________________
Bhatta Nāyaka's Blunder
vardhana seeks support from sphotavāda to put forth the vyañjanā thcory. But for that it does not follow that the nature of rasa-realisation is absolutely identical with the nature of sphota-manifestation. Both are not absolutely identical. On the contrary there is a fundamental difference between the two. There may be identity with reference to the process of manifestation to an extent. But that does not make the things manifested to be exactly identical in nature. For example, sphoļa is taken to be 'purvasiddha' or having prior existence, while rasa is not so. Similarity between 'rasabhivyakti' and 'sphotābhiryakti' may be said to be so far as the process of abhivyakti is concernad, But thus far and no further. The abbiyyakti or suggestion of the Alamkārikas and the mauifestation of the Vaiyakaranas are not absolutely identical. On the contrary the Alaiņkārikas call this process to be 'abhivyokti', simply because they can certainly not call it either 'utpatti' or 'pratiti' or 'anumiti,' 'Abhivyakti' is a comparatively safer terın. But even this is not perfect. And to bring home this idea Abhinavagupta after all the subtle analysis, is prepared to call rasa to be in a way "karya', in a way 'pratyeya' and so on. It may be true partially only that as is sphota manifested, so is rasa suggested. But the nature of both viz. sphota and rasa cannot be taken as alike. Bhatta Nayaka seems to take 'abhivyakti' only in its philosophic (darśanika) connotation, which, of coursc, was an accepted connotation of the term. But the Dhvanivādins accepted this term simply because they found it to be a lesser evil as compared to 'utpatti' or 'anumiti', or 'pratiti' i.e. direct perception. Rasa for them is only 'tatkālika eva', and also, vibhāvādi jiritavadhi'. It exists neither prior to nor after the existence of the vibhāvādis. In this way its nature is different from the nature of the sphoța of the grammarians, which is supposed to be beginningless and endless.
Truely speaking, the Dhvanivādins are very clever. They seek the support of the grammarians who are 'qqa fe fagiz:' for them, only to the extent of serving their cause. They even do not hasitate to mock at them at times, because kavyārtha is something which is not apprehended by the knowledge of grammar alone śabdarthaśāsanajñanamātreņa eva na vedyate' etc.
So, when Bhatta Nayaka tries to demolish rasabhivyaktivida he forgets that he travels on an extremely slippery ground. He commits a greats blunder when he takes the abhivyakti' of the Dhanivādins to be the same as the * abhivy akti' of the grammarians or the philosopher. The vyañjan āvādins are very clever to say that rasa is 'alaukika', when confronted with a problem viz. if rasa is neither 'caused' not manifested', what else could it he? Bhatta Nayaka has narrowly missed his target.