Essay name: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
Author: A. D. Pusalker
This book studies Bhasa, the author of thirteen plays ascribed found in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. These works largely adhere to the rules of traditional Indian theatrics known as Natya-Shastra.
Page 74 of: Bhasa (critical and historical study)
74 (of 564)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
54
a departed king. "The sort of Pratima-g峁沨a described
in the Pratima," says MM. Dr. G. Sastri, is to be found
nowhere". But the fact that such statues are not confined
to Kerala only stands proved by the discovery of
Sai艣un膩ga statues some fifteen years ago. MM. Dr.
Haraprasad Sastri has drawn attention to the prevalence
of the custom of erecting stone images for the departed
kings in Rajputana called Chatris, from ancient times.
These statues are worshipped daily and food is offered to
them. Curiously enough, kings dead in war are presented
in statues on horseback, those dying natural death in
other postures. It will be seen, therefore, that this
contention also of the Pisharotis falls to the ground.
White-washing of the statue-house, flowers and
other preliminaries of worshipping described in the Prat
are taken as showing Kerala influence. That such is the
custom all over India may be seen even today. Further,
Bh膩sa might have taken his description from the
R膩m膩ya峁嘺 itself.
In order to strengthen the argument of Kerala
origin, it is stated that the Prat must come after K膩lid膩sa,
the Car after S眉draka, and the Avi after Dandin.*
As to the genealogy of Raghu's dynasty, it has been
proved, that both K膩lid膩sa and Bh膩sa have taken it
from a common source, which Dr. G. Sastri says to be the
Visnu Purana, and the two commentaries
on the
Raghuvamsa confirm him. This view finds further
support from the Harivamsa (chapter 15) and the
Brahmapura峁嘺, which give a similar order. Dr.
Haradatta Sarma in "Padmapur膩峁嘺 and K膩lid膩sa" has
shown that the Padmapura峁嘺 is the source of K膩lid膩sa
for the Raghuvamsa. So borrowing from K膩lid膩sa is not
true nor consequently a late date for the Prat, i. e. for
叠丑腻蝉补.
That the Car is the basis for the Mrcch forms
the subject matter of a subsequent chapter, and hence
nothing need be said about it at this place.
No evidence is adduced for dating the Avi after
Dandin, except that in the
"we
础惫补苍迟颈蝉耻苍诲补谤颈办补迟丑腻,
1 BSOS, 3, p. 629; Critical Study, p. 99. 2 Haraprasad Sastri,
JBORS, 5, p. 559; PB, 1929, p.181; 0C, V, pp. 97-98; Paranjape, Pratima, Intr, pp.
XL-XLI. 3 Pisharoti, BSOS, 3, p. 107. 4 BSOS, 3, p. 627; Critical Study, p.
96.
