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

168 EXPLANATORY NOTES पाक्षिकत्वात्प्रयोगाणामपायानाञ्च दर्शनात् । धर्मार्थयोश्च वैलोम्यान्नाचरेत्पारदारिकम् ॥ ५१ ॥ तदेतद्दारगुप्त्यर्थमारब्धं श्रेयसे नृणाम् । प्रजानां दूषणायैव न विधेयो ह्ययं विधिः ॥ ५२ ॥ Kāmasūtra, 5. 6. 2. Page. 27. *[ काव्यमध्येयो. No. 171 of शार्ङ्गधरपद्धति । ख्याता. No. 161 of सुभाषितावलि, attributed to भट्टगोविन्दस्वामी । cf. महीपतेः सन्ति न यस्य पार्श्वे कवीश्वरास्तस्य कुतो यशांसि । भूपाः कियन्तो न बभूवुरुर्व्यां नामापि जानाति न कोपि तेषाम् ॥ विक्रमाङ्कचरित्र 1–26] ll. 3–4. In addition to this, the statements of Daṇḍin ( Kāvyādarśa 1-5 ) Bhāmaha ( 1, 6–8 ) and Rudraṭa ( 1, 4–13 ) may be noted. l. 19. प्रग्रीवः=window. ll. 27–28. Yāyāvarīya holds that if this kind of description is a taboo in the Kāvyas, the objection will hold good even in the case of the Vedas and the S'āstras the study of which in conse- quence should be abandoned. Page. 28. *[ l. 2. उपोप मे परा॑मृश॒ मा मे॑ द॑भ्राणि॑ मन्यथाः । सर्वा॒हम॑स्मि रोम॒शा ग॒न्धारी॑णामिवावि॒का ॥ ऋग्वेद, २. १. ११. ७. निरुक्त ३. ४. ३. ] l. 4. S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja reads प्रकामधवलं यस्याः instead of यस्याः प्रसङ्गधवलम् । Adhyāya VII. l. 10. पाठप्रतिष्ठा or settling the reading is taken up after the पदवाक्यविवेक according to the list of subjects given in the first chapter. This order seems logical inasmuch as instructions on the reading of sentences are given after indicating their nature in previous chapters.

SEVENTH ADHYĀYA 169 ll. 11–17. Sentences are again classified here according to the sect to which the speaker belongs, such as the ब्राह्म or शैव or वैष्णव. This classification should be known by the reader as it is a part of his education. Rājaśekhara, in writing this chapter, seems to have drawn his information mainly from the Vāyupurāṇa. Bāṇa, in his Harṣacarita and Kādambarī mentions this Purāṇa, and the Sārasvateya cult which is inculcated in the Harṣacarita and the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, is chiefly derived from the same Purāṇa. Rājaśekhara in his description of the five kinds of speech also seems to be indebted to the Vāyu and other Purāṇas. This group is named as Brāhma and is divided into five classes: स्वायंभुव, ऐश्वर, आर्ष, आर्षिक and आर्षिपुत्रक. This classification actually appears in the Vāyupurāṇa (chapter 59), though the definitions and illustrations of these five kinds of speech are not found in it. Through this classification, Rājaśekhara seeks to trace the origin and develop- ment of human speech. ll. 19–23. Here two kinds of speech स्वायंभुव and ऐश्वर are differ- entiated. The first is स्वायंभुव or the primitive speech in which neither the ideas follow in their logical sequence, nor the language appears to be refined, though it is able to express all objects, and even go so far as to describe the methods leading to salvation. Svayambhū is supposed to be the originator of two kinds of speech, one in the form of the Vedas is the earlier, while the other known as स्वायम्भुव or the primitive speech is the later. The ऐश्वर speech is more refined than the स्वायंभुव and in it both the logical sequence and skill in composition are noticeable. Page 29. l. 1. The next stage of development is represented by the speech attributed to the Ṛṣis. In this speech sentences have more nouns and case-terminations than those previously described, and their import finds a ready expression. But this speech is invaria- bly connected with some Mantras. l. 3. The next stage in linguistic development is represented by the speech of the Ṛṣikas in which there is a great volume of short sentences full of Nipātas without any case-terminations. But in this speech there is frequent use of words found only in the Vedas. l. 5 The fifth or the last stage is represented by the speech २२

170 EXPLANATORY NOTES attributed to the Ṛṣiputras. This is difficult inasmuch as there are words which cannot be definitely separated, and therefore, the import of the sentences becomes doubtful, thus making their meanings obscure. In this speech, there may be frequent use of Yamaka, Anuprāsa and other S'abdacitras, S'leṣa, etc. ll. 8–15. After explaining the different stages of human speech, Rājaśekhara proceeds to characterise the various grades of development in divine speech which seem to be purely imaginary and fanciful. The creator in the beginning of creation taught a language to his 64 disciples Brahmā and others, and this speech was known as the Pārameśvara or Divya. This speech was adopted by the different grades of divine beings and practised according to their capabilities. The Piśācas and Apsarasas are represented to be using the Divya language in their lands, but they are nevertheless allowed in the Sanskrit drama the use of two other languages namely, the भूतभाषा and the प्राकृतभाषा respectively. l. 16. The original language दिव्य or पारमेश्वर which is spoken by divine beings is divided into four different classes, representing the four styles of writing: वैध्रुव, etc. Yoginīs are probably the female attendants of S'iva or Durgā and their language is here represented by the word योगिनीगत. The female magicians, such as Kāmandakī, Kapālakuṇḍalā etc. described, for instance, in the Mālatīmādhava may also be represented by the word Yoginī. It is, however, noteworthy that these four speeches generally resemble the four Rītis वैदर्भी, गौडीया, पाञ्चाली and लाटीया respectively. *[ l. 20. यच्चन्द्र. found in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत and सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ] Page. 30. l. 15. योगीन्द्रदर्पण=mirror of saints. Best saints also obtain the knowledge of their own self in His presence. Page. 31. ll. 1–4. The main headings under which language is divided, are three: Brāhma, S'aiva and Vaiṣṇava. Under Brāhma speech are included the dialects of the Ṛṣis and their followers, while under S'aiva are mentioned the dialects known as Pārameśvara or Divya. Now, the dialect coming under the Vaiṣṇava or the Mānuṣa form of speech is dealt with. This form of speech is chiefly needed for poets of classical literature. Though Rāja-

śekhara is primarily concerned only with this third variety of speech, he mentions nevertheless the first two kinds of speech, namely, the dialects of the primitive sages and divine beings, because he wanted to show the different stages of linguistic development and also because these are employed by dramatists in their dramas. *[ ll. 5-25. वैदर्भी गौडीया cf. सा त्रेधा-वैदर्भी गौडी पाञ्चाली चेति। वामन. 1.2.17. काकुर्वक्रोक्ति. etc. cf. विस्पष्टक्रियमाणादक्लिष्टा स्वरविशेषतो भवति । अर्थान्तरप्रतीतिर्यत्रासौ काकुवक्रोक्तिः ॥ रुद्रट-काव्यालङ्कार. 2-16. cf. also काकुर्वक्रोक्तिःस्व्वलङ्कारत्वेन न वाच्या । पाठधर्मत्वात् । तथा चाभिप्रायवान् पाठधर्मः काकुः । स कथमलङ्कारी स्यादिति यायावरीयः । गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यप्रभेद एव चायम् । शब्दस्पृष्टत्वेनार्थान्तरप्रतीतिहेतुत्वात् । यदाह ध्वनिकारः— अर्थान्तरगतिः काका या चैषा परिदृश्यते । सा व्यङ्ग्यस्य गुणीभावे प्रकारमिममाश्रिता ॥ सा च काकुर्द्विधा—साकाङ्क्षा निराकाङ्क्षा च । वाक्यस्य साकाङ्क्षनिराकाङ्क्षत्वात् । यस्माद्वाक्यात् यादृशः सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते न तादृश एव, किन्तु न्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षम् । तद्विपरीतं निराकाङ्क्षम् । वक्तृगता ह्याकाङ्क्षा वाक्ये उपचर्यते । सा च प्रकरणबलान्नि- र्णीयते । विशिष्टविषयत्वं च तस्यास्तत एवावसीयते ॥ हेमचन्द्रकाव्यानुशासन V. साकाङ्क्षा and निराकाङ्क्षा cf. द्विविधा काकुः । साकाङ्क्षा निराकाङ्क्षेति । वाक्यस्य साकाङ्क्षेति । नाट्यशास्त्र chapt. 17; also सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण 2-56. नवजलधरः. विक्रमोर्वशीय IV. I. ] ll. 5-8. Vāmana mentioned three Rītis. But Rudraṭa who flourished later added a fourth and called it Lāṭīyā. After him came Rājaśekhara who, though conversant with Rudraṭa's view, did not accept the Lāṭīyā Rīti, but followed Vāmana in this respect. The reason why Rājaśekhara ignored the view of Rudraṭa seems to be that he did not see any necessity of acknow- ledging a separate Rīti beyond Pāñcālī, probably because the definition of Rudraṭa which is given below, did not convince him of the necessity. द्वित्रिपदा पाञ्चाली लाटीया पञ्च सप्त वा यावत् । ( K. A. 2-5. ) The three Rītis and the different Kākus form parts of instruc-

172 EXPLANATORY NOTES tion on reading. The reader should observe these Rītis with proper intonations on the Kākus while reading poetry, so that the meaning may be readily understood by the listener. l. 10. Kākuvakrokti is one of the Śabdālaṅkāras according to Rudraṭa. Yāyāvarīya disagrees with him, but follows the definition of Ānandavardhana who seems to think that Kāku is a variety of intonation which serves to bring out only that sense of a passage, intended by the authors to convey, and no other. (For further information, see pp. 212–213 of Dhvanyāloka and Locana). l. 15. Again, a sentence may be used with two varieties of Kāku, namely साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष. In such cases the question raised by the first Kāku will be answered by the second. The verse यदि मे वल्लभा etc. is an example of this kind. Here, a Nāyikā replies to her friend who had put a question as to whether her lover could be made sympathetic towards her by the Dūtī whom she had sent. The reply of the Nāyikā is with आक्षेपगर्भकाकु and, therefore, is साकाङ्क्ष. आक्षेप is denoted by the काकु which bears an express censure on the Dūtī who had become faithless to her. The same verse may also denote विधि and, therefore, become निराकाङ्क्ष. Vidhi is indicated in the sense that in case the Dūtī faithfully carries out her wishes the Nāyaka will certainly be drawn towards her (Nāyikā). l. 18. प्रश्नगर्भा । The verse गत: स कालो etc. is found in the Bāla- rāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara (3. 2). This verse may be interpreted with two kinds of Kāku, namely, प्रश्न and उत्तर thus making it both साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष. In this verse an eagle tells his wife that those days when Rāvaṇa was everywhere successful are gone, and that evil days have dawned on him so that his enemies are crowned with success. Here two different intonations on the part of the speaker on the words गत: and वर्तन्ते will indicate both a question and its answer. l. 21. वितर्क etc.—The third and last variety of Kāku is illustrated in the verse नवजलधर, etc. Each pāda of this verse will be read differently with two Kākus denoting doubt and decision, and thus make the sentence both साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष । l. 26. These three Kākus each with two varieties are invariably

connected with one another. There are, besides, other varieties of Kāku but they may occur without any definite relation amongst themselves. Page. 32. *[ l. 1. युष्मच्छासन. वेणीसंहार 1--12 ]. ll. 1-4. The first three lines in this verse have the Kāku denoting अभ्युपगम while the last line indicates अनुनय. It may be noted here that the two ideas expressed by the two Kākus are not interdependent. *[ l. 5. मथ्नामि. वेणीसंहार 1-15 ]. ll. 5-8. Here first three lines have the उपहास Kāku by which the real intention of the speaker is revealed, though it is quite contrary to the sense expressed by the lines. The Kāku denoting अभ्यनुज्ञा is found in the last line, and here also in reality, the speaker does not intend to have सन्धि as he says. ll. 10-13. This is a verse with three kinds of Kāku. Here each line contains three Kākus, nemely, अवधारण, अपह्नव and अनुशो- चन. The words सेयं have the Kāku of अवधारण; नो कुरङ्गक etc. have the अपह्नव Kāku, while the whole line must be read in a way so as to show अनुशोचन of the speaker. *[ l. 14. उच्च्यतां (किरात. 9-39). ] ll. 14-17. In this verse four kinds of Kāku are expressed. They are quite different from one another and have intonations on four small sentences contained in this verse. By these four Kākus रौक्ष्य, प्रतिबोधन, औत्सुक्य and निर्वेद are expressed in the four sentences, one following the other in sequence. ll. 18-19. For the continuation and context of the verse उच्च्यतां etc. see Kirātārjunīya 9-40. किं गतेन न हि युक्तमुपैतुं कः प्रिये सुभगमानिनि मानः । योषितामिति कथासु समेताः कामिभिर्बहुविधा धृतिरुहे ॥ The different varieties of Kāku with the same illustrations are also found in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhojadeva (Prakāśa VII) and in the Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya (GOS. ed. p. 146.). both of whom seem to have drawn their information on Kākus from the present work.

174 EXPLANATORY NOTES l. 20. The further portion of this chapter shows the impor- tance of the knowledge of Kāku for a clever reader. l. 21. सत्त्वाङ्गाभिनय=histrionics of Sāttvika and Āṅgika. l. 23. The accents in Vedic Mantras, and changed accents in compound words for the purpose of obtaining different connotations from the same words, according to the rules of grammar, may be called the Kākus of the S'āstras. l. 25. The Kāku not only reveals a different sense from the ordinary meaning of the words, but also trains the reader in histrionics in order to enable him to express the different senses conveyed by the words. ll. 26-27. Here Rājaśekhara praises the poet or the reader who is able to use appropriate Kākus either in his poetry or in reading. But Ānandavardhana is, however, inclined to characterize such Kāvya as inferior or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य because in this Kāvya the suggested ideas are expressed by the Kāku. (see Dhvani pp. 212-213). The substance of Dhvani is held by Ānandavardhana as the best form of poetry; but this theory of Dhvani is not recognized by Rājaśekhara in spite of the fact that the theory was well-known in the field of literary criticism even before the 9th century A. D. Page. 33. *[ For the काकु and पाठगुण cf. भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chap. 17. काकुस्वरविधान; ] ll. 1-2. Here it is said that mastery in the art of reading Kāvya can be obtained only by those persons who are highly cultured. The author even goes further and states that the art of composing poetry appears to be quite easy when compared to its reading. ll. 3.-4. Like the art of singing, the art of correct reading is not obtained in one birth, but it is the result of experience in many previous births. ll. 7-8. Here is given an account of the different intonations for reading different types of poetry. प्रसन्न । The portion of poetry where the Guṇa प्रसाद is found. Daṇḍin defines प्रसन्न as प्रसिद्धार्थम्.

SEVENTH ADHYĀYA 175 तद्विरोधिनी। ओजस् is the Guṇa opposed to the प्रसाद, and it is defined by Daṇḍin as समासभूयस्त्वम्. While reading this kind of poetry the intonation should be of the तार variety. ll. 9–12. In these two verses an account has been given of good and bad forms of reading. *[l. 15. यथा व्याघ्री हरेत् found in Pāṇini's and Yājñavalkya's S'ikṣās;] ll. 25–28. From here onwards Rājaśekhara gives the different methods employed for reading the Kāvya by men belonging to different countries of India. The people who reside in the countries east of Benares, read Sanskrit well but their reading of Prākṛta is very bad. *[l. 27. ब्रह्मन् विज्ञापयामि quoted in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण 2-14. ब्रह्मन्नित्यादिना निन्दार्थानुवादेन गौडेषु प्राकृतानौचित्यं राजशेखरेण व्यञ्जितम् ॥ रत्नेश्वर । ] Page. 34. ll. 1–2. Here also the reading of the Gauḍas meets with unfavourable criticism as it does not conform to any of the rules of reading. The reading पाठ: is suggested here instead of पाठी owing to the nature of the adjectives नातिस्पष्ट: etc.; the word बाडब is to be taken here to mean something belonging to a Brāhmaṇa. ll. 3–4. Karṇāṭas are criticized here as they are always fond of using the letter ‘ṭa’ everywhere without paying any attention to the Rasa or Rīti or Guṇa in the poetry they read. ll. 5–6. काव्यमना:=knowing that it is poetry. The reading of the Drāviḍas is said to be always accompanied with music whether they read poetry or prose or Campū. *[l. 7. पठन्ति लटभं cf. शृण्वन्ति लटभं लाटाः प्राकृतं संस्कृतद्विषः । अपभ्रंशेन तुष्यन्ति स्वेन नान्येन गुर्जराः ॥ सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II. 13. cf. यद्योनिः किल संस्कृतस्य सुदृशां जिह्वासु यन्मोदते यत्र श्रोत्रपथावतारिणि कटुर्भाषाक्षराणां रसः । गद्यं चूर्णपदं रतिपतेस्तत्प्राकृतं यद्वच- स्तौल्लांतौल्लिलिताङ्गि पश्य नुदती दृष्टेर्निमेषव्रतम् ॥ Ibid. II. 16. गौडाद्याः संस्कृतस्थाः परिचितरुचयः प्राकृते लाटदेश्याः सापभ्रंशप्रयोगाः सकलमरुभुवष्टक्कभादानकाश्च ।

176 EXPLANATORY NOTES आवन्त्याः पारियात्राः सह दशपुरजैर्भूतभाषां भजन्ते यो मध्येमध्यदेशं निवसति स कविः सर्वभाषानिषण्णः ॥ काव्यमीमांसा p. 51. and also गिरः श्रव्या दिव्याः प्रकृतिमधुराः प्राकृतधुराः शुभव्योऽपभ्रंशः सरसरचनं भूतवचनम् । विदग्धामिष्टे मगधमधुरावासिभणिति- र्निबद्धा यस्तेषां स इह कविराजो विजयते ॥ बालरामायण. 1-11.] ll. 7-10. In these two verses, the methods of reading employed by the people belonging to the countries लाट, सुराष्ट्र and त्रवण are stated. All these countries are situated in the western part of India. For त्रवण country see page 94-4 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Rājaśekhara is inclined to believe that the people of the Lāṭa country hated Sanskrit as they were great lovers of Prākṛta. This is borne out by the quotations above cited, and is probably one of the reasons which led him to disregard the existence of a separate Rīti described as Lāṭīyā by Rudraṭa (see p. 31-6 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā). According to Rājaśekhara the people of Saurāṣṭra and Travaṇa were lovers of the अपभ्रंश language, and while reading Sanskrit they adopted the same method as employed in reading their own dialect. ll. 11-14. Here the Kashmirian poets are praised for their excellence in the art of reading. It is also said that some poets in the eastern side of Kashmir employ a nasal tone while reading. ll. 15-18. In this verse the reading of the Pāñcāla poets is characterized as the best, because their tone is best suited to different Rītis in poetry and possesses all the Guṇas required for reading. In their reading all letters are clearly pronounced and properly punctuated. ll. 19-20. Translate:— Only Viṭas and Śakāras are allowed to use the letters ल and र frequently in their speeches, but not the good readers of poetry. Adhyāya VIII. Page. 35. *[काव्यार्थयोनयः cf. लोको विद्या प्रकीर्णं च काव्याङ्गानि । लोकवृत्तं लोकः । वामन 1-3. et. seq. शब्दः छन्दोऽभिधानार्था इतिहासाश्रयाः कथाः । लोको युक्तिः कलाश्चेति मन्तव्याः काव्ययोनयः ॥ भामह 1-9.

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 177 Most of this chapter is quoted in Hemacandra's Kāvyânuśā- sana-viveka and Vāgbhaṭa's Kāvyānuśāsana. Not quite of this but of a similar type, are the various Paricayas in the fifth Sandhi of the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa. Vinayacandra in his काव्यशिक्षा mentions तर्कपरिचय, व्याकरणपरिचय, चाणक्यपरिचय, धनुर्वेदीय (the quotation is the same as one in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, स दक्षिणापाङ्ग०) उत्पाद्यसंयोग (quotation is the same as in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, उभौ यदि व्योम्नि). भारतपरिचय, रामायण- परिचय, मोक्षोपायपरिचय, आत्मज्ञानपरिचय, धातुवादपरिचय, पुरुषलक्षणपरिचय, द्यूतपरिचय, चित्रपरिचय, वृक्षपरिचय, वनेचरपरिचय, भक्तिपरिचय, विवेकपरिचय, प्रशमपरिचय, हस्तिपरिचय, वैद्यकपरिचय, शास्त्रपरिचय, धनुर्वेदपरिचय, गजलक्षणपरिचय, तुरगलक्षणपरिचय.] ll. 1-5. काव्यार्थयोनयः । The sources of the theme of poetry are detailed in this chapter according to the classification scheme given by the author in the first chapter. The faculty of discovering an appropriate theme for poetry after examining these sources is called Vyutpatti, and this has already been dealt with in the fifth chapter. The early writers on poetics mentioned these sources as काव्याङ्ग or limbs of poetry, and they advise the poets to be sufficiently conversant with them. But this list of 12 or 16 sources adopted by Rājaśe- khara is not found in any of the earlier works. Among the lists given in the early treatises, the list of Vāmana seems to be fairly exhaustive and to the point (see 1, 3, 1-20). Rudraṭa's list is almost similar to that of Bhāmaha (1-9) and is given below :- छन्दोव्याकरणकलालोकस्थितिपदपदार्थविज्ञानात् । युक्तायुक्तविवेको व्युत्पत्तिरियं समासेन ॥ (K. A. 1-18.) Rudraṭa holds that there is nothing in the world of words or things which cannot be made use of in poetry, and, therefore, the poet must be conversant with all varieties of subjects. Rudraṭa says:- विस्तरतस्तु किमन्यत्तत इह वाच्यं न वाचकं लोके । न भवति यत्काव्याङ्गं सर्वज्ञत्वं ततोऽन्यैषा ॥ (K. A. 1-19.) On this point compare Bhāmaha :- न स शब्दो न तद्वाच्यं न स न्यायो न सा कला । जायते यन्न काव्याङ्गमहो भारो महान् कवेः ॥ (K. A. 5-4.)

178 EXPLANATORY NOTES Also Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra: न तत् ज्ञानं न तत् शिल्पं न सा विद्या न सा कला । न स योगो न तत् कर्म नाट्येऽस्मिन् यन्न दृश्यते ॥ 1-117. But Daṇḍin in his Kāvyādarśa condensed the same idea in a remarkably short sentence: श्रुतं च बहु निर्मलम् । 1-103. Later writers on poetics, such as Abhinavagupta, Mammaṭa and others followed the same list and illustrated each point in the same way as Rājaśekhara did. (See commentary of Abhinava- gupta on the above verse of Bharata (G.O.S. ed. p. 42) and the Kāvyaprakāśa 1-3). *[l. 6. उर्वशी. (शतपथ. 5-1-2) l. 11. यदेतन्मण्डलं Cf. महानारायणोपनिषत् XII. 2 ; l. 15. एतद्यत्. सूर्यशतक. 89.] ll. 17. Construe and translate:—अयं वेदवेदी समग्रः वर्गः यं वेदत्रितयमयं वेद=this entire group of people who profess to know the Vedas acknowledge him who is the embodiment of the three Vedas: सः सूर्यः वः श्रियेऽस्तु । *[l. 24. हंस प्रयच्छ ( विक्रमोर्वशीय. IV. 17. ) (Cf. वाक्यघटना । यथा-हंस etc. इयं पूर्वशास्त्रनिबद्धस्योत्तरार्धस्य तदर्थाननुयायिनाऽपि प्रस्तुतार्थविरुद्धेनैकवाक्यतयैव घटित- त्वाद्वाक्यघटना । सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II. ] ll. 22-25. In this verse quoted from the Vikramorvaśīya, the king Purūravas requests a swan to return his beloved उर्वशी as it had misappropriated her graceful gait of walking. To accuse the swan with a charge of the theft of his beloved, Kālidāsa quotes Nārada where it is said that a person can be charged with the theft of the whole property when a portion of the stolen property is actually found in his possession. Cf. यथाऽऽह नारदः—अनेकार्थाभियुक्तेन सर्वद्रव्यापलापिना । विभावितैकदेशेन देयं यदभियुज्यते ॥ (Jīmūtavāhana's Vyavahāramātṛkā: Memoirs of A.S.B. p. 311.) निह्नुते लिखितं नैकमेकदेशविभावितः । दाप्यः सर्वं नृपेणार्थं न ग्राह्यस्त्वनिवेदितः ॥ (Yājñavalkya.—Vyavahārakāṇḍa 20.) एकदेशविभावितो नृपेण सर्वं दाप्यः ॥ Gautamasmṛti.

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 179 Page. 36. *[l. 1. न स संकुचितः (रामायण- किष्किन्धाकाण्ड. 34-18). l. 3. मदं. (जानकीहरण. XII. 36. The first half reads as : पदं नवैश्वर्यबलेन लम्भितं विसृज्य पूर्वं समयो विमृश्यताम् ॥ l. 7. हिरण्य. from अग्निपुराण ।] l. 7. Cf. Vāyupurāṇa. chapter. 67. :— हिरण्यकशिपुर्दैत्यः श्लोकैर्गीतः पुरातनैः । “राजा हिरण्यकशिपुर्यां यामाशां निषेवते । तस्मै तस्यै दिशे देवा नमश्चकुर्महर्षिभिः ॥” [l. 9. स सधरिष्णुः (माघ. 1-46.) l. 21. सामान्यवाचि quoted anonymously in कवीन्द्रवचनसमुच्चय (No. 270).] ll. 19-24. प्रमाणविद्या includes, according to Rājaśekhara, not only the three Vedic schools of philosophy but also the other heterodox schools, such as the Bauddha, Ārhata and Lokāyata which are taken as पूर्वपक्षतर्क on p. 4. l. 17 of this work. The Mīmāṁsā has been separated from Tarkas on the ground that this school does not adduce any argument against the injunctions of the Vedas, while the Tarkas attribute greater importance to rational arguments than to Vedic injunctions. The word Mīmāṁsā also means पूजितविचार, or in other words, discussions conducted on the assumption that the Vedas are of superior authority while decisions arrived at by mere arguments are called Tarkas. Hence मीमांसा and तर्क are classified as different Pramāṇas. Mīmāṁsakas believe that a word at first means an entity in general and the particular thing meant by the speaker is understood only when it is connected with the meanings of other words in the same sentence. See Jaimini's Sūtra आकृतिस्तु क्रियार्थत्वात् । 1-3-33. Here आकृति is taken as सामान्य or जाति which each noun signifies. See, Kumārila’s definition of आकृति. जातिमेवाकृतिं प्राहुर्व्यक्तिराक्रियते यया । सामान्यं तच्च पिण्डानामेकबुद्धिनिबन्धनम् ॥ ३ ॥ तन्निमित्तं च यत्किञ्चित्सामान्यं शब्दगोचरम् । सर्वं एवेच्छतीत्येवमविरोधोऽत्र वादिनाम् ॥ ४ ॥ Ślokavārttika—Ākṛtivāda. see also— कक्षान्तरितसामान्यविशेषेषु हि दुर्बलः । सामान्यवचनः शब्दो जायते लक्षणाबलात् ॥ २७-२८ Ibid. Sambandhākṣepavāda.

180 EXPLANATORY NOTES Among the Mīmāṁsakas, the followers of Kumārila are called अभिहितान्वयवादिन् because they hold that a word in a sentence is capable only of expressing its meaning, while its connection with the meaning of other words is decided on seeing the nature of other words in the same sentence. But the Prābhākara school of Mīmāṁsā believes in अन्विताभिधानवाद and holds that the meaning of each word is अन्वित or connected with others. According to this school also अन्वितसामान्य is the expressed meaning of the word, while अन्वितविशेष is the meaning derived by its connection with other words. Page. 37. *[l. 1. नासतो (गीता 2–16.) ll. 1–6. The Sāṅkhyas are called Satkāryavādins while the Naiyāyikas call themselves as Asatkāryavādins, and the two schools are, therefore, opposed to each other. The theory of सत्कार्यवाद is that the effect produced by a cause is not entirely different from the cause, and that the effect also always exists in the cause. Similarly, the cause of an effect does not entirely disappear after the production of the effect, but it exists in the form of that effect. This may be illustrated by the instance of gold and golden ornaments. नासतो विद्यते भावः=a thing that does not exist cannot be produced. नाभावो विद्यते सतः=the existing one (cause) does not perish (after producing the effect). In the verse य एते etc. the same theory is illustrated on the analogy of the earth and earthen vessels, thus showing that the effects are not different from the cause which in this case is earth. *[l. 9. किमीहः किं कायः (महिम्नः स्तोत्र 5).] ll. 7–12. For Rājaśekhara's conception of the existence of Īśvara and his creation of the world, see Nyāyasūtra of Gautama 4. 1. 19–21, Nyāyavārttika of Uddyotakara on these sūtras, Nyāyamañjarī of Jayantabhaṭṭa pp. 190–204 and the Praśasta- pādabhāṣya on Kaṇādasūtra pp. 48–49. Regarding the ऐश्वर्य of Īśvara, the following verse is quoted by Udayanācārya in his Kusumāñjali fifth stabaka:— सर्वज्ञता तृप्तिरनादिबोधः स्वतन्त्रता नित्यमलुप्तशक्तिः। अनन्तशक्तिश्च विभोर्विधिज्ञाः षडाहुरङ्गानि महेश्वरस्य ॥

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 181 ll. 13-18. The Vijñānavādins among the Bauddhas do not believe in the existence of the objective world except the Vijñāna. According to them, therefore, words cannot denote any outward object, but produce a momentary effect and transmit the idea of the speaker to the minds of his hearers. The view of the Vijñāna- vādins has been clearly explained by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla in their works Tattvasaṅgraha and its Pañjikā (GOS. Nos. 30-31). cf. विवक्षानुमितिश्लिष्टमाकारं बाह्यभावतः । व्यवस्यतः प्रवृत्तिश्चेत्तदेवास्मन्मतं पुनः ॥ Tattvasaṅgraha. p. 290. Kamalaśīla quotes a line from an earlier work in support of this view. अन्ये त्वाहुः—'अर्थविवक्षां शब्दोऽनुमापयति ।' यथोक्तं—“अनुमानं विवक्षायाः शब्दादन्यन्न विद्यते ॥” Tattvasaṅgraha. p. 289. This view is illustrated by the verse भवतु etc., in which the same words such as न न न मममा etc., spoken by a lady at one time convey निषेध or denial, while at another her acceptance, according to circumstances. ll. 19-23. Lokāyatikas or the atheists do not recognise the soul or Ātman who may enjoy the fruits of his action either in heaven or in hell after death. They also hold that the Vijñāna or consci- ousness found in living beings arises out of a combination of the five elements, in the same way as a few ingredients produce wine. This theory of the atheists also is quoted and refuted by Śāntarak- ṣita in the Tattvasaṅgraha. cf. तस्माद्भूतविशेषेभ्यो यथा शुक्त्सुरादिकम् । तेभ्य एव तथा ज्ञानं जायते व्यज्यतेऽथवा ॥ p. 520. साक्षिचिन्तका =those who meditate on the Supreme Being. ll. 24-25. The soul, according to the Jains, is the doer and enjoyer of all actions and is of the same size as the body. They also consider the futility of the body or Ātman in case the size of the soul is acknowledged as either smaller or larger than that of the body. This is what is shown by an example in this verse.

182 EXPLANATORY NOTES Page. 38. l. 3. सर्वपार्षदत्वात्='because it is fit for all kinds of cultured associations.' The word Pārṣada may refer to the Vedic Sūtra literature belonging to several pariṣads as well. The Prātiśākhya works are included in the Pārṣada literature. The word generally means grammatical works affiliated to the Vedas. See Nirukta

1. 17 and the Prātiśākhya section of the History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature by Max Muller, (p. 68-70) ll. 7-9. समयविद्या='religious doctrines'. The terms घोर, घोरतर, ब्रह्म, विद्या, कला, and परापरपद refer to the diffe- rent tenets of the doctrine of the S'aivites. ll. 10-13. That the Pāñcarātra doctrines are based solely on the theory of the four Vyūhas of प्रद्युम्न, अनिरुद्ध, सङ्कर्षण and वासुदेव, is explained here in detail. सर्वज्वर=the sufferings both mental and physical. ll. 14-17. The Mahāyāna School of Buddhism enjoins that the Bodhisattva should have great compassion for the suffering humanity and should not receive emancipation, though fully entitled to it, until the whole creation is delivered. Further, the Bodhisa- ttva is required to work continuously for the emancipation of living beings by sacrificing his own merits, and taking the consequence of all bad actions done by others on himself. This theory of the Mahāyānists and the description of the सुखावती heaven, which is above the ten Bhūmis are the subject-matter of this verse कलिकलुष, etc. Kumārilabhaṭṭa quotes the same verse in his Tantravārttika and attributes its origin to Buddha (Tantravārttika 1-3. 2.). The Hīnayānists, on the other hand, possess no such compassion for the suffering humanity as Mahāyāuists do, and they desire emancipation only for themselves. In this verse the methods of a Mahāyānist Bodhisattva are described. For further information on the two Yānas of the Buddhists compare Tattvasaṅgraha: (p. 872.) ये तावज्जात्यादिदुःखोत्पीडितमानसाः संसारादुद्व्रस्तमनसः तदुपशममात्मनः प्रार्थयन्ते तेषां श्रावकादिबोधिनियतानां संसाराद्भयमेव नैरात्म्यभावनाथित्वनिमित्तम् । ये तु गोत्रविशेषात्प्रकृत्यैव परहितकरणैकाभिरामाः संस्कारादिदुःखत्रितयपीडितं जगदवेक्ष्य कृपापरतन्त्रतया तद्दुःखदुखिनः स्वात्मनि व्यपेक्षामपास्य सकलानेव संसारिणः आत्मत्वेनाभ्युपगताः तत्परित्राणाय प्रणिदधते तेषां करुणैव भावना प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् ॥

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 183 l. 18. राजसिद्धान्तत्रयी=The three S'āstras of Artha, Nāṭya and Kāma are mentioned here as of interest only to the royal personages, because it is only the kings who are able to practice, follow and appreciate the doctrines inculcated in these S'āstras. *[ l. 19. शमव्यायामाभ्यां ( बालरामायण 1-24 ). ] ll. 19–22. This verse of Rājaśekhara has also been quoted by Abhinavagupta in his अभिनवभारती while commenting on the verse of Bharata न तज्ज्ञानं, etc. see Abhinavabhāratī (G.O.S. No. 36. p. 42.) For an explanation of this verse, compare the शमव्यायामिक chapter of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. शमव्यायामौ योगक्षेमयोर्योनिः । कर्मारम्भाणां योगाराधनो व्यायामः । कर्मफलोपभोगानां क्षेमाराधनः शमः । शमव्यायामयोर्योनिः षाड्गुण्यम् ॥ etc. आवापः=‘intention of declaring a war’. In this verse Rāja- śekhara exhibits his special acquaintance with the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. ll. 23–26. This verse shows that the author was fully conver- sant with the contents of the Nāṭyaśāstra; for, he describes not only the dancing postures, but also explains such technical terms as लंबितलय etc. which pertain to the science of music. Cf. Nāṭyaśāstra : अङ्गभूता हि तालस्य यतिपाणिलयाः स्मृताः । त्रयो लयास्तु विज्ञेयाः द्रुतमध्यविलम्बिताः ॥ 31. 331. Page. 39. *[ l. 2. असौ मन्दरतस्त्वं cf. कामसूत्र 2.1.3, 9 and 13. ] l. 2. मन्दरतः=‘from the Mandara mountain’ or ‘one with dissimilar conjugal affinity.’ समरतः=‘from the war’ or ‘one with similar conjugal affinity’. ll. 3–9. Poets are here advised to mix freely with common folk in order to be acquainted with their mode of life and expres- sion. The mode of life is generally recognized as of two varieties :

184 EXPLANATORY NOTES the cultured and the uncultured. How the uucultured folks behave and how they express themselves are treated in these two verses. स्फुटितपिठरी=cracked pan. Here an uncultured woman talks to her lover regarding the changed treatment she was getting from him of late. The following may be cited in this connection as a contrast to illustrate a refined address on the same subject. पुराऽभूदस्माकं प्रथममविभिन्ना तनुरियं ततो नु त्वं प्रेयानहमपि हताशा प्रियतमा । इदानीं नाथस्त्वं वयमपि कलत्रं किमपरं मयाऽऽप्तं प्राणानां कुलिशकठिनानां फलमिदम् ॥ In the second verse इक्षुदण्डस्य etc. a popular mode of expression, is illustrated while describing the days of the Phālguna month in which things such as इक्षुदण्ड, etc. are very commonly enjoyed by the country folk. See the description of Hemanta and S'iśira on pp. 102-104 of this work. For the correctness of the word सैष see notes on p. 2. l. 6. ll. 10–19. समस्तजनजन्यः='pertaining to several groups of people'. कतिपयजनजन्यः-'pertaining only to a limited circle'. The verse पिबन्ति etc. exhibits the knowledge of the poet concerning the topography of South India where मरिच, ताम्बूल and मधु are common products of the land. In the second verse the feelings of women of the Kuntala country in amorous sports are described, while the third gives an idea of the geographical peculiarities of the Nepal country. ग्रन्थिपर्णकपाली='an avenue made up of a kind of fragrant trees'. *[ l. 18. आर्द्रणमदमण्डनाः=कस्तूरीपङ्कमण्डनाः । ] ll. 20–23. In this verse are described the actions of a Nāyikā who wanted to put a stop to the conversation of her lover with her friends, in order to secure privacy; as also the action of her lady-friends who knew the Nāyikā's intention and left the place on the plea that they were called by somebody outside. Page. 40. l. 7. The reading नाथकथा is adopted here as it is found in two Mss B and C. and सर्गे is changed into सर्गः as it is required to

be construed with the word यस्य. The first half of the verse should, therefore, be construed as: यस्य कथासर्गः न नीचैः, अथ न प्रतिभाक्षयः स कविग्रामणीः । According to the reading available in Ms A, however, the construction will be as follows:— यस्य ( कवेः ) अर्थकथासर्गे ( गीं ) न नीचैः, ( यस्य ) न प्रतिभाक्षयः स कविग्रामणीः । This construction also gives a good sense inasmuch as the अर्थ and कथा developed by a poet through his power of imagination and described in the last two verses, are the subject-matter of this Śloka. The only defect in this reading is that the two words नीचैः and प्रतिभाक्षयः do not sound well. An emendation may be suggested giving a better sense as:—नवीनार्थकथासर्गे यस्य न प्रतिभाक्षयः । स कविग्रामणीः । but this emendation is not supported by any of the Mss available. ll. 9–13. A knowledge of different sciences and common practices is considered necessary for poets by later writers such as Kṣemendra, Hemacandra, Vāgbhaṭa and Vinayacandra who have included several varieties under the heading of Prakīrṇaka. But Rājaśekhara illustrates only four kinds of them and suggests several more worthy of being known by poets, saying : एवं प्रकीर्णकान्तरमपि । On Hastiśikṣā, for instance, the verse मेघानां etc. is quoted here as an illustration. Here the well-known habit of elephants while bathing in the river is correctly observed in the description of Irāvaṇa’s throwing up water. *[ l. 18. स दक्षिणापाङ्ग ( कुमारसंभव. III. 70. ) ] Page. 41. *[ l. 2. पाण्ड्योऽयमंसार्पित. ( रघुवंश VI. 60 ) ll. 1–5. These last four additional sources for the theme of poetry, introduced by Rājaśekhara for the first time, are not referred to by any of the later writers, though the other twelve sources are quoted sometimes with the same illustrations as given by our author. It is not, however, easy to surmise how these four principles उचितसंयोग etc. are considered as काव्यार्थयोनि by Rājaśekhara. But it is clear that Rājaśekhara has shown by these four illustrations the four methods of description. उचितसंयोग is ‘the appropriate connection ( of things )’. ll. 6–9. युक्तसंयोगः=the connection of a thing already descri- २४

186 EXPLANATORY NOTES bed as connected with others. In this verse the dust raised up by the march of an army is described as already connected with other things such as सुरदन्तिदानोदक and चक्षुःसहस्र of Indra. This dust is said to have been mixed up with the water of the celestial Ganges where the divine ladies are accustomed to take their bath. *[l. 10. उभौ यदि व्योम्नि (माघ. III. 8.)] ll. 14–19. संयोगविकारः=change due to connection. Imaginary and natural changes are described in these two verses one after the other. पीयन्ते. This verb is derived from the root पीङ् पाने of श्यन्विकरणि. Adhyāya IX. Page. 42. *[Pages 42–44. l. 10. are quoted by Hemacandra in his काव्यानुशासनविवेक. pp. 122–123.] ll. 1–4. सः stands for काव्यार्थ or the theme of poetry. Drau- hiṇi's view is cited here for the second time. For the other reference see notes on p. 2. l. 24 of the present work. दिव्य means the activities of divine beings. ll. 5–8. The first half may be construed thus: निजवारवासगतया रम्भया नलकूबरस्य विरहात् (तं) स्मृत्वा उत्कण्ठुलं तुम्बुरोः वीणासमं यत् उद्गीतम् । Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka reads उत्कण्ठसंरम्भया instead of उत्कण्ठुलं रम्भया । *[l. 13. श्रियः पतिः (माघ. 1. 1.)] Page. 43. ll. 20–23. If the reading कोटिकुण्ठः is adopted, प्रणमति should be connected with तक्षके. The words कपिल, कुलिक, स्वस्तिक, पद्म, कम्बल, शङ्खपाल etc. are the names of different serpents in the nether world. Many of the names are found in the Mahābhārata (Ādiparva Adhyāya 35.) शङ्खपाल seems to be the same as the father of S'aṅ- khacūḍa, the serpent who was given protection by Jīmūtavāhana, the hero of the drama, Nāgānanda. The subject matter of this verse also seems to be connected with the story recorded in the Nāgānanda. ll. 24–27. This verse describes the conversation between

NINTH ADHYĀYA 187 Karṇa and the serpent Aśvasena. Aśvasena who was an enemy of Arjuna entered the quiver of Karṇa without his knowledge in the form of a serpent-mouthed arrow. When once Karṇa failed to slay Arjuna with that arrow, the serpent Aśvasena requested Karṇa to charge his bow with the same arrow again. But Karṇa refused. This last part of the episode is stated in this verse. For further details see Mahābhārata Karṇa-Parva. 90. Out of the two words आर्द्रावले and अपकर्ण used as epithets of the serpent, the signifi- cance of the first word is unknown, while the second अपकर्ण denotes that the serpents are devoid of ears. हरशिष्य is Bhārgava Paraśu- rāma and Karṇa is his disciple. मर्त्यैः । This shows that the arrows of the earth also are capable of achieving the same object as those of the nether regions.

Page. 44. l. 1. इहापि etc. The four sub-divisions of the दिव्यमानुष group referred to on page 42. l. 9 are said to be applicable in the case of the मर्त्यपातालीय group also. ll. 7–10. In this verse, events connected with persons belonging to the three worlds are described. For the story of Āstīka, the sage who protected the serpents Takṣaka and others from being destroyed in the sacrificial fire of king Janamejaya, see the Āstīka- parva, a sub-section in the Ādiparva of the Mahābhārata. उद्वेल्लत्=shaking or moving. *[l. 13. विचारितसुस्थः cf. तत्र दशविधश्चमत्कारः अविचारितरमणीयः विचार्यमाण- रमणीयश्च (कविकण्ठाभरण. Sandhi III.)] ll. 12–14. Followers of Udbhaṭa classify the subject matter of literature under two varieties : विचारितसुस्थ and अविचारितरमणीय and hold that the Śāstric literature deals with the former, while the latter is the subject of kāvya. Probably Udbhaṭa must have expressed this view in his commentary on Bhāmaha's theory as recorded by him in the two verses quoted below : तज्ज्ञैः काव्यप्रयोगेषु तत्रादुष्कृतमन्यथा । तत्र लोकाश्नयं काव्यमागमाः तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥ असिसंकाशमाकाशं शब्दो दूरादुपैत्ययम् । तदेव वापी(रि)सिन्धूनामहो स्थेमा महर्चिषः ॥ Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra 5, 33–34. *[l. 17. त ·आकाशमसिस्त्यामं ( कुमार. VI. 36 ).]