The Gaṅgā of Rasa 48

48

puruhūtaṃ pratyeṣā garutmata uktiḥ/ nanu "api vakti-"pariharatu dharām-" iti padyadvaye garva eva notsāhaḥ/ madhyasthapadye tu dhṛtir eva dhvanyate iti bhāvadhvanaya evaite na rasadhvanaya iti cet tarhi yuddhavīrādiṣv api garvādidhvanitām eva kiṃ na brūyāḥ/ rasadhvanisāmānyam eva vā kiṃ na tadvyabhicāradhvananena gatārthayeḥ/ sthāyipratītir durapahnavā cet tulyaṃ prakṛte 'pi/ anantaroktapadye tu notsāhaḥ pratīyate/ dayāvīrādiṣu pratīyata iti tu rājājñāmātram/
adbhuto yathā--
"carācarajagajjālasadanaṃ vadanaṃ tava/
galadgaganagāmbhīryaṃ vīkṣyāsmi hṛtacetanā//"
kadācid bhagavato vāsudevasya vadanam ālokitavatyā yaśodāyā iyam uktiḥ/ atra vadanam ālambanam/ antargatacarācarajagajjāladarśanam uddīpanam/ hṛtacetanatvam, tena gamyaṃ romāñcanetrasphāraṇādi cānubhāvaḥ/ trāsādayo vyabhicāriṇaḥ/ naivātra vidyamānāpi putragatā prītiḥ pratīyate/ vyañjakābhāvāt/
pratītāyāṃ vā tasyāṃ vismayasya guṇatvaṃ na yujyate/ evaṃ kaścin mahāpuruṣo 'yam iti bhaktir api tasyāḥ mamāyaṃ bāla iti niścayena pratibandhād utpattam eva neṣṭe/ atas tasyām api vismayasya guṇībhāvo na śaṅkyaḥ/
yat tu sahṛdayaśiromaṇibhiḥ prācīnair
udāhṛtam--
"citraṃ mahān eṣa navāvatāraḥ, kva kāntir eṣābhinavaiva bhaṅgiḥ/
lokottaraṃ dhairyam aho prabhāvaḥ kāpy ākṛtir nūtana eṣa sargaḥ// iti,
tatredaṃ vaktavyam-- pratīyatāṃ nāmātra vismayaḥ paraṃ tv asau kathaṃkāraṃ adbhutarasa] dhvanivyapadeśahetuḥ/ pratipādyamahāpuruṣaviśeṣaviṣayāyāḥ pradhānībhūtāyāḥ stotṛgatabhaktaḥ prakarṣakatvenāsya guṇībhūtatvāt/ yathā mahābhārate gītāsu viśvarūpaṃ dṛṣṭavataḥ pārthasya "paśyāmi devāṃs tava deva dehe sarvāṃs tathā bhūtaviśeṣasaṃghān" ity ādau vākyasaṃdarbhe/ itthaṃ cāsya rasālaṃkāratvam ucitam/ bhaktir naivātra pratīyata iti ced daramukulitalocanaṃ vidāṃkurvantu sahṛdayāḥ/
hāsyo yathā--
"śrītātapādair vihite nibandhe nirūpitā nūtanayuktir eṣā/
aṅgaṃ gavāṃ pūrvam aho pavitraṃ na vā kathaṃ rāsabhadharmapatnyāḥ//"
tārkikaputro 'trālambanam/ tadīyā niḥśaṅkoktir uddīpikā/ radanaprakāśādir udvegādayaś cānubhāvavyabhicāriṇaḥ/
atrāhuḥ-
"ātmasthaḥ parasaṃsthaścety asya bhedadvayaṃ matam/
ātmastho draṣṭur utpanno vibhāvekṣaṇamātrataḥ//

This is the statement of Garuḍa to Puruhūta (Indra). If it is objected: “In the two verses 'api vakti…' and 'pariharatu dharām…' there is only pride, not energy; in the intermediate verse, only fortitude is suggested; therefore these are only suggestions of emotional states, not suggestions of aesthetic relish;” then why would you not say that in the combat-heroic sentiment and the rest, there is only the suggestion of pride and so forth? Or why would you not explain away the whole generic category of the suggestion of aesthetic relish merely by the suggestion of its transitory states? If [you reply that] the apprehension of the durable psychological state cannot be denied, it is the same in the present case as well. But [to say that] in the immediately preceding verse energy is not apprehended, whereas it is apprehended in the compassion-heroic sentiment and the like, is merely a royal decree [without foundation].

The marvelous sentiment is as follows:
“O house containing the web of moving and unmoving worlds! / Having beheld your mouth, having the depth of the falling sky, I have lost my consciousness.”
This is the statement of Yaśodā who once looked into the mouth of the blessed Vāsudeva. Here, the mouth is the objective determinant. The sight of the web of moving and unmoving worlds contained within it is the stimulant determinant. The loss of consciousness, and through it the implied horripilation, wide opening of the eyes, and so forth, are the consequents. Terror and the like are the transitory emotional states. Love toward her son, even though present here, is not apprehended at all, because there is no suggestive factor for it.
Or even if it were apprehended, it would not be proper for wonder to be subordinated [to it]. Likewise, devotion in the form 'This is some great personage' cannot even arise on her part because it is obstructed by the conviction 'This is my child.' Therefore, one should not suspect the subordination of wonder even to that [devotion].
As for that which has been cited by the ancient foremost crest-jewels among connoisseurs:
“A marvel! A great, novel incarnation; where [else] is such radiance, a wholly novel charm? / A transcendental firmness, ah, [what] majesty! An indescribable form, a new creation!”—
with regard to that, this must be said: let wonder indeed be apprehended here, but how is it the ground for designating [the verse] as a suggestion of the marvelous sentiment? Because it is subordinated, acting as an intensifier of the predominant devotion residing in the praiser toward the particular great personage who is the subject being expounded; just as in the Bhāgavadgītā of the Mahābhārata, in the textual context of Arjuna after seeing the Cosmic Form: “I see all the gods in your body, O God, and likewise the multitudes of particular beings,” and so forth. And in this way, its status as an ornament of aesthetic relish is proper. If it is objected that devotion is not apprehended here at all, let connoisseurs look into it with eyes half-closed.

The comic sentiment is as follows:
“In the treatise composed by my revered father, this new argument has been expounded: / Ah, the front half of cows is sacred; why not then also that of the lawful wife of the donkey?”
Here, the son of the logician is the objective determinant. His fearless statement is the stimulant determinant. The flashing of teeth and so forth, and agitation and so forth, are the consequents and the transitory states.
Regarding this they say:
“It is considered to have two varieties: existing in oneself and existing in another; / that existing in oneself is produced in the spectator merely upon seeing the determinants.”