Evam etc. The meaning is: by me, being the Vrtdkara. And so he says: tatra. The reason underlying the further division of that major variety is set forth in what follows i. The following i. Understanding tasya yah before avantaraprakarah, tat pratipadanaya idam ucyate. This i. The meaning is that there is a basic two-fold division which is also accepted by the author of the Karikas. Now I think it must be admitted that if we hold that Abhinava regarded the two authors as one, this passage reads rather strangely. To say that the author of the Karikas accepts the two-fold division made by Ananda in the first Uddyota, anticipating the second Uddyota would be an odd way of speaking if the two are a single person.
Mookherjee is perhaps right to say that this could be he states it must be a formal distinction. Here is Kane p. But it begs the whole question. On this passage Satkari Mookherjee has this to say p.
This indicates that Abhinavagupta takes the Karika and the Vrtti to be the work of one person. He only states that dhvani has now been propounded in detail, and Abhinava adds by means of the Karikas and the Vrtti on them. Abhinava does not say: may a karikakarena, tadvrttinirupanena ca.
- Bug music: How insects gave us rhythm and noise.
- Geology and Resource Potential of the Congo Basin.
- A Million Suns: An Across the Universe Novel?
If Abhinava was certain in his mind that the author of the Karikas and the author of the Vrtti were one and the same, why did he not make such a clear straightforward statement anywhere in the Locanal As we have seen, all the passages involve some sort of confusion. Another passage used for the unity of authorship is found on p. Such an act on the part of Anandavardhana will be a vain arrogation if he has not been, according to Abhinava, the first exponent of the theory of dhvani.
With a view to this end the nature of dhvani is being promulgated.
The promulgation of dhvani aims at securing a permanent footing for Anandavardhana in the hearts of lovers of poetry by means of the sastra. Abhinavagupta refers to Anandavardhana as'Vrttikara and also as granthakara.
But the description of Anandavardhana as the author of this sastra is significant. But he says no such thing. Moreover, granthakrt as Kane has pointed out, op. As for Mookherjee, the same remarks apply. But it must be added that he distorts the translation of Ananda also, in order to prove his point.
What Ananda means is that the older alahkarikas did not recognise dhvani. But Abhinava says no such thing. He merely states that he achieved what he did, by means of the sastra.
- Organization at the Limit: Lessons from the Columbia Disaster;
- 52. Under Construction: Dignāga on Perception and Language!
- Making Sense Together: The Intersubjective Approach to Psychotherapy!
- The Other Side of Russia: A Slice of Life in Siberia and the Russian Far East (Eastern European Studies (College Station, Tex.), No. 21.).
This does not imply that he originated the sastra giving it a full technical sense, which it need not even have here , but merely that he used it. Abhinava glosses this by: asmabhir iti vakyasesah. In order to guard against such a doubt, he says: iyad. Ananda expressly claims to have been the originator of this theory and that thereby he has laid all learned men under a deep debt of gratitude to him Dhvn. But note three things: 1 The footnote to p. Now ka is a devanagari ms.
Ga, which is the only ms. It is certainly spurious. Ananda, who inscribes his name in the last verse, further takes credit for having carried out this resolve made in the first Karika, namely the exposition of Dhvani - the most real and striking characteristic of poetry. He also states that there was but a sparkling of the theory of dhvani in the minds of wise men before him.
Had the author of the Karikas been different from Ananda, the above remarks, in the face of the numerous Karikas, should certainly be a gross perversion of truth and an unwarranted arrogation of originality which the meanest of men will not be capable of. The whole point of the book is to show this.
But the text reads: tad vyakarot, i. Ananda explained that, and not that he originated it. By paripakvadhiyam Ananda is simply referring to those people whom he respected but who did not fully accept the theory of dhvani. Obviously for them not to have accepted it meant that it did exist. How is it anything but the simple truth that Ananda did explain this doctrine, and more, made it acceptable to other critics as the whole of the later tradition upholds?
Category: Software Installation Tools
Finally, Sankaran finds it odd p. All he says is that he is famous, which he undoubtedly was. And people must be attracted in order to fulfil the purpose of the 28 J. This is why authors mention their own names in their works , as a means of attracting to their works the readers for whom those works are intended anugrahas'rotrjana. With just this in mind he gives his own name, Anandavardhana. Here Karikakara expresses a certain view of his own, namely, where in any composition a Rasa, etc. He simply glosses me matih with mamakinah paksah , thereby showing that by me matih the author of the Karikas identifies himself with a school, a position on a controversial issue.
There are times when he goes on at length about issues that do not seem important enough to deserve the consideration he gives them. A good example is the long vrtti passage on Karika 43, where Ananda goes into very great detail, with examples, of the various kinds of sahkara and samsrsthi possible of the various kinds of vyahgya senses, gunibhutavyahgya , and even vacyalahkaras. Now in coming to Karika 44 p. For could one use the word dihmatram in the light of the long Vrtti passage?https://viptarif.ru/wp-content/messages/2019.php
Reading | Wendy Doniger
If the person writing the Karika knew the Vrtti , surely he would not choose the expression dihmatram. Of course this is hardly conclusive. Abhinava says this is because the word dhvanU found in close proximity, naturally implies anyaparatva. The term anyapara is never used in the Karikas! For instance, contrast the beautiful verses apare kavyasamsare , and srhgari cet kavih kavye with the clumsiness evident in many of the Karikas. For instance, the word bibhrad occurs in Karikas I.
Similarly, the colorless expression sumedhasa is found in III. Matah occurs at II. Note, too, Kane H. Abhinava does not explain the verse, nor does he say anything concerning its authorship; , three verses, introduced by samksepah. Abhinava explains the verses very briefly, but ascribes no authorship to them. There are also four verses in the second Uddyota : p. Again Abhinava explains the verse, but makes no ascription of authorship: consists of three verses called sangraha.
Abhinava, as above, explains the verses, but is silent as to their author.