एभिरङ्गैश्चतुर्धेयं नार्थवृत्तिरतः परा ।
चतुर्थी भारती सापि वाच्या नाटकलक्षणे ॥ ६० ॥
भारतीं676 सात्त्वतीं चार्थवृत्तिमारभटीमिति ।
पठन्तः पञ्चमीं वृत्तिमौद्भटाः प्रतिजानते ॥ ६१ ॥

सा तु न लक्ष्येषु क्वचिदपि दृश्यते । न चोपयुज्यते । रसेषु हास्यादीनाम् 677अभारत्यात्मकत्वात् (?) नीरसस्य च काव्यार्थस्याभावात् तिस्र एवैता अर्थवृत्तयः । भारती तु शब्दवृत्तिरामुखसङ्गत्वात् आमुखाङ्गत्वात् तत्रैव वाच्या ।

कैर्वा वृत्त्यन्तरमुच्यते । कीदृशी च तस्याः संज्ञेत्यत्राह 678भारतीं सात्त्वतीमिति । 679औद्भटैर्वृत्त्यन्तरमुच्यते । अर्थवृत्तिरिति च तस्याः संज्ञेति । निराकरोति 680न लक्ष्येष्विति । अदृष्टाप्युपयुज्यते चेत् सा वक्तव्या । नेत्याह न चेति । 681अभारत्यात्मकत्वादिति । अभारत्यात्मिकाभिरेताभिरननुविद्धः682 काव्यार्थो नास्ति । भारती तु शब्दवृत्तिः । अत एव ताभ्यस्तिसृभ्यो व्यतिरिक्ता काचिदर्थवृत्तिर्न संभवतीत्यर्थः ।

  1. This is the reading in A.T.A. and in Bahurūpamiśra’s. But N.S.P. gives kaiśikīm in the place of bhāratīm.

  2. See Notes 116 and 118 to Laghuṭīkā.

  3. N.S.P. reads kaiśikīṃ sāttvatīm, etc. Bh.Nṛ’s pratīka shows it as bhāratīṃ sāttvatīm, etc. which is also the reading in B.M.’s and in all MSS. of the Laghuṭīkā.

  4. T.MS. clearly reads auttarair vṛttyantaram ucyate instead of audbhaṭair, etc. And there is no mention in T.MS. of Udbhaṭa or audbhaṭa here. Tri.MS. however gives it as audbhaṭair vā, and in M.G.T. the portion is missing. In Gr.MS. only -dbha- is visible, and other syllables are missing. So, it is not clear as to what should be the correct reading here. The kārikā II.61 of the DR has created considerable difficulty in offering a correct interpretation. See Prof. V. Raghavan’s paper on vṛttis in The Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, vols. 6 and 7.

    Prof. Raghavan says that arthavṛtti in the kārikā stands for phalavṛtti of Udbhaṭa, and that his view is being criticized by Dhanaṃjaya, but Dhanaṃjaya’s reference is an incorrect one. As Udbhaṭa accepted only three vṛttis and not five, the references to his phalavṛtti as pañcamī by Dhanaṃjaya and later by Śāradātanaya are all wrong. Therefore, he says, the reference to phalavṛtti of Udbhaṭa by Dhanaṃjaya and Śāradātanaya shows only their misunderstanding of the position of Udbhaṭa. Now there are many points which arise from these remarks of Prof. Raghavan.

    (1) If it was a reference to Udbhaṭa’s phalavṛtti why should Dhanaṃjaya have used the words arthavṛtti instead of phalavṛtti and audbhaṭa instead of Udbhaṭa ? He could have given the kārikā in a different way. For instance,

    kaiśikīṃ (bhāratīṃ) sāttvatīṃ caivaṃ phalavṛttir itīritām |
    pañcamīm aparāṃ vṛttim udbhaṭaḥ pratyapadyata ||
    could have been the kārikā, if is was his clear intention. To write a suitable kārikā should not have been a problem for one who wrote so many kārikās.

    The two words in the existing kārikā, iti paṭhantaḥ, seem to me to indicate that the previous line is a quotation from some writer, and this line does not seem to be the same as cited in the Abhinavabhāratī, which is also one of the sentences taken into account by Dr. V. Raghavan. Therefore I feel that it is perhaps a reference to some other writers who were followers of the school of Udbhaṭa, whose text is of course not available now.

    (2) Further Bahurūpamiśra explains this kārikā thus: udbhaṭamatānusāriṇāṃ bhāratīm apy arthavṛttim ācakṣāṇānāṃ punaḥ śabdavṛttyaṅgīkāreṇa vṛttīpañcakapratijñānaṃ bhaved ity āha bhāratīṃ sāttvatīm, etc. etac ca pratijñāmātram eva nopapattiyuktam. bhāratyāḥ śabdavṛttitvena arthavṛttivābhāvād ity uktaṃ pratijānate iti. (Tri.MS. of B.M., pp. 109–10.)

    Thus B.M.’s explanation is against the interpretations given by Prof. Raghavan (of course Prof. Raghavan later on stated that B.M. was wrong here) as B.M. does not take it as a reference to phalavṛtti of Udbhaṭa at all. Udbhaṭamatānusāriṇām thus seems to indicate that it is a reference to some followers of Udbhaṭa’s. Till we get some more reliable evidence, I do not feel like taking it as a reference to phalavṛtti of Udbhaṭa.

    (3) Bh.Nṛ’s explanation seems to be different even from that of Bahurūpamiśra. Bh.Nṛ. says arthavrttir iti ca tasyāḥ saṃjñeti, and therefore there was perhaps some text or commentary (on NS.) (written by some person who was among the followers of Udbhaṭa’s), discussing this vṛttyantara, which is being criticized by Dhanaṃjaya. Whether it was bhāratī as arthavṛtti and different from the bhāratī, the śabdavṛtti (noted by B.M.) or some other vṛtti called arthavṛtti, is not clear from available data. Unlike B.M. Bh. Nṛ. seems to mean it as a different arthavṛtti (not bhāratī itself as arthavṛtti). Bh.Nṛ. is unfortunately not as elaborate as to give us a clear and a fuller information on this. His sentences seem to mean that even in the case of any of the rasas, i.e. hāsya, etc. there is no dramatic action which does not involve one or the other of the three vṛtti-s—kaiśikī, sāttvatī and ārabhaṭī. Bhāratī being a śabdavṛtti is a common one for all. Therefore (there is no need and ?) there is no other arthavṛtti over and above the three, kaiśikī, sāttvatī, and ārabhaṭī.

  5. This is the reading in all the MSS. N.S.P. gives a different reading.

  6. N.S.P. and A.T.A. give bhāratyātmakatvāt. But T.MS., M.G.T., and Tri.MS. show the pratīka clearly as abhāratyātmakatvāt. The significance of the Avaloka and L.Ṭ. is not very clear, because of confusing readings. Abhāratyātmakatvāt is preferable, and it seems to be in the sense of bhāratībhinnavṛttyanyatamātmakatvāt in the light of the pratīka and explanation by Bh.Nṛ. as abhāratyātmikābhir etābhir ananuviddhaḥ kāvyārtho nāsti.

  7. Only T.MS. gives it as anuviddhaḥ. This is perhaps a mistake of the scribe, for all other MSS.—Gr. MS., M.G.T. and Tri.MS.—read clearly ananuviddhaḥ.