________________
220
TAPASVI NANDI
SAMBODHI
beautiful suggested sense and its perception by a sensitive reader or spectator The subjective-cum-objective nature of beauty is suggested, when A says in the mangalas'loka to his Locana "sarasvatyās tattvam kavi-sahridayākhyam vijayate” In his foot notes, and this is true with the rest of his writing, Dr Kulkarni has acknowledged the sources (pp 17, ft n 46) of his inspiration However, a short bibliography at the end of the book would also have been more welcome 'Bharata's concept of Bhava' (pp 19-28) presents the Natyas'āstra (NS) view on bhāva Dr Kulkarni clearly explains the terms such as bhăva, vibhāva, anubhāva, sthāyıbhāva, sättvikabhäva etc Bharata derives the word bhāva, "from the causative of bhu, 'to be', which may be intended in two different meanings that is, 'to cause to be' (viz bring out, create, etc) and 'to pervade' The first explanation gives us-Kavyarthān bhāvayanti iti bhāvāh— e bhāvas bring out the purposes of poetry The second explanation suggests how bhāvas pervade the minds of the spectators as any smell does (pp 18) The author explains Bharata's views on vibhāvas and anubhāvas, who for him are unlimited in number, while sthāyl-vyabhıcārt and sättvikas are unalterably fixed as eight, thirty-three and eight respectively (pp 19) Dr Kulkarnı takes up the explanation of the verse “Yo'rtho hrdaya-samvādī” especially the first half He cites the interpretations of M Ghosh, Dr Bhat, (Bharatanätya-mañjart), J L Masson and M V Patwardhan, an interpretation following the Bälapriyā on the Locana on Dhy, and of Dr K. Krishnamoorthy (=KK) In our view Dr Krishnamoorthy's interpretation is entirely off the mark and unacceptable When Dr K Krishnamoorthy observes (pp 21) "Bharata is not talking of sahrdaya at the commencement of his seventh chapter but of bhāva in drama This context should not be observed” (pp 21), he seems to be under Dr KC Pandey's age-old observations Actually, we fail to understand and therefore categorically reject the very idea that a great dramaturgist of the stature of Bharata can ever divorce the spectator's response from that of the total consideration of dramatic art We, therefore, support Mammata when he uses such terminology as-nartake'pı pratiyamanah, connecting Bhatta Lollata with the Sāmājika also, for no expert on dramaturgy can ever leave behind exclusively the spectator's response For us, the first half of the verse would mean "the (sthāy-bhāva) of the theme ie Kavya-vastu, which is hrdaya-samvadi i e having internal harmony, or sympathetic identification is the cause of rasa " This is a very simple and clear
