224. 224 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

224 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT POETIOS

show that ध्यनि means rasa only, that the Dhvanikara is wrong in postulating वस्तुध्वनि and अलक्कारध्वनि, that the principle of rasa apprehension cannot be explained in words and that the explanation of such verses as भम धम्मिभ and भत्ता एत्थ given by the ध्वन्यालोक (p. 19 and p. 24) are not correct. Thus the हृदयदर्पखdealt with रस and in explaining it had naturally to deal with Bharata's sutra 'विभावानुभाव०'. The भभिनवभारती very rarely puts forward the interpretations of नायक on the verses of Bharata asit does in the case of उद्ट or लोलट or शक्कक (vide pp. 48-52 above). On the chapter on सिद्धिलक्षय (27th at p.305 of भ. भा. in G. O. S. vol. III) अभिनव quotes the following from भट्टनायक 'प्रधाने सिद्धिभागेस्य प्रयोगाऊत्वमागताः। गेयादयस्तथैवैते त्रैधैनं (१) त्थुपयोगिनः। सोपानपदपठक्त्या च सा च मोक्षस्पृगात्मिका ।'. Then on page 309 again नायक is quoted and ridiculed as a prosaic follower of जैमिनि 'यत्ु भट्टनायकेनोक्तं सिद्धेरपि नटादेरअत्वं ब्रजन्त्यास्तत्पच्ेय- मिति तेन नाट्याअता समर्थिता फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वादिति केवलं जैमिनिरनुसृत इत्यलमनेन ।'. For 'फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वात्', vide पूर्वभीमांसासूत्र III. 1. 5. In the लोचन also (pp. 76-77) in rejecting the view of भट्टनायक on the verse निःश्वासान् इवादर्शश्चन्द्रमा न प्रकाशते his interpretation is ridiculed as follows : न च ... कल्पना युक्क्ा। जैमिनिसूत्रे सेवं योज्यते न काव्ये- पीत्यलम. It appears from these references that भट्टनायक was a मीमांसक or at least relied on मीमांसा rules in his work. भट्टनायक's approach to the theory of रसचवण or भोग reminds one of the सांख्य doctrine that पुरुष is only भोक्ता and not कर्ता (i.e. is quite passive and not active). The mention of सत्त्वोद्रेक in the passage about मम्मट's resume of भट्टनायक's theory also tends to show that he leant on the सांख्य doctrine of the three gunas of सत्व, रजस् and तमस. I am of the opinion that भट्टनायक was not a regular commentator of the नाव्यशास्र as उद्दट and शङ्कक were. His main differences from the ध्वन्यालोक have bcen pointed out above. Bhatta-Nayaka held that kavya is different from शाख and भाख्यान in this that काव्य depended solely on कविव्यापार, that काव्य gives भानन्द to all, while शाख gives injunctions and भाख्यान (इतिहामपुराय) gives information. भट्टनायक flourished after the ध्वन्यालोक and before the लोचन i. e. between 900 and 1000 A. D. From the somewhat bitter and personal attacks that the लोचन makes it appears likely that he was nearer to the times of the लोचन than to those of the ध्वन्यालोक. If he was a contemporary of भभिनवगुत or only slightly older, then भट्टनायक, the author of the हदयदर्पस, cannot be