Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 103

78
SAHRDAYĀLOKA the play concerned. By rejecting anything else as principal except rasa-dhvani, i.e. emotive poetry only for him, Mahimā rejects such excellent attempts by modern playwrights. And it is criminal. We, therefore, cannot endorse Mahimā's position.
The next alternative Mahimā considers is that of 'viśesa' being taken as 'particularity'. Mahimā holds, that if kávyavisesa simply means, a particular type of poetry', the question that would arise is whether there are other types of poetry also from which the dhvani-kāvya is expected to be distinguished. Mahimā argues that if, for example, a poem presenting a particular rasa, say sțingāra, or karuņa, for example, is sought to be a kāvya-viśesa in the present context, and is regarded as excellent, then poems presenting other rasas will fall outside the scope of dhvanikāvya ! Mere word and meaning regarded beautiful on account of the presence of gunas i.e. poetic excellences and alamkāras i.e. beautiful turns of speech, cannot also be regarded as poetry in general in order to take dhvani-kavya as particular type, because the former with guna and/or alamkāra only, but devoid of the charm caused by rasa, cannot be taken as poetry at all ! 'Nor, can it be regarded as poetry in a secondary sense (gauņa-vrtti) also, when poetry in the literal sense - i.e. 'sarasa-kāvya' is very much there, and when this primary meaning is not rejected (i.e. badhita). The primary meaning, if not contradicted, can never be reject Mahimā poetry without rasa is no poetry, i.e. it is only a misnomer : ata eva ca na gunā'lamkāra-samskrta-śabdártha-mātra-śarīram tāvat kävyam; tasya yathoktavyangyā'rthópanibandhe sati viếistatvam iti śakyam vaktum. tasya rasā”tmatā'bhāve mukya-vșttyā kāvya-vyapadeśa eva na syāt; kim uta visistatvam ?”
But all this, as observed earlier by us, suffers from the blemish of its, being "toonarrow" i.e. 'avyāpti-dosa' in Mahimā's thinking.
Mahimā goes on to argue that ‘kāvya-vićeşa' cannot also mean poetry suggesting vastu and alamkāra, because they also lead us finally to rasarealization like poetry directly responsible for the suggestion of rasa. He also holds that it is not proper to distinguish rasa on the basis of suggestive elements such as gunas i.e. poetic excellences and alamkāra i.e. poetic figures of speech. Here he points out by way of an illustration the concept of cowness and cows of different colours. We do not distinguish cows on the basis of different colours as the class of cowness goes equally with all the colours. Says he : (pp. 104, ibid): na ca rasā"tmanaḥ kāvyasya vastumātrā"dibhir viśeşaḥ śakyam adhātum, tesām vibhāvā"dirūpatayā rasā'bhivyakti-hetutvopagamāt; na ca vyañjakānām vaicitrye vyangyasya višeşo'bhyupagantum yuktah, śābaleya”dīnām iva gotvasya”. Mahimā further argues that if poetry wherein vastu or alamkāra suggests rasa is recognized as dhvanikāvya, then poetry directly suggesting rasa will fall out of the