Samipya 1991 Vol 08 Ank 01 02

Author(s): Pravinchandra C Parikh, Bhartiben Shelat
Publisher: Bholabhai Jeshingbhai Adhyayan Sanshodhan Vidyabhavan

Page 53

feeling but can never dircetly experience it. So, Sankuka seems to hold that in art, it could be an artful inference with the help of the artful imitation on the part of the artist. Thus both these 'imitation' and 'inference' peculiar to the field of art need not be taken in their strict philosophical connotation. Sri Sankuka and later Mahima seem to underline this peculiar special nature of imitation and inference taking shape in the contest of art alone, both performing and literary; Mahimā, a great protagonist of 'Kavyānumiti'-poetic inference-clearly declares that this poetic inference is not to be taken as identical with normal logical inference-tarkānumiti and that it is foolish to expect the perfection of the latter in the former. What is important and undeniable is the fact that even in our normal walk of life we do infer some one else's feelings, and everytime the inference may not be strictly logical in its form. What is important is the process and it is inference here, i.e. in the context of art experience. Thus imitation and inference are meant to be taken in their poetic context, in their so called loose seuge. They may not and need not stand the scrutiny of a hard-core Logician. We may also observe that the position of "abhivyakti'-'Suggestion' is also similar for it cannot be saved from the charges levelled against it by Bhatta Nayaka who goes to observe that a manifested thing 'abhivyakta' has to be pūrva -siddha i.e. has to have a prior existence and rasa-experince can not claim previous independent existence. Those who take rasa as abhivyakta do not accept it as pūrva-siddha like pot ( ghata ) in a dark room which is manifested by light later. If we accept abhivyakti of rasa, then all difficulties enumerated by Bhata Nayaka will follow.
But then Abhinavagupta seems to hold that this 'abbivyakti'-manifestation of rasa is not to be absolutely equnted with the abhivyakti/manifestation of the darśanikas/ philosophers for 'rasa' or aesthetic experience is not pūrva-siddha, i.e. it does not have a prior independent existence. It is only 'tātkalika' i.e. that which takes place only when the complex of determinants (vibhāvas ), consequents (anubhāvas) and accessories (vyabhicărins ) lasts. Rasa-experience is pari passu with vibhāvādicomplex, i.e. it lasts only till this complex lasts-Vibhāvādijivitāvadhih.
The point is that if Abhinavagupta's abhivyakti is not absolutely identical with abhivyakti of the darśanikas, can be acceptable in the field of art and literateure.. what is wrong in accepting Sri Sankuka's special anuksti-anumiti i.e. imitation inference in artistic context ? The point is why not accept anuniti as imagined by Sankuka and which hardly differs from Vyanjana of the dhvanivādins 2 Actually there is greater substance in what Sankuka says and his unique anuksti anumiti ls not virtually different from 'abhivyakti' of the dhyanivadins. And perhaps, between the two the postulation of Kāvānumiti involves a lesser amount of gaurava-dosa as compared to the vyañjana of the dhvanivadins. The point is that if you ask, “why inference ?" then our retort is, “why vyanjana ?”
Reconsideration of Sri Sankuka's views on rasa-nişpatti ]
[ 49