काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 179
Page. 36.
*[l. 1. न स संकुचितः (रामायण- किष्किन्धाकाण्ड. 34-18).
l. 3. मदं. (जानकीहरण. XII. 36. The first half reads as :
पदं नवैश्वर्यबलेन लम्भितं विसृज्य पूर्वं समयो विमृश्यताम् ॥
l. 7. हिरण्य. from अग्निपुराण ।]
l. 7. Cf. Vāyupurāṇa. chapter. 67. :—
हिरण्यकशिपुर्दैत्यः श्लोकैर्गीतः पुरातनैः ।
“राजा हिरण्यकशिपुर्यां यामाशां निषेवते ।
तस्मै तस्यै दिशे देवा नमश्चकुर्महर्षिभिः ॥”
[l. 9. स सधरिष्णुः (माघ. 1-46.)
l. 21. सामान्यवाचि quoted anonymously in कवीन्द्रवचनसमुच्चय
(No. 270).]
ll. 19-24. प्रमाणविद्या includes, according to Rājaśekhara, not
only the three Vedic schools of philosophy but also the other
heterodox schools, such as the Bauddha, Ārhata and Lokāyata
which are taken as पूर्वपक्षतर्क on p. 4. l. 17 of this work. The Mīmāṁsā
has been separated from Tarkas on the ground that this school
does not adduce any argument against the injunctions of the
Vedas, while the Tarkas attribute greater importance to rational
arguments than to Vedic injunctions. The word Mīmāṁsā also
means पूजितविचार, or in other words, discussions conducted on the
assumption that the Vedas are of superior authority while
decisions arrived at by mere arguments are called Tarkas. Hence
मीमांसा and तर्क are classified as different Pramāṇas. Mīmāṁsakas
believe that a word at first means an entity in general and the
particular thing meant by the speaker is understood only when
it is connected with the meanings of other words in the same
sentence. See Jaimini's Sūtra आकृतिस्तु क्रियार्थत्वात् । 1-3-33. Here
आकृति is taken as सामान्य or जाति which each noun signifies. See,
Kumārila’s definition of आकृति.
जातिमेवाकृतिं प्राहुर्व्यक्तिराक्रियते यया ।
सामान्यं तच्च पिण्डानामेकबुद्धिनिबन्धनम् ॥ ३ ॥
तन्निमित्तं च यत्किञ्चित्सामान्यं शब्दगोचरम् ।
सर्वं एवेच्छतीत्येवमविरोधोऽत्र वादिनाम् ॥ ४ ॥
Ślokavārttika—Ākṛtivāda.
see also—
कक्षान्तरितसामान्यविशेषेषु हि दुर्बलः ।
सामान्यवचनः शब्दो जायते लक्षणाबलात् ॥ २७-२८
Ibid. Sambandhākṣepavāda.

180 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Among the Mīmāṁsakas, the followers of Kumārila are called
अभिहितान्वयवादिन् because they hold that a word in a sentence is
capable only of expressing its meaning, while its connection with
the meaning of other words is decided on seeing the nature of other
words in the same sentence. But the Prābhākara school of
Mīmāṁsā believes in अन्विताभिधानवाद and holds that the meaning of
each word is अन्वित or connected with others. According to
this school also अन्वितसामान्य is the expressed meaning of the word,
while अन्वितविशेष is the meaning derived by its connection with
other words.
Page. 37.
*[l. 1. नासतो (गीता 2–16.)
ll. 1–6. The Sāṅkhyas are called Satkāryavādins while the
Naiyāyikas call themselves as Asatkāryavādins, and the two
schools are, therefore, opposed to each other. The theory of
सत्कार्यवाद is that the effect produced by a cause is not entirely
different from the cause, and that the effect also always exists in
the cause. Similarly, the cause of an effect does not entirely
disappear after the production of the effect, but it exists in the form
of that effect. This may be illustrated by the instance of gold and
golden ornaments.
नासतो विद्यते भावः=a thing that does not exist cannot be produced.
नाभावो विद्यते सतः=the existing one (cause) does not perish
(after producing the effect).
In the verse य एते etc. the same theory is illustrated on the
analogy of the earth and earthen vessels, thus showing that the
effects are not different from the cause which in this case is earth.
*[l. 9. किमीहः किं कायः (महिम्नः स्तोत्र 5).]
ll. 7–12. For Rājaśekhara's conception of the existence of
Īśvara and his creation of the world, see Nyāyasūtra of Gautama
4. 1. 19–21, Nyāyavārttika of Uddyotakara on these sūtras,
Nyāyamañjarī of Jayantabhaṭṭa pp. 190–204 and the Praśasta-
pādabhāṣya on Kaṇādasūtra pp. 48–49. Regarding the ऐश्वर्य of
Īśvara, the following verse is quoted by Udayanācārya in his
Kusumāñjali fifth stabaka:—
सर्वज्ञता तृप्तिरनादिबोधः स्वतन्त्रता नित्यमलुप्तशक्तिः।
अनन्तशक्तिश्च विभोर्विधिज्ञाः षडाहुरङ्गानि महेश्वरस्य ॥

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 181
ll. 13-18. The Vijñānavādins among the Bauddhas do not
believe in the existence of the objective world except the Vijñāna.
According to them, therefore, words cannot denote any outward
object, but produce a momentary effect and transmit the idea of
the speaker to the minds of his hearers. The view of the Vijñāna-
vādins has been clearly explained by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla
in their works Tattvasaṅgraha and its Pañjikā (GOS. Nos. 30-31).
cf. विवक्षानुमितिश्लिष्टमाकारं बाह्यभावतः ।
व्यवस्यतः प्रवृत्तिश्चेत्तदेवास्मन्मतं पुनः ॥
Tattvasaṅgraha. p. 290.
Kamalaśīla quotes a line from an earlier work in support of
this view.
अन्ये त्वाहुः—'अर्थविवक्षां शब्दोऽनुमापयति ।'
यथोक्तं—“अनुमानं विवक्षायाः शब्दादन्यन्न विद्यते ॥”
Tattvasaṅgraha. p. 289.
This view is illustrated by the verse भवतु etc., in which the
same words such as न न न मममा etc., spoken by a lady at one time
convey निषेध or denial, while at another her acceptance, according
to circumstances.
ll. 19-23. Lokāyatikas or the atheists do not recognise the soul
or Ātman who may enjoy the fruits of his action either in heaven or
in hell after death. They also hold that the Vijñāna or consci-
ousness found in living beings arises out of a combination of the
five elements, in the same way as a few ingredients produce wine.
This theory of the atheists also is quoted and refuted by Śāntarak-
ṣita in the Tattvasaṅgraha.
cf. तस्माद्भूतविशेषेभ्यो यथा शुक्त्सुरादिकम् ।
तेभ्य एव तथा ज्ञानं जायते व्यज्यतेऽथवा ॥ p. 520.
साक्षिचिन्तका =those who meditate on the Supreme Being.
ll. 24-25. The soul, according to the Jains, is the doer and
enjoyer of all actions and is of the same size as the body. They
also consider the futility of the body or Ātman in case the size of
the soul is acknowledged as either smaller or larger than that of
the body. This is what is shown by an example in this verse.

182 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Page. 38.
l. 3. सर्वपार्षदत्वात्='because it is fit for all kinds of cultured
associations.' The word Pārṣada may refer to the Vedic Sūtra
literature belonging to several pariṣads as well. The Prātiśākhya
works are included in the Pārṣada literature. The word generally
means grammatical works affiliated to the Vedas. See Nirukta

1. 17 and the Prātiśākhya section of the History of Ancient
   Sanskrit Literature by Max Muller, (p. 68-70)
   ll. 7-9. समयविद्या='religious doctrines'.
   The terms घोर, घोरतर, ब्रह्म, विद्या, कला, and परापरपद refer to the diffe-
   rent tenets of the doctrine of the S'aivites.
   ll. 10-13. That the Pāñcarātra doctrines are based solely
   on the theory of the four Vyūhas of प्रद्युम्न, अनिरुद्ध, सङ्कर्षण and वासुदेव,
   is explained here in detail.
   सर्वज्वर=the sufferings both mental and physical.
   ll. 14-17. The Mahāyāna School of Buddhism enjoins that
   the Bodhisattva should have great compassion for the suffering
   humanity and should not receive emancipation, though fully entitled
   to it, until the whole creation is delivered. Further, the Bodhisa-
   ttva is required to work continuously for the emancipation of living
   beings by sacrificing his own merits, and taking the consequence
   of all bad actions done by others on himself. This theory of the
   Mahāyānists and the description of the सुखावती heaven, which is
   above the ten Bhūmis are the subject-matter of this verse कलिकलुष,
   etc. Kumārilabhaṭṭa quotes the same verse in his Tantravārttika
   and attributes its origin to Buddha (Tantravārttika 1-3. 2.).
   The Hīnayānists, on the other hand, possess no such compassion
   for the suffering humanity as Mahāyāuists do, and they desire
   emancipation only for themselves. In this verse the methods of a
   Mahāyānist Bodhisattva are described. For further information on
   the two Yānas of the Buddhists compare Tattvasaṅgraha: (p. 872.)
   ये तावज्जात्यादिदुःखोत्पीडितमानसाः संसारादुद्व्रस्तमनसः तदुपशममात्मनः प्रार्थयन्ते तेषां
   श्रावकादिबोधिनियतानां संसाराद्भयमेव नैरात्म्यभावनाथित्वनिमित्तम् ।
   ये तु गोत्रविशेषात्प्रकृत्यैव परहितकरणैकाभिरामाः संस्कारादिदुःखत्रितयपीडितं जगदवेक्ष्य
   कृपापरतन्त्रतया तद्दुःखदुखिनः स्वात्मनि व्यपेक्षामपास्य सकलानेव संसारिणः आत्मत्वेनाभ्युपगताः
   तत्परित्राणाय प्रणिदधते तेषां करुणैव भावना प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् ॥

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 183
l. 18. राजसिद्धान्तत्रयी=The three S'āstras of Artha, Nāṭya and
Kāma are mentioned here as of interest only to the royal personages,
because it is only the kings who are able to practice, follow and
appreciate the doctrines inculcated in these S'āstras.
*[ l. 19. शमव्यायामाभ्यां ( बालरामायण 1-24 ). ]
ll. 19–22. This verse of Rājaśekhara has also been quoted by
Abhinavagupta in his अभिनवभारती while commenting on the verse
of Bharata न तज्ज्ञानं, etc. see Abhinavabhāratī (G.O.S. No. 36. p. 42.)
For an explanation of this verse, compare the शमव्यायामिक
chapter of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya.
शमव्यायामौ योगक्षेमयोर्योनिः ।
कर्मारम्भाणां योगाराधनो व्यायामः ।
कर्मफलोपभोगानां क्षेमाराधनः शमः ।
शमव्यायामयोर्योनिः षाड्गुण्यम् ॥ etc.
आवापः=‘intention of declaring a war’. In this verse Rāja-
śekhara exhibits his special acquaintance with the Arthaśāstra
of Kauṭilya.
ll. 23–26. This verse shows that the author was fully conver-
sant with the contents of the Nāṭyaśāstra; for, he describes
not only the dancing postures, but also explains such technical
terms as लंबितलय etc. which pertain to the science of music. Cf.
Nāṭyaśāstra :
अङ्गभूता हि तालस्य यतिपाणिलयाः स्मृताः ।
त्रयो लयास्तु विज्ञेयाः द्रुतमध्यविलम्बिताः ॥
31. 331.
Page. 39.
*[ l. 2. असौ मन्दरतस्त्वं cf. कामसूत्र 2.1.3, 9 and 13. ]
l. 2. मन्दरतः=‘from the Mandara mountain’ or ‘one with dissimilar
conjugal affinity.’
समरतः=‘from the war’ or ‘one with similar conjugal affinity’.
ll. 3–9. Poets are here advised to mix freely with common
folk in order to be acquainted with their mode of life and expres-
sion. The mode of life is generally recognized as of two varieties :

184 EXPLANATORY NOTES
the cultured and the uncultured. How the uucultured folks behave
and how they express themselves are treated in these two verses.
स्फुटितपिठरी=cracked pan.
Here an uncultured woman talks to her lover regarding the
changed treatment she was getting from him of late. The following
may be cited in this connection as a contrast to illustrate a refined
address on the same subject.
पुराऽभूदस्माकं प्रथममविभिन्ना तनुरियं
ततो नु त्वं प्रेयानहमपि हताशा प्रियतमा ।
इदानीं नाथस्त्वं वयमपि कलत्रं किमपरं
मयाऽऽप्तं प्राणानां कुलिशकठिनानां फलमिदम् ॥
In the second verse इक्षुदण्डस्य etc. a popular mode of expression,
is illustrated while describing the days of the Phālguna month
in which things such as इक्षुदण्ड, etc. are very commonly
enjoyed by the country folk. See the description of Hemanta
and S'iśira on pp. 102-104 of this work. For the correctness
of the word सैष see notes on p. 2. l. 6.
ll. 10–19. समस्तजनजन्यः='pertaining to several groups of people'.
कतिपयजनजन्यः-'pertaining only to a limited circle'.
The verse पिबन्ति etc. exhibits the knowledge of the poet
concerning the topography of South India where मरिच, ताम्बूल and मधु
are common products of the land.
In the second verse the feelings of women of the Kuntala
country in amorous sports are described, while the third gives an
idea of the geographical peculiarities of the Nepal country.
ग्रन्थिपर्णकपाली='an avenue made up of a kind of fragrant trees'.
*[ l. 18. आर्द्रणमदमण्डनाः=कस्तूरीपङ्कमण्डनाः । ]
ll. 20–23. In this verse are described the actions of a Nāyikā
who wanted to put a stop to the conversation of her lover
with her friends, in order to secure privacy; as also the action of
her lady-friends who knew the Nāyikā's intention and left the
place on the plea that they were called by somebody outside.
Page. 40.
l. 7. The reading नाथकथा is adopted here as it is found in
two Mss B and C. and सर्गे is changed into सर्गः as it is required to

be construed with the word यस्य. The first half of the verse should,
therefore, be construed as: यस्य कथासर्गः न नीचैः, अथ न प्रतिभाक्षयः
स कविग्रामणीः ।
According to the reading available in Ms A, however, the
construction will be as follows:—
यस्य ( कवेः ) अर्थकथासर्गे ( गीं ) न नीचैः, ( यस्य ) न प्रतिभाक्षयः स कविग्रामणीः ।
This construction also gives a good sense inasmuch as the
अर्थ and कथा developed by a poet through his power of imagination
and described in the last two verses, are the subject-matter
of this Śloka. The only defect in this reading is that the two
words नीचैः and प्रतिभाक्षयः do not sound well. An emendation may be
suggested giving a better sense as:—नवीनार्थकथासर्गे यस्य न प्रतिभाक्षयः ।
स कविग्रामणीः । but this emendation is not supported by any of the
Mss available.
ll. 9–13. A knowledge of different sciences and common
practices is considered necessary for poets by later writers such as
Kṣemendra, Hemacandra, Vāgbhaṭa and Vinayacandra who have
included several varieties under the heading of Prakīrṇaka. But
Rājaśekhara illustrates only four kinds of them and suggests several
more worthy of being known by poets, saying : एवं प्रकीर्णकान्तरमपि ।
On Hastiśikṣā, for instance, the verse मेघानां etc. is quoted here
as an illustration. Here the well-known habit of elephants while
bathing in the river is correctly observed in the description of
Irāvaṇa’s throwing up water.
*[ l. 18. स दक्षिणापाङ्ग ( कुमारसंभव. III. 70. ) ]
Page. 41.
*[ l. 2. पाण्ड्योऽयमंसार्पित. ( रघुवंश VI. 60 )
ll. 1–5. These last four additional sources for the theme of
poetry, introduced by Rājaśekhara for the first time, are not
referred to by any of the later writers, though the other twelve
sources are quoted sometimes with the same illustrations as given
by our author. It is not, however, easy to surmise how these
four principles उचितसंयोग etc. are considered as काव्यार्थयोनि by
Rājaśekhara. But it is clear that Rājaśekhara has shown by
these four illustrations the four methods of description. उचितसंयोग
is ‘the appropriate connection ( of things )’.
ll. 6–9. युक्तसंयोगः=the connection of a thing already descri-
२४

186 EXPLANATORY NOTES
bed as connected with others. In this verse the dust raised up
by the march of an army is described as already connected with
other things such as सुरदन्तिदानोदक and चक्षुःसहस्र of Indra. This dust
is said to have been mixed up with the water of the celestial
Ganges where the divine ladies are accustomed to take their bath.
*[l. 10. उभौ यदि व्योम्नि (माघ. III. 8.)]
ll. 14–19. संयोगविकारः=change due to connection. Imaginary
and natural changes are described in these two verses one after
the other.
पीयन्ते. This verb is derived from the root पीङ् पाने of
श्यन्विकरणि.
Adhyāya IX.
Page. 42.
*[Pages 42–44. l. 10. are quoted by Hemacandra in his
काव्यानुशासनविवेक. pp. 122–123.]
ll. 1–4. सः stands for काव्यार्थ or the theme of poetry. Drau-
hiṇi's view is cited here for the second time. For the other
reference see notes on p. 2. l. 24 of the present work. दिव्य means
the activities of divine beings.
ll. 5–8. The first half may be construed thus: निजवारवासगतया
रम्भया नलकूबरस्य विरहात् (तं) स्मृत्वा उत्कण्ठुलं तुम्बुरोः वीणासमं यत् उद्गीतम् ।
Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka reads उत्कण्ठसंरम्भया instead of उत्कण्ठुलं रम्भया ।
*[l. 13. श्रियः पतिः (माघ. 1. 1.)]
Page. 43.
ll. 20–23. If the reading कोटिकुण्ठः is adopted, प्रणमति should
be connected with तक्षके. The words कपिल, कुलिक, स्वस्तिक, पद्म, कम्बल,
शङ्खपाल etc. are the names of different serpents in the nether world.
Many of the names are found in the Mahābhārata (Ādiparva
Adhyāya 35.) शङ्खपाल seems to be the same as the father of S'aṅ-
khacūḍa, the serpent who was given protection by Jīmūtavāhana,
the hero of the drama, Nāgānanda. The subject matter of this
verse also seems to be connected with the story recorded in the
Nāgānanda.
ll. 24–27. This verse describes the conversation between

NINTH ADHYĀYA 187
Karṇa and the serpent Aśvasena. Aśvasena who was an enemy
of Arjuna entered the quiver of Karṇa without his knowledge in
the form of a serpent-mouthed arrow. When once Karṇa failed
to slay Arjuna with that arrow, the serpent Aśvasena requested
Karṇa to charge his bow with the same arrow again. But Karṇa
refused. This last part of the episode is stated in this verse. For
further details see Mahābhārata Karṇa-Parva. 90. Out of the two
words आर्द्रावले and अपकर्ण used as epithets of the serpent, the signifi-
cance of the first word is unknown, while the second अपकर्ण denotes
that the serpents are devoid of ears. हरशिष्य is Bhārgava Paraśu-
rāma and Karṇa is his disciple.
मर्त्यैः । This shows that the arrows of the earth also are capable
of achieving the same object as those of the nether regions.

Page. 44.
l. 1. इहापि etc. The four sub-divisions of the दिव्यमानुष group
referred to on page 42. l. 9 are said to be applicable in the case of
the मर्त्यपातालीय group also.
ll. 7–10. In this verse, events connected with persons belonging
to the three worlds are described. For the story of Āstīka, the
sage who protected the serpents Takṣaka and others from being
destroyed in the sacrificial fire of king Janamejaya, see the Āstīka-
parva, a sub-section in the Ādiparva of the Mahābhārata.
उद्वेल्लत्=shaking or moving.
*[l. 13. विचारितसुस्थः cf. तत्र दशविधश्चमत्कारः अविचारितरमणीयः विचार्यमाण-
रमणीयश्च (कविकण्ठाभरण. Sandhi III.)]
ll. 12–14. Followers of Udbhaṭa classify the subject matter of
literature under two varieties : विचारितसुस्थ and अविचारितरमणीय and
hold that the Śāstric literature deals with the former, while the
latter is the subject of kāvya. Probably Udbhaṭa must have
expressed this view in his commentary on Bhāmaha's theory as
recorded by him in the two verses quoted below :
तज्ज्ञैः काव्यप्रयोगेषु तत्रादुष्कृतमन्यथा ।
तत्र लोकाश्नयं काव्यमागमाः तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥
असिसंकाशमाकाशं शब्दो दूरादुपैत्ययम् ।
तदेव वापी(रि)सिन्धूनामहो स्थेमा महर्चिषः ॥
Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra 5, 33–34.
*[l. 17. त ·आकाशमसिस्त्यामं ( कुमार. VI. 36 ).]

188 EXPLANATORY NOTES
ll. 15-19. Three examples are given here to illustrate Ud-
bhaṭa's theory of काव्यार्थ but not of शास्त्रार्थ. In the first two verses
the colour of ether is described as blue like a blue lotus and like
that of a sword, though really ether is devoid of any colour.
सदैव वारि सिन्धूनाम् । etc. The second half of Bhāmaha's verse
(5-34) is quoted here as the third example. The readings वापीसिन्धूनां
or वापिसिन्धूनां as found in the editions of the Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra
may be read as वारि सिन्धूनां which seems to be the correct reading.
Here it is said that the water of all rivers is always the same and
that the heavenly lights such as the moon and the stars are wonder-
fully fixed in their proper places. Followers of Udbhaṭa hold that
these descriptions are अविचारितरमणीय because in reality ether has no
colour and water of all rivers is not the same at all times and the
heavenly bodies also are not fixed in one place, and also because on
scientific examination ether is found to be without any colour while
the stars are also found moving from place to place.
ll. 20-25. Yāyāvarīya does not agree with the view of Aud-
bhaṭas because they hold that the Kāvyas only describe unreal
aspects of things, and this means that the Kāvyas are valueless.
He holds, therefore, that the authors of both S'āstras and Kāvyas
describe objects as observed by them.
Page. 45.
ll. 1-2. Following the rules of Vyākaraṇa and Alaṅkāra śāstras
here the simile between the moon and swan, stars and Kumudas, sky
and water, cloud and mud, is given. This is a description of the
moon which shines on a clear sky with stars but appears as a swan
moving on the surface of a lake where there are many lotuses.
*[l. 8. यस्तु सरिदद्रि. Quoted in Hemacandra's काव्यानुशासन. under
लोल्लट:—“तथा च लोल्लटः—
यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरादिवर्णने यत्नः ।
कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥
यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदोऽतिरसविरोधिन्यः ।
अभिमानमात्रमेतद्गड्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥” p. 215.]
ll. 3-9. Āparājiti who seems, in all probability, to be a follower
of the Rasa school of Bharata advises poets not to indulge in a
lengthy description of the rising sun or the moon etc. because it
is likely to obstruct a natural outflow of Rasas in the minds of the

NINTH ADHYĀYA 189
audience or readers. Evidently this view of Aparājiti is to be
applied only to the drama, because the best poets such as Kālidāsa,
Bhāravi, Māgha and others, are found devoting some chapters in
their Kāvyas for the lengthy descriptions of such things, and also
because the earlier writers on poetics such as Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin
have laid down rules on the same lines for Mahākāvyas. The word
इह occuring in the two verses of Āparājiti also denotes the
lengthy description of मज्जनपुष्पावचय etc. is disallowed only in a
particular class of poetry, namely the drama, and not in the Kāvya
as a whole. In fact, Āparājiti is to be identified with लोल्लट as
Hemacandra attributes the second of these two citations definitely
to लोल्लट. (see Kāvyānuśāsana p. 215) Lollaṭa belonged to the
Rasa school and a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra is also attributed
to him. (see Saṅgītaratnākara 1-1. 19. and Abhinavabhāratī.
G.O.S. ed. pp. 266 and 274).
ll. 10-12. Yāyāvarīya agrees with Āparājiti and adduces
another reason in support of the same view that it is the method of
presentation only which is responsible in rousing up the different
Rasas, and not the actual things that are so presented in the poetry.
In order to prove this dictum he cites some verses where the
authors of high poetical skill are able to rouse up the different
Rasas by means of excellent presentation of common-place happen-
ings; whereas, inferior poets are unable to do so even though they
may handle very sublime topics.
*[l. 23. धत्ते यत्किलकिञ्चितंकगुरुतामेणीदृशां (बालरामायण 10-44).]
ll. 13-26. Here the method adopted in describing the river
Tāmraparṇī is such that the Rasa of S'ṛṅgāra becomes immediately
roused through the उद्दीपनविभाव of the same Rasa. In the next two
verses, similarly the Rasas S'ṛṅgāra and Adbhuta are aroused with
the help of the उद्दीपनविभाव.
रोधोभुवः=shores.
पीततमाः=moon.
Page. 46.
ll. 1.-7. All Mss read: अतिरसवत्ता which ought to be read as
अरसवत्ता. This latter reading is more suited to the context and
more in harmony with the subject matter of the verse cited below
than the former. Rājaśekhara here makes an attempt to prove on

the principle of अन्वयव्यतिरेक that the methods of poetical representation
of things alone are responsible for rousing or obstructing the Rasas,
but not the atcual topics described. He cites, in support, three
verses and shows on the principle of अन्वय, that an able delineation
of commonplace things such as mountain, river etc. is capable of
rousing the Rasas. Again, on the principle of व्यतिरेक he wants
to show that an inexperienced poet is unable to rouse the desired
Rasa even by handling such delicate subject as the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. This
context will not be supported by any other reading than विप्रलम्भेऽप्य-
रसवत्ता as shown above. It will be evident that the reading
अरसवत्ता is meant by the author himself when he concludes his
arguments, saying: कुकविर्विप्रलम्भेऽपि रसवत्तां निरस्यति । l. 6.
The poet, in this verse विधर्माणो भावाः etc. describes the plight.
of a lover consequent on the separation of his beloved and attempts
to delineate the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. But he failed to achieve his object as
his poetical skill was not up to the mark. This is explained in the
verse कुकविः etc. where the author concludes his arguments. The
following explanation of the stanza विधर्माणो भावाः etc. will evidently
show how the poet's method of representation of विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार failed
to rouse the same Rasa.
"Where can my mind tormented by the separation of my
beloved ( Nāyikā ) find happiness ? Objects both similar and dissi-
milar to her, have failed to make it happy. The former failed
because they could not give complete satisfaction, and the latter
because my mind is always attached to nothing except her."
*[ l. 10. For पाल्यकीर्ति, a Jain grammarian,
cf. कुतस्त्या तस्य सा शक्तिः पाल्यकीर्तेर्महौजसः ।
श्रीपदश्रवणं यस्य शाब्दिकान् कुरुते जनान् ॥ वादीभसिंह—पार्श्वनाथचरित्र.
मुनीन्द्रमभिवन्द्याहं पाल्यकीर्तिं जिनेश्वरम् ।
मन्दबुद्ध्यनुरोधेन प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रहं ब्रुवे ॥ अभयचन्द्र-प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रह I.
This पाल्यकीर्ति is identical with the Jain grammarian शाकटायन.
The śloka येषां वल्लभया is found in भोजप्रबन्ध and प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि. ]
ll. 8–14. Āparājitī seems to think that poets should make use
of such things alone as are रसवत् which help in rousing the Rasa,
and not those that are entirely devoid of Rasa. (see. p. 45. ll. 3, 4.)
Rājaśekhara's view is somewhat modified when he says that there
are things both suited and unsuited to the Rasa but they have

NINTH ADHYĀYA 191
nothing to do with the enjoyment of Rasa in the poetry, because
the poet's skill in presentation alone is responsible for that enjoy-
ment. The contentions of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti are objected
to by the followers of स्याद्वाद or अनेकान्तवाद of Jainism. According to
this theory there is no entity which is endowed with only one form
or quality. On this point, however, there is quite a great deal of
controversy among the philosophers of different schools. For
details see Tattvasaṅgraha (G.O.S. Nos. 30 and 31), Syādvāda-
parīkṣā pp. 486-503. The Buddhists hold that one entity cannot
have two qualities or forms. Brahmins attribute two or even more
qualities while the Jains hold that an entity can have as many as
seven of them (सप्तभङ्ग). Pālyakīrti, the Jain Grammarian, there-
fore, objects to the view of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti, saying that
the quality of an entity cannot be fixed as रसवत् or otherwise;
because the same thing my be रसवत् in one, while it will be नीरस or
उदासीन in another. This is illustrated by the example of the moon
in the verse येषां वल्लभया etc.
ll. 15-21. Avantisundarī follows in the foot-steps of Pālya-
kīrti, and thinks that especially in Kāvya the nature of things is not
fixed; because, if the poet is clever he is able to present the same
thing in different forms to suit different contexts. For instance,
the same moon is described by poets at one time as अमृतांशु and at
others as दोषाकर. Rājaśekhara, however, ultimately agrees with
the views of both Pālyakīrti and Avanatisundarī.
ll. 22-26. For the sub-divisions of Kāvya see Dhvanyāloka
3, 7. Ancient writers on Alaṅkāra such as Bhāmaha and Vāmana,
divide Kāvyas into two either as अनिबद्ध, and निबद्ध or as मुक्तक and
प्रबन्ध respectively. See Bhāmaha 1-18 and Vāmana 1-3-27.
Daṇḍin, however, mentions several kinds of Kāvya as मुक्तक etc; but
he does not attempt to define them, as these do not possess any
appreciable difference from the सर्गबन्ध. see Kāvyādarśa 1-13. The
अनिबद्ध or मुक्तक is only illustrated by Bhāmaha thus:
अनिबद्धं पुनर्गाथाश्लोकमात्रादि तत्पुनः (1-30.)
But Gopendraṭippabhūpāla in his Kāmadhenu while commen-
ting upon Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (1-3-27) quoted a verse
defining मुक्तक and attributes the same to Bhāmaha. This verse,
however, is not found in the present editions of Bhāmaha's Kāvyā-
laṅkāra. The verse in question is quoted below :—

192 EXPLANATORY NOTES
मुक्तकलक्षणमुक्तं भामहेन—
प्रथमं मुक्तादीनामृजु लक्षणमुच्यते ।
यदेव गांभीर्यौदार्यशौर्यनीतिमतिस्पृशा ॥
भवेन्मुक्तकमेकेन द्विकं द्वाभ्यां त्रिकं त्रिभिः ।
Abhinavagupta in his commentary on Dhvani (3-7,) however,
gives a definition of मुक्तक in the following words:—
मुक्तमन्येन नालिङ्गितम् । तस्य संज्ञायां कन् । तेन स्वतन्त्रतया परिसमाप्तनिराकाङ्क्षार्थमपि
प्रबन्धमध्यवर्ति मुक्तकमित्युच्यते ॥
The same idea is also expressed by Rājaśekhara when he
says:—मुक्तेतिवृत्तः शुद्धः ।
Page. 47.
*[ ll. 1-4. सा पत्युः (अमरु 29) ].
ll. 1-4. Here is described the behaviour of a मुग्धानायिका when
she finds fault with the conduct of her lover for the first time.
*[ l. 5. दूरादुत्सुकमागते (अमरु. 49) attributed to रतिपाल in कवीन्द्रवचन-
समुच्चय.
*[ ll. 9-12. दत्वा रुद्धगतिः records a historical incident. ध्रुवस्वामिनी
or ध्रुवदेवी was the queen of चन्द्रगुप्तविक्रमादित्य and mother of कुमारगुप्त I ]
ll. 9-12. The subject matter of this verse is styled by Rājaśe-
khara as कथोत्थः वृत्तेतिवृत्तः । The word Kathā is controversial in the
sense that it may either denote an actual historical fact or may
record mere tradition. But the incident alluded to in this verse
may be taken as an historical fact. Evidently, it refers to the
event connected with king S'rīśarmagupta, his queen Dhruvasvā-
minī and one Khasādhipati who was hostile to S'rīśarmagupta.
All these persons excepting Dhruvadevī or Dhruvasvāminī who
was the queen of Candragupta II and the mother of Kumāragupta
I of the Gupta dynasty are unknown to history. But the literary
evidence culled from such ancient works as Harṣacarita of Bāṇa,
(अरि(अलि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेशगुप्तो गुप्तः चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिं प्रशशास । 6th
Uccvāsa); Devicandragupta of Viśākhadatta (fragments of which
are available from the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja and the Nāṭyadar-
paṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra. (G.O.S. No. 48); and Sañjan
copperplates of king Amoghavarṣa I dated S'aka 795 (E. I.
Vol. XVIII p. 248) points to all these being names of historical
personages. From the information obtained from different sources
it appears that there was a king Rāmagupta by name who had

NINTH ADHYĀYA 193
contracted a humiliating treaty when he was attacked and defeated
by a S'aka invader. By this treaty he was compelled to surrender
his crowned queen Dhruvadevi. When the king consented to
sacrifice his queen in order to save himself and his subjects, Chan-
dragupta his younger brother to save the honour of his family
volunteered to go to the enemies' camp under the guise of queen
Dhruvadevī and killed the S'aka king. For further information
refer to the Nāṭyadarpaṇa; pp. 223–253, of the Journal of the
B. O. R. S. 1928 and the Journal Asiatique for Octo.–Dec. 1923.
In the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however, the king
is named as S'rīśarmagupta or S'rīsenagupta and the invading
king is reported as Khasādhipati instead of S'rīrāmagupta and
S'akādhipati respectively. On the strength of the evidences
adduced above the readings as खस and शर्मगुप्त here may be taken as
scribe's errors for शक and रामगुप्त respectively which seem to be the
correct names. It is also suggested in the above mentioned journals
on the evidence of the Devīcandragupta, Sañjan copper-plates, and
some coins of Candragupta and Dhruvadevī, that Candragupta II
must have married Dhruvadevī the queen of his brother Rāmagupta
after killing him. But the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however,
has no direct connection with the incident referred to above.
But this verse certainly makes valuable contribution to the
controversy regarding Rāmagupta's history by clearing two points:
namely, the identification of the particular S'aka king who invaded
Rāmagupta's territory and the identification of Candragupta. The
words खसाधिपति, यस्मात् and तस्मिन्नेव हिमालये in this verse undoubtedly show
that खस king as spelt in the Mss of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā may be
better identified with one of the Kuṣāṇa kings of the Western
Punjab and not with the S'aka Kṣatrapas either of Mathura or
Malwa and that the war between the खस king and Rāmagupta
or S'armagupta took place exactly in the portion of the Himālayas
lying between the two kingdoms. In this case the word शक in the
Harṣacarita and Devīcandragupta may be taken to denote the खस
or Kuṣāṇa king as the term शक is often loosely used to denote even
the non-S'aka foreign tribes.
The word कार्तिकेय also in this verse may refer to Skanda-
gupta of the Gupta dynasty who is addressed in this verse and is
२५

194 EXPLANATORY NOTES
known to be the grandson of Candragupta II. This leads us
to believe that Candragupta II who was styled as S'akārāti
was the hero of the drama Devīcandraguptam. In this verse the
reign of Skandagupta is described to be so prosperous as to
permit even the society ladies of the town freely to sing his
fame without any danger coming from even the interior parts of
the Himalayas where once king S'armagupta being defeated by
the Khasa king was forced to give up even his queen Dhruvadevī.
It may be remembered here that Skandagupta also bore the title
Vikramāditya and inflicted a crushing defeat on the barbarous
Huns. In this case the word कार्त्तिकेय should be taken in vocative.
This interpretation should be abandoned if the word कार्त्तिकेयनगर
is taken as a compound and identified with the कार्त्तिकेयपुर mentioned
in Pāndukesvar copper plate and Talesvara charters. This कार्त्तिकेय-
पुर is also reported to be the modern village of Baijnath or
Vaidyanath in Kumaun. (See Ind. Ant. Vol. XXV. p. 178. and
Ep. Ind. Vol. XIII pp. 115 and 118.)
There is also another plausible solution ragarding the identity
of the Khasādhipati.
The Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa, mentions the Khasas as a
foreign tribe settled in widely diffused parts of the Himalayan regions
even previous to the accession of king Mihirakula, the despotic
ruler of Kashmir (cir. 6th century A. D.). Thus the readings
as शकपति in the MSS of the Harṣacarita, S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa and
Nāṭyadarpaṇa may be ascribed to scribe's error for खसपति. Because
it is clearly known from the verse quoted here that the Gupta
king returned from the Himalayan regions after promising his
queen to the Khasādhipati. Rājatarangiṇī also states that the
kings of the Khasas were known as the rulers of राजपुरी or खसालय or
खसालि. These names indeed, bear a striking resemblance to the names
denoting the head-quarters of Khasas such as खसाधि(लि)पतये quoted
in this verse or अरिपुर, अलिपुर and अलिस्कन्धावार as found in the MSS of
the Harṣacarita and the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa. (स्त्रीवेषनिन्हुतश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शत्रोः
स्कन्धावारमलिपुरे शकपतिवधायागमत् ।) (For further information regarding
the tribes Khasas who settled in the Himalayan regions, and once
usurped the throne of Kashmir and whose descendants are known
to-day as Khakhas in Kashmir, see notes by M. A. Stein in vol. I.
317 of the Rājatarangiṇī translation.)

NINTH ADHYĀYA 195
Some scholars, however, maintain that the war between
Rāmagupta and the S'aka king took place not in the Himālayas as
stated above but near the city of Girnar or Girinagara in Saurāṣṭra,
on the strength of the readings अरिपुरे or अलिपुरे in the Harṣacarita
and the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa, emended as गिरिपुरे. In addition to this
emendation of Aripura into Giripura ( Girnar ) they propose
further to change this verse in the following manner :—
दातुं रुद्धगतिः शकाधिपतये देवीं ध्रुवोपायिकां यस्मात्खण्डितसाहसो निववृते श्रीरामगुप्तो नृपः ।
तस्मिन्नेव हि रैवते गुरुगुहाकोणक्वणत्कीचके गीयन्ते बत ते कुमार शबरस्त्रीणां गणैः कीर्तयः ॥
These emendations lose much value since there is no MS
material in their support. Also, the word स्कन्धावार in the passage of
the S'ṛṅgāraprakāsa as quoted above denotes that Candragupta
went only to the camp of the enemy and not to his capital in
Saurāṣṭra. These emendations, therefore, have to be accepted with
caution.
*[ l. 14. दृष्टैकासनसंस्थिते ( अमरु. 19 ).
Page. 48.
*[l. 1. स्तिमित ( मालतीमाधव I ).
l. 5. अलसवलित. Ibid. I.
l. 9. अभिलाष. ( कुमार. IV 41. )
l. 13. क्रोधं प्रभो. Ibid. III 72.
l. 17. पत्युः शिरश्चन्द्रकला. Ibid. VII 19. ]
ll. 21–23. Here poets are advised to acquaint themselves
with the manifold subjects which find expression through the
medium of Prākṛta dialects according to their ability and energy.
ll. 25–26. Here it is said that there are certain ideas which
can best be expressed only in certain languages, while there are
others which are capable of being well expressed in several languages.
The poet should realise what things are suitable for a particular
dialect for the purpose of expression, and he should be thoroughly
conversant with the nature of things and the medium through
which it finds its best expression.
Page. 49.
l. 3. घनैः=weighty or full because of many sub-divisions.

196 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Adhyāya. X.
*[ ll. 8-10. गृहीतविद्योपविद्यः Cf. गृहीतविद्यः (वा. काम. सू. 1-4-1.) अभिधान-
कोशः. cf. अभिधानकोशः छन्दोज्ञानम्. Ibid. 1-3-16. ]
ll. 8-10. For the other branches of Kāvyavidyā cf. लोको विद्या
प्रकीर्णञ्च काव्याङ्गानि ( १ ) लोकवृत्तं लोकः ( २ ) शब्दस्मृत्यभिधानकोशच्छन्दोविचितिकला-
कामशास्त्रदण्डनीतिपूर्वा विद्याः ( ३ ) लक्ष्यज्ञत्वमभियोगो वृद्धसेवाऽवेक्षणं प्रतिभानमवधानं च
प्रकीर्णकम् ॥ ११ ॥ वामनकाव्यालङ्कारसूत्र. 1-3.
नामधातुपारायण is the same as शब्दस्मृति or grammar. The works
of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Ānanda and Rudraṭa
are meant by the word अलङ्कारतन्त्रम् । Vāmana uses the word शास्त्र
( 1-1-4 ) with reference to works dealing with poetics. These
four Vidyās are the most important branches of knowledge for
poets. The other branches required for them are enumerated by
Rājaśekhara in the eighth chapter of this work. Sixty four Kalās
as mentioned by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra ( 1-3. 16 ) are here
considered as Upavidyās. Vāmana includes Kalās among the
principal Vidyās. Another set of sixty four Kalās and 104 Upakalās
are enumerated by Gopendraṭippabhūpāla in his commentary
on Vāmana's Sūtra ( 1-3. 7) on the authority of Bhāmaha's
verses. Cf. कलाः—नृत्तगीतादयश्चतुःषष्टिः । उपकलास्तुःशतम् । कलानामुद्देशः कृतो भाम-
हेन—नृत्तं गीतं तथा वाद्यमालेख्यं मणिभूमिकाः । etc. Kāmadhenu on Vāmana's
Sūtra 1-3. 7.
This list of Kalās is similar to that of Vātsyāyana. The editions
of the Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha, as at present available, however,
do not contain these verses.
l. 10. सुजनोपजीव्यकविसन्निधिः=acquaintance with the poet who is
patronized by good men. For other equipments of a poet see
Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, sandhi-2.
*[ ll. 15-24. अपिच नित्यं शुचिः स्यात् etc. cf. नागरकवृत्त(वा. काम. सू. 1-4.) ]
ll. 15-24. The duties and behaviour of a poet are enumerated
in this chapter in the same way as the Nāgarakavṛtta and Rāja-
vṛtta have been described in the Kāmaśāstra ( 1-4 ) and Artha-
śāstra ( 1-19 ) respectively.
Page. 50.
l. 6. समागध। All MSS read समागध. It may be read as मागधभाषा-

TENTH ADHYĀYA 197
भिनिवेशिन्यः । The word समागधभाषा may be taken to mean a language
along with the Māgadhī language.
l. 10. अतिरात्रादिषु=overnights.
l. 14. तृतीयवर्जम्=excepting the letter स, which is the third of
ऊष्म letters शषसह.
l. 15. Construe as परुषाक्षर and संयोगाक्षर.
*[ l. 17. कुन्तलेषु सातवाहनः Cf. कर्त्तर्या कुन्तलः शातकर्णिः शातवाहनो ( वा. काम.
सू. 2. 7. 28 ). Cf. राएण विरइए कुन्तलजणवयवइणेण हालेण. ] ( Introduction
of the Gāthāsaptas'atī ).
l. 17. सातवाहन seems to be another name of हाल who is the
author of the गाथासप्तशती and ruled the Kuntala country. The
compilation of this Mahārāṣṭrī Prākṛta Kośa itself stands as a
proof of his love for that Prākṛta language. S'rīpālita was his
court-poet and several Gāthās of his are incorporated in the Gāthā-
Kośa by Hāla S'ātavāhana. Here the word प्राकृतभाषा denotes
महाराष्ट्रीप्राकृत because the Kuntala country is included in Māhārāṣṭra,
and also because the other two Prākṛtas S'aurasenī and Māgadhī
are already mentioned. Regarding the king Hāla and the poet
S'rīpālita see infra.
*[ l. 19. श्रूयते चोज्जयिन्यां.
cf. केऽभूवन्नाढ्यराजस्य राज्ये प्राकृतभाषिणः ।
काले श्रीसाहसाङ्कस्य के न संस्कृतवादिनः ॥
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II. 15 ].
l. 19. There were, however, several Vikramādityas in ancient
times, and the word Vikramāditya being an epithet, the most power-
ful kings could always assume that title. There is a verse in the
Gāthāsaptaśatī (cir. 1st century A. D.) where the author mentions
the name of a king Vikramāditya.
cf. संवाहणसुहरसतोसिएण देन्तेण तुह करे लक्खम् ।
चलणेण विक्कमाइत्तचरिअं अणुसिक्खियं तिस्सा ॥ (5. 64)
Sāhasāṅka here seems to be the same as Candragupta
Vikramāditya II of the Gupta dynasty, who also assumed the
title of Vikramāṅka which appears on his coins. The name
Sāhasāṅka is further justified by the story of the Devīcandra-
gupta and the Sanjan Copperplates where the daring actions of
Candragupta II are recorded. Rājaśekhara makes it clear on

198 EXPLANATORY NOTES
p. 55-7 that Sāhasāṅka or Candragupta II was a patron of Sans-
krit learning and encouraged men of letters. The fact that the
king Sāhasāṅka was also a poet will be evident by the following
verses :—
भासो रामिलसोमिलौ वररुचिः श्रीसाहसाङ्कः कविः etc. and
शूरः शास्त्रविधेर्ज्ञाता साहसांकः स भूपतिः।
सेव्यं सकललोकस्य विदधे गन्धमादनम्॥
Sūktimuktāvali 4, 57, 111.
*[ l. 23. सुसम्मृष्टा भित्तयः=well-cleaned walls or well rubbed plates.
In ancient times they used to write as well as paint on walls.
Brass plates are still being used by shop-keepers for writing daily
accounts. ]
ll. 21-25. सम्पुटिका=a box. सफ़लकखटिका=a piece of chalk fixed
to a wooden piece. समुद्गकः=a box.
All these materials are to be kept always near a poet as he is
required to write down whatever verses he may compose mentally
at any time. Yāyāvarīya thinks that the collection of materials
mentioned above is not the real requisite for the composition of
poetry as suggested by the Ācāryas, but the poetical genius
or प्रतिभा alone is its chief necessity. see Vāmana's sūtra 'कवित्वबीजं
प्रतिभानम्' । 1-3-16.
l. 26. कल्पयेत्=make himself equipped.
l. 27. परिवृढः=king or patron.
Page. 51.
l. 2. Yāyāvarīya thinks that the above instructions of the
Ācāryas hold good in the case of poets who are not competent to
compose in more than one dialect.
l. 7. भूतभाषा=पैशाची।
l. 8. For the definition and boundaries of Madhyadeśa see
page 94 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
l. 13. अतिक्रान्ते=after the poet's demise.
l. 21. लेशस्वादु=excellent in parts. This may be construed
thus:—लेशस्वादपि काव्यं कौतुकात् बालस्त्रीहीनजातीनां मुखान्मुखं याति।
l. 23. कार्यावसरसज् l=those who make the best use of a
favourable opportunity. This is not necessarily to be taken as an
adjective to परिम्राजाम् महीभुजाम् and सद्यःकवीनाम्।