Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s15: Vāda in Kāvya and Kāvya in Vāda

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c10.s15

Language
English

Vāda in Kāvya and Kāvya in Vāda

c10.s15.1

The intellectual scenario during the period between fifth century BCE to tenth century CE was so much dominated by debates and formulation of *vāda* techniques that many litterateurs were inspired to take up debate as a major theme in their works. Intellectual discourses and poetic vision in such writings go hand in hand.

c10.s15.2

In the realms of belles-lettres, the whole conceptual framework of *chala* (cheating) gets transformed to culminate into the subtle charms of poetic deception. *Vāda* was reformulated with an aesthetic design yielding *alaṁkāras* like *vakrokti*. The gods and goddesses, lovers and also potent enemies were depicted displaying their debating skills to win an argument in a sportive way.

c10.s15.3

*Vakrokti*, a vital and pervasive concept of poetics as outlined by Bhāmaha (sixth-seventh century CE) and Kuntaka (ninth century CE), was narrowed to a small figure of speech by theorists like Mammaṭa. Interestingly, however, *vakrokti* as a figure of speech is completely based on the techniques of debate. Mammaṭa in his *Kāvyaprakāśa* defines *vakrokti* as an *alaṃkāra* where the contention of someone is misconstrued deliberately with an entirely different motive through pun on words or through intonations (*kāku*). This is defined as *chala* in Gautama’s *Nyāyasūtra*. The divisions of *chala* — *vāk-chala* and *upacāra-chala* — cover both the types of *vakrokti* as defined by Mammaṭa. Literary tradition in Sanskrit abounds with beautiful examples of figurative poetry based on these categories to form *vakrokti alaṃkāra*. In the propitiatory verse of his *Mudrārākṣasa*, Viśākhadatta presents a debate between Pārvatī and Śiva through the following dialogues:

c10.s15.4

*“Who is this blessed one seated on your head?”*
*“It is Śashikalā (the digit of the moon)”*
*“O, is her name Śaśikalā then?”*
*“Yes, the digit of moon is named as Śaśikalā. You are familiar with it, how do you forget it?”*
*“I am asking about the lady, and not the Moon!”*
*“If you do not believe that it is moon, then let Vijayā tell you!”*
*May the mischievousness of Lord Śiva,*
*desirous of concealing the celestial river Ganges from Umā in this way,*
*Protect you!*³⁸

c10.s15.5

Many more such stanzas can be cited.³⁹ Such stanzas mostly make a creative and subtle use of the *vāda* techniques. In fact, some of the great poets like Amaruka have created moments of intense suffering and pathos in their lyrics through this kind of *vāda*.

c10.s15.6

In the *kathā* (narrative) literature, a story is quite often structured through *vāda*. This is best exemplified by *Pañcatantra*, where the questions of polity and ethics are raised. The *pūrva-pakṣa* and *siddhānta-pakṣa* are presented and there is a subsidiary tale, as an illustration for them. In fact, almost every tale in *Pañcatantra* imbibes a *pañcāvayava-vākya* (the five-member syllogism). There is a statement, the reason for it is explained, a story is narrated as an illustration, then application of the same in the present context is brought out, followed by a statement of conclusion. *Śukasārikā* — a collection of tales told by a parrot to a lady wanting to visit a paramour — is another example of *vāda*.

c10.s15.7

*Prabodhacandrodaya* of Kṛṣṇa Miśra is known as an allegorical play. Kṛṣṇa Miśra is a devout Vedāntin, and his play is composed with a mission to impart the message of Vedānta. Of course, his achievements as a poet and dramatist are no less noteworthy. In *Prabodhacandrodaya*, Viveka, the protagonist is trying to lead the mankind to the path of renunciation whereas the antagonist, Mahāmoha is all set to lead them to delusion. As the crisis precipitates, the Vedāntic view is unfolded through dialogues and discussions. Amongst the accomplices of King Mahāmoha, Kāma and Rati are shown dallying in amorous pleasures; Lobha (greed), Dambha (arrogance), Ahaṁkāra (ego) and Cārvāka are active in misleading the people; while Viveka leads his queen Mati to the disillusionment and freedom from her bondages by making her shun the attachments. *Prabodhacandrodaya* offers a critique of society and the double standards of men. It is a play where brilliance of scholarship and knowledge combines with poetic fancy and debates are made a part of this integration.

c10.s15.8

Ahaṁkāra laughs at the pseudo-scholars:

c10.s15.9

They have not listened to the *gurumata* (theory of Prabhākara), have not learnt Kumārila’s philosophy, they do not have true knowledge of the text of Śārika (the two *pañjikās* or sub-commentaries named *Ṛjuvimalā* and *Dīpaśikhā* on the two commentaries *Nibandhana* and *Vivaraṇa* on *Śābarabhāṣya*), what to talk of Vācaspati’s text! They did not learn wise sayings of Mahodadhi,⁴⁰ they have not seen the text of Mahāvrata.⁴¹

c10.s15.10

The authors of *Candrikā* and *Prakāśa* commentaries provide enlightenment on some of the *ācāryas* mentioned by Kṛṣṇa Miśra.⁴²

c10.s15.11

Ahaṁkāra laughs at the Vedānta system for its inconsistencies and refers to its affinity with the Buddhist philosophies.⁴³

c10.s15.12

*Prabodhacandrodaya* was an experiment which opened a gateway for the philosopher-poets to explore new vistas on the literary horizon with their wisdom, insight and intellect.

c10.s15.13

*Saṅkalpasūryodaya* of Veṅkaṭanātha in ten acts is modelled on *Prabodhacandrodaya* of Kṛṣṇa Miśra. It was composed at Śrīraṅgam, before its author flew from that place due to Mohammadan invasion.⁴⁴ Like *Prabodhacandrodaya*, the play depicts the symbolic fight between the two kings — Mahāmoha (Great Delusion) and Viveka (wisdom). Mahāmoha has followers like Vasanta (spring season), Rāga (infatuation), Kāma (love), Krodha (anger), Lobha (greed), Tṛṣṇā (thirst), Mada (intoxication), Kuhanā, Asūyā (zealousy) and Dveṣa (malice); whereas the protagonist is accompanied by his wife Sumati and is assisted by Vyavasāya (decision) as the army chief, Śraddhā (faith), Vicāraṇā (thought), Virakti, Viṣṇubhakti, Saṅkalpa (resolution), Buddhi (intelligence), Guru (the master) and Śiṣya (the disciple). Puruṣa (the Man) represents the Jīva (individual soul). The tussle between these two parties involves. It culminates in the emancipation of Puruṣa with the help of Viveka, Sumati, etc.

c10.s15.14

The second act of the play is specially significant as it presents a scene of debate between the disciple and the followers of rival systems, including the Advaitavādins also. The Śiṣya who symbolizes *vāda* (debate) itself, reportedly engages in verbal dual not only with the followers of non-Vedic systems, he also counters and argues against the followers of Sāṁkhya, Vaiśeṣika, Pāśupata, Pāñcarātra and Bhāṭṭa-Mīmāṁsā systems.

c10.s15.15

The play establishes Rāmānuja's philosophy through debates between his followers and their opponents. The first act is titles Svapakṣasthāpanam (establishing own view). In act II, titled Paramatabhaṅgaḥ (destroying the rival views), Mahāmoha sends the groups of Buddhists, Jainas and the followers of Bṛhaspati (Cārvāka philosophy) to debate with the supporters of Viveka. Rāmānuja himself is represented as Guru and the author of the play projects himself in the character of Śiṣya. In the third act the moves of Rāga and Dveṣa are countered by Virakti and Viṣṇubhakti and the rivals are routed. Viveka and Sumati then start working for the emancipation of Puruṣa. In the fourth act, the army of enemies, Kāma, Krodha, Vasanta, etc. corner and attack Puruṣa and try to win him over, they are forced to run away by the strategic move of Viveka. In the fifth act, these members of the rival group start blaming each other for the setback, Mahāmoha appears to boost their moral. In the sixth act, Mahāmoha is reported to have sent his spy to locate Puruṣa, whereas Viveka appears with his charioteer Tarka (argument) to search for a suitable place where Puruṣa can be engaged in spiritual practice and meditation. The seventh act presents Hṛdayamaṇḍapa (pavilion of heart) with paintings of the Universe, Vyavasāya, the army chief, shows the various profiles depicted in the paintings to Viveka and Sumati. The discussions include the process of meditating upon the form of Lord Viṣṇu. The eighth act describes the defeat of the army of Mahāmoha, and finally the ninth and tenth acts present Puruṣa attaining liberation.

c10.s15.16

*Śrīyatirājavijayam* or *Vedāntavilāsa* by Śrīvātsya Varadācārya (fourteenth-fifteenth century CE) is another play written in the lines of *Prabodhacandrodaya* and *Saṅkalpasūryodaya*. The author hailed from Kāñcī. He was the son of Ghaṭikala Sudarśana. He composed the play with a view to establish the supremacy of Rāmānuja system. Vedamauli, the hero of the play, is accompanied by characters like Sumati and Sunītā, who personify the epics, Dharmaśāstra and other Śāstras.

c10.s15.17

*Dāsacaritam* of Śrīśailasuri is a poem in sixteen cantos dealing with the Viśiṣṭādvaita philosophy, particularly the Vaiṣṇava tradition. The protagonist, Rāmānujadāsa, is initiated into Vaiṣṇavism by Śrīraṅgalakṣmaṇa Muni along with his wife. The poem describes his spiritual journey and inner quest as well as his pilgrimage to 108 holy places. The fifth canto has discourses on two systems for their refutation. Rāmānujadāsa is first inclined to join the Cārvāka system, but gives up the idea after exploring the system; then he is also influenced by the Śaiva sect. Finally he approaches Śrīraṅgalakṣmaṇa Muni.

c10.s15.18

There are a number of other plays and poems that also have a structure of debate. A new genre in dramatic writings was created and plays with exclusive theme of a philosophical or religious debate were produced. *Mudritakumudacandra*, a *prakaraṇa* by Muni Yaśovijaya, is based on the debate between two Jaina preceptors of diverse sects.

c10.s15.19

The theme of this play revolves around the debate between Devasūri and Kumudacandra, a Digambara monk. Kumudacandra, the opponent, is described as *jalpa-kelīśraddhāluḥ* (devoted to the sport of debate) here⁴⁵ and also *nirvyūḍhanaikavādivijayakelidur-lalitaḥ* (having developed arrogance after winning several debates like sports).⁴⁶ The protagonist, after learning that Kumudacandra has been abusing the Śvetāmbara sect, sends a letter challenging him to have a debate. Before the start of the debate, Kumudacandra describes his victories over Mīmāṁsakas, Sāṁkhyas, Vedāntins, etc. in a very boastful way. Yaśaścandra used the term *jalpotsava* (festival of debate) for this event.⁴⁷

c10.s15.20

The play presents the scene of debate with the king on chair. The debate however is presented by giving hints of discourse between the opponent and the respondent and the details of the deliberations are not given.

c10.s15.21

*Viśvaguṇādarśacampū* of Veṅkaṭādhvarin is a poem in mixed form of prose and verse using the techniques of debate for describing the merits and demerits of various regions, places, cities and religious sects and ideologies in a melody of poetic diction and most subtle imageries. The poet was the grandson of Appayya Dīkṣita, a great philosopher and poet of seventeenth century. With exquisite literary style, Veṅkaṭādhvarin describes here a mega debate between Kṛśānu and Viśvāvasu — two *gandharvas* viewing the earth from above and discussing its surroundings. Kṛśānu presents the prima-facie view and the latter offers resolutions to his remonstrations as well as his deconstructions. Kṛśānu is not only destructive in his attitude, he is very sarcastic and constantly keeps on hammering his punches. He does not hesitate in employing abusive and derogatory language for gods and sacred places — like Badarikāśrama; deities like the Sun or Śaṅkara; rivers like Gaṅgā or Kāverī; and cities like Ayodhyā or Kāśī. In a novel delineation of the techniques of debate, Veṅkaṭādhvarin has introduced moments of theatrical tension. There are dramatic directions like *sārdhāṅgīkāram* (accepting half heartedly). Kṛśānu is very bitter in describing the hypocrisy of the brāhmaṇas of Kāśī and the Maharashtrian brāhmaṇas are also not spared. About the *paṇḍits* of Kāśī, he says:

c10.s15.22

No one makes studies here. Even if one pursues learning out of hundreds and thousands, he will rest in fallacious arguments and avoid genuine arguments based on Śruti and Smṛti.⁴⁸

c10.s15.23

Revealing stark realities of his times, the poet gives a voice to the materialist view through his antagonist — Kṛśānu. Kṛśānu goes even to the extent of saying that God functions on the fear psychosis of the poor people, so that the act of worship becomes a give and take business (v. 196). On the other hand, his critiques at some places exemplify the genre of *vyājastuti* (praise disguised as condemnation). About the presiding deity of Ekāmreśvara (Śiva) in south, he says:

c10.s15.24

O friend why are you talking of Rudra, his actions are all strange. We find people trying to cool their eyes. Here is he, in accordance with his names Paśupati (god of animals) and Sthāṇu (wood, dumb wit), he has inflicted (one of his) his eyes with fire.⁴⁹

c10.s15.25

Viśvāvasu's rebuttal is equally interesting:

c10.s15.26

He is Hara, he bears fire in His eye as a *hasantī* (hearth) to protect his limbs from the cold caused

c10.s15.27

by moon and Gaṅges.⁵⁰ Kṛśānu who agrees in the end that he was deliberately postulating the *pūrva-pakṣa*, with a view to reaffirm the *siddhānta-pakṣa* (v. 593). Therefore he sometimes presents the prima-facie view with inherent suggestions of the *siddhānta-pakṣa*. This is particularly true in his condemnation of the Rāmānuja sect.⁵¹

c10.s15.28

As the aerial view rotates from cities, rivers and sacred places to sects and the discussions also turn around the ideas and schools of philosophy. Kṛśānu criticizes Vedāntins, the astrologers, *vaidyas*, *kavis* and *tārkikas*. Replying to Kṛśānu's repudiation of the *tārkikas*, Viśvāvasu emphasizes over the need for cultivation of Tarkaśāstra (logic). A man may spend his life studying the *kāvyas*, he may cross the vast sea of Śāstras, but look at his pathetic condition if he has not studied the Nyāyaśāstra! His tongue would become still when he tries to say something in the assembly where a *vāda* is going on! Enough of these scholars who have not made inquiries into the Pramāṇaśāstra, have not considered the categories and have not delved deep into the logic, and have not studied the *tarkavidyā*!⁵²

c10.s15.29

Veṅkaṭādhvarin cites the names of some of the greatest philosophers who displayed their debating skills.⁵³ Mīmāṁsā of Jaimini receives applause for his ability to silence all the *vādīs* belonging to other systems of philosophy.⁵⁴

c10.s15.30

He refers to diverse sects and their practices. Kṛśānu's tone becomes more aggressive even as Viśvāvasu appears more defensive, pacifying and soothing. Veṅkaṭādhvarin is very sympathetic towards Mādhvas, but he does not hesitate in recording most ruthless statements against them from the mouth of Kṛśānu (vv. 177-82). More elaborate is Viśvāvasu's fervent plea for the Mādhvas (vv. 183-90). But his faith finds full expression in advocating Rāmānuja and his sect. Fierce debates describing bitterness between Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas are alluded (vv. 337-40). Veṅkaṭādhvarin's approach is for harmony and understanding. He also points out the form of Harihara which is represented in the city of Kāñcī (v. 341).

c10.s15.31

The descriptions assume a more authentic tone as the poet moves from Bhūloka and Kāśī towards south — he rejoices in presenting the scenario Āndhra and Karnataka. He appears to be better equipped with the knowledge of ground realities in these areas. Kṛśānu severely criticizes Rāmānuja and his followers for making use of dialects, especially Tamil (v. 230). It is here that Veṅkaṭādhvarin makes pronouncements of most sublime and generous ideologue in favour of using Tamil. Kṛśānu makes very strong and bitter pronouncements about some religious sects and Viśvāvasu matches him in defence with equal brilliance.⁵⁵

c10.s15.32

With his tendency to condemn everything, Kṛśānu unearths the dark sides and uses the method of *vitaṇḍā*. Kṛṣṇa to him is *corajārasikhāmaṇi* (crown of thieves and paramours) and *jagadatisandhātā* (deceiver of the world).⁵⁶ The section on Maharashtra is particularly damaging. Veṅkaṭādhvarin takes note of the compromises that the brāhmaṇas made with the Muslim rulers.⁵⁷

c10.s15.33

Veṅkaṭādhvarin is enamoured by the variety of *tīrthas* in south and sings in their praise with an abandon. The text became so popular that it was discussed for its documentation of various religious sects. It was examined for its debate on various issues. The adherents of Tengle, a religious sect, were not satisfied with the defence that the author of *Viśvaguṇādarśacampū* gave and some supporter inserted ten verses eulogizing this sect. These verses are found even in very old manuscripts of the text.⁵⁸

c10.s15.34

¹ चतुर्विधत्वमेतेषां विज्ञेयं गानयोक्तॢभिः । वादी चैवाथ संवादी विवादी चानुवाद्यपि ।। — *Nātyaśāstra* XXVIII.22

c10.s15.35

² *Nātyaśāstra*, chap. I.

c10.s15.36

³ *Śilpaka* is one of the *uparūpakas* (minor forms of drama).

c10.s15.37

⁴ *Nātyaśāstra*, chap. XXXVII.

c10.s15.38

⁵ काव्यवस्तुषु निर्दिष्टो द्वादशाभिनयात्मकः । आलापश्च प्रलापश्च विलापः स्यात्तथैव च । अनुलापोऽथ संलापस्त्रवपलापस्तथैव च ।। सन्देशश्चातिदेशश्च निर्देशः स्यात्तथापरः । उपदेशोऽपदेशश्च व्यपदेशश्च कीर्तितः ।। आभाषणं तु यद्वाक्यमालापो नाम स स्मृतः । अनर्थकं वचो यत्तु प्रलापः स तु कीर्तितः । करुणप्रभवो यस्तु विलापः स तु कीर्तितः । बहुशोऽभिहितं वाक्यमनुलाप इति स्मृतः ।। उक्तिप्रत्युक्तिसंयुक्त ◌ः संलाप इति कीर्तितः ।

c10.s15.39

पूर्वोक्त स्यान्यथावादो ह्यपलाप इति स्मृतः ।
तदिदं वचनं ब्रूहीत्येष सन्देश उच्यते ।
यत्त्वयोक्तं मयोक्तं तत्सोऽतिदेश इति स्मृतः ।।
स एषोऽहं ब्रवीमीति निर्देश इति कीर्तितः ।
व्याजान्तरेण कथनं व्यपदेश इहोच्यते ।।
इदं कुरु गृहाणेति ह्युपदेशः प्रकीर्तितः ।
अन्यार्थकथनं यत्स्यात्सोऽपदेशः प्रकीर्तितः ।। — *Nāṭyaśāstra* XXII.51-59

c10.s15.40

⁶ सर्वलोकमनोग्राdefaultहि यस्तु पक्षार्थसाधकः । हेतोर्निदर्शनकृतः स दृष्टान्त इति स्मृतः ।। — Ibid. XVI.142

c10.s15.41

⁷ दृष्ट्वावयवान्कांचिद्भावो यत्त्वनुमीयते । प्राप्तिं तामपि जानीयाल्लक्षणं नाटकाश्रयम् । — Ibid. XVI.143

c10.s15.42

⁸ द्रव्यं ते तनुरायताक्षि दयिता रूपादयस्ते गुणाः सामान्यं तव यौवनं युवजनः संस्तोति कर्माणि ते । त्वय्यर्थे समवायमिच्छति जनो यस्माद् विशेषोऽस्ति ते योगस्ते तरुणैर्मनोभिलाषितैर्मोक्षोऽप्यनिष्टाज्जनात् ।। — Cited by Abhinavagupta in *Abhinavabhāratī* on *Nāṭyaśāstra* XVI.136, *Nāṭyaśāstra*, vol. II, Delhi, 1988, p. 257

c10.s15.43

⁹ व्यवसायश्च विज्ञेयः प्रतिज्ञाहैतुसंभवः । वाक्यमाधर्षसंयुक्तं द्युतिस्तज्ज्ञैरुदाहृता । परिवादकृतं यस्यात्तदाहुः परिभाषणम् ।। — *Nāṭyaśāstra* XIX.19

c10.s15.44

¹⁰ परिभाषा मिथो जल्पः । — *Daśarūpaka* I.52

c10.s15.45

¹¹ *Nāṭyaśāstra* XVIII.103-06.

c10.s15.46

¹² Ibid. XVIII.113-25.

c10.s15.47

¹³ लोको वेदस्तथाध्यात्मं प्रमाणं त्रिविधं स्मृतम् । वेदाध्यात्मपदार्थेषु प्रायो नाट्यं प्रतिष्ठितम् । — *Nāṭyaśāstra* XXV.120

c10.s15.48

¹⁴ उक्ति प्रत्युक्ति मद्वाक्यं वाकोवाक्यं विदुर्बुधाः । द्वयोर्वक्त्रोस्तदिच्छन्ति बहूनामपि सङ्‌गमे ।। — *Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa* II.3

c10.s15.49

¹⁵ *Kāvyaprakāśa* IX.78.

c10.s15.50

¹⁶ वार्ता कामसूत्रां शिल्पशास्त्रं दण्डनीतिरिति पूर्वेः सहाष्टादश विद्यास्थानानि - इत्यपरे । आन्वीक्षिकी त्रयी वार्ता दण्डनीतिश्चेति विद्याः । दण्डनीतिरेवैका इत्यौशनसाः । दण्डभयाद्धि कृत्स्नो लोकः स्वेषु स्वेषु कर्मस्ववतिष्ठते । वार्त्तादण्डनीतिर्द्वे विद्ये इति बार्हस्पत्याः । वृत्तिर्विनयग्रहणं च स्थितिलौकयात्रायाः । त्रयी वार्ता दण्डनीतयस्तिस्रो विद्या इति मानवाः । त्रयी हि वार्त्तादण्डनीत्योरुपदेष्ट्री । आन्वीक्षिकीत्रयीवार्त्तादण्डनीतयश्चतस्रो विद्या इति कौटिल्यः । आन्वीक्षिक्या हि विवेचिता त्रयी वार्तादण्डनीत्योः प्रभवति । पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्येति यायावरीयः । — *Kāvyamīmāṁsā*, chap. II, pp. 24-25

c10.s15.51

¹⁷ असत्यार्थाभिधायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यम् काव्यम् इत्येके। — *Kāvyamīmāṁsā*, chap. VI, pp. 81-82 असदुपदेशकत्वात्तर्हि नोपदेष्टव्यम् काव्यम् इत्यपरे। — Ibid., p. 89 असभ्यार्थाभिधायित्वान्नोपदेष्टव्यम् काव्यम् इति च केचित्। — Ibid., p. 91

c10.s15.52

¹⁸ सांख्यदृदृशा सुखदुःखस्वभावो रसः। — *Abhinavabhāratī*, on chap. VI of *Nāṭyaśāstra*

c10.s15.53

¹⁹ Translated as excitants, ensuants and variants by G.N. Jha. He also translates *saṁyoga* as conjunction, *ālambana* as basic cause and *uddīpana* as inflaming cause.

c10.s15.54

²⁰ I have collected all the available excerpts of Mātṛgupta’s *kārikās* reproduced by his successors in my *Aprāptanāṭyaśāstrīya Grantha*. The same has also been reproduced in my *Nāṭyaśāstraviśvakośa*. Regarding the three varities of *rasa* based on three types of *abhinaya*, Rāghavabhaṭṭa quotes him: रसास्तु त्रिविधा ज्ञेया वाङ्नेपथ्यस्वभावजाः। रसानुरूपैरालापैः श्लोकैर्वाक्यैः पदैस्तथा। नानालङ्कारसंयुक्तैर्वाचिको रस उच्यते।।

c10.s15.55

²¹ *Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa*, Khaṇḍa III.43.1.

c10.s15.56

²² *Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra*, p. 632.

c10.s15.57

²³ शृङ्गाराद्धि भवेद् हास्यो रौद्राच्च करुणो रसः। वीराच्चैवाद्भुतोत्पत्तिर्बीभत्साच्च भयानकः।। — *Nāṭyaśāstra* VI.39 शान्तो रसो रसन्तरैर्मोक्षलक्षणः पुरुषार्थः पुरुषार्थान्तरैस्तदुपसर्जनत्वेनानुगम्यमानोऽङ्गित्वेन विवक्षाविषयः। मोक्षफलत्वेन चायं परमपुरुषार्थनिष्ठत्वात् सर्वरसेभ्यः प्रधानतमः। — Abhinava on *Dhvanyāloka*, udyota IV

c10.s15.58

²⁴ संसारनाट्यनायकरागप्रतिपक्षतया मोक्षसाधनहेतुत्वाच्छुद्धः। — *Abhinavabhāratī*, vol. I, Delhi edn, p. 326

c10.s15.59

²⁵ *Locana* on *Dhvanyāloka*, Varanasi edn, p. 499.

c10.s15.60

²⁶ I have made studies in some of the poets and authors from other languages applying the *alaṁkāra* framework in my *Nayā Sāhitya Nayā Sāhityaśāstra*, Delhi, 2012.

c10.s15.61

²⁷ *Naṭāṅkuśa* V.92.

c10.s15.62

²⁸ For details see my lectures on *Nāṭyaśāstra* and Preface to *Kāmasūtra* edited by me.

c10.s15.63

²⁹ This view is reaffirmed by Jayatīrtha in his *Nyāyasudhā* — नन्वाप्तवाक्यता तावत् कपोलकल्पितेषु मालतीमाधवादिषु व्यभिचरति। न हि नाटकादिप्रबन्धं विरचयन्नपि कदाचिदुक्त लक्षणोपपन्नो नव भवति भवभूतिरिति चेन्न। — *Nyāyasudhā*, p. 273

c10.s15.64

³⁰ For details see my paper “Mahāvīracarita kā Paraśurāmaprasaṅga” in *Nāṭyam*, 56: 141-43.

c10.s15.65

³¹ सतां केनापि कार्येण लोकस्याराधनं व्रतम्। तत् पूरितं हि तातेन मां च प्राण्रांश्च मुञ्चता।। — *Uttararāmacaritam* I.41

c10.s15.66

³² त्वं जीवितं त्वमसि मे हृदयं द्वितीयं त्वं कौमुदी नयननयोरमृतं त्वमङ्गे। इत्यादिभिः प्रियशतैरनुरुध्य मुग्धां

c10.s15.67

तामेव शान्तमथवा किमिहोत्तरेण । — *Uttararāmacaritam* III.27

c10.s15.68

³³ अयि कठोर यशः किल ते प्रियं

c10.s15.69

किमयशो ननु घोरमतः परम् ।
किमभवद् विपिने हरिणीदृशः
कथय नाथ कथं बत मन्यसे ।। — Ibid. III.28

c10.s15.70

³⁴ *Uttararāmacaritam* IV.3, 11, 23-25.

c10.s15.71

³⁵ विवक्षितार्थविदस्‍तक्षणप्रतिसंहृताम् ।

c10.s15.72

प्रापयन् पवनव्याधेर्गिरमुत्तरपक्षताम् ।। — *Śiśupālavadha* II.15

c10.s15.73

³⁶ विरोधिवचसो मूकन् वागीशानपि कुर्वते ।

c10.s15.74

जडानप्यनुलोमार्थान् परवाचः कृतिनां गिरः ।। — Ibid. II.25

c10.s15.75

³⁷ *Naiṣadhacaritam* XVII.13-34.

c10.s15.76

³⁸ धान्या केयं स्थिता शिरसि ते शशिकला किन्नु नामैतदस्या

c10.s15.77

नामैवास्यास्तदेतत्परिचितमपि ते विस्मृतं कस्य हेतोः ।
नारीं पृच्छामि नेन्दुं कथयतु विजया न प्रमाणं यदीन्दु-
र्देव्या निह्नोतुमिच्छोरिति सुरसरितं शाठ्यमव्या विभोर्वः ।। — *Mudrārākṣasa* I.1

c10.s15.78

³⁹ सन्ध्यां यत् प्रणिपत्य लोकपुरतो बद्धाञ्जलिर्याचसे

c10.s15.79

धत्से यच्च नदीं विलज्ज शिरसा तन्नाम सोढं मया ।
शरीर्याताऽमृतमन्थने यदि हरिं कस्माद्विषं भक्षितं
मा स्तरीलम्पट मां स्पृशेति गदितो गौर्या हरः पातु वः ।।
— *Subhāṣitaratnabhāṇḍāgāra*, 95, p. 7

c10.s15.80

कस्मात् त्वं पार्वति निष्ठुरासि सहजः शैलोद्भवानांमयं
निःस्नेहासि कथं, न भस्मपरुषः स्नेहं बिभर्ति क्वचित् ।
कोपस्ते मयि निष्फलः प्रियतमे स्थाणौ फलं किं भवे-
दित्थं निर्वचनीकृतो गिरिजया शम्भुश्चिरं पातु वः ।। — *Subhāṣitaratnakośa*, p. 35

c10.s15.81

⁴⁰ The author of the commentary *Nibandhana*, the compendium of his wise saying is *Siddhāntarahasya*.

c10.s15.82

⁴¹ Follower of Bhāṭṭa school, rival of Mahodadhi. Mahodadhi was a follower of Śārikanātha. He refuted Śārikanātha. Author of *Candrikā* refers to two more philosophers here Bhavadeva and Bhavanātha (II.3).

c10.s15.83

⁴² नैवाश्रावि गुरोर्मतं न विदितं कौमारिलं दर्शनं

c10.s15.84

तत्त्वज्ञानमहो न शारिकगिरां वाचस्पतेः का कथा ।
सूक्तं नापि महोदधेरधिगतं माहाव्रती नेक्षिता
सूक्ष्मा वस्तुविचारणा नृपशुभिः स्वस्थैः कथं स्थीयते ।।
— *Prabodhacandrodaya* II.3

c10.s15.85

⁴³ प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमासिद्धविरुद्धार्थावबोधिनः ।

c10.s15.86

वेदान्ता यदि शास्त्राणि बौद्धैः किमपराध्यते ।।

c10.s15.87

⁴⁴ *Saṅkalpasūryodaya*, part I, Foreword by V.V. Srinivasan, p. ix.

c10.s15.88

⁴⁵ *Nāṭyasāhityamālā*, vol. IV, p. 8.

c10.s15.89

⁴⁶ *Nāṭyasāhityamālā*, p. 12.

c10.s15.90

⁴⁷ *Mudritakumudacandra* III.77.

c10.s15.91

⁴⁸ नाधीतेऽत्र जनो यदि कश्चिदधीते शते सहस्रे वा । दुस्तर्केषु श्रम्यति दूरीकुरुते श्रुतिस्मृतिसुतर्कान् । । — *Viśvaguṇādarśa*, p. 81, v. 93

c10.s15.92

⁴⁹ वयस्य किं वर्णयसि विश्वविलक्षणचरितरं रुदरम्; लोके हि लोचनशैत्यसम्पिपादयिषया यतमानान् जनानेव पश्यामः। अयं तु पशुपतिः स्थाणुरिति स्वाह्वयमान्वर्थयन्निव आशुशु-क्षणिमक्षिण निक्षिप्तवान्। — Ibid., p. 247, prose 128

c10.s15.93

⁵⁰ अङ्गानुषङ्गोदितशीतबन्धामिन्दोर्द्युसिन्धोश्च समन्वयेन । हर्तुं वहत्यग्निमयीं तृतीयां हरो हसन्तीमिव हन्त दृष्टिम् । । — Ibid., p. 248, v. 321

c10.s15.94

⁵¹ हत्वा मार्गे द्विजादीनखिलमपि धनं हन्त हृत्वाऽतिदृप्ता दुर्वृत्तास्तस्करा ये वनगिरिविलया ये च नीचा इहान्ये। कृत्वा चक्राङ्कमेषां झटिति विदधतः किञ्च मन्त्रोपदेशं तैर्दत्तैरेव वित्तैर्दधति तनुममी वंशपारम्परीभिः । । जारांश्चौरान् जनपदमनान् राजपशान्महीशान् शिष्यान् कृत्वाऽतिदृप्ताः श्रुतिपथविधुराः श्रोत्रियैर्बर्ह्यनिष्ठैः । साकं नो भुञ्जतेऽमी सकृदपि विनतिं कुर्वतेऽग्रे न तेषां सङ्केतेनैव सिद्धं तदिदमविदुषां श्लाघ्यमाचार्यपुंस्त्वम् । । — *Viśvaguṇādarśa*, pp. 198-99, vv. 249-50

c10.s15.95

⁵² प्रायः काव्यैर्र्मितवयसः शासनीयाम्बुराशेः पारज्ञस्याप्यपरिकलितन्यायशास्त्रस्य पुंसः । वादारम्भे वदितुमनसो वाक्यमेकं सभायां प्रह्वा जिह्वा भवति कियतीं पश्य कष्टामवस्थाम् । । अपरीक्षितलक्षणप्रमाणैरपरामृष्टपदार्थसार्थतत्त्वैः । अवशीकृतचैत्रयुक्तिजालैरलमेतैरनधीततर्कविद्यैः । । — Ibid., pp. 412-13, vv. 557-58

c10.s15.96

⁵³ ज्ञानाब्धिरक्षचरणः कणभक्षकश्च श्रीपक्षिलोऽप्युदयनः स च वर्धमानः । गङ्गेश्वरः शशधरो बहवश्च नव्या ग्रन्थैर्निरुन्धत इमे हृदयान्धकारम् । । — *Viśvaguṇādarśa*, p. 414, v. 560

c10.s15.97

⁵⁴ नैयायिका वा ननु शाब्दिका वा त्रयीशिरस्सु श्रमशालिनो वा । वादाहवे बिभ्रति जैमिनीयन्यायोपरोधे सति मौनमुद्राम् । । — Ibid., pp. 417-18, v. 564 ⁵⁵ वेदवैदिकविद्वेषदूषिता भस्मरूषिताः । चण्डाः सन्त्यत्र पाखण्डा लिङ्गालिङ्गितवक्षसः ।। — Ibid., p. 137, v. 168 शिरः पुरारेर्द्विजराजपाददिव्यामृतैः सिक्तमितीर्ष्ययेव । शूद्रा इमे लिङ्गधराः स्वयं तत्स्वपादतोयैः स्नपयन्ति कष्टम् ।। — Ibid., p. 138, v. 169 ⁵⁶ *Viśvaguṇādarśa*, p. 105. ⁵⁷ कुक्षेः पूत्र्त्यै यवननृपतेर्भृत्यकृत्यानि कर्तुं विक्रीणीते वपुरपि निजं वेतनैरेतदास्ताम् । विप्रो भूत्वाऽप्यहह गणनानैपुणैर्वञ्चयित्वा स्वर्णस्तेयं रचयति जनः स्वामिनां पोषकाणाम् ।। — Ibid., p. 115, v. 136 ⁵⁸ *Viśvaguṇādarśacampū*, com. by Bal Krishna Shastri, p. 190.

Linked texts (19)