________________
1498
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Lollata also mentions the substratum of rasa. For him, rasa primarily resides in Rāma etc. the anukārya, and through art-ful identification of form (i.e. the power of realisation or, rūpánusamdhāna). rasa is also imagined to reside in the actor who imitates the original character. The actor is “anu-kartā.”
Now if we look at these observations of Lollata in a casual way, we may feel that Lollata has not concerned himself with, i.e. say he is innocent of, the experience of the connoisseur i.e. spectator, or reader etc. Thus for Dr. Kanticandra Pandey Lollața discussed the topic of rasa only from the point of view of the production of drama. i.e. took care only of the view of the producer alone. But we fail to agree with this observation of Dr. Pandey who also feels that Mammata in his K. P., while placing the view of Lollata has knowingly twisted the text by using such terms as “nartaképi pratīyamānah” We do not accept Dr. Pandey's views when we carefully look into the presentation of Lollata's views by Abhinavagupta. It is impossible to accept that Lollata has no idea whatsoever of the rasa-experience on the part of the connoisseur at all. For, we know that while discussing the term "anubhāva” in the rasa-sūtra, Lollata makes a remark that these anubhāva-s are to be understood as "those of the bhāva-s and not as the result of rasa-experience.” Thus Lollata very clearly understands the difference between "bhāvānām ye anubhāvāh" which are of the nature of "cause” and “kārya-rūpa i.e. rasa-janyaanubhāva-s” which are of the nature of "effect of rasa”. Now if we proceed from this position further, we have to find out where could these "kārya-rupaanubhāvas” stay. It is obvious that in the absence of no other alternative these kārya-rūpa-anubhāva-s can stay only in the enjoyer i.e. spectator. The cause or kārana-rūpa-anubhāva-s are those of the bhāvas i.e. vibhāva-s, ālambana such as Rāma and the like, presented on the stage and the karya-rūpa-anubhāva-s different from these are marked in the enjoyer as a result - kārya-of rasa-experience on his part. Thus it is childish to imagine that Lollata has no idea whatsoever of the artexperience on the part of the enjoyer i.e. "rasika”. Of course, this our belief is logical and clear but Lollata has not clearly laid down the same in so many terms. So, we do not agree with Dr. Pandey's another suggestion that Mammata has knowingly twisted the text of the Abh.. by adding the term “pratīvamānah.” Perhaps, Mammata had a better version, an original one, with him. or, he explained the text in a clearer way.
Now, as a logical corollary our second observation also stands vindicated that 'rasa' was imagined to be of the nature of both happiness and un-happiness by Lollata, when he accepted rasa at worldly level i.e. in the 'anukārya' or original worldly character like Rama and the like. It is possible to argue that 'anukārya' is the character as portrayed by the poet. But in that case also it becomes equivalent
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
