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.