Chapter 6—Sixth Varga

VARGA VI. P. 76, LL. 1-2 ...... ( Karika 68) 1-This is the last instalment of alankaras. This does not agree either with the enumeration of Bhamaha nor with that of Dandin, though it bears some likeness to that of the former. Bhamaha has :- sahoktiparivrtti ca sasamdehamananvayam || utpreksavayavam canye samsrstamapi capare | bhavikatvam ca nijaguralamkaram sumedhasah || bhamahalamkara - 3, 3, 4 . of these utpreksavayava like upamarupaka is altogether dismissed by. Udbhata ; and kavyahetu and kavyadrstanta ho has added of his own. These two important alankaras are not mentioned by Dandin, Bhamaha and Vamana; and as far as our know-

Notes. 145 ledge of the history of alankaras goes Udbhata is the first to introduce and treat these among the established alankaras. Probably because of their newness Udbhata has mentioned them at the end of the whole list. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. 76, LL. 3-6-....... dvitiya | These lines display what an astute commentator and accurate grammarian Induraja is. The word presents a difficulty. has a conjunctive force and the substantives that are connected with sa are always in the first case. Thus we can have ramah krsnah devadattah ityetanbhojaya or simply ramam krsnam devadattam ca bhojaya, but not ramam krsnam devadattam ityetanbhojaya . But such an objectionable use of a is made by Udbhata in the Karika. ananvayam sasamdeham etc. are governed by iti and still they are all in the accusative case. The word alamkaranu stands for ananvaya, etc. and it is in the accusative case in addition to c. Induraja finds a way out of the difficulty. He says that by the word iti, ananvayam, sasamdeham etc. are not referred to at all. Therefore disregarding we can have ananvayam, sasamdeham and others in apposition to alamkaran, and the second case thus becomes quite lawful. A is to be taken to mean ' in the manner described afterwards". The fa also has a similar remark on this point. He says -- ititi vaksyamanalaksanayuktam | na tvitih sabdasvarupasamsthapanartho'nanvaya- miti dvitiyanupapatteh | P. 76, LL. 7-9 = honoured, fit, venerable. is a compound. The general rule is that a word having fewer and shorter vowels should come first. (19121313.). But the exception to this rule is that a word signifying a more honoured or weighty object should precede the other members of the compound even if it is not composed of fewer and shorter vowels. Now in drstantahetu, drstanta having more vowels is placed first, therefore it must be regarded as the more honoured and the more important figure of the two. This importance given to is thus accounted for by Induraja. There is (q. v. under arthantaranyasa ) between the two parts of drstanta and therefore suggests the alamkara (for also contains vyapti ). 19 [x.s.s.]

146 Kavyalankara sara-sangraha. P. 76, LL. 11-12 - sasamdehah | upamanena tatvam ca ..... (Karika 69)1 A statement containing a doubt [ of the poet] who first expresses the sameness and then the difference [of the upameya ] from the upamana in order to convey excellence [of the upameya ] is called sasamdeha by the wise. " First the upameya is said to be the same as upamana in a doubtful manner; but afterwards some difference of the upameya from the upamana is set forth to convey the doubtful state of mind of the speaker. All this is done to eulogise the upameya . P. 76, LL. 20-21 - haste kimasya nihsesa ... | nabhipadmasprhayatah ...| Here the conch-shell in the hand of Vishnu is first described as yasah samcaya . In a rupaka the manner of ascribing sameness is definite ; here it is doubtful: kim yasah samcayah syat etc. After this the difference is stated pindibhavasya kimkrtah yasahsamcaya is not pindibhuta, on the contrary it spreads far and wide. In the second stanza the same type of sasamdeha ocours again. "Is this a swan come with a desire for the lotus in the form of the navel? But this is not moving [as a swan always is]. " Here first the question is made whether yasah- cis the same as swan, but afterwards the differentiating quality is put forth, viz, naisa cancalah . The fa has a rather interesting note on these two. stanzas. He says:-atra sankha upameyo yasassamcayo hamsasca upamane | adhmanam ca sankhah | samagradaitya hrddalana sambhavo yasassamcayah svahastinasceti (?) tvatirikta vyabhicarita | evam- vidhakaryakaritvarupastutivastupratipadanayayameva yasassamcaya iti purvamabheda upanibaddhah| tasya ca yasassamcayasya samagratrailokyavyapitvam na tvevamvidham parimitadesatvamiti stutipratipadanaya punarbhedenabhidhanam | daityavidaranakaridhvano'pyasau svabhavato mandradhvanita iti hamsenabheda uktah | hamsasya calatvamasya sthiraprakrtitvamiti pratipadanartha bheda uktah | Thus he interprets the abheda and the bheda of the upamana s in a rather different way from that of Induraja. P. 77, LL. 12-13 - alamkarantaracchayam ..... (Karika 70 ) | Another variety of sasamdeha . "Any composition containing an apparent doubt when really there is no doubt, [ set forth with a view to produce a charm of other alankaras, is termed ." It is to be noted that the name here is samdeha and not sasamdeha . The vivrtikara remarks : sasamdehasamdehasabdabhyam dvabhyamapyabhidhanamityupadesalaksanayorna virodhah .

Notes. P. 77, LL. 19-20-: ...... kimayam meri | . 147 "Who seated on the lord of birds, bright as the sun, is thus mistaken (by others): Is this a dark cloud seated on the mountain Meru?' or 'Is this the smoke gathering on the fire of destruction?" Here there is really no doubt in the mind of the speaker, whereas in the former variety the speaker himself was speaking in doubt. Here the poet-says- ' iti yah sankayate, ' who is thus mistaken. 2. The poet himself is not at all mistaken; he only puts forth the possibility of a mistake on the part of others. Doubt is merely brought in here to express imaginary comparisons. The harshere produced is that of utpreksa . Of course speaking from the standpoint of sheer commonsense, in both these varieties the doubts and comparisons are all the product of the poet's imagination. There is no doubt or uncertainty about the real thing in the poet's mind in both these varieties. The difference is only in the form and not in the substance. The definition of of Bhamaha is exactly the same as that of the first variety of Udbhata. But he has no second variety. Dandin has instead of samsayopama sasamdeha which he illustrates thus:- kim padmamantarbhrantali kim te loleksanam mukham | mama dolayate cittamitiyam samsayopama | -kavyadarsa, 2 . 26 . Vamana's definition of and his example are very similar to this. Devotees of will remember the wellknown line, kimtu niscayagarbha iva natra (i. o. niscayante sasamdehe ) niscayah pratiyamana iti upeksito bhodbhatena, of Mammatacharya under sasamdeha (ka . pra . 10, g. 489.). It means: is neglected by Bhattodbhata, for there the is not conveyed by suggestion, but is actually expressed. For the charm exists in implication and not in bare expression. Udbhata has given three verses in all as examples of . Therefore he could have easily inserted an example of had meant to include it. This fact indeed shows disregarded the fas Mammata remarks. if he that he But in

$148 Karyalankara-sara-sangraha. this work Udbhata does not any where say in so many words that he wants to exclude for such and such reason. All other old writers viz. Bhamaha, Dandin, and Vamana do not give any example of. Therefore they can also be said to have neglected that variety. Whether Udbhata had expressly written somewhere else condemning for the reason given by Mammata we do not at present know. is that where the end is made by a final decision after the doubts and fancies are expressed. The example given by Mammata is: induh kim ka kalankah sarasijametatkimambu kutra gatam | lalitavilasavacanairmukhamiti harinaksi niscita paratah || kavyaprakasa ; 10, p. 590. P. 78, LL. 2-3 - ananvayah | yatra tenaiva tasya (Karike 71)1 "When comparison of one thing is made with the thing itself in order to conver the absence of any other. similar thing, the alankara is ananvaya ." This definition of is the same as that of Bhamaha. Here also Induraja brings in the discussion that he dilated upon in upameyopama upameya is the thing which is prakaranika . How can it be the upamana which is always aprakaranika ? The answer is that such a discrepancy is allowed in and upameyopama . For upamanopameyabhava is not the important element in them; the absence of any other similar thing is to be emphasised prominently. In this Karika also iti does not govern ananvayam . If it did so would have to be in the first case. It must be taken to refer to the example that follows. P. 78, LL. 13-14 The meaning of the verse and the alankara in it are quite clear. P. 78, LL, 18-19 - samsrstih | alamkrtinam bahvinam ...... - (Karika 72). "Sheltering together in one place [i. e. either in words or in sense] of many or even two alankaras that are independent of each other is called fT. The respective provinces of and as defined by Udbhata are different from those of more modern writers such as Mammata and others. Two alankaras can come

Notes. 149 together in two ways. (1) They can be intermingled into one another so that one cannot be separated from the other. (2) They can be quite independent of one another the only connection between them being their coming together in one sentence or one verse. The first kind of combination is termed by Mammata and others and the second is called by them. Thus they have these two categories having a natural and fundamental difference between them. But Udbhata's division is peculiar. He calls the first kind of combination ( sapeksa upanibandha ) samkara . But he extends (faza the province of to the second kind of combination also. In it he makes a division. (1) The alankaras that come together belong some of them to letters and some of them to sense promiscuously, the only tie being that they exist in one sentence or verse. Udbhata brands this as a variety ofc. (2) The alankaras that come together either belong all of them to letters such as yamaka, anuprasa etc., or belong all to sense such as upama, rupaka etc. This is samsrsti according to Udbhata (and Induraja also ). It will be thus seen that : etesam (alamkaranam ) anyonyanirapeksataya yat ekatra, (1) sabdabhage eva (2) arthabhage eva, (3) ubhayatrapi va avasthanam sa ... samsrstih | (kavyaprakasa ; 10, q.). Out of these three categories (of) set down by Mammata the first two categories are the of Udbhata; the third category is sabdarthavartyalamkarasamkara . The example given below illustrates the combination of two arthalamkara s (upama and rupaka ). P. 78, LL. 26-27 - tvatkrte sopi vaikunthah ... | vaikuh = visnuh ; nirvisanti entering in, attaining, enjoying. Here two alannkaras occur having no connection between them. sasivosasi candrikam is upama and adharam sudhavrstim is rupaka (or drdharoparupaka according to nagoji bhatta . ). This is the culminating verse of the long sentence describing visnu . The sentence begins with siramsi pankajaniva etc. (Varga 5; st. 14.) P. 79, L. 8- tayoh kevalabhidheyasrayatvat | abhidheya is the directly expressed theme of description. The abhidheya is vaikunthah sriyam tyajati in this verse,

150 Kavyalankara sara sangraha. P. 79, LL. 1-2 - taduttisthatidhanyena ....... This is not an example of. It is a verse in the poem inserted to keep the chain of the story unbroken. But to free it from the charge of uselessness Induraja says that this verse should be appended to the former and the whole should be considered as an example of of many (not two) alankaras in consideration of the contained in kamaleksane . 65 c P. 79, LL. 13-14 - bhavikam | pratyaksa iva yatrarthah ... (Karika 73) When wonderful things that belong either to past or to future are seen as if they are perceptible to the eye by the unimpeded power of words then the alankara is bhavika . " P. 79, LL. 15-16 - sampratikena pradhvamsabhavena ... bhutah | sampratikena pragabhavena ... bhavinah | These are definitions in the nyaya style. pragabhava = the non existence of a thing before its production. This abhava has not a beginning but has an end. anadih santah pragabhavah, utpatteh purva karyasya | - tarkasamgraha . pradhvamsabhava = the non-existence of a thing after its destruction. This has no end but has a beginning. sadiranantah pradhvasabhavah, utpattyanantaram karyasya | - tarkasamgrahah . abhava s are of four kinds :- pragabhavah- ( described above), eg idanim kalkina abhavah | pradhvamsabhavah -- ( described above ), eg. idanim yudhisthirasyabhavah | atyantabhavah - e g. bhutale ghato nasti | The total absence of any thing. anyonyabhavah- 0 g. ghatah pato nasti | The absence of one thing in another. P. 79, L. 18 -- sampratika .. viviktataya | By casting of the now existing pradhvamsabhava or pragabhava . P. 79, LL. 21-22 - vacamanakulata vyasta ... pratitikarita | anakulata is the unimpededness of language; conveying the meaning quickly by the use of well-known words and absence of involved construction ( vyastasambandha ). 7). P. 79, L. 22, -- P. 80, L. 4--tasyam hi satyam ... drastavyam | It is to be noted that Udbhata has used the word in his

Notes. 151 definition. His aim is: It is not at all sufficient that the poet should only describe absent things as perceptible to the eye. The reader must also see and feel the things as such. And for this purpose there must be enough of force (a) in the style of the poet and enough of wonderfulness in the things themselves. Induraja lays stress on this point in the passage. When there is ( anakulata ) force and vividness in the style, the bhava or the feelings of the poet are experienced by the appreciative readers as the reflection produced by that poetry, and are felt by them as forcibly as by the poet himself. Their own feelings converge on the thought as their minds are melted by the forcible words. Therefore they also see those things, described in the poem as presented to the eye, for the things become as intimate to their feelings as they were to those of the poet. As a forcible and vivid description is a cause of this process so also wonderfulness of the theme is a cause of it too. P. 80, LL. 5-6- citrodattapracaksate | Occurs in Bhamaha (3; 53). Bhamaha has:-- bhavikatvamiti prahuh prabandhavisayam gunam | pratyaksa iva drsyante yatrartha bhutabhavinah || 3 ; 52 . citrodattadbhutarthatvam ......| 3 ; 53 . P. 80. LL 9-10 - srotrbhava bhedadhyavasitasya | srotrbhave abhedena avyavasitasya | adhyavasita = definitely established as the same. The thought of the poet is identified with the thought of the reader in bhavika . 1 P. 80, LL 12-15 - rasollasi kaveratma | samvitasvacchasabdartha Whence these stanzas are taken cannot be determined prativindya = getting himself reflected [in sabdarthadarpana ]. The subject is kaveratma . Parvati geneP. 80, LL. 20-21-... rates pain (q) because she is without any ornament (bhusana ) or anjana etc. She evokes pleasure (priti ) because she is so beautiful that the charm of ornaments is seen in her without the ornaments themselves. Thus the (the wearing of ornaments) which existed

152 Kavyalankara sara-sangraha. before is here expressed as seen by the eye. The reader as well as the poet feels as if the ornaments are present on the body of Parvati. This constitutes. This expression is not verbal as in bhavibhusanasambharam saksatkurve tavakrtim . It is implied by the words karosi pritim and samudviksya nanabharanasobhaya . In bhavibhusanasambhari the poet himself says: tavakrti I see before myself your figure with the future ornaments." P. 81, LL. 2-3-kavyahetuh (-linga ) | srutamekam yadanyatra ... (Karika 74)1 "When one thing heard becomes the cause of calling to mind or experiencing some other thing, the alankara is called." P. 81, LL. 5-8- paksadharmatva upanibadhyamanatvat | The terms paksadharmata and others are explained before under arthantaranyasa . ( See Notes pp. 60-61.) Induraja's point of assertion is that the s that are detailed by logicians are quite insipid and harsh; but which is t in composition that is rich in flavour and is intensely appealing to the heart of all people (i. e. in poetry) cannot but be charming. P. 81, LL. 8-10 pratipadyate | Therefore the name is quite appropriate. For it suggests the oppositeness of raf (i. e. the logical dc) which is insipid. P. 81, L. 15-Tendency to help the manifestation of rasa (sentiment). P. 82, LL, 6-9 - yuvaterivarupamanga -yuvaterivarupamanga ..... | yadi bhavati vacascayutam These verses are found in Vamana's kavyalamkarasutravrtti on 3.9. 3. Authorship of them is uncertain. They express the same thing that Vamana puts in his sutra - kavyasobhayah ...etc. | 3, 9, 9-2-3, and may possibly belong to Vamana himself. The meaning is clear. P. 82, LL. 14-15 - kavyasobhayah kartaro ...... | tadatisayahetavah ... | purvenityah | Vamana's kavyalamkarasutra s 3. 1. 1-2-3 . P. 82, L. 17-3=Either (1) not artificial, natural; or (2) not impeded, rushing head long. The first meaning. is more desirable; the second meaning does not agree with the epithet which means oozing, dribbling.

Notes. 153 P. 82, LL. 18-21 - kathamapi krtapratyapattau ...... | amarusataka, 750 This example is brought in to show that the best form of poetry can exist without alankaras but not without gunas. pratyapatti = reunion, re-agreement. uttaraskhalana or gotraskhalana = an unconscious slip of a secret thing, e. g. the unconscious utterance of the name of the nayaka or nayika, upanayaka or upa- nayika . The translation: When the dear one who had some how effected a reunion, unconsciously dropped some hints (of his secret intercourse), the lady emaciated by separation feigned non-hearing; and having found the apartment empty with a glance that was hasty on account of the fear lest the unpardoning might have heard it (the), breathed a sigh of relief. The lady was in separation and the lover was attached to another woman. The lover afterwards came and by etc. effected an agreement. But in talking he dropped some hints of his secret connection. The lady had of course some spark of jealousy of this, but she being f was eager for union. But if the (these Is are always very obdurate people) had been there she would not have allowed union so meekly. Therefore when the lady saw that was not present she sighed in relief. Here by kathamapi krtapratyapattau it is suggested that there was virahavipralambha before and there is an agreement (i) now. By skhalitottare the irsyavipralambha or the jealousy (of the nayika ) is suggested. By fit is suggested that the jealousy aroused in the mind of af is subdued, for she was too emaciated to suffer separation any longer. Bu suggested that if the sakhi had heard the gotraskhalana she would again have caused fare (separation), with this fear the nayika looked around and when sakhi was not seen sambhoga was again established ( samucchrasitam etc.) Thus here irsyavipralambha and virahavipralambha vanish giving place to sambhoga . viraha vipralambhasrngara is of five kinds : etc. it is abhilasavirahersyapravasasapahetuka iti pancavidhah | - kavyaprakasa 4, p. 102. The terms explain themselves. More detailed treatment of these and sin general should be seen in dasarupaka, 4 ; or in rasatarangini . 20 [K.S.S.]

P. 81, L. 11, to P. 84, L. 9-...aa- linkavadityupapannam | In this passage Induraja enters into a short but very valuable dissertation on the nature of poetry, He discusses the relative importance of alankaras, gunas and rasas in poetry. And his views on these topics form a blend of the dogmas of the old and new as well as the Kashmirian and non-Kashmirian schools of thought . All this should be read in the original. Only a summary of it is attempted here. First, how does the use of the word kavya in kavyalinga for instance, implies i. e. richness in flavour? The answer is: Because a is as its form consisting of words and sense is polished by gunas (merits). The gunas are sweetness, floridity, and Of these lucidity. essential for an easy Thus the outer body of merits, especially AME, is the chief, as it is always expression of (a) the sentiment. poetry being furnished with these which are helpful to the manifestation of the sentiment, poetry itself becomes in its essence rich in sentiment. The alankaras are additional ornaments to poetry which is primarily and principally embellished by gunas. As a woman having natural excellences (gunas) receives additional charm from ornaments so also the charm of poetry, primarily endowed by gunas, is heightened by alankaras. Gunas can be charming without alankaras, but alankaras are useless in a place where there are no gunas. Vamana says says -gad- khirupamanga etc., - yadi bhavati vacah etc., - kavyalamkarasutra 3, 1, 10 . Poetry is no poetry without merits or gunas. But without alankaras poetry can exist. Similarly he says-"Producers of charm in poetry are gunas, and the elevators of that charm are alankaras; the former (i. e. the gunas) are essential ",-kavyalamkarasutra 3, 1, 1 - 2 - 3 . Even examples of poetry, having no alankaras but having gunas, are seen; e.g. the verse of Amarusataka containing a flow of intense In erotic sentiment, viz, kathamapi krtapratyapattau etc. - amarusataka 75 . this verse no alankara is seen. It attains a poetical form. by the presence of the guna prasada helped by madhurya and ojas . One may say that exists here; for here the sentiments irsyavipralambha and virahavipralambha vanish and the sambhogasrngara

Notes. develops in their stead. But that is not true. sentiments (s) are not of the nature of alankaras. 155 For The S are the soul of poetry and words and sense are the body. Alankaras are the ornaments of words and sense. Therefore rasas (i, e. the soul) cannot be said to be the ornaments of the outer body. Hence in the above verse, sambhoga helped by the vanishing vipralambha is the soul and not an outer embellishment of the poetry. The same is the case with other rasa s, bhava s, abhasa s of rasa and bhava and their prasama s etc. As to what is said before (in this work) that rasas constitute alankaras, such as etc., it is said in a condition when this discrimination about the real nature of s was not meant (by the author). etc....... tadevam gunasamskrta sastralingava- dityupapannam . Now if a kavya is saguna and sarasa, vyakarana and bharata ( natyasastra ) cannot be a kavya ; for it has neither guna s nor rasa s.. But then this will go against the verse of Bhamaha, viz.- vrttadevadivarita etc. ( - bhamahalamkara 1, 17 ), in which he says that works dealing with arts and sciences are one of the four varieties of & kavya . This conflict is removed by applying the word to sciences and arts in in a secondary sense (upacara ). The principal sense of kavya is always gunasamskrtasabdarthasariram etc. It is applied to gunarahitasabdartha by its secondary sense which it gets on account of the similarity of gunarahitasabdartha with gunasahitasavdartha (poetry ) as both of them are literary compositions. Thus this much is clearly established that does not belong to insipid compositions just like ; but it always belongs to compositions rich in flavour on account of the Jcs that exist in it. Various points inviting consideration suggest themselves to us when we read this short yet important passage of Induraja. The first point that presses itself upon our consideration is: Whether the views of Induraja on belong to the Kashmirian or to the non-Kashmirian school of alankarikas. The obvious answer to the question may be that Induraja belongs essentially to the Kashmirian and the school; and generally it is correct. Induraja

speaks of as the soul of a and speaks of us and alankaras as the ornaments of the body of poetry. He has only three gunas and not ten as propounded by Dandin and Vamana. So far his views are at one with the Kashmirian school of alankarikas. But there are also some very marked differences between the views of that school and his own views. In the first place he gives the utmost importance to gunas and says after Vamana that poetry having no gunas is no poetry at all-f a (p.82). This view, we have already said (vide, Introduction pp. xviii-xx), is the view of the non-Kashmirian writers. Further, in Induraja's opinion gunas are the embellishments of the body (i. e. the style and language) of poetry and they help the manifestation of rasa-guna samskrta sabdarthasarirameva kavyam (p. 84, 1.3.). This view is refuted by Mammata who says : - 'atmana eva hi yatha sauryadayo nakarasya tatha rasasyaiva madhuryadayo guna na varnanam ' kavyaprakasa 8, p. 463. In respect of these gunas the ideas of Induraja follow Dandin and Vamana to a great extent. Yet he tries to harmonise the theory of with the dogmas of Vamana which are to some extent irreconcilable with the theory. Thus he says gunasamskrtasabdarthasariratvatsarasameva kavyam, 'Poetry is rich in sentiment because its form consisting of words and sense is embellished by gunas, which is almost meaningless from both points of view. For Vamana does not at all recognise, and in his opinion is a useless word. The modern writers would never say that a is rich in sentiment because the outer form of it is embellished by gunas. They do not accept that gunas are the cause of the manifestation of rasa . But Induraja says rasabhivyaktiva madhuryojobhyam upabrmhito prasadatma gunastena kriyate Induraja has too much followed Vamana to be able to reconcile himself with the and a theory which he wants to establish. The gunas are the attributes of sentiments () and not of the body (i. e. and af, words and sense) of a according to Mammata and others. But the non-Kashmirians such as Dandin and Vamana make gunas the attributes of a (style), which is the principal element of a in their opinion. Riti is determined according as

Notes. 157 it contains or excludes the various gunas and thus gunas have come to be of primary importance in their treatment. The pioneers of the theory hold that is the main element of poetry and gunas are quite unimportant. Now Induraja admits that is the soul of poetry, but he also wants to give so much importance to gunas that his discussion ceases to harmonise with the theory. Another question that suggests itself is whether all these views expressed by Induraja were also shared by Udbhata. No definite answer to this question can be obtained in this state of our knowledge. Induraja has brought all this discussion about the nature of poetry while explaining the Karika of Udbhata, viz... (Karika 74), and generally it is the custom of commentators not to propound any view that is unacceptable to the author. If they propound such views in the body of the commentary, they would generally affix some such words: etc.-we for ourselves think-denoting some difference with the author. Induraja makes no such remark; on the contrary he has brought in this subject in the course of explaining the title kavyalinga (against) (against a given by Udbhata. He wants to say that the word kavyalinga ( as against sastralinga ) is used to express sarasata . And to explain this sarasata he brings in the discussion about rasas and gunas. Thus it would seem from his way that all those views which he has set forth are shared by Udbhata and he has adopted the title with all those views in mind. an altogether different state of things presents itself to us. Udbhata, as we have seen, is the follower of the system of Bhamaha and not of Dandin and Vamana. Bhamaha according to the published version of his book gives very little importance to gupas which are as it were held up to the sky by Dandin and especially by Vamana. Bhamaha only mentions madhurya, ojas and prasada and takes a cursory notice of them in three verses. (29-2-3.). And Udbhata if he shared Bhamaha's views-which is probableApproaching the tat from another point of view,

would never have given so much importance to gunas as is given by Induraja in the above discussion. We have at present no first hand means to ascertain what the actual views of Udbhata were about the exact nature and importance of gunas. The few references that are made to Udbhata's opinions in other alankara works point to some different direction. In the first place, there are the lines of Ruvyaka in his alamkara sarvasva (p. 7 ) - ' udbhatadibhistu gunalamkaranam prayasah samyameva sucitam | visayamatrena bhedapratipadanat | samghatanadharmatvena cesteh| ' 'The commentary ratnapana on Vidyanatha's prataparudrayasobhusana (p. 337) also says : - ' alamkaravibhagam karisyamanastadupayogataya udghatadimateno tameva gunalamkara bhedamanuvadati | carutvahetutvepi gunanamalamkaranam casrayabhedadbhedavyapa- desah | samghatanasrayah gunah sabdarthasrayastvalamkarah | These references and a few similar ones found in other places indicate that Udbhata made very little distinction between alankaras and gunas. The only difference according to him between gunas and alankaras was that their provinces were different. Gunas belong both to (words) and 34 (sense) at once; and alankaras either belong to words or to sense. This is the only reason for any distinction made between them. There is also a quotation taken by Mammata in the 9 th Ullasa (p. 470) with the purpose of refuting it. It is this : 'samavayavrttya sauryadayah samyogavrttya tu haradayah ityastu gunalamkaranam bhedah | ojah prabhrtinamanuprasopamadinam cobhayesamapi samavayavrttya sthitiriti gaddari- kapravahenaivesam bhedah | ' Some commentators of kavyaprakasa say that this is a quotation from Udbhata's This quotation, if it really were taken from a work of Udbhata, makes our position more confused. These lines mean that there is absolutely no difference between alankaras and gunas. Both are inherent qualities ( samavayavrttya sthitih ) of poetry. This view is slightly different from the view that is noticed by Ruyyaka and the author of which professes to belong to Udbhata. Still both these views agree in the main point that there is no essential difference between alankaras and gunas. And it is possible that both may be expressed by the same person in different contexts. But none of these views can agree with the view of Vamana which is set forth and accepted by Induraja in the passage in question.

Notes. 159 Another crucial question which Induraja raises is about the position and importance of in poetry. Induraja himself is of opinion that is the soul of poetry, while gupas and alankaras are the embellishments of the body of poetry. Of these, gunas are of primary importance while alankaras are merely sobhatisayavidhayinah . Here again. it seems difficult to determine whether these opinions abouts etc. were held by Udbhata or not. But there is some indication from which we can say that the views set forth by Induraja must not be acceptable to Udbhata. Udbhata mentions the alankara, which occurs in his opinion when a is prominently expressed in a poetical passage. This obviously contradicts the position of Induraja, who says that is the z and alankaras are outer embellishments of subsidiary importance in poetry. If was the z in Udbhata's opinion, he would never have relegated it to the position of an alankara. Induraja himself feels this difficulty and says-yattu rasadinam purvamalam y aqafª¶a (p. 83, 1. 23). But this, after all, is a meagre satisfaction and it shows the more clearly that Udbhata did not know or at least did not accept the theory that rasa was the soul of poetry. cause. P. 84, LL. 10-15 - tarkikanam ca ... smrteranubhavasya veti | Logicians are divided in their thoughts about the process of causation. Some say that the process of causation consists only in calling to mind the effect of those things whose impression is revived by seeing the Others aver that the connection between the fire and the hill which was unknown before is understood after the process of inference is completed. Thus they say that an experience of the effect is created by the cause. In short, the first set of people affirm that the knowledge that such and such effect is produced by such and such cause was already existent, only it was recalled to the mind newly. The second party says that the knowledge of the cause and effect was nonexistent and it was newly produced by the z, i. e. by the process of inference. To include both these views Udbhata has said smrteranubhavasya va .

160 Kavyalan kara-sara-sangraha. P. 84, LL. 17-18-... The example of The lustre of the whole body of Parvati, excepting the places where ornaments were worn, was a little diminished and therefore showed the places of ornaments more clearly. ** P. 84, LL. 24-25-drstantah | istasyarthasya ...... (Karika 75 ) The clear manifestation of a counterpart of the subject of description not containing words such as, etc. is called by the wise. 99 and then verse is an P. 85, LL. 2 - 11 - nanu kopadekataraghata ... ato nativyaptih | Induraja proceeds to account for the epithet vispasta . In the verse kopade- kataraghata, he says, istarthapratibimbana exists. The istartham is Rama's easy victory over Maricha; and its reflexive representation () is laid before us by the description of the lion matching with the deer. Thus here there is and consequently follows. But in the definition above there is the word fa. The image of the 4 is not clearly set before us, for we have first to imagine the to understand that the thing described in the image of it. Therefore this is not a . In a be a verbal expression of both the parties for perspicuity. Thus far is accounted for. The epithet is also accounted for. It is put to exclude the possibility of upama . By the word adi the sadharanadharma is meant. Thus in a there must not be any iva, any sadharanadharma like ahladakatva etc. The vacakasabda s if present will make the alankara amount to upama, and the sadharanadharma if stated will make it prativastupama . P. 85, LL. 15-16 there must the sake of like ...The meaning of the verse and the alankara in it are quite clear. The first half is istartha and the second half is pratibimba . As we have pointed out again and again, is one of those alankaras which first find mention in the work of Udbhata. Bhamaha, Dandin and Vamana, not to speak of more ancient authors such as Bharata and Bhatti, do not mention this important alankara in their works. But all writers after Udbhata include this alankara in their lists. All of them also borrow the important word in

Notes. 161 their definitions from Udbhata. Mammata's definition is:- drstantah punaretesam (upamanopameyasadharanadharmanam ) sarvesam pratibimbanam | -- kavyaprakasa, 9°, p. 636. We have here reached the end of Udbhata's text. The commentary, however, does not end here. Induraja enters into a rather lengthy discussion of an independent nature in order to show his own views on the subject of P. 85, L. 21- nanu yatra kavye ...... | svasabdavyapara - abhidhavyapara, the direct power of words. svasabdavyaparasprstatvena - The ' vyapara of the pratiyamana artha is quite different from the svasabdavyapara . It is the vyanjanavyapara . abhihitah | Prom P. 85, LL. 23-24-a.. these words it appears quite clearly that the subject of was newly introduced by a set of writers not a long time before Induraja. The well-known and the earliest extant work propounding the dhvani theory is dhvanyaloka, composed by Anandavardhana. This Anandavardhana flourished in the latter half of the 9 th century, that is about a century earlier than the time of Induraja. It is Anandavardhana's theory of which undergoes adverse criticism at the hands of Induraja in the following pages; and it seems from the tone of his criticism that, although the theory was gaining ground, it was a comparatively recent theory in Induraja's time and was far from being universally accepted by critics as an established dogma.. As Ananadvardhana was a comparatively recent author in Indurajas' time, Induraja never mentions him by name, but alludes to the propounders of the theory by the title : (connoisseurs of poetry). These sahrdayah were a group of critics who first originated and then promulgated the theory in the science of poetics. These critics probably styled themselves as they deemed themselves possessed of a truly appreciative heart which readily perceived where the charm of poetry lay. This appears to be the true significance of the word. from the manner in which Anandavardhana repeats it. ad nauseum and makes much of it in his work h 21 [K. S. 8.]

Prof. Sovani conjectures and Mr. P. V. Kane (vide his Introduction to Sahityadarpana, Second Ed. 1923; pp. LXLXIV) definitely holds that was the name or title of the author of the. Now, on a review of all the numerous references to the word in the alankara works of the 9 th and 10 th centuries, it seems to us that it is never intended as the name of a single individual. It is always used in its ordinary sense, viz. connoisseurs of poetry, and is applied to a group of individuals who had taken part in the promulgation of the theory. Mr. Kane is at great pains to show that must be the name of the author of the S. But his contention, it seems to us, is inadmissible for the following reasons: (1) The word . wherever it occurs in connection with the theory, is always found used in the plural number. It is never used in the singular by any writer. The word sahrdaya occurs scores of times in dhvanyaloka and also in locana, the commentary on dhvanyaloka ; it occurs three times in Induraja's and about as many times in Mukula's abhidhavrttimatrka . In all these works sahrdaya is always used in plural, while the names of all other writers are mentioned in singular. Mr. Kane's explanation of : (plural) as the respected is very grotesque; for Induraja and Mukula mention even such venerable writers as patanjali, katyayana, kumarila etc. in singular and cannot be said to have made use of the plural to show respect for a modern author like dhvanikarikakara, whose views they disapproved and freely criticized. (2) kavyajivitabhutah kaisvitsahrdayairdhvanirnama qdaki hiya (P. 85, L. 23 of our text). Here Mr. Kane has missed the force of the word. kaiscitsahrdayaih means 'by certain sahrdaya s. ' sahrdaya cannot be made here to indicate a definite individual. The word implies indefiniteness. (3) Anandavardhana in his dhvanyaloka uses the word sahrdaya (plural) many times, in its ordinary sense, viz. 'real appreciators of poetry.' Now it cannot, with any plausibility, be said that in one or two places only he uses the word with a double entendre, wishing thereby to hint at the name of the author of dhvanikarika 8. (4) Of all those writers who use the word in connec sahrdaya

Notes. 163 tion with the theory, not a single one does ever distinctly mention that sahrdaya was the author of dhvanikarika s. If was the real author, why should these writers not even once mention it directly so as to render it beyond doubt? In the whole range of alankara literature no writer says or unmistakably indicates that was the author of dhvanikarika s. (5) Besides dhvanyaloka the word sahrdaya is found used, with a sort of specialised application in connection with the theory, in a of Abhinavagupta, laghuvrtti of Induraja and abhidhavrttimatrka of Mukula. All these works belong to the 10 th century. As far as our knowledge goes, the word is not used with such special sense in later works; and our conclusion is that : as sahrdayah a special title of a school who promulgated and spread the theory was quit fresh and recent in the 10 th century, but later on the coterie of cs, having done its work, probably ceased to exist and its name consequently died out of memory and vanished. Thus, it appears to us, is a somewhat specialised title of a group of critics who were the promulgators of the theory in Induraja's time. Who then was the actual author of the s? The question is perhaps to remain insoluble. author of the the author of We have all along mentioned the as distinct from Anandavardhana, But even this fact cannot be said to be settled beyond doubt; overwhelming evidence, however, in which the testimony of Abhinavagupta is most important, is on the side of regarding the authors of the karika s and the vrtti on them (i. e. dhvanyaloka itself) as distinct. We have stuck to this evidence in regarding as distinct from Anandavardhana the dhvanyalokakara . As regards the word it is to be noted that Induraja uses it many t Induraja uses it many times in another connection, where its significance cannot be mistaken. In his commentary on bhavika he says:-sa kavineva sahrdayaih srotrbhih svabhiprayamedena tattatkavya pratibimbitarupataya saksatkriyate | srotrnamapi hi ... sahrdayanam svabhiprayamudra tatra samkramati | atah kaveryo'savabhiprayastadgocarikrta bhuta bhavino'pi padarthastatra

sahrdayaih srotrbhih ...... pratyaksa iva drsyante | ( P. 79, L. 24 - P.80, L. 2). Obviously sahrdayah means here persons having a truly appreciative heart.' Naturally, of course, must have the same significance when it occurs in the discussion on Dhvani or elsewhere in Induraja's commentary. esvevalamkaresvantarbhavat | P. 85, L. 24- We have no means at present to determine whether Udbhata did not treat separately because he thought that it was completely included in the aforesaid alankaras. We cannot even say with any certainty whether Udbhata was at all aware of the theory or not. The time of dhvani is not fixed with certainty and we are not sure whether he was the very first man to propound the theory. Even if we suppose that Udbhata was acquainted with, the reason given by Induraja for his not mentioning does not necessarily follow. This treatise deals with alankaras only and there was no necessity. even to mention the word in it. In the whole of the 10 th Ullasa of the word af does not occur, except in the discussion on fara ga in the example of vakyaga srauti purnopama . Having first declared that the absence of a separate treatment of in Udbhata's work is due to the complete inclusion of in the alankaras in Udbhata's opinion, Indurajra henceforward begins to show how all sorts of are included in the alankaras mentioned by Udbhata. If is of three kinds he will show that all these three kinds are included under the alankaras of Udbhata. P. 85, L. 25 traividhyam tairuktam | taih refers to sahrdayaih . See our note on p. 85, L. 21 above. P. 86, LL. 1-2-..... Induraja first wants to illustrate and to point out how it is included under an alankara (namely, ). This verse q). is a description of fau. The meaning is 'Who (four) made the love enjoyments of the consorts of Rahu consist only in kisses and not in embracing and other more solid sports, as if by the forcible order in the form of the stroke of his disk".

Notes. 165 P. 86, LL. 3-9- atra hi ... vastumatrarupam kalpayati | Here the cause by which the love sports were made futile is not expressed. The rahusirascheda which is the cause of cumbanamatrasesakarana is understood by suggestion. is neither a or the like, nor an alankara; it is simply a vastumatradhvani . atotra ... paryayoktalamkarasparsitvam Now such sort of implication comes under paryayoktalamkara, for qafa is the alankara where the thing wanted to be said is conveyed by implication. P. 86, LL. 11-17 - nanu paryayoktasabdena ... na viruddhayate | Now an objection is raised. By the word is meant, 'the thing that is implied'. In the present case the thing that is implied is principal. Therefore in the fitness of things it should be the thing to be adorned () and not an adornment () itself. How can it be an alamkara then? The answer is: Even the principal Even the principal thing becomes the means of adorning, (i.e., adornment) when it becomes the beautifier of gunas. Thus here although the (implied sense) is predominant, still it becomes an alankara, for it elevates the beauty of the subordinate verbal sense. (i. e., guna s ). P. 86. LL, 17-18 - yadi vadalamkarata | Or as an alternative the virarasa of visnu that is implied should be regarded as the principal and being then subordinate, can be in a fit position to become an alankara. The verse etc. is given by Anandavardhana in his (p. 89) as an example where alankara is the (principal) and rasa is the 3 (subsidiary). Thus in this verse the paryayokta alankara is mukhya or ani and the virarasa of visnu which is vyangaya is subordinate. In his opinion the vyangya is not paryayokta but virarasa ( Vide dhvanyaloka 89 ), and it is subordinate to paryayokta . 1 This verse P. 86, LL. 20-23-fa also illustrates vastumatravyamaya which is paryayokta alankara according to Induraja. The clouds which have covered the sky with darkness and which were interspersed by Ts, the sprayful winds and the cries of the friends of clouds (i. e., peacocks) are all (exciting causes) of vipralambhasavara .

P. 86, L. 24 to P. 87, L. 4 - ityevamadavapi ... paryayoktata na syat ! Here the word rama implies rajyabhramsa vanavasa - sitaharana-pitrmaranadayo duhkhaikahetavah . The word is understood not only as the name of a particular individual but it also implies with it all these qualities. The alankara is here as paryayokta before. Here implication rests only on one word. But that does not debar it from being if it satisfies the definition of that alankara. The verse &c. is brought here as an example of af. It would seem to be a useless repetition, as one example of vastudhvani, viz. cakrabhighata etc., is already given. But it is not so. The vyangaya in cakrabhighata and in ramosmi sarva He is not of the same type. The former is an vivaksitavacya the latter is avivaksitavacya These examples will be made use of in explaining those divisions of . The verse snigdhasyamala etc. is given by Anandavardhana in his dhvanyaloka as an example of arthantarasamkramitavacyadhvani ( Vide dhvanyaloka, 61 ); Induraja also does almost the same afterwards. Mammata has cited the verse in his treatment of as an example of samsrsti, anugrahyanugrahaka and ekapadavacya samkara, of dhvani . ( Vide ka . pra . 4, p. 188.) P. 87, LL. 5-6 - evamanyatrapi ** dhvanirnamarthantaram | Thus ga it is now established that in all cases of there is no necessity of regarding as a separate category. P. 87, L. 8-... Here the sea is described as not having become agitated even in the presence of the face (mukha ). (g). And the reason given for this unusual phenomenon is that the sea is jadarasih (dalayorabhedah ), a heap of dullness. Therefore it has not the quick sense to become inflated by the vision of mukha . Here the aropa of candra upon mukha is implied. For the sea is heaved in the presence of the moon. Thus the implied alankara is, and Induraja even allows that. But by our usual method the alankara should be cc yokta here, for there is vacyavacakasunya avagamanavyapara . In this way to be Induraja is not at all particular which alankara A accepted as covering the . Take whichever alamkara

Notes. 167 you please, you must accept some alankara to cover the province of . This seems to be his main standpoint. This verse belongs to Anandavardhana and is given by him in his as an example where the is of the nature of alankara; but still is the principal and vacyartha is its subordinate anandavardhana says here: yatha va mamaiva- 'lavanyakantiparipurita ..... | - ityevamvidhe visaye 'nurananarupakasrayena kavyacarutva- vyavasthanadrupakadhvaniriti vyapadeso nyayyah | - dhvanyaloka, P. 110. And therefore though it is rupakadhvani it is not a simple rupaka alamkara . P. 87. L. 22 - suvarnapuspam prthivim ... | Verse in mahabharata, udyogaparva, a . 36, slo . 74 . 31. 3. 8. The acquisition of the gold-blossomed earth by sura, krtavidya and sevanakarmajna is described here. But verbally it is impossible. For the earth cannot have any blossoms. Therefore gauge here means and the like, and by the help of this laksana, the pratiyamana artha or dhvani (viz. the upamanopameyabhava ) is understood. This upamanopameyabhava is between bahulabhatva (which is the upameya ) and suvarnapuspatva, and between sura, krtavidya etc. and the (gardener who culls the flowers). Thus the impossible connection between and others, and brings in upama, yatha malakarah suvarnapuspani cinvanti tatha surah bahulabham prthivim prapnuvanti, and the alankara here is far according to the definition abhavanvastusambandhah upamaparikalpakah . The verse is given by Anandavardhana as an example of avivaksitavacyadhvani ( Vide dhvanyaloka, p. 49 ). Here the vacya, viz. , is not at all wanted for the theme. Therefore it yields place by laksana to bahulabhaprapana and from it the vyangyartha is then understood. The may be here taken to be the predominance of the prowess of and others." VI P. 88, LL. 5-6-.............. In this verse the words sarana, ksaya, adhisa, hari, krsna, caturatman and arimathana have double meanings. The couplets of epithets: (1) (the one home of all) and (having no home); (2) Sa and dhiyamisa ; (3) hari ( tawny ) and krsna ( black ); (4) caturatman (having a clever soul) and (dull); (5) (destroyer of wheels) and (upholder of wheels)-all But the appear to contain contradictory meanings. fa (conflict) disappears when the other meanings of the

• words are accepted. Thus if we take sarana = raksitr and ksaya = nasa, the virodha between sarvaikasarana and aksaya goes away. The comment of Abhinavagupta on this verse is given here as it clearly explains the virodha - saranam grhamaksayarupamagrham katham | yo na visah sa katham dhiyamisah | yo harih kapilah sa katham krsnah | caturah parakramayukto yasyatma sa katham niskriyah | arinamarayuktanam yo nasayita sa katham cakram bahumanena dharayati | " - locana on dhvanyaloka, p. 101. Here some words, e. g. Here the alankara is slesa . sarvaikasarana, aksaya etc., are ekaprayatnoccarya, as they are identical in both their meanings, therefore that is; and others like, etc. are not identical, differing either in adhisa, caturatman sthana or prayatna, therefore this is sabdaslesa . This slesa is virodhotpattihetu, for it creates virodha . Here the c is that sense of the words by which. fis produced. But both the meanings of the words etc. constitute the alankara. Thus here the dhvani is included in the alankara sa. - verse is of the composition of Anandavardhana and is cited by him in (p. 101) as an example where virodha is saksacchandavedita and therefore not included in a. Udbhata and hence Induraja are of opinion that whenever and some other alankara come together is to be given predominance. That was not the opinion of Anandavardhana, and so he says that the alankara is farta, and not, as Induraja asserts. We have seen that Anandavardhana regards the alankara here as directly understood by words and not a province of a. And in all the five examples, including this, that have gone before, we have seen that there is a great deal of difference between the opinions of Anandavardhana and Induraja. There were no settled and stereotyped views about the topics of the Alankara Sastra, and the science of poetics was in making. Every one had his own views which he used to put forth vigorously. Even the views on the foregoing stanzas which Induraja has refuted are not the views set forth by Ananda vardhana in his P. 88, LL. 11-12... given three examples to prove that . Induraja has is included

Notes. 169 in the alankaras that are mentioned in Udbhata's work. Similarly any other should be included in the alankara which is most akin to it. Anandavardhana and af, of course, do not approve of these views of Induraja; they reckon as a separate type of and do not include it under alankaras which belong to the sense. P. 88, LL. 14-17- ...... 1 This example is brought in to illustrate the, and to show how it is included in alankaras like and others. 66 faqiy=1 ata (q. v.). The meaning of the verse is: When the words betraying the guilt of the lover came to her ears, the lady who had approached the bed, contemplated turning back and began to do so again and again having one of her hands loosened (from the embrace). She could do so [the a] to a great extent, but was not at all able to draw her own bosom away from that of the lover." Here the irsyavipralambha is conveyed by gotraviparyaya etc. But sambhoga is finally established predominantly by saying that the lady could not separate herself from her lover. Thus here is the pratiyamanartha and it is included in the rasavadalamkara as described before (in the 4 th Varga). P. 89, LL. 1-3-...... Where the a artha is bhava or rasabhavabhasa or rasabhavatadabhasaprasama, there the alankaras will respectively be preyasvat, urjasvi and samahita . ( Vide these alankaras treated in Varga 4, pp. 50-56.) P. 89, LL. 4-5-... The whole of the above. discussion applies to the cases where the , etc. are prominent. Where they are subordinate to other s etc. or to the vacyartha, then the figure will be udatta, described as caritam ca mahatmanam . Thus in rasadipratiyamanartha, whether it is the principal one in poetry or not, there is no need of supposing any separate dhvani . In all this discussion it has evidently been the effort of Induraja to save Udbhata from the charge of incompleteness on the score of his not having treated the subject of af at all. But standard writers on the theory such 22 [X.s.s.]

170 Karyalan kara-sara-sangraha. as R, Anandavardhana, Mammata and others have altogether a different view of the subject and Induraja can have no support from them in his pleadings for Udbhata. The main differences between the views of Induraja and those of Mammata and others in this respect are:- ( 1 ) dhvani, in the best poetry or dhvanikavya, can never be an alankara. It is always the (a thing to be adorned) and the alankaras which only belong to the sense are its adornments. ( 2 ) In gunibhutavyangyakavya only where dhvani is in a subordinate position, comes to the position of an alankara; for it beautifies the principal or sense. This is the view of Mammata. Induraja's position on these points is clear. He regards all to be included. in alankaras, whether subordinate or otherwise. Induraja also for a time admits that the whee it is the principal, cannot by its nature be an alankara, tacceha pratiyamanam pradhanatvadalamkaryataya vaktum yuktam, na tvalamkrtikaranataya But he removes the objection characteristically. The TA pratiyamana lends a beauty to the gunas; therefore by the similitude svamyalamkaranaka bhrtyah, dhvani is also spoken of as alankara or beautifier [of the gunas ]. Induraja hereafter has a dissertation on the varieties off. We shall first explain his theory of division and then point out in what places Mammata and Anandavardhana differ from him. P. 89, LL. 8-9 -satprakarataksitatvabhyamukta | The trividha pratiyamanartha here alluded to is the rasadi, vastumatra and alamkararupa . Induraja here says that these three are each twofold. For each of them has two varieties- vivaksitavacya and avivaksitavacya . Thus 6 types of af are obtained. But this description is rather inaccurate in the light of what Induraja himself says later n. The six types of are obtained in another way as explained further on. Thus the meaning of Induraja's passage given above does not seem to fit in with the facts he himself puts forth later.

Notes. P. 89, LL 9-15 - dvividham vyanjakatvam . | 171 hetutvat trividham | The vyanjakatva is first of two kinds vacaka - ( sabda - ) saktayasraya (proceeding from words) and bacya - ( artha - ) saktathasraya (proceeding from the sense ). Of these vacakasaktayasraya is only of one kind, because it is of the nature of alankaras only The suggestive sense proceeding from words only suggests and not vastu or rasadi . aksipta evalamkarah | - This Karika is one of the celebrated a commented upon by Anadavardhana in his dhvanyaloka ( See dhvanyaloka 95 ; u. 2 karika 25 ). The dhvani proceeding from sense ( vacyasaktathasraya ) is of three kinds, viz. rasadi, alamkararupa, and vastumatra . Thus we have got so far four types of dhvani . P. 89, LL, 16-19-- tatra yattavadvacakasaktayasrayam ...... vacyasya vivaksaiva | Now the vacakasaktayasrayadhvani which is only of the nature of alankaras is always vivaksitavacya . For there the direct ( vacya ) meaning is accepted along with the suggested meaning. Thus in the verse sarvaikasarana etc, the dhvani is obviously dependent upon the words sarana, ksaya etc., and the dhvani is of the nature of virodhalamkara . Therefore this is vacakasaktatha- sraya alamkararupadhvani . Now the direct sense is not here abandoned, the suggested sense only produces virodha ; and the direct sense is necessary to make the virodhaparihara . Therefore this is vivaksitavacya ; and all dhvani s of this kind are vivaksitavacya . P. 89, LL. 19-22 - yattu vacyasaktathasrayam ... utpadat | Now the vacyasaktayasraya rasadirupadhvani, as illustrated in yate gotraviparyaye etc., is all vivaksitavacya only. In yate gotraviparyaye • and in such other verses where the vyangaya is rasadi, the rasa is produced by vibhava s, anubhava s etc., which are always directly expressed ( vacya ) by words. Therefore the sense cannot at all be disregarded. Thus all rasadidhvani is vivaksitavacya only and not avivaksitavacya . P.89, L. 25- P. 90, L. 5- vastumatralamkaravisayasya ... vivaksa- vivakse | Now two kinds of dhvani s, viz. vacyasaktathasraya - ( 1 ) vastumatra and (2) alamkararupa, remain to be accounted for. Each of these is twofold, viz. vivaksitavacya and avivaksitavacya In the example cakrabhighata etc. the vacya is vivaksita . The vacya is cumbanamatrasesata and the vyangya is rahusira cheda . The former is the karya and the latter is the karana . The karya is necessary to produce any implica-

tion of karana . But in snigdhasyamalakanti etc. the vacya sense of , viz. the name of an individunal, is not fa. Therefore the word is transferred from its sense to something like duhkhabhibhutapurusa . Therefore the vacya is here avivaksita . P. 90, LL. 6 - 11 - alamkaravisayepi ... vacyabhulatvat | How the vivaksitavacya and the avivaksitavacya types exist in amlakararupadhvani is explained. In lavanyakanti etc. there is ekapadapravesa samkara of utpreksa and visesokti in the word manye . Then there is a samkarapratibhotpattihetu slesa . The vacya which thus contains these alankaras is vivaksita, for the suggestion of rupaka proceeds from it. In lavanyakanti etc. the alankara visesokti occurs, because the karana, viz. mukha, being there, the karya, viz. samudraksobha, is not produced. The utpreksa is olearly manifest by the word manye . But the ekapadapravesasamkara of Induraja can be questioned, as seems to have no connection with the word manye . The slesa in jala - (da) rasi is clear. The suggested is that of upon c, which is explain- suvarnapuspam etc. the suvarnapuspatva is totally aban• is brought in in its stead by . Therefore it is avivaksitavacya dhvani . ed before. doned and In P. 90, LL. 12-17 - yadi tvatra ... tadanimatra gunibhavati | In the verse suvarnapuspam eto. bahulabhatva is the upameya and suvarnapuspam prthivim cinvanti is the upamana . Now if the maxim na tinantenopamanamasti ( upamana cannot exist with a verb) is accepted, then, will be the substantive 3c expressed. From it the 3 bahulabhatva will be understood by praudhokti . Thus the upamana and are sought to be conveyed by the same words though they are really different. The alankara will, therefore, be atisayokti according to the definition bhede'nanyatvam . bhede'nanyatvam . The suggested c will then be subordinate. Thus in the verse the vyangya ( viz. the upama ) being gunibhuta the kavya will be of a mediocre type and the question whether the is 1- ksitavacya will not arise very prominently. P. 90, LL 19-24-atra cavivaksa ... vivaksayamapi | Here Induraja explains the samlaksyakramadhvani and the asamlaksyakramadhvani, samlaksyakramadhvani occurs in that place where the plication, i. e. how the implied sense is produced from the primary sense, is clearly noticed, and _process of imis that

Notes. 173 in which that process is so quick and instantaneous that it cannot be noticed ( asamlaksya ). According to Induraja this exists in the alamkararupa or vastumatra dhvani which is avivaksitavacya . For there the sentiments etc. in the sense are at once noticed. Where the dhvani is vivaksitavacya, the suggested vastu and alamkara are produced by a distinguishable process ( kramavyavahara ) from the vacya and it is therefore called arthasaktimulanurananarupa vyangya (the same as samlaksyakramavyangaya .) P, 90, L. 25 to P. 91, L. 3 - yatra ca vacyasyavivaksa ...... paryayoktabhedatvat | Induraja again brings the topic of alankaras and revises and recasts his own views expressed before. In ramo'ाsma and in suvarnapuspam he had stated the alankaras to be paryayokta ( see p. 87 ) and nidarsana ( see p. 88 ) respectively. Now he says that both of them contain aprastutaprasamsa, for in both there is vacyasya avivaksa and the vyangya is prastuta and vivaksita . The suvarnapuspacayana and the epithet rama are both avivaksita and therefore aprastuta or adhikarapeta . Thus this is adhikarapeto pani- bandhadaprastutaprasamsa . Now in snigdhasyamalakanti, the words rama etc. were said to be a type of paryayokta . But it was said rather loosely as it was the beginning of the subject. paryayoktabheda really belongs to vivaksitavacyadhvani In avivaksitavacyadhvani the vacya which is aprastuta is abandoned and the vyangya or suggested sense is brought in, which is really the . Thus it is in reality the province of aprastutaprasamsa . P. 91, LL. 4-9- yatra khala ... rantargatirvacya | In those four examples beginning with the e etc., where the vacya is vivaksita, the alankara is a type of paryayokta . For when the definition of is taken into account the definition of appears to extend elsewhere than the province of aprastutaprasamsa . aprastutaprasamsa exists wherever there is avivaksita- vacyadhvani . Thus paryayokta and aprastutaprasamsa include the vivaksita and avivaksita vacya dhvani s and hence the whole province of dhvani . P. 91, LL. 10-13- suvarnapuspam prthivim ... upapadyataeva | In suvarnapuspam etc. the alankara was said to be nidarsana before (see p. 88 ). But the asambhavadvacyartha nidarsana is only a kind of aprastutaprasamsa, for it contains aprastutarthopanibandha .

174 Kavyalankara sara sangraha. P. 91, LL. 14-18 - tadevam ... satprakarata bhavati | Induraja now ! once more enumerates the six divisions of explained. We also give them here:- dhvani hitherto 1 { vacaka (sabda ) saktacasraya alamkararupa vivaksitavacya vacya (artha ) saktacasraya vastumatrarupa alamkararupa 1 6 rasadirupa vivaksita- 2 vivaksitavacya 3 avivaksitavacya 4 vivaksitavacya . vacya . 5 avivaksitavacya . It will be clearly seen that this division is quite different from that put forth in satprakarata ... vivaksitatvabhyamukta ( See p. 89, 11. 8-9 ). There all the three dhvani s, viz. vasturupa, alamkararupa and rasarupa are each said to be twofold, viz. vivaksitavacya and avivaksitavacya . P. 91, LL. 19-23 - yatra ca ... dasa sampadyante | Out of these six the four vivaksitavacya varieties are each divided into two according as the vacya sense is either svatahsambhavi ( possible in itself ) or kavipraudhoktisiddha ( created by the hyperbolic description of the poet such as yasaso dhavalatvam etc.). Thus the viva- ksitavacya varieties become eight and the total dhvani varieties become ten. P. 91, LL. 23-26 - eta eva tu ... vakyaprakasyata | These ten are again made double according as the is either expressed by a word ( pada ) or by a sentence (vakya ). The vyanjakatva (power of suggestion ) resting in letters, words, sentences or terminations such as krt, taddhita etc. is manifested either in a word or in a sentence, eg. ramosmi etc. Here the vyangaya is padaprakasya . But in cakrabhighata etc. the whole sentence is needed to manifest the vyangya, viz. rahusirascheda P. 91, L. 26-P. 92, L. 1- yatha ca pradhanyabhute ... yojyeti | Thus the power of suggestion ( vyanjakata ) becomes twenty fold in pradhanabhutavyangya kavya . These twenty types are also to be seen in gunibhutavyangayakavya according to possibility. P. 92, LL 3-8- vivaksyamavivaksyam ca | This Karika and the three following enumerate the varieties of

Notes. 175 dhvani . The order of the first Karika is: arthasaktayasraye vastvalamko ragocare dhvanau vacyam vivaksyamavivaksyam ca | ( 1 ) sabdasakti - ( 2 ) ra saspade tu vivaksyam | sabdasaktirasaspade i. 0. sabdasaktayaspada - alamkararupe and arthasaktayasraya- rasaspade | The other two Karikas are very clear and they only embody what has gone before. P. 92, LL. 12-13-Now Induraja has his final say in the line evametadvyanjakam paryayokadisvantarbhavitam . His principal object in the foregoing discussion was to prove that is completely included in the alankaras. He seems to have a great aversion to the theory that is quite separate and can never be included in alankaras. Further he word af seems also to have an abhorrence even for the which is a very pet word of those who, like Anandavardhana, propound the theory. He does not use the word except for once in the beginning, but always tries to express the idea by the words vyanganya, vyanjaka and the like, though they are sometimes more inconvenient. It is also to be particularly noted that he never mentions the name either of Anandavardhana or of though he has many times taken verses from their works as illustrations to explain his own views. He takes two verses owing their authorship to Anandavardhana and quotes one from the s. The probable reason for not naming Anandavardhana is that he was a recent author in the time of Induraja. There is a great deal of difference between the views of Induraja which we have just explained on the one hand and those of Anandavardhana or Mammata on the other hand. We have seen that the total inclusion of among alankaras, which Induraja lays so much stress upon, is not endorsed by Mammata or Anandavardhana, the two great writers on among the Kasmirakas. Similar is the case with Induraja's divisions of . The divisions of Induraja differ essentially in certain respects from the divisions of Anandavardhana, and Mammata. We explain the divisions of Mammata first, as he is the more exact. and more minute of them both. The treatment of both

176 Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha these critics is essentially the same, Mammata being naturally more minute and systematic, as he comes at a fairly later age than Anandavardhana. Now Mammata first divides a in two main branches, avivaksitavacya and vivaksitavacya Of these avivaksitavacya is twofold, (1) arthantarasamkramitavacya and (2) atyantatiraskrtavacya . This branch closes here; it has no more divisions. vivaksitavacya is divided into two : asamlaksyakramadhvani and samlaksyakramadhvani . asamlaksyakrama is the rasadidhvani and is of one type only. samlaksyakrama is of three kinds: sabdasaktayudbhava, arthasaktayudbhava and ubhayasaktayudbhava . Of these sabdodbhava is of two kinds : alamkararupa and vasturupa . arthodbhava is divided into 12 varieties in the following manner. First the of three kinds, viz. ( 1 ) svatah sambhavi, (2) kavipraudhoktisiddha and (3) vaktapraudhokti- siddha . Each of these three kinds is doubled according as the vyanjaka is either a vastu or an alankara. These six are again made twelve according as the vyangaya artha ( suggested sense ) is either alankara or vastu ubhayasaktayudbhava is only of one kind. Thus, in all, Mammata has eighteen varieties of . Of these, all varieties except ubhayasaktayudbhava are twofold, viz. padaprakasya and vakyaprakasya . This brings the number of varieties up to 35. avivaksitavacya- arthantarasamkramita, (pada, vakya ) atyanta tiraskrta, (pada, vakya ) vivaksitavacya- : 2 2 samlaksyakrama sabdasatayudbhava, (vastu 2, alamkara 2 ) arthodbhava, sabdartho bhayodbhava asamlaksyakrama, rasadi, (pada, vakya ) 4 24 1 2 N 35 Anandavardhana's treatment is not so developed and systematic, but he has on the whole divided on the same principles. In samlaksyakramadhvani he has not the variety ubhayasa- tayudbhava . The sabdasaktayudbhava is only alamkararupa according to him (like Induraja), and not twofold as Mammata has it Also Anandavardhana has not so minutely stated the

Notes. 177 twelve divisons off, though he points out the direction which was probably the basis of Mammata's minute divisions. and the latter Now these four It will be easily seen where this system of division is at variance with the system of Induraja. Induraja makes vacaka - ( sabda ) saktayudbhava and vacya - ( artha ) saktayudbhava the principal branches off. The former is only is threefold, viz. vastumatra, alamkara and rasadi . divisions are further divided according as the vacya is vivaksita or avivaksita . Induraja has not a separate branch of avivaksitavacya as Anandavardhana has. Further he makes avivaksitavacya coexistent with asamlaksyakrama and vivaksitavacya co-existent with which is quite absurd in the opinion of Anandavardhana and Mammata. Many other minor yet important differences between the two systems can be detected, as their principles of division are at variance with each other. af is by its very nature a subject appealing to the sense of beauty of the mind. And a difference in the treatment of it between two critics of an original bent of mind is just what is inevitable. Induraja supposes that and can be vastu alamkaradhvani avivaksitavacya, while Anandavardhana and Mammata do not think so. Because both of them do not see eye to eye, we cannot say that one of them must be wrong and the other must be right. Both of them give examples and explain them away so as to support their own opinions, and many a time it happens that one example is cited by all of them to illustrate quite different, nay, opposite views. This sort of thing has actually happened in the case of our commentator. We have seen that the examples cakrabhighata0, snigdhasyamalakanti0, lavanyakanti0, suvarnapuspam and sarvaikasaranamaksaya • are all brought in both by Induraja and by Anandavardhana in their disscussions on . But every one of these examples is interpreted and utilized in a different way by them both. P. 92, LL. 17-20-... This verse is a very beautiful example of malaparamparitarupaka . 23 [K.S.8.]

Induraja gives here a fitting tribute of gratitude and praise to his Preceptor, the eminent Brahman, c, in describing him as a cloud pouring incessant showers of mimamsa, a moon heaving the ocean of vyakarana, a treasure of the jewels of tarkasastra, the visnu of the sri ( goddess of wealth) of the science of poetics, the honey of the flowers of the learned, a bee in the lotuses of the feet of a sea of goodness and generosity, and the bed of the creeper of fame, and says that he wrote a short commentary (a) on the after receiving oral instruction from him. , THE END.