________________
Rasa-niṣpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1499
to the historical character, if any, not seen physically equally by the spectator. Even if it is argued that the anukarya is not a historical character but a Ramesh or a Suresh or a Sachin imagined to be the hero by the poet, then also for the spectator he is not only a distant person for all time, but a person belonging to the real world and so an individual. To imagine rasa in this 'anukarya' also peters out to the position that rasa is accepted at the worldly level and hence rasa is just an intensified worldly feeling resulting in an experience of happiness, unhappiness and moha or delusion. Abhinavagupta testifies that earlier ācāryas such as Dandin also consider upacita or intensified or advanced sthāyin as rasa. Thus Lollata's thought current also seems to be quite ancient and was perhaps even known to Bharata.
Lollata observes that with the help of 'anusamdhana' rasa is located even in the actor. This term 'anusamdhana' is technical but is left unexplained by Lollata, however commentators on Mammaṭa's Kavyaprakāśa try to explain it either as "aropa" i.e. superimposition or 'abhimana' or "I-ness" i.e. sense of "I am Rāma" in the actor. Dr. K. C. Pandey tries to explain it as "Yojana" or 'connection' of the individuality of the actor with that of the character. 'Yojana' is also a technical term of the Pratyabhijñā darśana used when Jiva correlates itself with Siva.
In Lollata's view thus we may find the seeds of "laukikatva" and "sukhaduḥkhā"tmakatva" of rasa. We may call this opinion as having "realistic" undertone. Lollata also thought that the co-existence of both sthayin and vyabhicärin is possible in a single given moment if the former is taken as 'samskāra' or 'vāsana' i.e. latent impression.
Śrī. Sankuka has severely criticised Lollata's view on rasa. It may be noted that Abhinavagupta himself does not directly criticise or find fault with any view expressed by his predecessors. He simply quotes the refutation of an earlier view by a later authority which is prior to him. He does this without passing any comments of his own. On the contrary when he passes epistemological observations on the nature of rasa he seems to accept, or at least does not seem to reject, the opinions of all of his earlier masters.
Śrī Śankuka's refutation of Lollata's views is quoted in great details by Abhinavagupta. In Sankuka we may find the roots of what later Mahima-bhatta stood for, i.e. of the thought-current of accepting inferential nature of rasaexperience. It is safer for us to believe that Śrī Śankuka is the earliest known promulgator of anumiti-vāda rather than taking him to be the original promoter of this view. This thought-current also could be still older. We can correlate
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
