________________
"Concept of Rasa" as seen in Anandavardhana and......
1301
Abhinavabhārati. We will take care of these when we deal with the theory of artexperience in the next chapter. So, for the present we begin with Mukula.
For Mukula, the author of Abhidhāvrtta-mātrkā the whole rasa-bhāvā"di complex was not unacceptable as he is posterior to Bharata and even Ā. A number of illustrations that he has cited for this or that variety of abhidhā/laksaņā are read in different context in the Dhv. also. What he opposed was the fact of vyanjana and therefore also the whole edifice of dhvani that rested on vyañjanā. He asserted that all the varieties of dhvani can be understood through the functioning of laksanā and hence this talk of vyañjanā/dhvani made no sense to him. This he asserted even while accepting such terminology as “vivaksita-anyapara-vācya and atyantatiraskrta-vācya, and also sabda-sakti-mūlata" and the rest. Actually he twice uses the term 'vyangya' while treating "sambandha-nibandhana-laksana. He observ (pp. 63, edn. Dr. Rewaprasad Chawkhamba Vidyabhavan, Varanasi, 73) -
"laksanā"tmikayos tu tayor vācyasya a-vivaksitatvam, na tv atyantam tiraskārah, laksyamāna-dvāreņa kathamcit kārye anvitatvāt. tatra, sambandhanibandhanāyām laksanāyām avivaksita-vācyatve udāharanam, “rāmo'smīti." atra hi rāma-sabda-vācyam dāśarathi-rūpam vyangya-dharmántara-pariņatatvāt svaparatvena anupāttam, tasmad a-vivakṣitam, na tvaryantam tiraskstam vyangya-dharma-dvāreņa vākyárthe kathamcid anvitatvāt...”
Mukula thus unconsciously accepts Ā.'s ruling though consciously he rebels against him by not accepting vyañjanā and therefore 'dhvani'. He observes : (pp. 66, ibid) : "etac ca sarvam bahuvaktavyatvād iha na nirūpyate. lakṣaṇāmārgávagāhitvam tu dhvaneh sahrdayair nūtanatayópavarnitasya vidyate iti diśam unmilayitum idam atróktam. etac ca vidvadbhiḥ kuśāgriyayā buddhyā nirūpanīyam, na tu zagity evā’sūyitavyam ity alam atiprasangena.” .
The difficulty with Mukula was that he could not see beyond the śāstras. We have all through our presentation maintained that the grammarians and the dārśanikas, while treating their śāstras, had no business to talk about or even mention vyañjanā. They had to deal with only the directly expressed sense with a slight chance of deviation (laksanā) if any, which in itself is a 'dosa' - a blemish - in the eyes of the Mimāmsakas. But this does not mean that they rejected vyajanā in poetry. Even Pāṇini is said to have written a mahākāvya and no poetry on earth in any age, any language, could be without vyañjanä and vyangyártha. The śāstra had concern with the scientific use of language only while the poetic use of language cannot but involve an emotive stance which falls in the ambit of vyañjanā alone.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
