________________
1492
SAHṚDAYALOKA
reality acknowledged "rasa-dhvani" as the soul of poetry, though theoretically trirūpa-dhvani was accepted as the soul of poetry. These writers on literary criticism tried to apply, of course keeping Bharata's lead at heart, the rasa-theory to sahitya or poetry. The dhvanivadin-s actually correlated all other concepts of literary criticism such as alamkāra, guņa, rīti, vṛtti, doṣa, etc. to 'rasa' which was always kept in the centre of consideration. Even Bharata, while discussing lakṣaṇa-s, alamkāra-s, guṇa-s, etc. suggests that these are to be used in poetry keeping "Kavya-rasa" in the centre.
The pure form of rasa is discussed by Bharata in the sixth chapter of his NS. The famous rasa-sūtra in the NS. runs as : “vibhāvánubhāva-vyabhicāri-samyogād rasanispattih." The birth of rasa takes place by (=results from) the combination of dererminants, consequents and accessories. Different commentators of the NS. have examined this rasa-sutra carefully and have presented their explanations. We know that a commentary on NS., Abhinavabhāratī (=A.bh.), of the great -Abhinavagupta, is available in print. Abhinavagupta has taken judicious and unbiased note of different opinions on various topics of the NS. of his predecessors who also commented on the NS. of Bharata. The original commentaries of these presecessors such as Bhatta Lollata, shrī Śankuka, Bhaṭṭa nayaka and the rest are not available to us. Perhaps the mss. containing the same are lost to us, or some day they may appear before us. But for the present they are as good as lost to us. Abhinavagupta has noted the views of these predecessors on various topics. At times he has discussed at length and even refuted the same. We can reasonably have faith in the fact that these works, in form of commentaries on the NS. were available to Abhinavagupta and also to some of his illustrious posteriors such as Acārya Hemacandra and prior to him even Mammata, the anthor of the Kavyaprakāśa. If they were available to Hemacandra, may be they were also available to Dhananjaya, Dhanika and Bhoja also, and also perhaps to Kuntaka and Mahimā. But we are not sure of this. But this could have been the academic climate of centuries around 1000 A.D. We also know that after Abhinavagupta who follows the lead of Anandavardhana, many others such as writers from Kuntaka down to Jagannatha and even after him, discussed the topic of rasa and of rasa-nispatti also, in their own way. But most of them such as Mammața, Hemacandra, Vidyadhara, Viśvanatha etc. echo the views of Abhinavagupta. Those who tried to dig a new sub-way of their own, leaving the high-way prepared by Abhinavagupta, did not exert great influence on posterity. We have examined quite a few of them earlier. By and large the thought current promoted by Anandavardhana
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
