29. 213. See NŚ 6.34-38, above.

Page 332

See NŚ 6.34-38, above.
I conjecture vyākhyānārhāḥ (for vyākhyānārhāt, so too Kangle).
I rearrange the first two items to correspond with the preceding exposition.
I read prayojye ...- dhiyi ca tad eva mūlam | bīja- (for prayojane ...- dhiyi ca | tad evam mūlabīja-).
See DhA p. 498.
Abhinava is subtly reinterpreting the verse to conform with his new reader-reception aesthetics. See DhĀ p. 497 and n. 295, above; contrast Gnoli 1968: xlviii-xlix.
Several false interpretations rejected here by Abhinava are ignored.
See NS 1.289 (6.39-45), above.
In other words, any rasa when imitated becomes, in the end, comic (KLV p. 312.7). See also above both Bhoja, ŚP, p. 635, who takes this conclusion as a reductio ad absurdum, and Dhanika, Avaloka p. 221, who offers an analysis from within Bhatta

Nayaka's system.

The text here is unclear, and my assumption that it is to the subject himself that the emotion is supposed to seem stable is

not entirely certain.

"First, the lust was the cause of the desire being a semblance, and as a consequence the aesthetic elements were semblances. Now he shows it is the aesthetic elements being semblances that is the cause of the desire being a semblance" (KLV).
DhĀL p. 178.8 gives veti pratipattir hrdayam (for veti hrdayam).
KA confirms abhimāno; or read abhilāso, "craving," with DhĀL p. 178.9 (and possibly vilīye- for -pi līye-).
Though the reading anupayogi is given also by KA, I derive no sense from it. Whatever may have been the true reading (Kangle's ābhāsatvayonih is a guess; perhaps better is 'py anapāyī), the meaning required is given in the DhAL p. 178.9, na ... niścayena krtam, which I offer here.
Or reading -kāvye (for vākye, see DhAL p. 178.1): "throughout the poetic narrative of Ravana" (or: the Poem of Ravana). The source of the verse itself is unknown.
I read sītālaksano vibhāvah (with Raghavan, for sītāvibhāvalakșaņam).
NŚ 1.306.
The reference to the "ancients" is unclear, given that Bharata nowhere speaks of the "semblance of rasa." The first use of the phrase in question is Udbhata 4.7, above.
Characteristically, Abhinava chooses a complex example, of the comic negated by the comic. Hemachandra comments: "The world's raucous laughter toward something that is in fact praiseworthy is itself a 'semblance' of the comic" (KA p. 149). But as KLV adds, the semblance of the comic is itself comic (p. 312.14).
Bharata restricts the tragic emotion to the loss of a loved one (6.62). For reflections on the "tragic" in Indian aesthetics, see the introduction, section 8.
Uncertain.
VS 4.15 (Duryodhana speaks).
KLV (p. 312.16) suggests a problem with the text, and seems to point toward a missing line indicating that there is no essential relationship between the erotic and the tragic. I add this to the text for ease of comprehension.
That is, the interruption of desire no more rules out the presence of the erotic than the interruption of anger rules out the presence of the violent that gives rise to the tragic.
VS 1.7.

Page 333

Tāpasavatsarāja 2.16 (King Vatsa is thinking of the "dead" Vasavadatta).
KS 4.9 (the wife of the god of love mourns his death).
A pun on the love god's name, the "bodiless one."
VS 5.5.
And hence that there is no heroic rasa. The work of "determination" is conquering an enemy in a way that conforms with the rules of engagement (the application of peace entreaties and so on) (KLV).
I read -janitā (with Kangle, for -janitaḥ).
Source unknown. The reference is to Vishnu, whose complexion is blue-black.
Determination is the stable emotion of the heroic rasa, and amazement that of the fantastic.
MVC 2.54 (a description of the young Rama).
Is this an exception to the rule that every rasa aims toward another as its end result?
We might wish to read -bhāva- (for -vibhāva-), given what follows; bhāva can connote vibhāvādi, though the latter may in fact be the true reading (see 1.292.17).
And thus imply the fearful rasa.
VS, beginning of Act 4.
Abhinava goes on to examine the same phenomenon with the other rasas.
I read yathāsvam (with Kangle, for yathāsvayam).
See ABh 1.276, above.
The same point is made in ABh 1.335.9 (see also Lollata #2a, above).
I conjecture -tvenopa- (for tvepa-).
DhÃ 3.43.
I omit Abhinava's analysis of the word śrgāra (1.294.16-296.3); see NŚ 1.294 and n. 28, above.
I read -laksaņāyā ... dhiyās tena ...- rupāyā api ...- paryantavyāpinī (for -laksaņayā ... dhiyā. tena ...- rupāņīti yā ...- paryantā vyāpinī; see also KA p. 108.5 and 108.22).
And rasa is itself a "resting point" or state of absorption.
I read anyasya (with Kangle, for anyatra), though without full conviction.
Source unknown.
I read eva (for eka-).
A grammatical point is omitted here.
I omit the next sentence, which is unintelligible to me (and may be corrupt). 265. I read ayuvatve (with Visvesvara, for ayuktve).
I omit the corrupt illustrative verse and series of glosses that follow.
I read tasyā āsvādya- (with KA, for tasyāś cāsvādya-).
Meghadūta 2.45.
KA adds: "The hope for enjoyment remains uninterrupted in the state of the erotic thwarted; were there absolute despair, we would have the tragic rasa. And if there were no fear of separation even during the course of enjoyment, a woman would never show respect for a compliant and submissive husband-such is the perversity of love" (p. 108.6-8). 270. AmŚ 23 (trans. Ingalls 1965: 223).

Page 334

Or: brought about by a false cognition when the correct cognition has been negated.
One expects reference to the student's emulating the Vedic pronunciation of his teacher, but vyākhya seems nowhere to have this sense. For hevaka, see ABh 3.187.14.
The following clauses cannot construe as given in the received text since such considerations always refer to the viewer.

Hence my transposition.

That of describing, for example, the lovemaking of a real individual. (I read anaucityāvarjanayogāt with T 566a fl. 48, for GOS anaucityavarjanāyogāt.)
For the remainder of this section (especially the next few sentences) the original is riddled with textual problems, and the translation as a result is uncertain.
Or perhaps: by the actors.
mahāvākya, uncertain.
The ablative -paryavasānāt is hard for me to construe.
I read cittavrttir nirņayagatā (with GOS correction; there is no need for Visvesvara's conjecture nimagnatā).
T 566a fl. 55 adds a danda here.
For sūcī, see NS 9.279.
I conjecture bhavan (for bhavat).
The exposition here is unclear to me.
"Five or six moments," pañcasair divasaih: I follow Madhusūdhanī. I doubt one can feel rapture for "five days" since the aesthetic experience ends, for Abhinava, as soon as one leaves the theater. (Sanskrit plays may have been performed over many days, like today's Kuttiyatam, but I know of no evidence for this.)
I read sacamatkāras (with Gnoli, for sacamatkāra-)
I read -rañjakam ...- pratimam ...- samskāram (with Gnoli, for rañjaka -...- pratima- ...- samskāra-).
Recall the Bhatta Nayaka likened literature to the beloved, because it seduces one to action (i.e., enjoyment), in contrast to scripture, which commands, or history, which advises.
I read evotpumsana- (for evanutpumsana-).
anukīrtana-, NS 1.107.
I conjecture anukrtam ityādi- (for anukrte 'nyādi-).
NŚ 7.10.
No actor has ever actually seen him, and imitation presupposes experience of the original.
Bhatta Tota fragment #3a; see his #1a, from which much of the preceding is derived.
The syntax of the following five lines in the text is uncertain.
The first of the "hindrances"; see ABh 1.274.13, above.
I read -kalpatā (with Gnoli, for -kalpanāțye).
rūșita: a Shaiva technical term, it seems, for the "laden" consciousness of phenomenal life, as opposed to the unladen nature of truly transcendent consciousness (see Jayaratha on Tantrāloka ahnikā 4 v. 125; compare -kālusyānārūșitam svātantryam in reference to samvid, IPVV v. 1, p. 49, etc., whereas by contrast the embodied self is -cittavrttirūșita-, ABh 3.124.11). Aesthetic consciousness, while pure pleasure, is "punctuated" by one's dispositions of pleasure, pain, and the like (ABh 1.284.23, a close parallel).
I read āropitasvarūpam (with Madhusūdhanī, for āropitam svarūpam).

Page 335

The four positions are essentially those of the Idealist Buddhists, the Vedantins, the Logicians, and the Prabhakara

Mimamsakas.

kīrtana, uncertain, given that anukīrtana, "re-narration," had just been used.
This section builds on arguments in DhÃ (and DhĀL) pp. 79-84, above.
The discussion concerns not language in general but the technical terms used in aesthetic theory: the names of rasas and of the stable and transitory emotions and physical reactions.
As Abhinava elsewhere explains, the bringer of the good news "A son has been born to you" is said to "produce a mental state" (cittavrttim janayati); but literature is a process of verbal meaning production totally different from this everyday sort (DhĀL p. 80.6-7).
The negative concomitance is: "Where we do not have the actual word for the rasa we do not apprehend it." These scholars (like Anandavardhana) argue that we do indeed apprehend rasas without any of the actual words being used.
The force of bahih escapes me here (a dittography for hi?).
"Acting" includes verbalization. The discussion in ABh on chapter 7 is not extant.
Source unknown.
Presumably "some other cause" actually related to the aesthetic terms themselves.
See n. 23 above.
NS 6.15, above. Abhinava uses this in the DhAL to show that citing the terms does not produce a rasa experience (p. 83.8).
Source unknown. The verse is cited by Abhinava (DhAL p. 82) to show that when technical terms are used, they have some other purpose than simply restating the transitory emotion.
tadrūpāsparśe; uncertain, but see -asprstatva (2.223.3) and other uses below.
MM 1.29 (trans. Coulson).
Ibid., 5.10.
Respectively AmŚ 19, VS 1.3, VU 5.7, AŚ 5.2, Caurapañcāśikā 36 (ed. Solf), KS 3.67c.
That is, the transitory emotions (Abhinava once again including craving, anomalously).
I hesitantly read -svabhāveșu (with Madhusūdhanī, for -svabhāve).
The oldest commentaries are the Kāvyādarśa of Someshvara Bhatta (see Parikh's introduction to his edition) and the Samketa of Ruyyaka, both c. 1150, and both in Kashmir. For the deification of Mammata see Sudhāsāgara of Bhimasena Dikshita (1723 C.E .; Pollock 2005: 39 and n.).
Mammata shows no clear awareness of ABh 2.221, or of any other part of the work, but the question awaits systematic

study.

He expands on Someshvara, Kāvyādarśa, who differentiates the cessation of material desires (the actual stable emotion of the peaceful) from the cessation of all mental states.
Someshvara remarks, "As Bhatta Tota argued in his Literary Investigations and Abhinavagupta too, in his commentary thereon," but the only extant source is DhĀL p. 390.
That is, nonattachment understood not as absence of attachment but as the presence of a rejection of attachment.
Someshvara, whom Shridhara is again following here, refers to the potential absence of hrdayasamvāda.
With "miserably dressed," Shridhara is alluding to the "lovely" nature of the erotic (see NS 1.295, above). I am uncertain about sarvaprāņișu kāmabhāvanișthānām, which seems corrupt.
Ascribed to Utpaladeva by Kshemendra (Aucityavicāracārcā v. 45 [Kșemendralaghukāvyasamgraha p. 29]) but not found in

Page 336

mss. of his Śivastotrāvalī (it is attributed to Munja in Saduktikarņāmṛta v. 2300). Ruyyaka clearly read in pāda c yāntu (for yānti of most KP eds.).

In the one case, some condition necessary for rasa development is absent (e.g., the mutuality required for the erotic); in the other, a transitory emotion is highlighted rather than a stable one. But the two situations may not in the end be analytically separable; hence the conflation in some of the commentaries.
Utpaladeva, Śivastotrāvalī, 13.17.
samūhālambanātmakatva-, i.e., synthesizing the multiple aesthetic elements.
I read -rāhityād bhāvataiva (for rāhityābhāvataiva).
KS 3.67, translated in SKĀ 5.138, above.
I conjecture ajātatvāt (for jātatvāt).
I conjecture apratibandhāt (for pratibandhāt).
I read -māhātmyasmrtyādhayḥ (for -māhātmyādayaḥ) with Nagesha's Uddyota, which borrows from Paramananda (p. 164).
If we "chewed" over the verse long enough, the way one eats sugarcane, we would get the full rasa.
That is, Mammata.
See Gautama, Nyāyasūtras, 1.2.4.
First in RKA 11.14.
First in RKA 11.12.
The various attributes of Shiva; the goddess Ganga, who resides in Shiva's headdress, is conventionally viewed by his wife, Parvati, as a rival. While the example was chosen for its naming of the transitory emotions-shame, jealousy, despondency-it also uses words for rasas (the tragic) and stable emotions (amazement).
Here and below, the ellipses signal omitted examples.
I read -aparya- (with Kāvyādarśa and Pradīpa, for -parya-).
Such as the man's paralysis. Unless we are given some sense that the man is reacting erotically, we do not respond to this as

an erotic poem.

Commentators disagree about the subject in the first two lines, and the precise meaning of the verbs.
Adduced first in this context by Abhinavagupta (DhĀL p. 362).
Rati, the wife of the god of love, laments when he is destroyed by Shiva, in Kumārasambhava 4.
The example is borrowed from DhA p. 340.
MVC 2 (untying the bracelet is a ceremony held on the tenth day after the wedding). Breaking off the battle suggests Rama's inability to win.
The demon Hayagriva is the antagonist of the (lost) Hayagrivavadha (Vishnu is the protagonist), and the overlong descriptions risks reversing the roles.
In the Ratnāvalī, Babhravya is the chamberlain of the king of Simhala, and his conversation with King Udayana displaces the centrality of the heroine, Ratnavali (disguised as Sagarika).
The sociology of the comic in Bharata is more complex than this: it is "most often" found among women and low-status characters, with a few subvarieties only found among characters of high and middle status (NŚ 6.51-52).
A point first raised by Anandavardha, DhĀ, pp. 317-18.
KS 3.72.
Such as Arjuna in the Mahabharata, as Someshvara notes. He adds that even well-known stories like the Rāmayana should

Page 337

be altered in the interests of propriety, such as occurs in the Udāttarāghava, where Lakshmana, not Rama, chases the jeweled deer, and Rama is sent to save him (thus avoiding the impropriety of an inferior protecting a superior).

Karpūramañjarī 1.16.3 (ed. Konow).
DhÃ p. 330, given above.
That is, where the transitory emotion is not unambiguously associated with some unique physical reaction (so Jhalkikar).
Ratnāvalī 1.1.
AmŚ 49.
Which can indicate a number of other emotions, such as fear or anger.
I am assuming Mammata is using prema, which is not a transitory emotion, as a synonym of sneha, which is.
The source of the verse is disputed (it is cited earlier in KP 4.53), but it clearly depicts a prince or king (ruling lineages in India traditionally traced their descent to either the moon or the sun) who is mad with passion for a woman he cannot have.
Technically not the erotic but the "oscillation between emotions" (bhāvaśabalatā).
The pun on the word sarasa embodies the "commonness" Mammata refers to in what follows.
This answers DhA 3.20 (p. 368), which had argued that there is a conflict in this verse between the tragic and the erotic, but it is eliminated by the tragic elements functioning as subordinate components of the erotic.
Cited in DhĀ 3.20 (p. 399).
The alliteration mattānganāpāngabhangalolam. These last two points are meant to refute DhĀ 3.30.
Nāgānanda 1.14+. Contrast Avaloka, p. 203, above.
Source unknown.
MBh 11.24.17.
Source unknown. The verse is addressed to the Buddha, who out of compassion offered up his body to a lioness with starving cubs. The poet uses the word "even" of the monks feeling longing (that is, feeling compassion) because they are supposed to be dispassionate beings. The two rasas in conflict here are the erotic and, for most commentators, the "heroic in compassion" (for others, the peaceful). The comparison is not between the rasas themselves but between their stimulant factors (the animal bites and mistress's bites, etc.).
Source unknown. Brides paint their feet with lac (and the marriage arena is spread with holy darbha grass), weep at having to leave their family, feel fear from being without kin while holding their husband's hand, and walk seven times around the marriage fire.
Per KP 4.35cd-4.36ab, the stable emotion of desire when directed by a devotee to a god, a child to a parent, or, as here, a client to a patron, differs from its sexual variety. It cannot be "enhanced," so the poem remains "emotion," not rasa.
Hitopadeśa 2.23.
AmŚ 2.
Some commentators, including the oldest, Someshvara Bhatta, read (or imply the reading) -bhāv- (instead of prabhāv-, or understand it as prakrstabhava), so that it would (as for the former verse) be the poet's feeling about god's power that has primacy in the verse, not god's power itself, with the result that this is bhāvakāvya, not rasakāvya; this is Arjunavarmadeva's interpretation (see chapter 6.1). Other ancient commentators suggest that there is in fact a dominant rasa here, whether raudra, vīra, or adbhuta.
So we indeed have a case where the dominant-subsidiary relationship is itself subordinate to something else-the glory of god (or the poet's desire for god), on which the reader's mind "comes to rest." Moreover, the erotic, which is conveyed by the figure of speech (see below), is "more distant" from this than the tragic, so the former is subordinate to the latter (Someshvara).

Page 338

Cited in DhĀL 3.22 (likely borrowed from Nyāsa on Kāśikāvṛtti 1.1.5).
Mammata (KP p. 574) follows Abhinavagupta in understanding rasa as an experience in which all other contents of consciousness disappear and that in the last analysis is self-identical and singular.
That is, the stable emotion of the viewer/reader.
The phrase at the start of this sentence, tesām sthāyinā saha, appears to be corrupt.
Pramāņavārttika of Dharmakīrti, kārikā 262 (ed. Gnoli, p. 137).
The position of Ruyyaka himself, as becomes clear in what follows.
The position of Shri Shankuka, with which Mahima Bhatta, the author of the text on which Ruyyaka is commenting, in fact

agrees.

anupraveśa -. It is unlikely that the term is used here in the technical sense it has in Kashmir Shaiva philosophy (something like "contemplative absorption").
As in the preceding selection, Ruyyaka clearly takes "stable emotion" to refer to the actual feelings of the viewer/reader.
Such as would support Mahima Bhatta's rival doctrine of inference.
VV p. 80.
CONTINUING THE CONTROVERSIES BEYOND KASHMIR, 1200-1400
Compare, for example, ND p. 161.21 (lokasya națasya kāvyaśrotranusandhātroḥ preksakasya ca rasaḥ) with RK p. 101.10 (rasāḥ ... nāyakanațasāmājikāŕayā ity eke); ND 160.28-161 -. 1 (niyatavișayasmaraņa-) with RK 101.19 (tena sāmānyena smrtyārūdho yoșidādih sāmājikānām ālambanatvam bhajate), and see also PR p. 205 (tattadyoșidviśeșa-). 2. Aside from Hemachandra and the author of the contemporary KLV, they are the only scholars who evince knowledge of the text of the ABh. They directly criticize Abhinava's etymology of nātaka (p. 28; see ABh 3.80.15) and indirectly his theory of rasa as always pleasurable (p. 159.6, below); they also make reference on p. 164 to ABh 1.297.7 (why the erotic enjoyed and the erotic thwarted are not two different species of the erotic), and echo the text elsewhere (see, for example, n. 34 below); Raghavan notes two cases of probably borrowed citations (1963: 861, 890).
They rely on the SKÃ and/or the SP in their enumeration of the uparūpakas (Raghavan 1978: 530, 689).
They largely follow him in their assessment of rasa conflicts and faults, pp. 171-76. On the looting of Bhoja's library, see Pollock 2006: 181.
Including Devicandragupta of Vishakhadatta and the Pārthavijaya of Trilochana; see Raghavan 1978: 574.
ABh 1.276, above.
Davies 1965: 295. The play was actually long performed with Nahum Tate's happy ending.
A distinction first drawn by Dhanika (on DR 4.3ab, p. 171, above).
I understand vābhāvāt (for vā bhāvāt).
The term here pertains to both the character and the viewer/reader.
I construe svikrta- with -avastha, assuming it is glossing śrita- in the kārikā. Note that sākșātkr is typically used in reference to the response of the viewer/reader.
ABh 1.276.7 and Dhanika on DR 4.43-45ab, above
I conjecture pratīti- (for pratīta-). 14. mukhya -; see p. 159.27 (and compare ABh 1.35.19).

Page 339

I conjecture paridevitādikāryatvāt (for paridevitāni[nu ]kāryatvāt).
In the actual-painful-lives of the characters.
anusandhayaka, unattested in this sense and uncertain; possibly "composer," i.e., author, but the ND does not elsewhere

ascribe rasa to the poet.

Reactions in the character experiencing the rasa make the rasa known, but so do the reactions in the viewers; see below.
"Understanding," pratipatti-, here used as a synonym of pratīti, "apprehending."
It can only derive from some perceptible thing that is invariably concomitant with some imperceptible thing.
There should be a danda after -krtam.
The text here and in what follows confusingly speaks only of "others" in reference to both the audience and the character. I try to clarify by expanding the translation.
That "reactions" pertain also to the audience seems to have already been suggested by Dhanika (on DR 4.3, see n. 104 there).
strīpumsanata-, not "female and male actors" (compare, e.g., p. 161.16). Rasa exists (necessarily) in the characters, as the authors said at the start, as well as (potentially) in the actors.
As they do for the original characters.
This refers to the viewer, for whom the specific foundational factor in the case of the character becomes a generalized one (as Dhanika argued, Avaloka, pp. 218-19, above).
Whereas the woman herself experiences it in reference to a specific object.
They only really exist for the other characters in the play.
"Differentiation" into general and particular; it is always general.
Presumably as when one remembers one's own beloved in the course of experiencing the drama or reading the literary text, though both Bhatta Nayaka, according to Abhinavagupta's account, and implicitly Abhinava (for whom the intrusion of the viewer's real life would seem to fall under his third "hindrance") deny this possibility (see Bhatta Nayaka fragment #1a; ABh 1.275.9; contrast Kumarasvamin, PR, p. 204, below).
I read so 'nyāpratikșepātmā (for so 'nyā[n] prati kșepātmā).
Literally, "exclusion of nonconnection," i.e., affirmation of connection. The spectators can jointly experience rasa in connection with the same factors.
This seems to echo Abhinava's view on the generalized capacity for commonization (p. 273.9-10, above).
(na) ādhārānullekhī. Compare Abhinava's argument that in the state of aesthetic response "the viewer's self is neither completely displaced nor specifically referenced" (nātmātyantatiraskrto na viśeșata ullikhitaḥ, ABh 1.273.9, above).
I conjecture tatra (for atra); compare p. 160.19.
In the storyworld, where she functions as a factor for another character.
Where she functions as a factor for the viewer/reader.
va in the sense of iva (compare 161.17, 162.1).
anubhāvā vā. See p. 161.19.
parasmin; compare pareșām, p. 161.19.
My translation brings out what I understand to be the implication of "when narrated ... or imitated" here and in the next sentence: not only do the characters themselves have transitory emotions, so also do the viewer and reader.
loka, short for mukhyaloka as above (p. 159.27).
I conjecture gamya (for gamaḥ).

Page 340

Rasa in the character is "normal"; that in the audience-foregoing as it does the requisite real object-is "supernormal." The distinction derives ultimately from Dhanika's; see Avaloka p. 171, and n. 106, above.
sarasatvam.
The position kavyasyatma rasah is associated specifically with Vishvanatha in the following century, but Pratiharenduraja knows the paksa: rasānām ... kāvyajīvitatvam (KASS p. 50, above).
On the part of the audience, of the reality of the representation.
I.e., on the part of the poet.
I conjecture adhyavasyanti and tanmayībhavanti (for adhyavasyati and tanmayībhavati)
Literally, "they determine Rama ... to be in the actors."
According to Bhatta Nayaka's typology: Veda, which commands like a lord; history, which instructs like a friend; poetry, which seduces like a beloved.
Ekāvalī 1.7-8.
Ekāvalī p. 100.
Compare for example Mammata's illustrative poem "As they wander the sharp-grass thickets ... " (KP 7.65, above, chapter 4.3).
He could, however, have used his own royal encomia to illustrate "emotion poetry," as Mallinatha observes (see Ekāvalī p. 104, below).
See VJ 3.7, p. 138, above.
ŚP v. 8; SKĀ 5.30, both above.
tiraścām apy asty eva rasaḥ (p. 106); anukāryānukartrgatatvaparihāreņa sāmājikānām ... bhāva eva ... rasaḥ (pp. 87-88).
Usually utpaladalaśatasūcīvyatibhedanyāya.
If rasa were an effect, it would continue to exist after the disappearance of its causes (the aesthetic elements), the way a pot continues to exist when the potter is no longer there. But it does not (Mallinatha).
Mallinatha wishes to tighten the very loose syntax of -parirambhanirbharataya by construing with samullasan (88.2), but this seems to me a stretch.
Here Vidyadhara is restating Abhinavagupta's views as given in the précis of the KP.
This appears to be the first occurrence of the quasi-Vedantic term avarana in the rasa context (compare also p. 91.13). See further on Vishvanathadeva's SSS below.
Derived from Dh p. 78-83, above.
A standard example in Mimamsa (Śabara on PMS 3.8.12).
Borrowed in part from KP (ed. Jhalkikar, pp. 225-28), while ignoring Avaloka pp. 206-12.
I conjecture -ajñāpyatva- (for -jñāpyatva-).
Source unknown.
Source unknown.
DR 4.43. The second part of the quote is Vidyadhara's own addition.
That is, "its presence is indicated by."
In the viewer's experience. For bhūmikāśrayaḥ here we must understand cittabhūmikāśrayaḥ (see Dhanika on DR 4.43-45ab, and n. 236, above; in a rare slip, Mallinatha mistakenly glosses śrngārādibhedāśrayaņena).
This is in accordance with the view of Dhanamjaya and Dhanika; see DR 4.43-45ab, Avaloka p. 221, and n. 238, above.