________________
1496
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Lollata observes that in the example given by Bharata too, some flavourings appear in a latent state, like the permanent state, and others in an emergent state, like the transitory states. Thus rasa, as observed earlier, according to Lollaţa, is simply a permanent state, intensified by the determinants, consequents etc.; but, had it not been intensified, it is only a permanent mental state. Lollata also adds that rasa is present both in the person reproduced i.e. original character such as Rāma and the like, the ‘anukārya', and also in the reproducing actor, the artist who plays the role of a given character, the 'anukartā', by virtue of the power of realisation (of the form of the original, i.e. rūpánusamdhāna).
It may be noted that Lollața broadly terms the three factors of utpatti, pratīti and paripusti by a single term “upaciti.” The relation of the sthāyin with vibhāvā”di-s is
anya-janaka-bhāva", with anubhāva-s of "gamya-gamaka-bhāva” and with vyabhicārin-s, of “posya-posaka-bhāva." Thus it is three-fold, or say, "three in one."
The sthāyin, which basically by itself is not intensified (an-upacita), becomes rasa, - when thus itensified or enhanced by “vibhāva-anubhāva and vyabhicāri-bhāva.”
Lollata's opinion deserves further scrutiny. Basically he calls the sthāyin itself, “sthayi eva", to be rasa, may be in an enhanced form. We know that among theorists of aesthetics, there are two thought currents prevalent and they are diametrically opposite to each other. The first one is the one supported by Lollata and in this tradition, 'rasa' is imagined to be identical with (laukika) stāyin (of course in an intensified form). Thus between rasa and sthāyin there is difference in ‘avasthā' i.e. state or position but not in nature i.e. svarūpa. This thought-current holds that "sthāyī eva rasah." As opposed to this, the other thought-current holds that 'rasa' is "sthāyi-vilaksana" i.e. "of a different nature than that of sthāyin.” The first tradition that takes rasa and sthāyin as identical in nature (and not in form), do accept that cause, effect and accessory i.e. kārana, kārya and sahakārin of the worldly level are the same as the vibhāva, anubhāva and vyabhicāribhāva in art, i.e. in poetry and drama here. These are identical in nature, i.e. there is no svarūpabheda or, svabhāvabheda between the two sets. The difference is not in basic nature but in name only. Thus for these theorists, the sthāyin-s that appear in art-forms such as poetry, drama, etc. are not only the same but are also identical in nature with the sthāyin-s as observed in the worldly context. There is no difference in nature between these two sets of laukika-stayin, cause, effect and accessory on one hand and a-laukika (or kāvya-nātya-gata) sthāyin-vibhāva-anubhāva and vyabhicārin on the other. The two sets are not only identical in form but identical in nature also. This means that the sthāyin as presented in the art-form is equally 'sukha-duhkha
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
