________________
Vol XXII, 1998
REVIEW
223
presented through acting This perhaps does not put them on par with the Sthāyins The author also suggests how the Sättvikas are treated as vyabhıcárins (pp 29 ft n 2) But we may suggest that the sättvikas when they are mentioned as vyabhıcărins stand for the mental states behind them They need not be taken as physical 'stambha, 'Vaivarnya' etc Perhaps we have to understand a metaphorical sense here Even Dr Kulkarni (p 30) himself feels that (line 15) "These sättvikas are used here in the sense of internal feelings which have not manifested themselves externally" p 30, ft 3,4,5 They are to be taken this way only without getting confused or scarred about it Or, could it be that when Bharata calls these sättvikas as vyabhıcārins, he wants to convey that even the sättvikas are not absolutely or unalternatively fixed with suggestion of this or that basic emotion On p 31, ftn 10, Dr Kulkarnı refers to Dr Raghavan's remark He seems to place all Sättvika-bhāvas on par with anubhävas and therefore takes them as jada, -not bhāvas proper following Abhinavagupta's observation But when Dr Raghavan (ft n 9, p 31) tries to seek support from Abhinavagupta's remark, he overlooks the fact that all sāttvikas are not equally 'yada' or external but that they have a dual nature and we feel that even when insensient sättvikas like 'bāspa' tears etc, are considered, Abhinavagupta calls them jada only from external point of view Virtually they stand for the mental states that accompany them from behind Thus, p 31, ft n 7 explains how sāttvikas take advantage of, or are partly dependent on the nature of vyabhıcārın and abhinayas As they partake of the nature of vyabhıcārins, ie as the sāttvikas are basically 'a-zada' they are to be separated from mere external acting 1 e abhinaya. It is because of this that, Abhinavagupta declares, as quoted by Dr Kulkarni on p 32, that-tasmat sthāyivyabhıcărin-sättvika eva bhāvah (also on pp 42) Dr V M Kulkarnı goes on to discuss how Hemacandra explains this point (p 33) He observes (p 34), that the sättvikas such as 'stambha' etc first suggest the physical attributes and are therefore called anubhāvas, but ultimately they stand for the mental states like love etc This is exactly our observation seen earlier in this review The authour observes that the sättvikas (p 34) have no trace of independence even like vyabhıcārins The meaning is that we may have a vyabhıcāri-dhvanı but never a sättvika-dhvanı The authour also explains how Dhananjaya accepts the dual nature of sättvikas (p 34, 35) Dr Kulkarni refers to Dr Raghavan's understanding about 'sattva' on pp 35 We do not feel that Dr Raghavan places all this in its correct form Dr V M Kulkarni then explains how Vis'vanātha, S'aradātanaya and others understand sättvika-bhāva
