Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Classical Sanskrit Literature c38: Chapter XXIV. Alankara

History of Classical Sanskrit Literature c38

Language
English

Chapter XXIV. Alankara

c38.2

814. **Alankara-Sutras.** Every science, Śastra, in India has its *sūtra*, *vṛtti* and *Bhāṣya*. So has Alaṅkāraśāstra. Śauddhodani is mentioned by Keśava as an author of Alaṅkārasūtras,¹ and it was on the Kārikas of Śauddhodani that Keśava commented in his Alaṅkāraśekhara.² Mammaṭa's Kāvyaprakāśa have been considered, mostly in Bengal, as embracing the original Bharaṭa's Alaṅkārasūtras, on which Mammaṭa wrote a vṛṭti called Kāvyaprakāsā.³ Balaḍeva Viḍyābhūṣaṇa took these Kārikas as Bharaṭasūṭras and wrote his commentary on them Sāhiṭyakaumuḍī in the 18th century.⁴ Bharaṭa, it is said to the contrary, wrote sūṭras relating to *rasa* etc., in nāṭya and not sūṭras for Alaṅkāra, buṭ these sūṭras are buṭ rarely preserved in the extant Nāṭyaśasṭra.⁵ Pāṇini mentions Naṭasūṭras of Śilālin:

c38.3

¹ अलङ्कारविद्यासूत्रकारो भगवान् शौद्धोदनिः काव्यस्य स्वरूपमाह। काव्यं रसादिमद्वाक्यम्।

c38.4

² See S. K. De, *SP.* I. 261.

c38.5

³ So says Commentary Vivaraṇः काव्यप्रकाशस्य द्वावंशौ, कारिका वृत्तिश्चेति। भरतमुनिप्रणीता या कारिका सा अलङ्कारसूत्रनाम्ना व्यवह्रियते, मम्मटप्रणीता या वृत्तिस्सैब काव्यप्रकाशनामभाक् ॥ Several other authors call these Kārikas 'sūṭras' : i उदाहरणेपु दृष्टत्वात्सूत्रानुक्तमपि प्रभेदद्वयमाह — Maheśvara. ii सूत्रे प्रश्नोत्तरपदं पूर्वापरवाक्योपलक्षकम् — Bhīmasena. iii सूत्राक्षराननुसारान्चोपेक्ष्यम् — Vaidyanāṭha iv सूत्रे विभागः उपलक्षणपरः — Govinḍa Thakkura. v सूत्रं चोपलक्षणपरतया योज्यम् — Nagojibhaṭṭa.

c38.6

⁴ सूत्राणां भरतमुनीशवर्णितानां वृत्तीनां मितवपुषां कृतौ समास्याप्। लक्ष्याणां हरिगुणशालिनां च सत्वात् कुर्वन्तु प्रगुणधियो बतावधानम् ॥

c38.7

⁵ *e. g.* व्यभिचारिभावविभाजकानि निर्वेदग्लानिशङ्कारूपाः ॥

c38.8

पाराशर्य्यशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः (IV. iii. 10.)
कर्मन्दकृशाश्वाद्दिनिः (IV. iii. 11.

c38.9

Alaṅkārasūṭras of unknown authorship have been commented upon by ŚOBHAKARA in his Alaṅkāraraṭnākara.⁶ Sobhākāra was son of Trayīśvaramiśra and lived about the 12th century A.D. He is quoted by Jagannātha. These sūtras have been extracted and illustrated by Yaśaskara in his Devīstotra, a poem of devotion. Yaśaskara was a poet of Kāṣmīr.¹ On account of ill-health, he spent much of his time at the sanatorium² on the hill Pradyumna and there on the spot held sacred on account of the final ascent of King Pravara to Heaven in bodily form, he composed his Devīstotra.³

c38.10

⁶ *BKR*, Ap. cxxviii.

c38.11

¹ *PR*, 1. 12.

c38.12

² This health resort is mentioned in *Raj.* III. 645.

c38.13

³ *PR*, I. 77 (where the sutras are all extracted).

c38.14

There are again Kāvyālaṅkārasūtras on which Vāmana wrote his own Vṛtti and Ruyyaka's Alaṅkārasūtra on which Mankha wrote vṛtti Alaṅkārasarvasva. Jayaratha mentions an Alaṅkāravārṭika in his commentary on Alaṅkārasarvasva (p. 71) :

c38.15

बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावेनापीयं भवति । यथा—
> क्षिपन्त्यचिन्त्यानि पदानि हेलया खराजहंसानधिरुह्य च स्थितां ।
> कवीन्द्रवक्त्रेषु च यत्र शारदा सहस्रपत्रेषु रमा च रज्यति ॥

c38.16

अत्र वक्त्रपद्मयोर्विम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावः । अनेनैव चाशयेनावालङ्कारवार्तिके ग्रन्थकृता वैशिष्ट्यमस्यादर्शितम् ॥

c38.17

815. **Bhamaha** was the son of Rakrila Gomin. Maskari was probably his son.⁴ From the word Gomin and from the salutation to Sarva Sarvagna at the commencement of his work it has been said he was a Buddhist. Candra in his grammar mentions Gomin as a termination of respect.⁵ The epithets Sarva and Sarvagna have been used for various divine incarnations without limitation. Bhamaha's reverence to the Hindu pantheon⁶ and his elegant references to heroes of Rāmāyaṇa,⁷ Mahābhārata⁸ and Purāṇas⁹ indicate more properly his Vedic persuasion. This surmise is supported by Bhāmaha's scathing criticism of Buddhist theory of Anyāpoha.¹⁰

c38.18

⁴ He says so in his commentary on Gautama-Dharmasūtra.

c38.19

⁵ गोमिन् पूज्ये ।

c38.20

⁶ प्रणम्य सार्व सर्वज्ञं ।

c38.21

⁷ II. 35 ; III. II. 32, 36 ; IV. 21, 28 ; V. 44.

c38.22

⁸ III. 7 ; V. 36, 39, 41, 42, 43.

c38.23

⁹ III. 5, 42 ; V. 59.

c38.24

¹⁰ VI. 16, 17.

c38.25

On the relative priority of Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, there has been divergence of opinion.¹ But the assertiveness of Daṇḍin's expression of dissent in relation to views of Bhāmaha on particular topics indicates his posteriority. It is possible that Bhāmaha was an elder contemporary of Daṇḍin and Bhāmaha was an author whose opinions were then fresh in the minds of the readers which Daṇḍin thought ought to be controverted before they gained a place of honor.²

c38.26

¹ For details of arguments about the priority of Bhāmaha to Dandin, see Trivedi's introduction to Prataparudrayasobhushana, M. Rangacharya's Introduction to Kavyadarsa, Anantacharya in Brahmavadin (1911), R. Narasimhacharya, *Ind. Ant*. XLI. 20 and Medepalli Venkataramanacharya's *History of Alaṅkārasāstra* (in Telugu). Taruṇavācaspati, in his commentary on Kāvyādarśa (I. 29; II. 235-7; IV. 4) distinctly says that Dandin criticises Bhāmaha See S. K. De's *SP*, I. 45-62. For a contrary opinion, see P. V. Kane, *JRAS*, (1808) 545; *IA*, XLI. 12-98; Pathak, *JBRAS*, XXIII. 19; *IA*, XLI. 222; M. T. Narasimha Aypangar, *JRAS*, (1905) 535, Barnett, *JRAS* (1905) 841; D. T. Tatacarya, Int. to Edn. While Bhāmaha mentions that Upamā should not be divided into several categories as Nindopamā, Praśaṁsopamā, etc., and that all such varieties should come under sāmānyaguṇa, these scholars see in it a criticism of Dandin's long list of varieties of Upamā.

c38.27

² See A. Rangasami Sarasvati, *JMy*, III. 682.

c38.28

From illustrations³ of Alaṅkāras and from their number and significance it is conjectured that Bhaṭṭi came after Bhāmaha.

c38.29

³ For the list of Alaṅkāras illustrated in Canto X, see *JRAS*, (1922), 830 *et seq*. On this question there is a difference of opinion. See para 42 *supra*.

c38.30

If Daṇḍin flourished about the biginning of the 7th century, Bhāmaha can be safely placed in the 6th century A.D.⁴

c38.31

⁴ Ganapathi Sastri, in his introduction to Svapnavāsavadatta (TSS, No. 15 p. XXIV), places Bhāmaha far earlier than Kālidasa and in the 1st century B.C. See III. 36 and I. 43, where references to Kālidasa's Raghuvamśa, XVI. 7, 8 and Megha, I. are indicated. S. K. De, (*SP*, I 49) places him in 7-8 century A D.

c38.32

Bhāmaha composed his Kāvyālaṅkāra⁵ after an investigation of the thoughts of good poets for the instruction of the virtuous :

c38.33

⁵ Printed by K. P. Trivedi, as appendix to Pratāparudrayaśobhuṣaṇa (BSS); Ed. by P. V. Naganathasastri with translation, Tanjore; Ed. D. T. Tatacarya with Vṛtti, Trivadi, Tanjore.

c38.34

अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीनां
> अवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्भ ।
सुजनावगमाय भामहेन
> ग्रथितं रकिल्गोमिसूनूनेदम् ॥ VI. 64.

c38.35

and the making of faultless poetry facilitates the pursuit of the Puruṣarthas and leads on to pleasure and celebrity. His instruction for choice of words and their disposition is an enchanting instance of his æsthetics :

c38.36

एतत् ग्राह्यं सुरभि कुसुमं ग्राम्यमेतन्निधेयं
धत्ते शोभां विरचितमिदं स्थानमस्यैतदस्य ।
मालाकारो रचयति यथा साधु विज्ञाय मालां
योज्यं काव्येष्ववहितधिया तद्वदेवाभिधानम् ॥ I. 59.

c38.37

His humility is in keeping with his dignity and he leaves his homage to the Goddess of Poetry unmindful of his deserts :

c38.38

न दूषणायोदाहृतो विधिर्न चाभिमानेन किमु प्रतीयते (?) ।
कृतात्मनां तत्त्वदृशां च मादृशो जनोऽभिसन्धि क इवावभोत्स्यते ॥ IV. 51.

c38.39

In six chapters, he deals with six topics, Kāvyaśarīra, Alaṅkāra, Doṣa, Nyāya and Śābdaśuddhi. His veneration for Pāṇini is supreme and his description of the Ocean of Vyākaraṇa reminds us of the garlands of metaphors which is Vālmīki's peculiar glory :

c38.40

सूत्राम्भसं पदावर्त पारायणरसातलम् ।
धातूणादिगणग्राहं ध्यानग्रहबृहत्प्लवम् ॥
धीरैरालोकितप्रान्तममेधोभिरसूयितम् ।
सदोपभुक्तं सर्वाभिरन्यविद्याकरेणुभिः ॥
नापारयित्वा दुर्गाधममुं व्याकरणार्णवम् ।
शब्दरत्नं स्वयं गम्यमलङ्कर्तुमयं जनः ॥ VI. 1-3.

c38.41

Here is Vālmīki's description of the sky as an ocean :

c38.42

स चन्द्रकुमुदं रम्यं सार्ककारण्‍डवं शुभम् ।
तिष्यश्रवणकादम्बमभ्रशैवालशाद्वलम् ॥
पुनर्वसुमहामीनं लोहिताङ्गमहाग्रहम् ।
ऐरावतमहाद्वीपं स्वातीहंसविलोळितम् ॥
वातसंघातजालोर्मिचन्द्रांशुशिशिराम्बुवत् ।
भुजङ्गयक्षगन्धर्वप्रबुद्धकमलोत्पलम् ॥
हनुमान् मारुतगतिर्महानीरिव सागरम् ।
अपारमपरिक्षोभ्यं पुप्लुवे गगनार्णवम् ॥
*Rāmāyaṇa*, V. 57, 1-4.

c38.43

By his assertive expression and courageous criticism he displays the ardour of his study and the range of his learning He disapproves as unnatural and improbable of the use of inanimate objects as messengers of love and the story of the capture of Vatsarāja by the lure of a false elephant. He condemns the Sphoṭa theorists with disdain :

c38.44

शपथैरपि चादेयं वचो न स्फोटवादिनाम् ।
नभःकुसुममस्तीति श्रद्दध्यात् कः सचेतनः ॥ VI. 12.

c38.45

The illustrations are all Bhāmaha's except where he quotes expressly from other authors. He says :

c38.46

स्वयं कृतैरेव निदर्शनैरियं मया प्रक्लृप्ताः खलु वागलङ्कृतिः । II. 96.

c38.47

Bhāmaha is called the founder of Alankāra school. According to him Vakrokṭi is the character of poetry :

c38.48

सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयाऽर्थो विभाव्यते ।
यत्नोऽस्यां कविना कार्यः कोऽलङ्कारोऽनया विना ॥ II. 85.

c38.49

This verse of Bhāmaha has been quoted by later writers, aad Bhāmaha also states it in other words :

c38.50

वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलंकृतिः ।—I. 36.
वाचां वक्रार्थशब्दोक्तिरलङ्काराय कल्पते ।—V. 66.

c38.51

And Abhinavagupta thus explains it :

c38.52

शब्दस्य हि वक्रता अभिधेयस्य च (वक्रता) लोकोत्तीर्णेन रूपेणावस्थानमित्ययमेवासावलङ्कारान्तर्भावः । (?)

c38.53

It cannot therefore be said that Bhāmaha was an opponent of the existence of Dhvani, though indeed Mallinātha called him Dhvanyabhāvavāḍin.

c38.54

Ānandavardhana appreciates Bhāmaha's views :

c38.55

भामहेनाप्यतिशयोक्तिलक्षणे यदुक्तं 'सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्ति'रिति, तत्रातिशयोक्तिर्यमलङ्कारमधितिष्ठति कविप्रतिभावशात्तस्य चातुर्यातिशययोगोऽन्यस्यालङ्कारमात्रतेवेति सर्वालङ्कारत्वकरणयोग्यत्वेनाभेदोपचारात्, सैव सर्वालङ्काररूपेत्ययमेवार्थोऽवगन्तव्यः । तस्याश्चालङ्कारान्तरसङ्कीर्णत्वं कदाचिद्वाच्यत्वेन कदाचिद्व्यङ्ग्यत्वेन ।

c38.56

(Bom. Edn. P. 207-8).

c38.57

Ruyyaka thns sums up Bhāmaha's views :

c38.58

इह हि तावद्भामोद्भटप्रभृतयश्चिरन्तनालङ्कारिकाः प्रतीयमानमर्थं वाच्योपस्कारतया अलङ्कारपक्षनिक्षिप्तं मन्यन्ते ।

c38.59

Among the authors and works mentioned by Bhāmaha are Nyāsakāra, Medhāvin,¹ Śākhavardhana,² Ratnāharaṇa, Rāmaśarman’s Acyu-tottara,³ Aśmakavamśa and Rājamitra.

c38.60

¹ त एत उपमादोषास्सप्तमेधाविनोदिताः । I. 40.

c38.61

² His verse :

c38.62

³ His verse :

c38.63

It is a matter of controversy whether this Nyāsakara was Jinendra-buddhi.⁴ Namisādhu mentions Medhāvān as a writer on Alaṅkāra and adds

c38.64

⁴ On this see K. B. Pathak’s *Bhamaha’s attacks on Jinendrabuddhi* (*JBRAS*, XXIII. 18); P. V. Kane, *Bhamaha, Bhasa and Magha* (ibid. 91) and K. P. Trivel, (*IA*, XLIII, 204, 207).

c38.65

अत्र च स्वरूपोपादाने सत्यपि चत्वार इति ग्रहणायन्मेधाविप्रभृतिभिरुक्तम् यथा लिङ्ग-वचनभेदौ हीनाधिक्यमसम्भवो विपर्ययोऽसादृश्यमिति सतोपमादोषाः, तदेतन्निरस्तम् ।

c38.66

Medhāvin is probably indentical with Medhāvi Rudra, whom Rāja-śekhara instances as a poet born blind and one of the three Kālidāsas (Kālidāsatrayī) mentioned by Rājaśekara. The Lexicon Trikaṇḍaśeṣa gives it as a synonym of Kālidāsa.

c38.67

Rāmaśarma’s poetry is thus described :

c38.68

नानाधात्वर्थगम्भीरा यमकव्यपदेशिनी ।
प्रहेलिका सा ह्युदिता रामशर्माच्युतोत्तरे ॥ II. 19.

c38.69

Śākhavardana’s verse is fine :

c38.70

निष्पेतुरस्यादिव तस्य दीप्ताः शरा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः ।
जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधारा दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणोऽर्कात् ॥ II. 47.

c38.71

and the same verse is quoted anonymously by Namisādhu und Mam-maṭa.

c38.72

On the style of Aśmakavamśa there is this comment :

c38.73

ननु चाश्मकवंशादि वैदर्भमिति कथ्यते । I. 33.

c38.74

From Rājamitra, there is an instance taken to illustrate the figure samāhita :

c38.75

निष्पेतुरस्यादिव तस्य दीप्ताः शरा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः ।
जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधाराः दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणोऽर्काः ॥ II. 47.

c38.76

is quoted to illustrate the fault Asambhava.

c38.77

सर्पीतवासाः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गो मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृष्णः ।
शतह्रदेन्द्रायुधवान्निशायां संसृज्यमानश्शशिनेव मेघः ॥ II. 57.

c38.78

is instanced for उपमाने अधिकपदत्वम् ।

c38.79

समाहितं राजमित्रे यथा क्षत्रिययोषिताम् ।
रामप्रसत्त्यै यान्तीनां पुरोऽदृश्यत नारदः ॥ III. 10.

c38.80

Bhāmaha refers to Naṇḍa and Cāṇakya thus ;

c38.81

चाणक्यो नक्तमुपयान्नन्दक्रीडागृहं यथा ।
शशिकाान्तोपलब्छन्नं विवेद पयसां कणैः ॥—III. 13.

c38.82

Bhāmaha has been honoured in the history of poetics as an Ācārya of antiquity and renown. Vidyānāṭha wrote

c38.83

पूर्वेभ्यो भामहादिभ्यः सादरं विहिताञ्जलिः ।

c38.84

Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupṭa, Vāmana and Mammaṭa and others quote his views and verses with distinction.

c38.85

Uḍbhaṭa's gloss, Bhāmahavivaraṇa, is now lost.¹

c38.86

¹ 1, In his commentary on Uḍbhaṭa's Kāvyālaṅkārasaṅgraha Pratīhārendurāja says,

c38.87

In the prefatory eulogies to his commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa Bhaṭṭa Gopāla wrote :

c38.88

उद्धटेनापि नम्रेण नायकेनोपलालितः ।
हृद्यो भाम इव स्त्रीणामल्पारम्भोऽपि भामहः ॥

c38.89

Is it possible that Bhaṭṭanāyaka also composed a commentary on Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra, as Uḍbhaṭa did ?

c38.90

It is suspected that Bhāmaha wrote a later work on rhetoric, with greater completeness, for we have in Rasikarasāyanam,² which goes under his name, an elaborate treatment in seven parakaraṇas of all topics embraced in poetics. The exposition of the Nāṭyālaṅkāras of Bharaṭa is particularly good. But a distinction must be made between the Kārikas and the Vṛtṭis. If these Kārikas could have been the

c38.91

² *Mys.* 308.

c38.92

विशेषोक्तिलक्षणे च भामहविवरणे भट्टोद्भटेन एकदेशशब्द एष व्याख्यातः ... ... ...

c38.93

Abhinavagupṭa in his Locana (p. 10) says :

c38.94

भामहोक्तं 'शब्दच्छन्दोऽभिधानार्थाः' इत्यभिधानस्य शब्दात् भेदं व्याख्यातुं भट्टोद्भटो बभाषे ।

c38.95

Hemacandra in his Kāvyālaṅkāracuḍāmaṇi (p. 110) says :

c38.96

तस्मादङ्गडुलिकाप्रवाहे गुणालंकारभेद इति भामहविवरणे यद्भट्टोद्भटोऽभ्यधात् तन्निरस्तम् ।

c38.97

and Ruyyaka in Alaṅkārasarvasva (p. 183) says :

c38.98

अपि च शब्दानामाकुलता(?)चेति तस्य हेतून प्रचक्षते भामहीये । वाचामनाकुलत्वेऽपि भाविकमिति चोद्भटलक्षणे ।

c38.99

work of Bhāmaha. Vṛtti must have been anonymously written later than the 12th century A.D., for it mentions Kāvyaprakāśa and Bhāvaprakāśa and quotes Mālatīmādhava.

c38.100

In spite of the attempts of scholars to get at a complete manuscript of Bhāmaha's work, it is still suspected that these editions are not yet the last word. For instance in Locana, Abhinavagupta writes :

c38.101

भामहेन हि गुरुदेवनृपतिपुत्रविषयप्रीतिवर्णनं प्रेयोऽलङ्कार इत्युक्तम् ।

c38.102

But in the extent editions, we see only one verse delineating the Love for Devas :

c38.103

प्रेयो गृहागतं कृष्णमवादीद्विदुरो यथा ।
अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते ।
कालेनैषा भवेत्प्रीतिस्तवैवागमनात् पुनः ॥—III, 5.

c38.104

There is an indication that Bhāmaha wrote also a work on metrics. Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary on Śakuntalā quotes :

c38.105

तदुक्तं भामहेन—
> देवता वाचकाः शब्दा ये च भद्रादिवाचकाः ।
> ते सर्वे नैव निन्द्याः स्युर्लिपितो गणतोऽपि वा ॥
>
> कः खो गो घश्च लक्ष्मीं वितरति वियथो ङस्तथा चः सुखं छः
> प्रीतिं जो मित्रलाभं भयमरणकरौ झञौ टठौ खेददुःखे ।
> डश्शोभां ढो विशोभां भ्रमणमथ च णस्तः सुखं थश्च युद्धं
> दो धः सौख्यं मुदं नः सुखभयमरणक्लेशदुःखं पवर्गः ॥
>
> यो लक्ष्यं रश्च दाहं व्यसनमथ लवौ शस्सुखं षश्च खेदं
> सस्सौख्यं हश्च खेदं विलयमपि च ळः क्षस्समृद्धिं करोति ।
> संयुक्तं चेह न स्यात् सुखमरणपुबुर्वर्णविन्यासयोगः (?)
> पद्यादौ गद्यवक्त्रे वचसि च सकलं प्राकृतादौ समोऽयम् ॥

c38.106

And if these two authors are identical, this work on metrics appears to be an extensive treatise on the topic.

c38.107

Here are some fine specimens of Bhāmaha's poetry :

c38.108

ताम्बूलरागवलयं स्फुरद्दशनदीधिति ।
इन्दीवराभिनयनं तवैवं वदनं तव ॥ III, 46.

अंशुमद्भिborder: मणिभिः फलनिborder: शाखिभिः ।
फुल्लैश्च कुसुमैरन्यैर्वाचोऽलंकुरुते यथा ॥ VI, 64.

c38.109

किंशुकव्यपदेशेन तरुमारुह्य सर्वतः ।
दग्धादग्धमरणयान्यां पश्यतीव विभावसुः ॥ II. 92.
एलातकोलनागस्फुटवकलुलताचन्दनस्पन्दनाढ्यः
सुक्ताकर्पूरचक्रागुरुकमनशिलाध्यानकाम्याप्ततीरः ।
शङ्खव्राताकुलान्तस्तिमियरकुलाकर्णवीचीप्रतानो
धत्ते यस्याम्बुराशिशशिशिकुमुदसुधाक्षीरशुद्धां सुकीर्तिम् ॥ V. 68.
तस्या हारी स्तनाभोगो वदनं हारि सुन्दरम् ।
हारिणी तनुरत्यन्तं कियन्नहरते मनः ॥ VI. 47.
आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन्म्यन्यान्धावन्मण्डलै रुदन् ।
गा वारयति दण्डेन डिम्भस्सस्यावतारिणीः ॥ II. 94.

c38.110

**816. Dandin's Kavyadarsa**,¹ in four parts, is a standard treatise on poetics and belongs to the school, for which *riti* or style is the mark of poetry.² It deals with only two styles Gauḍī (learned) and Vaidarbhī (simple) but allows intermediate types. The first part treats of the nature of poetry and classification of poems, the second and third parts with figures of speech and poetical devices and the fourth part with the faults of poetry. It refers to Setubandha³ and quite often differs from opinions must probably of Bhāmaha.⁴ Very soon it attained great eminence and as early as the eighth century A.D. it was copied in the Kanarese work on Alankāra, Kavirājamargavijaya of Amoghavarṣa or Nṛpatuṅga.

c38.111

¹ 1, Ed. by Premacandra Tarkavagisa, (*Bib. Ind.*). Ed. by Bohtlingk, (Leipsig) with German translation by Jibananda (Calcutta). Tr. in English (Poona). On Agashe's doubt on the identity of the authors of Kavyādarśa and Daśakumāracarita, see *IA*, XLIV. 67; S. K. De, *Bharavi and Dandin*, (IHQ, I).

c38.112

² The four vibhagas (parts) are called mārga arthālamkāra, sabdālamkāra and doṣa.

c38.113

³ Kāvyādarśa, I. 34; also to a work called Kalāpariccheda.

c38.114

⁴ On the relative priority of Bhāmaha and Dandin, see para 815 supra. S. K. De, *A note on Avantisundarikatha in relation to Bhamaha and Dandin*, *IHQ*, III. 395.

c38.115

There are commentaries on Kāvyādarśa by Vāḍighanghālaḍeva,⁵

c38.116

⁵ Ed. with notes and translation by V. Krishnamachariar and V. Hanumantachariar, Madras. *TC*, III. 3928; *SKC*, 61, 270. There is a copper plate grant of Ganga King Mārasimha dated 963 A.D. to a Jain Scholar Munjārya who had the titte "Vadighanghālabhatta" (See *Mys. Arch. Rep.* 1921). The contents of this plate and 6 other plates are described by R. Narasimhacarya in his paper "The Western Gangas of Talkad," published in the *Jl. Mythic Society*,

c38.117

Taruṇavācaspati,¹ S. K. Belvalkar and N. B. Raddi,² by Premacandra,³ by Jīvānanda,⁴ by Harinātha son of Viśveśvara,⁵ by Narasiṃha, Bhagīratha and Vijayānanda,⁶ by Viśvanātha,⁷ by Tribhuvanacandra,⁸ by Trisaraṇaṭa Bhīma,⁹ by Kṛṣṇakiṅkara Tarkavāgīśa Bhaṭṭācārya,¹⁰ by Mallinātha, son of Jagannātha,¹¹ and three anonymous.¹²

c38.118

¹ Ed. Madras, by M. Rangacharya with an introduction. *DC*, XXII. 8635. Tiruṇavācaspati and Vādighaṅghāla say in their commentary on I. 29, II 235 and IV. 4 that Daṇḍin there criticises Bhāmaha. Taruṇavācaspati quotes Bhoja and the Jain poet Hastimalla and is quoted in an anonymous Subhāṣitāsaṅgraha, probably of the 15th century. Poet Hastimalla referred to by him is probably the Jain dramatist (See S. K. De, *SP*, II. 72). The name is given as Dharmavācaspati in *Opp.* 2581.

c38.119

² Ed. *BSS*, Bombay.

c38.120

³ Printed, Calcutta.

c38.121

⁴ Printed, Calcutta.

c38.122

⁵ Ed. Madras. *DC*, XXII. 8633. It is called Hṛdayaṅgamā. In the commentary on I. 2, it is stated that before Daṇḍin, Kāśyapa and Vararuci had written works on Alaṅkāra and Kālidāsa had produced his poem. The second anonymous commentary is extant only to the 1st Pariccheda and seems to be an ancient work. This quotes the first verse of Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa. For the third, see *Mitra*, 297; *CSC*, VII. 21.

c38.123

⁶ *PR*, VI. 30 (Bod. 206). He was son of Viśvadhara and wrote a commentary on Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa. He cites Keśavamiśra.

c38.124

⁷ *CC*, I. 102. Nṛsiṃha was the son of Gadādhara and grandson of Kṛṣṇaśarman.

c38.125

⁸ Haraprasad Sastri's report (1896-00) and Haraprasad Sastri's *Notices*, second series. i-iv. He was a Jain and was also known as Vādisiṃha.

c38.126

⁹ *Hall's Index*, 63.

c38.127

¹⁰ *ICC*, No. 1497.

c38.128

¹¹ *CC*, II. 20. He is referred to by Viśveśvara in Alaṅkārakaustubha (69). He is different from Kolācala Mallinātha.

c38.129

¹² *CC*, I. 103; *Opp.* 4113.

c38.130

Bangalore. Gaṅga geneology from Koṅgaṇivarma to Marasiṃhadeva (Satyavākya) is given there. See *EI*, IV. 141; *Mys. Arch. Rep.* 1919; *Ep. Car.* X, Kolar 90. In commenting upon Kāvyādarśa, II. 279, he says

c38.131

रात (ज?) वर्मण इति रातवर्मा नाम ... ... ...

c38.132

and that verse is from Keralavaṃśakāvya. In mentioning previous rhetoricians (I. 2) he names Brahmaḍaṭṭa, Nandiśwami etc. He refers to Kusumamañjarī an Ākhyāyikā. Raṅgācārya and Agashe read *Rājavarman* and he referring to Rājasundaravarman alias Narasiṃhavarman II of Kāñcī whose titles Kālakāla Daṇḍin is said to have alluded to in Kāvyādarśa (III. 50) Mahāvarāṇa (*Ibid* IV. 25) is said to be a from referring to the royal token of Calukya Pulakesin II. S. K. De, (*SP*, I. 55) says "But the passage under discussion looks like a reference to a legendary rather than a comtemporary prince and as Pischell suggested the entire verse 278 may have been taken directly from a work relating to history."

c38.133

**817. Dharmakīrti** is an old writer on Alaṅkāra. He was a Buddhist philosopher.¹ He commented on Diṅgnāga's Pramāṇa-samuccaya and wrote several other works on Buddhistic philosophy.² His Buddhanirvāṇastotra is a short poem of devotion. Quotations in the anthologies show his exquisite poetry.³

c38.134

¹ Aufrecht, *ISt*, XVI. 204; *ZDMG*, XXVII. 41; *CC*, I. 268. He is quoted in the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha (I. 5). See also *BR*, (1897) xx.

c38.135

² For a full list of his works, see Thomas, *Kav.* 48-9.

c38.136

³ Bstod, foll. 222.

c38.137

**818. Bauddhasaṅgati**, though not now extant, is probably alluded to by Subandhu in his Vāsavadattā.⁴ It is quoted by Ānandavardhana⁵ and Kṣemendra.⁶

c38.138

⁴ Hall's Edn. 235 and preface 10: बौद्धसंगतिमिवलङ्कारभूषिताम्. On this Śivarāma says अलङ्कारो नाम धर्मकीर्तिकृतो ग्रन्थविशेष: See also R. V. Krishnamachariar, Int. to Vasa. xxxii; K. T. Telang, *JBRAS*, XVIII. 148; K. B. Pathak, *JBRAS*, XVIII. 88; L. H. Gray, Int. to Vasa. Levi denies this allusion (Bulletin de l' Ecole Francise d'Extreme Orient, III. 45). The Tebetan Tanjur does not mention this work.

c38.139

⁵ For quotations in the anthologies, see Peterson, *Subh.* 46-48; F. W. Thomas, *Kav.* 48-50. See for instance in *SDK*, II 141:

c38.140

⁶ See Peterson, *JBRAS*, XVI. 46-8, 172-3.

c38.141

According to Tārānātha,⁷ Dharmakīrti lived in the time of the Tibetan King Stron-tsan-Gampo, who was born in 617 A.D. and reigned 629-698 A.D.⁸ and if Diṅgnāga flourished in the 5th or 6th century A.D.⁹ it may be safe, apart from difference of opinion, to say

c38.142

⁷ *History of Buddhism.*

c38.143

⁸ Diṅgnāga's date is fixed at 5th or 6th century (see para 17 note *supra*) and Dharmakīrti must be at least half a century later. There is a tradition that at the instance of Bāṇa, Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa secretly studied under a Buddhist monk and after learning the secrets of their teaching vanquished Dharmakīrti, then they became friends and jointly composed the grammatical work Rūpāvatāra (Ed. Madras). This would make Bāṇa, Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa and Dharmakīrti contemporaries.

c38.144

⁹ Burnell's Preface to Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa; K. B. Pathak, (*JBRAS*, XVIII. 88) says that ITsing calls himself a contemporary of Dharmakīrti (MaxMuller, *India*, 210 and *IA*, XIX. 319 and Takakusu's Translation of ITsing's, *A record of the Buddhist religion*, iv et seq and the accuracy of the translation is disputed (see *JBRAS*, XVIII. 149). See also *IA*, IV. 141 and IX. 149, 316; K. T. Telang (*JBRAS*, XVIII. 149) calls attention to this fact that Sthiramati who was a contemporary of Dharmakīrti (MaxMuller, *India*, 305) died some considerable time before 587 A.D. (*IA*, VI. 9).

c38.145

शशिनमसूत प्राची नृत्यति मदनो हसन्ति ककुभोऽपि।
कुमुदरजः पटवासं विकिरति गगनाङ्गणे पवनः॥

c38.146

that Dharmakīrti flourished in the last quarter of the 6th and the early part of 7th century A.D.

c38.147

819. **Vamana** was a pcet of the Court of King Jayāpīda of Kāṣmir (779-819 A.D.)¹ and having migrated later to the Court of the Rāṣtrakūta King Jagaṭṭunga known as Govinḍa III (794-813 A.D,) he became also a member of his Council.² From the invocatory verses in his works, it is inferred that in religion he favoured Buddhism and Nainism. Abhinavagupṭa refers to Vāmāna's views as having been alluded to by Ānanḍavarḍhana and thus suggests that Vāmana was the earlier.³ Vāmana makes quotations⁴ from Kādambarī, Uṭṭararāmacariṭa, and Śiśupālavaḍha and these references make it probable that he flourished about the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century A.D.⁵ His Kāvyālamkārasūṭras with his own gloss⁶ are divided into 5 chapters and embrace the whole sphere of poetics. His theory is that style (रीति) is the soul of poetry,⁷ and though traces of this theory are discernible in earlier literature, it was Vāmana who clearly propounded it and created a school of poetics. The popularity of the work has brought it the name of Kāvipriyā.

c38.148

¹ > मनोरथश्शङ्कदत्तश्चटकस्सन्धिमांस्तथा ।

c38.149

² "While commenting on the phrase *Rājārtha* in the 9th Kārika of his Liṅgā-nusāsana Vāmana mentions Jagaṭṭunga-sabhā. Vāmana also mentions the name of the village Śrībhāvana as a village and this village is given in *EI*, XI. 162 (Vani Dindori and Radhanpur plates) of that King as a place where he spent the rainy season with his army." For the grants of Govinḍarāja III, see *EI*, VIII. App. 10-12; *EI*, V. 192.

c38.150

³ Dhvanyāloka, p. 37. वामनाभिप्रायेणायमाक्षेपः ।

c38.151

⁴ He also quotes from Subanḍhu, Amaruśāṭaka, Kirātārjunīya and Mṛccha-kaṭikā and refers to Kāmanḍakinīti, Nāmamālā and Hariprabodḥa, also to poets Viśā-khila (author of Kalāśāstra), Śūdraka and Kavirāja, probably the one mentioned as ancestor of Rājaśekhara. (?)

c38.152

⁵ Vāmana the author of the grammatical work Kāśika is referred to by Hiuen Tsang the Chinese Traveller and could not therefore be identical. See also *PR*, I. 28-30. See articles in *COJ*, and II.

c38.153

⁶ Edited by Cappeller (Jeena); also Bombay (Kāvyamāla) and Srirangam. Ed. by N. N. Kulkarni; Ed. by in *JSSP*, Calcutta. Tr. into English by Ganganath Jha.

c38.154

⁷ See para 801 *supra*. See article by K. Gopalakrishnasastri in *Andhra Sah. Par. Patrika*, XXI. 180 and by G. Ganapatisarma, in *Ibid*, XX. 317.

c38.155

There are commentaries on the Kāvyālaṅkārasūṭras by Gopenḍra

c38.156

बभूवुः कवयस्तस्य वामनाद्याश्च मंत्रिणः ॥ *Raj.* IV. 497.

c38.157

Tippa Bhūpāla¹ and by Maheśvara² and by Sahadeva.³ Sahadeva, the earliest commentator on the work says that the study of Vāmana's⁴ work had fallen into disuetude and Bhatta Mukula procured a manuscript and revived the interest in it.⁵

c38.158

¹ He is otherwise known as Tripurahara Bhūpāla, apparently a South Indian Prince. He cites Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha, Mallinātha and Dharmada and also a work called Kavikajāṅkuśa. He lived probably in the 16th century A.D. The commentary is called Kāmadhenu. Ed. Benares and Srirangam.

c38.159

² *IOC*, 566 C. Bod. 2076. See for further information under Śrīvatsalāñchana and Subodhanamiśra, commentators on Mammaṭa *post*.

c38.160

³ Sahadeva was a desciple of Śaṅkadhara and belonged to the family of Tomaras. He learnt the work from Bhatta Mukula.

c38.161

⁴ On Vāmana generally, see V. V. Sovani, *Bhandarakar Com. Vol.* 398; G. A. Jacob, *JRAS*, (1897), 288; Buhler, *Bkl*, 65; P. V. Kane, *IA*, XLI. 204; Vāmanācārya, Introduction to Kāvyaprakasa; Pischell, Introduction to Śṛṅgāratilaka; Capeller, Introduction to Edn. (His date as later than 1000 A.D. is untenable). S. K. De, *SP*, 81-4.

c38.162

⁵ 5.

c38.163

Besides this work on rhetoric the following works were also Vāmana's compositions, Lingānuśasana,⁶ Vidyādharakāvya⁷ and part of Kāśikāvṛtti.⁸

c38.164

⁶ Ed. with the author's own commentary by C. D. Dalal, (GOS) with introduction.

c38.165

⁷ This is referred to by Vardhamāna in his Gaṇaratnamahodadhi

c38.166

⁸ The joint author was Jayāditya. See Belwalkar, *Systems of Sanskrit Grammar* and articles in *JSSP*, Calcutta by Malati Sen.

c38.167

320.

c38.168

Udbhata was a poet of tha court of King Jayāpīda of Kāṣmir (779-813 A.D.) and was the President of the royal Council on a salary of a lakh of dinaras a day. In that council was Manoratha, Śaṅkhadatta, Cataka, Sandhiman, Vāmana etc.

c38.169

So says Kalhaṇa (*Raj.* IV. 495, 497) :

c38.170

विद्वान् दीनारलक्षेण प्रत्यहं कृतवेतनः ।
भट्टोऽभूदुद्भटस्तस्य भूमिभर्तुस्सभापतिः ॥
मनोरथश्शङ्खदत्तश्चटकस्सन्धिमांस्तथा ।
बभूवुः कवयस्तस्य वामनाद्याश्च मन्त्रिणः ॥

c38.171

वेदिता सर्वशास्त्राणां भट्टोऽभून्मुकुलाभिधः ।
लब्ध्वा कुतश्चिदादर्शं भ्रष्टाम्नायसमुद्धृतम् ।
काव्यालङ्कारशास्त्रं यत्नेनैतद्रामनोदितम् ।

c38.172

"वामनोऽविश्रान्तविद्याधरकाव्यकर्ता"

c38.173

In Sadgurusantānaparimala it is stated that Abhinavaśaṅkara, 38th Ācārya of Kāmakotīpīṭha was contemporary of Udbhata:

c38.174

क्षीरस्वामिमनोरथेशचटकश्रीसन्धिमच्छङ्कक-
श्रीदामोदरदङ्कयवामनमहोपाध्यायमुख्यान् कवीन् ।
अष्टावप्यभिभूय दुर्जयतया भट्टोद्भटः प्रत्यहं
यो दीनारकलक्षवेतनवहः कोश्याग्रतस्सोऽप्यभूत् ॥

c38.175

According to Kalhaṇa, Jayāpīḍa roamed about other kingdoms with a feigned name Kallaṭa and while witnessing Bharaṭanāṭya in the temple of Kārtikeya at Pauṇḍravardhana (in Gauḍa Country ruled by king Jayanta) he was so taken up by the graces of the art, that he took with him one of the dancing women, Kamalā and made her his queen. It was probably at the request of the king that Udbhaṭa began his writings.¹

c38.176

¹ *Raj*. IV. 412-434.

c38.177

Ānandavadhana mentions him with great reverence.² His KAVYALANKARASANGRAHA, a treatise in six chapters, deals with 41 figures of speech.³

c38.178

² Bom. Edn., pages 96, 108.

c38.179

³ Ed GOS, Baroda. Rājānaka Ṭilaka is mentioned by Jayaratha in his commentary on Alaṅkārasarvasva, as the author of Udbhaṭaviveka (Bom. Edn., 118). Ṭilaka was the father of Ruyyaka (Rucaka) and lived about the end of the 11th century. for whom see *post*. In the introduction to this edition by K. S. Ramaswamisastri Siromani discusses all that relates to this commentary.

c38.180

There are two commentaries on it, one Vivṛti (now anonymous), probably the same as Udbhaṭaviveka of Rājānaka Ṭilaka, the other by Pratīhārendurāja.⁴

c38.181

⁴ Ed. by Banhatti, Bombay.

c38.182

Udbhaṭa’s gloss Bhāmahavivaraṇa is referred to by Ānandavardhana, Abhinavagupta and Hemacandra.

c38.183

**821.** Udbhaṭa’s poem **Kumarasambhava** is extant only in the illustrations quoted in his Kāvyālaṅkarasaṅgraha. The few verses so preserved indicate a grace of expression and a mode of narration, which far transcends the theme of Kālidāsa in its poetic propriety. These are some verses:

c38.184

ततः प्रभृति निस्सङ्गो नागकुञ्जरकृत्तिभृत् । शितिकण्ठः कालगलत्सतीशोकानलव्यथः ॥
तत्र तोयाशयाशेषव्याकोशितकुशेशया । चकाशे शालिकणिशकपिशाशामुखा शरत् ॥
सान्द्रारविन्दवृन्दोत्थमकरन्दाम्बुबिन्दुभिः । स्यन्दिभिस्सुन्दरस्यन्दं नन्दितेन्दिन्दिरा क्वचित् ॥

c38.185

केलिलोलालिमालानां कलैः कोलाहलैः क्वचित् । कुर्वती काननारूढश्रीनूपुररवभ्रमम् ॥
क्वचिदुत्फुल्लकमला कमलान्तष्षट्पदा । षट्पदक्वाणमुखरा मुखरस्फारसारसा ॥
पद्मिनीः पद्मिनी गाढस्पृहयागत्य मानसात् । अन्तर्दन्तुरयामासुर्हंसा हंसकुलालयात् ॥
जितान्यपुष्पकिञ्जल्ककिञ्जल्कश्रेणिशोभितम् । लेभेऽवतंसतां नारीमुखेन्दुश्वसितोत्पलम् ॥
काशाः काशा इवाभान्ति सरांसीव सरांसि च । चेतस्याचिक्षिपुर्यूनां निम्नगा इव निम्नगाः ॥
ज्योत्स्नाम्बुनेन्दुकुम्भेन ताराकुसुमशारितम् । क्रमशो रात्रिकन्यासिन्योमद्यानमसिञ्च्यत ॥
उत्पतद्भिः पतद्भिश्च पिञ्छालीवालशालिभिः । राजहंसैरखीड्यन्त शरदेव सरोनृपाः ॥
आसारधाराविशिखैः नभोभागप्रभासिभिः । प्रसाध्यते स्म धवलैराशाराज्यं वलाहकैः ॥
संजहार शरत्कालः कदम्बकुसुमश्रियः । प्रेयोवियोगिनीनां च निश्शेषसुखसम्पदः ॥
क्षणं कामज्वरोच्छित्त्यै भूयस्सन्‍तापवृद्धये । वियोगिनामभूच्चान्द्री चन्द्रिका चन्दनं यथा ॥
तरुण्य इव भान्ति स्म चक्रवातैः स्तनैरिव । प्रबोधाडुवळं रात्रौ किञ्जल्कालीनषट्पदम् ।
शशाङ्कबिम्बेन समं बभौ कुमुदकाननम् ॥
अपि सा सुमुखी तिष्ठेददृष्टे पथि कथंचन । अप्रार्थितोपसम्पन्ना पतितानन्यवृष्टिवत् ॥

c38.186

इति काले कलोल्लापिकादम्बकुलसंकुले । विद्ध्याधीशशार्दूलः पश्चात्तापेन धूर्जटिः ॥
तां शशिरुच्छायवदनां नीलोत्पलदलेक्षणाम् । सरोजकलिकागौरीं गौरीं प्रति मनो दधे ॥

c38.187

सदग्धविग्रहेणापि वीर्यमात्रस्थितात्मना । स्पृष्टः कामेन सामान्यप्राणिचिन्तमाचिन्तयत् ॥
चण्डाळकल्पे कन्दर्पे प्लुष्टा मयि तिरोहिते । सञ्जातातुलनैराश्या किं सा शोकान्मृता भवेत् ॥

c38.188

स गौरीशिखरं गत्वा ददर्शामां तपः कृशाम् । राहुपीतप्रमस्येन्दोर्जयन्तीं दूरतस्तनुम् ॥
पद्मं च निशि निश्श्रीकं दिवा चन्द्रं च निष्प्रभम् । स्फुरच्छाdomainयेन सततं मुखेनाधः प्रकुर्वतीम् ॥
शीर्णपर्णाम्बुवाताशकट्ठेऽपि तपसि स्थिताम् । समुद्वहन्तीं नापूर्वं गर्वमन्यतपस्सिवत् ॥
या शैशिरी श्रीस्तपसा मासेनैकेन विश्रुता । तपसा तां सुदीर्घेण दूराद्विदधतीमधः ॥
अङ्गलेखांमकारश्मीरसमाळम्भनपिञ्जराम् । अनलक्तकताम्राभामोष्ठमुद्रां च विभ्रतीम् ॥
दन्तप्रभासुमनसं पाणिपल्लवशोषिनीम् । तन्वीं वनगतां लीनजटाषट्चरणावलिम् ॥
तपस्तेजस्फुरितया निजलावण्यसंपदा । तपस्सायाः कृतान्त्यत्वं कौमराद्येन लक्ष्यते ॥
अचिन्तयच्च भगवानहो नु रमणीयता ।
पतेयदि शशिश्योत्च्छठा पद्मे विकासिनि । मुक्ताफलाक्षमालायाः करेड्स्याः स्यात्तदोपमा ॥
मन्ये च निपतन्त्यस्याः कटाक्षा दिक्षु पृष्ठतः । प्राणानामे तु गच्छन्ति स्मरबाणपरम्पराः ॥

c38.189

किंव्रात बहुनोक्तेन व्रज भर्तारमाप्नुहि । उदन्वन्तमनासाद्य महानद्यः किमासते ॥

c38.190

822 Lollaṭa's commentary on Bharaṭa is mentioned by Abhinavagupṭa and other later writers. He seems to have definitely championed the theory of rasa, and this Śaṅkuka who came after him attacked. He was probably a Kāśmīrian and lived about the beginning of the 9th century A.D., because according to Abhinavagupṭa he controverted the views of Uḍbhaṭa. On the question of denotation of words, he held that *abhidhā* is comprehensive enough to include any implication or suggestion, so he is called by Mammaṭa and Hemacandra as Dīrghavyāpāravādin. There is Rājaśekhara's quotation in Kāvyamīmāṁsa (p. 45) :

c38.191

" 'अस्तु नाम निस्सीमा अर्थसार्थः । किन्तु रसवत् एव निबन्धो युक्तः, न नीरसस्य इति आपराजितिः । यदाह—
> ' मज्जनपुष्पावचयनसन्ध्याचन्द्रोदयादिवाक्यमिह ।
> सरसमपि नातिबहुलं प्रकृतरसान्वितं रचयेत् ॥
> यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरपुरतुरगरथादिवर्णने यत्नः ।
> कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः स इह ॥' "

c38.192

This second verse is quoted along with another by Hemacandra in his Kāvyānuśāsana (p. 35) as Lollaṭa's :

c38.193

यथाह लोल्लटः—
> ' यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगंतुरगपुरारिवर्णने यत्नः ।
> कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥
> यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदोऽतिरसविरोधिन्यः ।
> अभिमानमात्रमेतद्गुड्डुरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥' इति

c38.194

This suggests that Lollaṭa was son of Aparājita.¹

c38.195

¹ Vallabhadeva has a verse of Bhaṭṭa Aparājita (*Subh.* 1024) which looks satirical :

c38.196

क्षुत्क्षामेण कथं कथंचिदहर्निशं गात्रं कृशं बिभ्रता
भ्रान्तं येन गृहे गृहे गृहवतामुच्छिष्टपिण्डार्थिना ।
अस्थ्नः खण्डमवाप्य दैवपतितं शून्यां त्रिलोकीमिमां
मन्वानो विगतह्री स एव सरमापुत्रोऽद्य सिंह्यायते ॥

c38.197

Is he identical with Aparājita, the poet who was a contemporary of Rājaśekhara and mentioned in his prologue to Bālarāmāyaṇa (see para 655 *supra*). On Lollaṭa, see S. K. De, *SP.* 38 and Vamanācārya, *Int. to Kāvyaprakāśa.*

c38.198

**823. Sankuka**¹ is by tradition known to have criticised the views of Lollata on rasa, and he was probably a younger contemporary of Lollata, for his poem Bhuvanābhyudaya² was composed during the reign of Ajitāpīḍa, King of Kāṣmīr (814-851 A.D.)³ Śaṅkuka's commentary on Nāṭyaśāstra is quoted by Abhinavagupta and later writers. He lived earlier than Ānandavardhana.

c38.199

¹ In the Sārṅgadharapaddhati and Suktimuktāvali, the verse

c38.200

² Thus says Rājatarangiṇī (IV. 703-4)

c38.201

³ S. P. Pandit's Pref. to Gaudavāno, lxxxvii.

First 200 of 1,045 passages. Read on

Linked texts (122)