भारतकोश
काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara with Hindi Commentary

महाकवि राजशेखर / पं. केदारनाथ शर्मा द्वारा

DevanagariSanskritpublished381 पृष्ठ

पृष्ठ 267, कुल 381 में से

संदर्भ में पढ़ें
पृष्ठ 267

212 EXPLANATORY NOTES speech known as रूपक applies to both शङ्कर and क्षीरसिन्धु which have several adjectives each with two meanings. This is the special feature of a particular poet. The same idea finds expression in the work of a later poet in the second verse, though only one word शङ्करक्षीरसिन्धवे is borrowed from the former verse. The reading नाप्रत्यभिज्ञायातः as found in the A and B MSS, however, gives quite a different meaning, and this is almost diametrically oppo- site to the meaning given above. According to this the sentence should be construed as :— अप्रत्यभिज्ञायातः पादोऽपि न परिहरणीयः । तस्यापि साम्ये न किञ्चन दुष्टं स्यात् । That being the case, the pāda इत्युक्तवान् etc, is not to be considered as an instance of actual borrowing. The reading of the C. MS, is adopted here because of the context in which Rāja- śekhara particularly refutes the view of the Ācāryas who maintain that for the purposes of plagiarism the number of words should be more than three. It may be noted here that the pāda इत्युक्तवान् etc. has only three words and according to the Ācāryas this is not an example of plagiarism. But Rājaśekhara thinks that this also is to be avoided. ll. 15–25. Here also Rājaśekhara rejects the view held by the Ācāryas. The line may be construed as अन्यथात्वकरणकारणं पादः नैव हरणम् । अपि तु स्वीकरणम् । The same pāda त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्ति used in the first verse in praise of त्याग is quoted in the next verse in order to denounce it. The verse त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्तीत्यलीकमेतत्. etc is attributed to S'ūdraka in the Subhāṣitāvali but it cannot be traced to his Mṛcchakaṭika. The Ācāryas hold that this is not an example of plagiarism, but only an adaptation of a pāda from an earlier verse by a later writer. Rājaśekhara's view is that such adaptations without acknowledgment also are to be avoided. Page. 59. ll. 1–6. Rājaśekhara exemplifies here another instance of plagiarism. Here, out of the two halves of the verse, the first half पादस्ते नरवर etc, is taken over bodily and the second is changed by a later writer. सीवनी=a line connecting the scrotum and anus. *[ l. 8. तत्तावदेव attributed to प्रकाशदत्त । l. 17. अरण्ये निर्जने, Subhāṣitāvali (No. 555). ]