156. 176 CHAPTER III

176 CHAPTER III

Similar is the case with Laulya and Bhakti. For, their basic mental states are only subvarieties of Rati, Hasa or some other basic1 mental state. Their mutual difference is due to the object of their respective psycho- physical activity. Thus on closer analysis we find that Laulya is nothing but Rati expressing itself as intense desire for acquisition of a certain object in the context of Hāsya, Similarly Bhakti is nothing but extreme devotion to an object that is held in high esteem and dedication of the whole being to it. Abhinavagupta summarily dismisses the views of those who admit more than nine Rasas. He gives only one paragraph to their criticism. He, however, devotes a whole section to the discussion of the essential nature of Santa Rasa and its establishment as the most important and independent of all Rasas. He criticises a view, which is very similar to what Dhananjaya holds on Santa, though he does not mention any name. We shall, therefore, deal in some detail with his theory of Santa and his criticism of a view allied to that of Dhananjaya.

DHANAÑJAYA AND ABHINAVAGUPTA ON SANTA RASA. Dhanañjaya and Abhinavagupta were contemporaries. The former was older. For, he and his brother graced the Court of King Munja (974-995 A D.), while the earliest dated available work of the latter, the Kramastotra, belongs to 990 A.D. The former did not come under the influence of the latter's æsthetic theory. For, the Dhvanyaloka-Locana and the Abhinava Bharatr belong to the second period of his literary activity and, therefore, could not have been written before the commencement of the 11th century. 1. A. Bh. Vol. I., 341-2.