उत्तररामचरितम् (महाकवि भवभूति - संस्कृत मूल एवं हिन्दी व्याख्या)

—III. 47] UTTARARĀMACHARITA. 117

—there remains only one undifferenced Brahma. It appears to us that even in the present verse the word विवर्त is used in its technical sense of 'an illusory appearance'. The author means that everywhere the underlying रस is करुण, but to readers and spectators of average abilities it appears that in some cases the रस is शृङ्गार or वीर that however, is a mistake due to the निमित्तs (the उपाधिs) in conjunction with which the one रस (करुण) is working. The example is given only for the purpose of show- ing the oneness (sameness) of the underlying entity. It is not necessary that the illustration and the thing illustrated should be on all fours. Hence the word विकारान् cannot help in determining the sense of विवर्तान्.

This verse is a key to the whole of the drama. By putting it in the mouth of तमसा, the author secures two objects. He brings out that करुण is the keynote of Rāma's life. He further puts forward this verse as his own analysis of the whole drama being apprehensive that his readers and the audience may not be able to appreciate his execution of the task he had set to himself. We may regard him as saying—The underlying senti- ment throughout this drama is करुण. At times it may appear at first sight that the main sentiment is शृङ्गार (as in the first Act) or वीर (as in the fifth) but that is only an appearance; the reality is that even there it is करुण that is the main under- lying sentiment. The शृङ्गार in the first only serves to heighten करुण by the great contrast it presents when सीता was with Rāma and her separation from him which quickly follows. The वीररस also lends a charm to करुण, inasmuch as we behold that on account of the one initial act (which is the basis of the whole superstructure of करुण) of abandoning सीता, राम is almost about to fight with his own son without knowing it. Further it seems to us that the author hurls down a defiant challenge to some of his fastidious critics. Some writers on dramaturgy laid down that in a Nātaka technically so called the principal रस must be either शृङ्गार or वीर. For instance the साहित्यदर्पण (which is later than भवभूति) in describing what a नाटक should be says 'एक एव भवेदङ्गी शृङ्गारो वीर एव वा । अङ्गमन्ये रसाः सर्वे कार्यो निर्व- हणेऽद्भुतः ॥' It seems to us that भवभूति did not like these ideas of the critics and triumphantly calls upon them to note that he has written a नाटक of absorbing interest and surpassing beauty, in which the principal रस is करुण and not शृङ्गार nor वीर.