Studies in Jain Literature

SR No.: 001868
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 114
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Story
File Size: 14 MB

Page 352

334 STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE actuality). It holds rasa to be alaukika only in the sense that the vibhavas as depicted in a play or poem are not real. In the case of a real man and real woman the rasa is apprehended vividly because its vibhavas are actually present; and it is on account of this actuality that the vyabhicarins and anubhavas produced by rasa are clearly perceptible. In the case of a spectator or an actor however the rasa is apprehended only indistinctly for the vibhavas portrayed in a play or a poem do not have real existence. Consequently the vyabhicarins and the anubhavas too which follow rasa are not clearly perceptible. That is why the rasa, apprehended in a spectator is called alaukika (not of actuality, nonworldly, supranormal) 10. It would seem from the above that the authors of the Natyadarpana, strongly differ with Abhinavagupta on two points regarding rasa. Abhinavagupta holds all the eight (nine, including santa) rasas to be pleasurable (anandarupa) whereas these authors speak of two distinct groups of rasa : (1) srngaradi (the erotic and others), which are pleasurable and (2) karunadi (pathos and others), which are unpleasurable or painful. Abhinavagupta locates rasa primarily in the spectator (or hearer) whereas these locate rasa in the original character, the spectator (or the hearer), the poet and at times even the actor And now as regards Siddhicandra's view : Siddhicandra, a contemporary of Jagannatha, first explains the experience of paramananda, the supreme joy of rasa, according to the doctrine of the Vedantinsll. His use of terms like ratyadyavacchinnam (caitanyam), "bhagnavaranam (caitanyam)." strongly remind us of Jagannatha's explanation of rasa as ratyadyavacchinna bhagnavarana cideva rasah in his Rasagangadhara2As compared with it, a peculiar pleasure which arises on watching a dramatic performance or hearing the recitation of poetry is similar to the pleasure of anointing one's body with sandal-paste or of pressing the breasts of a young beautiful woman is itself rasa--this is the view of the moderns (navinah) who belong to the 17th century13. In other words, the navinas (possibly, including the author himself) regard the aesthetic pleasure as on a par with ordinary pleasures of the sense-as only laukika(worldly). As a corollary to this view they hold that there are only four rasas; the erotic, the heroic, the comic and the marvellous; and reject the claim of the pathetic, the furious, the terrifying and the disgusting to the title of rasas 14. The pathos (karuna) and others, arising from sorrow (soka) etc., although are revealed with cit (or caitanya)-consciousness consisting of delight, they cannot be called rasa since