________________
in.
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1605 ratyādi is itself carvaņā or tasting. This rasa-carvaņā is different in nature from the taste of para-brahma in the state of samadhi. Thus it is different from sa-vikalpasamadhi, because the caitanyā"nanda or joy of consciousness which is associated with vibhāvā"di-s that are objects, is the 'ālambana' here. The idea is that in savikalp samadhi pure brahman, which is free from any external object, is the ālambana or source. In rasa-carvanā, however this is not the case because external objects in form of vibhāvādi-s walk in.
This relish or tasting or carvaņā is caused by vyañjanā which is the function of poetry (i.e. poetic word) : “bhāvyā ca kāvya-vyāpāra-mātrāt.” Now, if it is asked as to what is the proof of the existence of beatitnde in this carvanā of rasa, then our reply is : "What is the proof of the existence of bliss in samadhi either? If you say that the Gītā-vākya viz. “sukham ātyantikam yat tad buddhi-grāhyam atíndriyam” is a pramāņa for us, then we have also two pramāna-s to prove blissful nature of rasa-carvanā, and they are - (i) The śrutivākya viz. "raso vai sah...", and (ii) The direct experience to the effect of the connoisseur himself. J, ends the discussion here with the remark : (pp. 65, ibid) : “yéyam dvitīya-pakse tad ākāra-citta-výtty-ātmikā rasa-carvaņópanyastā sā sabda-vyāpāra-bhāvyatvāc châbdi. aparoksasukhā”lambanatvāc ca aparoksā”tmikā. tattvam vākyaja-buddhivat; ityā”hur. abhinavaguptā"cārya-pādāḥ."
-This is the view of Ācārya Abhinavagupta-pāda.
J. now presents the view of Bhatta-Nāyaka, who held that if rasa-pratīti is caused to the sāmājika in form of a third-party i.e."tātasthyena", then it will not result in tasting or "āsvāda." Bhatta Nāyaka argues that if it is said that rasa caused by vibhāvā"di in form of Sakuntalā is at personal level, so the sămājika can have taste, the reply is that Śakuntalā etc. are not the vibhāvas of the sāmājika at all. Rasapratīti can not take place without the support-ālambana-of vibhāva-s, and here the vibhāvas cannot be related personally to the sāmājika. It again cannot be observed that here ‘kāntātva' in a generalized form serves as a vibhāva for the sămājika for the 'avacchedaka-dharma' due for anything to become a vibhāva, should have the following qualities :- for example, in the avacchedaka dharma of śộngāra, there should be an absence of the sense of, "this lady is a-gamyā for me” in the alambanavibhāva. The absence of the consciousness of 'a-gamyātva' with reference to the heroine, can only make her proper vibhāva. The jñāna or perception in form of "Sakuntalā is agamyā for me" will be pratiyogi with reference to the required absence of such consciousness. Thus even in form of "generalized kantā” Sakuntalā
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
