________________
726
SAHRDAYĀLOKA is used with the lion. The person concerned is addressed as a 'dhārmika' i.e. a holyman, a religious man. On the strength of these two words, there is apprehension of the 'bhayānaka-rasa’. Through this there is an apprehension of 'nişedha' i.e. negation. For, without knowing the person's tendency of either being a brave person or a timid one, the ascertainment of negation only is not at all possible. So, only the strength of a meaning - 'kevalam artha-sāmarthyam' - can not be the cause of the apprehension of negation.” To this Abhinavagupta's reply is as follows : Even we also do not contend that without knowing the speciality of the speaker and the listener, and without realising the power of suggestion of a word, the apprehension of the suggested sense is possible. On the contrary; we hold that only the genius - pratibhā-of the cultured person-sahrdaya-is taken as the decider in case of vyañjanā - "pratipattr-pratibhā-sahakaritvam hy asmābhir dyotanasya prānatvena uktam." (pp. 32, ibid). We do not object to the apprehension of bhayānaka rasa in the illustration concerned. But this horrible condition can inspire fear only in the heart of the dharmika person concerned. We can expect fear to rise to the status of bhayānaka-rasa, only if it is tasted by all men of taste. The relish of rasa is possible only when it is tasted. Even Bhatta-Nāyaka does not accept that rasa can be tasted by simply naming it. Thus, it is only suggested and even for the person who enjoys it, the enjoyment is not personal or limited, but is of an unlimited nature and the enjoyer is not equal personally to the timid religious person. Here practically ends Abhinavagupta's defence of vyañjanā.
It is clear that such greats as Mammața and the rest accepted the lead of Abhinavagupta in dealing with vyañjanā-virodha. We will now move on to what Mammata has to say, and we have already observed that Mammata has tried to dig deeper and has tried to lay the whole topic threadbare.
Mammata -
Actually, while dealing with what he calls 'guni-bhūta-vyangya' or poetry of subordinated suggestion, Mammata picks up the topic of refuting the vyañjanā and trying to establish vyañjanā and vyangyártha as independent entities by fresh arguments.
In the beginning of Ch. V of his Kavya-prakāśa Mammaţa cleanly enumerates, explains and illustrates eight-fold gunībhūta-vyangya-kavya and observes that the varieties of these (eight kinds of subordinated suggestion) should be understood, as far as applicable, in the manner of the former case i.e. of the suggestive-dhvanipoetry, which for him is “uttama” kāvya, and the guṇībhūta-vyangya being the
Jain Education Intemational
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
