________________
Rasa-nispatti-vicāra in Mammata and Jagannātha
1621 The third bodha will take this shape : "svātmatva-viśista" meaning in sāmājika the vaiśistya of dusyantatva and also of 'sakuntalā-visayaka-rati' is apprehended. This means that in this third bodha "I"-is 'uddesya', dusyantarva is the vid heya and Sakuntalā-visyaka-rati-visistatva' is also a (second) 'vidheya.' So, this third mānasabodha has 'l' both as višesya and also uddesya, and dusyantatva and sakuntalavişayaka-rati-these two are visesana-s.
In all these three mānasa-bodha-s, rati which becomes a višeşana is never apprehended through (direct) word-expression, as there is, in the poem, not a single word which is the vācaka or directly expressive of rati. Again the vyañjanā which causes the apprehesion of that rati is not admitted by these thinkers. So, it becomes pertinent to accept an inference, anumāna, which makes for the aprehension of rati which becomes a visesana in this apprehension. In this inference, nata is the paksa, rati is sādhya, and for sādhya-siddhi, the abhinaya of nata is 'linga' i.e. 'hetu.' (Once this rati is realised through inference, then due to the dosa or bhrama aforesaid, there is identity of Duştanata qualified by that rati with the Sāmājika. The cognition of this abheda or identity is rasa.
This fourth opinion also is held by the Navya-s. The third opinion which preceded this fourth one has been credited to the name of the navya-s. So, to avoid repetition,J. has used the words “pare tu." The only difference between these two opinions is that the navya-s mentioned earlier first believe in vyañjanā-vyāpāra and also accept anirvacanīyakhyāti. The other 'navya-s', signified by 'pare tu' do not accept either vyañjanā-vyāpāra or anirvacanīya-khyāti- This is how Prof. R. B. Athavale explains-(pp. 92, ibid).
The fifth opinion as seen above is that of Lollata, the sixth floated by Sankuka and 7toll, the last five are mentioned without reference. We have discussed these beforehand and hence we avoid repetition of the same here.
Now we will turn once again to Sri Ramachandrudu and examine how he explains the views of “pare tu”. He observes : (pp. 123, ibid) :
-"According to this theory, there is no need of accepting vyañjanā-vyāpāra or Anirvacanīya-khyāti as explained in the previous theory. The Sahrdaya on account of the Bhāvanā-dosa, will have a feeling identifying himself with the character presented on the stage or by the kävya, as having Rati etc. about Sakuntala"di. Only this feeling of identification which is produced by the Bhāvanā of the kāvyārtha, is capable of causing Camatkāra, but not the one produced in dreams etc. The rati is not existing in Sāmājika; he may feel the Rati because he wrongly identifies himself with the one, having it. In a 'bhrama', a thing which is actually existing in
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
