________________
222
TAPASVI NANDI
SAMBODHI
Bharata's text that a Vyabhucaribhāva can become a sthāyibhāva, though A accepts this Dr Kulkarni also quotes Abhinavagupta's contradictory opinion that "A Sthayin can become a vyabhicärın but a vyabhicārın can never become a sthāyın" We may say that when Bharata enumerates 'Jugupsā' as a vyabhucarin in case of Srngära, he in a way rubs off the difference between the sthayin and the vyabhicärin Perhaps this Bharata accepts as a one-way-affair The Sthayin can be a vyabhicärin and not vice-versa but Abhinavagupta perhaps extended this observation So when Abhinavagupta (p 25, ftn 14-(11) denies the status of Sthäyttä to Vyabhicärins, he has Bharatās partial acceptance in his mind He himself is clear in both-way traffic
Dr Kulkarni nicely observes that (p 25) the new or additional vyabhicārins mentioned by Bharata are only synonyms He, however, is ill at ease with himself when he observes, (p 25) that 'No satisfactory answer is so far, found to this baffling question' viz that how could Bharata include some insentient (jada, acetana) and external (bähya) states in the list of sentient and internal vyabhicārins? We may think that when Bharata talks of nudra, marana, ālasya, vyädhi etc he means the respective mental states that lead to these physical expressions This can be an easy and acceptable solution Similarly, when Bharata mentions frama, cinta and älasya as the vibhāvas of nidra, a vyabhicárin, the reference could be to the mental states caused by these Again, when Bharata lists some of them as anubhāvas, obviously he seems to refer to the angika-abhinaya-external expression that goes with them This is how wel can support Bharata-Sthutasya samarthanam' I
Dr Kulkarni (p 26) considers closely the nature of sättvikabhāvas We may note that in all the references citied, 'sattva' stands for absolute mental concentration, or singleminded devotion to one's work by the artist Thus for Abhinavagupta 'bhava' stands for citta-vrtti-vis'esa, 1 e a special state of mind These mental states depending on propnety and context, take the form of sthäyt, vyabhicari, or vibhāva or anubhava The vibhāvas and anubhavas being external and insentient are not 'bhäva' proper, but sthäyt-vyabhicärt and sättvika bag the honour of being called bhava' proper
Dr Kulkarni discusses 'Dual nature of Sättvika-bhāva' in the next article He points out that for Bharata the categones of bhavas are not unalternately fixed The author feels that the treatment given to the thirty-three vyabhicărins in the seventh chapter puts them on par with the Sthayins We may note that in the bhävädhyaya, Bharata tries to explain how various vyabhicärins were to be
