9. CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCEPT OF RASA-ITS EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT. Rasa in the field of Sanskrit learning has a very wide scope. Various are its connotations in different sciences. No science, practically speaking, seems to do without it. The sense, therefore, attached to it in each differs according to the context. The precedence in point of consideration, however, goes to the most ancient scriptures, the Vedas, which are the earliest literary monuments of Indian culture. They are the quarries to which every precious gem in learning is, or is tried to be, traced. This fact accounts for the attempts of some rhetoricians to discover the concept of Rasa adum- brated in the Upanisads, the concluding portions of the Vedas. In the Rg Veda the word, Rasa, is found occurring in the senses of water,1 Soma juice,2 cow's milk,3 and flavour.4 The Atharva Veda extends the sense to the sap of grain5 and the taste,6 the latter becoming very common. In the Upanişads Rasa stands for essence or quintessence7 and self-luminous consciousness8 though the sense of taste9 is at places conveyed. In Sanskrit other than the Vedic the word, Rasa, is used for water, milk, juice, essence, tasteful liquid etc. The

1. III. 48. 1 .; X. 9.2. 2. IX. 63. 13 .; VIII. 3. 20 .; IX. 65.15. 3. I. 37. 5 .; VIII. 72. 13. 4. V. 44. 13 .; VI. 44. 21. 5. II. 26. 5. 6. III. 13. 15 .; VIII. 4. 10. 7. Br. Up. I. 3. 19 .; Ch. Up. I. 1. 2 & III. 5. 4. 8. T. Up. II. 7. 1. 9. Br. Up. III. 2. 4 .; Kațha Up. IV. 3.

198

Āyurvedic science recognizes the six rasas, which, how- ever, are the props to support its whole superstructure. The Rasāyanaśāstra (Chemistry) moves round the pivot of rasa. Mercury, which is called rasa, plays here a very important part. In the above two contexts rasa denotes mostly some concrete objects as liquids etc. and thus remains on a physical plane. The knowledge of rasa and the con- crete objects denoted by it in the Indian medical system do cater to the weal, welfare and happiness of the living organism, yet human beings feel highly delighted with the abstract pleasure which is superphysical. In the Śaiva Darśana Mercury (Pārada) is also called the semen of Lord Siva;1 though physical yet it raises here in a way rasa from the physical to the super-physical plane, as it gets connected as the vital element with Siva. According to this Darsana this very rasa (mercury) in the T. Up. is called the Ultimate Reality on the attainment of which one be- comes all bliss.2 In the world, however, it is equated in a sense akin to the above with the aesthetic pleasure which is the life of literature. It retains its superphysical plane at this level also. The aesthetic pleasure is experienced at the recital of a literary work, prose or poetry, or at the re- presentation of a dramatic work. The manifestation of this delightful experience, on the practical side, is seen either in sudden activities and movements, rapt attention etc. of the readers and the spectators during the recital and the representation, or in the verbal expressions and statemcnts made at their completion. Rasa in the above context plainly stands for delightful and pleasurable experience relating to emotions which were as true, powerful and

1. S. D. S. p. 204. 2. B. B. D. p. 573.

199

vehement before as they are now or as they will ever re- main. Consequently any concept evolved on them as the basis will safely and unscathingly bear the verdict of time, if not in nomenclature, then assuredly in contents. The Sanskrit poeticians, rhetoricians and dramaturgists fully realized this latter aspect of Rasa in their works. Rājaśekhara mentions one Nandikeśvara1 to whom the Science of Rasa was entrusted, and Keśava Miśra whose views will receive due consideration also quotes the view of one Sūtrakāra Bhagavān Sauddhodani who formulated for the first time that Rasa is the essence of poetry;2 but no regular works by the above two authorities are yet availa- ble. Bharata, therefore, stands as the first authority in this Science as it is from him apparently that all later schools and theories sprang.3 He, no doubt, records the views of different authorities but only in fragments. These authori- ties naturally preceded him but in the absence of any work by them, they do not demand attention and cannot receive priority in matter of importance to Bharata who gives his view in the N. S., wherein he says that the Kāvya is that composition which requires a harmonious combination of sense and action (Arthakriyāpeksam Kāvyam).4 He is, thus, mainly concerned with dramaturgy. Bharata enu- merates the items5 that he has considered in his compendium in connection with Sanskrit drama. This he does in the beginning of the sixth chapter, the first five chapters being; devoted to the consideration of the theatre, preliminaries

1. K. M. p. 1. 2. A. S. p. 2. 3. S. A. .S. J. p. 208. 4. N. S. (N. S.) XVI. 83. 5. N. S. (K. S. S. ) VI. 10.

200

etc. He, then, points out the foremost importance of Rasa and gives the famous formula1 which educed different interpretations from authorities in different fields. He, however, gave his opinion not in the regular form. It has, therefore, to be worked out from the statements made here and there. He has defined the terms, the Bhava, the Vibhava, the Anubhāva, the Vyabhichāribhāva, the Sāttvikabhāva and the Sthäyibhäva in the seventh chapter and has men- tioned in the sixth chapter that the sympathetic and res- ponsive spectator at a dramatic representation enjoys the Sthayibhava evoked and consummated as Rasa. The analogy afforded is that of the pleasure experienced mentally by the person after having tasted food dressed with spices etc.2 In the seventh chapter he points out the importance of the Sthāyibhäva as he says that like the king the Sthayibhava gets the name of Rasa;3 and further that it is the Sthāyibhäva which matures into Rasa.4 Briefly speaking, the view of Bharata can be stated thus. Through several operations and then a harmonious blending of appropriate Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, Vyabhichāribhāvas and Sāttvikabhāvas when represented on the boards by skilful and expert actors, the latent Sthāyibhava in the spectator is aroused and consummated into a relishable condition. This is Rasa, the aesthetic pleasure enjoyed by the spectator. It has, however, to be noted here that this Rasa theory arose in the school of dramaturgy because Bharata's N. S. as its very name implies is a treatise on Sanskrit dramaturgy.

1. N. S. (K. S. S.) VI. p. 71. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. VII. p. 81. 4. Ibid. VII. p. 120.

201

Rasa, therefore, was considered as an ancillary though the predominating one. It depended upon the dramatic re- presentation only for its consummation. But it seems it had become such an established fact and had gathered so much importance that even other schools which were busy in emphasizing other poetic elements had to give some con- sideration to it. Bhämaha is the next writer, who comes before, for consideration after Bharata .. He belonged to the Alankāra school in Sanskrit poetics. He was not the originator of the school, as he mentions others in the field,1 but only its ardent advocate. As an exponent of a rival school his attitude was bound to be not only unfavourable but dis- tinctly hostile. He advocated the view that Alankāras only are essential for the best form of poetry and gave prominence to the underlying principle of Atiśayokti or Vakrokti.2 As a necessary corollary Rasa was given no importance in Kāvyas other than dramas. It was included in an ordinary Alankāra as the Rasavat.3 Two others, the Preyas (spiritual love)4 and the Ūrjasvin (consciousness of superior might)5 were added to the list. He had knowledge of all Rasas6 as also of their delectable nature7; but as his aim was to emphasize the predominance of Alankāras he gave subordinate treatment to Rasa taking it something insignificant. In his opinion Rasa need not be invariably present in poetry ; it may sometimes be delineated in Vakrokti. He enjoins that all Rasas should find place in

1. K. L. I. 31, II. 37, III. 12, IV. 12, V. 69. 2. Ibid. II. 84-85. 3. Ibid. III. 6. 4. Ibid. III. 5. 5. Ibid. III. 7. 6. Ibid. I. 21. 7. Ibid. V. 3.

202

the Mahakavya1 and says that the Kavya Rasa removes the bitterness of the Sästra.2 The latter statement perhaps gave an idea to writers later on to call the Kāvya jāyā, or kāntā- sammita. Abhinava tries to interpret Bhāmaha's Vakrokti on the basis of the word, Vibhāvyate, as rendering poetry into a suitable factor of Rasa and thus establishes Rasa as an equally important factor with the Alankāras, but this reflects only scholarly effort, for the technical terms as Vibhāvas etc. are not used by Bhāmaha.3 He was so much prejudiced against Rasa that he hastily disposed of even the Nāțaka4 ( a term which he seems to use as a generic one for the Rūpaka and the Uparūpka as well). Dandin's attitude towards Rasa is not so hostile as his predecessor's. He attached importance to the collocation of words harmonized with agreeable sense as the chief characteristic feature of poetry,5 and recognized the Alan- kāras as elements which beautify it.6 He emphasized the qualities ( Gunas ) on the presence of which depended the excellence of the arrangement. He, therfore, belonged to the Guna school of poetry and not to the Alankara school. His affinities with Bhamaha appear in this that he brought Rasas under the Alankaras: the Rasavad, the Preyas and the Ürjasvin.7 But he has admitted the importance of Rasa in poetry and has asserted in the description of the quality called the Mädhurya that Rasa makes a sentence or a statement delectable,8 though De shows that the word Rasa here 'has a distinct technical connotation different from that imparted

1. Ibid. I. 21. 2. Ibid. V. 3. 3. D. L. p. 467 (with com.) 4. K. L. I. 24. 5. K. D. I. 10. 6. Ibid. II. 1. 7. K. D. II. 275. 8. Ibid. I. 51.

203

to it by the exponents of the Rasa school.'1 While describing the above three Alankaras he has fully expounded the most striking characteristic of each of the eight Rasas, illustrating; them in beautiful verses.2 He was also conversant with the: process of the realization of Rasa.3 His Preyas Alankāra is like that of Bhämaha consisting in the affection of the object of love.4 In the case of affection towards the woman it is called the Śrngāra.5 He betrays his knowledge of distinction between Rasa and the Bhāva (Sthāyibhāva).6 According to Abhinava Dandin's conception of Rasa is similar to Bhatța Lollata's which is objective. Rasa is developed as an effect from Vibhavas and Anubhāvas. The Śrngāra and the Raudra are illustrated as instances.7 But he (Dandin) recognized Rasa only as an Alankāra, thus, only as subordinate to the latter. Dandin, thus, knew Rasa in most of its details, maybe due to either the recognition of the importance of Rasa in a literary piece or his partiality for Rasa as a delectable feature thereof, but as he was the avowed champion of the Guna school, the utmost that he could do for Rasa was to assign it an appeal through the quality ( Guna).8 He enjoins that a Mahākāvya should be pervaded all through with poetic sentiments ( Rasas ) and emotions (Bhvas ).9 He, however, treated them as only objectively present in the literary composition. Udbhata's favourable attitude towards Rasa becomes more pronounced . He had affinities with the Alankara school

1. S. A. S. J. p. 212. 2. K. D. II. 275-292. 3. Ibid. II. 281 and 283. 4. Ibid. II. 275. 5. Ibid. II. 281. 6. Ibid. II. 281 and 283. 7. N. S. (G. O. S.) VI. p. 274. (com.) 8. K. D. II. 292. 9. Ibid. I. 18.

204

of Bhämaha as he mentions with illustrations like him the three Alankāras: the Preyas, the Rasavad and the Ūrjasvin, but a difference creeps in when he defines them. The first Alankāra, that is the Preyas, is the development of emotions like love through the manifestation of Anubhāva etc. to the extent of Bhava only and not to the fully matured stage of Rasa.1 The second Alankāra, the Rasavad, depicts the fully developed stages of the different Rasas through the express reference, the Sthāyibhāva, the Sañchāribhāva, the Vibhava and the Abhinaya.2 The first means, that is, the express reference, has not received general approval later on; on the contrary it has been severely criticized. Here the fact worth notice is the mention of the Santa Rasa along with the eight orthodox Rasas as fit to be represented in the drama.3 Udbhata could not check himself from expressing his leanings towards the Rasa school as expounded by Bharata in the N. S. The third Alankāra, the Urjasvin, concerns itself with the depiction of the Sthāyibhāvas and Rasas which are either incongruous or misplaced.4 It is just like the conception of the Rasābhāsa or the Bhāvā- bhasa developed later on. Udbhata adds a fourth Alankāra called the Samähita. It presents the suppression of Rasa or the Bhava, the Rasābhāsa or the Bhāvābhāsa and is devoid of the Anubhavas etc. of another Rasa.5 The gist is expressed by Pratihārendurāja in the words that every Rasa, every Bhāva or their incongruous or misplaced forms or any other Rasa etc. (if depicted at all) are suppressed in this Alankāra.6 De says that Udbhata 'apparently designates

1. K. S. IV. 2. 2. Ibid. IV. 3. 3. Ibid. IV. 4. 4. Ibid. IV. 5. 5. Ibid. IV. 7. 6. Ibid. IV. 7 (com. on the verse)

205

Rasa as the " soul " of poetry, without, however, setting up an aesthetic system on its basis.' The verse providing the basis for the above remark occurs in one edition whereas in the Nirnaya Sägara edition it is wanting. De, however, doubts the validity and the authenticity of the verse and disposes of the question very lightly.1 Udbhata, no doubt, shows in a way his acquaintance with the Rasa theory in that he uses terms as Vibhāva, Sthāyibhāva etc., but all this consideration is simply to constitute the charm of the particular poetic figure. Udbhata, therefore, appears as much a representative of Rasa school as that of the Alankāra even though he names his work as the Kāvyālankārasā- rasangraha, a treatise meant to contain the collection of the essence of the Alankāras in the Kāvya. He knew the process of the realization as he has distinguished the immature stage, Bhäva, from the mature stage, Rasa, of the Sthāyi- bhäva. He, however, describes them objectively in con- nection with literary composition. Vāmana, the next writer, belongs to the Rīti school in Sanskrit poetics as he holds the Rīti as the soul of poetry.2 His immediate predecessors had all recognized Rasa as a very insignificant factor and brought it under Alankāras. Vāmana, however, broke with them in that he included it in one of the qualities ( Gunas ) which he considered as the essential elements of poetry, whereas he recognized the Alankāras as mere ornaments.3 He said that in the quality called the Känti all Rasas were brilliant. He illustrated it with reference to the Srngara Rasa.4 It occurred to him to include Rasa in one of the qualities from a consideration,

1. S. A. S. J. p. 214. 2. K. L. S. I. 2.6. 3. Ibid. I.I.1-2. 4. Ibid. III. 2.15.

206

probably, of Bharata's definition of the Udāra Guna.1 He thus advanced Rasa one stage further but yet due importance was not given to it. He, however, asserted the drama as the best form of poetry2 and, thus, indirectly paid tribute to Rasa as it could be best developed in dramas only. Rudrata gave prominence to Rasa in literary composi- tions other than dramas. The poet attains fame by writing a work full of sentiments,3 with a great effort literary works other than dramas should be composed teeming with senti- ments4-such are his statements which express his attitude towards Rasa. The status, therefore, formerly given to Rasa either in the Alankāra or in the Guna school was raised higher ; it was recognized as an independent entity. He has recognized nine Rasas and has added a tenth, the Preyān,5 to the list. His definition of the Preyan corresponds partially to that of Bhäva (immature stage of Rasa) de- veloped later. It is the affection existing between two friends.6 He gave the status of Rasa to the Vyabhichāri- bhävas as Nirveda etc. when they developed into particular Rasas.7 He shows his mature knowledge of Rasa in that he classifies the Vira into three kinds : the Yuddhavira, the Dharmavīra and the Dānavīra.8 He asserts the Srngāra as the main sentiment.9 He considers Rasa both objectively and subjectively, objectively in that the literary composition other than the drama must be teeming with Rasa, and subjectively in this that when full of Rasa it gives knowledge of the four Vargas to the persons fond of Rasa, devoid of which it

1. N. S. (N. S. ) XVI. 102. 2. K. L. S. I. 3.30. 3. R. K. L. I. 4. 4. Ibid. XII. 2. 5. Ibid. XII. 3. 6. Ibid. XV. 17-19. 7. Ibid. XII. 4. 8. R. K. L. XV. 1. 9. Ibid. XIV. 38.

207

is just like the Śāstra.1 He describes the Rasābhāsa etc.2 and prescribes Rītis for various Rasas.3 Rudrata, there- fore, represents Rasa in a much advanced stage when it came to be recognized as an important element in the literary composition other than the drama. But he names his book as the Kāvyālankāra, a treatise dealing with poetic figures. Rudrata, therefore, had his affinities with the Alankāra school. Moreover, the fact that he did not precisely indicate the position of Rasa in poetry points the same way. His commentator Nami Sādhu, however, while explaining XII. 2 says in connection with the position of Rasa that Rasa is like natural attributes as beauty etc. ( Rasās Tu Saundaryādaya Iva Sahajā Gunāh). The testimony to the above presump- tion is borne by Ruyyaka who says that Rudrata emphasized the Alankāra. The three kinds of suggestion ( Pratīya- mäna ) including the Rasadhvani were comprised in the Alankāra. In figures like Rasavat Rasa, the Bhāva etc. enhanced the charm of the Vächya ( the expressed idea ).4 Rudrabhatta held the same views, practically speaking, as Rudrata. These two authors are generally identified as one as Pischel, Buhler etc. have done. De, however, on very cogent and reasonable arguments in his 'Sanskrit Poetics Vol. I' has proved that the two authors are different personalities ; therefore no confusion in this connection should prevail. Rudrata is, thus, a different writer from Rudrabhatta. The latter deserves distinction in as much as the keynote of his work is the idea of Rasa. His work is an attempt to prove the development of Rasa in poems

1. Ibid. XII. 1. 2. Ibid. XIV. 36. 3. Ibid. XIV. 37. 4. R. A. S. pp. 5-6.

208

other than dramas.1 He asserts that the vital element in literary composition is Rasa in the absence of which it is as uninteresting and dreary as the night without the moon.2 He also calls the Kävya defective when it is Virasa, Du- sandhānarasa and Nīrasa.3 He defines and illustrates nine Rasas with their constituents as Vibhāvas etc. in several beautiful stanzas. Special treatment is accorded to the Śrngāra Rasa after which the book is named. He calls the Śrngāra the leading Rasa (Nāyako Rasaḥ ).4 This fact explains the importance which Rasa gradually attained at the hands of the scholars after Bharata. The Agnipurana which comes next for consideration is a compilation of so many items from various sources. Though it enumerates constituents as Alankāras, Rīti, Rasa etc. yet emphasis is laid on Rasa.5 It is a treatise dealing with literary works, both dramas and others, hence Rasa is predominant in both. The origin of Rasa is recorded in it in a peculiar way. The ultimate reality, Brahman, is in- destructible, it is eternal and without any origin and all pervasive. In the Vedanta it is called the one without the second, consciousness, effulgence and lord. Bliss is in- herent in it and it is sometimes apprehended by suggestion. That manifestation is called Rasa of the nature of wonder of (at the apprehension of transcendental) consciousness. Its first transformation is called Ahankāra (self-consciousness ) out of which comes Abhimana( conceit). Out of the latter comes Rati (pleasure ) which nourished by the Vyabhichārins etc. is called the Srngara. It then describes that Rati

1. S. T. I. 5. 2. Ibid. I. 6. 3. Ibid. III. 46. 4. Ibid. I. 20. 5. A. P. 336. 33.

209 (pleasure ) is transfomed into other Rasas as the Hāsya etc.1 It recognizes nine Rasas2 but gives prominence to the Srngāra Rasa. The Bhävas are fully described and knowledge of the process of the Sthāyibhāva maturing into Rasa is also hinted at.3 Special predilection, thus, for Rasa becomes quite obvious but 'the Agnipurana cannot be relegated entirely to the Rasa school; for it does not make any attempt to correlate with this central principle the other factors of poetry, viz. rīti, guņa, alamkāra, which are also recognised as of great, if not of equal, importance. '4 Ānandavardhana, the author of the Dhvanāylokakārikās and the Vrtti thereon,5 became famous as the greatest ex- ponent of the Dhvani school which according to his own admission had its origin centuries before him.6 The theory of Dhvani was based on the Sphotavāda of grammarians who hold that the Sphota is the permanent capacity of words to signify their imports and is manifested by the experience of the last sound of a word combined with the impressions of the experiences of the previous ones. The formulation of the doctrine of Sphota was made in order to determine the significative seat of a word and the Ālankārikas concerned themselves first with this grammatico-philosophical problem about the relation of a word to its connotation in order to get support, strong and confirmatory, for their theory. According to this school the best poetry is not only that which suggests Rasa but also others, such as, the statement of some fact or imaginative element and poetic figures. This redounds to

1. Ibid. 338. 1-5. 2. Ibid. 338. 8-9. 3. Ibid. 338. 4. 4. D. S. P. Vol. II. pp. 256-257. 5. S. A. L. C. pp. 50-60. 6. D. L. I. 1. 14

210

the credit of this school as it enunciated a definition of poetry which was much more comprehensive than that of the Rasa school. But even then Rasa held the predominant position, considered and declared as it was the soul of poetry.1 Unlike previous writers who allowed Rasa to come in only through the back door, Rasa became the principal and the unifying factor. The Gunas, the Alankāras and the Rītis which were severally established as the life of poetic compositions by preceding writers, who had scarcely troubled themselves with, or were highly prejudiced against, working out and establishing Rasa as the ulterior aesthetic principle, had to do service to Rasa.2 They were all harnessed to beautify the soul, Rasa, and it was enjoined that the poet should be very careful in the Rasadhvani as objects already seen when touched with Rasa appear quite new as the trees in the month of Chaitra.3 The Alankāras and the Gunas are dependent entities and, therefore, adorn the principal element which is Rasa. As Dhvani had a much wider scope, there naturally came in some points of difference between Bharata and Ānanda in the process of the realization of Rasa. According to the former the factors as Vibhävas etc. whether expressed or suggested by words created pleasure in the minds of spectators whereas the latter attributed the pleasure in the minds of the readers or the spectators to the suggestion of words. More- over, the function of poetry was to suggest Rasas or Alan- kāras or Vastus as applied to both poems and dramas according to Ananda whereas Bharata called the best poetry that which suggested Rasa only through the representation of Vibhāvas etc., but in spite of this difference Ananda put a special

1. D. L. I. 5. (Vrtti) 2. Ibid. II. 6 and III. 6. . 3. Ibid. IV. 4.

226

is called the realization of pleasure.1 The defect of momenta- riness in respect to inferential knowledge cannot stand. But this is refuted by the opponent on practical ground. If a spectator, returning from the dramatic representation, is asked as to what he has all along been doing, he will reply that he has been directly experiencing pleasure ; and not that he has been inferring things in course of the representation.2 And the spectator while witnessing the representation is so much absorbed, his mental condition being all joyful and uninterrupted by anything, akin to the unalloyed mental condition of a Yogin who enjoys the supreme Brahmānanda, that he will not have any desire for further inference as it will obstruct the realization of Rasa. Moreover, the inference of love etc. as existing in the actor cannot cause pleasure to the spectator as the latter has no Vibhāvas etc.3 Śri Śańkuka makes use of expression as 'looks like angry' and thus becomes inconsistent in his statements. Is this not indirectly admitting it as the knowledge based on similarity instead of the inferential knowledge ? The analogy of ' the horse in the picture' is obviously based on similitude. The skill of the painter makes people say that ' this is like a horse '. Even at the use of such expressions as ' this is a horse ' the knowledge is based on similarity. It is only the painter's supreme skill which is responsible for the deception and the consequent use of such identifying expressions. Further, Śrī Śankuka cannot say that the knowledge is neither valid nor invalid. Some knowledge is truly valid while other invalid though the invalidity may not be understood by one through all the life. The knowledge of ' this is Rāma ' with

1. R. P. p. 24. 2. Ibid. p. 25. 3. R. K. D. pp. 145-146.

227 respect to the actor is quite invalid. The interpretation even though an improvement upon the previous one of Bhatta- lollata is yet vitiated equally with it by one great defect. Love and other mental conditions are explained to exist not in the spectator but the pleasure is his. In such a case Rasa becomes objective and the pleasure in the spectator is sub- jective. How is this possible ? The two must exist at the same place if the realization of Rasa is to take place at all. Hence the interpretation fails to carry conviction. Some of the above criticisms as the refutation of the Semblance theory ( Anukārānumiti ) from all possible standpoints ; the expression ' Kruddha Iva Bhäti' which comes under the Sadrśyajñāna though this is not accepted by the theorists, the knowledge 'Ramoyam' which the theorist accepts neither valid nor invalid contrary to experience; the knowledge according to the ' Chitraturaganyäya' which the theorist accepts a cognition distinct from the Samyag, Mithyā, Samśaya and Sādrśya Jñānas though it is based on similitude; the difference between imitation of Bharata and that of Śrī Śankuka etc. were advanced as mentioned in the Abhinavabharati on pp. 275 and ff. by BhattaTauta, the preceptor of Abhinava and the author of the Kāvyakau- tuka mentioned in the Abhinavabhāratī but unfortunately now lost to us. On the realization of Rasa no opinion, either in original or in gist, of BhattaTauta is recorded by Abhinava as in cases of BhattaLollata etc. It is, therefore, impossible to ascertain the theory of BhattaTauta. As Abhinava was his disciple, perhaps, Abhinava might have held his view in concurrence with his preceptor's. BhattaNāyaka, the next writer to put forward a better view, ranges a series of strictures upon the Inference theory.

228

The series, however, mainly and mostly centres on the defect of indifference (Tatasthya). He considers this defect from almost all points of view. Śrī Śankuka's inference of love relating to either the original character or the actor is vitiated with the defect of indifference as the spectator has nothing to do with it. The spectator can never infer the existence of the original character's mental conditions in the actor, as the original character does not exist at the time of representa- tion. He cannot infer the emotions as existing in himself, for here two points crop up for consideration. Does the spectator infer the existence of original character's mental conditions in himself ? If so, his enjoyment of pleasure comes to be based on a false inferential knowledge. Does he then infer his own mental condition as existing in himself ? But he has no Vibhāvas and no man infers his own mental conditions ; he, rather, perceives them directly. In the circumstances it has to be said that he perceives mental conditions as generated in himself. But this places the theory of inference on a par with the Generation theory of BhattaLollata. The imperfections and defects of the latter theory, therefore, come to contaminate the theory of In- ference. For instance the tragic pleasure resulting from the representation of pathos, terror etc. can in no way be explained satisfactorily here. Rasa cannot also be a revela- tion as in that case it is to be accepted as something potentially existing ; and if the latter condition is accepted, the potentially present emotions once aroused would act in diverse degrees and contradict the nature of Rasa as one. Added to it will arise the difficulty of explanation as to the substratum of Rasa in one self or in the other. BhatțaNāyaka, thus making the defect of indifference the

229 principal plank of platform, finds glaring fault with the two previous views and then, by way of solution, expounds his own theory which he endeavours his utmost to make as com- plete as possible as becomes evident from his criticism of the thoery of Suggestion as expounded by Abhinava. He says that in poetry there functions a power called the Abhidhā ( denotation ). It simply makes one understand a word in its delimited and particular context, for example, Śakuntalā as the foster-daughter of the sage Kanva and the wife of Dusyanta. But this power by itself is not able to accomplish the purpose, as words thus understood in restricted sense will not lead the spectator to realize pleasure, for the defect of indifference will persist. The spectator, no doubt, first takes in this delimited and particular meaning. Due to graces and beauty of poetry, for example, Gunas, Alankāras, Vrttis, Rītis and absence of defects as well as the poetic or dramatic devices as different kinds of Abhinaya and music, he, however, gets absorbed and is enabled to contemplate repeatedly over what is read or witnessed. This all-absor- bing contemplation makes him capable of considering the objects as general divested of particularities. This process is called the Bhävana and the poetic power which effects it is called the Bhävakatva. Because of its function the spectator or the reader at the representation or the recital forgets his own self and is lifted above the environment he happens to be in at that time. He is, thus, free from all mental distrac- tions. It also universalizes everything in the poetic world. The restrictions and limitations around the object vanish and Śakuntalā in the above instance appears only as a lovely maiden. The generation or inference of love in the stage- Dusyanta is not necessitated, nor is the spectator required

230

to consider her as his. She appears in general as a lovely mai- den and Dusyanta also appears as a noble and valiant person; the love passages, their indications and mainfestations also appear universalized and the defect of either indifference in, or self ascription of emotion to, the spectator is thus removed. The theorist here sounds a note of warning. He says that the universalization of the Vibhāvas as ladies (Kāntātva) etc. as criticized by him in connection with the Generation theory is not to be confused with the universalization (Sādhāraņīkarana) as advocated by him. The Generation theory ascribes no Bhāvakatva power to poetry, hence objectionable. On the other hand, he does attribute such power. Then again in the Generation theory universaliza- tion serves the purpose of generating emotion in the spectator, whereas in his theory it is only for the purpose of seeing her not as belonging to any other person ; for it will then not interest the spectator. When the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas, the Vyabhicharibhavas and the Sthāyibhavas have become universalized, a third power comes into operation. By it the Sattva Guna in the mind of the spectator predominates over the Rajas and the Tamas. The mind becomes steady and any distraction by an outward object ceases. According to the philosophers the preponderance of the Sattva element produces illumination and results in happiness. This power of poetry is called the Bhogakrttva or Bhojakatva; it renders any scene : erotic, pathetic, horrible or otherwise, charming, inte- resting and pleasure-giving. The enjoyment that is spectator's at this stage is an impersonal pleasure, different from (i) the direct experience as no mental condition is generated in the spectator at the representation ; (ii) the recollection as everything being represented is new and recalls no past ;

231 (iii) the wordly pleasure in that it is impersonal and (iv) the yogin's supreme bliss as it is derived from objects like emotions etc. The relation that exists between the Sthāyi- bhava and the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas, the Vyabhichāribhā- vas is of the thing enjoyed and the things causing it to be enjoyed, the Bhojyabhojakabhāva as it is termed ; the words, Samyoga and Nispatti, thus mean the cognition of things in a generalized form and the enjoyment of the Sthāyibhāva as Rasa respectively. BhattaNāyaka falsely laboured under the impression that his theory on the Rasasutra marked the last word in the matter. He could not conceive of the improvements and modifications yet to be made for satisfactory explanation of all possible points demanding full attention. It, no doubt, goes to the credit of the theorist when he convincingly silenced one camp of critics who attributed the funct- ion of generalization to Lakșanā and thereby tried to prove the importance of the Bhāvakatva as needless. According to them the Bhāgatyāga Lakșaņā can divest the object of its particularities and present it in its universal aspect. Sakuntalā, they say, can easily signify a woman bereft of her relation with either Kanva or Dusyanta. The theorist expresses his gladness at the admission of the need of generalization of the Vibhāvas etc. by the opponents but runs amuck on them in their failure to explain the absorption of the spectators or the readers at the representation or the recital and the consequent inability of those critics to mark and point out the operation of the complicated process as the result of the three necessary conditions for the functioning of the Laksanā, the power of indication. And even if the Lakșaņā is admitted to effect the generalization, it may do

232

so only in the case of the Vibhavas (It has been proved that even here it cannot due to non-fulfilment of three necessary conditions.). How will it cope with the situation when the question of generalizing the mental conditions comes ? Where the Laksanā is to operate, the Abhidhā must also operate though the primary sense may be incompatible. In the universalization of the mental conditions the Abhidhā has no scope whatsoever, hence the Laksanā, the tail of the Abhidhā as Mammata1 puts it, clearly misses to have any operation. The theorist says that this objection may be preferred against the Bhāvakatva also, but he exposes in reply the barrenness of the contention. Firstly, he says that the Bhāvakatva generalizes the mental conditions also ; and secondly, whereas the Laksanā invariably presupposes the operation of the Abhidha, the Bhāvakatva does not do so, as what is required as the pre-requisite of the operation of the Bhävakatva is the knowledge of the thing or the person or mental conditions which may be obtained not necessarily by means of the Abhidha but by any other power also. BhattaNayaka, thus, apparently sealed the mouths of the advocates of the Laksaņā and triumphed in glory over the establishment of the Bhavakatva. His triumph, however, was not conclusive as his theory was made the target, vulnerable as it was at some points. That the power of the Bhävakatva as well as that of the Bhojakatva were needlessly imported was constantly repeated. It is admitted that they are neither wrong nor harmful, but no other authoritative and authentic recognition or mention is available. They, there- fore, do not so much as ever receive support from the Alan- kārikas. Moreover, their functions are fully discharged by

1. K. P. V. p. 248.

233

an all-acknowledged power, suggestion. In spite of the importation of the above two powers, the power of sugges- tion has to be requisitioned. In understanding the mental conditions of the characters, suggestion (Vyañjanā) operates as the Abhidhā and the Laksaņā have no scope. If it is contended that the Vibhāvas and the Anubhāvas duly presented by either of the above two powers would make those mental conditions understood, the point which remains unanswered is as to the power through which the process is effected. And the Bhāvakatva as said by Bhatta Nāyaka only generalizes these emotions. The latter, there- fore, are first presented in particular aspects. The necessity of suggestion thus becomes quite obvious and clear. Even the theorist has to admit its function before the operation of his Bhävakatva and Bhojakatva, the latter operating only after the former has functioned. And once the power of suggestion has been admitted by the theorist, his two new powers auto- matically become useless. Through suggestion the Gunas, the Rītis, the Alankāras etc. in a literary work free the mind from all distractions. The result is the restfulness of the mind, which, in other words, means the predominance of Sattva. In this stage it understands objects in their universa- lized forms and enjoys them. Prabhākarabhatta in the Rasapradīpa meets the theorist on his own grounds and proves that only Bhāvakatva is quite sufficient to serve the purpose of both ; the power of Bhojakatva is, therefore, unnecessary. The power of the Bhāvakatva not only presents things in their universalized forms but also removes the distractions from the mind which can again and again con- template over the generalized objects and thus enjoy them. The theory is criticized on other grounds. It is vulnerable

234

at some points in respect of its wording also. Some words in the theory can also mean ' Rasa never becomes an object of congnition ' ( Raso Na Pratīyate-Raso Na Pratītisāmānyasya Vişayo Bhavati ). If they are to be so construed at all, surely they are objectionable. Rasa is enjoyed by Bhoga according to the theorist himself. This Bhoga is itself a kind of cognition. If it does not come within any of the recognized varieties of cognition, it can be established as a new variety. The process differentiates the cognition ; in case of the Bhoga it is attained by a peculiar process as the process of generalization of things. Criticism on this score, therefore, is quite justified as the theorist contradicts himself in his own statement. The case stands justified only if the words mean 'Rasa is not inferred'. The theorist's other words meaning ' Rasa is neither generated nor suggested' are also unsound. His admission that the spectator or the reader enjoys the emotions becomes an object of criticism if the above meaning is fully considered. The emotions enjoyed must be newly created in case of their previous non-existence, or suggested if already existing. No one can predicate of a thing which is neither existing nor non-existing, as the two categories include all things in the universe. Last but not least is the defect of indifference (Tätasthya) which could not be satis- factorily and convincingly removed in the theoty. According to it what the spectators or the readers enjoy are not their own emotions but the emotions of the original characters presented in their generalized forms. This generalization, in a way, removed the above defect, yet the anomaly remained as to why they enjoyed others' emotions. The above anomaly was fully taken into consideration and completely removed by the next theorist Abhinava who

235

propounded his view based on the Rasasūtra of Bharata so cogently and comprehensively that no shade of opinion remained unsatisfied. Instead of explaining Rasa as some- thing objective or realization of another man's emotions generalized and deprived of imitations, he sought to explain Rasa as the enjoyment of the spectator's or the reader's own emotions realized in a generalized form. The approach is psychological in that it has been established that every mind, specially of sympathetic critics, is endowed with latent impressions, natural and implanted in the previous birth or acquired in this life by study and experience. In some cases these impressions, no doubt, become deadened, effete and even completely effaced as in the Mīmānsakas on whom Viśvanātha throws so much contemptuous ridicules,1 yet the majority of mankind have them. Hence is the wide extent of the appeal to the human heart. These impressions are of many varieties determined mainly by happiness and unhappiness clung to and abhorred respectively. Some of these are of stable nature while others are not. One category includes the former ones which are called the permanent emotions (Sthāyibhävas) whereas the latter belong to a different cate- gory. The former constitute the nucleus of the whole process as it is they which are ultimately realized as Rasa. When the spectators see the representation of a dramatic work, men and women as actors and actresses move before them carrying out different activities. Thus these Vibhāvas and their Anubhävas suggest to them ( the spectators ) the original characters' mental conditions presented at first in individual forms but later on generalized due to the efficiency and excell- ence of the actors and the actresses, the effectiveness of the

1. S. D. III. p. 3. (Com.)

236

scenic arrangements and the genius of the poet who alchemizes the ordinary utterances with the Gunas, the Alankaras, the Vrttis, the Rītis etc. The particular individual then becomes divested of personal characteristics and peculiarities. The emotion also becomes generalized, for example, mutual love becomes love in general between man and woman. Then the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the mental conditions thus generalized reveal and excite the latent impressions in the spectator. At this stage the individuality of the spectator is also lost as these Sthāyibhāvas called into play by genera- lized Vibhāvas etc. as mentioned above correspond to the latter. This is impossible if the individuality of the spectator is allowed to interfere. At this stage the mind is also free from the barriers due to poetic skill and stage craft. The result, therefore, in the mind of the spectator is the realiza- tion of pleasure, Rasa as it is termed. The emotion of the original character in time past is not aroused by the dramatic representation ; what is intended is only to call up a reflection of it which is similar in some respects. The realization of pleasure is nothing but the concentration on the evoked Sthāyibhāva wherein the latter is perceived and relished along with its Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, Sañchāribhāvas and Sāttvikabhāvas, the perception being free from the obstacles, seven in number as enumerated and their neu- tralizing agencies pointed out by Abhinava.1 This easily solves the problem which arises as to the nature of the Karuna Rasa. The Generation and the Inference theories failed to offer the satisfactory solution. Bhattanāyaka succeeded but his solution was based on the generalized mental conditions of the original characters-the basis

1. N. S. (G. O. S.) VI. pp. 281-282. (Com.)

237

which was obviously vitiated with the defect of indiffer- ence; Abhinava, however, expounds the most satisfactory solution. He says that a particular Rasa is delectable not exclusively because of its nature as such but because of the spectator's mind being free from distractions. He attri- butes the experience of unhappiness to distractions of mind. Hence if once these distractions are removed, the experience is unalloyed bliss. The sorrow loses its sting and converts into bliss. Hence is Rasa as the Karuņa experienced as all joy and pleasure and nothing else. This pleasure is not due to mental conditions of the original characters in the literary works as BhattaNāyaka puts it; it is due rather to the spectator's native pleasurable im- pressions aroused. These impressions are left behind by emotions once experienced in the actual world. As these impressions and not the actual worldly ones are aroused, developed and relished as Rasa, joy is the result, as Kāli- dāsa says, "In the Dandaka forests those miseries which were even experienced transformed into joys when later concentrated upon."1 The same poet, however, appears to explain Rasa as recollection, instead of concentration on the Sthayibhāva as said before, at another place. When he says, "He, verily, remembers unconsciously in his mind the affections experienced formerly in his previous birth but now firmly seated in impressions."2 Abhinava warns the people not to take the word 'remembers' ( Smarati) occurring in the above quotation in its logically accepted sense, for the spectator is not recollecting pleasures similar to those he now experiences.3 Further, there is no previous

1. R. V. (in K. G.) XIV. 25. 2. A. S. (in K. G.) V. 2. 3. N. S. (G. O. S.) VI. p. 281. (Com.)

238

proof for it.1 The defect of indifference, the shadow of which, if not the substance, still clung to the previous theory, is, thus, completely removed, the cause and its effect being traced to the one and the same place. No other function after the generalization of the characters' Bhavas is requisite; the very perception of the dormant Sthāyibhāvas, free from the screen of impediments, is the enjoyment. The causes as the Gunas, the Alankāras etc. which are responsible for the Bhāvakatva in the previous theory remove the above screen. Hence the importation of the two powers is unauthorized as the Vyañjanā Vrtti ( suggestion ) admitted by the predecessor does the function of both. To the objection advanced by BhattaNāyaka on the theory of the revelation of Rasa to the effect that in order to be revealed Rasa must have already existed and before being revealed Rasa cannot be called as such, the reply is that it does exist as latent Sthāyibhāva before being revealed. The appellation, however, is used by prolepsis on the analogy of the statement 'Rasa Pratīyanta Iti Odanam Pachatītivat Vyavahāraḥ'. BhațțaNāyaka betrays his own incomplete knowledge when he passed the remark to the effect that to evoke the latent impression by the Vibhavas and the Anubhavas, the latter should vary in various cases of revealing. For has it not been pointed out that there should be the combination of the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhichāribhavas in the original Sūtra itself ? Has any mention, explicit or even implicit, been made that there should not be varying degrees of strength in them ? And again, have not different degrees in the spectators been recognized ? This is surely the

1. N. S. (G. O. S.) VI. p. 286. (Com.)

239 reflection of the mind obsessed with faultfinding though the faults may be even groundless as in the previous case as also in the subsequent wherein exception is taken to the causality admitted by the advocates of the revelation theory. It is said that according to the law of causality, Rasa and its Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas etc. must not appear at the same time, but in the theory they do, therefore inconsistency comes in. The exception, however, falls to the ground when the reply comes that causality here is not an ordinary one. For if it is admitted to be the causality as it obtains in this world, the causes as the Vibhāvas etc. producing it must be either the Kārakahetus or the Jñāpakahetus. They are not of the first variety as has been made clear in the criticism of the first theory, that is, the Generation theory. They are neither of the second variety as they do not reveal something which already exists. That Rasa is revealed by the Vibhavas etc. like the object lit by the lamp is only by Prolepsis as said before. The revealer and the revealed are not separately congnized in the case of Rasa whereas in the case of the lamp and the object they are so cognized. In the latter case there is the group-cognition but in the former case there is the cognition of all factors as one entity only like the beverage which though made up of many ingredients tastes as one compound. The revelation process can better be described as similar to that by which buttermilk dropped into milk converts it into curd as Prabhākarabhatța in the Rasapradīpa points out.1 This establishes Rasa as Alaukika ( transcendental), some perception transcending the limits of earthly experience. Further support in confirmation of its being transcendental

1. R. P. p. 29.

240

is found in the nature of the perception which is neither Nirvikalpaka ( indeterminate ) knowledge, nor Savikalpaka ( determinate ) knowledge. It is not the former as it is not absolutely unconnected because it is available by, and with, the Vibhävas etc. though generalized. It is not the latter in that the experience is indescribable. It is one blissful whole hardly coming within the scope of language. It cannot also be explained as Yogic experience of either type, viz. of the Yogin who observes Yogic practices to be one with the Supreme Spirit and of the other who has already attained union with it. Rasa is the pleasurable experience unlike the troublesome experience of the first and also different from the experience of the Supreme Spirit of the second where no difference of any kind exists. In the bliss- ful experience called Rasa differences do exist. It lasts so long as its relish is had and as that relish is something produced Rasa may be called an effect. It is an object of knowledge as it is experienced only by one's own self. During its experience it appears to be violently throbbing before the sympathetic person; it appears to be entering into the very heart and embracing all the parts of the body, as it were. It looks as if suppressing every other thing and, so to say, making the experience of the Brahman the object of cognition. All these opposite attributes estab- lish the transcendental nature of Rasa. The description of its Abhivyakti (manifestation or suggestion) as given by Abhinava admits of various interpretations in respect of its different parts. On one hand, the statement 'Rasa- nātmakavītavighnapratītigrāhyo Bhāva Eva Rasaḥ'1, repeated by subsequent writers in a different garb as 'Bhag-

1. N. S. (G. O. S.). VI. p. 281. (Com.).

241 nāvaranachitvisiso Ratyādiḥ Sthāyibhāva Rasa Iti Sthi- tam',1 furnishes clues of its connection with the teachings of the Vedanta, whereas on the other hand words as 'Tatra Sarvemī ... Antarāyaśūnyaviśrāntiśarīratvāt ( Sukhasya ), Aviśrāntirūpataiva Duḥkham. Tata Eva Kāpilairduḥ- khasya Chāñchalyameva Prānatvenoktam Rajovțttim Vadadbhirityānandarūpatā Sarvarasānām,'2 establish its relation with the Sankhya. In such circumstances what further proof of its being one with, and at the same time different from, all such similar concepts, in a word, of its ineffable and transcendental nature, is required ? Its unearthly nature is, prima facie, evident from the terms, the Vibhavas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas which, though corresponding to causes, effects and access- aries, are not called the Kāranas, the Käryas and the Saha- kārins. The function of the Vibhāva is known as Vibhā- vana, the process through which a germ is brought to the status of a sprout; that of the Anubhava is Anubhāvana, the process of making a thing capable of being experienced and enjoyed while the function of the Vyabhichāribhāva is Samuparañjana, the process which makes an object fully visible. According to this interpretation the Samyoga, that is, the relation that exists between the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas, the Vyabhichāribhāvas and the Sthāyibhāva is the Vyangyavyañjakabhāva, that is, the relation of the suggestor and the suggested in case of the Bhävas of the original characters, and of the revealer and the revealed from the view-point of the Sthāyibhāvas of the specta- tors. The term, Nispatti, therefore, respectively means the

1. R. G. p. 23. 2. N. S. (G. O. S.). VI. p. 283. (Com.). 16

242

suggestion and the revelation (further development and enjoyment) in the above two cases. This theory of Abhinava was in accordance with the view of Bharata. For example, both admitted the function of the Vyañjana and both explained the realization of Rasa due to the innate or acquired latent impressions in the spectators which were revealed at a dramatic representa- tion by Vibhāvas etc., then developed and relished as Rasas. Other theorists as Bhattalollata and Śrī Śańkuka were either misled by such expressions of Bharata as 'Tatra Śrngāro Nāma Ratisthāyibhāvaprabhavaḥ,'1 'Vibhāvenā- hrto Yorthastvanubhāvena Gamyate,'2 where the words 'Prabhavah' in the first and 'Gamyate' in the second made them think that Rasa was a case of generation or Rasa was inferred respectively, or their deep-seated affinities with the schools they belonged to made them budge no inch from the views they held in conformity with the tenets of the respective schools. They, therefore, wilfully interpreted the words as suited their views, as was done by Bhatta Nāyaka, who, as a follower of a particular school, would not admit the Vyñjana as a separate power, hence he cons- ciously interpreted the Sūtra as suited his own will. In order to satisfy his whims he even postulated the two func- tions, the Bhavakatva and the Bhojakatva, though both were quite useless and unauthorized. Abhinava appro- ached Bharata nearest. His exposition, therefore, receives general approval and is considered as the most authorita- tive. He thus proved his preference of Rasa to any other element in poetry as he dilated most on it. The founda- tion of the Dhvani theory shaken to the bottom by destruc-

1. N. S. (K. S. S.) VI. p. 73. 2. Ibid. VII. 1.

243

tive criticism of opponents was, no doubt, once more made so firm by him as the later writers instead of being arrogant and critical towards it paid tribute to his words. Yet he could not check himself from asserting the Rasadhvani as the soul of poetry. He, thus, once for all established the unsurpassable importance and predominance of Rasa. That Rasa was given a firm footing is clearly corrobo- rated in its tacit recognition as the soul of poetry by the next writer, Rājaśekhara. His definition of poetry as 'a sentence having literary excellences (Gunas) and adorned with poetic figures'1 can be fairly interpreted to ally him with Vamana who explains the use of the word Kāvya for 'words and meanings well-refined with literary excellences (Gunas) and poetic figures.'2 His affinities with Vāmana are confirmed by his partiality towards the Rītis as explained by him. He also accepts Vāmana's classification of Rītis.3 On the other hand, he criticizes Rudrata4-a fact which proves his disfavour towards him. He only emphasizes the imprortance of Rasa when he gives with implicit approval others' opinion that 'only the composition of what is full of sentiments is proper and not of what is devoid of senti- ments.'5 But this importance assumes predominance. While describing the Kāvyapurusa (the literary personality), he enumerates the different parts of his body. The meta- phor is drawn upon literary devices, for example, the lan- guage, the literary excellences (Gunas) etc. Rasa, here, is described as the soul of the Kāvyapurușa.6 Rājaśekhara could have been dubbed as the follower of the Riti or the

1. K. M. VI. p. 24. 2. K. L. S. I. 1. 1. (Vrtti) 3. K. M. p. 31. 4. Ibid. p. 31. 5. Ibid. p. 45. 6. Ibid. p. 6.

244

Rasa school or of 'some old tradition, which stands apart from orthodox schools, but which has many things in com- mon with the older currents of thought and opinion,'1 as De puts it, but his acceptance of Rasa as the soul of the Kāvyapurușa (an idea which is quite novel and favourite with him) undoubtedly testifies to his recognizing Rasa as superior to other elements. Kuntala or Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijīvita, probably sails in the same boat as Rājaśekhara in respect of his attitude towards Rasa. He is said to be the advocate of the Vakrokti school, a school which was regarded as rival to the Dhvani or the Rasa school. The points that arise here for consideration are if it is to be regarded as a school at all, and if so, is its attitude hostile to Rasa ? A school is said to be such when it has traditionally been coming down from generation to generation and has a long and permanent following. It was never expounded as a school before Kuntaka nor could it command any follow- ing. Hence it should be recognized only as a doctrine and not as a school.2 Kuntaka got hints and suggestions for this doctrine in Bhāmaha who recognized Vakrokti as the underlying principle of all figurative expressions.3 By it Kuntaka means a departure from the common mode of speech as it consists in some strikingness of expression.4 Considering himself, thus, the propounder of a new doc- trine, he naturally included the different poetic elements, variously emphasized by previous writers, in the different combinations or modes of striking expressions which he recognized as principally six in number : (1) Varna-

1. D. S. P. Vol. II. p. 371. 2. S. S. K. 1. pt. II. p. 179. 3. K. L. II. 85. 4. V. J. I. 10 (With Com.).

245 vinyāsa-vakratā corresponding to the Śabdālankāras, (2) Padapūrvārdhavakratā or the selection of word-stems, (3) Padaparārdhavakratā or Pratyayavakratā or the use of affixes, (4) Vākyavakratā including all the Arthālankāras, (5) Prakaranavakratā or choice of, or change made in, the incidents of the plot and (6) Prabandhavakratā or the construction of the plot itself.1 He gave much consi- deration to the analysis of the poetic figures. He ridiculed Dandin's Svabhāvokti though implicitly feeling its aes- thetic delectableness,2 as like Bhämaha he said that it in- volved no strikingness; thus he advocated Bhāmaha's Atiśaya in the Vakrokti. Bhāmaha's Atiśaya consisting in its Lokātikrāntigocharatā,3 that is, a heightened charm of expression standing above personal connections and depending for appreciation and ultimate test upon the 'Tadvidālhāda', pleasure in the appreciating person, pro- bably stood as regards its aesthetic delectableness on the same level with Rasa. When such was the stand taken by him he could not lay much stress on Rasa and the Bhāva as the most important and prominent elements in poetry, though he indirectly admitted that the principal function of the poet is to depict objects animated with Rasa4 and the words of the poets live not because of their plots but due to their being saturated with Rasa.5 Rasa finds place in the economy of the Vakrokti in connection with the poetic figures and the different Märgas and in the treatment of Prakarana-, and Prabandha-, Vakratā. In the styles

1. V. J. I. 19-21. 2. Ibid. I. 11. pp. 23 & 25 (Com. on 15th Karika). 3. K. L. II. 81. 4. V. J. III. 6-7 (With Com.). 5. Ibid. IV (Resume) p. 225.

246

called the Sukumāra and the Vichitra, Rasa has to play some role. In the former Svabhava is delineated and Rasa becomes a part (Anga)1 whereas in the latter Rasa becomes the motivating factor.2 He considers that Vichchhitti should be Sarasatvasampaduchita, endowed with the ex- cellence of being rich in sentiments. In the Vākyavakratā where the theme is the Svabhava of the object it is shown how suitable development of Rasa can make the descrip- tion of the sentient beings attractive.3 He goes so far as to be one with Anandavardhana in saying that Rasa cannot be expressed through its own name either in general as the word Rasa itself or in particular as the Śrngāra etc. and again establishes the delectable nature of Rasa by citing verses from dramas. Here Kuntaka grows eloquent over Rasa as in the discussion of the Vastuvakratā he takes up the Rasavat and criticizes severely the definition as given by Bhamaha, Dandin and others.4 The Rasavat to him is an Alankārya as it is 'Rasena Tulyam Vartate,'5 awakened for its own sake and not for any other purpose. This Alankara is the foremost among those touched with sentiments.6 This is a position even one stage further than Anandavardhana's who accepts it as involving Rasa only secondarily. In the Prakaraņavakratā Rasa again is given importance. It is the controlling factor as any change in incidents are permissible so far as contributory to its de- velopment.7 In this Prakaraņavakratā there may occur a case where the dominant Rasa is developed to the extent

1. V. J. I. 26. 2. Ibid. I. 41. 3. Ibid. III. 6-7. 4. Ibid. III. pp. 159 & (following) 5. Ibid. III (Resume) p. 175. 6. Ibid. III (Resume) p. 177. 7. Ibid. IV (Resume) p. 224.

247 unattained either before or after in the same work as in the Vikramorvaśīya, act IV.1 Sometimes the same Rasa is developed by its constant repetition throughout without any satiety woven as it happens to be with new surprises and shining with Rasa and Alankāra as the pathos is de- picted in the Tāpasavatsarājacharita.2 It is in the Pra- bandhavakratā, however, that Rasa is made the determin- ing factor. The charm is to be achieved chiefly by the aid of pleasing Rasas and if any Rasa other than that depicted in the original story is desired to be preferred in order to impart a new charm to the plot, the change is declared as permissible. The Venīsamhāra and the Uttararāmacharita, though based respectively on the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyana which have the Santa as the predominant sen- timent, have been shown as the dramas of the Vira and the Karuna Rasa respectively as the authors desired to give them a new charm.3 Rasa, considered so extensively, naturally gives reason to think that its predominance was admitted, but as the new doctrine, the Vakrokti, was to be advanced at all cost, Rasa had to be admitted in different modes of striking expressions. Rasa, therefore, did receive recognition though indirectly from Kuntaka included as it was in different kinds of the Vakrokti. Just as Kuntaka got hints and ideas from Bhāmaha for building up the superstructure of his doctrine, the Vakrokti, so did Ksemendra receive hints and suggestions from Anandavardhana4 for his doctrine of the Auchitya, which he explains thus. Great scholars are of opinion that a thing is thought to be suitable to another when the former

1. V. J. IV (Resume) p. 232. 2. Ibid. IV (Resume) p. 228. 3. Ibid. IV (Resume) pp. 238-239. 4. D. L. III. p. 330.

248 fits the latter. This suitableness is called the Auchitya (propriety or appropriateness).1 Thus propriety is a cer- tain harmony of different constituents in a work of litera- ture. It has been regarded by Ksemendra as the life of poetry.2 Anandavardhana says that want of propriety is the only cause of the violation of Rasa. Thus he regards propriety necessary for the depiction of Rasa counting it as he does as one of its conditions. Kşemendra makes it the essence of Rasa for according to him it is Rasajīvita- bhūta.3 As the Auchitya has been raised to the highest rank in poetry, in other words, as it is declared to be the very life of poetry, the presence of Rasa in a poem contri- butes to the vital principle, viz. the Auchitya.4 This, in a way, reverses the opinion held by Ananda-vardhana. Kșemendra includes all the poetic elements, word, sentence, poem, the Guna, the Alankāra, Rasa, verb, case, gender, number, adjective etc. in his Auchitya and thus makes it quite comprehensive. Like all other above elements Rasa also became subsidiary in consideration, but more exten- sive scope assigned to its consideration in comparison with scope alloted to other elements witnesses to the author's preference and predilection for it. His favourable and patronizing attitude towards Rasa finds confirmation in the treatment of metres in respect of their choice and their contribution to the development of different Rasas as given in his other work, the Suvrttatilaka. He has illustrated in the Auchityavichäracharcha the different Rasas, admitt- ing also the Sānta as one, from different authors as Kāli-

1. A. V. C. 7. 2. Ibid. 5 & 7. 3. Ibid. 3. 4. Ibid. 5.

249

dāsa, Śrī Harșa etc.1 He has also considered the principal and the subsidiary relation between the different Rasas. A fit and suitable combination of them where one Rasa is principal and others nourish it either by contrast or by excitement etc. leads to a peculiar pleasure as that of the beverage. Propriety, therefore, is always to be observed as inharmony is always jarring and disgusting.2 The comparison of the peculiar aesthetic pleasure to the taste of the beverage and the analogy of the harmonious com- bination of Rasas to the mixing up of the different ingre- dients in the beverage clearly testifies to the full and clear knowledge of Ksemendra in point of the process of the realization of Rasa. But as he advanced the doctrine of Auchitya and made it all-comprehencive, he had to assign Rasa a secondary place. Rasa, no doubt, had become an established fact and had received general recognition and approbation as the most important element in a literary work. Like Ksemendra Bhoja got hints for the doctrine of his theory in the Agnipurana. The Agnipurāna advocated that from the Ananda (the infinite bliss) comes out the Ahankāra (self-consciousness) from which proceeds Abhimāna (conceit). This conceit gives rise to Rati (plea- sure) of which the Srngära, the Häsya etc. are the modifi- cations. Bhoja does not accept this whole process but fastens on the Abhimäna (which he also calls Ahankāra)3 as the starting point. The Abhimana, the supreme egoism, is the cause of the experience of the delightful condition of the mind due to the absence of impediments. It is

1. A. V. C. 16 (With Com.) ... 2. Ibid. 17-18 (With Com.) 3. B. S. K. V. 1.

250

capable of being relished when developed through Vibhā- vas etc. in poetry by an appreciative spectator or reader and is to be called Rasa. The Rati etc. are not to be called Rasas. The Rati etc. as emotions have their birth in a person who is possessed of Abhimana and they are never converted into Rasas. Bhoja refutes the position that the Śrngāra is born of the Rati and accepts the reverse of it. He establishes that there is no such distinction as the Sthāyibhāva, the Sāttvikabhāva, the Vyabhichāribhāva etc. among the forty nine Bhävas; they are all on the same level. Bhoja thus tries to establish that the Śrngāra is the only Rasa. 'There is some truth in this extreme position of Bhoja as all the world is pervaded by love and there is not one who is unaffected by it,'1 as Sankaran puts it, but it is not the whole truth. It is in direct ignorance of the latent impressions permanently seated in the human mind and is a doctrine exaggerating the importance of the su- preme ego. That Bhoja could not be consistent with his own view becomes clear from what he says of the distinc- tions of the Bhāvas into the Sthāyibhāvas, Sāttvikabhāvas and Vyabhichāribhāvas.2 He accepts the awakening3 of the Sthayibhavas for their developing into Rasas. He counts the Sthayibhavas as eight in number.4 At some places his views are not even well assimilated as is quite evident from his definition of the Kanti Guna5 which is directly borrowed in full from Vamana. In matter of the definition of poetry he agrees with the Agnipurana, but makes an addition. He says that it should have Rasa also.6 He emphasizes that Rasa is an extremely useful 1. S. A. L. C. p. 145. 2. B. S. K. V. 14-24. 3. Ibid. V. 19. 4. Ibid. V. 14. 5. Ibid. I. 102. 6. Ibid. I. 2.

251

element. 'Of the body of poetry which is devoid of the Dosas, endowed with the Gunas and ornamented with the poetic Alankāras, like the physique of a lady, the connec- tion with Rasa is highly useful for the protection of ex- cellence in beauty.'1 He counts the Rasokti as most im- portant.2 He, however, makes no mention of the relation that Rasa is to be in with other constituents of poetry. To some his conception of Rasa seems to bear resemblance to that of the Utpattivādins like Dandin and others; in this connection the emphasis on the Guna as mentioned by Bhoja is disposed of either as a eulogistic statement or as a mere record due to the composite and unassimilated nature of the work.3 It may also seem to bear a resemblance to the conceptions of the Bhaktivädins or the Abhivyakti- vādins who believe in the removal of the mental distrac- tion as a necessary condition before the function of the Bhojakatva for the enjoyment of Rasa and the removal of the distractions from the mind as the realization of Rasa respectively. Bhoja gives ground for the above specula- tion in the use of the word, Aprātikūlikatayā.4 He makes mention of ten Rasas, the Vatsala and the Santa being added to the orthodox eight, but only to refute the number and reduce it to one as the Bhävas cannot transform them- selves into Rasa.5 In the Sarasvatīkanthābharaņa V. 23 he hints at the Uddhata and the Udatta Rasas also expressed later on page 607 which were criticized by Śinga Bhūpāla in his R. S. pp. 168-172. He, thus, accepts in a way twelve Rasas. He also indirectly refuted the origin of one set of Rasas from the other as advocated by Bharata etc., for

1. B. S. P. IX. (Prose) p. XII. 2. B. S. K. V. 8. 3. D. S. P. Vol. II. p. 263. 4. B. S. P. I. 8. 5. Ibid. I. 6.

252

he ultimately accepted only one Rasa as shown before. All these points go to show that Bhoja had conceived ex- aggerated notions of the Śrngāra Rasa and had become exclusively obsessed by it. His decided preference for Rasa over other factors has, however, proofs positive, probably due to the influence of the importance of Rasa and obviously due to his advocacy of his own doctrine, viz. the Śrngāra as the only Rasa. To whatever cause may the influence be traced Rasa had decidedly gained the upper hand among the constituents of poetry. Mahimabhatta, who comes next for consideration, pro- bably got inspiration for his view in the interpretation of Bharata's Rasasūtra by Śrī Śankuka as the two views are almost identical recognizing Rasa as an object of inference (Anumiti) and not of suggestion (Abhivyakti). His atti- tude is not hostile towards Rasa. In his work, the Vyak- tiviveka, he engages himself in the hair-splitting argu- ments over the suggestion, that is, Vyakti. He proves that suggestion is useless, unauthoritative and invalid and it merges completely into inference.1 In other words, in- ference discharges its function completely. He accepts meaning of two kinds : the Vächya (expressed) and the Anumeya (inferrible) including both, the Laksya (indicated) and the Vyangya (suggested), in the latter. The latter, he further says, is threefold : the Vastu (consisting of mere matter), the Alankāra (poetic figure) or Rasa, making the last invariably inferrible, the first two, how- ever, being expressible also.2 Mahimabhatta thus accepts Rasa but aims his stroke exclusively at the power of sugges- tion. As regards the process of the realization of Rasa

1. M. V. V. I. 1. 2. M. V. V. I. p. 39.

253

wherein the sequence as to the functions of the Abhidha and the Vyañjanā are not traceable according to the Dhvani- vädins, he has to say that reasoning establishes that the sequence can be traced, hence, really speaking, the power of inference works here. Being questioned again as to the presence of the required members of a syllogism in poe- tical sentences, he replies that for an intelligent man mere knowledge of the middle term is sufficient.1 To the ob- jection that inferential knowledge does not give pleasure he submits that it is the Kāvyānumiti, a peculiar variety of immediate inference.2 He, thus, fully recognizes the de- lectable nature of Rasa where the critic atonce understands the ideas through the Vibhavas etc. and has the aesthetic pleasure. The Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the Vya- bhichäribhävas which are depicted in poetry act as arti- ficial causes, effects and accessaries for kindling up some unreal emotion like love. The spectator or the reader then infers this unreal emotion in the actor whom he takes as the original character. Through his imaginative sym- pathy it becomes pleasurable and is called Rasa.3 It is the nature of these ideas inferred to contribute to that pleasure.4 In course of discussing a couplet where inference is mediate he says that the inferred ideas should lead to the develop- ment of Rasa, otherwise they become mere conundrums.5 This is rather an indirect admission of the predominance of Rasa in poetry. It becomes direct and explicit when he says that all accept Rasa as the soul of poetry6 and poetry is to be recognized as having its soul in Rasa as the author

1. M. V. V. I. pp. 64 .- 65. 2. Ibid. I. p. 105. 3. Ibid. I. p. 79. 4. Ibid. I. pp. 66-67. 5. Ibid. I. p. 86. 6. Ibid. I. p. 105.

254

wishing its success in attracting the soft-hearted necessarily makes it saturated with Rasa.1 Therefore poetry, accord- ing to him, is that composition wherein Rasa is invariably manifested through the representation of the Vibhāvas etc.2 Mahimabhatta thus followed fully Śrī Śankuka's view of Rasa. He recognized Rasa as a delectable experience available through the process of inference. Reasoning when made fetish of invariably becomes dull and unin- teresting; consequently much of the charm of poetry was lost when Mahimabhatta proved the inclusion of the power of suggestion into the inference. But that Rasa as such held supreme command is undoubted, declared as it was the soul of poetry. Mahimabhatta's theory could not find many adherents. Mammata, the next writer, did not catch up hints and suggestions from the previous writers to expound any new theory of his own but brought about a harmonious fusion of their theories assigning therein proper places to different constituents. His attitude to Rasa, therefore, has nothing novel in it. He recognizes Rasa as an important element in poetry. This recognition remains implicit at some places whereas at others it becomes explicit. In his very first verse of the voluminous Kāvyaprakāśa he accepts that Rasas impart charm and delectableness to poetry, thus making it full of nothing but delight. In the definition of poetry of which he accepts three kinds he makes no explicit inclusion of Rasa in it. The admission of the Chitra Kāvya admitted by Ānandavardhana, too, as a division of poetry would also, according to Viśvanātha,3 show that

1. M. V. V. I. p. 97. 2. Ibid. I. p. 95. 3. S. D. I. pp. 4 & 5.

255

Rasa did not form an essential element. Yet the explicit injunction as to the presence of the Guna in, and the ab- sence of the Dosa from, it would imply the importance of Rasa, explained as the former two concepts are in direct connection with the latter one. The absence of the mention of the word, Rasa, from the definition of poetry may be justified due to the concept of Rasa being an established fact in poetics and hence understood by implication in such important cases, but the three kinds of suggested sense, viz. the Vastu, the Alankāra and Rasa appear rather inconsistent as Rasadhvani has been mentioned as one of the kinds and, therefore, it cannot cover all the cases. The irregularities as appearing here as well as at other places are reconciled if this idea is kept in view that Mammata's task was that of compiling, and if some inconsistencies creep in they should be made light of in consideration of the bigger problems wherein he could effect reconcilia- tion. He considered the Gunas, the Rītis, the Dosas and the Alankaras in their relation to Rasa. He also con- sidered the different Rasas in relation to one another; and after having given his view on Rasa he gave it a detail- ed consideration. He agrees with Abhinavagupta in his view of Rasa.1 Do not the above things clearly prove that Mammata fully recognised the importance of Rasa ? Ruyyaka, who comes up after Mammata for conside- ration, shows avowed influence of the Alankara school. This fact is quite evident from the name of his work, the Alankārasūtra, and the Vrtti, the Alankārasarvasva, on it. That the author of the Alankārasarvasva is Ruyyaka has been shown by T. Ganapati Śastrī in the introduction

1. K. P. IV. p. 95. (Com.)

256

to the Alankārasūtra. The author first surveys the differ- ent views held by his predecessors in the field. In the Alankārasarvasva he calls the Rasadhvani the Samlaksya- kramavyangya (the suggested sense wherein the sequence is well marked)1 whereas in the Alankārasūtra he calls it the Asamlakşyakramavyangya (the suggested sense wherein the sequences is inappreciable.)2 That the Rasā- didhvani has been treated in the Alankāramañjarī is a proof of the author's favourable attitude to that kind of sugges- ted sense. It shows his acceptance of suggestion advoca- ted by some of the previous writers. He, however, be- trays his affinities with either the author of the Agnipurā- na or Bhoja when he declares that the Śrngāra Rasa pre- dominates in the Kävya.3 He shows his 'knowledge of Rasa when he discusses the difference between the Bhāvika Alankara on one hand and the Svabhavokti and the Rasavat on the other. One point of distinction is the Sādhāranī- karana (generalization). Another point constantly em- phasized is the appeal to the sympathetic heart of the cri- tic in whom there are impressions which are the causes of the excitement in his mind and its consequent modification of various kinds (Chitta Vrttis). The author, then, gives further on the four Alankaras based on Rasa, the Bhava, the Rasabhasa and the Bhāvābhāsa.4 In his com. to the Sūtra enumerating the above four Alankāras, the author incidentally gives the definition of Rasa. The Rati, a particular kind of the modification of the mind, revealed by the Vibhava, the Anubhāva and the Vyabhichāribhāva is Rasa. That this definition is in the wake of the one given

1. R. A. S. pp. 14-15. 2. A. S. T. p. 13. 3. R. A. S. p. 15. 4. A. S. T. p. 229.

257

by Abhinava is quite clear. Ruyyaka had, however, taken in his hands a thorough discussion of the poetic figures which he performed with such a remarkable degree of insight and independence that Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara etc. accept his views in this connection as authoritative. It may, perhaps, be due to his occupation with the poetic figures that he calls the subject, which kept the intellect of his predecessors engaged, very abstruse and worthy of sharp and probing minds and summarily deals with suggestion before starting his avowed task. Hemachandra, the Jain writer, has to his credit a volumi- nous work, the Kāvyānuśāsana which is almost a com- pilation. He borrows from nearly all the standard works on poetics and dramaturgy. The borrowings from Mammata are more obvious than those from others. The concept of Rasa1 as defined by him agrees with that of Abhinava. He says that the pleasure in poetry is born of the taste of Rasa2. The author defines poetry according to Mammata. He, however, makes the addition of one element to it,3 viz. the Alankāra ; but the com. to the Sūtra says that sometimes poetry devoid of the Alankāra is also called as such. He considers the Dosas, the Gunas and the Alankāras in relation with Rasa. He considers the Alankāras in different aspects4 wherein they can help the maturing of Rasa. Walking in the footsteps of Mammata he accepts nine Rasas5, the Śānta being added to the orthodox eight. He shows his originality, though a little, in giving the Śrngāra Rasa priority in point of consideration due to its pervasion over, and intimacy

1. H. K. S. pp. 56-66. 2. Ibid. p. 3. 3. Ibid. p. 16. 4. Ibid. p. 17. 5. Ibid. p. 67. 17

258

with, the whole of mankind ; and then shows other Rasas in relation with it.1 Hemachandra, thus, accepted the pro- minence of Rasa. The other Jain writer, Vägbhata, the senior, uses Mammata's text to a great extent. His definition of poetry includes Rasa which is easily realized2, but it is to be an element there like the Gunas, the Alankāras and the Rītis through the appropriate word and its sense. He, no doubt, defines the Mädhurya Guna as consisting of the word and its sense saturated with Rasa.3 Poetry devoid of Rasa is not palatable as something even though well cooked is not delicious without salt.4 Accepting such a position of Rasa as the above in poetry, he proceeds to the definition of Rasa. The Sthayibhava brought to culmination by the Vibhāvas, the Anubhävas, the Sāttvikabhāvas and the Vyabhi- charibhavas is Rasa5. The nine Rasas, the Santa being added to the list, are accepted by him.6 The author makes no mention of the Dhvani. He may, therefore, have affinities with the pre-Dhvani writers but it is difficult to declare his decided adherence to any school. Rasa, however, received recognition from him, though not as the predominant element in poetry. Vāgbhata, the junior, deserves consideration here. He was a Jain writer following mostly Hemachandra in the definition of poetry.7 As the Guna, the Alankara etc. recieve no consideration in their relation with Rasa, his attitude to Rasa would have been a matter of deduction had not the author

1. H. K. S. pp. 67-68. 2. V. V. L. I. 2. 3. V. V. L. III. 15. 4. Ibid. V. 1. 5. Ibid. V. 2. 6. Ibid. V. 3. 7. V. K. N. I. p. 14.

259

himself in the gloss made it clear. In the beginning of the fifth chapter he declares Rasa as the life of poetry.1 According to him the senior Vägbhata also can be deduced to recognize Rasa as the life in poetry, as in support of his view he quotes his predecessor's illustration.2 Though he includes the Dhvani in the poetic figure called the Paryāyokti,3 yet he uses the word, Abhivyakta, in connection with the realization of Rasa which shows that according to him Rasa is suggested. The nine Sthāyibhāvas ( Śama added) when suggested and revealed by the Vibhävas, the Anubhävas and the Vyabhi- charibhavas become the nine Rasas.4 He describes the defects of Rasa also. He accepts Rasa as the most promi- nent element and is, thus, ahead of his senior in explicitly mentioning it as the life of poetry. Hemachandra had affixed a chapter on dramaturgy to his work whereas the two Vägbhatas' works were rather epitomes to serve as practical manuals as they presented views on nearly every topic in a brief form. With the other two Jain writers, Rämachandra and Gunachandra the case becomes different. They engaged themselves exclusively with dramaturgy and jointly produced a work called the Nātyadarpana. Their attitude towards Rasa is clear from the wide scope given to its consideration in the third Chapter. In opposition to so many writers they stand for the depiction of the Santa Rasa also in the drama.5 The definition of Rasa strikes a new note. The Sthāyibhāva brought to culmina- 1. He admits the suggestivity of the Gunas in connection with Rasas, but their relation with Rasa is not disccussed. The defects are not generally discussed so ; some particular defects of Rasa have been considered towards the end of the work. Ibid. V. p. 53. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. III. p. 36. 4. Ibid. V. p. 53. 5. N. D. III. p. 163.

260 tion by the Vibhavas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas and rendered capable of being sensed by the Anubhvas is Rasa which is either pleasurable or painful.1 They regard Rasa etc. as the mother of dramaturgy. They consider the defects paricular to Rasas. They try to establish the enjoyment of Rasa in the actor also on the analogy of the prostitute who, though giving pleasure to others, may also feel pleasure by herself.2 They accept Rasa as the predominant element in drama. That they differed from other writers with regard to the definition etc. of certain concepts and views goes to their credit as all these points establish that theirs was an independent and original thinking. With Jayadeva the reversion to the old practice of writing epitomes again becomes obvious. His works, the Chandrā- loka, is, no doubt, modelled on the same lines as the Kāvya- prakāśa; a larger scope, however, is accorded to the con- sideration of the poetic figures. The author gives such a definition of poetry as includes as its constituents all the elements variously emphasized by previous writers. The absence of the defect and the presence of the Laksana, the Rītis, the Gunas, the Alankaras and the Vrttis have been enjoined upon here.3 But the stress is laid upon the Alankāras as words and sense devoid of them have been declared on a par with fire without heat.4 That the author's attitude towards Rasa is not hostile becomes clear as he devotes the whole of one chapter, that is, the sixth to a consideration of it. The Sthāyibhāva being aroused and brought to culmination by the Vibhāvas etc. in the Kāvya and the Nātya and in the actions (of actual life) becomes Rasa. It gives 1. N. D. 109. p. 158. 2. Ibid. p. 160. 3. J. C. L. I. 7. 4. Ibid. I. 8.

261

rise to pleasure in the hearts of the sympathetic persons, the pleasure wherein the experience as if of the whole body being besmeared with the sandal paste is felt and in which the cognition of the rise of any other knowable object is dissolved.1 The author considers the Bhava also wherein the Rasa stage is not completely reached.2 In considering the kinds of suggestion, mention of the Rasābhāsa etc. is made.3 He considers the Rasavat, the Preyas etc. under poetic figures. All these scattered considerations on Rasa and the connected topics prove that even in the works of the avowed champions of the Alankaras the inclusion of the discussion on Rasa was considered to be a necessary element without whch the epitome would have remained incomplete. Sāgaranandin, the author of the Nātakalaksanaratna- kośa, concerns himself exclusively with dramaturgy. Hence his remarks, observations and views are to be understood as advanced from the view-point of a dramaturgist. He comes in line with Bharata dealing, as he does, with Rasa topically as an elemnt in dramaturgy. He devotes to it a very limited canvas.4 He accepts the orthodox eight as the dramatic Rasas. In the sequel he reduces them to four principal Rasas of which the other four are only deriva- tives. He, here, gives the definition of Rasa. The Sthāyi- bhava it is which is aroused by the conjunction of the Vibhava, the Anubhava and the Vyabhichāribhava and is transformed into Rasa. He provides an alternative definition. The Rasas and the Bhavas through mutual assistance and in conjunction attain to the culminating stage. The analogy instanced is of the food and the tasty articles which make

1. J. C. L. VI. 2-3. 2. Ibid. VI. 14. 3. Ibid. VII. 5. 4. N. L. R. K. pp. 77-78.

262

each other palatable. He also considers in this connection the view held by the Satkāryavādins in the form of cause and effect of the Bhava and Rasa where the Bhavas and Rasas are the causes and the effects respectively. Where the Bhävas are the effects and Rasa the cause the two concepts exist simultaneously and bring about the accomplishment through mutual assistance. Sägaranandin, thus, rather compiles the different views given by the predecessors, but his leaning is clear towards that of Bharata whom he follows mostly in his ideas, not only in the treatment of Rasa but also in other topics dealt with in his work. Before passing to the next writer it seems incumbent to pause and devote a little space here to a writer who has avowed himself to the consideration of the Science of music. He is Śārngadeva and his work is the Sangītaratnākara. The consideration of Rasa, therefore, comes in only topically though its prominent and foremost importance has been openly recognized in the very first verse1 on the subject. The com. to the above verse calls Rasa either the Dhīviśeșa (a particular mental power) or the Ichchhāviśeșa (a particular desire). The stanzas that follow define Rasa thus. By the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas as represented by the actor there is generated (in the spectator according to the com.) a consciousness called the Āsvādanā (delectableness or relish) which has no reference to self, friend, enemy or indifferent person or to the conditions, place, time etc. which assumes the forms of the Sthāyibhāvas, which because of the absence of any impediment attains to perfect equipoise, which is different from knowledge of other kinds as intuition, experience, memory and the like, which 1. S. D. S. R. VII. 1362.

263 due to the presence therein of different Sthāyibhāvas etc. is dissimilar to the consciousness of Brahman, the form of which, however, is all bliss and which is experienced by the self. The com. to the above finds points of similarity to the Brahmäsvāda in the last part of the definition. Either the above consciousness is Rasa or the Sthāyibhāva which is apprehended through it becomes Rasa. The analogy of the realization of Rasa is that of the compound formed with the curd etc. which tastes quite different from its ingredients. The author then enumerates nine Rasas and discusses the Śänta Rasa as capable of being represented on the stage. By cogent argument it is established as a dra- matic Rasa.1 Towards the end of the chapter the author puts forward according to some theorists the Bhakti, the Sneha and the Laulya as Rasas with the Śraddha, the Ardrata and the Abhilāsa as their respective Sthāyibhāvas. He shows their inclusion in the Śrngāra and the Hāsya. He thus establishes nine Rasas only.2 The conception of Rasa as shown here probably gave hints and suggestions to Pandita- rāja Jagannātha for his Vedāntic approach to the problem of Rasa. It is confirmed in that the Panditarāja quotes him in connection with the establishment of the Śānta Rasa.3 Vidyādhara, the author of the Ekāvalī, models his work on the Kāvyaprakāśa in that he draws mostly upon it. He recognizes the Dhvani Kävya and says that the Dhvani should be accepted as the soul. Like the Dhvanikāra he also tries to establish it in the teeth of opposition from different direc- tions.4 He says that the Kāvya contains much pleasurable Rasas and brings a great satisfaction to the mind.5 In the

1. S. D. S. R. VII. I. 369-1372. 2. Ibid. VII. 1530-1532. 3. R. G. p. 30. 4. E. V. I. 13. 5. Ibid. I. 9.

264

third chapter under the first stanza the author engages himself in the discussion of Rasa which he places under the Asamlakşyakramavyangya. He recognizes eight kinds of it, viz. Rasa, the Bhāva, the Rasābhāsa, the Bhāvābhāsa, the Bhavasānti, the Bhāvodaya, the Bhavasandhi and the Bhāvaśavalatva. The author draws upon the analogy of the growth of a tree in connection with explaining the various stages in the maturing of the Sthayibhava, located in the form of impression in the Sāmājikas, into Rasa. The Ālambana Vibhāvas make the Sthāyibhāva sprout ; the Uddīpana Vibhāvas, bud forth; the Anubhāvas, capable of being perceived and the Vyabhichāribhāvas make it put forth leaves. No other Śakti (power ) except the Vyañjanā can function in the realization of Rasa. The Pramānas (means of knowledge ) also cannot comprehend it. This explains the transcendental nature of Rasa. The author discusses in extenso this nature of Rasa. That the Gunas are the attri- butes or excellences of Rasa1 is a fact which shows the author's insight into the problem. Rasa, therefore, had gained prominence and was recognized as an important element in poetry. Vidyānātha, the author of the Pratāparudrayaśobhūșaņa or the Pratāparudrīya, makes the first mention of Rasa as one of the knowable objects in the Sastra. The word and its sense, he says, are to have Rasa as the predominant element.2 The definition of poetry is plainly based on Mammata's as it runs thus. The word and its sense, endowed with the Guna, decorated wih the Alankāra and devoid of the Dosas, arranged in either prose or verse are known as the Kävya to critics. The different relations in which these

1. E. V. V. 1. 2. P. R. 4. p. 4.

265

constituents of poetry stand in the whole arrangement are next described. The word and its sense are the body of poetry ; the suggestion, the life ; the Alankāras, the orna- ments ; the Gunas as the Ślesa, valour etc .; the Rītis: leading to the excellence of the soul, character; the Vrttis, the functions which have attained beauty of arrangement ; the Sayyā in which there is perfect harmony among the Padas, the bed itself ; the Päkas which are the kinds of tastes of Rasa, the well-dressed objects-these are the ingredients of the Kävya1. The author considers the Vrttis in con- junction with the author of the Daśarūpaka as the indicators of the substratum of Rasa.2 The Asamlaksyakramavyangya is Rasa etc.3 which Rasa is the life, as it were, of all literary compositions. The Sthāyibhāva brought to a relishable condition by the Vibhāva, the Anubhāva, the Sāttvikabhāva and the Vyabhicharibhava is Rasa.4 The nine Rasas, the Śanta added to the orthodox eight, are accepted by him on the support of the ancient authors.5 The secondary nature of Rasa as the Rasavat Alankara, that of the Bhava as the Preyas Alankāra etc., are also taken into consideration.6 In the three concluding stanzas of the chapter on Rasa the author gives the nature of Rasa as considered along with the Vibhavas etc.7 The attitude of Vidyanatha towards Rasa becomes clear. It is one with Abhinava's8. The inclusion of the consideration on dramaturgy gives added importance to the work. This importance is further

1. P. R. 1-5. p. 42. 2. Ibid. pp. 46-47. 3. Ibid. p. 76. 4. Ibid. p. 219. 5. Ibid. p. 221. 6. Ibid. p. 290. 7. Ibid. 88-90. pp. 291-295. 8. In the Com. Kumārasvāmī makes clear the author's recognition and acceptance of Abhinava's view. (P. R. p. 219).

266

enhanced due to the fact that the different rules on dramaturgy in connection with the plot, its divisions etc. are illustrated in one drama specially composed by him for the purpose which forms a part of the present work. Viśvanātha's work, the Sāhityadarpaņa, also conatins a thorough discussion on the technicalities of the dramatic art and thus is more important than his predecessor's work, the Pratāparudrīya. The Dhvanikāra and Abhinava had, no doubt, pointed out the predominance and the foremost importance of Rasa, yet the admission was not so direct and explicit as it was said that other kinds of suggestions were not less important though ultimately they resulted in the Rasadhvani. This sort of admission which was in a way implicit was taken up as a hint and carried to extreme by Viśvanātha as he defined the Kāvya to be that sentence of which the soul was Rasa. The elements such as the Dosas, the Gunas, the Alankaras, the Rītis etc. are considered by him in relation with Rasal. The influence of Mammata is quite evident in all these matters. In the third chapter the author gives the definition which bears the definite and obvious influence of Abhinava. The Sthayibhava as the Rati etc. attains the stage of Rasa when suggested by the Vibhāva, the Anubhāva and the Vyabhichāribhāva. It is enjoyed by the sympathetic critics within their own selves as it is their Sthāyibhāva which gets converted into Rasa.2 The com. to the above explains that this conversion is just like the transformation of milk into curd. In the stanzas that follow the author describes its form and the nature of its relish which make the agreement of the author with Abhinava's view quite evident. This stand-point of the

1. S. D. I. 3. 2. Ibid. III. 1.

267 author dismisses the objections against the pleasurable nature of the Karuna Rasa. He confirms the delectable nature of the Karuna Rasa by the experience of sympathetic persons who frequent dramatic representations. In this connection he makes capital of the latent impression in the sympathetic critic and says that it is aroused at the representa- tion and not in worldly matters, hence it is pleasure-giving as it is transcendental. Like Abhinava he explains the generalization of the Vibhävas etc., which removes the limita- tion and presents things in their universal aspects. These Vibhāvas etc. are first separately cognized and then con- jointly like the beverage in which the different elements get so mixed together as to be tasted as one drink only. He then tries to explain that the substratum of Rasa is not the original character who is being imitated as he existed in the past, belonged to this world and was separated from the representation by a long gap. It is neither the actor whose acting is studied. If the actor is at all to be accepted as enjoying Rasa at a dramatic representation, he can be so accepted only as one of the spectators. This. last position makes the spectators the enjoyers of Rasa. He seems to become a bit loose in his language when he uses the words, 'Rasasyacha Vibhāvādisamūhālambanātmakatayaiva Pratīter .... '1 which, even though used by the author in the sense that Rasa is realized just as the beverage is enjoyed where- in the tastes of the different ingredients are not separately felt, may still suggest Rasa as the stage of which the soul is the conjoint knowledge of the Vibhāvas etc. as in this conjoint knowledge each constituent is separately cognized whereas in reality in the realization of Rasa no separate cognition

1. S. D. III. p. 5. .

268

of the Vibhäva etc. is had. It does not become the object of any cognition but is the cognition itself and in this con- sists its transcendental nature. It is something which is self-illumined as the use is only metaphorical when it is said to be produced on the basis of the production of its relish which is Rasa itself. And as this relish is one continuous whole, Rasa is said to be impartible. In this very third chapter the author considers the kinds of heroes according to their love relations with the heroines. Such and other allied considerations amply prove the whole-hearted partiality of the author towards Rasa. Though the author accepts the orthodox eight Rasas frankly with the half-hearted admission of the Santa and the Vatsala on the authority of the best sage, yet in the com, he expounds the one Rasa theory of one Nārāyana, his great grandfather as recorded by Dharmadatta in his work. The Chamatkära which is another name for the expansion of the mind is made the basis and the Adbhuta Rasa is advocated as the only Rasa. Though this one Rasa theory is advocated under the name of another, yet it proves how implicitly the author desired to give wholesale importance to Rasa. Viśvanātha, thus, stands as the extreme exponent of Rasa in its predominance over all other poetic con- stituents. Śāradātanaya's work, the Bhāvaprakāśana, is a volu- minous compendium on dramaturgy. As the author makes clear towards the end of this work his attitude towards Rasa is that of a follower of the Rasa school as propounded by Bhatta Abhinava. The Rīti, the Vrtti, the Guna and the Alankāra-all receive treatment as subsidiary to Rasa. There are, however, certain points of difference in the view of this author. He tackles the different views suggesting his own solutions at places. By the Vibhavas etc. duly placed

269

as also by the four kinds of Abhinaya the Sthāyibhāvas attain to the stage of Rasa. The Sthāyibhava being brought to a relishable condition by the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas, the Sāttvikabhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas is Rasa.1 As the mixing with the tasty elements makes the food palatable, so do others bring the Sthayibhava to a relishable condition. This view the author gives in the name of Bharata but just below he gives the prose text in the name of Bharatavrddha.2 This prose text is mainly explanatory of the above stanzas. It explains Rasa as the conversion of the Spectators' Sthāyi- bhävas by the Vibhavas etc. into Rasa in their minds and acounts for the different kinds of Rasa on the basis of the difference of their mental conditions coming into existence at particular times. That it is from the Bhavas that Rasas originate is confirmed by the author in the name of Vāsuki.3 The author then confirms the view of Bhatta Lollata in that he says that Rasas emanate from the original characters as heroes and heroines and to a certain extent from the actors who imitate them cleverly and skilfully. The spectators in the dramatic representation witness the emotions as shown by the actors and feel pleasure. This is one view which is criticized by the next in which substratum of Rasa (Rasāśraya) is the mind ( of the spectator ) itself as Rasa is the sentiment which brings pleasure to the mind. And as the Srngāra Rasa is invariably all blissful, it is the only Rasa. Other Rasas are only so called for some reason or other. The analogy afforded is very homely as the six wordly tastes ( Şadrasas ) allgo under the one name, Rasa, though one is sweet, the other is bitter etc. People at different times

1. B. P. lines. 7-10. p. 36. 2. Ibid. line. 14. p. 36. 3. Ibid. Lines 1-2. p. 37.

270

and places experience delectable taste even from bitter things. They in this world in future, present and past shall be, are and were, born with different latent impressions ( Samskāras ) of friendliness, indifference and enmity. Therefore the representation of the Vira, the Hāsya, the Karuna and the Adbhuta gives pleasure to them at different places and in different times. The same dramatic representation produces diverse moods in them according to their latent impressions. The difference in nature, in place and time as also the fickleness of mind are some other factors which count here.1 The whole elucidation as given above is, no doubt, an excellent exposition of the different kinds of Rasa, but it is in the third view that the approach becomes psychological as the ego etc. are here tapped. As the author informs it was imparted to Vivasvān by Śiva and is described in the Yogamālāsamhitā.2 The ego (Ahankāra) has one function called the Abhimana and the Tanmatras with the ego are respectively the originators of the ten sense organs. The ego through the Abhimāna Vrtti and sense organs comes into touch with the external objects. It is then transformed into Rasa with all its different manifestations. This happens in accordance with the Sattva, the Rajas and the Tamas-the three qualities which make the Ahankāra Sāttvika, Rājasika and Tämasika. The Sānkhya doctrine according to which there are evolutes from the Prakrti is a guide here. Rasa, thus, is nothing but a transformation of the Abhimāna Vrtti assuming different forms according to different Bhāvas and Gunas. Due to this Abhimana Vrtti the spectator is placed mentally on a par with the hero and the heroine whose Abhimana Vrtti is equated by the spectator with his own

1. B. P. Lines. 14-15. p. 40. 2. Ibid. Lines 15-16. p. 45.

271

and, thus, Rasa is enjoyed. That the spectator feels the eight kinds of emotions as the various transformations of his Ahankāra Vrtti is, thus, quite clear. The fourth view which accepts the above explanation of origin of eight Rasas refutes the Santa Rasa. This view is advanced in the name of Padmabhū.1 The fifth view is in some respects similar to the third but stands opposed to the fourth in as much as it recognizes the Śānta Rasa. According to this view, spon- sored as it is in the book by Nārada2 who changes his position at every time, Rasas are the changes of the mind ( Manovi- kāra ). The helping factors in these changes are the Ahankāra and the Gunas. As in the third theory the mind endowed with the Guna etc. comes into contact with the outward phenomena and evolves Rasas. In case of the Śānta Rasa no contact with the external object is necessary; the pre- dominance of the Sattva in the mind renders its realization possible. Some of the above traditions either are original which were lost but which betray influence over the view as advocated by Bhoja or were evolved very late as to show borrowings from the views of authors as Bhoja etc. and have been put under the names of Rsis etc. so as to impart to them an air of originality dating from ancient times. Śāradātanaya gives the above views and then discusses the nature of cognition the spectators have when they witness the actors representing the diverse roles of the original characters. When the spectators see the actors representing Rāma etc., they take Nața (the actor ) as Rāma himself. This knowledge is fit to serve the purpose (Arthakriyākarmasa- marth) and, therefore, it is true.3 This remark is made in

1. B. P. Line. 10. p. 47. 2. Ibid. Line. 12. p. 47. 3. B. P. Line. 21. p. 51.

272

criticism of Śrī Śankuka's view and in the wake of Bhatta- Nayaka's theory which the author modifies very little. He believes in the function of the three powers as Bhatta Nāyaka did; the departure, however, came in respect of the enjoy- ment of Rasa. Bhatța Nāyaka says that the predominance of the Sattva causes pleasure and hence Rasānubhava is compared to Parabrahmānanda; the experience of Rasa is unalloyed bliss as it is different from cognition or memory. The world is composed of Tattvas ( elements ) from the Māyā to the earth and the Rasanubhava according to Sārada' anaya is similar to the Jivātaman's enjoyment of the world which though full of miseries is enjoyed through the three functions, Rāga, Vidyā and Kalā. At a dramatic representa- tion the spectator sees different Bhavas and through Rāga, Vidyā and Kalā enjoys them as Rasas. In other words, clever actors represent the worldly things and Jīvas who have in them similar impressions of their own deeds identify them- selves with the original characters and then enjoy pleasure after having forgotten themselves. This view is in accordance with the one advocated in the Saivägama wherein even troublesome and pain-giving objects are realized as delecta- ble. The author, therefore, compares the Rasānubhava to Samsārānanda (worldly pleasure ) as the actors represent the happenings of the world. As the dramatic representa- tion is of daily life the Rasānubhava well deserves to be compared with the Samsārānanda. Śāradātanaya, no doubt, is the first man to make this comparison. Making this comparision the author allies himself with one author, Dhanañjaya, who accepts Rasa but does not recognize the power of suggestion ( Vyañjanā Vrtti) as he says that the Tātparya Sakti can serve its purpose well, rather it includes it. The authors desire that Rasas should be produced in

273

the minds of the readers or the spectators and the desire is fulfilled as the readers or the spectators enjoy Rasa; the Tātparya Śakti is nothing but this desire on both sides, hence Rasa is obtained through the Tātparya Śakti. The relation between a poem or a drama and Rasa is the Bhāvyabhāvakabhāva and the Pratipādyapratipādakabhāva and that between Rasa and the readers or the spectators is Bhoktrbhogyabhāva. Śāradātanaya is seen here owing affinities with Dhanañjaya and Bhatta Nāyaka in different matters. The author treats the Dhvani but takes it as a part of the Tatparya Sakti. As the author says the Dhvani is found only in poetry whereas the scope of the Tātparya Śakti is much wider as it is found in the speech, Laukika ( worldly ), Vaidika ( Vedic) and Poetical. The difference that the author recognizes between the Dhvani and the Tātparya Śakti is as that of a Brāhmaņa and a Brahmachärin1, as in the example the Brahmachārins may include the Brähmanas but not the other way. Sāradātanaya shows the influence of so many authorities as Bhatta Nāyaka, Dhanañjaya etc. Even betraying such influence he accepts the prominence of Rasa, as it is the purpose of the dramatic pieces, when read or represented on the stage, to excite emotions in the persons. And it is because of this that the author devotes so much attention to its comprehensive consideration in all its details and names the work as the Bhāvaprakāśana, the work which gives a clear and com- prehensive exposition to all the Bhāvas. Śinga Bhūpāla is to be classed as a writer on dramaturgy. He considers Rasa as the life of dramatic compositions.2 The Sthāyibhāva brought to a relishable condition by the

1. B. P. Line. 5. p. 150. 2. R. S. I. 58. 18

274

Vibhavas, the Anubhāvas, the Sāttvikabhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas is Rasa.1 This definition of Rasa is evidently that of Dhanañjaya whom the author also follows in point of refuting the Santa Rasa in dramas.2 But as he considers every item in relation with Rasa he attaches the utmost importance to Rasa establishing it as the very life of dramaturgy. He names his work itself as the Rasārna- vasudhakara which deals mostly with the accessaries of the Śrngāra Rasa and, thus, implicitly accepts its all importance. The above acceptance of the Srngāra Rasa remains implicit in Bhānudatta's work, the Rasataranginī, which evidently deals with all Rasas. The various constituents of Rasa receive attention in the first five chapters. The sixth chapter deals with Rasa. The author gives the defini- tions in such forms as cover the views put forward by Bhatta Lollata, Srī Sankuka, Bhațța Nāyaka and Abhinava. The first definition covers in brief the views of Bhatta Lollata and Śrī Śankuka. The Sthāyibhāva being fully accomplished ( Paripūrņa ) being brought to apprehension in various ways ( Upanīyamāna ) and being made pleasurable ( Rasyamāna ) by the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas, the Sāttvikabhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhavas is Rasa.3 As the Hindi com. puts it the words, Paripūrna and Upanīyamāna, are to be variously construed in connection with the Vibhavas etc. In other words, the Alambana Vibhavas generate the Sthāyibhāva, the Uddīpana Vibhāvas excite it, the Anubhāvas make it capable of being sensed and the Vyabhichāribhāvas make it matured. These different functions of the Vibhāvas etc. are included in the word, Paripūrna, whereas the word,

1. R. S. I. 58-59. 2. Ibid. II. pp. 140-141. 3. B. R. T. p. 115.

275

Upanīyamāna, means that the Sthāyibhāva is located in the original characters as Rāma etc., and is superimposed on the actor who personates the original character so skilfully. It is then felt as pleasurable and is Rasa. Interpreted differently the word, Upanīyamana, means that through the Vibhāvas etc., which though artificial are not cognized as such, the Sthāyibhava is inferred to exist in the actor on the analogy, Chitraturaganyāya (horse in the picture ) and hence becomes accomplished ( Paripūrna ), that is, transformed to another stage and relished as Rasa. The second view as expressed by the author obviously covers the theory of Bhatta Nāyaka. Where the mind comes to an equipoise through the Bhava, the Vibhavas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas it is Rasa.1 The inclusion of the word, Bhava, for the Sthāyi- bhava is to hint that the function of generalization has to be recognized here. The word, Viśrānti, in the Sūtra stands for the predominance of the Sattva over the Rajas and the Tamas, in which state of mind the generalized Vibhāvas etc. are relished as pleasurable due to the function called the Bhojakatva. The third view of the author is evidently advanced to cover the theory of Abhinava. The latent impression brought out, awakened, that is, revealed ( and matured ) is Rasa.2 The word, Prabuddha, is purposely put here to show that the author was well acquainted with the technicalities of the view of Abhinava ; he knew that the basis of the realization of Rasa was the dormant emotion in the sympathetic critic ( spectator or reader ) but for which Rasa can never be relished. In this connection the author says in the next sentence that the awakening factors are the Vibhavas, the Anubhavas and the Vyabhichāri-

1. B. R. T. p. 117. 2. Ibid. p. 118.

276

bhavas.1 If it is objected that in case of the first love of the pair the above definition of Rasa will not do as the Sthāyi- bhavas will not be awakened, the reply is that even here the presence of emotions in latent state has to be recognized on the basis of experience in the previous life. Rasa, the author says, is of two kinds, Laukika ( worldly ) and Alaukika ( trans- cendental). That born of the six kinds of worldly relations (as pointed out in the Nyāya-Vaiseşika Philosophy ) is the Laukika whereas the Alaukika Rasa is that obtained from the superphysical relations. The latter is again divided into three kinds, Svāpnika (that pertaining to dream), Mānorathika ( that pertaining to desire ) and Aupanāyika ( that pertaining to the hero). The last one is realized in the Kāvya and the Nātya where there is Chamatkāra available from the words and their meanings or from the objects and what is conveyed by them.2 According to Bharata the author accepts eight Rasas only.3 He puts forward for discussion the Vātsalya, the Laulya ( fickleness), the Bhakti ( devotion ) and the Kār- panya ( imbecility ) to be accepted as Rasas but shows their inclusion in the recognized eight.4 The author also accepts the Śānta Rasa but only in compositions other than dramas.5 In contradistinction to the Sānta Rasa the Māyā Rasa is first put forward by Bhänudatta and then recognized as a Rasa by him. The Sthayibhavas of the eight orthodox Rasas are to act as its Vyabhichāribhāvas as its own Sthāyi- bhāva is the Mithyājñāna (false knowledge ).6 The author contemplates three kinds of Rasa as regards its suggestion : Abhimukha, that is, where the Vibhāvas etc. explicitly suggest

1. B. R. T. p. 120. 2. Ibid. pp. 121-123. 3. Ibid. p. 124. 4. Ibid. p. 125. 5. Ibid. p. 163. 6. Ibid. pp. 161-162.

277

it ; Vimukha, that is, where the Vibhāvas etc. are not explicitly mentioned and Rasa is manifested with difficulty ; and Paramukha, that is, through the Alankāras and the Bhavas in which cases the Alankāras and the Bhavas are the principal (Mukhya) factors to which Rasa stands as sub- sidiary (Gauna) as the mind gets repose in the Alankāras and the Bhavas (Manoviśrāmahetutvāt ).1 The criterion, viz. Manoviśrāma, hints the affinities of the author towards the second view ( Bhatta Nayaka's ) in which it occurs but the mention of Abhinava's view in the end with added explanation gives firm ground to believe that the author allied himself with him. The author, having enumerated the eight orthodox Rasas, establishes the foremost importance and predominance of the Śrngāra Rasa on two grounds. Firstly, Visnu is the chief among the gods and the very same Visnu is the presiding deity of this Rasa ; and secondly, all beings have desires in them2. This partiality towards the Śrngāra Rasa becomes quite clear when the author engages himself in the exclusive consideration of that Rasa in his other work, the Rasamañjarī, as it dilates on the Nāyikā, the Śņngāra Nāyaka, his assistants, their qualities etc .-- all in connection with the Śrngāra Rasa. The Śrngāra Rasa so much emphasized by Bhānudatta takes a new turn and assumes quite a different shape with the next writer, Rupa Goswamī. It loses its earthly touch and gets connected with the god Krsna. Consequently it becomes the ultimate stage in the Bhakti Rasa. This ultimate stage is preceded by other four stages which mark the realization of the Bhakti Rasa at different levels. The ulti- mate stage is called the Madhura or the Ujjvala Rasa. The

1. B. R. T. p. 181. 2. Ibid. p. 124.

278

suggestion for this name is probably to be found in the description of the Śrngāra Rasa by Bharata.1 Rūpa Gosvāmī names his work dealing exclusively with the Madhura Rasa in all its details as the Ujjvalanīlamani, wherein Krsna is the hero2 and cowherd maidens figure as the heroines. The Madhura Rasa therein is called the Bhakti rasarāt.3 The position of the author in thus assigning the highest and the greatest importance to the Madhura Rasa resembles that of Bhoja ; but the difference is remarkable as the Śrngāra Rasa here is evaluated in terms of Viasnava devotion. The author's other work, the Haribhaktirasāmrtasindhu, treats of the Bhakti Rasa as a whole in wider details. Here in this book the author shows the difference in the Bahkti Rasa on the basis of primary and secondary consideration of the Rati, the Sthāyibhāva.4 The Mukhya Bhakti has five kinds which are, so to say, the five stages of the Bhakti Rasa. They are the Śanta Bhakti, the Prīta Bhakti, the Preyo Bhakti, the Vatsala Bhakti and the Madhura Bhakti. In the Gauna Bhakti the Hasya, the Adbhuta, the Vira, the Karuna, the Raudra, the Bhayanaka and the Bībhatsa have been included5. The author thus recognizes the Santa as a Rasa even though it is a stage in the Bhakti Rasa. Its Sahrdayas (sympathetic persons who realize it ) are those who are Śamins ( endowed with the Sama ) and its Sthayibhava is the Santi Ratis. The author discusses the realization of Rasa and establishes its blissful nature7. The blissful nature of Rasa as the Karuna is proved on valid grounds, viz. firstly, the experience of the spectators or the readers testifies to its being of a blissful

1. N. S. (K. S. S.) VI. p. 73. 2. R. U. M. p. 4. 3. Ibid. p. 3. 4. R. H. S. p. 283. 5. Ibid. p. 309 6. Ibid. p. 315. 7. Ibid. pp. 305-308.

279

nature ; and secondly, the blissful nature of the Rati Sthāyi- bhäva is accepted without which the Karuna can never be realized as Rasa.1 The Śrngāra Rasa given this erotico-religious turn in the Vaisnava school of Chaitanya and culminating in the Madhura Rasa otherwise called the Ujjvala Rasa became quite religious in its nature in the treatment accorded to it by rī Madhu- sūdana Sarasvatī in his Śrī Bhagavatbhaktirasāyana. The author begins his work with the word, Navarasamilitam (mixed with nine Rasas) thereby tacitly extending recognition to them but they mix with the Purusartha concentrated in Lord Mukunda. It is, thus, the Bhakti. It is in the form of consciousness consisting of unique bliss not touched with misery or evil.2 The Chitta ( mind) is like the lac which is by nature hard and stiff, it melts in contact with the heating causes which are the Käma, the Krodha, the Bhaya etc. When an object leaves its impression on this melted Chitta, that impression is called the Samskāra, the Vāsanā, the Bhava or the Bhavana.3 Such impression once hardened in the stiff condition of the Chitta is not effaced even at its melting next time.4 This form of the object is called the Sthäyibhava which again attains the stage of Rasa due to extreme pleasure as it is the Lord Himself, whose form is the highest bliss and who has impressed Himself on the mind, that attains fully to the stage of Rasa in that form. Even in respect of the Rati as connected with a lady etc., the cause is the same consciousness of extreme pleasure, as here the same Lord is covered with His own Maya though He is the

1. R. H. S. pp. 312 & 458. 2. S. B. B. R. I. 1. 3. Ibid. I. 4-6. 4. Ibid. I. 8.

280 effect.1 But in such cases the delectableness is on a lower level2 than that of the Bhakti, hence the latter is to be ever preferred. The Sthayibhava when revealed as of blissful nature by the Vibhävas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhi- charibhavas is called Rasa.3 As the (eternal) bliss is of the form of self it has no substratum, but the Vrtti which reveals it is in the mind of the spectator or the reader.4 Hence the mind can be said to be its substratum. The anuthor tries to establish the transcendental nature of the Sthāyibhāvas in the spectator. The Sthāyibhāvas as the Rati etc. in the Kāvya are worldly, but others located in the spectators, though similar to the worldly ones, are yet transcendental. The latter, therefore, are nothing but causes of delight though their counterparts in the original characters cause pleasure and pain. It is because of this fact that in Rasas as the Karuņa the delectable pleasure cannot be denied.5 The author then accounts for the supramundane nature of the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas and explains this trio as the cause of the awakening of the Rati etc. in the mind of the spectator or the reader. This trio gets universalized instead of remaining particular. The group-cognition of the Sthāyibhāva awakened, sensed and nourished by the above trio results in a state of mind wherein the Sattva predominates, and immediately it reveals the highest pleasure which is Rasa, whereas others call that very state Rasa.6 Rasa is included in the Asamlaksyakramavyangya because of its above immediacy in cognition. The author considers the other kind of Dhvani, viz. the Samlaksya- 1. S. B. B. R. I. 8-11. 2. Ibid. I. 13. 3. Ibid. III. 2. 4. Ibid. III. 3. 5. Ibid. III. 4-6. 6. Ibid. III. 12.

281

kramavyangya which is either a mere statement of fact ( Vastu) or a suggested Alankāra.1 He points out the relation of the Dosas, the Rītis and the Gunas with Rasa.2 The blissful nature of Rasa is described on the support of the statement from the Śrutis. That cognition is the revelation of one's own self, characterized by indeterminate delight, and as the Śrutis say, "Verily it is Rasa ", it is the eternal bliss which becomes revealed.3 The supreme bliss, the Ātman it is which is Rasa.4 The author, thus, attains to the highest level in the explanation of Rasa when he establishes perfect identity between the Paramänanda, the highest bliss which exists in its complete form in the Lord and the Chit, the utter consciousness, which is also the essential nature of the Brahman as also of the individual soul covered as it remains with the Maya of the Brahman. In the Alankārakaustubha of Kavi Karņapūra Gosvāmī, ' the Vaisnavite proclivities are not so prominent',5 as De puts it. The author, therefore, does not dwell upon the details as was done by Rūpa Gosvāmī. He, however, quotes illustrations from the Vaisnava scriptures dealing mainly with the life-incidents of Lord Krsna and the cowherd maidens. The first two verses devoted to the Mangalā- charana mention the words, the Lord Krsna and Sudrśām meaning the Gopānganās. The inclusion of the word, Rasa, as the greatest bliss of the self and the Dhvani com- pared to the notes of the flute of the Lord point out the author's recognition of these two fundamental principles of Sanskrit literary criticism. But Rasa as occurring in the

1. S. B. B. R. III. 15-16. 2. Ibid. III. 18-20. 3. Ibid. III. 22. 4. Ibid. III. 24. 5. D. S. P. Vol. I. p. 258.

282

present context is the Madhura Rasa of the Vaisnava school though it has not been so mentioned by the author. He recognizes the Dhvani as the vital airs and Rasa as the soul of poetry and considers other elements in relation with Rasa1-a fact which clearly proves the predominance of Rasa. It finds confirmation in as much as the Kavi has to be a man full of sentiments.2 He considers Rasa as the Asamlakşyakramavyangya.3 The author first quotes the definition from Bharata and explains it later on. The Vibhā- vas are of two kinds : the Alambana and the Uddipana. The Alambana is the prop of the Sthayibhāvas and the Uddīpanas excite them. By these three ( the Anubhävas and the Vyabhi- chāribhāvas included) which serve as revealers or suggestors and which have become clearly visible, the Sthāyibhāva which is, as it were, bulbous root of the sprout of taste, becomes Rasa. This bulbous root of the sprout of taste is called by the author the Sthayibhava. It is an attribute of the Chitta devoid of the Rajas and the Tamas wherein the Sattva predominates.4 The author, therefore, accepts the predominance of the Sattva element and, thus, links his affinity with the view of Bhatta Nāyaka. Rasa is again described as that happiness which blocks other functions of external as well as internal organs. Thus it is only that function which is suitable to, or in accordance with, that happiness which is allowed free and smooth operation. It is a happiness wherein the causes mentioned above all get combined and conjoined. This happiness, therefore, is something very striking.5 The author describes twelve Rasas

1. K. A. K. I. I. P. 5. 2. Ibid. I. 3. p. 11. 3. Ibid. III. 39. p. 70. 4. Ibid. V. 62-63. pp. 120-122. 5. Ibid. V. III. 70. p. 129.

283 adding the Santa, the Vātsalya, the Prema and the Bhakti to the orthodox eight. Under the description of the Prema Rasa a peculiar doctrine recognizing it as the only Rasa is referred to. It is disposed of only in hints for fear of increasing the bulk of the work. The illustrative stanza is. quite consistent with the view of those who advocate the Śrngāra as the only Rasa, for in it the Srngara may be principal and the Prema as its subsidiary, though sometimes the latter becomes predominant. The author, however, reverts the order and accepts the Prema as principal and the Śrngāra subordinate to it. The Prema has inherent in it delectableness which is continuous and ceaseless hence all Rasas and the Bhāvas merge into it as the waves in the ocean.1 The author also suggests the Śrngära as the only Rasa as the Lord is the Śrngāra incarnate. This position is accepted on two grounds. Firstly, the Lord and the Śrngāra Rasa have the same complexion which is dark blue and secondly, Lord Krsna Himself is the presiding deity of the Śrngāra Rasa.2 This is a position indicating the indirect recognition of the Šrngāra as the only Rasa and thus joining hands partially with Bhoja whose number of Rasa, though with a little addition, is also recognized. The admission of the Santa, the Bhakti, the Prema and the Vatsalya in the number of Rasas should not sound strange as the author belonged to the Vaisnava school, the doctrines of which are to be found in details in the works of Rupa Gosvāmī wherein as shown above love of Lord Krsna and the Gopānganās attains various stages and assumes different forms. Keśava Miśra in the Alankāraśekhara draws largely upon previous writers, Mammata and the junior Vāgbhața in 1. K. A. K. V. p. 148-149. 2. Ibid. V. pp. 150-151.

284

especial. He names one Śauddhodani whose definition of poetry is quoted. The definition includes Rasa as one of the elements and says that poetry leads to a particular pleasure.1 The author describes metaphorically the body of poetry in which connection Rasa is said to be the soul whereas according to others it is the mind.2 The Rītis,3 the Dosas,4 the Gunas,5 the arrangement of letters suitable to Rasas6 etc. are all con- sidered in connection with Rasa. Rasa is the soul because the poetic composition devoid of it is as useless as the body without the soul in it.7 That the stage in which the Sthāyi- bhava with the Vibhava, the Anubhava and the Vyabhichāri- bhäva gets converted into Rasa is not the stage of the group- cognition ( Samūhālambanajñāna ) is plainly refuted by the author by pointing out the principal and the subordinate relation existing among them. The author recognizes the Rasatva as a Jāti. He says, "Tattra Rasatvamangāngī- bhāvāpannasakalavibhāvādi Sākșātkāratvam. Angāngītyādi Samūhālambanavāraņāya. Rasatvamapi Jātiriti Vayam." 8 By the causes, the effects and the accessaries the Sthāyi- bhäva brought to revelation, that is, that stage where it is fully relished is Rasa. This is the view of those according to whom the causes are the ladies etc., the effects the eight Sāttvikabhāvas and the accessaries the gardens etc. The Vyabhichāribhāvas have also been mentioned, for instance, the Glani etc. Others describe Rasa in this way. The Sthāyibhava brought to its culmination by the Vibhāvas, the Anubhavas, the Sattvikabhavas and the Vyabhichāri-

1. A. S. I. 1. 2. Ibid. II. 2. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. IV. p. 12. 5. Ibid. VII. p. 20. 6. Ibid. XXII. pp. 81-83. 7. Ibid. XX. p. 68. 8. A. S. XX. p. 69.

285

bhavas is Rasa. The author accepts in accordance with the latter view nine Rasas ( the Santa added to the orthodox eight ) in the poetic composition.1 The Alankāraśekhara, a book on the poetic figures as its name indicates, accords a wide scope for the consideration of Rasa. Hence the affinities of its author are definitely linked with the Rasa school. It seems quite pertinent here to devote a little space to the discussion of the views of Prabhākarabhatta who advances criticism on the views of the previous writer, Keśava Miśra. Prabhākarabhatta, the author of the Rasa- pradīpa, frankly recognizes the predominance of Rasa as he says that the principal aim of the Kāvya is pleasure born of the knowledge of Rasa ( Rasasamvedanajanyam Sukhameva Mukhyam Prayojanam )2, and one writes or reads the Kāvya for Rasa ( Rasārthameva Kāvyapravrtteḥ).3 The name of the book also shows it. It is rather a survey with criticism of the views of renowned predecessors. The three kinds of the Kävya are recognized.4 The Adbhuta synthesis of Nārāyaņa is criticized.5 The Vyañjanā Vțtti is accepted and those criticizing it are themselves severely criticized.6 The special point worth notice in this work is the criticism of the view of Keśava who advanced that the Vibhävatva, the Anubhāvatva and the Vyabhichāritva are the Jātiviśeșas ( particular essential characteristics ) inherent in particular Chitta Vrttis ( mental functions ) in the opinion of Abhinava whereas they inhere in the Kārana, the Kārya and the

1. A. S. XX. 1. 2. R. P. I. p. 3. 3. Ibid. II. p. 17. 4. Ibid. I. pp. 15-16. 5. Ibid. II. p. 40. 6. Ibid. III.

286

Shahakarin of the worldly Rati according to Bhatta Lollata. And these Jativisesas as such should be aceepted for, as the process ( Prakriyā ) differs here from that recognized in the Vaiśeşika system, the defect, viz. the Sankara ( admixture ) will not arise. To explain in the Vaisesika system the defect, viz. the Sankara (admixture) arises in recognizing the Murtatva (abstract quality in all things having form ) and the Bhūtatva (abstract quality inherent in the elements ) as Jātis. The first inheres in the mind ( Manas ) and the second in the ether ( Akāśa) and both inhere simultaneously in the earth ( Prthvī ). The last is an example of the Sankara if the above two are accepted as Jätis. Hence are these two recognized as Dharmas ( qualities ) only. In case of the Vibhavatva, the Anubhävatva etc. no such thing happens for the Vibhāvatva, the Anubhavatva etc. do not simultaneously inhere in one object as in the above case. The criticism points out that in the opinion of Abhinava, no doubt, Smrtitva, the Anu- bhavatva etc. are many Jātis, yet the question of one being wider in scope than other has not been considered. Same is the case with what Bhatta Lollata holds. Hence in the absence of the admission of one Jati's being wider than other ( Parāparabhāvānupapattau ), the Sankara of these Jātis will surely come in. Then the statement about the difference of process ( Prakriyā) from that advocated in the Vaiśeșika comes up for criticism. Prabhākara wants to know if this difference means either that the Vibhävas etc. having inherent in them the particular Jātis are substances ( Padārthas ) other than the recognized ones, or the non-acceptance of the defect of the Jäti Sankara. In case the first meaning is accepted Prabhākara points out that no proof (Pramāna) for its acceptance is available. In the acceptance of the second meaning where one Jäti is not wider in scope than

287 other the defect, viz. Sankara, will invariably creep in, for no alternative provides itself here. Further, in the opinion of Abhinava, it is not necessary to accept that, as the Vibhāvas etc. are particular Chitta Vrttis and their being of particular nature will have to be admitted, they are substances ( Pada- rthas ) other than the recognized ones, for the above parti- cular Chitta Vrttis will surely come under the Jñāna ( know- ledge ) or the Ichchhā (desire). In the opinion of Bhatta Lollata, however, they have already been recognized among the Kāraņas, the Kāryas and the Sahakārins. Prabhākara then gives his own opinion in the words that the Vibhāvā- ditva is nothing but the cause of the function of the Vibhā- vanā ( Vibhāvanādivyāpāranibandhanameva ) and the Vibhā- vanā is defined as the function bringing about the capability of the shooting forth of sprouts ( of the Sthayibhavas as the Rati etc. ) in the form of Rasa.1 Appaya or Appayya Dīksita accepts three kinds of the Dhvani but pays little attention to the last kind as the poets do not accord much reception to it for it is almost devoid of Rasa.2 He hints at the suggestion of Rasa (Rasadhvani )3 and afterwards gives illustrations wherein the three kinds of suggestion are to be clearly perceived.4 The question, here, is raised as to the process of suggestion. How is it possible to allow scope to suggestion when Rasa is Asamlakşyakramavyangya? The reply to the above query is. that in cases where the realization of Rasa takes place immedia- tely after the cognition of the Vibhāvas etc. the Asamlaksya- krama is to be accepted, but in other cases the Rasādidhvani is Samlakşyakramavyangya. The latter statement is sub-

1. R. P. II. p. 19. 2. A. C. M. p. 4. 3. Ibid. pp. 18, 28, & 29. 4. Ibid. p. 29.

288

stantiated by the words of Abhinava as also by the Dhvanikāra who furnishes instance of the suggestion of the Sañchāri- bhäva. The author in his other work, the Kuvalayānanda, considers Rasa in its other aspects whrein it becomes sub- ordinate and does not play the principal role. The Sthāyi- bhäva as the Rati etc. suggested and revealed by the Vibhāva, the Anubhāva and the Vyabhichāribhāva matures into Rasa. It is a case of the Rasavat Alankāra wherein Rasa becomes subordinate to some other factor. The Bhava is defined either as the Rati suggested in the god, preceptor, disciple etc., or the Vyabhichāribhavas fully suggested. The instance of the Preyo Alankara is one where the Bhava defined above becomes subordinate. There are certain cases where Rasa and the Bhäva defined above are inappropriately and indecently used and are called the Rasābhāsa and the Bhāvābhāsa. The Urjasvat Alankāra deals with the Rasābhāsa and the Bhāvā- bhasa when they become subordinate. When the Bhāvaśānti, an instance furnishing the stage when the Bhāva becomes cooled down, is subordinate, it is a case of the Samāhita Alankāra. The stages which represent the rising of the Bhava (emotion ), the mutual rivalry between two anta- gonistic Bhāvas (emotions) and the rising of many Bhāvas when the succeeding has suppressed the preceding are respectively called the Bhāvodaya, the Bhāvasandhi and the Bhāvaśabalatā. They are all classed as poetic figures by their same respective names.1 All this consideration of Rasa with suitable illustrations clearly shows the author's full acceptance and recognition accorded to Rasa, but as the work was designed to deal with poetic figures Rasa in its principal aspect was hardly to get wide consideration.

1. A. K. N. pp. 169-172.

289 From Appayya Dīkșita there is a logical and psychological transition to Jagannätha who advances his vehement criti- cism against him. The Chitramīmāmsākhandana in refuta- tion of Appayya's Chitramīmāmsā bears witness to it. Jagannātha's originality, critical acumen and masterly and logical exposition of his views deservedly brought to him the title, Panditarāja. The above qualities made him severely criticize the opinions of his predecessors and put them in his own style which is erudite and in involved language. His definition of poetry as 'a word ( or a literary composition ) involving an idea capable of giving pleasure'1 though reminis- cent of older definitions has yet a note of novelty. The ex- planation that follows characterizes the pleasure as striking, disinterested, a fact of internal experience caused by the continued contemplation of something very delightful. And this pleasure is different from its worldly counterpart. As De puts it, it includes 'all the elements of poetry recognised by previous theorists, without specifically naming them.'2 This is clear from the elucidation that follows. Rasa which is universal, impersonal and disinterested pleasure differs from the wordly pleasure derived from objects, as these objects can also be painful. As it is this disinterested pleasure which is involved in the enjoyment of Rasa, and as it is the same disinterested pleasure which is recognized by Jagannätha as the life of poetry, it may be said that Rasa is an essential element of poetry according to him. He finds fault with his predecessors for providing incomplete, erratic and even absurd definitions of poetry, criticizing them on points as the Gunas etc. One-sided definition as Viśva- nätha's is criticized on the basis of narrowness, as two kinds

1. R. G. p. 4. 2. D. S. P. Vol. II. p. 319. 19

290 of the Dhvani have been neglected at the exaggeration of only one, viz. Rasadhvani. This recognition of the Dhvani does not mean that he followed the time-honoured classifica- tion of poetry. Instead of accepting the three kinds he classified it on cogent reasons into four -- a fact which bears testimony to his independent thinking. He considers the Gunas etc. in connection with Rasa. He enumerates the ten Śabda Gunas and the ten Artha Gunas according to Vāmana but recognizes only three, viz. the Mādhurya, the Ojas and the Prasada.1 Panditaraja describes Rasa as follows. The Rati etc. which is located in the form of the mental impression already seated from beforehand, is realized with his self- consciousness, indeed, with his own self-bliss, by the spectator or the reader whose limited apprehension about his own self gets suppressed due to the temporary removal of ignorance serving as sheath over the self-bliss. This removal is effected by a transcendental process which comes into being by the joint operation of the dependent causes ( Ālambanakāraņas ) as Šakuntalā etc., the exciting causes ( Uddīpanakāranas ) as the moonlight etc., the ensuing effects ( Anubhavas ) as the shedding of tears etc. and the accessaries ( Vyabhichāribhāvas ) as the anxiety etc. which, though they are called causes and effects and accessaries in the world, come to be so denominated as their appropriate and beautiful disposition in poetry drives their appeal home to the symapthetic persons along with whose symapthetic imagination they present the heroes and the heroines not as particular individuals but in their universalized forms.2 In elucidation of the above the author quotes just below a line

1. R. G. p. 53. 2. Ibid. pp. 21-22.

291

from Mammata's definition and explains in his own way the word, Vyakti, as the consciousness from over which the cover has been taken off. This uncovered consciousness shines by itself and illuminates the Rati etc. which have got mixed with the Vibhāvas etc. just as the lamp, when its covering has been removed, shines by itself as well as illuminates the objects placed in its vicinity. After having considered such problems as the generation and destruction of Rasa in a metaphorical way the author summarizes the view of Abhinava, Mammata etc. to the effect that Rasa is the Sthāyibhāva as the Rati etc. characterized by conscious- ness from over which the sheath of obstructions has been removed. Herein Chit (consciousness) is used as the Viśeşaņa (adjective ) and the Sthāyibhāva as the Viśeșya (Noun ). This is, no doubt, an explanation according to Panditarāja's affinities with the Vedānta ; it, therefore, brings the theory of Abhinava nearer the tenets of the Vedanta, though the theory of Abhinava has got only a strong analogy with the theory of the realization of the Moksa as pro- pounded in the Vedānta. The Vītavighnā Pratīti was used by Abhinava to indicate the removal of obstacles, as the possession of the audience with personal pain and happiness ( Nijasukhādivivaśībhāva ) by means of music, acting etc., the awakening of the latent impressions and the consequent realization of Rasa. And these two words were understood by Panditarāja in the sense of the Bhagnāvaraņā Chit, con- sciousness of the Atman from over which the screen has been temporarily removed leading to its manifestation. He explained the Sūtra at first in a way which made the con- sciousness adjective but he did not rest satisfied as he wanted his interpretation to be in terms of the Vedānta as far as

292

possible. He, therefore, made the Sthāyibhāva the adjective qualifying the consciousness. When the sympathetic person, spectator or reader, under favourable conditions, as at a dra- matic representation where all possible efforts to make him attuned to the show are attempted to success, begins to meditate repeatedly on the Vibhāvas etc. the obstacles in the way of realizing his own Ātman in its true nature get removed. And the moment the cover is thus laid aside, the blissful Atman is manifested and shows his Sthāyibhāva also evoked along with the evoking factors as the Vibhāvas etc. The analogy of the previously covered but later on uncovered lamp and the previously dark but afterwards illuminated objects near it supports the above statement quite clearly. Rasa, therefore, consists in the enjoyment of the blissful aspect of the Atman qualified by the Rati etc. revealed by it. The bringing back of the screen marks the covering of the Atman and the cessation of its enjoyment, viz. Rasa. The perception of Rasa is a peculiar, immediate and direct one brought about by words ( Sābdī and Aparokşātmikā ) just on a par with the enjoyment of the Atmänanda which is an immediate and direct perception effected by the sentence as Tattvamasi. This, he says, is the real position.1 Panditarāja cites support for his establishing Rasa as the experience of the blissful Atman itself in the Śrutis.2 That it is the view of Panditarāja stands as an undoubted fact. V. A. Rāmaswāmī Śāstrī also gives this view as Paņditarāja's.3 It should, therefore, not be advanced that Panditarāja has given his view under the name of the Navyas, whose view will shortly be considered. In the sequel he explains the transcendental

1. R. G. p. 23. 2. T. Up. II. 7.1 3. J. N. P. p. 95.

293

nature of Rasa, for instance, its Nityatva ( ever existing nature ) and at the same time its Anityatva ( temporary nature), its Svaprakāśatva ( self-illuminatingn ature) and its Itara- bhāsyatva (its nature as being illuminated by others). Jagannātha thus explained the Abhivyakti or revelation of Abhinava as not only the mere awakening of the Sthāyibhāva but also the removal of the cover of the Atman leading to its manifestation in its true nature. The latter process took place first and it was afterwards that the Sthayibhavas were illuminated. Thus Jagannātha differentiated the function of the Abhivyakti from that explained by Abhinava though he quoted him many times in support of his explanation. Bhatta Nāyaka's theory is then considered with criticism of the various views describing the realization of Rasa as a mental cognition, memory etc. As discussed before, the three powers : the Abhidha, the Bhävakatva and the Bhoga- krttva, and their functions are explained. Panditaraja concludes the consideration of his theory with the words that Rasa is the Rati etc. being enjoyed or the enjoyment of the Rati etc. is Rasa. It approaches the Brahmāsvāda ( it is not the Brahmāsvada itself ) as it is mixed with objects.1 The author then considers the view of some scholars under the name, Navyas ( moderns ). The definition of Rasa according to them runs thus. Rasa is the Rati etc., concentrated on Śakuntalā etc. ; it is illuminated by the light of one's self- consciousness and is indescribablein its nature; it comes into existence like a piece of silver when a shell is mistaken for silver due to one's ignorance; Rasa arises when the Ātman of the spectator or the reader has been identified with the artificial Dusyanta due to the defect called the Bhāvanā ( a 1. R. G. pp. 24-25.

294 particuar kind of imagination); this kind of imagination is brought about by reason of the spectator's or the reader's culture after the love of Sakuntalā has been accepted in the character, Dusyanta, by the function of suggestion when the poet or the actor has given expression to the Vibhāvas in poetry or drama.1 In other words, by the description of the Vibhävas etc. in the poetic composition or their repre- sentation by actors in a dramatic piece love between the hero and the heroine is first suggested to the sympathetic person in whom, due to his culture, a defect called the Bhāvanā is generated which makes him think himself one with the hero. This identification is, no doubt, responsible for the production of love ( existing between the hero and the heroine ) in him but he cannot predicate of its being real or otherwise ( Anirvachaniya ). Rasa is this love and the sympathetic person's thrill of pleasure is its enjoyment. The importance of the defect mentioned above which has to be admitted,2 is regarded as a key opening all previous locked doors. It is considered to offer solution to every inexplica- ble position. The old theorists' objection to the identifica- tion of the spectator or the reader with the hero as Dusyanta, Rama etc. on the basis of the former's limitations now melts away as the defect can effectively bring it about and make Śakuntalā or Sītā his Vibhāva.3 The objectors then advance another attack. Because the spectator has identified himself with the hero, the emotion of love which is indefin- able is born in him which led to his enjoyment of Rasa. Similarly the emotion of sorrow in the hero must cause indefinable sorrow in the spectator. The reply to the above 1. R. G. p. 25. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. p. 25.

295

that only the real sorrow and not the indefinable sorrow gives rise to sorrow in the spectator is counteracted on the ground that the indefinable love cannot give pleasure. In support a fact from the real life is quoted. An indefinable serpent found to exist in the rope due to ignorance is seen to cause real fear, hence the indefinable sorrow must cause real sorrow or the indefinable love must not give pleasure. The above objection is answered on the consideration of the difference that exists between the experience in actual life and that in literature. Those very things which appear disgusting and obnoxious in real life become delightful. The things in literature become pleasing because of the peculiar power in poetry which cancels pain and produces pleasure. The instance of the devotees of Lord Krsna shedding tears at the description of the incidents of His life or even at hearing them is a case where only pure pleasure is experienced. If from literaty works having the Karuna Rasa as the principal sentiment pleasure is experienced as it ensues from those wherein the Srngāra Rasa predominates, it must be admitted that some power has robbed the sorrow of its sting and has made it an object of aesthetic enjoyment, just as the peculiar function of poetry to give pleasure is accepted. But in the case where the sorrow is as well established as the pleasure no such position as the above will have to be recognized. One may then object to the favourable attitude of the poet and the audience in com- posing and hearing it. It may, however, be answered that the poet and the audience do so because of the presence of pain in a lesser degree whereas that of pleasure in a much greater degree. Thus in actual life no identification with the hero etc. can take place, hence the spectator or the reader cannot enjoy Rasa. It is only in literature that Rasa is thus

296

enjoyed even from indescribable sorrow, therefore, even in dreams the pain of identifying with a hero in misery is never either removed or converted into pleasure.1 In the light of the above explanation of the whole theory Bharata's Rasasūtra can be interpreted to mean that the Vibhāvas etc. represented in a poetic composition suggest to the spectator or the reader the mental conditions of the hero etc. By contemplation over the Vibhavas etc. the defect ( imagination ) arisen in him renders him able to identify himself with the hero resulting in the generation of indefin- able love etc. which is Rasa. The words, Samyoga, Rasa and Nispatti, respectively mean the defect (Bhāvanāviśeșa ), indefinable mental conditions like love etc. ( Anirvachanīya Rati ) and accomplisment or generation of these indefinable mental conditions. The view is obviously open to criticism. It takes no notice of the latent impressions which are hard facts to ignore. The creation of the defect is postulated which makes the audience identify with the hero etc. Attribu- tion of power cancelling pain and producing pleasure is needless in the face of the Vyañjana Vrtti which, even though accepted, has been depicted as circumscribed in its function. The Vyañjana Vrtti is by itself sufficient to fulfil this function; there is no reason why it should be ignored and a new power postulated. The position is, no doubt, inexplicable. The opinion of some persons that this is Panditarāja's view is evidently groundless. That a scholar approaching Pandita- rāja's calibre, least of all the great Pandita himself, would have never entertained such an objectionable view, not to say of advancing it. Why should he postulate the creation of the defect in his view when he stood miles away from

1. R. G. p. 26.

297

defects pointing at others' ? The acceptance of the Sthāyi- bhāvas as the Vāsanās (latent impressions ) also goes against it.1 Moreover, Panditarāja gives the view of Appayya Dīkşita in the Lakșanā section under the name, the Navyas,2 which confirms the fact that it was not Panditaraja's view. It is a vain fancy. to ally him with Appayya Dīksita on whom he runs amuck. Panditarāja then gives the view of some other scholars. In it no recognition is accorded to the power of suggestion and to the indescribable emotion as propounded in the previous view. It is only the defect explained in the previous view that fulfils the whole function. Due to it the spectator or the reader feels perfect identity with Dusyanta in his condition of love with Sakuntala. This identification with Duşyanta in love with Sakuntalā is a peculiar mental cognition born of the contemplation of the Vibhāvas etc. in the poetic composition and has been called Rasa. Though this knowledge is a superimposition, yet identification gives the sympathetic person, the spectator or the reader, a thrill of pleasure. In this superimposition consists the transcen- dental nature of Rasa. The mental cognition (Bodha) may take any of the three forms due to the difference in identifica- tion. The spectator may feel himself thus : Dusyantoham Śakuntalāvişayakaratimān, that is, I am Dusyanta having love for Śakuntalā; or Aham Šakuntalāvişayakaratimad Dusyantah, that is, I am Dusyanta who has love for Śakun- talā; or Aham Duşyantaḥ Śakuntalāvișayakaratimānścha, that is, I am Duşyanta and have love for Śakuntalā. It is to be noted here that difference lies in connection with the

1. R. G. p. 30. 2. Ibid. p. 149. (Please see this view in its original in the Chitrami- māņsā, K. M. 38).

298

understanding ( Sabdabodha), where some words are used as Viśeşyas ( nouns) and others as Viśeșaņas (adjectives) or as Uddeśyas (subjects) and Vidheyas (predicates ). These forms are, however, kinds of knlowledge ( Jñānaprakāratā) of the one and the same Visaya (object ). In dream and in real life such cognition does not arise from the poetic com- position, hence no thrill of pleasure can be experienced from it. It does not exist in reality, it is true ; but it is a peculiar mental cognition in the poetic compositions and has nothing to do with the actual and the real world wherein the existence of things has to be proved.1 In the absence of the function of the suggestion love between Dusyanta and Śakuntalā is first inferred by the spectator from the way in which the stage Dusyanta and the stage Sakuntalā act on the boards. Bharata's Sūtra, therefore, according to this view would mean that after the apprehension of the Vibhāvas etc. a peculiar mental cognition indentifying him with the hero in love etc. with the heroine is produced in the spectator or the reader. This mental cognition is Rasa. The terms, Samyoga, Rasa and Nispatti, thus, respectively mean the apprehension of the Vibhāvas etc., the peculiar mental cogni- tion and its generation. This view when scrutinized closely is vitiated with some defects. The non-acceptance of the Vyañjanā Vrtti and the importation of the Anumāna to do its work mark a position which is clearly open to objection. All the defects pointed out before in connection with the Inference theory will automatically come in here ; moreover, the acceptance of the defect as mentioned above is also objectionable as already shown. It would make Rasa an erroneous experience. The next view receiving considera-

1. R. G. p. 27.

299

tion is that of Bhatta Lollata. Rasa as the Rati etc. primarily residing in Dusyanta etc. is experienced or realized when it has been superimposed on the actor who is expert in demonstrating by representation the beautiful Vibhāvas and imitates Dusyanta etc. In this view the realization that this is Dusyanta having love for Sakuntalā is of the worldly nature as regards the knowledge of Dusyanta in actor but is transcendental with regard to the superimposition of the love of Sakuntalā. The terms, Samyoga, Rasa and Nispatti stand for relation ( Sambandha ), love etc. (the Rati etc. ) and generation ( Utpatti ) respectively. Srī Śankuka's view is next considered. The Rati in the original character as Dusyanta is, by force of inference through the Vibhāvas which though artificial are regarded as real and natural, taken to be existent in the actor who is the Paksa ( the minor term ) on his being accepted as Dusyanta. This inferred Rati becomes Rasa. The terms, Samyoga, Rasa and Nispatti, mean the power of inference, the Rati etc. and the inferential knowledge ( of the Rati in the actor, the Paksa ). The two views just considered above hardly need any criticism as they have been thoroughly considered before. The succee- ding view says that the group cognition of the Vibhāvas, the Anubhāvas and the Vyabhichāribhāvas is Rasa. Here the words, Samyoga and Rasanispatti, respectively mean the group ( Samudäya ) and the use of the word Rasa ( Rasapada- vyavahāra ). This view has already engaged the attention and has received due criticism. There is another view which says that out of the three, viz. the Vibhava, the Anubhāva and the Vyabhichāribhāva, that which is striking is Rasa. Herein the word Samyoga is interpreted as Samyak Yoga where Yoga means Chamatkāra (strikingness ). That this marks a very elementary stage of the realization of Rasa

300

is quite clear. There are, however, some other views which look even more elementary. Three of them have been mentioned which recognize (i) the Vibhāva only when it has constantly been contemplated upon, or (ii) the Anu- bhäva only when it has been repeatedly meditated upon or (iii) the Vyabhichāribhava only which has been the object of ceaseless concentration, as Rasa. Panditarāja, however, sounds a note of warning here. He says that these three views are opposed to the Rasasutra of Bharata wherein the three factors, the Vibhäva, the Anubhāva and the Vya- bhichāribhava have been mentioned together. The naming of only one may result in confusion as it may be common to other Rasas also. He vindicates the above statement on the ground that if in some cases, where all the three factors have been found to suggest some Rasa, only one due to its extraordinary nature suggests Rasa, the remaining two have to be understood by implication. Panditarāja then launches a discussion of the Santa Rasa. By convincing arguments he establishes it as one of the dramatic Rasas. Even those, he says, who do not accept it in dramas, will have to admit it in other kinds of poetic compositions ; thus the Śānta Rasa will have to be accepted by them.1 Panditarāja, as shown above, gives different views on Rasa beginning from the most elementary right up to the most learned as Abhinava's which rests on the pivots of the Vāsanās ( dormant impre- ssions ) in mankind. Some of these views have, no doubt, been only mentioned by Abhinava in his Lochana2, as there they receive a mere summary disposal at his hands. In the Rasagangädhara, however, they are given a detailed treat- ment. The views of the Navyas, Bhatta Nayaka and

1. R. G. pp. 29-30. 2. D. L. II. p. 186. (Com.)

301

Abhinava have been discussed in minute details ; the last has, however, been interpreted in his own way and thus brought much nearer the Vedantic view of the realization of Brahman by the learned and profound scholar as he equated Rasasvada with Brahmasvada on the support of the statement in the Śrutis. After Panditarāja Jagannātha the period of originality is over and the beginning of com- pilation commences. The later authors, therefore, are reckoned as minor ones even by scholars as De. A brief survey of only a very few of them devoting to each a limited space will not be out of place. Śrī Krşna Kavi's work, the Mandāramarandachampū is a treatise dealing with various topics on poetics and drama- turgy though the word, Champū, denotes that it ought to be a poetic composition and not a work treating of defini- tion etc. The book is rather a compilation of items from many sources as the N. S., the D. R. etc. and has eleven chapters describing the different metres, the heroes, the figures of speech etc. In the seventh chapter the author gives detail on drama. He accepts the Nātya as Rasāśraya1 and classifies drama on the basis of the Natya. The eighth chapter deals with the heroes, the heroines, their qualities and other characters. It is in the ninth chapter that the author discusses Rasa. The Bhava has been defined as a change appropriate to Rasa ( Rasānukūlavikrtir Bhāvaḥ ). The Bhäva is divided into two kinds : internal and bodily. The former is again of two kinds : the Sthāyibhavas and the Vyabhicharibhavas.2 The author obviously follows here Bhanudatta in this classification. He says that Rasa is of two kinds : the Alaukika and the Laukika. The Alaukika 1. M. M. C. VII. p. 59. 2. Ibid. IX. p. 91.

302

is born simply of the contact of the consciousness of the Ātman whereas the Laukika is born when the Ātman comes in contact with outward objects. Under each he accepts the eight orthodox Rasas.1 The author divides the bodily changes into the Sāttvikabhāvas and the Anubhāvas.2 He says that it is the Sthāyibhāva which when awakened by the Vibhāvas etc. becomes Rasa. He also gives the opinions of others on Rasa. There are those who say that Rasa is relished where the mind is refeshed through the Vibhāvas etc. According to others Rasa is the Sthāyivāsanā when awakened. The author then gives the ninth Rasa, the Santa and the tenth, the Vātsalya.3 He also gives the Māyā Rasa on the basis of the Pravrtti as the Santa which is advocated on that of the Nivrtti.4 All this is obviously in the following of the Rasataranginī. He then gives the opinion of king Bhoja on Rasa. The Sruti propounds only one Rasa as it says, "Verily it is Rasa". This one Rasa is the Śrngāra which is of four kinds : the Dharma, the Artha, the Kāma and the Moksa.5 In the tenth chapter he recognizes the Rasadhvani as the Asamslaksyakramavyangya.6 In the last chapter, that is, the eleventh the Gunas are accepted as the essential qualities of Rasa.7 The defects of Rasa are also given with reconciliation where possible.8 The definition of the Kävya is also given which contains all the elements to which different writers attach importance, great or small.9 This work, thus, is more a handy compendium of the princi-

1. M. M. C. IX. p. 100. 2. Ibid. IX. p. 97. 3. Ibid. IX. p. 100. 4. Ibid. IX. p. 106. 5. Ibid. IX. p. 107. 6. Ibid. X. p. 157. 7. Ibid. XI. p. 175. 8. Ibid. XI. p. 183. 9. Ibid. X. p. 186.

303 ples on poetics and dramaturgy. Rasa, described cursorily, does not seem to be given less importance in any way. The author, however, has no original theory of his own to propound. Chirañjīva Bhațțāchārya, the author of the Kāvyavilāsa which is a handy treatise of two chapters dealing in clear and easy style with Rasas and the Alankāras, gives different definitions of poetry furnished by previous scholars. He begins with Mammata's. He tries to explain it. Then he gives Śaradāgama's view which he explains on a small scale. Lastly he tackles the view of the moderns ( Atinavīnas as he calls them ). In explanation of it he says that poetry is that composition which has some peculiar strikingness. The words used in explanation make one think as if the author's leaning is towards this last view, though the author has not committed himself expressly.1 In this implied accep- tance, it may seem that the author did not give any con- sideration to Rasa and consequently attached no importance to it. That Rasa did weigh well with the author, however, becomes clear when its subsequent detailed description, which covers the rest of the chapter, comes in view. Just in the beginning of this description the author says that he is tackling Rasas etc. as they have been predicated to con- stitute the form of the Kāvya ( Atha Pūrvam Kāvyasvarūpa- sampādakatayoktā Rasādayaḥ Nirūpyante ).2 It confirms that the author did attach a great importance to Rasa. He recognizes nine Rasas (the Śānta added to the orthodox eight ) and gives their Sthāyibhāvas. He says that the Sthāyibhāva nourished by the Vibhāvas etc. turns into

1. C. K. V. p . 2-3. 2. Ibid. p. 3.

304

Rasa.1 After that he takes up all one by one giving their Vibhāvas etc. and illustrations of his own composition. He divides the Śrngara Rasa into two kinds : the Sambhoga (love in union ) and the Vipralambha ( love in separation ) which he further divides into the Bhāviviyoga (impending separation ) and Viyoga ( separation ).2 After the description of all Rasas he tackles the Māya Rasa as given by Bhānu- datta, whom, however, he does not mention by name. He severely criticizes it on two grounds. Firstly, the Māyā is beginningless hence unborn, therefore there cannot be any such Rasa as the Maya Rasa because all Rasas are pro- duced (Janyāḥ ) ; secondly, the false knowledge ( Mithyāj ñāna ) is said to be its cause which is against the injunction of the Śastras. In reality in the opinions of the Ālankārikas Rasa is eternal ( Nitya) and bliss ( Anandarūpa), hence it is the essential form of the Brahman ( Brahmarūpa ) and as such the Māya which is base (Tuchchhā), destructible ( Vināśa- śālinī) and distinct from the Brahman (Brahmabhinnā) cannot be Rasa.3 The author expresses his concurrence with the ancient writers in the recognition of nine Rasas. He then gives the distinction of the Vipralambha Śrngāra and the Karuna after which he, in agreement with some scholars, defines the Bhäva which includes love ( the Rati) towards gods etc.4 The author here makes no mention of the inclusion of the suggested Vyabhichāribhāva. He proposes to discuss some more peculiarities of Rasas in the end of the work.5 This discussion, however, is not to be met with in the present edition, but the proposal shows that

1. C. K. V. p. 4. 2. Ibid. p. 5. 3. Ibid. p. 10. 4. Ibid. p. 11. 5. Ibid. p. 12.

305 the author attached a great importance to Rasa and was not satisfied with so much description of it. Srī Viśveśvara Pandeya, the author of the Rasachandrikā, is one of the writers whose work deserves consideration. He accepts the Dhvani1 and Rasa as the Asamlaksyakrama- vyangya. He then discusses the views of Bhatta Lollata, Śrī Śankuka, Bhatta Nāyaka and Abhinavagupta. He interprets the last one in terms of the Vedānta philosophy as far as possible, attributing the removal of the cover from over the Atman to the Sahrdayatva (the qualities of the sympathetic spectator or the reader) and thus defining Rasa as the consciousness delimited by the Rati etc. manifested as all bliss due to the removal of the screen of ignorance2. The cogent arguments advanced for the acceptance of the Santa as the ninth Rasa in dramaturgy go to the credit of the author who stands against most of his strong predecessors3 in the above two positions, viz. attempt of making success- fully a Vedantic approach to Rasa and admission of the Śanta as one of the dramatic Rasas. He walks in the foot- steps of Jagannātha, which his language and arguments amply corroborate. The discussion of the Māya Rasa is obviously in the following of Bhānudatta who pays con- sideration to it in his Rasatarangiņī, butViśvesvara criticizes and refutes it. The author also considers the Rasābhāsa and the Bhavabhasa.4 The work is rather a compilation than any original contribution. The author, however, attached much importance to Rasa as seen above. Śrīmadachyutarāya's work, the Sāhityasāra, is a com- pendium which well recognizes Rasa as one of the essentials

1. V. R. C. p. 43. 2. Ibid. p. 47. 3. Ibid. p. 67-68. 4. Ibid. p. 50. 20

306

of poetry.1 He divides poetry into two kinds of which one is saturated with Rasa and is called Sarasa.2 He also recognizes the Dhvani.3 The Dhvani is divided into three kinds4: the Vastu, the Alankara and Rasa of which the last is the Asamlakşyakramavyangya. The author then defines Rasa on the lines of Panditarāja Jagannātha. Rasa is nothing but the Sthāyibhāva when the latter is made perceptible by the consciousness from over which the darkness ( of ignorance ) has been removed by the Vibhāvas. Or Rasa is the consciousness itself delimited by the Sthāyibhāva revealed or suggested by the joint operation of the Vibhāva etc.5 In the com. the author recognizes the Sthāyibhāva as seated in the mind in the form of the Vasana6 or the latent impression. Out of the two definitions of Rasa given above the author decides the second as the better one as it is in accordance with the Srutis.7 He accepts the nine Rasa8 ( the Santa added to the list ) and counts them as the Sāttvika, the Rajasa and the Tamasa thus analysing the Santa, the Śrngāra, the Karuņa, the Hāsya, the Adbhuta, the Bhayānaka, the Vira, the Bibhatsa and the Raudra as the Sāttvika Sātt- vika, Sāttvika Rājasa, Sāttvika Tāmasa, Rājasa Sāttvika, Rājasa Rājasa, Rājasa Tāmasa, Tāmasa Sāttvika, Tāmasa Rajasa and Tāmasa Tāmasa respectively. He divides the Vīra Rasa into twelve kinds9 to which he adds more.10 These Rasas, the author further divides, into two main classifica- tions, the Laukika and the Alaukika ; the latter has three kinds : (i) the Svāpnas (pertaining to dreams ), (ii) the Māno-

1. A. S. S. I. 20. 2. Ibid. I. 28. 3. Ibid. I. 29. 4. Ibid. IV. 4. 5. Ibid. W. 14. 6. Ibid. IV. p. 87. 7. Ibid. IV. 15. (with com.). 8. Ibid. VI. 47 (with com.). 9. Ibid. IV. 99. 10. Ibid. IV. 112.

307

rathas (pertaining to desire) and (iii) the Aupanāyikas (pertaining to heroes etc. ), the last one is Rasa depicted in the representation.1 This is reminiscent of Bhānudatta's classification of Rasa in his Rasataranginī as shown before. The author describes the inclusion of the Bhakti Rasa into the Śānta Rasa.2 The Rasābhāsa, the Bhāvābhāsa, the Bhāva- śānti, the Bhāvodaya, the Bhāvasandhi, the Bhāvaśabalatā as also the Rasavat, the Preyas, the Urjasvin, the Samahita, the defects of Rasa, the contradiction that exists between one Rasa and another etc. have received due consideration. One chapter called the Rambhäratnam has been fully devoted to the description of the heroines, their qualities, kinds etc. whereas the succeeding chapter dilates on the heroes whom he divides into three kinds only ruling out the Dhīroddhata type from the recognized list. As is obvious from the above description the work is a compendium summing up the views from different sources. The author, therefore, has little original to say. The attitude towards Rasa is quite favourable as enough space has been devoted to its con- sideration. This closes the consideration of Rasa in its development as no further stage either in its conception or its growth is to be marked. In the preceding pages Rasa in its concep- tion and treatment at the hands of the different writers has been examined in chronological order as far as possible. A few of these writers stand apart as original thinkers putting forward novel theories about Rasa, some specious while others marked with depth, sound and thoroughly convin- cing. Other writers present their own theories, modifying the original ones in the light of their personal conceptions.

1. A. S. S. IV. 130-131. 2. Ibid. IV. 136.

308

There are still others who merely copy and rearrange their predecessors' views and thus are more or less mere com- pilers. Out of these some have even tried to reconcile the opposing theories. Among these different categories of writers Bharata, Ānanda, Abhinava, Mammata, Viśvanātha and Jagannatha stand out head and shoulder above their co-workers -- predecessors, contemporaries or successors -- in the one and the same field by virtue of their mental equip- ments and contributions. In the history of the theory of Rasa the formative period ends with Anandavardhana (and his commentator, Abhinavagupta ), the critical period with Paņditarāja Jagannātha. As the above consideration of Rasa does not exhaust its whole scope it is but meet and proper that further atten- tion should be devoted to it with regard to its other aspects as its form, its classification etc. These aspects of Rasa will be considered next.