Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

SR No.: 007023
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 216
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 22 MB

Page 192

16
THE JAINA VIEW OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE
NVCE
It is indeed absurd to speak of a Science such as Aesthetics as Hindu or Buddhist or Jaina. A careful examination of the views of different writers about rasa, however, reveals that they are influenced by their own schools of thought or darśanas. The view of Bhatta Lollata, which is classed as one of the production (utpatti) of rasa, is regarded as that of the Mimāṁsā school; and the vicw of Srisankuka which interprets the manifestation of rasa as a process of inference (anumiti) is regarded as that of the Naiyāyika school. Bhatta Nāyaka's view of rasa, termed as bhuktivāda, shows influence both of the Sāṁkhya and the Mimāṁsā darśanas. Finally, Abhinavagupta's exposition of the theory of rasa is deeply influenced by the Vedänta school of thought.
In view of these facts it would be interesting to examine the Jaina authors' writings on rasa and see whether they reveal any influence of Jaina school of thought.
The Jaina text, the Anuyogadvārasūtra, which claims to be old (before third century A.D. ?) contains a Prakrit passage on nine Kävya rasas. It is not easy to decide whether this passage is taken from an early independent Prakrit text on Alamkāra-śāstra or whether it is composed by the author himself keeping in view Sanskrit texts on dramaturgy or poetics. No such early Prakrit work on poetics is so far known.It is not unlikely that the author himself added this passage. It is, however, noteworthy that the usual order of rasas is not followed here. The list notes the rasas in the following order:
1. vira 2. fțngāra 3. adbhuta 4. raudra 5. vridanaka 6. bibhat sa 7. hāsa 8. karuna and 9. praśānta. The definitions and the verses illustrating these nine rasas are such as are not to be met with in the treatises on the science of dramaturgy or poetics. It deserves notice that bhayānaka is not included in the list. In its place we have yridanaka (with vidā or lajjā as its sthāyibhava). The commentator informs us that bhayānaka is included under raudra. Further, it is vira, and not śrngāra that is given the pride of place. This change appears significant.
As the author belongs to Jaina monastic order we can well appreciate this change of emphasis. The inclusion of praśānta rasa in the list tends to suggest a much later date for this text, at least for this portion of the text. Again, it is to be noted that this passage does not indicate at all whether the author considered some of these rasas as pleasurable and some others painful or whether all rasas are pleasurable.
From amongst the Jaina writers on Alamkāra-śāstra proper Vägbhata I, Ācārya Hemacandra, Maladhāji Narendraprabha, Vāgbhaga (II) and Vijayavarņi, who wrote Vägbhaļālamkāra (1st half of 12th century A.D.), Kavyanuśäsana (1st half of 12th
1. Nandisuttam and the Anuogaddäräim, Jaina-Agama series No. 1, Sri Mahāvira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1968, pp. 121-124.