________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
763
word-sense, and the sthāyin in form of ratyadi makes for the sentence-sense. It is clear therefore, that the apprehension of rasa is not of the nature of suggestion but is only of the form of sentence-sense which falls under the scope of tātparya or purport and certainly not vyañjanā or the so called power of suggestion.
Dhanika further observes that the objector can not hold that on listening to music we do experience joy through vācya-vācaka-bhāva. But these 'gitā"di' i.e. musical notes are not the expressor; nor the joy, the expressed. Same can be projected in case of poetry and the resultant bliss, i.e. rasa which is of the form of bliss beyond comparision. Thus with reference to poetry and rasa there is no vācyavācaka-sambandha or relation of expressed and expressor. This position advanced by the objector is not acceptable to Dhanika. He holds that the illustration of musical notes and the resultant joy is not applicable in form of poetry. For, we see that through poetry one and all do not experience bliss. Bliss is experienced only by those cultured ones who have the full grasp of the vibhāvā"dis or determinants and the like. This bliss is experienced only by the cultured whose conscience is coloured - bhāvita, i.e. who are accompanied by the 'bhāvanā' of the particular ratyādi. such blessed sa-hrdayas experience bliss or rasa, of a particular variety, on hearing the poetic words. It is clear therefore that this rasa-realisation or experience of bliss or aesthetic pleasure occurs only in case of men of cultivated taste and it does not occur in case of those who are bereft of the knowledge of vibhāvā"dis and who are bereft of the 'bhāvanā' or say, impressions, of particular ratyādi bhāvas. Thus rasaexperience does not occur in case of 'a-rasikas', or the non-cultured.
Before we proceed to understand Dhanika's line of throught, it may be stated that even he is conscious of Anandavardhana's wider concept of vyañjanā which traverses not only the field of poetic art, but takes in its fold all art-forms. He therefore carefully keeps the illustration of musical notes out of the field of discussion, for his tātparya cannot travel to the musical art where sound-dhvaniwithout expressed sense or vācyārtha makes for rasa-experience. In fact all other art-forms with their particular medium make for rasa-experience and everywhere else we do not find word accompanied by sense as is the case of poetry. On the contrary there are art-forms such as dance, painting and the like, where 'dhvani' or sound has no scope at all. Dhanika perhaps is aware of the limitations of his tātparya which can operate only inthe field of poetry which has language i.e. word and sense as its medium. Dhanika's tātparya cannot travel to the realms of ākāra, ingita i.e. to the area of forms and signs which are covered by what we know as vyañjanā. With this limitation, Dhanika further argues as below.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
