________________
120
SAHRDAYĀLOKA tad asta-tandraih anisam sarasvati śramād upāsyā khalu kīrtim ipsubhiḥ || krse kavitve'pi janāh krta-śramā
vidagadha-goștīşu vihartum iśate || (1. 105) nus insistance on either pratibhā alone, or on both pratibhā and vyutpatti (= learning) or on all three - i.e. pratibhā, vyutpatti and abhyāsa- i.e. practice taken together making a 'single unit seems to continue to be the topic of discussion among literary critics with Mammata preferring to side with the organic unity of all the three factors taken together, while Hemacandra insisting on pratibhā at Kāvyānuśāsana (=kā.śā) – I. 4 when he observes :
pratibhā asya hetuh. (kā. śā. I. 4) He further observes that vyutpatti or learning i.e. proficiency in various branches of knowledge, and abhyāsa' i.e. practice give an edge to inborn pratibhā. Thus they are welcome as shaping influences. He further classifies pratibhā' into 'sahajā' (=inborn) and aupādhiki (=acquired). Sahajā is the result of 'āvarana-ksaya', and 'upaśama.' The first is the removal of coverings that obstruct the flash of pratibhā, and the second is ‘removal of possible coverings that may obstruct the flash of genius. The aupādhikā is the result of such occult causes as 'mantra' etc. Hemacandra thus seems to move closer to the tradition of Bhāmaha, which insists on the basic undeniable necessity of in-born genius, which ultimately finds favour even with Jagannāthā the last greatest luminary in the sky of Indian literary criticism.
Thus, prior to Jagannātha and before Mammata we have protegonists of only pratibhā, such as Bhatta Tauta-who observes :
"prajñā nava-navollekha-śālini pratibhā matā. tad anuprāņanā-jīva-varṇanā-nipunaḥ kaviḥ tasya karma, smstam kāvyam” then, Abhinavagupta suggests : "pratibhā apūrva-vastu-nirmāņa-kşamā prajñā. tasya viśeso rasā”-veśa-vaiếadyasaundarya-kāvya-nirmāņa-kşamatvam, (Locana) and also “saktiḥ, pratibhānam varṇanīya-vastu -visaya-nūtanóllekha-śälitvam"
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org