________________
Vyañjanā-virodha or, opposition to suggestive power
775 Thus, observes the objector, rasa will not be an object of the apprehension caused by vyañjanā. In that case how can the siddhāntin call rasa to be 'vangy or 'suggested', i.e. an object of apprehension caused by the power of suggestivity ? The objector says : "nanu etāvatā rasasya ajñeyatvam uktam bhavati. vyañjanāyāś ca jñāna-vićeşatvāt dvayor aikyam āpatitam. tataś ca.
"sva-jñānena anya-dhīhetuḥ siddhérthe vyañjako mataḥ, yathā dīpo'nyathābhāve;
ko viśeso'sya kārakāt.” ity ukta-diśā ghaça-pradīpavat vyangya-vyañjakayoḥ pārthakyam eva iti katham rasasya vyangyatā, iti cet... satyam uktam
The objector suggests that rasa cannot be vyangya i.e. vyañjanā-grahya. For 'vyañjaka' or suggestor is that which causes something else to be cognized by first itself getting cognized, as is a lamp with reference to a pot. Vyangyavañjaka-bhāva holds good when two entities are different from and not identical with each other. If it is not so, how shall we distinguish, a jñāpakacaụse or revealer from a 'kāraka' cause i.e. an actual cause which creates something else?
To this Viśvanātha's reply is that this is well said. But the process of relishsvādanā”khyah vyāpărah - is said to be different from krti and jñapti i.e. ordinary causation and manifestation. It is just to distinguish it from abhidhā and the rest that we have said that 'rasas are suggested'. After all some name was to be given. So, this vyañjanā is not equivalent to manifestation i.e. abhivyakti of the śāstras. This is special to art - sui generis
In the Vth pariccheda of his Sāhityadarpaņa, Viśvanātha has established vyañjanā as an independent word-power refuting all objections against the same.
At S.D. V. 1, he says - "atha keyam abhinavā vyañjanā nāma vṛttir ity ucyate -
"vșttīnām viśranter abhidhā-tātparya-laksanākhyānām, angīkāryā turyā vịttir bodhe rasā"dīnām.” (S.D. V. i)
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
