365bet娱乐

The work 鈥�Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha鈥� is a treatise on the figures of poetry belonging to word and sense. In all 41 alankaras are accorded treatment and these 41 are divided into 6 groups. Neither the groups nor the whole order of enumeration seem to follow any scientific principle. The order of the alankaras and their grouping generally follow Bhamaha. The definitions are also many a time borrowed, sometimes completely and sometimes with a slight change, from Bhamaha. The definitions of the

first variety of atisayokti, yathasamkhya, sahokti, sasandeha and ananvaya are bodily taken from Bhamaha. The definitions of c, c, apahnuti, virodha and aprastutaprasamsa are accepted with some change. Half portions of the definitions of paryayokta and rasavat are also taken from Bhamaha. But even so much borrowing cannot overshadow the original nature of Udbhata's work. His originality and acuteness are seen even in the slight alterations he makes in Bhamaha's originals. In the definitions which he has not taken from Bhamaha his genius is fully brought out, for even Mammata has many times thought it fit to accept the ideas and structures created by Udbhata. Udbhata only accepts Bhamaha's version where he agrees with him, and no one will find fault with him if he has done so instead of casting the same definition in words different from those of Bhamaha. If his own views are the same as those of Bhamaha on a particular alankara, a straight-forward borrowing from such a great author as Bhamaha was perhaps better than composing the definition in his own words which was bound to be similar in meaning with that of the original. When the definition of Bhamaha does not fit in with his more advanced views he casts it aside and brings out his own definition which would even match with that of Mammata in accuracy. The high ability and the independence of thought of Udbhata in the province of Alankara is displayed in one more way. He is not at all a slavish follower of Bhamaha or any other old alankarika. He has rejected some alankaras that are treated by Bhamaha, as he did not think it fit to treat them as separate alankaras. Thus he does not at all mention the alankaras yamaka, asambhava ( upamabheda ), upamarupaka and which are defined and illustrated in Bhama- utpreksavayaca ha's Kavyalankara. On the other hand he adds some alankaras of his own to the established list of alankaras and they are invariably accepted after him by all writers on 1 For example, see the definition of . By putting the single word he has excellently brought out the chief characteristic of the alankara which was absent in Bhamaha's definition.

rhetorics. According to our knowledge Udbhata is the first writer to include punaruktavadabhasa, kavyahetu and kavyadrstanta in the generally accepted list of alankaras. Not only in the work of Bhamaha but in those of Dandin, Vamana and other old writers no trace is found of these figures. The proper examples of gra and were inserted under some other alankaras and the creation of such alankaras as kavyalinga and drstanta, especially of drstanta, did not occur to any one. We are thus led to the conclusion that Udbhata first brought these alankaras into existence. They were of course accepted and placed among important alankaras by later writers. IV. UDBHATA'S POSITION IN ALANKARA LITERATURE. Rhetorics and poetics as a science was early developed in Kashmir, and different stages in its development are illustrated clearly in the works of different authors. Bhamaha was a Kasmiraka and he is the oldest extant author among them to write on Alankara. Soo after him among the extant writers comes Udbhata at the end of the eighth century and somewhere about this time must have appeared the author of s. After him came the celebrated Anandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyaloka, in the latter half of the ninth century. Something like 80 years later, in the latter half of the tenth century, was the time of our commentator Induraja; and slightly anterior to Induraja must have lived Rudrata' the author of Kavyalankara and Mukula 1. The only terminus ad quem to Rudrata's date was supposed to be the middle of the eleventh century as his commentator Namisadhu had written his comment in A. D. 1069 But we can now say with certainty that he appeared before Induraja whose time we have settled to be about A. D. 970 We can also have a probable estimation of the terminus a quo of his date. Induraja now and then quotes him without name. And it is the habit of Induraja to quote the recent authors of his time without name. Also Dhvanyaloka does not contain a single __ c [K. S. s.]

the author of Abhidhavrttimatrka. After Induraja came Abhinavagupta, the author of the gloss Lochana on Dhvanyaloka, for he mentions his own date in some of his works, which is the end of the 10 th century A.D. After this came Mahimabhatta, Kshemendra, Ruyyaka and finally Mammata. This list is, we believe, fairly complete as far as the important Kashmirian writers on Alankara are concerned; and if we add a few names such as Dandin, Vamana, Bhojaraja, Hemachandra and Vagbhata (author of Vagbhatalankara) we shall have completed a rough survey of all authors on poetics upto the time of Mammata. The Kashmirian authors have been mentioned separately in the above list to shew the extent to which the Science of poetics or Alankarasastra was early developed by the Kasmirakas. Not only was the development early and extensive but its direction and trend also seem to be different from the views and theories of alankarikas in the rest of India. If we compare the works of Dandin, Vamana, Bhoja and Vagbhata on the one hand with those verse either taken as quotation or otherwise from Rudrata. This and the general treatment of the subject in the work which is of a modern type indicates that the work must have been composed a little after Anandavardhana and a little before Induraja. Now the time of Anandavardhana is about A. D. 885-910. Therefore, unless any contradictory evidence comes forth, we can place Rudrata in the interval between the two limits viz. A. D. 900 and 970. 1. Kesavamisra of Alankarasekhara, Vagbhata of Kavyanusasana and some others have not been included in the above enumeration as they probably come after Mammata. They are probably non-Kashmirians. Even if they be Kashmirians they would not affect our conclusions in any way. Some say that Vamana of Kavyalankarasutra was a Kashmirian, but we do not think so. At least it is quite certain that his views are not similar to those of Bhamaha, Udbhata and others who are accepted Kashmirians. We are not so much concerned with his actual place of living as we are with the trend of views that he displays in his work.

Introduction. xix of Bhamaha, Udbhata and Ruyyaka on the other, there will be found many important and inherent diversities in these two groups. Dandin and his followers give supreme prominence to Gunas which are ten according to them', or even more according to Bhoja. Doshas or faults in their opinion are the opposites of Gunas. And Riti or style is also admitted by them as an essential factor of poetry?. They admit the alankaras Hetu, Sukshma and Lesa. All these peculiarities exist in the works of these authors irrespective of time; and all these are scrupulously avoided by all Kashmirians, even by the old author Bhamaha, Bhamaha especially decries the distinctions between Vaidarbhi and Gaudi Riti's, has only three Gunas very scantily treated and does not admit Hetu, Sukshma and Lesa into his list of alankaras. All other Kashmirian alanka - 1. slesah prasadah samata madhurya sukumarata | arthavyaktirudaratvamojah kantisamadhayah || itivaidarbhamargasya prana dasagunah smrtah | kavyadarsa 1, 11-42 . Vamana has: (n:) Bear: 1913. Compare his well-known stanza: yubaterivarupamanga kavyam svadate suddharanam tadapyativa | etc. Vide also the whole of the 1 st pariccheda of bhoja 's sarasvatikanthabharana which is devoted to Gunas and their viparyaya s and other dosa s. See also the 3 rd pariccheda of vagbhata 's kavyalamkara which treats of ds in the same manner as Dandin. 2. Vamana's writesviz. f (9121) is well-known. Dandin astyaneko giram margah suksmabhedah parasparam | tatra vedarbhagaudiyo vayete prasphutantarau || kavyadarsa, 1, 40 . pariccheda Bhoja has treated 'style' in the beginning of the 2 nd of sarasvatikanthabharana . All his different names such as jati, gati, riti, vrtti etc. can be included under 'style'. Vagbhata has treated 8, 940-948. 3. Bhamaha writes about Riti thus :- godiyamidametattu vaidarbhamiti kim prthaku | gatanugatikanyayannanakhyeyamamedhasam || -kavyalamkara, 1 32 . in USA, Bhamaha devotes only three verses to the three Gunas madhurya, ojasa and ; while Dandin takes about 60 verses to describe them. About, suksma and lesa Bhaamaha says :-hetusca suksmo lesotha nalamkarataya matah kavyalamkara 2 .860

XI Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha. rikas follow the same path and even Ruyyaka of Alankarasarvasva who has treated more than 80 alankaras has not thought fit to accept Hetu' and Lesa. This, we think, sufficiently establishes the diversity between the two schools, one of Kasmirakas and the other of Vaidarbhas (if we may so call it) of Dandin, Bhoja and others.2 The epithets new and old would be quite inappropriate for these schools, as developments of both the systems were going on on their own lines up to the time of Mammata. It is needless to dilate upon the development and history of the Kashmirian and the Vaidarbha schools in Alankara Literature, as it is not germane to our subject under discussion. Even without reference to the Kashmirian or non-Kashmirian nature of his views one can clearly see from the contents of his work that Udbhata was the lineal descendant of the thought-system of Bhamaha on the one hand and the precursor of Mammata in many important points of principle and method on the other. In this way it can be shown-and we hope we have sufficiently shown it in our Notes-that he holds a very important position in the line of authors which began with Bhamaha and terminated with Mammata. As all these authors in the thought-system promulgated by Bhamaha are Kashmirians we may very well call the school of thought which they formed the Kashmirian School of Alankarikas. Thus from the inherent nature of his work and not from any circumstantial evidence it can be ascertained that Udbhata occupies an important place in the Kashmirian School. We have already pointed out that Dandin, Vamana, Bhoja and others of their type differ as a class from the Kashmirian writers such as Bhamaha, Udbhata, Ruyyaka and Mammata. Many more minor yet important differences exist between the two groups which in our opinion go to prove the divergence between the Kashmirians and the 1. We must always bear in mind that the alankara of Dandin and others is not the same as the kavyalinga or kavyahetu of the Kashmirians. 2. The inherent diversity between these two schools is pointed out in our Notes in many places

Introduction. xxi non-Kashmirians. The whole matter is worth a detailed treatment but there is no occasion for it here.' The whole Kashmirian school of Alankarikas in itself seems to have undergone a great change and development. If we compare the work of Bhameha with that of Mammata we find that both have essentially different kinds of treatment of the science of poetics. Both the style and method have changed and the views have undergone a great revolution. The new school of thought which arose and spread only in Kashmir was started or promulgated by the author of Dhvanikarikas who must have lived some time before Anandavardhana. The special characteristic of this new school was the Dhvani theory. The prominence of Dhvani established with much force by Dhvanikara and Anandavardhana was afterwards disputed or even altogether thrown over by some writers. Along with this discussion and the consequent development of ideas, a reform was 1. If all that is said above is accepted, it would also remove the reasons by which some are put into puzzle about the mutual chronological relations of Dandin and Bhamaha. In many places, Dandin in his Kavyadarsa seems to criticise the views of Bhamaha, while Bhamaha also decries in his work some opinions which are exactly the opinions held by Dandin. If we accept the view that both were criticizing the tenets of the schools represented by each other and not of individuals. all puzzle will be solved. 2. Induraja (and perhaps Udbhata) was probably one who disputed the supremacy of Dhvani. He holds that Diivani is the beautifier of Vachya Artha and is therefore to be included in alankaras. Dhvani, therefore, according to Induraja need not be recognised as the all important element in poetry. We are not certain that Udbbata knew the theory, for we cannot settle whether Dhvanikara preceded or followed Udbhata. Considered independently, his work contains no indication that he was aware of at all. Induraja of course interprets his silence on in a different way. He says that, Udbhata did not treat of a because he thought it altogether included in the alankarag that he had treated of. But evidently this is an attempt of fathering his own views about fi upon Udbhata.

going on in the notions about alankaras also'. The somewhat loose descriptions of Bhamaha were replaced by accurate and scientific definitions and newer alamkaras were brought into existence as more minute discernment prevailed. Till up to the time of Mammata the alankaras came up to about seventy and even more; and the tendency of Mammata is seen to diminish the number of alankaras already growing too unwieldy. We have unfortunately no means at present to know Udbhata's views about Dhvani theory. But in the development of alankaras Udbhata's position is very clear. He forms the necessary link between the position of Bhamaha and the position of Mammata. While in some places Udbhata accepts verbatim the definitions of Bhamaha, in others he creates new ideas and builds up his own definitions upon them which have later become the basis of the treatment of Mammata. The whole scientific treatment of Upama that is put forth by Udbhata is wholly taken up and assimilated by Mammata in his work. Atisayokti, Utpreksha and many other alankaras have been treated by Udbhata in such a way as to prove a basis to the treatment of Ruyyaka and Mammata. Of course Mammata does not take anything verbally from Udbhata or any other writer but his indebtedness to Udbhata can be seen in the above alankaras and others if the treatment and divisions of both are compared carefully with each other.2 The introduction of Kavyahetu and Drishtanta is an important feature of Udbhata's work and we have. already adverted to it before. We have not the whole system of Udbhata's views before us, as probably a small piece of his whole work 1. This development of alankaras was quite independent of the development going on in the theory of . Alankaras are only a department of the science of poetics, but the question of "' or 'no was the essence of that science. 2. For a detailed comparison of Udbhata with Bhamaha on the one hand and Mammata on the other see our Notes at the end of each aiankara.

Introduction. xxiii has reached us. But he was no doubt a very important writer in the whole Kashmirian system of alankarikas. All authors including Anandavardhana, Abhinavagupta, Ruyyaka and Mammata refer to him with great respect. He must have originated a school of thought that had some very peculiar tenets of its own. This is clear from the frequent references occurring in very many works, as udbhatadayah, audbhatah, udbhatamatanuyayinah, udbhataprabhrtayah ete. As many of the peculiarities as could be gathered from the references made to them are given here :- - (1) Udbhata and his followers considered that gunas and alankaras were essentially of the same nature, both being the inherent beautifiers of poetry. The only difference that is made between gunas and alankaras is because they belong to different elements of poetry. The gunas belong both to word (0) and sense (f) together, while the alankaras belong either to (e. g. Anuprasa, Yamaka etc.) or to 3 (e. g. Upama, Utpreksha etc.) severally, and not to both of them together. This is the only reason why gunas and alankaras should be distinguished from each other, otherwise they are all the same. (2) The alankaras Upama, Utpreksha etc. exist even when they are known by suggested sense as well as when they are expressed. Mammata and others hold that alankaras only belong to Vachya or expressed sense; all suggestion if prominent is called Dhvani. (3) If Slesha and some other alankara exist together, importance is to be given to Slesha and the other alankara is to be considered subordinate." (4) The suggested sense is altogether included in the alankaras as it is only a beautifier of the Vachya sense and 1. Such references occur in rasagangadhara . 491, 478 ; dhvanyaloka D. 108, alamkara- sarvasva P. 2,7 ; ratnapana (& commentary on prataparudrayasobhusana ) p. 335, 437 ; and many others might be existing as we have not ransacked all commentaries and minor works for that purpose. Individual references to Udbhata exist almost in every work on alankara that came after him. 2. Mammata has refuted this view. See K. P. Ullasa IX, pp.520-527.

such a beautifier is fit to be included in alankaras. Thus all Vyangya sense comes under paryayokta, aprastutaprasamsa etc. Induraja has brought in these last two views in his commentary; the first in his discussion on Slesha and the other at the end of the commentary.