Alankar Mahodadhi Ma Saraswati Kantha Bharanna Uddharano

This comprehensive summary outlines the findings of a comparative study by Parul Mankad, focusing on the influence of Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana (SKB) on Narendraprabhsuri's Alamkaramahodadhi (AMo). The study primarily analyzes how Narendraprabhsuri adopted and adapted examples and concepts from Bhoja, particularly concerning figures of speech (alankaras).

Key Findings:

• Narendraprabhsuri's Context: Narendraprabhsuri, a proponent of the Dhvani theory (following Kashmiri tradition), flourished in the first half of the 13th century CE. His work, Alamkaramahodadhi, provides a synthetic exposition of alankara-shastra, influenced by earlier masters like Anandavardhana, Mammata, and Hemachandra, but also showing an impact from Dandin, Vamana, and especially Bhoja.

• Bhoja's Influence: The study highlights that Narendraprabhsuri frequently draws examples from Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana (SKB). This influence is evident in approximately 60 verses used by Narendraprabhsuri. However, this borrowing is not blind imitation; Narendraprabhsuri often reinterprets or uses the examples differently, demonstrating his own critical judgment.

• Comparative Analysis of Alankaras: The study systematically compares how Narendraprabhsuri and Bhoja treat various alankaras, using specific examples:

  • Sahaokti (Simultaneity): Narendraprabhsuri borrows examples from SKB but often offers different interpretations than Bhoja. For instance, on the concept of kriyarupa sadharana dharma (action as a common attribute), while Bhoja considers a specific type of action integration, Narendraprabhsuri interprets it differently, leaning towards Dandin in some cases.

  • Upama (Simile): Narendraprabhsuri generally maintains brevity in explaining upama subtypes, whereas Bhoja provides more detailed analyses. In cases like ghotakalupta (omission of the indicator) and pratyayalupta (omission of the suffix), Narendraprabhsuri often follows Bhoja's examples and classification but sometimes integrates interpretations from Hemachandra or offers a more concise explanation.

  • Anyokti (Figurative Language): Narendraprabhsuri often uses examples from SKB for various types of Anyokti, but his interpretation might differ, or he may align with other scholars like Mammata or Ruchyaka.

  • Smriti Alankara (Remembrance): While Narendraprabhsuri's definition of Smriti aligns with Ruchyaka, he uses an example from Bhoja, showing a selective approach.

  • Samsaya (Doubt) and Vitarka (Deliberation): Narendraprabhsuri adopts some examples from Bhoja for Samsaya but critiques Bhoja's classification of Vitarka as a separate alankara, considering it a form of Samsaya instead.

  • Bhrantiman (Delusion): Narendraprabhsuri's definition of Bhrantiman shows Bhoja's influence, but his explanations for the examples often lean towards other scholars like Ruchyaka. He utilizes Bhoja's classifications for subtypes like "delusion in the non-real as real" but applies his own interpretative framework.

  • Rupaka (Metaphor): Narendraprabhsuri adopts several examples from Bhoja for various types of Rupaka, but sometimes his classification of the subtype differs from Bhoja's.

  • Apahnuti (Concealment): Narendraprabhsuri uses an example from Bhoja for Apahnuti but interprets it as Vyajokti (feigned meaning), highlighting a significant divergence.

  • Upeksha (Disregard): In Upeksha, Narendraprabhsuri draws examples from Bhoja, but his interpretation and classification sometimes differ, indicating an independent approach.

  • Samasokti (Implicit Comparison) and Aprastutaprasamsa (Praise of the Unrelated): A notable finding is that Narendraprabhsuri consistently reinterprets Bhoja's examples of Samasokti as Aprastutaprasamsa. This suggests a fundamental disagreement on the classification of these figures of speech.

  • Viyukti (Exception): Narendraprabhsuri follows Bhoja's example for Viyukti but notes a slight difference in interpretation.

• Narendraprabhsuri's Approach:

  • He is not a blind follower of Bhoja. He exhibits critical discernment, selecting and adapting examples.
  • He maintains his adherence to the Dhvani theory and does not deviate from the core principles established by Anandavardhana, Mammata, and Hemachandra.
  • He shows a preference for the order and classification of alankaras found in Mammata and Ruchyaka.
  • His approach is described as "synthesizing," integrating influences from various traditions.
  • He prioritizes clear and systematic categorization, a quality he finds lacking in Bhoja's work, which sometimes appears overly focused on numerical classification of subtypes rather than their essence.

• Source of Examples: Many examples are drawn from common literary sources like Gathasaptashati, Shishupalavadha, and the works of Kalidasa, suggesting shared source materials for both scholars.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that while Narendraprabhsuri frequently utilized examples from Bhoja's Sarasvatikanthabharana, he did so with a discerning eye. He selectively adopted, reinterpreted, and sometimes rejected Bhoja's classifications and explanations, often aligning with other influential scholars like Mammata and Ruchyaka. This comparative analysis reveals Narendraprabhsuri's intellectual independence and his commitment to a coherent and systematic presentation of alankara-shastra, contrasting with what the author perceives as a less structured approach in Bhoja's work.