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 87

1262
SAHRDAYĀLOKA
“nātakam dvipadi-samyarāsaka-skandhakā”di yat, uktam, tad abhineyártham
uktónyais tasya vistarah.” He has here taken note of not only nāțaka but other minor art-forms also as discussed by us in an earlier chapter.
Dandin : From the theoretical point of view, Dandin's position seems to be identical with that of Bhāmaha, with reference to the topic of rasa and bhāva. He also incorporates rasa/bhāva etc., under such figures as rasavat, preyas, etc. He speaks of rasa elsewhere also. At I. 51, Kavyādarśa he defines 'madhurya' guna as, "madhuryam rasavat, vāci vastuny api, rasasthitih." i.e. - "that which is having rasa, is mādhurya. Rasa resides both in vāk i.e. word and sense and also; in 'vastu' i.e. 'content. We do not go deeper in analysing his understanding of where 'rasa' stays, i.e. what exactly is the abode of rasa. But one point is clear that he seems to hold that in poetry both form and content contribute to rasa. 'Rasa in word and object - should mean this. At - II. 292, again he explains 'madhurya' as 'a-grāmyatā' i.e. 'lack of or absence of vulgarity'. Dandin, II. 292 reads as :
“vākyasyā’grāmyatāyonir mādhuryam (V1. .ye) darsito rasaḥ, iha tv astarasā”yattā
rasavattā smrtā girām." Taruņa-Vācaspati explains as : "evam śộngārā”dibhiḥ astabhiḥ, pūrva-darsitena ca a-grāmyatārūpena rasena navadha rasatvam iti rasavad alamkāram upasamharati; vākyasyeti.” - This is not very clear. Or, perhaps Taruņa Vācaspati does not know the secret of rasa. Hrdayamgamā is perhaps clearer when it observes - "mādhuryagune pradarśitaḥ śabdárthayor agramyatayā jātaḥ rasaḥ vākyasya bhavati. alamkāratayā nirdistam rasavatvam astarasā"yattam eva." But even this does not ring sound. By 'agrāmyatā' of 'sabdárthau', perhaps grammatical correctness or 'sādhutva' of 'vāk' is implied. Bhāmaha had called it to be "supām tinām ca vyutpattim” which was taken by some as 'alamkrti', but not so by Bhāmaha who called it only to be "sau-sabdya". At least a sort of grace descends on language which is grammatically chaste and this may be taken as having a sort of beauty-natural beauty - or 'rasa' - in a figurative way. Perhaps these commentators drive at this. Dandin perhaps does not seem to take 'rasa' in its 'NS.