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 437

1612
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
The reply is that it is the greatness of extra-ordinary poetic function that the palatable taste that is caused due to it is absolutely different from any worldly experience. So, the outcome is that the bhāvanā (aesthetic chewing or, emotive process) caused by poetry causes 'āsvāda'-taste which has 'rarya"di' as its subject. : "ayam hi lokóttarasya kāvya-vyāpārasya mahimā, yat-prayojyā a-ramanīyā api śokā”dayah padárthā, āhlādam a-laukikam janayanti.
vilaksaņo hi kamanīyaḥ kāvyavyāpāra-ja āsvādaḥ, pramāņántarajād anubhavāt. janyatvam ca sva-janya-bhāvanā-janya-ratyā”di-visayatvam."(pp. 67, ibid).
So, if this joy is believed to be not caused by bhāvanā, caused by kāvyavyāpāra, there is no harm.-"tena rasā”svādasya kāvya-vyāpāra-a-janyatvépi, 'na kşatih. śakuntalā”dau a-gamyātva-jñānótpādas tu dușyantā”dy-abheda-buddhyā pratibadhyaté ityā”huḥ.
The rise of such a consciousness that, 'Sakuntalā is a-gamyā for me, is also -removed for in the mind of the rasika a consciousness of identity with Dusyanta has taken place and this removes that a-gamyātva-buddhi.
We have seen that J. has given three views concerning rasa"svāda, the first being the view floated by Abhinavagupta and supported by Mammata and acceptable to him also.
The second view was that of Bhatta-nāyaka and he tried to bridge the difference with the first view by saying that bhāvakatva is covered up by gunálamkāra-yoga and dosa-hāna in kāvya and caturvidha-abhinaya in drama, and bhoga-vyāpāra is identical with vyañjanā itself. So, virtually J. feels that Bhatta-Nayaka had nothing fresh to offer except a quarrel in 'name' only.
The third view was that of the so-called Navya-s, perhaps also shared by Siddhicandra gani, who for us is a lesser light and perhaps, in our opinion was posterior to J. We are clear that the view of these navya-s is not shared by J. but as it did carry some weight in the literary circle of his times, he has discussed the same at lenght. Our Guru Prof. R. B. Athavale also feels that J. accepted the views of the Naavyas. But we politely disagree; for J.'s committment to the views of Abhinavagupta and Mammata is clear and final and he also had an absolute faith in the "Revala-āhlādaKāritva'of poetry, drama or any art. For him rasa is "ānanda-ghana-samvedanam eva, tatra kā duhkhā”-śankā ?” Actually but for the sukha-duhkhā”tmakarva of rasa as acceptable to the Navyas, even what they call a special bhāvanā-dosa, can be called a “special bhāvanā-guna” also. Why should they call it a dosa ? Thus, when put to critical test the view of the navyas seems to lose ground.