31. CHAPTER - IV

CHAPTER - IV

xe56.1. 69.

288

70. k.p., Canto 1, Vs. 201 & 204

73 P.S.,p.,318.

74. S குதுக், ல்ல்றஎலன்டு, கசசவன்

Studies ın Kalapurnodayam

3025, 4. 3., 8. 0

76. P S., pp., 85 - 88 77 P.S., p., 323 78. P.S., p., 101

79 289

80. K.P., Ed. by K. Subbaiah Sastrı, pp., 261 - 264.

šes., e. 5., 45. 82. 80 .بحكه دنن داركة تركع الذق s. 57, 5e., 3.63

G. V. Knshna Rao

83. K.P., Canto 5, v.63 84. P.S., Vıde pp., 91 - 98. 85. Ibid., p., 91. 86. Ibid .. p .. 94. 87. K.P., Canto 5, v.45. 88. Ibid., v.110. 89. P.S., p., 98 90. Andhn, Vol.2, Issue No.3. 91. Dictinoary of World Literature, Ed.by Shipley J.1.,p., 21. 92. This is still the case with so many of our Indian critics. Even Bharata,Anandavardhana and abhinavagupta did not altogether escape this muddle because their differentiation of rasābhāsas and bhavabhasas and the classification of nayakas or heroes under four types is defintely coloured by their absolure utilitarian ethis. But their great merit lies

290 in admitting even rasabhasas and bhavabhasas to the class of rasa

s: 31

5S55533. 3213.

55333. 14. Studies ın Kalapurnodayam

e. é., e. 2., ;. , 3. 291

CHAPTER - V

96. Ap., Canto 2, V. 234 97. K.Pr. Chapter 7, k.60.S.D echoes the same in chapter 7, Ks.12 - 15. 98. That Mammata was misguided on this issue has been ably presentd by Srı V. Tiruvengalacharyula garu in his A.Dh.A.See pp., 548 - 557. 99. K.T.V., part 2, Chapter 1, p. 143, 100. K.T.V., p.143 102. K.P., Canto 8,vs 175,177and 178 103. This reading is mnept. The word Koa suits the context better. 104. K.P., Canto 8, vs.167, 168 & 171. 105. K.T.V., p., 145. 106. Aristotle's Poetics, Tr.By Bywater, pp., 91 - 92. 107. N.S., Chapters 14, 18 and 23. G. V. Knshna Rao

108. S.K.M.,Canto 3,vs.157-171. 109. K.T.V., p.143. 110. K.P., Ed.by Sūryanārāyana Sastrı, p.488.

109. K.S., Sarga 1, SI.5. 113. For a detaild study of this problem the present wrter's Jēgantalu parts 1 & 3 may be consulted . 114 K.P., Canto 6, vs.202 and 204. 115. K.P., Canto 5, v.59. 116&117. Ibid., Canto 6, vs.195 - 196.

292 118. Ibid.Canto 4, v.185. 119. K.P., Canto 7, vs.91 - 96 120. K.T.V., pp., 238 -9. 121. K.P., Canto 7., vs.274 & 275. 123&124. Krıshna Bharata, Aranya Parvam, Canto 1, vs 261 -263 125. SN., p., 116. 126. Nachana Somana's Uttaracharıvamsam,Canto 2.v.91

K.T.V., P. 242 128. V.J., p. 42. 129. Dh.A., Udyota 3, p. 183. 130. K.p, Canto 8, v.178. The text is the same in all the editions. 130-a. K.T.V., pp., 145 - 6. 131. K.P., pp. 115 - 122. 132. R.P., Canto 2, vs. 93 - 100 133. K.T.V., p.147.

Studies ın Kalapurnodayam

sey .. , e. 5., 8. 136. 135. K.p., Canto 6., v. 77.

S., e. 6, x. 79. 137. K.T.V., pp., 210 - 11. 138. P.S.P., ... 139. Dh.A. Udyota 3. 140. S.D., Parıcchēda 7, Ks.12 - 15. 141. P.S., p., 116. 142. K.P., Canto 7, Vs.43 - 45. 143. K.P., Ed .by M.S., p.172. 144. K.P., Canto 3, v.118. 145. Idbid., Vs.114 - 115.

146. K.p., Ed.by K.S., Canto 3, Pr.44 seems to be an unneces- sary interpolation.

148. If the interpretatation of the cntic is true,an object under constant observation,when it undergoes a radical change should not be recognised. When there can be no such rec- ognition, the law of causality is absolutely impossible. Added G. V. Knshna Rao

to this, the above interpretation goes against the satkaryavada and satkhyatwvada of Visistadvaita which is going to be proved to be the philosophy of the poet in a subsequent chapter. However, all these considerations would have been thrown overboard if the poet had men- tioned that Manistambha would not be able to recognise the persons in their assumed froms. But such a statement is nowhere to be found.

149. This may appear to be contradicted by the following words of Manistambha :-

K.P.,Canto 3,v.178. 294 In view of the consideration mentioned above these words of Manistambha are to be taken as the result of his illu- sion.

150. K.P., Ed byM S.p., 168.

151. S NSe 2

K.P., Canto 5, v. 65.

s. 3., e. 3, 3 283. 153. Vide Andra Kavı Jivitamulu, pp., 348 - 9 and P.S., p., 104

Studies ın Kalapurnodayam