·※※
तमसो माज्योतिर्गमय
X SANTINIKETAN
VISWA BHARATI
LIBRARY
認
※※※※
810.7
S15
50869

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·Pesis approved for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
'University of Madras.
Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit
OR
Tilae Theories of Rasa and Dhvani
BY
A. SANKARAN, MA, PhD,
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit, Presidency College, Madras
(Sometime Research Student of the Madras University)
PRATAMI
PUBLISHED BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS.
Price]
1929,
(Rs. 1-12-0

·PRINTED AT
THE MADRAS LAW JOURNAL PRESS,
MYLAPORE, MADRAS.

·PREFACE. The following pages are inainly the result of my work as a research siydent at the University of Madras. As an Honours student met the Presidency College, i learnt the fundamentals of literáry criticisinin Sanskrit and also its extent and scope from the regular lectures of Prof. S. Kuppuswami Sastri and a special course of University lectures delivered by himn in the year 1919 on the "Methods and materials of literary criticism in Sanskrit”. When I was awarded a research studentship in September 1921, I settled in consultation with niy Professor as the subject of my investigations "The theories of Rasa and Dhvani”, the two inost important principles of literary criticism. Except for some articles in the wellknown journals and introductions to some works there was not at the time any systematic attempt at fixing the chronology of the different writers, tracing the development of these theories through the various stages of growth, elucidating them and estimating their value in the appraisement of literature. Further the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, had then recently acquired some highly valuable manuscripts on the subject like the Abhinavabhārati, Sțngāraprakāśa, and the Vakrūktijivita. My sincere desire has been to supply this want after a study of all the important material available in print and manuscript. I accordingly worked under the advice of Prof. S, Kuppuswami Sastri at this subject, and I have examined most of the printed works in literark criticism and literature and in addition four big manuscripts - viz., the Abhinavabhārati, Vakroktijivita, Srngāraprakāśa and Bhāvaprakāśa-with particular reference to the chronology of the writers on criticism, the development of the theories of Rasa and Dhvani, the attitude of poets towards them, their analysis, exposition and worth in the evaluation of literature. I have utilised the contributions on this subject made in the journals and introductions to some editions bf works. When I had just completed my regular course of investigation and begun to give them a shape, there appeared the field two works on the History of Sanskrit Poetics by ·iv PREFACE Dr. S. K. De and Prof, P. V. Kane,-see the latter's introduction to the Sahityadarpaņa-and I have taken this opportunity of reviewing some of the opinions expressed by them. I hope that in spite of these two publications my labour has not resulted in unnecessary duplication. The following pages contain, in addition to a chronology, an account of the development of the two theories of Rasa and Dhvani, after a study of three rare manuscripts, the Abhinavabhārati, Vakrõktijivita and the Sțngāraprakisa, and also after the examination of the writings of poets. I have" ed as far as possible not to swell the number of pages unnecessarily by the repetition of arguments and facts already put forward. I would invite the attention of my reader to the following topics in this work. 1. The development of the meaning of Rasa' in the Vēdic period. 2. The early beginnings of its conception in Vālmiki, 3. Bharata's date; his successors and commentators mentioned in the Abhinavabhārati. 4. The relative chronology of Bhāmaha and Dandin. 5. The date of composition of the Alankära section of the Agnipurāna and the theory of Rasa expounded therein. 6. Ānandavardhana is the author of the Dhvanikarikās. 7. The origin, development and fundamentals of the conception of Dhvani'. 8. Abhinavagupta and his Abhinavabhārati. The theories of Rasa considered and held therein. 9. The conception of Vakrokti and its relation to the theories of Rasa and Dhvani. 10. Mahimabhațța's tus ception of Kāvyānumiti and his attitude towards these théuries. 11. Bhõja's Śộngāraprakāśa and his peculiar theory of Rasa. 12. The development of the conceptions of Rasa and Dhvani in general. I have indicated the authorities on which I rely for m conclusions mostly in the body of the text itself within bracke and I have cited most of the original texts as foot-notes. A gen list of authorities cited is also furnished herewith. to be pardoned for quoting the original texts in Devan I ·PREFACE characters and not the scientific transliteration in English, but I hope that in this matter, as an Indian, I have not been more conservative than the philologist who uses Greek characters in citing Greek forms. I take this opportunity of offering my heartfelt thanks to the Syndicate of the University of Madras for giving me an opportunity and incentive for the conduct of Sanskrit research by the award of a studentship, to my Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar for his kind advice and encouragement and to the authorities of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library and the Principal, Presidency Cullege, Madras for giving me special facilities for the use of their libraries. Duted 911, Feb, '25.

·No text on this page.

·POSTSCRIPT. Although the main body of this work was submitted as thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, yet at the desire of the Syndicate of the University and in accordance with the special instructions of Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastri, consider. able revision has been made in the work, especially in the chapters on Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. My thanks are due to the Syndicate for having permitted the publication of this work in its revised form. It is a source of intense pleasure to me to express on this occasion my deep sense of gratitude to my revered teacher, Mahāmahopādhyāya Vidyāvācaspati S. Kuppuswami Sastriar, to whom I owe my initiation and training in higher Sanskrit Studies; to whose invaluable advice and help this work owes whatever nerit it might possess, and but for whose interest and encouragement iny enthusiasm towards the completion of this work and the progress of my researches could hardly have reached this small measure of success. For all that I owe to him, I feel I cannot do better than offering to him this my first attempt as a humble tribute and token of gratitude and affection of one of his most humble and devoted disciples. आनृत्यन्तीव वाणी निजपदमतुलं प्राप्य येषां मुखाब्जे । तेषां वाचस्पतीनां मधुमधुरवचोनिझराम्बु प्रपाय्य । ग्रन्थग्रन्थीन्विमोच्य व्यथितमपि मन कुर्वतां मे प्रसन्न स्वाचार्याणां रसोऽयं ध्वनिरपि पदयाह शङ्करेण ॥ 15th December, 1928.

·No text on this page.

·AUTHORITIES CONSULTED AND CITED. Abhidhāmātřkāvstti of Mukula. Agninyırāņa, Alankāra Section. Alaukārāsarvasva. Ruyyaka. Amarušataka. Anargharāghava, Nirnayasāgar Edo. Aristotle's Poetirs and Rhetoric. Asvaghosa's Works. Atharva Veda. Aucityavicāracarcā of Kşemendra. Bālarāmāyana. Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaikāra printed in K. P. Trivedi's Edn. of the Pratäparudriya. Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol., 1917. Bhāratamañjari of Kşemendra. Bharata's Nāțyaśāstra. Bhartphari's Vākyapadiya. Bhāsa's Plays published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. Bhattikāvya. Bhavabhūti's Plays. Bșhadāraṇyaka Upanişad. Bệhatkathāmañjari of Kșemendra, Chándogya Upanişad, Croce. Aesthetics. Daņdin. Kāvyādarśa with the two commentaries published in Prof. Rangacharya's Edn., Madras." Daśāvatāracarita of Kşemendra, De, S. K. Sanskrit Poetics, 2 Vols. Dhvanyāloka. Ēkāvali of Vidyadhara, Bombay Sanskrit Series. Gaudavaho of Vākpatirāja. Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Report of the working of the Peripatetic party of 1916-19. Griffith, Translation of the Rgveda. Haravijaya of Ratnākara. Harşacarita. S-B ·X AUTHORITIES CONSULTED AND CITED Indian Antiquary. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London. Jānakiharara o Kumăradāsa. Kadambari. Kalidāsa’s Works kane, P. V. Introduction to Sāhityadarpana, 1923. Kathopanişad. Kavikanthābharana. Kävyālankāra of Rudrața. Kävyā laukārāsāra of Udbhata. Kavyālaukārasūtravștti of Vamana. Kāvyamimānsă of Rajasekhara, Gaekwad Oriental Series. Kävyānušāsana. Hemacandra. Kavyaprakāśa, Bombay Sanskrit Series. Keith, A. B. Professor (1) Sanskrit Drama; (2) Classical Sanskrit Literature, Kirātārjuniya. Locana. Part IV, Edited by Dr. De. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature. Mahābhārata. Mahābhāsya. Maitri Upanişad. Mrcchakatika. Mudrārākṣasa. Nāgānanda. Navasāhasänkacarita of Padmagupta. Nyasa of Jinendrabuddhi. Rajshahi, 1915 Nyāyabindu of Dharınakirti. Nyāyamañjari of Jayantabliaţta, Vijayanagaram Sanskrit Series. Nyayasūtras of Gauder. Nyāyavārtika of Uddyōtakara, Chowkamba Edn., Benares. Nyāyavārtikatātparyatikā of Vacaspati Miśra, Vijayanagaram Sanskrit Series. Padatāditaka of Syainilaka, Madras, :: Pāņini's Sūtras. Pratāparudriya edited, by.K.' P. Trivedi with the Com. mentary of Kumārasvāmin, Praśnopanişad. Pratīhārendurāja's Vrtti on K. L. S.

·AUTHORITIES CONSUTED AND CITED xi Priyadarśikā, Sri Vāņi Vilas Edn., Srirangam. Rāmāyaṇa of Valmiki. Rajatarangini of Kalhana with the translation of Stein. Rapson, E. J. Professor. Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1. Rasagangādhara. Nirnayasagar Edn. Ratnāvali. Rgveda. Max Muller's Edn. Sāhityadarpaņa. Samayamātěkā. Sarasvatikanthabharana. Setubandha. Siśupālavadha of Māgha. Smith, V. A. Early History of India. Srikanthacarita of Mankbaka. Sțngāratilaka of Rudrabhatta. Suvșttatilaka of Kşemendra. Taittarīya Upanişad. Tantravārtika or kunărila. Udayanācārya's Kusumāñjali. Vāsavadattā of Subandhu. Sri Väņi Vilas Edn. Vakroktijivita, Chapters I & II, Calcutta Oriental Series. Vēnisanihāra. Viddhasālabhanjikā. Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. Whitney, Translation of the Atharva Veda, Harvard Oriental Series, Zeitschrilt der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. Manuscripts. Abhinavabhārati, a commentary on the Nățyaśāstra, Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras. Sungāraprakāśa of Bhoja. Do, (lo, Vakroktijivita, Chapters III & IV do.

·ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. " " read adapted तनिमानमानु add survey. read समानadd Vamana, IV-3-8. 53, " Page 2, line 30, for, adopted 47, 25, तनिमानामनु 50, 5, after general 12, for सामान- 62, 6, after मुहूर्तात् 13. मयूखैः , 25, निश्वसितम् 67, , 24, उदाहृताः 37, अवधार्यते 5, for, व्यञ्जाथ 16, after भिद्यते प्रकाशते . " " " " " " 68, " 70, 29, " " Vakya-p. 1-103. 1-84 read व्यञ्जकार्थ add Vakya-p. 1-78 Ramayana III-16, p 62. Dhv., p. 62. Kum. VI-84. p. 132-3. Kum. III-67. Dhv., p. 25. Dhv., 71, " 26 72, 15 . 73, 18 Dhv. 20 " 74, 75, कमलाई पार्वती प्रियः विलोचनानि वेषस्थितिः उत्कूजितम् स्मृताः दरिअसीहेण 34 " 76, 12 " " 33 " 77, 13 " 80, 21 वयम् " 81, 14 after कृती 34 for -स्याप्यन्तको- 34 after अहम Dhv., p. 26. Dhv., p. 16. p. 86, Amaru.81. add S. Act I, Dhv. p. 89. read -स्यान्तको- add Veni. Act 111. Dhv., reau चित्तवृत्त्य महता 82, " " 84, " " , p. 176. 87, " 93, , 104, " 7 कलाम् 22 for चित्रवृत्त्य last महत 38 after सौहृदानि 3 for अन्तरायशुन्य 18 after प्रलीयते . " 111, add S. Act V. read. अन्तरायशून्य add Abh. bh., Chap. IV read Tech कुधा(?) 116, 122, " 140, " 122, 23 for शब्दा 12 क्षुधा " " ·LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. Abh. bh. Agn. po . ... A. R. Bhāmaha Brhat. m. Bhārata, m. Brh-up. Chāndogyop. Dhy. D. R. Har.c. H. V. I. A. J. R. A. S. Kād. Kathop. K. D. K. L. S. K. M. Ku. M. Mah. Mal. ... Abhinavabhārati. Agnipurāna, Alaikära Section, Anargharāghava of Murári. Kāvyālaňkāra of Bhama ha. Bșhatkathāmañjari of Köşemendra. Bhāratamañjari of kşemendra. Bșhadāraṇyaka Upanişad. Chándogya Upanişad. Dhvanyaloka. Dasarūpaka. Harsacaritā. Haravijaya of Ratnākara. Indian Antiquary. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Londor Kadambari. Katha Upanişad. Kävyādarśa. Kāvyālaňkārasāra of Udbhața. Kāvyamimārsā. Kumārasambhava. Mālavikāgnimitra. Mahavira carita, Malatimadhava. Maitri Upanişa:... Mēghasandesa. • Mimānisāsūtra. Nyāyamañjarī of Jayanta Bhatta. Nāțyaśāstra, Nyāya Vārtika of Uddyotakara, Praśna Upanișad. Priyadarsikā, of Sri Harsa. Pratihāren durāja's Vștti on K. I S. Raghuvamśa. Rājatarangini of Kalhana. Ratnávali. .. ... Maitri, up. ... ... Mēgha. M.S. N. M. N. S. N. V. Praśnop. Priyad. Prati. R, Rājatarang Rat. ... ...

·xiy LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Rgv. Rudrata. S. S. B. Śiśu. Skt. Śrng-p. S.T. Tat. T. Rgveda. Kavyālankāra of Rudrata. Sakuntala. Setubandha. Śisupälavadha of Mägha. Sanskrit. Śrngāraprakāśa of King Bhoja. Śộngāratilaka of Rudrabhatta. Nyāyavārtikatātparyatikā of Vācaspatimiśra. Uttararāınacarita. Vikramorvasiya. Vakrõktijivita of kuntaka. Väkyapadiya of Bhartphari. Kävyālaúkārasūtra and Vrtti oi Vamana. Väsavadaitā of Subandhu. l'yaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschalt. Uttara-r. V. Vakrökti-j. Väkya-p. Vâ:nana. V. D. Vyakti. 2 D), M. G.

·1 1 : CONTENTS. Page INTRODUCTION : -The meaning and scope of literary criticism the rationale for the title of the work BOOK 1. History of the theory of Rusa 11p lo cinandavarithana. Chapter. J. Vedic Period-The History of the meaning of Rast-the choice of this term by later writers ul. Valmiki : the first beginnings of the conception of Risal 6 Ill. Bharata : the probable date of his work. Its character-commentaries. His exposition of the theory of Risa 9 IV. From Bhimabit to Ānandavardhani 18 Section 1. General tendencies 18 2. Bhämaha. His date-His relation with Dandin--His attitude towards Rasa : 19 3. Dardin His conception of poetry and attitude towards Rasa 2+ 4. Vāmana-His concaption of poetry his date- attitude towards Rasa 28 5. Udbhata-His position as a critic .. 30 6. Rudraļa and Rudrabhatļa—Their relations-identity-4date-attitute towards Rasa 7. Agnipurāna - Its character-- date of composition-relation' tº King Bhoja 35 v. foet-critics of this period- Pravarasena- Kälidāsa - Bhavabhūti.-Murāri ; Bhāravi- Bāņa-- Sri Harsa - Mägha- Subåndhu Ratnākara-others 40 19 32 ...

·xvi CONTENTS Page Book 11. 50 50 50 ... The Dhvani Period. VI. The formulation of the theory of Dhvani Section !. General survey of this period 2. The authorship of the Dhvani- Kārikās 3. Anandavardhana. The origin of Dhvani : The Sphoța doctrine- The conception of Vyañjanā — Its relation to the Sphoța. The relation between Dhvani and Rasat. Their relation to the older methods 60 85 VII. Immediate opposition to the theory of Dhvani Pratīhārendurāja-- Bhattanāyaka Dhanan. jaya and Dhanika. VIII. Abhinavagupta His date. His works the Abhinavabhārati, a commentary on the Nāțyaśăstra-his predecessors in the field-exposition of the theories of Rasa-Bhattalollata -Sri Sankukz-their merits and defects Bhattanayaka, an improved theory--Abhinavagupta, inost acceptable-support from Kūlidāsa-seven impediments to the realisation of Rasa and how to get over them—The Rasas eight or nine ? śāntarasa-its claim - its Sthāyibhäva -- the necessity to admit it as a Rasa. IX. Kuntaka-date-his work--his conception of Vakratā.His attitude towards the theories of Dhvani and Rasa X. Mahimabhațța—his antagonism to Ananda, Abhinava and his contemporaries. His conception of Kávyānumiti XI. King Bhoja-date his works—Śțngāraprakāśa-- its contents--his learning. His peculiar theory of Rasa 91 111 118 132 ... 137

·CONTENTS
أنا
Page
146
178
XII. kşemendral-datehis Ancitya
XIII. Mammața. His place
XIV. Two later writers-Viśvanātha-- His synthesis in
Adbhuta— Jagannātha-his date and charac.
terhis theory of poetry-his classification of
poetry
Conclusion
149
...
153
S-C

·No text on this page.

·INTRODUCTION. poetry, the Literary criticism is the true perception of the beautiful in proper understanding of the poetic mode of expression of ideas, the discovery of the laws of poetic truth and the onunciation of the principles that enable us to judge the degree of the success of the poet in his representation of the beautiful, which is a perennial source of delectation to all discerning and responsive minds. The term · Alankāra Šāstra, is ordinarily used to signify literary criticism, but it literally mcans only figures of speech. Even though it is taken in the earlier and wider sense of beauty in poetry' it does not convey the ideas-understanding or appreciation and judging--that are primarily denoted by the term “Literary criticism”. Nor can the term Alankāra refer to all the different methods of criticism that have been dealt with by writers on Sanskrit Poetics. For besides the · Alankāra' method there are seven others, some of which are even more important than that. Thus the use of the term "Alankara' to refer to Sanskrit literary criticism cannot be justified except in this manner that the subject is nained after one of its earliest exponents, Bhämaha, who maintained that poetic embellishments form the distinctive feature of poetic language and that it is the chief source of esthetic pleasure. Literary criticism is the proper interpreter of literature. And as literature forms one of the most important branches of the culture of any nation, it has its distinct place as the path that leads to the understanding and enjoyment of a noble sphere of human activity. There are eight different schools of critical thought in. Sanskrit, but the most important of them are the exponents of the two theories of Rasa and Dhvani. The principles held by these different schools were formulated independently of each other, but later on, they came to have values assigned to them according to their relations with the two theories of Rasa and Dhvani.

·XX
INTRODUCTION
Hence it is possible to treat of almost the whole subject of
Sanskrit literary criticism from the standpoint of these two
theories. And this forms the rationale of cur choice of these two
theories for treatment.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·BOOK 1. HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA UP TO ANANDAVARDHANA. CHAPTER 1. VEDIC PERIOD. به Of the two theories--Rasa and Dhvani---which developed to be the most predominant factors among the sources of literary appeal, the former dates back in its origin to the first poet' Väliniki, while the latter which arose in the wake of the Rasa theory, and which, incorporating within itself all its good features, served to check its excess, viz., the wdue stress that it laid on the cmotional element in poetry to the detriment of the imaginative and the intellectual elements therein, could at the earliest have been formulated only it century before its greatest exponent Anandavardhanācārya, who lived about the middle of the 9th Century A. 1). Though in later works on Literary Criticism like the Kāvyaprakäsis and the Rasagangadhara kasa is, with some justification, treated its i sub-lead under Dhvani, there is the propriety of historical antecedence for our consideration of the History of Rasa before Dhvani. The History of the meaning of . Ritsa' during the Vedic period atfords an explanation and prepares the ground for its use by writers on Literary Criticism from Bharata downward to signify the aesthetic pleasure' or the thrill invariably accompanied by joy that the audience experiences, while witnessing the skilful inactment of a play rendered highly appealing to it through excellent poetry, music and action. In accordance with the general practice of Indologists to start any critical enquiry from the earliest literary monument of Indian culture, the history of Rasa' is here considered from the Rg Veda itself. In the Rg Veda . Rasa' is generally uscd in the sense of the juice' of the somna plant (c. g. TIETTA: DET TAR IX. 63.13, TRI à 3 TAH IX, 65.15.). In the earlier Mandalas it occasionally 6 ·2 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book 1 denotes also water, 1 (III. 43.1.) milk, (e. g. रसा दधीत वृषभम VIII. 72.13. apply heat to niilk) and flavour (c. g. भरद्धेनू रसव- च्छिश्रिये पयः Rgveda V. ++.13. रसवत्-Sweet-flavoured). The Atharvaveda, while retaining its sense of the juice of plants, (उदोषधीनां रसेन............III. 31.10. up with the • sap of herbs) extends its usage to the sap of grain. (BUTETE ETTFÖT रसम्............I. 26.5. I have brought the sap of grain). Its use in water and milk is not found here, but the sense of "savour Or tastey becomes very common (e. g. तीव्रो रसो मधुपृचामरङ्गम............111. 13.15. may the strong satisfying savour (Rasa) of the honey-mixed come to me; यो नो रसं दिप्सति पित्वो अग्ने........ ..VIII. 4.10. whoever O Agni! tries to harın our taste of drink etc.). During the Upanişadic period its sense of the essential element in plants or grain 'loses its particular character and changes into the essential element' or the essence alone (e. g. (1) प्राणो हि वा अङ्गानां रसः............Brh. Up. 1.3.19. Life breath or the vital air is the essence of the limbs (of the body). (2) यच्चक्षुः सतो ह्येष रसः..... Brh. Up. I. 3.4. The eye is the most vital or the most important of the limbs of the person that lives. Also Chindogya Up. I.1.2. and IV.7.4). • Rasa' continues to have also its other sense of 'Savour' or taste', (e. g. (1) जिह्वया हिरसान विजानाति Brh. Up. III. 2.+.......Knows the tastes by the tongue (2) येन रूपं रसं गन्धं etc..... ...Kathop. IV. 3.) and the term becomes the base for a denominative verb, meaning to taste' (e.g.न जिघ्रति नरसयते........... does not taste. Praśnop. IV. 2.). It is noteworthy that in two places-(1) in the Taittiriyop. II. 7.1. रसो वै सः, रसं वायं लध्वा- नन्दी भवति and (2) in the Maitri. Up?. V. 2. एतद्वै सस्वस्य रूपं, तत्सत्त्वमे- , ......... 1, Rgveda III. 48.1. साधोः पिब प्रतिकामं यथा ते रसाशिरः प्रथमं सोम्यस्य. Translation of Rgveda and Atharvaveda texts is mainly adopted from Griffith and Whitney in consultation with the Bhāşya of Sāyaṇa. 2. Maitri. Up. V. 2. "एतद्वै सत्त्वस्य रूपं तत्सत्त्वमेवेरितं रसः On this Ramatirtha has the following:-(See Dipiki, pp. 72-73) :: . तत्परेणात्मना पूर्ववदीरितं सत्त्वमेव, न तमोरजसी; तयोः वक्ष्यमाणार्था- भिव्य चकत्वासामर्थ्यात् । रसः सारः चिदानन्दप्रकाशः ; “रसो वै सः, रसं ·CHAP. 13 VEDIC PERIOD 3 वेरितं रसः;स सम्प्रास्त्रवत्...-there is a combination of both its senses, and it refers to essence,' par excellence and to the highest Taste or Experience accompanied by a sense of joy. In other words, Rasa there stands for the one Supreme Reality of the Universe, viz., the Self-luminous Consciousness' to attain which the Upanisadic seer strove and which, when realised, results in Perennial Bliss. It is very likely that the earliest thinkers in literary criticisin took advantage of this use of • Rasa' to mean the perfect joy that the sage experiences when he perceives intuitively the Highest Truth in his meditation, and applied it to that ' aesthetic pleasure' which the cultured spectator with a responsive heart enjoys, when he loses himself completely in the characters, situations and incidents of a play represented by highly talented actors. But it must be distinctly understood that the two texts quoted above do not at all, in the context where they occur, contain the germs of the theory of Rasa conceived of and developed by later writers on Poetics. And to read into the text thà .........etc. any of the later ideas, as Pandita Rāja Jagannāthat does, believing in the ultimate authority of the Veda and seeking to obtain scriptural sanction for his views, is wholly unhistorical. Although during the Vedic period there was no clear fore cast of the theory of Rasa, yet it should not lead us into believing that the Vedic poets had not developed any sense of appreciation and love for poetry. It may surprise us to find even in the Rgveda, especially in the hymns relating to Vāk', certain remarks which, though not conscious attempts at criticism of poetry, have still to be recognised as distinct and early anticipations of literary criticism. And the rich poetry, the wealthy illustration, the high imagination and the elevated thought of the Rgveda and the Upanişads fully testify to the possibility of the exhibition of the literary sense by the Vedic bards. ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति" इति श्रुत्यन्तरात् ; स सम्प्रास्त्रवत् सम्यक् प्राकट्येन अस्रवत् । सत्त्वमेव चिदात्मनो विशेषाकाराभिव्यक्तियोग्याकारतया प्रसृतम् , सदात्माकारमेव विप्रसृतमित्यर्थः । 1. Rasagangādhara-Chap. I. P. 23. (Nirnayasagar Edn.) वस्तुतस्तु वक्ष्यमाणश्रुतिस्वारस्येन त्याद्यवच्छिन्ना भग्नावरणा चिदेव रसः, "सो वै सः" "रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वा आनन्दी भवति" इति श्रुतिः ।

·4 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I In the Rgvedal X. 125. 3-5 beginning with “STÉ URTEN संगमनी वसूनाम् ” the seers realise the importance in life of the extraordinary power of speech which obtains for the person that has it all his spiritual and material desires. The verse pergfha ............etc.2 (Rgveda X. 71.2) makes a clear distinction bet. ween ordinary language and poetry and pays a genuine homage to the Vedic bard in whose words is imbeelded all beauty. (भट्टैषां लक्ष्मीनिहिताधिवाचि.) The verse उतत्वः.........' etc., (Rgvedax. 71.1), by denouncing the person that sces only the externals in poetry and praising the learned to whom alone the beauty of the inner sense is revealed, appears to value highly 1. Bgveda x. 1:25. 3.5. अहं सुगष्ट्री सङ्गमनी वसूनां चिकितुषी प्रथमा यज्ञियानाम । नां मा देवा व्यदधुः पुरुत्रा भूरिस्थात्रां भूवेिशयन्तीम् ॥ मया सोऽन्नमत्ति यो विपश्यति यः प्राणिति य ई शृणोत्युक्तम् । अमन्तवो मां त उपक्षियन्ति श्रुधि श्रुत श्रद्भिवं ते वदामि ॥ अहमेव स्वयमिदं वदामि जुष्टं देवेभिमत मानुषेभिः । यं कामये तं तमुग्रं कृणोमि तं ब्रह्माणं तमृषिं तं सुमेधाम् ।। Griffith's Translation. I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures most thoughtful, first of those who nerit worship. Thus Gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in. (+) Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken. They know it not, but yet they dwell beside me, Hear one and all the truth as I declare it. (5) I verily myself announce and utter the word that Gods and men alike shall welcome. I make the man l love exceedingly mighty, make him a Sage, a Rishi, and Brahman. 2. Bgveda x.71.2. सक्तुमिव तितउना पुनन्तो यत्र धीरा मनसा वाचमक्रत । अत्रा सखायः सख्यानि जानते भद्रेषां लक्ष्मीनिहिताधिवाचि ॥ Where, like men cleansing cornflour in acribble, the wise ih spirit have created language. Friends see and recognise the marks of friendship. Their speech retains the blessed sign imprinted. (See Sāyana). 3. Rgveda X. 71.4. उत त्वः पश्यन्न ददर्श वाचमुत त्वः शृण्वन्न शृणोत्येनाम् । उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्त्रे जायेव पत्य उशती सुवासाः ॥ One man hath never seen Vāk and yet he Seeth. One man hath hearing but hath never heard her. But to another hath she shown her beauty as a fond well-dressed woman to her husband, ·CHAP. I] VEDIC PERIOD 5 poetic content and not its form. In यज्ञेन वाचः etc., (Rgveda X. 71.3) where the bard says that the seers spread the language (of poetry) in all directions through the seven metres, and in 3MEGHAT? etc., (Rgveda X. 124.9)—the sages know the swift approach of Indra when he hears the verse sung in the Anușțubh metre-the Vedic poet seems to realise some relation between metre and poetry. The poet further addresses his deity as the lover of song fardea foraut.........etc., (Rgveda VII. 1.26.) “O! drink thiou, lover of song as the first drinker of this juice". A song is said to be sweet; as ... (1). : स्वादो स्वादीयो रुद्राय agah.........(Rgveda 1. 114.c) and 11. 35.1) ... song more sweet than sweet.' (2). #57 314 APYA foafer facit. (Rgveda V. 73.8.) • Lovers of sweetness, Rudras, She (Vāk) that streams with sweetness, waits on you. The verse य: पावमानी- ग्ध्येत्यृषिभिः सम्भृतं ग्सं....... तस्मै सरस्वती दुहे क्षीरं... ......ctc. ..(Rgveda IX. (7. 31-32) the man who reads the essence, stored by saints, the pavamāna hymns, tastes food completely........ Sarasvati draws forth for him water, butter, milk etc.,'- promises in the name of the Goddess Sarasvati all material comforts for him that would study the best of the Rgveda in the opinion of the bards viz., the Pavamāna hyms. Thus the two main functions of the literary critic viz., to understand and to judge poetry, are discharged by the Rgvedic poet-critic, the former fairly well and the latter too to a limited extent, in that he has developed a real iceling of love for poetry and that he is able to discriminate the good from the bad type of poetry through an examination of the literary content. 1. Rgveda X. 71.3. यज्ञेन वाचः पदवीयमायन्तामन्वविन्दन्नृषिषु प्रविष्टाम् । तामाभृत्या व्यदधुः पुरुत्रा तां सप्तरेभा अभिसंनवन्ते ।। "Vith sacrifice the trace of Vāk they followed and found her har bouring within the Rishis. They brought her, dealt her forth in many places. Seven Singers make her, tones resound in concert. 2. Rgveda X, 124.9. बीभत्सूनां सयुजं हंसमाहुरपां दिव्यानां सख्ये चरन्तम् । अनुष्टुभमनु चर्च्यमाणमिन्द्रं निचिक्युः कवयो मनीषा ॥ They call him Swan, the abhorrent Hood's companion, moving in friendship with celestial waters. The poets in their thought have looked on Indra swiftly approaching when Anustubh calls him.

·CHAPTER II. VĀLMĪKI. At the threshold of the development of the theory of Rasa stands Vālmiki, the father of classical Sanskrit poetry, an incident in whose life, related in the second chapter of the Rāmāyana Balakānda, explains the origin of the Slöka metre in Sanskrit and also reveals the earliest germs of the conception of Rasa' according to the later writers. The incident runs thus:- When once Vālmīki went out into the forest in search of sacri. ficial wood and grass, he met a happy pair of Krauñca birds twittering with joy on the branch of it tree, one of whom was suddenly shot dead with an arrow by a hunter; and when the merciful sage witnessed the innocent male bird, that was killed, weltering on the ground in his own blood, and the helpless female, bereaved of her loving mate, and being vaguely conscious of the untold sufferings that she would have to undergo without him, sending forth a shriek of terror and agony, his heart was touched with a deep feeling of pity for her grief; and the intense pathos of the situation that filled his heart flowed out to find expression in the shape of that exquisite and melodious śloka Herr ........etc. (Bālakānda 11. 15.). Vālmīki was struck with wonder and joy at this first involuntary emanation of measured poetry; and through deep introspection and analysis of the state of his mind at the time of its utterance, he discovered for this mystery a solution which he gave out to his pupils in these words "311474 TI À we had arr2727" Bälakānda 11. 18. "That which proceeded from fre who was overpowered by pathos shall be nothing but poetry or rhythmic expression '. This statement understood in the light of the above Kräuñca incident is rightly regarded by Anandavardhana as revealing the critic in Vālmiki, and also as containing in embryo the theory of 1. Rāmāyaṇa Bālakānda. II. 14 and 15. निशाम्य रुदती क्रोचीमिदं वचनमब्रवीत् ।। मानिषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः। printeriganesi taraft: काममोहितम ।।

·CHAP. 11] . VÂLMIKI 7 Rasa fully developed later. The wallowing of the dying bird in a pool of blood and the wailing of the surviving female to which the sage was witness were transported írom the sphere of his perceptual experience to that of his imagination and presented there as the cause (forhra) and the ensuant (37647a) that stirred up his instinct of pathos to its depths and developed it to that climax, when he reached a still mental condition with an intense ſecling of pathos, in which his personality was lost, resulting in his having enly a sense of joy; and this pleasant feeling of pathos that overpowered him translated itself spontaneously into the form of the Sloka HIIT ......&c. The sage surely meant something like the above when he enigmatically said 'from my intense feeling of pathes shall proceed nothing but rhythmic expression.' At one stroke Välmiki is both a poet and critic. He is thic tormer, its he is able to imagine vividly and feel intensely for the situations, the characters and the searchings of their hearts, and express that lecling in the form of excellent poetry. - See the Rāmāyaṇa. He is the latter also, for he fully realises that it is this feeling, arising out of his complete imaginative sympathy with the characters and in ats, that transformed itself into rhythmic expression. The function of the poet and the critic is identical in their understanding and feeling for the characters, their emotions etc. The poet is superior to the critic, for he possesses the creative genius and the expressive power which furnish to the critic poetry that forces him to have the same understanding and feeling is the poet; the critic falls short of the poet, for he sceks poetry to aid his imagination to think and feel with the poet. The poet is valued to the extent to which his poetry evokes in the critic this understanding and sense of bliss. The critic is judged by the degree of understanding and joy that he has from a study of poetry. válmiki, is a poet and a critic. From the few hints that he throws out and also from the poetry of tire Rāmāyana, distinguished by the simplicity of style, naturalness of imagery and vividness of description, which tend towards the full development of Rasa,.it is possible to inake out that to Välinïki, spontaneous expression emanating from one when (werpowered by an intense fecling of pathos constitutes poetry; or the state of poetic inspiration is a climax of einotion when it the emotion-finds a spontaneous outlet in rhythmic expression. Milton's "unpremeditated song' is this same spontaneous rhythmic expression.

·8 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book 1 It may here be pointed out that the views set forth above, being based on the second chapter of the Balakanda, could not be maintained as Vālmiki's without coming into conflict with the conclusions of historical research and philology, which show that only Books II-VI form the genuine portions of the work originally written by Vālmīki. Against this we urge that, although much of the first book including the second chapter is a later addition, the second chapter contains a genuine record of the tradition handed down from Vālmīki; and early ppets like Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti bear ample testimony to the authenticity of the tradition that the Kraužci incident in the life of Vālmīki was the occasion for the spontaneous emanation of poetiy and also for the origin of the Sloka metre in Sanskrit. XIV. 701 and Uttara-R.2 Act 11. 5.) Anandavardhana also fully believing in this tradition looks upon Valmiki is the father of the theory of Rasa, although he twists the vicw to suit his own comprehensive theory of Dhvani. (Dhr. I. Barikā 5.)3 It is further gratifying to note that Prof. Macdonell is quite willing to grant the probable historicity of the above tradition. (Hist. of Skt. Lit. P.317). (Sec R. 1. R. XIV. 70. तामभ्यगच्छद्रदितानुसारी कविः कुशध्माहरणाय यातः । निषादविद्धाण्डजदर्शनोत्थः श्लोकत्वमापद्यत यस्य शोकः ॥ See Mallinātha on this. 2. Uttara. R. Act. II. 5. Nirnayasagar lidn. pp. 53.5. आत्रेयी----अथ स ब्रह्मर्षिकदा माध्यंदिनसवनाय नदीं तमसामनु प्रपन्नः । तत्र युग्मचारिणोः क्रौञ्चयोरेकं व्याधेन वध्यमानं ददर्श । आकस्मिक- प्रत्यवभासां देवीं वाचमनुष्टुभेन छन्दसा परिणतामभ्युदैग्यत् । “गानिषाद" etc. वनदेवता--आनायादन्यत्र नूतनश्छन्दसां अवतार:. आत्रेयी-तेन हि पुनः समयेन तं भगवन्तं आविर्भूतशब्दप्रकाशमृषि- मुपगम्य भगवान् भूतभावन: पद्मयोनिग्बोचत् "ऋषे प्रबुद्धोऽसि वागात्मनि ब्रह्मणि । तहि रामचरितम् । अव्याहतज्योतिगर्ष ते चक्षुः प्रतिभातु; आद्यः कविरसि” इत्युक्त्वान्तर्हितः। अथ स भगवान्... रामायणं प्रणिनाय. 3. Dhanyaloku. P. 26. I. 5. काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थः तथा चादिकवेः पुर।। कौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः ॥ See Locana on this. pp. 26-27. 4.

·CHAPTER III. BHARATA. The different stages in the development of the theory of Rasa, after the few suggestions that have been thrown out by Vālmiki, are absolutely lost to us until the doctrine emerges in a concrete shape, fully developed in all its varicd ramifications in the Nāțyaśāstra of Bharata. This big work of thirty-seven chapters, purporting to deal with the art of histrionics, treats of a variety of kindred arts and sciences ancillary to it: and among them are poetry, literary criticism, dramaturgy etc. It has been the subject of many learned and erudite commentaries and also the source from which a large number of independent treatises on histrionics, dramatic technique, music etc., has sprung. The text, in its present form, contains besides the original many older verses as well as later accretions, some of which are intended to glorify and give a mythical garb to the authorship of the work and the origin of the subject. It also exhibits a high degree of culture and critical faculty in the author and the critical spirit of the age in which he lived. When did he live ? At what time did his work first assume its present shape ? What is the doctrine of Rasa as could be made out from this work ? We shall endeavour to answer these questions below. The printed text, as we have it in the Kävyamālā, comprises passages in three different styles -(1) Anuvamsya or Anubaddha verses in the Aryā and the Anusțubh metre, (2) Sūtra-bhāșya, (3) Kārikās-which show that the work is the result of gradual evolution from the original, the successive stages of which are very difficult to determine. Pāṇini is acquainted with some Națasūtras (IV. 3. 110), but there is no means of ascertaining their exact character. The term "Sūtra-bhâșya' or Aphorisms and prose comments thereon would make us believe, on the analogy of the history of grammatical and philosophical texts, that that represents the earliest attempt in the field. But the S-2 ·10 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK 1 Anuvainsya' meaning preserved through a particular line' indicates, as Abhinavagupta observes, that they---such versesare earlier than Bharata and also known to him.? Again the term Sütrānubaddha', (N. S. P. 6+) which introduces many Āryā verses and which means 'composed after the nanner of the Sūtras', is highly misleading. Further the Kärikäs which, according to N. S. VI. 11, are only amplifications of the Sūtras have been in vogue in almost all ages. Thus ariy inference regarding the relative chronology of these texts can only be a probable surmise. We conjecture that the original of the Nāțyaśāstra was in the style of Sūtra-bhāşya which was later enlarged in the form of Kärikās ; and to this were added some older verses of other unknown writers besides some later ones intended, as has been said, to raise the art of histrionics 10 the dignity of a Veda. Further it is likely that, when the form of the Kārikā became settlech, much of the Sūtra-bhāsya portion was not preserved. criticism ordinarily follows creation. Histrionics and dramatic technique develop only after the Drama attains a definite and complete forni'. Though the Nățyaśāstra, whose authorship has been attributed to a mythical sage Bharata, might have been the earliest of its kind, its it truly was, it could have been written only after the production of tinished Sanskrit plays. Till recently, we had no knowledge of any dramatist prior to Kālidāsa except by name. The unearthing of the thirteen plays of Bhāsa (?) at Trivandrum does not help us in any way. It is the diseovery of the fragments of Asvaghūşa's plays by Prof. Luders that makes it possible to carry back the upper limit of the 1. Abh. Bh. Chapter VI. p. 225. अत्रेति भाष्ये अनुवंशभवी शिष्याचार्यपरम्परासु वर्तमानौ श्लोकाख्यौ वृत्तविशेषौ सूत्रार्थसंक्षेपप्रकटीकरणेन कारिकाशब्दवाच्यौ भवतः । तौ पठति- 791 agonyà: etc. N. S. P. 62. 2. Abh. Bh. Vol. 1. p. 261 on N. S. VI. 69.72. ता एता ह्यार्या एकप्रघट्टकतया पूर्वाचार्यैः लक्षणत्वेन पठिताः । मुनिना तु सुखसहाय यथास्थानं निवेशिताः ॥. 3. N. S. VI. 11. अल्पाभिधानेनार्थो यः समासेनोच्यते बुधैः । सूत्रतः सानुमन्तव्या कारिकार्थप्रदर्शिनी ॥

·CHAP. III]. BHARATA 11 Nātyaśāstra to a much earlier date than Kūlidāsa's. These plays, it is said, exhibit a highly developed state of the Drama; and as Ašvaghoşa, being a contemporary of the Kushan Emperor Kanișka, lived in the 1st century A.D. (see Cambridge History of India pp. 483, 583 and 585) Prof. Keith dates the first production of a genuine Sanskrit drama more than a century earlier, and he is even inclined to place it immediately after the Mahābhāşya -150. A.D. (Keith. Skt. Drama pp. 45, 70 and 72). Thus the nucleus .pr the Nāțyaśāstri, appearing after the rise of the Sanskrit Drama, could at the earliest be placed in the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. or the first decades of the 1st century B.C. The references to Yavanas, ſākas and other tribes will bring down the date of the present text to the beginning of the Christian era. Abhinavagupta appears, in his Abhinavabhärati on the Nāțyaśāstra, to have used a text exactly similar to the one that is now in print. He further utilised the works of many carlier commentators and of independent writers on the subject. His nuinerous references, to the former especially, enable us to deterinine the lower limit of the present work with some exactitude. One of them is to the poet and critic that lived in the court of Jayāpida of Kashmir (779-813 A.D.), viz., Udbhata,' who gives different readings to some verses of the Sastra. We have it on the testimony of Kuntaka that the author of the Kāvyālankārasāra is an expert in the school of Bharata. (Vakrökti-J. Ms. p. 120. Chap. 111). Before him, Bhamaha and Dandin seem to be acquainted with this text. When they have to deal with the Rasas and the dramatic technique thuy refer the inquisitive reader to other works-Anyatra, Anyaiḥ, Āgamântare—(sce 1. Abh. Bh. Vol. II. Chap. IX. p. 307.. .पञ्च प्रचारास्तस्येति भट्टोद्भटः पठति Abh. Bh. Vol. II. Chap. XVIII. p. 472. उद्भटः पठति-स्रग्धरादीन्येव (प्र)योज्यानि नाल्पाक्षराणि....इति, स 59192- etc. 2. Vakrõkti-J. Chap. III. p. 126. ननु भरतनयनिपुणमानसानां परमार्थविदां तत्रभवतां वयं विवदामहे. Kuntaka here sneers at Udbhata for considering Urjasvi to be an alan kära.

·12 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK 1 Bhāmaha I. 20-24,1 Dandin I:31 and II. 366).2 Tarunavācaspati on the Kāvyädarśa explains them as referring to Bharata. Moreover Bhāmaha, in his treatment of Alankāras, mentions an earlier view, which classifies them into five only. (II. 4.)3 Bharata, who regards them to be only four, (N.S. XVI. 41) should have represented a previous stage of evolution, and he must therefore have been known to Bhāmaha, Further, Abhinava in the same commentary refers to and quotes Sri Harşa's Vārtikas on the Nāļya- Sastra in many placess (Abh. Bh. Ms. Vol. I. Chap. IV. pp. 132, 166; Chap. V. pp. 169, 170, 188 and 194; Vol. IV. Chap. XXIX. p. 34; Chap. XXXI. pp. 129 and 133). Though these small extracts are corrupt and not quite intelligible, it is possible to 1. Bhamaha I. 20-4. पञ्चभिः सन्धिभिर्युक्तं नातिव्याख्येयमृद्धिमत् । 1.20. युक्तं लोकस्वभावेन रसैश्च सकलैः पृथक् ॥ 1. 21. नाटकं द्विपदीशम्यारासकस्कन्धकादि यत् । उक्तं तदभिनेयार्थमुक्तोऽन्यैस्तस्य विस्तरः ॥ 1. 24. 2. Dandin-K. D. I. 31. मिश्राणि नाटकादीनि तेषामन्यत्र विस्तरः । K. D. II. 366. यच्च सन्ध्यङ्गवृत्त्यङ्गलक्षणाद्यागमान्तरे । व्यावर्णितमिदश्चेष्टमलंकारतयैव नः ॥ अन्यत्र, आगमान्तरे-भरते (com.) 3. Bhamaha. II. 3. अनुप्रासः सयमको रूपकं दीपकोपमे । इति वाचामलंकाराः पञ्चैवान्येरुदाहृताः ॥ 4. N. S. XVI. 41. उपमा दीपकं चैव रूपकं यमकं तथा। काव्यस्यैते ह्यलंकाराः चत्वारः परिकीर्तिताः ॥ 5. Abh. Bh. Vol. I. Chap. IV. p. 132. यद्वार्तिकमेवमवान्तरवाक्यैरुपदेशः etc. Do. p. 166. रसभावे दृष्टहस्तशिरश्चाद्य यद्यङ्गं पूर्ण वापूर्ण वा कृत- नाटयनृतयोर्मेदः तुल्यानुकारत्वे इति हर्षवार्तिकम्।

·CHAP. III] BHARATA 13 make out that the Vārtikas were in the form of verse and prose like the Tantra-Vārtika of Kumārila. If this Sri Harsa is identified with the great Emperor of that name that reigned at Kanauj in the years 606-647,-and we have no reason to doubt the identification-- then it is clear that this text existed in the beginning of the 7th Century A.D. Again Abhinava quotes half a verse from one Bhațța Mātrgupta who is profusely quoted by Rāghavabhatta and other later commentators on the Sākuntala, Vikramorvasiya etc. (Abh. Bh. Vol. IV. Chap. XXIX. p. 32. यथोक्तं भट्टमातृगुप्तेन ---पुष्पं च जनयत्येको भूयोऽनुस्पर्शनान्वितः ।) Most probably his work is an independent metrical treatise on dramaturgy and music based on the Natyaśāstra and not a commentary thereon. This writer may have been the same as the poet Mātņgupta who flourished in the court of Śri Harşa of Kanauj. (Rāja-tarang. III. 129. foll.) Then the above position gains additional strength. Furthermore it may be suggested that even Kālidāsa was familiar with this text; for besides mentioning Bharata as the mythical teacher of histrionics, he exhibits a Do. Chap. V. p. 1 69. श्रीहर्षस्तु रङ्गशब्दन तौर्यत्रिकं ब्रुवन् नाटयाङ्गप्रयोगस्य तस्यैव पूर्वरङ्गतां मन्यमानः पूर्वश्चासौ रङ्ग इति समासममस्त । यदाह-दृष्टा येऽवस्थार्थे रङ्गाय पादभङ्गाः स्युः पूर्व ते एव तु यस्मिन् शुद्धाः स्युः पूर्वरङ्गोऽसौ इत्यादि । Abh. Bh. Vol. I. p. 170. उक्तं च वार्तिके Do. p. 188. गुरुः वार्तिकमार्गः Do. p. 194. यदाह श्रीहर्षः -अत एव हासानामा कस्मिंश्चिन्नाटके दिवं यातः चित्तज्वरेणोत्कलित एवाभिवर्तते शक्यमस्य मुरतोऽवस्थातुमित्यादि Abh. Bh. Vol. VI. Chap. XXIX. p. 34. अत एव श्रीहर्षेण अङ्गनासमुचितं वाद्यमित्याशयेन व्यक्तिव्यानधातूनां दशविधेनेत्यत्र लब्धात्मनेत्युक्तम् | Do. Chap. XXXI. p. 1.29. इति वार्तिके- Do. P. 130. वार्तिके तु यथाक्षरं द्विसंख्यातं च तत्र त्रिसंख्यातं न माति दक्षिणे तु त्रयमपि तदा त्रिसंख्यातं दक्षिणे स्यादिति.

·14 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I knowledge of his teachings. He knows that the Rasas are eight in number and that they are manifested by action on the stage. (V. Act II, 18). In the various junctures in the construction of the plot there should be change of Vrtti (Kaisiki etc.). The tunes have to vary according to the Rasas. (Ku. VII. 91)2. Even Pravarasena appears to be acquainted with the Rasas and their manifestation through Abhinayas (S. B. I. 9, 49; V. 16; X, 58, etc.). Still more, none of the verses cited in illustration of the various metres in the fifteenth chapter of the śāstra could be traced to any of the extant works of poets froni Kālidāsa downward. Thus we may fairly conclude that the Săstra surely existed in its present form before the beginning of the 7th century and probably during the time of Kālidāsa also (400 A.D. Keith Skt. Lit., p. 32). And Bharata may have written the original portions of the Śästra about the time of the birth of Christ. (See Keith. Skt. Drama. p. 81). 1. Kalidasa. V. II. 18. . मुनिना भरतेन यः प्रयोगो भवतीष्वष्टरसाश्रयो नियुक्तः । ललिताभिनयं तमद्य भर्ता मरुतां द्रष्टुमनाः स लोकपालः ॥ 2. Ku. VII.91. तैः सन्धिषु व्यञ्जितवृत्तिभेदं रसान्तरेषु प्रतिबद्धरागम् । अपश्यतामप्सरसा मुहूर्त प्रयोगमा ललिताङ्गहारम् ।। See Mallinātha on this. 3. S. B. J.9. आहेणवरा आरद्धा चुक्कक्खालएषु विहडिअपरिट्टविआ। मेत्रिव्य पमुहरसिआ णिव्वोढुं होइ दक्करं कव्वकहा ॥ Note Construction. प्रमुखरसिका काव्यकथा---See also Comm. Do. I. 49. भूमआ विक्खेव सूइ आमरिसरसम् । Do. V. 16. पणअपडिभङ्गविमोत्यो अत्योअपडिवडिआमरिस रसो । तह सोम्मो वि रहुसुओ जाओ पलअरइमण्डलदुरालोओ ॥ Do. X.58. लद्धगलन्तासाअं आवेअ विहिण्णवम्महुल्ललिअ सुहम् । छिण्णघटिजन्तरसं णावज्जइ दइअ जुवईणम् ॥

·CHAP. Ill] BHARATA 15 It was The theory of Rasa is an earnest attempt to indicate the character of the emotional effect of the Drama ', or it successfully explains the rise and nature of the aesthetic pleasure' that a responsive audience experiences while witnessing the skilful enactment of a play. It was definitely formulated in its varied aspects for the first time by Bharata in his Natyaśāstra. briefly stated by him in that well-known aphorism PHATTHToufirit Tafsafat:-(N. S. P. 62). Vibhāvas are certain causes or mainsprings of emotions like love, pathus etc. They are the heroes and the excitants of love etc., like the spring season, pleasure garden, fragrance, moonlight ctc. Anubhāvas are the visible effects or the consequents of the searchings of the hearts of the heroes. They are quickly moving eyebrows, sidelong glances etc. Vyabhicāribhāvas are transitory or evanescent emotions that tend only to develop the main sentiment, such as anxiety, anger etc.,--the path of love is never smooth. Through a harmonious blending and representation of appropriate Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas, there arises in the audience a certain climax of einotion, invariably accompanied by a thrill and sense of jov: and this is Rasa or ästhetic pleasure, To take a concrete instance :-Skilled actors represent Duşyanta and Sakuntalā. These first meet in the pleasant, beautiful groves of the hermitage (Vibhāva). Each, struck with the rapturous beauty of the other, casts eager, longing looks. At forced parting Sakuntatā finds an excuse to steal a glance at her lover (Anubhāva). In their extreme diffidence and anxiety they pine away. one for the other (Vyabhicāribhāva). Happily Sakuntalā's mate helps her in declaring her love through a letter. Duşyanta hastens to present himself and there is union of the lovers. When all these are represented aided by poetry, music and other histrionic devices, which Bharata calls Nāțvadharmi-the deepseated instinctive impression of love (Sthayibhāva) is kin'", the mind of the audience and developed to that climax through complete imaginative sympathy with the situatı audience forgets all differences of person, time and plac this climax of emotion reveals itself in a sort of blissful ciousness. This bliss is Rasa. After stating this theory, Bharata classifies the Rasas in eight in accordance with the eight dominant emotional moods, which, when developed, transform themselves into the Rasa.

·16 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA (BOOK 1 They are (1) Śộngāra or love, (2) Hāsya or humour, (3) Karuņa or pathos, (1) Raudra or wrath, (5) Vīra or heroism, (6) Bhayānaka or terror, (7) Bibhatsa or disgust, (8) Adbhuta or wonder or the marvellous. He further enumerates thirty-three Vyabhicāribhāvas and eight Sättvikabhāvas, which are only external indications of emotion. He also suggests the appropriate Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas that tend most to the development of the particular Rasas (see N. S. Chapters VI & VII). In addition to its enunciation, the author elaborates on the various contributory factors that promote the realisation of Rasa. All of them are brought under Abhinaya or action which is fourfold (N. S. Chap. VIII.9)': (1) Angika, (2) Vācika, (3) Āhārya, (4) Sättvika. These are respectively action through the limbs of the body, speech, dress and certain outward expressions of emotion. Numerous divisions are given under each head and the relevancy of each kind of action in the promotion of the different Rasas indicated then and there. In the endeavour to treat all arts as subordinate and ancillary to histrionics, Bharata brings poetry and literary criticism under Vācikābhinaya. He deals fully with the ideas of poetic style and diction prevalent during his time. In Chapter XV he defines and illustrates the different metres that lend sweetness to dramatic style. In the next he deals with the Alarkäras or poetic embellishments, which according to him are only four, the same ten traditional Guņas or qualities of style and ten Doșas or faults of style, which have to be avoided. Dramatic technique is treated fully in Chapters XVIII and XIX and the four Vrttis, Kaisiki etc., in the twentieth. Music and its use in kindling up the particular emotions are dealt with at great length in the last chapters of the work. Though Bharata does not recognise the individuality of the Nof literary criticism, he gives it indeed a prominent place Dcheme of histrionics. The conceptions of Guņa, Alanitti etc. bear ample testimony to the high literary sense I spirit of critical inquiry into the distinguishing characs of poetic style in the learned men of his age. The 1 N. S. VIII. 9. आङ्गिको बाचिकश्चैव ह्याहार्यः सात्त्विकस्तथा अयस्त्वभिनयो विप्राश्चतुर्धा परिकल्पितः ॥

·CHAP, Ill] BHARATA 17 evolution of the theory of Rasa, which is a successful analysis of the process of the realisation of pleasure in poetry and which enabled later critics to formulate an excellent theory of poetry based on it, fully testifies to the genius of Bharata; and poetics itself appears in the Nāțyaśāstra to have long outgrown its nascent stage and bids fair to assert its independence. Being the earliest systematic exponent of the science, in addition to being at the head of the Rasa school, Bharata may justly claim the title of the Father of Sanskrit literary criticism. In this connection there is one other question, that of the Hellenic influence on Sanskrit poetics. That Europe drew her cultural inspiration from ancient Greece has been her glory; but the Indian genius knew to strike an independent path in the many branches of her abundant culture, The theory of the Greck origin of the Sanskrit Drama now set at rest, The Hellenic influence on Sanskrit poetics has rarely been put forward seriously, though there may be a natural prejudice in its favour on account of the antiquity of Greek poetics. There is no doubt similarity between the Nāțyaśāstra and the Poetics of Aristotle in respect of the importance of the fable', the unities of action and time, the classification of characters and the function of the Drama, viz., to afford immediate pleasure to the audience. But there is very little in the Poetics' that would correspond to Bharata's analysis of the realisation of aesthetic pleasure and his enunciation of the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicäribhāvas. The term sentiment' in Aristotle means only a inode of forcible expression of ideas (see Poetics Chap. VI). Except this aforesaid similarity which might probably have been the result of independent speculations there is no unmistakable indication of borrowing from the Greeks, and most probably Sanskrit poetics had an indigenous origin. S.

·CHAPTER IV. FROM BHĀMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA. Section I.-General Tendencies. During the period that intervened between Bharata and Anandavardhana (9th century), the individuality of the Science of literary criticism became fully recognised, and speculations on the distinctive characteristics of poetic language appear to have been abundant. In spite of some commentaries on the Sāstra and also of separate treatises on histrionics, the theory of Rasa gained little favour among the literary critics of this period, for the prevailing tendency of the times was to discover the nature of poetic form, to formulate the various decorative devices called Alankāras or figures of speech and qualities of style known as Guna and Riti, and to hail one or the other of these three as the very life of poetry. However, these critics were not insensible to the sweetness of Rasa, but in their fondness for their own favourite theories they relegated the Rasa to some corner and gave it indeed a disproportionately small place among the numerous Alarikāras and Guņas. But the poets of this period seem to be fully alive to the importance of the Rasa and this could easily be made out from their occasional reflections on poetry. The wild protests of Kalidāsa and Bhavabhūti and Subandhu's denunciation of the wickedness of critics in trying to pick holes in good poetry and rarely endeavouring to appreciate and enjoy the beauty and sweetness of the Rasas thereof, are quite significant of the temper and taste of that age. Even the great enthusiast of the Rasa School, Bhavabhūtinot to speak of Bāņa and Māgha-could not be free from the influence of this low taste which applauded Sabdacitra or wordplay. For did he not in the most moving situations indulge at times in the concatenation of jingling words? The great poets devoted a whole canto in their poems to conundrums and acrostics. But it must be admitted that, generally, poets of this period realised fully that poetry should appeal more to the heart than to the head and that they, in practice, paid equal attention to poetic form ·CHAP. IV] FROM BHĀMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 19 and content: Moreover, in a creative and formative age there is nothing unnatural or extraordinary in the expression of extreme views by critics; and to be fair to the writers of extant works of this period, it should be said that they had developed a fine sense of the external beauty of poetry, and the many illustrative verses composed or quoted by them fully bear out this fact. Section II.-Bhāmaha. The.earliest writers of this period whose works have been preserved to us are Bhāmaha and Dandin, the two great champions, respectively, of the Alankāra and the Guņa school of critical thought. There raged a long controversy regarding the relative chronology of Bhāmaha and Dandin. Through the researches of K. P. Trivedi, Prof. M. Rangacharya and other able scholars it appeared to have been decided that Bhāmaha preceded Dandin. But recently Prof. Keith holds that Bhāmaha undoubtedly came after Dandin Dandin on these these grounds--that Bhāinaha was later than Uddyōtakara and Jinēndrabuddhi and that the • Kāvyādarśa of Dandin shows a very simple stage of the development of the conception of poetry' (Skt. Lit. p. 113). These grounds are all untenable. It is said that Bhāmaha in Chapter V has used some philosophical texts of Dharmakirti (S. K. De. Skt. Poetics Vol. I. p. 48). Prof. Keith probably ventures his opinion on this that Bhāmaha who criticised the definitions of perception and inference given by Buddhistic philosophers, could have done so only after Uddyōtakara had dealt with them. Bhamaha cites the definitions thus :- प्रत्यक्ष कल्पनापोढं ततोऽर्थादिति केचन । Bhāmaha v-6. त्रिरूपाल्लिङ्गतो ज्ञानमनुमानं च केचन । alast 7afferyata 9142 farc: || Bhāmaha V-11. Dharmakirti in his Nyāyabindu (Bibloth. Ind. Edn. pp. 103 and 104) defines Pratyakşa and Anuināna thus:- "तत्र प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनपोढमभ्रान्तमू" "त्रिरूपालिङ्गायदनुमेये ज्ञानं तदनुमानम्" । . This similarity in expression has probably led to the supposition that Bhāmaha took them from Dharmakirti. But ·20 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book I the fact is that the definitions are cited from writers much earlier than Dharınakirti. Of the four bits- (1) प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढम् , (2) ततोऽर्थात् , (3) तद्विदो नान्तरी- यार्थदर्शनम् [अनुमानम् ], and (4) त्रिरूपालिङ्गतो ज्ञानमनुमानम्- the first three are cited in the Nyāyavārtika and criticised at length (see N. V: pp. 42, 43-44 and 56-57). Vacaspati in his Tātparyaţikā identifies the author of the first and third pieces to be Dinnaga and the second, Vasubandhu ?(see Tat. T. Vizianagaram Edn. pp. 99, 102 and 127). In answer to the criticisms of the Vārtikakāra on Dinnāga's definition of perception Dharmakīrtı appears to have added the qualification 'Abhrāntam' to it. Had Bhāmaha known Dharmakirti, he should have taken for criticism this improved definition and not the old one or Dinnāga which had already been torn to pieces by liddyōtakara. Regarding the definition of anumāna' it is but reasonable to 1. N. V. p. 42 (Vizianagaran Edition). अपरे पुनर्वर्णयन्ति-ततोऽर्थाद्विज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षमिति । तन्न । p. 99. 2. Tat. T. तदेवं प्रत्यक्षलक्षणं समर्थ्य वासुबन्धवं तावत् प्रत्यक्षलक्षणं विकल्पयितु- मुपन्यस्यति-अपरे पुनरिति । लक्षणं व्याचष्टे-ततोऽर्थादिति । 1. N. V. pp. 43.44. अपरे तु मन्यन्ते प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनोपोढमिति । अथ केयं कल्पना ? 2. Tat. T. p. 102. सम्प्रति दिङ्नागस्य लक्षणमुपन्यस्यति–अपरे इति । दूषयितुं कल्पनास्वरूपं पृच्छति-अथ केयमिति ॥ 1. N. V. pp. 56-57. अपरे ब्रुवते-नान्तरीयार्थदर्शनं तद्विदोऽनुमानमिति । 2. Tat. T. pp. 126-127. (a) स्वलक्षणं समाधाय परेषामनुमानलक्षणं दूषयितुमुपन्यस्यति -अपरे विति । (b) न हि दिङ्नागमते किश्चिदस्ति वस्तु यन्नान्तरीयकं सत् हेतुर्भवति । (6) तदनेन दिङ्नागस्य लक्षणं दूषयित्वा अन्येषां लक्षणं दूषितम् ।

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHĀMAHA TO ĀNANDAVARDHANA 21 source. believe that when, of the four definitions, three happen to be drawn from earlier works, the fourth also was from the same The fact that the second and the fourth pieces are referred to by the same term Kēcana' in Bhämaha would surely induce us to take them to belong to the same writer; and when one of them is identified to be Vasubandhu's the other also might be his. Why then did Uddyōtakara omit to criticise it? Most probably because that definition, which required for very. inference the presence of the hētu in the paksa and the udāharana and the absence of it from the contrary instance, did not materially differ from the orthodox view of the Naiyāyikas. Further there is nothing definite to show that Bhāmaha borrowed his criticisms of the Buddhistic doctrines from the Vārtikakāra. To say that it is possible for Bhāmaha to offer any such criticism only after the Great Uddyōtakara has inade his attacks is to deny the continuity of the Nyāya system. It is very likely that Bhāmaha lived sometime before Uddyotakara (650 A.D.) when there raged a keen controversy between the adherents of the Nyāya and the Buddhistic Logic and that Bhāmaha thought it necessary at that stage to deal with it even in a work on Poetics. Trivedi has already demonstrated that the Nyāsakāra referred to by Bhämaha should be different from jinëndrabuddhi. (700 A.D.) The correct interpretation of the verses in question (VI. 36 and 37) is this:-Young aspirants should not use compounds with words ending in the suffix tộc merely on the authority of the Nyāsakāra who against this rule has used Vrtrahantā.' Such a word does not occur in the printed Nyasa of Jinēndrabuddhi, who moreover does not appear 10 favour such a usage (see Nyasa Rajshahi Edn. 1915 p. 385 on Pāṇini II. ii. 15). To say that Bhāmaha refers to Jinēndra relying on the identity of the name Nyasa' which, as Trivedi has shown, has been the common name of many other similar works, is only a bold but untenable assertion (see I. A., Vol. XLIV. p. 275, Vol. XLV. p. 25). 1. Bhāmaha VI. 36-37. शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेण न्यासकारमतेन वा । तृचा समस्तषष्ठीकं न कदाचिदुदाहरेत् सूत्रज्ञापकमात्रेण वृत्रहन्ता यथोदितः ।

·22 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [.Book 1 Scholars have clearly shown that Bhämaha represents an earlier stage than Dandin in the evolution of Sanskrit literary criticism. True that Bhāmaha recognises some predecessors in the field like Medhāvin. But his work indicates distinctly that the science of literary criticism has not completely established its individuality and effected the needed divorce from the other branches of knowledge like Logic and Grammar. While Bhāmaha devotes a whole chapter to each of these, Dandin omits to deal with them. Bhāmaha refers to an earlier view which recognised only five Alankāras—a slight development out of the four mentioned by Bharata (N. S. XVI. 41) and he claims some originality for the discovery, enunciation and illustration of the various other Alankāras '(sce II. 96, III. 57, VI, 64). There are not many sub-divisions under cach Alankāra as in Daņdin; Svabhāvokti has not yet gained a place among the Alankāras. Śabdālai kāras are very few in Bhāmaha, but Dandin deals with numerous varieties of them in a full chapter (Chap. 111). The conception of the styles Vaidarbhi and Gaudiyā appears to be in its nascent stage in Bhāmaha who makes scanty reference to them and who has little preference between the two, while their character and place have become definitely settled in Dandin. The conception of poetry given by Bhāmaha, viz., 'Eat areat 97747? (1. 16)-form and content, well inatched is poetry-is certainly simpler than Dandin's इष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली (1. 10.) Poetry is a collocation of beautiful words harmonised with agreeable sense.' The lucidity and the richness of Daņdin's verses should not induce one to assign him to an earlier date (see 1. A., Vol. LIV. pp. 9), 232 ; Vol. XLII. pp. 204, 258; . 1. Bhāmaha II. 96. स्वयंकृतैरेव निदर्शनस्य मयां प्रकृप्ता खलु वागलंकृतिः । अतः परं चाहरनेकधापरो गिरामलंकारविधिविधास्यते ॥ Do. III. 57. गिरामलंकारविधिः सविस्तरः स्वयं विनिश्चित्य धिया मयोदितः । अनेन वागर्थविदामलंकृता विभाति नारीव विदग्धमण्डला ॥ Do. VI. 64. अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीनामबगम्प स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म । सुजनावगमाय भामहेन प्रथितं रक्रिल मोमिसनुनेदम् ॥

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHAMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 23 K. P. Trivedi's introduction to his edition of the Pratāparudra S. K. De. Sanskrit poetics). Further in the Srăgăraprakāśa of King Bhoja of the Pāramāra Dynasty-a manuscript of which is deposited in the Government Oriental Library, Madras-is found the following (Srig. P. Vol. II. Chapter XI. pp. 371-2). तदुक्तम्- वकृत्वमेव काव्यानां परा भूषेति भामहः । श्लेषः पुष्णाति सर्वासु प्रायो वक्रोक्तिषु श्रियम् ॥ This verse is cited in a context where there are numerous other quotations from the Kävyādarśa, and the latter half of this verse is undoubtedly the first hall of Dandin's verse K. D. II. 362.1 Though the first half is not found in any of the printed texts, according to the high authority of Bhoja it did form part of the same verse. Dandin's reference in the printed text to Ślēşa' beautifying Vakrokti, which appears immediately after his treatment of Samsrsti, surprises the reader. But Bhoja's reading of the verse given above furnishes the necessary link. After treating of Alankaras, Dandin, summing up all the poetic embellishments, refers to the well-known view of Bhāmaha that Vakratva-or deviation from the ordinary mode of expressionis the best ornament of poetry and adds his own improvement If the above reading given by the learned Poet-King is accepted to be genuine, it forms unmistakable proof of the priority of Bhāmaha to Dandin. Bhāinaha is known to Udbhata who wrote the Bhāmaha. vivaraņa (see Pratīhārendurāja2 on K. L. S. p. 13) and also to on that. 1. Dandin II. 361-62. आक्षिपन्त्यरविन्दानि मुग्धे तव मुखश्रियम् ।। कोशदण्डसमग्राणां किमेषामस्ति दुष्करम् ॥ K. D. II. 361. संसृष्टिमुदाहरति-आक्षिपन्तीति । श्लेषः पुष्णाति सर्वासु प्रायो पक्रोक्तिषु श्रियम् । भिन्नं द्विधा स्वभाषोक्तिर्वक्रोक्तिश्चेति वाङ्मयम् || K. D. II. 362. 2. Pratiharenduraja on K. L. S. p. 13. विशेषोक्तिलक्षणे च भामहविवरणे भट्टोद्भटेन एकदेशशब्दः एवं व्याख्यातो यथेहास्माभिर्निरूपितः ।

·24 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK 1 Dandin. He was most probably an elder contemporary of Uddyotakara and Dharmakirti both of whom lived about 650 A. D. He may thus be placed in the period that immediately preceded 650 Ą. D. i. e., in the 2nd quarter of the 7th century. The attitude of Bhāmaha to the Rasa theory is distinctly that of an exponent of a rival school of criticism; and this is clear from the scanty treatment that he accords to it. He who holds that Alankāras exhaust the chief characteristics of Poetry naturally brings Rasa also under an Alankāra called Rasavad' (III. 6).1 He further recognises two others-Preyas and Urjasvin -which represent the sentiment of spiritual love and consciousness of superior might (III. 57).2 But he betrays his knowledge of all the Rasas when he says युक्त लोकस्वभावेन रसैश्च सकलैः पृथक् । (Bhāmaha I. 21)-meaning that in the Drama all the Rasis should be delineated. He is also fully live to the delectableness of tender sentiments, and he feels that they are the best vehicle to inculcate even moral principles (V. 3).3 Section III.-Dandin. The next important name after Bhāmaha is that of Dandin. He is the exponent of the Guņa school, which holds that the beautiful collocation of words and ideas is the chief feature of poetry. The ten Gunas are the life of the best poetic style called 1. Bhāmaha. III. 6. रसवदर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा । देवी समागमद्धर्ममस्करिण्यतिरोहिता ॥ 2. Do. III.5& 7. प्रेयो गृहागतं कृष्णमवादीद्विपुरो यथा । अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते ॥ कालेनैषा भवेत्प्रीतिस्तवैवागमनात्पुनः ॥ ऊर्जस्वि कर्णेन यथा पार्थाय पुनरागतः । . द्विः सन्दधाति किं कर्णः शल्येत्यहिरपाकृतः ॥ 3. Do. V.3. स्वादुकाव्यरसोन्मिश्रं शास्त्रमप्युपयुञ्जते । प्रथमालीढमधवः पिबन्ति कटु भेषजम् ॥

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHAMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 25 3 the Vaidarbhi (K. D. Chap. I. 40-42)1; and the Alankāras, which Bhāmaha regarded as the soul of poetry, are treated by Dandin as mere embellishments of poetic language (K. D. Chap. II. 1).? Daņdin's conception of Guna covers not merely the lucidity, sweetness, the liquid movement and other qualities of expression but also the grandeur, the felicity and richness, etc., of ideas. He lays great stress on the purity and refinement of language (K. D. I. 7, 62). His date is one of the greatest puzzles in the History of Sanskrit Literature. No definite data are yet forthcoming to solve the problem. But it is certain that he is later than Bāņa and Bhartſhari, and it has been shown that he lived after Bhamaha also. He is known to Vāmana who appears to have taken the cue from him for the formulation of his own conception of poetry. He should thus be placed between 650 A. D. and 779 A. D.--the date of Jayāpida (779-813) in whose court Vämana flourished. At present it may be taken tentatively that he lived in the last quarter of the 7th century or about 700 A.D. Dandin's attitude towards the theory of Rasa is a continuance of the one taken by Bhāmaha; and following him, he too brings 1. K. D. I.40-42. अस्त्यनेको गिरां मार्गः सूक्ष्मभेदः परस्परम् । तत्र वैदर्भगौडीयौ वर्येते प्रस्फुटान्तरौ ॥ श्लेषः प्रसादः समता माधुर्य सुकुमारता । अर्थव्यक्तिरुदारत्वमोजःकान्तिसमाधयः ॥ इति वैदर्भमार्गस्य प्राणा दशगुणाः स्मृताः । 2. K. D. II-1. काव्यशोभाकरान् धर्मानलंकारान् प्रचक्षते । . 3. K. D. I.7. तदल्पमपि नोपेक्ष्यं काव्ये दुष्ठं कथश्चन । स्याइपुः सुन्दरमपि चित्रेणैकेन दुर्भगम् ॥ Do. I.62. कामं सर्वोऽप्यलंकारो रसमर्थे निषिश्चतु । तथाप्यग्राम्यतैवैनं भारं वहति भूयसा ।। S-4 ·26 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK 1 inoves the Rasas under the three Alankāras Preyas, Rasavad and Urjasvin. But probably owing to the influence of poets or his own sympathy and feeling for the delectableness of the Rasas he sets greater store by them and also devotes greater space in his Kāvyādarśa (see 11. 275-291). He defines them in Chap. 11. verse 275 and illustrates them by the following verses. The instance of Preyas' is the same as Bhāmaha's (Ill. 5). He fully expounds the most striking characteristic of each of the eight Rasas of Bharata and gives excellent verses in illustration. The very sweetness of these verses exhibits clearly his keen perception of that element in poetry which appeals most to the heart or which and entrances the reader, viz., the Rasas. In spite of his own theory that the Gunas are the life of poetry, being a poet he is probably overpowered by feeling for this element in poetry and is forced to recognise it to be quite as appealing as the Guņas. For he speaks thus in K.D. Il. 292.2 “ It has been shown that, of composition which is the acme of refinement, Mādhurya or sweetness is the essence. Here it is stated that the life of poetic language is the delineation of the Rasas." He further betrays his acquaintance with the details in the theory of the realisation of Rasa. He knows what Sthayibhāvas are and also their distinction from Rasas (K. D. Chap. IV. 48). On the whole Dandin is not so antagonistic to the Rasa School as Bhāmaha. Here mention may be inade of some evidence regarding the authorship of the anonymous commentary called the HỊdayangama printed in Prof. Rangacharya's Edition of the Kāvyādarśa' (Madras). In the Sțngāraprakāśa of Bhoja Vol. II. Chap. XI. 1. K. D. II. 275. प्रेयः प्रियतराख्यानं रसवद्रसपेशलम् । ऊर्जखि रूढाहंकारं योक्तोत्कर्ष तु तत् त्रयम् ॥ 2. K. D. II. 292. दर्शितो रसः । वाक्यस्याग्राम्यतायोनेर्माधुर्य इह त्वष्टरसायत्ता रसक्ता स्मृता गिराम् ॥ 3. K. D. IV. 47-48. मार्गः कलाविरोधस्य मनागुदिश्यते यथा । 47. वीरशृङ्गारयोर्भावौ स्थायिनौ कोधविस्मयौ ।। 48.

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHA MAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 27 pp. 373-6 are cited eight verses from Dandin to illustrate the eight accepted Rasas. Curiously enough, Bhoja's comiments on six of the verses-K. D. Chap. II. 284, 286, 288, 289, 290 and 2912-agree almost word for word with those of the Hrdayangama. Is Bhoja himself the author of the commentary or is he 1. Srig. p. Vol. II. p. 375. शोकात्करुणनिष्पत्तिः यथा- यस्याः कृसुमशय्यापि कोमलाङ्गया रुजाकरी । साधिशेते कथं देवी हुताशनवती चिताम् ॥ अत्र चालम्बनविभावभूतात् देवीमरणादुत्पन्ने शोकस्थायिभावे चिता- निवेशनहुताशनज्वालादिभिरुद्दीपनविभावैः उद्दीप्यमाने समुत्पन्नेषु निर्वेदग्लानि- चिन्तास्तम्भादिषु व्यभिचारिषु प्रकर्षात्करुणरसतामापन्ने स्थायिनि करुणरसवतः नायकस्य यदेतत् यस्याः कुसुमशय्यापीत्यादिवचनं तत् करुणरसादुपजायमानं अनुभावरूपं रसवदुच्यते । Hrdayangama :- यस्या इति । आलम्बनविभावभूतात् देवीमरणात् उत्पन्नः शोकः स्थायी भावः, चितानिवेशनहुताशनज्वालादिभिः उद्दीप्यमानः, वागारम्भानुभावानुमेयैः निर्वेददैन्यादिभिः व्यभिचारिभिः संसृज्यमानः करुणः इति ज्ञायते । तादृशेन करुणरसेन अन्वितं रसवत् एतत् । 2. Srig. p. Vol. II. p. 37+. भयाद्भयानकनिष्पत्तिर्यथा- इदं मघोनः कुलिशं धारासन्निहितानलम् । स्मरणं यस्य दैत्यस्त्रीगर्भपाताय कल्पते ॥ अत्र महेन्द्रकुलिशाद्धारासन्निहितानलादालम्बनविभावात् स्मर्यमाणादपि दैत्यस्त्रीणामुत्पन्ने भयस्थायिभावे तद्विभिन्नदानवमरणस्मर्यमाणादिभिः उद्दीपन- विभावैरुद्दीप्यमाने समुत्पनेषु खेदस्तम्भवैवर्ण्यवेपथुप्रभृतिषु व्यभिचारिभावेषु स्थायिनः भयानकरसतामापनस्य गर्भपातादिभिः अनुभावैः विभाव्यमानस्य खरूप- सूचकम्-इदं मघोनः कुलिशम् -इत्यादिवचनम् । तदपि तन्मूलत्वात् रसवदुच्यते। Hrdayangama:- इदमिति । अत्र महेन्द्रकुलिशधारासन्निहितानलात् आलम्बनविभावात् स्मर्यमाणादपि दैत्यस्त्रीणामुत्पन्नं भयं स्थायी भावः, तदीयावयवदर्शनादिभिः ·28 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I some one else that has copied from Bhoja or is it vice versa? The profuse quotations in Bhoja's works from the Kävyādarśa and the lack of definite references to later writers in the Hşdayangama would lend support to the presumption that the anonymous commentary was written by King Bhoja. Section IV.-Vārnana. Vāmana appeared some decades after Dandin, as the staunch advocate of the Riti School of critical thought. To him poetry is the representation of the beautiful' and the perception of the beautiful gives pleasure to the critic. This beauty in poetry is attained through the absence of faults and the presence of Gunas and Alankāras (Vāmana Chap. I. i., Sūtras 1-5). He considers that Riti or style is the soul of poetry (I. ii. 6).2 Riti is beautiful diction endowed with the Gunas (I. ii. 7, 8). It is of three kinds Vaidarbhi, Gaudiyā and Pāñcāli (1. ii. 9).4 Of these, the Vaidarbhi style possessing all the Guņas constitutes the best poetry (I. ii. 11). This conception of the three poetic styles is only a development from the two recognised by Bhāmaha and given उद्दीपनविभावैः उद्दीप्यमानः गर्भपातादिभिः अनुभावैः तदनुमितस्तम्भवैवर्ण्यवेपथु- प्रमृतिभिः व्यभिचारिभिः संसृज्यमानः भयानकरसरूपेण निष्पाद्यते । तत्संबन्धात् रसवदेतत् । 1. Vamana I. i. 1-5. काव्यं ग्राह्यमलंकारात् 1. सौन्दर्यमलंकारः 2. स दोषगुणालंकारहानादानाभ्याम् . 3. शास्त्रतस्ते-4. काव्यं सदृष्टादृष्टार्थ प्रीतिकीर्तिहेतुत्वात् 5. 2. Do. I. ii-6. रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य. 3. Do. I. ii-7. विशिष्टा पदरचना रीतिः । Do. I. ii-8. विशेषो गुणात्मा. 4. Do. I. ii-9. साधा वैदर्भी गौडीया पाञ्चाली चेति । 5. Do. I. ii-11. समग्रगुणोपेता वैदर्भी । See page 25, fn. I.

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHĀMAHA TO ĀNANDAVARDHANA 29 full shape and character by Dandin. Vāmana's Vaidarbhi is taken entirely from Dandin K. D. I. +1-2. Vāmana emphasised this stylistic aspect of poetry much more than Dandin: and he also formulated a third variety of style called Pāñcāli, which is but a blending of the other two styles. According to Vāmana style is the life of poetry, the Guņas endow beauty to it and the Alankāras enhance that beauty (111. i. 1 and 2). Vāmana's date could he determined with much less difficulty than that of Dandın or Bhämaha. He quotes Magha's Siśupālavadha canto 111. 8,2 under the Sūtra IV. iji. 10 and Bhavabhūti's Mahāvīracarita Act 1. 54 under l. ii. 12.3 Anandavardhana is presumed by Abhinava on page 37 to have kept in view Vāmana in giving his illustration in the Dhvanyaloka p. 37.4 He further refers to the three styles of Vāmana in the Dhvanyaloka p. 231. Mágha lived about 700 A.D. and Bhavabhūti about 730 A.D. in the reign of Yaśõvarman of Kanauj. Anandavardhana flourished about 850 A.D., and Vamana should have lived between 730 and 850 A.D. He is probably identical with the minister of Jayāpida (779-813) mentioned in the Räjatarangiņi IV. 497, and in that case he may be placed in the last quarter of the eighth century. Vāmana takes a similar attitude towards the Rasas as Dandin. They both give a small place to them in their works, but there is essential difference. Following Bhāmaha, Dandin brings the Rasas under the Alaikāras; Vāmana treats them as the essential feature of the Guna Kānti'. It is the Rasas that give brilliance (Kānti) tv proetic style-catad fola:--111. ii. 14.5 He illus- 1. Vāmana Ill. काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुणाः Do.III. i-2. तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलंकाराः । 2. Magha; $i<u. III.8. 3 G là gõ đi H etc. 3. Maha. I. 54. Clausilmarile agguel- 4. Locana. वामनस्याभिप्रायेणायमाक्षेपः, भामहाभिप्रायेण तु समासोक्तिरित्यमुमाशयं हृदये गृहीत्वा समासोक्त्याक्षेपयोरिदमेकमेवोदाहरणं व्यतरत् ग्रन्थकृत् । 5. Vāmana. III. ii-14. atalha Filmat: Vrtti on this. दीप्ता रसाः शृङ्गारादयः यस्य सः दीप्तरसः । तस्य भावः दीप्तरसत्वं कान्तिः । यथा-प्रेयान् सोऽयमपाकृतः etc. Amarusataka. एवं रसान्तरेष्वप्युदाहार्यम् । 1. ;-1.

·30 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book 1 trates it with reference to the most important of the Rasas, Śrngāra, by an exquisite verse from the Ainaruśataka and asks the reader to select the instances of Kānti where other Rasas illumine poetry. He considers the Drama to be the best literary kind I. iii. 30.1, and as Rasa could be best developed only through a play it distinctly shows his appreciation of the important place of Rasa in Poetry. Section V.--Udbhatu. # Udbhața appears to have been a dual personality in that he was a follower of the two opposing schools represented by Bhānaha and Bharata. Besides his Kāryālankārasăra-which is only a lucid exposition of Bhämaha's Alankāras wit few additions like Svabhāvokti--he wrote the Bhämahavivarana and the poem Kumārasambhava to illustrate the Alankāras (sce Pratihārèndurāja pp. 13 and 15).? As has been remarked before, in connection with the date of Bharata, he should have also written a commentary on the Nātyaśāstra. Abhinava further refers to the views of the followers of Udbhața in his cominentary on the Śästra. Ms. Vol. I. Chap. VI. p. 198.3 Even the small extant work of Udbhața bears full evidence to his knowledge of the teachings of Bharata. Though, like Bhảmaha, he treats the Rasas under Alankāras, he deals with them in greater detail and displays an intimate knowledge of the factors in the realisation of Rasa, ; • 1. Vāmana I. iii-30-1. सन्दर्भेषु दशरूपकं श्रेयः ; तद्धि चित्रं चित्रपटवत् विशेषसाकल्यात् । 2. Prati. P. 13.-See antep. 23. Prati. p. 15:- अनेन ग्रन्थकृता खोपरचितकुमारसम्भवैकदेशोऽत्र उदाहरणत्वेनोपन्यस्तः । See pp. 10 and 11. 3. Abh. bh. Vol. I. p. 198. न तु भरते तत्संगृहीतस्यापि पुनरत्रोद्देशो निर्देशे चैतत् क्रमव्यत्यासना- दिल्यौद्भटाः । नैतदिति भट्टलोल्लटः । sig2I:— The Madras Manuscript does not read this word as 34T: as given by Dr. De. Skt. Poetics. Vol. I. p. 26.

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHAMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 31 He was a contemporary of Vāmana and Damodaragupta and the Chief Court Pandit under Jayāpīda of Kashmir (Rājatarangini IV. 495-97). He should have then flourished in the last quarter of the eighth century. Udbhața mentions like Bhāinaha and Dandin the three Alankāras, Preyas, Rasavad, and Ürjasvin besides a new one Saināhita; But his conception of them differs from his predecessors (sce K. L. S. Chap. IV.). Preyas, according to him, is the development of an emotion like love to that extent only, when it could be called Bhāva and not Rasa Rasavad is that piece of poetry where Rasas are fully developed through Svasabda (express reference), Sthayi, Salicāri (evanescent feelings), Vibhāva and Abhinaya. This agrees with the generally accepted theory except in this respect that Rasa could be realised through express reference; and this view is severely criticised by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta (see Dhv. pp. 24-26). He accepts the eight Rasas of Bharata and recognises, probably for the first time in the history of the theory of Rasa, Säntarasa as 1. Udbhata's K. L. S. Chap. IV. प्रेयो रसवदूर्जस्वि पर्यायोक्तं समाहितम् । प्रेयस्वत् तावत् रत्यादिकानां भावानामनुभावादिसूचनैः । यत्काव्यं बध्यते सद्भिः तत्प्रेयस्वदुदाहृतम् ॥ रसवत् रसवदर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसोदयम् । स्वशब्दस्थायिसञ्चारिविभावाभिनयास्पदम् ।। शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः ।। बीभत्साद्भुतशान्ताश्च नव नाट्ये रसाः स्मृताः ॥ ऊर्जस्त्रि अनौचित्यप्रवृत्तानां कामक्रोधादिकारणात् । भावानां च रसानां च बन्ध ऊर्जवि कथ्यते ।। समाहितम् रसभावतदाभासवृत्तेः प्रशमबन्धनम् । अन्यानुभावनिःशून्यरूपं यत्तत्समाहितम् ॥

·32 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book 1 the ninth and he also grants the possibility of its development through action. Ta ATT TAI: Fat: (Chap. IV.). Orjasvin also, unlike Bhāmaha or Dandin, is defined by him as the development of the incongruous or misplaced Rasa and Bhāva as, e.g., the love of Rāvana to Sītā. It agrees with the later conception of Rasabhāsa. Samāhita is the calining down of a Rasa or Bhāva, real or misplaced. Udbhata was probably the earliest to put forward this conception of Samāhita. Though Udbhața to all appearance followed Bhāmaha, it is certainly clear that he was quite as inuch a representative of the Rasa School as that of the Alankāra. Section 11.—Rurata and Rudrabhaļļu. Rudrata and Rudrabhatta are respectively the authors of the Kävyālankāra' and the 'Srngāratilaka'. Owing to similarity in name and almost word for word identity between many verses of both (c.g., Rudrața XI. 13, XIV. 1, 12, 34, 38 and XV. 15 & 16 agree with Rudra III. +7, 11. 1, 29, 60, 69 and III. 18 respectively), it is suggested that these two writers are one and the But though there is general agreement between them regarding their treatment of Rasa, there is essential difference in this respect. Rudra following Bharata accepts his eight Rasas and adds one more, viz., śānta (S. T. 1. 5,9). But Rudrața admits these nine and further inentions Preyān as a tenth one. Moreover Rudrața, contrary to the tradition of Bharata, boldly asserts that as Nirveda and other emotions when developed contribute to pleasure in the same way as Srngāra or Karuna, they (Nirveda, etc.) too should be treated as Rasas (Chap. XII. 3, +). same. S. T. I. 5 & 9. € प्रायो नाटयं प्रतिप्रोक्ता भरताचे रसस्थितिः । यथामति मयाप्येषा काव्यं प्रति निगद्यते ॥ शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणा रौद्रवीरभयानकाः । बीभत्साद्रुतशान्ताश्च नव काव्ये रसाः स्मृताः ॥ Rudraţa. XII. 3 & 4. शृङ्गारवीरकरुणा बीभत्सभयानकाद्भुता हास्यः । रौद्रः शान्तः प्रेयानिति मन्तव्या रसाः सर्वे ॥ रसनाद्रसत्वमेषां मधुरादीनामिवोक्तमाचार्यैः । निर्वेदादिष्वपि तन्निकाममस्तीति तेऽपि रसाः ॥

·CHAP. IV). FROM BHĀMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 33 Rudrața's classification of vịttis into five (Chap. 11. 1911 differs entirely from the traditional four Vrttis accepted by Rudrabhatta (S. T. I. 19). The illustrative verses of Rudrata are markedly inferior poetry. Rudrața professes to be more a critic and he deals with many aspects of criticism, while Rudra confines himself to the Rasas and even here deals mostly with Sạngāra. It is very likely that Rudrața independently framed the definitions of the various subjects and Rudrabhatta incorporated some of them in his work, composed many others and illustrated them suitably. It is thus quite probable that Rudrabhatta lived sometime later than Rudrața. Rudrața is quoted anonyniously by Pratīhārendurā ja (Rudrața XII. +, Prati. p. 49)2 and Rājasekhara, and also by name by the latter (Rudrata 111. +: K. M. p. 57.3 Rudrata II. 16 : K. M. p. 31). Anandavardhana does not make any reference to Rudrața as he does to Udbhata and other earlier writers; nor does Rudrața refer to the theory of Dhvani expounded by Ānanda. Again Rudrata's treatment of the Rasas at greater length than Udbhata or Vāmana favours the assumption that he lived sometime after them when the theory of Rasa had become more acceptable to the critics of the times. He should thus be placed before Rājasekhara (880-920 A.D.) and probably Ānandavardhana also, but not long before the latter. It is very likely that he was an elder contemporary of Anandavardhana (850 A. D.) and that he flourished in the second quarter of the ninth century. 2. 1. Rudraţa II. 19. मधुरा प्रौढा परुषा ललिता भद्रेति वृत्तयः पञ्च । S. T. 1. 19.- कैशिक्यारभटी चैव सात्वती भारती तथा ।। चतस्रो वृत्तयो ज्ञेया रसावस्थानसूचिकाः ॥ l'rati p. +9 *:-THEHANH etc. Rudrata. 111-4. 3. Kävyamimāṁsā, p. 57. " TENR ore TARE'' etc. Rudrața. III. 4. 7. K. M. P. 31. काकुवक्रोक्तिर्नाम शब्दालंकारोऽयमिति रुद्रटः See Rudraţa, II. 16. S_5 ·34 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [Book 1 . Rudrata appears at the close of the period dominated by the three schools-Alankara, Guna and Riti-and at the commencement of the one in which, by the formulation of the principle of Dhvani, the Rasa theory is established on a firm footing. It is significant that at this transitional stage he should endeavour to effect a reconciliation between the two opposing camps and pave the way for the determination of the proper place of the different principles in the evaluation of poetry. Though his work is styled "Kāvyā laukāra' he devotes the last five chapters exclusively to the treatment of the Rasas, He reduces the number of the Arthālaukāras to four-Västavam,' Aupamyam, Slēsa and Atišayokti-and does not bring the Rasas under any of them as Bhāmaha and Danıin do. To him poetry should be free from faults and possess the Guņas (i.t., Alankāras according to him. See Nami. p. 149 on Rudrata XI. 30).' Any poem will be barren of interest if the various Rasas are not properly developed therein (Rudrata XV. 21). He further indicates the proper use of the different Ritis in developing the various Rasas (Chap. XV 2014 and thus subordinates them to Rasas. . 1. Rudrata. VII. 9. अर्थस्यालंकारा वास्तवमौपम्यमतिशयः श्लेषः । एषामेव विशेषा अन्ये तु भवन्ति निःशेषाः ॥ 2. Rudrata. XI.36. शब्दार्थयोरिति निरूप्य विभक्तरूपान् दोषान्गुणांश्च निपुणो विसृजन्नसारम् । सारं समाहितमनाः परमाददानः कुर्वीत काव्यमविनाशि यशोऽधिगन्तुम् ॥ 3. Rudrata.xv. 21: एते रसा रसवतो रमयन्ति पुंसः सम्यग्विभज्य रचिताश्चतुरेण चारु । यस्मादिमाननधिगम्य न सर्वरम्यं काव्यं विधातुमलमत्र तदाद्रियेत ॥ +. Rudrata. XV. 20. वैदर्भीपाश्चाल्यौ प्रेयसिकरुणे भयानकाद्तयोः । लाटीयागोडीयौ रौद्रे कुर्याद्ययौचित्यम् ॥

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHĀMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 35 His treatment of the Rasas generally follows Bharata, but in some respects, as remarked before, it deviates from him. postulates, besides the eight Rasas, two others, Santa and Preyān (Chap. XII. 3). Sānta has already been counted among the Rasas by Udbhața, but Preyān never gained acceptance at the hands of the Alankārikas. It is noteworthy that he gave the distinction of Rasa' to Vyabhicãribhāvas like Nirveda or resignation (XII. +). His classification of the Vipralamblia Śộngāra into Prathamānurāga, Māna, Pravāsa and Karuņa (XI. IV.)3 agrees with Bhoja's: and it is quite likely that Rudraţa followed a tradition different from, though allied to, the generally accepted one represented by Anandavardhana, Rudrabhatta. Bharata and others dealt with the position of Rasas in dramatic representation: and Rudrabhatta - professes to do a similar service to written poetry (S. T. I. 5). According to him a poem without Rasa is as dreary as the night without the moon (S. T. I, 6). He deals with nine Rasas including Santa, but special treatment is accorded to Srngāra alone. He also speaks of the different classes of heroes and their helpmates. His work gives a clear exposition of the different factors in the development of śrrgāra especially and it contains his own excellent illustrations often modelled on the style of the Amaru- Sataki. Section 1'11.- Agnipurūna. The Agnipurāna treats of a variety of subjects, one of which is poetics. Chapters 337-+7 ure devoted to this. This section compiled by some unknown writer contains but a loose and disjointed expression, often in their own words, of the different 1. & 2. For Rudrata XII. 3 & t, spage 28. 3. Rudrata. XIV. I. अथं विप्रलम्भनामा शृङ्गरोऽयं चतुर्विधो भवति । प्रथमानुरागमानप्रवासकरुणात्मकत्वेन ॥ . t. For S. T. 1. 5, see page 32.. 5. S. T. 1.6. यामिनीवेन्दुना मुक्ता नारीव रमणं विना । लक्ष्मीरिव ऋते त्यागानो वाणी भाति नीरसा ।।

·36 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I views held by early writers like Bharata, Bhāmaha, Dandin and others. There is no dominant theory of poetry, but emphasis is laid on all its aspects---Alarkāra, Riti, Rasa, etc. (Agn. P. Chap. CCCXXXVII. 7, 31-32; CCCXLIV. 2. etc.).1 Nine Rasas including Sānta are recognised and among them special treatment is accorded to śrngāra. What may be the date of the composition of this section? Prof. Sovani suggests (see Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol. p. 392) and Dr. De supports the view (Skt. Foetics pp. 102-4; J. R. A. S. 1923 p. 537 foll.) that it should have been composed before Anandavardhana on this ground that the two verses, 'अपारे काव्य- संसारे etc., appearing on p. 222 of the Dhvanyāloka, are identical with Agnipurana Chap. CCCXXXIX verses 10 & 11, and that Ananda should have culled them from the latter. It will be shown below that the reverse is the truth and that in any case this Alankāra section is certainly later than Anandavardhana, It is true that many verses from Bharata, Bhāmaha and Dandin are cited in the Purāņa. It should be noted that some views held first by Rudrata are also found in the Purāna. To the three varieties of Riti accepted by Vāmana, it was Rudrata that added a fourth, Lāțiya (Rudrata 11. 3, + & 6). Those very 1. Agnipurana Chap. 337-7. काव्यं स्फुरदलंकारं गुणवद्दोषवर्जितम् । Ibid.337. 31-3. . सर्ववृत्तिप्रवृत्तं च सर्वभावप्रभावितम् । (31) सर्वरीतिरसैः स्पृष्टं पुष्टं गुणविभूषणैः । अत एव महाकाव्यं तत्कर्ता च महाकविः ।। (32) वाग्वैदग्ध्यप्रधानेऽपि रस एवात्र जीवितम् । (33) bid. 344-2. अर्थालंकाररहिता विधवेव सरस्वती। 2. Rudrata. II. 3. नाम्नां वृत्तिर्द्वधा भवति समासासमासभेदेन । वृत्तेः समासवत्यास्तत्र स्यू रीतयस्तिस्रः ॥ II. 4. पाश्चाली लाटीया गौडीया चेति नामतोऽभिहिताः II. 6. वृत्तरसमासाया वैदर्भीरीतिरेकैव ॥

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHA MAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 37 same four are admitted here (Agn. P. Chap. CCCXL. 1). 1 Rudrata made a novel classification of Vrttis into five (Chap. II. 19)2 and they are copied in the other (Agn. P. Chap. CCCXLIII. 2).3 Agn. P. CCCLV. 114 first half-the definition of Lakşaņā— is taken from the Tantravārtika p. 318 and the other definition of it is, as has been identified, taken from Matrgupta. Further Agn. P. CCCXXXIX. 9. B.5 is taken from the Srigāratilaka I. 6. The two verses अपारे काव्यसंसारे etc., appear immediately after this andsthe next verse CCCXXXIX. 12 is extracted from N. S. VI. 36. When there are so many anonymous quotations and that from writers like Rudrața and Rudrabhațța who lived so close to Anandavardhana, there does not appear to be any justification for treating the two verses found between two other quo- 3 1. Agn. p. 340-1. वाग्विद्यासम्प्रतिज्ञाने रीतिः सापि चतुर्विधा । पाञ्चाली गौडदेशीया वैदर्भी लाटजा तथा ॥ 2. Rudrata. II. 19. See p. 33. Agn. p. 343-2. एकवर्णगतावृत्तेर्जायन्ते पञ्च वृत्तयः । मधुरा ललिता प्रौढा भद्रा परुषया सह ॥ +. Agn. p. 345-11. अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिर्लक्षणोच्यते । Tantravārtika p. 318. 345-11 & 12. अभिधेयेन सम्बन्धात्सामीप्यात्समवायतः etc. 5. Agn. p. 339.9 to 12. लक्ष्मीरिव विना त्यागान्न वाणी भाति नीरसा ॥ (9) See p. 35. S. T. I अपारे काव्यसंसारे कविरेकः प्रजापतिः । यथा वै रोचते विश्वं तथेदं परिवर्तते ॥ (10) शृङ्गारी चेत्कविः काव्ये जातं रसमयं जगत् । स चेत्कविर्वीतरागो नीरसं व्यक्तमेव तत् ॥ (11) न भावहीनोऽस्ति रसो न भावो रसवर्जितः । भावयन्ति रसानेभिर्भाव्यन्ते च रसा इति ॥ N. S. VI. 3/.

·38 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I tations as anything but a quotation. Further in the Dhvanyāloka itself these verses introduced by 'तथा चेदमुच्यते' do not appear to be cited from elsewhere. Even where Ānanda uses the past 'उक्तम्' instead of 'उच्यते' as here, he means his own verse-c.g., see Dhv. p. 221 'तदिदमुक्तम्' etc. Abhinava comments on this thus-उक्तमिति। मयैवेत्यर्थः। Again the author of the Agnipurana appears to be acquainted with that kārikā of the Dhvanyaloka in which Dhvani' is defined. Let me cite the two texts:- (1) श्रुतेरलभ्यमानोऽर्थो यस्माद्भाति सचेतनः । स आक्षेपो ध्वनिः स्याच्च ध्वनिना व्यज्यते यतः ।। शब्देनार्थेन यत्रार्थः कृत्वा स्वमुपार्जनम् । Agn. p. CCCXLV. 1+ & 15. (2) यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थो । व्यतः काव्यविशेषः स ध्वनिरिति सूरिभिः कथितः ॥ Dhv. I. 13., p. 33. The Agnipurāņa divides all expression into Sruti and Akşepa (CCCXLV. 7) and brings Abhidhā and Laksaņā under the first and Dhvani or suggestion under the second. In Agn. P. CCCXLV. 15 cited above कृत्वा स्वमुपार्जनम् is unmeaning; and my Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar suggests—and I agree with it-that it is a corruption from thar fangasta'. Accepting this emendation we see little difference between the two definitions of Dhvani except that of voice. It is passive voice in the Agn. p. and active in the Dhvanyaloka, and probably to give a new colour it is so changed in the former. Such textual corruption is not uncommon in that work. Let me cite another instance of it:-Agn. p. CCCXLV 16 reads thus-- तमाक्षेपं ब्रुवन्त्यत्र स्तुतं स्तोत्रमिदं पुनः । अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य या स्तुतिः ।। It should read thus correctly- तमाक्षेपं ब्रुवन्त्यप्रस्तुतस्तोत्रमिदं पुनः । Further the assertion contained in Agn. p. CCCXLV. 18- एषामेकतमस्यैव समाख्या ध्वनिरित्यतः ।

·CHAP. IV] FROM BHĀMAHA TO ANANDAVARDHANA 39 viz., Dhvani is a name of one or other of these Alankārasappears to reiterate the view so vigorously criticised and rejected by Anandavardhana in the 1st Chapter, and the fact that almost the same Alankāras taken for illustration by him are here represented in the Purāna to include Dhvani further supports the above contention, From this it is clear that the anonymous writer of the Agnipurāna is later than the Dhvanikāra, Anandavardhana-and it will be proved belowl that Ananda and Dhvanikāra are identical and the latter flourished about 850 A.D. Most probably this writer represented a school which opposed the Dhvani theory when it had not gained complete acceptance. We may thus place lim sometime after Ananda, i.e., in the second half of the 9th century. Some similarity is sought to be established between the theory of Rasa as stated in the Agnifurana and that of King Bhoja on the ground of the great emphasis they both laid on śrngāra (J. R. A. S. 1923; pp. 540 ſoll.). Such an attempt is to ignore the fundamental aspect of Bhoja's extreine position which denies absolutely the dignity of Rasa to anything other than Srngāra (Śộng. P. Vol. I. pp. 2 & 426).5 If any comparison with the view of the Agnipurāņa is worth instituting it must be to that of the Śșrgāratilaka. 1. Sc Chap. VI. Section -. 2. Śrng. P. Vol. I. pp. 2 & 426. शृङ्गारवीरकरुणाद्भुतरौद्रहास्य- बीभत्सवत्सलभयानकशान्तनाम्नः । आम्नासिषुर्दश रसान् सुधियो वयं तु शृङ्गारमेव रसनाद्रसमामनामः ॥ afiquareg 7 OE THSTATE सिद्धा कुतोऽपि वटवृक्षवदाधिभाति । लोके गतानुगतिकत्ववशादुपेता- मेतां निवर्तयितुमेष परिश्रमो नः ॥ l'or a statement of Bhoja's theory, sec below. Chap. XI. :

·CHAPTER V. POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD. It was observed before that the poets of this period, unlike the critics, were quite friendly to this school of Rasa first represented by Vālmiki and Bharata. Some of them distinctly favoured this school and were even extreme enthusiasts of it, while the others accepted the principles with certain reservations. The outstanding figures under the former are Pravarasena, Kālidāsa, Bhavabhūti and Muräri. Pravarasena, who is certainly an early poet, suggests that Rasa could be developed through Abhinaya (S.B. I. 49; V. 24)? and that the poetic theme should be enlivened through the delineation of the Rasas (S. B. 1. 9).3 Kālidāsi protests against the conservatism of the critics of the times, of praising only what is old (M. Act. I. 2.), but he is quite willing to submit to the considered decision of learned men. Affording pleasure to them through representation is the function of the dramatist (R. I. 10;5 V. Act, 1.)." He extols the 1. Sce pp. 18 & 19. 2. S. B. V.24. तो संधन्तेण सरं रसान्तरो लुग्गभिउडिमङ्गे चिरम् । णीससिऊण पुलइओ अणुअम्पादूमिअणणेण समुद्दो ॥ 3. For S. B. I.9 and I. +9, see p. 1+. . +. M. Act I... पुराणमित्येव न साधु सर्व न चापि काव्यं नवमित्यवद्यम् । सन्तः परीक्ष्यान्यतरद्वजन्ते मूढः परप्रत्ययनेयबुद्धिः ॥ 5. R. I. 10. तं सन्तः श्रीतुमर्हन्ति सदसद्वयक्तिहेतवः । हेम्नः संलक्ष्यते ह्यग्नौ विशुद्धिः श्यामिकापि वा ॥ 6. V. Act I. आ परितोषाद्विदुषां न साधु मन्ये प्रयोगविज्ञानम् ।

·CHAP. V] . POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD. 41 histrionic art (M. Act I. 4) through which the eight Rasas have to be developed (V. Act II. 18). When attending a dramatic performance the audience, through its imaginative sympathy, lroses itself in the situations and characters, and enjoys (अनुगत- स्तन्मयत्वं रसेषु. M. I]. 8; तेषु रसान्तरेषु तन्मयी आसीत V. Act III. Speech 2). Among the Rasas Srigāra is his favourite, and even here Vipralambha or the union of lovers after long separation is the most delectable (V. Act 111. 21;? Mēgha, Il. +5).4 Kālidāsa is a direct disciple of Vālmiki, who probably values Karuņa above all other Rasas: and though deviating from Valmiki, he is quite alive to the essentially moving nature of Karuna (R. XIV. 42). He is at his best in the delineation of Śſigāra, but equally at home in Karuna and Vira. To him, as to Vālmiki, Poetry is the spontaneous rhythnic expression of a climax of emotion (R. XIV. 70). In judging the value of anything he would follow the dictates of his own conscience (S. Act 1. 19). Above all in developing the Rasas he would insist on that quality essential for every art, i'lz., restraint. 1. M.Act I. +. देवानामिदमामनन्ति मुनयः कान्तं क्रतुं चाक्षुषं रुद्रेणेदमुमाकृतव्यतिकरे स्वाङ्गे विभक्तं द्विधा । त्रैगुण्योद्भवमत्र लोकचरितं नानारसं दृश्यते नाट्यं भिन्नरुचेर्जनस्य बहुधाप्येकं समाराधनम् ॥ 2. V. Act it. 18. See p. 1+. 3. V. .Act III.21. यदेवोपनतं दुःखात्सुखं तद्रसवत्तरम् । निर्वाणाय तरुच्छाया तप्तस्य हि विशेषतः ।। 4. Mega. II. +5. स्नेहानाहुः किमपि विरहे हासिनस्ते ह्यभोगा- दिष्टे वस्तुन्युपचितरसाः प्रेमराशीभवन्ति । 5. XIV.42. तदेष सर्गः करुणार्दचित्तैः + में भवद्भिः प्रतिषेधनीयः । R. XIV. 70. See p. 8. S. 1. 10. सतां हि सन्देहपदेषु वस्तुषु प्रमाणमन्तःकरणप्रवृत्तयः ।। S-6 b. 7.

·42 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA. [BOOK Bhavabhūti is an enthusiastic follower of Vālmīki and the School of Rasa. He too loudly protests against the critics of his days who, without enjoying the sweetness of the Rasas, search only for the faults in his poetry. The verse Th Falas etc. (Mal. Act. I. 8)1 is not a vain egotistic outburst, but only an expression of his disgust of the critics of the times and his selfconsciousness and a prophetic and optimistic belief in the essential goodness of man. According to him, a dramatist should aim at the delineation of a particular Rasa or a combination of Rasas, and he should so choose the incidents and characters as would lend to their development (Mal. Act 1. 6 ; Mah. Act 1. etc.). He shows to be an expert in the combination of allied and contrary Rasas. In the Tiger incident in the Malatimādhava, Vira is introduced to aid the development of Sșngāra. He dexterously makes even Bībhatsa aid the progress of love. There the change from Śrngāra to Bībhatsa is gradually effected without a hitch through the intervention of Adbhuta. The introduction of the disgusting scene of Mādhava's selling flesh in the crematory, in the course of the development of love, should not be treated as being rude and out of taste, hecause the change of Rasa is effected naturally; and on the ruins of Bibhatsa emerges love rendered purer and more intense through the experience of an ordeal. Bhavabhūti also shows how the change from Bibhatsa to the predominant Rasa, Śrngāra, is skilfully brought about through the intervention of other Rasas--Birayānaka, Karuņa, Adbhuta, ' Raudra and Harsa-all of them developed only to a small extent and made ancillary to the main Srngāra 1. Mal. I. 8. ये नाम केचिदिह नः प्रथयन्त्यवज्ञां जानन्ति ते किमपि तान्प्रति नेष यत्नः । उत्पत्स्यतेऽस्ति मम कोऽपि समानधर्मा कालो ह्ययं निरवधिर्विपुला च पृथ्वी ॥ 2. Māl. 1. 6. भूम्ना रसानां गहनाः प्रयोगाः सौहार्दहयानि विचेष्टितानि । औद्धत्यमायोजितकामसूत्रं चित्राः कथा वाचि विदग्धता च ॥ Mal. Act. I. अप्राकृतेषु पात्रेषु यत्र वीरः स्थितो रसः । भेदैः सूक्ष्मैराभिव्यक्तैः प्रत्याधार विभज्यते ॥

·CHAP. V] POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD. 43 (Mál. Act V. 281; Dhr. Chap. III. Kārikās 20 & 24). He considers that the essential nature of Rasa is "Cittavidruti' or a certain melting of the heart when one is overpowered by emotion (Uttara. R. III. 13).3 This probably explains his extreme attitude that there is only one predominant Rasa, Karuņa, which in many of its apparent transformations assumes the nature of Srigāra, Vira, etc., but yet remains intrinsically Karuna, just like the water, which appears as whirlpool, waves, etc., does not yet cease to be water (Uttara. R. Act III. 47). He depicts the three inain Rasas in his three dramas and he is certainly inost successful in the delineation of Karuna in the Uttararāmacarita. Murāri's style is heavy and difficult to understand, yet he proſesses to be a direct disciple of Vālmiki just like Bhavabhūti, and he calls himself Bālavālmiki (A. R. p. 19). Ho mentions the different Rasas and recognises Sānta among them (A. R. 1. Māl. dct V. 28. आतङ्कद्विकलं द्रुतं करुणया विक्षोभितं विस्मयात् क्रोधेन ज्वलितं मुदा विकसितं चेतः कथं वर्तते । .Ser' Tripuriri's Comments. 2. Dhv. III. 20 24. विवक्षिते रसे लब्धप्रतिष्ठे तु विरोधिनाम । बाध्यानामङ्गभावं वा प्राप्तानामुक्तिरच्छला ।। अविरोधी विरोधी वा रसेऽङ्गिनि रसान्तरे । परिपोषं न नेतव्यस्तथा स्यादविरोधिता ।। 3. Uttara. R. III. 13. प्रसन्नं सौजन्यादयितकरुणैर्गाढकरणं द्रवीभूतं प्रेम्णा तव हृदयमस्मिन्क्षण इव ॥ 4 Uttara. R. III. 47. एको रसः करुण एव निमित्तभेदा- दिन्नः पृथक् पृथगिव श्रर्यते विवर्तान् । आवर्तबुद्बुदतरङ्गमयान्विकारा- नम्भो यथा सलिलमेव हि तत्समस्तम् ।। 5. A. R. p. 19. मुरारिनामधेयस्य बालवाल्मीकेर्वाङ्मयममृतबिन्दुनिष्यन्दि etc.

·44 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I pp. 95-61; 163-4, Act IV. 27). He considers that Vipralambha is more delectable than Sambhōga (A. R. p. 273, Act VII. 37).3 He suggests that he is writing in the Vaidarbhi style (A. R. Act VII. 101).. Prominent among those that accepted the Rasa theory with certain reservations are Bharavi, Bana, Sri Harsa, Magha, Subandhu and Ratnākara. Bhāravi valued highly depth of Isense in Poetry and his language is often strained and cumbrous; yet he successfully delineates Vira Rasa. Ht regards Vipralambıha as quite delectable.5 Bina decries poets devoid of creative genius (Har. c. I. 6)." He does not view with approval the exclusive attention paid 1. A. R. pp. 95-96. mention is made of the Rasas, करुण, आश्चर्य, बीभत्स, हास, त्रास, क्रोध and वीर । 2. A. R. pp. 163-4 Act IV. 27. अहो संकीर्यमाणानेकरसानुभावगम्भीरमधुरोऽयमस्याभोगः । तथा हि जटां धत्ते मूर्धा परशुधनुषी बाहुशिखरं प्रकोष्ठो रौद्राक्षं वलयमिषुदण्डानपि करः । प्ररूढप्रौढास्त्रव्रणविकटरौद्राद्भुतमिदं प्रशान्तामणेयीं त्वचमपि च वक्षः कलयति ॥ 3. A. R. pp. 273. VII. 37. संभोगानतिरिच्यमानविभवो यद्विप्रलम्भो रसः -- 4. A.R. VII. 101. विभ्रतीं कैशिकी वृत्ति सौरभोद्गारिणीं गिरः । दूराध्वानोऽपि कवयो यस्य रीतिमुपासते ॥ 5. Kirātārjuniya of Bhäravi. Canto XI. 27, विप्रलम्भोऽपि लाभाय सति प्रियसमागमे । रतिरसाहितभावं.etc. Do. IX.73. 6. lar. c. 1.6. अन्यवर्णपरावृत्त्या बन्धचिह्ननिगूहनैः । अनाख्यातः सतां मध्ये कविः चौरो विभाज्यते ॥

·CHAP. V] POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD. 45 to a single aspect of poetry like Slēşa, Utprēksā, mere content and wordplay by the different peoples of India (Har. c. 1. 7).' To hin poetry should combine novelty of theme and ideas, re. fined representation of life, transparent double entendre, easily realisable Rasa and smooth, gliding expression (Har. c. 1. 8).2 While giving adequate place to literary form, Bāņa fully recognises the value of genius and the Rasas in poetry; and he appears to have had in view this conception when he wrote his two works. He is accused, especially by Europeans, of writing an obscure and laboured style, often indulging in far-fetched similes and long-drawn out double entendre. It is true that his language is sometimes difficult and far from lucid. But to one who knows the Indian mythology and tradition, it is easy enough to understand; and in the vividness of description, wealth of illustration and the liquid movement of expression he is equal to any other poet. Further his language rises equal to his theme. Note his style when he describes the love of Mahāśvētā in the Kadambari. The whole section is a masterpiece illustrative of the lucidity, sweetness, clegance and rapidity of expression blended with the intense development of the tenderest of all the Rasas, Vipralambha and Karuna. We seek in vain for the like of it in all Sanskrit literature. As Bāņa's son puts it (Kad. Part 11. verse 7), hy drinking the sweetness of the honey flowing from the Risas in the Kādambari one is intensely excited with joy and does not know oneseli. Bāna fully recognises the place of Rasas in poetry, emphasising at the same time the formal side thereot. Sri Harsa ut kanauj, the author of the three dramas, believes like Kālidāsa that the consensus of opinion among learned men 1. I. 7. श्लषेप्रायमुदीच्येषु प्रतीच्येष्वर्थमात्रकम् । उत्प्रेक्षा दाक्षिणात्येषु गौडेष्वक्षरडम्बरः ॥ 1. . नवोऽर्थो जातिरग्राम्या श्लेषोऽक्लिष्टः स्फुटो रसः । विकटाक्षरबन्धश्च कृत्स्नमेकत्र दुष्करम् ॥ Küdl. Part. II. Verse 7. (Introductory). कादम्बरीरसभरेण समस्त एव मत्तो न किंचिदपि चेतयते जनोऽयम् । भीतोऽस्मि यन्न रसवर्णविवर्जितेन तच्छेषमात्मवचसाप्यनुसंदधानः ॥ 3.

·46 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA [BOOK I is the test of the worth of a literary work (Rat. Act. I. 5, also Priya.d. and Nigānanda).1 Though the Rasas are not very well developed in a work, yet the greatness of the characters portrayed in it delights the readers-a view opposed to that of Bhavabhūti (Priya.d. p. 46). He would at the same time insist that the poet should pay due attention to the proper development of the Rasas (Priya.d. p. 65). As observed before he was the author of the Vārtikas on Bharata’s Natyaśāstra. He was greatly influenced by Buddhistic monks, and that probably explains why he developed the Rasa, Dyāvīra or Sānta in his Nāgānanda. It is likely that, in his times, Sānta was refused a place among the Rasas by conservative and orthodox critics, and in order tu vindicate its claim to be regarded as one that could be developed and represented on the stage, he wrote his play Nägānanda. Māgha emphasised both poetic expression and content (Sisu. Canto ll. 86)4 ; there should be depth of sense or ideas and more than one Guņa, Ojas or Prasāda in a poem where Rasas are delineated (Sisu. II. 74, 83).5 The transitory emotions develop the dominant emotion or Sthāyībhāva which is transformed into Rasa (Sisu. II. 87).6 Through a proper 1. Sri Harsa. Priya.d. Rat. and Nagānanda. श्रीहर्षी निपुणः कविः परिषदप्येषा गुणग्राहिणी । 2. Priya.d. p. 46. Śri Vāni Vilas Edn. वासवदत्ता-भगवति ! अहो ते कवित्वम् । येनैतद्गूढवृत्तान्तं नाटकोप- निबद्धं सानुभवमप्यस्माकं आर्यपुत्रचरितमदृष्टपूर्वमिव दृश्यमानमधिकतरं कौतूहलं वर्धयति । साङ्कृत्यायनी -आयुष्मति! आश्रयगुण एवायमीदृशः यदसारमपि काव्यमवश्यमेव शृण्वतां श्रवणसुखमुत्पादयति । 3. Priya.d. p.65. तन्न युक्तम् अस्थाने रसभङ्गं कृत्वा गन्तुम् । Māgha--Śifupālavadha. 4. II 86. शब्दार्थौ सत्कविवि द्वयं विद्वानपेक्षते ।। 5. II. 83. नैकमोजः प्रसादो वा रसभावविदः कवेः । 6. II. 37. स्थायिनोऽर्थे प्रवर्तन्ते भावाः सञ्चारिणो यथा । सः तथा नेतुर्महीमृतः ॥

·CHAP. V] . POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD). 47 development of Bhāvas by various characters, the audience realises the Rasas and is delighted (Sisu. XIV. 50).1 Dramas written by poets well-versed in the science expounded by. Bharata shine above all others (Sisu. xx.44).2 He mentions also the different Rasas, Srigara, Karuna, Raudra, etc. (Sisu. XIV. 82; XIX. 37). He indirectly suggests in XIII. 693 that the enjoyment of Rasas that is had from his work is unearthly and could not be had anywhere else in this world. He also puts down as the necessary requisite of a poet creative genius. It is very clear from the above that he fully realised the value and place of Rasas in poetry; yet he fell a victim to the bad influences of his age in believing, like Bhavabhūli and Bhāravi, that a work which claims to be a Mahākāvya or a great poem should contain also Sabdacitra or word play like Gömūtrikā; and he devoted a whole canto to it. Svibandhu lived about the beginning of the eighth century. He makes some significant remarks in the introductory verses to the Vasavadattā. Poets, through their imagination, take a comprehensive and correct view of things and actions, men and manners, etc., in the world (V. D. Verse 1). They shine brilliantly through the appreciation of critics, and they themselves are not often the true appraisers of their own works (V, D. 1. XIV. 50. स्वादयन्रसमनेकसंस्कृतप्राकृतैरकृतपात्रसंकरैः । भावशुद्धिसहितैर्मुदं जनो नाटकैरिव बभार भोजनैः ।। 2. xx. ++. दधतस्तनिमानामनुपूर्व्या बभुरक्षिश्रवसो मुखे विशाला: भरतज्ञकविप्रणीतकाव्यग्रथिताङ्का इव नाटकप्रपञ्चाः ॥ 3. NIII. 69. मर्त्यलोकदुरवापमवाप्तरसोदयं नूतनत्वमतिरिक्ततयानुपदं दधत् । श्रीपतिः पतिरसाववनेश्च परस्परं संकथामृतमनेकमसिस्वदतामुभौ । 4. Sisu. II.73. 5. V. D. Subandhu's Vasavadatta. verse I. करबदरसदृशमखिलं भुवनतलं यत्प्रसादतः कवयः । पश्यन्ति सूक्ष्ममतयः सा जयति सरस्वती देवी ॥

·48 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF RASA, [Book 1 'verses 5 & 12).1 Aiter Vikramāditya there flourished no great poet who developed the Rasas in their poems (V. D. verse 10).” Subandhu lays stress on the Gunas and says that there is some sweetness in the very glide of words in good poetry (V. D. verse 11)." He ahuses wicked critics and declares that a great poet is unaffected by their adverse criticism; and when insulted or not patronised by kings blind, in their pride of power and wealth, to all good poetry, the poet's greatness is in no way marred. These men become all the more accursed by their caluinny of good poets (V. D. verses (6.9).4 IWhy should Subandhu denounce so vehemently the ways of kings and critics of his days ? Evidently the kings were 110 patrons of art and learning; and critics had developed a morbid taste of applauding only Śabdacitra or wordplay and could not appreciate and enjoy the delectable Rasas in poetry (Cr. Bhavabhuti. Mal. Act I. 8). It is a strange irony that Subandhu who denounces the bad taste of his days should, unlike Bhavabhiiti, tall a complete victim too it, 1. V. D.5. भवति सुभगत्वमधिक विस्तारितपरगुणस्य सुजनस्य । वहति विकासितकुमुदो द्विगुणरुचिं हिमकरोद्योतः ॥ V. 1). 12. गुणानामपि निजरूपप्रतिपत्तिः परत एव संभवति । स्वमहिमदर्शनमक्ष्णोर्मुकुरतले जायते यस्मात् ॥ 2. V. D. 10. सा रसवत्ता विहता नवका विलसन्ति चरति नो कङ्कः । सरसीव कीर्तिशेषं गतवति भुवि विक्रमादित्ये ॥ 3. Do. 11. अविदितगुणापि सत्कविभाणितिः कर्णेषु वमति मधुधाराम् । अनधिगतपरिमलापि हि हरति दृशं मालतीमाला ॥ 4. Verse 8. हस्त इव भूतिमलिनो यथा यथा लङ्घयति खलः सुजनम् ॥ दर्पणमिव तं कुरुते तथा तथा निर्मलच्छायम् ॥ Verse 9. विध्वस्तपरगुणानां भवति खलानामतीव मलिनत्वम् । अन्तरितशशिरुचामपि सलिलमुचां मलिनिमाभ्यधिकः ॥ 5. Mal. Act I. 8. See page 42, ·CHAP. V]. POET-CRITICS OF THIS PERIOD 19 for does he not pride in saying at the end of his work that he has executed with meticulous care Slëșa in every syllable of his Väsavadatta? Ratnākara lived about 850 A.D. He says in H. V. XXI. verse 572 that, though the principal aim of the dramatist is the proper delineation of the Rasas, he should pay also adequate attention to the choice of Vitti, Guņa, great characters, Sandhis in a drama, all of which contribute only to the development of the Rasis. The essential feature of a Mahākāvya is casily realisable Rasa (Cf. Bāņa 2 : Har. c. I. 8) and elaboration of the theme in many cantos (H. V. XLIII. verse 87). He seems to take special credit to shimself for writing tiſty cantos, while Kálidāsa and others ite only about twenty. Among masters of style he count. irst and himself next. Probably Bāņa is his ideal. There fic ing this period many other poets who did not disti their leanings towards any particular school. Th $a, Kumāradāsa and Sūdraka are good poets they concerned about these theories. Bhatti is certain he school of Bhāmaha. Other poets irāja, Bhattanārāyaṇa and Višākhadatta similar to that of Bāna and Sri Harşa. se. वासवैदग्ध्यनिधि प्रबन्धम् । सुबन्धुः सुजनैकबन्धुः ॥ XI. 57. अतवृत्ति गुणव्यपाश्रयं पूर्वकृतिप्रवणात्मतां दधत् । ध विधाय शशाङ्कशेखरः हो प्रमदान्वितमानसोऽभवत् ।। कविनिबन्धनैः । काव्यायितं भटैः ॥ The Chapter after the Fiftieth. रामग्रणीर्बाण एको अनौ जाज्वलीति द्वितीयः ।।

·BOOK II. THE DHVANI PERIOD. CHAPTER VI. THE FORMULATION OF THE THEORY OF DHVANI. DHVANT Section 1.-General. The close of the last period, chär: and enunciation of the principles th: poetic form like Alankāra, Guņa, Riti, inadequate recognition of the place of beginning of the most creative age in Literary criticism. Here is formulate rightly regarded as the ultimate source it the predominant position of Rasa : enter into the make-up of poetry bec There is naturally some immediate opi of Dhvani from the adherents of older and also from two fresh ones, the V Yet these last two are not opposed to by the end of this period is put forwa criticism called the Aucitya. All o practically dies out soon after the first schools. The relation of the older m and Riti with the Dhvani and the settled, as also their place in poetry. the Rasa school with the other one accessory to them becomes full and Literary criticism. rised by the discovery o the nature of and also by the try, marks the i of Sanskrit le of Dhvani '1; and with nents that tablished. v theory ankāra, māna. And of also val pa Section 11.-The Arcthorship of The earliest and the foremost fi: Kashmirian poet and critic Anandåve Rasa school and the greatest expone His work is called the Dhvanyalol Kāvyamālā and it consists of some bi ments thereon called Vrtti. It is a ·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF DHVANI 51 the Vștti is Anandavardhana, but the Karikās have been of doubtful authorship. On the basis of the apparent distinction between Kārikākāra and Vịttikāra occasionally made by Abhinava-, gupta, the eminent commentator on the Dhvanyāloka (see Dhv. pp. 1, 12, 59, 60, 123, etc.) Dr. Buhler and the learned editors of the work conjectured that the Kärikäs should have been written by one different from Anandavardhana, the author of the Vrtti. Professors Jacobil and Keithe and Dr. De support this contention and the last of them further suggests that Abhinavagupta gives readings of some Kärikās different from those of the Vrttikära---a procedure that would favour the distinction between Karikākāra and Anandavardhana (sce Dr. De. Kāvyālokalocana. IV, Calcutta University, p. 3. Text p. 23 fn. 15 & 16). It is attempted here to prove on the basis of very reliable evidences that the Kārikās also were written by none other than Anandavardhana himself. Here two relevant texts from the Abhinavabhāratiman erudite commentary on the Nāțyaśāstra by Abhinavagupta-may be cited. 1. "एतदेवोपजीव्यानन्दवर्धनाचार्येणोक्तम् सुप्तिब्वचनेत्यादि" Abh. bh. Vol. II. Chap. XIV. p. 367. 2. एतमेवार्थ सम्यगानन्दवर्धनाचार्योऽपि विविच्य निरूपयन् (न्यरूपयत् !) समीक्ष्य (वि)निवेशितो रूपकादिरलंकारवर्गः इत्युपक्रमेण विवक्षातत्परत्वेन नाङ्गित्वेन कदाचन । काले च ग्रहणत्यागौ नातिनिर्वहणैषिता ॥ इत्यादिना ग्रन्थसन्दर्भेण सोदाहरणेन । तच्चास्माभिः सहृदया(व)लोक- लोचने तद्विवरणे विस्तरतो व्याख्यातम् । विस्तरतो व्याख्यातम् | Abh. bh. Vol. II. p. 355. In the first text Ananda is represented to have taken some suggestions from Bharata regarding the suggestiveness of words and their components and put them down as granteaza etc. This "सुप्तिवचन" begins a Kirfkā of the Dhvanyāloka III-16, p. 163, and nowhere in the Vrtti of that work does this expres- 1. Z. ID. M. G. Vol. 56 (1902) pp. 405-10. 2. Keith. Classical Sanskrit Literature, p. 135.

·52 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II sion occur. Now the same Abhinavagupta, who is relied upon to establish the difference between Kārikākāra and Vșttikāra, unmistakably assigns the authorship of the Kārikā to Anandavardhana. In the second text also Abhinava refers to him as discussing fully the place of Alankāras in poetry and expressing his well-considered views on the subject in the two texts which begin thus :- #147 farTefTA: 548fa etc. Dhv. Il-11. and faqataparaat Tiistaa etc., Dhv. 11-19. These excerpts are from the Kärikās of the Dhivanyāloka, p. 88; and as if to clear any doubt regarding their source, Abhinava distinctly expresses that to be the Sahşdayaloka-another name of the Dhranyaloka-and he incidentally mentions his own commentary thereon called the Locana, where he too has fully expatiated on that subject. Further, the following text from the same Abhinavabhār:'ti of Abhinavagupta unmistakably identifies the authors of the Kārikās and the Vrtti :- यस्तु वेणीसंहारे भानुमत्या सह दुर्योधनस्य दर्शितो विलासः स नायकस्य तादृशेऽवसरे अत्यनुचित इति चिरन्तनैरेवोक्तम् । यथा सहृदयालोककारः "सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसबन्धव्यपेक्षया" । एतच्च विवरण एवास्माभिः वितत्य दर्शितम् ।। Abh. bh. Vol. II, p. 519. Here Abhinava states the view that a dramatist should not blindly follow the rules of dramaturgy without regard to the principal Rasa that is developed in the play, and that the introduction of the playful sporting of Duryodhana with his queen Bhãnumati on the eve of a terrible, disastrous war that threatened to destroy the whole world does not at all lend itself to the easy development of the main Rasa, 'Vira, but only retards its progress. He cites as his authority Sahrdayālokakāra or the author of the Sahşdayaloka, which, as stated just now, is another name of the Dhvanyaloka, whose author has been accepted by all to be Anandavardhana. Now, what is nature of the text, viz., OTHEST etc., attributed to Ananda, the author of the Sahşdayaloka ? It is a Kārikā 111-12, appearing on page 147 of the Dhvanyāloka. In addition to this strong testimony of Abhinava to Anandavardhana's anthorship of the Karikās, there are many other ·CHAP. VI] . FORMULATION OF DHVANI 53 -- evidences in the Dhvanyaloka itself which distinctly favour the above view. On pp. 130 and 219-20 of the Locana Abhinava makes the following remarks: "एवं कारिकां व्याख्याय----. आह यस्त्विति" (Dhv. p. 130) "एवं व्यङ्गयस्वरूपं निरूप्य- ...-आह प्रधानेति" (Dhv. p. 219-20). Here 'व्याख्याय' and 'निरूप्य' are words ending in the suffix 377 (lyap). In the Sanskrit language the suffix Fall or 777 is used in this manner (see Pāṇini III-iv-21. and VII-i-37). When two actions performed by a single agent are desired to be conveyed, the suffix क्त्वा or ल्यप् is added to that root which refers to the prior action as, e.g., भुक्त्वा व्रजति ; व्यादाय स्वपिति. Similarly in the above extracts the agent of व्याख्याय or निरूप्य should be the same as the agent of आह. Now the agent of व्याख्याय or निरूप्य expounds; it'., he is the Vịttikāra that explains everything. The agent of 34€ says or states. What does he state ? यस्तु etc., and प्रधान etc., which are two Kärikās Dhv. II1-2 and II 1-42, i.l., he is the Kārikākāra. Pāṇini's rule quoted above requires these agents, Vșttikära and Kārikākāra to be identical. Further Abhinava comments on “आनन्दो मनसि लभतां प्रतिष्ठाम्" (Dhv. p. 11) thus :- आनन्द इति ग्रन्थकृतो नाम ; तेन स एवानन्दवर्धनाचार्यः एतच्छास्त्रद्वारेण सहृदयहृदयेषु प्रतिष्ठां देवायतनवदनश्वरी स्थितिं लभतां सिद्धिं गच्छत्विति भावः । Abhinava here interprets Anandavardhana as having incidentally inscribed his own name so that he might be enshrined for ever in the hearts of all intelligent critics for expounding this science to them. Such an act on the part Anandavardhana will be a vain arrogation if he has not been,' according to Abhinava, the first exponent of the theory of Dhvali. Again Ananda expressly claims to have been the originator of this theory and that thereby he has laid all learned men under a deep debt of gratitude to him.2 (Dhr. p. 1++ note especially अस्मदुपज्ञो न विस्मार्यः।) Moreover - 1. Panini : III-IV-21. सामानकर्तृकयोः पूर्वकाले । VII-I-37. समासेऽनपूर्वे क्त्वो ल्यप् । 2. Dhy. P. 144. इतिकाव्यार्थविवेको योऽयं चेतश्चमत्कृतिविधायी । सूरिभिरनुसृतसारैरस्मदुपज्ञो न विस्मार्यः ।।

·54 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II in the opening Kārikā a promise is held out that the writer would expound the nature of Dhvani for the enlightenment and pleasure of critics, and this promise is not stated to have been fulfilled in the last Kärikā as might naturally be expected, but it is done so only in the last verses of the Vrtti.l Ananda, who inscribes his name in the last verse, further takes credit for having carried out this resolve made in the first Karikā, viz., the exposition of Dhvani-the most real and striking characteristic of poetry. He also states that there was but a sparkling of the theory of Dhvani in the minds of wise men before him. Had the author of the Kārikās been different from Ananda, the above remarks, in the face of the numerous Kärikās, should certainly be a gross perversion of truth and an unwarranted arrogation of originality which the meanest of men will not be capable of. Far be it from Anandavardhana, the great poet-critic who is so very scrupulous and generous as to refrain from mentioning the faults of poets even where they actually exist.2 While commenting on the Karikā प्रधानेऽन्यत्र etc. Dhv. II-5, which defines Rasavadalankāra differently from that of the earlier writers, Ananda explains the portion of the Kārika अलंकारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः as रसादेरलंकारस्य विषय इति मामकीनः पक्षः. Here Kārkākāra expresses à certain view of his own--viz., where in any composition a Rasa, etc., is an adjunct o some principal idea, 1. Dhv. Kārikā 1-1 तेन ब्रूमः सहृदयमनःप्रीतये तत्स्वरूपम् ॥ Dhv. last verses. नित्याक्लिष्टरसाश्रयोचितगुणालंकारशोभाहतो यस्माद्वस्तु समीहितं सुकृतिभिः सर्व समासाद्यते । काव्याख्येऽखिलसौख्यधाम्नि विबुधोद्याने ध्वनिर्दर्शितः सोऽयं कल्पतरूपमानमहिमा भोग्योऽस्तु भव्यात्मनाम् ॥ सत्काव्यतत्त्वविषयं स्फुरितप्रसुप्तकल्पं मनःसु परिपक्कधियां यदासीत् । तयाकरोत्सहृदयोदयलाभहेतोराभन्दवर्धन इति प्रथिताभिधानः॥ 2. Dhv. p. 94. तत्तु सूक्तिसहस्रयोतितात्मनां महात्मनां दोषोदोषणमात्मन एष दूषणं भवतीति न विभज्य दर्शितम् ।

·CHAP. VÌ FORMULATION OF DHVANI 55 that is an instance of Rasavadalankāra--and Ananda also Says that the very same is peculiar to himself (मामकीनः पक्षः) thus identifying himself apparently with the author of the Kārikās, If Ānanda had used a word like "Api' meaning also'--such as HARTATT:-- then it may be argued that he only agrees with the views of the Kārikākāra : but there is nothing of it. Again, on page 951 where Sabdaśaktimuladhvani is defined he explains it in the Vștti almost in the same words as the Kārikā 11-22 and says at the end that it is our conception of that' 'RAH* faafua:', thus making no difference whatsoever between himself and the Kārikākāra. Further on page 20+ appears the verse fanfafant etc., which is printed as a Kārikā 111-34, but which is really a parikaraśloka or a concluding statement in verse belonging to the Vștti ; for there is no commentary on it as might naturally be expected if it were a Kärikā. And Ananda, desiring to conclude the long discussion and refutation of the possible objections to the theory of Dhvani from the different schools of philosophy, states that he has clearly expounded the peculiar characteristic of poetry called Dhvani which was for a long time a subject of severe controversy and one which baffled the understanding of the critics. If the Kārikās really existed before Ananda, how could he say that the principle of Dhvani was not known before ? (HTHOTHz:) If he has spoken the truth, then he is identical with Kārikākāra. Again, the Kārikākāra, whoever be inay be, appears to be familiar with and to criticise the teachings of both Udbhata and Vāmana. The text of the Dhvanyaloka pige 14 in accordance with the commentary of Abhinavagupta-अन्यैरिति कारिकामागं काव्येत्यादिना 24-should read as follows - • तत्र वाच्यः प्रसिद्धो यः प्रकारैरुपमादिभिः । UCHT 6271977: सोऽन्यैः 1. Dhv, p. 95. आक्षिप्त एवालंकारः शब्दशकल्या प्रकाशते यस्मिन्ननुक्तः शब्देन शब्दशक्त्युद्भवो हि सः ॥ यस्मादलंकारः न वस्तुमात्रं यस्मिन्काव्ये शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशते स एष शब्दशक्त्युद्भवो वनिरित्यस्माकं विवक्षितः ।

·56 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II (वृत्ति) काव्यलक्ष्मविधायिभिः भट्टोद्भटप्रभृतिभिः । ततो नेह प्रतन्यते ॥ (वृत्ति) केवलमनूद्यते पुनर्यथोपयोममिति । Here the Karikākāra refers to the labours of earlier writers on poetics who have formulated the principles of poetic appeal on the basis of the express sense, such as Upamā, etc., and the Vitti mentions by name such writers--34777: as have been kept in view by the Kārikā, and Udbhata is the most important of them. Moreover Udbhața is presupposed in another Kārikā आक्षिप्त एवालंकारः शब्दशक्त्या प्रकाशते ।...............etc., Dhv. 11-22, where that variety of Dhvani called Sabdaśaktiinūladhvani is distinguished from Śleşālankāra. The Vștti explains that the word "Akşipta" is used in the Kärikā in order to remove the possibility that would otherwise arise of including all Sabdaśaktimuladhvani under Sleşālankára in accordance with the views of Udbhata. नन्वलंकारान्तरप्रतिभायामपि श्लेषव्यपदेशो भवतीति दर्शितं भट्टोद्भटेन ; तत्पुनरपि शब्दशक्तिमूलो ध्वनिः निरवकाश इत्याशङ्कयेदमुक्तं "आक्षिप्तः" इति (Dhv. P.96). Further, Karika III-52 expresses that the essential characteristic of poetry which has been set forth before lay dormant in the minds of former writers who, being unable to determine and expound its true nature, formulated such poetic styles as the Ritis. The Vștti explains (Dhv. p. 231) the Ritis to be Vaidarbhi, Gaudiya and Pāñcāli, the three that have been formulated first by Vāmana fron the two mnārgas recognised by Dandin, K. D. I. 40. The plural रीतयः speaks certainly for cases of 1. Dhv. P. 231. अस्फुटस्फुरितं काव्यतत्त्वमेतद्यथोदितम् । अशक्नुवद्भिर्व्याकर्तुं रीतयः संप्रवर्तिताः ॥ 11I-52. 2. AL. एतद्धनिवर्णनेन निर्णीतं काव्यतत्वमस्फुटस्फुरितं सदशक्नुवद्भिः प्रति- पादयितुं वैदर्भी गौडी पाश्चाली चेति रीतयः प्रवर्तिताः । रीतिलक्षणविधायिनां हि काव्यतत्त्वमेतदस्फुटतया मनाक् स्फुरितमासीत् इति तदत्र स्फुटतया संप्रदर्शित- मित्यन्येन रीतिलक्षणेन न किश्चित् ।

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF DHVANI 57 the correctness of the interpretation that Vāmana and not Dandin is presupposed by the Karikā. Vāmana and Udbhata were, as already set forth, the minister and the Court Pandit respectively under King Jayāpida of Kashmir, who reigned from 778 to 813. Thus the Kārikākāra, who must have lived after Vāmana and Udbhața, should at the earliest have fourished about 820 A.D. This is also the date that Prof. Keith and others assign to the author of the Kārikās, whom they distinguish its Dhvanikār: from Anandavardhana (Keith. Skt. Lit. p. 135). Ananda who flourished in the court of Avantivarman of Kashmir 855-883 A.D. came not more than forty years after the Dhvanikāra. Now the question naturally arises:- If as has been supposed the author of the Kārikās were really different from Anandavardhana, is it at all possible for Anandavardhana, that came a few decades after the author of the Kärikäs on which he commented, to have been absolutely unaware of the name and identity of the author of the original of his work? Or is it possible that Anandavardhana, knowing the name of the Kārikākāra, wilfully suppressed it in order that his own name inight shine forth in the world and dance in the lips of all critics? It is really unbelievable that iſ there had been a separate Dhvanikāra, Ananda should not have been aware of his name: It is quite strange that Ananda, the honest and upright philosopher that he is, should have suppressed wilíully the name of his master in the field, and stranger süill that posterity should have meckly and complacently connived at this intellectual dishonesty and literary fraud. Above all the literary tradition is in complete accord with the view that Ananda was the auphor of the Kärikäs also. Kuntika in his Vakroktijivita (p. 67-70) quotes the verse af 57731fet etc., of Ananda (Dhv. p. (2) and says that Dhvanikāra has clearly explained the suggestiveness and the suggested sense therein.' Kuntaka lived only a little more than a century after Ananda and he too was it hashinirian, He distinctly identifies Dhvanikāra, 1.c., the author of the Karikās with Inanda, Mahimabhațţa, it younger contenporary of kuntaka and Abhinava, cites Kärikās and prose Vrttis under the name Dhvanikāra (Vyakti. pp. 1, 11 etc.), thus identifying the authors of both. Kşemendra, a pupil of Abhinava and a good poet and critic, quotes the Dhvanikariká ferret arraraftar .........etc. (Dhv. I11-24, p. 172) in his Aucityavicāracarcă p. 134 in the $-8 ·58 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II name of Anandavardhana. Mammața and all the writers on poetics that came after him do not at all discriminate between him and the Dhvanikāra. He is indeed a bold man who, knowing this unbroken and unanimous tradition, would brush it aside and complacently remark that these writers completely confuse between the Dhvanikāra and Anandavardhana.! Surely there is no confusion in them. It is only imposed from outside to suit an untenable position. Again, prepossessed with this distinction between Vịttikāra and Kärikäkāra, Dr. S. K. De las misunderstood a passage of Abhinava: and he imagines that Abhinava reads the Kärikās differently from Ananda-a procedure that would certainly favour the above distinction. (Sec. S. K. De. Kavyālokalocana. IV. Intro. p. 3. Text p. 23 in. 15 & 16.) Let me cite the two texts : अवस्थादिविभिन्नानां वाच्यानां विनिबन्धनम् । यत्प्रदर्शितम् प्राक्। भूम्नैव दृश्यते लक्ष्ये न तच्छक्यमपोहितुम् ॥ तत्तु भाति रसाश्रयात् । Dhr. Karika IV-8; p. 243-44 Abhinava comments on this thus:-- अवस्थादिविभिन्नानां वाच्यानां विनिबन्धनम् । भूम्नैव दृश्यते लक्ष्ये तत्तु भाति रसाश्रयात् ॥ इति कारिका । अन्यस्तु ग्रन्थः मध्योपस्कारः । अत्र पादत्रयमनूद्य चतुर्थपादार्थः अपूर्वतयाभिधीयते तत्त्वित्यादि । Locana IV. p. 23. The term "gyer" means that which supplies an ellipsis. Āvanda is in the habit of supplying these ellipses to many Kārikās. Being a poet his words occasionally come out in metrical form. One such upaskāra is न तच्छक्यमपोहितुम् which, being written along with the Karikās in the palm Icaf manuscripts used by the editors, is evidently mistaken by them for a portion of the Kärikā and treated as such in the printed text. Probably, had यत्प्रदर्शितं प्राक् been in the form of a quarter of a verse they 1. S. K. De. Skt. Poetics. Vol. I. Chap. IX especially pages 109-10.

·CHAP. VI FORMULATION OF DHVANI 59 would have included that also in the Kārikā. Abhinava fully anticipating this probable error clearly indicates here what the Kärikā is and what the upaskāra is, as he does elsewhere. But the learned editors of the work might be excused, for they had no access at that time to Abhinava's commentary on this chapter; and where they had it they were careful in reading the text correctly, c.g., see Dhv. p. 113, Locana. तासामेवालंकृतीनामित्ययं पठिष्यमाणकारिकोपस्कारः । Here arah adat is in the form of a quarter of it verse, but correctly understanding Abhinava they have treated it is part of the Vrtti. Dr. De, imagining that what is printed in bold' type is invariably the Kārikā ias known to Anandavacdhana, discovers it difference between the readings of Ananda and Abhinava. Surely Ananda did not prepare the Nirnayasāgar edition ! The Kārikā text has to be determined having regard to Abhinava's comments and it should be as given in Locana IV. p. 23 quoted above. Dr. De inisunderstands the Locana and finds it convenient to use it in favour of lris theory. When there are so many evidences which clearly identify Ananda with Dhvanikära, the only evidence which apparently favours the opposite view, vis., the distinction occasionally made by Abhinava between Kärikākāra and Vrttikāra, loses its force and it has to be explained differently. Probably Abhinava desired, in order to facilitate his comments, to keep the Karikās distinct from the Vrtti and he achieved it by referring to their author in his two capacities as Kārikākāra and Vịttikāra. This procedure of first stating the fundamental principles in short Kärikās and then commenting elaborately on them is quite common among writers of that pefiod. Kuntaka, Kșemendra, Mammața, Mandana, Udayanācārya and other writers adopt this method of exposition And if they refer in the Vrtti to additional facts not touched upon in the Kārikā, it would be far from truth to suggest on that basis any difference between the author of the Kārikā and of the Vrtti. Further the habit of splitting their own Kärikäs and commenting on them in parts has also been in vogue among writers like Mammața and Udayanācārya. It would on the other hand argue'the identity of authorship as the writers themselves treat the portions of the Kārikās as headlines of paragraphs or sections in the Vrtti. Thus it is shown that this distinction between Ānandavardhana and Dhvanikārit rests on slender grounds; and accord- ·60 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II ing to the express statements of Ananda and Abhinava together with the practice of the innumerable writers on Sanskrit Literary criticism it is undoubtedly proved that the author of the Dhvanikarikās is none other than the great Kashmirian poet-critic Anandavardhanācārya, Section III.-- Anandavardhana. He became famous during the reign of Avantivarman of Kashmir (855-83 A.D.) (Raja-taraing. V. 34). Rijasekhara (880-920 A.D.) refers to him by name and also to his views about the superiority of genius over training in making up a poet (K.M. p. 16), and lie ilsu cites anonymously one of his verses या व्यापारवती etc. (K. M. p. 60; sor Dhv. p. 227). Jayanta, the author of the Nyāyamañjari and the father of Abhinanda, the author of the Kādambari-Kathāsāra, refers to the theory of Dhvani and also Ananda's illustrative verses and his comments thereon; and he dismisses them with a personal aninius characteristic of a contemporary, calling Ananda Panditarumanya or self-conceited pedant and a poet not worthy of being treated as a serious opponent in discussing the nature of verhal judgment where eren trained philosophers ialter (N. M. p. 48).1 He lived 1. Nyāyamañjari. p. 58. एतेन शब्दसामर्थ्यमहिम्ना सोऽपि वारितः । यमन्यः पण्डितंमन्यः प्रपेदे कंचन ध्वनिम् ॥ विधेनिषेधावगतिविधिबुद्धिनिषेधतः । यथा- भम धम्मिअ वीसत्यो मा म पान्थ गृहं विश ॥ मानान्तरपरिच्छेद्यवस्तुरूपोदेशिनाम् । शब्दानामेव सामर्थ्य तत्र तत्र तथा तथा ॥ अथ वा नेदृशी चर्चा कविभिः सह शोभते । विद्वांसोऽपि विमुह्यन्ति वाक्यार्थगहनेऽध्वनि ॥ तदलमनया गोष्ठया विद्वज्जनोचितयाचिरं परमगहनस्तर्कज्ञानामभूमिश्यं नयः । प्रकृतमधुना तस्माद्बुमो न भात्यनुमानतः तनुमपि सतामापत्तेर्विशेष इति स्थितम् ॥ Sce Dhv. pp. 16-ff, ·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF DHVANT 61 about the middle of the 9th century and Ananda may safely be placed about 850 A.D. He wrote in addition to the Dhvanyāloka, Devisataka, Visamabanalila, Arjunacarita, Tattvaloka (Locana IV. p. 17) and other works. The theory of Dhani expounded by Ananda appears to have had a long course of development as he himself says, [PHHTA पूर्वः, Dhv. .1-1; and तथैवान्यैस्तन्मतानुसारिभिः सूरिभिः ... sarafry: -- P. +7. Note the plural HITA: and the past participle JF:) and was the subject of severe controversy and was not at all understood to be it source of literary appral by the l'epresentatives of the old school of Guna, Alaukāra, etc., as is evident from the verse यस्मिन्नस्ति न वस्तु etc., Dhv. p. 9, quoted irom Manorathat, a contemporary of Ananda. [ग्रन्थकृत्समानकाल- भाविनैव मनोरथनाम्ना कविना. 10. ().] However, the latter believes that they touched at least the fringe of the principle of • Dhvani' when they said that a particular variety of lakşaņā contributed to poetic expression, but they were not able to discern the distinctness and importance of this and bring it under a separate category. Abhinavagupta in his com. mentary gives out the authorities who were borne in mind by Ānanda here to be primarily Udbhața and Vānana, and he also cites the relevant texts. As, however, Udbhata's commentary- Bhāmahavivarana-on the Kāvyālankāra of Bhämaha is not available, we shall hestow some thought on Vämana's conception of Vakrokti', which has been stated to comprehend in a manner the principle of Dhvani or suggession. It is defined in Sūtra IV. 3.8 as सादृश्याल्लक्षणा वक्रोक्तिः, it'., secondary signification having 1. Dr. S. ('. Vidyabhusan :-History of Indian Logic, p. 147. 2. Thv. p. 10. AL. गुणवृत्त्या काव्येषु व्यवहारं दर्शयता ध्वनिमार्गो मनाक् स्पृष्टोऽपि न लक्ष्यत इति परिकल्प्यैवमुक्तम् " भाक्तमाहुस्तमन्ये " इति । 3. Lo. दर्शयता-भट्टोद्भटवामनादिना , • भामहोक्तं शब्दश्छन्दोऽभिधाना इत्यभिधानस्य शब्दाढ़ेदं व्याख्यातुं भट्टोद्भटो बभाषे-शब्दानामभिधानं अभिधाव्यापारः, मुख्यो गुणवृत्तिश्चेति । वामनोऽपि सा साश्याल्लक्षणा वक्रोक्तिः इति ।

·62 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 similarity as its basis is Vakrokti. When the primary sense of a word in a sentence is incongruous, we take it in its secondary signification 'on the basis of certain relations such as proximity, etc.? Where this relation is similarity there is Vakrokti. Take for instance :- उन्मिमील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूतात्" | Here उन्मिमील and निमिमील primarily signily opened and shut the eyelids'. This opening and shutting of the eyelids is incongruous in the lotus and hence ihrongh the similarity of the lotus to the eye, they are taken in their secondary sense of blossoming and closing. This conception of Vakrokti agrees mainly with the Guņa, Samadhi of Dandin” and Vamana's Samadhi is different. This secondary signification may be contrasted with another that is found in-जरठकमलकन्दच्छेदगौरैर्मयूखैः-- • With the rays that are as white as the 'cheda' of the mature lotus-root'. Here . cheda' means cutting and whiteness cannot be predicated of it. Su to remove this difficulty it is taken in the sense of one having it, viz., an object that is cut or a piece. Now it is possible to speak of the whiteness of the piece of the lotusroot. This variety of lakṣaṇā does not involve any similarity and hence does not contribute to any poetic charm as the previous one. Thus poetic charm consists in the implication of some similarity in secondary signification. Let us consider other instances given by Vamana himseli. इह च निरन्तरनवमुकुलपुलकिता हरति माधवी हृदयम् । मदयति च केसराणां परिमलमधुगन्धि निश्वसितम् ॥ * Here the Mādhavi creeper being 'horripulated' with the numerous fresh buds captivates the heart. And the breathings' of the Kesara flowers, sinelling ike the fragrant honey, please the heart'. • Pulaka' or horripulatilin is incongruous in a plant, and its 2. 1. अभिधेयेन सम्बन्धात्सादृश्यात्समवायतः । वैपरीत्याक्रियायोगात् लक्षणा पश्चधा मता ॥ K. 1). I. 93 and 74. अन्यधर्मस्ततोऽन्यत्र लोकसीमानुरोधिना । सम्यगाधीयते यत्र स समाधिः स्मृतो यथा ॥ कुमुदानि निमीलन्ति कमलान्युन्मिषन्ति च । इति नेत्रक्रियाध्यासालब्धा तद्वाचिनी श्रुतिः ॥

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF DHVANÍ 63 found in a young lady that first meets her lover. Through the similarity of the creeper to such a lady whose hair stands on ends at her fresh meeting with her lover, the term 'pulakita ' is here taken in its secondary signification of being full of'or being covered with'. Similarly in the latter half of the verse the idea niśvasitam' or breathings is incompatible in the inanimate kesara flowers, and through the similarity of the fragrant smell of the flower to the fragrant breathings of a young, beautiful lady of noble birth, it is taken in its secondary signification of the spreading of the fragrance. Thus in these two examples lakṣaṇā implies a certain similarity to the horripulation of a lady and her sweet-smelling breathings, and this implication which gives a peculiar charm to the verse naturally falls within the sphere of Dhvani or suggestion. Here it is that the representatives of the older schools of thought like Vāmana might be said to have touched at least the fringe of the theory of Dhvani. Speculations regarding this theory were riſe and were continued in a long line of critics or learned societies, but it was formulated and written down for the first time only by Anandavardhana, It is inspired by the Vaiyakarana doctrine of Sphota, which was formulated in order to determine accurately the seat of signification. is briefly this : -When one utters the word fit: what is it that produces in the hearer the idea of an animal possessing the dewlap, the tail, the hump, the cloven foot, etc.? Is it produced by cach of the three sounds 1, separately or by all of them? If each of the sounds produce the idea, then one will be enough and the remaining sounds are useless. If all of them together or the.Samudāya' produce it, it cannot be, because all sounds according to Nyāya philosophers last only for two moments, [akastarimi feceruiraturforan ] and when there is the experience of the visarga, I disappears and so there is no Samudāyat. Now what is it that signifies? The grammatical philosophers say that it is. Sphoța', an eternal indivisible cntity like the soul which when manifested by the sounds tit: gives us the idea of that aniinal. Now a further question is raised; how is this Splwļa manifested ? Is it by the individual sounds or by all the sounds combined ? Again the same औ and visarga 1. Lo. p. 3. अविच्छिन्नेन प्रवाहेण तैरेतदुक्तं विनापि विशिष्टपुस्तकविनिवेशनात् ·64 DHVANİ AND RASA [BOOK 11 difficulty. If it is manifested by the individual sounds one will be enough, and the others are superfluous; if by all of them, the all or Samudāya does not exist. To solve this they say that Sphoța is inanifested by the experience of the last sound of a word together with the impressions left of the experiences of the previous sounds. [पूर्वपूर्ववर्णानुभवाहितसंस्कारसचिवेन अन्त्यवर्णानुभवेन अभिव्यज्यते स्फोटः] Corresponding to this word th: there exists a gopadasphoţia, and it is revealed once by each of the sounds of the word , but the sense conveyed by the word is got at only when this gopadasphoța is revealed for the third time by the last sound, the visarga of the word. They illustrate this in this man er. When a light is brought to illuminate a pot that is in the date the pot is revealed immediately after the light falls on it, an eness "quent presence of the light goes to reveal the pot very clearly and then its true nature is realised. Or take a man that learns i hymn by rote. He goes on repeating the hymn many times until his object is attained ; and it is only when he repeats it for the last time that he gets it by heart. Every time he repeats it, the whole hymn is repeated and the last repetition, aided by every one of the previous repetitions, it is, that enables him to realise his object, viz., learning the hymn by rote. Similarlyl hy (veryone of the sounds is revealed once the Sphoța, but the Sphoța is so fully maniſested as to be capable of signification only when it is revealed by the last of the sounds of it word. They say that in the same way as the individual sounds of a word are incapable of conveying any idea and hence are unreal, similarly separate words which convey only stray (pncepts and not any complete idea arc unreal (or 3309]. For sentences alone have hecn recognised by all philosophers to convey any complete idca, c.8., अर्थकत्वादेकं वाक्यं साकाहं चेद्विभागे स्यात् M. S. II. 1. 16., साकासावयवं भेदे परानाकाङ्गशब्दकम् । कर्मप्रधानं गुणवदेकार्थ वाक्यमिष्यते ॥ Vākya. p. 11-4. 1. Vākya. p. I. 83. यथानुवाकः श्लोको वा सोढत्वमुपगच्छति । आवृत्या न तु.स ग्रन्थः प्रत्यावृल्या निरूप्यते ॥

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 65 So Väkyasphoța which expresses a complete idea is the real seat of signification' (Vākya. p. I. 73 & 74). It is unitary, indivisible and eternal.2 Thus to sum up, Sploļa or Śabda, as it is otherwise called, is different from the sounds of a word ; it is the real seat of the significative capacity and it is manifested by the last sound of a word together with the impressions of the experiences of the previous sounds. The utterance of these sounds that inanifest Sabda or Sphoța is called Dhvani. This conception of Sabda manifested by Dhvani is made use of by the exponents of the Dhvani school in formulating the Vyañjanāvrtti to explain the psychological process of the realisation of Rasa. They hold that poetry appeals to the man of taste only because of its suggested sense (Vyangyārtha), and this is got at through a peculiar capacity inherent in poetic language called suggestiveness (Vyañjakatva), which is different from the ordinary significative capacities of words, Vācakatva and Lakşakatva. The activity involved in getting at the suggested sense is known as suggestion or Vya'n janā. To take an instance traditionally cited. When one utters TFTTİ 17: - ----a hainlet on the Ganges-what is it that is sought to be conveyed ? Ganges means the current of the river ; and it is absurd to speak of a hamlet is situated on the current. To remove this difficulty Ganges' is taken to mean through Laksaņā (or its secondary significative capacity) that which is nçar it, viz., • the bank' of the river. Now a further question is 6 . 1. Vākya. p. I. 73 & 74. पदे न वर्णा विद्यन्ते वर्णेष्ववयवा इव । वाक्यात्पदानामत्यन्तं प्रविवेको न कश्चन ।। भिन्नं दर्शनमाश्रित्य व्यवहारोऽनुगम्यते । तत्र यन्मुख्यमेकेषां तत्रैतेषां विपर्ययः ॥ 2. Sec Dr. De, Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. II, pp. 180-1. Some philosophers propounded and the grammarians took it for granted that a ward has intrinsically a word-prototype corresponding to it. The Sphoța is not exactly this word-prototype, but it may be explained as the sound of a word as a whole, and as conveying a meaning apart from its component letters, etc., etc." We are not aware of the source of Dr. De's exposition of the conception of Sphota, which will make Bhartrhari's flesh creep if he were alive to-day. S-9 ·.66 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK 11 raised : does the speaker desire to convey by 797241 519: only this that there is a hamlet on the bank of the Ganges? If so, is he so defective of expression as not to think of the proper word _-on the bank of the Ganges? If it is granted that the speaker is capable of correct expression, it must be supposed that he has some purpose in saying गङ्गायां instead of गङ्गातीरे. It is in discovering the intention of the speaker that a third function or Vyāpāra of words called Vyañjanā or suggestion operates. It reveals that the speaker intends by such a usage to suggest that the hamlet, by its proximity to the Ganges, is so cool, pleasant, pure and holy as though it were situated on the current itself. This idea of the coolness and sanctity of the hamlet is delightful when suggested from a hamlet on the Ganges ', but it is not so when understood expressly from 'a hamlet on the bank of the Ganges is very cool and holy '; for in getting at the idea there is in the former a peculiar exercise to the mind which only an intellectual man can take, and it delights him, while in the latter this is totally absent. The Dhavani school holds that the presence of the suggested idea above the express sense distinguishes poetry from ordinary language. This conception will be clearly understood if we take a really poetical example. Consider the verse:- गच्छ गच्छसि चेत्कान्त पन्थानः सन्तु ते शिवाः । तत्रैव भूयात्रि nat भवान् ॥ Dandin K. D. II. 141. “ Depart my dear ! if thou dost, then may thy paths be safe ! Let me also be born again in that place whither thou wouldst be gone."— This verse is addrdised by a lady to her lover on the eve of his departure on #long journey. The express senso of this verse is this. The lady permits her lover to depart and wishes him a happy journey. She prays also to be reborn in the country to which her lover departs. But by desiring rebirth in the land to which her lord is bound, she really suggests that in his absence she is sure to die of the pangs of separation from him and hence he should not start on his journey.. Her address also suggests her intense feeling of love for her lord. With all that, being a dutiful, modest and loving lady she would not express anything inauspicious at the time and say bluntly "My Dear, I love you intensely; so do not go. If you do, I will certainly commit suicide", ममापि जन्म ·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 67 These ideas when expressly stated are vulgar and form common parlance, but when they are left to be suggested as in the above verse, they become poetry and are pleasant (TC Haifa). Two things are particularly suggested in this verse-(i) an idea or 71 in the shape of a request not to start on the journey; and (ii) i Rasa (Hierausstat) or an intense feeling of love and a keen consciousness of impending separation. In some verses what is suggested is an Alankāra. The life or the vitality of poetry consists in these three varieties of suggested sense. This conception of poetry and also the name • Dhvani' given to this method of criticism are suggested by the doctrine of Sphoța. Sphoța otherwise called Dhvani is the one permanent seat of the significative capacity ; similarly the suggested sense or Vyangyārtha is the essence of poetry and it is named Dhvani. When a drum is heaten with a stick there is produced a sound in the space nearest the drum. It is not this that is heard, but it generates a succession of sound waves just like the ever-widening concentric circles of light ripples that are caused by throwing at stone in the still water of a pond, or like the successive ringing sounds caused by the striking of a bell. And the last of this succession of waves strikes the car and it is this that is heard. These last sounds that strike the car are called Dhvani : यः संयोगविभागाभ्यां करणैरुपजन्यते । स स्फोटः शब्दजाः शब्दा ध्वनयोऽन्यैरुदाहृताः ॥ (संयोग and विभाग refer to the contact of the stick with the drum and its separation from it when heating.) Similarly the suggested sense, one of whose varieties called Samlakşyakramavyangya is obtained through a gradual mental process akin to this resonant clang of a bell, is called Divani. एवं धण्टानादस्थानीयः अनुरणनात्मोपलक्षितः व्यङ्गयोऽप्यर्थः ध्वनिरिति व्यवहतः। Locana p. 47. Sphota or the real seat of the significative capacity is maniſested by the last of the sounds of a word together with the unified im. pressions of the previous sounds, and such sounds that manifest Sphoța are called Dhvani. Says Hari :- प्रत्ययैरनुपाख्येयैर्ग्रहणानुग्रहैस्तथा । ध्वनिप्रकाशित शब्दे स्वरूपमवधार्यते ॥ 1. See Locana. p. 47 where this is clearly explained.

·68 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 When by means of these indescribable and successive cognitions, Sabda or Sphoța is manifested by Dhvani, its true nature is realised. In the same manner those words and their senses that are capable of manifesting the suggested sense are called Dhvani. Thus suggestive words and senses (व्यञ्जकशब्द and व्यञ्जीथ) called Dhvani. When he speaker utters a word like th: consisting of three sounds T, 3 and visarga the Sphoța or Sabda that signifies the particular animal is revealed once hy each of the three sounds though it is fully realised only at the end. After it has been revealed by the first sound ( Hazara) the subsequent sounds langin afa) generate in them, through the modulation of the speaker's voice, a certain manner or peculiar character (uftrita) such as fast, slow, high, low, etc., which only aid in the manifestation of the Sphoța more clearly than ever. Says Hari :- शब्दस्योर्ध्वमभिव्यक्तेर्वृत्तिभेदांस्तु वैकृताः । ध्वनयः समुपोहन्ते स्फोटात्मा तैन भिद्यते ॥ This additional activity of the speaker involved in imparting to the sounds produced by him a manner or shape such as fast, slow, etc., is called Dhvani. Similarly it is not the ordinary significative functions of words, vis., Abhidhā (primary) and laksaņā (secondary) that manifest the suggested sense, but a third activity inherent in words and different from the two previous ones, known as vyañjanā or suggestion. This is also called Dhvani. And poetry where all these-the suggestive words and ideas, suggestion and suggested ideas--are found is also called Dhvani. Thus the term · Dhvani' which is used in all the five different senses stated abovf is borrowed and adapted from the terminology of the grammatfcal philosophers. The term Dhvani' is primarily applied to that composition where the suggested sense--a Rasa, Alankāra or Vastu-predominates over the express idea and it is defined by Ananda thuis : (Dhv. I. 13.) यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतस्वाौँ । व्यक्तः काव्यविशेषः स ध्वनिरिति सूरिभिः कथितः ॥ Learned men regard that variety of composition to be Dhvani wherein the express sense subordinating itself or the expressive words subordinating their express senses suggest that sweet and 6 ·CHAP. VI). FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 69 beautiful idea—which abounds in the works of great puets. Here 94451eanut is adjective to both si: and 7: and is in fact two compound words which must be construed with 374: and शब्द: thusl : उपसर्जनीकृतस्वः or उपसर्जनीकृतात्मा अर्थ: and उपसर्जनी- Eats: Teg: 1 That is, the express sense is subordinated or made accessory to the suggested idea; and the expressive words subordinate or make accessory their express senses to the suggested idea. What is the necessity for referring to both Vācakaśabda and Vācyārtha in the definition? Vācyārtha or express sense is present everywhere and Vācakaśabda cannot of itself, without conveying its sense, lead to any suggestion ; and if the Vācyārtha should suggest some idea it must first he realised and that cannot arise without the Vācakaśabda. Hence will it not suffice iſ one of these two, Vācakaśabda or Vācyārtha, is inentioned as being suggestive of some ideas? True ; but the writer evidently wishes to refer to the two main divisions of Dhivani, Avivaksitavācya and Vivakṣitānyaparavācya where Sabda and Artha respectively are primarily suggestive, though of course the presence of the Artha in the former and Sabda in the latter is not denied. This is indicated by the use of the dual in V'yankta). Though in Avivakṣitavācyadhvani Sabda alone is suggestive, yet the co-operation of Artha is invariably present, otherwise Sabda may even suggest without its sense being understood. Similarly though in the Vivakṣitānyaparavācya Artha alone is suggestive, the co-operation of Sabda is necessary, for without it wherefrom can Artha arise? Thus to show that both Sabda and Artha together are suggestive the dual number is used. If this is so, why should it be said that either Śabda or Artha is suggestiver [3741: Tout at] It is to affirm that Sabda is primarily suggestivo in one variety and Artha in another, though either of them simultaneously co-operates with the other in suggesting that sweet and beautiful idea. (* Aiter Dhvani has been defined it is well worth considering the senses in which the term is used. It has been said before that there are two main varieties of Dhvani called Avivaksitavācya 1. Lo. 33. स्वशब्द आत्मवाची । स्वं चार्थश्च स्वार्थो । तौ गुणीभूतौ याभ्याम् ; यथासंख्येन तेन अर्थो गुणीकृतात्मा, शब्दो गुणीकृताभिधेयः । See also AL. P. 35.

·70 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II and Vivakṣitānyaparavācya which mean respectively those kinds of Dhvani where the express sense being stultified [strarera] suggests some ideas and where the express sense, though intended to convey as leading to something else, suggests some ideas. Here hy dissolving these ' epithetised' or adjectival (hahuvrihi) compounds in five different ways the term Dhvani could be shown to express all its five senses. (1) Sarea: 4791: A:, 779: To: cara:---those suggestive words whose primary sense is discarded; (2) अविवक्षितः वाच्यः स्वात्मा येन सः, व्यञ्जकोऽर्थः suggestive sense hy which it, being the primary sense, stultifies itself; (3) stafga: 977: TEH :, 791154:--the suggested sense for whose sake the express meaning is rendered useless; (4) 3a: 7767: यस्मात् सः, व्यञ्जनाव्यापारः-the suggestive function through which the primary sense is discarded; (5) अविवक्षितः वाच्यः यत्र or यस्मिन् सः, tafa:,4647-a composition where the primary sense is discarded: A similar interpretation can also be given of the other expression Vivakṣitāryaparavīcyah Dhvanih. Thus it is clear that 'Dhvani' has five senses, viz., suggestive words and ideas, suggested ideas, suggestion and the composition where these are found. 11. monede The two varieties of Dhvani, Avivaksitavācya and Vivaksitänyaparavācya mentioned before, are further classificd into two cach, the former comprising Atyantatiraskſtavācya and Arthāntarasankramitavācya and the latter, Sarilaksyakramavyangya and Asamlaksyakramavyangya. (Dhv. and 2.) The first covers all cases where some idea is suggested by completely discarding the primary sense owing to its incongruity. As an instance of this the followirfs verse may be cited :- रविसङ्क्रान्तसौभाग्यः तुषारावृतमण्डलः । निश्वासान्ध इवादर्शश्चन्द्रमा न प्रकाशते ॥ The moon whose lustre has passed over to the sun and whose orbit is covered with mist does not shine forth just as a mirror that is rendered blind by long heavings. Here Lakshmana 1. Dhv. P. 48. LO. पञ्चधापि ध्वनिशब्दार्थे येन, यत्र, यतो, यस्य, यस्मै इति बहुव्रीह्या- श्रयेण यथोचितं सामानाधिकरण्यं सुयोजम् ।

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 71 describes the state of the moon in the early morning in the winter season, It is like a mirror that is covered with numerous particles of water falling on it along with heavy breathings. !s the statement the moon is like a mirror that is rendered blind' correct? A person that has no eyes is spoken of as being blind. How then can the inanimate mirror which cannot possibly have eyes at any time be said to be blind ? To remove this incongruity we resort to the secondary signification of 'Andha'. Through the similarity of this mirror to a blind person that cannot visualise external objects, "Andha' is taken in the sense of being incapable of reflecting external objects'. • external objects'. Why should the. poet use such an incongruous cxpression ? Can he not think of the proper word here? What is his purpose in using 'Andha' with reference to the mirror? It is to suggest forcibly that the mirror has completely lost its power to reflect and is utterly useless. So is the moon that is useless without his lustre, In this class of Dhvani the primary sense being incompatible is discarded in favour of the secondary sense and as the prayojana or purpose of resorting to the secondary sense arises the suggested idea. In the second variety of Dhvani called Arthāntarasankramita, the primary sense is not incongruous and there is no necessity for assuming any lakṣyārtha. The Väcyārtha itself, aima consideration of the text, is given up in favour of the suggestert sense. The following verse may be considered as illustrating this :- ताला जाअन्ति गुणा जाला सहिअएहि घेप्पन्ति । रइकिरणानुग्गहिआई होन्ति कमलाइँ कमलाई । [तदा जायन्ति गुणा यदा ते सहृदयैर्गृह्यन्ते । रविकिरणानुगृहीतानि भवन्ति कम हानि कमलानि ॥] Good qualitics become rcally so only wherrahey are appreciated hy cultured minds; (indeed) lotuses become lotuses only when they are favoured by the rays of the sun. The idea here is that cxcellences ought to be recognised by others; otherwise they will be of no value and may disappear just like a flower that withers in the forest without its beauty and fragrance being enjoyed by any. The seåt of suggestion here is the second lotuses' in lotuses become lotuses'; and it incans that when the rays of the sun fall on them they fully blossom and possess the superior beauty, fragrance and the glory of being the seat of the Goddess Laksmī, etc. "Kamala' conveys the sense of an object endowed with the excellences ·72 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 referred to just now, In this species the primary sense is not absolutely discarded in favour of a secondary sense, but it leads without its intervention, to the suggestion of some other idea- Arthāntarasankramita means the primary sense slowly passes over or is transferred to conveying some other idea. The third variety called Samlaksyakramavyangya comprises compositions where some idea, Bhāva or Rasa is suggested not immediately after the understanding of the primary sense, but slowly and by stages which are easily discernible. Or the mental process in arriving at the Vyangyārtha or the suggested idea from the knowledge of the Vācyārtha operates by steps that are well ascertainable. (Sarılakşya-Krama-Vyangya); for example consider the verse:- एवंवादिनि देवर्षों पार्श्वे पितुरधोमुखी । लीलाकमलपत्राणि गणयामास पार्वती ॥ When the celestial sage wits speaking thus Parvati, looking down her face by the side of her father, counted the petals of the playlotuses. This verse is from the sixth canto of the Kunārasambhava; and th context is this:-The messengers of Lord Siva, the heavenlyvarzes approached along with Arundhati Himavan, the father of Parvati and requested him on belialſ of the Lord the hand of his daughter. When Angiras, the leader of the SCer's, spoke thus to Himavān, Pārvati who was present near her father counted the lotus-petals with apparent indifference. When the great Lord himself offered to inarry Parvati she was immensely pleased, but out of her modesty she could not reveal her reciprocation of the love of Siva in the presence of her father and the elderly seers, and in order to conceal her natural bashfulness and joy, she pretended like an unsophisticated girl to count the petals with her face cast down. Here then there is the suggestion of Pārvati's lajjā or bashfulness which is a Vyabhicāribhāva or an accessory emotion to the development of love. Is this Bhāva, lajjā suggested immediately after we hear of Pārvati's counting the petals ? No. For this counting may take place for other reasons as well. It is only when we think of the former activities of Pārvati such as her performance of severe penance, the meeting with Lord Siva, etc., that we understand that at the mention of Siva's offer Parvati naturally reciprocates his love, but out of modesty conceals her emotion. Thus the lajjā of ·CHAP. VI FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 73 Pārvali is realised after some time and through well-ascertainable stages as mentioned above. Such a suggestion of a Bhāva, etc., - where the interval between our knowledge of the Vācyārtha and the realisation of the Vyangya-bhāva, etc., is clearly discernible, is called Sanilaksyakramadhvani, The fourth and the last variety of Dhvani in which practically the whole of the Rasa theory is merged is called Asarılakṣyakramadhvani. Here the Vācyārtha generally constitutes a representation of the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas. When we understand these there at once is kindled up in us the corresponding emotional mood or instinct Sthāyibhāva, and this is developed to that climax where we realise our own emotion of love, etc, invariably accompanied by a thrill. Let us consider the following verse :- कृतककुपितैर्वाष्पाम्भोभिः सदैन्यविलोकितैः वनमपि गता यस्य प्रीत्या धृतापि तथाम्बया । नवजलधरश्यामाः पश्यन् दिशो भवतीं विना कठिनहृदयो जीवत्येव प्रिये स तव प्रियः ॥ The situation here is that Rāma's anguish at his separation from Sitā who has been carried away by Rāvana is intensified at the approach of the rainy season; and he exclaims thus :- Drawn by your love for whom then you, with feigned indignation and cyes swelling with tears and with plaintive looks, went even to the forest in spite of your forcible detention by mother, that person, the stony-hearted who, separated from you, sees the quarters dark with fresh, hcavy clouds and still continues to breathe, is indeed my dear, your lover! Here Sītā's intense love for Rāma is indicated by her transgressing the entreaties of her elders and accompanying Rāma to be forest. Rāma's address as 'iny dear' expresses his extreme love-the Sthāyibhāva Ratifor Sitā which is the all-in-all of their lives. Sītā is the Alambanavibhāva of Rāma's love and it is heightened by his sight of the dark clouds at the approach of the rainy season-Uddipanavibhāvaand further intensified by his inental depression indicated by his calling himself stony-liearted, etc.,--Vyabhicăribhāva. The Rasa here is Vipralainbha and not Kasuha, as Rāma says that he continues to breathe and there is no death. When in this manner the appropriate causes, effects and the accessory emotions are fully represented the Sthāyibhāva or emotional mood, viz., Rati that is inborn in all responsive hearts is stirred and developed to that S-10 ·74 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 emotional climax, when we, realising our own emotion, Rati, reach a blissful state of mind. This bliss otherwise called aesthetic pleasure is Rasa. This Rasa is not realised by any of the words denoting it, but is suggested to us immediately we understand the Vibhāvas, etc., in the shape of the Vācyārtha. This acsthetic pleasure appears to arise simultaneously with our reading and understanding the verse. Really the two do not arise at the same time, but there is some interval between our knowledge of the Vācyārtha and the suggestion of the Rasa ; still it is so short that it is almost imperceptible in the same manner as the piercing of a hundred lotus-petals placed one above the other with a needle appears to take place simultaneously, though in fact there is some interval between the piercing or one petal and the other next below, however short and imperceptible it may be. This is why this class of Dhvani is called Asamlak yakramavyangya, meaning the kraina or the stages by which the suggestion is had from the Vācyārtha are asarlakşya, not well discernible. Or the following verse may be considered :- हरस्तु किञ्चित्परिवृत्तधैर्यश्चन्द्रोदयारम्भ इवाम्बुराशिः उमामुखे बिम्बफलाधरोष्ठे व्यापारयामास विलोचनानि । The context here is this. Manmatha, in order to get Pärvati married to Lord Siva' so that the son born of them may kill Tārakāsura who was a menace to the gods, went to the abode of the Lord with the spring season to excite his love for Parvati, and when she bowed in front of the Lord he discharged his arrows of flowers on the Lord. Then the Lord Siva too losing a little his calmness, just like the ocean at the fresh rising of the moon, directed his eyes towards l'ārvati's face with its lower lip ruddy like the bimba fruit. Here Pārvati who has attained her youth is attending of Lord Siva out of her love for him. Lord Śiva who naturally returns the love of others now concentrates his attention on her who is before him. Thus there is reciprocal love or Sthāyibhāva, Rati and the Ālambanavibhāvas. The effects of his love are his loss of his usual courage and calmness and his gazing at the beautiful face of Pärvatī. These Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas immediately suggest to us the Vyabhicäribhảvas eagerness, excitement, unsteadiness and joy which lead to the suggestion of the Rasa, Srngära. Here the antecedents and the knowledge of the Vibhāvas and Anubhāvas that are actually represented in the verse immediately lead to the suggestion of the ·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 75 Vyabhicāribhāvas; while in ga atleta etc., her counting the petals with her face down may possibly be accounted for otherwise than due to lajjā in young girls and it is only when we think of her severe penince and the favour conferred on her by Lord Siva that we realise that she behaved in that manner out of her bashfulness, indicative of her love to Lord Siva. This is why in the latter case the Dhvani is called Samlaksyakrama with reference to the suggestion of the Vyabhicãribhāva, lajjā, while in tc etc., it is Asam laksyakrama. But in both the instances, the realisation of the Vyabhicăribhāvas immediately suggests the Rasa, Srigāra. Thus where there is the suggestion of Rasa or Bhāva from a representation of the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., it is Asarlakşyakramavyangya; and where a Rasa, Bhāva and even an Alankāra is suggested otherwise than from a clear representation of the Vibhāvas, etc., it is Sarlaksyakramavyangya. When we hear the words Śrngāra or Karuņa there does not arise in us any feeling of love or pathos ; but when we hear of the meeting of Duşyanta and Sakuntală in the pleasant groves of the forest or of Rāma's repudiation of Sītă in her advanced state of pregnancy there is at once evoked in us a feeling of love or pity. Why is this difference? What is it due to ? The advocates of the Rasa school were not able to answer this satisfactorily. At this stage Ānanda put forward his theory of Dhvani which furnished an effective reply to it. He discovered that in the first instance love or pathos is expressly mentioned by the words Srngāra or Karuna, while in the second they are suggested from the situations; and only when a feeling is suggested it calls forth the corresponding instinct or emotional mood in us which when developed, results in our enjoyment of aesthetic pleasure. Take for example the following ver verife :- यद्विश्रम्य विलोकितेषु बहुशो निःस्थेमनी लोचने यद्गात्राणि दरिद्रति प्रतिदिनं लूनाब्जिनीनालवत् । दूर्वाकाण्डविडम्बकश्च निबिडो यत्पाण्डिमा गण्डयोः कृष्णे यूनि सयौवनासु वनितास्वेषैव वेषस्थितिः ॥ When Lord Sri Krishna was in his youth, young ladies bellaved or appeared as follows:- Their steady eyes engaged themselves often in gazing at him, their bodies became emaciatcd day by day just like the lotus-stalk that has been cut off (from the root) and their cheeks were utterly pale like the stem of dūrva grass. Here the Vibhāvas of Srigāra, Lord Sri Krishna ·76 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II and the young ladies are mentioned; the Anubhīvas or the visible effects of love are seen in the emaciation of the bodies of the ladies and in the growing paleness of their cheeks. From these there is the realisation of love even though there is no word in the verse expressive of longing, contemplation, doubt, etc., indicative of love. And even where there is the express mention of the Vyabhicīribhāvas or Rasa by name, Rasa is realised only from the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., e.g., consider the verse :- याते द्वारवती तथा मधुरिपौ तदत्तकम्पानतां कालिन्दीतटरूढवञ्जुललतामालिङ्गय सोत्कण्ठया । तद्गीतं गुरुबाष्पगद्गदगलत्तारखरं राधया येनान्तर्जलचारिभिर्जलचरैरप्युत्कमुत्कूजितम् ।। When Lord Sri Krishna was away to Dväraka, Rādha, in her deep yearning after him, embraced the vañjula creeper which grew on the bank of the Jumna and which was bent low by the shaking given to it by Krishna and she cried aloud in a shrill tone faltering with heavy tears to which not only the wateranimals of her sex but even they of the male sex responded in sympathy by their loud moanings. Here there is express reference to Rādhi's longing for Krishna, but it is only the cries of Rādhā whose voice was choked with tears to which even the animals responded that forcibly suggest to us her longing and love for Krishna, and makes us realise a certain sense of pleasure; and the express mention of utkanthā' repeats merely what has been realised otherwise. For in the previous verse यद्विश्रम्य etc., there is no mention of Bhāvas like ' utkanthā', but still there is the realisation of Bhāva and Rasa, forcibly suggested by the description of the Vibhāvas and, Anubhāvas. Further from verses where there is only the mention of words that stand for love, etc., such as Sșngāra, Karma, etc., unaccompanied by a representation of Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., tod, शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः । बीभत्साद्भुतसंज्ञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाटये रसाः स्मृताः । there is absolutely no realisation of Rasa whatsoever ; and hence it is clear from the foregoing that Rasa is never realised by express mention and that it is suggested even in the absence of its express 1. Dhy, p. 25 Lo. सोत्कण्ठाशब्दः केवलं सिद्धं साधयति ।।

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 77 1 1 reference from a representation of the Vibhāvas, etc. Thus a feeling, emotion or Rasa that is expressly stated in poetry by terms primarily signifying the Rasa, etc., nowhere appeals to us, and wherever Rasa is appealing or wherever there is the realisation of Rasa, it is invariably suggested. Briefly Rasas are always suggested. The Rasa school recognised to be poetry only those verses where any of the Rasas might be developed, and thereby it did an injustice to some good verses, where some Vastu, idea or Alankāra is suggested, by expelling them from the legitimate sphere of poetry (e.g., भमधम्मिअ, खं येऽत्युजवलयन्ति, जा एज, स वक्तुमखिलान् etc. Dhv. pp. 16, 101, 113 and 111). Consider the verse:- भम धम्मिअ वीसत्थो सो सुणओ अज मारिओ देण । गोलाणइकच्छकुडङ्गवासिणा दरिअसीहेण ॥' The context here is that a pions man was roaming about daily collecting flowers in a grove that was used by a lady as a convenient place to meet her love. She did not like his interference and desired to send him away. Then she addressed him as follows :-O pious man! roam about here freely and with confidence ; for that hound has been killed to-day by the proud, fat lion that lives in the thick groves on the banks of the river Godāvari. The express sense here is of the nature of an approval to wander about as he pleased, but by her saying that the hound of which he was previously afraid has been killed by a still more frightening animal, the lion, she really suggests that he must not be seen even in the neighbourhood of the groves, lest he should be killed by the terrible lion. Here the suggested idea is do not roam about' and it is the exact opposite of the express sense. In ख येऽत्युजवलयन्ति etc., and in सर्वैकशरणं etc., there is the suggestion through Sleşa of the blankāra, Vyatireka or difference and Virodha or apparent contradiction. Sometimes, Alankāras are suggested without Sleşa, 1.g.,- जाएज्ज वणुदेशे खुज विअ पाअवो घटिअवत्तो । मा माणुसम्मि लोए ताएक्करसो दरिदो अ॥' (Dhv. p. 113 and Gathā. III. 30.) . 1. भ्रम धार्मिक विश्रब्धः स शुनकोऽद्य मारितस्तेन । गोदावरीनदीकूललतागहनवासिना दृप्तसिंहेन । 2. जायेय वनोद्देशे कुब्ज एव पादपो घटितपत्रः । मा मानुषे लोके त्यागैकरसो दरिद्रश्च ॥

·78 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II Let me be born in a forest place as but a short tree, full of leaves ; never in this mortal world as an extremely generous but impecunious person. Here the express idea is that he despises the life of a generous but poor man and praises the life of a tree. Through the similarity of such a person to the tree it is forcibly suggested that such a person is far more miserable than the tree. That is, Vyatireka-upamanāt upameyasya adhikyaman Alankāra is suggested. Or again consider the verse : स वक्तुमखिलान् शक्तो हयग्रीवाश्रितान् गुणान् । योऽम्बुकुम्भैः परिच्छेदं ज्ञातुं शक्तो महोदधेः ॥ (Dhv. p. III.) That person is capable of describing all the excellent qualities of Hayagrīva, who can measure the extent of the great ocean by means of water-pots. Here through a hyperbole, the utter futility of the attempt to describe the extraordinary virtues of Hayagriva is forcibly suggested ; or in other words Āksena Alarkára which consists in the negation of one's desire (1984 afata: ] or the futility of our desire, viz., a complete description of his virtues is prominently suggested. Anandavardhana saved the adherents of the Rasa school from this reproach of narrowness to which they were exposed by their refusal to admit some verses like the foregoing into the proper sphere of poetry and he rectified this error by enunciating the principle of Dhvani which recognised to be poetry all rhythmic expression wherein might be suggested not only Rasas but some beautiful idea or Alavkāra as well. By his theory of Dhvani he did not propound any rival doctrine to that of Rasa, but only placed it on a firmer basis by removing its defects and shortcomings and by expounding its true significance through the wider and more well-reasoned principle of suggestion. Thereby Rasa is not only inclutted within the fold of poetry whose sphere and scope became legitimately enlarged in order to include all good verses that really appeal to the refined literary sense, but is recognised to take the leading place among the constituents of 1. Dhv. p. 163. अत एव चेतिवृत्तमात्रवर्णनप्राधान्ये कवीनामेवंविधानि स्खलितानि Hardila रसादिरूपव्यङ्गयतात्पर्यमेवैषां युक्तमिति यत्नोऽस्माभिरारब्धः, ध्वनिप्रतिपादनमात्राभिनिवेशेन ।

·CHAP. V13 FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 79 poetry or the sources of poctic appeal. Though Ananda expressed that Dhvani was the life of poetry still, when he sought support for his view from the first poet, Vālmiki, he stated that following the first poet, it must be said that that rhythmic expression which was the spontaneous outlet of the mind overpowered by the grieſ caused by the loss of the inseparable association of the pair of krauñca birds would alone constitute the life of poetry:1 Rasa has been shown to be always suggested and the two other varieties of Dhvani--Vastu and Alankārı-are also indicated through Rasa, for Rasa is the most important or it is the life par c'ucellence of poetry, and the two others are really contributory to the development of Rasa ; yet they do not lose their individuality and they are distinct from the Vācya or Lakşya idea; and as they Vyangya Artha and Vyangya Alankāra---necessarily require the suggestive function of words for their realisation as well as Rasa, they too are regarded as the soul of poetry. But as Rasa is more appealing to us it stands on a pedestal of its own and its cousins --Suggested idea and Alankāra---stand on a lower plane. That is, Rasa represents the principal division of Dhvani or in other words it represents a smaller circle within a slightly wider one. The relation of the older critical methods--Alankāra, Guna and Riti—to Rasa and Dhvani is clearly indicated by Ananda. In the ordinary world Alankāra or ornament necessarily presupposes 1. Dhv. p. 26-7. काव्यस्यात्मा स एवार्थः तथा चादिकवेः पुरा । क्रौञ्चद्वन्द्ववियोगोत्थः शोकः श्लोकत्वमागतः ॥ Lo. स ऐवेति- प्रतीयमानमात्रेऽपि प्रक्रान्ते तृतीय एव रसध्वनिरिति मन्तव्यम् । इतिहासबलात्, प्रक्रान्तवृत्तिग्रन्थबलाच्च । तेन रस एव वस्तुत वस्त्वलंकारध्वनी तु सर्वथा रसं प्रति पर्यवस्येते इति वाच्यादुत्कृष्टौ तौ--इत्यभिप्रायेण ध्वनिः काव्यस्यात्मेति सामान्येनोक्तम् । आत्मा; 2. Dhv. p. 28. AL. शोको हि करुणरसस्थायिभावः प्रतीयमानरूप एवेति प्रतिपादितम् । प्रतीयमानस्य चान्यप्रभेददर्शनेऽपि रसभावमुखेनैवोपलक्षणम् । प्रधान्यात् । I.o. प्राधान्यादिति- रसपर्यवसानादित्यर्थः । तावन्मात्रविश्रान्तावपि चान्यशब्दवैलक्षण्यकारित्वेन वस्त्वलंकारध्वनेरपि जीवितत्वमौचित्यादुक्तमिति भावः ·80 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 and is different from Alankārya, the beautiful object. Guņas or (excellent) qualities have their significance in relation to a Guņin or a possessor of such excellences. What are the Alankārya and the Guņin? Guņas are generally recognised to reside in the soul, though sometimes they are spoken of as pertaining to the body, c.g., Courageous arms'. Alankāras are believed to beautify the body, but it is not true; for adorn a corpse with a pearl necklace; without life or soul it is not at all beautiful and hence Alarikāras also beautify the soul. Therefore Alankārya and Gunin are only the soul and in poetry what is the soul which is beautified by the Alankāras and in which the Guņas reside ? It is. Dhvani or that class of Dhvani called Rasadhvani; and Alankāras, Gunas and also Rītis—which may stand to Rasa in the relation of body to soul-find their real significance only when they are related to the Rasas and never independently of it. This may be illustrated with reference to a few verses. Consider the verse- कपोले पत्राली करतलनिरोधेन मृदिता निपीतो निश्वासैरयममृतहृयो ऽधररसः । मुहुः कण्टे लग्नस्तरलयति बाष्पस्स्तनतटं प्रियो मन्युर्जातस्तव निरनुरोधे न तु वयम् ॥ "The paintings on your check have been rubbed off by the pressing of the palm; the honey of your (lower) lip, sweet as nectar, has been (drunk) dried by the (hot) breathings; tears choking your throat again and again make the bosoms tremble; anger, O unkind lady ! has become your beloved, not we." The situation here is that a lady who was expecting to meet her lover is disappointed and she is extremely sad and angry with her lover. The lover appears later and tries his best to pacify her. She refuses to pay heed io the entreaties of her lover, whereupon he addresses her as abov.:. In the last quarter of the verse there are three Alaňkāras. (1) There is Sleșa in Priyah' which means both friend and lover. Anger has become your companion, not we, your lover. (2) There is Rūpaka made out thus : -hta fait sa: 'Anger alone has become your mate. Anger is identified with mate. (3) There is Vyatireka or difference in this, "Anger has become your mate, not we," j.c., anger is differentiated from the lover, the former being the beloved of the lady, the latter not being so. This is indicated by the particle, tu'. These Alankāras find their ·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 81 expression in the verse most naturally, without any effort whatsoever on the part of the poet; and they heighten the effect of the Irșyāvipralambha' of the lady which is realised by us. It is only. such Alankāras as lend themselves easily to the development of the Rasa that should find a place in poetry. Others are mere conundruins and word-play. There are also a few other principles? which govern the use of the Alarkāras in poetry and one of them is this. The Alankāra should be used only with the definite aim of developing Rasadhvani. Take, for example, the verse :- चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिं स्पृशसि बहुशो वेपथुमती रहस्याख्यायीव स्वनसि मृदु कर्णान्तिकचरः करं only maint: पिबसि रतिसर्वस्वमधर वयं तत्त्वान्वेषान्मधुकर हतास्त्वं खलु कृती ॥ " Thou touchest repeatedly her quivering eye, whose outer corner moves (playfully) : going close to her ear, thou art softly humming, as if whispering a secret (of love); thou art drinking the lip, containing all the treasures of delight, of her, waving her hand ; whilst we O beel through the necessity for inquiring into the truth (of her origin) are disappointed of immediate fruition ; thou indeed art in the full enjoyment of your desire."3 When Duşyanta met Sakuntalā by chance in the penance groves of the forest he was enraptured by her exquisite beauty, and he earnestly longed to enjoy her. But, being a just king, he desired to know if Sakuntalā did not belong to the Brahınin caste in which case, he, a Ksatriya, could not marry her. While Duşyanta was thus inquiring about the parentage of Sakuntalā and hesitating to approach her, a bee mistook Sakuntala's face for a lotus and hovered and humined round her face. Duşyanta became jealous of this mischievous bee that forcibly enjoyed the person of Sakuntalā and he exclaimed in the foregoing manner. In this verse there is the Alankāra, Svabhāvokti or the realistic description of 1. रसाक्षिप्ततया यस्य बन्धः शक्यक्रियो भवेत् । अपृथग्यत्ननिर्त्यः सोऽलंकारो ध्वनौ मतः ॥ Dhv. II. 17. 2. Paauracteren Allsvetat fa 1979 I etc., Dhv. II. 19 ff. 3. The translation is taken from Monier Williams' edition of the Sākuntala. S-11 ·DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK JI the activity of something, here of the bee, and this Alankāra finds its proper place here only because it reveals the intensity of Duşyanta's love for Sakuntalā. Svabhāvokti really becomes an Alankāra only when it leads to the suggestion of a Rasa; and it does nct consist in the mere faithſul description of some reality, but only in the presentation of the poet's mental aspect of that reality which alone appeals to our imagination and gives us aesthetic pleasure. Similarly poetic excellenccs or Guņas such as Mädhurya, Ojas, etc., do not reside in the manner of expression but have reference to the particular Rasa developed in a composition. Thus where there is the realisation of the Rasa, Śțngāra or Karuņa, there must be found the Guņa, Mādhurya ; and where there is the Rasa Raudra there we inust look for Ojas. And it is not proper that we should seek for Madhurya only where there are sweet words and ſew compounds; nor should we seek for Ojas only in a composition abounding in long compounds. For the opposite of this old view can be easily proved, if we consider a few illustrations. Consider the verse :- अनवरतनयनजललवनिपतनपरिमुषितपत्रलेखान्तम् । करतलनिषण्णमबले वदनमिदं कं न तापयति ॥ Here a lover attempts to appease his beloved who is angry with him for his want of proper devotion to her, in these terms :- Whom does not this face of yours, resting upon the palm, the paintings whereof have been washed away by the drops of tears incessantly trickling from your eyes, afflict (with pangs of love).' Here there is the clear development of an aspect of Vipralainbha called . Pranayakopa' and there is the Guna, Mādhurya here, inhering in love, even though the whole verse is full of long compounds. Again consider the verse :- यो यः शस्त्रं बिभर्ति स्वभुजगुरुमदः पाण्डवीनां चमूनां , यो यः पाश्चालगोत्रे शिशुरधिकवया गर्भशय्यां गतो वा। यो यस्तकर्मसाक्षी चरति मयि रणे यश्च यश्च प्रतीपः क्रोधान्धस्तस्य तस्य स्वयमपि जगतामन्तकस्याप्यन्तकोऽहम् ॥ 1. श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तशब्दार्थ मधुरमिष्यते । ओजः समासभूयस्त्वम् ; old view.

·CHAP. VI] FORMULATION OF THE THEORY 83 Aśvatthāman, enraged at the cruel and cowardly murder of his father when he had laid down his arms, cries out vengeance on all the Pandavas and proclaims thus :- Whoever in the armies of the Pāndavas, highly proud of his arm, wields a sword; whoever (there is) in the family of the Pāñcālas, be he a child, in old age or even in the mother's wonib, whoever was witness to that (cruel) deed and whosoever opposes me on the battlefield, to each and every one of them, 1, infuriated will be death, and I will be death to him even if he be the God of Death" himself.' Here there is a full development of the Randra Rasa, but there are no long compounds. Still there is the Guna, Ojas pertaining to this Rasa. Thus Gunas have reference to the Rasas or they help in the realisation of the Rasas, and are subordinate to them. Similarly Ananda enunciates some principles for the use of the proper Sanghatanā or manner of expression. This is of three kinds, viz., (1) the style in which there are few compounds, (2) that in which there are iniddling compounds, and (3) that which abounds in long compounds. The use of these styles should be in harmony with the status and function of the poet and the characters and also the nature of the subject matter treated. I If the poet should be highly imaginative, the characters noble and emotional, the subject-matter moving, and if the literary kind should be the drama, the Sanghatanā to be employed in all these cases, is the first one, viz., the one that is free from compounds. Otherwise the poet nay employ any Sanghațanā he pleases. Such a procedure is absolutely essential in Karuna and Vipralambha, for compounds are often ambiguous and they cause delay in our understanding the sense of a poem and this delay is detrimental to the realisation of Karuna and Vipralambha. But in the Rasa, Raudra, however, Madhyamasamāsā Sanghatan, is preferable and sometimes even dirgha-samāsās may be used, provided, however, the necessary perspicuity is maintained in the language; as, ('.g., the verse: 7257UCTUSTEIT etc. Veni. Act 1. This perspicuity or prasāda should be present in all poems, developing some Rasa or other. Thus the Ritis or the Sanghatanās also have reference primarily to the Rasas. Ananda indicates further the method of developing the various Rasas. He classifies then into allied and contrary Rasas 1, afat egiteari 97010491: 1 Dhv. III. O, ·84 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II and lays down the principles which should guide the poet in combining them in order to produce the highest effect. He also accepts śānta as one of the Rasas. Its essential nature consists in the negation of all (worldly) desires, which is highly pleasant; and in support of this he cites this verse :- । यच्च कामसुखं लोके यच्च दिव्यं महत्सुखम् । तृष्णाक्षयसुखस्यैते नार्हतः षोडशी कलाम् ॥ The sensual pleasures in love and the great happiness in heaven do not deserve to equal a tithe (one-sixteenth part] of this bliss arising from the renunciation of all worldly desires. If Santa does not appeal to all, its existence cannot on that account be denied, just like the spiritual experiences of a great seer. The Rasa śrngāra does not appeal to the yogin. Can the existence of Śrrgåra be denied, because of that? No. Similarly Śánta must be recognised as a Rasa. How are we to developit? That is to he done by portraying characters like Janaka who always study the spiritual texts and practise their teachings. The Sthāyibhāva of this is Sama. Ananda also vigorously vindicates the claim of Sānta to a place among the Rasas, by reference to the chief Rasa of the Mahābhārata, This conception of Rasa and Dhvani and their relations with other methods still reign in the sphere of Sanskrit Literary criticism, and to Ananda redounds the credit of having systematised the science of Literary criticism. He certainly holds in this sphere a position equal to that of Pāṇini in Sanskrit Grammar. It is shown above that the theories of Dhvani and Rasa are not antagonistic to each other and that the former comprehends the latter. Therefore we shall hereafter consider the history of these two theories together, 1. See Dhy. pp. 17C-80, ·CHAPTER VII. IMMEDIATE OPPOSITION TO THE THEORY OF DHVANI. This new theory of Dhvani, however reasonable it might be, did not meet with general approval, as is ordinarily the case with any novel doctrine, especially from representatives of the older schools.'Prominent among those that immediately opposed this theory were Pratīhārendurāja, Bhattanāyaka, Dhanika and Dhanañjaya. Pratihärendırāja. Pratihāra is the commentator on Udbhata's Kavyālankārasāra, and hence he is an avowed follower of the Alankāra school represented by Bhamaha and Udbhața. As he himself says in the last verse of his work and also in the third verse of the introduction, he is a native of Konkan and a pupil of Mukula. Mukula describes himself in the Abhidhāmātņkāvștti, verse 152 (p. 22) as the son of Bhatta Kallața who is probably identical with one Kallata, mentioned in the Raja-tarang V. 66, as having flourished in the reign of Avantivarman of Kāshmir (855-83). Pratihāra is thus younger than Kallața by two generations and he may have flourished about 930 A.D. In conformity to the principles of the Alankāra school he reiterates and tries to maintain the view ably refuted by Ananda in the first chapter of the Dhvanyaloka, viz., that Dhvani could 1. K. L. S. p. 1. विद्वदग्रयान्मुकुलकादधिगम्य विविच्यते । प्रतीहारेन्दुराजेन काव्यालंकारसंग्रहः ॥ Last verse. श्रुत्वा सौजन्यसिन्धोर्द्विजवरमुकुलात्कीर्तिवल्लयालवालात् काव्यालङ्कारसारे लघुविवृतिमधात् कोकणः श्रीन्दुराजः ॥ 2. (Abhidhāmātkāvrtti, verse 15. , भट्टकल्लटपुत्रेण मुकुलेन निरूपिता । सूरिप्रबोधनायेयमभिधावृत्तिमातृका ॥

·86 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II be brought under one or other of the Alaikāras.1 (K. L. S.'p. 79 ff.) He considers instances cited by Ananda himself of the three kinds of Dhvani-Vastu, Alankāra and Rasa-and points out in them some Alaňkāras like Paryāyokta, Sleşa and Rasavad respectively. He further holds against Dhvanikāra that in examples of Rasadhvani where the primary sense is completely subordinated and intended only to lead to the suggested sense, the chief import is the primary idea itself.? (K. L. S. p. 83.) Bhattanāyaka. Though an opponent. of the Dhvani school, Bhattaniyaka, unlike Pratīhārendurāja is a staunch advocate of the Rasa school, His work called thc Hşdayadarpana was, as the commentary on the Vyaktiviveka, p. 1, अदृष्टदर्पणा ममधीः explains, intended to demolish the theory of Dhvani.? Abhinava cites Bhattanāyaka's coinments on Bharata's Rasasūtra in the Abhinavabhārati, Chap. VI. and the Locana p. 67-8 and also his criticisms of many views and texts of the Dhyanyāloka, yet there is not sufficient evidence to ascertain whether the Hşdayadarpana was a direct commentary on either the Nāļyaśāstra or the Dhvanyāloka. These two comments on the Rasasūtra cited by Abhinava do not agree except in sense, but the extract in the Kāvyaprakāśa p. 90 is almost identical except for some omissions, with the text in the Abhinavabhārati. Probably the latter represents a genuine 1. K. L. S. p. 79. कैश्चित्सहृदयैर्ध्वनिर्नाम व्यञ्जकत्वभेदात्मा काव्यधर्मोऽभिहितः । स कस्मादिह नोपदिष्टः ? उच्यते ; एष्वेवालंकारेवन्तर्भावात् । 2. K. I. S. p. 83. यत्तु वाच्यशक्त्याश्रयं याते गोत्रविपर्यये श्रुतिपथम्" इत्यादाव- संलक्ष्यक्रमरसादिव्यङ्गयनिष्ठं व्यञ्जकत्वमुक्तं तत्रापि वाच्यस्य विवक्षितत्वमेव । 3. Commentary (p. 1) on the Vyaktiviveka, p. 1. दर्पणो हृदयदर्पणाख्यः ध्वनिध्वंसग्रन्थोऽपि । 4. Abhinavabhārati, Chap. VI, भट्टनायकस्त्वाह-रसो न. प्रतीयते नोत्पद्यते नाभिव्यज्यते स्वगतत्वे- न हि प्रतीतो करुणे दुःखित्वं स्यात् । न च सा प्रतीतियुक्ता, सीतादे- रविभावत्वात् , स्वकान्तास्मृत्यसंवेदनात् , देवतादौ साधारणीकरणायोग्यत्वात् ·CHAP. VII] IMMEDIATE OPPOSITION TO DHVANI. 87 quotation from Bhattanayaka and this is in prose. The Hrdayadarpaņa from which verscs also are cited in the Locana p. 27 was probably an independent treatise in prose and verse containing Nāyaka's exposition of the realisation of Rasa and his attacks on the theory of Dhvani. He admits, as Abhinava remarks (Locana, p. 15), that Rasa is the soul of poetry. Instead of the principle of suggestion, he recognises two additional functions besides Abhidhā to poetic and dramatic expression in the realisation of Rasa. They are Bhāvanā or Bhavakatva and Bhogikarana or Bhoga. Abhidhā is common to all language. Bhāvanā, by presenting to the audience or the reader the Vibhavas, etc., like Dusyanta and Sakuntala, only in their generic aspect stirs up in them the principal emotions like love and this through the third activity, Bhoga results in their experience of pure and unalloyed pleasure, like that of a yogin in his realisation of the Infinite within. Abhinava criticises his view of the realisation of Rasa and also his attacks on the theory of Dhvani. On Locana pp. 19-20 Nayaka's criticisms on the verse भम धम्मिअ etc. (Dhr. p. 16) are exposed. On p. 33 he is severely handled for attacking समुद्रलङ्घनादेरसाधारण्यात् ; न च तत्त्वतो रामस्य स्मृतिः अनुपलब्धत्वात् ; न च शब्दानुमानादिभ्यः तत्प्रतीतौ लोकस्य सरसता युक्ता, प्रत्यक्षादिव नायकयुगलकावभासे हि प्रत्युत लज्जाजुगुप्सास्पृहादिस्वोचितचित्रवृत्त्यन्त- रोदयव्यग्रतया आभासत्वमथापि स्यात् ; तन्न प्रतीतिरनुभवस्मृत्यादिरूपा रसस्य युक्ता । उत्पत्तावपि तुल्यमेतदूषणम् । शक्तिरूपत्वेन पूर्व स्थितस्य पश्चादभि- व्यक्तौ विषयार्जनतारतम्यतापत्तिः । स्वगतपरगतत्वादि च पूर्ववद्विकल्प्यम् । तस्मात्काव्ये दोषाभावगुणालंकारमयत्वलक्षणेन नाट्ये चतुर्विधाभिनयरूपेण निबिडनिजमोहसङ्कटतानिवारणकारिणा विभावादिसाधारणीकरणात्मना अभिधातो द्वितीयेनांशेन भावकत्वव्यापारेण भाव्यमानो रसः अनुभवस्मृत्यादिविलक्षणेन रजस्तमोऽनुवेधवैचित्र्यबलात्- दुतिविस्तारविकासलक्षणेन सत्त्वोद्रेकप्रकाशानन्द- मयनिजसंविद्विश्रन्तिलक्षणेन परब्रह्मास्वादसविधेन भोगेन परं भुज्यते इतिः।। 1. Locana, p. 15. रसध्वनिस्तु तेनैवात्मतयाङ्गीकृतः 2. Dhv. Locana, 19-20. यत्तु भट्टनायकेनोक्तम् " इह दृप्तसिंहादिपदप्रयोगेऽपि " etc.

·88 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II Dhvanikāra's use of the dual Vyanktaḥ' in the definition of Dhvani.1 On p. 63 Abhinava ridicules him for his method of construing the verse निश्वासान्ध इव etc., and remarks with some animus that such a construction is admissible in the interpretation of the Sūtras of Jaimini, not in poetry. (See also Abh. bh. Vol. III, p. 89 where he ridicules Nāyaka for blindly following Jaimini3.) Probably Nāyaka was a Mimārsaka and Abhinava availed himself of this opportunity to laugh at his Mīmārsā predilections. Bhattanāyaka certainly lived after Ananda and before Abhinava, but these acrimonious remarks of the latter befit only a contemporary and probably Nāyaka lived only one or two decades before Abhinava (C. 1000 A.D.). If this is correct Bhattanāyaka of the Hşdayadarpana has to be distinguished from one Brahmin Nāyaka mentioned by Kalhaņa in the Rāja-tarang (V. 159) as having flourished in the reign of Sankaravarman of Kashinir (883-902 A.D.). Dhanañiaya and Dhanika. Dhanañjaya is the author of a work on dramaturgy called the Dasarūpaka. This is in the form of Kārikās stating briefly the different principles. Dhanika wrote on it a running prose commentary called the Avaloka with illustrative verses culled from various poems. Dhananjaya describes himself in the last verse as the son of Vişņu and a respected courtier of King Muñja. In the colophon Dhanika also is stated to have been the son of Vişņu and most probably he is the younger brother of Dhananjaya. King Muñja of the Pāramāra Dynasty of Mālva was a patron of poets and also a poet of no mean reputation and he reigned from 974-995 A.D. when he was defeated and executed by the Chālukya King Taila II. They both should thus have 2. 1. Dhv. Locana, R. 33. तेन यद्भट्टनायकेन द्विवचनं दूषितं तद्गजनिमीलिकयैव । Dhv. Locana. भट्टनायकेन तु यदुक्तं इवशब्दप्रयोगाद्गौणताप्यत्र न काचित् " इति तोकार्थमपरामृश्य जैमिनीयसूत्रे ह्येवं योज्यते न काव्ये- पीत्यलम् । 3. Chap. XXVII. यत्तु भट्टनायकेनोक्तम् सिद्धेरपि नरेऽङ्गत्वं ब्रजन्त्यास्तत्वक्षेमम् " (वजन्त्यास्तत्त्वमक्षतम् ) इति तेन (न) नाट्याङ्गता समर्थिता ; फलं च पुरुषार्थत्वात् (M. S. III-1-5.) इति केवलं जौमिनिरनुसृत इत्यलमनेन । .

·CHAP. VII) IMMEDIATE OPPOSITION TO DHVANÍ 8) flourished in the last quarter of the tenth century. Besides quoling a verse of King Muñj. twice while commenting on D. R. IV. 58 and IV. 60, Dhanika cites Padmagupta's Navasähasānka VI. 42 on D. R. 11. 40. Padmagupta flourished in the reign of Sindhurāja (995 A. D. ff.) the successor of Muñja. Most probably Dhanika wrote the Avaloka in the early decades of the 11th century. Dhananjaya and his commentator Dhanika appear to have followed the traditions of Bhattanāyaka in accepting the Rasas to be the soul of poetry and at the same time denying the existence of Dhvani. Dhanika states succinctlyl (see 1). R. IV. 37) the theory of Dhvani as expounded by Anandavardhana, giving the same illustrations and citing his definitions and classifications. He brings the suggestive function under arzteilt or the intention of the speaker. In ordinary language, judgment arises from a sentence as determined by the circumstances in which it is uttered; and it is always of the nature of some Kriyā or action. Similarly in poetry, love, pathos, etc., being always present in the mind of the reader are developed fully through the Vibhāva, Anubhāva, etc., and they represent the judgment (artare). Language is employed only to induce one to some activity; e.g., when the teacher utters "Fetch the book", the pupil should not only understand the sense but should move in order to bring the book. The reader or the spectator should not only understand the Väkyārtha, love or pathos, but have some immediate activity; and this activity is none else than the enjoyment of the supreme aesthetic pleasure. The relation between poetry and Rasas3 is 1. D. R., p. 95. (Nirnayasagar Edn.) Com. on Kārikā, IV. 37. यदबोचाम काव्यनिर्णये- तात्पर्यानतिरेकाच्च व्यञ्जकत्वस्य न धनिः । 2., D. R. p. 95. कार्यपर्यवसायित्वात्तात्पर्यशक्तेः । 3. D. R. P. 93. : gatai rodanfaa778: ? a ma-471a:, care रनावेदितत्वात् । P. 90. अतो न रसादीनां काव्येन सह व्यङ्गयव्यञ्जकभावः । किं तर्हि, भाव्यभावकसम्बन्धः etc., up to नाट्ययोक्तृभिः । S-12 ·90 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II cause not, as the Dhvani school represents, that of the suggestor and the suggested (व्यङ्गयव्यञ्जकभावः) but of and effect (भाव्यभावकसम्बन्धः) Rasas exist in some shape in the Sahrdayas and they are made manifest or produced by the efficient cause, poetry. This view is probably inspired by the Sankhiya doctrine of Frairfare. If it is said that language has no such capacity to produce, Dhanika would call to aid the Mimāṁsā doctrine of Bhāvanā which states that the principal concept in any verbal judgment should be production. He cites also Bharata N. S. Vl. 35 भावयान्त रसानिमान् in support of his view. Further Dhanika and Dhananjaya hold against Dhvanikära that Sänta could not be regarded as a Rasa, fit even to be developed in readable poetry ; for śānta is not realisable to any except the sage in his meditations and hence it is impossible of description in poetry. (D. R. IV. 45-0.) 1. D. R. IV. 4-b, Avaloka. शान्तो हि यदि तावत्- न यत्र दुःख न' सुखं न चिन्ता न द्वेषरागौ न च काचिदिच्छा । रसस्तु शान्तः कथितो मुनीन्दैः सर्वेषु भाव्येषु शमप्रधानः ।। इत्येवंलक्षणः, तदा तस्य मोक्षाकाथायामेवात्मखरूपापत्तिलक्षणायां प्रादुर्भा- वात्तस्य च स्वरूपेणानिर्वचनीयता । तथा हि श्रुतिरपि “स एष नेति नेति " इत्यन्यापोहरूपेणाह । न च तथाभूतस्य शान्तरसस्य सहृदयाः स्वादयितारः सन्ति ।

·CHAPTER VIII. ABHINAVAGUPTA. Almost contemporaneous with these two writers appears the staunch supporter of the theories of Dhvani and Rasa Abhinavagupta, a renowned philosopher who is revered for his profound exposition of the Kāshmirian philosophy of Saivism, and a great poet and critic of extraordinary acuinen who is held in such high esteem that no writer except his opponent and younger contemporary, Mahimabhatta ever refers to him without the honorific appellation, ācārya or pādāl. His remarkable exposition and brilliant advocacy of these two theories in his Locana and the Abhinavabhārati established for him an authority in poetics equal to that of Patañjali and Kumārilabhațța in the sphere of Vyākarana and Mīmārsā. The period of his literary activity has been determined froin his own datings of his philosophical works to be 990-1015 A. D. (sce Introduction to Dhv. Kävyamālā, S. K. De. Sanskrit poetics, and P. V. Kane. Introduction to the Sahityadarpaņa (1923). His two works, the Locana and the Abhinavabhārati are respectively commentaries on the Dhvanyāloka and the Bharata Nāțya Sāstra; but for their erudition, terseness and dignity of style and the views expounded therein they deserve to be ranked among the most original works on the subject : and later writers regard them to be so. Really it is the Locana, as Abhinava himself remarks, that furnishes the reader with the true insight into the many intricate problems involved in the theories of Rasa and Dhvani formulated by Ananda?. The Abhinavabhāratia is a very learned and extensive treatise, covering nearly 1000 quarto pages in manuscript and it deals with each topic in great detail utilising as much as possible the large material available on the subject of 1. Dhv. p. 60. and end of Chapter I. किं लोचनं विना लोको भाति चन्द्रिकयापि हि । तेनाभिनवगुप्तोऽत्र लोचनोन्मीलनं व्यधात् ॥ 2. Ser Report on the working of the Peripatetic party of the Government Oriental Mss. Library, Madras, 1916 to 1919, page 47, ·92 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II Rasa, histrionics and music. The manuscript in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, breaks away in the middle of N. S. Chapter XXXII. verse 359 (p. 400 Nirņayasāgar Edn.) and except for a few pages Chapters VII & VIII are wholly missing. There are also large Lacunae in Chapters XXII and XxuI. Otherwise the work is completely available. But prcbably owing to neglect and want of familiarity with the subject of histrionics the chapters dealing with Abhinaya proper and music are very corrupt and they are not quite intelligible ; but those treating of literary topics, though cqually corrupt, could be understood with some care and patience and the correct text of these chapters is not impossible of restoration. I have determined under the guidance of my Professor S. Kuppusami Sastriar, the text of Chapter VI. (Abh. Bh.), probably the most important portion of the work dealing with the Rusas. The text of Chapters XVIII and XIX dealing with the dramatic technique can be prepared without much difficulty, and if this section of the work is published it will certainly throw the Dasarūpaka into the shade. Of these two works of Abhinava, the Locana appears to have been written before the Abhinavabhārati, for the latter clearly refers to the former in three ciifferent places? (Abh. Bh. Vol. 1, pp. 278, 385 & 519) and there is not a single reference in the Locana to the other work. As observed before, Abhinava in his Bhārati refers to and criticises the views of a number of writers of independent treatises on histrionics and commentaries on the Nātya Sastra. He 1. Abh. bh. Vol. II. Chap. VII, p. 278. स्वशब्दानभिधेयत्वं हि रसादीनां ध्वनिकारादिभिः दर्शितम् । तच्च मदीयादेव तद्विवरणात् सहृदयालोकलोचनादवधारणीयम् । इह यथावसरं वक्ष्यत एव । Abh. bh. Vol. II, p. 385. तच्चास्मामिः सहृदया(व)लोकलोचने तद्विवरणे विस्तरतो व्याख्यातम् । Abh. bh. Vol. II, p. 519. यस्तु वेणीसंहारे भानुमत्या सह दुर्योधनस्य दर्शितो विलासः स नाय- कस्य तादृशे अवसरे अत्यनुचित इति चिरन्तनैरेवोक्तम् । यथा सहृदयालोककारः- 'सन्धिसन्ध्यङ्गघटनं रसबन्धव्यपेक्षया' एतच्च विवरणे एवास्माभिर्वितत्य दर्शितम् । 6 ·CHAP. VIII) ABHINAVAGUPTA 93 mentions one Matangamuni and Kohala. He quotes profusely the views of Dattilācārya and Viśākhilācārya on music. He refers to the Vārtikas of Sri Harsa on the Natya Sastra in many places. (See ante p. 12.) The opinions of Bhattayantra and Kirtidhara are also occasionally cited.3 (Abh. Bh. Vol. I, end of Chap. IV, p. 166.) There is no clear evidence to determnine whether these are carlier commentaries on Bharata or not. The comments of Bhatta Sumanas on three verses in N. S. Chap. XXXI are referred to with approval(Abh. Bh. Vol. IV, p. 80). A few texts cited in the name of Rāhula or Rāhulaka are in the form of prose and verse: and the bit भेरतेनोदितम् in his verse indicates that his was an inp. 166. ....... 1. Abh. bh. Vol. IV, p. 57. Chap. XXX. श्रीमन्मतङ्गमुनिना •उक्तः "शृङ्गारे वाविनियोक्तव्यमत्यन्तललितं द्रुतम्" Tbid. Vol. I, p.92. कौहलाद्यैः सत्त्वातिरिक्तोऽभिनयः इत्यादिवचनं अभिलिखद्भिः । also Vol. I, p. 142, etc. 2. Abh. bh. Vol. III, Chapter XXVIII, p. 100. तथा च विशाखिलाचार्यः स्वरपदतालसमवाये तु गान्धर्वमिति । bid. Vol. III, p. 101. तदुक्तं दत्तिलाचार्येण-पदस्थस्वरसङ्घातस्तालने सुमितमिति । 3. Abh. bh. Vol. I, Chap. IV, नृत्तनाटययोर्भेदः तुल्यानुकारत्वे इति हर्षवार्तिकम् । शिक्षार्हस्वेच्छान्यनृत्तकतिपयनाट्याङ्गकृतं नत्तमभ्यासफलमिति भट्टयन्त्रः । समयमात्र इत्यादिमङ्गलवद्विवाहादाविति भट्टलोल्लटः । दशरूपभेदवल्लास्य- ताण्डवप्रयोगो नाट्यभेद एव च तत्र पूर्णानुकाररूपत्वात् । तथा हि --प्रवेशेऽश्व- त्थाम्नः सूचीविद्धे ध्वजात्यादि पुरूरवसोऽलपल्लवसूची, गरुडस्य गरुडप्लुतकं, रावणस्य पुष्करः वैशाखरोचतकः, वत्सराजस्याग्निसम्भ्रन्तिः, जटायुषो गृध्रावली- नकमेलकाक्रीडितं चेति । चित्राभिनयेन नाट्येन • करणप्रयोग एवाभिनेयपदा- दीनां च नाट्येऽपि सत्तेति नाट्यमेवेदमिति कीर्तिधराचार्यः । एतच्च स्वमता- नुसारेण । एवं शब्दार्थमाहुः...":युक्तायुक्ततां तत्र परीक्षका एव विदुरित्यलं बहुना॥ 4. Abh. bh. Vol. IV, p. 80. भट्टसुमनसा तु श्लोकत्रयस्यायं वाक्यैकवाक्यतया महत प्रबन्धेनार्थो व्याख्यातः .

·94 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II dependent work and not a commentary on the Sastra. Udbhața is mentioned as using a text of the Sāstra with different readings (Abh. Bh. Vol. II, Chap. IX, p. 307; Chap. XVIII, p. 472, see ante p. 11.) This Udbhata is the same as the author of the Kavyālankārasāra, for he is ridiculed by Kuntaka for holding that Rasa could be realised through express relerence--a view inconsistent with the principles of the school of Bharata of which he is a staunch advocate.2 (Vakrokti J. Chap. III, pp. 113-5.) Udbhata probably wrote a commentary on the Sāstra and it is unfortunately lost to us,3 Lollaţa is probably another commentator that came after/Udbhata, for he is represented to contradict an interpretation of a text given by Udbhata and his followers. His views regarding the realisation of Rasa are cited and criticised by Abhinava in his com- 1. Abh. bh. Vol. I, p. 88. यथोक्तं राहुलकेन-प्रीवाकारयोः कट्यां पादयोश्च पृथग्भ्रमणं रोचितं विद्यात् । Ibid. Vol. I, p. 91. तद्विषयोक्तिप्रत्युक्त्यादिप्रयोगो नट्येऽपि आकाशभाषितादौ भाणरूपके च विद्यते । ते च यथाह राहुल:--- परोक्षेऽपि च वक्तव्यो नार्या प्रत्यक्षवत्प्रियः । सखी च नाटयधर्मोऽयं भरतेनोदितं द्वयम् ॥ - Abh. bh. Vol. I, p. 156. यत्तु राहुलकेनोक्तम्-अपौनरुक्त्येनाभिनयनं तदेवंविधमेव मन्तव्यम् । Ibit. Vol. III, p. 38. तेन मौग्ध्यमदभाविकत्वपरिपतनादीनामपि गत्याचार्यराहुलादिभिः अभि- धानं विरुद्धमित्यलं बहुना । 2. Vakrokti J., Chap. III, pp. 113-5. रसवदर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसोदयम् । स्वशब्दस्थायिसञ्चारिविभावाभिनयास्पदम् || Udbhata's K. L. S. Chap. IV. तत्र स्वशब्दास्पदत्वं रसानामपरिगतपूर्वमस्माकं ततस्तत एव रससर्वस्वसमाहित चेतनाः तत्परमार्थविदो विद्वांस एव प्रष्टव्याः । See also p. 11. fn. 2. Vakrokti, p. 126. 3.. See Abh. Bh., Vol. I, p. 198. Vide pp. 30 and 11.

·CHAP. VIII] ABHINAVAGUPTA 95 ments on the Rasasútra.1 (N. S. Chap. VI, p. 62). An improved interpretation of the Sūtra suggested by one Śri Sankuka is also similarly dealt with in the same place. His readings and comments on some verses are also criticised. Satikuka appears from the Rajatarang, Chan. IV, pp. 703-7 to have written a poem called Bhuvanabhyudaya about a terrible fight that took place between Mamma and Utpalaka about 850-1 A.D. in the reign of King Ajitäpida. This would place Sri Sankuka about the middle of the 9th century and Lollata about the beginning of it. Abhinava further cites with great regard his paramaguru Utpala in the Bhārati3 (Abh. Bh., Vol. IV, p. 84) as also in the Locana (Dhv. p. 30). He quotes in the Bharati as in the Locana (pp. 25, 160, 29,178, etc.) his two teachers Bhattendurāja and Bhattatauta. The former being his teacher, 4 could have been only a follower of the Dhvani and the Rasa school and he is certainly different from Pratihārendurāja. He is introduced with an attributes meaning the noblest of the twice-born that has crossed . 1. See Hemacandra's Kavyānutasana p. 55 foll. which is only a quotation from the Abhinavabhārati, Chap. VI, on the Rasasūtra. 2. Rajatarang. Chap. IV, pp. 703-7. See S. K. De, Skt. Poetics, Vol. I, pp. 38 and 39. Dr. De does not appear to have interpreted the Rajatarangini correctly. The poen was written only at the close of the Reign of Ajitāpida (850-1). 3. Abh. bh., Vol. IV, p. 8t. उत्पलदेवपादास्त्वस्मत्परमगुरवो व्याचक्षते । +. Locana, p. 160. यथा वा अस्मदुपाध्यायस्य विद्वत्कविसहृदयचक्रवर्तिनः भट्टेन्दुराजस्य "इन्दीवरद्युति" । Abh. bh., Chap. VI. यथा विन्दोः भट्टेन्दुराजस्य-उपपरिसरं गोदावर्याः परित्यजताध्वगाः (tc. Abh. bh., Vol. III, p. 35. "गतेषु लीलाश्चितविभ्रमेषु' Ku. I. 34. About those who change विभ्रमेषु to सुन्दरषु Abhinava remarks तदसदिति भट्टेन्दुराजशिष्यः । 5. Abh. bh., Chap. VI. अनुभावप्राधन्यं यथा-शुद्धसारस्वतप्रवाहपवित्रसकलवाङ्मयमहार्णवपूर्ण भावसम्पादनद्विजराजस्येन्दुराजस्य - याद्वश्रम्य विलोकितेषु बहुशो निःस्थेमनी etc. quoted in Locana, p. 25. .

·96 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II the ocean of all speech rendered pure by the singular Aow of the singing of the poetic Muse, probably more extravagant than the one in the Locana; but considering the excellence of his verses Abhinava is probably justified in giving it to his teacher. The latter Bhattatauta is evidently his teacher of histrionics.1 He wrote a work called the Kävya Kautuka on which Abhinava wrote his Vivarana. A few verses from that work containing his idea of how the different poetic elements contribute to the realisation of Rasa are cited by Abhinava.3 (Abh. Bh., Vol. II, Chap. XIX, p. 541.) Bhattatauta's criticisms of Sri Sankuka's interpretation of the Rasasūtra are quoted in the sixth chapter. From these and also other occasional references to the Kävya Kautuka it may be conjectured that it was a voluminous work in verse dealing with the many aspects of Rasa and histrionics in great detail. Bhattanāyaka and his Hşdayadarpana have already been dealt with. Further, to illustrate the different principles Abhinava quotes from a number of rare gems of literature which have unfortunately perished or lie hidden in some neglected shelf. The most 1. Locana, p. 178. मोक्षफलत्वेन चायं परमपुरुषार्थनिष्ठत्वात्सर्वरसेभ्यः प्रधानतमः । स चाय शान्तो रसः अस्मादुपाध्यायभट्टतोतेन काव्यकौतुके अस्माभिश्च तद्विवरणे वहुतरकृतनिर्णयः पूर्वपक्षसिद्धान्त इत्यलं बहुना । Sce also Locana p. 29. 2. Abh. bh., Chap. XXXI, Vol. IV, p. 175. तदेतद्भट्टतोतेन काव्यकौतुके वितत्य दर्शितम् । 3. Abh. bh., Chap. XIX, Vol. II, p.541. अलौकिकवैचित्र्यसरो हि रसः। तथा चोक्तं भट्टतोतेन- लक्षणालंकृतिगुणा दोषाः शब्दप्रवृत्तयः । वृत्तिसन्ध्यङ्गसंरम्भः संहारो यः कवेः किल ।। अन्योन्यस्यानुकूल्येन सम्भूयैव समुत्थितैः। झटित्येव रसा यत्र व्यज्यन्ते ह्लादिभिर्गुणैः ।। वृत्तैः सरलबन्धैर्यन्मुग्धैश्चूर्णपदैरपि । अश्लिष्टहृयघटनभाषया सुप्रसिद्धया ॥ यच्चेदृक्काव्यमात्रं सद्रसभावानुभावनम् । सामान्याभिनये प्रोक्तं वाच्याभिनयसंज्ञया।

·CHAP. VIII) ABHINAVAGUPTA 97 we important among them are Pratijñācāņakya of Bhimakavi, Māyāpuşpaka, Krtyārāvana, Puspadūşitaka, Tāpasavatsarāja, Rāmābhyudaya, Pratimāniruddha, Rādhāvipralaibha, Vāsava-, dattānātyadhārā of Mahākavi Subandhu, Daridracārudatta, Abhisārikābandhitaka (Vancitaka ?) and Rāghavavijaya. In Abh. bh., Vol. I, p. 255, Chap. VI a verse beginning aarysi afar a fer un is cited and attributed to the great poet Bhāsa. But this verse is not found in any of the works published at Trivandrum in the name of Bhasa. Abhinavagupta makes in the sixth chapter of his great commentary, a remarkable exposition of the theory of Rasa in all its different aspects and satisfactorily answers all the difficult questions that naturally suggest themselves in a consideration of the subject. One of the most important features in literature is its emotional element. When we speak of Rasa or aesthetic pleasure we vaguely understand what it is, and we also realise as read a poem or witness a play, this Rasa, Now a question naturally arises--whose Rasa is it that we are realising ? Is it the emotion of the master poet ? or is it that of the great characters or even of the talented actors or only of our own ? Some western critics confine themselves only to the emotions of the reader or the spectator when they have to speak of emotions. But Sanskrit writers recognise not only the emotion of the spectator and the reacler but also the emotion of the master-mind of the poet, the characters and the actors and they proceed to equate the emotion of all these. Further what are the different emotions that are the sources of literary appeal or effect ? Can they be definitely ascertained and classified ? Modern critics tight shy of definitely doing so, but Sanskrit writers have scientifically classified such emotions. Again there is the question of painful emotions and the question of the field of tragedy. The most pathetic scenes are represented to us in poetry and draina, and as we read or witness them we 1. Abh. bh., Vol. 1, p. 255, Chap. VI. महाकविना भासेनापि स्वप्रबन्धे उक्तः- त्रेतायुगं (न खलु) तद्धि न मैथिली सा रामस्य रागपदवी मृदु चास्य चेतः । लब्धा रावणमस्य कार्य प्रोत्कृत्य तन्न तिलशो न वितृप्तिगामी ॥ S-13 जनस्तु यदि ·98 DHVANT AND RASA (Book 11 even shed tears. But only an hour hence we love to return to those scenes and shed tears again. Why is this so? While man is willing to return to pleasure alone and never to pain, how could this be explained? They fail to attack this question, but Sanskrit Alankārikas have successfully met this difficulty in a philosophical manner by formulating the theory of Rasa from a philosophic basis. The earliest exposition of this theory is, as has been stated already, to be found in the sixth chapter of Bharata's Nāțyaśāstra. [See ante Chap.111.) The method of the realisation of Rasa is stated there in the form of the Sūtra, “ faharTHONIT- द्रसनिष्पत्तिः" that has been already explained. Though this represents the first beginnings at the systematization of the theory, it contains the germ of all later developments, for all later theories have grown out of the different interpretations of this old sūtra. Moreover though Bharata's theory may not answer all the difficulties raised at the outset, it must be admitted that Bharata, it was, who holdly classified the different. Rasas, their permanent emotional moods, their causes, effects and accessories, etc., which are substantially the same even after the lapse of many centuries. We shall trace briefly the growth of this theory at the hands of Bhatta Lollața, Sri Sankuka, Bhattanāyaka and Abhinavagupta and try to indicate how every subsequent view improved upon the previous one and also how the view as expounded by Abhinavagupta is the most satisfactory, and also one which has stood the severe test of time. After Bharata, the earliest to put forward a theory of Rasa based on his Sūtra was Bhatta Lollata, who as stated already lived about the beginning of the ninth century. His view is briefly this. (It is better in this connection to keep in view dramas.) Rasa is Sthāyibhāva intensified by a poetic description or histrionic representation through Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc. Or in other words, the trained actors by their histrionic skill aided by poetry, music, dress, etc., truly exhibit on the stage, say, the love which Duşyanta and Sakuntalā had towards each other, identifying themselves for the moment with those characters; that is, when the love-Sthāyibhava--of the actors and the characters is thus intensely developed through Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., it is Rasa. This Rasa then primarily resides in the characters and also in the actors on account of their imagining themselves for the ·CHAP. VIII). ABHINAVAGUPTA 99. moment to be those very same characters. This view is the same.. as that held by Dandin also who should have meant something like the above, when he said "fa: xerai ya FAIEcrita:" Love, Sthayibhāva, when intensified through manifold factors, such as Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., becomes the Rasa, Śrógāra. According to this view it is the actors that exhibit the Rasa and so it is they that realise it. It leaves out of all consideration the poet and the audience. It ignores the question how does the audience realise the Rasa ?' If it does not realise the Rasa, when the intense love of Duşyanta and Sakuntalā is represented by the actors on the stage, some members of it may envy the lovers, others may shun to witness the love-making of others and may leave the performance, and many other things may happen according to the taste and culture of the audience. Sri Sankuka criticises Lollata for holding that Sthāyibhāva when intensified becomes Rasa. For the existence of the Sthāyibhāva cannot be known at all without the intensifying factors, riz., Vibhāvas, etc.; or in the language of Sri Sankuka without the middle terin, riz., Vibhāvas, etc., there cannot be any inference or knowledge of the Sthāyibhāva. If we notice the trend of the definitions of Bharata, we find that he does not seem to distinguish at all between Sthāyibhāva and Rasa ; and when the Sthāyibhāva is thus inferred it is called "Rasa'. That is why he does not mention the word Sthāyibhāva' in the Sūtra. Otherwise Bharata should have mentioned the Sthāyibhāvas first and then indicated how the Rasas are realised from them when they are intensified. Further if Sthāyibhāva intensified is Rasa', then, as intensity admits of many degrees, similarly there ought to be different grades in the Rasa realised. Or if it is urged that only when the utınost intensity is reached that Rasa is realised, then the division of Hāsya into six varieties, Smita, Avahasita, Vihasita, etc., made by Bharata would be wrong. Again in Śộngāra there are ten avasthās or states of emotional moods, and if each of them should have different grades according to their intensity, there would then be innumerable varieties under that Rasa and Bhava alone. Moreover it is not always that the Sthayibhāva is intensified. We find on the other hand that an 1. तेन स्थाय्येव विभावानुभावादिभिः उपचितो रसः । स्थायीभावस्त्व- नुपचितः । सचोभयोरपि अनुकार्ये, अनुकर्तर्यपि चानुसन्धानबलात् ।

·100 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II. intense feeling, like grief, slowly languishes by lapse of time and other conditions. Sri Sankuka sought to remedy the defects in this theory by putting forward an iinproved view of his own, and it may be stated briefly thus :—Skilled actors imitate truly the heroes and their experiences. In the ordinary world the emotion of the heroes is revealed by (1) the causes or mainsprings which excite their emotion, viz., the heroes themselves and their environment; (2) the visible effects of their feeling, and (3) some temporary and accessory feelings. When these are represented on the stage by 'the superior imitative faculty of the actors, they come to be called by the names, Vibhāva, Anubhāva and Vyabhicāribhāva, respectively. When the spectators witness a successful imitation of the characters and their experiences which--the imitation by the actors--though artificial and unreal, is not realised to be so and which reveals their feeling, they forget for the moment the difference between the actors and the characters, and inferentially experience the emotion of the characters--Rāma, Duşyanta and the like-themselves; e.g., if Rāma's Vipralambha is represented, the inference of the spectators may take the form अयं रामः तापमनुभवति---. This Rāma is greatly aflicted at heart.' This experience of emotion by the audience is very similar to, and is but a reflex (anukāra) of, the real einotional mood-Sthāyibhāva--of the characters ; and because it is a reflex, it is called by a different name, viz., Rasa. This experience of the Rasa by the audience is a peculiar one, entirely different from either the ordinary perception or inference. It does not take any of the forms—This actor alone is happy,' This actor alone is Rāma', 'This is not happy', 'This may be Rāma or may not be so’ or. 'This is similar to Rāma'. It is neither valid perception, nor error, nor doubt, nor inference. It is something like the experience which one has when observing a horse in a picture, and it takes the form • This actor is that Rāina who was happy'. If it is urged that such an experience is philosophically unsound as it does not fall within the recognised categories of valid knowledge, Sankuka would reply that when there is such an experience it ought to be accepted as sound, and no amount of theorising can disprove facts of experience. Theories have to conform to facts 1. PR geysta Ragna: 14 Abḥ, bh., Chap. VI.

·CHAP. VIII] ABHINAVAGUPTA 101 and not facts to theories. So this is a peculiar variety of inference and the inferential experience is the realisation of Rasa. This theory is an improvement upon Lollața's, in that it. brings into relation the spectators in the realisation of the Rasa, or because it holds that the spectators realise the Rasa. But here too there are serious defects. It is said that Rasa is a reflex and an inference. From the standpoint of the audience this is not true. What is there in the actors which may be regarded as an imitationi? Can the actor's demeanour, dress and actions be regarded as the imitation of the hero's emotion like love? These being unlike Rati cannot be treated as such. Moreover we can speak of a thing to be an imitation only when the original is known. Has anybody a direct knowledge of the love of the hero, say, Rāma? So the actor does not imitate the hero. Again, if the mental condition of the actor, for the time being roused by ordinary causes in the world, is regarded as Rasa when realised, then it is realised as a mental condition, like love ; and where is there the reflex of that love? It may be urged that the Vibhāvas, etc., are real in the characters and artificial or unreal in the actors, and that in the same way as the real Vibhāvas lead to the inference of the real emotion in them, similarly, their imitations in the actors lead the audience to the inference of an imitation or reflex of that real emotion as existing, for the time being, in the actors. This reasoning is quite unsound, for never do we have the inference of the imitation of Sãdhya or the major term from a semblance of Hetu; c.g., from a knowledge of mist which is similar to smoke there does not arise the inference of the bright red china roses which are similar to fire. Again it may be said that the actor, not being angry at all, feigns that he is angry. Is this not imitation? No : it inay be that he is similar to the angry man and we cannot say that he is imitating the angry Bhimasena. Thus to the audience, Rasa is not an imitation of the Sthāyibhāva. Further, to say that the experience of Rasa takes the peculiar form which is neither valid nor erroneous—this actor is that Rāma who was happy-is not correct. For, if this knowledge is not stultified later, it is true ; if it is stultified, it is false. How can it be different from both these. Really this same experience is had in other actors also and hence the conception of Rāma is only in his universal aspect of a great hero. The actor too does not feel that he is imitating Räna or his feelings. For he has not experienced the original, Rāma or his ·102 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II ſeelings. Then whom does he imitate? It may be some noble. person. How is he? and what is h: ? Without a definite idea oi him how is it possible to imitate his feelings? If it is said by the actor that he is imitating a person who should have wept, smiled or laughed in the manner he does, then his personality also intervenes and where is the relation of the original and imitator (Anukāryānukartſbhāvaḥ). What happens really is that the actor by his training and imagination and by his imaginative identification with the character, represents the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., in their generic aspect; and he is innocent of imitation. Another weak point is that the realisation of Rasa is regarded as an inference. How can any inference be delightful? It is well known that the audience when witnessing a performance realises some bliss, similar to the one which Dusyanta had in the company of Sakuntala. It is possible only in perceptual experience and not through inference, when the audience is identified, for the time being, with the heroes represented on the stage. It is common experience that the realisation of thrill or joy is immediate, and this immediateness is associated with direct apprehension. Inference is not direct apprehension and inferential knowledge is not immediate. How then is it possible to have the realisation of poetic thrill through inference? Further inferential knowledge lacks that sense of fulness which is present in the experience of joy. So it is unsound to say that the realisation cf Rasa is a process of inference. The next writer to put forward a better view was Bhatta. nāyaka whose date, position, etc., have already been discussed. He says :-Rasa is neither known through the ineans of knowledge, nor produced nor manifested. For if it is known as it really is and as present in the Sahradya, then in Karuņa one must experience pain and not pleasure. Further when we realise Rasa as existing in ourselves, Sitā and others cannot be the mainsprings of our emotion, for we are conscious of the wide difference between us and the characters. Nor do we then think of our relations with our beloved. Further, the activities of the Gods and feats like the crossing of the ocean appear to be strange and quite unlike our own experiences. We cannot say that we remember such a great Rāma, because we have had no such previous experience. Moreover, when Rasa is known through Sabda, verbal testimony or inference, there cannot be any sense of joy, just in the same manner as when we witness the love-making of two lovers; and ·CHAP. Vill) ABHINAVAGUPTA 103 there may be positive aversion. Similar are the defects iſ we say that it is produced or manifested. So what really constitutes the realisation of Rasa is this :-Poetic langauage has three aspects or functions, viz., (1) Abhidhā or significative aspect; (2) Bhāvaná or Bhāvakalva, unificatory or universalising aspect; and (3) Bhojakatva or Bhoga, the realisationistic aspect.' All linguistic expression has the first one. It is in the second that the language is differentiated from ordinary expression and passes on to poetic expression. This aspect, called Bhāvakatva, is achieved in ordinary poetry by the Guņas, Alarkāras, etc. Dramatic representation also possesses the second and third aspects and here Bhāvakatva is achieved through the four varieties of Abhinaya. One great difficulty in the way of the realisation of Rasa is the individualistic element of the spectators or Sahrdayas on the one side and the actors and the characters on the other. Another is the realisation of painful emotions which necessarily must be painful. When the second function, Bhāvakatva operates, these two are surmounted. It consists in this. When there is a vivid representation, aided by poetry, music, etc., of the characters and the incidents, the trained spectator or Sahşdaya, through his complete imaginative sympathy, identifies himself with them and loses his individuality and also any personal predilections that he may have; e.g., if the love of Duşyanta and Sakuntalā should be presented on the stage it is not realised as the love of those particular characters, but through the unification of the characters, actors and the Sahşdaya, the individual love of the characters, the actors and the Sahşdaya is completely submerged; and love in its universal aspect alone is presented. This unificatory function is called Sadharanikarana'. When this emotion is thus universalised, the third function, viz., Bhojakatva or Bhoga operates. This enables the Sahşdaya to call forth the corresponding instinct implanted in him and to develop it to that cliniax, when it is realised in the form of self-luminous bliss. For this conception of Bhoga Bhattanāyaka appears to have taken the cue from the Sāökhya philosophers. They say that Guņas are of three kinds, Sativa, Rajas and Tamas ; and the exuberance of one Guņa over the other two produces respectively, happiness, grief and stupor. This Bhoga arises by the overpowering mastery of the Sattva Guna over the other two, Rajas and Tamas, and hence it must invariably be pleasant. This view solves in a manner the two difficulties raised. 11 gets over the barrier of the individualistic element by the concep- ·104 DHVANI AND RASA (Book it tion of Bhāvakatva. Then regarding Karumarasa, even the realisation of the instinct of Pathos in the Sahrdaya can be brought about only through the exuberance of the Sattva guna and hence it is, that even its realisation is only a pleasant experience. The defect pointed out in this theory is that it attributes to poetic expression two additional functions, Bhāvakatva and Bhoga, which are quite novel and which are not accepted by any system of philosophy. If these two are the peculiar activity of poetic expression, then they may very well be called suggestion. Abhinavagupta quarrels with Bhattanāyaka only in this respect; otherwise he does not differ very much from Bhattanäyaka. The next and the last theory that satisfactorily and conclusively solved all the difficulties raised at the outset and which reigned supreme in the sphere of Sanskrit poetics was formulated by Abhinavagupta. This may be set forth thus :—Soul is immortal, and all souls, particularly of the Sahrdaya or responsive critic, have in them implanted certain Vāsanās or instincts and these are called in the language of criticism 'Sthāyibhāvas.' When there is a vivid representation of the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas this instinct in us is called forth and developed to that climax when it is realised by us, invariably accompanied by a thrill or joy. To take a concrete example. In the first Act of the Sakuntală a deer is represented as being pursued by Duşyanta on a chariot and the deer is running swiftly for its life. When this scene is acted before us, it calls out in us the instinct corresponding to fear, viz., Bhaya and this is developed, when we forget, through our complete imaginative sympathy, whose fear it is that we are realising, Is it our own' or is it of the deer before me' or is it the fear the enemy or a friend or a third person ', and know only, fear in its generic or universal aspect, free from all barriers like the individualistic elements, etc., and realise this climax of emotion which is always pleasurable. Incidently Abhinava seeks support for his view from an exquisite verse of Kälidāsa: रम्याणि वीक्ष्य मधुरांश्च निशम्य शब्दान् पर्युत्सुकीभवति यत्सुखितोऽपि जन्तुः । तचेतसा स्मरति नूनमबोधपूर्व Hraffazitor JAAPACHTEGIA II When a person, though happy, becomes uneasy. of mind on seeing beautiful objects and hearing sweet music, then indeed he ·CHAP. VIII] ABHINAVAGUPTA 105 intuitively realiscs (fa) though vaguely, associations of foriner births deeply implanted in him.' The situation here is that Duşyanta is introduced as being under the spell of Durvāsa's curse and as having completely forgotten his love towards Sakuntalā; just then he hears sweet music and probably also sees some paintings in the hall and he feels uneasy of mind and vaguely realises his love for Sakuntalā, but is not at all conscious of it. Here the term · Bhāvasthirāņi' really stands for Sthāyibhāvas or certain permanent instincts, implanted in all human beings ; and by sceing beautiful, charming objects and hearing sweet music, this instinct is called forth and intuitively realised. Here the term 'smarati ' does not evidently stand for conscious remembrance, but only for intuitive realisation. Abhinavagupta has not displayed any interpretative ingenuity in seeking support for his own view from this theory of Rasa of Kālidāsa. Thus according to Abhinava, by whatever name-Upacaya, Anukāra or Smộti--we may call this realisation, Rasa is only the emotional mood revealed in a blissful knowledge, free from all barriers that are antagonistic to its realisation. These barriers are surmounted by the Vibhāvas, etc. In ordinary world also, knowledge free from all limitations is called by different names, Camatkāra, Rasanā, Bhoga, Laya, Višrānti and so on. What are these barriers to the realisation of Rasa? They are sevenfold, viz.: (1) प्रतिपत्ताबयोग्यता सम्भावनाविरहः (2) स्वगतपरगतत्वनियमेन देशकाल- विशेषावेशः (3) निजसुखादिविवशीभावः (4) प्रतीत्युपायवैकल्यं (5) स्फुटत्वाभावः (6) अप्रधानता and (7) संशययोगः । The first is the lack of adequate realisation of the probability or the reasonableness of things. If one is not convinced of the likelihood of the things presented, how can they engage one's all absorbing attention ? When extraordinary incidents, like the calm resignation of a kingdom in order to fulfil the father's pledge, the crossing of the ocean, the war with a demon who was a terror even to the gods, liave to be portrayed, it is done so only with reference to great heroes like Rāma who, by our training and association, is at once believed without the shadow of a doubt, to 1. सर्वथा वीतविघ्नप्रतीतिग्राह्यो भाव एव रसः । लोके सकलविघ्नविनिर्मुक्ता संवित्तिरेव चमत्कारनिर्वेशरसना........ दिभिः शब्दरभिधीयते । 2. S-14 ·106 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II possess those superior powers necessary for their achievement. This is why, in dramatic kinds which have a high moral purpose, the plot and the characters are invariably drawn from the Epics and well-known tradition. Otherwise, as Cardinal Newman would put it, the poet, instead of drawing vigour and inspiration for his theme froin the nobility of the characters, will be forced to inſuse spirit into the shadowy creations of his imagination. He is thereby at a great disadvantage, for his work may not be quite appealing; and hence it is that the fable' of the Greek tragedies is drawn from the Epics and well-known tradition. This is not the case in the lower order of plays like the Prahasana. Such a procedure is certain to remove from the mind of the audience any lack of adequate realisation of the probability of things. The second obstacle is the presence of certain individualistic or distinctivefcatures of time and place which enable the Sahrdaya to sever himself from the objects described. If he should realise happiness or sorrow as existing in himself, there may arise in him a desire and an effort either to preserve it or to alzandon it, to obtain something similar to it or to avoid it, to publish it or to conceal it as the case may be ; and this would retard the realisation of Rasa. Further, iſ he should rcalise them as being present in another, then also there would be certain reactions on his mind. He may be happy, sorrowful, indifferent and so on. To prevent this obstacle various histrionic devices calleci näțyitdharmi' such as the Pūrvaranga, the prologule, the different dress of the actors, the stage, the peculiar speech, etc., are employed. Then he does not realise whether the happiness or sorrow is experienced in this person, in this place or at this moment, because its true nature is concealed. The third is the undue assertion of self-regarding emotions. How can any one who is overpowered by his own happiness or sorrow concentrate his attention on something else ? To avoid this are employed excellent music, vocal and instrumental, with suitable accompaniments like mțdanga, well-decorated halls, accomplished courtezans, etc., by which even the unaesthetic mind is forced to vibrate in response. The fourth and fifth are the absence of adequate means of immediate realisation and the lack of clearness or perspicuity. How under such conditions could be convinced of the correctness of one's knowledge ? Even though there may be clear and unmistakable verbal testimony one ·CHAP. VIN ABHINAVAGUPTA 107 and inference, we do not completely rest content with the knowledge derived therefrom ; for therein is lacking that perceptual cognition which alone makes for clear, direct and definite knowledge. That is why it is said that all valid knowledge depends upon perception. It is well known that a thing that is perceived cannot be proved to be otherwise by any number of inferences and verbal testimony or scriptural texts. In cases like the *Alātacakra' or the imaginary circle of fire created when a burning stick is swiftly revolved, our knowledge is disproved only by a more powerful perception. Therefore to remove these two, we use in dramatic representation something that is different from inference and verbal testimony and that is alınost equal to perception itself, viz., Abhinaya, Natyadharmi, Vritti and Pravștti, the last two being dealt with in the twentieth and twelfth chapters of the Nātyaśāstra. The sixth is the absence of some element as the dominant factor. Our mind does not rest satisfied with the knowledge of things subordinate, for it runs towards the predominant thing. We never rest content with the knowledge of adjectives and we invariably seek for the substantives which the adjectives qualify. Similarly the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and the Vyabhicãribhāvas which go to develop something else, are invariably subordinate, and these are not realised with a sense of satisfaction but only the Sthāyibhāvas which are dominant and to develop which the Vibhāvas, etc., strive. Why should the Sthayibhāvas alone be regarded as the dominant emotional moods and the Vyabhicāri. bhāvas be regarded as subordinate ones? It is because certain emotional moods or impulses alone are directly associated with the Puruşārthas or aims or ends of life ; and these are dominant. Rati is associated with Kāma and also Dhārma and Artha, Krodha with Artha, Utsäha or fortitude and energy with Kama and all varieties of Dhārma, etc., and quietism (Sama) born of the knowledge®of sacred lore with liberation, the highest goal of existence. Thus these emotional moods are the more important. While Hāsa, Soka, Adbhuta, etc., beittg obtainable among the ordinary folk in the world are less important and even these being accessory to the former help in the realisation of the ends of life. These alone form the Sthāyibhāvas. These imental conditions are present in all human beings, at least in a dormant state, in the form of latent impressions which are called forth as occasion arises, Only the degree of their intensity varies with different persons ·causes. 108 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK 11 in the world. The emotional moods called Vyabhicãribhāvas, such as, langour (glāni) doubt (Śankā), etc., are not of an enduring character and are not present in all or at all times. They are brought about by certain causes and when these are removed they disappear. As a practical test we may consider these two statements. “This person is languid", "Rāmā possesses great energy and power". As soon as we hear the first we naturally ask the question “ why is he languid". This shows that langour is not permanent and it is brought about by some temporary In the latter case nobody is tempted to put the question “Why does Rāmā possess energy and power ?” This is because Utsäha is something permanent and is not temporarily brough 1 into existence. This is the basis of the classification of the emotional moods into Sthāyibhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas. The latter are like jewels set in a chain, which are not necessary for the existence of the chain itself, but which greatly enhance the beauty of the chain and which can find a place only so long as the chain lasts. Thus the Sthayibhāva is the dominant factor and the Vyabhicāribhāvas are only accessories, and when the former is properly developed the dominant factor is never lost sight of and there does not arise the obstacle of 'Apradhānatā' or the lack of something as the dominantfactor. The last is doubt in general. The Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and the Vyabhicāribhāvas are not severally related to any specific Sthāyibhāva ; for, e.g., tears (Anubhāva) may arise cut of joy, sorrow or even some disease in the eye; tiger, etc. (Vibhāva) may rouse anger or fear ; Bhrama (perplexity) and Cintă (contemplation), etc.,--Vyabhicāribhāva-may be the accessories of Utsāha and Bhaya. Thus where the death of a close relation is the Vibhāva, bewailing and shedding tears the Anubhāva, and contemplation, weakness, etc., the Vyabhicăribhāvas, there may arise a doubt regarding the particular Sthāyibhāva that is developed. To remove this doubt the word "Sariyoga' is used in the Rasasūtra, That is, when there is a specific combination of such Vibhāva, Anubhāva, etc., we know that the Sthāyibhāva developed is certainly Soka and the Rasa, Karuņa. Thus these seven barriers are overcome in the manner indicated above. Then the Sahşdaya, by his training, is already 'पलानोऽयम्' इत्युक्ते 'कुत' इति हेतुप्रश्नेन अस्थायितास्य सूच्यते । न तु 'रामः उत्साहशक्तिमान्' इत्यत्र हेतुप्रश्नमाहुः ।

·CHAP. VIII) ABHINAVAGUPTA 109 able to understand the mental condition of others from the ordinary causes, the effects and the accessories in the world; and now through similar causes, etc., which, not being quite as real as they. are in the ordinary world, come to be called by the names, Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas, his mind becomes attuned to the situations represented, or in other words, through his complete imaginative sympathy he identifies himself with the situations, and he realises his own emotion that has been stirred and developed to a climax, free from all liinitations and invariably accompanied by a thrill. This realisation is of the nature of pure joy, is not of the nature of a tangible object, is transcendental, is lasting only during the time of realisation and never beyond it and is different from the Sthayibhāva ; and this is called Rasa. This realisation is said to be Alaukika, transcendental; i.l'., it is quite unlike the crdinary experiences of the world or it transcends the limits of worldly experience. Why is it called so ? Firstly because it is not produced by the ordinary causes. Why? Cannot the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., be regarded as the causes of the realisation of Rasa? What kind of causes are these ? Are they Kārakahetus, i.l'., causes which produce the Rasa or are they jñāpakahetus, i.C., causes which reveal things? They are neither of these. The former class of Hetus may be destroyed after the production of the effect, but the effect may continue to exist even after its destruction, as, log., even after the destruction of the stick, the pot which it produced may continue to exist. But as soon as the Vibhāvas, etc., are withdrawn, the Rasapratiti also stops or the realisation of Rasa does not at all continue after the destruction of the Vibhāvas. Rasa is not kārya. The Vibhūras are neither jñāpakahetus, for in all such cases the causes reveal objects that previously exist, e.d., a lamp when it reveals a pot that is in the dark, is said to be its Jñāpakahetu. Here the pot exists even before the lamp is brought to that place. But it cannot be admitted that Rasa exists even before the Vibhāvas. It is not jñāpya either. So the Vibhāvas only suggest the Rasa that is enjoyed by us. Where do you find the like of such things that are neither Kārya nor Jñāpya? Nowhere are they seen, and that is why we say that Rasapratiti is Alaukika or that it transcends the limits of worldly experience. Secondly, by an examination of its psychological character also it can be established that it is transcendental. It is said that Rasapratiti is some blissful knowledge. If it should be knowledge, ·110 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II it must be either Nirvikalpaka or Savikalpaka. The former is that .cognition where there is no definiteness and which is devoid of any relations. But Rasapratiti is not absolutely unrelated, because it is only by the knowledge of the Vibhāvas, etc., that we have Rasapratiti, i.e., the knowledge of Rasa involves the knowledge of the Vibhāvas, etc., in a generalised form; and so it is not Nirvikalpaka. Savikalpakajñāna is definite and is related to name, Jāti, etc. But-Rasapratiti is utterly ineffable, and at the moment of realisation it is all but a composite and blissful experience transcending direct expression. So this is different from those two varieties of knowledge and hence is transcendental. Further there are various kinds of cognition and can this Rasapratīti be brought under some yogic realisation? There are two types of this, viz., that of the Yuñjāna and the Yukta. The former is one who resorts to various yogic practices to attain union with the Supreme Spirit. The process of our experience of Rasa is somcthing pleasant, quite unlike that of the Hathayoga, etc., of the Yuñjāna. Neither is this like the experience of a Yukta, viz., a saint that has become one with the Supreme Spirit. For he realises the absolute Brahman, while the Sahşdaya realises some peculiar bliss involving differences. Further in the highest yogic realisation it is neither life nor death. It is incompatible with both ; but the realisation of Rasa is compatible with life and could be had only then. It cannot be brought under the realisation of the Absolute. So it is that we say that the Rasapratiti is unique and transcendental. This theory of Abhinavagupta differs from that of Bhattanāyaka in this respect that the Sadharanikaraṇa or Bhāvakatva of the latter is brought under Vyañjanā and Bhoga under Rasapratiti. Do these theories of Rasa solve the difficulties raised at the outset, viz., (1) individualistic or self-regarding impulses; (2) the problem of the realisation of Karuņa ? The first two are useless and it is in the third and the last that the difficulties are overcome. The first difficulty is overcome by the Sadharanikaraņa of Bhattanāyaka and the removal of the seven barriers, which Abhinava las clearly expounded. Abhinaya solves the other difficulty by taking his stand on the fundamental tenets of the Sankhya philosophy. He says in his commentary on the "Rasasutra ·CHAP. VIII] ABHINAVAGUPTA 111 तत्र सर्वे अमी सुखप्रधानाः, स्वसंविञ्चर्वणारूपस्य प्रकाशस्य आनन्दसार- त्वात् । तथा हि-एकघनशोकसंविच्चर्वणेऽपि लोके अस्ति लोकस्य हृदयविश्रान्तिः अन्तरायशुन्यविश्रान्तिशरीरत्वात् (सुखस्य) अविश्रान्तिरूपतैव च दुःखं; तत एवं Follo: दुःखस्य चाश्चल्यमेव प्राणत्वेनोक्तं रजोवृत्तितां वदद्भिः इत्यानन्दरूपता सर्वरसानाम् । किं तु उपरञ्जकविषयवशात् तेषामपि कटुकतास्पर्शोऽस्ति वीरस्येव (१) AT PE THIÊON anlama gel (p. 283, Abh. Bh., Vol. I, G. O. S.) All Rasas are pleasurable ; but Abhinava fully realises the difference between the various emotional moods that become Rasas and he is aware that the enotional inood pertaining to Karuņa is Šoka or grief; and how could this lead to the realisation of joy? He says that even at the time of Karuņapratiti, the mind is completely absorbed in the scenes represented and this absorption is invariably associated with a certain equipoise of the mind; and it is this cquilibrium of the mind, free from any disturbance, that is called Sukha or Bliss; and Duhkha or pain is only the oscillation of the mind clue to the disturbance of this equipoise. This is in consonance with the view of the Sāüklıya philosophers who hold that the essence of pain consists in the restless condition of the mind; and when this restlessness is removed, the mind is in a state of complete rest; and that is joy. Pleasure has two aspects, at positive and a negative. To the realisation of love it has the positive as well as the negative aspect ; i.e., by nature it is pleasurable, and when there is complete absorption of the mind there is also the negative aspect. In Karuņa, there is no positive aspect of pleasure, for by nature, it is painful. But the mental absorption here is very deep and complete ; and pleasure in its negative aspect is realised in an intense form. Here there is the possibility of a slight touch of bitterness, but that does not at all show itself out and it is submerged in the intense realisation of pleasure. Thus on a philosophic basis we have shown how tragic scenes are quite pleasurable, while human nature is averse to experiencing pain. 11. Šántarasa. Bharata and following him all writers on poetics have classified the emotional moods into dominant and transitory, and they have also shown how the dominant emotional moods are permanent and enduring and that they alone are developed into Rasas. The basis of this classification into transitory ·112 DHVANT AND RASA [Book 11 1 and dominant is, as has been indicated before, their relation to the ends of life. Such of them as are directly associated with some Puruşārtha, are dominant and these have their permanent impressions or vāsanās in all human beings; they are called forth under certain conditions and realised in an ecstacy. These Sthāyibhāvas that are developed as Rasas have been accepted generally to be eight, viz., Rati, Hāsa, śoka, Krodha, Utsāha, Bhaya, Jugupsā and Vismaya ; and the corresponding Rasas are called, Sțngāra, Hāsya, Karuņa, Raudra Vira, Bhayānaka, Bibhutsa and Adbhuta. Abhinava deals elaborately with the development of each one of these in the sixth chapter of the Abhinavabhārati. All these are related in some manner or other to the first three ends of life, viz., Dharma, Artha and Kāma, Similarly can Sama, quietude or the calmn mental condition of the sage which is directly related to the highest end of life, viz., salvation, he developed into a pleasurable Rasa, called ſānta ? Those who accept Santa to be an additional, ninth Rasa say that śama is the Sthayibhāva of Santa. Its Vibhāvas are austerities, study, etc. Anubhāvas are the absence of Kāma, Krodha and other passions. Vyabhicãribhāvas are Dhști, Mati, etc. This view is disputed by many others and they say that it is contrary to the teachings of Bharata. Bharata has enumerated the Bhavas to be forty-nine and Sama is not one of them. If this should be accepted to be a Bhāva the number would exceed the limit fixed by him. Further, in the same way as the spring season, flowers, etc., excite love, austerties and study do not bring about Sārtarasa but only Tattvajñāna or the knowledge of eternal truths, and so austerities, etc , cannot be the Vibhāvas of Santa, Absence of Kāma, etc., also cannot be Anubhāvas, for how could the absence of Kāma or Krodha, in other words, the negation of an action be represented on the stage? Dhști (fortitude), etc., which are related to sensual enjoyınent cannot be the Vyabhicăribhāvas of Santa. So there does not exist a Rasa, called Santa. To this Abhinava, following apparently Anandavardhana replies : It is well known that in the same manner as the three Puruşārthas, Dharma, etc., are expounded in the Sāstras, Itihāsas, etc., the fourth, viz., Mokṣa or libération and the means to attain it are fully dealt with in those works. And if the emotional moods pertaining to Kāma, etc., called Rati, etc., could be developed by the activity of the poet and the actors to be Rasas like Spngāra, etc., that appeal to those who have a responsive heart to those ·CHAP. Vill) ABHINAVAGUPTA 113 emotional moods, why should not the emotional mood pertaining to the highest Puruşāıtha, Mokşa, be developed to be kasa that appeals to those whose minds respond to this feeling? And the emotional mood, whatever it may be, pertaining to this is the Sthāyibhāva of Santa. What is this emotional mood ? Some hold that it is Nirveda, renunciation or aversion for all worldly enjoyments born of the knowledge of eternal truths. This should have been the intention of Bharata also, who places • Nirveda' just after the Sthāyibhāvas and at the hvad of the Vyabhicāribhāvas.2 Otherwise why should this Nirveda'--10t a happy feeling and not tispicious either--he placed in the forefront of the Vyabhicâribhāvas by that Sage, who cares for auspiciousness. This view is not sound; for Nirveda is the version for all worldly enjoyments and it aids Sin the attainment of the knowledge of eternal truths; and it is not correct to say that the knowledge of eternal truths— Tattvajñānaleads to Nirveda. Sri Sankara also enjoins as a pre-requisite of the study of Vedānta, which is the source of all knowledge of eternal truths, an aversion for or indifference to all enjoyments celestial as well as mundane [Terha Hifator:. B.S. 1-1-1.], and it is nothing but Nirveda ; and after the acquisition of Tattvajñāna one does not get Nirveda, hut attains salvation. So it cannot be Nirveda. Others hold that it is anyone of the eight well-known Sthāyibhāvas. And primarily as the means to salvation is the love of Aturan that is one continued state of bliss, love or Rati of the Seli is the Sthayibhäva here. Moreover the sage that seeks liberation finds the whole world a complex of incongruities (Māsa), something that must be pitied (Soka), and that is mischievous (Krodha); even the loveliest objects like young ladies are Joathsome to him (jugupsā) and he wonders at the elevation of his own self (Vismaya). Thus any one of these may be the Sthāyibhāva. This is not correct ; for there is no definite Sthāyibhāva 1. FATTARET (Fulehe :) dragias: fata: 1 FISHEHET चैतदर्थमेवायं पठितः । अन्यथा माङ्गलिकः मुनिः तथा न पठेत् Abh. bh., Chap. VI. 2. Maminața appears to have followed this view when he says :- निर्वेदस्यामङ्गलप्रायस्य प्रथमं अनुपादेयत्वेऽप्युपादानं व्यभिचारित्वेऽपि स्थायि- ताभिधानार्थम्। S-15 ·114 DHVANI AND RASA (Book 11 for Santa ; and if the Sthāyibhāvas should be numerous and different, Rasa also should be many. If it is said that all these culminate in salvation and hence, though apparently different they are one entity, then as Vira and Raudra result in destruction they too should be regarded as identical. Soine others again are of opinion that a harmonious blend or a commingling of all the ernotional moods is the Sthayibhāva. This too is not sound; for the different moods cannot be present at the same time and they are antagonistic to one another. What then is the Sthāyibhāva here? Tattvajñāna alone leads to Moksa and hence it is but proper to say that this Tattvajñāna is the Sthayibhāva. This is nothing but Ātınajñāna or knowledge of the self. Thus the Sthāyibhāva is that self free from all desires and endowed with pure knowledge and bliss. It is not regarded Sthayi, merely because it is permanent like Rati, etc. These are developed by the respective causes and suppressed when the latter are withdrawn ; and as they, capable of being suggested occasionally, reside in the permanent Atman, they are called permanent emotional noods. But Tattvajñāna is the source of all the emotional moods; in other words it is the wall on which the pictures, viz., the Bhavas, are drawn. It is the highest of the Sthāyibhāvas, and it has even the permanent emotional moods, Rati, etc., as accessories to itself, and it is intrinsically and by nature always a Sthāyibhāva. This is why there was no necessity for Bharata to refer to this separately. Thus this view coes not come into conflict with the statement of Bharata that the Bhāvas are only forty-nine in all. Moreover after mentioning the Rasas, Bharata's intention is only to refer to the Vyabhicăribhāvas and not the Sthayibhāvas as such; and as the Sthayibhāvas also function as Vyabhicãribhāvas he refers to them all only in their latter capacity; for, otherwise, how is it proper for him to say that the Bhāvas are forty-nine as if they form a single category? This Tattvajñāna is not accessory to anything else and it is the character of Atman itself and it is called by Bharata, says Abhinava, by the name, Sama, When the Atman is conditioned by extraneous objects and ideas it develops the sense of love, anger, 1. Cf. Locana, p. 177. प्रतीयत एवेति -मुनिनाप्यङ्गीक्रियत एव "कचिच्छमः" इत्यादिवदता। Evidently Abhinava adopts a reading of Bharata's Kärikā that enumerates the Sthāyibhavas with कचिच्छमः ·CHAP. VIII) ABHINAVAGUPTA 115 etc.; when its character is realised, pure and unconditioned hy anything, by the sage in his deep meditation, it is quietude itself. Here the Vibhāvas are the favours of the highest gods, etc., and the emotions like Rati, etc., should be represented to perish rapidly: And in the same manner as certain Vyabhicăribhāvas are prominently developed with reference to particular Rasas as, e.g., Autsukya in Vipralambha, Augiya in Raudra so also disgust, etc., should be primarily developed here; for it is essentially the opposite of all desires. And any person who has realised the true nature of the self is always eager to do good to others; and this is why some people call Sānta, Dharmavīra or Dayāvira. Now this question is raised. Is not śānta opposed to Dharmavira or Dayāvīra ? The latter are essentially egoistic while the former is the very negation of the ego. True ; but even opposites may function as Vyabhicāribhāvas as, e. g., Nirveda is a Vyabhicaribhāva of Rati. There is no state in which there is absolute negation of Utsäha, born of the sense of tha ego; for in that state there would be no desire or effort to do anything and it would he only like inert stone. To the sage who has realised the eternal truths there is nothing to be done for himself, and he endeavours to give his all including his body for the benefit of others; and such an act is not at all opposed to śānta. Injunctions like "TAT AT STARTA" Protect yourself or body' are addressed only to those who have not realised the truths. This body is only an instrument to attain the highest ends of life ; and the Sannyāsin who has realised the highest ends may dispose of his body in any manner he pleases ; and when it has to be disposed of, should it be disposed of to benefit another, is that not commendable ? Jimūtavāhana, the hero of the Nāgānanda, though not a Sannyāsin, certainly has knowledge of the truths ; otherwise such a sacrifice of the body is not possible in those who confuse the body with the soul and nourish it as their all. In battle the soldier does not give up his body for another, but his effort is only to overcome another. Even in 'Bhřgupatana', 1.e., in the ſalling from a precipice of a person who is afflicted with a fell, incurable disease, the purpose is mainly to get a better body in the next birth. Here the native is selfish. But whatever is done with an unselfish motive and only to benefit others, beginning from teaching, gifts, etc., up to the sacrifice of the body, is not possible in any but those who have realised the eternal truths; and such persons like Jimūtavāhana, are certainly Tattvajñanins ·116 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 1] And it is quite possible to obtain salvation in any state of life, not merely in the state of the Sannyäsin. Hence the great duings of such unselfish and noble men are quite appealing to all the world, and they ought to be portrayed in dramatic literature. Thus the existence of the Santa Rasa must be admitted without a shadow of doubt. And in some old manuscripts of the Nāțyaśāstra, says Abhinava, there is found a reference to the Rasa, Sānta and its Sthāyibhāva, Sama, just before the elaboration of the Rasas in the sixth chapter. Moreover the realisation of all Rasas, being free from sensual enjoyments, is estimally of the nature of Santa ; and when this śānta is conditioned by certain other impressions or emotional moods, it appears in the form of other Rasas and it is to bring out this aspect, -viz., that it is the source of the other Rasas--that it is mentioned by Bharata at the hrad of all Ure Rasas. In other words all the Rasas are synthesised in Santa. Says the poet :-- खं खं निमित्तमासाद्य शान्ताद्भावः प्रवर्तते । पुनर्निमित्तापाये तु शान्त एव प्रलीयते ॥ " All en tions, when their respective conditions or excitants obtain, proceed from Santa ; and when the conditions are withidrawn they again merge or repose in Sāuta.” Thus Santa is not merely one of the Rasas, but it is the vitalising energy of all the other Rases. It is accepted by all that the Rasas are only nine, dealt with above, as these alone are the most pleasurable and are associated with the ends of life. It is not a mere fad of it clique or coterie to say, as some do, that even though there are other Rasas they are restricted to nine by the opinions of a particular school of thought. It can be gasily shown how the other Rasas could be 1. तस्मादस्ति शान्तो रसः । तथा च चिरन्तनपुस्तकेषु " स्थायि- भावान्. रसत्वमुपनेष्यामः " इत्यनन्तरं . शान्तो नाम शमस्थायिभावात्मक FriulMooi goud 1 Abh. bh., Chap. VI. 2. एवं नवैव रसाः, पुमर्थोपयोगित्वेन रञ्जनाधिक्येन वा इयतामेवोपदेश्य- त्वात् । तेन रसान्तरसंभवेऽपि पार्षदप्रसिद्धया सङ्ख्यानियम इति यदन्यैरुक्तम् center H Abh. bh. Chap. VI end.

·CHAP. VIII) ABHINAVAGUPTA 117 brought under one or the other already recognised, 6.g., Sneha er friendship, Vatsalya or affection can be classed under Rati. Thus by his remarkable powers of logical argumentation, Abhinava established for all time that Dhvani and Rasa form the soul of poetry and that all other elements contribute only to their nourishment. He criticised Bhattanāyaka's conceptions of Bhāvakat va and Bhoga in the realisation of Rasa and showed that the principle of l’yañjanā should be accepted instead. He explained the psychology of the realisation of Rasa ; and he clearly indicated how the seven natural impediments in the way of the realisation of Rasa are got over through poetry and action, how even the realisation of painful emotions like pathos is pleasurable, how contrary and allied Rasas should be combined to produce the highest dramatic effect, why Santa should be given a distinct place among the Rasas and furtherinore bow all the Kasas converge in Santa and give it the first place among then). (Ahh, bh., Chap. VI; Locana, p. 178.)

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·CHAPTER IX. KUNTAKA. Almost contemporaneous with Abhinavagupta appeared two rival schools-the Vakrokti and the Anunāna-represented by Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta. The former holds that Vakrokti or certain striking deviation from the ordinary mode of expression of ideas constitutes the essence of poetry ; while the latter contends that the process of poetic realisation is not, as the Dhvani school holds, Vyañjană or suggestion, but a peculiar variety of immediate inference called Kävyānumiti. There is no unmistakable evidence available to determine the exact date of Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijivita. He is no doubt later than Rajasekhara, (880-920) from whose works, the Bälarāmāyaṇa and the Viddhasāla, he quotes. He niust be earlier than Mahimabhațța who cites his definition of poetry and the illustration thereof and severely criticises them indulging in personal attacks.' (Vyakti, pp. 28, 37 and 58). Mahimabhatta probably lived about the first quarter of the 11th century and Kuntaka, who appears to have been his elder contemporary, might have lived about 1002 A.D. This date makes Kuntaka a contemporary of Abhinavagupta also, and the question naturally arises; were they इत्यादिना etc. 1. Vyakti. p. 28. यत् पुनः-- शब्दार्थों सहितौ वक्रकविव्यापारशालिनि । बन्धे व्यवस्थितौ काव्यं तद्विदाहादकारिणि ॥ Vakrokti-j. 1-8, p. 7. Vyakti. p. 37. विधेयाविमर्शो यथा- संरम्भः करिकीटमेघशकलोद्देशेन सिंहस्य यः Vakrokti-j. p. 17, etc., I. 27. Vyakti. p. 58. काव्यकाश्चनकषाश्ममानिना कुन्तकेन निजकाव्यवद्मनि । यस्य सर्वनिरवचतोदिता श्लोक एष विनिदर्शितो मया ॥ etc.

·CHAP. IX]. KUNTAKA 119 known to each other? There is no reference in the whole of the Vakroktijivita to the Locana or the Abhinavabhārati, but this idea, viz., that joets use words in the feminine in preference to masculine and neuter to give a certain sweetness to language, is expressed in the Locana and the Vakroktijīvita in very similar terms. (Locana, p. 160 and Vakrokti-j.. pp. 33 and 93.) There is also a passage in the Abhinavabhārati which calls for some notice.2 (Abh. bh., Vol. 11, Chap. XIV, p. 366.) 1. Locana, p. 160. तथा हि-'तटी तारं ताम्यति' इत्यत्र तटशब्दस्य पुंस्त्वनपुंसकत्वे. अनादृत्य स्त्रीत्वमेवाश्रितं सहृदयैः "स्त्रीति नामापि मधुरं" इति कृत्वा । Vakrokti-j., p. 93. सति लिङ्गान्तरे यत्र स्त्रीलङ्गं च प्रयुज्यते । शोभानिष्पत्तये यस्मानामैव स्त्रीति पेशलम् ॥ Vakrokti-j., p. 33. अन्यदपि लिङ्गवैचित्र्यवक्रत्वं-यत्रानेकलिङ्गसम्भवेऽपि सौकुमार्यात्कविभिः स्त्रीलिङ्ग- मेव प्रयुज्यते "नामैव स्त्रीति पेशलं'' इति कृत्वा यथा-एतां पश्य पुरस्तटीम् ॥ 2. Abh. bh., Chap. XIV, Vol. II, p. 366. नामाख्यातनिपातैरुपसर्गसमासतद्धितैर्युक्तः । सन्धिविभक्तिषु युक्तो विज्ञेयो वाचिकाभिनयः ।। N. S. XIV. 4. (Manuscript Copy of the Madras Library.) Abhinava on this. विभक्तयः सुप्तिड्वचनानि; तैः कारकशक्तयोऽपि सरन्ति, उपग्रहाश्चोप- लक्ष्यन्ते । यथा--"पाण्डिम्नि मनं वपुः” इति । वपुष्ये (2) संछन्नकर्तृत्वं तदायत्तां पाण्डिम्नश्चाधारतां गदस्थानीयतां द्योतयन्नतीव रञ्जयति । न तु पाण्डुस्वभावं वपुरिति । एवं कारकान्तरेषु वाच्यम् । वचनं यथा “पाण्डवा यस्य दासाः" सर्वे च, पृथक् केत्यर्थः । तथा वैचित्र्येण त्वं हि रामस्य दाराः' । किं यथा कीर्तिस्तव श्वेता, न तु श्वेतं यशस्तावत् । उपग्रह: "कुर्वाणा भुजशालिनः" न तु कुर्वतो भुजशालित्वम् । लिङ्गं " परिमृदितमृणालीकोमलान्यङ्गकानि" । आ समन्ता- दिति वैचित्र्यं यथा " आपातेऽपि विकारकारणमहो वक्त्राम्बुजन्मासवम् नियुज्यते क्रियायामिति युक्तः । धातुबैचित्र्यं "प्रस्तं कुलान्ते जगतः" न तु भुक्तम् ; प्रसतिः खदनमात्रे परिभाषितः । अपि वा सातिशयसंरम्भः कुले तत्र वर्तते । पूर्ववदत्रापि द्वन्द्वान्मत्वर्थीयः । एतदेवोपजीव्य आनन्दवर्धनाचार्येणोक्तम् "सृप्तिवचनेत्यादि" । अन्यैरपि सुबादिवक्रता इति ।।

·120 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK 11 6 Abhinava commenting upon the word Vibhakti' in the verse defining Vācikábhinaya, explains clearly the poet's skilful use of suggestive case-endings, and tenses and voices of verbs to impart a certain beauty and charm to poetry, and rem'ırks at the end thus : This is made use of by Anandavardhana and put into his Kärikā beginning wracaa' etc. (Dhy. p. 153); and by others it is stated as 'Harf'. To whom does Abhinava refer by the term "others' 3*-*: ? The Vakrata of the components of words expounded by Kuntaka agrees in spirit with Dhvanikāra's conception of their suggestiveness and the poetic use of them explained in the Abhinavabhārati. But nowhere in the Vakroktijivita do we find any Kārikā with the words alcanal though there is cited there (Vakrokti-j., p. 32) the same illustration of HÀ ay: the one given in the Bhārati. These do not clearly point to the acquaintance of Abhinava with Kuntaka's work, but they leave a strong presumption in favour of the view that Abhinava was distinctly aware of the conception of Vakrată' according to the school represented by Kuntaka and possibly of the Vakroktijīvita also. 11 Abhinava had known this work, why did he not refute the rival doctrine propounded th:rein ? Probably the Vakroktijivita appeared late in the life of Abhinava ; and though it put forward a different theory, it did not demand serious consicleration from a great thinker like Abhinava, because it recognisel adequately the importance of Dhvani and Rasa in poetry and its author showed great respect to Dhvanikāra as we shall presently It is very likely that Abhinava contented himself with a passing reference to the novel theory of Kuntaka. Until it is proved that Abhinava lived much earlier than kuotaka, the passage from the Abhinavabhārati would lead to the presumption that Abhinava was acquainted with the theory of Vakratva as propounded by him. If the above view is correct Kuntaka's literary activity should have been primarily in the first decade of the eleventh century. The Vakroktijivita consists of four chapters. It treats of the subject by enunciating the fundamental principles in short Kärikās and then elucidating them by prose comments and illustrative Both the Karika and the prose Vștti appear to be of common authorship. The manuscript of the work as we have it in the Madras Oriental Library, is corrupt especially in the third and the fourth chapter. Even the Kärikās are missing in many see. Verses, ·CHAP. IX]] KONTAKA 121 places, and they have often to be reconstructed from the words commented upon in the prose Vștti. I have attempted to get at such original Kārikās wherever possible in all the four chapters, but the first two chapters of the work have now been made available by their publication in the Calcutta Oriental series. The third and fourth chapters are so corrupt that, without the aid of other manuscripts, their publication will be almost impossible. Yet it is quite possible to make out the general sense of the principles expounded therein. Kuntaka's conception of poetry is stated by him in Chapter I, Kārikā 8. Poetry is well-matched form and content-where sounds beautifully vie with sounds and ideas with ideas (परस्परस्पर्धित्वलक्षणं साहित्यम् p. 11)1-set in the composition of the poet whose activity deviates from the general mode (of activity involved in the writing of philosophical or scientific treatises) and which--the composition gives that aesthetic pleasure to those who know its true nature. This deviation in the activity of the poet is, as Markhaka puts it in his Srikanthacarita (Canto II, 11 and 14), like the beautiful curve of the crescent moon and quite unlike that of the dog's tail.? Significative words and their senses form the body of poetry and Vakrokti consisting in the clever and dexterous choice of words and ideas, forms its embellishment.3 (P. 20, Chap. I, 11.) Kuntaka brings under Vācakaśabda and Vācyārtha not only words of primary significative capacity and their primary senses but also suggestive words and suggested ideas.' (P. 14.) These by . 1. See page 118 fn. 1. 2. Maikhaka. Srikanthacarita. II. 11. वाणी किमेणाङ्ककलेव धत्ते टकं विना वक्रिमविभ्रमेण । II. 14... किं तुच्छश्चपुच्छच्छटयेव वाचा । 3. Vakrokti-J., p. 20. एवं पदार्थयोः प्रसिद्धस्वरूपातिरिक्तमन्यदेव रूपान्तरमभिधाय न ताव- न्मात्रमेव काव्योपयोगि, किं तु वैचित्र्यान्तरविशिष्टमित्याह- उभावतावलंकारों तयोः पुनरकृतिः । वक्रोक्तिरेव वैदग्ध्यभङ्गीभणितिरुज्यते ॥ 4. Vakrokti-J., p. 14. वाच्योऽर्थों वाचकः शब्दः प्रसिद्धमिति यद्यपि । तथापि काव्यमार्गेऽस्मिन्परमार्थोऽयमेतयोः ।। S-16 ·122 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 . themselves do not constitute poetry, but they do, only. when adorned by that jewel, Vakrokti. Six varieties of Vakrokti are distinguished.1 (Chap. I, Kari. kás 19-22.) (i) Varņavinyāsavakrată corresponding to the Sabdālankāras, (ii) Padapūrvārdhavakratā or the choice of word-stems, (iii) Pratyayavakratā or the use of affixes, (iv) Väkyavakrată under which all the Arthālankāras are brought, (v) Prakaranavakratā or the choice of, or the change made in, the incidents of the plot and (vi) Prabandhavakratā or the construction of the plot itself. In the first chapter the general conception of all these varieties is fully explained with reference to suitable illustrations. The second chapter takes up for detailed consideration the first three varieties. In the third is dealt with Vākyavakratā and in the fourth Prakaraṇavakratā and Prabandhavakratā. The manuscript breaks off towards the end of the fourth chapter, and most probably, as all the varieties of Vakrată mentioned in the first chapter have been - ननु च द्योतकव्यञ्जकावपि शब्दौ सम्भवतः, तदसंग्रहान्न काव्याव्याप्तिः, यस्मादर्थप्रतीतिकारित्वसामान्यादुपचारात्तावपि वाचकावेव । एवं द्योत्यव्यङ्गययो- रर्ययोः प्रत्येयत्वसामान्यात् उपचाराद्वाच्यत्वमेव । तस्माद्वाचकत्वं वाच्यत्वं च शब्दार्थयोर्लोके सुप्रसिद्धं यद्यपि लक्षणम् , तथाप्यस्मिन्नलौकिके मार्गे कविकर्म- वर्मनि अयमेतयोर्वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणः परमार्थः किमप्यपूर्व तत्त्वमित्यर्थः । कीदृश- मित्याह- शब्दा विवक्षितार्थंकवाचकोऽन्येषु सत्स्वपि । अर्थः सहृदयाह्लादकारिस्वस्पन्दसुन्दरः । Vakrokti-J., p. 15. 1. Vakrokti-J., Chap. I, Karikās 19-22. कविव्यापारवक्रत्वप्रकाराः सम्भवन्ति षट् । प्रत्येकं बहवो भेदास्तेषां विच्छित्तिशोभिनः ।। वर्णविन्यासवक्रत्वं पदपूर्वार्धवक्रता । वक्रतायाः परोऽप्यस्ति प्रकारः प्रत्ययाश्रयः ।। वाक्यस्य वक्रभावोऽन्यो मिद्यते यः सहस्रधा । यत्रालंकारवर्गोऽसौ सर्वोऽप्यन्तर्भविष्यति वक्रमावः प्रकरणे प्रबन्धेऽप्यस्ति यादृशः । उच्यते सहजाहार्यसौकुमार्यमनोहरः ॥

·CHAP. IX]] KUNTAKA 123 . dealt with there was no further chapter, and many leaves are not wanting to complete.the work. Though Kuntaka belongs to a different school of critical thought, he fully recognises the individuality of Dhvani (suggestion and suggested element) in poetry and also its contribution to aesthetic pleasure.1 (Vakrokti-J., Chap. I, pp. 42-4.) While refusing the dignity of Alankāra to Parivștti in the third Chapter2 (p. 167) he would treat it as Alankārya (that which is to be adorned) involving suggestion which is always delectable. He agrees at the same time with Dhvanikāra's threefold classification of the suggested ideas into Vastu, Alankāra and Rasa. (Dhv. p. 15.) Paryāyavakratā, where words with a double meaning are used to lead to the suggestion of some metaphor or simile, is expressly stated by him to come within the province of a particular variety of Dhvani called Sabdaśaktimuladhvani, and he even cites the same 1. Vakrokti-J., pp. 42-44. P. 42. पुनर्विचित्रमेव प्रकारान्तरेण लक्षयति- यत्रान्यथाभवत्सर्वमन्यथैव यथारुचि । भाव्यते प्रतिभोल्लेखमहत्त्वेन महाकवेः ॥ P. +3. कविना नूतनत्वेन यदुल्लिखितं तदतीव प्रतीयमानमहत्त्वव्यक्तिपरत्वेन चमत्कारकारितां प्रतिपद्यते । विचित्रमेव प्रकारान्तरेणोन्मीलयति- प्रतीयमानता यत्र काव्यार्थस्य निबध्यते । वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्यां व्यतिरिक्तस्य वस्तुमः ॥ P. 44. एष च प्रतीयमानव्यवहारः वाक्यवक्रताव्याख्यानावसरे · सुतरां समुन्मील्यते । 2. Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 167. न तु परिवृत्तेः अत्यन्ताभावोऽस्माभिरभिधीयते वर्णनीयत्वादलंकृतिर्न भवतीत्यस्माकं अभिप्रायः । न च.. प्रतीयमानतामात्रं अलंकरणत्वसाधनं, अलंकार्यवस्तुमात्रेऽपि तस्याः सम्भवात् । तथा चैतदेवोदाहरणम् । न च प्रतीयमान तदलंकरणं तद्विदालादकारित्वादिति युज्यते वक्तुम् । अलंकार्येऽपि तद्विदाह्लाद- कारित्वदर्शनात् ; वस्तुमात्रं अलंकारा रसादयश्चेति त्रितयोपपत्तेश्च ।

·124 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II illustrations given by Anandavardhana. (Dhv. pp. 99, 127; Vakrokti-J., Chap. II, pp. 75-6) Upacaravakrata enlivens many Alankāras like Rupaka, etc. (p. 83). These are dealt with in the third chapter. Many of them are two fold, express and suggested. "Suggested Rūpaka' is illustrated by a verse of Ananda cited by him also as an instance of Riipakadhvani.2 (Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 142; Dhv. p. 110.) Suggested Upaima covers many Alankāras like Dipaka, Nidarsana, etc. Suggested superiority (Vyatireka) is also admitted and justified by a reference to Ananda's definition of Dhvani.3 (Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, 174-5.) In the first Karika of the third chapter, the term — Vakrasabda' and not · Vācakaśabda' is used in order to show that description 1. Vakrokti-J., Chap. II, pp. 75-6. पर्यायवक्रतां पुष्णाति । यस्मादेवंविधे विषये प्रस्तुतस्य अप्रस्तुतेन सम्ब- न्धोपनिबन्धः रूपकच्छायासंस्पर्शात् । गोर्बाहीक इत्यनेन न्यायेन सादृश्य- निबन्धनस्योपचारस्य सम्भवद्वारेण कदाचिदुपमामुखेन वा यथा--स एवायं स इवाय- मिति वा-एष शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपव्यङ्गयस्य पदध्वनेविषयः । बहुषु चैवंविधेषु सत्सु वाक्यध्वनेर्वा । यथा "कुसुमसमयमुपसंहरन्नुत्फुल्लमल्लिकाट्टहासो व्यजृम्भत ग्रीष्माभिधानो महाकाल:" Dhv. p. 99 यथा-वृत्तेऽस्मिन्महाप्रलये धरणीधारणायाधुना त्वं शेष इति Dhv. p. 127. अत्र युगादयः शब्दाः प्रस्तुताभिधानपरत्वेन प्रयुज्यमानाः सन्तोऽप्यप्रस्तुत- वस्तुप्रतीतिकारितया कामपि काव्यच्छायां समुन्मीलयन्तः प्रतीयमानालंकार- व्यपदेशभाजनं भवन्ति । 2. Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 142. प्रतीयमानं (रूपकं) यथा- लावण्यकान्तिपरिपूरितदिङ्मुखेऽस्मिन् etc. Dhv p. 110. अत्र त्वन्मुखमिन्दुः इति रूपकम् प्रतीयमानतया कविनोपनिबद्धम् । 3. Vakrokti-J., pp. 174-5. व्यतिरेकमभिधत्ते- शब्दः प्रतीयमानो वा स द्विविधः सम्भवति । तदिदमुक्तम्- यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा तमर्थमुपसर्जनीकृतस्वार्थों ॥ Dhv. p. 33. -

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.

·CHAP. IX], KUNTAKA 125 is possible not only through express words but also suggestive .words and suggested ideas. (Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 98.) Thus Kuntaka never denies the general concept of Dhvani nor does he include it under Bhakti (meaning Laksana) or Upacāra. As the function of Dhvani agrees with that of Vácakaśabda and Vācyārtha in the expression of the speaker's intention, Vyañjakaśabda and Vyangyārtha are called, hy courtesy, Vācakaśabda and Vācyartha.2 (Chap. I, p. 14.) His attitude towards Rasa also is not antagonistic The picture of the doings of Gods, demi-gods and men animated by the sweet Rasas, like love, forms a principal function of the poet.' (Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, pp. 107-8.) The dignity of Alankāra is denied to Rasavad, Preyas, Ürjasvi and Samāhita as conceived by earlier writers, for these, like Svabhāvokti, form the subject of treatment or Alankārya." (Vakrokti-J., Chap. I, pp. 21-3; Chap. III, pp. 113, 123, 124-126 and 129.) Here the definitions and illustra- 1. Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 98. वाक्यवक्रता उदारस्वपरिस्पन्दसुन्दरत्वेन वस्तुनः । वक्रता वक्रशब्दैकगोचरत्वेन वर्णनम् ॥ वक्रशब्दैकगोचरत्वेन-वक्रो योऽसौ नानाविधवक्रताविशिष्टः शब्दः कश्चिदेव वाचकविशेषः, विवक्षितार्थसमर्पणसमर्थस्यैव एकस्य केवलस्य, गोच- रत्वेन प्रतिपाद्यतया विशेषणत्वेन । वाच्यत्वेनेति नोक्तः, व्यङ्गयत्वेनापि प्रतिपादनसम्भवात् । 2. Vakrokti-J., p. 14. उपचारात्तावपि वाचकावेव See page 122. See contra Dr. S. K. De, Vakrokti.J., Introduction, pp. 27-29. 3. Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, pp. 107-8. मुख्यं सुरासुरादि सत्कवीनां वर्णनास्पदम् । भवत्यक्लिष्टरत्यादिपरिपोषमनोहरम् ॥ 4. Vakrokti-J., Chap. I, pp. 21-23. अलंकारकृतां येषां स्वभावोक्तिरलंकृतिः । अलंकार्यतया तेषां किमन्यदवतिष्ठते ॥ ..ते सुकुमारमानसत्वाद्विवेकक्लेशद्वेषिणः । .

·126 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II tions of these Alapkāras given by Bhāmaha, Dandin and Udbhata are severely criticised, and Udbhata is ridiculed for his inconsis-. tency in being an ardent follower of Bharata and at the same time recognising Urjasvi to be an Alankára.1 Dhvanikāra's definition of Rasavad is respectfully shelved aside and interpreted differently,2 (Chap. III, p. 118.) Then he enunciates his peculiar conception of Rasavad which, being the life of all Alankāras, forms the very " Ibid., Chap. III, p. 113. न रसवदलंकारो वर्ण्यमानस्य वस्तुनः । स्वरूपादतिरिक्तस्यापरस्याप्रतिभासनात् ॥ Ibid., p. 123. एतदेव प्रकारान्तरेण प्रत्याख्यातुमुपक्रमते- अन्यत्रादर्शनादप्युपमादेरिव च कचित् । नालंकरणता युक्ताविभूषणत्वात्प्रेयसः ॥ ( युक्ता अविभूषणत्वात् ) Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 124. एवमलंकरणतां प्रेयसः प्रत्यादिश्य वर्णनीयशरीरत्वात् तदेकरूपाणामन्येषां प्रत्यादिशति- ऊर्जस्व्युदात्ताभिधयोः पौर्वापर्यप्रणीतयोः । अलंकरणयोस्तद्वद्भूषणत्वं न विद्यते ॥ Tbid., Chap. III, p. 126. उदाहरणमेवोर्जितम् [The instance of ऊर्जखि given by Bhāmaha.] तदेवमयं प्रधानचेतनलक्षणोपाकृतातिशयविशिष्टचित्तवृत्तिविशेषवस्तुस्वभाव एव मुख्यतया वर्ण्यमानत्वादलंकार्यः, न पुनरलंकार । तद्धीदमुक्तं " उदार" इति । (See Chap. III, p. 98.) तस्मादेवंविधस्य चित्तवृत्तिविशेषत्वाद्रसभावतदा- भासानां यथायोगमेकस्मिन्विवक्षावशादन्तर्भावः सम्भवतीत्यलंकार्यत्वमेव युक्तम्, न पुनरलंकरणभाव इति । Ibid., p. 129. एवं समाहितस्यापि अलंकार्यत्वमेव न्याय्यं न पुनरलंकरणभावः । 1. See ante P. 11 fn.2. 2. Tbid., p. 118,Chap. III. शृङ्गारादिरसनिष्यन्दसुन्दरस्य सत्कविप्रवाहस्य नीरसत्वं 'प्रसंज्यत इति प्रतिपादितमेव पूर्वसूरिभिः । यदि वा वैचित्र्यान्तरमनोहारितया रसवदलंकारः प्रतिपावते यथाभियुक्तस्तैस्तैरेवाभ्यधामि- ·CHAP. LX], KUNTAKA 127 essence of poetry. That is Rasavad which, by its inspiriting the poetio theme, equals Rasa and contributes to the delectation of those who know its true nature. The verse 'चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिम् etc. (S. Act I.) illustrates this principle Here the love of Duşyanta for Sakuntalā is developed through the mischievous, though innocent, play of the bee about her body. The poet instead of expressing directly Dușyanta's feelings at the sight of Sakuntalā, leaves it to be understood from his jealousy towards the lucky bee that enjoyed the person of his love. (Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, pp. 131, 133.) This Alankāra shines brighter than all others like the diadem on the head. Prakaranavakratá or the change introduced by the poet in the incidents of the traditional plot is justified only प्रधानेऽन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राङ्गं तु रसादयः । काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः ॥ (Dhv. p. 71.) तत्रान्यो वाक्यार्थः । 1. Vakrokti-J., Chap. III, p. 131. नूतनातिशयविधायिनः काव्यार्थस्वरूपस्यालंकाराः ततस्तानुपक्रमते- यथा स रसवन्नाम सर्वालंकारजीवितम् । काव्यैकसारतां याति तथेदानी विविच्यते ॥ तमेव रसवदलंकारं लक्षयति रसेनेत्यादि- रसेन वर्तते तुल्यं रसवत्त्वविधानतः । स रसवदलंकारस्तद्विदाह्लादनिर्मितेः ।। यथा चलापाङ्गां दृष्टिं etc. S. Act I. Ibtd., p. 133. अत्र परमार्थः-प्रधानवृत्तेः शृङ्गारस्य भ्रमरसमारोपितकान्तावृत्तान्तः रसवदलंकारः शोभातिशयमाहितवान् । यथा वा "कपोले पत्राली" इत्यादौ । (Quoted Dhv. p. 86.) तदेवमनेन न्यायेन " क्षिप्तो • हस्तावलग्न" इत्यत्र रसवदलंकारप्रत्या- ख्यानमयुक्तम् ; सत्यमेतत् , किं तु विप्रलम्भशृङ्गारता तत्र निवार्यते । शेषस्य पुनः तत्तुल्यवृत्तान्ततया रसवदलंकार्य(र ? )त्वमनिवार्यमेव । 2. Ibid., p. 134. अयं सरसवतां सर्वालंकाराणां चूडामणिरिवाभाति ।

·128 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 as contributing to the easy and natural developinent of Rasa. Kālidāsa's introduction of the curse of Durvāsas in the fourth Act of the Sakuntala exonerates Duşyanta from his otherwise, wilful, cowardish, criminal and monsterlike repudiation of his layfully wedded spouse. Quite unlike the Amazon, with her child, arguing out her case like an able lawyer before the King's Court as represented in the Mahābhārata story, Sakuntala's appearance and later repudiation in her full pregnancy heightens the pathos of the situation. Other incidents from the Udāttaråghava of Māyurāja and the Vikramorvasiya are also cited.' (Chap. IV, pp. 195-6, 212, etc.) It is a stroke of genius that Karuna or pathos is developed and sustained throughout the play Tāpasavatsaraja without any feeling of satiety whatsoever.2 (P. 202.) In short it is by the development of the sweet and delectable Rasas that the creations of poets live and not by the clever narration of - 1. Vakrokti-J., Chap. IV, p. 195. एवमेषां महाकविप्रबन्धेषु प्रकरणवक्रताविच्छित्तिः रसनिष्यन्दिनी सहृदयैः स्वयमुत्प्रेक्षणीया । इमामेव प्रकारान्तरेण प्रकाशयति- इतिवृत्तप्रयुक्तेऽपि कथावैचित्र्यवमनि । उत्पाद्यलवलावण्यादन्यावगतिवक्रता ॥ ..."यथा प्रबन्धस्य सकलस्यापि जीवितम् । भाति प्रकरणं काष्ठाधिरूढरसनिर्भरम् ।। Ibid., p. 212. पुनरप्यस्याः प्रभेदमुद्भावयति- यत्राङ्गिरसनिष्यन्दनिकषः कोऽपि लक्ष्यते । पूर्वोत्तररसंपाथः साकादेः कापि वक्रता ।। 2. Ibid., Chap. IV, p. 202. अस्या एव प्रकारान्तरं प्रकाशयति- प्रतिप्रकरणं प्रौढप्रतिभाभोगयोजितः । एक एवाभिधेयात्मा बध्यमानः पुनः पुनः ॥ न त्वसौ पुनरुक्तपात्रतामासादयतीत्याह- अन्यूननूतनोल्लेखरसालंकरणोज्ज्वलः । बध्नाति वक्रतोद्रेदमगीमुनाविताबुताम् ।। - ·CHAP. IX], KUNTAKA 129 २ the story.1 (P. 199.) Prabandhavakrata or the complete change in the main story is illustrated by the Venisamhāra, where the main Rasa, viz., Śänta of the Mahabharata is abandoned and Vira is developed.? (Ibid., p. 219.) Lastly Kuntaka agrees with Anandavardhana in thinking that the dominating Rasa of the Rāmāyaṇa is Karuna and of the Mahabharata is Santa.s (Ibid., p. 221.) Kuntaka's conception of Vakrokti could not have been developed from Manoratha's mentioned in the verse ofthafea etc., where it'-Vakrokti--means only 'excellent arrangement of words.'' (Dhv., pp. 8, 9.) As he considered Väkyavakratā, under which all the Alankāras were dealt with, to be the very essence of poetrys (Vakrokt.-J., p. 193), it was probably inspired by Bhāmaha who regarded it an essential element in the make up of all Alankāras 1. Ibtd., p. 199,Chap. IV. निरन्तररसोद्धारगर्भसन्दर्भनिर्भराः । गिरः कवीनां जीवन्ति न कथामात्रमाश्रिताः ॥ इत्यन्तरश्लोकः । 2. lbrd., Chap. IV, p. 219. एवमनेकप्रकारां प्रकरणवक्रतां प्रतिपाद्य समुदायात्मकस्य प्रबन्धस्यापि तामभिदधाति- इतिवृत्तान्यथावृत्तरससंपदुपेक्षया । रसान्तरेण रम्येण यत्र निर्वहणं भवेत् ॥ तस्या एव कथामूर्तेः आमूलोन्मीलितश्रियः । विषयानन्दनिष्पत्त्यै सा प्रबन्धस्य वक्रता ॥ 3. Vakrokti-J., Chap: IV, p. 221. रामायणमहाभारतयोश्च (करुण) शान्ताङ्गित्वं पूर्वसरिभिरेवा निरूपितम् । +. Dhv., p. 9, Locana. • " वक्रोक्तिः उत्कृष्टा सङ्घटना 5. Vakrokti-J., p. 193. एवं सकलसाहित्यसर्वस्वकल्पवाक्यवक्रता यवक्रताप्रकाशनानन्तरं अवसरप्राप्तां प्रकरणवक्रतां अवतारयति । 6. Bhamaha II, 85. सैषा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाज्यते । यत्नोऽस्यां कविना कार्यः कोऽलंकारोऽनया विना ॥ S-17 ·130 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II । (Bhåmaha 11, 85) and by Dandin who classified all poetic language into Svabhāvokti and Vakrokti.? (K. D. II, 362.) (Following Bhãn maha, Kuntaka denies the dignity of Alankāra to Svabhāvokti and ridicules Daņdin for admitting it to be one ; yet unlike Bhāmaha he is aware of its aesthetic delectableness.2) (Vakrokti- J., Chap. I, pp. 21-2.) His treatment of the Alankāras differs in many respects from Bhämaha, Dandin, Udbhata and other writers, and he is so unsparing in his criticisms of these that in one place he exhibits his extraordinary conceit by dismissing the observations of an old writer as the twaddle of an idiot.3 (Ibid., p. 162.) He professes some respect for Anandavardhana, and the teachings of the latter have such a strong hold over him that he perforce includes the different principles in the Rasa and Dhvani theories under one or other of the various species of Vakratā. There is much truth in Mahimabhațța's remarks that Kuntaka makes the same classifications and cites identical illustrations as those of Dhvanikára, and also great reason in his identification of Vakrokti with Dhvani for purposes of his attacks on the former. (Vyakti, p. 28.) Kuntaka's Vakrokti is cer. - 1. K. D. II, 362. (See page 23.) भिनं द्विधा स्वभावोक्तिर्वक्रोक्तिश्चेति वास्मयम् ॥ 2. Vakrokti-J., Chap. I, pp. 21-2. (See page 125 fn. 4.) Ibid., p. 24. सर्वथा यस्य कस्यचित्पदार्थजातस्य कविव्यापारविषयत्वेन वर्णनापदवीमवतरतः स्वभाव एव सहृदयालादकारी काव्यशरीरत्वेन वर्णनीयतां प्रतिपद्यते । 3. Vakrokti-J., p. 162. यदभियुक्ततरैस्तैरेवाभ्यधायि न तदपि युक्तियुक्तम् । यथा- पैष्टान्त(8)सा न का व्युष्टाः (पैदृष्टा सा न का दृष्टा) मुषिताः सममेव ते हृतं हृदयमेतेषामन्येषां चक्षुषः फलम् ॥ एतदलंकारवार्तामात्रानभिज्ञस्य कस्यचित् प्रलपितमपि सचेतसा प्रतिभासते। 4. Vyakti, p. 28. यत् पुनः "शब्दार्थों सहितौ वक्रकवि ..." इत्यादिना शास्त्रादिप्रसिद्धशब्दार्थोपनिबन्धन्यतिरोकि यद्वैचित्र्यं तन्मात्रलक्षणं वक्रत्वं नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति. सहृदयमानिनः केचिदचक्षते तदप्पसमीचीनम् ।........ ।

·CHAP. IX], KUNTAKA 131 . tainly new wine in old bottles. His is an attempt to widen the scope of the old term, Vakrokti, so as to include the results of further thinking and make it almost synonymous with everything that constitutes poetry. This endeavour to re-establish the principles of the older schools by adapting them to the current tendencies of critical thought and giving them a new garb was foredoomed ; and Vakrokti died for want of adherents soon after its first exponent in the same manner as the theory of Anumana put forward by Mahimabhațţa, of whom we shall speak presently. द्वितीयपक्षपरिग्रहे पुनः ध्वनेरेवेदं लक्षणमनया भङ्गयाभि- हितं भवति, अभिन्नत्वाद्वस्तुनः। अत एव चास्य त एवं प्रभेदाः, तान्येवोदाहरणानि तैरुपदर्शितानि । तच्चायुक्तमित्युक्तं, यक्ष्यते च ।

·CHAPTER X. . MAHIMABHATTA. Mahimabhatta is the aggressive representative of the Anumāna school and the reputed author of the Vyaktiviveka. He describes himself at the end of his work as the son of Sridhairya and the pupil of the great poet Syāmala. This poet is quoted by Ksemendra in his Aucityavicāracarca (p. 125) and Suvrttatilaka (pp. 41-5). As two of these verses are found in the Padatāditaka of Syāmilakal (verses 33 and 125) the teacher of Mahima and this poet are identical. Further the verse वेलानिलैः etc., (No. 55) of the Padatāạitaka is cited anonymously in Kuntaka's Vakroktijivita (p. 50). Ksemendra is a pupil of Abhinavagupta? (Brhat. M. Chap. XVIII, Verses 36-8; Bhārata M., last chapter, verses 7 and 8) and this Syāmala who is cited by Kșemendra and Kuntaka should at the latest have been a contemporary of Abhinava. Further Mahimabhațţa, in his eagerness to win rapid fame, rushed forth with his attacks on the Dhvani theory without even studying etc. 1. Padatāditaka Verse, 33. चुम्बनरक्तं सोऽस्या दशनम् etc. Do. Verse, 125. धृतो गण्डाभोगे कमल इव बद्धो मधुकरैः 2. Byhatkathāmañjari, p. 620, Chap. XVIII, verses 36 and 37. क्षेमेन्द्रनामा तनयस्तस्य विद्वत्सु विश्रुतः । प्रयातः कविगोष्ठीषु नामग्रहणयोग्यताम् ॥ श्रुत्वाभिनवगुप्ताख्यात्साहिल्यं बोधवारिधेः । आचार्यशेखरमणेवियाविवृतिकारिणः ॥ Bhāratamañjari, Last Chapter, verses 7 and 8. क्षेमेन्द्रनामा तनयस्तस्य विद्वत्सपर्यया । प्रयात कवियोतीषु नामग्रहणयोग्यताम् ॥ (७) जाचार्यशेखरमणेविचावितिकारिणः । श्रुत्वाभिनवगुप्ताख्यात्साहिलं बोधवारिधे:-1 (6) ·CHAP. X] MAHIMABHATTA 133 , mani" the Hşdayadarpaņa l; and this work of Bhattanāyaka had not probably gained wide publicity when Mahimabhatta wrote his Vyaktiviveka. Again he quotes Abhinava's criticisms of Bhattanāyaka's attacks on the definition of Dhvani, and dismisses them as rabid nonsense.2 (Vyakti, p. 19.) He calls Abhinava “Vidvanor one who pretends to be a learned pandit. His attacks on Kuntaka are even more personal and virulent, and he prides himself in having held up to ridicule a verse regarded as a gem by Kuntaka.3 (Ibid., pp. 28, 37 and 58.) These are characteristic only of a contemporary rival theorist, and Mahimabhațţa, the pupil of the poet Syāmala, should have been a younger contemporary of Abhinava and Kuntaka : and most probably he flourished in the first quarter of the eleventh century. Mahimabhatta is a powerful logician ; and he attempted to show that the principle of suggestion enunciated by Anandavardhana is only a variety of inference. Philosophers have recognised only two significative capacities in words—Abhidha and Laksaņā--and what is this novel capacity called Vyañjanā? This .. - 1. Vyaktiviveka, p. 1. सहसा यशोऽभिसतुं समुद्यतादृष्टदर्पणा मम धीः ॥ 2. Tbid., p. 19. अत्र केचिद्विद्वन्मानिनः इति मन्यमानाः-- व्यक्त इति द्विवचनेनेदमाह---यद्यप्यविवक्षितवाच्ये शब्द एव व्यञ्जकस्तथाप्ययस्य सह- कारिता न त्रुटयति । अन्यथाज्ञातार्थोऽपि शब्दस्तद्यञ्जकः स्यात् । विवक्षि- तान्यपरवाच्ये च शब्दस्यापि सहकारित्वं भवत्येव । विशिष्टशब्दाभिधेयतया विना तस्यार्थस्याव्यञ्जकत्वात् इति सर्वत्र शब्दार्थयोर्ध्वननव्यापारः । एवं च भट्टनायकेन द्विवचनं यहूषितं तत् गजनिमीलिकयैव अर्थः शब्दो वेति •तु विकल्पाभिधानं प्राधान्याभिप्रायेण" इति यदाहुस्तद्धान्तिमात्रमूलं न तत्त्वमित्यलं अवस्तुनिर्बन्धेन । See Locana, p. 33. 3. Vyakti, pp. 28, 37 and 58. See ante pp. 118 and 130 fn. 4. 4. Ibid., p. 1. अनुमानेऽन्तर्भावं सर्वस्यापि ध्वनेः प्रकाशयितुम् । व्यक्तिविवेकं कुरुते प्रणम्य महिमा परां वाचम् ॥

·134 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II is put forward to explain the peculiar process, other than Abhidh, and Laksaņā of words, through which the true import of the poetical sentence is arrived at. Mahimă contends that this process is nothing but ratiocination. Do we find then in poetical sentences the five or at least the three members of a syllogism that alone forms the basis of any inference? No ; but all these are not necessary for intelligent men, because they always get at the conclusion by the mere knowledge of the middle term.1 (Vyakti, p. 12.) If this process is only inferential reasoning, how is it that in understanding the ideas expressed in poetry, there arises a peculiar pleasure that is totally absent in arriving at some knowledge by means of a logical syllogism ? This is a peculiar variety of immediate inference called Kävyānumiti? (Ibid., p. 22), where the ideas strike the trained critic at once, without his going through the cold process of reasoning; and it is in the very nature of things-and hence unquestionable-that these ideas, when only inferred and not understood by express reference through poetry, contribute to that aesthetic pieasure.3 (Ibiil., p. 12.) These ideas that are inferred should culminate in the development of some . 1. Vyakti, p. 12. अथ यदि सर्व एव वाक्यार्थः साध्यसाधनभावगर्भ इत्युच्यते, तत्-यथा साध्यसाधनयोस्तत्र नियमेनोपादानं तथा दृष्टान्तस्यापि स्यात् । तस्यापि व्याप्ति- साधनप्रमाणविषयतयावश्यापेक्षणीयत्वात्-न; प्रसिद्धसामर्थ्यस्य साधनस्यो- पादानादेव तदपेक्षायाः प्रतिक्षेपात् । तदुक्तम्- तद्भावहेतुभावौ च दृष्टान्ते तदवेदिनः । ख्याप्यते विदुषां वाच्यो हेतुरेव च केवलः ॥ 2. Vyakti, p. 22. वाच्यस्तदनुमितो वा यत्रार्थोऽर्थान्तरं प्रकाशयति । सम्बन्धतः कुतश्चित्सा काव्यानुमितिरित्युक्ता ।। 3. Vyakti, p. 12. -यत्र विभावादिमुखेन भावानामवगमः तत्रैव सहृदयैकसंवेयो रसास्वादोदय इति वस्तुस्वभाव एवायं न पर्यनुयोगपदवीमवतरति प्रामाणि- कानाम् । See also Ibid., p. 14.

·CHAP.X] MAHIMABHATTA 135 Rasa, otherwise they are not delectable and are mere conundrums. (Ibid., p. 18.) The function of the poet is only to represent the Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., that invariably lead to the manifestation of Rasa.2 (Ibid., p. 20.) It is accepted also that Rasa. is the soul of poetry.3 (Vyakti, pp. 20 and 22.) Mahimabhatta's conception of the realisation of Rasa is probably inspired by that of Sri Sankuka quoted in the Abhinavabhārati (Chap. VI) and it is almost identical with it. Vibhāvas, Anubhāvas, etc., are the artificial causes, effects and accessories for the kindling up of some imaginary or unreal emotions like love, etc., and when these are inferred and experienced by the reader through his complete imaginative syınpathy with what is described in poetry they become delectable and are called Rasas.5 p. 20. 1. Vyakti, p. 18. तदियमुपायपरंपरोपरोहनिस्सहा न रसास्वादान्तिकमुपगन्तुमलमिति प्रहे- लिकाप्रायमेतत्काव्यमिति अतिव्याप्तिः (लक्षणदोषः) । 2. Ibid., कविव्यापारो हि विभावादिसंयोजनात्मा रसाभिव्यक्त्यव्यभिचारी काव्य- मुच्यते । 3. Ibid., p. 20. काव्यारम्भस्य साफल्यमिच्छता तत्प्रवृत्तिनिबन्धनभावेनास्य रसात्मकत्व- मवश्यमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । तन्मात्रप्रयुक्तश्च ध्वनिव्यपदेशः । Ibid., p. 22. काव्यस्यात्मनि संज्ञिनि रसादिरूपे न कस्यचित् विमतिः । +. Sec ante pp. 99 to 102. 5. Ibid., यतस्तैरेव कारणादिभिः कृत्रिमैः विभावाद्यभिधानः असन्त एव रत्यादयः प्रतिबिम्बकल्पाः स्थायिभावव्यपदेशभाजः कविभिः प्रतिपत्तृप्रतीतिपथमुपनीयमाना हृदयसंवादादास्वाधत्वमुपयन्तः सन्तः रसा इत्युच्यन्ते । If asked how could the experience of unreal emotions lead to the knowledge of anything real such as THITHT aesthetic delectation, Mahima replies-तदुक्तं-भ्रान्तिरपि सम्बन्धतः प्रमा-इति मणिप्रदीपप्रभयोः मणिबुद्धयाभिधावतोः । मिथ्याज्ञानाविशेषेऽपि विशेषोऽयक्रिया प्रति ॥ इति च vyakti, p. 14. p. 16.

·136 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK 11 Mahimā regarded that Rasas are inferred ; and by thus reducing the process of the realisation of aesthetic pleasure to one of cold reasoning, he took away much of that inexpressible 'charm from poetry; and although he distinguished between ordinary inference and poetical inference, his theory in the hands of lesser critics is apt to make poetry as dry as philosophy. And later critics attacked him for this drawback in his theory which, like Kuntaka's, died away for want of adherents, soon after its staunch advocate.

·CHAPTER XI, KING BHOJA. The next important name is that of the illustrious monarch, Bhoja, of the Pāramāra dynasty of Mālwa, who reigned gloriously from about 1018 to 105+ A. D. He is famous for his enlightened patronage of letters and also his authorship of numerous works on the different arts and sciences. Besides the well-known Sarasvatikanthābharaṇa printed in Benares and other places he wrote another voluminous work on poetics called the Śrrigāraprakāśa, which, as iis name indicates, was intended to expound his peculiar doctrine that Śộngāra or love is the only Rasa.? This work treats of the subject in 36 chapters extending in the manuscript copy deposited in the Government Oriental Library, Madras, for over 1900 pages of paper and about 30,000 granthas (or units of 32 syllables): and it is the largest work in Sanskrit yet known on the science of literary criticism. It opens with a definite enunciation of his peculiar theory of Rasa leading to a consideration of the nature of poetry ihrough which it is realised. He cites Bhämaha's definition of poetry and proceeds at once to a very elaborate, learned and interesting exposition of the nature of the word (Sabda), its different components and peculiarities of gran matical usage. This covers the first six chapters; and seventh and eighth deal with the significative capacities of words. The ninth treats of the absence of faults and the presence of Guņas or poetic qualities, the tenth of Alańkāras or poetic einbellishments in which Rītis also are included. The eleventh expounds fully his theory of Rasa staied at the beginning of the work and incidenially defines a Mahākāvya at the end. The different (sixty-four) units in the construction of the plot are explained and illustrated with reference to the Drama from numerous plays in the twelfth chapter. Chapters thirteen to seventeen deal respeç-- tively with love, bhāvas like joy or mirth, etc., the Alambana and 1. Sec Report on the working of the Peripatetic Party of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, during · 1916-1919, P. 42. Sec below pp. 141 ff. S-18 ·138 DHVANI AND RASA [Book 11 the Uddipana Vibhāva of love and the Anubhāvas; eighteen to twenty-one with the four varieties of Srngāra-Dharma, Artha, Käma, and Mokşa; and the remaining fifteen chapters with the different species of Vipralambha and Sambhoga : and the work concludes with the same two verses as in the Sarasvatikanthā. bharaṇa with the hope that it will give eternal pleasure to all critics and that it will live to the end of tinie. Dealing with the literary kinds, Bhoja speaks of a work on poetics as a superior kind of composition, for it embodies many branches of learning. He exhibits his partiality for his own work, the Śțăgāraprakāśa, which he places above all his other works as it discusses the truths of all sciences, arts, systeins of philosophy and all topics of human interest.1 (Srig.P., Chap. XI, Vol. II, p. 430.) Bhoja's estimate of this work is no exaggerated self-adulation, but only a bare truth. His work teems with quotations drawn from innumerable works on all the varied branches of Indian culture ranging from the erotics of Vātsyāyana to the abstruse and intricate principles of Mimārns, and metaphysics. He cites profusely the early writers on literary criticism like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Vamana, Rudrata and Anandavardhana. Gautama, the founder of the Nyāya philosophy, Dharmakirti, Kumărila and many others are quoted in the midst of his learn- . 1. Srig-P., Vol. II, Chap. XI, p. 430. यस्मिन्नशेषविद्यास्थानार्थविभूतयः प्रकाशन्ते संहत्य स साहित्यप्रकाश : एतादृशो भवति । एतस्मिन् शृङ्गारप्रकाशे सुप्रकाशमेवाशेषशास्त्रार्थसम्पदुपनि- षदामखिलकलाकाव्यौचिस्यकल्पनारहस्यानां च सन्निवेशो दृश्यते । 2. Srig-P., Vol. IV, p. 569. आत्मशरीरेन्द्रियार्थबुद्धिमनःप्रवृत्तिदोषप्रेत्यभावफलदुःखापवर्गास्तु प्रमे- यम् | Nyayasatra. I. 1. 9. Srig-P., Vol. IV, p. 446. एवं धर्मकीर्तिनापि स्वभावानुपलब्धिरिति वक्तव्ये स्वभावानुपलब्धिः कार्यानुपलब्धिः कारणानुपलब्धिः कारणानुपलब्धिः व्यापकानुपलब्धिः... विरुद्धकार्योपलब्धि- रित्येकादशानुपलब्धयः विकल्पिताः | Nyirabindu Bib. Ind. pp. 105-26. Srig-P., VoL IV, pp. 452-53. अभिधात्री श्रुतिः काचिद्विनियोक्त्र्यपरा तथा"। विधात्री च तृतीया सा प्रयोगो यन्निबन्धनः ।। T. V. p.715. + ·KING BHOJA 139 ed digressions, like the place of Upamāna among the means of valid knowledge according to the different schools of philosophy, the three varieties of Vedic injunctions recognised in Mimāriisā, the two sets of six pramāņas or principles which respectively determine the substantive and adjectival character-अङ्गाङ्गिभाव of Vedic rites and also the order in which they have to be performed, and the intelligent application of these principles to literature. (Śộng- P., Vol. IV, pp. 460-1.) He often displays his erudition", as when he justifies the use of the word 'Mana', ending in the suffix lyut, in the masculine gender by pointing to the Mahābhāșya on Pāṇini I. iii. 1., where the word 'Anumāna' is put in the same gender. The most striking feature of the work is the large variety of illustrative verses cited from innumerable masterpieces, many of which have probably succumbed to the ravages of time; and it opens our eyes to the vastness of the literary treasures possessed by the ancients. One perforce feels that, in spite of the great care taken to preserve thein, only a poor residue thereof has been distilled down to us through the ages. The विधिरत्यन्तमप्राप्ते नियमः पाक्षिके सति । तत्र चान्यत्र च प्राप्तौ परिसंख्येति गायते ॥ T. V. p. 59. 1. Srig-P., Vol. IV, p. 424. कथं पुनर्मान इति ल्युडन्तस्य पुंसि प्रयोगः, शिष्टप्रयोगदर्शनात् । यथाह महाभाष्यकारः "अस्ति क्रिया किं तु साधनेभ्यः पृथमाख्यातुमशक्यं अनिर्लठित- गर्भवत् ; सोऽसावनुमानगम्या; कोऽसावनुमानगम्या; कोऽसौ अनुमानः ? यत्सर्वेषु साधनेषु सन्निहितेषु कदाचित्पचतीत्येतद्भवति कदाचिन भवतीति" See Mahābhāsya on I-iii-I. are works are given below. Srig-P., Vol. II, Chap. XII, p. 483. तथा पुंसोऽपि हीः यथा-पार्थक्जिये मन्धर्वैः पराजित्य बद्धस्यार्जुनेन विक्रमोचितस्य दुर्योधनस्य ; तत्र हि दुर्योधनं अर्जुन आह-न चाहमस्मिन्काले पाण्डवेन नाहूत इति सम्भावनीयं, यस्मादभिलमेवार्य, युधिष्ठिरमहारानमवगच्छामः विशेषतोऽस्मिन् काले । पश्यतु महाराजः- स्वैर्वैरे कुरुपाण्डवान्तरकृतो यस्मिन्नशेषोऽस्ति नः तस्मिंस्तत्किमसाधु साधु क्रयमित्यार्या विजानन्ति तत् । 2. A few illustrative texts from and references to some - ·140 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK II expository method of Bhoja is often modelled on the appa- यत्रैकाभिजनान्वये त्वभिभवः क्षत्रस्य तस्मिन्पुनः भ्रातृणां पुरतोऽभियोगसमये पश्चोत्तरं नः शतम् ॥ ibid. Vol. II, Chap. XII, p. 530. यथा राघवानन्दे- अङ्के न्यस्योत्तमाङ्गं प्लवगबलपतेः पादमक्षस्य हन्तुः कृत्वोत्सङ्गे सलीलं त्वचि कनकमृगस्याङ्गशेषं निधाय । बाणं रक्षःकुलनं प्रगुणितमनुजेनादरात्तीक्ष्णमक्ष्णः कोणेनावेक्षमाणस्त्वदनुजवचने दत्तकोऽयमास्ते ॥ -- . ibid. Vol. II, Chap. XII, P. 550. यथा मुकुटताडिते भीमः- ध्वस्ताः क्षुधा धार्तराष्ट्राः समस्ताः पीतं रक्तं साधु दुःशासनस्य । पूर्णा कृष्णाकेशबन्धप्रतिज्ञा तिष्ठत्येकः कौरवस्योरुभङ्गः ॥ ऊरू निपीड्य गदया यदि नास्य तस्य पादेन रनमकुटं शकलीकरोमि । देहं निपीतनिजधूमविज़म्भमाण- बालाजटालवपुषि ज्वलने जुहोमि ।। Srig-P:, Vol. IV, 'Chap. XXXI, p. छित्त्वा नलः सपदि तद्वसनं निशीथे हस्तं गतेन'कलिनैव किल क्षुरेण । श्रान्तामरण्यसदसि स्वपती विहाय भीमात्मजामभिमतेन पथा जगाम || ibid: Vol. IV, p. 675. गतवति निषधेश्वरे विबुद्धा वनभुवि भीमसुता भ्रमन्मृगीव । मृगयितुमनुसानु सानुगन्तुं दिशि दिशि दत्तविलोलदार्षष्टिः ।। 664.

·KING BHOJA 141 rently inconclusive dialectics adopted by Patañjali in his Mahāibid. Vol. IV, Chap. XXXII, p. 735. विचिन्वती मामियमद्रिकुक्षौ विकुक्षिनाम्ना भुजगेन दष्टा । गतासुरास्ते मृगशाबनेत्रा मृगावती हा विधिना हतोऽस्मि । ibid. Vol. II, p. 410. तत्र दोषहानमनौचित्यपरिहारेण यथा-मायाकैकेयीदशरथाभ्यां रामः प्रवासितः, न मातापितृभ्यामिति निर्दोषदशरथे, अनङ्गावतारस्य प्रद्युम्नस्यैव जन्मान्तरपत्नी रतिः मायावती न गुर्वङ्गनेति हरिवंशे, .''दग्धायामपि वासव- दत्तायां वैरप्रतिचिकीर्षया पद्मावती मयोढा, सिद्धे च समीहिते तया विना क्षणमपि न जीवामीत्यविज्ञातवासवदत्तासन्निधेः वत्सराजस्याग्निप्रवेशाध्यवसायः प्रियाहृदयतो व्यलीकशल्यमुच्चखानेति तापसवत्सराजे, निरपख्यः स्वामिकार्य साधयामीति प्रभुभक्त्या निरपराधामपि प्रेयसी दग्ध्वा स्वामिकार्यापेक्षया अहमेता- वन्ति दिनानि जीवितो, अद्य कृतस्वामिकार्यः तामेवानुगच्छामीति शिवगणः शूद्रकनिर्मितां मायामयीं चितां प्रियासमक्ष प्रविवेश । सापि तत्प्रेमापदानदर्शनापद्भुत- प्रियव्यलीका तद्वियोगकातरा तत्रैवात्मानं प्रचिक्षेपेति विश्रान्तशूद्रके, एवमन्य- दपि दोषहानमुदाहार्यम् । ibid. Vol. II, p. 439. अभिमतार्थसिद्धये यथा—विष्णोः पारिजातहरणाय हरिविजये । ibid. Vol. II, p. 442. द्विसन्धान (a literary kind) इत्यनेन वाक्यप्रकरणप्रबन्धानामनेकार्था- नुसन्धाने कवेः शक्तिविशेष व्यञ्जयति । तृतीयस्य ? यथा दण्डिनो धनञ्जयस्य वा द्विसन्धान ibid. Vol. III, p. 4+4. पञ्चमस्य यथा कीचकवधे-द्रौपदी विराटमभिभाषमाणा तेनैव वाक्येन युधिष्ठिरादीनभिभाषते ॥ ibid. Vol. II, p. 483. माया यथा--देवीचन्द्रगुप्तेश्चन्द्रगुप्तस्य कृतकोन्माद इति मानुषी माया। ibid. Vol. II, p. 484. क्रोधो यथा-श्रीविशाखदेवकृते अभिसारिकावञ्चिते वत्सराजः सम्भावितपुत्र- वधायै पद्मावत्यै क्रुद्धस्तथाभ्यधात् “प्रदुष्टोप्रपाहाम्" etc.

·142 DHVANI AND RASA -- [BOOK II bhāşya, and his style is likewise simple, direct and forcible. (Srig-p., Chap. XI. Vol. II, p. 369-70). Earlier writers have recognised the Rasas to be ..ten and the foolish, unthinking world, after the manner of the blind leading the blind, has accepted them as scriptural truth, and Bhoja's effort is to dispel this time-honoured darkness from their minds and to establish that Śrngära or love is the only Rasa.? That sup- . 1. Bhoja's method of exposition modelled on that of the Mahabhāsya. See c.g., Srig-P. Vol. II. Chap. XI p. 368-70. अथ रसवदिति किं मत्वर्थायः उत वतिः। किं चातः ? यदि मत्वर्थीयः [नोभयं सम्भवति] यथेच्छसि तथास्तु । अस्तु तावन्मत्वर्थीयः । ननु चोक्तं मत्वर्थाभावात्तदनुपपत्तिः ; रसवतो रामादेर्यद्वचनं तद्रसमूलत्वाद्रसवत् ; अभेदसमध्यारोपाच्च कविनानुक्रियमाणस्यानुकरणमपि रसवत् । अथ वा पुनरस्तु वतिः । ननु चोक्तं वत्यर्थानुपपत्तेर्न वतिः ; अत्रापि नानुपपत्तिः । तदर्हमिति वचनाद्वतिः भविष्यति; रसान्प्रतिपादयितुं यदहति तद्रसवत् ; अर्हति च रसवत् रामादिवचनमनुक्रियमाणमभेदसमध्यारोपात् रसान्प्रतिपादयितुमिति रसवद्भवति ।। 2. Srig.P., Vol. I, p. 2-3. Bhoja's theory of Rasa. शृङ्गारवीरकरुणाद्भुतरौद्रहास्य- बीभत्सवत्सलभयानकशान्तनाम्नः। आम्नासिषर्दश रसान्सुधियो वयं तु शृङ्गारमेव रसनाद्रसमामनामः ।। वीराद्भुतादिषु च येह रसप्रसिद्धिः सिद्धा कुतोऽपि वटवृक्षवदाविभाति । लोके गतानुगतिकत्ववशादुपेता- मेतां निवर्तयितुमेष परिश्रमो नः ॥ अप्रातिकूलिकतया मनसो मुदादे: यः संविदोऽनुभवहेतुरिहाभिमानः । आयो रसः स रसनीयतयासशक्त रत्यादिभूमनि पुनर्वितथा रसोक्तिः ॥

·KING BHOJA 143. reme egoism or self-consciousness which, when developed and realised in the absence of all impediments through the Vibhāvas, रत्यादयोऽर्धशतमेकविवर्जितानि भावाः पृथग्विधविभावभुवो भवन्ति । शृङ्गारतत्त्वमभितः परिवारयन्तः सप्तार्चिषं द्युतिचया इव वर्धयन्ति । आभांवनोदयमनन्यधिया जनेन संभाव्यते मनसि भावनया स भावः । यो भावनापथमतीत्य विवर्तमानः साहंकृतौ हृदि परं स्वदते रसोऽसौ ॥ रत्यादयो यदि रसाः स्युरतिप्रकर्षे हर्षादिभिः किमपराद्धमतद्विभिन्नैः । अस्थायिनस्त इति चेद्भयहासशोक- क्रोधादयो वद कियच्चिरमुल्लसन्ति । स्थायित्वमत्र विषयातिशयान्मतं चेत् चिन्तादयः कुत उत प्रकृतेर्वशेन । तुल्यैव सात्मनि भवेदथ असनायाः सन्दीपनात्तदुभयत्र समानमेव ।। अतः सिद्धमेतत् । रत्यादयः शृङ्गारप्रभवा इति । एकोनपञ्चाशद्भावा वीरा- दयो मिथ्यारसप्रवादाः । शृङ्गार एवैकः चतुर्वर्गककारणं, स रस इति । स चा(नु?)- भवैकगम्यत्वादसर्वविषयत्वाच्च दुरवसेयः । सम्यगभिनेयेषु वा विदग्धशैलूषैः प्रदर्श्य- मानः सामाजिकैरवधार्यते । प्रबन्धेषु वा महाकविभिर्यावदाख्यायमानो विदुषां मनीषाविषयं अवतरति । तत्र न तथा पदार्थाः प्रत्यक्षेण प्रतीयमानाः स्वदन्ते यथा वाग्मिनां वचोभिरावेद्यमानाः । तदाह- अतोऽभि- व्यवि(?)नेतृभ्यः कवीनेव बहुमन्यामहे, अभिनयेभ्यः काव्यमेवेति । तत्पुनः शब्दार्थयोः साहित्यमामनन्ति । तद्यथा 'शब्दार्थो सहितौ काव्यम्' (Bhāmaha) कः पुनः शब्दः ? येनोच्चारितेनार्थः प्रतीयते । स द्वादशधा etc., Srig-P., Vol. II, Chap. XI, pp. 352-55. रस: नांप्रमा। तदुक्तम् अप्रातिकूलिकतया मनसो मुदादे: etc. (see previous page.) । .... ....

·144 DHVANI AND RASA [BOOK 11 Anubhāvas and Vyabhicāribhāvas represented in action or poetry, becomes a blissful state of mind, constitutes Rasa. Emotions like love, mirth, etc., are born of the person possessed of this self- न रत्यादिभूमा रसः; किं तर्हि ? शृङ्गारः । शृङ्गारो हि नाम विशिष्टेष्टदृष्ट- चेष्टाभिव्यञ्जकानां आत्मगुणसंपदा उत्कर्षबीजं बुद्धिसुखदुःखेच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्नसंस्का- राधतिशयहेतुरात्मनोऽहंकारविशेषः । स चेतसा रस्यमानः रस इत्युच्यते । यदस्तित्वे रसिकः, अन्यथा नीरसः इति । तदाविर्भावहेतवश्च तत्प्रभवा एव भावाः । ते चैकानपञ्चाशत् । रतिर्हर्षः रोमाञ्च इत्यादि । (p.354.) तत्र केचिदाचक्षते 'रतिप्रभवः शृङ्गारः' इति (N.S. P. 63)। वयं तु मन्यामहे रत्यादीनामयमेव प्रभव इति । शृङ्गारिणो हि रत्यादयो जायन्ते नाशृङ्गारिणः । शृङ्गारी रमते स्मयते उत्सहते स्निह्यति इति । ते तु भाव्यमानत्वाद्भावाः, न रसाः । यावत्संभवं हि भावनया भाव्यमानः भाव एवोच्यते । भावनापथमतीतस्तु रसः इति मनोऽनुकूलेषु दुःखादिषु आत्मनः सुखानुभवाभिमानः रसः । स तु पारं- पर्येण सुखहेतुत्वाद्रत्यादिभूमन्युपचारेण व्यवह्रियते । अतः न रत्यादीनां रसत्वं, अपि तु भावनाविषयत्वाद्भावत्वमेव । (p. 354-5.) नन्वष्टौ स्थायिनः अष्टौ सात्त्विकाः त्रयस्त्रिंशद्वयभिचरिण इति ब्रुवते ; न तत् साधु । यतोऽमीषामन्यतमस्यैतैरेव परस्परं निवर्त्यमानत्वात् कश्चित्कदाचि- स्थायी कदाचित्तु व्यभिचारी; अतः अवस्थावशात् सर्वेऽप्यमी व्यभिचारिणः, सर्वेऽपि च स्थायिनः, सात्विका अपि सर्वे एव, मनःप्रभवत्वात् ; अनुपहितं हि मनः सत्त्वमित्युच्यते ॥ (p. 355.) यच्चोक्तं विभावानुभावव्याभिचारिसंयोगात् स्थायिनो रसत्वमिति, तदपि मन्दम् ; हर्षादिष्वपि विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगस्य विद्यमानत्वात् । तस्माद्रत्या- दयः सर्व एवैते भावाः, शृङ्गार एव एको रस इति । तैश्च स प्रकाशमानः शृङ्गारः विशेषतः स्वदते । (p. 355.) तत्र केचनाहः---नायं रसः शृङ्गाराख्यः रत्यादिभिरभिव्यज्यते, अपि त्वालम्बनविभावादुत्पन्नः रत्यादिरेवोद्दीपनविभावादिभिः परं प्रकर्ण्यमाणो रसीभवन् शृङ्गारादिसंज्ञां लभते इति-त एवं प्रष्टव्याः । किमेते रत्यादयः स्वेभ्यः स्वेभ्यः आलम्बनेभ्य उत्पद्यमानाः सर्वस्याप्युत्पद्यन्ते, उत कस्यचिदेवेति ? यदि तावत्सर्वस्य, ·CHAP. XI] . KING BHOJA 145 consciousness, and never is it that these emotions are transformed into the delectable Rasas. They only add lustre and beauty to Śrngāra like the rays of light to fire. If emotions like love, etc., when fully developed become Rasas, why should not joy (Harsa) and other Bhavas become so when similarly developed ? If these are not Sihāyibhāvas or emotional inoods that endure, tell ine dear brother, how long do such recogniscd emotional moods--humour, grief and wrath-contribute to aesthetic delectation ? These emciional moods are identical in their nature as they all arise out of the instincts implanted in human nature. 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. But Abhinavagupta has clearly shown before that, though aesthetic pleasure. or Rasa is unitary and identical in all cases of its realisation, it is classified into nine in accordance with the dominant emotiora). moods that transform themselves into that aesthetic pleasure; and it is a malier of experience that dominant emotional moods other, than love, like pathos, heroism, wonder, etc., do contribute to it in accordance with the tastes, sf different nen, This theory of Rasa met with the same fate that overtook the two rivals to ihe theory of Dhvani--the Alumāna and the Vakrokti -~and.only a passing reference is made to it by.some later writers like Vidyadhara and Kumārasvamin. Bhoja accepted the predomi. nant place of Dhvani in poetry; and his conception of poetry is a. happy blending of the different elements-Alankāra, Guna, Riti, Rasa, etc., recognised by the various schools ot critical thought.1 , तदा सर्व जगदसिकं स्यात् । न चैतदस्ति ; यतः कश्चिद्रसिकः, कश्चित्तु नीरसो दृश्यते । न च दृष्टविपरीतं शक्यमनुज्ञातुम् । अतो न सर्वस्य रत्यादयो जायन्ते । अथ कस्यचित् , तत्र निमित्तमभिधानीयम् । तत् दृष्टमदृष्टं वा स्यात् ; न तावदृष्टं अनुपलभ्यमानत्वात् । अदृष्टं तु साधारणमसाधारणं वा, साधारणे' पूर्व एव दोषः सर्वं जगदसिकं स्यादिति । असाधारणं तु प्रत्यगात्म- गतानादिवासनानुबन्धिधर्मकार्य भवितुमर्हति । तं चात्मनोऽहंकारगुणविशेषं ब्रूमः; स शृङ्गारः, सोऽभिमानः, स रसः; तत एव रत्यादयो जायन्ते । तैश्चायं प्रकर्षप्राप्तः सप्ताचिरचिश्चयैरिव प्रकाशमानः शृङ्गारिणमेव स्वदते इति । 1. Srig.P.. Vol. II, Chap. 'Xi, p. 352. निर्दोषस्य गुणवतोऽलंकृतस्य च काव्यशरीरस्य कामिनीशरीरस्यैव शोभा- तिशयनिष्पत्तौ रसावियोगी एव प्रकृष्ट उपयोगी ।। s-19 ·CHAPTER XII. KŞEMENDRA. Among the numerous writings of Kșeinendra, three small works—the Aucityavicāracarcă, Suvșttatilaka and Kavikaņțhābharaña--deal with literary criticism. At the end of these works he hiinself says that he wrote them in the reign of King Arranta. He dates his Samayamātſkā in 1050 A.D. in the reign of Ananta and his Daśávatāracarita in 1066 A.D. in the reign of King Kalasa. kşemendra was a Kashmirian, and King Ananta of Kashmir reigned from 1028 to 1063, but continued to live up to 1080 A.D. after relinquishing the crown in favour of his son Kalasa in 1063 A.D. Kşemendra was a pupil of Abhinava!, (990-1015 A.D.) and most probably his literary activities lay mainly during the period when King Ananta was on the throne, i.e., about 1030 to 1070 A.D. In this Aucityavicăracarca Kșemendra puts forward a novel theory that. Aucitya ' or appropriateness is the soul of poetry. By Aucitya he means the adaptation of parts of the verse to each other and to the whole, or in other words, a certain poetic harmony or fitness of things.? (Kärikä 7 etc.) The necessity for Aucitya in the development of Rasas has already been pointed out by Anandavardhana, who held that the absı nce of Aucitya is the one impediment to the realisation of aesthetic pleasures. Kşemendra reversed that opinion and said that the presence of Rasas contributes to Ancitya or poetic hæmony. He extended 1. See Page 132. 2 Aucityav.cãracarcā, p. 116; Kārika 7. उचितं प्रादुराचार्याः सदृशं किल यस्य यत् । उचितस्य च यो भावस्तदौचित्यं प्रचक्षते ॥ ७॥ काव्यस्यारेषु च प्राहुरौचित्यं व्यापि जीवितम् । Karika 10. See Karikas 8, 9 and 10. 3. अनौचित्याइते नान्यद्रसभङ्गस्य कारणम् । प्रसिद्धौचित्यबन्धस्तु रसस्योपनिषत्परा | Dhv. P. 145. 4. अलंकारासबलहारा गुमा एक गुमाः सका। silang talaga ni tatay ng It Aucitya : Kārika V.

·CHAP. XII). KŞEMENDRA : 147 this principle not only to the Alankāras and Guņas but also to many other elements of poetic expression like word, sentence, poem, verb, case, gender, number, etc. His conception of Aucitya is very comprehensive, and he clearly shows how all the different principles expounded by earlier writers could be brought under his poetic harmony; and his exposition and illustration of the various kinds of Aucitya are very intelligent and telling. He accepts the classification of Rasas recognised by Dhvanikāra and his commentator, Abhinava, into nine including Sānta. The theory of Dhvani is also tacitly admitted while the two rival methods-Vakrokti and Anumāna—are left out of consideration, In his Suvșttatilaka this principle is explained with reference to the choice of the different metres, how metres lend easily to the development of Rasas, in what metres particular poets have excelled, and in what they have failed. His Kavikanthābharaṇa explains fully the necessary training which an aspirant must undergo if he should desire to become a poet. See ihid., p. 130...: शान्तो यथा मम चतुर्वर्गसंग्रहे- भोगे रोगभयम् etc.

·CHAPTER XIII. MÁMNAȚA. We consider next Maimata, who was regarded by tradition as the very incarnation of the Goddess of learning, and whose work, the Kāvyaprakāśa, was exceedingly popular, throughout India and at all times. It was regarded such a great honour, a sure passport of learning and an acid test for the award of titles to comment on this work, that inany writers seeking fame wrote lengthy commentaries on it; and we are left in possession of no less than thirty of them. This writer lived about the close of the eleventh century. The great popularity of the work is not due to any of the original theories expounded therein-for there is very little of originality in the work--but to the able manner in which all the different theories are brought together, their inter-relations defined and each of them assigned to its proper place aniong the sources of literary appeal. It gives the predominant position to Rasa and Dhvani and establishes their right by a vigorous refutation of the opposing Anumāna theory. It also recognises the subordinate place of Guna and Alankāra, laying at the same time great stress on the absence of faults in composition. The distinctly creative age in the history of Sanskrit Literary criticism comes to a close with the Kävyaprakāśa, and it becomes the model for all later works on poetics like the Ekávali, Sāhityadarpana and the Pratáparudriya, which treat of the subject in the same comprehensive manner occasionally adding a chapter on the dramatic techniqae. 1. Kāvyaprakāsa, P. 118. B. O. R. 1. Edition, 1921. सुधासागरकारैरपि प्रागुक्तः प्रदीपोमूचैवं खण्डितः । तथा हि-न #ateral Farda: paieraraleza: " acai starea cuarantefer- काराणां प्रमादः शङ्कयः । तत्त्वज्ञानजन्यनिवेदत्यैव शमरूपत्वात् Vrikarais, Mammaţa. of course, ·CHAPTER XIV. TWO LATER WRITERS. l'iśvanātha: Before concluding this work we cannot omit to refer to the two great writers, Viśvanātha and Jagannātha Pandita, whose works are very popular and are largely studied throughout India. Viśvanātha's work, the Sahityadarpaņa' deals in clear, easy language with all the different topics in poetics and has also a special feature of devoting a chapter to dramaturgy, based mainly on the Nāļyaśāstra and the Dasarūpaka. His date has been ascertained with some exactness, and he may be safely placed in the first half of the 19th century. (For details see P. V. Kane, Introduction to Sāhityadarpaņa and S. K. De, Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. 1, Section on Viśvanātha.) We are here concerned with a peculiar synthetic theory of Rasa that he cites with approval. This was first put forward by one Nārāyaṇa, an ancestor of Visvanātha. The character of the Rasa realised is this Through the excess of Sattvaguna, we realise ourselves in a state of complete bliss, free from all knowledge of the external world, and similar to the Yogin's realisation of the Infinite; and this realisation is essentially some extraordinary Camatkāra or enjoyment of bliss, and it is called Rasa. This Camatkāra is nothing but the unfolding (Vistāra) of the mind, and this unfolding is synonymous with Vismaya or wonder. This Vismaya is the primary characteristic of all Rasas ; and it means, in the Rasa Adbhuta are synthesised all the other Rasas; and the latter are nothing but the different manifestations of the one Adbhuta. 1. Sāhityadarpapa, Pariccheda III. beginning. सत्त्वोद्रेकादखण्डस्वप्रकाशानन्दचिन्मयः । वेद्यान्तरस्पर्शशून्यो ब्रह्मास्वादसहोदरः ॥ २ । लोकोत्तरचमत्कारप्राणः कैश्चित्प्रमावृभिः । .. स्वाकारवदभिन्नत्वेनायमास्वाधते रसः ॥ ३.।

·150 DHVANI AND RASA [Book II This view is similar to that of Bhavabhūti who regards Karuņa as the one Rasa whose manifestations only are the rest: He takes his stand on the view that the essence of the realisation of Rasa is Cittavidruti or a certain melting of the heart and this Druti is primarily associated with Karuna, and hence Karuna is the one Rasa (sce ante. P. 43). Vaśvanātha takes the view that it is not Vidruti but Vistāra or unfolding, and hence the one Rasa is Adbhuta and all the other Rasas may be synthesised in Adbhuta. Jagannatha :- Paņạitarāja Jagannātha is one of the greatest writers on Alankāra, well known for his originality, critical acumen and masterly and logical exposition of the different views held in Sanskrit poetics. He was the son of Perubhatta, a learned scholar under whom he studied mostly. He fourished during the reign of Shahjahan, the Moghul Emperor at Delhi and was also a younger contemporary and rival of that versatile scholar, Appayya Diksita. His literary activity may therefore be placed mainly in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. (For details, sec P. V. Kane and S. K. De, op. cit.) Among the numerous works of Jagannātha, we are concerned here only with the Rasagangādhara and the Citramimārsākhandana. The latter is only a small treatise intended to attack—as its name implies—the Citramimāriisā of Appayya Dikṣita. The former contains a very minute and critical examination of the various principles in poetics and is unrivalled for the logical precision of its language. Jagannātha is a proud man, conscious of his superior powers and gifts. He is not merely a critic but a poet as well. In his work he has not borrowed verses froin other poets to illustrate the different principles, but he has composed verses of his own. Says he, in the introduction to the चिन्मय इति स्वरूपार्थे मयट् । चमत्कारः चित्तविस्ताररूपो विस्मया- : । तत्प्राणं च अस्मद्वृद्धप्रपितामहसहृदयगोष्ठीगरिष्ठकविपण्डितमुख्य- श्रीमन्नारायणपादैरुक्तम् । तदाह धर्मदत्तः स्वग्रन्ये- रसे सारश्चमत्कारः सर्वत्राप्यनुभूयते । तञ्चमत्कारसारत्वे सर्वत्राप्यनुतो रसः । तस्मादद्भुतमेवाह कृती नारायणो रसम् ।।

·CHAP. XIV] IWO LATER WRITERS 151 Rasagangādhara,1 " Having composed new verses appropriate for illustration, I have not utilised the verses of any other ; for indeed, does the musk-bearing deer ever think even of using the fragrance of the flowers ?" Again at the beginning of the Prāņā: bharana, he says, “ the lips of learned men are closed when they have to praise the work of others. The Kings are blinded with the infatuation of their power and wealth. Indeed, in whose lucky man's lips, will the charın of my poetry that surpasses in sweetness the nectar flowing from the lips of passionate angels dance ?'" Further in the introduction to the Citramiinamsākhandana, he proclaims, " If any person, unprejudiced, should answer my criticisms of the work of Appayya Dikṣita, I shall indeed carry on my head the feet of that brilliant scholar !". Thus he was fully aware or his strength, and the verse निर्माय etc., would itself illustrate his superior poetic gifts. In any lesser man, the above statements would constitute only vain, empty brag. It is not so in Jagannātha. Besides his masterly and logical exposition of the various principles, he has made some distinct contributions to poetics. Firstly we may consider his theory of poetry. It is "रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम्" or poetry is that composition conveying an idea, capable of giving a certain aesthetic pleasure (to cultured minds). This is quite comprehensive and fairly accurate. 1. निर्माय नूतनमुदाहरणानुरूपं काव्यं मयात्र निहितं न परस्य किंचित् । कि सेव्यते सुमनसां मनसापि गन्धः कस्तूरिकाजननशक्तिभृता मृगेण ॥ 2. Published in the Kāvyamālā, Guccha I. विद्वांसो वसुधातले परवचःश्लाघासु वाचंयमाः । भूपालाः कमलाविलासमदिरोन्मीलन्मदा घूर्णिताः । आस्ये धास्यति कस्य लास्यमधुना धन्यस्य कामालस- स्व माधरमाधुरीमधरयन्काचा विलासो मम ॥ सूक्ष्मं विभाव्य मयका समुदीरिताना- मप्पय्यदीक्षितकृताविह दूषणानाम् । निर्मल्सरो यदि समुद्धरणं विदध्या- दस्याहमुज्ज्वलमतेश्चरणौ वहामि ॥ Citramimamsa, p. 105.

·152 DHVANI AND RASA : [Book it It is free from the narrowness of Visvanātha's definition and thei rigidity of Mammața's. Accordingö to the former (arti TAFE. opet ) that composition in which is developed a Rasa would alone constitute poetry. In other words, it concerned itself only with the emotional element in literature and left out of considera-' tion the imaginative and the intellectual elements. According to this, great masterpieces like the description of the Acchodasaras, in the Kadambari, Milton's description of the hall of the Pandemonium, descriptions of rivers, mountains, ihe ways of children, etc., in standard poetry would be expelled from the legitimate sphere of poetry. To avoid this, Jagannatha has adopted a general and wide definition which would include in poetry all coinpositions that appeal to us. This subjective test of poetry need not be regarded as a fault, for according to one school of philosophy all knowledge is only subjective. He further points out the inaccuracies in the other theories of poetry and shows how his own is quite accurate and comprehensive. Further he was not satisfied with the classification of poetry made by Ananda into three, viz., Citama, Madhyama, and Adhama; the basis of this being the predominance of the suggested sense over the express idea, the subordination of the suggested sense to the latter and the absence of the suggested idea. Because some good verses where the Vyangyārtha was Guņibhūta were really good poetry, even Änanda felt the injustice of calling the Guņibhūta Vyangya as second rate compositions; and though according to strict theory they might be so, from a different standpoint they should be regarded as equal to the highest. He speaks thus : Dhv. III. 41. प्रकारोऽयं गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयोऽपि ध्वनिरूपताम् । धत्ते रसादितात्पर्यपालोचनया पुनः ॥ He further describes this class of composition in this excellent illustration. It is like a servant bridegroom, that is taken in a grand marriage procession followed by his King on foot. But it is Mahimabhatta, the author of the Vyaktiviveka, who tore to pieces the view of Dhvanikāra and showed how some of the best Kāvyas cited by Ananda were nothing but conundrums and also how the inferior class of poetry accordiøg to Ananda really १. तत्र च तेषामाधिकारिकवाच्यापेक्षया गुणीभावः विवाहप्रवृत्तभल्यानु- afekisteriDhv. p. 206.

·CHAP. XIV) TWO LATER WRITERS 153 belonged to the first category. Jagannātha took the cue from •Mahimabhatta, and not being a confirmed opponent like Mahimabhatta, he makes with due deference to the authority of the master, Ananda, a ſourfold classification of poetry. He gives for our consideration this verse :- राघवविरहज्वालासन्तापितसह्यशैलशिखरेषु । शिशिरे सुखं शयानाः कपयः कुप्यन्ति पवनतनयाय ॥ R. G., 17. P. "The monkeys that were living comfortably in the winter on the tops of mountains, rendered warın by the scorching flames of the pangs of separation of Rāma, became angry with Hanumān.' Here the idea is that Hanuman brought the glad news of Sīta, and this completely assuaged the Virahatāpa of Rāma. That is, Rāma was burning with the fire of Viraha, and this fire made the mountain warm, When Hanumān came, the fire of Viraha was put out, Rāma became cool to touch, and hence the monkeys felt the severiiy of the winter and became angry with Hanumān. Here the suggested idea, that Rāma was gladdened by the news of Sita brought by Hanumān, is made subordinate and is made to explain the adventitious anger of the monkeys towards Hanumān. And it looks like a queen who, kept by ill-luck in a prison, possesses then an inexpressible charm. This verse should not be brand- .ed as inſerior poetry ; and so he enunciated four classes, viz., Uttamottama, corresponding to the Uttama of Ānanda, (2) Uttama, corresponding to the Guņibhūta Vyangya of Ananda. He divided the last variety of Ananda into two, and called compositions having Arthalankāras, Madhyamakāvya, (3) and coinpositions having primarily Śabdālankāras alone Adhamakāvya, (4) or the lowest. Thus he raised the Guņibhūtavyangyakāvya to the dignity of Uttamakāvya. In doing this he was quite justified. Conclusion. We have thus traced through their different stages of growth, these two sister theories of Rasą and Dhvani, which analyse the nature of the poetic expression of ideas, which define the nature 1. अत्र जानकीकुशलावेदनेन राघवः शिशिरीकृत इति व्यङ्गथं आकस्मिक- कपिकर्तृकहनूमद्विषयककोपोपपादकतया गुणीभूतमपि दुर्दैववशतः दास्यमनु- भवद्राजकलत्रमिव कामपि कमनीयतामावहति ॥ R. G., p. 17. S-20 ·154 DHVÁNİ AND RÁSA [Book | of that aesthetic pleasure and the peculiar process of its realisation in poetry and drama, which give a bold but just classifica-, tion of the different emotions that move the human heart, which definitely solve the difficult problem of how even painful emotions contribute to delectation when realised through poetry and which determine for all time the character of the sources of poetic appeal. By these and by the formulation of an accurate theory of poetry based on them and by laying down the standards of litetary taste, they provide us with a golden key to unlock the abode of the richest treasures of the Poetic Muse. ओं तत्सत् ·INDEX A | Alankáram(Contd.) Abhinavabhārati, 11 five by Bhāmaha, 15 thrce 'texts frcin, to prove its relation to Dhvani, 80-82 that Ānanda was the author Anandavardhana, 6, 8 of the Dhvanikärikäs, 51-2 his relation to the author of quotes Bhattanāyaka's conthe Agnipurāņa, 37-9 ception of the realisation the author of the Dhvani. of Rasa, 87 written after the Locana of kärikäs, 50-60 Abhinava, 92 first exponent of the Dhvani Does it presuppose the Vaktheory, 53-54 roktijivita ? 119-20 his uprightness and fairness, Abhinavagupla 54, 57 ridicules Bhattanāyaka, 88 identified with Dhvanikära his date, 91 by Kuntaka, 57 his two works, Locana, 91 identified with Dhvanikāra Abhinavabhāratī, 91-2 by Kşemendra, 57 his theory of Rasa, 104 his date, 60-1 Kalidasa's support of his referred to by Rājasekhara, theory of Rasa, 104-5 60 Śäntarasa, 111 ff. referred to by Jayanta, 60 shows even Karunarasa is vindicates the clain of Santa, pleasurable, 110-1 84 relation to Kuntaka, 118-20 criticised by Mahimabhatta, Anubhava, 16 133 Aristotle's Poetics, 17 Abhinaya, 16 Arthantarasankramitavácya, 71 Agnipurāņa Asamlakṣyakramavyangya, 73-5 its relation to Bhoja, 39 Ašvaghoşd, 11 Its character, 35-6 Atharvaveda many unacknowledged quo the meaning of Rasa in, 2 tations in, 36-7 Atyantaliraskytavācya, 70 its date of composition, 39 later than Anandavardhana Aucitya and the Dhvanyāloka, 37- theory of, 146-7 Aucityavicāracarcă, 146-7 Ajitäpida, 95 identifies Ananda with Dhva- Alankara nikāra, 57 only four accepted by Bha- Avantiwarman rata, 12 king of Kashmir, 57, 61 40 ·156 INDEX B Bhavabhūti-(Contd.) Bāna his peculiar conception of conception of poetry, 44-5 Rasa, 43 attitude towards Rasa, 45 Blioja his theory in practice, 45 Śộngāraprakāśa, 27, 137 ff. Bhamaha author of the Hşdayangama? reference to the classification 26-8 of Alankāras into five only, relation to Agnipurāņa, 39 12 his erudition, 138-9 his relations with Uddyota his style modelled on that of kara and Dharmakirti, 19 the Mahābhāșya, 140-2 his date, 24 his theory of Rasa, 142-5 his relation with Daņdın, Bhuvanäbhyudaya, 95 22-3 Buhler, 51 his attitude towards Rasa, 2+ с Bharata Citramimāsākhandara, 151 his Nāțyaśástra, the different cittavidrut1, 43 styles in which it is com- D posed, 9, 10 referred to by Kālidāsa, 14 Dänavīra and Dayāvira his Rasasūtra fully explained. their distinction from Santa, 15 115-6 the Father of Sanskrit literary Dandin criticism, 17 his conception of poetry, Bhär avı, 44 24-5 Bhāsa, 97 his relations with Bhảmaha, 22-3 Bhattanāyaka, 89 his date, 25 an opponent of the Dhvani his attitude towards Rasas, School, but an advocate of 25-6 the Rasa School, 86 ff, Daśarüpaka, 88 ff. quoted in the Locana and Abhinavabharati, 86-87 Dattilácarya, 93 his Hşdayadarpaņa, 86-7 De, Dr. S. K., 19, 23, 36, 51, ridiculed by Abhinava, 88 149-50 idea of Bhāvakatva and inisunderstands a passage of Bhojakatva, 87 Ananda and holds that his date, 88 Ananda and Dhvanikara his criticisins of Sri San were different, 58.9. kuka's theory of Rasa, his wrong conception of 102.3 Sphoța, 65 his theory of Rasa, 103-4 Dianañjaya, 88 ff. Bhatta Sumanas, 93 Dhanika, 88 ff. Bhattatauta, 95 "does not accept śāntarasa, 90 Bhattendurāja, 95 Dharmakirli, 19-21, 138 Bhavabhūti, 8 Dhvani his egoism, 42 vaguely understood by combination of Rasas, 421 Vāmana, 61-3 4 1 ·INDEX 157 ff. (Riti) 83 Dhyani--(Contd.) Jagannatha-(Contd.) term borrowed from the date, 150 Sphota doctrine, 67-8 his theory of poetry, his defined by Ananda, 68 contribution to poetics, 151 the senses in which the term is used, 69-70 his character, 8, 14, 150-1 . four varieties explained with Jayantabhatta illustrations, 70-5 refers to Ananda, 60-1 its relation to the older criti. Jayāpida cal methods, 79-80 King of Kashmir, 29 its relation to Alankāra, 80-2 Jinendrabuddhi, 21 to Gunas, 82-83 to Sanghațanā Kālidāsa, 8 refers to Bharata, 14 immediate opposition to, 85 his attitude towards Rasas, 41 ff. his conception of poetry, 41 Kuntaka's attitude towards, function of the dramatist, 40 121, 123 ff. supports Abhinava's view of Dhvanikära Rasa, 104-5 aware of Vāmana, 55 K Dhvanikärikās Kane, P. 1., 91, 149, 150 authorship of, 50-60 Kärikākāra Dhvanyaloka, 38, 39 knew Vămana and Udbhata, a passage misunderstood by 55-6 Dr. De, 58 Kärikās also written by Karina, Anandavardhana, 50-60 the only Rasa according to • Kārikäs written by one Bhavabhūti, 43 Dhvanikara', 51 Karunarasa Dinnāga, 20 its realisation is pleasurable, 110-1 G Kävyädarśa Gunas relation to Dhvani, 82-3 A commentary on, called Hşdayangama, 26-8 H Kavyakautuka, 96 Hệdayangama Kāvyānuiniti The probable authorship of of Mahimxabhatta, 133-4 this anonymous commentary on the Kāvyādarśa, Kāvyaprakāśa 26-8 its great popularity, 148 its character, 148 Hşdayadarpana of Bhattanāyaka, 86-7 Keith, A, B., 11, 19, 51, 57 referred to in the Vyakti- Kohala, 93 viveka, Locana, etc., 86-7 Kșomendra identifies Ananda with Jacobi, 51 Dhvanikära, 57, 59 Jagannatha a pupil of Abhinava, 132 Scriptural authority for Rasa, his date, 146 3 his theory of Aucitya, 146-7 I ·158 INDEX Kuntaka, 11, 59 Mammata, 59 identifies Ananda with does not distinguish between Dhvanikāra, 57 Ananda and Dhvanikära, ridicules Udbhaga, 94 58. his date, 118-20 character of his work, the relation to Mahimabhațţa, Kavyaprakāśa, 148 118-19, 130 his great popularity, 148 relation to Abhinava, 119-20 Mandana, 59 his conception of Vakratva, Mankhaka, 121 121 Manoratha, 61, 129 attitude towards Dhvani, 123 Matangamuni, 93 ff. his respect for Ānandavar- Mätrgupta, 13 dhana, 124-30 Muñja, 88, 89 attitude towards Rasas, 125 Murāri ff. his claim as a poet, 43 conception of Rasavad Alan his attitude towards Rasas, kāra, 126-7 43-4 his conceit, 130 N his relation to earlier writers, 129-30 Nāgānanda, 115 the fate of his theory, 131 Newman, 106 ridiculed by Mahimabhațța, Nātyaśāstra 133 probable date of composition 10 ff. L probable date of the present Locana, 53, 58 text, 14 criticises Bhattanäyaka, 87-8 any trace of Hellenic influ. written before the Abhinavaence, 17 bhārati, 92 Nyāyamañjarī Lollața, 94 refers to Ananda, 60 his theory of Rasa, 98.9 P M Padmagupta, 89 Māgha Panini, 53 his view of poetry Pratīhārendurāja attitude towards kasas, 46-7 his date, 85 his defects, 47 his opposition to Dhvani, 85-6 Mahimabhatja. Pravarasena relation to Kuntaka, 118-9, acquainted with the Rasas, 130 14 his date and relation to attitude towards Rasas, 10 Abhinava and Kuntaka, 132-3 R ridicules Kuntaka, 133 Rahula, 93 his conception of Kävyānu- Rajasekhara, 33 miti, 133-4 refers to Ananda, 60, attitude towards Raşas, 135-6 | Rājatarangiņi, 29, 95 + ·INDEX 159 Rasr Rasa-(Contd.) history of its mcaning in the Mahimablațţa's attitude, Rgveda, 1-2. 135-6 its meaning in the Atharva- Rasagangādhara veda, 2 Scriptural sanction for the its meaning in the Upanişatheory of Rasa, 3 dic period, 2, 3 theory of poetry, 151 the reason for adopting the classification of poetry, 152 term Rasa, 3 ff. the theory in embryo in Rasas Välthiki, 6-7 the attitude of Bhämaha, 24 classification by Bharata, 15- the attitude of Dandin, 25-6 16 the attitude of Vāmana, 29-30 their treatment by Rudrața, 35 Karuņa, the only Rasa according to Bhavabhūti, their combination according 43 to Bhavabhūti, 42 always suggested, 75-77 only nine in number, 116-7 the narrowness of this school their synthesis in Santa, 116 is removed by the accept- Rasasūtra ance of the three varieties explained, 15 of suggested sense, 77 ff. interpretation nade by its cousins, Vastu and Alan Lollaţa etc., 98-9 kāra, 79 Ratnākara its relation to Dhvani, 79 his conception of a dramatist the problems raised by this and a Mahäkävya, 49 theory, 97-8 the view of Lollața, 98-9 ņģVeda the defects in his view, 99 history of the meaning of Sri Sankuka's' criticism of Rasa in, 1-2 Lollata's view, 99 appreciation of poetry in, 3-5 Sankuka's theory, 100 Rudrabhatta its improvement the his relation with Rudrata, theory of Lollata, 100-1 32-3 criticism of his theory, 101-2 his contribution, 35 Bhațšanāyaka's criticism of Rudrata Sri Sankuka's view, 102-3 relation with Rudrabhatta, his theory, 103-4 32-3 Abhinava's view, 104 his date, 33 Kālidāsa's support for Abhihis conception of poetry, 34 nava's view, 104-5 his treatnicnt of the Rasas, 35 The seven barriers to its rea, lisation, 105 ff. S its realisation is transceni. Sahityadarpana dental, 109-10 always pleasurable, even in a peculiar Rasa-synthesis in, 149 Karuna, 110-1 Kuntaka's attitude towards, Sahrdayā loka, 52 125 ff. Sarılakṣyakranavyangya, 72 on ·160 INDEX a Sanghalană (Riti) Śrngāraprakāśa--(Contd:X its relation to Dhyani, 83 Bhoja's theory of Rasa, 142, Sankaravarman ff. King of Kashmir, 88 Sindhurāja, 89 Santa Sthāyibhäva its development by Sri Harsa their distinctness from the 46. Vyabhicãribhāvas: the apaccepted as Rasa and propriateness of its name, vigorously defended by 105-6 Ananda, 84 Subandhu its Sthāyibhäva, 112-4 his estimate of the critics and why it should be regarded as kings of his times, his dea Rasa, 111-6 fects, 47-49 its distinction from Dänavira T and Dayāvīra, 115-6 Trivedi, 19, 21, 23 Synthesis of all Rasas in, 116 U not accepted by Dhanika, 90 first accepted as a Rasa by Udayanācārya, 59 Udbhata Udbhata Sovani, 36 a follower of Bharata, 11, 94 Sphoța gives different readings of a brief statement of the the Nāțyaśāstra, 11 author of the Bhāmahavi. theory of, 63-5 used in the enunciation of Dhvani, 65 ff. his works, 30 a follower of Bhāmaha and suggested the name Dhvani to the theory of Ananda, Bharata, 30 67-8 his date, 31 his attitude towards Rasa, 31-2 his attitude towards Rasas, admits for the first time Śän. his development of Santa, tarasa, 31-2 45-6 known to Dhvanikära, 55-6 Värtikās of, on the Nāțya- Uddyotakara, 19-21 śāstra, 12-3, 93 Upaskara Srikanthacarita, 121 its meaning and usage, 58 Sri Sankuka, 95 Utpala, 95 criticism of Lollata's view of Ultararāmacarita the realisation of Rasa, 99 a peculiar view of Rasa his view of Rasa, 100 expressed in, 43 his improvement on the V theory of Lollata, 101 Väcaspati criticism of the theory of, his Tatparyaţikā, 20 101 Vakrokti Srngäraprakāśa of Bhoja, 23, the different varieties of, 122 137 ff. its relation to Dhrani, 121, Large quotations in, 139 ft. 123 ff. varana, 23 Sri Harsa ·INDEX 161 aknokti(Contd.) Vārtikās of Sri Harşa, 93 development of the concep- Vasubandhu, 20 tion of, 129 Vibhāva, 16 end of the theory, 131 Viśākhilācārya, 93 akroktijivita Visvanatha the theory of poetry expounded therein, 121 his peculiar theory of Rasa, 149 iliniki the Kraunca incident, 6 Vyabhicāribhāva, 16 how it reveals the critic in its distinction from the. him, 7 Sthāyibhāva, the approāinana priateness of its name, his date, 29 105-6 his conception of poetry, Vyaktiviveka 28-29 refers to the Hğdayadarpana, his attitude towards Rasa, 86 29-30 is known to Dhvanikāra, 55 Vyañjana - vague understanding of the the necessity for its acceptprinciple of Dhvani, 61-3 ance, 65-7 PRINTED AT THE A. L. J. PRESS, MYLAPORE, MADRAS.

·No text on this page.

·No text on this page.