________________
1598
SAHṚDAYALOKA
But what we object to is Dr. Pandey's observation concerning "nartaképi ca pratīyamānaḥ." He feels that M. has tampered with the original text and has added "pratīyamānaḥ", dragging in the sāmājika. He feels that Lollata has no idea of the 'sāmājika' sharing rasánubhuti and here by "nartaképi pratīyamānaḥ", indirectly the sāmājika is brought in. We strongly object to this. True, M. has explained 'upaciti' in three ways concerning the vibhāvā"di-s and even this was not read in the A.bh. But it is very much implied in the A.bh. In the same way the A.bh. has clearly suggested that the "anubhava-s" included in the Bharata-sutra are to be taken as "bhāvānām anubhavaḥ"; for the resultant anubhavas following a rasánubhuti cannot be included in the sutra which explains the 'cause' element of, rasa. This means that Lollata was conscious of the resultant anubhava-s, which are "effects" of rasa. Naturally they are spotted in the sāmājika who has a rasa-experience. Thus, Lollata is absolutely conscious about a sāmājika undergoing rasa-experience. He is not "unknown" to Lollata. So, Dr. Pandey's talk of M. twisting the text of the A.bh. -to accomodate for the sāmājika, falls flat. We have observed earlier while dealing with the A.bh. that Lollata seems to favour a line of thinking which is in favour of (laukika)-"sthāyī eva rasaḥ", and he seems to accept 'rasa' at worldly context level also when he accepts rasa to be "anukarya-gata", and therefore, perhaps he i.e. Lollata also advocated the "sukha-duḥkhā”tmakatva" of rasa.
Śrī. Śankuka's views are also presented by M. in a brief but clearer presentation Śrī. Śankuka advocates a theory of rasa having two stages; the first stage is 'anukṛti' on the part of the actor, followed by the second stage when a sāmājika infers (anumita) a given basic emotion in the actor who is taken as a given character, say, Rama and the like; the apprehension here being peculiar to art and hence beautiful and falling beyond the range of cognitions such as distinct or samyak, i.e. valid, or invalid (mithya), or doubtful (samsaya) or analogical (i.e. sādṛśyamulaka). The actor is taken as Rama by the Samajika who then infers the emotion of Rāma in the actor who is taken as Rāma. This inference of the imitated emotion is termed 'rasa' by Śrī. Śankuka, for whom the acceptance of the actor as Rāma by the sāmājika, then the artificial presentation of artificial vibhāvā❞di-s taken as genuine by the sāmājika on account of the actor's competence, and the imagined emotion itself are all basically false but they are covered up so beautifully by artful presentation that they look genuine-"kṛtrimaiḥ api tatha anabhimanyamānaiḥ." Śrī. Šankuka thus directly connects the sāmājika with rasa. The sāmājika was only indirectly implied as having rasa-experience in Lollata's presentation. Again, as M. presents, it is made absolutely clear that the inference here is also beautiful on
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
