Studies In Sanskrit Sahitya Shastra

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology

Page 76

64
names for the dress, the gait, etc., of the beloved are not to be found in the text of Bharata's NS. So your stand that Rasa is an imitation or reproduction ( anukara, Anukarana) of a sthāyibhāva such as rati, etc., has no basis. ”
This interpretation seems to be perfectly all right but for one inconvenient fact. It is true Barata does not give different names to the imitation of dress, the gait, the speech, etc., of the beloved, he, however, gives general name 21/4 बागङ्गालङ्कारैः शिष्टः प्रीतिप्रयोजितमधुरैः । इष्टजनस्यानुकृतिलला ज्ञेया प्रयोगः ॥
Abhinavagupta, however, has himself said in the present paragraph: कान्तवेषानुकारवद्धि न रामचेशिनुकारः ।
6 तन्त्र इति नाव्यतत्रम् |
Studies in
—NS XXII, 14
- Vol I p 276, 1.1.
KLV p. 306, 110
This comment comes in between प्रामाणिकजनश्च... किमाचक्ष्महे । ( = प्रामाणिको जनः ...... किमस्योच्यते A. Bh. Vol I, p. 276 1 17 and रसो न प्रतीयत इति ।
Hemacandra, however, reads:
The present text of the A.Bh., however, does not have the reading tantra in the present context; it reads :
यवत्यन्त नः प्रतीतिवैषम्यप्रसङ्गादि तत् कियदत्रोच्यताम् ।
यहन्यत्तत्प्रतीतिवैषम्पप्रसङ्गादि तत् कियदत्रोच्यताम् ।
- Vol I. p. 276, 11 17-18
-p. 96 1. 9
Possibly the KLV might have read यत्वन्यत्तन्त्रप्रतीतिवैषम्य.
7 Masson and Patwardhan observe :
"On p. 274 (A.Bh. I) Abhinava begins his views, but it is not clear when they end ...it is likely that this refers, not to Abhinavagupta, but a now lost commentary by Bhatta Tauta on the NS...."-Aesthetic Rapture. The following passage from the KLV is very eloquent on this point:
रसो न प्रतीयत इति । रसस्य प्रतीयमियक्ती मुख्यतया, उत्पत्तिश्चोपचारेण भट्टतोतस्याभिमता । एष एव च पक्षो यथोपाध्याय' शिष्या इत्याचार्यस्य [अभिनवगुप्तस्य] अनुमतोऽत एव च प्रतीत्यादिव्यतिरिक्तच संसारे को भोग इत्यादिना तत्र तत्र रसस्य प्रतीत्यादिकमाचार्यः स्वयं व्यवस्थापयिष्यतीति शङ्कुकादिमतनिरसनानन्तरमुपाध्यायमत न प्रदर्शितम् ।
-p. 306, 11. 10-14
According to the KLV, Abhinavagupta held the same views as those of Bhattatauta, his teacher. And that is why he does not separately set forth the view of Bhatta-tauta after mentioning the views of Sankuka and others. Unless we have a definite clue as to a now lost commentary by Bhatta-tauta on the NS, it is safer to presume that Abhinavagupta quotes Bit-taata's views and explanations of the NS