Sambodhi 1988 Vol 15

Author(s): Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 10

5
cessors. Now, we must not lose sight of the fact that the various alamkärikäs right from Bhämaha to Jagannatha differ among themselves regarding the nature of certain alamkäras and whether they should be accepted or rejected. The reason behind this divergence of views is not far to seek. For the very concept of charm or beauty eludes a clear-cut and precise definition. Further, it is next to impossible to lay down precise quantum of charm for constituting a separate figure (vicchitti visesa) distinct from all the other accepted figures or of the slight difference of charm required for reckoning it as a sub-variety of the concerned distinct figure. Further more, the concepts of aupamya (similarity), virodha (opposition, contradiction or incongruity), bheda (difference) and abheda (identity) are all relative as they admit of degrees or stages. Inherently, the two tendencies; one of multiplying the number of figures and the other, of reducing the number of these figures are quite natural and useful in their own ways.
As these eminent literary thinkers widely differ amongst themselves. regarding the alleged figures, the question naturally arises whom wer should follow as the authority. Jagannatha who 'was a poet of creative genius and who also possessed the faculty of aesthetic appreciation in an eminent degree' furnishes the answer to this question when he says more than once that in this matter sahṛdayas-men of taste, competent, responsive, sensitive readers are the authority. This appeal to the sahrlayas implies that the apprehension of charm or beauty of a particular figure as distinct from other accepted figures depends as much on the poet's representation of a thing, situation or idea as on the temperament, training and poetic. sensibility of the sahṛdaya, such as Prof. Athavale.
Now, we take up Hemacandra and the Rasa Tradition.
Hemacandra and the Rasa Tradition
The earliest exponent of the Rasa tradition is Bharata's Natyalastra, a compilation unquestionably from previous works that have been irretrievably lost. The early writers on poetics were aware of the employ ment and importance of rasa-s but they did not treat them as the most essential or vital elements in Kavya. It was Anandavardhana, the author of Divanyaloka, an epoch-making-work, who systematically dealt with the relation of rasas to Kavya. Bharata unequivocally declared:
न हि रसाहते कश्चिदर्थः प्रवतते ।
Everything, every activity or action in drama is directed towards the