________________
1314
SAHRDAYĀLOKA by each and every person, because as in case of lamp and pot, the revealation of rasā”di by vibhāvā”di does not require any pre-requisites such as knowledge of invariable concomittance. This fails to explain the fact that rasa-pratīti does not occur to one and all but only to the accomplished person, the sa-hỉdaya, who know the relation between vibhāvādis and sthāyin concerned. It may be noted that the thrust of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta also, in a way would tend to take us to gamya-gamaka-bhāva between vibhāvā"dis and rasa. But the main objection against anumāna theory is that anumāna is an intellectual process which is totally different in nature from the realisation of aesthetic pleasure. Abhinavagupta therefore observes that if it is a case of anumana, then why not we experience rasa even in ordinary parlance - "laukiképi kim na rasatā ?” The second objection to anumāna theory is that anumāna or inference yields indisputable meaning. But there is no certainly concerning the suggested meaning. Again, anumāna being a means of valid knowledge the inferred meaning ought to be valid and real, as such the disputes about its validity would be out of question. This is not the case with the suggested meaning.
But Mahimā has refuted, to his satisfaction the view that aesthetic pleasure cannot be explained by inference. He seems to refer to Abhinavagupta's dissatisfaction towards inference.
He begins with giving the summary of Anandavardhana's views when he had suggested that the two apprehensions of vibhāvā”di and rasā"di naturally occur in sequence and not simultaneously. Again, Ā had suggested that when the second apprehension of rasā"di occurs, the first apprehension is not negated but it also continues like the apprehension of lamp along with the apprehension of jar.
To this Mahimā’s reply is as follows - Actually the vyaktivādin when he accepts the sequential apprehensions of the vācya i.e. expressed and the vyangya i.e. suggested, accepts our view-point that there is 'gamya-gamaka-bhāva' between the two. Ā. himself has said in so many terms that the vibhāvā"dis themselves are not rasa. So, the apprehension of rasā”di is invariably connected with the prior apprehension of vibhāvā"di, thus the sequence between the two is incontrovertible and is there for sure. That this sequence is not noticed as it is very subtle is a fact and it is therefore that rasa"di are termed "a-samlaksyakrama by A. Mahim, then quotes words from Ā. which almost take us to believe that even he was not against gamya-gamaka-bhāva between these two apprehensions. Mahimā quotes Ā.'s words such as - "punaś ca, 'tasmād abhidhānā’bhi-dheya-pratītyor iva vācya
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
