157. ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 177

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF ÆSTHETICS 177

Dhanañjaya partly followed Bhatța Nāyaka, who belonged to the close of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century A.D. and had written a commentary on the Natya Sastra of Bharata. In this section we shall discuss how Dhanañjaya differs from Abhinavagupta on two fundamental points, on one of which undoubtedly he follows Bhatta Nāyaka. Both, Dhananjaya and Abhinavagupta, have written on dramaturgy. Both follow the authority of Bharata. The former has simply summarised the views of Bharata in the Dasarupaka. The latter has written an extensive commentary on Bharata's Natya Sastra, known as Abhi- nava Bharatī. Both knew the views of earlier authorities on dramaturgy. Though in the case of the former there is only indirect evidence in support of his knowledge, because these earlier views are quoted by his brother, Dhanika, only in his commentary on the Daśarüpąka. Dhanañjaya's attitude towards the theory of Dhvani was antagonistic. He, therefore, generally criticises the views of Ananda- vardhana, presented in the Dhvanyāloka. The difference between Dhananjaya, as interpreted by Dhanika, and Abhinavagupta is very pronounced on the two fundamental points. 1. The number of Rasas. The former admits only eight Rasas and refutes the view that Santa is the ninth Rasa such as could be presented on the stage. The latter takes particular pain to establish it as an independent and the most basic Rasa and holds the number of Rasas to be nine.

2. The former does not accept the theory of Dhvani and, following the authority of Bhatta Nayaka, holds that the rise of the basic mental state (sthayin) in the spectator is due to the contextual power of the language. (Tatparya 23