Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c28: XV Mahimabhatta

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c28

Language
English

XV Mahimabhatta

v1.c28.1

Rājanaka Mahiman, Mahimaka or Mahimabhaṭṭa, who is cited generally as the Vyaktiviveka-kāra¹ from the name of his work, was, as indicated by his title, probably a Kaśmirian writer, who describes himself as the son of Śrī-dhairya and disciple of mahākavi Śyāmala. He informs us at the outset of his work (i 3) that his principal object is to consider the views of the Dhvanikāra; and as in the course of his discourse he examines the text of the Dhvanyāloka, quoting from the kārikā and the vṛtti, with a minuteness which cannot be mistaken, we may infer with certainty that he was later than Ānandavardhana². It is also probable that Mahimabhaṭṭa was later than Ānanda’s commentator, Abhinavagupta; for in some places he betrays an acquaintance with the latter’s work. At p. 19, for instance, Mahimabhaṭṭa quotes directly a long passage from the Locana (p. 33), and shows himself alive to the point involved in Abhinava’s discussion by criticising it. The passage refers to *Dhvanyāloka* i 13 where the Dhvanikāra uses the verb *vyaṅktaḥ* in the dual number with the express purpose, as Abhinava explains, of indicating a duality of sense. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka appears to have taken exception to this use of the dual number, upon which Abhinava concludes by remarking *tena yad bhaṭṭa-nāyakena dvi-vacanaṃ dūṣitaṃ tad gaja-nimīlikayaiva*. Mahimabhatta, referring to this discussion, quotes anonymously the remarks of Abhinava (not only the above line but the whole passage), with the statement *kecid vimā-ninaḥ...........yad āhus tad bhrānti-mūlam*. The terms of reference apparently indicate, as Narasiṃha Iyengar rightly points out¹, that Mahimabhatta is here referring clearly to Abhinava as a theorist of a rival system who, if not contemporaneous, could not have flourished long before his own time. This gives us one terminus to Mahimabhatta’s date. On the other hand, Ruyyaka who, as we shall see, flourished in the first half of the 12th century and probably also wrote the anonymous commentary on Mahimabhatta, printed in the Trivandrum edition of the text, is the earliest writer to quote and criticise Mahimabhatta². We may, therefore, assign Mahimabhatta to the period between Abhinava and Ruyyaka, i.e. later than the first quarter of the 11th but earlier than the first quarter of the 12th century, and approximately fix his date towards the last half or the end of the 11th century. This date will be in harmony with the probable date of Śyāmala, who is mentioned by Mahimabhatta as his preceptor, if this Śyāmala is the same poet as is quoted by Kṣemendra¹.

v1.c28.2

¹ Viśvanātha, ed. Durgāprasāda N. S. P., 1915, p. 18, 249; Mallinātha on Kirāta iii 21; Ruyyaka, ed. Kāvyamālā, p. 12; Keśava Miśra p. 80-81; Jagannātha p. 13; etc. Keśava mentions his name as Mahiman.

v1.c28.3

² Cf Jayaratha p. 12; dhvanikārântarabhāvī vyaktiviveka-kāra iti, the Dhvanikāra being, to Jayaratha, Ānandavardhana himself.

v1.c28.4

¹ *JRAS*, 1908, pp. 65f.

v1.c28.5

² Iyengar (*op. cit.*) and Haricānd (*op. cit.* p. 105) think that Mahimabhatta is "quoted or criticised" by Mammaṭa; but, as *Kāv. prak.* v p. 252 (B. S. S. 1917) shows, Mammaṭa does not at all cite Mahimabhatta or his work, but only

v1.c28.6

¹ Aucit. vic. ad śl. 16 ; Suvṛtta. til ad ii 31. Also Subhāṣ° 2292 and Jalhaṇa 165b. Kṣemendra’s Śyāmala appears to be identical with Śyāmilaka, who wrote the bhāṇa entitled Pāda-tāḍitaka (ed. Rāmakṛṣṇa Kavi and Rāmanātha Śāstri, Madras 1922); for the verses, attributed to Śyāmala in the two works of Kṣemendra noted above, occur as śl. 33 and the 125 respectively in the printed text of the bhāṇa. The colophon describes the author as son of Viśveśvaradatta and an udīcya (northerner), which makes it probable that he is the Kashmiri an Śyāmala, Śyāmalaka or Śyāmilaka, also cited by Abhinavagupta. Both Abhinava and Kuntala quote anonymously verses from this bhāṇa. The verse ascribed to Śyāmalaka in the Subhāṣ° (prāyaścittam mṛgayate yaḥ priyā-pāda-tāḍitam | kṣalanīyam śiras tasya kāntā-gaṇḍūṣa-śidhubhiḥ) refers unmistakably to this bhāṇa, and the second line occurs in a slightly modified form in the bhāṇa itself (ad śl 132). Rājaśekhara cites a Śyāmadeva (pp. 11, 13, 17).

v1.c28.7

It is difficult to determine what relation Mahimabhatta bore to Śaṅkuka’s who was also, like Mahimacriticises an anumāna-theory which tries to explain the concept of dhvani by means of inference. No chronological conclusion can be based on this; for Ānandavardhana also refers to a similar theory long before Mahimabhatta wrote.

v1.c28.8

bhaṭṭa, an *anumiti-vādin*¹ in his theory of *rasa*, for Śaṅkuka’s work has not yet been recovered. Our author claims for himself originality of treatment and freedom from slavish imitation², and his omission of all references to his predecessor need not, therefore, appear strange. The only testimony of Rāmacaraṇa, an 18th century Bengal commentator on Viśvanātha³, need not be seriously considered; but it is probable that the theory developed by Mahima did not originate in himself. Ānandavardhana refutes at some length some theory of *anumāna* (pp. 201f) which attempted to explain that the suggested sense, posited by the *dhvani-theory*, can be arrived at by the process of logical inference. Mahimabhaṭṭa probably worked out systematically some such thesis (anticipated, it may be, by Ānandavardhana), as a direct rejoinder to Ānanda’s classical exposition; but there is no evidence to connect him with the theory accredited to Śaṅkuka by Abhinavagupta and others.

v1.c28.9

¹ He is so called by Mallinātha (*Taralā* p. 85) and Kumārasvāmin (p. 219).

v1.c28.10

² He says, for instance, that he has written his work without looking at *Candrikā* and *Darpaṇa*, which apparently had the same object in view as the demolition of the *dhvani-theory* (i 4, 5).

v1.c28.11

³ ed. Durgāprasāda p. 248: ed. Röer p. 121 note, *śaṅkuka-matānuyāyinām vyaktiviveka-kārūḍīnām matam dūṣayati*.

v1.c28.12

From the *Vyaktiviveka* itself (p. 108) we learn that Mahimabhaṭṭa also wrote a work entitled *Tattvōkti-koṣa*, where he is said to have discussed what he calls *pratibhā-tattva*¹, in connexion with the poetic conception of an idea.

v1.c28.13

¹ Cf Jacobi *Sb. der Preuss. Akad.* xxiv 225 fn.

v1.c28.14

Mahimabhatta’s work which recognised the new concept of *dhvani*, but tried to explain it by the established process of *anumāna* (and not by the separate function of *vyañjanā* explained by Ānandavardhana), never found any recognition in the hands of later theorists, most of whom became partisans of the latter. Even his commentator does not appear to possess much sympathy for his somewhat extreme view, and Mahimabhatta is rather unique in having no followers in later literature.

v1.c28.15

The commentator referred to has been identified with some reason with Ruyyaka, who has another commentary on Mammaṭa to his credit, as well as several independent works on Alaṃkāra. We shall deal with him hereafter as an independent writer on Alaṃkāra.

Linked texts (4)