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

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 ).]

188 EXPLANATORY NOTES ll. 15-19. Three examples are given here to illustrate Ud- bhaṭa's theory of काव्यार्थ but not of शास्त्रार्थ. In the first two verses the colour of ether is described as blue like a blue lotus and like that of a sword, though really ether is devoid of any colour. सदैव वारि सिन्धूनाम् । etc. The second half of Bhāmaha's verse (5-34) is quoted here as the third example. The readings वापीसिन्धूनां or वापिसिन्धूनां as found in the editions of the Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra may be read as वारि सिन्धूनां which seems to be the correct reading. Here it is said that the water of all rivers is always the same and that the heavenly lights such as the moon and the stars are wonder- fully fixed in their proper places. Followers of Udbhaṭa hold that these descriptions are अविचारितरमणीय because in reality ether has no colour and water of all rivers is not the same at all times and the heavenly bodies also are not fixed in one place, and also because on scientific examination ether is found to be without any colour while the stars are also found moving from place to place. ll. 20-25. Yāyāvarīya does not agree with the view of Aud- bhaṭas because they hold that the Kāvyas only describe unreal aspects of things, and this means that the Kāvyas are valueless. He holds, therefore, that the authors of both S'āstras and Kāvyas describe objects as observed by them. Page. 45. ll. 1-2. Following the rules of Vyākaraṇa and Alaṅkāra śāstras here the simile between the moon and swan, stars and Kumudas, sky and water, cloud and mud, is given. This is a description of the moon which shines on a clear sky with stars but appears as a swan moving on the surface of a lake where there are many lotuses. *[l. 8. यस्तु सरिदद्रि. Quoted in Hemacandra's काव्यानुशासन. under लोल्लट:—“तथा च लोल्लटः— यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरादिवर्णने यत्नः । कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥ यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदोऽतिरसविरोधिन्यः । अभिमानमात्रमेतद्गड्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥” p. 215.] ll. 3-9. Āparājiti who seems, in all probability, to be a follower of the Rasa school of Bharata advises poets not to indulge in a lengthy description of the rising sun or the moon etc. because it is likely to obstruct a natural outflow of Rasas in the minds of the

NINTH ADHYĀYA 189 audience or readers. Evidently this view of Aparājiti is to be applied only to the drama, because the best poets such as Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha and others, are found devoting some chapters in their Kāvyas for the lengthy descriptions of such things, and also because the earlier writers on poetics such as Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin have laid down rules on the same lines for Mahākāvyas. The word इह occuring in the two verses of Āparājiti also denotes the lengthy description of मज्जनपुष्पावचय etc. is disallowed only in a particular class of poetry, namely the drama, and not in the Kāvya as a whole. In fact, Āparājiti is to be identified with लोल्लट as Hemacandra attributes the second of these two citations definitely to लोल्लट. (see Kāvyānuśāsana p. 215) Lollaṭa belonged to the Rasa school and a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra is also attributed to him. (see Saṅgītaratnākara 1-1. 19. and Abhinavabhāratī. G.O.S. ed. pp. 266 and 274). ll. 10-12. Yāyāvarīya agrees with Āparājiti and adduces another reason in support of the same view that it is the method of presentation only which is responsible in rousing up the different Rasas, and not the actual things that are so presented in the poetry. In order to prove this dictum he cites some verses where the authors of high poetical skill are able to rouse up the different Rasas by means of excellent presentation of common-place happen- ings; whereas, inferior poets are unable to do so even though they may handle very sublime topics. *[l. 23. धत्ते यत्किलकिञ्चितंकगुरुतामेणीदृशां (बालरामायण 10-44).] ll. 13-26. Here the method adopted in describing the river Tāmraparṇī is such that the Rasa of S'ṛṅgāra becomes immediately roused through the उद्दीपनविभाव of the same Rasa. In the next two verses, similarly the Rasas S'ṛṅgāra and Adbhuta are aroused with the help of the उद्दीपनविभाव. रोधोभुवः=shores. पीततमाः=moon. Page. 46. ll. 1.-7. All Mss read: अतिरसवत्ता which ought to be read as अरसवत्ता. This latter reading is more suited to the context and more in harmony with the subject matter of the verse cited below than the former. Rājaśekhara here makes an attempt to prove on

the principle of अन्वयव्यतिरेक that the methods of poetical representation of things alone are responsible for rousing or obstructing the Rasas, but not the atcual topics described. He cites, in support, three verses and shows on the principle of अन्वय, that an able delineation of commonplace things such as mountain, river etc. is capable of rousing the Rasas. Again, on the principle of व्यतिरेक he wants to show that an inexperienced poet is unable to rouse the desired Rasa even by handling such delicate subject as the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. This context will not be supported by any other reading than विप्रलम्भेऽप्य- रसवत्ता as shown above. It will be evident that the reading अरसवत्ता is meant by the author himself when he concludes his arguments, saying: कुकविर्विप्रलम्भेऽपि रसवत्तां निरस्यति । l. 6. The poet, in this verse विधर्माणो भावाः etc. describes the plight. of a lover consequent on the separation of his beloved and attempts to delineate the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. But he failed to achieve his object as his poetical skill was not up to the mark. This is explained in the verse कुकविः etc. where the author concludes his arguments. The following explanation of the stanza विधर्माणो भावाः etc. will evidently show how the poet's method of representation of विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार failed to rouse the same Rasa. "Where can my mind tormented by the separation of my beloved ( Nāyikā ) find happiness ? Objects both similar and dissi- milar to her, have failed to make it happy. The former failed because they could not give complete satisfaction, and the latter because my mind is always attached to nothing except her." *[ l. 10. For पाल्यकीर्ति, a Jain grammarian, cf. कुतस्त्या तस्य सा शक्तिः पाल्यकीर्तेर्महौजसः । श्रीपदश्रवणं यस्य शाब्दिकान् कुरुते जनान् ॥ वादीभसिंह—पार्श्वनाथचरित्र. मुनीन्द्रमभिवन्द्याहं पाल्यकीर्तिं जिनेश्वरम् । मन्दबुद्ध्यनुरोधेन प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रहं ब्रुवे ॥ अभयचन्द्र-प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रह I. This पाल्यकीर्ति is identical with the Jain grammarian शाकटायन. The śloka येषां वल्लभया is found in भोजप्रबन्ध and प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि. ] ll. 8–14. Āparājitī seems to think that poets should make use of such things alone as are रसवत् which help in rousing the Rasa, and not those that are entirely devoid of Rasa. (see. p. 45. ll. 3, 4.) Rājaśekhara's view is somewhat modified when he says that there are things both suited and unsuited to the Rasa but they have

NINTH ADHYĀYA 191 nothing to do with the enjoyment of Rasa in the poetry, because the poet's skill in presentation alone is responsible for that enjoy- ment. The contentions of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti are objected to by the followers of स्याद्वाद or अनेकान्तवाद of Jainism. According to this theory there is no entity which is endowed with only one form or quality. On this point, however, there is quite a great deal of controversy among the philosophers of different schools. For details see Tattvasaṅgraha (G.O.S. Nos. 30 and 31), Syādvāda- parīkṣā pp. 486-503. The Buddhists hold that one entity cannot have two qualities or forms. Brahmins attribute two or even more qualities while the Jains hold that an entity can have as many as seven of them (सप्तभङ्ग). Pālyakīrti, the Jain Grammarian, there- fore, objects to the view of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti, saying that the quality of an entity cannot be fixed as रसवत् or otherwise; because the same thing my be रसवत् in one, while it will be नीरस or उदासीन in another. This is illustrated by the example of the moon in the verse येषां वल्लभया etc. ll. 15-21. Avantisundarī follows in the foot-steps of Pālya- kīrti, and thinks that especially in Kāvya the nature of things is not fixed; because, if the poet is clever he is able to present the same thing in different forms to suit different contexts. For instance, the same moon is described by poets at one time as अमृतांशु and at others as दोषाकर. Rājaśekhara, however, ultimately agrees with the views of both Pālyakīrti and Avanatisundarī. ll. 22-26. For the sub-divisions of Kāvya see Dhvanyāloka 3, 7. Ancient writers on Alaṅkāra such as Bhāmaha and Vāmana, divide Kāvyas into two either as अनिबद्ध, and निबद्ध or as मुक्तक and प्रबन्ध respectively. See Bhāmaha 1-18 and Vāmana 1-3-27. Daṇḍin, however, mentions several kinds of Kāvya as मुक्तक etc; but he does not attempt to define them, as these do not possess any appreciable difference from the सर्गबन्ध. see Kāvyādarśa 1-13. The अनिबद्ध or मुक्तक is only illustrated by Bhāmaha thus: अनिबद्धं पुनर्गाथाश्लोकमात्रादि तत्पुनः (1-30.) But Gopendraṭippabhūpāla in his Kāmadhenu while commen- ting upon Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (1-3-27) quoted a verse defining मुक्तक and attributes the same to Bhāmaha. This verse, however, is not found in the present editions of Bhāmaha's Kāvyā- laṅkāra. The verse in question is quoted below :—

192 EXPLANATORY NOTES मुक्तकलक्षणमुक्तं भामहेन— प्रथमं मुक्तादीनामृजु लक्षणमुच्यते । यदेव गांभीर्यौदार्यशौर्यनीतिमतिस्पृशा ॥ भवेन्मुक्तकमेकेन द्विकं द्वाभ्यां त्रिकं त्रिभिः । Abhinavagupta in his commentary on Dhvani (3-7,) however, gives a definition of मुक्तक in the following words:— मुक्तमन्येन नालिङ्गितम् । तस्य संज्ञायां कन् । तेन स्वतन्त्रतया परिसमाप्तनिराकाङ्क्षार्थमपि प्रबन्धमध्यवर्ति मुक्तकमित्युच्यते ॥ The same idea is also expressed by Rājaśekhara when he says:—मुक्तेतिवृत्तः शुद्धः । Page. 47. *[ ll. 1-4. सा पत्युः (अमरु 29) ]. ll. 1-4. Here is described the behaviour of a मुग्धानायिका when she finds fault with the conduct of her lover for the first time. *[ l. 5. दूरादुत्सुकमागते (अमरु. 49) attributed to रतिपाल in कवीन्द्रवचन- समुच्चय. *[ ll. 9-12. दत्वा रुद्धगतिः records a historical incident. ध्रुवस्वामिनी or ध्रुवदेवी was the queen of चन्द्रगुप्तविक्रमादित्य and mother of कुमारगुप्त I ] ll. 9-12. The subject matter of this verse is styled by Rājaśe- khara as कथोत्थः वृत्तेतिवृत्तः । The word Kathā is controversial in the sense that it may either denote an actual historical fact or may record mere tradition. But the incident alluded to in this verse may be taken as an historical fact. Evidently, it refers to the event connected with king S'rīśarmagupta, his queen Dhruvasvā- minī and one Khasādhipati who was hostile to S'rīśarmagupta. All these persons excepting Dhruvadevī or Dhruvasvāminī who was the queen of Candragupta II and the mother of Kumāragupta I of the Gupta dynasty are unknown to history. But the literary evidence culled from such ancient works as Harṣacarita of Bāṇa, (अरि(अलि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेशगुप्तो गुप्तः चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिं प्रशशास । 6th Uccvāsa); Devicandragupta of Viśākhadatta (fragments of which are available from the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja and the Nāṭyadar- paṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra. (G.O.S. No. 48); and Sañjan copperplates of king Amoghavarṣa I dated S'aka 795 (E. I. Vol. XVIII p. 248) points to all these being names of historical personages. From the information obtained from different sources it appears that there was a king Rāmagupta by name who had

NINTH ADHYĀYA 193 contracted a humiliating treaty when he was attacked and defeated by a S'aka invader. By this treaty he was compelled to surrender his crowned queen Dhruvadevi. When the king consented to sacrifice his queen in order to save himself and his subjects, Chan- dragupta his younger brother to save the honour of his family volunteered to go to the enemies' camp under the guise of queen Dhruvadevī and killed the S'aka king. For further information refer to the Nāṭyadarpaṇa; pp. 223–253, of the Journal of the B. O. R. S. 1928 and the Journal Asiatique for Octo.–Dec. 1923. In the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however, the king is named as S'rīśarmagupta or S'rīsenagupta and the invading king is reported as Khasādhipati instead of S'rīrāmagupta and S'akādhipati respectively. On the strength of the evidences adduced above the readings as खस and शर्मगुप्त here may be taken as scribe's errors for शक and रामगुप्त respectively which seem to be the correct names. It is also suggested in the above mentioned journals on the evidence of the Devīcandragupta, Sañjan copper-plates, and some coins of Candragupta and Dhruvadevī, that Candragupta II must have married Dhruvadevī the queen of his brother Rāmagupta after killing him. But the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however, has no direct connection with the incident referred to above. But this verse certainly makes valuable contribution to the controversy regarding Rāmagupta's history by clearing two points: namely, the identification of the particular S'aka king who invaded Rāmagupta's territory and the identification of Candragupta. The words खसाधिपति, यस्मात् and तस्मिन्नेव हिमालये in this verse undoubtedly show that खस king as spelt in the Mss of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā may be better identified with one of the Kuṣāṇa kings of the Western Punjab and not with the S'aka Kṣatrapas either of Mathura or Malwa and that the war between the खस king and Rāmagupta or S'armagupta took place exactly in the portion of the Himālayas lying between the two kingdoms. In this case the word शक in the Harṣacarita and Devīcandragupta may be taken to denote the खस or Kuṣāṇa king as the term शक is often loosely used to denote even the non-S'aka foreign tribes. The word कार्तिकेय also in this verse may refer to Skanda- gupta of the Gupta dynasty who is addressed in this verse and is २५