________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
771 It is observed by Dhanañjaya (DR. IV. 38, 39, etc.) that rasa is so called because it is tasted - svādyatvāt - like physical tastes available in food. But this taste of aesthetic pleasure or relish i.e. rasa is possible in case of the men of taste (rasika, sahrdaya) only and not in case of the anukārya or object of imitation such as Rāma, Sītā, etc. i.e. the characters described in poetry or presented in drama on the stage. If rasa is accepted with reference to 'anukārya' such as Dusyanta and the like, then the sāmājikas will not have a taste of rasa, but, on the contrary they will feel lajjā or shame, irsyā i.e. jealousy etc. as in ordinary life. Thus argues Dhananjaya, the rasa-experience should be accepted only in case of the sāmājikas or the cultured men of taste and not in case of nāyaka i.e. hero etc., the anukāryas.
Dhanika observes that of course, the nāyakā"di such as Rāma, or Dusyanta etc., being object of description by words, are believed to be as it were present, though actually they are not present. This sort of apprehension is welcome to both the poet and the sāmājika, in view of rasa-experience. But though this illusory apprehension of the hero being actually present is with reference to the poet and the sāmājika, the fact is that from the point of rasa-experience they i.e. Rāma, Dusyanta, etc. - the anukāryas, are incapable of it. Poetry is not written by the poet for Rāma's rasánubhūti, but only to delight the man of taste or sa-hỉdaya : Thus the description of Rāma etc., as though they are present, is only in form of vibhāva i.e. determinant which makes for rasa-apprehension of the sāmājika.
If, in case it is accepted that, the anukārya such as Rāma and the like also experience śrngāra, then as in real life the outlookers, looking at love-making in public, will either feel disgusted, or jealous, or angry etc. as the case may be. A man of low culture will even feel like running away with a beautiful heroine. All sort of carnal physical expressions could follow. So, rasa-experience in case of the anukārya is ruled out.
Dhanika also flatly discards, - and here comes the vyañjanā-virodha-the case of rasa being vyangya or suggested. Perhaps taking a plea from the Hşdayadarpaņa of Bhatta Nāyaka, Dhanika also argues that rasa can not be held to be vyangya or suggested for in that case rasa has to be an entity like a ghata or pot that pre-exists in a dark room before it is revealed through light. The pūrva-sattā of rasa is not acceptable for we do not taste it prior to the curtains being raised on a stage or poetry being read.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
