The Bhasa Problem - A Reply
Summary
The Bhasa Problem—A Reply critiques K. R. Pisharoti’s claims about Bhasa’s authorship of Sanskrit plays, arguing that his reliance on disputed material from the *Kavivimaria* (attributed to Rijasekhara) is flawed. The text highlights that the *Bhasamilakacakra* verse, central to Bhasa’s attribution, is misinterpreted when detached from its context in the *Muktavali* anthology (compiled by Jalhapa), where it is clearly linked to Rajasekhara. Pisharoti dismisses the entire *Kavivimaria* extract as a forgery, except its final verse, which is independently verified as Rajasekhara’s. The author contends that Pisharoti’s argument rests on a misconception: the *Kavivimaria* is a patchwork of genuine and fabricated verses, not a reliable source. They note that references to Bhasa’s plays like *Udattarighava* and *Kiranivall* lack corroboration in Sanskrit literature, suggesting these claims are spurious. The text concludes that Dr. T. Ganapati Sastry’s longstanding defense of Bhasa’s authorship remains valid, as Pisharoti’s evidence is unreliable and derived from dubious origins.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis significantly advances the Bhasa debate by challenging the authenticity of key evidence underpinning traditional attributions. By demonstrating that the contested verses from the Kavivimaria are likely a composite forgery attributed to Rijasekhara, the study undermines the foundational basis for associating Bhasa with the Swapnavasavadatta. The exposure of this textual manipulation compels a critical re-evaluation of scholarly approaches to ancient Sanskrit drama attribution, emphasizing the need for rigorous source scrutiny. The findings not only challenge Dr. Ganapati Sastry's longstanding conclusions but also highlight the vulnerability of literary traditions to deliberate historical distortion. This intervention shifts the discourse from conclusive assertions to nuanced inquiry, demanding re-examination of all secondary sources used in Bhasa research. The implications extend beyond this specific controversy, offering methodological lessons for addressing contested authorship in classical literature studies.