533
Miscellaneous Notes on Manunata's Kävyaprakäsa.
By
Y. Snkthankar, M. A.
(Continuation of p. 477—490.)
II. A note on Mammata's Samuccaya.
In the following it is intended to point ont that a portion
of the Vftti to the definition of the Alaipkära Samnccaya, in the
Kävyaprakäia, does not originate from either Mammata or Alla^a
and that it must be regarded as a later interpolation. Mammata 5
defines two varieties of Samuccaya. The definition of the first
variety KP. 10. 116 runs as follows:
Definition:
tataiddhihetäv ekaamin yatränyat tatkaram bhavet samuccayo 'sau \
"When there is already one cause for its production (viz., of an
effect) there are also others doing the same (i. e. producing the lo
same effect) it is S.".
Vrtti:
tasya prastutasya käryasya ekasmin sädhake sthite sädha-
käntaräni yatra sambhavanti sa samuccayak \
"When, there being already present one cause of an effect in i6
question other causes are present, it is S.".
Illustration 1.
durväräh smaramärganäh priyatamo dure mano 'tyutsukam
gädham prema navam vayo 'tikafhinäk pränäh kulam nirmalam j
■ stritvatn, dhairyavirodhi manmathasukrt kälah krtänto 'ksamo to
no sakhyaä caturäh katham nu virahah sodhavya ittham äatkak jj ^)
"Irresistible are Madana's arrows; the beloved is at a distance; the
heart is full of longing, love deep, age young, life painful, family
stainless ; womanhood is the reverse of firmness ; the Season is the
friend of Madana ; Death is inexorable ; the friends are not shrewd ! t&
How is this perfidious seperation to be endured."
1) Särngadbarapaddliati 3753.
Zaitichrift der D. M. a. Bd. LXVI. 86
534 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
Vrtti:
atra virahäsahatvarn smaramärganä eva kurvanti tadupari
priyatamadürasthityädi upättam \
"Here, Madana's arrows by themselves make the separation un-
6 bearable; over and above this (such other causes, as) the fact of
the lover being away, etc. are mentioned."
Vrtti:
esa eva samucoayah sadyoge 'sadyoge sadasadyoge ca parya-
vasatiti na prthak laksyate \ tathä hi \\
10 "This same S. includes (that variety), where there is a sadyoga,
asadyoga, and sadasadyoga and hence the latter is not separately
. defined by us; for instance".
Illustration 2.
kulam amalinarn bhadrä mürtir matik ärutiäälini
15 bhujabalam alarn sphitä laksmih prabhutvam akhariditam \
prakrtisvbhagä hy ete bhävä amlbhir ayarn jano
vrajati sutarärn darparn räjarns ta eva tavärikuääh \\
"Family stainless, appearance noble, mind enriched with (the know¬
ledge of) the druti, strength of arms adequate, wealth abundant,
«0 lordship undivided ; these conditions are naturally charming ; though
this one owing to theiü becomes concieted , these same , o king,
are your goads (which keep you on the path of virtue)."
Vrtti:
atra tu satärn yogah \ uktodäharane tv asatärn yogah \\
25 "In this there is a combination of good things {satärn yogah) ; but
in the example (first) mentioned there is a combination of bad
things (asatärn yogah)."
Illustration 3.
daäl divasadhüsaro galitayauvanä kämini
80 saro vigatavärijarn mukham anaksararn sväkfteh \
prahkur dhanaparäyanah satatadurgatah sajjanah
nrpärigariagatak khalo manasi sapta dalyäni me || ^)
"The moon pale during day, a woman who has lost her youth, a
pond devoid of lotuses, the illiterate mouth of a handsome person,
85 a patron who is entirely devoted to money, a good man always in
difficulties , an evil man at a king's court : these are the seven
darts in my mind."
Vrtti:
atra dadini dhüsare dalye dalyäntaräniti dobhanädobhanayogah |
1) Bhartrhari's NItis. 45 = Ind. Spr. 6434. This is the only occasion on which a verse from the Mitis. is quoted in the KP.
Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia. 535
"Here the pale moon being already one dart, there are other
darts as well: thus there is a combination of good-bad things
(dobhanädobhanayogah). "
Samuccaya means a "multitude", "collection", "heap"; the
essence of the figure Samuccaya is a heap of causes all (in equal 5
degree) leading to the same effect, which latter forms the theme
(prastutakriyä). Thus far it is clear enough. With the words na
prthak laksyate, the Vrttikära evidently wishes to justify the
position of the Kärikäkära in not admitting a further subdivision
of a sat-, asat-, and sadasat-Samuccaya on the ground of the 10
latter variety being already included in the defined S. ; the follovring three verses apparently illustrate what "others" understand by those
terms. It is essential for our investigation to determine precisely
what these three terms mean or can be taken to mean, and as the
Vrttikära does not explain them any further, we will next see how 18
the commentators interpret them.
Govinda the best commentator of the KP. expresses himself thus:
kulam tti | atra hulädinärn samidnänäm eva yogah | dur¬
värä ityädy uktodäharane smaramärganädinäm asamidnänäm j
das iti I atra sadasator yogah \ durjanasyäsattoät dadyädinäm 20
sattvät I etac ciniyam \ pürvam dürasthityädividesanena dhüsara-
tvädinä 'träpy asamyaktvam iti. |
"(In the verse) kulam etc. | Here, there is a multitude of good things only such as kula etc. (viz., kula, mürti, mati, which are good,
honourable, desirable). | In the illustration (commencing with) durvä- 25
rah, which has been mentioned, (there is a multitude) of bad things
only, such as smaramärganä, etc. (viz., smaramärganäh, uisukain
manah, navam vayah, etc. which are all causes of pain, grief, etc.). 1
In the verse dadi etc. | Here there is a combination of good and
bad things (sadasator yogoh) \ on account of the wickedness of so
the wicked man and the goodness of the moon etc. | this deserves
consideration. | For as in the previous illustration (durväräh etc.)
the "badness" of the lover etc. results on account of (the attribute),
"being at a distance" etc., so here also (the "badness" of the
moon must follow) from the state of being dim during day." ss
The Prabhä understands the last sentence in Govinda's Commen¬
tary in the same way as I do. There the commentary runs:
cintyatve hetum äha | durvärä ity udäharane ity arthah j
videsanenäsamyaktvam ity anvayah | taträpi priyatamasya sattvam
eva dürasthitividesanena param asattvam \ ihäpisvatah sundarasya 40
dadino dhüsaratvenety asadyoga evety arthah \
Nägojlbhatta in his Udyota, after distinguishing the Alamkära
under consideration from Samädhi and Kävyaliiiga and explaining
the illustrations 1 and 2 in detail thus commentates Govinda's
remark, atra sadasator sattvät: 45
idam cintyam \ evarn hi sahacarabhinnatä syät | sarvatra
videsyasya dobharuitvarn videsanasyädobhanatvarn ca prakräntam
36*
536 Sukthemlear, MitceUoMou» Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
iti bhagnaprakramata vä syät \ tasmän nrpänganam asadyutam
Ui pOtno yuktah \ aadasad iti ca karmadhärayo yuktah \
"This deserves consideration | Thus there vrill he 'Dissimilarity of the Assocciated" (sahacarabhinnatä^)) \ or there will be a "breach
5 of the uniformity of expression" (bhagnaprakramatva) in as much
as everywhere (i. e. in all the cases except khala) the object
qualified is "good", and the attribute is "bad" | Hence it would
be better to read nrpänganam asadyutam \ it is better to regard
sadasat as a Karmadhäraya *) compound (santaä ca te asantad
■ 10 ca, te^ärn yogah and interpret it as Conjunction of things that ai'e
both good and bad)" |
Thus the Udyota points out that if with the Pradipa the
compound sadasat were taken as a Dvandva, it would occasion
the "breach of uniformity". He therefore proposes to take it as
16 a Karmadhäraya, both members of which are adjectives and inter-
pretes it as a combination of things which are both good and bad:
good naturally, bad on account of some particular qualifying attribute.
Further he points ont that the illustrations 1 and 3 are really
different, in as much as, in illustration 3 the objects which by
M themselves are "good" are represented as being "bad", while in
illustration 1 the objects have no goodness at all in so far as they
always are causes of pain to a woman in separation from her lover.
Cf. also Prabhä:
durväräh dadity anayoh katham bheda iti cet ittham | durvärä
»6 ity atra virahäsahi^nutayä priyatamädinäm satäm apy asatfvena
vivik^ä I iha tu dobhanasya sato dhüsaratvädinä adobhanatvam
apiti vivaksä {
What the Commentators then say is the follovring: We might
understand sadyoga as that in which there is a combination of all
so "good" things — things desirable, praiseworthy; asadyoga as that in which there is a combination of all "evil" things; and sadasadyoga
as a combination of some things which are "good", pleasure-
giving etc. together with other things which are "bad", unpleasant etc.
This is logically irreproachable; but unluckily it offends the canon
S6 of the Alaipkäraiästra and commits the fault of sahacarabhinnatä,
apart from the fact that the illustrations do not wholly justify
this interpretation. Thus illustration 2 should be a collection of
all "good" things and we find accordingly that kulam amalinam bhadrä mürtih etc. down to prabhutvam akhanditam are all "good"
things. Illustration 3 should be a multitude of good objects and
1) An example of Sahacarabhinnatä is given KP. 486:
irutena Imddhir vyasanena mürkhatä madena närl saUlena nvnnagä \
niiä iaiänkena dhftili samädhinä nayena cälanJeriyate narendratä ||
Here excellent things such as iruta are combined with things dissimilar viz.
vyasana etc.
2) Viiesanobhayapada Karmadhäraya. P. 2 , 1, 57. viießanam viiesyeiia hahulam, is quoted by Jha}alclkara in support. (?)
Sulctlumkar, MisceUaneou» Note» on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia. 537
bad objects as well. The objects mentioned are iadin, kämini,
saras, sväkrti, prabhu, sajjana and khala. It can be argued that
the first six are "good" and the khala bad ipso facto; therefore
^we have a combination of "good" and "bad" things; but this
solution fails altogether when we proceed to illustration 1. That 6
should be in accordance with our hypothesis a multitude of "bad"
things only; we might explain the durväräh amaramärganäp as
being an unqualified misfortune and equally so the priyatamo düre,
but we can not rationally say that gädham prema, navatn vayah,
nirmalam kulam, stritvam and sakhyah as being unconditionally lo
"bad". We see thus that our first hypothesis does not by any
manner of means conform to the condition of the illustrations.
The compound sadaaadyoga, it is suggested, can, however, be treated
as a Karmadhäraya Compound and may be taken to mean a multitude
of things which are by themselves "good" but which on account »6
of some qualifying attribute are "bad" {dharmavide^asamparkod
adobhanali). Then we have a more rational explanation of
illustration 3; we have, for example, dadin kämini etc. "good" in themselves, "bad" on account of the particular circumstances with
which they are accompanied. This explanation commits, however, ao
the fault of the bhagruiprakramatoa, in so far as while enumerating things which are "good" by themselves and "bad" on account of
some casual attending circumstance, we come suddenly to the
khala who is "bad" in himself and can be only looked upon as
being "good", being at the royal court — at best not a very u
satisfying explanation. We proceed, however, to illustration 1 and
we find that the villanous priyatama, preman, kula, which we had
hypothesised as being "bad" are so, also in virtue of some casual
attending circumstance; thus the principles exemplified in iUnstra-
tions 1 and 3 are identical. One way of getting over this difficulty so
has been already considered in connection with Nägojlbhatta; another
one will be considered in connection with Ruyyaka. That the
three verses are examples of Samuccaya and that they are already
included under the definition of the same in the KP. is clear enough;
what is not clear, and what the commentators have not been able ss
to explain, is the fact, how either the terms, sadyoga etc. or the
illustrations 1, 2, 3 are to be interpreted so as to fit each other.
Mammata defines another variety of S., with regard to which we
only need to consider the Vftti:
dhunoti cäsirn tanute ca krrtim ityodeh krpänapänid ca 40
bhavan ranakßiiau sasädhuvädäd ca suräh aurälaye ityädeä ca
dardanäd vyadhikarane iti ekasmin deäe iti ca na väcyam \
"It should not be said that (S. is possible only) when the substrata
of the simultaneous actions are different; nor (should it be said
that it is possible only) when the region is one and the same; 4^
for (such verses as) dhunoti etc., and krpänapänih etc. are found."
Iti Ruyyaka's Alamkärasarvasva the subject is dealt with on
538 Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
the same lines as laid down in the KP.; all the five illustrations
to the two varieties of S. are repeated by him and with illustration 8
he has the same difficulty which we saw pointed out by Govinda.
To the objection, that on the supposition that if the sadasadyoga
6 were taken to mean a multitude of things which are good in
themselves and bad only on account of the attending circumstances,
the illustrations durväräh and daäi can not be differentiated from
each other, he replies : " (In daäi) it is intended to represent as bad
those things which are good by themselves; while, in the other
10 example, only such as are wholly bad ; for this reason, in the one
it is summarised with the words "there are the seven darts in my
mind" on account of their causing pain to the mind even when
they have entered the mind as objects of beauty; while in the
other case, where the situation is summarised with the words, "how
16 can it be endured", it is intended to express the idea, that the
objects from all points of view are bad"!
• This exposition is more brilliant than convincing ; it is, however,
quite clear that this interpretation was not in the mind of the
Vrttikära; were it so, he would have himself mentioned it, as, to
20 say the least of it, it is not very obvious. To make a rough guess
at what the Vrttikära did have in his mind I should say that he
meant sadasat as a Dvandva Compound and understood it in the
sense in which Govinda does.
In passing, I may mention that Sähityadarpana brings nothing
26 new to the subject except some illustrations; the "Sadasadyoga"
is, however, illustrated by the classical example from Bhartrhari,
■ which we have already met with twice before. The same difficulties
are encountered and the author's explanations do not throw any
more light on this perplexing question.
80 Beginning with Mammata, we thus see, there is a uniformity
in the treatment of the Samuccaya. Whether we take the Compound
sadasat as a Dvandva or as a Karmadhäraya the logical incon-
gruency remains; and be it remembered, that this spurious variety
is rejected in KP. not on account of any inherent contradiction
35 which it involves , but on the ground , that it does not need a
special mention , it being already included in the defined variety.
The persistently uniform treatment of this subject after the pattern
of the KP. by the younger writers on Alamkärasästra suggests to
us the fact that this is again one of those cases, where though
40 a commentator did perhaps perceive a contradiction in the old
teaching, he would not admit the contradiction but would every
time interpret it away — certainly without being convincing for
us. I have for this reason intentionally considered in detail the
views of the various commentators, who have done their best to
45 explain away this contradiction, but who did not possess the key
to the solution of the puzzle, and who were not honest enough to
admit its existence ? l.
Sukthcmkar, Miscellaneom Notes on Mammata's KavyapraJcääa, 539
We will now follow the Alamkära to its source. We find, of
the old Alamkära- writers neither Bhämaha, Dandin, Vämana nor
Udbhata know the Västava Samuccaya. It makes its appearance
first with Eudrata who has treated it exhaustively in Kävyälaip-
kära 7, 19—29. There we find the sadyoga, asadyoga, and 5
sadasadyoga, as well as the vyadhikarana referred to towards the
end of the Vftti on S. in KP. There is no doubt that the
Kärikäkära had adopted the new Alaipkära of Rudrata and that
the Vfttikara in his polemical remarks means to hit at Rudrata
and Rudrata only. But there a surprise awaits us : Rudrata under- lo
stands tho three terms sadyoga, asadyoga, sadasadyoga quite
differently from what the Vfttikara represents him to do; the .
difference is, in fact, so great that unless the latter intentionally
intended to misrepresent Rudrata, we must assume that he had
thoroughly misunderstood him; so much so that it appears to me is
questionable whether he knew of Rudrata's illustrations of the
second variety of his S. at all.
Rudrata's definition and illustrations of S. 7; 19-29 are as follows : Definition:
yatraikatränekam vastu param syät sukhävähädy eva | 20
jfveyah samuccayo 'sau tredhänyah sadasator yogah ||
"That is called Samuccaya where several preeminent objects, are
(found) together which cause happiness etc. By the joining together of
"good" and "bad" (objects), (we have) another, which is threefold."^)
Illustrations: 2S
durgam triküfam parikhä payonidhih
prahhur dadäsyah suhhatää ca räksasäh \
naro 'bhiyoktä sacivaih plavamgamaih
kim atra vo häsyapade mahad bhayam \\
*The Triküta mountain is the castle, the ocean is the moat, Räva^a so
is the lord, the Raksasas are the soldiers, Man is the enemy with
Monkeys for ministers; where is for you any great fear in this
matter for laughter?"
Next foUow three verses which do not specially concern us
here ; and then a verse which Namisädhu introduces with ss
atha sator yogah —
sämode madhu kusume jananayanänandane sudhä candre \
kvacid api rUpavati gunä jagati sunltam vidhätur idam \\
1) We can join "good" and "bad" objects in three ways: (1) two good objects together; (2) two bad objects together; or (3) purs of objects of which one is good and the other bad. Cf. KL. 3, 23, where R. uses the dual Dvandva vyastasamaste for two vyasta varieties and one samasta variety.
540 Sukthankar, Mitcdlaneoua Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
'Honey in the fragrant flower, nectar in the moon, the delight
of the eyes of the world. At least in some beautiful things there
are virtues — that is well-ordained of the creator!"
athäaator yogah —
& alingitäh karirath iamyas taptosaparpsunicayena \
mairuto 'tikharä grisme kim ato 'nyad abhadram astu marau\
'The Sami^) trees embraced by the (thorny) Karira creepers; the
excessively sharp winds (mixed) with clouds of hot sandy dust!
What can be more unwelcome than this in a desert in summer?"
10 atha sadasator yogah —
kamalavanesu tusäro rüpaviläsädiäälinisu jarä |
raman^v api duicaritam dhätur laksmiä ca nicesu \\
'Snow amongst lotuses; oldage in women possessing beauty, amorous
charms etc.; wealth with the mean: that is ill-ordained of the
16 creator !"
In the first of the last three illustrations there is a samuccaya
of (i) madhu and kusutna (ii) sudhä and candra; in the second,
of (i) karira and dami and (ii) taptosapämsunicaya and maj^ita;
in the third of (i) kamalavana and tusära ; (ii) ramani and jarä
20 (iii) laksmi and nica. These, without any extra distortion of the
premisses, resolve themselves into, 1. two pairs of 'good" objects,
2. two pairs of 'bad" objects, and 3. three pairs of objects, and
in each pair one object is 'good" and the other 'bad".
Rudrata's Samuccaya 2 is nothing like that mentioned by the
26 Vrttikära of KP. It is certainly different from Samuccaya 1 in
so far as in 1 there is a single 'heap" and in 2 there is a double 'heap". There is no question of "things which are 'good" by themselves and "bad" on account of some qualifying circumstance ".
Nami Sädhu in his Commentary to 7. 24 has rightly observed:
80 sämodakusumädipi madhvädinäm satäni yogah : in this S. there
is a union of two good things; and farther on in 7. 25 miJribhütäk.
There is an actual mixture, combination, union. In "Sadyoga"
there is a heap of pairs of good things; in asadyoga there is a
heap of pairs of bad things, in sadasadyoga there is a heap of
35 pairs of things, one of which is good and the other "bad. This
is a perfectly logical arrangement; and to any one who knows of
Rudrata's treatment of Yamaka and of his partiality for just such
mathematical divisions, the explanation offers no difficulty. It is
indeed questionable whether this variety deserves to be specifically
40 distinguished from the first variety — for it may be argued that
if there be only a heap required, it may be a "heap" of single objects
or of double objects; — but not for the reasons appearing in the
1) The SamI trees are asat (unpleasant) because of their containing fire.
Cf. äakunlcalS (ed. Cappeller, p. 42, 1. 17) agnigarbhäm iamim iva.
Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammafa's Kävyaprakäia. 541
Vftti in the KP., because in the illustrations of the Vfttikara there
is not the slightest trace of a reference to the 'double" nature
of the 2"* variety. The illustrations 1, 2, 3 are illustrations of
Eudrata's first variety and not of his second : the ädi of sukhävahädi
KL. 7, 19 includes duhkhävaha. 6
Enough has been said in the earlier part of this paper to
leave any doubt as to the fact that Mammata himself vras thoroughly
acquainted vrith Eudrata's Kävyälamkära. His successor AUata vre
have seen is wholly dependant for his material on Eudrata's work.
So it is impossible for either of them to have made this mistake, lo
Again, as it scarcely can be supposed that any one would wish
maliciously to misrepresent the views of an anonymous person,
malice in this matter is out of question. Does not the solution
rather lie in the suppostion that it is a case of simple misunder¬
standing ; and that we ought to look upon the part of the Vftti 15
beginning with tatkähi to dobhanädobharuiyogah as an interpolation
— an interpolation by some one who only from hearsay knew of
the existence of the varieties 'sad-, asad-, and sadasadyoga" of
another school of Ehetoric and nothing more; for the rest, however,
the interpolator had depended upon his own fertile imagination as to
to what they ought to be? This is, in any case, imaginable in
the case of Eudrata's work, which has remained unacknowledged
and unhonoured by the younger school of Alamkära writers.
As the illustrations 1, 2, 3 in the Vrtti to the KP. have
found their way in Euyyaka's Alamkärasarvasva, (Kävyamälä 35, 85
p. 161, 162) the interpolation must be looked upon as being con¬
siderably old; and if the fact of this interpolation be admitted, it
will have one important consequence: we must allow enough
elbowroom in the estimation of the chronological relationship between
Mammata and Euyyaka, respectively between Eudrata and Euyyaka, so
to make possible that , in the one case , such a significant inter¬
polation in Mammata's work and in the other, such an obvious
misrepresentation of Eudrata's work, should have been in Euyyaka's
time an established fact.
III. Another case of the practice of quoting names merely »5
honoris causa.
Prof. Kielhorn in an article entitled 'On the Jainendra Vyä-
karana" (Ind. Ant. X. p. 75) pointed out that the names of the*
grammatical authorities mentioned in the Jainendra Grammar must
not be looked upon as historical data and in fact suggested that 40
these names in all probability are wholly fictitious. In a later
volume of the same journal (Ind. Ant. XVI. p. 24) he makes similar
statements with regard to the Öäkatäyana Vyäkarana, to quote his
own words (ibid. p. 28): 'The names employed by him [Säkatäyäna]
are given simply püjärtham and they by no means prove that 45
Öäkatäyana in the particular instances knew anything whatever of
542 Sukthankar, Miscellaneoiu Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia.
the teachings of the scholars whom he mentions". It appears that
the practice of quoting names merely püjärtham was followed
even in later times and was not confined to the province of grammar
alone. The facts to which I am referring are admittedly not of
5 such an assertive nature as those mentioned by Prof. Kielhom, stiU.
the certainty in this case of their being false gives us St good
opportunity of observing at leisure the danger of admitting too
readily as historically true evidence of scattered facts, in particular,
of the names of authors and authorities, such as occur loosely in
10 commentaries, and which are not otherwise corroborated
The facts in question centre round the verse KP. 860:
avtralakamalavikäsah sakalalhnadaJ ca kokilänandah |
ramyo 'yam eti samprati lokotkanthäkarah kälah ||
quoted in the Vrtti to the Käranamälä together vsrith the following
15 portion of the Vrtti :
ity atra kävyarüpatäm komalänupräsamahimnaiva samäm-
näsisur na punar hetvalamkärakalpanatayeti pürvoktakävyaliri-
gam eva hetuk \\
"It is only on account of the Komalänupräsa in this verse
20 that its nature of a Kävya is prescribed by tradition , and not on
account of the presence of the Alamkära Hetu. Hetu is in no way
different from the aforementioned Kävyaliüga."
From this alone if we knew nothing more about the verse,
we might be led to conclude that it is an "old"^) verse, which in
25 the opinion of some rhetoricians contains the Alamkära Hetu, but
which in the opinion of the author of the KP. contains no such
Alamkära; however that may be, the Vrttikära seems to say, the
reputation of the verse as good poetry is left undamaged, it being not
wholly without some Alaipkära. This fact taken in connection with the
so remark of Sarabodhini — one of the older commentaries on the KP.
vastutas tv aviralakamalavikäsa ityädisu vaicitryam anu-
bhavasiddham evety Udbhatädimatam samicinam eveti navinäh ,
leads us to believe that this verse or probably a similar verse
was knovni to U. ; at any rate, we may justly conclude, we are
S5 on safe ground in assuming that U. at least (amongst others) looked
upon the Alamkära Hetu as a legitimate independant Alamkära.
1) In tbe article, entitled "Rudrata und Rudrabbatta' ZDMG. 42, p. 426 Prof. Jacobi pleads: ,Nun weiß man aber, was auf die Autorität dieser Scbrift- steller [der' Kompilatoren und Kommentatoreu] eu geben ist; da sie keinen literarhistorischen Sinn haben, so nennen sie ihre Autoren ohne ängstliche Prüfung, meist so Wie sie es in ihrer Vorlage fanden. Daher wird nicht selten derselbe Vers ganz verschiedenen Dichtern zugeschrieben. Wie geringeres Gewicht bat dabei die Verwechslung zweier so ähnlicher Mamen wie Rudrafa und Rudra- bbatta!" This is a case in point, and I must say I fully concur with Prof.
Jacobi in treating such evidence as not conclusive.
2) e. g. the half verse, gato '«tont arko bhätlndur yänti väsäya pakfi- nah I , BhSmahälaijikära 2, 87, and Kävyädarsa 2, 244.
Sukthankar, Miscellaneous Notes on Mammata's Kävyaprakäia. 543
Probably depending upon the Sarabodhini, Govinda — the author of
the Pradipa to the KP. — boldly ascribes the half verse immediately
preceeding the verse above quoted, KP. 859:
hetumatä saha hetor abhidhänain abhedato hetuh |
to Udbhata vrith the vrords: 5
uktaä cSyam Bhaftodihatena hetumatä saha hetw
Another Commentator Mahesa Candra Nyäyaratna in his Calcutta
edition (1866) of the KP. going back on a good tradition — the same
old tradition — also attributes the verse to Udbhata i). The youngest
commentator, the author of the Bombay Sanskrit Series Edition lo
(1901) remains true to the tradition and further drags in the name
of Bhämaha*). Now Bhämaha explicitly disavows the existence of
the Alaipkära Hetu as we saw above (p. 482); and in spite of the
overwhelming evidence of a succession of Commentators it is highly
improbable that Udbhata — the Commentator and follower of Bhämaha is
— defined any Hetu ; it is certainly not included in the work of his
Udbhatälamkärasamgraha, which is preserved for us. It is equally
impossible that either Bhämaha or Udbhata could have expressed
an opinion as to what Alamkära the verse should contain ; because
the half-verse hetumatä etc. is Rudrata's Definition (KL. 7, 82) and 20
avirala etc. is also his Illustration*) KL. 7, 83 of the Alarnkära
Hetu. The mention of the names Udbhata and Bhämaha by the
Commentators is merely püjärtham.
Supplementary note.
As the first section of this article (Heft III, p. 477—490) had 2s
to be printed from the second proof for correction a few errors of
print could not be avoided. Please make the following corrections :
p. 479, 1. 29 read, sarnjayeta for sarnjäyet, 1. 35, uttara for
uttara , and "dravanäd for "dravanät; p. 484, 1. 19, Bhräntimat for Bhräntimän; p. 485, 1. 37, ekätmatä" for ekätma ; and p. 480, 1. 35, so p. 481, 1. 24, p. 490, 1. 3, Navasähasänka" for Navasähasika°.
Some minor errors of spelling in the English of the text are
left here unnoticed.
1) At p. 328 his comment on hetvalamkära in the Vrtti to KP. is,
Bhattodbhattapradarsttah.
2) KP. 860 (Commentary 1. 3), präcäm Bhämahädinäm .... and further on 1. 18 Bhämahädaya iti iesah.
3) As Rudrata illustrated his rules by verses of his own composition [— cf.
Introduction, p. 11, Rudrata's Qrügäratilaka ed. Pischel. I must here add that, with Prof. Jacobi (WZKM. II) I firmly disbelieve in the alleged identity of Rudrata and Rudrabbatja, postulated by Prof. Pischel; nevertheless most of what Prof.
Pischel tells us in his Introduction, about Eudrata, the author of the Siiigä- ratilaka, is true not of Rudra, but of Rudrata, the author of KavySlamkSra. —]
it is utterly improbable that the verse in question is an 'old' verse, as one might be led to imagine from the remarks of Allata in the Vrtti. I cannot explain why Allata , who must have known the source of the verse perfectly well, refers to it in such ambiguous terms.
4 I
544
On an intended Prakrit Dictionary.
By Dr. Lnigl Snali.
Shankar Pandurang Pandit, in the Critical Note prefixed to
his edition of the Oaudavaho (p. IX), says: "I have added an
index verborum at the end of the book which I trust . . . will
serve as an humble contribution towards the compilation of a
h Prakrit Dictionary, which it is much to be wished some scholar
may, as soon as materials are available, undertake, as the want of
such a work is keenly felt by all students of Präkpt". We might
repeat also to-day and with more reason nearly all the words of
the Indian scholar, .because the work of the twenty-five years which
10 have elapsed since the publication of the Oaudavaho , makes still
more keenly felt the want of a book, which should collect what
has been done till now in the field of Prakrit lexicography. We cannot, therefore, lament enougji the death of R. Pischel, who could have given
us, after the Grammar, also the Dictionary of Prakrit languages.
15 There is nobody perhaps who, being engaged on the publi¬
cation of a Prakrit text, has not experienced how much time is
lost in looking for a lexical item in no small number of glossaries,
and who has not felt how speadily and safely research would proceed,
if the disiecta membra were organized into one body. I experienced
20 myself this unpleasant state of things when I set to study the
MSS. for my edition of the Thänangasutta , which is now in the
press, and it was at that time that I began to think of compiling
a Prakfit Dictionary. Shortly after, the Jainas, who know how to
bring together religious interests and scientific purposes , debated
25 the question of the composition of a Prakrit Dictionary in their
(^vetämbara) Conference at Bhavnagar in 1908. They asked the
opinion of Geheimrat Prof. H. Jacobi, who advised them to blend
together and re-elaborate in the'form of a Dictionary the glossaries
which now exist, and to entrust a European scholar with the per-
30 formance of the work. He was pleased to honour me by suggesting
my name, for which I here publicly thank him.
But the difficulty of such an enterprise , which had always
seemed great to me, appeared even greater when I began to carry
it into execution. I know very well indeed that against the com-
85 pilation of a Prakrit Dictionary two preliminary objections can be
t, g
