________________
Rasa-nişpatti-vicāra in Mammaţa and Jagannātha
1609 with the sāmājika ? If it is said that there is realised an identity of the samājika with Dusyanta, this sense of identity is destroyed by the factual knowledge on the part of the sāmājika that he is not Dusyanta."- These arguments advanced by Bhatta Nāyaka are refuted.
The Navyas say that for the ancients (i.e. Abhinavagupta) also the following is to be taken into account--
“yad api vibhāvā”dīnām sādhāranyam prācīnair uktam, tad api, kāvyena, sakuntalā"di-sabdaih śakuntalātva-prakaraka-bodha-janakaih, pratipadyamānesu śakuntalā"disu dosa-visesa-kalpanam vină dur upapadam. atóvaśya-kalpye dosavišese tenaiva svātmani dusyantā”dy abhedabuddhir api sūpapādā.”
The idea is this-The ancients (i.e. Abhinavagupta and others have advocated the sadhāranya or universalization of vibhāvā"di-s. But this sādhāranya will not stand without the projection of a special blemish-(vićişa-dosa-kalpanā.). This special blemish is to be imagined with reference to Śakuntalā etc., that are presented by poetry made of words.
The idea can be expanded as follows-It is a fact that Śakuntalā in poetry or drama is not as real as original Śakuntalā. This means Śakuntalā portrayed in poetry or drama is a creation of imagination, i.e.it is imaginary. Now without - accepting this blemish of "ābhāsatva” or “kalpitatva” or “being imaginary”, with reference to Sakuntalā in poetry or drama, these ladies i.e. Sakuntalā or whichever others, can not be an alambana-vibhāva for the sāmājika. This fact has to be accepted even by the ancients, i.e. Abhinavagupta and others. So, even they cannot escape the situation of accepting some sort of blemish with reference to Sakuntala of poetry or drama. Without accepting this dosa, we cannot justify the sādhāranya of vibhāva-s such as Sakuntalā. In view of this, what harm is there, with us the Navīna-s, who, in order to justify the love of the sāmājika with reference to Sakuntalā, resort to an explanation that, through bhrānti or error,-a dosa- the sāmājika believes that, “I am Dusyanta" ? If the prācīna-s believe in one type of dosa, the navīna-s project another type of dosa, instead. This is the only difference between the two.
J. further describes the view of the Navīna-s as follows : (pp. 67, ibid) :
“nanv evam api rates tu nāma dusyanta iva sa-hțdayépi sukha-višeșa-janakatā, karuņa-rasā”dişu tu sthāyinaḥ sókā”der duḥkha-janakatayā prasiddhasya katham iva sahrdayā"hlada - hetutvam ? praty uta nāyaka iva sa-hrdayépi duhkhajananasyaiva aucityāt.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
