________________
1614
SAHRDAYĀLOKA rasa-nişpattiḥ.” Even Lollata had suggested that the anubhāva-s mentioned in the sūtra were not to be taken as 'rasa-janya' but as those belonging to the bhāva-s that stand for either the sthāyin-s, -and the anubhāva-s of the sthāyins are discussed at length in the Nā. Sā. Ch. VII (vol.I), -or bhāva-s may mean the alambana-vibhāvas. In the second alternative, we arrive at "vibhāvād-rasa-nispattih.” Actually 'vibhāva' is a 'cause' in general and therefore if in brief it is said, “vibhāvād rasa-nispattih," there is nothing wrong in it and we have to take this view in this light only. This is our humble opinion. Prof. Ramachandrudu then proceeds as-)
“The seventh theory that all the three thinga-Vibhāva-s, Anubhava-s and the Vyabhicāri-bhāva-s, together constitute Rasa, results, evidently, from understanding in a most general way, Rasasūtra of Bharata, where only these are mentioned without the explicit reference to the sthāyibhāva. The eighth theory holds that one of the three which ever can produce Camatkāra is Rasa and that none of them can become rasa if it fails to produce the same. This theory again, must have been the outcome of the ninth, thenth and eleventh theories, according to which, each of the - Vibhāva-s etc. can become as explained above, Rasa. Thus all these five theories
represent the views of the earlier writers, and historically speaking, they should, most probably, be placed in the following order (i) bhāvyamāno vibhāva eva rasah, (ii) anubhāvah, tathā (iii) vyabhicāryeva tathā tathā parinamati. (iv) trişu ya eva camatkārī sa eva rasaḥ (v) and, vibhāvā-dayah trayaḥ samuditāḥ rasaḥ.”
[It may be noted that we may not read any order historically speaking, for as explained by us as above, virtually these views result in only the said prominence of a given factor. It is the result of a personal choice when someone would place it this way and the other, another way.)
(pp. 114, ibid)-“PR, understands the weakness of these theories and disposes them off with one remark without any comment there on. Even Abhinavagupta mentions (and, it may be noted, we have referred to these in our earlier chapter), similar theories only in a passing remark : "anye tu śuddham vibhāvam, apare tu śuddham anubhāvam, kecin tu sthāyimātram. itare vyabhicāriņam, anye tatsamyogam, eke anukāryam, kecana sakalam eva samudāyam rasam āhur ity alam bahunā.” [Abhinavagupta has mentioned, "sthāyinam”, and “anukāryam" and "sakalam samudāyam” also, in addition to what J. has done. By 'Sakalam Samudāyam' as it comes after'anukārya' of course meaning the hero, should mean all the characters taken together, and not just the hero alone. Again, as we had seen in a quotation in the earlier chapter, the pradhāna-samvit of the nāyaka, here anukārya, is the last biggest circle in which other samvid-s get merged. So, there
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
