Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s11.1

c10.s11.1

Bhavabhūti was born in a very orthodox family of traditional brāhmaṇas. He was also deeply steeped in Śāstric learning. He is rightly described as a *padavākya-pramāṇajña* (adept in Vyākaraṇa, Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā) in all the three prologues of his plays. One of the theories about Bhavabhūti that he is identical with the famous Mīmāṁsaka Umveka is yet to be testified or refuted. But then there has been a debate on the question whether a great philosopher like Bhavabhūti loses his *āptatva* (reliability) just because he has indulged in writing some piece of romantic dramas! Citsukha in his *Tattvapradīpa* holds both Bhavabhūti the poet and Umveka the Mīmāṁsaka as one and the same person and discusses the authenticity of his dramatic writings. He is of the view that Bhavabhūti is an *āpta* (authority) in philosophy; he does not become *anāpta* (non-authority) by having composed a few dramatic pieces (*nahi purā āpta eva san nāṭaka-nāṭikādiviracanamātreṇa anāpto bhavati bhavabhūtiḥ*).²⁹