19. 129. This refers to the physical register of acting.

Page 290

This refers to the physical register of acting.
The stable emotion is only "hinted at," not "clearly indicated."
If genuine, this would be the first mention of the peaceful rasa in Sanskrit theory (the few references in the NS are later additions, though undatable). But the verse seems to be an interpolation that has crept into the text, being irrelevant to Udbhata's discussion of narrative rather than dramatic poetry. It may of course still be Udbhata's, perhaps borrowed from his NŚ

commentary.

The symmetrical relationship between the rasas and the ends of man-the erotic relating to love, etc .- will be detailed first by Abhinavagupta (see ABh 1.276, below).
Induraja goes on to contrast the "special" savoring of rasa from the "mere" savoring of the transitory emotions, linking the former to the sphere of the four ends.
RKA 12.4, see below. Induraja's interpretation conflicts with that of Rudrata's commentator ad loc. (and that of SP p. 683, below).
Jacob and NSP identify this as a karika of Udbhata's, but this is mistaken, as Induraja's treatment shows (Tilaka omits).
Contra Jacob, NSP, and BSPS, the words prapya pariharyau must be read in compound.
Source unknown. The verse offers early evidence of the discursive turn away from formalist analysis of rasa to reader response (see introduction, section 6).
Source unknown.
When a poem has five elements as its basis it can "clearly" manifest the rasa.
Induraja will call this view into question in what follows.
The view of the late ninth-century scholar Anandavardhana.
hāsādisamatvam ca kāvyasya prāpnoti. Presumably this refers to the descriptive portions of a poem devoted to prompting the inference of the stable emotion.
The subdivisions are listed first in DhA 2.12 (p. 217), with abhilāsa as the first stage.
Or even "being factored": vibhāvyamānā (T clearly read bhāvyamānā in P).
abhivyajyate; see n. 94 on KA 2.285, above.
The Sanskrit term is the same as in the "haughty" declaration of Dandin, but it is translated as "impulsive" here in accordance with Udbhata's redefinition.
Udbhata follows the traditional order of figures found in Dandin and Bhamaha, and thus discusses the figure paryāyokta between ürjasvi and samāhita. But in Udbhata's treatment, unlike Dandin's and Bhamaha's, the figure samāhita is defined in terms of rasa, thereby linking it to the first three figures of the group (preyas, rasavad, ūrjasvi) but not to paryāyokta.
I read -vrtteh (with T, for -vrttaih Jacob, NSP, and BSPS).
The predisposition in the character, as clearly indicated in what follows.
I read drstyā vibhramāmś ca and romāñcam (with T, for drstvā vibhramāc ca and romāñca-, Jacob, NSP, BSPS).
Presumably by the cupped hands raised to his face in greeting.
The v. is critically analyzed in VJ pp. 159-61, below. Udbhata retains the old sense of the figure (BKA 3.11, KĀ 2.298), while expanding it (at least in terms of subordination) in accord with his new rasa template.
Three of the traditional eight sources of pearl. I read sūkara- (for sūkare).
The reading pusta (P), pusya (T) is uncertain; the word is unattested in the sense given by both, "a particular type of precious stone."

Page 291

Udbhata's novel refinement of the second type of udātta seems comparable to Anandavardhana's guņībhūtavyangya, but the idea is not developed beyond what we have here. Note that Anandavardhana will turn this schema upside down, arguing that it is precisely when subordinated to some other sentence meaning that rasa functions as the figure rasavat (DhÃ 2.5, below; this raises yet further problems of categorization; see KLV p. 280).
SRĀ 1.11. The omission of Bhatta Nayaka is even more startling.
KA 5.3 (33); also cited by Namisadhu on RKA 3.59 and KM p. 45.3 (attributed to the otherwise unknown Aparajiti, perhaps a patronymic of Bhatta Lollata). Bhatta Lollata is also credited by Kshemaraja with a commentary on the Spandakārikā (Pandey 1963: 196-97).
Manikyachandra, KP (ed. Mysore, 1st. ed.), p. 147.
For the former see ND p. 160, or RT 4.3, both below); for the latter, Dhanika (possibly) on DR 4.3ab, p. 171 (see note 104 there), and RG p. 55. It is an anachroniism on the part of Someshvara Bhatta, the earliest KP commentator, to take Bhatta Lollata to be referring to audience reaction (KP p. 535).
NS 1.299 (see n. 29 on the conflation of the reactions and acting registers), and compare Kangle 1973: 126.
See Vishvanatha's comment on KP p. 536.
See NS 1.266 and n. 17 above.
ABh 1.266; KA p. 89.
I read vibhāvāś (with KA, for vibhāvaś).
Those produced by rasa are in another character (e.g., Sita's in the presence of Rama).
I read bhāvānām ye 'nubhāvāḥ | (with KA, for bhāvānām eva | nanu ye 'nubhavah). Manikyachandra confusingly reads rasakāryatvena (for rasakāraņatvena).
Both stable and transitory emotions are states of mind, and should occur sequentially, not simultaneously (so Dhanika on DR 4.34; Manikyachandra on KP p. 534).
I read vāsanātmatā tasya (sc., sthāyinaḥ) vivakșitā (with KA, for vāsanātmaneha tasya vivakșitaḥ). The syntax is still hard, but Manikyachandra leaves no doubt about the sense.
I conjecture 'pi vyañjan- (for 'py abhivyañjan-) 170. Bhatta Lollata is playing on the etymological meaning of vāsanā (from the root vās, to perfume).
This would seem to refer to emotion poetry (see Induraja on KASS 4.2, p. 48, above).
mukhyayā vrttyā. It is unclear whether this pertains to reference ("literal sense," so, e.g., Bhatta Gopala, KP, p. 537) or ontology ("in actual fact," so, e.g., Maheshvara, KP, p. 540).
Abhinava identifies this as "the view of the ancients," and cites KA 2.279, 281, above.
ABh 1.292.22.
Abhinava adds, "This little bit of arrogance on Lollata's part can be safely ignored." As he elaborates in ABh 1.335.8, Bharata's list was exhaustive not by convention but because "only those nine rasas are taught as subserving educational needs and as adequately pleasurable."
ABh 1.258.
anusandhi- (= anusandhāna above), and contrast Kangle 1973: 57.
Ruyyaka, KP, p. 534.
apusțas tu sthāyī recapitulates sthāyī bhavaty [KA -tv] anupacitaḥ (ABh 1.266.11-12; Shridhara's aparipustas tv asthāyī p. 536 is false).

Page 292

Rājatarangiņī 4.705 (abhyudaya normally is predicated of a king, but no Bhuvana is known from this period).
See Subhāșitāvali, p. 127; Śārngadharapaddhati, pp. 564 (son of Mayura) and 591; Nagesha Bhatta seems to name him Shankukarna, KP (BHU ed.) p. 611.
ND 1.53 (vrtti); 2.28 (vrtti, on the question of the social class of the protagonist of a farce).
A fortiori does this apply to later elaborations of Shri Shankuka's thought in the RG p. 28, below.
Gupta 1963.
Fragment #4a, and see the introduction, section 8. Note also his use of the Buddhist locution bhāvanāprakarsaja in fragment #5a.
See for example 1.66, 74; and 1.212, 213.
DhÃ pp. 83-84; ABh 2.221.
VJ 3.10+.
ABh 1.266-267; I supplement this very condensed account with KA pp. 90-93 and KLV pp. 303-305. Abhinava also discusses Shri Shankuka's view in ABh 1.278. The positions detailed in DhAL pp. 185-86 combine parts of Shri Shankuka's theory, but it is impossible to sort out which are his and which not.
I.e., that rasa arises from a "conjunction of the stable emotion with the aesthetic elements."
That is, to speak of "enhancement" is necessarily to speak of the "enhancement" of something, and the rules of discourse tell us that this "something" has to be stated first, or known from context. (I thank A. Ollett for this observation.)
It remains unclear how Shri Shankuka himself reconciled the two different discussions (of rasas and of sthāyibhāvas) in the NŚ.
NS 1.318 and 1.347.
I read -mandatvādi- (with KLV, for -mandamādhyasthyādya-). 195. Each having its own degree of intensity of the comic. KA cites NŚ 6.51-52.
KA cites NŚ 22.170-172.
I read prāgavastho bhāvaḥ (with Manikyachandra KP p. 543, for KA's prāgavasthābhāvaḥ).
KA here inserts selection #2b, noting that, given these phenomena, rasa cannot be thought of as being preceded by or dependent on the stable emotion, but just the reverse.
I read sahakāri- (with KP p. 543, for sahacāri-).
Presumably, an effort on the actor's part.
The question the following discussion seeks to answer concerns the peculiar nature of the stable emotion, why it cannot be taken in Bhatta Lollata's sense, why it can only be represented or imitated, and perhaps also why inference is required.
anusandhāna- (contrast the usage of Bhatta Lollata, for whom the term means something like "identification").
As #3a below indicates, the narration recited by the actor can communicate the factors, but presumably there will be many cases when the factors appear in physical form on the stage. KD makes it seem that it is the actor who is referred to as comprehending the factors, pp. 143-44; 145.1-2 (and the audience, 144.4). But this makes no sense here, if in fact the question is how and why inference is required for apprehending the stable emotion. The criticism of Bhatta Tota (p. 185 below) shows that the uncertainty was old.
A critique of Udbhata's notion that the stable emotions can be communicated by their "proper terms."
The verse is from a lost Ramayana play (Krtyāravana, according to KLV p. 304). Rama is speaking about the abduction of Sita.

Page 293

The fire inside the ocean that burns up the incoming waters and keeps them from overflowing.
KA's readings (krtastambhah for krtah stambhaḥ and yena vardhitā- for yo'navasthitā-) are confirmed by the edition of the Tāpasavatsarāja (2.7) itself. Vinitideva is describing King Udayana's grief.
Ratnāvalī 2.11.
Not only is "stable emotion" not included by Bharata in the principal compound (vibhava-, etc.), it is not even mentioned in the instrumental ("by means of the stable emotion") or the nominative ("the stable emotion becomes rasa"), thus KLV (p. 305.1). Better, however, is the genitive, as understood by Bhatta Lollata (arthāt sthāyinaḥ).
And cannot be directly equated with the stable emotion strengthened, as in Bhatta Lollata's view.
Bharata says of other rasas that they "consist of" the stable emotion (e.g., hāsya is hāsasthāyibhāvātmaka, NŚ 1.305). KLV errs in pointing to NS 1.294.
I read drstā (with KA, for adrstā).
Pramāņavārttika 2.57. Both knowledge episodes are "false," since Buddhists hold that the class category involved in such an inference (as the universal "fire" from a particular smoke) is a conceptual fiction. But in one case the false knowledge does enable one of the men to find the real gem (see further in McCrea 2011).
Mammata restates this as "This actor is in fact Rama, and Rama is in fact this actor" (KP p. 543).
The punctuation around the clause ayam eva rāma iti in both NS and KA is misleading. The correct interpretation is indicated by KP, auttarakālike bādhe rāmo 'yam iti. The sense here is: ayam eva rāma iti pratītyām bādhitāyām na cāpy ayam [rāmaḥ] na [ca] sukhīti pratītiḥ iti na).
"The actor is really Rama" is not true because that is not the apprehension we actually have, but rather "Here is Rama."
It is precisely not the identity of actor and character that is being inferred (so Ingalls et al. 1990: 229), which would be self- canceling anyway, since for the aesthetic inference to work the actor must vanish completely. It is just as in the case of a pictorial representation: we think, not, "This is actually a horse" (turaga evāyam), but "Here is a horse" (turago 'yam). In KD (p. 142) this is called nirgalitāvadhāraņarūpā pratītih, an apprehension where the very determination [or restriction, eva] that underlies it vanishes.
There is no reason not to take this as a direct quotation from Shri Shankuka.
Such as doubts (KLV).
-samplava- (-anekarūptatāpratibhāsaḥ, KLV).
ABh 1.286. In Abhinava's view, the actor "contains" rasa like a vessel (ABh 1.285), and how far his idiom of "relishing' accurately represents Shri Shankuka's views is unclear.
loke, the storyworld; see also Manikyachandra's gloss on the passage in KA cited in the next section (laukikasya ... rāmādigatasya rasasya, p. 206). Compare Dhanika's use of laukika (on DR 4.3ab, see n. 106, below) and Abhinavagupta's discussion, ABh 1.286, below.
And thus his emotion. For the purpose of the present argument (see ABh 1.286-287 and especially n. 203), the dramatis persona or foundational cause stands for all the aesthetic elements, which of course include the emotions more narrowly conceived.
Given the context in which Abhinava adduces this citation-a discussion of whether emotion precedes rasa or the reverse -the first position would seem to indicate that rasa can be said, if not to precede emotion, then at least to be simultaneous with it, and the second, that emotion can be said to precede rasa.
Presumably, that rasas and emotions are mutually constitutive (Bharata's third position, see NŚ 1.286). Abhinava dismisses this argument on the grounds that the viewer makes no distinction between character and actor. But aside from the fact that this is

Page 294

Shri Shankuka's own view (as the analogy of the painting of the horse shows), what he is here offering is an analytical, not a

phenomenological, account.

KA p. 91. This is Hemachandra's reworking of Shri Shankuka's interpretation of NS 1.286. The quote attributed to the "sage"-presumably Bharata-is not found in NS, and the second sentence is of course the position of Shri Shankuka.
That is, again, the aesthetic elements, which include the foundational cause that is being seen (compare ABh 1.286.21: tarhi rasaprasādād bhāvā vibhāvādayah, "It can therefore be said that the 'emotions'-that is, the aesthetic elements-arise by virtue of rasa").
KP p. 543 (supplemented by KA pp. 91-92).
The syntax is nate ... anumīyamāno ... ratyādir bhāvas ... rasaḥ. This might seem to be at odds with Abhinava (#2a) (anukartari rasān āsvādayato 'nukārye bhāvapratītih) though confirmed by (#1a) (anukartrsthatvena lingabalataḥ pratīyamānaḥ sthāyī bhāvo mukhyarāmādigatasthayyanukaranarūpah). The emotion we infer in the actor is an imitation of the emotion of the character, and that inferred emotion is rasa.
Both untraced (the latter is cited also by Rudrata). In the monsoons travelers return home to enjoy the company of their beloved.
There is a yathāsāmkhya relationship between the elements here, -balāt going with kārana-, and prakāśitaih with kāryasahakāri -.
sambhāvyamānaḥ.
Note that KP reads -vilaksaņo sthāyitvena (KA -vilakșaņasthāyitvena).
It is unclear whether Mammata and Hemachandra, neither of whom had independent access to Shri Shankuka's work, are fairly representing his thought when they refer to viewers tasting the rasa by way of their "predisposition," the latter term being introduced into rasa theory by Bhatta Nayaka (or perhaps Dhanika, on DR 4.37) several generations after Shri Shankuka.
ABh 1.311.17-19.
sadayāhṛdayatā.
Abhinavagupta remarks: "This is the blathering of someone who forgets the first thing when he says the second. For he holds karuna [read thus for karunā] to be the simulation of grief, whereas [he just defined it as] compassion, which is the desire to rescue someone. How can that be an imitation of grief? And I haven't the faintest idea what the spectators are supposed to feel 'compassion' for."
ABh 3.150-151. There are uncertainties in the text and translation.
NŚ 1.22.1, 3.
Should we read ahetukatvam? The question is not whether sattva is caused or uncaused, but whether its manifestations

can be.

Aside from arguing, among other things, that Shri Shankuka confuses us on the location of the psychophysical element (it is in the actor rather than in the character), Abhinava has a radically different understanding of the NS verses (1.151-152).
Vallabhadeva (early to mid-tenth century) refers in his commentary on Siśupālavadha (4.21) to an exegesis he wrote on Rudrata (I thank L. McCrea for the reference).
Literally people "filled with or fond of rasa," and below, treatises "devoid of rasa."
Namisadhu reads nīrasebhyas te; I see no need for the awkward nīrase 'bhyaste in the printed text, which also violates the caesura that falls before te.
This verse is unmetrical and probably corrupt. I conjecture: tat kāvyam kartavyam.
sarasa -.

Page 295

vakrokti (the first "word figure" treated, 2.14) and vāstavokti (the first "sense figure," 7.10, synonymous with svabhāvokti).
Compare Namisadhu on RKA 1.7; 10 (sphuțārtham na varam), 12.5, etc.
I conjecture mati- (for rati-, which is the basis of a rasa, so its presence here is impossible).
Paralysis is numbered among the sāttvikabhavas, which are viewed as partly reactions, partly emotions; see DR 4. 4cd-5ab, below.
NS 6.32-33, given above.
Namisadhu's candor about the uncertainty of the canonical list is uncommon.
Or perhaps, "to win over critics." Compare Bhatta Lollata's argument (as reported by Abhinavagupta) based on the paradaprasiddhi, or norms of the scholarly community (above, Bhatta Lollata fragment #2a, and ABh 1.335.7; see also Raghavan 1975: 128).
Rudrata goes on to consider the nature of the protagonist, and to briefly define the other rasas.
Rājatarangiņī 5.34.
DhÃ p. 364. For the larger question of the rise of a literary teleology, see McCrea 2009, passim, but in particular p. 442.
Ananda nowhere discusses rasodaya, -śānti, -sandhi, or -śabalatā, while rasābhāsa is mentioned only twice, in passing.
The keyword of reception theory, sāmajika, audience, never is used in the work. The "sensitive reader" does not experience (taste, savor, etc.) rasa; rasa "appears" to him (DhĀ p. 402).
rasādīn bandhum, rasavanti hi vastūni, DhĀ 2.17, 2.16 (pp. 221-22); vaktā kaviḥ kavinibaddho vā, kavinibaddhaś cāpi rasabhāvarahito rasabhāvasamanvito vā; raso 'pi kathānāyakāśrayas tadvipaksāśrayo vā, DhĀ 3.6 (p. 318).
Ingalls et al. 1990: 413 (the important distinction surprisingly plays no role in their analysis of Ananda's theory).
H. P. Grice's term "implicature" seems to me both to capture at least the linguistic (if not the aesthetic) phenomenon Ananda sought to describe, and to provide a neologism comparable to Ananda's innovative use of dhvani (literally, "sound").
DhA 1.2, 2.3. A good summary is offered in Avaloka pp. 205-206, below.
Compare DhA pp. 78-82, below, with Shri Shankuka fragment #1a, p. 267, above.
In technical terminology, gunībhūtavyangya, "where the manifested sense"-here rasa-"is subordinate" to another

meaning.

Ananda's expression may be a little loose, but I fail to understand why Abhinava adds tātparyaśakti, the position that Ananda rejects. The aesthetic elements themselves are indeed directly expressed, and they in turn indirectly express-i.e., suggest-

rasa.

The second is Ananda's position, and will be vindicated later.
Or perhaps we should in fact read 'kāvye (for kāvye, see akāvyam in, e.g., DhAL p. 497.19): "In what is not poetry," such as a list of rasas in a textbook.
A reference to Valmiki's creation of poetry (Rāmāyaņa 1.2.39).
Rather than as a (quasi) figure; the distinction is argued out in what follows.
anyatra = anyasmin; see VJ p. 149 (anyo vākyārthaḥ).
Ananda is fundamentally redefining the idea of the "rasa-laden": it is not actually a figure at all, but rasa itself when playing a subordinate role.
Literally, the "affectionate utterance figure," but figures cannot themselves be the subject matter, a problem that Abhinava sought to deal with in his commentary ad loc.
Kuntaka will insist that the verse also conveys the erotic rasa (VJ 151.2).