26. HISTORY OF INDIAN ÆSTHETICS 29

HISTORY OF INDIAN ÆSTHETICS 29

nava Bharatī Vol. I, 274. Here the name of the interpreter is given. (2) Dhvanyaloka Locana (p. 68). Here the interpreter's name is not given. But the view is substanti- ally the same. The relevant portion in the Abhinava Bharațī runs as follows : - Tena Sthayyeva Vibhavanubhavadibhirupacito Rasah. Sthāyī bhavastvanupacitah. Sa ca mukhyayā vrttyā Rāmādāvanukārye, Anukartari ca națe Rāmādirūpatānusan- dhanavalāt. A. Bh., Vol. I, 274.

Here the commentator (Bhatta Lollata) is discussing the seat of Rasa. His question is "Where is Rasa?" or "Where does Rasa reside ?". And his answer is that primarily Rasa is in the original historical character, who is represented on the stage. And only secondarily it is in the impersonating actor. The reason, which explains why Rasa is secondarily in the actor, may be stated as follows :- The actor identifies himself with the (dramatised ?) historical character and, therefore, is able to unify the elements of his experience so as to produce the mental construct which corresponds in every way to that of the original hero. We have stated above that Bhatta Lollata was both a literary man and a philosopher. He knew the Saiva Philosophy. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the word "Anusandhana", which he uses here, has the only meaning that was recognised in the contemporary philosophical circle. That the word "Anusandhana" was synonymous with "Yojana" and not "Abhimana" or "Aropa" is evident from the following verse of Utpalacarya in the Iśvara Pratyabhijna Karika and Abhinava's com- mentary on it :- Kādācitkāvabhāse yā Pūrvābhāsādiyojana