In the Kāvyaprakāśa, Lakṣaṇā is mainly divided into two categories as Śuddhā and Gauṇī, in which Sāropopādanalakṣaṇā, Sādhyavasāyopādanalakṣaṇā, Sāropalakṣaṇalakṣaṇā and Sādhyavasāyalakṣaṇalakṣaṇā come under Śuddhā type and Sāropaguṇī and Sādhyavaśayaguṇī fall under Gauṇī.11

In the Vṛttivārtika also there is a broad division of Lakṣaṇā into two categories with the names of Gauṇī and Śuddhā. While Nirūḍha, Phalalakṣaṇāropā and Phalalakṣaṇa sādhyavasāya fall under the former head, Nirūḍhā, Phalalakṣaṇa saropā, Phalalakṣaṇā sādhyavasāya, Jahallakṣaṇā, Ajahallakṣaṇā and Jahadajahallakṣaṇā come under the latter.12

In the Rasagaṅgādhara we find the broad categorisation of Nirūḍhalakṣaṇā and Phalalakṣaṇā. In the latter we have the two subdivisions - Gauṇī and Śuddhā. Gauṇī has two types by name Śāropā and Sādhyavasāya and the Śuddhā has four types by name Jahatsvārthā, Ajahatsvārthā, Śāropā and Sādhyavasāyā.13

Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpana categorised Lakṣaṇā under two main categories as Rūdhimūlā and Prayojanamūlā. The Rūdhimula is again divided as Śuddhā and Gauṇī. According to him Upādānalakṣaṇa, Lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā, Śāropā and Sādhyavasāya are the subdivisions of Śuddhā and the above four varieties of Śuddhā with the relationship of Guṇa are said to be Gauṇī. In Prayojanamula the four varieties of the Śuddhā above come under Śuddhā type as in the case of Rūdhimūlā and as such they are called as Śuddhā prayojanamūlā

and the four varieties of Gauṇī are designated as Gauṇī prayojanamūlā,

with a total number of eight subdivisions. These eight types of Lakṣaṇā

under the sub head of Prayojanamūlā become sixteen by the criteria

of Vyañgya being Gūḍha and Agūḍha. Again the Prayojana

(Purpose) accruing the Dharmin or Dharma they expand to thirty two

types. With the addition of the eight ancillaries of Rūdhimula they

become forty. And again these forty types, on account of their being

based on word and sentence become eighty.14 Out of these eighty

Viśvanātha mentions such varièties where the suggested sense is

sometimes clear and sometimes not clear. These bases, however,

deserve consideration while one deals with the varieties of suggested

sense and not those of Lakṣaṇā.

Vidyānātha is very brief and mentions only four varieties of

Lakṣaṇā, viz., Jahallakṣaṇā, Ajahallakṣaṇā, Sāropalakṣaṇā and

Sādhyavasāyalakṣaṇā. As the basis of Lakṣaṇā and Gauṇavṛtti is the

same he does not find any justification in treating them as separate.

Therefore he includes Gauṇavṛitti in Lakṣaṇā with a remark that it is one

of the different types of Lakṣaṇā.15

The third function Vyañjana is defined by Vidyānātha as one

which hās for its object a third sense (different from Vācya and Lakṣya)

intended to embellish the primary sense. This is of three types in view

of the fact that it is based upon a particular word, sense or both. The

verse "Vāhinyah" etc.,16 provides an illustration for the first variety.

Here there arises a question to be answered. Can a sentence give out

two senses, one depending upon the primary function and the other

on suggestion? Vidyānātha observes that it is a defect in the case of

Vedic literature and not in the case of worldly literature. In the world

we find sentences may have different shades of meaning upon the

intention of the speaker. Hence for a sentence to propound two senses

is no defect in Kāvya literature.

For the second variety the verse"Śrutvā kākatibhūhartuḥ" etc.17

is an illustration. Here Vidyānātha clarifies his position that

Arthaśaktimulādhvani cannot be included under Anumāna. While Anumāna has its life in the Vyāpti or invariable concomitance, Vyañjana has no such restriction. Hence the difference between Anumāna and Vyañjana.

According to Mīmāṃsakas the three types of senses, Vācya, Lakṣya and Vyaṅgya could be got only by a single word function Abhidhā. Here they bring in the analogy of a strong hero piercing the armour skin and heart of his opponent with a single arrow forcefully discharged. Similarly, according to them, a single word aptly used by a great poet can convey all the above three senses with a single power, namely, Abhidhā. Vidyānātha sets aside this argument by observing that Abhidhā can only give the contextual sense and becomes ineffective afterwards. If the above view of Mīmāṃsakas is accepted then even the secondary function, i.e., Lakṣaṇā loses ground. This is, however, an undesirable contingency. Hence to accept a third word function is proper.

The third variety is seen illustrated in the verse "Vijitāripura" etc.18 Here both sound and sense are suggestors and the suggested sense is that Pratāparudra is like Śiva. Hence it can be taken as an instance of the suggestion of the figure of simile by means of a fact (Vastunā upamalāṅkārādhvani).

Mammaṭa while classifying the sense observes that Tātparyārtha according to some (Bhāṭṭamīmāṃsakas) has to be reckoned as the fourth variety of sense different from Vācya, Lakṣya and Vyaṅgya.19 Vidyānātha, however, sets aside even this partial view and includes Tātparyārtha under suggested sense itself. He emphatically denies its being a separate sense.20 It is well-known that there are two schools of thought among Mīmāṃsakas and one of them accepts Tātparyasaᶄkti in order to help the comprehension of sentence meaning. For them the Tātparyārtha in the statements like "Rāmaḥ vanaṃ gacchati" is that there is the activity of going to the forest whose agent is Rāma and the object is the forest. This evidently cannot be taken as the suggested

sense. The statement of Vidyānātha that both Tātparyārtha and Vyañgyārtha are the same remains to be substantiated.

In this connection Kumārasvāmi Somapīthin explains the stand of Vidyānātha. He observes that in order to arrive at the sentence meaning one need not accept a separate function called Tātparya but the juxtaposition of the words having the mutual expectancy is itself sufficient. Hence to accept Tātparya, a fourth function is prolixious.

Here Vidyānātha follows the view of the logicians. According to them the statements like 'Parinati virasam panasaphalam' and 'Parinati sarasam āmraphalam' have the Tātparyārtha in abandoning and receiving respectively. This evidently is not the expressed sense of the sentence. It is only the intended sense of the speaker.

We can understand the spirit of the statement of Vidyānātha though it appears to differ from the view presented in the Kāvyaprakāśa. It can be defended following the school of logicians.

Even in the Devatādhikarana of Vyāsa it is said that when there is no Tātparyārtha different from the sense got by Samsarga, then the Samsargārtha itself can be taken as Tātparyaārtha.

This, however, does not happen in all cases: For instance, in the above quoted sentences we find Tātparyārtha is quite different from the sense got by Samsarga. In such cases Tātparyārtha is not to be confused with the sense got by Samsarga.

There are four other types of Vṛttis that are discussed by the literary critics, while the earlier writers like Bharata, Dhananjaya, etc. explained in the context of Drama, Vidyānātha speaks of them in connection with the Śravyakāvya.

Vidyānātha is very clear in this respect in dividing the Vṛttis into two categories naming Śabdavṛttis and Arthavṛttis. He has already spoken of Śabdavṛttis Abhidhā Lakṣaṇā and Vyañjanā, and comes to the Arthavṛttis, Kaiśikī, Ārabhaṭī, Sāttvati and Bharati.

He also warns that one should not confuse these Arthavṛttis with Śabdavṛttis as these are the indicators of Rasāvathāna.

But these Vṛttis are the characteristic features of the Racanā (collocation) intimately connected with the different stages of sentiments that are depicted in the Kāvya.

He also quotes a verse -

'Kaiśikyārabhatīcaiva Sāttvatī Bhāratī tathā catasro Vṛttaujneyi rasāvasthāna sūcakāḥ'.21

Though he says that this verse is from Daśarūpaka it is not found in it. Instead, we see the same verse appears twice in Rudraṭa's Śṛṅgāratilaka.22 In this connection it is again interesting to note that in the K.P. Trivedi's edition of the Pratāparudrīya it is "tathācoktam" only where in all the other editions the text is "tathācoktam Daśarūpake".

The concept of Vṛtti seems to have more than one form in the writings of the earlier writers. Dhananjaya in his Daśarūpaka clearly mentions that Vṛtti is of the form of the activity of the hero.

'Tadvyāpāratmikā vṛttih'.23

As regards Kaiśikī he observes that it is tender on account of amorous gestures, dance and singing.24 It is also said that Kaiśikī possesses four ancillaries. Similarly Sāttvatī also denotes the behaviour of the hero characterised by strength, valour, charity, compassion and happiness.25 It too has been spoken of as having four varieties. Ārabhaṭī consists of magic, conjuration, conflict, rage, frenzy etc., with four ancillaries.26 Bhāratī does not have any ancillaries as it is a common one. Dhananjaya, however, brings in the association of Vṛttis with different sentiments. He observes that Kaiśikī suits Śṛṅgāra while Sāttvatī is adoptable in the case of the heroic sentiment. Ārabhaṭī, however, is the Vṛtti to be taken up in connection with the sentiments Rāudra and Bībhatsa, whereas Bhāratī is a common Vṛtti applicable in all cases.27

According to Bharata, Bhāratī is the Vṛtti where in there is prominence for the utterances of the hero and they should be men only. It should be presented only in Sanskrit and the names of the actors should occur in it.28 Similar stipulations are there in the case of Sāttvativṛtti also. It is characterised by abundance of bliss, absence of sorrow and equanimity of behaviour.29 Kaiśikī stands in contrast to Bhāratī in as much as women can be associated here. It deals with

amarous enjoyments and gaudy attire. Music and dance also form a

part of this Vṛtti.30 Finally Ārabhaṭī deals with speeches filled with

falsehood and boastfulness (Dambha). Hypocracy also finds place

here. For these Vṛtis Bharata also gives subdivisions.31 Thus we find

Bharata. Dhananjaya and Vidyānātha have different concepts of Vṛtti.

Vidyānātha.distinguishes the Rītis Vaidarbhī etc., from the Vṛttis

Kaisíkī etc., He observes that the former do not require a particular

type of sense to be described. They simply depend upon the word

excellences. Hence their classification is based upon the tenderness

and hardness of the compositions. The Vṛttis Kaisikī etc., however,

require a particular sense for depiction. Vidyānātha observes that

Kaisíkī suits the sentiments Śṛṅgāra and Karuṇa. Ārabhaṭī, however,

is applicable in the sentiments of Raudra and Bībhatsa. Bhāratī is the

composition suitable to Hāsya, Śānta and Adbhuta. Finally, Sāttvatī

has to be related to the sentiments Vīra and Bhayānuka.32 In this

connection we can note certain deviations made by Vidyānātha.

According to Dhananjaya Kaisikī is suitable only to Śṛṅgāra. Regarding

Karụṇa, Hāsya, Adbhuta, Śānta and Bhayānaka he does not mention

any specific rīiti to be employed, but makes a general statement that

Bhāratī is applicable to all sentiments. Vidyānātha, however, speaks

of two more Vṛttis, Madhyamārabhaṭī and Madhyamakaisikī which

could be traced in Bhoja's Sarasvatīkanṭhābharaṇa.33 According to

Vidyānātha these two types of compositions can be employed in the

case of any sentiment. He defines Madhyamakaisikī as -

'Mṛdvarthē 'pyanati prauḍhabandha madhyamakaísíkī.' 34

Thus according to him, even while depicting tender ideas like

Śṛṅgāra one can employ not too hard a composition which he

designates as Madhyamakaísikī. Similarly Madhyamārabhaṭī is the

case where, even in the sentiments like Raudra, the composition is not

too soft.

'Madhyamārabhaṭī praudhepyarthenātimṛdukramā' 35

This kind of adjustment regarding compositions, however, is necessary since no poet appears to have strictly adhered to the restrictions of Vṛttis laid down by the earlier writers. Defining the different Rītis (Styles) Vidyānātha makes it very clear once again that there is absolutely no similarity between the Rītis and Vṛttis as the former is concerned only with Mādhurya etc., which belong to the stratum of the sound where as the latter is Rasavyanjaka having reference to the sense.

Regarding the enumeration of Rītis, Ālankārikas have different views. The famous Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī, Pāñcālī Rītis are accepted by Vāmana, Vāgbhaṭa II and Rājaśekhara though he names them as Komalā, Kaṭhinā and Miśramā. Vāgbhaṭa I, Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha accepts only two out of the above three, viz., Vaidarbhī and Gauḍī without taking Pāñcālī into consideration. But some critics hold that Bhāmaha accepts three Rītis including Pāñcālī.36 Ānandavardhana discredits the theory of Rītis of Vāmana which arises due to an incapacity to comprehend the suggestive nature of Poetry. He just recognises in its stead the two kinds of Vṛttis resting in Śabda and Artha. Mammaṭa, however, considers that the Rītis of Vāmana are the same as the Śabdavṛttis-Upanāgarikā etc. Rājaśekhara defines it as a mode of expression. Ānandavardhana, though enumerates the Rītis as three, names them as Upanāgarikā, Paruṣā and Komalā. Kuntaka's naming again differs as Sukumāra, Vicitra and Madhyama. Rudraṭa and Viśvanātha adds one more to the Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī by name Lāṭī.37 Prakāśavarsa adds still one more to these four by name Avantikā making them five.38 Bhoja adds again one more to these five by name Māgadhī which results in six.39 However, Vidyānātha accepts the famous three, Vaidarbhī, Gauḍī and Pāñcālī.

The Vaidarbhī is named after the province, as the people of that part are particularly interested in it. It is said to be the elegant more of expression (Lalitātmikā) and as such it consists of sweet sounds. It is said to be possessed of ten excellences. The presence of the excellences Prasada and Mādhurya could be evidently seen in this

which is suited to the delineation of soft feelings and as such it can be employed in Śṛṅgāra and Hāsya. Thus it goes hand in hand with Kaiśikī. The second Gaudīya stands in contrast to the first one which possesses only two, Ojas and Kāntī. As this style is favoured by the inhabitants of the Gauḍa region it is named after them. It consists of long compounds and hard consonants. As Vidyānātha says that it possesses the excellences of Ojas one can understand that it is verbose and full of alliterations.40 It is fit for the description of the sentiments Furious and Heroic and agrees with Sāttvati and Ārabhaṭī Vṛttis. In the same way the third Pāñcālī also possesses two, Mādhurya and Saukumārya. Like the above two it is named after the people of Pāñcāla region who like it. It is an admixture of the above two. It agrees with the Kaiśikī and the Bhāratī Vṛttis and to some extent Sāttvati. Possibly influenced by Daṇḍin and Vāmana, Rudraṭa advocates four types of styles, Pāñcālī, Lāṭīyā, Gaudīyā and Vaidarbhī. Pāñcālī is characterised by short, Lāṭīyā by medium and Gaudīyā by long compounds, and Vaidarbhī is marked by an absolute absence of compounds. While Vaidarbhī is endowed with grace and lucidity the Gaudīyā prefers grandeur and verbosity.

It is Vidyānātha who has successfully fixed the nebulous concept of Śayyā in literary criticism. Etymologically, the term Śayyā means bed. On the same analogy Vidyānātha describes Śayyā as the repose of words in their mutual favourableness like the repose of the body in a bed.

'Padānugunyaviśrāntiḥ Śayyā Sayyetikathyate' 41

We see the earliest usage of this term in Bāṇa's Kādambarī.42 As there is some sort of Śabdālaṅkāra in Śayyā, Agnipurāṇa calls it as Mudra.43 Bhoja mentions a particular Śayyā as one of the Śabdālaṅkāras which he defines -

'Sayyetyāhuḥ padārthānām ghatanāyaṃ parasparam' 44

But, as Dr. Raghavan observes, "there has been no consistent tradition or association of precise ideas with this concept in the history of poetics".45 The concepts of Śayyā and Pāka can be taken as twin concepts because the former is related to the Sound whereas the latter pertains to the Sense. It is evident that the earlier writers did not deal with them as clearly and as cleverly Vidyānātha deals with them, for he says -

'Yā padānām parā anyonyamaitrī śayyeti kathyate' 46

Illustrating the concept in his own verse, he also observes 'Atra padavinimayāsahişnutvād bandhasya padānugunyarūpā śayyā.'47 "That is from the viewpoint of cohesiveness, flow and agreement of the component sounds there should be a uniform and not discordant sequence of word's.48 Thus the literary value of Śayyā can be assessed where meaning reposes in the tissue of words while each word itself finds a perfect embedding in the integral tissue. In this connection it is to be noted that the special emphasis of the word 'Parā anyonya maitrī' used in the definition of Vidyānātha. In Śayyā the synonyms have no place to replace the words. Following Vidyānātha, Mallinātha explains Śayyā in his commentary "Taralā" on Ekāvalī as follows :

'Padānām parivṛtti vaimukhyam vinimaya 'sahiṣṇutvam etadeva Śayyeticakhyayate.'49 In the above explanation the influence of Vidyanatha can be clearly seen. It is to be noted that Viśveśvara follows Vidyānātha while defining the concept of Śayyā when he says

'Śayyā padānāmanyonyamaitrī Vinimayāsaha I (Sāhityasya) Sahyasyā parā kaṣṭhā śayyā desa vibhedataḥ II'50

Loke prasiddhamityeṣā prājñaiśśayyeti kīrtitā' II

Though Viśveśvara relates the Śayyā to Geographical factors, he does not explain them. The main difference between Śayyā and Rīti is that the former does not allow any substitution of synonyms while in the latter there is room for such a substitution.

26

After defining Śayyā, the author proceeds to dilate upon Pāka. Like the word Rasa, Pāka is also linked in its etymological derivation which results in well-cooked or ripe. Pāka is defined by Vidyānātha as profundity of meaning.

Arthagambhīrīnā pākaḥ

51

But Kumārasvāmin's explanation makes it less powerful when he says that it is a certain type of relishability.

Āsvadyamanatāviśeṣa

52

This explanation, however, reminds the words of Viśveśvara

Pākam vācām pariṇipākamāhurāsvādameduram

53

Pāka is first mentioned by Vāmana in this sense. In the context of Vaidarbhīrīti he says :

Vacasi yamadhisayyā syandate vacakaśrīḥ vitathamavitathatvam yatra vastuprayāti |

udayati hi sa tādrk kvāpi vaidarbhīrītau saḥṛdayāḥṛdayānām rañjakaḥ ko 'pi pākaḥ

54 II

Vāmana again defines Pāka as a specific quality which results in the concept of Śayyā of Vidyānātha when he says -

Yatpadānityajantyeva parivṛtti sahiṣṇutām |

Tamsabdanyasaniṣṇātaḥ śabdapākam pracakṣate

55 II

Bhoja gives the Pāka as a quality of the sound and calls it Praudhi. In the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharana three Pākas are mentioned viz., Nārikelapāka, Mṛdvīpāka and Āmrapāka.

56

Rājaśekhara elaborates them to nine viz., Picumanda, Badara, Mṛdvī, Vārtaka, Tintīnika, Sahakāra, Kramuka, Trapuṣā and Narikela.

57

27

the state of affairs, it is Vidyānātha who makes a clear demarcation between Śayyā and Pāka by assigning the former to sound and the latter to sense. He observes that Pāka attracts the heart which is pregnant with meaning. Thus Pāka is most conducive to the realisation of sentiments. Kumārasvāmin in his commentary gives the meaning of words "Arthasya" and "Gambhīrimā' as 'Śṛngārādeh' and 'Āsvādyamanatvāviśeṣaḥ'. Vidyādhara in his Ekāvali explains the term as follows :

"Pākastu rasociata śabdārtha nibandhanam; śravaṇasudhāsyandini padavyutpattīḥ ityanye; padānām parivṛtti vaimukhyam pāka ityapare".⁵⁸

There are three views regarding Pāka. One opines that the assemblage of sounds that are conducive for the Rasa realisation is Pāka. The second variety occurs where the words employed are very sweet to the ear. And according to the third view, Pāka is one which does not entertain any synomyms. From the viewpoint of Vidyānātha the third kind of Pāka is nothing but Śayyā.

Drākṣāpāka, Vidyānātha observes, is regarded as that which is in and out conducive for the delineation of sentiments.⁵⁹ Nārikelapāka is one which is pregnant with the sentiment.⁶⁰ In Drakṣāpāka the words are so conspicuous in presenting their sense that it takes no time to arrive at the sentence meaning. They are easily pronounceable and there would not be any hard juxtapositions. They help in the realisation of Rasa as they enter into one's heart straight away. But in Nārikelapāka the sense is not so easy to grasp. When one works hard just as to drink the water in coconuts, so the Rasa is comprehensible after some pause.

Now Vidyānātha proceeds to discuss the varieties in Poetry. Poetry could be divided into three categories, viz., Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. The first and the best type of Poetry is called Dhvanikāvya in which the sound and sense having subordinated themselves suggest some other charming sense. Thus in the first type

28

the suggested idea is more charming and predominant than the

expressed one. Vidyānātha presents the following verse as an

illustration :

'Svāmin gotra mahīdharankimadhunā nicairvidhatse kuto!

gāthānambunidhinkarosī? kuruṣe kīṅaikpatīnālpakān I

ittham pārśvacanānulāpamakhilam nyakkārya dharmaisiṇā

srṣṭah padmabhuvā guṇaikavasatiśśrīvīrarudro nṛpah' 61 II

Here in view of Pratāparudra's greatness the smallness of

mountain, ocean etc., has been expressed and the suggested idea is

that Pratāparudra excels all in his noble qualities.

The second type of poetry i.e., Guṇibhūtarvyaṅgya is one where

the suggested sense is made subservient to the expressed sense.

'Pratyagrapr saratpratāpavibhava vyāptākhiḷāśāntare

viśvatrātari vīrarudranṛpatau simhāsanādhyāsini I

Āsthānīṁ samupāgatairṁpavarāistastastathā darśitā

śceṣṭā yābhiramusya kakativibhorḍṛstiḥ kṛpāndṛikṛtā .' 62 II

Here the pathetic behaviour of the subordinate kings by way of

compassion evoking appeals etc., is suggested. The suggested idea

however, is not so charming as the expresed idea which generally

speaks of their actions before Pratāparudra. Hence it can be taken as

an illustration of the second type of poetry.

The third variety of Poetry of Citrakāvya, however, occurs where

the suggested sense is not clear. Vidyānātha gives us a threefold

division of this as Śabdacitra, Arthacitra and Ubhayacitra. In Śabdacitra,

the main emphasis is only on sound and as such the charm of the

expressed sense is sacrificed for the verbal beauty. Though there is

Alaṅkāra, the sounds dominate it. When the sense is emphasised it is the Arthacitra and when we find equal emphasis for both the figures, sound and sense, it is considered as Ubhayacitra.

Śabdacitra and Arthacitra types are the same as the figures of sound and sense respectively where as the Ubhayacitra has both the characteristics. As a consequence of it they evoke admiration through representation. In this Citrakāvya it is evident from the very nomenclature that the writer's chief intention does not lie in the depiction of sentiment and as such it loses its competency to bring the emotional mood into existence. Strictly speaking as this type of poetry serves the purpose of giving relief to the reader from the seriousness of content it has been employed by great poets like Bhāravi.63 Vidyānātha's' illustration for the Śabdacitra is as follows :

'Kṣonīraksanadakṣināḥ kṣatajagatksobhāddurīkṣyakramāḥ

kṣudrakṣatriyapakṣaśiksanavidhau praukṣipta kaukseyakāḥ /

uddāmodyamanasya rudranṛpaterdordandayošcandayor

garjaddurjana garvaparvatabhidā dambholayaḥ kelayaḥ'.64 II

In this verse, though the figure Rūpaka is present, the figure Vrttyanuprāsa, predominates. Hence the above verse illustrates Śabdacitra only.

For Arthacitra we have a Prākṛt verse of Vidyānātha, "Khagge jujjha vijjimbhiye" etc.,65 which describes that the moment Pratāparudra holds the sword the enemy king has been frightened and resorted to Pratāparudra's mercy. The folded hands of the enemy king reflected on the sides of the sword and it looks as if the lotus, the abode of the goddess of Victory. Here the poet negates the lotus as belonging to the goddess of victory and presents it as the seat of the creator who came to collect the lives of the expired soldiers. Hence the figure here is Apahnuti.

The verse "Vidyāsamudre" etc.66, is given as an example of Ubhayacitra. Here it is evident that the poet is equally enthusiastic both in Upama and Anuprasa and thus it can be considered as a model of Ubhayacitra, i.e., having figures based upon both sound and sense. Here,Kumārasvāmin states that although this variety is not mentioned by the earlier writers it is not against their intentions as they have accepted samsrsṭi in the examples such as -

'Padāmbujam bhavatu vo vijayāya mañju mañjīra simjita manoharamambikāyah .' 67

Here Upama and Anuprasa do exist without any interdependence. While illustrating Śabdacitra and Ubhayacitra the two verses composed by Vidyānātha appear to depict the two sentiments Vīra and Śṛṅgāra. If that were to be the case, to show them as illustrations for Citrakāvya is not proper. For, they have to be reckoned as the illustrations of first type of Poetry. This objection, however, is answered by Kumārasvāmin in his commentary. He observes that though there is the suggestion of the above said two sentiments, the intention of the poet mainly lies in focusing the attention of the reader on figures only. According to the convention -

'Pradhānyato vyapadeśā bhavanti'

it is proper to accept here only figures and not sentiments. To support his view, he also quotes from Kāvyaprakāśa. In this connection Vidyānātha, following the earlier authors, speaks of pictorial poetry. As specimens he illustrates three varieties viz., Padmabandha, Cakrabandha and Nāgabandha. Hemacandra in his Kāvyānuśāsana defines that it is called Citra because of its similarity to the picture or by quality of creating surprise.68 Prakāśavarṣa defines it as follows :

'Citram tu niyamanyāso varnānā mipsitakramam Svaravarnagatisṭhāna bandhaharāḍi bandhanāt ' 69 -

31

A fourfold division of this Citrakavita could be seen in Lakṣanadīpikā, viz., Āśu, Madhura, Citra and Vistaro. 70

Now Vidyānātha dilates upon the varieties of Dhvanikāvya. It is already mentioned that poetry is of three kinds, Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. These have been briefly illustrated also. Vidyānātha explains the intricacies of these types :

If the suggestion has secondary function as its basis it is considered as Avivakṣitavācya. If it takes the primary function as its basis it is called as Vivakṣitānyaparavācya. Avivakṣitavācyadhvani is again of two kinds - Arthāntarasaṅkramita and Atyantatiraskṛta. These again as based on word and sentence become four.

Vivakṣitānyaparavācya is of two types, viz., Samlaksyakramavyangya and Asamlaksyakramavyangya. Samlaksyakramavyangya is again of three kinds as based on sound, sense and both. Arthasaktimūladhvani has twelve varieties as mentioned by Abhinavagupta.

Under Asamlaksyakramadhvani come all the varieties of sentiments and transient moods.

'Rasabhāva tadlābhāsa bhāvasāntyādirakramah' 71

All these are reckoned as pure varieties which come to fifty one. Taking into consideration the possible combinations among these fifty one varieties the number grows to one thousand three hundred and twenty six. Again on the bases of the three varieties of Sankara and Samsṛsti the one thousand three hundred and twenty six varieties multiply into five thousand three hundred and four. This is how Vidyānātha works out the possible varieties of Dhvani. It is to be noted here that Vidyānātha drastically cuts the number of Dhvani varieties from Mammata which are enumerated as ten thousand four hundred

32

and four or ten thousand four hundred and fiftyfive to five thousand three hundred and four.72

In this connection the remarks of Kumārasvāmin are noteworthy. While enumerating the varieties of Dhvani, Vidyānātha mentions them as five thousand three hundred and four, whereas Mammata in his Kāvyaprakāśa speaks of ten thousand four hundred and four varieties. What the difference is due to? Enlightening on this point, Kumārasvāmin observes that the issue does not deserve one's scrutiny as there is no plausible logic in such enumeration. He advises scholars to think for themselves. As regarding Vidyānātha, reason and logic plays a more important role than the respect we owe for a particular individual. Hence it appears, it is the view of Somapīthin that there is no logical basis in the enumeration of Mammata, while Vidyānātha strictly adheres to it.

. . . Śarah pañca (5304). Tarhi kim nimittam Kāvyaprakāśakāron-tarbhāvayātayāmānapi katīcana bhedān samg̣hya caturuttaracatuḥṣaṭīyutāyuta (10404) samkhyākān saṃsṛṭisamkarāyattabhedanajīganat. Ko veda kim vā nimittam tat punasta eva tatrabhavanto vidāṃkurvantu. Asmābhistu "Yuktiyuktam vaco grāhyam na tu pūruṣagauravāt' iti nyayasaraniranusaranīyeti vidyānāthahrdayam"73

While saying that Guṇibhūtavyaṅgya which comes under the second type of poetry, Vidyānātha quotes the Kārikā of Mamata 74 and follows his scheme in enumerating the eight types of it. He illustrates them with his own verses.

Though Vidyānātha mentions three types of poetry here, he elaborates third one in his last three consecutive chapters. Speaking on the characteristics of Mahākāvyas, Upakāvyas etc., in accordance with Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa,75 Vidyānātha says that a Mahākāvya should have eighteen characteristics,viz., description oftowns, oceans, mountains, seasons, the moon rise and the sun rise, pleasure gardens,

bathing sports, drinking of wine and the pleasures of dalliance; separation of sweet hearts, marriage, the birth of a son, strategy, gambling, travels and wars and the ascendency of the hero. The above eighteen is in strict accordance with Dandin except in one case. While Dandin stipulates embassy.(Duta), as one of the eighteen, Vidyānātha alters it for gambling (Dyuta). However, he observes that a poet need not describe all the eighteen and some may not find place in a particular Poetry.

Hemacandravāgīśa explains that a Mahākāvya should contain cantos which suggest the parts of the theme and their divisions and these should not be too elaborate. He states that the cantos should neither be less than eight nor more than thirty76 and these cantos should not contain either less than 30 verses or more than two hundred each77. The verses should lend pleasant hearing and the words chosen should be popular as far as possible. Only one metre should be employed throughout the section and a different metre should be used in the end78. But one finds Māgha violating this rule in the fourth canto of Śiśupālavadha. Viśvanātha adds that there should be suggestion of the future story at the end of the each canto. 79

Vidyānātha divides Poetry broadly into three categories, Prose, Verse and a mixture of both. Poetry in verse without the division of cantos is designated as Upakāvya by Vidyānātha,80 and Sūryaśataka is said to be an example for this category. While defining Campū as

'Gadyapadyobhamayaim kāvyam campūrityabhidhīyate' 81

Vidyānātha draws again from Dandin.

Vidyānātha appears to distinguish prose literature under two heads, Kathā and Ākhyāyikā. He, however, does not mention anything about Kathā. Regarding Ākhyāyikā, following Abhinavagupta, he observes that a piece of prose is to be designated

34

as Ākhyāyikā where there are metres Vaktra and Aparavaktra and the chapters are known by the term Ucchvāsas.82 As he has not mentioned anything about Kathā one can presume that the prose literature that does not having the above said characteristics comes to be designated as Kathā. In this connection it is to be noted that while Daṇḍin belittles the difference between Kathā and Ākhyayikā,83 Vidyānātha maintains the distinction. Earlier writers, however, gave other varieties like Sakalakathā, Parikathā and Khaṇḍakathā with minor diferences which Vidyānātha seems to ignore.

While speaking of Kṣudraprabandhas, Vidyānātha speaks of five varieties, of which Udāharaṇa is one of them. It consists of both prose and verse and set to Tala. It contains the meters like Mālini and has the word "Jaya" in the beginning having the repetition of the same consonant often. It should have eight cases employed. Udāharaṇa has a long antiquity as we have the mention of this type twice in Kālidāsa.84 We have very few Udāharaṇa type of Kāvyas in Sanskrit. However, it is worthy, to note that a Udāharaṇa type of Kāvya by name "Basavodāharaṇa" is written by Palkuriki Somanātha who is a contemporary of Vidyānātha. This Udāharaṇa type is mentioned in Pratāparudrīya, Sāhityacintāmaṇi and Lakṣaṇadīpikā whose authors evidently belong to Āndhradeśa. Out of the three Udāharaṇa Kāvyas in Sanskrit, Basavodāharaṇa, Śivodāharaṇa, and Chikkadevarāyodāharaṇa, the authors of the first two are Telugu Poets.

Cakravāla is again another variety of Kṣudraprabandha where in one most often finds vocative cases. It starts with verses. The words that are employed once are taken up again. However, Amṛtānandayogin's definition of this type differs.85

Bhogāvali is another type of minor poems described by Vidyānātha. There we first find the mention of the word 'Deva'. The sections are named as Skandhas. This is furnished with four or eight sentences.

Here the style of the sentences is so properly managed as to deserve the descriptions of Gods and Kings.

The one which is full of the description of the titles of the hero and his name and which runs in bombastic style is called Birudavali. If the eulogy is of twenty seven verses it is considered as Tāṟāvali.

Vidyānātha says that there may be many other types depending on the ingenuity of the poet. He states that the illustrations are left out for fear of the work growing bulky. Thus Vidyānātha covers a wide range of topics relating to poetry in a succinct manner and proceeds to dilate upon the dramatic technique.

CHAPTER - III

NĀṬAKA PRAKARANA

Vidyānātha then takes up the treatment of Drama, as it forms the best type of Kāvya.

As the Daśarūpaka of Dhananjaya enjoys the status of being the foremost standard text next to Bharata's Nātyaśāstra, he heavily draws upon it in this chapter. He expressly states this at the end: "Eṣā prakriyā Daśarūpakoktiryānusāreṇa". 1 He composes an Udāharaṇa nāṭaka where we find illustrations for all the concepts that he has dealt with in this chapter.

The dramatic representation is four fold viz., Sāttvika (Emotional), Āngika (Physical), Āhāryaka (Decorative) and the Vācika (Verbal). Sattva is a particular type of mental mood which is influenced by the contemplation of happiness or sorrow belonging to others. Such a mood brings about the efforts called Sāttvikābhāvas. The presentation of such ensuents is designated as Sāttvikābhinaya. The movements of the limbs in accordance with the sentiment depicted is known as physical representation or Āngikābhinaya. The element such as stage decor and scenic effects, constume and makeup of characters come under Decorative representation or Āhāryaka. The fourth one is the Vācikābhinaya or Verbal representation i.e., the dialogue delivery which includes the proper modulation, intonation, pronounciation and pause by which the identical feelings of the character are to be evoked in the spectators.

Vidyānātha further defines the word Nṛtya as one which depicts Bhāvas. Nṛtta is dancing to Tāla (rhythm), Laya (time). One may ask: what is the relevance of defining Nṛtya and Nṛtta in this context? Vidyānātha rightly answers the question saying that Nṛtya and Nṛtta can be introduced in a drama to a great advantage. He quotes the following verse of Dāśarūpa in support of his statement which also

37

gives their two subdivisions namely Lāsya and Tāṇḍava.

'Madhuroddhatabhedena taddvayam dvividham punah I

Lāsyatāṇḍavarūpena nāṭkādyupakārakam II " 2

The different types of Rūpakas are varieties of Nāṭya. They differ from one another on the basis of the three factors - plot, hero and sentiment. The nature of plot is discussed here by Vidyānātha. Different types of heroes and their definitions are given already in an earlier chapter. Rasa is the main subject matter of the next chapter.

1. THE ITIVṚTTA (PLOT) :

The vastu or the plot is considered as the body of the play. It has got another name as Itivṛtta. Bharata gives it utmost importance when he says-

'Itivṛttam hi kāvyasya śarīram parikīrtitam' 3

This is further testified by the statement of Sāradātanaya which rurns as -

'Vastutatśyat prabandhasya śarīram kavikalpitam I

Itivṛttam tadevāhumatyābhinaya kovidah' 4

The plot is divided differently on different criteria. The three-fold division of the plot viz., Prakhyāta (well-known), Utpādya (devised) and Miśra (mixed) is taken into consideration in the enumeration of the ten varieties of drama. A well-known theme means that which is already there in the Itihasas. In other words a theme that depends on historical facts is known as ' Prakhyātetivṛtta '. The devised theme (Utpādya) is a creation based on the poet's fancy and the mixed is an admixture of both the above elements. While most of the Ālaṅkārikas accept the three-fold division of the plot, Sāgaranandin,however, classifies the theme into two categories, viz., Upātta (taken) and

Pratisamskṛta (refined) taken up and adapted.5

The plot may further be divided into two categories viz.,Ādhikārika and Prāsangika. Adhikārin is one who is the recipient of the fruit and the part of the story managed by him is called Ādhikārika6. For instance, in Rāmāyana the story related to Rāma and Sītā is Ādhikārika. It has another name "Mukhya" also. The second type Prāsangika is subsidiary and is ancillary to the main theme. This is of two types known as Patākā and Prakarī. That which runs with the main theme a long distance is called Patākā and that which follows for a while is designated as Prakarī. Thus the second type of classification of the plot may be taken again as three fold, Ādhikārika, Patākā and Prakarī. These three varieties, however, become nine on the consideration of the first type of classification, i.e., whether the plot is well known, fabricated and mixed7. Vidyānātha, however, indirectly hints at these nine varieties though he does not expressly state. !le deo's with Patākā and Prakarī only while dealing with the Arthaprakṛtis and does not mention them as the varieties of the plot.

Following Dhananjaya, Vidyānātha further classifies the plot under the two heads Sūcya and Asūcya8. There are five modes of expression for the Sūcya and enunciated in the Daśarūpaka. They are (1) Viskambha (2) Cūlika (3) Aṅkāsya (4) Praveśaka and (5) Aṅkāvatāra.

Sāgaranandin calls these five as Arthopaksepakas when he says-

'Aṅkāvataroṅkamukham vṛiskambha praveśakau I

Cūliketi ca pañcāsminnarthopaksepakāḥ smṛtāḥ' II 9

A detailed exposition of the Arthopakṣepakas follows:

1. Viṣkambha or Viṣkambhaka (Explanatory Scene)

Vidyānātha explains simply that Viṣkhambha is presented by mediocre characters to inform the audience briefly the items of the story

that are past and are going to hapen.10 But it may be noted that another purpose of the interludes known as Viṣkambhas and Praveśakas is to cover the lengthy stretches of the story that are unwieldy for dramatic handling. It may be a soliloquy or a dialogue between the two characters. It is of two kinds, Śuddha (pure) and Saṅkīrṇa (mixed). In the former Sanskrit alone is employed, while in the latter both Sanskrit and Prākṛt find a place. Nāṭyadarpaṇa observes that even a female character has to speak in Sanskrit if she has an entrance in the Explanatory scene.11 There prevails a difference of opinion regarding the place of Viṣkambha in a drama. Bhoja opines that it should be employed as soon as the Praṣtāvanā is over in the first act itself. Others opine that it may be employed any where between any two acts 12. Some others observe that Viṣkambha should be employed only in Prakaraṇa and Nāṭaka type of drama.13

ii. Cūlikā (Intimation Scene) :

According to Vidyānātha Cūlikā (intimation scene) is indication of an idea by those who are behind the curtain14. Kumārasvāmin explains the word Antaryavanikā as an inner curtain ‘Antah pradhāna yavanikā antaryavanikā’. The characters speak from there without entering the stage at all. The characters may be males or females and there is no restriction as regards to the employment of language. According to Śāradātanaya it has a place even in the middle of an act and it can be employed among the other modes of introduction (Arthopakṣepaka) unlike Viṣkambhaka and Praveśaka15. Nañjarājayaśobhūṣaṇa and Kāvyenduprakāśa mention two-fold division of Cūlikā viz., Khaṇḍacūlikā and Akhaṇḍacūlikā16. The Khaṇḍacūlikā is so called because it consists of intimating two facts from within the curtain. This can be employed in the beginning or the middle of an act. Akhaṇḍacūlikā is one where the entrance and the exit of the characters are visualised by the audience. The employment of Akhaṇḍacūlikā is used at the end, but sometimes at the beginning of an act also. Though Śāradātanaya opines that it should be

40

employed through Sūta, Māgadha and Vandin, Sāgaranandin de-

fends with illustrations that it could be presented even otherwise and

as such it has no steadfast rule in this regard 17.

Siṅgabhūpāla in his Rasāṛṇavasudhākara classifies Cūlikā into

two types 18, Cūlikā and Khaṇḍacūlikā. Accoridng to him, Cūlikā is to

be employed by the characters in the background only. Khaṇḍacūlikā

is the conversation of the character on the stage with the character

behind the curtain. This should be placed before the commencement

of an act.

iii. Aṅkāsya or Aṅkamukha (Anticipatory Scene) :

Aṅkāsya or Aṅkamukha is said to be a scene wherein the story of all acts is briefly given. It should be employed in the first act of a play 19.

Dhanañjaya, however, mentions that it should suggest the events of the

following act at the end of a previous one 20. However, Ankāsya in

the definition of Viśvanātha has very little to distinguish it from

Aṅkāvatāra 21. Vidyānātha, following the view of Dhanañjaya says

that the theme of the coming act is to be indicated by the characters

at the end of the previous act, through Aṅkāsya.

iv. Praveśaka (Introductory Scene) :

Vidyānātha now defines Praveśaka, the introductory scene.

When the past and future episodes of the play have been suggested

through one or two base characters it is called Praveśaka 22. According

to Kumārasvāmin it may be done through low characters like Cejī. The

number of these characters may be one, two or many. Sometimes a

mediocre character may be there along with them. This should not be

employed in the first act. These episodes should naturally pertain to

a previous or successive act. Sāgaranandin defines the term etymo-

logically saying that as it makes the charactors enter it is called

Praveśaka 23. Its function is almost the same as that of the Viskhambhaka

but it is presented by inferior charciers in a language which is not

41

polished (Udātta): It explains the matters omitted between two acts24.

Accoridng to Bharata all characters should speak in Prakit language25.

Śāradātalya and Sāgaranandin, however, opine that Sanskrit can

also be employed by ascetics, Brahmins, Sages chamberlain and

rakes in case they are introduced in the Praveśaka26. Bharata speaks

of five purposes at length that are to be served by Praveśaka27.

Sāgaranandin opines that a Praveśaka can serve the purpose of

intimating long journeys and the happenings in course of those

journeys 28. In fact, it is an effective device to present succinctly the

events ranging over a long span of time 29. According to Nātyadarpana,

Praveśaka and Viṣkambhaka are to be employed in four types of

plays, viz., Nāṭaka, Prakarana, Nōṭikā and Prakaraṇī 30.

v. Añkāvatāra (continuation Scene) :

Añkāvatāra is the scene where the theme of the succeeding act

is shown to be connected (ānusańgata) to that of the preceding act.

The actor of the one being the same as that of the other there need not

be an introduction for them 31. Kumarasvamin quotes in this connec-

"Añkābhyantara bhāvitvamañkasyāñkāvatārayoḥ|

Bhavedańka bahirbhāvo viṣkambhe ca preveśake ||

Ubhayam cūlikāyām tu yathāyogamitisthitiḥ"32 |

Añkāvatāra also should suggest a particular Sūcyārtha. It is

merely the introduction of the new act while closing the previous act.

The following words of Bharata testify to this:

"Samāpyamana ekasminnamśe hyanyasyca sucanam |

samasato hi nāṭyoktaiḥ so'ñkavatara isyate" ||

With the above five scenes the indication (Sūcya) should be done

and the rest (Drśya) should be performed through acts on the stage.

Vidyānātha now takes up the issue of Añka (act). He explains that an act is one in which the characters enter the stage and follows the hero with the colour and costume, dialogue and action and show the story of the hero. This should have the suggestion of Bindu (drop). This has various contextual purposes and serve as an abode of the scenes of story and sentiments. Here Kumārasvāmin quotes Bhāvaprakāśa which gives a caution as regards the introduction of Vastu, Rasa, and Alañkāras in an act. Both the principal and subordinate Rasas should not be over done losing sight of the movement of the story. Nor should Rasa be allowed to get obscured by the narration of the story and ornate style. He further adds that in depicting Añka (Act) one has to follow the path laid down by earlier Ālañkārikas. War, distant travel, death, mutiny, bath, putting on clothes, toilet, meal, siege or torment and love-making should not be shown in the acts. The main character should not be shown as killed under any circumstances. But it can also be shown if in the course of the story he is coming back to life afterwards. The activity of the hero of one day with a single purpose is to be shown. The heroes should be there throughout on the stage. The minor characters, three or four like Vidūṣaka may also be there. The act concludes with the exit of all the characters.

2. ĀMUKHA OR PRASTĀVANĀ (INDUCTION) :

According to the scheme of the Sanskrit drama the Sthāpaka Sūtradhāra enters after the exit of the first Sūtradhāra (Pūvarañga vidhāyaka) and introduces the drama to the audience. In course of this dialogue, the Sthāpaka adopts the Bhāratīvṛtti.

There are four sub-divisions of the Bhāratīvṛtti which are supported to be present in Prastāvanā. They are (i) Prarocanā (Laudation), (ii) Vīthī (Avenue) (iii) Prahasana (Humour) and (iv) Āmukha (Insertion).

Out of these four sub-divisions, Vīthī 34 and Prahasana have developed as separate types of dramas and hence they are not

discussed here. As there is very little to be said about Prarocana,

Vidyanatha aims it in the illustrative play 35. The remaining one i.e.

Āmukha is now dealt with in detail.

Vidyānātha says that the conversation of Sūtradhāra 36 with either

Nati or Māriṣa or Vidūṣaka about his plans to stage a particular piece

of drama is called Āmukha. It has got another name Prastāvanā 37.

Here the note of Kumārasvāmin is useful to enlighten us about the

intricacies with regards to Sūtradhāra, Nati, Māriṣa and Vidūṣaka. He

says that there are two Sūtradhāras. To quote Kumārasvāmin -

'Dvāvatra sūtradhārau. Ekaḥ pūrvarañgavidhāyakaḥ.

Itarastu naṭasthāpakādyaparaparyāyaḥ pūrvasūtradhāra

sadrśaguṇākrtiḥ prastāvanāpravartakaḥ' 38

The first one recites the benediction and exits. Then enters the

second Sūtradhāra. He has two other names as Sthāpaka and Naṭa.

His wife is known as Nati. His assistant is called Mariṣa and his

confident minister Vidūṣaka. The Āmukha has three ancillaries as

Kathodghāta, Pravartaka and Prayogātiśaya 39.

i. Kathodghāta (The Real Commencement) is the entrance of the

character taking either a statement or its sense presented by Sūtradhāra.

ii. Pravartaka (Entrance of characters) is the entrance character

indicated describing the characteristics of the season already referred

to.

iii. Prayogātiśaya (Personal Presentation) is that type of entrance

in which Sūtradhāra directly points out to the character with the

pronominal words like 'Eṣa' and 'Ayam'

While explaining Āmukha, Vidyānātha enumerates its thirteen

ancillaries Udghātyaka etc. The same ancillaries occur even in the

case of Vithi. Hence, Vidyānātha speaks of the ancillaries in this

44

context. Kumārasvāmin supports Vidyānātha in this connection by observing that the ancillaries for both Vīthī and Āmukha being the same, there is nothing wrong in dealing with them when Āmukha is taken up for explanation. It should not lead us to the assumption that both Vīthī and Āmukha are the same. Apart from ancillaries there are other factors which make Vīthī different from Āmukha.

For instance, in Vīthī the ancillaries like Kathodghāta are absent. Next,Sūtradhāra does not appear in Vīthī. Moreover, there is the need for all ancillaries like Udghātyaka and also partial importance. In Āmukha, however, there is difference in all the aspects and hence both cannot be the same. Vidyanatha explains the ancillaries briefly as follows:40

1. Udghātyaka (Abrupt dialogue) is of two.kinds as Gūdhārtha paryāyamalā and Praśnottaramālā.

2. Avalagita (Continuance) is also of two types:

(i) where the contextual purpose has been served by the mention of a non-contextual purpose;

(ii) achieving a non-contextual purpose under the pretext of achieving an altogether different purpose.

3. Prapañca (compliment) is mutual praise based on false hood. Somapithin mentions an earlier view according to which the praise should also provoke one's laughter.

4. Trigata (Triple rendering) is again of two kinds. One is the ancillary of Pūrvaranga and the other is the ancillary of Prastāvanā. In the former we have conversation among the actors and others, while in the latter many ideas are simulataneously presented due to verbal oneness (Śabdasāmya).

5. Chala (Deception) is to deceive others through unpleasant

statements that resemble pleasant ones.

6. Vākkelī (Repartee) is defined differently by different authors. Vidyānātha speaks of Vākkelī having two varieties. The first is to abruptly stop a statement of incomplete sense. The second is of the form of questioning and answering. Viśvanātha adds that there should be the element of laughter also 41. Dhanamjaya considers Vākkelī as a speech-play out of two or three replies or stopping the speech in the middle 42. Siṅgabhūpāla considers this as completing the predication of a sentence of incomplete predication43.

7. Adhibala (outvying) occurs where two actors try to excel each other in their conversation with the view of claiming supremacy.

8. Gaṇḍa (Abrupt Remark) is the unwitting speech that goes against the context.

9. Avasyandita (interpretation) is to give a different interpretation for the same statement made on account of one’s liking -Kumārasvāmin adds that not only one’s liking but dream, madness and childhood may also lead to such an interpretation.

10. Nālikā (Enigma) is an enigmatical expression involving fun. Kumārasvāmin considers this having two types as Internal (Antarlāpa) and External (Bahirlāpa).

11. Asatpralāpa (Incoherent talk) is prattling something which is irrelevant.

12. Vyāhara (Humurous talk) is a humurous statement that promotes laughter and greed.

13. Mṛdava (Euphemism) is speaking defects as virtues.

Out of these thirteen, some may be employed in Prastavana according to the need. Thus Vidyānātha deals with the details of the prelude in short.

NĀNDĪ (BENEDICTION)

Before the enactment of a play, the worship of a diety is prescribed in order to ward off obstacles. This is termed as Pūrvarañga. Accoridng to Bhāvaprakāśa it has twenty two ancillaries. But Vidyānātha does not either enumerate or define the ancillaries of Pūrvarañga. His commentator, Kumārasvāmin, however, observes that Pūrvarañga is a particular activity under taken in the beginning of a dramatic performance in order to avert obstacles. Bharata enumerates nineteen ancillaries of Pūrvarañga as Pratyāhāra, Avataraṇa, Ārambha, Aśravaṇa, Vaktrapāni, Parighaṭṭana, Sanghoṭana, Mārgasārita, Asārita, Ciṭaka, Utthāpana, Parivartana, Nāndī, Suṣkavekṣṭa, Raṅgadvāra, Cārī, Mahācārī, Trigata and Prarocana 44. Dr. Surendranath Shastri divides the list into two groups with nine and ten ancillaries respectively. He observes that the ancillaries in the first group are pre-show arrangements and they are supposed to be performed behind the screen where as the ancillaries of the second group are to be performed on the stage after lifting the screen45. Śāradātanaya enumerates twenty two ancillaries of Pūrvarañga 46, which Kumārasvāmin seems to follow. Śāradātanaya adds Dhruva, Trisama and Vardhamānaka to Bharata's list though there is a slight change in nomenclature as well as in the order. As Nāndī is considered to be the most important of all the ancillaries, Vidyānātha discusses it. Nāndī indicates the subject matter which is going to be enacted either by way of similarity of sound or sense. It may contain either eight, twelve, eighteen or twenty two words47. The first verse of a drama which has the above characteristics is called Nāndī. We have Nāndī consisting of eight words in Venīsamhāra, twelve words in Anargharāghava, and twenty two words in Bālarāmāyaṇa. Some aesthetes maintain that there is no need for restriction of words in Nāndī 48.

The etymological sense of the word Nāndī is given as something in which the dieties take delight 49.

47

Nāndī comprises of one or more verses. The mention of the Moon is considered as a special merit in a Nāndī verse, because it is the belief of our ancients that there is a good deal of influence of the Moon over sentiments. Similarly the mention of auspicious names such as couch, lotus, ruddy-goose, Lily are recommended by Viśvanātha 50. According to Bharata, Nāndī should consist of eight or twelve feet 51. But later eight, ten, twelve, eighteen or twenty two feet. Śāradātanaya, however, feels that Nāndī may have as many sentences as it requires for the expression of benediction. He also mentions the view of some who accept Nāndī of even four feet 52. Siṅgabhūpāla observes that it may be of eight, ten, twelve feet 53. Thus from a number of authorities it is evident that the eight footed Nāndī is much in vogue, though there are cases of Nāndī verses containing more feet.

Soon after Nāndī, in the Āmukha portion the stage-manager indicates the theme of the play while describing one of the six seasons. Here the composition Bhāratī is employed. Substantiating his statement, Vidyānātha quotes a verse from Daśarūpaka "Raṅgah prasādamadhuraiaś etc. 54 As to the description of seasons we may note that it is only optional but not compulsory. The season should be indicative of the time of the story. In the dramas where love is chosen as the main sentiment, generally seasons like Spring are described. In the dramas having Heroic as the main sentiment, seasons like Śarat (Autumn) are chosen as they are favourable for leading armies. Of course, there is another school of thought which advocates that the season belonging to the time of the first Act has to be described, irrespective of the main sentiment of the drama.

In view of the systematic representation of the drama, the entire dramatic action is divided into five stages known as Ārambha (Commencement), Yatna (Endeavour), Prāptyāśā (Prospect of success), Niyatāpti (Certainty of success and Phalāgama (Consummation or attainment of fruit). These five are technically called Pañcāvasthas.

i. ĀRAMBHA (COMMENCEMENT) :

Vidyānātha says that Ārambha is an earnest desire of the hero to achieve a noble fruit, in a great measure 55. Kumārasvāmin explains that this fruit is of the form of the traid of values Dharma, Artha and Kāma. So this is the first stage of dramatic action because it is from the desire of the hero that all action proceeds.

ii. YATNA (ENDEAVOUR) :

Yatna is the intensified activity of the hero in order to achieve some end 56. Kumārasvāmin speaks of another reading "Phalaprāptau" for "Phalāprāptau" According to the latter Prayatna can be defined as the intensified activity of the hero on account of the fruit being not attained. Dasarūpaka, however, takes the reading "Phalāprāptau" which Vidyānātha accepts. This marks the second stage of action. It also includes the strategy played and anxiety shown by the hero, that propels the hero in achieving his goal.

iii. PRĀPTYĀŚĀ (PROSPECT OF SUCCESS) :

Prāptyāśā is a state of dilemma of the hero regarding the achievement of the fruit on account of both means and suspicion and antimeans (Apāya) 57. This is the third stage of action.

iv. NIYATĀPTI (CERTAINTY OF SUCCESS) :

Niyatāpti is the point where the hero is confident of achieving the fruit on account of the absence of anti-means (Apāya) 58. This forms the penultimate stage of action.

v. PHALĀGAMA (CONSUMMATION) :

This is the stage where the dramatic action reaches its apex for fulfilment. This is the final stage where the complete attainment of the fruit is said to have been achieved. This is otherwise known as donouement 59.

49

Having thus explained the five stages of the hero or Pañcāvasthas,

Vidyānātha discusses the five elements of the dramatic plot known as

Arthaprakrtis. The five Arthaprakrtis are the Bīja (Seed), the Bindu

(Drop), the Patāka (Episode) the Prakarī (Incident) and the Kārya

(Denouement).

Vidyānātha defines Bīja as a cause of the fruit briefly mentioned

and which develops in many ways later 60. This again, according to

Somapīthin, is of three types depending upon the type of Nāyaka

chosen in the play. It is a well-known fact that Nāyakas can be

classified under three heads.

1. Svāyattasiddhi, i.e., one who can achieve the fruit by himself.

2. Sacivāyattasiddhi, i.e. one who depends upon his minister for

the attainment of the fruit.

3. Ubhayādhīnasiddhi is one who partly depends upon the

minister, himself playing an active role.

Based on these distinctions of Kumārasvāmin says that Bīja can

be viewed as of three types 61.

Bindu literally means a drop. Accoridng to Vidyānātha Bindu is

the cause which connects together the inclidents of a plot when there

is a break due to intermediary factors 62.

Vidyanātha explains an episode as one that runs along with the

main plot far extending. Thus it is an ancillary to the main plot 63. Here

Kumārasvāmin brings in a doubt and answers it himself. The point here

is, authors like Śāradātanaya speak of a seperate fruit, not connected

with the main one in the episode of Patāka. Somapīthin does not

endorse this view. He observes that even the fruit of the ancillary is not

independent but it helps the achievement of the final fruit. In this

connection he takes the support of the Vedic injunction-

'Dadhna indriyamāpayat juhuyat'.

50

Here the ancillaries Dadhi etc., are connected with the main fruit.

This is something like the servant who is well satisfied with the award of is master works incessantly for the achievement of master's task.

Hence,it has to be accepted that the fruit of the ancillaries too indirectly helps the achievement of the main fruit64.

According to Sāgaranandin Patāka which means a banner serves the purpose of high lighting the main plot just like the banner in a war field, though it rests in a particular place, embellishes the whole army65.

Prakarī too is an episode which does not extend far, but capable of embellishing the main episode as Patāka does. It literally means a bunch of flowers.

Kārya is the fifth element of the dramatic plot, which manages the attainment of the final fruit. it depicts the cause or the MOTIF of the play.

The combination of the five stages of action with the five elements of the dramatic plot respectively results in the formation of the five junctures.

THE FIVE JUNCTURES:

Sandhi or juncture, as defined by Vidyānātha, is the relation of the episodes that have a specific purpose with the intermediary fruits.

Sandhiranāmaikṣena prayojanānvitāni Kāthānamavāntara prayojana sambandhafi'66

Such being the case, it marks the component divisions of the dramatic action. Dilating upon the definition of Vidyānātha Kumārasvāmin observes that the fruit in a play may be one of the human ends, viz., Dharma Artha and Kāma. Sometimes Dharma is the main fruit and Artha and Kama subserve it. Again in another play Artha or Kāma a may be prominent having the other two subservient.

It may also happen that the main fruit may have only one of the fridd

51

as the ancillary. It may also be the case that the main fruit may not have

any ancillary. Thus the prayojana or main fruit comes to have twelve

varieties.

'Prayojanamātra trivargarūpam phalam. Tacca Dharmārtha

kāmeṣvekaikāsya svāvyatiriktābhyām Dvābhyāmupasarjanābhyām

viyāsena samāsenaca sambandhe kaivalye ca dāvādāsa vidham' 67

Vidyānātha advocates that the corresponding catenation of the

different stages of action and emotional stages of the hero (Avasthas)

with the elements of the plot (Artha prakṛtis) results in the formation of

the five junctures:

'Artha prakṛtayaḥ pañca Pañcāvasthāsamanvitāḥ I

yathā sankhyena jāyante mukhādyāḥ pañcasandhayaḥ II 68

Thus, the combination of Ārambha with Bīja constitutes

Mukhasandhi or Protasıs. The coalition of Prayatna and Bindu result

in Pratimukhasandhi or the Expansion of the dramatic action. Similarly

the coalscence of Praptyāśā and Patāka makes Garbhasandhi or

Catatasıs. In the same way, the catenation of Niyatapti with Prakari

forms Avamarsandhi or Epitasıs; and the conjunction of phalāgama

and Kārya becomes Nirvahaṇasandhi or the Denouement.

I. MUKHASANDHI (PROTASIS) :

Vidyānātha says that Mukhasandhi is one by which the seed

sprouts and forms the cause of various purposes and several senti-

ments. On account of the coalition of Bīja and Ārambha the ancillaries

or Aṅgas in Mukhasandhi are twelve in number 69. By the word "Aṅga"

we means an Avāyava in the form of Kathāṃśa which is useful for

Sandhi.

The twelve Aṅgas are: Upakṣepa, Parikara, Parinyāsa, Vilobhana,

Yukti, Prāpti, Samādhanā, Vidhāna, Paribhāvana, Udbheda, Bheda

and Karaṇa. Out of these twelve, Vidyānātha says that the following

six, viz., Upakṣepa, Parikara, Parinyāsa, Yukti, Udbheda and

Samādhāna should be employed in a drama. The remaining six may

be employed according to the context using the discretion of the writer.

1. Upakṣepa (Suggestion) : The installation of the seed (Bījanyāsa)

is called Upakṣepa or suggestion 70. It introduces the hero’s desire

which forms the very nucleus of the dramatic action.

2. Parikara (Enlargement) : The extension or expansion of the

above seed is called Parikara.

3. Parinyāsa (Establishment) : Parinyāsa is the germination of the

seed.

4. Vilobhana (Allurement): Vilobhana is the description of the

qualities of the seed.

5. Yukti (Resolve) : Yukti is a discussion of the fruit of particular

incident conducive to the seed.

6. Prāpti (Attainment) : Prāpti is the acquisition of happiness

related to the seed.

7. Samādhāna (Settling) : Samādhāna is the presence of the

seed.

8. Vidhāna (Conflicting of feelings): Vidhāna is the cause for

happiness or sorrow related to the seed.

9. Paribhāvana (Surprise): Paribhāvana is the mental upsurge of

feelings related to the seed.

10. Udbheda (Disclosure): Udbheda is to exhibit the seed which

has been concealed.

11. Bheda (Division): Bheda is the encoura gement conducive to

the seed.

12. Karana (Resumption): Karana is the beginning of a contextual action related to the seed.

All the canonists are of the same opinion with regards to the twelve ancillaries of the Mukhasandhi though there is a slight variation in the nomenclature as well as in the order 71. For example, the eleventh ancillary is considered as Karana and the twelfth as Bheda by Bharata, Dhananjaya, Saradatayana, Sāgaranandin and Viśvanātha, where as the reverse order is maintained (i.e., Bheda and Karana) by Vidyānātha which is followed by his successors like Singabhūpāla and Abhinavakālidāsa.

II. PRATIMUKHA SANDHI (METABASIS) :

The manifestation of the seed which is both visible and invisible is designated as Pratimukha Sandhi. It has thirteen ancillaries which are to be employed in accordance with its two constituents, Bindu and Prayatana 72. The definition given in Nātyadarpana, however, shows a deviation. It does not speak of Bīja being Laksya and Alaksya. According to it the expression related to Bīja and which is partly seen, itself consitutes the juncture Pratimukha 73.

Vidyānātha lists out the thirteen sub-divisions of the Pratimukha Sandhi and defines their characteristics as follows:

1. Vilāsa (Craving): is the desire for dalliance.

2. Parisarpa (Pursuit): is an act following a thing which was first seen and then disappeared.

3. Vidhūta (Disinterest) : is to discard the undesirable element.

4. Sama (Pacification) : is the subsidence of tastelessness.

5. Narma (Joke): is a statement made for fun.

6. Narmadyuti (Amusement) : is the pleasure that arises on

54

account of the expression of affection and love.

7. Pragamana (Responses): is to bring to light the seed of affection through consecutive statements.

8. Nirodha (Impediment): is averting the advent of a pleasant thing under some pretext.

9. Paryupāsana (Apology): is consolation of one’s kith and kin.

10. Vajra (Bolt): is the statement that expresses harsh and unpalatable ideas.

11. Puspa (Gallantry): is an expression of love and affection.

12. Upanyāsa (Intimation or Propitiation) : is the composition of utterances that generate affection.

13. Varnasamhāra (Congregation): is a thorough description of the four castes.

Out of the above thirteen, Parisarpa, Pragamana, Vajra, Upanyāsa, and Puspa are considered as important by Vidyānātha. The ancillaries of Pratimukha sandhi are considered as thirteen in number by all the canonists.

III. GARBHASANDHI (CATASTASIS)

Coming to Garbhasandhi, Vidyānātha explains it as a frequent search for seed which was once seen and lost. Its ancillaries are so formed as to be conducive to Prāptyāśā and Patāka. He, however, fails to mention whether Patāka in Garbhasandhi is an indispensable feature. Somapithin, however, observes that there are two views one advocating the presence of it and the other speaking of option. Even in the second case, though Patāka is not present, Prāptyāśā, one of the five avasthas is essential.

55

'Atra patakāyayāh vaikalpikatvāt tadabhavapakṣepi Prāptyāśā nityaiva74.

There are twelve ancillaries for this juncture and they should be employed in accordance with Prāptyāśā and Patāka.

1. Abhutāharaṇa (Mis-statement): is a deceitful act which helps a present purpose.

2. Mārga (Indication) : is a statement of fact.

3. Rūpa (Reflection) : is a statement that presents a dilemma.

4. Udāhrti (Exaggeration): is the speech that brings forth the greatness of what is contextual.

5. Krama (Progress): is the attainment of the desired object.

6. Sangraha (Propitiation): is a statement proposing Sama and Dama that are useful to the context.

7. Anumāna (Inference): is the inference of particular thing depending on an indicator.

8. Totaka (Quarrel): is the speech born out of confusion and anger.

9. Adhibala (Outwitting): is the deception of one's kith and kin.

10. Udvega (Dismay): is the fear from those who are harmful.

11. Sambhrama (Terror): is both doubt and fear.

12. Ākṣepa (Revelation): is to follow some means in order to achieve one's desired object.

Out of these, the five viz., Abhutāharaṇa, Mārga, Totaka, Adhibala and Ākṣepa are important factors.

Although almost all the canonists are of the same view with regards to the number of ancillaries of Garbhasandhi, we find that these are enumerated as thirteen in Nāṭyaśāstra, Nāṭyadarpana and Sāhityadarpana, the thirteenth being Vidrava. In Nāṭyadarpana this Vidrava is placed in the eighth place where as Toṭaka is considered as the thirteenth.

IV. VIMARŚASANDHI (EPITASIS) :

This has got thirteen ancillaries, which are to be employed in accordance with Niyatāpti and Prakarī. In Vimarsa sandhi, the seed which has been made well-known in Garbhasandhi is expatiated upon in view of some cause. It is also known as Avamarsasandhi. The ancillaries of this junctures are :

1. Apavāda (Censure) : is publicising one’s mistakes.

2. Sampheta (Rebuke) : is the speech suggested by anger.

3. Vidrava (Tumuit) : is murder and imprisonment etc.

4. Drava (Contempt) : is the infringement of elders.

5. Śakti (Placating) : is the Passification of rivalry.

6. Dyuti (Excitement) : is agitation and threatening.

7. Prasanga (Reference) : is eulogizing elders.

8. Calana (Disrespect) : is comparison.

9. Vyavasāya (Boasting) : is boasting one’s capacities.

10. Nirodha (Opposition) : is abusing one another out of anger

11. Prarocana (Precursor) : is the narration of something auspicious, which is going to happen.

12. Vicalana (Praise) : is exhibiting one’s own virtues; and

13. Ādāna (Summary) : is taking up what ought to be done.

Out of the above thirteen, Apavāda, Śakti, Vyavasāya, Prarocana and Ādāna are essential elements. Here also Bharata, Rāmacandra and Gunacandra, and Abhinava Kālidāsa speak off fourteen ancillaries varying with each other in the nomenclature. According to Bharata Prarocana is the fourteenth while it is Bhāvāntara in view of Rāmacandra and Gunacandra and it is Niyatāpti in Abhinava Kālidasa's view.

V. NIRVAHAṆASANDHI (CONSUMMATION OR APODOSIS)

There are fourteen ancillaries which may be employed according to Phalāpti and Kārya. It is the juncture where the. Mukha etc., connected with the seed and scattered are made to converge to yield a single fruit. The following are the ancillaries with their explanations

1. Sandhi (Junction) : is the culmination of the seed to yield the fruit.

2. Virodha (Vigilance) is the search for denouement.

3. Grathana (Hint) is to present a particular act that deserves to be done.

4. Nirṇaya (Narration) is to eulogize something which is conducive to the seed.

5. Paribhāṣa (Conversation) is mutual conversation.

6. Prasāda (Graciousness) is courtesy shown.

7. Ānanda (Bliss) : is the attainment of the desired object.

8. Samaya (Deliverence) is pacification of one’s grief

9. Kr̥ti (Consolation) is the consolidation of the object attained.

10. Ābhaṣaṇa (Satisfaction) is complimenting on the achievement of the desired object.

1 ' Upagūhana (Surprise) is the attainment of the wonderful object.

12. Purvabhāva (Anticipation) is to witness the desired object.

13. Samhāra (Termination) is the conclusion of the attainment of fruit.

14. Praśasti (Benediction) is an expression of auspicious to happen. In this juncture, however, there is no difference of opinion among the canonists with regard to the number of ancillaries.

Thus the five junctures with their sixty four ancillaries have been explained by Vidyānātha in detail. As shown above the ancillaries are enumerated as sixty six in total in the Nāṭyaśāstra and the Nāṭyadarpana and Nanjarājayaśobhūṣaṇa. But it is to be noted that they too speak of sixty four ancillaries though their enumeration is otherwise. Vidyānātha gives six specific purposes for these sixty four ancillaries :

i. To put forth the desired idea (Vivakṣitārthapratipādana)

ii. to conceal what ought to be concealed (Gopyārthagopana);

iii. to bring to light what deserves to be publicised (Prakāsyārtha prakāśana);

iv. the abundance of action and music (Ābhinaryāgasamṛddhi);

v. to create aesthetic pleasure (Camatkāritva); and

vi. to dilate upon the plot (Itivrttavistāra)

Kumārasvāmin defends this by quoting Śṛṅgāraprakāśa which runs as "Aṅgānām ṣadvidhamhyetadṛṣṭam śāstre prayojanam"75The

employment of Sandhyangas are very essential for a drama. A drama devoid of these ancillaries cannot be a popular one. For, Viśvanātha emphatically says :

'Angahīno naro yadvannaivārambhakṣamo bhavet |

Angahīnam tathākāvyaṃ na prayogāya yujyate'II

These ancillaries should be employed according to the state of the sentiment. But one should not be over enthusiastic to employ all the elements with a view that they have all been prescribed, for, Ānandavardhana says :

'Sandhi-Sandhyanga-ghatanam rasābhivyaktyekṣayā |

Natu Kevalayā śāstrasthiti-sampādanecchayā'II

For this purpose it is said that the description of Erotic in the context of a war is to be avoided. Critics have found fault with the author of the Veṇisaṃhāra, for, there is the description of Erotic sentiment between Duryodhana and Bhānumati in the harem. There is no order for the employment of the Upakṣepa etc., unless there is the relation of cause and effect. So, in essence these are to be employed at the descretion of the writer.

THE TEN TYPES OF PLAYS

1. NĀṬAKA :

Vidyānātha starts with Nāṭaka type. According to him it comprises of five junctures Mukha, Pratimukha etc. Erotic or Heroic should be the main sentiment and other sentiments are introduced as ancillaries. The Hero should be a well known one and a Dhīrodatta.

This is the brief definition of Nāṭaka given by Vidyānātha. This variety of Nāṭaka, however, on account of its having all the ancillaries in their entirety, is called the Prakṛti. All other types of Rūpaka come under Vikṛtis. Kumarasvamin, however, adds that the author should be

alert in deleting such improprieties which are detrimental to the prestige of the hero or to the sentiment or he should change them in such a manner that they glorify the dignity of the hero 80. Kālidāsa's characterisation of Dusyanta stands as an example for this. Bharata, Śāradātanaya, Viśvanātha and Siṅgabhūpāla observe that a Nāṭaka should depict the life of a distinguished prince of saintly character. (Prakhyāta rajarṣih) 81. In this connection we have a divergent view presented by a school of thought, represented by Viśvanātha and Siṅgabhūpāla holding that the hero should be only Dhīrodātta, but not others 82. This proposition, however, seems to be untenable because it has neither the support of stalwarts in the field like Bharata nor the practice of the playwrights. For example, we find Dhīralalita type of heroes in plays like Svapnavāsavadatta, Ratnāvalī, Tāpasavatsarāja, Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa and the heroes belong toDhīroddhata type in plays such as Venīsamhāra which are considered as belonging to Nāṭaka type by critics. Sāgaranandin's contention is also equally untenable, for, according to him the hero should belong to Dhīralalita type only 83. On the contrary we have Dhīrodātta type of heroes in plays like Uttararāmacarita, Malavikāgnimitra.

2. PRAKARANA :

Speaking on Prakaraṇa, Vidyānātha says that it should contain a concocted plot and the hero should be a Dhīraśānta type, erotic being the main sentiment, and the rest of the ancillaries are like those of Nāṭaka 84. Somapithin obseve, that a hero in a Prakaraṇa should either be a minister, a brahmin, or a tradesman. The hero who is a Dhīraśānta has to be depicted as one very much interested in the triad Dharma, Artha and Kāma. The Prakaraṇa is of three types depending upon the type of heroine :

i. the play which has a concubine as the heroine,

ii. the play which has a family lady as the heroine, and

iii. the paly which has both of them as heroines 85.

Etymologically, the word Prakarana is explained as "Prakarsena Kriyate vastu yasminniti prakaranam". The originality of the plot is considered to be the special feature of a Prakarana which alone distinguishes it from the Nataka group. As this type has more Pravesakas and acts with the Vikrtirupakas it has got the name Prakarana. It has,however, certain peculiarities of its own 86. There is no place for divine characters in a Prakarana even for the slight assistance. But low characters like slaves and rakes, dancing girls and their paramours, gamblers and gamesters can be employed with advantage 87.

3. BHANA :

The word Bhana is derived from the root "Bhana vaktayam vaci". Bhandavritti has its prevalence in this type. The plot comprises the description of the behaviour of swindlers, gamblers etc. This consists of one act and two junctures Mukha and Nirvahana. The theme, here is concocted. A dexterous Paramour is the speaker here and hispeech is full of praises for valour and prosperity suggesting the erotic and heroic sentiments. As Bhana is a monologue the actor pretends as if he hears some body speaking while there is none. This is technically called Akasabhasita 88. Even the flok songs can have a place in this type. Mukundananda, Pancabanavijaya, Padmaprabhrtika (ascribed to Sudraka) are the examples for this type of plays.

4. PRAHASANA :

In prahasana the main sentiment is humour. As regards for other details like ancillaries of junctures and Vṛttis it falls in a line with Bhāna. This is of three types, as Suddha, Vikṛta and Saṅkīrṇa. Suddha Prahasana deals with the attire and speech of Buddhistic monks, which has orthodox Brahmins, heretics, servants and strumpets. In Vaikṛta Prahasana there is the imitation of speech and dress of paramours,

illicit lovers, old people, ennuchs, hermits and chamberlines in the

harem which tickles the audience to laughter. The third type Saṅkīrṇa

Prahasana is full of descriptions of the behaviour of swindlers and has

the same ancillaries as of Vīthī and Udghātaka 89. In Prahasana the

theme is concocted and the people like atheists are heroes. It is a one-

act play. As it tickles the audience to laughter it is called Prahasana.

While Bharata, Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra and Sagaranandin

speak of two varieties only as Suddha and Saṅkīrṇa, Śāradātanaya,

Dhanañjaya, Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha include Vaikṛta also making

three varieties. Bhagavadajjuka of Bodhāyana is considered as the

oldest and good Prahasana. Mattavilāsa, Laṭakamelaka,

Lambodaraprahasanas are some which deserve mention belonging

to later times. According to Daśarūpaka this farce may contain all the

six varieties of the comic sentiment90. Siṅgabhūpāla gives the account

of the ten elements of Prahasana 91. The presence of Gentle Dance

(Lāsya) is considered to be the most important characteristic of a

Prahasana. However, it follows the pattern of Bhāṇa with regards to

the other details.

5. DIMA :

The word "Dima" is from the root "Dima Saṅghāte" which means

that it has the episodes of many heroes. In Dima the plot is a popular

one. There may be sixteen heroes like Deities, Demons, Gandharvas,

Devils, Yakṣas and other infernal beings (pretas), exciting (Dīpta) of

vehement type. The sentiment should be other than humour and erotic,

preferably furious. By the word 'exciting' the question of Quietic does

not arise. There may be four acts with four junctures except Avamarśa

juncture. Illusion, sorcery, war, the Lunar and the Solar eclipses and

meteors find a place in this type. All Vṛttis can be employed in it except

Kaiśikī. The rest should be like that of a Nāṭaka 92. The famous

examples for this type are said to be Tripuradāha and Vīrabhadra

Vijṛmbhaṇa. The scenes like the Viṣkambhaka or the Praveśaka are

absent in this type and the duration of the theme extends to a period

of four days spread over the four acts of the play93.

6. VYĀYOGA :

In Vyāyoga the plot is a popular one and the hero is vehement.

The sentiment should be preferably the heroic as in Dima which results

in the presence of six sentiments excluding the Quietic, the erotic and

the humourous. Here is the absence of the junctures Garbha and

Avamarśa. All the Vṛttis except Kaiśikī may be employed. The story

should be a military spectacle which had happened in a single day, for

which the cause should not be a woman94. It should have only one

act and as the assemblage of many men in this type it is named as

Vyāyoga95.The famous examples of Jamadagnayajaya, Kirātārjunīya

and Narakāsuravyāyoga fall into this type.

7. SAMAVAKĀRA :

In Samavakāra the plot may be popular or a concocted one. The

heroes are twelve belonging to gods and demons having seperate

fruits. The heroic sentiment should be predominant. All junctures with

the exception of Avamarśa should be present.

It is a dramatic representation in which there is the fusion of

different types of characters with different motives96. Etymologically

the word Samavakāra is explained as ‘Saṅghātaiḥ avakirṇaiśca

arthaiḥ kriyate iti samavakāraḥ’ which means to contain several

scattered items of action finally connected with each other, or it may

be , as Kumārasvāmin says, ‘Samantādavakīryante ’ sminnartha iti

samavakāraḥ’. According to Bharata, Dhananjaya and Śāradātanaya

who categorically state that the heroes of Samavakāra should belong

to gods and demons, there is no place for a mortal hero in this type97.

However, Viśvanātha's choice is between Gods and men in this

regard98. Though Vidyānātha observes that he follows Dhananjaya

while dealing with the chapter on drama he appears to hav

different view from him regarding the type of heroes that occur

type of play. While Dhananjaya is specific in his statement that only

gods and demons appear as heroes Vidyanatha adds 'adi' and lends

scope for other types of heroes also to enter the field. It may be his

view that mortals need not be excluded. The view of Visvanatha who

specifically mentions mortals also lends support to such a supposition.

With regards to the employment of twelve heroes, there are divergent

views. While some canonists believe that all the twelve should take

part in each act of the play, others make a division of their business and

their entrances 99. The whole play is divided into three acts. The

junctures of Opening and Expansion may find place in the first act

where Catastasis and Consummation takes their places in the second

and the third acts respectively, the Catastrophe being totally absent.

Vidyānātha divides the whole theme of the drama into three

sections. The first section which normally takes three yāmas should be

shown in the first Act. The second section which takes one yāma should

be shown in the second Act. The third one whose duration should be

half yāma should be presented in the third Act. Thus, according to him

the theme taken to be presented in a Samavakāra should have its

duration 4 1/2 yāmas. Authors like Bharata, Dhananjaya,

Saradātanaya, Ramacandra and Gunacandra, Singabhūpāla give

the time in terms of Nalikas. All authors agree that the whole spectacle

should be with in 18 Nalikas with the act wise division of 12+4+2.

Here is an interesting point to note. According to them a Nālika means

two ghatis. 'Nālikā ghatikā dvayam' (D.R.III-62) Ghati is equivalent

to 24 minutes and as such as Nālika should mean 48 minutes

according to them. But Monier Williams and Apte consider no

difference between Nālika and Ghati. According to them Nalikā

means 24 minutes 100. However, Bharata testifies this time factor.

According to Vidyānātha 4 1/2 Yamas come to 13 1/4 hours.

According to the earlier writers with the exception of Bharata if Nālikā

were to be two ghatikas the story of the whole play should consist of

18 × 48 minutes which should come to 864 minutes of duration or 14

hours and 24 minutes or 7 hours and 12 minutes. This view of Monier

65

Williams agrees with that of Bharata. Śāradātanaya says that the Nālikā is one fourth of the Muhūrta 101. At that rate of Nālikā means 12 minutes as Muhūrta is considered to be of 48 minutes. So, we find Bharata, Dhananjaya and Vidyānātha have different views in this connection. According to all the canonists it should contain three types of delusions, three types of fleeing away and three types of erotics. The first variety of delusion arises out of wild animals. The second is providential caused by fire, rain, wind etc. The third, however, is caused by enemies and is of the form of war etc. The second i.e., Vidrava also falls under three categories according to the type of 'Kapata'. The third erotics, too, is of three types. The first one is based on pieteousness (Dharma), the second is the cause for attaining kingdom etc. The third one based on simple passion, is enjoyable as it arises from drinking liquors and contacts with other women. The example quoted for this type of a play is Samudramathana.

8. VīTHĪ :

Vīthī is a one act play with fictitious plot, Dhīrodātta being the hero. The sentiment erotics is slightly indicated. It is presented in Kaiśikīvṛtti. The ancillaries Udghātyaka etc. are as in Bhāṇa. It has the junctures of Mukha and Nirvahana. It has its own 13 ancillaries known as Vīthyaṅgas which could be adopted in the induction of a play. They could also be liberally adopted by the playwrights according to the need. As it is evident from the very title itself, Vīthī signifies an avenue open for all kinds of performances which could be used with advantage, in all junctures.

Malatīvīthī is an example of this type. The heroine should be either Sāmānyā or Parakīyā.

9. AṄKA (UTSRṢṬĀṄKA) :

According to Vidyānātha Aṅka should depict a well-known story. Bharata and Viśvanātha, however, permit even a fictitious one 102. The

chief sentiment is pathetic and the hero is an illiterate and uncultured.

Though it has profuse lamentations of the women and speeches of full

of remorse and sorrow it should not have a tragic ending.

prevails in this type of the play.

It is called Utsr̥ṣṭāṅka for the reason

that it abides the general principles applicable to other types of

dramas103.

Śarmisṭāyayāti is an example for this type.

10. ĪHĀMRGA :

Vidyānātha explains that the plot in Īhāmrga is a mixed one and

the hero is a vehement one and the sentiment is Śṛṅgārābhāsa.

It consists of four acts and three junctures excluding Garbha and

Avamarśa.

In Īhāmrga the hero should be a human being and the

villian a divine one.

The whole plot hinges round the attainment of a

celestical nymph who is not to be easily attained.

There is the combat on her account which does not result in death.

Rukmiṇīparinaya is a

piece belonging to this type.

However, Sāgaranandin mentions of

Kuṇḍaśekharavijaya as belonging to this type104.

Kumārasvāmin, in this

connection gives the etymology of the terms as 'Mr̥gavadalabhyam

nāyikām nāyako 'sminnihata itīhāmr̥gaḥ' 105.

In this way Vidyānātha closes the theoretical part of the Drama

and composes a drama by name "Pratāparudrakalyāṇa" as an

illustration.

CHAPTER - IV

RASA PRAKARANA

The theory of Rasa, which has invited various interpretations by different scholars, has its basis in the Rasasūtra by Bharata. Though writers like Kohala and Nandikesvara have been mentioned in the Nāṭyaśāstra as the predecessors of Bharata, their theories in this connection are not available to us. Hence Bharata’s Rasasūtra is the earliest available information regarding Rasa. The two keywords in the definition of Bharata, viz., ‘Saḿyogāt’ and ‘Nispattih’ have given scope for different theories, almost antogonic to each other. Bhattalollata’s ‘Utpattivāda’, Śrisaṅkuka’s ‘Anumitvāda’, Bhattanāyaka’s ‘Bhuktivāda’ and Abhinavagupta’s ‘Vyakktivāda’ are considered to be the main theories and Abhinavagupta’s theory is considered to be the coping stone in the edifice of Rasa. Though almost all the writers of the post Abhinavagupta period belong to his school, Vidyānātha, however, appears to differ from the view of Abhinavagupta in certain aspects, and this point will be taken up in this chapter at the relevant place.In the chapter on Sentiments, Vidyānātha defines Rasa as the Sthāyībhāva (Permanent emotive mood) itself nourished by the equipment of Vibhāva etc.

‘Vibhāvānubhāva sāttvika vyabhicari sāmagri

samullasita sthāyībhāvo Rasah’ 1

In support of his view, he quotes Dhananjaya, the author of Dasarūpaka. Kumārasvāmi Somapīthin, while explaining the concept of Rasa, resorts.to the ideas given in the Bhāvaprakāśā of Śāradātanaya. In Bhāvaprakāśā Rasa has been defined as -“Prakāśāmanda cidrūpā”2 and the mood responsible for the creation of such a Rasa is the permanent emotive mood. He sums up his discussion saying that the permanent emotive mood which is in the connoisseur as a latent impression, is brought

to the state of enjoyment. Then it is designated as Rasa.

'Sāmājikanisṭhaḥ ratyādi stāyibhāvah rasyate āsvādyate iti Rasah'13

In this connection Kumārasvāmin mentions the views of the prominent interpreters of Bharata’s Rasasūtra. First he mentions the view of Bhaṭṭalollata, which opines that the permanent emotive mood which originally exists in the heroes like Rāma, appears as existing in the actor who has been taken no way different from the hero. According to this view, Rasa originates in the actor. Saṅkuka, however, observes that the connoisseurs infer Rasa in the actor with the help of the Vibhāva etc., which serves as Liṅga. This theory of inference, however, has been criticised by Bhaṭṭanāyaka who brings in three functions - Abhidhā, Bhāvanā and Bhogakṛttva to explain the process of Rasa realisation. The first one presents Vibhāva etc., the second one brings about universalisation and the third one enables the reader enjoy the sentiment. Thus his theory is known as ‘Bhuktivāda’. Abhinavagupta, the famous interpreter of Rasasūtra finds fault even with Bhaṭṭanāyaka and opines that the latent impression Rati etc., which lie embedded in the spectator are brought to the realm of his experience. Hence, according to him, the awakened latent impression itself is Rasa. Explaining the term ‘Sthāyī’ in ‘Sthāyibhāva’, Vidyānātha observes that it is a kind of stability unaffected by heterogeneous and homogeneous feelings by virtue of which the spectator comes to enjoy it. He quotes here the Dasarūpaka to support his view. In this connection Ku:nārasvāmin presents two views regarding the relationship of Sthāyin and Rasa. According to the first, Sthāyin itself transforms into sentiments as the threads form into cloth :

'Tatra ādyah paṭam prati tantuvat rasam prati ākāramātra vyavahitah sthāyibhāvah' 4

69

Explaining the second view he observes :

"Kuvindādivat bhāvāntara vyavahitah vibhāvādihtasya sthāyi

dvārā rasollāsakatvam" 5

According to this view the preceding state of Rasa which is akin

to the Supreme Bliss is called Sthāyibhāva. The pleasure which we

derive in a drama is the supreme bliss itself with the distinction, that

while the former is conditioned, the latter is not so. This phenomenon

has been illustrated by Kumārasvāmin as follows :The moon in the skies

when reflected in the water appears to have fickleness. The same

analogy holds good in the case of supreme bliss and the bliss derived

while enjoying sentiments.

Following Abhinavagupta and others, Vidyānātha mentions the

number of sentiments as nine. In this connection, Somapithin quotes

the views of Dhanika and Bhoja. According to Bhoja erotic is the only

sentiment. Dhanika, however, feels Rasas are only eight excluding

Śānta. There is a third school which adds Vātsalya to the already

existing nine and makes the number ten. Vidyānātha, however,

follows the view of Abhinavagupta and Mammata in this respect.

Explaining the nature of Rasasāmagri, Vibhāva etc., Vidyānātha

mentions Vibhāva as of two kinds -Ālambana vibhāva and Uddīpana

vibhāva.The first, however, forms the most prominent cause of Rasa.

His definition "Rasa Samavāyikāraṇamālambana Vibhāvah" 6 needs

much explanation. If we follow the Naiyāyika school and explain, the

term Samavāyikāraṇa, then it goes to mean that Nāyaka is the

Samavāyikāraṇa for the Rati in him. The convention of the Naiyāyikas

is -'Guṇaguṇinoh samavāyah'. 7

This interpretation, however, goes against the traditional view

which can be summed up in the following line: 'Evam yaścacittavṛtteryo

viṣayah sa tasyā ālambanam'. 8 According to this traditional view, for

the Rati residing in the Nāyaka, the Ālambana vibhāva is Nāyikā, but not Nāyaka himself. To avoid this controversy the term Samavāyikāraṇa is to be explained as Pradhānakāraṇa. This means that out of all the causes that go to make the sentiment, Ālambanavibhāva is the most prominent one without which the rest of the causes are of no avail. Kumārasvāmin has nothing to say in this context. He simply ignores the term and goes to the next item Anubhāva. Tirumalācārya, the author of the Ratnaśāṇa commentary adds a note on this point. He observes :

"Rasasya Śṛṅgārādeḥ Rasasamavāya sambandhavat kāraṇam samavāyi kāraṇam śṛṅgārasthāyibhāvānāṁ ratyā-dīnāmicchādirūpatayā guṇatvam tadāśrayabhūtatau nāyikānayakau guṇinau tayoḥ sambandhaḥ samavāya itibhāvaḥ. Ata ālambanavibhavo nāyikānāyakaścetyuktam"

According to the view of the Naiyāyikas, the relation between Guṇa and Guṇin is Samavāya. Rati is of the form of desire, hence a Guṇa. It rests in both Nāyaka and Nāyikā. Both are Ālambanavibhāvas. Hence Vidyānātha's statement that Ālambanavibhāva is the Samavāyikāraṇa of sentiments is appropriate.

Vidyānātha defines Anubhava as -

"Kāryabhūto'nubhāvasyat kāraṇādissiddhirjñāyate" 10

Kumārasvāmin draws a subtle point here. He observes that Kārya has to be defined as -'Prāgabhāvapratiyogi' and it necessarily succeeds the cause. Here, Anubhāva, being an effect, should succeed something. This succession is in view of the sentiment or in view of the permanent emotive mood. Anubhāva cannot succeed Rasa as it is clearly mentioned as a cause for the sentiment. In the Kārikā 'Vibhāvairanubhāvaiśca'etc., the instrumental case clearly shows that it is a cause for the sentiment and whichever is the cause should

71

precede the effect. Hence the effectiveness of Anubhāva cannot be with reference to the sentiment as it should precede the sentiment.

'Nanu kāryatvaṁ nāma niyatottarakalabhāvitvam. Taccānubhāvasya kim rasapekṣaya? uta sthāyipekṣaya? Nādyah. 'Vikhavairanubhavaisca iti karana trīyayā tasya purvabhāvitvapratīteh. Niyatapurvavartitve lakṣaṇakaraṇa viśeṣatvat karanasya' 11

He further questions whether the instrumental case refers to the agent in accordance with the sutra - 'Kartr̥karaṇayostr̥tiyā'. If such a position is also accepted, then there is the defect Anyonyāśraya, for, it means : when there is Anubhāva there is the production of the sentiment, and when there is the sentiment there has to be the production of Anubhāva. The second view that Anubhāva succeeds the Sthāyi is not acceptable, for, the Anubhāvas side glances etc., form the cause for rousing the Sthāyi lying embeded in the minds of the connoisseurs. Hence it has to be understood that the Anubhāva here is an effect of the moods Rati etc., as observed in the world and the same acts as a cause in rousing the moods Rati etc., that are in dorment condition in the minds of the connoisseurs. In support he quotes the following verse :

Bhṛūvikṣepa katākṣādi vikārohr̥dayasthitam | Bhāvam vyanakti yassoyam anubhāva itīritaḥ || 12

Bringing out the distinction between Anubhāvas and Sāttvikabhāvas, Vidyānātha makes the following observation :

"Paragata sukhadibhāvanābhāvitāntaḥ karanatvam sattvam tato bhavāḥ sāttvikāh" 13

Though Sāttvikabhāvas also can be included under Anubhāvas they have got a distinctive feature. They are directly related to the internal organ, i.e., the mind influenced by the contemplation of

72

happiness, grief etc., related to others. This direct relationship is not

there in the ensuents like side-glances. Hence, they have been

separately mentioned. Kumārasvāmin elaborately explains this point

in his commentary. He observes: ‘Anubhāvatvasāmānye satyapyesam

prthaktayā laksanam sattvajatvāt’.14

Here, he mentions another school which explains Sāttvikabhāvas

in a different way. According to this school, Sattva is of the form of

potency which is capable of bringing about direct experience of the

sentiments. As these Bhāvas are born out of such potency they are

called Sāttvikabhāvas. A third school is also mentioned in this context.

According to this school, all the ensuents (Anubhāvas) as a matter of

fact, are born from Sattva itself. Still as is the case with the words

‘Paṅkaja’ etc., Stambha etc., are only called Sāttvikabhāvas, as they

are the cases of Yogarūdha. There exists a fourth school also.

Following the Vaiśesika school of Kañāda, they hold that in

Alaṅkārasāstra, the word Sāttvika has its sense established only in the

eight ensuents Sthambha etc.The next topic dealt with, is that of the

Vyabhicāribhāvas (transient moods). Somapīthin in his gloss observes-

‘Viśesād abhimukhyaena caranto vyabhicārinah’15

This is the general definition applying in all the 33 transient

moods, ‘nirveda’ etc. The relationship between the sentiments and

these moods, is well brought out in the following statement of

Somapīthin :

‘Kallolāḥ sāgarasyeva ratyādeḥ laukikāsya paripoṣakatayā

sahakāriṇassantah nātyādau vyabhicāriṇa ityucyante’16

Clearly demarcating the scopes of Vibhāvas, Anuhāvas and

Vyabhicāribhāvas, Vidyānātha brings in the analogy well known in

the world. It is one’s experience that for an effect that the moods Rati

etc., have their own set of causes, ancillary causes and effects. To be

clear, it is within one's experience that the moods anger etc., even in

the world have relation with these three factors. What are the causes.

for a particular mood in the world are known by the term Vibhāvas.

The effects are disignated as Anubhāvas the anciliary causes.

'Kāraṇānyatha kāryāṇi sahakārīṇi yāni ca

ratyādeḥ sthāyino loke tānicennātyakāvyayoh

Vibhāvaścānubhāvaśca kathyante Vyabhicāriṇaḥ' 17

The change of the nomenclature is due to the fact that the

sentimental relisation (Rasapratīti) in Poetry is different from the

experiences of day to day life. Here Somapīthin raises an interesting

issue. The functions attributed to Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and

Vyabhicāribhāvas are not constant since sometimes an Uddīpana

Vibhāva may be the effect of the sentiment and hence can be treated

as an Anbubhāva 18. Similarly the ensuents like side glances, since

they generate Rati, have to be designated as Vibhāvas. Both these,

since they nourish the sentiments have to be taken as trasnient moods.

To add, almost all the transient moods like Cintā, as they can be the

effects of Rati, have to be treated as ensuents. Hence no specific

demarcation can be shown in respect of Vidhāvas, Anubhāvas and

Vyabhicāribhāvas based on their functions. That is why even the

Bhāvaprakāśa of Śāradātanaya admits this fact :

"Vibhāvopyanubhāvassyadanubhāvo vibhāvavat |

Tau punaścāriṇau syātām te ca tau syuḥ parasparam" 19 ||

Somapīthin meets this objection as follows :The overlaping of the

functions of the above mentioned three factors arises only when two

or more persons are taken into consideration. In the case of a single

individual there is no overlaping of this kind. It is only when these are

studied with respect to another person, there is this kind of anamoly.

In the world, we find the same person is son with respect to one and

74

father with respect to another. Similar is the case here too. Hence there is no admixture of functions for Vibhāva, Anubhāva etc. 20 Vidyānātha observes that the sentiments Ṣṛṅgāra, Vīra, Raudra and Adbhuta are best delienated only in the case of a hero of a very noble type. If these are described in the case of low-born and ill-bred people, then the sentiments degenerate into their Ābhāsas. That is why when Ṣṛṅgāra as related to an ill-bred person is described assumes the semblance of the sentiment. This Ṣṛṅgārābhāsa, according to earlier writers is of three types :

'Ekatraivānurāgaścet tiryan melccha gatopi vā| Yosito bahusaktiścet rasābhāsastridhā matah' 21

Śāradātanaya also endorses this view :

'Bhagadvayam praviṣṭhasya pradhānasyaikabhāgatah | Rasānām dṛśyate yattat tatsyādābhāsa lakṣanamiti' 22 II

According to this school, if Poetry depicting Ṣṛṅgāra is full of comic incidents, Ṣṛṅgāra has its semblance only at that place. Thus, one sentiment occupying a prominent position in the description of the contextual sentiment effects it and the contextual sentiment degenerates into its Ābhāsa. So, whenever a particular sentiment is desired to be depicted as prominent the other sentiments should necessarily occupy a subordinate position accepting the supremacy of that particular sentiment.Vidyānātha next turns his attention to transient moods and observes that they can be depicted in four ways. Here, he quotes the Daśarūpaka :

"Bhāvasya śāntirudayah sandhiḥ śabalatā tathā." 23

Having explained the Sthāyibhāvas (permanent emotive moods), Anubhāvas (ensuents) and the Vyabhicāribhāvas (transitory moods),

Vidyānātha proceeds to define and illustrate them individually.

1. RATl (LOVE) :

The desire for the union between the lovers is called Rati 24. The

reciprocal sights of the youth, embraces etc., will come under the

purview of the Sambhoga. The mental state about that act and their

auxiliaries such as the touch are said to be Rati. In the illustrated verse

"Sṛṅgāraikarasah" 25 etc., it is said that a particular heroine delights in

having Pratāparudra, who is superior to the cupid himself, as her

husband. Here Nāyikā is the Ālambanavibhāva. Her words that he

is superior to Cupid etc., suggest her joy in getting such a beloved.

Here in this verse her love for Pratāparudra is finally suggested.

2. HĀSA (HUMOUR) :

Hāsa is a changed set up of the mind caused by the sight of

disfigured objects etc. 26 In the illustrative verse 27 it is said that the kings

who disguised themselves as women were caught by the Viṭas. The

Viṭas removed their veils, caught hold of their artificial breasts and

came to know their true form. Here the Vitas are Ālambanavibhāvas,

their deeds are Uddīpanas and the laugh is Anubhāva.Tears due to

the excessive laugh is Sāttvikabhāva and the disgust is Vyabhicārin.

All these elements coupled with the permanent emotive mood Hāsa

suggest the sentiment Hāsya. As different from other sentiments Hāsya

is spoken of two kinds, viz., Āmastha and Parastha. When a comic

scene is directly enjoyed by the spectator in a drama then the sentiment

Hāsya is said to be Āmastha. If the spectator derives his pleasure

having seen a third person on the stage who appears to enjoy the

sentiment, then the sentiment Hāsya is Parastha. It would be better here

to take this instance as illustrating the first type of Hāsya. Giving details

in his commentary Kumārasvāmin speaks of Hāsa as of six kinds. First

the distinction is made on the basis of the status of the spectator. They

are of three kinds as: Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. In the case

of Uttama, the two types mentioned are Smita and Hasita. In the case

of Madhyama, Vihasita and Uddhasita occur. In the case of Adhama,

Apahasita and Atibhasita are mentioned. Thus Hāsya is of six kinds.

3. ŚOKA (GRIEF) :

Śoka is defined as abundant grief caused by the separation of

one's beloved etc.28 In the illustrative verse “Dhātarniṣkaruṇosi

sikṣayasi” etc.,29 a pathetic situation of the wives of the enemy-kings

of Pratāparudra has been described touchingly. Here, the women of

enemy-kings are Ālambana vibhāvas, their state which is said to be the

embodiment of suffering is Uddīpana, their acts such as beating their

chests and rolling on the ground are Anubhāvas, their tears and the

change in their tone etc., are Sāttvikabhāvas, the pain, the lust and

pathos they experience at that time are Vyabhicārins. The total

assemblage of these elements when united with the permanent

emotive mood Śoka results in the sentiment Karuṇa.

4. KRODHA (WRATH) :

The enragement of the mind due to the insults caused by the

enemies is designated as Krodha30. Here, in the illustrative verse, ‘Re

re sevaṇa’ etc.,31 the act that enrages one is the crossing of the river

Godāvari and entering the domain of Pratāparudra. The chiefs are

Ālambana, the sight of the enemies is Uddīpana, roaring etc., are

Anubhāvas and the horripulation is Sāttvikabhāva, the pride and the

anger (amarṣa) are Vyabhicārins. The combination of all these

elements along with the Sthāyibhāva Krodha, produces the sentiment

Raudra.

Somapīṭin speaks of Krodha as of three types- Krodha, Kopa and

Roṣa. The first variety, however, has been given the generic name ‘

Krodha which may some times lead to doubt or confusion.

5. UTSĀHA (FORTITUDE) :

A constant effort for achieving extrordinary results is called Utsāha 32. In the verse which is given as example 33, the army of Āndhras are Ālambanas, the sights of the enemies' army is Uddīpana, their speech and their acts are Anubhāvas, elements like pride are Vyabhicārins. This combination which arouses Utsāha leads to the sentiment Vīra (Heroic). Bharata mentions this as having three types.

"Dānavīram yuddhāvīram dharmavīram tathīvaca | Rasam vīra mapī prāha brahmā'trvidhasammatam".|| 34

Dhanika, however, speaks of Dayavira instead of Dharmavira.

6. BHAYĀ (TERROR) :

The apprehension of some evil on account of seeing fearful objects is Bhaya 35. In the illustrative verse "Dūrādākarnya Viśvaprasṛmaramahas" 36 etc., the enemy kings are Ālambana vibhāvas, hearing the sounds of battle drums is Uddīpana, the frightening sights are Anubhāvas, shivering, sweat etc., are the sāttvikabhāvas, suffering, panic are the Vyabhicārins. The permanent emotive mood Bhaya with this equipment gets transformed into the sentiment Bhayanaka. This permanent emotive mood of terror is natural for women and timid people. For others, however, this is artificial. This view, however, is held by Hemacandra and Śāradātanaya. Singabhūpāla, however, accepts its being artificial in all cases.

7. JUGUPSĀ (DISGUST) :

The aversion caused by seeing the defects in objects is Jugupsā 37 In the verse which is given as an illustration "Viṣvaṇmastiskapaṅke" etc. 38 the dead elephants etc., are the Ālambanas,the bad smell ?

caused by them is Uddīpana spitting, closing the eyes and nose as such

are the Anubhāvas. Fainting, delirium and disease are Vyabhicārins.

Jugupsā `caused by the combination of these elements results in the

sentiment Bībhatsa.Bhāvaprakāśa mentions the mood Jugupsā as

having two kinds - Kṣobha and Udvega. Dhanika adds a third variety

born out of a spirit of renunciation.

8. VISMAYA (SURPRISE) :

The expansion of one's mind caused by the sight of most-

wonderful things is Vismaya 38. In the illustrative verse 40, the acts such

as sprinkling of eyes and eye-brows are Anubhavas, Horripulation

etc., are the Sāttvikabāvas and the delight etc., are the Vyabhicārins.

Vismaya caused by the combination of these elements results in the

sentiment Adbhuta.

9. ŚAMA (TRANQUILITY) :

A changeless state of mind on account of detachment etc., is

called Śama 41. In the verse of illustration, 42 the intelligentia, who have

the conviction that the worldly pleasures are worthless, are the

Ālambana vibhāvas, the abode of Kākatiīya kingdom which can be

compared to that of a holy hermitage is Uddīpana, the natural acts that

they make are Anubhāvas, Horripulation and the like are Sāttvika

bhāvas where as Nirveda and Harṣa are Vyabhicārins. The cessation

caused by these elements when it is contemplated becomes the

sentiment Śānta. .

Somapīthin takes up the crucial discussion about the number of

Rasas. 'According to Bharata's text Rasas are only eight in number,

excluding Śānta spoken by later writers. Following Mammaṭa,

Vidyānātha mentions Śānta as the ninth Rasa. In support of Vidyānātha,

Somapīthin goes into the intricacies of the problem and establishes

Śānta as the ninth Rasa. Here he raises several points of doubt against

accepting Śānta as one of the sentiments.

79

1. Does Śānta fail to be a sentiment as Bharata did not mention Śama as its sthāyibhāva ?

2. Is it on account of lack of equipment?

3. Or on account of lack of appreciation from the connoisseùre?

4. Or on account of its inclusion in the already accepted sentiments ?

5. Or it does not serve any of the four life-ends (Puruṣārthas)?

The first is not acceptable for, Bharata appears to accept Nirveda as the Sthāyibhāva for Śānta. The very fact that Nirveda, an inauspicious mood, has been mentioned in the very beginning, indicates this view of Bharata. Even Mammata endorses this view43. Ānandavardhana too subscribes to this view. He observes:

'Trṣṇakṣaya sukhasya yah paripoṣastallakṣano rasaḥ pratīyata eva'44

Even Abhinavagupta admits this. There is a state of blissful nature where there is cessation of all desires that very state is Śama and in quotations like:

'Yacca kāmasukhaṁ loke yacca dīvyam mahatsukham

Trṣṇakṣaya sukhasya jāte narhatassodāsīṁ kālāṁ etc.'45

it is clearly pronounced as a blissful state.

The second doubt has no basis for, the equipment Vairagya etc., is well known. In this case detachment, enquiry after the truth etc., are Vibhāvas and the Yama, Niyama, etc., are Anubhāvas. Mati, Smṛti, Cinta etc., are Vyabhicārins. Thus there is enough equipment for Sama to develop as Śānta. Coming to the third doubt, though people with sullied minds may not be able to appreciate it, for those who are

80

having the detached spirit, this is highly relishable. As a matter of fact, even Śṛṅgāra is not relished by a section of the people who are detached to sensual pleasures. If Śānta is denied a place among sentiments since a section of the people does not like it, then Śṛṅgāra also deserves to be deleted. Hence, this doubt is baseless. Coming to the fourth doubt, one has to observe that Śānta cannot be included under any of the eight sentiments. The possible cases, Sompaithin raises are Śṛṅgāra and Vīra. Śānta cannot be included under Śṛṅgāra as one is of the form of cessation of Rāga or attachment while the other is of the form of attachment. Hence no inclusion. The doubt that Vīra may contain Śānta is also untenable for, one is of the form of enthusiasm while the other has no trace of it. The fifth issue also can be refuted. The fourth life-end i.e., liberation or Mokṣa can be attained only through Śānta. Thus none of the objections raised against Śānta as Rasa is valid. So to accept Śānta as ninth Rasa would be proper and logical.

Next Vidyānātha illustrates Ālambanavibhāva, Uddīpanavibhāva and Anubhāva. Though the illustrations for all the Ālambana vibhāvas of all sentiments are to be depicted, due to the fear of prolixity of the text, Vidyānātha observes, that he is dealing with the Erotic sentiment only. In the verse which is given as an example for the Erotic, the heroine who is most beautiful in the world and the hero Pratāparudra who can be compared with the Cupid are Ālambanavibhāvas. The delight for which the hero and heroine are said to be the substratum and Śṛṅgāra which is generated by the description is to be relished by the connoisseur. In the verse “Uromātrotsedham…” etc.,46 Vidyānātha describes the youth of a lady which comes under Uddīpanavibhāva. The verse given for Anubhāva is “Smarasmerāṁ mandasmita” etc.47. According to this it is clear that the side-glances of the heroine are directed towards the hero and they are expressive of the desire for union with the hero.

Next, Vidyānātha defines and illustrates the Sāttvikabhāvas.

SĀTTVIKABHĀVAS

1. STAMBHA (STUPOR) :

The actionless state of the limbs either due to excessive love or fear is stambha 48. In the illustrative verse it is said that the ladies were like statues at the sight of Pratāparudra. This is on account of the pining due to the arrows of cupid.

2. PRALAYA (SWOON) :

The uncounscious state due to the excessive pleasure or pain is called Pralaya 48. Kumārasvāmin adds that this state may occur by intoxication or by a blow. In this connection, he quotes the definition of some other author which runs:

'Vākyaguṇairnasāṃ prāyaḥ pralayo nāstacetatā' 50

He also says that the example given by Vidyānātha suggests this state due to pleasure.

3. ROMĀÑCA (HORRIPULATION) :

The horripulation caused by immense pleasure is called Romāñca51. Kumārasvāmin adds enthusiasm fear and astonishments also as the factors for this state52.

4. VEPATHU (TREMBLE) :

The physical shivering caused either by love or by wrath or by fear is called Vepathu. Vidyānātha substantiates the illustration of these two Sāttvikabhāvas in a single verse, the first half for Vepathu and the latter half for Romāñca 53.

5. SVEDA (PERSPIRATION) :

The sweat on the body caused by alliance, heat or fatigue is called Sveda. Kumārasvāmin extends the list of the causes by adding

exhaustion due to summer, delight, exercise, bashfulness fear and wrath. A desire to take up a fan for having the breeze is said to be the Anubhāva for this state. It is said in the illustrative verse that a particular heroine gets sweat on hearing the love message from her lover. The poet fancies that it is as it were she was anointed54.

6. VAIVARṆYA (PALLOR) :

A change in the colour of the complexion due to grief, intoxication and anger is called Vaivarnya . In the verse given as an example, it is stated that the Nāyikā has grown pale contemplating the bright qualities of Pratāparudra55.

7. AŚRU (TEARS) :

The tears caused by grief or anger by ecstasy are considered to be Aśru. Kumārasvāmin says that fear and yawning are also may be the causes for this state. In the illustrative verse the tears of the wife of an enemy-king due to the death of her husband are described 56. While the tears due to suffering culminate into the sentiment Pathos, the tears caused by ecstasy culminate into the sentiment Erotic.

8. VAISVARYA (CHANGE OF VOICE) :

The faltering in the tone caused by high intoxication etc., is designated as Vaisvarya57.

Kumārasvāmin, however, adds that this state may arise due to joy, grief, fear, fever, etc.,58. It is described that a Nāyikā could not speak to her beloved in her natural tone, and as such it is to be inferred that this change in her voice may be caused by delight.

Thus having dealt with the eight Sāttvikabhāvas in brief, Vidyānātha proceeds to define and illustrate the Vyabhicāribhāvas.

83

VYABHICĀRIBHĀVAS

1. NIRVEDA (DESPAIR) :

Nirveda is the mood of futility borne out of grief, jealousy and the knowledge of the truth. Here the ensuents are meloncholy mood, tears, sighs and dejection. Kumārasvāmin adds a note that by the virtue of the particle "ca", we can take ensuents like Pallor etc. 59

In the illustrative verse it is described that the heroine gets disinterested for the things like camphor. Grief is the root cause for this disinterestedness. This is expressed through tears and sighs.

2. GLĀNI (EXHAUTION) :

The weakness which causes the change of colour and disinterestedness is Glāni. A woman's speech in herself in praise of her capacities is given as an example. The perspiration, sighs etc., which are Anubhāvas are the expressive tools for her mood 60.

3. ŚANKĀ (APPREHENSION) :

Apprehension is explained as a thought that something evil may happen. In the illustrative verse it is said that a lady who wants to keep the affair of her love a secret, is afraid that her intentions are made public by the horripulation all over her body. The frightened sights which are Anubhāvas are the expressive media of this state 61.

4. ASŪYĀ (JEALOUSY) :

Jealousy towards other's prosperity is said to be Asūyā.A beloved of the king Pratāparudra thinks that the beloved Earth (Bhūnāyikā) is no way superior to herself. If king is attached to her, it is because of her good fortune. Here, the jealousy has been expressed and as such it is a case of Asūyā. Breaking the lips, nodding the head are the possible Anubhavas by which this is expressed 62.

84

5. MADA (INEBRIETY) :

The intoxication which is created by taking liquors is considered as Mada. The redishness of the eyes, delirious speech, unnatural laugh are the Anubhāvas by which this is expressed. In the illustration given, the behaviour of a lady who is intoxicant is described. The ensuents described here are irrelevant talk and big laughter 63

6. ŚRAMA (EXHAUTION) :

The fatigue caused by the physical labour such as walking is called Śrama. The woman who is anxiously awaiting the arrival of Pratāparudra walks hither and thither and on account of this, she sweats and her cosmetcis are washed off. Āvega and Sveda are the Vyañjakas of it 64.

7. ĀLASYA (SLOTH) :

Sluggishness in one's duties is Ālasya. The heroine is causing delay in getting herself ready for the union of her lover. Acts such as yawning are its ensuents 65.

8. DAINYA (DEPRESSION) :

The humility on account of dejection is designated as Dainya. A lady who becomes weak by the gravity of the pangs of separation and is afraid of the moon rise, prays the cupid to ask the moon not to rise early and hence it is an illustration of Dainya.Speaking in a pitious way,folding hands are the Anubhāvas, by which it could be expressed66

9. CINTĀ (MELANCHOLY) :

Cintā is meloncholy on account of not obtaining one's desired object. A state of being unable to think and the anxiety are the Anubhāvas by which it seeks its expression. A woman having not seen

the elders standing thereby, fails to answer though questioned. She simply goes after her mind attached to her lover. Pitious talk, uncleanliness of the body etc., are the ensuents 67.

10. MOHA (SWOON) :

Grief and fright by which one gets fainted is Moha. Here, the state of unconsciousness mistaking, delirium and loss of sight are the Anubhāvas. It is said in the illustrative verse that a heroine fainted because of the excessive pangs of separation and hence this amounts to Moha 68.

11. SMRTI (RECOLLECTION) :

Recollection of the past events is said to be smṛti. Moving of the winkles and nodding of the head are the possible Anubhāvas. In the verse given for illustration it is said that a woman recollects the happiness due to the single touch of Pratāparudra and as such it is a case of Smṛti 69.

12. DHRṬI (CONTENTS) :

Dhṛti is considered to be the state of desirelessness due to the fulfilment of the desires and real knowledge of the things. Attcutivity is the Anubhāva for it. The woman, in the illustrative verse, thinks that the world is futile on account of her having been united with Pratāparudra 70.

13. VRĪDĀ (BASHFULNESS) :

The contraction of the mind on account of love or praise is said to be Vṛḍā. A lady gets bashfulness by the sight of the king Pratāparudra. So this is the bashfulness caused by love. Bending of the head, disappearence, paleness etc., are the Anubhāvas 71.

86

14. CAPALATĀ (INCONSISTENCY) :

Capalatā is said to be the inconsistency due to love, hatred or jealousy etc. Threatening, cruelty and unrestricted behaviour etc., are its ensuents. It is said in the illustrative verse, that a woman laughs with bashfulness due to love for the king and some other times she adjusts her necklace of pearls without any reason and at some other times she adjusts the lotus which is the ornament for the ears and as such she is unsettled 72.

15. HARŚA (JOY) :

Joy on account of the arrival of the beloved, the brith of a son etc., is called Harśa. Perspiration, the tears of joy and shivering are the possible ensuents. The woman gets excessive joy as she was garlanded by Pratāpurudra and the garland won by Pratāparudra himself had double fragrance due to musk. The lady addresses her breasts congratulating them on this event 73.

16. ĀVEGA (AGITATION) :

The agitation of the mind caused by the advent of either favourable or unfavourable circumstances is Āvega. Joy, grief, haste, stupefaction are the ensuents. In the illustrated verse, the women of the city are described to be agitated by seeing the king who passes through the streets of the city. So in their agitation they left their make-ups incomplete and wore their ornaments in irrelevant places and they are in a hurry while climbing the steps in order to have a vision of the king 74.

17. JADATĀ (STUPOR) :

The state of non-cognisance born out of desirable or undesirable events is said to be Jadatā. In this state the person is unable to decide what to do. Passiveness is the Anubhāva. In the illustrated verse it is

said that a woman, on account of her excessive joy,due to the suprise visit of the king forgets to receive him. In such a state she does neither moves about nor desists from moving 75.

18. GARVA (CONCEIT) :

Self boasting resulting from belittling others and born out of physical strength, earning etc., is known as conceit or Garva. Discarding others and walking in a special gait are the Anubhāvas. The armies of Āndhradesa praise themselves for their valour and rebuke the army of the enemies in the illustrative verse. This is suggested by their over-bold talk 76.

19. VIṢĀDA (DESPONDENCY) :

Despondency is the mood where there is frustration on account of lack of means to achieve the desired object. This, the commentator adds, is of two kinds- according to the type of person involved, whether he is Uttama, Madhyama or Adhama. The ensuents here, are searching for the means, mood of dejection and drying up of the mouth. In the illustrative verse, it is said that the Nāyikā has no hope of sending her thoughts for her lover as they are already with him.To add to the trouble, the cupid is not leaving her. Hence, she is in a mood of despondency 77.

20. AUTSUKYA (EAGERNESS) :

Not being able to spend time is eagerness, or Autsukya. It produces ensuents like hesitation and unhappiness. The lady in the illustrative verse is said to bear with the delay in the arrival of the king with much difficulty. Kumārasvāmin adds, this mood is born from the desire to see beautiful things when there is separation from one’s beloved 78.

21. NIDRA (SLUMBER) :

Contraction of the mind is slumber. The ensuents here are, according to Kumārasvāmin, yawning stretching one’s limbs, closure of the eyes etc. In the illustrative verse there is a description of a lady who stretches her arms in space in order to embrace her lover who appeared in her dream 79.

22. APASMĀRA (CATALEPSY) :

The state of outburst on account of grief and delusion is known as Apasmāra, and this generates pain for the body. In the verse given as an example, it is said that the enemy kings are frightened by seeing Pratāparudra in their dreams. Running, rolling on the ground, crying for help are the possible outlets for the expression of this state 80.

Kumārasvāmin adds impurity, unadjustability of the Dhatus, and possession by devils also lend scope to this state. Its ensuents are falling on the ground, roaming about, patting the shoulders, speaking irrelevantly, emitting of water from the mouth etc. 81

23. SUPTI (DEEP SLEEP) :

Deep sleep is called Supti. The sound of milky ocean disturbed on account of moon light is incapable of breaking the sleep of Lord Viṣṇu. This is on account of his being peaceful due to the reign of Pratāparudra. The ensuents are long sighs, closure of the eyes etc. 82.

24. VIBODHA (WAKEFULNESS) :

Awakening from the sleep is Vibodha. Yawning, pressing of the eyes and raising of the arms are its ensuents 83.

25. AMARṢA (WRATH) :

Anger is defined as the burning of one’s mind due to culprits that

commit blunder. Sweating, nodding of the head, frightening etc., are the ensuents. The armies exhibit anger for the onward march of the enemies. This may be expressed by insulting speech and huge cries etc.

26. AVAHITTHA (DISIMULATION) :

Concealment of the symptoms of happiness is called Avahittha. Misleading and the show of one's own confidence which is artificial are the Anubhāvas. It is said that a lady having the exploits of Pratāparudra from women in the assembledge, scratches the earth with face bend down

27. UGRATĀ (ACRIMONY) :

Ugratā is defined as flared-up state when an insult was meted out. The ensuents are threatening etc. A woman who is suffering with the pangs of separation is further tormented by the moon.On account of her angry side-looks the moon has turned back

28. MATI (DETERMINATION) :

A clear decision of something after much deliberation of the facts is determination. Inculcation for a disciple, clearance of a doubt, dexterity in action and self-satisfaction are the ensuents. In the illustrative verse it has been declared that the king Pratāparudra is moon himself. This is valid in view of the fact that the organs of the heroine behave as moon stones on account of his touch

29. VYĀDHI (ILLNESS) :

Illness is defined as fever etc., caused by mental agony. Kumārasvāmin observes that raise of temperature etc., are the ensuents. In the illustrative verse, the heat related to the fever of the cupid, born in the bodies of the ladies of the enemy kings is completely melting the

ice lying in the Himālayan regions 88.

30. UNMĀDA (MENTAL DERANGEMENT) :

To behave in the same way with regards to the sentients and insentients is Unmāda. Here the laugh, the delirious speech running without any reason and grieving for nothing are the ensuents. In the illustrated verse the enemies who were very much afraid of the war expedition of Pratāparudra underwent delusion and were enquiring the trees about the path they were to take 89.

31. MARAṆA (DEATH) :

Maraṇa is defined as an effort made in order to die. Becoming unable to live with the pangs of separation of her beloved certain lady is indifferent to her life and hence exposes her `body to the moonlight and the southern breeze. Here, the ensuents are long sighs etc. 90

32. TRĀSA (FRIGHT) :

The fear that arouses in the mind due to the thunderbolt or the lightening or by the earthquake is said to be Trāsa. In this, shivering of the body and contraction of the limbs, horripulation and fainting state are the noticeable Anubhāvas. In the illustrative verse, the lady is said to be frightened by the sound of the thunderbolt. The shivering in her body is to be taken as the Anubhāva 91.

33. VITARKA (DUBIOUSNESS) :

The endlessness in decisive thoughts is Vitarka. Here, the ensuents are movement of the eye-brows, nodding of the head etc. In the illustrated verse, the heroine, without taking of the consequences falls in love with the king. Now many questions arise as to how he can be approached, how long the mental agitation has to continue etc 92.

The Sāttvikabhāvas and the Vyabhicārins are common to most of

the sentiments and so the illustration of each Bhāva as occuring in a particular sentiment is avoided. In Śṛigāra all the Sāttvika and the Vyabhicāribhāvas have a place. In Hāsya, however, Glāni, Śrama, Capalatā,Harṣa and Avahitta occur. In Karuṇa, except Mada, Dhṛti, Vṛidā, Harṣa, Garva, Autsukya and Ugratā, all other have relevance. In the same way.one finds the absence of Glāni, Śaṅkā, Ālasya, Dainya, Cintā, Vṛidā, Āvega,Jadatā, Viṣāda, Supti, Nidrā, Apasmāra, Avahitta, Vyādhi, Unmāda,Sāma and Trasa in Raudra. In Vira also all the Bhāvas that can be present in Raudra occur in addition to Nirveda. In Bhayānaka there is the absence of Asūya, Mada, Dhṛti, Vṛidā, Harṣa, Garva, Nidrā, Supti, Amarṣa, Avahitta and Ugratā. In Bibhatsa and Adbhuta, Cintā and Trāsa are possible to occur.

Now a presentation of the different kinds of behaviour connected with the Erotic sentiment follows. They are eighteen in all viz., Bhāva, Hāva,Helā, Mādhurya, Dhairya, Līlā, Vilāsa, Vichitti, Vibhrama, Kilikiñcita, Mottāyita, Kuṭṭamita, Bibboka, Lalita, Kuṭūhala, Cakita, Vihrta and Hāsa. Of these the first five are the mental acts, the rest being physical. All of them are considered as Anubhāvas. The aesthetes of yore treat them as Uddipanavibhavas because they result in the gestures of the ladies which inspire their counterpart.

1. BHĀVA (FEELING) :

Bhāva is defined as the eligibility to realise sentiments. Kumārasvāmin adds that the mental modification related to erotics born from the state of adolescence. In other words it is a Vikāra connected with love which sprouts in the mind by the time of entering the youth. In the illustrated verse it is said that the young girls who sang freely the qualities of Pratāparudra in their childhood feel bashful to do the same in their youth 93.

2. HĀVA (EMOTION) :

Hāva is defined as Bhāva having a modification slightly defected.

This comes to be illustrated when in the above verse we add "Iṣatpulakita" 94.

3. HELĀ (PASSION) :

Helā is defined as a Bhāva whose effects are clearly visible. In the illustrated verse the horripulation all over the body is a clear indictor of love of the lady for Pratāparudra.95

4. MĀDHURYA (SWEETNESS) :

Mādhurya is the natural beauty even without ornaments. In the illustrated verse it is said that the lady of transcendental beauty wears ornaments in order to embellish them 96.

5. DHAIRYA (RESTRAINT) :

Dhairya is defined as not transgressing the principles of character. In the illustrated verse it is said that a particular lady who was attracted by the qualities of Pratāparudra, exercised her restraint keeping in view the principles of character and lineage. 97

6. LĪLĀ (SPORTIVENESS) :

Līlā is imitating the words, gait and deeds of one’s lover. In the illustrated verse it is said that the Nāyikā Lakṣmī imitating the king Pratāparudra became most devoted one among his wives. 98

7. VILĀSA (MOMENTARY CHANGE) :

Vilāsa is defined as a temporary change when one’s lover is seen. In the illustrative verse it is said that a lady gets horripulation by just seeing Pratāparudra 99.

8. VICCHITTI (DECENCY) :

Vicchitti is defined as to be most beautiful even with scanty

ornaments 100

9. VIBHRAMA (FLUSTER) :

Vibhrama is the confusion characterised by the wearing of ornaments in improper places. In the illustrated verse it is said that the lady wore her anklets on her hands and the bracelets on her feet 101.

10. KILIKIÑCITA (DELIGHT) :

Kilikin̐cita is a state where anger, grief, fear and bashfulness are assembled. In the illustrative verse it is said that the heroine got fear, bashfulness and trembling voice when she was caught by the king Pratāparudra 102.

11. MOTTĀYITA (MANIFESTATION) :

Mottāyita is a state where one indicates her desire to listen to the interesting stories. In the illustrative verse it is said that a lady who listens to the sweet life-incidents of Pratāparudra more expresses her feelings by the concealment of her body than by the horrippulation 103.

12. KUṬṬAMITA (PRETENTION) :

Kuṭṭamita is a state of happinss during coition despite friction. Sompai̤thin adds that lip-biting and grasping of locks of hair known to give pain, are said to cause internal happiness. This state of happiness itself is Kuṭṭamita. In the illustrative verse it is said that the organs of lady are indicative of the immense activity during coition. She becomes bashful that her friends came to detect the same 104.

13. BIBBOKA (AFFECTED INDIFFERENCE) :

Bibboka is a slight disregard concerning the affair of the lover. Somapithin adds that this is just an indication and the definition can also mean disregard of the heroine for the hero on account of arrogance and other factors. In the illustrative verse, the heroine is said

94

to have disregard for the appeals made by the king in view of the fact that he is attached to many heroines 105.

14. LALITA (GRACEFULNESS) :

Lalita is the delicate gait of the limbs. In the illustrated verse the service is rendered by the ladies to the king has been well described 106.

15. KUTŪHALA (INQUISITIVENESS) :

Kutūhala is the fickleness to witness a beautiful thing. The ladies of the city are hasty in getting up the stairs in order to see the king who is on a visit to the city 107

16. CAKITA (FLURRY) :

Cakita is the disturbance due to fear. It is said in the illustrated verse that the king made a sudden visit and this caused flurr for the heroine 108.

17. VIHRTA (RESERVE) :

Vihrta is a state where one cannot speak due to bashfulness inspite of the necessity. In the illustrated verse it is said that the lady kept quite when her friend asked her to touch the lily garland of Pratāparudra with her breasts 109.

18. HASITA (SMILE) :

Hasita is a sudden laugh born of youth. Kumārasvāmin adds that this laugh should not be on account of queer dress and speech. in the illustrated verse it is said that the lady laughs for no reason as she is caught by the resplendence of her youth 110.

There are twelve states which are popularly known as Manmathāvasthas. These states are described in the context of love-in-separation. These are the causes for the four main stages of

95

sprouting (Aṅkuritattva), bearing tender leaves (Pallavitattva) bringing forth flowers (Kusumifattva) and finally bearing fruit (Phalitattva). Just as the seed sprouts, grows into a plant and so on, so the Rati also with its causal equipment of Vibhāva etc., gradually develops into a sentiment. The Manmathavasthas are: Cakṣuhprīti, Manassanga, Saṅkalpa, Pralāpa, Jāgara, Krṣatā, Arati, Lajjātyāga, Samjvara, Unmada, Mūrcha and Maraṇa. Some opine that these are ten in number 111. In this chapter Vidyānātha defines these states and illustrates them as follows:

1. Cakṣuhprīti is defined as seeing an object with intense desire. In the illustrative verse the heroine describes the beauty of Pratāparudra. He is cupid with form and full moon without the stain 112.

2. Manassanga is resting of the mind in the beloved. In the illustrative verse the heroine observes that her mind always thinks of Pratāparudra 113.

3. Saṅkalpa is the desire for the beloved. In the illustrative verse it is described that the woman is anxiously awaiting the visit of Pratāparudra 114.

4. Pralāpa is the prattling of the qualities of the beloved. In the illustrative verse the heroine describes that the king Pratāparudra is unparalleled the qualities, dexterity, sweetness of behaviour and gentleness 115.

5. Jāgara is the state of sleeplessness. In the illustrative verse the heroine observes that the day is spent but the night which is unbearable on account of moonlight has approached. The cupid is ready with his weapons, neither sleep nor the king approaches 116.

6. Krṣatā is the emaciation of the body. In the illustrated verse it is said that the ring of the lady has become her bracelet due to the

96

pangs of separation from Pratāparudra 117.

7. Arati is the desirelessness regarding objects or persons exempting the hero. In the illustrative verse it is said that the heroine abuses the creation of the moon, depreciates the efficacy of the southern breeze and is avert to festivities. This is due to extreme love for the king 118.

8. Vṛīdātyāga is an attitude bereft of bashfulness. In the illustrative verse, the prattling of the heroine without any sense of decency causes shamelessness for those who are around her 119.

9. Jvara is defined as the excess of heat in one’s body. In the illustrative verse it is said that the heroine’s fever is not remedied by all the cooling effects. She only desires the nector like presence of the king. 120

10. Unmāda and 11. Maraṇa are the same as mentioned in the list of Vyabhicāribhāvas 121.

11. Mūrcha is defined as a state of no activity on account of the functionlessness of the outer sense organs. In the illustrative verse it is said that the heroine in order to see the king with in her introverts her sense organs.

The erotic sentiment is of two types i.e., love in separation (Vipralambha śṛṅgāra) and love in Union (Sambhoga śṛṅgāra) 122. As the Sambhogaśṛṅgāra has innumerable types like the mutual seeing of the lovers, conversing, embracing and kissing etc., and hence it is considered under one head “Sambhogaśṛṅgāra”. In the verse which is given as an example 123. for this type, Pratāparudra is Ālambanā for the body, their solitariness being Uddīpanavibhāva. The suggested joy (by the words of elimination of anger) is the Anubhāva. Stambha etc., which are sugested are Sāttvikabhāvas. With these equipments

Rati becomes fully developed and gets the state of Rasa and then it is treated as Śṛṅgārarasa.

The love in separation or Vipralambha śṛṅgāraas of four types as based on the factors of desire, envy, separation and journey to a far off place.(Abhilāṣā, Īrṣyā, Viraha and Pravāsa).

1. Abhilāṣā is the mutual desire entertained by the hero and the heroine before they are united. In the illustrated verse the heroine feels that conversation with the hero, love dealings with him, and sharing a common bed are beyond her desires. It is enough if the sight of Pratāparudra full of love and affection falls on her 124.

Kumārasvāmin here mentions the view of the author of Rasārṇava Sudhākara regarding the nature of Rati and Prema.

Kātereva avasthāviśeṣaḥ premadayāḥ

In the verse "Ankura pallvakalita" etc., this idea has been given125.

2. Īrṣyā is a mental modification caused on account of the hero being attached to another lady. In the illustrative verse it is said that heroines like Lakṣmī, Sarasvatī and Mahī do not like the affection of Pratāparudra shown towards the heroine under context. Hence, Īrṣyā, a state of jealousy is suggested here. In support of the definition given by Vidyānātha, Kumārasvāmin quotes from the text Daśarūpaka

'Strīṇāmīrṣyākṛtah kopo mano nyāsāṅgin ipriye' 126

3. Viraha is the separation between the hero and the heroine for some reason or the other. In the illustrated verse it is said that the ornaments with their places changed bring beauty only for a moment. Hence, the act of beautification is futile. The only way is to bring the king 127.

4. Pravāsa is the state where the hero and the heroine live in different places. In the illustrated verse the ladies of the enemy kings deplore that their husbands are not available to them even in the days of festivities. On account of the painful separation their organs have become lean and weak. The days too are as long as a yuga 128.

It is already mentioned that Rasābhāsa is of three types. Vidyānātha illustrates the type of Rasābhāsa which is the love of animals and birds and leaves the rest two types to the imagination of the readers. In the illustrated verse it is said that the king smiles at the mutual love of the parrot couple. Kumārasvāmin adds that according to some, this too can be taken as a relevant instance of the sentiment Śṛṅgāra. He quotes Vidyādhara in this connection who says :

'Vibāhādi sambhavo hi rasam prati prayojako na vibhavadi jñānanam. Tataśca tiraścāmapyasty eva rasah'. 129

Where the love between animals and birds is described it is called Tiryaggata Rasābhāsa. Vidyānātha, does not, however, describe the Ābhāsa for other Rasas and Bhavābhāsas.

The raising of certain mood is "Bhāvoday". In the illustrated verse it is described that a friend of a particular heroine finds out that the heroine has an amorous feeling for the king Pratāparudra. Knowing this the heroine becomes bashful 130.

The cessation of a mood is "Bhāvaśama'. In the example it is said that the friend of the heroine reconciles the heroine who is angry with the hero. After reconciliation it is said that the face of the heroine was like a fully blossomed lotus. This description suggests the cessation of the mood anger 131.

The third is "Bhāvasanthi" which is the junctu. of two moods. In the illustrated verse the mood Harṣa related to the sentiment 'Vira' has

been brought into conjunction with the same mood related to the

sentiment Śṛṅgāra 132.

The fourth is designated as "Bhāvaśabalatā" because of the

assemblage of several moods. In the illustrated verse it is mentioned

that the heroine has undergone several moods, non-endurance of time

etc. Somanipthin while explaining the mood presented in the verse

observes:

'Atra lajjā vitarkena bādhyate. Dainyam viṣādena saṅkā

autsukyena. Dhṛtiḥ matyā ityevam anyonyabadhyabādhakabhāvena

dwandvāsau bhavantībhāvaśabalatāṁ tato gatva matereva

pradhānyamādadhāna paramāsvādasthānamityarthah' 133.

RASA SAṄKARA

As the author, Vidyānātha has already spoken on the assemblage

of moods (Bhāvasammelana), he next takes up Rasa Saṅkara, a

mixture of sentiments. For the assemblage of sentiments of erotic and

pathos Vidyānātha gives the folloiwng illustration.

'Āsan nēpi mahotsave katham itastyaktvā pravāśam vrajerdhig-

dhikṣāhasamāvayorvighaṭanāṁ kovā vidhiḥkāṅksati I

Yitthaṁ svapnanivāritapriyatāmā prasthānabuddhi stato

buddhva mūrcchati kākatīyanṛpate tvadvairimārījanah.. 134 II

Here, the beloved is Ālambana, the nights of solitude are the

Uddīpanas. Embracés etc., are the Anubhāvas. Horripulations etc.,

caused by them are Sāttvikas. Harṣa, Āvega etc., are the Vyabhicārins.

With these the enjoyment of the lady converges into the idea of Rasa

and as such the sentiment here is erotics. In the same way the

deceased husband being the Ālambana, forests etc., are Uddīpanas,

falling on the ground etc., are Anubhāvas, tears, Sthambha, Moha

etc., are Sāttvikas and Glāni and Cintā as Vyabhicārins, the Soka of the enemy ladies has been contemplated (carvaṇa) and thus the sentiment pathos is also present here. According to the context, the appreciation is for pathos and as such it is to be considered as the principal sentiment. Śṛṅgāra being its embellishing factor, it is auxillary. Thus as there is the assemblage of principal and auxillary sentiments, it is designated as Rasasaṅkara.

Vidyānātha illustrates in a verse the assemblage of Raudra and Bībhatsa also in which the kings of Kaliṅga were made Ālambanas for the anger of king Pratāparudra. The sight of the battle field being the Uppīpana, the roars of the armies being Anubhāvas while anger etc., are Vyabhicārins: Thus there is a suggestion of the sentiment Raudra. In the same manner, the dead elephants on the battle ground being Ālambanas swallowing the blood and tearing the viens being Uppīpanas, horripulation etc., being Anubhāvas, Āvega etc., being Vyabhicārins there is the suggestion of the sentiment Bībhatsa. The first impression is that of Bībhatsa and the latter one is Raudra. Thus, here in the assemblage of the sentiments Raudra and Bībhatsa and as such it is a case of Rasasaṅkara 135.

Kumārasvāmin in his commentary raises the doubt whether the ancillary sentiment has developed or not. If developed it cannot be considered ancilliary. If not developed it ceases to be a sentiment. So the concept of a sentiment being auxi-liary is untenable. Answering this, he adds that though a sentiment is developed, there is nothing wrong in its being considered as auxi-liary. In support of this view, he quotes Abhinavagupta who says :

'Aṅgabhūtānyapi rasāntarāṇi svavibhavādisāmagryām svavasthāyām yadyapi labdhaparipoṣaṇi camatkāragocaratām pratipadyate, tathāpi sa camatkārastavatyeva paritusan na visrāmyati, kintu camatkārāntaramanudhvāti' 135.

Mammata also appears to be of the same view when he says-

'Gunaḥkṛtatmasamiskārah pradhānamanuṣajyate I

pradhānasyopakārehi tathā bhūyasi vartate' 137

RASĀŚRAYA

The sentiment is of two types by name Laukika and Alaukika.

Laukikarasa is that in which the youth of this world get the mental states

of Rati etc., and they being strengthened by their own causal

equipment and attains the state of sentiment. These are considered as

sentiments experienced in the world. The pleasure derived by such

sentiments is meagre and transient.

The feeling of love in ordinary life is present in Rāma etc. This is

presented by a talented actor on the stage. The audience on account

of repeated contemplation realise the same mood. Thus it comes to

be accepted that the sentiment present in one can result in giving bliss

to another by virtue of the above mentioned contemplation. This

phenomenon holds good in the case of parents enjoying the play of

their children. Alaukikarasa is that in which a connoisseur gets

pleasure by reading poetry or witnessing a drama.

Vidyānātha presents a novel view in this connection. According

to him the characters Mālati etc., enable the audience to have the

cognition of womanhood in general. Similarly the concept of

enemyhood arised from the characters Rāvaṇa etc. On account of the

general comprehension, the audience happens to recollect his own

individual beloved and hence there is nothing wrong in accepting the

audience as the substratum of the sentiments. Actor being engaged

in action, can never be the recipient of sentiments and though there is

a feeling that he too enjoys the sentiments, it is only as a spectator.

There is no difficulty in the presentation of ensuents, for, this is possible

102

by virtue of this practice. Explaining the nature of a spectator

Kumārasvāmin quotes from Bhāvaprakāśa:

‘Yastustau tuṣṭimāpnoti soke sokamupaitica I

Krodhe Kruddho bhaye bhīrussabresthah preksakaḥ smṛtah’138 II

Supporting the view of Vidyānātha that the spectator happens to recollect his own beloved, Kumārasvāmin observes that the general concept includes a special one too, as the general concept that whereever there is smoke there is fire includes all special cases like the smoke in the kitchen. Even in the depiction of characters Rāma etc., ‘a poet is not capable of visualising Rāma as he is as in the case of the first poet’Valmiki. The poet keeps in view a noble character and depicts the character of Rāma adding details conceived by his talent. Even the author of “Śatsāhasri” observes:

‘yebhyasca sāmānyaguṇayogena rasaḥ niṣpadyante’ 139

It may be asked why general concepts themselves be not shown as the causal equipment for the realisation of the sèntiment. This is because a spectator can enjoy only through a particular character.

‘Viśeṣopādānenaiva srotrāmāsvādasambhavāt’ 140

This is true even in the case of children playing with chariots made of mud. Somapithin raises a doubt here. Even accepting that individuals are recollected it is not possible to explain the realisation of sentiments. Answering this point, Somapithin observes that the spectator comes to possess a cultured attitude inferring the emotions related to the people in the world. Then, having heard poetry, he feels that the characters Rāma etc., are related to him in a general way. The very same character on account of the contemplation of the spectator appears as ‘belonging to the present. This view is acceptable to Bharṭhari, the author of Vākyapadīya.

103

'Sabdopahita rupamstan buddhervisayatam gatan I

Pratyaksamiva kamsadin sadhanatvena manyate' 141 II

It is known from this that the characters Kamsa etc., have the same effect when described or presented on the stage. It cannot be said that the characters Rama, Sita etc., presenting the erotic sentiment on the stage involve impropriety. This is because the attributes of their being the daughter of Janaka and the son of Dasaratha etc., get obscured and they are presented just as man and woman. The very same characters which are likened to those in the world are designated by the terms Vibhava etc., in a Kavya. When they are made the object of the spectator's contemplation they, as it were, get reflected in the internal organ. The moods Rati etc., though they are worldly in a sense, when contemplated become Sthayibhavas. Thus, Vibhava etc., give a peculiar cognition is neither valid nor erroneous. It is neither of the form of a doubt nor it is the semblance of similarity. Hence, it is called transcendental and is recognised as residing in a spectator. The doubt that it can have another substratum is baseless. If at all another substratum is to be accepted, it can either be the imitator or the imitated. The first is not possible as the imitator is completely engrossed in his action. The second too, cannot stand, for the heroes Rama etc., are no more. If it is argued that the imitator too sometimes feels himself identified with the heroes Rama etc., then he cannot present the ensuents. Vidyanatha, here observes that it is possible due to the practice of the art of acting. Even in the cases where antogonistic sentiments are presented there is no difficulty on account of the dexterity of the poet in depicting them. Sompithin quotes here the author of Dhvanyaloka who observes:

'Avirodhi virodhi va rasengini rasantare I

Pariposam na netavyastada syadavirodhita' II 142

Next Vidyanatha takes up the sets of sentiments that are antogonistic to each other.

The sentiments Srngara and Bibhatsa, Vira and Bhayanaka, Raudra and Hasya and Hasya and Karuna are accepted sets.

Similarly he speaks of one sentiment giving rise to another.

Srngaratilaka while dealing with this topic observes that Hasya, Karuna, Adbhuta, Bhayanaka are born respectively from Srngara, Raudra, Vira and Bibhatsa.

Vidyanatha enumerates the transient moods that occur under each sentiment.

He follows Srngaratilaka and quotes the passage relevant here.

Though a single sentiment is chosen as predominent in a Kavya there can be a combination of different sentiments.

Where one or more ancillary sentiments are described, keeping some other idea as prominent, there the result is Rasavadalankara.

Similarly when a mood is treated subservient to some other idea, Preyolankara results.

Where the semblance of sentiments or moods is depicted, Urjasvin is the figure.

Here Vidyanatha refers to the view of Ruyyaka, the author of Alankarasarvasva.

He observes that Bhavodaya etc., are to be reckoned as different figures.

'Bhavodaya bhavasandhi bhavabalatasca prthagalankarah' 143

Vidyanatha declares that the illustrations of these figures will be dealt with in the chapter of figures.

But in the printed texts available they are not illustrated.

Summing up the essential characteristics of the sentiments, Vidyanatha present three verses while concluding the chapter on Rasa.

The first verse is as follows:

'Gunalankarasn Krtañparikaro bhavavibhavah

Sphuratpradurbhavah Kramagalitavedyantaramatih'

Sukhamva duhkham va nibidayatu yunohsahrdaye

Tvamandanandatma parinamati purno rasabharah II 144

The permanent moods (Sthayibhavas) are well equipped by the charm of poetic merits and figures. As a consequence, they leave their dormentary state and develop into sentiments. This sentiment when enjoyed by a connoisseur result in an unawareness of every other object. In the world, this may generate happiness or misery. But in an artistic creation like drama they result in giving complete bliss to the connoisseur without the touch of unhappiness. The permanent emotive moods like Rati, equipped with the factors like excellences, figures of speech etc., to be revealed in the minds of connoisseurs. When there is such revolation the awareness of the connoisseur regarding the objects around him glides away. Such a mood may increase happiness or sorrow in the worldly experience. Here, in Poetry, however, whatever be the nature of moods, the connoisseur comes to experience a state of perfect bliss which is likened to Brahmananda. Explaining this verse, Somapithin traces five stages in the realisation of sentiments. First, the connoisseur, on account of the four types of Abhinaya exhibited by the actor gets the impression that the actor is Rama himself. Next, there follows identity of experience in the heart of the connoisseur who gets fully absorbed in the music and other attractive features in a drama. On account of this, he is unaware of any other thing except the sentiment and its causal equipment. Then the transcendental experience called Rasa similar to the experience of a yogin in his meditation follows. This view of Somapithin finds support from the following oft quoted verse of Mahimabhatta.

'Pathyadatha dhrvaganat tatassampurite rase I

tadasvadabharaiKagro hrsyatyantarmukhah ksanam II

106

tato nirvisayasyasya svarupavasthito nijah I

vyajyate hlada nisyando yena tusyanti yoginah' 145 II

Distinguishing between the types of experience, one Brahmananda and the other Kavyamanda, Somapithin observes that in the former the yogin is aware of nothing while in the latter the causal equipment of the sentiment alone is apprehended. If that is so, how it is said that the experience of Poetry is a united whole? Here, Somapithin brings in the analogy of a drink whose constituent parts are grapes etc. It is to be understood here, that despite the fact one enjoys the drink, one is aware of the presence of the consitutents also.

Commenting on the third line of the verse “Sukham va duhkham va nibidayatu yuno sahrdayah”, Somapithin raises a doubt and answers it himself. The doubt here is, in the world the equipment of Srngara is known to give pleasure. That of the Pathos, however, causes grief. In drama, however, both help the connoisseur to have only bliss. The cause for this, has been discussed at length, in Sanskrit Poetics. The decision made by Jagannatha is as follows:

'Ayam hi lokottarasya kavyavyaparasya mahima

yat prayojya aramaniya api sokadayah padarthah

ahladamalaukikam janayanti' 146

Keeping such an idea in view, Vidyanatha observes: ... sahrdayatvamandamandatma parinamati…If it is accepted that even the sentiment Pathos in a drama generates transcendental bliss, then how to explain the tears and other symptoms of grief when one listens to a passage depicting pathos? Somapithin answers this on the analogy of the pleasure derived by women during coition where biting of the lip etc., takes place, still generating pleasure only. Basing on this fact, Alankarikas have accepted “Kuttamita” as one of the

107

Srngaracestas. Its definition as given by Vidyanatha confirms this view:

'Sammardepi sukhadhik yam ratau kuttamitam matam'147

If it is argued that in the situations of pathos one experiences only grief, then great works like Ramayana where Pathos is the main sentiment come to be rejected and connoisseurs also do not take to the study of such texts. Therefore, the conclusion would have to be that even in Pathos, one derives pleasure alone as in the case of other sentiments. If all the sentiments happen to give the same type of bliss, then the division of sentiments under nine heads becomes prolix. This is answered as follows: Even the transcendental bliss or Brahmananda is spoken of many types depending upon the delimiting factor (Upadhi) like the moon's reflections on different surfaces. Similarly, here too, depending upon the variety of equipment there is nothing wrong in classifying sentiment as of nine types.148

Vidyanatha in the second concluding verse on Rasaprakarana149, declares that sentiment is the most important element in Poetry and factors like Vibhava etc., take a proper culmination in it. They, along with the Sthayibhava undergo a gradual development to produce the final effect, namely Rasa. This is similar to the threads that help the creation of cloth.

Explaining the word "Vakyartha", Somapithin observes that "Vakyartha" in a Kavya is always the sentiment, neither an idea nor a figure. The statement of Vidyanatha-

'Raso vakyarthas san vilasati' needs this much of explanation. Here one cannot take 'Vakyartha' in the simple sense 'Vakyasya arthah', meaning, the meaning of a sentence. Earlier writers also have used the term "Vakyartha" in the same sense as Vidyanatha uses it.

'Kavervivakasaya yatra pradhanyam parikalpyate

bhavet sa eva vakyarthah iti nirniyate budhaih' 150

All the schools are of one view that the sentiments are always suggested and not expressed. The purport in Poetry can be of the form of Sthayibhava or Sattvikabhava or Sancaribhava.

Kumarasvamin quotes :

'Sthayiva sattvikovapi sancari va kvacit kvacit

bhave vakyartha tameti tattad bhava visesatah' 151

Even Anandavardhana in his Dhvanyaloka and Abhinavagupta in his Locana make this point clear. The equipment Vibhava etc., is neither a Karakahetu nor a Jnapakahetu. Hence, the relationship between the Vibhava etc., and the sentiments is something the like of which is not to be found in the mundane world.

'Ata evaukikatvamasyeti bhavah' 153

This idea as explained by Somapithin is suggested by the term 'Kila' which occurs in the second of the concluding verses of Rasaprakarana. The sequence between Vibhavadi and Rasa is not discernable, as the act piercing a needle through a set of hundred lotus petals. The equipment coming together developing each other come to be designated by the term Rasa. This is similar to the threads coming together to produce cloth.

The third one, which is also the last verse of Rasa Prakarana brings out the relation between the permanent moods and the transient moods 153. When ocean is in its full ebbwaves are born and subside. Similarly, when sentiment is in its full swing, the transient moods come and go like the waves. The experience of primary sentiment is akin to the yogic experience and is spoken of as residing in the hero. In a

drama, however, it is present in the connoisseur.

Commenting on this verse, Kumarasvamin clarifies certain points

which appear ambiguous. Vidyanatha in his verse uses the word

'Rasa' with the attribute 'nijasvadatirekah'. The following is the

comment of Somapithin.

'Nijah svagocara ityarthah Svasmadabhinnasyapi svarupasya svenaiva

visayikaranasambhavat. Yadahuh -'Atmanamatmanyavalokayantam'

Thus, according to him, one becoming the object of self-enjoying

is not incongruous. He supports the view that the substratum of the

sentiment is connoisseur himself and brings in the views of

Abhinavagupta and Saradatanaya that stand to support him. Here,

he presents another view that the characteristic of the sentiment to have

the connoisseur as the substratum is only a superimposed one not to be

taken in a real sense.

'Kecideiat samajikasrayatvam aropitam natu mukhyamityahuh'

Naraharisuri, a well known writer of his times appears to have this

view. According to him it is irrelevant to speak of Brahmananda. This

much is the difference while Brahmananda is attainable only through

yoga, the bliss that arises from Poetry is on account of the assemblage

of Vibhava etc. It is unlike the happiness felt in the world as the

causality Vibhava etc., is of a non-mundane type. To support this kind

of view, Somapithin quotes from a text Svatmayogapradipa -

'Ya stayibhava ratireva nimittabhedat

srngara mukhyanavanatyarasibhavanti

Samajikan sahrdayannatanayakadi

nanandayetsahajapumaraso 'smi so' ham'

110

Thus the Rasa theory presented by Vidyanatha and explained by Kumarasvami Somapithin gives a clear picture of the view of the earlier writers on the subject like Lollata, Sankuka etc. This theory that Alambanavibhava is the Samavayikarana of the sentiments though goes against the views of the earlier writers can reasonably be explained and defended on the lines shown by Tirumalacarya, the author of the commentary Ratnasana.

CHAPTER - V

DOṢA PRAKARAṆA

Vidyānātha, having dealt with the sentiments, speaks of blemishes that may possibly occur in Poetry: Earlier writers like Dandin do not accept even a slight blemish in Poetry.

"Tadalpamapi nopeksyami kāvye duṣṭam kathamcana" 1

Hence, Vidyānātha gives priority to blemishes and deals with them before he takes up excellences and figures of speech which bring beauty to Poetry. He further justifies this step saying that knowledge of blemishes is helpful for the clear understanding of the Guṇas. A blemish is one which mars the Poetic beauty. It amounts to saying that whatever delays or hinders the realisation of sentiment is a blemish. This may be found either in word or sense: Vidyānātha presents seventeen types of blemishes pertaining to word (Padadoṣas). It is to be observed here, that he owes much to Bhoja, the author of Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa, when he deals with blemishes and excellences. The first category of blemishes based on word is sub-divided into those pertaining to words and those pertaining to sentences.

. . . . Doṣānām śabdagatattvena arthagatattvena ca dvaividhyam.

Śabdagatānāmapī padavākya gatattvena dvaividhyam' 2

PADADOṢAS

1. APRAYUKTA :

The usage of the words that are not used by earlier poets, though they are present in lexicons, constitutes this blemish. The definition of Vidyānātha is almost a reproduction of the definition of Bhoja 3. In the illustrative verse "Vimukha daivatāḥ sarve"etc.,4 the words Duścavana and Daivata stand as examples. Here the word Duścavana is used in the sense of Indra,5 which is rare in the writings of the earlier poets. The

112

word Daivata is used by poets only in neuter gender,6 though it can be used in masculine gender. Hence the usage amounts to the blemish Aprayukta. However, this kind of usage ceases to be a blemish in the cases of Śleṣa and Yamaka.

This blemish is not found in the works of the earlier writers like Bharata, Bhāmaha, Dandin and Rudrata. However, Vāmana speaks of an Ayukta, which he considers as an Arthadoṣa7 which is not clear. Bhoja is the first man to give a clear cut definition for this blemish. Mammaṭa, Vidyānātha, Viśvanātha and Viśveśvara follow his concept8. This can be identified as Apratīta given by Rudraṭa9.

2. APUṢṬĀRTHA :

The usage of the words whose sense is not applicable to the context is reckoned as the blemish Apuṣṭārtha. While the poet has to say that "the couple of hands are in vain", the poet presents it in a circuitous expression like - Vyarthāsthārdhārdhā bāhūnām"10. Hence the blemish here is Apuṣṭārtha. Though most of the terminology of the blemishes based on word is borrowed from the Sarasvatīkanṭhābharana, there appears to be some conceptual difference. For instance, Apuṣṭārtha, the second defect, is explained by Vidyānātha as one that occurs where the sense presented is irrelevant (Prakṛtānupay'ikta). Bhoja, however, defines it as "Yattu tuccābhidheyam syāt apuṣṭārtham taducyate"11. Here the word "Tucchābhidheya" as explained by Bhoja and his commentator stands for an instance where the sense that can be presented by few words is presented by many words. Ratneśvara, the commentator, is very clear in his note.

'Stoka śabdābhidheyye' arthe bahutara śabda bahulāmityarthah12

Thus there is conceptual difference between Bhoja and Vidyānātha.

3. ASAMARTHA :

The definition for the blemish Asamartha as given by Vidyānātha is -

113

'Yogamātra prasiddhām̀ yat asamartham̀ taducyate' 13

Kumārasvāmin in his commentary explains the term 'Yogamātra prasiddha' as 'Śāstramātra prasiddha'. If his explanation is relied upon, then there is no difference between the two blemishes Asamartha and Apratītika. The blemish Apratītika is defined by Vidyānātha as -

'Śāstra mātraprasiddham̀ yadapratītikamucyate' 14

Hence, the explanation of Kumārasvāmin deserves to be set aside. If the word 'Yoga' in the definition is taken in the sense of Yaugikārtha then the illustrations given by Bhoja and Vidyānātha fit in. Now the difficulty is that there ceases to be any difference betwen the two blemishes Asamartha and Anyārtha. For, the blemish Anyārtha is defined by Vidyānātha as -

'Yadrūdhi pacyutam nāma tadanyārthamudāhrtam' 15

If we compare the two definitions of Bhoja and Vidyānātha, the definition given by Bhoja is precise and unambiguous. Instead of 'Yogamātra prasiddha' he uses 'Asangatam', meaning thereby that the expressions not in accordance with the well established usage of the word come under this blemish. For instance, the sound produced by elephants alone is called 'Brnhita' and if it is used in the case of the sound produced by horses then the result is this blemish. Though the definition of Vidyānātha is ambiguous, his illustration shows that he follows Bhoja. In the illustration 'Vidyāvarasudāmām' etc., the word 'Ambudhara' is used to mean ocean, which it is incapable of conveying. Hence this is an instance of Asamartha.

4. NĪRARTHAKA :

The word used only to complete the foot of a stanza is Nirarthaka.

5. NEYĀRTHA :

The word which carries a sense mainly depending upon the convention of the poet alone constitutes the defect Neyārtha.

114

CYUTASAMSKĀRA

:

The

blemish

Cyutasamskāra

arises

where

an

ungrammatical

expression

is

used.

SANDHIGDHA

:

If

a

word

conveys

sense

involving

doubt,

the

blemish

is

Sandhigdha.

"Vihāya

ca

grhāṃsthānvai

vyatyasta

navavṛttayah

I

Kadā

bhavisyate

vāsah

katakesu

mahībhrtām

17

II

In

this

verse

the

word

"Vai"

has

no

specific

meaning

to

give

and

only

serves

to

satisfy

the

rules

of

prosody

and

hence

it

illustrates

the

first

blemish

Nirarthaka.

Hemacandra

states

that

according

to

some,

the

Nirarthaka

ceases

to

be

a

blemish

if

it

occurs

in

the

instances

of

Yamaka

Again

the

statement

"Vyatyasta

navavṛttayah"

illustrates

the

second

blemish

Neyārtha.

Kumārasvāmin

sets

aside

the

doubt

whether

it

can

be

included

in

Lakṣaṇā.

He

observes

that

the

two

famous

varieties

of

Lakṣaṇā;

Rūdhilakṣaṇa

and

Prayojanavallakṣaṇā

have

no

place

here

as

there

is

neither

Rūdhi

nor

Prayojana.

Hence

Lakṣaṇā

is

out

of

place

here.

The

convention

of

the

earlier

writers

as

presented

in

the

Kārikā

"Nirūḍhalakṣaṇā

kaścid"

etc.,

bars

Lakṣaṇā

entering

such

cases.

So

this

is

the

clear

case

of

the

blemish

Neyārtha.

As

regards

Cyutasamiskāra

the

illustration

provided

is

"Kadā

bhavisyate

Vāsah".

Grammar

does

not

admit

the

usage

of

the

root

"Bhū"

as

Ātmane-padi.

Hence

"Bhavisyate"

is

an

ungrammatical

usage

amounting

to

the

blemish

Cyutasamiskāra.

The

fourth

one

Sandhigdha

is

illustrated

in

the

words

"Katakesu

mahībhṛtām

vāsah".

This

assemblage

of

words

gives

rise

to

two

sentences

:

i.

residing

in

the

capitals

ii.

residing

on

the

slopes

of

the

mountains.

So

there

is

scope

for

doubt

and

this

amounts

to

the

blemish

Sandhigdha.

115

8. APRAYOJAKA :

A word which does not convey any new sense lends scope for the blemish Aprayojaka. In the illustration -

'Hanta vartāmahe vajraghattṭanāt prāk calātmasu' 19

the attribute 'Vajraghattanāt prāk calātmasu' is in no way useful for the contextual sense and hence the blemish is Aprayojaka.

9. KLIṢṬA :

The blemish Kliṣṭa arises where the apprehension of the required idea is far fetched and not immediate.

'Nabhasva daśanārāti dhvajāgraja vrodhiṣu' 20 is the illustration.

Here the whole expression simply means 'on the mountains'. But it is presented in a far fetched way. Hence the blemish here is Kliṣṭa. This is not considered as a blemish in compositions like Prahelikas.

10. GUḌHĀRTHA :

The usage of a word in obsolete sense amounts to the blemish Gūḍhārtha. To illustrate, the word 'Soṇita' which is generally used to mean blood, is employed to convey the sense of red colour. Hence the blemish here is Gūḍhārtha.

11. GRĀMYA :

The blemish Grāmya occurs where the usage popular among uncultured people is made. Words like Galla, Kaṭi etc., come under this type. Bhoja calls it Deśya21.

12. ANYĀRTHA :

Anyārtha is a blemish that occurs where words are used in a sense different from their established sense. The word 'V idagdha hrdaya' in the illustration is established in the sense of 'a scholarly mind'. But here it is used in the sense of 'a tormented heart'. Hence it amounts to the

116

blemish Anyārtha.

13. APRATĪTIKA :

Apratītika is a blemish where a word popular in śāstraic sense is used in literature to mean the same. In the illustration -

'Manūpadeśah kva gatah kulācāryairudīritah' 22

the word "Manu" is used in the sense of incantation (Mantra) and this denotation is popular only in Śāstras but fails to yield the same sense in popular parlance. Hence it amounts to the blemish Apratītika.

14. AVIMRSTAVIDHEYĀMSA :

Vidyānātha defines this blemish as -

'Avimrṣṭa vidheyaṃsam guṇībhūta vidheyakam' 23.

He observes that the verse which is given as an example for Apustārtha illustrates this blemish also. If a thing to be mainly prescribed is made subservient the blemish is Avimrṣṭa vidheyāṃsa. Here the intention of the poet is to predicate Vaiyarthya. Since the term 'Vyartha' is a member of 'Bahuvrīhi' compound it is subservient.

15. VIRUDDHAMATIKRT :

The words that convey an altogether opposite sense not intended by the poet amounts to the blemish Viruddhamatikrt. In the illustration, the intention of the poet in using the word 'Ambikāramanā' is to denote lord Śiva. But there is the comprehension of one who dallies with mother, which is not at all intended to be conveyed here. Similarly the words 'Akaryamitra' and 'Vināśa' are employed to convey the two senses 'friends without any cause' and 'pangs of separation'. But the senses they convey are "friends in an unworthy act" and 'destruction'. Hence the blemish here is Viruddhamatikrt.

16. AŚLĪLA :

In defining this blemish, Vidyānātha follows Mammaṭa. This is of three types.

117

i. which gives an inauspicious meaning,

ii. which gives a disgustful meaning, and

iii. which gives a meaning that brings bashfulness.

The words "Abhipreta", "Nīcam sadhanam" and "Utsarga" illustrate the three blemishes respectively and hence the three come under Aślīla. Bhoja, however, speaks of the blemish Grāmya as constituting the usage of words that give unpleasant, inauspicious and disgustful senses . Again he sub-classifies these three under three heads. For instance, he speaks of Aślīla as of three kinds.

i. where words conveying indecent sense are employed,

ii. where words having a second sense which is indecent and

iii. words that make one recollect indecent sense.

17. PARUṢA :

Paruṣa is a blemish where we find expressions involving harsh sounds. In the illustration the word "Kārtārthyarthitva" is composed of harsh sounds. This is an impermanent type of blemish, because these harsh sounds are not considered as blemishes in the depiction of the heroic sentiment.

VĀKYA DOṢAS

After dealing with the blemishes based on words, Vidyānātha proceeds to show those that are related to a sentence. An assemblage of defective words amounts to the blemish of a sentence. Vidyānātha enumerates twentyfour such blemishes and explains them giving definition and illustration. Here follows an account of them.

1. SABDAHINA :

If a word does not satisfy the the principles of grammar, the blemish is Śabdahīna. Since this effects the syntactical relation, this has to be reckoned as a blemish relating to the sentence (Vākyadoṣa). In the instance -

'Na samsrnumahe hanta hitmāptairnimantritam' 25

since the root 'sr̥' when it is an Atmanepadi with the preposition 'sam' does not require its object to be mentioned.26 But here the object 'hitam' has been employed by the poet and since the blemish is based on two words, this has to be reckoned as a blemish related to the sentence.

2. KRAMABHRASṬA :

Vidyānātha reproduces verbatim the definition of Bhoja. Kramabhraṣṭa is a blemish where the required order of words or senses is absent. In the illustrative verse it is said that horses or atleast elephants should have been presented to the king Pratāparudra. Here the order should be elephants or at least horses. Hence the blemish here is Kramabhraṣṭa based on sense. Here it is a well-known fact that the tributary kings always try to get the mercy of the emperor by offering valuable presents. As elephants are more valuable than the horses the word elephants should have been employed first and then horses as they are less in value. Such being the case to employ the word horses first and the elephants is violating the order. So this is a case for the blemish Arthakramabhaṅga. In the next verse it is said that Sun and Moon have submerged in the fame and valour of Pratāparudra.

It is the general convention to compare the valour with the Sun and fame with the Moon. So in order to keep the order, valour should have been mentioned first and then fame. Though there is propriety regarding sense, the order of the words is faulty. Hence this is a case of the blemish Śabdakramabhraṣṭa.

3. VISANDHI :

The blemish Visandhi occurs in two cases :

i. Where euphonic combination (Sandhi) is not effected though

grammar requires it, and

ii. Where euphonic combination though effected is not pleasant

to hear.

In the example -

'Sauryāni Īdṛśān yāsan pṛthvaiśvaryam kva vā gatam' 27

the instance 'Sauryāni Īdṛśāni' illustrates the blemish Visandhi

due to not effecting the Savarnadīrghasandhi. 'Pṛthvaiśvaryam' is a

case where euphonic combination though effected is unpleasant to

hear. This also has been verbatim taken from Bhoja.

4. PUNARUKTIMAT :

Punaruktimat is blemish where the sound and its sense are

repeated.

'Jīmakanana sankīrṇe vindhye kānanavṛttayaḥ' 28

is the example where the word Kānana has been repeated both by

sound and sense. If sense differs it ceases to be a blemish and comes

to be reckoned as the figure Yamaka. In the context of fear and anxilty

it cannot be considered as a blemish.

5. VYĀKĪRNA :

When there is confusion in mutually construing different words,

there the blemish is Vyākīrṇa. In the statement 'Ājñāmurasi bibhrāṇaḥ

sirasī krodamudrīkām' 29 the words have been irregularly placed. It

should be -

'Krodamudrīkām urasi sirasūajnām bibhrāṇaḥ'

120

Hence this irregular placement of the words amounts to the blemish Vyākirṇa. Here Vidyānātha closely follows Bhoja.

6. VĀKYASAŃKĪRNA :

If the words of one sentence get mixed up with those of another sentence, the blemish is Vakyasankīrṇa.

'Mānena mahatasmabhirvane vaktre na tiṣṭhatām |

Vindhyasya jīvitam tanno jātamadya tṛṇam kṛtam'II

is the example where in the words of two sentences have been indiscriminately employed making the sense confusing. Hence the blemish here is Vākyasankīrṇa.

7. APŪRNA :

Apūrṇa is a blemish where in a statement fails to have connected with a verbal form. In the illustrative verse 'Śailṣu asmākamāvāsah' etc.,31 there is no proper connection between the words 'Paśyan' and 'Asmākam' though it is intended. Instead of 'Sailāvāsam' the poet has said 'Asmākam sailesu āvāsah'. Hence this fails to have syntactical relation with 'Paśyan'. So the blemish here is Apurna. Bhoja does not mention this blemish.

8. VĀKYAGARBHITA :

The blemish Vākyagarbhita occurs where in the middle of a sentence another sentence comes to be mentioned. In the verse "Jnātvāpyandhrapurīndrasya" etc.,32 we find the statement "Yadva na laṅghyate daivam" has been thrust into the main sentence. So the blemish here is Vākyagarbhita.

9 & 10. BHINNA VACANA & BHINNALIṄGA :

Where the standard of comparison and the object compared are of different gender and number, the blemishes that arise are Bhinnalinga

and Bhinnavacana. In the illustration 'Samudra iva' etc.,33 the standard of comparison, i.e., Samudra is in plural number. The object compared, i.e., mind is in singular. Hence the blemish is Bhinnavacana. Similarly, in the second half the standard of comparison i.e., Giri is of masculine gender and object compared, i.e., Dhvajanī is feminine. So the blemish here is Bhinnalinga.

11 & 12 . ADHIKOPAMĀ AND NYŪNOPAMĀ :

If the attributes spoken in the case of Upamāna are more than those spoken in the case of Upameya the blemish that ensues is Adhikopamā. If reverse is the case the resulting blemish is Nyūnopamā. The illustration given is -

'Kṣāma kṣāma mukhāḥ kāntāḥ kānane mālaśsituh |

grīṣme nadyā iva mlānāpadmotpala bisāvilāḥ' II 34

Here the emaciated faces of the ladies are Upameya and the rivers are Upamāna. It would be enough if the rivers are qualified by the attribute Mlānapadma. Insted the poet speaks of another attribute "Mlānotpalisāvilāḥ" which does not have a corresponding attribute connected with the Upameya. Hence, the blemish here is Adhikopamā.

In the illustration 'Hārāṅgarāga subhaga etc.,' 35 the attributes given to the Upameya are more than those given to the Upamana. The necklace related to the Upameya has correspondence with the "Nirjhara" spoken as an attribute to the Upamāna. Corresponding to the Aṅgarāga nothing has been said in the section of Upamāna. Hence the blemish here is Nyūnopamā.

13 & 14. BHAGNACCHANDA & YATIBHRAṢṬA :

The concept of these two blemishes are evident from their nomenclature. In the illustration -

'Vindhyāraṇya krtakutumba raksanasya

122

kim bhadram bhavati janasyā mādrśásya" 36,

there should be Yati after the third letter and that is not observed here. Hence the blemish is Yatibhraṣṭa. The last letter, in accordance with the rules of Prosody, should be a Guru. Instead, we find only Laghu. Hence the blemish here is Bhagnacchanda.

Kumārasvāmin raises a doubt here and answers it himself. According to the rules of Prosody the last letter of the foot of a verse though it is a Laghu can optionally be taken as Guru. Applying this principle here, the last letter "Sya" can be taken as Guru. So this instance fails to illustrate the blemish. Here the answer of Somapithin is - where there is euphony, there we need not recognise a blemish as in the case of the meters Indravajra and Upendravajra. In the case of meters "Praharṣinī", "Vasantatilaka" etc., this is not the case as the earlier critics feel the absence of euphony there. So this does not cease to be a blemish.

15. AŚARĪRA :

Aśarīra is a blemish where there is no verbal form in a sentence. In the illustration 'Hanta niṣkaruno dhātā etc, 37 there is no verb to complete the sense. So, the blemish here is Aśarīra.

16. ARĪTIKA :

The composition of words if it is not suggestive of sentiments, the blemish is Arīti. In the example -

'Akharva garva durvāra dorargalā nirargalāḥ |

hā bandhuvargād sarvepi kṛtāntatitayah kṛtāḥ' II 38

the pathos is the sentiment and the composition is rather bombastic not allowing the sentiment to be clearly suggested. So the blemish here is Arīti.

17. VISARGALUPTA :

Visargalupta is a blemish where 'Visarga' often gets deleted or is replaced by 'Ottva'. In the verse -

"Vyartho manoratho yāto jāto vāso dhruvo marau I

mlāna dīna hatā jīrṇā vanāntesvīdrśāvayam'II

39

the Visargas are found replaced by 'Ottva', and in the second half they are elided according to the principles "Bho bhago agho apūrvasyā

yosi" and "lopāśśākalyasya" 40.

18. ASTHĀNASAMĀSA :

Asthānasamāsa is a blemish where a compound is employed in an improper place. In the illustrative verse 'Kutovaimuhyamasmāsu'

etc.,41 it is said that the enemy kings are angry with the creator for placing them in a miserable condition. Here the compound may be used for their anger. Instead the poet employs it in the description of the faces of the kings. Hence the compound is out of place and as such this amounts to the blemish Asthānasamāsa.

19. VĀCYAVARJITA :

Vācyavarjita is a blemish where the thing that ought to have been said has not.been said. In the example -

"Durdaśāṁ pratipannānāmāsmākaṁ jīvitam matam" etc. 42

the word "Api" has not been employed. Hence it is a case of Vācyavarjita.

20 & 21. SAMĀTTAPUNARĀTTAKAM & PATATPRAKARṢA :

Even after the completion of a sentence if something related to it has,been said, the blemish is Samāttapunarāttaka. Patatprakarṣa is the blemish where the orderliness in view of greatness etc., has been

125

over-looked. These two defects are illustrated in a single verse -

'Dhāvanmrgeṣu sambhṛāmyatkariṣudyattarakṣusu I

Vindhyāraṇyeṣu tiṣṭhāmaḥ kṣubhyadbhallūkapaṅktiṣu' II

43

Though the sentence is completed with the word "tiṣṭhāmaḥ" the

poet again brings in "Kṣubhyadbhallūka paṅktiṣu" as an attribute to

the word Vindhyāraṇya. Hence the blemish is Samāttapunarāttako

here. While mentioning the animals in the forest the relative greatness

has not been kept in view. To be correct, the order should be

Sambhrmyātkariṣu udyattarakṣu dhāvan mrgeṣu. But this order has

been violated and so the blemish here is Patatprakarsa.

22. SAMBHNDHAVARJITA :

The blemish Sambandhavarjita comes into picture where a word

fails to be construe with another when such construe is desirable. In

the illustration 'Bhadrasanāni dr̥sadahichhatrāṇi mahīruhah' etc.,44 the intention of the poet is that in the kingdom of the forest the stones are

the thrones. This, however, is not clearly mentioned in view of the fact

that the word Rajya happens to be the member of a compound.

23. ADHIKAPADA :

Adhikapda is the blemish where unnecessary words are employed.

In the instance "Vimukta vallabhairetā etc.,45 it would have been

sufficient to say Sudhāṃśu pāṇḍuraḥ'. The poet, however, adds

unnecessary wording 'Maṇḍalakāra rūpakrama'. Hence the blemish

here is Adhikapada.

24. BHAGNAPRAKRAMA :

Bhaganaprakrama is violating the order which has been taken up

first. In the illustrative verse the words 'Guha' and 'Grham' are

employed in plural number and 'Vindhyabhūḥ puri' 46 is employed in

singúlar. Hence it is a case of Bhagnaprakrama.

ARTHADOṢAS

The blemishes relating to the sense are enumerated as eighteen by Vidyānātha.

1. APĀRTHA :

Apārtha is a blemish where we do not find cogent sense running through a verse. In the illustration - 'Kutaḥ susyadapanādyah' etc.,47 we do not find a connected sense being propounded by the four lines of the verse. Hence the blemish is Apārtha. Same is the concept given in the Sarasvatīkanthābharana of Bhoja 48 whom Vidyānātha closely follows.

2. VYARTHA :

Vyartha is the blemish where the sense presented does not serve any purpose. In the verse 'Nirmalaṁ kulamudvelam' etc49., the factors that are mentioned serve no purpose as they cannot form the cause for serving the king Pratāparudra. Hence the blemish here is 'Vyartha'.

3. EKĀRTHA :

Ekārtha is the blemish where the sense presented is no way different from what has already been said. In the illustrative verse 'Viśrmaḥ satathā cetah' etc.,50 the sense presented in the first line differs in no way from the sense presented in the second line. Hence the blemish here is Ekārtha.

4. SASAMŚAYA :

Sasamśaya is a blemish where there is doubt regarding the sense sought to be presented.

128

'Karikumbhau stanāvadya jayatāṃ ksāmatām gatāu I

latā vapussriyāḥ strīṇāṃ hasantu mlānatām gataḥ' II 51

In the above verse there is the doubt regarding the object and the

subject. Hence the blemish here is Sasamsaya.

5. APAKRAMA :

Apakrama is a blemish where there is violation of the order of the

preceding and the succeeding ones. In the illustrative verse "Hanta

vyadāya'etc.,52 it is said that the ladies have opened their mouths and

slept which is far from our experience for, the act of opening the mouth

takes place after sleep. According to the aphorism 'Samāna kartṛkayoh

pūrvakāle' 53, the suffix "Ktva" is adjoined to the root whose sense is

first known to have been performed by the agent. In the statements like

'Mukham vyadaya swapiti' the opening of the mouth is only after the

sleep has begun. Then how is it the suffix "Ktva" has been adjoined

here for the root ' Da'. To this, the answer is - even after the opening

of the mouth the sleep continues and with reference to this slèep there

is precedence for act of opening. Hence the suffix "Ktva" is adjoined

to the root 'Da'. If such an explanation held correct, then the view of

Vidyānātha that it is a wrong usage becomes untenable. Here

Somapīthin adds that even before the opening of the mouth, there is

the activity of sleeping. With reference to this prior stage of sleep the

root 'Da' ought not to have got the suffix "Ktva". So the expression can

be taken as an instance where the order of the preceding and the

succeeding ones has been violated.

6. BHINNA :

Bhinna is a blemish where there is no relevance between the

statements made. In the verse -

'Nūnam phalesu lāṭanām' 54etc., of the two statements viz., "the

creator did not write anything on the foreheads of the people

belonging to Lāṭā country" and "our families are suffering in the

deserts" one has nothing to do with the other. Hence, the blemish here is Bhinna.Bhoja mentions Khinna as one of the blemishes and defines it as -

'Jatyādyuktavanairyūḍham khinnamāhur mahādhiayah" 55

According to him the characteristics of a particular species taken up for description should be carried till the end. If the poet fails to observe such characteristics, then the blemish is Khinna.

Dr. Raghavan while observing that Vidyānātha made some changes makes the following remark :

'Bhoja' Khinna is given as Bhinna and also conceived differently from Bhoja's Khinna. 56

This statement of his is ambiguous since if Bhinna is conceived differently from Khinna, how can one say that Khinna of Bhoja is given as Bhinna of Vidyānātha ? Both can be treated as independent blemishes, one having no bearing on the other. According to Bhoja, if anything is stated not in confirmity with one's species, the blemish that arises is Khinna. In the world too, it is said that one is Khinna or dejected if one is not able to carry out the work he has taken up. Here too, on the same analogy, while describing the characteristics of a particular species, the poet should not introduce an element which is heterogeneous to the above said species. Comparing the two concepts of Bhinna and Khinna of Vidyānātha and Bhoja one may find that while the former speaks of irrelevance in general, the latter speaks of a deviation from the general characteristics of a species. Hence, it would be better to treat these two separately as there is a clear difference in their concepts.

7. ATIMATRA :

Atimātra is the blemish where the narration of a poet transends the human experience. In the illustration 'Mābhudekāmavam' etc., 57 it is said that the ladies of the Laṭa country have created so many rivers by

their tears lest there should be a single ocean in the world. Here the statement that theyhave created so many rivers with their tears goes beyond even one's imagination. Hence the blemish here is Atimātra. However, this.cannot be taken as a case of the figure Atiśayokti, for, charm, the sine-qua-non- of a figure, is absent here.

8. PARUṢA :

Paruṣa is a blemish where a very cruel act is expressed. In the illustration ‘Dāvānaleandhanam saśyah’ etc.,58 it is said that the children who are begging for fruits are ordered to be consigned to wild-fire. Hence the blemish is Paruṣa.

9. VIRASA :

Virasa is a blemish where the depiction of a sentiment which is irrelevant to the context. In the illustration it is said that the barbarians of the forest are teasing the Cola women with amorous overtures.59 The contextual sentiment is Pathos. The erotic sentiment described here is antogonistic to the contextual sentiment and hence this amounts to the blemish Virasa. This blemish arises due to impropriety. ‘Anaucitya drtenānyadrasabhaṅgāsya kāraṇam’.

10. HĪNOPAMA :

Hīnopama is a blemish where the standard of comparison is inferior to the object compared. Here, Kumārasvāmin rightly observes that this inferiority is of two kinds based on species or size. However, Vidyānātha illustrates the first variety with the verse ‘Sunakairiva’ etc.60 Here the object of comparison is the king and the standard of comparison is dogs. Hence, the blemish here is Hīnopama.

11. ADHIKOPAMA :

Adhikiopma is a blemish where the standard of comparison is far superior to the object compared. In the illustration the standard of comparison is great sages and the object compared is cranes.61 This

is an instance where the superiority is based on species. Similar

illustration can be shown even in the case where the superiority is

based on size. Kumārasvāmin in his commentary gives the following

verse to illustrate this variety

'Pātalamivanābhaste parvatā iva te stanau

Veñidandapumarayam kālindī padasannibhaft'

In both the cases impropriety is the common basis of the blemish.

12. ASADṚSOPAMA :

Asadrśopama is a blemish where there is no similarity between

the standard of comparison and the object. compared. In the

illustrative verse the Vindhya mountain with its flowing streams is

compared to Lord Śiva with his third eye sending forth the flames of

fire62. Here there is no trace of similarity between the two and hence

the blemish here is Asadrśopama. Explaining the situation,

Kumārasvāmin in his commentary observes that there is no well-known

similarity either between the mountain and Lord Śiva or between their

attributes. !t cannot be said here that sometimes through 'Dharmin

(object) the similarity of Dharmas (attribute) can be spoken of. For, in

such a case there is the defect of mutual dependence. Vāmana while

commenting on the statement -

'Badhnāmi kāruaśināmī vitatārtha rasmim'

'Tadevam itaretarasrya dosoduruttarah'

Here too, the position being the same, the blemish is to be

accepted as being present.

13. APRASIDDHOPAMA :

Aprasiddhopama is the blemish where the standard of comparison

is not well-known in the poetic world. In the illustration 'Bāspāmbu

klinna netrāñi etc.,63 the faces are compared to the lilies. No where

in the writings of poets, we find lily being taken up as a standard of comparison for face. Hence this amounts to the blemish Aparasiddhopama.

14. HETUSŪNYA :

Hetusūnya is a blemish where the statement made has no reason to support it. In the illustration "Budhanudhavānam" etc.,44 the statement that "this is not the path of the lady" lacks reason and hence stands unsupported. So the blemish here is Hetusūnya.

15. NIRALANKṚTI :

Niralankrti is a blemish where a poetic passage has no figure of speech to embellish it. In the illustration the statement - "Aghrāya surabheryonim" etc.,65 there is no figure to make the sense charming. The description as it is vulgar and hence fails to please the critics. This is neither a case of Svabhāvokti.

16. AŚLĪLA :

Aślīla is a blemish where inauspicious, bashful and disgustful things are described. The above verse serves as an example for this type also. Earlier, a blemish having the same name is mentioned in connection with the blemishes based on sound. The difference is this: In the former case the words are irreplaceable by their synonyms while in the case of blemishes of sense it is possible. So this blemish has to be noted as based on sense.

17. VIRUDDHA :

Viruddha is the blemish where a statement goes against the time and place. In the illustration ‘Disyuttarasyām’etc.,66 it is said that there is ocean to the North of the country and the Ganges is in desert. Hence the blemish here is Viruddha.

18. SAHACARABHRASṬA :

Sahacarabhrasta is a blemish where the combination of unequal things is presented. In the illustration Śantya Śrutam hriyā nāri etc., sacred things like Śruta have been coupled with women and dalliance which amounts to this blemish.

Thus Vidyānātha defines and illustrates several poetic blemishes and asks the reader to detect others also on these lines. He concludes this chapter observing that sentiments and moods etc., should not be expressed by their own terms. This fact has been sufficiently emphasised by Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka.

134

CHAPTER - VI

GUṆA PRAKARANA

Regarding excellences there are three prominent schools. The first school speaks of ten excellences while the second one speaks of only three and the third one mentions excellences as twenty four. Vāmana while following Bharata in the enumeration of excellences adds a new point that these are essentially based on both sound and sense. Thus according to him, the ten excellences Śleṣa etc., become twenty in view of their two bases sound and sense. Bhāmaha, Ānandavardhana and Mammata represent the second school. The third school, however, which speaks of twenty four excellences is represented by Bhoja and Vidyānātha. While Bhoja takes all the twenty four as a group, Vidyānātha distinguishes and divides them under two groups. The excellences coming under the first group are of the form of absence of blemishes. The second group, however, contains such excellences, that positively contribute to the beauty of Poetry.

Bhoja, following Vāmana observes that the twenty four excellences he speaks of, may be based on sound and sense. Thus, according to him, although the names of excellences based on sound are the same as those based on sense, their concept is different. Vidyānātha, however, ignores the fact of excellences being based on sound and sense and appears to consider them as exclusively based on sound only. In his introductory note, he brings home this fact very clearly. However, he uniformly illustrates all of them.

1. ŚLEṢA :

Śleṣa is an excellence where many words are so coalesced as to appear as a single word. This is seen illustrated in the verse "Śrimat kākati vīrarudra" etc.1 Bharata defines Śleṣa twice. The verses ninetyseven and ninetyeight of the Seventeenth Chapter of the Nāṭyaśāstra deal with this excellence. In the ninetyseventh verse

'Śliṣṭa' is the term used, while in the ninetyeighth the term used is Śleṣa. In the latter verse he observes that the employment of words should be very conducive for the presentation of the desired sense. One does not find the distinction of Śleṣa as based on sound and sense. Still, one is tempted to believe that the latter definition paved way for the excellence based on sense. Dandin opines that there should be prevalence of letters of Alpaprāna type.2 Jagannātha adds that the letters employed should be of a particular species (Ekajātīyānām).3

2. PRASĀDA :

Prasāda is an excellence where words are employed in their well established sense. The verse 'Pratāparudradevo'yam bhati' etc.,4 illustrates this excellence. Here the sense is immediately known. Almost all the other writers have the same concept.5 Jagannātha, however, adds that the words used should be commensurate to the sense they present.6 Bharata opines that Prasāda is the excellence where on account of the clarity of sound and sense ideas unexpressed too are conveyed.7

3. SĀMATĀ :

Samatā is an excellence where there is uniformity throughout the verse. The verse 'Vadānyatarumanjari surabhayati' etc.8, stands as an illustration for this excellence since all the four feet are uniformly dealt with in view of sound and sense. Dandin, however, speaks of three varieties of this excellence as Mrdu, sphuṭa, and Madhyama, according to the nature of the words employed.9

4. MĀDHURYA :

Mādhurya is an excellence where there are separate words without compounds. In the verse 'Yaśaḥ śriyaḥ kākatibhipaterdisṭam' etc.,10 all the words are separately placed. Bhoja opines that this excellence can be found even in the instances of anger when it is not vehement.11

5. SAUKUMĀRYA :

Saukumārya is an excellence where the combination of words having delicate letters as 'Amandānandanisy-andasundarivadanendubhih' etc.12. The delicacy of letters is to be explained as the combination of soft sounds in combination with nasals.

6. ARTHAVYAKTI :

Arthavyakti is an excellence where the sentences employed are so complete that there cannot be any kind of expectancy (Akān̄ksā). The verse 'Bhāgyam madhyamaloka nighnmadhunā' etc.,13 illustrates this excellence. It is advised that words which are not in common parlance, forced diction and circuitous expressions may be avoided in this context.14

7. KĀNTI :

Kāンティ is an excellence where the composition of words is very bright. The verse 'Jetuh Kākat'i vīrarudraṇpateh' etc.,15 is the illustration given.

Kumārasvāmīsomapīthin adds that without this excellence the composition becomes uninteresting as the one in the Purāṇas. Bharata explains it as the structure of delight that stirs the heart of the connoisseur.16

8. AUDĀRYA :

Audārya is an excellence which comprises of uneven letters. "Jagdhvābhūyāmsi māmsānyahamahamikayā" etc.17 is the illustration shown. Jagannātha defines this excellence in the form of the gravity caused by the use of hard consonants18 where as Vāmana considers it as the oscillating flow of words (Vikatata)19.

9. UDĀTTATĀ :

Udātta is that which comprises of laudable adjectives.

'Brmhamānagajākirṇa' etc.,20 is the verse given for illustration. According to Bhoja the loftiness of the ideal is Udāttatā.21 But Bharata considers it as having more than one sense with charming structure (Sausthava).22

10. OJAS :

Ojas is an excellence where compounds in abundance are used. 'Uddāmadviradāughadānalahari' etc.,23 is the verse given for illustration. Jagannātha defines this excellence as follows : 'Samyogapara kras!aprācurya rūpam gādhatva mojah'.24 "Ojas is an excellence where the profuse use of short syllables followed by the conjoint consonants".

11. SUŚABDĀTĀ :

Suśabdatā is the usage of words with a good derivative meaning. The verse for illustration is 'Āśāmandalākulā mudvāhakathaih' etc.25

12. PREYAS :

Preyas is an excellence where most pleasing ideas are expressed. 'Dākṣinyam tvayi dakṣatā tvayi' etc.,26 is the illustration.

13. AURJITYA :

Aurjitya is an excellence where the composition is very closely knit. The verse - 'Kṣoṇirakṣanadakṣiṇaḥ' etc.,27 is the illustration.

14. SAMĀDHI :

Samādhi is the super imposition of qualities of an object on another. 'Prechanti dugdhasindhum' etc.,28 is the verse given as an illustration. Jagannātha presents it as the composition of compactness altering with the loose ones .29 Dandin presents this as the superimposition of the attributes of one upon the other,30 while Jayadeva considers as the charming expression that stirs the mind of the connoisseur with beatitude.31

138

15. VISTĀRA :

Vistara is an excellence where a statement made is supported by many facts. 'Lokeṣu triṣu Kākatīśvaraguṇān' 32 is the verse for illustration.

16. SAMMITATTVĀ :

'Sammitattava' is an excellence where the words are commensurate to the sense expressed.

'Kākatīyanarendrasyaḳirticandanacarcanam' etc., 33 is the verse for illustration.

17. GĀMBHĪRYA :

Gambhīra is an excellence where there is some suggestivity. The verse 'Visamkaukṣeyakegangā' etc., 34 is the illustration. Here it is suggested that lord Śaṅkara holds poison in throat, and the Ganges and the moon on the head.

18. SAṄKṢEPA :

Saṅkṣepa is the excellence where the ideas are briefly presented. 'Vamsostikākatīyānām' etc. 35 is the verse given for illustration.

19. SAUKṢMYA :

Saukṣmya is the excellence where the intended meaning is concealed. The example is 'Adhyadhaḥ pariṣamlisthāḥ' etc. 36 Here the sense of the words Adhitiṣṭhati, Adhahkaroti and Paribhavati is presented in a concealed manner.

20. PRAUDHI :

Praudhi is an excellence where there is maturity of expression. In the verse 'Vipsāpadmabhavasya Candramukuṭā' etc., 37 it is illustrated.

21. UKTI :

Ukti is an excellence where the expression has been dextrously 139

presented. 'Drstā Kamalāsakti rajnastava' etc., 38 is the illustration.

22. RĪTI :

Rīti is an excellence where the feature in the beginning is maintained throughout. 'Sadgunānsevate rāja' etc 39 is the verse that stands for illustration.

23. BHĀVIKA :

Bhāvika is an excellence where there is an expression out of fullness of feeling. 'Svāmimstātakulottamisa' etc. 40 is the verse for illustration.

24. GATI :

Gati is an excellence where there is beauty on account of ascendency and descendency of vowels. Where the vowels are in a lengthened form there is ascendency. If they are short there is descendency. 'Prakāśye trailokye'etc.,41 is the illustration.Many of the Ālańkārikas with the exception of scholars like Vāmana hold that these excellences like Ojas, Prasāda etc., pertain to the sense. 42 But according to the Ālańkārikas like Udbhata, these excellences are said to have the entire composition as their substratum. That is why it is said in the Alankārasarvasva, that Guṇas are the properties of both sound and sense while Alańkāras are the external embellishments of Poetry.43

In this way the distinction between the Guṇas and Alańkāras has been made. If the substratum is discarded there ceases to be any distinction between Guṇas and Alańkāras, as the function of Guṇas and Alańkāras is only to beautify poetry.

140

CHAPTER - VII

ŚABDĀLAŃKĀRA PRAKARANA

Now as the excellences are already dealt with, Alañkāras are to be explained. Vidyānātha gives the derivation of the word 'Alañkāra' as 'Alañkriyate anena iti carutvaheturalañkāraḥ' 1. The cause of poetic beauty i.e. the factors that beautify poetry are designated as Alañkāra. Writers like Vāmana and Mammaṭa have the same derivation to give for the word Alañkāra2.

The limbs of the body of poetry - sound and sense - are adorned by figures like Anuprāsa and Upamā. In the world, one finds ornaments embellishing the organs of a human body. Similar is the case with poetry too, where figures act as embellishing factors. According to Vidyānātha the division of figures as belonging to sound and sense is based on Aśrayāśrayibhāva. Though both excellences and figures of poetry are beautifying factors, the distinction between them is to be known by their substratum only. Vidyānātha, in the Kāvyaprakaraṇa mentions the excellences Śleṣa etc., as the attributes of the soul of poetry. Figures of speech, however, go to embellish sound and sense. The two statements - one referring to the excellences as the attributes of the composition and another as the attributes of the soul of poetry involve no self contradiction. According to Mammaṭa, excellences primarily residing in sentiments are also hold to be attributes of composition in a secondary way. Hence, the statements like 'Madhurā racana', 'ojasvi bandhaḥ' have to be taken as usages involving secondary function i.e., Lakṣaṇā.

According to Vidyānātha figures are of three types as those based on sound, sense and both. Again, they can be classified under four heads on a different basis. In some figures an idea is suggested while in others similarity is suggested. In the third case sentiments, moods etc., are suggested. In the last the suggested idea is not clear.

141

In the figures Samāsokti, Paryāyokti, Ākṣepa, Parikara, Vyājastuti, Upameyopama, Ananvaya, Atiśayokti, Aprastutapraśaṁsa, Anuktanimītta Viśeṣokti - the Vastu is suggested, where as in Rūpaka, Pariṇāma, Sandeha, Bhrāntimat, Ullekha, Apahnava, Utpreksā, Smaraṇa, Tulyayogita,Dīplaka, Prativastūpamā, Drṣṭānta, Sahokti, Vyatireka, Nidarśana, Śleṣa - the Aupamya itself is the beautifying factor of the poetry (Kavyopaskāra). In the figures like Rasavat, Preyas, Ūrjasvin, Samāhita, Bhāvodya, Bhāvasandhi, and Bhāvaśabalātā, there is the suggestion of sentiments and moods. In the figures Upamā, Vinokti, Arthāntaranyāsa, Virodha, Vibhāvana, Atadguṇa, Nimitta, Viśeṣokti, Viṣama, Sama, Citra, Adhika, Anyonya, Kāraṇamālā, Ekāvalī, Vyāghāta, Mālādipaka, Kāvyalinga, Anumāna, Sāra, Yathāsaṅkhya, Arthāpatti, Parisamkhyā, Vikalpa, Samuccaya, Samādhi, Pratyanīka, Pratīpa, Viśeṣa, Nimīlana, Sāmānya, Asangati, Tadguṇa, Atadguṇa, Vyajokti, Vakrokti, Svabhāvokti, Bhāvika and Udātta there is no suggested idea presented clearly that can please the connoisseur.

Figures could be classified under groups basing on Sādharmya, Virodha etc. The figure Sādharmya is again of three types as

1. One which has the difference as the main element,

2. One which has the non-difference as the main element, and

3. One which has got both the difference and nondifference as their chief elements.

The similarity that has been mentioned between Upamāna and Upameya is purely verbal and not factual.

Rūpaka,Pariṇama,Sandeha, Bhrāntimat, Ullekha, Apahnava are the figures that have identity (Abheda) as their principal characteristic and as such they belong to one group.

The Alaiṅkāras - Dīpaka, Tulyayogita, Nidarśana, Drṣṭānta, Prativastūpamā, Sahokti, Pratīpa and Vyatireka have the difference as their chief feature and hence these belong to the second group.

142

Upamā, Ananvaya, Upameyopamā, Smaraṇa have the common characteristic of Bhedābheda and so they come under the third group.

Upreksā and Atiśayokti have their base in Adhyavasāya and as such these two make a separate group. Vibhāvanā, Viśeṣokti, Viṣama, Citra, Asangati, Anyonya, Vyāghata, Atadguṇa and Viśeṣa, as they have conflict as the common basis come under separate group.

The figures Yathāsaṅkhya, Parisaṅkhya, Arthāpatti, Vikalpa and Samuccaya are based on Vākyanyāya. Therefore these form a sixth group.

Some figures have the world convention as their base. They are Parivrtti, Pratyanīka, Tadguṇa, Samādhi, Sama, Bhāvika, Svabhāvokti, Udātta and Vinokti, and as such they are classified as figures based on world convention and hence they come under the seventh group,

Kāvyaliṅga, Anumāna and Arthāntaranyāsālaṅkāras are-logic oriented and hence they make another group - the eighth.

Kāraṇamālā, Ekāvalī, Mālādīpaka and Sāra have the charm of forming into a chain and as such they comprise the ninth group.

The Alaṅkāras Vyājokti, Vakrokti and Mīlana have concealment as their basis and so they come under tenth.

The figures Samāsokti and parikara have the charm based on attributes as common factor. So they come under a different group, the eleventh.

Thus all the figures by virtue of their common features have been divided into eleven groups. Each group have some figures to its credit. Now the question may arise how these figures of the same group differ from the another though they have the same common factor. As an answer for this, some seventeen rules have been postulated that help us to discriminate the figures coming under the same group.

143

The two Alankāras that is Parināma and Rūpaka, though they have Āropa as their basis, differ from each other. In the figure Parināma the object super-imposed serves, the contextual purpose. In Rūpaka, however, it is not the case. In Ullekaha the form of the object super-imposed has relevance while in Rūpaka it is absent. When the object of superimposition is doubled the figure is Sandeha. If there is delusion in its apprehension, the figure is Bhrāntimat. If it is concealed the figure is Apahnava. So these three fctors with respect to the object of super-imposition are responsible for the above said three figures.

Though the figures Tulyayogitā, Dīpaka, Nidarśana, Vyatireka and Drṣṭānta have similarity as the common basis, the similarity in the figures Upamā, Ananvaya, and Upameyopamā is expressed while in the former it is suggested. Hence the difference. In Upameyopamā similarity is expressed while in Prativastūpamā it is suggested. So they differ. In prativasṭupamā there is Vastūpratīvaśubhāva while in Drṣṭānta Bimbapratibimbabhāva is present. In Tulyayogitā, the contextual and the non-contextual are dealt with separately, while in Dīpaka they are clubbed together. This makes the difference.

In the figure Upamā, the standard of comparision is well known, while in Utprekṣā it is not so. Hence the difference. The difference between Upamā and Śleṣa is that, while in Upamā there is similarity based on sense; in Śleṣa it is based on sound (word). In the figure Upamā, Upamāna and Upameya are distinctly different while in Ananvaya the same subject is chosen as both Upamāna and Upameya. The distinction between Upameyopamā and Upamā is this. In Upameyopamā the similarity is expressed in turn while in Upamā it is simultaneous. If the non-contextual, sense is expressed the figure is Aprastutapraśaṁsa. If it is suggested, it is a case of Samāsokti. In the figurè paryayokti both expressed and suggested senses are contextual. If the expressed sense is non-contextual, the figure is Aprastutapraśaṁsa. In the figure Anumāna, we find the factors Vyāpti, Pakṣadharmatā etc., while in Kāvyalinga they are absent. On account

of striking similarity if the distinciton between two objects cannot be known, the figure is Sāmānya. Mīlana occurs where an object of superior quality eclipses the one of inferior quality. Parisañkhyā and Udātta have this feature of distnciton. Where there is no intention of discriminating one object from the other, there the figure is Udātta. If such intention is there, it is Parisañkhyā.

If incidentlally another cause helps to expedite the production of an effect, the figure is Samādhi. If many causes enthusiastically come forward to complete an action, the second variety of Samuccaya is the figure.

Concealment whe' expressed, the figure is Apahnava, when suggested it is Vyājostuti. As regards other figures the distinction is clear and needs no mention.Though there is a faint similarity in Vyājokti, Mīlana and Sāmānya, as it is not considered to be conveyed, they are not inlcuded in figures based on similarity.

Out of the two constituents of the word Souund and sense, it is the sound that first attracts our attetion and as such, Vidyānātha first takes up the Śabdālaṅkāras with illustrations.

1. CHEKĀNUPRĀSA :

The repetition of the couplets of consonants without interval is called Chekanuprasa. In the illustrative verśe³ the repetition of the words 'Mahi', 'Kare', and 'Janya' make out a case for chekānuprāsa. Kumārasvāmin explains the term 'cheka' following the author of the Alaṅkārasarvasva. Anuprāsa means the skilled employment of letters that are conducive to sentiments and those who are aware of the sweetness of the words are known as Chekas (scholars).

2. VRTTYANUPRĀSA :

When there is repetition of consonants only, once, twice, or thrice, it is a case of Vṛttyanuprasa. This is, however, different from

Chekānuprāsa as there is no restriction that couplets of consonants should be repeated without interval. Here, by the word 'Vṛtti' the styles Vaidarbhī etc., are intended to be taken. As this figure has the characteristics of those styles it is designated as such. In the verse given as an illustration4 the consonant 'Kṣa' occurs fourteen times, and thus it is a case of Vṛttyanuprāsa.

3. YAMAKA :

The recurrence of consonants with the vowels is designated as Yamaka. In Cheka and Vṛtti the recurrence of vowels is simply accidental. This could be of various types like Adiyamaka, Madhyayamaka and Antyayamaka etc. In the illustrative verse5 the word 'Mahāmahimatejasah' occurs at the end of first and second foot. So the example may be considered as an illustration of Antyayamaka.

This is a figure where there is an apparent congition of the sense being repeated. Udbhata is said to be the first author for treating this as an Alaṅkāra. There is a controversy whether this figure is to be designated as Śabdālaṅkāra or Arthālaṅkāra. Udbhata considers it as Śabdālaṅkāra6 while Ruyyaka opines it as an Arthālaṅkāra7. Mammata, on the otherhand, considers it as Ubhayālaṅkāra8. However, Vidyānātha resorts to the view of Udbhata in considering this as Śabdālaṅkāra.

5. LĀTĀNUPRĀSA :

If there is repetition of sound and sense with a difference in the intention, it is a case of Lātānuprāsa. In Punaruktavadābhāsa there is an illusion of redundance of sound. Here, however, the illusion of redundance of both sound and sense is present.

'Guṇāguṇāste ganyante ye rudrairpamāśritah. I Niṣiṅkhitasau tasya lakṣmīlakṣmiṣṭa Kāthyāṭe'9 II

This verse illustrates this figure. Here the words 'guṇa' 'Niti',

146

'Lakṣmī' have been repated. The second member in the repetition stands for qualities of a superior type. Thus, as there is the differnce of purport, it is a case of Lāṭānuprāsa. Kumārasvāmin says that this is also of two types based on stem (prātipadika) and word (pada). As such, where there is difference of Vibhakti in cases like 'Abjapatranayanānimilya', Lāṭānuprāsa is acceptable. Here a doubt may arise:

In the illustration given for Ananvayalankara - 'Rāmarāvanaʿyoryudadham Rāmarāvaṇayoriva', the definition given for Lāṭānuprāsa may apply as there is redundance of both sound and sense. This doubt, however, can be cleared thus: In Ananvayālankāra the main stress is on the redundance of sense, rather than of sound. Still, in order to avoid the defect "Apakrama" the sound is also repated. This, however, is not compulsory. Hence, in Ananvaya, the redundance of sense is essnential where in Lāṭa the redundance of both sound and sense is important. So there is no over lapping of one figure on the other.

Ananvayeca sādaikyamaucityādānusaṅgikam I Asmimstu lāṭānuprāse sāksādeva prayojakam 10 II

CITRĀLAṄKĀRAS

When the letters of a particular verse can be arranged in such a way that they form into designs like Lotus, wheel etc., it is called Citrālaṅkāra. Here Kumārasvāmin, adds that though letters are of form of sound, being perceived only by the ear, how is it possible to say that they form into different shapes like lotus etc. The answer given is that though letters are of the form of sound they bring to our mind the forms of different designs like lotus. Such letters only are meant here. Vidyānātha illustrates different types of designs lotus, wheel and serpent. In this connection Kumārasvāmin quotes verses that describe the details related to different designs.

CHAPTER - VIII

ARTHĀLAṄKĀRAPRAKARAṄA

1. UPAMĀ :

After the discussion of the figures that are based on sound, the

figures based on sense are to be explained. Upamālaṅkāra enjoys

prominence on account of its being the basis of many figures.

Kumārasvāmin observes that in some cases the similarity is expressed

as in the case of figures like Pratīpa. In other cases it is suggested as

in the case of figures like Rūpaka.

Vidyānātha explains that the Upamāna should be something

present in the world. The comparison between Upamāna and

Upameya should be charming and is generally based on either Guṇa

or Kriya. Vidyānātha reads the definition as follows:

Svatassiddhena bhinnena sammatena ca dharmatah |

Samyamanyenavarnasya vācyamcedekadopamā 1 II

In this definition all the clauses (dalas) are apt. Here the main idea

is the comparison of the contextual (Prakṛta) with the non-contextual

(Aprakṛta). The remaining clauses defend the definition from the

blemishes of over pervasion, less pervasion and non-applicability.

Here, the significance of each clause in the definition is examined.

The first clause is - "Svatassiddha'. By the employment of this clause the

figure Upreksa is eliminated. If this clause is not employed, the

definition given for Upamā becomes applicable to Utprakṣa also.

"Kṛtīḥkātiṿirudraṇṛpatesṣimhāsanādhyāsinah

Prācām bhūmibhujaṃiyasāḥ pidadhatī koṭīndutulyadyutīḥ |

Raksāḍakṣinarājalābhanitāmandāpramodottahītā

148

Trailokyāttahāsaprabheva kakubhām prāntesu vidyotate 2 II

Here, the fame of Pratāparudra is the Upameya and is contextual (Prastuta). As it has been fancied as the laughter of the three worlds it could have been a case for Simile. So, the clause ‘svatassidhena’ has to be employed in the definition. Here the laughter of the three worlds is something fancied by the poet and is not present in the world.

The second clause "bhinnena" excludes the figure Ananvaya from the purview of the definition.

‘Santu loke suvarnadriratnākarasudhākarāḥ I

Tathāpi vīrarudroyam vīrarudra iva svayam’ 3 II

This is an example for Ananvaya only as Upamāna and Upameya happen to be the same. By the word "Sammatena" there is exclusion of defective comparisions. Vidyānātha illustrates how a pleasing similiarity can be. The verse ‘Udanvāniva’ etc., presents comparison of a delectable type.The fourth clause ‘Dharmataḥ’ excludes the figure Śleṣa.

‘nirājajantyandhrapurīramanīyaḥ pradīpajalairvaravīrarudram|

Candrānananā gotrapatim rajanyastarāganairmerumiva sphuradbhih’4 II

Here, it is said that the ladies of the city are giving Nirājana to Pratāparudra with the help of big lights as nights offer the same to the mountain 'Meru' with groups of stars. The word 'gotra' has two senses to convey, one dynasty and the other mountain. The compound 'Candrānananā'can be split in two ways. 1. Candra iva ānanam yāsantāḥ'and 2. Candra eva ānanam yāsantāḥ'.Here, there is verbal similarity and not the one based on quality or action. Hence it is a case of Śleṣa.

1.49

By the fifth clause 'anyena varnyasya sāmyam' the figure Pratīpa is excluded. In the illustrative verse the mountain 'Meru' which is non contextual has been compared with Pratāparudra who is contextual and as such, it is a case of the figure pratīpa and not of Upamā. If this fifth clause is not employed, the above verse would have been treated as s case of Upamā. To avoid such a contingency, Vidyānātha employed this clause and avoided the defect of overpervasion for the definition.

The sixth clause 'Ekadāsamya' helps in avoiding the figure Upameyopamā.

'Dharmo'rtha iva pūrṇasrīrarathe dharma iva sthitah | Kāmas tāviva tau kāma iva rudranareśvare' 5 II

This is an example for the figure 'Upameyopamā' as there is comparison mentioned more than once in the case of Dharma, Artha and Kāma. If this clause is not included in the definition, it would have been nòt possible to exclude the figure 'Upameyopamā'.

The last and the seventh clause employed is 'Vācya' which means that the similarity should be expressed. The figures Rūpaka, Sandeha, Bhrāntimat, Ullekha, Apahnava, Tulyayogitā, Dīpaka, Prativastūpamā, Drṣṭānta, Sahokti, Vyatireka and Nidarśana have suggested similarity. So they are excluded from the purview of this definition. The author then takes up verses that illustrate the figures Rūpaka, Sandeha, Bharāntimat, Ullekha and Apahnava and shows how the employment of this clause restricts such figures getting into the fold of the definition of the figure 'Upamā'.

Broadly speaking, the figure 'Upamā' is of two types namely 'Pūrṇopamā' and 'Luptopamā'. 'Pūrṇopamā' has four constituents, 'Upamāna', 'Upameya', Sādharāṇadharma and Sādrśyavācaka.

150

The absence of any one, two or three of the above four constitutents is designated as Luptopamā. Pūrṇopamā is again of two types Śrauti and Ārthi. The usage of words that suggest the comparison like Yathā, Iva etc., makes for Śrauti. Ārthi, however, occurs where there is the employment of words that indirectly convey similarity like Sadrśa, Saṅkāśa, Nikaśa and Pratikāśa. Again, Pūrṇopamā is of six types as the above mentioned two types become six basing on the factors sentence, compound and the suffix Taddhita.

Luptopamā is of nineteen types. The explanation and illustration of these types will be taken up after dealing with the varieties of Pūrṇopamā.

The suffix 'Vat' can be used in two senses. The first occurs in the sense of the possessor of similarity (Sadrśa) according to the sutra 'Tena tulyam kriyacedvatih'6. The other in the sense of similarity7. The employment of the suffix 'Vat' in the sense of 'Iva' makes the Śrauti while the same suffix employed in the sense of 'Sadrśa' brings in Ārthi type. When the suffix 'Vat is used in the sense of 'Sādṛśya' there can be no construabilty of sense unless the common characteristic is expressed. Therefore, in Luptopamā there can be no 'anuktadharma' and Taddhitagatā śrauti. If the suffixes 'Kalpap' and 'Deśīyar' are employed in the meaning of a 'little less' they indirectly convey similarity and hence the variety of Upamā that occurs is Ārthi. The six varieties of 'Pūrṇopamā' have been explained and illustrated as follows:

1. Vākyagāpūrṇa Śrauti :

In the verse given as an example,8 the four factors Upamāna, Upameya, Sādharandharma and Upamāvācaka have been employed. The term 'Yathā' which directly expresses similarity is also employed. Since this has not been compounded with any other word the Upamā here, is based on a sentence. So this is an apt illustration

for

'Vākyagāpūrṇaśrautī

upamā'

.

Samāsagāpūrṇā

śrautī

:

In

the

verse

given

as

an

example

9

for

this

type

the

Sun

who

is

seated

on

the

east

mountain

is

Upamāna

where

as

Virarudra

who

is

seated

on

throne

is

Upameya.

The

lustre

is

the

common

characteristic

while

'Iva'

is

the

sādrśyavācaka.

'Bhāsvāniva'

is

taken

as

a

compound

in

the

light

of

the

Vārtika

'Ivenasamāso

vibhaktayālopasca

purvapadaprakṛti

svartvamca'

This

explanation

is

supplied

by

Kumārasvāmin

in

his

learned

commentary.

10

Taddhitagāpūrṇa

śrautī

:

Here

in

the

illustrative

verse11

the

suffix

'Vat'

which

expresses

similarity

is

employed

in

the

sense

of

'Iva'

in

accordance

with

the

aphorism

'Tatra

tasyeva'.

The

words

like

tortoise

are

Upamāna,

the

shoulder

of

Pratāparudra

is

Upameya,

capability

to

bear

the

burden

is

the

common

characteristic,

'Vat'

being

Vācaka,

it

is

a

case

of

'Taddhitagā

pūrṇā

śrauti'.

Vākyagāpūrṇā

Ārthī

:

In

the

illustrative

verse12

Dāśarathi

is

Upamāna,

Pratāparudra

is

Upameya,

pleasing

the

people

is

the

common

characteristic

and

the

term

'Samāna'

which

indirectly

conveys

similarity

have

been

employed.

Hence

this

is

a

case

of

Vākyagāpūrṇā

Ārthī.

Samāsagāpūrṇā

Ārthī

:

In

the

illustrative

verse

13

for

this

type,

the

ruler

of

the

cardinal

point

is

Upamāna,

the

king

of

the

Kākaṭi

kingdom

is

Upameya,

ideal

rule

is

the

common

characteristic

and

the

term

Sañkāśa

is

the

Vācaka.

Thus,

it

is

a

full

simile.

'Haridiśvara

Sañkāśah'

shows

that

it

is

in

a

compound.

As

the

word

Sañkāśaḥ

is

a

member

of

the

compound

it

is

a

case

of

152

'Samāsagāpūrṇā'.

6. Taddhitagā pūrṇā Arthī :

In the verse given as an example 14 for this type, it is said that Pratāparudra is equal to the mountain 'Meru' in greatness. In his valour he is like the Sun. In depth, he is like the milky ocean. The mountain 'Meru', the milky ocean and the Sun are Upamānas where as Pratāparudra is Upameya, greatness, valour and depth are the common characteristics. Here, the suffix employed is 'Vat' which is a Taddhita suffix.

Of the Ālańkārikas, who have spoken different varieties of Upamā, Udbhata is the first writer to show the divisions based on the peculiarities of grammar. The writers that followed him have not shown these varieties. It is Vidyānātha who revived the method of Udbhata by illustrating each of the varieties based on grammatical peculiarities.

Now, Vidyānātha illustrates the different varieties in Luptopamā as follows :In the example given for 'Anuktadharma Vākyagā śruti.luptā', 15 people are Upameya. Cakravāka birds etc., are Upmāna, the word Yathā is Vācaka. As the common characteristics Pratāpa, Āhlāda and Sārasya are not expressed it is Anuktadharma. It is to be observed here that the remark of Kumārasvāmisomapithin stands in the way of proper understanding of the verse. It would be easy if the common characteristic is taken as 'taking delight'. In the second variety, Anuktadharmasamāsagā śrautīluptā the foot stool of Pratāparudra is said to be the Upameya and the diety is Upamāna. Iva is vācaka. Here the common characteristic is absent. So it is a case of Dharmaluptā. In the third, the sound of the battle drum is Upameya where as the sound of the thunderbolt is Upamāna. The word Tulya is Vācaka. By the word 'Tulya' the suggestion of being ferocious is meant, but it is not expressed and so it is a case of Anuktadharma. As

153

there is the word 'Tulya' as Sadrśavācaka it is Ārthī. As it is not in a compounded it is Vākyagā. Hence it is a case of Anuktadharma Vakyagārthīluptā. In the fourth, the absence of common characteristic makes it a case of Dharmaluptā. As the Vācaka Sadrśa is a member of the compound it is Samasagatā and the employment of common characteristic makes it Ārthī. Here the Upamāna is the town Alakā. The Upameya is the town Ekāśilā. Hence it is a case of Anukatadharma Samāsagārthi luptā. In the fifth the common chacteristic is absent. So it becomes Anuktadharma. Here the form of Pratāparudra is the Upameya and Cupid is the Upamāna. The employment of the suffix 'Kalpap' is Taddhita and hence it is Taddhitagā Ārthī. So, it is a case of Anuktadharma Taddhitagā Ārthi luptā.

In the sixth as both the common characteristic as well as the Sādrśyavācaka are not expressed it is a case of Luptopamā. Here ocean is the Upameya and milky-ocean is the Upamāna. The common characteristic whiteness is not mentioned. The particle 'iva' too is absent. Hence this is a case of Anuktadharmevādih karma kyacā luptā. In the seventh the Sādrśyavācaka is included in the suffix 'Kyac'. Here the Upameya is Gotra mountain and the hill for play is the Upamāna. Hence it is a case of Anukta karmevādihādhārakyacā luptā. In the eighth both the common characteristic and the term expressing similarity are absent while the latter is concealed in the suffix 'namul'. Here the moon is the Upameya and the sun is the Upamāna. Hence this is a case of Anuktadharmevādih Karmanamulā luptā. Coming to the ninth the term expressing similarity is absent in view of the usage of the suffix namul. Similarly the Common characteristic is also absent. Here the sword of Pratāparudra is the Upameya and the punishing rod etc., is the Upamāna. Hence this is a case of Anuktadharmevādih Kartrnamulā lupta. In the tenth the other items being common there is the employment of the suffix 'Kvip'. The moon light like qualities of Pratāparudra is the Upameya and the flow

of ambrosia etc., is the Upamāna. Hence, this is a case of Anuktadharmevādih Kvipā luptā.

In the eleventh, similarity, the term expressing similarity and the Upameya are absent. The Upameya and the term expressing similarity get elided on account of grammatical implications involved in the employment of the suffix 'Kyac'. Here the form of fame which is in accusative is the Upameya. Jyotsnā in the accusative is the Upamāna. Hence it is a case of Anuktadharmevādih Kartryacā luptā.

In the twelfth three are absent and these three are to be known through 'Kyan'. Here the hands of Pratāparudra are the Upameya and the serpent Śeṣa is the Upamāna. Hence this is a case of Anuktadharmevādih Kartr Kyanā lupta. In the thirteenth Upamāna only is absent. In the illustration 'Vadānyo nānyosti' etc.,16 there is the denial of Upamāna alone. The term Sama expressing similarity is not in a compound. Hence this is a case of Anuktopamāna Vākyagā lupta.

In the fourteenth variety there is the employement of the term expressing similarity in a compound and as in the above case there is elision ofthe Upamāna. In the verse illustrated 'Vīrarudra samo rāja'etc.,17 it is said that there is no other king comparable to Pratāparudra. Thus there is elision of Upamāna. So this is a case of Anuktopamānāsamāsagā luptā.

In the fifteenth both the common characteristic and the Upamāna are not expressed. In the verse 'Loke Kākati Vīrarudranipateh18 etc., it is said that there is nothing in the world that equals the fame of Pratāparudra. Thus there is the elision of Upamāna and also there is no mention about the common characteristic. Hence this is a case of Anuktadharmaupamāna vākyagā luptā.

While illustrating the sixteenth variety Vidyānātha composes the verse 'Pratāpasritulyath' etc.19. One finds the elision of the common characteristic and the Upamāna. Since the word that conveys similarity is in the compound it is a case of samasagā luptā. So this is a case of 'Anuktadharmaupamāna samasagā luptā'. In the seventeenth,

155

the term expressing similarity is absent. In the verse

'Asatāmusnabhānusnam' etc.20 there is deletion of the term that

conveys similarity. Hence this is a case of Anuktevādih samasagā

luptā. In eighteenth, the verse illustrated in 'Kākatīndra raṇe bhāti'21

etc. Here is the deletion of the common characteristic, the term that

conveys similarity and Upamāna. Hence this is a case of

Anuktadharmevādyupamāna samāsagā luptā.

The common characteristic is of two kinds. Sometimes it is

mentioned only once as related to Upamāna and Upameya, or it may

be mentioned separate as belonging to them. When there is separate

mention there can be Vastuprativastubhāva or Bimbapratibimbabhāva.

When thecommon characteristic is expressed by two different terms it

is 'Vastuprativastubhāva'. If two characteristics are expressed by two

different terms it is Bimbapratibimbabhāva. The first variety where the

common characteristic is employed only once is illustrated in the verse-

'Nipah pranatamūrdhānāḥ' etc.22 Here in the case of kings and

disciples, the common characteristic 'with bent down heads' is employed

only once. Similarly in the case of the king and the precepter, the

common characteristic is disciplining the indisciplined.

In the verse "Vamśo'yaṃ kākatīyānāṃ etc.,23 the

Vastuprativastubhāva is illustrated. Here the two terms Bhūṣita and

Pariskrta convey the same idea. Hence it is an instance of

Vastuprativastubhāva. As regards Bimbapratibimbabhāva the

illustrated verse is 'Sphurat svetapatraśrīḥ' etc.24 Here there is

similarity between the disc of the moon and the white umbrella. This

similarity brings about the similarity between the king of the Kākatī

dynasty and the golden mountain. Hence this is a case of

Bimbapratibimbabhava. The figure Upamā is again of two types :

1. That deals with all aspects.

156

2. That applies only in a particular aspect.

The verse 'Vibhatibhūrdyauriva' etc.25 the first variety is illustrated.

In the verse 'Dvipaiścaradbhih' etc.,26 the second variety is illustrated.

Here the idea that the army is like the ocean is known though un-

expressed. This figure is also seen in the series.

The verse 'Kundati Kumudati' etc.,27 there are many Upamānas for a single Upameya.

In the figure Upama the similarity is even as it is based on

'Bhedābhedasādharana'. Other varieties whch are not mentioned

here, may also be known.

2. ANANVAYA :

The figure Ananvaya occurs where the same object is treated as

both Upamāna and Upameya. This is done with a view to convey that

there is no other object comparable to the one under context.

The verse 'Vīrarudroyam vīrarudra iva svayam' etc.28 is the illustration

given.

Here Vīrarudrā is both Upamāna and Upameya. Hence it results

that there is no other person comparable to him.

3. UPAMEYOPAMĀ :

When two things are alternately dealt with as Upamāna and

Upameya, the figure is Upameyopamā.

In the figure Ananvaya,

Upamanopameyabhāva is experessed in a single sentence where as

in this figure it resorts to two separate sentences.

The example which has already been given under upama is follows : 'Dharmo'rtha iva

pūrnaśriḥ'etc. Here Dharma and Artha are alternately treated as the

Upamāna and the Upameya.

4. SMARANA :

Among the figures which are based on

'Bhedabhedasādharāṇasādharmya', the last is Smarāṇālankāra. When a particular thing is experienced, the recollection of a thing similar to it constitute the figure Smaraṇa.In the verse given as an example 'Rajnā pratāparudreṇa' etc., it is stated that the people in the reign of Pratāparudra recollected the great kings Hariścandra, Nala etc., Rudrata is said to be the first Ālaṅkārīka to define this figure. Mammata and Viśvanātha define Smaraṇa as the recollection of a particular object when a similar one is seen.29 Kumārasvāmin observes that this figure has no place in cases where the recollection is not based on similarity. Hence, in the verse 'Atrānugodamṛgaya nivṛttah' etc.,30 does not illustrate the figure Smaraṇa.

5. RŪPAKA :

There are some figures here based on super-imposition. Rūpaka is the first amongst them.The definition of Rūpaka given Vidyānātha is as follows :

'Aropavisayasya syādatirohitarūpiṇaḥ I

Uparañjakamāropyamānāṁ tadrūpakammatam' 31 II

Here in the definition, by virtue of the word 'Aropyavisayasa' there is exclusion of Upreksā which is based on Adhyavasāya. Upamā also differs from Rūpakā because there is no super imposition. By the word 'atirohitarūpa' there is the exclusion of such figures like Sandeha, Bhrāntimat, Apahnuti etc. In Sandeha the Viṣaya on account of its being the object of doubt, gets eclipsed. In the figure Bhrāntimat also there is the eclipse of the Viṣaya by Bhrānti or delusion. In the figure Aphahnuti too, on account of concealment, there is the eclipse of the Viṣaya. The word Uparañjaka helps the exclusion of the figure Pariṇāma. In Pariṇāma the Viṣayi is only useful in the context, but it does not serve as Uparañjaka. Hence, the difference. In the conclusion Rūpaka is different from all other figures

158

based on similarity and super-imposition.

The figure Rūpaka is of eight kinds. First, it is of three types - Sāvayava, Niravayava and Pāramparita. Sāvayavarūpaka is again of two kinds Samastavastuvisaya and Ekadeśavarti. Niravayava too is of two types Kevalā and Malā. Pāramparita is also of two types that involve Śleṣa and that does not involve Śleṣa. These two varieties again become four as based on Kevalā and Malā. Thus all the varieties put together become eight. Super-imposition is the process where the characteristic of one object is attributed to another.

'To illustrate the first variety, Vidyānātha quotes the verse 'Yatprāvrsi vīrarudranṛpateḥ' etc.32 Here 'Yaśaḥ kandalaḥ' is the 'aṅgirūpaka' and the rest are 'aṅgarūpakas'. Hence this is an illustration for Samastavastuvisaya.

The second type is illustrated in the verse 'Prāsādhitāśāvalayāntarālā' etc.33 Here, there is super-imposition of flowers on the qualities of Pratāparudra. The Rūpaka related to the king and the 'Kalpa' tree is suggested. Hence, this is Ekadeśavivarti Rūpaka.

The third variety is illustrated in the verse 'Yaträmbhavijjṛmbhamānā' etc.34 Here there is only avayava Rūpaka where there is a super imposition of cauldron on the Rodas.

The fourth variety i.e., 'Malāniravayava' is illustrated in the verse 'Rajnāṃ maulivibhūṣaṇa sragamalā' etc.35 Here there is a series of metaphors unconnected and independent.

The next variety 'Pāramparita' is illustrated in the verse 'Pratāparudradevasya' etc.36 Since the word 'Rajamandala' is Ślista it is a case of Ślista pāramparita. The same in series is illustrated in the verse 'Padmollāsa sahasrabhānu' etc.37 This variety is seen even without Śleṣa. To illustrate Aślisṭakevalapāramparita. 'Kākatīyasya

159

dugdhābdheḥ etc.38 is the verse given.' Again series of the same is seen

illustrated in the verse 'Dorasivisajihvayā' etc.39 This

Aślisṭamālāparamparita variety is also possible with dissimilar

characteristics. For instance, in the verse 'Trāsānādhakāramadhyahna

etc.40., opposite factors like Andhakāra, and Madhyāhna have been

employed.Thus the eight varieties of Rūpaka have been illustrated and

explained. These eight varieties become sixteen when based on a

sentence or a compound.

6. PARINĀMA :

Parināma is the figure where the super-imposed object incapable

of accomplishing the desired action, takes the form of the contextual

object.It is to be noted that the earlier Ālaṅkarikas fail to define this

figure. It is also note worthy that Viśvanātha the contemporary of

Vidyanātha defines Parināma.41 This Parināma is of two types based

on the factors 'Sāmānādhikaranya' and 'Vaiyadhikaranya'. In the

verse 'Saśvat Prasādhana' etc.,42 the words expressing both Viṣaya

and Viṣayī have the same case ending. Hence, this verse illustrates the

first type of Parināma. As regards the second Vidyānātha presents the

verse

'Kiriṭamāṇikyamayūkha-jālaiḥ etc.43

Here the word conveying Viṣayi carries accusative singular suffix

while that of the Viṣaya carries instrumental plural suffix. Thus it is a

case of Vaiyadhikaranya parināma.

In the figure Samasokti, though the super-imposed idea is useful

in the contextual action, it is different from Parināma as in Samasokti

it is suggested and not expressed.

7. SANDEHA :

When the Upamāna and the Upameya become a matter of doubt

on account of similarity, the figure is Sandeha. In the treatment of the

figure sandeha there is a close resemblence of the concept between

Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha.44 There is the difference in nomenclature

between Vidyānātha and Bhoja as the latter calls it as Vitarka. While

Bhāmha is `silent Dandin includes this figure under comparison.

Mammata, however defines that Sandeha occurs in both the cases

whether the difference between Upamāna and Upameya

is expressed45 or not. According to both Viśvanātha and Vidyānātha

the figure Sandeha is of three types i. Śuddha, ii. Niścayagarbha and

iii. Niscayānta.

Where simple doubt without any conclusion has been described,

it is Śuddha, the verse `Kimeṣā navamo haritpatih' etc., is the

illustration. Where certainty has been concealed and not expressed,

there it is Niścayagarbha. `Kalahikkimayam'etc.,46 is the verse given

in this connection as an illustration. Where there is culmination in

definiteness the third variety of Sandeha occurs `Kim

Kalpadrumamañjarīśraja ime' etc.47 is the illustration given.

8. BHARĀNTIMAT :

When the Upameya becomes eclipsed by Upamāna due to

similarity the figure is Bhrāntiman. The similarity should be acceptable

to the connoiseur. Thus the illusions like silver in oyster and the serpent

in a rope are excluded because in such places the similarity is not

acceptable to poets and connoisseurs. The difference between the

Rūpaka and the Bhrāntimat is evident as the comparison in the Rūpaka

is intentional. One may infer that Dandin's Mahopama is nothing but

the Bhrāntiman through his illustration.48 In the illustrated verse it is

observed that all pervasive fame of Pratāparudra has been mistaken

as the moon light by the Cakora birds.

9. APAHNAVA :

On account of similarity if the Viṣaya is negated as such and another is super-imposed in its place, the figure is Apahnuti. It is of three types.

i. Concealment and then superimposition.

ii. First superimposition and then concealment.

iii. The employment of words like "Chala" etc., in order to express falsification.

Vidyānātha closely follows Ruyyaka in defining Aphnuti as having three varieties .49 On the other hand, neither Dandin nor Viśvanātha speak of the three aspects of this figure.50 'Uvelacaturaṇavirṛkṣatakalāh etc.,51 is the verse where in the first two varieties are illustrated. For the third variety 'Sarvamkākativīraradradharapī etc.,52 is shown as an example.

10. ULLEKHA :

When a single object is viewed differently either for a certain purpose or poetic fancy or Śleṣa, the figure is Ullekha. In the example given for the poetic fancy 53 the capital of Virarudra has been taken as the dwelling of lords like Śrinivāsa by different kings according to their own taste. In the second type 54 the king of Kākati.has been described in various ways by various poets through Śleṣa.

11. UTPREKṢĀ :

Utpreksā is the figure based on Adhyavasāya. This Adhyavasāya is of two types :

i. Where the Viṣayī has been concealed and

ii. Where the Viṣaya has been concealed.

Utprekṣā is the figure where one object on account of some characteristics related to another is fancied as that object. Again, it is of two kinds as expressed and suggested. Where terms like Nūnam, (Dhruvam), Prāyah etc., that express fancy are employed, it is a case of expressed figure. Where the above have not been employed the figure is said to be suggested. Basing on species, activity, quality and matter (Jāti, Kriya, Guṇa and Dravya) it is again of four kinds. Again on the criteria of existence and non-existence, it becomes eight fold. These eight varieties become sixteen when quality and action have been chosen as the cause for fancying. When it is suggested, it is expressed. In the suggested figure, however, these two figures fail to occur as the figure becomes supportless on account of non-employment of 'iva' etc., and the cause. Similarly species, action, quality and matter can individually be dealt with in three ways :

i. in its own form

ii. as a cause, and

iii. as the fruit.

Thus the figure comes to have many varieties. In the figure expressed, when cause or fruit has been fancied, the means of fancying should necessarily be employed. If the fruit has not been mentioned, simple mention of the means is not easily understood. Similarly, when the means fail to be mentioned, employment of fruit also becomes unintelligible. This is because both are so closely interrelated. In Hetūtprekṣā, the fruit is the means. If it is not employed, the fancying of the cause becomes meaningless. In the case of Phalotprekṣā the means is the cause and if it is not employed it also becomes confusing. Kumārasvāmin calculates the number of varieties to be ninetysix.

Now, Vidyānātha goes to illustrate different varieties of Utprekṣā. In the verse 'Prataparudra nrpateraparo kīrtisāgare etc.'55 the means

is submerging and the cause submitted is contact with the notoriety of the bad kings. In another illustration 'Jayasrīvāsapadmasya'etc.,56 the means is the entrance of the Sun in the sword of the king. The fruit is to make the lotus blossom. Both these factors require to be mentioned, as without them, the body of the figure becomes in comprehensible. So, only in Svarūpotpreksā, we have two varieties basing on the employment and non-employment of the means. Thus Vidyānātha arrives at fourteen varieties of the figure when it is expressed. Similarly Jātyutpreksā also has fourteen varieties. Those based on quality, action and matter also have similar varieties. Thus, summing up, there arise fiftysix varieties in the expressed figure. In the figure suggested, however, there can be only forty two varieties.

In Svarūpotpreksā, however, since the means has necessarily to be mentioned, there is scope only for one variety. Earlier writers, however,accept quality and action (Guna and Kriya) as menas and object in the figure.

Though ninetysix varieties have been mentioned, only fiftysix of them have charm. Here follows the illustration of some of the varieties. To illustrate 'Upāttagunanimittajātibhāvasvarūpotpreksā',Vidyānātha composes the verse 'Kirtịh Kākatī vīra rudranpateh' etc.57 Here the word 'Prabhā' expresses the species. Here one can not speak of Upamā since the laughter of the three worlds is a poetical fancy and is not real.

The verse 'Vīrasya rudranrpateḥ priyavallabhasyaetc.,58 illustrates the variety 'Upāttakriyānimittajāti bhāva svrūpotpreksā'. Here the horripulation is fancied. To be pleased is the means. The verse 'Pratāparudrasya nakhendukāntịh' etc.,59 illustrates the variety 'Anupāttanimittajāti bhāva svarūpotpreksā'. Here, in the statement 'dipikeva' the word 'dipikā' stands for species and it is fancied.

To illustrate the variety 'Upāttagunanimittajātyabhāva svarūpotpreksā', Vidyānātha gives the verse 'Pratāparudrasya gunāmrtormidhauta' etc.60 The figure is suggested here as there is no word expressing fancy. The variety 'Anupāttanimita jātyabhāva svarūpotpreksā' is seen illustrated in the verse 'Disamjeturviśaprasrtamahaso' etc.61 Here the statement 'asūryam' shows that it is a case of absence of species.

Next, 'Udāraratityā bhujayā pratāparudrasya' etc.,62 illustrates 'Jātihetūtpreksā.' Here, the species, has been chosen as the cause of fancying. Another variety 'Jatyabhāva hetūtpreksā' is illustrated by the verse 'Bhūmerakalpavṛksatvāditidhātā' etc.63 Here, the absence of 'Kalpa' tree shows that the absence of its species has been chosen as a cause.The same species has been chosen as a cause. The same species has been fancied as the fruit in the verse 'Nunam viśvambharādhāra' etc.64 Here the statement 'stambhibhavitum' shows that the species is chosen as the fruit. The absence of species is sometimes chosen as the fruit. This is seen illustrated in the verse 'Pasūnavadhyānālokya'65 etc. Here the absence of manliness is chosen as the fruit. Now, 'Kriyāsvarūpotpreksā' is seen illustrated in the verse 'Srikākatiayantpaterdvisadainganānām' etc.66 Here 'pratyuttaranidadatīva' shows that it is a case of 'Kriyāsvarūpotpreksā' Sometimes the absence of action becomes the object of fancying. In the verse 'Vimukhesati Kākatikṣitinate' etc.,67 the absence of offer as expressed by the term 'ādadānām' is fancied. Again, the verse 'Rājñām garvānkurod bhedah' etc.,68 has the action as its cause for fancying. The verse 'Kapolaphalakāvasyāḥ Katham bhūtvā' etc,69 illustrates the variety Kriyāhetvābhāvotpreksā. In the verse 'Dambholisamrambhūa mahājigopah.' 70 etc., the action has been fancied as the fruit. The absence of action, too sometimes is chosen as the fruit of fancying. In the verse 'Simādrikunjesu vihārabhājah' etc.,71 the statement 'asamprastumiva' shows Kriyābhava or actionlessness.

165

Now the varieties, based on qualities are illustrated. In the verse,

'Cakāsti Kākatīndrasya Kṛpālokanavibhramaḥ' etc.72 Prasada or

grace which is a quality is fancied. In the verse 'Pratāparudrasya

mahābhiṣeka' etc.,73 the absence of quality is fancied. In the verse

'Jayaśrīyāmā śrayatāmupetaḥ' etc.,74 a quality has been fancied as

the cause. In the statement 'asyaeva' the quality jealousy is chosen as

the cause for fancying. The verse 'Jātāvayam samprati' etc.,75

illustrates the same. Here, the statement 'apramodādiva' shows that

the absence of 'pramoda' is chosen as a cause. We find quality

sometimes is fancied as the fruit. In the verse 'Āśisām viṣadhūmrānām'

etc.76 purity which is a quality is fancied as the fruit. In the verse

'Armyavāsāritabāndhavāsu' etc.,77 the absence of a quality is fancied

as the fruit. Here, the absence of rivalry is chosen as the fruit. The verse

'Nanītyamasmin paripūrṇatetī' etc.,78 illustrates the variety

Dravyasvarūpotprekṣā. Here, the moon is Dravya. In the following

verse 'Ananyasādhāraṇadānasaunde' etc.,79 the absence of Dravya is

fancied. In this verse the heaven is fancied as not having the tree

Pārijata. The same Dravya sometimes is chosen as the cause. In the

verse 'Pratāparudradevana Kṣmābhṛtpakṣa' etc.,80 the statement

'apareṇeva vajriṇā' shows that Dravya has been chosen as the cause.

In the following verse 'Kākatīyapratapoṣma vilīnāṅgena meruṇā'

etc.,81 the absence of Dravya is fancied as the cause. Sometimes, we

find Dravuya as the fruit in fancying. In the verse 'Dugdhārnava

śatāyeva' etc.,82 Dravya has been chosen as the fruit. Sometimes even

Dravyābhāva' is chosen as the fruit of fancying. Here in the verse

'Vīrarudra narendrasya jayaprasthāna sambhavam' etc.,83 the globe

concealed by dust is fancied as having no space. Thus some of the

prominent varieties of Utprekṣā have been illustrated. The illustrations

of the other varieties, however, can be known in different places of

Poetry.

12. ATIŚAYOKTI :

While the Utprekṣā is based on sādhyaśādhyaśāya, the

Atiśayokti is based on Siddhaśādhyaśāya. Where the Upameya

gets elided by poetic genius and where only Upamāna is mentioned,

there the figure is Atiśayokti. This is of four types :

i. to say non-difference in difference,

ii. to mention difference in non-difference,

iii. in cases where there is the absence of relation is mentioned, and

iv. to mention relationship where there is no relationship.

A fifth case where the sequence of cause and effect is reversed,

is mentioned under this figure. Though this variety fails to have

Adhyavasāya as its basis, it has the poetic ingenuity to qualify it as one

of the varieties of this figure. Now, Vidyānātha proceeds to illustrate

the varieties one by one.

In the verse given as an example for Bhedābhedātiśayokti

'Sthāne Kalpatarūjatāḥ' etc.,84 Abhedhādhyavasāya 'aḥs been

effected between Pratāparudra and Kalpavṛksa. In the verse given as

an example for Abhedātiśayokti,85 though there is no difference

in the qualities of Pratāparudra, a difference has been mentioned. In

the verse given to illustrate Sambandhātiśayokti,86 though Pratāparudra

has been the creation of the creator, it is said that he is not created by

the creator. In the verse given as an example for the fourth type, though

there was no such conversation between the Brahman and the Viṣṇu,

it has been said as having taken place between them. The fifth type

stands for Kāryakāraṇa paurvāparya viparyayātiśayokti. To illustrate

this type, Vidyānātha composes the verse 'Mātaḥ katham Kākatinātha'

etc.87 Here, the effect is the fall of Cupid's arrow. The cause is the fall

of the sight of Pratāparudra. The sequence of the cause and the effect

has been reversed. Hence, this is a case of the fifth variety of Atiśayokti.

There may be a sixth type where simultaneity for cause and effect has

been mentioned. But this comes under the scope of the figure Sahokti.

13 SAHOKTI :

Sahokti is the figure where there is constructability between two

things. This should be based on Atiśayokti or exaggeration and should

culminate in conveying similarity. Here, the similarity is not factual.It

has two types, namely, Kāryakāraṇa viparyayātiśayoktimūlaka Sahokti

and the Sahokti which is based on Bhedābhedātiśayokti. In the

example ‘Andhrakṣmābhrtsubhatāsidhārā’ etc., 88 it is said that the

edges of the sward and the celestial garlands simultaneously fall on

the necks of the enemy kings. Here the fall of the sword is the cause

and the fall of the celestial garlands, is the effect. Here both have been

said to take place at the same moment. In the example for the second

type ‘Dine dine rudra narādhipasya’ etc., 89 there is Śleṣa between the

Udaya mountains and the prosperity. Thus the second variety, here is

based on Śleṣa.

14 VINOKTI :

Where an object is spoken of as devoid of beauty or ugliness on

account of the absence of some other object, the figure is Vinokti.

Vinokti is of two types as ‘Aramayatāvinokti’ and ‘Ramayatāvinokti’. In

the example given for the first type 90 it is said that there is no beauty

for the poetic piece, without the description of the qualities of

Pratāparudra. In the second verse it is said that when Pratāparudra

shines, the moon can only shine without his stain. 91

15. SAMĀSOKTI :

Due to the similarity in Ukti, Samāsokti is being explained after

Vinokti. There is difference of opinion among the Ālankārikas

168

regarding this figure. While Bhāmaha considers Samāsokti as an expression intended to convey a suggestion, Dandin opines it as a succinct expression in itself.92 Mammata speaks of the presence of paronomastic adjectives in Samāsokti as the means to suggest some other things.93 Viśvanātha, on the otherhand, divides it into three categories viz., Samakāryottha, Samāliṅgottha and Samaviśeṣanottha i.e., based on similarity of action, gender and attribute.94

However, according to Vidyānātha if a non-contextual idea strikes on account of commonness of attributes related to a contextual idea, the figure is Samāsokti. Broadly speaking, this is of three types.

i. Śliṣṭaviśeṣanāmūlā

ii. Sādhāraṇaviśeṣaṇamūlā

iii. Aupamyagarbhviśeṣaṇamūlā

In the verse given as an example for the first variety,95 the loosening of the girdle, horripulation, Rāga are the Śliṣṭa words. Due to the capacity of Krpāṇalatikā, the suggestion of a particular Prauḍha heroine has been made. In the same way in the words Anuraktā, Bhāvavivasa etc., pertaining to enemy kings, there is the suggestion of erotic heroes. In the illustrative verse for the second type,96 as the adjectives for the sentiments of erotics and furious are common, there is a suggestion of the affair related to hero and the heroine. In these two cases the suggested idea is Śṛṅgārarasābhāsa as there is the suggestion of many heroes. In Rasaprakaraṇa Vidyānātha quotes :

‘Ekatraivānurāgascet tiryain mlecchagato ’piva I

Yoṣito bahusaktiscedrasābhāsastridhā mataḥ’ 97 II

In the verse given as an illustration for the third variety, the attributes ‘gunaratnāghaih’98 etc., have an element of similarity in

themselves. This similarity enables one to get the suggestion of an ocean. Aprakṛtavyavahāra samāropa i.e., the super-imposition of the affair of a non-contextual object is sine-que-non of Samāsokti. This Vyavahārasamāropa is of four kinds. Sometimes an idea related to the world is super - imposed on another idea related to the world, which is contextual. It may sometimes be an idea related to any of the wellknown sciences. Similarly an idea related to a particular science may be super - imposed on another idea related to a different science. Or an idea related to the world can also be super - imposed on an idea related to a science.

Kumārasvāmin in his commentary brings out the difference between Samāsokti and Rūpaka. The super-imposition of a non-contextual on the contextuul is the chief characteristic of Samāsokti. There is an argument that since this element is present even in Rūpaka, Samāsokti can as well be included under Rūpaka. But the difference is this :

In Rūpaka we see Aprakṛtavastu svarūpāropa i.e., the super imposition of a non-contextual object while in Samāsokti one can see Aprakṛtavastu vyavahārāropa i.e., the super imposition of the affair of a non-contextual object. Thus one cannot be included in the other.

The verse 'Saptāṅgasphuraduddāma Dānalakṣmī' etc., 90 is given as an example for the first variety. Here, there is super - imposition of the affair of the cordinal elephant named Sārvabhauma on a contextual idea related to the world.

The verse 'Gurupramāṇena nijena' etc., 100 illustrates the super-imposition of the idea of logic on the worldly affair related to Prataparudra.

In the verse 'Apūrvārthaṣṭāghāguru' etc. 101 there is super-imposition of an idea related to Tantrasāstra on an idea related to Alāṅkarasaāstra.

In the verse 'sālankārā lasadvarṇa' etc.,102 the affair of a heroine is super-imposed on an idea related to Alañkāraśāstra.

16. VAKROKTI :

If a statement made to express some idea gives a different idea also by virtue of Kāku or Śleṣa, there the figure is Vakrokti. Though all figures are of different kinds of expression (Uktivaicitrya) Vakrokti differs from them all by virtue of peculiarity of its definition.Vakrokti is said to be of two types i.e., Kākumūlavakrokti and Śleṣamūlavakrokti.

In the verse which is given as an illustration for the former,103 it is said that a maid of a heroine consoles her madam who is distressed for the non arrival of her beloved. In the first part of the verse, it is said that though the king (the beloved) is attached to many women he is particularly in love with a Nāyikā named 'Śrī'. Here, by virtue of Kāku; it is known that the lady is no way inferior to 'Śrī'. Hence she need not have any sense of inferiority about herself.

In the verse which is given as an example for the latter type 104 the maid takes other meaning than the intended one by the capacity of Śleṣa. Here, the words 'Rājā', Kṣonibhrt tilakah', 'Rudradeva' and Gotrasārodbhava' are paronomastically used. Hence the other senses, moon, mountain, Lord Siva and goddess Pārvati help the conveyance of a second sense.

17. SVABHĀVOKTI :

Svabhāvokti is one where the description is made beautifully resorting to the reality. In the illustrative verse 'Madaścuta nartita karṇatālam' etc.105 the behaviour of an elephant has been realistically described.

18. VYĀJOKTI :

The concealment of a particular thing basing on concealed

similarity is Vyājokti. In the illustrative verse 106 the horripulation due to receival of the hand of the 'Kṣonī' is concealed and is presented to the coolness of the water brought for coronation anointment.

Vāmana is the first Ālankārika who mentions this figure under the name 'Māyokti' 107 The definitions of Mammata and Viśvanātha correspond to each other 108. It is to be noted that Jagannātha does not mention this figure at all.

19. MĪLANA :

When a thing has been concealed by another, the figure is Mīlana. This is of two types. The concealment of an outward feature by an innate one and vice versa. The first variety is illustrated in the verse 'Ugraḥkākativirarudraṇpateḥ' etc., 109 in which it is said that the natural or innate head due to cupid eclipses the one due to travel in the desert. The second is illustrated in the verse 'Pratāparudrasyā bhujaprabhāvat'etc., 110 Here the innate feature is shivering etc., due to love for one's beloved. The outward feature, however, is one due to fear.The former has been.concealed by the latter.

Rudrata may be considered as the first one among the ancient Ālankārikas to mention this figure . 111 In the figure Vyājokti if the pretext which conceals a particular thing is important, in the figure Apahnuti the thing that has been hidden deserves emphasis. But in the figure Mīlana we find a particular thing hiding in another, for, the excellence of one eclipses the other. 112

20. SĀMĀNYA :

When an object on account of its similarity with another cannot be differentiated,the figure is Sāmānya. The verse given for illustration is 'Kailāsadugdhārnāvayānāhamse'etc. 113 Here the mountain Kailasa, milky oecan and the swan of Brahman could not be distinguished on

172

account of their non-difference with the fame of Pratāparudra.

Mammata is said to be the first Ālañkārika to define this figure.114

21. TADGUṆA :

Leaving one's inferior qualities, if an object takes up the superior

qualities of another nearby, the figure is Tadguṇa. The verse

'Pratāparudradevāṅghrinakkha' etc.,115 illustrates this figure. Here it has

been said that the gems steded in the crown of the king leave their red

clolour and take up the white colour of the nails of the feet of

Pratāparudra. There is no considerable difference in the concept of

this figure among Ālañkārikas.116

22. ATADGUṆA :

If a thing does not receive the qualities of some other thing inspite

of the presence of a sound reason, the figure is Atadguṇa.117 In the

illustrative verse 'Is'ānāṁ samayā jagatyatati' etc., it is said that despite

the fact that lord Śiva is shining in his white colour, Viṣṇu in his blue

colour and the creator Brahman in his gold colour, the fame of

Pratāparudra roams in the three worlds with its own effulgence.

23. VIRODHA :

When an inconsistency that is apprehended in the beginning

stands answered later, the figure is Virodha. The figure Virodha is of

ten types as follows :

When there is inconsistency of 'Jāti' with the factors 'Jāti' etc., there

arise four varieties. Similarly the inconsistency of 'Kriyā with Kriyā' etc.,

gives rise to three varieties. Again 'Guṇa' when it is inconsistent with

'Guṇa' and 'Dravya' there arise two varieties. Lastly 'Dravya' when it

is inconsistent with another "Dravya' gives rise to one variety. Thus in

total the figure Virodha comes to have ten varieties. Viśvanātha also

endorses this view 115. But Jagannātha accepts only two varieties as Śuddha and Śleṣamūla, dismissing the classification based on Jāti etc., on the ground that it is not beautiful. 119

However, Vidyānātha illustrates all the ten varieties as follows :

In the verse 'Padmākaropivilasati' etc., 120 there is conflict between one Jāti and another Jāti and also there is conflict between Jāti and Kriyā. Here in the first part of the verse, it is said that the lake is without water (jada). Hence it illustrates the first variety. In the second part of the verse, there is 'Jāti kriyāvirodha' It is said, here, that the flow of pure water causes grief. Thus there is Jātikriyāvirodha. Here it is based on Slesa as the words 'Jada and 'Taravari' involve two senses.

'In the verse 'Amadah sārvabhaumo'pi' etc., 121 there is inconsistency between 'Jāti' and 'Guṇa' and between 'Jāti' and 'Dravya'. Though the king is a Sarvabhauma, he is unintoxicated. This illustration shows the inconsistency between 'Jāti' and 'Guṇa'. Again the statement 'Bhāsvānapi kalanidhịḥ' illustrates inconsistency between 'Jāti' and 'Dravya'. Here too, there is the basis of 'Śleṣa.'

In the verse 'Dharmadviṣāmarthamuşamca' etc., 122 there is conflict between one 'Kriyā' and another 'Kriyā'. It is said that the one who defeats the enemies of 'Dharma' and 'Artha' feels effection towards the enemy of 'Kāma'. Thus there is conflict between one Kriyā and another.

In the verse 'Eṣajisnuvihāropigotravātsalya' etc., 123 there is conflict between 'Kriyā' and 'Guṇa' and 'Kriyā' and 'Dravya'. The statement 'Jisnuviharasya gotravātsalya' illustrates 'Kriyāguṇavirodha' Similarly the statement 'Kamalottāsamkuroannapiraja' illustrate the inconsistency between 'Kriyā' and 'Dravya". Here too, there is the basis of "Śleṣa".

174

In the verse 'Rañjayan bhuvanamidam rājeti' etc., 124 inconsistency between one 'Guṇa' and another 'Guṇa' is illustrated. The statement 'Sa raktāpi pāṇḍurajata' speaks of inconsistency between two Guṇas. In the verse 'Jvalatpratāparudro'pi kākatīya nareśvarah' etc., 125 'Jvalatpratāparudro'pijaivatṛkah' involves this inconsistency.

In the verse 'Vibhātikākatīndro'yam rudro'pi caturānanah' etc. 126 there is inconsistency between one 'Dravya' and another. The statements 'Rudropi caturānanah', 'Jiṣṇurapi purottamah' 127 bring out this inconsistency. Finally, Vidyānātha observes that this figure is seen illustrated even without Śleṣa. To illustrate this, he mentions the verse 'Svabhāvasiśratva' and 'Tāpinitva'. Thus the ten varieties of the

24. VIŚEṢA :

The figure Viśeṣa is of three types :

i. The presence of an object without any substratum

ii. appearance of a single object in different places, and

iii. accomplishment of an impossible thing.

In the verse given as an example for the variety of 'Ādhārarahita ādheya', it is said that though the kings like Nala, Nahuṣa etc., are no more, still their fame continues to exists. 128 Here the kings Nalu etc., are substra.a and their fame is the thing that abides, i.e., Ādheya. In the illustration "Paśyanto bhayavihvalah"129 etc., it is said that Pratāparudra was seen by the enemy kings in different places at the same time on account of fear. In the illustration "Apārakaruṇānidheh" etc.,130 it is stated that an ordinary person on account of the compassionate glance of Pratāparudra becomes superior to all. This is something impossible. Thus these verses illustrate the second and

175

third types respectively.

25. ADHIKA :

When there is incompatibility between the substratum and the object that rests on it, or vice versa, the figure is Adhika. This is also of two types as Adhikādheya and Adhikādhāra.

In the example given for Adhikādheya 131, it is said that the universe which is the substratum is insufficient for the Ādheya, that is the fame of Pratāparudra. For the second type, the verse "Kvāpi kvāpi kaliṅga mālava" etc.,132 is given as an illustration. Here the substratum is the very big army of Pratāparudra. The armies of other kings which are Ādheya is very small in comparison with the Ādhara.

26 & 27. VIBHĀVANA & VIŚEṢOKTI :

If an effect takes place even in the absence of a chief cause, the figure is Vibhāvana. Though there is full equipment of causes, if the effect is not produced, the figure is Viśeṣokti. Vidyānātha illustrates both in a single verse which reads :

'Pratāparudreṇa parājitānām

pratyarthināṁ vindhyaguhāgatānām I

Tamāṁsyarātrīṁ śaṁrudbhavanti

te jaṁsighas resvapinodbhavanti' 133 II

In this verse, it is said that the chief cause of darkness is night and though the night is absent, still the effect darkness is mentioned. This is a case of the figure Vibhavan. Similarly, though the cause, i.e., day time is present, its effect light is said to be absent. Hence it makes a case for the figure Viśespkti. Thus the two figures Vibhāvana and Viśeṣokti are illustrated in a single verse. One fails to find much difference in the definitions of Vibhāvana among the ancient

writers.134 But there is a conceptual difference between Ruyyaka and

Jagannātha in this regard. While Ruyyaka opines that the basis of the

figure Vibhāvana is Atiśayokti,135 Jagannātha denies this view saying

that view saying that Atiśayokti cannot always be found at the root of

the figure Vibhāvana.136

28. ASANGATI :

If the cause and its effects belong to different places, the figure is

Asangati. In the illustrative verse ‘Bibhratyurvidhurām gurvim’ etc.,137

it is said that the heads of the tributory kings bowed down while

Vīrarudra was bearing the load of the earth. Here, the cause, i.e.,

bearing the load is with Pratāparudra, and the effect, bending the

heads is with the tributory kings. Thus, the cause and effect belong to

two different things.

29. VICITRA :

The figure Vicitra occurs where an attempt is made to achieve an

end which is unacceptable to the agent. In the illustrated verse138 it

is said that the kings are getting down their elephants in order to

ascend them in the presence of Pratāparudra.

30. ANYONYA :

Anyonya is the figure where out of two objects, each is treated as

both the producer and the produced. In the illustrative verse it is said

that the royal throne and Pratāparudra who ascended it are decorated

by each other. Rudraṭa is the first Ālaṅkārika to mention this figure.

Vidyānātha's definition is no way different from that of Mammaṭa.139

31. VIṢAMA :

This figure is also based on Virodha. There are three types of

Viṣama as follows :

177

i. the occurance of an effect which stands opposite in nature to the cause,

ii. if an undesirable effect ensues from a chosen cause and

iii. asemblege of dissimilar objects.

In the example given for the first type, 140 it is said that the fame which is as white as the moon by the sword which is black in colour.

In the illustrative verse given for the second type, 141 it is said that the kings who assembled to defeat Pratāparudra lose their ornaments along with their lives, having been seen by him.

'Kvabhr̥tpālastādṛgavibhava' etc., 142 two dissimilar things, namely the nature of the great kings and their presence in the forests are brought together.

Hence, this is a case of the third variety of Viṣamālaṅkāra.

32. SAMA :

The figure Sama stands as an antithesis for the third variety of Viṣamālaṅkāra (Virūpaghatana).

The assemblage of things having same nature is the figure Sama.

In the example 143 it is said that the erudition of all types and wealth are said to be present in Pratāparudra.

Hence this illustrates the figure Sama.

This figure has not been mentioned by any Ālaṅkārika before Mammata.

Both the definitions of Mammata and Viśvanātha also have the same spirit with the difference in wording. 144

33. TULYAYOGITĀ :

Where the similarity is suggested on account of the mention of the common characteristic of things that are either purely contextual or purely non-contextual, the figure is Tulyayogitā.

In the illustration 'Bhadrāsanādhyāsini rudradeve' 145 etc., the fame and the ladies of the enemy kings of Pratāparudra are contextual.

The common characteristic is to become pale or white.

Hence, this illustrates the first variety of

178

Tulyayogitā.

To illustrate the second variety, the verse 'Kurmandra pannagadhīśa' etc.,146 has been given. Here, the tortoise, serpent etc., are all non-contextual. The common characteristic is "getting weak". The similarity suggested here is not factual, but incidental.

While Vidyānātha speaks of two varieties in Tulyayogitā basing on contextual and non-contextual, Kumārasvāmin adds two more with a further division of Guna and Kriyā.147

Though all the Ālankārikas admit this figure, Dandin treats it as "Stutinindā",148 while Udbhata, Ruyyaka and Vidyādhara contend that"Aupamya" is always implied in Tulyayogitā. Viśvanātha also fall in a line when he says 'Ekadharmābhisambandhah syāttadā Tulyayogitā' 149 Bhāmaha's indispensable condition for the occurence of this figure is the similarity in action in two objects.150 Mammata speaks of equalisation 151 where as authors like Jagannātha hold that the figure Tulyayogitā is a variety of Dīpaka.152

34. DĪPAKA :

Where similarity is suggested on account of a single characteristic attributed to both contextual and noncontextual objects, the figure is Dīpaka. This is of three types viz., Ādidīpaka, Madhyadīpaka and Antadīpaka, basing on the place where the word expressing the common characteristic has been employed. In the example given for the first type,153 it is said that the Kali age is brought on account of Praṭāparudra as the ages Krta, Tretā and Dvāpara by Nala, Rāma, and Dharmāja respectively. Since the word expressing common characteristic is employed in the beginning, this verse illustrates the first variety of Dīpaka.

In the following verse 154 it is said that Pratāparudra shines on

179

account of his fame as ocean by river Ganges etc. As the word expressing the common characteristic is in the middle, it is a case of Madhyadipaka. Similarly in the verse "Suralokam suranātho" etc.155 it is said that Pratāparudra protects the human world as Indra etc., the region of heaven etc. Here the word expressing the common characteristic is employed in the end and as such it is an illustration for Antadipaka.

The sharp contrast between the figures Dīpaka and Tulyayogitā as explained by Ruyyaka is that in Tulyayogitā all things should be either contextual or non-contextual where as in the figure Dīpaka one or more contextual things and one or more non-contextual things may be connected with an attribute.156

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudraṭa speak three varieties of the figure Dīpaka based on gender, action and quality (jāti, Kriyā and Guṇa).

35. PRATIVĀSTŪPAMĀ :

Prativastūpamā is the figure where on account of employment of single characteristic in two different sentences similarity is suggested. This is of two kinds Sādharmya and Vaidharmya. In the example given for the Sādharmyamūlaka prativastūpamā,157 there is the suggestion that Pratāparudra is capable of churning the army of the enemies as the mountain Mandara does the ocean. In the illustrative verse for "Vaidharmya mūlakapratīvastūpamā" 158 it is said that Pratāparudra alone is capable of pleasing the people. There is no other person who is capable of pleasing the cakora birds barring the moon. The similarity suggested here is that Pratāparudra is capable of pleasing the people just as the moon is capable of doing the same in the case of cakora birds.

180

36. DRSTĀNTA :

If the common characteristic is said in two sentences employing Bimbapratibimbabhäva,the figure is Drstānta. This is also of two types as above. The first is illustrated in the verse: ‘Ksonïmibïhratubhübhrïlah Katipayé etc.,159 where in the similarity between Prataparudra and mountain Meru has been suggested through Bimbapratibimbabhäva. The second type is illustrated in the succeeding verse ‘Käkatïndra Krpädrsti etc.,160 where in, it is said that prosperity awakens simply by the side glances of Pratäparudra. The lotuses sleep only when the sun does not rise. The similarity suggested here, is, that just as the lotuses blosom by rising of the Sun, so does prosperity rise on account of the side glances of Pratäparudra.

Udbhata is the first Älaïkärika to define this figure. According to Viśvantha, Drstänta is the reflective representation of a similar attribute.161

37 NIDARŚANA :

Nidarśana is the figure where the phenomenon of Bimbapratibimbabhäva is suggested on account of the inapplicability of a characteristic both to Upamäna and Upameya. In the illustrative verse ‘Riputimira mudasyan ratnasimhäsanasthah etc.162 it is said that Prataparudra bears the resplendence of the Sun which is not possible. Hence it is to be understood that he bears resplendence similar to that of the Sun. Hence, there is the suggestion of Bimbapratibimbabhäva. In the verse ‘Vïrarudra narendräsya yaśo vaisadya sampadah etc.,163 it is said that the beauties of his fame are seen in the mirror of the milky ocean. This is not possible as in the above case similarity is suggested providing scope for Bimbapratibimbabhäva. Sometimes even for prohibition, Bimbapratibimbabhäva is suggested as in the verse ‘Käkatïndravis’atkänta etc.164 Hence it is suggested that prior to the release of the beauty of the lilies their feet are having it.

181

38. VYATIREKA :

Vyatireka is the figure where the Sādhāraṇya is Bhedapradhāna.

This is of two kinds basing on the superiority or the inferiority of the

Upamāna and the Upameya. In the illustrative verse

'Dinākrtikumudairdhrto na rāgah' etc.,165 it is said that Pratāparudra

is superior to both the Sun and the Moon because he is capable of

pleasing both Kuvalaya and Kamala. The words here carry

paranomasia. Thus this is a case of Vyatireka supported by the figure

Slesa.

39. ŚLEŚA :

It is Śleṣa (paronomasia) where the similarity of sound exists either

to the only contextuais or only noncontextuals or both. In the case of

only contextuals and only non-contextuals both the noun and adjective

become Paronomistic. But in Ubhayasleṣa adjectives only become

Śliṣṭa. In this third variety if both become Śliṣṭas; it would be a case

of Śabdaśaktimūladhvani.

Śleṣa is of three types :

i. Kevala prakrta Śleṣa

ii. Kevalaprakṛta Śleṣa and

iii. Ubhayasleṣa.

In this connection, Vidyānātha quotes Mammaṭa to show that the

third variety, where the Viśeṣya part is paronomistic, is a case of

Śabdaśaktimūladhvani.166

To illustrate the first variety Vidyānātha composes the verse

'Rajñāhpūjāvidhim dhatte' etc.,167 Here, both Śiva and Viṣṇu are

contextual. The second variety finds illustration in the verse 'Sadṛśaḥ

Kākatīndroṇam' etc.168 Here the mountains and the kings like

182

Hariścandra are both non-contextual. In the verse 'Vijitāripuro mūrtau' etc. 169 One finds the third variety illustrated. Here, the king Pratāparudra is contextual and lord Śiva is non-contextual.

40. PARIKARA :

Parikara is the figure where the attributes are significant. The verse 'Rājño yādavavamśapārthivamaneh' etc., 170 is the illustration. Here, the words 'Rājñah' etc., are significant as they are used derogatively.

41. ĀKṢEPA :

In order to suggest a particular idea if a statement made or to be made is apparently prohibited, the figure is Ākṣepa. This is of four types. In the case of a statement made, the prohibition of an object is optionally made. This is first variety. In the second when a statement has to be made it is prohibited. Here arise two varieties.

i. after making a general statement, there is prohibition of a special case and

ii. the part of a statement is made and the other part is prohibited.

The verse 'Narendra maule na vayam tava' etc., 171 illustrates the first variety. Here the messagers' statement that they are not messengers involved prohibition. This prohibition is apparent and suggest the idea that all the kings deserve to be protected as servants. To illustrate the second, the verse 'Vayamasaranā ityesoktīḥ' etc., 172 is given. Here too, the denial of the statement made is apparent and suggests the idea that they should be protected at all costs 'Vijñāpayāmaste Kimcit' etc., 173 is the verse to illustrate the third variety. Here, a general statement is made and there is the apparent prohibition of a particular statement. The fourth variety is seen illustrated in the verse 'Pratāparudra svayamiddhateja' etc., 174. Here a part of the statement desired to be

183

made is expressed and the other part is prohibited. This suggests that the enemy kings should not oppose the king Pratāparudra.

A different concept has been labelled by Ālaṅkārikas as the Ākṣepa. The concept is as follows :

If the prohibition of what is desired is expressed, it becomes apparent. Similarly, the prescription of what is undesirable is also apparent. These two concepts come under the figure Ākṣepa. In the verse "Nāitha. Pratāparudrāsya sevāṁ tyajasi" etc.,175 what is undesirable is prescribed. Hence, the prescription is apparent.

42. VYĀJASTUTI :

Either rebuke through expressed praise or a prise through rebuke - these two are the varieties of Vyājastuti. This of two types :

i. nindāstuti and

ii. stutinindā.

In the example given for the first type,176 it is said "The blackness in the faces of enemies is still there, why to boast that the fame of Pratāparudra has made all things white?" In the succeeding verse177 the second type is illustrated. In illustrating the second type the verse seems to praise the enemies but it results in their rebuke.

43. APRASTUTAPRAŚAMŚĀ :

If a contextual thing is suggested through the expression of non-contextual, through the relationship of similarity etc., it is a case of Aprastutapraśaṁsā. There are three bases for this figure :

i. Sārūpya,

ii. Sāmanyaviśeṣabhāva and

184

iii. Kāryakāranabhāva.

The first is illustrated in the verse ‘Āśasu praśa-mitavasanodayebhyah’ etc., 178 Here, the non-contextual description of the bee suggests the contextual idea related to Pratāparudra. The second however, is illustrated in the verse “Yaśasvinī padmabhavasya” etc. 179 Here, while Pratāparudra was to be described the creation of the creator in general is mentioned. The verse “Draṣṭumānā api napasyati” etc., 180 also comes under the second type. Here the behaviour of young ladies is contextual, which is suggested through the description of a particular lady. In the verse, ‘Gādhā ivārmavā jātā’ etc. 181 from the effect described, there is the suggestion of the cause. In the verse ‘Pratāparudranṛpaterdharitṛī kalpasākhinah’ etc., 182 reverse is the case as there is the suggestion of the effect from the description of a cause.

44. PARYAYOKTI :

If the contextual cause is suggested through the description of contextual effect, the figure is Paryāyokti. In the illustrative verse “Pratibhūpālasuddhāntadirghikā” 183 etc., it is said that the soldiers of Pratāparudra are enjoying a bath in the wells of enemy kings. By this description, it is suggested that the enemies have fled away at the very sight of the army of the enemies, both the things are contextual.

45 PRATĪPA :

The figure Pratīpa occurs where the Upamāna is treated with derision. It also occurs where the Upamāna is treated as the Upameya. The first variety is illustrated in the verse ‘Kīrtau pratāparudrasya vilasatyam dīgambare’ etc. 184 Here the censure of the moon results in the praise of the fame of Pratāparudra. The second is illustrated in the verse- ‘Kākatīyakule laksmīpatireṣā etc. 185 Here the mountain Sumeru is treated as Upameya and hence this too forms as

an illustration for Pratīpa.

46. ANUMĀNA :

This is a figure based on the science of Tarka. Where there is the

narration of Sādhana and Sādhya the figure is Anumāna. In the

illustrative verse 'Rajodhūmaḥ senāvyatikarabhavo' etc.,186 the smoke

of the form of dust and the sparks of fire are the Hetu. The fire of anger

is inferred.

47. KĀVYALIṄGA :

If the cause is expressed either in the sentence or a word, the

figure is Kāvyaliṅga. This is of two types :

i. Vākyārthahetūka and

ii. Padārthahetuka

According to Ruyyaka the word Kāvyaliṅga has nothing to do

with the liṅga of Indian logic (Hetu). Therefore, in this there will not be

any material such as Vyāpti, Pakṣadharmaṭā etc., That is why it differs

from Anumāna.

48. ARTHĀNTARANYASA :

Arthāntaranyāsa is the figure where cause, effect the generic and

the specific happen to support one another. In the verse 'Bhupah

pratāparudrāsya natā bhavatā' etc.,187 there is a case where the efect

supports the cause. Here Kumārasvāmin observes that though there

is the contingency of Kāryakāraṇabhāva in both Arthantaranyāsa and

Kāvyaliṅga,'in Kāvyaliṅga there is the anticipation of the cause to

support the effect. In Arthāntaranyāsa, however, the cause mentioned

is rather an indifferent one. Hence the difference between the two

figures.

186

In the verse ‘Udvejitā rudranareśvarasya’ etc.,188 a specific case has been supported by a generic one. Just the reverse takes place in the verse ‘Duṣṭo’pi mahatām saṅgād bhavaty eva’ etc.189 In the case where the cause defends the effect, Kāvyalīṅga is the figure. Hence, there are only three varieties of Arthāntaranyāsa.

This is one of the most famous figures. Beginning with Bhāmaha all most all the Ālankārikas have defined this figure. Bhāmaha achieves precision in saying that it is the utterance of a meaning different from the context.190 According to Daṇḍin, Arthāntaranyāsa occurs in the case of the description of a particular thing, for which different meaning may be attributed. Such an attribution may be universal or special.191

The scope of the figure Arthāntaranyāsa is different from that of Drṣṭānta where a general statement is supported by a general one and a particular by a particular one. This can neither be included in Aprastutapraśaṁsā, for, the general and particular propositions are expressly mentioned in Arthāntaranyāsa while in Aprastutapraśaṁsā, the general is expressly mentioned and the general or the particular are to be implied. Mammata speaks of four varieties of this figure. Viśvanātha offers a more elaborate definition following Ruyyaka.192

49. YATHĀSAṄKHYA :

The figure Yathāsankhya is based on Vākyanyāya. The definition given by Vidyānātha is as follows :

When certain things are spoken of in a particular order and if the same order is followed, when their predicates follow the same order the figure is Yathāsankhya. In the illustration ‘Gāṁbhiryamaunnatyamanargalatvam’ etc.,193 the figure is seen illustrated.

50. ARTHĀPATTI :

The mention of a particular thing if invariable supposes another which is unexpressed the figure is Arthāpatti. In the verse 'Samantādudvelaiḥ etc.,194 the figure is seen illustrated. Kumārasvāmin in this context speaks of 'Daṇḍāpūpikānyāya' meaning that when the Daṇḍa or the stick itself is consumed special mention is not required that the sweet meat is also consumed.

51. PARISAṄKHYĀ :

When a particular thing has relationship with many things at a time and if its relationship is restricted to a particular case the figure is 'Parisaṅkhyā'.

This is of two types viz., Praśnapūrvikā and Apraśnapūrvikā. Again it has two more types Arthvarjanitya and Śabdavarjaniya. Thus Parisaṅkhyā has four varieties in total.

Of the examples given for this figure, in the first illustration 195 it is said that though Pratāparudra and mountain Meru are the factors that embellish the world, the mountain Meru has been avoided of being the embellishing factor which results in saying that Pratāparudra is the only one who can embellish the world. So this is a case of Śabdavarjaniya Praśnapūrvikā Parisaṅkhyā.

In this second one, the moon light has been implicitly denied as the silk canopy of the world and the fame of Pratāparudra is spoken as such. Similarly the elephants of the cardinal points are not accepted as the happy abode of the earth. The arms of Pratāparudra are spoken as such. Hence the second variety of the figure.

In the case of 'Apraśnapūrvikā Śabdavarjaniyā', the cessation of the materialistic pleasures are expressed and for the last variety the question is not indicated and the idea to be conveyed is expressed.

188

Ruyyaka in his Alaṅkāra Sarvasva speaks that when this Pariṅkhyā is said with Śliṣṭapada, it will be all the more beautiful.196 So Vidyānātha also follows him and illustrates it in the verse ‘Kṣonim Rudranareśvare'etc.

52. UTTARA :

If a question is assumed by the answer or the questions and the answers in plenty are mentioned the figure is Uttara. It is of two types: i. Where the question is imaginable by the way in which the answer is stated;

ii. Where the series of questions and answers are given.

In the illustration of the first type197 it is stated "Don't you know that as soon as Pratāparudra is coronated to the throne Dharma has been established". The probable questions posed may be imagined as "Is there the proper rule in the kingdom of Pratāparudra?" and "Are Brāhmins safe in his rule?"

and answers are arranged.

53. VIKALPA :

When there are two statement of equal strength option results and this is the figure Vikalpa. In the illustrative verse198 it is said that the tributary kings who have tasted the valour of king Pratāparudra are saying to their collegues either to bend either their bows or heads.

Bending the bow is to show their self respect. Bowing the head is to signify their obedience. Both the acts cannot take place at a time. So the choice has been left for them between these two acts and as such this is a case of Vikalpa.

54. SAMUCCAYA :

The simultaneity or qualities and actions is the figure Samuccaya. In order to illustrate the simultaneity of qualities Vidyānātha presents

the verse 'Pratāparudrampatau' 199 etc. Here the qualities Prasannatva and Kaluṣatva are simultaneously presented.

In the verse 'Prekṣate imam Narendra' etc., there is simultaneity of actions. The verse 'Trailokya Prathamānakīrti' etc.,200 simultaneity of action is presented in a single substratum i.e., the women of the enemy kings. Similarly the verse "Devē Kākativīrarudranpatau" 201 etc., presents a case where there is simultaneity of qualities in a single substratum.

b. DVITĪYA SAMUCCAYA :

In the figure Dvitīya Samuccaya there is assemblage of many causes that are engaged in the accomplishment of a particular action. In the verse 'Subhrasam yaśaḥ sauryamahacca' 202 etc., the causes fame etc.,199 go to establish the unique greatness of the king Pratāparudra. Hence the figure.

55. SAMĀDHI :

When a particular cause is about to achieve a particular effect, if another helps incidentally the figure is Samādhi. In the illustration 'Ranārigane rudranarendraroṣa' etc.,203 the fall of grass in the mouths of enemy kings has helped the production of the effect namely cessation of anger.

56. BHĀVIKĀ :

Bhāvika is the figure where the description of a wonderful situation presents the things belonging to past and future are made to appear as belonging to the present. A question has been raised by Kumārasvāmin as to how the things of past and future can be shown as belonging to the present. The answer here is that it is a matter of contemplation which is capable of bringing about the things of past and future within the realm of sense perception. This is something like

a traveller on account of his intense contemplation visualises his beloved in tangible form.

Bhāvika is neither Svabhāvokti as the figure Svabhāvokti involves descriptions without any omission or commission. In the figure the description of Atyadbhuta is present. So Bhāvika and Svabhāvokti have different scopes.

This is nor the figure Rasavat, because in Rasavat there is the brooding over the equipment Vibhāva etc. As there is no Adhyavasāna, this cannot by utprekṣā, nor this is Bhrāntimat because contemplation is not the same as delusion.

57. PRATYANĪKA :

Pratyanīka is the figure where somebody related to the opponent is insulted as the opponent himself could not be revenged powerful as he is. In the illustration “Kākatīyapatisaurya” etc., the Badaba fire being incapable of meeting the valour of Pratāparudra inflicts pain on the ocean that holds similarity to the valour of Pratāparudra.

58. VYĀGHĀTA :

Vyāghāta is the figure where a particular thing accomplished with a particular agent is undone by another agent with the same instrument. Though Rudraṭa is the first Ālankārika to define this figure,204 one can see a more scientific treatment of the definition at the hands of Mammata.205

In this illustration “Kākatīyabhijnātoyam nābhijātā”206 etc., it is said that Pratāparudra subdued the very enemy kings with his hands who were born from the hands of Brahman.

59. PARYĀYA :

If a single object happens to reside in many substrata one after

another, the figure designated as the first type of paryāya. The second, however, occurs where many things happen to reside in the same substratum. In the illustration ‘Damṣṭrāyam Kuhanakiterbhagavato’ etc.207 the same earth is said to reside first on the tooth of the premeaval pig, next on the host of the hoods of Adiśeṣa, and finally in Kaliyuga, it rests on the arm of Pratāparudra.

In the illustration "Yeṣam mukhe nijavadhūsavidhe" etc.208, in the substratum, i.e., the mouth of the enemy kings, two things are said to reside one after another. First, words suggestive of valour and then, words suggestive of dejection and misery.

60. SŪKȘMA :

Sūkṣma is the figure where an idea otherwise undiscernable is disclosed. In the illustration "Gurujanasavidhe vadhūdrstvā" etc.,209 it is said that a lady while staying in the presence of elders sees the messenger sent by the king. To convey her intention she besmears her body with musk.

61. UDĀTTA :

The description of the things in abundance is the figure Udātta. In the illustration ‘Ramyaṃekaśilābhidhitnanagari’ etc.,210 it is said that the scholars residing in the capital of Pratāparudra were living in golden houses and were witnessing their children playing with young elephants.

Ruyyaka opines that the descrtion of great personalities also comes under this type.211 Thus Udātta becomes two-fold according to him. Here Kumārasvāmin quotes Ānandavardhana and tells that this second variety of Udātta is not acceptable to Vidyānātha.212

62. PARIVṚTTI :

The figure Parivrtti as explained by Vidyānātha is of three types.

192

i. Samaparivrtti

ii. Nyūnaparivrtti and

iii. Adhikaparivrtti.

The first occurs where a thing is bartered for another of equal value. The second occurs where an object of less value is bartered for a thing which is of higher value. The third occurs where an object of high value is bartered for an object of low value.

The verse 'Sudhārasamucovaco' etc. 213 illustrates the first variety. Here, the words of poets and the elephants are of equal value. In the second illustration "Upāyanam gajāsvādi" etc., 214 the presents offered by the tributory kings are of less value than the pleasing sight of Pratāparudra. The verse 'Pratāparudreṇa raṇe jitāḥ' etc. 215 illustrates the third variety. Here, the ornaments offered by the ladies of the enemy-kings are of high value when compared with the bark ornaments received by them.

63. KĀRAṄAMĀLĀ :

If the things that are formally described happen to be the effects of the things that come latter, the figure is Kāraṇamālā. The illustration is "Vidyayā vinayo tkarṣo" etc. 216 Here, Vidyā or the instruction is the cause for humility. Humility is again the cause for the acquisition of good qualities. The qualities again are the cause for the love of the people.

64. EKĀVALĪ :

Ekāvalī is the figure where the thing formerly said is qualified by a thing latter mentioned. The illustration 'Pratāparudranagarī' etc., 217 illustrates the figure.

193

65. MĀLĀDĪPAKA :

When the things that are mentioned first happen to be superior to the things mentioned latter, the figure is Mālādīpaka. In the verse 'Bhāgyabhūmā mahīm prāptah' etc.,218 the same is illustrated.

66. SĀRA :

The anti-thesis of Mālādīpaka, i.e., if the thing described latter is greater than the former one, the figure is Sāra. In the illustration 'Jagatsu vasudhā bhāti' 219 etc., the things that are mentioned latter happen to be superior to those mentioned earlier.

194

CHAPTER - IX

MIŚRĀLAṄKĀRAPRAKARAṄA

SAṄSRSṬI AND SAṄKARA :

The figures get mixed up basing on two relations i.e., Samyoga

and Samavāya. Thus Miśrālaṅkāras are generally two types. The

mingling of such figures like that of Sesamum and rice (Tilatandula)

is one, and that milk and water (Kṣīranīra) is the second. The figure

that occurs by the relationship of Samyoga is Samsrsṭi while the second

is called Saṅkara.

Samsrsṭi is of three types :

1. Where the figures based on sound are involved

2. Where the figures based on sense are involved and

3. Where the figures based on sound and sense are involved.

The verse 'Sumbhatsambhrama gandha sindhura' etc.,1 which

illustrates the case where Chekānuprāsa and Vṛttyanuprasa-both

Śabdālaṅ-kāras are involved, stands as an example for the first type

of Samsrsṭi. For the second type of Samsrsṭi 'Kākatīndra camūrdhatte'

etc.,2 is the illustration. 'Pratāparudra dordando maṇḍalāgrena' etc.3

the figures Vṛttyanuprāsa and Upmā based on sound and sense are

involved.

Saṅkara is also of three types as follows :

1. Aṅgāṅgibhāva saṅkara,

2. Sandeha saṅkara and

3. Ekavācakānu-praveśa saṅkara.

In the verse 'Udyadbṛṅhita garjitaiḥ' etc.,4 the first variety of

Saṅkara is illustrated. Here, the figure Upamā (prabhāvindrāiva) is

195

prominent. The second Upamā (dvīpaghaṭe Kādambinī) is ancillary. Hence there is Aṅgāṅgibhāva for two figures of Upamā.

In the verse 'Pratāparudrāsya kṛpānadhra' etc.,5 two different figures Upreksā and Rūpaka are involved. To illustrate Ekavacakānupraveśa saṅkara, Vidyānātha composes the verse 'Yijitāripuo muratau' etc.,6 here, two figures Upamā and Ślesa happen to get construed with the single term 'iva'.

To illustrate Sandeha saṅkara, Vidyānātha mentions the verse 'Jātāḥ pratāparudreṇaḥ' etc. Here there is doubt whether the figure here employed is Rūpaka or Upamā. Grammar allows both the cases to be present. Hence doubt. If there is a bādhakaprakaraṇa, there arises no doubt. For instance, in the verse 'Pratāparudraṇppateḥ pārijātāt' etc.,7 there is clear indication for Rūpaka. When there is Bādhakapramāṇa, there too, cannot be any doubt. In the verse, 'Kakatīndrasya niḥ saṁdhanau' 8 etc., there cannot be Upamā since according to the aphorism "Upamitam Vyaghrādibhiḥ" etc., there is sāmānyaprayoga. Where there is sāmānyaprayoga there one cannot speak of Upamā. Hence, Rūpaka is only to be accepted.

While concluding, Vidyānātha shows different designs of poetry like Padma bandha and Cakrabandha.

196

VIDYĀNĀTHA AS A POET

In this chapter, some selective verses of Vidyānātha, carrying literary excellence have been studied and their beauties are presented. Vidyānātha is a poet of no mean order and whatever idea he presents, he presents it in such a lucid and pleasing manner that the readers attention is atonce glued to it. To begin with, Vidyānātha eulogises Sarasvati, the goddess of learning. The verse runs as follows :

`Vidyākairavakamudīm śrutiśirahsimanta muktāmanim

dārān padmabhuvastrilokajananīm vande girām devatām I

yatpādābjanamaskriyāḥ sukrinām sārasvatprakriyā-

bījanyāsabhuvo bhavanti kavitānātyaikajīvataṿaḥ II 1

"I salute the consort of the lotus-born, the mother of the three worlds, who is the moon-light for the lilies of learning. She is the pearl of the heads of the Vedas, i.e., the Upaniṣads. The salutations made to her by the learned scholars are the fields for sowing the seed of the literary activity. Again, they are the life-tonics for the art of Poetry".

From this benedictory verse, it is known that out of the three factors, Pratibhā, Vyutpatti and Kāvyakarṇābhyāsa, the first occupies the most important place, without which Poetry cannot be composed and though composed, becomes an object of ridicule. The word 'Bīja' here, stands for the Pratibhā or talent of the poet.

While speaking about the resplendence (Tejasvitā), one of the qualities of the Nāyaka, Vidyānātha gives the following verse as an illustration :

`Sada tejobhānau sphurati jayinaḥ Kākatibho -

rarikṣmābhrt kāntācikuratimirāhamkṛtimuṣī I

prakāśavryutpattirbhavati jaraduddāmatamasa -

197

masūryāmpasyāmāmavad higiri pās cātyadṛṣadām' II 2

"When the Sun-like valour of Pratāparudra is shining, there is light extended even to the eastern slopes of the extreme mountains which are steeped in darkness. The very same Sun steals away the pride of the darkness of the locks of hair of the ladies of the enemy-kings."

Here, the idea that the valour of Pratāparudra has extended itself to the western parts of the extreme mountains is beautifully suggested.

'Dharmalambasamucchritām tribhuvanasyai kātapatraśriyam dhatte kākatīrādrudraṇpateḥ sphuṭam yaśomandalam I Chayevāsya nabhaḥsthalīkuvalayasyāneyamālokyate tan manye niyatam pratāpatapanastas yopari dyotate' II 3

is the verse given as an illustration for yaśaḥpratāpasubhāgavatva which would mean -

"The domain of the fame of Pratāparudra holds the charm of the unbrella of the three worlds. It is extended taking the support of Dharma. The blue sky is its shade. Therefore, I presume that the Sun of his valour, indeed, must be shining above".

Here, the imagery of the poet has almost touched the fringes of extremities. He has given fullest scope for both valour and fame of Pratāparudra.

In Kāvyaprakaraṇa, while illustrating the Ārabhaṭi vṛtti, Vidyānātha composes the following verse which depicts the sentiment Bibhatsa :

'Khaḍgāghāta nikṛttasātravaśiro niṣṭhyūta raktacchaṭā jvālairudbhata śastraghaṭṭana bhavatsphāra sphulingotkaraiḥ I styānāsṛkpiśitāsthi khaṇḍa vikatā sthūloj jvalānāgarakai-ruccandaścalamārtiganda ṇpateḥ krodhāgnirayoddhane' 4 II

198

"On account of streams of blood oozing out from the heads of the enemy-kings, sparks of fire generated due to the clash of weapons and the burning coal in the form of flesh and clotted blood, the fire of anger of Pratāparudra is very furious".

Here, the employment of hard sounds is very conducive for the Ārabhatīvrtti, the poet has chosen to illustrate. Added to this, there is ample suggestion of the two sentiments Raudra and Bībhatsa. They are subservient to the reverential feelings the poet has for his patron.

The illustration of Sāttvatīvrtti is again beautiful when he says -

'Dūrādakarn'ya visvaprasmara mahaso vīrarudrasya jaitra -

prasthānārambha bherīninada marinrpāḥ pūrnakamajvarārtāḥ |

Āruhyadrīn visanto gahanamatimahatkaṇṭakākṛsta keśa

strāyadhvam mucateti pratinrpatidhiyā pādapāmprārthayante"II

Here, the panic-stricken enemy kings of Pratāparudra having heard the war-drums flee into the forests with ears full of fear. While hurriedly passing through the forest, their hair was caught by the thorny bushes and mistaking the bushes for the soldiers of Pratāparudra, they pray for release and protection.

Here, the fear of the enemy-kings has been well described. The saying -

'Bhītasya nūnam bhayakāri sarvam' has been well illustrated in this verse.

The illustrative verse for the Gaudīriṭī can be reckoned as an illustrious one :

'Udyaddohstambha khadga truṭadarimakutāṭopa samjātarāhu

bhrānti bhrasyatpatanga bhayakarana caṇa sphāranāśira renuhI

ādhrakṣmābhartu rāsīdadhikaraṇadhurā bhīma mattebhakumbha

prodyannmuktawyrsṭraḥ tārā prakaraparuta ssvarnadhūvaktra canḍra'

Here, the war-field of Pratāparudra has been well described. The dust that has arisen has covered the disc of the Sun as it were to protect it from Rāhu, of the form of heads that are chopped off by the sword of Pratāparudra. Again the pearls that sprung from the broken heads of the elephants were like so many stars. The faces of the divine nymphs were like moons.

This verse illustrating the Rīti, Gaudīya, has both the characteristics of Ojas and Kānti. The imagery is simply superb as it presents the war-field as night beautified by moon and stars.

The very next verse also stands as an example for the heights of Vidyānātha's imagery which runs as follows :

'Jetuh kākati vïrarudranpaterjaitraprayanothite

Kṣonīrenubharenabhasyați bhrśam bhūvibhramam bibhrati I

jatāmartyanadī viśamkaṭa tațidīrghā viyaddīrghikā

gādham gūḍhatamā ca gautamanadī pātālagangāyate' II 7

It is an acknowledged poetic fancy that the river Ganges resides in three worlds i.e., the heaven, the earth and the nether regions (Pātāla). It has three names basing upon its residence as Mandākinī, Bhāgīrathī and Bhogāvatī respectively. In this verse, Vidyānātha presents a fine imagery that the Mandākinī i.e., the Ganges residing in the heaven has become Bhāgīrathī. This is on account of the sky becoming the earth as the dust on the earth has risen, due to the marching of the soldiers of Pratāparudra who have started for an invasion, and pervaded the whole sky. So the sky looks like earth and the Mandākinī which resides there becomes Bhāgīrathī. Hence, Bhāgīrathī in its turn look like Pātālaganga (Bhogāvatī).

The verse that depicts Nārikelapāka is also one of the finest pieces of Vidyānātha that pleases the minds of the aesthetes.

'Līlā vibhramapūrvvararigamuditam tārunyametyatra pā

200

nepathyāntara bimbita smarakalā lāsyaprapañcaśriyah I

sakhyaḥ paśyata kākātīyanṛpatau bhāvānu bandhojjvalāḥ

Ko 'pyasyāstaralabhruvo vijayate śṛṅgāra nāṭyakramaḥ II

The description of a heroine who can be designated as Madhyā is made in this verse. The feelings of the erotics of the heroine regarding Pratāparudra have been well described here. Her youth is the preparatory ground for her charming gestures. The beauties of her charm are partly seen through the veil of bashfulness. The metaphor employed here, is highly conducive to the present sentiment Śṛṅgāra.

Speaking of the different Kāvya varieties, Vidyānātha composes a Prākṛt verse "Khagge jujjha vijumbhi" etc., in order to illustrate Arthacitra. The Sanskrit shade of this verse is as follows :

'Khadge yuddharijṛmbhite ripumahīnāthāñjalīṁ bimbitam

preksanto jayalakṣmīvāsa kamalaṁ manyante vijñāninaḥ I

manye vīrapratāparudravibhorjanyesu grāhituṁ punaḥ

sṛṣṭyai ripujjivitāni vidheryātasya pītāmbujāṁ II 9

The scholars having seen the reflection of the palms of the enemy-kings in the sword of Pratāparudra take it as the lotus seat of the goddess of victory. The poet, however, opines that it is the lotus seat of the creator who came to collect the lives of the enemy-kings in order to create them again.

This verse has been given as an illustration for 'Arthacitra' as has been already mentioned. The figure here is Apahnuti according to the definition -

'Nisiddhya viṣayaṁ sāmyādanyāropehyapahnutiḥ'

The idea conceived by the poet in 'this verse is full of poetic imagery.

201

In the Nāṭakaprakaraṇa, the drama which has been given as an illustration of the theory part contains the verse -

'Lokālokagirīndrakandaratamassandoha darpāpaham tvattejaḥ paṭalam kūyanti bhuvananyakrāamya samkrīdate | ityālokanakautukīva sithila svīyādhikāraśramo bhāsvaneṣa samagra dīptiradhunā vyomagranarohataḥ II 10

Here, the Sun has been fancied as an observer who wishes to visualise the spread of the valour of Pratāparudra in different regions. Apart from the charm of the figure Utprekṣā, the composition of the words is so friendly that it provides a beautiful illustration for Śayyā which Vidyānātha defines as -

'yā padānāṁ parā anyonya maitrī saṁyeti kathyate'

Here and there, the charm of Vṛtyanuprāsa also enhances the beauty of the verse.

Coming to Rasaprakaraṇa, one finds the following verse which has been given as an illustration for one of the transient moods 'Jaḍatā'

'Samāyāte nāthe pramahasi grhān rudranṛpatāu vapussaundaryasrī vijita madanodārā yaśasi | vadhūtṛantastoṣa vyatikara vaśannopa caritum purastādālīnām na calati tathā no viramati' II 11

The statement 'Purastādālīnām na calati tathā no viramati'brings out clearly the very nature of Jaḍatā. Similar is the description in the Kumārasambhava where.Kālidāsa describes the same mood in the case of Pārvatī. Hē observes :

'Margācalavyatikarā kuliteva sindhuḥ sailādhīrājatanayā na yayau na tasthau' 12

202

"Rahah pratyāsanne hrdayadayite rudranṛpatō

nivṛttā mānājñā viralāmpi lajjīvilasitam

kimanyatte gopyam bahirabahirānandamasṛṇaḥ

smarāveśaḥ kopi priyasakhi nṛpeṇaikayati mām" ‖13

In this verse the behaviour of a heroine with the hero has been

well described. The intensity of their love is well brought out in the

statement -

'Bahirabahirānandamasṛṇaḥ smarāveśaḥ Kopi priyasakhi

nṛpeṇaikayati mām'.

This reminds us of the verse composed by Bhartṛhari in his

Śṛṅgāraśataka -

'Ādarśane darśanamātrakāmā dṛṣṭvā parisvaṅga rasaikalola I

Āliṅgitāyām punarāyatākṣyāmāśāsmahē vigrahayorabhedam'II .14

'Pasyantyātmaja darsamindu mamafā śrotasvinīm satsakhi-

darsam kśirapayonidhīm priyasuhṛddarsam girim rājatam I

līlādarpaṇadars'a manyamamalām tārādi hārāvali-

darsam khelati vīrarudranṛpatēḥ kīrtiṅjagadvyāpini' II 15

In the above verse, the activity of the fame of Pratāparudra has

been well presented and it involves the technicalities of grammar.

Most of the earlier writers have avoided treating Luptopamas based

on grammatical peculiarities. Though Vidyānātha illustrates all the

nineteen varieties of Luptopama with the technicalities of grammar, the

verses are charming because of their being very lucid. The above

illustration is a typical instance.

'Brahmāṇl merugirau kṛtepi kimidam naivaṁ vidhāste mudah

śvāminsatyamadhukṛiyāya phalitā yadṛīzarudraḥ Kṛtaḥ . I

203

mithyā kim nu vikathase trijagatastrānāya matprārthitah

sambhuh kṣmā mavatīrma vāniti kathā jātā haribrahmanoh. II 16

This verse has been given to illustrate one of the varieties of Atiśayokti, namely 'Asambandhe sambandha'. Here, the conversation as presented between Viṣṇu and Brahman is quite interesting and brings out how a poetic genius can make even an insipid idea very interesting.

In the verse -

'Kṣonim bibhratu bhūbhrtah katipaye kāpi pratisthāpunah

svartād rerdigadhīśa vāsa nagarī sandhigdhā kuñja sriyāh I

rājānau janarañjanam vidadhatām śrīvīrarudraprabhoh

Ko 'puanyo mahimā jagattrayadhurādhaurya doṣṭalīnah. II 17

Bimbapratibimbabhāva is presented. This is a phenomenon where two objects lacking similarity between themselves are compared basing the simlarity of objects related to them.

'Vastutaḥ bhinnayorapi upamānopameyadharma yoḥ

parasparasādṛśyāt abhinnatayā adhyavasitayoḥ

dirūpādānām bimbapratibimbabhāvah.' 18

On account of this phenomenon, the similiarity between Pratāparudra and mountain Meru is well brought out.

204

CONCLUSION

The Pratāparudrīyo as has, already been mentioned is a Prakaraṇa text dealing with all the topics in Alaṅkāraśāstra in a lucid way. It is exclusively meant for a beginner and presents all the ideas in a clear way. The commentary of Kumārasvāmisomapīṭhin here and there enters into deeper discussions throwing further light on the subject. In this thesis, an attempt has been made to focus the different aspects of the subject, bringing to light the issues where Vidyānātha differs from his predecessors. One important asset for the work is that it has very beautifull illustrative verses, bringing out clearly the concept of the technicalities of the science. The differences he indulged in have been logically explained and a way out has been suggested. As far as possible the views of earlier writers also have studied while explaining the stand of Vidyānātha. No point occuring in the text has been avoided. Thus this thesis projects the talents of Vidyānātha as a poet and a critic.

205

FOOT NOTES

CHAPTER - I

1. P.R., Kum., p.12

2. P.R., I-11

3. Rud., Kav., XII - 7, 8

4. S.T., I-27

5. S.K.A., V-122-3

6. Hem. Kav., VII-2

7. Vag. Al., V-7

8. Vag. Kav., V-p. 62

9. A.S., VIII-I-8.

10. D.R., II-I-2.

11. S.D., III-30

12. R.S., I. 61-63

13. S.S., IV. 42-43

14. Al. San., IV. 1-3.

15. Cited in L.S.D., p. 204

16. N.D., IV - 7, 8

17. AC. SS. XI-2

18. N.S. XXXIV: 18-19

19. P.R. Kum., pp. 13-14.

20. P.R., p.16

21. Ibid

22. "Atha sambhritanayakasamanyagunayogini nayiketi ...." .P.R., Kum., p. 19.

23. "Svadhinapatika ... khanditaceti strinamasthavasthah" Vag Kav., p. 63.

24. S.K., V. 110-120.

25. Ibid.

206

27. N.S., XXIV-207

28. D.R., II-24

29. P.R., I-43

30. S.D., III-74; S.T., I-133; Hem. Kav. Vii.30, 173; Vag., Kav., p.63; R.M., p.163; R.S., I-150; S.S., IV-23; A.S., IV-36.

31. N.S., XXIV-205; D.R., II-24; S.D., III-85;

32. S.T., I-137; B.P., IV-242

33. "Svatmanani vesmaca harsena bhusayatyesyati priye Visakasajja" D.R., p.106.

34. P.R., p.20.

35. N.S., XXIV-206

36. D.R., II-25

37. P.R., I-47

38. N.S., XXIV-210

39. D.R., II-26

40. S.T., I-141

41. P.R., I-49

42. N.S., XXIV-209

43. S.T., I-43

44. D.R., II-25

45. "Kupita Khanditamata", P.R. I-49

46. P.R., I-51

47. N.S. XXIV-208; S.D., III-82; S.T., I-139; Hem. Kav., p.419, R.M., p.125; D.R., II-26; R.S., I-132, 33; S.S., IV-24; A.S., IV-37.

48. P.R., I-53; N.S., XXIV-211; D.R., II-27; S.T., I147; Hem. Kav. p. 418; Vag. Kav., p. 63; R.M., p.108; R.S., I-123; S.S. IV-23; A.S., IV-38; S.D., III-84

49. P.R., p. 23

50. N.S., XXIV-212 207

S.T., I-145; Hem. Kav., p.421; Vag. Kav., p.64;

R.M., p.171; R.S., I-134; S.S., IV-25; A.S., IV-39,

S.D., II-76.

B.P., IV-258

D.R., II-27

P.R., Kum., p.22.

S.D., III-77-79

R.M., pp. 177-180

B.P., IV-273-78

R.M., p. 184

"Kamasastra prasiddhah padmini citrini

prabhrtayo jativisesa jnatavyah", P.R., p. 23.

CHAPTER - II

"Adosau Sagunau salankarau sabdarthau

kavyamiti kavya samanya laksanam". P.R., p. 29.

K.D., 1-7

"Nyakkaro hyayameva me yadarayastatrapyasau

tapasah so pyatraivanihanti raksasakulam

jivatyaho ravanah /

dhik dhik sakrajitam prabhodhitavata kim

kumbhakarnenava Svargagramatikavilunthanavr-

dho cchunaih kimebhirbhujaih" / Hanumannataka.

P.R., II-2-5.

P.R., Kum., p.32

P.R., II-6

P.R., II-7

Cited in A.P.Y., p.85

Ibid

Ibid

K.P.Ch. II.

208

V.V., pp. 15-16

R.G.,

S.D.,

"Gaunavṛttirati laksanaprabheda eva, sambandhanupatti mūlakatvat, yatha agnirmanavaka ityatra agnisadṛsyavisista manavaka pratipattirvivaksita tathaiva gangayam ghasa ityatra gangasambandhavisista tirapratipattirvivaksita". P.R., pp. 30-31

Ibid., II-12

P.R., II-13.

P.R., II-14

K.P., II-6, p.9.

"Tatparyarthopi Vyangyartha eva, napunah pṛthagbhutah", P.R., p.29.

P.R., p:32

S.T., I-19, III-52

D.R., II-77

Ibid

Ibid., II-83

Ibid., II-88

Ibid., I-95

N.S., XXII-25

Ibid., XXII-38

Ibid., XXII-47

Ibid., XXII-48

P.R., II-15, 16

S.K.A., p. 139

P.R., II-24

Ibid

K.D., I-40. Vide Com. of Hemacandratarkavagisa

Rud. Kav. p. 10, S.D., p. 468

R.A. III-17

39

S.K.A., II-33

40. P.R., p.43

41. P.R., II-4

42. "..... Rasena śayyām svayamabhyupagatā" etc., Kad., p.4 Verse - 8

43. "Śabdālaṅkāramāhustān kāvyamīmāṁsakā viduḥ chāyā mudrā tathoktiśca yuktirgumphanayā saha" "Abhiprayaviśeṣeṇa kaviśaktim vivṛṇvati mutpradāyinitī sāmudrā saiva śaryāpi no mata" A.P. 342-19 & 25

44. S.K.A.; II-54

45. P.R., Dr. Raghavan's Introduction, p.19.

46. P.R., p.45

47. Ibid.

48. P.R.; Dr. Raghavan's Introduction, p. 19.

49. Ekāvali, p. 21

50. C.C., p. 151

51. P.R., II-35

52. Ibid., p.45

53. C.C., IV-38

54. Ka. Su., 7

55. Ibid., p.11

56. S.K.A., V-123

57. K.M., p. 20

58. Eka., p.p. 18-19

59. P.R., p.45

60. Ibid., p.46

61. Ibid., II-38

62. P.R., II-39

63. Kira

210

64. P.R., II-40

65. P.R., II-41

66. Ibid., II-42

67. Ibid., Kum., p. 49

68. "Citrasadrsyat, ascarya hetutvadva citram", K.S., V-12

69. R.A., III-52

70. Mentioned in A.P.Y., p.144

71. Dhva.

73. P.R., Kum., pp. 52-53

74. "Agūḍha maparasyañgaṁ vācyasiddhyanga masphuṭam! Sandhigadha tulyaprādhānye kākvāksiptamasundaram" II P.R., p.60; (K.P., V-45)

75. K.D., I-16, 17

76. "Astasargannaca nyunam trimsatsargacca nadhikam Mahakavyam prayoktavyam mahapurusa kirtiyuk" Isanasamhita (as quoted in APY., p. 158)

77. Nāṭyanta vistāraḥ sargaḥ trimsatova naconatā I Dviṣaṭyānādhikaṁ kāryaṁ tat pādyaśyaca lakṣaṇam II Ibid.

78. "Yasmin Śrute etc. Ibid

79. "Sargānte bhāvisargāsya kathāyaḥ sūcanam bhavet". SD. VI-32

80. Dr. Raghavan says that Sanghāta is a classical name for it. PR., p. 23 Also vide K.D., I-13

81. K.D., I-31

82. "Ākhyāyikocchvāsādinā vakṣyāparavaktrādinā yukā. Kathā tu tadvirahitā". Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., Kum., p.64 211

"Tatkatithākhyāyiketayekā jātis samjinadvayaṅkitā |

Atraivāntarbhavişyanti ṣeṣāścākhyana jātayah ||

K.D., I-28

"Jayodāharaṇam bahvorgopayāmāsa kinnarān"

Raghu. IV-78. "Patreniveśitamudāharaṇam

priyāyāḥ" Vikra. II-15.

Al. San., XI-47, 48.

CHAPTER - III

P.R., p.85

D.R., I-10

N.S., XXI-1

B.P., p.200

N.L.R., p.7

P.R., Kum., p.68

Ibid., pp. 68-69

P.R., p.75

V.L.R., p.41

P.R., III-22

N.D., p.38

P.R., Kum., p. 76

"Āha Cārāyaṇaḥ Prakaraṇa nāṭakayorviskambhaḥ iti"

N.L.R., pp. 37-38.

P.R., p: 76

B.P., p. 219

N.Y., p.80., Ka. P., XV-108

N.L.R., pp. 43-45

R.S., III-189

P.R. p. 76

D.R., p.32

212

S.D., p.294

22. P.R., pp. 76-77

23. "preveśayati pātrāṇi raṅgamiti praveśakah", N.L.R., p.32

24. Ibid.,

25. N.S., XX-33

26. B.P., p.216, N.L.R., p.35

27. N.S., XX-34-36

28. N.L.R., p.35

29. Ibid.,

30. N.D., p.57

31. P.R., p.77

32. Ibid., Kum.

33. P.R., III-26

34. It may be noted hre that Vīthi as a sub-division has the eloquent bearing (Bhāratīṃnatti) whereas a separate type of the play it resorts to Gay style (Kaiśikīvrtti).

35. Vidyānātha explains Prarocana as "Praśamsyā 'bhimukhīkaraṇa rūpā bhāratī vṛtterangam Prarocana" (PR. p.88). The purpose of Prarocana is to make the audience propitious for witnessing the performance by way of, commending the poetical virtues of the dramatist and penegyrising the critical acumen of the audience. This sort of encomium is said to be Prarocana.

36. Regarding Sūtradhāra, the following statement of Sāgaranandin deserves our attention : "Ka esa sūtradhāro nāma? Anuṣṭhānām prayogasya sūtram taddhārayatīti sūtradharah. Pūrvaraṅgamātropayogi bahihprātramityarthah".(NLR., p.110)

37. A section of aesthetes consider that a variety of Āmukha is called Prastāvanā whereas some other opine that a type of Prastāvanā is called Āmukha. However, Dhananjaya maintains no difference between Āmukha and Prastāvanā and hence Vidyānātha treats these two words as synonyms. As the actor Sthāpaka conducts the Prastāvanā it is also called Sthāpanā. Some canonists have tried to

differentiate between Sthāpanā and Prastāvanā. In their view, Sthāpanā is more elaborate than Prastāvanā. But one could observe the brief Sthāpanas in the plays of Bhāsa.

38. P.R., Kum., p.78

39. P.R., III-28

40. P.R., p.79

41. S.D., VI-259

42. D.R., III-17

43. R.S., III-169

44. N.S., V-17-30

45. L.S.D., pp. 414 A, 414 B

46. B.P., pp. 194-95

47. P.R., III-37

48. Again there is adifference of opinion with regards to the concept of word (Pada). While some opine the foot of a verse is Pada, others contend the Śabda which is Suptiṅgaṁta is a Pada. Someothers consider the Avaṁtaravākya as Pada.

49. "Nandanti devatāḥ asyāmiti nāndī"

50. S.D., VI-25

51. N.S., V-107

52. B.P., p.197

53. R.S., III-138

54. D.R., III-4

55. P.R., III-4

56. P.R., III

57. Ibid., III-5

58. Ibid

59. P.R. 214

61. Ibid

62. P.R., p.71

63. P.R.,

64. P.R., Kum., p.71

65. N.L.R., p.

66. P.R., p.69

67. P.R., Kum., p.69

68. P.R., III

69. P.R., III-8

70. P.R., p.72

71. We find it to a large extent regarding all the ancillaries of the five junctures in Rāmacandra and Gunacandra's Nāṭyadarpana.

72. P.R., III-10

73. N.D., p. 96

74. P.R., Kum., p. 73

75. P.R., p. 75

76. S.D.,

77. Dhv., III-12

78. Vs. II

79. P.R., III-35, 36

80. "Abhigamyagunairyukto dhirodātta pratapavān" etc. Quoted from D.R., P.R., Kum. p.81.

81. N.S., XVIII-10; B.P., p.22; S.D., VI-7-9; R.S., III-130

82. S.D., VI-9; R.S., III-130

83. Sāgarandin says that the hero should be a king According to his classification kings belong to Dhīralalita type. Thus his contention results in saying that Nāṭaka should have a Dhīralalita type of hero.

84. P.R., III-38

86. N.S., XX, 49-52, D.R., III-44-46; S.D., VI-224-26; N.D II-66-69; B.P., p.241; K.A., p.331; N.L.R., p. 263

87. P.R., Kum. p.82.

88. P.R. Kum. p. 82

89. P.R.,

90. D.R., III-54

91. "Avalagitamavaskando vyavahāro Vipralambhamupapattih I

Bhayamantam vibhrāntirgadgadavāk ca pralāpaśca II

R.S., III. 270. N.S., XX-106; N.D., II-18; N.L.R., p.276; B.P., p. 247; D.R., III-35; P.R., III p. 82; S.D., VI-266-68.

92. P.R., p. 83.

93. N.S., XVIII-133-40; D.R. III-59; N.D., III-21, S.D., VI-241-44; B.P., p.247; N.L.R., p.266; R.S III-280-83

94. P.R., III-45; N.S., XX-94; D.R., III-60; B.P. p.248; N.L.R., p.265; N.D., II-27.

95. "Viśeṣeṇa āyujyante pātrāṇiyatra".

96. P.R., III-49-52

97. N.S., XVIII-114-28; D.R., III-62-68; B.P., p.248-50; N.L.R., p. 267

98. S.D., VI. 235.

99. N.D.

100. Monier Williams, P. 537

101. B.P., p. 249

102. N.S., p. 234

103. "Utkrmanonmukhasṛstih yāsām tu utsrṣṭāńkoḥ tābhiḥ ańkitaḥ iti guṇacandraḥ". N.D., p. 130

104. N.L.R., p. 270

105. P.R., Kum., p. 85

1. P.R., p. 145

2. Cited by Kumārasvāmin, Ibid.,

3. Ibid.,

4. P.R., p. 147

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. T.S., p. 76

8. R.G. p. 149

9. Ratnaśāṇa

10. P.R., p. 147

11. P.R., Kum. p. 147

12. Ibid., pp. 147-148

13. Ibid., p. 148

14. Ibid., p. 148

15. Ibid., p. 149

16. Ibid.,

17. P.R., p. 149

18. "Nanu ceṣṭā lakṣanoddīpanavibhāvānāṁ bhāvahāvādinām śṛṅgārakāryataya' nubhāvatvaṁ pratīyate" etc., Ibid., Kum.

19. Bhāvaprakāśa, Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, Ibid., p. 149

20. Ibid

21. P.R., p. 150 (cited by Vidyanatha)

22. Bhāvaprakāśa, Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, Ibid

23. P.R., p. 151

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., pp. 151-152

26. "Vikrtidaśanādijanyo manovikāro hāsah" P.R., p. 152.

27. "Bibhrāṇān Kābarīdhrtā" etc., P.R.

28. "Iṣṭajanaviyogādināi tmani duhkhāibhumih śokah" 217

29. Ibid.

30. "Śatkrıtāpacāreṇa manahprajvalanam krodhah" P.R.p. 153

31. P.R., p. 153

32. "Lokottaresu kāryeṣu stveyān prayatna utsāhah", Ibid., p. 154.

33. "Ksubdesvabdhiṣu" etc., Ibid

34. Quoted by Kumārasāmin, Ibid

35. "Raudrasandarsanādibhiranarthaśankānāṁ bhayam" Ibid., p. 154

36. P.R., p. 155

37. "Arthānām doṣasandarsanādibhirgarthaṇa jugupsā", Ibid.

38. Ibid

39. "Apūrvārtha sandarsana cittavisṭāro vismayah" Ibid

40. "Aunnatyam mahadanyadeva mahitah" etc., Ibid., pp. 155-56

41. "Samo Vairāgyādinā nirvikāracittavam" Ibid., p. 156.

42. Ibid

43. "Nirvedasyāmaṅgalaprāyasya prathamamanupadeyatvepyupādānāṁ vyabhīcāritvepi sthayitvābhidhānārtham. Tena nirvedasthāyibhāvasāntopi na-vamosti rasah". Mammata. Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., p. 156

44. P.R., Kum., p. 156

45. Ibid.

46. P.R., p. 158

47. Ibid

48. Ibid., p. 158

49. Ibid

50. P.R., p. 159

51. Ibid 218

53. Ibid

54. Ibid

55. P.R.P. 159

56. Ibidl, p.160

57. "Matam gadgadabhāṣitvam vaisvaryām pramadādijam" Ibid.,

58. P.R., Kum., p. 159

59. Ibid

60. P.R., p. 161

61. Ibid., pp. 161-62

62. Ibid., 162

63. Ibid., p.162

64. Ibid., p. 163

65. Ibid

66. Ibid., pp. 163-64

67. Ibid., p. 164

68. Ibid.,

69. Ibid., p.165

70. Ibid

71. Ibid.,

72. Ibid., p. 166

73. Ibid

74. Ibid., pp.166-67

75. Ibid., p.167

76. Ibid., pp. 167-68

77. Ibid., p.168

78. Ibid., p. 168

79. Ibid., pp. 168-169

80. Ibid, p. 169 219

81. Ibid., p. 169

82. Ibid

83. Ibid., pp. 169-170

84. P.R., p.170

85. Ibid

86. Ibid., p. 171

87. Ibid

88. Ibid

89. Ibid., p.172

90. Ibid

91. Ibid

92. Ibid., p. 173

93. Ibid., p. 174

94. Ibid., p. 174

95. Ibid., pp. 174-175

96. Ibid., p.175

97. Ibid

98. Ibid

99. Ibid., p.176

100. Ibid

101. Ibid

102. Ibid., p. 177

103. Ibid

104. Ibid., pp. 177-178

105. Ibid., p. 178

106. Ibid

107. Ibid., p. 179

108. Ibid., p. 179

109. Ibid

110. Ibid., p.180

111. Dr̥nmanassañgasaṅkalpa jāgarah Kṛṣatā 'ratil

Hrīyāgonmāda mūrcchānta ityanangga daśā II

Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., p180

112. P.R., pp. 180-181

113. Ibid., p. 181

114. Ibid

115. Ibid, p. 182

116. Ibid., p.182

117. Ibid., pp. 182-183

118. Ibid., p. 183

119. Ibid

120. Ibid., pp. 183-184

121. Ibid., p. 184

122. Ibid

123. Ibid

124. Ibid., p. 185

125. Ibid

126. Ibid., 185-186

127. Ibid., p. 186

128. Ibid., p. 186-97

129. Ibid., Kum., p. 187

130. P.R., p. 188

131. Ibid

132. Ibid

133. Ibid., Kum., p. 189

134. P.R., Ibid

135. P.R., p. 189

136. Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., p. 190

137. Ibid

138. Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., p. 190

221

139. Ibid., p. 191

140. P.R., Kum., p. 191

141. Quoted by Kumārasvāmin, P.R., p. 191

142. P.R., Kum., p. 191

143. Quoted by Vidyānātha, P.R., p. 193

144. Ibid.

145. Vy. V. p. 100

146. R.G., 1-31

147. P.R. p. 177

148. Yathaikasya brahmāṇdasya candrakāntasopānapaṅkti pratibimbita candrabimbavadupādhibhedadadanekadhā Kalpanāṁ, tadvadatrāpi Vyañjakavibhāvādibhedādvastutaḥ ekasyāpi nānātvamiti veditavyam. P.R., Kum., p.194

149. "Raso vākyārthaḥ san vilasati padārthāḥ punarami Vibhāvādyā yasmin Kila dadhāti viśrāntimucitām | Ato bhāvā eva Kramasamuditānyonyavibhavā Rasībhāvam bibhratyatha ca paṭatām tantava iva II

Ibid., P.R.,

150. P.R., Kum., p. 194

151. Ibid.

152. Ibid., p. 195

153. "Bhāvesthāyini vardhamānāvibhave ratyādike sindhuvat Kallolā iva sambhavanti vilayam Cāyānti bhāvā muhuḥ | Nirvedādyupabhogabhāvita nijāśvādātireko raso Loke syādānukārya eva Kathito nālye tu sāmājike II

P.R., p. 195

154. Ibid., Kum.

155. P.R., Kum., 196

156. Ibid.

CHAPTER - V

1. K.D., I-7

2. P.R., p. 197.

3. S.K.A., I-7; P.R., V-3

4. P.R., p. 198

5. "Indro marutvan ..... duścavanastusarameghaṅgah"

A.K., I-9.

6. "Brndārakādaivatāni pumsiva devatāstriyam"

Ibid., I-41-44

7. "Māyādivikalpitārthamayuktam" Ka. Su., 2.2.21.

8. K.P., p.169; S.D., p. 474; C.C., p.33

9. K.L., (Rud. Kav.) XI-5

10. P.R., V-12

11. S.K.A., I-9

12. Ibid., p. 17.

13. P.R., V-4.

14. Ibid., V-9

15. Ibid., V-8.

16. Ibid., V-13

17. Ibid., V-14.

18. "Yamakadau nirarthakatvam na doṣa iti kecit"

Hem. Kav., p. 200

19. P.R., V-15.

20. Ibid

21. S.K.A., I-14

22. P.R., V-17

23. Ibid., V-9

24. "Aślilamaṅgalaghrṇavadartham grāmyamucyate"

S.K.A., I-14. 223

25. P.R., V-24.

26. This is according to the Vārtika "Artiśrdrśibhyāśceti Vaktavyam"

27. P.R., V-29

28. Ibid

29. Ibid., V-30

30. Ibid., V-32

31. Ibid., V-33.

32. Ibid., V-35

33. Ibid., V-37

34. Ibid., V-39

35. Ibid., V-40

36. Ibid., V-42

37. Ibid., V-43

38. Ibid., V-45

39. Ibid., V-46

40. Asta. 8-3-17; 8-3-19

41. P.R., V-48

42. Ibid., V-49

43. Ibid., V-51

44. Ibid., V-52.

45. Ibid., V-54

46. Ibid., V-56

47. Ibid., V-60

48. S.K.A., I-47

49. P.R., V-62

50. Ibid., V-63

51. Ibid., V-65

52. Ibid., V-66

53. Asta - 3-4-2.1 224

54. P.R., V-68

55. S.K.A., I-49

56. P.R., Introduction, p.11

57. Ibid., V-69

58. Ibid., V-71

59. Ibid., V-72

60. Ibid., V-74

61. Ibid., V-75

62. Ibid., V-77

63. Ibid., V-78

64. Ibid., V-80

65. Ibid., V-81

66. Ibid., V-83

67. Ibid., V-86

CHAPTER - VI

1. P.R., P.217

2. K.D., I-43

3. R.G.p.228

4. P.R.p.217

5. Ka.Su. I - 3-6; K.D I - 45; S.K.A. I - 79

6. R.G. p. 238

7. NS XVII - 99

8. P.R. p. 217

9. K.D - I-47

10. P.R., p.218

11. "Mādhuryamuktamācāryaih Kroddhadāvapyatīvratā" SKA I-80

12. P.R. p.218

13. Ibid 225

15. P.R. p.219

16. N.S. XVII - 107

17. P.R. p.219

18. R.G. p.232

19. Ka. Su. I-3-22

20. P.R. p. 220

21. "Asayasyautkarṣastadudāttatvamisyate" S.K.A. I-82

22. N.S. XVII - 106

23. P.R. p.220

24. R.G. p. 234

25. P.R. p. 220

26. Ibid

27. Ibid., p. 221

28. Ibid., p. 222

29. R.G. p. 235

30. K.D. p. 193

31. C.L. IV - 5

32. P.R. p. 222

33. Ibid

34. Ibid., p. 223

35. Ibid

36. Ibid

37. Ibid., p.224

38. Ibid

39. Ibid

40. Ibid. p. 225

41. Ibid

42. "Eta eva ojahprasādaprabhṛtayorarthaguṇāḥ". Ka. Su. V-2-1.

Al. Sar. p. 9

CHAPTER - VII

P.R., p. 227

"Karanavyutpattya punah alankārasabdo'yam upamādiṣu vartate" Ka. Sū. I-I-2.

"Upaskārakah hāradaya ivalankarah", K.P. p. 301

P.R., p. 230

Ibid., p. 231

Ibid., p. 233

"Arthālankāratvepyasya sabdapaunaruktyāśritatvaccharabdālankāra prastāve lakṣaṇam kṛtam.

"Ud. Kav. p.3

"Arthapaunaruktyadevarthāśritatvādarhālankāratvam inḍeyam" Al. Sar. p. 21

"Ubhayālankara'yam" K.P. p. 119

P.R. p. 233

P.R. Kum. pp. 233-34

CHAPTER - VIII

P.R., p. 236

Ibid

Ibid

Ibid., p. 237

Ibid., p. 238

Asta - 5-1-115

"Tatra tasyeva", Ibid., 5-1-116

P.R., p. 240

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 241

Ibid.; p. 241

Ibid., p. 240

227

14. Ibid.

15. P.R., p. 241

16. Ibid., p. 244

17. Ibid., p. 245

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid

20. Ibid., p. 246

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid., p.247

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., p. 248

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid., p. 249

29. K.P. X-46; S D X-27

30. P.R., Kum., p. 249

31. P.R., p. 250

32. Ibid

33. Ibid., p. 257

34. Ibid., p. 252

35. Ibid

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., p.253

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid., p. 254

41. S.D.X - 35

42. P.R.P. 255

43. Ibid.

44. S D X-35

45. K.P X-6

46. P.R., p. 256

47. Ibid.

48. KD II-25

49. Compare Ruyyaka's definition : "Tasya ca trayī bandhacchāyā apahnavapūrvaka āropah, āropapūrvakāpahnavaḥ, Chalādiśabdair-rasatyatva pratitipadakairvāpahnavanirdeśaḥ. Al. Sar. p. 50

50. K.D. II-304; S.D X-38

51. P.R., p. 257

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid., p. 258

54. Ibid.

55. P.R., p. 260

56. P.R., p. 261

57. P.R., p. 261

58. Ibid., p. 262

59. Ibid.

60. P.R., p.262

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid., p. 263

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid., p. 264

68. Ibid

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid.

71. P.R., p. 264

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid., p. 265

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid

78. Ibid., p. 266

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid., p. 267

84. Ibid., p. 268

85. Ibid.,

86. Ibid.,

87. Ibid., p. 269

88. Ibid. p. 270

89. Ibid., p. 270

90. "Pratāparudradevasya guṇavarmanayā" etc., Ibid., p. 271

91. "Kalāpīrṇe nityam Jayati" etc, Ibid.,

92. Bh. Kav. II-79; K.D. II-205

93. K.P. X-11

94. SD X-55,56

95. "Sadyo'ślathamekhalampulakita" etc., P.R., p. 272.

96. "Vitavṛidamapāstamāna" etc. Ibid., pp. 272-73

97. Vidyānātha quotes this without mentioning the author. It is found in Rasakalika. Govt. Mss. Lib., Madras, R. 2241

98. "Bhutātrmagunaratnaughaih" etc., Ibid., p. 273

99. P.R. p. 274

100. Ibid.

101. Ibid.

102. Ibid., p. 275

103. "Bahuvallabhāḥ khalu raja" etc., Ibid., p. 276

104. "Kāste sundari vartate hṛdi sada" etc., Ibid

105. P.R., p. 277

106. Ibid.

107. Ka Su. IV-3-25

108. K.P. X-32; S.D. X-92

109. P.R., p. 278

110. Ibid.

111. Rud. Kav Yii-106

112. K.P. X-44; S.D. X-89

113. P.R. p. 279

114. K.P. X-134

115. P.R., p. 279

116. Compare K.P. X-51; S.D. X-90

117. P.R. VIII-139; K.P. X-52; S.D. X-90

118. P.R., p. 280; S.D. X-68

119. "Vastuto jātyādibhedānāmahrdyattrachuddatva-śleṣamūlatvābhyāṁ dvividho jneyah" R.G. p. 418

120. P.R. p. 280

121. Ibid., p. 281

122. Ibid

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid., p. 282

125. Ibid.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid.

128. "Nalahuṣadilīpadharmaputra" etc., P.R., p. 283

129. P.R., p. 283

130. Ibid

131. "Stoke brahmāndarandhre" etc., Ibid., p.284

132. Ibid

133. Ibid., p. 285

134. K.D. II-299; Eka., p. 279; S.D. X-66

135. "Sa (atiśayoktịh) ca asyāmavyabhicārinīti na tadvadhenāsya utthānam, api tu tadanuprāṇitvena". Al. 'Sar. p. 125.

136. "Ma sma bhātsarvatra vibhāvanāyāmatiśayoktiranuprāṇikā. Āhāryabhedabuddhiṃātraṃevānuprāṇakam. Tra kvacidatiśayoktyā kvacicca rūpakeneti na doṣaḥ". R.G., p. 433

137. P.R., p. 285

138. Ibid.

139. K.P. X-34, 35.

140. P.R., p.287

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. Ibid., p.288

144. K.P. X-39; S.D. X-71

145. P.R., p. 288

146. Ibid.

147. "Sa ca Prastutānāmaprastutānāṃ ca pratisvam guṇena kriyayā ca sambandhe caturvidhā" Kum. Ibid.

148. "Kirtanam stutinindārthaṃ sā matā tulyayogitā" K.D. II-330

149. S.D. X-330

150. Bh. Kav. III-27

151. K.P. X-18

152. R.G., pp. 326-27

153. P.R., p. 289

154. Ibid.

155. Ibid., p. 290

156. Al. Sar., p. 72

157. P.R., p. 290

158. Ibid.

159. Ibid., p. 291

160. Ibid.

161. S.D. X-50

162. P.R., p. 292

163. Ibid.

164. Ibid., p. 293

165. Ibid.

166. "Anekārthasya śabdāsya" etc., Ibid., p. 294.

167. Ibid.

168. Ibid., p. 295

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

171. Ibid., p. 296

172. Ibid., 297

173. Ibid.

174. Ibid

175. Ibid., p. 298

176. Ibid.

177. Ibid

178. Ibid., p.299

179. Ibid.

180. Ibid., p. 300

181. Ibid.

182. Ibid

183. Ibid., p. 301

184. Ibid.,

185. Ibid.,

186. Z., p. 30

187. Ibid., p. 303

188. Ibid

189. Ibid

190. Bh. Kav. II-71

191. K.D., II-169

192. S.D. X-61

193. P.R., p. 304

194. Ibid., p. 305.

195. Ibid

196. "Citrakarmasu varṇasaṅkaro Yatisu dandagrahaṇāni" ityādi śeṣasamprutvamasyā atyanta carutva nibandhanam". Al. Sar., p. 194.

197. P.R., p. 307

198. Ibid., pp. 307-308

199. Ibid., p. 308

200. Ibid.

201. Ibid. p. 309

202. Ibid.

203. Ibid., p. 310

204. Rud. Kav. IX-52-53 234

205. K.P. X-52-53

P.R., p. 313

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 314

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 315

"Mahāpurusā̄mudrā̄tacaritā̄maṅgibhūtavastarangābāvenopanibadhyamānām caritam codattam" Al. Sar. p. 231

"Rasābhava tadābhāsa" etc., P.R., Kum., p. 315

P.R., p. 316

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 317

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 318

CHAPTER IX

P.R., pp. 319-320

Ibid., p.320

Ibid.,

Ibid

Ibid., p. 321

Ibid

Ibid., p. 322

Ibid

VIDYANATHA AS A POET

P.R., I-1

Ibid., I-17

235

Ibid., I-23

4. Ibid., II-20

5. Ibid., II-22

6. Ibid., II-31

7. Ibid., II-32

8. Ibid., II-37

9. P.R., II-41

10. Ibid., p. 102

11. Ibid., IV - 36

12. K.S. V - 85

13. P.R., IV-80

14. Srngara. 23

15. P.R., VIII-26

16. Ibid., VIII-109

17. Ibid., VIII-182

18. C.M. p.81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS IN SANSKRIT

Abhinava Kālidāsa. Nanjarājayi-śobhūṣaṇa, Baroda, Oriental

Institute , 1930

Acyutarāya Sāhityasāra, Bombay, Nirnayasagar

Press, 1906.

Amarasimha

Mishra,

Amarakośa, Kuala Lumpur, Satyadeva

Amṛtānandayogin Alaṅkārasaṅgraha, Madras , The Adayar

Library, 1949

Ānandavardhana Dhvayāloka, Motilal Banarasidas, 1963

Annambhaṭṭa Tarkasaṅgraha, Varanasi, Chowkhamba

Sanskrit Series, 1969.

Appayadīkṣita

Vṛttivārtika, Bombay, Nirnayasagar Press,

1910

Kuvalayānanda, Varanasi, Chowakhamba

Vidya Bhavan, 1963.

Citramīmāṃsa, Varanasi, Vinayvihar,

1965

Bālarāmāyaṇa.

Bāṇa Kādambarī

Bhāmaha Kāvyālaṅkāra, Benaras, Chowkhamba

Sanskrit series, 1985

Bhānudatta Rasamañjarī, Aligarh, Vivek Publications, 1981

237

Bhārata

Nātyaśāstra, Varanasi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1929.

Bhāravi

Kirātārjunīya, Benaras, Chowkhamba Sanskrita Pustakalaya,1952.

Bhartrhari

Śatakatrayādi subhāṣita Sangraha, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,Bombay, 1948 Vakyapadiya.

Bhattanārāyana

Veṇīsamhāra, Madras, Balamanorama ed. 1943.

Bhoja

Sarasvatīkanṭhābharana, Varanasi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1976.

Bodhāyana

Bhagavadajjukam

Dandin

Kavyādarśa, Madras, Vavilla ed,. 1952.

Dhananjaya

Daśarūpaka, Bombay, Nirnayasagar Press, 1927.

Hanumana

Hanumanātaka, Varanasi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1967.

Hemacandra

Kāvyānuśāsana, Bombay, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya.

Jagannātha

Rasagangādhara,Varanasi, Chowkhamba Vidya Bhavan, 1970.

Jayadeva

Chandrāloka, Varanasi, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1960.

Kālidāsa

Raghuvamśa

238

Vikramorvasīya,NewDelhi,SahityaAkademi,1961

(The) Kumārasambhava ed. by M.R.Kale,

Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 6th ed., 1967

Kavyenduprakāśa, Varanasi,

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series,1966.

Alañkāraśekhara,Varanasi,

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series,1927.

Vyaktiviveka,Varanasi,

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series,1964

Kāvyaprakāśa, Varanasi, Bharatiya Vidya

Prakasan, 1967.

Anargharāghava.

Paramalaghumanjūṣā.

Nyāyadarśana

Aṣṭādhyāyī, Delhi, Motilal Banarasidas,

1977

Nātyadarpana, Delhi, Hindi Department ,

Delhi University, 1961.

Kāvyamīmāmsā, Varanasi,

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1934.

Kāvyālañkāra., Bombay, Nirnyasagar

Press, 1928.

Rasakalikā, A transcript from Govt. Mss.

Library, Madras.

239

Vidyānātha

Pratāprudrīya, ed by Dr. V. Raghavan,

Madras, Samskrta Vidyasamiti, 1970.

Viśvanātha

Sāhityadarpana, Bombay, Nirayansagar

Press, 1922.

Viśveśvara

Chamtkāracandrikā, Andhrauniversity

Waltair, 1969.

BOOKS IN ENGLISH

Aspects of sanskrit Literature by S.K.De, Firma K.L.Mukhopadhyay,

A Bibliography of the sanskrit Drama by Montgomery Schuyler,

Asian Publication Services, New Delhi, 1977.

Comparative Studies in Pali & Sanskrit Alankaras, Part I by

Herambanath Chaterjee, Sanskrit Pustak Bandar, Calcutta, 1960.

Concepts of Poetic Blemishes in Sanskrit poetics by Bachan Jha,

Chowkhamamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi, 1965.

Concepts of Rīti and Guna in Sanskrit Poetics by P.C. Lahari,

Oriental Books Reprint Corporation New Delhi, 1974.

Dhvanyāloka ( Translated into English with Notes) by Dr.

K.KrishnaMoorthy, Oriental Book agency, poona, 1955.

Dhvanyāloka and its Cretics by Dr. K.Krishna Moorthy, Kyvyaloka

Publishers , Mysore, 1967.

Drama in Sanskrit Literature by Adya Rangacharya, Popular

Prakashan, Bombay, 2nd ed. 1967.

Essays in Sanskrit Criticism by K.Krishnamoorthy, Karnatak

University, Darwar, 1964.

History of Sanskrit Poetics by P.V.Kane, Motilal Banarasi Dass,

Delhi, 4th ed., 1971.

240

Rudrata

Alainkārasarvasva, Bombay,

Nirnayasagar Press, 1939.

Sāgaranandin

Nāṭakalakṣaṇaratnakośa, Varanasi,

Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1972.

Śāradātanāya

Bhāvaprakāśa, Baroda, Oriental Institute,

Sarveśvara

Sāhityasāra, Trivendrum, The university

Manuscripts Library, 1948.

Singhabhūpāla

Rasārṇavasudhākara ed. by

T.Venkatacharya, Madras, The Adayar

Library and Research Institute, 1979.

Tirumalācārya,

Ratnaśāṇa, Commentary on

Pratāparudrīya.

Trivedi. K.H

The NāṭyaDarpana of Ramachandra and

Gunachandra. A, Critical Study,

Ahmedabad, L.D. Institute of Indology, 1966.

Udbhata

Kāvyānuśāsana, Bombay, Nirnayasagar

Press, 1915.

Vāgbhaṭa

Kāvyānuśāsana, Bombay, Nirayansagar

Press, 1915

Vegabhaṭālaṅkāra, Varanasi

Chowakhamba Vidya Bhavan, 1957.

Vāmana

Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti, Bombay,

Nirnayasagar Press, 1953

Vedavyāsa

Agnipurāṇa, Varanasi, Chowkhambā

Sanskrit Series, 1966.

Vidyādhara

Ekāvalī

241

Indian Aesthetics by K.S.Rameswar Sastry, Sri Vainivilas Press, Srirangam, 1928.

Indian Asthetics and Science of Language by Dr. Tarapadachakrabarti, Sanskrit Pustak Bandar, Calcutta, 1971.

Laws & Practice of Sanskrit Drama by Surendranath Sastri, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi, 1961.

Literacy Criticism in Ancient India by Dr. Ramarajan Mukherji, Sanskrit Pustak Bandar,Calcutta, 1966.

Natakalakshna Ratnakosa In the prespective of ancient Drama and Dramaturgy by Siddheswar Chattopadhyaya, Punti Pustak, Calcutta, 1974.

(The) Number of Rasas by V. Raghavan, Adayar Library, Madras, 1940.

(The) Origin and Development of the theory of Rasa and Dhavani in Sanskrit Poetics by Dr. Tapasvi S. nandi, Gujarat University Ahmedabad, 1973.

Outlines of Sanskrit Poetics,by G.Vijayavardhana, Chowkhamba Publication, Varanasi, 1970.

Principles of Literary and Criticism in Sanskrit edited by Dr R.C. Dwivedi, Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1969.

Sanskrit Poetics by Krishna Chitanya, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1965.

(The) Science and Criticism in India by Dr. A.K.Warder, The Adayar Library and Research Centre, Madras, 1978.

Some aspects of Literary criticism in sanskrit by A. Shankaran Oriental Books Reprint Corporation New Delhi, 2nd ed., 1973.

Some concepts of the Alankārasāstraty V. Raghavan, The Adayar Library, Madras, 1942.

242

A Study of Alankaras in Sanskrit Mahakavyas and Khandakayvas

by Antonio Binimelis Sagera, Bharatiya Vidya Prakasan, Delhi,

( The) Theory of Rasa and Sanskrit Drama by D.R.Mankend.

BOOK IN FRENCH

Fillizoat, PierreSylvain. Le Prataparudriya Pandichery Institute

Francais D' Indologue, 1963.

BOOKS IN TELUGU

Prakāśavarṣa Rasārṇavālaṅkāra Kakinada, Andhra sahitya

Parishad, 1937.

Rangacarya,Celamacarla Āndhra Prataparudrayaśobhuṣaṇamu

Śāradātanaya Bhāvaprakāśanamu edited by

Madhavaramarma, Jammulamadaka, Hyderabad, A.P.

Sangitanataka Academi, 1973.

243