/

ARl'BftLY *fl^ ) \rf

13 ,1984 MARCH, >I98S Kos. 1-4 '

: iSH 0^ -'X'^' lf?S> "msftJt'- -^y^ - Jr* ^ AMBODHI

ARTERLY )

APRIL 1984 MARCH 1985 13 Nos. 1-4

|>RS iUKH MALVANIA

; BETAI SSHASTRI

L: D. INSTITUTE OF INDOtOGY, AHMBDABAD-9 : Editors : .

Pt, D. D. Malvania Dr. R. S Betai

Dr. Y. S. Shastri

Board of Experts

Pt. D. D. Malvania

Dr. H. C. Bhayani Dr. E. A. Solomon Dr. M. A. Dhaky Dr. R. N. Mehta Dr. K. R. Chandra

Dr. J. C. Sikdar

Dr. R. S. Betai

Dr. Y. S. Shastri Contents

Refutatiou of Advaita Vedanta in Major Jain Works 1-13 Yajneshwar S. Shastri

Unpublished Inscription of Rang Sariga 15 Raghvcndra Manohar

Ksvyabandha or Vakyavinyssa 17-23 R. S. Betai

Conception of Maya (illusion) In Asanga's Vijnanavada Buddhism 25-34 Y. S, Shastri

Bhatti as Quoted in the Durghatavrtti 35-56 Nilanjana S. Shah

'Kasirsja' of Bhasa An Appraisal 57-72 Sudarshan Kumar Sharma

Buddhism Vs. Manusmrti 73-78 Jaya R. Betai & Ramesh S. Betai - Avidyg Its Agraya and Visaya 79-99 E. A. Solomon

- Vardhaaltna S'uri's Apabhra-m^a Metres 101-109 H. G, Bhayani

and Origin Development of Jaina Sangha 111-119 /. C. Sikdar

Rasa and its Pleasurable Nature 121-134 V. M. Kulkarni '-HRl M'x-MV

>H'4H MM-U

Review 63-80 REFUTATION OF ADVAITA VEDANTA IN MAJOR JAINA WORKS*

Yajneshwar S. Shastri

of Indian History philosophy tells us that all the systems of Indian Philosophy developed in the atmosphere of freedom of thought. There was a tradition in Indian Philosophical platform to present opponent's-, view first known as the Purvapaksa (prior view) and then establishment of one/s own view by refuting opponent's star.d point known as the Uttarapaksa or Siddhanta (conclusion). This kind of method inspired the Indian thinkers to 'study thoroughly, views of all others prior to the establishment of thejr own of system philosophy and gave thoroughness, perfection and cathojjc to their spirit system. Jaina philosophers also following the same brpd- , minded tradition, presented views of all the of Indian systems thought,,,' with considerable care and established (heir own principles . refuting.,oppg- nent's view with logical rigour. But it is very interesting to note, ilia,t as thinkers of just great other schools of thought such as Bhartrhari,i Kumariia.bhatta,? Prabhakara,3Jayantabhaa4 and Udayana,Swho treated only Advaita as real Vedanta system, similarly eminent philosophical per- sonalities of Jainism presented and refuted only Advaita system of Vedanta in their writings. Even later writers who flourished after Rsms- nuja and Madhva mention neither Ftt/rfsdvaita nor Dvalta system of Vedanta.

Criticism of Upanisadic Atmadvaila or Brahmndvaita is found in early'" Jamagamas such as and ; Sutrakrtangao Vise3avasyakabhsya.7 Th e line of presentation and refutation of Advaita is more or less 'similar in all the major works of Jainism. Certain common features are found in both Jainism and Advaita Vedanta such as liberation as the highest goal of ' life, ignorance of as the Reality cause of our bondage Laiv of Karma, Jivanmukti etc., still in certain other matters both the systems are diametrically, to each opposed other. Absolutism of Advaita Vedtinta claims thai, Reality is one without a second,' this world is mere'

and ' appearance ultimately there is no difference between supreme Reality and mdivKlual a soul, Jainism is a system of realism, dualism and pluralism/ 2 Y. S. Shastri

It is a realism, because it recognises the reality of the external wor

is a kind of dualism, because it advocates two fundamental realities

cj Jzvfl (Soul) and the Ajiva (Matter) which are obviously controdic each and a on related to other; pluralism account of belief in plnra 10 of substance. Advaita Vedanta believes in absolute non-dua advocates non-absolutism or while Jainism manysided theory of Re It both the extreme view of (Anekantavada). rejects absolute eternality as It is a as absolute non-existence. system of unity in difference, of one 1 many and of identity-in-change. "* According to Jainism Advaita Vedat which one-sided theory rejects particularities and emphasises only one of Reality. It gives only partial knowledge of Reality and falls under 2 sangrahanaya.*

Logical Jiants of Jainism such as Samantabhadra, * 3 Akalarikj 1 5 16 Prabhacandra :< 8 Vidyananda, 5 Hemacandra,nVadidevasuri, Mallise and 'others have severely criticised the Advaitic theory of non-< doctrine of and of Brahman, Maya oneness individual Souls. (Ekajivava Criticism of Advaitic conceptions are scatered in different Jaina wo has been A humble attempt made here to size them in to unity in a ^ condensed form.

Jaina thinkers argue that Advaitic doctrine of non-duality of Brahn of and theory Maya (i.e. illusory nature of the world) cannot be pro by any accredited means of knowledge. If it is provable by any means then there is of aa knowledge duality Pramana and Prameya. Frist of ; existence of non-dual Brahman is contradicted by our perceptital expe ence. Perception reveals only the world of plurality. Daily experiences or duality plurality of phenomena cannot be repudiated as false app< ranee or illusory, because this difference is clearly seen and felt. Th< is no proof against this duality or plurality which is cognised in c normal is experience. Where contradiction in saying that potter fashio a pot with his sticks and eats his food with his own hand. The differen as (such potter and his actions) between agent and action is even know by the ordinary If Advaitic view of people." non-dual Brahman is acce] the ted, then, difference observed between the agent and the action cai not be 2 a possible. The standpoint of the Advaitin's that one absolu transforms into many such as agent and action etc., also indicates dtialit This is because one absolute never transforms itself into many \vithoi the assistance of others, which means acceptance of duality between th assistant and assisted. 2 3 fhe well-known example of shell and silver give Refutation of Advaita Ved&nta in Major Jaina Works 3

the Advaita by Vedantms to prove the ultimate falsity of the phenomenal world and oneness of Brahman, itself proves the existence of the shell and the silver as two different entities. In the same way, the statement of Advaitins that Brahman is one without a second and the world is just appearauce24 proves the duality of Brahman and the phenomenal world which is different 25 from Brahman. It is also not tenable to argue that one self-identical unitory Brahman appears as the plurality of phenomena as in a just dream plurality of facts is experienced though it is one Cons- ciousness that only exists and is felt and thus existence of one absolute Brahman is not contradicted by perceptual experience. This is because even in dream as in wakeful experience, the consciousness of action is different from that of the agent because dreamcontents are produced by different memory impressions. 8 *

The viewpoint that the indeterminate (nirvikalpa) cognition which cognises existence of Brahman cannot be accepted as source of our experi- ence, because we never perceive what is not determined by space, time and what is not other than the Self. knowing On opening our eyes we per- ceive specific existence determined by space, time, otherness and the like.* ' Granting that indeterminate cognition is a kind of valid source of know- ledge, it must be accepted that, it will not only take note of what Brahman is, but, will also take note of what Brahman is not and thus it leads to dualism of Brahman and non-Brahman." Even the argument that perception has no power to deny the Reality, it only affirms is baseless because affirmation always implies negation, a thing cannot' be affirmed to be yellow without denying that it is black. Thus, affirmation and negation which are presented together are the positive and negative aspects of a single Reality. Our perceptual experience instead of proving one Brahman, proves difference lobe as to integral Reality as identity If perception only affirms i.e. Reality Brahman, then why not to state that it affirms this plurality of phenomenal world also. If it affirms both, then there is a dualism of Brahman and the world. Thus argu- ment of the V&dnntins that perception affirms only positive Reality" is not justified by our experience If Brahman is only real and this world is false, then Brahman could have been in known the first case of our normal experience and not this pluralistic phenomenal world. a >'. Even the of Brahman cannot Non-duality be proved on the basis of pure also. When Vedsntins logic argue that Xtman is un-born, uu-bound and always freed and in there is thus, reality, neither bondage nor Jibe- ration, this is etc., purely fabrication of mind and to prove such kind of Ataiau by inference will be completely imaginary. The Consequence of 4 r. S. Shastri

'-his is attainment of an 3 imaginary liberation. Bondage and liben are facts and both cannot be regarded as illusory. Denial of distiuc between them in definance of experience is nothing but embracing Scepticism or Universal nihilism. 5 3

If non-duality of Brahman 'is proved with the help o? valid infer which involves the proban (hetu) and the probandum (sadhya), then t is clear admission of duality between the proban and probandum a tact is that both cannot be identical becai.se, inference will be ini unless both are admitted as two distinct facts. ain it Ag will not.be c We to p construct a syllogism which demands different members In one infere proves the probandum by means of known proban, preceding to .he tin-known' which means inevitable dualism of U:

'"**< uuvi m ua COv/ tin 1 Jinn nt H I-fTa,. 1 fe Aiiij\.ijj \j\ . . , LIIIJCICIICG he f*fini rlm'irl n t> i mterence will be ' l decl-ired to be rf i he ^ Valid drawn Delusion , from false , PpremieKn"ses. Iffadvaitins u . prove uuaiitydualitv onA- M their the basis of false "-" -'--- ,

*h occ, ep nce f 'ejectlan of *!,*, flto - to , ^ me without ^ " ' "' Possible; is dBiaI JS also Nothing contradicted , ulk-s "! ^ich"contrad lc t S duality,

Again, it i,

is of all and is ^ that principle" of ex " and uniu, them i , ^ r u , t" ^ of a principle that runs *** e *, which it runs ^ (^) and the , ." ^ thin f^v^^,. f On scnptiaal *^ f - Advaita i testimony and no , on - *pure lo^L t , said to be base. M

es decjare llotl wit " Refutation of Advaita Vedanta in Major Jaina Works 5

of must be abject proof different. Otherwise they can establish nothing. In fact, scriptural statements such as "All that exists is Brahman", "Every- thing is that one Reality", etc., which Advaitins quote in their support, dualism prove between all existing things of the world and Brahmau.40 Even cannot be scriptures regarded as the essence of the Absolute, because, eseence and possessor of essence must be numerically different. >* Another important thing is that, as far as these vcdatHic texts are coacenled, Advaitin's are interpretations not to be accepted as final word. This is because there are other possible interpretations which are in harmony, with dualism or pluralism as interpreted in Vi^savasyakabhasya.* 2

If Absolute Brahman is self-proved, then the re is 'no harm in accept- ing duality or or plurality voidity as self-proved truth. Self intuition cannot be considered as for proof the .existence of non-dun] Brahman, there is because, again an inevitable dualism, between the proof (i e' self-intuition) and the of object proof (i.e. Brahman). If self hmition'is identhied with the Absolute, then it cannot be considered as a proof for the existence of Brahman. 4 3 It is self- contradictory to say that self-evident pure consciousness is the contradictor of our normal cognition of Plurality, because, it means, admission again of duality of the contradic- ted and the contradictor. .**

Even on the the religious .ground, doctrine of non-dual Braluuun cannot be because it accepted, means denial of distinctions between and bad good deeds, pain and pleasure, this world and the world hereafter knowledge and ignorance, and bondage liberal ion. Thus, if this doctrine is accepted then the is consequence destruction of the moral fabric of human life.* 5

If it is said that, Brahman is the only Reality and on account of Mwa.OT.Avdya, this apparent world exists, then again it is to impossible .prove either the existence of Maya or Mlthy^a (illusory o the world naZe) by any means of valid knowledge.* , The fundamental objection against Advaitin's is, whether the doctrine of Mnvu fcosnil, IT to adopted explain this multiplicity of the pheno^, s unreal. If it is then if ^ real, destroys the nnn ,1,, i , 1 - .->.. *, . ,,, tablo .,. .v,,";; :::,; "; :;; is Mused 1,;;* by MVi will llol bc possiblc T \ { Mn^J , 6 7. S. Shastii

ilie Again, very statement that AJuyti is indescribable i.e. neither existent nor non-existent on account of being existent in the state of mundane life and no more at the state of realisation, indicates that it is descri- bttble in terras of either existent on the phenomenal level or non-existent in the stale of liberation.* To say that Mays is indescribable, is self contradictory like saying that 1 am silent throughout the life and my father, is. bachelor. 5 "

If we that grant Mdyd exists, then where does it exist ? Neither Brahman nor can be locus of jiva Maya. It cannot exist in the supreme Brahman which is pureconsciousness by nature. If it exists in Brahman, then Brahman cannot be called pureconsciousness on account of being associated with Maya. Even individual self is pureconsciousness by nature and in essence, not different from Brahman and thus free from all taint of If is an Maya. M&ya independent reality like Brahman and co-eval with it from the then it beginningless time, will be an impossible task to annihilate it by any means of liberation and the consequence of this of is an indestructibility Maya eternal bondage of the soul $ l It is argued that Maya exists (BhavarOpa) but it cannot be eternal iike Brahman nor cannot bo an independent entity. Though it is not of capable -being determined still the by logic, denial of its existence would be contradiction of a felt fact and without adopting this doctrine ol Afsya it is not possible to solve the problem of relation between the Absolute and phenomena, individual self and the Brahman, real 'and the unreal." Here, one again, may argue why should such kind ol and irrational illogical concept be all accepted at ? Instead ofpostu this kind lating of unreal principle as the cause of the world it is-batt/ to the accept view that the world is both different as well non-diffc^ from the Brahman. The relation between the Absolute and the world to be identity-cum-diffeience. An advantage of accenting thi. ' s * i, .i. ,et u of do, s lyills any o/,;^ ' T j::ne worldr;d and its cause-the Absolute. ss

Again, the unreality of the world cannot be proved ^igumentAraumehf ofnf vithe vedsntins is that real is real**" . ahvavs rni , . <">>ys, lemanis constant nt nil *!-, *

to .u ft, Rufutation of Advaita Vedanta in Major Jaina Works 7

Vedantins can be understood in three alternative ways :-abso'hite non- mistake or existence, one thing appearing as another and indescribable. The first two meanings are denied by the Vedantins because, the former view leads to asatkhyati, which is accepted by some Buddhists and latter

view is which : Viparttakhyati, involves two reals the thing which is mistaken and the as it thing is mistaken. The third alternative that it means 'indes- is also not because cribability' plausible everything has corresponding for it in expression language, for instance, 'this is a table', 'this is a sarala tree' etc. and what gives birth to an expression in language is either an or a of object piece knowledge. Again, an object must be either real or unreal; to deny both the alternatives to a is thing meaningless, only one of. them can be denied. If indescribability of thing means 'nihsvabhavattva (i.e. i.e. it is unsubstantial) not what is appears to be, than it leads to If it is viparitakhyati. understood in the sense of un-knowability, then the very that a argument thing is un-subatantial because it is un- knowable indicates that the thing is not absolutely un-knowable. And again, this apparent world cannot be, talked about due to imknowability and it cannot be made the subject of the syllogism such as the.'world is because it unreal, is an apparent reality', etc. If the world is un-knowable, then it could not be predicated of the world. Thus, imknowability is inconsistent with the hetu i.e. pratiyamancitva. If mv knowability means that a is not thing really as it appears to us, then it cannot be said as un-knowable, because, here, a thing is known differently from what it which is is, again principle of Viparitakhydti, un-acceptable lo VedKntins. Even direct perception of plurality of thing of the World such as 'table', 'Chair', 'Sarala tree' etc. disapproves the doctiinc of indescribability of the world. 55

This doctrine of unreality of the world of Advaitins can be refuted by providing counterarguments such as "world is not false, because it is different from a non-existing thing, that which is different from non-- existing thing is not false, as for instance the soul, this world is so it is not false". s 6 hence, This counter makes it argument very clear, that] it is irrational to accept the vedantins view that the soul which appears as a reality in our is apprehension only real and other things are unreal which also as real in our appear apprehension. Ifit is said that inference the proves unreality of the world it can be then, argued that "Is syllogism which is supposed 10 the prove unreality of the world is part of the world or is it from it ? separate If it is separate, then is it true or untrue ? It cannot be true, otherwise the whole world will become true, It cannot be untrue, it because, proves nothing. If it is part of the $ Y. S. Shostri

world then, it is unreal like the rest of the world and cannot accomplish its 57 task of proving unreality of the world. If it is said that an argument has a practical validity and serves well as a working theory, then we have to accept that an argument is real, and it will destory the funda- mental position of the Advahins that nothing besides Braiitnan is -real.* 8

Even scriptural texts such as 'Sarvatn Khalu idam Brahma* etc. instead of proving unreality of the world prove reality of tlie world and Brahman i, e. all existing things of the world and Brahman, so

Even Advaitic one soul theory is not tenable because this view is contradicted again by perceptual experience of plurality of individual selves. Like Sankhyas ( Jainas argue that, if Annan is only one then birth and and death, bondage liberation, pain and pleasure etc., should be one for the whole if one is universe, person blind or c'eaf, all should be blind or deaf, if one all should act acts, in the same way, if one suffers or all should enjoys, similarly sxiffer or enjoy. If selves Were of one should have one, bondage meant of bondage of all and liberation of one should have meant liberation of all. But what we find hi 'the world is of a nnture which is 1 quite the opposite." irltman is one then births of different kinds of such as beings hellish, human, Divine, etc., are ttol possible. If Atmanis one and all pervading, then way is not consciousness seen 'n innert .such as things pot, stone etc, ? Again, there will be nc difference between liberated and bound Soul, preceptor and pupil, chile 2 and wise and so on. Jim is different in each body(pratik$etram Bhitmah)** and thus, individuals are born and die at different times, their action! and experience arc diverse in nature and so on.

There cannot be absolute indeutity between Jiva and Brahman be* in that case cause, mundane world of different individual selves will bt to impossible conceive on account of inseparability of Jiva from evei liberated supreme Brahman. It also cannot be said that Atmar seems to be different on account of bodily adjuncts but essentially one as after ' because, in that case, just destruction of pot its space is alsc freed, similarly, when body is destroyed every one will be liberated am liberation, no need of means of consequently no one will try to achieve

science of ' this goal and whole liberation will become purposeless

and theory of karma, , rebirth .etc. collapse to the ground.

If it is said that, on account of Sarnskaras (impressions) every jivi is not freed immediately after destruction of the body and become: of object trasinigradon then the question whether these samskaras 6. Refutation of Advaita Vidanta in Major Jaina Works 9 iividual jiva are sp'ecib-teraporal or all -pervading like ether. If they s limited by space and time, then the man died at particular place, to y at Citrakuta must born in the same place, because Samskaras cannot ivel from one place to another being inactive and unconscious (because oduct of unconscious avidya), Sa&skaras cannot Talso be allpervading cause in that case, no place and no soul, even liberated, will be free 3m clutches of all pervading Samskaras and these SamskSras might bring >erated man back to this mundane world. So, it is not possible to prove e oneness of souls and it is more wise and practical to accept the view es plurality of selves,

To sum up, Jainas point out that Advaitin's arguments that reality is te without a second, on account of Mg^a this world appears as many after destruction of and ivarta) and this appearant world disappears A/Sya alisation of Brahman, and Sravana, Manana and Nididhy&sana are the eans of liberation, are meaningless like discription of the barren woman n, because the existance of non-dual Brahman or Aiman cannot be

<> oved by any available means of knowledge, .

Now, all these objections raised by Jainas are generally found in the 8 dtingsof Ramsnuja7 andMadhva.e Possible answers are found in the 60 arks of stalwarts of Advaita Vedznta such as Sankara and hisfollow- rs'o which certainly deserve separate treatment. It is also very important of the note that, though Jainas criticise the some doctrines of Advaita, 7 1 there ill some Advaitic trends are steeped into Jainism. And was trend and other of Indian i reconcile Jainism with Advaita systems Philosophy. a or instance, Yoiovijaya' a 17th century Jaina stalwart proclaims that linism has no quarrel with any other system of Indian thought.

(ABRIVIATIONS used in Notes)

A. S. - Asfas'ahasri A. M. - Jptamimimsa N. K. - Nyayakumudacandra P.N.T. - PramSnanayatattvalokalankSra ' R. K. A. - Ratnakarsvatarika :

S. M. .- Sysdvadamafijari - S. R. Syadvsdaratnakara - .S. S. P. Satyas'ssanapankss S. V. - Siddhivini^caya T. S. - Tattvarthadhigamasutra V.S.B. -

i XHI-2 . 10 . s. Shaatri NOTES-

1. "Yatra drasts ca drtyam ca darfonam c&vikalpanam-, TasyaMrthasya- >- satyatvamahustrayyanta vedinah" vskyapadiya-ed J-..-M, Sukla;- Pub. L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad-1984.

2. "Dvaitapakmt paranudya budhyaSuddhisamSSrayat. ParamStmanamevai- kam tattvam tattvavtdo in 'VedzntadarSa- vidulm"-Brhattika, quoted ', ' nan? (R, Pt. S. P.), Subrahmanya Sastri, Pub. Varanasiya Sansicrit, Visvavidyalaya, 1967,

l 3. 'Yastu rahmav%din'3mesa nifcaya yadupahbhyate na fat .iathyam,

yunnopalabhyate tattathyamiti namastebhyo"-Brhan, Part-I, Pub! - of University Madras, 1934, p. 239.

4. ' "Atra tsvat vedsnttna sliuh ...... nityasiiklianmtmano mahatoavaelasmy- ygaaiaprsmanysdabhyupagamyatsjn, Tacca Samtsrada&yxm avidyZ- varanavatena a&nubhHyate"-Nyzyamaitjart-II, Apayarga parikfE, Pub Oriental ' Institute, Mysore, 1983, p. 431-2.

5. "Suddhabuddhasvabhzva ftyaupanisadSF'-NyZya ' Pub. '"Kuiuh&tfdli' ~i;

Chowkhamba Sanskrit : Series, Benareas, 1912, p. 4-5. 6. ; "Evamegeti jappanti manya Srambhanissia, Ege kicea sayam pavam tivvam dukkham niyacchai"-~Sutrak T mnga-l-W,a^ 'see 8911 Ecf Ambikadatta Oza, Pub. Jaina Jnanodaya Society, 'Rajkot, V. .'., iyyj t p. jl 35,

7. Vifc,vaiyakablft,ya-n, Gstha 2036^-2045, Pub. L. D Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad 9, 1968.

8. (a), Brahmasatyam jaganmithya j^rahmai va mparah". BrahmajMntv- works of Sri a/f^^.verse-20, Saftkar^rya, Vol. 16, viivilas Press, Snrangam. p 224.

(b) Jtotf-mangala verse 1 -Brahma sutra ^nkarabhssya with Rataaprabha, Bhtmati and -Anandagiri Vytkhy5 , ed.' Shastn Mahadev Bakre. Pub : Nirnayasagara PresSj Bombay, 1909. .

gamasQtra With Siddhasen aga9i tift ^. S.) I-I-4 . R. Ed ia. Pub : J. S. Javbri, Bombay 1926 Refutation of Advaita Ved&nto in Major Jaina Works . -/I

.12.. (a). Akalanka .Siddliiyiniscaya with tlka. Ed. Mah.endralcum.ar Jaina,

. "*Pub.: Bharatiya Jnanapitha, Kasi, 1959. p-11, p. 677-78. ' ' (b)P. N. 'T.VII-13, 15, 16, p. 518-520.

13. AptarmmatnsS 24-27. Ed. Pt. Gajadharlal Jain. Pub,: Bharatiya Jaina Siddhanta Prakasini Sanstha, Benares. 1914.

14. S. V. II; p. 463-468; 494, 677, 678.

15. a. Astasahasrs, ed. Vansidhar, Pub : Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, 1915, '' p. 157-163.

b. Tattvsrtha Slokavartilca, Ed : Manoharlal Shastrj, Pubr-Niraay^ Sagar Press, Bombay, 1918. p. 25-26.

c. SatyaSssanaparlksa, Pub : Bharatiya Jnanapitha, Kasi, 1964. p. 1-9.

; 16. Nyayakunmdacandra -part-I, p. 63-64; 147-155, Part-II p. -808, 812,

830-838, ed, Maliendrakumar Shastri, Pub : Manikcandra Jaina Granthamala, Bombay, 1938, & 1941.

17. Anyayogavyavacchedika with Sysdvsdaniafijarl-13. Ed; Jagdiscandra

Jain, Pub : Ravajibhai Chaganbhai Desai, Srimadrajachandrasrajna^ Agas, 1970. 18. P. N. T. 1-15, VIL 13-17 and 56.

19. Sysdvsdamafijan, ed. A. B. Dhruva, Pub : Bombay Sanskrit and

Prakrit Series, 1933. p, 77-83

'

20. -S: S. P.:p-7, . 21; -As S;i-158.

: Ju'ana Pitha, Kasfc, 1953. 22. (a) Tattvsrtharsjavsrtika, Pub Bharatiya p. 21.

(b) A. M. 24.

(c) A. S. p. 158. 23. S. S. P. p. 6-7.

24. "AnirvScySvidysdvitaya sacivasya prabhavato vivarta yasy&ite: viygdani*- caramacaramuccavacafnidam latejo' 'aVanayab, YataScnbhtidvtfvam

verse-1, quoted in S. S. P., P.-2.

25.- 5v,S. |f Pv2r;. 26. A. S. p-ISS. = 27. S. S. P. p-4. 28. S. M. p-82. 29. S. M. p-79 30. S. S. P. p-8, ^2 Y, S, Shaslri.

31. Ms^dttkyopanisad \\ith Gaudapadaksrika and Saiikarabhtsya-\ at-

: hyaprakarana-Verse 32, Gita press, Gorakhpur, V. 5. 1993. p. , 32. T. S. V. p-25-26.

33. (a). A. S. p-159.

(b) S. S. P. p-7. 34. (a) A, M. 26.

(b) A. S. P. 160-161.

35 (a) A. M. 24. A.S.p~158.

36; S. S. P. p-7. 37. (a) A. M. p27. (b) A- S. P-162.

38. S M. p. 83. 39. VAcyavHcakabMvalaksan-isya dvaitasyaivatatr&pi' darsanat-S. M. ' - 40. (a) S. M. p.-83 /

(b) S. S. P. p-S.

41. . S. S. P. p-6.

42. V.S..B II, gatha 2036-2045. 43. A. S. p-161. 44. A. S, p 15S.

45. (a) A. M. 25.

(b) A. S. p-159, 46. A. S. p-161-163.

47. Anyayogavyavacchedika with Sysdvadamaftjan verse-13. 48. Mandukyopanisad with Gaudapadaksrika and gaAkarabhs?ya-Ad\ -prafcarana^ verse 28, p, 164-165.

49. (a) N. K. Part-I, p. 63. (b) S. S. P. P-8. 50. S. S. P. P-8. 51. A. S. P. P-9.

52-; Sure^vara-Sambandhavsrtika-1 ed. 75-181, Kasinatha Sastri Ag; -"*- -Pub ; Anandasrama Press, Pune, 1982. P, 55-57. l 53. A. S.-p-l

54. (a) S. M. P-7

56. (a) R. K. R 34-35. (b) S. M. P. 80. Refutation of Advaita Veddnta in Major Jama ^orks J3

57. S. M. P-80. 58. S. M. P~ 80.

59. (a) A. S. P-161.

(b) S. M. P-83. 60. pub : SSiikhyaka-rika-verse-18, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1963. 61. SySdvadaratnskara-V. Pub :-Motilal Ladhajij 27, Bnavanipeth, Pune, Vira Saihvat 2457. P 1094. 62. Slla-nka-Satrakrta-rtgatikS ed. Ambikadatta Oza, Mahavira Jaina Jnanodaya Society, Rajkot, V. S. 1993, P. 30-35 63. P. N. T. VII-56. 64. S. R. P-1095 65. S. R. P 10956 66. S. S. P. P-7 67. Srlbh$?ya.-part-I, ed. Vasudev Shastri Abbyankar, Nirnaya Sacar Press, Bombay, 1914. P-77-135. 68. Anandatlrtha (MadhvaJ-MaygvSdakhandanam, Pub : T. K. Venkata-

. carya, Srividya Printing Press, Kumbhakonam, 1929, P-l-15. 69. (a) Works of Sa6karsc3rya. (b) Sambandha Vartika (c) Advaita-Siddhi, ed. Ansntakrishrja Shastri, Nirnayasagar Pres- Bombay, 1917. (d) Madhvatantramukhamardanam-ed. Pt, Ramanatha Diksit, Hanu- manghat, Benares 1941. 70. "Samalem (a) iftrmalam eetTajnitidvaitam yadagatam. Advaitom nirmalam Brahtnatadikantavuiifyate", Yafovijay a- AdhyStmopanisat prakaran a II-40a p. 152. Adhyatmasara, Adhystmopamsad, Jasnasara prakaranatrayi' pub' Sangliava Nagiadas Kanniaoanda, Jamnagar, V.S. 1994; (b) "Advaitic Trends in Jaini sm"-The Jainn Antiquary, Vol. XXIII 1565, p. 6-7. 71. "Abaddham paramvrthena baddhafica vyavaharatab- BruvdnobrahmavedSnti

*ftitewpro^".-Adhyatmopani ? at prakarana-l' p_50 ' and 45- 49 and 51.

UN PUBLISHED INSCRIPTION OF KANA SANGA *

Raghvendra Manohar

Rsna Sangram Singh is (Rsna Sanga) counted among the great warriors of Indmn History. Hero of fierce many battles Sanga fought bravely with Babar in March 1527 A.D. (1584 V.S.) in the famous battle of khanwa. Saziga was wounded and taken to a safe place. Except this information we do not know anything authentic about RsnS Saftga thereafter. Especially where did he die ? When did the end come ?

In this context it is that submitted, during my research tour I have traced a very important in inscription the town Diggi (Malpura) Diggi is a Principal Thikana of and is Khangarots about 5 K.M.S. from Jaipur. The inscription under discussion is inscribed on a black stone fired in the outerwall of Sita Ram ji temple situated adjacent to the fort. The inscription clearly mentions about death of RanS Saiiga and discribes the rituals performed later on. It is clear quite, from the inscription that Sanga was alive for three months after the battle of khanwa and most he died in probably Diggi in June \yff A.D. eth (J Budi 13; V.S . The text of 1584)- the. inacnption is as follows:

(1584)

(?)

KlVYABANDHA OR VAKYAVINYAS^ (According to Narendraprabhasuri)

R. S. Betai

Introductory

It is known to all more or less that Sabda and Artlia constitute the medium through which a poet's expression of emotions and also poetic beauty take shape. The hammer and chisel of the architect, the paper, brush and colours of the painter, the bodily grace and movements of the dancer, the voice and instrument of the musician-just like these the in. to poet's media are Sabda and Artlia. As the poet gives shape Kavya his own experience of poetic inspiration, he makes use of typically unique &abda and Artlia. These he uses as per his own pleasure and free-will, extracts from these Babda and Anha, far greater and sweeter meaning thus life to than they are capable of yielding ordinarily and gives new them. Sabda and Artfta thus constitute the body of Kavya, and still they are more than this. The are not just the body or Kavya, they much poet therefore, consciously, in his state of training and unconsciously, naturally all the on the and effortlessly in his state of attainment, concentrates more The and which typical uniqueness of Sabda and Artlia. originality novelty he imparts on these, and their new capacity to yield varied indescribable shades of meaning- all this leads to the discussion on and analysis of "Sabda and Artlia in Kavya"; "word -power in poetry"; "Vakyavinyasa in Kavya" etc. by the literary critics. In Alaukarainash dadlii In his A.M., NFS stales that his thinking is inspired and enriched by 1 the- thinking of 'his able predecessors. Still, his thinking is no doubt ocean-like as the title of the work claims. Again, in the evolution of internal style, methodology, expanse, illustrations, arrangement, poetic thought etc., NFS exhibits a uniquely original scholarship and grasp. At that several places and in some contexts, he has developed some doctrines are uniquely original and his own positive contribution to poetics. Several proofs of this are available to us in this vast work. Here, we 2 take up his discussion on Kavyabandha or Vakavinyasa.

Abbreviations used in this Paper-NPS-Narendraprabhasuri; A.Mv-

AlanRatamahodadM, Aiianda-Anandavardhana, Abhmava- Abhiriav-agupta .

: XIIJ 3 R. S. Setai

Karikis

it

it R,?VS^O|

in the four Here, karikas, first of all, NFS expresses these main thoughts about Vnkyaviayiisa or Kavyahandha.

Words to be used in .should be .those (1) Kavya that are very carefully chosen, they should be as if lustrous, playing most naturally in the poetic composition. Words of our use daily strike on and get sharpened by being scratched on a grindstone in form of the PratibhS of the poet and attain to a uniquely and novel, indescribable artistic shape, Every word used in should strike Kavya us, as a lustrous jewel, as sahrdaya readers.

Word and word as also word and in (2) meaning Kavya are so very much indivisible, conjoined and fully befitting one with the other that while reading a poetic composition and of its tasting sweetness and charm', the readers experience only their oneness and unity, and their invariable association. This leads to the of the experience picture of a unique wholesome beauty in Kavya. is Every Kavya charming, beautiful, sweet and delightful in its own way. The, in sahghatanakrama Kstvya' being competitive with ArdhanarUvara is precisely this

When a is as (3) poem enjoyed one, as a unity, in its wholesome- ness, naturally this becomes because possible the words used by a poet become eloquent and lively with an extraordinary, uncommon meaning. This leads to an aesthetic experience that is awe-inspiring. This capacity of yielding an indefinably excellent novel aesthetic experience and aesthetic delight that is found in a poet's moves speech, sportively like the waves of flowing and running water. This poetic speech now may and then may not give a faint picture to some extent of poetic matter This should us to conclude kad that in poet's both speech, Vaeya and -Vya^yo are Kavyabanclha or Vakyavinynsa 19 jointly at work. of Vyahgya course as also Vacya should be precise, effective, beautiful, miparallelled in Kavya. Only when this happens, will the oneness of the hearts of Sahrdayas, who arc to be won over with of at Vyaajans Kavya its supreme heights, become possible.

the (4) Through reading of such a ICavya, the Sahrdaya reader has varied delighting experiences, which win over oneness with him, bring about of Samvnda the emotions of the heart with those of Kavya. He gets totally merged in, lost as it were, in the "all-pervasive Ananda of other- taste worldly of Rasas. We can go a step further and say that this experience of wonder, of awe is not momentary or confined only to the time of reading. Even when he later remembers his experiences when he read and enjoyed Kavya and got lost in the Ananda that it yielded, the whole experience is .refreshed and he is again overcome by that same merger in the KSvyabhdvas that he experienced at the time of reading.

With these four basic points laid down in the Karikas, NFS further analyses these four and oilier allied points and tries to throw further light on Vakyavlnyasa, in the Vrt'ti.

The Padan used in Kavya, must of necessity, be bright and also lustrous. Here, being lustrous does mean being endowed with Kantiguna but not that only; it also means the Pjdas becoming rich in exquisitely fine sense and thus highly effective and appealing.

The Bandha like AnllianartSvara means that \ve should not coihe

across in Kavya, the slighest apprehension or consciousness of the joints between word and word, word and sense, 'sentence and sentence, and so on. Here, in. every respect, we must experience only unity, oneness; il shall ever be wonderful unity, in. which the links between meaning and Demotion,

emotion and emotion etc., get lost.

The V&kyavinyasa of a poet brings about a constant, flow of the charm, it flows if in and delicacy, sweetness and artfulness of Kavya, as waves, endless series that is regular, shapely and effortless.

furtheiV'is The peculiar trait of Kavya as Kavya, as NFS explains becomes that the ordinary becomes extra-ordinary, the unpalatable This the palatable, the dull becomes extremely charming. explains Alankikatva of Kavya in a way.

with an inherent Again, this Vakyavinyssa endows Kavya capability and to attract in an unusual as also uncommon extraordinary 30 ..R. S, Setai

manner, the heart of the Sahrdaya and to win him over in love. of nectar- Tills Vakyavinyusa gives to the Sahrdaya, a unique experience bath and yields to him, varied and ever beautiful experiences beginning from this Amrtasnilna to ultimate experience of the complete merger of so that his personality in the beauty, charm, appeal and delight of Kavya, on his part it is loss of his separate identity or, to state in other words, his personality becomes expanded like the expanse of human experiences that Kavya leads to, in its own original way.

Thus, the uniqueness and typical traits of Vakyavinyasa in Kavya cannot be described to the full inspite of all efforts. That is precisely the rneaningfulness of Knvyabandha, the ideal of which ranks very high in NFS.

Analysis of tlie Views

This discussion on the use of Padas in Kavya as also Vakyavinyssa, or Kavyabandha, in the Ksrikas and Vrtti, gives a fine expression to NPS's conception of it in AM. It also analyses and reveals the unique powers and capabilities of use of words in Kavya; it also reveals at the same time, how poetic speech very much differs from common worldly speech. Ananda stales :-

ftffc si$M*!m% u

The same truths apply to NPS's conception of Vakyavinyzsa that creates Dlavani par excellence of Kavya.The alaukikatva -other worldliness-of beauty ; and its quite uncommon experience, expect their own charrn in the limbs of a youthful girl and also an uncommon identity of all these that constitutes beauty. of the girl. The same truth applies to the body of Kgvya. Tlic experience of poetic charm, known as Lalan&lsvanyaprakhya by Anandt (Dhr.l.4)depeuds almost entirely on k&vyabandha. Still however, kavyabandha is shaped by and is decisively dependent upon the poetic experience ant enjoyment of the Salmlaya, When therefore, NFS analyses k&vyabandhc strictly bearing in mind this experience of the Sahrdaya, he bungs abou; 21 fc&vyabandha or V&kyaviny&sd

and the sahjdaya a get-together, a trivetiisahgama of the poet, vakyaviuyasa as a reader. This definition of kavyabandha seems to treat complete and all the three identity kavya, the poet and the sahrdaya consequently the three in the are known to us together. This definition defines all creative fewest possible words, the creative artist and his experience.ksvya in effective and the sahrdaya. NFS analyses and tries to lay down clear, it should be, terms, what a poetic creation should be, in which language His and what it shall give and not give to the sahrdaya reader. conception this. This is the of words-power in poelry naturally evolves with precise attainment of the sutra-like karikas and the Vrtti thereon.

of this discussion and Important thoughts that arc the outcome words. analysis can be laid down in these

The day-to-day worldly language is the same as poetic, still, day-to in this sense day worldly language is not the same as poetic language, and the and that a poet's word arid sense born thereof, happy unity of so oneness of the two, give to the Sahrdaya reader, an experience In many varied meanings and host of emotions. NFS has analysed these different his AM. This word and meaning and their identity can yield in tune with their varying meanings and experiences to different readers, mental and emotional states and the resultant Sahrdayatya very often In a similar with every reading, in case often of the same reader. manner, the resultant this- word and meanirg and their identity in Kavya and different readers unique charm can yield different poetic experiences lo status with each according to their differing Sabrdayaiva, its differing the varied reader. Whatever it may be, the world of emotions and as it is that is experience of poetic charm, aesthetic experience called, to created with reading and enjoyment of Kavya, gives .in. the end, ..the concentration, and the resU.lting right Sahfdaya's heart, a happy, delighting and the :awe~ identity of the reader with the emotional wqrld of '.Kavya ones self. That is the reason this inspiring experience of forgetting why is known indefinable experience surpassing all language and expression by NPS as unique, uuparallelled, indescribable.

2-30 and Following the preceding Acaryas, NPS lays down in AM elsewhere the threefold sense and the supremacy of Dhvani inclu- not ding Rasa; but still lays down that the peculiarities' of Kavya do end with this. This shows that even though NPS follows predecessors in and clear. His this, his approach and analysis are original very very discussion, though brief, is profound, On the other side, this is a proof ^ A. S,

of the fact that is an poetry art that is ever new, ever fresh and ever developing towards the perfect.

This and uniqueness indefinability of Ksvya shines forth in poetry through of word and beauty meaning in Ksvya. A total identify and happy combination expected between the two is ' systematically brought forth in Kavya through his Fa/o'ov/> gjn or Ksvyabandha. For this Vaicltrya of Sabcfa uses NPS other words such as SobHs, Carutva etc. This one more proves specific fact that SaWa, be it Vacya, lak$ya or Vyaiigya in Kavya, must of be necessity charming; it must be appealing lo the Sahrdaya, pleasing and delighting to him. To NPS, this charm and appeal of Kavya constitute its Satya. When NPS states that the poet brings about a profound wave-like flow of speech in Kavya, it is in this sense. Indirectly NFS also lays down that in Kavya, &abda and Artha, their identity, their their wholesomeness, Vtoyssa, everything should be uniquely rich in beauty, it should be to the delighting Sahrdaya. Behind this, a unique other beauty of charmingness evolves out of the individual beauty of Sabda and Artha in it is Kavya; indescribable mental comprehension; it is to be only experienced. The Sanghatana being like Ardhangrisvara means the absence of the consciousness of the Samdhis of all these, but not that only. It also means their unique oneness and an awe- inspiring experience of the incomparable Carerra of Kavya born there of. Only this can endow different experiences of Bhsvas, of course according to his own .Sabfdayaiva. NPS knows these experiences as indefinable and unique He refers to their vast variety and knows this as bathing, merging, diving lost in being the nectar of Kavya. the basis of Here, all this is this typical Vaicyavmya-sa, i.e., the Cnmtva of S/Wa.arid Artha that give shape to it. Here, the pratlbte of the poet extracts greater, varied and charming Artha from Gabda and Artha of at his :Kffvyb, own sweet will. Bilfanna' ' ""' earnestly requests a poet,-- :

This type of earnest request is to be found even in this depiction of the richness of Vakyavinyasa.- This brings NPS near to this view of Sabda and Artha when used in Kavya

And when this capacity to .give birth to Vismaya is there, it is also true tlmt Kftvyabandha or Vfikyavinyasa 21

fsfc Sf

j u

NFS knows this experience of poetic excellence as sudltssnana, It means becoming completely engrossed, merged and lost in Kavya, then to taste of and experience its sweetness and amrtatva that delights the reader and widens the boundaries of the readers personality and his Citta far and wide. It can also mean experience of immortality in moments of of tasting poetic charm for man the mortal. Thus NFS includes Ksvyakals in those happy elements with which the Almighty has endowed and enriched man the mortal to experience and delight in immortality for some blessed moments in life. With this, NFS comes very much in proximity of the views of Abhinava when he states:

swraft ERT

II

This can well be considered a very remarkable achievement of NFS, in matter of the discussion who, on Va.kyavinys.sa comes very much near to some of the views of a modern great western critics. To cite one such- view, of W Lewis- 's which words are by charged into something beyond themselves, an arrangement transmuted into the language of another world; a language in which the very shape and size and texture of words their their and resonance, position significance become, as it were, charged with tremendous or or music," mysterious ravishing Thus, the analysis of NFS in the matter of VSkyaviny^sa or Knvyabandha is very much near to the secret of the very essence of poetry.

Foot Notes

1.

IT

2.

ASANGA'S CONCEPTION OF MAYA (Illusion^ IN ViJNANAVADA BUDDHISM

Y. S. Shaslri

1 is one of the outstanding philosophical Asaiiga (circa 290-360AD) of Buddhism. His contribution to personalities in the history Mahayana in the annals of Buddhist Vijnanavada School of thought is unparalleled him his Buddhist which is left untouched by m history. There is no topic 2 is a works. Tn fact, one of his works namely 'Mahiiysnasulrslankara' which also throws landmark in the development of Mahayana Buddhism, of full light on Absolutism Vijfianavada. of Buddhism that It is a well-known fact, in the history Mahsyaim of a purely.; Nagarjuna-thc chief exponent Msdhyamika philosophy-adopts 'that which can to Reality and defines it as only negative approach ^ is inexpressible, that which is be directly realised., that which quiscent, 3 non-discursive and non-dual. Absolutely reality. is Sunya i.e., beyond indescribable and cannot be even subject-- object duality, inderminate, The word is used to indicate this identified with pure consciousness. Sunya 4 that the Absolute Reality. But it seems Nagarjuna emphasizing failed to show the relation transcendental aspect of the Absolute, proper this . He does not how between the Absolute and the phenomena analyse world. His extreme negative approach absolute is related to the phenomenal as a his and consequently he is dubbed is misunderstood by oponents in his own tirae.s But shortly after Nagarjuna, propagator of nihilism the stand point of some of the Mahayana thinkers revolted against negative in a more by identifying the Absolute his and started thinking positive way consciousness and established their own independent ; Reality with pure as school of thought known Vijfianavada. of Maitreyanatha, is prominent among those Asanga, disciple ' went doctrine ami revolutionary thinkers who against Nagsrjuna's of first rank Asartga, a speculative thinker propagated Vijflsnavada. this attitude of Nagarjuna. His approach to. is riot" satisfied with negative and he identifies the Absolute Reality withpure- Reality is more positive~" Studies at the Section of Buddhist XXXII.. e to the for Asian and North African Studies, at Hamburg, West International Congress Germany, Agust 1986. Sambddhi XIIJ-1 26 Y. S. Shastri

consciousness which is free from su bject-ubjecl duality, indescribabl beyond determination of thought- categories and non-dual. Asanga is n ready to accept the view of NsgHrjunu that the phenomenal world is pure and conceptual lacks b as i s .v Hi s any aim was to find out the ground - phenomena-an apparent world on which it appears. There mu be some basis for this worldly appearance, Phenomena, thou* unreal, must be rooted in some reality. This line of thinking, leads him 1 come to the conclusion that the base or the ground for this apparej phenomenal world is but nothing pure-consciousness. Consciousness itse appears as subject- object on quality account of transcendental flliulu Appearance of a form of consciousness as something objective an independent is illusory. But the ground for this appearance is real, it i the tea Uy-pure-consciousness. i n other words, pure consciousness free. S SUbJeCt and bJeCt " the Absolute. Phenomena ar the t'l f fV' appearauces of the Absolute. f Phenomena do no In / ' 5 U reality> ai e They ^ and appearance, ," 2point to-1 1that! Twhich, appears, i.e., pure consciousness.

ground of world of entire phenomenal

fdharrna) and yet it cannot be *?elements transcetids all of n ' " them it i thing and is afftote ^ -ry la and all-pervading. It i s th It is .ncausJl *?* - eternal.^ f IS is pure > 5 unlimited bliss. knowledge. ; It

n n""" f ld Phenomena. J,, other world <>' 1,0 , !, ' f AbS "lte Phenomenal world 7 rehM *> ' f ' tio . ,n , ,nany, , heory of , Conception of MAya (Illusion) in Aaangu's VijUanavada Buddhism 27

know the why and how of appearances. The seed of this doctrine is found in the earliest texts of the Prajnaparamita literature, works of NsgSrjvtna, Lankavatara Sutra and in A^vaghosa's writings. The Astasshasrika PrajSaparamita-the earliest work of Mahayana literature, states that everything is like a dream, like illusion, thought construction and thus 17 unreal. Even Nirvana is said to be like illusion, and dream.* 8 The Samadhivajasutra of literature also tells us that MahayiuiLi all things have no self-substance, are they like the air castle of the Gaudharvas, that they are like Maya or Mirage. Nagarjuna the great champion of Madhyamika school of thought holds a similar view. 2 " LarikavatSrasutra treats the entire world 2 ' as an illusion or as similar to Maya. All the things are Maya, because are unreal like the they flash of lightning which is seen as quickly appearing and disappearing. All things are unborn and do thus not exist. They are like the air-castle of the Gandharvas, like a dream, like the creation of a magical power. 22 Even As"vaghosa the great master of Mahayana Buddhism, clearly stales that all phenomena are created by the imperfect notions of the finite mind. All existence is therefore like a reflection in a mirror, without substance, a 2 3 only phantom of the mind. The Absolute is non-dual, but the of phenomenal world objects is appearance of illusory, ignorance colours the true model in the finite mind. As there is an influence at work, there arise false imperfect ideas. On account of influence of ignorance this 84 manifold world of phenomena arises . The same idea found in earlier is and credit texts, fully developed by Asaiiga goes to him for giving perfect shape to this doctrine of illusion or ignorance All these worlds such as ignorance, illusion, Bhranti, Maya are' used as synonyms by not satisfied with Asanga. Asanga ..was fully his predecessors explanation to a question how this non-dual pure consciousness appears as a manifold world of To attribute kind of phenomena. any casualty in an absolutely real sense to the immutable, uncreated and transcendent. Absolute will' be logically-.absurd. To solve this vexed problem, Asanga has developed this of or doctrine Maya illusion owing to the influence of which consciousness, though itself absolutely non dual, appears to beholding up diverse, discrete and finite appearances as inumerable, animate and inanimate objects of the universe. Pure consciousness influenced by ignorance gives rise to all phenomenalappearances recognised as various empirical eutities(paratantra) 2i and also to further appearances sometimes known as illusory objects. (Parikalpita). So, besides the one non-dual Absolute Reality there has to be assumed a universal diversifying factor or effectuating principle. Thus, assumption of illusion or ignorance is the only solution to the question this one non-dual transcendental which unavoidably arises as to how Reality Conception of Maya (Wmiori) in Asahga's VijMnavada Buddhism 29

is achieved, it dominates the whole field of our existence and -experiences as an irresistable, inexhaustible and uri -de finable power. Owing to this illusion, only .the Absolute non dual pure consciousness appears to have been divided a..d limited to finite existences.

Asaiiga advocates the Vijrinnapariuatnavada. lie thinks that the phenomenal world is transformation .the of pure-consciousness only. The absolute (pure consciousness) transcends everything, but painted with ignorance, it manifests itself as 2 'J subject -object quality. He analyses this entire of process phenomenalisatkm of pure consciousness, which is on account of ignorance, in the manner. following First of all, owing to the influence of powerful illusion or ignorance it manifests itself as a Alayavijnana stone-house of creative consciousness. It is the first of product pariiiama, out of pure consciousness which is also known as seed of all This phemona,3 store-house of consciousness projects various forms out of it. Because of various impressions (Vasana) left in the Alaya, the ego and the material the : world, subject and the object are precluded. a i Alaya Vijflana is defiled aspect of pure consciousness only. 3 2 Purification of Citta or consciousness is but nothing becoming free from subject-object created quality, by Alziynvijnana and stoppirg activity of Alayavijnana. 3 3 Once is this achieved illusion .affecting pure consciousness feters out and automatically illusion is no more required to be assumed as an factor of explanatory appearances of our reality. After realisation of not or reality only ignorance illusion is dissipated, but all products of illusion such as subject-object quality, relativity limitations etc., are also wholly exterminated along with their sustaining appearances. The moment is realised, there is neither reality (his illusion nor any appearances, any more.

We have JCLU llial illubiou must be accepted, however illusory in its ultimate nature, as explanatory factor of all the appearances of the world. phenomenal Apart from this explanatory nature, it can claim :no existence or reality whatsoever. That is why it is held to be both and beginning'.ess terminable. Its origin ia not traceable. It is -thus called It is but it beginuingless. beginningiess can be destroyed enlightenment of or realisation pure-consciousness. It cannot be said that what is without beginning is without end as well. The example of seed and tree relation will make this idea very clear. The seed is produced froar the tree and this tree is from the seed; it is thus .not possible to trace out their or But tree or origin beginning. seed can be completely destroyed by some outer causes such as fire, etc. Likewise, ignorance can be destroyed by lire like knowledge of pure consciousness. * r. S. Shastri /p

of diverse becomings, pseudo realities is to be related to the complications as multiple empirical or illusory in the Form of inumsrable appearances must be accepted, however illusory .in entities 'Illusion or icnorancc ' of its own. It It bus DO existence its uliimate nature world. unreal as it produces the objective is yet not entirely cannot exist by itself. In itself it is Illusion bdna. itself unreal, Its main function is inferred through its function, nothintr * It's existence of the are duality. All entities universe, i, the creation of subject- object as so many real or illusory entities thus onlv diverse appearances appraised the and arising from and lasting upto from the" view point of relativity termination of ignorance.

In -other words, Absolute is the Ulu-ion exists in the Absolute." so as the Real It exists in the real long locus of Mava. Yet it is nothing. the result oi of duality is is not known. The appearance subject-object irom determined to be neither distinct ignorance. This ignorance can be nevertheless, undeniable both nor identical with the basic reality. It is, valuable as existent veritable and and epistemologically ontoloaicully That until the realisation of reality. in order of things the'empirical nor described to be neither identical means Avidya being illusory can be all from the- it is not there at different from Reality and really thanviewpoint be there as something other reality. of reality. Still it appears to No absolutism will accept Illusion cannot be a separate permanent reality. illusion or than non-dual reality. Thus, Maya anv permanent reality olher be veritable and real lor all practical must be an appearance; it appears to functioning unUl the realisation and intents, and to be ceaselessly purpo.es thai of existence are appearances like of Reality itself. All the elements nor non-existent, like ofMayU They can be said to be neither existent existent a They cannot be called a uuBical elephant produced by magician, removal of illusion. They .cannot be called became they disappear after the as illusion is there. 1 he most c-n non-existent because they exist so long world of as we experience .in. this truthful description of (he stale things the be to it with as created by magician of particulars will compare Maya a man chooses; he makes a variety oi making use of whatever objects to the as real and substantial. phantom creations which appear spectators nor similarly illusion or is neither existent non-existent, But just, as Maya to be neither existent nor non- these elements of existence are also said

8 universe are thus diverse existent.* All the elements of the appearances the, end ..of of is the last milestone or only. Realisation Reality (Tattva) of all But so long illusion and it results into a disruption appearances. and diverse modifications of as this milestone is noi reached the unceasing further and further. Until realisation Avidya continue to hold up appearances 3() Y. S. Shastn

It is to note very important that no VijiVaiiavsdin has given a answer to the subtle proper very questions such as why is this How is it that ignorance? non-dual pure consciousness becomes affected by illusion, becomes and impure34 phenomenalised? The why of illusion or ignorance can nobody explain as much as the why of suchuess or reality. Suppose we it as an accept explanatory factor oF all appearances, the or how it question why defiles the pure Absolute, how the Absolute' becomes and takes the impure form of manifold world of phenomena are still unanswered. IF its impurity is due to past deeds, then are these deeds free acts of the Absolute ? What makes it to do bad deeds in the beginning? There seems to be no clear-cut answers to all these questions iu the Vijfladavada School of Thought.

This doctrine of illusion is closely connected with the theory-error. It is a commonly accepted misconception that Vijaanavada upholds the which means that atmakhyati error is the super-imposition of the form of cognition on the so-called external object, such as 'I am the Silver.' But this allegation does not apply to Vijflanavada of Asanga and Vasubandhu Asanga, by illusion or calling Bhranti as neither existent nor non- advocates existent, (he theory of of errors non-discribability s. His theory of error is similar to very anirvacaniyakhyati of the Advaita Vedantin even though he does not use the word anirvacanjya. The error is indescribable in the sense that it can be called neither real nor unreal It cannot be called totally unreal because it is there as long as an appearance lasts. It cannot be real because it is contradicted afterwards when the real 1S known. Error is true as as it long lasts and becomes unreal only when it is contradicted by higher knowledge, i.e., after realisation of Reality.

:. Advaita. Vcdsuta of Saiikara also offers theory of illusion to solve the. problem of relation between Absolute and phenomena, apparent and the real. Advaita Vedanta, like has Vijfianavada faced the same problem because according to it, there is only one pure Absolute Reality, one without a seconds s and of theory ontological Reality i.e.,37 Brahman World ! s mere apparent and reality ultimately there is no difference between Brahman and individual soul.as Advaita Vedsntins have faced the problems as to how, from the pure non-dual Brahman the impure world of man and things came into existence,' how one appears to many withou' loosing its pure, non-dual nature, how the real appears as the transistory world? Ankara, the Advaita stalwart thought that without the assumption of an extraneous principle, which is found already in seedling form in Conception of Mdya (Illusion) . in Asahga's VijMnavada BttMhism 3/

the UpanisadVs- it i s not possible to account for 'the world -appearance There must be admitted some principle or power which superimposes Hie manifold of sense on the tmpersensuous and Supreme Brahman. This extraneous principle, the Advaitins call Maya or illusion . This doctrine plays a very vital role iu the Advaita philosophy. On this edifice Advaita metaphysics is well established. 1 The Advaitins analysis of illusion is very subtle and far more satisfactory than that of Vijftanavadins.

The nature of Maya is such that it" is neither real nor unreal and therefore anirvacanlya*' i.e , indescribable. It is power of God indistinguishable from Him, as the just burning power of fire is from the fire itself-*'. It is neither real like Brahman nor unreal like son of a barren woman. It is existent but nor real like Brahman. Ft is destroyed by realisation of Brahman*'. The statement that the world is Mays or mithys means that it is an of appearance reality in a form which is not its essential and ultimate nature and has no being after the dawn of right it. knowledge about It i s to be inferred through its effects by our . mtellingence43. It operateg ^ wayg ^ ^ knowledge as doubt and as absence of knowledge. Really it cannot do harm any to reality, just as water mirage cannot make the Sandy desert muddy Its function is twofold; it and superimposes conceals (cavarana) he real nature of tee object and shows in its up place some other object. It conceals Brahman and shows in up its place the universe and the world of souls It not only makes us not apprehend Brahman, but creates some other thing in its It place. conceals the Brahman in the sense of preventing the ignorant individual from realising hi, real nature just as a patch of cloud conceals the sun by preventing a person from the preventing 8Un 4. Though It is the creative power of God, it does not aftecl God, just as magician is unaffected ! by his own magical power** We can only say that Brahman appears as the world; even Sankara remarks aptly that Maya or nescience is co-evel with life. We do not Inow how or when we got into it. Nobody walks into illusion consciously. We ^ f "' 8St ^ iS ^ rSSUlt f a false oTlhe T; ^nliflcation L^ri'TS ' ' 1S the nature f man s Piencfl4 7. But wuhoutwLou. May.u no human< activity is possible. Ail mo.al and intellectual, regio social activities presuppose May,. Every one of our activiti s the work of 8 Ma-ya.4 The world is product of Nfeys. The world s Maya m the sense that it is only It apparent. is rea l for but p purposes, vanishes after the realisation of Brahman. ' The word

real so far as empirical life i, concerned but 3! Y. S. Shastri sublated when knowledge dawns. But so- l.-ng *.* -ve ate in this world,

'' ri 1 we cannot take 'it to k unr itl,'

Both VijfUmavada and Advaita Vcdanta advocate anirvacaniyiikhysti is non-dual i. e. non-itesciibability of error. For both, Reality pure consciousness which is direct, immediate and self-Jvimincnis and is the transcendental background of the world of phenomena which is its appearance due to the power of beginningTess ignorance. But the differ- ence between Vijilanavada view- point and Advaita view-point is that in Vijnanavada, the Reality is affected and defiled by illusion and transforms into the phenomenal world while in Advaita the Absolute Reality-Brahman is unaffected, neutral and is not subject to transformation. s The work! is Vivarta of Brahman. Thisworld is superimposed on Brahman by illusion as snake is superimposed on the rope, silver on shell etc. Illusion consists in mistaking the given for something else. In the state- ment this is a snake, rope is mistaken for a snake. But this rope must he there as the substratum of snake appearance. Though rope appears as a snake, it is unaffected by snake appearance. Similarly, Brahman is mistaken as this phenomenal world, i. e. Brahman is the substratum for this world appearance. But Brahman is neutral and unaffected by any type of illusory power. Illusion does not affect the Absolute while in Vijflaivavada as opposed to Advaita Vedaiita, the Reality, itself is affe- cted by illusion. The phenomena is defiled aspect of Reality. It is only after removal of ignorance that its phenomenalised aspect will no more be there. It shines in its pristine glory only after the destruction of illusion. But the question how it is affected by illusion still remains to be answered. NOTES

1. Indian Buddhism A. 1C. Warder, Pub : Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi-7, 1970, p. 436. 2. Many works are ascribed to Asanga. But Madliyantavibhanga, Mahayanasutralankara and Dharmadharmata Vibharum are very important from philosophical point of view,

' 3. Aparapratyayam Ssntam Prapancairaprapancitam. Nirvikalpam ansnartham etat tattvasya laksanam Madhyamakafestra (MS) XVIII-9, ed. P. L. Vaidya, Mithila Institute, Darbhanga, I960. XXII-11. 4. Prajuaptyartham tu kathyale Ibid, - ed. K. P. 5. VigmhavyavartanI by Nagarjuna, Jayaswal and Rahula of the Bihar Sankrityayana. Pub : Journal and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XXIII, Part-Ill, 1937. rahitam bhrantelca 6. Tattvam yat satatam dvayenar sannidryah, sakyain naiv^ca sarvathabhilapitum yaccsprapaficatmakanv Mahayanasptra- Conception of Maya (Illusion) in dsanga's Vijtlanavdda Buddhism 33

laiifeara (MSA) XI-1?, ed. Dr. S. Bagciii, Mithila Institute. Darbhanga, 1970. 7. Madhyamakuistra I. 9-10. 8. MSA- XI. 19.

9... Bhavabhavasamanata:- Ibid., XI. 41.

10. Ibid VI. 1. 11. Sarvadhrgmasca buddhatvam dharma naivaca kascana- Ibid-IX. 4.

12. Ibid IX. 15 ,

13. Aprameyam acintyam ca vibhutvain baudhamisyate-Ibid-IX. 40. , 14. Mahabodhim nityam dhruvam- Ibid- 50.

: " 15. Ibid- IX. 3; XXI. 44.

16. Ibid- V. 8, Commentary

17. Asfasahasrika- Prajilaparamita- I-p, 8. XXVIII- p-230, XXXI. 254, ed. P. L. Vaidya, Pub. Mitliila Institute, Darbhanga, Bihar, I960. 18. NirvTnamapi devaputra rnayopamsn svapnopaman- Ibid, II p, 20. IX. 19. Samadhr'ajasffitra, 11, 17, quoted by Candrakirti in Prasannapada on Madhyamaka 6astra-Vll. 34, P. 74. Yatha 20. Yatha Maya svapno gandharvanagaram yatha- M.S.- Vll 34- XV11. 33, XX111. 8-9.

21. Saddharma LatikavatsrasSltra- X. 126, 144, 22S, 234, 251, 279, 291 'ed., Dr. P. L. Vaidya, MithiJa Institute, Darbha'nga, 1963. 22. Gandharvauagarasvapnauiayanirma^a sadysah Ibid, X, 144, 23. of Faith ed. A,H. Awakening -T.Richard, Walton, London, 1961 p S5 24. 60.

Ibid-p ' 25. MSA-XI. 15.

26. akkrena Svayara asadapi yad pratibhrrsate sa. bhrantih mayitvat- MVSBT- p. 18. 27. MSA- XI. 13. 28. Tatha bhavat tatha abhavat bhavabliava vis'esatah. sadasantah atbania- ye dharma yabha bhrantilaksa^iah- Commentary : Tayoto bliavabhavayoravi^istatvat- santo'pi asanto'pi mityapi caivam laksana tasrriShmayopamah-MSA- XI. 27. 29. Cittamatrameva dvayapratibhasamisyate, grahyapratibhiTsam grahaka'

: pratibhasam ca- MSA- XI. 34, Com. 30.,Bjjam alayavijflanam- MSA- XIX. 49- Com. 31. Tatralayakhyam vijfianam sarva vipakali bijakaiil- Trini^ika- 2; Svami Vijnapitimatratasiddhi, ed; Mahesvarananda, Pub : Crtadhr-

makaryalaya, 1962. : ;;>.. Varanasi, '

32. MSA- XIX. 51 : :.;;:: ....

33. Bijaparavrtteh ityalayavijfianaparavrttitah. Padarthadsha. nirbliSisana-m vijflfinarn paravrttiranasravo dhatuh virauktih. MSA-XI. 44. - Com. , XITI 5 , ' 34 K ,

-M, Mdtam bl citta n p.uVrJpr'iblrnvir.nu sadn: hu MSA- XUI. 18.

35. MSA- XI. 15. 29.

3

39. (a) Tsopanisad 15

' (h) Kathopanisa,d I. 24-5

(c) IvIui?dakopiiisad--II. I. 10.

(d) Chahdogyopauisad-I. I. 10, VI. I 4. (e) Pra&iopaniad t. 16.

(f) Svetasvataropanisad I. 10, IV, 9.10. The Principal Upanisads with 'Ssrtkarabhiriya/.'pub : Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, 1978.

; 40, VivekacBdamaiiu-111, Works of SaAkaracarya,' Vol-14, Pub : Vani ! Vilas Press, Srirangam, p21, 22. '"'.' 41. BrahmasatrasaiikarabhiJsya (BSBj-l.IV. 3, JI.I.14. with Ratua- prablia, BhamatS and Anandagiri Vyakhyff, cd; Mahadev , .Shastri Pub : Bakre, Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, 1909. 42. Jiiate dvaitam na vidyate- Maiiclukyakarika, .Againaprakarana 18, The Principal witlv Upanisadas Saiikarabhasya p, 191. 43. Karyanumeya Vivekacadama^i-llO, p21. 44. Ghanacchannadrastih gliarmcchannamarkam . yatha' nisprabham ' manyate catimu^hah. 45uatha svaytoprastritaniayaya maySvl trisvapj kalesuna samspra^yate --* 'evam ! avastutatvat, paramatmspi samsnramayaya na samspra^yatal iti BSB II.I.9.

46. iva Rajva sarpadibhgvena iti -rlbid JI}'l 9. 47. Satyanrte mithnnlkrtya ahamidam, mamedain iti naisargfka aVani

: lokavyayaiiapah~Ibid-Adhyfsa;bhasya-p--9-iO. : ;

: -4.8v -Avicfyavaivctii:..vn ' jmsyal sarvah vyavalmrah santato BSB vartate I.IV.3. , 49. BSB-IIJ.14.

tft yasyhite-BhEcniaii- Verse-],' B'SB-.p-l'" 5t -~ssais.a p. 'BHAlfl AS QUOTED IN THE 0URGHATAVfTf

Nilanjana S. Shall . .

The Durgluitavrtti 1 is not unknown to the students of -Sanskrit grammar. It is written by Saranadeva,' the : eastern gram ma'rian, '-\\iro J flourished in the twelfth century. This vrtti discusses the difficult 'Usages 1 in the of Bharavi .arid etc, horn Mahakayyas Asvaghosa,: KHlLdtisa-i: Bbatfr the grammatical point of view. It also refers to the, odd usages in the dramas of Kaiidasa, Bha'vabhQti,', Bhatfa Narayan'ii, 'MuraiT'etc

This, vrtti first discusses in detail how a particular, usage seems

incompatible according, to a particular sutra of Pan in i and then after-

wards justifies it on the basis of other grammatical devices bared on Paninian grammar.

It is ycry important from the viewpoint of. .Sanskrit grammar," .as Saranadeva has noted many opinions of Maitreyaraksita on, iiiiportant in grammatical paints. Some of these views are not found even his. '"only" available work, DhStupradipa. Sanskrit scholars are under the obligation

of Saranadeva, 1 for preserving many viewpoints of Bhagavrttikara, Anunyasakara and of some unknown gramm : arians ; ;such ^as SrikanMlay

Vallabha, Sonianandi etc. , .;...

From the point of view of the classical iitejature.also,. this vrtti .is important, because it seems to have preserved the original readings of the usages discussed therein'. Even the -leafiied"cdmhicn'talors like Malllnatha

pre.fer 'to accept the readings which arc grammatically correct" and -leave

: aside the doubtful readings. In these circumstances, this vftti" caii' 'be useful, in cbtrecting the .text; ;of the works mentior^cjd, thcreiu,,partic_ulatly Bhaifikavya, because it discusses maximum usages (70j from Bhattikavya,

This yrt^i discussi|s,the usages pertaining to Atmauepada, KaraJca, Samasas, BhvadiprakaranaVTaddhitas, Krdantas, Acsandhij Halasandh! Qtc.

The. various devices by which all these usages arc justified aic

discussed here, , . ; ,.... Saranadeva has justified the following usages on the basis of Panini's

' the Siifras, other 'than tliose with which uiages'seevn incompatible

Paper read at 32nd Session of the All India. .Oriental C'onl'ereuce, ,. Gujarat University^ Alimedabad, November 6-8, 1985, S. Shah 36 Mtanjana

the rule (1. 4. 21), in Bhatti seems to have violated qgg ij^R^ word in with regard to the qfyfl ft^g, using the plural, .^Mfyq: wiih the ; is called the coronated king (3.22), because queen regularly denotes singular. F[{gq] which 2. 58), he By quoting the sutra sffWW^W^I^^i^W^awllH, (1. here denotes Jati and not an individual. As propounds that the plural we can understand another alternative he suggests that by common sense, the word as denoting the harem.

-' 1- 4 and (2 > I- 6 According to the sStras FH'(2. ) ft*?f*Wftie5fto ).

is not as the am Bhatti's usage git OTW IfsflNfR (4. 5) correct, 5^ ? should form a compound with the g3 5f word tR.

that rule itself violated In the rejoinder, Saranadeva, argues the above has

( 2 - 2 - 2 by the therefore another, rule, S^flU ') placing sffiin. beginning,

it is 3\% W. Hence BhatH's usage cannot be deemed incorrect.

Moreover, he adds that the mention of aiafgfll^ W*Ws such as

etc, in the sutra, also indicates that the sutra may not apply to

is a in the verse which afepa 3^T- The word E\\^ smi^ t a In order to derive the (2. 49) poses difficulty. word ?ir^.we have to to affix _?9 according ai^aj (5.4. 108) but . that is not permissibel according to the rules of Bahuvrilii compound. At the same time, it cannot be derived by afcqqarjq q ?('|f|q]J^ (2. 1. 21), because there is the 3ig|j% of 3$i$W from the previous sutra (2. 1. 20) and in this is not word, Sxtt

: ( 1. It then of'^l^'by-a^iRl T*r%. r .4|l Ww5is'C2. 6). conveys the sease of .simultaneity. '....'.

a he has utilised -the -"Ma;ny times,- aiiUYrttis also .to justify soine usages of BhaMiksvya.

Bhatti has employed the sixth case affix for gfaRf in the line, -^ ."..', . -. la This is not (18. 9). correctly used, because, while -commenting on 53tJi*# Wgift {2. 3. 11), Patanjali has enjoined the fourth case-affix

in QJcf.-^fl, To justify this, Surauadeva draws the anuviiti of the word 'a^' from l^if 4. troiji^ (4, si) an(i j oms ] t witll in ]: ^ ^ ^ (4 _ 4 6g) Rnd of ihe Approves sixth case affix in Bhatti as quoted in the Durghatavftti 31

To justify some form's used by Bhatti, Saranadeva sometimes does not attach much importance to the anuvrttis, e.g., the atmanepadl form in 3Rrs=3 Wftil (8. 16) seems to go against the sutra f%Tf?r- (3. 1. 56) because, on account of the anuvrtti of 'q^l^j' from 3,1.55, wrnft form was required here.

As noted by Sarauadeva, some grammarians, like Maitreyaraksita think that this anuvrtti surely affects the subsequent rule; while some do not attach much weight to the anuvrtti. Therefore the use of the

Bhajfikavya is justified.

The views of Pataftjali have been quoted by Sarauadeva to justify the following usages: The parasmaipadl form ajftsiHTft in SiVfRp-W Q^TRft^Hlft m$fr

(6. 138) goes against the sutra SHFTflsnf (13.45;. It means that when used after the root the is , intransitively, jfla, atmanepadl form . employed, when the fruit of the action does not accrue to the agent.

To justify the usage, Saranadcva" remarks that here the root jfla, denotes the meaning of 3|fR by ^F^a^llfa. So the rule may not apply here. Then again he justifies the parasmaipadl usage by citing a parallel instance from the Mahabhasya. ^g[x(:-3}fa3!Rlf% q^^\

on 1 .4.44) .

The point can be raised against the following usage of Bhaj-li,

f|?l j; JjfoRf (17, 39) that he has not respected the Vartika

'U if m (on 1.4.24). He should have used the ablative case after' the word (53 instead of the locative case.

Saranadeva meets the objection by pointing out that the above Vartika denoting 4fe WRH has been ,refuted by Patanjali on the ground

the , that it can as welT be included in sutra gW^I^sq^m^ (1 4. 24)," But we would like to remark that then also it would require the fifth

case affix.

Saranadeva adds that the Vartika can be considered qiftsp on the

analogy of the Vartika 0$ Sflft'lt't (on 6. 1. 94).

In the verse R\iqw?1 a^ !R 11^ ^W 1% (3.13), Bhatfi has

used the sixth case affix: for WEI. According to the sutra, Ttcqqf^far the second or the %iWFRRsif^ (2. 3. 12), he should have .used fourth

case aifix for 33, 3F- >-- : ~-Nitanjana'S:':Shc,.

r ; ; Saratfadeva replies that this, sfitra. is refuted ;by Pataftjali. Therefore

Bliatti is not ata-fault. He has employed fv^n^lie'e, (US'

The views of Jinendrabuddhi, the author of Nyasa, are also quoted by Sarauadeva to support the following usages in Bhattikavya: f The form $3\\- in W\\ f5RFV% (14. 83) goes: against the siUra.ifsn^

gSflateTBg; (3. 1. 36), According to this rule it should take 311 ^ suffix in :

fs? and tile form should be 6tft*pUfi. While justifying -it, -Saranadeva

1 has quoted the Nyasa, according to which the sutra is rendered because- the tense affixes, are .called by Akc sfitra perfect; " Ffifi;

2. : :; ,; :- ^(1. 6), .,.;::.., ;

Bbalti has used the word %$*& (3.6, 3.10), while according Uo the sutra "^^^ict^r^r?^ (4.1.168), the word denoting the &qvq of

should 'be |%J?t (%*ir43-,5r) fif5;^.^icil^: (7 2:11 7)' Saranadeva quotes the view of Nyasakara

f 1 i&il ?% ^W- I Then "iqigsf! to by ?nf ^ (4.1.73), we apply- ^ and get %fft-. - Any way, we do not find this view mentioned in the Nyssa bn this sutra.

Some difficult usages of Bhat$i have been justified on the basis of the. views of Bhagavrttikara. has used the BhaWi Atraatiepadi forms 3rq!^ (1.16, 8.3 3) and

; (7.101) iii the ; sense of only ^fWj while according to the sutra

! ^to) (1.3.56), the root ziH preceded 1 by S'q when used in the sense of espousing takes atmauepada, Ka^ikakara also explains sWT- as

Saranadeva : it .. .himself; ;,,; has=_ justified; basing on Maitreyaraksita^.-aud>jlie the Bhsgayrtti \iho ascribe meaning of 3Tl?q?f!j> ^BK'to ^Wrou :the basis. :of the anuvftti of.SlVi: from 1.4.37. This meaning ,; is,'supported the of f=Tfinj by interpretation given in the Mahabhasya. .,.;.;

that "Saranadeva remarks Jayamangala solves the problem by justifying

{ ; the : usages by applying 6garj^*qt qqlSq?t (1.3.75) instead of thc above sQtra. In this way he avoids the difficulty arising by the word HIKI in

'' : ' the'sutraV . -......

...There is a controversy among the grammarians, on "trie" word g^,

Bhatti in '3 the line : I employed by ?! faff: ^Tf \ (6.11). Bhntfi as quoted in tlic. Diirghcitctvrtti J9

. -The first problem raised in the Durghatavj-tti with regard to this form is as to why the vocative (i.e., the nominative case) is used here, when the accusative case was required here according to the Viirtika,

ft^:;! (on 2.3.2),

To garanadeva : justify it, argues sd^q^W^ W^T riq?Rl*I??t: W^flffci^lqa). It means that here g! denotes sorrow and invocation of some relatives. Thus vocative is due, which will take nominative by fl*^?l ^ (2.3.47). This nominative case, ''being a

^R^fwf^cT is stronger than the accusative'* case; -wlik-h i^^^ft^cT.

Thus the use of the nominative in the ab'ove 'case by ^ Bhattiksvya is justified. The following remarks of Kaiyata, the author of rTgW^Rfta, also

favour Bhalti : ?I 'at

-..- While on '^s commenting f^qlgfeqR^r gag (5.2.112) notes that there is in ^4lf the verse of Bhatti : qf?s[gai

.12). He justifies it by arguing that this is $*$*, not ^^isfla) r In support of this, he cites the parallel 'instance 'il^I^ fqoqrflf^ 53]^l?tF|f|fquijfqf^ i This is the Anustup stanza quoted from Mahabhasya on 1.4.51. Bhagavrttikara also believes that this cannot be called S'^fVff,

Vardhamana, the author of Ganaratnamahodadhi, draws our attention to the fact (145) that actually in Mahabhaya we find the, regiiiar Anusj-up stanza ^.^Dq[]^^...e(c. It is worth noting that Mallinatha 'and

Bharatarnallika give, the flawless reading "

Several usages of Bharti have been justified by iSaranadeva, byreferring to the viewpoints of Maitreyaraksita.

The compounds ft.f^ and if$& employed by Bhatti in 16.24 and 17.23, respectively are not correct, because they are .prohibited by the sutra g^g^l|OTg^^^aqHTf%fW (2.2.11). ,

: -.-'' To justify these 'Compounds, > Saranadeva quotes the ;6pinion"':" of Mailreya, that in the sfltra, krtavyaya ndt being mentioned, thei prohibLtion

dqes not; apply ;to Jt, Thus :the compounds -emplpye.d by, -Bhatfi , should not.be deemed as incorrect.

in Sfir'anndeva justifies the parasmaipadi. usage aifi?S?falft

Q:f^!ni5)Rlf% niaft' (5.138) in another way, i.e., by citing the view" 'of Maitreya: He argues that here the question of setting aside the njlc . 40 . Nilanjana S. Shah

at because the word flfa+91 is aifq^K^ XI. 3.45), should not arise all, serves the of the rendered transitive, as .'the 1{WW itself purpose object

(wnfoi iiftr fafeasnq; ). has been a The word fWfr, used by Bhatti in g*f *WR* (7.9) controversial usage, from the grammatical viewpoint.

the of modifl- The sutra stg^rat^st (4.3.140) prescribes 3q?J in sense " rule to cation or part after 3QS(M% words. This is a general (SM'TWSO be set aside by the exception (wn?Q ftr' t^tft^ '4.3.144), prescribing in the place of *>& and giving the form

Maitreya, as quoted by Saranadeva justifies the form with the help

r ! of the qfavn^l f*fowi^f^S -3WHsftfaft^ (58)2 . Here also the general

is in of and we the form rule prevails and ^ enjoined place WR get

.This justification is not acceptable to Nagesa, the author of Paribha- sendu&khara as it goes against the comment of the Bhasya on the rule

^f there states that in order 31"^ ^f^l (3.3.1^). Patafljali ^is repeated it he added when an be that may also, apavada may applicable ^3?"l; Hence the gq^qqqsn^faqztsftfrqiq.). exception cannot be set aside by himself derives the word the general rule. NsgesSa ^F^ by applying the sutra ^ (4,292).

In the verse * %iq%*t qfosit W9H, (3.27), Bhatti has used the of a contract.' suffix in the sense 'making The sutra S^ftNfqforqfq-^: suffix to I"! in the snm (3.1.28) enjoins sflq only sense of praise, because

qit is read here along with W, which has the sense of praise only

use of 31W Saranadeva To justify this suffix, cites the opinion of do not the Maitreya, that some grammarians respect flUjr^q of qof with

' While on the sutra commenting 'q^WTqgfnT* (6.1.63) Saranadeva remarks that in of the anuvrtti of the word spite SRft from 6 1.68, the rule can be to secular literature also. In applied his support, he cites, the view, of and In the line of Kaslkskara, following Bhatti : q?*ir ^ragfiT that sf^ll, (3,41). Maitreya says q^s^jstr' qT^q^fq.' and thereby suggests . fhat it applies to secular literature also, Bhafti as quoted in the Durgaatavitti

While commenting on the sutra, * ^S^lsi Q^Hiq, (6.4 126), Maitreya that on the as quoted by Saranadeva remarks bases of the usage.....,!

*raL W' aqjj'a'vft *TZT: (14,30), it is implied that here by the terra *ft> only the dentolabial letter 3 is to be understood and not the letter 3 obtained by &5Wr. Some difficult usages of Bhattikavya have been justified by quoting the views of Purushottamas, the famous grammarian, who was the author of fihas.avrtti etc,

Bhatti has violated the rule snffcf^SR^ (1.4.51) in the verse gtf the word WT S^tefR (4.5), because according to the above sutra,

%r. when designated as 'gat i' is to be employed exactly after the verbal form. To justify thus, Saranadeva cites the opinion of Purushottama. He

opines that the anuvrtti of f^n^l=I descending from 1.4.59 is the deciding factor in this matter.

In this verse, the word. 3*: is not in composition with the verb,

" therefore it cannot be designated as nf?r It is connected with the 3^RI

word ^Iflj hence thenffrasn. will not accrue to the word 31: and in absence

of qfcra 9i, the above rule will not apply. Bhatti has used the word ^r^ in the verse 'H' ^K^-qiRiiq^ls^ir'

(12.2), instead of %n$, which is derived according to ^I^W (4.4.109) The word %I^ can be derived from Rm43^ 'as well as from ?f|+3^.

Saranadeva remarks that the form K* (^Hl'TH-SSi;?) can be justified

by resorting to %1|[VIIJT of the sutra T(^^ 3-3, fg (6.3,84) as suggested by Somanandi. As another alternative, he suggests

(6,3.82) ?lcl m H^f ^fl^: I

Saranadeva must have another reading of (he line, as

(12,2), therefore he explains the word 9^1^ also : 1*11

He wants to explain that here by the word fl%T3K BhaU'i means, a brother born of the same mother and not a brother born at the same time, and so we have to derive the word accordingly.

neuter of the word s^lfa j n the line The gender ^11*?!^)^... (1 1,2) 5 to the si ?^!^ is not proper according sutra (2.4,38) and the following 41 Niianjana S. Shall

comments of Patafljali on the sutra *H3 (3.3.18) :

the Thus 3^3 ^a usages should take only the masculine gender. Saranadeva justifies it by quoting the opinion of Vallabha, who differs from others and remarks 9sr' qfei ^lig g^gfcT Wnf^sT?^ ^inif^^r I In this the usage word %flfa, being spVilfi^rff, the neuter gender is justified.

The compound ^T^qrifla: (16.2) employed by Bhatti goes against the rule $ifa ^ ^mm (2.2, 12) as the word ending with a sixth case is not compounded with the affix <%$ when it denotes respect.

In rejoinder, he quotes the view of Nyasakara, that the compound can be as justified instrumental compound by the sutra. f,

To the justify much discussed form 5! 1 (6.11), employed by , Saranadeva the quoted opinion from BhatfitJka. This must be some other commentary than because Jayamangala, he generally refers to it by name, The sutra fa$q*?uii||is| (1.4.4) prohibits ^\^\ for the ^^eqirllq words such as g. it cannot Thus, be f&i in the vocative according Jo : (7.3.107).

derives the form in the following way : Jn his bhasya Pn 4.1.66, has Patafljali instanced and : m^ f^ indicating thereby that words also may take acc . to 33 ^fci: (4.1.66). Now by the Vartito (on ^m 4.1.66; we apply and then it ^ to ^ gets by ffqqrftflB WW Afterwords the W&m .(U.43J. word ^ is changed to by ,35 ^^ (1.248). Agai^ by 3^: we apply ^ top and get Now the i*\^i -can gg. (l&mft ^ 1.4.3) apply to g and the vocative will be singular ^ g$! by 7.3.107.

An unknown grammarian SrikariJha has been quoted by garanadeva, who derives if in another He the way. opines that shortening of g in n.' is possible by from the next drawing ^ sutra ^jfa (1,4,5) and tbuj providing "Tff^rffWKn ' n the present case. Some grammarians proclaim this form % a s ^' correct,, by applying (93.5) par ibhasa to it. In tlje sutra ^-^?tTR!^V (1.4,4), 44 Nilanjatta S. Shah

is incomplete. Thus, tlie word 9^ can be formed by ^\J! and be can applied to it by the sutra 4.1.5 to derive the word fli^.^I.

Saranadeva himself justifies it on the basis of JiH|3. As is an the word 3lfRi% g^W* can be included in it arid then by

ft|;%[^q^ (4.1.41) we can apply 3tBT to S!H and derive the word ^tt. In the following case, he even goes to the extent of setting a side about the Maitreya's opinion Rffq-^f of a certain Vartika, in order to justify the explanation given by Jayarnangala. In the following verse of Bhattikavya, awifw^l^^: 1lkNfq|;- "jfctopi'S (2.U-), the word rR has been used as an attribute of .thq,. wind. It was well-scented due to the contact with aravinda-lotuses.

Jayamangala explains the word g*l?i: on the bases of the Vartika The afolfaJtS'"!* word H^cl is explained in two ways, one explanation is aw^a, i.e., n?g is changed to iN in the sense of smell and not in the sense of perfume. Another of explanation t^f I'cf is 53R!ft? , i. e, when the 5 fragrance is natural, irq j s changed to ^lf?w.

makes it clear Jayamangala that in this verse Hfsr being not natural, is not to nf3*. changed While commenting on the Vartika *& ^iftflit considers (6.1,94), Maitreya the above Vartika n^^rl etc. also as RffH". Saranadeva is not to willing agree with Maitreya. He argues, if the Vsrtika is considered qiftf , the explanation given by Jayamangala based on it would b; rendered futile.

.Jayamaiigala has raised the problem that in the following line of .- Bhatfi : ftE8j io.i w^ W ( .l, there ^ 9> should be ^ by the sutra W m^ in the word (5.2.39) q^, i. e., it should be fl^H, Saianadeva meets his criticism by pointing out that before Rg*r is designated as V to according ^^' not apply because cT of

will not be a t the end of a q^. The following viewpoint of Jayamangala, noted by Saranadeva with reference to *H-7^iMm3n- no TV, : t c . . ,, ('9-22; Is not found m the now available to us, commentary

has employed the form 41*^3, which is not JJhai correct according *#Wte:.W (24.72). The sutra enjoins that there is elision of viJcarana.^in the case of roots beginning with ^ etc. th Accordingly patential third parson plural form should be *r^. Saraanadeva Bhatti as quoted in the Durglwta\ftti

the rule contains 3^ denoted by s,$l Therefore, the Sutra becomes and would not apply to *I

But Nagesha does not approve of this paribhasa, as it is not found in the Bhasya. Naturally he does not approve the above justification.

The compound sufr^g employed by Bhatti in 'a!ll?r3\g sflfavqin

fift 1. the (4.14) goes against the rule fifra^gcni g (2.1.16) Only words in enumerated ffl'S^rj group are to be considered as ftnicHs and 'therefore designated as avyayibhava compounds. The rule cannot apply to the word SirRt s3^j as it does not belong to that group. Jayamangala as quoted by Saranadevai, solve.- problem by taking *llRl3^Q as an" avyayibhsva compound according to the sutra ^Jf fRfc[fsfft; (2.1.13).

The following stanza of Bhatti '?<'4 "li: "j|qgi^% cl^sgsisr 1W 3R

(1.23) has been criticised by the grammarians, because sigqaJifan: (1.4.76), the root If can take Atmanepada terminations only when not preceded takes by any upasarga. In this verse HT> ttough preceded by 'a}' Atmanepada.

Jayamangala corrects the usage, by changing the case of the word the ?q: (^i|) 3?3^% *IPR' =J?q I Thus by fERff^R'ntFr, Atmanepada would be justified in the passive voice. Bhatfi the sutra, The word Winfj^i (5.85) employed by goes against to this rule, by adding tlie <^||^ by ^ he derives the form by qo^i^ (4.1.19) and after forming qiof-fi, f)I"fff: applying the sutra l $** (4.1.95). - in the verse In the same way, the word ^Ct used by Bhatti to Sioi^^^ ^ttR?lf : 3^13^(4.20), cannot be derived according f?f take z suffix the sutra (4.1.5), because the word flS'SR cannot by from the sutra. (3.2.16) on account of the atiiivrtti descending previous the sutra'. In the absence of?, the suffix W can be applied to it by to tlie word ^nfg1^lR*q1 (3.1.134). Then by applying aq^T^WT^ (4.1.4) form Sf^fr 5?^, we would get Bf^W instead of fr?^. To derive the that the word ^ in the Jayamangala, as quoted by Saranadeva, supgests indicates that the taking z suffijf next sutra T^I^I^g ^T (3.2.17) group Bhatii as quoted in the Durghaiarrtti 45

of remarks that Jayaraaiigala justifies the fom on the basis the

.

. . (93.3). .

It is strange that not only we do not fitid the remarks cited by Saranadeva, but on the other hand we. find the reading in the commentary.

Anyhow, the reading W^gf^rW must be the original one; in because Maitreya has quoted that in his Dhatupradipa (p. 83) support of the above paribhasa.

The following paribhssas have been utilised by Saranadeva to justify some difficult usages of Bliafti. Bhatti has used the instrumental case

affixes for Til: in the following verses : f^TSSfSldf-lfam ^a^qifaWMt

11 These usages seem (4.11) and -fil^Hl: st= ..

c tne case affix. that the "3 f 31*6 words should goverrn sixth

the instrumental Saranadeva cites the In justification of case, paribhasa: that what is established a ^l^fflSi' ^ -B^ (116) 1. It means by Jnapaka the above should not be attached is not universally true. Therefore 9Hli Siaranadeva adds that much importance. As an alternative explanation,

? I Such can 3Wt ft^P-lt fT^I^f ^^ *tra ^

1. It means that with the help of the paribhasa : ^[-jlft fetoRW (93.1) that which is in it is denoted a rule is not universally valid, when taught

in : the (6.1.15) we get the form s'fog:, s'aaHT takes place before following way : Before weak terminations,

& to we fqff and fifa + reduplication. Thus is changed fq, get (f|ccf) = 5 .4.81) f^ 3!.

the form used by' But the problem is of deriving unusual s'fMqgt in the ^Wfir etc. flWW is enjoined Bhatti. Saranadeva argues that sutra, '

it is not alw.iys vilid . When the i. e. ThsreFore 46" Nllanjuna S. Shah

does not take place, we get tha for.n s'M^Jj: ia the following wa

:.+ 6.1.8;, |i + 5JJ + *W

This very paribhasa comes to the help of Saranadeva, when ha ws

to justify the word f(U m the vocative case in the following verse

: Bhaffi *fl$ \ to si ^fftfj? qe>q) sf^tfSR 83Hlfl^ (4.9, : According the

fWI go?: (7.3.108), ths actu.il form of the word fl$ in the vocat

singular should be ^ $f\ \ garanadeva remarks that the rule itself be considered aifreqby the above iR^ri^l, because it prescirbes the operat by 31, i.e. ^. Anyway, Nsge^a doss not approve of this paribha as it is not mentioned in the Mahabhasya. The paribhasa Rf6l?3P^?Prfq: (93) has been utilised by Saranad to the justify compound ^q:!?^^ (10.34) as a ?|^t% compound.

According to the sutra ^aiql?...(2.1.38), the word ^Pq^t should placed first in the compound, if we take it as tatpurusa corapou Therefore, aranadeva explaias it as Bahuvrlhi compound. But then would require ^suffix according to the rule ^ct** (5.3.153). At t ths point, paribhasa comes to our help. It. means that a rule wh teaches the addition of a samssanta affix is not universally valid. Sii

the samsssnta affix f i s \ flftezr, we can explain it as Bahuvrlhi compo'u even in absence of f.

In order to derive the word ST*q!R (*H*H>tf) used ; by Bhatti in

UKWr*n|jr...fiFim,'(2.24), Saranadeva is prepared to accept the of a particular paribhasa. This attitude is not unusual among the gramn rians. When the application of a particular paribhasa comes in the w of formation of correct words they can be declared as optional. according to the paribhasa, ifefSR^qTSTm ff^vf; g| gqie^ (75), gqr^liT^ takes place before if T%, then instead of we - the odd form 3^^ 4 ? + (ajft ^ ar^l + ^' 5.nftq^qs 2.2.18; = To the justify form a^r, the of viewpoint Maitreya is quoted Saranadeva. He considers this paribhasa tffaotrthe basis of the jfiapa dsrlsd fron th? sutra 7 T-jtf ^ (S i n pn 3.14), which ^^ tab place after HWWI%.

Thus to arrive at the word snapw, we first suffix - W to I ta; + 31 = (fnnnpnvnM: 7.3.84), w 4 R = ,m Then we and we get the word Bhatti as quoted in the Durghatavftti 41

Some odd usages of Bhatti are justified by Saranadeva on the basis of the Ganapatha of Psn.ini. In the following usages, ^if^rf qgj&lfa: (1.17) and aq:|*n

llftl should be in the ^l^g^^pflr (2.20), the words and 53T placed io beginning of the compound, according ^nlft^ srjpftfjTl (2,2 35). be in First, Saranadeva suggests that the words may categorised group, since this group is an silfiffS'ni where all the forms are not laid in the specifically enumerated. Then by s^crfturclfiw-rr down sutra siT^F^I^g (2.2.37), the mfal\3 of qifa and ?*a becomes $W."

Saranadeva adds that the other way to justify these usages is to

5 resort, to the two Vartikas qf^t^*^ f^STBWzft q\ *faa ffi ^a ^ " and ft3W. IjIftqT?! ^ifct^lKginf^: q^SR^ (on 2.2.36). Bharatamallika, while justifying the usage W^t^^l^ctTi on the

basis pf the Vsrtika STiC'l^^'fl etc. elucidates it thus :

In the verse of Bhatti, j^S*J' U^fa! fit fltq^^t i^aq (5.60), the word is formed by the application of the ^ affix after the root 3% in the sen.se of the agent of an action.

But the sutra ^ to which this word ^: gft f^l^f (3.1.106) according is formed, prescribes T^ affix to denote *H3.

Saranadeva solves the problem in the following way : -we first add to = q^ fa) to ^ denotes ^R, i.e., wqR *Wi{ W%v: \ To this ^ is

added as a possessive termination by the sutra ^^'.f^^Sg (5,2.127), an we ^If^ being 3?ifla*Wl-Thus get gMTORCire^fg 6?^9: I Jayamangala explains it in the same manner, The word Jjsu employed in Bhatti's verse, 'q^T^qi: ^iftg W3\s the sutra (0.13), seems to go against f^fe^T^^Sf (3.3.104), because $3

is not mentioned in the P^lfa^.

Saranadeva, justifies the word J211 ace. to this sutra, by including

is it in 'f^-nf^lfi because it an .ailfRj^. As another alternative he can to on the suggests that one apply *lf 1^ basis of ^ in the sutra, fafovjj^f^fc^^ (3.3.105) and derive ^]f^]:

The vocative singular ^nfa^f in the verse of Bhatti, Jfrfo" |^ ^fn1 because to the ^*^ (,54) is not .correct, according stttra W (4.1.120), bepome ^fq5tq the son of the form should f meaning Sutnitra, 4 Bhatti as quoted in the Durghatavjtti at some forms "used in the works of standard writers, which cannot be of the sutras. easily explained by the regular application According to the sutra 3T*tfrH spifqg^ sfp^ (6.3.122) the ft of the

not be it. we take verse ai^fqqqQ^ TT^J ?wfa Hiq; (4.37) should ^lt, smfttjqttal^ in the sense of 'not having human attendents.* The

in the comes to the help of Saranadeva. He justifies word STfc* sutra,

: the word I Saranadeva it on the basic of gi|3f interprets a^f^RlftsiW he had to meet the as meaning not having human attendents, therefore

objection by the help of sffpssj; I

For Jayamangala and Mallinatha, this problem would not arise at all,

as they give the meaning of the word 'as ijlltfal*]. While commenting on the sutra, sqr?!: sW^S^f^ (6.3.63) Sara nadeva points out that the word 3|55 indicates that the sutra may some-

times apply to siff'fiTs. He points out that, the sutra applies to SfR^l^^H when the ^S'J? 3*3$% 9RTfl is formed, but it does not to . , apply

1 the is formed. In of his r'R !, , when ^31 HRI3 support

comments, aranadeva cites the following usage of Bhatti : qlV-S: R'Tfifr*

WH. (9.82).

In order to justify the usage, 35^f g?|ic7 5irfe?r : (6.56), Saranadeva

resorts to ^ufcfs'sr.- It means that the preceding rule supercedes the latter rule, when the arrival at the correct form requires it. Instead of here the form should be , fc^f^ifSTF:. Ace to the sutra

s?5jl?iTT (2.1. 68), This sutra is subsequent to the sutra '?FR?- zr ^TTH: (2. 1. 61), therefore it should prevail, and the form

should be'ff^o I Sarana'deva that argues ^gfa^S^r gssq:, and thus justifies the usage- Saranadeva has the word fawt in justified f(^5r ^cffFg^r (5.8) by quoting the authority of a dictionary. to the According Vgrtilca, %%?%%&?: (On 5.4. 119) when Rlfw is preceded by ft, it is changed to ^. Accordingly the form should be

and -n\.t

Sarana'deva points out that this form should be derived from the synonym of zn'ft ft given in one dictionary

I ). '.

S^mbodih- XIII 7 4B Nilanjana S. Shah

Saranadeva remarks that since the word gMr is enlisted in the the sutra and add suffix Ill!&Tl, we can apply 3liK^ *n4.1.y6)here & then the vocative would be "a)Pl*t. to !H^l to get 9Jmra and singular in the word TO: Bhafti has applied the affix a fig after S'qqsjq^Rt and

Htff =3 f|xf : 15 and ??g; occurring respectively in the verses RI ^F^' (3.

nKtfrat siFWtfla: (18.29). But according to the sutra 3WW$ can come after 5^. :, the affix fffft only awr^m

offers two solutions. One is To justify these usage, Saranadeva way the sutra to resort to Yogavibhaga, i.e. to split qRlq)t q^vqieafg (5.4.44) to aft to STC^q^ift. The other is to into two parts and then apply way because apply the Vsrtika, ciRr Jm

1 ^ *tl?flf[ is an 31Iffen . Sometimes Saranadeva himself derives SSI.q^s from the sutras or the

Vartikas and then on the basis of these ?Mf s, he justifies the following

usages of Bhaffi :

! for The accusative case employed by Bhatti *)fIW i (flfl|?r:) in the

verse: ^Wir|^..,paiq, qwi giPsR: I ^li^...!!!^^^!^ | (9.67)

is not correct according to the sutra 'flfafl?.. cifof^ g Q\\ (.1.4.52), as

3^' is not a 1^% *3T5 denoting qsiR'Jjlf Jlia.

To justify this case, Sarapadeva derives the ^H^ from the Vartika

oa that nfa can be a ftlW 'fftq^g flUlji: Ula^l ^f^^; v 1.4,52) p^cli for WCf|t[.-Ia this case, S"f denotes Q1^I ife, hence the accusative case

for *tt^\ is justified.

In the verses of Bhattikavya M ^gqftjjgi?^ (2.21), and

n^HWl2!9^fm (6,80), genetive case should have been used instead of the

accusative case, for the words ^ilflffi and fHRtS resp. ace, to the sutra

*CGR1I: ftct (2.3.65).

To justify this, Saranadeva derives the Wf from the sutra, ft'\%H

(5.1.117). It means that the affix ^ffa comes after a word in the accusative case, in construction, in the sense of befitting.

On the basis of this 5iTf, aranadava remarks that the genetive case is not compulsory. / ,

The following usages of Bhattikavya have been justified on the basis of 3(113% ^-e, the presence of the word 3f8 in the particular' sutras. ,V. '*! ".'. : --, is the of a rule as, application grammatical a necessity to arrive S. Shall ffl Nilanjana

to the name of the dictionary referred by Sarana- it is difficult to know to note that KsinsJraml commentary deva as $WW, but it is interesting one as giving WW among other on Amarakosa (2. 6. 89) quotes flfgeif

- synonyms of JJlRfSI -

the the reading but he discusses reading Jayamartgala prefers f^w, take the compound as and justifies it thus :- We must snfHr is changed to and then by

Then we get ftwi (ai frnar

fikRt WKflRItf. (6.1.63) in the sutra In. support of the meaning of the word 3^1Rfl

line Bhatti : (1.3. 40), he quotes the following of

(8. 23).

While commenting on the of above sHtra Saranadeva elucidates that the word 'a^nW means ^WW* (wil) and 3^^^fWlfe (5^). to Thus according a the sBtra, cif (siIfR^?) applies these two types of ascendings of the luminaries. As an illustration of the application of the

rule to ysrijn^fn'fI siffaf, he quotes the above stanza. In Durghatavftti, this stanza is ascribed to Mahi, but it is actually

found in BhatJikavya (8. 23).

Saranadeva quotes the following line of Bhatti in support of his

view about the meaning of (g^ with reference to the sStra WWiSTOffalJlrifrri

fff^ : ilfo Riql: r ^r; (1.4. 37) g^^^ ^.fegifet ^qf%a. | (1.89). He points out that in the above verse Vflf denotes the meaning

and therefore it the of 3Kp' governs dative case Q^'z}:, When it denotes the meaning of a^qlft, it will not govern the dative case as in W^l'5^, because' 3R5r aad 'not swfcT is related with $M etc mentioned in the above sStra......

iu order Sometimes, to justify an odd usage of BhaWi, he sets aside the technical and meaning ascribes general meaning to a particular word in the sutra, e.g. the usage of Bhatti, H^cRT JS: (8.94) is not correct, to the sutra according 'sFcKpafa g?& (2.3.4), because the word means c technically ^qq^qq^f^ ( f, prftrfT-1 That raraning does-' not fit in the context -here, Saranadeva remarks that according to some, here the word means simply Wm, and not a^iq^R R sf^ ,|), as quoted in the Durgaa}avrtti

Jayarnangala on the other hand remarks :

the affix, is added According to the sutra, T^ $\&& n^l (3.1.23), qf crookedness. In the verse of to the roots denoting 'ifa, it means ths word means or Bhatti qtqnW g^Ti^T ^'A (2.20), m%\H vagrant the of wandering mendicants tliough it is formed by application the

suffix 1$ to V*".

that all the garanadeva justifies the word by explaining W$$ roots So here the root the convey the meaning of knowledge. conveys intensity 3.1.22. Therefore the of the action (faSfflRfaSK) ace. 10 .word flrnm ..is

so the suffix is -used in the sense of highly learned, qf justified. In the verse of Ehatti, ^rai 53 *^ jtt (8.38), ^ ace, to the sutra jft|: In the above verse ^IS denotes tBlWlqTW^ fofS (3.1.35) is affixed to \7^'^- in the sutra, fTO meaning is intended. the meaning of iflfof, while ^$W that Sara^adeva, in support of Bhatti, argues ^aTg'ar^^fiW^^ of some as by ifff^W^ ST 3^1 I The opinion Vidyasagar quoted, Bharatamallika also supports the meaning intended by Bhatti : .^ref ^^

As a. true grammarian, Saraijadeva discards incorrect readings: and or draws our attention to better suggests incorrect readings readings already existing.

Sara^adeva notices a metrical error in the third quarter of the verse

I The metre of the 'stanza 10.37 : f^Rifa ftig^qiCinn^H^H, being but in the above' Nandana. the ninth syllable should be short, line, 'a'

will be considered long by 4l*t jp (1.4.11). . to avoid the Sara^iadeva suggests the reading 'ft 3^1' error. Bharatamallika, in support of Bha^i quotes the opinion of Bhoja* that in these circumstances, ^^f is not considered a fault. -He himself

' : ' - suggests the reading ft jfgflftRF I While commenting on the sutra, sf

'.it as 1^1^ is not correct according to the sutra. He proclaims HUT3.: a'tid remarks that the original reading 1!^^ is better and correct.

Sanutuideva himself, -.' 'The following usages have been explained by of -without citing the opinion any grammarian. Nilanjana S. Shah

on wfa ?W ..... ,jm\*t (2.3.16), he in support of his comment W *$ t of Bhatti : *mw *1I^ ** ^H cites the following verses qi*$lf: W^4 ^ (14.18) I- (8,98), and 3WW $$*V gR^ when the word With reference to this sutra, Saratfadeva discusses, case and when it would govern the W: would govern the dative accusative case. ? that when there is ^Mflsp ^ r, between W- He makes it clears *lf3B9T SHSTWffflRf ^ (1.4.74) and hence and tf!f&, it would get hy ^vould but when *iqW is pervaded by f^Rlfw, govern the accusative case, cannot accrue to it in the then W: would govern the dative, as nfaa^I in the verses absence of sjlcqsjV? W?. He makes it clear that quoted the absence of sfaq^ps^er. above, W governs the dative case in

The remarks of Siranucleva, on this point bear much resemblance to those of Siradeva in connection with this topic.4 the form mt: Sara^adeva draws attention to the fact, that W W <*&' used by Bhatri in the verse, qi ?q ^WWlt^' ^ (5,58) |3I^t itself makes clear his opinion about the inclusion of i/)^ in the sutra. Some grammarians opine that in the sutra, 'fll^ii]|mjqr fe^: q^^g

1 *ft is included in the sutra and it is (1.4.77), the root indicated by 'W-'

the ablative singular form of *ft (WU T$% %qf%?HI^T fllJU^Fjfq 5rif|f^|

| who believe tllfellS^r^^: iRl l^g^-fisig?^ Those that this sutra applies

to the root ^ also, will give the Parasmaipadi forms such as TI vf: ^isjiii

of the affix *3: etc., in which there is elision f%^, fa^ (3.1.44). From the form If *Hh given by BhatW, it becomes obvious: that he disagrees with those who include '*)Y in the sutra.

The compound ^i^mnr|3! (10.2) employed by Bhatfi is prone to the criticism, according to the sutra nR(|f5^1t"*7 3 (3.2.188). The above

compound stfip: is formed by adding fa to V^I meaning respect.

The problem is that this sutra enjoins the affix W after these roots the with, the force of present and Bhatti has employed it with the force

the Now if the affix of past. ?3 enjoined here in the force of the present

' may bat ^ fct (3.2.102), then Bhatti 's usage will not fit in the context.

Saranadeva argues that by this Kulra, only the w which 'was 315ff^

the tense is here. That }n present enjoined fcl which is enjoined in the Bhatti as quoted in the Durghatavrtti S3

Therefore force of the present by 3.2.102, already remains. 3T^?t q??nfwto (Thus the compound used by Bhatti denotes the meaning in the force of the past. from another of This compound sfiSffli.TW^ct: is controversial point affix comes after a verbal view also. According to af4

fore the root is rendered transitive (aFa^faanqfoi^ aWWq.).

As another alfernative, lie suggests that we can explain the compound ST tlftfvft The affix feT as iTfa^<*t 5I|*f: by spFcI (RfSta *l*f|: I). the root to derive the word ?T1, '31*1 (by *II%, 3.3.18) is applied to W

Bhatti has been seriously criticised by the grammarians for violating

first verse. He should have used the sutra, q^% fa^ (3.2.115) in the very and in the (33-^5 instead of in the line WSfi ft3Tna:, (1.1) this on the basis verse, qi^ ^Idl wa^ciatS^ (1.14) Saranadeva justifies is formed of q^fT*. According to ^6^.T^83, every word independently are connected. Looking from and after formation, the words syntactically 3 been used in sense of past tense in general. this viewpoint, here has

Saranadeva cites the following line from Bhattikavya, ^VipWljr in of his comment on the sutra wqtf 5*Frft Wl'ira f*^ (7.63), support that the form ang is used by Kslidssa etc. to VZ. (3.2.123) He'remarks there is wrong in it, because the denote the present tense and nothing

s to a and denotes ( in form W5 is'fa'** 'flfe5 W (similar appearance verb) he cites the above line of WW9THTW. la support of his opinion,

.: Bhattikayya ,

himself has the .word We would^ like to add that Panini accepted BiaaTtl the sutra, '&: WRlRTf*W5^: (3.4.84). Tg as denoting s by the verse (9.42), Bhatti has used the word '^Wtai^in efm^ifasna,^ the verse because according to the sutra but hs should have used aiftgst!^ found the world and ?S are irregularly HqVi mm.ti'' (3.3-86), & the collection and praise resp. Saraaadeva justifies in the sense of a ' 5-* tiilanjaria S, Shalt

the word by quoting following paribhasa : ^' f'S: It is 5 (128), found in Slradeva's Paribliasavrtti .

fly the sutra we derive 3ift??f% ff?f (3.2) ^ftqfa: I W^ In the process, first the root is joined with 6!^ and then (a?faO we add the

3W H to get the word *lRe^!cf.

As another he derives it alternative, from *R . + .flfir, the causal form

of 1*1.. We would like to add that one Atreya quoted in the Madhavlya, Dhatuvrtti, derives the word m$ in the same way

The word $Vtmft in the verse 'flwr$ ! U3m: (7.90) i derived according to the to the sutra, ^g^mfqfcqj ^ (4.1 55 would not j have given the sense of son as Kaus'alya required by Bhattj, the According to sutra, the word ^SSTOfr is formed by adding pFT i n the sense of mn to vte (cf URpr inftrei-qwJf^TJr ^zrH I). Before affixing the termination ft? , tftra i s to changed faw. Therefore, if we derive the word thus, it would mean Of 3^ ^| ff8j which is not' the meaning required as here, Maitreya. has remarked, * *% ^^W^m i For this very reason, Jayamarigala has been ^: severely criticised by Mallmatha, because he has derived the word, ace. to this sutra. In order to arrive at the intended meaning, feranadeva' derives .the word from to flMiH*. formed by ^ ^^; (4.1.65). Then by M ^ (4.1.20) 5^ is Now applied. the sutra crfolgf* (1.2.49) would function and titan would fl^ go away. Thus we atrive at the form TO5WR of (Son Kau^alya i.e. Rama). While commenting on ^ -(5.3.47), Sanmadeva first ' qi^ remarks : ** ws

In this case, the is not ^ very clear. he wants to Perhaps imply that the W^ Wir, a being. W^r^'q^ llcre denotes actions and of the qualities demons as censurable. But as they are already sgfacT what , s the significance of m\ q^ here? This is the objection aud Saranadeva justifies it fay that wfV remarking mufon- ^^ I

Saranadeva has not : noted it, but the mascnlive form W&WH is held questionable by MallinStha. The gender of the word ^^ is Neuter Therefore the word ;, m must be in the neuter gender. But Mallinttha hunself justifies the forms by quoting a paribhasa. ^^: f^ It (83) | means that sometimes 'words formed by fti as quoted in the Durghatavftti Jj

affixing a *gr*J5lflf termination do -not follow the gender and number of their original bases. Jayarnarigala also justifies the masculine gender in -the same way.

In justifying the following usage of Ehatti-Saranadeva tries in vain to reconcile grammar with worldly usage. According to the implication of the sutra, '9|grelsqeri^ (2.3.19), Laksmaipa, though elder will be considered the . grammatically 3WjR in following verse of Bhatti :

(1.14) |

Saranadeva justifies it by quoting the principle that 'q**r Wfcr SFfiWUKl sireiHJ m cwtan I' In his support, he cites the opinion of *fiftqfe fRI Jayamartgala,...'?!^. m*$ sqsigW^ freq nmi^q?^ sjzra^ar These j remarks also are not found in the Jayarnangala commen- tary. Mallinatha however takes a practical stand. He remarks that this subordination of Laksmana is only verbal, the usage only emphasizes the fact that mER of two brothers was SRfMf and that in order to avoid to use g^ffff , Bhatyi had ^qofa g|. The remarks of Bharatamallika are in this context. He that '^ noteworthy explains 5 follfafflhra; *fI^ g?ftqr ^T|W^sf^ S^qni^if s^gf^j^ because the process of delivery was not with the birth of as complete Laksmana, Satrujfla was yet to be born. Therefore is mentioned in the accusative Satrujfta case (fsWr^l^fsirrr He also adds that the of *flfaiO. J?ITR ^15^ does not in anyway come in the \vay of Lak?mana's prominence.

Saranadeva has noted that Bhattis ^cf^ql^ (3. fl) is not correct. to According wR qilft^g^JU (3.4.46), aq^^ should be employed after Saranadeva ^q>q.. justifiies by remarking that the word 3)g here denotes proximity (^I^f} as in sigqeeq^r In (2.1.15). another place (6.26) Bhatyi has given the usage ?^^TRg6}^ also.

alone From the discussion, we know it for certain that Bhatti was famous among the grammarians and many of the prominent grammarians took interest in special justifying the forms used by Bhatti. It also becomes obvious that Sarandeva is the most prominent among these grammarians. Saranadeva's Durghakvrtti can be relied upon as an important commentary on the Astadhysyi, only next to Kasika. There- value his is fore the of justification enhanced for the textual reconstru- of the grammatical forms in. 56 Ntlanjana S. Shah

Foot-Notes

1. Durghatavrtti, (Ed. Ganapt, sastri), Trivandvam, 1940, La Durghat- vrtti de Sarandeva (ed. Renou, Loais), vol. I Paris, 1940. 2. The number of paribte&is given in the brockets are given ace a to the

Paribhirgendu Sekhar (Edited by K. V. Abyankar, Poona 1969). 3. Sarasvatikanttiabharaiia (Calcutta, 5. g. f^^y) I 123. 4. qft^mmJIf (Published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,

Poona, 19f>7), p. 259.

5. Paribhasasamgraha, p. 271.

6. . Midlnviya DTUvrtti (Varanasi, 1964), p. 318. KASIRAJA' OF BHASA AN APPRAISAL 1

Sudarshan Kumar Sharma'1

" "3 '* the two of Pmtijttayaugandharayana and 'Avimamk plays ' ' as to Bhasa illustrate a term KaSiraja which deserves a thorough probe this term. what King in the annals of ancient times is represented by t! of Kail ". Tn Taken literally it means- The King Pratijaaraugandharayaya that a (PRY) the term has been employed to indicate the point Kas"ir3ja's of Upadhaya Jaivanti had been received by Mahasena the King Ujjayinl for the hand of as a Courier meant to intercede on behalf of KasSiraja whose hand suitors from Vasavadatta the only daughter of Mahasena for Surasena had also sent Magadha, Vanga or Anga, SaurSstra, Mithila and bestow Vasavadatta unto their Couriers. Inwardly Mahasena wanted to was in all Udayana who had sent no courier. Vatsaraja Udayana proba- for the Kalatra stationed in Venuvcma before bility having a fascination name in all was F/rac/M7 starting for the Nagavana, whose probability to force The ruse of the Shamtusker had been devised entangle per The ruse could bear fruit or Udayana, for the espousal of Vasavadatta. statesman was at the back Tail since Yaugandharayana, the astute always for the security of his interests., and call 'of Udayana to render service

"Raja-atha Kimuparato Yaugandharayanah ? KaflcukTyah-Na na khalu. Kau^ambyarri Kila. Rsja-Yadyevatp grlnto Vatsarajah-obviously proves this point.

'' however had been treated exceptionally Kasirsjopadhyayo Jalvantih", he had ordered an ovation for him having by Mahasena in so far as ovation in case of ottur couriers. Mahasena kept in abeyance the special in line with other couriers in so far however, spared not even Jaivanti]? the of any amongst them nor dis- as he did neither approve of embassy and cold felt rueful for the curt behaviour anprove of it. Rather he one who had been mentally preconceived shoulder' offerred unto him by son Vasavadatta, i.e. Vatsaraja Udayana of as the suitable suitor for the over -lord of and a daughter's son of Sahasranika

" been to all the other ' Jaivantih had preferred Kas-irajopadhya-va of had been given an oia'tim exceptional suitors' couriers and hence 58 Stidarshan Kumar Sham

but norm Vatsaraja having been caught alive by Salarikayami Mahssena directed his whole hearted attention unto the rescue operation of his into life got jeopardy through injuries in war and, therefore, disowned him also. and Disgruntled disgusted he must have gone home to die of utter dismay KaSiraja. Vasavadatta having been handed over to Uda- stationed with her in yana along prison in Ujjayini, Yaugandharayana managed through his skill of espionage to take away Udayana along with Vasantaka and Vssavadatts on the Cow-elephant Bhadravati the female vehicle of Vasavadatta the anagnisaksika marital tie having been solemnised a of through painting Udayana and Vasavadatta later on sent as. a memoir to on the Udayana proclaimed supposed .death of Vasava- datts devised as a ruse to secure the military alliance of DarSaka the Magjdharija whose sister PudmavaH also was made the second spouse of the astute Udayana by Yaugandharayana (Act VI of SVDj.

This act of Mahssena has been summarised by Blmvabhiiti in his Milattmsdhava (Act- II) in the speech of Kamandaki. Illustrating the voluntary choice of as her Dusyanta husband by Sakuntala and of Puru Urtatt raysh by Bhavabhuti illustrates the that point Vasavadatts originally having been stipulated as the would-be spouse of Sahjaya, the king (Safljayaya rajfie) by her father, made herself over to Udayana. This obvously affords a clue to the < ' critic that Sanjoya the King for whom courier - been exceptionally ^^ f tat not given a final and favourable consent in preference to the KitlSS f M adha ^ - A^a or Va Sena rig a, SaurLra,

" As-matsambaddho msgadhah 6qUiVOCal duet r the Critic to construe o- as the King of Magadha.

establishkinship with them, whereupor! Ma ! te r^i? ?** the ^denouncing claim of any one ' ^ amongst those n f " had .bwn. endowed W ito Pollution ^ "" by dint of the , Lo (i.e. Siva) simply because * San]aya the son of th ^fA ' makasf was one who ejaculated blood and was addicted tot dri t urnik.ng; Jayar^ms th? * Sudarshan Kumar Shama

wife of KaflrSja along with her son for the Jayavarma espousal of the same princesses Katimja himself being busy at some religious ceremony had not come personally. Tiie two of speeches Narada solve the riddle involved in the conflict arising out of the dual claim of Visnusena and Jayavarma over Kurahgi a situation prone to end the matter in a tragedy at least for one of them.'* ' KathamidBm* Jyestha-patni Kamyase dlyate. Sudarianc ! abhidhyatt* KKirflfiya - Jayavarmanah Kurato Vayasadhiketi. Nanvasti Kuraflgyah Kaniyasi Sumitra nama. Sajayavarm- avobharys bhavisyati" illustrates the point that Jayavarma being younger m age to Kurahsi was married to Sumitra the younger sister of Kura&a whose secret courtship with Vmusena guised as Avimam,

tamasraake^varasutasya suni^cito pi; datam punah prabalahardataya nivrtya- dasyami Yadyamimatain bhagavanpradadyaf

; tatreti ^mbhuniabhi-radhayituni pravrttah.'"' make it evident that after bavins sipstimilat^ iJ u x of

But Bhasa in his PRY has and in A,imKaka he *e " '"= had mo sons Vi w Se na an(1 go. >, Jayavinffl in 5" This presupposes a of gap as/,, ee , to

in t ' ' 59 KaSiaaja of BhdsaAn Appraisal king of -Madhura was a dunce; Visnusena the lord of Kafi .was addicted to chase and gambling; Darfaka the King of Magadha was cruel, Jayflrafta of the king of the Angas was ugly; Satamanyu the over-lord Mcttsyas was 1 . of was tiraorous.Vi r , full of spite, while Subandhu the king Sindhu

" ' of Herein Sanjaya has been illustrated as the son the Lord .of Jayavarma as the Lord of Madhura and .Visnusena as Kali; Dardaka as the King of Magadha; a point that sets at thought the illu- stration of Bhasa/Bhavabhuti that Kssiraja could .be identified, as Sanjaya. Dar&ka has been illustrated as the King of Magadha by Bhasa 'in his as the SVD 1 ^ while Visnusena and Jayavarma have been illustrated Uyo

13 table , Dr. sons of Kasiraja in Avimaraka . The geneological given by

A. D. Pusalkar is self-evident :

Duryodhana

Jayavarma (S) Sucetana (D)

Kurangi (D) Sumitra (D) (M. Sauviraraja). Brother of | Kunti.bhoja's | (Married to (Married to Queen '

alias . Avimaraka Jayavarma) | _ Vis^u.sena.) (Visnusena Alias)

Kuntibhoja the King of Vflirantyanaxara, son of Duryadliana had Sauvira- husbands raja and Kasiraja as the two sisters' (Bhagini pati). KaSimaja was the sister in-law's husband of Sauviraraja and Sauviraraja also a sister in law's husband of KaSirSja. Sauviraraja being issueless from Sucetana Kasiraja b:ing a father of two soi\s Visnussna and Jayavarma from SudarSana the ekbr sister of Sucetana 'Visinissna alias Avimaraka through the curse of a sage -was made over to Sucetana as an adopted child immediately after 'birth. Tha courier of S-juvirjraja having been withheld due to loss of Visnusena the courier of KaSiraja for the sake ot'Jayavarmn was given the requisite preference* *, Sauviraraja had also ;beeii, .put off under a pretext that ths girl was too Under to be fit for his -spa. KuraiVgj was, thersfo'e, betrothed to Jayavarma officially. The .speech of dhStri the at the inception of Act VI reveals sams point in a different vpin,. Tjt refers to an u nasal turn of events in so far as the Princess Kurangi daughter of Kuntibhoja had been bestowed onto Visnusena the adopted

child of 'S-iu.Jiraraja. Si'multanaously minister Bhutlka had brought * R&iir&ja' of Bhasa c>n Appraisal 61

Of PRY and Avimaraka. The author of Vvd, refers to Safljaya as the son of Asmaka lord. He refers to Jayavanna as the King of Madhura and Visiomsena as the King of Kas"i; and DarsSaka as the Magadharaja as such referred to as well in SVD when Udayana married Padmavati. This also presupposes a gap of a couple of years or more between the comp- osition of and PRY SVD. SVD and Vvd. may have had a gap of ten to- fifteen when years Magadha-ruja DarSuka was quite young and Udayana married Padraavati and continued to Jive a long life even after Kasirsja had handed over his Kingdom to Visnussna and offerred the Vassaldom of Madhura to Jayavanna. The theme of PRY" and VVD. can never presuppose the contemporaneity of the authors of PRY, SVD and Vvd. ' ' ' ' Hence Kasiraja of Bhasa could be Safijaya of Bhavabhuti and not that of vvd.

"Alamkrthamiti Yojanapeksa\a Karma^i sasthl, Yatha Svapnavasavadatta-khye natalce : Svaftcitapaksma kapaJam nayanadvaram svarupatadena Udghstyasa pravista hrdayagrham me nrpatanujs "t

" is an illustration of " Svapnavasavadattam nakka by Abhinavagupta's Locana Commentary on the Dhvanyaloka of Aiiandavardhana. T. Gaua-

' patUastrl comments on it as under And the stanza Svaficitapaksma- " ' ' Kapatam expressly mentioned in his Dhvanyslocana as taKen from Svapnavasavadattam and not found in the published drama (Trivandrum play) must have been taken from the other drama of the same name mentioned by Sarvananda in his Commentary AmavatlkSsarvasva.

The story of that other Svapnavasavadattam must have been thi. viz. that Vasavadatta having once seen Udayana in a dream fell in love with him and informing him of the same, married him, though she had been promised by her father to Safljaya because here the stanza

" " Svancitapaksmakapntarri etc. could not have been used to describe the first springs of love of ihe hero towards Vasavadatta and also there will be special appropriateness in the name of the drama of which the main theme is the dream which Vasavadatta has of Udayana and which results in their marriage ". Following on T. Ganapatisastrl also quotes the version of Bhavabhuti is Malatimadhava already illustrated above 20 and on the that agrees point Svapnavasavadattam referred to by Abhina- vagtipta and Sarvananda was that of Trivandrum Series in so far as the of been referred story Udayana lias to by Bhavabhuti, a great and responsible poet. 62 Sudarskan Kumar Sharina

' ' The verse Svaflcitapaksma-Kapatam might have had a place in the Vth Act of present play and might have got lost through Scribal omission. In order to arrive at a correct identification of KaSiraja contemporary Prince of Udayana a Co-Suitor for the hand of VasavadattS preferred by Mahssena in the event of failure of Salarikoyana to capture alive Vatsaraja Udayana (PRY) ;md one married to Sudarfans daughter of Valrantyaraja Duryodhana sister of Kuntibhoja having a sister- in law's husband in Sauviraraja adopting his son Visnusena alias Avimaraka and father of Jayavarnia Visnusena married to Kurafigl and Jayavanna. to Sumitra we shall have to a tup number of sources critically examining the of history Kdsi and its Kings in various epochs preceding the Christian era and particularly the pre-Bu.ddha and post-Buddha eras.

to R. B ' ' According Pandeya, Kas"i finds a significant place as a political division in Northern India shortly before the times of the Buddha. It was an independent kingdom before the rise of Buddhism and as such it finds mention in no less than four places in the Anguttaranikaya in the list of the Soda&i Mahajanapadas, i e. the Sixtieen great countries. The fact that KaSi and KoSala are frequently mentioned in the Jatakas, " " in the Pacciipannamlti only and not in the stories, draws our attention towards the of its study political history and the dynasties that ruled and governed over its destiny. In the Sixth Century B C. Indian territories were split up into numerous independent but tiny states, which, according to the Puranas were ruled the by kings of different dynasties such as Aiksavakas or of kings Kos'ala, Pancalas, 'fSSeyas,- Astnakas, Kurus, Maitmlas and so forth. the However, most important of these dynasties was that of the Brahmadatta at reigning Vgr^asl and ruling at KaSirattha The ruling of Kaii also family seems to have been called Brahmadatta after this king. Thus, in the Jatakas every prince who was heir-apparent to the throne of Varanasi was styled Brahmadatta Kumara. The Matsya fvw" also refers to a dynasty consisting of one hundred Brahmadatta The Jatakas** which are the main source of information, regarding the of this history Kingdom mention no less than Six Kings of Varanasi W ''" are : ^ ") Uggaseona (2, 3 Maha/ilavan ,r Dhanafljaya ( (4) Samyanm (5) Vissasena and (6; Udayabhadda. .

In the Pura^as Brahmadatta is represented to have been followed m success by Yogaaena, Viivakasena, Udaka-Sena and bhallata , R.B... Pa^deyaaya quotngquoting fromrom CarfatnduCa Jataka Dtp 1 ' } (l eferring >^Sn Daumukha -, SSmS^kfJatafea, GangamalaG"^ 'fJataka, Sambula Jataka, Uddalaka Mahaummagga Ja taka, Utumdhyayana Sfltra and S^apna^t ' ' Kafirffja of Jihusa An Appraisal 33

(Act-V); Riimsyassa (I. 32), Mahavagga, Vinaya-Ptfaka, pharnma-Padattr- kuiala hakatba, Jataka, Suttanipsta Commentary etc. makes it pertinent that a Brahmadatta as title of the King of KaM has also been a title of the Kings of Magadha and that of Videha. Quoting from Kunala Jataka he that Brahmadatta says king of Kasi owing to his having an army, seized the of country KosSala, slew its king and carried off 'his chief queen to Bcnaras there and made her his consort. 2 o Dr. R.S. 2 Dr. Tripaihi , H. C Raychaudhari^, Pandtta Mohan Lai 8 Mehto Dr. 2 > ViyagP , Vis'uddhmianda Palhaka deserve to be quoted here in explaining the points that AjataMru after having starved to death annexed the Bimbisora, kingdom of Kali unto the kingdom of Kofala. Commenting upon the position of Kafi Dr. V. S. Pathaka 2 remarks- 'Kati formed an integral part of Kosala in the days of MahnkoSala the father of Prasenajita in the middle of the sixth century B.C. The Haritaniala and the Vaddhakisukara Jataka state that when he married his daughter Mahakofala to Bimbisara, the Magadhan King,' one of the villages of KaH yielding a revenue of a hundred thousand was to that as Pin given lady money. Prasenajita was able to retain KM in his imperial hegsraony. The lohiccha Stitta of the Digha Niksya already speaks of his over K&i mastery just in the same way as he was master of Kosala. The administration of Ka,si was carried on by one of his uterine brother who was as ' styled KaSiraja '. Later, however, like Kotola itself (when it Kasi was declined) amalgamated by the new growing impe- rial power of Magadha. This must have happened after the strong personalities of Vidudabha Prasenajita passed away and their weak succe- ssions had failed to retain the and glory greatness of their past. It obviously makes it clear that Prasenajita the sovereign "lord of Koiala had his uterine brother styled as Xntlraja-he himself being styled as the lord of Kfitt-KoSala confederation. Kafir aja the Uterine brother of Praienajita enjoyed an autonomous status. 3 Dialating upon the topic of relations Dr. Pathaka has Ko&ila-Magadha alluded to the tale of Prase- najita vanquishing and putting in bondage Ajataatm but reconciling immediately to marry his daughter vajtrs to him with a pin money in the form of Kasi Village, but has refuted the statement of H. C, Ray Chaudhari as under :

Jt is difficult to believe, it may be noted here, with H. C Ray Chau'ihati that Aj&la&itru was able to annex Ka-H either fully or even a part of it. What he achieved were the proceeds of the village referred to above. As as long Prasenajita was alive, AJatafatru was certainly not able to incorporate K&M In Magadha. 3 1 " end was prasenajita's tragic. His own son Vithulabha revolted against (54 Sudarshan Kumar Shartna

the throne of Ko&tla. of him and usurped AjstaSatru thinking attacking Vidudffbha was prevented by his ministers from doing so. "32.

The entire dissertation of Dr. Pathalca makes it apparent that " " the Uterine Ajataktru was not the Kasiraja and brother of Prasenajita ' ' was the K^iraja proper holding autonomy in his domains. Bhasa in his SVD has referred to Brahmadatta connected with the nagara named Kampilya identical with modern Kampil on the old Ganges between Budaon and Farrukhabad. N. L. Dcy has identified it as a town at a .distance of 28 miles North-East of Fatligad in the district of Farrukhabad (UP). It is only flyj miles distant from the railway station of Karimganj 33 (B. B, C. I Railway). It obviously denotes a legion contiguous to Kagi at least not far away from it (Kasl being situated on the left bank of Ganges or on the north bink of Ganges 80 miles below (Allahabad). 3 * Brnkmadiitta of Kampilya was most probably the Brahmadatta of Katfi

whose name proper could.be Safijaya of Malatimadhava of Dhavabhuti and not the A&makss varasunuh of VVD. Kasiraja alluded to in PRY aspiring the hand of Vasavadatta disowned owing to the success of the .ruse of the tusker enticing alive Udayana, was certainly the Kasiraja of AvimSraka married subsequently to Sudarsana" mother of Vis^usena (Avimaraka) and Jayavarma, sister of Sucetana, wife of Sauvlraraja and a sister of Kuntibhoja, king of Vairaniya, a son of Duryodhana, Kunti- bhoja's two daughters were married to Avimaraka and Jayavarma. .Avimaraka was the real son of Sudars"ana and KaSiraja, but Safijaya was given to Sucetana on the death of her own newly born child. He was, therefore, the adopted son of Sauviraja and hence was the Sauvlraraja in the making, Jayavarma was the heir-apparent to the throne of Kaslraja and has been .styled KSsiraja by Bhasa in Avimaraka. In PRY Bhasa. has ' ' referred to Kadiraja as the special guest of honour for Mahasena for whose Vasavadatta the daughter kings of Magadha, Ariga or Variga, Mithila, Surasena, Surg^ra had also sent their couriers. Udayana's courier did not come. was Udayana Vatsaraja having Kau^smbi for his capital (30 miles from Allahabad as Hence Kosam). Bhasa has distinctly mentioned the of kings Magadha, Aiiga or Vaiiga, SaurSstra, .Surasena, Mithila along with Ks^iraja as autonomous suzerains in their respective domains. In SVD he has referred to ' ' : Dar^aka.as Magadha raja whose Strong military alliance was essential to create a Schism in the Saihgha of Arunt who had the usurped regions of Vatsa Janapada. Bimbisara held *e honorific title of ' "as Sretiika, Ajata&Uru as that of Kunika and '

Vidudabha son of ' Bimbisara bore the notorious, title of " Arui daruna Karmadakia (SVD Act V-I3) we can easily presume KMraja Safijaya as a contemporary of Udayana, Mahasena, Gopalaka, Palaka, Pauranic ' ' - 65 KMiraja of Bhasa An Appraisal

a total of 138 years to^e List of Pre-Mauryan dynasties assigns period

Pradyota Palaka Aryaka

Avantivardhana ; ViSakhayupa. 527-503 B.C. as the reiga period to Dr. P. L. Bhargava" assigns ' and a of ' Darfeka on the evidence of the PurHnas Chronological epoch Palaka the second son of Prad- 560 BC to 513 to Pradyota and Palaka. II. was assassinated by Aryaka son of GopSlaka yota Maha-sena (PRY 13) with with the elder son of Mahasena, done away by Pslaka, Aryaka put the of Mrcchakatika of Sudraka (Act IV). into prison as evidenced by plot on and Avantivardhana might have wreaked his vengeance Arjaka means that succeeded to the throne of Ujjayini. It obviously Pradyota seven had the 'KaSiraja' Udayana Palaka-period of forty years 'Safijaya' living in the period as the uterine brother of Koialaraja Prasenajita B.C. 560 to 513. Bhasa referring to 'KNirsja* as a ranging between two sons Visniisena and Jayavarma Prince in PRY and as a King having to woo the hands of Kurarigi and SumitrS presupposes grown up enough to two in the preparation of AvimSraka a gap of eighteen twenty years refers to DarSaka as the 'Magadharaja' and far away from PRY. Vvd. Madhurah most the Visnusena as Kasipati and Jayavarma as probably from this that the author of Vvd. was King of Surasena. It implies and Avimaraka and hence to Bhasa, norterior to PRY and SVD Katfiraja was Safijaya of Malatimadhava. Dr. Nlti referred to by Bhasa certainly s the "The digvijaya of Udayana"* illustrate Adaval's comments on topic of the conflict of Udayana with the King of some critical examination has identified with Partcsla Arimi of the KaSi whom the learned Critic the 39 Adaval has fully taken into account variety of marital plays. Dr. after the forced marriage of Vasavadatts with him ties of Udayana the Shamtusker. His revival of his relations with through the ruse of 1 his with Bandhumati* alias Maiijulika through Viracika(ta)* , marriage his romance with Rajanika** (a controversial the help of Gopalaka; the Sens** (the princess of Taksa^ils) of all these figure) and Kalinga and Padmavati*s (PRY and were marital ties with VssavadattE** SVD) seeking the alliance of Mahasena mainly meant for political solidarity Dar^aka. These two alliances catered to of Ujjayini and the Magadharaja the of Videha for a He allotted Gopalaka territory his desire 'digvijaya'. " and to Simhavarman .that of CEDl "-designating (KSS), Vidi&t (BKM)

Sambpdhi XIII 9 rtrt Sudarshan Kumar Sharttia then as baiadhikas.*" In*'KSS.m 5.54-118 Udayana is described as marching against "Brahmadatta" the king of Vsr3nasi48 who was his p:rraanent foe (nityarh vain). An obvious conclusion can be derived from this version of Somadeva (Gunadhya) that "Brahmadatta" of Varsnasi, i.e., the Kasiraja (most probably Safljaya) was pretty hostile to Udayana preferably due to the reason that he had been put to insult for the sake of Udayana by Mahasena (Pradyota) who first having entertained and honoured Jaivanti the Upadhyaya came as his courier in preference to. other couriers of Magadharaja, Vangaraja or ArigarSja, Saurastraraja and -had married Surasenar.Tja VasavadaUa: to Udayana caught alive the ruse of Shamtusker through by Salariikayana. 'After : consolidating his two marital ties with the position by Kings of UjjayinV ari'd Magadha

it was for him to curb down the : ' imperative pugnacity of'KaSiraja who could ' Brahmadatta hardly be Znmi the darunakarmadaksa of Bhasa Vth in so far as he (SVD Act) had already been subjugated with the of help Magadharaja during the course of his marriage with Padma- va.il. Dr. Nlti Adaval has miscontrued him as 'Aruni' the Psficala King simply on the basis of the evidence of Vvd. even misconstrued by her; because 'Vatsarsjabhayannanu paficalo'smananuvartate"*^ and "Arunira- 3makarn Katekausadhyah tasmat svarajya pradanadeva Satkrto bhavisyati'-s" clearly "Psflcala" prove King and 'Aruni' as the two distinct of personages. Neither the two could be as the 'Kasiraja' author of Vvd . has named him as "Visnusena" who was the certainly eldest son of Kasirsja (Avimaraka of Bhasa), handed 5 Udayana over "Videhas to Gopalaka and "Cedi" to Simha-Varman. Gopalaka was the eldest son of Pradyota Mabassna (PRY n. ] 3 But ). Sirpha-Varman as the brother of Padmavatl is not proved SVD by wherein Dadaka the King of Magadha was the real elder brother of Padmavatl. Simha-Varman could, however, be a younger brother of PadmavaU always conspiring against the of suzerainty his eldest brother Darfeka He could be subdued by Udayana through a gratification.

Moveover, as evidenced by Avimaraka Ka^irsja even after having been deprived of the hand of VasayadatlH went on to live a longer span of life havmg married Sudarfanfi rod getting two sons Visnusena and Jayavarma- married at a matured age to Kurangl and SumitrV. He never was crushed by Udayana with the of help Magadharaja as was done l SVD), Hence the idea of Dr. Adav.l An,j construing 'Aruni' S ' Brahmaclatta 'h-c dangerous neighbour of - MI ?fc rf through for want of B C p lp.M,- vld MW , Aruni was certainly ' ' Katiirilja of BhdsaAn Appraisal 67 son of Prasenajita Kodala after \\hose discomfiture Ks&raja Eral.niedaUa alias Safljaya the uterine brother of Prasenajita continued to feign 'with Kingdom handed over to Visnusena alias Avimaraka whose identify had been proved as the elder brother of Jayaratna referred to as Kaiipati in Vvd. Bhavabhuli in his Mahuimadhava could hardly err in case of naming

Safljaya as such when he had not erred in naming Dusyanta and Pururava. The author of Vvd. has mixed up facts with fiction perhaps through his confusion caused to him by the variety of sources available to him or perhaps he meant to create a now history with a view to vying with Bhijsa 1 and the author of BrMtkathS. Hence 'Kasiraja bearing the generic term 'Brahmadatta' bore the name proper &i"Siiflj(iyn" whose couri:r Jaivanti had been received by Pradyota Mahiiscua a s ike second preference- for

the hand of Vssavadatta. The six, kings of Varaiuuil besides Brahmadatta listed by Jatakas (illustrated by R. B. Pandcya above) as

Uggasena, Dhanaftjaya, MahaSllava Sarnyama, Vissasena and Udaya- bhadra.

may even be construed to have referred to ''Scimyania"' as -a corruption 1" of "Suiijaya" and "Vissascna as that of Visnmcna (Avi raraka) followed " " can by Udayabhadru. Pali Samyama preceded by Dhanafijaya be a misreading of the Palaeography of 'Safljaya" (as in most of the Buddhist texts Pali word have been variant ly transcribed in Sanskrit due to the controversial Character of the Brshmicharacters on the material on which assuming cursive or monumental forms based hand -made or stones they stood inscribed the Palm leaf, buch bark, papers or Iron Pillars or even copper plates.

Footnotes

of Ihe All India Ori ntal Conference, 1. Paper read at the 30th. Session c SsiHimkctun, October, 1980. Bhatinda 2. Lecturer, Senior Scale in Sanskrit, Govt. Rajiiidra College, (Pd)- 151001.

by Oriental .;Book 3. Bhssanatokttcakram : C, R. Dcvdhar, published 73, Act-Il. Agency, 15, Shukrawar, Poona-2, 1962, p. 184 187. 4. Ibid., pp. 115, 116, 127, 135, 158,173, 183, prlfptah, Asya 5. Esa Kltiirajuopadhysya aryajaivantiradya dautycna sukhamiva nive^yatam. Yatha Sstmanya data Satkararn prfithauih Krtva hi. blioli ! evani nffma- Catithisatksrarp Janiyiit taiha prayalct wya^i prati hanyahani gotranukfllcbhyo rajakulebhyah Kanya pradanam Kam-cidapi pvatncaste duta-Sampre^ana vartiatc na khalu mahsscn.ab 6$ Sudarslian Kumar Shatrtd

khalvidam athava na capyanugrhnite. Kinnu daivamatra Kanya na tavat pradane'dhi-Krtam Kutah. Vyaktam sanuipaitiasya; duto

vadhutve viliito hi yasya. tato narendresu gunan narendrona vetti 73 Janannapi tat-pratlksah. Ibid., p. and Verse 1 along with Asmat-sambaddho Magadhah Kaftrajo Varigah SainSsfro; Maithilah ete nanarthair Surasenah; lobhayante gunairmara; Kaste vaitesam patratain yati raja; Ibid., p. 77, Verse 8.

6. bsluksctirlliena nadim narmadani tirttva venuvane Kalatramavasva Chattramatra-paricchadena gajayuhavi marda yogyena balena msrga. madunya vithya nsgavanarp prayato bhartta, Ibid., p. 61, Act-1

7. Ibid., SVD Act (Svapnavssavadattam), V, p. 42, Raja-Kiip Viraciksm

Smarasi ? ! Vssavadatts-apehi kimihapi viracika. .

8. Ibid., PRY, p. 78.

9. Kaftcukiyah-Vatsarsjah Raja-Kini-Vatsarsjah ? Ksflcuklyah-tatrabhavatamstyeiia telankayanena grhito Vatsarajah. Raja-Udayanah Kailcukiyah atha kirn. Raja-Satanlkasya putrah. Kancuklyah-Drdharri. Raja-Sahasranikasya naptn. Kaflcukljah. Sa eve.

te. Ibid., p. 77.

10. Kamandaki. ayi wrale I Kimatra mays bhagavatys sakyarp. Prabhavati prayahKumarinamjanayitadaivarpva-, yacca Kila Kauliki &-kuntals dusyantamapsara Urva^i Pururavasam. Cakama, ityakhyanavida Scaksate.. Yasamlatta ca Safijayaya Rajte pitra dattamstmanamudav .ansyaprayacchaditysditadapi .SShasabhBsamityanupad'ejtavya evayam arthah. Malatimadhava of Bhavabhuti, M. R. Kale, p. 57 ' Messrs MnH Lai Otl Banarasi Dass, Delhi- 11 0007, 1967.

11. ! Raja-Sakhe Bharatarohaka ! Ye' Sambhil, Sambandhukamah*.'*vunuKo nu Khalu tesu sarvargunairyuktah. Bharatarahakah-dusita iva te sarve bhagavata fiarvena. Raja-Kathamiva.

Btorataroheka-ai.MakM5jaSun l,h. Sadjayo rt,dhi,od63 ,l

Krurah rtirocn^ r ' ' "RtiSiraja of Bhasa -An Appraisal 6$

12. Bhrtyarmayadharajnsya Shigdhaih Kanyamigamibhih; dhrstamutsaryate Sarvastapovanagatojanah. B.NC. PI. Act-I, Verse 2, along with Esa gurubhi-rabhihitansm-adhe yasyasmskam Maharsjadar&ikasya bhagini Padmavatinama, Ibid., p. 3 and Ucitarn tatrabhavato magadharajasys parahnakale

Bhavantamagratah Krtva Suhrjjanadar^-anam, Ibid., p. 34, Act IV.

13. BhasaA study, p. 377 cff-2, Published by Munshi Ram Maiiohar Lai, P.B. 1165, Nai Sarak, Del hi -6, 1968 January, Second revised edition. BNC. (Avimsraka), pp. 115-116.

Kaufljayanah-Svamiu bahusvapi Ksatriyesu purvasambandhavisesau Sauvirarajakasirajau Svamino bhagini patitve tulyau asmatsambandha- yogyauiti Svainina cintitau tatra purvameva Sauvirarajena putrasya Karanad dutah presitali. Sa casmabhiratibala Kanyety spadesamuktva Supujito Visarajitah. IdaMm. tu K^irajena putrasya Karanaddutah presitah. tatra balabala-Cintayam Svami Pramanam. Along with Bhutikah-Idanim tu uapratyakhyatavyam. Svainin ! Sauvlraraja Kasirajau Svamino bhagini-patitve tulyau. Atha devyah bh"a eti Sauvirendro gunsdhikah, Ibid., p. 116. And. Dhatri-diftyaryena paripalitoyam Janahalamali-prasengena. adyaiva pravesfavyam Kanyapuram amatyah arya bhutikahkanyspuraraksakah Kksirajad-

utena Sahasraakam Maharajena pujiteh Prasthi tafea, Ibid., II, p. 12.7. Magadhika-Asti Kasiraja putro Jayavarma name, tasmai datta caduta bhartrdarika, tasya agato. Maharajena pujitalj pratigrhitam ca Varnikaram, Ibid., Act-Ill, p. 35. AND

Naradah Pita Kurartgyah bhupalo vairantya-nagraresvarah duryodhanasya tanayah Kuntibhojo bhavannanu. Ibid. VI Vers

13, p. 182.

14. Vidusakah-Aho ! tatrabhavatah Sugrhitaiiamadheyasya sauviraraja- syadlianyatd, yatha clramaputro bhutvatmano niyama vi^esena ca mausaloka durlabham Daivaprasadena Suputram labdhva pxinarapi eva Saipvrttah, Ibid. IV, p. 158.

15. Dhatrl Aho ! anavastha Krtaiitasya yad Rajadarika prathamam

Maharajena Sauvirarajena tarn, Visnusena-nuiddiiSya Vrta. Adyavidita- Sambhavena manusalokadurlabha-Krtigunavisese^a Kengpi sanyogo Atha cedantm jatah. Ka^irajaputro Jayavarma ngma bhattinya 70 Stidarshmi Kumar Sharmd

Sudar&maya Sahamatyena bhutikenmntah. Samprati Rajakulam pravistah. Svayam Kila Kasirajo yajflavyaparena nsgatah. Kinnu

khalvetatbhavisyati...Ibid , p. 173.

16. Naradah-Tavayam putro'gaerutpannah. Tvadbhaginyah Sucetanayah praseva-samakala eva tatsutah Svargatn gatah. Tavayam Putrastva- dbhog-inyai tvaya daltah. Sauvira-rajas'cssavatyanta Santustah prlti- Sadrs'lh Kriysh krtva Visnusena iti Samjiiainakarot. Amsnusasvarupa* balavirya parakramensnena Vardhamanena Yasmadavirupadhari marito'surah. tasmadavi-inaraka itt-Visiiuisenarn loko bniviti-tatah so'pi brahmai&pa-paribhras-fo-hasti Sambhramadivase Kurahglm clrsh'a Samutpaunabhilasah par en a paurusena saflgamya Kurarigya darsanasarikitaih Kanya puraraksibhih Panksyamgno'gnin abhogavl a- Pracchadito nirgatah, Ibid. VI, pp. 183-184.

17. Ks^iraja and Sauviraraja being the two sisters' husbands of Kuuti- bhoja, Kurarigl and Sumitra became the maternal cousins of the two.

Both therefore, were married to their father's sister's .sons an unusual law not so well spoken of in the Hindu Code of law. To Dr, A. quote D, Pusalkar here -"The marriage of Avimaraka is to us important from the fact of its disregarding the rule of or Sapipda exogamy Coasanguinity. In the Vedic times and . the Buddhist as we have age already seen marriages with cognalic relations to the third degree were recognised. We have also seen that the Dharma Sutras and the Smrtis fixed the limit, prohibiting marriages with maternal relations to the fifth or seventh degrees and paternal relations for the Sevenths degree. Now in the Avimaraka we find that the Prince is marrying the maternal uncle's daughter who was at the same time his paternal aunt's daughter. Marriage with a mate- rnal uncle's daughter is not uncommon on this side, being recognised by Baudhayana and approved by local custom. Marriage With a paternal Aunt's daughter, however, being rather uncommon and being with the third generation suggests fairly old time before composition of the Smrtis which accords well with the time assigned to these plays. BHASA A STUDY, p 377.

18. P. 2, Verse 4.

9. CP Story of as revealed King Udayana from Sanskrta, Pali and Prakrta sources by Dr. Nlti Adaval, pp. 71-72, Published by Chow- khamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varan as i I, 1970. 8. Dhvanyalokah Srimaeauandavapdhanacarja'yiraoilal) edited by Dr Ramasagcira TripSthi, Second 3-4 Part, Udyotas, Published by Messrs Moti Lai Banarasi r Dass, First edition 1963, p. 819. ' ' KasirHju of Bhasa~~An Appraisal 77

19. Bhasa's 82. plays, p.' Printed by the Shridhar, Power Press Trivan- drum, 1925. as has been the case of "Padakranlani sosma puspaiii cedom Silsttalaip; nunarakacidihaslna mam drslva sahass, gala" in Act V of the Printed SVD (Ubhavupavi&itah), BNC, p. 25. 20. Ibid., p. 83. 21. The Indian Historical Quarterly XXXVIII, No. 4 December 1962 pp. 335-339 A note on the Brahma-dattas of Ka.fl. 22. OP-Cvt AnandaSrama Sanskrt Series, Poona, p. 556, V. 72. 23. Ibid Jataka IV 458. iii , 13, 97 23; I. V. 262.8, 354' 91-' jj 345 19. IV. 104-22 and 25. 24. Vayupuratiam, edited by Manasukharaya Mora, V. dive Road, Calcutta 1, 1959, pp. 507-8, Verses 180-22.

25. IHQ XXXVIII, p. 339. 26. History of Ancient India, 1960 p. 95, edition, published by Messrs Moti Lai Banarasi Dass, Delhi- 11 0007. 27. Political History of Ancient India 1953, of University Calcutta, p. 209. 28. Jataka Kalina Bharaiiya Samskrtih, p. 147, published by Bihar Rastrabhasa Parisad, 1958, cff. 5. Brhadsranyakopanisad, Ajata Satruiqi Kasyarp, II 1-2. 29. of Kofola the rise of History upto his Mauryas 1963, Messrs Moti Lai Banarasi Dass, Delhi-l 10007, pp, 260-261. 30 Ibid., pp. 221-222. 31. IBID., p, 215.

32. Ibid., p. 216, Beni Modhas Barna in his ASoka and his Inscriptions, Part I, Third Ed. 1968, published by New Age Publisher Private Bankim Ltd., 12, Chatterjee Street, Calcutta-12, p. 311 also takes Ajatafatru as KSfiraja. 33. Historical of Geography Ancient India, pp. 56, 107, 108, Dr. D. C. Sircar the Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediaeval India

34. Ibid., GAA I, p. 101. 35. Gadyalintamani of Vadibha-Simha Odayadeva SQri introductory, Verse 11, edited by Pandita Pannalal Jain Sshityacarya, Published by Bharatiya Jfliinapitha Publication, 9, Alipura Pade Place, Calcutta 27, First edition, 1944.

36. Recent Studies in Sanskrit and Inclology being Prof. Jagannatha Felicitation Agravala Volume, p. 167, Names, Order and Chronology of Pre-Mauryan Kings according to Purana by D:. P. L. Bhsrgava r 1982, published by Ajanta Publications, Delhi-) J QQ7. 72 Sudarshan Kumar Shanna

the 37. Ibid., p. 169, CP Malwa through ages by Dr. B. C Jain, pp. 102- Lai KB, 1st Ed. 1972, Messrs Moti Banarasi Dass, Delhi- 1 10007. 38. The Story of King Udayana as gleaned from Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrta sources, 1970, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series edition, Varanasi 1, pp. 190, 193 also pp. 101, 103, 113, 120.

39. Ibid., p. 193.

40. KSS II. Verse 6, 65-66, p. 46, MLBD ed 1970, ed. by J. L. SASTRl and SVD., Act V, p. 42, BNC, DBA, ed. 1962. 41. Ibid., If 6.67-74, p. 46. 42. BKM. II 271-274, pp. 67-68, Published by Mehar Chand Lachhinan Dass, New Delhi-1 10002, 1982. 43. Ibid., VII 165-262 Verses, pp. 172-174.

44. KSS. II, pp. 24-47.

45. Ibid. II, pp. Dr. 48-79, cp SKU., Nlti Adaval, p. 190. 46. SKIT. 190.

47. pp. 72-73. 48. Tasmadyathavatsammanya siddhaye mantrinandalam, Kuru deva digvijayaip labdhumdhermottaramVriyarp. Svatoradvayabandhunarp asaktsnuprasaktitah; Vikurvate aa bahavo rajanaste milanti ca; astyesah brahmadattt khyo Varanasyam mahlpatih;' ' vain nityam sa te tasmsdvijayasva lamagratah;'' tasminjite jaya piaciprakraraenakhilah di^ali; Uccaih Kuru^va vai Pandoryas'gdca kiimudojjvalam; ityukto mantrimukhyena (atheti vijayodyatah;' Vatsarajah prak tisu r praysnarambliamadi^at;' dadau vaiddiake ca lajyaqi gopalakaya suhi' Satoahetornrpatih sva^uryayanugacchate; KLini ca padnmvati-bhratre prayacchaisimha varmane- ' ' Saminsnya cedivi ayam Sainyaih e- :SaDiamupeyU? ' Yaugandliarayana^cagre Cgrai.vsraaas'mprati- prahinodbrahmadattasya rajfio jfiatum vicestitam tadbuddhva dhvastamayuh sainyapQrita dirimukham-" Vatsclvanp-brahmadatto msae durjayanevatair, eti, KSS, III-5, Verses 61 52-58, 5 86, pp. 72-73 49. K. Vvd., V, Sarma, p. 9. 50. Ibid. p. 11. BUDDHISM Vs. MANUSMRTI

Jaya R. Betal & Ramesli S. Betai

It would be precise and just to state that every Indian on the Indian soil has, at his back, a culture and concept of social life that have evolved through a processing of more than almost four thousand years.

Society and its concept are in his blood. In this, the Hindu social life is in brief, Varnasramadharma. It was so in the past and it is more or less so in the present. The oldest Acsrya who redefined, revalued and reinstated the concept of Hindu social life is Manu, in his famous work Manusmrti. For centuries it was conceded that Manu's is the prime and greatest authority as far as i-Iiudu social life and Hindu social philosophy are concerned.

Mfuiusmrli :

The is the Manusmrti main source of D mrma, i.e., social philosophy and law, for all later centuries and also the Sutra, Snn-ti and Nibandha writers thereof. It is placed by Kane between 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. We

can accept this as the safest and most authentic date of the work. It is also to be noted that the Manusmrti belongs to a period of transition when the comparative liberalism of the Vedic period is also slowly giving place to later puritaiiism. The authority of Sastras was to give place to custom later. Manu primarily accepts the authority of the Vcclas, but

also tries to justify ways, modes of his own days, i.e., custom, He also claims that these should have the sanctioning authority of Sruti.

It is that ths Manusmrti codifies interesting Hindu social philosophy a and Hindu law and gives to us compendium that redefines and reval- ues the of old Dh'arma, i.e., social philosophy and places it into n whole as in the seventh sy'stematised just century Sankara found it necessary to reinstate Arya dharma and Darsana against the non-vedic the Tantric and Salcti schools of thought, culls etc., just as Vallabha in very late days tried to make strong the citadel of Hindusim in such a \vay that Hindus did not lose faith in their own religion in view of the of Islam etc. Manu too seems to terrible onslaughts have specific purposes in view when lie writes the Mansmrti and reinstates Dharma, i e. the social an:l law of tae of the philosophy Aryas. One purposes seems .to, garnbodhi XIII JO R. S. Betai 7-/ J. R, Belai &

stand and control the tide of the fast spread of Buddhism. Jayaswal, Radhakrishnan and Mukherjcc refer to Manusmrti being a post-Buddhi- with a view no Buddhism. stic work, and written possibly repudiate the Buddhism threw away more or less the caste-system and established must concede that its attitude of of absolute equality of all. We equality creed, social status and its opposition all irrespective of caste, sex, etc., the is revolutionary. It challenged and set aside against the caste-system conversion to all at in life. It Astama system by permitting any age to women to embrace Sarhnyasa, though with reluc- granted permission their It tance in the beginning and established independent Sanghas. the excessive ritualism of brahmins and- raised, its firm voice against to conscience as an autho- slaimhter of animals in Yajfias. It gave place word of the Ved-.is. This was a veritable challenge rity in place of the or Vedadharma and Hindu to the very existence of Aryadharnm society values. It seems that this the with its deep-rooted traditional inspired Manava school to give this exquisite compendium so that Hindu society out or This is one and its Varna&ama were not wiped up-rooted. again of the main reasons that inspired Mann's revaluation of social philosophy. This seems to be one of the important purposes -of this composition. The following are !he main points of internal evidence, that can go to prove that the purpose mentioned above was in the mind of Manu when he composed this work. It is interesting to note that he took the constructive Dharma firm-rooted and the citadel of Hindu step of making Hindu to attack the society intact and preferred not directly opponents. If Hindus or Aryas become strong and sound in their social, religious, ethical and cultural values, could well stand the philosophical, they very tide "of Buddhism; this seems to be his outlook.

Internal Evidence :

One very important and an unusual feature of the work is that it started with two-fold plilosophy of Origin of Creation and Creation of man and entis in the 12th Adhysya with the Karma doctrine of social 0112 leads this liis activity to stress that who life of Punifdrtha on the lines laid down in the intervening Adhyayas, becomes 'fit to attain to tnoksa (12.107, 126). Social life and social ethics adopted in a very normal and balanced manner, with PurusSrtha can lead man to bliss in- down this and line end. When Manu lays possibility promise, naturally sooth effect on this can have a eniiig man's psychology and personality

"> I renounce arid he "would' not 'hurry up the world. The social order and social fabric will not collapse, as was likely with the freedom of choice Buddhism Vs. Manusmrii .75

renunciation of promised by Buddhism at any age because Manu promise the rise highest spiritual through life. Normally all nun attain to higher pursuits through life.

The (2) worldly life is too much \viili us, and, as far us this life is concerned, naturally man, has certain desire; and expectations. No man is free from this, even the Vedas aa.l Karnuyoja resulted from this

Karma of man What is is (2.2). nicessir/ rcsortug to right and proper desires man a (2.5); might have natural desire for worldly fdmo, h; might desire immortality. Both these are possible on. ths path of social life based on social norms, ethics and values laid down by Manu. When Manu emphasises this reality of life, naturally man will have the right perspective about individual and social life, lie will also have- a correct perspective of renunciation and this can .and will prevent ,nvan from escapism and from fear and disgust of life. Man will b; inspired by "'a spirit of discrimination. Thus, the social fabric and order will remain, unshaken and man will become lit to attain to supreme bliss in due

course of time. ,

in (3) This is again line with Mann's emphasis on the need generally for all men to pass through all the three Asramas before man embraces Samnyasa. If man hurries up to resort to Samnyasa before naturally passing through the first three stages and developing. his mind and -person- ality and also inclinations in such a manner (hat man's Samnyasa conu\s as naturally as his worldly life, there will be perversions that will have adverse effect both on social life and on man's Samnyasa. 'Though Mam: has accepted the possibility of exceptions (5.15 g), this view' applicable to all men, rules out the possibility of immature, hurried Samnyasa for which man might not be fully prepared physically, emotionally, psycho- can the fact that the last fear logically and in all respect. Who deny is when and the consequent perversity possible renunciation,, with all is at the will of the its linn vows, rules and denials., permitted simply individual at any age in life ?

with this in view that Manu lays down that (4) It is again, point is because he maintains of all the Ananias, the householder's supreme,

1 ; the social order with its four AsVamas the other three and in all respect the houshotder, This is in the sixth is dependent upon emphasised and 89 and Adhyaya after the glorification of Vanastha Samnjirsin (6.87, states that there is one ASraina 90). In 6.87 again, Manu actually only therefore further shows that that divides itself into four. He ultirnately of and .here he even; the -householder can rise to the stag; Yati, jives 7(5 J. R. Betai & R. S, Betai

with son option of actual renunciation of the world as also staying and that the Yatis family, though as a real Samnyasi (6,95). This shows of Aryadharma, the Sraniana or Bhikkhu of Buddhism, and the Sadhus and Ganis of Jainism are dependent upon householders for maintenance. This can be construed as an appeal as also as a request to men and women to resort to Saranyiisa with full thought and consideration only after

becoming free from ones debts to the world, i.e., after passing through the first three Asramas and fulfilling ones worldly duly to himself and

to the society, This constructive revaluation of Aryadharma is bound to strengthen Hindu way of life and Hindu social fabric. It is a steady view as compared to the enthusiastic view of Buddhism.

(5) When Manu accepts purity of race, higher and lower culture of men and social stratification, his insistence on concessions to brahmins

in general and to the learned brahmins in particular, also deserves to be

noted. Manu lays down exceptional priviledges for brahmins, firstly because his society was dominated by brahmins. But by laying down these special previledges, it seems that he tries to stem the tide of

brahmins getting converted to Buddhism. We know too well that the best

and foremost of Acaryas and scholars of Buddhism are originally brahmins. Many learned brahmins were attracted to this new faith which they served and defended more jealously than others, nut Manu seems

to have the feeling that if the social status of the brahmin is well guarded, one sound result will be the prevention of brahmins from converted to the other faith. And getting if we were to analyse and lay M down a picture of the ideal brahmin of anu, who can deny the fact ideal brahmin with his that this highest restraints, responsibilities and of with a very plain way life, highest heights of thinking, is more or with the or less on a par Bhikkhu Sramana Brahmana of Buddhism ?

come to (6) We may next the jealous insis'ence of Manu on the status of Vedas or Sruti. very high unique Manu wants to protect, at all this highest that is source costs, Vidya Dharma, of Dharnia, origin of the all later knowledge, very word of god. He also states that the law of is based on the Mann entirely , absolute authority of the Vedas, Manu's defence of the absolute jealous authority of the Vedas is also inspired by several reason;, o.is reason skeins to be to kaep (his authority alive and firm against the tide of Buddhism that now and again directly and indirectly challenged this traditional claim.

(7) The whole sociological analysis of Manu and the riil--s of social Jife, ethics, philosophy, law etc., that he lays down show that Manu is Buddhism Vs. Mamtsimti 77

much very against pessimism and a firm believer in the Purusartha of life. To him, basically man is good and essentially powerful He expects man to stand firm as a rock against the tides and tensions of life, he wants him to be ever alert, alive and kicking so that he makes a full success of his life, constantly sublimates his personality and comes to a stage when he can resort to the path of renunciation and Jitmotthana, To him the world is not "Sarvam Dukkham Duidcham" as Buddhism would lay down. Surely this vision of life would pose a great challenge to the pessimism of Buddhism.

(8) This Puntsartlia of man lies in making his life aciive, balanced., natural and sublimating. Manu expects, for example, man to be a Sadacari in all spheres of life; to behave in the realm of his desires in a rational and right approach. He wants the householder to lead a life of utter satisfaction, to lead a life of hard effort, to worry about social good first and his own good last. In this his approach, he a.oids extremes of renunciation and this worldly life and strikes the middle path. This stands firm against the so called Maclliyxmamarsa of Buddhism.

(9) Mann's great emphasis on the caste system in which he condemns the Sudras and even the Vaisyas lowered in their status, i highly significant, Buddhism did not accept the same barriers and opened its wide gates even to the Sudras., who could, in its opinion, talc; to renun- ciation as much as others could. Thi Hindu social philosophers had the fear that this would upset the age-old casie-syslem. Jayaswal is right when he states that Manu hated the learned Sudra claiming equality and freedom. The attitude of Buddhism naturally attracted more of the suffering classes to it. Radhakrishnan rightly adds to this the fact that Manti's unfortunate references to the Sudras were perhaps motivated by his opposition to Buddhism, which allowed them the highest religious life or learning and monasticistu. These were for Manu the Sudras who assumed the air of the twice-born.

(10) Again, why should Maiur refer now and then to the double reward that Dharma assured to man ? It seems that he wanted to emph- asise the Karma doctrine and at the same time anwer Buddhism that did not accept happiness in this world as real and also did not accept the possibility of Nirvan:i by faithful performance of ones duty to this world. Unlike oilier Smrtikaras Manu emphasies that happiness in this life is not to be overlooked and God can be realised by full performa- nce of all actions and duties in his station of life. This too seems to be a reply to Buddhism. 18 J. R. Betai & R. S. Belai

(11) Manu's conception of Hlhsn is quite significant, and opposed to that of Buddhism Hs wants that on the whole, there shall be no Himsa as far as possible. Yet, under certain circumstances Hiihia is necessary and not bad. One condition of this is tfiihia in the sacrifices; it is no JT/mya. This is evidently a firm reply to Buddhism th-.it took everything to the extreme including its concept of HimsS. It is very much likely that Manu's view is inspired by his desire to answer very important charges against Buddhism,

(12) Manu again specifically refers to VeJubahya aad similar other SnirHs and works as failure leading to destruction. These Vedabahya works, in the view of Manu, fail lo solve man's problems of this life as also the life hereafter. This too can be an indirect reference to Buddhism.

Several other proofs can. be cited. But these should be enough for our purpose,

Actually Buddhism faced three challenges. The first came from the Gita in the sphere of wide concept of life in. general and man's attitude to it. The second ca-na from the Maninmrti in the sphere of man's social life and social philosophy. The third came from Sankara in the of sphere spiritualism and metaphysics. All the three spheres of thought in Buddhism were thus answered Credit goes to the Mauusmrti to answer Buddhism its by utterly optimistic outlook on life, teaching man to adhere to his Karma rightly, taking interest in life, and trying to realize God through life and Karma, through through good turns to all living society of the Hindus. Manu has thus contributed a lot in reinstating the Hindu and the upsetting saciety great prestige of Brahmanism, of the twofold purpose of life etc. and in ousting Buddhism from its growing high position against tlri Hindu way and view of life.

Jainisra Vs. Manusmrti

Even though Jainism is as old us Buddhism, may be, even older and even though 30 of internal many pieces evidence mentioned above can be against Jainsim, Manu does not seem to be very much against Jainism because it was not so very powerful, as Buddhism was. We have there- 'ore preferred not to discuss ths of problem opposition against Jnhism with

E. A. Solomon

Saiikaracarya's main thesis was that Brahman alone is the Ultimate Reality, everything else being unreal. But how did the world-appearance become manifest and out of what ? Sarikara does not seem to have thought it worthwhile to answer such questions at length. For him Avidya is a good postulate which answers all such questions satisfactorily. He did not deal explicitly with such problems as the relation of Avidya with Maya or with Brahman or with Jlva or with the phenomenal world and he did not discuss very clearly whether Avidya is the material cause (npadana karana) or an auxiliary cause (sahkari-karana) of the world. Tn fact, he would plainly tell us that the world was never created, so one should not bother oneself with questions pertaining to causality and the like. To discuss these problems would be equivalent to regarding Avidyit as a real principle, whereas it is tuccha or an absolutely non- existing thing from the highest point of view. Avidya expresses in a nut-shell the difficulty we experience in recognising that what we exper- ience in the mundane world is not in reality there. Sankara aware of the limitations of reason left such problems to intuitive experience culminating in truth-realisation which is indispensable for the attainment of emancipation when such problems do not trouble the person at all as Pure Consciousness alone persists without the differentiation, of the subject and the object.

The words of 6'artkara could be interpreted in diverse ways though the general scheme was sufficiently well-defined, Appayya Dlksita notes in. the beginning of his 'Siddhantale^asangraha, that the ancients were more concerned with proving the oneness of all phenomenal objects with the Self and so on account of their indifference to other matters they led the way to divergent views or currents of thought. L These divergent views are but different ways of explaining cogently the central thesis that Brahman is the Absolute Reality and everything else is an unreal 2 appearance from the absolute point of view. We may first take up the concept of Avidys as found in Mandana

is as a of Misra who regarded contemporary Sankara : and whose views and a distinct trend are quite independent present of Vedantic in terpre fa- Mandana sa s that Avidyij is called or false (.ion. mays: appearance SO E. A. Solomon

of Brahman nor (mithya avabhasa) because it is neither the very nature nor non-existeiit. If it something different from it, it is neither existent were the characteristic nature of anything, then whether one with it or then be called different from it, it would be a real thing and could not avidya. Jf it were utterly non-existent it would be like the sky-flower and would have no bearing on practical experience as avidya: has. Thus Avidyii has to be recognised as indefinable (anirvacanjya). This is an explanation which should be accepted by the adherents of all the different 3 schools of philosophy.

It might be argued that the things of appearance might be unreal but tb.2 appearance (avabhasa) itself is real and that is exactly what avidya is and so it is real. But this is not correct. If there is nothing which can appear, the appearance also is false and indescribable. Hence, avidya is neither existent nor non-existent; being of this illusory nature it can be dispelled. Avidya not being 'sat' there is no question of the existence of anything besides Brahman; it not b:ing a sat, there is something which can be set aside.*

To whom does this Avidya belong ? According to Mandana, It belongs to the individual souls. Of course, the indivdual souls are not

in reality different from Brahman; but their difference from Brahman is due to kalpana or imagination. Whose is this differentiating imagina- tion? It cannot be that of Brahman which being of the nature of know- ledge is devoid of all imagination; nor could it be that of the Jivas since t! cy themselves are the products of kalpana. Solutions have been

' ' thinkers. One is proposed by some suggestion that the word mays inconsistent and had it been consistent signifies what b inexplicable, and it would not be but would be real. Others explainable mays say that avidya comes from the Jivas and the Jivas from avidya; this process is of the seed beginmngless, as in the case and the sprout, so no fault s should be found with this explanation, And similarly, those who regard of avidya as .the xipSdana (material cause) diversity say that it is begin- of so there is no ning! ess and devoid any motive, scope for the question as to what the purposa or motive could be there behind the creation of

the world of diversity." .

If Avidyit were io belong to Brahman it could not be dispelled even on the realisation of Brahman. If it is Brahman that suffers under an illusion and. Brahman that is emancipated, there would be the contingency of universal .salvation. The Jivas are transmigratory due to Avidya and of is they are liberated by means Vidya. Yidya not natural to the Jivas, but adventitious, it is avidyS that is natural to the Jivas, as they owe Avidya~Hs airaya and visaya gj their very existence to It. But this is avidya dispelled by the adventitious 1 vidya.' Mandana recognises two kinds or aspects of ^ ai-W^-non-apprehension and misapprehension. It has .two functions -concealing the light (of the and atman) projecting appearances. It projects in the waking and dream and in it conceals states, deep sleep or envelops and is of the nature of dissolution. These two aspects, non-apprehension and misapprehension, and effect. are related as.-cause The causal is in aspect present deep sleep and -both the in dream 8 aspects and ; waking conditions. ,

It can be seen that Mandana has in a way put forth in so many, words the that would arise out problems of Sankara's philosophical stand. He has described as very clearly Avidya sadasudanirvacanlya, as having avarana .and- Sakti, as of the nature of viksepa agrahana (non-apprehension) and viparyaya-grahana (misapprehension). He regards'the .Jivas as the of a the atraya (-locus > vidya though jtvas are in reality non different from

Brahman He that is yery clearly says avidya natural to the jivas. It may be noted;that Saukara also says that mutual superimposition of atman and anatman is naisargika (natural) .and therefore anadi (beginningless). is bold when he that Mandana; very says avidya belongs to the jivas, Even 'Sankara will noL here for outright disagree he also says, _as w

tot discussed what sort of a cause of the world avidyz is.. He', also if does not explain why avidya. belongs to the jivas, all tU? jivas have a common of the of the world. experience things ;

r -.Vacaspati sssms to have drawn much of his 'iaspi ration from Mandaaa. .He speaks ;of Avidya being two-fold and says tliat all appeuanges originate from Brahman in association with the indefinable t.yo-fold ayidyS or as having the two-fold aw'^/va for thrir auxiliary cause (sqhaknri- Of this two-fold to karqna). avidya, according Amalananda, 0119 the the other the .signifies beginiiingless positive entity and. series : .pf false impressions The Lbegjnningless (purva-parva-bhrama-samskardfy appearance of ths distinct personality of the individual souls is due to a-

s, series of falss confusions AvldyA has jiya for, its

i XIII 11 M E..A. Salomon

(locus) and Brahman for its visaya which it obscures; being the adhi- sfhava of the of the superimpositioa phenomenal world, Brahman is the upadina of the which is its world, vlvarta, Vacaspati regards Brahman wthavtdya&athssahakari-karaitito be tht upadana karana of the world in asinuchas being ttu object of the Jtva's avidys, Brahman appears as the insentient world. '

Sankara on Br. su. 1.4.3 commenting says that the term 'avyakta' in Katha Up. 1.3.11 signifies the seminal power of the niture of A\idy* which resides in the Supreme Lord and is constituted of Maya and is the Great Sleep in which the transmigratory souls sleep being devoid of the realisation of their own nature. * can We say on the basis of this and other from the works of passage? Sankarscarya that he was inclined to regard the Supreme Lord as the or atraya locus of Avidy*. At least we have the word 'tiraya* which became current in later discussions regarding the afraya and (locus) visaya (object) of Avldya. Commenting on Sankara's Bhssya on Br. su. 1.4.3, Vscaspati says that this Avidyd-fakti of Brahman, which is termed a and Stay the like, cannot be defined as non-different or different from it; and what constitutes its avyaktotva is its indescfibableness. This is the difference of 'Avyakrta-vSda' from 'Pradhanavada.' The Avidyttaktih on i dependent Isvara for it has fcvara is its Bfr^a; It is //*, (purposeful, meaningful), for no substance can bring about anything by itself. It be might urged : If Brahman experiences samstra by virtue of then avldya-toktt, even the emancipated souls would have to be reborn for Avidya would remain in it Or if Avldva were to be destroyed it would mean that the whole mundane world is destroyed for its very root would be destroyed. Answering this Sankara has said that the emancipated souls would not be reborn as the bi/a **tl is. Avidya having the potentiality to emerge as the mundane world i. destroyed by vufya (knowledge). Vacaspati explains this in conform"ty wnh his own view that the jivas are the ^raya of their , * He "We *. says, Vedantins do not say that there like onfPradhana-in-sll- jivas, so that we should b fault. av/^ 3 is different in each iva J , So only the in whose case vidy* has arisen will be dispelled and not of other so is- and there not the contingency of there being the eradication might be urged that the distinctions of ent.re^.^Iton dependen the dwtincfaon. of the mtdyi adjuncts and s of the a dy* adjuncts are dependent on the distinctions of the Sou?' there ls mutual and dependence neither is established The tW- amwr t is that it is not so. Since both are beginnings, they are ,s ab sh d and 83 Avidya-its ASraya vifaya

in ayyakta or vyakrta or the like the seed and the sprout. The singular though avidyss are numerically like has in view the generality avidyatva, A itself is the seed of the world, we many. Well, one might say, if Arty A non-sentient thing is can do away with God. But this is not proper. a sentient about unless monitored by not capable of bringing anything as about its effect resorts to God so Arty* in order to bring entity, that God is qu.ck to add the ntmltta or the vpttina. (Ainalananda as scent as he is the provoker would be that ntmltta in as much preraka, be the by of smell; and he would upadana is in respect of the organ substratum of the world). Vacaspati virtue of his being the adhhthana, the has God as its adhisthzna as serpent- says that the world-illusion . as the as its substratum; so just illusion has the rope asP?'*-^Us so the world-illusion has God upadana, has the rope as its ufadana or locus the /fw as its adhikarana Therefore, Arty* though hwing it. an4 of God as a nlmitta or as object resorts to or takes the support not bec.use ISvara is the to be IfiarXray*', and to this sense it is said subsist m: Brahman for could not -tlhara or locus of Arty*, Artya Vacaspat, of It is because of this, argues which is of the nature Vldya. that the ** He in that fcttarm. says there, is to Avidy* being of their own nature. That say, the realisation he devoid of or dissolution is signified by 'They u in it.- Liya i*W nt to be the realisation of their nature; by ;a**W. Bl&matl, I 4.3, pp. 377-8) signified. (See the a strong objection against Amalananda has tried to answer very were the up3d*na in the sense that above-mentioned view : If Brahman u is the the illusion or wrong knowledge being the object of ja', thea the Srutis -So' **, XCoftha world -sup.rimposition, not hold good. Moreover, Ulusion Svyam akunt* would wT'Sa contradict the experience of to each jiva this would being peculiar the And if *****, etc. were produced by world as common to all. existence wh 1Ch is no known^ not have they could (illusion), a e not have existence even when they attv* .e. they could are 'bhramaja' have only fnr rone-serpent etc. which all and which bears ^ which is common to fl ereo e for the world, Lulbe accepted as responsible rSSTJthe reflection ooodor ^.^ ^^ &g {he adjuncts be y . and its wf should ^egarde (UP of the flri of,Jii ^^^ 2"thTJtS^a" ^ (appeaince) ^ thttthe object of ^. rer^of a^^/P-be the cause of, of Brahman. Vivarta can and not modifications 8* E. A, Solomon

as is of serpent movement'. Appayya Diksita in his Parlm'ala explain*? Amalananda's clearly argument by saying that commonness of expsrience can be the explained by fact of the adhisthzna being one. Several men may have the simultaneous illusion of silver (in nacre) when silver is;-*

about the ; brought by avidy&s of the several erring persons. If the, error- of one of these is dispelled and the error in the case of the others another continues, then silver is brought about by the avidyzs of all the, other thus persons and; the commonness of the illusion is possible. This- same explanation applies to the world-phenomena, where Brahman is the: ultimate common to reality all." When one avidys. perishes, the, prapailca, to the production of which it Had contributed along with Qth<3F ; also avidyzs, perishes and then only another prapailca in common to all: is about the other brought by avidyzs. Anaalsnanda says that the 'aimta-. sattva' of the prapailca is because of its Vysvaharika sattva and this should not 1 be impossible if the world is produced by the avidyas of :tha jivas.- Even those who as regard msiys the cause of the world regard as the cause of one's avidys. own senses etc. and these are accepted as Thus having 'ajftatasattva'. mzyikatva cannot be said to bring about

ajn&asattva' , as even what is conceived as 'avidyaka' is seen to, have it.

From this discussion it can be seen that Vacaspati tries to link up; as a avidyz congenital disposition with avidya as the creative force of the and the as the world-appsarance, regards jtva Mraya of avidya., avidyns as numerous as the The being jivas. world appearance has as its adhi- Brahman which is the jjfAaa object of the avidyas of the jivas and the avfdyXs about the jointly bring world-appearance which therefore is common to all. Vscaspati has shown in his Bhsmati (II. 2. 28) also that all are indescribable appearances entites and not mere mental ideas. The external objects have are ajMiasattva, existent even when they are not as they havb existence perceived empirical and are brought about by the beginningless avidya-Saktis of all. Thus Vacaspati did not support Drsti-srsti-vada though he the as the regarded jivaf sfrayas of avidyits and he that each though accepted jiva has its own avidys..

We consider here the view may philosophical of Praka&manda though he is because it was quite late, PrakaSananda who developing on the lines of and a Mandana Vacaspati gave consistent presentation of Advaita Vedanta from a idealistic thorough-going point of view. Almost 'all the teachers of the Kevaladvaita tradition of SankargcSrya ; interpreted .Sanfcaia's view so as to take for the - granted existence of an objective world of as the appearance ground pf perceptual presentation.. The wprlct Avidyn-its'aSraya and vifaya gj *as looked upon as a on superposition , Brahman (the o.bject f AM*\ and hence supposed to exist whether the individual perceived it or not and whether ,t was brought about by the a ^ having Jfva as its locus or by or An4y* mzyz having Brahman as its locus. Prakasananda was the first perhaps Kevaladvaitin proper to explicitly deny the objective existence- of any Stuff (though this had been earlier taught in work, like the Yogavatitha fursia-and some clear traces of it. found even in the Gaudapada-karika) According to Praksfeuanda, a avid, alone is the cause of the world' causality cannot be to Brahman attributed, for it implies the dual relation of cause. and effect whereas there is in reality the non.dual alone. Brahm^ Causality itself is based on. the false notion of duality, '...'the".'out* Win? ottdy* And}S is alsp np t landed in the Sruti passages^ as the * cause of th* world- it is only stated to be the 'cause (unreal In the appearance). fact, theory of causality lies outl the scope of Vedanta which is only concerned w,th. the theory of -. When in reply to the question, What is the cause of the world ?' it is said that Ajtttna is the it is cause, merely an attempt to obvute the awkward silence making one subject to the "nwakaato* .a. aprat^ Since there is but the nothing Self, there is as a mattef 01 fact no meaning even in that the saying Vedanta admits the Vivaria of theory causation, which is mentioned only as a stepping stone to* ^e grasping of the ultimate truth (~bS lSfl vi o> pmi vart yam) . Strictly spea- k the very of concept causality is Jo the Absolutist ^j foreign philosophy. Prakafeaaada has been bold to enough spund a correct note here It does riot serve our purpose to be carried away by prevailing concepts and tlieones and one's explain own system in alien terms.

Praka&nanda says that aJMna cannot be , established by any of 'the for frames the two are as as opposed darkness and light. Ainana is vouched for by the witness so it is superfluous tp ask how it can be proved. Avidy* has Brahman as its object (v/W-a) and jiva "as its locus. Amno , 8 destroyed when the oneness of the self with Brahman is reali- sed. The destruction of cannol ajfisna mean its cessation together with its products, as Praka&tman holds,,. Such a definition does not hold good whether singly o r jointly. of Destruction ajfllna means the recognition or ponvictipa following the realisation of the underlying ground or substr^- tum that, the apperance on it illusorily imposed does not exist atTall This., view j s different from tr^e anyathtfkysti view, for here as soon as :he is ; underlying ground intuited it is revised that the appearance was aot there, it was not and will ; anywhere it never exist. It is this conviction ^t-is techmcally called b^dha (sublation or contradiction)." It'has beeq # A. SoloinoH

of is its on the rightly said that the inde&nability ajbana negation ground ; verses which say on which it appears. PrakaSanatida approvingly quotes The world is tuccha as that avidyl is iuccha, absolutely non-existent. 1 * nothing exists except Brahman.

Even the other followers of Sankarscarya would accept that the exist world of appearance like the rope-serpent, never existed, does not as and will not accept in the future. Only they would present a theory to how it could be superimposed so as to provide an object to our empirical experiences, PrakaSananda, an uncompromising Absolutist that

he is, would not stoop to accept any theory for what does not exist' in

reality. Praka^ananda carries ^ankara's philosophy to the extreme position that no objective reality of any kind can be assigned to the world-pile- 'nomena; the world is tuccha, and so also is avtdya; our own ideas have no corresponding objective substratum; the notion of causality is foreign' to Sankara Vedanta; there is no causation or creation of the world. Brahman is the only reality. If at all any theory is to be put forth he would agree with the Ekajivavadins. Brahman conditioned by Ajnana is

jiva, which therefore is one. All experience of plurality including that of

jlvas can be explained as in a dream. It is wrong to hold that a/cato, etc. have ajSsta sattva, that they exist though unperceived, whereas ra/ju-sarpa, etc. have only jffsta sattva, for sense-organs, etc. are not really instruments of our cognition of the world. In a dream we feel we

are visualising with our sense-organs, but actually it is not so. So also is the case in the waking state. If it is held that the sense-organs have for their objects things which exist even when unperceivsd they would have for their sole object the substrate of all things, viz. Atman or Brahman. The whole world of objects being insentient (jada i.e. of the nature of Avidya when considered apart from Brahman which is the

substrate), it cannot be something 'unknown' (i.e. veiled by Ajnana) for the objects are of the nature of Ajnana and Ajnana can veil or make unknown only the Sentient Principle or C// 1 '. The common-sense view that a thing exists even when unperceived is beset with difficulties. Ancient teachers admitted Vyavahsriki SattS only out of a kind regard for the vulgar mind. Is an object said to exist even when unper- ceived by maintaining that duality is absolutely real or that it is what is called 'anirvacanlya' ? It could not be (absolutely real for absolutely real duality must) be rejected on ths ground of the rejection of the If the : of the validity pramznas. second alternative is accepted, it may be asked whether such an anirvacanlya duality was established elsewhere so as to serve as an illustration for proving the anirvacantyatva Avtdya its and (tSrays vi$aya g*

world. If the of the rajju-sarpa is said to be such an anify Q serve that can as an illustration for the aninacanlya existence of the world phenomenal consisting of akah, the etc,, question remains to be whether the discussed object world exists even when unperceived or only S o long as it is perceived. If an existence independent of perception be surmised for the the world, raj/u-sarpa which has jMta-saStv,r cannot serve as an illustration. Thus all dvaita (including what is generally as distinguished vysvahzri/ca and is prWbhisika) pratitika, that is to say has only jnStasattva. 1

In Praka&nanda's view, Brahman associated with avidys is jiva who should be thought to be responsible for all erroneous perception and creation of world-appearance If thekiltastha Brahman is to be maintained the easiest and most rational explanation is that the jiva imagines the world. I^vara has no place in this view. LSvara as conceived by us is also imaginary. As Appayya Diksita puts it in the SiddhantaleSasahgraha jiva alone like the dreamer, imagines in himself everything including Godhood and consequently is the cause of all. This is the view of the Dr?tt-srsti vsdins.i' Appayya Diksita that says DrsM-srsti-vSda is of two kinds (a) That in which the world is supposed' to be created anew at every .operation of the senses, that in which the (b) world is regardea' as nothing else but as perceptions the former never appears apart from the latter. PrakSs'snanda upholds this view. 1

There are a number of difficulties in the Drstisrstivsda. Who could be the one who imagined the prapaftca of the waking condition the Atman free from adjunct, or the Atman having Avidya as its adjunct ? It could not be the former for otherwise samara would.be equally there in the of state emancipation also. It could not also be the latter, for avidys. also being something imagined the one who imagines should be said be there to. even before its imagination. And thus a beginningless series of avidyss would have to be accepted. Or, as some say, avidy& 1 * etc. are beginningless and fall beyond the pale of Dr?tisrstivlda.

The Drsjisrsfivsda does not appeal to many thinkers for it contra- that the dicts almost everything stated in the Scriptures. So they accept has phenomenal world created by God in the order mentioned in the Sruti means of ajttstasatta. and is cognised on there being corresponding proof view leaves the doc- for the things. This is known as Srsti-drstivada. This accounts for the trine of the unreality of the world undisturbed and yet the world is no* common empirical experience of all individuals. Though of the it cannot Created by the individual or at every operation senses, fl E. A. Solomon

viz be real as "it satisfies the definition of an unreal object, (i) A. false, sublated or unreal object is that which can be by just right knowledge, the existent and the fuufiat which 'i-i different from non-existent^ is, counter of the absolute unreal, (isi) that which is the entity negation

'to be the substratum of the resitting in the thing which is admitted

phenomenon is unreal. The world . as it appears to the senses is the coimJcr-ehtuy of its absolute negation in. Brahman which is established

by the Veda ;is its substralum. It is therefore unr.'al. Srsti-dr^tivada is handy in explaining the Sruti passages which describe the creation of the world by GocP*. Here the objective existence "of the phenomenal world as distinct from in perception is accepted.

seems to be in greater accordance with "the spirit of S*alurscrya'$ teaching. SttrefSvata, Ms direct disciple,; regards' the 'self as- both the tjtohw), a/raya and the object (Vwaja) of; A\nana. In the Wry of his beginning Naiskarmyasiddhi^p. 3) hetfescribes a vicious 'chain''. cwr.-H>mding to thi or the Buddhist Nysya chain. Each and every Cfi-atare desires to avoid The cause of pain. pain 'is the body which im\t i$ brought about by dlmrma and adtiafrii. M These have their source enjoiked or prohibited.: A acts person as goaded by likes a'nd'

). These exist due to the sWperimposftion of

le Whidl exist in s ; M ^ duaHt^ ^ s le f his happens by vinue f the ^ f ,r ; f ^ f i <*" **M**H*).-"bti

nuiterial cause believes, likehis Pprece nd is object f A^ ^raman both^e Ioc| l?% SUP eri of Be i> the self is su ^itior, ^

avert this charge, ts xfraya and vtjaya 89

Sarvajfistma Muni draws a distinction between adhistfena (basis) and sdhara (support). Brahman that underlies all illusions is the true adhisthma while Brahman as associated with a false ajfiana is a false arfAaw. It is the only false adh&m that appears in the illusory appearance, while the real basis (adhtsftona) lies untouched Sarvajflstma. Muni does not want to give the same degree of importance to May* or Avtdya as he gives to Brahman in the creation of the world Brahman m association with avidyz is not the cause of the world- avldy* is only dvara-karana (intermediary cause) without which creation is certainly impossible, but which has no share in the ultimate cause that underlies all world -appearance.

Padraapada, an immediate disciple of Sankara, clearly says t!t mttfiyajffana (mithyZ-ajffina) in Sankara's Adhyssa-bhByya signifies att indefinable force or of potency avidys (avtdya-Mcti) which is material in character, and it is this potency that is the stuff/or material cause of the world-apimrance.'i Padmapada has not clearly stated whether Avidys has Brahman as both its locus and object, He only says that avidya is conceived in the individual soul as obstructing the light which is the true nature of Brahman. Could he have regarded the jiva as the locus? Out .Praksistman commenting 011 Padmapada 's Pdncap$.diks clearly states that Brahman is both the locus and object of avidya. Padmapada says that Brahman associated with maya is the: cause of the! That on which the world-appearance. world-appearance is manifested, viz: Brahman must be ! recognised as the cause* . Prakas"atman puts forth three alternative in this : explanations respect (a) Lilci two twisted threads in a rope, Brahman and msya are together the joint cause of the world; (b) that which has as its is the : : ma/T power cause, ahd (c) Brah- has it man which mUys supported on is the cause. But in all these the

causality rests with Brahman as ways is dependent on it.

in his PancadaSi between Vich-aranya distinguishes msy% and avidys: That which is associated with God is mzya,, and that which is associated the is and are so called with jtva cividyS. Mays, avidys according to the' or of sattva. Brahman reflected in purity impurity msys. is ISvura (God), as reflected in whereas Brahman avidyzis jiva. This force with i|s three gunas h called PrakytL the causal body. Avidys. has a two-fold function-^- concealing and projecting. In its former capacity, it obsctires the. true nature of the in the latter, it a pure self; superimposes subtle:, and a, gross body on the self. This bsginningless avidys non-discrimnation of

S ambodhi XIII 1 2 90 E. A. Solomon

self and . non-sslf is .called .imlfo'tiya, root ignorance. la the Citradlpa prakarana of the PsilcadaH it is said that Jiva is 'Cit' (Consciousness)

reflected in the mind, and L\t is 'Cit' reflected in mfiya, tinged with the subtle impressio'is of (he minds of all creatures.

The various views regarding the npzdsna-ksruna of the world are given as follows by Appayya Diksita in the Siddh&ntaleSasahgraha: (a) Sarvajnstma Muni holds that the Absolute Brahman is the cause of the world, (b) Prakatfatman's view is that Brahman environed by may& and omniscient, omnipotent, etc. is the cause of the world (pp. .58-9).

(c) Another view distinguishes between rmys and avidya. According to it, the five gross elements are the transformations of maya which resides in God while the subtle world of the individual comprising mind etc. is the of the product subtle elements generated by individual avidys and helped by the gross elements produced by the mays, of God. Thus the world at large consisting of sksfa, etc. is the effect of ISvara, while the inner- organ, etc. associated with the individual is the effect of both God and the jiva (p. 65), (d) Avidya does not require the help of the products of in Waja bringing about the inner-organ, etc; so the jiva is the sole material cause of the subtle body, (e) Those who regard mayd and avldyt as one that God is say the upadana of Sksfj, etc. and jiva of inner-organ etc. God alone (p. 68) (f) is the upSdEna kitrana of both strata, etc. and inner-organ, etc. (g) Jiva alone gires rise in himself to the notions of

God, etc. and consequently is the material cause of all. This is Prakate- nanda's Drsti-srstivada.

The of Ifvara and phenomena jiva are explained indifferent ways by thinkers : The (a) Prakatartlia-vivarctna says that the reflection of 'Cit' in is called tfa or Mays, God, The reflections in a number of small portions of that which are mZya, possessed of the two powers of conceal- ing and projecting and which are known as are avidya. said to be jivas. (b) In the a of Tattvaviveka, chapter PmlcadaU, it is said that reflection of Cit in .mxys (with sattva predominant) is livara, and reflection in avidys (with 'rajas aiad tarn as predominant) is jiva (SLS pp. At 79-81) (c) places it is said that mula-prakrti is called my* when the projecting power is predominant and'av/rf^a when the concealing power is dominant. pre- Msys is the upMhl of Isvara and of avidys jiva. (d) According to the Satikwa Ssrtraka, reflection of Cit in Andya (~mm , aj}^na) is called I/a, and reflection in the mind or inner-organ is called Jiva (e) "According., to the Citradlpa of the chapter Paficadatt, jiva is Cit reflected the m inner-organ and ISa is Cit 'reflected in msy* tinged with the subtle of impressions the minds of al! creatures, In (f) the DrgdrSyaviveka Avidyti-its Cdniya and vifaya 97

Jtva is said to be of three kinds (i) PZramartkika, which is limited by" the gross and the subtle It is body. absolutely one with Brahman because'' the limited Cit is the very same as the unlimited one. (ii) The vyzvaharika''. jiva is the T which identifies ils;lf with the mind, and which consists of the reflection of Cit in the mind which has phenomenal existence in mzya, the condition of Isa. limiting Its oneness with Brahman is dependent on the annihiktion of die mi.id. (iii) Tiie pr&ttbfosika jiva is in the dream state, ft is present unreal for when the person awakes it- vanishes with its dream together experiences. Ifa is Cit reflected in, coloured avidys with the subtle Lnpressions of the minds of all creatures

(SLS, pp. 100 Til ; Vtv.iraaa tint Ifa is the 102) (g) of . says original who :n ; is the reflection Jiva in avliya (SLS, p. 103-109).

In all these views, jiva is reflected Cit. Bat there is also a Limitation theory (avacehedj-vMa) according to which jiva is Cit limited by mind and ISa is Cit not limited by it. Another view is that jiva is neither reflected Cit not limited Cii. The un changing Brahman itself goes by the' name of jiva when associated with ignorance of itself. This is Illustrated, by the tale of a prince who was taken away by a hunter and brought up in the forest. After a lapse of time ha was apprised of his royal desent.

his ; As soon as ne realised high birth, he gave up his humble activity, went to his kingdom and demanded his rights. In this view as every thing is imagined by the jiva, Isvara also along with his qualities of omniscience, etc. is imagined by .the jiva (SLS, p. 123). It may be noted that Sankara and SuresVaru have made use of this parable to explain

that Brahman even while remaining unchanged in essence : becomes the jiva. But it is doubtful whether they would say that tiure is only one jiva and he imagines even ISvara. It would be more proper to say that Brahman by virtue of avidyS behaves like Ifvara and the jivas. As soon as the nature is realised, no livatva remains.

The views considered here are interesting inasmuch as they are all attempts to place before the inquirer, in as rational and intelligible a manner as possible the fundamental doctrine of Sankara Vedaata, viz. nothing exists except the A.bsolule Brahman and nothing else has ever

really emerged out of it. Madlvusudana Sarasvati says that the Non-dual Self alone is what is mainly meant to be known from the Sastru for it is something that falls beyond the sphere, of other pramanas and remains of the division of and Ifvara uncognised. The conception ,/*"iv7 and the : like are the product of the human intellect and still are reiterated by the

' : Sostra as they are useful for th; knowledge of Reality. As Sure^v'ai'a 9| E, A. Solomon has said in his Brhadaranyakopani$ad-Bha$ya-Vwttika,ty whatever method one could get an insight into the real self that method alone should be regarded as good and that becomes established. And thus the jiva conies to experience samsaru being overpowered by the adjunct, and \ivara 23 conies to have omniscience by virtue of the adjunct.

Three theories became popular as accounting for the division of jiva and-1/cara and explaining the process of cognition. Of these Pratibimba- vada is mainly assigned to PrakaJatman, the pioneer of the Vivarana school; to SuraSvara goes the credit of propounding the Abhasavsda, and Vacaspati is credited with the Avacchedavada. In the Abhasavada, Cit as it is reflected and appears in the upAdhi (whether avidya or the antahkarana) is regarded as something anirvacaniya being different from what could be called sentient and what could be called insentient and so is unreal; and the Pure Consciousness is said to be bound through this Aohasa, while the Pure Consciousness is really unaffected. In the

Pratibhnbavada, Caitanya is reflected in AjKana or in the anta/jt karana, and this pratibtmba is regarded as real inasmuch as it is consciousness on which the fals,e attribute of being present in the upadhi (adjunct) and its impurities are superimposed. The pratibimba is non-different from the bimba as there is no causal complex for a fresh creation and the

bimba could not enter the adjunct (mirror or the like); only the attribute of 'being located in the upeidhi' is superimposed on it. Vacaspati regards consciousness as being limited (avacchinna) by Ajna.na or the antah- karaqa and so his theory is called Avacchedavada. In his view Caitanya which is the object of Ajnana is \Svara, and Caitanya

which is the locus of ajfisna is jii'a; and the ajnanas being many, jivas also are many. This can be directly derived from Vacaspati's own statements but it is difficult to undei stand how he is credited with the

view that the phenomenal world is different with each jiva, for eachjiva eing conditioned by its own ajR\na is the upadma of the world. If we feel that we see the same worldy objects as are seen by others it is only because of the extreme similarity of the objects seen by different people though the object seen by one is different from the object seen by ano- ther. Two persons may have their own illusions of rope -serpent and yet ttiey coiild feel that they saw the same serpent. This is true of the objects of the mundane world also. 24

' Vscaspati cauld have stressed this point while commenting on SaftkaYitcfrya's refutation of the Vijftanavada that there are no external

objects' Whi6h become the object of oxir perceptions. On the contrary he Said that the external objects are already existent outside the Avidya~its Qiraya and vijaya 93 perceiver, only their nature and stuff are indescribable (na hi Brahmaviidino n rii vittim abhyupagacchanti kintu aitirvacanlyam

Sadananda .(author of Advaita Brahma -Siddhi) is apt to say that Drstisrstivada is based on Avacchedavada whereas Srstidrstivada is associated with Pratibimbavada. 25 Whatever it be, even though Vacaspati is said to have been the pioneer of Avacchedavada and though he regards the jivas and ajKanas as many, yet he does not seem to have believed does not have that each jlva perceives its own world or that the world of ajnatasattva. His view could only be that the ajnSnas all the jt vas about jointly create the \yorld, like the atoms of clay bringing the pot. When the ajMna of any one jlva is destroyed by knowledge, the existing world is also destroyed, but immediately another world is brought about by the ajfianas of the remaining jivas. God is regarded as the upadsna karana inasmuch as he is the common object of the ajMnas, just as rope is the upadana karana, of course vivartopad&na -karana of the serpent seen by many in illusion (See Kalpataruparimala I. 4.3, (p. 379).

Some thinkers moreover feel that Sankaracarya was not- insistent on either the Pratibimbavada or the Avacchedavada though he might have believe employed these concepts for instructing the unenlightened. They as in the that Ekajivavada was acceptable to Sankaracarya Brhad&ranyako- has the of the prince panitad. Bha^ya, II 1.20 he presented analogy he was a behaving as if he were a hunter's son because brought up by he realised his real status. hunter, but he claimed his rights as soon as becomes as it were the jlva Ztman by virtue of beginningless Avidya has or has no and imagines the whole world which just jnZtasattva, This is not convincing and existence separate from its perception." also did of and Jala- though he employed this analogy as he ghatakasa the division of God and individual souls and siiryaka, yet ha did admit world outside.-may be from also admitted the objective existence of the His immediate disciples were keen on the empirical point of view. definition of so even tried to explain Sankara's stressing this point and of Sankara Vedanta which was adhyasa in conformity with this position from the Buddhist Vijflanvada. Sankara their main point of difference

, which should denned adhyasa as 'Smrttr&pah paratra punadrstavabhasah' in the form of memory mean that it is the apparent presentation elsewhere. This would not in any way of something perceived earlier and in that case the is the only reality suggest that the underlying thing of Sankara consistent with the metaphystcs theory of error would not be the on this that it 5s appearance Vedsnta. Padmapada commenting says $4 -E. A. Solomon

of something resembling that which is remembered. But it is riot remeni-. bered for it very clearly appears as situated iri front, The knowledge of this is like .memory for it came into existence as a result of the

impression (wihskara) left by the knowledge of that thing which occurred and to earlier, stress this Sankira calls it >smrtirupah\ Vacaspati also stresses that a new indescribable' silver is created which is like the silver

that was : perceived earlier. Similarly the body etc. superimposed on the self of the nature of Consciousness is indescribable, Of course, if the' view of Ma>,dana that the Jim is the asraya of Avidys and the view of Vacaspati that the are Jivas many and have their own aftsnas are carried to the farthest extreme they would result in the Drsti-srstivada and tfcajivuvsda of E'rakfo'ananda, or even the theory that there are many Jtvas and each jiya his imagines own world. But it is rather hazardous to say that Mantfana or Vacaspati propounded this theory. That the world -app.aranc, never existed, does not exist and will not exist is the ph,losophy acceptable to all. Yet highest each of the great thinkers has his own way of explai ling this and it is here that we see a m their development philosophical thinking,

Foot-Notes

, g. 3.

- (i) ^!

, rrfvara

,., (UJ Bl

4, BrahmoslMii ~~m4ddhi p. 9. : pp. 9-io. Avidya its afraya and vifaya 95

5. qg SRTfsrtffff sft^RiStfa sq: I fig * sfter wjroi frra?! i

j' -;si. f^.^) ;ft | geq q*qr&t:,

sff^T ? ?? eii ?iw d^ ft?il?q?r: 5ftgRin ^q^m

f| aw

f ff qHpri f if^Tgqqfg: t Sigqq?jf!Hi^ f fg

Brahmasiddhi, p. 10.

6. wi ^iw.HR^TRT^snftfirt-'a^i^iriiijsi^^ir^r' 41%

7.

Brahmasiddhi, p. 12.

8.

qjf: ^^BISI^S gf q; f^^.n: || Brahmisi'.Mhi, pp. 149-150,

9. (i) ^^=s7lf?!?J'fg:i'^f%5^ qi^ifcrr f!|T^ 55^ fiq^fe^^ST^: I

T-T^r^*:? w^nfR'^^ ^nw^wfinftftiTginfRRq^ I Bh&mati Marigala st. 1

0;%!%

; --Wta^ on the above

(ii) ^qMf^lerspfarew' ^^ w*& -wmft, 1.1.2

(iii) gt^qfeffptsrrf

nrar

P- 77 96 E. A, Solomon

(iv) ^ifi?n Bhsniail, I 1.4 (p. 126)

10. 3lftqrf?q$t tit ^sraPfWWU^ft^zn q<$xNtt*n TRIR^ IIT

Br. su. I. 4-3 ^.qqft^Wflm: ^ sNu i SB (p. 378).

11. ^i? a?

Kalpataruparitnala, I, 4.3 (p. 379) See also SiddlisntaleSasafigraha, p. 133

12.

,

Siddfantamuktsvahj pp. 116-117 (Chowkhamba Orient- aiia 1975)

' K830}

SiddhzntiileSasahgraha, pp. 78-79.

13. us , P

14. (i Avidyn-its Mraya and vi^aya 97

s q|5fa!ftr ajgf[s |

S ^p m: q^fa>Ffi?Nflr II Siddhantamuktavali, p. 125.

(ii); .

*W . KcreH: i lbidj pp. 126-127

(Cf the view of Praka^atman in the Vivararca -37?R^ Wffi!%**?

^Ifll^ JT^s1^?f qt .Bf HF^ fjff%5[?g: I) (iii) o;*?' wfcflsrEgt^i\ siil ^nw acfrl' g? | ^rmq

i s^cf 03 aftwtoi'fr _

I Siddhsntamuktsvali, p. 128;

=5r aiT , : g\*^:

3^q^rf^^I^>?8^'ft^?qpir^: I

' ' ' aqf^t 55 sffisfa qrtft^fta H^i II Ibid, p. T34

(v)

II iBid, p. 17i8

S 15. (i)

I Siddhsntamuktavall, p. 16

(ii} era'n Bta 03; o/^qi iRtph 5^4 \ / ^ ^

aw. ifa wtf '^' ^ ftl*s IBid, pp. 24-25

Sambodhi XHI-J3 98 E. A. Solomon

(iii) ftps

-Ibid. p. 33

Siddh&ntaleSashgraha, p. 360

qrr I ^ % aft ssr^

ci^r , cif| mm

^' f%

f|^rici.

frtfSlilL I SiddhantamukfeivaU, p. 27-28

Siddhantahlasafigraha pp. 70-71,

18.

: li' .

SiddhantakSasangraha, pp. 355-6,

fgjt f^srr f%xtqt

SiddhZntaleSasahgraha, pp. 350-352

'~ s >dMfantaleSasaAgraka, p. 357

21. fteltfJTftfog ^ | fq^r

, p.4, Avidyd-its &&raya and vifaya 99

22. 9$\ q^wtft fa*e?l irq*g: fo^ gfa jjs^ q$ft q*n& |

PaRcapadiks, p. 78.

23

Siddhantabindti, pp 30-31 (GOS)

24. BWRfe^Ti?! tfi^q-fftx^:, 3^1?fl^ T? ^q ff

=g

1 Siddhantabindu p. 29 (-P. C. Divanji-GOS)

25. ^qg si^lgfgt?^^ ^fesiig: | afe^^eiqfcifiu^^ g ^,? Advaita Brahmaslddhi 216 , p, (Pariiual Publication 1981)

26.

g

1-213 Advaita Brahmaslddhi, pp. 21 (Parimal Publication, 1981)

| ^ ;q-^1^i3Usq: sqifa sfelR

' ftrflTl' g^JT ^ I^^qiSR % qi^ftfeiaf^ |

: I-- Siddhantabindu. p. 29 P. C, Divanji (GOS)

27.

'

I * ff

PancapddikS, p. 39-

VARDHAMANA-SURI'S APABHR4M3A METRES*

H. C. Bhayani Introductory

A noteworthy feature of the religious-didactic narrative literature in Prakrit produced mostly by the Jainas of Gujarat from about the tenth century onwards was the increasing use of Apabhramsa. One or more complete stories, episodes etc., long or short descriptive passages and individual stanzas in Apabhramsa were scattered throughout the work. We have biographies of Tlrtharikaras, religious narratives, didactic Prakaranas giving stories to illustrate principles of religious conduct and 'treasuries of tales' (kaihdkoSa) characterized by this stylistic pattern.

UpadeSaniald-vjtti of Ratnaprabha 1 1082 A.D.), Munorama-kahu (1084 A.D.) and Jugsi jinithdacariya (1104 A.D.) of Vardhamana, StlianaKa-vrtti of Devendra (1090 A.D.), ~A.khyanaka-mam-koa-yrtti of Amradeva (1134 of A.D.), Mallinahacariya Haribhadra (c. 1160 A.D ), 'Kumarapalapratibo- dha of Somaprabha (1185 A. D.) may be mentioned out of a host of works of this type.

L. Alsdorf's Der Kum&rapalapratibodha (1928) was a pioneering study of the Apabhramsa parts of such a work. It was admirably systematic and thorough. No other similar study has appeared thereafter, As a modest effort in that direction, I. have attempted in what follows to describe the metres used in the Apabhrarii/a passages of Varclhamana- and suri's Manorama-kaha (= MIC.) Jugai-jitiim:iacariya ( JC.). There are about 160 Apabhramsa stanzas in MK. and about 460 such stanzas in JC. There are several irregularies in the numbering of verses in both the texts. In some places the two halves of a four- lined stanza are numbered separately. Elsewhere a single number is given to a passage containing two or more stanzas. The following tables give information in the case of both the texts about (a) the name and type of the metres that are identified, (b) the number of Matras per line, (c) the place of occurrence and (d) the total number of stanzas occurring for each metre. For the description and discussion of the metres one can refer to the standard manuals like the Svayambhucchanda, the Chandonu~ Sasana and modern works on the Apabhramsa prosody.

The article is dedicated to Prof. (Mine) Colette Caillat as a mark of homage for her valuable work as an eminent Indologist. A C.

tfl a Bg (a vo

-8 2 '3

o - ft CU

S

CN

4* a.

CO e a

ft Vardhamana-suri's Apqbhrantfa Metres 103

t dT in 5 "* CO ^ OO V> VO

vdr 1J3* t-

o CN! 7 oo ^ * S oo r- 0\ o\ -? oo" ^-t IT) CO in -et- oo

s 03 1 4) s W v t-l !-> (D '2 w a. """ s sS' en t^H

"S-

its -s o p 1(3 'p

cb *3 IfiJ ^ |*4 ! I Q 1 II " ' l 'j4 'H, G*.' Bhayani-' CRITICAL REMARKS No. 3. I 218 and 219. The fourth Pada of the first stanza under 218 i s defective. The episode of the Dispute Between the Seasons has clear indications of having a folk- tale origin, Hence these verses bear clear dialectal traits. The second stanza under 219 is macl e of up Vadanaka and Laghu-Catuspadika. The latter has been very frequently used for Old Oujarati verse narratives (see for example and Bhayani Nahta, 1975, Introduction, p. 15; text, pp. 95-97) and for epigrammatic and it also poetry, holds sway in traditional and folk poetry, e.g. in the verse summing-up of a prose tale and in nursery rhymes. At II 97 Vadanka functions as the concluding piece (Ghatta) of a verse passage (Kadavaka). At II. 97 and II 509 it is used to describe the condition of love in separation (vtralta). Ill 163 is a verse gnomic cited from some earlier source. No, 2. Paddhadi is used for the main of body the Kadavaka at 1 786- 797. That Kadavaka is a to the hymn twentyfour Tirthankaras For a similar use of Paddhadi see Svayambhfl, 1962, pp. 96-99- for the use of Vadanaka, Psranafca and Paddhadi for the' main body of the Kadavaka, see Bhayani, 1952, Introduction, pp.94-97 No. 3. The language of I 361 shows some dialectal traits' ! ('Proto-Hmdi') No. 4. See remarks under 1 above.

No. 5 In II 284, the fourth Pada of the first stanza and the second and the fourth Pada of the second stanza are textually defective The passage under III 111-138 also has some inaccuracies. The langu- age of such descriptive Madansvatsra verses is usually Prakritized It has been conventionally used to describe wealth of wild flora' See for example : Svyambhu's Paumacanya III 1, Vijayasena-suri's' Revantagirirasu, second Kadavaka (wherein as in MK III 111-118 Mount Girnar is described in a Dvibhartgl type of metre, one of its constituent being Madanavatara). ./I No, 6, The Rasavalyas seem to be used in mostly passages describing emotional condition of a character or tense moments in a narrative Tins characterization applies to I 182, 193; to the verses II 93 96 (with 97 as the verse summing-up in and I The Vadanaka) 135 138 verses from the story of Candanabala (I 258-272- 273 274)

' "le Ap.bhr.ito poetic op Rjsaka. The MK. Ristrotoya passes 3,c Vardhamana -Sari's Apabhrath/a Metres

valuable in view of the fact that the rich Rasaka literature of ApabhraiMi is totally lost except a single late specimen, viz, the

; -SaihdeSa-rasaka. .

No. 7, Vastuvadanaka is used in MK. for the summing-up verse of a

story at I, 326. Elsewhere it is used for variation. In the later regional traditions, Vastuvadanaka forming the first constituent of a two-unit strophic metre called Satpada (or Ksvya or Sardha- Chaudas) became very popular, especially for gnomic verses.

No. 8. Dvipadi, which has been frequently used in ApabhrarhSa Sandhi- bandhas, either as a Kadavaka-opening piece or for variation, seems to have declined in popularity after the eleventh century,

No. 9 Doha is frequently used for sentential sayings, proverbs and bons .mots. Many of the Doha verses in MK. are apt illustrations of the figure Arthantaranyasa. Sometimes it is used ,to highlight some important moment or the conclusion in a narrative. At III, 522 Dohs

occurs in the Ghatta. Ill, 838-855 -is a hymn to "PsrSvangtha com- P9secl in -D /VT--I. Th:- total does not 'include the figure of Dohas occurring as the second unit in the strophic metre Radda,

N;', 10. Actually Cudala-Doha, as the. name signifies is a 'Crested Doha* because in it each half -of the Dohs is extended by five Matrss. This seems to be a later development. The instances we:-; find in MK., JC. and the MulaSuddliivrtti (p. 164, v 168} are the earliest known occurrences of this metre. Later on we find one -instance

cited in the Siddhahema (VIII 4, 419 : 6th illustration) and two instances in the SantdeSarSsaka (vv. 112, 114). The Cudsla-DohH is

denned and illustrated by the Kavidarpana (II 17), ChandahkoSa See .(26) and PrSkrta-paingala (I 167 168), also Bhayani, 1945, pp. 64-65. No. 12. The short Dvipadis have been conventionally used as variation metres in the Sandhibandha and usually they are used to describe a festive occasion, a battle-scene or similar episodes.

No. 13 At I 519-526 Radda is used for a hymn to the Tlrthnnkara Candraprabha, I 746 is a gnomic verse. Elsewhere it is used

: narratively. ;/ :'. III 512-522 and III The passages I 519-526, I 785-798, 838-855 are hymns sung before the images, of Tlrthankaras and as the second and the third : such are self-sufficient poems. Of these constitute a regular Kadavaka that ends "with a Ghatta.

14 ff. C. Bhayani

e o c-i Vo

aj H>. e

rt a- a I rt I o -a i rt I 0M 1 Padaku Rasaval I Vardham&na-surfs Apabhramfa Metres

5-

t

r-i 5 tN O en (N '

ira i- w +JM *JM 1 " 0~ J, ri

. O co j j / t-~ * >n fl ** pS -i O rn _, ^o, rt " TT Tt" t CT\ ^O *Ij < , OO VD "^ - i CM -i ^ V3 III I oo o t^ in ^o i^*

rn t-, 5 *

| ' U ' A 'C O O CO S e

t' T3 I u n> OT rs 'S -3

UID CO

, eS

( . *

' r i a Ia ^5 ij J^sq t ,S >r , J* i W o 1 I to 4- _ ^2

. A w f w ^ 3 ^ w S ^ T3- [gtg-C Si " ": it 5 !P ^S "S' o n oo 4 ^ ft < jl a

..*.< Cfv c> "- 1 (N H. C, Bhayani

CRITICAL REMARKS

The observations made above about the functions of various metres in MK. hold good in the case of JC. also. Some special remarks follow No. 1. vv. 24*5-2506 make a up Kadavaka. It is a hymn to Rsabha.

No 2. Paddhadi is used at vv. 1721-1729 for variation witb the Rssavalaya.

No. 4 We have three long passages in Rassvalaya. vv. 1730-1753 describe female beauty, w. 2659-2684 describe seasons, vv. 2692-2699 de.or.be Bharata's repentant mood and Rsabha's observations.

Radda o the narrate purpose probably set a

flEFERKNCE WORKS ;

Alsdorf L. fed ) n , v 1928. Bhayani H C ' f ^rapalapratibodha, Introduction to the SaMeSarasaka 1945 "^ Mimi Jinavi ft a Bhayani H C J y ) (ed ) *f M Bhayani H c Svayambhfldeva, Part-I, 1952. and ? V Modi HWW ". Vol. I M. C. f 3 1970; (ed.) %: *-'''*-'/l.97 [ i T-T 7 BJb.3.V3 n Oj O

' wthcommentaiyby : P Devacandrasflri ^ext =' Society Series 15, 1971. Haribhadra s ^ i and Modi, 1970-1971. Vardliantina- surfs ApabhramSa Metres

Hemasstgara-suri (cd.) UpadetamalA (with Ratnaprabha suri's commentary), 1958. Muni Jinuvijuya (ed.) Samtteforasaka of Abdula Rahainaiia, Siiiglii Jain Series 22, 1945.

Pagariya Rupendrakumar Manorama-kaha of Vardhamana-suri', (cd.) L. D. Series 93, 1983. Pagariya Rupendrakumar Jugni-jinimda-airiya of Vartlhamgaa-sfiri, (ed.) L. D. Series 104, 1987. -sim Ratnaprabha See under Hemasffga ra~.su n, 1958.

Svayambhfl Sec under Bhayani, 1952. Vardhamana-suri See under Pagariya, 1983, 1987

Velankar 11. D. (ed.) ChandonuSuxnna of Hemacandra, 1961. Velankar H. D. (cd.) Srnytiinbhucchunthts of Svayambhu, 1962.

Velankar II. D. (ed.) Kavhhirpatfti 1962. Vehinkar H. D. (cd.) Chuiulat.ikohi of Ralnasekhara- suri

II to (= Appendix Kaviclarpaija), 1962,

Vijayasona-sfiri See under Dalai 1920; Vyas B, S. (ed.) I'riikrta-paingcila Vol. II, 1959.

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF JAINA SANGHA

/. C. Sikdar

After Rsabhadeva there appear the names of the following twenty three Tirlhaftkaras in the Jaina pursnic tradition, viz. Ajita Samhl Abhlaaadaa. Padmaprabha, Sup^a, Su^i, C^nJ^^ ssup%aj vimak ' Ananta > m^> ***, A , tTT; Si Araha, Mall,, Mumsuvrata, Nami, Nemi, PirfvattMb and Vardharl * But it 1S not possible to make a comparative study of the life J ^ twenty one Tmhankaras from Ajita to Nemi with the historical ba k' ground in the absence of genuine historical documents regarding their" historicity. Nevertheless, some evidences of the historical existence last two ofth, T^hanlcaras- Par*van S tha and Vardhanuto. or ra available to C e throw some light upon the historical existence of the , ! of Parfvanatha and the rise of Jaina at fangha the time of MatevTra under his spiritual leadership. It should be kept in view that the of the T? sect of the twenty third Tirthankara and ' that of the 1 i will not be complete in the present state of the Jaina Agamas, but some' of portions them give some ideas about the actual position of Jaina Sangha m the beginning of its formation.

Pars>aBa!ha and His Historicity

According to the Jaina 5 tradition, PanSvanatha was born in the royal family of King ASvasena and queen Vamadevi of Varaiiasi and he took to asceticism by renouncing the worldly life at the age of thirty. After his seventy year's ascetic life he attained nirvana (liberation) by observing Samlekhanatapa for a months at Sameta^ikhara at the age of one hundred, at a time two hundred and fifty years before the nirvana of Mahavsra, 4 fulfilled his having glorious mission as Tirthankara. Since Herman Jacobis the gave convincing proof of the historical existence of Nirgrantha sect, flourishing at a period prior to the time of Mahavira and Parsvanatha as accepted a historical psrson on the basis of the evidences of the Jaina and Buddhist canons studied by him with deep critical historical acumen the scholars began to accept the of Padvanstha and the historicity Jaina tradition of the attainment of his nirvana two hundred and fifty years oarlier than that of ths last Tirthankara, MahsvTra, HI J. C. Sikdar

Jocobi holds the view that "we cannot ...... without doing violation

to the tradition, declare Maliavira to have been the founder of. Jainism.

But .he is without doubt the last prophet of the Jamas, the last Tlrtha- rikara. His predecessor, ParSva, the last Tlrthankara but one, seems to have better claims to the title of founder of Jainism ...Followers of

ParsSva are mentioned in the Canoncial books ..... This seems to indicate

that PaTiEva was a historical person; but in the absence of historical documents we cannot venture to go beyond a conjecture." 6

In addition to this view, he advances further arguments, while discussing csturyama of Parsvanstha in contradistinction to Pancamaha- vrata of Mahavlra by making reference to Caturyamasamvarasamvuto of Nigantha Nataputta, contained in the Pali texts and the Uttarsdhya- Sutra yana XXIir that "Parsva. was a historical person, is now admitted by all as very "s records of probable. ^"The the Buddhist canon are not repugnant to our views about the existence of the Nirgranthas must have been an important sect at the time when Buddhism took its rise. This be inferred may from the fact that they are so frequently mentioned in the pitakas as opponents or converts of Buddha and his as it is nowhere disciples; said or even merely implied that the Nirgra- nthas were a founded sect, we newly may conclude that they had already existed a " at considerable time before the advent of the Buddha. "This conclusion is well supported by the fact that Makkhali GoSSla, a of contemporary Buddha and Mahsvmi divided man kink into six classes" 1 of which "according to BuddhaGho?a,i the third class contains the Nirgranthas". 12

According to Jacob!, the name 'purva/ given to a part of the canon itself testifies to the fact that the Purvas were suppressed by a new canon, for 'purva' means 13 former, earlier, etc. The existence of the Piirvas the existence of suggests a previous community.

It is apparently clear from the views' of Jacobi that the solution of the problem of the historicity of Psrfvanatha hinges upon (he historical existence of the -SaUgha of his led Parampara by his followers, (par^va- patytyas), their acara (conduct) and Srutas (Purvadrutas) followed by them prior to Maliavira.

The spiritual heritage which Mahavlra obtained was that of the tradition of Parfvanatha. This heritage is mainly of three fcinds viz Sangha (Monastic Order), Acara and (conduct) Sruta (Scripture) i Origin and Development of Jaina Sahgha 113

In both the. Digambara and .Svetambara canons it is. stated that

PSrs'vanatha was .bom at Kasi and attained nirvana . at SaiuetaSikhara'

(Parasanatha hill in .Bihar). This much is undoubtedly known from both the sources that the field of religious propagation of Parsvanatha was Eastern India-mainly Northern and Southern parts of IHkar lying on the north and south of the Ganges respectively. But it is not possible to determine the boundary of his Viharabhumi (field of his mission). Only it can be indistinctly made clear on the basis of the Agamic reference to the limits of the field of mission of the Parsvapatyiyas (his followers) and the Bnddhist works :

' It is come across in the Buddhiit texts that appa SaVkya, the 15 1 uncle of the Buddha, a resident of Kapilavastu .{in Nepal) was a " Nirgrantha.Sravaka. 1 7 It appears from this fact of- the existence of, .the Nirgrantha Srayakas in Kapilavastu that Nirgranthadharma flourished historically in the Sakhya land in the period earlier than that of . the

Buddha. -, . .

At Sravasti fSahet Malut) 18 which was situated on the bank' of Aciravatl, lying to the south of Nepal, there took place the meeting between of Ke& Sramana Padvanathapa.r.anipara and the chief , disciple of Mahavlra, Gautama Indrabhuti.' 9 This Ke& initiated king Baesl and 20 1 his charioteer to Nirgranthadharma at Seyaviya ! which is indentifted, with the Baiiddha at ,.a distaiice far Seta.viya'of Pifaka, lying : not; from Sravasti. During the life time of Mahavira ths Partvspatyfyas flourished 2 2 at Vai^ali (present Yesarh of Mazaffarpur District, Bihar), -Ksatriya 33 Kundagrama (present Viisukundl and Vaaijyagrama (present Vaiiiaga-, 25 on a quarter of greater Vaisali).

2 s The of Mahsvira were It ; s parents PanSyapatyiyas. no ( surp.ius,iug if his elder brother, Nandivarddhana, etc. were also Pardyajpatylyas. It is

said that the father of Mahavira used to visit . Duipalasa Caitya which might have been sanctified by the image of Parsvanatha.

At Rajagrlui (modern Rajgir) Mahavira 2 heard through the mouth of Indrabhuti about the news of the religious discussion between the Psiivapatylya theras (monks) and the Srsvakas" (lay worshippers) of 47 Tungiks (Tungi) at Puspavati caitya,

O'jalthe basis of these scanty surviving (preserved) informations it can be .said without doubt that some villages and towns of the north arid

Sambodhi XIII 15 114 J. C. Sikdar

south of the Ganges as found in the account of religious tours and of propagation religion of Mahavlra were also the fields of religious tours and propagation of religion of the Nirgranthas belonging to the Par^va- parampara. In this way many references are come acrross in the Agamas to the of meeting Mahavlra with the Parsvapatylyas at Rajagrlm, etc, V According to Kosambi Gautama Bodhisatta V }**) Qhanng^nda practised the austerity of Samadhi marga"oTXlfra. Having left the palace, he first went to the of and hermitage Alan made study of Yogamarga. The latter him seven or taught steps stages of attaining Samadhi. Next he went to Udraka and learnt Ramaputra eight stages of attaining Samsdhi, but he was not satisfied with this attainment because the conflict of human life was not resolved by this Samadhi. Then he came to Rajagfha from the of Udraka hermitage Ramaputra, There he perhaps liked the Caturysma samvaras of the Sramanas by staying in their midst, for it is observed that he accommodated these four vows in Arya Astsagikamargas formu- lated by him on the attainment of his spiritual enlightenment. It may be surmised from this evidence that the Buddha fully accepted the four vows of Caturyama of Parsva. 2 6

On- this point Pandit Sukhlalji says that the purpose of Dharrnsmanda Koiambj was to point out this thing iu Csturysma that the Buddha made the of the development tradition of Caturyamadharma-of Pariva" in some form. He holds the view that the Buddha narrated the account of his practice of -asceticism' and religious conduct,* prior to the dme ol h,s attainment of Buddhatva (enlightenment), which appears to be similar to the religious conducts 1 of the Nirgranthas **

' When the reference to the Nirgrautha Ka SrSvaka,' Vappa Pl ,,vastu and some technical words conduct and knowledge of reality recorded in the Bauddha Kfa ch are found m the ^ Nirgrantha teachings are > nly , taken into con Me'r n then there does not ' remain any doubt to accept as such that the

Dimrma" 24, (pp. 26) indicates such belief^:

ft seems from an account of the early ascetic life' of tf, TJ A . us given in the Buddha Mahasimhananda-sutta tint he IT V in Ca tury 5madharma of

jugllps, some hght upon the four vows of Origin and Development of Jaina Sangha US

In the Pali, Pitaka it is stated that once Ajatasatm, the king of Magatha, told the Budda about his meeting with NiganHia Nataputta and his question on Sarhdrstika Sramanyaphala. The latter explained :

'Caturyania Sariivar- samvuto' to the king in this manner :

"Nigantho Nataputta marh etadovaco-idha Maharaja, NiganUio Catuyamasamvarasainvuto hoti, Kalharii ca Maharaja NiganUio Catuys- rnasamvarasaihvuto hoti ? Idha Maharaja, Nigautho Sabbavarivarito ca evaih ca hoti, sabbavariyutto ca, sabbavaridhuto ca, sabbavaridhufo ca/ Maharaja, Nigantho Catirysmasamvarasarhvuto hoti/yato...... Maharaja, Nigantho evaih Catuyania sathvarasarfavuto hoti, ayarii vuccati, Maharaja; 37 Nigantha gathatto ca, Yatatto ca thitatto cat!/"

of the 'Van' Dr. Muni Nagarajaji has interpreted the meaning word 1 of the statement 'Sabbavarivarita as water and that of the word 'vari' 3 8 of the statement Sabbavariyutto', etc. as sin (papa).

of the It is clear in this matter that he has followed the version 3 translation of other translators of the Dlghanikaya in this regard.

is If once this meaning of the word 'Vari' in 'Sabbavarivsrita' the same meaning written in this sense, it would be proper to accept etc. But all the of it in the case of the statement 'Sabbavariyutto', word 'vari' as sin translators have accepted the meaning of the (papa) that one elsewhere. This much is known from this interpretation to all scholars.- meaning of the word 'Vari' as sin (papa) was desirable in the case of the Then why this meaning 'Sin' for Vari is not accepted first Samastapada "Sabbavarivarito" ?

of the word 'Vari' because It is proper to take such a meaning the not all kinds of water. And at Mahavira prohibited cold water but renouncing all sins,- its time of his taking initiation he took the vow by; sainane -loyarh karitia name was samsyika caritra. "Tao nam Java pavakammam li siddhanam namukkararh karei, savvarh me akaranijja* 40 kattu ssmaiyarii carittam padivajjai." as such that he iirst According to the Sutrakrtartga, it is accepted stated in Not only this, but it of all gave the teaching of Samayika. of -Mahivira in this way . , this work in connection with the eulogy

: vihiila uvahaaavam du.. : ...loim aparaA Sa v^riya itthi Saraibhatta paratii ca savvaih pabhu variyasavvavar!." " the Ohe from -this eulogy ,hat .uca.ung pf B becomes very much dear which is. to for proh^on ,s word -Varr is sin because that of sm ..Van,,^ renounced) all kinds vsnyasavvavarl lewhohas prohibited (or drigin and DevelopiHeini of Jaina Safigita JJT'

' : fc. S.B.E. XLV, p. XXL 9. S.B.E. Vol. XLV, p. XXII. 10. Saraaflflaphala Sutta, Dlghanikaya II, 20. 11. Sumahgala Villpmi, Pt. I, p. 161, Buddha Ghosa 12. S.B.E. Vol. XLV, p. XXltl. 13. S.B.E. Vol. XXII, Introduction, p X,IV. 14. Car Pandit Tirthankara, Sukhlalji, p. 33 (Gujarati). 15. Atthakatha of Mulasutta 2/474. "Vappati dasabalassa culladita Sayama Samskarana 1" 16. Anguttara Nikaya, Catuskanipata, Vag s a 5. "Ekara sainayam Sakkesu bhagava viharati kapilavatthunimi 1 atlia

so . vappo sskko .niganttiasavago iti", 17. Ibid.

"The of Pali Dictionary proper Names,', Malalasckhara, vol. II, p. 832, 18. The Geographical of Dictionary Ancient and Mediaeval India, p. 119, Nandalal Dey. 19. Uttarsdhyayana Sutra 23. 20. Rayapaseniya "54 330 edited Sutta, (See p. by Pandit Bechardasji). 21. Ibid., p. 274. 22. 23. 24. See Vaishali Abhinandan grantlia, p. 92. See the of Geographical Dictionary Ancient and Mediaeval India, Nandalal Dey, for the identification of Vaishali. 25. "Samanassa Bhagavao Mahavirassa ammapiyaro Pasavaccijj samano- Yavi vasaga hottha 1", "AcarSnga II, Bhavacuiia 3, Sutra 40. 26. Teaarh Kaleaarh...Tungiyae ttagarie bahiya pupphavalle ceiehpasava- ccejja thers bhagavamtOnSamanovasehith itnai'm eyeruvaim Vggaranaim pucchiya.-.etc." 27. 'Sramana Bliagavan Mahavlra,' Kalyanavijayaji, p. 371. 28 'Parsvanatha Ka Catunyaniadharma', Dharmananda Ko^ainbi, p. 28. 29. Car Tirthankara, p. 155. (37-38).

30. Car Tirthankara, Pandit Sukhlalji, pp. 36-37.

31. Ibid., p. 38.

32. Compare Da^avaikalika, Chapter 3, 5-1, and Majjhimanikaya, Mahasimhanadasutta.

: 33. "Puggala, asava, sathvara, uposatha, sava ka, iiviTsaga, etc. The Word Puggala' is found to be use'd in the Bauddha Pifaka from the very beginning in the sense of soul of Jivavyakti (individual personality) (MdjjhimanikSya 1 14). J, C, Sikdcif Ii6

The commentator interpreted the meaning of vsriya of the gathS, varitavan. This was followed the 'Variyasavvavari' as meaning by Curnikara.

Even reaching closely the meaning of these two words 'Vari' in two of the word 'Vari' as sin cases the straight meaning cannot be made, in. one and the a real sense both point to same thing.

"Varitavan sisyan hirhsanrtasteyaparigrahebhya iti Sarvasmadakr- varitavaniti sarvavari. sarvavarana^lla lyadaimanariii sisyaths'ca 41 ityarthah" . "Prabhuh bhagavan sarvavaram bhauso nivaritavan etadulctam bhavati, svato' pranatipatanisedhadikarfa anusthsya paratns'ca sthapitavan"^

So the direct meaning of the word 'Vgri'43 is prohibited or fit for prohibition. It would be correct, if the meaning of the word 'Vari' found in the reading of the Pitaka is accepted in the sense of sin in all places. Here it is also proper to see the 58th gatha -of Isibhasiyaim, suppo-

rting the meaning 'sin'. "Sawattha vsrae dante savvavarihim varie.

savvadukkhappahine ya siddhe bhavati nirae."**

Foof-Note

1. Kalpasutra, 190-200, pp. 247-275;

tiloyapannatti, pt. I, vv. 510-519, pp. 20S-7. Trisasthisalakapuru^a, Hernacandra, 1410 parvas.

2, Kalpasutfa, 151, p. 217.

Tiloyapannatti, 548, p. 210.

3 Kalpasfltra, 159, p. 225.

4. "Pasassa duvslasavasasayrh vikkathtaim terasam'assa vasasayassa ayarn tlsaime sarnvacchare kale gacchai ", Ibid., 7. 169, "Mahavirassa nava vasasyaiin Vikkamtaim...... asime sarnvacchare kale gacchai, etc. 1" Ibid. .,6. 148. - -;{ 123Q- 980) 250 years.

5. That Psrsva was a historical person is now admitted by all as very probable 1" SBE,, vol. XLV. Jacobi Introduction 6.

6 Studies of Jainiin, Part -41, H. Jacobi,' p. 6, Samannvphaia Sutta, bighanikaya, pt I.

Nakputtavado 5, 28, p. 50. , J, C. Stkdar

used word 'Puggaia' is generally k In the Jaina paramparS this Us matter or atom. Even being so meaning the sense of non-living is found Pitaka, i.e. individual soul, m as accepted by the Bauddha is and in the sense that Jiva poggah the Bhasavati Sutra (8.10.361) the word of and in the sCtra 20.2.665 as synonymous poggala"also 5.1.73 the word poggala" in the Ddavaitalika Sutra Jwa (soul), while the of flesh which is related with body living. is used in the sense of this It is noteworthy that word beir.es (bahu-atlhiyarii puggalam).

1 the across in any old available sutra except Pugiala is not come Jaina-Bauddha sutras.

two words have mutually opposite Aava and Sarimra : These of Soul, while 'Samvara' meanings. Asava denotes the suffering (Klefe) and the means of it. Both the indicates the stoppage of it stopping 1. words are found in the Jaina Agamas (Slhananga, Sthana; 6.1.2; 8-1, 9-1 Samavayanga, 5 Samavaya, TattvBrthadhigamasutra in the same sense. and the Bauddha Pitaka (Majjhimanikaya 2)

of The word 'Uposalha' indicates particular 'upavrata (sub-vow) across to be used in the Biuddha the lay worshipper which is come the from the (See pitaka (Dighanikaya 4) and Agamas very beginning Uvasagudasao).

The two words 'Savaga' and 'Uvssaga' 'are found to be used in some form or other in the Bauddha Pitaka (Dlgnikaya and the Agamas) from the very beginning. In the Bauddha parampara the meaning of

the word 'Savaga' is the direct 'Bhiksu' disciple of the Buddha the Jaina the (Majjhimanikaya), whereas, in parampara" word 'Upa- 1 saka is used in the sense of the lay worshipper.

Having left the household life, if some person becomes a monk, then the one and same sentence is applied by usage to indicate this meaning, which is found in the both Pitaka and the Agama. It is this "Agarasma anagariyam pavvajjanti (Mahavagga) and AgSrao anagariyam pavvaittae 1" (Bhagavati Sutra 11.12.431.)

Here a few words have been compared as only examples. There is a good scope for consideration of their details, The similarity of the above-mentioned words are really old, there is no such possibi- lity of their accidental occurrence. For this -reason one common source should be found out anyhow by reaching the root of this similarity/Perhaps it indicates the parampara of Pars' vaustha. Car Tirthankara, f Note No. Pandit 15, pp, 36-37, Sukhlalji Origin and Development of Jaina Sahhha

i kho panaham, Sariputta, Caturangasamannagatam yarn Carita /" sudarh horai paramatapassi, lukho sudam paramalukho, jegucchl, sudarn homi parama-

, pavivitto sudarii homi pararaavivitto 1" Mahasimhananda Stitta, Majjhiraanikaya, 1, pp, 109 ff, speaking Caturyamika instruction was of PanSvanstha.

ya, p. 50.2.21.

, p. 454. the translation of English Dighanikaya, S B.E., II, p. 74

i Traslation of Sri Jagadish Ksiyapa, p. 21 the Palikosa also the meaning of 'vari' in. 'Varivarita' has been ^j- it ten as water. 4o. ^c?z ra"Sa Sutta, 2. 178, p, 424,

Curni 6. 28. 41 , S 5trakrtSrtga, 42. rt>i<3-> TikK, 6. 28

43. j>rof"- Dr. H. Bhayani has suggested that in tha words 'Cori' derived

1 caurya, 'raadhuri' from madhurya, 'desY from de^ya and 'karisi karisyati, etc. there is found the use of T or 'ya'. According to tliis rule, the form of the word 'Vsrrya' can be used as 'Vari.

44. Tsitliasiyaiip 29. 19.

'RASA AND ITS PLEASURABLE

V. M. Kulkarni

Bliarata nowhere in his Natya-Sastra makes ; a.oy explicit st|t;e,iiief\t that the rasa its nature is by very .pleasurable. Kicre ^re, hovveygr .&.

few clear indications in the text of N.^tyaSastffl of .its ,,pjea$u.rable n.atu.re.

The Indian tradition of the origin of the drama as ,pre,seTyed :in the

NafyaSSstra says : N'Stya, the completely new form of literature was created as a kridanlyaka -(lit., a .play-thing, fastii^ei .^rscfeiation,) to give pleasure to the eyes and ears alike (drjyam, JrayyficfljJ It was njeant to give courage, provide pastime, pleasure, friendly or salutary advice, etc. 3 It was also intended to give relief or aesthetic .repose: to persons afflicted with grief, exhausted with work, or overpowered with .sorrow or .distressed through weakness caused by different religious practices including fasts tapasvinsm. 3

Dhanafijaya, who in his famous work, DalarUpaka, "gives nn abstract of Bharata's Natyafastm explicitly states that the riipakcis (the ,-ten tjpes of drama) overflow with joy or delight. 4-

Dhanika, his brother and commentator iu : cQiriments ; ])is ^.valoka Aesthetic enjoyment consisting of supreme joy-that is ^nw^rjdly (experien- ced or felt is the real purpose of the .ten forms of drftma, ajid not merely of the three of is knowledge goals human life, etc. f the case in the Mah'Sbh'S.rata (Itihasa).'

: scr t" Some inpdern scholars, ihoweyer, qjte BJi^ratft's r de|i3jition a^d 49

p.tion of ideal spectator :..

; j j

" "An ideal spectator at a dramatic performances is one who, when (the character) is pleased becomes himself pleased, when (the character) is angry becomes himself angry, when (the character) is frightened or terrified becomes himself frightened or terrified." 6

- Also, "Ideal spectators at a dramatic performance -a-re those .who, when (the characters) are depressed become themselves 'depressed, when (the characters) are pleased become themselves pleased, when .(the 7 characters) are in sorrow, are themselves in sorrow". And, they interpret it to support their own feeling that it was Bharata's vkwthat -some ,riw are pleasurable and some others painful, in V, M. Kulkarni

It should be noted that Bharata does not speak Jiere about the nature ~ of rasa whether it is pbasurable or pajat'ul or whether it is both-but have. of the essential quality of'sympathy that a- spectator or reader must situa- Unless gifted with sympathy he cannot respond to the scenes and what tions presented on the slage or in the poem and cannot establish It is then has aptly been called by Abhinavagupta the hrdaya-saihvSda. followed; in A'bhinavagupta's language, by .the tsvo successive stages of or'; ianm&yibhs.va or ianihayibhavana (identifying oneself with the scene situation retaining a certain distance) and rasnsvsda or rasa-carvana

' : .' : i (aesthetic' enjoyment).

'' To explain rasasvada (aesthetic enjoyment or experience) Dhanafljnya

' :: gives the following analogy :

children with "When play clay- elephants, etc./ ;

the source of their joy is their own utsnha > (dynamic energy). The same is true of spectators watching (the heroic deeds of) Arjuna and other

:' (Mahsbhffrata) heroes on the . stage" This

" aesthetic experience or enjoyment is a manifestation of that joy or bliss which is innate as the true nature of the self (atman) because of the identification of the spectators with

KflvySrtha (the characters, scenes and situations " " presented in the drama).

Dhanika discusses this problem at some length : "It is quite proper to say that the sentiments of the erotic, the' heroic, the comic, etc., which consist essentially in joy arise from Mtm&nanda (the joy which is innate as true of the nature the self). But in the sentiment of pathos (Kfiruqa) and; such other sentiments of of (that anger, fear, and of disgust,) how can arise ? For when joy sahfdayas (sensitive readers or spectators) listen to a full of poem pathos, they experience sorrow, shed tears, etc. If this sentiment of were pathos .essentially to- .consist in joy, this wo.uld surely not "-This is answered as happen. objection follows : "What you say is But in true;. the aesthetic joy the sentiment of pathos and similar other is such that it is both sentiments, pleasurable and painful. For example, in- the act of Kuttdmita (affected repulse of a lover's caresses, as for instance, when lie holds or catches her. by her hair,, presses -'her breasts or kisses her and inflicts love passionately -bites) at "the time of saM)hogff (sexual enjoyment) women experience both pleasure and pain. (In other ttasa and its .Pteasurqbte. Nature

love-bites tooth-marks and words, nail-marks-.altboiighphy sically, painful give pleasure to women,) The aesthetic experience of grief or sorrow m poetry, in K&vya (creative literature) is different from the grief of' sorrow

as in the 'life. directly experienced by people actual. Tp explain : Sahrdajas and more to this turn more experience aesthetic grief or sorrow. If it were only painful like the griff or sorrow in" the real world' (actual life) ever think of then nobody woul4 going to witness plays or reading full of the sentiment of it is poems palhos. (For an. axiom that evej-y strives to secure ami 'shun being happiness misery or pain.) Consequently, and celebrated then such great works as the Mftrr&yanq, etc., 'which

' predominantly depict the sentiment of pathos would 'have failea""iato

oblivion and lost. The shedding of tears etc.,. by, the spectators (oT'zeade.r.sj on to the of a sad or incident or listening description tragic 'event" (iii"$ of like o'f work art, the shedding toarsi etc, through sorrow over 'the death or loss of one's beloved in "person 'actual life, is not"at '"ivariaice ' the view mentioned (with above). Therefore, Karuna-rqsa (the "sentiijieit

of like the other rasas,'of ," pathos), .friigEra (the sentiment of love) etp.j ' " '*" is certainly pleasurable." .

of all the Sanskrit it is But 'alainkiinkas, Abhinavagupta 'who* .repe- atedly speaks of the pleasurable nature of rasa. Before setting forth his view in detail it is necessary to notice two. other theories -mentioned, and

refuted by him. After refuting Sai'ikuka's view that rasa is the ren.rp.ditctiojj, (amikarana) of mental states he briefly refers to the Samkhya theory, of

Rasa, According to the Ssmkhyas, rasa is made of pleasure! and,; pairi and is nothing but a combination of various .elements (the vibliaimsj anubh&vas, etc.), possessing the power of producing pleasure" and .pain

and that these elements are only external ..(b&hya), < i.e., they --.are hot

psychic or mental states .(citta-vrttis),. According to this., theory, --there is

no difference between rasas and stlia.yi-bhS.vas (permanent- mental: states)-. Tiie advocates of this theory are naturally forced to give a metaphorical' interpretation of all the passages in which Bharata distinguishes rcisa-s : ; " the from citta-vfttis (permanent mental states). The -very ;fact ;'lhat

; Sarnkhyss have to resort to a forced interpretation -of Bharativ' s' passtlges " - -^- - shows that 'their theory is unsound.'-1

Towards the end of his comment on NatyaSalni, VI. 33 -Abhinavafupf'a' :; the view that ; is tfe attacks gankuka and his followers who hold rasa\

: -"Some- reproduction of permanent menial states like ra// (love), etc -' : of people argue that rasa is the reproduction of imit(\tioti perrframinT ' : i;; : tluis "'oif '; to aslc mental states like love '(niti') etc.,' and'tiicy go ffif li'4 V. M. Kilikami

qu&tiou : 'How c'an sorrow bo the cause of joy ?' They answer their own question by saying tliat sorrow (and similar other painful' nkntal

states) when portrayed iii drama acquire a peculiar or special property' (whereby they bfecome a sour&i of pleasure). But to start with, the very question they ask is false. For, is there an invariable rule that whe'tf one p'Sfcaives sorrow in somebody else it necessarily produces sorrow in oneself? It is observed in actual life that when one sees one's eneiny in ofie sorrow, experiences extreme joy. In other cases (i.e., in the cases of who are neither one's persons friends nor foes) one remains totally indifferent. the Now, regarding answer they give to their own question',

1 viz., it Is the very nature of the mental states or emotions that wli6tt ate they depicted in drama, they attain a peculiar or special property 1 ctmie thBy to possess speciality arid produce joy is no answer at all tfie'fe is no sub'starice (fit., in it.)*o "In our opinion, (says Abhiuava- aesthetic gflpiy (in e^erience) what is enjoyed is one's own conscious- nets which consists of a compact mass of bliss. How can there be any question of sorrow ? Different emotions like love, sorrow, etc. only serve the of purpose lending variety to the enjoyment of this consciousness

consisting of bliss). Acting, etc,, helps or serves to awaken it (i.e. the 1 ' stMtvedaM, consi&iousiriess)'.

A-bWuavagupta is firmly of the view that all the (eight or nine) ram Hf6 plewjibte (MaMafupa). When comrnenting on Natyafestra (I. 119, p. ^) he' declares : The four permanent (or dominant) mental states df love (rat)), hughter (flaw),- dynamic energy (utstim) and wonder (vismd^J afe-ptjraanly pleasurable (suKha--svabh^a). But the other four perman6At tor mental domraant) states of anger fear (krodha), (6Aaj;a), sorrow (Ma) ftnd disgust are -(JugupA) primarily painful. These permanent nientaf states, however, do not exclusively consist in happiness or misery, joy or sorrow, but are pierced through an etement of sorrow and 12 JOV resffictively,

In the course of . his discussion of the sixth obstacle to the realizatiotf the lack of some predominant factor (apradhznat^ ha ^^^observes : All these permanent mental s.ate, (when in a are portrayed drama) predotmnantly pleasurable. For, the essence of compact light (nrakm Rasa and its Fleiisufable 'Nature 125

or full repose. It is for this reason alone that the Sairikhyas who explain pain or sorrow as a of property raja's declare that restlessness is the very essence of pain or sorrow. All the rasas thus consist essentially in transcendental 13 But some of delight. them, on account of the Vibhavas, 1

etc .,' which by they are coloured are affected by a cemin touch of bitterness. 1 *

When Bharata's explaining comparison of rasa (sentiment) with anna (food) and of the aesthetic' process with testing, Abhirtavagupta elucidates the phrase Harsadimf (Gadhigacctianti) with reference to (i) gourmets to mean that attain they pleasure (and &di includes) satisfaction, nourishment, strength and good health and with reference to (ii) sensitive spectators to mean that they attain pleasure, (and the word adi includes) proficiency in the four of goals human life, viz, dha/'ma, artha, ksma mid mo'ksa, and the fine arts. He then the quotes view of earlier writers (anye tu) : "Others however that think the word adi etc., in the above phrase in- cludes sorrow and the like. But this inclusion (sam$raha} is not proper. For drama produces pleasure arid plea'sure (alone) ("Harsaika phalarh in the natyam'-) sensitive spectators and not sorrow, etc,, (other similar painful feelings). Thinking that there is no good or valid reaso'n to believe that drama produces sorrow and that they would be required to

1 refute the view that is the' sorrow purpose of drama the'se writers read :

1 hanjaitiscadhigacchariti (i.e. they attain pleasures). *

Abhinavagupta does not record either his approval or disapproval of this view. But this view does not, it would seem, differ from Abhina- vagupta's own view often expressed in his two commentaries- Abhinava- bh&rali for and Dhvanyalokalocana He, instance, remarks in his Locana :

"Although knowledge (instruction in the four ends of human life and the fine arts) and pleasure for the reader ave both present, pleasure is the chief purpose' of Kdvya (poetry, creative literature)... Even of instruction in the four ends of human life, joy or delight (Snanda) is the final and chief purpose or result or reward." M Again, ''Rasa has for its essence pleasure and rasa alone is drama. ...This is what our respected teacher says. Nor are pleasure and moral instruction really different from one another, for they both have the same cause

ViSvanatha discusses this problem of Karma etc. being pleasurable in his Sthitya-darpana (Chapter III. 4-8) ;

He declares that rasa is matte of pleasure or joy and that it is brahmsisvsdj-sahod'ara (akin to the enjoyment of Brahman, charactefis'ed by sat, tit and znanda), 126 V. -M. Kutkarni

Objection ;."Then since Karuiui, etc. (i.e. bibhatia, bhaymaka and arise out of cannot be raudra) sorrow, etc,, they called rasas at all." ,

Answer : In Karuna, etc. suprem; aesthetic joy is produced. Aud in this matter the experience of the sensitive spectators and readers is the sole proof. Moreover, if they were to produce sorrow, nobody wo uld be attracted towards (the works depicting) these Kamna and such other rasas. No sensible person exerts himself to experience sorrow; and .'since. all (.sensible and sensitive people) are se;.i to b; drawn towards l.arnnii, etc., itJs evident that karuna and such other rasas consist of (aesthetic) joy. If Karuna-rasa were the cause, or source of sorrow, such-great works as would cause sorrow. Rarnayana And how then some one may ask, can joy arise from what causes sorrow ? To this YiJvaastha replies as follows : Granted that worldly joys and sorrows, arise from wordldly cause of and joy sorrows. But when these very causes etc, are depicted in K&vya (creative literature) they lose their character as causes, etc., and turn into vibh&vas no etc., which ; longer remain laukika worldly and are called alaukika (non-worldly). They like love-bites, etc., in sexual union, produce pleasure and pleasure alone, and therefore' our above thesis is unexceptionable.

. But if the thesis (poetic or dramatic representation of sorrows and

sufferings produces only be how is it joy) correct, that the shedding of of tears, (eic., are produced while) witnessing or hearing sad events in in the life of etc. in the Hariscandra, Mafabhsfata and the like ? To this it is as replied follows: The of tears etc shedding , arc held to come from the mind for heart) being melted.

; ... Jagaanstha in the course of his exposition of the nature of rasa as elucidated by various zlaMznkas (literary thinkers) sets forth/or the -first tvne the news of the tb,yas : and (Moderns) fen '(other literary thinkers It may not be wrong to suggest that Jagannatha himself held the asmbed to the Nnya,.. The N account avyas for joy produced*oyby and such other rasas as follows :

'The sensitive ..spectator (Sahrdaya) identifies himself with a hero

nJM ' eUJ ySthed tic - - , luntata. In tins connection n may be asked : .,Ratl 'love) of for Du^yonta, let us grant for .he Sake of argument, pro ll joy in the spectator as in the case of ' Dujyad.a, But how can Mu (8pffow>( ,th, permanent e.notbn O r the sentiment-of pathos, '-whicl i well-known to be the cause of unhapplncs, produce m joy 'the spc r Rasa and its Pleasurable Nature 121

On .'the .contrary, it would be only proper to' 'hold that it (soka) produces in the as in the case of the hero. nil-happiness spectator Some , might" argue :.."That real, sorrow produces unhappiness is an accepted truth. But the sorrow produced by reading a poem portraying Karuna rasa or while witnessing a tragic scene or event, being unreal cannot produce a distressing effect. While the hero of a poem or a play experiences grief, the sahrdaya does not." But this argument is not correct. This argument, if accepted, would force us all to accept the position that the rope mistaken for a serpent. does not produce fear or trembling. Again, it would 'not bs reasonable to say that 'rdti (love) etc., which is imaginatir, vely felt by the spectator produces joy in him." In reply to this it is. said :. What you say is true. But if it be the experience of the sahrdayas) (lit. if it be verified by the heart of the sahrdayus that pure joy alone is produced from poetic or dramatic works .replete" like from or dramatic with Kanina-rqsa just tlje poetic works in which the erotic sentiment predominates, then it will have to be admitted that extra-ordinary power or better, function of suggestion hkottara-kavya- vynpara) itself is the cause of preventing sorrow or grief just as it is the cause of producing joy. For a cause is inferred from the effect. On the other hand, if sorrow/grief is proved to effect from a poem' or a play depicting karuna-rasa as joy from an erotic poem or play then it is not - necessary to infer the cause, viv., the preventing of sorrow or grief and'

1 will their -' then, both joy and sorrow follow own causes respectively. full It may be asked : "If a poem of pathos were to produce sorrow why should a poet strive himself to compose such a poem and a sensi- tive reader, to listen to it ? For it being the cause of an undesirable or it be unwelcome thing (viz, , sorrow) would only proper for him to refrain

from it." In reply it is said : As there is in a play full of pathos welcome joy in a larger degree and unwelcome unhappiness in a lesser degree a poet's activity of composing and a spectator's activity of witnessing it stands to reason, just like a person's activity of applying ' sandal paste to one's body.

Now, according to the literary thinkers or critics who maintain that every poetic work yields pure joy, there is absolutely no hindrance to the poet's or reader's or spectator's activity in regard to writing a poem,* or listening to it or witnessing a play respectively. Even the flow of tears or shedding of tears when reading a poem full of pathos is only

natural as it takes place while experiencing that pure joy; and this flow

of Therefore the ; of tears does not (at all) aiise on account grief. flow of of of pf shedding tears from the eyes the devotees (Vinu, '# . y. M, Kulkami

any other) deity on hearing jiis description is only proper. There is not even the touch sorrow or in slightest pf grief listening to such descrip- tions" of deities shed (And yet they tears; therefore it is quite evideiu that these' tears 'ate of and- pu.-ejoy not of sorrow). It may be asked : "If the sensitive spectator or reader who has completely identified himself with sorrow-stricken Da&ratha, etc., experiences in relishing the sentiment of then in pathos etc., joy, a dream or in sannipata (a dangerous fever a combined' derangement of the three humo.urs of the body causing fever which is of a da,ugerous kind) by such identification also he ought to experience sorrow in this case (viz. relishing the sentiment of pathos, etc.)". this it is To said in : "That reply even matters like sorrow, etc., which are in themselves distasteful (unwelcome), produce extra- ordinary ,qr transcendental is due to the joy glorious power .of the extra -ordinary poetic -function, called vyanjana (the power of suggestion). The sweet aesthetic relish arising out of this extra-ordinary poetic function (of vyanjana) is altogether different from the experience of joy produced by any other means- of cognition (like .perception, inference, analogy, 19 scriptures, etc.)"

- This Discussion reveals that conflicting views are held by Sanskrit rary thinkers regarding rasa. and- its .pleasurable nature ; (i) Some

,- F are Q the ; view that .rasas, one and all,, without any exception, "are Rlmswahk. They define .and describe as a- mw manifestation .of the joy.. or particular -permanent emotion:

willi.its, :veil of ignorance uncovered or rent asimder, :.

. Consecruentiy, Jn this r ^yoymetiLpf one's own cqnsejousnes.s which is a mass of bli^s Q r of one's own mental state with .the preponderance of the element of g#M .and ^ith the and bliss light ,qf, ? e,lf reflectefi )n it there can be ajwolntsly no guestipn of any unhappiness, pain ' or '.grief sorrow. These literary are Critics knpwn & '&vqMtod?vadtn*> m Some other literary critics are of the view that some "rasps like erotic ^e (Srhgara) etc., are but pleasurable some others like the pathetic in %Wfl),are .painful .as ; our actual .everyday life. These -literary e^tics a^e ^WW.SWtatofototftakavMin, (iii) Tjie rnqdern 'iwvya) literary cr,.tj 9 , ,Siddhjcandr a gani is alone ,in holdwn the vie,w that there are qnly' four VMS. ,ffa g sra t .etc. as .the: are . -pleasurable, .and the .rest of the (eight or : do.not .nine) ram deserve ,to be, called,

,pf ,*e four : well-kiip^n comwept^tqrs of t pliiirata's -and arc ..Abhinavagupta . the. undoubtedly ;pf view Jtiiftt Rasa and its Pleasurable Nature

arc pleasurable. Regarding Lollata we do not get any definite indication in his exposition of the rasa-sutra as presented by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabharati But in (I.p.272). his Locana commentary on Dhvanyaloka (II. pp. we have a clue in this 184-85) regard. An objection is raised 1 by Sankulca against Lollata s PustivMa or Uttpattlv&da : "...Therefore there is no rasa in the character being portrayed. ..If one were to say that it exists in the spectator how could there be camatkdra (mysterious delight, thrill of joy) ? On the in contrary, Kanuia-msa, etc., the spectator would sorrow or experience only grief or pain." This passage may be taken as an indication to draw the inference that Lollata was also of the view that till ranas arc, pleasurable. We are fortunate enough to come across a which has been cited passage by Abhinavagupta only to criticise Safikuka. fkrikuka unambiguously states : "Soka (and other similar mental when in permanent stales) portrayed Kavya (a poem) and natya come to a charm or (a play) possess peculiar beauty whereby they become and that it is the nature of these pleasurable; very bhavas (per- manent mental states) to become pleasurable when depicted in drama "2 (creative literature).

Incidentally, it may be noted thai Mammata has paraphrased, when Sarikuka's summarising interpolation of \\virasa-sStra, the phrase 'vastu- svabMva-m/ltrena" the and sentence 'asti ko'pi nstya-gatSnaih bhavSDiSri) viiSesah* as 'vustu-saundaryabal&d rasaniyatventinyanwniyamMa~*vilak$Qnaty... (raiyadir bhavafy. ..)"."

criticises Sankuka for this Although Abhinavagupta view of his, elsewhere he himself declares : "...the states of mind appropriate to love etc., and denoted such as rati (Kama) by words (sexual love) etc., are made of or relished capable being enjoyed through the suggestive poetic or function and the fourfold activity (Kavi~vyap

: of clearly says "States mind, conveyed through the extra-ordinary process of verbal representation, etc,, render themselves worther or capable of relish or enjoyment, although they are in our actual day-to- 23 day life unworthy or incapable of being relished or enjoyed.

Ra'macandra and Guuacandra who hold the view that rasas are

"sukhaduhktiStmaka" account for the mysterious delight (camafk&ra arising from repugnant karuna and such other rasas by referring to Kavi-nata-

Sambodhi XIII 17 130 V. M. Kulkarani

is to result from these Sakti-kauSala : "That mysterious delight seen (repugnant and) painful rasas is due to the poet's creative imagination and the actors' skill or proficiency in acting or the dramatic representa- tion (due to the excellence of the art of either the dramatist or of the 2 * actors.)" As these authors have made free use of Abhinavabharati in writing Natyadarpana probably they have been influenced by the two passages from Abhinavabfwrati cited in foot-notes (No. 22 and No, 23) above.

VHvanatha who, as a rule, follows Abhinavagupta depends on him

for this point too : "In the actual world the rule holds that from

worldly causes of joy, sorrow, etc., worldly joy, sorrow, etc., respectively are produced, But in the world of poetry and drama, which is alaukika (.transcendental, non-worldly) joy alone is produced from the vibhavas, etc., which are alaukika.

Jagantistha too who also is a follower of Abhinavagupta asserts that the dower of suggestion (vyafijana) plays a unique role in creative

literature. Such is the power of the lokottara (i.e., alaukifea) poetic function of vyafijana that even things like sorrow, altough unwelcome in themselves when portrayed in creative literature produce extraordinary joy or delight. The sweet relish raising from this vyaKjaria-vyapara is altogether different from the joyful experience produced by any other 25 pramana (proof, like perception, inference, etc.).

It is indeed extra-ordinary that none of the post-Abhinavgupta aJafhkarikas (literary critics) noticed the glaring contradiction between the two following statements made by Abhinavagupta in his Locana. In the course of hh of the relish or exposition enjoyment (bhoga) of rasa Bhatta Nsyaka observes that it approximates the relish or enjoyment of the Brahman- Highest Abhinavgupta commenting on this statement says; "We admit with him that aesthetic enjoyment (rasas vada) is similar to relish or of bliss the enjoyment of the Highest Brahman.*

"The which happiness results from the knowledge of both seen and unseen which are objects ascertained, by all the means of cognition or even that which extra-worldly joy consists in enjoying an aesthetic - experience to both of these, the bliss that follows from full repose in God is far and that aesthetic superior; rapture is only an appearance of a particle or reflection of a or fraction drop of that bliss. But ordinary worldly pleasure is almost inferior to even .that aesthetic pleasureecab use it is not without of plenty pain or misery."*'' Rasa and its Pleasurable Nature 131

This plain inconsistency can only be explained if we take Abhiuava- gupta's statement comparing rasasvada with parabrahmasvada as a mere arthav&da (praise, eulogy) with a view to glorifying rasa.

The protagonists of the view that all rasas are pleasurable attempt- to show that bhavana. (generalisation, universalisation, idealisation) or ah; or function of vyanjana-vyapara power suggestion) effects, temporarily. though, the removal of delusion, of mind or (moha) ignorance (ajtisna) that the mass of bliss innate to tlie envelops Self (siman); and thereby enable the to sahrdaya appreciate and enjoy the transcendental joy or delight of the self or the bliss of brahman. The advocates of the view that rasas are only laukika (worldly, the s>ime as emotions or states of mind as in actual life) aud are pleasurable or painful in accordance with the or emotions raise the pleasant painful may following objection : "It posses one's comprehension how a literary function like bhsvana. or vyaiijana can transform what is unpleasant into pleasurable rasa. One may admit with the followers of the Vedauta darSana that the cover of of mind or the Self delusion ignorance enveloping or Cit or Caitanya is removed or rent asunder of the through knowledge Ultimate Reality or in the case of (paramatman parabrahma) a person who aspires after tnofya and is of the four well-known (liberation) possessed requisites (including

' lamadamadi-sadhana- sampat) and undertakes the study of edsnta, etc. but there is or evidence hardly any justification enough for investing with such bhavana, or vyanjan'a extra-ordinary and incredible power." In the hold all reply Kevala.nanda~va.dins (those who that rasas are pleasu-

: "The facts or events treated rable) may say poetically may, as parts life or but of the actual produce pleasure pain when they are contemp- idealised or lated in their generalised form they give rise to pleasure alone. As a result of this of and pleasure contemplation literary objects in their idealised character they become impersonal in their appeal and therefore enjoyable in and for themselves. In other words, the sahrdaya in appreciating poetry or drama or creative literature in general rises above the duality of pleasure or pain as commanly understood, and enjoys higher pleasure or delight. Bhzvana** leads to spontaneous and complete selflessness or forgetting one's private self and it in its turn yields pure joy unmixed with pain or sorrow or any kind of mental tension. And in this regard it is comparable to brahmasvada; and in are regard to such pleasurable experience sahrdayas alone authority." It is doubtful if this reply would satisfy or convince Sukha-du}}khmma-Vadins. the Modern literary thinkers too may not accept position that in aesth- one's own consciousness that consists etic experience one enjoys of a 132 V- M. Kulkarni

bHSS ' hey ' hl fact ' re ard the of^mLTro^ J Populate c ex of rasa. 3s

FOOT-NOTE

_NS t 2. ftftwrf N- _ Ibid> r . U3(b

_ Ibid j 4. _DR I6 5.

.! DR Av 6

7.

. 5r,8^-afenfli^ tf% , _ ^ ^^ NS , XXVII 61(b) 62(a) XXVII 42

8,----ifi!it

-DR IV. 41(b)-42(a), IV. 43{a) ^ sij^n ^--^ft-^^rraY

-ja-W q rar ?l% L> f ~ , A - Bh. I, p. 276 , n 10. ^ S ^3CT^ T *n: aw-^p, ^, - ^ ^^ ( ffi | ^ g>

A. Bh. I. p 291 11. W % , ^ ~ A - Bh. I. p. 292 12. am f|~^

-A. Bh, i. p . 43 Rasa and its Pleasurable Nature 133

13. as? ! gsfsifl i j>tffq gicisHRf. ^fffwl

A. Bh. I. p. 282

14, f^gq^s^fi,^^ %qrnft ^fo^rr 5q?ifsfe,..| A. Bh. l. p. 282 15, apq Mlf^r^!' ^r^R5j w'jfg: | g q q gfa: I BlflTf^mi f?

ia^ i riqr^ rHft^i^f-qrri: aeqRsKqaffi^fa qafei i A. Bh. I. p. 289 16 srlguir ^ sgc^qldt q%ffq ?3:-..?iqift ei^ jjlla^^r Sf^RB; i ^g^Vogfqff-

q;=< qiq^ffct^ ?5Z?' ^n I Locana on I. 1 pp. 40-4

17. qlfqifqf

Locana p. 336

18, ?frq: g^ ?fiqiaTfi1 f-l 13^ siwa i SD. Vj-ttia on III 7

fifq?} ?^dj[:q, i Avatoka IV. 44-4.5

And, a'Htfrat^ ?^irqEt(?ur^Tlt fJ^qi^ig^t^^W^^F^tfii I %-

sfq g:<35[fq=sru. : ffftctftra agSSJcrficl, : Ratn&pana,^. 209

19. Rasagangadhara, Kavyainala edn, Bombay, 1939, (pp. 30-32)

20 Vide the passage edited in F. N. No 10 above.

21. g'qi

...... KP. (Jhalakifcar's edn) p. 90 22. ...wrft ^a^rf^^ig^ wqifrawTMi:

cfTm^'n^or ...... ^mrfsi^ af?r ^ ^'

-A Bh. I.- p. 333

23

A. Bh. I. 344 p. (text restored by me)

24. sfis'n-^-^a-^qi.'T^T^MTrt'r^msT: i

ND p. 141 134 V. M. Kulkaraui

25 3ft' fe atfTrff? 1 ? irs^TqKR qfl&T, v?Uflt57r wqoftqr %?iq-

Rasagahg&dhara pp. 31-32

' 26 [^if^ ^ ^1 cr?^r Trtnr...'Bwrwi^ftr: I...] qtwiRaflii^TR^' Locana 183-190 ^r^R Wierat??! I pp' 27

Locana III p. 510

28. cf. the gloss in Locana on the phrase of Dhvanysloka (Kavya-tattvs.-

rtha-bhavansi-vimukhanam) : '

l

Locana, p. 94 consideration the views of Saradata- 29, This paper leaves out Bhoja, a Madhusudana Sarasvati, etc., as Raghavan has already dealt nay , with them in his two works : Bhoja' s SrngZraprakaSa and the Number of Rasas.

fir*

%

*TI 1 %r wa fsir I % KIT pr I T ga sifii^o *t

jt I 5* tR f.% a|

q? qifqifi fgcj?;i[

T?? m^ |. ^ aqM qia q(? % 5?slf

I I

BJT 1 1 am

fto;

% iwn *ft qr

If ! (fa

if

tf ^rm jwrfer* (9'. HO^/ |o UK?) ^ |ftfl Wqf^p gaiO; q? 5H^ , g^ gftg q(^ v. mi % fs^ SIK If a<-qf% ?r Rfi I % Z^TfK

T8ai | I 3lR?Ef.l!U ft^oi qsolJTW % W if I I

Jj qg 3^

i i I mw feiq air (^on

if *fi I i

fi fr (ftswfo) fT

sflijs P?I$ airar I I *u

aqj go;

WT I I

8 fl /f ?), I I

Qlf?qil H^IIT,

i '' I a?ei: f

1 " ff I

suffer

31T

aqqa

GO

IUU

\

IRII J IIMI

n qJ^Nsfeat (5) nun

-i i*

t f

if

; ten w ft*fy

J IRHIi

22 { 1,21 ,, fRR

, 'g fsi;%'

3l a*it an % W&i wcr frft^l % ai'at ^fft fi

I, c;^ (f%^) rqwT B^sft % i^

ii%' ^si^^agiq) ^ si^ ^1 tt

jit ^ % jw^ % STOPS'* ^TR (q?g?tfl)5| 1 ^ sm ' ^flw ^ ^1

v.

ft wft ^fofql ^ % n^ % feo; .335?

wwt ^r wj-Rvit 4)

- rif 'fia'wisi' ^ ffgf las'iVr siw"! ^ y* ^ wi .ftiri (firwfo)

% fTW 6ft

n'* tow) %

' 31

% ?:r*r ^Vg'n^l % fn^ 0; '^a % 3

^it q* ^g^ ^g ^ fqfsTcf ^3^^, 5^? ^T^l I gr

?|. siwK it ^a ^e^r g^ 'wfc' 8iT,f%6^gri ^i^f iiftqt % ftrcl

lifl t) tir f^ai iwt s^ sl^r 5l ^ g'j ^wt ft ?r; % ^q

(in?) gHi acfaiif ^iTPwct f^u; *\ti w mfarn *6l

it

ff i i^r I

if ?rl1

ft m

a! q^ f&cf sfl I

. q|f w ^sflT ^ 53^ fn!i3|t

if, f% W I

ft OT f.Wlf-1

ft se^t si srw

war. ir ft

|| ail SITII

ft i qf% (fsjaTiiq) spy

03 ^;g aw J| HIUII sprpn; % softer

I. V.

g- R^^, q?i ^

), galq IT,

is^j H &.

g. v-^ i

r^ififar,

g. n; a^sft 3?g^ ^t. n. gi|

a. ^R?^^ i

, vv,

v?

[?. % ipfi

. ^V

swwrn, BT

815(1%

, rften?

sf ft fit

y y v y

K

tifir

I?

"Ml Ik <;

s

s

\

*> f w fas

I? u

U

GWt

** 54 u o o u n pfaiftft l ^ V& % B?RT J

I, fl

"% (1) $ V^Pl^l BT f? % stT^Pl

srerc

(2) '

stir I ?^f <

: PS frT ?^qft!8S I '^g: (3) ?^ti?q8a %T 3$ ^5 ^it t 'qft ftf

: 1 3^ WftflH ^ ;m ^1T |MT 5^ ^1 I ^^, W ^%T ^ f^

B> sflfr JIBW ^r it I r ?Vai I a^ rarc swim " TO fT?T '^^ 3^ qVt^lT S^ 1 1 ^^ "itlffH M'*> 3r ^qfrcr % 'fie; sr*^ tffl H" l^T t ^ 3 *wi %r fm

I % .s(f : I "^iwa I it ..... 333 )

?tjft *H$ |R

?R % w.q % faq it

t ffgf I (

*ft war I

"fit

*ilntafl ^ a?? % VOT iw

weft I ' I w

% ^ %

?R )1 %

qR|

, : % tram? % w 3 sfaKl WT t I BW )

*3 ft ?R $ aii^n f I m 3 *WW *WtW $T ^ ^nffifi'n *ft H ft H *uff ^ ^ *% s(ta i^crr I I irn

?i ^iP-tf ti% ^ WR BIRT 'iff it '*Gai i ^tf? wI^R i\\ % TI ^Ifit'Tt ft- Ctf?T ^ ff^qR^f^J Irl^ ?i, I ff ^r

fer

qi -tn i ?w: i?

T n 55 gint?Ji qfi

5IST 511^*11 ft ^1 Pq^K I 30 q* q*TO

f,

tr55\

I

W^ I SWfUr. ft |) Tft ^ WIT -qHTR f

il ft--. % f^ ^ ^ qKf it >*

an: , ., ' fl.fin?iiwH | ft TO ^ w W

fr ' 8|

:

* ' % aigsi, www fl ,,,

.

^T , - ^ m ^ r ^.-

I I

?> 5trar I I

. ^rar | ff-m rt ^r R* *

I) ft

s*

ft ^ ** *

*R I (fK") I ^ Wit WTOai I

T * ^ wem

li ft "*

I IT E > awi PT * qfeawr, awftra (an), fi ^^/wi 511 " 1^1 w* * WI ^ c 3^ wmw ^ ? ^1t ^ f%.

f i ^

*

****** 9 *

f aw t

% % ^ g *

,

rl . . Ml i , r 1WR ^ qf;fr ^ ^ iwrr^isi 'stow ssat IPs ^i *rW^ w w ^ % % va %' ett JtwBrdto wfli awifa ^ w | *t awr * *ft ?e* fofl %* w w

%T

-PI fit

3IPWH

^ fl Jf % feo; 'fl^fhr ^"i I 'I rgcftq ^^"T u$

ii?t% agjwi^ q'^q sr*n I I nr^

RW ^ ^ %'lf a'?'! ^ta 1 1 ff

I

^> si^' is|. BTewf d^.

fso;

8^ I 1 I IB 3331 % fa&fo? %

% it'll I f fti

4 8

31ct: gist I |t

sf| Cft

liar ft ff 'fl: if '??

I

a?r

'aqs?irf%

- sppgr*n^ uwaf $ % ftq; ^ a^tf wer gtl | I anKtsj BTO&R ^ ql"^r at sp,

t | | 313: 3iq

ft

. , ^^ * 1 ^" *** I ^ - inr fr ""I* ^1 * :W :

!f^ [

r

"* * ,. ,^r rti*,i^?E MH, ,? f5 %

at awl* S ir

ft sir

% ?r it qi^ %

3? fl

I ?

I 1 ?a qi.

s f% ^Hffs st

389"! fft l|f RWI 5>cll I it

g % -sii^q tar I

fT

aw??!* 15 t-wfiia 5831

I, 39$

WI gfa 3^ ft sir *WT I IT *3Wi ?

-ft

;KT it

q; ghft I W ftlfcr Jl ft V&. % -WW I ami (1) ngl j % (2) ^ Jf

ft

gt

1$

(SPIWf)

ft ft q>T

% fai; a^l^tf $ ftft

Wrasifiiqlffl, SlWf]> 1*3^ 3Crtr ( TO J

sflct^fft I (T ?T) f'fiff w

ri1 % gff

1

f , ^2 ft ^

) I sirj: fsia !*(! ^ ^^)% STe^WH fT

% qr'T 3) sjf^nl I w

ft ijTll ,31813 JRt ^ Ct ti^!

erf ?-7r.Tif?if Hpif/ar a'f^ ) ^ I ff

5 gfei a^^ajsq^gn q>qs^K I a ? WI fRi I Pfi

IM n4 "if ^fl '^f ^ ^ ^ ^wr 1 1

aia: Rife: wwf|sn"?Vftfe fliift sjral I I % i 3^

r ' JPH I I ^ fW ?. t URTT W P^ 5^1 ^3^

BW % WR ( q^r) I f* itf'Bfr ^ ^551

"ft Hlfa t ?J Ri^Jf ^'wwrft ftT ^ I) ?! q^ ^ f< W fw I 5T ^ RT^ BI ^^f I ^l^^^ct ftw dnt a9k- *, ^W ^r %w W 81^11 fll^ W^qi 51 ^ t HTfr ^^ ^?T W

** f% |t ff ? W% SKK ft

t RflfWI 31

) il

I P^s [f t, m % gift q ?r i')

W (W ^)^I qa.t 3R gt 5

TOT I w: q^( ft

ft q^ ft

fl " * ^

{ fasten % awfwt fe^ $ I I SB "j=f fag; " " ? & u;r' fafer aftwi tf f%fe; *

t I 13? if fl^o? Hrq lit fefe ^?l ?ITJI T Ji^fi tliir '' 5iR

fefl; qy ^ f^r ?t'ir I frtft

gr4?eii ft gqn^ |o;

I I

la mm gf? ^ f f%

^ | I ^:

eft 9?qfgg; fg&qqff a[tq ^ T|f |tni I f^Jg If SRTfr Wg^'lK I

I I sreqrefafe % STKOI %

fl^ft aia: ^W! I | 913^1 ^ % sfe[ I

% r^-j; I ^ftfic % firCT?w (3i3^) If

(1)

33 (2) ?^q!l^l% ay^n %

: ^i fqlft wfct I a?t^r aqrft I ^rfa fit .ffsl ^^t 315^ ^rRi 1% *s qT I, au^-ffl ! ^'Bt. s>ft 1 .."A iar. .qz.

ft ^ iTfi5^ ^ufa ^Cf RI* wat

wlft ^nrrf^r ft t %

% i sqifo ft sufa qitf sial I M W ^ sm

FNt a^t t ( o;n ra 3

34 (3) sTjR^r'^ -^^^ Ig JhiR^ifef^ frit |

aqrft gq-i 5! ^|t I I & 3irft % a^ felsw ^ fl ?rqur ^r g qsar 1 1 JcE 3 s ff aejo

it *M ft ftP^f qr^l yti^ w al |cf ^?T?cft fsra% ew % ^ w ^ ^ (3jf3 ^ JT irii^r nr star)

?t I, '^ 1% B?K ^Tfr gfcl It I

8?im ?>i "41 aqrfg % flw;

q^3 flR ^ |t ^K I I ^

-^rqf j?it if qi^t *qm, crit i ; ^ m

ft

inqsi dai I at 9alt'^ %' : fijn

33r4t ^i^u; j ^ffiircrer nr^-^ wq^i^ ^ ?rri " to angqn tl

ig^i^" -|e it

fr RqtsR I

fr (li) vtym fai-vn ^ | i ^g?g ft ft. em^rq'BBr fl jqq% ^jjt * SIT ^eft i

(4) S itf ^3 aa, Y q? d mw g^j' ft t I %

38 snsrmiT foSS (5) a^Tffof Sqz^a stq ftqivr % 955$ Jj jj

*Il ft ^aj *} 3?31^ %3 3$ igcft I ^f T? Squ %^r rfrfeo; ft T ^ffa SIR) I I 8ft: giWKi a^$]f?cffi sfa

(6)

% nre Ji % sstf w^f % a^g^fa ^ 5iiii% ^Cf ^str gq.a1| i

f-^ ^if?^ ^^ B> f^^cr f^rr ^rar I I 40 (7) gf?'t 3^fiif?ciqi qr sigwd ^g^frf %J ajg^f qi tg

f!

gar

, axil % f^^. ^ fsrarsi ^ q? g-% 5

% 3 I Rr?ft siicfi I, ^% ^f^R^ct ci>ad ^^ ^m aqrdt afo

f^i alffO sig^jfej % (r^e^t 3sfiT nw ?i) ll IIT ^i ifw

f%et *ft q?g ?i ?R ft^ir F^ URUT % HR 5^ fi ftsRf It % n\aO ?% f^^Cta z?f^ sig^fa qscwi % IR feo; ig5jfci ^

|ar ai^^r^ aqrq^ itai I

15 ?^T ^I

flif?

air.

a*' (8) qrf^aw ^ra q^a.^9-. SIN?

^^^ ^w ^i ^ife 5! 5*cft I I w: sig^ra'g ^3 (^^^ I) 3

4": at

^aj gir itai | cri?

% ^?J^ ff m stir 3^35^-1511? fSr

fi ^-7 qfa; ai

1

(9)

waftw ^Bf^

Ml <

|

(%zrr SIR a> ^rrwr

K T?^ 1 sfa if?

airfgt 'i

.

Hff ^d) I W ft sfifa ft

3 sf SR qrwl I 379

tnt

55 I T? ^

fr $ H

I ^SRT-W % fgq; fo n ...... f 'a^r:

sfs fqa

faft ft gft cR-f % sn?, *ft t^ ^i'ft* ^ ^" t

It

?t?fl I Wcifeff wgRR q|t' I %to Qtfl * ?f5^ Bt cfr m % Fvii n~ 6?n I I (I)

(2) Ppflt

: 11 tt si 1- q^er. siRf ! (^% ^m fr ?^f fwt) ir ^T H^I r^ ^ ^ ft I ^^5i ft I, t-i P ^ TO *'i i

: "H ^^^ ^ I i s^t ^ arrc

t ^ H t^R I 11 * Ht 33%

ST

WTI fif ^ fw 3 qw ! (tar

-ft ^ % *w ^ wm I IPf sCa J"n . I I, Pfi? *ft~

ajar qfria

?

- m' "31J& w BIW^HT 5t t

. I q.??3

t. i 10. 2. 2-321, 3. 74. 4*

418,19 5,

6. r. 157. 7

8,

?. i 3^ r . 2 ^ \

I air. 2. 2. 10.

-*$ a?. 1 ir. 2 s, 3

11. OT* i. 81-113.

12 *BEH f! 3g r ?f aft ;qst % ^ SR

\ ft qp Jf ^ ^ % %

ar I I 13,

14, 5 15.

16.

17,,

18. aipqtsjj^i^j 3i?r?nftftfai;>sira:

18, ^2 1 I I tit)

19, 3?q%: qi sfil^ fT^qiff!^ (31^ frq $ Jfqft % "j|

^ arj ^ qs fr awra).

20. gwwr^. qiRotsvi^: q^aiflisr: (sj^H fM 5^?^ fifeql %

I ct*f si: |tj; g^eY if ri

21. l^rfa^svu^sJ^rvilf: (awk ?! ww % ^vrr^ ^ ^^WR ^ I,

22. aq^q^vr-TfT! %q' gmc-Tsr^^ f ff

23.

24.

25. %r^i agifls^wflfj (^w* 1

i 1.1.2, 26.

' ft 3iq:iqoi if 27. ' ^^

fl^i'^ mm 28 ftet ^ra^; arsi % Pa* ^

1 ! ^^ qr 29, W sr ft?!? Sin I r wlw &i I 1^^

9 : qf3l I I ^ ^^^ (^^i) Jffefe/f

30. pasr .

%t 3 1TR I I ^-"TO'W 31, RSlP^F -q*K % ^R ^ W 1? a?R ftsl arn ai' R 3

32. ^q |ar: ^fq

iitii fe I rsiafi sfas jiar I, q flfa? 'tomrs

sqT^?qrf^5'l I o;i I i ?ift ^ jfiw^^if^ ^

; 3 -ait (JifcO 3Hri-it rT

l ^rar I I

' 33. -wwrft^ 3-^ "ft

it -sjiai I I

34. sqfcq^ife^g 03 zj5t ^

It ^aif mV STUT I I ?

5!?! % wi nitT Tas: I I

36. ! 37. I 3f % aw f^ face srrar I sit

sit

38.

39. : qg o;cf

|) ^' %$

40.

If fr

^'sf | cf?TT 1 1 ^: ^g |i gift

41.

42

%

It)

43, I

(la)

. ?. 36.

raft

1294 | I i q?j '3H

it o;^ ^^ qit ^ cti^q^iq^r ^SR^fft 1306 |

I

t. 1263

53 ni PP $f^ang ^lafrRitt o; ^T 1*51 ^t^flT^frtt ft

? I ff s wl ww sfc

^ ct?r: ?a H^i ^rW^ TO f%qr :|

3?(< ^^c f?r?g;=i ^ s^

5200 53^ URM JIW>?K q^fai % t& -t^ f^?rrv| t

T

; 553 sftmqftfi % RfR % qfes; I I ft 52

^^t B^ ^ fsft t I w* ^< ^ ?rra a^l ^r wi^ 1570

tf. H50 ^ i , $r iron

I

1 W SK

.q?u ^ 117

, '*t>r,

t I 3^

? it Tqal I I ci'-If f |, f??S

! am ^ .? n^tf J} g

> 57

: 0;%

^Rt, f-if?f l^f. tl, fflfq, %

q; q sfc^n^'%

I, nlaTf

2.

3.

4?

5.

6.

7.;: p if

8. : -fsn wft \*n

9,

10.

J!:-CI?F to qrr *n an*' i I at ^ qtf m=r'sra?TO

. war I

St :jri% WI

aftsr

%

*ft

fi^i stdt

% ftq; i^ % fig; g?^- ^i S| d^ ft pq^q^ ^ fea rtfR r^^ s^i % fan l R?H, ^ ^t: i;

: ?T f^wirtsr "

fff? f

l 51 w

f I

%

"ft latin 11 fz^ ip ft

erg

'fl

fi

uiifl I 50 ^ f?^

i\ ftfi ^if|o; 5ffr if^ffr ft

ft iW Jf ft ii afar I

^ ,,M

T

antf i 3 %,

i ai

^T $;!

eig $1 Wl I

frrar %

2. | 3. la uar 4-

5. sirs* ijt at ^1 afg 6.

7.

wr, qjt,

9. i?i

10. % *tol

^r q'

11. ?f!f a ff SR

12. vft

.13.

14.

15.

16. 17. ?

18. Wl^W W n^T, f^'r afo q^ESfi 3}[gR ift 5K

19. T5 ^ %m f^ff if $ W3$ 3fRr ^if|o; $ei

fit 20. rg1 ft oftrftotsiVoi Rsf ft& ai^rfff, ^ n^ w u^m | i 21. if 3iir % qr?r% fe^r

2'. aif fiqfegri % Pso; nil? 23.

24.

25. ^1)?^ gig RFWW

26. tfiapil ^ l^fosl ^ |1 fH^rr ^4 ^iffo; 9;r o;^ f^w ?ri! |,|

27. *ft ^tqitt aqif^ qJHoi ^ gi| ^ari^ Jifoi ^ gfai | I

28. gig ^] g% q^ ^ ^ f^ejr % facr gr^rr ^if|o; ;r

RSt I wq q^ ^ Hi fejl % fsscr sir 29.

30.

I I

31,

^R I ^sif I sies* iri 11 f^T ^ q) r^ ^r|R ttm 32. w

33. wftep- ?} "fei^iq' ^OT nf r;i"

34, sig^R fo il "m Hfia'" %

35. If ^ 0]f ^ (K.

ift SIIIK ^ ^ai |

^raf q? anil ^s

1.

3.

3.

5. clqfF g^S^ .. '3?1RI|

6, 7, 8,

9.

JI?q1[ % S^of ftft

} aqgqassj | | |

1. qf?i53iB5qr (silo 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8,

9. 10

11.

12. %f qjj sft

2.

3.

4.

6. sfis

7,

fg. a.

. 1237-1309

si 84 p"aJt % em ftiws.*n I 84 ^sf eft i l Ss nffo 35 % Nsisrs

if q-iiil |

nnr strc i ^tt ?i| ^

qei it

air. %^fiff : ^ ^ a w 4 50 'ftfif

1. tft wg lr ^ flR^ TT^t %

2. o;

3 q>'f

51)3331 I

4.

5. ariit ^ ?$ iml RWftqii ^ | I ^f ^Rt %

I' I ale^r qss Hrsiitqm ^ ir m^ % jjra*p

6, o;f ^ JiieiffiRq if

V,

8. ^ qsg |%,1 CTR qs^iqcj It HRffr | 9. o:^ q^ tui^ii w f>[H!5f^ q^ar fat

I i lu t 10.

ftwrfl ) I I, q;sir ?WT I *& %?ar I I eft

II. us w j&* ^mw ^ '^fenft' ^i sitaar li

I I

q 13..'o:|5 ^ <$<& % n? gt fsR ft^ ?^HT-.URar I S 24 ^|$rfMq*5i ir^4f ^r^^f ,(170

I l 15. TO TO '.TO qf^ i? srft,,, : _ TO*. f1 , wm?: wr | ^ r JifaRT <$ ftnq^ TOP f ( :,.--. 16

I ai

17. . o.^.-.^ir.-aww, *m. ^5*- vqr ^a airfl ^ w 1$ | ^ q8a q Hti^ ^ IWT R ^fl ^ ww n mw ^l | | 18.

*T . : 19. KV q^j jpn

f^r I at Ty T ^ ^g ^ qRg , , 20. qga .*ireft ^ ^ ^5, q , w ,., ^ 5STWT | eft qsg qf^ ^g| ^ 3,55,, ^1 " 21. : ^ w ^wfl-iif fit 9'-fftr *. fliqhr irn |' fl>

pwr i 331 I |?r qsa 0:^1 ^1 RT^I

'

it

23.

^i

24-

F> fl

25. q;^ =ra ^3^ ?r T fi^ ^ ^sft ^'SI^R^ fwr I

26. nf qaa ^ q?a^ ^T I I $ft

5 27.'''.^ qesTsiWR qr ^r^^ ^r srf^f !! HT s^^ IT ...49 I' ff 69 I ^t t^^i qsa %...'fR .e

28. o;^ qsa a;

I I "jffon ITS^I^ t?;^ n^-3 ^ ^55 -w^ RRa f ff?a fi MR wa IT

29 u;sp q^ aiB'fft; -^^i ^^ ct?r sjRRT^r 1 $

1 at q qfg fafa I |fr

w

-33. R;

34. u;^ q^i% : grg sti^l % 5^1 33if ^ ff qra^l ^ tal |

35. o;^ qsg tl ^^ ^RHI^I ^^T | at |wcr ^H^TT^^I |i

36, :1 5 o;f qsj JI^ISTR 4^*'*r-d *iWT^' ^srr I ^

37;

38.

39. -W

I l

40. icf qaj qjiift^^ tf.iwm^ ?wart.ft,',|jM!. ft

41. ^ qg fl?g^

. i

4J. J . q , ^ g

f .fjcfi I 44. ^ w H9^e^.,'ij ^ur fW | ?t> 45.

46. .

f l

48 tjf .q^tei; mm | 49. ^ V9- -taw q* ^sw fer 3fgitt f*ar t W 50.

03511*3; ft sirJjk *TIW % ?m

Jt at%l

IS | i nr3N aqq

5 am .sfar^ ^Bfwt'.^^f^Rr^ w? )^ ft I

? ft ^|! *|?t ^ I ft; 4. :1229^ ii^

39^ %q^sT5ri *ft sq % ;,nrf^r;it it:^

r '.it

I I

ql 1

BT

ft

ft ift flftPaa fail I 4^ xitfewtj? ft an^ra i^w w!^

- U49 ft -yfoir wsf* % fl ift to$ q

sic! aqdt ift | ^:

5|qro.iB % q)cr ^[^ . ,7 qf^R % q^ if if

^ ^ fir. s. 1202 ft

si-R.ff. 1136, .^ r . 1142, ^%g 1226 179/1197 *w/1202 ^,^ , 1258 .i :VR 1208 | .r 1216 | Introduction

Both Brahmanical and Jaiua religious literatures are replete with "stotras and stavanas' hymn; in praise of deities. They are mostly of moderate length, which helps devotees to memorize them and recite them at their prayers. They are composed in a style which is easy, avoids all linguistic intricacies and is sweetly melodious. That helps in creating a peaceful and devotional atmosphere. Their main purpose is not to create an imposing philosophical tract, but to give to devotees small lyrical limitless poems, extolling the great prowess, abounding Kindness and knowledge of the Lord. Several Brahmanical 'stotras' of Sri Sankarscs- rya, and Jain 'stavanas' are of this kind. Sometimes, however, in composing an epic poem the poet is unable to resist the desire to show his vast grammatical erudition as in 'Bha- 1 manifest iu ttikavya' or "Dvyagrayakavya . This tendency is sometimes small 'stavanas' also, which, however, renders them difficult to comprehend

rare a. few have been by a lay reader^ Such 'stavanas' aye very only traced so far and they make a deliberate attempt to display their mastery over the Sanskrit and Prakrit languages. They compose the first verse in Sanskrit, the next one in (general) Prakrit, and the succeeding ones PaUaci and in Saitjrasem, Magadhi, Paiiact, (sometimes in CQlika also), order. Apabhrariis"a, in that few such 'stavanas' The Catalogues of Jairia Manuscripts list a trace then! were not sUcee- hardly 3 or 4 but my assiduous attempts to for old Qujarati, and Sanskrit ssful. By a sheer chanc3, while searching studies under the Research afld Prakrit MSS fdr my research Springer in Endowment of the Bombay University, I chanced upon a .taina the of five jfisaabhandira. MSS of a stavana, which extolled greatness above. It was written s' in six language frflW'qr), .as opined : Ms* wider tlwfifiS Search. tdy based on rate meteilii, prepared of tbe Sowbay the aupic?s oHlie Spdage? Resesi'Cti gadowiasat by au erudite Jaiaa poet mimed Jiruiktrti, towards the end of the 15th century V.S. The stavana seems to have b:en very popular and considered -

invaluable as a linguistic curiosity, for all the MSS of the 'stavana' bear

a Sanskrit 'avacuri', expounding important passages in the verses, com- menting on grammatical peculiarities, citing sutras probably from the celebrated Prakrit gramaaf 'Siddha Heuiacandra'. Below each avacuri is an Old Gujarati 'stab.ika' or explanation, of a much late date, trying to give in very peculiar and often clumsy and corrupt Old Gujarati the meaning of th-j Prakrit verse, which, at places, usefully suppleai3nt-= the 5 exposition in the 'avacun .

: Along with the sadbhasatnaya Pafic:tjinastavaua' of Jinaklrti, I came across 6 a MS, "Sri NemijinesSvara Sathstava (*i ?*Frqif!7~verses writtten in 8 languages), written by Jayasundarasuri of TapSIgaccha also an illustri- ous of about V.S. disciple Somasundarasuri, 1506. It forms the concluding of a portion MS, containing 5 short poems -'PaflcakalySnaka Eksda^i' (11 Vss in Sanskrit), 'Sri Pdficakalyarialca Ekadasi stuti' (4 vss in Sanskrit), 'Namaskara (3 vss in 'Sri Mahavirastavana Prakrit),, Phagubandha* (17 Vss in and 'Sri Sanskrit), Memtj'ineivara Sarhstava' (18 vss in Sanskrit and different It has come a Prakrits). down in. single MS, the last 2 lines of which are written in some North probably Indian NIA language. It does not have either an 'avacuri' or a 'stabaka'. It is, however, more elaborates 5 than the 'Paftcajmastavana and evinces greater poetic beauty.

Three MSS of Sadbhas3raaya Paflcajinastava' of Jinaklrti became available to me from the Jaiua Atmananda Sabha's JfSSnabhandSra at Bhavnagar (in bear Gujarat). They Nos. 976/1, 976/2 and named 976/3 I have them A, B and C MSS for convenience. A and B MSS give the .name of the work as 'SadbhasSnmya Paftcajinastava', while C MS refer* to it as ^adbha-ssstava' only. All MSS agree in mentioning the namcof the poet- taffwftfti? ift MS ftflTH^. A was copied in VS 1529- B probably in about the same century, and C in V.S. 1871 (mobablv recopied from an older MS). A and B MSS consist of 2 folios each white C MS written in much bolder hands has 10 folios,

ate " !01 l0"8 and4 " ^ broad, folios in B MS

and l, s a,o long raarginalia 3 lines between the per page, though main lin.es it has copied in small hands the writing of tiie 'stfibaisa' to the relating above main writing (i.e. verses of the stavana). has A MS 53-54 to 0-62 letters per line; B has 45 to 51-52 letters while to per line, C has 31 35-36 letters per line only. has a of 1.3" A side-margin to 1.4" on the two sides, and 8" at the top and the bottom. B has a side margin of 1-4" to 1-5" on the two sides, and "8" at the top and the, bottom C has a side- margin of 1.2" on the two sides and .8" to .9" margin at the top and the bottom.

A MS marks out the margin by a thin double line on each side, and has coloured space hctwe.cn thes: lines in red pigment on the obverse folio. B MS draws two thick red lines between two thin lines. The thin

line tit the extremity is drawn in black. C MS marks out the margins by di.uk broad linos. A. and B have a 'svastika' mark in the middle of the pa;jc and also in the margins. In A MS folio numbers are written in thin hands in red ink on the reverse side; while in the B MS the numbers of the folio arc written within a square, in black ink; and the C MS writes the folio numbers in the right margin in black 'ink on the reverse .side. None of the MSS bears any ornamentation.

; the letters are The callig phy of A MS is exquisite straight and in can easily compare with letters print.

Handwritings in the B MS Loo arc very beautiful, though, flowing bold over and cursive C MS writes the Virsas of the text in vary hands, Old is written in each of whici pn-tioii, -.-elcvant Gujarati explanation small hands.

and has been corrected A MS has been very carefully written, by 1 such difficult matter as 'avacQii is usually the copyist ut'pUces. Even this as the basis of I have mainly relied on MS written quite correctly were obscure. been useful to me at places which m my text. MS has been from a different exemplar. the A MS C MS seems to have copied 'Stabaka' has to bo a scholar. His Old Gujarati The copyist' seems good at the meaning in.ths original places. been very useful in getting 'stababa' at all relevant of text 'avacuri', and I have given variants

places. Samstava' is the The MS of ' -.stubhrisamaya Sri Neiui-Jineivara the of MS of 3 folios, containing poems concluding pjsm in a small 1506 V.S. The MS was * rLri, who flourished around posse- 4 ssbn of Aeharyn Muai Sliri Punyavijayaji, himself a great scholar of Jaitiissn and tb.3 doyen of r:s;arch in. Jaiuism in Gujarat. As he be^iie- athed his vast collection of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Old Gujarati MSS t6 L, D, Bharatiya Sashskriti Vidynmandir, Ahmedabad, which was founded at his behest with the munificence of Shcth Sliri Kasturbhai Lalbhai,the

1 MSS is likely to have been preserved in the Institute, It bears No $i 745

"The folios have 13 or 14 lines per page, and 55 60 letters per line. Both the sides of the folio bear a round red mark resembling a 'svastika' in the centre, while on the reverse of each folio there are two red marks with ornamentation iiv the two side margin. The MS is fairly well-

preserved. It is undated and being incomplete ( only the last verse of

is 'NeraijineSvara Saihstava' incomplete- ) lacks a colophon. However judging from the genera! condition of the paper, and the style of writing it is likely to belong to C 1600 or thereabout. The MS is exceedingly clear and meticulously correct only 2 letters in the last line of folio 1 have been partially damaged and therefore, difficult to decipher with 2 certainty."

The author of 'SadbhSsSmaya Paiicajimistava' is Jinaklrtisuri of Tapagaccha, an eminent disciple of Somasundarasuri of legendary fame. He was first a 'Vacaka* (91^) and was later elevated to 'Suripada' (*[N0 towards the close of the 15th century V.S., when Campaka Sresttil of Ghitod the (fa5($2) celebrated occasion with great pomp and festivity. In 1496 V.S. he presided over the inauguration ceremony of f^fswqi %fq- an imposing temple of Neminatha, at Girnar.and also at another temple at Bedamsgar, built by Purnachandra Kotliari, a close confidant of he ruling Padashah. Jinaksrtisuri expired in 149.9 V.S. He must have written several religious works, which have not yet come to light as Shri Mohanlal Dalichand Desai, an encyclopaedic scholar of Jaina literature has not noted any of them. But the present 'stavanas' bear ample to the vast erudition and testimony poetic talent of the great Suri.

The au'hor of astabhssamayti Nemijineivara Satnstava (ffpssnqfftiq'

"Jayasundarasuri of Tapagaccha, too, was another

cf. "Sri Maliavlrastavana PliGgubaiidha of Jayasundarasuri A rare Sanskrit PhSgu poem", by K, B. Journal of Vyas, the University of Rombay, Vol., XXX pt, 2 Sept. 1961, p. 119,

'

' Ibid p. HO, : 5

illustrious disciple of SorruisundarasQri (born V S. 1430 attained in V,S. 14S7). Somasundarasiiri is one of the greatest luminaries n .tainism of mediaeval Gujarat, who exercised a profound influence on the Jainas of this "3 "He a period. had vvide circle of disciples, also Very illustrious and profound in their scholarship, like Muni Sundarasiiri, Bhuvanasutidarasfiri, Jinakirtisiiri and Ratnasundarasuri,"*

: ".taystsundarasuri Was the second d sciple of Somasundarasuri. His vast scholarship earned him the epithet 'ICrsnasarasvati'. He had not as a teacher only expounded great works on Kavyalariikwa like 'Ksvyn- praktrfa' and Jaina philosophical treatises like 'Sanmatitarka' to his but pupils, had also composed important religious tracts like PratySkh- yana', 'SthSria Nirvana*, 'Saniyaktva Kaumudi', nnd 'Pratikramanavidhi' (V.S. 1506)."5

Even his smaller works like 'MahaMrastavjuia PhSgubandhV 'Pah- cakalysnaka Eksdali (both in Sanskrit) and the present 'Shri Neimjiae- Svar'a Saihstava' (which opens with Sanskrit verses while the rest are in different Prakrit languages) bear ample testimony to his profound which him to the scholarship, rightly entitle appellation ('biruda') 'Krsnasarasvati'.

Jinaksrti's 'iS'adbhasatnaya Paflcajinastavana' is a collection of five hymns written to extol the great spiritual eminence of five leading Tl.thankaras. The first three of them contain 7 verses fas they include a verse in Culikapaii&ci) and the last two hymns, which do not have a verse in COlikapai^Scl, have 6 verses each. Jinaklrti's vast erudition and his mastery over the art of poetry is evident in his use of elaborate metres siKjpJ^ as Pupadanta, the author of the sacred Brahnianic-l 'Siva Mahimmi stotra' says like

Sardulavikrldita(l9 varnasj caesura at 12 & 7 varna?; measures Res? '%fa 3 a and 1 i.e. a long varna), and Sragdhara (21 vsnuis or caesura at the ease in 7,7.7; measure fl r *I Jf *T 1 T ganas) with greatest even such archaic and obsolete dialects as qmft and

3. Ibid p. 120

4. Of ......

. (l,. \^ t \o), by Muni Darslianavijaya, 1933.

120. 5. Vide : 1C. B. Vyas, op. cit., p. 120, 6, Ibid, .pp. 11?, 6

As a variation he has at places used 'Upsndravajra' (11 varnas,

1 at in Ssntinitthastavana, ''Mftlinl caesura 5.6,, measure n 3 :n 1 fl) at in Ssatinathastavana, Nemi- (15 varnas, ^ 8.7; measure ^ r| q ^

Sarostava' is much The scheme of Jayasundarasuri's 'Neminalha varnas; caesura different. The first 6 verses are in 'Drutavilathbita' (12 at seen to be in some metre 4.8; measure q -f\ verses *r *); 7th- 12th measure < * ? closely to caesura at

three verses, 15 to 17, are in the 'Doha' metre (13 ma teas in odd and 11 niatrSsln even quarters.)

Each of these hymns begins with extolling the prowess and virtues - of the TirthaAkara his complete renunciation of worldly life a vast kingdom, untold wealth, and all pleasures of the world, his great austerity, extreme 'ahimsa', forgiveness for even his sworn enemies, his 'Maravijaya' (subjugation of Msra, personifying all worldly joys), and his great spiritual attainments, revealing to him Past, Present and Future, In the latter portion of the hymns the poet seeks his blessings for the 'bhavya jana' (devotees seeking Truth) so that they may attain true knowledge. Such is the general pattern of each 'stavana'.

Though basically religious hymns, they reveal great poetic beauty with their mellifluous rhythm of the metres, and sweetness of diction. The almost of the insuperable handicap archaic media of Is composition, Culika Paii&ci like Pailsci, and Msgadhi does not hinder the poet from achieving a rare lilting music in his verses.

The use of Prakrit dialects like Paisaci; Culika PaiSaci and Msgadhi is extremely rare in MIA literature. PaisScl is renvjbered as the linguistic vehicle of the great 'Bphatkaths' of Gunadhya, written somewhere about the beginning of Christian era, but it has not survived except in the fragmentary adaptations like the IWflfaaUK and SK^m.^ft, which give some idea of the and greatness expanse of the original, classic. In later times except in the drama 'Moharsjaparsjaya and excerpts in Hemacan- 1 drajS "Kavysnufesana and 'Kumiirapalacarita' (in Dvya^raya Ksvya), and illustrations in stray grammars like . fasfrrrosf no other noteworthy literature has come to light in Paifiaa.CoiikaPaida, survives in a single drama 'Hamtniramadamardana' and in the above-mentioned three works of- Hemacandra. Its difference from Pai^acI is negligible. In 'Siddha- Hemacandva' it is just cursorily referred to and earlier grammarians do not even allude to it. Sauraseai is found used in Sanskrit dramas in *hc prose speech of women characters, according to the then dramatic prevalent tradition. Magadhi is also similarly found used only in dramas like 'Mrcchakatifca', 'Sakuntala' and AJvaghosai dramas in the speech ot some low characters. Neither Sauraseni uor Magadhi can boast of any noteworthy literature. It is in the only general Prakrit and Apabhr* aifcto, as expounded in detail by Hemacandra, thai great epic poems and other classical works are composed.

has Jiuakirtisuri, however, handled ail the above dialects with skill and meticulous amazing correctness, which point to his phenomenal mastery over the structure grammatical of all the above Prakrit dialects. We encounter works iu general Prakrit. Even in modern times some learned Jain 'sadhiis' and religious scholars have composed works (like in Prakrit. Tlt^ST) general And ApabhraiWa was favoured as a medium of epic poetry from C. 500 A. D. to about 1000 or 1100 A. D. and even later (as in the ar^W6$). But the other dialects like Paisaci and Msgadh! have been almost defunct today. This vastly enhances the linguistic importance of these 'stavanas.'

Partly for the convenience of and lay students, partly to save space, I have uot given a translation of the verses uor supplied an Index of the stavanas, but have instead, remained content with giving a Sanskrit 'chliya' of each verse for the reason. I same have eschewed linguistic discussion of the grammatical characteristics of the different dialects employed in the verses.

I will be, very happy and will consider my arduous labours amply rewarded, if this brief study interests Indological scholars in India.

K. B. Vyas

' '' '

,^VfeWv:>:1^3|jTSW^ p?'n%lI3"^ rv^^'.i^V/"^'!!''^^ :j ' 1 '' .- ;. * 1 Ju ! OS % :- , .rcvj-.-a::'.-. . s ?>, -._...;! .-.-.!;; ---v' -:.; .'-; :"-'" BilF.i7,i.r;it^,'.ffl;Vj|r~..'r,--:,--i,i:i;iC!''i-;-i; j'

?IIF

ah

I'RIJ

A 2 3*50 3CTR! c4q^H^T: B 5 --WftfT B,

6. AB Omit '. ^ BC, 8 g'^tff c 9. tff&i c.

B, 14 B 15 10 mr B 11 -nfe B 12 wqif^ B 13 r ^ci asir B, 16 B omits. 17 jroiaq? E 18 mw B. 19 5^ y. 20 tw^r B.

-ai

%' is i if?- ^ranta cis&r 381 3\% 4n(^ a*it

^ *KB?cR! IlWifl sfSWc!' f o

j II? II 3;

t ftq qQtofrq Q^T ^ g'l^iCT^' f wlf gr' I ^

q?" fa g?$ ftiTfi aft ^ ^v

' rt' H u^' IRII

3ft

1 B CXnits 2 ^ C 3 t^gw 4 '?i^ C 5 5$ A 6$ B. 7 fW 8 B Omits

: 11:

. 10 w B, 11 m B. . iRaasyi qifwTO^ I Ww

2 c r c gsR 3 grer c 4 ^ c 5 sTsiiszr' c.

f^STcfr ITU

:: I 6 B Omits 7 ^RT^^: B 8 WH B 9 TOT B 10 gal B 11

q'fifet St ^ iisife ^

D 5 * 5 ^ .^if^ ? I -ll '!.

^ If.

aw * s?r sft

Wft- ^ .whrewpt. fi

' c. 3rrwri B 4 BT B c 2 ^ B fital ofr T ff%

AB. 8 A 5 RW A, flwi! B, 6 qiB. 7 emended; ww^a aw* 9-10 B omits 11 w A.

B (for %ifRW*ft), 55!(*t c 2 gsafaift B 3 ^q! c 4 .s^'qRl B, C 5 aif B S AB omit. sTO'tft c ,

fafa f^,^.

*flr

7 w\^ B 8 3

. ^^ . -ra s mr f,ft ^r^( % ^ a: f,. *ft (t?t <*% mVJl'.aw ?o % J1W! <7iT -

Q 2 c A 3 ainqor c 4 ^^ ^55$ faoraiRg o 5 ^lotif A 6 c C SIWRIST 7 AB omit; iflsfj^ir^! C 8 |w sfl

B ?R[ sft fqR^cf?cf^tf' ? C

i

erica: ^f^ 3T?rsr??T^ aft^T fl I ?rl?r: ?^ 1 1 ,

a faigr I wi?ift3rsf

^ ft) anfitfswMrcw n ^ ?tel f fa:

i

sfi

A 10 5% B 11 ^nw: A 12

#f g II o;

1 ^ !}|

B WIT fel^ c. 2 Mom(t B. 3 B adds* 4 AB omit.

ft^ UK es)9i| 3?^' ^ %' ^ aj^q* ^ ?, re

- if %gJ nr>r qrqrt t' trei ?$OTHWR p^q f^tSi' fqm i 1 B, omits.

'

T: OT^ , far* *r*nit

-

i cfar ra ^Rrsn^. ^T tr

2 %gin- B

qmetr'asr ^ %^r 4 I crm^ in

'n Ii B

if

tff^ o.ir I sft sarfcRwsr ^ i ^ u;

3 emended : gm c 4 emended ;

r

n^u

1 A 2 ^a'^or c. 3 B omits. 4 emended : ^ra AB. 5 ?^ B

I ag 3i*U I

ll^ % % qjfftT ri^^R^! TO % I TR?fqo|\ B^tfl

'? ^^t *iwfii % II

If ff^tft mi(

B 2 % c. 3 sfg c.

n

It* ST!%!0: I) STST?ftwf :

; n * n ^^^R:! i^ra^^r tfr

4 n9iB^. B, 5 5*1: A. 6 frigtf B. 7 ^i^ AB. 8 q^r AB

% I B 2 ftf|4 C 3 anreai C 4 ST([ C S ofpo; B.

1 1 ?r

fSKFJ: i 8 i H ^^T^sr cfSKTT: II

6 niram B. 7 aftta A. 8 <>^?r AB. 9 w A. 10. p Ai,

11 3^*31155? B, 12 ?fa AB,

Ml ^liqui: ^st'ft 8^^ *

II a; B, 2 fwT B. 3 qrn B, 4 id i\ A, W Of Weil 5 ta B,

3|ia'?ft ^i^Wf %' II

5 t %3 fiR%^ ^ 'adrift iivs

7 is $ffon

4 C. 5 C. 2 |fta C. 3 ai^ C. ^ feteg C. 6 AB omit;

C. 7 ffiwl life^si; I B; ffasft snj^ii^wq^' C.

: n T?BI:

u 3?q?*f??r ^restitv: n

n

^ H 14

8 %iero> B. 9 emended . %^s;N* AB. 10 B omits. II 'am A, aw B, 12 iwirftft B. 13 aqw B, 14

f.O q C. 2 C.

'ft^I *< Bl'%K

!5r

I ? n g?fa *rWffl 1 1

IR

1 B adds qnnlxm. 2 qisii' B. 3 C omits. :

5 ll ^f?r^i|r ^^r. i?i?r. 1

; if

" 1 - : \\

ll

6 q 4 5$V-B. 5 emended AB. ^ A. 7 emended J ll 12 8 ^OT;;>(sic) A, 9 A. 10 m\w. 'v/m A, ,M- AB.

1? P ll

o; til

ccir Ma

51 n

B. 2

s. ll

5 rfa W^SK^I ^n n

3 Sft^ B. 4 p' B. 5 t*

s 15; .

C. 2 ^^ C. 3 gfa A. 4 B. 5 8 6.%sjf,e,;7. wiCi si^ai. C. 9 qfci* C. 10 . C.

n

: n

: TF

r

: :: !Fii^*i; B; - 12 ^Nw'A. 13 A. 14 BW' A. 15 A,

emended : 16 j: AB ]? R, T B. A. i , \ \

ftlfo

wfr

5

fonft i

C. 2 Utofa B.-^^c 3 ,,^'c 4 w C . 5

6 emended fft^W AB. 7 .emended^ A, ?fa B. g emended iftw AB 9 emended q4^ AB, 10: emended 11 emended ^^ A, ^ .

,.

I' C. 2 sr^'fcg B, 3 ojnqifft B, sfteraf&rratf C. 4 srosTtf C,

: Traf'5: II iw w WH n tT^cJT-flt ' fla^i:.1 u w

n

n ^

5 Sitqifr 6 A omits 7 i?mi1 A.

55

If! eRot 1 swr $

t

If

1 itt C. 2

6 (ft f ^

7 w All 8 WT-. ^4, B. 10 A^9 ,* A. 11 emended, AB 12 emended far 13 AB. ^ A 14 ^ A. 15

.

^. , ^^ II v*

' B. 2 qnq^C. 3

^ it.

tffe ^ * H

IR

B. 2 ^qq'uftj? B. 3 o^rf C.

: H

4 TO? A. 5 g^R A. qra^wit ?f %

C. 2 i^tfi C. 3 r*i C, 4 g>i B.

f^ ^ 11 5 6 : ii ^^wifi^ffttiBi: ii fwftfq ^gfs^s?^' \\ "

5 emended/ q^tr AB." 6 emended, ^ft; ABl 7 emended

0. S B omits.' 3 wm C. 4^i C. 5 6 B*TOI C. .^ T C, - -- 8 , B, |gr 0. fsRfr G. 9 %'a AC, \ = c ,A y fc fa

10 g^spi A. 11 JTIWOI AB, 12 e; A. 13 sfiKiqi B.

Vlftsft

Itv -^ Rlijelt nr^Tm I'

fl

TT^f 5frRr sr^rg^ aniwTOl IIH

'cft B, fae&'ft C 2 vfcii C.

: IT sr c!rr ?^fa n

|| & fq Sfl II If

' \\ HfwtTotafg^T wf^srrflr^t %$%% *R\ 4 : II A

3 emended, ct AB. 4 emended, 3 AB.

fo ^ Pri ^ ^ ^ qi^i %' fl

C. 2 Q3i? A,

' v C.

10 t gfnflr si^^q: ll qsm^ ti

: ii trar

ffa mzm trg3i^5rt: 12 : i fesiRci^' 1551 i^T' ff% g; ^fsbnrcir

ll sf

: ll

11 10 emended i^ AB. emended; ^T A. 12 emended; <$il: AB. 13 emended, o^'^ AB. 14 emended, ^q^g^rmftRi AB, 15 emended oi?% AB. 16 emended ^sqs^r AB.

8; f! i?ir sss % I ,5[ff' for

q; s 1 C omits 2 B. 3 C i ^3 adds H'*P' II

- f^gnsi I S| 3t g-n fog ^rw rg ^

t If

C. 2 oig$' C, 3 4 q-: II ^3 g^W %^ q-wBri}% tTTORq-^tfqf ift^ f

!: IR

3 emended, gwr AB. 4 ^ B. 5 ofan B. 6 B adds here : G. 2 95^3 B. 3 *ihw C. 4 ogfr c. 5 ^irqwft B. 6 era B, C. 7 5 C, 8 qfofrft

1 fo& 'faffl 8|fq 10 Slfq 11 JTHT^Itjf Hf^gT Sfof^f? ^Effn

?FcT 3- sfg ai^t 131513 f Far fg^'

9 emended, RBI^ AB. 10 B repeats : aifq qfgj sj?^? 11 emended B. ,12 13 w?\% 14 ^ra: AB. . ftffliA. A ',. B|[, ; A, 9,^: emended,

^ ! I

91? gsq ^q sft^t^' gBH^f aglii^ f?f^ tl^tt

HN1RT % II

1 1

C. 2 g'fiR% A. 3 B, |g qlgm^'fiisifa C. 4 oqi^s^r'A 5 q C, 6 C, 7 B. 8 ^' sfgl* o^wjfl B. 9 q^ B. 10 vg B.

. U

: II ^Hl^TOlf 5J5HKT; l.spWff ?? ffcf

;-T v u

- 11 emended, oqsnfaffi B, 12 A, qw^foi &% ...... 5}|S B repeats 13 e emended & $k' A, ^ ^ B. 14 ^m B.

Y cr 1 aj'q'qt B. 2 %*m B. 3 qssq B. 4 qiepflta C. 5 ?a)uita% C 6 farfaft C.

II fTg ^ If g-' ^s" II

tt IT Ef^t: | sf^tfli riTf

: oft * ffa d^K

: II 7. *3q A. 8 emended, 32^ AB. 9 q? A. 10 emended; a^: AB. A omits.

%' It' n HI I a; ^iftf Tfliit

m sag ^ rf4*iT

C. B. 3 C. 4 fN'W C. 5 ^1^ 1 t?i B, tfi C. 2 ^ ssiig

6 sffl C. 7 *ee?^ C. Ssm'ti C.

- U f f6 13s mi> rr ?f?T srrei erg

^ i r^V^r^m 3^: 11 g grni^pqH Mci^'j'll fill

rftt 3?I^g.T: I s ffi^m %fa rarg; i

n im Q: ^3: mg fm srrgg^ H ^^ I "5?^ r ' c 16 ll aT I ari^n: 5R'% ii a?wt iB i% II % ^fersft

17 1 sr. ??^'^ faf^frfr 1 ll

9 emended qi?^ AB JO emended, ft^ii AB. 11 emended;

1 gf^'fli AB. 12 tc'g B. 13 emended, rj AB. 14 emended,

AB. 15 sig A. 16 emended g^: AB. 17

ST I si I T B.

I! IJ

1 B : adds here ft^iPsi^T. 2 ftoifoir B. 3 emended, q? AC,

4. C. 5 ^i 6 ftfesft j'iifii: AB. ^H^-i', fe q'. ^qiinf5] 1 II sfl: Ii B, sfosft riim^fajri^^R ^ ^Ri^im^^lf?! QJTi^ll^ I

U? effi wsg^ftoiqg- fe q-'. siqftnq n ftCtclI H^ C.

fe qjq tf Q-gq]

,51I fqq^rit Sl]oqi 13;

8' ftfoi ^mi .gfarf . ?s|ottq m^ft t fefl; ifll SIR ^m &g^r i^ HIIT % fwn r n < sRfrem it

IIV eH^^fTclH I!

II 9

Hi

wift

31 rf*

M' srr

wfsrsr

I

3*fff HU siqw^r mtr 9

mm: wgtnmw^: ?? svm:

^ tfff

, UK r 3^3 iT |f?^f!

(=53,5,

fff-7 i^ |

%< w

eft c^: t-ftg **-. \\>

f ET

ir

(=ws?r)

!) II Y j) srt:i

t

) (*T5*r3jHq;j KTTt^5^T: g-q^q JTTqqq; (aqf) ci: (9)

33. t

,flrrIV II csr') srfo si si eft (if^

(srt

a-

(gtf)

Cancer')

sr

?) II R

(=313^1!^) ^ w^r^zrKertzr" fffi

r (=gg?|'i

' (t)

: (t) ^^1^ (?r')

(t) 5TTST ^rft^for: cfT^f^ iff)

^?T^, (sr^ft) m^ w^ (ft)

?rrr r ?r

1 : iTsr:

: 5f*ra: S

sr, fsff

1 1] 41.

KV-U'Ht

'-^' V ^ rT*Hi Ri'-'-t si'H

ate

MltMlR4 P^lH clt -I

tf. n p

Mi tit

'i4V.

. ytMl H-1

ysw rl'-li '^l

RUM wi

(lei ^Pt^^P 1,1=1 Jlii(2J3M

s- ci>;j

'-ft ^ :di -v

: 'j.tl c&T , IttT Jtl'-l y'c*i1rj" 'Hail,

'^ilc'Hl c'-tt^

5lJ,.(aii4y) tort!

( 'Kl'Ci 9 '. a>il ^Icl {gi aWl S. ^i ^ ft'U ^Ic'Hl'll

'tail, wdi aHLcHl cHl =tlll '^'

f 4 Jj5^ til, tocli %4^l HWL'Ll

f M^ ?lS Mi. toll yr

-lift I H'l S~Wi yHril '4^1 15W ctH

Hl Wi

'Zh M'>i 'S.

m ^w cli cy; 401

P 5l i 5l cl ^ &

g,.

oi. rtl

oy

lp M^'-i M^l -{ ^ gi; Hi^- ^Rl 'nri cHl Hlfk i^l *l^ S, ilQj I ^ at'i s y ^ dT4l -l 5lS (lM'li 'S. 5} Wl 4l, \H<-ll i'-Tl

5\-i\[

lHl ^'Ul'.dl 'inl. ^H ^Itf oiifrti ^l(U ilQ' 'isil.^ S=lcl[5li

ihdl i

11 S -l^l 'S, iftisj nctl^l . ^IM.* HO

U 5i. rtl ril w^.!. aiittct Wiii^l i^-llHi T/ ^tJSH W .V

^-tm '3, "I'-ll; >n^ ^^K^H iNd

1^1 S. i

l^'H.

Mil 'r/Wl' ii|-HMl &; il^l ,4 krtl

0, ctl-. S'-fl (lei

cl'-fl i'irtl i,

S. M- %ti

ct

' .Jll

t?/Udl -1 'Ut

n^l^ 3115

.

'J y 'H '^-fl

dl

"-Hi^l .M[ %'4l & H'l Vf H"--^ ^'1 ^tblrt) MrJ'Hl ^('l, &H S MM-- ^i^-i ;

^SrlA 'Jll'4 aUH.-'VJ, >! I

1, 'l((( ^ Hl^lRii ir;-4fU rt3l. Qi'lHl if!-

s fe -l 4l.* ct^l. Qil'U ci ^d cklt '--'-llMl',

s '-Min ^/ ^-ll'-il 'Hl^ wtfl 'rSIM H v wi

-'Jiif.^'HiO idealistic S ( ) ^HU'HmCl ( metaphysical )

- ^.Licil riHl. VjP^HMlvUsH ^>^ iifrtHlW ^' ^W, ^ HSlH^i ^kt

t|W, ci a-*' (HlHl ^'^kll '"MR .H^ ftll^l' SH&?M '3.

' S ?i?l

SM^Hl yp-ict ait'-i &

'-led (il^-ll =-H'si

QilHt aHt

MlH*

8 ^i(xtr' wwH -wioiiPki fact. ni CHIHHI HM

' 1

'sao-s' 31 MS

(\) ^wif/ (sound)

'FIT 'HP* p' ,'

(p) ct^f (phoneme)

{l 1 J.UIH, ^Ini 'ifM?t ^-t^il (ontological) =H^ (epistemological) <^Vs\^\

^ V).

MS '"cHrl M^ |l?i.. ' r ?l"?. ll'rfi -t^t '"HlH HH cil

i. rtlcHH* Si I ^l'>5 ^W' ^

'"lfl

5 >J r si-'f. ^R M , 5HHt'Wl ^sfl. l 'Sai[ Pl^Rlct 'sirtl J*H** '* 'd I

1^1 Wcti *. ' s vtl *M< fort

'ti.S

> ell <^R 51

. 'fci

}"

Hifl. 1 |

Hi cl^ll Il4l ^ ?

Ml I W>S^ll '^84' 4ilfs

5l clHl-li

QilMl ^ "H^x'-t^ll Hi "I v5

"CH\(S?I c+Jl'UHi ?IH-{1

ci'4l

afl

ll '3. I ai

S, ^'

Si dl WilH -I =H'H. ^H dl

MS

... Ml an^Cl -J/Mf.

^'V-Ur-l "H'c^l W WMl'lRii -^'H r^- ^

"ct X'H l^lwH S; M >Wt*UH

M 'Til . 1, MiJJ

Ill1 '-'M4

Jcll

clfl ' ,

^l

/ wuj

' Si =Wi ^firl-cl^jSU'd Silt

5 -HiH=ti ;

f l ,'n'^

Hfl '3; 51 ell

r aH- -W-H(rl^ 3HlH cHlRM^ M^ >3 I ^-

ci <*l&vi ^U^M.ov ii'l . Si^fl. Slst

>it[cl-l

r S. ^W-

-'-fl ^1*1 y'n'fart ^^(rUl 5t6<3J ^^R

RHifri Ml S\\UM MWI nisi '

>

t -I

.-1*1). c^ 1R ell 'HRclPlS =J|'d,9i-V dM? ^HC-l'Picl d^ld

'>6

Hir

f Ml M^ll^t ^l^cl -HI MM

iV^ft ^Mltt it.

oil

34 ^H I mi

'lil 'iil.

clO cl-U Rl c( W ^S H'^

$ ^ 51 y' Differ,

Hail. c(fl

SB M^Mlt^lHHl ilcH^l (4=?

dl ov y i| tW 5 2 iltf M^ 4H8i* cv M.ci

S^cfl J

S,. rtdinl aH4ll I

(Hi

oy. "ft"! yi

' ' 'HIC-lf

: '5. rir f},

SHI -

ctt --|'4

a: < HR^

I

Hl^Al. RP^H

ell

am. iv-

' ' ' ' 'y q^*lt &M &. t^cl ', 4', ', Hlf^ ,cll wil^t y'n'H wnils 8" ^k MH!% MK'MH

Hcl W-<\( ^j^- S. l^l ^t

'3* KH-l rt ^l \V>

i ?fr 4-

<^1 "ft1*!

r 31 Mi

cl lt 'ltl, Sl'SU^

ell i ^ ^ Qil'Udl yWi-ti

R tLH ell

cii ct'Hin

' an is, ft

? .?, (l v.\.:uu

d' Wt

i cl i^ Hi 1

oft cl

il

r -Ucl S,.

Si ell l PlcH iM (ft'-l d'-fl,. M^ cift .

ci'-fl. .wi'Cl' Si . x

' cil

ci

"... ..that the linguistic; theory ; comparable with ft?^ will -be coinprehe-

' nded more easily, if..ons translates the terra ,faw by '''invariable

' 3 ' ' (and R?^f-rby invariability ) instead,of permanent'. SHI aisTui

' ' '' aiLH W> di^l^l

5lM .^IH cil cl'-fl.y,' ?

T. Si

.S. AM* .Si "i ^^i -l -*W. M'^nT 5Mi^

.Sis i

HlPrt I'H ^H '3 5) 31 dWl Hl^l

VKli

4

. =HI (In

ai

''

. >i?i : ! aa

&'!' ei^jMi RlMltJi' 'S

ell

Ml

: " it s^eras to us that -Sabar has wwv^ o% i : With" all' rigour between ll,ir the continuity .of 'Sabda in this vsay only one ?! shown " and not ils eternity. two enunciations

'

-

i

l - \t.

' '2* - Mil aUlSH 'H,[ v^r-t 'CHP, ^ilMl

' >43^(1 PlfHrll Ml W\ itfK'H'} W

Mcti

l W-'i'l Mlf. 'ill

' Vf. ^ 4 *TO 'Hi fSRd ^-IH ^iP, "4MI S ci'Hi f SP,^ M^tcl

>e

cMr< llSl

i 'HW

H'il 4 H ^4 '-HPi

. otpfti ctici^^iPii yHii'i ''iUi H a ^|1 yilH '3. "Ml

l .

(

*llfi '3 W-i&l J&oi RWM' MT'fl SH'l fllclrt ^tfV

'i HHl >?>{! W <3^4l

>M'-i ^l &. ^11 i-l| w^ldi -flf li

(3')u-6 wiMlj^H '5 ^4kM^f>M Slrfl Sam 4^' ^1. VE^' ' Vi^H fl^ll ^l'/PH'

& '8. 51 Ri

. ilWlP,H

5 J .1' -?.

cil

j ; c v ?i' i u flSi 'q(% R(H rfiu 'sftHrt RLHI--I '^w d^i ^' '-HI 4K<| j'< ^e diif ^i^

' ' r 8. 'l' J 'S ''l^l dl ci %Hy ^OTi > I <^'sfl'(4i ^t'>il ri

:> ?/

;; wsKl tQsSl Si-It&rvu i?. t Hid" *&

XRlti^S "^ &H cl^' -i M^

H[ cil Mlct

5 Si. di . '-HlSj HHl ^i *mfcf /cti,

'5. aU{l

5]

f cii Him M?,in -fl

Hl'Al

ell

' i[H M^ S3 Sl'rl r^. RHiCl" WHWlHlwl ' M Ml aHH^l HMl^l -S, V/3

a 3 " '-HKl .VHK*ii il| V> What is >, H^ Pk*U$^ , always important is that akrti is never kaown alone, but is always known with the

individual or t e.individulas, that structures it. . . .Oue could say, the taken separately that, the Word denotes all the individuals of the class the sentence same akfti (i.e. consequently of sanu ), while has to limit its intrinsic value (portee).^ "H'rt^ SH^HR s-'i'/^ HlW 5! *.l"-S ^M^l^rl =tfHl'l 3J ^'"H"! P^l^l . S; l'*li ^Wl llfcf'Hl'l'flH R

Ucfi ^ qiSH-il W-i nM'd MrA^d 'IV t<, t'> HSl^-U

IH cii '-uy-

' i J W ell

' (Mcli dl 'niH

y =?lMM(tl '.V V

3 " qibM;i1 H^T -^'4 ilS ^ 1>>S ^ 6 H*artrtl i^ MMRl 4Udi Hi wiM M4i

tfUrt IH . ^TO

.a/ Wdl

1 M1 . HI%la dHHl ^Wl 3HIM51 i

' *m '--0 51 I' t ^A wlrt cfQS HW' ni'^Hidi (u^i 'R-i^iri 4?

dl

l "lltf

.'i ci

tfoi cil

-<3M= "'Hiy "iiH fri'-UMt ^I'fl S. clH Well %'>;. 4? t^Ml -n%l ^fl^ SHI ' iHfli5r anmicp-fl Mi^j "Stf! ^w^Hi =y-iKl ^-w

Wdt /4SW" wi'^l Pl^.H aini 4^1 ^il'-ll s-t^iH r Y-ljMl' ! im

Si '^ici l '3 '1^' WlSl. V-tS^- ^MSjl RpJ'l >S.^ 'M iRliaJl MR V- ' niH t'cil ''^ MHU^H -I (Jlct. M^.' ^cii cil

flH > ^ clr

-i w

Ml (Irt

' a rti CI

Iw l.^i RH-, Hft ttfl.. 3hi

SE ) JPU13J3H MI.

H H'/fl ct cl'-li ^If/WH Nig HM1^3M ansjiH OI^IM ?

?r-U"M TOVH 1 * ^ 9 ^ =H>1 ^i ifl ^SMl tJf\l I ^6

Sett i

M v 4*1*1 StfHWi 'Hl'l 'S. 'ii 1 S ^l'4WH i -fl l'"ilSll'-U ^i^rtl ictl,

rtr|lH ell cl

l' cl

Ui^-ll aaSi'Ml . '. 'H.' y> ^flcil ^ Elf Hlfj 'S^l^ri'' s S-nlH ^flcil -lil1. tTiW rtl ^M ^MM -W>ti M'^lcll '3 '

31 ^ ^Jrl' MH15-M

l ctl MslKl X^l'ui JMlHl wit'fl S I ^H^l S{c{]

Jlfl ? '

E ail'. Hr ,

Pl^lH )J -UMl MM Hil " rtTHi ^ *. >H {l. '^H

i . clfl

'ifl. ^l

51

8. 'il.

5 i yn'S'-

11 S svifcTSi.' tu^{l VJ 1 SV-fl T| J5-11 'HlS V-ll^ m V4 ^3=0

' ii Herraeneutics Mt ^Pi

=(l S.

: ' Qii'U >u^l.8; Language is an operative are system of permanent symbols which signifying units,

Qil'U

=>W-U itrflli (mathematical symbols) ^is^w ^^(grammatical 1 'i v-fliifl IH S symbols)^ ^iHl 'mi n

ctflS %' 5 U -Hl P

ite^i ^^14% Mill 5< o-u'-tl

'1 i.Rl l i

r 'I'-fl 'l-il ilH i

Qil'U'U ^ ''MIVU >$ &. 'rjPs'-iH^I

i?ll/l5M $''l &. 'dPj.Mt ^ V (^141 aid -Hi^ri^^ Mi*J

wrt MRrlftitfll^l yp, MlHXl Hli Hi ri W

-

'H i ^'-ll Ml-lRti S^Hl 5 wtib^l 'l*ll: i ril

i il'-tHl (I'VH'-'-H Wl^'l^c ^"4^1 ^l. 'iWU^'Jrt '^^ 'yi^-s m

ar-d

ctl ial4 cldt yrtrt ^'^4

li'J (l^ft *HH>Hl 9.1^ 53

(lei

CKV^l MWl^ll W'1*H sHH^jl^i Hi C*HMId

5 3 JuT foil * &a'4M sv-ii >ii Hi 'iQ il

lX UIH

*UH '3. <3Hl

S; '-m rv ?icqj^di yi^Uii^ v5. SHI

Hi ^"Ict s^i'fl ^uw ?

"

i ^Ri ^ win* M S." ctHl "11 SHlRlS il^W't ^1'%' WlM

"Hcl

J ctdl ?l'

SiiHt 'Ji'kl qfel Mctl^l

(Him iicH ci?i

Hi 51

The concept of language as a mere means for communication reduces and limits the of to a scope language labelling of objects by objectifying the 'communicative' aspect of language whereby it becomes the handy tool in and for a referential system. it i

' use of 1 {'Tte language 'by man ) SR J W . use of (the man by language through Sabda i, M rti ^;

-3. as ^ (Reality language speaks) ^/tci 0. ottHi c W H cii' iiti (Reality i presented and not represented, by language) rfiiH?u^ (Her Mi meneuticft) ^ 8^^ Hitn & M^ i

-s, 5i ill il QiHl ^^Vfl

&W ci

(reconstruction) ^Vfl WMct^l QH14HI

' 1 ft i

' a\ cit

ciH Ml

ciil c$ Mil Sis yiHH rl(ll 'I ?1%IH. , ^1

J : l ? r ell -';il' i 5Qil ^'Hh'l Qil'-U -H4 clRflRicll ^ "i'^'fl ^H -ll

cl QUVfl RQil^ll y^/Mi 'l^l' =wil^. QiiHl

'U 'Hci (Jil'U at^I ^^(qifctl Si

-4R-11 rt

ell HRrtRsrt

55? -H^M Ry^iyi K @^^ t q[

'

ell

fl ^Rrlidl V4 d -I

l l*{| i^l^l ^-(l

(integration)

S; &. sum ^ ( ^i ^fl a. c^im^i y-^^ %c-t ^11-1

-lH' I ', aHiai'jJSr. flSfl (Him 5}

i UttMl-ll

Hl^ct sifl . ^I=? Hl^d SHI

cil at

jj- ^. ^ 3, Jltf ,.,,,

cil i

'-11*1

/(f ^ WUM" 8, r HlW Pl'jrt |iH d ii u|iH.

'-0 %

IH '5)

JlfeT , ]ffil ^ J '111 Q?l[riS. I

IRttl* Mlcil (3 'S. c(8ll

i

l4(H8j *UrU MW

S\il vm* if I (=M14 lit

"d'*li

'MHU.il r;HlHl^

ci Qi 1. GACHTER-OTHMAR : 'Hermeneutics and Language in Purvaim.

mariisa : A, in Sahara Publ. Motilal study Bhasya, Banarasidas,. Delhi, 1983, pp. 9- 10.

a. ibid., pp. 10-11.

3.

s -H.l%Rt(ASS$[

Frauwallner (WE) ^,L',l

s^ |

r. .

(53

^ra,. w. . ?,

f| sir. w. i*n

1 ?n. u.

tft. ifl. m. v. ^, \Y.

l. strr. *rr. |. R.

i $, m. vrr. . t

us. i<:.

- ft ifl. ?F[ m. t S. 1 19

R!. SEliY HT. ^. ?. R

R). . ?.

iff, . w. II. ^, ?,

? vtf^ftfft I fct: a?^!

?f ^3^, f|q; I

Hi, W. HI, ff

l. fr. ?. V.

f|

fit. m. ^f, ?. ?.

36. jft. sn. *tr. ?. . H

3\. ift. wr. m. ?.

3*. flt. W. TT. .

33, ^. SIT. *IT *.

J, 3-

3H.

iRr a^i-t

! |

1 il. SEIT. vrr. ?. ?.

if); w. ^r, ?. ?. Y1. iT f| S'SRB'

Y3.

41. w.

qt. W. *FI. V. ?.

?Pcf, iT^^

f|

vft.

-rft m. ? ?. H

40 q gissf c

?". 1,

~q1. sir. 3 1

ift. W. HI. 1. ?

MY. | ft ^s?|?r

41. w. *?i. ?. 3,

?f e?J I

58:

flt. W. W. ?. t

HI.

, !fr. HT- ?. t

Hv9. mRf g

w. *ir. ?. t

M4.

Hi. U. : I i?fi:

crfiw-4 gffi ^qj^q spiq' ^T q^f fe-11, ^ 3 W I

qt. tar. ii. ?. ?.

ql

tfs[

--ql w. *ir. < ?. u

Contributions a Thistorie de la pMiosophie iingui- ., RUEGG, D. S. 56 ail^VU t'lMitt stique indicnne, Paris, 1959, p. ^rt^.

?5lS?r ?fa ! ft V53. ct sft eflgtrifci I ..... * fl

T fraft

f I fsffefflTqi Rl^^Jf^Il^W: q fjj

I

aifq

31 fq

5>sfq eifqi *n?rwi piasjiq Pq^i^iR^^sPa, 'fsfq gf?gf): I 31?^ f| ^ q?^ I * ^ ^WF ^^qfrj;'' %' |fcl qcqg: q?qq:, ^qigqifq^t I ff ^

I

BIARDEAU, M., The'orie, pp 187-188

n 5 sas?: i

ffl. w, jqi. ?. ?.

i^r: I

. 5TI. CHI. 1, M.

^ i fg ?4

Jiqqf?a I fit. ^jr. IT. ?. ?.

f|

tft. w. ^r. ?

note /, ^. BIARDEAU, M. Thc'orie, p. 195, 1,

fft. sat. vfi. ?. ?.

: sf?5 : fft^r^rra ^^^ f| fg ^t^' ^ , ^^ sir^if^cf,

^ fei far ft^fa ? fT fg

erat wl% I

. T>. ?. ?. H

?l% I Ff ^F^^P-iT flKiai^Tf-ncn^ zjjp3Tfi?t*q ?-f!-wV imn^g;,

I R fg;

?r

?J CTff. qf? q^lq aft qqiq, qRmifqvifq^ ( ^ ^^ f| Rfft^,

5J3^](q

^ ?r

|f?i

jqt. w. IT. ?. ?.

R). sat. *ir. ?. ?.

q). ifrr. m. ?. y.

-ql ^fi. w, ?. ?. R.

\<>1. fit

%^at ^r<3T5?rtqqiT5r^[a I

-'ft. sir. *rr. ?. ?.

tf. w. *ii. ?. ?.

a!TO?!gs^i ffa

. w. m. ?. !.

rft. RTT. m. ?. ?

PS sqiRlgr^ft ^f?a I sqgfei m\3(\ ^lafqr i^fe i sqfq g

I: ^ '"WffiqV 5 fa I

= =1 I 3

. ?. ?. <

ql, ?I1. *TI. t ?. til. Ga'c'hter-Herm. & lang in P. M., p. 91.

til

tff. m. . I a?t

. STL 'flr. ?. <. v.

ell'.

f I ft aRiq : wfsf^R' ^TR I T ^ ?l?qlT?lWHIti; bW 41

Well

ii. y.

=yu&(%&

ell "i'H

4lMl ^I'/ls ell ^i

dl 5 '

Mcfltrt

41 1

H \l.

W rti

i'^l IRIH*(1 Plil W* 'ftit 'll-^t

--'tl Vf'd-lt 'H!i rl

i'c iHt #n -'i

i, <3Urt (''i.

^l q u;=i i(i?i ^s: | ff

?: ! 2ii: qi^l'

03, fPH sif ? 'X.5f ^P

6dl (

S.

X'HW ^

H S'fth, (H. o) Wd

'--HH '-W, Sj>Hl /Uj >u-Q *iMt

tH Hl- ^l

i'-i B; ^_. \t.) .(|^

Hldl-i'l il. H. tijtV-} i^,f-('lrl y^3 crioi(^j

1 ^ MRHfl'S ( i. 33) iV

.....- ',liH 'S I

-TUrni

: ! !;5 .iq,

m <\*& ^si (ck'lt)

" . v)

?11H . aim

g cid

fefllRil^li 1 ^ ( i. 33)

Mli S,

%: S.

a ' " Mfcft Yi tl *l ci'll Jilt i'- ('i. ^ oM^l 41.

M'Qrl

. v)

: tf ffer CU *H^i l

(' ii'-Hi^' MISI ^' tiH)

' ' =tul gi^^i^: SlMid,' ^I 'MHIJJ

5 cil %! ^ C-1?(H 'HI /! ^*l

<

' ell rt MS

:yM

cl 1

ell

' f ' ' rt

' (SWlU Hffl HW CHRcQ HOlldl (* M^I sm a clifl .'-iL *t. fcia *UH 8.

M* i'

^'cf

ftll^l fil

l'''L'-ll

'SV V5rli aT^-ii HlficM

r irtl li

ell '- yn, M'Q,ct

fid, ^. :=u'l& fold' 8.

^r-l^ll?, 3,' .% . M, H fl(%rt|rt i.Rl ^'Nlftrl,

v. a-. M.. M. SI. - M. 'JUCfJliM jjuisOs^d Q-|UR

it. M. 'ni4t

^Nldrl, ifea3- - s. it. 11. -iil^tP^l crplfid l[.

<:. ii. ii. yi

- fe. il. 11. R^rlifel V\ M^iK't

~ IT.. il^MiRl ^l^aiS ^Rl Ri'Ml&l

ct H^^l d S1141R.-11 V-M-Vlrt ^WKl S^l' .w ^ -3. yNu

aw

w ,*

S) ? (V) ^l MPcl HcM MM (M) Mii 51 Hli 'I M^ cMl yH

MiM

ell Qil'-l Pin

l MlMo y

(?) rtl

r ( d i'j(l 3/l cfl

5* Mli^l yqi '-f ci , ^ Sis MQ-lWi rl-r'-l ^{\"^

S), an'p

>U*-t

-g, ^

rlkV-f S

XrilH ^

S'HHcfl :

y

' a t 4=0 S. ?*fl H

1 ' 'M^''il diy Ml

31-33; 3, <3rtR=u ct%i

%>U ^ii 44^1

(I'U'-H cl*H(l H 4t^rll

sy^l (nrtl Hl^ MLclHl

i @lci

' '3 4pl 4lat -"li

l ^1 '3. rt'tj", H. *W-JUY). R s'oi

i^ cl-ti

&. liiQrii C-fl^l ^lHl-U

P, 4^1 a^-HR SUM S aiHl. MH'.i^-O MlM ^H yi^* '3 ta PlM UH,clt

x lU ct

M'

J anl CM : (*hMi(Y&), ty i (-HIHHV<1),

3 5 l' ll Hl'^lH H'^l-i-i

3 Hl-Hl' ,H '-"t'fl

' <'-ld> H? l'3l i'lj, (i^'-

cl

l Hl'Wl

Hcti W-.;

MM: r ^ s.

-H^ M?.Hl

of ' Validny knowledge;-^ %iiHi|'-lnvali- dity of knowledge. R^

iii>nqH>M

,

tf cl (5Mi. a

cj'

Xct^UJH HHl Y^'/l, ff/H'

-lal llM. HjRt i^.i XiRt Ml cli

. 51s ^ trtl

ay

(I HS^Jd *W, ^J-Hl-tW MlMl tU '.'IRRHji WW^ &'<'l' "1>1

" '-l Htil>H3>j' ov-

'i ^ll y'n'H ^l^ct 811H cVl 'd'41 51 ?lt

'McH;t ^Hl^j 4,1'l^Md' HlMl^H

4.15.1 H^l

a '-H-'t =l '=4'-ll

' r -rt 5U?! wHL^ wMl^ sJlH an^l^ Ht8i --n 'MlH-ci S11H dl^ cHl^ ct

v? "Mil il^ . rt ril dl'-l'i" XIHRH W>H^iRi <^1diR \^' Ml-i^Rl

Si

5lWd,"

sfl cil

' '3. til"SHI IWl^l

at,

ttilffl

"Hctl ^u ^.(xt r|

1K M'iRl 4llH ctl'

"^; ril ^' chi

ill Pet

= Xr d(tt I jj' H'-O

W Vflil^l ttilH cl^l ^-ft.

' H*fl.

% lH*l

Misw'-fl iii^ci Hi5 110(3;.

y^-i

- . tffl, iSJ ls H1 ci d oy &. ^ ^HiRSi cii

feed;

a/SUJWi

:

'-i Hal ^--to'-'tiw*

*riH ^IHC-Q) H siW ell

''' --u

lr!l ^

' H'^K-i S sj|

f sti-u

l Wddl 4

-HlH

8 MWWH 'fe* "ll" cto; SHI

:: ilil.

3.

Y. ' _ \t 8i. auwtVsa'. '%^ %^^M-S, nwi^ iwn^w^ %<._

1 - M., siqmj Jffll^H I SMRL<, MH, -HlH-_ ajjfJtusl, '_MW|.M,

V.

\9. -s

117 6r!,"j?faetical ap-plfcation '(p84) dealing.'(p." ), behaviom ' lp-,162) Buddhist" Logic vol. II- by E. Th .Stcherbatsky .. Dover .Ed. . New York,, 1962,; ;.-.- ; \, : ;-.'," it

'

clS'-l life , 1^.. -H'lH^j 1- ^ ^ai ^3M{Ai: ''MHlJ tlfrt'iiiHM, fl^'H/X^ HI '.

13. X

ctsh fcfc , M.

9. 511-31

I-H. % W. fll 'i. VH-.

10717 x,.

: a

(;zn .

q .

' i 1> T.T.

, ^

. Review

Imagery of Kaliddsa-Dt. Vinod (Mrs.) Aggarwal. Eastern Book, Linkers, Price Delhi, 1985, Rs. 125. page 308+20.

The concept of is a _ imagery western concept. As the author states -rt is the vastu which is m: ftj& ft .fc-ferffc* and F*ftrtKalidasa. She gives all weight to the view of C Day Lews "Every poetic is to image some degree metaphorical'. It looks out from a mirror in which life perceived not so much its face as some truth about its face." It can be (p.3) conceded that Kirlicfas is a creator of excellent, life-like and yet artistic images, endowed that he is with a poetic genius for which the words of Bhatta Tauta quite aptly apply- 'all author ReR^ERiifegl jrffw The quite effectively strikes at this of she :qfew[ Kalidasa creating images Avhen states ; "Every image bears of evidence of the poet's surehess Judgement and delicacy of taste the music, the fulness, the aptness, the simplicity, the purity and the Sweetness used in Kalidssa's images could not be imitated by other

poets," (p. ix). It is thus quite proper and in fitness of things that the

author details and all studies in full and minutest from points of view, the images created by the poet, Her classification, of the images is scho- larly. The study is divided into eleven chapters thus

1. Introduction that discusses imagery, its constituents, its fundaments and types and goes to classfication of images in the great poet.

2 to 9. Detailed study of all possible images systematically and scieniifi.

cally classified.

Chapter 10 deals with their critical appreciation work-wise. into4 as Chapter 11- conclusions that are divided parts (i) statistical Kalidasa's own idea touchs in survey of variety of Images, (ii) these, (Hi) of the and Poets of Ideological background Imageris (iv) clarity Imagination the real test of the arid power of Expression. Evidently scholarship of last and we the author lies in the first and the chrpters must concede 64

and that the topics selected are scientifically good, very ably analysed of of Pratibha as have the capacity to create a better idea the concept of the real greatness of applied to Kalidasa and a better understanding detailed study of the this preceptor of the family of poets ^ftfgp The refer to images is more descriptive and narrative and does not mostly in and of the human their effectiveness : touching the very vitals' depth-

heart. However, as stated earlier/ the classification is detailed -, systematic the and scientific We 'can also state that no image lias escaped purview studied the of the author. That speaks for the. care with, which' -she has ;research works of Kalidasa and after a study of years, contributed this than is far wider in -western work. The concept of metaphor ; .criticism in Sanskrit and the author has done full justice to ;the poet. /That proves in that the present work can, be classed as .a fairly good.;stiidy compara- welcome tive criticsm. She has paved, the way for more such studies.. We; the work for all its worth. It brings us nearer to the depth of Ksiidasa's works. ...' vision and thought that create the real aesthetic beauty in his

"

- - x :. Betai' , R. S.

Faith, Prai er' arid Grace Cassian l'. Agera, Mittal publications , ' ' 239'. Delhi-110035, 1987, pp. '. .','''..' '."..'

' R. The monograph under review is a -revised version 6f '"Dr..C. Agera's thesis which was submitted for the Ph. 'D. degree in' Philosophy,

University of Delhi . This is a -first critical' and comparative' study . 6n_ ' stalwarts viz" Sri Rama- conception of Faith, -Prayer and Grace of two- nuja of India and Kierkegaard of Denmark.

; a- vita!' role in life ''of man. Irifact Faith and prayer play religious _ blind belief. It is they are central point to the good life: Faith isVot a and a dynamic and a constructive force in our life. Faith .rationalism, as some think. Infact are not opposed to each other, people they _ supp- lement each other. The faculty of pure reasoning leads us to knowledge and knowledge gives. us faith. An indepth study, reveals that the pomplete consists of ani picture of mental phenomena belief, reason, knowledge belief to t reason to know- faith. Our rnind climbs from , reason, .rough

: ultimate This is Sradhg. ledge aiid from knowledge to faith.. called. Thus, from the crudest concept of religion to', its purest and loftiest experssiorj, .'_ been is tremendous emphasis has always, laid. upon' _f^ith, .Prayer, nothiiagL. but an expression of inner devotion, thei source' of which is; again faith", " Review' 65

towa- It is a firm view of all the religious thinkers that prayers directed rds God bring the highest happiness here and now. Prayers of pure heart are answered Jn the form. of Grace. Hence, the fabric of faith, prayer and grace, is, subject of central point for all the theistic philosophers.

The present work r of the author mainly deals with comparison between these three concepts of Rgmanuja and Kierkegaard. The author in his introduction beautifully pointed out that, though, both Rsmanuja and Kierkegaard belong to diverse socio-religious contexts, none the less,

if grace be regarded as God's call, on the one hand and-faith and prayer as mans responses, on the other, they make a fairly similar fabric, the

1 same general them of human salvation. (Introduction, p-2). The author concentrating on these three concepts of two great religious thinkers, has developed his thesis very systematically; Though there is a eight hundred years gap between both the philosophers, the work, tries . to highlight how Rsmanuja and Kierkegaard react to similar problems and situations in life and thought. The main; contribution of :this work is two-fold;

first of all it throws light on ress' known aspsct of Kierkegaard thinking and secondly it compares; the views of both Rsmanuja and Kierkegaard

'

which is the need of the day. :

are The book consists of ten Chapters. The first nine chapters gro- The first two uped into three units consisting of three chapters in each. In units deal with the vicwes of Ramanuja and kierkegaafd respectively. of and the third unit comparison is made between yie\Vs RamSnuja and differances. The tenth Kierkegaard, highlighting both similarities divided into two In part chapter is a concluding one which is parts. three one the author tried to show the inter relations amSng the concepts, In second part an attempt as they are understood in religion generally. of and Kierkegaard stand is made to show how the views Ritmsnuja related to this general religious-position.

' and Grace, The author's understanding of Faith, Prayer and he is very clear in presenting view and Kierkegaard is very subtle is undoubtedly an outstanding contri- of both the thinkers. This work with notes, Glossary, Biblio- bution to the field of knowledge. Equipped and The book is well printed nicely produced. graphy and Index, the in oat this deserve high appreciation bringing very author and publisher useful book on comparative religion.

Y. S. Shastri 66 Review

t tress.

?ranav Ahmedabad Prakashan, 7, 1983, Pages- 47+16. Price Rs. 12/-

The present work is a critical edition of an unpublished work on lexicography by Rupacandra (16th Century), It is based on four paper rass ., two of which were from the procured L. D. Institute of Indology

Ahmedabad one from : the B. J. Institute and one from BORI, PUNE (Phoio The state), only complete ms is 1 from the L. D. Institute through the editor, Dr. Bharati Shelat, Found .the other 3 also be useful Full available details of all the four are given as expected in a critical edition. All available information about the family and place of the author belongs to the Mehra lineage of Rajputs, who were the same as Mers who settled in Porbandar (Saurashtra). The evidences enlisted seem to, be authentic. -.'.:. ...-'

: The work is divided into ten sections known as Vargas. The first nine deal with 150 and synonyms the last deals with five homonyms. The total number of verses in Austup metre is 123 (83 full, 38 half and 44 qua.ter The last verses). varga of homonyms has five verses in three As Dr. metres, Slielat rightly points out,

"The author of this lexicon follows no principle of arrangement.. He has arranged them at random." ' The style is rightly 'simple and direct, Other details of style are also given, A detailed Index of words at the end and a very detailed and careful note of all variant readings!, as also mostly a selection of the appropriate reading at every place show what great effort Dr. Shelat. has* in 'the put work. It ^Iso 'gives ample proof 'of her command over the science of critical editing, We sincerely hope that Dr. Shelat enriches -lexicography by editing many rnore works .... of : : . this , ; ,. ; .,s type. , ..: .,,,,. ..-,

JK. S. Betai Review

- in findu -Law of Inheritance- Tr. Gopalchandra Sarkar 1 irsi reprint Delhi 7. Price Rs. 160. :ndia, 1986, Gian Publishing House,

of the 'Hindu The first reprint in India of the text and translation of Mitramilra Law of Inb.eritaace--Dayabb.aga,' as in the Vlraraitrodaya and also students in this Pulfils the long-felt need of scholars, jurists 110 after its first pubtica country. The reprint, coming as it does years reference even today, more win tion remains useful as a valued work of and and for the comet this country. It is of very great value guidance school and of the law of inheritance in the Bengal precise interpretation laws on inheritance enacted the Mitaksara school both, as also all the the With due reject to Maim, in India 'right upto the modern days. Nwad. '* foremost of the Smrtikaras as also to Ysjflavalky, wnuen the Dayabhaga of 'Viramitrodaya' by,Mitramifca

r o Sanskntwork IB airy of the Hindus. The original high even confusing because of very 10 the is therefore welcome author. The translation,

: The work consists of the following

Index. Translation and .detailed

; ' translation notable that th. It is 1-d cm".--effort. It- is most and-and' patientpattern, n i s Qwn, aw h,h on ^^ . ^> to real es ^^when puts his sholarship sections .-..- to text.and. translation dUccd. Thb H -o^h ttie ww u tn^ topics ot ^^riwce oi different mbraci'ig -comprehensiveness reader convince tfte. ^about ihe^ali ^e^^ ^^ ^.^ ^ **'*_*

the translation 65 Review

I a tor has convincingly proved that, his grip aad grasp are full and that he is as much of a scholar as Mitramisra shows himself to be in -the work. The translation immortalises Mitramisra and his work both. The Iffdex'at the end arranges the topics into full and clear-cut details and

gives to us yet another -proof of : the profound scholarship of the 'trans- lator, We heartily welcome this useful work.

A Compendium of the KSjayoga Philosophy. Ed. Rsjaram Tookarara-Golden Publication Services-New Delhi 1983,

pages 171+4 priee Rs. 55.

This" is a welcome reprint of a compendium -of six valuable works on spiritual knowledge after more than eighty years. Here five works are by Sriiafikar5car.ya and one by .Sadanairda. The five are .the famous Vedantaprakaranas by. Sri Saiikara, the internationally renowned Indian philosopher. are They Aparokssnubhuti, Atmsnstmaviveka, Vakyasudha, Vivekaeudirmani and Carpakpanjari. The work by Sadananda is the celebrated 'Ved&ntassra\ The purpose of this selection is, as laid down by the editor, to submit "before aspirants to spiritual knowledge both m the East and the west the theory of the Higher Self and the mode of its realization." It j s assured that "a careful study of these treatises will lead them. to an exealted state of mind, which will raise them above the sptee of physical sorrows and pains and ultimately enable them to limitation of time and space by realizing the Immortal OWNMK^I*The Ego- purpose of these translations is thus really kudable and the works Seated are also the most authentic in the reata of spiritual knowledge .d A. highest and uplift reaction. The translations are famous scholars by and they are of no mean order. However we feel that the works could, better have been arranged as follows (i) 3^?am Sadgnanda Review -.. . . , #9

that be the (yi) feH^BTRfa will climax in that it reveals the grave 1 of mortal existence and the limitations sorrows that follow on" one side, of man who has and the achievements got over his ego, and has, through his mental and spiritual uplift, brought his Self nearer and nearer to the Supreme Self and to all the joys of one who experiences that state. This order would again, better follow the menial make up of the his from the mortal aspirant and uplift existence to the highest immortal existence and realization. The reader can surely be advised to proceed with his study of the works and th'3 highest philosophy of spiritual uplift

and be better enlightened. ;

iiv the. work one 'It Again, there is no uniformity regarding thing. as to the text of is not clear why l^W*, aWRRTWfftfi, ftjhFjWWft

! !! 5lft is not with the and even the very small W* gives along translations, The value of the compendium would have gone far higher because most India would feel much more benefited of the readers particularly in by it would have consumed some 80 the text in Sanskrit. No doubt pages more authentic and more. But the work would have become representa-

'' tive thereby.

value of the work is. there, it can, very However, even as it is, the recommend a of the well serve its purpose. We would study compendium. to be regarding the supreme reality to all readers who desire enlightened minds and selves by grasping the best and are keen on sublimating their of Indian and the highest doctrines philosophy. R. S. Betui

Editor : Dr. P. &: By Late Sri Guude Rao Harkare, Laiye, i)ept. 1983, Price. Rs. 45/-, of Sanskrit, Osmania University, Hyderabad- - 1 to 323. r . Preface & About the Author i-v, pp. ?;;

' 1 ifl KlI's'IPI W I (0 JF*T< % W WW 21 "70

' ' ' as; $ gteni^H fsir I, afo 35" t RT%. sit. %. eft. A of Sanskrit Grammar, G. O S. No. 134, , "$pt, ^T Dictionary First Edition, 1961, M. S. University of Baroda. ffl

(A.D. 197^) ft *?. %, i

fan | II

(A.D. 1887-1979)* RW |

311Jiq ' "* ^ft "f^' ^3^^ . .

(functions) a*i$ ^i s^r^ ^ R?^?T wm I I

I I

ta' 5* sfwtir^R % a^ ^ fa^ft % ^r^R ft

fii

at

(0 (fi) ^iwq" (III 3-108).

ffq: I

; (VI. 1-77), 1^ ^?awi5HBm. (1-1-8)'

- \

.z&v. (Vll-3-fOj af , 3?, fsf^ , q^ (1V-2-20)

.. . V (III-3-125)

^w- I : (1-1-11), t|ft * (I-1 19), ainqt: (VI-3-98),

r to 91), ~ ' (VI-4-89 2-165) qp^f. (HI-2-166). (479) ^fVl ^f: q^ft (480) $& WIT (481) Ri

I '-^fila' (I-4-79) ^Rt i *ng: ^PPS ffl 71

(1-3-7)

(1-4-57)

' 1. ^1'4: (1) gww:, (2) ai?^J|:, (3) i: (4)

aq^i '^' OII^: I 2. tjgfwfcrwpw (II-1-72), ^s?;; * T w*" (II- 1-48),

i It

fir:

l Ralq: qiRr. (VII 1-2-7)

(V-l-57)

*&" (V-2-24) taT

: (V-2-25). 'aftar ^sr: fas (V1I-2-9) aN: I '

(V-2-138). " s fsra (V-4-I42)

t! I sifet: WW ,(619).

:=^rfta=i*pqjqfl: (b20).

f: (621)

Jlfofii: .fe: ^ I ffp: |: (623).

(18 .282) (III-2-115)

(III- 2-1 16). a

=5) I

? a^TKn-aqsRrC. fh^xi: ? sp-IR ^?f: f (111-2-117) " (TII-4-82).

f?

53; I

(III-1-35, 42).''

5 Wt I, a^? !^ I. f^ 11 311^ t, WIR I, |, 3TT^ Rfqq I,

I 1^'^) BS.^T BWfiftll ftW. ^'J ft^I TRT I I ^T -.?fll

qi ^iflwfsfW "jir s^fr IBI?IT: n?ir I I &H:

f^r ^T 5^Hrfa[ i g nfe. t.a> w ^ ^ "< ^ra-Rin

f ?. ^r '^^ % ^r (i 44^) -'s

t fTis

fa'o; - 55 to % so^r RIWR fwr ?^ i (1-3-2 8) s^fl mr I f^f^^ w^i^' ^ ^iwq? I \ W(. ftnlfri-^q f, '' ! ''. 1? 77 ^: ^flw % -i^ 73.

! :~''^*T (Ul-4-77,

." i" orgy (UI-4-478) i^w. SJI^P; faar I I wa ff "s:

1 69)'

?w>4 t I

ST. qiria fiif?,

sit

I,

?w if 'jrn %

(g. i)

SJW

wr -

%.*i few

t 74

1 it

9 fRtnit ^5 ' ?t WBHT *n I I .fts

S, ct-Q

' %. (i)

) (a)

l. 3 : 1-VV) (V)

'V-l S. (%. W iVS 75

.3, <3iW'

?lcU

: ctlHlfaMWi 'HIWCU; toiHb 'fe^^; %tPii*H-ftKs#q wife

"Hl^' Mt'l'O' SILH.9. ^HtMlH^l (HPMMPti' O ^.(cl

4 ; *W

* 76

Well

oy

fl i,

u

oil.

cl'fl clHl .%WH, |f(clli, 4iWp,- MMl M^l^t ci^' 4loM tfOVfl R'^dtaiJi Pl^H^l wi^.WWlfi i^l 51

il'AW id yi a

'

, 31

(3) (V)

(V9)

(i)

(fcj ^

51 wu :tfl?il ^^ sun. "HViMSlfli ^w" fcGM ^' ^^ ^' ^ ^^ 41SH M^l / ^ItT ^ 8.

cl flcl 1>J H^

lfl Hi tl 1 Hi^l

to Wtil.-Wl*ltt . il -Hl^-U. -lOH-tt^ llH a S |W

c-i-ilcti

Ml

. , M i , l>ttlll-< o^C-li \fe< 1 , W 1^14 i^S, *J

- 1 ffl?eH ^ IsVl' 51 fe^iM M* Ml.

i'i

Jift-il ilSlH oy "M%5i aniMi^rl H^l. S =yid

' ^ HlW-^-Jr i-H ovmi^l S cl

x 1.. sfti =H'(|l cl

V.

M.

SHI wd.X&Ji v, M

ctll H^ % I XlWl ^MitlHlgH Hm<1. o/^ (fiCgJl^' fli cl*t%. 51

cl Misi iloM'

( S Hltl^ll rl>li 'M^H ^IM^.WA"H H4r-ll Slilct ^ .

'ell cl ^i&loM ?U 5i(S H(l ci-ll *W.l %^1 ^ tfcf ^Irl cit -<

l Sl'^

ell =iHl

u il>/l il Mfeto-l ^Rl ^Mi MfetlUH S. 5){^1 eld HI 2 il

MW '^ ctHi t'il Hnl "vi

id il. R^frl'Vl RW'-US

"MKl .

' ' + V,

M| 'll' H*, ^il i RrlllHl Mm ^ *

HV, <1(cl, s

. -16KHRcV.il &

Ml =M=1' &.

id &.

(l) 'i

d^l 1^1 ^ti ^ ^

HctL c^d, MfcKWlW, c l 3'J 9. "HI llct

iH w'U

(3) >ui

' (V)

P-RcUV&rl ell

'Si Request to Contributors

Our learned contributors are requested to note the when following requirements they send papers for our Journal :

Papers should be preferrably typed in double space.

Internationally accepted diacritical marks should be used where necessary.

Words to be italicised should be underlined.

As far as possible Sanskrit or Prakrit quotations should be written in the original language only.

Footnotes should be serially numbered and given at the end of the paper.

Footnotes should clearly give reference number from the work referred to, the name of the author, as also name of the publisher and date of publication wherever necessary.

A brief list to works consulted should be given at the end. Statement about ownership and other particulars about Sambodhi, the Quarterly Journal of L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, to be published in the first issue every year after the last day of March. From IV

(See Rule 8) 1. Place of publication Ahmedabad, 2. Periodicity of its publication Quarterly.

3. Printer's Name Pitamber J. Mishra. Nationality Indian Address Tirhut Printers,

41, Meghnath society, Ranip, Ahmedabad 5. 4. Publisher's Name Yajneshwar S. Shastri Nationality Indian Address Acting Director, L, D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad 9.

5. Editors' Nam'e-3 (1) Dalsukh Malvartia (2) Yajneshwar S. Shastri p) Ramesh S. Betai Nationality Indian Address L D. institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 9. 6. Names and addresses of L. D, Institute of Indology Individuals who own the Ahmedabad 9. newspaper and partners or shareholders holding more than one-percent of the total capital.

I, Yajneshwar S, Shastri, hereby declare that the parti culars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Yajneshwar S. Shastri Signature of Publisher, OUR LATEST PUBLICATIONS ' \

Dr. K- K. DixU (1983) pp. 8+120 27/. n, StoJwvOaik* : A Study by Pt, BU. hy 66/. 93, VkrdlwmJWasurt's Maftoraittfkahl (Prakrtt; (1983) |(ftprtattlfcanmr Pagtfiya pp. 16+3394-32 ami by Shantilal 94, 'HWbbadni'a Yog? Works Psychosintheuis

' ' J 94 . r, / K. Deiai PP (Il83) , 1 k <'-' "-* -'- ' " Fd. Mehataua ApraUto Fda (Gujarati) by icy

1 oi' (-A Sfanrttit Abridgement ^l^j^^v'JtMtOft'fr^flRv^u^srii ( 1W- - Wv- 'Ut.^V ^^'^feitJ^^JUfc*)' >;

IfeSll^yS*^ i-l-J , ^ru\^' ^ n Anhtktt) With Oujarati / ^^^ Wrty^ '^^1t^W^'^^^^^^*,'E^'jJ, > ij^' a J- Shah (1 984} ^''iJP^'^'.feft'^ffed by ^agin i; i b:4" :,; :''^;;' ' ' ' J - It^duiiir^l' transU* ion ftli<3 ( ^84 ^|4;4|M. !

1

^./IWltlPWi' !^fe4^W^^Ma^,Hfr(ii' -H (fljr^Tv^je.vwteAi! , -. /,

?/lSt):fe*AiJLL,ijl,iiSSL' l Uytl!^i , lUfatiiifeet'tfiir* . t

* '

1 ' '' ISM^j^W1^*** '**" - 361 "; k^A** '.