365bet娱乐

Dandin, as he was going, cast a remark on Laksana For him the whole Kavyaprapanca is Alankara-Brahman. Naturally he considered Laksana to be Alamkara.. When he considered even the Sandhyangas and the Angas of the four Vrttis, Kaisiki etc. as Alankaras, it is no wonder that he considered so this concept, Laksana, which has so much in common with Alankara. He says- yacca sandhyangavrttyangalaksanadyagamantare | vyavarnitamidam cestam alamkaratayaiva nah || II, 366. The Laksana referred to in this verse is Bharata's Laksana. Tarunavacaspati says - laksanam, vibhusanam aksarasamhatisca | agamantare bharate | Alankara in Dandin is a wide berth which can conveniently accommodate these and many more. The Dasarupaka mentions the Laksanas at the end and does not treat of them since it includes them in Alankaras and Bhavas. This attitude is very logical, since many of the Laksanas are either Alankaras or Bhavas. The text says- sattrimsadbhusanadini samadinyekavimsatih | I laksya (ksma ) sandhyantarakhyani salamkaresu tesu ca || harsotsahesu antarbhavanna kirtita iti purvaslokadadhyaharah | The text of Bharata here is yat kincitkavyabandhesu sadrsyenopamiyate and 'Bandha' here meaning merely composition can hardly bear the interpretation Abhinava puts on it.

The Avaloka adds- vibhusanam caksarasamhatisca sobhabhimanau gunakirtanam ca | ' ityeva- madini sattrimsat kavyalaksanani 'sama bhedah pradanam ca ' ityeva- madini sandhyantaranyekavimsatih upamadisu alamkaresu harsotsahadisu ca antarbhavat na prthaguktani | Bhoja, in his Shrigaraprakasa (Vol. II, Chapter 12, p. 450, Mad. MS.), while dealing with the technique of the drama, says first that the drama shall have 64 Laksanas. laksanaisca catussastya yuktam kurvita natakam | He comes to the topic, Laksana, on p. 524, first enumerates. 64 of them, then defines and illustrates each. Bhoja is given to elaboration and he takes up some of the Anustubh list of 36, some of the Upajati list of 36, adds a few which are his own and thus makes a good number of 64. Certain numbers have a destiny and in Bhoja's bulky writings, in his classifications, such numbers appear often. This chapter is called ' prabandhangacatuhsasticatustayi ' dealing with 4 sets of 64 Angas of the Prabandhas. Thus it is out of an artistic sense of uniformity that Bhoja made Laksanas also 64. For Bhoja's list, see table at the end. Bhoja is acquainted with both the lists of Bharata. His definitions are mostly reproductions from Bharata with slight variations. From the name of the chapter we are to take that Bhoja considers Laksana as a prabandhanga like sandhyanga, with which it is clubbed together and described. He generally says that they are for beautifying the work. At the end of his treatment of the Laksanas he says of them-

etani kavyasya vibhusanani prayascatussastirudahrtani | prabandhasobhakaranaya tajjnaih samyak prayojyani yatharasani || 27 Bhoja takes Laksanas as features of dramas only. He tries to give us some distinction between the Laksanas and the Sandhyangas. After illustrating the first Laksana called Bhusana, which is speech full of Alankaras and Gunas, he says- atra slesopama pratyaksadibhiralamkaraih slesaprasadasaukumaryadibhisca gunai- rupetata drastavya | evam vaksyamanesvapi gunalamkara yathasambhavamuhaniyah | karaisca niyamo narabhyante ? | sandhyangesu tu gunalamkarayogo no (na ) - peksyata iti | * " The text is incomplete and corrupt. Bhoja means to say that just as the first Laksana involves Gunas and Alamkaras, so also the others and it is this that differentiates Laksanas from Sandhyangas which do not involve Guna or Alankara. This explanation is clever and shows us how many Laksanas look like Alankara but is not wholly sanctioned by Bharata, who described Bhusana alone as being profuse with Gunas and Alankaras' and never meant the extension of its nature to the other Laksanas also. No doubt, some Laksanas definitely mention and involve a few Alankaras. Saradatanaya, in his Bhavaprakasa, deals with Laksanas in Chapter 8. In the Natya Sastra we see the Laksana described as Bhusana. 'proktani vai bhusanasammitani ' ' etani va kavya- vibhusanani | ' So some writers have called the Laksanas Bhusana also. There is propriety in this name from the point of view of function, since all the writers say that Laksanas adorn the Kavya. Saradatanaya calls them Bhusanas and gives

them as one of the items in the technique of Nataka. He says-'galang ygo': '36 Laksanas also'. But while enumerating and defining he gives 54. At the end again he mentions their total number as 64 and calls the Laksana here natyalamkara ' catussastiralamkarah kathita natakasrayah p. 224. [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] edn. Thus, as in other places, the text of Saradatanaya causes great confusion. Saradatanaya's list contains Laksanas from both the lists. A few of them are new. 26 are from the Upajati list and 14 are from the Anustubh list. The remaining 14 in the total of 54, are new. They are- nayah, sprha, abhijnanam, uddesah, nitih, arthavisesanam, nive- danam, parivadah, udyamah, pariharah, asrayah, uktih, desah and praharsah | Two of these, sprha and parivadana are found in Bhoja's list. Naya may be Bharata's Anunaya and Parivada may be Bharata's Parivedana or Paridevana. Saradatanaya's definitions of the Laksanas are most of them brief adaptations of Bharata's definitions. Jayadeva's Candraloka is the only work on poetics which treats of Laksanas along with such topics as Guna and Alankara. It is curious how Laksana found its way into this work of later times, not dealing with dramaturgy. Jayadeva is aware of the topic of Laksana but is not sure of its nature or place in Kavya. Even among the Laksanas, he gives with definitions and illustrations, only a few. Mayukha 3 of the Candraloka gives the following Laksanas:- aksarasamhatih, sobha, abhimanah, hetuh, pratisedhah, niruktam, midhya- dhyavasayah siddhih, yuktih and karyam all of the Upajati list. It is remarkable how Jayadeva missed the very first Laksana called Bhusana and the no. 36 also and gives only 10. Jayadeva's definitions of these are concise and more definite

than those in Bharata and when we read these together with their illustrations, we cannot miss the fact that it is not very far from Laksana to Alankara. In the last verse he briefly indicates the nature of Laksana and says that Laksanas like the above given ten, are many. ityadilaksanam bhuri kavyasyahurmaharsayah | svarnabhrajisnubhasnutva (bhalatva ) prabhrtiva mahibhujah || Just as Mahapurusas like kings have the Laksanas, a goldbright forehead etc., Kavyas have their Laksanas. Vaidyanatha Payagunda, in his commentary on the Candraloka, says in an earlier context, that the Laksanas are Kavya Jnapaka, an attempt at explanation which does not carry him or us far. Again, if we go through the 5 th Mayukha and its list of Alankaras, numbering hundred, we find there, besides drstanta, nidarsana, samsaya and other names, associated in Bharata with Laksanas, which must have very early passed into the fold of Alankara, some of the above given ten themselves are counted as Alankaras. Thus we have mithyadhyavasitih, yuktih, niruktih, pratisedhah and hetuh Among these, the illustration for mithyadhyavasiti alankara in the Kuvalayananda is an adaptation of that given for the Laksana of the same name. The same illustration'idrsaiscaritairjane satyam dosakaro bhavan ' is given for both niruktilaksana and niruktyalamkara . Singabhupala also calls the Laksana, Bhusana. (R.Alankarasarvasva o Ruyyaka chap. III, pp. 247-264. [Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] ed.) He considers them as beautifying elements of the plot of the drama. sariram vastvalamkuryat sattrimsadbhusanaih sphutam |

In he is He completely follows the Anustubh list with this minor difference that he reads lesa as lekha and gives the synonym madhura- bhasana for Bharata's priyam vacanam, Singabhupala takes Bharata's own definitions and compresses them in half verses. some cases, as for instance in the definition of more definite than Bharata, by restricting a comprehensive idea to a particular case. His definitions of nidarsanam vise- sanam, padoccayah, tulyatarkah, tadviparyayah, atisayah, gunakirtanam and mala are reproductions of Bharata's verses. Visvanatha, in chapter six of his Sahitya darpana, treats of Laksana. He gives the 36 of the Anustubh list with this difference that he gives Sanksepa newly in the place of Ksobha. Some of his definitions of these are succinct adaptations of Bharata's, while some are reproductions of those of Bharata. He points out their existence in dramas with illustrations. He realises the logic of the attitude of the Dasarupaka but is more loyal to Bharata, for the sake of whose words he takes that there should be 36 Laksanas in dramas. He says in the end -- esu kesamcit gunalamkarabhavasandhyanga visesantarbhave'pi natake prayatnatah karyatvat visesoktih | Besides these 36 Laksanas, Visvanatha has another set of similar items which he calls Natyalankara. They are 33 in number. When we go through this list we find that most of them are the Laksanas themselves of the Upajati list. Thus we find here asi, akrandah, kapatah, ksama, pascattapa, upa- pattih, protsahanam, abhimanah, anuvartanam, yacya, akhyanam and yukti, 12 from the Upajati list of Laksanas. While dealing with Laksanas in that same name he used the Anustubh list with a small difference. He left out ksobha and had in its place samksepa .

The Ksobha left out there has entered this list of 33 Natyalankaras. The remaining 20 of this list are not available anywhere in the Natya Sastra. Among those Laksanas of the Upajati list which are not common to the Anustubh list also, there are yet gunanuvadah, mithyadhyavasayah, pratisedhah, nirbhasanam, karyam, anunitih and paridevanam seven, which are not taken at all. The first writer who is now known to have introduced new Laksanas is Bhoja. In his list of 64 which contains all the 36 of the Anustubh list and a few of the Upajati list, he introduced 12 new Laksanas, sprha, parivadanam, mrsodyamah, chaloktih, kakuh, unmadah, parihasah, vikatthanam, yadrcchayogah, vaisamyam, pratijnanam and pravrttih . Of these 12, sprha and parivadah are the only two found in S' aradatanaya's list of 54. It is quite likely the text is not complete and Saradatanaya who numbers Laksanas in the end as 64, took more of the above 12 of Bhoja. Visvanatha follows Saradatanaya and takes the following of Saradatanaya's new Laksanas, udyamah, asrayah, sprha, parivadah, nitih, arthavisesanam, pariharah, nivedanam and praharsah, numbering 9. The remaining eleven in the 20 are new, found only in Visvanatha. They are garvah, utprasanam, garvah, utprasanam, asamsa, adhyavasayah, visarpah, ullekhah, uttejanam, sahayyam, utkirtanam, pravartanam and upade- sanam It is likely that some of these are really Saradatanaya's, ten of whose 64 are now missing in the text.' Of these adhyavasaya is said to be pratijnanam by Visvanatha. If so, it is not different from Bhoja's pratijnanam utprasana which is explained as upahasa is the same as Bhoja's parihasa . utkirtana is unnecessary reduplication for it is described just as the other Natyalankara called akhyana, which is a Laksana in Bharata's Upajati list. There does not seem to be any 1 " [Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda] ed. pp. 223-226. 鈥�

鈥� . distinction between uttejanam and protsahanam pravartana is nothing but Bhoja's pravrttih upadesana need not be a separate Natyalankara, since he has already given a Laksana called upadistam . Why is it that Visvanatha made two separate topics as Laksanas and Natyalankara and how? The materials for him are the 2 sets of Laksanas in Bharata and those in Bhoja and Saradatanaya. Visvanatha took the Anustubh list to represent Laksanas and made out a 33 from the Laksanas of the Upajati list and of Saradatanaya's list and called the latter Natyalankara. Visvanatha perhaps wanted to stick to the number '36' given in Bharata. Saradatanaya says at the end of his treatment of Laksanas- catussastiralamkarah kathita natakasrayah | This use of the words 'Alamkaras of Nataka' gave a convenient title under which, with a claim to be more neat and to have introduced a new item, Visvanatha could put all the other Laksanas.' Jagaddhara who takes this name applies it to Laksanas themselves which will agree with what Saradatanaya has actually said. Further Visvanatha seems to have thought that he could easily interpret the word Alankara in the following verses of Bharata which he quotes here, as Natyalamkara, whereas, it refers only to figures of speech. 1 Matrgupta seems to be the first to speak of the Natyalamkara. We see it mentioned in his definition of Nataka, as also the Laksana under the name Vibhusana, as quoted by Raghavabhatta in his commentary on the Sakuntala. prakrtyavasthasandhyangasandhyantaravibhusanaih | navyalamkara gaurnanabhasayukpatrasancayaih | natakam nama tajjneyam rupakam natyavedibhih || Kale's ed., pp. 5 and 6.

pattrimsallaksanopetamalankaropasobhitam | mrdusabdabhidhanam ca kavih kuryattu natakam || 33 Visvanatha realises also that Natyalamkara is not much different from Laksana and that both again, to speak boldly, are unnecessary, since they turn out to be either Bhavas, Alankaras or Sandhyangas. esam ca laksanam (na) natyalankaranam samanyata ekarupatve'pi bhedena vyapadesah gadalikapravahena | esu ca kesamcit gunalankarabhavasandhyanga fasta 1-aufasfa a 12 h quaa: saburzaiz fadu: 1 Talking of the function of Natyalamkara he says bhusanahetavah ', which vague description is further argument for what we have said just above. Taking Laksana as a feature of drama only is a view narrower than the one attached to that word. Bhoja, Saradatanaya, Singabhupala and Visvanatha have narrowed it further by mentioning them only in Nataka, the first and best form of drama. Raghavabhatta in his commentary on the Sakuntala criticises Dhanika for the inclusion of the 36 Laksanas in Alamkaras and Bhavas. He quotes the authority of the Abhinava bharati for proving the difference of Laksana from these and promises to indicate the Laksanas in the Sakuntala in the course of his commentary. The list of 36 Laksanas is quoted by him from Matrgupta. This long passage and discussion on Laksana is found only in the Nirnaya Sagar edition of Raghava Bhatta's commentary and of the Sakuntala. The edition of Mr. Kale, without any discussion at all, points out the first Laksana called 'Bhusana'

as being present in the portion up to the verse of Act I 'yadala ke suksmam ' etc. Raghava Bhatta is not so enthusiastic over Laksana as he goes further, for he points out only nine of them in Act I, none in Act II, only two in Act III, none in Acts IV and V, only one in Act VI and only two in the last Act. These are the Laksanas he points out- bhusanam, abhiprayah, prasiddhih, niruktam, padoccayah, udaharanam, anuktasiddhih, nidarsanam, drstam, mala, manorathah, hetuh, aksarasanghatah and anunayah, numbering fourteen, all belonging to the Anustubh list. The definitions he gives for some of these are from Singabhupala. These Laksanas he points out just in those places which Singabhupala himself has given as illustrations. Jagaddhara in his tika on the Malatimadhava indicates four Laksanas in Act III and two in Act IV. He gives their definitions which resemble but are not exactly those in Bharata. These six are prccha, pascattapah, akhyanam, nidarsanam, mala and prasiddhih . These are from both the Anustubh and the Upajati lists. He calls them Natyalamkara. Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharaghava, points out two Laksanas in Act IV, calling them by the name Natyalamkara. These two are and (p. 157 and p. 182, Nir. edn.). He also quotes definitions for these two under the name Bharata, but the definitions are not from Bharata. The second, is no Laksana in Bharata. Bhoja is the first to give it. Thus Rucipati follows some unknown. writer who followed Bhoja but substituted the name Natyalankara for Laksana. Rajanaka Ratnakara, in his insatiable love for Slesa, introduces the Natyasastra very often in his Haravijaya. In the penultimate verse (57) of canto XXI he describes a Nataka, through where he mentions Laksana.

iti rasaposayuktimadanujjhitavrttigunavyapasrayam prathitasubhangalaksanam apurvakrtipravanatmatam dadhat | kaviriva natakam | K. Medn., p 286. Rajanaka Alaka says in his commentary here- angani sandhinamavayavah, 'upaksepah parikarah 35 paribhavana ' ityadayah [ 1 ] catussasti ( : ) laksyani ( | ) ( laksanani ) 'vibhusanam caksara samhatisva gunabhimano'tisayah sahetuh ' ityadini patrimsat kavyavyavasthasthapakani | 鈥� Ratnakara refers to Laksanas as a feature of the Nataka. Alaka follows the Upajati list. We cannot get much out of his vague explanation of the nature of Laksanas as kavyavya- vasthasthapaka ; but we see that he followed Bharata and held them as features of Kavya and not of Nataka only. Bahurupamisra, commentator on the Dasarupaka, a writer later than Saradatanaya, speaks of Laksana twice: (a) Commenting on Dasarupaka III, 32-33 : rasam va na tirodadhyad vastvalankaralaksanaih | Dhanika says: laksanah bhusanadibhih | Dhanika takes Alankara in the text as Upama etc. But Bahurupa takes Alamkara also as Natakalamkara, Atisaya etc., and Laksana as the concept of the same name. upamadayo'lankarah | atisayadayo natakalankarah | sobho daharanasamsayadrstantaksamagunanuvadanandakapatadini laksananiti | P. 35, MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. (b) At the end, the Dasarupaka says sattrimsadusanadini etc. Here Bahurupa gives the Laksanas, Bhusana etc. and

says that, similar to the Laksanas, there are also others called Natyalankaras. Thus Bahurupa has two sets, one called Natakalamkara and the other Laksana. The MS. gives a list of Natakalankaras and Laksanas and there are gaps in the MS. (nataka ) lankaranahuh - atisayah, nayah, daksinyam, abhina- 鈥� upadistam, mala, sambhramah, arthapattih, " 鈥� praptih, hetuh, visesanam, gunatipatah, vicarah, asih, abhimanah, kapatah, yacya nidarsanam, abhijnanam " 鈥� 鈥� 鈥� (bhusanam ), aksara- sanghatah, sobha, udaharanam, ksobhah, arthavisesanam, protsahanam, guna- kirtanam, kirtih, akhyanam, nivedaniyam, parivarah, upapattih, guna- nuvadah, pariharah, udyamah, karyam, anuktasiddhih, asra (sa) yah, yuktih, lesah, anuvrttih, ksama, praharsah, priyavacanam iti ( laksanani ) The text unfortunately stops with 'Iti.' Bahurupa's position regarding Laksana is similar to that of Visvanatha and it is most likely that Saradatanaya's fuller text is the basis for Bahurupa whose two lists contain Laksanas of both the lists in Bharata and those found newly in Saradatanaya. See also my article on Bahurupamisra's Dasarupavyakhya, J. O. R., VIII, pp. 333-4. There is evidence to show that the Sangitaraja of king Kumbhakarna dealt with the Laksanas. In his comments on sl. 12 of the last canto of the Gitagovinda, Kumbha says in his Rasikapriya: gunakirtanam nama natyalankarah | tallaksanam sangitaraje- bahunam guninam yatra namarthajanitairgunaih | eko'padisyate yattu kirtitam gunakirtanam ||

Gunakirtana is a Laksana of the Upajati list in Bharata. Kumbha's definition of it follows Bharata's. It is not known how many Laksanas Kumbha recognised and whether he took also those of the Anustubh list. See Annals B. O. R. I., Vol. XIV, Pts. 3-4, my Note on the Sangitaraja - ( pp. 261-262). Sahityasara of Sarvesvara, a work (Madras MS.) in 631 Anustubhs treats of the Laksanas in Ch. III (p. 28). It gives in Arya verses the 36 Laksanas of Bharata's Upajati list : bhusanamaksarasanghah sobha gunakirtanam niruktam ca | abhimanodaharane gunanuvadah priyam hetuh || protsahanasarupye mithyavyavasayasiddhidrstantah | asih samsayakapatau ksamanuvrttau tathoccayakrandau || paridevanopavrtti yacnapraptirmanoratho yuktih | atisayaprcchakhyanapratisedhah sanunitinirbhasah || karyah pascattapah satatrimsallaksanavadhih (lih ) seyam | natye bhavarthagata salankara budhaih prayoktavya || 5 5 5 7 6 6 2=36 Each is defined in a half-verse. The definitions are noteworthy, being original though untrue in some cases. Bhusana for instance is defined as an Alamkara-dominated expression. alankrtiralankarairabhidheyasya bhusanam | Aksarasanghata is defined as Vamana's Arthaguna called Ojas, the Praudhi of the variety called 'condensed expression '- vakyarthe ca padabhidha | The Sahitya mimamsa ([Trivandrum Sanskrit Series] 114 ) says that some speak of 36 Laksanas in a Kavya, similar to the Samudrika. Laksanas in a man, but these are included in the other already accepted concepts. The work here gives the Upajati

list and reproduces Bharata's definitions of the first three Laksanas. ( pp. 117-8.) Acyutaraya, a modern writer, considers Laksana as one of the six Gunas of Kavya in his Sahitya Sara. Acyutaraya has a new conception of Guna, which is like the Alankara of Bhoja. Under it come Rasas, Vrttis, Ritis and Laksanas. dharma rasa laksanani rityalankrtivrttayah | Sl, 10, Ch. I, p. 8. rasikahadaka te kavye santi ca sadgunah || The Laksanas mentioned here include Bharata's Laksana, for the commentary says: "laksanani aksarasamhatisobhadini vaksya- manani - | " p. 9. These are called Gunas because they are 鈥� Rasikahladaka '. At the end of the chapter on Gunas (7 th), the work says: savdesu tesu gambhiryam vistaro ritireva ca | arthesvapi tathaslesah samata sukumarata || madhuryaudarate preyah samadhih sauksmyameva ca | sammitatvam tathoktisca laksanani matani me || Sls. 207-8. Com. laksananiti | niruktakavyagunatvena prakpratijnatalaksana- nityarthah | evam ca candralokasaribhutam aksarasamhatih sobha ceti dvayam, tatha prataparudriyadisaribhutam draksapakaditrayam, kanthabharanasaribhutam sabdaguna- ntargatam gambhiryaditrayam, arthagunantargatam slosadidasakam ceti militva astadasalaksaniyamiti sanksepah | This is a strange conception of Laksana. Acyutaraya knows Laksanas only through the Candraloka. But while the Candraloka gives ten, Acyuta chooses only two from them. These two Laksanas, Aksara samhati and Sobha, the three Pakas,

Gambhirya, Vistara and Riti which are three Sabdagunas of Bhoja, Slesa, Samata, Sukumarata, Madhurya, Udarata, Preyas, Samadhi, Sauksmya, Sammitatva and Ukti which are ten Arthagunas of Bhoja,--these are put together into a set of 18 items and meaninglessly labelled as the 18 Laksanas. See Sahityasara, pp. 353-4, Natyasastra of Bharata Edition