________________
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1505 really are, but] with the idea that it is jewel, there exists a difference in respect of causal efficiency, but not a difference of mistaken cognition. This stanza is also quoted by Mahimabhatta, Vyakti-viveka pp. 78. Causal efficiency, the capacity to produce effects (artha-kriyā, artha-kriya-kāritva) is the basic criterian of every form of right cognition, and, therefore, of the real existence of a thing. When, for example, a man sees a mirage and, on going near it, does not find water which he expected to find, (and cannot, therefore, drink, wash himself, etc.), his perception is a mistaken one; the water which he has seen is not capable of appeasing his desires, of carrying out functions proper to real water. In some cases, however, even the mistaken perception is endowed with causal efficiency. In the present case, for instance, it allows the observing subject to find a jewel which is real, in other terms, it does not delude the expectations of the perceiving subjects. Even a mistake, observes Dharma-kīrti, if it does not delude the perceiving subject, is a source of right knowledge. Now, if even a mistaken cognition, observes Sankuka, can be gifted with causal efficiency, then it is all the more reason for a reproduced cognition, i.e. the aesthetic cognition, to be gifted with it. The spectators do not, in fact, remain deluded by this, but find in the spectacle the fulfilment of their desires."
It may be observed here that Śrī Śankuka here clearly underlines the location of rasa in the sāmājika or the spectator.
But before the sāmājika or the spectator here is blessed with this aesthetic perception, he has to make certain preparations, so to say. According to Sri Sankuka, the sāmājika, first of all to begin with, takes the actor to be Rāma, or the character portrayed. If he does not take the actor to be Rāma, no further step is possible. But this apprehension of Rāma-buddhi or Rāmatva in the actor or nata, which occurs to the sāmājika, is of a special type.
This apprehension of Rāmatva in nața, by the sāmājika, is not a samyak-pratīti or true apprehension, nor a mathya-pratiti or unreal apprehension. Nor type of samsaya or doubt, nor of similarity either. The sāmājika does not feel that the actor is “like Rāma”.
The apprehension, or say art-apprehension which is different from all the four types of cognitions viz. samyak, mithyā, samsaya or sādrśya, is explained by Sri Sankuka on the analogy of "citra-turaga” i.e. a painted horse. We believe that for Sankuka the apprehension of painted horse is above the apprehensions of the real, unreal, similar or doubtful types. Thus, this special apprehension is a-laukika i.e. extra-ordinary perception which is different from normal worldly perceptions.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
