Jain Journal 1990 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 21

JAIN JOURNAL
India, adopts the entire commentary of Abhinavagupta on the rasasūtra and declares that his authority (or source) is Acarya Abhinavagupta-who is a 'Mahamahesvara'. It would be seen from what has been said that there is no such thing as Hindu or Jain or Buddhist aesthetics. Of course we have some works on poetics and aesthetics by Jain writers : Vagbhata-I (Vāgbhatalamkāra, 1st half of 12th century A.D.), Acarya Hemacandra (Kavyānušāsana, 1st half of 12th century A.D.), Maladhari Narendraprabha (Alaṁkāramahodadhi, 1st half of the 13th century A.D.), Vagbhata-II (Kāvyānuśāsana, 14th century A.D.) and Vijayavarni (Srngārārņayacandrikā, last quarter of the 13th century A.D. ?). These Jain writers accept, generally speaking, all the aesthetic concepts of alamkāra, vakrokti, guna, riti, aucitya, rasa, dhvani and the like, as conceived and formulated by master Alamkarikas like Bharata, Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Anandavardhana, Bhoja, Kuntaka, Mammata and others, and presented in their celebrated works. They hardly have anything new to say about these concepts or add any new concepts. They have nothing new to say even about the central aesthetic concept of rasa. But there are two other Jain works which are noteworthy for their views about rasa and problems related to it. The first is Nātyadarpana of Ramacandra and Gunacandra, the two remarkable disciples of Acarya Hemacandra, and the second, Kāvyaprakāśakhandana, a commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa of Mammata, composed by Siddhicandragani, a contemporary of Panditaraja Jagannatha (17th century A.D.). These two writers depart from the beaten path regarding the nature of rasa and problems related to it. They indeed break fresh ground and their views strike the reader as novel. It is proposed to deal in this paper with their novel views,
In the course of his commentary on the rasa-sūtra Abhinavagupta briefly deals with the Samkhya view of rasa. According to the Samkhyas rasa is of dual nature of amphibian nature-of the nature of pleasure or pain. But it is the Nātyadarpana which for the first time divides the sentiments (rasa) into two distinct groups : 1 Those which are pleasurable (śrngāra, hâsya, vira, adbhuta and śānta-the erotic, the comic, the heroic, and the quietist) and 2 those that are painful or unpleasurable (karuna, raudra, bibhatsa and bhayānaka—the sentiment of pathos, the furious sentiment, the disgusting sentiment and the terrifying sentiment), and gives a reasoned exposition of this dual nature of rasa. It takes intensified permanent emotion (sthāyī bhāva), which is of the nature of pleasure or pain, to be rasa (see kārika III. 7); and in the vivarana (commentary) that follows sets forth arguments in support of the dual nature of rasa. To say that all rasas are pleasurable is against experience. The sentiment of bhayānaka etc., even when presented through poetic