31. 34 CHAPTER I

34 CHAPTER I

above view to Bhatta Lollata. Bharata was a pure drama- turgist; and as such he has defined Rasa (œsthetic object) as presented on the stage. He has, however, used the same word for the mental representation of the æsthetic object on the part of the spectator, which forms the objec- tive aspect of the total æsthetic experience. For, the constituents in both the cases, whether it be an œsthetic object or its mental representation, are the same. But he has not accounted psychologically and philosophically for the appearance of all the constituents of æsthetic repre- sentation in the spectator's consciousness, because he was primarily a dramaturgist and not a philosopher or a psycho- logist. The writers on poetics, who came after Bharata, such as Dandin, their subject being poetics and not æsthe- tics, refer to the æsthetic conception of Bharata, as found in his work, only by the way. His first commentator, whose view on Rasa is available through Abhinava's refer- ence to it in his Abhinava Bharatī, faithfully followed the original. When, therefore, Śrīsankuka, took up the problem from theoretical point of view, i. e., Rasa, not as presented on the stage, but as the ultimate æsthetic experience in the spectator, he found the definition defective. For, the appearance of basic mental state is not possible in the spectator through objective perception of the presented. And when the basic mental state is not there, its union with situation and mimetic changes etc., is out of question. He, therefore, criticised Bhatta Lollata, as he found in the latter's commentary the word Rasa used for both the presentation and the experience without any distinction having been pointed out. This naturally implied that, to Bhatta Lollata, Rasa, both as presented and as experienced, is the same. He, however, found that the sameness was not accounted for. Hence he criticised it and put forth his theory, with which we shall deal shortly.