________________
Rasa-niṣpatti-vicara in Abhinavagupta
1573
nanu yadi neyam jñaptir na vā niṣpattiḥ, tarhi kim etat? nanv ayam alaukiko rasaḥ, nanu vibhāvādir atra kim jñāpako hetuḥ, uta kārakaḥ ? na jñāpako na kārakaḥ, api tu carvanopyogi. nanu kva etad dṛṣṭam anyatra ? yata eva na dṛṣṭam tata eva alaukikam ity uktam. nanu evam rasópramāṇam syat, astu, kim tataḥ ? tac carvaṇātaḥ eva priti-vyutpatti-siddheḥ kim anyad arthaniyam ? nanu apramāṇakam etat; na, sva-samvedanasiddhatvāt. jñāna-viśeṣasyaiva carvaṇā"tmatvād ity alam bahuna. ataś ca, rasóyam alaukikaḥ. yena lalita-parușaanuprāsasya arthábhidhanánupayoginópi rasam prati vyañjakatvam; kā tatra lakṣaṇāyāḥ śankápi ?_"
These lines remind us of the same usage in the A.bh. as examined earlier. Here rasa is established as a non-ordinary thing, not covered under lakṣaṇā. The translation by Gnoli, (Appendic II, pp. 102, ibid) reads as follows:
"Commentary on Dh. A., I. 18.- As to poetry, which conveys the determinants and the consequents, there is no possible appearance of any element which could provoke the unsuitability of the primary neaning; and therefore, there is in this sense little room for metaphor (=lakṣaṣā, we favour the word, "indication."). "But",-someone might argue,-what has it to do with unsuitability? The nature of metaphor had indeed been defined as follows. "The metaphor is said to be apprehension of a sense connected with the sense directly expressed. Now in poetry, we see that the Rasas are connected with the determinants, the consequents etc., which are directly expressed; indeed, the determinants and the consequents are respectively the causes and the effects of Rasas, and the transitory states co-operate with them." Your objection, I reply, does not stand to reason. If it be right, indeed, when, thanks to the word 'smoke', the smoke has been apprehended, there would arise also the idea of fire, just effected by the afore-said metaphor; and again, from fore, there would arise.the idea of removing coldness, and so on, so that words could no more have any fixed meaning. On the other hand, if you answer to this, saying that, since the word 'smoke' is reposed in its own sense, its power cannot actually extend to fire and so on, then the consequence of your argumentation is one only, namely, that the seed of metaphor, is the unsuitability of the primary meaning, because, only if this is present, the afore-said repose of a word in its own sense can be lacking. Now, in the conveying of determinants, etc., there is no element which can provoke the unsuitability of the primary meaning.
At this point, someone might perhaps urge that the apprehension of the feelings of delight, etc., immediately follows the apprehension of the determinants, etc., just as the idea of fire immediately follows the perception of smoke,. and that, being it
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
