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

118 EXPLANATORY NOTES ter of the Harṣacarita and adduced some reasons to explain why Sarasvatī had to marry Dadhīca and how Vatsa, Bāṇa's Gotraguru, was connected with Sārasvateya. The Vāyupurāṇa and the Harṣacarita seem to have offered materials to Rājaśekhara who while describing the story of Kāvyapuruṣa, the son of Sarasvatī, makes him one of the earliest exponents of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. For a complete description and origin of Sārasvateya a reference may be made to the 3rd chapter of the present work. l. 3. वृन्दीयसाम्:—more important gods. The word वृन्दारक means divine beings or Devas and it transforms itself into वृन्दीयस् in comparative (vide Pāṇini 6-4-157). l. 4. काव्यपुरुषः—Bhṛgu and S'ukra are known as Kavi. Sārasvateya the descendent of their family is, therefore, called Kāvyapuruṣa (vide Pāṇini 4. 1. 151). l. 4. दिव्येन चक्षुषा:—through divine power. This accounts for his knowledge of सर्वसमय and भविष्यदर्थ. l. 6. काव्यविद्या:—science of poetical composition. l. 6. अष्टादशाधिकरणी:—the collection of 18 Adhikaraṇas or topics. The word Adhikaraṇa is interpreted in several ways, but the following three may be said to be appropriate for the present application of the word. (1) Each discussion regarding Dharma and Brahma introduced by Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa in their Mīmāṁsāśāstras, is called an Adhikaraṇa. This technical dis- cussion is defined as:— विषयो विशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तथोत्तरः । प्रयोजनं च (संगतिश्चेति) पञ्चाङ्गं प्राञ्चोऽधिकरणं विदुः ॥ According to this definition an Adhikaraṇa must consist of five limbs, namely, विषय etc., which constitute the actual discussion. Though Rājaśekhara is not entirely in accord with this definition in his Adhikaraṇa of Kavirahasya, his discussions have five limbs such as विषय etc., particularly in respect of the nature of poets, origin of poetry, etc. (2) Secondly, the word Adhikaraṇa means the court of justice. Here Rājaśekhara records his own judgment on several topics pertaining to Kavirahasya after stating the different schools of thought started by the Ācāryas, Surānanda, S'yāmadeva and others which he ultimately rejects. The division into Adhikaraṇas found in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmaśāstra

FIRST ADHYĀYA 119 is also planned according to this method where in the same manner, the respective authors, while discussing the different topics, state the views of earlier authors and ultimately reject them. (3) Thirdly, the word Adhikaraṇa is used in a popular sense signifying a full discussion of a particular topic (अधिक्रियन्ते प्रस्तूयन्ते अर्थाः अस्मिन्निति अधिकरणम्). This explanation, of course, covers the Adhikaraṇa division of the Artha and Kāma śāstras which are divided respectively into 15 and 7 Adhikaraṇas, each having several Adhyāyas. In the case the word is synonymous with the word अध्याय or अधिकार, and does not include the technical Adhikaraṇa of five factors: विषय, संशय etc. l. 7. स्नातकेभ्यः. Snātakas are those who after studying the Vedas, take the final bath or स्नान, live the life of a householder and observe some rules for cleanliness as prescribed in the Dharma- śāstras. (For the rules of a Snātaka, see for instance, Gautama's Dharmasūtra, chapter 9). They belong to the order of a house- holder and not of a Brahmacārin. Here Rājaśekhara points to the divine Snātakas who after finishing the study of Kāvyavidyā take a bath to follow the rules of a Snātaka. In this connection it is to be remembered that Dharmamīmāṁsā is to be studied after studying the Vedavidyā and before one becomes a Snātaka. (See Jaimini's sūtra अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा। 1-1-1). In order that greater respect may be shown to his Mīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara mentions that the Kāvyamīmāṁsa was taught to Kāvyavidyā-Snātakas. The reason for this digression seems to be to indicate that discussion on poetics is appreciated only by those who lead the life of a householder. The words अष्टादशाधिकरणीं and स्नातकेभ्यः show that Kāvyapuruṣa taught all the 18 Adhikaraṇas to a corsiderable number of divine Snātakas.

• [l. 8. 'सुवर्णनाभः। This name occurs also in the Kāmasūtra; “सुवर्णनाभः सांप्रयोगिकम् ।” (काम. सू. 1. 1-13).] l. 8. समाम्नासीत्. Out of those divine Snātakas who studied the Kāvyamīmāṁsā of 18 sections from Kāvyapuruṣa, Sahasrākṣa composed a treatise on the Kavirahasya only. The root म्ना preceded by सम् and आ indicates that the Snātakas separately composed different treatises dealing with each section of the Kāvya- mīmāṁsā; but it is not reasonable to infer from this use of the verb that Sahasrākṣa studied the Kavirahasya-section only under the guidance of Kāvyapuruṣa. This is supported by the passage at the end of this sentence, namely: इति ततस्ते पृथक् पृथक् स्वशास्त्राणि विरचयाञ्चक्रुः। l. 13.

120 EXPLANATORY NOTES Subjects dealt with in these 18 sections are more or less well known in the history of poetics. But the authors such as Sahasrākṣa and others are entirely new in the field of Alaṅkāra literature. Though some early writers on poetics, rhetoric and dramaturgy such as S'ilāli, Kṛśāśva, Kāśyapa, Vararuci and Medhāvin are known through the writings of Pāṇini, Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, none of them, however, is mentioned here as the author of any subject. Rājaśekhara, indeed, mentions a few names such as Bharata, Kucamāra, Suvarṇanābha and Nan- dikeśvara who are fairly known, but the names of Sahasrākṣa and others mentioned by him are entirely unknown. It is not proper to say that these names are entirely imaginary, but it is very probable that he recorded here a forgotten tradition handed down from a source which remains yet unknown. But then, it has to be explained how Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Udbhaṭa, Ānandavar- dhana and Rudraṭa who were earlier than Rājaśekhara and dealt with the same subjects with a special interest, did not care to mention any of the earliest writers on these subjects. In this connection, another point also is worthy of note that Rājaśekhara has made a good use of the figure of speech known as Anuprāsa in selecting the names of the authors of these chapters, and as such the names may as well represent purely imaginary persons. This is borne out by such combinations as :—कविरहस्यं सहस्राक्षः, औक्तिकमुक्तिगर्भः, निर्णयं सुवर्णनाभः, चित्रं चित्राङ्गदः, श्लेषं शेषः, औपम्यमौपकायनः, etc. Of course, we find mention in the Artha and the Kāma sāstras of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana, of similar names of authors such as Bhāradvāja, Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Parāśara and others whose works are either summarised or referred to in them. But we cannot doubt the authenticity of the statements of Kauṭilya and Vātsyā- yana because there are no works on Artha and Kāma earlier than Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana available to-day, as it is in the case of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. On the contrary, the existence of the works of such authors as Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa can be proved from quotations found in later works under their names (see Intro. of the Arthaśāstra, Trivandrum edi. p. 6.). l. 8. औक्तिकम्:—'different methods of expression from the sentences'. They are वाच्य, लक्ष्य, गौण and व्यङ्ग्य of अर्थ, and वाचक, लक्षक, गौण and व्यञ्जक of the शब्द. It is natural for Rājaśekhara to explain

FIRST ADHYĀYA 121 the nature of Dhvani in this chapter of औक्तिक which, as he says, was composed by उक्तिगर्भ; but he does not expressly mention the school of Dhvani as the subject of any one of his Adhikaraņas, probably because it had recent origin in his time and also because he belonged to the Rasa school of Bharata. He knew, however, the view of Ānandavardhana, the chief exponent of the Dhvani school, as he quoted a verse from his Dhvanyāloka (See p. 16. of this work). Vakrokti which is included by Rudrața as a Śabdālaṅkāra must have also been treated in this chapter of औक्तिक along with different kinds of उक्तिs as explained by Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhā- bharaṇa. (2. 39). l. 8. रीतिनिर्णयम्। Discussions regarding the nature of the Rītis are current from the very early stages of the science of poetics as both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, the earliest writers on this subject, mention them as already existing since a very long time (see Bhāmaha's, K. A. 31-33 and Daṇḍin's K. A. 1-40). Vāmana, the author of the Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra, improved upon them and stated that Rīti alone is the soul of the Kāvya. (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य। 1. 2. 6.). l. 9. प्रचेतायनः। The earliest authors on poetics accept अनुप्रास as one of the Alaṅkāras or figure of speech. Bhāmaha treats this at the very outset while dealing with Alaṅkāras and divides it into two kinds as Grāmya and Lāṭīya. Daṇḍin characterizes Anuprāsa as an inferior method of writing which he attributes to the writers in the Gauḍa country (see K. A. 1. 44-60). But the followers of Bhāmaha have been able to discover several varieties of it in their works. The original writer on अनुप्रास, as Rājaśekhara mentions, is प्रचेतायन, very probably a member in the family of Pracetas, one of the ten Prajāpatis. But the word प्रचेतायन does not seem to be grammatically correct according to the rules of Pāṇini. Vālmīki, the author of the Rāmāyaṇa, also is a Prācetasa. Rājaśekhara perhaps means that Vālmīki was the original writer on Anuprāsa as we frequently come across examples of this figure of speech in his Rāmāyaṇa. It is curious, however, that Pracetas does not find any place among the gotras and pravaras of the Brāhmins. l. 9. यमकानि। The name of the original inventor of यमक is omitted in all MSS. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Citrāṅgada cannot be taken as the teacher of both the Yamaka and Citra. Firstly because, the name is not in keeping with the Anuprāsa which १६

122 EXPLANATORY NOTES is strictly observed here in mentioning the subject and the author. Under this Anuprāsa principle, Citrāṅgada can be the originator of the Citra alone. Secondly because, Rājaśekhara subsequently states that 18 chapters were separately composed by eighteen authors : इति ततस्ते पृथक्पृथक् स्वशास्त्राणि विरचयाञ्चक्रुः । (p. 1. l. 13.) Some scholars, however, suggest here a reading different from the present one as आनुप्रासिकं प्रचेताः । यमो यमकानि । But this reading is not warranted by the MS material available at present. The form प्रचेतायन also does not seem to be grammatically correct as the grammatical form in this case ought to be प्राचेतायन or प्रचेतयनिः. Yamakas are very freely used in the Sanskrit literature even from the time of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata. Kālidāsa also in the 9th sarga of the Raghuvaṁśa uses Yamaka frequently but with care so as not to give rise to a feeling of disgust in the mind of his readers. It is one of the four Alaṅkāras mentioned with several varieties by Bharata, the earliest writer on the science of poetics (see N. S. ed. 16th Chapter). Amongst later writers, Bhāmaha was not satisfied with the classification of Bharata, and he acknowledged only five varieties instead. Though Daṇḍin has no special fondness for Yamakas in the Kāvya, he, nevertheless, deals with the subject with its various sub-divisions in a separate chapter (see K. A. 1. 61). It is, therefore, clear that Yamakas had quite an early origin. Yama, who is considered to be the original teacher of the Yamaka in the emended reading given above is quite in keeping with the scheme of Anuprāsa followed by Rājaśekhara in mentioning the subjects and their teachers. l. 9. चित्रं चित्राङ्गदः । Later writers on literary criticism use the word चित्र to mean an inferior kind of poetry possessing Guṇa and Alaṅkāra only, without any vestige of Dhvani. (see Dhvanyāloka 3. 42 and Kāvyaprakāśa, 1. 5.). Rājaśekhara, here does not refer to the चित्रकाव्य but to चित्र which is recognized as one of the Śabdālaṅkāras by the early writers on Alaṅkāra. Here by the word चित्र, is meant such peculiar combination of words in poetry as to make up Bandhas such as चक्र, खङ्ग, मुरज, etc. and other arrangements of words such as मात्राच्युतक, प्रहेलिका etc. Rudraṭa is the first writer to include this kind of combination of words in his list of Śabdālaṅkāras (2-13.) with the name चित्र, and to deal with its various forms in the 5th chapter of

his Kāvyālaṅkāra although Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin mention this kind only as another variety of Yamaka. It is curious that the subjects of several Adhikaraṇas in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, should be so arranged by Rājaśekhara as to appear as an imitation of the system adopted by Rudraṭa. Rudraṭa gives in his Kāvyā- laṅkāra the list of the S'abdālaṅkāras in the following verse:— वक्रोक्तिरनुप्रासो यमकं श्लेषस्तथाऽपरं चित्रम् । शब्दस्यालंकाराः श्लेषोऽर्थस्यापि सोऽन्योऽस्तु ॥ (2. 13). and treats of these Alaṅkāras in chapters 2-5 following the same order. In the first and second chapters, Rudraṭa deals with Kavirahasya and Rītinirṇaya. Now, it will be evident that the order of subjects adopted by Rājaśekhara in the first 7 Adhikaraṇas is substantially the same as found in the work of Rudraṭa. That Rājaśekhara also followed Rudraṭa in many im- portant points will be shown in sequel. l. 9. शब्दश्लेषम् । Following Rudraṭa's classification here शब्दश्लेष is included among the शब्दालंकारs and अर्थश्लेष among the अर्थालंकारs. Earlier writers such as Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana make no such distinction between these two varieties of the S'leṣa but include them both amongst the अर्थालंकारs. Rudraṭa for the first time treats of these two separately in two different chap- ters. Regarding the attribution of the original authorship of the S'leṣa to S'eṣa no authority exists, and the word S'eṣa is probably used since it is in accordance with the author's scheme of Anuprāsa already referred to. ll. 9–10. वास्तव, औपम्य, अतिशय and अर्थश्लेष । Here Rājaśekhara begins his list of Arthālaṅkāras. This classification of the Arthā- laṅkāras into the groups Vāstava etc. is found only in the Kāvyā- laṅkāra of Rudraṭa; but the early writers on Alaṅkāra preceding Rudraṭa do not seem to be aware of this system of grouping. Rudraṭa classifies them in the following verse :— अर्थस्यालंकारा वास्तवमौपम्यमतिशयः श्लेषः । एषामेव विशेषाः अन्ये तु भवन्ति निःशेषाः ॥ (K. A. 7. 9). and deals with them in four chapters 7-10. Under the heads वास्तव, etc. Rudraṭa includes respectively 23, 21, 12 and 10 figures of speech as based upon the four definite principles, वास्तव, etc. This shows that Rājaśekhara generally followed Rudraṭa in his

124 EXPLANATORY NOTES classification of subjects. But the attribution of these four groups of Alaṅkāras to four authors पुलस्त्य, औपकायन, पराशर and उतथ्य must be an original contribution of Rājaśekhara. It is also possible that Rājaśekhara and Rudraṭa followed a common source for their materials which unfortunately does not exist now. In any case it can safely be asserted that Rājaśekhara in the first 11 sections of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā closely follows the arrangement of topics as found in the first 10 chapters of Rudraṭa's Kāvya- laṅkāra. That Rājaśekhara was well acquainted with Rudraṭa's work, is borne out by the fact that he quoted from Rudraṭa's work in several places in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā. (Cf. p. 16. l. 5 and p. 31. l. 9 of K. M. with Rudraṭa 1. 18 and 2. 16). l. 11. उभयालंकारिकम्। Two kinds of उभयालंकार seem to have been treated in this chapter. The two Alaṅkāras संकर and संसृष्टि with their varieties may be called उभयालंकारs, because they are known when there is a combination of two or more Alaṅkāras belonging either to Śabda or Artha. Rudraṭa deals with these अलंकारs in the 10th chapter of his Kāvyālaṅkāra after अर्थश्लेष. Rājaśekhara also takes up this subject in the same order after अर्थश्लेष. Another kind of उभयालंकार which may form the subject matter of this chapter includes those Alaṅkāras which beautify the poetry belonging to both Śabda and Artha. Alaṅkāras such as Upamā, Punaru- ktavadābhāsa, Samuccaya, Sahokti, Śleṣa, Vyatireka, Rūpaka, Virodha, etc. come under this category. Cf. Rudraṭa's, K. A. 4. 32-34 and Udbhaṭa's, K. A. S. S. (gos. ed.) pp. 37-40. There is another kind consisting of 24 उभयालंकारs which is dealt with by Bhojadeva in the 4th chapter of his Sarasvatī- kaṇṭhābharaṇa. These Alaṅkāras do not, however, form the subject matter of this chapter because Bhoja's उभयालंकार includes only Upamā, Rūpaka etc. which are already included in the Aupamya group under the authorship of औपकायन in the previous chapter of this work. l. 11. वैनोदिकम्। Kāmadeva is mentioned as the author of this chapter which deals with the Vinodas. Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra (1-4) gives a list of Vinodas for an accomplished citizen or Nāgaraka who is required to indulge in these Vinodas in the company of their ladies or dancing girls. The treatises Kandar- pacūḍāmaṇi, etc. dealing with the subject Kāma also explain the nature of these Vinodas for romantic couples. They are:—

FIRST ADHYĀYA 125

आपानकविधिः, उद्यानजलक्रीडा, कुक्कुटलावमेषयुद्धम्, द्यूतम्, यक्षरात्रिः, कौमुदीजागरः, सुवसन्तकः etc. Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa gives a similar list of Vinodas of lovers to be described by poets while dealing with love affairs in their poetry. Cf. अष्टमीचन्द्रकः कुन्दचतुर्थी सुवसन्तकः । आन्दोलनचतुर्थ्येकशाल्मली मदनोत्सवः ॥ etc. Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa 5, 93-96. These Vinodas are classified according to the different seasons or Ṛtus by Śāradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśana as under:— अष्टमीचन्द्रशक्राचवसन्तमदनोत्सवाः । बकुलाशाकविहतिः शाल्मलीमूलखेलनम् ॥ एते वासन्तिकाः प्रायो विनोदा रसिकोचिताः । उद्यानयात्रा सलिलक्रीडा पुष्पापचायिका । नवाग्रखादिका चूतमाधवीनवसंगमः । एते प्रायो विनोदाः स्युः निदाघे सुखभोगिनाम् ॥ etc. pp. 137-138. In the Ratnāvalī, Śākuntala, etc. we find that Vinodas such as the Kaumudīmahotsava, Manmathapūjā Vasantotsava, etc. are introduced and prescribed for lovers. This chapter on Vinodas is attributed by Rājaśekhara to Kāmadeva because these are concerned with pure love. l. 11. रूपकनिरूपणीयम्। The chapter where the different varieties of Dramas or Rūpakas are explained, is attributed to Bharata the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Here the word Rūpaka stands for Nāṭya according to the definition of Śāradātanaya which is as follows:— रामादितादात्म्यापत्तिर्नटे या नाट्यमुच्यते । रूपकं तद्भवेद्रूपं दृश्यत्वात्प्रेक्षकैरिदम् ॥ रूपकत्वं तदारोपात्कमलारोपवन्मुखे । Bhāvaprakāśana p. 180 The fanciful identity of Naṭas on the stage with Rāma etc. is known as Rūpaka because it is so witnessed by the audience. This Nāṭya or Rūpaka is based on eleven fundamental principles as stated by Bharata in the 6th chapter of his work. The relevant quotation is given below:— रसा भावा ह्यभिनया धर्मा वृत्तित्रवृत्तयः । सिद्धिः स्वरास्तथाऽऽतोद्यं गानं रङ्गश्च सङ्ग्रहः ॥

126 EXPLANATORY NOTES The whole of the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata explains only these 11 principles one after another in 36 chapters.

1. 12. रसाधिकारिकम्। The section dealing with the Rasādhikāra or the explanation of Rasas is attributed to Nandikeśvara. Nandikeśvara is reputed to be the chief follower of Mahādeva and as one of the earliest writers of Kāmaśāstra in 1000 chapters. Cf. वात्स्यायन 1. 1. 8. 'महादेवानुचरश्च नन्दी सहस्रेणाध्यायानां पृथक्कामसूत्रं प्रोवाच'। This work of Nandī is said to have been summarised by many writers such as, औद्दालकि, श्वेतकेतु, बाभ्रव्य, पाञ्चाल and वात्स्यायन. Here the word Rasa indicates only the S'ṛṅgārarasa and not others namely, Vīra, Karuṇa, etc, which are recognized as Rasas only in Nāṭya. Because the Nāṭyarasas or the emotions produced on the audience while witnessing a drama, and explained by Bharata in the Nāṭyaśāstra, form the subject matter of the previous Adhikaraṇa रूपकनिरूपणीयम् of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. The actual Karuṇa, Vīra, Bībhatsa, etc. cannot be called Rasas or enjoy- ments as persons having these emotions do not get any enjoyment whatsoever. But when these Rasas Karuṇa etc. are enacted by skilful actors with histrionics on the stage, the corresponding emo- tions of the audience are roused in the form of joy and therefore may be called as Nāṭyarasas. According to this explanation, S'ṛṅgāra alone is the Rasa par excellence, and this is treated of by Nandikeśvara in this section. Regarding the authorship of Nan- dikes'vara, to a work dealing with S'ṛṅgāra, the commentator on Vātsyāyana (1. 1. 8) records a tradition which runs as follows:— “दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रमुमया सह सुरतसुखमनुभवति महादेवे वासगृहद्वारगतो नन्दी कामसूत्रं प्रोवाच”.
2. 12. दोषाधिकरणम्। The chapter in which Doṣas or blemishes in poetry are treated of is attributed to Dhiṣaṇa or Bṛhaspati. It is quite appropriate to attribute this chapter of Doṣa to Dhiṣaṇa not only because the intelligence of a very high order is required to find out the Doṣas but also because the word धिषण is suitable to the scheme of Anuprāsa adopted by the author. All writers on poetics beginning from Bharata to Mammaṭa excepting Udbhaṭa have dealt with the Doṣas in poetry in their respective treatises. *[1. 13. औपनिषदिकं कुचमारः cf. “कुचमार औपनिषदिकम् (काम. सू. 1-1-17). Thus it appears that Suvarṇanābha and Kucamāra wrote both on poetics and on erotics.]
3. 13. औपनिषदिकम्। This is a new chapter in the history of

FIRST ADHYĀYA 127 poetics, introduced by Rājaśekhara in accordance with the Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana and the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. Kucamāra is mentioned as the original writer on this subject both by Rājaśekhara and Vātsyāyana. The object of this chapter must be the same as that of the औपनिषदिक chapter in the Arthaśa- stra and the Kāmasūtra. Vātsyāyana describes in this chapter of औपनिषदिक the ways and means to obtain the expected results of Kāma through medicinal plants, Mantras and Tāntric practices. This expediency is recommended by Vātsyāyana for those who fail to gain the enjoyment of Kāma through ordinary means. Kauṭilya also in his chapter of औपनिषदिक treats of similar Tantric practices to be adopted by kings in order to subdue the enemies and protect the subjects. Similarly, Rājaśekhara also might have dealt with in this chapter the ways and means to obtain poetical excellence by those who fail to gain it by ordinary methods. The underlying motive which led the author to introduce this chapter in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, will become apparent if a reference is made to the statements of Rājaśekhara on p. 11. l. 10, and p. 13. ll. 13, 15. There it is said that a disciple who is devoid of poetical skill either by birth or by training, is called दुर्बुद्धि. In order that he may obtain poetical exellence the ways and means for attaining it, are treated of in the chapter of औपनिषदिक. In the other place (p. 12. l. 22) it is said that उपनिषच्छक्ति means मन्त्रतन्त्राद्युपदेशप्रभवा शक्तिः। *[ll. 14–16. Cf. 'एवं बहुभिराचार्यैः तच्छास्त्रं खण्डशः प्रणीतमुत्सन्नकल्पमभूत् । 'तत्र...संक्षिप्य सर्वमर्थमल्पेन ग्रन्थेन कामसूत्रमिदं प्रणीतम्॥' (काम. सू. 1. 1. 18 and 19)]. l. 15. प्रयोजका(ना)ङ्गवती। Here the original reading as found in the MSS does not seem to be quite appropriate because प्रयोजक is not an अङ्ग. The suggestion as प्रयोजनाङ्गवती seems to be more suitable because प्रयोजन is considered as an important अङ्ग for the प्रेक्षावत्प्रवृत्ति. That is to say, there must be some necessity for composing a work, and this becomes an important factor for the composition of that work. If there is no need for such a work, neither the poet should waste his energy in its composition nor the readers could be interested in a work of that kind. Here in preparing his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara states the necessity for composing the work by the words: प्रकीर्णत्वात् and उच्छिच्छिदे. In this respect the author entirely follows Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya both in arrangement as also in ideas. Cf. Vātsyāyana:— तत्रप्रजाचारायणः साधारणमधिकरणं प्रोवाच। सुवर्णनाभः साम्प्रयोगिकम्। घोटकमुखः कन्या-

128 EXPLANATORY NOTES सम्प्रयुक्तकम् । गोनर्दीयो भार्याधिकारिकम् । गोणिकापुत्रः पारदारिकम् । कुचुमार औपनिषि- कम् । एवं बहुभिराचार्यैस्तच्छास्त्रं खण्डशः प्रणीतमुत्सन्नकल्पमभूत् । + + + संक्षिप्य सर्वमर्थमल्पेन ग्रन्थेन कामसूत्रमिदं प्रणीतम् (काम. सू. 1-1-18-19) Also cf. पृथिव्या लाभे पालने च यावन्त्यर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्वाचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमिदमर्थशास्त्रं कृतम् । तस्यायं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः ( Arthaśāstra 1. 1.) l. 15. अष्टादशाधिकरणी । This is a compound word by Dvigusamāsa : अष्टादशानामधिकरणानां समाहारः । *[l. 16. तस्या अयं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः । cf. “तस्यायं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः” ( काम. सू. 1-1-19 ) and अर्थशास्त्र ( 1-1.). शास्त्रसंग्रहः. cf. ( काम. सू. 1-1-20 ); also the शास्त्रसंग्रह in Amara's कविकल्पलता. Though the work contains 18 chapters, only 15 headings are here enumerated ]. l. 16. प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः । Prakaraṇas are the sub-divisions of each Adhikarana and they deal with the different topics coming under the main subject of an Adhikaraṇa. It is to be understood by this remark that Prakaraṇas of eighteen Adhikaraṇas in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā are enumerated here. But contrary to this statement and to the method adopted in the Kāma and the Artha s'āstras, we find here enumerated only 15 subjects S'āstrasangraha, etc, of the first Adhikarana Kavirahasya but not the Prakaraṇas of other 17 Adhikaraṇas of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā. But it is to be noted here that these 15 subjects cover all the 18 chapters of the first Adhikarana. This difference in number between the chapters and the subjects of the first Adhikarana requires an explanation. It appears that in some places one subject is treated of in more than one chapter and at others one chapter deals with more than one subject. In this respect Rājaśekhara differs from the method of the Kāma and the Arthas'āstras while enumerating the Prakaraṇādhikaraṇas. In the enumeration of these 15 subjects also he does not follow the exact order adopted by him in the first Adhikarana. For example, वाक्यविधयः, कविविशेषः and काकुप्रकाराः should go after पदवाक्यविवेक, and भुवनकोशः after देशविभाग according to the order of the text. This deviation of sequence in the enumeration may be explained by the fact that probably Rājaśekhara did not anticipate this change when he was engaged in composing the first chapter of this Adhikarana. It may also be possible that Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya did not commit this mistake because probably they wrote their प्रकरणाधि- करणसमुद्देश after the completion of their works.

FIRST ADHYĀYA 129 Page. 2. l. 4. भुवनकोशः। A short description of the Bhuvanakośa is found in the 17th chapter of this work where a geographical division of countries is given. Rājaśekhara states on p. 98. l. 9. that for full information regarding the geography of the world the reader should refer to another work of his, entitled, the Bhuvanakośa. It is, however, doubtful as to whether this Bhuvanakośa is entirely a different work of Rājaśekhara or whether it represents the subject matter of the 19th chapter of the present work which is lost. It is, however, highly improbable that this should represent an independent work composed by him. (For further information see introduction). l. 4. इत्यादि। In the corresponding chapters of the Kāmaśāstra of Vātsyāyana and the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, all Adhikaraṇas of the complete work are enumerated along with their sub- divisions. Rājaśekhara who generally follows them ought to have mentioned in this chapter, all the eighteen Adhikaraṇas of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā with their Prakaraṇas. But all MSS. of this work now available omit the other Adhikaraṇas, and this omission is evident by the word इत्यादि. It cannot also be definitely stated that the author himself did not care to mention them here as he was not sure of composing the next 17 Adhikaraṇas because such statements as औपनिषदिके वक्ष्यामः, रीत्यस्तु पुरस्तात्, अलङ्कारव्याख्यानन्तु पुरस्तात् etc. in different places of this work clearly show that Rājaśekhara had a mind to complete this work and that he had already planned it in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. It is likely therefore that the scribes who wanted to preserve only the first Adhikaraṇa of Kavirahasya out of the bulky volume containing the whole, did not mention the other Adhikaraṇas and Prakaraṇas of the work but only referred to the omitted portion by the word इत्यादि.

• [ P. 2. l. 5. व्याख्याभाष्यम्-व्याख्यारूपं भाष्यं or व्याख्या and भाष्यम्। separately ]. l. 5. इति सूत्राणि। This remark shows that Rājaśekhara writes his work in the same Sūtrabhāṣya style as adopted by Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya.
• [ Read lines 5-8 as—इति सूत्राण्यथैतेषां व्याख्याभाष्यं भविष्यति । समासव्यासविन्यासः सैष शिष्यहिताय नः ॥ चित्रोदाहरणैर्गुर्वी ग्रन्थेन तु लघीयसी । इयं नः काव्यमीमांसा काव्यव्युत्पत्तिकारणम् ॥ १७

130 EXPLANATORY NOTES Cf. संक्षेपमिममुक्त्वाऽस्य विस्तरोऽतः प्रवक्ष्यते । इष्टं हि विदुषां लोके समासव्यासभाषणम् ॥ ( काम. सू. 1-87 ) ]. l. 6. सैषः । In ordinary prose writing स एषः is the correct form. In poetry alone this usage is allowed by Pāṇini ( 6-1-134 ) in accordance with the usages सैष दाशरथी रामः etc. l. 9. मीमांसा यत्र वाग्भवः । This is the reading found in all MSS. of the work and this may be construed as follows:—इयं सा काव्यमीमांसाख्या मीमांसा=विचारः। यत्र=यस्मिन्विचारे। वाग्भवः=मदीयो वाग्भवः एतद्ग्रन्थ- रूपः ॥ Some scholars, however, suggest here an alternative reading as मीमांस्यो यत्र वाग्भवः, and this may be construed as: यत्र वाग्भवः= 'poetical compositions' मीमांस्यः।

• [ l. 11. यायावरीयः=यायावरकुलोत्पन्नः । ] l. 12. कविभ्यः । This word indicates that all poets are Adhi- kārīs or competent to study this science.

Adhyāya II. l. 15. शास्त्रनिर्देशः। In the first chapter Rājaśekhara gives a list of subjects to be dealt with in his work and, therefore, he names it as Śāstrasaṅgraha. The second chapter he calls as Śāstra- nirdeśa because he states here the names of different Śāstras which should first be studied by a poet before beginning to compose anything. Both Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana have also given similar instructions in the corresponding chapters of their works. l. 16. वाङ्मयम्=literature. Literature is of two kinds: Śāstras and Kāvyas. As the nature of the Kāvyas is to be discussed in this work from the 3rd chapter onwards, here only the nature and divisions of the Śāstras are treated. l. 17. पूर्वम्। Why should the study of the Śāstras be neces- sary for poets before composing any poem? The answer to this question has been given thus. None can see in darkness without the aid of a lamp, even so, no poet can attempt at writing poems without having efficiency in the Śāstras. Also the Kāvyas follow the Śāstras in every way (see. p. 4. l. 4-5); therefore, no Kāvya can be composed without having a good knowledge of the Śāstras.

• [ ll. 18–22. Cf. Sāyaṇa's preface to the Ṛgveda-Bhāṣya, Jaimini Sūtra II. 1. 30. etc. and Viramitrodaya Paribhāṣāprakāśa]

SECOND ADHYĀYA 131 ll. 18-22. अपौरुषेयम्। A Śāstra is considered Apauruṣeya when it cannot be attributed to any author by tradition, and Pauruṣeya when it can be traditionally attributed to a particular author. This kind of Apauruṣeyabhāva has been predicated with reference to the Vedas by the authors of the Pūrvamīmāṁsā but the Naiyāyikas do not consider the Vedas to be Apauruṣeya. The authorship of the Vedas is attributed by them to Īśvara who represents a Puruṣa. सा च etc. Though there are several definitions of the Vedas, the one given here as मन्त्रब्राह्मणे—seems to be the earliest. Āpa- stamba, one of the early Sūtrakāras of the Yajurveda gave the same definition in a somewhat different wording, as 'मन्त्रब्राह्मणयो- र्वेदनामधेयम्। (Āpas. śrau. sūtra. 24. 1–31). विवृत etc. This is a definition of Mantra. The chief function of the Mantra is to remind the performers of the different ceremonies to be performed. विवृतं ज्ञापितं क्रियातन्त्रं क्रियाप्रयोगः यैस्ते । There are three kinds of Mantras used in Vedic rites, namely, स्मारक, क्रियमाणानुवादि and अनुमन्त्रणमन्त्राः, and these Mantras remind the priests of the rites to be performed, already performed and of those things that are connected with ceremonies they are performing. Mīmāṁsakas, therefore, define Mantras as प्रयोगसमवेतार्थस्मारका मन्त्राः । Jaimini, however, in one of his Sūtras defines the Mantra as तच्चोदकेषु मन्त्राख्या (II–1–32), meaning that those portions of the Vedas only are called Mantras which are traditionally known by that name. Āpastamba's definition of Mantra is ब्राह्मणादन्ये मन्त्राः । Ibid 24–1–84). मन्त्राणां etc. The Brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas chiefly shows the connection of the Mantras with different rites according to the injunction of the Vedas, and each such injunction is always accompanied by some explanation either for praising or denouncing the particular ceremony. These explanations are called Arthavādas. Āpastamba defines the Brāhmaṇa portion of the Vedas as कर्मचोदना ब्राह्मणानि. Ibid 24–1–32. स्तुतिनिन्दाव्याख्यान is the function of the Arthavādas. For the definition and classification of the Arthavāda cf. ब्राह्मणशेषोऽर्थवादः । निन्दा प्रशंसा परकृतिः पुराकल्पश्च । Ibid 24–1–33. त्रयी। This order of the three Vedas is found generally, in early Vedic works. Cf. Āpastambaśrautasūtra 24-1-4. But

132 EXPLANATORY NOTES the order differs in the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya where the Sāmaveda is mentioned first as: सामर्ग्यजुर्वेदास्त्रय्यी. (1-3-1). अथर्वणवेद is mentioned along with the इतिहासवेद by Kauṭilya while the present author takes इतिहास amongst the उपवेदs and अथर्वण as the fourth Veda. अर्थव्यवस्थित etc. The versified portions of the Vedas are called Ṛks where each Pāda or one-fourth part is required to convey a definite sense. In this respect Rājaśekhara follows the definition of Jaimini. cf. तेषामृग्यत्रार्थवशेन पादव्यवस्था। II-1-35. ताः सगीतयः। Sāma is represented by Rājaśekhara to be the same as the Ṛks sung in different tones. But Jaimini defines Sāma in his Sūtra 'गीतिषु सामाख्या' (II-1-36) as nothing but the Gīti or song. According to him not Ṛks but Gītis only can be called Sāmas. Yajus is defined by both Rājaśekhara and Jaimini in the same manner. According to them Yajus is a portion of the Vedas having no metre or Gīti. Jaimini defines Yajus as: शेषे यजुः शब्दः ( II-1-37 ). l. 23. त इमे etc. The words, ऋचः यजूंषि etc. refer to the Mantras and not the Brāhmaṇa portion of each Veda according to the definitions cited above. Here, however, the same words are used with reference to the whole Veda including both the Mantra and Brāhmaṇa portions, on the strength of लक्षणावृत्ति ।

• [ l. 24. सार्ववर्णिकः cf. "तस्मात्सृजापरं वेदं पञ्चमं सार्ववर्णिकम्"। नाट्यशास्त्र ( 1-12 ). ] l. 24. उपवेदाः। गान्धर्व means here the science of music. These four Upavedas are attached to the four different Vedas as they represent the additional requirements of the four Vedas. l. 25. द्रौहिणिः। Music is included by Rājaśekhara amongst the Upavedas. He states, however, on the authority of Drauhiṇi that the science of music which is both a Upaveda and a part of the Sāmaveda, and which is accessible to all castes alike should be called the fifth Veda. Nothing whatever is known of this Drauhiṇi. He is named after Druhiṇa or Brahman which shows that he is the son of Brahman. His views are quoted by Rājaśe- khara once again on page 42 with reference to the division of the

SECOND ADHYĀYA 133 themes of poetry or काव्यार्थ. It can only be said here that he must have been the author of some treatises on Music and Dramaturgy, as a quotation under his name is also found in the Bhāvaprakāśana p. 239. 1 which relates to the subject of Dramaturgy. Page. 3. * [l. 1. अङ्गानि=अङ्ग्यन्ते ज्ञायन्तेऽमीभिरित्यङ्गानि उपकारकाणि. Rhetorics also helps in correctly interpreting the Vedic texts; so it is called the seventh Aṅga. ] l. 1. सप्तममङ्गम् । cf. यत् क्षेमं त्रिदिवाय वर्त्म निगमस्याङ्गं च यत्सप्तमं स्वादिष्ठं च यदैक्षवादपि रसाच्चक्षुश्च यद्वाङ्मयम् । तद्यस्मिन् मधुरं प्रसादि रसवत कान्तं च काव्यामृतं सोयं सुभ्रु पुरो विदर्भविषयः सारस्वतीजन्मभूः ॥ Bālarāmāyaṇa, 10. 74. Here the whole theme of poetry and not Alaṅkāra alone is stated by Rājaśekhara as the 7th Aṅga for the Vedas. * [l. 3. द्वा सुपर्णा ( श्वेताश्वतर 4-6 ). ] l. 3. द्वा सुपर्णा. etc. ( मुण्डक. 3. 1. 1. ). Śaṅkarācārya's commen- tary on this Mantra runs as follows :—द्वा=द्वौ । विज्ञानपरमात्मानौ सुपर्णा=सुपर्णौ शोभनपतनौ शोभनगमनौ सुपर्णा पक्षिसामान्याद्वा सुपर्णौ । सयुजा=सयुजौ सर्वदा संयुक्तौ । सखाया= सखायौ समानाख्यानौ समानाभिव्यक्तिकारणौ । एवं भूतौ सन्तौ समानं वृक्षं=वृक्षमिवोच्छेदसामा- न्याद्वृक्षं शरीरं परिषस्वजाते परिष्वक्तवन्तौ । तयोरन्यः=अविद्याकामवासनाश्रयलिङ्गोपाधिः विज्ञानात्मा पिप्पलं=कर्मफलं । स्वादु=अनेकचित्रवेदनास्वरूपम् । अत्युपभुङ्क्तेऽविवेकतः । अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति । नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः परमेश्वरः सर्वमपि पश्यन्नास्ते इति । ( श्वेताश्वतर. 4-6 ). Here two figures of speech are combined and these are the Rūpaka and the Vyatireka. The human body is the repository of two souls, Jīva and Īśvara; they exist in the body simultaneously. This idea has been metaphorically expressed in this Mantra by means of such things as trees, birds etc. In the second half Vyatireka may be explained in the following manner : though the two Ātmans are quite similar, one sustains itself by means of sweet fruits of the tree and the other shines even without taking anything. By this the superiority of Īśvara is clearly brought out. In this way the knowledge of Alaṅkāra helps in correctly interpreting the Vedic texts.

134 EXPLANATORY NOTES

• [ l. 9. शब्दानामन्वाख्यानम् । cf. प्रकृतिप्रत्ययोपाधिनिपातादिविभागशः । पदान्वाख्यानकरणं शास्त्रं व्याकरणं विदुः ॥ ( अभिधानचिन्तामणिटीका ). ] l. 11. पुरस्तात् । In the first chapter, Rājaśekhara has already intimated that the Alaṅkāras will be treated of in nine Adhika- raṇas (4-12) of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This word पुरस्तात् now indicates that Rājaśekhara had already planned the further Adhī- karaṇas of this work. l. 15. This śloka is more commonly read as:— सर्गश्च प्रतिसर्गश्च वंशो मन्वन्तराणि च । वंशानुचरितं चैव पुराणं पञ्चलक्षणम् ॥ l. 17. Rājaśekhara's view regarding Itihāsa has already been mentioned; he includes it among the Upavedas. ( p. 2. l. 23. ). Itihāsa is of two kinds: परक्रिया and पुराकल्प । All MSS. read here as परिक्रिया but the correct reading seems to be परक्रिया. The Arthavādas of four classes: निन्दा, प्रशंसा, परकृति and पुराकल्प, are known as parts of the Vedic injunctions, विधि or निषेध । The last two divisions of the Arthavāda are considered as Itihāsa. For the four divisions including परकृति and पुराकल्प, see the Āpastambaśrauta- sūtra, 24-1-33, Gautama's Nyāyasūtra 2-1-64, Śābarabhāṣya on II-1-33, Vāyupurāṇa 59, 136-137, and Jaimini 6-7-26. l. 20. These two classes of Itihāsa can be distinguished by their names alone as they forcibly bring out the characteristics of each. Rājaśekhara seems to have defined the two classes in accor- dance with the Vedic illustrations of the two kinds of Arthavāda. These are:—इति ह स्माह बद्रुकुवार्णिर्माषान्मे पचत न वा एतेषां हविर्गृह्णन्ति for परकृति, and उल्मुकैर्ह स्म पूर्वे समाजग्मुस्तानह असुरा रक्षांसि निर्जघ्नुः for पुराकल्प । l. 22. सहस्रेण । This word should not be taken as literally true because the Brahmamīmāṁsā does not consist of a thousand Nyāyas; the word may, however, refer to the Dharmamīmāṁsā where a thousand Nyāyas are treated of. l. 24. The fourteen Vidyāsthānas are enumerated by Yājña- valkya in his Smṛti ( 1-3 ) in the following verse : पुराणन्यायमीमांसाधर्मशास्त्राङ्गमिश्रिताः । वेदाः स्थानानि विद्यानां धर्मस्य च चतुर्दश ॥

SECOND ADHYĀYA 135 l. 26. भूर्भुवः स्वः । विद्या or knowledge acquired through these fourteen sources pertain to all things existing in the three worlds, earth, sky and heaven. l. 27. In this verse Rājaśekhara expresses his inability to supply a complete list of works and subjects included in each Vidyāsthāna as it will be too long and will occupy much space. Page. 4.

• [ ll. 6-13. Cf. अर्थशास्त्र 1-2. and for ll. 22-24 Cf. Ibid 1-4. ] l. 3. After stating the traditional division of the S'āstras, the author expresses here the opinion that Kāvya which is the second main division of literature should be classed as another Vidyāsthāna as it follows the other Vidyāsthānas in many respects and that its position should be the 15th in the list of the Vidyāsthānas. l. 4. गद्यपद्यमयत्वात् etc. These are the three reasons to show how poetry follows in the foot-steps of the S'āstras. The reading तद्धि शास्त्राणि etc. in C Ms. is preferred to that of A and B, as the same idea finds an expression earlier on page 2. l. 17. l. 6. All the eighteen sources of Vidyā or knowledge are said to be absolutely necessary for every person in his daily observance of Dharma, Artha, Kāma and Mokṣa which together constitute the Lokayātrā or worldy existence. ll. 14-15. Here the method of treatment of Vidyās is generally in keeping with the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. According to the definition of Vidyā : आभिर्धर्मार्थौ यद्विद्यात्तद्विद्यानां विद्यात्वम्, it is clear that only those sciences are considered here as Vidyās through which Dharma and Artha can be gained. On the strength of this definition of Vidyā, Sāhitya also is included as the fifth Vidyā. ll. 16-21. Kauṭilya defines आन्वीक्षिकी thus: बलाबले चैतासां (त्रयीवार्तादण्डनीतीनां) हेतुभिरन्वीक्षमाणा आन्वीक्षिकी, and includes the three philosophical systems सांख्य, योग and लोकायत under the main head of आन्वीक्षिकी. But Vātsyāyana, in his commentary on the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama defines it as प्रत्यक्षागमाभ्यामीक्षितस्यान्वीक्षण- मन्वीक्षा । तया प्रवर्तत इत्यान्वीक्षिकी न्यायविद्या न्यायशास्त्रम् । (1-1-1). Thus the four systems of philosophy are considered as आन्वीक्षिकी. Rājaśekhara augments the number of the आन्वीक्षिकीs by adding

136 EXPLANATORY NOTES two more systems of philosophy and by distributing them into two groups पूर्वपक्ष and उत्तरपक्ष. The philosophy of the Jains, Buddhists and Cārvākas is included in the former while that of the Sāṅkhya, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika is taken up in the latter. These six schools are called by the single name of Tarka. Gautama defines Tarka in his Nyāyasūtra as अविज्ञाततत्त्वेऽर्थे कारणोपपत्तितः तत्त्वज्ञानार्थमूहस्तर्कः । (1-1-40.). As these six schools of philosophy try to discover the real nature of the universe, soul, body and other connected objects, they are collectively known as Tarka. This Tarka is based on three varieties of arguments in order to decide the truth or otherwise of a statement. These arguments are commonly known as Kathā which consists of three members: वाद, जल्प and वितण्डा । (see Vātsyāyanabhāṣya on Gautama (1. 2. 1-3) for the definitions of Vāda, etc.) l. 25. Here the author while generally defining the S'āstras shows also the correct method of their composition. In the course of his definition, he mentions that the S'āstras were originally composed in the form of Sūtras; commentaries and explanations then followed, and the S'āstras expanded just as the rivers expand in the course of their progress. Page. 5. l. 1. सूत्रणात् । The root sūtra means वेष्टन or that which encircles. A Sūtra, indeed, encircles or includes many things within a short space. Similarly, S'āstric Sūtras also are concise technical sentences which express the maximum idea in the minimum of space. l. 2. The well-known and the most popular definition of Sūtra is given in this verse. Cf. Vāyupurāṇa 59, 142. There is another definition which also deserves to be cited in this connection :— लघूनि सूचितार्थानि स्वल्पाक्षरपदानि च । सर्वतः सारभूतानि सूत्राण्याहुर्मनीषिणः ॥ l. 3. अस्तोभम् । The word स्तोभ signifies a letter, or a group of letters which serves no purpose in making out the sense of a sentence and is, therefore, considered redundant. Such words are very common in the Sāmaveda. The letters हुं, फट् etc. are examples of स्तोभ. In Sūtras all redundant letters should be eschewed.

SECOND ADHYĀYA 137 l. 4. Vṛtti is the first concise commentary on the Sūtras. In all Darśanas, or sciences, for instance, the Vṛttis generally precede the more comprehensive Bhāṣyas. l. 5. In the Bhāṣyas, the authors spontaneously raise points of objection in the succeeding portions which seem to militate against the views expressed in the preceding portions of their own text. This is what is known as आक्षिप्य भाषणाद्भाष्यम् । समीक्षा । This word seems to have been used here in the sense of परीक्षा. Generally there are three divisions in the Bhāṣyas i. e. उद्देश, लक्षण and परीक्षा. The Nyāyasūtra and its Bhāṣya deal with the परीक्षा portion in a more comprehensive manner than the other philosophical works. l. 6. A concise commentary on Sūtras or Bhāṣyas is called a टीका. The टुप्टीका of Kumārilabhaṭṭa may be cited as an instance where the commentator only touches the very important points of the Sūtra and the Bhāṣya of the Mīmāṁsāśāstra. Brevity of this टीका will be apparent when it is compared with the other works of his, which are designated by him as the Vārttikas, on the Śābara- bhāṣya. l. 9. After describing the different divisions of the Śāstras, the author here relates the function of a poet who endeavours to compose verses on Śāstric subjects. The Ślokavārttika of Kumā- rila, the Saṅgraha of Vyāḍi and the Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari may be taken as illustrative of the qualities of a Śāstrakavi. For further information regarding the Śāstrakavi and his abilities when compared to those of a Kāvyakavi, see p. 17. ll. 5-17 of this work. l. 11. The treatises dealt with above follow the methods of the original Sūtra works and commentaries thereon. But the Prakaraṇa works which appear to be independent treatises introduce only the chief subjects of a Śāstra in order to make the student better fitted for prosecuting higher studies in that Śāstra. l. 13. Sāhitya which is the fifth Vidyā in the Rājaśekhara's scheme of enumeration is defined in this sentence. For the explanation of the phrase यथावत् सहभाव see Bhoja's definition of १८