Sahrdayaloka Part 03

SR No.: 006910
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 676
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 141

1316
SAHRDAYĀLOKA and vibhāvā"dis in poetry are not of identical nature. He quotes the substance of theory which he has inherited. He observes (pp. 71, ibid) - "na ca loke vibhāvā”dayo bhāvā vā sambhavanti, hetv ādīnām eva tatra sambhavāt. na ca vibhāvā”dayo hetvā"dayaśca ity eka evā'rtha iti mantavyam. anye hervā"dayónya eva vibhāvā"dayaḥ. teşām bhinna-laksanatvāt. tathā hi.”
Mahimā talks the language of tradition and it includes Ā. and Abhinavagupta also who claim to interprete Bharata. Mahimā holds that the set of causes etc. in ordinary parlance and the vibhāvā"dis in art not identical. Abhinavagupta had also explained that these are called vibhāvas etc. on account of their strength of rendering their object as enjoyable : 'vibhāvayan' is explained by him as "āsvādayogyi-kurvan." Mahima quotes from Bharata to explain 'vibhāva' and also 'anubhāva' and also 'vyabhicărins'. The quarrel lies in the fact that the vyaktivādins call this process of relish by the name of vyañjanā, while Mahimă insists on 'anumiti'. To be fair, as Bhatta Nayaka pointed out 'abhivyakti' is not pure abhivyakti, and Mahimā's anumiti is also not pure anumiti. It is just a poetic function which renders the object of its description relishable. Call if by any name, vyañjanā' or 'anumiti'. Mahimā holds that the vibhāvā"dis have existence in the realm of inference only and are not objects of reality, as they exist only in poetry or any art-form. They are artificial while causes etc. are real. Only vibhāvā"dis make for relish i.e. rasa as it is the essence of their nature. They are therefore pratīyamāna i.e. implied or 'gamya' i.e. 'inferred' only. Their apprehension is called 'rasa' - relish, which is natural to them. He observes : "(pp. 74, ibid) : “tad evam vibhāvā"dīnām hetvā”dīnām ca křtrima-a-krtrimatayā, kāvya-loka-visayatayā ca svarūpabhede visayabhede ca avasthite sati ekatva-a-siddher yadā vibhāvā"dibhir bhāveșu ratyā”dişveva pratītir upajanyate tadā teşām tanmātra-sāratvāt pratīyamānā iti, gamyā iti ca vyapadeśā mukhya-vșttyā upapadyanta eva. tatpratīti-parāmarśa eva ca rasā”svādaḥ svābhāvika ity uktam.” He further adds (pp. 75) : “sópi ca tesām na tathā svadate, yathā tair evā’numeyatām nīta iti svabhāva evā'yam, na paryanuyogam arhati. tad uktam -
“nā’numito hervā”dyaiḥ svadaténumito yathā vibhāvā”dyaiḥ na ca sukhayati vācyórthaḥ
pratīyamāna sa eva yathā.” iti. He quotes from the Dhv. in his support. Mahimā tries to explain the pleasure in the aesthetic context on the basis of the imaginative existnece i.e. the fictiveness of