30. 74. Vidyadhara cites ŚP 1.6 .- 7 (in reverse order).

74. Vidyadhara cites ŚP 1.6 .- 7 (in reverse order).

75. Vidyadhara hereafter provides definitions of each rasa.

76. This distinction was systematized by Mammata KP 4.35 (above), which is Vidyadhara's source here.

77. Ascribed to Umapatidhara in Saduktikarņāmrta 1647.

78. A description of Shiva.

79. I read dvijādi- (with Mallinatha, for dvijāti-).

80. Naisadīyacarita 4.52. In death, according to scriptural texts, the mind reverts to the moon. But the moon erroneously takes this to refer to himself, rather than to the moonface of Nala, Damayanti's lover. The god of love provides the correct exegesis.

81. Whose gentle moonbeams she finds fatal in the absence of Nala.

82. vişayabhava -: translated in accordance with Mallinatha, though strictly this should mean "object" of rasa, not subject (normally āśraya; for the terminological instability, see chapter 3, n. 144).

83. KS 3.37.

84. Filliozat 1963: iv-vi.

85. See especially Vidyanatha's remarks on the bhāvikālankāra (v. 251): "bhāvanā is a visualization that comes from bringing something repeatedly before the mind's eye: a traveler, for example, through the process of bhavana on his beloved will come to visualize her." For the ND, see p. 160.28-161.1; for the RK, p. 101.

86. On this he is close to Abhinavagupta's alaukikacamatkārakārī ... rasaḥ (see e.g., DhĀL p. 155.5-6; KP. ed. Jhalkikar, p. 93).

87. Bhatta Nayaka fragment #1a; Jayaratha on AS p. 8; Ruyyaka on KP p. 563.

88. Raghavan points out that Kumarasvamin may be the first to argue thus. For earlier theorists the key difference was that, whereas the aesthetic experience comes to an end, the experience of supreme being does not (PR introduction, p. 34).

89. The Svātmayogapradīpa appears now to be published in Chitambaran 1998, but is inaccessible to me.

90. The idea here is borrowed in part from Dhanika on DR 4.40-41ab and ND 160.28-161.1, both above, but more directly from RK (p. 101), with the important addition of tattadyosidviśesa.

91. bhāvuka (a word used elsewhere in the text [see after 251, bhāvikālankāra, "bhāvukānām hrdi bhāvanodayāt") is a common variant for bhavaka in (perhaps only in) south Indian texts; among the earliest occurrences are those in the BhPu (e.g., 1.1.3; PS p. 68 cites a commentarial gloss, rasaviśeșabhāvanācatura).

92. Compare for example DR 4.19, above.

93. Kumarasvamin elaborates on this type below.

94. Bhatta Nayaka's view; see in particular the precis thereon of RAS #1b, above.

95. BhP p. 288.

96. Kumarasvamin's construction does not seem to me to capture the force of Vidyanatha's words or argument.

97. Compare Dhanika on DR 4.40-41ab.

98. NŚ 1.342.10.

99. See DR 4.41cd-42ab, above (Kumarasvamin reads svecchā hi, for DR's svotsāhaḥ). We use a particularized form to imagine something else, indeed, something within us. Children do not play with clay as such, but with particularized forms of clay; literature in the same way makes use of particularized beings, such as Arjuna.

100. See Dhanika on DR 4.2, from whom much of this paragraph is adopted.

101. I read pariņāmatvāt (with the Balamanorama ed., for pariņāma-).

102. These verses are written in art meters different from the simple verse form of the rest of the treatise, and are therefore

meant to carry special significance.

103. I am assuming parinamati is used almost in the sense, and with the predicative syntax, of bhavati. It is possible that bhāvavibhāvaḥ is a bahuvrīhi modifying rasabharaḥ (so Kumarasvamin), but this is a more awkward construction.

104. rasaprādurbhāvasamaye glosses sphuratprādurbhāvah in the verse (and is not a bahuvrīhi with nate).

105. For an explication, see below 4.138 and n. 119; the idea is similar to Abhinavagupta's (ABh p. 279, above).

106. See Anantadasa on SD 3.23, below.

107. I omit here Kumarasvamin's remarks on a range of traditional questions treated elsewhere in the Reader: the unity of rasa

though composed of multiple ingredients; the pleasure of sad stories; the multiplicity of rasas despite the rasa experience itself

remaining always the same.

108. Compare DR 4.37 and Dhanika thereon, though there it is the stable emotion, not rasa, that is analogized to sentence meaning. Vidyanatha's emendation renders the idea considerably less perspicuous, as does Kumarasvamin's gloss (it is always the viewer/listener's apprehension that is said to "come to rest," not the playwright/poet's).

109. Kumarasvamin here alludes to the Ekavalī (upon which his father had commented): "gradually the stable emotion starts to sprout, branches out, begins to blossom" (Ekāvalī p. 86, above).

110. The analogy is found in BhP p. 58.17 (unrelated is the usage in ABh 1.288).

111. BhP p. 159.18.

112. See Bhatta Nayaka fragment #12 and n. 39.

113. PR Kāvyaprakaraņa 5+ (tātparyo 'pi vyangyārtha eva na punah prthagbhūtaḥ).

114. This radically revises (or, more accurately, confounds) the original view of Dhanika, who in agreement with Bhatta Nayaka rejected the idea that rasa can be "manifested"; it is instead "actualized."

115. BhP p. 305.11 (correct bhāve in Kumarasvamin to bhāvo); my translation of the last compound is uncertain.

116. I read -vibhāva- (for -bhāva-).

117. See DR 4.7, above.

118. The storyworld. The idea is Dhanika's (on DR 4.3ab, above).

119. Rasa, like "taste," is not some thing other than the tasting itself, but it can be the object of a second-order cognition, as in the case of self-consciousness.

120. KS 3.50.

121. DhĀL pp. 185-86; trans. Ingalls et al. 1990: 223 (slightly emended). I fail to see how the citation can support, and not contradict, Vidyanatha's argument.

122. BhP p. 153, borrowing from DR 4.38-39, above.

123. The scholar is otherwise unknown; his Rasanirūpana is not extant.

124. ekarasa -.

125. See n. 89 above.

126. Presumably spoken by a spiritual adept who has had a vision of the divine principle within himself (the original is not available to me). Note the echo of Bhoja's doctrine in viewing desire as the fundament of all particularized rasas.

127. The Sāhityamīmāmsā has been misattributed to the twelfth-century poet Mankha; it is a much later work.

128. sāmānyakalpanā, 3.10.

129.3.20cd-21a.

130. See, however, Kumarasvamin on PR 4.138.