________________
T. S. Nandi
In view of the above citations it could be gathered that Bhatta Nāyaka rejects the abivyakti' of rasa on the ground of its not being 'pūrvasiddha'. For him, only a 'pūrvasiddha'. can become abhivyakta or manifested, e.g. a jar can be manifested by light. But if the jar is totally absent, it cannot be revealed or manifested with the help of light. Again, holds Bhatta Nāyaka, that if rasa pre-exists in form of sthayin i.e. saktisvarūpeņa, then also there will be the contingency of recognising' gradation in its manifestation owing to gradation in the revealing agents viz, the vibhavadis. This objection of Bhatta Nayaka is explained very clearly by Gnoli in his ft. note no. 1, on p. 45, wherein he writes :- This objection repeats, mutatis mutandis, the objection of the Buddhists and of the Mimamsakas against the concept of sphota, which, according to the graniwarians (vaiyakaranas), is a vocality, eternal and without parts, distinct from the letters and manifested (vyaj) by these. This eternal vocality causes the cognition of the meaning. This objection is as follows : is sphoța manifested entirely by the first letter of a word or not? (a) Ir sphota is manifested in its entirety, the letters which come after are unnecessary. In other words, the first letter would be capable of rendering perceptible. the meaning of the whole word. (b) If sphoța is manifested gradually, then it could 110 longer be without parts. This second alternative is, therefore, in contradiction to the very nature of sphoța. The same reasoning is applied by Bhatta Nayaka to rasa and to the words by which it is manifested."
Now we have to think whether there is any loose link in Bhatta Nāyaka's understanding of 'rasabhivyakti' as imagined by the exponents of
the rasa-dhvani-vyañjana theory. :: As made amply clear earlier, Bhatta Nāyaka scems to accept two alternatives with reference to rasa viz. that either it preexists like a jar later on manifested by light, or it preexists in a subtler potential form of an impression formed in the past. Now it is a fact that rasa does not preexist in any of the two ways. For, we do not experience rasa prior to the play being presented on the stage. So far, Bhatta Nayaka is very right and perfectly logical in his stand. But I feel that his blunder lies, not in his logic but in his very understanding of rasabhivyakti as imagined by the dhvanivadins. It is a fact that Anandavardhana himself has suggested that the dhvanirūdins have derived their plea for vyañjana on the basis of the sphotavada of the grammarians. But there is a very subtle difference also between the two. And the dhvanivadins do not make a secret of it either.
Normally the arguments put forth by the Mimamsakas in refutation of the sphotavāda could be safely utilized in the refutation of abhivyakti' with reference to rasa also. And Bhatta Nayaka does as such. But the task is not so casy as is imagined to be by Bhalta Nayaka, True that Ananda