________________
Rasa-nișpatti-vicāra in Abhinavagupta
1567 dhvani-vyañjanā of Anandavardhana, This becomes very clear when we read the above passage. However, for added delight, we quote Gnoli's translation of this passage as read in Appendix III, pp. 107, etc., ibid. Gnoli translates :
Appendix III Commentary on Dh. A., II. 4
“Now Bhatta Nāyaka says-If the Rasa were perceived as present in a third party, the spectator should be in a state of indifference. On the other hand, the poem-which, f.i, might describe the story of Rāma-does not make the reader perceive it as really present in him because that would imply this admission, namely that there is a birth of Rasa in his own self. Now this birth does not stand to reason, because Sītā dose not play the role of a determinant as regards the spectator. “But”-someone may perhaps say-"that which causes her to be a determinant is the general idea of loverness, which, shared by her, is the cause of the awakening of the latent impressions.” But I reply to this objection-how can that happen as regards a description of deities, etc. ? Further, no memory of his own beloved one does arise in the spectators consciousness (while he looks at Sītā). Again is it possible that the construction of a bridge on the ocean and the other determinants of this kind, proper to some extra-ordinary personages as Rāma and so on, may become general ? Nor it can be said that what occurs is simply the memory of Rāma, as endowed of heroism, etc., in so far as the spectator has had no such previous experience.
Even assuming that he is perceived through verbal testimony (sabda), there cannot be any birth of Rasa, just as in the case of a pair of lovers united together, perecived through direct knowledge. Moreover, according to the thesis which maintains that Rasa is produced, the birth of the pathetic Rasa would make the pereciver to experience pain, and, consequently, he would go no more to pathetic representations. Therefore, that is not a production and not even a manifestation. Indeed, if it is supposed that a Rasa f.i., the Erotic one, first pre-exists in a potential form and is later manifested, then the determinants must necessarily) illuminate it little by little. Besides, the difficulties already met with would recur : is Rasa manifested as really present in our own self, or as present in a third party? Therefore, Rasa is neither perceived, nor produced, nor manifested by the poem. The truth is that the poetic word is different from the other ones. This happens thanks to three distinct ppwers, which are so to speak, its parts (amsa): that is to say, the power of denotation, which has, as its object, the expressed sense; the power of revelation, which has, as its object, the rasa; and the power of bringing
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
