Some Aspects of Rasa Theory

SR No.: 006967
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: B L Institute of Indology
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 134
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 17 MB

Page 77

RASA THEORY AND THE DARSANAS_2
65
abide in him he none-the-less enjoys it and derives pleasure therefrom; and the sthāyi so enjoyed is rasa.
From the above it is clear that Sankuka's explanation of the rasa theory is influenced by the Nyāya darśana. But he makes it amply clear that in this anumāna the object inferred is not prosaic like the object in the inference of the fire from the smoke.
Commentators like Vidyācakravartin have tried to explain the extraordinary nature of the anumiyamana in this inference,
Sankuka claims that the anukarta (nața) is identified with the anukārya on the analogy of the citra-turaga (The horse in a picuture, which is takena for a real horse). He explains this cognition as peculiar since it is distinct from pramå as well as aprama.
When one looks at the picture of a horse the cognition is not (i) mithyā (false) since it is the same-unchanged-at all times and is not contradicted, (ii) it is not doubtful (samśaya) because it is certain, (iii) it is not even similarity .(sadrśya) because there is no similarity of limbs etc. between the picture and the horse. Hence just as this cognition of the citra-turaga is quite distinct from all other cognitions, the cognition of Rāma with respect to nața is quite peculiar.
This citra-turaga is like the vikalpa' says Nägeśa, which is defined by Patañjali thus : Sabda-jñānānupativastu-sūnyo vikalpaḥ/ Predicate-relation (vikalpa) is without any corresponding perceptible object and follows as a result of perceptions or of words'. Here too there is no corresponding real horse and yet the abhäsa of a horse is there.
Sankuka claims that the unreal vibhāvas are taken for real by the sāmājika and on the strength thereof he infers the sthāyī of the actor. This has no parallel in the Nyāya-śāstra. Abhinava remarks that there cannot be any valid inference from an unreal mark (linga). Hemacandra quotes a verse from Dharmakīrti's Pramāna-várttika to justify Sankuka's stand; for causal efficiency (artha-kriya-karitā) is after all the true test of reality, (i. e. for the right form of cognition). 'Even a mistake, observes Dharmakirti, if it does not delude the perceiving subject, is a source of right knowledge.' So Sankuka is vindicated to that extent if we accept causal efficiency to be the basic criterion for truth.
It should be noted in this connection that though they do not subscribe to the view of Sankuka, Dhanañjaya and Dhanika resort to a similar analogy.
It would not be out of place to see what our greatest poet has to say in this connection. In the sixth Act of the sakuntala, the hero looks at the picture of his beloved, drawn by himself on the canvas. He gets so much lost in the act that for the time being he forgot that he is looking at the picture · till he is awakened, by the Vidūsaka with the words, “Bhoh citram khalv etat." The disappointed king's reply suggests Kālidāsa's view in the matter.