365bet娱乐

Besides Abhinava's commentary on this portion of the Natya Sastra, which deals elaborately with Laksana, earlier commentaries of Udbhata, Lollata and Sankuka must have dealt with the concept of Laksana. Bhatta Nayaka's Hrdayadarpana also probably dealt with it. We have sure evidence of Bhatta Tauta having treated of Laksanas. In an extract given from his Kavyakautuka in the Abhinava Bharati on p. 541, Vol. II, we find Laksana included in his enumeration of the 'Kavyapaddhatis', along with Guna, Riti, Alamkara etc. Further Abhinava ascribes to Tauta certain definite views

on Laksana during the course of his attempt to explain the difference between Alankara and Laksana. We noted above how the Upajati recension was handed down to Abhinava from his teacher, i.e., from his teacher's Kavyakautuka, upon which Abhinava had commented. Before Abhinavagupta, views on Laksana were very confused, as is seen from Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Laksanas which opens with 10 Purvapaksas on the real nature of the concept of Laksana. Bhoja's Srngaraprakasa enumerates, defines and illustrates, not 36 of them, but 64. Saradatanaya follows Bhoja. The Dasarupa aud Avaloka mention the 36 Laksanas and briefly indicate their inclusion in Alamkaras and Bhavas. Bahurupamisra, in his gloss on the Dasarupa, speaks twice of the Laksanas and in addition to the Laksanas, mentions also the Natyalankaras. The Samgitaraja of king Kumbhakarna dealt with the Laksanas. Sarvesvara's Sahityasara deals with the Laksanas of the Upajati list. Singabhupala calls them 'Bhusanas', gives 36 of them, defines and illustrates them. The Sahityadarpana also gives them with definitions and illustrations. The Natakacandrika, an unpublished work on Drama, criticises the Sahityadarpana and follows the Rasar- navasudhakara as regards the 36 Laksanas. From Raghava bhatta's commentary on the Sakuntala we learn that Matrgupta also dealt with Laksanas separately in his work on Natya. Raghavabhatta indicates some of the 36 Laksanas in the several situations of the Sakuntala. Jagadhara is another commentator who, in his Tika on the Malatimadhava, points out a few of the Laksanas. Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharaghava, points out two Laksanas. Rajanaka Alaka, in his commentary on Ratnakara's Haravijaya, has occasion to speak of Laksana. Alaka follows the Upajati recension. The only work on poetics proper which

treats of Laksanas is Jayadeva's Candraloka. It defines only a few of them with illustrations. IV Laksana has changed its name in its history. Singabhupala and his followers call it Bhusana. This name is derived from Bharata himself describing the Laksana as 'kavyavibhusana ' and 'bhusanasammita '. Though Bhoja calls it only Laksana, Saradatanaya calls it Bhusana at the beginning and ends by calling it Alankara. Jagaddhara calls it Natyalankara.