Kavyanushasana Critical Study

SR No.: 001713
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 558
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Kavya
File Size: 10 MB

Page 396

The author of our text, now, remarks that this is a futile instance and the futility of the instance destroys the thing sought to be explained. To explain :
"In a tragic play, the spectator is first pained by pathos and subsequently, owing to the expertise of the representation by characters etc., is delighted. But, in regard to Ojas and Prasāda, they are required to be experienced at once. And, to tell you the truth, all Rasas result in delight and so in happiness; so, your example does not fit in here.
So Prasāda (in our view) is the cause of Vikāsa."
As for Vāmana's Arthaguņa Prasāda, it is described as Arthavaimalyam, i.e., Plainness of Sense. It is explained as words capable of giving up sense at once. In other words, straightforward expression is Prasāda of Artha. (This Prasāda is similar to Arthavyakti - both of Sabda and Artha. It resembles Bharata's Samatā also - just sufficient words is Prasāda. Useless words represent the Viparyaya of Prasāda.) Now, says Hemachandra, this Guna having sufficient words is achieved by avoiding the blemish of Adhikapadatva; so it is a negative of a Dosa, not a Guņa.
(3) śleșa, according to Bharata, is the quality of expressions, apparently looking plain but revealing a world of ideas. Bharata's verses on this Guna are two, belonging to the two recensions. The first is "Vicāragahanaṁ sphutam caiva svabhāvatah (V.I. Vicārya grahanam vșttyā)', and the second is 'Ipsitenārthajātena. ...etc.' This Guņa is defined as related to Padas and Artha. The second verse 'Ipsitenartha jāten ...etc.' describes ślesa as the harmony of sound and sense, of word and idea. Hemachandra's version is illustrated by a verse from the Kumārasambhavam (5. 24) which contains a description of the first drops of rain falling on Pārvati - a pen-picture which harbours a minute description of the beauty of Pārvati's form.
Hemachandra's version is of the first verse and his criticism is that this is Vyavahāravaidagdhya, and not any Sandarbhadharma.
371