Dandin's Kavyadarsa, parichcheda 2. Edited with a new Sanskrit commentary and English notes by S.K. Belvalkar [and] Rangacharya B. Raddi

Shripad Krishna Belvalkar, 7th Cent Dandin

Description

•' Sr^b^.ifel!^^'•i:ia^J;!i:lihli;.:.Uhc Bepavtnient of public Unstruction, DANDIN'S KAVYADARSA ITPARICHCHHEDA AKDITfiD WITH NKW ENGLISH NOTESSANSKRIT COMMENTARY AND in" S, K. BELVALKAlt, .v.,M. UANGACHAliYA B. RADDI. i'ROFE?.^nR OF SANSKRIT, SriASTRI, VIDYABHUSHANA, ^egH, Peon Karnatak College, Dharwar. 1m PART SECOND, SECOND HALFm •Mm P Bombay San6f?rtt aitb iptal^rit Serlce no. LXXV. 1920 OnpPrice Rupee and Four Annas Kavyadarsa of Dandin NOTES PARICHCHHEDA II 1006916 — PARICHCHHEDA II Notes to II. 1—(i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kavya, ac- cording to Dandin, is ^^o^cjf^^i ; that is toq^[T^— say, he gives more prominence to the word-element in poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non of poetry, and the Alamkaras which as decora-serve tion, must belong to the ex-word-element, the ^^, clusively for, the elements of; f^^l^s, the subordinate the Body, have also their Thus thereown decorations. is no inconsistency in Dandin's defined Kavyahaving as he has done and Alamkarasthen having divided the (and impliedly ithe Gunas also— Note (i) to . 41)cp. into those belonging toto word and those belonging sense. Modern Alamkarikas such as Mammata, hav- ing once thesubordinated both the word as well as sense to Rasa, are constrained to regard the Gunas as well as the Alamkaras as belonging to Rasa, the angin. For a criticism of this view see our Note (iii) to i. 41 and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza.

Sujets

• Poetics

Informations

• Publié par: les_archives_du_savoir
• Nombre de lectures: 34
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 11 Mo

Extrait

•'
Sr^b^.ifel!^^'•i:ia^J;!i:lihli;.:<^-l^:;^ii^^^H!-H"1•-•-:^^•^
:tBombav>.Uhc Bepavtnient of public Unstruction,
DANDIN'S KAVYADARSA
ITPARICHCHHEDA
AKDITfiD WITH NKW
ENGLISH NOTESSANSKRIT COMMENTARY AND
in"
S, K. BELVALKAlt, .v.,M. UANGACHAliYA B. RADDI.
i'ROFE?.^nR OF SANSKRIT, SriASTRI, VIDYABHUSHANA,
^egH, Peon Karnatak College, Dharwar.
1m
PART SECOND, SECOND HALFm
•Mm
P
Bombay San6f?rtt aitb iptal^rit Serlce no. LXXV.
1920
OnpPrice Rupee and Four AnnasKavyadarsa of Dandin
NOTES
PARICHCHHEDA II1006916—
PARICHCHHEDA II
Notes to II. 1—(i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kavya, ac-
cording to Dandin, is ^^o^cjf^^i ; that is toq^[T^—
say, he gives more prominence to the word-element in
poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does
not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non
of poetry, and the Alamkaras which as decora-serve
tion, must belong to the ex-word-element, the ^^,
clusively for, the elements of; f^^l^s, the subordinate
the Body, have also their Thus thereown decorations.
is no inconsistency in Dandin's defined Kavyahaving
as he has done and Alamkarasthen having divided the
(and impliedly ithe Gunas also— Note (i) to . 41)cp.
into those belonging toto word and those belonging
sense. Modern Alamkarikas such as Mammata, hav-
ing once thesubordinated both the word as well as
sense to Rasa, are constrained to regard the Gunas as
well as the Alamkaras as belonging to Rasa, the angin.
For a criticism of this view see our Note (iii) to i. 41
and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza.
(ii) The distinct function of the Gunas and the
Alamkaras is brought out by Dandin by calling the
former the life-breaths and ornaments ofthe latter the
poetry. The Gunas abide in while thepoetry ^^Rfff^TT
Alamkaras ^ir-ifqi; there is a distinc-between them
tion in kind,—a distinction ofwhich later became one
degree, as with 1-2)^[m (iii. 1. or with JTcftfi^^^
17)—5^-(p. ^^ ?FT5^?^\^ ^V. I stiirq^^^^ ?f^^ 3
I^Tt^nf^OT^c^ cf^^: Compare however the following
from 20—ST^^PR^tT^, p.
Is^^^K^^S: f% sort ;t f^^%2rf^
f^^RF% g II^ ^r'2rfw^: jliR^^dl:
Compare also (Agnipurana, 346. 1)
II^Jiw^^f^ct ^ftwf fTCT ^sm^q^
Mammata*s implies the same thing.a^55f^ ^: w\\^] —
ii.l— KavyUdaria 68[
development(iii) The progressive in the theory, and
the Alaihkaraswith it in the number, of forms an in-
teresting chapter in the history of Sanskrit Rhetoric.
The subject is too large, however, to be adequately
discussed in a note. Our Introduction has attempted
rapid review of the main stages reached during thea
which the reader is therefore referred. Itprocess, to
would be noted in this place that Dandin must have
the development ofthe Alaihkaraslived at a timewhen
of progressive division and subdivision wasin the way
seems to anxiousin full swing ; and he have been
epitomized statement of the principalrather to give an
to his own quota to theresults arrived at than add
fact he has toprocess of amplification. In even had
recognised by his pre-reject some of the Alaihkaras
358-359decessors (cp. ii. and notes thereon).
II 2Notes to . (i) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alaih-—
karas have variously stated differentbeen in texts.
into afterThe simplest division ^i«^^ and even3T^^,
in-the addition of a third class of ^svppT^, proved quite
adequate. It is however given by the and most3<fi^Ji<l'J|,
elaborately by Bhoja. It was soon found necessary to
introduce various subclassifications based on the psy-
chological principle involved process, or onin the
some such underlying peculiarity. Similarity, identity,
contrast ; causation, word-grouping, lokavyavahara
;
Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality some of the: these were
principles of classification Compare, foraccepted.
instance, the theAlamkarasarvasva, and particularly
following list based 338-upon the Prataparudrlya (pp.
339) [wherein the Alaihkaras not recognised by Dandin
are shown in square ]brackets
based on ST^^sn^-
^TNT^;
^^f^", szjf^,—[ 5r^, ] based on $I^W^-
=3^W, [3T^R^, ^rncw,]—based ong^?^#RTr,; ;
Notes69 —ii.2f]
based onaTfeT^%,— ^'^m^^^, ;
o^\^\^^f^^TR^r, R^NlRh, i%r, ^mf^, 3?;%^,[%R, ^^^,]
based on]— fq^;^^, [ ^tt^,
sf?™^, mR<)^t, 3T?frrT%, f^^Jcq, ]—based on[ ^5^3^,
]—basd on w^,o?^^\l^5[m, [r^WtH, ;
^lo^ki^-, based on[ ar^JTR, ] ST^TPclT^^^rm,— ^^rr^r
tr^^ost, ^^R,]—based on[ «hK'J|^lc?il, ^loJI^IM^, >2^^["i^53T
]—based on and[ 52rMt%, ^^[m, fft^Sff, ^rq^q ;
on^Rr^tf%i, qf^,]—based R$m'J||^^.[
that any such classificatoryIt became soon obvious
gradually tend toprinciple or principles, would become
always remain some Alairi-inadequate, as there would
and fallingkaras recognised by rhetoricians outside
or rather 34their scope- Thus of the 35 Alarhkaras
recognised by Dandin the following 14 are not includ-
ed in the above list:— 5TT^, ^-3TT^, ^^, ^,I5, 3q^,
v5;^f^^, STSf^^TORTT, and'rf'^tTFJ, Vm, f^^T, °^T^t^ld,^,
^c^).(not to mention Some of these, e.5TT^: g., ^^f^,
are sometimes classed as^^R[c^, m^"^ ; while3^^^^,
3T5r^5^m^, s^ri^^^fe and stt^.- will have to3TI%q, q^lWhfi,
be classed as ?TT^TT^^f)Rs, i.e., merely as effective modes
of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in
the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Natyasastra.
The tendency towards a wanton increase merely in
the number of the Alamkaras (and of subdivisions
within an Alamkara), which marked the latest phase
in the history of Alarhkarasastra,the made any at-
Alamkaras to theirtempt to trace the sfl^—such as
altogetherDandin contemplates—an hopeless task.
(ii) But already in some quarters, as in the case of
41the Gunas,—see note (ii) to i. —a revolt against this
gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to
assert itself. Thus Hemachandra rejects qfe^, ^T'^TR^,
and SR^Tift^ as distinct Alamkaras—and some of them,
willit be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and
Bhamaha. Udbhata's Kavyalamkarasarasamgraha is2— KavyndaHa 70ii. []
its enumerationlikewise moderate in of Alamkaras,
while even so late a text as the Alamkarasekhara of
believedKesavamisra (which is to hav« utilised the
Sutras of Sauddhodani) lays down with emphasis
tr^ I29)— ^ =^Tq\ stating further(p. g^iqfeKT^t^ (p. 38)
has justified the position he has taken in histhat he
a work which apparently has not comeei'^ichlW^^,
Dandin, it will be noted, holds a middledown to us.
position between the two extremes of needless ampli-
fication and unwarrantable curtailment.
(iii) Who the ^^rt^s are that Dandin had in his
mind it is difficult to decide. As the treatment of the
Alarhkaras in Bharata, or in the Agnipurana for the
matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been
by as tointended him ; and Bhamaha, since his list of
ii. ii. ii. ii.Alamkaras (cp. 4, 66, 86, 88, ii. 93, iii. 1-4),
made up of detached and successive lists as it is,
agrees in general statement and even in the order in
which the Alarhkaras are mentioned with that ot
Dandin, it is doubtful if Dandin would regard Bha*
maha—even though he be his predecessor—as one of
the »^it<i4s referred to in the present stanza. On this
point see further our Introduction. It seems that a
large mass of literature known to Dandin is now lost
to us. Cp. note (ii) to i. 2. The Commentary ^rTT^Trf^
enumerates, amongst Dandin*s predecessors, ^T^q,
and names otherwise^11^, frPc[^^Tft, almost unknown.
3Notes to II;. (i) Dandin here admits that regards— as
the Alamkaras there is no difference of practice bet-
ween the Vaidarbhas and the Gaudas (^arn^TR^JR^s^R^n^);
but this is rather unexpected. That craving for sim-
plicity and directness in the one and hyperabole and
ornateness in the other which led them to cultivate
distinctive is^PTsq^^s bound to make itself felt even in
their choice of the Alamkaras and their frequency ;
although this fact, it is obvious, would not make any
difference in the definitions of the Alamkaras as such.