________________
1628
SAHRDAYĀLOKA Some rhetoricians are not prepared even to give the status of Rasa to Karuna Bhayānaka, and Bībhatsa, because there is no element of pleasure in them. Siddhicandra-gani, (a just third-rate-name in our estimation; just third-rate !) writes in this context - "na ca teşām (karunā"dīnām) tathābhūtarvépi abhivyaktā” nandacidātmanā sahábhivyaktānām rasatvam iti vācyam. evam api sthayyamse rasavirodhāt... yat tu śokā"dayópi ratyā"divat svaprakāśa-jñāna-sukhātmakā iti tad unmatta-pralapitam. kiñca, sāmājikeșu mộta-kalatra-putrādīnām vibhāvādīnām śokā"di-sthāyi-bhāvasya carvaniyena aja-mahīpālā”dinā saha sāmānādhikaranyam. aśrupātā”di-darśanāt. varnaniya tanmayıbhavanañ ca apekṣitam iti cet, katham brahmā”nanda-sahodara-rasod-bodhah. katham vā na a-māngalyam. ata eva kecid aja-vilāpädikam na pathanti. bībhatse māmsa-puyā”dy-upasthityā vāntanisthīvanā”dikam yan na bhavet tad eva āścaryam. kutas tādrśaparamā”nandarūpa-rasodbodha iti. evam bhaye’pi. śāntasya tyakta-sarva-vāsanesu bhavatu nama kathañcit rasatvam, visayișu punaḥ sarva-visayoparamopasthityā katham rasarvam * ? (Kāvya. Pra. Khandana; pp. 16-22, Edn. Parikh.) Gani does not accept vīra and raudra as separate Rasa-s because their vibhāva-s etc. are the same."
[Siddhicandragani's arguments neither deserve mentioning nor refutation, in our estimation, for he does not seem to understand even the basics of aesthetics.]
Rāmacandrudu (p. 130) continues : “In views of these contradicting theories, and on the strength of the common experience, one would naturally get a doubt whether some of the old theories discussed above, are away from the Because the revealing of Anandāmía by Sattvodreka or by any such cause, being a common thing, according to them in all the Rasas, there should be no satisfactory reason to explain why there is the feeling of grief or the like, in Karuņa, etc., instead of pure Ananda. If one has to come forward with such explanations like the effect of Upādhi etc., (nature of sthāyibhāva), all the previous elaborate explanations would become futile. Under these circumstances, instead of loading the Rasa theory with so many philosophical arguments, there is nothing wrong in accepting that the Rasā’nubhava is the result of a peculiar kind of Bhrānti-jñāna which produces different effects like pleasure, melancholy-pleasure, etc.
This consideration has, perhaps prompted PR. to put forword the third and the fourth theories under the names of 'Navya-s' and 'Pare'. And it may not be improper to believe that PR. attached much value to these theories (or at least to the first of the two, because we find him generally identifying himself with Navya-s), and he names his work Rasa-Gangā-dhara, because he feels that he, for the first time, has
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
