________________
1514
SAHRDAYĀLOKA an imitation of all the forms of existence in the seven islands", etc., can have also other explanations. And even if that was a reproduction, then what would be the difference between it and the reproduction of the attire, the walk, etc. of the beloved one ?".
Gnoli observes that (foot-note 4, pp. 41) the text and the translation are both doubtful. But he has obviously missed the point. Viśveśvarjee has explained it in a perfect way. When a beloved imitates the style of her lover it is not just imitation but it is something richer and is termed by a different name viz. "līlā”. In the same way the acting, on the stage is no mere imitation but is 'nārya', the dramatic art and is thus given a separate name. Of course Gnoli himself (foot-note 3, pp. 41, ibid) explains that "imitation" must be interpreted as "re-telling", (anu-kīrtana), and therefore as a "re-perception" (anuvyavasāya). We use the term “artful recreation" for 'anukarana', and it explains the idea perfectly. This was the fourth option rejected by Tauta. The third option stands rejected of its own. (p. 4
Abhinavagupta quotes the views of Tunta here : “nā’pi vastuvịttā’nusārena tad anukāratvam a-samvedyamānasya vastuvșttatvā’nupapatteh yac ca vastuvṛttam tad darśayisyāmaḥ - (Gnoli, pp. 9. Reading of H.C. are preferred).
Gnoli translates (pp. 40, ibid) : “Nor can it be said that there is a reproduction from the point of view of the nature of things (vastu-vrtta); for it is impossible that a thing which one is not conscious, has a real nature. We shall explain further in what the nature of things consists. Gnoli adds (in foot-note 3, pp. 40, ibid) that here "vastu-vrtta" is to be viewed from the point of view of the analysing mind. Reference is made to I.P.V. II. pp. 179. "samvedana-tiraskāriņi kā khalu yuktir nāma, anupapattiś ca bhāsamānasya kā’nyā bhavisyati ?”
Thus, after rejecting all the four options, "citra-turaga-nyāya” is taken up for consideration. It is not proper to accept the manifestation of a bull or a horse on the strength of this maxim. Of course, the lamp brings into light the jar. But just by the combination of colours original bull or cow or horse is not manifested. With
lp of the painting only an aggragate similar to a cow is apprehended. The combination of vibhāvā"di-s can not be said to be similar to delight (= rati). Thus, it is not true to say that rasa is the reproduction of mental states.
The Abh. (pp. 270, G.O.S.; pp. 9, Gnoli) reads as : "yac cócyate varņakair haritālā"dibhih samyujyamāna eva gaur ityā"di. tatra yady abhi'vyajyamāna ity arthóbhipretaḥ, tad asat. na hi sindūrā”dibhiḥ pāramārthiko gaur abhivyajyate, pradīpā"dibhir iva: kintu tat-sadrśah samūha-viseso nirvartyate. ta eva hi
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
