Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c28.1

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.